EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 8.3.2022

SWD(2022) 62 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

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) 61 final} - {SWD(2022) 63 final}

Contents

1.    Introduction: Political and legal context    

2.    Problem definition    

2.1.    What are the problems?    

2.1.1    Scope    

2.1.2 Problem description    

2.1.3.    Who is affected?    

2.1.4.    Why is violence against women and domestic violence a problem?    

2.2.    What are the drivers?    

2.2.1    Structural gender inequality and gender stereotypes    

2.2.2.    Failure to recognise the specificities of crimes and offences relating to violence against women and domestic violence    

2.3.    How will the problem evolve?    

3.    Why should the EU act?    

3.1.    Legal basis    

3.2.    Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action    

3.3.    Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action    

4.    Objectives: What is to be achieved?    

4.1.    General objectives    

4.2.    Specific objectives    

5.    What are the available policy options?    

5.1.    What is the baseline from which options are assessed?    

5.1.1.    Dynamic baseline: EU level measures    

5.1.2    Dynamic baseline: Member States measures    

5.2.    Options discarded at an early stage    

5.3.    Description of the policy options    

6.    What are the impacts of the policy options?    

6.1.    Fundamental rights    

6.2.    Social impacts    

6.3.    Economic impact    

6.3.1    Estimated benefits: reduction of costs of violence    

6.3.2    Administrative and compliance costs for Member States and employers    

6.3.3    Summary of costs and economic benefits    

7.    How do the options compare?    

7.1.    Effectiveness    

7.2.    Efficiency    

7.3.    Coherence    

7.4.    Preferred option    

8.    How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?    

Glossary

1.1.    Introduction: Political and legal context

Violence against women and domestic violence are widespread across the European Union and worldwide. When taking office, Commission President von der Leyen announced that the EU should do all it can to prevent violence against women and domestic violence, protect victims and punish offenders. 1  The EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 2  announces key actions for preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence in Europe and, in particular, a legislative proposal tackling such violence. The need to tackle violence against women and domestic violence also figures prominently in the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child (2021-2024) 3 , the EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights (2020-2025) 4 , the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025 5 , and the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030 6 . The Gender Action Plan III 7 makes the fight against gender-based violence one of the priorities of the Union’s external action. Gender equality is also the second principle of the European Pillar of Social Rights 8 , which aims to ensure and foster equality of treatment and opportunities between women and men in all areas.

At international level, measures to counter violence against women and domestic violence have been called for since the 1990s, including in the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (‘CEDAW’). The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (‘Istanbul Convention’) is the first instrument in Europe to set binding standards on the matter. While all Member States have signed the Convention, to date, 21 Member States have become parties to it. 9  This means that the remaining six Member States are not bound by the Convention’s standards.

The Commission proposed in 2016 the EU’s accession to the Convention 10 , but this proposal has not yet been adopted by the Council and the accession negotiations have been blocked for several years. The EU’s accession is opposed by the six Member States that have not ratified the Convention due to a political backlash against it, which is partly caused by misunderstandings of certain provisions and exacerbated by disinformation campaigns. 11  On 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its opinion on the EU accession to the Istanbul Convention. 12 The CJEU clarified that the EU can accede to the Convention even if not all Member States have ratified it, but grants the Council discretion to wait with a vote until consensus has been reached. It is therefore not possible to predict when the EU’s accession to the Istanbul Convention might take place, and how many Member States would eventually ratify the Convention. While finalisation of the EU’s accession to the Convention remains a key priority for the Commission, the measures of the present initiative are aimed at achieving the objectives of the Convention within the areas of EU competence until such accession has taken place. Once the EU accedes to the Convention, this initiative will implement its provisions within such areas.

This initiative builds on the Istanbul Convention and the Commission’s continued commitment to finalising the EU’s accession. To reach the objectives of the Istanbul Convention in the areas of EU competence, this initiative aims to fill in the gaps identified in the EU acquis in the areas covered by the Convention. It aims at setting up minimum standards concerning the rights of this group of crime victims, binding on the Member States and enforceable by the Commission. This initiative also takes into account recent developments such as the digital transformation and lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The European Parliament has repeatedly called on the Commission to propose legislation on violence against women and domestic violence. 13  In January 2021, it underlined the need for measures to address the disparities in laws and policies between Member States and called for an EU framework directive on the matter. 14 The Parliament has adopted two own-initiative reports, on adding gender-based violence as a new Euro-crime 15 and on combatting gender–based cyber violence. 16  

2.2.    Problem definition

2.1.    What are the problems?

2.1.1Scope

This initiative covers violence against women, and domestic violence against any person. This corresponds to the scope of the Istanbul Convention. Violence against women and domestic violence are commonly addressed together both in the Member States and at international level. This is due to their common features, as explained in detail under section 2.1.2 below.

The key concepts used in this Impact Assessment follow established international definitions, which have been incorporated in the 21 Member States’ national laws, in order to ensure consistency once the EU accession to the Istanbul Convention takes place. Violence against women hence covers all acts of gender-based violence resulting in, or likely to result in, or threatening physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, irrespective of whether they occur in public or in private. 17 The term gender-based violence is commonly used to highlight the dynamics and drivers behind this type of violence. The terms gender-based violence and violence against women are often used interchangeably, as most violence against women is inflicted due to their gender. This Impact Assessment follows the approach of the Istanbul Convention and uses the term ‘violence against women’.

Domestic violence occurs within the household either between intimate partners (intimate-partner violence) or between other household members, including inter-generationally between parents and children. Thus, domestic violence covers not only women, but any person living in the household, including men, older people, same-sex partners, non-binary persons 18 , and children.

Most forms of violence against women and domestic violence are criminal acts 19  under national law and such violence, when targeted at women, is a form of sex-based discrimination. 

In order to meet the objective of the Istanbul Convention effectively, this initiative takes into account the fast pace of the current digital transformation; it further deals with cyber-violence and sexual harassment, in particular at work. Although such types of violence are not explicitly covered by the Istanbul Convention, cyber violence against women and intimate partner cyber violence have become increasingly common in recent years. 20  Cyber violence against women refers to online content or activity which targets the victim because she is a woman or targets women victims disproportionately. 21 Cyber violence can also be perpetrated between current or former intimate partners. 22  Cyber violence can take a variety of forms, ranging from cyber stalking and non-consensual sharing of private and intimate images or personal data to sexual cyber harassment. 23  Experiences of online and offline violence are often interlinked. Cyber violence against women is a part of the continuum of the violence victims experience offline. Sexual harassment is included as it is currently covered by a number of gender equality directives which have proven not to be effective in preventing and combatting this type of violence against women (see gap analysis, Annex 8).

Violence against women and girls is a specific phenomenon in that its drivers are different from other types of violence (see section 2.2 below). Gender-based violence may affect both women and men, but women are disproportionately affected (see section 2.1.3. ‘Who is affected’ for details). This is the case in particular for sexual violence. 24  Violence against women is rooted in structural inequalities between women and men and is the manifestation of historically unequal power relations, which have led to discrimination against women. 25 Violence against women is often driven by misogyny. As explained in more detail in section 2.2.2, violence against women entails certain specificities, such as taking place in the private sphere, suffering from systemic under-reporting, disrupted criminal proceedings, the commonly sexual nature of crimes and/or a high prevalence of elements of coercive control. 26  These elements are different compared to most violence experienced by men. For instance, violence against men usually occurs in public settings, is not usually of a sexual nature, and is generally perpetrated by other men. 27  Men are also frequently victims of other types of violence, but are much less often victims of violence targeting them because of their gender. 28  Also the consequences of violence against women include specificities, especially in regard to social consequences, which requires targeted action. Violence against women negatively impacts the physical health of the victims. Sexual violence exposes women to sexually-transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies, abortions and miscarriages, and lowers women’s control over their reproductive health. 29 Violence against women and domestic violence also increase the probability of mental health problems, 30 linking to higher rates of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicidal ideation. 31  In light of the above, the scope of the initiative focuses on violence against women, as this manifestation of structural gender inequality with its specific consequences requires a targeted approach, but includes, in relation to domestic violence, also men. Male victims of other types of violence than domestic violence are covered under the Victims’ Rights Directive that is applicable to all victims of crime and the Gender Equality Directives as regards harassment.

Violence on the basis of other grounds of discrimination than sex is not part of the primary scope of the current initiative. This does not mean that such violence does not merit addressing. However, as set out above the dynamics and consequences of violence against women and domestic violence require a specific approach. 32  Nevertheless, special measures address the intersection of sex with other grounds of discrimination included in the Treaties, such as racial or ethnic origin, disability, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation. Also, the provisions regarding domestic violence include victims of such violence in all their diversity, including non-binary people. Specific measures to tackle violence and discrimination based on other grounds than sex are included in relevant sectoral EU initiatives and legislation. 33  However, while this initiative would oblige Member States to implement minimum standards concerning violence against women only in relation to this group of victims, Member States would be encouraged to extend all measures to men and non-binary people.

2.1.2 Problem description

a)High prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence in the EU

Violence against women and domestic violence are widespread across the EU. Their prevalence and scale have been examined most comprehensively in the 2014 survey on violence against women 34 of the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union (FRA), and confirmed in multiple studies and surveys carried out since then. 35 These include the recent FRA survey on crime victims published in February 2021 36 and administrative data gathered by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) from national authorities. 37  

According to the 2014 FRA survey, one woman in three aged 15 or above reported having experienced some form of physical and/or sexual violence in the EU. One in 10 women reported having been victim to some form of sexual violence, and one in 20 had been raped. Just over one in five women have suffered physical and/or sexual violence from either a current or previous partner, whilst 43% of women have experienced some form of psychologically abusive and/or controlling behaviour when in a relationship. While both women and men experience cyber violence and harassment, women are overrepresented among victims of cyber violence perpetrated based on the victim’s sex, in particular sexual forms of cyber violence. 38 In addition, women and girls more often report serious and disturbing forms of such violence, and report feeling more vulnerable after such violence and more harshly judged as victims. 39 Usage of the internet and social media increases the risk of cyber violence. 40 In a global 2017 survey on online abuse in eight countries, on average 23% of women reported having experienced abuse or harassment online. 41 The 2014 FRA survey suggested that 20% of women aged 18–29 years old had experienced cyber violence since the age of 15. 42 In 2020, the World Wide Web Foundation found that 52% of young women were affected and over 80% were of the opinion the phenomenon was increasing. 43 In a recent study, more than 50% of all respondents replied they did not dare express political opinions due to fear of online targeting. 44 Data from 2017 illustrate that 70% of women victims of cyber stalking also experienced at least one form of physical or/and sexual violence from an intimate partner (see section 2.1.1 above). 45 Experiences of online and offline violence are often interlinked, showing that it is important to tackle them together.

Women also experience violence at work. About a third of women who have faced sexual harassment in the EU experienced it at work. According to the FRA survey, 32% of perpetrators of sexual harassment faced by women since they were 15 were from the employment context such as colleagues, supervisors or clients. 46  When asked whether the perpetrator of sexual harassment was male or female, 71% of victims indicated that the perpetrator of an incident since the age of 15 was a man, 2% indicated a female perpetrator and 21% pointed to both male and female harassers. The results reflect that, although the sex of many perpetrators is unknown because of the nature of harassment – such as through the internet – this form of violence against women is perpetrated mostly by men. 47  

The administrative data collected by EIGE shows that the prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence may be estimated at 21.2% (2019 figures), i.e. one in five women in the EU experienced violence against women or domestic violence. This figure is based on administrative data and only includes acts reported to the authorities. The severity, i.e. the percentage of women who experienced health consequences of physical and/or sexual violence, was estimated at 46.9%. The rate of disclosure to anyone of this kind of violence was estimated at 14.3%. It follows that almost half of these incidences cause health consequences for the victims but less than one in seven of them is reported.

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, violence against women and children, particularly domestic violence, has increased. 48 Stakeholders noted an increase in contact to helplines for victims of violence against women and domestic violence during the pandemic; an increase in the demand for specialised support services (emergency accommodation, counselling services); an increase of reports to law enforcement and in numbers of emergency protection orders issued in cases of such violence, while support services were required to reduce or temporarily stop work; an increase in risk factors for violence due to the pandemic (e.g. isolation, stress, working from home), coupled with a decrease in accessibility of victim support. Even if measures were taken to address this rise in violence, many victims were not in a position to look for help. This was often because victims were forbidden from leaving their homes, but also subject to technological control such as webcams, smart locks or a control via social media. 49 Pending the end of the pandemic and the full manifestation of its social and economic consequences, it is still unclear whether this increase in incidence is temporary (e.g. an increase in intensity) or indicative of a trend. Although both the EU and its Member States, have taken measures to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence, significant gaps remain, both at the level of legislation and its implementation.

b)Gaps at national level

The studies carried out in support of this impact assessment 50 show the fragmentation of the national regulatory frameworks. The heterogeneity of the existing measures correlates with different legal, historical and political traditions of the Member States. Standards of protection vary significantly between the Member States and the rights of victims of violence against women and domestic violence are not always enforced in practice. This leads to unequal protection depending on where in the EU violence against women and domestic violence is experienced. It is also problematic in situations where the victim moves or otherwise exercises their right to free movement in the EU. The gap analysis in Annex 8 provides a detailed assessment of gaps in the relevant EU and national legislation as well as the shortcomings in its implementation. The main gaps at national level are presented below, structured into the five problem areas which have been identified as relevant by the Istanbul Convention: prevention, protection, access to justice, victim support and policy coordination. Gaps at EU-level are set out in section c) below.

(1)Ineffective prevention of violence

All Member States have introduced prevention measures. In response to the targeted consultation, 23 Member States reported having organised awareness raising campaigns 51 on violence against women and/or domestic violence. This is supported by the public consultation. In-country research, however, highlights a number of shortcomings with the existing campaigns, namely that they do not reach target groups meaningfully, with little emphasis on the right to be protected against violence against women and domestic violence. The Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (‘GREVIO’) has also noted challenges related to awareness-raising programmes. 52 Although there are some good measures in place, they tend to focus on domestic violence, are too short-term and do not sufficiently target the problem of intersectionality. According to the gap analysis (see Annex 8), there is also a lack of awareness-raising initiatives to tackle underlying stereotypical attitudes (BE, IT, NL, PT) 53 as well as insufficient teaching material on gender equality (FI, IT, MT, SE) 54 .

Training is important to increase professionals’ skills to recognise victims. While general training is widely available to professionals, 55  targeted violence against women and domestic violence trainings, particularly concerning the interactions of police and judicial authorities with victims, are lacking. Moreover, trainings are not compulsory in most Member States for several categories of professionals. They are also not institutionalised and not available in the same manner and frequency for all categories. While police, judges, lawyers, and prosecutors are the most likely to receive training, few Member States provide other personnel in public administration who come into contact with victims with training. 56  Lack of training of social workers and relevant court appointed professionals has been identified as insufficient in some Member States (FR, IT, MT, PT). 57 Many Member States have insufficient initial and in-service trainings 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 58 ). Staff of relevant services should likewise be aware of the effects of domestic violence on children, including of witnessing domestic violence (FR, IT).

