5 Compensation for victims of crime
| (30567)
9062/09
COM(09) 170
+ ADD 1
| Commission Report on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims
Commission Staff Working Document: accompanying document to the Report on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Justice
|
| Basis of consideration |
Minister's letter of 14 December 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report
| HC 19-xxii (2008-09), chapter 5 (1 July 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| Not planned |
| Committee's assessment |
Politically important |
| Committee's decision |
Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 Article 19 of Directive 2004/80/EC on compensation to crime
victims requires the Commission to present to the European Parliament,
the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report
on the application of the Directive by 1 January 2009.
5.2 The purpose of the Directive is to set up a system
for cooperation to facilitate cross-border access to compensation
for victims of crime. The system operates on the basis of existing
national schemes for compensation for victims of crime that has
been committed in the respective territories of the Member States.
The Directive provides that, where a "violent intentional
crime" has been committed in a Member State other than the
Member State where the victim is resident, the victim has the
right to submit an application for compensation to the relevant
authority in the Member State where he or she is resident. This
application is then transmitted to the relevant authority in the
Member State in which the crime was committed. It is this latter
authority which retains the responsibility for paying compensation
under its national procedures.
5.3 In preparation of the report the Commission requested
an external study to review the application of the Directive.
The main objective of the study was to assess the current stage
of implementation of the Directive in all Member States. Central
Contact Points appointed by Member States also discussed the application
of the Directive in a meeting in October 2008, which was organised
within the framework of the European Judicial Network (EJN).
5.4 The Commission's report, based on the study,
concluded that despite insufficient data there appeared to be
a substantial degree of compliance with the Directive across Member
States. However, it also found that claimants were much less positive
than authorities were about the process of applying for compensation.
Many found that the process of applying was complicated and time-consuming,
and that language barriers constituted a major obstacle.
5.5 To improve the functioning of the Directive the
Commission's report recommended that Member States:
- seek to collect data on the
application of the Directive in order to be able to better assess
the effectiveness of the process;
- ensure — as far as possible — that
more information on the Directive and on national compensation
schemes is provided to citizens since too few potential claimants
seem to be aware of their rights;
- ensure that the language requirements of the
Directive are respected in order to ensure the most efficient
processes for claimants;
- ensure clarity and transparency in key elements
of national compensation schemes, particularly which offences
are included in the schemes and which injuries are covered by
them.
5.6 The Commission concluded that the implementation
of the Directive could be improved on the basis of the current
provisions and therefore did not propose amendments to the Directive
itself. But it stated that it "will use its powers under
the Treaty to urge the Member States to complete the possible
deficient measures" — in other words bring infringement
proceedings if necessary.
Previous consideration
5.7 We first considered the Commission report on
1st July 2009,[8]
when we:
— noted
that that the Explanatory Memorandum of 13 May 2009 signed by
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of
Justice (Lord Bach) stated that the external study had concluded
that the UK was not fully compliant with Directive 2004/80/EC
on compensation to crime victims;
— noted that that Minister considered that
the UK was fully compliant but that the study's conclusion
was based on a number of inaccuracies, which the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Authority (CICA), the competent authority, had reported
to the Commission;
— asked for sight of the external study
on the implementation of the Directive; and
— asked to be informed of the Commission's
response to CICA's letter, and whether the Commission decided
as a consequence to reassess the conclusion in the study concerning
the UK.
Minister's letter of 14 December
5.8 The Minister's letter encloses a copy of the
external study. He informs us that:
— in
September 2008 CICA highlighted several inaccuracies in the study
directly to the authors and also at the meeting of EJN in Brussels
in October 2008, where it became clear that a number of other
Member States also had similar concerns;
— in response to a request from the Commission,
CICA set out its comments in writing to the Commission on 27 October
2008;
— in March 2009, CICA asked for confirmation
of when the study was due to be published and was told that it
had been published electronically on the EJN website at the end
of January / beginning of February 2009. Unfortunately not all
the errors were corrected.
5.9 The Minister comments that this was particularly
disappointing given that the study explicitly stated that "we
would expect Member States misrepresented by the following table
to come forward to correct it as soon as it is published".
CICA made representations as soon as it became aware of the publication,
in the expectation that changes would be made.
5.10 He reports that the Commission has since acknowledged
that there were inaccuracies in the study regarding the UK but
has said that because its contract with the authors had expired,
it was not in a position to change the study. However, the Commission
made it clear to the Minister that the study was only one factor
in its evaluation of the Directive and that it is only its report
of 20 April 2009 that presents the Commission's views and conclusions.
The Minister added that the Commission has emphasised that there
is no criticism of the United Kingdom in its report. It said that
if it considered that the UK was not compliant with the Directive
it would have initiated infraction proceedings. The fact that
it has not, the Minister concludes, is a clear indication of its
views.
Conclusion
5.11 We thank the Minister for his letter of 14
December enclosing a copy of the external study requested by the
Commission, but regret the delay taken in providing us with a
reply and a copy of the study (our Report was published on 1 July
2009).
5.12 We note the Minister's disappointment that
the inaccuracies about the UK's compliance with Directive 2004/80/EC
on compensation to crime victims in the external study were not
corrected before it was published. This was because the Commission's
contract with the authors of the study had expired, the study
having been published electronically without the knowledge of
the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and without its
corrections being taken into account.
5.13 We find this set of circumstances not only
disappointing, but troubling as well. Notwithstanding the absence
of criticism in the Commission's report, this is a study which,
through publication, could have had an impact on the international
reputation of the UK for compliance with legal obligations.
5.14 We are not content to clear the Commission's
report at this stage. Instead we ask the Minister to write to
explain:
— how
it was that CICA's comments were not incorporated, when they were
sent to the Commission over two months before the publication
of the study;
— what follow-up he proposes to take
with the relevant Directorate-General of the Commission to ensure
that this will not happen again; and
— why the UK competent authorities were
not aware until they were informed some months later that the
study had been published on the European Judicial Network (EJN)
website, when UK competent authorities participate in the EJN
and no doubt access its website.
8 See headnote. Back
| 
