With a final trilogue expected on 10 December, the European institutions are in the home stretch of negotiations on the revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive (see EUROPE 13221/17). A technical interinstitutional meeting, on Wednesday 19 November, will attempt to reconcile the positions of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the provisions still under discussion.
According to the preparatory documents consulted by Agence Europe, Articles 5a, 13, 17, 22, 23, 26a and 26b were still on the table.
These same matters had been examined the day before by the Parliament’s political groups at a meeting of shadow rapporteurs.
Article 5a on reporting offences is one of the main points of divergence. The compromise proposed by the Presidency of the EU Council provides for victims to be able to report offences through accessible channels, including online for certain non-urgent and non-violent cases, “where this is in the interests of the victim”.
Cooperation with civil society organisations for reporting by third parties (line 52a), the possibility for third-country nationals to report an offence without fear of consequences linked to residence status (line 55) and mechanisms for reporting offences committed by public officials (line 55b) are also matters that need to be clarified.
As far as online reporting is concerned, Member States are more in favour of the compromise wording, subject to slight technical adjustments, while the Parliament wants to secure a certain balance between accessibility and the effectiveness of investigations.
With regard to reporting by NGOs, the political groups are expected to agree to drop the verb ‘establish’ to avoid imposing too onerous an obligation, while looking for a more precise term than ‘facilitate’.
Finally, with regard to victims residing illegally, the co-legislators still disagree on the explicit mention of return rules, which several Member States consider inappropriate. In their view, this would create a hierarchy between the Victims’ Rights Directive and existing migration rules, and could interfere with ongoing negotiations on the Returns Directive.
Another major problem concerns Article 22, relating to the individual assessment of victims. The Parliament has identified the reference to “national procedures” as a point for discussion, while the Council supports it. The preparatory meeting also suggested a need to improve coordination with victim support services throughout the assessment process.
The possibility of including or not including irregular migrants in the list of particularly vulnerable victims (line 120), exceptions to protection measures (Article 23), data sharing (Article 26a) and the use of communication technologies for the exercise of procedural rights (Article 26b) were also on the agenda.
The meeting of the shadow rapporteurs on 18 November focused on defining several political priorities with a view to the trilogue: the right to protection of privacy (Article 21(3)), the right to review (Article 10b) and the new recital on access to sexual and reproductive health care. (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)