WORKINGPAPER

COOPERATIONONACCESSTO

COMPENSATIONINCROSS-BORDERCONTEXT

Author:IrenaFerčíkováKonečná

PublicationofLaStradaInternational

2018

1

WORKINGPAPER

COOPERATIONONACCESSTO

COMPENSATIONINCROSS-BORDERCONTEXT

2

PublishedbyLaStradaInternational,Postbus15865,1001NJAmsterdamTheNetherlands,www.lastradainternational.org

Copyright: “All rights reserved.The contentsof thispublicationmaybe freelyusedandcopied foreducationalandothernon-commercialpurposes,providedthatanysuchreproductionisaccompaniedbyanacknowledgementof LaStrada Internationalas the source.”Citeas: LaStrada International,WorkingPaper:Cooperationonaccesstocompensationincrossbordercontext,Amsterdam,October2018.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLaStradaInternationalwouldliketothankthemainauthorIrenaFerčíkováKonečná,fordraftingthispaper, developed in the framework of the European project Justice at Last – EuropeanAction forcompensationforvictimsofcrime.

This project is funded by the European Union’s Justice Program (2014-2020) and ananonymousdonor.

ThecontentofthispaperrepresentstheviewsoftheauthoronlyandisLaStradaInternational’ssoleresponsibility.TheEuropeanCommissiondoesnotacceptanyresponsibilityforusethatmaybemadeoftheinformationitcontains.

ThisworkingpaperwasdevelopedthankstotheinvolvementandsupportofallpartnersoftheJusticeat Last Consortium: Adpare (Romania), Animus Association (Bulgaria), ASTRA (Serbia), ProyectoEsperanza(Spain),FairWork(theNetherlands),LaStradaCzechRepublic,LaStradaInternational,Lefö-IBF(Austria),KOK(Germany),MRCI(Ireland),OpenGate/LaStradaMacedonia,andSICARcat(Spain).Theyhavecontributedtothisworkbycollectingcompensationcases,providingotherdataandsharingsignificant insights into their legal practicesof assistance to traffickedpersons in accessing justice.ThanksgoesalsotoalltheexpertsthatfurtherparticipatedinafocusgroupmeetingheldonJune7,2018inVienna,Austria.

3

CONTENTACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................................2THECONTEXTANDTHESCOPEOFTHESTUDY..............................................................................................4TERMINOLOGY...............................................................................................................................................7METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................................81. REFERRALANDCOOPERATIONMECHANISM.......................................................................................102.REPORTING...............................................................................................................................................14

2.1SAFEREPORTINGOFCRIME...............................................................................................................142.2COMPLAINTMECHANISMFORUNDOCUMENTEDMIGRANTWORKERS...........................................172.3REPORTINGOFCRIMEINOTHERCOUNTRYTHANWHERETHECRIMEWASCOMMITED.................22

3.RESIDENCEPERMIT...................................................................................................................................263.1Dublinregulation................................................................................................................................273.2 DECISIONNOTTOPROCEEDWITHADUBLINTRANSFER...............................................................31

4.ACCESSTOLEGALASSISTANCEforvictimsINCROSS-BORDERSITUATIONS...........................................334.1ACCESSTOLEGALAIDINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS...........................................................................334.2ACCESSTOLEGALAIDINCROSS-BORDERDISPUTESINCIVILANDCOMMERCIALMATTERS............35

5.POSSIBILITIESTOCLAIMCOMPENSATIONINCROSS-BORDERSITUATIONS............................................395.1ACCESSTOMEMBERSTATESCOMPENSATIONSCHEMESFORVICTIMSOF(VIOLENT)INTERNATIONALCRIME............................................................................................................................395.2CIVILPROCEEDINGSINTHECROSS-BORDERCONTEXTINTHEEU.....................................................41

5.2.1FREEMOVEMENTOFJUDGEMENTINCIVILANDCOMMERCIALMATTERS................................425.2.2OPTIONALINSTRUMENTS...........................................................................................................43

5.3RECOGNITIONANDEXECUTIONOFFREEZINGANDCONFISCATIONORDERS...................................465.3.1TRACINGOFTHEASSETS.............................................................................................................465.3.2FREEZINGANDCONFISCATIONOFCRIMINALASSETS................................................................47

6.RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................517.REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................53

4

THECONTEXTANDTHESCOPEOFTHESTUDYGoodcooperationbetweenallrelevantstakeholdersatnationallevelisessentialtoensureadequateaccesstoprotectionandsupportforvictimsoftrafficking,thesamegoesforclaimingcompensation.Ashumantraffickingoftenrelatestoacrossbordercrime,alsointernationalcooperationbetweenallrelevant stakeholders is of utmost importance. This paper describes the in general requestedcooperation between stakeholders and examines factors that lead to the success or failure ofcooperation between stakeholders, both nationally and internationally, in the referral of victimstowardsacompensationclaim.

Thefocus isput inparticularonthecross-bordersituation,althoughthenationalcooperationandrelevance of national referral mechanisms cannot be ignored, if we expect the trans-nationalcooperationtobefunctional.Inthisassessment,anoverviewoftheEUlegalframeworkisprovidedthatisrelevantforfacilitatingaccesstocompensationincross-bordersituations.

Theco-operativeframeworkthroughwhichstateactorsfulfiltheirobligationstoprotectandpromotethehumanrightsoftraffickedpersons,co-ordinatingtheireffortsinastrategicpartnershipwithcivilsociety at the national context- is referred to as National ReferralMechanism (NRM)1in the anti-trafficking discourse. The basic aims of anNRM are to ensure that the human rights of traffickedpersonsarerespectedandtoprovideaneffectivewaytorefervictimsoftraffickingtoservices.Thispapersinparticularlyexaminesthoseaspectsoftheco-operativeframeworkthroughwhichthestateandnon-stateactorsfacilitateaccesstocompensationforvictimsofcrime.

ATransnationalReferralMechanism(TRM)canbedefinedasaco-operativeagreementforthecross-bordercomprehensiveassistanceand/ortransferofidentifiedorpotentialtraffickedpersons.(ICMPD,2010). For the purpose of the assessment the TRM is understood as trans- national co-operativeframework through which the relevant actors of two or more countries facilitate access tocompensationforvictimsofcrime.

Withregardtothegeneralframeworkonthecross-bordercooperation,Article82(2)oftheTreatyonthe Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for the establishment of minimum rules,applicableinallEUMemberStates,tofacilitatemutualrecognitionofjudgmentsandjudicialdecisions,as well as police and judicial cooperation in criminalmatters having a cross-border dimension, inparticularwithregardtotherightsofvictimsofcrime.

Article 26of the EUVictims’ RightsDirective stipulates thatMember States shall take appropriateactiontofacilitatecooperationbetweenMemberStatestoimprovetheaccessofvictimstotherightsset out in this Directive and under national law. According to the European ImplementationAssessmentoftheEUVictims’RightsDirective2,researchhasshownthatadministrativemechanismsexisttofacilitatecross-bordercases,butthatthisisoftennotspecifiedinlaw.Thishasresultedinamixofbilateralworkingagreementsandad-hocquerypracticestofacilitatethenecessaryexchange

1 OSCE/ODIHR:NationalReferralMechanism.JoiningEffortstoProtecttheRightsofTraffickedPersons.APractical

Handbook.Warsaw,2004.Accessed:26.7.20182 EuropeanParliamentaryResearchService:TheVictims‘RightsDirective2012/29/EUEuropeanImplementation

Assessment,December2017Accessed:25.7.2018

5

regarding individual cases. The cooperation between judicial authorities as well as victim supportservicesintrans-nationalcooperationisessential.TheEuropeanImplementationAssessmentoftheVictim’s rightsDirective3stateshowever that it remainsunclear howprovisionsof the EUVictim’sRightsDirectivewillbeimplementedinthespecificinstancesofcross-bordercrime.

The EUVictims’ RightsDirective shall apply in a non-discriminatorymanner to all victims of crimeregardlessoftheirresidencestatus(Article1).Thus,thirdcountrynationalsandstatelesspersonswhohave become victims of crime in the EU should benefit from the rights stipulated in theDirectiveequally. However, reportingacrimeandparticipating inacriminalproceedingsdonotcreateanyrights regarding the residence status of the victim4. According to the EuropeanUnionAgency forFundamental Rights (FRA)”…a victim in an irregular situationof residence,when seeking access tojustice, faces requirements and restrictions to which other victims are not subjected. Such adifferentiationrunscounterthenon-discriminationprincipleofArticle1oftheVictim’sdirective”5

Lookingatthenationalcooperativeframeworks,chapter2examinesthesafereportingmechanismsforundocumentedvictimsofcrimeandsafecomplaintmechanismforundocumentedworkerswithregardtothe‘firewallconcept’6.Thisissuewasidentifiedascriticalassafereportingenablesaccesstonationalreferralmechanism,toservicesandtojustice,includingcompensation.

Nexttothesafereporting,thenationalapproachesandpracticeswithenforcingordiscontinuationofDublintransferswithregardtovictimsoftraffickingareexaminedatthenationallevel.Similarly,thecross-borderaspectcanbeclearlyseenalsohere.Theso-called‘Dublintransfers’havebeenidentifiedasanissueofconcernbyconsortiumpartnersandothers,throughtheFocusGroupDiscussion7.Dublintransfersareoftenrealizedwithoutadequateriskassessmentandreferraltospecializedvictimsupportservicesandinfact,renderthevictims’accesstojusticeandcompensation.However,suchtransfersmayevenbreach thepositiveobligationof state toprotectvictimof traffickingand toprevent re-traffickingofaperson.

Referraltoandavailabilityof legalaid(andparticularly legalrepresentation)canbeseenascrucialelementinaccessingjustice.Thisassessmentdoesn’tdealwiththisissueatnationallevelasothertwocomplementaryassessmentsonVictims’needsandLegalanalysestooktheissueup.Theassessment,howeverexaminesproceduresandmechanismsenablingaccesstolegalaidincross-bordersituation.

Astheaccesstocompensationincrossbordersituationscanbeveryspecific,theassignmentwithinthisassessmentwasalsotopreparebriefoverviewofthelegalinstrumentsattheEUlevelthatcanberelevantforaccessingcompensation.Clearly, the levelofknowledgeofthese instrumentsamongst

3 EuropeanParliamentaryResearchService:TheVictims‘RightsDirective2012/29/EUEuropeanImplementation

Assessment,December2017Accessed:25.7.20184 EuropeanComission,DGJUSTICE(2013):Guidancedocumentrelatedtothetranspositionandimplementationof

theDirective2012/29/EU5 FRA(2015)Severelabourexploitation:workersmovingwithinorintotheEuropeanUnion,p.786 Aclearseparationbetweenimmigrationenforcementactivitiesandtheprovisionofessentialservices.Detailsat:

Crépeau,FrançoisandHastie,Bethany,TheCasefor‘Firewall’ProtectionsforIrregularMigrants:SafeguardingFundamentalRights(2015).2-3,EuropeanJournalofMigrationandLaw(EMIL),157-183.AvailableatSSRN.Accessed:7.7.2018

7 FocusGroupDiscussionheldinframeworkofJusticeatLastprojecton7thJune2018inVienna,Austriawithrepresentativesofconsortiumpartnersandotherexpertsontheissueofcompensationforvictimsoftrafficking.

6

NGOpractitionersisminimal,duetowhichmuchfindingsarebasedondeskresearchandindividualconsultationswithaninternationalcivillawyerandajudge.

The assessment doesn’t provide an exhaustive analysis of all factors that may lead to successfulcooperationinordertofacilitateasuccessfulcompensationclaim.Eachsituationrequiresanindividualapproachandcollaborativeenvironment,wherepartnerscanrecognise(theoftendifferent)rolesofallstakeholdersinthereferralsystem.Further,thesituationbecomesevenmorecomplicatedwhentwoexisting(national)cooperationmechanisms,thatcanbefunctionalonverydifferentprocedures,mechanismsandlaws,willstarttointeractinordertofacilitateaccesstojusticeandcompensationacrossborders.

Various professional horizontal networks at the cross-border level already operate, such as lawenforcement cooperating structures aiming to strengthen and facilitate the coordination ofinvestigations of serious and organised cross-border crime in the European Union like Eurojust,Europol,InterpolandCARIN,andalsoNGOcooperationnetworks,likeVictimSupportEurope(VSE)ortheLaStradaInternationalNGOPlatformthathasestablishedmoreorlessformalizedprocedures.Itisofutmostimportancetoensurehorizontalbutaswellasverticalcollaborationandcoherenceattheinternationallevelbetweenpolice,judicialauthoritiesandvictimsupportorganisations,whentheyaredealing with a victim's case in order tominimize the burden upon the victim in the cross-bordercontext.

7

TERMINOLOGYEmpowerment isoneof the coreprinciplesof La Strada International. Language is recognizedandacknowledgedasastrongtool,andcanshapethesocialconstructionofreality.Itcandeterminetherelationshipwithorapproachtothepeoplewhomwetalkabout.

Traffickedpersonsarecalledmostly“clients”or“beneficiaries”bytheLaStradaInternationalPlatformmembers.Theexpression“traffickedpersons”isusedinallitsofficialstatementsanddocumentsasalternativetotheterm“victim”.Theexpression“traffickedperson”aimstorecognisetheagencyofthepersonwhowastrafficked.Theexpression“victim”onthecontrary,isusedminimallyinthedailypracticeof La Strada InternationalNGOPlatformmembers, as it is associatedwithpowerlessness,defencelessnessorweakness.However,thistextdoesusetheterm‘victim’.Thechoiceforthistermcomesfromthecontext:theassessmentrelatesconsiderablytothepositionof“traffickedpersons”incourt proceedings, and elaborates on numerous legislative documents and texts. In this particularassessment,itwouldbechallengingtouseinterchangeablytheterminologyof“victim”(asdefinedbynational and international law, and in line with the official terminology of law enforcementauthorities), and that of “trafficked persons” and “clients” or “beneficiaries”. Therefore, in thisparticulartexttheterm“victim”isusedkeepatpacewithlegalterminology,whileitisstressedthatthe agency of the persons who became victims is very much recognized and that empowermentremainsthedeterminingprinciple.

Further,theterminologyusedinchapter2.2onComplaintmechanismsforundocumentedworkersstrives to be in line with the official position of the Platform for International Cooperation onUndocumented Migrants (hereinafter PICUM)8 . The text prefers the use of “undocumented” or“irregular”migrantworker,ratherthan“illegal”,as“illegality”isassociatedwithcriminalityandcanbeseenasdiscriminatory.However,wheretheterminologyisindirectrelationtothe2009Employer’sSanctionDirectiveorotherlegislativedocuments,theauthorofthistextusestheterminology“illegallystayingthirdcountrynational”asdefinedintheArticle2(b)oftheEmployers’SanctionDirective9.

8 Seehttp://picum.org/words-matter/9 Directive2009/52/EC,

8

METHODOLOGYThe research comprises desk research, followed by an analysis of collected country and casedescriptions. Initial and preliminary findings were validated and elaborated during focus groupdiscussions.

ThedeskresearchbuiltonthefindingsoftheCOMP.ACTprojectof2009-2012.Similartothepresentproject, the COMP.ACT project included country studies by the project partners, who filled inquestionnairesandcollectedcasestudies.Notjusttheapproachwassimilar,butalsothemajorityofthe countries under study were the same. Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland,Macedonia,theNetherlands,andSpainparticipatedinbothprojects’research.ThepresentJusticeatLastprojectincludesadditionaldatafromRomaniaandSerbia,whiletheCOMP.ACTprojectof2012gainedinformationfromsixotherEuropeancountries.

