EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52011SC0581
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the Eurropean Parliament, to the Council, to the European economic and social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions - Strenghthening victim's rights in the EU
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the Eurropean Parliament, to the Council, to the European economic and social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions - Strenghthening victim's rights in the EU
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the Eurropean Parliament, to the Council, to the European economic and social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions - Strenghthening victim's rights in the EU
/* SEC/2011/0581 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the Eurropean Parliament, to the Council, to the European economic and social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions - Strenghthening victim's rights in the EU /* SEC/2011/0581 final */
1.
Policy Context and Procedure
In the Stockholm
Programme (2010-2014), the European Council called for further action to place
the needs of victims of crime at the centre of our justice systems, which was
reaffirmed in the Commission's action plan to implement the Stockholm
Programme. The Commission Work Programme 2011, Annex I, lists the rights of and
support to victims of crime as a strategic initiative. The European Parliament
has also called upon the Council to adopt a
comprehensive legal framework offering victims of crime the widest protection. Moreover, the Commission's "Citizenship Report" of 27
October 2010 seeks to dismantle the obstacles to citizens' rights by adding
substance to individual rights granted at EU level. Strengthening victims'
rights, together with the strengthening of procedural rights of suspects or
accused persons in criminal proceedings reflects this approach. The
problems, objectives and policy options assessed were based on the outcome of a
public consultation, two studies by external contractors and the expertise
brought together by the Commission. An Inter-Service Steering Group was also
set up.
2.
Problem Definition
The problem of victimisation of crime in Europe is considerable – roughly 15% of the EU's population suffer directly from crimes
every year.[1] The impact assessment addresses the quality of treatment that
victims receive in the aftermath of crime and during the criminal proceedings
that follow, and their right to receive the same minimum standard of treatment,
including non-discriminatory access to justice, in all EU Member States,
irrespective of their nationality or country of residence. With the entry into force of the Lisbon
Treaty, new provisions on criminal justice provide a clear legal base for the
EU to establish minimum rules on victims' rights to ensure mutual trust and the
operation of mutual recognition of judgments. This means that judiciaries should
have faith in each others' 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. Today, most Member States have some level
of protection and support of victims of crime but the role and needs of victims
in criminal proceedings are still generally not sufficiently addressed in their
judicial systems. People who fall victim to crime across Europe are not
guaranteed to be treated with respect or to receive appropriate support,
protection or access to basic elements of justice. To address this problem,
Member States need to raise the standards on victims' rights in accordance with
standards already established through international instruments and case law of
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The EU has already addressed the rights of
victims in criminal proceedings in existing legislation. However, although the
objectives and the scope of such legislation are still relevant, society's
views on victims have evolved and new objectives have appeared which need to be
addressed. In addition, the implementation of the legislation has been
ineffective. The current EU legislation is therefore inadequate to meet the
needs of victims. The issues identified are covered by the
two problems detailed below: Problem A: Existing EU legislation is inadequate to
improve the situation of victims – it is vague, does not contain concrete
obligations and is not enforceable, and has therefore been poorly implemented
by the Member States. Problem B: The needs of victims of crime are not
sufficiently addressed in the Member States – victims do not get (1) recognition
and respect, (2) protection, (3) support, (4) effective access to
justice, and (5) effective access to compensation and restoration. The consequences of crime and not
meeting the needs of victims also have significant hidden costs, including important financial and health costs.
2.1.