Work with perpetrators to prevent re-offending, as well as with men and boys at risk of offending, has a positive impact on combating violence against women and domestic violence. 59  While all but one Member State (HU) have set up support programmes for perpetrators of violence against women and domestic violence, these programmes are often not structured, primarily targeting domestic violence and not always compulsory. 60  In many Member States, programmes for perpetrators are not sufficiently available or suffer from low attendance (DK, IT, PT, AT, FI, MT, NL). 61

Regarding sexual harassment at work, the gap analysis identified shortcomings in the effectiveness of the implementation of the Gender Equality Directives, 62 which require Member States to take measures to prevent all forms of sex-based discrimination in the areas of employment and access to and supply of goods and services. 63 They however do not contain explicit provisions on preventing such harassment. Gaps identified in the Member States include insufficient knowledge of the issue by relevant professionals. 64 EU law does not include explicit obligations on the prevention of cyber violence against women either. 65  

(2)Ineffective protection from violence

Many Member States have made efforts to put measures in place to protect victims of violence against women and domestic violence, including against intimidation or retaliation by the perpetrator, but these are insufficient in some Member States. 66 While mid- and long-term protection orders are available in all Member States, these orders are not always effective. In addition, emergency protection or barring orders where the police are allowed to prevent an alleged or potential perpetrator of violence from entering the victim’s apartment and its immediate surroundings, are available only in 18 Member States. 67  Even where protection orders are available, their practical application remains low. Factors which might contribute to this are notably the length of proceedings and the limited enforcement of the measures, in particular insufficient sanctions for breaches of the orders and a lack of awareness on their availability. In some Member States, there is a lack of effective and immediate protection after reporting (AT, EE, DE, NL, PL, PT). 68  Also, victims who move or travel abroad risk losing protection, since the wide divergence of national measures remain an obstacle to the recognition of measures issued in their home country in other Member States. 

As set out in detail in the gap analysis (Annex 8), an individual assessment of the specific protection needs of victims of violence against women and domestic violence is absent in eight Member States (CZ, BE, EE, LU, MT, RO, SI and SK). 69  Measures ensuring specific protection of child victims or witnesses of violence against women and domestic violence also remain insufficient. Relevant professionals lack appropriate training to provide protection and support in a child-friendly manner (FR, IT), sufficient psychological counselling is not provided for child witnesses (AT, FI, FR, ES) and child witnesses are not always considered victims of violence. 70  Reporting of violence by children should be child-friendly 71 , and 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 72 (arrangements in place e.g. in ES, FI, DE, MT). 73

(3)Ineffective access to justice for victims of violence

Several shortcomings limit access to justice for victims of violence against women and domestic violence. 74  While the majority of violence against women and domestic violence offences are criminalised in all Member States, gaps and divergences in national criminal law remain. 75  Large gaps exist with respect to cyber violence against women and intimate partner cyber violence, such as ICT-facilitated stalking and non-consensual dissemination of private images. In 17 Member States, non-consensual dissemination of intimate/private/sexual images online has not been criminalised (AT, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, DE, EL, HU, LV, LT, LU, RO, SK, SI). 76  Gaps in criminalisation also exist in the area of domestic violence, because the majority of national definitions require repetition of violent acts in order for them to fall under the criminal offence of domestic violence. Such a requirement of re-victimisation can pose challenges for prosecution, as well as reinforce secondary victimisation. Also, sexual violence within intimate relationships is not always recognised as domestic violence. 77

The use of force or threats as an essential element of rape is required in 16 Member States instead of focusing on lack of consent, as recommended by human rights bodies. 78 This results in unequal protection and an important gap in access to justice for victims of sexual violence across the EU. Gaps also exist with respect to other forms of violence against women and domestic violence, which may negatively affect access to justice: female genital mutilation (FGM) is not a specific criminal offence in 9 Member States, forced marriages are not explicitly criminalised in 7 Member States 79  and while all Member States have criminalised forced abortion, forced sterilization has been introduced as a specific criminal offense only in France, Malta, Portugal and Spain.

The lack of targeted training on violence against women and domestic violence for law enforcement and judicial authorities can lead to insufficiencies in the investigation and the judicial process. The majority of Member States have established ex officio prosecution for some violence against women and domestic violence crimes, yet a small minority have dedicated guidelines for the prosecution to ensure that this is done effectively in a manner taking into consideration the specificities of this kind of crime.

Difficulties in evidencing violence during judicial proceedings can also form a barrier to accessing justice. In particular in cases of sexual violence, there are typically no witnesses and there may be no physical signs left by the time the victim has a medical examination. It is also often not clear who (the police, medical professionals, support organisations) should be responsible for providing information and support. The prospect of investigation and prosecution can hinder a victim from reporting a crime and initiating judicial proceedings, as victims may want to avoid secondary victimisation by not repeating the original trauma during the proceedings. 80 Lack of measures protecting victims against retaliation and repeat victimization has been identified as a gap in some Member States (AT, FR, DE, NL, PL, PT). 81 Lack of reporting was highlighted by six Member State authorities in the targeted consultation as one of the main challenges in the prosecution of cases of GBV (BE, BG, CY, DE, IE, RO). 82

Furthermore, access to compensation has not been effective with regard to victims of gender-based violence, including violence against women and domestic violence. 83 The amount of compensation is very low, which may have particularly damaging consequences for victims of VAW/DV as they often need to re-build an independent and violence-free life of dignity, especially as domestic violence can often occur in situations of economic dependence. 84  In addition, victims may have to go through both criminal and civil proceedings to claim compensation, which exposes them to a high risk of revictimisation. 85  Some Member States have restricted time limits to apply for state compensation (AT, CY, HR, HU 86 , EL 87 ). Finally, victims are not aware of their rights (see gap analysis, Annex 8).

Regarding sex-based, including sexual, harassment, reporting and dispute resolution mechanisms are often not readily accessible or gender-sensitive, and involve lengthy proceedings. 88  The Gender Equality Directives require Member States to prohibit sex-based and sexual harassment and provide effective remedies in the areas of employment and access to and supply of goods and services. Lacking criminalisation of sexual harassment (see also Section 3.1.1), retaliation measures towards complainants, lack of case-law, and insufficient knowledge of the issue by relevant professionals are identified as gaps in the Member States. 89

Stakeholders indicate that victims of cyber violence against women and intimate partner cyber violence often struggle in accessing remedies. Law enforcement is often not adequately aware or equipped to address the specificities of the digital dimension of violence against women and domestic violence. In particular, there are often no facilities to report incidents online and cyber violence may be harder to prosecute for non-specialised authorities. 90  Insufficient information on what constitutes cyber violence and on the reporting options also leads to underreporting. 91  

The role of national equality bodies to deal with cases of violence against women beyond sexual harassment is limited in the majority of the Member States, which equally limits access to justice (BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, FI, FR, EL, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SK, ES. 92

(4)Ineffective support to victims of violence

Support services, such as counselling and shelters for victims, are fundamental in ensuring the well-being of victims, need to be based on an understanding of the victim’s specific needs and be available for all victims in a manner that ensures confidentiality and privacy.

While all Member States have general support services in place, i.e. service provision to the public at large, including social services, health services and employment services, stakeholders 93 identified an insufficient number of specialist support services for victims of violence against women and domestic violence, which can cover targeted social, emotional, psychological and financial support, as well as practical and legal support specifically designed for victims of violence against women and of domestic violence. For example, there is a gap in specialised support services dealing with forms of violence against women other than domestic violence, such as sexual violence (AT, BE, FR, MT, PT, ES). 94  There is, in particular, an insufficient number of shelters available to victims of violence against women and domestic violence. GREVIO refers to discrepancies in the information provided by Member State authorities and civil society organisations on the numbers of shelters and observes that, with the exception of Austria and Malta, Member States are not close to reaching the target put forward by the Council of Europe to set up one family place per 10,000 heads of population. 95

There are furthermore limitations to accessing the existing support due to conditions related to citizenship, residency, economic means, or dependents (children). In some Member States, women with children have more difficulties to be accepted to support services or supported. In the majority of Member States, access to shelters is particularly difficult for women with disabilities and mothers of children with disabilities. In several Member States, specialised support services are available only to citizens of the country or even to residents of the respective area/region/municipality. The gap analysis shows that there are significant barriers for migrant and asylum seeking women to access general and/or specialised support services (BE, DK, IT, NL,ES, SE). 96  There are also problems of access to support services depending on geographical location. Access to support may also depend on the victim’s willingness to bring charges against the perpetrator.

While several Member States have developed a wider and stronger network of specialist support services that assists victims of domestic violence, a gap has been identified concerning specialised support to children, including child witnesses of violence against women and domestic violence, especially of psycho-social counselling and other child-sensitive support. 97  Such support needs to be provided with regard to the best interests of the child and their needs, which may exclude shelters as the primary temporary housing solution. 98  The gap analysis also identified a lack or insufficiency of national state-wide, 24/7 and free of charge helplines to women victims of violence (BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, FI, FR, EL, HU, IE, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SI). 99 There is also lack of multilingual support on national women’s helplines (BE, HR, CZ, HU, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SI). 100

There are also gaps in support for victims of cyber violence against women. The gap analysis identified a lack of measures tackling this kind of violence and the related support services in the majority of the Member States (AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, DE, FR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE). 101

Service provision is commonly ensured by victims’ rights and women’s organisations, which are staffed with experienced specialists. These organisations report a lack of sufficient resources for staff, professional training and financial assistance to run the services as well as a lack of recognition of their work by national governments.

(5)Insufficient policy coordination

Due to the involvement of various public and possibly private sector actors in cases of violence against women and domestic violence, coordination is required to ensure concerted action. Coordination at national level can be substantiated by national plans of action that assign each actor a particular role. In addition, due to the high prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence across Europe and globally, Member States participate in international coordination efforts. 102  According to national and desk research, however, the implementation of the legislative and policy framework shows gaps in most Member States. The realities are diverse and complex in each Member State, but commonly identified problems are lack of coordination between different institutions with mandates in the area; differences in resources and in quality of the service delivery between urban and rural/remote or more and less developed areas.

There are also shortcomings in the collection of data on violence against women and domestic violence, as noted by GREVIO in a recent report on the implementation of the Istanbul Convention. 103  High quality data is a crucial basis for effective policy-making and these shortcomings make it challenging to form an accurate overview of the prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence in the EU. Data on the prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence is gathered through administrative data collection and survey data. Data collected from administrative sources is not adequately disaggregated. For example, data on perpetrators are typically not disaggregated by sex, which is an obstacle to the visibility of violence against women and domestic violence in their different forms. Data also does not systematically cover the sex and age of the victim or the relationship with the perpetrator. The lack of sex disaggregated data on victims/perpetrators of violence collected by the criminal justice system has been identified as problem also in the gap analysis in Annex 8 (BE, DK, MT, NL). 104  Moreover, data collection between public bodies is not harmonised. The gap analysis identified this as a problem in several Member States (AT, BE, DK, FI, FR, IT, MT, SE). 105  The lack of co-ordination and comparability of the data (including a lack of common definitions and units of measurement) makes it impossible to track cases at all stages of the law-enforcement and judicial proceedings, and during support. It impedes an assessment of conviction, attrition, and recidivism rates, as well as the identification of gaps in the responses of institutions. An estimated 2/3 of victims do not report violence, and therefore, official criminal justice data only record a limited number of cases. This is why it is important to be able to rely on population survey additionally to police statistics.

The only available, comparable data at the EU level is the FRA survey from 2014. Currently, Eurostat is coordinating an EU survey on gender-based violence and other forms of interpersonal violence. 18 Member States will carry out the survey (which is supported by EU funds) while others declined to participate mostly because of human resources constraints. FRA and EIGE are stepping in to complete the results for these Member States. Results for all countries are expected in 2023. To monitor developments, it would be necessary to carry out the survey on a regular basis by all Member States in the future.

c)Gaps at EU level 

There is currently no specific EU legal instrument addressing violence against women and domestic violence. The topic falls, however, in the scope of application of several directives and regulations, in particular in the areas of criminal justice, gender equality and asylum. The existing EU legal framework for addressing violence against women and domestic violence was assessed for the purposes of this initiative; this assessment concludes that the current legal framework has significant gaps and shortcomings with regard to this group of victims, which has come to the forefront particularly due to the increased risk of domestic violence following the confinement measures of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Annex 8 for details).

The gap analysis in Annex 8 also shows that the relevant EU legislation has been ineffective in preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence. While there is no EU legislation dedicated to such violence, the gap analysis identified 14 EU law instruments which are relevant for victims of violence against women and domestic violence as they either establish general rules applicable also to this category of victims, or establish specific rules on certain forms of such violence. For example, the provisions on protection and access to justice in the Victims’ Rights Directive and the European Protection Orders (‘EPO’) apply to all victims of crime, whereas the Directives on child sexual abuse or trafficking in human beings establish sectoral rules on these forms of violence. In addition, the Gender Equality Directives include provisions on sexual harassment. The assessment supplements and builds on the on-going general evaluations of some of these instruments, in particular those concerning the Victims’ Rights, the Child Sexual Abuse and the Anti-Trafficking Directives. 106

With regard to prevention, the EU framework includes some obligations on awareness-raising, but these either concern victims’ rights in general 107 , or are limited to specific forms of violence, such as trafficking in human beings, child sexual abuse or sexual harassment at work. As to training for professionals, EU legislation provides some obligations for the Member States 108 , but such provisions are not specific to violence against women and domestic violence.

When it comes to protection of victims, the instruments on the mutual recognition of protection orders provide for cross-border recognition of criminal and civil protection orders. However, the take-up of the EPO instruments is very low which limits their effectiveness. Moreover, the instruments do not ensure that effective emergency barring orders and protection orders are available and effective in all Member States. As set out above, emergency protection orders do not exist in all Member States and the modalities for their issuance vary. 109  Lack of efficiency of the protection orders at the national level results in a poor take-up of protection orders in cross-border cases and as a consequence in a very low application of the EU EPO instruments. 110

The insufficient and unequal criminalization of different forms of violence against women and of domestic violence makes it more difficult for victims to access justice. EU-level criminalisations of specific forms of violence against women with harmonised definitions and sanctions are currently included in the Anti-Trafficking and the Child Sexual Abuse Directives. 111 While most conduct of violence against women and domestic violence is criminalised at national level, the situation at EU level leaves important gaps, in particular with regard to sexual harassment and cyber violence against women and intimate partners (see above, Section 2.1.2). This directly impacts the victims’ access to justice. In cases of cyber violence, if national law enforcement mechanisms are unavailable, victims can complain to the online platform. Effective means of redress are however not always provided by the platform, which is particularly problematic for serious forms of cyber violence. 112  Similarly, with regard to sexual harassment, EU law obliges Member States to prohibit sexual harassment as a form of discrimination and impose sanctions. They however do not require, for most serious cases, criminal sanctions. 113  Lack of adequate compensation remains a challenge and obstacle for this group of victims in accessing justice, despite the minimum standards of the Compensation Directive and, for sexual harassment, the Gender Equality Directives. 114  The amount of compensation attributed in violence against women and domestic violence cases is often very low and compensation is not granted in adequate time.

Concerning access to support for this group of victims, the Victims’ Rights Directive has not reached its full potential: implementation remains dissatisfactory. 115  The complexity and broad formulations in the Victims’ Rights Directive often cause obstacles in its practical application. The broad formulation of the provisions concerning support to victims of violence against women and domestic violence further effects the quality of the non-legislative measures taken pursuant to the Directive. Implementation issues were identified in several Member States on access to shelters, including their availability and numbers. Such shortcomings tend to particularly affect victims of violence against women and domestic violence. Moreover, only 13 Member States reported that their specialist support services systematically take into account the special needs of child victims and witnesses in cases of domestic violence and ten additional Member States applied a child sensitive approach in a non-systematic manner. Courts also regularly categorise child witnesses as indirect victims, despite it being standard practice in child protection to consider child witnesses as direct victims due to the psychological harm inflicted. This can hinder children’s access to services, such as counselling.

Regarding cyber violence against women and between intimate partners, the existing EU legal framework does not include specific obligations in this regard. The Victims’ Rights Directive applies to all criminalised conduct, but forms of cyber violence against women are only criminalised in 11 Member States. Hence, victims of such violence are often not eligible for protection and support measures under the Directive.

The Gender Equality Directives 116 establish that sex-based and sexual harassment at work and in the access to goods and services are contrary to the principle of equal treatment between men and women, and oblige Member States to prohibit such conduct, ensure remedies and enforcement, including compensation, and provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. However, these provisions have not been effective in reducing the prevalence of sexual harassment (see Section 2.1.2 (b) at 1 and 3).