Thesecondsourceofdatawerethecountryandcasedescriptions.Initially,itwasplannedtopreparea template for the collection of case description to feed solely into the assessment on Legalprocedures,andtoprepareaquestionnaire forusesolely in theother twoassessments,onVictimNeedsandonReferral.However,theoverlapbetweenthetopicsunderresearchmadeitmorelogicaltoincludequestionsandelementsthatwererelevanttoallthreeassessmentsinbothdocuments.Thetwo documentswere prepared by the researchers and La Strada International. Inspiration for thequestionswasfoundintheCOMP.ACTresearchtemplateandquestionnaires,andtheBAN-2Tool.Thecasedescriptionsincludedatypologyofoffences,andregisteredthelegalroutetakentoclaimandobtaincompensation,thereasonsbehindthischoice,anditsoutcomes.Adraftversionwassharedwith theSteeringGroup,andwithprojectpartnersMRCIandKOKwhoweregiven this role in theprojectproposal,fortheirinput.Thefinalversionofbothdocumentswassenttoallprojectpartners,whoeachreturnedthefilledinquestionnairewithcountryinformation,and3to10casedescriptions.TopreventanyoverlapwiththeCOMP.ACTreport,onlycasesofafter2012wereused.

Despite the significant number of cases collected, these are not necessarilyrepresentative for theoverallsituationinEurope.Instead,theyreflecttheexperience,practiceandknowledgeoftheNGOpartners in the project and of other stakeholders. The NGO partners are specialised civil societyorganizationswithyearsofexperienceinworkingwithandfortraffickedpersons,primarilywithadultsand/orvictimsofothercrimes.Themajorityofcaseshenceconcerntraffickedandexploitedmenandwomen,withonlyacoupleofcasesinvolvingchildren.

Toensuretheprivacyofthepersonswhosecasewasdescribed,thecollectedcaseswereanonymisedusingnumbers.ThecasescollectedfromoneofthetwoorganisationsinSpainwererenumberedtoavoidconfusionduringtheresearchphase.

Thethirddatasourcewastheinputofstakeholdersgainedduringthefocusgroupdiscussionsheldon7JuneinVienna,Austria.Atotalof50participantsjoinedthediscussions:NGOs,lawyers,prosecutors,and Europeandecisionmakers. Theparticipantswere dividedover three groups,which rotated inthreeroundsofdiscussions,eachgroupthusdiscussingeachofthethreeresearchtopics.

Unfortunately,fordifferentreasonsitwasnotpossibletoensurelawenforcementrepresentativestoparticipateinthefocusgroupmeeting.Thisgroupwillbetargetedduringotheractivitiesoftheproject.

9

The balance in the use of the data sources depends on the research. The assessment report oncooperationon compensation in cross-border contextsnoted that therewas very limitedpracticalexperience,bothamongtheparticipantsinthefocusgroupdiscussionsandamongtherespondentsofthecollectedcases,withtheexistingtoolsandinstrumentstoclaimcompensationinacross-bordersituation in Europe. As a result, desk research was a predominant source of data in the Referralresearch.TheLegalProceduresresearchmadeextensiveuseofthecollectedcasedescriptionsandisfoundedontheanalysisofthecases.

Adraft reportwas sent toprojectpartners for further clarificationsand feedback, afterwhich thereportwasreviewed.Duetothetimelineoftheproject,thefinalizingoftheprojectreportscoincidedwiththesummerholidaysinEuropeancountries.Asaresult,notallfeedbackwasreceivedasplanned.Atthesametime,thereportsareveryinformativeandmaybelinkedtotheprojectevaluationthatisinprocess.Therefore,itwasdecidedtocontinueworkontheresearchoverthecourseoftheproject.This underlying report is the version that will be shared with the participants of the focus groupdiscussionsandtheAdvisoryBoardfortheirfeedbackandfurtherinput.

10

1. REFERRALANDCOOPERATIONMECHANISMThe client andherorhisneeds stand in the centreofourefforts. This is oftenheard formNGOsprovidingsupporttooradvocatingfortraffickedpersonsorvictimsofcrime.However,theneedsofpersonssupportedbyNGOsmaynotalwaysbeinlinewiththeneedsandaimsotherstakeholdersinthesystemmayhave.Itisbroadlyrecognized,thatinordertosupportvictimsofcrimeandprovidethemaccesstojustice,detect,investigateandsuccessfullyprosecute(oftenorganizedandsometimesinternational)crime,coordinatedeffortsandgoodcooperationofvariousstakeholders isessential.The pre-condition of successful cooperation and coordination of a case is understanding andrecognitionoftherolesofvariousstakeholdersinthereferraland/orcooperationmechanism.

NGOssupportingvictimsofcrimehavetheultimategoal-toaccompanytheirclientsontheirwaytorecover,rehabilitateandre-establishtheirlives.Eachclienthasownexpectationsonhowsuchprocessshouldlooklike.Whereassomewishtoforgetandnotwanttoberemindedoftheirpastexperience,theothermaychooseanotherpathwayandfightfor justiceand claimcompensationandremedy.NGOs supporting victims of crime may provide a variety of services including social assistance,psychologicalassistanceorevenspecializedlegalassistance.TheveryimportantaspectofassistanceprovidedbyNGOsupportservicesisthattheyareexperiencedathowtointerpretandexplaintotheirclients,theoftenverycomplicatedandcomplexinformationaboutthevictim’slegalsituation,victim’srights and roles of various actors theymay encounter on theirway to justice. They also clarify inadequatelanguagetherolethevictimmayhaveduringthecourtproceedings.Asempowermentisone of the core principles of work of most NGOs providing assistance to victims, the NGOspsychologists and/or social workersmay prepare the victim for the court proceeding not only byequippingthemwith information,butalsobysupportingthememotionally.LookingattheworkofNGOsupportservicesfromtheperspectiveofotherstakeholders,itcanbeofutmostimportanceforsuccessful investigationandprosecutionofcrimeandcriminals,tohaveprepared,empoweredandinformedwitnesses.However,itshallberecognizedthatthevictims’expectationsandwishesmaynotalwaysbeinlinewithwhatenforcementauthoritiesmayconsiderasimportant.

LawyerssupportingvictimsatthecourtproceedingsarerecognisedbyNGOsupportservices,butalsobyotherexperts,ascrucialforasuccessfulcompensationclaim.Compensationforvictimsofcrimedoesn’t come automatically and the claim of the victim for compensation requires particularcompetences,effort,understandinganddevotion.Severaltimesduringthefocusgroupdiscussion,itwasmentionedtobecrucialthatthevictims’lawyerneedstobeinvolvedfromtheverybeginningoftheprocess,asthecompensationclaimneedstobesubmittedassoonaspossible.Further,itisveryimportantthatthereisonlyonelawyerthataccompaniesthevictimthroughthewholeproceedings.

Policeplayaverycrucialrole,astheyareoftentheveryfirstcontactforthevictim,afterpoliceraidsorpoliceworksitevisit(incaseofimmigrationpolice)orwhenavictimsreportsoracriminalreportisfiled.Thepolicehastheobligationtoprovideanypresumedvictimwithinformationontheirrightsandallrelevantprocedures,inalanguageandmannertheycanunderstand,includingtherighttoclaimcompensation, upon the first contactwith the victim. Thepolice canplay a crucial role in victim’sreferral. It needs to be noted, that in line with the 2004 Residence permit Directive10 victims of

10CouncilDirective2004/81/ECof29April2004ontheresidencepermitissuedtothird-countrynationalswhoare

victimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsorwhohavebeenthesubjectofanactiontofacilitateillegalimmigration,

11

traffickingmustbegrantedareflectionperiod inordertorecoverandmakean informeddecision,duringwhich(andwhileawaitingadecisionofthecompetentauthority)theyareentitledtoassistancemeasuresandareprotectedfromtheenforcementofexpulsionorders.

Further,according theEUVictims’RightsDirective, victimshavea right tovictimsupport servicesregardless of whether she/he made a formal complaint with regard to a criminal offence to acompetentauthorities(Article8(5)).Further,theprovisionsoftheVictims’RightDirectiveapplytoallvictimsinnon-discriminatorymannerandparticularlyarenotmadeconditionalonthevictimhavinglegalresidencestatusontheMemberState’sterritory11.Thisposesaquestion,atwhichextendotherthancriminalunitsofpolice(e.g.immigration/foreignerpolice)fulfiltheirobligationwhiledealingwithpersonsinothercontextthancriminale.g.undocumentedexploitedworkersthatarehighlypronetobecomevictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeings.Theultimateroleofpoliceistomaintainpublicorder,makepeopleobeythelawandtoinvestigateincaseofviolationofthelaw.

Thepoliceinteractalotwiththeprosecutor.Prosecutorisalegalrepresentativethatrepresentsthestateagainstthecriminaldefendant.Theroleoftheprosecutor is topresentsthecaseagainstthedefendantatthecriminaltrial.Prosecutorsand/orpolicecaninitiatethefinancialinvestigationofthecriminalwhenacrimesuchastraffickinginhumanbeingswascommitted.Financialinvestigation,thatisinitiatedassoonaspossible,iscrucialforsuccessfulcompensationofvictim.Nexttotherestorativeroleofthecompensationgranted,thecriminalinvestigationmayleadtocriminalassetsconfiscationand recovery that can go beyond the mere punishment of the perpetrator in particular cases.Compensation isasignificant instrumentofanti-trafficking lawandpolicywhichservesrestorative,punitiveandpreventativepurposes12.

Whereasthevictims’lawyerrepresentsrightsandinterestsofvictim,thepoliceinvestigatesinwhichbreach the lawwasviolatedandgathersevidence, theprosecutor represents the state (interests).However,atall instances,humanrightsofthevictimshallberespectedandprotected.Furthertheinterestsofdefendantandtheroleofdefendant’slawyerthatsearchesformitigatingcircumstancesandthedefendant’srightsatthetrialshallbetakenintoaccount.Judgestandsonthetopofthatandassesses the interests of all involved, examines gathered evidence, hearings and (expert) witnessreportsandinterpretsthelaw.Judgeshavethemandatetodecide,whetherthecompensationclaimofthevictimwillbedecidedwithintheongoingcriminalproceedingsorwhethertheclaimwillbesenttoseparatecivilproceedings.AccordingtosomeNGOrespondents,inparticulartheroleofjudgesiscrucialforthesuccessofvictim’scompensationclaims.

Whenthecaseissenttocivilproceedings,therolesofpoliceandprosecutorsaresuspendedandtheburdenofprooflieswiththevictim.

NexttolawenforcementauthoritiesandNGOssupportingvictimsofcrime,otherstakeholdersmayplayveryanessential role,suchas labour inspectorates.Labour inspectorsmaydetectand ideallyrefer presumed victimsof trafficking to victim support services. NGOevidence collectedhowever

whocooperatewiththecompetentauthorities–Seehttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32004L0081

11CompareRecital10oftheVictims‘RightsDirective.12Doornick.M.FindingsandResultsoftheEuropeanActionforCompensationforTraffickedPersons.LaStrada

International,2012.

12

indicates, that referrals from the side of labour inspectorates are very rare in comparison to thenumberofworkplaceinspectiontosectorspronetoexploitationandtraffickinginhumanbeings.Themissing firewall between the ultimate role of the labour inspectorate and their duty to reportimmigration offences renders structurally the cooperation with the people to which the labourinspection primarily serves- theworkers (although in undocumented position). Evidence of labourinspectorsandinsomecountriesmechanismsthatlabourinspectorateestablished(e.g.Netherlands)may significantly contribute to recuperate outstanding wages of workers in a vulnerable andundocumentedposition.Suchapproachwould,inresponse,empowerworkersinirregularsituationanddecreasetheirvulnerabilities.Withregardtotheissueofworkers’rights,tradeunions-aspartofcivilsocietystructures-areactiveinprotectingworkersrights.Howeveronlyinsomecountriestheyareactiveinsupportingalso(undocumented)migrantsworkerswhoarenotmemberofaUnion..Moresupportfromtradeunionsandalternativeworker’srightsorganisationsisneeded,astheycansupportandprotectworkersdirectlyandinteractwithauthoritiesresponsibleforregulatingthelabourmarket.

AsidentifiedbytheFocusGroupDiscussionparticipants,theroleofmigrationserviceofficersinchargeofexaminationofasylumclaimindetecting,identifyingandinproperlyreferringpresumedtraffickingvictims to victim support services is, in light of the increased number of asylum seekers, veryimportant. In line with Article 5 of the Dublin regulation13 , in order to facilitate the process ofdeterminingtheMemberStateresponsibleforexaminationofasylumclaim,theMemberStateshallconduct a personal interview with the applicant. Furthermore, many Member States screen allapplicants for indicators of human trafficking, whereas otherMember States screen only specificprofiles of the applicants 14 . However, the approach of authorities responsible for asylum claimexaminationinvariousMemberStateswithregardto(suspensionof)Dublintransfersseemstolackuniformityandcoordination.NGOrespondentsprovidingsupporttovictimsofcrimeindicatedthatDublin transfers of asylum seekers are very often realized without appropriate referrals and riskassessments.Thiscanbreachthepositiveobligationofthestatetoprotectvictimfromtraffickingandtopreventre-trafficking.

Inlinewiththe2005CouncilofEuropeAnti-TraffickingConvention15andthe2011/36/EUTraffickingDirective16,statesshallhaveinpaceNationalcoordinatorsorequivalentmechanismsatthenationallevel.Thenationalcoordinatorsshallmonitortheanti-traffickingactivitiesofStateinstitutionsandtheimplementation of national legislation requirements. Such monitoring plays an important role inhaving effective strategies to combat human trafficking in place. The counterpart to NationalRapporteursorequivalentmechanismsistheEUAnti-traffickingcoordinatorresponsibleforimprovingcoordinationand coherenceamongEU institutions, EUagencies,Member States and internationalactorsanddevelopingexistingandnewEUpoliciestoaddresstraffickinginhumanbeings.Recently(in

13 TheDublinRegulation(RegulationNo.604/2013;sometimestheDublinIIIRegulation;previouslytheDublinII

RegulationandDublinConvention)isaEuropeanUnion(EU)lawthatdeterminestheEUMemberStateresponsibleforexamininganapplicationforasylumseekersseekinginternationalprotectionundertheGenevaConventionandtheEUQualificationDirective,withintheEuropeanUnion.

14EuropeanCommission,HomeAffairs:SynthesisReport-Identificationofvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsininternationalprotectionandforcedreturnprocedures.EuropeanMigrationNetwork,March2014.

152005CouncilofEuropeConventiononActionagainstTraffickinginHumanBeings.Accessed20.7.201816DIRECTIVE2011/36/EUOFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCILof5April2011onpreventingand

combatingtraffickinginhumanbeingsandprotectingitsvictims.Accessed:20.7.2018

13

October2017),aSpecialEUAdvisoroncompensationtovictimsofcrimehasbeenappointedinordertoexplorethepossibilitiesandsuggestsolutionsonhowtoimprovevictims’accesstocompensation.

Functional cooperation, coordination and referral mechanism play an important role in helpinggovernments fulfil theirobligations toprotectpersonswithin their jurisdictions17.According to theOSCE/ODIHR,NationalReferralMechanismsarebuildingblocksofeffectiveregionalandinternationalco-operationtocombattraffickingandassistitsvictims.Internationalco-operationrequireseffectivestructuresonanationalandlocalleveltoforgepartnershipsinthefightagainsthumantrafficking18.

