COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Deicision 2001/220/JHA
Date: 2023-07-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: child protection, crime against individuals, criminal proceedings, domestic violence, fight against crime, gender-based violence, help for victims, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, right to information, right to justice

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.7.2023  SWD(2023) 246 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 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Deicision 2001/220/JHA {COM(2023) 424 final} - {SEC(2023) 270 final} - {SWD(2023) 247 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 1 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 4 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 15 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 17 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 20 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 26 

7. 

PREFERRED OPTION ...................................................................................................................... 50 

8.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 53 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 56 

1. 

LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES .................................................................. 56 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING ............................................................................................................... 56 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB ................................................................................................................ 56 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY .................................................................................................. 57 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) ................................................ 60 

1. 

2. 

3. 

CONSULTATION STRATEGY ........................................................................................................ 60 

CONSULTED STAKEHOLDERS ..................................................................................................... 60 

TARGETED CONSULTATIONS ...................................................................................................... 62 

4.  OUTCOMES OF THE CONSULTATIONS ...................................................................................... 64 

Call for evidence ....................................................................................................... 64 
Open public consultation ........................................................................................... 65 
Targeted consultations ............................................................................................... 69 

5. 

6. 

COMPARISON OF VIEWS ............................................................................................................... 75 

CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS .................................................................................. 78 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 79 

1. 

2. 

3. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE..................................................................... 79 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ....................................................................................... 82 

RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ............................................................... 84 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 86 

1. 

ESTIMATION OF COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT COSTS .............................................. 90 

2.  ANALYTICAL METHODS APPLIED TO ESTIMATE BENEFITS / COST REDUCTION ........ 109 

3. 

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS – RESULTS ........................................................................................ 128 

ANNEX 5: COMPETITIVENESS CHECK .............................................................................................. 132 

1.  OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS ON COMPETITIVENESS ................................................................. 132 

2. 

SYNTHETIC ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 132 

ANNEX 6: MAPPING OF MEMBER STATES’ BEST PRACTICES ..................................................... 133 

1.  VICTIMS’ RIGHT TO INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 133 

2. 

PROTECTION OF VICTIMS .......................................................................................................... 136 

EN 

1

EN 

 
 
 
3. 

SUPPORT TO VICTIMS ................................................................................................................. 145 

4.  ACCESS TO JUSTICE ..................................................................................................................... 153 

5.  ACCESS TO COMPENSATION ..................................................................................................... 171 

ANNEX 7: EVALUATION REPORT ....................................................................................................... 187 

ANNEX  8:  IMPACTS  ON  FUNDAMENTAL  RIGHTS  (AND  ON  RELATED  SUSTAINABLE 

DEVELOPMENT GOALS) .............................................................................................................. 188 

EN 

2

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term  acronym  or  a 
key notion 

Meaning or a definition  

Child 

Any person below 18 years of age. 

Child-friendly justice  Refers  to  justice  systems  which  guarantee  the  respect  of  the 
effective  implementation  of  all  children’s  rights  at  the  highest 
attainable level (Council of Europe, Guidelines of the Committee 
of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  child-friendly  justice 
and their explanatory memorandum).  

Criminal proceedings  The steps taken and methods used in bringing and conducting a 
criminal action. Under the Victims’ Rights Directive the moment 
when a complaint with regard to a criminal offence to a competent 
authority is  made is  considered as falling within the context  of 
criminal  proceedings.  It  also  includes  the  situations  where 
authorities initiate criminal proceedings ex officio. 

Family  member  of  a 
victim 

For the purpose of the Victims’ Rights Directive, the spouse, the 
person  who  is  living  with  the  victim  in  a  committed  intimate 
relationship, in a joint household and on a stable and continuous 
basis, the relatives in direct line, the siblings and the dependants 
of the victim. 

Individual  assessment 
of victims’ needs 

An assessment process  by  the  competent  authorities to identify 
vulnerability  of  victims  and  their  specific  protection  needs  to 
determine whether and to what extent they would benefit from the 
special protection measures. 

Offender 

Procedural rights 

A person who has been convicted of a crime. For the purposes of 
the  Victims’  Rights  Directive;  it  also  refers  to  a  suspected  or 
accused  person  before  any  acknowledgement  of  guilt  or 
conviction,  and  it  is  without  prejudice  to  the  presumption  of 
innocence. 

Rights  of  parties  in  the  proceeding  of  civil,  criminal  or 
administrative  justice.  These  may  notably  include  rights  to 
information,  right  to  be  heard,  right  to  legal  counsel  and 
representation. 

EN 

3

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Physical protection 
measures/ protection 
orders 

A decision by the  competent  judicial or equivalent  authority in 
criminal or civil matters imposing one or more of the obligations 
on the person causing the risk to protect another person, when the 
latter person’s physical or psychological integrity is at risk. The 
obligation  can  relate  to  a  prohibition  or  regulation  of  entering 
certain places, prohibition of contact in any form or a prohibition 
of  approaching  the  protected  person  closer  than  a  prescribed 
distance. 

Specialist support 
services 

Support  services  which  are  available  for  victims  who  are 
particularly vulnerable or who have suffered considerable harm.  

Stakeholder 

Stakeholder 
consultation 

Victim support 
services 

Victim of crime 

Any  individual  citizen  or  an  entity  impacted,  addressed,  or 
otherwise concerned by an EU intervention. 

A formal process of collecting input and views from citizens and 
stakeholders  on  new  initiatives  or  evaluations/  fitness  checks, 
based  on  specific  questions  and/or  consultation  background 
documents.  

Organisations,  governmental  and/or  non-governmental,  general 
or specialist, which provide support services to victims, free of 
charge  in  accordance  with  each  victim’s  individual  needs. 
Support  services  may  include  (but  are  not  limited  to)  the 
provision  of  information,  legal  counselling,  translation  and 
interpretation, psychological support, advice relating to financial 
or  practical  aspects  of  proceedings,  advice  and  support  on 
avoiding  repeat,  secondary  victimisation  or  retaliation.  Victims 
have  a  right  to  support  service  before,  during  and  for  an 
appropriate time after criminal proceedings. 

Under  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive,  a  natural  person  who  has 
suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or 
economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence, 
as well as family members of a person whose death was directly 
caused by  a criminal  offence and who have suffered harm as  a 
result of that person's death. Criminal offences are defined in the 
national criminal codes. 

Victimisation 

The process of becoming a victim because of crime.  

“Secondary victimisation” is a further harm suffered because of 
lack of respectful and professional treatment by institutions and 
individuals.   

“Repeat(ed)  victimisation”  is  a  harm  suffered  when  the  same 
crime or incident  is  experienced by the same victim more than 
once. 

EN 

4

EN 

 
 
 
Vulnerable victim 

Persons who have suffered considerable harm due to the severity 
of the crime, or a crime committed with a biased motive related 
to  the  personal  characteristics  or  victims  whose  relationship  to 
and  dependence  on  the  offender  made  them  more  vulnerable. 
Such  person  may  be  at  particular  risk  of  secondary  and  repeat 
victimisation, to intimidation, to retaliation. There is no closed list 
of  vulnerable  victims,  but  particular  regard  shall  be  paid  to 
victims of terrorism, organised crime, human trafficking, gender-
based violence, including violence against women and domestic 
violence,  sexual  violence,  exploitation,  hate  crime  and  victims 
with disabilities. 

Victim-centred justice  The victim-centred justice aims at bringing the right balance to 
the  criminal  proceeding  by  ensuring  that  focus  is  not  only  on 
those who committed the crime but also on victims. It recognises 
victims as individuals whose fundamental rights were violated by 
a  crime  and  who  have  a  standing  and  a  voice  in  criminal 
proceeding and are supported by their communities.  

EN 

5

EN 

 
 
 
INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Developing  a  victim-centred  justice  has  played  an  important  role  in  the  creation  of a 
European  area  of  freedom,  security,  and  justice.  In  2001,  the  Union  adopted  the  EU 
Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings1, that codified the 
international standards developed in this area since the 1980’s. In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty 
entered into application, it has abolished the “three pillars”, integrated the area of freedom, 
security and justice into the Union law and provided for a new legal basis to adopt directives 
harmonising minimum standards on victims’ rights. In 2010, in the Stockholm Programme 
(2010-2014)2  the European Council called for further action to place the needs of victims 
of crime at the centre of European justice systems. This led to the adoption in 2012 of 
the current Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection 
of victims of crime (the VRD).3 To date, the VRD is the core EU instruments in the area 
of victims’ rights.  
In 2019, the Council4 stressed the importance of  strengthening and further developing 
the existing EU framework on victims’ rights and improving its implementation5. The 
European  Parliament  also  contributed  to  the  debate,  notably  via  a  2017  implementation 
assessment6  and  a  2018  study  on  criminal  procedural  laws  across  the  European  Union.7  
Furthermore, the Parliament’s Resolution on minimum standards on the rights, support and 
protection of victims of crime, adopted in 20188 called on the Commission and the Council 
to further develop the rights of victims so that the EU could play a leading role in this area. 

Moreover, numerous stakeholders have called for strengthening victims’ rights and provided 
concrete  recommendations  in  several  reports,  including  those  of  former  Commission 
President  Juncker’s  Special  Adviser  on  victims’  compensation9,  the  European  Union 
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)10, and Victim Support Europe11. 

In June 2020, the Commission adopted the first ever EU strategy on victims’ rights 
(2020-2025) (“the Victims’ Rights Strategy”).12 The Strategy provides for a set of actions 
for the Commission, EU Member States, and other stakeholders, aimed at creating a safer 
environment for victims to report crimes, strengthening cooperation and coordination, and 
improving practical implementation of victims’ rights. These are non-legislative measures. 
As regards legislative measures, the Strategy called on the Commission to assess whether a 

1 OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 1. 
2 European Council, Secure Europe Serving and protecting citizens (2010/C 115/01). 
3 OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p.57, replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. 
4Council Conclusions on victims’ rights adopted on 3 December 2019. 
5 The Council also underlined the importance of providing support to victims of terrorism in the 2018 Council 
Conclusions on Victims of Terrorism. 
6 The Victims’ Rights Directive 2012/29/EU – PE 611.022 – December 2017. 
7 Criminal procedural laws across the European Union – a comparative analysis of selected main differences 
and the impact they have over the development of EU legislation. Study requested by the LIBE Committee, 
PE 604.977, August 2018. 
8 OJ C 76, 9.3.2020, p.114. 
9 Strengthening victims’ rights: from compensation to reparation, Report of the Special Adviser, J. Milquet, to 
the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. 
10 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Underpinning victims’ rights: support services, reporting 
and protection, February 2023, Crime, Safety and Victims’ Rights - Fundamental Rights Survey, published in 
February 2021, four reports on Justice for Victims of Violent Crime, April 2019. 
11  Victim  Support  Europe,  Victims  of  Crime  Implementation  Analysis  of  Rights  in  Europe  (VOCIARE), 
October 2019. 
12 COM(2020) 258 final, 24.6.2020. 

EN 

1

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
revision of the VRD was necessary and if so, to present legislative amendments by the end 
of 2022.  

The Commission has assessed the VRD and presented the results in the Evaluation report 
adopted on 28 June 202213 (“the Evaluation”). The Evaluation shows that a revision of the 
VRD is indeed necessary. The revision of the EU victims’ rights acquis is included in the 
Commission Work Programme 202214.  

1.1. EU acquis on victims’ rights – the interplay between the horizontal and sectorial 
legislation 

The VRD is the main horizontal instrument on victims’ rights. It lays down rights for all 
victims of all crimes15, including the right to information, the right to support and protection 
in accordance with victims’ individual needs, procedural rights and the right to receive a 
decision  on  compensation  from  the  offender  at  the  end  of  criminal  proceeding.  It  is 
applicable  since  November  2015  in  all  EU  Member  States,  except  for  Denmark,  who 
decided to opt-out and is not bound by the Directive.  

In addition to the VRD, the EU acquis on victims’ rights includes the 2004 Compensation 
Directive16 and EU rules on protection orders17. These instruments are also of a horizontal 
nature and are applicable to all victims of crime.   

Furthermore, the EU acquis on victims’ rights includes sectorial legislation composed of 
several  instruments  addressing  the  specific  needs  of  victims  of  certain  categories  of 
crimes. These comprise the Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human 
beings  and  protecting  its  victims18,  the  Directive  against  sexual  abuse  and  sexual 
exploitation of children and child pornography19, the Counter-terrorism Directive20, and the 
Directive  on  combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment21.  On  8 
March  2022,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  combating  violence 

13 Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 25 October 2012 SWD(2022) 180 final.  
14 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Commission work programme 2022 Making Europe 
stronger together COM(2021) 645 final. 
15 The Victims’ Rights Directive does not provide for a definition of crime, it provides for a definition of a 
victim of crime and leaves a definition of criminal offences to national criminal codes (regular crimes) and EU 
sectorial legislation (Eurocrimes). 
16  Council  Directive  2004/80/EC  of  29  April  2004  relating  to  compensation  to  crime  victims,  OJ  L  261, 
6.8.2004, p. 15 – 18. 
17 Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European 
protection order (OJ L338, 21.12.2011, p.2) and Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters (OJ L181, 
29.6.2013, p.4).   
18 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 L101, 15.4.2011, p.1.  
19 Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating 
the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework 
Decision 2004/68/JHA. OJ L335, 17.12.2011, p.1.  
20 Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating 
terrorism  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA  and  amending  Council  Decision 
2005/671/JHA, OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6. 
21 Directive 2019/713 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on combating fraud and 
counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2001/413/JHA, 
PE/89/2018/REV/3, OJ L 123, 10.5.2019, p. 18. 

EN 

2

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
against women and domestic violence (the VAW proposal).22 On 19 December 2022, the 
Commission  presented  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  amending  Directive  2011/36/EU  on 
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims23. 

The  sectorial  legislation  criminalises  certain  acts  and  provides  for  additional  rights  to 
victims  of  such  crimes  that  respond  more  directly  to  their  specific  needs.  The  sectorial 
legislation  does  not  replace  the  VRD  in  relation  to  victims  of  specific  categories  of 
crimes. The provisions of the sectorial legislation build on the VRD and are applicable in 
addition to those of the VRD. It is important to highlight that the relationship between the 
VRD and of the sectorial legislation is not such as the one of lex generis and lex specialis 
where lex specialis derogate generalis. The sectorial legislation does not derogate from the 
VRD but provides additional rights for victims of specific categories of crimes covered by 
the  sectorial  legislation.  Following  the  revision  of  the  VRD,  all  victims,  including  those 
covered by the sectorial legislation will benefit from strengthened rules on victims’ rights. 
The revision of the VRD will not require any revisions of the sectorial legislation. 

1.2. Evaluation of the Victims’ Rights Directive 

The Evaluation has confirmed that the VRD has broadly generated the expected benefits. 
Victims’  treatment  by  the  competent  authorities  and  the  victims’  ability  to  participate  in 
criminal  proceedings  have  overall  improved.  The  Evaluation  has  shown that  the  VRD  is 
internally and externally coherent to a satisfactory level. The VRD brought a positive impact 
on victims’ rights to access information and improved victims’ access to support services. 
It has enhanced access to generic support services that are now available to all victims of all 
crime. In general, the VRD has improved victims’ safety.  

However, in contrast to these positive developments, in relation to each of victims’ rights 
under  the  VRD,  the  Evaluation  has  demonstrated  specific  problems  that  require 
targeted improvement. It is important to note that these specific problems do not stem from 
failures in the implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive into national legislation. In 
2019, the Commission had 25 open infringements against the Member States for incorrect 
transposition of the Victims’ Rights Directive. Since then, however, the Member States have 
made important efforts to remedy the gaps in transposition and the Commission has been 
able to close all infringements but one (against Bulgaria). The Commission has carefully 
scrutinised the transposition of the Victims’ Rights Directive in the Member States and, on 
the basis of this scrutiny, confirmed that all essential elements of the binding provisions of 
the Directive have been transposed. 

Evidence from the Evaluation shows that the problems are linked to the lack of clarity and 
precision with which certain rights are formulated and to the large margin of manoeuvre for 
the Member States. This led, in some cases, to the weakening of victims’ rights in practice 
and to divergences in transposition.  

  The lack of clarity and precision is particularly relevant when it comes to the right 
to individual assessment of victims’ needs and to the right to specialised support 
services. In both cases the essential elements are left to the national procedures.  

  Too large margin of manoeuvre exists in relation to victims’ rights to participate 
in criminal proceeding and the right to receive a decision on compensation.  

22 COM(2022) 105 final, 8.3.2022. 
23 COM(2022) 732 final, 19.12.2023. 

EN 

3

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
  Discrepancies in Member States judicial schemes in relation to victims’ status in 
criminal proceedings obstruct the execution of EU level minimum rules in this area 
and hinder victims’ active participation in criminal proceeding.  

  The  VRD  misses  the  opportunity  to  adequately  protect  victims  from  secondary 

victimisation when executing compensation from the offender.  

  The  VRD  puts  a  disproportionate  burden  on  the  police  -  in  providing  victims’ 

information. 

  The VRD does not respond to problems and victims’ needs related to development 
in technology (digitalisation) that took place since the adoption of the VRD.  

  Moreover, the minimum standards on what constitutes a child-friendly24 and victim-

centred justice25 have risen in the past ten years.  

Therefore, in order to ensure that victims can fully rely on their rights in accordance with 
their current needs in line with the recent developments in justice and in technology, this 
impact assessment considers setting up of more far-reaching minimum rules than those 
adopted in 2012. These are inspired by best practices from most or some Member States.  

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. What are the specific problems and their drivers? 

Building  on  the  Evaluation,  this  impact  assessment  further  substantiated  the  problem 
analysis through desk research and broad consultations.  

There are five key specific problems: 

2.1.1.  Victims  do  not  always  receive  information  or  adequate  information  about  their 
rights which makes it more difficult or impossible for them to exercise their other rights  

Under Article 4 of the VRD, victims have a right to receive information about their rights 
from the first contact with the competent authorities, notably the police. Nonetheless, 
not all victims contact competent authorities. As demonstrated by the 2021 FRA Report and 
its  previous  survey  data26  and  described  more  in  detail  in  the  point  on  consequences  of 
problems  below,  in  most  cases  victims  do  not  report  the  crime.  Such  victims  are 
deprived from access to information, including information about their rights to support 
and protection which are independent from whether they report a crime or not. 

The  Evaluation  found  that,  although  the  VRD  requires  that  information  to  victims  is 
provided in accordance with a right to understand and to be understood (Article 3 of the 
VRD),  in  practice  the  competent  authorities  often  use  a  language  that  is  not  adapted  to 

24 See for instance the rapid growth of the Barnahus model (children houses) in the EU Member States. 
25 See for instance, Re-just project “Action plan for developing victim-centred and trauma informed criminal 
justice  systems”  published  in  2021  that  presents  the  recent  standards  on  victims’  access  to  information, 
including helplines, coordinated approach to support, victims’ protection and participation in justice. 
26 Crime, Safety and Victims’ Rights - Fundamental Rights Survey, February 2021, FRA, Second European 
Union  Minorities  and  Discrimination  Survey  –  Main  results,  December  2017;  FRA,  A  long  way  to  go  for 
LGBTI  equality,  May  2020;  FRA,  Experiences  and  perceptions  of  antisemitism  –  Second  survey  on 
discrimination  and  hate  crime  against  Jews  in  the  EU,  December  2018;  FRA,  Second  European  Union 
Minorities and Discrimination Survey – Being Black in the EU, November 2018; and FRA, Violence against 
women: An EU-wide survey – Main results, March 2014.  

EN 

4

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
victims’ needs27. This is confirmed by the Vociare report28. According to the perception of 
professionals only 30 % of children, 26 % of persons with intellectual disabilities and 26% 
of illiterate persons receive information in a way which is adapted to their needs.  So even if 
victims receive the information from the first contact, the police, the quality of information 
is  often  not  sufficient  as  it  is  not  tailored  to  victims’  specific  needs.  Persons  with 
disabilities,  persons  who  don’t  speak  the  national  language,  children  and  elder  people  in 
most cases do not receive the information that is tailored to their needs. Also, since the first 
contact with the competent authorities often takes place at a crime scene, person who are in 
shock immediately after the crime are not able to comprehend the information they receive 
from the police.  

Under Article 6 of the VRD, victims should also receive, follow up information from the 
competent authorities about the different stages of the criminal procedure, their role and 
the situation of the offender (e.g.: a release from  detention). According to the 2019 FRA 
Report29 a clear majority of victims asserted that the information they receive from the police 
and prosecution during the proceeding is “difficult to understand, untimely and incomplete” 
and they would have liked more information about their rights and their legal status in the 
criminal proceedings.   

Box 1. Testimonies on the provision of adequate information, the 2019 FRA Report (p. II) 

“[…] often victims  come to  us when everything is  over, they are not  informed about  the 
outcome  of  the  proceedings,  they  have  not  made  any  claims  for  compensation,  nobody 
informed them about the fact that they can make claims for compensation [...] Nobody told 
them any of that, surely it is said somewhere on a sheet they got, but that’s not enough.” 
(Member of support organisation, Austria) 

“[M]any things I didn’t know before, such as [...] compensation, having a look at the case 
file, a lawyer. So, I would  have definitely wished for  more information on these things.” 
(Victim, Germany) 

Similarly,  a  great  share  of  stakeholders  consulted  within  the  Evaluation  (61  out  of  95 
respondents from the public consultation) considered that victims’ right to information from 
the first contact with a competent authority is not sufficiently achieved under the VRD and 
should be strengthened.  

Comprehensive channels of communications that would take into account the complexity 
of victims’ needs in relation to their right to access information are still not available in all 
Member  States.  Indeed,  many  victims  still  cannot  rely  on  comprehensive  Victims’ 
helplines  using  the  116  006  telephone  number30,  where  they  would  receive  the 
information they need, at the time that suits them, would be able to speak freely about their 
experience and be referred to the police or other services – if needed. Highlighted by Victim 

27 As example in several Member States (including BG, PT, RO, SK.) the information provided by authorities 
in written form is a copy paste of the national provisions on victims’ rights. 
28  Vociare  Synthesis  Report,  published  in  2019  by  Victim  Support  Europe  and  Portuguese  Association  of 
Victims’ Rights APAV. 
29 Fundamental Rights Agency Report on Justice for Victims of Violent Crime, April 2019, part II. 
30 Set up under Commission Decision of 30 November 2009 amending Decision 2007/116/EC as regards the 
introduction of additional reserved numbers beginning with ‘116’; in total 5 such numbers are reserved for 
different services, such as missing children “116 111” and victims of gender-based violence “116 116”. The 
application of reserved numbers is not mandatary but recommended. Certain conditions must be fulfilled to 
use the numbers, for victims, the helpline “116 006” must provide information about victims’ rights, refer to 
police and other services – if needed and provide for emotional counselling.  

EN 

5

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Support Europe31, helplines are now an essential part of the national response to mental 
wellbeing and support for victims. Their main problem is that they are still not available 
in 13 EU Member States32, even though they are promoted at the EU level since 2009. Even 
fewer victims can benefit from a more advanced form of helplines that uses a comprehensive 
website and allows for chats and e-mails in addition to phone calls33. 

Drivers of the problem: 

  Failure to address the complexity of the victims’ needs to access information in 
the  VRD.  The  Evaluation  demonstrates  that,  by  requiring  that  the  first  contact 
authorities provide victims with an extensive list of information about their rights in 
line with their needs, the VRD puts a burden on police that is disproportionate in 
relation to the limited capacities of police. According to the VOCIARE report police 
often lack the necessary resources, is not educated enough about victims’ needs and 
victims’ wellbeing is not their priority. And as the 2019 FRA report showed, victims 
may not view the police as being unreservedly on their side and hence as a credible 
source of advice and information.34 

  Lack of mechanisms of cooperation35 among the police, support services, judicial 
and  probation  authorities  that  would  ensure  that  victims  receive  adequate 
information about different stages of the procedure in accordance with their changing 
needs. 

  Untapped  potential  of  the  new  technologies,  to  improve  victims’  access  to 
information  (websites  that  provide  for  information  in  different  languages  and 
integrate  chats,  e-mails  and  online  working  tools  to  respond  to  different 
communication needs, such as age and disability). 

2.1.2.  Victims with specific needs do not always benefit from a timely assessment of their 
individual needs and are deprived from effective protection measures 

Article 22 of the VRD provides for victims’ right to timely and individual assessment of 
their protection needs. Its purpose is to determine whether a victim is in any way particularly 
vulnerable  to  secondary  victimisation  (harm  from  the  criminal  proceeding)  and  repeated 
victimisation,  intimidation  and/or  retaliation  (harm  from  the  offender),  so  that  adequate 
protection measures can be applied. Such protection measures are laid down in Article 23 
of the VRD. The conditions of individual assessment are left to national law. According 
to  the  Evaluation,  the  right  to  individual  assessment  is  one  of  the  most  significant 
achievements of the VRD, however its quality is often hampered in practice.  

In this regard, three shortcomings were identified: 

31 VSE position paper “Establishing Victims helpline 116 006 across the EU”, 2021.  
32 BE, BG,CY,EL,ES,HU,IT,LU,MT,PL,RO,SL, SK. 
33 Best example includes: the Irish Victims’ helpline How We Help - Crime Victims Helpline, the Estonian 
helpline Avaleht | Palunabi, the Croatian helpline, the Latvian helpline, the Swedish helpline. 
34 FRA, Proceedings that do justice – Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, p. 63, April 2019. 
35 The Evaluation demonstrates that he national coordination mechanisms for all victims are limited and usually 
set up for victims of certain categories of crime, for instance there are well functioning national cooperation 
schemes for victims of trafficking. There are however best practices of national cooperation schemes that exist 
for all victims of crime.  In Austria, the Management Centre for Victim Assistance (MZ.O) ensures that all 
relevant actors coordinate their activities, develop and implement a common victim support policy. In France, 
the Inter-Ministerial Delegate for Victim Support DIAV coordinates the actions on the care and support of 
victims within France at governmental level and locally. 

EN 

6

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
 

 

the  assessment  comes  too  late  in  the  procedure  (8  Member  States  do  not  have 
measures  to  ensure  that  the  individual  needs  assessment  is  carried  out  at  the  first 
contact with the competent authorities36);  

it  does  not  involve  psychologist  and  victims  support  services  who  have  the 
expertise to assess the psychological situation of each victim (13 Member States do 
not have measures to ensure the involvement of relevant actors, including support 
services and psychologists 37);  

  neglects  the risks  emanating from the offender38  who may be in  possession of 
arms, abusing drugs or alcohol and pose higher risks to victims (in 11 Member States 
the individual assessment does not include evaluation of the risks emanating from 
the offender39).  

Correctly done individual assessments of victims’ needs are vital to ensure victims’ adequate 
protection. Without such an assessment, victims cannot benefit from the special protection 
measures  laid  down  in  Article  23  of  the  VRD.  The  2023  FRA  Report  results  show 
considerable differences between Member States in how authorities apply these protection 
measures in practice.40 Such measures include special interviewing techniques, avoidance 
of eye contact, avoidance of victims’ presence in the courtroom but do not include measures 
of victims’ protection from the offender (such as protection orders) – even though victims’ 
rights  to  protection  under  the  VRD  includes  protection  from  both  the  secondary 
victimisation and repeated victimisation. The Evaluation and consultations indicate that this 
gap  in  the  VRD  has  not  been  filled  by  national  law  and  practice.  A  great  share  of 
stakeholders consulted within the Evaluation (60 out of 95 respondents during the public 
consultation) found that the victims’ right to protection, is not sufficiently available and 
should be strengthened. 

The 2019 FRA Report confirms  that in  the majority of cases, victims are not  adequately 
protected from the offender. The report also confirms that the Member States do not have 
routine mechanisms to assess the risk of victims being the target of retaliation by offenders.  

36  BG, CZ, EE, EL, IT, RO, SI, SK. 
37 BG, CZ, EE, FI, HU, IE, LU, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI. 
38 Related to risks emanating from the offender, see also FRA’s survey results presented in the report Crime, 
Safety  and  Victims'  Rights,  February  2021,  which  show  that  11 %  of  victims  of  physical  violence  did  not 
report the incident to the police because of fear of reprisal (revenge) by the perpetrator (p. 82 in the report, 
Figure 26). 
39 BG, CZ, DE, EL, FI, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, SI. 
40 FRA, Underpinning victims’ rights: support services, reporting and protection, February 2023. 

EN 

7

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1. Testimonies on the provision of adequate protection, the 2019 FRA Report (p. II)

Practitioners’ responses to the question: 

'How often do victims and their family members receive adequate protection from intimidation and 
retaliation?'

5%

12%

23%

Always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

29%

31%

Drivers of the problem: 

  The  VRD  leaves  too  large  margin  of  discretion  on  conditions  of  individual 
assessment and fails to regulate victims’ protection from the offender (it does not 
require to assess the risks emanating from the offender as a part of the individual 
assessment  and  it  does  not  list  victims’  physical  protection  together  with  other 
protection measures in Article 23 of the VRD). 

  Lack  of  mechanisms  of  cooperation  enabling  the  early  involvement  of  support 
services,  police,  and  judicial  authorities  in  the  individual  assessment  of  victims’ 
needs.41  

  Lack  of  awareness  about  the  victims’  physical  protection  measures  such  as 
protection orders42 at the national level even among the professionals and even in 
life threatening situations involving victims of violent crime, victims of hate crime, 
victims of organised crime or victims in detention43.   

2.1.3.  Vulnerable  victims  often  cannot  rely  on  specialist  support  such  as  prolonged 
psychological treatment or targeted approach for child victims 

Although  Articles  8  and  9  of  the  VRD  provide  for  a  right  to  specialised,  targeted  and 
integrated  support  for  victims  with  specific  needs  that  is  free  of  charge  and  includes 
psychological support where such support is available, the Evaluation has demonstrated that 
vulnerable victims, including children often cannot benefit from effective support44. 
The child-sensitive approach is still an issue in numerous Member States45. The Evaluation 
has  demonstrated  that  there  is  a  lack  of  common  understanding  on  what  is  required  by 
targeted and integrated support for vulnerable victims – notably for children. As a result, not 

41 90% of respondents during the public consultation found that coordination and cooperation between national 
authorities and organisations involved in individual needs assessments should be strengthened. 
42 As an example of a general lack of awareness, only half of the interviewed legal professionals in the five 
EU Member States assessed in  the Artemis project were aware about the possibility of applying protection 
orders in cross border cases. See: Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies. It confirms the findings of the 
FRA (2019), Proceedings that do justice – Justice for victims of violent crime: Part II, April 2019, that raised 
the issue in relation to protection measures at the national level. 
43 Protection measures with regard to victims of violence against women and domestic violence are included 
in the VAW proposal. 
44 About half of the stakeholders consider that victims with specific needs do not receive appropriate support. 
45  During  the  consultations,  numerous  problems  related  to  video  recording  of  children  for  evidence,  child-
friendly participation  in  trial,  individual approach to the  most vulnerable children  were  reported in several 
Member States including BE, BG, DE, EL, LT and PT. 

EN 

8

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
all children in the EU can benefit from high quality specialist support. For instance, the full 
Barnahus  model  (“Children  house”  in  Scandinavian)46  is  not  available  in  15  Member 
States,  and  in  6  Member  States,  children  cannot  even  benefit  from  its  simpler  version 
(centralized, multiagency approach but not under the same roof.)47 The Barnahus model is 
currently  the  most  advanced  example  of  a  child-friendly  approach  to  justice48.  In 
addition to child-friendly measures that are already in the VRD (such as video recording of 
testimonies,  avoidance  of  eye  contact,  child-friendly  interviews  by  the  same  person),  its 
main advantage is that it provides for all services in relation to child victims’ support and 
protection  in  an  integrated  way  and  under  one  roof.  It  is  also  an  example  of  the  most 
complete coordination mechanism. Instead of parallel and overlapping criminal and non-
legal  proceedings  in  relation  to  support  and  protection,  it  provides  for  a  coordinated 
mechanism  that  includes  provision  of  information,  reporting,  individual  assessment  of 
protection  needs,  psychological  support,  medical  examination  and  videorecording  of 
testimonies.  All  this  is  done  in  a  child-sensitive  setting  that  maximises  the  avoidance  of 
secondary victimization. The Barnahus model serves mostly child victims of sexual abuse, 
but it is open to all child victims.  

The Evaluation has also demonstrated that in 12 Member States psychological support 
for victims is not always available free of charge49. Victims are often asked to pay for 
psychological support after initial sessions. This is particularly problematic for vulnerable 
victims who usually cannot  afford paying the support. The effects  of crime can be long-
lasting, and they are not influenced by how severe the crime was.50 Moreover, as highlighted 
by  the  2019  FRA  Report  (p.  II),  victims  of  violent  crime  will  not  be  able  to  play  any 
significant role in criminal proceedings, unless they receive competent and empowering 
psychological support.  

Drivers of the problem: 

  The VRD, by stating that free psychological aid is provided only “where available” 
leaves too much discretion to the Member States as to ensuring the availability 
of  such  support.  Similarly,  by  not  specifying  what  constitutes  targeted  and 
integrated support for vulnerable victims, the VRD leaves too much discretion to 
the Member States as to the scope of such right. 

  Lack  of  mechanisms  of  coordination  among  the  support  services,  police  and 
judicial authorities. As highlighted by the Victim Support Europe report from 201851, 
the more organisations and bodies a victim must be in contact with, the greater the 
level of secondary victimisation. The framework for delivering a national system of 
access to justice and to support services involves a multitude of people operating in 
different spheres. Without their close cooperation, the changing victims’ needs are 
not met, and victims are exposed to secondary victimisation. In relation to the lack 

46Barnahus is a child-friendly office, where law enforcement, criminal justice, support services, and medical 
and  mental  health  workers  meet  children  under  one  roof  and  assess  together  the  situation  of  the  child  and 
decide upon the follow-up. 
47 Please see Annex 6 for further reference. 
48 About Barnahus - Barnahus 
49 AT, CY, CZ, DE, EE, IE, LT, LV, MT, NL, PT, SI – see Annex 6. 
50  The  psychological  consequences  of  crime  can  include  anxiety,  depression,  guilt,  shame  self-destructive 
behaviour and inability to act or think rationally, see Psychological Reactions of Victims of Violent Crime, 
Cambridge University Press, 2018. 
51 See the report by Victim Support Europe on “The role of civil society in the development of victims’ rights 
and delivery of victims’ service”, October 2018. 

EN 

9

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
of  mechanisms  of  coordination  among  the  support  services,  police  and  judicial 
authorities, the 2023 FRA report highlights the promising practice of setting up a 
coordination and networking hub for authorities, organisations and people involved 
in victim assistance and protection.52 

2.1.4.  Victims’ participation in criminal proceedings is often difficult or impossible 

For victims to sense that justice is done and to be able to defend their interest, it is important 
that they are present and able to actively participate in the criminal procedure.  

The main rights that facilitate victims’ participation in criminal proceeding include the right 
to be heard (Article 10 of the VRD), rights in the event of a decision not to prosecute (Article 
11 of the VRD), right to legal aid (Article 13 of the VRD) as well as a set of rights aimed at 
protecting  victims  from  secondary  and  repeated  victimization  during  the  proceedings 
(Articles 18 to 24 of the VRD). The Evaluation and consultations highlighted that victims’ 
participation  in  criminal  proceedings  is  difficult  or  even  impossible  without  being 
sufficiently accompanied and advised. Advice by a lawyer who represents the victim in 
the court responds to most issues, notably those related to legal aspects. Nonetheless, not all 
victims have a right to a lawyer. Legal aid can be granted to those who have insufficient 
means (with extremely low means test in some Member States) or those who suffered from 
certain types of crime and only if they have a status of a party to criminal proceeding (Article 
13  of  the  VRD).  This  is  why  for  victims,  it  is  also  important  to  have  the  right  to  be 
accompanied by a person other than a lawyer, who could at least advise about the victims’ 
role and rights during the proceedings and offer emotional support. Article 20 of the VRD 
provides for such a right but limited to the investigation stage (before the trial). The Vociare 
Report, highlights that the right to be accompanied by a person of choice is in some Member 
States limited to the victims’ lawyer53 and in other Member States bureaucratic hurdles54 
hamper the full enjoyment of this right.55 The 2019 FRA Report also clearly indicates that 
victims are not adequately advised and assisted during the criminal proceedings. 

Figure 2. Support provided to victims during criminal proceedings, the 2019 FRA Report 

34

37

Agree

25
4
Disagree

48

27

Agree

23
3
Disagree

44

35

Agree

20
1
Disagree

"Overall, I wish I had more legal advice."

"At times, I would have wished for more
information about my potential role in the
proceedings."

Victims’ responses to the question ‘Do you personally agree or disagree with the 
following statement?' (%)

Strongly

Rather

Practitioners agreeing/disagreeing with the
statement
"More needs to be done to ensure that
victims are informed in an effective manner
about the proceedings and their potential

52 FRA, Underpinning victims’ rights: support services, reporting and protection, February 2023. 
53 BG, EE, LT, LU, PL and SI (in SI the victim can be accompanied by a lawyer or another person of trust). 
54 For instance, sufficient reasons for the request must be presented and the request must be documented. In 
some cases, law enforcement authorities are reluctant to allow the presence of a person of the victim’s choice, 
justifying denial of this right on concerns that the victims’ statement would be impaired. 
55 IE, LT and LV. 

EN 

10

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
In this context it is essential to ensure that all victims in the EU have at least a right to be 
accompanied by a person of choice other than a lawyer during the trial (not only during 
the  investigations)  and  receive  adequate  information  from  the  court  staff.56  Victims  in  6 
Member States still cannot be accompanied during the trial by a person of choice other than 
a lawyer. This situation is particularly acute for the most vulnerable victims, such as child 
victims, victims with disability, victims of sexual violence, victims of trafficking, victims of 
hate crime or victims of core international crimes who especially need to be accompanied 
because of their personal characteristics or the gravity of the crime they suffered.  

The  Evaluation  shows  that  another  main  problem  with  victims’  participation  in  criminal 
proceeding is that in some Member States victims do not have legal status as a party to 
the  criminal  proceeding57.  The  victims’  standing  in  criminal  proceeding  indeed  differs 
from one Member States to another (from a party, to assisting prosecutor, civil party or a 
witness with a right to be heard). The VRD leaves it to national law. According to the 2019 
FRA  report  (part  II)  “being  denied  victim  status  and  forced  into  the  role  of 
a witness – a bystander unconcerned by the wrong done by the offender – is at the core of 
many negative experiences with justice”.  

Moreover,  victims  often  lack  legal  remedies  to  challenge  decisions  that  concern  them 
directly.58 The 2019 FRA Report (p. II) highlighted the gravity of the situation that under 
the current state of play, victims have rights but no remedies. According to FRA, this results 
in a de facto violation of the victims’ right to access justice.  

Drivers of the problem: 

  The VRD fails to ensure that victims receive legal or administrative support in 
criminal proceedings. Without representation or advice, many victims are unaware 
of  their  rights,  get  lost  in  the  complexity  of  the  national  criminal  procedures  and 
cannot effectively participate in criminal proceedings.  

  Discrepancy in victims’ legal status as a party to criminal  proceedings that is 
rooted  in  the  legal  tradition  of  Member  States  and  determines  victims’  role  in 
criminal proceedings (important rights related to victims’ participation in criminal 
proceedings such as the right to legal aid depends on whether victims have a status 
of parties to criminal proceedings). 

2.1.5.  Victims’ access to compensation is difficult  

As highlighted in  the EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights,  in many Member States,  victims’ 
access to compensation from the offender and from the state remains difficult. According to 
the Milquet report59 victims can claim state compensation only at the end of a long, often 
expensive,  and  time-consuming  process,  which  starts  with  criminal  proceedings  and  is 
followed by attempts to receive compensation from the offender. Under Article 16 of the 
VRD, all victims have the right to receive a decision on compensation from the offender 
during  criminal  proceedings,  with  the  exception  where  national  law  provides  for  such  a 
decision to be made in other legal proceedings. As demonstrated by the Milquet report and 

56Good practice exists for instance in IE, with V-Sac that provides victim support at court by trained volunteers 
to over one thousand of victims every year. 
57 At least in 8 Member States – see Annex 6 for further reference. 
58 In 13 Member States do not have adequate legal remedies to challenge decisions that concern them directly, 
it is mostly related to lack of legal standing as a party to the proceeding - see Annex 6. 
59 The report of the Special Adviser Joelle Milquet to the Former President of the Commission Jean-Claude 
Juncker on: Strengthening victims’ rights: from compensation to reparation, March 2019. 

EN 

11

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
confirmed by the Evaluation, this right is often ineffective60 since in some Member States 
the  criminal  proceedings  often  end  up  without  a  decision  on  compensation61.  Moreover, 
even after a process leading to the judgement imposing an obligation on the perpetrator to 
compensate,  the  victim  is  often  not  compensated  because  it  is  difficult  to  execute  the 
compensation from the offender. In this case, access to state compensation is important but 
cumbersome to obtain. 

The lack of victims’ effective access to compensation from the offender within the criminal 
proceeding  leads  to  victims  having  to  engage  in  multiple  cumbersome  and  lengthy 
proceedings in separate civil proceedings or from the state under the national schemes of 
compensation.62 Those who become victims of crime when travelling abroad find it even 
more difficult to access compensation. Indeed, not all victims can benefit from the national 
schemes on compensation in which, following a decision on compensation from the offender 
at the end of the criminal proceedings, they receive, without a delay, the compensation from 
the state. The state afterwards recuperates the compensation from the offender. Such good 
practice  exists  in  several  Member  States,  such  as  NL,  FR,  FI.  In  these  Member  States  it 
showed  that  it  provides  an  optimal  protection  against  secondary  victimization  and 
intimidation from the offender. Compensation schemes based on such upfront payment is 
highlighted in the Milquet report as a main recommendation to strengthen victims’ rights to 
compensation. Today, victims in several Member States cannot benefit from this approach63. 

Drivers of the problem: 

  The  VRD  lacks  an  obligation  for  Member  States  to  assist  victims  in  enforcing 

compensation from the offender.  

  The offender may not have the means to compensate the victim (or may hide his assets) 
and the execution of judgements imposing compensation is too difficult for the victim; 
it is costly, often requires hiring a bailiff and exposes victims to traumatizing contacts 
with the offender. 

  The  national  criminal  judges  often  do  not  deal  with  compensation  in  criminal 
procedures and leave it to a separate civil process (even if under national law they are 
competent to deal with compensation)64.  

  Many national compensation schemes are not victims’ friendly as they require that 
victims first seek compensation from the offender (in a criminal or civil procedure) and 
secondly from the state (in yet another civil or administrative procedure) which is costly, 
time consuming and emotionally challenging for victims.  

2.2. Horizontal problem drivers 

The above five specific problems and their specific drivers are underpinned by 3 horizontal 
drivers that are to a varying degree, pertinent to all specific problems and their consequences. 

60  Most  consulted  stakeholders  believe  that  access  to  victims’  right  to  compensation  from  the  offender  is 
ineffective and should be strengthened. 
61 See in particular the practice of the judges in CZ, SK, AT. 
62  Council  Directive  2004/80/EC  of  29  April  2004  relating  to  compensation  to  crime  victims  requires  that 
Member  States  provide  access  to  compensation  to  victims  of  violent,  intentional  crime  including  in  cross-
border cases. The conditions for such access to compensation are left to the national procedures. 
63 See Annex 6 on possibility for the State to advance payment of compensation. 
64 See Annex 6 on victims’ possibilities in Member States to apply for and receive compensation as part of the 
criminal proceedings. 

EN 

12

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
First, the current regulatory framework is not sufficient. Although the VRD provides for 
a set of binding rights for all victims and corresponding obligations for the Member States, 
still  not  all  victims  in  the  EU  can  effectively  benefit  from  their  rights.65  Incorrect 
transposition of the VRD is not the reason for this situation. The Commission has closely 
worked with Member States to overcome the identified difficulties in the transposition of 
the Victims’ Rights Directive. As a result, all essential elements of the Directive’s binding 
provisions  have  been  transposed.  The  Commission  has  closed  all  but  one  infringement 
proceedings. As highlighted above, one of the main conclusions from the Evaluation is that 
the identified problems are to a large extent caused by a lack of clarity and precision with 
which some rights are formulated, and too large margin of manoeuvre left to the Member 
States in the transposition of some of the obligations.  

Secondly,  there  is  still  persistent  lack  of  awareness  about  victims’  rights  and  needs 
within our societies. It is often combined with a lack of empathy and it is closely linked to 
the insufficient training of practitioners, including law enforcement, judicial authorities, and 
support services66 and to a general lack of education about victims’ rights and needs within 
our  societies.  The  impact  of  this  lack  of  awareness  is  even  exacerbated  in  the  case  of 
vulnerable victims (such as child victims, victims with disabilities, victims of hate-crime or 
victims of core international crime), who require particular attention from all actors coming 
into contact with them. 

Finally, developments in society and technology as well as the geopolitical situation has 
led to new types of problems and needs of victims. The pandemic crises have put victims 
of domestic violence particularly at risk.67 The lockdown of society also saw a rise in child 
sexual abuse and cybercrime68. The vulnerability of migrant groups (particularly if they have 
already been victims of war crime in the country they are fleeing from) exposes them to 
certain  types  of  crime,  such  as  trafficking,  sexual  or  labour  exploitation.  Moreover,  the 
recent  crises  have  exposed  the  fragility  of  the  structures  for  victims’  rights  that  without 
strengthening cooperation and coordination of all people in  contact with  victims will not 
become more resilient to future crises69. In relation to developments in technology, victims 
in the EU still do not benefit from the potential of new technologies, as adequate digital tools 
facilitating their access to justice are missing.70   

2.3. Consequences of problems 

The problems are amplified by the scale of victimisation in the EU. In fact, everyone can 
become a victim of crime. According to Eurostat in 2019, over 7 million serious offences 

65  Most  stakeholders  who  replied  to  the  consultation  consider  that  victims  do  not  receive  appropriate 
information,  support  and  protection  and  are  not  sufficiently  able  to  participate  in  criminal  proceedings.  In 
addition, most consulted respondents do not see a progress with regard to victims’ recognition and treatment 
in a respectful, sensitive, tailored, professional and non-discriminatory manner by competent authorities. 
66 The Evaluation highlights the problem in relation to the quantity of trained professionals and to the quality 
of the training, also stressed in FRA, Proceedings that do justice – Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 
April 2019. 
67 The VAW proposal includes measures to address this. 
68  Europol,  Pandemic  profiteering:  how  criminals  exploit  the  COVID-19  crisis,  March  2020,  see: 
https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-documents/pandemic-profiteering-how-criminals-exploit-covid-
19-crisis. 
69 See for example, the FRA 2022 October bulletin, ‘The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine ― The 
broad fundamental rights impact in the EU - Bulletin 2’, on the on the practical application of the temporary 
protection and provided to UA refugees in the EU. 
70 See the impact assessment accompanying the Commission proposal on digitalisation of justice SWD(2021) 
392 final, 1.12.2021, p. 14. 

EN 

13

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
were recorded in the EU71, and most crimes are never reported as demonstrated by the 2021 
FRA survey.72 Many of these offences involve more than one victim, and people close to a 
victim also suffer indirectly from the crime. This leads to a qualified estimate that there are 
likely over 20 million direct victims73 and over 60 million indirect victims per year74. 

The consequences of the problems are particularly serious for the smooth functioning of 
the European area of freedom, security, and justice, they include: 

 

 

 

lower  trust  in  other  Member  States  judicial  schemes  that  risks  hampering  mutual 
recognition of judgements and decisions in criminal matters, 

lower trust in national justice schemes75 resulting in systematic underreporting of 
crime and 

lack of sufficient recognition of victims and treatment with  dignity, respect, in a 
tailored,  professional  and  non-discriminatory  manner  (by  police,  prosecutors, 
courts, support services). 

Victims  of  crime  are  among  the  most  vulnerable  members  of  the  society.  If  they  cannot 
effectively rely on information about their rights, if they are not adequately supported and 
protected  in  accordance  with  their  needs,  cannot  participate  in  criminal  proceeding  or 
receive the compensation from the offender - they do not see “justice done” for themselves 
and  loose  trust  in  justice.  Similarly,  the  national  authorities  will  lose  trust  in  the  justice 
schemes of other Member States, without effective minimum standards on victims’ rights at 
the EU level. 

Such trust in the national and EU justice schemes is crucial for the well-functioning of 
the European area of freedom, security, and justice. Trust in other Member States justice 
schemes  is  essential  for  the  mutual  recognition  of  judgements  and  decisions  in  criminal 
matters.  National  authorities  must  have  a  trust  that  those  who  participate  in  criminal 
proceedings (as suspects, accused or victims) in other Member States are treated well and 
their  fundamental  rights  are  respected.  Without  such  trust,  the  mutual  recognition  is 
hampered.76 Trust in the national judicial schemes is also essential for crime reporting. As 
indicated by the 2021 FRA survey, among those who did not report an incident of physical 
violence18 % have indicated that they did not report it due to lack of conviction that police 
would do anything – that is, lacking trust in police taking relevant action - and 9 % did not 
report due to an overall lack of trust in police.77 

71 In 2019 Eurostat indicated the data  of EU 27 on reporting serious offences that include homicide, child 
sexual exploitation, assault; kidnapping, sexual violence including rape and sexual assault and robbery. 
72 FRA 2021, Crime, Safety and Victims’ Rights – Fundamental Rights Survey, Chapter 4. 
73 This is a conservative estimation, based on the findings in FRA 2021, Crime, Safety and Victims’ Rights – 
Fundamental Rights Survey that roughly only one third of crimes are reported to the police, the figure does 
not take into account that some offences involve more than one victim. 
74 This is based on the estimation that an average victim has roughly three close persons (family and friends) 
that are indirectly affected by the crime. 
75 European Social Survey, Trust in justice, 2011 defines trust in justice as the belief that the police and criminal 
courts can be relied upon to act competently, to wield their authority in ways that are fair, and to provide equal 
justice and protection across society. 
76 See ex.: we observe numerous interruptions in the mutual recognition of European Arrest Warrants (EAW), 
where the executions of the EAWs are being refused because of the risks of violation of the fundamental rights 
of the persons subject to surrender to another Member States, see judgment of the Court of 25 July 2018 C-
216/18 and following case law. 
77 FRA 2021, Crime, Safety and Victims’ Rights – Fundamental Rights Survey, p. 84. 

EN 

14

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
The same 2021 FRA Survey has demonstrated that we face a high level of underreporting 
in the EU. 64% of the people in the EU who experienced a violent incident in the five years 
before the survey did not report it to the police.78  

Figure 3. Reporting of the most recent incident of violence to the police (EU-27), 2021 FRA 
Survey 

Yes, respondent or somebody else reported

30%

No, not reported

64%

Police were already aware so no need to report

5%

Don't know or prefer not to say

1%

Underreporting of crime to this extent has serious further implications on health, society, 
and security. This is particularly alarming as those who do not report the crime are the most 
vulnerable victims79. Underreporting allows for a continuation of victimisation, results in 
impunity for offenders, leads to a lower level of security in the EU and hinders the European 
area of freedom, security, and justice.   

2.4. How likely is the problem to persist? 

The  problems  are  very  likely  to  persist  without  EU  intervention.  The  Evaluation  and 
consultations  have  demonstrated  the  failures  of  the  VRD  to  ensure  victims’  adequately 
effective access to their rights. The geopolitical situation and development of society and 
technology have shown the fragility of the current structures on victims’ rights, and bring 
new challenges and new victims’ needs. As explained below in section 5.1. on the baseline 
scenario,  the  actions  under  the  EU  Victims’  Rights  Strategy  are  expected  to  address  the 
problems to a certain extent. Also, the VAW Proposal addresses the problems in relation to 
victims  of  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence.  Nonetheless,  the  problems 
stemming  from  the  failures  in  the  VRD  and  relevant  for  all  victims  of  all  crime, 
including vulnerable victims other than those covered by the VAW Proposal, are expected 
to persist if the EU does not revise the VRD. Similarly, the issues relevant for all victims of 
all crime that arise from developments of new standards in justice and technology that were 
not included in the VRD a decade ago are likely to persist. 

WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1. Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  this  action  is  Article  82(2)(c)  of  the  TFEU,  under  which  the  EU  can 
establish  minimum  rules  on  victims’  rights  to  the  extent  that  it  is  necessary  to  facilitate 

78 FRA, 2021, Crime, Safety and Victims’ Rights - Fundamental Rights Survey, pp. 77-78. 
79 According to a 2019 report by Victim Support Europe, victims least likely to report a crime to the police are 
usually those most in need of protection: children, migrants, people with disabilities, and victims of human 
trafficking. See: Victim Support Europe: A Journey from Crime to Compensation, 2019, p. 14.  https://victim-
support.eu/wp-content/files_mf/1574261567A_Journey_From_Crime_To_Compensation_2019.pdf. 
In 
addition, irregular migrants, often do not report a crime because of a fear of being deported. Oxford University 
COMPAS  (the  Centre  on  Migration,  Policy  and  Society)  project  Safe  reporting  of  crime  for  victims  and 
witnesses with irregular status in the US and Europe” published in 2019. 