More generally, the gap analysis shows that the relevant EU legislation has been ineffective in ensuring the rights of victims of violence against women and domestic violence. The EU-level measures do not explicitly address victims of violence against women and domestic violence. The relevant obligations are not specific enough with regard to victims of violence against women and domestic violence or leave wide discretion to the Member States. The relevant EU legislation is not up to date; it is on average over ten years old and the international obligations have evolved considerably in the area of violence against women and domestic violence in the meantime (see below).

Finally, EU law is no longer coherent with the international legal and policy framework. Concerning violence against women and domestic violence generally, EU law remains below the standards of the Istanbul Convention and the CEDAW Convention with regard to this group of victims. The relevant provisions of EU law are mainly formulated in a gender-neutral manner and do not require Member States to take into account the specific needs of women victims of violence and victims of domestic violence. In addition, EU law includes few provisions on targeted preventive measures, and fails to address the protection needs of these victims with the specificity required in Chapter VI of the Istanbul Convention. With the exceptions of child sexual abuse and trafficking in human beings for the purposes of sexual exploitation, EU law does not establish harmonised definitions and sanctions of most of the forms of violence against women and domestic violence enumerated in the Istanbul Convention. 117 The framework does not address the rights of witnesses, particularly child witnesses, of such violence. All Member States have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which in its Article 19 includes provisions on prevention, protection, support and access to justice to children affected by violence. General and specific support services to this group of victims are regulated in the Victims’ Rights Directive, but the lack of detail in the provisions has led to ineffective implementation by the Member States. There is currently no obligation on the Member States to collect data specifically on violence against women and domestic violence, and no specific EU-level coordination structures exist on this kind of violence. The gap analysis further finds that action at national level is likely to have resulted from the implementation of the Istanbul Convention in those Member States that are parties.

Since the adoption of the directives, the international #MeToo movement has raised the visibility of sexual harassment against women, potentially encouraging more victims, but also governments, social partners and employers, to take action. 118 In 2019, the International Labour Organization adopted the Violence and Harassment Convention No. 190, which requires parties to prohibit gender-based violence and harassment at work and provides a comprehensive protection, prevention, and support framework for victims. EU law does not ensure the criminalisation of serious forms of sexual harassment; the applicability of the protection and support measures of the Victims’ Rights Directive therefore depends on whether harassment is criminalised under national law. The prevention, protection and support measures concerning sexual harassment are also not as developed as in Convention no. 190.  

Finally, the current EU legislation has not led to effective monitoring and enforcement of the relevant EU rules with regard to violence against women and domestic violence. This is due to the absence of a focus on such violence and the ambiguous drafting of the legal obligations, which has not enabled targeted enforcement measures in the key problem areas relating to violence against women and domestic violence.

2.1.3.Who is affected?

Gender-based violence is disproportionately perpetrated against women. In the majority of cases of physical violence, the perpetrator is a man or a group of men. 119  

Although women and girls account for a far smaller share of total victims of homicides than men, they are overrepresented among victims of intimate partner/family-related homicide, and intimate partner homicide. Victim/perpetrator disaggregations reveal a large disparity in the shares attributable to male and female victims of homicides committed by intimate partners or family members: 36 per cent male versus 64 per cent female victims. 120 These findings show that even though men are the principal victims of homicide globally, women continue to bear the heaviest burden of lethal victimization as a result of gender stereotypes and inequality.  In particular sexual violence is strongly gendered with more than 9 in 10 rape victims and more than 8 in 10 sexual assault victims being women and girls, while nearly all those imprisoned for such crimes are male (99%). 121  Research also suggests that more women than men become victims of sexual harassment or sex discrimination. 122  Incidents of physical violence against women (excluding specifically sexual violence) most often take place at home (37%). Such violence also often involves a family member or a relative as the perpetrator. Thus, although men and non-binary people can also be victims of gender-based violence 123 , the majority of victims are women in all their diversity. 

Cyber violence against women has been found to target in particular young women 124 and women visible in public life. Women in public positions, such as journalists and politicians, experience cyber violence targeting them because they are women and seeking to question their entitlement to participate in societal discussions. This can have a silencing effect on the victims and negatively affect democratic decision-making processes. 125  

Similarly, while both women and men experience harassment, women face more harassment of a sexual nature. In a 2012 survey, up to 55% of women in the EU-28 (ages 18–74) reported having experienced sexual harassment since the age of 15. One in five (21%) had experienced at least one form of sexual harassment in the 12 months before the survey. Such harassment consists of forms such as unwanted touching, hugging or kissing, or sexually suggestive, unwanted comments or cyber harassment. 126 In 2021, 18% of women described the most recent incident of harassment as of a sexual nature, compared with 6% of men.

Women and girls in vulnerable situations, such as women with disabilities, women victims of trafficking in human beings, women prisoners, women migrants and asylum seekers, non-heterosexual women and women sex workers, are at a higher risk of violence. For example, exposure to physical or sexual partner violence differs between women with and without disabilities (34% vs 19%) and non-heterosexual and heterosexual women (48% vs 21%). 127  Human traffickers exploit the particular vulnerabilities of persons with disabilities for the purpose of sexual exploitation 128 .

Children are often seriously affected by violence against women and domestic violence. They can be themselves victims or witnesses of such violence; both experiences are considered to be equally traumatizing. 129 Exposure to violence at an early age can cause impairments to the brain and nervous system development, as well as result in life-long negative coping and health risk behaviours. 130  Children who witness or are victims of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse are also at higher risk for health problems as adults. These can include mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety. 131

While the exact prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence varies among Member States, it is widespread in every Member State regardless of socio-economic boundaries. 132  

2.1.4.Why is violence against women and domestic violence a problem?

Violence against women and domestic violence can violate a number of fundamental rights, including the right to life and to equality between women and men (see Section 6.1). They cause pain and suffering to the victims and result in large costs on the economy and society as a whole. They negatively impact the physical health of the victims. Sexual violence exposes women to sexually-transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies, abortions and miscarriages, and lowers women's control over their reproductive health. 133  Violence against women and domestic violence also increase the probability of mental health problems 134 , linking to higher rates of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicidal ideation. 135

Some of the social and health impacts of violence against women and domestic violence can be quantified in terms of costs and/or economic consequences. For the EU, EIGE has carried out two studies on the costs of violence in 2014 and 2021. 136  The 2021 study considers three main sources of costs: direct cost of services (to victims or to public providers); lost economic output; and physical and emotional impacts measured as a reduction in the quality of life. 

Direct cost of services consists of the use of services provided by various sectors to mitigate the harm caused by violence. This includes the use of health services to treat the physical and mental harms; social services; the criminal justice system involved in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of cases of violence against women and domestic violence; the civil justice system to e.g. disentangle from a violent partner; and specialist services for the prevention and/or mitigation of the impacts, such as protection and support services. Victims of intimate partner violence may incur costs not covered by the state, notably judicial costs and the costs of a new home.

Violence against women and domestic violence also result in lost economic output, as a result of the victim’s decreased ability to look for a job or productivity on the job and the time taken off work to handle the consequences of the crime. According to a European Parliament Research Service (‘EPRS’) study 137 , research conducted in Belgium found that 73% of those subjected to domestic violence reported an effect on the ability to work. Another recent EPRS study 138 estimates the lost economic output due to mental health impairments caused by cyber-violence on women, both in terms of lost work days and lower productivity. A study on the costs of violence against women in Italy calculates the costs of work days lost, reduced productivity, and the cost of replacing absent workers. It furthermore calculates the lost tax income and the multiplier effect of households' lost incomes. 139  

The third cost category in the EIGE study is the physical and emotional impact on victims, measuring the loss of healthy life years. 140 This allows a monetary value to be attached to health conditions to translate losses usually not measured in money into economic losses. The greatest source of economic loss due to violence against women and domestic violence is the loss in quality of life that monetises the physical and emotional impacts of violence.

On this basis, the 2021 EIGE study estimates that total yearly costs of gender-based violence against women in the EU-27 stand at €290 billion 141 and almost €152 billion for domestic violence. These costs, consist in large part of physical/emotional impacts (55.57%), criminal justice system (20.43%) and lost economic output (13.93%) (see Annexes 3 and 5). 142  

2.2.    What are the drivers?

2.2.1Structural gender inequality and gender stereotypes 

Whilst there is no single cause for violence against women and domestic violence, some of the most consistent drivers are harmful social norms and stereotypes that contribute to gender inequality. 143  Such social norms concern the roles of women and men; harmful gender stereotypes include ideals linking masculinity to the provider role, macho behaviour, as well as ideals linking femininity to chastity, submission and victimhood. 144 The WHO has identified community norms that ascribe higher status to men, low levels of women’s access to paid employment, and low level of gender equality as factors increasing the risk of violence against women and domestic violence. 145  

Societal norms affect perpetrators’ and bystanders’ behaviours. Perpetrators may not consider their act of violence as morally reproachable. 146 Gender roles and stress over masculine gender roles have been found to strengthen tolerance toward violence against women 147 , which may, in turn, be caused by factors such as negative stereotypes towards women. Tolerant attitudes towards violence against women may be further encouraged by the social environment, leading to a circle of violence. 148

Another key cause of attitudes and behaviour is the lack of a common understanding of violence against women. 149 The 2016 special Eurobarometer on gender-based violence depicts these problematic assumptions, as 27% of the respondents said that sexual intercourse without consent may be justified in at least some situations. 150 Although most people would agree that rape is morally wrong (i.e. negative attitude), not all would agree on what constitutes rape.

Tolerant attitudes towards violence against women have also been observed with respect to some forms of sex-based harassment. In some Member States, tackling sex harassment at work was not considered a real issue. 151  Some forms of violence against women and domestic violence are sometimes considered a private matter. Thus, in the 2016 Eurobarometer, one in six respondents believed that domestic violence should be handled within the family. About one in five expressed victim-blaming views, agreeing that women make up or exaggerate claims. Just under one in five (17%) held that violence against women is often provoked by the victim, with respondents in the Eastern European Member States the most likely to agree. 152

2.2.2.Failure to recognise the specificities of crimes and offences relating to violence against women and domestic violence

Criminal acts of violence against women and domestic violence have specific characteristics, such as systemic under-reporting, disrupted criminal proceedings 153 , the commonly sexual nature of crimes and a high prevalence of elements of coercive control. Rates of reporting violence against women and domestic violence to the police are low. 154 According to the FRA 2014 survey, victims reported the most serious incident of partner violence to the police only in 14% of cases and the most serious incident of non-partner violence in 13% of cases. 155 In 2021, FRA confirmed that reporting of violence and harassment in general was less common than that of other crime, and that reporting crime to the police was less common when the perpetrator was a family member or a relative (only 22% of incidents were reported). 156  

The reasons for not reporting violence against women and domestic violence are multiple. They include the trouble involved in reporting an incident if the victim perceives that the police will not take her seriously or will be unwilling to do anything about the crime. Furthermore, for around one quarter of victims of sexual violence by a partner or non-partner, feeling ashamed or embarrassed about what happened was the reason for not reporting the incident to the police or a support organisation. Victims may also fear retaliation from the perpetrator or consider the violence a private matter. 157 In addition, they may be hesitant to report an incident perpetrated by a family member or, in cases of sex-based or sexual harassment at work, a hierarchical superior or a colleague.

The above specificities hamper efforts to effectively address violence against women and domestic violence. Incidents may be difficult for authorities to address, since victims may not disclose their experience or withdraw statements and discontinue participation in investigations or court proceedings. These dynamics interfere with efforts to ensure an appropriate follow-up within the judicial system or through support mechanisms. They also underline the need to ensure the accessibility of support regardless of whether the victim has officially reported the violence.

Due to the specificities of crimes and offences relating to violence against women and domestic violence, gender-sensitive measures are needed. In their Evaluation Report on Finland, GREVIO noted that gender-neutral approach in policy making and service provision is not sufficient and does not provide women victims of violence and domestic violence effective protection, support and access to justice. GREVIO notes that this may not always do justice to the particular experiences of women as victims of domestic violence, who are more frequently and more severely impacted. 158 Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights also requires Member States to adopt a gender-sensitive approach in their measures to prevent and combat such violence (see Section 6.1 for details). 

Figure 1 - Problem tree

2.3.     How will the problem evolve?

Based on the evolution of the situation in the past decades, it is unlikely that the prevalence of all forms of violence against women and domestic violence, as measured through administrative and survey data, will decrease significantly without additional policy intervention. All Member States have adopted policy and legislative measures on this kind of violence, and 21 Member States have taken measures pursuant to their obligations under the Istanbul Convention. The gaps concerning prevention, protection, access to justice, support and coordination can however be expected to persist (see Section 3.1.3). 159 Stakeholders, such as non-governmental and international organisations, note that without further action at EU level, national legislation and practice are unlikely to develop sufficiently and in a coordinated manner in line with international standards to ensure that the needs of victims of violence against women and domestic violence are sufficiently addressed throughout the EU (see Annex 2).

3.3.    Why should the EU act?

3.1.     Legal basis

The initiative pursues the general objective of preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence. As confirmed in Declaration No. 19 on Article 8 of the TFEU, combatting ‘all kinds of domestic violence’ is part of the Union’s general efforts to eliminate inequalities between women and men and Member States should take all necessary measures to prevent and punish these criminal acts and to support and protect the victims.

The initiative would build on the Victims’ Rights Directive and establish minimum standards on the rights of victims of all forms of violence against women and domestic violence, constituting a lex specialis to this Directive, in the same way as victims of terrorism and trafficking have been addressed through specific legislation. It would include measures aimed at preventing this kind of violence, and ensuring adequate protection, access to justice, support and coordination before, during or after criminal proceedings by responding to the specific needs of victims of violence against women and domestic violence. The relevant legal basis, in line with the Victims’ Rights Directive, would be Article 82(2) TFEU. This provision provides for the establishment of minimum rules concerning the rights of victims of crime, to the extent necessary to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters having a cross-border dimension.

In addition, the initiative would introduce minimum standards on the definition of criminal offences in the areas of crime set out in Art. 83(1) relating to sexual exploitation of women and children and computer crime. Article 83(1) TFEU allows for the establishment of minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis.

It would further introduce, on the basis of Art. 83(2), minimum rules concerning the definition of serious forms of sexual harassment to ensure effective application of the Gender Equality Directives, which regulate this matter by providing definitions and requiring prohibitions and sanctions for sex-based and sexual harassment. 160  Article 83(2) provides for the establishment of minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, if the approximation proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of the Union’s policy in this area. The background studies conducted for the initiative show that the implementation of the relevant provisions has not been effective, and sexual harassment continues to remain common in the Member States. 161  In order to ensure effective implementation of the policy, harmonisation measures with regard to the definition and sanctions of serious forms of sexual harassment are essential to ensure the effective implementation of the Union’s policy.

When proposing EU accession to the Istanbul Convention, the Commission took the view that the appropriate legal bases for action in regard to the matters covered by the Convention are the Treaty provisions in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and crime prevention. In its Opinion on the EU accession of 6 October 2021 162 , the CJEU confirmed that view. The Court takes a broad view on the types of measures that can be adopted on these legal bases, in particular in the areas of prevention, protection, victim support, and access to justice 163 , as envisaged in this initiative. The Court also clarified that aspects of substantive criminal law remain the primary responsibility of Member States and that criminalisation of specific types of conduct remains to a great extent subject to national law. The initiative takes this into account by proposing criminalisation only to a very limited extent. It would thus be based on the combined legal basis of Art. 82(2) and 83(1) 164  and 83(2) TFEU 165 . These provisions provide for the adoption of directives in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure as the appropriate instrument.

3.2.     Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

The continuous EU-wide prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence and the serious harm caused to individual victims and societies create a special need to combat such violence on a common basis in the EU. In light of prevalence data and cost estimations, the impact on European societies is considerable. Millions of EU citizens and persons residing in the EU are concerned. Violence against women and domestic violence violate the fundamental rights of citizens and affects gender equality, one of the fundamental values of the EU.