Asmentioned,horizontalinternationalcooperationhasbeenwellestablishedinordertoservevariousactorsinfulfillingtheirmissionincrossbordercontexts-suchasInterpol,Europol,Eurojust,EuropeanJudicialNetwork,CARIN(forassetsrecovery).Civilsocietyorganizationsandvictimsupportservicesalso established well-functioning cooperation on victims’ cross border referral as well as for thepurposeofevidence-basedadvocacyfortherightsoftheirbeneficiaries.Althoughthiscooperation,that is often determinedby existing bi-lateral ormulti-lateral agreements and/ormemoranda’s ofunderstandings,onhorizontallevelimproved,itmustbenotedthatcooperationinthecross-bordercontext on victims’ access to justice is still often solvedon an adhocbasis. The EUVictims’ RightDirectiveclearlyarticulatedandenforcedsomevictims’rightsinacrossbordersituation.Further,theEuropean Commissions’ current proposal for an EU regulation on the freezing and confiscation ofassetsacrossbordersaimsat improvingtheprotectionofvictimsofcrime incross-bordercases. Itaddressesvictims'needstogetcompensationfordamages.Particularly,incaseswherethevictimhasbeen granted a decision on compensation or restitution and the assets have been confiscated inanother State following the mutual recognition procedure, the victim's right to compensation orrestitutionwillhavepriorityovertheissuingandexecutingState'sinterests19.

IttookmanyyearstobuildsuccessfulnationalcooperationandreferralmechanismsinEUcountries.Itisexpectedtotakesomemoreyearstillthecross-bordercooperationandreferralmechanismwillstarttobeoperationalnotonlyonad-hocbases,butbasedonsomelevelofstandardizedoperationalprocedures.

17OSCE/ODIHR:NationalReferralMechanism.JoiningEffortstoProtecttheRightsofTraffickedPersons.APractical

Handbook.Warsaw,2004.Accessed:26.7.201818 Ibid.19EuropeanCommissionFactSheet:SecurityUnion:Regulationonthemutualrecognitionoffreezingand

confiscationorders–QuestionsandAnswersBrussels,21December2016

14

2.REPORTING

Professionalsworkingwithvictimsofcrimeoftenexperienceunwillingnessfromthesideofvictimstoreportacrime,abuseorexploitation including labour lawviolations.Researchof theFundamentalRightsAgencyoftheEU(hereinafterFRA)underscoresthefindingsthatmanyvictimsdonotreportthecrimetothepolice.20Themainreasonsforthisarethelackoftrusttolawenforcement/authorities,fearofre-victimisationorstigmatization,lackofself-identificationand,specificallyforundocumentedvictims,thefearfordetentionanddeportation.Thethreatstodenouncetheirirregularstatusincasesof undocumented victims/workers is often used by offenders to keep the victims/workers in atrafficking or exploitative situation. According to the Platform for International Cooperation onUndocumentedMigrants(PICUM),immigrantswhoseresidencestatusistiedtoanemployerortoaspousemayalsobereluctanttoreporttheirvictimisationbecauseoftherelationshipofdependency-economic,emotionaloradministrative-withtheirpersecutor21.Thepossibilitytosafelyreportacrimeor an offence is an entry point to justice and the existence or non-existence of safe reportingmechanisms reflect on how and whether the country values fundamental rights of people in itsterritory.Thischapterwillfocuson3components1.Safereportingmechanismsforvictimsofcrime2.Safecomplaintmechanismsforundocumentedworkersoflabourlawviolationsand3.Reportingofcrimeinothercountrythanwherethecrimewascommitted.Encouragingvictimstoreportacrimeoranoffence,shouldbeofutmostimportanceforstateauthoritiesinordertodetect,prosecuteandpreventcriminalityandlabourexploitationintheircountry/ontheirterritory.

2.1SAFEREPORTINGOFCRIMETheEUVictim’sRightsDirective(Directive2012/29/EU)22 shallapplytovictimsinanon-discriminatorymanner, includingwith respect to their residence status.Victims are entitled to victims supportserviceswhetherornotaformalcomplainthasbeenfilled(accordingtoArticle8).Inthisregard,thePICUMGuidetotheEUVictim’sdirective23pointsoutthattherightsandprotectionsprovidedfortheDirectiveareempty ifundocumentedvictimsofcrimedonotdaretoavailthemselvesforfearofdeportation.Safereportingisessentialforensuringaccesstojustice.

Similarly,theEUDGJusticeGuidanceDocument24statesthatMemberStatesshouldensurethatrightsset out in the EU Victim’s Rights Directive are not made conditional on the victim having legalresidence status in their territory or on the victim’s citizenship or nationality. Thus, third countrynationalsandundocumentedorstatelesspersonswhohavefallenvictimsofcrimeonEUterritory,aswellasvictimsofcrimecommittedextra-territoriallywhiletheircriminalproceedingsaretakingplacewithintheEU,mustbenefitfromtheserights.AccordingtoPICUM25,ensuringsafereportingmeansprioritisingthesafetyandrightsofvictimsabovetheenforcementofimmigrationrules.Internationalinstitutions,NGOsandacademics,includingPICUMandLaStradaInternationalcallfortheconceptof

20FRA(2015)VictimsofCrimeintheEU:theextentandnatureofsupportforvictims,p.5521PICUM2015http://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/VictimsDirectiveGuide_Justice_EN.pdf22Directive2012/29/EUoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof25October2012establishingminimum

standardsontherights,supportandprotectionofvictimsofcrime,andreplacingCouncilFrameworkDecision2001/220/JHA

23PICUM2015http://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/VictimsDirectiveGuide_Justice_EN.pdf24EuropeanComission,DGJUSTICE(2013):Guidancedocumentrelatedtothetranspositionandimplementationof

theDirective2012/29/EU25PICUM2015http://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/VictimsDirectiveGuide_Justice_EN.pdf

15

the ‘firewall’–aclearseparationbetween immigrationenforcementactivitiesandtheprovisionofessentialservices26.InthisregardtheEuropeanCommissionagainstRacismandIntolerance(ECRI)oftheCouncilofEuropepublishedaRecommendationonSafeguardingIrregularlyPresentMigrantsfromDiscriminationin201627.SpecificallytheECRIrecommendsthatthegovernmentsofthe(CoE)MemberStates(33)“Establishsafeguardsensuringthatirregularlypresentmigrantswhoarevictimsofcrimeareawareoftheirrightsandareabletoreporttolawenforcementauthorities,testifyincourtandeffectivelyaccessjusticeandremedieswithouttheriskofthesharingoftheirpersonaldataorotherinformationwithimmigrationauthoritiesforthepurposesofimmigrationcontrolandenforcement.”

Thepre-conditionofasuccessfulsafe-reportingmechanismisawarenessofbothrightsandavenuesto claim and obtain these rights for victims of crime. This awareness is often less present amongmigrantsandmigrantcommunities,thoughtheyareoftenmorevulnerabletocrimeandparticularlytotraffickinginhumanbeings.Languageandculturalbarriers,oranirregularadministrativesituation,playacausativerole.Themeasuresonhowtoencourageandfacilitatesafereportingmayvarycountrybycountry.Forsure, it shouldbeensuredthat front lineofficers, like lawenforcementand labourinspectoratesaremademoreawareoftheneedofsafereportingandwillplacerightsprotectionaboveimmigrationcontrols.

Undoubtedly,theroleofvictimsupportorganizationsincludingNGOsandtradeunionsinfacilitatingcommunication and reporting plays a significant role here. Civil society organizations often act asbridges between the police and communities, helping to create relationship of trust and mutualunderstanding.Thiscaninturnprovidethefoundationformorecollaborativeapproachthatopenstheway to safer reporting.28NGOs are in direct contactwith potential victims through fieldworkprogrammes, “walk-in” or counselling programmes and there are hotlines operated in variouslanguagesbyNGOs forvictimsof trafficking inmostEUcountries.Generally,hotlinescanbeoftenconsideredaseffectivemeansonhowtofacilitatereportingofcrime,especiallyforundocumentedmigrants.

AnexampleoffacilitatingreportingofcrimeinasecuredwayamongundocumentedmigrantswasaninitiativeoftheAmsterdampolice.Thespecialpoliceunitpromotingthis,madeseveralregularvisitstomigrantrightsorganisations.There,theymetwithundocumentedmigrantsandansweredquestionsontopicssuchas‘howtolodgeacomplaint’,‘whatarethevictim’srightsandprotectionmechanisms’and‘howtotakeacasetocourt’2930.Thisresultedlaterinanofficialpilot2013–2014,whichlaterin2015receivednationalgovernmentalsupportforawidernational implementation. Inprinciple it isacknowledgedthatallvictimsofcrimeshouldbeabletosafelyreportwithoutrisksfordetentionordeportation.Howeverinpractisethereremainalotofbottlenecks,aswellaslackofawarenessamongpoliceandlabourinspectiontoadequatelyimplementthis,duetowhichtherearestillalowamountof reports by undocumented persons that became victims of crime. Safe reporting seemsmainly

26Crépeau,FrançoisandHastie,Bethany,TheCasefor‘Firewall’ProtectionsforIrregularMigrants:Safeguarding

FundamentalRights(2015).2-3,EuropeanJournalofMigrationandLaw(EMIL),157-183.AvailableatSSRN.Accessed:7.7.2018

27EuropeanCommissionagainstRacismandIntolerance(ECRI)oftheCouncilofEurope:RecommendationNo16onSafeguardingIrregularlyPresentMigrantsfromDiscriminationadoptedonMarch16,2016,availableathttp://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/eng#{%22ECRIIdentifier%22:[%22REC-16-2016-016-ENG%22]}accessed:7.7.2018

28EuropeanComission,DGJUSTICE(2013):GuidancedocumentrelatedtothetranspositionandimplementationoftheDirective2012/29/EU

29RespondentsfromtheNetherlands30PICUM2015http://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/VictimsDirectiveGuide_Justice_EN.pdf

16

possibleinclearcasesofhumantrafficking,andwhenpersonsareassistedandwherecaseiscloselymonitoredbyNGOexpertsorothersfromthestart.Itisunclearwhathappenstopersonsthatreportthemselvesasituationthat indicates labourtraffickingto labour inspection. It isunknownwhetherthesepersonshavebeensubsequentlyreferredtopoliceorsupportnetworkslikeNGOsorlawyers.CurrentlyNGOsindicatethattheydonotreceivedirectreferralsfromthelabourInspection.

Clearly, safereportingmechanisms,arenot inplace inallEUcountries.TheNGOrespondent fromIrelandexplainedthatthereisalackof‘aclearfirewall’andvictimsofcrimeareusuallyafraidthatiftheyreportcrimestothepolicetheirimmigrationstatuscomestolight.ThereisnoformalpolicyonthisissueinIreland,andwhetherapoliceofficerrequestsamigrant’sstatussimplydependsonwhichpoliceofficerthevictimmeetsontheday.TheNGOrespondentfromIrelandfurtherdescribesthatiftheycomeacrossvictimsofcrime(otherthanhumantrafficking),theytrytoidentifyapoliceofficerwhom they know is sympathetic to migrants and will not report undocumented migrants to theimmigrationauthorities.31

Withregardtohumantrafficking,andspecificallytraffickingfor labourexploitation,therecanbeaverysubtlelinebetweenthiscrimeandtheactthatwouldbequalifiedaslabourlawviolation.Theidentificationofwhethertheactcommittedagainstthepersonisqualifiedascrimeoftraffickinginhuman beings or falls under the non-criminal qualification of labour law violation32can pose thequestion,whatwillhappenwhenthepersonisnotconsequentlyidentifiedasavictimandhowdoesthesafereportingmechanismdealwithsuchsituation?Willthoseforwhomitisconsideredthattheexploitationisnotsevereenoughtoqualifyitastraffickingorforcedlabour,but‘only’aviolationoflabourlaw,haveahigherrisktobedeportedordetained?Anundocumentedvictimcanreceiveprotectionandshouldhavethesamerightsasadocumentedvictimwhentheyareparticipatingincriminalproceedings.InSpain,forinstance,itdoesnotdependonwhetherthevictimisdocumentedorundocumented,ifidentifiedasavictimoftrafficking.Therearemechanismsinplacetoregulatevictims’residencestatusuponidentification.Atthesametime,whenavictimwhoisinanirregularadministrativesituationreportsagainsthis/herperpetratorsandhe/sheisnotformallyidentified,he/shecouldbeinitiatedbyaprocedureofexpulsiontothecountryoforigin.Thesamepoliceunitwhichinvestigatestraffickingcasesalsodealswithpreventingirregularmigration.33IntheNetherlands,thedeportationandexpulsionordersarenotsuspendedbyanypieceoflegislationandthusintheorytheundocumentedperson,whoisnotidentified/acknowledgedasvictimofacrimecanbestilldeportedordetained.Inpracticethedeportationandexpulsionordersapparentlyhavebeen decreased over the last years and undocumented persons seemnotto beactivelydeported,includingthosereportingacrimeandnotbeingidentifiedasavictimintheNetherlands.34InIreland,whenanundocumentedpersonmakesacomplainttothepolice,buttheyarenotformallyidentified as victims of trafficking, the situation may arise where they are notified of the State’sintention to issue a deportation order. In such cases, the persons are then required to makerepresentationsforhumanitarianleavetoremain.Suchapplicationshavebeenknowntotakeover

31RespondentsforIreland32LabourexploitationfallsunderthecriminaljusticesysteminBelgiumandFrance33RespondentsfromSpain34RespondentsfromtheNetherlands

17

threeyearstoprocessandthechancesofsuccessareslim.Thereisahighlikelihoodthatthepersonwillbeissuedwithadeportationorder.ThepossibilityofsuchaconsequenceisanotherreasonwhyundocumentedpeopleareafraidtoreporttraffickinginIreland.Inordertoensurethatallvictimsofcrime,includingundocumentedandstatelesspersonscanenjoytherightsensuredbytheEUVictim’sdirective,MemberStatesshouldadaptappropriateimmigrationrules,bysuspendingdeportationordersandissuingtemporaryresidencepermitsinrelationtoon-going criminal proceedings in line with the recommendation of the EC Guidance Document 35 .Moreover,thesafereportingmechanismsforundocumentedmigrantsshallincorporatesuch‘firewall’thatensures,thatpersonsarenotactivelydeportediftheyarenotofficiallyidentifiedasvictimsorifforwhateverreasonsthecriminalproceedingscannotbeinitiatedorisconsequentlyterminated.

2.2COMPLAINTMECHANISMFORUNDOCUMENTEDMIGRANTWORKERSThissubchapterwill lookatthesituation,wheretheundocumentedmigrantworkeractively filesacomplaintagainsther/hisemployer.Furtheritwilllookintothepossibilitytoclaimunpaidwagesfromanemployereitherbytheinitiativeoftheundocumentedworkeroruponworksitelabourinspection(veryoftenaccompaniedbyimmigrationcontrol).The2009Employer’sSanctionDirective36requiresEUMemberStatesinitsArticle13(1)toputinplaceeffectivemechanismsthroughwhichirregularmigrantsmaylodgecomplaintsagainsttheiremployers,includingthroughthirdparties.Article13(2)obligesMemberStatestoensurethatthirdpartieswithalegitimateinterestinensuringcompliancewiththeEUDirectivemayactonbehalfoforinsupportofthethird-countrynationalinanyadministrativeorcivilproceedingstodefendtheirrights.Similarlyasintheabovechapter,‘firewalls’wouldbenecessaryalsohereinordertoensureaccesstofundamental(labour)rightsandpracticalapplicationoftheEmployer’sSanctionDirectiveandinordertomake the complaintmechanism “effective”. The ECRI recommends in the area of labour rights(among others) to itsMember States to (30) „establish effective mechanisms to allow irregularlypresentmigrantworkersto lodgecomplaints inrespectof labourstandardsagainstemployersandobtaineffectiveremedieswithouttheriskofthesharingoftheirpersonaldataorotherinformationwithimmigrationauthoritiesforthepurposesofimmigrationcontrolandenforcement“.TheassignedauthoritytowhichthecomplaintshallbefiledinmostEUMemberStatesistheLabourInspection.AccordingtotheInternationalLabourOrganization’sLabourInspectionConvention(No81)of194737thefunctionsofthesystemoflabourinspectionshallbe:tosecuretheenforcementofthelegalprovisionsrelatingtoconditionsofworkandtheprotectionofworkerswhileengagedintheirwork,suchasprovisionsrelatingtohours,wages,safety,healthandwelfare, theemploymentofchildrenandyoungpersons,andotherconnectedmatters,insofarassuchprovisionsareenforceable

35EuropeanCommission,DGJUSTICE(2013):Guidancedocumentrelatedtothetranspositionandimplementation

oftheDirective2012/29/EU36DIRECTIVE2009/52/ECOFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCILof18June2009providingfor

minimumstandardsonsanctionsandmeasuresagainstemployersofillegallystayingthirdcountrynationals37 ILOLabourInspectionConvention(No81)of1947availableat:

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C081

18

by labour inspectors (Article3 (a)).Thesecondoption is that thecomplaintcanbe fileddirectly torelevant(labour/civil)court.

