Vom 21. April 2010
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 17/1461
17. Wahlperiode 21. 04. 2010
Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht
des Rechtsausschusses (6. Ausschuss)
zu der Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
– Drucksache 17/720 Nr. A.7 –
Initiative für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die
europäische Schutzanordnung (inkl. 17513/09 ADD 1 und 17513/09 ADD 2)
(ADD 1 und ADD 2 in Englisch)
Ratsdok. 17513/09
A. Problem
Zwölf Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union haben eine Initiative für eine
Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die europäische
Schutzanordnung vorgelegt, deren Ziel es ist, den grenzüberschreitenden
Schutz von Personen, die durch eine andere Person gefährdet werden, innerhalb
des europäisches Raumes der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts zu verbes-
sern. Hierzu soll das Instrument einer europäischen Schutzanordnung dienen,
mit der Maßnahmen, die zum Schutz der gefährdeten Personen in einem Mit-
gliedstaat (Anordnungsstaat) getroffen wurden, auf andere Mitgliedstaaten
(Vollstreckungsstaat) ausgeweitet werden können, wenn die gefährdete Person
sich in einen anderen Mitgliedstaat begibt. Die Schutzanordnung soll im An-
ordnungsstaat mit der Folge erlassen werden, dass die in diesem Staat ergan-
gene Entscheidung über eine Schutzmaßnahme im Vollstreckungsstaat aner-
kannt werden kann, ohne dass die gefährdete Person in jenem Staat ein neues
Verfahren anstrengen muss. Die vorgeschlagene Richtlinie soll im Rahmen der
justiziellen Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen auf Grundlage von Artikel 82 Ab-
satz 1 Unterabsatz 2 Buchstabe a und d des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der
Europäischen Union erlassen werden.
B. Lösung
Kenntnisnahme der Initiative für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments
und des Rates über die europäische Schutzanordnung und Annahme einer Ent-
schließung. Hierin soll der Deutsche Bundestag die Bundesregierung gemäß
Artikel 23 Absatz 3 des Grundgesetzes auffordern, auf europäischer Ebene die
von den Initianten gewählte Rechtsgrundlage in Frage zu stellen und im Inte-
resse der Einhaltung der Prinzipien der Verhältnismäßigkeit und der besseren
Rechtsetzung Änderungen der Richtlinie anzuregen. Hierzu gehören Ausnah-
men vom Anwendungsbereich der Richtlinie, die Beschränkung der europäi-
schen Schutzanordnung auf die Anerkennung mitgeteilter Fakten sowie eine
Erweiterung der Gründe, mit denen der Vollstreckungsstaat die Anerkennung
ablehnen kann.
Drucksache 17/1461 – 2 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Annahme einer Entschließung mit den Stimmen der Fraktionen der CDU/
CSU, SPD und FDP bei Stimmenthaltung der Fraktionen DIE LINKE.
und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
C. Alternativen
Keine
D. Kosten
Wurden im Ausschuss nicht erörtert.
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 3 – Drucksache 17/1461
Beschlussempfehlung
Der Bundestag wolle beschließen, in Kenntnis der Unterrichtung durch die
Bundesregierung auf Drucksache 17/720 Nr. A.7 folgende Entschließung ge-
mäß Artikel 23 Absatz 3 des Grundgesetzes anzunehmen:
,I. Der Deutsche Bundestag stellt fest:
1. Am 4. Januar 2010 haben 12 Mitgliedstaaten gemäß Artikel 76 Buch-
stabe b AEUV dem Rat eine Initiative für eine Richtlinie des Europäi-
schen Parlaments und des Rates über die Europäische Schutzanordnung
vorgelegt. Ziel der Initiative ist, den grenzüberschreitenden Schutz von
Personen, die durch eine andere Person gefährdet werden, innerhalb des
europäischen Raums der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts zu ver-
bessern. Dazu sollen nach dem Recht eines Mitgliedstaates (dem „An-
ordnungsstaat“) zum Schutz einer gefährdeten Person gegen eine ge-
fährdende Person erlassene Verbote oder Verpflichtungen („Schutzmaß-
nahmen“) auf andere Mitgliedstaaten (die „Vollstreckungsstaaten“) aus-
geweitet werden, wenn die gefährdete Person sich in den jeweiligen
Vollstreckungsstaat begeben will.
2. Die Initiative sieht insoweit einen Mechanismus der gegenseitigen An-
erkennung vor. Nach dem Entwurf in der Fassung des Ratsdok. 6812/10
muss zunächst eine Schutzmaßnahme nach dem nationalen Recht des
Anordnungsstaates zugunsten der gefährdeten Person erlassen werden
(Artikel 4). Dabei kann es sich auch um Maßnahmen handeln, die von
Einrichtungen der Zivilgerichtsbarkeit verhängt werden (Ratsdok. 5677/
10, S. 14). Wenn die gefährdete Person den Anordnungsstaat verlassen
will oder verlassen hat, kann der Anordnungsstaat auf Grundlage der
Schutzmaßnahme auf Antrag der gefährdeten Person – quasi als Zwi-
schenschritt – eine Europäische Schutzanordnung erlassen (Artikel 5)
und an den Vollstreckungsstaat übermitteln. Der Vollstreckungsstaat soll
die Europäische Schutzanordnung anerkennen und alle Maßnahmen
treffen, die sein nationales Recht zum Schutz von gefährdeten Personen
vorsieht (Artikel 8). Er kann die Anerkennung einer Europäischen
Schutzanordnung jedoch verweigern, wenn einer der in Artikel 9 enume-
rativ aufgezählten Gründe vorliegt (unter anderem Amnestie, Immunität,
Verjährung, Verstoß gegen den „ne bis in idem“-Grundsatz oder feh-
lende Strafmündigkeit).
3. Die initiierte Richtlinie soll im Rahmen der justiziellen Zusammenarbeit
in Strafsachen auf Grundlage von Artikel 82 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 2
Buchstabe a und d AEUV erlassen werden. Sie reiht sich ein in eine Se-
rie von Rechtsakten zur gegenseitigen Anerkennung gerichtlicher Ent-
scheidungen in Strafsachen, zu denen u. a. die Rahmenbeschlüsse 2008/
947/JI des Rates vom 27. November 2008 über die Anwendung des
Grundsatzes der gegenseitigen Anerkennung auf Urteile und Bewäh-
rungsentscheidungen im Hinblick auf die Überwachung von Bewäh-
rungsmaßnahmen und alternativen Sanktionen sowie 2009/829/JI des
Rates vom 23. Oktober 2009 über die Anwendung – zwischen den Mit-
gliedstaaten der Europäischen Union – des Grundsatzes der gegenseiti-
gen Anerkennung auf Entscheidungen über Überwachungsmaßnahmen
als Alternative zur Untersuchungshaft gehören. Im Unterschied zur vor-
gelegten Initiative für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und
des Rates über die Europäische Schutzanordnung beschränken diese
Rechtsakte ihren Anwendungsbereich jedoch auf die gegenseitige Aner-
Drucksache 17/1461 – 4 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
kennung strafrechtlicher Maßnahmen und beziehen Entscheidungen der
Zivilgerichtsbarkeit nicht mit ein. Zudem werden die nationalen Maß-
nahmen direkt anerkannt, ohne dass ein Zwischenschritt erforderlich ist,
in dem auf der Basis der nationalen Maßnahme eine Europäische „Voll-
streckungs“- bzw. „Überwachungs“anordnung erlassen werden müsste,
welche erst Gegenstand der Anerkennung im vollstreckenden Mitglied-
staat ist. Schließlich kann der Vollstreckungsstaat die Anerkennung und
Vollstreckung – neben den im Richtlinienentwurf genannten Gründen –
auch ablehnen, wenn ihr eine Handlung zugrunde liegt, die nach dem
Recht des Vollstreckungsstaats keine Straftat darstellen würde (Grund-
satz der beiderseitigen Strafbarkeit), oder wenn die Tat zumindest zu ei-
nem wesentlichen Teil in dessen Hoheitsgebiet begangen worden ist.
4. Aufgrund der Existenz der genannten Rahmenbeschlüsse sind bei den
Verhandlungen im Rat Zweifel aufgetreten, ob Maßnahmen, die mittel-
bar auch dem Schutz potentieller Opfer dienen können und die im Er-
mittlungsverfahren als mildere Maßnahme zur Untersuchungshaft bzw.
als Weisung im Rahmen einer Bewährungsentscheidung ergehen, nicht
bereits auf der Grundlage des Artikels 8 Absatz 1 in Verbindung mit Ar-
tikel 12 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2009/829/JI bzw. des Artikels 4
Absatz 1 in Verbindung mit Artikel 8 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/947/
JI anerkannt werden. Dieselben Zweifel wurden im Hinblick auf Ent-
scheidungen der Zivilgerichtsbarkeit – wie diejenigen nach dem deut-
schen Gesetz zum zivilrechtlichen Schutz vor Gewalttaten und Nach-
stellungen (Gewaltschutzgesetz – GewSchG) – wegen der Verordnung
(EG) Nr. 44/2001 des Rates vom 22. Dezember 2000 über die gericht-
liche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Ent-
scheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen geäußert.
5. Problematisiert wurde zudem, ob Artikel 82 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 2
Buchstabe d AEUV eine ausreichende Rechtsgrundlage für die vorgese-
hene Richtlinie darstelle, da die als Grundlage der Europäischen Schutz-
anordnung vorausgesetzten Schutzmaßnahmen nach nationalem Recht
nicht nur in strafrechtlichen Verfahren erlassen werden, sondern zum
Teil verwaltungsrechtlich bzw. – wie nach dem deutschen Gewaltschutz-
gesetz – zivilrechtlich zu qualifizieren sind.
6. Der Juristische Dienst des Rates gelangte in seinem zur Frage der Kom-
petenzgrundlage vom Rat angeforderten Gutachten zu dem Ergebnis,
dass Entscheidungen, mit denen spezifische Schutzmaßnahmen, die dem
Ziel des Schutzes vor Straftaten dienten, erlassen oder bestätigt würden,
ihrem Wesen nach „Strafsachen“ im Sinne von Artikel 82 AEUV beträ-
fen. Das gelte zumindest, wenn – wie im Falle der Europäischen Schutz-
anordnung – das Leben, die physische oder psychische Integrität, die
persönliche Freiheit oder die sexuelle Integrität geschützt werden soll-
ten. Diese persönlichen Rechte entsprächen grundlegenden Werten, die
in allen Mitgliedstaaten anerkannt seien und denen alle Mitgliedstaaten
Geltung verschafften, so dass Handlungen oder Verhaltensweisen, die
diese Rechte gefährdeten oder verletzten, in allen Mitgliedstaaten Straf-
taten darstellten und durch strenge Strafen geahndet würden (Ratsdok.
6516/10, Rn. 15). Die Initiative könne sich jedoch nicht auf Gegen-
stände erstrecken oder sich auf diese auswirken, die unter die justizielle
Zusammenarbeit in Zivilsachen nach Artikel 81 AEUV fielen (Rn. 24).
7. Hinsichtlich der justiziellen Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen hat das
Bundesverfassungsgericht in seinem Urteil zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit
des Zustimmungsgesetzes zum Vertrag von Lissabon entschieden, dass
wegen der besonders empfindlichen Berührung der demokratischen
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 5 – Drucksache 17/1461
Selbstbestimmung durch Straf- und Strafverfahrensnormen die vertragli-
chen Kompetenzgrundlagen für solche Schritte strikt – keinesfalls ex-
tensiv – auszulegen seien. Die demnach zum Schutz des nach dem Ver-
ständnis des Grundgesetzes demokratischen Primärraums gebotene enge
Auslegung sei auch der Entscheidung des deutschen Vertreters im Rat
zugrundezulegen, wenn ein Beschluss im Bereich der gegenseitigen An-
erkennung gerichtlicher Urteile und Entscheidungen sowie allgemein
des Strafverfahrensrechts gefasst werden solle (Urteil des Zweiten Se-
nats vom 30. Juni 2009, 2 BvE 2/08 u. a., Rn. 358 und 360).
8. Der Bundesrat hat am 26. März 2010 gegen den Richtlinienentwurf Sub-
sidiaritätsrüge nach Artikel 12 Buchstabe b EUV erhoben (Bundesrats-
drucksache 43/10(B)).
9. In den Verhandlungen wurden zudem Zweifel an der Geeignetheit und
der Verhältnismäßigkeit der Europäischen Schutzanordnung laut. Auf-
grund des komplexen, mehrstufigen und zeitaufwändigen Verfahrens –
Erlass Schutzmaßnahme, Antrag auf Erlass einer Europäischen Schutz-
anordnung durch Anordnungsstaat, Erlass der Europäischen Schutzan-
ordnung, Prüfung und Anerkennung im Vollstreckungsstaat und schließ-
lich Ergreifen von Maßnahmen, die in vergleichbaren nationalen Fällen
vorgesehen sind – könnten gefährdete Personen durch Erwirkung einer
eigenständigen Schutzmaßnahme im jeweiligen Aufenthaltsstaat schnel-
ler und effektiver Schutz erlangen.
II. Der Deutsche Bundestag fordert die Bundesregierung gemäß Artikel 23
Absatz 3 Satz 1 des Grundgesetzes auf,
1. auf europäischer Ebene für eine strikte Einhaltung der Kompetenzord-
nung des AEUV einzutreten und die von den Initianten gewählte
Rechtsgrundlage vor dem Hintergrund der Gefahr in Frage zu stellen,
dass die europäische Zuständigkeit für die Zusammenarbeit im Rahmen
der Strafverfolgung sowie des Vollzugs und der Vollstreckung von Ent-
scheidungen im Rahmen der justiziellen Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen
auf eine Zuständigkeit für den Schutz vor Straftaten erweitert werden
könnte;
2. im Interesse der Einhaltung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzips und des
Grundsatzes der besseren Rechtsetzung darauf hinzuwirken, dass die
Schutzmaßnahmen vom Anwendungsbereich der Richtlinie ausgenom-
men werden, die bereits auf der Grundlage bestehender Rechtsakte ge-
genseitig anerkannt werden können;
3. im Interesse der Einhaltung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzips und des
Grundsatzes der besseren Rechtsetzung sowie eines schnellen Schutzes
für gefährdete Personen darauf hinzuwirken, dass lediglich die mittels
einer Europäischen Schutzanordnung mitgeteilten Fakten anerkannt und
als Grundlage einer eigenständigen Anordnung nach dem nationalen
Schutzrecht herangezogen werden. Dadurch ist der Vollstreckungsstaat
in der Lage, nach seinem eigenen Recht, einen ebenso effizienten und
schnellen Schutz für die gefährdete Person zu gewährleisten (wie dies
im deutschen Recht beispielsweise aufgrund der Regelungen zum Ge-
waltschutzgesetz der Fall ist). Die Schaffung einer Europäischen
Schutzanordnung darf nicht verstanden werden als Übergang in ein Sys-
tem, in dem europäische Anordnungen statt nationaler Entscheidungen
Grundlage der gegenseitigen Anerkennung in Strafsachen sind und zu-
dem auf das Erfordernis der beiderseitigen Sanktionierbarkeit einer
Handlung ohne Berücksichtigung des im Einzelfall zu schützenden
Rechtsguts verzichtet wird;
Drucksache 17/1461 – 6 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
4. anzuregen, ob ein schnellerer Schutz für gefährdete Personen nicht auf
der Grundlage der Artikel 82 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 2 Buchstabe d bzw.
Artikel 87 Absatz 2 Buchstabe a AEUV durch den zügigen Austausch
der einschlägigen Informationen als Grundlage für den Erlass einer
Schutzanordnung nach dem nationalen Recht des neuen Wohnsitzstaates
erreicht werden könnte sowie
5. im Interesse der Einhaltung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzips und des
Grundsatzes der besseren Rechtsetzung einzubringen, dass – sofern es
bei der Ausgestaltung im Wege der gegenseitigen Anerkennung von
Entscheidungen in Strafsachen bleibt – der Vollstreckungsstaat die An-
erkennung – neben den im Richtlinienentwurf genannten Gründen –
auch dann ablehnen kann, wenn ihr eine Handlung zugrunde liegt, die
nach dem Recht des Vollstreckungsstaats keine Straftat darstellen würde
oder wenn die Tat zumindest zu einem wesentlichen Teil in dessen Ho-
heitsgebiet begangen worden ist.‘
Berlin, den 21. April 2010
Der Rechtsausschuss
Siegfried Kauder
(Villingen-Schwenningen)
Vorsitzender
Dr. Jan-Marco Luczak
Berichterstatter
Marco Buschmann
Berichterstatter
Dr. Eva Högl
Berichterstatterin
Raju Sharma
Berichterstatter
Ingrid Hönlinger
Berichterstatterin
Die Fraktion der FDP führte aus, auch sie halte es für
wichtig, Positionen in Brüssel gemeinsam vorzutragen. Sie
Sie könne dieser Entschließung nicht zustimmen, sondern
werde sich der Stimme enthalten. Sie wünsche sich ein bes-
bitte um Verständnis dafür, dass es im Einzelfall Zeitprob-
leme geben könne. Es sei überlegt worden, die Beschluss-
fassung zu verschieben, dann jedoch wäre diese erst nach
der kommenden Sitzung des zuständigen Rates Justiz und
ser abgestimmtes Verfahren. Inhaltlich spreche gegen ihre
Zustimmung, dass sehr stark auf den Bereich des Strafrechts
abgestellt werde, obwohl im deutschen Recht das Gewalt-
schutzgesetz dem Zivilrecht zuzuordnen sei. Des Weiteren
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 7 – Drucksache 17/1461
Bericht der Abgeordneten Dr. Jan-Marco Luczak, Marco Buschmann, Dr. Eva Högl,
Raju Sharma und Ingrid Hönlinger
I. Überweisung
Das Ratsdokument 17513/09 wurde mit Überweisungs-
drucksache 17/720 Nr. A.7 vom 15. Februar 2010 gemäß
§ 93 der Geschäftsordnung dem Rechtsausschuss zur feder-
führenden Beratung und dem Ausschuss für die Angelegen-
heiten der Europäischen Union zur Mitberatung überwiesen.
II. Stellungnahmen des mitberatenden
Ausschusses
Der Ausschuss für die Angelegenheiten der Europäischen
Union hat die Vorlage auf Ratsdokument 17513/09 in seiner
12. Sitzung am 21. April 2010 beraten und zur Kenntnis ge-
nommen. Er hat mit den Stimmen der Fraktionen der CDU/
CSU, SPD und FDP gegen die Stimmen der Fraktion DIE
LINKE. bei Stimmenthaltung der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/
DIE GRÜNEN die Annahme der in der Beschlussempfeh-
lung wiedergegebenen, von den Fraktionen der CDU/CSU
und FDP beantragten Entschließung empfohlen.
