COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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 Decision 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) 247 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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 Decision 2001/220/JHA {COM(2023) 424 final} - {SEC(2023) 270 final} - {SWD(2023) 246 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment for the review of the Victims’ Rights Directive (Directive 2012/29/EU) 

Executive summary sheet 

A.  Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level? 

This  impact  assessment  follows  the  evaluation  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive  (VRD).  The  VRD  is  the  main 
horizontal  instrument  for  victims’  rights.  It  lays  down  rights  for  all  victims  of  all  crimes,  including  the  right  to 
information, the right to support and protection based on victims’ individual needs, procedural rights and the right to 
receive a decision on compensation from the offender at the end of criminal proceedings. 

The evaluation published in June 2022 showed that the Directive has delivered the expected benefits, in particular for 
the overall treatment of victims by the competent authorities, the victims’ ability to rely on their right to information 
and protection, and access to justice and support services. However, the evaluation also highlighted specific problems 
with each of the five main victims’ rights in the Directive. These problems hamper victims’ ability to rely on their 
rights under the Directive and undermine the trust in national justice schemes and those in other Member States. This 
low level of trust results in the underreporting of crime and damages the smooth functioning of the European area of 
freedom security and justice. Tackling these problems requires an amendment to the VRD, which can only be achieved 
at EU level. There are five main problems: 

1.  victims  do  not  always  receive  information  about  their  rights,  or  they  receive  inadequate  information  that 

makes it more difficult or impossible for them to exercise those rights; 

2.  vulnerable victims (such as children, persons with disabilities, victims of hate crime and victims in detention) 
do  not  always  benefit  from  a  timely  assessment  of  their  protection  needs  and  are  deprived  of  effective 
protection measures, such as protection orders; 

3.  vulnerable victims often cannot rely on specialist support, such as extended psychological treatment, and child 

victims often cannot rely on a targeted approach; 

4.  victims’ participation in criminal proceedings is often difficult due to a lack of legal advice and guidance 

and differences in rules on victims’ status in these procedures; 

5.  victims’  access  to  compensation  is  difficult  due  to  the  lack  of  state  support  when  enforcing  the  ordered 

compensation from the offender, leading to risk of secondary victimisation. 

What should be achieved? 

The general objective of this initiative is to contribute to a well-functioning area of freedom, security, and justice 
based on: (i) a smooth recognition of judgments and judicial decisions in criminal matters; (ii) a high level of security 
due to improved crime reporting; and (iii) victim-centred justice, where victims are recognised and can rely on their 
rights. This objective will be achieved by strengthening the minimum standards on victims’ rights. 

Five specific objectives were identified: 

1.  significantly improve victims’ access to information, including those who do not report crime; 
2.  align protection measures for victims closer with their needs to ensure the safety of vulnerable victims; 
3.  improve access to specialist support for vulnerable victims, including children; 
4.  more effective participation in criminal proceedings for victims; 

1 

 
 
 
5.  facilitate access to compensation from the offender. 

What is the added value of action at EU level (subsidiarity)? 

The action needed to address the problems set out above can be better implemented at EU level. This would improve 
enforcing the rights of victims and help reduce the differences in Member States’ rules. It would in turn help increase 
mutual trust between Member States and facilitate mutual recognition of judgments, judicial decisions and police and 
judicial cooperation in criminal matters with a cross-border dimension. Amending the VRD will tackle the identified 
shortcomings and improve  victims’  experiences  at  national  level  and in  cross-border situations. This  could not  be 
achieved if Member States acted alone. 

B.  Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 

why? 

The Commission has developed a number of legislative policy options. Non-legislative options were excluded given 
that the 2020-2025 victims’ rights strategy already includes non-legislative measures to be implemented in the coming 
years,  but  their  expected  impact  is  included  in  the  baseline.  All  policy  options  respond  to  the  identified  specific 
objectives. 

Specific objective 1 

-  Option  I.1:  Create  an  obligation  to  set  up  a  national  coordination  mechanism  between  law  enforcement, 
judicial authorities (prosecutors and judges) and support organisations. They would work together to ensure that 
victims  receive  information  that  is  adapted  to  their  changing  individual  needs.  The  coordination  mechanisms 
should include specific protocols on providing information to victims in detention or other closed institutions. 

-  Option I.2: Option I.1 + Create an obligation so that national victim helplines are as a first contact point for all 
victims of all crimes, provide emotional support and refer victims to specialised support services if needed, use 
the EU 116 006 telephone number, and provide a website with state-of-the-art technology to give optimal access 
in most spoken languages and to persons with disabilities. 