TheImplementationoftheEUEmployer’sSanctionDirectiveintheCzechRepublic,Hungary,Poland,RomaniaandSlovakia38reports,thatfilingacomplainttolabourinspectioninlinewiththeArticle13oftheEmployersSanctionDirective,exposestheundocumentedworkeratriskofdeportation.Thelabourinspectionhastheobligationtoreporttheirregularresidencestatustoimmigrationauthorities.TheNGOparticipant39oftheFGDiscussionfromtheCzechRepublicconfirms,thattheonlywaytosafely report a labour lawoffencebyundocumentedworker is todo so anonymously. Thisoptionhowever, to filea complaintanonymously, isnotpossiblealloverEurope,e.g.not in Poland, forexample.ThereisnospecificlegislationcurrentlyinplaceintheCzechRepubliconhowtofileacomplaint,andno possibility for undocumented migrant workers to file a complaint through third parties.Undocumentedworkerscanfileacomplaintthoughdirectlytothelabourcourt.40

InBelgiumanundocumentedworkermaygodirectlytothelabourinspectorateandfileacomplaintwithoutfearofbeingreportedtothepoliceandimmigrationauthorities.However,thisundocumentedworkeroftenfacesthechallengeofprovingthataworkingrelationshipexistsbetweenhim/herselfand the employer. Various types of evidence collected by the worker are often not consideredadmissible although they might indicate a working relationship. The clearest proof is the labourinspectorateactuallywitnessingtheworkerat theworksite.Without theevidenceprovidedbythelabourinspection,thelabourinspectorwillrarelypursuethecaseandtheundocumentedworkerwillnotbeabletoclaimanyoutstandingwages.However,whenarrangingwiththelabourinspectoraninspectionattheworkplace,s/herisksbeingreportedtotheimmigrationauthorities.41Inthisregardthe ECRI recommends in the area of labour rights (among others) to itsMember States to (29)42“ensureaneffectivesystemofworkplacemonitoringand inspectionbyseparating thepowersandremitoflabourinspectorsfromthoseofimmigrationauthorities“.TheorganisationforUndocumentedWorkers(OR.C.A.)43hasbeeninvolvedin61complaintswithin3yearsafterthetransposition;onlyonecasewas successful in recuperating theworker’soutstandingwages.44As theEmployer’s SanctionDirective requiresMember States to put in place “effective” complaint mechanism, the evidenceshows thatalthough the complaint canbe submittedwithout fearofbeingdeported, theeffect isminimal.Similarly, the respondents from the Netherlands stated that if an undocumented personmakes acomplaintatthelabourinspection,she/herunstherisksofbeingexpelledbytheimmigrationpolice,

38TheImplementationofEmployer’sSanctionDirectiveintheCzechRepublic,Hungary,Poland,Romaniaand

Slovakia,Warsaw2014,availableat:https://interwencjaprawna.pl/en/files/employers-sanctions-directive-overview.pdfaccessed:7.7.2018

39FGDiscussion,ViennaJuly7,201840PICUM:SummaryoffindingsinBelgiumandtheCzechRepublicontheimplementationoftheEmployer’s

SanctionsDirective,201741PICUM:SummaryoffindingsinBelgiumandtheCzechRepublicontheimplementationoftheEmployer’s

SanctionsDirective,201742EuropeanCommissionagainstRacismandIntolerance(ECRI)oftheCouncilofEurope:RecommendationNo16on

SafeguardingIrregularlyPresentMigrantsfromDiscriminationadoptedonMarch16,2016,availableathttp://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/eng#{%22ECRIIdentifier%22:[%22REC-16-2016-016-ENG%22]}accessed:7.7.2018

43SinceMarch15,2018theorganizationiscalledFAIRWORKBelgium44 JanKnockaert:Employer’sSanctionDirective-ablessingforundocummentedmigrantworkers?LaStrada

Newsletter,Issue43

19

ifnotproperlyidentifiedasavictimandorexploitationisnotseensevereenoughtoqualifyforhumantraffickingforlabourexploitationorforcedlabour.Asmentionedabove,thereisnoclearfirewallinplace. Reporting a labour law violations by undocumented migrants in most EU countries, thus,constitutesasignificantriskofdeportationandthereareverylimitedsafeguards.ThefollowingpromisingpracticewasintroducedbyAustria.ThecentreUNDOK45hasbeenauthorizedandsubsidisedbythegovernmenttoassistundocumentedworkersincomplaintsagainstemployersasameasuretoimplementtheEUEmployer’sSanctionsDirective.InAustria,everyworkerisbylawmember of the Austrian chamber of labour46and thus entitled to receive legal aid and assistanceregardlessher/hisirregularresidencestatus.Aftertheclaimiscarefullyassessedandiftheprobabilitythattheplaintiffwillwinthecase,theAustrianchamberoflabour(Arbeitekammer)willprovidealegalcounsel for the court case. According to the respondent from NGO Lefö, the cooperation andfacilitationofaccesstocomplaintmechanismbyNGOsisveryvitalandfunctional.Legallythereisnoobligationforthecourtstoreporttothealienpoliceaboutthestatusofanundocumentedworker.Inpractisethoughemployersseekadvantageandtrytopreventcomplaintsbyatleastthreateningtocontacttherelevantauthorities.47ClaimingunpaidwagesAccording to the 2009 EUEmployers SanctionDirective48, undocumentedmigrants shouldnot bedeprivedfromunpaidwages.AccordingtoParagraph6ofthisDirective,theemployershallbeliabletopayanyoutstandingremunerationtotheillegallystayingthird-countrynational49. Furthermore,theemployerisalsoliabletopayanycostsarisingfromsendingbackpaymentstothecountrytowhichthethird-countrynationalhasreturnedorhasbeenreturned. Inordertoensuretheavailabilityofeffective procedure to apply the above,Member States should enactmechanisms to ensure thatillegallystayingthirdcountrynationalsmayintroduceaclaimagainsttheiremployer.Denmark,IrelandandtheUnitedKingdomoptedoutofthisDirectiveandwecanseethedifferenceinlegislation.InIrelandforinstanceitisunclearwhethervictimswhowereundocumentedduringtheir‘employment’areentitledtorecoupanymonies/unpaidwagesduetothecontractbeingrenderedillegal50.IntheUK,wagespaidtoundocumentedmigrantswillbeseizedfromundocumentedworkersas proceeds of crime. This would be impossible for the rest of the EUMember Stateswhere theDirectivehasbeentransposed.TheNGOrespondentfromIrelandfurtherclarifies,thatnormallyworkerssubmitclaimstotheWRC(labourredressmechanism).Undocumentedworkershavedonethis in thepastandhavereceivedawards.However,generallythishasbeenthecaseonlywheretheworker’simmigrationstatushasnotcometolightandwhereanemployerhasnotarguedagainstthemakingofanawardonthebasis 45www.undok.at46 www.ak.at47RespondentfromAustria,Lefö-IBFLegalInformationleaflet.48DIRECTIVE2009/52/ECOFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCILof18June2009providingfor

minimumstandardsonsanctionsandmeasuresagainstemployersofillegallystayingthirdcountrynationals49Theagreedlevelofremunerationshallbepresumedtohavebeenatleastashighasthewageprovidedforbythe

applicablelawsonminimumwages,bycollectiveagreementsorinaccordancewithestablishedpracticeintherelevantoccupationalbranches,unlesseithertheemployerortheemployeecanproveotherwise,whilerespecting,whereappropriate,themandatorynationalprovisionsonwages

50QuestionnaireIreland

20

thattherewasnovalidlegalcontractinplacegiventhatthepersondidnothavetherighttoworkintheState.This issuecontinuestobearguedthroughthecourtsandthere isaneedfor legalclarityaroundthe issue.Employersshouldnotbeallowedtoexploitvulnerableworkersandthenseektoavoid their responsibilities by arguing that the person is not entitled to redress because they areundocumented in the State. In 2014, there was a legislative amendment made which allows forundocumentedworkerstomakeanapplicationtothecivilcourtsforunpaidorinsufficientwages(seeS4,EmploymentPermits(Amendment)Act2014)howeverthisonlycoversunpaidorunderpaymentofwages,andnoneoftheotherusualemploymentrights(holidaypay,breaks,etc.).Also,theworkerhastogotothecivilcourts,whichwouldnottraditionallybeseenasincludingtheWRC,whichistheforum for regular workers. This in itself is a huge barrier (in terms of costs, sourcing legalrepresentation,etc.)fortheworker.MemberStatesshouldenactmechanismstoensurethatillegallystayingthird-countrynationalsareabletoreceiveanybackpaymentofremunerationwhichisrecoveredincludingincasesinwhichtheyhave,orhavebeen,returnedaccordingtoArticle6(2).TheprovisionoftheEUSanctionDirectiveinmany EU countries has not been enforced by introduction of any specific “mechanism forundocumentedworkers”.Existingmechanismstoclaimunpaidwagessuchascivilor labourcourtshavebeenrecognizedbymanyEUmemberstatesassufficient.The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on theapplicationoftheEmployer’sSanctionDirective51reconfirmsthatwithregardtotherightofillegallystayingthirdcountrynationalstomakeaclaimagainsttheiremployer,mostMemberStatesmerelyrefertogeneralprovisionsconcerningtherighttobringacasebeforecivilorlabourcourts.AccordingtotheabovementionedCommunication,veryfewMemberStateshaveexplicitlytransposedtherightof irregularly employed migrants to make a claim against their employer for any outstandingremunerationswhilepresent in themember state (onlyBulgaria,Cyprus,GreeceandSlovenia), orwhentheyhavebeenreturned(onlyCyprus,Greece,PolandandSweden).Onlyfour52MemberStates(includingBelgium)haveputinplacespecificmechanismssothatirregularmigrantscanreceiveanypaymentsowed,includingaftertheyhave,orhavebeenreturned.TheexperienceoftheNetherlands53showsthattheexistingmechanismtobringingthecasebeforecivilorlabourcourttoclaimoutstandingremunerationscanbefunctional,whenthereisafunctionalcooperationmechanisminplaceandmechanismthatenablestoreimbursecostsrelatedtolegalaid.TheNGOassistingundocumentedmigrantscanfacilitatecontactoftheundocumentedworkerwithalawyer/attorneythatcanrepresenttheundocumentedworkeratcourtwhileclaimingunpaidwages.Thecostsoflegalaidaresubsequentlycoveredbythestate,oncetherepresentinglawyerprovidesproofthattherearenomeansonthesideontheworkertobearthecostsrelatedtolegalaid.Thelawyer/attorney can be approached also directly by the undocumentedworker, but access to thelawyerthroughNGOensuresacontactwithanexperiencedspecialist.Themostsignificantobstaclesinthispathwayarethecourtfeesthatcanbesignificantlyreduceduponmeanstestbutthereisstill

51http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/com/com_com%282014%290286_/com_com%

282014%290286_en.pdf52Thefootnoteofthereport,however,mentionesonly3states-BE,FRandEL53FGDiscussion,June7th,2018,Vienna

21

theriskoflosingthecaseandbechargedtocoverallrelatedcostsincludingtheexpensesoftheotherparty.AlternativelytothegeneralprovisionstobringaclaimbeforethecivilcourtintheNetherlands54,theLabourInspectorateSZWcanfineemployersthathaveviolatedtheMinimumWageAct.Theycanalsoimposepenaltypaymentstocompeltheemployertocompensatetheworkersforunpaidwages(i.e.pay the wages that are due). This means that the employer has four weeks to compensate theemployeesandofferproofofthistotheInspectorate.Iftheemployerdoesnotoffercompensation,thelabourinspectorate(InspectorateSZW)canimposepenaltypaymentsofupto40.000eurosperemployee.According toFairWorkNetherlands inpractise this remains invisibleand it isdifficult tocontrolifindeedemployeeswerepaidandorpenaltieswereimposed.’.PICUMfindingsontheimplementationofEmployer’sSanctionDirective55revealthatinBelgium,99percent of complaints filed by the undocumented workers with the help of CSC trade union getdroppedbythelabourprosecutorafter1to2years.Themajorityofundocumentedworkersthattheyassist therefore often prefer to negotiate directlywith the employer, to recover their outstanding

wagesastheyhavebetterchanceofactuallyreceivingsomecompensationwithouttheriskofbeingdeported.Thesystematicobstaclesleadundocumentedworkersandthirdpartiestonotinvolvestateauthorities(thatareinchargetoprotectlabourrights)intorecoveryofoutstandingwages. 54SeeCoEGretaReportconcerningtheimplementationoftheCouncilofEuropeConventiononActionagainst

TraffickinginHumanBeingsbytheNetherlands-FirstevaluationroundAdoptedon21March2014Publishedon18June2014.

55PICUM:SummaryoffindingsinBelgiumandtheCzechRepublicontheimplementationoftheEmployer’sSanctionsDirective,2017

22

Theexistingevidenceandfindingsshow,thatthereexistsastructuralcooperationbarrierbetweenthestateauthoritiesononesideandtheundocumentedworkerwhowouldliketoclaimher/hisrights(andsupportingthirdpartiessuchNGOs,tradeunionsandpossiblerepresentinglawyers)ontheotherside. If thereare firewalls inplace forundocumentedworkers to complainagainst theiremployer,these are often insufficient. Undocumented workers are not willing to seek justice through stateauthoritiesassigned,astheymayfacerisksofdetentionanddeportation.PrioritisingtheenforcementofimmigrationrulesabovethesafetyandlabourrightsistheprevailingapproachintheEU.

TheCommunicationoftheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilontheapplicationof the Employer’s Sanction Directive56concludes that inmanyMember States, the lack of specificmechanismstoremedyandthedifficultiesthatirregularmigrantsmayfaceinhavingaccesstojusticeandinenforcingtheirrightsmaybecounterproductivetothefightagainstillegalemployment.Inthecurrentsituation,acomplainttorelevantstateauthoritieswouldexposeundocumentedworkerstotheriskofbeingdetainedanddeported,andbesidesdoesnotensurethatoutstandingwagesforworktheyperformwouldbepaid.Asaresultthereislessinformationontheactualsituation,duetolackofreportsandformalcomplaints.

2.3REPORTINGOFCRIMEINOTHERCOUNTRYTHANWHERETHECRIMEWASCOMMITED

TheEUVictim’sDirectiveenablesvictimstofileacomplaintintheircountryofresidenceiftheyarenotabletodosoincountrywherethecrimewascommitted.

56http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/com/com_com%282014%290286_/com_com%

282014%290286_en.pdf

Nootherviable

alternative

Labourexploitation,substantialornopaiments

Fearfromdetentionanddeportation

Nosafepathwaytocomplaint

Isolation

23

Specifically,accordingtoart.17(2)oftheEUVictim’sdirectiveMemberStatesshallensurethatvictimsofacriminaloffencecommittedinMemberStatesotherthanthatwheretheyresidemaymakeacomplainttothecompetentauthoritiesoftheMemberStateofresidence,iftheyareunabletodosointheMemberStatewherethecriminaloffencewascommittedor,intheeventofaseriousoffence,asdeterminedbynationallawofthatMemberState,iftheydonotwishtodoso.

