COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Follow-up to the second opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and additional information Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on combating violence against women and domestic violence

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Strasbourg, 8.3.2022
SWD(2022) 61 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Follow-up to the second opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and additional
information
Accompanying the document
PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
on combating violence against women and domestic violence
{COM(2022) 105 final} - {SEC(2022) 150 final} - {SWD(2022) 60 final} -
{SWD(2022) 62 final} - {SWD(2022) 63 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0105 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
EN EN
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................2
2. FINDINGS OF THE SECOND OPINION OF THE REGULATORY
SCRUTINY BOARD.....................................................................................................3
3. BASELINE – WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AT MEMBER STATE LEVEL
SO FAR..........................................................................................................................4
4. THE OBJECTIVES AND THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH...................................................................................................................1
5. EXPECTED IMPACTS, COSTS AND BENEFITS, SUBSIDIARITY, AND
PROPORTIONALITY CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................5
ANNEX 1 DETAILED COMPARISON HOW THE PROPOSED
MEASURES COMPARE WITH THE RESULTS OF THE GAP ANALYSIS OF
EXISTING MEMBER STATES’ AND EU LEGISLATION.......................................9
ANNEX 2 NEW TABLES ON COSTS AND BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE
OI-OO VIEW ...............................................................................................................23
EN EN
1. INTRODUCTION
The present document has been compiled to ensure an optimal transparency and tractability of
the lawmaking process preparing the proposal for the Directive on combating violence against
women and domestic violence. It presents and explains additional evidence and clarifications
and thus demonstrates that the comments and observations of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board,
hereafter “the Board”, on the impact assessment of the proposal have been adequately
addressed.
The impact assessment supporting the legal proposal for the Directive was submitted to the
Board on 15 September 2021. A hearing of the Board took place on 13 October 2021. On 18
October 2021, the Board issued a negative opinion on the draft impact assessment. A revised
version of the impact assessment was submitted on 1 December 2021. The Board issued a
second negative opinion on 12 January 2022, based mainly on the insufficient quality of the
evidence base as presented in this second submission.
This document complements the regular and standard documents that are submitted with the
Commission proposal to the co-legislators, namely the Impact assessment report1
, the
subsidiarity grid2
, and the Explanatory Memorandum3
. With the same aim of ensuring the
highest possible level of transparency and tractability, the Impact assessment report has not
been changed compared to the version that was re-submitted for scrutiny by the Board. In this
manner, the Impact assessment report is preserved, as a document, in the form that has
triggered the observations and comments by the Board in its final opinion of 12 January
20224
.
It is important to note that the opinions of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board are an assessment of
the quality of the impact assessment and not an assessment of the related legislative proposal,
which was presented for adoption at a later stage.
The presented proposal has benefited from the further substantiated evidence, presented in
this document. Reflections on the issues raised by the Board and changes that have been made
to the proposal are also explained below.
The remainder of the document is structured as follows: Section 2 summarises the outcomes
of the scrutiny by the Board. Section 3 presents additional evidence in the form of a head-to-
head comparison of the main structural elements of the proposed directive with the gap
analysis carried out for existing rules in this important policy area at both the level of EU
Member States and EU level. Section 4 recalls the objectives and provides additional
clarifications as to why, as also confirmed by the additional gap analysis, a comprehensive
approach was retained for legislating in this policy area. Section 5 groups a number of replies
to the more technical observations of the Board on the dimensions of the expected impacts,
estimated costs and benefits, subsidiarity and proportionality considerations. The latter two
aspects of subsidiarity and proportionality are also presented in the so-called subsidiarity grid
1
Which includes the opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board [Reference to be added]
2
[Reference to be added]
3
The Explanatory Memorandum is an extensive cover note of the Commission legislative proposal; while it has
no legal value and is not published with the legal act in the Official Journal, it remains available as a document
on the Eur-lex website.
4
The Board’s opinion published at the same time as the Commission’s proposal carries the standard warning:
“This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.” In the present case
the published impact assessment is the document submitted to the Board with minor editorial changes.
EN EN
that is published as a separate staff working document accompanying the directive. The
document also contains two annexes: Annex 1 compares the proposed legislative measures
(provision by provision) with the findings of the gap analysis. Annex 2 contains the detailed
data on estimated costs and benefits.
2. FINDINGS OF THE SECOND OPINION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD
After submission of the first impact assessment to the Board, a hearing took place on 13
October 2021. On 18 October 2021, the Board issued a negative opinion on the draft impact
assessment. A revised version of the impact assessment was submitted on 1 December 2021,
that responded to the comments given by the Board. In particular, the revised impact
assessment clarified the scope of the initiative, presented a more focused problem description
showing the specificities related to violence against women and domestic violence, inserted a
gap analysis at EU and at Member State level and highlighted the limitations in the evidence
concerning the impact of the existing measures taken at Member State and EU level. The
revised impact assessment also clarified the content of the policy options, inserted options that
were discarded at an early stage, and presented the expected impacts in a clearer manner
(going from prevalence reduction to strengthening of victims’ rights). It also contained
detailed information on the estimated costs and benefits of the options discussed.
While noting the efforts made to improve the draft impact assessment in response to its initial
comments, the Board nevertheless maintained its negative final opinion on 12 January 2022,
referring to the following significant shortcomings:
1. the baseline not sufficiently reflecting the impact of several actions at EU and Member
State level;
2. the overall objective of the proposal not being sufficiently clear, and the need for a
comprehensive approach not sufficiently justified;
3. the concrete measures, as well as the combination of specific measures in different
options being unclear; as a result, an uncertainty whether the structure of the options
ensures that the best possible set of measures is selected as the preferred option;
4. the revised analysis of costs and benefits not fully incorporating the revised set of
options; comparison of options being unclear including in terms of the criteria and
scoring methods used;
5. proportionality of the preferred option, including the chosen lex specialis approach.
In addition to these five negative comments, the Board provided thirteen suggestions for
improvement that are summarised in the following:
- In addition to the gap analysis, to bring out more clearly where individual Member States
still lack measures to comply with the standards of the Council of Europe Convention on
preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul
Convention), including the 6 Member States that have not yet ratified the Istanbul
Convention. In addition, the Board asked to identify best practices observed in some
Member States and going beyond the Istanbul Convention’s requirements to allow a
proper assessment of the scale of the problem and its evolution under the baseline. Also in
relation to the baseline, the future impacts of recent measures at Member State level
should be better taken into account, both in terms of known time lags of expected impacts
EN EN
and in terms of cost estimates. These suggestions are addressed in section 3 and in Annex
1.
- A number of other points in the opinion recommend using more precise language and
clarifications with regard to the instrument of minimum harmonisation and the precise
content of options. The opinion also points out that additional options could have been
developed, including by combining selective soft and hard law measures. In response to
this, the questioned reasoning of the impact assessment that only a comprehensive
approach can deliver on the stated policy objectives is revisited and made more precise in
section 4 below.
- The remainder of the recommendations for improvement tackle a number of diverse and
technical methodological issues. These include the request to increase the SMARTness5
of
objectives, to reconsider the scoring methodology used and to better explain the data used
(including its limitations), missing dimensions in the cost tables, missing stakeholder
views at the Member State level, and a better link of evidence with the dimensions of
proportionality and subsidiarity. These shortcomings identified by the Board are addressed
in section 5 below, together with the improved cost table in the annex and the subsidiarity
grid, submitted as a staff working document, published at the same time as the legal
proposal.