In addition, cyber violence against women and in intimate partnerships has emerged as a new form of violence against women and domestic violence, spreading and amplifying beyond individual Member States. The internet is inherently a cross-border environment, where content hosted in one Member State can be accessed from another Member State. As noted in the DSA proposal, interventions by one Member State will be insufficient to solve the issue. 166  

In some cases, violence against women and domestic violence includes a physical cross-border element. On average 8% of women in the EU-27 report having experienced physical violence in the past five years. 167 This corresponds to more than 19 million women in the EU-27. On average 3% of women victims of all physical violence reported the violence to have taken place abroad. 168  Although it is not possible to establish the precise share, women victims of violence against women and domestic violence in cross-border situations are likely to be in the order of several hundreds of thousands in Europe annually, also taking into account possible underreporting.

In other cases, the cross-border nature may arise at a certain point during proceedings, for instance, if a suspect flees or a victim moves to another country. Even after criminal proceedings have concluded with a final judgment imposing a sentence on the defendant in the Member State of nationality, the case can necessitate judicial cooperation between Member States. 169 Cross-border elements may equally arise when criminal cases are transferred to another Member State. 170  

The current initiative not only covers physical cross-border dimensions of violence against women and domestic violence, but the rights of victims of these crimes in general. In its opinion of 6 October 2021, the Court broadly lists the measures in the Convention related to victims’ rights (prevention, protection, support, access to justice) for which the EU has competence, not presupposing the existence of a physical cross-border element in all respects of the problem considered.

Within the limits of EU competence as indicated by the CJEU, the issue should be addressed at EU level in order to ensure a minimum level of protection of victims’ rights and fundamental rights. The objective is not to achieve harmonised, equal protection everywhere in the EU, but to establish minimum standards for rights from which all victims of such violence in the EU should benefit. The existence of minimum standards would also facilitate the mutual recognition of protection orders and judicial decisions concerning violence across the EU, thereby supporting a better application of the existing acquis in this area (see section 2.1.2).

3.3.     Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

All Member States have addressed violence against women and domestic violence in legislation and policies, as explained in Section 2.1.2. Some Member States have demonstrated strong commitment to address such violence through innovative and effective measuring, including during the Covid-19 pandemic. 171  Over the last decades, the acknowledgement of this kind of crime has led to the adoption of specialised national and international frameworks. While these measures testify to the existence of the problem, they have not led to an observable decrease in this kind of violent crime in the EU.

As discussed under Section 2.1.2, the approaches taken by Member States have also not been sufficiently effective in guaranteeing the safety and protection of victims. The multitude of national approaches creates legal uncertainty on the rights of victims of violence against women and domestic violence. The fragmentation is more substantial at regional and local levels, where differences in access to protection and support services are observed.

The EU already supports the Member States in addressing this kind of violence, but EU-action has been limited to non-legislative measures (see Section 5.1.1). The funding and awareness-raising efforts have not been sufficiently effective in decreasing the prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence as criminal acts. Thus, legislative measures are necessary for addressing this kind of violent crime in an effective and sustainable manner.

While the effectiveness of national measures ultimately depends on Member States’ resources and efforts, EU level action can increase their effectiveness by specifying minimum standards and adding value in line with good practices and recommendations of international monitoring bodies and research. EU-legislation on violence against women and domestic violence would further align the EU legal framework with internationally recognised norms and permit coordinated action at EU level. It would enable the EU to enact more specific obligations (see Section 5.3 – description of the policy options) and be a standard-setter in preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence. 172 Through the approximation of criminal definitions and sanctions, it would ensure victims’ access to justice in areas where specific gaps have been identified. 173

The initiative would oblige the six Member States who have not ratified the Istanbul Convention to undertake, to the extent not yet done on their own initiative, measures that correspond to the minimum level of protection needed to tackle this kind of violence. For the 21 Member States who are parties, the new EU measures fill identified gaps in implementation and effectiveness and enable further measures to be taken in a coordinated manner.

While the initiative would be adopted by qualified majority, it would feature a number of mitigating measures that it could make it acceptable to the six Member States that have not ratified the Istanbul Convention: in particular, the initiative would be limited in scope to areas of EU competence, and could clarify concepts prone to misconceptions. 174  

Further EU action would allow the EU to support Member States in their efforts to implement their fundamental rights obligations in this field. It would enhance legal certainty by setting minimum standards to ensure that all Member States take measures in all policy areas regardless of where in the EU the victims find themselves, and that national measures reach the level that is considered necessary for effectively addressing such violence.

Targeted EU action would create added value in particular by enabling effective monitoring and enforcement. This is a decisive advantage of EU law, since international human rights bodies do not have the possibility to launch infringement proceedings against a Member in cases of non-compliance with the Convention. While Member States may take further measures to comply with international obligations (notably following periodic reporting to GREVIO and the CEDAW Committee), the added value of corresponding EU law obligations would be to ensure compliance more swiftly and effectively. EU-level measures would also allow for comprehensive EU-level data collection and contribute to a more nuanced understanding on this kind of violence.

4.4.    Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1.     General objectives

The general objective of the initiative is to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence as criminal acts and a form of discrimination between women and men as part of the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice foreseen in Title V TFEU.

4.2.     Specific objectives

The initiative pursues a number of specific objectives aimed at responding to the needs of this group of victims:

-Ensuring effective prevention of violence against women and domestic violence: ensuring that effective measures are in place to prevent violence against women and domestic violence, including awareness-raising and information provision, training, work with perpetrators and the involvement of men and boys.

-Ensuring effective protection of victims of violence against women and domestic violence: ensuring that effective measures are in place to protect victims from violence online or offline, at work or in private.

-Ensuring effective access to justice in cases of violence against women and domestic violence: improving access to justice for victims of violence against women and domestic violence including through EU-level approximation of criminal definitions and sanctions related to specifically serious forms of violence against women; effective remedies for all forms of such violence; as well as by ensuring gender-sensitivity and respect for the rights of child victims and witnesses.

-Ensuring effective victim support in cases of violence against women and domestic violence: ensuring the availability of general and specialised support services, in sufficient numbers and of a high quality, including those addressing the effects of violence on physical and mental health.

-Ensuring strengthened coordination in preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence: ensuring effective and efficient coordination and cooperation, including through multi-agency approach and improved data collection on violence against women and domestic violence.

The intervention logic of the initiative is summarised in Figure 2:

Figure 2 - Intervention logic

5.5.    What are the available policy options?

5.1.    What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

5.1.1.Dynamic baseline: EU level measures

Under the baseline scenario, the EU would continue to address violence against women and domestic violence through the existing EU legislative instruments described in Section 2.1.2. As regards cyber violence against women and between intimate partners, this framework would be updated by the DSA 175 which addresses emerging risks in the online space, including to women’s safety online, by setting out a horizontal framework for regulatory oversight, accountability and transparency of intermediary service providers. The DSA would notably oblige service providers to notify suspicions of serious criminal offences involving a threat to the life or safety of persons; this would be likely to include content inciting to serious physical and sexual violence against women, including gender-based killings of women. The DSA would also oblige very large platforms to undertake risk assessments concerning fundamental rights, including risks related to non-discrimination. The DSA, however, does not define what is illegal or criminal. The effectiveness of the obligations in the DSA thus depends on whether gender-based cyber violence is clearly illegal in either Member State or in EU law. The Commission would continue to monitor the implementation of the relevant legislation and, whenever possible, enforce it with regard to victims of violence against women and domestic violence.

The Commission would further implement the non-legislative measures announced in the EU Gender Equality Strategy: It would launch an EU network on the prevention of violence against women and domestic violence, issue a Recommendation on the prevention of harmful practices against women and girls 176 and develop a Code of Conduct between online platforms and stakeholders to better protect women’s safety online. The Code of Conduct would provide for self-regulatory measures for service providers to counter illegal and harmful content which is not always illegal, thus complementing the DSA with non-legislative measures.

In addition, the Commission would continue to provide funding under the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (CERV) 177 to Member States and non-governmental organisations to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence and conduct communication activities on the issue. 178  The Commission has been taking policy actions and funding national activities in this field, including on prevention and support services since 1997. 179  Initially, the Commission has funded organisations and projects tackling violence against women and children through the Daphne funding programme, which was later integrated as a funding stream into the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) Programme and the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) Programme. Based on rough estimates, the Commission has funded over 800 projects to combat violence against women and children with more than 250 million euros since 1997. Under the CERV programme, the Commission expects to spend approximately €150 million through the Daphne strand to tackle violence against women and children throughout the course of the programme. This represents almost 10% of the total budget of CERV (€1.55 billion).

The EU-level actions of the baseline are likely to remain limited in effect, since they would constitute a continuation of the policy actions taken by the Commission for several decades. While important, the baseline policy actions would not suffice to prompt Member States to step up their national measures on violence against women and domestic violence and to adequately prevent such violence, protect and support victims, ensure access to justice and establish better policy coordination. In the absence of further legislation in this area, the possibilities to enforce the existing EU-level legal measures would remain limited given the shortcomings outlined above. EU funding under the Daphne strand of the Citizenship, Equality, Rights and Values programme is essential to support organisations and projects working on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence on the ground. However, despite a significant increase in the programme’s budget and an increased focus on sustainability, the financing of projects and organisations has inherent limits and cannot replace structural changes in national legislation and state institutions. The interim evaluation report of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme shows that in general, the Programme activities are contributing to the achievement of its objectives, but the impact on specific objectives such as gender equality is quite moderate, as more structural societal changes are needed. 180

5.1.2Dynamic baseline: Member States measures

The baseline takes into account the evolving situation in the Member States and the national measures taken to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence. 181 The gap analysis covers the relevant national measures regardless of whether taken as a direct consequence of the country’s ratification of the Istanbul Convention or any other international obligation, as a result of the applicable EU acquis, or as purely national measures. As set out in detail in Section 2.1.2 above, there are significant gaps in the legislative and implementation framework at national level.

While some Member States have demonstrated significant political will and put in place ambitious measures to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence, others are lagging behind. Even in Member States where the relevant measures are on a good level overall, GREVIO has identified room for further development (see the gap analysis in Annex 8). The studies referred to above confirm that the national measures remain uneven. This is the situation between those Member States that have ratified Istanbul Convention and those that have not, but also between the Member States that are parties to it.

As explained above, EU accession to the Istanbul Convention remains uncertain; without it, there is little incentive for those Member States that have not yet acceded to step up their national policy response. Member States that are parties to the Convention are required to improve their legal and policy frameworks following GREVIO’s assessment. However, this is a lengthy process: Since 2016, GREVIO has completed baseline assessments of 10 EU Member States and plans to evaluate all states parties by 2027. 182 Subsequently, a further rounds of reporting are foreseen to evaluate the new measures and remaining gaps. GREVIO reports do not set a timeline for Member States to implement the recommendations; the EU Member States that have been evaluated so far have not yet implemented all recommendations. Furthermore, as with all international conventions, the Istanbul Convention does not have an enforcement mechanism that is comparable to the enforcement mechanisms under EU law. Thus, while Member States may eventually achieve full compliance with Istanbul Convention, this is unlikely to cover all EU Member States in the medium term and would take a lot longer than when supported by the envisaged initiative.

5.2.     Options discarded at an early stage

In a potential non-legislative option, the Commission would have pursued the non-legislative measures of the baseline and supplement them with a Recommendation on a gender-sensitive application of the relevant EU law to this group of crime victims. This would have supported the Member States in implementing the relevant EU obligations in a manner that is aligned with EU and international best practice from this field. This option was discarded for reasons of effectiveness. Whereas non-legislative action continues to be an important element of addressing violence against women and domestic violence, it has limited effectiveness in terms of affecting the high prevalence of this violent crime in the EU (see also Sections 3 and 7).

An alternative policy option could have consisted of legislative measures in one or two of the problem areas. For instance, the initiative could have supplemented the existing legislative framework and national measures with EU-level legislative measures on prevention. Prevention measures are vital in addressing the drivers of this kind of violence, and they are relatively inexpensive in comparison to interventions in other problem areas. Similarly, additional obligations could be envisaged solely in the area of victim support and/or coordination, where the Victims’ Rights Directive already includes broad legislative obligations. Such limited intervention to some problem areas only has equally been discarded for reasons of effectiveness. Since gaps have been identified in all five problem areas and it is internationally recommended to adopt a holistic approach to addressing these problems, action on one or more of the problem areas alone would not be effective in addressing violence against women and domestic violence.

Yet another policy option would be to amend the relevant 14 instruments of EU law. However, this would maintain the existing legal fragmentation at EU level and could not fill the gaps which would not fit under any of those instruments. It would not bring about the recommended holistic approach. In addition, amendments to the 14 instruments would need to be embedded in a more general evaluation of those instruments and would be adopted at different points in time, thus preventing a coordinated and consistent approach. In contrast, a targeted EU-level instrument dedicated to this group of victims would supplement and support the application of the above EU standards and lead to improved efficiency of the current framework. It would create simplification for the benefit of the relevant professionals and victims by focusing the relevant EU rules in a single instrument in a transparent manner. In so doing the initiative would follow the approach of other policy areas, where general EU rules and international obligations have been supplemented by a targeted EU legal instrument such as on child sexual abuse and trafficking in human beings.

A further policy option could have consisted of a proposal to request the Council to include gender-based violence as an area of crime that meets the criteria specified in Article 83(1) TFEU (so-called ‘EU crime’). If adopted with unanimity at the Council, this proposal would establish a new legal base, which the Commission could subsequently use to propose a directive to prevent and combat all forms of gender-based violence. The new legal base would enable the EU to approximate criminal definitions and sanctions related to all forms of violence against women and domestic violence, and more broadly of gender-based violence. The establishment of a new EU crime has been assessed as a possible measure under the access to justice problem area of policy option 2B, because it would differ from the current directive by creating a legal bases for more extensive measures in that problem area. This is where the report discusses whether a new legal base would create added value or amount to unnecessary duplication of Member State efforts in comparison to the existing legal bases, which leave considerable scope for supplementary EU-level criminalisations and allow the current initiative to fill gaps in this problem area without a new EU crime.

5.3.    Description of the policy options

In line with the political mandate to propose legislative measures with the same aims as the Istanbul Convention (within the limits of EU competence), the Convention’s standards have been used as the point of departure for the development of the policy options.

Two policy options are retained for assessment, both of which include a package of minimum standards aimed at addressing the gaps identified in the prevention and combatting of violence against women and domestic violence:

1.Policy option 1 (moderate). This option consists of targeted measures to fill gaps in the prevention and combatting of violence against women and domestic violence based on the level of protection required by the Istanbul Convention (in the areas of EU competence).

2.Policy option 2 (comprehensive): This policy option builds on the measures outlined in the moderate option and introduces more comprehensive and detailed measures to ensure higher minimum standards and facilitate their enforceability and to address additional gaps, including on cyber violence against women and sexual harassment. The distinction between sub-option 2A and sub-option 2B consists of further-reaching obligations, in the latter sub-option, on sexual harassment, access to justice, victim protection and data collection.

The policy options are built around the five problem areas of prevention, protection from violence, access to justice, victim support and coordination. This is in line with the approach followed by the Council of Europe and the United Nations 183 , as well as various Member States 184 , and is based on the expert view that coordinated action in these five areas is necessary to effectively tackle this kind of violence and safeguard the fundamental rights of victims. The specific measures included in the five problem areas have been chosen in response to the gaps identified in the various studies and consultations and narrowed down to those where EU could add value.

