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.    INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT    

2.    PROBLEM DEFINITION    

3.    WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?    

4.    OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?    

5.    WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?    

6.    WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?    

7.    PREFERRED OPTION    

8.    HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?    

Annex 1: Procedural information    

1.    Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references    

Organisation and timing    

Consultation of the RSB    

Evidence, sources and quality    

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation (Synopsis report)    

1.    Consultation strategy    

2.    Consulted stakeholders    

3.    Targeted Consultations    

4.    Outcomes of the consultations    

Call for evidence    

Open public consultation    

Targeted consultations    

5.    Comparison of views    

6.    Conclusions and interpretations    

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?    

1.    Practical implications of the initiative    

2.    Summary of costs and benefits    

3.    Relevant sustainable development goals    

Annex 4: Analytical methods    

1.    Estimation of compliance and Enforcement costs    

2.    Analytical methods applied to estimate Benefits / cost reduction    

3.    Sensitivity analysis – results    

Annex 5: Competitiveness check    

1.    Overview of impacts on competitiveness    

2.    Synthetic assessment    

Annex 6: Mapping of Member States’ best practices    

1.    VICTIMS’ RIGHT TO INFORMATION    

2.    PROTECTION OF VICTIMS    

3.    SUPPORT TO VICTIMS    

4.    ACCESS TO JUSTICE    

5.    ACCESS TO COMPENSATION    

Annex 7: Evaluation Report    

ANNEX 8: Impacts on Fundamental rights (and on related Sustainable Development Goals)    

Glossary

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 proceedings 1 , 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 Council 4 stressed the importance of strengthening and further developing the existing EU framework on victims’ rights and improving its implementation 5 . The European Parliament also contributed to the debate, notably via a 2017 implementation assessment 6 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 2018 8 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’ compensation 9 , the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 10 , and Victim Support Europe 11 .

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 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 2022 13 (“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 2022 14 .

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 crimes 15 , 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 Directive 16 and EU rules on protection orders 17 . 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 victims 18 , the Directive against sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography 19 , the Counter-terrorism Directive 20 , and the Directive on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment 21 . On 8 March 2022, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on combating violence 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 victims 23 .

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.

·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-friendly 24 and victim-centred justice 25 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 data 26 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 victims’ needs 27 . This is confirmed by the Vociare report 28 . 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 Report 29  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)

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 number 30 , 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 Support Europe 31 , 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 States 32 , 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 calls 33 .

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 cooperation 35 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:

·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 authorities 36 );

·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 offender 38 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 offender 39 ).

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.

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

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 orders 42 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 detention 43 .

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 support 44 .

The child-sensitive approach is still an issue in numerous Member States 45 . 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 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 justice 48 . 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 charge 49 . 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 2018 51 , 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 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’ lawyer 53 and in other Member States bureaucratic hurdles 54 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

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 proceeding 57 . 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 report 59  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 confirmed by the Evaluation, this right is often ineffective 60 since in some Member States the criminal proceedings often end up without a decision on compensation 61 . 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 approach 63 .

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.

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 services 66 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 cybercrime 68 . 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 crises 69 . 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 were recorded in the EU 71 , 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 victims 73 and over 60 million indirect victims per year 74 .

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 schemes 75 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

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

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 victims 79 . 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 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 crises 80 ) 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 complexity of national measures on victims’ physical protection 81 . Other examples where a high level of trust in victims’ rights is required is the decision of judicial authorities on a transfer of proceedings 82 83 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 crime 85 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 reporting 86 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 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.

Figure 4. Intervention logic

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 Portal 87  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 reports 88 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’ 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 terrorism 90 , 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 Centres 91 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 2020-2025 92 , the EU Strategy on the rights of the child 93 , the Strategy on European judicial training 94 , the LGBTI+ Equality Strategy 95 , the EU updated framework for Roma equality, inclusion and participation 96 , the Security Union Strategy 97 , the EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings (2021-2025) 98 the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030 99 , the Strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse 100 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 hotlines 102 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 beings 103 . 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 crime 104 . The Recommendation updates and replaces Recommendation from 2006 on assistance to crime victims 105 . 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.

5.2. Description of the policy options

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.

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 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. 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 launched 109 . 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 considered 110 :

·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.

The efficiency analysis includes the limitations in the calculations, stemming from the policy area 111 . 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

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

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

Effectiveness

Efficiency (costs/benefits)

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 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 numbers 116 . 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 helpline 117 , 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 several 118 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 (116 111 119 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.

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.

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

Effectiveness

Efficiency (costs/benefits)

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 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 States 122 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 States 124 have various minimum standards in place at national level but no objections were raised on this option.

Overall assessment

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).

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

Effectiveness

Efficiency (costs/benefits)

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

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.

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

Effectiveness

Efficiency (costs/benefits)

Coherence

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 States 131 , 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

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 States 134 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.

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

Effectiveness

Efficiency (costs/benefits)

Coherence

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 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.

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:

According to data taken from the support study for this initiative 143 , 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 ratio 144 , 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 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. 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 acquis 146 . 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.

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

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 Platform 148 ) 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 2022 149 .

·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.

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-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

Ad hoc meetings

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.

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

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.

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 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:

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

Meeting with Victims’ Rights Platform on 26 April 2022

Meeting with Victims’ Rights Platform on 10 May 2022

Contributions received from stakeholders in reply to targeted consultation

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).

Figure 5. Contributions by category of respondent

154

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%).

Feedback by stakeholder type            Feedback per country of origin

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.

Figure 6. Contributions on measures for victims’ protection

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

5.Comparison of views

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.

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.

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 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 States 158 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.

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 benefits 159

(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).

(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

Annex 4: Analytical methods 160

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 scope 161 , 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 scenarios provides a sense of the magnitude of benefits and how their levels vary with each option.

Table 1. Overview of key impacts of the considered options

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.

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:

·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 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.

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.

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 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.

;

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 State) 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 Helpline 177 .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.

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 salary 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:

; m designates the Member State

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 State) to spend 0.5-1 hour to contact and provide support to the victims who reported a crime and consented to be contacted.

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.

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 negligible 185 . 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.

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 State) 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.

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 negligible 190 .

Recurrent costs:

·The recurrent costs related to the protection orders are calculated as follows:

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% to the total number of victims in scope (which differs across Member States) times the costs of one protection order, i.e., € 213 - € 1,185.

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.

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 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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 share 217  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

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 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.

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:

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.

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

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).

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.

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

·The costs of reaching a decision on compensation are calculated as follows:

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 judge, 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.

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

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. 

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.

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

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..

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.

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:

·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:

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 DE 241 . Estimates from outside the EU, namely in the UK and NO were identified as well.