3. BASELINE – WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AT MEMBER STATE LEVEL SO FAR
As suggested in the Board’s opinion, this section highlights the findings of what has been
achieved in this policy area at Member State level so far and is therefore taken up in the
baseline6
. In doing so, the section responds also to the Board’s recommendation to present a
more comprehensive analysis of the gaps in Member States’ implementation of the Istanbul
Convention and the lack of response to the evolution stemming – among others - from
developments in the digital sphere.
The following elements have been developed to address the comments on the baseline and
comprehensiveness of assessing the level of achievements in this policy area before
introducing the proposed new set of measures:
An additional analysis summarises the main gaps in implementation at EU and Member
States level (Annex 1)7
. It further demonstrates the intended impact and added value at EU
level for each of the draft directive’s provisions and explains how the draft directive adds
value to the already existing rules at national level (both in those Member States that have
ratified the Convention and those that have not) and at EU level. By means of a comparison
table, the additional analysis makes it easier to see and understand how the draft directive (i)
responds with more targeted actions where the current rules have proven to be insufficient
(such as in the area of victims’ support), (ii) adds consistency to the currently uneven level of
prevention and access to justice at national level (including via criminalization of certain
forms of crime), and (iii) strengthens coordination at national and EU level. It further
demonstrates how the provisions of the draft directive reflect best practices gathered through
the monitoring of the Istanbul Convention.
5
S.M.A.R.T. standing for “specific”, “measureable”, “achievable”, “realistic”, and “time-bound”.
6
Pt. 1 of the summary points, (1) of the detailed points.
7
Addressing pt. 1 of the summary comments, pt. (1) and (3) of the specific comments.
EN EN
In relation to the Board’s comment that the it has not been justified why the problem analysis
has not followed an all victims’ inclusive approach (including men and non-binary people)8
,
the text of the proposal explains that the initiative focuses on the specificity of women’s
experiences of violence as distinct from those of men and proposes measures to respond to
these specific experiences9
. It also takes into account that women present the vast majority of
victims of these types of violent acts. At the same time, it clarifies that the draft directive does
not exclude men and non-binary people from its scope. The only exception is the
criminalisation of female genital mutilation and rape, which had to be limited to women
because the legal basis only refers to women. All other criminal offences apply to all
victims, not only women. Moreover, the provisions concerning victim support and
protection, access to justice, prevention and coordination, while being tailored to this kind of
violence which mainly affects women, do not exclude men and non-binary people, who can
also become victims of the forms of violence covered by the Directive. This choice also
reflects the outcomes of comprehensive targeted consultations among the Member States,
non-governmental and international organizations, in support of the impact assessment and of
the gap analysis of the existing legislative framework.
In relation to the Board’s request to better demonstrate why the existing problems cannot be
tackled by amending the existing EU instruments (e.g. Victims’ Rights Directive, Gender
Equality Directives, etc.)10
, further explanations are provided in section 4 below.
In relation to the Board’s specific comments about the insufficient consideration of the
development of the baseline scenario11
, it is important to note that the present estimates have
taken into account lower costs for Member States that have already introduced measures at
national level. Even if very little data are available on the efficiency of the measures at
national level, whether for the implementation of the Istanbul Convention or otherwise, it may
be anticipated that these, and any further measures Member States would take, will continue
to produce a positive long-term impact at the national level. It has to be acknowledged though
that difficulties in the comparability of data available at national level continue, and will
continue, to cause problems in the quantification of estimates. The measures relating to data
gathering and the production of official statistics by Eurostat in the proposed directive are
important to address this in the longer term.
Table 112
provides a summary overview of the gap analysis at EU level, whereas the detailed
comparison between the proposed Directive and the existing measures in this policy area at
EU Member State level is provided in Annex 1. Table 1 summarises to what extent the 14
instruments at EU level containing legally binding provisions have addressed the five relevant
policy areas - prevention, protection, access to justice, victim support and policy coordination.
The new analysis in Annex 1 draws a much more comprehensive picture, also addressing the
Board’s observations of not having documented the status quo at Member State level
sufficiently.
8
Pt. (2) of the specific comments.
9
Explanations as to the proposed measures are provided in section 4 and Annex I.
10
Pt. (2) of the specific comments.
11
Pt. (3) of the specific comments.
12
This table was already submitted as part of the revised impact assessment of 1 December in its Annex 8.
EN EN
Table 1: mapping 14 instruments at EU level onto the relevant policy areas
EN EN
As this overview table indicates visibly, and as is even clearer from the detailed analysis that
has additionally been provided in Annex 1, the existing measures have overall proven
insufficient to achieve the objectives of an adequate protection of victims of violence against
women and domestic violence (see also next section). In this regard, the gap analysis has
clearly demonstrated the need for action and potential for the comprehensive approach that is
further explained in the next section.
4. THE OBJECTIVES AND THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
The main objective of the proposed initiative is to prevent and combat violence against
women and domestic violence, which are a daily reality in the EU. Concretely, the initiative
aims to incorporate and enhance the standards of the Istanbul Convention13
in the existing EU
policy framework on violence against women and domestic violence, thus pursuing the
objectives of the Istanbul Convention within the area of EU competences.
This is achieved by doing two things: first, by filling legislative gaps at the EU and national
levels, and second, by updating EU law in comparison to the standards of the Istanbul
Convention in the areas of digital transformation (in relation to cyber violence) and to those
of more recent international developments (in relation to sexual harassment at work).
On the Board’s specific comments regarding the lack of clear objectives14
, this document
clarifies the objective of the proposal, which is to prevent and combat violence against women
and domestic violence as criminal acts and as forms of discrimination. The text of the draft
directive further clearly outlines its main objectives, explaining that these objectives shall be
achieved by criminalising certain forms of violence against women (including rape and
offences concerning various forms of cyber violence) and by strengthening protection, access
to justice and support of victims of violence, as well as violence prevention and coordination.
In response to the suggestion of the Board to justify why a comprehensive approach15
is
necessary, the additional analysis in this document provides further evidence of the
weaknesses of the current framework (including the gaps in legislation and practice at the
national level) and of the patchwork of standards that only selectively responds to the specific
needs of victims of violence against women and domestic violence at the EU level16
. This
additional analysis further corroborates the conclusion that such selective standards are
insufficient to ensure adequate support and protection of victims of such forms of violence. It
better explains that each of the measures envisaged by the directive responds to a gap in the
national legal and policy framework, thereby justifying that comprehensive action in all these
13
The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic
Violence (“Istanbul Convention”) is recognized as the most far-reaching international legal instrument to set
out binding obligations to prevent and combat violence against women. Thirty-four member states of the Council
of Europe have ratified it. While the EU has signed it, the ratification process has only been concluded by 21 of
its Member States, which leads to the situation that the Convention’s standards are not binding for six Member
States.
14
Pt. 2 of the summary points, (4) of the specific comments.
15
Pt. 2 of the summary points.
16
This conclusion was already drawn from the evaluation of all 14 EU acts relevant for combating violence
against women and domestic violence, supported by an external study, the results of which have been integrated
into the Impact Assessment.