Policy option 1 implements the policy measures of the Istanbul Convention at EU level, ensuring application of its standards (insofar as within EU competence) in all Member States and addressing gaps identified in existing Member State measures. In the field of prevention, it requires the Member States to conduct awareness-raising and research towards the general public and provide information on violence against women and domestic violence; it further obliges Member States to set up or maintain perpetrator programmes for participation on a voluntary basis. Member States would be required to provide specialised training and information to professionals likely to come into contact with victims of such violence. In the area of protection, it aims to increase the effectiveness of the cross-border protection instruments by increasing the effectiveness of national protection measures. To this end, it includes minimum standards on the availability of emergency barring orders and protection orders and supplements the Victims’ Rights Directive’s individual needs assessment by requiring the authorities to assess the seriousness of the threat posed by a reported perpetrator on a victim’s health and safety. Concerning children, this option requires the Member States to take into account the best interest of child victims and witnesses in cases of violence against women and domestic violence, in particular by providing psychosocial counselling, thus being more explicit than the Victims’ Rights Directive. With regard to the reporting of violent episodes to the authorities, policy option 1 enhances third party reporting of such violence and reporting by the relevant professionals. In the area of victim support, policy option 1 supplements Articles 8 and 9 of the Victims’ Rights Directive by requiring Member States to provide comprehensive specialised support to this group of victims. It requires them to establish rape crisis centres to victims of sexual violence, provide for shelters and establish and maintain a national helpline for victims of violence against women. As regards coordination, policy option 1 encourages Member States to participate in regular survey data collection at EU-level following up on the FRA 2014 violence against women survey and the ongoing Eurostat survey on gender-based violence. It likewise obliges them to regularly collect relevant administrative data. Finally, policy option 1 encourages cooperation between and multi-agency service provision by the relevant national authorities and non-governmental organisations.

Policy option 2A includes the measures of policy option 1, but goes further in introducing obligations in the area of cyber violence against women and in intimate partnerships, which is not explicitly covered by the Convention’s wording. It additionally introduces further rules on sexual harassment, thus aligning EU law also with the standards set by the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention.

Sub-option 2A additionally strengthens some of the obligations and enables political choice exceeding the level of the Istanbul Convention. In particular, policy option 2A makes perpetrator programmes mandatory for reoffenders. It makes the targeted training of relevant categories of professionals mandatory, and requires Member States to ensure that managers undergo training on preventing and combatting sexual harassment at work. They would likewise be obliged to ensure that such harassment is addressed in national policies and risk assessments. Sub-option 2A strengthens the efficiency of the standards by including minimum standards on the issuance, conditions and enforcement of emergency barring orders and protection orders, aimed at enhancing their effectiveness at national level. With regard to ensuring the safety of children in situations of violence, policy option 2A requires Member States to establish specific safe places where meetings can be organised between a child and a family member with regard to whom allegations of this kind of violence have been made. The option strengthens the reporting measures by requiring Member States to establish easy and accessible reporting mechanisms, including in an online format and in a child-friendly manner. In the area of access to justice, the option builds on the procedural rights of the Victims’ Rights Directive and establishes the right of victims to obtain full compensation from the perpetrator in a single procedure.

Concerning support services, policy option 2A requires Member States to facilitate access to specialised support for groups at a higher risk of such violence, such as victims with disabilities and migrant and asylum seeking victims, as well as to organise support in a child-friendly manner. It likewise contains obligations on victim support in cases of sexual harassment at work and cyber violence against women. Policy option 2A deepens the data collection obligations by making participation into regular EU-level survey data collection obligatory, and introducing minimum requirements on harmonised administrative data collection. In the field of coordination, policy option 2A requires coordinated one-stop information provision on the relevant services.

Lastly, policy option 2B further builds on the previous policy options and supplements some of the previous measures with a view to reaching utmost effectiveness. In the area of access to justice, the policy option aims to create a new legal base for minimum rules with regard to the definition of offences and sanctions by proposing to add gender-based violence on the list of the so-called EU crimes in Article 83(1) TFEU. It would moreover strengthen the existing obligations on state compensation to victims, establish a binding threshold for shelter provision and oblige Member States to provide the relevant services through a one-stop mechanism.

The main policy measures contained in each option are set out in more detail below.

While option 1 would limit EU action to implementing Istanbul Convention standards through EU law, in matters relating to EU competence, the added value of option 2 (under both sub-options 2A and 2B) is double. First of all, option 2 contains targeted measures on cyber violence against women and sexual harassment at work, which are not specifically addressed in the Istanbul Convention. Secondly, the measures under option 2 have been developed in comparison to the standards of the Istanbul Convention in order to ensure a better implementation in line with good practices and recommendations recognized by international experts in the field and international bodies such as GREVIO and in the UN.

With respect to the first main added value, since the drafting of the Istanbul Convention, cyber violence against women and in intimate partnerships has become a common phenomenon which requires targeted action. Such violence is also an area where legal gaps have been identified in the legal network study. Finally, action in this area is needed to ensure effective implementation of the future DSA. While the DSA regulates online platforms’ responsibilities, including with regard to illegal content, it does not define such content. By including a definition of cyber violence against women and between intimate partners at EU level 186 , including of offences concerning non-consensual sharing of intimate or private images, content and cyber stalking, the initiative would ensure that the requirements foreseen by the DSA can be fully applied to this kind of illegal content across the EU.

With respect to sexual harassment at work, a more targeted action than that contained in the Istanbul Convention is triggered by the adoption, in 2019, of the ILO Convention no. 190. The inclusion of specific measures on this matter therefore aim at bringing EU law more in line with recent international standards.

Regarding the second main added value, i.e. a better implementation of the standards of the Istanbul Convention in line with good practices and recommendations identified by experts and expert bodies from the Council of Europe (GREVIO) and the United Nations, the measures have been designed in the five problem areas because of two main reasons. Firstly, gaps have been identified in all five areas, going from a lack of effective prevention measures such as targeted information provision and access to perpetrator programmes, to prosecutorial guidelines on this kind of violence for judges or access to shelters. Secondly, as recognized in the Istanbul Convention and all stakeholders, all five areas must be addressed to ensure a comprehensive approach to tackle gender-based violence against women and domestic violence, as well as to protect and support the victims and survivors.

In light of the above, the presented policy packages present the most relevant, comprehensive and coherent approach to address violence against women and domestic violence in areas of EU competence and with regard to identified gaps. They present the political choice of adopting in EU law the level of the standards of the Istanbul Convention (defined by what has been feasible at the international level in 2010) or deciding to take into account recent developments in the areas of cyber violence against women and in intimate partner relations and sexual harassment as well as good practices and recommendations resulting from a review of the existing implementations. Within this latter option, the two sub-options present the choice between less or more far-reaching measures.

6.6.    What are the impacts of the policy options?

This chapter assesses the impacts of the two policy options (and sub-options) in terms of their fundamental rights impact, social impact and economic impact. Some tangible impacts can be assessed quantitatively, but the central aspect of this initiative is to strengthen the fundamental rights of those affected by violence against women and domestic violence, some elements of which cannot be monetised. The aim of the initiative is not only to reduce prevalence of violence through prevention, but also to ensure fundamental rights of the women victims of violence and victims of domestic violence and to diminish negative societal impacts and improve victims’ quality of life.

6.1.     Fundamental rights

Violence against women and domestic violence have been recognised to impact negatively a number of human rights. 187 Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the TEU, fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the ECHR, constitute part of EU law as general principles; 188 moreover, the European Court of Human Rights’ (‘ECtHR’) jurisprudence is taken into account in interpreting corresponding rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘CFR’). The ECtHR has established comprehensive obligations on states parties to prevent, investigate and punish this kind of violence and effectively protect victims.

All policy options are expected to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights, but to a different degree. Negative fundamental rights impacts have not been identified for either option or sub-option.

Option 1 builds on the rights provided to crime victims under EU law and specifies their modalities of application to victims of violence against women and domestic violence in line with international obligations. Option 2 sets out more extensive obligations, thus providing more extensive protection to victims. It includes specific measures against cyber-violence and sexual harassment, in particular at work. Sub-option 2B foresees further-reaching obligations as for victims compensation and support that increase the positive impact on fundamental rights. The impact of the two options and the sub-options on individual fundamental rights is summarised in the table below, with ‘(+)’ pointing to a slightly better performance than the baseline, and ‘+++’ pointing to the the best performance among the options.

Right to life (Article 2 CFR), right to integrity (Article 3 CFR) and prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 4 CFR), right to private and family life (Article 7 CFR): These rights are particularly relevant for acts of this kind of violence, in particular in cases of physical VaW/DV which, at most serious, can lead to the death of the victim. Both policy options would have a positive impact on these rights because they foresee measures to strengthen the protection of persons at risk of violence against women and domestic violence. Both options would require Member States to conduct a risk assessment of the seriousness of the threat posed by a prospective perpetrator to the potential victim, taking into account all relevant circumstances, e.g. if the perpetrator owns weapons. Both options also oblige Member States to ensure the availability of protection orders for all forms of this kind of violence. 189  Option 2 would further improve the efficiency of national protection orders by establishing minimum standards for the issuance, conditions and enforcement of emergency barring orders in case of imminent threats to the victim’s life or integrity. Both options would likewise contribute to establishing effective criminal law provisions on violence against women and domestic violence, thereby deterring offences and allowing for effective punishment; the ECtHR considers that this is a key part of Member States’ obligations to ensure protection of the above-mentioned rights. 190  Option 2A would criminalise at EU level certain forms of violence against women and domestic violence on existing legal bases. Option 2B would also introduce violence against women and domestic violence as a new area of EU crime under Article 83 TFEU, which can be expected to have a deterrent effect on potential perpetrators of violence against women and domestic violence. Moreover, both options include training for professionals likely to come into contact with victims of violence against women and domestic violence, thereby increasing their ability to recognise this kind of violence and to respond with diligence. 191  Option 2 would go further by making the training mandatory and regular. Both options would facilitate the reporting of violence against women and domestic violence by encouraging reporting by third parties.

Rights of the child (Article 24 CFR): Article 24 CFR grants children the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being, and provides that the child's best interests have to be a primary consideration in all actions relating to children, as well as the right of the child to be heard and to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both parents, unless that is contrary to the child’s interests. 192  Both options can be expected to have a positive impact on these rights by imposing specific measures to protect and support child victims and witnesses of violence against women and domestic violence. Both options require Member States to handle cases of violence against women and domestic violence in a manner that ensures the best interest of the child, to recognise child witnesses as victims of violence against women and domestic violence and to provide age-appropriate psychosocial counselling, which will positively impact on the right of the child to be heard. Option 2 additionally obliges authorities to ensure that visits of children can take place in surveyed safe spaces outside the home of an alleged perpetrator. Such arrangements would have a strong positive impact on safeguarding the best interests of the child.

Right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47 CFR): Both options strengthen the right to an effective remedy for victims of violence against women and domestic violence. In addition to introducing EU-level criminalisations as discussed above, both options foresee measures to ensure more effective investigation and prosecution of violence against women and domestic violence. Both options provide, for EU-level criminalisations, that prosecuting authorities should pursue certain offences of violence against women and domestic violence on their own motion and as a matter of public interest, even if the victim does not lodge a complaint or withdraws the initial complaint in the course of the proceedings. 193  Together with the protection measures, these can be expected to further tackle the delays in investigation, prosecution and adjudication of violence against women and domestic violence cases. In addition, option 2 obliges Member States to issue guidelines on violence against women and domestic violence to law enforcement and judicial authorities, which would help them to more effectively address it, apply consistent procedures and strengthen cooperation with other agencies to ensure safety and offender accountability. Together with the training for professionals, these measures can be expected to facilitate victims’ access to justice.

Both options likewise improve the availability of compensation to victims. Option 1 requires Member States to provide information on how compensation may be accessed. Option 2A would strengthen the right by establishing a right to full compensation from the perpetrator and ensure that victims can obtain compensation in one single procedure (avoiding secondary victimisation). Option 2B would ensure access to compensation by the state where no compensation can be obtained from the perpetrator or other sources, beyond what currently exists in EU law. Option 2 also introduces low-threshold online reporting of incidents of violence against women and domestic violence, which would facilitate the reporting by victims.

Non-discrimination and equality between women and men (Articles 21 and 23 CFR): Both options acknowledge violence against women and domestic violence as prohibited discrimination between women and men, thereby aligning EU law with international standards, 194  and expanding victim’s access to anti-discrimination law remedies. Both options would also have a positive impact in mitigating the risk of this kind of violence for persons in vulnerable situations and groups at a heightened risk 195 through the improved protection, support and access to justice. Additionally, option 2 obliges authorities to conduct targeted awareness-raising and information provision activities to reach out to groups at risk and to facilitate their access to support services. It would therefore have a more positive impact on the right to non-discrimination. In the same way, both options would strengthen, for example, the rights of older persons in cases of intergenerational domestic violence (Article 25 CFR), and the integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26 CFR), again with option 2 having a more positive impact for the reason set out just above.

Rights to social assistance and health care (Article 34 and 35 CFR): Option 1 requires Member States to provide specialist services to women victims of violence against women and domestic violence such as immediate medical support, the collection of forensic medical evidence in cases of rape and sexual assault, short and long-term psychological counselling and trauma care. This reinforcement of specialist services would have high positive impacts on the rights to social assistance and health care. Both options require Member States to provide specialist support services to victims of sexual violence, which can be expected to significantly contribute to the effective access to these services by victims of violence against women. The effectiveness of the measures would be further enhanced by the guidelines to health and social service providers foreseen in option 2. In response to the widely noted shortage of shelters, particularly in remote and rural areas, option 1 and option 2A oblige Member States to provide shelters in sufficient numbers and in an accessible manner, without imposing a minimum threshold. Option 2B specifies that Member States shall provide 1 shelter space per 10,000 inhabitants (as recommended by the Council of Europe). Since the provision of shelters plays a vital role to protect victims from (further) acts of violence, option 2B, to the extent that Member States would not have voluntarily reached the threshold, would provide higher protection for victims in this regard. Option 2B would also have a higher impact on access to social assistance and health care by granting special compensated leave from work for victims of violence against women and domestic violence and ensuring that victims can access all relevant services in the same premises.

Right to fair and just working conditions (Article 31 CFR): Both sub-options of option 2 would reinforce the victims’ right to fair and just working conditions by introducing specific provisions on sexual harassment at work. The combination of awareness raising and Member State obligations on reporting would encourage more victims to report harassment and seek redress, thereby discouraging such behaviour in the long-term.

Other rights: The measures on access to justice elements would carefully take into account the presumption of innocence and right of defense (Article 48 FRC), in particular regarding the approximation of definitions and sanctions at EU-level. Both options take into account the perspective of suspected and accused persons and do not affect the application of defense rights by national courts. 196 Both options are likewise in line with the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties (Article 49 FRC). 

6.2.     Social impacts

All policy options contribute to alleviating the social impacts of violence against women and domestic violence described in Chapter 2 to a different degree. These positive impacts affect various stakeholders, namely victims, witnesses, perpetrators, companies, national authorities and the wider society. Social impacts are assessed in this section only qualitatively by stakeholder. A detailed description by measure is in Annex 5. Estimates of some of these outcomes are included in the next section on the economic impacts, where the benefits of the options are quantified as the induced reduction of the current socio-economic costs of violence against women and domestic violence (see section 6.3.1).

Both options would improve the baseline and improve victims’ health, safety and quality of life (especially through the measures on protection and support), while contributing to changing harmful social norms and behaviors through prevention. This would result for instance in a reduction of psychological trauma for victims and better psychological, behavioural and physical consequences for survivors, since violence against women and domestic violence victimisation is associated with increased smoking, substance use, and risky sexual behaviours. It can also lead to depression, post-traumatic stress and other anxiety disorders, sleep difficulties, eating disorders, and suicide attempts. Finally, intimate partner violence in pregnancy also increases the likelihood of miscarriage, stillbirth, pre-term delivery and low birth weight of babies. 197  

All options would increase victims’ and witnesses’ awareness of and access to relevant information on the available protection and support, and facilitate more active participation in society, including in the labour market, including entrepreneurship. This could be particularly beneficial for people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds or victims at risk of intersectional discrimination, e.g. due to migrant background or disability. Targeted protection measures and support services to child victims and witnesses are expected to decrease violence against women and domestic violence against these groups. 198  

All options would ensure that support services provided to victims of violence against women and domestic violence be based on an understanding of the victim’s specific needs and be available and accessible for all victims. Measures, such as specialist support services for survivors of sexual violence and ensuring a sufficient amount of beds in shelters, may be expected to have significant social impact. Option 2B would have the greatest impact in that it would set a mandatory standard on shelter availability.