EN 

15

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation 
in criminal matters having a cross-border dimension. In addition, this legal basis stipulates 
that minimum rules may be established provided that differences between the legal traditions 
and systems of the Member States are taken into account. Establishing minimum rules on 
the rights of victims of crime is not limited to cross-border situations. Similar to minimum 
standards for suspects and accused, the EU can establish minimum standards for rules at 
national level to increase mutual trust in the judicial systems of other Member States and 
thus  improve  the  functioning  of  the  mutual  recognition  of  judgements  and  decision  in 
criminal matters with a cross-border dimension.  

3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action 

For mutual recognition and judicial co-operation to fully work there must be mutual trust 
in other Member States’ criminal justice systems. This means that justice systems should 
have  faith  in  each  other’s  standards  of  fairness  and  justice,  and  EU  citizens  should  have 
confidence that the same level of minimum rules will be applied should they travel or live 
abroad. As acknowledged in the Treaty, setting up the minimum standards on the rights of 
suspects and accused and on the rights of victims is the key factor that facilitates mutual 
recognition. The Treaty requires the Union to act in these areas in advance in order to 
build the necessary trust that facilitates the functioning of the mutual recognition.  

The VRD and the sectorial legislation already harmonised victims’ rights to an important 
extent  and  have  thus  contributed  to  raising  trust  in  national  and  EU  justice  schemes. 
However, as detailed in the Evaluation and demonstrated in the consultations, despite the 
progress in setting minimum standards on victims’ rights, some Member States have not 
been able to ensure the effectiveness of these rights within the room for manoeuvre the 
VRD has left. Furthermore, the minimum standards as such have evolved in the past 10 
years since the adoption of the VRD. This is linked to the developments in justice (child- 
friendly and victim-centred justice), society (e.g., increased need for coordinated approach 
to ensure availability of the victims’ support services during crises80) and developments of 
technology  (digitalisation,  raise  of  on-line  crime  and  availability  of  new  technologies  to 
victims’ support, protection, and access to justice). In this context, it is necessary to come 
up with more far-reaching minimum standards to ensure the effectiveness of the VRD and 
to keep up with the mutual trust among national authorities. 

Moreover, the fact that the Member States have completed their implementation of the VRD 
indicates  that  the  instrument  in  its  current  version  has  largely  reached  its  potential.  The 
necessary corrections require an amendment to the VRD, which can be achieved only 
at the EU level.  

The EU added value should be mainly seen from the perspective of facilitating judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters and ensuring the smooth functioning of the European area 
of  freedom,  security  and  justice.  For  that,  trust  in  equal  access  to  victims’  rights 
independently of where in the EU the crime happened is essential. One example where 
the trust has been already broken in the area of victims’ rights with negative consequences 
for smooth functioning of the mutual recognition is the current suboptimal use of the mutual 
recognition  of  European  protection  orders,  mostly  caused  by  a  lack  of  awareness  and 

80 FRA, The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine ― The broad fundamental rights impact in the EU - 
Bulletin 2, October 2022 or FRA, Director’s Speech Upholding fundamental rights in times of crisis | European 
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (europa.eu), 13 October 2022. 

EN 

16

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
complexity of national measures on victims’ physical protection81. Other examples where a 
high level of trust in victims’ rights is required is the decision of judicial authorities on a 
transfer of proceedings8283 to another Member State or when competent national authorities 
enter a Joint Investigation Team (JIT)84. 

Moreover,  the  EU  added  value  lies  in  dealing  with  the  scale  and  the  nature  of  the 
problems that can’t be dealt by Member States alone. In particular, the recent increase 
in online crime85 with a cross-border dimension demonstrates the growing need for common 
action at EU level. Likewise, the pandemic crisis, economic crisis and the Russian war of 
aggression against Ukraine strike the entire Union and thus affect victims’ rights in all EU 
Member States resulting in a need for EU action.  

OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1. General objectives 

The general objective of this initiative is to contribute to a well-functioning area of freedom, 
security, and justice based on: 

  The smooth recognition of judgements and judicial decisions in criminal matters, 

  A high level of security due to improved crime reporting86 and  

  Victim-centred justice, in which victims are recognised and can rely on their rights. 

It  will  be  achieved  by  strengthening  the  minimum  standards  on  the  rights  of  victims  of 
crime,  and  addressing  the  shortcomings  identified  in  the  VRD  and  not  covered  by  the 
sectorial legislation (existing or proposed). It will result in increased trust in the national 

81 See the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection ordered COM (2020)187 final that indicates that only 37 
European protection orders were issued and only 15 were executed in the period 2015 - 2018 and highlights 
the lack of awareness and complexity of the national protection orders as the main cause. 
82 Under Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA , the competent national authorities contact each other when they 
have reasonable grounds to believe that parallel proceedings are being conducted in another Member State, 
which may result in a transfer of proceedings to another Member States. When deciding on such transfer, the 
national authorities take into account the extent to which the victims in the proceeding can rely on their rights 
in the Member State of transfer. 
83 The Commission has proposed a Regulation on transfer of proceedings in criminal matters, COM (2023) 
185 final 2023/0093 (COD) that was adopted on 5 April 2023. 
84 A JIT is a form of close cooperation between competent judicial and law enforcement authorities of two or 
more Member States to deal with complex, often large scale cross- border cases ( based on Council Framework 
Decision of 13 June 2002 ). Such cases often involve vulnerable victims from numerous Member States such 
as victims of trafficking, victims of child sexual exploitation or victims of war crime and require a high level 
of trust that victims involved in investigations will receive adequate treatment by all partners and their rights 
will be respected in all countries concerned. JIT on alleged core international crimes committed in Ukraine 
(with 8 Member States participating) is a recent example of such JIT involving Ukrainian victims of war crime 
who are refugees in different EU Member States. 
85 According to FRA’s bulletin: Coronavirus pandemic in the EU - Fundamental Rights Implications - Bulletin 
1, April 2020, development of new technologies amplified by the lockdown of society during the pandemic 
saw a rise of, for example, racist and xenophobic incidents against people of (perceived) Chinese or Asian 
origin, including verbal insults, harassment, physical aggression and online hate speech. Earlier FRA research 
already revealed how 1 in 5 women were victims of cyber harassment. Online victimisation also applies to the 
issue  of  cybercrime  and  consumer  fraud,  an  area  of  growing  concern  for  European  consumers,  as  FRA’s 
Fundamental Rights Survey shows. Over 1 in 2 Europeans worries about fraudsters or criminals misusing their 
online data and nearly 1 in 4 worries about misuse of their online bank account or payment card details. 
86 We expect that as a result of the proposed amendments based on combined options that 10-20% of victims 
that indicated not reporting crime due to fear of reprisal will do so.  

EN 

17

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
and EU justice schemes, improved awareness about victims’ rights and needs and better 
recognition of victims in the justice schemes. Our point of reference for how success would 
look like is presented in the assumptions used in assessment of options in Chapter 6.5.

EN 

18

EN 

 
 
 
Figure 4. Intervention logic 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
 
 
4.2. Specific objectives 

The  following  specific  objectives  aim  at  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the  general 
objective indicated above: 

  significant improvement of victims’ access to information, including those who do not 

report crime, 

  better  alignment  of  victims’  protection  measures  with  their  needs  to  ensure  safety  of 

vulnerable victims not covered by other Union legislation (existing or proposed), 

 

facilitated access to specialist support for vulnerable victims, including children, 

  more effective participation in criminal proceedings for victims, 

 

facilitated access to compensation from the offender. 

These specific objectives are interrelated and reinforce each other. In particular, the specific 
objective  on  ensuring  victims’  access  to  information  is  crucial  as  it  is  related  to  other 
objectives on access to all other victims’ rights.   

WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

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

The baseline against which the options are assessed comprises elements which are expected 
to affect the development of victims’ rights even if the Commission does not propose any 
amendments to the VRD. In particular, the Commission and Member States will continue 
with  the  implementation  of  the  actions  under  the  Victims’  Rights  Strategy  2020-2025. 
These actions aim at improving victims’ access to information, to support and protection, 
facilitating access to compensation and strengthening cooperation and coordination at the 
EU and national level. The most notable actions under the Strategy include:  

  An EU-wide victims’ rights campaign was launched at the beginning of 2023 and is 
expected to raise awareness of victims’ rights, notably among the young population in 
the  10  EU  Member  States  on  which  it  will  focus.  The  Commission  and  the  Member 
States  will  also  continue  working  on  improving  the  e-Justice  Portal87  providing  for 
information about victims’ rights in all EU Member States in all EU languages. These 
actions  will  therefore  contribute  to  achieving  the  objective  of  improving  victims’ 
access  to  information  about  their  rights.  As  it  will  raise  awareness  about  victims’ 
rights and needs, it will also have an indirect positive impact on other objectives, such 
as access to support services for vulnerable victims. 

  The implementation of the EU rules on victims’ rights, notably the VRD, EU rules 
on protection orders and the Compensation Directive. The respective implementation 
reports88  have  demonstrated  that  despite  significant  advances,  further  progress  was 
needed  to  reach  the  full  potential  of  these  instruments.  In  relation  to  the  VRD,  the 
Commission was able to close all but one infringement case since the adoption of the 
implementation  report.  However,  the  Evaluation  has  shown  that  problems  with  the 
Victims’  Rights  Directive  result  from  enforcement  issues  related  to  the  practical 
application of the  correctly transposed  Directive  in  the Member States. For example, 
even where the national  law correctly transposes  an obligation in  relation  to  victims’ 

87 European e-Justice Portal - Victims' rights - by country (europa.eu). 
88 COM(2020) 188 final, 11.5.2020; COM(2020) 187 final, 11.5.2020; COM(2022) 127 final, 28.3.2022. 

EN 

20

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
rights, the national authorities may not always comply with the rules, because they are 
not aware of them or because they are overburdened and have other priorities. 

  Improving  cooperation  and  coordination.  At  the  EU  level,  the  Commission  will 
continue with the activities of the Victims’ Rights Platform,89 the EU Centre of Expertise 
for victims of terrorism90, the activities of the European Network on Victims’ Rights. 
The Network on contact points for compensation and the Network of national contact 
points  for  victims  of  terrorism  are  also  expected  to  continue  with  the  EU  level 
cooperation on victims’ rights. The EU network of Safer Internet Centres91 will continue 
to provide helplines and hotlines under the renewed Better Internet  for Kids Strategy 
(BIK+).  All  these  actions  are  expected  to  indirectly  contribute  to  all  objectives. 
However,  where  the  Evaluation  has  demonstrated  insufficiency  of  mechanisms  of 
cooperation at the national level amendments to the VRD are still necessary (assessed in 
Options I, II and III). 

  Strengthening  training  activities,  including  through  cooperation  with  the  European 
Judicial  Training  Network,  to  reach  actors  who  are  in  contact  with  victims,  such  as 
judicial authorities, lawyers, prosecutors, court staff and prison and probation staff. The 
EU agency for law enforcement training (CEPOL) will also assist in this area through 
courses for law enforcement officers. These activities will have a positive impact on how 
victims are treated. The Evaluation indicates that although still insufficient, all actions 
related  to  training  activities  and  education  about  victims’  rights  do  not  require 
amendments to the VRD. All such action will contribute to improving victims’ access 
to information, support, protection and access to justice.   

  Continue providing funding possibilities for victim support organisations through the 
EU financial programmes, to contribute to the correct implementation of EU rules on 
victims’ rights. This action will have an overall positive effect on all objectives, although 
limited to the scope of the funded projects.  

In addition to the Victims’ Rights Strategy, the Commission and the Member States will 
continue working on the implementation  of other strategies that are relevant  for victims’ 
rights.  These  include  the  Gender  Equality  Strategy  2020-202592,  the  EU  Strategy  on  the 
rights  of  the  child93,  the  Strategy  on  European  judicial  training94,  the  LGBTI+  Equality 
Strategy95, the EU updated framework for Roma equality, inclusion and participation96, the 
Security Union Strategy97, the EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in  Human Beings 
(2021-2025)98  the  Strategy  for  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  2021-203099,  the 

and 

best 

among 

practices 

expertise 

89  Set  up  in  2020  and  composed  of  the  EU  institutions,  bodies  and  networks,  EU  non-governmental 
organisations relevant for victims’ rights. 
90 The Centre helps to ensure the correct application of EU rules on victims of terrorism and promotes exchange 
of 
specialists: 
sharing 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/criminal-justice/protecting-victims-
rights/eu-centre-expertise-victims-terrorism_en  
91 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/safer-internet-centres  
92 COM(2020) 152 final, 5.3.2020.  
93 COM(2021) 142 final, 24.3.2021.  
94 COM(2020) 713 final, 2.12.2020.  
95 COM(2020) 698 final, 12.11.2020.  
96 COM(2020) 620 final, 7.10.2020.  
97 COM(2020) 605 final, 24.7.2020. 
98 COM(2021) 171 final, 14.4.2021. 
99 COM(2021) 101 final, 3.3.2021. 

practitioners 

and 

EN 

21

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse100 and the Better Internet for 
Kids  Strategy  (BIK+)101.  As  part  of  the  baseline,  implementing  these  strategies  will  also 
indirectly contribute to all objectives outlined in this impact assessment.  

Significant improvements to the rights of victims of violence against women and domestic 
violence are expected from the adoption of the VAW Proposal. The proposal provides for 
concrete measures solving some of the problems mentioned in previous sections related to 
access  to  information,  support,  protection,  and  access  to  compensation  to  the  extent  that 
these  relate  specifically  to  victims  of  violence  against  women  and  victims  of  domestic 
violence. An improvement of the situation of child victims of sexual abuse, including on-
line  abuse  is  expected  via  the  upcoming  revision  of  the  Directive  on  child  sexual  abuse. 
Under  the  BIK+  strategy,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  support  the  EU  network  of 
hotlines102 to anonymously report and swiftly remove child sexual abuse material. Similarly, 
further  developments  in  sectoral  legislation  may  affect  the  rights  of  victims  of  certain 
categories of crime, such as terrorism and trafficking in human beings103. Nonetheless, since 
all these provisions contain actions targeting problems specific to these groups, they 
will not improve the situation of all victims of all crimes. 

Moreover,  in  March  2023,  the  Council  of  Europe  adopted  a  Recommendation  on  rights, 
services  and  support  for  victims  of  crime104.  The  Recommendation  updates  and  replaces 
Recommendation from 2006 on assistance to crime victims105. The main objective of this 
revision is to update the text to the most recent binding standards in the area of victims’ 
rights, including in particular the current version of the VRD.  

In conclusion, without further action by the Commission on the VRD, positive impacts on 
the rights of victims can be expected from the actions described above at Member State and 
Union level. However, these actions would not be sufficient to address the specific problems 
identified in this impact assessment. Some of them would indeed contribute to reaching the 
objectives. The outcome nonetheless would be always partial – as tailored to the specific 
needs of certain group of victims only and insufficient to address concrete gaps in the VRD. 
Their combined effects would not generate impacts equivalent to the changes to the 
general  legal  instrument  establishing  the  minimum  standards  for  all  victims  at  EU 
level. These impacts  are analysed further below under section 6, leading  to the preferred 
policy option presented in section 7.

100 COM(2020) 607 final, 24.7.2020. 
101 COM/2022/212 final, 11.05.2022. 
102 www.inhope.org  
103 For instance, see the Commission’s proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing 
and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, COM(2022) 732, 19.12.2022. 
104 Recommendation  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  to  Member  States  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  rights, 
services and support for victims of crime CM/Rec(2023)2 adopted on 15 March 2023. 
105 Recommendation Rec (2006)8 of the Committee of Ministers on assistance to crime victims. 

EN 

22

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
5.2. Description of the policy options 

Specific objective 

Low level intervention options 

Mid-level intervention options 

High-level intervention options into national 
law/individual rights 

Specific objective I:  

Option I. 1.  

Option I. 2.  

Option I. 3. 

Significant 
improvement 
victims’ 
information 

access 

of 
to 

between 

Create  an  obligation  to  set  up  a  national 
coordination  mechanism 
law 
enforcement,  judicial  authorities  (prosecutors 
and  judges)  and  support  organisation.  They 
would  work  together  to  ensure  that  victims 
receive  information  that  is  adapted  to  their 
individual needs and that is adequate at different 
stages of the procedures.  

The  coordination  mechanisms  should  include 
specific protocols on the provision of information 
in  situations  where  victims  are  in  detention  or 
other closed institutions. 

Option  I.1  +  Create  an  obligation  on  national 
Victims’ helpline which would: 

 

 
 

function as a first contact point for all victims 
of  all  crimes,  provide  for  emotional  support 
and  refer  victims  to  specialised  support 
services if needed,  
use the EU level “116 006” telephone number, 
use  a  website  with 
state-of-the  art 
technology  to  offer  optimal  accessibility  in 
other most spoken languages and for persons 
with disabilities. 

Option  I.1  +  Set  up  a  mechanism  through  which 
victims  are  proactively  informed  by  victim 
support organisations (unless they oppose to/opt-
out  approach).  Once  a  victim  reports  a  crime  /  is 
identified as a victim, the victim is contacted by a 
victim  support  organisation,  which  provides 
information  about 
rights  and 
availability of support services.  

the  victims’ 

Set  up  an  obligation  on  all  persons  or 
institutions  in  contact  with  victims  (victim 
support  organisations,  medical  professionals, 
social/welfare  professionals)  to  provide  victims 
with information about their rights. 

Specific objective II:  

Option II. 1 

Option II. 2 

Option II. 3 

Better  alignment  of 
victims’ 
protection 
measures with victims’ 
needs  to  ensure  safety 
of vulnerable victims 

that  the 

Ensure 
individual  assessment  of 
victims’ protection needs currently set up under 
Article 22 of the VRD is improved by adding the 
following elements: 

 

assessment is carried out at the first contact 
with the competent authorities.  

  with  the  involvement  of  support  services, 

 

law enforcement and the judiciary. 
focuses  also  on  the  evaluation  of  the  risks 
emanating  from  the  perpetrator  (such  as 

Option  II.1  +  Enhance  the  use  of  protection 
measures aimed at victims’ physical protection 
such as protection orders by adding them to the list 
of  specialist  protection  measures  currently  laid 
down  in  Article  23  of  the  VRD  to  be  used  by 

elements 

Option  II.2  +  Impose  minimum  standards  on 
of 
constitutive 
application  of  the  physical  protection  measures 
such  as  protection  orders  and  witness  protection 
measures 
individual 
assessment. 

to  be  used 

condition 

following 

and 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
alcohol  abuse  or  possession  of  weapons); 
and  

competent 
assessment106. 

authorities 

following 

individual 

includes  the  assessment  of  individual  needs  for 
support. 

Specific objective III:  

Option III. 1  

Option III. 2. 

Option III. 3.  

Facilitated  access 
to 
specialist  support  for 
vulnerable 
victims, 
including children 

Ensure  the  availability  of  specialist  support 
services  for  all  child  victims  at  the  same 
premises in the form of the Barnahus model. 
It would include coordination at national level of 
support  services,  law  enforcement  and  judicial 
authorities. It would include the provision of age-
appropriate  support  and  protection  necessary  to 
comprehensively address the needs. 

Option III.1 + Ensure the availability of specialist 
support  services  for  all  vulnerable  victims.  It 
would  include  coordination  at  national  level  of 
support  services,  law  enforcement  and  judicial 
authorities (not necessarily at the same premises).  

Option III.1 + Ensure the availability of specialist 
support services (at the same premises or through 
a  central  contact  point  in  the  form  of  the 
Barnahus model) for all vulnerable victims (not 
exclusively for children).  

For  all  vulnerable  victims,  the  specialist  support 
services would include psychological support free 
of  charge  as  long  as  necessary,  where  the 
individual assessment demonstrates a need for such 
psychological support. It would build on the current 
provision  of  Article  9(1)  of  the  VRD  which 
provides for such services where available. 

Ensure that specialist support services provide free 
psychological  support  as  long  as  needed  to  all 
victims  of  crime  who  wish  to  receive  such 
support  not  only  to  vulnerable  victims  identified 
during the individual assessment of support needs. 

Specific objective IV:  

Option IV.1  

Option IV. 2 

Option IV. 3  

More 
participation 
criminal 
for victims 

effective 
in 
proceedings 

Establish a right for victims to be accompanied 
by 
legal/administrative  assistance  and  a 
person  of  their  choice  throughout  the  criminal 
proceedings, irrespective of whether the victim is 
a formal party to such proceedings. 

The current right under Article 20c) of the VRD 
to be accompanied by a legal representative and 
a person of their choice during the investigations 

Option IV.1 + The current right under Article 13 
of  the  VRD  to  legal  aid  currently  limited  to 
victims who are parties to criminal proceedings, 
would be extended to ensure legal aid for victims 
income  when 
depending  on 
challenging  decisions  taken  concerning  their 
rights  during  criminal  proceedings.  The 
conditions or procedural rules under which victims 

level  of 

their 

Provide  for  the  victims’  right  to  participate  as  a 
formal  party  to  the  criminal  proceedings 
independent  of  the  current 
limitations  by 
national  law.  Therefore,  the  current  rights  under 
the VRD associated  with victims’ participation in 
criminal  proceedings  such  as  including  access  to 
the case file and access to legal aid would apply to 
victims during criminal proceedings. 

106 Victims’ physical protection, including protection orders will be listed in Article 23 of the VRD as special protection measures available for victims with specific needs identified in 
accordance with the individual needs assessment (together with current 8 measures). This option will notably result in raising awareness about the availability of the national protection 
measures, including protection orders. It will also improve the current complexity related to their application as it will provide for routine mechanisms for their application.  

EN 

24 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
have  access  to  legal  aid  will  continue  to  be 
determined by national law. 

the  entire  criminal 
to 
would  be  extended 
proceedings;  such  possibility  would  be  also 
extended 
(for 
instance from the court staff). 

to  administrative  assistance 

Establish  a  right  for  victims  to  challenge  the 
criminal  proceedings’  decisions  concerning 
them  directly.  Member  States  would  have  to 
ensure that victims can challenge such decisions 
independently  of  their  status  in  the  criminal 
proceedings and in accordance with the principle 
of judicial review. 

Specific objective V:  

Option V. 1 

Option V. 2  

Option V. 3  

Facilitated  access 
compensation  

to 

Provide for victims the right to receive a decision 
on  compensation  from  the  offender  in  the 
course of the criminal proceeding, without the 
current  exception  under  Article  16  of  the  VRD 
where national law provides for such a decision 
to be made in other legal proceedings. 

Option V.1. + Set up an obligation for Member 
States  to  pay  upfront  the  compensation  due 
from the offender to the victim immediately after 
the judgement and then seek the reimbursement of 
the compensation from the offender. 

standards 
amending 

state 
Impose  minimum 
2004 
compensation 
by 
Compensation  Directive. 
include 
extending  the  scope  of  the  Compensation 
Directive  to  include  all  crimes  (not  limited  to 
violent, intentional crimes). 

on 
the 
It  would 

setting  up  minimum 

Impose  minimum  standards  on  the  conditions 
on  receiving  state  compensation  by  amending 
the  2004  Compensation  Directive.  It  would 
include 
standards  on 
modalities  and  conditions  of  victims’  state 
compensation (including administrative time limits 
to  deal  with  cases  within  reasonable  time,  and 
conditions  on  how  to  establish  the  amount  of 
compensation). 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
These  options  have  emerged  from  the  Evaluation  and  consultations  and  are  assessed  in 
relation to specific objectives. Given the nature of the proposed interventions, options differ 
in level of ambition where higher ambition means a stronger or more invasive obligation 
imposed  on  Member  States  (a  higher  minimum  standard).  As  these  different  levels  of 
ambition reflect different budgetary implications, they represent real political choices.  

5.3. Options discarded at an early stage 

The first option that was discarded at an early stage was to comprehensively review all the 
general  instruments  on  victims’  rights,  i.e.  in  addition  to  the  VRD.  This  option  was 
presented in the call for evidence published in December 2021 but found little support from 
respondents. Such an initiative would also have included a review of the 2004 Compensation 
Directive and of the EU rules on mutual recognition of protection orders. In general, their 
preference was to focus on a broad review of the VRD.107 

The second option discarded at  an early stage was to  adopt  non-legislative measures to 
address the identified problems. The Victims’ Rights Strategy already sets the agenda for 
non-legislative  measures  to  be  implemented  within  2020-2025.  The  effects  of  the 
implementation have been considered in the baseline (section 5.1.). Other non-legislative 
measures could not adequately address the problems identified in the Evaluation which stem 
from a lack of clarity and precision of some of the provisions of the VRD and from the new 
developments in society, technology and justice.  

Finally, different options were considered with respect to the legislative approach, including 
a complete redraft of the VRD. However, the Evaluation has demonstrated that the main 
elements of the VRD are fit for purpose. As such, the identified problems do not justify a 
complete overhaul of the VRD and targeted amendments are more appropriate.  

WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

6.1. General considerations on the impact of the options 

All the options presented in section 5 aim at improving the level of minimum standards on 
victims’ rights in the EU and aim at diminishing the negative societal impacts and improving 
the quality of life of victim; they differ however as to the extent of improvements.  

Moreover, the implementation of different options will necessarily continue to vary across 
Member States. This is due to the very nature of the instrument - a directive, which must 
leave leeway to the Member States on the methods of its implementation. It implies that 
some Member States may choose to go beyond them, but also that in those Member States 
where the minimum standards are already exceeded, no major effects will be achieved at 
national level through the amendment of the VRD. The impacts of the options will therefore 
differ across the EU. All available data on the implementation of certain elements of the 
options  has  been  taken  into  account,  notably  when  considering  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
options.108  In  any  case,  in  all  Member  States  positive  impacts  can  be  expected  through 
enhancing  trust  in  national  and  other  Member  States  judicial  schemes  and  in  facilitating 
judicial cooperation in criminal matters.  

The  methodology  to  compare  and  score  the  options  assesses  their  effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence.  

107 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13096-Criminal-justice-EU-rules-
on-victims-rights-update-_en, see also Annex 2, section 4. 
108 See Annex 6 for an overview of the implementation of the different measures in the Member States. 

EN 

26

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Under effectiveness, we assess the impact of each option on fundamental rights and on 
society in relation to the baseline. These are the two categories which are most relevant for 
victims’ rights. The societal impacts, such as emotional harm caused to victims, the costs of 
repeated  victimisation,  the  psycho-social  benefits  related  to  legal  assistance  and  to 
psychologists’ fees are assessed according to the benefits they will have on victims, on the 
justice system, and on society at large. 

Under efficiency, in addition to the same benefits that were identified under effectiveness, 
we monetise also the costs of each option in order to compute the benefit/costs ratios. The 
costs are estimated for compliance and enforcement of each option. The monetised benefits 
are estimated for victims and their families and for society. 

When it comes to the method of calculation, in relation to effectiveness and coherence, 
we  use  a  mixture  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  analysis,  whereas  in  relation  to 
efficiency,  we  use  only  quantitative  analysis.  The  scores  for  the  effectiveness  criterion 
have been established through a combination of a comprehensive experts’ system and the 
monetisation of benefits. The scores for the efficiency criterion reflect entirely the outcome 
of the monetisation of costs and benefits. Finally, to establish the scores for the coherence 
criterion, a part of the experts’ system has been used, given the legal nature of the analysis. 

Proportionality is assessed throughout the impact assessment. It is reflected in the level of 
intervention  into  national  legal  systems  that  is  expressed  through  the  three  alternative 
solutions in relation to each of the five specific objectives (from the least to the most onerous 
for the Member States, from level 1 until level 3). Proportionality of the measures was also 
carefully assessed and tested with the stakeholders during the consultations. Stakeholders’ 
opinions on the different options have been considered in the overall assessment. 

All  the  elements  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  analysis  are  summed  up  with  a  final 
scoring that ranges from very limited positive impact  (+) to  a very high positive impact 
(+++++). It reflects the final scoring without any additional assessment. This is a purely 
mathematical exercise by which we put together the results of all previous quantitative and 
qualitative assessments and present them in a visually simple and concise manner. 

6.2. Effectiveness 

6.2.1. Fundamental rights impacts 

All options are seeking to reduce discrimination by providing equal access to information, 
protection,  support,  justice  and  compensation  and  by  ensuring  adequate  minimum 
standards  for  all  victims  of  crime  without  differentiation,  while  taking  due  account  of 
victims’ specific needs. Concretely, with respect to equal access to information on victims’ 
rights, it was considered how to ensure better access to victims in closed institutions. The 
comprehensive  website  (which  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Victims’  helpline)  will  improve 
access  to  information  for  victims  with  different  linguistic  skills,  and  the  accessibility 
function will enhance its use by persons with disabilities. Through setting up conditions of 
application  of  individual  needs  assessment,  victims’  individual  needs  can  be  better 
assessed, which eventually will result in more equal and effective protection of victims 
including  the  most  vulnerable  victims.  With  respect  to  victims’  support,  the  initiative 
envisages, amongst  other things,  an  extension of free psychological  support to  a  wider 
group of victims (it is currently reserved to victims of terrorism). In addition, the revision 
plans  to  grant  all  victims  of  crime  more  rights  throughout  criminal  proceedings 
regardless  of  their  formal  status  as  a  party.  Thus,  the  possibility  to  be  accompanied 
throughout  proceedings  is  likely  to  encourage  all  victims to  claim  their  rights.  Improved 
EN 

27

EN 

 
 
 
execution of the lawful penalty/victims’ compensation by the offender ordered by a court 
will reduce victims’ exposure to secondary victimisation and retaliation. At the same time, 
it is fully in line with the presumption of innocence and cannot be regarded as harmful to 
the offenders’ fundamental rights. All these changes aim to reduce inequality and produce a 
positive impact on fundamental rights. 

The  fundamental  rights,  as  safeguarded  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  that  are 
impacted positively include the right to life (Art. 2), the right to the integrity of the person 
(Art. 3), the right to liberty and security (Art. 6), the right of respect for private and family 
life (Art. 7), the protection of personal data (Art. 8), the right to equality before the law (Art. 
20), the right of non-discrimination (Art. 21), the rights of the child (Art. 24), the right to 
social assistance and healthcare (Art. 35), the right to good administration (Art. 41), and the 
right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 47).  

All options discussed in this impact assessment have also been assessed in light of the rights 
of offenders (suspect and accused person) including the right to access justice (Art. 47), 
presumption  of  innocence  (Art.  48),  right  of  defence  and  principles  of  legality  and 
proportionality of criminal proceedings (Art. 49) and the right not to be tried or punished 
twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence (Art. 50) as well as the EU rules 
on  procedural  rights  of  suspects  and  accused.  The  options  do  not  have  any  negative 
consequences on fundamental rights of suspects and accused.  

All the options proposed are expected to strengthen the fundamental rights of victims. 
Nevertheless,  for  some  options  the  direct  effect  on  fundamental  rights  will  be  more 
pronounced  than  for  other  options.  Since  it  is  impossible  to  quantify  these  impacts,  a 
qualitative analysis has  been  chosen  as methodology. This  is  done by  assessing  for  each 
option the degree to which they could provide improvements to the baseline.  

6.2.2. Social impacts 

The assessment of the different options has not led to the identification of any negative social 
impacts.  The  social  impacts  are  assessed  according  to  the  benefits  they  will  have  on 
victims, on the justice system, and on society. A simple scale is used to indicate how the 
options  compare  between  each  other.  The  assessment  of  wider  societal  effects  of  the 
measures will in any case be more speculative in nature.  

As indicated above, the main social impacts are related to the extent to which the options 
contribute  to  better  outcomes  for  victims.  The  assumption  is  that  better  outcomes  for 
victims will lead to positive social impacts: less secondary and repeat victimisation, lower 
levels of sick leave by victims, sooner integration within the society. Better understanding 
of  victims’  needs  by  responsible  authorities  and  support  organisations  will  contribute  to 
better treatment of victims in practice, and therefore impact positively their quality of life.  

In  relation  to  the  justice  system,  the  options  will  result  in  more  balanced  and  victim-
centred justice schemes where victims are recognised and can rely on their rights. Special 
attention  is  also  paid  to  child-friendly  justice.  The  possibility  to  challenge  decisions 
affecting their rights, will give victims a better opportunity to obtain judicial outcomes in 
line with their rights and needs. Better access to victims’ rights to legal aid will ensure that 
victims’  voices  are  heard  throughout  criminal  procedures.  Taken  together,  these  will 
increase the quality of justice procedures and will impact the effectiveness of justice and the 
fairness of the outcomes generated. As part of the improvement in judicial procedures, easier 
compensation through simplified procedures will result in less burden on judicial authorities. 

EN 

28

EN 

 
 
 
Fewer  civil  cases needed to  establish compensation will mean shorter waiting periods  in 
civil courts – even if there will be an increase in the work of criminal courts.  

Creating  a  safer  environment  for  victims  to  report  crime,  by  ensuring  better  access  to 
information,  support  and  protection  will  result  in  the  improved  functioning  of  judicial 
systems and better security for all citizens in the EU. Lower rates of underreporting due to 
increased trust in justice schemes will lead to more offenders being brought to justice; this 
will result in reduced impunity for crimes and lower criminality by the same offender, as 
well as other offenders – due to a deterrent effect. More effective execution of compensation 
from the offender may equally have a preventive effect. Overall, better support for those 
who  have  suffered  under  crime  will  have  a  positive  effect  on  social  cohesion.  This  is 
particularly valid as the considered option aims at protection of all victims of crime, without 
discrimination and focus on special protection and support to the most vulnerable victims 
who are often already disadvantaged on other grounds. One can say that the way a society 
treats victims of crime is an indicator of its state of social advancement and sense of 
solidarity. 

6.3. Efficiency - Cost and benefits 

The main costs and benefits of each option are presented below, in table format per option. 
The  efficiency  analysis  is  based  on  solid  data  on  costs  and  benefits  collected  under  the 
support study that the Commission launched109. The methodological caveats are presented 
in Annex 4. For each option, we outline the costs and benefits that are assumed to be incurred 
by  Member  States  in  addition  to  the  baseline.  For  the  costs,  the  emphasis  has  been  on 
estimating compliance and enforcement costs for each option. For the benefits, two broad 
categories of beneficiaries were considered110: 

  Benefits to the victims and families: 

  reduced harm (economic, psychological, health, etc) from crimes, as a result of 

increased access to support services and participation in justice; 

  reduced secondary and repeated victimisations of victims and associated harms; 

  other non-economic benefits: strengthened protection of the fundamental rights of 

victims, (as indicated above in section 6.2, access to justice). 

  Benefits to society in general:  

  reduces the overall costs of the crimes for the society due to improved access to 

victim support services, and lower harm to victims;  

  reduced societal economic costs of crime from possible future victimisations: as 
a result of reduced repeated victimisation and increased reporting of crimes, more 
crimes will be detected and more crimes will be prevented; 

  efficiency gains because of more efficient judicial procedures and reduction of the 
burden to the system if victims do not need to initiate separate civil proceedings. 

109 ICF (2023), Study to support the impact assessment for the revision of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing 
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report. 
110 For the purpose of this impact assessment, we are not considering the number of victims of incidents that 
are not physical violence, harassment, burglary, theft, and card/consumer fraud. We are focusing on victims 
of violent crimes. 

EN 

29

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
The efficiency analysis includes the limitations in the calculations, stemming from the policy 
area111. In particular, such limitations are related to the complexity of the phenomenon of 
victimisation  and  of  the  systems  in  place  in  each  Member  State  to  address  it;  the 
quantification  of  the  number  of  victims;  the  availability  of  unit  costs;  difficulties  in 
quantifying  the  current  status/baseline  in  each  Member  State;  lack  of  data  on  how  each 
option will quantitatively impact the behaviour of the various actors, and of the system. 

The review of the academic literature and policy studies has shown that there are no studies 
to  confirm  in  quantitative  terms  the  scale  or  magnitude  of  expected  benefits  for  the 
proposed options. Nevertheless, various qualitative studies exist. This impact assessment 
refers to them wherever possible.  

As indicated above, one of the main indirect benefits expected to result from the improved 
access to victim support services and protection measures (implementation of the measures 
under  specific  objectives  I,  II,  and  III)  is  the  lowering  of  victimisation  rates/overall 
criminality and the related costs and quantifiable harm. In economic terms, such benefits are 
most significant. While estimates of costs of crime exist only in PL, HU, FR, IE, NL, SE, 
DE (very limited), as well as in third countries such as the UK and NO, some estimates were 
not detailed enough and could not be used in the current calculation. 

Due to a lack of evidence for quantifying the benefits of each policy option directly, three 
scenarios were tested: low, medium, and high impact.112 The benefits were estimated for 
each  scenario  using  a  combination  of  a  bottom-up  approach  for  benefits  related  to  the 
reduction of emotional harm and a top-down approach for benefits related to the reduction 
of  repeated  victimisation  and  new  crime.  The  results  (i.e.,  estimated  yearly  benefits)  are 
presented per option in the tables below. 

No  significant  impacts  on  businesses/SMEs,  competitiveness  or  the  innovation  potential 
were identified for any of the options considered (as reported in Annex 5).  

6.4. Coherence 

Coherence with EU law, and notably the EU acquis on victims’ rights has been carefully 
assessed. In addition to the coherence with instruments already discussed in the Evaluation, 
the VAW proposal is the main novel element to be considered. Coherence with this proposal 
is  especially  relevant,  as  several  options  in  this  impact  assessment  pursue  the  same,  or 
similar, objectives as those of the VAW proposal, but for all victims of all crimes. Other 
coherence checks include notably: coherence with the EU rules on protection orders and on 
compensation when assessing options addressing the specific objectives related to protection 
of victims and their possibilities for obtaining compensation; coherence with the Counter-
terrorism Directive, Anti-trafficking Directive against sexual exploitation of children have 
been taken into account when addressing specialist support and protection measures. 

6.5. Assessment of options per specific objective 

The meaning of the qualitative scores used in the assessment below is as follows: 

1 (or +): very limited positive impact 
2 (or ++): some limited positive impact  
3 (or +++): significant positive impact 
4 (or ++++): important positive impact  

111 ICF (2023), Study to support the impact assessment for the revision of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing 
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report. 
112 See Annex 4 for a detailed description of each scenario. 

EN 

30

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
5 (or +++++): very high positive impact 

6.5.1. Specific objective I: Significant improvement of victims’ access to information 

Effectiveness 

Impacts 

Option 
I.1.  

Total 
score 

Option 
I.2.  

Victims: A coordinated and regularly evaluated provision of information means that 
victims will receive more adequate information at all stages of the proceeding and 
will have an overall better experience of their contact with justice. Since currently 
the national coordination mechanisms for all victims of crime are limited to a few 
Member  States,  victims  in  almost  all  Member  States  will  benefit  from  a  more 
coordinated and coherent approach. 

Key benefits that victims will experience are related to the reduction or avoidance of 
emotional  harm  as  they  will  be  better  informed  and  supported,  and  less  likely  to 
experience  secondary  and  repeated  victimisation  (these  benefits  are  partially 
included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis 
for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Justice: Police and judicial authorities would participate in the national coordination 
mechanism  together  with  victim  support  services,  and  detention  services  which 
would result in benefits from the expertise of support services on victims’ needs and 
from overall improved coordination of all actors involved and will result in burden 
reduction.  The  best  practices  from  Austria  and  France113  demonstrate  that  such 
coordinated approach is beneficial for the functioning of justice. 

Society: Positive social impacts strengthened by including services that work with 
those victims who are difficult to reach such as victims in detention.  

Fundamental Rights: Improved access to justice for victims, including vulnerable 
victims (such as persons in detention) thanks to the provision of information through 
a  more  coordinated  approach  between  the  organisations  involved  in  supporting 
victims and authorities.  

Victims: The Victims’ helpline will greatly facilitate victims’ access to information 
– and thus victims’ access to their other rights. It will be particularly beneficial to 
those  victims  who  do  not  report  crime  (and  are  not  in  contact  with  police)  in  10 
Member  States  where  currently  there  are  no  general  helplines.  Thanks  to  the 
helplines  with  integrated  websites  and  possibility  to  chat,  skype  and  send  emails, 
victims  will  be  able  to  get  the  information  they  need  when  they  need  it.  See  for 
example the Irish How We Help - Crime Victims Helpline or the Swedish helpline 
that  offer  the  possibility  to  call,  e-mail  or  chat,  the  Swedish  helpline  and  the 
interactive  Estonian  helpline  Avaleht  |  Palunabi    may  be  particularly  helpful  to 

Score 
(1-5) 

3 

2 

2 

1 

8 

5 

113  The  Austrian    Management  Centre  for  Victim  Assistance  (MZ.O)  and  the  French  Inter-Ministerial 
Delegate for Victim Support DIAV successfully coordinate the actions of the relevant actors . The Austrian 
MZ;O ensures that all that all relevant actors at the governmental and local level work together to develop and 
implement  a  common  victim  support;  the  French  Inter-Ministerial  Delegate  for  Victim  Support  DIAV 
organises meetings of the cross-government committee to aid victims and ensures coordination and support of 
local committees. It is supported by the Victim Rights, Justice and Assistance Service (SADJAV) at the French 
Ministry of Justice, and its Office for Victim Support and NGO Policy (BAVPA), which delegates budgets to 
the courts and participates in victims’ support services. 
EN 

31

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
vulnerable victims from other countries such as victims of core international crime 
as they are available in several languages. Helplines will be also beneficial for other 
vulnerable victims, including child victims, victims with disabilities, victim of hate 
crime  as  they  will  be  able  to  refer  victims  to  the  specialist  support  services  or 
agencies - thanks to cooperation mechanisms from option I.1 that will underpin the 
helplines. State of the art technology, based on the EU standards of accessibility (see 
EU Accessibility Act) should enable the accessibility for persons with disabilities. 

Benefits that victims will experience by having access to a helpline are the reduction 
or avoidance of emotional harm as they will be better supported and less likely to 
experience  secondary  and  repeated  victimisation  (these  benefits  are  partially 
included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis 
for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Justice: A higher number of victims exercising their rights through the justice system 
is  expected,  including  improved  crime  reporting  and  more  active  participation  in 
criminal  proceeding.  The  helpline  will  be  critical  to  build  a  set  of  data  on 
victimisation,  criminality  and  provided  support.  The  outcomes  will  help  to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the system by gathering data on the number and nature 
of  crimes  reported  and  on  the  extent  to  which  general  and  specialised  support 
services are necessary in the EU.114 Thanks to improved access to information and 
use of a single EU telephone number, the trust in national and other Member States 
justice schemes will increase. 

In  addition,  a  higher  number  of  victims  exercising  their  rights  through  the  justice 
system  will  lead  to  benefits  for  society  stemming  from  the  avoidance  of  costs  of 
crime (these benefits are partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results 
of the cost and benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Society:  Single  Victims’  helplines  will  improve  awareness  on  victims’  rights, 
facilitate  access  in  cross-border  cases  (linguistic  accessibility  and  single  EU 
telephone number). The society will also benefit from the data gathered through the 
single helplines. Victims’ helpline may also play an important societal role as they 
employ volunteers. See for instance the Croatian National Call Center for Victims of 
Crime  -  Udruga  za  podršku  žrtvama  i  svjedocima  (pzs.hr)  which  is  strongly 
integrated in the life of the local community. 

Fundamental  Rights:  Increase  in  the  number  of  victims  who  contact  support 
services  thanks  to  the  facilitated  access  to  information  and  referral  to  specialised 
services. Indirect positive effect on the right of access to justice. Thanks to websites 
and  state  of  the  art  technology  to  offer  optimal  accessibility  for  persons  with 
disabilities.  

Total 
score 

Option 
I.3. 

Victims: A coordinated and regularly evaluated provision of information mean that 
victims are  more likely to  get the  information  they  need at different stages of the 
proceeding.  

All victims would be contacted by victim support organisation (unless they oppose), 
even if they do not actively search for support. 

4 

4 

2 

15 

5 

114  It  is  unlikely  that  all  relevant  layers  of  a  support  system  will  function  optimally  at  any  point  in  time. 
However, the systematic feedback tool would provide objective evidence that will allow national authorities 
to identify the most pressing areas where either skills/competence, funding or staffing needs must be addressed 
urgently. 

EN 

32

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Victims in most Member States will be able to benefit from this option, as currently 
victims  in  only  5  Member  States  (AT,  BG,  DE,  RO,  SE)  can  benefit  from  being 
proactively contacted by support services.  

Key  benefits that victims  will experience by being proactively contacted by these 
organisations are similar to those of Option I.2 (these benefits are partially included 
in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis for the 
monetised benefits of this option). 

Justice:  The  police  would  refer  all  victims  to  victim  support  organisations,  the 
justice system would benefit from the participation of better supported victims, but 
the  police,  already  overwhelmed  with  the  obligation  on  provision  of  information, 
would have additional tasks. As a part of Option I.1 police and judicial authorities 
would  participate  in  the  coordination  mechanism  together  with  victim  support 
services, and detention services which would result in benefits from the expertise of 
support services on victims’ needs. 

Society:  Positive  societal  effects  from  improved  awareness  and  better  informed 
victims are comparable to those of the helpline. As in Option I.2, a higher number of 
victims  exercising  their  rights  through  the  justice  system  will  lead  to  benefits  for 
society stemming from the avoidance of costs of crime (these benefits are partially 
included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis 
for the monetised benefits of this option). 

However, this option would bring a considerable burden on all who would be obliged 
to inform victims, detrimental for core functions such as medical and social/welfare 
work. The persons concerned would need to be trained to acquire the necessary skills 
to recognise victims and inform them about their rights. 

Fundamental rights: indirect positive effect on the fundamental rights of the victims 
concerned (such as the right of access to justice), but concerns over a right to privacy 
since  victims  will  be  directly  contacted  by  support  services  without  seeking  it 
actively (although with their consent). 

Total 
score 

Efficiency (costs/benefits) 

1 

2 

2 

10 

Benefits (million EUR) 
Scenario  medium  –  5 
years; social discount rate 
3%115 

Costs (million EUR) 
Average  low  and  high 
limits  –  5  years;  social 
discount rate 3% 

Cost-benefit  ratio 
(i.e. 
A/B,  present  value  of 
benefits  divided  by  the 
present value of the costs 
for a total of 5 years) 

701  

1,388  

1,846  

43  

231  

1,834  

16.4  

6.0  

1.0  

Option I.1 

Option I.2 

Option I.3 

Coherence 

All options are coherent with the EU acquis on victims’ rights, they build on the VRD and 
strengthen  victims’  right  to  access  information  (Art.  4  and  6).  In  addition,  option  I.2 

115 This is the social discount rate recommended in the Tool#64 of the Better Regulation Guidelines. 

EN 

33

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                    
                                                      
                                                   
                                                
                                                    
                                                     
                                                
                                                
                                                     
                                                           
strengthens the right to understand and be understood (Art. 3) and the right to interpretation 
and translation  (Art. 7), thanks to the state-of-the-art website with  accessibility tools and 
translation  options.  The  introduction  of  the  obligation  to  operate  under  the  EU  single 
harmonised telephone number will have a positive impact on the rights of victims who are 
residents in other Member States (Art. 17). Options I.2 and I.3 also improve victims access 
to support (Art. 8 and 9).  

The options are also coherent with the VAW proposal, including its Article 31 which sets 
up  a  dedicated  helpline  for  victims  of  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence. 
Although both helplines are based on a similar idea of a service for victims that operates 
under  an  EU-wide  telephone  number,  these  are  different  solutions,  operating  different 
telephone numbers116. Option I.2 will function as a first contact point for all victims of all 
crimes,  and  if  necessary,  refer  them  to  the  helpline  and  support  services  for  victims  of 
violence against women and domestic violence. This general helpline can exist in parallel 
to specialist helpline117, as is already the case in a number of Member States. Option I.2 will 
thus complement and strengthen the solution of the VAW proposal.  

Stakeholder opinions 

A vast majority of the respondents (89%), mostly NGOs and EU citizens, agreed or strongly 
agreed with setting up of a general Victims’ helpline and with a requirement to coordinate 
access to information through state and non-state actors. Only three respondents (4%), two 
NGOs  and  one  public  authority,  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  respectively  with  the 
helpline  and  with  the  requirement  for  coordination  in  provision  of  information.  Member 
States were generally in favour of establishing a general helpline for victims, provided that 
it does not replace the existing helplines. On the cooperation and coordination between state 
and non-state actors in providing information, Member States acknowledged the importance 
of  non-state  actors  and  several118  mentioned  that  they  already  have  procedures  on 
cooperation  in  place.  Member  States  face  challenges  with  the  complexity  and  the  high 
amount of information to be provided by the police and notably to vulnerable groups.  

Overall assessment 

All options on access to information score positive on all three criteria and are considered 
to be effective in improving victims’ access to information. Option I.2 scores particularly 
high  as  it  appears  to  be  the  most  effective  in  responding  to  the  VRD  failure  to 
comprehensively  address  the  complexity  of  victims’  needs  to  access  information.  In  this 
regard it should be mentioned that considered options do not intend to eliminate any existing 
helplines or prevent any new helping from being set up in the future. The Victims 116 006 
helpline already functions in half of Member States and coexists with other helplines at the 
national level, including those using other EU-reserved telephone numbers (116 111119 for 
children,  116  000  for  missing  children,  116  016  for  victims  of  domestic  violence).  In 
addition,  the  Victims’  helpline  makes  good  use  of  the  available  technology  to  address 
victims’ linguistic needs and accessibility needs. In comparison to Option I.3 it scores high 
as it reduces the burden on police in providing the information.  

116 “116 006” for all victims of all crime and “116 016” for victims of domestic violence. 
117 In fact, all 5 helplines with a reserved 116 telephone number were originally planned to coexist under the 
Commission Decision from 2009 that recommended their setting up.   
118 AT, IT, DE. 
119  Under  the  BIK+  Strategy  the  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  116  111  harmonised  number  addresses 
cyberbullying, in cooperation with the EU co-funded Safer Internet Centres helplines. 

EN 

34

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Moreover, the function of gathering data on victimisation through the helplines and ensuring 
a coordinated and regularly reviewed policy on how to provide information to victims would 
further increase the effectiveness of this measure. Option I.2 is considered the most effective 
and efficient, as the additional elements will not bring much higher costs, while bringing 
considerable benefits. Although, the net benefits of option I.2 are lower than those of option 
I.3, the effectiveness and coherence are higher. Option I.2 is best in achieving the general 
objective. Victims in all Member States will be able to use the same telephone number and 
benefit from the modern way of accessing information. This will enhance trust in national 
and  other  Member  States  justice  schemes  and  thus  facilitate  the  mutual  recognition  of 
judgements and judicial decisions in criminal matters. 

Option I.1 

Option I.2 

Option I.3 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

+ 

++++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+ 

6.5.2.  Specific  objective  II:  Better  alignment  of  victims’  protection  measures  with 
victims’ needs 

Score 
(1-5) 

4 

Effectiveness 

Impacts 

Option 
II.1.  

Victims: Enhancing the assessment procedure by ensuring that it starts from the first 
contact  with  competent  authorities,  involves  support  services  and  includes  an 
assessment of the risk emanating from the offender is crucial to ensure that victims’ 
protection needs are adequately evaluated. This is the first and indispensable step to 
provide  for  protection  that  is  better  aligned  to  victims’  needs.  It  will  improve  the 
situation of victims in at least 13 Member States where such complete assessment 
currently is missing. It does not however improve the accessibility of the protection 
measures as such. 

Key benefits that victims will experience by having their needs better evaluated and 
a response that is better aligned with their needs are stemming from the reduction or 
avoidance  of  emotional  harm  as  they  will  be  better  protected  and  less  likely  to 
experience  secondary  and  repeated  victimisation  (these  benefits  are  partially 
included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis 
for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Justice:  Positive  effect  is  expected  from  an  improved  assessment  of  victims’ 
protection needs, which should lead to the application of the better aligned protection 
measures. Justice schemes will benefit from such improved environment for victims 
to report the crime and hence participate in criminal proceedings. Justice schemes 
will benefit from increase of trust.   

Society: The society will indirectly benefit from an improved assessment of victims’ 
safety needs, which particularly important for the most vulnerable members of the 
society whose physical safety is at risk (victims of hate crime, victims of organised 
crime, victims of war crime). 

2 

2 

EN 

35

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Having  protection  measures  better  aligned  with  the  needs  of  victims  means  that 
victims  are  less  likely  to  fall  victim  of  repeated  victimisation  and  more  likely  to 
access justice. This will lead to benefits for society stemming from the avoidance of 
costs of crime (these benefits are partially included in the efficiency analysis and in 
the results of the cost and benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Fundamental  Rights:  This  measure  will  have  a  direct  effect  on  the  fundamental 
rights of victims as it will impact victims’ safety (the right to life,  the right to the 
integrity of the  person, the right to liberty and security and the right of respect or 
private and family life). The rights of suspects and accused will not be affected. 

Victims: It is the second step that completes the improved assessment of victims’ 
needs  (the  first  step  described  in  Option  II.1).  This  option  composed  of  the 
combination  of  these  two  steps  will  make  a  significant  difference  for  vulnerable 
victims in need of protection. It will improve the assessment and provide for special 
protection resulting in improved safety for those at risk. In some cases it may save 
lives. 

Key benefits that these vulnerable victims will experience by being better protected 
are the reduction or avoidance of emotional harm as they will be better protected and 
less  likely  to  experience  secondary  and  repeated  victimisation  (these  benefits  are 
partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits 
analysis for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Justice:  The  positive  effect  from  option  II.1  is  enhanced  by  the  addition  of  the 
protection measures t. It will respond to the current lack of awareness of protection 
measures, present even among the justice professionals. Increased awareness about 
the  national  protection  measures  and  their  availability  following  the  improved 
assessment  will  enhance  the  trust  in  other  Member  States  justice  schemes  and 
improve the mutual recognition of judicial cooperation in criminal matters – notably 
in relation to issuance and recognition of European protection orders.  