EN EN
areas is indispensable to tackle effectively the complexity and prevalence of violence against
women and domestic violence. The directive entails provisions which:
• criminalise certain forms violence,
• lay down preventive measures,
• strengthen the protection of and support to victims,
• ensure better access to justice, and
• improve coordination among the relevant actors including police, judiciary, support
services and other services that come into contact with victims (such as health and
social service staff).
The comprehensive approach is characterised, on the one hand, by the EU level
criminalisation and, on the other hand, by the provision of specific protection, access to
justice, support, prevention and coordination measures. It has been inspired by the EU rules in
the areas of trafficking in human beings, sexual exploitation of children and countering
terrorism. Implementation reports of the directives17
in the above-mentioned areas
demonstrate that comprehensive approaches taken by the EU legislator in these areas have
proven their effectiveness with regard to this group of crime victims.
The proposed draft directive introduces targeted minimum rules18
, allowing Member States
to provide higher standards under national law. The minimum rules are based on the best
practices of those Member State that have transposed particular provisions of the Istanbul
Convention effectively (thus directly addressing a recommendation by the Board). They take
into account the requirements of the Istanbul Convention in the area of the EU competences
and include them as benchmarks.
When it comes to those aspects of the draft proposal that are not explicitly regulated by the
Istanbul Convention, such as cyber-crime and support for victims of sexual harassment at
work, the minimum standards are built on the best practices stemming from the public
consultations, other international standards and the gap analysis of the national and EU
legislation that is documented here.
All the measures have been assessed against the overall objective of preventing and
combating violence against women and domestic violence, as well as the other objectives that
are intended to ensure:
 that victims and potential victims of violence against women and domestic violence
are effectively protected from (further) violence,
17
European Commission, Third report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (2020) as
required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting
its victims, COM(2020) 661 final {SWD(2020) 226 final}, 20 October 2020; European Commission, Communication from
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of Regions: EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse, COM(2020) 607 final, 24 July 2020; European
Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the extent to which the
Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with Directive 2011/93/EU of 13 December 2011 on
combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, COM(2016) 871 final, 16 December
2016.
18
Pt. (4) of the specific comments.
EN EN
 the effective access to justice for victims of all forms of violence against women and
domestic violence,
 the effective availability of support for victims of all forms of violence against women
and domestic violence,
 that sexual harassment at work is effectively addressed, and
 a more effective coordination in relation to violence against women and domestic
violence, including gaps in data collection.
The impacts of the measures have been assessed in terms of their social dimension as well as
how they ensure the respect of fundamental rights. The detailed findings of this assessment
had already been included as Annex 5 of the revised Impact Assessment submitted on 1
December, which has not been changed and is published together with the legal proposal and
the present document.
In response to the Board’s suggestion to clarify why existing horizontal instrument cannot
tackle the specific problems, it should be flagged that the Victims’ Rights Directive and the
EU rules on protection orders provide for general rules applicable to all victims of crime,
including victims of gender-based violence and victims of domestic violence. In total, 14 EU
instruments are relevant to various aspects of combating violence against women and
domestic violence. However, the selective standards contained in these acts are insufficient to
ensure adequate protection of and support to victims of violence against women and domestic
violence, which is of a very specific nature and thus requires a specific approach. This is
illustrated by the following Table 2, which provides a traffic light overview visualisation of
how these instruments compare across the various dimensions used for the better law-making
assessment.
Table 2.
Good To
some
extent
To a
limited
extent
Poor
From the perspective of
GBV/DV
Effectiven
ess
Efficiency
Coherence
Relevance
EU
added
value
Victims’ Rights Directive
(2012)
n/a
EPO instruments n/a
Compensation to Crime
Victims Directive (2004)
n/a
Child Sexual Abuse
Directive (2011)
Anti-Trafficking Directive
(2011)
n/a
EN EN
From the perspective of
GBV/DV
Effectiven
ess
Efficiency
Coherence
Relevance
EU
added
value
Reception Conditions
Directive (2013) (recast)
n/a
Asylum Procedures
Directive (2013)
n/a
Return Directive (2008) n/a
Qualification Directive
(2011)
n/a
Equality Directives n/a
Article 16 of the UNCRPD n/a
Only the comprehensive approach of the present initiative effectively addresses the
weaknesses of the current patchwork of measures, which are characterised by the identified
gaps in legislation and practice at the national level (listed in the previous section and in
Annex 1) and that only selectively respond to the specific needs of victims of violence against
women and domestic violence at EU level.
Moreover, the mentioned acts do not criminalise offences of violence against women and
domestic violence in general. The directives targeting specific criminal offences – such as the
Anti-Trafficking Directive and the Child Sexual Abuse Directive – protect selective groups of
victims from very specific forms of crimes. This results in the current situation where all EU
acts, relevant for preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence,
as separate acts together do not provide the necessary basis for monitoring their
implementation in a comprehensive and coherent manner from the perspective of victims of
violence against women and domestic violence. At the level of Member States, this is even
more hindered by a lack of uniform definitions that hamper the comparability of data
collected for the purpose of monitoring. To allow a better monitoring and implementation of
actions it is again a comprehensive approach with a targeted single EU act that can best
deliver on this objective – rather than following an alternative option, such as amending all of
the existing EU rules (e.g. Victims’ Rights Directive, European Protection Order instruments,
Gender Equality Directives).
Policy options
When addressing the Board’s specific comments on the comparison of policy options19
, it is
important to recall that four alternative options20
have been considered:
- a recommendation (non-legislative option) ensuring a gender-sensitive application of
the existing EU law to this group of victims;
- an instrument covering only one specific problem area, e.g. prevention;
19
Pts. (5), (6), (8) of the specific comments.
20
I.e. options which were not retained and evaluated in the impact assessment.
EN EN
- an amendment of the 14 existing instruments of EU law that are considered relevant to
combat violence against women; and
- the addition of Gender-based violence to the list of “EU crimes” in Art. 83 (1) of the
TFEU.
The analysis contained in the resubmitted impact assessment aimed to demonstrate that none
of these alternatives could achieve the objectives sought by the initiative. The additional
analysis provided in this document, based on the evaluation of relevant EU acts and the
mapping and gap analysis of Member State legislation, aims to further support this. It should
have become much clearer why a comprehensive approach – a specific directive on violence
against women and domestic violence – was chosen rather than an amendment of existing
horizontal instruments.
In particular, a core measure, such as the criminalisation of certain behaviours, cannot be
achieved by mere amendments of the existing EU rules, including those on victims’ rights.
The evaluation and the stakeholder consultations have shown support for combining
criminalisation with specific protection, prevention, access to justice, support and
coordination measures that respond more directly to the specific needs of victims of violence
against women and domestic violence. The rules will apply in addition to the rules laid down
in the Victims’ Rights Directive, thus constituting a so-called lex specialis to that directive.
As regards the choice of the preferred policy option, and more specifically how it has been
brought more in line with the principle of proportionality, the next section provides more
details..
5. EXPECTED IMPACTS, COSTS AND BENEFITS, SUBSIDIARITY, AND PROPORTIONALITY
CONSIDERATIONS
On the Board’s specific comments on the analysis of impacts21
, the additional analysis in
Annex I better acknowledges that some measures at Member State level may have an impact
only in the years to come, and clarifies that this future impact has indeed been taken into
account.
In addition, a revised version of the cost table is attached in annex 2 of this document (as an
update of Annex 3 of the impact assessment), which now clearly separates the costs for
businesses and public authorities.