Measures on intervention programmes for perpetrators are expected to have a positive impact on the latter’s attitudes and behaviour. Also more appropriate sanctions against illegal behaviour would act as a deterrent to those at risk of offending. Option 2 would have a stronger impact on perpetrators, because it would foresee not only voluntary treatment programmes but also mandatory participation for repeated offenders or (option 2B) all offenders. In addition, it would specifically address the growing phenomenon of cyber violence, as well as sexual harassment, thus providing a more targeted approach than option 1.

Measures on sexual harassment, in particular at work (option 2) would increase awareness, better understanding and support for workers who are victims of harassment and abuse. This would allow developing a safe work environment and therefore have positive impact on productivity, also linked to lower sick leaves. These benefits are expected to be higher than the limited costs linked to the implementation of the envisaged measures (see section 6.3.2). Even already functional and respectful workplaces would benefit from recognition of a broader support offered to employees and a better work environment.

Finally, both options are likely to have a positive impact for national authorities. They would bring about clear political messaging concerning the social unacceptability of violence against women and domestic violence and address the problem of legal fragmentation and uncertainties. They would ensure a strong policy framework, based on strengthened coordination and cooperation between the law enforcement, the judiciary and the social and health services. The expected benefits largely offset the costs linked to the implementation of some of these measures (see section 6.3). Option 1 is likely to have stronger political support, even if some reluctance because of the cost implications and political discourse around gender-related matters could be expected, particularly in the countries that have not ratified the Istanbul Convention. This applies even more to option 2, , as it goes, on some points, beyond the standards set out in the Istanbul Convention and may therefore require higher investments in some Member States (see point 6.3 below).

Both options are also expected to have a positive impact on society as a whole, as they would increase the recognition of abusive behaviour and reduce the acceptance of such behaviour among the general public, thus contributing to a safer environment for women and other potential victims, as well as improving public health. Both policy options are also expected to lead to an increase in cases detected, reported, prosecuted and sanctioned, leading to improved justice across society.

6.3.     Economic impact

The current cost to society of violence against women and domestic violence amounts to €290 billion per year. 199  EIGE computed these costs by extrapolating the costs computed by the Home Office for UK. The extrapolation of costs to the EU is impacted by differences in prevalence rates across Member States, both in surveys and in reported cases, and differences in government expenditures and in the cost of services (and so implicitly by their efficiency) compared to the UK system. However, the largest part of these costs (around 56%) are due to psychological, emotional and physical damage that are comparable across Member States. 200 Moreover, a sensitivity check, based on the relative prevalence of violence against women in the EU and where Member States are compared to the UK (on which the calculations are based) allows to verify the overall magnitude of the costs of violence against women. Weighing the costs of violence against women based on FRA (2014) data, we obtain an overall cost of €278 billion. 

Similar studies have been conducted in single countries. For example, a study on the cost of violence against women in Italy 201 placed this cost at €24.5 billion. Direct costs for healthcare are relatively bigger than in the UK study, but overall the loss due to emotional and physical damages represents a bigger share of the total costs (86%). An earlier study on Sweden (2006), focusing on intimate-partner violence (and not considering loss in the quality of life), placed the costs at about €330 million.

Both options are expected to reduce the cost of violence by inducing a reduction in the prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence in the EU through prevention, protection, access to justice, support and inter-agency coordination. The related cost reduction is the expected benefit of the intervention and is analysed in the following sections. Further sections analyse the direct cost implications.

6.3.1Estimated benefits: reduction of costs of violence 

The support study estimates the economic benefits of policy options 1 and 2 (and sub-options) by assessing the reduction of the different items which make up the overall cost to society of violence against women and domestic violence: direct cost of services (to victims or to public service providers); lost economic output; and the physical and emotional impacts measured as a reduction in the quality of life under two different scenarios of decrease of violence against women and domestic violence. The expected impact of the two policy options depends mainly on their potential to reduce the prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence in the short and the long run.

This approach is aligned with research 202 conducted by the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS). However, other than the EPRS research which focuses on establishing gender-based violence as a new EU crime, the proposed policy options take a holistic approach, as advocated by stakeholders, 203 and foresee a comprehensive set of measures in the areas of prevention, protection, access to justice, support and coordination. They should therefore in principle lead to a higher reduction of prevalence compared to the option examined by the EPRS. Nevertheless, this assessment takes a conservative approach due to the limited research on the impact of legislation on reduction of prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence. In addition, this approach considers that, due to underreporting, there is likely to be an increase in reported prevalence rates in the beginning and therefore lower net benefits. This initial increase in costs is, however, actually a positive effect of the initiative. To sum up, in order to provide a more realistic assessment, this impact assessment assumes that the expected impact of the initiative would not exceed the EP’s estimated overall reduction of violence against women and domestic violence linked to its potential introduction as a new area of crime.

Given the low number of impact assessments of measures against violence against women and domestic violence overall and in particular for the EU context, reference is made mostly to examples from the USA. According to WHO estimates for 2018, the intimate-partner violence prevalence rates for the US are slightly higher than in the EU27: 26% against an average for the EU27 countries of around 18% for intimate-partner violence lifetime prevalence and 6% against 4.4 % for 12 month intimate-partner violence. This suggests that referring to US outcomes does not overestimate the results for the EU.

The (5-year) short-term impact assumption is based on estimated impact 204 of the introduction of the US Violence Against Women Act of 1994 on annual rates of criminal victimisation of women. Moreover, protection measures, such as the availability of protection orders and enhanced reporting opportunities of violence against women and domestic violence, have been shown to be associated with a 34% 205 and 40% 206 reduction in the risk of repeated victimisation through, for example, continuing domestic violence. Similarly, based on an assessment of the US National Crime Victimization Survey, the use of victim services was shown to be associated with a 40% reduction in the risk of repeated victimisation. 207  

The (10 years) long-term assumption is based on an assessment of two main studies:

·Analysis based on Demographic and Health Surveys data for selected countries in the global south finds that each additional year that a country has had domestic violence legislation in place 208 is correlated with a 2% decrease in prevalence.

·Analysis based on FRA data for 2014 finds that women living in EU Member States that undertook legislative action before 2005 had a 40% lower probability of victimisation compared to women living in EU Member States that took legislative action more recently. 209

Due to lack of evidence quantifying the causal link between the full set of measures under both policy options, different long-term and short-term impacts were tested.

a)Benefits of option 1

Based on a reduction rate of 15% (short-term) and 20% (long-term) respectively, the expected total economic benefit of option 1 is estimated to be in the short-term €39.6 billion per year and €53.1 billion in the long-term (see Annex 5 for more information).

b)Benefits of option 2 – Sub-options 2A and 2B

Option 2A envisages more specific measures on prevention, protection, access to justice and support, but also more targeted measures on specific types of violence (including cyber violence and sexual harassment at work) compared to option 1. The expected impact of option 2A (on prevalence) is therefore expected to be higher than the more moderate option 1. Assuming a decrease in prevalence rates of 20% (short-term) and 30% (long-term) respectively, the estimated total economic benefit of option 2A amounts to €53.1 billion in the short term and to €82.7 billion in the long term (see Annex 5 for more information).

Option 2B would include a targeted criminalisations, extended measures for Member States, the provision of a high number of shelters and centralised services for victims, as well as special leave from work compensated at the level of sick leave for all victims of violence against women and domestic violence and centralized administrative data collection. These measures are expected to bring an even higher reduction of prevalence, which is assumed to be 22% (short-term) and 33% (long-term) respectively. The estimated total economic benefit is therefore €57.8 billion in the short term and €87.6 billion in the long term (see Annex 5 for more information).

6.3.2Administrative and compliance costs for Member States and employers

Both options imply costs for national authorities and some costs for employers. The total compliance costs of each of the (sub-)options are summarised in the three tables below. Costs are presented by problem area and distinguished between one-off development costs and annual running costs for Member States and employers. These costs are overall significantly lower than the cost to society currently incurred under the present prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence.

Table 6.1 Total compliance costs of option 1 by problem area

Table 6.2 Total compliance costs of option 2A by problem area

Table 6.3 Total compliance costs of option 2B by problem area

Below is an assessment of the compliance costs caused by the different policy measures by problem area.

Prevention

Under option 1, it is assumed that all Member States would incur additional costs compared to the baseline for information provision, awareness-raising and training measures, as the existing measures in place are not sufficiently targeted to violence against women and domestic violence. The maximum costs of awareness-raising and providing information are estimated to be around €4 million for the EU-27. Training on violence against women and domestic violence to professionals dealing with victims or perpetrators is expected to cause maximum costs of around €19 million. Finally, this option envisages to make available voluntary programmes for convicted perpetrators. Given their low overall number and an expected low take up rate, the additional cost for this measure is estimated in the order of €40 thousand. The supporting study and consultations show that no Member State currently provides sufficient perpetrator intervention and treatment programmes, though almost all countries already have some programs in place.

Under option 2A, the Member States would provide targeted information to groups at heightened risk of violence against women and domestic violence. The total maximum cost is estimated to be €4.4 million. Option 2A also requires mandatory and regular training to professionals on online violence against women, which is estimated to cost €2 million. Under this option, the perpetrator programme is also made mandatory for repeated offenders, with consequently higher costs of around €100 thousand. This compares to the cost of mandatory training for all convicted offenders included under option 2B that has a cost of around €750 thousand.

Finally, the biggest ticket in the prevention area comes from prevention of sexual harassment at work and it is only foreseen for Option 2. It is related to mandatory training of managers and an obligation to set up anti-harassment policies. This would be a two hour online training to be attended once per year.  For a single employer, the cost corresponds to two working time hours for each manager and the total cost per employer will therefore depend on the number of managers attending the training. The overall cost of training for all employers is estimated at around €1.9 billion 210 . Member States would cover the costs for the development of the training itself (a cost of €600 thousand). The possible costs for updating the existing risk assessments has not been included as costs of this initiative since the obligation to have such assessments in place is already provided under existing EU health and safety legislation, which covers sexual harassment at work even though this is not expressly spelled out.  

Protection

In the consultation phase, over half of the Member States (See annex 2) and all international organisations highlighted the need for further protection measures, especially of children and child witnesses of violence against women and domestic violence. The assessment of the gap analysis concerning the current measures relating to protection orders, risk assessments and child-friendly measures showed that all Member States have some measures in place, so there are no expected set-up costs under neither policy option. As the supporting study and consultations show that current protection measures are not sufficient 211 , all Member States would incur additional costs under both policy options.

As for protection orders, they are available in all Member States, however evidence suggests that women victims of violence against women and domestic violence do not have sufficient access to such orders in any Member State. Under option 1, Member States would therefore need to ensure that protection orders are available for all types of violence against women and domestic violence. This implies additional costs between €3.3 and 22.8 million for the EU27 212 (see Annex 5 for details). Under option 2, the increased effectiveness and enhanced access to protection orders may be expected to lead to an increase in the request for such orders. Costs may arise on the side of the judiciary and law enforcement (issuing/enforcement of the order). The total cost for this option would then be between around €4 and 25 million.

Under option 1, countries that have services in place for the protection and support of child victims and witnesses would improve such services, which is expected to lead to an increase of support to 50% more children compared to the baseline. Countries that need to make substantial improvements may be expected to have an even higher number of children seeking support, thus incurring higher costs. Overall costs for this measure is estimated to be a maximum of €1.6 billion. Under option 2, Member States would ensure that visits of children can take place in surveyed safe places in cases involving allegations of violence against women and domestic violence. Such visits could take place in the context of existing protection and support services. The total maximum costs of protection and support of child victims and witnesses under this option is therefore estimated to be €1.9 billion.

As for risk assessment measures under option 1, it may be expected that Member State will provide between 50 and 100% more risk assessments to victims, and that 25% of them will qualify as high risk and therefore receive an in-depth assessment. The total cost for the EU-27 is approximately €43 million. Under option 2 (both sub-options) additional working time is considered to manage cases in a timely manner in cooperation with support services. The total cost is therefore higher at around €47 million.

Access to justice

Costs for access to justice measures fall entirely on public authorities. Based on the supporting study, under option 1 costs would somewhat increase for law enforcement, the justice sector and equality bodies, as they would have to deal with more cases of violence against women and domestic violence, but these costs are expected to be negligible.

Under option 2, compliance costs for access to justice measures would be higher. Concerning compensation, under option 2A, victims of violence against women and domestic violence would have the right to full compensation from the perpetrator. As this concerns compensation for harm resulting from illegal behavior, this should however not be considered a proper cost and it is therefore not included as such in the computation. Under Option 2B however the State would intervene to pay for victims that cannot be compensated by the perpetrators. It is estimated that improved access to compensation could lead to 10% increase of demand and granting of compensation , 50% of which would not be recovered from the perpetrator or other sources. Member states would then need to cover such compensation with an additional overall cost for Member States of €1.6 billion.

Finally, for both options, costs relating to prosecution pro-active information of victims regarding their right to compensation, and ensuring low-threshold reporting are estimated to be negligible.

Victim support

Under both policy options, it is expected that all Member States will require additional expenditure, especially to meet the demand for missing specialist services for survivors of sexual violence and the missing number of beds in shelters. As for services, the Member States that do not currently have (i.e. BE, HR, CZ, FR, HU, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SI) a 24/7 free helpline for women victims of violence against women and domestic violence would incur additional costs to set-up and run such helplines. The total expected expenditure of such measures is estimated at between €1.4 and €5.6 million for both options, as the obligation to connect national helplines to the EU-harmonised number is estimated to have a negligible cost. Concerning specialised support services under option 1, the costs are estimated to be around €107 million. Under option 2, it is expected that all Member States will need to step up their specialised services to support groups at a heightened risk of violence. The costs of this measure is estimated at €118 million.

As for shelter provision, option 1 requires the Member States to provide shelters in an accessible manner and in sufficient numbers. Based on information of the average current cost of a shelter bed space for a woman (with or without child) in Member States, the estimated total cost is between €33.1 million and 392.4 million, same as for Option 2A. Option 2B specifies the obligation to provide at least 1 shelter space for 10,000 inhabitants, which is estimated to cause a maximum total costs of around €3.9 billion. This is by far the highest cost per single measure.

In addition, under option 2, the requirement for Member States to provide on- and offline support for victims of cyber violence against women and in intimate partnerships (incl. equipping support services with financial and human resources for knowledge-development and the necessary technology) is estimated to cost around €1.2 billion.

Finally, under option 2B, Member States would also provide for 3 days of special leave for employees victims of violence against women and domestic violence, to be compensated at the level of current sick pay compensation under national law. The costs of the measure is estimated to be between €0.3 and 2.6 billion depending on whether only victims of sexual violence are covered or all victims of physical violence against women and domestic violence.

Coordination

This area includes measures regarding data collection and provision of integrated services. Option 1 is not expected to trigger substantial costs: most Member States already collect some disaggregated administrative data on violence against women and domestic violence. Moreover, participation in the survey coordinated at EU level would be voluntary. Finally, most Member States already provide for some minimum coordination at national level.

Option 2 is expected to trigger limited costs for Member States. This option includes the provision of a one-stop online access to relevant protection and support services and of voluntary on-site support services. As for the data collection, it makes the participation in the EU survey mandatory, as well as the regular collection of administrative data through an integrated centralized data collection system. Overall, these measures would trigger costs for €20.9 million. The largest cost is for the regular mandatory survey: each data collection is costed, based on a sample of on average 5,000 interviews per Member State at a cost of €100 per interview, at €16.8 million. Option 2 would also involve locating services for victims in the same premises (with a maximum estimated costs when upon obligation in sub-option 2B, of €3.6 million) and a centralized integrated system of administrative data collection on violence against women and domestic violence, which would have a negligible cost, as several Member States have already introduced integrated systems for data processing in the area. 213  

6.3.3Summary of costs and economic benefits

The total compliance costs of option 1 range between € 0.8 billion to 2.2 billion, with some additional one-off development costs in the first year of implementation. The estimated total economic benefits of this option range between a cost reduction of € 39.6 billion (short-term) to € 53.1 billion (long-term).