Society:  Society  will  benefit  from  a  lower  number  of  victims  being  subjected  to 
repeated  victimisation,  lower  level  of  victimisation,  and  improved  perception  of 
justice  system  within  society.  The  benefits  of  the  avoidance  of  costs  of  crime  are 
partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits 
analysis for the monetised benefits of this option. 

Fundamental rights: The fundamental rights of victims subject to these protection 
measures will greatly improve (the right to life, the right to the integrity of the person, 
the right to liberty and security and the right of respect for private and family life). 
The rights of suspects and accused will not be affected. 

Victims:  In  addition  to  the  benefits  from  the  previous  option,  under  this  option, 
victims  will  benefit  from  protection  measures  of  equal  minimum  quality, 
independently of where in the EU the crime takes place. The measure would benefit 
victims of hate crime, victims of organised crime, victim of core international crime 
and any other victims in need of physical protection from the offender. Victims of 
domestic violence are already covered by the VAW proposal.  

Key  benefits  for  victims  by  being  equally  protected  across  the  EU,  are  similar  to 
those  described  for  Option  II.2  but  of  a  higher  scale  (these  benefits  are  partially 

2 

10 

4 

4 

3 

4 

15 

5 

36

EN 

Total 
score 

Option 
II.2. 

Total 
score 

Option 
II.3.  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis 
for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Justice system: National justice scheme would benefit from improved awareness on 
protection  orders  and  increased  use  of  quality  protection  measures  based  on 
harmonised standards. However, taking into account the  fact that a  large group of 
victims is already covered by the VAW proposal and a high level of intervention that 
the measure would bring into the national legal orders to cover the complexity of the 
protection  needs  of  a  diverse  group  of  victims,  the  option  scores  low  on 
proportionality and necessity.  

Society:. The society would benefit from a lower number of victims being subjected 
to repeated victimisation, lower level of victimisation, and improved perception  of 
justice;  however,  this  counterbalanced  by  the  issues  with  legality  of  the  option 
mentioned above. 

The benefits of the avoidance of costs of crime are partially included in the efficiency 
analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis for the monetised benefits 
of this option. 

Fundamental Rights: Positive effects as for option II.2, but counter balanced due to 
the issues with legality of the option as above. The rights of suspects and accused 
will not be affected. 

Total 
score 

Efficiency (costs/benefits) 

2 

2 

2 

11 

Benefits (million EUR) 
Scenario  medium  –  5 
years; social discount rate 
3% 

Costs (million EUR) 
Average  low  and  high 
limits  –  5  years;  social 
discount rate 3% 

Cost-benefit  ratio 
(i.e. 
A/B,  present  value  of 
benefits  divided  by  the 
present value of the costs 
for a total of 5 years) 

1,470  

1,488  

1,846  

25  

25  

64  

58.6  

58.7  

28.6  

Option II.1 

Option II.2 

Option II.3 

Coherence  

All options are coherent with the VRD and the EU rules on protection orders. Option II.1. 
would  ensure  a  more  targeted  assessment  of  victims’  needs  for  protection  and  thus 
strengthen victims’ rights to individual assessment in Article 22 of the VRD.120 The addition 
of victims’ physical protection measures to the list in Article 23 of the VRD via Option II.2 
would further align victims’ protection with their needs. It is coherent with Article 23 of the 

120  Individual  assessment  procedures  are  in  place  in  all  Member  States.  The  conditions  of  its  application 
however differ largely between Member States. In 11 Member States, the individual assessment is triggered 
by the first contact with competent authorities. In 11 Member States, the individual assessment also includes 
the evaluation of the risks emanating from the perpetrator - see Annex 6 for further details. 

EN 

37

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
                                                      
                                                   
                                                
                                                      
                                                   
                                                
                                                      
                                                   
                                                           
VRD and will have a positive impact on issuance and recognition of the European protection 
orders.121 Option II.3 would be even more positive for the mutual recognition of European 
protection orders, but it scores low due to its high intervention in national legal schemes. 
Option II.2 comes out therefore with the best score. 

Option  II.2  is  coherent  with  the  VAW  proposal,  including  its  Article  18  on  individual 
assessment to identify protection needs of victims of violence against women and domestic 
violence and its Article 21 on emergency, restraining and protection orders for such victims. 
They cover to a large extent similar issues, but Option II.2 is addressed to all victims whose 
safety is at risk.  

The VAW proposal looks specifically at ensuring the safety of victims of domestic violence 
and  the  need  to  use  specific  protection  orders  –  such  as  barring  orders  that  require  the 
offender to leave immediately the household. In this regard, Article 21 of the VAW proposal 
provides for detailed conditions  on the application of emergency barring, restraining  and 
protection orders for victims of violence against women and domestic violence.  

Option II.2 however proposes to strengthen the individual assessment of protection needs of 
all victims who may be in need of protection. It will be done by harmonising conditions of 
application  of  individual  assessment  of  victims’  needs  (amendment  to  Article  22  of  the 
VRD).  In  addition,  under  this  option  victims’  physical  protection,  including  protection 
orders will be listed in Article 23 of the VRD as special protection measures available for 
victims with specific needs identified in accordance with the individual needs assessment 
(together with current 8 measures). In this sense, the VAW proposal complements Option 
II.2 as it brings detailed conditions on the application of emergency barring, restraining and 
protection orders for victims of violence against women and domestic violence. Member 
States  will  be  given  a  discretion  on  the  conditions  of  the  application  of  other  victims’ 
protection measures aimed at other victims in need of such protection (such as victims of 
hate crime, organised crime or any other victim whose safety may be at risk). 

Stakeholder opinions 

Stronger coordination and cooperation between national authorities and organisations within 
individual needs assessments was broadly welcomed by the respondents (90%), all NGOs 
and  EU  citizens.  Four  public  authorities  disagreed  (6%)  however  with  no  strong 
disagreement.  Member  States122  are  mostly  reluctant  to  a  mandatory  cooperation  in 
individual assessment with non-governmental organisations. Some Member States pointed 
to  the  risk  of  delaying  the  assessment  and  argued  for  a  voluntary  cooperation.  The  FRA 
further expressed the need for more guidance on how to carry out individual assessments 
and  highlighted  the  importance  of  involving  experts.123  On  the  addition  of  physical 
protection measures,  respondents  overall endorsed the option. As to  the establishment of 
minimum  standards  on  physical  protection  measures,  Member  States124  have  various 
minimum standards in place at national level but no objections were raised on this option. 

Overall assessment 

121 While protection orders are available in most Member States, there is a divergence in how and when they 
are applied. See Annex 6 for further detail on Member States’ implementation. 
122 BE, LT, FI, SK, DE. 
123 FRA, Underpinning victims’ rights: support services, reporting and protection, February 2023 and FRA, 
Proceedings that do justice – Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, April 2019, p. 92. 
124 See Annex 6 for further reference. 

EN 

38

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
More targeted individual assessment (option II.1) would bring positive effects to all victims, 
ensuring that the need for protective measures is assessed to high standards. This is equally 
important for the efficiency of this option, as the implementation of protection measures can 
be  far-reaching  and  costly.  The  assessment  of  the  risks  emanating  from  the  offender  in 
Option II.1 is crucial for getting the full picture of the victims’ protection needs. Option II.2 
would add to  option  II.1 the availability of protection measures when such measures are 
necessary – precisely addressing the problem of lack of adequate protection due to lack of 
awareness and their use in the national schemes. Option  II.3 is not retained as it is more 
intrusive into national schemes and has little added value compared to the VAW proposal 
Option II.2 can be effectively implemented without adding the minimum standards under 
option II.3. Moreover, Option II.2 scores high because it has a positive impact on the general 
objective. It will facilitate mutual recognition of European protection orders by improving 
the application of protection orders at the national level (thanks to raising awareness about 
their availability and provision of mechanisms for their application).  

Option II.1 

Option II.2 

Option II.3 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

+++ 

++++ 

+++ 

++++ 

++++ 

+++ 

++++ 

++++ 

++ 

6.5.3.  Specific  objective  III:  Facilitated  access  to  specialist  support  for  vulnerable 
victims, including children 

Effectiveness 

Impacts 

Option 
III.1.  

Victims: very positive impact for all child victims. 

Key benefits for child victims (in particular those that are poorly covered by support 
services)  by  having  more  and  better  access  to  these  services  in  the  form  of  the 
Barnahus  model  are  the  reduction  or  avoidance  of  emotional  harm  as  they  will  be 
better  supported,  protected  and  less  likely  to  experience  secondary  and  repeated 
victimisation (these benefits are partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the 
results of the cost and benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Justice  system:  some  positive  impact  from  increased  support  to  one  category  of 
victims. Increased trust in other Member States justice schemes and benefits for the 
mutual recognition but limited to the situation concerning child victims. The justice 
schemes would have costs related to setting up Barnahus model services involving 
police and judiciary however these are limited to 6 the Member States125 where the 
system does not function yet. 

Score 
(1-5) 

3 

2 

Society:  Positive  societal  effects  are  expected  from  increased  support  to  the  most 
vulnerable victims – children and from more child-friendly justice.  

2 

A  higher  number  of  child  victims  being  better  supported, protected  and  exercising 
their rights through the justice system will lead to benefits for society stemming from 

125 Specialist support services in the form of Barnahus are not available in 6 Member States - see Annex 6 for 
further reference. 

EN 

39

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
Total 
score 

Option 
III.2.  

Total 
score 

Option 
III.3. 

the avoidance of costs of repeated victimisation and other crime (these benefits are 
partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits 
analysis for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Fundamental  Rights:  The  Barnahus  model  would  create  an  entirely  rights-based 
approach to how we care for young people in the justice system, limiting the amount 
of trauma they would normally endure and setting them up for  healthy and healing 
futures ahead. Very positive effects are expected, especially for children. 

Victims: In comparison to option III.1, the positive results of this option would not 
be  limited  to  child  victims.  Additional  positive  effects  can  be  expected  from  free 
psychological support available for as long as necessary for victims in 14 Member 
States126 that currently do not provide for such extensive support. These benefits are 
partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits 
analysis for the monetised benefits of this option. 

Justice  system:  An  indirect  positive  effect  is  expected  from  a  more  active 
participation  in  the  proceedings  by  better  supported  vulnerable  victims  that  is  not 
limited to child victims. 

Society: In addition to the benefits from Option III.1 free psychological advice for 
victims  including  those  who  otherwise  would  not  be  able  to  afford  it,  will  lead  to 
victims  recovering  more  quickly  and  their  better  integration  in  the  society.  These 
benefits are partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost 
and benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option. 

Fundamental  Rights:  In  addition  to  positive  effects  for  child  victims  as  in  the 
previous option, improved effectiveness of support services for vulnerable victims, 
would result in positive impacts on the fundamental rights of the victims concerned 
(right to life, the right to the integrity of the person, the right to liberty and security, 
and the right of respect for private and family life). 

Victims: Ensuring the availability of specialist support services at the same premises 
for all vulnerable victims is the most advanced support measure to ensure that victims 
are  better  supported.  It  sets  the  same  right  to  a  targeted  and  integrated  support  as 
option III.1 but for all vulnerable victims. Additional positive effects can be expected 
from free psychological support to all victims who feel that they need it. 

These benefits are partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the 
cost and benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option. 

Justice system: As under Option III.2, direct positive impact on justice is expected 
from improved participation in the criminal proceeding of better supported victims. 
The  obligation  to  gather  under  one  roof  all  persons  in  contact  with  victims  would 
impose  however  a  disproportionate  burden  on  law  enforcement  and  judicial 
authorities and would require an important reorganisation.  

Society: As under option III.2, the society would benefit from such extensive support 
to  all  vulnerable  victims.  It  brings  however  important  costs  to  the  society.  Free  of 

3 

10 

4 

3 

3 

4 

14 

5 

2 

2 

126 12 Member States do not provide psychological support that is free of charge and in 2 Member States there 
are conditions for the provision of such support free of charge – see Annex 6 for further reference. 

EN 

40

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
charge  psychological  support  to  all  victims  who  feel  they  need  for  it  may  lead  to 
disproportionate  use of the limited  human resources in the field. The obligation to 
gather  under  one  roof  all  persons  in  contact  with  victims  would  impose  a  serious 
burden on medical staff and social workers. 

These benefits and costs are partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the 
results of the cost and benefits analysis for the monetised costs and benefits of this 
option.   

Fundamental  Rights:  The  fundamental  rights  of  the  concerned  victims  would  be 
directly  and  positively  influenced  (the  right  to  life,  the  right  to  the  integrity  of  the 
person).  

Total 
score 

Efficiency (costs/benefits) 

4 

13 

Benefits (million EUR) 
Scenario  medium  –  5 
years; social discount rate 
3% 

Costs (million EUR) 
Average  low  and  high 
limits  –  5  years;  social 
discount rate 3% 

(i.e. 
Cost-benefit  ratio 
A/B,  present  value  of 
benefits  divided  by  the 
present value of the costs 
for a total of 5 years) 

119  

10,217  

23,929  

5  

9,336  

22,858  

23.6  

1.1  

1.0  

Option III.1 

Option III.2 

Option III.3 

Coherence  

All options are coherent with the EU acquis on victims’ rights. They build on the current 
provisions of the VRD notably Articles 8 and 9 on general and specialist support services 
and  on  Articles  22  and  23  on  individual  assessment  of  victims’  needs  of  protection  and 
availability  of  special  protection  measures.  The  options  are  also  coherent  with  sectorial 
legislation, including Article 24 of the Counter-terrorism  Directive that provides for  free 
psychological support for victims of terrorism for as long as necessary and with the VAW 
proposal (notably Articles 27, 28 and 29 and 33) which provides for targeted and integrated 
support services, including services addressing the multiple needs at the same premises and 
psychological  support  for  victims  of  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence, 
specialist support for victims of sexual violence, victims of female genital mutilation and 
child victims of sexual and domestic violence.  

The added value of Option III.1 lays in that it provides for targeted and integrated support 
under the same premises (Barnahus model) for all child victims. The added value of option 
III.2 mainly lays in the strengthening of victims’ rights to free psychological help for those 
vulnerable victims who need it (on the basis of individual assessment). Option III.3 provides 
for the right to specialist support services under one roof to all vulnerable victims (not only 
children) and free psychological support to all victims.  

Stakeholder opinions 

EN 

41

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                    
                                                         
                                                   
                                              
                                                
                                                     
                                              
                                              
                                                     
 
Almost all respondents (94%) in particular NGOs and EU citizens, agreed or strongly agreed 
to  improve  support  for  the  most  vulnerable  victims  (including  those  belonging  to 
marginalised groups. A great majority (90%) respondents expressed their (strong) agreement 
to improve the availability of victim support services to victims who have not reported a 
crime.  Almost  all  respondents  (96%)  indicated  that  more  detailed  provisions  on  legal 
counselling and psychological counselling were needed, 87% respondents opted for support 
in financial issues and housing, 82% for improved medical support and additional provisions 
on  training  and  assistance  in  finding  employment.  Very  few  respondents  expressed  their 
disagreement or strong disagreement (between one and three per type of support service). 

About nine out of ten respondents considered that vulnerable victims should receive free 
psychological support for as long as needed, in alignment with the provisions of the Counter-
terrorism Directive. Strong agreement for these measures came namely from NGOs and EU 
citizens.  Only  three  respondents  disagreed  with  this  proposal,  two  of  them  on  free 
psychological support (one NGO, one EU citizen) and one NGO on free medical treatment. 
From  the  side  of  Member  States,  no  objections  were  raised  on  the  extension  of  free 
psychological  to  victims  other  than  victims  of  terrorism,  for  whom  this  service  already 
exists. 

Overall assessment 

Option III.2 scores highest on all three criteria. It brings the clarity to the scope of support 
for the most vulnerable victims, in particular children, for whom it sets a right to access to 
justice, including age -appropriate support in the same premises. For all vulnerable victims, 
it provides for a right to free psychological help for as long as necessary. In comparison to 
Option III.1 it is more complete as not limited to only one category of victims. In comparison 
to Option III.3 it is less costly and more proportionate as it increases access to support for 
vulnerable victims, without overwhelming the justice and social schemes. Option III.2 also 
scores high on achievement of the general objective as it improves trust in the national and 
other Member States justice schemes, in particular in relation to high standards on victim-
centred and child-friendly justice. 

Option III.1 

Option III.2 

Option III.3 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

+ 

++++ 

++++ 

+++ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

++++ 

++ 

6.5.4. Specific objective IV:  More effective participation in criminal proceedings for 
victims 

Effectiveness 

Impacts 

Option 
IV.1.  

EN 

Victims:  A right to be accompanied by a legal or administrative assistance or by a 
person  of  choice  in  the  criminal  proceedings  will  have  a  positive  practical  and 
psychological effect notably on victims in 5 Member States where currently such right 
is restricted to lawyers only. The most vulnerable victims will benefit most from this 
right as they are in the greatest need of support, counselling and advice during trial. A 

42

Score 
(1-5) 

2 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
possibility to challenge decision that concern victims directly will also have positive 
impact  on  how  victims  perceive  their  role  in  criminal  proceedings.  It  will  be 
particularly  beneficial  to  victims  in  12  Member  States  where  currently  the  right  to 
challenge decision by victims is restricted (to varying extent). 

The reduction of emotional harm experienced by victims due to this option as well as 
potential savings with legal/administrative fees are partially included in the efficiency 
analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis for the monetised benefits 
of this option. 

Justice  system:  Improving  victims’  experience  in  the  criminal  justice  system  will 
enable  their  voice  to  be  heard,  improve  their  testimonies,  and  facilitate  their 
participation  –  which  improves  justice  effectiveness.  Best  practice  from  Croatia, 
Ireland or Sweden shows that involving victim support services, including volunteers 
in the courts so they can take care  of victims’  wellbeing during the trial relives the 
prosecution  and  court  staff  from  this  task  to  a  great  extent.127  Victims’  right  to 
challenge  decisions  that  concern  them  directly  may  result  in  prolonging  the 
proceedings. In order to avoid it, the proposal will leave a possibility to set up time-
limits for challenging decisions to national law. 

This  option  increases  the  likelihood  of  victims  exercising  their  rights  through  the 
justice system will lead to benefits for society stemming from the avoidance of costs 
of  crime  (these  benefits  are  partially  included  in  the  efficiency  analysis  and  in  the 
results of the cost and benefits for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Society: Societal impacts are positive, due to victims obtaining better outcomes and 
thanks to the engagement of civil society in ensuring victims’ well-being during the 
criminal proceedings (the help of volunteers is particularly relevant here). 

Fundamental Rights: positive effect on the fundamental right to access justice, the 
right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial; setting of victims’ rights to 
challenge  decisions  that  concern  them  directly  may  negatively  affect  the  right  of 
suspects and accused, as they may see decisions favourable to them being challenged 
more  often.  The  introduction  of  the  victims’  rights  to  challenge  decisions  seems 
however proportional and justified. The proposal will also specify that the right will be 
exercised without prejudice to the rights of defence.  

Victims: In addition to the benefits from Option IV.1, victims will benefit from legal 
aid when challenging decisions concerning them directly. It adds effectiveness to the 
previous  option.  It  is  an  effective  tool  to  enable  victims’  participation  in  criminal 
proceeding. Notably in particular in those Member States128 where they do not have 
the status of parties in the criminal proceeding. 

The  reduction  of  emotional  harm  experienced  by  victims  due  to  the  additional  aid 
considered in this option as well as potential savings with legal/administrative fees are 
partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits 
analysis for the monetised benefits of this option. 

3 

3 

2 

10 

4 

Total 
score 

Option 
IV.2. 

127 In Croatia, Victim and Witness Support Service takes care of  victims in court by providing  information 
about the proceedings and emotional support, in Ireland V-SAC  provides court accompaniment to victims in 
trials including information on procedures,  the court setting,  pre-trial visits to the court, assistance by trained 
volunteers. They are given access to a secure private area away from the general public where they can feel 
safe and have privacy. In Sweden, similar services are offered by Victim Support Sweden 
128 In 8 Member States – see Annex 6 for further reference. 

EN 

43

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Total 
score 

Option 
IV.3. 

Justice  system:  Important  step  towards  a  more  victim-centred  justice.  The  option 
requires a change to national judicial systems that touches upon the right to legal aid, 
which is a large intervention into the  national justice schemes, costly and seen as a 
national prerogative. 

Society:  No  major  direct  societal  impacts  are  expected.  Possibility  to  challenge 
decisions with free legal advice being available to those people who cannot afford it 
will lead to a more positive view of society on the justice system.  

This may lead to benefits for society stemming from the avoidance of costs of crime 
(these benefits are partially included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the 
cost and benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Fundamental rights: In addition to the benefits in Option IV.1, very positive impact 
on  victims’  access  to  justice  as  it  will  enable  victims  to  challenge  the  decisions 
concerning them directly. No negative effects on the right of defence. 

Victims: right to participate as a formal party to the criminal proceeding is the most 
far-reaching  option  to  strengthen  the  position  of  victims  in  criminal  proceeding.  
Particularly relevant for the victims in the Member States where currently their position 
is limited129. 

The key benefits for victims  of this option are  similar to those described for option 
IV.1 and IV.2 but expected to be to be more significant (these benefits are partially 
included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis 
for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Justice system: Harmonisation of the victims’ status in criminal proceedings would 
increase  mutual  trust  and  mutual  recognition.  However,  it  seems  that  the  option 
exceeds the limits of the legal basis of Article 82.2 TFEU which requires taking into 
account the differences between the legal traditions and systems of  Member States. 
Such  an  option  would  be  particularly  invasive  to  the  tradition  of  the  common  law 
Member States (IE, MT and CY). 

Society: Positive impact as the possibility to participate in the criminal proceedings as 
a  party  would  lead  to  a  more  positive  view  of  society  on  the  justice  system  –  in 
particular in Member States where it does not exist. 

As with the previous options but more significantly, this option increases the likelihood 
of victims exercising their rights through the justice  system and lead to benefits for 
society  stemming  from  the  avoidance  of  costs  of  crime  (these  benefits  are  partially 
included in the efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis 
for the monetised benefits of this option). 

Fundamental  rights:  This  option  is  the  strongest  in  ensuring  victims’  right  to  an 
effective remedy and access to justice. As stated by the ECHR130 a right to participate 
in the criminal proceedings with full fair-trail rights is one of the components of the 
victims’ rights to access justice. No negative effects on the right of defence. 

3 

2 

5 

14 

5 

2 

3 

5 

129 In 8 Member States – see Annex 6 for further reference. 
130 ECHR, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v Romania, No. 47848/08, 17 July 
2014, para. 149. 

EN 

44

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Total 
score 

Efficiency (costs/benefits) 

15 

Benefits (million EUR) 

Costs (million EUR) 

Scenario  medium  –  5 
years; social discount rate 
3% 

Average  low  and  high 
limits  –  5  years;  social 
discount rate 3% 

Cost-benefit  ratio 
(i.e. 
A/B,  present  value  of 
benefits  divided  by  the 
present value of the costs 
for a total of 5 years) 

Option IV.1 

Option IV.2 

Option IV.3 

Coherence 

266  

921  

255  

314  

4,859  

3,834  

1.0  

2.9  

1.3  

All  options are in line with the VRD, which is the only instrument  to  deal  with  victims’ 
rights to participate in criminal proceedings. All options are coherent with the EU rules on 
procedural rights of suspects and accused and they do not negatively affect these rights. All 
measures under this option are implemented to some extent in some of the Member States. 
Option IV.3 raises issues of legality with the legal basis in the Treaty, due to its invasive 
character to the legal traditions of the Member States.  

Stakeholder opinions 

Most of the respondents were in favour of a legal representative accompanying victims in 
criminal proceedings (85%). To a lesser extent, respondents agreed or strongly agreed that 
victims  should  be  accompanied  by  an  administrative  assistant  (57%).  Agreement  came 
mostly from NGOs and EU citizens. On the question whether victims should have the right 
to be accompanied by a representative of a victim support organisation, 86% of respondents 
agreed or strongly agreed, mostly NGOs and EU citizens. Member States acknowledged the 
importance for victims to be accompanied during trial. 

On free legal aid to victims throughout any legal proceedings and independent from their 
level of income, there was less of a consensus. 70% of respondents expressed agreement or 
strong agreement and 15 % of respondents (five NGOs, five public authorities, one academic 
institution) disagreed or strongly disagreed with this measure and 14% of respondents had 
no  opinion.  In  several  Member  States131,  free  legal  aid  regardless  of  income  is  already 
granted to victims of specific crimes. One Member State (EL) suggested to extend free legal 
aid to cover the costs of experts while another Member State (BE) raised the importance of 
keeping a balance between procedural rights granted to victims and to suspects.132   

131 See Annex 6. 
132 In AT, legal aid is provided to all victims independent of their level of income – in all other Member States 
some form of legal aid is available, but subject to restrictions. 

EN 

45

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                    
                                                    
                                                     
                                                    
                                                    
                                                     
                                                
                                                
                                                     
                                                           
87% of respondents, mainly NGOs and EU citizens, were in favour of granting victims in 
all cases the possibility to participate as a formal party to the criminal proceedings so they 
could benefit from the rights associated with this status. 96% of the respondents, including 
NGOs, EU citizens and public authorities agreed on setting up victims’ right to challenge 
decision concerning them directly.133 However, some Member States134 are reluctant to grant 
procedural rights to victims who are not a formal party to the proceedings. 

Overall assessment 

All options have largely positive effects, they all improve victims’ participation in criminal 
proceedings  and  access  to  justice.  Their  efficiency  is  impacted  mostly  by  the  large 
differences  in  costs  of  implementation  and  legal  difficulties  of  integrating  them  to  the 
national  legal  orders. All  measures will have a positive effect  on fundamental rights  and 
social impacts. All options require at least some Member States to amend their national legal 
orders. Option IV.3 however raises issues with legality in relation to the legal basis and IV.2 
would be seen by the Member States as intervening too far in their national prerogatives 
related  to  legal  laid.  All  measures  also  entail  additional  costs  in  supporting  victims  with 
specific  expertise  (from  simple  administrative  support  to  expert  legal  advice  and 
representation).  Option  IV.1  appears  as  the  most  proportionate  one.  It  improves  victims’ 
participation in criminal proceedings and overall access to justice, while staying reasonable 
on costs and not invasive to the national justice schemes. 

Option IV.1 

Option IV.2 

Option IV.3 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

+++ 

++++ 

++++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++++ 

++ 

+ 

6.5.5. Specific objective V: Facilitated access to compensation from the offender 

Effectiveness 

Impacts 

Option 
V.1.  

Victims:  A  strong  positive  impact  is  expected  as  victims  would  only  need  to  go 
through one procedure (criminal) rather than two (first criminal and then civil) to have 
their compensation from the offender judged. Victims in at least 14 Member States135 
will benefit from this option that saves time, effort and costs for victims, and protect 
them from the risks of secondary victimisation from the offender in civil procedure. It 
should not become obligatory though, and remain only a victims’ right, from which 
they may resign and ask for compensation in a civil court, if they wish so.  

Score 
(1-5) 

4 

133 In only 8 Member States, the victim does not have the possibility to participate as a formal party to the 
proceedings,  although  in  all  Member  States,  victims  may  participate  to  varying  degree  and  with  various 
conditions. 
134 AT, BE, FI. 
135 In 12 Member States, the compensation decision is a compulsory part of the criminal trial. In 6 Member 
States,  the  compensation  decision  is  sometimes  part  of  the  criminal  trial,  if  certain  conditions  have  been 
fulfilled - see Annex 6 for further reference. 

EN 

46

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The benefits for victims, related to a reduction or avoidance of emotional harm and to 
the higher likelihood to receive a compensation for the emotional harm experienced 
are  partially  included  in  the  efficiency  analysis  and  in  the  results  of  the  cost  and 
benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option. 

Justice system: Positive impact as it is more efficient to have compensation claims 
dealt with in one trial. However, justice systems in some Member States will need to 
be adapted that would include changes in judicial cultures, as in some Member States 
judges  are  not  used  to  dealing  with  civil  aspects  of  compensation  during  criminal 
procedure. It may result in an increased workload in criminal courts (and decrease in 
civil). The increase in the workload of criminal courts will be less substantial compared 
to the reduction of the workload of civil courts, as the adjudication of the compensation 
will take place in the context of existing criminal trials. 

Society:  No  strong  direct  societal  impacts  expected  from  this  option,  other  than 
through the positive effects on victims themselves. May lead to a more positive view 
on justice systems and thus better social cohesion. 

Benefits,  related  to  the  avoidance  of  costs  of  crime  are  partially  included  in  the 
efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis for the monetised 
benefits of this option. 

Fundamental  Rights:  Right  to  be  compensated  on  the  criminal  justice  has  been 
identified by the ECHR136 as an integral component of victims’ rights to access justice; 
with the exposure to secondary victimisation minimised - the right to the integrity of 
the person will improve. 

Victims: Strongest positive effect on victims of the available options, as victims would 
receive compensation directly from the state, in due time  following the decision on 
compensation.  It  will  lead  to  a  reduction  in  uncertainly,  costs  and  time  to  execute 
compensation  from  the  offender.    Victims  in  Member  States  where  currently  they 
cannot  benefit  from  such  scheme  will  benefit  from  this  option  which  significantly 
reduces the risk of secondary victimisation.137  

Key benefits related to reduction of emotional harm and to receiving a compensation 
are  partially  included  in  the  efficiency  analysis  and  in  the  results  of  the  cost  and 
benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option. 

Justice  system:  More  positive  impact  than  from  Option  V.1  is  expected,  as  it  will 
improve the functioning of the compensation schemes, by making them more victim-
friendly and more efficient. The justice schemes will not bear significant costs as the 
state would get the reimbursement of the compensation from the offender. According 
to statistical data from the Member States where the system functions, the state receives 
the compensation from the offender in almost all cases138. It would also have a positive 
impact on the functioning of state compensation schemes, which normally steps in only 

3 

2 

3 

12 

5 

4 

Total 
score 

Option 
V.2. 

136 ECHR, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v Romania, No. 47848/08, 17 July 
2014, para. 149. 
137 See Annex 6 for further reference. 
138 In 2017, the Dutch government made 3,531 payments under the advance payment scheme for sexual and 
violent  crimes  and  4,756  benefits  for  other  criminal  offences.  For  sexual  and  violent  crimes,  2,795 
compensation orders were collected in full and 93 in part in 2017. For other criminal offences, this concerned 
2,194  fully  and  89  partially  collected  compensation  orders  before  an  advance  payment  was  made.  See  for 
reference: 
https://repository.wodc.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12832/2482/3094_summary_tcm28-
471195.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y 

EN 

47

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
if victim has not received compensation from the offender, as fewer claims would have 
to be dealt with by such schemes.  

Society: No strong direct societal impacts, other than through the positive effects on 
victims. May lead to a more positive view on justice and society, where the victims’ 
damage is better executed from the offenders.  

Benefits  related  to  the  avoidance  of  costs  of  crime  are  partially  included  in  the 
efficiency analysis and in the results of the cost and benefits analysis for the monetised 
benefits of this option. 

Fundamental rights: Even more positive impact on victims’ fundamental rights than 
option V.1.139 This effect is strengthened further by including minimum standards on 
compensation from the offender. Improved execution of the lawful penalty/victims’ 
compensation  ordered  by  a  court  cannot  be  regarded  as  harmful  to  the  offenders’ 
fundamental rights. 

Victims: will benefit from improved rights to receive state compensation for all types 
of  crime  (currently  limited  to  violent  intentional  acts,  the  2004  Compensation 
Directive). Benefits from harmonised minimum standards on the conditions of state 
compensation independently where in in the EU the crime took place. These benefits 
are  partially  included  in  the  efficiency  analysis  and  in  the  results  of  the  cost  and 
benefits analysis for the monetised benefits of this option. However, this option deals 
only with compensation from the state, to be claimed in additional proceeding. It does 
not facilitate victims’ access to compensation from the offender. 

Justice:  Overall  positive  impact,  although  outside  criminal  procedure.  It  would 
increase  the  trust  in  other  Member  States  justice  schemes  by  improving  state 
compensation in national and cross border cases. Such amendments however would 
fall outside the scope of Article 82.2 TFEU and would require a revision of the 2004 
Compensation Directive, for which the EU currently does not have competence and 
relies on Article 352 TFEU.   

Society:  More  just  outcomes  for  victims  through  an  expanded  state  compensation 
scheme will lead to some positive effects on society. 

Benefits,  related  to  the  avoidance  of  costs  of  crime  are  partially  included  in  the 
efficiency analysis and in the provided results of the cost and benefits analysis for the 
monetised benefits of this option. 

Fundamental rights: positive impacts on the rights of victims to receive compensation 
and victims’ rights to fair trial – but to a lesser extent than in case of Option V.2. 

3 

5 

17 

4 

2 

2 

3 

11 

Total 
score 

Option 
V.3. 

Total 
score 

139 See in particular the Milquet report cited above for the argument that the human-rights approach to victims’ 
rights implies that the offender should compensate the damages, and if the offender is unable to compensate, 
the state owes compensation to victims of crime.  

EN 

48

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Efficiency (costs/benefits) 

Benefits (million EUR) 

Costs (million EUR) 

Scenario  medium  –  5 
years; social discount rate 
3% 

Average  low  and  high 
limits  –  5  years;  social 
discount rate 3% 

(i.e. 
Cost-benefit  ratio 
A/B,  present  value  of 
benefits  divided  by  the 
present value of the costs 
for a total of 5 years) 

Option V.1 

Option V.2 

Option V.3 

Coherence 

2,661  

9,732  

2,238  

8,897  

31,467  

31,031  

1.2  

1.1  

1.0  

All options are coherent with the EU acquis, and notably Article 16 of the VRD on the right 
to a decision on compensation from the offender in criminal proceedings and with the 2004 
Compensation  Directive.  Option  V.1  builds  on  the  current  Article  16  and  strengthens 
victims’  right  to  receive  compensation  in  criminal  proceeding  by  eliminating  the  current 
exception in this provision that victims are entitled to the decision in criminal proceedings 
“except  where  national  law  provides  for  such  a  decision  to  be  made  in  other  legal 
proceedings”.  Option  V.2  will  improve  this  right  even  further  as  it  will  facilitate  the 
execution  of  compensation  from  the  offender.  Option  V.2  solves,  to  a  large  extent,  the 
problem with a lack of victim-friendliness of the national compensation schemes without 
amending,  or  otherwise  affecting  the  2004  Compensation  Directive.  There  are  already 
Member States where Option V.2 is implemented and there are other Member States who 
currently consider changes to their national legislation to this effect.140 Option V.3 requires 
an amendment to the 2004 Compensation, which cannot be done under Article 82.2 TFEU 
or under any other legal basis providing for a simplified legislative procedure (the Directive 
is adopted under Article 352 TFEU that requires unanimity). 

Options V.1 and V.2 are coherent with the VAW proposal, which in its Article 26 provides 
for compensation from the offender for victims of violence against women and domestic 
violence. Option V.2 establishes a similar system but for all victims of all crime. In addition, 
it  provides  for  an  obligation  for  the  state  to  pay  upfront  the  compensation  due  from  the 
offender  to  victims  with  a  possibility  to  seeking  the  reimbursement  from  the  offender 
afterwards. This is applicable to victims of all crimes – including those covered by the VAW 
proposal and any other sectorial legislation. The difference with the system proposed by the 
VAW proposal is that the VAW proposal provides for minimum conditions on the amount 
of  compensation  to  be  imposed  on  offenders  in  cases  of  violence  against  women  and 
domestic violence to take into account the specific needs of women, who often need to start 
a new life entailing significate costs. 

Stakeholder opinions 

Some  Member  States  are  reluctant  to  abandon  the  civil  nature  of  compensation  claims, 
arguing that rules on proof are different and that making compensation a criminal law matter 

140 See Annex 6 for further reference. 

EN 

49

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                
                                                
                                                     
                                                
                                                
                                                     
                                              
                                              
                                                     
                                                           
would  interfere  with  the  independence  of  civil  courts.  One  Member  State  presented  a 
different compensation system in the form of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. 
The scheme does not require legal proceedings to have been initiated before an application 
is  made.  Under  the  scheme,  where  applicants  have  received  compensation  from  another 
source,  they  should  inform  the  Tribunal  and  repay  any  money  that  amounts  to  double 
compensation.141  

Overall assessment 

Option V.2 scores highest on effectiveness and coherence.  It is more costly than Option V.1 
but this is counterbalanced by the two previous factors. Overall, it gets the highest score. It 
facilitates  victims’  access  to  compensation  by  improving  the  execution  of  compensation 
from  the offender and by  limiting the situations  where victims  are  exposed to  secondary 
victimisation. Overall, it adds to victims-friendliness of the national compensation schemes. 
The execution of compensation would be addressed much more effectively if the State is 
obliged to pay the compensation up front, and then reclaim that amount from the perpetrator. 
Option  V.2  is  already  successfully  functioning  in  several  Member  States  and  others  are 
considering amending their schemes in this line. 142 Option V.2 also scores best on achieving 
the  general  objective.  By  bringing  considerable  improvement  to  victims’  standards  on 
compensation from the offender, it will raise trust in other Member States judicial schemes, 
improve  the  situation  of  victims  in  concrete  cross-border  cases,  and  will  have  positive 
impact on mutual recognition in general.  

The third option scores least, as it is problematic from a point of view of coherence, as the 
Union currently lacks a clear legal basis to revise the Compensation Directive. This option 
is also particularly costly and does not facilitate victims’ access to compensation from the 
offender. It therefore scores least overall. 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Option V.1 

Option V.2 

Option V.3 

+++ 

+++++ 

+++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+ 

PREFERRED OPTION 

7.1. Preferred options package 

Looking  at  all  elements  of  assessment,  and  taking  the  opinions  of  stakeholders  into 
consideration, the preferred package of options: 

Specific Objective I 

Option I.2 (national coordination schemes and Victims’ helpline) 

Specific Objective II 

Option  II.2  (enhanced  individual  assessment  and  adding  victims’ 
physical protection to protection measures) 

Specific Objective III 

Option III.2 (Barnahus model for all children and psychological aid for 
those in need) 

141 See Annex 6 for further reference. 
142 See Annex 6 for further reference. 

EN 

50

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Specific Objective IV 

Specific Objective V 

Option IV.1 (victim rights to be advised during criminal procedure and 
accompanied by a person of  choice  during criminal proceeding and to 
challenge decisions that concern them directly) 

Option V.2 (rights to decision on compensation in criminal proceeding 
and  to  receive  offenders’  compensation  by  the  state,  where  state 
recuperates if from the offender later) 

Preferred 
options 

Benefits 
EUR) 

(million 

Costs (million EUR) 

Scenario medium – 5 
years; 
social 
discount rate 3% 

Average  low  and  high 
limits  –  5  years;  social 
discount rate 3% 

Cost-benefit  ratio  (i.e.  A/B, 
present  value  of  benefits 
divided by the present value of 
the costs for a total of 5 years) 

Option I.2 

1,388  

Option II.2 

1,488  

Option III.2 

10,217  

Option IV.1 

266  

Option V.2 

9,732  

231  

25  

9,336  

255  

8,897  

TOTAL 

23,091  

18,743  

6  

59  

1  

1  

1  

1.2  

According to data taken from the support study for this initiative143, the cost-benefit ratio of 
the preferred option is above 1 for all Member States, i.e. expected benefits of the preferred 
option  outweigh  expected  costs  in  each  Member  State.  However,  the  ratio  varies  across 
Member States with Finland, Belgium, Hungary, Luxembourg, and Bulgaria having the 
highest cost-benefit ratios (highest positive impact per euro spent) and Lithuania, Cyprus 
and Romania the lowest (lowest positive impact per euro spent). 

Evidence  collected  through  the  support  study  shows  that  often  the  main  reason  for  the 
differences  in  expected  impacts  and  relative  costs  across  Member  States  lies  with 
different starting positions in terms of baseline. In particular, the level of effort (costs) that 
Member States must make depends on how far/close they are to the desired final situation 
(i.e. situation once the preferred option is implemented). A second factor is of course the 
differences  in  costs  for  different  types  of  support  measures  (e.g.  psychological  support). 
Finally,  numbers  of  victims  differ  across  Member  States  even  after  controlling  for 
differences in total population. 
While not achieving the highest total benefits to cost ratio144, the preferred combination of 
options scores the best on all relevant criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence) and is 
therefore expected to bring optimal amount of benefits to victims across the EU subject to 

143 ICF (2023), Study to support the impact assessment for the revision of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing 
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report. 
144 The preferred combination has a slightly lower CBR compared to a combination where V.1 is used in place 
of V.2; however, the difference is very small and would not compensate for the expected loss in effectiveness. 

EN 

51

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the limitations of the legal basis and the requirement of proportionality. Moreover, measures 
in  the  preferred  options  package  build  on  best  practise  already  in  place  (either  in  most 
Member States or in some Member States depending on the measure).145 These measures 
also gained the highest support with stakeholders during the consultations. Last but not least, 
these measures score high on the coherence criterion - the coherence assessment confirmed 
that  there  is  no  contradiction  between  the  preferred  policy  package  and  the  existing  (or 
currently planned) sectorial legislation.   

It  is  important  to  stress  that  only  the  combination  of  the  different  measures  will  ensure 
combined  effects  from  the  implementation  of  all  the  options  –  as  they  were  designed  to 
reinforce each other. For instance, Option III.1 on prolonged psychological support for as 
long as necessary will benefit not only the group which currently uses such support, but also 
the  “newcomers”  –  the  victims  who  will  start  using  it  thanks  to  an  easier  access  to 
information via the Victims’ helpline set up by Option II.2. Similarly, thanks to Option IV.1 
on the right to be advised and accompanied during the criminal proceeding, more victims 
will benefit from the decision on compensation at the end of criminal procedure set up in 
Option V. 2 as victims will be better advised on when and how they should request such 
compensation.  More  victims  will  make  use  of  their  right  to  challenge  a  decision  that 
concerns them directly under Option IV.1, as victims’ availability to actively participate in 
criminal  proceeding  will  be  increased  thanks  to  strengthened  psychological  aid  and 
improved  targeted  and  integrated  support  services  under  Option  III.2.  There  will  be  a 
cumulative effect on improving the situation of all victims in the EU. They will be better 
informed about their rights, better supported, more effectively protected, will have improved 
participation in criminal proceedings and facilitated access to compensation.  

By facilitating equal access to information, protection, support, justice and compensation, 
the preferred policy package will provide more equal opportunities for all victims to exercise 
their rights. In this way it will significantly contribute to Sustainable Development Goal 
(SDG) no. 10 aiming at reducing inequalities. 

It is also likely to contribute to some extent to SDG no. 5 related to gender equality by 
introducing victim protection measures to victims of crime. 

With its overall goal to increase trust in institutions and services supporting victims in crime, 
the policy package will contribute to promoting the rule of law and ensure equal access to 
justice addressed by SDG no. 16 Peace, justice and strong institutions. 

Improvements would also be expected in the longer term as regards  SDG no. 3 on good 
health and well-being. For instance, this will be achieved by better protecting victims and 
reducing secondary victimisation. 

This policy package is a convincing contribution to improving the rights of victims in the 
EU.  All  these  elements  combined  are  also  expected  to  increase  trust  in  judgements  and 
decisions in criminal matters, improve security and make a big step towards victim-centred 
justice in the EU. 

7.2. REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

The analysis of impacts suggests that the package of preferred options is anticipated to have 
an overall positive impact on burden on Member States, even if some expenditures will rise. 

145 See Annex 6 for further details on the status of different measures in the different Member States. 

EN 

52

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  rise  in  expenditure  would  be  more  than  compensated  by  the  positive  effects  of  the 
options package, as argued above. 

Some  simplifications  for  the  national  authorities  will  come  from  the  anticipated  positive 
impacts  of  different  options,  which  will  increase  cooperation  and  coordination  between 
those dealing with victims. This will result in a more efficient organisation of the justice 
schemes  which  will  also  benefit  from  enhanced  cooperation  with  support  services.  In 
particular, the current burden on police from the obligation to provide all information on 
victims’ rights in accordance with specific needs of each victim will be shared with others 
(also  non-governmental  organisations  including  volunteers).  Further  benefits  have  been 
identified in the functioning of the justice system of the Member States, notably services 
dealing  with  State  compensation  are  expected  to  be  relived  to  a  great  extent  by  full 
implementation  of  the  preferred  option  on  compensation  from  offender.  Further 
simplification is also expected from the approach of dealing with all compensation issues 
within the criminal proceedings, rather than in both criminal and civil. This will reduce the 
number of civil cases and increase the efficiency of the court system. 

On 5 December 2022, the Fit for Future Platform adopted its opinion for the Revision of the 
victims’ rights acquis146. The suggestions are in line with the ongoing work in the area of 
victims’ rights and the preferred policy options in the impact assessment. 

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

This  initiative  will  not  have  any  effects  on  either  administrative  cost  or  savings  for  the 
private sector. The private sector does not refer to citizens. Adjustment costs would mainly 
be borne by public authorities and non-governmental organisations involved in supporting 
victims of crime. 

HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

To  monitor  the  effective  implementation  of  the  revised  legislation,  the  Commission  will 
publish  implementation  reports  on  a  regular  basis,  in  accordance  with  the  obligations  to 
report  data.  The  Commission  will  also  evaluate  the  implementation  of  the  new  legal 
framework, no sooner than four years after the date of transposition of the instrument and 
present  an  evaluation  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the 
functioning  of  the  legislative  instrument.  The  report  will  include  the  stakeholders’ 
consultation and an evaluation of how fundamental rights and principles recognised by the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have been respected. To ensure the 
effective implementation of the measures and to monitor their results, the Commission will 
work closely with the stakeholders, including national authorities, via the Victims’ Rights 
Platform and the European Network on Victims’ Rights, in line with the Victims’ Rights 
Strategy 2020-2025. The Commission will also continue to work closely with FRA. Under 
the revision of the VRD, FRA will be required to continue its work in support of Member 
States and the Commission in collection and analysis of data on how victims have access to 
their rights under this Directive. 

146https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-
12/Final%20opinion%202022_SBGR3_07%20Revision%20of%20the%20victims%20rights%20acquis_rev.
pdf 

EN 

53

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
The list of indicators is based on the specific and general objectives pursued by the measures 
identified under the preferred option. 

Key performance indicators 

Target (at the 
point of data 
collection) 

Data 
and tools 

sources 

Specific 
objectives  

Improved 
victims’ 
access to 
information  

The availability of Victims’ helplines 
under “116 006” in all MS,  
Websites connected to the helplines with 
state-of- the- art technology to provide 
information to victims and refer them to 
support services. 
Website/helpline are fully accessible 

Is the information provided via 
hotline/websites to all victims on their 
rights and support services adequate to 
victims’ needs? 

Satisfaction 
survey 
integrated in 
the 
helpline/websi
te (70% of 
responders 
satisfied) - the 
structure of 
data collected 
should allow 
to measure 
victims’ 
experience 
with the 
helpline 

Does the 
helpline/websi
te show 
among the 
first results in 
google 
Positive 
trend/increase, 
target of 80 % 
of reported 
cases. 

Positive 
trend/increase 
target, 90% of 
survey 
participants 

Positive trend/ 
increase in 
numbers (data 
collected from 
the Member 
States) 

Positive 
trend/increase 
target 80% of 
cases 

Member States 
survey – data 
collection 
integrated in the 
helplines/websit
es 
Web Content 
Accessibility 
Guidelines + 
tests. 

Victims’ Rights 
Platform  
European 
Network on 
Victims’ Rights  

European Union 
Agency for 
Fundamental 
Rights (FRA) 

Member States 
survey 

Victims’ Rights 
Platform  

European 
Network on 
Victims’ Rights 

FRA 

Member States 
survey 

EN 

Better 
alignment of 
victims’ 
protection 
measures 
with victims’ 
needs  

Percentage of cases in which the 
upgraded individual assessment is 
performed. 

The level of awareness about the 
availability of protection orders among 
the professionals (prosecution, judges, 
lawyers). 

Number of European protection orders 
issued and recognised. 

Better 
support for 
victims by 
generic and 
specialist 

EN 

Percentage of child victims who are 
assisted by targeted and integrated 
support services. 

54

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
support 
services  

More 
effective 
access to 
justice for 
victims  

Percentage of vulnerable victims who 
receive free psychological services for as 
long as necessary,  

Percentage of courts that provide for 
services to accompany and advice victims 
during criminal proceedings. 

Satisfaction of the victims with the access 
to legal/administrative assistance during 
proceedings 

Facilitated 
access to 
compensation 
from the 
offender  

Percentage of victims that receive a 
decision on compensation from the 
offender at the end of the criminal 
proceedings if found guilty.  

involving 
children. 

Victims’ Rights 
Platform  

Positive 
trend/increase 
target 80% of 
victims in 
need. 

Positive 
trend/increase 
80% of all 
courts. 

Positive 
trend/increase 
70 % of 
victims 
satisfied. 

European 
Network on 
Victims’ Rights 

FRA 

Member States 
survey 

Victims’ Rights 
Platform  

European 
Network on 
Victims’ Rights 

FRA   

Positive trend 
80 % of case. 

Member States 
survey 

Victims’ Rights 
Platform  

European 
Network on 
Victims’ Rights 

Percentage of victims that receive 
offenders’ compensation from the State in 
dues time following the court’s decision. 

Positive 
trend/increase 
(target 80 %) 

Percentage of cases in which the State 
recuperated the compensation from the 
offender.  

Positive 
trend/increase 
target 80 % 

FRA  

General 
objective 

Percentage of victims satisfied with the 
way in which they were recognised and 
treated by the authorities. 

Positive trend 
70% of 
surveyed 
victims 
satisfied. 

Member States 
survey 

Victims’ Rights 
Platform 
European 
Network on 
Victims’ Rights 

FRA  

EN 

55

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The Lead DG for this initiative is the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (DG 
JUST).  

The Decide reference of this initiative is PLAN/2021/11420. 

This revision of the victims’ rights acquis is part of the Commission Work Programme 2022. 
The  CWP  2022  calls  for  setting  the  focus  on  more  effective  access  to  victims’  rights, 
including a right to compensation and better access to justice for victims of all crimes and 
states that further to the evaluation of the victims’ rights Directive, a possible revision of the 
Directive or another legislative instrument may be proposed by the end of 2022.147  

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

Chronology of the impact assessment: 

  The  impact  assessment  itself  is  based  on  an  evaluation  of  the  Victims’  Rights 
Directive, which was carried out in 2021 and consisted of a study and an open public 
consultation lasting from 19 July to 25 October 2021.  

  The work on the impact assessment began with a call for evidence, lasting from 10 

December 2021 to 10 January 2022. In total, 59 responses were received. 

  On  8  March  2022,  the  open  public  consultation  was  launched.  The  consultation 

lasted until 31 May 2022. In total, 72 responses were received. 

  Targeted  consultation  meetings  took  place  on  21  April  2022  (with  Member  State 
experts),  on  26  April  and  10  May  2022  (with  members  of  the  Victims’  Rights 
Platform148) and on 13 May 2022 (with the Criminal Law Expert Group).  

  The  support  study  on  the  cost  and  benefits  of  the  assessed  policy  options  was 

launched on 4 May 2022149. 

  The first draft of the Impact Assessment was sent to the ISG on 24 October 2022. 

  A revised draft of the Impact Assessment and a draft proposal for the revision of the 
Victims’ Rights Directive was sent to the ISG on 19 December 2022. A meeting of 
the ISG to discuss both documents was held on 9 January 2023. 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) was consulted in an upstream meeting on 21 January 
2022.  

147 COM(2021) 645 final, 19.10.2021, Annexes 1-5 to the Commission Work Programme 2022, p. 11.  
148  The  Victims’  Rights  Platform  is  composed  of  34  members  that  include  representatives  of  EU  level 
networks, agencies, bodies and civil society organisations relevant for the implementation of the EU Strategy 
on victims’ rights. 
149 ICF (2023), Study to support the impact assessment for the revision of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing 
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report. 

EN 

56

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The draft impact assessment for the revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive was submitted 
to the RSB on 3 November and discussed on 30 November 2022. The impact assessment 
was slightly revised after the hearing, in order to reflect more precisely the implementation 
costs  and  the  methodology  for  the  assessment  of  the  options.  On  1  December,  the  RSB 
issued a positive opinion without reservations on the draft impact assessment.  

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The main source of evidence for the present Impact Assessment is the evaluation of the 
Victims’ Rights Directive, which consisted of an open public consultation (19 July to 25 
October 2021) and an external support study.  

Further evidence comprises: 

  Stakeholder consultations on specific options for the revisions, including a call for 
evidence, an open public consultation as well as targeted consultations with Member 
States, civil society and criminal law experts (see Annex 2); 

  Contributions  directly  submitted  to  the  Commission  by  stakeholders  in  the 

framework of the revision of the Directive (see list in Annex 2); 

  Reports and studies on victims’ rights and on the implementation of the provision 
of the Victims’ Rights  Directive in  EU Member States, including several  reports, 
which resulted from EU-funded projects;150 

  European case law; 

  A  cost-benefit  study  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  in  order  to  assess  the 

financial feasibility of the main options proposed. 