Problem A – EU Legislation is inadequate to
improve the situation of victims
The EU has adopted the Framework Decision
2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (the "Framework
Decision") and Directive 2004/80/EC on the compensation of crime victims. The
level of implementation by the Member States of these two pieces of legislation
has been mixed. The Compensation Directive has been largely transposed by the
Member States, but will require further study to establish to what extent it is
really effective. The implementation of the Framework Decision, on the other
hand, is not satisfactory. Whilst the scope of the Framework Decision covers
most of the rights of victims of all types of crime and is overall still
relevant, any new action needs to cover a wider range of rights and obligations
on the Member States given the growing awareness and changing judicial culture
to address not only the rights and needs of the prosecuted but also those of
the victims. Therefore the scope of EU legislation on victims needs to be updated in light
of new research and findings on victims, in particular as regards mutual
recognition of protection measures, and access to justice. The Framework Decision has not been
effective in meeting, or moving towards the desired outcomes of addressing the
needs of victims and achieving minimum standards for victims across the EU. No Member State can claim to have fully implemented the Framework
Decision. The ineffectiveness of this legislation is due to ambiguous drafting,
a lack of concrete obligations and a lack of infringement possibilities against
Member States. While building on and complementing
existing instruments, this legal framework will establish minimum standards to
ensure that the situation of victims is improved in law and policy throughout
the EU and that victims of crime receive the same basic rights, services and
access to justice in all EU Member States.
2.2.
Problem B – Victims' needs
are not sufficiently addressed in the EU
The needs of victims can be brought under
five categories: the need to be recognised and treated with respect and
dignity; the need to be protected; the need to be supported; the need to access
justice; and the need for access to compensation and restoration. The fact that
these needs generally are not sufficiently or adequately met in the Member
States is the key problem that the proposed measures will address. ·
Issue 1 – Victims
are not sufficiently recognised and treated with dignity and respect. Victims need to be recognised
as victims and for their suffering to be acknowledged. Victims also need to be
treated with dignity and respect in all communications with all persons
involved in the judicial process. Particular attention should be given to the
needs of vulnerable victims e.g. children, disabled person, victims of sexual
violence. Indirect victims (e.g. family members) also need to be recognised as
the consequences of the crime affect them too. · Issue 2 – Victims are not sufficiently protected. Victims need to be protected
to prevent further crime or intimidation from the offender. For victims of chronic violence, security is both their primary
need in reporting a crime, but also their primary concern. Victims also need to be protected from secondary victimisation
during proceedings due to poor treatment in connection with and during the
judicial process. · Issue 3 – Victims are not sufficiently supported. In the immediate aftermath of
a crime, victims need support mainly through emergency assistance together with
psychological first aid. Support during the subsequent judicial process,
whether legal, emotional or practical, is also often needed by and crucial to
victims, and in particular vulnerable victims. Support may be needed both in
the short and long term as a consequence of the crime. ·
Issue 4 – Victims do not have effective
access to justice. Victims must be given access to justice, such as accessibility of
court processes, availability of adequate legal representation in criminal
trials, access to more informal legal processes and the right to review a decision on whether or not to prosecute the
offender. Victims must also be able to understand the information received and the proceedings. · Issue 5 – Victims do not have effective access to compensation and
restoration. Victims must be given the choice to
access restorative justice services, as a complement to the normal judicial
process. Restorative justice gives victims an opportunity to confront their
offenders face to face and allows offenders account for what they have done. This process helps
victims to get on with their lives.
2.3.
Hidden costs linked to victimisation
Every crime inevitably affects those
individuals directly or indirectly victimised by it, as well as society at
large. Crime has significant economic and health related impacts and such
"hidden" costs can be reduced by meeting the needs of victims. The
total costs of crime to the individual and to society are considerable. These
include tangible costs, mainly in the economic sector, the health sector and
the criminal justice system, and intangible costs, such as pain, suffering, and
reduction of quality of life. Meeting victims' needs before, during and
after criminal proceedings may considerably mitigate these negative
consequences and can also prevent that they potentially worsen due to bad
treatment during the process. If a victim receives appropriate support and
protection, he/she will recover quicker bother physically and emotionally from
the crime, and will thus for example limit his/her loss of earnings and uptake
of benefits, or reduce the need for further health treatments. Ensuring that the victims' needs are met will thus considerably
contribute to reducing the total costs of crime.
2.4.
The underlying drivers of the problems
The primary drivers for the identified
problems are: non-prioritisation of victims and a lack of knowledge about their
needs, rooted in historical and cultural attitudes; a lack of enforcing
mechanisms for victims' rights and a lack of practitioner knowledge of victims'
issues.
2.5.