TheflexibilityofthisprovisionintheEUVictim’sRightsDirectiveshouldrespondtotheprotectionofthelegitimateinterestsofthevictimincomplexcross-bordersituations,asexplainedintheDGJusticeGuidancedocument57.

The provision, however, requires very well coordinated and cooperative approach among lawenforcementauthoritiesinbothconcernedcountriesaswellasgoodcooperationandcommunicationbetween victim support service and law enforcement authorities and victim support services incountry of residence of the victim and victim support services in country, where the crime wascommitted.TheArticle17(3)oftheVictimRightsDirectivestipulatesonlythatthecomplaintshouldthanbetransmittedfromthestateofresidencetothestatewherethecrimeoccurredwithoutdelay.TheVictims’RightsDirectivedoesn’tpre-scribeanykindof specific cooperationmechanism in thisregard.TheEuropeanImplementationAssessmentoftheVictims’RightsDirective58referstobilateralcooperationagreements, includingmemorandaofunderstandingbetweenthevariousMinistriesofJusticethataredeterminativeforensuringtheprotectionofvictimsresidinginanotherMemberState.A positive example of cross-border reporting of crime is a case coordinated between Austria andSpain59.

The victim, residing in Austria, reported a crime committed in Spain. The communication andcooperationwasverywellestablishedfromtheverybeginning.TheSpanishpoliceattendedthereportofthevictiminVienna.OncethecasewastransferredtoSpain,thecommunicationwiththeSpanishpoliceinthebeginningwentthroughtheAustrianNGOLEFÖ-IBF,whichprovidedcomplexservicestothe victim, as well as through the Austrian Federal Police. Specifically, their NGO representativeacknowledged the approach of law enforcement concerning a newly reported threat against thevictim´s family inherhometown.Subsequently, thecasewaswellmanaged jointlyby theAustrianNGO LEFÖ-IBF that provided psychological support and the SpanishNGO Proyecto Esperanza thatprovidedinformationthroughLEFÖ-IBFtothevictimoncriminalproceedingsandthestateofcriminalproceedingsinSpain.Thecasewassuccessfulmainly,thankstoinvolvementoftrainedandspecializedstakeholdersbothonthesideoflawenforcementauthoritiesandNGOs/victimsupportservices.

Asmentionedabove,whenrelevantstakeholdersarewellawareandadequatelytrainedonvictim’srights and legal procedures to follow, this can mean a major difference in the outcome of acompensationcase.Inaspecificcase,in2016,theSpanishNGOSICARwasacknowledgedaboutthedaughterofavictimassistedbySICARcat(NGO)whowasbeingexploitedinItaly.TheSpanishpolice(inthiscasearegionalpolice)recommendedtheSpanishNGOtogotoItalytoreportthecrimewiththevictim.TheSpanishActrelatedtoVictimStatus(Law4/2015,27thofApril-Estatutodelavíctima

57EuropeanComission,DGJUSTICE(2013):Guidancedocumentrelatedtothetranspositionandimplementationof

theDirective2012/29/EU58EuropeanParliamentaryResearchService:TheVictims‘RightsDirective2012/29/EUEuropeanImplementation

Assessment,December2017Accessed:25.7.201859AustrianNGOrepresentativeatFGDiscussoininVienna,June7,2018

24

deldelito)ishoweverinlinewithArticle17oftheVictimRightsDirectiveandallowsreportingacrimefromabroad.

DuringtheFGDiscussion,asareactiontothecaseabove,thejudgefromSpainwasconcernedofwhoshouldbeliablefortheexpensesresultingfromthetravelofthevictimsinordertoprovidetestimonyatcourtinacountrywheretheprosecutiontakesplace.

TheRecital51oftheEUVictim’srightsDirectiveclarifiesthatifthevictimhaslefttheterritoryoftheMemberStatewherethecriminaloffencewascommitted,thatMemberStateshouldno longerbeobligedtoprovideassistance,supportandprotectionother than indirect relationtoanycriminalproceedingsitisconductingregardingthecriminaloffenceconcerned.FurthertheArticle14oftheVictims’RightsDirectivestipulatesthatMemberStatesshallaffordvictimswhoparticipateincriminalproceedings, the possibility of reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of their activeparticipation in criminal proceedings, in accordancewith their role in the relevant criminal justicesystem. The conditions or procedural rules under which victims may be reimbursed shall bedeterminedbynationallaw.

LookingatthecooperationmechanismwithintheEU,thecrimeshouldbereported(eitherwithorwithout help of victim support organization) to law enforcement authorities of the country ofresidence.The lawenforcementauthoritiesofthecountryofresidencetransferthereporttotheircounterparts in the country of jurisdiction. Lawenforcement authorities of the countrywhere thecrimeoccurredshallinformthevictimabouther/hisrightsincludingtherighttoclaimcompensationandaccesstolegalassistance.

WithregardtothepossibilitytoreportthecrimethatoccurredintheEUbythirdcountrynationalsintheirhomecountry,theoptionsaremorelimitedanddeterminedbyexistingbi-lateralcooperationagreements.Although,theroleofconsulatesasstipulatedintheArticle5(j)oftheViennaConventiononConsularRelations(1967)60consists(amongotherduties)intransmittingjudicialandextrajudicialdocumentsorexecutinglettersrogatoryorcommissionstotakeevidenceforthecourtsofthesendingState inaccordancewith internationalagreements in forceor, in theabsenceof such internationalagreements, in anyothermanner compatiblewith the lawsand regulationsof the receiving State.However,accordingtotherepresentativeoftheMinistryofForeignerAffairsoftheCzechRepublic,theconsulatedoesn’t facilitate thecriminal report filedby the third countrynational (thephysicalperson)directly,butonlytroughofficial/diplomaticway.Incaseofexistenceofabi-lateralcooperationagreement on criminal matters, the consulate will explain the process in line with the bi-lateralcooperationagreementandwhatwouldbethewayinlinewiththeagreement.Thereare,however,limitedoptionstoreportacriminaloffencebyavictimfromherhomecountrydirectly,ifnotstipulatedinanybi-lateralagreementsbetweenthestates.

If an international organized crime (involving two ormore countries) such as human trafficking iscommitted and reported by the victim to relevant authorities in her/his home country andinternational cooperation on investigation of the trans-national crime is required, bi-lateral ormultilateralcooperationagreementswilldeterminethecooperation.Incasethereisanycooperationagreementoncriminalmatters,theconsulatemaybeinvolvedinlinewiththeaboveArticle5(j)ofthe Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to transfer the request of the law enforcementauthoritiesofathirdcountry(authorizedbytheMinistryofForeignAffairsof thethirdcountry)to

601967ViennaConventiononConsularRelations

25

relevantauthorities(policeorjudicial)ofanEUcountry.Alternatively,supportfromInterpolcanberequesteddirectlybynationalpoliceinordertoseekforinvestigationcooperationbetweentwo(ormore)countriesincaseoftrans-nationalcrime.

The EUVictim’sDirective provideswithminimum standards that need to be in place.Next to theVictim’s Rights Directive, the Bilateral cooperation agreements, including memoranda ofunderstanding between the various Ministries of Justice should ensure the protection of victimsresidinginanotherstateandgobeyondtheminimumensuredbytheDirective.Trainedandinformedstakeholdersandtheircooperationisapreconditionforsuccess.

26

3.RESIDENCEPERMITA very important aspect of accessing compensation is the fact whether a state enables the thirdcountry national (victim) to stay legally in the country, during the length of the legal proceedings(criminal,civiloradministrative).AccordingtoFRA”…avictiminanirregularsituationofresidence,when seekingaccess to justice, faces requirementsand restrictions towhichother victimsarenotsubjected. Such a differentiation runs counter the non-discrimination principle of Article 1 of theVictim’sdirective,whichstates:TherightsintheDirectiveshallapplytovictimsinanon-discriminatorymanner,includingwithrespecttotheirresidencestatus.”TheFRAreport61alsopointsoutthathelpfulinstrumentsareimplementedonlytofairlylimitedextent.TheseincludethereflectionandrecoveryperiodandtheresidencepermitforvictimsoftraffickingsetoutbytheResidencepermitDirective2004/81/EC62(Art. 6-8), and the granting of permits of limited duration to third country nationalssubjected to particularly exploitative conditions in accordancewith Article 13 (4) of the EmployerSanctionsDirective63.

However,nexttotheabovementionedDirective2004/81/EContheresidencepermitissuedtothirdcountry nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings and who cooperate with lawenforcement authorities, some Member States grant residence permit in accordance with theDirective2004/81/ECevenwithoutcooperationwithlawenforcementauthoritiesinexceptionalcases(e.g.ES,FI,IT,NL)64.

Numerous European countries provide for the possibility of granting refugee status to victims oftraffickinginhumanbeingsonthegroundofthembeingavictimofcrime.6566However,therefugeestatus isnotgrantedautomatically.Forexample inthecaseofEstonia,Finland, IrelandandPolandrefugeestatuscanbegrantedongroundoftraffickingincaseswheretheapplicanthasbeenjudgedtobepersecutedbyhis/hertraffickersduetobeingamemberofaparticularsocialgroupandthereis a recognised risk of future persecution from the traffickers upon return in the form of e.g. re-traffickingand/orassaultfromexploitersagainstwhichstateprotectionorinternalrelocationdonotprovidearemedy.67

The other forms of residence permits and international protection that may be granted to third-countrynationalvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsintheEUarefurthertheSubsidiaryprotection68(e.g.AT,NL,DE,EE,FR,IE,FI)orvariousresidencepermitsoncompassionate/humanitariangrounds(e.g.BE,DE,EL,FI,NL).ThereareotherinstrumentsavailabletoregulateresidencepermittovictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsinthenationallegislationoftheEUMemberStates.

SomeMemberStates69providethepossibilitytoapplicantstosimultaneouslyapplyforinternationalprotectionandtobegranteda residencepermitunderDirective2004/81/ECorpermissionofstay

61FRA(2015)Severelabourexploitation:workersmovingwithinorintotheEuropeanUnion,p.7862http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al3318763https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32009L005264EuropeanCommission,HomeAffairs:SynthesisReport-Identificationofvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsin

internationalprotectionandforcedreturnprocedures.EuropeanMigrationNetwork,March2014.Accessed:25.7.2018

65 Ibid.TheSynthesisReportwaspreparedonthebasisofthecontributionofonly24states.66 Ibid.AT,BE,DE,EE,FI,FR,IE,NL,PL,SE,SK,NO67 ibid68Subsidiaryprotectionisgrantedwhenanapplicantisassessedasfacingarealriskofsufferingseriousharmif

returnedtohisorhercountryoforigin/formerhabitualresidence.SeeArticle2(f)ofDirective2011/95/EU69CY,EE,ES,FI,FR,HU,IT,LV,LT,LU,MT,PL,SE,UK

27

underequivalentnationalmeasures70.InatleasttwoMemberStates(NL,PL),theprocedureunderDirective 2004/81/EC is temporarily suspended until a decision on the international protectionapplicationisissuedfirst71.Insome(Member)States(e.g.AT,BE,EL,IE,NL,SI,SK,NO)72itisnotpossibleforapplicantstoremainin international protection procedures whilst accessing rights and services provided by Directive2004/81/ECorequivalentnationalprocedures. If, followingwithdrawal, thevictim isnotgrantedaresidencepermitunderDirective2004/81/ECorequivalentnationalprocedures,s/hecanre-opentheasylumprocedureinsomeoftheseMemberStates(e.g.AT,BE,EL,IE,SI)73.

3.1DublinregulationThe previous paragraphs clarified a bit the relation between the international protection and theresidencepermitforvictimsoftraffickingundertheDirective2004/81/EC.Thissubchapterwillfurtherlook at conflicting situations of the Dublin III Regulation with protection measures for victims oftrafficking,andatproblematiccasesofenforcementorsuspensionofDublinreturnasidentifiedbytherespondentsduringtheFocusGroupDiscussionheldinViennaonJune7,2018.

TheEUasylumacquiscomprisesfourDirectivesandtwoRegulationscontrollingdifferentaspectsoftheinternationalprotectionprocedure74.TherecastQualificationDirectiveandReceptionConditionsDirectiveexplicitlyrecognisevictimsoftraffickingasvulnerablepersons75whosesituationshouldbeassessedtoseewhethertheyareinneedofspecialreceptionneeds.

Article1oftheso-calledDublinIIIRegulation76laysdownthecriteriaandmechanismsfordeterminingtheMemberStateresponsibleforexamininganapplicationforinternationalprotectionlodgedinoneoftheMemberStatesbyathird-countrynationalorastatelessperson.

These criteria fordeterminingwho is responsible forexaminationof anapplication for asylumareapplied in theorder inwhich theyare setout in the regulationand canbe separated into severalgroups:1.Familyties:Responsible isthestate inwhichamemberoftheasylumseeker’s family isstayinglegally.2.Visaorresidencepermit:Responsibleisthestatethathasissuedaresidencepermitorvisatoanasylumseeker.3.Irregularentryandresidence:Responsibleisthestatewhoseborderstheasylumseekercrossedirregularlycomingfromathirdcountry,4.Visawaiver:Responsibleisthestatethat theasylumseekerenteredand inwhichtheneedof theasylumseeker tohaveavisa is

70EuropeanCommission,HomeAffairs:SynthesisReport-Identificationofvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsin

internationalprotectionandforcedreturnprocedures.EuropeanMigrationNetwork,March2014.Accessed:25.7.2018

71 Ibid.72 Ibid.TheSynthesisReportwaspreparedonthebasisofthecontributionofonly24states.73 Ibid.74RevisedDublinRegulation,RevisedEurodacRegulation,RevisedQualificationDirective,RevisedAsylum

ProceduresDirective,RevisedReceptionConditionsDIrective,TemporaryProtectionDirective.FurthertheFamilyReunificationDirectivealsoappliestorefugees.

75SeeArticle20(3)ofDirective2011/95/EU(QualificationsDirective)andArticle21ofDirective2013/33/EU(ReceptionConditionsDirective)

76REGULATION(EU)No604/2013OFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCILof26June2013establishingthecriteriaandmechanismsfordeterminingtheMemberStateresponsibleforexamininganapplicationforinternationalprotectionlodgedinoneoftheMemberStatesbyathird-countrynationalorastatelessperson(recast)

28

waived5.Firstapplicationforasylumlodged:Responsibleisthestateinwhichtheasylumseekerfirstlodgedanapplicationforasylum.

WhereanotherMemberState than theone inwhich theapplicant (for internationalprotection) iscurrentlyresidingisfoundtoberesponsibleforprocessingtheasylumapplication,theapplicantwillusuallybetransferred(back)tothisMemberstate.Thisistheso-called“Dublin”transfer,orreturn.

Itisimportanttonotethataccordingtoparagraph17eachMemberStatemaydecidetoexamineanapplicationforinternationalprotectionlodgedwithitbyathird-countrynationalorastatelessperson,even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in the Dublin IIIRegulation.

Incaseswhereavictimhasbeenexploitedinthefirst(Member)Stateinwhichs/hesoughtasylum,itcanbetraumaticforthemtoreturntothe(Member)State,eventhoughinaccordancewiththeDublinRegulationtheyshouldbetransferredthere77.