-  Option I.3: Option I.1 + Set up a mechanism through which victims are proactively informed by victim support 
organisations (with an opt-out option). Once a victim reports a crime or is identified as a victim, they are contacted 
by a victim support organisation that will provide information about victims’ rights and the availability of support 
services. This option includes an obligation on all people or institutions in contact with victims (victim support 
organisations, medical professionals, social and welfare professionals) to inform victims about their rights. 

According to the analysis and the assessment, the preferred option is I.2. 

-  Specific objective 2 

-  Option II.1: Ensure that the individual assessment of victims’ protection needs, currently laid down in Article 22 
of the VRD, is improved by adding the following:  (i) carrying out the assessment at the first contact with the 
competent authorities; (ii) involving support services, law enforcement and the judiciary; (iii) evaluating the risks 
posed by the perpetrator (such as alcohol abuse or possession of weapons); and (iv) including an assessment of 
individual needs for support. 

2 

 
 
 
-  Option II. 2: Option II.1 + Strengthen the use of protection measures for victims’ physical protection, such 
as protection orders, by adding protection measures to the list of specialised protection measures currently laid 
down in Article 23 of the VRD to be used by competent authorities following an individual assessment. 

-  Option  II.3:  Option  II.2  +  Impose  minimum  standards  on  the  content  of  and  on  conditions  for  applying 
physical protection measures, such as protection orders and witness protection measures, following an individual 
assessment. 

According to the analysis and the assessment, the preferred option is II.2. 

Specific objective 3 

-  Option  III.1: Ensure the availability of specialist support services for all child victims in the same premises 
based on the Barnahus model (providing, under one roof, multi-agency support and protection for child victims 
of crime) and free psychological aid for as long as necessary for all vulnerable victims in need. This would 
include  national  coordination  of  support  services,  law  enforcement  and  judicial  authorities  and  giving  age-
appropriate support and the protection necessary to comprehensively address victims’ needs. 

-  Option III.2: Option III.1 + Ensure the availability of specialist support services for all vulnerable victims. This 
would include national coordination of support services, law enforcement and judicial authorities (not necessarily 
on the same premises). For all vulnerable victims, specialist support services would include free psychological 
support  for  as  long  as necessary  if  the  individual  assessment  shows  a  need  it.  It  would  build  on  the  current 
provision in Article 9(1) of the Directive, which provides for these services where available. 

-  Option III.3: Option III.1 + Ensure the availability of specialist support services for all vulnerable victims (not 
just children). These services can be provided on the same premises or through a central contact point based on 
the Barnahus model. Ensure that specialist support services provide free psychological support for as long as 
necessary  to  all  victims  of  crime  (not  only  vulnerable  victims).  This  support  should  be  identified  during  the 
individual assessment of support. 

According to the analysis and the assessment, the preferred option is III.2. 

Specific objective 4 

-  Option IV.1: Establish a right for victims to legal/administrative assistance and to be accompanied by a person 
of their choice throughout  the criminal  proceedings,  regardless  of whether the victim is  a  formal party to the 
proceedings. Establish a right for victims to challenge the criminal proceeding decisions that concern them 
directly. Member States would have to ensure that victims can challenge such decisions independently of their 
status in the criminal proceeding and in line with the principle of judicial review. 

-  Option IV.2: Option IV.1 + an amendment to the current right under Article 13 of the VRD to legal aid, which 
is currently limited to victims who are parties to criminal proceedings. The right would be extended to ensure 
legal  aid  for  victims  with  insufficient  means  when  challenging  decisions  on  their  rights  during  criminal 
proceedings. The conditions or procedural rules under which victims have access to legal aid will continue to be 
determined under national law. 

-  Option  IV.3:  Provide  for  the  victims’  right  to  participate  as  a  formal  party  to  the  criminal  proceedings 
independent of the current restrictions under national law. Therefore, victims’ current rights under the VRD to 
participate in criminal proceedings, such as access to the case file and access to legal aid, would apply to victims 
during criminal proceedings. 

According to the analysis and the assessment, the preferred option is IV.1. 

3 

 
 
 
Specific objective 5 

-  Option V.1: Establish the right for victims 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 Directive where national 
law provides for such a decision to be made in other legal proceedings. 

-  Option  V.2:  Option  V.1.  +  Create  an  obligation  on  Member  States  to  pay  the  compensation  due  from  the 
offender  upfront  to  the  victim  immediately  after  the  judgment  and  then  seek  the  reimbursement  of  the 
compensation from the offender. 

-  Option  V.3:  Impose  minimum  standards  on  state  compensation  by  amending  the  2004  Compensation 
Directive. This would include extending the scope of the Compensation Directive to include all crimes (not just 
limited  to  violent  and  intentional  crimes).  Impose  minimum  standards  on  the  conditions  on  receiving  state 
compensation by amending 2004 Compensation Directive (including the administrative time limits to deal with 
cases within reasonable times and conditions on how to determine the amount of compensation). 