The total compliance costs of option 2A range between € 5.0 billion and 6.6 billion with some additional one-off development costs in the first year of implementation. The estimated total economic benefits of this sub-option range between a cost reduction of € 53.1 billion and € 82.7 billion.

The total compliance costs of option 2B range between € 7.2 billion and € 14.3 billion with some additional one-off development costs in the first year of implementation. The estimated total economic benefits of this sub-option range between a cost reduction of € 57.8 billion and € 87.6 billion.

7.7.    How do the options compare?

Table 7.1 below summarises the comparison of options against the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The comparisons also takes into account the criteria of proportionality and the risk of cost deviation, which is measured by the range of minimum and maximum costs. Scores are assigned on a scale from 1 to 3, as no option is expected to have negative impacts.

Across the board, all options have a positive impact. Option 2 has the strongest effect in terms of achievement of the policy objectives, impacts on fundamental rights, internal and external coherence, and net economic benefits. Compared to sub-option 2B, sub-option 2A scores better on all three assessment criteria - effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The comparative analysis below discusses these differences in further detail. A sensitivity analysis confirms this result under different weights assigned to the three criteria (See Annex 3.4).

7.1.     Effectiveness 

All options will contribute to achieving the policy objectives of the initiative. A single legislative instrument based on the most effective practices from different Member States and on the most effective measures already applied at the EU level in the neighboring policies, will contribute to a focused, coordinated approach targeting violence against women and domestic violence in all Member States.. Compared against the current regulatory fragmentation, evaluated as ineffective in the gap analysis, this is in itself an improvement and a positive contributing factor to the effectiveness of both options. Both options will also contribute to the effectiveness of safeguarding fundamental rights. To the extent that similar measures are already applied in the Member States, the effects of the measures will vary across the Union.

a)     Prevention

The prevention measures proposed under option 1 would contribute to challenging negative gender stereotypes and attitudes towards women and men, as well as raising the awareness of the general population and relevant professionals, and contributing to the specific knowledge of the latter. Option 2 is expected to make a greater contribution to ensuring effective prevention of violence against women and domestic violence, as it adds prevention measures targeting groups at risk, and opens up treatment programmes to those at risk of offending.

Moreover, while option 1 does not focus on victims of sexual harassment and cyber violence against women, option 2 goes a step further by introducing specific standards, thus providing more comprehensive and effective measures to address those specific types of violence.

The measures of option 2 are built on good practices in the Member States. In its baseline evaluation report on Austria, GREVIO commended that the two-year basic initial training of law-enforcement officers encompassed the issue of domestic violence, including its gender-based dimension and that the specific nature of this type of violence and the relevant police measures are an important element of this training. 214 Another promising practice identified by GREVIO in its baseline evaluation report on Denmark is the awareness-raising campaigns on stalking and rape, which included components that specifically targeted professionals such as law enforcement agents and social workers. 215 This approach has led to improvements in the professionals’ response to such violence and demonstrates the importance of such measures. Stakeholder views: Expanding prevention measures is supported by various stakeholders, such as NGOs and Member States. 216  Particularly measures on tackling cyber violence and sexual harassment at work are supported by social partners, international organisations and employer associations respectively. NGOs highlighted the need for trainings for professionals across sectors to provide effective support to victims, particularly with police and judicial authorities. 217  

b)    Protection

The measures in option 1 on the availability of protection orders, risk assessments and better protection of child victims and witnesses are expected to address significant shortcomings in the area of protection of victims from violence against women and domestic violence. While these measures are expected to have positive effects, they however remain very close to the baseline and do not effectively address some of the legal and practical barriers for effective protection.

Option 2 adds several valuable elements in the area of protection that address these remaining barriers, thus enhancing its effectiveness compared to option 1. In particular the measure introducing harmonised minimum standards regarding emergency barring orders is expected to improve their timeliness (within 24 hours) and effectiveness in terms of access and enforcement. Minimum harmonized standards may be expected to facilitate their cross-border effect, thus improving the mechanism set out in the existing mutual recognition instruments. 218  Option 2 also foresees measures specifically aimed at child witnesses, including surveyed safe places where children can continue to meet their parents particularly in cases of domestic violence, thereby preventing repeated victimisation.

These measures build on good practices in the area of protection in Member States. For example, in Portugal risk assessment is mandatory in cases of domestic violence, and it is based on standardised forms. After the risk assessment has been completed, a safety plan is developed for the victim, an application for protective measures is made, and the seizure of weapons is also provided. 219  

Stakeholder views: The need for further protection measures was supported by over half of the Member States with the international organisations highlighting the need for further protection measures, especially of children and child witnesses of violence against women and domestic violence. NGOs stressed the need to increase resources for issuing emergency barring orders. 14 Member States have responded that further measures would be useful to make national protection orders more effective in practice.

c)     Access to justice

Measures proposed under option 1 will improve access to justice by introducing approximation of criminal definitions and sanctions at EU-level of certain forms of violence against women and domestic violence, access to compensation and improved reporting by third parties. The positive effects are expected to be the strongest in the six Member States which have not yet ratified the Istanbul Convention. Nevertheless, they may not sufficiently address arising problems in all Member States, such as access to justice for victims of cyber violence against women and in intimate partnerships.

Sub-option 2A includes additional elements to address the gaps. Concerning compensation, under option 2A the right of victims of violence against women and domestic violence to claim full compensation from the perpetrator does not cause costs to the Member State; it ensures compensation for harm by the perpetrator caused by illegal behaviour. On the contrary, under option 2B the obligation on Member States to provide state compensation in cases where victims cannot obtain compensation from the perpetrator or other sources, would create further costs; in addition, it would require an additional legal basis incompatible with that of this initiative. Policy option 2A further ensures the approximation of criminal definitions and sanctions at EU-level, within the existing legal bases, of conduct relating to serious forms of sexual violence, cyber violence against women and in intimate partnerships, and sexual harassment at work. It also lowers the threshold for reporting violence against women and domestic violence, which is expected to increase prosecutions and convictions. Importantly, the expansion of the offences will ensure that a wider group of victims is eligible for protection. Sub-option 2B would go the furthest in terms of approximation of criminal definitions and sanctions, ensuring that in the future all forms of gender-based violence could be approximated by EU legislation by defining gender-based violence as a new area of crime under Article 83(1) TFEU. While this would ensure the most effective combatting of this kind of violence, such approximation would to a large extent overlap with national criminalisations, which already cover the overwhelming majority of forms of violence against women and domestic violence. This sub-option is therefore considered disproportionate at this time. 

The measures build on good practices in the area of access to justice implemented in the Member States. For example in Finland, in 2015, the law was amended to allow professionals, who had previously been bound by confidentiality rules, to notify statutory agencies where they suspect a risk to the life of a woman or child in the context of domestic violence.

Stakeholder views: All measures on access to justice have been supported by stakeholders. NGOs have highlighted the need to improve in particular prosecution and compensation measures. This is supported by research highlighting that training of the police and the judiciary on violence against women and domestic violence is likely to increase the number of prosecutions and convictions. 220  Measures to address sexual harassment are aligned with views of the social partners, which highlighted the need for further action. Employer associations underlined the need to take into the consideration the different capacity of large employers and SMEs, which has been taken into consideration with the proposed measures. They also stated that an understanding of the challenges posed by sex-based harassment and the illegal nature of it is well established and understood, but practical implementation remains a challenge (see Annex 2).

d)    Victim support

Both policy options are expected to increase the availability and access to support for victims of violence against women and domestic violence. The measures proposed under option 1, such as the obligation on Member States to ensure availability and adequate resourcing of general support services and specialised support services with adequate geographical coverage, including shelters in an accessible manner and sufficient numbers, are expected to increase the support for victims at a moderate rate. Specifications of the content of general and specialist support services are expected to enhance the quality and capacity of existing services and further expand them, thus also increasing overall accessibility. The same applies for the helplines, as they will be able to offer assistance to those who want to seek advice on violence against women and domestic violence, including those who may be hesitant to identify themselves as victims. Although the impact of the measures will depend on the current level of services offered in Member States, the study shows that the measures may be expected to have effect in all Member States, also in those that have ratified the Istanbul Convention. Nevertheless, under this option, some categories of victims may not be sufficiently protected, namely groups at a heightened risk of violence and victims of sexual harassment especially at work. Also, much discretion is left to Member States in interpreting the rules, for example, to provide shelters ‘in sufficient numbers’.

Option 2 is expected to ensure more effectively the availability and accessibility of support measures, boost the quality and capacity of existing services, further expand them to cover specific groups of victims with a higher risk of violence. It would ensure the availability of such services also for victims experiencing sexual harassment at work. Sub-option 2B brings added value with a mandatory amount of available shelter space and compensated special leave for workers victim of violence against women and domestic violence. However, both options are very expensive, and thus suggest a disproportionate solution.

The measures build on good practices identified in the area of victim support. For example, in Greece, a special innovative, coordinated, and gender-sensitive network offers services for vulnerable refugee women who are victims of violence against women and domestic violence and their children.. 221   In Denmark, guidelines have been developed for social workers on how to assist victims of domestic violence. For a woman seeking refuge at a shelter, the municipality is obliged to provide initial and coordinated counselling to identify their needs and offer solutions. 222 This shows how improving general and specialist support measures is needed to support victims of violence against women and domestic violence, particularly concerning vulnerable groups.

Stakeholder views: Improving victim support services has been seen as a key area of action by various stakeholders, with especially NGOs highlighting the need to estimate the cost of violence and benefits achieved through support measures. NGOs stressed the importance of Member States providing both general and specialised support services.

e)    Coordination

Both policy options are assessed to be effective in improving coordination structures across the Member States. Option 1 would be moderately effective. Training and information provision to professionals is expected to enhance cooperation between agencies. Data collection would be somewhat improved, but participation in the EU-level survey would not be ensured (currently only 18 Member States participate). Administrative data collection would be ensured, but further convergence towards the production of comparable data across the EU would not happen as no harmonised minimum standards of data disaggregation and collection would be set.

Option 2 is expected to be more effective in ensuring more robust coordination structures in relation to violence against women and domestic violence, including on multi-agency cooperation. Participation in the EU-level survey would be mandatory ensuring comparable EU-level data on the prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence. Minimum standards on administrative data collection would ensure progress toward comparability at EU level. Sub-option 2B could be more effective in ensuring the centralization of administrative data of all services at national level (police, judiciary, health, social), but this measure is operationally complex, putting a burden on the public authorities which may be disproportionate particularly at this time.

The measures build on good practices concerning coordination. For example, Spain has created and implemented an Integrated Monitoring System for cases of Gender-based Violence (VioGen). In Portugal, data from law-enforcement bodies and the judiciary must be collated throughout the entire criminal proceedings chain, from the filing of the complaint to the delivery of the judgment. A standard form is used to record domestic violence..

Stakeholder views: The need for comparable and comprehensive disaggregated data collection has been highlighted by all stakeholders as crucial for better policy development. Member States also recognised in the consultations the value of multi-agency cooperation with 14 Member States stating it could be strengthened. Research also shows that effective multi-agency service provision and coordination can help professionals respond to violence against women and domestic violence due to more effective use of resources, increased awareness and understanding of violence against women and domestic violence, and peer support. 223  

7.2.     Efficiency

Both policy options are expected to incur substantial compliance costs, but these costs are always exceeded by the potential economic benefits (measured in terms of reduction in costs of violence against women and domestic violence). The compliance costs for each problem area are higher in option 2A (see Table 6.2) compared to option 1 (Table 6.1). Overall, the total administrative and compliance costs for option 2A are between €4.2 – €4.4 billion higher than for option 1. The total administrative and compliance costs for option 2B (Table 6.3) are between €2.2 and 7.7 billion higher than option 2A.

The difference in costs is largely driven by the running costs per year of the various measures. In particular, the most substantial differences are observed in the running costs for measures related to access to justice and victim support. In addition, the cost of new measures against cyber violence against women and in intimate partnerships, effective remedies in case of sexual harassment at work and public prosecution of the new EU-crimes increases the compliance costs of this option. The costs for victim support of option 2A are around up to €4.0 billion higher than in option 1, which is mainly driven by the cost of measures to support victims of cyber violence against women or in intimate partnerships or victims of sexual harassment at work.

In conclusion, Option 1 offers the best cost to benefit ratio, but having also much lower benefits, choosing this option would result in missing out on net benefits compared to both option 2A and 2B (around €9 and over 20 billion respectively in the short and in the long period). Option 2A is preferable to Option 2B as it offers the highest net benefit in the long term and, although it has slightly lower net benefits in the short term, it achieves the benefits at much lower costs.

7.3.     Coherence

The coherence of both policy options (and sub-options) is assessed positively, as they are expected to address some of the key problems identified, namely the highly fragmented nature of the current EU legal framework, the lack of systematic, focused measures on violence against women and domestic violence and a number of the gaps in the framework identified in the gap analysis (Annex 8). Option 2 has a more positive impact on coherence as it sets specific standards in areas not specifically addressed by the Istanbul Convention (e.g. measures against cyber violence and sexual harassment).

Both options would be fully internally coherent with other actions at EU level, in particular the Victims’ Rights Strategy and the Rights of the Child Strategy by introducing detailed standards on victims’ rights and the rights of the child. Option 2 would also increase coherence with the DSA proposal because the minimum harmonisation of what constitutes criminal and illegal forms of cyber violence will ensure that the obligations in the DSA will be applicable to these forms of violence (for example orders, notice and action, trusted flaggers, risk assessments etc.). Also, Option 2 will supplement the DSA on prevention, protection, and support for victims of such cyber violence.With regard to the Victims’ Rights Strategy, the initiative will introduce specialised violence against women and domestic violence measures which will supplement the existing general victims’ rights standards at EU level, in the same way as specific measures have been adopted in regard to victims of terrorism and trafficking.

Similarly, both policy options will contribute to enhancing external coherence by aligning EU law to the standards of the Istanbul Convention, but option 2 will in addition align EU law to the standards of the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention no. 190. Both policy options will also enhance coherence with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

7.4.     Preferred option

Following the comparative assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the policy options, the preferred option proposed for political endorsement is option 2A. The superiority of this option comes from its better performance in contributing to enforcing fundamental rights and improving social impact compared to option 1 and providing a higher net benefit in the long term compared to sub-option 2B (and to Option 1) while having lower costs.

Most importantly, option 2A is expected to provide extensive protection of fundamental rights and improve the social situation of victims and society at large compared to option 1 due to its comprehensive set of obligations. It follows the principle of proportionality and necessity of an intervention at EU level: it will remove the fragmented approach across Member States, enhance legal certainty and effective enforcement and protection of victims. It establishes, for the first time at EU level, a targeted and coordinated approach to tackle violence against women and domestic violence through a set of harmonised standards. The effectiveness and proportionality of the option in reaching the objectives is superior, not only in light of strengthening the fundamental rights, but also in tackling gaps such as on cyber violence against women and in intimate partnerships and sexual harassment.

In economic terms, Option 2A is expected to achieve, through reduced prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence, economic benefits of around €53.1 billion with potential to reach to around €82.7 billion in the longer-term with a net benefit respectively of €48.1 and 76.1 billion.

Option 2A best meets the objectives of the intervention in a proportionate manner and it is therefore likely to receive better political acceptance overall.

8.8.    How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

The main objective of the initiative is the enforcement of fundamental rights. The achievement of this objective would be reflected in a decrease of prevalence rates and a decrease of the needs for protection and support. i.e. in the number of people who do not enjoy their fundamental rights.