Inaccordancewitha2011rulingoftheEUCourtofJustice78,Article3(2)oftheDublinIIIRegulationrecognisesthatsituationscanoccur,whereitisimpossibletotransfertheapplicanttotheMemberState primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing thattherearesystemicflawsintheasylumprocedureandinthereceptionconditionsforapplicantsinthatMemberState,resultinginariskofinhumanordegradingtreatmentwithinthemeaningofArticle4of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 79 . In particular, asylum seekersfrequentlychallengedtheoperationoftheDublinRegulation,assertingthat,inpractice,itresultedinindividualsbeingexposedtorisksthattheywouldexperienceinhumanordegradingtreatmentorevendeath.Inessence,theyarguedthattheDublinRegulation’spremisethatallEUmemberstatesaresafecountriesforasylumseekerswasfaulty80.

OtherchallengesfocusedontheinadequacyofthereceptionconditionsintheEUstatetowhichtheasylumseekerwouldbetransferred,arguingthattheasylumseekerswouldfaceinhumanordegradingtreatmentwithintheEU.SuchcaseshavebeendealtwithbytheECtHR,seeHusseinandothersvs.NetherlandsandItaly81

IfthereisnootherMemberStatethatcanbedesignatedasresponsibleaccordingthecriteriasetbytheDublinRegulation,thecountrywherethepersonsisresidingcanbecomeresponsible.

TherecastDublinIIIRegulationintroducednewprovisionsontheconsiderationofsafetyandsecurityofunaccompaniedminors“inparticularwherethereisariskofaminorbeingavictimoftrafficking”

77EuropeanCommission,HomeAffairs:SynthesisReport-Identificationofvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsin

internationalprotectionandforcedreturnprocedures.EuropeanMigrationNetwork,March2014.Accessed:25.7.2018

78Formoreinformationonthebackgroundsee:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/arrets/10c411_en.pdf79Article4ofCharteroffundamentalrightsoftheEU:Prohibitionoftortureandinhumanordegradingtreatmentor

punishmentNooneshallbesubjectedtotortureortoinhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.80MaryellenFurrelton:AsylumCrisisItalianStyle:TheDublinRegulationCollidesWithEuropeanHumanRightsLaw.

2016,accessed:25.7.201881 ECtHRHusseinandOthersvtheNetherlandsandItaly,ApplicationNo.27725/10-AdmissibilityDecision,

accessed:25.7.2018

29

(Article6(3c)).Theregulation,however,doesn’tintroduceprovisionsrelevanttoadults.Further,inline with Article 8(4), the unaccompanied minor’s application for international protection in anabsence of any relatives in the EU territory shall be examined in the Member State, where theapplicationwaslodged,providedthatisinthebestinterestofthechild.

ThecaseconcerningminorswasreferredbytheAustrianNGOIBFLefö:

A victim of human trafficking entered Europe through Italy, then entered Spain, where she wasexploited.Fleeingfromthetraffickers,shecametoAustriaseekingforasylum.Consideringthefactthatshewasunder18atthistime,Austriais–inlinewithArticle8(4)ofDublinRegulationthecountryresponsible forexaminationof theasylumapplication.Aftera firstnegativedecisiononherasylumapplication,theAdministrativeCourtdecidedthatthecaseshouldbereferredtotheveryfirstinstances,becauseherexperienceofhumantraffickinghadnotbeenconsideredatall.Austriathenre-consideredwhetherthecasewouldbedealtwithinAustriaorwouldbetransferredtoSpain.TodayitisclearthatthecaseisconsideredinAustria.Theconsequencesofthisoutcomeontheresidencerightofthevictimarenotclearyet.

Anothercasereferredto,duringthefocusgroupdiscussionwasasfollows:athird-countrynationalwastraffickedtoanEUMemberstate(countryofentry)whereshewasexploited.However,thevictimmanaged to escapeand left the countryof entry for another EU country,where she reported thehumantraffickingcrimeandappliedforasylum.Thecriminalproceedingsinthecountryofentryhavebeeninitiated,whichisalsothecountryresponsibleforexaminingtheapplicationforasylum.Astheexploitationdidnotoccurinthecurrentcountryorresidingandalsothecriminalproceduretakesplaceinanothercountry(inthefirstcountryofentrywheretheexploitationtookplace),thevictimnowriskstoloseherresidenceandmightfaceaDublinreturn.WhetheritispossibletosuspendtheDublinIIIregulationinthiscaseandonwhichgroundsisyetunknown.There isanobligation forEU MemberStates toconductan individualassessmentof thevictim'spersonal circumstances and risks, provided for by Directive 2011/36/EU (Art. 12(3) and (4)). Thisprovisionthusfurtherreinforcesvictim’sprotection.Iftheindividualassessmentisconducted-aseventhoughthisisanobligationinpractisethismightnothappen-andindicateswhethertheremightbesignificant risks related to return, this can constitute grounds to suspend a Dublin return of apresumedvictim.Further,accordingtotheEU2011/36/EUTraffickingDirective,MemberStateshaveanobligationtoensure that a presumed trafficked person is providedwith assistance and supportas soon as thecompetentauthoritieshaveareasonable-groundsindicationforbelievingthatthepersonmighthavebeensubjectedtotrafficking(Article11(2)).MemberStatesarealsoobligedtoestablishappropriatemechanismsaimedattheearlyidentificationofvictims(Article11(4)),butitdoesnotstateexactlywhatformthesemechanismsshouldtake.Explicit mechanisms for the identification of victims of trafficking are not outlined in the existingasylumacquis,althoughthefollowingstagesoftheinternationalprotectionproceduremayfeasiblyallowforthedetectionofvictims82: 82EuropeanCommission,HomeAffairs:SynthesisReport-Identificationofvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsin

internationalprotectionandforcedreturnprocedures.EuropeanMigrationNetwork,March2014.Accessed:25.7.2018

30

• Theassessmentoffactsandcircumstances(Article4ofDirectiveof2005/85/EC);• Personalinterviewontheapplication(Article12);• Specialneedsassessment(Article17(2)ofDirective2003/9/EC).

TherespondentsfromtheFGDiscussionpointedout,thatthereisrarelyanykindofriskassessmentconductedamongasylumseekersthathavetoreturnduetotheDublinregulation,evenifthereareindicators of human trafficking. Often they are also returned without appropriate referral tospecializedvictimsupportservices.AccordingtotheNGOrespondentfromSpain, ifavictimoftraffickingescapedfromthetraffickersfrom the countryofdestination toanotherEUMemberState, applyingDublin regulationswithoutdoingaproperriskassessmentisvictimisingandcanleadtore-traffickingofthepersonwhenshe/heis sent back to the country of exploitation/country responsible for examination of her/his asylumapplication.FromNGOevidencecollecteditisclear,thatthishappensespeciallyinthosecaseswheretheauthoritiesfrombothmemberstatesdon'tcoordinateadequatelythetransferofthevictim,whothenisnotreferredtospecializedsupportservicesather/hisarrivalinthecountrywhereshe/hewasexploited.Suchpracticesareconsideredveryproblematicandnotconsistentwithavictimcentredapproach.

TheymaybeinbreachwiththepositiveobligationoftheMemberStatestotakeprotectivemeasuresandthepositiveobligationtooperateaneffectiveadministrativeframeworktopreventtraffickingingeneral83. The Court decision in the Rantsev vs Cyprus and Russia emphasized "the prevention oftrafficking,protectionof victims,andprosecutionandpunishmentof traffickers".According to theECtHRs,stateshaveanobligationtotakeoperationalmeasurestoprotectvictimsorpotentialvictimsof trafficking in thecircumstanceswherethestateauthoritieskneworshouldhaveknownthatanidentifiedpersonhadbeenorwasatrealandimmediateriskofbeingtraffickedorexploitedwithinthemeaningofArticle3of thePalermoProtocol. ItalsoestablishedadutytocooperateamongstStatesincaseswhereeventsrelatedtotraffickingmighthappenoutsideofaState’sownterritory,referringtothePalermoProtocol84.

In the Netherlands it is possible to press charges on human trafficking committed in another EUcountry.Thepolicecannotinvestigateorprosecuteinsuchsituations,butwillreferthecasetothecountry where the crime is committed. Since in The Netherlands pressing charges in a humantraffickingcaseisautomaticallyanapplicationforaresidencepermitforvictimsofhumantraffickingandthe ImmigrationDepartmenthastotakeadecisionwithin24hours, thisvictimwillbegivenaresidence permit. This permit will be withdrawn if the police/ public prosecutor decides not toprosecutebecauseofalackofauthority.IfaDublinclaimhasbeenmadeagainstsuchavictimorevenhasbeenacceptedbyanothercountrythenthismeansthattheNetherlandsareresponsiblefortheasylumclaimunderarticle1.2oftheDublinconvention.Suchavictimthenhastwooptions:applyingforextendedstayasavictimofhumantrafficking,thisisaresidencepermitonhumanitariangroundsorask forasylum.Therearetwoproblemsarise; if thepolicerefers thecasetoanothercountry ithardly results to prosecution and the victim is not able to claim compensation and since pressing

83ComparethedecisionofECtHRRanstevvs.CyprusandRussia,2010.Accessed:26.7.201884UNODCCaseLawDatabase.Accessed:29.7.2018

31

charges is a way to make the Netherlands responsible for the asylum request, the police is verymistrustfulthatitisafalsestatementonlymadeforthepurposeofbreakingtheDublinclaim85.

3.2 DECISIONNOTTOPROCEEDWITHADUBLINTRANSFER

Beingavictimoftraffickinginhumanbeingsdoesn’tprovidesufficientgroundforsuspendingaDublinreturn itself. However, there are number of obligations set up by the EU Trafficking Directive asdescribed in the previous subchapter, thatmay establish grounds for suspending a Dublin return.Often,thereasonismainlybasedonanindividualassessmentofthevictim'spersonalcircumstancesandrisks(Article12(3)and(4))

Theotherreasoncanbegroundedinthesituation,wherereceptionconditionsforthevictim/asylumapplicant in country of entry, may result in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment as aconsequenceoftraffickinginhumanbeingswhiletakingintoaccountthetraffickinginhumanbeingisoftenanorganizedinternationalcrimeandtheoffendersortheircounterpartsmayexpectthevictimtobereturnedduetotheDublinRegulation.WithregardtothisargumentthereisajurisdictionofEUCourtofJusticeandECtHR.Inastandardidentificationprocedure,wherethereisareasonablegroundtobelievethatthepersonisavictimofhumantrafficking,thereflectionperiodshallbegranted(inaccordancewithArticle6ofDirective 2004/81/ECorArticle 13of 2005CoEConventiononAction against trafficking in humanbeings),allowingthepersontorecoverandescapetheinfluenceoftheperpetratorsoftheoffence,andreflectsothattheycantakeaninformeddecisionastowhethertocooperatewiththecompetentauthorities.Duringthereflectionandrecoveryperiod(andwhileawaitingadecisionofthecompetentauthority) the (presumed victim) is entitled to assistancemeasures and to be protected from theenforcementofexpulsionorders.ReturnduetotheDublinRegulation,thus,shouldbealsosuspendeduntil after the reflection and recoveryperiod.According to a synthesis reporton Identificationofvictims of trafficking in human beings in international protection and forced return procedure 86countriessuchasBE,EE,FI,FR,LU,SE,NL,UKandNOconfirmedthat thereflectionandrecoveryperiodandresidencepermitforVoTsconstitutegroundfordiscontinuationofDublintransfers.Further,accordingtonationalresponsesreflectedintheNationalReportsfortheSynthesisReport87thereasonsfordiscontinuationoftheDublinReturnonthegroundofArticle1788mentionedareasfollow:

• Initiation of a criminal investigation (DE, EE, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, SE, UK andNO).WherediscontinuationoftheDublintransferisdependentontheinitiationofacriminalinvestigation,this can be highly problematic when the crime occurred in a different (Member) State or

85ADuthchlawyer,specializedincriminalcourtcasesofhumantrafficking.FGDiscussionVienna7.6.2018.86EuropeanCommission,HomeAffairs:SynthesisReport-Identificationofvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsin

internationalprotectionandforcedreturnprocedures.EuropeanMigrationNetwork,March2014.Accessed:25.7.2018

87EuropeanCommission,HomeAffairs:SynthesisReport-Identificationofvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingsininternationalprotectionandforcedreturnprocedures.EuropeanMigrationNetwork,March2014.Accessed:25.7.2018.TheSynthesisReportwaspreparedonthebasisofthecontributionofonly24states.

88EachMemberStatemaydecidetoexamineanapplicationforinternationalprotectionlodgedwithitbyathird-countrynationalorastatelessperson,evenifsuchexaminationisnotitsresponsibilityunderthecriterialaiddownintheDublinIIIRegulation

32

indeedanothercountry,asthehost(Member)Statewouldnothavejurisdictionandthereforewouldnotbeabletostartacriminalinvestigationinthefirstplace.

• InFrance,theinitiationoftheofficialidentificationprocessofvictimoftraffickingprovidesthegroundforaDublintransfersuspension.

• Humanitarian reasons at the discretion of the authority responsible for granting residencepermitsareappliedinBE,FR,SEandUK.Suchreasons,accordingtotheSynthesisReport,mayresultinamore‘victimcentered’approach.

• ThediscontinuationoftheDublintransferonthebasesofcase-by-caseassessmentisappliedinAT,CY,CZ,EL,ES,EE,FI,MT,NL,PL

• InSlovakia,aconfirmedindicationofvictimisationbycompetentMigrationOfficestaffand/orcooperationofanon-profitorganizationgivesagroundforaDublinreturnsuspension.

ThereappearstobelittlestandardpracticeandorprotocolsinplaceforthedecisionstodiscontinueDublintransfersincasesofhumantrafficking.Victimsoftraffickingidentifiedinone(Member)Statemay be transferred to the other without first receiving support, even not during the obligedunconditionalreflectionandrecoveryperiod.TheLaStradaInternationalNGOplatform89calleduponharmonizationofanti-traffickingandasylumframeworks in order to ensure that these complement each other. Further, the LSINGOPlatformreconfirmedthatanystandardizedpracticetodiscontinueDublintransfersincaseswherevictimsoftraffickinghavebeenidentifiedismissing.InmanyEuropeancountriesthisalsomeansthatthereisanurgentneed for furtherexchangeof practicesand learninghow to legally challenge the returnofvictimsoftraffickingunderDublinprocedures,whenthisisdonewithoutproperriskassessmentandconsiderationfortherisksofre-traffickingandwithoutthenecessaryandrequiredsafeguards.FurthertherecommendationsbyLSINGOPlatformwereamongothers:

§ To make more use of significant jurisprudence from the ECtHR to ensure better rights

protectionoftraffickedpersonsunderDublinprocedures.§ Toensuremoreand closer cooperationofNGOs to strengthen referral inDublin cases to

improvetheprotectionoftraffickedpersons.§ Tofurtheridentifyreliablepartnersandcommonprocedurestohandlecooperationinsuch

cases.§ Further advocacy and awareness to promote better harmonisation of anti-trafficking and

asylumframeworks.

89LSINGOplatformrerportfromtheworkshopheldonFRIDAY27THOFOCTOBER2017,Skopje,Macedonia-

WORKSHOPROUNDIIEarlyidentificationofpresumedtraffickedpersonsamongmigrantandrefugee.

33

4.ACCESSTOLEGALASSISTANCEforvictimsINCROSS-BORDERSITUATIONSLegalaidshallbemadeavailabletothosewholacksufficientresourcesinsofarassuchaidisnecessarytoensureeffectiveaccesstojustice,accordingtoArticle47oftheEUCharteroffundamentalRights.90TheEUregulatesaccesstolegalaidforsuspectsandaccusedpersons91intheEUandaccesstolegalaidincross-borderdisputesincivilandcommercialmatters.Thereisnotanyspecificdirective92thatwouldregulateaccesstolegalaidforvictimsofcrimeintheEUwithinthecriminalproceedings.Theprovisionsonaccesstolegalaidcanbefoundincrime-specificdirectives(e.g.2011/36/EUTraffickingDirective,Directive(EU)2017/541oncombatingterrorism)orintheDirective2012/29/EUonvictimsofcrime.Furtherthe2005CoEConventiononactionagainsttrafficking,whichisratifiedbyallEUMS,providesinitsArticle15(3)forobligationofthestatetoprovide,initsinternallaw,fortherighttolegalassistanceandtofreelegalaidforvictimsundertheconditionsprovidedbyitsinternallaw.

4.1ACCESSTOLEGALAIDINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS

TheVictimRightsDirective2012/29/EU imposesaconcreteobligation,bystatingthatvictimshaveaccesstolegalaid‘wheretheyhavethestatusofpartiesinthecriminalproceedings’.Butnot‘whenitispossibleforthemtohavethestatusofparties’.93Furthertheconditionsorproceduralrulesunderwhichvictimshaveaccesstolegalaidshallbedeterminedbynationallaw.

AccordingtoArticle12(2)ofthe2011TraffickingDirective,MemberStatesshallensurethatvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingshaveaccesswithoutdelaytolegalcounselling,and,inaccordancewiththeroleofvictimsintherelevantjusticesystem,tolegalrepresentation,includingforthepurposeofclaimingcompensation.Legalcounsellingandlegalrepresentationshallbefreeofchargewherethevictimdoesnothavesufficientfinancialresources.

Whenitcomestoreferraltolegalaidincrossbordersituations,theRecital51oftheEUVictim’srightsDirective explains that if the victim has left the territory of theMember Statewhere the criminaloffence was committed, that Member State should no longer be obliged to provide assistance,support andprotectionother than in direct relation to any criminal proceedings it is conductingregarding the criminal offence concerned. Legal representation is directly linked to criminalproceedings and thus shall be guaranteed when the victim left the territory where criminalproceedingstakesplace. If thevictimresides inanotherstatethanwherethecriminalproceedingstakes place, theMember State inwhich the victim resides should provide assistance, support andprotectionrequiredforthevictim’sneedtorecover(asstatedinArticle9).TheDGJusticeGuidance

90http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf91DIRECTIVE(EU)2016/1919onlegalaidforsuspectsandaccusedpersonsincriminalproceedingsandfor

requestedpersonsinEuropeanarrestwarrantproceedings92PleasenotethatCouncilDirective2003/8/ECof27January2003toimproveaccesstojusticeincross-border

disputesbyestablishingminimumcommonrulesrelatingtolegalaidforsuchdisputes(LegalAidDirective);coversonlycivilproceedings,notcriminal.

93EuropeanComission,DGJUSTICE(2013):GuidancedocumentrelatedtothetranspositionandimplementationoftheDirective2012/29/EU

34

document reconfirms that the obligation to provide support for non-resident victims is ‘shared’betweenthetwoMemberStates.

Therecanbetwokindsofsituationswithacross-bordernature.Scenario1:thevictim,residinginthestatewhereproceedingstakeplace,decidestoreturntoher/hishomecountry.Scenario2:thevictimreportsthecrimefromanothercountrythanwherethecrimeoccurred,orhasleftbeforethelegalaidwasfacilitated.

Withregardtothefirstscenario,NGOsconsultedforthisassessments,didinprinciplenotseeitasaproblemthatthevictimleavestheterritory.TheNGOfromtheNetherlandsreportedacasewherethegroupofvictimsreturnedtotheircountry,statingthatthisisnotperdefinitionabottleneck,aslongas theNGOcanstay in touchwith theclient.Similarly, forcivilproceedings, returnnotnecessarilycausesdifficulties,aslongvictimsstayincontactwithanNGOoralawyer94.TheGRETA95reportontheNetherlands confirms that, if the victim stays in touchwith the person or organisation that isclaimingorarrangingcompensationontheirbehalf,beittheir lawyer,thepublicprosecutorortheCriminalInjuriesCompensationFund(SchadefondsGeweldsmisdrijven),orgetsincontactwithsuchapersonororganisation,thentheyareabletoclaimcompensationalsoaftertheirreturn.Similarly,the respondent from the Czech Republic confirmed that one possibleway, could be an attorneyrepresentingthevictimonher/hisbehalf,basedonthepowerofanattorney.Thiswouldensurethattheprocedureand the compensation claimwill continue, even in a caseof voluntary/involuntarilyreturn96. In Austria,which is the only EUMember State that fully delegated the responsibility forprovidinglegalaidtovictimstovictimsupportsservicesrunbyNGOs,therespondentconfirmed,thatuponthereturnofthevictim,orincaseofavictimresidinginothercountry,whereshe/hereportsthecrimethatwascommittedinAustria,thevictimsupportserviceshavetheautonomytoprovidelegalassistanceinsuchacases.

The NGO respondent from Romania shared a positive experience with cooperation on case oftrafficking for sexual exploitation in Sweden that was referred to their services in Romania. TheRomanian victim that was assisted in Sweden by specialized victim support services, voluntarilyreturnedtoRomania.ShewasherereferredtothespecializedvictimsupportservicesofADPAREinBucharest,Romania.Consequently, theSwedishpolicedemandedher return toSweden foranewhearing,fornotmorethan2days.Thesafetravel,stayinSwedenandpsychologicalcounsellingforanewhearing,wereconductedbyserviceprovidersinbothcountries.Thevictim'slawyerinSwedenhadinquiredADPAREtomakeaclinicalpsychologicalassessmentofthevictim'sconditionforuseinthecriminalinvestigationphaseandthetrial.Thevictim'slawyerfromADPARE,basedinRomaniaandknowingtheproceduralrights,didsoandrequestedforthisahearinginaseparateroominRomania,toensurethatthevictimcouldfreelyspeak97andinformationwasprotected,whilethelawyercouldalsoprovidethevictimwithallinformationforafinancialcompensationclaim.

94QuestionnaireNetherlands95CoEGretaReportconcerningtheimplementationoftheCouncilofEuropeConventiononActionagainst

TraffickinginHumanBeingsbytheNetherlands-FirstevaluationroundAdoptedon21March2014Publishedon18June2014.

96QuestionnaireCzechRepublic97Apparentlyherfamilywasnotawareofthetraffickingsituationandinterrogationatherhomewouldhaveputher

inadifficultsituationwhereshewouldnothavebeenabletoopenlyspeak.

35

Legalassistancewasprovidedinbothcountriesinthecaseabove.AlthoughtheADPARElawyerwasnottrainedintheSwedishcriminallaw,thelawyerrequestedrightsforitsclientthatareensuredintheEUVictimRightsDirectiveaswellastheEUTraffickingDirective.

The second scenario is related to the situation,when the legal aid is facilitated fromabroad. ThescenarioismuchrelatedtocasedescribedaboveinthechapteronReporting.Goingbacktothecasedescribed in theChapter onReporting and looking at itwith the lens of how legal assistancewasfacilitatedtheexperiencewasasfollows:

ThevictimislivinginAustriabutsincethecrimewascommittedinSpain,theprosecutionofthecaseisundertakeninthiscountry.ThevictimcooperatesonthecriminalproceduresupportedbyLEFÖ-IBF,whichprovidesthevictimwithpsychosocialsupport.EventhoughthefirststepsofthecriminalcasehavebeentakeninAustria,itwasthentransferredtoSpain.Thus,inFebruary2018LEFÖ-IBFhasstartedtocontactandcoordinatethecasewithProyectoEsperanza(NGObasedinMadrid),toenablethe legalassistanceand representationof thevictim,especially regarding thecompensationclaim.OnceProyectoEsperanzareceivedthedetailsaboutthecasefromLEFÖ-IBF,it´sjuridicaldepartmentrequiredtheauthoritiestogettoknowthestatusofthecaseandcontinuedtomonitorthecaseinclosecooperationwiththeSpanishprosecutor.SincethevictimisstillreceivingthesupportofLEFÖ-IBFthecommunicationamongthethreeparts(Austria,Spainandthevictimherself)worksperfectlywellwiththepurposeofensuringtheaccesstojusticetothevictim.

Inthisparticularexample,legalassistancewasfacilitatedbytwonon-governmentalorganizationsthatprovideassistance–includinglegalassistance-tocrimevictims.

Anothercase98,wherelegalassistancewasfacilitatedfromabroadwasthecaseofHungarianvictimstraffickedintheNetherlands.FemalevictimswereidentifiedinTheHague(NL),reportedthecrimeintheNetherlands(notallofthem),andreturnedtoHungary.TheDutchpolicewenttoHungarytotalktothem,whethertheycouldbeheardaswitnessintheNetherlandsbythejudgecommissioner.Inadvance,thepolicehadaskedlawyersforsupport,torepresentthevictims.Sothepoliceofferedthevictimsfreelegalassistance,thatsupportedthevictimsduringthewitnessinterrogations.Thankstothis, the lawyers were able to put in a claim for compensation for them during the substantivetreatmentofthecase.Asvictimsoftrafficking,theywereentitledtoafreelawyer.Inthisparticularcasethepoliceplayedasignificantroleinthefacilitationoflegalassistanceforthevictims,whowerealreadyabroad.

4.2ACCESSTOLEGALAIDINCROSS-BORDERDISPUTESINCIVILANDCOMMERCIALMATTERSThechapterwillnotanalysethenationalschemesforaccesstofreelegalaidincivilandcommercialmatters,butwill look into the framework foraccess to legalaid incivilandcommercialmatters incross-bordersituationoutlinedbytheDirective2003/8/EC.TheearliermentionedFRAreportonSevere labourexploitation99, foundthatcompensationclaimsattached to criminal proceedings are still rare and, where they are submitted, they are often

98CasebroughtinduringJusticeatLastFocusGroupmeeting,Vienna2018.99FRA(2015)Severelabourexploitation:workersmovingwithinorintotheEuropeanUnion,p.82

36

transferredtocivilcourts.TheLSIlegalassessmentonthecompensationcases100incontrastindicates,thatmostcompensationclaims(36outof60)wereattachedtocriminalproceedingsandonly10outof60havebeenclaimedincivilproceedings.Thisfindingmayindicateapositivechangeinpracticeofthecourts.Preparingacivilclaimrequiressignificantassistancefromspecializedlawyer,andaccordingto2014FRAreport,legalaidforcivilproceedingsisrarelyavailableornotaccessibletoworkerswhohavemovedwithinorintotheEurope.

The Council DIRECTIVE 2003/8/EC 101 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes byestablishingminimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes seeks to promote theapplicationoflegalaidincross-borderdisputesforpersonswholacksufficientresourceswhereaidisnecessarytosecureeffectiveaccesstojustice.Scope:AccordingtotheArticle1(2)theDirectiveshallapply,incross-borderdisputes,tocivilandcommercialmatterswhateverthenatureofthecourtortribunal.TheDirectivealsodefinescross-borderdisputeasonewherethepartyapplyingforlegalaidinthecontextofthisDirectiveisdomiciledorhabituallyresident inaMemberStateother than theMemberStatewhere thecourt is sittingorwhere thedecisionistobeenforced.Maincharacteristics:

• ApplieswithoutdiscriminationtoUnioncitizensandthird-countrynationalsresidinglawfullyinaMemberState(Article4).

• RecipientofthelegalaidintheMemberstatewherethecourtissittingisfurthereligibletoreceivefreelegalaidintheMemberStatewheretherecognitionorenforcementofthecourtdecision is sought (Article9)102. Forexample, if the courtwill decide in countryA, and thedefendanthaspropertythataresubjectofthecourtdecisioninthecountryB,therecipientofthelegalaidshouldbefurthereligibletoreceivelegalaidalsointhecountryB.

• Application for free legal aid canbe submittedboth- either to the competent authority ofMemberStateinwhichtheapplicantisdomiciledtransmittingauthorityortothecompetentauthorityof the state inwhich the court is sittingorwhere thedecision is tobeenforcedreceiving authority- Article 13 (1). The applicant may choose whether she/he will applydirectlytoreceivingauthority(statewherethecourtissittingorwherethedecisionistobeenforced)orwiththeassistanceoftransmittingauthority.

• The directiveprovidesfortwostandardforms,oneforlegalaidapplications(tobesentdirectlytoreceivingauthorities)andoneforthetransmissionoflegalaidapplications.BothformscanbefilledandsubmittedonlineonE-JusticePortaloftheEU103.

100Sorrentino,L–LegalAssessment–CompensationPractises,LaStradaInternational,2018101CouncilDIRECTIVE2003/8/ECtoimproveaccesstojusticeincross-borderdisputesbyestablishingminimum

commonrulesrelatingtolegalaid,accessed:20.6.2018102WithregardtotheArticle9the2012ReportfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliamentreportsthat

althoughtheinterpretationconcerningthedeterminationwhetherthegrantofsuchlegalaidisautomaticorwhethertherecipientmustmakeanapplicationintheMemberStateofenforcementisnotuniformamongtheMSs.Accessed:22.6.2018

103Onlinesubmittionoftheapplication:https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_aid_forms-157-en.do

37

• Thecompetenttransmittingauthorityshallprovidefreeofchargeassistancetotheapplicantfor legal aid includingassistance inprovidinganynecessary translation of the supportingdocuments.

• Thetransmittingauthorityshalltransmitthedulycompletedapplicationtoreceivingauthoritywithin15days.Transmitteddocumentsshallbeexemptfromlegalizationoranyequivalentformality.Art13(4)and(5).

• The applicant has a right to information of the processing of the application. In case ofrejection,reasonsmustbeprovided.Revieworappealmechanismagainsttherejectionshallbeinplace.Article15(3).

ExtendofthebenefitsprovidedbythisDirective:Under certain conditions, thenational (ofeither transmittingor receiving) systems coveredby theDirectiveprovide:

Transmittingauthorities(competentauthorityoftheMemberStatewheretheapplicantisdomiciled):

• Assistanceoftheapplicantforfreelegalaid,bearingthecostsassociatedwiththeassistanceofalocallawyerfortheapplicantuntiltheapplicationforlegalaidhasbeenreceivedintheMemberStatewherethecourtissitting.

• Translation of the application, including any necessary translation of the supportingdocuments.

• Keeptheapplicantinformedabouthisorherapplication.

Receivingstate(statewherethedecidingcourtissitting):

• Exemptionfromorassistancewithallorpartofthecourtcosts.Art.1(2)• The assistance of a lawyer who will provide pre-litigation advice and will represent the

applicanteitherincourt,ifnecessary,freeorforamodestfee.Article1(2)• Travelcostswherethephysicalpresenceoftherecipientisrequiredincourtbythelaworby

thecourtoftheMemberStatewherethecourtissitting.Article7(c)• Interpretationcosts.• Translationofthedocumentsrequiredbythecourtorbythecompetentauthoritypresented

bytherecipientwhicharenecessaryfortheresolutionofthecase.

The Directive provides EU-Member States citizens, but as well as third country nationals, legallyresiding in the territory (Article 4), who lack sufficient resources with access to existing nationalschemes(availabletoallnationalsaswell)forprovisionoffreelegalaidincivilandcommercialmatterswhenthecourtissittinginotherEUMemberStatethanwherethesaidpersonsarehabituallyresident.ThenationalschemesofaccesstofreelegalaidaswellastheinformationoncompetentauthoritiesisavailableattheEuropeanJudicialNetworkincivilandcommercialmattersPortaloftheEU104.

104http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/index_en.htmhowever,theinformationfromtheportalaregoingtobemigrated

toEuropeanE-justicePortalsoon.

38

The Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the application of the Directive2003/8/EC105from2012statesthat,duringtheperiod2004-2009,thenumberofpersonsbenefitingfromcrossborderlegalaidhasincreasedonlytoalimitedextend.Thereportexplainsthatitcanbecausedbylackofknowledgeoftheinstrumentalsoamonglegalprofessionals106andbythefactthatthescopeoftheapplicationoftheDirectiveislimitedtocivilandcommercialmatters.