III. Beratungsverlauf und Beratungsergebnis
im federführenden Ausschuss
Der Rechtsausschuss hat die Vorlage in seiner 10. Sitzung
am 21. April 2010 nach vorbereitenden Beratungen im Un-
terausschuss Europarecht abschließend beraten und einver-
nehmlich zur Kenntnis genommen. Er hat mit den Stimmen
der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU, SPD und FDP bei Stimment-
haltung der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE
GRÜNEN beschlossen, dem Bundestag zu empfehlen, die
in der Beschlussempfehlung wiedergegebene, von den Frak-
tionen der CDU/CSU und FDP beantragte Entschließung
anzunehmen.
Die Fraktion der SPD bedauerte, dass im Ausschuss auf-
grund zeitlicher Abstimmungsprobleme keine gemeinsame
Entschließung aller Fraktionen beraten werden könne. Es
sei ihr ein ernsthaftes Anliegen, bei wichtigen europarecht-
lichen Fragen, in denen lediglich – wie im vorliegenden Fall
– Differenzen im Detail bestünden, die sich durch Kompro-
misse ausräumen ließen, gemeinsame Anträge zu erarbei-
ten. Man habe hier den sehr guten Weg einer Stellungnahme
nach Artikel 23 Absatz 3 des Grundgesetzes gewählt. Diese
Stellungnahmen würden in den Institutionen der Europäi-
schen Union gehört und ihre Bedeutung werde vergrößert,
wenn sie auch von den Oppositionsfraktionen SPD, DIE
LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN mitgetragen
würden. Sie stimme der Entschließung aber zu, da sie in der
Sache mit den Forderungen einverstanden sei.
des gesamten Hauses zu Gehör zu bringen. Sie freue sich
über die Zustimmung der Fraktion der SPD in der Sache,
weil es sich um eine fundierte Stellungnahme handele.
Die Bundesregierung erklärte, sie sei dankbar für kritische
Anmerkungen des Rechtsausschusses, die auch in deutli-
chen Worten in der Entschließung zum Ausdruck kämen.
Der Opferschutz werde allgemein als äußerst bedeutsam an-
gesehen, weshalb die Initiative der spanischen Ratspräsi-
dentschaft durchaus anerkennenswert sei. Die kritischen
Stellungnahmen würden beim Rat Justiz und Inneres am
22. und 23. April 2010 gehört, wo das Bundesministerium
der Jusiz die Anliegen der Entschließung vortragen werde.
Weil die Frage der Rechtsgrundlage vielfach angesprochen
worden sei, sei die Behandlung im Rat von einer „allgemei-
nen Ausrichtung“ zu einer „Orientierungsaussprache“ her-
abgestuft worden. Dies zeige, dass der Rat die Bedenken,
die bezüglich der Rechtsgrundlage auch von der Kommis-
sion geteilt würden, ernst nehme. Die Kommission stelle so-
gar in Aussicht, eine Klärung auf dem Klageweg herbeizu-
führen, wenn die Richtlinie in dieser Form zustande käme.
Die Fraktion DIE LINKE. stimmte den Ausführungen der
Fraktion der SPD hinsichtlich der zeitlichen Abstimmung
und der Kompromissbereitschaft in inhaltlichen Fragen zu.
Sie sei trotz der kurzen Fristen zu einer Zusammenarbeit be-
reit gewesen. Sie kritisierte, dass die Entschließung fordere,
dass mit der europäischen Schutzanordnung die mitgeteilten
Fakten anerkannt und als Grundlage einer eigenständigen
Schutzanordnung nach dem nationalen Recht herangezogen
werden sollten. Dies sei keine verfahrensrechtliche Kleinig-
keit, denn die festgestellten Fakten seien in einem rechts-
staatlichen Verfahren ein wesentlicher Kern dessen, was
Grundlage der Anordnung sein solle. Über diese Bedenken
hätte sie hinwegsehen und die Entschließung unterstützen
können, wenn alle Fraktionen die Entschließung hätten ein-
bringen können. Da es keinen gemeinsamen Antrag gebe,
werde sie sich der Stimme enthalten.
Die Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN brachte ihre
Freude zum Ausdruck, dass die Bedenken des Parlaments
gehört und auf europäischer Ebene noch einmal über
diese Vorlage nachgedacht würde. Sie halte es für wichtig
zu überlegen, wie Opfer im Anwendungsbereich des Ge-
waltschutzgesetzes auf deutscher Ebene auch in anderen
Mitgliedstaaten besser geschützt werden könnten. Auch
sie habe sich eine fraktionsübergreifende Stellungnahme
gewünscht, weil eine von allen Fraktionen mitgetragene
Entschließung in Brüssel anders wahrgenommen werde
und schließe sich den Bemerkungen der Fraktion der SPD
an.
Inneres erfolgt. Auch in Zukunft werde das Gespräch mit
den anderen Fraktionen gesucht werden, um eine Stimme
würden im Feststellungsteil der Entschließung die Rahmen-
beschlüsse über die Bewährungsmaßnahmen und über die
Drucksache 17/1461 – 8 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Verhinderung der Untersuchungshaft als Beispiele für Rege-
lungen benannt, dass der Vollstreckungsstaat die ge-
wünschte Handlung ablehnen könne, wenn es an der dop-
pelten Strafbarkeit fehle. Diese Aussage stimme nicht, viel-
mehr gelte das Gegenteil, was der Rechtsausschuss in der
Vergangenheit häufig bedauert habe. In den Rahmenbe-
schlüssen seien Deliktsgruppen aufgeführt, bei denen der
Einwand fehlender doppelter Strafbarkeit ausgeschlossen
sei. Im Forderungsteil werde die Bundesregierung aufgefor-
dert, darauf hinzuwirken, dass – wenn die europäische
Schutzanordnung schon nicht verhindert werden könne –
der Einwand fehlender doppelter Strafbarkeit erhoben wer-
den könne. Diese Forderung sei in sich nicht logisch, weil
im deutschen Gewaltschutzgesetz eine Straftat keine Vor-
aussetzung für eine Schutzmaßnahme sei. Vielmehr werde
in § 1 Absatz 1 des Gewaltschutzgesetzes auf die Formulie-
rung des § 823 Absatz 1 BGB rekurriert und in § 1 Absatz 2
Nummer 2 Buchstabe b des Gewaltschutzgesetzes auf sons-
tige Handlungen Bezug genommen, die als so unerträglich
bezeichnet würden, dass sie eine Schutzmaßnahme recht-
fertigten, aber keine Straftat darstellen müssten.
Die Fraktion der CDU/CSU unterstrich, dass auch den
Fraktionen der Regierungskoalition daran gelegen sei, ge-
rade bei solchen europäischen Vorlagen, bei denen in Aus-
schussdiskussionen weitgehender Konsens festgestellt wor-
den sei, die Oppositionsfraktionen einzubeziehen und eine
gemeinsame Stellungnahme zu erwirken. Auf die Ausfüh-
rungen der Fraktion DIE LINKE. erwiderte sie, inhaltlich
werde an der vorgeschlagenen Schutzanordnung vor allem
die Effizienz kritisiert. Hier sei der Ansatzpunkt der Ent-
schließung sicherzustellen, dass die Fakten möglichst
schnell übermittelt würden, so dass die Informationen über
eine nationale Schutzmaßnahme im Vollstreckungsstaat an-
kämen und anerkannt würden. Dies könne unter Umständen
schneller und effektiver sein als der in der Richtlinie vorge-
schlagene Weg, so dass ein größerer Opferschutz erreicht
werden könne. Aus diesem Grund werde hier ein Schwer-
punkt gelegt, der auch die Diskussionslage auf europäischer
Ebene widerspiegele. Sie sei erfreut, dass die Bedenken
Eingang in die europäischen Beratungen gefunden hätten;
hier wachse die Sensibilität für Anregungen der mit-
gliedstaatlichen Parlamente.
Berlin, den 21. April 2010
Dr. Jan-Marco Luczak
Berichterstatter
Marco Buschmann
Berichterstatter
Dr. Eva Högl
Berichterstatterin
Raju Sharma
Berichterstatter
Ingrid Hönlinger
Berichterstatterin
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 9 – Drucksache 17/1461
Anlage
Drucksache 17/1461 – 10 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 11 – Drucksache 17/1461
RAT DER
EUROPÄISCHEN UNION
Brüssel, den 5. Januar 2010
(OR. en)
17513/09
COPEN 247
GESETZGEBUNGSAKTE UND ANDERE RECHTSINSTRUMENTE
Betr.: INITIATIVE FÜR EINE RICHTLINIE DES EUROPÄISCHEN
PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES über die europäische
Schutzanordnung
17513/09 JH/jl
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 12 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
RICHTLINIE 2010/…/EU
DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES
vom
ÜBER DIE EUROPÄISCHE SCHUTZANORDNUNG
DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT UND DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION –
gestützt auf den Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union, insbesondere auf Artikel 82
Absatz 1 Buchstabe d,
auf Initiative des Königreichs Belgien, der Republik Bulgarien, des Königreichs Spanien, der
Republik Estland, der Französischen Republik, der Italienischen Republik, der Republik Ungarn,
der Republik Polen, der Portugiesischen Republik, Rumäniens, der Republik Finnland und des
Königreichs Schweden,
gemäß dem ordentlichen Gesetzgebungsverfahren1,
1 Position des Europäischen Parlaments vom … (noch nicht im Amtsblatt veröffentlicht) und
Beschluss des Rates vom … (noch nicht im Amtsblatt veröffentlicht).
17513/09 JH/jl 1
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 13 – Drucksache 17/1461
in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
(1) Die Europäische Union hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, einen Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit
und des Rechts zu erhalten und weiterzuentwickeln.
(2) Artikel 82 Absatz 1 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (VAEU)
sieht vor, dass die justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen in der Union auf dem
Grundsatz der gegenseitigen Anerkennung gerichtlicher Urteile und Entscheidungen
beruht.
(3) Gemäß dem Stockholmer Programm, das der Europäische Rat auf seiner Tagung vom
10./11. Dezember 2009 angenommen hat, könnte sich die gegenseitige Anerkennung auf
alle Arten von gerichtlichen Urteilen und Entscheidungen erstrecken, seien sie – abhängig
vom Rechtssystem – strafrechtlicher oder verwaltungsrechtlicher Art. In dem Programm
wird ferner darauf hingewiesen, dass für Opfer von Straftaten besondere Schutzmaß-
nahmen vorgesehen werden können, die innerhalb der Union wirksam sein sollten.
17513/09 JH/jl 2
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 14 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
(4) In seiner Entschließung vom 2. Februar 2006 zu der derzeitigen Lage bei der Bekämpfung
der Gewalt gegen Frauen und künftigen Maßnahmen empfiehlt das Europäische Parlament
den Mitgliedstaaten, eine Nulltoleranz-Politik gegenüber jeder Form von Gewalt gegen
Frauen zu verfolgen, und fordert die Mitgliedstaaten auf, geeignete Maßnahmen zu treffen,
um einen besseren Schutz und eine bessere Unterstützung für tatsächliche und potenzielle
Opfer zu gewährleisten.
(5) In einem gemeinsamen Rechtsraum ohne Binnengrenzen muss gewährleistet sein, dass der
einer Person in einem Mitgliedstaat gewährte Schutz in jedem anderen Mitgliedstaat, in
den die betreffende Person umzieht oder umgezogen ist, aufrechterhalten und fortgesetzt
wird. Es sollte auch gewährleistet sein, dass die legitime Wahrnehmung des Rechts der
Unionsbürger, sich gemäß Artikel 3 Absatz 2 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union
(VEU) und gemäß Artikel 21 VAEU im Hoheitsgebiet der Mitgliedstaaten frei zu bewegen
und aufzuhalten, nicht zu einem Verlust an Sicherheit für die Unionsbürger führt.
17513/09 JH/jl 3
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 15 – Drucksache 17/1461
(6) Damit diese Ziele erreicht werden können, sollten in dieser Richtlinie Regeln festgelegt
werden, wonach der Schutz aufgrund einer nach dem Recht eines Mitgliedstaats (des
"Anordnungsstaats") angeordneten Schutzmaßnahme auf einen anderen Mitgliedstaat, in
den die geschützte Person umzieht (den "Vollstreckungsstaat"), ausgeweitet werden kann,
und zwar unabhängig von der Art oder der Dauer der in der betreffenden Schutzmaßnahme
enthaltenen Verpflichtungen oder Verbote.
(7) Um zu verhindern, dass im Vollstreckungsstaat eine neue Straftat gegen das Opfer verübt
wird, sollte für diesen Staat eine Rechtsgrundlage geschaffen werden, damit er die zuvor
im Anordnungsstaat zugunsten des Opfers ergangene Entscheidung anerkennen kann,
wobei gleichzeitig vermieden werden sollte, dass das Opfer im Vollstreckungsstaat ein
neues Verfahren anstrengen oder erneut Beweise erbringen muss, als ob der Anordnungs-
staat die Entscheidung nicht erlassen hätte.
17513/09 JH/jl 4
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 16 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
(8) Diese Richtlinie sollte so angewendet und durchgesetzt werden, dass die geschützte Person
im Vollstreckungsstaat denselben oder einen gleichwertigen Schutz erhält, wie sie ihn
erhalten hätte, wenn die Schutzmaßnahme von Anfang an in diesem Staat angeordnet
worden wäre, wobei jede Diskriminierung zu vermeiden ist.
(9) Da diese Richtlinie Fälle regelt, in denen die geschützte Person ihren Wohnort in einen
anderen Mitgliedstaat verlegt, gehen mit der Durchführung dieser Richtlinie keine
Befugnisse auf den Vollstreckungsstaat über, die Hauptstrafen, ausgesetzte Strafen,
alternative Strafen, Bewährungsstrafen oder Nebenstrafen bzw. Sicherungsmaßregeln, die
gegen die gefährdende Person verhängt wurden, betreffen, wenn die gefährdende Person
sich weiterhin in dem Staat aufhält, der die Schutzmaßnahme angeordnet hat.
17513/09 JH/jl 5
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 17 – Drucksache 17/1461
(10) Gegebenenfalls sollten im Einklang mit den innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften und
Verfahren elektronische Mittel genutzt werden können, um die in Anwendung dieser
Richtlinie angeordneten Maßnahmen durchzuführen.
(11) Da das Ziel dieser Richtlinie, nämlich der Schutz gefährdeter Personen, angesichts des
grenzübergreifenden Charakters der damit verbundenen Situationen auf Ebene der
Mitgliedstaaten durch einseitiges Vorgehen nicht ausreichend verwirklicht werden kann
und wegen des Umfangs und der potenziellen Wirkungen besser auf Unionsebene zu
verwirklichen wäre, kann die Union im Einklang mit dem Subsidiaritätsprinzip gemäß
Artikel 5 Absatz 3 TEU tätig werden. Entsprechend dem in Artikel 5 Absatz 4 TEU
genannten Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit geht diese Richtlinie nicht über das zur
Erreichung dieses Ziels erforderliche Maß hinaus.
17513/09 JH/jl 6
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 18 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
(12) Diese Richtlinie sollte zum Schutz von Personen, die sich in Gefahr befinden, beitragen
und dadurch die in diesem Bereich bereits vorhandenen Rechtsinstrumente ergänzen, wie
etwa den Rahmenbeschluss 2008/947/JI des Rates vom 27. November 2008 über die An-
wendung des Grundsatzes der gegenseitigen Anerkennung auf Urteile und Bewährungs-
entscheidungen im Hinblick auf die Überwachung von Bewährungsmaßnahmen und
alternativen Sanktionen1 und den Rahmenbeschluss 2009/829/JI des Rates vom
23. Oktober 2009 über die Anwendung – zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen
Union – des Grundsatzes der gegenseitigen Anerkennung auf Entscheidungen über
Überwachungsmaßnahmen als Alternative zur Untersuchungshaft 2–
HABEN FOLGENDE RICHTLINIE ERLASSEN:
1 ABl. L 337 vom 16.12.2008, S. 102.
2 ABl. L 294 vom 11.11.2009, S. 20.
17513/09 JH/jl 7
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 19 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 1
Definitionen
Für die Zwecke dieser Richtlinie bezeichnen die folgenden Begriffsbestimmungen:
1. Eine "Europäische Schutzanordnung": eine gerichtliche Entscheidung im Zusammenhang
mit einer Schutzmaßnahme, die von einem Mitgliedstaat angeordnet wurde und es einem
anderen Mitgliedstaat erleichtern soll, gegebenenfalls nach seinem eigenen Recht eine
Schutzmaßnahme zu ergreifen, um das Leben, die physische oder psychische Integrität, die
Freiheit oder die sexuelle Integrität einer Person zu schützen.
2. Eine "Schutzmaßnahme": eine von einer zuständigen Behörde eines Mitgliedstaats
erlassene Entscheidung, mit der einer gefährdenden Person eine(s) oder mehrere der in
Artikel 2 Absatz 2 genannten Verpflichtungen oder Verbote auferlegt werden, sofern der
Verstoß gegen diese Verpflichtungen oder Verbote nach dem Recht des betreffenden
Mitgliedstaats einen Straftatbestand erfüllt oder anderweitig in diesem Mitgliedstaat durch
Freiheitsentzug bestraft werden kann;
17513/09 JH/jl 8
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 20 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
3. Eine "geschützte Person": eine Person, deren Leben, physische oder psychische Integrität,
Freiheit oder sexuelle Integrität Gegenstand des Schutzes sind, der aufgrund einer durch
den Anordnungsstaat erlassenen Schutzmaßnahme gewährt wird;
4. Eine "gefährdende Person": eine Person, der eine(s) oder mehrere der in Artikel 2 Absatz 2
genannten Verpflichtungen oder Verbote auferlegt wurden;
5. "Anordnungsstaat": den Mitgliedstaat, in dem eine Schutzmaßnahme, die die Grundlage
für den Erlass einer europäischen Schutzanordnung darstellt, ursprünglich angeordnet
wurde;
6. "Vollstreckungsstaat": den Mitgliedstaat, dem eine Europäische Schutzanordnung zum
Zwecke der Anerkennung übermittelt wurde;
7. "Staat der Überwachung": den Mitgliedstaat, dem ein Urteil im Sinne des Artikels 2 des
Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/947/JI des Rates oder eine Entscheidung über Überwachungs-
maßnahmen im Sinne des Artikels 4 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2009/829/JI übermittelt
wurde.
17513/09 JH/jl 9
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 21 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 2
Geltungsbereich der Europäischen Schutzanordnung
(1) Eine Europäische Schutzanordnung kann jederzeit erlassen werden, wenn die geschützte
Person den Anordnungsstaat verlassen will oder verlassen hat, um sich in einem anderen
Mitgliedstaat aufzuhalten.
(2) Die Europäische Schutzanordnung wird nur dann erlassen, wenn zuvor eine Schutzmaß-
nahme im Anordnungsstaat angeordnet wurde, mit der der gefährdenden Person eine(s) oder
mehrere der folgenden Verpflichtungen oder Verbote auferlegt wurden:
a) eine Verpflichtung, bestimmte Lokalitäten, Orte oder festgelegte Gebiete, in bzw. an denen
sich die geschützte Person aufhält oder die sie aufsucht, nicht zu betreten;
b) eine Verpflichtung, sich, gegebenenfalls zu bestimmten Zeiten, an einem bestimmten Ort
aufzuhalten;
c) eine Verpflichtung, mit der das Verlassen des Hoheitsgebiets des Anordnungsstaats
eingeschränkt wird;
17513/09 JH/jl 10
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 22 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
d) eine Verpflichtung, den Kontakt mit der geschützten Person zu meiden; oder
e) ein Verbot, sich der geschützten Person mehr als bis auf eine festgelegte Entfernung zu
nähern.