The lack of monitoring and insufficient enforceability with regard to victims of violence against women and domestic violence is one of the key weaknesses identified in the application of the EU legal framework. Even though data indicate that this kind of violence is prevalent in all Member States, more comparable data, including on underreporting of these crimes, is needed to assess changes in prevalence rates and the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

Considering that prevalence rates reflect structural data that tend to change very slowly over time, it is likely that in the short term, this first evaluation will show progress mostly as for the implementation and setting up of processes. These could be monitored through the number of requests for victim support measures, number of prevention measures (e.g. awareness campaigns), VAW and DV cases registered by domestic law enforcement and judicial authorities and reported coordination efforts. Most data in this respect will be provided to the European Commission by Member States through the implementation reports which will feed into an evaluation to be carried out in about 5 years’ time.

A visible impact in terms of a reduction in prevalence rates in the previous years can realistically be expected only in the long run. An increased reporting, and therefore apparently higher prevalence rates, could actually be considered an indicator of success in the shorter term.

In this respect the provision regarding data collection will offer regular, comparable and, as for administrative data, also timely data.

The preferred policy option will introduce further harmonisation in the collection of disaggregated administrative data (including from law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, social and health services) at regular intervals based on the ongoing work by EIGE, and the obligatory regular survey coordinated at EU-level (following up on the EU survey on violence against women and domestic violence coordinated by Eurostat). These strengthened data collection requirements form the basis for the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the initiative against its specific objectives.

The monitoring will be based on a series of measurable outcomes (see Annex 7). With a view to avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts, monitoring will in as much as possible be based on the harmonised indicators already developed. 224  The most important indicator, but not the only, for successful implementation are the prevalence rates of violence against women and domestic violence.

The need for a policy review will be assessed following the first round of Member State reporting on the directive’s implementation, foreseen to take place about five years after the entry into force of the directive. Reporting would be carried out at regular intervals in the form of a questionnaire to the Member States. The details will be described in a monitoring and enforcement plan.

Member States would be able to draw on the information they provide to international human rights bodies under periodic reporting obligations. This would ensure that overlap in reporting and additional administrative burden is avoided. Unnecessary duplication will also be avoided by drawing on data already available under other relevant policy areas, such as on victims’ rights. Future synergies may be identified with the implementation of the EU strategies on the rights of the child, the rights of persons with disabilities and LGBTIQ equality, as well as the hate speech and hate crime initiative. Additional information on the implementation measures and their effectiveness is expected to be received from stakeholders, such as EIGE, FRA and NGOs.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: Procedural information

1.1.LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES

This Staff Working Document was prepared by the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST).

The Decide reference of this initiative is PLAN/2020/9290.

This document includes annexes to the Impact Assessment Report.

1.2.ORGANISATION AND TIMING

The Impact Assessment Report was prepared by DG JUST as the lead Directorate-General.

The Inter-Service Steering Group on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence established for the work was associated and consulted in the process, under the coordination of the Secretariat-General, including the following services: DG CONNECT (DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology), DG EAC (DG for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture), DG EMPL (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion), DG ESTAT (Statistical Office of the European Union), DG HOME (DG Migration and Home Affairs), DG SANTE (DG for Health and Food Safety) and SJ (Legal Service). In addition, the equality coordinators from the European Commission’s Equality Task Force from each DG were invited to follow the meetings to facilitate equality mainstreaming work in their policy areas.

The last meeting of the ISSG on the draft Impact Assessment Report, chaired by the Secretariat-General of the European Commission was held on 1 September 2021. Finally, the ISSG was consulted on the revised version of the impact assessment on 26 November 2021.

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board gave a negative opinion on the draft Impact Assessment Report submitted on 15 September 2021 and discussed in the hearing that took place on 13 October 2021. To address the feedback given by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, the following changes were made in the Impact Assessment Report and its annexes:

1.3.EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY

1.3.1.Studies commissioned or supported by the European Commission

European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2021). Criminalisation of gender-based violence against women in European States, including ICT-facilitated violence. A special report, available at:

https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5535-criminalisation-of-gender-based-violence-against-women-in-european-states-including-ict-facilitated-violence-1-97-mb .

European Institute for Gender Equality (2021). The costs of gender-based violence in the European Union, available at: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/costs-gender-based-violence-european-union .

ICF (2021). Study conducted in support of the impact assessment report [upcoming, reference to be added].

Eurobarometer - TNS. (2016). Special Eurobarometer 449: Gender-based violence.

1.3.2.Selective list of relevant case law

CJEU, Case C-105/03 – Maria Pupino, ECLI:EU:C:2005:386, 16 June 2005.

CJEU, Case C-467/05 – Dell’Orto, ECLI:EU:C:2007:395, 28 June 2007.

CJEU, Case C-404/07 – Katz, ECLI:EU:C:2008:553, 9 October 2008.

CJEU, Case C-205/09 – Eredics and Sápi, ECLI:EU:C:2010:623, 21 October 2010.

CJEU, Joined Cases C-483/09 and C-1/10 – Magatte Gueye and Valentín Salmerón Sánchez, ECLI:EU:C:2011:583, 15 September 2011.

CJEU, Case C-348/09 – P.I. v. Oberbürgermeisterin, ECLI:EU:C:2012:300, 22 May 2012.

CJEU, Case C-115/15 – Secretary of State for the Home Department v. NA, ECLI:EU:C:2016:487, 30 June 2016.

CJEU, Joined Cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18 – La Quadrature du Net and Others v. Premier Ministre and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, 6 October 2020.

ECtHR, X and Y v. the Netherlands, Application No. 8978/80, Judgment, 26 March 1985.

ECtHR, M.C. v. Bulgaria, Application No. 39272/98, Judgment, 4 December 2003.

ECtHR, Kontrová v. Slovakia, Application No. 7510/04, Judgment, 31 May 2007.

ECtHR, Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, Application No. 71127/01, Judgment, 12 June 2008.

ECtHR, Branko Tomaşić and Others v. Croatia, Application No. 46598/06, Judgment, 15 January 2009.

ECtHR, Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, Judgment, 9 June 2009.

ECtHR, E.S. and Others v. Slovakia, Application No. 8227/04, Judgment, 15 September 2009.

ECtHR, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Application No. 25965/04, Judgment, 7 January 2010.

ECtHR, A. v. Croatia, Application No. 55164/08, Judgment, 14 October 2010.

ECtHR, Hajduová v. Slovakia, Application No. 2660/03, Judgment, 30 November 2010.

ECtHR, V.C. v. Slovakia, Application No. 18968/07, Judgment, 8 November 2011.

ECtHR, P.M. v. Bulgaria, Application No. 49669/07, Judgment, 24 January 2012.

ECtHR, Kalucza v. Hungary, Application No. 57693/10, Judgment, 24 April 2012.

ECtHR, A.A. and Others v. Sweden, Application No. 14499/09, Judgment, 28 June 2012.

ECtHR, D.J. v. Croatia, Application No. 42418/10, Judgment, 24 July 2012.

ECtHR, Valiuliene v. Lithuania, Application No. 33234/07, Judgment, 26 March 2013.

ECtHR, Eremia and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, Application No. 3564/11, Judgment, 28 May 2013.

ECtHR, Mudric v. the Republic of Moldova, Application No. 74839/10, Judgment, 16 July 2013.

ECtHR, B. v. the Republic of Moldova, Application No. 61382/09, Judgment, 16 July 2013.

ECtHR, N.A. v. the Republic of Moldova, Application No. 13424/06, Judgment, 24 September 2013.

ECtHR, W. v. Slovenia, Application No. 24125/06, Judgment, 23 January 2014.

ECtHR, T.M. and C.M. v. the Republic of Moldova, Application No. 26608/11, Judgment, 28 January 2014.

ECtHR, O’Keeffe v. Ireland, Application No. 35810/09, Judgment, 28 January 2014.

ECtHR, Durmaz v. Turkey, Application No. 3621/07, Judgment, 13 November 2014.

ECtHR, W.H. v. Sweden, Application No. 49341/10, Judgment, 8 April 2015.

ECtHR, Y. v. Slovenia, Application No. 41107/10, Judgment, 28 May 2015.

ECtHR, R.H. v. Sweden¸ Application No. 4601/14, Judgment 10 September 2015.

ECtHR, I.C. v. Romania, Application No. 36934/08, Judgment, 24 May 2016.

ECtHR, Halime Kiliç v. Turkey, Application No. 63034/11, Judgment, 28 June 2016.

ECtHR, J. and Others v. Austria, Application No. 58246/12, Judgment, 17 January 2017.

ECtHR, Talpis v. Italy, Application No. 41237/14, Judgment, 2 March 2017.

ECtHR, B.V. v. Belgium, Application No. 61030/08, Judgment, 2 May 2017.

ECtHR, Bălşan v. Romania, Application No. 49645/09, Judgment, 23 May 2017.

ECtHR, E.B. v. Romania, Application No. 49089/10, Judgment, 10 March 2019.

ECtHR, Kurt v. Austria, Application No. 62903/15, Judgment, 4 July 2019.

ECtHR, Volodina v. Russia, Application No. 41261/17, Judgment, 9 July 2019.

ECtHR, Buturugă v. Romania, Application No. 56867/15, Judgment, 11 February 2020.

ECtHR, S.M. v. Croatia, Application No. 60561/14, Judgment, 25 June 2020.

ECtHR, X and others v. Bulgaria, Application No. 22457/16, Judgment, 2 February 2021.

ECtHR, E.G. v. Moldova, Application No. 37882/13, Judgment, 13 April 2021.

ECtHR, J.L. v. Italy, Application No. 5671/16, Judgment, 27 May 2021.

ECtHR, Volodina v. Russia (no. 2), Application No. 40419/19, Judgment, 14 September 2021.

1.3.3.Selective bibliography

EU legal acts

Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work;

Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and the European framework agreement on harassment and violence at work;

Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims;

Council Directive 2004/81/EC on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings;

Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services;

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000;

Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction;

Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification;

Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and of their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast);

Directive 2008/115/EC on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals;

Directive 2009/52/EC providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals;

Directive 2010/41/EU on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity;

Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims;

Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;

Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted;

Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order;

Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime;

Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) asylum procedures directive;

Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).

Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings;

Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities;

European framework agreement on harassment and violence at work (COM(2007) 686 final).

Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters.

Commission documents

European Commission, Guidance Document related to the transposition and implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, 19 December 2013, available at: (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/13_12_19_3763804_guidance_victims_rights_directive_eu_en.pdf).

European Commission, Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, COM(2016) 111 final, 4 March 2016, available at: ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0111 ).

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Reporting on the follow-up to the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of trafficking in human beings and identifying further concrete actions, COM(2017) 728 final, 4 December 2017, available at: ( https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/20171204_communication_reporting_on_follow-up_to_the_eu_strategy_towards_the_eradication_of_trafficking_in_human_beings.pdf ).

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings 2021- 2025, final 14 April 2021, available at: ( https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/default/files/pdf/14042021_eu_strategy_on_combatting_trafficking_in_human_beings_2021-2025_com-2021-171-1_en.pdf )

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, COM(2020) 152 final, 5 March 2020, available at: ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:152:FIN ).

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025), COM(2020) 258 final, 24 June 2020, available at: ( https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/law/2_en_act_part1_v10.pdf ).

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse, COM(2020) 607 final, 24 July 2020, available at: ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:607:FIN ).

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on achieving the European Education Area by 2025, COM(2020) 625 final, 30 September 2020, available at: ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0625 ).

European Commission, Report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (2016) as required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, COM(2016) 267 final {SWD(2016) 159 final}, 19 May 2016, available at: ( https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/report_on_the_progress_made_in_the_fight_against_trafficking_in_human_beings_2016.pdf ).

European Commission, Second report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (2018) as required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, COM(2018) 777 final {SWD(2018) 473 final}, 3 December 2018, available at: ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM%3A2018%3A777%3AFIN ).

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, available at: ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0661 ).

European Commission, Report on the implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, COM(2020) 188 final, 11 May 2020, available at: ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A188%3AFIN ).

European Commission, Report on the implementation of Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order, COM(2020) 187 final, 11 May 2020, available at: ( https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/770f93b9-9369-11ea-aac4-01aa75ed71a1/language-en ).

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. On the European democracy action plan, COM(2020) 790 final, 3 December 2020, available at: ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0790&from=EN ).

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, COM/2021/142 final, 24 March 2021, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0142

Academic literature

Antecol, H., Barcus, V. & Cobb-Clark, D., “Gender-biased behavior at work: Exploring the relationship between sexual harassment and sex discrimination”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 30(5), 2009, pp. 782-792.

Arenas-Arroyo, E., Fernández-Kranz, D. & Nollenberger, N., “Can’t Leave You Now! Intimate Partner Violence under Forced Coexistence and Economic Uncertainty”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 194, 2020, 1-15.

Bandura, A., Aggression: A social learning analysis, Prentice Hall, 1973.

Bohner, G., et al., “Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator”, in Horvath, M. & Brown, J. (eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking, 2009, 17-45.

Bowlus, A.J. & Seitz, S., “Domestic Violence, Employment, And Divorce”, International Economic Review, Vol. 47(4), 2006, 1113-1149.

Bowstead, J.C., “Women on the move: administrative data as a safe way to research hidden domestic violence journeys”, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, Vol. 3(2), 2019, 233-248.

Campo, M. & Tayton, S., Intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer communities, CFCA Practitioner Resource, 2015, available at: ( https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/intimate-partner-violence-lgbtiq-communities ).

Cancedda, A., De Micheli, B., Dimitrova, D. & Slot, B., Study for the European Commission: Study on high-risk groups for trafficking in human beings, 2015, available at: ( https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/default/files/study_on_children_as_high_risk_groups_of_trafficking_in_human_beings_0.pdf ).

Clark, K. A., Biddle, A. K., & Martin, S. L. (2002), “A cost-benefit analysis of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994”, Violence Against Women, Vol. 8(4), 2002, 417-428.

Colagrossi, M., Deiana, C., Geraci, A. & Giua, L., “Hang Up on Stereotypes: Domestic Violence and Anti-Abuse Helpline Campaign”, HEDG Working Paper Series, 2020.

Dobash R.P., Dobash R.E., Cavanagh, K., Lewis, R., “Separate and Intersecting Realities: A Comparison of Men’s and Women’s Accounts of Violence Against Women”, Violence Against Women, Vol. 4(4), 1998, 382-414.

Dolan, P., “Estimating the intangible victim costs of violent crime”, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 45(6), 2005, 958–976.

Elbers, N.A., et al., "Fair and Appropriate? Compensation of Victims of Sexual Violence in EU Member States: Greece, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and Spain. Part II: State and Offender Compensation: Survey, Good Practices and Recommendations”, FAIRCOM Report Part II, 2020, available at: (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3732186).

Gracia, E., “Unreported cases of domestic violence against women: towards an epidemiology of social silence, tolerance, and inhibition”, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, Vol. 58(7), 2004, 536-537.

Hanson, L.L.M., Nyberg, A., Mittendorfer-Rutz, E., Bondestam, F. & Madsen, I.E.H., “Work related sexual harassment and risk of suicide and suicide attempts: prospective cohort study”, 2020, BMJ, 1-8.

Harris, B. & Vitis, L., “Digital intrusions: technology, spatiality and violence against women”, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, Vol. 4(3) 2020, 325-341.

Harris, L. & Hodges, K. “Responding to complexity: improving service provision for survivors of domestic abuse with ‘complex needs’, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, Vol. 3(2), 2019, 167-184.

Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D. & Roemer, L., “The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence”, Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol. 3(2), 2002, 97–106

Kelly, L. & Westmarland, N., “It’s a work in progress’: men’s accounts of gender and change in their use of coercive control”, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, Vol. 3(3), 2019, 1-16, available at: ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335205710_'It's_a_work_in_progress'_men's_accounts_of_gender_and_change_in_their_use_of_coercive_control ).