Baseline Scenario
Analysis suggests that without further
action, there is unlikely to be a sufficient development in national
legislation and action that ensure that victims receive non-discriminatory treatment,
no matter where in the EU they find themselves, in particular when receiving
services and accessing justice. The Framework Decision
– even after the European Court of Justice acquires jurisdiction in 2014 pursuant
to the Lisbon Treaty – will not provide a satisfactory legal framework since it
suffers from ambiguous drafting and weak obligations. As such, enforcement
proceedings will be difficult to institute and in many situations little action
will need to be taken to demonstrate compliance.
2.6.
The need for action at EU level
The Lisbon Treaty provides a clear legal
basis to facilitate judicial co-operation and mutual recognition having a
cross-border dimension through minimum standards on the rights of victims of
crime. The cross-border dimension of judicial
co-operation is wide and can result from a range of situations, most obviously
where a person is victimised in a foreign EU state. Moreover, there is also a
cross-border dimension for crimes against people in their country of residence
(e.g. where victim moves during the course of proceedings or witnesses or
assets are abroad). It is evident therefore that the cross-border dimension of
victimisation is significant. Given the right to free movement in the EU, there
is thus a clear added value of EU action over and above that of national
action. Such EU added value can be seen from
several perspectives. Firstly, victims may not be subject to the same rights in
their country of residence compared to their home country, or in a country
where they temporarily travel or visit. This risks impeding the free movement
of people and services, which is one of the fundamental requirements for the
good functioning of the internal market. Secondly, a lack of EU-level minimum
standards on victims' rights puts the quality of justice in the EU at a lower
level than standards identified in international instruments and through ECtHR
case law. In a common area of freedom, security and justice, this is difficult
to accept. Weaknesses in existing EU legislation and a lack of enforceability
of international instruments make a coherent, EU wide application of such
standards unlikely. EU action is therefore the most likely means to achieve a
level playing field across the Member States. Finally, a lack of common
standards reduces confidence in the judicial systems of the Member States,
which in turn impedes the effective operation and application of EU instruments
based on the Treaty-endorsed principle of mutual recognition of judicial
decisions and consequently the strengthening of the European area of freedom,
security and justice. In addition, whilst the establishment of
these minimum standards relates to victims of crime, such standards facilitate
police and judicial co-operation in general and not just in relation to victims.
This reflects the fact that the treatment of the victim and accused are linked
in many ways and many general cross-border judicial co-operation or mutual
recognition initiatives can impact on victims. As such, improvements in the
treatment and protection of victims can improve such co-operation. EU action will thus make sure that all EU
Member States respect common minimum standards for all persons falling victim
to crime on their territory, whether national citizens or not.
3.
Objectives
The general objectives
are to facilitate the establishment of a European area of freedom, security and
justice and the development of mutual trust between criminal justice
authorities, by ensuring that the rights of victims are fully respected
throughout the EU, whilst also respecting the rights of the defence, and that
citizens can circulate freely without being treated differently should they
fall victim to crime. The specific and operational objectives are
described in the table below: Specific Objective || Operational Objective A. To ensure that victims are recognised and treated with respect and dignity || A.1 Ensure the needs of indirect victims are met. A.2 Ensure all police, prosecutors, judges and court staff who come into contact with victims receive appropriate victims training. A.3 Establish needs assessment mechanisms for all victims to identify the needs of victims and vulnerable victims and their needs. B. To ensure that victims are protected || B.1 Ensure victims do not lose the protection they have been given when they travel or move abroad. B.2 Ensure contact between the offender and victim is avoided during proceedings. C To ensure that victims are supported. || C.1 Ensure effective victims support services are available. D. To ensure that victims have effective access to justice . || D.1 Ensure all victims are able to attend trial D.2 Ensure all victims are assisted in understanding their rights, obligations and the proceedings D.3 Ensure all victims have a right to have prosecution decisions reviewed. E. To ensure victims have access to compensation and restoration || E.1 Ensure all victims have access to effective Restorative Justice Services. The specific objectives to ensure that the
needs of victims of crime are respected and met are wide ranging and cut across
a number of other EU policies, including trafficking in human beings and sexual
abuse and exploitation of children and child pornography, and are consistent
with the approach taken in these areas. The proposed measures will build on and
complement existing instruments, and establish minimum standards on victims'
rights which will improve the general environment for protecting all victims of
all types of crime in EU law and policy, including for instance victims of
terrorism and road traffic crimes. Fundamental rights of all individuals must
be respected in all EU actions and by Member States when they implement EU law.