Artikel 3
Pflicht zur Anerkennung der Europäischen Schutzanordnung
(1) Die Mitgliedstaaten erkennen jede Europäische Schutzanordnung gemäß dieser Richtlinie
an.
(2) Diese Richtlinie berührt nicht die Verpflichtung zur Achtung der Grundrechte und der
allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätze gemäß Artikel 6 des VEU.
17513/09 JH/jl 11
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 23 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 4
Benennung der zuständigen Behörden
(1) Jeder Mitgliedstaat teilt dem Generalsekretariat des Rates mit, welche Justizbehörde oder
Justizbehörden nach seinem innerstaatlichen Recht für den Erlass einer Europäischen Schutz-
anordnung und die Anerkennung einer solchen Anordnung gemäß dieser Richtlinie zuständig ist
bzw. sind, wenn dieser Mitgliedstaat der Anordnungsstaat oder der Vollstreckungsstaat ist.
(2) Abweichend von Absatz 1 können die Mitgliedstaaten bei der Festlegung der für
Entscheidungen nach dieser Richtlinie zuständigen Behörden auch außergerichtliche Stellen
benennen, sofern diese nach dem innerstaatlichen Recht und den innerstaatlichen Verfahren für
vergleichbare Entscheidungen zuständig sind.
(3) Das Generalsekretariat des Rates macht die erhaltenen Angaben allen Mitgliedstaaten und
der Kommission zugänglich.
17513/09 JH/jl 12
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 24 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Artikel 5
Erlass einer Europäischen Schutzanordnung
(1) Auf der Grundlage einer im Anordnungsstaat ergangenen Schutzmaßnahme erlässt eine
Justizbehörde dieses Staats oder eine andere zuständige Behörde gemäß Artikel 4 Absatz 2 nur auf
Antrag der geschützten Person eine Europäische Schutzanordnung, nachdem sie geprüft hat, dass
die Schutzmaßnahme alle Anforderungen nach Artikel 3 Absatz 1 erfüllt.
(2) Die geschützte Person oder ihr gesetzlicher Vertreter können einen Antrag auf Erlass einer
Europäischen Schutzanordnung entweder bei der zuständigen Behörde des Anordnungsstaats oder
bei der zuständigen Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats stellen.
Wird ein solcher Antrag im Vollstreckungsstaat gestellt, so übermittelt die zuständige Behörde
dieses Staats den Antrag so rasch wie möglich der zuständigen Behörde des Anordnungsstaats,
damit der Erlass der Europäischen Schutzanordnung gegebenenfalls in die Wege geleitet wird.
17513/09 JH/jl 13
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 25 – Drucksache 17/1461
(3) Die Behörde, die eine Schutzmaßnahme erlässt, welche eine(s) oder mehrere der in Artikel 2
Absatz 2 genannten Verpflichtungen oder Verbote enthält, unterrichtet die geschützte Person über
die Möglichkeit, eine Europäische Schutzanordnung zu beantragen, wenn sie in einen anderen
Mitgliedstaat umziehen will. Die Behörde erteilt der geschützten Person den Rat, den Antrag
einzureichen, bevor sie das Hoheitsgebiet des Anordnungsstaats verlässt.
Artikel 6
Form und Inhalt der Europäischen Schutzanordnung
Die Europäische Schutzanordnung wird nach dem Muster in Anhang I ausgestellt. Sie enthält
insbesondere folgende Angaben:
a) Identität und Staatsangehörigkeit der geschützten Person sowie Identität und Staats-
angehörigkeit ihres gesetzlichen Vertreters, wenn die geschützte Person minderjährig oder
geschäftsunfähig ist;
b) Verwendung etwaiger technischer Hilfsmittel, die der geschützten Person gegebenenfalls
zum Zwecke der unverzüglichen Vollstreckung der Schutzmaßnahme zur Verfügung
gestellt wurden;
17513/09 JH/jl 14
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 26 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
c) Name, Anschrift, Telefon- und Faxnummer sowie E-Mail-Adresse der zuständigen
Behörde des Anordnungsstaats;
d) Angaben zu der Schutzmaßnahme, die dem Erlass der Europäischen Schutzanordnung
zugrunde liegt;
e) Zusammenfassung des Sachverhalts und der Umstände, die zum Erlass der
Schutzmaßnahme im Anordnungsstaat geführt haben;
f) Verpflichtungen oder Verbote, die der gefährdenden Person mit der der Europäischen
Schutzanordnung zu Grunde liegenden Schutzmaßnahme auferlegt wurden, Dauer dieser
Verpflichtungen oder Verbote und ausdrücklicher Hinweis, dass ein Verstoß dagegen nach
dem Recht des Anordnungsstaats einen Straftatbestand erfüllt oder anderweitig durch
Freiheitsentzug bestraft werden kann;
17513/09 JH/jl 15
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 27 – Drucksache 17/1461
g) Identität und Staatsangehörigkeit der gefährdenden Person;
h) gegebenenfalls sonstige Umstände, die auf die Bewertung der Gefahr, die der geschützten
Person droht, Einfluss haben könnten;
i) gegebenenfalls ausdrücklicher Hinweis, dass ein Urteil im Sinne des Artikels 2 des
Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/947/JI des Rates oder eine Entscheidung über Überwachungs-
maßnahmen im Sinne des Artikels 4 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2009/829/JI des Rates bereits
einem anderen Mitgliedstaat übermittelt wurde, sowie Angabe der für die Vollstreckung
dieses Urteils oder dieser Entscheidung zuständigen Behörde.
17513/09 JH/jl 16
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 28 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Artikel 7
Übermittlungsverfahren
(1) Die zuständige Behörde des Anordnungsstaats übermittelt die Europäische Schutzanordnung
der zuständigen Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats in einer Form, die einen schriftlichen Nachweis
ermöglicht, damit die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats die Echtheit der Schutz-
anordnung feststellen kann.
(2) Ist der zuständigen Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats oder des Anordnungsstaats nicht
bekannt, welche Behörde im jeweils anderen Staat zuständig ist, so versucht sie, diese mit allen ihr
zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln – auch über die durch die Gemeinsame Maßnahme 98/428/JI des
Rates vom 29. Juni 1998 zur Einrichtung eines Europäischen Justitiellen Netzes1 eingerichteten
Kontaktstellen des Europäischen Justiziellen Netzes, das nationale Mitglied von Eurojust oder ihr
nationales Eurojust-Koordinierungssystem – in Erfahrung zu bringen.
(3) Ist eine Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats, die eine Europäische Schutzanordnung erhält,
nicht zuständig, diese Schutzanordnung anzuerkennen, so übermittelt diese Behörde die Schutz-
anordnung von Amts wegen der zuständigen Behörde.
1 ABl. L 191 vom 7.7.1998, S. 4.
17513/09 JH/jl 17
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 29 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 8
Maßnahmen im Vollstreckungsstaat
(1) Die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats:
a) erkennt eine bei ihr eingegangene, gemäß Artikel 7 übermittelte Europäische Schutz-
anordnung an und ergreift gegebenenfalls alle Maßnahmen, die nach ihrem nationalen
Recht in einem vergleichbaren Fall vorgesehen sind, um den Schutz der geschützten
Person zu gewährleisten, es sei denn, sie beschließt, einen der Gründe für die Nicht-
anerkennung nach Artikel 9 geltend zu machen;
b) unterrichtet die gefährdende Person gegebenenfalls über alle im Vollstreckungsstaat
ergriffenen Maßnahmen;
c) ergreift alle dringenden und vorläufigen Maßnahmen, die erforderlich sind, um den
weiteren Schutz der geschützten Person zu gewährleisten;
17513/09 JH/jl 18
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 30 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
d) meldet der zuständigen Behörde des Anordnungsstaats sowie, falls der Anordnungsstaat
ein anderer als der Staat der Überwachung ist, der zuständigen Behörde des Staats der
Überwachung unverzüglich jeden Verstoß gegen die der Europäischen Schutzanordnung
zugrunde liegende und in derselben beschriebene Schutzmaßnahme. Die Meldung erfolgt
unter Verwendung des Formblatts in Anhang II.
(2) Die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats unterrichtet die zuständige Behörde des
Anordnungsstaats und die geschützte Person über die gemäß diesem Artikel angeordneten
Maßnahmen.
17513/09 JH/jl 19
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 31 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 9
Gründe für die Nichtanerkennung einer Europäischen Schutzanordnung
(1) Jede Verweigerung der Anerkennung einer Europäischen Schutzanordnung ist zu
begründen.
(2) Die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats kann die Anerkennung einer Europäischen
Schutzanordnung in folgenden Fällen ablehnen:
a) die Europäische Schutzanordnung ist unvollständig oder wurde nicht innerhalb der von der
zuständigen Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats gesetzten Frist vervollständigt;
b) die Anforderungen nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 sind nicht erfüllt;
c) der Schutz leitet sich aus der Vollstreckung einer Strafe oder Maßregel ab, die nach dem
Recht des Vollstreckungsstaats Gegenstand einer Amnestie ist und sich auf eine Handlung
bezieht, für die nach diesem Recht der Vollstreckungsstaat zuständig ist;
17513/09 JH/jl 20
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 32 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
d) die gefährdende Person genießt nach dem Recht des Vollstreckungsstaats Immunität, was
die Anordnung der Schutzmaßnahmen unmöglich macht.
(3) Bevor die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats in den Fällen nach Absatz 2
Buchstaben a und b beschließt, die Europäische Schutzanordnung nicht anzuerkennen, konsultiert
sie auf geeignete Art und Weise die zuständige Behörde des Anordnungsstaats und bittet diese
gegebenenfalls um unverzügliche Übermittlung aller erforderlichen zusätzlichen Angaben.
Artikel 10
Weitere Entscheidungen im Anordnungsstaat
(1) Die zuständige Behörde des Anordnungsstaats ist zuständig für alle weiteren
Entscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit der einer Europäischen Schutzanordnung zugrunde
liegenden Schutzmaßnahme. Zu solchen weiteren Entscheidungen gehören insbesondere:
a) die Erneuerung, Überprüfung und Rücknahme der Schutzmaßnahme;
17513/09 JH/jl 21
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 33 – Drucksache 17/1461
b) die Änderung der Schutzmaßnahme;
c) die Ausstellung eines Haftbefehls oder der Erlass einer anderen vollstreckbaren
gerichtlichen Entscheidung mit gleicher Rechtswirkung;
d) die Einleitung eines neuen Strafverfahrens gegen die gefährdende Person.
(2) Auf die nach Absatz 1 ergangenen Entscheidungen ist das Recht des Anordnungsstaats
anwendbar.
(3) Ist ein Urteil im Sinne des Artikels 2 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/947/JI des Rates oder
eine Entscheidung über Überwachungsmaßnahmen im Sinne des Artikels 4 des Rahmenbeschlusses
2009/829/JI des Rates bereits einem anderen Mitgliedstaat übermittelt worden, ergehen weitere
Entscheidungen gemäß den einschlägigen Vorschriften jener Rahmenbeschlüsse.
17513/09 JH/jl 22
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 34 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Artikel 11
Gründe für den Widerruf der Anerkennung einer Europäischen Schutzanordnung
Die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats kann die Anerkennung einer Europäischen
Schutzanordnung widerrufen, wenn erwiesen ist, dass die geschützte Person das Hoheitsgebiet des
Vollstreckungsstaats endgültig verlassen hat.
Artikel 12
Fristen
(1) Die Europäische Schutzanordnung wird unverzüglich anerkannt.
(2) Die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats beschließt unverzüglich über die
Anordnung von Maßnahmen nach ihrem nationalen Recht infolge der Anerkennung einer
Europäischen Schutzanordnung gemäß Artikel 8.
Artikel 13
Maßgebliches Recht
Die Entscheidungen der zuständigen Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats aufgrund dieser Richtlinie
richten sich nach dessen innerstaatlichem Recht.
17513/09 JH/jl 23
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 35 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 14
Pflichten der beteiligten Behörden
(1) Hat die zuständige Behörde des Anordnungsstaats die der Europäischen Schutzanordnung
zugrunde liegende Schutzmaßnahme gemäß Artikel 10 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b geändert, so
unterrichtet sie unverzüglich die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats über diese Änderung.
Die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats ergreift gegebenenfalls die Maßnahmen, die
erforderlich sind, um die geänderte Schutzmaßnahme durchzuführen, wenn diese Maßnahmen nach
ihrem nationalen Recht in einem ähnlichen Fall vorgesehen sind, und unterrichtet hiervon die
zuständige Behörde des Anordnungsstaats, die geschützte Person und gegebenenfalls die
gefährdende Person, wenn diese sich im Hoheitsgebiet des Vollstreckungsstaats aufhält.
(2) Die zuständige Behörde des Anordnungsstaats unterrichtet die zuständige Behörde des Voll-
streckungsstaats und die geschützte Person unverzüglich über das Auslaufen oder den Widerruf der
Schutzmaßnahme, die der im Anordnungsstaat erlassenen Europäischen Schutzanordnung zugrunde
liegt, und anschließend über den Widerruf der Anordnung.
17513/09 JH/jl 24
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 36 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Artikel 15
Konsultation zwischen den zuständigen Behörden
Die zuständigen Behörden des Ausstellungsstaats und des Vollstreckungsstaats können einander
gegebenenfalls konsultieren, um die reibungslose und effiziente Anwendung dieser Richtlinie zu
erleichtern.
Artikel 16
Sprachenregelung
Die Europäische Schutzanordnung wird in die Amtssprache oder eine der Amtssprachen des
Vollstreckungsstaats übersetzt.
Jeder Mitgliedstaat kann zum Zeitpunkt der Annahme dieser Richtlinie oder später in einer beim
Generalsekretariat des Rates hinterlegten Erklärung angeben, dass er eine Übersetzung in eine oder
mehrere andere Amtssprachen der Organe der Union akzeptiert.
17513/09 JH/jl 25
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 37 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 17
Kosten
Die Kosten, die bei der Anwendung dieser Richtlinie entstehen, werden vom Vollstreckungsstaat
getragen, ausgenommen solche, die ausschließlich im Hoheitsgebiet des Anordnungsstaats
entstehen.
Artikel 18
Verhältnis zu anderen Übereinkünften und Vereinbarungen
(1) Es steht den Mitgliedstaaten frei, die beim Inkrafttreten dieser Richtlinie geltenden
bilateralen oder multilateralen Übereinkünfte oder Vereinbarungen auch weiterhin anzuwenden,
sofern diese die Möglichkeit bieten, über die Ziele dieser Richtlinie hinauszugehen, und zu einer
weiteren Vereinfachung oder Erleichterung der Verfahren zur Anordnung von Schutzmaßnahmen
beitragen.
17513/09 JH/jl 26
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 38 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
(2) Es steht den Mitgliedstaaten frei, nach dem Inkrafttreten dieser Richtlinie bilaterale oder
multilaterale Übereinkünfte oder Vereinbarungen zu schließen, sofern diese die Möglichkeit bieten,
über die Ziele dieser Richtlinie hinauszugehen, und zu einer Vereinfachung oder Erleichterung der
Verfahren zur Anordnung von Schutzmaßnahmen beitragen.
(3) Die Mitgliedstaaten unterrichten bis zum …* den Rat und die Kommission über bestehende
Übereinkünfte oder Vereinbarungen nach Absatz 1, die sie weiterhin anwenden wollen. Die
Mitgliedstaaten unterrichten das Generalsekretariat des Rates und die Kommission auch über alle
neuen Übereinkünfte und Vereinbarungen im Sinne des Absatzes 2 binnen drei Monaten nach deren
Unterzeichnung.
* ABl.: Bitte das Datum drei Monaten nach Inkrafttreten dieser Richtlinie einfügen.
17513/09 JH/jl 27
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 39 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 19
Umsetzung
(1) Die Mitgliedstaaten treffen die Maßnahmen, die erforderlich sind, um dieser Richtlinie bis
zum …∗ nachzukommen.
(2) Die Mitgliedstaaten teilen dem Generalsekretariat des Rates und der Kommission den
Wortlaut der Bestimmungen mit, mit denen sie die sich aus dieser Richtlinie ergebenden
Verpflichtungen in ihr nationales Recht umgesetzt haben.
∗ ABl.: Bitte das Datum zwei Jahre nach Inkrafttreten dieser Richtlinie einfügen
17513/09 JH/jl 28
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 40 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Artikel 20
Überprüfung
(1) Die Kommission erstellt bis spätestens …* einen Bericht auf der Grundlage der Angaben der
Mitgliedstaaten nach Artikel 19 Absatz 2.
(2) Anhand dieses Berichts wird der Rat Folgendes beurteilen:
a) die Frage, inwieweit die Mitgliedstaaten die erforderlichen Maßnahmen getroffen haben,
um dieser Richtlinie nachzukommen; und
b) die Anwendung dieser Richtlinie.
(3) Dem Bericht werden erforderlichenfalls Gesetzgebungsvorschläge beigefügt.
* ABl.: Bitte das Datum vier Jahre nach Inkrafttreten dieser Richtlinie einfügen.
17513/09 JH/jl 29
DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 41 – Drucksache 17/1461
Artikel 21
Inkrafttreten
Diese Richtlinie tritt am zwanzigsten Tag nach ihrer Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der
Europäischen Union in Kraft.
Geschehen zu Brüssel am
Im Namen des Europäischen Parlaments Im Namen des Rates
Der Präsident Der Präsident
17513/09 JH/jl 30
DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 42 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
ANHANG I
EUROPÄISCHE SCHUTZANORDNUNG
nach Artikel 6 der
RICHTLINIE 2010/…/EU DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES
VOM … ÜBER DIE EUROPÄISCHE SCHUTZANORDNUNG∗
Anordnungsstaat:
Vollstreckungsstaat:
∗ ABl.: Bitte die Nummer und das Datum dieser Richtlinie einfügen
17513/09 JH/jl 1
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 43 – Drucksache 17/1461
a) Informationen zur geschützten Person:
Familienname:
Vorname(n):
Ggf. Geburtsname:
Geschlecht:
Staatsangehörigkeit:
Kennnummer oder Sozialversicherungsnummer (sofern vorhanden):
Geburtsdatum:
Geburtsort:
Anschriften/Aufenthaltsorte:
– im Anordnungsstaat:
– im Vollstreckungsstaat:
– in sonstigen Staaten:
Sprache oder Sprachen, die die betroffene Person versteht (sofern bekannt):
17513/09 JH/jl 2
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 44 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Sofern vorhanden, bitte Folgendes angeben:
Art und Nummer des Identitätsdokuments/der Identitätsdokumente der Person
(Personalausweis, Pass):
Art und Nummer des Aufenthaltstitels der Person im Vollstreckungsstaat:
Ist die geschützte Person minderjährig oder geschäftsunfähig, Informationen zum gesetzlichen
Vertreter der natürlichen Person:
Familienname:
Vorname(n):
Ggf. Geburtsname:
Geschlecht:
Staatsangehörigkeit:
Büroanschrift:
b) Wurden der geschützten Person zum Zwecke der unverzüglichen Vollstreckung der
Schutzmaßnahme technische Hilfsmittel zur Verfügung gestellt:
Ja; geben Sie bitte eine kurze Beschreibung der verwendeten Hilfsmittel:
Nein.