The impact on national budgets and administrations is expected to amount to €4.9 – €6.5
billion per year. Nonetheless, the positive economic impacts regarding the reduced prevalence
of violence against women and domestic violence, would bring benefits of €8.2 - €10.6 billion
per year, clearly outweighing the costs. No special measures are provided for SMEs22
, but the
potential costs for employers are limited to the participation of managers to a two-hour online
training, estimated at €55 per SME and €5.750 per large company per year (the EU-27
average recurring cost of attending training for managers).
21
Pt. (7).
22
See annex 5 section 4.7 of the Impact Assessment.
EN EN
On the comparison methodology applied to options23
, it is acknowledged that the scoring
method assigns different weighs to the better regulation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency,
and coherence. The effectiveness criterion was considered particularly important, considering
that the main impact of the draft directive is linked to better safeguarding fundamental rights.
As regards the Board’s criticism regarding assigning the comprehensive approach option a
higher qualitative score for total net benefits than for the moderate option, it should be noted
that it is not a cardinal scoring method, i.e., it puts the focus on the order of the scoring of the
options and does not allow the comparison of ratios which precludes a standard cost
efficiency approach.
The comparison of costs and benefits of the preferred option24 underlying the proposed
directive has been complemented by the approach required since January 2022 under the
revised Better Regulation Guidelines. This includes the overview of the administrative burden
that needs to be offset in line with the one in – one out principle (OI-OO). The additional
tables are included in Annex 2 to this document. However, the headline figures calculated for
total estimated costs and benefits for the preferred policy option that underlies the proposal
have not changed.25
This lack of change stems from the fact that adjustments made to the
preferred options have emerged from the additional subsidiarity analysis that has been carried
out by Commission services (and that is reflected in a detailed manner in the separate
subsidiarity grid). This analysis has identified that in light of existing measures at Member
State level, the directive could be less prescriptive and leave more flexibility to Member
States in the implementation of the new rules. The changes are also quite marginal in terms of
costs and did not trigger a revision of the costing of options.
A subsidiarity assessment grid has been completed and is published as a separate document
with the legal proposal. It explains in detail how the principle of subsidiarity has been
respected.
On the principle of proportionality, it is important to clarify that the proposal presents a lex
specialis to the Victims’ Rights Directive. It has been carefully drafted in order to ensure that
the proposed measures do not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives and to leave
a maximum of flexibility to the Member States, allowing them to adjust the minimum rules to
the specificities of their national judicial schemes. For instance:
- A separate provision specifies that the draft directive provides for minimum rules which
can be surpassed by the Member States;
- The proposal limits criminalisation at EU level to those acts where gaps or deficiencies
have been identified at the national level (rape, female genital mutilation and certain
forms of cyber violence). It otherwise leaves it to Member States to criminalise at
national level most types of crimes or offences falling within the remit of violence
against women and domestic violence as defined in the directive;
- The provision on limitation periods has been reduced to focus on the specific problems
that were highlighted in the studies and consultations, while leaving other elements to
national law;
23
Pt. (8).
24
Pts. (8), (11).
25
The full details on those calculations of costs and benefits are in Annex 4 of the impact assessment of 1
December 2021.
EN EN
- Flexibility has been granted to Member States concerning the organisation of victim
support. For instance, envisaged obligations to provide for free legal representation,
access to legal aid, the right to free trial support, free psychosocial support during
proceedings, the right to specific accessibility solutions for victims with disabilities,
access to interpretation, one-stop shops for victims and standards on precise
geographical availability and distribution of support services have been removed in the
proposal as presented;
- A right to collective action for victims of violence against women was not included in
order to limit the interference with existing judicial procedures in the Member States;
- The provisions on protection orders have been revised, leaving only the obligation of
Member States to introduce emergency barring orders and long-term protection without
setting minimum standards.
The draft directive streamlines and simplifies provisions relating to this group of crime
victims to ensure a smooth interplay with the Victims’ Rights Directive, and better clarifies
(compared to the impact assessment) where new obligations come on top of those provided by
the Victims’ Rights Directive:
- With regard to sexual harassment, the obligation for Member States to criminalise
sexual harassment was not included, leaving only the obligation to provide support and
protection;
- The role of labour inspectorates has been highlighted while refraining from defining
specific tasks and powers, thus leaving flexibility to Member States.
On the Board’s specific comments on data and evidence26
, it can be clarified (as also done in
the Explanatory Memorandum) that the existing EU acquis was evaluated to assess its impact
on violence against women and domestic violence, and that the results of this analysis are
included in the gap analysis. While no additional new data is available in comparison to what
is included in the impact assessment report, the Commission services performed additional
analyses to show how the measures presented in the draft directive address the established
gaps in prevention, protection, victim support, access to justice, and coordination. The result
of this analysis is presented in Annex 1 of this document. In order to provide for more robust
data in the future, the draft directive also lays down the grounds for more convergence in the
administration of data and survey data collection in the future.
On the Board’s specific comments on the stakeholder views27
, the Explanatory
Memorandum summarises these views in a succinct manner, including the contributions from
the Member States. All 24 Member States that contributed in the consultations highlighted the
need for further measures. In addition, during the workshop with Member States on 1 July
2021, during which all Member States participated, no particular concerns on the subsidiarity
were expressed. Member States have repeatedly called for action at EU level, for instance, in
the 2014 Council conclusions on "Preventing and combating all forms of violence against
women and girls, including female genital mutilation".
26
Pt. (10).
27
Pt. (12).
EN EN
As to the clarity of definitions and the distinction between the concepts28
of violence against
women as a sub-category of gender-based violence and of domestic violence as the offence
that affects all victims, the draft directive lays down clear definitions of the relevant concepts
(cf. also the clarifications made above).
28
Pt. (13).
EN EN
ANNEX 1 DETAILED COMPARISON HOW THE PROPOSED
MEASURES COMPARE WITH THE RESULTS OF THE GAP ANALYSIS
OF EXISTING MEMBER STATES’ AND EU LEGISLATION
EU Member States’ are referred to below with the following country abbreviations
Belgium (BE) Greece (EL) Lithuania (LT) Portugal (PT)
Bulgaria (BG) Spain (ES) Luxembourg (LU) Romania (RO)
Czechia (CZ) France (FR) Hungary (HU) Slovenia (SI)
Denmark (DK) Croatia (HR) Malta (MT) Slovakia (SK)
Germany (DE) Italy (IT) Netherlands (NL) Finland (FI)
Estonia (EE) Cyprus (CY) Austria (AT) Sweden (SE)
Ireland (IE) Latvia (LV) Poland (PL)
Provisions Gaps at EU and Member States
(MS) level
Intended impact of measures /
EU added value
Chapter II: Offences concerning sexual exploitation of women and computer crime
Article 5
Rape
 9 MS use definitions of rape
that rely solely on the absence
of consent of the victim
without any reference to force
or threats, in line with the
Istanbul Convention and other
international human rights
norms (EELN 202129
).
 Lack of consent is not a
ground for rape. (CZ, EE, FI,
FR, IT, LV, NL, NI, PL, PT,
RO, SV, SI).
 GREVIO noted that in some
MS criminal offences of sexual
violence (including rape) are
not based on the notion of
freely given consent (FI, FR,
IT, NL, ES)
 Requiring all Member
States to include lack of
consent in the definition of
rape.