EU action in this field will thus at the same time raise standards in relation
to the fundamental rights of victims of crime whilst ensuring that any
limitation of the rights of the defence or to other fundamental rights is
formulated in a clear and predictable manner and is necessary and proportionate
to protect the rights and freedoms of the victim.
4.
Policy options
Options examined in this assessment all
take a combined approach with varying levels of detail or obligation being
imposed, involving both new EU legislation and practical action to ensure
proper implementation. Thus for all measures, practical measures will be
established to assist in implementation and identification of best practice. The impact assessment considers five
options: retention of the status quo (option 1) and three policy options
(options 2, 3a, 3b and 4). The retention of the status quo would involve
taking no action at EU level, which is not sufficient to achieve minimum
common standards on the protection of victims across Europe, while the other
four alternative policy options have been identified to improve victims'
situation across Europe. The four policy options range from Low - Medium - High
level of obligation imposed on Member States and the detail of such
obligations: Option 1 – Status Quo || Retention of the status quo. No action at EU level. || Option 2 – Low level of obligation || Least prescriptive option. Imposes minimum obligations on Member States to establish systems or services with minimum detail on what standards should be achieved. When necessary to take legal measures, this option requires the least changes in national procedural laws. || Option 3a –Medium level obligation || Medium prescriptive option. Imposes medium level of obligation on Member States, to establish services and rights and imposes provisions on what such services should be while defining minimum details on what standards to be applied. However, the level of obligation on Member States to establish of Restorative Justice Services (RJS) (see measure 11 below) is low and does not require Member States to establish RJS but only to ensure that safeguards and minimum quality standards are applied where RJS are used. || Option 3b –Medium/High level obligation || Medium prescriptive option. Imposes medium level of obligation on Member States for all measures to establish services and rights and imposes provisions on what such services should be while defining minimum details on what standards to be applied. However, the level of obligation on Member States regarding RJS is higher than option 3a because Member States must establish RJS and apply minimum standards. || Option 4 –Highest level of obligation || The most prescriptive option. Imposes a range of obligations on Member States to establish services and rights. It also imposes more detailed provisions on what such services should be and the exact standards that should be applied. Each policy
option has been assessed against the following eleven measures, which would
have the most effect in reaching the operative objectives and that are likely
to have the most significant cost implications and impact: 1 || Coverage of indirect victims 2 || Provision of training 3 || Assessment of victims' needs 4 || Identification of vulnerable victims and provision of specific services 5 || Cross border provision of protection measures 6 || Provision of separate waiting areas to avoid contact between victim and offender 7 || Establishment of a minimum level of Victim Support Services, including support during proceedings 8 || Attendance of trial 9 || Provision of interpretation and translation 10 || Review of decisions 11 || Establishment of Restorative Justice Services
5.
Analysis of impacts
A broad impact analysis of each option has
been carried out. The most relevant likely impacts of the policy options are
the economic and social impacts. The greatest cost implications are expected to
fall on public authorities. No environmental impacts are anticipated. Moreover,
all options, except status quo, are expected to have a positive impact
on fundamental rights with the options having biggest impact also improving
fundamental rights the greatest. The impact of the different options on the
Member States will vary depending on their level of existing standards on
victims' rights. Considering that the existing national laws and practices
differ to a varying degree from the minimum standards that the proposed
measures aim to achieve, the impact of the proposed measures would presumably
be greatest in the Member States where victims' rights are not, or not
sufficiently, addressed in the way foreseen by these standards, while the
impact would be lesser in the States that already have a high level of
protection and support of victims.
6.