17513/09 JH/jl 3
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 45 – Drucksache 17/1461
c) Zuständige Behörde, die die Europäische Schutzanordnung erlassen hat:
Offizielle Bezeichnung:
Vollständige Anschrift:
Tel.: (Ländervorwahl) (Ortsnetzkennzahl) (Nummer)
Fax: (Ländervorwahl) (Ortsnetzkennzahl) (Nummer)
Angaben zu der/den Person(en), die zu kontaktieren ist/sind
Familienname:
Vorname(n):
Funktion (Titel/Dienstrang):
Tel.: (Ländervorwahl) (Ortsnetzkennzahl) (Nummer)
Fax: (Ländervorwahl) (Ortsnetzkennzahl) (Nummer)
E-Mail (sofern vorhanden):
Sprachen, in denen kommuniziert werden kann:
17513/09 JH/jl 4
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 46 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
d) Angaben zu der Schutzmaßnahme, die dem Erlass der Europäischen Schutzanordnung
zugrunde liegt:
Die Schutzmaßnahme wurde angeordnet am (Angabe des Datums: TT-MM-JJJJ):
Die Schutzmaßnahme wurde rechtskräftig am (Angabe des Datums: TT-MM-JJJJ):
Aktenzeichen der Schutzmaßnahme (sofern vorhanden):
Behörde, die die Schutzmaßnahme angeordnet hat:
e) Darstellung des Sachverhalts und Beschreibung der Umstände, die zur Anordnung der
Schutzmaßnahme nach Buchstabe d geführt haben:
17513/09 JH/jl 5
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 47 – Drucksache 17/1461
f) Angaben zu der(den) Verpflichtung(en) oder dem(den) Verbot(en), die der gefährdenden
Person durch die Schutzmaßnahme auferlegt wurden:
– Art der Verpflichtung(en): (es können mehrere Kästchen angekreuzt werden):
Verpflichtung für die gefährdende Person, bestimmte Lokalitäten, Orte oder
festgelegte Gebiete, insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit dem Aufenthaltsort der
geschützten Person oder den Orten, die die geschützte Person aufsucht, nicht zu
betreten;
– wenn Sie dieses Kästchen angekreuzt haben, geben Sie bitte die Lokalitäten,
Orte oder festgelegten Gebiete genau an, die die gefährdende Person nicht
betreten darf:
Verpflichtung für die gefährdende Person, sich, gegebenenfalls zu bestimmten
Zeiten, an einem bestimmten Ort aufzuhalten;
– wenn Sie dieses Kästchen angekreuzt haben, geben Sie bitte genau an, welcher
Ort und welche Zeiten konkret gemeint sind:
Verpflichtung für die gefährdende Person, mit der das Verlassen des Hoheitsgebiets
des Vollstreckungsstaats eingeschränkt wird;
– wenn Sie dieses Kästchen angekreuzt haben, geben Sie bitte genau an, welche
Einschränkungen auferlegt wurden:
17513/09 JH/jl 6
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 48 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Verpflichtung für die gefährdende Person, den Kontakt mit der geschützten Person zu
meiden;
– wenn Sie dieses Kästchen angekreuzt haben, geben Sie bitte alle relevanten
Einzelheiten an:
Verbot für die gefährdende Person, sich der geschützten Person mehr als bis auf eine
festgelegte Entfernung zu nähern;
– wenn Sie dieses Kästchen angekreuzt haben, geben Sie bitte exakt die
Entfernung an, die die gefährdende Person gegenüber der geschützten Person
einzuhalten hat:
– Bitte geben Sie den Zeitraum an, für den der gefährdenden Person die genannte(n)
Verpflichtung(en) auferlegt wurde(n):
Ich bestätige, dass der Verstoß gegen die oben genannte(n) Verpflichtung(en) bzw.
das(die) oben genannte(n) Verbot(e) nach dem Recht des Anordnungsstaats einen
Straftatbestand erfüllt oder anderweitig durch Freiheitsentzug bestraft werden kann
Angabe der Strafe, die verhängt werden könnte:
17513/09 JH/jl 7
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 49 – Drucksache 17/1461
g) Angaben zu der gefährdenden Person, der die Verpflichtung(en) nach Buchstabe f auferlegt
wurde(n):
Familienname:
Vorname(n):
Ggf. Geburtsname:
Ggf. Aliasname(n):
Geschlecht:
Staatsangehörigkeit:
Kennnummer oder Sozialversicherungsnummer (sofern vorhanden):
Geburtsdatum:
Geburtsort:
Anschriften/Aufenthaltsorte:
– im Anordnungsstaat:
– im Vollstreckungsstaat:
– in sonstigen Staaten:
Sprache oder Sprachen, die die betroffene Person versteht (sofern bekannt):
Sofern vorhanden, bitte Folgendes angeben:
– Art und Nummer des Identitätsdokuments/der Identitätsdokumente der Person
(Personalausweis, Pass):
17513/09 JH/jl 8
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 50 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
h) Sonstige Umstände, die auf die Bewertung der Gefahr, die die geschützte Person betreffen
könnte, Einfluss haben könnten (fakultative Angabe):
17513/09 JH/jl 9
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 51 – Drucksache 17/1461
i) Zutreffendes bitte ankreuzen und ergänzen:
ein Urteil im Sinne des Artikels 2 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/947/JI des Rates
wurde bereits einem anderen Mitgliedstaat übermittelt
– Wenn sie dieses Kästchen angekreuzt haben, geben Sie bitte die Kontaktdaten
der zuständigen Behörde, an die das Urteil übersandt wurde, an:
eine Entscheidung über Überwachungsmaßnahmen im Sinne des Artikels 4 des
Rahmenbeschlusses 2009/829/JI des Rates wurde bereits einem anderen Mitgliedstaat
übermittelt
– Wenn sie dieses Kästchen angekreuzt haben, geben Sie bitte die Kontaktdaten
der zuständigen Behörde, an die die Entscheidung über
Überwachungsmaßnahmen übersandt wurde, an:
Unterschrift der die Europäische Schutzanordnung erlassenden Behörde und/oder ihres
Vertreters zur Bestätigung der Richtigkeit des Inhalts der Anordnung:
Name:
Funktion (Titel/Dienstrang):
Datum:
Aktenzeichen (sofern vorhanden):
(Gegebenenfalls) Amtlicher Stempel:
17513/09 JH/jl 10
ANHANG I DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 52 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
ANHANG II
FORMBLATT
nach Artikel 8 Absatz 1 Buchstabe d
DER RICHTLINIE 2010/…/EU
DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES VOM …
ÜBER DIE EUROPÄISCHE SCHUTZANORDNUNG*
MELDUNG EINES VERSTOSSES GEGEN DIE
DER EUROPÄISCHEN SCHUTZANORDNUNG ZUGRUNDE LIEGENDE
UND IN DERSELBEN BESCHRIEBENE SCHUTZMASSNAHME
a) Nähere Angaben zu der gefährdenden Person:
Familienname:
Vorname(n):
Ggf. Geburtsname:
Ggf. Aliasname(n):
Geschlecht:
Staatsangehörigkeit:
Kennnummer oder Sozialversicherungsnummer (sofern vorhanden):
Geburtsdatum:
Geburtsort:
Anschrift:
Sprache oder Sprachen, die die betroffene Person versteht (sofern bekannt):
* ABl.: Bitte die Nummer und das Datum dieser Richtlinie einfügen.
17513/09 JH/jl 1
ANHANG II DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 53 – Drucksache 17/1461
b) Nähere Angaben zu der geschützten Person:
Familienname:
Vorname(n):
Ggf. Geburtsname:
Geschlecht:
Staatsangehörigkeit:
Geburtsdatum:
Geburtsort:
Anschrift:
Sprache oder Sprachen, die die betroffene Person versteht (sofern bekannt):
c) Nähere Angaben zu der Europäischen Schutzanordnung:
Die Anordnung wurde erlassen am:
Aktenzeichen (sofern vorhanden):
Behörde, die die Anordnung erlassen hat:
Offizielle Bezeichnung:
Anschrift:
17513/09 JH/jl 2
ANHANG II DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 54 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
d) Nähere Angaben zu der Behörde, die für die Vollstreckung der Schutzmaßnahme zuständig
ist, die gegebenenfalls im Vollstreckungsstaat im Einklang mit der Europäischen
Schutzanordnung erlassen wurde:
Offizielle Bezeichnung der Behörde:
Name der Kontaktperson:
Funktion (Titel/Dienstrang):
Anschrift:
Tel.: (Ländervorwahl) (Ortsnetzkennzahl) (Nummer)
Fax: (Ländervorwahl) (Ortsnetzkennzahl) (Nummer)
E-Mail:
Sprachen, in denen kommuniziert werden kann:
17513/09 JH/jl 3
ANHANG II DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 55 – Drucksache 17/1461
e) Verstoß gegen die in der Europäischen Schutzanordnung beschriebene(n)
Verpflichtung(en) und/oder sonstige Erkenntnisse, die eine weitere Entscheidung nach sich
ziehen könnten:
Der Verstoß betrifft die folgende(n) Verpflichtung(en) (Sie können mehr als ein Kästchen
ankreuzen):
Verpflichtung für die gefährdende Person, bestimmte Lokalitäten, Orte oder
festgelegte Gebiete, insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit dem Aufenthaltsort der
geschützten Person oder den Orten, die die geschützte Person aufsucht, nicht zu
betreten;
Verpflichtung für die gefährdende Person, sich, gegebenenfalls zu bestimmten
Zeiten, an einem bestimmten Ort aufzuhalten;
Verpflichtung für die gefährdende Person, mit der das Verlassen des Hoheitsgebiets
des Vollstreckungsstaats eingeschränkt wird;
Verpflichtung für die gefährdende Person, den Kontakt mit der geschützten Person zu
meiden;
Verbot für die gefährdende Person, sich der geschützten Person mehr als bis auf eine
festgelegte Entfernung zu nähern.
Beschreibung des Verstoßes/der Verstöße (Ort, Datum und nähere Umstände):
Sonstige Erkenntnisse, die eine weitere Entscheidung nach sich ziehen könnten
Beschreibung dieser Erkenntnisse:
17513/09 JH/jl 4
ANHANG II DG H 2B DE
Drucksache 17/1461 – 56 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
f) Nähere Angaben zu der zu kontaktierenden Person, falls zusätzliche Informationen zu dem
Verstoß eingeholt werden sollen:
Familienname:
Vorname(n):
Anschrift:
Tel.: (Ländervorwahl) (Ortsnetzkennzahl) (Nummer)
Fax: (Ländervorwahl) (Ortsnetzkennzahl) (Nummer)
E-Mail:
Sprachen, in denen kommuniziert werden kann:
Unterschrift der das Formblatt ausstellenden Behörde und/oder ihres Vertreters zur
Bestätigung der Richtigkeit des Inhalts des Formblatts:
Name:
Funktion (Titel/Dienstrang):
Datum:
(Gegebenenfalls) Amtlicher Stempel:
17513/09 JH/jl 5
ANHANG II DG H 2B DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 57 – Drucksache 17/1461
COUNCIL OF
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 6 January 2010
17513/09
ADD 1 REV 1
COPEN 247
NOTE
Subject: INITIATIVE FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL on the European Protection Order
- Explanatory memorandum
Please find attached an explanatory memorandum relating to the initiative by a group of Member
States for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Protection
Order.
_________________
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 1
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 58 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Brussels, 6 January 2010
Initiative
of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia,
the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Hungary,
the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and
the Kingdom of Sweden
for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
ON THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 2
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 59 – Drucksache 17/1461
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal
Victim protection is a priority objective of any advanced criminal policy. Crime victims not only
have a right to respect, reparation of the damage caused and punishment of the offender on the basis
of a fair trial fully guaranteeing the rights of all parties, but also have an overriding right not to be
the victims of another offence, particularly by the same person.
To that end, victim protection means activating appropriate mechanisms to prevent a repeat offence
or a different, perhaps more serious offence, by the same offender against the same victim. Such
repeat offences against the same victims are particularly frequent in the case of gender-based
violence, although they also occur in other forms of crime such as human trafficking or sexual
exploitation of minors, and they can obviously arise in all forms of crime.
All the Member States of the European Union (EU) apply measures to protect victims' lives, their
physical, mental and sexual integrity and their freedom, but at present such measures are effective
only on the territory of the State which adopted them and they leave victims unprotected when they
cross borders. The protection which a Member State affords to crime victims should therefore not
be confined to its territory but should apply to victims wherever they go.
There is therefore a need to provide a forceful and effective response to this need to prevent further
offences against victims in the State to which they have moved, focusing on their protection.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 3
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 60 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
1.2. General background
In a modern society, in an area such as the EU governed by freedom of movement, people
constantly move around from one country to another. And that, of course, includes crime victims
who move around for the same reasons as everybody else, and often for an additional reason – to
create a new life away from the situation and the place where offences were committed against
them.
On the basis of the figures available, purely for gender-based offences, it would seem that over
100 000 women residing in the EU are covered by protective measures of various kinds adopted by
Member States in response to gender-based violence. The figures can obviously be multiplied if we
include the victims of human trafficking and other offences.
Victims' freedom of movement and the ease with which aggressors can move around the EU mean
that protective measures must not be confined to the territory of the Member State in which they
originated. Maintaining a restrictive attitude to protection by limiting it to the territory of the State
whose judicial authority initiated it would amount either to limiting protected victims' freedom of
movement or, if they do move away, to forcing them, expressly or tacitly, to forgo the protection
which the State provided, thus putting them at increased risk.
1.3. Existing provisions in the area of the proposal
Under resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration
of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power in which it urges the
Member States to take the necessary steps to implement the provisions set out in the Declaration in
order to reduce victimisation and apply policies specifically designed to prevent offences and
provide assistance for victims who require it, recognising their right to have their physical safety
protected and defining as "victims" persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm,
including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of
their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative
within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power, since, under this
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 4
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 61 – Drucksache 17/1461
Declaration, a person may be considered a victim regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified,
apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the
perpetrator and the victim.
The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, adopted on
20 December 1993, provides in Article 4 that States should pursue by all appropriate means and
without delay a policy of eliminating violence against women and, to this end, should: (f) Develop,
in a comprehensive way, preventive approaches and all those measures of a legal, political,
administrative and cultural nature that promote the protection of women against any form of
violence, and ensure that the re-victimisation of women does not occur because of laws insensitive
to gender considerations, enforcement practices or other interventions, and (g) endeavour to adopt
the appropriate measures to promote their safety.
The United Nations Convention of 18 December 1979 on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women stated that gender-based violence is a breach of the fundamental
right to life, safety, freedom, dignity and physical and emotional integrity.
The UNiTE to End Violence against Women campaign (2008-2015) includes the following among
the five goals it aims to achieve by 2015: adopt and enforce national laws to address and punish all
forms of violence against women and girls, and adopt and implement multi-sectoral national action
plans which emphasise the prevention of violence against women.
The Council of Europe Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the
position of the victim in the framework of criminal law and procedure, adopted on 28 June 1985,
states that it must be a fundamental function of criminal justice to meet the needs and to safeguard
the interests of the victim; and recommends that member states review their legislation and practice
in accordance with guidelines which include giving the victim and his family effective protection
against intimidation and the risk of retaliation by the offender whenever this appears necessary, and
especially when organised crime is involved.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 5
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 62 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
The Council of Europe has also expressed its member states' common interest in preventing and
combating violence against women and domestic violence in several acts, one of which is
Recommendation Rec(2002)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of
women against violence which recommends that states exercise due diligence to prevent,
investigate and punish acts of violence, whether those acts are perpetrated by the state or private
persons, and provide protection to victims.
The European Parliament resolution of 16 September 1997 on the need to establish a European
Union-wide campaign for zero tolerance of violence against women calls on the Member States to
review the administration of legal procedures and take action to remove barriers which prevent
women from obtaining legal protection; the European Parliament returned to this matter in its
resolution of 2 February 2006 on the current situation in combating violence against women and
any future action (2004/2220(INI)).
On 15 March 2001 the Council of the European Union adopted Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA
on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings in order to deal with the issue of victims'
procedural rights; that Decision was later expanded by Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to
compensation to crime victims. In the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament establishing for the period 2007-2013 a framework programme on
Fundamental Rights and Justice (COM(2005)0122), fighting violence against women, children and
young people plays a very important role as part of the effort to create an area of freedom, security
and justice.
1.4. Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union
Victim protection has always been one of the main objectives of the European Union in the area of
freedom, security and justice.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 6
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 63 – Drucksache 17/1461
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) marks a new stage in the
construction of the area of freedom, security and justice. Article 67(1) provides that "The Union
shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the
different legal systems and traditions of the Member States", and Article 67(3) states that "the
Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat
crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between
police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual
recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of
criminal laws".
As part of that new impetus, far from overlooking crime victims' situation and problems,
Article 82(2) of the TFEU provides that: "2. 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, the European Parliament and the Council may, by means of directives
adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, establish minimum rules. Such rules
shall take into account the differences between the legal traditions and systems of the Member
States. They shall concern: (…) (c) the rights of victims of crime; (…) Adoption of the minimum
rules referred to in this paragraph shall not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing
a higher level of protection for individuals".
Continuing and reaffirming the victim protection objectives already set out in the Tampere and
Hague programmes, the Stockholm Programme relating to the consolidation of freedom, security
and justice in the EU, approved by the European Council at its meeting on 10 and
11 December 2009, provides in point 2.3.4 on "victims of crime, including terrorism" that "those
who are most vulnerable or who find themselves in particularly exposed situations, such as persons
subjected to repeated violence in close relationships, victims of gender-based violence, or persons
who fall victim to other types of crimes in a Member State of which they are not nationals or
residents, are in need of special support and legal protection". In the same point, the European
Council calls on the Commission and the Member States, among other things, to examine how to
improve legislation and practical support measures for protection of victims and to improve
implementation of existing instruments.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 7
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 64 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
In the section of the Stockholm Programme relating to mutual recognition, point 3.1.1, referring
specifically to criminal law, states that "victims of crime or witnesses who are at risk can be offered
special protection measures which should be effective within the Union".
Combating all forms of gender violence has also been a constant concern of the European
Parliament, as demonstrated by its ongoing work on the matter and specifically its resolution of
16 September 1997 on the need to establish a European Union-wide campaign for zero tolerance of
violence against women and its resolution of 2 February 2006 on the current situation in combating
violence against women and any future action (2004/2220(INI)).
