The document discusses the implications of the EU directive on minimum standards for victims of crime in relation to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It emphasizes the need for victims to receive information, support, and the ability to participate in criminal proceedings while balancing their rights with the defendant's fair trial rights. The paper also highlights areas where the directive could improve participation and the complexities involved in the legal framework.

1. Alex Sas
Policy Advisor

2. Human Rights and Victims’ rights
Human rights and Victims’ rights
some thoughts

3. Human Rights and Victims’ rights
Will the EU Directive minimum standards for victims of crime affects article 6 of
the European Convention of Human Rights?

4. European Court of Human Rights
Victim as civil claimant
Article 6 ECHR (ECtHR case Perez vs. France)
Applies only to the right to bring civil proceedings (compensation)
Does not apply for ‘purely punitive purposes’
No recognition of the participation of victims in criminal proceedings

5. European Union
Article 1 EU Directive
Objectives
1. The purpose of this Directive is to ensure that victims of crime receive appropriate information,
support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings.
 Fair trial: Article 47 EU Charter
 Article 6 ECHR?: ECHR is a ‘living instrument’.

6. Participation
1. Receive information (Article 6 EU Directive)
( Right to attend the trial? paragraph 1(b))
2. Give information (Article 10 EU Directive)
3. Right to a review of a decision not to prosecute (Article 11 Eu Directive)

7. Participation
Article 10 EU Directive
Right to be heard
1. Member States shall ensure that victims may be heard during criminal proceedings and may
provide evidence. (…)
2. The procedural rules under which victims may be heard during criminal proceedings and may
provide evidence shall be determined by national law.

8. Participation
DG Justice Guidance Document
‘The purpose of this Article [10] is to ensure that all victims have an opportunity to provide
information, views or evidence throughout criminal proceedings’
Best practice 
a victim should be free to present to the authorities concerned his/her view
about the manner in which he/she would like to participate in the trial and that the Member
State would respect and fulfil this request, to the greatest extent possible (e.g. Victim impact
statement).

9. Participation 2.0
e.g.
Germany: Nebenkläger
NL: Victim statement of opinion 

10. Participation 2.0 NL
Victim Statement of Opinion (1 July 2016):
(Only in cases of serious violent crimes)
• Is the defendant guilty?
• What punishment should be imposed?
But no obligation for the court to respond to the statement in the verdict

11. Participation 2.0
Collision with Article 6 ECHR: The presumption of innocence/fair trial?
• Defense has the right to contest the statement of the victim
• New facts  victim can be questioned
Fair trial defendant  Fair trial victim
Article 6 ECHR  Article 47 EU Charter

12. Discussion?
1. I've never heard so much nonsense.
2. Victims’ rights are human rights.
3. It does not matter what you call victims' rights.
4. The EU Directive still leaves room for improvement in the field of participation.
5. The EU Directive is not unconditional and not sufficiently precise to have direct effect.