  Previous work carried out by the European Parliament, including  

  A study on the implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive, carried out 

by the Research Service of the European Parliament in 2017;151 

  A  study  requested  by  the  LIBE  Committee  on  criminal  procedural  laws 

across the European Union;152 

  European  Parliament’s  Resolution  on  minimum  standards  on  the  rights, 
support and protection of victims of crime, adopted on 30 May 2018.153 

  Previous work carried out by the Commission, including: 

  The participation in conferences, panels and workshops. 

  Several  projects  funded  under  the  Criminal  Justice  Programme, 
including projects dealing with the overall implementation of the Victims’ 
Rights  Directive.  Such  projects  are,  for  instance,  “Promoting  Rights  of 
European Victims (PREVICT)” project, “Towards a more responsive victim-

150 See for example: Vociare Report or Artemis Report. 
151 Victims’ Rights Directive 2012/29/EU  – European Implementation Assessment. PE 611.022, December 
2017. 
at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/611022/EPRS_STU(2017)611022_EN.pdf.  
152 Criminal procedural laws across the European Union – a comparative analysis of selected main differences 
and the impact they have over the development of EU legislation. PE 604.977, August 2018. Available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604977/IPOL_STU(2018)604977_EN.pdf.  
153 OJ C 76, 9.3.2020 

Available 

EN 

57

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
centered  approach  of  the  criminal  justice  system  (RE-JUST)”  project, 
Infovictims project, etc. 

  Several plenary and ad hoc meetings with the Victims’ Rights Platform, 

organised by the European Commission (see list below). 

Plenary meetings 
Date 
23 February 2021 
15 December 2021 

26 April 2022 

10 May 2022 

Ad hoc meetings 
Date 
16 December 2020 
10 February 2021 
17 March 2021 
25 March 2021 
20 April 2021 
28 April 2021 
06 May 2021 
10 June 2021 
15 July 2022 
15 September 2022 

Topic 
1st Plenary meeting of the Victims’ Rights Platform 
2nd Plenary meeting for the Victims’ Rights Platform 
1st Meeting on the Revision of the Victims’ Rights 
Directive 
2nd Meeting on the Revision of the Victims’ Rights 
Directive 

Topic 
State of play of the EU Strategy on victims’ rights  
Victims of terrorism 
Digitalisation 
Victims in detention 
Vulnerable adults 
Undocumented migrants 
Violence against women 
Cross-border cooperation 
Victims of war crimes 
Victims of war crimes 

Overall, the evidence used comprises qualitative and quantitative elements and is based 
on  desk  research,  consultation  activities  and  a  support  study  carried  out  by  an  external 
contractor.  

The  various  consultation  activities  allowed  the  Commission  services  to  obtain  external 
expertise.  Throughout  these consultation  efforts,  concrete experiences and inputs were 
gathered from  the public, victims, victims’ relatives and/or friends, State representatives, 
relevant EU agencies, victim support services and criminal law experts.  

For the targeted consultations with stakeholders, a discussion note including the main policy 
options was sent to the participants in advance, to allow them to prepare their comments and 
contributions. Detailed meeting reports of the targeted consultations were submitted to the 
participants  of  the  meeting  for  approval  and  further  comments.  In  addition, 
contributions submitted by stakeholders through the meeting chat or via e-mail have been 
listed and duly taken into account.  

The  calculations  of  costs  and  benefits  was  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor,  who 
consulted Member States and victim support organisations throughout a survey. Participants 
could submit their answers through writing or by phone in order to make the consultation 
more  accessible  and  enhance  participation.  The  Commission  made  significant  efforts  to 
collect data, or at least estimates, from public authorities and victim support organisations 
through the mentioned surveys. 

EN 

58

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
For the present Impact Assessment effort was made to reference all the sources, review 
their quality and include hyperlinks whenever possible. 

EN 

59

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) 

1.  CONSULTATION STRATEGY 

The consultation  strategy  was built  upon the information already  collected as part of the 
evaluation  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive,  notably  with  a  view  to  consider  further 
legislative  measures.  More  precisely,  the  consultation  strategy  in  the  framework  of  the 
Impact Assessment aimed at identifying and assessing possible policy options and assisting 
in calculating their costs and benefits. In this context, the views of stakeholders on elements 
to be included (or not) in a legislative proposal were collected to enable the Commission to 
table a good proposal.  

The objective of the consultations in the context of the impact assessment on the revision 
of the victims’ rights acquis was therefore twofold:  

1.  to  collect  the views of stakeholders about  possible options to tackle the problems 
identified in the evaluation, including by seeking feedback on the recommendations 
that emerged from the evaluation exercise; 

2.  to gather information about possible additional problems that were not covered by 

the evaluation of the Victims’ Rights Directive. 

2.  CONSULTED STAKEHOLDERS 

The following key stakeholder categories have been identified for the consultation in the 
framework of the revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive: 

Professionals  working with victims or having  contact with victims in Member States’ 
competent authorities:  

  judicial Member States’ authorities, including central authorities (Ministry of Justice), 

judges and prosecutors, and their associations; 

  defence lawyers and their associations, bar associations; 
  law enforcement Member States’ authorities, including central authorities (Ministry 

of Interior), police officers, and their associations. 

This  stakeholder  group  is  particularly  relevant  as  it  is  directly  involved  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive.  The  envisaged  policy  options  for  the 
revision of the Directive have a direct impact of the work of these professionals. Their views 
were therefore indispensable in assessing the relevance and feasibility of proposed options. 
This  stakeholder  group  has  been  reached  through  a  targeted  consultation  with  Member 
States experts. 

Members/representatives of civil society organisations working with victims or having 
contact with victims, namely victims support organisations and support services:  

  victim support organisations and support services at national level; 
  umbrella organisations and networks at EU level;  
  helplines and hotlines.  

This group of stakeholders has the most concrete insights into the specific needs of victims 
and  the  challenges  they  encounter  when  seeking  enforcement  of  their  rights.  The 
consultation of this group of stakeholders was therefore crucial in order to collect evidence 
from the field and to ensure that proposed policy options meet the identified needs of victims 
of crime.   

EN 

60

EN 

 
 
 
This stakeholder group was reached through a targeted consultation with the Victims’ Rights 
Platform. The views of victim support organisations were further collected throughout the 
past  years  in  the  framework  of  meetings,  conferences  and  workshops  and  throughout 
previous  meetings  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Platform.  Additional  written  submissions  from 
victim support organisations as well as their contributions to the Open Public Consultations 
were also taken into account in the framework of this Impact Assessment. 

EU agencies providing support to Member States in cross-border criminal cases: 

  Europol; 
  Eurojust;  
  the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); 
  CEPOL. 

Some EU agencies are involved in assisting Member States in dealing with cases involving 
victims coming from different countries. Therefore, receiving input on how handling cross-
border cases can be further improved for victims and how far the proposed policy options 
respond to the need for better cross-border cooperation, was essential. Eurojust and CEPOL 
participated in the consultation of the Victims’ Rights Platform. An additional meeting with 
Eurojust on assistance for victims in cross-border cases took place in May 2022.  

EU agencies and networks providing an expertise on victims’ rights and fostering the 
exchange of experience and good practices in this area at EU level:  

  the European Network for Victims’ Rights; 
  the  EU  network  of  national  contact  points  on  compensation  and  the  single  contact 

points for victims of terrorism in the Member States; 
  the European Judicial Network (EJN) in criminal matters; 
  the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 

These EU agencies collect highly relevant data and information on victims’ rights and their 
consultation was essential in order to further substantiate the proposed policy options with 
qualitative and quantitative data on the effective implementation of victims’ rights within 
the EU. This stakeholder group was reached through the consultation of the Victims’ Rights 
Platform. Further, written contributions submitted by these agencies as well as their replies 
to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  were  taken  into  account  in  the  context  of  this  Impact 
Assessment. 

International  standard  setting  organisations  with  expertise  on  victims’  rights  and 
fostering the exchange of experience and good practices in this area:  

  Council of Europe;  
  the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime;  
  the OSCE/ODIHR. 

These actors represent important stakeholders as they also deal with victims’ rights on an 
international  level.  Harmonising  and  synthetising  efforts  with  these  actors  is  therefore 
crucial in order to raise the standards of victims’ rights, protection and support on a greater 
scale. These actors have not been consulted explicitly but documentation published by these 
actors has been included in the Impact Assessment. 

The general public, including victims 

As victims’ rights is an issue which concerns society as a whole, the contributions of the 
general public and especially of victims of crime were indispensable to define and assess 
policy  options  for  the  revision.  The  general  public  was  reached  throughout  the  call  for 
EN 

61

EN 

 
 
 
evidence and the Open Public Consultation to which 17 victims of crime participated and 
submitted their opinions.  

Research and academia 

Taking into account findings from research and academia is highly relevant to substantiate 
contributions coming from the field. To take into account both elements from theory and 
practice  for  the  revision  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive,  it  was  relevant  to  consult  this 
stakeholder  group. Criminal  law experts, including academia,  were reached throughout  a 
targeted  consultation  meeting  on  13  May  2022  and  could  provide  input  on  technical 
questions, such as on the feasibility of certain options under the applicable legal basis.  

Short description of the methodology and tools used to process the data 

The  consultation  activities  were  focused  on  online  surveys  and  virtual  meetings.  The 
following actions were carried out in the framework of the consultation:  

  The Commission launched a public consultation in all 24 official EU languages. The 
consultation was questionnaire-based. The consultation period was twelve weeks. The 
outcome of the open public consultation was analysed by an external contractor. 
  The Commission organised targeted consultations with Member States experts, the 
Victims’  Rights  Platform  and  a  group  of  criminal  law  experts.  The  information 
gathered during these meetings is reflected in the present synopsis report. 

3.  TARGETED CONSULTATIONS 

The  following  targeted  consultations  were  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the  impact 
assessment: 

Date 
13 December 2021 –  
10 January 2022 
8 March – 31 May 2022 
21 April 2022 

26 April 2022 

10 May 2022 

13 May 2022 

13 September 2022 

Consultation 

Call for evidence 

Open Public Consultation 
Expert Meeting with 27 Member States representatives 
Meeting with members of the Victims’ Rights Platform 
(Part I) 
Meeting with members of the Victims’ Rights Platform 
(Part II) 
Meeting of the Criminal Law Expert Group 
Workshop of the EU network of national contact points on 
compensation 

In the context of the targeted consultations, the following documents were brought to the 
attention of the Commission. 

Documents provided through the chats 

Meeting with Member States experts on 21 April 2022 

MS 
AT 

EN 

Topic 
Privacy 
Protection 

Document 
Austrian decree of 16 February 2022 "Requests for 
information and deletion to Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp 
and Google" 

62

EN 

 
 
 
 
Federal law taking measures to combat hate on the internet 
(Hass-im-Netz-Bekämpfungs-Gesetz – HiNBG) 

Meeting with Victims’ Rights Platform on 26 April 2022 

Organisation  Topic 
Fair Trials 

Access to Information  
manifesto of CSOs highlighting shortcomings of 
police, prosecution and incarceration as main 
responses for victim protection 
Individual Needs assessment 
Protection measures 
Data protection and victim support 
Protection measures (German Letter of Protection) 

VSE 
ESWA 
VSE  
End FGM 
European 
Network 
VSE 
VSE 

Victim support – funding of victim support services 
National Referral mechanism (THB)  

Link  
Link 

Meeting with Victims’ Rights Platform on 10 May 2022 

Organisation  Topic 
Eurojust 

ESWA 
EFRJ 

La Strada 
International 

Access to compensation – best practices on how to 
facilitate the claim for compensation in cases of high 
number of victims 
Compensation - equal compensation for lost wages 
Restorative Justice  

Victims of war crimes – risk of trafficking 

Document 
Link 

Link 
Link  
Link 
Link  

Document 
Link 1 
Link 2 
Link 3 
Link (p. 30) 
Link 1 
Link 2 
Link 3 
Link 1 
Link 2 
Link 3 

Contributions received from stakeholders in reply to targeted consultation 

Organisation  Document 
VSE 
EFRJ 

VSE recommendations Revision VRD_final 
Background paper for Restorative Justice in the VRD 
CoE Venice Declaration of the Ministers of Justice on restorative justice 
Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)8 of concerning 
restorative justice in criminal matters 
Manual on Restorative Justice Values and Standards 
Restorative Justice Quality Review Toolkit 
Effectiveness of restorative justice practices. An overview of empirical 
research on restorative justice practices in Europe (2017) 
Using restorative approaches for domestic and sexual abuse: A personal 
choice. 
Restorative Justice for Victims (infographic) 
Practice Guide: Implementing Restorative Justice with Child Victims 
Victims of Road Traffic Offences 

EN 

63

EN 

 
 
 
 
The role of restorative justice in preventing and responding to violent 
extremism  
Joint position paper EFRJ – TDH to the EC on child-friendly restorative 
justice 
PROTECT project 
LetsGoByTalking Project 
iRestore Project 
FRA input to Commission VRD open public consultation 31 May 2022 
Document on referrals used by the Police to refer victims to victim 
support services 
Document on differences in municipalities’ funding to local victim 
support services 
Maps demonstrating differences in funding and contracts to local victim 
support services 
Article on womens’ rights perspective on Restorative Justice 
Study on Restorative Justice in Cases of Domestic Violence 
1st General Report of the GREVIO Committee 
UN Women Handbook and Framework on legislating on VAWG 
Report on Mental Health and Wellbeing of Migrant Women 
EP recent study on trauma and refugee women 
Best practice principles on assistance of female migrant victims of 
trafficking 
Report on Eurojust's casework on victims' rights - A contribution to the 
European Commission Coordinator for Victims' Rights mapping 
exercise  

FRA 
Victim 
Support 
Sweden 

ENOMW 

ENOMW 

Eurojust 

4.  OUTCOMES OF THE CONSULTATIONS  

Call for evidence 

Throughout  the  call  for  evidence,  53  responses  have  been  received.  67,92%  of  the 
contributions were submitted by non-governmental organisations, 18,87% of the responses 
came from EU citizens. A quarter of the responses was submitted by German stakeholders 
(13 replies), followed by contributions from Belgium (7 replies).  

EN 

64

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Contributions by category of respondent 

Open public consultation 

Among the 72 replies, 17 were from  victims of crime (23,6%) and three from  friends or 
relatives of victims of crime (4,2%). A total of 31 replies came from victim support services 
(43,1%), of which 22 indicated to be non-governmental victim support services (30,6%).  

154 

Participants to the Open Public Consultation by 
category of respondent (in total numbers)

20

17

Victim of crime

Relative or friend of
victim of crime
Governmental victim
support service
Non-governmental
victim support services
No specification

3

9

22

Feedback by stakeholder type 

Feedback per country of origin 

Stakeholder type 
EU citizen 
Non-governmental 
organisation based in the EU 
Non-governmental 
organisation based out of the 
EU 

Replies 
19 
25 

1 
  Albania 
  Austria 
2 
  Belgium  6 

4 
Italy 
Lithuania 
1 
Luxembourg  1 

3 

  Bulgaria  1 

Malta 

2 

154 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13096-Criminal-justice-EU-rules-
on-victims-rights-update-/feedback_en?p_id=27583278.  

EN 

65

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Public authority 
Business association 
Academic/research 
institutions 
Non-EU citizen 
Other 

14 
4 
2 

1 
4 

  Croatia 
  Czechia 
Finland 

1 
1 
1 

Netherlands   3 
1 
Portugal 
3 
Romania 

France 

9 
  Germany  12 
  Hungary  3 
1 
3 

Iran 
Ireland 

Slovenia 
6 
South Africa  1 
7 
Spain 
1 
Sweden 
1 
Switzerland 

Summary of the replies 

Access to information 

63  respondents  (89%,  63  out  of  71)  -  mostly  NGOs  and  EU  citizens,  agreed  or  strongly 
agreed with the establishment of a general Victims’ helpline as well as with a requirement 
to  coordinate  the  provision  of  information  through  state  and  non-state  actors.  Only  three 
respondents  (4%),  two  NGOs  and  one  public  authority,  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed 
respectively with an establishment of the helpline and with a requirement for coordination 
in information provision.  

Asked  for  further  suggestions  to  adequately  provide  information  to  victims,  seven 
respondents out of 41, mainly NGOs, proposed to use television or new technologies as well 
as oral and written awareness raising initiatives (17%). Further, five of the 41 respondents 
(12%, two NGOs, two EU citizens and one “other” organisation) highlighted the need for 
adequate assistance (e.g. psychosocial support or one-to-one support) for specific groups of 
victims  (e.g.  elderly  people  or  people  with  disabilities)  to  access  information.  They  also 
stressed  the  active  inclusion  of  organisations  working  with  marginalised  communities. 
Furthermore, the need to ensure the accessibility of a centralised helpline for people with 
disabilities  was  mentioned  by  five  respondents,  including  three  NGOs  and  two  public 
authorities (12%). Six of the 41 respondents, mostly NGOs (5), stressed that information 
sharing could also be improved by using light language, community languages and through 
multilingualism (15%). In the attachments to the contributions, some respondents asked to 
inform victims repeatedly and to adopt a more proactive approach to reach out to victims. 

Protection for victims 

A requirement for a stronger coordination and cooperation between national authorities and 
organisations  involved  in  individual  needs  assessments  was  broadly  welcomed  by  the 
respondents  (90%,  63  out  of  69),  all  NGOs  and  EU  citizens.  Four  respondents  (public 
authorities) out of 69 disagreed (6%) without any strong disagreement. 

On  the  provision  of  physical  protection  measures,  respondents  overall  endorsed  the 
proposals for physical protection measures. All proposed measures received a high level of 
support, mainly from NGOs and EU citizens but also from public authorities. 

EN 

66

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Contributions on measures for victims’ protection 

More shelters are created (n=69)

Support services made available in rural/remote areas
(n=70)

Establishment of a telephone help line (n=70)

Evacuation orders for the perpetrator (n=65)

Restraining orders in the context of criminal proceedings
(n=68)

40

40

37

41

42

20

7

1
1

23

5

1

1

23

4

3

3

17

5

2

17

6

1 1
1

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

I do not know

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Among further suggestions on how to improve victims’ protection, six out of 36 respondents 
mentioned training for all persons likely to be involved with victims. Some called for further 
cooperation and coordination of services concerned on the local, national and international 
level. Three participants expressed concern about the access to and use of victims’ data in 
the media. Finally, some respondents highlighted the need for specific protection for victims 
with specific needs, referring explicitly to intersex persons and victims with disabilities. In 
the  attachments,  respondents  asked  for  a  strengthening  of  the  protection  of  cross-border 
victims.  It  was  further  suggested  to  coordinate  protection  mechanisms  with  other  laws, 
which could be related to protection measures. 

Access to victim support services 

65 respondents, in particular NGOs and EU citizens, agreed or strongly agreed to introduce 
a  requirement  to  improve  the  ability  of  support  services  for  victims  belonging  to 
marginalised groups as well as for victims from rural or remote areas (65 respondents out of 
69 for each category, 94%). 63 respondents expressed their (strong) agreement to improve 
the availability of victim support services to victims who have not reported a crime (90%) 
and 56 respondents considered that availability of support services should be improved for 
victims belonging to  other specific  groups (81%). Only one to  three respondents,  mostly 
NGOs, expressed their disagreement, while strong disagreement was not expressed at all.  

About nine out of ten respondents considered that vulnerable victims should receive free 
psychological support (88%, 61 out of 69) and free medical treatment (87%, 60 out of 69) 
for as long as needed, in alignment with the provisions of the Counter-terrorism Directive. 
Strong agreement for these measures came namely from NGOs and EU citizens.  

With regard to a one-stop shop approach, a majority of 53 out of 68 respondents (78%), in 
particular NGOs (20) agreed or strongly agreed with the adoption of this approach.  

Several  respondents  further  suggested  to  adopt  a  holistic  approach  to  victim  support, 
including free, multidisciplinary and adequately funded support services for different types 
of  victims  as  well  as  multidisciplinary  teams  of  trained  professionals  (75%  out  of  41 
respondents). In the attachments, some respondents called for the Directive to set priorities 
on the types of victims’ support services to be provided. Some asked for court services to be 
included into victim support services and one respondent advocated for including restorative 

EN 

67

EN 

 
 
 
 
justice services. The establishment of effective referral mechanisms was raised, as well as 
the overall demand to take account of victims with specific needs. 

Access to justice 

Most of the respondents were in favour of a legal representative accompanying victims in 
criminal proceedings (85%, 57 out of 67 respondents who replied to this question). To a 
lesser extent, respondents agreed or strongly agreed that victims should be accompanied by 
an  administrative  representative  (57%,  36  out  of  63  respondents  who  replied  to  this 
question). Agreement came primarily from NGOs and EU citizens. On the question whether 
victims  should  have  the right  to  be  accompanied  by  a  representative  of  a  victim  support 
organisation, 60 respondents out of 70 agreed or strongly agreed (86%), most of them NGOs 
(21) and EU citizens (18). 11 public authorities agreed or strongly agreed with the measure. 
Only two respondents, NGOs, disagreed (3%) and eight indicated that they neither agree nor 
disagree (11%). 

On the proposal to grant free legal aid to victims throughout any legal proceedings they are 
engaged in as a consequence of being a victim and independent from their level of income, 
respondents  mostly  expressed  agreement  or  strong  agreement  (70%,  50  out  of  71). 
Nevertheless,  11  respondents  out  of  71  (15%,  five  NGOs,  five  public  authorities,  one 
academic institution) disagreed or strongly disagreed with this measure and 10 respondents 
(14%) indicated to neither agree nor disagree with it.  

A vast majority of respondents, including mainly NGOs and EU citizens, indicated to be in 
favour of granting victims in all cases the possibility to participate as a formal party to the 
criminal proceedings in order to enjoy the rights associated with this status (87%, 58 out of 
67  respondents  who  replied  to  this  question).  Similarly,  96%  of  the  respondents,  again 
mostly NGOs (22) and EU citizens (17), but also public authorities (15), agreed to providing 
victims with the right to challenge any decision taken concerning their rights in the course 
of the criminal proceedings.  

Among  30  respondents  who  made  further  suggestions  on  the  improvement  of  victims’ 
access to justice, 92% provided suggestions related to the harmonisation, simplification and 
strengthening  of  the  modality  of  access  to  permanent,  court-based  support  services  to 
victims.  

In the attachments to the contributions some respondents asked for clarification as to the 
role of the representative, who would accompany the victim. Some respondents argued that 
free legal aid might be difficult to establish in some Member States and suggested to enhance 
in-house legal counselling through victim support organisations. One respondent insisted on 
the strengthening of restorative justice mechanisms. 

Access to compensation 

On the question how to strengthen victims’ access to compensation, multiple options were 
proposed. A little more than half (53%, 33 respondents out of 62) of respondents, mostly 
EU  citizens,  endorsed  the  option  to  require  a  decision  on  compensation  in  criminal 
proceedings only, while 14 participants out of 62 (23%) including six NGOs and four public 
authorities,  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  with  this  option.  Four  respondents  further 
suggested  enhanced  and  more  regulated  compensation  schemes,  as  this  would  simplify 
relevant procedures and clearly define what kind of costs could be covered by compensation. 
One participant suggested the provision of choice for victims to access restorative justice. 

EN 

68

EN 

 
 
 
In  the  attached  submissions,  some  respondents  asked  for  more  training  for  professionals 
involved in compensation. Some respondents asked for more detail on the damage covered.   

Additional comments and suggestions 

Several respondents, notably NGOs and EU citizens, provided further suggestions for the 
revision of the Directive. These suggestions included a harmonization of EU Member State 
approaches when providing rights and standards, a stronger focus on vulnerable groups and 
an  extension  of  specific  target  groups  (e.g.  to  elderly  people),  an  enhanced  access  to 
restorative  justice  and  an  explicit  consideration  of  torture  victims.  In  the  attachments, 
respondents further suggested to further precise the definition of victim in the Directive and 
to put in place a funding mechanism for victim support organisations.  

Targeted consultations 

Meeting with Member States’ experts (21.04.2022) 

Access to information concerning victims’ rights 

On access to information, Member States were generally in favour of establishing a general 
helpline for victims, as long as it does not replace existing helplines. Some Member States 
expressed concerns about the administrative burden related to the establishment of such a 
general Victims’ helpline while others shared positive experiences. Some Member States 
highlighted the challenge of providing the service in different languages.  

On  the  cooperation  and  coordination  between  state  and  non-state  actors  in  providing 
information, Member States acknowledged the importance of non-state actors in information 
provision and some mentioned that they already have procedures on cooperation in place. 
Others expressed that general coordination with the third sector is still difficult. The main 
concerns raised on mandatory cooperation were the administrative burden and a potential 
overload of information provided to victims.   

Member  States  mainly  provide  information  to  victims  in  multiple  formats  and  through 
various  channels.  They  however  face  challenges  as  regards  the  complexity  and  the  large 
amount of information to be provided to victims, as well as to vulnerable groups.  

Protection of victims 

Member  States  are  mostly  reluctant  to  having  mandatory  cooperation  with  different 
stakeholders  including  non-state  victims  support  organisations  in  individual  assessments. 
Some  Member  States  pointed  out  the  risk  of  delaying  the  assessment  and  eventually  the 
protection of the victim. Few Member States therefore argued for strengthening voluntary 
cooperation. FRA furthermore expressed the need for more guidance on how to carry out 
individual assessments and highlighted the importance to involve experts.155 

As to the establishment of minimum standards on physical protection measures, Member 
States mentioned that they have various minimum standards in place at the national level. 
No  objections  were  raised  against  this  option.  Some  Member  States  asked  for  further 
clarifications on the types of measures envisaged and on the types of victims to which these 
protection measures would apply. 

155 FRA, Underpinning victims’ rights: support services, reporting and protection, February 2023, p. 40 et seq; 
and FRA, Proceedings that do justice – Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, April 2019, p. 92. 

EN 

69

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Member States are mostly in favour of strengthening the role of EU agencies with regard to 
judicial  cooperation  in  cross-border  cases.  CEPOL  further  highlighted  the  importance  of 
cross-border training for law enforcement authorities.  

Regarding  privacy  measures,  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  facilitating  information 
sharing  between  authorities  and  victim  support  organisations.  Furthermore,  one  Member 
State mentioned it already has provisions in place which facilitate the removal of harmful 
online content, mentioning explicitly a law on combating hate crime on the Internet. As to 
media  intrusions,  one  Member  State  considered  that  this  should  be  regulated  by  another 
instrument than the VRD.   

Access to victim support services 

With regard to  victim support, Member States identified the lack of  awareness  of victim 
support services as the main challenge. No objections were raised on the extension of free 
psychological and medical support to other victims than victims of terrorism, for whom this 
service  already  exists.  Neither  were  objections  raised  on  enhanced  cooperation  between 
victim support services  and clearer  guidance on  referral  mechanisms. However, Member 
States were reluctant to establish a one-stop-shop approach, pointing out decentralised state 
systems, the complexity of actors involved in victim support and different competencies of 
Ministries  concerned.  They  called  for  voluntary  cooperation  and  the  strengthening  of 
existing networks. FRA however noted the promising practice of setting up a coordination 
and networking hub for authorities, organisations and people involved in victim assistance 
and protection.156  

Access to justice 

The discussions addressed mainly the importance for victims to be a formal party to criminal 
proceedings in order to benefit from procedural rights. Some Member States are reluctant to 
grant  procedural  rights  to  victims,  who  are  not  a  formal  party  to  the  proceedings.  In  the 
majority of the Member States, victims have the possibility to become a formal party to the 
criminal proceedings. In at least three Member States this possibility however appears not 
to exist.  

As to the right to be accompanied, Member States acknowledged the importance for victims 
to  be  accompanied  during  trial.  Some  highlighted  the  difference  between  a  legal 
representative, who can only be a qualified lawyer in certain Member States, and any other 
supportive person assisting the victim during the proceedings.  

Member States are against providing free legal aid to victims of crime independently of the 
level  of  income.  In  some  Member  States,  free  legal  aid  regardless  of  income  is  already 
granted to victims of specific crimes. One Member State suggested to extend free legal aid 
to experts while another Member State raised the importance to keep the balance between 
procedural rights granted to victims and to suspects.  

Free legal aid is in some Member States linked to the formal status of the victim in criminal 
proceedings.  The  same  applies  to  the  possibility  for  victims  to  challenge  decisions 
concerning  their  rights.  In  at  least  eight  Member  States,  a  formal  status  in  criminal 
proceedings  is  required  to  challenge  decisions.  Some  Member  States  expressed  their 
reluctance to extend this right to victims that are not formal parties to the proceedings. 

156 FRA, Underpinning victims’ rights: support services, reporting and protection, February 2023. 

EN 

70

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Access to compensation 

In  most  Member  States,  victims  can  claim  compensation  during  criminal  proceedings. 
However, the compensation claim is at least in one Member State a matter of civil law. Some 
Member States are reluctant to abandon the civil nature of compensation claims, raising that 
rules  on  proof  are  different  and  that  making  compensation  a  criminal  law  matter  would 
interfere  with  the  independence  of  civil  courts.  One  Member  State  presented  a  different 
compensation system in the form of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal.   

Measures  to  facilitate  access  to  compensation  for  victims  appear  to  be  in  place  in  most 
Member States. The reimbursement of expenses for victims to assist trial was less discussed. 
While one Member State mentioned that all expenses are reimbursed, another noted that the 
reimbursement does not always cover all expenses.  

Meetings of the Victims’ Rights Platform (26.04.2022 and 10.05.2022) 

Access to information concerning victims’ rights 

Participants overall welcomed the establishment of a general helpline for victims of crime 
as long as it does not replace existing helplines. It was noted that the accessibility to the 
helpline  needs  to  be  ensured,  taking  into  account  potential  language  barriers,  cultural 
specificities  as  well  as  particular  needs  of  victims  with  disabilities.  While  some 
organisations  expressed  their  reluctance  towards  state-operated  helplines,  one  participant 
pointed out that most of the helplines operated by non-governmental organisations rely on 
state funding.  

Enhanced coordination of stakeholders involved in information provision was welcomed by 
participants, who highlighted the need to clarify responsibilities and centralise information. 
According to the participants, multiple formats should be used to inform victims about their 
rights, leaving them the choice to opt for the most adequate way to be informed. Further, the 
information  provision  should  be  trauma-informed  and  take  into  account  the  gender 
dimension. While a multi-sectorial approach to information provision was welcomed, some 
organisations  expressed  their  mistrust  towards  the  State  and  stressed  the  importance  of 
community-based approaches.  

With regard to informing victims in closed institutions or in detention, participants agreed 
on the importance to improve information provision for these victims but also highlighted 
that further barriers hindering victims from accessing information and exercising their rights 
need to be taken into account. Some pointed out, that victims do not only need to be informed 
about their rights but also enabled to enforce them and there needs to be a safe space for 
them to report a crime in the first place.  

In general, participants raised awareness on the need to enhance training for practitioners 
providing information to victims and/or being involved in operating victims’ helplines.  

Protection of victims 

In the field of victim protection, participants overall welcomed the measures proposed by 
the Commission. As to the individual assessments, the role of victim support organisation 
should be strengthened while being clearly defined. According to the participants, it has to 
be ensured, that the contributions made by victim support organisations are duly taken into 
account. Further guidance and training for national authorities on how to carry out individual 
need  assessments  were  welcomed  by  the  platform  members.  Participants  insisted  on  the 
importance to  associate  specialised support services, community-based organisations  and 
actors working on restorative justice to these individual assessments.  
EN 

71

EN 

 
 
 
On  protection  measures,  participants  agreed  on  the  importance  to  strengthen  physical 
protection measures, which shall apply according to the risk to which the victim is exposed. 
Some participants suggested further trainings for professionals, to better identify protection 
needs.  

Platform members noted that in some cases victims depend on their offender, e.g. due to a 
disability.  In these cases, it must be ensured that victims are protected according to their 
specific needs, avoiding any dependency from the perpetrator. 

Access to victim support services 

As Member States experts, members of the Victims’ Rights Platform considered that the 
main  challenge  regarding  victim  support  was  the  lack  of  awareness  of  existing  support 
services.  

More detail on the sort of victim support services was overall welcomed by participants. It 
was noted that the Victims’ Rights Directive lacks precision in drafting, for example, when 
it refers to “access to support services”. Participants stated that it is not clear what “access” 
precisely entails.  

According  to  the  participants,  referrals  from  authorities  to  victim  support  organisations 
should be automatic and follow an opt-out approach. It was mentioned that professionals 
should receive further training to meet victims’ needs.  

Overall,  participants  agreed  that  specialist  support  services  are  best  suited  to  respond  to 
victims’  needs  and  some  participants  pointed  out  the  need  to  involve  community-based 
services.  However,  one  participant  also  highlighted  the  importance  of  generic  support 
services as an essential part of victim support. A more coordinated and organised approach 
among specialised and generic support services, as well as multi-agency approaches were 
welcomed. 

It  was  noted  that  the  lack  of  funding  of  victim  support  organisations  is  a  driver  for 
competition between specialised and generic support services. Some participants therefore 
called for a more need-based approach for  funding, based on an analysis of existing and 
missing services and informed by regular monitoring procedures assessing adequacy and 
quality of the services provided.  

The  measures  to  expand  free  psychological  and  medical  support  was  welcomed  by 
participants.  Some  raised  the  question  on  the  level  of  qualification  of  the  professionals 
providing the psychological assistance.  

Participants  were  in  favour  of  enhancing  cooperation  and  coordination  between  victim 
support services and to strengthen interdisciplinary cooperation. One participant raised the 
need for flexibility of cooperation measures taking account of different national contexts. 
This participant therefore suggested flexible provisions allowing for a country and context-
based implementation. 

Platform members expressed reluctance towards any form of mandatory cooperation with 
State  authorities.  In  line  with  this  position,  participants  were  mostly  against  the 
establishment of a one-stop shop approach, insisting on the mistrust of victims towards State 
authorities and highlighting the lacking expertise of State services to meet victims’ needs. 
Nevertheless, several participants mentioned the Barnahus model as a good example of a 
one-stop shop approach.  

EN 

72

EN 

 
 
 
One participant suggested to adopt a multidisciplinary case-management approach, while 
another  participant  suggested  some  mechanism  for  multi-agency  approaches,  such  as 
platforms  to  share  information  or  joint  needs  assessments.  It  was  stressed,  that  victims 
should have the choice between multi-agency approaches and other victim support services.  

Access to Justice 

Participants  agreed  on  the  importance  for  victims  to  be  accompanied  during  criminal 
proceedings.  It  was  mentioned  that  a  multi-disciplinary  support  should  be  provided  to 
victims during this process, including emotional, psychological and legal assistance. One 
participant raised the difference between legal advice and legal representation. 

As to free legal aid, one participant stressed that all victims should equally benefit from free 
legal aid. Limiting this option to specific types of victims would require a justification for 
this  prioritisation.  Regarding  income-related  legal  aid,  one  participant  pointed  out,  that 
social allowances, such as disability allowances, should not be included in the calculation 
of a victim’s income. 

Participants were overall in favour of granting victims the right to always become a formal 
party  to  the  proceedings.  Some  stressed  the  importance  of  this  measure  with  regard  to 
victims’ recognition. However, one participant highlighted that the formal status also entails 
obligations and that victims might be reluctant to accept the burdens related to this status. 
The  participant  therefore  considered  it  important,  to  grant  victims  procedural  rights 
independently of their status in criminal proceedings.  

On the right for victims to challenge decisions concerning their rights, only one participant 
contributed and stressed that this possibility needs to be accompanied by a provision of legal 
advice to the victim.  

Access to Compensation 

The  option  to  facilitate  victims’  access  to  compensation  was  welcomed  by  participants. 
Some advocated for establishing compensation through the State in the first place, in order 
to  ensure  that  victims  obtain  the  compensation  in  time.  The  State  would  then  seek 
reimbursement from the perpetrator. Participant also expressed to be in favour of simplifying 
the reimbursement of expenses for victims. 

Meeting with the Criminal Law Experts Group (13.05.2022) 

The discussion with the Criminal Law Expert Group focused on access to justice, victims of 
war crimes and on access to compensation and restoration. 

Access to Justice 

On access to justice, one participant argued that assistance and protection for victims during 
criminal  proceedings  should  be  extended  to  the  phase  of  execution  and  enforcement  as 
victims often experience secondary victimisation at this stage of the proceedings. The same 
expert  however  raised  the  concern  that  the  enforcement  phase  is  not  necessarily  part  of 
criminal  proceedings  and  could  therefore  fall  out  of  the  scope  of  the  Victims’  Rights 
Directive (VRD).  

Some experts mentioned examples from national orders where procedural rights for victims 
are not conditioned by their formal status in criminal proceedings. In FI, victims enjoy full 
procedural rights as injured parties, including the right to be accompanied by a legal advisor 
and a support person. In ES, victims can challenge decisions without being a formal party 
to the proceedings. 
EN 

73

EN 

 
 
 
On legal  aid,  experts welcomed the initiative to  harmonize access  to  legal  aid  instead of 
referring to national laws.  

Access to Compensation 

On  compensation,  experts  stressed  the  significant  differences  between  Member  States  as 
regards  compensation  proceedings  and  pointed  out  the  need  to  effectively  avoid  contact 
between the victim and the offender in this context.  It was noted that victims sometimes 
refrain from requesting compensation as they fear getting in touch with  the offender and 
suffering  secondary  victimization.  It  was  therefore  suggested  that  States  compensate  the 
victims in the first place and then seek recovery of the expenses from the perpetrator.  

Experts further shared experiences on compensation within their Member States. In ES for 
example, prosecutors can ask for compensation within criminal proceedings. 

Workshop of the EU network of national contact points on compensation (13.09.2022) 

The discussion focused on the existing compensation procedures in Member States and the 
possibilities to facilitate victims’ access to compensation from the offender. Contact points 
from  twenty  out  of  the  27  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  participated  in  the 
workshop or sent their contributions afterwards. 

In many Member States, victims have several possibilities to obtain compensation: either by 
claiming  it  from  the  offender  in  criminal  or  civil  proceedings  or  by  applying  for  state 
compensation.  The  conditions  for  eligibility  for  these  different  possibilities  may  vary 
between the different Member States.  

As far as state compensation is concerned, most Member States have maximum amounts 
above which compensation is not possible. This amount varies between 5,000 and 200,000 
depending  on  the  crime  and  the  extent  of  the  damage.  Four  MS  do  not  have  maximum 
amounts:  AT,  CY,  DE  and  IE,  but  the  latter  is  currently  discussing  the  introduction  of 
maximum amounts. 

In some Member States, state compensation is possible in advance, even in the absence of 
criminal proceedings - except in BG, CY, CZ, EL, HU, IT, SE, SK. 

In almost all Member States, the State pays initial compensation to the victim and can then 
recover it from the offender (or at least claim it back). Except in IE, where the court first has 
to make a decision. To avoid double compensation, amounts paid to the victim following a 
court decision, when known, are deducted by the court from the compensation. In the NL, 
only victims of violent and sexual offences receive full state compensation 8 months after 
the judgment has become final and the state then recovers the costs from the offender. 

In addition, it should be noted that many jurisdictions have recently revised or are currently 
considering  revising  their  national  compensation  schemes,  which  means  that  the  costs 
associated with the efforts that may be required under PO V.3 have already been taken into 
account by some national governments (AT, BE, BG, IE, IT, LT, NL, PL, SE, SI and SK at 
least).

EN 

74

EN 

 
 
 
5.  COMPARISON OF VIEWS 

Comparison of stakeholder views 

Specific objective I: Significant improvement of victims’ access to information 

Member  State  experts,  members  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Platform  and  the  stakeholders 
consulted throughout the open public consultation overall welcome the idea to establish a 
general helpline for victims of crime.  

Some Member State experts highlighted that they already have a helpline for victims of crime 
under  the  EU  number  in  place,  while  some  others  expressed  concerns  about  potential 
administrative  burdens.  Members  of  the  Victim  Rights’  Platform  pointed  to  the  need  for 
quality standards and trained professionals operating the helpline. They further stressed that 
the availability of the helpline must be ensured, which includes addressing potential language 
barriers and specific situations of persons with disabilities – a point which was also raised by 
respondents in the open public consultation. Both Member State experts and victim support 
organisations agreed that a general helpline should not replace existing helplines.  

Stakeholders overall welcomed the idea to enhance coordination on information provision 
and  to  improve  the  provision  of  information  to  persons  in  closed  institutions.  89%  of 
respondents of the open public consultation agreed or strongly agreed with this option. 

On the first aspect, Member State experts acknowledged the importance of victim  support 
organisations in providing information, while stating that in some cases cooperation remains 
difficult.  Victim  support  organisations  asked  for  more  centralised  information  and  more 
clarity about the respective responsibilities of state and non-state actors in the provision of 
information. They stressed that authorities are not always best placed to inform victims about 
their rights, as the latter might mistrust the State.  

As to the provision of information for victims in closed institutions, Member State experts 
noted that reaching out to these groups remains a challenge. Victim support organisations 
stressed that victims in closed institutions need not only to be informed about their rights but 
also need to be enabled to effectively exercise them. 

EN 

75

EN 

 
 
 
Specific  objective  II:  Better  alignment  of  victims’  protection  measures  with  victims’ 
needs 

While stakeholders overall acknowledge the need for more coordination with regard to victim 
protection,  Member  State  experts  were  reluctant  towards  the  introduction  of  mandatory 
cooperation with victim support organisations on individual needs assessments. In the same 
vein, victim support organisations expressed some doubts on a mandatory cooperation with 
national authorities, while at the same time stressing the importance of being associated with 
individual needs assessments. Both Member State experts and victim support organisations 
welcomed more guidance on how to carry out individual needs assessments. Victim support 
organisations further pointed out that experts and community-based organisations should be 
involved  in  these  assessments  and  that  more  training  for  national  authorities  needs  to  be 
provided in this field.  

As to minimum standards on physical protection measures, stakeholders’ opinions are overall 
positive.  Member  State  experts  asked  for  clarification  on  the  type  of  protection  measures 
envisaged  and  the  type  of  victims  concerned.  Victim  support  organisations  raised  some 
shortcomings in the implementation of protection measures and stressed the importance of 
providing further training to professionals applying these measures and to ensure that once 
the measures apply, they take account of the specific needs of victims. 

Specific  objective  III:  Facilitated  access  to  specialist  support  for  vulnerable  victims, 
including children 

All  stakeholders  welcomed  further  details  on  support  services  as  well  as  enhanced 
cooperation and coordination between authorities and victim support organisation and among 
victim  support  organisations  themselves.  Both  Member  States  experts  and  victim  support 
organisations  identified  the  lack  of  awareness  of  existing  support  services  as  a  main 
challenge. They also both expressed reluctance towards a one-stop-shop approach to support 
services. Member States raised the decentralised organisation of some States, which would 
hamper  the  implementation  of  such  an  approach  and  pointed  out  that  different  support 
services  fall  under  different  competencies.  Victim  support  organisations’  reluctance  was 
mainly grounded in a mistrust towards state-led agencies, which, according to them, could 
hinder victims from seeking support. In the open public consultation however, a majority of 
78% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the introduction of a one-stop-shop 
approach,  of  which  the  majority  were  non-governmental  organisations  (‘NGOs’)  and  EU 
citizens.  

Member State experts, victim support organisations and the respondents to the open public 
consultation welcomed free psychological support as long as required for victims in need of 
such  support.  Victim  support  organisations  highlighted  that  victims  tend  to  refrain  from 
receiving  psychological  support  once  they  have  to  pay  for  it.  They  also  discussed  the 
necessary qualifications of the professionals providing the psychological support.  

EN 

76

EN 

 
 
 
Specific objective IV: More effective participation in criminal proceedings for victims 

All stakeholders overall welcomed the possibility for victims to be accompanied throughout 
the criminal proceedings. While victim support organisations highlighted the importance of 
social and legal  support  for victims during legal  proceedings, Member State experts were 
divided  on  the  question whether  the  formal  status  as  a  victim  within  the proceedings  is  a 
prerequisite  for  being  accompanied.  In  some  Member  States,  the  right  for  a  victim  to  be 
accompanied  is  conditioned  by  the  fact  of  being  a  formal  party  to  the  proceedings.  Both 
victim support organisations and Member State experts highlighted the difference between 
legal assistance and legal representation and some Member State representatives clarified that 
exclusively  lawyers  would  be  entitled  to  represent  victims  in  trial.  In  the  open  public 
consultation,  most  respondents  welcomed  the  possibility  for  victims  to  be  accompanied. 
Those  who  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  were  mainly  EU  citizens  and  NGOs.  However,  the 
approval was stronger for legal representatives (85% of respondents) than for administrative 
representatives (57% of respondents).  

On  free  legal  aid,  Member  State  experts  were  mostly  reluctant  to  grant  free  legal  aid  for 
victims independent of their income. However, in some Member States, victims are already 
entitled to free legal aid regardless of their income in case they have been victim of specific 
crimes. In the open public consultation, a majority of 70% of  the respondents, mostly EU 
citizens  and  NGOs,  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  with  the  provision  of  legal  aid  to  victims 
regardless of their level of income.  

Victim support organisations as well as members of the Criminal Law Expert Group noted 
that  on  free  legal  aid  national  laws  are  often  too  restrictive.  Indeed,  some  Member  State 
experts highlighted that the entitlement to free legal aid is dependent on the victims’ formal 
status in the proceeding. According to victim support organisations, legal aid should be made 
available to all victims in the same way, as legal aid is crucial to allow victims to rely on their 
rights.  

Stakeholders overall agreed on granting victims the possibility to challenge decisions taken 
concerning their rights. Especially in the open public consultation, a vast majority of 96% of 
the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this option. Victim support organisations did 
not extensively discuss this matter but highlighted that the possibility to challenge decisions 
needs  to  be  accompanied  by  support  measures,  such  as  legal  assistance.  The  discussion 
among Member State experts primarily focused on the question whether the possibility to 
challenge a decision should depend on the victims’ formal status in the proceedings, as this 
requirement exists in some but not all Member States.  

All stakeholders were in favour of giving victims the possibility to be part of the criminal 
proceedings.  In  most  of  the  Member  States  this  is  already  possible.  Some  Member  State 
experts welcomed the option to grant certain procedural rights to victims independent of their 
participation in the proceedings. Victim support organisations further mentioned that being a 
formal party to the proceedings can represent a burden for victims and that they therefore 
should have some procedural rights independent from their status in criminal proceedings. 
They however also stressed the importance to victims of being recognised as such and raised 
awareness of the fact that victims too often lack the possibility to properly express themselves 
in criminal proceedings. The open public consultation confirms the general agreement with 
granting victims the possibility to become a formal party to the proceedings, with 87% of the 
respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with this option. 

EN 

77

EN 

 
 
 
Specific objective V: Facilitated access to compensation from the offender 

Stakeholders  agreed  on  the  need  to  simplify  access  to  compensation  for  victims.  Victim 
support organisation however did not explicitly express themselves on the option to obtain a 
decision on compensation in criminal proceedings only. Member State experts highlighted 
that  in  most  cases,  victims  have  the  possibility  to  obtain  a  decision  on  compensation  in 
criminal proceedings already. Only in a few Member States compensation is a pure civil law 
matter. Nevertheless, some reluctance was expressed to the proposal to make compensation 
a matter of criminal proceedings exclusively. In the same vein, throughout the open public 
consultation,  where  respondents  overall  welcomed  the  simplification  of  access  to 
compensation for victims, the strongest disagreement (23%) was expressed on the option to 
reach a decision on compensation in criminal proceedings only.  

This option was not presented as such during the consultation process. However, the Criminal 
Law Expert Group advocated in favour of such an approach, in which States compensate the 
victim  and  eventually  seek  reimbursement  from  the  offender.  This  approach  would  avoid 
further contact between the victim and the offender and lead to less secondary victimisation 
throughout  the  proceedings.  Victim  support  organisations  also  raised  this  approach, 
highlighting  that  this  way  to  compensate  victims  would  ensure  that  they  receive  the  full 
amount of compensation in time.   

There  was  overall  agreement  with  the  option  to  strengthen  victims’  possibility  to  receive 
reimbursement  of  expenses  related  to  their  participation  in  criminal  proceedings.  No 
particular point or objections were raised in relation to this option. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS  

The  various  consultation  activities  have  overall  confirmed  the  relevance  of  the  proposed 
options. Stakeholders  widely agreed with  the envisaged measures and their contributions 
allowed the Commission services to further develop some of the options in a more detailed 
way. For example, the provision on a general Victims’ helpline will include requirements 
regarding its availability and accessibility.  

Furthermore,  the  consultations  have  allowed  for  one  new  option  to  be  taken  into 
consideration,  namely  Option  V.2.  -  for  the  State  to  pay  the  compensation  due  by  the 
offender to the victim in the first place and to then seek reimbursement from the offender. 
This option was not presented during the targeted consultations but was raised by several 
stakeholders throughout the discussions and then integrated into the preferred policy option. 

Finally,  some  options,  such  as  the  possibility  for  victims  to  become  a  formal  party  in 
criminal proceedings have been overall welcomed throughout the consultations but might 
be difficult to realise in practice or/and with regards to costs – see the overall assessment of 
that  option  in  the  impact  assessment  as  such.  Therefore,  the  option  to  grant  victims  the 
possibility to become a formal party to the proceedings has not been included in the preferred 
options.  

EN 

78

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

The revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive primarily affects the following actors/groups 
of persons: victims and their relatives, governments, the judicial system and victim support 
services.   

For  all  preferred  options,  the  overall  practical  implications  have  been  assessed  for  each 
actor/group of persons.  

Victims and their relatives  

All  proposed options  have  purely  beneficial impacts on victims. They  do not generate 
any costs for victims and/or their relatives.  

Victims will have better facilitated access to information about their rights. Through the 
establishment  of  a  mandatory  general  Victims’  helpline  with  a  common  number,  more 
victims will be able to receive information and support. In addition, information provided to 
victims of crime will be better understandable and will be shared with victims in a more 
coordinated way and at an appropriate time. Thanks to cooperation mechanisms that will 
underpin the helplines, victims will be referred to specialised support services to  receive 
more  targeted  support.  A  coordinated  and  regularly  evaluated  provision  of  information 
means that victims are more likely to get the information they need at different stages of the 
proceeding.  

Victims  will  further  benefit  from  more  coordinated  and  qualitative  individual 
assessments, which will necessarily involve different stakeholders, including  specialised 
victim support services. The inclusion in the individual assessment of the risks emanating 
from  the  offender  will  result  in  improved  safety  for  victims  at  risk.  The  introduction  of 
physical protection measures will further contribute to enhancing the level of protection 
for victims.  

In addition, victims will have better access to victim support services and will have the 
possibility to  obtain  free psychological  support for the time needed.  In  particular, child 
victims will benefit from the availability of specialist support services at the same premises 
or through a central contact point in the form of the Barnahus model. This will contribute 
to ensuring that victims of crime fully recover from their victimisation.  

Victims will further see their procedural rights strengthened. They will be able to better 
understand the criminal proceedings and be prepared for their eventual intervention before 
the court. They will be aware of their rights and the way to exercise them. They will be 
able to challenge the criminal proceedings’ decisions that concern them directly. This will 
render victims’ rights more effective and  reduce the number of cases in which victims 
suffer secondary victimisation throughout court proceedings. 

Victims will receive compensation more easily and in a timely manner. They will not 
have  to  engage  in  further  proceedings  besides  the  criminal  ones  in  order  to  obtain 
compensation and will no longer have to confront their offender in a civil court in order to 
seek  compensation  from  him  or  her.  The  possibility  that  victims  receive  compensation 
directly  from  the  state  will  lead  to  a  reduction  in  uncertainly,  costs  and  time  to  execute 
compensation from the offender. This diminishes the risk of secondary victimisation and 
ensures victims are duly compensated for the harm they suffered.  
EN 

79

EN 

 
 
 
Member States 

Important to highlight that 26 Member States are covered by this impact assessment, since 
the Victims’ Rights Directive is applicable to all Member States but Denmark, who decided 
to  opt  out  from  the  Directive  at  time  of  its  adoption  and  is  therefore  not  bound  by  its 
provisions. 

The  implementation  of  the  proposed  measures  will  generate  additional  costs  for 
governments, but will at the same time enhance efficiency, quality and coordination in 
the field of victim support and protection. 

The  establishment  of  a  single  Victims’  helpline  will  represent  a  coordination  effort  for 
Member States, that do not yet have such a helpline in place. Concretely, this concerns only 
10 Member States.157 They will have to set up the helpline, hire staff to operate it and put 
a referral system in place in order to efficiently connect the general helpline with existing 
specific helplines where relevant.  

As  to  minimum  standards  regarding  physical  protection  measures,  Member  States  might 
have to pass further legislation to fulfil these standards.  

The  broader  provision  of  victim  support  services  will  require  more  funding  from  the 
Member States in order to ensure geographical coverage and the necessary capacity.  

Finally, Member States might be affected by changes on procedural rights for victims and 
rules regarding compensation, as they might need to change provisions of national law. By 
providing  compensation  to  victims  and  subsequently  seeking  reimbursement  from  the 
offender, Member States have to advance funds and invest human and financial resources 
into  the  recovery  of  the  advanced  amounts.  However,  the  positive  outcome  will  be  an 
efficient and simplified compensation system for victims, whose trust into the State and the 
judicial system will be positively influenced.  