We would also refer to the stand taken by the Commission in its Communication to the Council, the
European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions – A Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010 {SEC(2006) 275},
COM(2006)92 final. The objective pursued in that proposal is consistent with the Communication
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament establishing for the period
2007-2013 a framework programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice (COM(2005)0122).
Any action of the Union in this field must respect fundamental rights and observe the principles
recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
This proposal has been presented after thorough checking that its provisions are fully consistent
with fundamental rights.
Particular attention has been paid to the right to human dignity, the right to life, the right to physical
and mental integrity and the right to effective remedy, as set out in Articles 1, 2(1), 3(1) and 47 of
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which require that victims' safety be ensured and that the
increased role of the victim in criminal proceedings be recognised.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 8
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 65 – Drucksache 17/1461
Particular care will have to be taken to ensure that the increased role of the victim in criminal
proceedings does not endanger the defendant's procedural rights, in particular the right to a fair trial
(Article 47 of the EU Charter) and the right of defence (Article 48 of the EU Charter). However,
the European Court of Human Rights has established clear principles to reconcile the respective
rights of the defendant and the victim. Great care has been taken to ensure that this proposal is fully
compatible with the rights of defence through meticulous drafting of the legal act, that being the
basis for correct implementation by the Member States, and there is nothing in this initiative which
is contrary to the procedural rights of the accused, making it an effective mechanism for victim
protection at European level.
2. CONSULTATIONS
2.1. Consultations with the Member States
With a view to discussion of this initiative, a questionnaire was sent to the Member States on
23 September 2009 (13577/09 COPEN 176) putting a number of questions and asking them to
provide statistics on the number of cases in which they had imposed victim protection measures of
the kind envisaged in this proposal.
Of the 18 Member States which replied (5002/10 COPEN 1), 13 provided statistics; account has
been taken of both the replies to the questions and the factual information provided in the detailed
statement accompanying this proposal.
It emerges from the Member States' replies that they all have victim protection measures of some
kind which vary in type and classification and may be adopted under different systems in criminal
or civil proceedings or, in some instances, by administrative decision. They also point to the
existence of a legal vacuum with regard to the protection of victims moving to another Member
State which needs to be filled, and they consider that a legislative act for that purpose could not but
improve the situation for victims.
Several meetings were also held with all Member States' Permanent Representations to discuss this
issue and also technical questions raised by this proposal.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 9
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 66 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
2.2. Obtaining and using technical expertise
There was no need for external expertise.
3. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Various policy options have been examined as a means of achieving the objectives of preventing
and combating trafficking in human beings more effectively, and better protecting victims.
– Policy option A: No additional European Union measures
The EU would not adopt any victim protection measures.
– Policy option B: Non-legislative measures
Non-legislative measures could be taken in the framework of judicial cooperation and exchange of
best practice.
– Policy option C: Legislative proposals to amend Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of
27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and
probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions,
and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between
Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on
supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention.
An amended version of those two Decisions could incorporate a victim protection mechanism to
apply where it is the victim who moves to a State other than the one which adopted the initial
measure. The Decisions referred to both start from the assumption that it is the offender or the
presumed offender who is the subject of an alternative measure, a probation measure or a
provisional measure imposed by a Member State who has returned or wishes to return to the State
of residence, who consents to do so, or who wishes to go to another Member State in which he does
not have residence.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 10
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 67 – Drucksache 17/1461
– Policy option D: Legislative proposal for a single text covering all the possibilities for
extending victim protection
A new directive would be adopted to deal with the problem to be resolved ex novo, focusing
specifically on victim protection.
In the light of the impact assessment, the repercussions for fundamental rights and the need to have
an effective victim protection instrument at European level, options C and D offer the best ways to
deal with the issue and could meet the objectives identified in full. The preferred option would be
option D in the light of the legislative consequences of existing instruments, the need for clarity
when applying new legislative texts and the usefulness of having a legislative text specifically
designed to deal with victim protection across borders.
4. OBJECTIVES OF THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER
The European Protection Order is based on the following assumptions:
– there is a person in danger;
– the danger is such that the Member State in which the person resides has to adopt a protection
measure in the context of criminal proceedings;
– the person decides to move to another Member State;
– the person continues to be in danger on the territory of the Member State to which he/she
wishes to move.
The European Protection Order is designed to continue to protect persons finding themselves in
such circumstances, ensuring that in the Member State to which they move they will receive a level
of protection identical or equivalent to the protection they enjoyed in the Member State which
adopted the protection measure.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 11
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 68 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Moreover, the measures included in the European Protection Order, offering the victim a guarantee
of safety, are not a novelty in the legal order of the Member States since they are already recognised
in Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the
application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view
to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, and in Article 8 of Council
Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States
of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures
as an alternative to provisional detention.
The European Protection Order involves a mechanism based on mutual recognition and, as such, is
not a harmonisation instrument. Its objective is not to ensure uniformity as regards the protection
measures which each national legislature can adopt in the future but to eliminate existing borders
from the point of view of victim protection.
The objective of the European Protection Order is therefore threefold:
1. to prevent a further offence by the offender or presumed offender in the State to which the
victim moves, the executing State;
2. providing the victim with a guarantee of protection in the Member State to which he/she
moves which is similar to that provided in the Member State which adopted the protection
measure;
3. preventing any discrimination between the victim moving to the executing State compared
with victims enjoying protection measures initiated by that State.
The European Protection Order is therefore intended, by means of some simple implementing
measures in the Member States, to provide protection for victims in whichever Member State they
move to, by preventing the commission of a new offence against them by the offender or the person
causing the danger and providing victims with a level of protection similar to that provided by the
State whose judicial authority adopted the initial measure and equivalent to that provided to other
victims in the executing State.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 12
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 69 – Drucksache 17/1461
In a word, the objective of the European Protection Order is to include victims in the evolving area
of freedom, security and justice, an area which should extend not only to offenders but also to
victims.
5. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
5.1. Legal basis
This proposal is for the adoption of a legislative act on the basis of Article 82(1)(d), inter alia, of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The second subparagraph of
Article 82(1) provides that "The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with
the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures to: (…) (d) facilitate cooperation between
judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings in criminal matters
and the enforcement of decisions".
The proposal is being presented in accordance with Article 76(b) of the TFEU, on the initiative of
the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain,
the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the
Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.
It is designed to meet the objectives set out in the Stockholm Programme to strengthen freedom,
security and justice in the EU (hereafter the "Stockholm Programme") as approved by the European
Council at its meeting on 10 and 11 December 2009. It relates in particular to point 3.1.1, which
states that "victims of crime or witnesses who are at risk can be offered special protection measures
which should be effective within the Union".
This Directive does not take the form of a more traditional judicial cooperation instrument because
of the particular features of the need it is intended to meet; the protection of a person in a State other
than the one which adopted the initial protection measure requires a dynamic and effective
mechanism far removed from a bureaucratic procedure which would stand in the way of an
effective response being adopted as swiftly as possible in the executing State.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 13
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 70 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
The adoption of a classic mutual recognition procedure would thus be incompatible with the
immediate response required for a victim once again in danger in the executing State.
5.2. Summary of the proposal and explanation of its individual provisions
Article 1: Definitions
This article defines the basic terms used throughout the legislative act, specifying their use and
interpretation. It defines the European Protection Order, the protective measure (being the measure
which triggers the issue of a European Protection Order), the protected person, the person causing
danger, the issuing State, the executing State and the State of supervision; the State of supervision
covers cases in which the measure has been transferred in accordance with Framework
Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual
recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation
measures and alternative sanctions, and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of
23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the
principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional
detention.
Articles 2 and 3: Scope, recognition
– Objective scope: as an instrument of mutual recognition in criminal matters, the European
Protection Order relates to the measures adopted during criminal proceedings taken in the
broadest sense, i.e. both at the pre-trial stage and during the trial itself and in the execution of
judicial decisions taken during the criminal proceedings; it also relates to the measures
adopted by civil judicial bodies when a breach of the measure involves criminal liability or
means that the offender may be deprived of liberty in some other way, the idea being to
extend the benefits of the instrument to the largest possible number of victims, bearing in
mind the very different legal systems that exist in the Member States in this area.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 14
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 71 – Drucksache 17/1461
On the other hand, the protection offered by the European Protection Order may derive from
the imposition of a principal or additional sentence, a suspended sentence or an alternative
measure, a probation measure or a security measure since, in each of those cases, the trigger
for the European Protection Order is the need to protect a person from an apparent danger, not
the judicial decision or measure adopted to prevent the danger or the type of offence which
initiated the process; for that reason, the European Protection Order is not based on a list of
offences which would have to have been committed to trigger it.
– Subjective scope: the mutual recognition objective of the European Protection Order hinges
on the need to protect a person in another Member State. The view is therefore that it must
include all victims at risk, such as children in danger, women who are victims of gender-based
violence and, in general, any victim against whom the offender may commit another offence.
– Types of measure: the European Protection Order applies to measures imposing on the
potential offender an obligation not to reside in or enter places where the protected person is,
that is to say an obligation to keep away from the protected person and not to go to certain
localities, places or defined areas where the victim resides or which he/she visits, limitations
on leaving the national territory or an obligation to remain at a specified place for specified
periods.
Article 4: Competent authorities
The European Protection Order is an instrument of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and is,
in principle, issued by the judicial authorities to be designated by the Member States.
However, in view of the wide range of legal systems in the European Union and in the light of the
reference in Article 82(1)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to judicial or
equivalent authorities of the Member States, Member States may designate other authorities
competent to issue such a decision.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 15
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 72 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Article 5: Issue of a European Protection Order
A European Protection Order is to be issued only at the request of the protected person where
he/she has left or intends to leave the territory of the State which issued the protection measure, and
this has a twofold purpose: on the one hand, to preclude automatic transmission of this type of
instrument and, on the other hand, apart from compliance with the necessary requirements, to make
the order dependent on the wishes of the victim, who may prefer, for reasons of his/her own, not to
ask for such a mechanism even though he/she has left the territory of the State in which the original
protection applies.
There is also a victim information system to make victims aware that they have the option of
requesting a protection order when they intend to leave the territory of the State which issued the
original measure protecting them and to recommend them to make the application before they leave
in order to save time, although they can also apply in the country to which they move.
Article 6: Form and content of the European Protection Order
Article 6 sets out a standard form for the European Protection Order, both to ensure uniformity of
content at European level and to make it easier for the authorities responsible for issuing the order.
The content comprises the information which is essential for the proper functioning of the system
and includes the use of any technological instruments that have been provided to the protected
person.
Article 7: Transmission of the European Protection Order
For transmission, Article 7 provides for a simple, dynamic system of direct communication between
authorities.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 16
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 73 – Drucksache 17/1461
Article 8: Role of the executing Member State: Measures in that State
The European Protection Order mechanism means that the requested State will take the measures
that would be available under its national law in a similar case. The objective is, above all, to
ensure continued protection of the victim and ensure that he/she is not deprived of equivalent
protection in a State purely because the protection measure was not issued by that State. It also
means that the protection provided does not have to be the original protection but a level of
protection which is equivalent to the level established by the State issuing the European Protection
Order and is in compliance with the national law of the State to which the victim moves.
The thinking behind the instrument is not that the executing State has to provide a level of
protection which it is unable to provide for its own residents under its national legislation, but rather
to ensure that the protected person obtains in a European State the same level of protection as that
State stipulates under its own regulations. As a result, the executing State is not required to apply
measures which go beyond its own legal system but to choose, from among those established under
its legal order, those best adapted to the measures adopted by the issuing State in each individual
case, specifically the measures which it would have adopted under its legislation in a similar case.
Article 9: Grounds for non-recognition
The grounds for non-recognition of a European Protection Order are the same as those for European
Union instruments of mutual recognition, with only those adjustments necessitated by the specific
characteristics of the objective to be met.
Article 10: Role of the issuing State
Since the offender does not reside in the executing State and the European Protection Order is an
instrument of protection for the person moving to that State, the executing State does not have
jurisdiction to enforce the original sentence or measure requiring protection of the victim; that
jurisdiction continues to lie with the issuing State.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 17
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 74 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
The European Protection Order therefore means only that the executing State implements the
protection measures already referred to, with the consequences laid down in the legislation of the
executing State, if the offender moves to its territory and particularly if the offender infringes the
order.
Article 11: Grounds to revoke the recognition of a European Protection Order
The European Protection Order is revoked when the protected person has definitely left the territory
of the executing State.
Article 12: Time limits
The system chosen is a flexible one, given the speed with which it is necessary to act in certain
cases.
Article 13: Governing law in the executing State
To remove any doubt on the matter, it is specified that decisions made by the authorities of the
executing State are to be governed by its national law.
Article 14: Obligations of the authorities involved
This article refers particularly to the information which must be exchanged between the authorities
which intervene to execute a European Protection Order, particularly where the original protection
measure is modified, has expired or is revoked.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 18
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 75 – Drucksache 17/1461
Articles 15, 16, 17 and 18: Consultations between competent authorities; Language; Costs;
Relation to other agreements and arrangements
These articles follow the arrangements laid down in other mutual recognition instruments such as
Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the
principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision
of probation measures and alternative sanctions, Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of
23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the
principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional
detention, and Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest
warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.
Articles 19, 20 and 21: Implementation; Report; Entry into force
These provisions do not differ in content from those in the instruments already cited.
6. PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY
In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, Article 69 thereof and Protocol 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality, the objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States
acting alone for the following reasons:
– There is no other instrument which is sufficient to resolve the problem which this proposal for
a Directive is intended to resolve;
– It is clear that the Member States cannot lay down their own rules for the application and
validity of their own victim protection measures in another Member State;
– The objective of uniform recognition by each Member State of the effectiveness of the
measures adopted by another Member State can only be achieved by a common action, in this
case in the form of a Directive, in accordance with the TFEU.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 19
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 76 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
This proposal is therefore in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity insofar as the
objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can be
better achieved through this proposal for a Directive at Union level in view of the transnational
nature of the problem to be resolved, i.e. extending the effects of a victim protection measure
beyond the territory of the Member State which adopted it to the territory of another Member State.
7. PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY
In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, Article 69 thereof and Protocol 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality, this proposal for a Directive respects the principle of proportionality in that it does
not exceed the strict minimum required to achieve its objective.
In compliance with the principle of proportionality, this proposal for a Directive does not involve
harmonisation of the measures it refers to in the EU Member States, since harmonisation is not
necessary to achieve its purpose; instead, it introduces a mechanism to facilitate the extension of the
protection enjoyed by a person in one Member State to another Member State to which he/she goes,
in compliance with the legislation of the latter Member State and with due regard for its legal
system. This proposal thus respects the principle of proportionality in that it contains only those
provisions which are strictly necessary to achieve its objective and does not exceed the minimum
required to achieve the objective laid down in Article 82(1)(d) of the TFEU.
This proposal is also without prejudice to Article 72 of the TFEU which provides that "this Title
(Title V of the TFEU, area of freedom, security and justice) shall not affect the exercise of the
responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order
and the safeguarding of internal security".
8. CHOICE OF INSTRUMENT
Proposed instrument: Directive. Other instruments would not be adequate.
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 20
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 77 – Drucksache 17/1461
The proposal takes the form of a Directive based on Article 288 and Article 296 of the TFEU, in
relation to Article 82(1)(d) of the TFEU, since in order to achieve the desired objective and bearing
in mind the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the Member States must be obliged, as to
the result to be achieved, to adopt decisions in their territory extending the protection measure
adopted by another Member State, but leaving to each State the choice of form and methods.
9. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
This proposal for a Directive has no implications for the Community budget.
The question of financial implications is dealt with in a separate document. It should be pointed out,
however, that this proposal for a Directive will not impose any major additional expenditure on
Member States' budgets or, as already stated, on the European Union budget. In the long term, the
costs which it may involve, relating mainly to the translation of the European Protection Order, will
in many instances represent savings by preventing the commission of new offences against the
victim, that being the primary objective of this proposal.
10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The adoption of the proposal will not entail the repeal or amendment of any existing legislation in
force.
____________________
17513/09 ADD 1 REV 1 SC/ec 21
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 78 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
COUNCIL OF
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 6 January 2010
17513/09
ADD 2 REV 1
COPEN 247
NOTE
Subject: INITIATIVE FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL on the European Protection Order
- Detailed statement
In relation to the initiative by a group of Member States for a Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the European Protection Order, please find attached an detailed statement
allowing to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, in
accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 2) to the Lisbon Treaty.
A financial note is set out at the end of the statement.
_________________
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 1
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 79 – Drucksache 17/1461
Brussels, 6 January 2010
Initiative
of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia,
the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Hungary,
the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and
the Kingdom of Sweden
for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
ON THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER
DETAILED STATEMENT
allowing to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality
in accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 2) to the Lisbon Treaty
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 2
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 80 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
DETAILED STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The growing concern in the European Union over the rights of victims reflects the need to change
the traditional focus of criminal proceedings with their emphasis on the connection between the
punitive power of the State and the alleged offender, leaving the victim of the crime, the aggrieved
party, in second place.
Since the end of the 20th century, the victim in the penal system has begun to re-emerge as one of
the principal players, with the result that criminal proceedings constitute not only a mechanism for
resolving the conflict between the State and the offender, but also an effective way of protecting the
rights and interests of the victim.
The victims of domestic violence deserve special consideration, particularly women. Whilst women
are not the only victims to be afforded protection under the European Protection Order, they will be
the beneficiaries in the majority of cases.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 3
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 81 – Drucksache 17/1461
This change in approach has already resulted in some important EU instruments such as
Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims and Framework
Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. It has also been
reinforced by the initiatives which are already under way, such as the amendment of the Framework
Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography and the
Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings, where the victims take centre
stage, as well as by the other instruments planned, such as the amendment of Framework
Decision 2001/220/JHA referred to above.
One of the victim's most important rights is the right to be protected against further attacks by the
offender. Victims not only have the right to compensation for the consequences of a crime, but
above all have the right to avoid being a victim once again. Given that European residents are
increasingly mobile, the legislative work of the EU and Member States' efforts to protect the
victims of crime would remain incomplete if protection granted to a person by a Member State were
limited to the territory of that State.
The victim under threat should as far as possible enjoy the same level of protection throughout EU
territory as in the State which adopted the original protection measure, so that a change of residence
to another State does not entail any loss of protection. Victims' freedom of movement in the
territory of the EU cannot be at the expense of their rights.
On the other hand, the preventive measures or penalties which involve a prohibition on entering
certain localities, places or defined areas or involve preventing contact with certain persons entail
two aspects: on the one hand, as security measures or penalties, they restrict the rights of the
offender; secondly, but of equal importance, they constitute measures to protect the victim against
further attacks, that being their raison d'être.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 4
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 82 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
However, until now no mechanism has been available enabling a protected person to apply to have
protection extended to the State they were moving to, given that a protection measure takes effect
only in the territory of the State which adopted it.
It was because they are aware of this loophole that the Member States making this proposal decided
to submit it to the European Parliament and the Council to create an EU legislative act to fill the
gap. It is significant that the objective of the first legislative initiative submitted by the Member
States in the area of freedom, security and justice after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty , in
accordance with Article 76(b) of the TFEU, is to protect victims and establish a mechanism
allowing protective measures adopted by one Member State to be extended beyond the territory of
that State.
