Member States must grant compensation to any victim of a violent intentional crime committed on their territory, regardless of his or her residence. This was the conclusion of Advocate General Michal Bobek in his Opinion in Case C-129/19 on Thursday 14 May.
The Italian Court of Cassation was asked to give a final ruling in the case of Ms BV, a victim of sexual violence committed in 2005 in Italy who was unable to receive compensation because her attackers had fled, and asked the EU Court of Justice whether Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims obliges each Member State to establish a national compensation scheme applicable to victims only in cross-border situations or to all victims of violent intentional crime committed on its territory.
In his conclusions, Mr Bobek considers that the Directive imposes two different obligations on Member States: to establish a system of cooperation to facilitate access to compensation in cross-border situations and to establish a national compensation scheme triggered by any intentional violent crime committed in their respective territories.
According to the text of the Directive, a cross-border situation exists when a violent intentional crime has been committed in a Member State other than the one where the victim resides. However, there are situations not openly mentioned in the Directive, in which it is the offender, and not the victim, who has made use of his or her freedom of movement. It is precisely in these situations that the perpetrator can easily flee by simply returning to his or her country. Consequently, it would, in the Advocate General's view, be unjustified to exclude such cases from the scope of the Directive.
Mr Bobek also rejects the European Commission's argument that the EU Council wanted to maintain the rules on compensation for victims in internal situations outside the scope of the directive. In his view, no such clear intention can be identified either in the text of the Directive or in its preparatory work. Thus, the subjective will of the historical legislator, which is not clearly expressed anywhere in the legislation finally adopted, cannot be considered decisive, he concludes.
The Italian Court of Cassation also asked whether compensation for victims of sexual violence, set by Italian law at a lump sum of €4,800, is "fair and appropriate" within the meaning of the Directive.
On this point, the Advocate General replies that compensation is in conformity with the Directive where it makes a significant contribution to the compensation of the damage suffered by the victim. In particular, the amount of compensation granted cannot be so small that it becomes purely symbolic, he says. On the other hand, in his view, there is nothing to prevent Member States from determining compensation in the form of a lump sum or a standardised amount.
See the conclusions: https://bit.ly/2AsG3hi (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)