Judicial System 

The judicial system will be overall affected by the proposed options, which will generate 
some additional costs but also contribute to more efficiency and coordination among actors 
of the judicial system. 

Facilitated access to information for victims might increase the number of victims exercising 
their rights also through the justice system. In order to reach victims in closed institutions 
as well as victims with specific needs, additional - trained - personnel might be necessary, 
in  order  to  provide  information  in  person.  In  general,  thanks  to  improved  access  to 
information and use of a single EU telephone number, the trust in national and other Member 
States justice schemes will increase. 

As to victims’ protection, actors of the judicial system will need to put cooperation protocols 
in  place  with  relevant  stakeholders  in  order  to  carry  out  well-coordinated  individual 
assessments.  This  will  generate  some  costs  as  further  specified  in  Annex  4.  Once  these 
processes  or  protocols  in  place,  concerned  actors  will,  however,  benefit  from  the 
multidisciplinary  expertise  when  assessing  victims’  protection  needs.  On  its  part,  justice 
schemes will benefit from increase of trust by victims. With regards to protection measures, 
the judicial system might have to deal with a higher amount of protection measures, that 
need to be issued. Nonetheless, increased awareness about the national protection measures 

157 Fundamental Rights Agency: Helplines for victims. Available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/content/helplines-
victims. Please check Annex 6 for further reference. 

EN 

80

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
and  their  availability  following  the  improved  assessment  will  increase  the  trust  in  other 
Member States justice schemes and improve the mutual recognition of judicial cooperation 
in criminal matters – in this case notably in relation to issuance and recognition of European 
protection orders. 

With regard to the measures related to access to support services, the justice schemes would 
have costs related to setting up Barnahus model services involving police and judiciary. The 
costs would be limited to the Member States158 where the system does not function yet. An 
indirect positive effect is expected from a more active participation in the proceeding by 
better supporting vulnerable victims that is not limited to child victims only. 

The involvement of an experienced assistant to the victim will have a positive impact on the 
quality of judicial procedures and allow for more valuable contributions of victims in 
criminal proceedings. The possibility to challenge decision regardless of the formal status 
of the victim might raise the number of proceedings brought by victims against decisions 
taken concerning their rights. The positive impacts will be that there will be a better balance 
between  the  interests  of  the  different  parties  involved  in  criminal  procedures,  leading  to 
more righteous outcomes. 

In  some  Member  States,  the  judicial  system  would  have  to  change  with  regard  to  the 
organisation  of  compensation  proceedings.  By  dealing  with  compensation  directly  in  the 
criminal  trial,  the  system  becomes  more  efficient  and  double  procedures  are  avoided. 
Furthermore, by  granting  compensation directly  though the State, the justice system will 
benefit from simplified procedures and some lower thresholds for victims to participate in 
proceedings. 

Victim Support Organisations 

Victim Support Organisations (VSOs) will be affected by the proposed measures and might 
see their role strengthened. 

Victim Support Organisations will be involved in the operation of general victims’ helplines 
as well as in  the more coordinated provision  of information  to  victims. This  will lead to 
additional costs for personnel and increase the organisations’ need for funding. At the same 
time, synergies with other stakeholders involved in providing information to victims will 
have beneficial effects on victim support organisations and contribute to their efficiency.  

With regard to protection, VSOs will be more involved in individual assessments. This will 
have an impact with regard to time and human resources and will again increase the need 
for funding. At the same time, as Victim Support Organisations will be more systematically 
associated  to  individual  needs  assessments,  this  will  enhance  the  overall  quality  and 
adequacy  of  protection  measures  provided  to  victims  and  might  in  the  long  term  avoid 
additional interventions of VSOs.  

Victim Support Organisations will benefit from clear guidance on their availability and the 
sort  of  support  services  to  provide.  There  might  be  a  need  for  additional  victim  support 
services  in  some  Member  States,  in  order  to  ensure  their  full  availability  in  all  Member 
States. Victim Support Organisations involved in providing psychological services will be 
particularly requested, as this service will be extended for free to vulnerable victims. VSOs 
will need further personnel and funding to deal with a higher demand.  

158 Specialist support services in the form of Barnahus are not available in 6 Member States - see Annex 6 for 
further reference. 

EN 

81

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
VSOs will equally be more involved in accompanying victims during criminal proceedings. 
This  will  generate  some  additional  costs  for  personnel.  At  the  same  time,  the  assistance 
provided  to  victims  throughout  legal  proceedings  will  avoid  potential  secondary 
victimisation and can therefore reduce interventions of VSOs at a later stage. 

The proposed measures on compensation will not have practical implications for VSOs. 

2.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS159 

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

Description 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

Reduction 
of 
harm of victims 

emotional 

EUR 326 – 1,072 million (medium scenario EUR 
642 million) 

Reduction  of  costs  with 
services 
(physiological, 
legal assistance)  

EUR 83 – 4,191 million 

Increase 
in  paid/received 
compensations and expenses 

EUR 685 – 3,219 million 

Efficiency gains 

Assessed qualitatively 

Reduction  of  costs  with 
repeated  victimisation  and 
other crime (anticipation and 
response) 

Reduction  of  costs  with 
repeated  victimisation  and 
other crime (consequence) 

Indirect benefits 

EUR  82  –  185  million  (medium  scenario  EUR 
131 million) 

EUR 156 – 352 million (medium scenario EUR 
248 million) 

The preferred option contributes to reducing 
the emotional harm of Victims, as they will 
have  increased  access  to  victim  support 
services  or  to  justice,  including  in  cross-
border situations.  

The state will supply services (psychological 
help,  legal  assistance,  legal  aid)  that  in  the 
baseline  are  paid  for  /  supported  by  the 
victims.  The  victims,  therefore,  have  cost 
savings in the preferred option. 

to  what  happens  under 
receive 
victims  will 

the 
Contrary 
baseline, 
the 
compensation they are entitled to and have 
the 
their  expenses  reimbursed  even 
offender does not pay (because the state will 
bear these). 

if 

The  helpline  is  expected  to  lead  to  some 
efficiency gains and to a reduction of burden 
to the police as the it  may do a “triage” of 
victims  and  referred  the  to  the  relevant 
support services. Giving victims the right to 
receive a decision on compensation from the 
offender  in  the  course  of  the  criminal 
proceeding  will  potentially  lead  to  fewer 
civil proceeding and to efficiency gains. 

Benefits  to  society  (including  the  judicial 
system) due to the reduced overall costs of 
anticipating/preventing  (e.g.,  security)  and 
responding  to  crime  (police  costs  and 
judicial system costs). 

Benefits  to  society  (including  potential 
victims,  state)  due  to  reduced  repeated 
victimisation  and  associated  future  harm 
these  crimes  (e.g.,  health  costs, 
from 
property  costs, 
loss  of  output,  victim 
services costs). 

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

159 ICF (2023), Study to support the impact assessment for the revision of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing 
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report 

EN 

82

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
(direct/indirect) 

See  Note  below 
obligations were considered. 

-  no  administrative 

(1) Estimates are gross values relative to the baseline for the preferred option as a whole (i.e. the impact of 
individual  actions/obligations  of  the  preferred  option  are  aggregated  together);  (2)  Please  indicate  which 
stakeholder group is the main recipient of the benefit in the comment section;(3) For reductions in regulatory 
costs, please describe details as to how the saving arises (e.g. reductions in adjustment costs, administrative 
costs, regulatory charges, enforcement costs, etc.;); (4) Cost savings related to the ’one in, one out’ approach 
are detailed in Tool #58 and #59 of the ‘better regulation’ toolbox. * if relevant 

Note on the ‘on in, one out’ approach 
The classification of compliance costs into adjustment costs and administrative costs followed the definition 
provided in the BRG Tool#56 and Tool#58. The preferred combination of options does not impose additional 
administrative obligations and no major changes were identified in terms of ‘pure’ administrative activities. 

However,  when adopting a broader interpretation of administrative costs, there are potential savings to the 
judicial system as the latter would no longer have to process any civil proceedings initiated by victims, given 
that the criminal proceedings will suffice as part of the preferred option. These savings are estimated to be 
between EUR 1.2 – 2.3 billion, depending on the impact of the options on the number of civil proceedings not 
initiated (see Annex 4 for details). 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Direct adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Action (a)   

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

Indirect costs 

Total   

Direct adjustment 
costs  

EUR 0.5 – 0.96 
million 

EUR  605  – 
7,580 million 

EUR  0 
(the 
preferred option 
does not impose 
administrative 
obligations) 

EUR  0 
(the 
preferred option 
does not impose 
regulatory  fees 
and charges) 

(the 

EUR  0 
preferred 
option does not 
impose 
administrative 
obligations) 

(the 

EUR  0 
preferred 
option does not 
impose 
regulatory  fees 
and charges) 

Positive, 
considered 
minimal 

but 

but 

Positive, 
considered 
minimal 

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

EN 

83

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indirect 
adjustment costs 

Administrative 
costs (for 
offsetting) 

(1)  Estimates  (gross  values)  to  be  provided  with  respect  to  the  baseline;  (2)  costs  are  provided  for  each 
identifiable  action/obligation  of  the  preferred  option  otherwise  for  all  retained  options  when  no  preferred 
option is specified; (3) If relevant and available, please present information on costs according to the standard 
typology  of  costs  (adjustment  costs,  administrative  costs,  regulatory  charges,  enforcement  costs,  indirect 
costs;).  (4)  Administrative  costs  for  offsetting  as  explained  in  Tool  #58  and  #59  of  the  ‘better  regulation’ 
toolbox. The total adjustment costs should equal the sum of the adjustment costs presented in the upper part 
of  the  table  (whenever  they  are  quantifiable  and/or  can  be  monetised).  Measures  taken  with  a  view  to 
compensate  adjustment  costs  to  the  greatest  extent  possible  are  presented  in  the  section  of  the  impact 
assessment report presenting the preferred option. 

3.  RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s) 
Expected progress towards the Goal  Comments 
Relevant SDG 

SDG no. 10: Reduced 
Inequality  

and 
of 

Target  10.3:  Ensure  equal 
reduce 
opportunity 
outcome, 
inequalities 
including  by 
eliminating 
discriminatory laws, policies 
and  practices  and  promoting 
appropriate 
legislation, 
policies  and  action  in  this 
regard. 

the  proportion  of 
reporting 

the 
Decrease 
population 
having 
personally  felt  discriminated  on  the 
basis  of  a  ground  of  discrimination 
prohibited  under  international  human 
rights law.  

the  Victims’  Rights  Directive 
The  revision  of 
contributes  to  reduce  discrimination  as  it  seeks  to 
provide  for  all  victims  of  crime  equal  access  to 
information,  protection,  support,  justice  and 
compensation.  This  is  particularly  relevant  against 
the  background  of  several  evolutions  in  sectoral 
legislation on victims’ rights in the last ten years. It is 
crucial for the Victims’ Rights Directive to constantly 
ensure adequate minimum standards for all victims of 
crime  without  unjustified  differentiation,  taking  due 
account of victims’ specific needs.  

the 

initiative 

Concretely, 
facilitates  access  to 
taking  notably 
information  on  victims’  rights, 
account  of  victims  in  closed  institutions,  whose 
access  to  information  is  limited.  By  granting  them 
better access to information, they will have more equal 
opportunities to exercise their rights.  

Through an improvement of the guidance provided on 
individual  needs  assessment,  victims’  particular 
needs can be better assessed, which eventually leads 
to more equal and effective protection of victims.  

On  victims’  support,  the  initiative  i.a.  envisages  an 
extension  of  free  psychological  support,  which  is 
currently  reserved  to  victims  of  terrorism,  to  further 
groups of victims. 

In addition, the revision plans to grant victims of crime 
more  rights  throughout  criminal  proceedings 
regardless of their formal status as a party. Thus, the 
possibility to be accompanied throughout proceedings 
is likely to encourage all victims to claim their rights.  

EN 

EN 

84

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SDG no. 16: Peace, Justice 
and Strong Institutions 

Target  16.3:  Promote  the 
rule of law at the national and 
and 
international 
ensure equal access to justice 
for all. 

levels 

who 

Enhance  the  number  of  victims  of 
violence, 
their 
victimisation to competent authorities or 
to  other  officially  recognised  conflict 
resolution mechanisms.  

report 

Throughout  these  different  measures,  the  initiative 
overall  enhances  equal  treatment  of  victims  of 
crime  and  ensures  that  authorities  and  support 
organisations take account of individual needs and 
situations.  

The  impact  of  the  revision  of  the  Victims’  Rights 
Directive  is  likely  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  the 
reporting  of  crimes,  as  the  initiative  overall  aims  at 
enhancing trust in institutions and services which 
support  victims  of  crime.  Increased  trust  and  the 
willingness to report crimes should be the result of the 
following measures. 

The initiative fosters in the first place, awareness of 
victims’  rights.  Information  is  made  more  easily 
accessible and adapted to victims’ needs. The revision 
of  the  Directive  further  takes  account  of  victims  in 
closed institutions and provides for guidance on how 
to provide information to them.  

The  initiative  also  seeks  to  extend  protection  for 
victims by enhancing the quality of individual needs 
assessments.  

Furthermore,  the  initiative  facilitates  access  to  and 
coordination  of  state-  and  non-state-led  victim 
support  services.  It  namely  foresees  provisions  on 
in 
cooperation  between  stakeholders 
assisting victims. 

involved 

The initiative also improves the situation of victims 
throughout  criminal  proceedings,  as  it  grants 
certain procedural rights to victims, which are not 
necessarily  a  formal  party  to  the  proceedings  and 
allows for enhanced support (legal and social) during 
the proceedings. 

further 

initiative 

facilitating 
The 
at 
compensation  procedures,  making 
them  more 
accessible through criminal proceedings and through 
avoiding contact between victims and their offender.  

aims 

The revised Directive seeks to strengthen cooperation 
and coordination among all actors involved in victim 
support, including national authorities as well as civil 
society organisations, so that the overall reporting of 
crime to official institutions is likely to increase.  

EN 

85

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS160 

In this annex we present the approach adopted for the estimation of costs and benefits of the 
various options for the 26 EU Member States in scope161, as well as its limitations. The latter 
mostly relate to: 

  Complexity of the phenomenon of victimisation and of the systems in place in each 
Member State to address it: the approach followed is therefore a simplification to 
provide a sense of the scale of the costs and benefits of the various options and to 
allow  for  a  comparison  between  them.  It  does  not  cover  all  costs  and  benefits 
described in the effectiveness and efficiency sections of the main report, but only 
those that are monetisable and considered significant. Table 1 below indicates for 
each of the key positive impacts (benefits) and negative impacts (costs) of the options 
under consideration, which were monetised. 

  Quantifying the number of victims: the victims considered for the calculations of the 
costs  and  benefits  form  a  significant  share  of  the  victims  in  scope  of  the  policy 
options, but not the full cohort, due to the lack of available data at EU and Member 
State level on the number of victims.162 Victims who will be covered by the Violence 
Against Women Directive (VAW)163 have, where relevant, been excluded from the 
scope of the types of crimes considered for this assessment, to avoid overlaps and 
double-counting when quantifying the costs and benefits of the two directives. See 
Figure 7 below for details. 

  Unit costs: the unit costs required for the calculations were not always available for 
each  Member  State  and  proxies  (e.g.,  population,  GDP,  number  of  victims)  and 
Purchasing power parity (PPP) were used to extrapolate the data from one country 
to another. 

  Baseline: the quantification of the current status/baseline was not always available 
in  each  Member  State,  consequently  expert  judgment  was  used  to  quantify  the 
current status for each option and for each Member State, based on the results of the 
mapping exercise presented in Annex 6. 

  Attribution:  the  lack  of  data  on  how  each  option  will  quantitatively  impact  the 
behaviour of the various actors, and of the system, required the use of scenarios, i.e., 
hypotheses developed using the scenarios considered in the “VWA as the starting 
point.164  These  were  further  developed  based  on  expert  judgement.  The  use  of 

160 In order to collect the data, the Commission launched a study to support the impact assessment in relation 
to cost and benefits of the policy options – ICF (2023), Study to support the impact assessment for the revision 
of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of 
crime, final report 
161 Denmark is outside the scope as explained in the introduction to the report. 
162 The source of data on number of victims and share of victims that report crimes was the “The Fundamental 
Rights Survey” that took place in 2019 and is available here.  
163 For sexual physical violence and harassment, we considered adult males only as the violence related crime 
is expected to cover females and children for these crimes. For non-sexual physical violence and harassment, 
we considered males only as the violence related crime is expected to cover females for these crimes. 
164 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0105&from=EN. The impact 
assessment can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12682-
Combating-gender-based-violence-protecting-victims-and-punishing-offenders_en 

EN 

86

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
scenarios provides a sense of the magnitude of benefits and how their levels vary 
with each option.

EN 

87

EN 

 
 
 
Table 1. Overview of key impacts of the considered options 

Victims 

Police 

Judicial authorities 

Victim support 
organisations 

State/society 

Stakeholders 

All options, but at 
various degree 

All options, but at 
various degree 

Most options, but at 
various degree 

Options III.2/3, 
Options IV.1/2/3, 
Options V.1/2/3 

Elimination of 
duplication of judicial 
costs (Option V.1) 

- better coordination 
(Options I.1/2/3) 
- less work with 
referral activities 
(Option I.2) 

- better coordination 
(Options III.1/2/3) 
- elimination of 
duplication of costs 
(Option V.1) 

- better coordination 
and elimination of 
duplication of costs 
(Options I.2/3, Options 
III.1/2/3) 

Option III.3 

Option III.3 

Options III.1/2/3 

Options III.1/2/3 

All options 

d
e
s
i
t
e
n
o
M

No 

Partially 

Partially 

Partially 

No 

No 

Partially 

Positive Impacts 
Fundamental rights impacts 

harm 
secondary 

emotional 
and 

Reduction 
(support 
victimisation) 
Reduction  of  cost  of  crime  - 
repeated  and  other  (prevention, 
response) 
Services and compensation 

Efficiency gains 

Negative Impacts 
Enforcement costs 

Reorganisation 

(higher 

Increased  workload  due  to  more 
victims 
trust,  better 
referrals) 
Increased  workload  due  to  new 
activities and services 

Guidelines, 
training 
coordination activities 

and 

EN 

Mostly Option I.2 

Mostly Option II.2, 
Options IV.1/2/3, 
Options V.1/2/3 

Options I.1/2/3, 
Options II.1/2/3, 
Options III.1/2/3 

All options 

Partially 

All options 

Partially 

Options I.1/2/3, 
Options II.1/2/3 

88 

EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessments and referrals 

Option I.3, Options 
II.1/2/3 

Support services 

Legal services 

Compensation 

Options I.2/3, Options 
II.1/3, Options 
III.1/2/3 

Options II.1/2/3, 
Options IV.1/2/3 
Options V.1/2/3 

Option V.2/3 

Partially 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7. Data used to estimate the total number of victims 

Important to note that the Victims’ Rights Directive is applicable to all victims of all crime. 
Nonetheless, for the purpose of this impact assessment, we are focusing on victims of violent 
crimes – or crime against persons. Such victims are the main beneficiary of various measures 
set up under the different options – such as right to support and protection in accordance 
with their individual needs. 

Crime 

Total number of 
victims 

Total number 
of victims 
that reported 

Total number of 
victims that 
reported to police 

Total number of victims that 
registered incident 

Physical 
violence – 
non-sexual 

 

FRA survey, 
2020 

 

FRA survey, 
2020 

 

FRA survey, 2020 

Physical 
violence – 
sexual 

 

 

FRA survey, 
2020 

FRA survey, 
2020 

 

FRA survey, 2020 

Burglary 

 

 

Robbery  and 
Theft 

FRA survey, 
2020 

FRA survey, 
2020 

Extrapolation 
using data on 
registered theft 
and ratios 
estimated based 
on data from 
FRA survey, 
2020 

Extrapolation 
using data on 
registered 
theft and 
ratios 
estimated 
based on data 
from FRA 
survey, 2020 

 

FRA survey, 2020 

Extrapolation 
using data on 
registered theft 
and ratios 
estimated based on 
data from FRA 
survey, 2020 

Harassment  
violence – 
non-sexual 

 

 

 

FRA survey, 
2020 

FRA survey, 
2020 

FRA survey, 2020 

Harassment  
violence 
sexual 

– 

 

 

 

FRA survey, 
2020 

FRA survey, 
2020 

FRA survey, 2020 

 

Eurostat 

estimation of gender 
disaggregation  using FRA 
survey, 2020 

Eurostat 

estimation of gender 
disaggregation  using FRA 
survey, 2020 

 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

estimation of gender 
disagregation  using FRA 
survey, 2020 

 

Eurostat 

estimation of gender 
disagregation  using FRA 
survey, 2020 

1.  ESTIMATION OF COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT COSTS 

The approach to the estimation of costs (which followed the Better Regulation Guidelines) 
consisted of the following key steps: 

EN 

90

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Identify the key cost items (classified as one-off costs and recurrent costs) associated 
with each policy option that could be monetisable and their respective drivers.  

Identify if and to what extent each Member State is likely to be impacted under each 
option. This notably looked at whether or not Member States already had something 
in place similar to the Policy options (see Annex 6 for an overview of the findings), 
and for which type of victim. In particular, overlaps with the VaW were prevented 
by ensuring that for obligations already imposed by that Directive, the costs were 
calculated only for the types of victims not covered by VaW. 

  For  each  cost  item,  estimates  were  developed  for  the  cost  to  each  Member  State 
impacted by the option. Using disaggregate data per Member State made it possible 
to account for differences in costs across Member States (e.g., salaries of relevant 
professionals, prevalence rates, reporting rates, etc.) as well as considering evidence 
on  whether  policy  options  were  implemented  or  partially  implemented  in  each 
Member State. The adopted approach and assumptions are based on a combination 
of factors, including publicly available data, the contributions received to the online 
survey and the study team members’ experience of conducting similar quantification 
exercises. 

  The compliance and enforcement costs for each Member State and cost item were 

then aggregated to arrive at the total costs of the policy option. 

The  monetised  compliance  costs  consist  only  of  adjustment  costs  as  no  administrative 
obligations  nor  regulatory  charges  are  imposed  by  the  considered  options.  Furthermore, 
enforcement costs were considered negligible given that the obligations are imposed mostly 
on public authorities, and therefore not calculated.   

1. Specific objective I: Significant improvement of victims’ access to information 

Option I.1 Create an obligation to set up a national coordination mechanism 

The  key  costs  of  this  option  relate  to  the  development  of  the  guidelines  for  a  national 
coordination mechanism and the implementation of the corresponding changes, including 
the need to train staff on those guidelines / changes. The adopted approach to estimate the 
costs is sufficiently comprehensive and flexible to accommodate the differences across the 
Member States. 

One-off costs 

  Costs of human resources needed to develop or improve national guidelines to ensure 
a coordinated approach. The development/improvement of existing guidelines to set 
up a coordination mechanism would require between 5-10 persons to allocate about 
25% of their time for one year. Consequently, these costs will equal 25% of their 
yearly salary. As the average yearly salary differs per Member State, these costs also 
differ per Member State.   

Recurrent costs: 

  Opportunity costs related to the time that police officer, prosecutors, lawyers, and 
judges  will be in  the 2-hour training session on the guidelines. The share of staff 
attending the courses was considered to be between 15% and 20%, as higher rates of 
attendance were considered potentially unfeasible. Consequently, the yearly costs of 

EN 

91

EN 

 
 
 
 
this option will be equal to twice the hourly average salary (which varies per Member 
State  and  job  category)  of  15%  to  20%  of  the  total  number  of  police  officers, 
prosecutors, lawyers, and judges. 

𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕  = 𝑡𝑤𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟  ×  %𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑165 

× (𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑠166
×  𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟167
+  𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠168 
× 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟′𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟169
+ 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠170 × 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠′𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟171
+ 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑠172  × 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒′𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟173) 

As the salary and workforce vary across Member States, in the text box below we present 
an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member 
State. 

Text Box 1. Example of calculation of costs of option I.1 for Italy  

a)  Development of guidelines:  

The development of the guidelines will take about [1,925 - 3,850] hours, each hour costing about 18 EUR 
(salary hour). 

b)  Training costs: 

15% of the workforce (police officers, lawyers, prosecutors and judges) will spend 2 hours having training. 
So, total training costs of the option for Italy will be equal to (a) 2h x 18 EUR/h x 15% of the 274,653 police 
officers  +  (b)  2h  x  59  EUR/h  x  15%  of  the  225,445  lawyers  +  (c)  2h  x  59  EUR/h  x  15%  of  the  2,087 
prosecutors + (d) 2h x 59 EUR/h x 15% of the 6,395 judges). 

Option I.2 National coordination schemes and Victims’ helpline 

The costs of this option include those described for Option I.1 plus the costs related to the 
obligation  to  operate  Victims’  helpline  in  every  Member  State.  The  latter  only  affects 
Members States that do not have Victims’ helpline that covers victims of all crimes but only 
a sub-set (e.g., VaW victims). Compared to Option I.1, the additional costs for these Member 

165 Assuming that between 15% (lower bound) and 20% (upper bound) attend training on national coordination 
mechanisms.  See  VaW  Impact  Assessment  here:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12682-Combating-gender-based-violence-protecting-victims-and-punishing-offenders_en 
166 Eurostat data (2016) - https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/crim_just_job/default/table?lang=en; 
No data for IE: average across all countries used. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
167 Eurostat, [earn_ses18_13] (Public administration and defence salary > 10 employees or more). No data for 
AT, BE, EL, PT: average across all countries used. 
168  CEPEJ  studies  no.26  -  2018  (2016  data).  See  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-
studies 
169  CEPEJ  studies  no.26-  2018  (2016  data).  See  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-
studies 
170  CEPEJ  studies  no.26  -  2018  (2016  data).  See  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-
studies 
171 Assume same as prosecutors’ salary. 
172  CEPEJ  studies  no.26  -  2018  (2016  data).  See  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-
studies. 
173 CEPEJ studies no.26 - 2018 (2016 data). No data for CZ: average across all countries used (€35.2). See 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-studies 

EN 

92

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
States relate to  establishing such helpline, or the  need to  scale up other existing national 
victim  helplines  to  ensure  that  the  line  has  sufficient  capacity  to  attend  to  victims  of  all 
crimes or can refer to other existing helplines for specific crimes (e.g., domestic violence). 
These costs were estimated for each of those Member States as follows: 

One-off costs: 

  Cost of harmonising lines at national level: due to a lack of specific data for each 
Member State, it is assumed that the budget needed to scale-up an existing helpline 
is the same across Member States and that it is a fraction of the costs of establishing 
a new helpline. Based on available data, these costs were estimated to be between 
10% and 20% of the  costs of setting up  a 24-hour toll  free hotline  for victims  of 
gender-based violence, i.e. €78,822.174 

Recurrent costs:  

  Staff costs related to the human resources needed to answer additional calls.  

 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓_𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠𝐼.1,𝑚 = 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙_𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠𝑚 × 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛_𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑚 × 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦𝑚

175;  

m designates the Member State 

These costs were calculated as the salary that will have to be paid to staff (based on 
the average hourly salary for the respective Member State176) for the total additional 
time that they spend on calls. This equals the number of additional calls received 
multiplied by the expected duration of each call, i.e., between 4 a 8 minutes, in line 
with the data available in the VSE - Handbook for a Good Implementation of the 
116006 Helpline177.The number of additional phone calls that the helpline needs to 
process (compared to the VaW helpline) was assumed to correspond to the number 
of victims who have experienced a crime (not covered by VaW) in the last 12 months 
and  who  have  reported  the  incident.178  A  minimum  and  maximum  scenario  were 
considered for the number of calls reflecting the uncertainty regarding the reporting 
number for some categories of crimes such as theft. The support study on costs and 
benefits found that these numbers differ across Member States. 

As the salary and number of additional calls (which are considered as proportional 
to the number of victims) will vary across Member States, in the text box below we 
present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected 
Member State. 

Text Box 2. Example of calculation of costs of option I.2 for Italy 

Costs of Option I.1 plus  

a) 

Cost of harmonising /scaling up helplines at national level 

174 See GREVIO report here: https://rm.coe.int/grevio-baseline-report-on-poland/1680a3d20b Values were the 
ones used by the VaW Impact Assessment. 
175 Eurostat, [earn_ses18_13] (Public administration and defence salary > 10 employees or more). No data for 
AT, BE, EL, PT: average national salary was used instead. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
176 Eurostat, [earn_ses18_13] (Public administration and defence salary > 10 employees or more). No data for 
AT, BE, EL, PT: average national salary was used instead. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
177 https://www.apav.pt/pdf/Handbook_116006_EN.pdf 
178 2021, Fundamental Rights Survey, available here. 

EN 

93

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Italy has already helplines in place (see Annex 6), which do not cover all victims nor are fully integrated 
and harmonised. Consequently, to ensure that integration and full coverage it is expected that Italy will 
have costs are estimated to be between 5% and 10% of the 78,822 EUR, so between 3,941 and 7,882.  

b) 

Costs with staff answering additional phone calls 

Italy will have to scale up the existing capacity to answer additional phone calls. When considering the 
average salary in Italy (18 EUR/h) and the average duration of a call (4.3 to 7.5 minutes), the cost per 
call in Italy is estimated to be between 1.3 EUR and 2.3 EUR. The additional number of calls that the 
helpline is expected to receive compared to the baseline is between 47,361 and 156,581. The total annual 
running costs of option 2 in Italy (in addition to those of option 1) will be between 1.3 x 47,361 and 2.3 
x 156,581. 

Option I.3 In addition to option I.1, set up a mechanism through which  victims are 
proactively informed by victim support organisations  

The costs of this option include those described for Option I.1 plus the costs related to two 
additional  measures,  namely  implementing  a  mechanism  to  ensure  that  victims  are 
proactively informed by victim support organisations and the costs of proactively informing 
victims. 

The cost for these two measures were estimated for each of Member Sate as follows: 

One-off costs: 

  The costs of implementing the mechanism: these costs relate to ensuring that the data 
of  the  victims  to  be  contacted  is  shared  in  a  timely  fashion  with  victim  support 
organisations,  while  respecting  the  protection  of  their  personal  data.  Given  the 
limited  data  available,  it  was  assumed  that  the  implementation  of  the  mechanism 
would require between 5-10 persons to allocate about 25% of their time for one year. 
Consequently, these costs will equal 25% of the yearly salary179 of 5-10 people. As 
the average yearly salary differs across Member State, these costs will also differ per 
Member State. 

Recurrent costs: 

The costs for providing personalised information to victims are calculated as follows: 

𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 _𝑰𝒏𝒇𝒐_𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔𝑰.𝟐,𝒎   = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑚 ×
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜 (𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚)180
Member State 

𝑚 × 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦𝑚

181; m designates the 

These  costs  equal  the  total  salary  that  will  have  to  be  paid  to  the  staff  of  victim 
support organisations (at a cost per hour equal to the average  yearly salary of the 
respective Member State182) to spend 0.5-1 hour to contact and provide support to 
the victims who reported a crime and consented to be contacted. 

179 Eurostat, [earn_ses18_13] (Public administration and defence salary > 10 employees or more). No data for 
AT, BE, EL, PT: average national salary was used instead. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 

180 Estimated to be between 0.5h and 1h per victim. 
181 Eurostat, [earn_ses18_13] (Public administration and defence salary > 10 employees or more). No data for 
AT, BE, EL, PT: average national salary was used instead. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
182 Eurostat, [earn_ses18_13] (Public administration and defence salary > 10 employees or more). No data for 
AT, BE, EL, PT: average national salary was used instead. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 

EN 

94

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
The number of victims in scope who reported the crime varies across Member States 
and depends on the type of crime. In all cases, it excludes those already covered by 
the VAW directive (i.e., women and children for certain types of crime): 

Lower bound:  

- Physical violence non-sexual: victims in scope are males who indicated that 
they had reported an experience of non-sexual physical violence in the last 
12 months to the police; 

- Physical violence sexual: victims in scope are adult males who indicated 
that they had reported an experience of sexual physical violence in the last 
12 months to the police; 

- All people who indicated that they had reported an experience of burglary 
and robbery to the police.183 

Upper bound:  

- All categories considered in the lower bound scenario; 

- All people who indicated that they had reported an experience of theft to 
the police.184 

- Harassment non-sexual: victims in scope are males who indicated that they 
had reported an experience of non-sexual harassment in the last 12 months; 

- Harassment sexual: victims in scope are adult males who indicated that they 
had reported an experience of sexual harassment in the last 12 months. 

As the salary and number of victims in scope vary across Member States, in the text box 
below we present  an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 3. Example of calculation of costs of option I.3 for Italy 

Costs of Option I.1 plus  

a)  Costs of implementing the mechanism 

The costs of setting up a mechanism to ensure that victims that report crimes to the police are contacted by 
victim support organisations in Italy would be done in the context of the coordination mechanism already 
specified in Option I.1. Consequently, there will be no incremental costs.  

b)  Costs for providing personalised information  

The mapping exercise (see Annex 6) showed that, compared to the baseline, in Italy 50% and 100% of the 
victims that currently report to police as evidence will have to be pro-actively contacted, as currently they 
are not. Consequently, assuming that each call takes about 0.5h to 1h and the average hourly salary is 18 
EUR, the total cost of a call will be between 9.2 EUR and 18 EUR. As the number of victims in scope is 
between 2.3 and 4.2 million, the total costs of providing personalised information will be between EUR 9.2 
x 2.3 million and EUR 18 x 4.2 million. 

183 FRA data was not available for robbery so we used the data on the share of burglaries reported to the police 
that were registered (and are included in the Eurostat dataset) as a proxy for a similar share for robbery. 
184 FRA data was not available for theft so we used the data on the share of burglaries reported to the police 
that were registered (and are included in the Eurostat dataset) as a proxy for a similar share for theft. 

EN 

95

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2. Specific objective II: Better alignment of victims’ protection measures with victims’ 
needs 

Option II.1 Ensure that individual assessments of victims’ protection needs are carried 
out in a coordinated manner with the involvement of support organisations in the first 
contact with the victim.   

The estimation of the costs of this option relates to the cost for law enforcement (police) 
authorities  for  conducting  individual  risk  assessments  and  risk  management  in  a  timely 
manner, in cooperation with support services. The approach adopted assumes that the one-
off costs are negligible185. The following calculations are used for each Member State: 

Recurrent costs: 

  Recurrent costs related to the individual assessments measure: the costs are related 
to the costs of human resources in the competent authorities required to carry out the 
assessment and coordinate the follow up of victims with support services and other 
entities. 

𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝐼𝐼.1,𝑚  
= 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒,𝑚
× ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑟186 
× (𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒
187
+ 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒

188) 

These costs equal the total salary that will have to be paid to police staff (at a cost per 
hour equal to the average yearly salary of the respective Member State189) to dedicate 
between  5  and  7.5  minutes  to  carrying  out  the  assessment  of  victims  of  non-violent 
crimes and between 60 and 150 minutes (in line with VAW) to carry out the assessment 
of the remaining victims. 

The number of victims in scope who reported the crime varies across Member States 
and depends on the type of crime. In all cases, it excludes those already covered by the 
VAW directive (i.e., women and children for certain types of crime): 

as in Option I.3, the number of victims in scope who reported the crime varies across 
Member States and depends on the type of crime - excluding those already covered by 
the  VAW  directive.  The  lower  and  upper  bounds  are  similar  to  those  described  for 
Option I.3. 

185 All Member States conduct individual assessments and should have all procedures in place. 
186  Eurostat,  [earn_ses18_13]  (Public  administration  and  defence  salary  >  10  employees  or  more) 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
187 For crimes not related to physical violence we assumed between 5 and 7.5 minutes for screening; for other 
crimes  we  used  the  same  figures  as  the  VAW  IA,  i.e.,  between  60  and  150  minutes.  See  VAW  Impact 
Assessment here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12682-Combating-
gender-based-violence-protecting-victims-and-punishing-offenders_en 
188 For crimes not related to physical violence we assumed between 5 and 7.5 minutes for cooperating; for 
other crimes we used the same figure as the VAW IA, i.e., 30 minutes. See VAW Impact Assessment here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12682-Combating-gender-based-
violence-protecting-victims-and-punishing-offenders_en 
189 Eurostat, [earn_ses18_13] (Public administration and defence salary > 10 employees or more). No data for 
AT, BE, EL, PT: average national salary was used instead. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 

EN 

96

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Text Box 4. Example of calculation of costs of option II.1 for Portugal 

a)  Costs of individual assessments 

The  costs  of  individual  assessments  depend  on  the  duration  of  the  assessment,  which  is  related  to  the 
severity/complexity of the crime. The assessments of victims of violent crimes will take between 1 to 2.5 
hours while the assessments of victims of other crimes will take significantly less time (between 5 to 7.5 
minutes). Consequently, the [1,644 to 2,307] victims of violent crimes in Portugal will require an assessment 
of [1 - 2.5] hours and the [21,508 to 125,084] other victims will require an assessment of [5 to 7.5] minutes. 
The average salary of a police officer in Portugal is EUR 8 per hour or 0.13 per minute. The total annual 
costs of the option II.1 for Portugal will be between EUR 8 x 1h x 1,644 victims + EUR 0.13 x 5 minutes x 
21,508 victims and EUR 8 x 2.5h x 2,307 victims + EUR 0.13 x 7.5 minutes x 125,084. 

Option II.2 Enhanced individual assessment and adding victims’ physical protection 
to protection measures 

The costs of this option include those described for Option II.1 plus the costs to ensure that 
protection measures, including protection orders are available at national level. Protection 
measures also include availability of presence of police, reallocation to a safety place – these 
measures already exist in Member States. 

a)  The estimation of the costs related is based on the cost to ensure the availability and 
effective enforcement of the orders. The approach adopted assumes that the one-off 
costs are negligible190.  

Recurrent costs: 

  The recurrent costs related to the protection orders are calculated as follows: 

𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝑷𝑶𝐼𝐼.1,𝑚  

= 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝐼𝐼.1,𝑚  
×   𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒191 
× 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑃𝑂 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟192 

This  measure  will  be  relevant  for  a  small  fraction  of  victims  not  covered  by  the 
VAW, including victims of labour exploitation and potentially adult male victims of 
sexual physical violence. Its costs are equal to the costs of the additional protection 
orders,  which  is  the  total  number  of  additional  protection  orders  –  calculated  by 
applying a “application rate” (i.e., share of victims that report a crime to police and 
then apply for protection order) of 0.28%193 to the total number of victims in scope 

of 

by 

divided 

number 

violence 

domestic 

protection 

190 All Member States conduct individual assessments and should have all procedures in place. 
191 Application rate is estimated from UK crime statistics Appendix tables on number of victims of domestic 
abuse 
at: 
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fcrimeandjustice%2fdatasets%2fdo
mesticabuseinenglandandwalesappendixtables%2fyearendingmarch2018/da2018appendixtablesfinalv8.xlsx  
192 Unit cost of a protection order to the police and justice sector estimated to be €1,185 and €213 in UK prices, 
adjusted for each Member State's price level using PPP GDP/capita. Estimates based on Evaluation of the Pilot 
of 
(2013): 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260897/ho
rr76.pdf  
193 Application rate is estimated from UK crime statistics Appendix tables on number of victims of domestic 
abuse 
at: 
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fcrimeandjustice%2fdatasets%2fdo
mesticabuseinenglandandwalesappendixtables%2fyearendingmarch2018/da2018appendixtablesfinalv8.xlsx  

orders.  Available 

orders.  Available 

Protection 

protection 

Domestic 

Violence 

domestic 

violence 

England 

number 

divided 

Orders 

by 

of 

in 

EN 

97

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
(which differs across Member States) times the costs of one protection order, i.e.,  € 
213 - € 1,185194.  

The following assumptions were made: 

-  For the minimum cost estimate, only labour exploitation is included, while for 
the maximum cost estimate, physical violence of a sexual nature against adult 
males are covered too 

-  The application rate is constant across Member States 

-  Relative unit cost of a protection order is constant across Member States. 

As the total number of victims in scope varies across Member States, in the text box below 
we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected 
Member State. 

Text Box 5. Example of calculation of costs of option II.2 for Spain 

Costs of Option II.1 plus: 

b)  Costs of protection orders 

The baseline assessment provided in Annex 6 showed that Portugal would not need to implement significant 
changes in Option II.2. That will not be the case  for Spain however,  where between 6 and 36 thousand 
victims still be benefiting of this measure. As the cost of a PO in Spain is between 213 and 1,185 EUR, and 
0.28% of the victims are expected to apply for a PO, the total cost of the measure in Spain will be around 7 
and 237 thousand EUR. 

Option II.3: In addition to option II.2, minimum standards on constitutive elements 
and  condition  of  application  of  the  physical  protection  measures  are  established  at 
national level. 

The costs of this option include those described for Option II.2 (which include the costs of 
Options II.1) plus the costs of coordination efforts. These costs were estimated based on the 
costs of human resources needed to develop guidelines/minimum standards and to ensure 
they are implemented. The following calculations are used for each Member State: 

One-off costs: 

  The cost of establishing minimum standards and guidelines: these correspond to the 
would require between five and ten persons to allocate about 25% of their time for 
three months. Consequently, these costs will equal 25% of a three-month salary of 
5-10 people. As the average yearly salary differs per Member State, these costs will 
also differ per Member State. 

  Costs of developing a 2-hour online training session: as research suggests that 1-hour 
of ready e-learning content costs between 5306 and 17,114 EUR to produce,195 the 
total  costs  per  Member  State  are  between  10,612  –  34,229  EUR.  Online  course 

194 Unit cost of a protection order to the police and justice sector estimated to be €1,185 and €213 in UK prices, 
adjusted for each Member State's price level using PPP GDP/capita. Estimates based on Evaluation of the Pilot 
of 
(2013): 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260897/ho
rr76.pdf  
195 VAW. 

Protection 

Domestic 

Violence 

England 

Orders 

in 

EN 

98

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
development costs include: costs of subject matter expert, PM, marketer, lecturer, 
graphic designer, video operator, editor, etc. 

Recurrent costs: 

  Opportunity costs related to the time that police officer, prosecutors, lawyers, and 
judges  will be in  the 2-hour training session on the guidelines. The share of staff 
attending the courses was assessed to be between 15% and 20%, as higher rates of 
attendance were considered potentially unfeasible. Consequently, the yearly costs of 
this option will be equal to two times the hourly average salary (which varies per 
Member State and job category) of 15% to 20% of the total number of police officers, 
prosecutors, lawyers, and judges. 

𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕  = 𝑡𝑤𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟  ×  %𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑196 

× (𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑠197
×  𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟198
+  𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠199 
× 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟′𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟200
+ 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠201 × 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠′𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟202
+ 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑠203  × 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒′𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟204) 

As the salary and workforce vary across Member States, in the text box below we present 
an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member 
State. 

Text Box 6. Example of calculation of costs of option II.3 for Portugal  

Costs of Option II.2 plus: 

a)  Development of guidelines 

Based on the assessment of the baseline (Annex 2) Portugal is halfway regarding the implementation of this 
Option, consequently it will need between 525 and 1,050 hours to improve existing guidelines. As the hourly 
salary  in  Portugal  is  around  8  EUR,  the  total  one-off  costs  of  this  option  related  to  the  development  of 
guidelines are estimated to be is between 3,330 and 6,660 EUR. 

b)  Training costs 

196 Assuming that between 15% (lower bound) and 20% (upper bound) attend training on national coordination 
mechanisms. 
197 Eurostat data (2016) - https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/crim_just_job/default/table?lang=en; 
No data for IE: average across all countries used. 
198 Eurostat, [earn_ses18_13] (Public administration and defence salary > 10 employees or more). No data for 
AT, BE, EL, PT: average across all countries used. 
199  CEPEJ  studies  no.26  -  2018  (2016  data).  See  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-
studies  
200  CEPEJ  studies  no.26-  2018  (2016  data).  See  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-
studies 
201  CEPEJ  studies  no.26  -  2018  (2016  data).  See  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-
studies 
202 Assume same as prosecutors’ salary 
203  CEPEJ  studies  no.26  -  2018  (2016  data).  See  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-
studies 
204 CEPEJ studies no.26 - 2018 (2016 data). No data for CZ: average across all countries used (€35.2). See 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-studies 

EN 

99

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
The one-off cost to develop the training will be equal to 10 - 34 thousand EUR. The annual recurrent costs 
with training are equal to the costs of time of having the workforce attending the training. It was assumed 
that 15% of the workforce will attend the training and that the training will take 2h. So total costs will be 
(2h x 8 EUR/hours x 15% of the 46,688 police officers + 2h x 29 EUR/h x 15% of the 30,476 lawyers + 2h 
x 29 EUR/h x 15% of the 1,493 prosecutors + 2h x 29EUR/h x 15% of the 1,986 judges.) 

3. Specific objective III: Facilitated access to specialist support for vulnerable victims, 
including children 

Option III.1 Ensure the availability of specialist support services for all child victims 
at the same premises in the form of the Barnahus model.  

The costs of this option relate to increasing the capacity of support services and providing 
additional types of services that currently are not available in some Member States, in line 
with the Barnahus model.  

One-off costs: 

  The cost of developing EU guidance corresponds to the costs of the human resources 
needed  to  develop  these  guidelines.  It  was  assumed  that  the  development  of  EU 
guidance would require 3 experts to work full time on this task, for a period between 
3-6 months. In addition, in each Member State one staff member would work 33% 
during three months on this guidance. The total costs will be equal to the required 
additional  staff  time  times  the  average  salary.  As  the  average  salary  differs  per 
Member State, these costs will also differ per Member State.   

Recurrent costs: 

  The costs of running additional and new support services in each Member State, to 
the extent that the offer reaches the desired level (to be defined in the EU guidelines), 
are calculated as follows: 
𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒔𝐼𝐼𝐼.1,𝑚  

= 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑚
× 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑚

206  

205

The cost is therefore equal to the necessary increase in the current annual government 
expenditure  on  support  services  (which  differs  per  Member  States),  which  is 
proportional  to  the  additional  capacity  that  needs  to  be  implemented,  i.e.,  the 
difference between the level of services desired and the level currently implemented 
(which also differ per Member State). As the salary, annual government expenditure 
on  support  services  and  the  level  of  services  currently  implemented  vary  across 
Member States, in the text box below we present an example of the calculation of 
the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member State. 

205  The  annual  expenditure  was  only  available  for  the  NL  and  PT.  This  expenditure  was  deducted  of  the 
expenditure of services covered in the VaW directive. The expenditure for each of the other Member States 
(minimum and maximum limit) is estimated by adjusting the NL and PT expenditure using relative population 
size  of  those  Member  Sates  compared  to  the  NL  and  PT.  The  population  considered  in  this  option  was 
population under 15. 
206 The percentage was calculated based on the following assumption: the Netherlands is the Member State 
with the best coverage, and Member States with most insufficient coverage have about 75% of the coverage 
of the Netherlands. The level of coverage in each Member State is described in Annex 6. 

EN 

100

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Text Box 7. Example of calculation of costs of option III.1 for Lithuania  

a)  Development of guidelines 

None, considered already at sufficient level. On the other hand, Member States like Italy and France will 
have to develop the guidelines which will require between EUR 1,500 and 4,000. 

b)  Costs of support services 

Lithuania will need to It will be necessary to increase the capacity in terms of specialised support services 
for children by [13% to 19%] and therefore the total expenditure that is equal to 66 to 175 thousand euros 
will increase in the same proportion. 

Option III.2: Barnahus model for all children and psychological aid for those in need. 

The costs of this option relate to increasing the capacity of support services and providing 
additional types of services that currently are not available in some Member State. 

One-off costs: 

  The cost of developing EU guidance corresponds to the costs of human resources 
needed to develop these guidelines. It was assumed that, in addition to the human 
resources needed for Option III.1, the development of EU guidance would require 
three experts to allocate full time to this talk between three and six months and plus 
one person working 33% during three months in each Member State. The total costs 
will be equal to the required additional staff time times the average salary. As the 
average  salary  differs  per  Member  State,  these  costs  will  also  differ  per  Member 
State.   

Recurrent costs: 

  The costs of running additional and new support services in each Member State, to 
the extent that the offer reaches the desired level (to be defined in the EU guidelines), 
are calculated as follows: 
𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒔𝐼𝐼𝐼.1,𝑚  

= 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑚
× 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑚

208  

207

As  in  Option  III.1,  the  cost  of  Option  III.1  are  therefore  equal  to  the  necessary 
increase in the current annual government expenditure on support services (which 
differs  per  Member  States),  which  is  proportional  to  the  additional  capacity  that 
needs to be implemented, i.e., the difference between the level of services desired 
and the level currently implemented (which also differ per Member State). Based on 
the mapping presented in Annex 6, five Member states were considered to be at the 
desired level. 

207  The  annual  expenditure  was  only  available  for  the  NL  and  PT.  This  expenditure  was  deducted  of  the 
expenditure of services covered in the VaW directive. The expenditure for each of the other Member States 
(minimum and maximum limit) is estimated by adjusting the NL and PT expenditure using relative population 
size of those Member Sates compared to the NL and PT. 
208 The percentage was calculated based on the following assumption: the Netherlands is the Member State 
with the best coverage, and Member States with most insufficient coverage have about 75% of the coverage 
of the Netherlands. The level of coverage in each Member State is described in Annex 6. 

EN 

101

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
In  addition  to  the  above  costs,  this  option  involves  a  transfer  of  costs  for  psychological 
services from vulnerable victims to the State. The following calculations are used for each 
Member State: 

Recurrent costs 

  Costs of psychological services for vulnerable victims 

𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆𝑷𝒔𝒚𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒔𝐼𝐼𝐼.2,𝑚  
= 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑠𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒
× (𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒,𝑚
× 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑢𝑙𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒,𝑚)
× 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑠𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑚

210 

209

The  costs  of  free  psychological  services  are  equal  to  the  number  of  hours  of 
psychological services required per victim (that has reported the crime) – which was 
assumed to be between 20 and 50 hours depending on the type of victim – times the 
costs of one hour of these services (which varies per Member State, with an average 
of 115 EUR) times the number of vulnerable victims. Due to a lack of data on the 
share of vulnerable victims it is assumed that: 

-  All victims of physical sexual abuse in scope are vulnerable victims; 

-  The  share  of  victims  experiencing  other  crimes  and  who  are  vulnerable  is 

between 5% and 10%.211 

As  the  salary,  annual  government  expenditure  on  support  services,  the  level  of  services 
currently implemented, costs of psychological services, and number of vulnerable victims 
that report a crime vary across Member States, in the text box below we present an example 
of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member State. 

Text Box 8. Example of calculation of costs of option III.2 for Germany  

Cost of Option III.1 plus 

a)  Development of guidelines 

Compared to options III.1, the development of the guidelines will involve additional resources  –between 
200 and 300 hours – which will cost approximately between 3 and 4 thousand EUR. 

b)  Costs of support services 

Germany is considered to still have to improve capacity to fulfil obligation of this option. The total costs 
will be equal to the costs of expanding existing capacity (which costs around 30 and 71 million EUR) by 2 
% to 6.5%. 

c)  Cost of free psychological services 

The average number of vulnerable victims that would benefit of this measure (compared to the baseline) 
would  be  those  that  were  victims  of  violent  crimes  and  a  share  of  the  other  victims  that  are  vulnerable 

209 UK report 1 until 50 hours. In the calculations we used between 20h (minimum) and 50h (maximum) for 
violent  and  semi-violent  crime  and  1  hour 
type  of  crime.  Available  here: 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954485/the
-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime-horr99.pdf 
210 Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/1230639/cost-of-seeing-a-psychologist-in-europe-by-country/ 
211 Aihio, N., Frings, D., Wilcock, R., & Burrell, P. (2016). Crime Victims' Demographics Inconsistently Relate 
to Self-Reported Vulnerability. Psychiatry, psychology, and law: an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian 
and  New  Zealand  Association 
379–391. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1247418 

of  Psychiatry,  Psychology 

for  all  other 

and  Law, 

24(3), 

EN 

102

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
(estimated to be between 5% and 10%) that do not receive free psychological support (between 50% and 
75% based on the mapping of measures presented in Annex 6). The first group of victims amount to almost 
178 and 382 thousand victims and would require between 20 and 50 hours of support, the latter group would 
amount to an average of 134 and 1,275 thousand  victims that  would require between 0.5 and 1 hour of 
psychological service. As the average cost of a one-hour session of psychological support in Germany is 
around 57 181 EUR. The total cost of the measure is 20  – 50 h times x 181 EUR x 178  - 382 thousand 
victims + 0.5 to 1h x 181 EUR  x134  - 1,275 victims. 

Option III.3 Improve the availability of specific categories of support services at the 
same premises or through a central contact point in the form of the Barnahus model 
to  all  vulnerable  victims.  In  addition,  it  includes  a  requirement  to  extend  free 
psychological services to all victims. 

The approach to calculate the costs of this option is similar to the one adopted for Option 
III.2.212  The  main  difference  is  that  the  share  of  other  victims  considered  for  the  free 
psychological services, which under this option is assumed to be 100%. 

As  the  salary,  annual  government  expenditure  on  support  services,  the  level  of  services 
currently implemented, costs of psychological services, and number of vulnerable victims 
that report a crime vary across Member States, in the text box below we present an example 
of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member State. 

Text Box 9. Example of calculation of costs of option III.3 for Germany 

Cost of Option III.2 plus 

a)  Cost of extending free psychological services to all victims 

The additional number of victims entitled to free psychological services would be between 2.6 and 15 
million, consequently the costs will increase in that proportion. 