In order to achieve this goal, various policy options have been examined:
− Policy option A: No new action to be taken in the European Union
The EU would not take any new action: thus the existing situation would continue, with victims
unable to have a measure protecting them in one Member State extended to the State they wish to
move to.
− Policy option B: Non-legislative measures, whose basic aim would be to establish a
mechanism for exchanging information and good practices
A new legislative instrument would not be necessary. Instead, this option could involve putting in
place non-legislative measures, Council conclusions for example, which would stimulate exchanges
of information between judicial authorities in each specific case on the persons involved (victim and
offender), in addition to more general exchanges of experience concerning prosecution, victim
protection and crime prevention.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 5
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 83 – Drucksache 17/1461
− Policy option C: Legislative proposals to amend Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of
27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and
probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative
sanctions, and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on the application between
Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on
supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention
Amended versions of those Framework Decisions could incorporate a protection mechanism for
those cases where it is the victim who moves to a State other than the one which adopted the
measure. The Framework Decisions start from the assumption that it is the offender or alleged
offender who is the subject of an alternative measure, a probation measure or a provisional measure
imposed by a Member State who has returned or wishes to return to the State of residence, who
consents to do so, or who wishes to go to another Member State in which he does not intend to
reside.
− Policy option D: Legislative proposal comprising a single text covering all scenarios relating
to the extension of victim protection
A new legislative text in this area would entail a single instrument specifically aimed at protecting
victims and focusing on their protection needs. It would not be incorporated into a pre-established
framework which pursues a completely different goal.
Option A would clearly not improve the current situation, but would maintain the status quo: in
order to enjoy protection in the other State, a person would have to be the victim of another offence
or attempted offence there, since at present there is no mutual recognition agreement allowing such
protection to be extended.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 6
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 84 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Option B would not be sufficient to improve the situation of victims. as a non-legislative option, it
would not solve problems requiring a legal basis, nor would it allow protection granted by one State
to be extended, or any preventive measures to be adopted on the basis of the existence of a victim
protection decision in another Member State.
Option C would improve the situation of crime victims going to another Member State, but would
have to fit into the framework of the two Framework Decisions referred to, one on the application
of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the
supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, and the other relating to the European
supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the European Union. This
would result in two different legislative frameworks for the protection of victims requiring a list of
offences, to which a genuine system of protection should not be confined.
Option D would involve an instrument in its own right, specifically geared to protecting victims and
adapted to that purpose. For that reason, D is the preferred option and is, in fact, the only truly
viable option capable of providing effective protection for victims going to a Member State other
than the State which adopted a protection measure.
1. CONSULTATION OF THE MEMBER STATES AND STATE OF PLAY
1.1. Political context and background
The Tampere European Council on 15 and 16 October 1999 and the Hague Programme on
strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union (2005/c53/01), which was
adopted by the European Council on 4 and 5 November 2004, already expressed concern over the
situation of victims. In addition, EU Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001
on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings defines a victim as "a natural person who has
suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, directly
caused by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law of a Member State". The
Stockholm Programme, adopted by the European Council on 10 and 11 December 2009, also
devotes particular attention to the rights of victims and their protection.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 7
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 85 – Drucksache 17/1461
EU Member States have singled out combating domestic violence, in particular gender violence, as
an issue worthy of special attention. There is no doubt that violence against women acts as an
obstacle to the achievement of equality, development and social peace (1995 UN Conference); in
relation to victims of domestic violence, Recommendation (85)4 adopted by the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe recommends that States "take steps to ensure (…) that the
appropriate measures can be (…) taken (…) to protect the victim and prevent similar incidents
from occurring" and the European Parliament report of 9 December 2005 recommends that Member
States adopt an attitude of "zero tolerance" towards all forms of violence against women and that
the appropriate protection measures be taken.
While the essential aim of criminal law is to penalise typical crimes and it is therefore applied when
lawful property has been damaged, it must also provide an immediate response to those situations
where an attack on a victim's lawful property involves additional elements which create a risk that
the violence will be repeated, with further attempts being made to attack the victim's rights and
interests. The victims obviously cannot await a conviction at the end of criminal proceedings to
receive protection against such risks, which is why under the rules of criminal procedure measures
may be adopted on an interim or provisional basis to protect victims during the course of the
proceedings.
The precedent is the protection order in the English-speaking world which takes the form of a court
order protecting one person from another, is valid for the entire national territory and contains a
number of obligations or prohibitions which the person to whom it is directed must observe
(prohibition on possessing weapons, approaching or contacting one or more persons, etc.).
Most European legal systems have provision for measures to protect victims (especially victims of
domestic and gender violence) and persons closely related to them who are also at risk. However,
this protection is only feasible and effective if the victims remain in the State which has granted
them protection, as it is not possible at present to extend this protection to other European Union
countries.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 8
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 86 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
1. 2. Consultations
The following methods were used to establish the factual and legal state of play:
− Replies to the questionnaire to delegations with a view to a possible submission by Spain and
other Member States of an initiative for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the European Protection Order (the questionnaire is set out in 13577/09
COPEN 176 of 23 September 2009; the replies are set out in 5002/10 COPEN 1).
− Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the French Republic with a view to
adopting a Council Framework Decision on the recognition and supervision of suspended
sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences (8662/07 COPEN 49 of
14 May 2007), with the summary of delegations' replies to the questionnaire
(7142/07 COPEN 31).
− Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the French Republic with a view to
adopting a Council Framework Decision on the recognition and supervision of suspended
sentences and alternative sanctions (14001/07 COPEN 23 of 23 October 2007), with a
follow-up to delegations' replies to the questionnaire on "competent authorities"
(10891/07 COPEN 96).
1. 2. 1 Factual results of the consultations with Member States
The need for an instrument as described above does not stem from a purely theoretical basis. It
is clear that in the EU at present there is no instrument which allows victims to request that
measures protecting them in one Member State be applied in another Member State to which they
have moved. Moreover, victims can obviously exercise their freedom of movement and, as a
consequence of their experiences, they may be more inclined than those fortunate enough not to
have had the same experiences to seek a new life by moving to another Member State or by
returning to their country of origin, as the case may be.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 9
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 87 – Drucksache 17/1461
The harassment of victims, particularly victims of gender violence, has a global dimension, rather
than a merely regional one; it concerns all the countries in world, including all EU countries.
According to the 2003 UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women) document, "Not a
Minute more", one woman in three across the world will be exposed to gender violence in their
lifetime; or will be beaten, raped, assaulted, will be victims of trafficking, bullied or forced to
submit to acts which damage their health, such as female genital mutilation. According to Eurostat
figures, between 700 and 900 women in the EU die each year as a result of gender violence.
In the discussions prior to the submission of this initiative, a questionnaire was sent to the Member
States requesting them to forward statistics on the number of cases in which protection measures
had been imposed requiring the offender to avoid contact with the victim and to avoid entering
certain localities, places or defined areas in which the victim was living or working.
Of the 18 Member States which replied to the questionnaire, 13 Member States, representing
61,5 % of the EU's population in 2008, provided statistical information. The data forwarded by
these countries shows that in 2008 they issued over 73 000 protection measures, mostly in cases of
gender violence.
If these data are extrapolated to the whole of the EU, since there are no objective reasons for
assuming that the situation is different in the Member States in which the remaining 39,5 % of the
EU's population lives, this would mean that 118 000 protection measures were issued in 2008.
No data are available on victims who move to another Member State under such measures or who
return to their country of origin, as the Member States do not keep track of them, but just 1 % of
118 000 would mean 1 180 cases in one year (2008) in which a victim moved to a different
EU State from the one which imposed the measure.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 10
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 88 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
1. 2. 2. Legal situation in the Member States of the European Union in relation to
protection measures. Legal measures for protecting victims in the Member
States.
The following information is based on the replies received to the aforementioned
questionnaire, from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Spain,
Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden
and the United Kingdom.
The legal measures which can be imposed to protect victims are summarised below as described by
the Member States in their replies to the questionnaire on the European Protection Order. All the
Member States which replied have measures they can use to protect victims which involve
imposing restrictions on the (alleged) offender(s). In the majority of cases, the measures are applied
in the context of criminal proceedings. In a number of Member States, however, they may also be
imposed in civil or administrative proceedings, and in some Member States via these channels only.
When the measures are issued in civil or administrative proceedings, the majority of Member States
provide for criminal liability in the event that the obligations are not met.
1. 2. 2. 1. Criminal proceedings
A. Measures imposed before the trial
A number of Member States can impose restrictions on the alleged offender during the pre-trial
phase. In England and Wales, conditions may be attached to the bail in criminal proceedings in
order to protect witnesses and victims. The Portuguese penal system provides for a wide range of
measures, both before and during the trial as well as after the judgment, which may be applied in
order to protect the victim by imposing certain obligations, particularly in cases of domestic
violence, including the obligation to avoid contact with the victim and the obligation not to enter
certain localities, places or defined areas where the victim resides. Likewise, the Spanish criminal
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 11
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 89 – Drucksache 17/1461
justice system provides for the issue of a protection order in cases of gender violence, with a range
of measures which confer full protection and can include provisional measures under civil and
criminal law, as well as social assistance and protection measures.
The most common measure is expulsion from the victim's home. In France, for example, this
measure can be imposed both before and after the judgment. In Lithuania an obligation can be
issued during the pre-trial investigation period, either as part of measures for supervising house
arrest or as part of a written obligation to remain in a specific place. The alleged offender may be
required to live apart from the victim, not to communicate or attempt to communicate with the
victim or persons living with the victim, or not to visit specific places of residence.
Similarly, in Latvia the alleged offender can be ordered to avoid contact with the victim or to avoid
going to certain localities. Furthermore, victims of serious or very serious crimes may be afforded
procedural protection, as may juvenile victims.
In the Czech Republic, police officers have the powers to evict a person when they constitute a
threat to their cohabitee, if it can be reasonably assumed - especially if there have been previous
attacks - that the person evicted is endangering the other person's life, health, freedom or human
dignity. The evicted person must hand over to the police all keys to the building in question and
refrain from establishing contact with the person in danger. Access to the area surrounding the
endangered person's home may also be prohibited. However, this measure can only last for ten
days.
In Denmark, the police have powers to impose a provisional measure when a person has disturbed
the peace of another person or harassed him/her. Harassment does not constitute a crime, but if the
order is infringed, the courts may impose a financial penalty or a sentence of up to two years'
imprisonment.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 12
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 90 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
In Finland the authorities conducting the pre-trial investigation may issue temporary prohibition
orders; the maximum penalty for infringement of this order is one year's imprisonment. In Italy,
since February 2009, a provisional measure may be imposed preventing an alleged attacker from
approaching the victim.
B. Measures imposed following a conviction
B. 1. Probation measures
All the Member States that replied to the questionnaire have measures that can be imposed on
a convicted offender to contribute to protecting the victim. The reply from the Bulgarian delegation
indicated that all probation measures, and in particular those which restrict the free movement of
offenders, are aimed at punishing the offender and preventing him from re-offending, which
implicitly entails protection for the victim. Probation measures that restrict free movement include:
a prohibition on entering specific localities, areas or establishments; a prohibition on leaving a
specific area for more than 24 hours without the permission of the person responsible for
supervising probation or of the prosecutor, and a measure prohibiting the offender from leaving his
residence during specific periods of the day or night.
The most common measure prohibits the offender from entering a specific locality so as to prevent
him from contacting the victim or his/her family. In the United Kingdom, for example, the most
frequent scenario is for the conditions preventing an offender from entering a specific locality to be
imposed as part of a community sentence or licence after release from prison. Similarly, in
Germany conditions can be imposed when an offender is subject to a supervision order or
conditional release from prison. In Estonia, the court can order an offender not to enter specific
localities and not to communicate during the period of supervision with persons stipulated by the
court.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 13
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 91 – Drucksache 17/1461
In Spain, offenders can be deprived of the right to reside in or enter specific localities, or prohibited
from approaching or communicating with the victim or certain members of the victim's family. This
applies not only to cases of domestic violence but also, depending on the seriousness of the case or
the danger represented by the offender, to crimes involving murder, abortion or injury, crimes
against personal freedom, torture, and crimes against moral integrity, sexual offences, attacks on
personal privacy and the right to protection of one's own image and offences against the
inviolability of the home, a person's good name, property and the socio-economic order, and can
last up to 10 years in the case of serious offences and up to five years in the case of less serious
offences. Such prohibitions can also be imposed in cases of suspended custodial sentences and as a
security measure.
In the Czech Republic, a court can impose obligations which include refraining from establishing
contact with certain persons as a condition in a conditional sentence with supervision, a conditional
waiver of a prison sentence with supervision or a conditional release with supervision. Czech
legislation also provides for a prohibition on residence, which involves prohibiting a person from
residing in a specific locality or area for a period of between one and five years. The offender
cannot, however, be banned from staying in his place or area of permanent residence.
In Lithuania, a court can impose a prohibition on approaching the victim when such a measure is
necessary to protect the victim's legitimate interests. It can also impose a range of obligations as
part of a sentence involving restriction of liberty: the obligation not to change place of residence
without prior notification or to be at home at a certain time, or a prohibition on visiting certain
places or communicating with certain persons or groups of persons, being in possession of certain
objects, or acquiring or storing them or transferring them to other people for safekeeping.
In Slovakia, those obligations can be imposed as part of a sentence, conditional sentence or
conditional release. In the case of a conditional suspension of criminal proceedings, a prosecutor
may also apply restrictions to oblige the accused to lead a "normal life" or to refrain from carrying
out activities that could lead to the commission of an offence.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 14
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 92 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
B. 2. Restraining orders
In addition to the conditions imposed on an offender subject to conditional release or release
under supervision, a number of Member States have provision for the imposition of moderate
restraining orders. In Finland, for example, prohibitory orders are issued as independent security
orders by the competent civil and criminal courts. A person who breaches a restraining order will be
fined or imprisoned for up to a year. In Estonia, a court may impose a restraining order of up to
three years on a person found guilty of an offence against a person, regardless of whether or not that
person is a minor, in order to protect the victim's private life.
Under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom can
result in a sentence and a restraining order. Section 12 of the recently implemented Domestic
Violence Crime and Victims Act expands the circumstances under which criminal courts can
impose restraining orders to protect a person from behaviour that could result in harassment or fear
of possible violent acts. The court may also impose restraining orders on acquittal for any offence,
if it deems it necessary to protect a person from possible harassment.
In the Netherlands, an obligation can be imposed only under special circumstances. In the case of
gender violence, the offender is prohibited from entering the victim's residence or making contact
with him/her.
1. 2. 2. 2. Civil or administrative procedures
In Italy and Latvia, only a criminal court can impose obligations on alleged offenders, through
criminal proceedings. This is also true of Portugal, although it is possible in theory for the victim to
apply to have certain obligations imposed on the alleged offender in civil proceedings.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 15
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 93 – Drucksache 17/1461
However, in most of the Member States which responded to the questionnaire (e.g. Austria,
Belgium and Estonia), a civil court or administrative authority may also impose such obligations in
the context of civil or administrative proceedings. In fact, in Germany preventive measures in the
case of gender violence can be adopted only in the family courts. In Sweden, the decision to impose
a restraining order is adopted by the prosecutors and is generally the result of a request from the
alleged victim in relation to notification of an offence, although the decision is always deemed to be
administrative in nature.
The most usual conditions are prohibitions on approaching or contacting the victim. In Lithuania,
for example, a court may impose provisional protection measures pending the court sentence such
as ordering one of the spouses to reside in another place, prohibiting one of them from contacting
his/her minor children or from visiting certain places, requiring minor children to live with one of
the parents or requesting non-interference in the use of certain properties of the other spouse.
The Slovak protection order may entail similar conditions. Such an order may be obtained in cases
of gender violence (as well as in the form of possible temporary or preliminary measures in civil
proceedings). Special protection can be granted to persons who are in danger in the context of
criminal proceedings, as well as to direct family members. The possible measures under this
protection order include physical protection, safeguarding of property, moving the victim to a safe
place, changing the victim's place of residence, work or study, establishing another location for the
notification of the sentence, or a complete change of identity.
In the Netherlands, a temporary administrative restraining order can be issued by a Mayor
prohibiting a person from entering a house if his/her presence constitutes a serious and imminent
danger for the security of the persons who live there. The prohibition may last for ten days, and may
be extended for up to four weeks.
In England and Wales, a non-molestation order may be issued to deal with cases of violence or
threats of violence, or when one person harasses or molests another. An occupation order
determines who will occupy a specific property. A person can be totally excluded from the use of a
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 16
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 94 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
property and obliged to live in another place, or else may be subject to a prohibition from entering
certain rooms in a property, i.e. the husband may be prohibited from entering the room in which the
wife is sleeping. An occupation order may also entail a no-access zone around the property.
Another measure possible in the United Kingdom is the Forced Marriage Protection Order, which
can be issued to prevent forced marriages from taking place. That order can include prohibitions,
restrictions, conditions or any other measure the court considers appropriate to stop
or change the behaviour or conduct of those who would force the victim into marriage.
1. 2. 2. 3. Consequences of infringement
A. Non-criminal law consequences
Infringing an obligation imposed in civil or administrative proceedings does not constitute an
offence in Austria or France. In Belgium non-compliance with a civil measure may be punished by
a fine, imposed by a civil court, but it will not entail criminal liability.
However, in the majority of Member States in which such administrative procedures are possible,
non-compliance is deemed to constitute an offence. In the Czech Republic, for example, obstructing
the implementation of an official decision can constitute an offence. Likewise, in Slovakia a person
who seriously obstructs compliance with the obligations imposed by a civil court or a police
authority can be punished for the offence of obstructing compliance with an official decision.
In Sweden, breaching a restraining order is an offence, except in cases in which the breach is
considered a minor transgression. In Bulgaria, a breach has consequences under criminal law only
in cases of gender-based violence; if the material author of a crime breaches a restraining order
issued by a court, the police force that notified the breach will detain the person and notify the
prosecutor's office accordingly.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 17
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 95 – Drucksache 17/1461
B. Consequences under criminal law
In Sweden and Germany, the penalties for breach of a restraining order in connection with gender
violence range from a fine to a year's imprisonment. In Estonia, breaching a restraining order or
other protection measure, with the exception of temporary restraining orders, is also subject to a
fine or up to one year in prison if the breach is repeated or represents a danger to life, health or
property. In the Netherlands, the maximum penalty is generally one year's imprisonment; however,
breaching an order issued by a mayor prohibiting a person from entering a house can be punished
with up to two years' imprisonment.
2. DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
2.1. What is the problem?
In many types of crime the offence is a single act and the offender does not tend to commit another
offence against the same victim. In other cases the offence is targeted at a specific victim and
therefore tends to be repeated. This is the typical pattern of gender violence, in which the victim, in
the vast majority of cases a woman, is the object of repeated offences which in many cases result in
murder or manslaughter. Nor should we forget those cases which fall short of assault, coercion or
threats but where the tension reaches such a pitch, particularly in relations between partners, that
measures have to be taken specifically to prevent an offence being committed against one of the
parties, again in most cases a woman. And the same applies to offences involving the sexual
exploitation of minors or trafficking in human beings, for very different reasons. There are also
instances in which the offender's desire to retaliate against or intimidate the victim to prevent the
person testifying against him in a trial results in threats, if not in a further offence, against the
victim.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 18
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 96 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
All the situations described above pose a danger to the victim so that the State in which the offences
occur adopts victim protection measures of various kinds, either to prevent an offence being
committed against the victim or to prevent a repeat offence or other behaviour.
No cross-border problem arises as long as the victim and the offender remain within the State in
which the protection measure has been adopted, and the issue is thus confined to that State. If the
offender moves to a different Member State there are already legal instruments that cover this cross-
border element. By contrast, if it is the victim who moves there are no instruments that provide for
the protection measure taken in the State of origin to be extended.
Unfortunately, the figures given in section 1.2 of this assessment reveal the scale of a problem that
needs to be tackled by many different methods, but they also demonstrate the need for a legislative
instrument to close a gap that should not be allowed to persist within the EU: the absence of any
means of allowing the victim protection measure adopted by another Member State to be extended
throughout EU territory.
2.2. Who is affected by the problem?
In the first place the problem affects women who are victims of gender violence, which is a type of
criminal behaviour in which unfortunately the threat against the victim is more likely to continue,
when it does not result in the offence being repeated. But it also applies to victims of offences in
general, who are exposed to the threat or danger of the same offence or a new offence being
committed against them, perhaps even more serious than the previous one, although here we should
highlight the particularly high incidence of this problem in trafficking in human beings and the
sexual exploitation of minors.
Nor do the Member States' judicial authorities have any means at present, or any legal basis, that
would enable them to act in the way they would if the offences which led to the adoption of the
measure by the State of origin had occurred in their territory; they cannot therefore impose any
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 19
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 97 – Drucksache 17/1461
measure to protect the victim, although, in the end, what is required is no more than a crime-
prevention measure. In the absence of any legal basis for such action, the law enforcement
authorities cannot adopt any measures either, except in cases where an offence against the victim is
committed or attempted in their territory. In short, the present situation is not conducive to action
either by judicial authorities or by law enforcement authorities to prevent a further offence being
committed against a victim who moves to their territory and is already the subject of a protection
measure adopted by another State.
2.3. Scale of the problem
The figures set out in section 1.2 of this study indicate the seriousness of the problem we face,
although there is a lack of up-to-date statistics on, for example, femicide in the EU. Crime levels in
general, and in particular those relating to gender violence, domestic violence, trafficking in human
beings and sexual abuse of minors, are not diminishing over time but are either remaining stable or
continuing to increase, as shown by the impact studies carried out by the Commission in connection
with proposals to amend framework Decisions 2004/68/JHA on combating the sexual abuse of
children and child pornography (COM(2009) 135, SEC(2009) 356) and 2002/629/JHA on
combating trafficking in human beings (COM(2009) 136 final, SEC(2009) 359).
2.4. Underlying factors
Victims' problems, owing to their special situation as victims, intensify when they move to a
Member State other than that in which they lived and in which they suffered the offence. Not only
are they likely to be confronted with language barriers and very different social problems and
circumstances, but their feeling of defencelessness increases in an environment with which they
may not yet be sufficiently familiar, particularly when they find that the threat remains despite the
move.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 20
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 98 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Victims may be reluctant to report the threat, through embarrassment or fear of the consequences,
particularly where the abuses have occurred within the family; this reaction, which occurs when the
victims are living in their State of origin, may be more intense when they are in another country and
have to seek help from unfamiliar legal and judicial systems.
In addition, where victims have suffered the offence in the territory of a Member State other than
their State of residence, they must have appropriate mechanisms available to claim in the State of
residence the protection granted by the other State, as a preventive mechanism, without having to
wait for a further offence.
2.5. Weaknesses in the current legal structure
Although, as pointed out in section 1.3, national legal systems allow for the possibility of adopting
victim protection measures, such protection is restricted to the territory of the Member State that
granted it and cannot be extended to another Member State in which the victim may happen to be.
When it is the offenders who move to another State and provided that they have their residence in
the former, and return or agree or wish to return there, or to another State, the cross-border issue
raised by this move is governed by Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of
27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and
probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions
and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on the application, between Member States of the
European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an
alternative to provisional detention. However, when the it is the victims who move to a State other
than that which adopted the measure designed to protect them, there is no instrument for the
recognition or application of the measure taken by the State of origin, which would resolve the
cross-border problem that such a move raises.
There is at present no legal basis that allows a State to recognise the protection granted to an
individual by another State and thus adopt the necessary prevention and protection measures in its
territory.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 21
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 99 – Drucksache 17/1461
2.6. Main problems to be addressed
Given the situation that exists, the specific problems that need to be addressed are as follows:
1 Insufficient protection for victims who move to another Member State
a. There is no legal instrument that allows a Member State's judicial authorities to recognise
protection measures granted in another State.
b. The victims can benefit from a protection measure in the State to which they move only if
they are again the victims of an offence in the latter State.
c. There is no legal basis on which a judicial authority of the State to which the victims move
can adopt provisional or precautionary measures to prevent a further offence being committed
against the victim in its territory.
2. No reaction in the State which adopted the original protection measure
a. The State which adopted the measure is unaware of the acts committed by the offender
outside its territory when, clearly, knowledge of that conduct could result in a change in the
measure concerned and, in short, lead to better protection for the victim.
b. There is no legal basis enabling the authorities of the executing State to consider a
violation of the measure committed by the offender in another Member State as if it had been
committed in its territory.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 22
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 100 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
2.7. Evolution of the problem
Despite the efforts made by the various EU States and institutions, the magnitude of the crime
problem and, in particular, of gender violence remains substantial, while the mobility of EU citizens
is constantly increasing. Specific, effective measures are therefore required to protect victims,
wherever they may be in the Union, and will only help to prevent crime and in particular benefit
victims for whose protection a measure was adopted in another Member State.
2.8. Legal basis, subsidiarity, proportionality and fundamental rights
Article 67(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) states that "the Union
shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental
rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States" and Article 67(3) states
that "the Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and
combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation
between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the
mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of
criminal laws".
Article 82(1)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that "the European
Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,
shall adopt measures to: (a) (…) (d) facilitate cooperation between judicial or equivalent authorities
of the Member States in relation to proceedings in criminal matters and the enforcement of
decisions".
Point 3.1.1 of the Stockholm Programme to strengthen freedom, security and justice in the EU,
which was approved by the European Council meeting on 10 and 11 December 2009, states that
"victims of crime or witnesses who are at risk can be offered special protection measures which
should be effective within the Union.".
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 23
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 101 – Drucksache 17/1461
In accordance with Article 5(1) and (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and
of Protocol 2 annexed thereto, on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and
Proportionality, and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, the European Union may act in this
area only to the extent that the objective sought cannot be adequately attained by the Member States
and can only be achieved by the Union. Given the cross-border dimension of the problem to be
resolved, action by the EU is needed in order to provide an effective solution.
In relation to the principle of proportionality and in accordance with Article 5(1) and (4) of the
TFEU and of Protocol 2 annexed thereto, on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and
Proportionality, EU action in this area may not go beyond what is strictly necessary to attain its
objective.
All action by the European Union must respect fundamental rights and observe the principles
recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular the right to human dignity,
life and physical and mental integrity, as well as the right to an effective remedy. When they apply
EU legislation the Member States must act in compliance with these rights and principles, so that
they cannot interfere with the fundamental legal principles enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on
European Union.
3. OBJECTIVES
3.1. General, specific and operational objectives
Article 67(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that "the Union shall
endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism
and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and
judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of
judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws".
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 24
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 102 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
In line with that precept, the general political objective in this area is to ensure a high level of
security through the prevention and combating of crime, focusing specifically on the victim in
this case. This objective should be achieved by the establishment of a coherent instrument that will
improve the situation of victims in cross-border cases in which they move to a Member State other
than that in which the offence was committed.
Taking account of the problem described in section 2 of this impact assessment, this general
objective could be attained by action to address the following specific and operational aspects.
A. Specific objective: prevent a further offence being committed against the victim
Operational objectives:
A.1. Set up a mechanism enabling measures to be adopted to protect the victim in a
State other than that in which the offence was committed. This objective is especially
important in that it seeks to facilitate such a measure, instead of allowing the State to which
the victim moves to adopt it only if a further offence is committed in that State.
A.2. Make it possible to adopt the provisional measures needed to ensure victim
protection, especially in cases where there is evidence that the offender has started to harass
the victim.
A.3. Make it possible for the State which originally adopted the protection measure to
consider acts committed by the offender in another State as if they had been committed in
its own territory, either for the purposes of amending that measure or for instituting
proceedings against the offender.
A.4. Improve cooperation between authorities, in particular with the aim of ensuring
smooth communication between them when a victim in danger moves away, and especially
when such danger begins to manifest itself in specific acts by the offender or alleged offender.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 25
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 103 – Drucksache 17/1461
B. Specific objective: make the victim's right to protection a reality
B.1. Make it possible for victims to obtain protection without having to institute new
proceedings in another State for that purpose.
B.2. Extend the basic protection which victims enjoyed in their State of origin to the State to
which they move, so that they do not need to justify or prove once again the danger to which they
are exposed in order to benefit from a protection measure.
B.3. Prevent discrimination in relation to people in the State to which the victim moves who have
been victims of a similar offence, offering the incoming victim the same options that that State's
legislation provides for situations of that kind.
3.2. Consistency of the objectives with other horizontal policies and objectives of the
European Union
The objectives set out above are fully consistent with EU policy on protection and observance of the
rights of victims of crime, both internal and external. Full and effective application of the
aforementioned rights to human dignity, life, physical and mental integrity and to an effective
remedy, recognised in Articles 1, 2(1), 3(1) and 47 respectively of the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights, requires the Union to ensure that victims are protected and establish the conditions to
guarantee their security, and this is also in line with the Tampere and Hague programmes and the
current Stockholm programme.
Such objectives are also consistent with the European Parliament resolutions of 16 September 1997
on a European campaign for zero tolerance of violence against women, and of 2 February 2006 on
the current situation in combating violence against women and any future action (2004/2220 (INI)),
and with the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament establishing
for the period 2007-2013 a framework programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice
(COM(2005)0122).
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 26
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 104 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
4. POLITICAL OPTIONS FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM
Option A: No new action to be taken in the European Union
The EU would not undertake any new action (legislation, non-legislative instrument, financial
support) to tackle the problem at issue. The current situation would continue and there would be no
instrument to extend protection measures adopted in one Member State to another State.
Each Member State would be free to decide whether or not to take action in this area and, in
consequence, whether or not to recognise protection measures adopted by another Member State in
order to safeguard incoming victims.
Option B: Adopt non-legislative measures
The EU would not undertake any legislative action but instead non-legislative measures would be
adopted in the form, for example, of Council conclusions urging Member States to:
- improve the exchange of information between judicial authorities concerning data they hold
on the individuals, victim and offender, concerned in each specific case
- encourage a more general exchange of experience and good practice followed in the Member
States in criminal matters, in particular to prevent renewed victimisation
- encourage exchange of information and experience on non-criminal measures
- establish mechanisms for the collection of data or focal points for observing and evaluating
the various types of criminal behaviour, and in particular violence against women.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 27
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 105 – Drucksache 17/1461
Such non-legislative measures would seek, fundamentally through exchange of information,
experience and good practice, to explore new ways of taking more effective action in the threefold
area of persecution, protection and prevention in relation to victims, and especially on repeat
offences.
Option C: New legislation on victim protection in the event of cross-border movement
amending Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the
application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions
with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions and
Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on the application, between Member States
of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on
supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention.
The third option would involve a legislative act, in the form of a directive, designed to extend
victim protection to the State to which victims move, amending the two aforementioned Framework
Decisions and inserting in each the legal provisions required to achieve the objective sought. This
would mean dealing with the problem in two separate texts even though the same solution would be
offered to victims in both cases, since there is no reason to set up a different protection mechanism
in each case. If this mechanism were different, the legislative result would be more complex as
there would then be two different forms or methods of extending victim protection in two different
legal instruments.
Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 has to be transposed into
national law by 6 December 2011 in accordance with Article 25 thereof, whilst Council Framework
Decision 2009/829/JHA has to be transposed by 1 December 2012 in accordance with its Article 27.
Both legislative instruments would thus have to be amended before their transposition period
expires.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 28
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 106 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
This option could offer a legal arrangement with the following objectives:
1. prevention, in the Member State to which victims move, of a further offence against
them by the offender or alleged offender, enabling the judicial authorities of the
executing State to act in accordance with the situation that occurred in the issuing
State and to grant the measures needed to deal with it, offering them an appropriate
legal basis without the need to wait for a further offence to be committed in their
territory;
providing victims, in the Member State to which they move, with a guaranteed level
of protection similar to that enjoyed in the Member State which granted the
measure, preventing their security from being reduced as a result of the move, given
their freedom of movement;
3. avoiding discrimination against victims who move to the executing State by
comparison with victims benefiting from protection measures enacted by that State,
so that they enjoy protection similar to that granted by the executing State to locals
in the same situation.
Pursuing this option would certainly not be incompatible with the adoption by the EU of the
mechanisms set out in option B above, which it is to be hoped will be put in place, and would be the
most appropriate approach for this purpose, in a future instrument, preferably legislative in nature,
offering an all-encompassing framework covering the status of victims, their procedural rights, their
right to compensation, pre- and post-trial assistance, improved statistics on the matter and exchange
of information, as well as cooperation between authorities of the various Member States. This
option, on the other hand, is intended to resolve a specific problem, which arises when a victim
enjoying a protection measure moves to another Member State, and offers a solution and a specific
instrument, as in the case where the offender or alleged offender moves to a Member State other
than the one which adopted the measure against him; this is the situation covered by the two
aforementioned Framework Decisions.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 29
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 107 – Drucksache 17/1461
Option D: New legislation comprising a single text covering all scenarios relating to the
extension of victim protection
This option would involve a single legislative instrument to deal with the problem at issue rather
than two separate ones as in option C.
The objective pursued would be exactly the same as in option C and, as with that option, would be
fully compatible with any future Community instruments adopted particularly after the entry into
force of the Lisbon Treaty, supplementing EU action in this area.
The presentation of a text specifically addressing the problem at issue would have the following
consequences:
� It would enable the specific problem of a victim's move to another Member State to be
targeted directly, without the need to fit into other instruments intended for a quite different
purpose;
� it would facilitate discussion on the system to be pursued, its starting point being focused
exclusively on the victim;
� it would make it possible to arrive at a dynamic, quick and effective system for the
protection of victims in a Member State other than that which adopted the measure
providing protection;
� it would be clearer and easier to apply for legal practitioners, who would know what
instrument to apply in specific instances in which the victim moved to another Member
State.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 30
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 108 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
5. IMPACT ANALYSIS
� Social impact
Any measure that is ineffective in combating crime is likely to have a series of negative effects,
including damage to values which are important to society, undermining confidence in States'
public institutions and authorities, trauma for victims, and intensify the sense of fear or insecurity.
The commission of a further offence against the victims, but also their continued harassment, causes
deep and lasting physical, psychological and social damage to them and those around them. In the
following analysis we refer to this impact as the "negative social impact of the renewed
victimisation and harassment of victims".
On the other hand, measures with proven effectiveness in combating crime definitely have a
positive social impact since security and confidence in institutions and authorities and in
interpersonal relations is thereby increased, and there is less recourse to self-protection. In the case
of victims, it means a more stable social and family life, and in particular the chance to build a more
secure life. In the following analysis we refer to this impact as the "positive social impact of
combating the renewed victimisation and harassment of victims".
� Economic impact
In the same way, measures which are ineffective in combating crime generally have a negative
economic impact. In the long term this reduces the effectiveness of State action owing to a lack of
confidence in public authorities, ineffective use of public resources as citizens resort to methods of
self-protection and a decline in productivity linked to the trauma that victims suffer. These negative
effects are intensified in the case of gender violence owing to an increase in the economic cost of
treating victims' psychological problems, the anxiety which they suffer and the costs involved in
criminal proceedings. In the following analysis we refer to this impact as the "negative economic
impact of the renewed victimisation and harassment of victims".
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 31
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 109 – Drucksache 17/1461
Conversely, when measures to combat crime are effective this generally has a positive economic
impact. In the short term there may be a moderate increase in administrative costs due to higher
demands on the criminal justice system, as a more effective system for fighting crime catches and
prosecutes more offenders, and involves a larger economic effort to finance this increase in
expenditure. However, in the medium and long term there will be a substantial reduction in costs as
a more effective crime fighting and prevention system is a deterrent to offenders, resulting in fewer
offences, while bearing in mind that a minimum level of crime is undoubtedly unavoidable. In any
event, in the particular case of gender violence any possible short-term increase in administrative
costs will be amply offset by the economic benefits of avoiding the expenditure that such offences
entail. In the following analysis we refer to this impact as the "positive economic impact of
combating the renewed victimisation and harassment of victims".
An evaluation should also be made of the impact which the different options would have on
fundamental rights, as indicated in the heading of this section, as well as their effects on the rules
which the Member States will have to develop, in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the
Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality.
Table of symbols: "-" is used for costs and "+" for benefits
Low intensity - / +
Medium intensity -- / ++
High intensity --- / +++
No impact 0
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 32
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 110 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
5.1. Policy option A: No new action in the European Union
As pointed out earlier, this option would maintain the status quo, without any means of extending
protection measures imposed in one Member State to another.
In a common area of freedom, security and justice, it would be strange if victims subject to a
measure designed to protect them in one country were to forfeit the safeguard provided by that
measure, in exercising their freedom to move within the EU. While the victim would be able to
cross the border between two Member States, the victim protection measure would not.
In view of the number of people enjoying the safeguard of such a measure each year, on the basis of
the statistics used in making the assessment, this would mean that, on a low estimate, over a
thousand victims a year would lose the security provided by the measure, by moving to a different
Member State. Leaving the present loophole in place would perpetuate that state of affairs for years
to come.
5.1.1. Economic impact:
Inaction under this option would leave the present situation unchanged, with no means of
prevention available. In the medium to long term, this would entail a negative economic impact of
renewed victimisation and harassment of victims, involving a financial cost in itself, without any
particular benefit.
5.1.2. Social impact: –
Continuation of the present situation, in which an offender can go on harassing the victim in another
country, despite a measure imposed on the offender for the victim's protection in one country,
would entail a negative social impact of renewed victimisation and harassment of victims, involving
a social cost in itself, without any particular benefit.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 33
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 111 – Drucksache 17/1461
5.1.3. Impact on fundamental rights: –
Clearly, EU inaction here would mean that crime victims would see neither any increase in their
protection nor any improvement in their rights. This could be regarded as having a negative impact
on fundamental rights.
5.1.4. Impact on national legislation:
This option would, of course, have no impact on Member States' legislation.