Comparing the options
Although highly feasible, Policy option 1 (status
quo) does not meet the identified objectives and is therefore not
considered. Policy option 2 is also poor and does not sufficiently fulfil the
operational objectives that the European Commission intends to achieve with the
adoption of the new measures. Policy option 4 is the most likely to meet
all the objectives and to meet them to the greatest extent. However, it is the
most prescriptive providing Member States with the least amount of flexibility.
It also imposes additional obligations on Member States. As a result costs are
likely to be much higher than in the other options and it is the least feasible
in terms of it being agreed. The degree of additional benefit that could be
achieved is not considered to be proportionate to the additional costs. Policy options 3a and 3b are also highly
likely to meet the objectives though not to the same extent as option 4.
However, with increased flexibility for States these options are both more
feasible to negotiate and bear a lower financial burden than option 4.
Furthermore, risks of reduced effectiveness will be mitigated through practical
measures. Nevertheless, it is considered that in relation to the specific
measure on restorative justice services the feasibility and cost implications
are such that the mixed option 3a is preferred. Implementing option 3a will in
particular considerably reduce the total cost of implementation compared to option
3b. Policy option 3a is therefore the preferred option. Implementing the preferred Policy
option 3a would help
achieving the following results: · Adoption of legislation by European Parliament and Council (operational objectives referred to in brackets): – Easily accessible victim support services are available in all Member States and meet specified minimum standards of service (C1). – Police, prosecutors and court staff are trained in victims' matters in all Member States. Judicial studies are available to judges (A2). – Mechanisms exist in all Member States to assess the individual needs of victims and to identify vulnerable victims (A3). – Where a person is identified as vulnerable certain identified minimum services are available to them (A3). – Interpretation and translation is available to victims during proceedings in all Member States to an extent proportionate to the circumstances of the case (D2). – Where Restorative justice services are provided certain minimum standards are applied in all Member States (E1). – Where requested, and based on mutual recognition, protection measures are provided to persons already benefitting from a protection measure, when they travel or move abroad (B1). – The victim has a right to request a review of the prosecution in all Member States. The exact mechanism for carrying out such a review is determined at a national level (D3). – Exclusion of a victim from a trial is based on an individual assessment and the victim is informed of the date of trial and reimbursed for their attendance (D1). – Contact between the offender and victim is minimised during proceedings. Any new courts are constructed with separate waiting areas (B2). – In general the legislation will relate to direct victims. However, all rights will be applied to the immediate family of murder victims. Support services and protection will be available to the immediate family of all victims (A1) · Establishment of practical measures to accompany legislative action to facilitate implementation and to consider future EU action, including: – Study on state compensation and offender restitution. – Study on legal assistance and legal aid available to victims of crime. – Support projects to develop best practice which will provide Member States with a more detailed understanding of how best to achieve the objectives in the legislation. – The European Commission will also carry out its own projects and studies to further develop knowledge in the field. This could include for instance the establishment of interactive websites in all Member States to enable victims to better understand the criminal justice process and their role in it. Or it could involve the development of training programmes.
7.
Monitoring and evaluation
Providing for a robust monitoring and
evaluation mechanism is crucial to ensure that the rights envisaged are
complied with in practice as well as in legislation. The Commission envisages
carrying out a specific empirical study with an emphasis on data collection 3-5
years into the implementation of the proposal to gain in-depth quantitative and
qualitative insights into the effectiveness of the proposal. The data, combined
with the Victim surveys would enable the Commission to evaluate actual
compliance in Member States more robustly than using the means hitherto available
as well as all an evaluation in the perception of victims in term of the
meeting of their needs. [1] According to Eurostat data, around 30 million crimes
(excluding minor crime) were recorded in the EU Member States in 2007 (Eurostat,
Statistics in focus, 36/2009). Based on an analysis of the EU International
Crime Survey in "The Burden of Crime in the EU" (www.europeansafetyobservatory.eu),
to this figure is added an assumed rate of unreported crime of 60%, resulting
in approximately 75 million direct crime victims per year (roughly 15% of
the EU population).