According to the analysis and the assessment, the preferred option is V.2. 

The preferred options package consists of options I.2, II.2, III.2, IV.1 and V.2. This combination scores the highest 
for all criteria and is expected to bring the most benefits to victims across the EU while respecting the limitations of 
the legal basis and the proportionality of EU action. 

What are different stakeholders’ views? Who supports which option? 

Most stakeholders support the revision of the VRD. All options were discussed and checked with representatives of 
victim support organisations, Member State authorities and EU agencies, such as the Fundamental Rights Agency and 
the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust). In addition, the issue was discussed in the Commission’s 
Criminal Law Expert Group, consisting of academics and practitioners. Further input was received through a number 
of public consultations. Although all options received broad support from stakeholders, some Member States were 
reluctant to choose option IV.3 because it would interfere with certain legal traditions.  

C. Impact of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)? 

The  preferred  package  of  options  is  expected  to  effectively  address  the  main  problems  and  meet  the  general  and 
specific  objectives.  They  should  have  significant  positive  effects  on  victims’  rights,  including  better  access  to 
information, support and protection and better participation in criminal proceedings, including compensation. Overall, 
this will result in better access to justice for victims and better protection of their fundamental rights. These benefits 
for victims can lead to wider societal benefits. These benefits include a better functioning of Member States’ justice 
systems, lower underreporting of crime and lower prevalence of crime in general. The preferred package will ensure 
the  combined  effects  of  implementing  all  the  options  as  they  were  designed  to  support  each  other  (for  example, 
improved access to information will result in better access to support, which will mean better participation for victims 
in criminal proceedings). 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)? 

Benefits (million EUR) 

Costs (million EUR) 

Scenario medium – 5 years; 
social discount rate 3%1 

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

Net benefit (million EUR) – 5 
years; social discount rate 3% 

Option I.2 

Option II.2 

Option III.2 

Option IV.1 

Option V.2 

TOTAL 

1 388 

1 488 

10 217 

266 

9 732 

23 091 

231 

25 

9 336 

255 

8 897 

18 743 

6 

59 

1 

1 

1 

1.2 

What is the impact on small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) and competitiveness? 

No significant impact on SMEs and competitiveness is expected. Some benefits can be expected for SME professionals 
providing legal aid or psychological support to victims as their business will increase as a result of the initiative. 

Will there be a significant impact on national budgets and administrations? 

The costs of implementing the revised Directive will mostly be borne by Member States. There will be costs for the 
EU to ensure the exchange of best practices and coordination activities, including in the Victims’ Rights Platform and 
the European Network on Victims’ Rights. The most expensive option is related to ensuring targeted and integrated 
support services for the most vulnerable victims, which would include Barnahus. However, the benefits outweigh the 
costs in all options. However, the biggest benefits are of a non-financial nature. 

Will there be other significant impacts? 

The most significant impacts include better enforcement of victims’ fundamental rights across the EU, including with 
respect to some absolute fundamental rights (such as the right to personal protection in violent/life-threatening cases) 
and its positive indirect social and economic consequences. By facilitating equal access to information, protection, 
support, justice and compensation, the initiative will provide more equal opportunities to all victims to exercise their 
rights.  This  will  significantly  contribute  to  the  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goal  (SDG)  10  aiming  at  reducing 
inequalities. In addition, 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, thereby contributing to 
SDG 16. Overall, better support for victims of crime will have a positive effect not only on victims’ fundamental 
rights, but also on social cohesion and national and EU justice schemes. 

1 This is the social discount rate recommended in Tool#64 of the Better Regulation guidelines. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
Proportionality? 

All measures in the preferred options package build on the provisions of the VRD and are already in place in most 
Member  States.  They  have  all  proved  to  be  particularly  successful  in  dealing  with  the  problems  presented  in  this 
impact assessment. The package sets up minimum standards. The proportionality has also been considered in the cost 
calculation  of  the  different  options.  The  proportionality  of  the  measures  was  carefully  assessed  and  tested  with 
stakeholders. The package of measures proposed meets the legislative criterion of being limited to setting minimum 
standards. 

D.  Follow-up 

Regular monitoring will be based on data that Member States will have to report to the Commission. In addition, the 
Commission intends to evaluate implementation of the initiative to assess the extent to which its policy objectives 
have been achieved (as well as the other four criteria of efficiency/simplification potential, coherence, relevance and 
EU added value). This evaluation will be based on indicators on the implementation of the different options in the 
package. 

6