4.  Specific  objective  IV:  More  effective  participation  in  criminal  proceedings  for 
victims 

Option IV.1 Victim rights to be accompanied by a person of choice during criminal 
proceeding and to challenge decisions that concern them directly.   

The costs related to the right for victims to have legal / administrative assistance represent a 
transfer of costs from the victims to the State. Only few Member States do not currently 
have a similar obligation in place. For those that do not, the costs are estimated as follows: 

Recurrent costs 

  Costs of legal/administrative assistance:  these costs  are related to  the costs  of the 
human resources necessary to provide legal / administrative assistance to victims. 

𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝐼𝑉.1,𝑚   = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑚
𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑚

214 ×

213 ×

212  The  costs  of  making  all  services  available  in  the  same  premises  or  through  a  central  contact  point  are 
considered negligible when compared to the other cost imposed by the option. 
213 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_CASE$DEFAULTVIEW] Legal cases processed in first instance courts by legal 
status of the court process, Criminal. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
214  The  share  of  population  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  was  used  as  a  proxy.  Eurostat, 
[ILC_PEPS01N$DEFAULTVIEW]. The most recent data was used. EU average used for those countries for 
which data was not available. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 

EN 

103

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑚 ×
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡215   

The costs are equal to the number of criminal proceedings for which victims would need 
legal assistance times the average number of hours required to providing legal assistance 
per criminal proceeding (between 5% and 10% of the average disposition time in each 
Member State)216  

Due to a lack of data: 

- 

It was not possible to make a distinction between types of crime.  

-  The  number  of  hours  of  assistance  needed  was  estimated  assuming  that  the 
assistance  would  be  provided  for  a  share217  of  the  duration  of  the  criminal 
proceeding.218 

The costs related to the rights to challenging decisions are based on the costs of a new court 
case in each Member State. As it is assumed that the proceeding costs will be borne by the 
victim, the remaining costs for the State are relatively low.219 As with the previous option, 
only few Member States do not have a similar right in place. For those that do not, the cost 
is estimated as follows: 

Recurrent costs 

  The costs of challenging a decision 
𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈𝐼𝑉.1,𝑚   = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑚
𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑑𝑚 × 𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒221   
These costs are equal to the number of criminal proceedings for which victims will challenge 
the  decision  (estimated  based  on  data  on  the  share  of  prosecuted  offenders  that  were 

220 ×

Member 

215  Eurostat,  [earn_ses18_13]  (Public  administration  and  defence  salary  >  10  employees  or  more). 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
216 “Disposition Time (DT) is the theoretical time necessary for a pending case to be resolved. Actual average 
times needed for case resolution would need to derive from judicial case management ICT systems. Since this 
is still unfeasible in most of the States or entities, this indicator offers valuable information on the estimated 
length of the proceedings. It is reached by dividing  the number of pending cases at the end of a  particular 
period by the number of resolved cases within that period, multiplied by 365”. See CEPEJ indicators available 
here: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cepej/viz/EfficiencyDashboardv1_0EN/EfficiencyDashboard 
217 Assumed to be 5% and 10%. 
218 The CEPEJ data on Disposition Time (DT) was used to estimate the duration of the criminal proceedings 
(see 
per 
For 
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cepej/viz/EfficiencyDashboardv1_0EN/EfficiencyDashboard). 
those countries for which data was not available, the average Disposition Time in the other Member States was 
used as a proxy. 
219  Heeks,  M.,  Reed,  S.,  Tafsiri,  M.  and  Prince,  S.,  2018.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  second 
edition. 
here: 
Research 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954485/the
-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime-horr99.pdf 
220 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_CASE$DEFAULTVIEW] Legal cases processed in first instance courts by legal 
status of the court process, Criminal. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
221  Heeks,  M.,  Reed,  S.,  Tafsiri,  M.  and  Prince,  S.,  2018.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  second 
edition. 
here: 
Research 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954485/the
-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime-horr99.pdf. PPP was used to extrapolate the data to each Member State 
(Eurostat, s [PRC_PPP_IND$DEFAULTVIEW]) 

Available 

Available 

report. 

report. 

Office 

Office 

Home 

Home 

State 

EN 

104

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
acquitted  222)  times  the  net  cost  of  a  court  case  (which  varies  per  Member  State).As  the 
salary, number of criminal proceedings, share of challenged decisions, and costs of court 
cases  vary  across  Member  States,  in  the  text  box  below  we  present  an  example  of  the 
calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member State. 

Text Box 10. Example of calculation of costs of option IV.1 for Romania  

a)  Cost of legal assistance 

Based  on  the  data  collected  for  the  baseline,  we  estimate  that  36%  to  72%  of  the  cases  will  need  legal 
assistance.  Each  case  will  require  between  34  to  68  hours  of  assistance.  As  there  are  about  82  to  165 
thousand criminal procedures in Romania and the average salary per hour is about 7 EUR/h, the total costs 
of legal assistance will be between 36% x 82 thousand cases x 34h x 7 EUR and 72% x 165 thousand cases 
x 68h x 7 EUR. 

b)  Cost of right of challenging decision (for State) 

Considering the number of criminal proceedings in which the offenders are acquitted in Romania, about 
8,800 decisions will be challenged. It is estimated that the net cost for the state of a challenged decision to 
be between 9 EUR and 6 EUR, consequently, the total annual costs will be between 8,800 x 9 EUR and 
8,800 x 46 EUR. 

Option IV.2 In addition to options IV.1, create legal aid for certain victims depending 
on their level of income, when they wish to challenge decisions taken concerning their 
rights in the course of criminal proceedings. 

The costs of this option are equal to the costs of Option IV.1 plus the costs of providing legal 
aid to victims who wish to challenge a decision. These costs represent a transfer of costs 
from the Victims to the State. As with the previous option, only few Member States do not 
have a similar right in place. For those that do not, the cost is estimated as follows: 

Recurrent costs: 

  The costs of legal aid to challenge decisions are calculated as follows: 
𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈𝐼𝑉.2,𝑚   = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑚
223 ×
224 × 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑖𝑑𝑚
𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑑𝑚
𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑚

225  ×
226  

222 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_PER$DEFAULTVIEW] Persons brought before criminal courts by legal status of 
the court process. The most recent data was used. EU average used for those countries for which data was not 
available. 
223 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_CASE$DEFAULTVIEW] Legal cases processed in first instance courts by legal 
status of the court process, Criminal. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
224  The  share  of  population  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  was  used  as  a  proxy.  Eurostat, 
[ILC_PEPS01N$DEFAULTVIEW]. The most recent data was used. EU average used for those countries for 
which data was not available. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
225  Heeks,  M.,  Reed,  S.,  Tafsiri,  M.  and  Prince,  S.,  2018.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  second 
edition. 
here: 
Research 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954485/the
-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime-horr99.pdf. PPP was used to extrapolate the data to each Member State 
(Eurostat, s [PRC_PPP_IND$DEFAULTVIEW]) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
226  The  share  of  population  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  was  used  as  a  proxy.  Eurostat, 
[ILC_PEPS01N$DEFAULTVIEW]. The most recent data was used. EU average used for those countries for 
which data was not available. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 

Available 

report. 

Office 

Home 

EN 

105

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  costs  of  challenging  decisions  are  therefore  equal  to  the  number  of  criminal 
proceedings  due  to  challenged  decisions  times  the  share  that  needs  legal  assistance 
times the costs of legal aid per proceeding, i.e., between 198 – 1,082 EUR (average of 
the 26 Member States). 

As the salary, number of criminal proceedings, share of challenged decisions, and costs of 
court cases and legal aid vary across Member States, in the text box below we present an 
example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member State. 

Text Box 11. Example of calculation of costs of option IV.2 for Romania  

Costs of Option IV.1 plus 

c)  Cost of legal aid for challenged decisions 

In Romania, between 800 and 3,180 cases will benefit from this measure (as between 9% and 35% of the 
8,800 challenged decisions will need legal assistance). As the cost of legal aid per challenged decisions is 
estimated to be between 100 and 570 EUR, the total annual cost of the measure for Romania will be between 
800 cases x 100 EUR and 3,180 cases x 570 EUR. 

Option  IV.3  Ensure  that  victims  in  all  cases  have  the  possibility  to  participate  as  a 
formal party to the criminal proceedings so that they can enjoy the rights associated 
with such status, including access to the case file and access to legal aid. 

The type of costs of this option area similar to the ones of Option IV.2 (and include costs of 
Option IV.1), but legal aid is in this Option assumed to be provided in all proceedings and 
not only when the victim challenges a decision. These costs represent a transfer from the 
State to the victims. As in the previous options, many Member States already have similar 
measures in place. For those that do not, the cost is estimated as follows: 

Recurrent costs 

  Costs of legal aid 
𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒍𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒊𝒅𝐼𝑉.4,𝑚   = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑚
228  × 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑚
𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑖𝑑𝑚
The costs of legal aid are therefore equal to the number of criminal proceedings times the 
share that needs legal assistance times the costs of legal aid per proceeding, i.e., between 
198 – 1,082 EUR (average of the 26 Member States). 

227 ×

229  

As the salary, number of criminal proceedings, share of challenged decisions, and costs of 
court cases and legal aid vary across Member States, in the text box below we present an 
example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member State. 

Home 

227 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_CASE$DEFAULTVIEW] Legal cases processed in first instance courts by legal 
status of the court process, Criminal. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
228  Heeks,  M.,  Reed,  S.,  Tafsiri,  M.  and  Prince,  S.,  2018.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  second 
edition. 
here: 
Research 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954485/the
-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime-horr99.pdf . PPP was used to extrapolate the data to each Member State 
(Eurostat, s [PRC_PPP_IND$DEFAULTVIEW]) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
229  The  share  of  population  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  was  used  as  a  proxy.  Eurostat, 
[ILC_PEPS01N$DEFAULTVIEW]. The most recent data was used. EU average used for those countries for 
which data was not available. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 

Available 

report. 

Office 

EN 

106

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Text Box 12. Example of calculation of costs of option IV.3 for Romania  

Costs of Option IV.1 plus 

a)  Cost of legal aid 

Considering the data on criminal proceedings in Romania, between 20,640 and 82,560 cases will benefit 
from this measure. As the cost of legal aid per case is estimated between 100 EUR and 570 EUR, the total 
cost of the measure will be between 20,640 x 100 EUR and 82,560 x 570 EUR. 

5. Specific objective V: Facilitated access to compensation from the offender 

Option V.1 Provide for victims the right to receive a decision on compensation from 
the offender in the course of the criminal proceeding.  

The costs of this option are associated to the additional time required to take a decision on 
the compensation. For those Member States that do not have a similar measure in place, the 
cost is estimated as follows: 

Recurrent costs 

230 ×

231 × 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒232  

  The costs of reaching a decision on compensation are calculated as follows: 
𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝑉.1,𝑚   = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑚
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑚
Due  to  lack  of  data  on  the  number  of  criminal  proceedings  in  which  a  decision  on 
compensation  was  not  taken,  it  was  necessary  to  adopt  a  conservative  approach  and 
assume  that,  if  the  prosecution  wins  the  criminal  case  (estimation  done  based  on 
conviction rates) then the victim will be entitled to a compensation. The costs of this 
Option are therefore equal to the number of proceedings won by the prosecution times 
2 to 4 hourly cost of a judge233, as a decision about the compensation due to the victim 
is expected to require between 2h and 4h. 

As the salary of judges and the number of criminal proceedings vary across Member States, 
in the text box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for 
a randomly selected Member State. 

Text Box 13. Example of calculation of costs of option V.1 for Greece  

a)  Cost of decision on compensation 

Given the data collected for the baseline described in Annex 6 and the number of criminal proceedings in 
Greece as reported in Eurostat, about 177 thousand new decisions regarding compensation will be taken 
due to the option. Each decision is estimated to take between 2 and 4 hours and the hourly salary of a judge 
to be 28.5 EUR, therefore the cost of each decision will be between 57 EUR and 114 EUR. The total annual 
costs of this option for Greece will be between ERU 57 x 177 thousand and EUR 114 x 177 thousand. 

230 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_CASE$DEFAULTVIEW] Legal cases processed in first instance courts by legal 
status of the court process, Criminal. 
231 The time needed for a decision was considered to be between 2h and 4h. 
232 Eurostat, EARN_SES18_14. Note: earnings are only available by ISCO-08 categories. Here, mean hourly 
earning of professionals would be used as a proxy as legal professionals fall under this category.   
233 CEPEJ studies no.26 - 2018 (2016 data). No data for CZ: average across all countries used (€35.2). See 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-studies 

EN 

107

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Option V.2 Rights to decision on compensation in criminal proceeding and to receive 
offenders’  compensation  by  the  state,  where  state  recuperates  if  from  the  offender 
later. 

The  costs  of  this  option  include  the  costs  of  Option  V.1  plus  those  related  to  the 
compensation that a state is not able to recuperate from the offenders (who were ordered to 
pay  such  compensation  to  the  victim).  These  costs  represent  a  transfer  of  costs  from  the 
victims to the State. For those Member States that do not have a similar measure in place, 
the cost is estimated as follows: 

Recurrent costs 

  Costs of advancing compensation 
𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝑉.2,𝑚  

234 × 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚

= 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑚
235
× 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑚 × 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑜𝑛 − 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 
As with Option V.I, due to a lack of data on the number of criminal proceedings in 
which  a  decision  on  compensation  was  positive,  it  was  necessary  to  adopt  a 
conservative approach and assume that, if the prosecution wins the criminal case 
(estimation  done based  on conviction  rates) then the victim will be entitled to  a 
compensation.  The  total  cost  of  compensation  will  be  equal  to  the  number  of 
criminal  proceedings  for  which  it  will  not  be  able  to  recover  a  compensation 
(between 12% and 30% of the total)236 times the average value of the compensation, 
estimated to be between 50% and 100% of the unit costs of the consequences of the 
crime for the victim calculated based on studies that assessed the costs of crimes to 
victims and vary per Member State and type of crime.237  

As the number of criminal proceedings and the average compensation vary across Member 
States, in  the text box below we present  an example of the calculation of the cost  of the 
option for a randomly selected Member State. 

Text Box 14. Example of calculation of costs of option V.2 for Greece  

Costs of Option V.1 plus 

a)  Cost of compensation 

234 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_CASE$DEFAULTVIEW] Legal cases processed in first instance courts by legal 
status of the court process, Criminal. 
235 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_PER$DEFAULTVIEW] Persons brought before criminal courts by legal status of 
the court process. The most recent data was used. EU average used for those countries for which data was not 
available. 
236 The share of cases in which the State will not be able to able to recover the compensation from the offender 
is not known  for all Member States. The study team  used  available data  for NL and Sweden to define the 
minimum and maximum limit  for all other Member States. 
237  Heeks,  M.,  Reed,  S.,  Tafsiri,  M.  and  Prince,  S.,  2018.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  second 
edition. 
here: 
Research 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954485/the
-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime-horr99.pdf. PPP was used to extrapolate the data to each Member State 
(Eurostat, s [PRC_PPP_IND$DEFAULTVIEW]) 

Available 

report. 

Office 

Home 

EN 

108

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Considering the number of victims per type of crime and the specific costs that the type of crime imposes 
on the victims calculated based on reviewed studies with costs of crimes238, the average cost of crimes to 
victims in Greece was estimated to be between 2,341 and 3,900 EUR. Judges are expected to decide that 
the offender will have to pay the victim between 50% and 100% of the estimated costs of crime.  

The number of proceedings that will be affected by this measure are around 83 thousand, and in 12% to 
30% of those the offender will not pay the compensation. Consequently, the total cost of the measure is 
between 50% x 2,341 x 12% x 83,000 cases and 100% x 3900 EUR x 30% x 83,000 cases. 

Option  V.3  Impose  minimum  standards  on  the  conditions  on  receiving  state 
compensation by amending 2004 Compensation Directive. 

The costs of this option include the costs of Option V.1 and those related to the compensation 
the  State  will  have  to  provide  for  those  victims  currently  not  covered  by  the  2004 
Compensation Directive. In the lower bound scenario, we assume those are the victims of 
burglary only while in the upper bound scenario we assume that also victims of theft are 
within scope. 

Recurrent costs 

  Costs of state compensation for victims of theft and burglary 
𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕_𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝑉.3,𝑚   = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑚

239 × 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑚 
These  costs  are  therefore  equal  to  the  total  number  of  victims  times  the  average 
compensation  per  victim  estimated  will  be  between  50%  and  100%  of  the  cap  to 
maximum compensation imposed in the context of the 2004 Compensation Directive by 
the most restrictive Member State, i.e., between 2,500 and 5,000 EUR.240. 

As the number of victims vary across Member States, in the text box below we present an 
example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly selected Member State. 

Text Box 15. Example of calculation of costs of option V.3 for Greece  

Costs of Option V.1 plus 

a)  Cost of compensation 

An  average  of  19,500  victims  will  be  entitled  to  a  compensation  of  between  2,500  and  5,000  EUR. 
Consequently, the cost of the measure will be between 19,500 x 2,500 EUR and 19,500 x 5,000 EUR. 

2.  ANALYTICAL METHODS APPLIED TO ESTIMATE BENEFITS / COST REDUCTION 

As  indicated  earlier,  there  are  two  broad  categories  of  benefits  that  may  result  from  the 
implementation of the proposed options.  

  Benefits to the victims: 

Home 

Office 

238  Heeks,  M.,  Reed,  S.,  Tafsiri,  M.  and  Prince,  S.,  2018.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  second 
edition. 
here: 
Research 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954485/the
-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime-horr99.pdf. PPP was used to extrapolate the data to each Member State 
(Eurostat, s [PRC_PPP_IND$DEFAULTVIEW]). 
239 Eurostat, [CRIM_CRT_CASE$DEFAULTVIEW] Legal cases processed in first instance courts by legal 
status of the court process, Criminal. 
240 Bulgaria, see Annex 6. 

Available 

report. 

EN 

109

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Reduced harms (economic, psychological, health, etc) from crimes, as a 
result of increased access to victim support services or to justice, including 
in cross-border situations  

  Reduced  future  repeated  victimisation  of  victims  and  associated  future 

harm from these crimes; 

  Non-economic benefits: improved human rights, access to justice;  

  Benefits to society:  

  Reduced  overall  costs  of  the  crimes  that  society  bears  due  to  improved 

access to victim support services, and lower harm to victims;  

  Reduced  societal  economic  costs  of  crime  from  possible  future 
victimisations: as a result of reduced repeated victimisation and increased 
reporting of crimes by victims, which may lead to more perpetrators being 
brought to justice; 

  Efficiency  gains:  as  a  result  of  more  efficient  judicial  procedures  and  a 
reduction of the burden to the system if, in some Member States, victims do 
not need to initiate a separate civil proceeding. 

The logical links between the policy options and expected direct and indirect benefits are 
presented  in  Figure  8  below.  The  logical  impact  of  option  in  terms  of  direct  impact  is 
presented in the figure’s legend. 

Figure 8. Benefits Logic Model 

Legend: 

EN 

110

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Source: ICF  

The review of the existing academic literature and policy studies showed that there is 
no research to support and confirm, in quantitative terms, the scale or magnitude of 
the benefits that are expected to be generated as a result of different options proposed. 
Nevertheless, various qualitative studies exist, and wherever possible they have been 
referred to.  

One of the main indirect benefits which is expected to result from the introduction of options 
in the context of Specific Objectives I, II, and III, and the improved access to victim support 
services  and  protection  measures  which  they  foresee,  is  the  ultimate  reduction  in 
victimisation  rates  /  overall  crime  and  the  related  costs  and  quantifiable  harms.  In 
quantitative terms, such benefits, as already shown are most significant.  

Estimating Reductions in the Cost of Crime 

The  main  approach  that  economists  and  institutions  in  the  EU  Member  States  and  other 
European Countries (UK, NO) use to assess the economic costs of crime is a ‘bottom-up’ 
approach,  where costs associated with  various types of crimes  are added  up to  obtain an 
overall estimate of the economic cost of crime in Member States. Such estimates were found 
in a few Member States – PL, HU, FR, IE, NL, SE, and to some extent in DE241. Estimates 
from outside the EU, namely in the UK and NO were identified as well.  

241 See for instance: “Feasibility of cost of crime estimations in Eastern Europe – The Case of Poland” (Czabanski, 2009); 
Detotto, C, and Vannini, M. (2010) Counting the cost of crime in Italy Article in Global Crime · November 2010; The 
Social Costs of Crime and Crime Control Klara Kerezsi, József Kó, Szilvia Antal, National Institute of Criminology, 
Budapest, Hungary (2011); Jacques Bichot (2016) Le coût du crime  et de la délinquance, 
https://www.institutpourlajustice.org/content/2017/11/Etude-Justice-Le-coût-du-crime-et-de-la-délinquance.pdf; Irish 
Government Evaluation Service: https://igees.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/15-Measuring-the-Cost-of-Crime-
David-Crowe-Department-of-Justice-Equality.pdf; D.E.G. Moolenaar, M. Vlemmings, F.P. van Tulder en J. de Winter 
(2015) Kosten van criminaliteit; Bakke, J. (2011), Kriminalitetens kostnader (Study on the Costs of Crime in Norway), 
Available at: https://phs.brage.unit.no/phs-
xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/175088/kriminalitetens%20kostnader.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y  

EN 

111

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The methodologies used to estimate costs of crimes are not unified, and they incorporate 
different types of offences, and sometimes take different categories of costs. Nevertheless, 
the different studies identified indicate that there is a dominating approach, which is based 
on  the  Mainstreaming  Methodology  for  Estimating  the  Costs  of  Crime242,  and  approach 
which is also very similar to the one used in Anglo-Saxon countries (UK, US, Canada and 
Australia), where there has been long tradition in producing such estimates. This approach 
differentiates three broad categories of costs.  

Figure 9. Types of costs included in bottom-up approach to cost of crime estimates 

Costs in anticipation of crime

•Costs to potential victims: Anticipatory costs and precautionary expenditure, and fear of crime by the public 
•Costs of crime prevention activity: government crime prevention programs and non-government crime prevention programs

Costs as a consequence of crime

• Victimization costs typically included: property loss, productivity loss, medical and mental healthcare cost, pain, suffering 

and lost quality of life

• Victimization costs omitted / rarely included: household services, lost school days, victim support services, legal expenses of 

tort claims, and long-term consequences of victimization

Costs in response to crime

• Costs of investigation and criminal justice proceedings against the offenders: police, prosecution services, courts, legal 

defense, and jury services

• Costs of criminal sanctions: prison costs, probation, and enforcement of financial penalties
• Costs to offenders as a result of imprisonment or social costs of incarceration: lost productivity, victimization to offenders 

whilst in prison, offender costs from lost freedom, and loss to offenders’ families
• Costs to victims and witnesses: victim and witness costs, and victim compensation
• Other more sensitive costs: over-deterrence costs and justice costs

Source: ICF adaptation from Heyden (2016)243 

The studies show that the above types of crime costs vary, depending on the type of offence. 
The different types of policy measures may impact some offences and their related costs to 
a greater extent than others. For instance, certain victim support services (e.g. psychological 
support) may provide greater benefits to victims of violent crime and be less beneficial for 
victims of vehicle theft, for instance. Furthermore, such measures may reduce certain crime-
related costs, but not others. For instance, psychological support may reduce costs linked to 
the consequences of crime, but it is unlikely to have any impact on the costs linked to costs 
in response to crime. Other options, on the other hand (particularly those in the context of 
specific  objectives  I  and  II),  which  are  expected  to  lead  to  increased  levels  of  crime 
reporting,  may  subsequently  result  in  a  reduction  of  repeat  victimisation  and/or  more 
offenders being apprehended, and fewer crimes committed, thus impacting on all three broad 
categories  of  costs  of  crimes.  Wherever  possible,  such  fine-tuned  allocations  of  benefits 
have been made. 

Due to insufficient evidence to precisely quantify the scale or magnitude of the causal links 
for  each  policy  option,  three  scenarios  were  tested:  low,  medium  and  high  impact.  The 
benefits were estimated for each of the three scenarios, adopting a combination of a bottom-
up approach for benefits related to the reduction of emotional harm and a top-down approach 
for benefits related to the reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime. The decision 
to complement a top-down approach to estimating the benefits (as adopted by the VAW IA) 
with  a  bottom-up  approach  seeks  to  address  the  comments  received  by  the  Regulatory 

242 See: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/44422/reporting/it  
243 Heyden, C.L. (2016) Cost of Crime Towards a More Harmonized, Rational and Humane Criminal (Justice) 
Policy in Germany, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, available at: https://d-nb.info/1131354923/34  

EN 

112

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Scrutiny Board on the approach adopted by the VAW IA. Nevertheless, data limitations still 
required the adoption of scenarios. 

For each scenario the study team  defined the impact  of the option in  one or more of the 
following (in line with the identified casual links of each option): 

  Share of victims who currently do not report but will after the measures (expected to 

reduce) 

  Share  of  victims  who  are  referred  to  /  have  access  to  support  services  and/or 

protection measures (expected to increase) 

  Share of registered crimes (expected to increase) 

By  using  the  casual  chain  depicted  in  Figure  8  Benefits  Logic  Model,  the  study  team 
estimated how these impacts are expected to be propagated through the chain, and finally 
how  they  will  reduce  the  emotional  costs  of  victims  and  the  costs  from  repeated 
victimisation (victim) and other crime (society). 

Table 2. Scenarios for the calculation of benefits 

Scenario 

 Direct impact on 

Low  Medium 

High 

The direct impact will be propagated through 
the casual chain 

Options I.1 

3% 

4.5% 

6% 

Options I.2 

10% 

15% 

20% 

Options I.3 

10% 

15% 

20% 

Options II.1, II.2 

10% 

15% 

20% 

Option II.3 

12.5% 

18.75% 

25% 

Options  III.1,  III.2, 
III.3 

20% 

25% 

30% 

Options IV.1 

1% 

1.5% 

Options IV.2 

1.5% 

Options IV.3, V.2 

2% 

2% 

3% 

Options V.1, V.3 

0.5% 

0.75% 

2% 

3% 

4% 

1% 

Source: ICF 

 

Increase  of  share  of  victims  that  are 
referred to / have access to support services  
  Reduction of share of victims that currently 

do not report crimes 
Increase  of  share  of  victims  that  are 
referred / have access to support services  
Increase  of  share  of  victims  that  are 
referred / have access to support services  
Increase  of  share  of  victims  that  are 
referred / have access to support services  
Increased  of  share  of  victims  under 
protection 
Increase  of  share  of  victims  that  are 
referred / have access to support services  
Increased  of  share  of  victims  under 
protection 
Increase  of  share  of  victims  that  are 
referred / have access to support services 

Increased share of registered crimes 

Increased share of registered crimes 

Increased share of registered crimes 

Increased share of registered crimes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As mentioned above, the benefits were estimated for each of the three scenarios (see details in Table 
2 above) adopting a combination of a bottom-up approach for benefits related to the reduction of 

EN 

113

EN 

 
 
 
 
emotional  harm244  and  a  top-down  approach  for  benefits  related  to  the  reduction  of  repeated 
victimisation and other crime. The benefits were calculated per Member State and per type of crime 
and then aggregated. The existence of benefits per Member State was based on the extent to which 
the various options represent a change compared to the baseline and mirrored the existence of costs 
in  that  Member  State.  The  approach  and  results  are  presented  for  each  option  below  for  those 
categories of benefits described in the Effectiveness section that were possible to monetise.  

1. Specific objective I: Significant improvement of victims’ access to information 

Option I.1 Create an obligation to set up a national coordination mechanism 

The key benefit expected from this option is to improve the functioning and coordination of 
the various entities dealing with victims of crimes. This is expected to lead to better informed 
staff  and  more  coordinated  approach  to  victims  and  therefore  will  increase  the  access  of 
victims to support services. This will reduce the harm victims experience from crime and 
secondary victimisation. However, the magnitude of this benefit is difficult to estimate but 
expected to be medium-low. The effect on overall crime reporting rates would be marginal. 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  As a result of the option, an estimated 3% (or 4.5% / 6% depending on the scenario) 
of victims who indicated not having contacted a support service245, will now do so. 
Those victims are expected to see their emotional harm reduced by 10% (or 15% / 
20% depending on the scenario). 

As the number of victims and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 16. Example of calculation of benefits of option I.1 for France  

a)  Reduction of emotional harm for victims of sexual physical violence: 

3% (or 4.5% or 6% depending on the scenario) of the 48% of sexual physical violence victims will benefit 
from a more coordinated national approach, they will be referred to support services and will not experience 
10% (15% or 20%) of the estimated emotional harms that victims without support experience (around 25 
thousand euros). 

Option I.2 National coordination schemes and Victims’ helpline 

This option could have the following benefits: 

  Increase  of  reported  crime:  Various  studies  assess  why  victims  do  not  report 
crimes. The key reasons why victims do not report crime are linked to the severity 
of  the  crime,  overall  trust  in  the  police,  the  cost  and  time  needed  to  report  the 

244 Assumed to be reduced between 10%, 15% and 20% for those victims that receive support.  
245  FRA  2021,  Crime,  Safety  and  Victims’  Rights  –  Fundamental  Rights  Survey.  See 
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2021/fundamental-rights-survey-crime 

EN 

114

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
crime246. The study team’s assessment is that the helpline will impact on the people 
who  do  not  report  crimes  for  fear  of  reprisal,  or  those  who  prefer  some  level  of 
anonymity.  
A  review  of  national  crime  victim  surveys247  and  the  results  from  FRA’s 
Fundamental Rights Survey (Crime, Safety and Victims’ Rights, 2021248) show that 
between  3  –  10%  of  victims  (depending  on  the  severity  of  crime)  do  not  report 
crimes, because they’re afraid to do so; The proposed option may have an impact on 
reducing the number of victims who are afraid to report crimes, and convince them 
otherwise. 
A  FRA  study,  based  on  in-depth  interviews  with  a  non-representative  sample  of 
practitioners  and  victims  of  violent  crimes249  showed  that  most  practitioners 
interviewed agreed that, if support services were available to more victims, it would 
make it “significantly easier for victims to report” crimes to the police250. The picture 
differed  between  Member  States.  In  NL,  AT  slight  majority  of  practitioners 
disagreed with the statement, while in DE, FR, PL, PT, UK about 2 / 3 agreed with 
the statement. Consulted victims, also shared that the circumstances that helped them 
most often to report a crime were, the support of organisations that provide victim 
support service.251 

  Increased access / referral to services: the key benefit of a helpline would be the 
assistance  and  advice  to  victims  that  will  be  given,  when  they  call  the  helpline. 
Another  benefit  will  be  the  possible  referrals  by  helpline  operator  either  to  other 
specialised  helplines  that  may  exist  on  specific  crimes  (e.g.  domestic  violence, 
children, THB, cyber), or to specialised services (e.g. psychological or medical help). 
Studies in the UK252 show that the majority of victims being referred by police (as it 
is  mandatory)  to  victim  support  services,  do  not  eventually  access  the  services. 
Therefore, it could be presumed that not all victims who are advised or referred by 
helpline to specialised services or other helplines will do so.  

  Direct  reduction  of  cost  of  crime:  Helplines  in  some  countries,  especially  the 
Member  States  where  there  are  no  other  specialised  helplines  will  be  themselves 
providing some level  of victim support, either  through psychological  counselling, 

for 

for 

See 

See 

p.82 

FRA 

BKA 

Safety 

(2021) 

Crime, 

Rights, 

instance 

instance, 

Bulgaria, 

(available 

and  Victims 

246 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2021-crime-safety-victims-rights_en.pdf  
247 
at: 
https://www.bka.de/SaredDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/Other/2019_FirstFindingsDVS2017.pdf?__blob
=publicationFile&v=2;  Estonian and Bulgarian surveys show similar numbers, even slightly lower. Estonia, 
available 
at: 
https://www.kriminaalpoliitika.ee/sites/krimipoliitika/files/elfinder/dokumendid/crime_victim_survey_2009.
pdf; 
https://csd.bg/fileadmin/user_upload/publications_library/files/2020_11/CrimeTrends_BG_WEB.pdf  
248 For reasons for not reporting incidents of physical violence, harassment, burglary and online fraud, see FRA 
(2021), Fundamental Rights Survey – Data Explorer. 
249 The study is based on 231 in-depth interviews: 83 interviews with adult victims of violent offences; and 
148  expert  interviews  with  practitioners – staff  of  support  organisations,  lawyers  advising  victims,  police 
officers, public prosecutors and criminal judges.  
250 FRA, Proceedings that do justice – Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, p. 63, April 2019, p. 53. 
251 Ibid. 
252 Bryce, Jo & Brooks, Matt & Robinson, Phaedra & Stokes, Rachel & Irving, May & Graham-Kevan, Nicola 
& Willan, Vj & Khan, Roxanne & Karwacka, Marta & Lowe, Michelle. (2016). A qualitative examination of 
engagement with support services by victims of violent crime. International Review of Victimology. 22. 1-17. 
10.1177/0269758016649050. 

available 

at: 

EN 

115

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
advice on safety measures and behaviour. As a result, such helplines may directly 
impact and reduce the costs as a consequence of crime. 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  As a result of the option, it is estimated that 10% (or 15% / 20% depending on the 
scenario) of victims who indicated that they had not reported an incident due to fear 
of  reprisals253  will  now  report  the  crime  and  consequently  the  number  of  register 
crimes will increase, as will the protection orders.  

Repeated  victimisation  and  other  crimes  are  expected  to  also  reduce.  The  total 
benefits  associated  with  this  were  estimated  by  multiplying  the  proportion  of 
additional protection orders by the total costs of crime (which were estimated using 
the data on the number of victims and the approach and unit costs from the Heeks et 
al. (2018) study)254. 

  As a result of the option, an estimated 10% (or 15% / 20% depending on the scenario) 
of victims who indicated not having contacted a support service255, will now do so. 
Those victims are expected to see their emotional harm reduced by 10% (or 15% / 
20% depending on the scenario). 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 17. Example of calculation of Benefits of option I.2 for France  

Benefits of Option I.1 plus 

a)  Reduction of emotional harm: 

10% (or 15% or 20% depending on the scenario) of the sexual physical violence victims that currently do 
not report the crime will report it and will be referred to support services. 50% will attend support services 
(in line  with data on the share of victims that report that attend support services in France) and will not 

253 Change from a baseline provided by FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey. 
254  Heeks,  M.,  Reed,  S.,  Tafsiri,  M.  and  Prince,  S.,  2018.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  second 
edition. Home Office Research report. PPP was used to extrapolate the data to each Member State (Eurostat, 
s [PRC_PPP_IND$DEFAULTVIEW]). 
255 Change from a baseline provided by FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey. 

EN 

116

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
experience 10% (15% or 20%) of the estimated emotional harms that victims without support are estimated 
to experience (around 25 thousand EUR). 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

10% (or 15% or 20% depending on the scenario) of the sexual physical violence victims that currently do 
not report the crime because  of fear (6%)  will report the crime to the police and therefore (in line  with 
current data) benefit from protection orders and access to justice. This will lead to a reduction of the overall 
cost of repeated victimisation and crime related to this type of crime (around 23 million) by 0.08%-0.15%. 

Option I.3 In addition to option I.1, set up a mechanism through which  victims are 
proactively informed by victim support organisations 

The type of benefits of this Option are similar to those described for Option I.2 however the 
number of victims that will benefit from the measure is expected to be smaller as the Option 
cover victims that report to the police and give consent to be contacted while in Option I.2 
any victim can contact the helpline at any time.  

Monetisation of the benefits 

  As a result of the option, an estimated 10% (or 15% / 20% depending on the scenario) 
of victims  who indicated not  having  contacted a  support service,  will  now do so. 
These victims are expected to see their emotional harm reduced by 10% (or 15% / 
20% depending on the scenario). 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 18. Example of calculation of Benefits of option I.3 for France  

Benefits of Option I.1 plus 

a)  Reduction of emotional harm: 

10% (or 15% or 20% depending on the scenario) of the sexual physical violence victims that currently report 
the crime but are not attended by support services (about 50%) will attend those (in line with data on the 
share of victims that report that do not attend support services in France) and so will not experience 10% 
(15%  or  20%)  of  the  estimated  emotional  harms  that  victims  without  support  experience  (around  25 
thousand euros) 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

10% (or 15% or 20% depending on the scenario) of the victims that attend the support services will decide 
to register their crimes. This will lead to a reduction of the overall cost of repeated victimisation and crime 
related to this type of crime (around 23 million) by 0.24%-1%. 

EN 

117

EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
2. Specific objective II: Better alignment of victims’ protection measures with victims’ 
needs 

Option II.1 Ensure that individual assessments of victims’ protection needs are carried 
out in a coordinated manner with the involvement of support organisations in the first 
contact with the victim.  

This measure could further reduce the possible harm and repeat victimisation of victims, 
assuming  that  on  top  of  an  initial  assessment  the  proper  follow  up  procedures  will  be 
activated. 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  As a result of the option, an estimated 10% (or 15% / 20% depending on the scenario) 
of victims that indicated not having contacted a support service but have reported an 
incident256, will be better assessed and directed to the appropriate support services. 
These victims are expected to see their emotional harm reduced by 10% (or 15% / 
20% depending on the scenario).  
In addition, 10% (or 15% / 20% depending on the scenario) of these victims are less 
likely to fall victim of repeated victimisation and more likely to access justice, which 
will lead to a reduction of the total costs of crime by the same proportion. 

 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 19. Example of calculation of Benefits of option II.1 for Portugal  

a)  Reduction of emotional harm for victims of physical violence (non-sexual): 

10%  (or 15%  or  20%  depending  on  the  scenario)  of  the  2%  of  physical  violence  victims  will  be  better 
assessed and protected, and so will not experience 10% (15% or 20%) of the estimated emotional harms 
that victims without support experience (around 4.8 thousand EUR).  

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime for victims of physical violence: 

As they are  more protected the  10% (or 15% or 20% depending on the scenario) of the 2% of physical 
violence victims will not experience repeated victimisation (overall estimated to be 392 million). 

256 Change from a baseline provided by FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey. 

EN 

118

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Option II.2 Enhanced individual assessment and adding victims’ physical protection 
to protection measures 

While the additional elements of Option II.2 compared to Option II.1 will bring significant 
benefits per victim, it will only be relevant for a small share of the total number of victims 
and therefore the total absolute additional benefits compared to Option II.1 are low. 

  Reduction  in  the  cost  of  crime:  This  measure  could  further  reduce  the  possible 
harms and repeat victimisation of victims. As already indicated, the main benefit of 
this measure would be providing protection measures to victims other than violence 
against women victims, to which these measures are already available. Therefore, 
the main benefit will be to victims of crimes committed by organised crime groups, 
victims  hate  crime,  other  forms  of  violent  crime,  where  the  victim  fears  the 
perpetrator (threats, extortion). The overall costs of crime linked to these crimes are 
higher than other categories of crime, due to the possible health, long-term economic 
impact, or possible prevention of fatalities.  

Monetisation of the benefits 

 

In addition to the benefits of Option II.1, as a result of the option, an estimated 10% 
(or 15% / 20% depending on the scenario) of victims who registered a crime will be 
better protected. Consequently, repeat victimisation and other crimes are expected 
to  reduce.  The  total  benefits  were  estimated  by  multiplying  the  proportion  of 
additional protection orders by the total costs of crime (which were estimated using 
the data on the number of victims and the approach and unit costs from the Heeks 
study.257 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

257  Heeks,  M.,  Reed,  S.,  Tafsiri,  M.  and  Prince,  S.,  2018.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  second 
edition. Home Office Research report. PPP was used to extrapolate the data to each Member State (Eurostat, 
s [PRC_PPP_IND$DEFAULTVIEW]). 

EN 

119

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Text Box 20. Example of calculation of Benefits of option II.2 for Portugal  

a)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime for victims of physical violence: 

In addition to Option II.1, 10% (or 15% or 20% depending on the scenario) of the 2% of physical violence 
victims times the 0.28% that apply to POs will not experience repeated victimisation. 

Option II.3: In addition to option II.2, minimum standards on  constitutive elements 
and  condition  of  application  of  the  physical  protection  measures  are  established  at 
national level. 

While the type of benefits will be identical to Option II.2 the definition of standards will 
improve the effectiveness of the measures and amplify the expected benefits of Option II.2. 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  The  additional  measures  in  this  option  (compared  to  option  II.2)  are  expected  to 

increase the potential impact of the measures in option II.2 by 25%. 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 21. Example of calculation of Benefits of option II.3 for Portugal  

a)  Reduction of emotional harm: 

This measure will amplify the benefits described for Option I.1 by 25%. 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

This measure will amplify the benefits described for Option I.2 by 25%. 

EN 

120

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Specific objective III: Facilitated access to specialist support for vulnerable victims, 
including children 

Option III.1 Ensure the availability of specialist support services for all child victims 
at the same premises in the form of the Barnahus model.  

  The main benefit of this option will be reduced costs of the consequences of crimes, 
as  well  as  increased  prevention  of  repeat  victimisation  of  vulnerable  victims. 
Research  in  the  UK  has  suggested  that  receiving  assistance  from  victim  support 
services, besides the helping the victim to deal with the psychological, physical, or 
social  impacts  from  the  crime,  can  increase  levels  of  confidence  and  perceived 
effectiveness of the criminal justice process. 

  Strengthening the right to life, the right  to the integrity of the person, the right to 
liberty  and  security,  and  the  right  of  respect  for  private  and  family  life.  Further 
affected rights would include the right to protection of personal data. 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  As a result of the option, an estimated 20% (or 25% / 30% depending on the scenario) 
of child victims that are poorly covered by support services will have more access to 
these services States in the form of the Barnahus model. It is assumed that a share258 
of these victims will therefore be supported by support services. This will lead to a 
reduction of their emotional harm by an estimated 20% (or 25% / 30% depending on 
the scenario). In addition, 20% (or 25 % / 30% depending on the scenario) of these 
victims are less likely to fall victim of repeat victimisation and are more likely to 
access justice, which will lead to a reduction of the total costs of crime by the same 
proportion. 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 22. Example of calculation of Benefits of option III.1 for Lithuania  

a)  Reduction of emotional harm: 

Due to the measure, and considering the share of victims that are children and report crimes, between 0.5% 
and 3% (depending on the scenario) of children currently poorly covered by support services will receive 
the support they need and will have their emotional harms (around 3,600 EUR) reduced by 20% (25% or 
30% depending on the scenario). 

258 Similar to the share of victims that indicated in the FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey having had contact 
with support services. See e.g. FRA (2021), Crime, Safety and Victims’ Rights – Fundamental Rights Survey. 

EN 

121

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

20%  (25%  or  30%  depending  on  the  scenario)  of  the  children  supported  will  not  experience  repeated 
victimisation. 

Option III.2: Barnahus model for all children and psychological aid for those in need. 

Compared to Option III.1, Option III.2 will further reduce harm of all vulnerable victims 
(not only children) and reduce repeat victimisation and other crime for those victims as well.  

Monetisation of the benefits 

  This option will bring additional benefits (in comparison to Option III.1) to all non-
child vulnerable victims, in line with the assumptions presented for Option III.1 (but 
now applied to  all  vulnerable victims) as  well as  benefits  equal  to  the fees  of the 
psychological services that will be supported by the State due to this option (which 
otherwise would have to be supported by the victim). 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 23. Example of calculation of Benefits of option III.2 for Lithuania  

a)  Reduction of emotional harm: 

Due to the measure, between 20% and 30% (depending on the scenario) of all vulnerable victims currently 
poorly covered by support services will receive the support they need and will have their emotional harms 
(around 3,600 EUR) reduced by 20% (25% or 30% depending on the scenario).  

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

By providing support to these a vulnerable, the costs of crime towards vulnerable victims are expected to 
be reduced by 20% (25% or 30% depending on the scenario). 

c)  Psychological support fees: see description of the calculation of these fees in the section on costs. 

Option III.3 Improve the availability of specific categories of support services at the 
same premises or through a central contact point in the form of the Barnahus model 
to  all  vulnerable  victims.  In  addition,  it  includes  a  requirement  to  extend  free 
psychological services to all victims. 

In  addition  to  the benefits  described for  III.2, Option  III.3 will bring benefits  to  all non-
vulnerable victims due to the provision of free psychological support.  

Monetisation of the benefits 

  This option will bring additional benefits (in comparison to Option III.2) to all non-
vulnerable  victims,  equal  to  the  fees  of  the  psychological  services  that  will  be 
supported  by  the  State  due  to  this  option  (which  otherwise  would  have  to  be 
supported by the victim). 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 
EN 

122

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Text Box 24. Example of calculation of Benefits of option III.3 for Lithuania  

a)  Reduction of emotional harm: same as III.2. 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: same as III.2. 

c)  Psychological support fees: see description of the calculation of these fees in the section on costs. 

4.  Specific  objective  IV:  More  effective  participation  in  criminal  proceedings  for 
victims 

Option IV.1 Victim rights to be accompanied by a person of choice during criminal 
proceeding and to challenge decisions that concern them directly.  

Under  this  option,  more  victims  are  expected  to  receive  retribution  and  compensation. 
However, this option will not have a direct impact on reducing the costs of crime, as the 
victim is presumably already involved in the criminal justice process; but it will strengthen 
the fundamental right of legal assistance, the right to an effective remedy, and the right to a 
fair trial. 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  As a result of the option, 1% (or 1.5% / 2% depending on the scenario) of victims 
will register crimes (compared to the baseline). This will lead to a reduction of their 
emotional harm (by 10%, 15% or 20%, depending on the scenario), as well as to a 
reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime (given that the offender may be 
convicted) by the same proportion. 
In addition, this option will also lead to benefits to victims equal to the fees of the 
legal/administrative services, that will be supported by the State due to this option 
(which otherwise would have to be supported by the victim). 

 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 25. Example of calculation of Benefits of option IV.1 for Romania 

a)  Reduction of emotional harm for physical violence: 

Due to the measure about 1% (or 1.5% or 2%) of the 99% of the 270 thousand victims of physical violence 
that do not register crimes in Romania will register the crimes due to the option. Based on current statistics, 
of those about 29% will be attended by support services and have their harm (about 2700 EUR) reduced by 
10% (15% or 20%, depending on the scenario). 

EN 

123

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

The total cost of non-reporting a crime of physical violence (99% of 1,313 million) will be reduced by 1% 
(or 1.5% or 2% depending on the scenario). 

Option IV.2 In addition to options IV.1, create legal aid for certain victims depending 
on their level of income, when they wish to challenge decisions taken concerning their 
rights in the course of criminal proceedings. 

The benefits will be similar to the benefits in Option IV.1 but higher as the victims will be 
entitled to legal aid to challenge the decisions. 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  As a result of the option, 1.5% (or 2% / 2.5% depending on the scenario) of victims 
will register crimes (compared to the baseline). This will lead to a reduction of their 
emotional harm (by 10%, 15% or 20%, depending on the scenario), as well as to a 
reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime (given that the offender may be 
convicted) by the same proportion. 
It will also bring additional benefits (compared to Option IV.1) equal to the legal aid 
fees when challenging decision (that will be supported by the State due to this option, 
and not by the victim). 

 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 26. Example of calculation of Benefits of option IV.2 for Romania 

a)  Reduction of emotional harm for physical violence: 

Due to the measure about 1.5% (or 2% or 2.5%) of the 99% of the 270 thousand victims of physical violence 
that do not register crimes will register the crimes due to the option. Based on current statistics, of those 
about 29% will be attended by support services and have their harm (about 2700 EUR) reduced by 10% 
(15% or 20%, depending on the scenario). 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

The total cost of non-reporting a crime of physical violence (99% of 1,313 million) will be reduced by 1.5% 
(or 2% or 2.5% depending on the scenario). 

c)  Legal assistance fees and legal aid: see description of the calculation of these fees in the section 

on costs. 

EN 

124

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Option  IV.3  Ensure  that  victims  in  all  cases  have  the  possibility  to  participate  as  a 
formal party to the criminal proceedings so that they can enjoy the rights associated 
with such status, including access to the case file and access to legal aid. 

This  option  will  strengthen  fundamental  rights  –  as  already  indicated,  since  the  option 
combines previous options, here the benefits for fundamental rights (fundamental right of 
legal assistance, the right to an effective remedy, and the right to a fair trial) are expected to 
be more significant than in Options IV.1-2 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  As a result of the option, 2% (or 3% / 4% depending on the scenario) of victims will 
register  crimes  (compared  to  the  baseline).  This  will  lead  to  a  reduction  of  their 
emotional harm (by 10%, 15% or 20%, depending on the scenario), as well as to a 
reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime (given that the offender may be 
convicted) by the same proportion. 

  This option will also lead to additional benefits (compared to Option IV.1) to victims 
equal to the legal aid fees, that will be supported by the State due to this option (and 
not by the victim). 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 27. Example of calculation of Benefits of option IV.3 for Romania 

a)  Reduction of emotional harm for physical violence: 

Due to the measure about 2% (or 3% or 4%) of the 99% of the 270 thousand victims of physical violence 
that do not register crimes will register the crimes due to the option. Based on current statistics, of those 
about 29% will be attended by support services and have their harm (about 2700 EUR) reduced by 10% 
(15% or 20%, depending on the scenario). 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

The total cost of non-reporting a crime of physical violence (99% of 1,313 million) will be reduced by 2% 
(or 3% or 4% depending on the scenario). 

c)  Legal assistance fees and legal aid: see description of the calculation of these fees in the section 

on costs. 

EN 

125

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Specific objective V: Facilitated access to compensation from the offender 

Option V.1 Provide for victims the right to receive a decision on compensation from 
the offender in the course of the criminal proceeding.  

The main benefit of this option to victims would be increased access to victim compensation. 
In  addition,  this  option  will  also  lead  to  a  reduction  of  civil  proceedings  related  to 
compensation which brings benefits for the victims but also for the judicial system. 

Monetisation of the benefits 

  Under this option, 0.5% (or 1% / 1.5%, depending on the scenario) of victims will 
register  crimes  (compared  to  the  baseline).  This  will  lead  to  a  reduction  of  their 
emotional harm of the victims (by 10%, 15% or 20%, depending on the scenario), as 
well  as  to  a  reduction  of  repeated  victimisation  and  other  crime  (given  that  the 
offender may be convicted) by the same proportion. 
In addition, victims that had to start a civil proceeding to request compensation do 
not need to do it anymore and will save the costs of initiating civil proceedings.259 
This will also lead to costs savings to the judicial system. Those were however not 
monetised due to insufficient data on the share of costs non-recovered through court 
fees. 

 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 28. Example of calculation of Benefits of option V.1 for Greece 

a)  Reduction of emotional harm for physical violence: 

Due to the measure, about 0.5% (or 1% or 1.5%)  of the 98.5% of the 155 thousand victims of physical 
violence that do not register crimes will register the crimes due to the option. Based on current statistics for 
Greece, about 53% of those will be attended by support services and have their emotional harm (about 4654 
EUR) reduced by 10% (15% or 20%, depending on the scenario). 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

The total cost of non-reporting a crime of physical violence (98.5% of 1,291 million) will be reduced by 
1% (or 1.5% or 2% depending on the scenario). 

259 The unit costs used to calculate the savings were assumed to be at a minimum the hourly costs of legal aid 
50-100  euros.  This  is  a  very  conservative  estimate  as  the  true  cost  of  initiating  a  civil  proceeding  may  be 
significantly higher. 

EN 

126

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Option V.2 Rights to decision on compensation in criminal proceeding and to receive 
offenders’  compensation  by  the  state,  where  state  recuperates  if  from  the  offender 
later. 

This option will bring significantly more benefits than Option V.1 as the victims will have 
access to victim compensation, even when the offender does not pay.  

Monetisation of the benefits 

  Under  this  option,  2%  (or  3%  /  4%,  depending  on  the  scenario)  of  victims  will 
register  crimes  (compared  to  the  baseline).  This  will  lead  to  a  reduction  in  the 
emotional harm of victims (by 10%, 15% or 20%, depending on the scenario), as 
well  as  to  a  reduction  in  repeated  victimisation  and  other  crime  (given  that  the 
offender may be convicted) by the same proportion. 

  This  option  will  also  lead  to  additional  benefits  (compared  to  Option  V.1)  for 
victims, equal to value of the compensation that offenders failed to pay and that will 
be covered by the State instead, in this option. 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 29. Example of calculation of Benefits of option V.2 for Greece 

a)  Reduction of emotional harm for physical violence: 

Due to the measure about 2% (or 3% or 4%) of the 98.5% of the 155 thousand victims of physical violence 
that do not register crimes will register the crimes due to the option. So (based on current statistics) of those, 
about 53% will be attended by support services and have their harm (about 4654 euros) reduced by 10% 
(15% or 20%, depending on the scenario). 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

The total cost of non-reporting a crime of physical violence (98.5% of 1,291 million) will be reduced by 
2% (or 3% or 4% depending on the scenario). 

c)  Compensation: see description of the calculation in the section on costs. 

Option  V.3  Impose  minimum  standards  on  the  conditions  on  receiving  state 
compensation by amending 2004 Compensation Directive. 

The option will bring benefits related to access to compensation, however only to sub-set of 
the victims (theft and burglary). The impact on registration will be similar to those of Option 
V.I. 
EN 

127

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monetisation of the benefits 

  Under this  option, 0.5% (or 1%/1.5%, depending on the scenario) of victims  will 
register  crimes  (compared  to  the  baseline).  This  will  lead  to  a  reduction  of  the 
emotional harm of victims (by 10%, 15% or 20%, depending on the scenario), as 
well  as  to  a  reduction  in  repeated  victimisation  and  other  crime  (given  that  the 
offender may be convicted) by the same proportion. 