Article 6
Female Genital
Mutilation)
 Lack of specific
criminalisation in 12 MS.
 In the remaining MS,
requirements for criminal
liability differ (e.g. disabling
consequences, incitement and
consent, preparatory acts)
(EELN 2021).
 Recognition of female
genital mutilation as a form
of violence against women
at the EU level.
29
Criminalisation of gender-based violence against women in European States, including ICT-facilitated
Violence : https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5535-criminalisation-of-gender-based-violence-against-
women-in-european-states-including-ict-facilitated-violence-1-97-mb
EN EN
 Gaps in victim support,
protection and prevention
(Open Public Consultation30
-
OPC-).
Article 7
Non-consensual
sharing of
intimate or
manipulated
material
 Ten MS (BE, FR, EI, IT, MT,
NL, PL, PT, ES, SE) have
specifically criminalised the
non-consensual dissemination/
publication/disclosure of
intimate/private/sexual images.
 It is not expressly stated in all
criminal provisions that the
images can be obtained with or
without the consent of the
victims.
 Some national definitions
include the element of intent to
harm in the dissemination
(EELN 2021).
 Introducing harmonised
definitions and sanctions of
non-consensual sharing of
intimate images and
content at the EU level.
 Introducing harmonised
definitions and sanctions of
offences concerning non-
consensual sharing
regardless of the victim’s
initial consent or harm
inflicted on the victim.
Article 8
Cyber stalking
 Shortcomings with regard to
the constitutive elements of the
offence and/or additional
requirements (FI, ES).
 GREVIO has noted inadequate
guidance provided to criminal
justice professionals on how to
handle the complex nature of
stalking and avoid placing a
disproportionate weight on the
victims’ behavior (FI, MT,
NL).
 Introducing harmonised
definitions and sanctions of
offences concerning cyber
stalking at EU level.
Article 9
Cyber harassment
 A report commissioned by
Women’s Aid31
shows that
45% of women victims of
domestic violence reported
experiencing some form of
abuse online during their
relationship. 48% reported
harassment or abuse online
from their ex-partner after they
had left the relationship.
 Introducing harmonised
definitions and sanctions of
offences concerning cyber
harassment at EU level.
 Chapter III: Protection of victims and access to justice
Article 15
Reporting of
violence against
 Reporting acts of violence and
seeking assistance is
particularly problematic for
 Introducing rules on the way
victims can report criminal
offences to the competent
30
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12472-Violence-against-women-and-
domestic-violence-fitness-check-of-EU-legislation_en.
31
4. Laxton C. and Women’s Aid (2014), “Virtual World, Real Fear – Women’s Aid report into online abuse,
harassment and stalking”, available at https://1q7dqy2unor827bqjls0c4rn-wpengine.netdna-ssl. com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/Women_s_Aid_Virtual_World_Real_Fear_Feb_2014-3.pdf.
EN EN
women or
domestic violence
women with disabilities and
mothers of children with
disabilities (BE, FI, IT, MT,
NL, ES, SE). Response of law
enforcement is deeply
inadequate (EIGE contribution
to open public consultation;
FRA 2021).
 Several MS consider lack of
reporting as a serious problem
in addressing violence against
women and domestic violence
(Question 43 of the MS
targeted consultation (BE, BG,
CY, DE, IE, RO)).
 Reporting should be child-
friendly (interview with
Victim Support Europe). There
should be a possibility for
visits with family members
suspected of this kind of
violence to take place in a safe,
surveyed place and in the best
interest of the child (best
practice in ES, FI, DE and
MT).
 EU acquis does not include
obligations on reporting of
violence against women and
domestic violence. It does not
oblige MS to ensure reporting
by third parties, with the
exception of the Child Sexual
Abuse Directive32
.
 Underreporting affects victims
of sex-based harassment at
work, due to fear of career-
related retaliation, high
societal tolerance for sex-
based harassment, lack of
information on reporting
mechanisms, and lack of
awareness of employers
(European Equality Law
Review, Vol. 2, 2019, p. 19).
authorities: in an easy and
accessible manner, including
online or through other
information and
communications technologies,
including the possibility to
provide evidence concerning
offences of cyber violence.
 Confidentiality rules imposed
by national law on
professionals, such as
healthcare professionals and
teachers cannot constitute an
obstacle to reporting situation
where they have reasonable
grounds to believe that there is
an imminent risk of serious
harm.
 Child- friendly procedures for
children (safe, confidential,
designed and accessible in a
child-friendly manner and
language, age-appropriate and
corresponding to their level of
maturity).
Article 16
Investigation and
prosecution
 The CSA Directive provides
for protection of child victims
of sexual abuse and
 Ensured expertise for those
investigating and prosecuting
these crimes, including in the
32
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0093
EN EN
exploitation in the course of
criminal investigations and
proceedings. The Directive is
limited to this specific form of
violence.
 Absence of a harmonised
definition makes evidence
assessment in the online
environment and in cross-
border investigations
challenging (EPRS Study
“Combating gender-based
violence: Cyber violence”).
 Guidance to prosecutors on
how to approach and handle
cases of violence against
women and domestic violence
with regard also to the
difficulties in gathering and
assessing evidence would be
welcomed by many
stakeholders
 Only the CSA and Anti-
Trafficking Directives ensure
that prosecution is not
dependent on the cooperation
of the victim.
online sphere and reported
offences are processed and
transferred without delay to the
competent authorities for
investigation.
 Ensuring that competent
authorities promptly refer
victims to relevant health care
providers or support services.
Article 17
Individual
assessment to
identify victims’
protection needs
 Risk assessment protocols are
not sufficiently integrated with
other protection measures,
namely protection orders or
temporary restraining orders
(FR, NL).
 Introduction of a specific risk
assessment to this group of
victims to be conducted from
first contact with authorities.
 The assessment to contain an
assessment of the lethality risk
posed by the alleged
perpetrator on the victim and
dependents.
Article 18
Individual
assessment of
victims’ support
needs
 Individual assessments are not
performed in seven Member
States (CZ, BE, EE, LU, RO,
SI and SK).
 Lack of standardised
procedures (IT, MT).
 With regard to sex-based
harassment at work, few risk
assessments are carried out and
do not include psychosocial
risks (workshops with social
partners).
 Introducing individual
assessment to identify victims’
and dependents’ individual
support needs.
Article 19
Referral to
 Referral mechanisms in place
only for cases of domestic
 Obligatory referrals between
domestic authorities and non-
EN EN
support services violence (in particular FI, MT,
ES33
).
 Lack of effective multiagency
approach to the protection and
support of victims of domestic
violence (IT, DK, PT, SE).
 Inefficiencies in referrals to
support services (interview
with Victim Support Europe).
 Uneven implementation of the
existing multi-agency co-
ordination structures and
referral mechanisms at the
local level (FR, ES).
governmental organisations to
ensure that victims of all forms
of Violence against Women
and Domestic Violence are
immediately contacted by
support services.
 Referrals to cover also child
victims and child witnesses
without the prior consent of the
holder of parental
responsibility.
Article 20
Emergency
barring,
restraining and
protection orders
 Mutual recognition of
protection orders pursuant to
Directive 2011/99 or
Regulation 606/2013
insufficient (COM/2020/187).
 Lack of effective and
immediate protection after
reporting (AT, FE, DE, NL,
PL, PT).