5.2. Policy option B: Non-legislative action
Under this option, non-legislative arrangements would serve basically to share information and
good practice between Member States' authorities. The aim of this would be to improve exchange
of information between judicial authorities and general sharing of experience and good practice in
both criminal and civil-law matters and to establish arrangements for compiling data for monitoring
and assessment of the various types of offence, particularly gender violence.
This option would improve the situation somewhat in encouraging sharing of information and good
practice as well as, hopefully, in having statistics compiled, but would bring only modest benefits
where there is a need to enact new legislation and more specifically to provide the authorities in the
Member State to which the victim moves with a legal basis for action, chiefly in order to prevent
any further offence against the victim.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 34
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 112 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
5.2.1. Economic impact:
− Financial cost: –
− Economic benefit: +
Action to improve the sharing of information and good practice and the compilation of statistics
making for awareness of the scale of the problem, particularly as regards gender violence, and
hence for adoption of measures as a result might bring moderate improvements in the situation in
the medium to long term. The financial cost of introducing such measures can be expected to be
moderate, the main expense being the work and infrastructure required for really reliable, efficient
data compilation.
5.2.2. Social impact:
− Social costs: 0
− Social benefits: +
There might be a slightly more positive social impact of combating renewed victimisation and
harassment of victims, if it proved possible, by non-legislative and hence non-compulsory means, to
improve coordination between authorities in the cross-border cases concerned.
No significant social costs can be seen.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 35
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 113 – Drucksache 17/1461
5.2.3. Impact on fundamental rights:
− Risk of encroaching upon fundamental rights: 0
− Improvement in relation to fundamental rights: 0
This option would not involve any policy jeopardising fundamental rights, as it aims merely to
improve arrangements for sharing information and good practice.
5.2.4. Impact on national legislation: 0
Being non-legislative, this option would have no implications for Member States' national
legislation.
5.2.5. Relationship between possible non-legislative action and objectives pursued
Action Specific objective Cost
Sharing information A.4 Not quantifiable
Sharing good practice in
criminal matters
A.4 Not quantifiable
Sharing information and
experience in non-criminal
matters
A.4 Not quantifiable
Arrangements to improve data
compilation
Not quantifiable
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 36
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 114 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
5.3. Policy option C: New legislation on victim protection in the event of cross-
border movement by amending Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of
27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to
judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation
measures and alternative sanctions and Council Framework
Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member
States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions
on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention
This policy option would provide the EU with legislation, in the form of a directive, to extend
protection enjoyed by a victim in one Member State to another, to which the victim moves, by
amending the two Framework Decisions, whose transposition period has not yet expired, so as to
incorporate the relevant legal mechanism.
The aim would be to cover as broad a scope as possible, so as to extend the effects to the greatest
possible number of victims and make allowance for the diversity of Member States' national law in
this area, as pointed out in section 1.2.2 above, thus including both criminal-law measures and
civil-law measures where any breach would involve criminal liability or might otherwise result in
offenders being deprived of their liberty.
The cases in which the mechanism would apply should also be confined to those where it is really
needed, so as to reduce costs and administrative work for the judicial system. This would preclude
automatic forwarding of the various protection measures imposed in each Member State.
Responsibility for the measure originally imposed would remain with the country which ordered it
or with any country to which responsibility had been transferred because an offender was still living
there.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 37
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 115 – Drucksache 17/1461
The forwarding procedure should be based on direct communication between authorities, both to
make the system smoother and more effective and to cut costs.
The mechanism to be introduced should not involve any harmonisation of protection measures
applicable in individual Member States, which should rather grant such measures as are available
under their own law in a similar case. The idea would thus actually be to provide the country where
the victim is living with a legal basis for action, designed basically to prevent offences, without
having to wait for an offender to commit any further crime against the victim; such action by the
executing State's authorities would be governed by its own national legislation, thereby obviating
the need for any harmonisation which might here be held to run counter to the principles of
proportionality and subsidiarity in particular. This would enable the original victim protection
measure to be recognised in any Member State.
Special consideration would be given, under this option, to imposing any urgent interim measures
required to prevent an offender from harassing or committing further offences against the victim.
Information on the victim's behaviour should be exchanged between the authorities concerned, too,
so that the measures in question could be applied and, if need be, amended more efficiently.
Any decisions to be taken for the victim's protection should also be reached as swiftly as possible.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 38
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 116 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
5.3.1. Economic impact:
− Financial cost: –
− Economic benefit: ++
The significant improvement brought about in victim protection and indirectly in crime prevention
through the deterrent effect of such an EU-wide instrument would entail a substantial positive
economic impact of combating renewed victimisation and harassment of victims.
Generally speaking, such a mechanism would result in a more effective criminal justice system.
This would, initially at least, bring more judicial and hence police action, more arrests and more
ensuing criminal proceedings. At that initial implementation stage, it would impose an increased
financial burden on Member States, although the costs involved are hard to quantify. On the other
hand, the economic benefits of greater security and less danger for victims in particular and society
in general are plain to see. As it is in any case better and, in the long term, cheaper to live in a
secure society than in an insecure one, the economic benefits will presumably far exceed the costs.
5.3.2. Social impact:
− Social costs: 0
− Social benefits: ++
Option C would entail a substantial positive social impact of combating renewed victimisation and
harassment of victims, both in prevention and in improved efficiency of criminal justice systems.
Greater protection of victims, or rather Europe-wide coverage for it, by measures designed actually
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 39
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 117 – Drucksache 17/1461
to prevent reoffending, would reduce their feelings of fear and helplessness and make them less
reluctant to report harassment or offences inflicted on them, which would result in a more effective
crime prevention and prosecution system. A more effective response by legal systems would
indirectly act as a deterrent to offenders and prevent further abuses, thereby reducing cases of
renewed victimisation.
On the other hand, this option has no social costs.
5.3.3. Impact on fundamental rights:
− Risk of encroaching upon fundamental rights: 0
− Improvement in relation to fundamental rights: ++
The idea under this option would be to establish a mechanism not impinging on offenders' rights,
but rather providing the necessary safeguards for observance of their rights, particularly as regards
notification of any measures imposed in the country where the victim is living, without thereby
detracting from the victim's security.
The mechanism's aim is merely that the protection provided for the victim by any obligation or
prohibition imposed on an offender should carry over its preventive, deterrent effects into the
country where the victim is living, thus extending its territorial coverage. If offenders are not
allowed to breach any restrictions imposed on them, for victims' protection, in one country, nor
should they be allowed to do so in another country. As offenders clearly do not have any right to
continue harassing or pestering their victims or to commit further offences against them, it makes
no sense, in a common area of freedom, security and justice, for such basically preventive,
protective measures to operate in one country but not in another, where the victim is actually living.
The improvement in the rights of victims moving to a different country from that in which a
measure was originally imposed, under such an option, would be so obvious as to require no further
comment.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 40
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 118 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
5.3.4. Impact on national legislation: –
This option would not involve amending national legislation so as to introduce any new measures
alien to a country's system, nor would it impose any kind of harmonisation. The measures to be
applied by a country would be those available under its own law. The only effect on its legislation
would be that of transposing the Directive entailed by option C, which would not take any great
effort, as it would just involve applying a quite straightforward system.
Action Specific objective Cost
Providing a legal basis for
measures in the country where
the victim is living
A.1 and A.2 No direct cost
Providing the victim with a
safeguard similar to the
original measure
A.1, A.2, B.1 and B.2 No direct cost
Taking action in accordance
with the national legislation of
the country where the victim is
living
B.3 No direct cost
Leaving responsibility for the
measure with the country which
imposed it
A.3 and A.4 No direct cost
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 41
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 119 – Drucksache 17/1461
5.4. Option D: New legislation comprising a single text covering all scenarios
relating to the extension of victim protection
The effects of option D would be the same as for option C above, since both would establish the
same mechanism; the difference between them would lie in the legislative procedure by which to do
so, here a new instrument specifically dealing with the cross-border cases in question, instead of
having to amend two Framework Decisions, as for option C.
The difference between options C and D thus lies not in their economic or social impact or their
impact on human rights or national legislation, but in opting for a more suitable legal instrument
here, in view of existing legislation.
6. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
6.1. Cost-benefit summary table
Costs (–)/benefits (+)
Policy option Economic
impact
Social impact Impact on
fundamental
rights
Impact on
national
legislation
A – – – 0
B –/+ 0/+ 0/0 0
C –/++ 0/++ 0/0 –
D –/++ 0/++ 0/0 –
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 42
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 120 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
6.2. Advantages and disadvantages of the various policy options
Policy option Advantages Disadvantages
A None identifiable Present situation left unchanged
B Would improve sharing of
information and good practice
Weakness of present legal framework
left unchanged
Victim would not enjoy any real
protection in another country
Financial cost of information-sharing
system, including translation, and of
data compilation
C Binding instrument
Improved prevention and
protection
Financial cost of translation
6.3. Comparison of options
6.3.1. General comparison of all options
In the light of all the above, option A (the status quo) is not an advisable course of action. Option B
seems insufficient to bring any real improvement in effectiveness of victim protection in
cross-border cases. Options C and D would leave victims in a better position than at present. They
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 43
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 121 – Drucksache 17/1461
would have measures applied to prevent commission of any further offence and would therefore
improve victim protection in such cross-border cases. The potential financial costs, chiefly for
translation, would be virtually the same as for option B, while the economic and especially the
social benefits would far exceed such minor costs.
6.3.2. Comparison of options C and D
As pointed out, the distinction between the two options is one of legislative method, since they both
involve the same mechanism. The difference, then, is that option D would enact a new legal text
specifically addressing the situation of victims, whereas the protection mechanism under option C
would be inserted, by revising them accordingly, into Council Framework Decisions 2008/947/JHA
of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and
probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions
and 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European
Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative
to provisional detention.
The basic premise of those Framework Decisions is quite different from the case arising in this
initiative, where it is the victim who leaves the Member State in which the sentence or measure was
imposed or the Member State in which the offender is resident or to which the offender voluntarily
moves. Under those Framework Decisions, it is for the executing State, i.e. the country in which
the offender is living or to which the offender wants to move, to supervise and enforce probation
orders and alternative penalties or to oversee supervision measures.
The EU instruments for supervision of such provisional measures or penalties have therefore been
drawn up from the point of view of the person accused or convicted. The effectiveness of such
measures in a country other than the one in which they were imposed thus hinges on a request from,
or at least the consent of, the actual or alleged offender and above all on a change of residence by
the actual or alleged offender and not by the victim.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 44
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 122 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
That is the case both for the Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of
mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of
probation measures and alternative sanctions and for the Council Framework Decision on the
application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition
to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention, neither of which is
applicable where it is the victim who has a change of residence.
The typical case arising under those Framework Decisions thus involves an individual who has
committed an offence or is charged or accused in Member State A, but who is a national of Member
State B. The aim of the Framework Decisions is to allow the person convicted or charged to serve a
substitute or alternative sentence or a period of probation or supervision in Member State B, that
person's country of residence.
The typical case arising under the proposal, on the other hand, involves a victim enjoying a
protection measure in Member State A, where the actual or alleged offender is still living
(regardless of whether either the offender or the victim is a national of that country), with the result
that the Framework Decisions are not applicable when the victim moves to Member State B. In
State B, the victim would not enjoy any protection; if the offender follows the victim, the preventive
or protective effect of the measure imposed in State A would be lost in State B.
That represents a legal loophole in European legislation, which makes provision for transfer of a
sentence or measure in relation to the offender only and not a measure to protect the victim.
This results in the paradox that an offender who is, say, not allowed to approach the victim in
State A, which has imposed a requirement to keep away, can do so in State B, where the victim is
living or staying. The situation is all the more paradoxical in that, if in the same case it were the
offender who moved to State B, the offender would not there be allowed to approach the victim. In
other words, a substitute or alternative sentence or a supervision measure will or may accompany an
offender who has a change of residence (albeit not on occasional travel), but cannot accompany a
victim.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 45
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 123 – Drucksache 17/1461
Victim protection could arguably be extended to any country to which the victim moves, by
amending the Framework Decisions on suspended sentences and supervision orders, but:
� Framework Decisions of that kind relate to offences which do not necessarily involve
imposing any such protective measures (fraud, money laundering, environmental crime etc.)
or which are in fact precisely what is to be prevented (murder, serious injury, rape, trafficking
in human beings, sexual exploitation of minors etc.). In short, if protection is to be really
effective and useful, it should not be based on a list of offences (or at any rate not on the list
in the mutual assistance instruments previously adopted) but on the protective measure itself,
on account of the need for the victim to be protected outside the country in which the courts
imposed it;
� such Framework Decisions are available only where it is the offender who moves to the
executing State, not where it is the victim who moves, and make appropriate arrangements for
the former case but not for the latter. For instance, they introduce a means of transferring
responsibility for a measure imposed on the offender, which does not, however, form part of
this proposal. That would give rise to an artificial combination, within each of those
instruments, of its current provisions with the mechanism under the proposal;
� revision of the two Framework Decisions would establish a twofold victim protection system,
part of it in each of them, thus splitting the mechanism for victims between two separate
pieces of legislation, which would run counter to the specific treatment called for by and the
importance to be attached to extension of victim protection.
In short, given the different approach followed by that existing legislation and the need to resolve
the problems faced by victims moving to another Member State, it would be easier, clearer and
more effective for the purpose to have a separate instrument governing extension of judicial
protection decisions and their effects in another Member State.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 46
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 124 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
7. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
The following could serve as key indicators of progress in achieving the proposal's objectives:
Objective Indicator
General aim
Ensuring a high level of security, by preventing
and combating crime
Number of crime victims, particularly for gender
violence and domestic violence
A.1. Measures to protect victims in another
Member State
Number of European protection orders (EPOs)
issued
A.2. Interim measures required for victim
protection
Number of such decisions under an EPO
A.3. Coverage of offences committed by an
offender in another Member State
Number of European arrest warrants issued
under an EPO
Number of original measures amended under an
EPO
A.4. Improving cooperation between authorities Number of EPO-based messages between
judicial authorities
B.1. Enabling victims to obtain protection
without further proceedings in another
Member State
Number of refusals to recognise an EPO
B.2. Extending the basis for protection
available to victims in their home country
Number of refusals to recognise an EPO
B.3. Preventing discrimination, by providing
victims with the same arrangements as are
available under the host country's
legislation in similar situations
Number of refusals to recognise an EPO
Number of complaints made on this account
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 47
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 125 – Drucksache 17/1461
FINANCIAL NOTE
It is envisaged that the application of the proposed Directive will not involve additional major
operating costs for the budget of the European Union or for those of the Member States, whether
those of national governments or those of regional or local authorities.
The proposal does not contemplate any specific machinery nor does it impose any measure on
the Member States in addition to those with which they already work. The judicial authorities of
the Member States have the freedom to adopt any measure they consider appropriate, in accordance
with their legislation, the only requirement being that it should be what they would impose in
a similar case if it had occurred within their territory. This proposal does not, therefore, involve any
additional expenditure for the Member States. On the other hand, the issue of an EPO is considered
only on application by the victim, preferably before that person moves to another Member State,
when the dangerous situation in which the victim finds him- or herself can continue to obtain in
the executing State. Thus the number of cases in which an EPO is issued and transmitted is limited;
transmission is not, therefore, automatic or addressed to the entire EU, but restricted to those cases
in which it is truly necessary, and thus both in cases – the majority – in which the victim continues
to reside in the State in which the measure is adopted, and in cases in which the issue of an EPO is
not required, expenditure is not incurred.
As the number of cases in which EPOs are issued is thus limited, costs will be restricted to those of
translation into the language of the executing State; for the rest, the costs of administration by
means of the mechanism described in the proposal submitted will be minimised.
This proposal has been drafted with care to ensure that the introduction throughout the EU of
a mechanism to protect victims will involve only the minimum, essential costs, such as those
involved in translation.
Nor does this initiative involve any increase in costs for economic operators or for the public, as it
does not provide for any practical action that they would have to undertake or carry out.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 48
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 126 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
On the other hand, and as outlined in the detailed statement, with regard to the financial
consequences of the options C and D described in that statement, it can be affirmed in general terms
that employing a mechanism like that in this initiative would result in a more effective criminal
system. It would involve at least, to start with, more activity on the part of the judicial and therefore
of the police systems, as a result of which in the initial stages the financial burden on the Member
States would increase, a consequence just of the improvement of the efficiency of the criminal
system, but it would certainly be difficult to calculate the actual amount of the costs that that
improvement would involve.
Accordingly, the economic benefits resulting from an improved level of security, greater protection
and, consequently, fewer dangers for victims are obvious; such benefits would be worth far more
than the initial costs which, it must be insisted, would be caused only by the simple improvement in
the efficiency of the system, if those costs actually produce the deterrent effect that the existence of
a protection order at European level will involve for offenders.
On the other hand, it is obvious that victims will move to other States for greatly varying reasons,
regardless of whether EPOs are issued or not. That is to say that the EPO will not cause an increase
in the number of members of the public that move about within the EU but will only continue to
provide the protection that existed before when such movements occur, and such movements will
occur in any case.
In the same way, the danger that an offender will cross a frontier in order to continue his attacks on
his victim will always be present; to be precise, it is hoped that the EPO will produce a deterrent
effect that will have consequences not only in those cases with a trans-frontier component, at which
is it specifically aimed, but also within each Member State, and bring about further progress in
the fight against crime, and in particular against gender violence and other sorts of crime, such as
trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of minors.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 49
DG H 2B EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 127 – Drucksache 17/1461
The precise point here is that when such movements occur and the threat continues in the State to
which a victim has gone, the authorities of that State employ those means to deal with that threat,
which is not new, and must in any case be dealt with; thus they are able more satisfactorily to
prevent a new crime being committed and they can provide greater security for the victim. It is
therefore hoped that the result will be a reduction in costs because of the prevention of a new crime,
the essential purpose of the EPO, because that is more economical than prosecution, punishment
and reparation.
The proposal submitted will not involve any additional costs for the budget of the European Union's
institutions.
17513/09 ADD 2 REV 1 SC/ec 50
DG H 2B EN
Drucksache 17/1461 – 128 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
17513/09 COR 1 SL/bba
DG H 2B DE
RAT DER
EUROPÄISCHEN UNION
Brüssel, den 6. Januar 2010
(OR. en)
17513/09
COR 1
COPEN 247
GESETZGEBUNGSAKTE UND ANDERE RECHTSINSTRUMENTE: KORRIGENDUM
Betr.: INITIATIVE FÜR EINE RICHTLINIE DES EUROPÄISCHEN
PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES über die europäische
Schutzanordnung
Seite 1, zweiter Bezugsvermerk:
Statt:
"auf Initiative des Königreichs Belgien, der Republik Bulgarien, des Königreichs Spanien, der
Republik Estland, …"
muss es heißen:
"auf Initiative des Königreichs Belgien, der Republik Bulgarien, der Republik Estland, des
Königreichs Spanien, …"
t mbH, Postfach 10 05 34, 50445 Köln, Telefon (02 21) 97 66 83 40, Fax (02 21) 97 66 83 44, www.betrifft-gesetze.de