  This option will also lead to additional benefits (compared to Option V.2) for victims 
of non-intentional serious offenses equal to the value of the compensation provided 
by the State. 

As the number of victims, and compensation values vary across Member States, in the text 
box below we present an example of the calculation of the cost of the option for a randomly 
selected Member State. 

Text Box 30. Example of calculation of Benefits of option V.3 for Greece 

a)  Reduction of emotional harm for physical violence: 

Due  to  the  measure  about  0.5%  (or  1%  or  1.5%)  of  the  98.5%  of  the  155  thousand  victims  of  physical 
violence that do not register crimes will register the crimes due to the option. About 53% of those will be 
attended  by  support  services  and  have  their  harm  (about  4654  EUR)  reduced  by  10%  (15%  or  20%, 
depending on the scenario). 

b)  Reduction of repeated victimisation and other crime: 

The total cost of non-reporting a crime of physical violence (98.5% of 1,291 million) will be reduced by 
0.5% (or 1% or 1.5% depending on the scenario).    

c)  Compensation: see description of the calculation in the section on costs. 

3.  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS – RESULTS 

The table below presents the total discounted costs and benefits for different time horizons 
(10 years and 15 years). 

Total 

5 years 

Costs 
10 years 

15 years 

5 years 

Benefits 
10 years 

15 years 

43  

231  

79  

430  

111  

601  

701  

1,305  

1,827  

1,388  

2,585  

3,617  

EN 

128

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                       
                       
                    
                    
                 
                 
                    
                    
                    
                 
                 
                 
1,834  

3,415  

4,779  

1,846  

3,438  

4,811  

25  

25  

64  

5  

47  

47  

119  

9  

65  

66  

167  

13  

1,470  

2,738  

3,832  

1,488  

2,772  

3,880  

1,846  

3,438  

4,811  

119  

222  

310  

9,336  

17,389  

24,335  

10,217  

19,031  

26,634  

22,858  

42,575  

59,584  

23,929  

44,570  

62,376  

255  

314  

474  

585  

664  

819  

266  

921  

496  

694  

1,715  

2,400  

3,834  

7,140  

9,993  

4,859  

9,051  

12,666  

2,238  

4,169  

5,835  

2,661  

4,956  

6,936  

8,897  

16,571  

23,192  

9,732  

18,127  

25,368  

31,031  

57,799  

80,890  

31,467  

58,611  

82,026  

Per year 

Costs 

Benefits 

5 years  10 years  15 years 

5 years 

10 years  15 years 

9  

46  

8  

43  

7  

140  

131  

122  

40  

278  

259  

241  

367  

342  

319  

369  

344  

321  

5  

5  

13  

1  

5  

5  

12  

1  

4  

4  

294  

274  

255  

298  

277  

259  

11  

369  

344  

321  

1  

24  

22  

21  

1,867  

1,739  

1,622  

2,043  

1,903  

1,776  

4,572  

4,258  

3,972  

4,786  

4,457  

4,158  

51  

47  

44  

53  

50  

46  

EN 

129

EN 

 
 
 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                       
                       
                       
                 
                 
                 
                       
                       
                       
                 
                 
                 
                       
                    
                    
                 
                 
                 
                         
                         
                       
                    
                    
                    
                 
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
              
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
              
              
                 
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
 
            
            
            
        
        
        
          
          
          
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
            
            
            
        
        
        
            
            
            
        
        
        
          
          
          
        
        
        
            
            
            
          
          
          
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
          
          
          
          
          
          
63  

59  

55  

184  

172  

160  

767  

714  

666  

972  

905  

844  

448  

417  

389  

532  

496  

462  

1,779  

1,657  

1,546  

1,946  

1,813  

1,691  

6,206  

5,780  

5,393  

6,293  

5,861  

5,468  

The  various  scenarios  for  the  benefits  were  developed  based  on  the  feedback  of  experts 
considering their views on the relative impact of an option compared to its alternatives. The 
table below presents the variation on the annual benefits (emotional harm and reduction of 
crime) caused by changes in those scenarios as well as the cost-benefit ratio and the ranking 
of the options. As shown, the ranking of options remains unchanged for all the variations 
considered.

EN 

130

EN 

 
 
 
          
          
          
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
Option 
I.1 

Option 
I.2 

Option 
I.3 

Option 
II.1 

Option 
II.2 

Option 
II.3 

Option 
III.1 

Option 
III.2 

Option 
III.3 

Option 
IV.1 

Option 
IV.2 

Option 
IV.3 

Option 
V.1 

Option 
V.2 

Option 
V.3 

Variation 
-10% 
-5% 
5% 
10% 

-10% 
-5% 
5% 
10% 
Cost- benefit ratio 
16.38 
Baseline 
14.75 
-10% 
15.57 
-5% 
17.20 
5% 
18.02 
10% 
Ranking 
Baseline 
-10% 
-5% 
5% 
10% 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

-16% 
-8% 
8% 
17% 

6.01 
5.07 
5.53 
6.51 
7.03 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

-21% 
-11% 
12% 
24% 

1.01 
0.79 
0.90 
1.13 
1.25 

3 
3 
3 
3 
3 

-19% 
-10% 
10% 
21% 

58.64 
47.60 
53.04 
64.79 
71.11 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

-18% 
-9% 
11% 
22% 

58.67 
47.98 
53.45 
65.30 
71.67 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

-19% 
-10% 
10% 
21% 

28.64 
23.15 
25.79 
31.51 
34.58 

3 
3 
3 
3 
3 

-19% 
-10% 
10% 
20% 

23.61 
19.04 
21.22 
25.92 
28.45 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

-19% 
-9% 
11% 
21% 

0.95 
0.93 
0.94 
0.96 
0.97 

3 
3 
3 
3 
3 

-19% 
-10% 
10% 
21% 

1.05 
1.04 
1.04 
1.05 
1.06 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

-8% 
-3% 
8% 
13% 

1.04 
1.04 
1.04 
1.04 
1.04 

3 
3 
3 
3 
3 

-10% 
-5% 
5% 
10% 

2.93 
2.82 
2.88 
2.99 
3.05 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

-10% 
-5% 
5% 
10% 

-10% 
-5% 
5% 
10% 

1.27 
1.25 
1.26 
1.28 
1.29 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

1.19 
1.17 
1.18 
1.20 
1.21 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

-10% 
-5% 
5% 
10% 

1.09 
1.08 
1.09 
1.10 
1.10 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

-10% 
-5% 
5% 
10% 

1.01 
1.01 
1.01 
1.01 
1.02 

3 
3 
3 
3 
3 

EN 

131 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: COMPETITIVENESS CHECK 

1.  OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS ON COMPETITIVENESS  

Dimensions of 
Competitiveness 

Impact of the initiative 
(++ / + / 0 / - / -- / n.a.) 

References to sub-sections of the 
main report or annexes 

Cost and price competitiveness  0 

International competitiveness  

Capacity to innovate 

SME competitiveness 

0 

0 

0 

2.  SYNTHETIC ASSESSMENT  

Section 6.3 

Section 6.3 

Section 6.3 

Section 6.3 

None of the options considered (including the preferred option and the no-change option) is 
expected to have any significant impact on competitiveness or on capacity to innovate. 

EN 

132 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: MAPPING OF MEMBER STATES’ BEST PRACTICES260 

1.  VICTIMS’ RIGHT TO INFORMATION  

Availability of coordination mechanisms in Member States 

Regarding  the  setting  up  of  coordination  mechanisms  between  law  enforcement,  prosecution 
services,  judicial  authorities  and  support  organisations,  all  Member  States  already  have  in  place 
some  form  of  coordination  mechanisms.  However,  those  are  specific  for  certain  categories  of 
victims.  Based  on  the  conducted  desk  research,  25  out  of  26  Member  States  have  in  place 
coordination mechanisms for victims of trafficking of human beings (THB). 1 Member State (SI) 
provides for a coordinator responsible for victims of trafficking of human beings but not for a proper 
coordination mechanism. In addition, 1 Member State (MT) established a coordination mechanism 
also  for  victims  of  sexual  offence,  child  abuse  and  domestic  violence  and  one  other  (BG)  a 
coordination mechanism for children at risk of violence. The table below provides an overview. 

MS 

Coordination mechanism 

Sources 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 
 (for THB victims, for child THB victims, 
for children at risk of violence) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

https://www.austria.org/human-trafficking 

https://pag-
asa.be/medias/ressourcepublicationitem/33/fil
e/eng/Fight%20against%20trafficking%20an
d%20smuggling%20in%20human%20beings.
%20Policy%20and%20approach.pdf 

https://www.icmpd.org/file/download/52271/f
ile/NRM_assesment_report_Bulgaria_2017.p
df 

https://www.kidsprotect.eu/images/pdf/rykov
odstvo%20koordinacionen%20mehanizam.pd
f 

https://home-
affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-
security/organised-crime-and-human-
trafficking/together-against-trafficking-
human-beings/eu-countries/cyprus_en 

https://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/czech-
republic.aspx 

260 ICF (2023), Study to support the impact assessment for the revision of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum 
standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report 

EN 

133 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

https://rm.coe.int/cp-2020-10-
germany/1680a09ae3 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2018-6-fgr-est-
en/16808b292c 

https://rm.coe.int/cp-2020-02-
greece/16809eb4db 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2018-7-frg-esp-
en/16808b51e0 

https://rm.coe.int/report-concerning-the-
implementation-of-the-council-of-europe-
conventi/168094c77b 

https://rm.coe.int/evaluation-report-france-
third-evaluation-round/1680a5b6cb 

https://rm.coe.int/report-on-the-
implementation-of-the-council-of-europe-
convention-on-ac/1680a09509 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-evaluation-report-on-
hungary-2nd-evaluation-round-/168098f118 

https://rm.coe.int/reply-from-ireland-to-the-
questionnaire-on-the-implementation-of-the-
c/1680a4c35c 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2018-28-fgr-
ita/168091f627 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2019-08-fgr-lithuania-
en/1680950076 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2018-18-frg-lux-
en/16808ee46c 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-implementation-
report-third-evaluation-round-on-
latvia/1680a59480 

(for THB victims, for sexual offence victims, 
for child abuse victims and domestic 
violence victims) 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-evaluation-report-on-
malta-3rd-evaluation-round-/1680a47d84 

EN 

134 

EN 

 
 
NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

x 

(for THB victims) 

N/A 

(a coordinator responsible for THB victims 
but no mechanism) 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2018-19-fgr-nld-
en/16808e70ca 

https://rm.coe.int/report-concerning-the-
implementation-of-the-council-of-europe-
conventi/1680a538f3 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-evaluation-report-on-
portugal-3rd-evaluation-round/1680a6e00c 

https://rm.coe.int/evaluation-report-on-the-
implementation-of-the-council-of-europe-
conve/1680a2b0f8 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2018-8-fgr-swe-
en/16808b1cd7 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2017-38-fgr-svn-
en/168078919e 

x 

(for THB victims) 

https://rm.coe.int/greta-2020-05-fgr-svk-
en/16809eb53d 

Availability of helplines for victims 

MS 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 

Helplines for all victims261 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 
x 
x 

Helplines for specific categories of 
victims 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

116016 number 
available 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

261 This includes 13 MS who use 116 006 and 3 MS who have the helpline for all victims but do not use 116 006. 
Nonetheless, for the purpose of this calculation, the 3 MS are considered as already having a helpline, as there is no 
additional cost related. 

EN 

135 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
IE 

IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

SOURCE: 
https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/helplines_web_final_updated_14_05_20.png (May 2020) 

https://fra.europa.eu/en/content/helplines-victims 

(2014) 

FRA 

and 

EIGE 

Availability of mechanism through which victims are proactively informed by victim support 
organisations 

Concerning the existence of mechanisms through which victims are proactively by victim support 
organisations, 5 Member States (AT, BG, DE, RO, SE) have partial mechanisms in place.  In one 
State  (AT),  the  Intervention  Centre  for  Trafficked  Women  (LEFO-IBF)  and  the  Victim  Support 
Centre for Men Affected by Human Trafficking (MEN VIA) are mandated by the Ministry of Justice 
on the basis of section 66 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to legally advise and offer psychosocial 
support to victims during investigations and court proceedings262, while in another State (DE) the 
Weisser Ring victim support organisation provides free of charge support to victims proactively263. 
In addition, between 4 Member States (BG, DE, RO, SE) a referral mechanism for crime victims in 
national and cross-border cases exists, which promotes methods and tools through which victims 
are informed about their rights264. No data were found on the remaining 21 Member States. 

2.  PROTECTION OF VICTIMS 

Individual assessment of protection and support needs 

Policy  option  II.1  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the  individual  assessment  of  victims’ 
protection needs is improved by adding the following elements: 

  assessment is carried out at the first contact with the competent authorities.  
  with the involvement of support services, law enforcement and the judiciary. 
 

focuses also on the evaluation of the risks emanating from the perpetrator (such as alcohol 
abuse or possession of weapons); 

and includes the assessment of individual needs for support. 

262https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/organised-crime-and-human-trafficking/together-
against-trafficking-human-beings/eu-countries/austria_en 
263 https://weisser-ring.de/english 
264https://wp.flgr.bg/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Referral_tool_BG.pdf; https://provictimsjustice.prorefugiu.org/ 

EN 

136 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Concerning the timing of the assessment, 11 Member States have measures in place to ensure the 
assessment  is  carried  out  at  the  first  contact  with  the  competent  authorities.265  7  MS  have  some 
measures in place: most of them provides for the obligation for the competent authorities to conduct 
an individual needs assessment, but in practice it is rarely carried out,266 or the law provides for a 
vague  wording  (“in  a  timely  manner”)267  or  it  applies  only  to  certain  categories  of  victims.268 8 
Member States do not have measures in place to ensure the individual needs assessment is carried 
out at the first contact with the competent authorities.269 

Concerning the involvement of support services, law enforcement and the judiciary, 6 Member 
States have measures in place to ensure such involvement.270 7 MS have some measures in place.271 
13 MS do not have in place measures to ensure the involvement of all relevant actors.272  

About the inclusion in the needs assessment of an  evaluation of the risks emanating from the 
perpetrator, 11 MS already take into consideration such risks in the individual needs assessment.273 
4 MS include such assessment in certain cases, notably for crimes against children and domestic 
violence,274  indirectly  in  assessing  the  victim’s  risk  to  repeated  victimisation,  intimidation,  or 
retaliation,275 or depending on the requested protection measure.276 

Finally, regarding the assessment of individual needs for support, 7 Member States already assess 
the victim’s needs for support when they assess the victim’s protection needs.277 6 Member States 
includes such assessment to a limited extent.278 13 Member States do not provide for the assessment 
of support.needs279. 

265 AT, DE, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, LT, NL, PL, SE.  
266 BE, ES, LU, MT, PT. 
267 CY. 
268 LV. 
269 BG, CZ, EE, EL, IT, RO, SI, SK. 
270 CY, EL, ES, HR, LT, NL.  
271 AT does not provide for specific guidelines or regulations for the assessment of specific protection needs. In BE the 
involvement of specialized actors depends on the assessment performed by the justice assistant assigned to the case. In 
DE the involvement varies from one Land to the other. FR provides for the involvement of support organisations only 
when  the  prosecutor  deems  it  necessary.  IT  limits  the  involvement  to  law  enforcement  and  the  judiciary.    In  MT, 
informal  mechanisms  of  cooperation  with  NGOs  in  cases  of  domestic  violence  and  THB  exist  and  the  country  is 
reviewing its mechanisms in order to improve the multidisciplinary approach. SK provides that authorities and support 
organisations shall perform a needs assessment, but it is unclear whether it is conducted in a coordinated manner. 
272 BG, CZ, EE, FI, HU, IE, LU, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE SI. 
273 AT, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, PL, SE, SK. 
274 BE, CY. 
275 IE. 
276 RO. 
277 BE, EE, HU, IE, IT, NL, SE. 
278  CY  assesses  support  needs  only  in  case  of  crimes  against  children  and  domestic  violence.  DE  provides  for 
psychosocial support, but it is unclear when its need is assessed. In FR, the individual needs assessment mainly covers 
protection  needs  but  may  also  extend  to  support  needs.  HR  provides  that,  in  the  needs  assessment,  individual 
characteristics  such  as  age,  pregnancy,  disability,  communication  difficulties  or  health  status  shall  be  taken  into 
consideration.  PT  includes  in  the  needs  assessment  elements  such  as  the  victim’s  age,  health  and  disability,  but  it 
excludes  other  elements  such  as  gender  and  gender  identity  or  communication  difficulties.  In  SI,  the  assessment  of 
support needs depends on whether the social worker assigned to the case decides to rely on the multidisciplinary team 
providing additional services beyond protection measures. 
279 AT, BG, CZ, EL, ES, FI, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK. 

EN 

137 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

Assessment is 
carried out at the 
first contact with the 
competent 
authorities 

With the 
involvement of 
support services, law 
enforcement and the 
judiciary. 

Focuses also on the 
evaluation of the risks 
emanating from the 
perpetrator (such as alcohol 
abuse or possession of 
weapons) 

Includes the assessment of 
individual needs for support 

AT 

X 

Limited (No specific 
guideline or 
regulation for the 
assessment of 
specific protection 
needs; the 
assessment can be 
reviewed at a later 
stage) 

Limited 
(unstructured, 
depends on the 
assessment 
performed by the 
justice assistant 
assigned to the case) 

X 

Limited (crimes against 
children and domestic 
violence) 

X 

Limited (protocols 
are in place but 
victim support 
workers have the 
impression that the 
assessment is not 
carried out in a 
structural way) 

Limited (only 
reference to conduct 
it in a timely manner) 

X 

Limited (crimes against 
children and domestic 
violence) 

Limited (crimes against 
children and domestic 
violence) 

DE 

X 

EE 

EL 

ES  

EN 

Limited (practice may 
differ greatly from the 
theory) 

Limited (may vary 
from one Land to 
another, e.g. in 
Lower Saxony, some 
prosecutor's offices 
host bureaus of 
victim support 
organisations) 

X 

X 

138 

EN 

Limited (psychosocial support 
can be provided but unclear 
when its need is assessed) 

X (indirectly, the purpose of 
an individual assessment is to 
guarantee necessary services 
in a timely manner for the 
victims who need it, as well as 
special measures and 
protection) 

X 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Limited (victim 
support 
organizations are 
involved only if 
prosecutor considers 
it necessary and as a 
second step of the 
assessment) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Limited (indirect, assessment 
covers evaluation of whether 
the victim is vulnerable to 
repeat victimisation, 
intimidation or retaliation) 

Limited (law 
enforcement and 
judiciary) 

X 

X 

X 

Limited (individual needs 
assessment mainly covers 
protection needs but can 
extend also to other services 
needs) 

Limited (indirect, the needs 
assessment takes into 
consideration individual 
characteristics such as the age 
of the victim, possible 
pregnancy or recent birth, 
disability, communication 
difficulties (speech, reading or 
writing), health status, alcohol 
or narcotic addiction) 

X 

X 

X 

Limited (practice may 
differ greatly from the 
theory) 

Limited (victims of 
certain crimes are 
automatically 
considered as 
vulnerable and in 
need of special 
protection) 

MT 

Limited (practice may 
differ greatly from the 
theory) 

EN 

In progress 
(discussions were 
ongoing on a 
multidisciplinary 
approach during the 
drafting of 
VOCIARE report. 
Informal mechanism 

139 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of cooperation with 
NGOs in cases of 
domestic violence 
and victims of 
trafficking) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Limited (practice may 
differ greatly from the 
theory) 

Limited (elements such as 
victim’s age, health status and 
disability. However, other 
possibly relevant 
characteristics, such as 
gender, gender identity or 
gender expression, residency 
status, communication 
difficulties and relationship 
with the offender, are left out) 

Limited (depends on the 
requested protection measure, 
e.g. in case of domestic 
violence) 

X 

X 

X 

Limited (depends on whether 
the social worker assigned to 
the case decides to rely on the 
multidisciplinary team 
providing additional services 
beyond protection measures) 

Limited (authorities 
and support 
organisations are 
obliged to perform a 
needs assessment, 
but it is unclear 
whether it is 
conducted in a 
coordinated manner) 

X 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Source: VOCIARE Reports

EN 

140 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Protection orders 

Protection orders are available at national level 
for all crime victims 

Specific provisions on shelters and interim 
accommodations are existent 

x 

x for victims of trafficking in human beings 

x 

X (partially) 

x (criminal law) 

Civil law POs only relate to domestic violence and 
stalking,  while  criminal  law  POs  are  primarily 
aimed  at  rehabilitating  the  offender/suspect  rather 
than at protecting the victim. 

x (criminal law + civil law) 

Civil  law  POs  are  limited  to  restraining  orders 
through preliminary injunctions and their violations 
does not lead to criminal charges. Criminal law POs 
can be adopted at all stages of the proceedings. 

x (criminal law) 

Civil law protection orders only relate to domestic 
violence  and  divorce  proceedings.  Criminal  law 
protection orders are usually adopted in the pre-trial 
phase as coercive measures, while post-trial orders 
mainly have a probationary purpose. 

Civil protection order can be requested in relation 
to divorce or dissolution of marriage proceedings. 
Within  criminal  law,  protection  orders  can  be 
issued  when  a  suspect  has  been  charged  or 
sentenced  for  acts  of  domestic  violence.  These 
protection  orders  can  then  take  the  form  of  an 
additional or alternative measure to the sanction. 
x (criminal law + civil law) 

Protection  orders  within  criminal  proceedings  are 
mainly  
temporary  measures  issued  in  the  pre-trial  stage 
while civil law allows for interlocutory orders for a 
period of 1 month. 

x (criminal law + civil law) 

Civil law POs represent the main form of POs, they 
can be issued at the request of the victim through an 
accelerated  procedure.  Criminal  POs  can  also  be 
imposed in criminal proceedings, as conditions to a 
suspended prison sentence and to an early release 
from prison. They can also be imposed as security 
measures. 

x (criminal law + civil law) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

EN 

141 

EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Protection orders are available at national level 
for all crime victims 

Specific provisions on shelters and interim 
accommodations are existent 

Civil law protection orders consist in measures for 
securing  action  or  measures  for  the  protection  of 
individual  rights.  Criminal  law  POs  may  be 
imposed  for  the  protection  of  the  private  life  or 
other  individual  rights  of  a  victim,  as  a  means  of 
securing criminal proceedings.  

x (criminal law + civil law) 

Within civil law, Temporary Orders and Injunction 
Orders  in  cases  of  emergency  ‘if  someone’s 
personality is violated’ in order to avoid future risk 
or  danger.  Within  criminal  law,  protection  orders 
can be found in the form of a condition to avoid pre-
trial detention. Post-trial POs are rare. 
Dedicated POs exist both under criminal and civil 
law against specific crimes. 

- 
POs only exist in relation to domestic violence and 
gender-based violence.  
- 
Civil  protection  orders,  in  the  form  of  civil 
injunctions,  are  used  in  practice  in  cases  of 
domestic  violence.  Quasi-criminal  protection 
orders  are  most  commonly  used  in  cases  of 
domestic  violence.  These  orders  can  be  obtained 
through  a  separate  (quasi-criminal) 
trajectory 
before  the  district  courts, independent  of  criminal 
proceedings.  

x (criminal law) 

Civil POs can only be issued in cases of domestic 
violence 
involving  only  (former)  spouses  or 
registered partners. Criminal POs can be issued as 
a condition to suspension of pre-trial detention or as 
a  condition  to  a  suspended  sentence,  mainly  as  a 
form of sanctioning.  

x (criminal law + civil law) 

x (criminal law) 

Criminal POs can be issued in the form of barring 
orders as a  
coercive  measure,  or  as  a  criminal  law  behaviour 
rule that the perpetrator is obliged to observe as part 
of probation. Criminal POs are mainly used in the 
pre-trial phase. Civil law POs also exist and can be 
issued ex officio by the court or upon request of the 

EN 

142 

EN 

EL 

ES  

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

x 

x 

x 

x 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Protection orders are available at national level 
for all crime victims 

Specific provisions on shelters and interim 
accommodations are existent 

victim  or  the  victim’s  family,  but  it  is  limited  to 
certain victims. 

x (criminal law) 

Civil law POs are dedicated to domestic violence. 
Criminal POs can be requested by the police to limit 
movement  and  as  a  condition  to  suspension  form 
pre-trial detention.  

x (criminal law) 

Civil law POs are dedicated to victims of domestic 
violence and stalking. Criminal law POs are 
normally attached to pre-trial measures. Post-trial 
POs are very scarcely used. 
x (criminal law) 

Within civil law, protection orders can be issued as 
provisional measures pending the outcome of 
proceedings such as divorce and marriage 
dissolution. Criminal law POs can be issued in 
both the pre-trial and post-trial stage.  
x (civil law) 

Civil law POs may be in the form of general 
injunctions or specific against domestic violence. 
Criminal law POs only exist in relation to certain 
categories of crimes (domestic violence, assault 
and battery or trafficking of human beings). 
X (criminal law + civil law) 

Civil law POs were introduced in 2014 in the form 
of emergency POs and special civil procedures for 
victims seeking protection. Criminal POs exist but 
they can only be issued after an indictment (i.e., 
post-trial phase), normally as part of probationary 
measures or suspended sentence. 
x (criminal law) 
Civil law POs can only be issued in separation 
proceedings when there is evidence of domestic 
violence. Criminal law POs can be issued during 
or after the proceeding. 
x (criminal law) 

Civil law has only one possibility to impose a PO, 
namely via interlocutory proceedings, but it is very 
rarely use. Criminal law POs can be issued during 
all stages of the criminal procedure: both pre-trial, 
during trial and post-trial. 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

EN 

143 

EN 

x 

x 

x 

x (domestic violence) 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Protection orders are available at national level 
for all crime victims 

Specific provisions on shelters and interim 
accommodations are existent 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

x (criminal law) 

Civil law POs can be issued in cases of divorce or 
separation. Criminal law POs are related to 
situation of threat or violence and impost almost 
exclusively within criminal proceedings. 
x (criminal law) 

to 

Criminal  law  POs  are  generally  imposed  as 
coercive  measures, but  they  can  also be issued  as 
suspended  pre-trial  detention, 
conditions 
provisional  suspension  of  proceedings,  suspended 
sentence  and  conditional  release.  In  cases  of 
domestic  violence,  they  may  also  represent  an 
accessory penalty. 

- 
Civil law POs are only possible in relation to 
domestic violence cases. Criminal law POs are 
only available in cases of acts of violence against 
family members. 
x (criminal law) 

Civil law POs can be issued in relation to divorce 
or separation cases. Quasi-criminal POs exist and 
can be obtained through a quasi-criminal 
procedure with the aim of preventing crimes. 
x (criminal law) 

Civil law POs are only possible in relation to 
domestic violence cases. Criminal law POs can be 
issued to protect victims of all sorts of crimes. 
x (mainly civil law) 

Civil law POs can be issued via interlocutory 
proceedings and cease to be in effect if the victim 
does not file a petition to commence proceedings 
on the merit within the deadline. Criminal law POs 
may be issued in the post-trial phase as part of 
probationary supervision. Pre-trial POs do not 
exist. 

x 

x 

Sources: DAPHNE (2015). Mapping the legislation and assessing the impact of Protection Orders 
in the European Member States 

EN 

144 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  SUPPORT TO VICTIMS  

Availability of specialist support services for all vulnerable victims through a central contact 
point or in the form of the Barnahus model and free psychological support for all victims in 
need  

The new policy option has been divided into two parts: a first part on the existence and availability 
of specialist support services for victims (possibly in the form of the Barnahus model) and a second 
part on the availability of psychological services for victims. 

With  regard  to  the  availability  of  specialist  support  services,  all  Member  States  have  in  place 
systems making specialist support services available to all victims. In 3 MS, such specialist support 
services depends on the crime.280 21 out of 26 MS also have in place specialist support services 
dedicated to all vulnerable victims.281 4 MS have in place specialist support services for only certain 
groups of vulnerable victims,282 whereas for 1 MS no data were found.283 Only 1 MS provides such 
specialist support in the form of the Barnahus model,284 while 3 MS provides for a central contact 
point  to  coordinate  different  providers  of  specialist  support.285  In  addition,  8  MS  have  in  place 
Barnahus-like models of support, although dedicated to specific groups of victims.286 

Concerning the availability of psychological services for all victims needing them free of charge, 
12 Member States offer such services for all victims of crime.287 2 Member States attach additional 
conditions to the availability of such services free of charge.288 

280 EL, FR, HR. 
281 AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK. 
282 CY (women victim of domestic violence, child victims of sexual abuse, victims of THB), EL (women victim of 
violence,  victims  of  torture,  maltreatment  and  social  exclusion,  refugees),  LT  (women  victim  of  THB,  forced 
prostitution and domestic violence, child victims, refugees), LU (women in distress and/or victim of domestic violence, 
child victims). 
283 PT. 
284 ES (the Crime Victim Support Offices provide free, public multidisciplinary service to address victims’ needs, they 
are run by the Ministry of Justice). 
285 CZ, DE, NL. 
286 DE (child victims), FI (victims of domestic violence), HR (child victims), IE (child victims), LV (child victims), SE 
(child victims), SI (child victims). 
287 BE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LV, PL, RO, SI, SK. 
288  BG  (financial  conditions),  EL  (free  of  charge  for  victims  of  VAW,  child  victims,  and  individuals,  families  and 
vulnerable groups that face acute psychosocial conditions or social exclusion, as well as in cases of natural disasters or 
accidents with mass casualties).  

EN 

145 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Specialist 
support available 

Specialist support 
available for all 
vulnerable victims 

Specialist support 
services available 
for all vulnerable 
victims in the form 
of a central contact 
point or the 
Barnahus model 

Good 
practices on 
Barnahus-
like systems 
for specific 
groups of 
victims289 

Free psychological 
support for all 
victims of crime 

AT 

BE290 

BG291 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x (women victim of 
domestic violence, child 
victim of sexual abuse, 
victims of THB) 

x 

offered to victims of 
crime only if they 
meet the financial 
conditions and can 
demonstrate low 
income 

Central contact point 
but not Barnahus 

Central contact point 
but not Barnahus 

child and 
youth 
hospital at the 
university 
clinic of 
Leipzig 
(children) 

x 

x 

x 

EL292 

x (sector-specific) 

x (women victim of 
violence, victims of 
torture, maltreatment and 
social exclusion, refugees) 

Free for victims of 
VAW, minor 
victims, and 
individuals, families 
and vulnerable 
groups, that face 
acute psychosocial 
conditions or social 

289 Norway: Barnahus November Project for adults 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320447192_Barnahus_for_Adults_Reinterpreting_the_Barnahus_Model_to
_Accommodate_Adult_Victims_of_Domestic_Violence); Daja Wenke, PROMISE Project, Enabling Child-sensitive 
Justice, 2020. Available at: https://www.barnahus.eu/en/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/PROMISE-Enabling-Child-
Sensitive-Justice.pdf; Council of Europe, ‘First Barnahus for child victims of sexual abuse launched in Slovenia’, 
2022. Available at: https://www.coe.int/fr/web/portal/-/first-barnahus-for-child-victims-of-sexual-abuse-launched-in-
slovenia. 
290 https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/country-study-victim-support-services-be.pdf 
291 https://bghelsinki.org/bg/news/uslugi-za-lica-postradali-ot-prestpleniya-pregled-i-ocenka-na-situaciyata-v-blgariya-
prez-2014-g 
292https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/country-study-victim-support-services-el.pdf, 
http://www.ekka.org.gr/index.php/en/rolos-skopos-tou-ekka-en/apostoli-e-k-k-a-en 

EN 

146 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Specialist 
support available 

Specialist support 
available for all 
vulnerable victims 

Specialist support 
services available 
for all vulnerable 
victims in the form 
of a central contact 
point or the 
Barnahus model 

Good 
practices on 
Barnahus-
like systems 
for specific 
groups of 
victims289 

Free psychological 
support for all 
victims of crime 

exclusion, as well as 
in cases of natural 
disasters or 
accidents with mass 
casualties 

ES293  

FI294 

x 

x 

FR295 

x (sector-specific) 

HR296 

x (sector-specific) 

HU297 

IE 

IT298 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Crime Victim 
Support 
Offices: free, 
public 
multidisciplin
ary service to 
address 
victims’ 
needs, run by 
the Ministry 
of Justice 
Shelters for 
victims of 
domestic 
violence 

Zagreb Child 
and Youth 
Protection 
Center 
(children) 

Barnahus in 
Galway 
(children) 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

293https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/Ciudadano/Victimas/Documents/Oficinas%20de%20Asistencia%20a%20las%20V
%C3%ADctimas%20del%20Delito%20%28English%29.pdf, https://e-
justice.europa.eu/171/EN/victims__rights__by_country?SPAIN&action=maximizeMS&clang=en&idSubpage=5&me
mber=1 
294 https://www.riku.fi/en/victim-support-finland/; https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/services/special-government-services-
in-social-welfare-and-health-care/shelters-for-victims-of-domestic-violence. 
295 https://e-
justice.europa.eu/171/EN/victims__rights__by_country?FRANCE&action=maximizeMS&clang=en&idSubpage=9&
member=1; https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/country-study-victim-support-services-fr_0.pdf 
296 https://sudovi.hr/en/citizens/victims-rights 
297 https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/country-study-victim-support-services-hu.pdf; 
http://fehergyuru.eu/en/activities/ 
298 https://www.associazionelibra.com/en/victim-centre/ 

EN 

147 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Specialist 
support available 

Specialist support 
available for all 
vulnerable victims 

Specialist support 
services available 
for all vulnerable 
victims in the form 
of a central contact 
point or the 
Barnahus model 

Good 
practices on 
Barnahus-
like systems 
for specific 
groups of 
victims289 

Free psychological 
support for all 
victims of crime 

LT 

LU299 

LV 
MT 

NL 

PL300 

PT 

RO301 

SE302 

SI 

SK303 

x (women victim of THB, 
forced prostitution and 
domestic violence, child 
victims, refugees) 

x (women in distress 
and/or victim of domestic 
violence, child victims) 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

Unclear 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Central contact point 
but not Barnahus 

Foundation 
Centre 
Dardedze - 
crisis centre 
(children)  

Child and 
Youth 
Trauma 
Centre 
(KJTC) 
(children) 

 Swedish 
Barnahus in 
Linköping 
(children) + 
23 Barnahus 
(children) 
around the 
country 
Children's 
House in 
Ljubljana 
(children) 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/country-study-victim-support-services-lu.pdf, 

299 
https://guichet.public.lu/en/organismes/organismes_citoyens/service-central-assistance-sociale.html 
300https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7789/Artykul/2684290,free-help-for-crime-victims-in-poland, 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/country-study-victim-support-services-pl.pdf 
301 https://www.crj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/VICToRIIA_National-Report-Romania.pdf 
302 https://kvinnofridslinjen.se/en/about-us/; https://calio.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Inuti-ett-barnahus_eng.pdf.  
303 
https://e-
justice.europa.eu/171/EN/victims__rights__by_country?SLOVAKIA&action=maximizeMS&clang=en&idSubpage=4
&member=1 

https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/country-study-victim-support-services-sk.pdf, 

EN 

148 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Source: e-Justice portal. See also footnotes for each jurisdiction 

EN 

149 

EN 

 
 
 
 
Availability of support services in the form of the Barnahus model for all child victims 

With regard to the availability of specialist support services in the form of the Barnahus model, data 
were  found  concerning  20  Member  States.  Out of  those,  11  Member  States  already  ensure  such 
availability,304 while 9 Member States ensure limited availability of specialist support services in 
the form of the Barnahus model.305  

Regarding the existence of coordination at the national level of support services, law enforcement 
and  judicial  authorities,  data  were  found  concerning  8  Member  States.  5  Member  States  have 
coordination mechanisms in place,306 while 3 MS ensure some level of coordination among some 
of the abovementioned actors.307  

Finally, about the provision of age-appropriate support and protection necessary to comprehensively 
address the needs, no data were found to assess the provision of such support in Member States. 

AT 

BE 

BG 

Limited 
availability of 
specialist 
support 
services in the 
form of 
Barnahus308 

x (only for some 
victims, i.e., 
child abuse, 
neglect or 
sexual abuse) 

x (child-friendly 
interviewing 
facilities in 
facilities with a 
wide range of 
services like 
shelter, 
emotional 

Availability of 
specialist support 
services in the form of 
Barnahus309 

Limited coordination 
at national level of 
support services, law 
enforcement and 
judicial authorities 

Coordination at national level of 
support services, law 
enforcement and judicial 
authorities 

Police services and 
social services 

304 DE, FI, HU, IE, LU, LV (from January 2023), MT, PL, PT, RO, SE. 
305  BE  only  ensures  it  for  children  victim  of  child  abuse,  neglect  or  sexual  abuse.  BG  provides  for  child-friendly 
interviewing facilities together with a wide range of services like shelter, emotional support, questioning and therapy. 
CY, ES, LT and SI limit it to victims of certain crimes. EE and NL provide for it only in certain areas. HR only provides 
for one centre not covering the full spectrum of services as under Barnahus. 
306 CY, FI, NL, SE, SK. 
307 BG, HR, LT.  
308 Annemieke Wolthuis, Anna Wróblewska, Jodi Mak, PROMISE Project, Report on the Stakeholder mapping, 2016. 
Available at: https://www.verwey-jonker.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/promise-stakeholder-mapping-2.pdf.  
309 Susanna Johansson, Kari Stefansen, Elisiv K=bakketeig, Anna Kaldal, Collaborating against child abuse – Exploring 
the 
at: 
Palgrave 
https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/27917/1002082.pdf?sequence
=1&isAllowed=y%20+%20https://www.barnahus.eu/en/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/LegalBriefing2020_FINAL.pdf.  

Macmillan, 

Available 

Barnahus 

Nordic 

model, 

2018. 

EN 

150 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Limited 
availability of 
specialist 
support 
services in the 
form of 
Barnahus308 
support, 
questioning and 
therapy) 

x (only for some 
victims) 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

x (present in 
some urban 
spaces only) 

x (only for some 
victims) 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI310 

Availability of 
specialist support 
services in the form of 
Barnahus309 

Limited coordination 
at national level of 
support services, law 
enforcement and 
judicial authorities 

Coordination at national level of 
support services, law 
enforcement and judicial 
authorities 

police, social services, medical and 
mental health services 

x (Children below 18 
years that are victims of 
crimes directed towards 
the child’s life, health, 
freedom or peace; 
honour-related crimes, 
female genital 
mutilation and children 
who are witnesses of 
violence; children who 
sexually abuse other 
children, when 
appropriate) 

x (suspicion of physical 
and/or sexual abuse of 
children and adolescents 
under 18 years of age) 

Build up interprofessional 
cooperation (police, prosecutor, 
forensic psychology units, child 
welfare, somatic and psychiatric 
medical care, schools, early 
childhood education and care, child 
health clinics). Develop 
coordination and content of support 
and treatment needed by children 
and families who have experienced 
violence; ensure child-friendly 
encounters and facilities for all 
children heard in a legal context. 

310 A. Kaldal (2020), Comparative review of legislation related to Barnahus in Nordic countries. 

EN 

151 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Limited 
availability of 
specialist 
support 
services in the 
form of 
Barnahus308 

x (one center in 
Zagreb; not 
covering the full 
spectrum of 
services as 
under Barnahus) 

x (only for some 
victims, i.e., 
sexual abuse 
and sexual 
exploitation) 

x (Barnahus-like 
Multidisciplinar
y Center on 
Child 
Maltreatment - 
not located in all 
provinces) 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

Availability of 
specialist support 
services in the form of 
Barnahus309 

Limited coordination 
at national level of 
support services, law 
enforcement and 
judicial authorities 

Coordination at national level of 
support services, law 
enforcement and judicial 
authorities 

Strong cooperation 
between institutions 
within the child 
protection system (which 
includes the 
nongovernmental 
sector). Weaker 
cooperation with justice 
system 

coordinated inter-agency 
cooperation for the 
following services: 
psychological, social, 
legal and medical 

x 

x 

x 

x (from January 2023) 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Inter-sectoral team, consisting of 
specialists in medical care 
(paediatrician), the judicial system 
(police officer, sometimes 
prosecutor), the childcare system 
(including safe at home workers, 
therapists and so on) and the adult 
and forensic psychiatry. 

EN 

152 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Limited 
availability of 
specialist 
support 
services in the 
form of 
Barnahus308 

SE311 

x (only for some 
victims of 
crime) 

SI312 

SK 

Availability of 
specialist support 
services in the form of 
Barnahus309 

Limited coordination 
at national level of 
support services, law 
enforcement and 
judicial authorities 

Coordination at national level of 
support services, law 
enforcement and judicial 
authorities 

x (children below 18 
years that are victims of 
crimes directed towards 
the child’s life, health, 
freedom or peace; also 
honour-related crimes, 
female genital 
mutilation and children 
who are witnesses of 
violence; children who 
sexually abuse other 
children, when 
appropriate.) 

Collaboration and coordination of 
specific parallel cases of criminal 
investigation and a child welfare 
investigation through consultation 
meetings and co-hearings of child 
investigative interviews. Inclusion 
of healthcare and forensic medicine 
in the organization varies. 

National Coordination Centre for 
Resolving the Issues of Violence 
against Children - the Centre 
cooperates with ministries, regional 
and local self-government, non-
governmental organisations, other 
institutions and experts in the field. 

4.  ACCESS TO JUSTICE 

Right  for  victims  to  be  accompanied  by  a  legal/administrative  assistance  throughout  the 
criminal  proceedings,  irrespective  of  whether  or  not  the  victim  is  a  formal  party  to  the 
criminal proceedings, including assistance from a victims’ support organisation 

A right to be accompanied by a 
legal/administrative assistance 
throughout the criminal proceedings 
exists for all victims of crime 

AT 

x 

Limitations to this right 

311 A. Kaldal (2020), Comparative review of legislation related to Barnahus in Nordic countries. 
312  Council  of  Europe,  ‘First  Barnahus  for  child  victims  of  sexual  abuse  launched  in  Slovenia’,  2022.  Available  at: 
https://www.coe.int/fr/web/portal/-/first-barnahus-for-child-victims-of-sexual-abuse-launched-in-slovenia.  

EN 

153 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
A right to be accompanied by a 
legal/administrative assistance 
throughout the criminal proceedings 
exists for all victims of crime 

Limitations to this right 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES  

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Bureaucratic  procedures  are  indicated  as  an  obstacle  to  the  full 
enjoyment of the right. 

This right is restricted only to the victim’s lawyer. 

This right is restricted only to the victim’s lawyer. 

Partially implemented right 

This right is restricted only to the victim’s lawyer. 

This right is restricted only to the victim’s lawyer. Bureaucratic 
procedures are indicated as an obstacle to the full enjoyment of the 
right. 

This right is restricted only to the victim’s lawyer. 

EN 

154 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A right to be accompanied by a 
legal/administrative assistance 
throughout the criminal proceedings 
exists for all victims of crime 

Limitations to this right 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Only one person may accompany the victim, whether it is a lawyer 
or another person of trust. Bureaucratic procedures are indicated 
as an obstacle to the full enjoyment of the right. 

Source: Vociare Report, Evaluation of the Victims’ Rights Directive, Online survey conducted as 
part of the impact assessment 

Right for victims to challenge decisions concerning their rights in the course of the criminal 
proceedings (legal remedies) 

Victims have adequate 
rights to challenge 
decisions concerning 
their rights in the 
course of the criminal 
proceedings (legal 
remedies). 

Victims have less adequate 
rights to challenge 
decisions concerning their 
rights in the course of the 
criminal proceedings (legal 
remedies). 

What is considered to be less adequate rights? 

x 

x 

x 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EN 

No possibilities to review a decision not to prosecute of the 
crown prosecution + it is dependent on the victims’ role as 
injured party. 

The  joint  plaintiff  cannot  challenge  the  verdict  with  the 
aim of having a higher sentence or otherwise a different 
legal consequence imposed on the defendant. 

x 

x 

155 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Victims have adequate 
rights to challenge 
decisions concerning 
their rights in the 
course of the criminal 
proceedings (legal 
remedies). 

Victims have less adequate 
rights to challenge 
decisions concerning their 
rights in the course of the 
criminal proceedings (legal 
remedies). 

What is considered to be less adequate rights? 

Against judicial decisions by which the victim is adversely 
affected in the course of the proceedings, there is in part 
the right of appeal under Art. 304 CCP (e.g.: if the court 
refuses to allow access to the file after the investigation has 
been completed or if the court rejects the application of a 
witness) 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EE 

EL 

ES  

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

EN 

A victim can join criminal proceedings as a civil party (not 
considered  formal  parties  to  criminal  proceedings).  This 
can  occur  at  any  stage  during  a  judicial  investigation  or 
trial (up to the close of arguments). Because victims are 
not  formal  parties  to  criminal  proceedings,  they  cannot 
appeal against the verdict or sentence. 

Time limits for filing the request for a review of a decision 
not to prosecute may be quite prohibitive. 

When  the  decision  was  carried  out  by  an  Irish  public 
prosecutor,  the  review  is  carried  out  by  another  lawyer 
inside the same structure. 

Time limits for filing the request for a review of a decision 
not to prosecute may be quite prohibitive. 

Some decisions can be reviewed (e.g. decision to close the 
file), others cannot. 

Time limits for filing the request for a review of a decision 
not to prosecute may be quite prohibitive. 

It is only possible to challenge a decision not to prosecute 
through a procedure where one is able to complain about 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

156 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Victims have adequate 
rights to challenge 
decisions concerning 
their rights in the 
course of the criminal 
proceedings (legal 
remedies). 

Victims have less adequate 
rights to challenge 
decisions concerning their 
rights in the course of the 
criminal proceedings (legal 
remedies). 

What is considered to be less adequate rights? 

x 

x 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

law  enforcement,  on  the  basis  that  the  case  was  not 
handled in the proper manner. 

A  victim  can  join  criminal  proceedings  but  are  not 
considered  as  formal  parties  to  the  criminal  proceedings 
and  cannot  appeal  against  the  verdict  or  sentence. 
Nonetheless,  victims  that  join  criminal  proceedings  as 
injured parties can claim compensation. 

Time limits for filing the request for a review of a decision 
not to prosecute may be quite prohibitive. 

It is dependent on the victims’ role as injured party. 

Time limits for filing the request for a review of a decision 
not to prosecute may be quite prohibitive. Victims cannot 
challenge decisions in criminal proceedings in respect of 
guilt of perpetrator. 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Source: Vociare report, Online survey conducted as part of the impact assessment 

EN 

157 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Victim’s possibility to participate as party to the criminal proceeding 

Possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal 
proceedings 

No possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal proceedings 

Rights that the victim has in line with its participation to the 
criminal proceedings 

AT 

BE 

x 

x 

BG 

x 

x 

x 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EN 

You have the right to examine the files. Access may be denied or 
limited  only  if  the  inspection  of  files  could  endanger  the 
investigation or influence your testimony as a witness.  

appeal  if  the  court  dismisses  your  claim  for  damages  or  if  you 
consider that the compensation awarded is too small. A victim can 
opt for the status of injured person or constitute himself as a civil 
party.  

If you decide to participate as an additional private prosecutor (2) 
and/or  civil  claimant  (1)  you  will  have  a  number  of  additional 
rights: 
-to have a lawyer present (not obligatorily), generally at your own 
expense, unless you prove you cannot pay for his/her services; 
-to ask for the exclusion of any judge, the prosecutor, the lawyers 
or  the  registrar,  the  experts  and  the  interpreters,  if  you  have 
justified reasons to doubt their impartiality; 
-to  present  material  evidence,  call  witnesses,  request  expert 
opinions, etc.; 
-to be present at inspections performed by the court; 
-to request the performance of new investigative actions; 
-to  make  statements,  requests,  remarks  and  objections,  examine 
and  cross-examine  the  defendant  and  the  witnesses  and  object 
against the interview of specific witnesses; 
-to request the court to order the offender to cover your expenses 
if the case ends with a conviction; 
-to appeal against the decisions of the court, including the verdict 
and the penalty. 

Victims  and  other  aggrieved  persons  attend  the  criminal 
proceedings.  

The  German  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  (CCP)  indicates  that 
victims  of  certain  crimes,  partially  under  further  conditions  are 
granted to join the proceedings as a private accessory prosecutor 
(also  called:  joint  plaintiff),  giving  them  special  rights.  Other 
Victims are not a formal party, but all victims are granted rights in 
the criminal proceeding e.g. the right to inspect the files. 

x 

158 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal 
proceedings 

No possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal proceedings 

Rights that the victim has in line with its participation to the 
criminal proceedings 

EE 

EL 

ES  

x 

FI 

x 

x 

x 

You  are  entitled  to  examine  the  court  files  in  the  prosecutor’s 
office after the preliminary investigation is completed or when the 
criminal proceedings are terminated. The prosecutor’s office will 
inform you about this right and provide instructions on how you 
can examine the files.  

As a civil party, you are a party to the proceedings, with a number 
of rights. You can attend all court hearings, including hearings in 
camera, and you have access to all the documents in the case. You 
are allowed to speak before the court to present your claims and 
you can also comment after a witness has been examined or make 
submissions  or  provide  explanations  on  any  testimony  given  or 
evidence presented. 

the 

request 

collection 

of  more 

access to the summary and the other case documents,  and other 
rights,  similar  to  those  of  the  public  prosecutor,  including  the 
following: 
evidence; 
-to 
-to propose new witnesses or experts who will support your case; 
-to propose confrontations, etc. 
Crime  victims  can  also  appear  in  the  proceedings  as  private 
prosecutor before the indictment is prepared, i.e. before the start 
of the oral proceedings, except in the case of criminal proceedings 
against a minor. 
If you are a party to the proceedings, you have the same right to 
access court files as the accused. As a rule, you have the right to 
be informed about the content of trial documents, even those that 
are not in the public domain. All victims in all cases have the right 
to participate as a formal party to the criminal proceedings if they 
so  wish.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  possible  to  choose  not  to 
actively participate to the criminal proceedings. 

FR 

x 

At the Criminal Court and the Police Court, you will not be able 
to access the files directly; you must first obtain the consent of the 
Prosecutor. 
However, if you are a civil party, you may consult them directly 
or through your lawyer as the case may be, or request a copy of 
them. 
At the Court of Assizes, you can obtain free copies of the police 
reports  recording  the  offence,  written  witness  statements  and 
expert opinions and obtain copies of the other documents relating 
to the proceedings. 

EN 

159 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal 
proceedings 

No possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal proceedings 

Rights that the victim has in line with its participation to the 
criminal proceedings 

The victim and/or legal person against which a criminal offence 
was committed shall be entitled to register as an injured party with 
the  police  or  the  state  attorney's  office  before  the  indictment  is 
preferred and with the court before the trial ends.  
Victim as an injured party has the right: 
 

to use his/her native language, including the sign language of 
the  deaf  and the  deaf  and  blind  and  to the  assistance  of  an 
interpreter if he/she does not speak or understand the Croatian 
language or a sign language translator or interpreter if he/she 
is deaf or deaf and blind; 
submit a proposal for the realization of the property claim and 
temporary security measures, 
to the proxy, 
to draw attention to facts and produce evidence; 
to be present at the evidentiary hearing; 
to  be  present  at  the  trial,  take  part  in  the  submission  of 
evidence and deliver a closing argument; 
to examine the case file pursuant to Art. 184, paragraph 2, of 
this Act; 
to  request  to  be  informed  by  the  state  attorney  of  the  acts 
performed following his/her complaint (Art. 206a of this Act) 
and to file a complaint to the senior state attorney (Art. 206b 
of this Act);  
to file an appeal; 
request a return to the previous state of the case 
to be informed of the outcome of the criminal proceeding. 

HR 

x 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 

HU 

x 

IE 

IT 

x 

x 

The  victim  is  entitled  to  inspect  the  documents  about  the  crime 
committed against him or her and receive copies at any time after 
the investigation is concluded. 
The court must ensure the right to inspect documents in such a way 
as to avoid unnecessary disclosure of data on privacy. However, 
the  issuance  of  copies  of  documents  may  only  be  limited  on 
grounds  of  human  dignity,  personality  rights  and  right  of 
reverence. 
Ireland operates as a common law jurisdiction where a victim of a 
crime  will  be  recognised  as  a  victim  rather  than  a  party  to  the 
criminal proceedings. 

EN 

160 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal 
proceedings 

No possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal proceedings 

Rights that the victim has in line with its participation to the 
criminal proceedings 

LT 

LU 

x 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

x 

EN 

As a formally recognised victim, during the trial you can: 
-present evidence; 
-make requests, including requests for the collection of evidence 
and  requests  for  the  replacement  of  the  judge  or  the  public 
prosecutor if you doubt their impartiality; 
-appeal against the decisions of the public prosecutor or the judge 
if you believe they affect your rights or interests; 
-get acquainted with all the materials collected on the case; 
-make a final speech; and 
-appeal against the final decision of the court. 

A victim can become a civil party to the proceedings and thus be 
granted more rights.  