 Lack of continuity between
emergency barring orders and
protection orders in the
protection afforded to victims
and lack monitoring and
analysis of protection orders
(ES, MT, IT, SE, NL).
 Member States to ensure that
competent authorities can issue
orders for the protection of
victims or their dependents in
situations of immediate danger.
 MS to ensure that competent
authorities can issue orders to
provide long-term protection
by prohibiting, restraining or
prescribing dangerous
behaviour of the offender.
 Minimum rules on the content
of the national orders facilitate
their mutual recognition in
cases where one of the parties
moves between MS.
Article 21
Protection of
victim’s private
life
 Gaps identified in the attitudes
and / or knowledge of the
judicial authorities and
demonstrated by the high rate
of secondary victimization34
.
 Protection from secondary
victimization through
limitations to unnecessary
questioning on sexual history
included in the Istanbul
Convention (explanatory
report, §§ 278-279).
 Evidence relating to the sexual
history and conduct of the
victim or their private life not
permitted unless strictly
relevant.
Article 22
Guidelines for
law enforcement
 Lack of prosecutorial
guidelines to encourage the
effective and appropriate
 MSs requested to introduce
guidelines for the competent
authorities acting in criminal
33
GREVIO contribution to the targeted consultation.
34
Women as victims of partner violence Justice for victims of violent crime Part IV, FRA (2019), available at:
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-justice-for-victims-of-violent-crime-part-4-
women_en.pdf.
EN EN
and judicial
authorities
prosecution of domestic
violence, (CY, IT, LV, MT;
EL and HU have police
guidelines).
 Gender-neutral guidelines on
domestic violence in all MS
parties to IC except of ES).
 Lack of prosecutorial
guidelines on FGM in all MS.
proceedings on how to address
all cases of violence against
women or domestic violence.
 These could include
information on specificities of
VAW /DV crime, as well as on
how to conduct targeted
individual assessments, avoid
secondary or repeat
victimisation and ensure that
victims are treated in a trauma-
and gender-sensitive manner
and referred to support
services.
Article 23
Role of national
bodies and
equality bodies
 National Equality Bodies can
deal with claims on cases of
sexual harassment but not with
claims on other forms of
Violence against Women and
Domestic Violence(BG, HR,
CY, CZ, DK, FI, FR, EL, HU,
IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, MT, NL,
PL, RO, SK, ES ).
 Certain equality bodies only
have a mandate to work in the
area of gender-based
harassment and sexual
harassment, which are
explicitly mentioned as forms
of discrimination in the EU
acquis, however, equality body
actions taken to prevent and
combat gender-based
harassment and sexual
harassment are also actions
contributing to preventing and
combating other forms of
violence against women
(EQUINET).
 If equality bodies had powers
to address gendered online
content, they should be
empowered to provide legal
advice to victims (83% of
respondents).
 National bodies to be
mandated to address all
forms of violence against
women and domestic
violence, in particular to
act on behalf or in support
of victims in criminal
proceedings, including for
the application for
compensation, with the
victims’ approval.
Article 24
Measures to
remove certain
online material
 Currently no specific measures
on gender-based cyber
violence in EU law ((EELN
2021).
 Art. 8(2) of the upcoming
 National authorities to request
removals of illegal gender-
based online content
(criminalised in Articles 5-7)
EN EN
Digital Services Act includes
provisions on orders to act
against illegal content from the
perspective of intermediary
service providers.
 Stakeholders note the need to
ensure redress and support to
individuals in cases of illegal
acts (Workshop on cyber
violence against women,
targeted consultations with
international organisations,
workshops with social
partners).
by addressing legal orders to
service providers.
 If the removal order cannot be
enforced, possibility for
domestic authorities to block
access to the illegal content
towards the internet users
within their territory.
 Removals and blocking of
content to be limited to what is
strictly necessary.
 Affected users to be informed
of the reason for the removal
or blocking and have access to
judicial redress.
Article 25
Compensation
from offenders
 Restrictive time limits to apply
for compensation from
perpetrators ((EELN 2021);
Milquet report ‘From
compensation to reparation’,
2019).
 Concerning state compensation
in a case of sexual violence,
the seriousness of the
consequences for the victims
of the crime committed is not
taken into account and the
fixed rate compensation does
not represent an appropriate
contribution to the reparation
of the harm suffered (IT;
CJEU C-129/19 - Presidenza
del Consiglio dei Ministri).
 Availability of full
compensation from offenders
(covering costs for healthcare,
support services, rehabilitation,
loss of income and other
reasonable costs).
 Availability of effective and
dissuasive compensation from
offenders for victims of all
forms of violence against
women or domestic violence in
the course of criminal
proceedings.
 Minimum standards for the
limitation period for bringing a
claim for compensation (5
years and 10 years for sexual
violence).
Chapter IV: Victim support
Article 26
Specialist support
to victims
 Inadequate number and/or
distribution of specialist
services (BE, DK, FI, FR, DK,
IT, MT, DK, SE).
 In most MS, specialist support
is only available for victims of
domestic violence.
 Specialist support services for
victims of other forms of
violence such as sexual
violence, FGM and sexual
harassment are, if at all,
available in a much lower
 Victims of all forms of violence
against women and domestic
violence to have access to
specialist support services.
 Victims of cyber violence
against women to receive
targeted support, such as
receiving legal advice on how to
remove illegal online content
and stalkerware.
EN EN
number (AT, BE, FR, MT, PT,
ES).
 Specialist support services do
not cater for the needs of
specific groups of victims (AT,
BE, IT, PT, SE).
 In the majority of the MS,
measures tackling specifically
cyber harassment are lacking
(AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ,
DK, EE, FI,DE,GR, HU, IR,
IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT,
RO, SK, SL, ES, SE).
Article 27
Specialist support
for victims of
sexual violence
 Lack of standardised protocols
and guidelines that set clear
procedures in the provision of
treatment and care to victims
of sexual violence (in
particular MT, ES, NL).
 The number of rape crisis
centres and/or sexual violence
referral centres are insufficient
to ensure proper coverage and
easy access by victims of
sexual violence (AT, BE, FR,
IT, NL, PT, ES, SE).
 Effective support to victims of
sexual violence through rape
crisis or sexual violence
referral centres.
 Covers gaps in several
Member States by ensuring
that rape crisis and sexual
violence referral centres are
appropriately equipped, free of
charge and easily accessible
every day of the week, and
ensure the preservation and
documentation of evidence.
Article 28
Specialist support
for victims of
female genital
mutilation
 Different agencies providing
support to victims of FGM do
not cooperate (EL, LV, RO);
open public consultation 2021.
 Multi-agency cooperation to
be strengthened to ensure
coordinated cooperation
between the actors in charge of
prevention, protection and
support services to tackle
harmful practices against
women in 14 MS (OPC 2021);
 Lack of awareness of FGM
and lack of cultural sensitivity
among health professionals,
insufficient information on
available support, insufficient
access or insurance coverage
of reconstructive surgery,
insufficient services for
children, youth and migrants
and insufficient funding
identified as challenges in the
EU (End FGM position paper).
 Member States to ensure
support to victims of FGM,
including gynaecological,
sexological, psychological and
trauma care and counselling
tailored to the specific needs of
such victims.
 Provision of information on
public hospital units where
reconstructive surgery is
performed.
 Support service provision to be
covered in further detail in the
upcoming Recommendation on
harmful practices.
EN EN
Article 29
Specialist support
for victims of
sexual
harassment at
work
 Social partners highlight that
very few risk assessments are
carried out and when they are,
they do not include
psychosocial risks (targeted
consultation workshops).
 Gaps identified in protection,
support and prevention of sex-
based harassment (EELN
2021).
 Victims of sexual harassment
at work to be provided
effective access to gender-
responsive, safe and effective
complaint and dispute
resolution mechanisms,
support and dedicated
remedies, including through
services external to the
workplace.
 Relevant national inspection
bodies, or other relevant
authorities to inspect and
investigate cases of sexual
harassment at work.
 This can include the
suspension of work activities
of the victim and/or offender.
Article 31
Shelters and other
interim
accommodations
 Insufficient availability of
shelters to victims of violence
against women and domestic
violence (all MS reviewed by
GREVIO according to
GREVIO contribution to the
targeted consultation).
 Barriers in accessing shelters
for women whose children
include boys above a certain
age (AT, BE, PT), or children,
or to women from certain risk
backgrounds (GREVIO
contribution to the targeted
consultation).
 Access to shelters and other
interim accommodation to be
ensured to victims of violence
against women and domestic
violence regardless of
nationality, citizenship, place
of residence or residence
status.
 Shelters to address the specific
needs of women victims and
assist them in their recovery,
providing adequate and
appropriate living conditions
with a view on a return to
independent living.
 Shelters or interim
accommodations shall be
equipped to accommodate the
specific needs of children,
including child victims.
Article 32
Support for child
victims
 Shortcomings identified in the
provision of specialist support
services catered to the needs of
children and women
experiencing intersectional
discrimination (AT, BE, IT,
PT, SE).
 Risk assessments are not
carried out for children
experiencing domestic
 Children to be provided
adequate protection and
specialised and age-appropriate
support as soon as the
competent authorities have
reasonable grounds to believe
that they might have been
subject to or witnessed
violence against women and
domestic violence.
EN EN
violence (in particular IT, RO).  Children in need of temporary
accommodation to be placed in
permanent or temporary
housing. Placement in shelters
to be a last resort.
 Provision of support services
to be conducted in a child-
friendly manner.
Article 33
Safety of children
 Lack of awareness among
professionals (social workers,
legal and health professionals,
and psychologists) of the
harmful effects of witnessing
domestic violence on children.
Barriers in access to age-
appropriate support services
paying due regard to the best
interests of the child (including
in FR, IT).
 Lack of necessary
resources/infrastructure to
ensure safe supervised
visitation. Meeting spaces
more equipped to deal with
conflictual relationships than
cases involving violence (FR,
MT).
 Lack of sufficiently trained
personnel for supervised
visitation (AT, MT, ES).
 Establishment of safe places to
organise possible contact
between a child and its parent
offender of violence against
women or domestic violence
who has a right of access,
where needed under
supervision by trained
professionals.
Article 34
Targeted support
for victims at an
increased risk of
violence
 Limited support available for
migrant and asylum seeking
women to report violence or
access services (BE, DK, IT,
MT, NL, ES, SE).
 Inaccessibility of police
premises for women with
disabilities / mothers of
children with disabilities (BE,
FR, IT, PT).
 Barriers in accessing safe
accommodation for victims
belonging to vulnerable groups
such as women with
disabilities or older women. In
AT, PT, women with mental
health issues are not admitted
to shelters.
 Exclusion of migrant and
 Specific protection and support
to victims with specific needs,
such as women with
disabilities, women with
dependant residence status or
permit, women affected by
homelessness, with a minority
racial or ethnic background,
living in rural areas, women
sex workers, detainees, and
older women.
 Possibility to report
occurrences of violence against
women or domestic violence in
reception and detention centres
to the relevant staff.
 Support services available for
third-country national victims
of violence against women and
EN EN
asylum-seeking women from
sheltered accommodation (AT,
BE - with regards to women
present in the country
unlawfully, who have no
income and no entitlement to
public assistance – FR, PT, ES,
MT – indirectly).
domestic violence, including
for applicants of international
protection and for persons
subject to return procedures in
detention centres.
Chapter V: Prevention
Article 35
Preventive
measures
 Lack of awareness-raising
initiatives to tackle underlying
patriarchal and stereotypical
attitudes (BE, IT, NL, PT).
 Insufficient teaching material
on issues such as equality
between women and men,
gender roles, etc. (FI, IT, MT,
SE).
 Prevention strategies and
awareness raising campaigns
are limited to domestic
violence (BG, HU).
 Absence of sustained and long-
term efforts to raise awareness
through regular and long term
awareness-raising campaigns
and activities to help all
members of society recognise
violence against women and
support its victims (including
in AT, BE, FI, MT).
 Campaigns are limited in
geographic scope instead of
being implemented at all levels
of the state (i.e., national,
regional, local) (BE, DK, FI,
IT, PT).
 All Member States, including
the 6 Member States which did
not ratify the Istanbul
Convention to develop
awareness-raising campaigns,
research and education
programmes, on all forms of
violence against women and
domestic violence, including
sexual harassment at work with
the aim to challenging harmful
gender stereotypes and
promoting equality between
women and men.
 This will include targeted
action addressed to groups at
risk, including children.
Article 36
Training and
information for
professionals
 Lack of initial and in-service
trainings for professionals and
lack of guidelines based on a
gendered understanding of
violence against women and
domestic violence (AT, BE,
DK, FI, FR, IT, MT, NL, PT,
ES, SE).
 Lack of training of social
workers and relevant court
appointed professionals (FR,
IT, MT, PT)
 Need to expand training on
 Professionals likely to come
into contact with victims to
receive training and targeted
information to identify cases of
violence against women or
domestic violence and to treat
victims in a gender- and
trauma-sensitive manner and to
facilitate reporting.
EN EN
different manifestations of
violence against women, their
detection and root causes (AT,
BE, FI, FR, IT, MT, PT)
 Insufficient training or lack of
sensitivity of professionals
involved in providing medical
care and forensic examinations
in the area of sexual violence
(IT, MT, NL )
Article 37
Intervention
programmes
 Intervention Programmes are
insufficiently available or the
attendance by perpetrators of
domestic violence is very low
(DK, IT, PT, AT, FI, MT, NL).
 Referrals to perpetrator
programmes are not integrated
into the criminal justice system
as a tool to reduce recidivism
(FI, MT, NL).
 Effective intervention
programmes to be established
to prevent and minimise the
risk of committing offences of
violence against women or
domestic violence, or
reoffending.
Chapter VI: Coordination and cooperation
Article 38
Coordinated
policies and
coordinating
body
 Member States who did not
ratify the Istanbul Convention
did not set up a national
coordination mechanism for
violence against women and
domestic violence (CZ, SK,
BG, HU, LV, LT).
 All Member States to establish
or maintain comprehensive and
co-ordinated policies approach
to prevent and combat all
forms of violence against
women and domestic violence.
 Member States to ensure the
monitoring and policies
evaluation including a
coordinated collection of data
at central, regional and local
levels.
Article 39
Multi-agency
coordination and
cooperation
 Multiagency cooperation
limited to cases of domestic
violence (FI, MT,ES)
 Lack of effective co-operation
and multiagency approach to
the protection and support of
victims in the area of domestic
violence (IT, DK, PT, SE).