As a victim you have the following rights during the trial: 
-to  receive  information  (by  registered  mail)  about  the  time  and 
place of the court hearing; 
-to  receive  information  about  the  other  participants  in  the  trial 
(judge, public prosecutor, experts, etc.) and request their removal 
(e.g. if you believe they will not be objective and impartial); 
-to be present during the court hearings and express your opinion 
on the issues discussed, including the penalty to be imposed on the 
offender; 
-to  ask  questions  of  the  witnesses  and  the  experts  and  make 
comments on the evidence; 
-to check the documents in the case file and make copies; 
-to audiotape or videotape the court hearing with the permission 
of the judge and the other participants in the trial; 
-to check the court decisions and the transcripts of the hearings. 

From January 1, 2011, you have the right, both as a civil claimant 
and as a victim, to consult the case file, but this can be refused by 
the  public  prosecutor  on  certain  important  grounds,  such  as  the 
interests of proper procedure. You can appeal to the court against 
such a refusal. 

In the course of preparatory proceedings, victims may access files 
with  the  consent  of  the  authority  conducting  the  proceedings. 
In the course of court proceedings, victims may access files if they 
are  acting  as  private  prosecutor  or  auxiliary  prosecutor.  If  the 
victim is not acting in that capacity, the files will be made available 
with the consent of the president of the court. The victim is a party 
to  the  pre-trial  proceedings  (Article  299  Â§1  of  the  Code  of 

x 

x 

161 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal 
proceedings 

No possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal proceedings 

Rights that the victim has in line with its participation to the 
criminal proceedings 

Criminal Procedure). In court proceedings he may be a party (an 
auxiliary prosecutor) if he so requests before the trial proceedings 
start  (Article  53  and  Article  54  Â§  1  of  the  Code  of  Criminal 
Procedure). 

PT 

RO 

SE 

x 

SI 

SK 

x 

EN 

x 

Yes, you or your counsel can consult the file. In order to do this, 
you need to go to the registry of the prosecutor’s office or of the 
court  which  keeps  your  file  and  submit  an  application  in  this 
respect. However, the consultation of your file will be subject to 
specific rules, which will be communicated by the registry. You 
are  entitled  to  receive  information  on  the  conditions  and  the 
procedure  governing  the  admission  to  the  witness  protection 
programme. 

a 

the 

you 

trial, 

victim 

during 

can: 
As 
attend all court hearings, including the private ones (your presence 
at  the  court  hearing  is  not  obligatory,  but  if  you  choose  not  to 
attend you will lose your right to continue the proceedings in case 
the public prosecutor withdraws the charges); 
- examine the case file and the evidence collected so far (the judge 
may refuse to allow you to examine the case file before you are 
interviewed as a witness); 
-attend  investigative  actions  taking  place  outside  the  court  (e.g. 
inspection of the crime scene or reconstruction of the crime); 
-make  comments  on  the  presented  evidence  and  submit  new 
evidence; 
-ask questions (with the permission of the judge) to the defendant, 
the witnesses and the experts and comment on their statements; 
-request the collection of new evidence or the interrogation of new 
witnesses and/or experts; 
-make  a  final  speech  after  the  public  prosecutor  ad  before  the 
defendant and his/her lawyer. 
At any stage of the criminal proceedings, you can decide whether 
to consult the file. The request to consult the case file should be 
made to the competent law enforcement authority. You can do this 
in writing or orally. In such a case, the competent authority is, in 
principle,  obliged  to  grant  the  injured  party’s  request  by 
determining  the  place,  date  and  hour  of  the  injured  party’s 

162 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal 
proceedings 

No possibility to 
participate as a 
formal party to 
criminal proceedings 

Rights that the victim has in line with its participation to the 
criminal proceedings 

procedural act. Of course, when dealing with files, all necessary 
steps  must  be  taken  to  prevent  the  disclosure  of  classified 
information,  business  and  banking  secrets,  etc.  Victims  can 
participate in the proceedings either as an "aggrieved party" with 
procedural  rights  such  as  reviewing  documents,  suggesting 
evidence or as a “witness”. 

European 

Source: 
https://e-
justice.europa.eu/171/EN/victims__rights__by_country,  Online  survey  conducted  as  part  of  the 
impact assessment 

Commission 

e-Justice 

portal: 

Access to legal aid for victims of crime 

Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

AT 

Legal aid is 
provided to all 
victims despite their 
economic situation. 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

BE 

BG 

EN 

A number of categories of persons 
in specific situations, such as minors 
or persons with a mental disability, 
are always entitled to free legal 
representation. 

For detailed legal advice, 
assistance and representation, 
you need to enlist the services of 
a lawyer. Depending on your 
income this may be wholly or 
partially free of charge. If your 
financial means are modest, 
under certain circumstances you 
can ask to be exempted from a 
number of procedural costs. 

Only if you are a victim (or 
heir/relative of a victim) of certain 
crimes (i.e., victims of terrorism, 
murder, premeditated grave bodily 
injury, sexual violence and rape that 
led to serious damage to health, 

Free legal aid is provided in the 
form of legal counselling and 
legal representation. The latter is 
conditional on the victim's lack 
of funds and the discretion of the 
prosecutor/judge as to whether 

x 

x 

163 

EN 

 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

human trafficking, any crime 
ordered or committed by an 
organised criminal group or any 
other serious intentional crime 
where the immediate consequences 
are death or serious bodily injury). 

Legal aid for victims who initiated 
criminal proceedings is possible 
only for certain human rights 
violations (i.e., human trafficking, 
child sexual abuse). 

Particularly vulnerable victims may 
receive legal assistance in criminal 
proceedings free of charge. Other 
victims have the right to legal 
assistance for a fee. 

the interests of justice do require 
such representation.  

Additionally, it may be provided 
free of charge or at a reduced 
price to a victim who has 
suffered severe harm due to an 
intentional criminal offence, or 
to the survivor of a victim who 
has died as a result of a criminal 
offence; these persons must 
demonstrate that they do not 
have sufficient funds. 

If the circumstances show that you 
may not be able to exercise your 
rights during the hearing, you may 
be assisted by a lawyer as a witness 
counsellor during the hearing at the 
State’s expense. In reality, victims 
of certain crimes - the means-based 
test is very strict, meaning that only 
a small number of applicants qualify 
for legal aid in practice. 

If these conditions for the 
appointment of a lawyer are not 
met, you are, as a civil party, 
entitled to legal aid and can 
apply for it if your financial 
situation prevents you from 
covering the costs of the 
proceedings and you are unable 
or cannot reasonably be expected 
to defend your interests yourself. 

All victims who are minors whose 
interests are in conflict with those of 
their legal representatives are 
entitled to state legal aid free of 
charge. 

If you do not have the means to 
hire a lawyer, you may make a 
request to the court for state legal 
aid. 

x 

x 

x 

x 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

EN 

164 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

EL 

x 

ES  

x 

The victims of the following crimes 
are entitled to legal aid: torture or 
another offence against human 
dignity (Article 137(A) and (B) of 
the Criminal Code); discrimination 
or unequal treatment, an offence 
against life, personal freedom or 
sexual freedom; financial 
exploitation of sexual life; an 
offence against property or property 
rights; personal injury; or an offence 
related to marriage or the family. 

If your annual family income is 
lower than two thirds of the 
annual minimum personal 
income defined in the National 
General Collective Labour 
Agreement, you will be provided 
with a lawyer free of charge, 
who will prepare and lodge a 
criminal complaint and represent 
you as a civil party at any stage 
of the proceedings. 

If you are a victim of a crime of 
gender-based violence, you do not 
need to first prove that your means 
are insufficient in order to obtain 
legal aid. If you are a victim of 
terrorism, you can also obtain legal 
aid. You can request legal aid in 
Spain if you are in one of the 
following situations, among others: 
(i) if you are a citizen of any EU 
Member State and you prove that 
your resources are insufficient; (ii) 
if you are a citizen of a third country 
and legally resident in Spain or with 
a right recognised in international 
agreements (e.g. agreements on 
international child abduction). In 
this case, you will be able to access 
legal aid in Spain under the same 
conditions as EU citizens; and (iii) 
regardless of the existence of 
resources to institute legal 
proceedings, your right to legal aid 
will be recognised and this aid will 
be provided to you immediately if 
you are a victim of gender-based 
violence, terrorism or human 
trafficking in any proceedings that 
are linked to, derived from or a 
result of your status as a victim, or 
if you are a minor or have a learning 
disability or mental illness when 

You have the right to legal aid if 
your yearly income and income 
per family unit do not exceed: (i) 
twice the public index of income 
(indicador público de renta de 
efectos múltiples – IPREM) in 
force at the time of making the 
request, where the persons in 
question are not a part of any 
family unit. The IPREM is an 
index that is fixed annually and 
used to determine the amount of 
certain benefits or the threshold 
for accessing certain benefits, 
entitlements or public services; 
(ii) two and a half times the 
IPREM in force at the time of 
making the request, where the 
persons in question are part of 
any of the types of family unit 
with fewer than four members; 
and (iii) three times the IPREM 
where the family units in 
question are formed of four or 
more members. 

EN 

165 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

FI 

FR 

HR 

x 

x 

x 

you are the victim of situations of 
abuse or mistreatment. 

Only for individuals whose case is 
being heard in a national court or 
whose place of residence is an EU 
or EFTA State. 

Low- and middle-income earners 
may have a possibility to be 
granted legal aid at the expense 
of the State. In that case, the fee 
of the legal counsel is paid either 
in part or in full by the State. 

The condition regarding level of 
income does not apply if you are the 
victim of a particularly serious 
crime (intentional attempt on your 
life, torture or acts of cruelty, act of 
terrorism, rape, etc.), if you benefit 
from the active solidarity income 
(RSA) or the solidarity allowance 
for the elderly and have no other 
sources of income, or if your 
situation appears particularly 
noteworthy in view of the subject of 
the dispute or the likely costs of the 
proceedings. 

You can benefit from legal aid if 
you meet the following 
conditions: (i) you are a French 
national or a national of a 
Member State of the European 
Union or a State that has signed 
an international convention with 
France, or if you are normally 
resident in France and are in the 
country legally (this condition is 
not applied if you are a minor or 
a civil party); and (ii) your 
financial resources [1] do not 
exceed a maximum threshold, as 
determined by the Finance Act. 

Primary legal aid can be provided in 
any legal matter: if the applicant 
does not have sufficient knowledge 
and ability to exercise his / her 
right; if the applicant has not been 
provided with legal aid on the basis 
of special regulations; if the 
submitted request is not obviously 
unfounded; if the material 
circumstances of the applicant are 
such that the payment of 
professional legal aid could 
jeopardize the livelihood of the 
applicant and members of the 
household. Secondary legal aid may 
be granted: if it is a more complex 
procedure; if the applicant does not 
have the capacity to represent 
himself; if the material 

EN 

166 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

circumstances of the applicant are 
such that the payment of the 
necessary professional legal 
assistance could jeopardize the 
livelihood of the applicant and 
members of the household; if it is 
not a reckless litigation; if in the last 
six months from the date of 
submission of the request the 
request of the applicant has not been 
rejected due to intentional provision 
of incorrect information; if the 
applicant is not provided with legal 
aid on the basis of special 
regulations. 

You are entitled to such aid if you 
are considered in need in 
accordance with the provisions of 
the Act on Legal Aid, but the right 
to representation through a litigation 
friend is granted only to victims, 
private prosecutors, and other 
interested persons who are in need 
if, because of the intricacy of the 
case, their lack of legal expertise or 
other personal circumstances, they 
would not be able to effectively 
assert their procedural rights if they 
proceeded personally. 

You may be entitled to State funded 
civil legal aid in certain 
circumstances. The Legal Aid 
Board provides legal advice and 
representation to persons primarily 
in civil matters, including to persons 
who are victims of domestic 
violence. If, however, in a criminal 
matter, the defence seeks to 
introduce the prior sexual history of 
the victim in the course of a 
criminal trial the Legal Aid Board 
will provide legal representation 
free of charge to victims of rape. 

HU 

IE 

x 

EN 

167 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

The Legal Aid Board also provides 
legal advice free of charge to 
complainants in respect of rape and 
other forms of sexual assault. 

Eligibility to access free legal aid is 
not available to Italian citizens 
alone, but also to foreign nationals, 
even if when they are subject to 
administrative expulsion 
proceedings, are not resident in Italy 
or are stateless persons living in 
Italy. 
All parties to the proceedings may 
apply for free legal aid, but if you 
are a victim of certain sexual 
offences the income limits 
stipulated by law will not apply. 

You may also have access to 
State-funded legal aid if your 
income does not exceed the limit 
provided for by law. In order to 
be eligible for free legal aid, 
your income must not be greater 
than the maximum fixed in law, 
equivalent to EUR 11 369.24, 
taking account of an increase for 
every other person living with 
you of EUR 1 032.90. 

You can receive legal aid free of 
charge only if you have been 
formally recognised as a victim or 
you have filed a civil claim for 
damages. 

If you are participating in the 
investigation as a victim, you 
have to present evidence that 
your income does not allow you 
to pay for legal services. If you 
are claiming damages from the 
offender as a civil claimant, legal 
aid free of charge is available 
irrespective of your income. 

Victims must fulfill the following 
requirements to obtain legal aid: (i) 
Luxembourg national; (ii) a foreign 
national authorised to settle in the 
country; (iii) a national of a Member 
State of the EU; (iv) a foreign 
national assimilated to a 
Luxembourg national in the matter 
of legal aid by virtue of an 
international treaty. 

To ensure access to justice in the 
event that victims do not have 
sufficient resources, particularly 
in relation to the guaranteed 
minimum income, they have the 
right to receive full legal support 
free of charge for the defence of 
their interests. To determine 
financial resources, total gross 
income and wealth are taken into 
account, as well as the incomes 
of people living in the same 
household. In addition to the 
case of limited resources, victims 
can also receive legal aid if 
serious reasons related to their 

168 

EN 

x 

x 

IT 

x 

LT 

LU 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

social, family or material 
situation justify eligibility. 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

x 

PT 

RO 

EN 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Legal aid free of charge is also 
available to people who are 
dependent on the State (e.g. elderly 
or ill people accommodated in 
social rehabilitation institutions, 
children without parents living in 
social care homes, etc.). 

You can receive legal aid free of 
charge if you want to have a 
lawyer but because of your low 
income, specific status (e.g. 
person in need) or other 
exceptional circumstances (e.g. 
natural disaster) you cannot pay 
for the services of a lawyer. 

The costs of legal aid are for 
your account: legal aid is only 
partly free of charge depending 
on your income. 

Victims may appoint their 
representative themselves or, if 
their financial situation does not 
allow them to do so, they may 
request a court-appointed 
representative. 

In certain cases, legal assistance 
during criminal proceedings may 
be provided free of charge: if the 
prosecutor or the judge deems 
that you are not able to take care 
of your own defence and you 
have no paid legal counsel; if 
you are a minor and have not yet 
acquired full legal capacity (by 
way of marriage or judicial 
decision); if requested, if you 

If you are a victim of a severe 
violent or sexual crime you could 
qualify for free legal aid. 

not sfficient means - all types of 
crime 

Legal aid is limited to nationals or 
foreigners with legal residence 
(when the crime was committed 
abroad). 

169 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

have been the victim of any of 
the following crimes: attempted 
murder and attempted 
aggravated murder, bodily 
injury, intentional crimes 
resulting in the victim's bodily 
injury (the Criminal Code 
defines the meaning of bodily 
injury), rape, sexual assault, 
sexual intercourse with a minor 
and sexual corruption of minors; 
if requested, if you are the 
spouse, parent or another person 
dependant on the victim who has 
died as a result of murder, 
aggravated murder or of another 
intentional crime; if requested, if 
you are the victim of crimes 
other than the aforementioned 
and if your monthly income 
determined per family member is 
no higher than the gross 
minimum national wage. The 
application for free legal 
assistance should be filed with 
the tribunal under whose 
jurisdiction you are residing. 

SE 

x 

For some types of crime, victims are 
entitled to their own legal 
representation, free of charge: sex 
crimes and domestic violence, but 
also to other offences where there is 
a special need. 

If you do not have any legal 
protection insurance and your 
case cannot be settled via the 
legal advice given, you may 
obtain legal aid subject to an 
assessment of your needs. The 
State will then pay part of the 
cost of your legal representation. 
You can also get help with the 
costs of travel, accommodation 
and presenting evidence, and 
with other expenses. 

EN 

170 

EN 

 
 
  
 
Legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

Partial legal aid for 
certain victims 
depending on their 
level of income 

If partial, which victims? 

Level of income? 

SI 

SK 

x 

x 

You can apply for free legal aid if 
you are: a Slovenian citizen 
permanently residing in Slovenia; a 
foreigner permanently or 
temporarily residing in Slovenia; or 
a foreigner entitled to legal aid 
under international law (you can ask 
the police officer/public prosecutor 
if you fall under this category) 

You can receive legal aid free of 
charge if you wish to have a 
lawyer but your financial 
situation does not allow you to 
pay for his/her services. 

Particularly vulnerable victims are 
entitled to specialised help which 
includes legal aid. Furthermore, if a 
victim is participating in criminal 
proceedings as an aggrieved party 
and does not have sufficient income, 
an attorney can be appointed by the 
court.  

If you claim for compensation 
for the damage caused by the 
offender, you do not have 
sufficient resources to cover the 
expenses for a lawyer and this is 
necessary for the protection of 
your interests, you can apply for 
legal aid. It is provided by a 
lawyer and paid by the state. 

Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/171/EN/victims__rights__by_country; Online survey conducted 
as part of the impact assessment 

5.  ACCESS TO COMPENSATION 

Victims’  possibilities  to  apply  for  and  receive  compensation  as  part  of  the  criminal 
proceedings 

Compensation 
decision = 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Compensation 
decision 
sometimes/conditional 
upon compulsory 
part of a criminal 
trial 

Compensation 
decision not 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Further explanation 

AT 

x 

According to Sec. 366 para. 2 CPC, if the defendant 
is convicted, a decision about any private law claims 
of the private parties has to be made in the judgement.  

BE 

x 

Not in criminal proceedings in Flanders. In addition, 
the  request  for  compensation  is  conditioned  to  the 

EN 

171 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Compensation 
decision = 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Compensation 
decision 
sometimes/conditional 
upon compulsory 
part of a criminal 
trial 

Compensation 
decision not 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Further explanation 

victims  assuming  an  active  role  in  the  proceedings 
and is available for civil parties only. 

x 

There  is  no  obligation  per  se.  The  victim,  if 
constituted  as  an  injured  party  to  the  criminal 
proceedings, may claim compensation for pecuniary 
and non-pecuniary damage.  

If  the  court  sentences  the  defendant  for  a  criminal 
offence, by which he caused another person material 
damage  or  other  non-material  harm,  or  who  was 
unjustifiably  enriched  himself  at  the  expense  of  the 
aggrieved  person,  it  will  impose  upon  them  an 
obligation  in  the  judgement  to  compensate  in 
monetary terms the damage or non-material harm to 
the  victim  or  to  surrender  any  unjust  enrichment, 
provided that the claim of the victim was asserted on 
time. The exception is if further evidence is necessary 
for such decision which would significantly delay the 
criminal proceedings. In this case the court will refer 
the aggrieved person to proceedings in civil matter or 
to proceedings before another competent authority.   

According to Art. 403 ff CCP there is a possibility for 
all victims to claim compensation from the offender 
within criminal proceedings. 

In  general,  if  crime  victims  have  taken  part  in  the 
proceedings, victims will be entitled to be reimbursed 
for  the  expenses  needed  to  exercise their  rights  and 
the  legal  costs  that  they  have  been  incurred  in 
preference to payment of the expenses that have been 
incurred for the State. 
To  that  end,  the  payment  must  be  imposed  in  the 
sentence and, in addition, the accused must have been 
convicted,  at  the  victims’  request,  for  crimes  for 
which  the  public  prosecutor  has  not  made  an 
accusation, or have been convicted after the decision 

BG 

CY 

x 

CZ 

x 

x 

x 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES  

EN 

x 

x 

172 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Compensation 
decision = 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Compensation 
decision 
sometimes/conditional 
upon compulsory 
part of a criminal 
trial 

Compensation 
decision not 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Further explanation 

to close the case has been revoked due to an appeal 
which crime victims have lodged. 
The assistance and support services and, in particular, 
the Crime Victim Support Offices, will provide crime 
victims with information on the cases in which they 
may  be  reimbursed  for  legal  expenses  and,  where 
appropriate, the procedure for claiming them. 
In connection with criminal proceedings, the victim is 
entitled to claim that the offender compensates for the 
damages  they  caused.  The  victim  must  state  the 
to  claim 
damages  and  express 
compensation 
the  criminal 
investigation or at the court at the latest. 

their 
them  during 

intention 

for 

x 

Criminal  procedure  Act  prescribes 
the 
compensation decision of a criminal offense will be 
discussed at the proposal of the authorized persons in 
the  criminal  proceedings, 
this  would  not 
significantly delay the proceedings. 

that 

if 

x 

x 

The  request  for  compensation  is  conditioned  to  the 
victims assuming an active role in the proceedings. 

The  request  for  compensation  is  conditioned  to  the 
victims assuming an active role in the proceedings. 

FI 

x 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT313 
314 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

313 Problems regarding the enforcement of the compensation decision (taken within the criminal proceedings) forces 
victims  to  resort  to  a  civil  court  .  the  enforcement  of  the  compensation  decision  (taken  within  the  criminal 
proceedings) forces victims to resort to a civil court 
314 Legal representation mandatory in all cases. 

EN 

173 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Compensation 
decision = 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Compensation 
decision 
sometimes/conditional 
upon compulsory 
part of a criminal 
trial 

Compensation 
decision not 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Further explanation 

(3) Article 39, item 5 of the Penal Code (hereinafter: 
CC),  the  legislator  explicitly  mentions  among  the 
penal  measures,  inter  alia,  the  obligation  to  redress 
damage  or  compensation  for  harm  suffered.  This 
provision  is  supplemented  by  Article  46  of  the  CC 
which provides for the possibility of the court, at the 
request  of  the  wronged  party  or  another  entitled 
person,  to  impose  this  very  penal  measure.  The 
obligation to compensate for damage may be imposed 
by the court ex officio (in the event of conviction) and 
at  the  request  of  the  victim.  The  injured  party  may 
submit the request to compensate for damage or harm 
suffered already at the stage of criminal proceedings. 
The  court  adjudicates  on  the  obligation  to  redress 
damage or compensate for the harm suffered on the 
basis of civil law provisions.  

Pursuant  to  Article  46  of  the  Code  of  Criminal 
Procedure: 

Â§  1.  If  convicted,  the  court  may  order,  and  at  the 
request of the wronged party or other entitled person 
shall  order,  applying  the  provisions  of  civil  law,  an 
obligation  to  make  good,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the 
damage caused by the offence or to compensate for 
the harm suffered; the provisions of civil law on the 
possibility of awarding an annuity shall not apply. 

Â§ 2. if ruling on the obligation specified in Â§ 1 is 
considerably  difficult,  the  court  may  rule  instead  of 
this obligation a payment in the amount of up to PLN 
200,000  in  favour  of  the  wronged  party,  and  in  the 
event of his death as a result of the offence committed 
by the convicted person, a payment in favour of the 
closest  person  whose  life  situation  has  significantly 
deteriorated  as  a  result  of  the  death  of  the  wronged 
party. In the event that more than one such person is 
identified, compensation shall be awarded to each of 
them. 

Â§  (3)  The  award  of  compensation  or  reparation 
under Â§ 1 or of a payment in kind under Â§ 2 shall 
not  prevent  the  unsatisfied  part  of  the  claim  from 
being pursued in civil proceedings. 

PL 

x 

EN 

174 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
Compensation 
decision = 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Compensation 
decision 
sometimes/conditional 
upon compulsory 
part of a criminal 
trial 

Compensation 
decision not 
compulsory 
part of a 
criminal trial 

Further explanation 

PT315 

RO316 

x 

x 

SE 

SI 

SK 

x 

x 

x 

Sweden uses the “Adhesion procedure” whereby the 
criminal  case  and  the  civil  case  run  alongside  each 
other, and the civil compensation claim will be raised 
and decided alongside the criminal case regarding the 
guilt  of 
for 
compensation is conditioned to the victims assuming 
an active role in the proceedings. 

the  accused.  Also, 

request 

the 

Compensation  claim  can  be  made  in  criminal 
proceedings, however, it still remains, in its nature, a 
matter of civil law and a civil claim always remains 
an option 

In general, courts should decide on compensation in 
criminal proceedings. However, if establishing of the 
precise amount of compensation from perpetrator will 
unduly prolong criminal proceedings, victims will be 
referred to civil proceedings.  

Source: Online survey conducted as part of the impact assessment 

Possibility for the State to advance payment of compensation 

MS 
considers a 
revision of 
the national 
compensati
on schemes 
(NCS) 

In criminal 
matters, the 
principle that 
the full 
compensation 
for the 
damage lies 
with the 
offender 
prevails and 

Regarding 
compensation by 
the state, the state 
has set a maximum 
limit of the amount 
of compensation 
(which it must pay) 

Immediate 
compensation 
possible even in 
the absence of 
criminal 
proceedings. 

State pays an 
initial 
compensation to 
the victim and 
then recovers it 
from the 
offender. 

Sources 

315 Legal representation is only mandatory when the total amount of the compensation sought is superior to EUR 5.000. 
316 Problems regarding the enforcement of the compensation decision (taken within the criminal proceedings) forces 
victims to resort to a civil court 

EN 

175 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the national 
rules do not 
provide for 
maximum 
limits on the 
amount of 
compensation 

of 

the 

Yes 
Possibility 
private 
participation 
(damage claimed 
by 
injured 
party  must  be 
compensable 
under  civil  law).  
Immaterial 
damages are only 
if 
compensable 
this 
is 
exceptionally 
ordered  by  law. 
the 
Extent  of 
damages 
or 
infringements 
to 
has 
determined 
officio. 
No  upper  limit 
the 
for 
compensation 
claimed. 

be 
ex 

Yes 
The  damage  is 
determined 
by 
evidence 
(medical 
certificates, 
reports,  invoices 
for 
medical 
costs, discharges, 
certificates of the 
employer 
or 
health  insurance 
fund  concerning 
of 
the 
loss 
etc.), 
income, 
also 
moral 
compensation  

AT 

BE 

parts  of  NCS 
currently 
under  review: 
draft  law  to 
introduce  an 
optional 
accelerated 
procedure  for 
the  General 
of 
Division 
the 
Commission 
for 
aid 

financial 

(= 
the 
pecuniary 

non-

EN 

currently 
considering  a 
revision 
of 
NCS 

In  general:  no  upper 
limit,  but  for  specific 
(e.g. 
compensations 
compensation for loss 
of  earnings  or  lump-
sum compensation for 
is  an 
there 
pain), 
upper limit   

Upfront 
compensation 
possible 

is 

the 

Recuperating 
upfront 
compensation 
from  the  offender 
is possible 

https://rm.coe
.int/16807459
23 

The BE State may 
the 
recuperate 
aid 
financial 
(granted  by 
the 
Commission) from 
the offender and/or 
insurance 
from 
companies  

https://rm.coe
.int/16807459
23 

referred 

Yes.  Victims  can 
apply 
for  upfront 
financial aid even if 
criminal 
proceedings 
ongoing.   
to 
 > 
on 
‘advance 
financial  aid’ 
for 
victims of terrorism, 
while  
   > ‘emergency aid’ 
for  victims  of  other 
deliberate  acts  of 
violence.  

aid 

Yes.  In  BE,  State 
is 
compensation 
the 
operated 
by 
for 
Commission 
for 
financial 
victims  of  deliberate 
acts  of  violence  and 
rescuers. 
occasional 
2 
into 
Divided 
divisions 
(terrorism 
and general). Does not 
full 
provide 
but 
compensation 
limited 
financial 
support 

Aid  capped  at  EUR 
125,000 
However: 
financial 
support  from  State  is 

176 

EN 

 
 
damage)  can  be 
determined.  

of  last  resort:  victims 
should 
seek 
first 
compensation through 
insurance  companies 
and/or perpetrators.  

BG317 

Reformed in 
2017 

Yes 

Yes, maximum 5 
113 EUR 
(corresponding to 10 
000 BGN) 

No, compensation 
by the State is only 
possible in case of: 
a guilty verdict, a 
prosecutorial or 
court instrument 
dismissing or 
discontinuing 
criminal 
proceedings 

Yes, upon 
payment of 
financial 
compensation, 
the State must 
immediately file 
a recourse 
against the 
offender to 
recover the 
money paid 

CY 

COE called 
on CY to 
make THB 
victims' 
compensatio
n effective 
(2020) 

Yes 

No, the law does not 
set a maximum 
amount for State 
compensation but 
only the categories 
of damage that can 
be covered 

No, State 
compensation is 
possible only once 
the victim has 
attempted to 
recover the money 
from the offender 
(i.e. at the end of a 
criminal 
proceeding and 
enforcement 
action) or when 
the offender has 
not been 
identified. 
However, the 
victim shall submit 
the request for 
compensation 
within two years 
of the act. 

CZ 

Yes 

Yes, victims can be 
granted up to EUR 8 
102,47 (CZK 200 

Not in principle 
but financial 
assistance can be 

Yes  
(and State can 
recuperate the 

https://www
.compensati
on.bg/sites/d
efault/files/
Crime_Victi
m_Assistanc
e_and_Fina
ncial_Comp
ensation_Ac
t_0.pdf; 
https://www
.compensati
on.bg/en/no
de/18 

http://www.f
amilyviolen
ce.gov.cy/up
load/202203
02/1646236
377-
05748.pdf; 
https://rm.co
e.int/greta-
2020-04-
fgr-cyp-
en/16809eb
53f; 
https://fra.eu
ropa.eu/sites
/default/files
/fra_uploads
/country-
study-
victim-
support-
services-
cy.pdf 

https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN

317  Compensation available for the following crimes: i) terrorism; premeditated murder; attempt to kill; intentional 
grievous bodily harm; fornication; rape; human trafficking; ii) crimes committed by order or in execution of a decision 
of an organised criminal group; iii) other serious intentional crimes, of which death or serious crime has occurred as a 
constituent consequence bodily injury. 

EN 

177 

EN 

 
 
  
  
                                                           
provided if 
existing 
investigation of 
law enforcement 
authorities shows 
that there is no 
doubt that a crime 
has been 
committed and that 
legal conditions 
for the entitlement 
to financial 
assistance have 
been fulfilled. 

Yes, competent 
authorities decide 
autonomously on 
claims for State 
compensation. It is 
not necessary to 
first seek 
compensation 
from the offender. 
However, advance 
payments are not 
possible pending 
the decision on the 
attribution of the 
State 
compensation. 
Payments to cover 
medical treatment 
may be made fore 
a decision has 
been taken on the 
compensation 
claim.  

Yes, advance 
payment can be 
requested by 
persons in a 
difficult economic 
situation (up to 
640 EUR) 

000); in addition, in 
case of death, total 
financial assistance 
granted to all 
survivors may not 
exceed EUR 2 
4307,41 (CZK 600 
000), and if there are 
more survivors, the 
assistance granted 
shall be 
proportionately 
reduced so as not to 
exceed the 
maximum amount 
of the financial 
assistance. 

No, the amount of 
the pension benefits 
to compensate for 
the consequences of 
health-related 
damage are 
calculated according 
to the extent of these 
consequences. The 
amount of the 
benefits to 
compensate for the 
consequences of 
economic damage 
are based on the 
economic 
disadvantages 
incurred. 

Yes. The amount of 
the compensation is 
calculated on the 
basis of the average 
income per calendar 
day in case of partial 
or no work ability; 
the compensation 
covers 80% of the 
lost income. In case 
of death, the 
victim’s average 

178 

EN 

financial aid 
provided upfront) 

/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?CZEC
H_REPUBL
IC&member
=1; 
https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923 

https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?GER
MANY&me
mber=1 

Yes, when 
compensation is 
granted the right 
to claim is 
transferred to the 
Social Insurance 
Board that then 
raise the claim 
against the 
offender. 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923; 
https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?ESTO
NIA&memb

DE 

EE 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
income per calendar 
day is multiplied by 
thirty. An addition 
75%, 80% or 100% 
can be provided 
depending on the 
number of 
dependant persons. 
Compensation is 
paid as long as the 
entitled person 
qualifies for 
compensation or up 
to the limit of EUR 
9,590 

EL 

No 

No 

Yes, it depends on 
the damage and is 
based on the public 
multiple purpose 
income index 
(IPREM). For 
temporary 
incapacity, it 
corresponds to twice 
the daily IPREM in 
monthly payments. 
In case of disabling 
injuries, it varies 
between 40 and 130 
monthly 
instalments. In case 
of death, the 
maximum aid is 120 
monthly instalments 
of the IPREM. 
Lump sums can also 
be allocated: they 
vary between max 
75 00 EUR (partial 
permanent 
incapacity) and 500 

Yes, while 
criminal 
proceedings are 
ongoing, the 
legislation 
provides for the 
granting of interim 
aid to address the 
precarious 
financial situations 
of victims of crime 
or their 
beneficiaries. 
Interim aid may be 
applied for once 
the victim has 
reported the events 
to the competent 
authorities or when 
the criminal 
proceedings have 
been initiated by 
the competent 
bodies without the 
need for a report. 

179 

EN 

ES 

EN 

er=1#tocHe
ader6 

https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?GRE
ECE&mem
ber=1#tocH
eader6 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923; 
https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?SPAI
N&member
=1#tocHead
er6 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
000 EUR (severe 
disability). Such 
amounts can be 
increased in certain 
exceptional cases. 

FI 

Yes 

Yes 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923 

FR 

Yes 

Yes, only for certain 
categories of crimes. 
There is no limit in 
case of serious 
personal injury. In 
case of slight 
personal injury and 
material damage the 
max amount is 4342 
EUR depending on 
personal revenues. 
In the case of 
compensation by the 
Sarvi, the amount 
allocated to the 
victims corresponds 
to the one 
recognised by the 
judge in the ruling 
(100% if less than 1 
000 EUR and 30% 
if above 1 000 EUR, 
additional amounts 
can be given 
depending on how 
much the Sarvi 
recovers from the 
offender) 

HR 

Yes 

Yes 

EN 

180 

EN 

Yes, the Civi 
allows to introduce 
a compensation 
claim within 3 
years from the 
violent act, if there 
has been no 
proceeding 

Yes, but only in 
the case of 
compensation to 
victims from the 
Service d’aide au 
recouvrement des 
victimes 
d’infraction 
(Sarvi). As a 
general rule, the 
victim should 
refer to the  
Commission 
d’indemnisation 
des victimes 
d’infractions 
(Civi). 

Victime 
d'infraction 
: 
indemnisati
on par le 
fonds de 
garantie des 
victimes | 
Service-
public.fr; 
https://ww
w.service-
public.fr/par
ticuliers/vos
droits/F174
4 

Yes, it is possible 
to ask 
compensation to 
the State and 
receive it before 
the conclusion of 
criminal 
proceedings. 
However, it is 
necessary to report 
the crime to the 
police to be able to 
claim 
compensation. No 
advance payment 

Yes, when the 
victim receives 
compensation 
from the State, 
the State has the 
right to recourse 
against the 
offender. 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923; 
https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?CRO
ATIA&me
mber=1#toc
Header6 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
can be requested 
pending the 
decision on the 
compensation 
claim. 

Yes, the maximum 
amount corresponds 
to 15 times the 
minimum amount 
(in 2018, 113 164 
HUF - 268,93 EUR) 
corresponding to 4 
032,02 EUR (1 697 
460 HUF) in 2018  

No, criminal 
proceedings need 
to have been 
launched to allow 
the victim to claim 
compensation 
from the State 

If the damage is 
recovered later 
on from another 
source, the 
advance must be 
paid back by the 
victim. 

https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?HUN
GARY&me
mber=1#toc
Header6 

HU 

Separate to 
criminal or civil 
proceedings, a 
victim of crime 
may also lodge an 
application with 
the Criminal 
Injuries 
Compensation 
Tribunal.  IE 
national criminal 
injuries 
compensation 
scheme does not 
require that 
criminal legal 
proceedings have 
been taken by the 
State or that civil 
proceedings have 
been taken by the 
victim. 
 However there is 
a requirement that 
the crime of 
violence was 
reported to the 
police + where an 
applicant has 
received 
compensation 
from another 
source, they 
should inform the 
Tribunal and repay 
any money that 

No 
 Victim lodges 
an application 
with the national 
scheme separate 
to criminal 
proceedings. If 
criminal (or 
civil) 
proceedings are 
ongoing, 
typically the 
Tribunal waits to 
make a decision.  
To avoid double 
compensation, 
amounts paid to 
the victim as a 
result of a court 
order, where 
known, are 
deducted by the 
Tribunal from 
the award. 

IE 

Reforms of 
NCS 
introduced 
in April 
2021 
Work is 
underway 

No limit to the 
amount of 
damages the 
High Court can 
award. But 
many cases 
involving a 
violent 
intentional 
crime may be 
prosecuted in 
the lower 
courts with 
restrictions on 
the amounts of 
compensation 
that can be 
awarded.  

No. Currently no 
upper limits apply in 
the State’s national 
criminal injuries 
compensation 
scheme - 
HOWEVER: setting 
limits is under 
discussion  

EN 

181 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
IT 

The NCS 
has been 
recently 
reformed 
(Interminist
erial Decree 
of 23 
January 
2020 on 
state 
compensatio
n to victims 
of violent 
crimes) 

LT 

Reform 
ongoing in 
2017-2018 

EN 

Yes 

Yes (up to 60 000 
EUR depending on 
the crime) 

amounts to double 
compensation.   

No, compensation 
is only possible 
after a criminal 
proceeding if the 
victim has 
obtained no 
compensation 
from the offender 
(even after the 
enforcement 
action) or in an 
amount inferior to 
the legal one 

Vittime dei 
reati 
intenzionali 
violenti | 
Ministero 
dell‘Interno; 
https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/494/IT/
claiming_da
mages_from
_the_offend
er?ITALY&
member=1 

Yes, advance in 
compensation is 
possible in certain 
cases. Amounts 
received as 
compensation 
from damage from 
other sources will 
be deducted from 
the compensation. 

Amounts 
received as 
compensation 
from damage 
from other 
sources will be 
deducted from 
the 
compensation. 

Yes. In case of 
murder the 
maximum 
compensation for 
material damage 
may not exceed 
EUR 3 800 and the 
maximum 
compensation for 
non-material 
damage may not 
exceed EUR 4 560. 
In case of severe 
injury to health the 
maximum 
compensation for 
material damage 
may not exceed 
EUR 3 040 and the 
maximum 
compensation for 
non-material 
damage may not 
exceed EUR 3 800. 
In case of other 
violent crimes the 
maximum 
compensation for 
material damage 
may not exceed 
EUR 2 280 and the 
maximum 
compensation for 
non-material 
damage may not 
exceed EUR 3 040. 

182 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
If compensation for 
damage incurred 
due to a violent 
crime is paid in 
advance, the 
maximum amounts 
may not exceed half 
of the above 
amounts. 

Yes (up to 63 000 
EUR) 

LU 

LV 

Under 
consideratio
n (as 
declared in 
2017, 
unclear what 
happened in 
the 
meanwhile) 

MT 

Yes 

Yes (up to 23 300 
EUR) 

Yes 

Yes. 
Various 
aspects of 
damage 
recovery 

NL 

EN 

Yes 

Yes (between 1 000 
and 35 000 EUR) 

Yes. Upfront 
compensation can 
be granted by the 
Dutch 
Compensation 

YES and NO - If 
Court orders 
offender to pay 
compensation, 
the State (Central 

183 

EN 

Demander 
l'indemnité 
à charge de 
l'État en tant 
que victime 
d'une 
infraction 
violente — 
Citoyens — 
Guichet.lu - 
Guide 
administratif 
- 
Luxembour
g (public.lu) 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923; 
https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?MAL
TA&membe
r=1 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
after crimes 
are currently 
being 
reviewed 

Fund, but only for 
intentionally 
committed violent 
crimes (so not for 
all crimes) that 
caused severe 
injury (physical or 
psychological).  

Judicial 
Collection 
Agency) collects 
this 
compensation 
from the offender 
for the victim. 
Victims of 
violent and 
sexual offences 
receive all 
compensation 
from the State 8 
months after the 
judgment 
becomes final 
and the State 
recovers the 
costs from the 
offender 
afterwards. For 
other crimes a 
maximum of 
5000 euro 
applies. 

If victim receives 
compensation 
from offender, 
the amount 
received by the 
Comp. Fund 
must be 
reimbursed. The 
Comp. Fund 
does not recover 
directly from the 
offender. 

PL 

Yes, under 
discussion 

Yes 

Yes. State 
compensation may 
not exceed EUR 
5,306 or EUR 
12,739 if victim 
passed away. 

Yes. Not necessary 
to initiate and 
conduct criminal 
proceedings  

Yes. State can 
ask for 
compensation 
recovery from 
the offender 

PT 

EN 

Yes 
No set limits, 
however  
property or 
material 
damages must 
be proven and 
quantified. 

Yes. EUR 34.680 
per victim 

Yes, in cases 
where victim is 
left in critical 
financial situation 

Yes, State may 
claim the money 
back but 
offenders are not 
always able to 
pay back 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923 

184 

EN 

 
 
 
  
  
For moral 
damages: no set 
limits, it will 
depend on 
court 
assessment 

RO 

SE 

Reformed in 
July 2022 

Yes, no limit. 

Yes, financial 
compensation for 
material damage is 
granted within the 
limit of an amount 
equivalent to ten 
national gross 
minimum base 
salaries, as 
established for the 
year in which the 
victim presented the 
financial 
compensation claim. 

Yes (up to 457,28 
EUR and 83 255,04 
EUR depending on 
the crime) 

If lump sum = 
maximum of 20 
times the price base 
amount  (52 300 Skr 
in 2022) in force in 
the year in which 
the compensation is 
determined. 
If annuity: paid each 
year at a max of 3 
times the price base 
amount in force at 
the time of 
compensation.  
For violation: no 
limit 

Yes, advance 
payment from the 
compensation is 
possible, in case of 
precarious 
financial situation 
of the victim. The 
victim shall refund 
the advance 
payment if the 
compensation is 
refused or the 
offender is not 
insolvent or 
missing  

No, compensation 
can rarely be 
awarded before a 
police 
investigation and a 
judicial review is 
finished. However, 
to file a request for 
compensation, it is 
sufficient for the 
crime to have been 
reported. If the 
offender is 
unknown, there 
must have been an 
inquiry, such as a 
preliminary 
investigation, 
which confirms 
that you have been 
subjected to a 
criminal act. If the 
suspect has been 
identified, a 
conviction or a 
summary 
imposition of a 
fine is required in 
principle. 
. 

https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?ROM
ANIA&me
mber=1 

Criminal 
damage 
compensatio
n | Swedish 
Crime 
Victim 
Authority 
(brottsoffer
myndighete
n.se); 
https://www
.brottsoffer
myndighete
n.se/referats
amling/skill
naden-
mellan-
ersattning-
for-
personskada
-och-for-
krankning/; 
https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923 

Yes. 
The Swedish 
Crime Victim 
Authority 
compensates, if 
offender lacks 
the ability to pay 
and there is no 
insurance to 
cover the 
damage, which is 
then recovered 
from the offender 
when he or she 
regains the 
ability to pay. 

EN 

185 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
 
Under 
consideratio
n (as 
declared in 
2017, 
unclear what 
happened in 
the 
meanwhile) 

Yes 

Yes (up to 10 000 
EUR for physical 
and mental pain and 
up to 20 000 EUR in 
case of death; for 
other types of 
damages different 
rules apply) 

YES and NO  
 In principle; 
compensation 
granted only after 
criminal 
proceedings and 
unsuccessful 
enforcement 
action.  
Exception: he 
State may grant 
compensation 
without waiting for 
the victim to first 
claim 
compensation 
from the offender 
when the offender 
is unknown and 
when the victim 
belongs to 
specially protected 
groups (children, 
victims of 
domestic violence, 
disabled people, 
citizens of another 
EU Member State) 

Yes. 
 After 
compensation is 
paid out to 
victims, claims 
are transferred to 
the Republic of 
Slovenia; State 
Attorney's Office 
then tries to 
recuperate the 
amounts from the 
offenders; but in 
most cases these 
procedures are 
only partly 
successful or 
unsuccessful. 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923; 
https://e-
justice.europ
a.eu/491/EN
/if_my_clai
m_is_to_be
_considered
_in_this_co
untry?SLO
VENIA&me
mber=1; 
https://www
.gov.si/teme
/odskodnine
-zrtvam-
kaznivih-
dejanj/ 

has recently 
changed its 
legislation 
towards 
easier and 
more 
victim-
friendly 
national 
compensatio
n scheme  

Yes 

Yes (up to 10 or 50 
times the minimum 
wage depending on 
the crime) 

No, not possible to 
get emergency nor 
advanced 
compensation 

Yes. 

https://rm.co
e.int/168074
5923 

SI 

SK 

Source: e-Justice portal, Network of national contact points on compensation 

EN 

186 

EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7: EVALUATION REPORT 

Link  to  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Evaluation  of  Directive  2012/29/EU  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the 
rights,  support  and  protection  of  victims  of  crime,  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision 
2001/220/JHA, SWD/2022/0179 final 

EN 

187 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: IMPACTS ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 
(AND ON RELATED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS) 

-  Key Fundamental Rights questions: 

A - Does the option impact on any of the fundamental rights endorsed by the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights:    

1 – Dignity (right to life, personal integrity, prohibition of torture, slavery, forced labour, the death 
penalty)  
Yes, the set of measures in the preferred policy package are expected to have a direct impact on 
such absolute fundamental rights as the right to life/personal integrity, to not being subject to torture 
(whether physical or psychological, whether from offenders or from related criminal bands or from 
institutions  due  to  help  victims  recover  from  a  crime  and  to  protect  them  from  further  criminal 
actions  on  the  part  of  an  offender  or  from  secondary  victimisation).  Improved  enforcement  of 
protection measures (such as protection orders, provision of temporary or international protection) 
deemed  necessary  to  protect  a  victim  from  further  crimes  against  their  personal  integrity/life 
(including in cross-border cases) addresses an absolute fundamental right, and hence are deemed an 
absolute necessary (irrespective of the costs involved or their distribution among public and private 
stakeholders - including perpetrators). 

2 – Freedoms (liberty, privacy, protection of personal data, marriage, thought, conscience, religion, 
expression, assembly, arts and sciences, education, conduct business, work, property and asylum)    

o Does the option affect any of the individual’s freedoms?  

Yes,  it  improves  one’s  freedom  to  report  and  complain  against  a  crime  and  seek  compensation, 
through more timely information at each stage in the proceedings, better access to justice (including 
actually  benefiting  from  protection  orders  when  deemed  needed),  to  legal  aid  and  to  more 
coordinated support from/coordination between the various types of authorities involved and victim 
support organisations; it could have positive consequences as regards applicants and beneficiaries 
of international protection without prejudice to the EU acquis in the area of asylum .   

o Does the option involve the processing of personal data and are the individual’s right to access, 
rectification and objection guaranteed? 

Yes, the preferred option is expected to contribute positively to this Fundamental Right, which is 
however relative, as the requirement for privacy is to be balanced with those of the needs of the 
institutions and other organisations supporting victims, as well as with those of the accused parties 
and of society at large.  

o  Does  the  option  affect  the  freedom  to  conduct  a  business  or  impose  additional  requirements 
increasing the transaction costs for the economic operators concerned?  

The  proposed  measures  can  only  affect  this  freedom  positively,  in  certain  cases  (e.g.  avoiding 
revictimisations more effectively should in principle help victims to take up again their professional 
activities more rapidly/effectively; more effective justice systems can also help offenders recover 
more quickly from a sentence and reintegrate into society)  

EN 

188 

EN 

 
 
 
   
 
  
 
o Are property rights affected (land, movable property, tangible/intangible assets)? Is acquisition, 
sale or use of property rights limited?  

The proposed measures might have some indirect positive effect on property rights, in certain cases 
(e.g.  through  swifter/more  efficient  justice  including  more  effective  victim  support  and 
compensation to victims, also favouring victims’ ability to resume professional activities/conduct a 
business and hence not having to sell property for survival or to pay for judicial proceedings).  

3 – Equality (equality before the law, non-discrimination on basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic or 
social  origin,  genetic  features,  language,  religion  or  belief,  political  or  any  other  opinion, 
membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation, cultural, 
religious and linguistic diversity, the rights of children and the elderly, integration of persons with 
disabilities).   

o Does the option safeguard the principle of equality before the law and would it affect directly or 
indirectly  the  principle  of  non-discrimination,  equal  treatment,  gender  equality  and  equal 
opportunities for all?   

Yes, as it would contribute to better enforcing justice (all victims’ rights) in these fields. It would 
provide for equal access to information, protection, support, justice and compensation to all victims 
of crime, including the vulnerable victims.  

o Does the option have (directly or indirectly) a different impact on women and men?   

No, on the contrary: by extending to all citizens some of the victim protection measure proposed 
under the Violence against women/Domestic violence directive to other types of victims under the 
VRD review, this proposal reduces any related differences in treatment between men and women. 

o Does the preferred option ensure respect for the rights of people with disabilities in conformity 
with the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities?  

Yes, the preferred package includes measures to reinforce the rights of vulnerable victims, including 
those with disabilities, i.a. by facilitating provision of information on their rights, helping these to 
be better enforced etc. 

o Does the option affect the rights of the child (or group) and respect of the UN Convention on the 
rights of the child?    

Yes,  the  preferred  options  would  provide  for  better  age-appropriate  psychological  support  and 
physical protection services  (children are by definition considered as vulnerable victims). 

4 – Solidarity (right to fair working conditions, protection against unjustified dismissal, and access 
to health care, social and housing assistance)    
Some positive impact (as regards more access by victims to more timely, relevant specialised health 
care and social support services).  

5 – Citizens’ Rights (to vote in European Parliament and local elections, to move freely within the 
EU, to good administration, to access documents and to petition the European Parliament)    

The preferred policy package should have some direct and indirect impact on citizen’s right to good 
administration and on their perception of it (which might in turn positively impact citizens’ interest 

EN 

189 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
in elections, through increased trust in public administration in their country of residence and across 
the EU - when travelling/staying in other Member States).  

6  –  Justice  (the  right  to  an  effective  remedy,  a  fair  trial,  to  the  presumption  of  innocence,  the 
principle of legality, non-retrospectivity and double jeopardy)   

All options discussed within this impact assessment have also been assessed in light of the rights 
of suspects and accused, including the right to access justice, the right of defence and principles of 
legality and proportionality of criminal proceedings, presumption of innocence, the right not to be 
tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence as well as the EU rules 
on procedural rights of suspects and accused. 

All options are coherent with the EU rules on procedural rights of suspects and accused and they do 
not negatively affect these rights. 

As regards the preferred option, it will also help to better implement and enforce victims’ right to 
an effective remedy (as previously documented).  

o Does the option affect the individual’s access to justice?   

Yes,  facilitating  access  to  justice  is  among  the  key  specific  objectives  of  this  VRD  review,  and 
policy measures clearly expected to deliver on this objective are included in the preferred options 
package. It should be noted that the various measures in this package are expected to reinforce each 
other, towards multiplicative rather than solely additive effects (though the specific level of synergy 
achieved could in no way be quantified). 

B - Are the rights in question absolute rights, which may not be subject to limitations? 

Yes as regards some of these rights:   
Fundamental  Rights  listed  under  the  label  “Dignity”  (assessed  in  the  first  paragraph  above)  are 
absolute rights, which may not be subject to limitations and hence are not subject to cost/benefit 
considerations. This must be borne in mind when addressing One-in One-out considerations related 
to the VRD review. 

C - Do the options have opposing impacts on different fundamental rights? 

No, none of the policy measures in the preferred package of policy options have opposing impacts 
on the fundamental rights assessed.  

Note  that  many  of  these  rights  are  relative,  in  the  sense  that  the  rights  of  victims  and  those  of 
suspects/perpetrators  have  to  be  balanced  –  as  well  as  concerns  related  to  the  efficiency  of 
administrations and impacts on society at large – as is clearly illustrated in area 2 above, and visible 
from the mere definition of the area 6 Justice related rights listed above.  

EN 

190 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

Impacts on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 

By  facilitating  equal  access  to  information,  protection,  support,  justice  and  compensation,  the 
initiative will provide more equal opportunities for all victims to exercise their rights. This way it 
will significantly contribute to SDG no. 10 aiming at reducing inequalities (as also reflected above 
under FR category 3).  

It  is  also  likely  to  contribute  to  some  extent  to  SDG  no.  5  related  to  gender  equality  (e.g.  by 
extending  some  of  the  victim  protection  measure  proposed  under  the  Violence  against 
women/Domestic violence directive to other types of victims under the VRD review). 

Also, with its overall goal to increase trust in institutions and services supporting victims in crime, 
the initiative will contribute to promoting the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice addressed 
by  SDG  no.16  Peace,  justice  and  strong  institutions  (as  further  documented  above  under  the 
Fundamental Rights categories 5 and 6).  

Final and not least, some improvements would also be expected at least in the longer term as regards 
SDG no. 3 on good health and well-being (as suggested above under FR category 4) by a.o. better 
protecting victims (in particular vulnerable ones) and avoiding secondary victimisation that affect 
citizens at least psychologically (reducing their well-being, which in turn may have an effect on 
their health) and by some indirect effects helping to discourage crimes (through higher expected 
levels of crime reporting, legal pursuits and more largely enforced judgements, which should lower 
crime gains and related incentives). 

EN 

191 

EN