 Appropriate mechanisms to
ensure effective coordination
and cooperation at the national
level between all relevant
authorities, agencies and
bodies, including local and
regional authorities, law
enforcement agencies, the
judiciary, public prosecutors,
support service providers as
well as non-governmental
organisations, social services,
including child protection or
welfare authorities, education
and healthcare providers,
EN EN
social partners - without
prejudice to their autonomy,
and other relevant
organisations and entities.
Article 40
Cooperation with
non-
governmental
organisations
 Insufficient involvement of
stakeholders, in particular
women’s support services and
women’s non-governmental
organisations in the design and
implementation of awareness-
raising campaigns and lack of
financial support and to give
them the financial means to do
so (DK, FI, FR, IT, MT, ES).
 Enhanced cooperation among
Member States and civil
society organisations working
with victims of violence
against women and domestic
violence. The cooperation to
cover support to victims,
policymaking initiatives,
information and awareness-
raising campaigns, research
and education programmes and
training, as well as monitoring
and evaluating the impact of
measures to support and
protect victims.
Article 42
Union level
cooperation
 The Commission organises
Mutual Learning Seminars on
Gender Equality and
exchanges information with
Member States and
stakeholders through the High-
Level Group on Gender
Equality and Advisory
Committee on Gender
Equality.
 No specific coordination
structure on violence against
women and domestic violence
exists at EU level.
 Member States to cooperate to
improve the implementation of
EU and national law on
violence against women and
domestic violence by:
- exchanging best
practices and
consulting each
other in individual
cases;
- exchanging
information and
best practices with
relevant European
agencies;
- providing
assistance to
European networks
working on
relevant matters.
Article 43
Data collection
and research
 Justice sector authorities do
not collect sex disaggregated
data on victims/perpetrators of
violence against women (BE,
DK, MT, NL).
 Several Member States do not
collect and transmit relevant
administrative data from one
 Administrative data on
violence against women and
domestic violence to be
collected and published
regularly, including data
disaggregated at least by sex,
age of the victim and of the
offender, relationship between
EN EN
public body to another (AT,
BE, DK, FI, FR, IT, MT, SE).
 The difficulties in collecting
data were noted by several
MS, international
organisations and non-
governmental organisations in
the targeted consultations.
 Lack of availability and
regular collection of
comparable EU-wide
administrative data.
 The only available,
comparable survey data at the
EU level is the FRA survey
from 2014. Currently, Eurostat
is coordinating the follow-up
survey on gender-based
violence and other forms of
interpersonal violence.
Member State participation is
voluntary.
the victim and the offender and
type of offence.
 Population-based EU-wide
survey to be conducted
regularly to assess the
prevalence of and trends in all
forms of violence against
women and domestic violence.
EN EN
ANNEX 2 TABLES ON COSTS AND BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE OI-
OO VIEW
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Reduction in costs of
violence against women and
domestic violence
(Lost economic output)
Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 8.1
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after
implementation and EUR 12.2 billion in the
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.
These reductions in costs would accrue to
individual victims of violence against
women and domestic violence as a result
of a reduction in lost earnings and
productivity due to lower prevalence of
GBV.
Reduction in costs of
violence against women and
domestic violence
(Health services)
Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 2.5
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after
implementation and EUR 3.8 billion in the
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.
These reduction in costs would accrue to
national authorities as a result of a
reduction in healthcare costs due to lower
prevalence of violence against women and
domestic violence and hence, cases that
require services/treatment.
Reduction in costs of
violence against women and
domestic violence
(Criminal justice system)
Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 7.2
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after
implementation and EUR 13.7 billion in the
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.
This reduction is proportionally lower than in
the other categories as it takes into account an
increase workload and therefore costs for
implementing the measures.
These reductions in costs would accrue to
national authorities as a result of a
reduction in criminal justice system costs
due to lower prevalence of violence against
women and domestic violence.
Reduction in costs of
violence against women and
domestic violence
(Civil justice system)
Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 0.2
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after
implementation and EUR 0.4 billion in the
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.
This reduction is proportionally lower than in
the other categories as it takes into account an
increase workload and therefore costs for
implementing the measures.
These reductions in costs would accrue to
national authorities as a result of a
reduction in civil justice system costs due
to lower prevalence of violence against
women and domestic violence.
Reduction in costs of
violence against women and
domestic violence
(Social welfare)
Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 2.1
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after
implementation and EUR 3.1 billion in the
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.
These reductions in costs would accrue to
national authorities as a result of a
reduction in social welfare costs due to
lower prevalence of violence against
women and domestic violence
Reduction in costs of
Gender-based violence
(Personal costs)
Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 0.6
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after
implementation and EUR 1.0 billion in the
These reductions in costs would accrue to
individual victims of violence against
women and domestic violence as a result
EN EN
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation. of a reduction in personal costs due to
lower prevalence of violence against
women and domestic violence.
Reduction in costs of
Gender-based violence
(Physical/emotional
impacts)
Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 32.2
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after
implementation and EUR 48.4 billion in the
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.
These reductions in costs would accrue to
individual victims of violence against
women and domestic violence as a result
of a reduction in physical and emotional
harms of crime due to lower prevalence of
violence against women and domestic
violence.
Indirect benefits
None estimated
Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach*
NA – administrative costs are negligible
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
PREFERRED
OPTION (Costs
per measure are
presented in the
table below)
Direct
adjustment
costs
n/a n/a n/a 1.89
billion
16.3 million 4.9 – 6.5 billion
Direct
administrative
costs
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach
Total
Direct
adjustment
costs
n/a n/a n/a 1.89
billion
Indirect
adjustment
costs
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Administrative
costs (for
offsetting)
n/a n/a n/a n/a
EN EN
EN EN
II. Overview of direct costs of the preferred option
Measure Recurring One-off
Minimum Maximum
1.1 Awareness-raising, provision of information
and training of professionals
€29,862,000 €34,403,000 €1,816,000
1.2 OVAW - Self-regulatory standards negligible negligible negligible
1.4 Work with perpetrators €134,000 €134,000 0
2.1 Protection orders, emergency barring orders €3,696,000 €25,175,000 0
2.2 Violence reporting and transmission of
personal data between services
negligible negligible negligible
2.3 Special measures for the protection of
children in the context of domestic violence
€718,971,000 €1,942,604,000 0
2.4 Risk assessment and management €46,855,000 €46,855,000 0
3.1 Criminalisation n/a n/a n/a
3.2 Measures against illegal gender-based
content online
€326,459,000 €326,459,000 0
3.3 National coordination €2,027,000 €2,027,000 0
4.1 Specialised support €117,643,000 €117,643,000 0
4.2 Support to victims of OVAW €1,159,566,000 €1,159,566,000 0
4.3 Support to victims of gender-based work
harassment
€627,091,000 € 627,091,000 0
4.4 Shelters €20,486,000 €379,746,000 €12,630,000
4.5 Helplines €461,000 €4,656,000 € 946,000
4.7 Coordination of measures against gender-
based work harassment
n/a n/a n/a
5.1 Monitoring, incl. data collection €20,769,000 €20,769,000 €152,000
5.2 One-stop-shop information access €357,000 €357,000 n/a
(Cost for employers)
1.3 Specific prevention measures against gender-
based work harassment
€1,893,919,000 €1,893,919,000 €605,000
Total costs for preferred policy option €4,968,296,000 €6,581,404,000 €16,149,000