TheReport fromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliamentontheapplicationoftheDirective107furtherstatesthat, itcanbereportedthatarrangementsforthechoiceanddesignationofsuchanadvisordiffersignificantlybetweenMemberStates.TheprofessionalsinmanyMemberStatesindicatelengthypaymenttermsandtheverylowfeelevelforprovidedlegalaidandrepresentation.However,thissituation isnotspecifictotheDirectiveandrelatesequallytothenational legalaidsystemfordomesticcases.Thequestionremainstowhichextendsuchconditionshavedirectimplicationsonthequalityandtimeavailabilityoftheassignedlawyer.

105ReportfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliamentontheapplicationoftheDIrective2003/8/ECfrom

23.2.2012,accessed22.6.2018106Ibid,only30%barristersarebetterinformedoftherighttocross-borderaid,accordingtothesurveyrealized

withinthescopeoftheReport107ibid

39

5.POSSIBILITIESTOCLAIMCOMPENSATIONINCROSS-BORDERSITUATIONS5.1ACCESSTOMEMBERSTATESCOMPENSATIONSCHEMESFORVICTIMSOF(VIOLENT)INTERNATIONALCRIMEAccordingtoinformationgatheredfromthepartnersthroughcasescollected,questionnaireandFGdiscussion, the access to national compensation schemes for victims of violent crime are used bylimitedscope.TheeligibilitycriteriatoaccessStatecompensationfundsdiffergreatlyamongtheEU.AccordingtotheDirective2011/34/ECArticle17MemberStatesshallensurethatvictimsoftraffickinginhumanbeingshaveaccesstoexistingschemesofcompensationtovictimsofviolentcrimesofintent.ThecriteriatoaccessStatecompensationfundforvictimsofviolentcrimessetbyeachMemberStatecanbeaccessedattheE-JusticeportaloftheEU108TheaccesstostatecompensationschemesforvictimsofviolentcrimeinthecrossbordersituationisregulatedbytheDirective2004/80/EC.Scope:TheDirective2004/80/ECrelatingtocompensationtocrimevictimsetsupasystemofcooperationto facilitateaccess tocompensationtovictimsofcrimes incross-bordersituations,whichshouldoperateonthebasisofMemberStates'schemesoncompensationtovictimsofviolentintentionalcrime,committedintheirrespectiveterritories.Maincharacteristics:

• EachMemberStateshallensurethattheirnationalrulesprovidefortheexistenceofaschemeon compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respectiveterritories,whichguaranteesfairandappropriatecompensationtovictims.(Art.12(2))

• The Member States must ensure that the potential applicants have access to essentialinformationonthepossibilitiestoapplyforcompensation(Article4).Inthisregard,consularservicesshouldleadonadvisingonAssistingAuthoritiesandtheirrole.

• ThecompensationhastobepaidbythecompetentauthorityoftheMemberStateonwhoseterritorythecrimewascommitted(Article2)

• Administrativeformalitiesshouldbekepttoaminimum(Article3(3))• TheMemberStates shalldesignate responsibleauthorities-both for the submissionof the

applicationforcompensationinher/hisMemberStateofresidence(Assistingauthorities)andresponsiblefordecidinguponapplicationsforcompensations(Decidingauthorities).(Article3)

• Hearing of the applicant or any person as awitness or expert can be held directly by thedecidingauthorities,throughtheuseofinparticulartelephone-orvideo-conferencingorbythe assisting authorities upon the request of deciding authorities,whichwill subsequentlysubmitthereporttothedecidingauthorities.Thehearingmayonlytakeplaceincooperationwithassistingauthoritiesandonvoluntarybasis.(Article9)

108E-JusticeportaloftheEUCompensationschemesavailableintheEUcountries

40

• Standardformsshouldbeusedforthetransmissionofapplicationsanddecisions(Article14)• Central contact points in each Member State cooperates with assisting and deciding

authorities and provides assistance and seeks solutions to any difficulties. Central contactpointsmeetregularlytodiscussandshareexperienceandbestpractices.

FacilitationofaccesstocompensationunderthisDirective:

InordertopursueArticle1–righttosubmitanapplicationforcompensationintheMemberStateofresidenceofthevictim,thememberstatesshouldestablishordesignauthoritiestoberesponsibleforapplyingArticle1.ThecompetentauthorityintheMemberStateinwhichtheapplicantiscurrentlyresiding-the"AssistingAuthority”-isresponsiblefor:

• Informingpotentialclaimantsaboutthecompensationscheme(Article4);• Assistingclaimantsinfillinginthecompensationapplication(Article5);• TransmittingtheapplicationtotheDecidingAuthorities(Article6);• Providingguidancetotheapplicantincaseadditionaldocumentsarerequired(Article8);• OrganisingahearingifrequestedbytheDecidingAuthority(Article9).

TheAssistingAuthoritydoesnotmakeanyassessmentoftheapplication(Article5(3)).

ThisassessmentislefttotheauthorityoftheMemberStateunderwhosecompensationschemethevictimisapplying(the"DecidingAuthority").

TheDecidingAuthoritiesisresponsiblefor:

• Acknowledgingthereceiptoftheapplication;• Providingacontactpersoninchargeofhandlingthematter;• Indicatinganestimatedtimeforthedecisiontobetaken(Article7);• InformingbothAssistingAuthorityandclaimantaboutthedecision(Article10).

Table:TypicalcompensationprocedureaccordingtotheDirective109

109MatrixInsight:AnalysisoftheapplicationofDirective2004/80/ECrelatingtocompensationtocrimevictims,

SYNTHESISREPORT,12December2008,ECDGJustice,FreedomandSecurity,accessed:23.6.2018

41

TheCommunication fromtheCommissiontotheParliamentontheapplicationof theEUDirectivefrom2009110stated,thatonlyinaveryfewcasesthemechanismsetupbythisdirectivehasbeenusedin between 2006-2008. Further, the report reflected the opinion of the claimants,who found theprocessofapplyingcomplicatedandtime-consuming.Languagebarriers,lackofinformationandlegaladvicewereratedasmajorproblems.ItseemedthereforethatdespitetherequirementsofArticle11oftheDirective,languagebarriers–andcommunicationingeneral–wasdefinedasamajorproblemintheapplicationprocessbythereport.Morerecent‘MeetingMinutesofCentralcontactpointsinOctober2016’111reconfirmed,thatlanguageandtranslationrequirementsarereportedbyamajorityofMemberStatesasoneofthebiggestobstacles.FurthertheMinutesstate,thatresearchhasshownthat in somecountries thecostsof translationofdocuments, received in foreign languagesby thedecidingauthority,oreventhetranslationoftheapplicationform,aretobeincurredbythevictim.Thevictimsdon’thave topay translationcosts in linewith theapproachunder theVictims’RightsDirective,asstatedintheMinutesbytherepresentativeoftheEC.AmongtheothertopicsrequiringattentiondiscussedbytheCentralcontactpointswereissuesof:

• Considering/recognizingforeigndocumentation,especiallymedicalevidence,assessmentofdisabilityorinjurybythedecidingAuthorityincross-bordercases

• Pro-activeinvolvementofconsularservicesandEmbassies• Promotingpracticalcontacts,referralsandcooperationofCentralcontactpointswithVictim

Supportorganizations.According to the FocusGroup discussion of June 7, 2018, the respondentswere aware about theDirectiveof2009buttherewasverylowinteractionwithvictimsthatwouldbeapplyinginthecross-bordercontext.Theaccesstonationalcompensationschemesisseenaslong,withmanyrequirementseven at the national level. However, as some countries reflected there are also bottlenecks inaccessingstatecompensationfundatnationallevel.Formoreinformationonbottlenecksrelatedtostatecompensationfund,seealsolegalassessmentoncompensationcases.112AccordingtotherespondentfromGermany, inthecaseofbenefitsclaimsundertheCrimeVictimsCompensation Act, the claimant can receive support from the “assisting authority” (Directive2004/80/EC)intheirhomecountryandapplythereforcompensation.However,accordingtoevidenceofGermanNGOs, ‘assistingauthorities’ incountrieswhichcriminaliseprostitutionoftendiscouragevictimstoaccesscompensationfundsinforeigncountries,wherethepersonbecameavictimrelatedtowork/engagementinthesex-industry.Thiscanbeseenasaresultofremainingprejudicesamongauthorities, who mistakenly consider consent to sex work as consent to coercion, abuse andexploitation.Suchprejudicesexcludethisgroupfromprotectionagainsttraffickingandexploitation.

5.2CIVILPROCEEDINGSINTHECROSS-BORDERCONTEXTINTHEEU

110https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0170&from=EN111Minutes:MeetingcentralcontactpointstoDirectiveonCompensationtoCrimeVictims(EC/80/2004)organized

bytheEuropeanCommission,5October2016.Accessed:13.7.2018112Sorrentino,L–LegalAssessment–CompensationCases,LaStradaInternational,2018

42

Thelegalbasesforharmonizationofcross-bordercivilprocedureisfoundintheTitleVoftheTreatyofFunctioningoftheEU(TFEU)devotedtotheAreaofFreedom,SecurityandJustice(Article67(4)),furthertheruleisdevelopedintheArticle81oftheTFEU,whichgivestheEUpowertopromotejudicialcooperationincivilmatterswithcross-borderimplications.Asmemberstates’proceduralregimesareconsiderablydivergent,EUinstitutionsintervenemoreandmoreoftentoensureEUlawiseffectivelyenforcedinanequivalentmanneracrosstheEU.ThisprocesscanbecalledasEuropeanizationofcivilprocedure.

5.2.1FREEMOVEMENTOFJUDGEMENTINCIVILANDCOMMERCIALMATTERSWithin the EU law themost important instrument of cross-border civil procedure is theBrussel IRegulation (recast)113114. Chapter II simplifies the procedure for a court chosen by the parties tocommenceproceedings.ChapterIIIregulatesrecognitionandenforcementofjudgementsindifferentmemberstatethanwhereajudgmentwasgiven.TheframeworksetupbytheBrusselIRegulationprovidesforthefreemovementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmatterswithintheEU.

• ThemostsignificantcontributionoftheBrusselIRegulationisthatitnolongerprovidesforso-calledexequatur.Thatisaprocedurewherebyaforeignjudgementneedstobeformallyrecognized.

• InsteadtheBrussels IRegulationprovides in itsChapter IIISection III for socalled“reverseexequatur”,whereby thedefendant-debtor, upon learningof the foreigner judgment,maycommenceproceedings aimedat rendering it ineffective in the stateof enforcementonalimitednumberofgrounds115.

• Oneofthereasonsforrefusalofrecognitionorenforcementofthejudgmentisthesituation,whentherecognitionismanifestlycontrarytopublicpolicyintheMemberStateaddressed(Art.451(a)).Thedifferentapproaches toprostitutionacrossEUMemberStatescangiveagroundfornotrecognitionorrefusaltoenforceajudgmentforexample.

• Thecourtoforiginshall,attherequestofanyinterestedparty,issuethecertificateusingtheformthatissetoutintheAnnexIoftheBrusselsIRegulation.Theformshallbethantranslatedinto the official language or language indicated by the statewhere the judgment shall beenforcedorrecognized.

• TherelationshipwithotherinstrumentsisdescribedundertheChapterVIIoftheRegulationandtheRegulationshallnotprejudicerecognitionandenforcementofjudgmentsinspecificmatters as well as it shall not affect the application of 2007 Lugano Convention bilateralconventionsandagreementsbetweenathirdstateandtheMemberstatesandother.

• It isnecessary tocooperatewithspecialized lawyer inorder topursue the recognitionandenforcementofthejudgmentincivilmattersincross-bordersituationoncase-by-casebases.

113Regulation(EU)No1215/2012onjurisdictionandtherecognitionandenforcementofjudgmentsinciviland

commercialmatters114RafalManko:Europeanisationofcivilprocedure-Towardscommonminimumstandards?EuropeanParliamentary

ResearchService,June2015,accessed:26.6.2018115RafalManko:Europeanisationofcivilprocedure-Towardscommonminimumstandards?EuropeanParliamentary

ResearchService,June2015,accessed:26.6.2018

43

5.2.2OPTIONALINSTRUMENTSBefore the Brussel I Regulation, the exequatur116 was abolished already in the so called secondgenerationofoptional instruments.These instrumentsare ‘optional’as theclaimantscanuse theproceduresdescribedtherein,butmaystillprefertousedomesticprocedures.117Withinthecivillawprocedure,thereareseveralrelevantoptionalinstruments:EuropeanEnforcementOrder,EuropeanSmallClaimsProcedure,EuropeanOrderforPaymentandEuropeanAccountPreservationOrder.

5.2.2.1EUROPEANENFORCEMENTORDERRegulation (EC)No.805/2004oncreatingEuropeanEnforcementOrder foruncontestedclaims isasimpleprocedurethatallowsajudgmentinanuncontestedclaimdeliveredbyoneMemberStatetobeeasilyrecognizedandenforcedbyotherMemberState.It isaformofcertificationprocedureofnational judgment to enable their automatic recognition and enforcement across the EU inuncontestedclaims.ItisanoptionalRegulationthatexistsparalleltocertificationwithintheBrusselsIRegulation.TheEEOismainlyusedforcourtdecisionsissuedbeforeBrusselIRegulationcameintoforcein2012.

5.2.2.2EUROPEANSMALLCLAIMPROCEDUREScope:Regulation(EC)No861/2007establishingEuropeanSmallClaimsProcedure(ESCP)118andamendingRegulation(EU)2015/2421(Amendment)119thatcameintoforceonJuly14,2017isavailableonlyforcross-bordercivillawclaimsofvaluenotexceeding5000Euros.Characteristics:

• It excludes some type of claims in its Article 2 such as for instance labour law disputes.However,thisavenuecouldbeusedtoclaiminjuriesordamagesfromthedefendantiftheamountdoesn’texceed5000Euro.

• TheESCPisasimplifiedfast-trackprocedure,lastingmaximumof5months.• Itispredominantlywrittenandifanoralhearingisnecessaryitshallbeheldbymakinguseof

technologysuchasvideo-conferencinginordertolimitunnecessarytravel.• PrescribedstandardformsaregenerallyusedthatareavailableonlineonE-justiceportalor

shouldbeavailableatthecourt.• TheESCPalsodoesn’trequirearepresentationofalawyer.• Further the Article 11 establishes for free of charge assistance in filling in the forms and

provisionofallnecessaryinformationonESCPbyrelevantnationalauthorities.• Thecourtfeeshavetobeproportionatetothevalueoftheclaimandshallbecoveredbythe

partythatlostthecase-similarlyascostsfortranslationofthedocuments.

116Exequatur-aprocedurewherebyaforeignjudgementneedstobeformallyrecognizedinthecountryof

enforcement.117ibid118https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32007R0861119https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2421&from=EN

44

• AttheE-justice120portaltherearetwodetailedGuidesavailableforusersofESCPthathaven’tbeenyetharmonizedwiththeRegulation2015/2421uptodate.

ThesimplifiedprocedureaccordingtotheEuropeanCommission’sFactSheet121looksasfollow:

5.2.2.3EUROPEANORDERFORPAYMENTAnotheroptionalinstrumentistheRegulation(EC)No1896/2006oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof12December2006creatingaEuropeanorderforpaymentprocedure,amendedbytheRegulation(EU)2015/2421ofDecember2015thataimstosimplify,accelerateandreducethecostsofcross-bordercivillitigationconcerninguncontestedclaimsofmoney122.Theprocedureisrelevantaslongastheclaimremainsuncontested.Onceadefendantfilesastatementofopposition,theEOPautomatically loses its forceandthecase is transferredtostandardcivilproceedings.ThepracticalGuideisavailableattheE-justiceportal123.

5.2.2.4EUROPEANACCOUNTPRESERVATIONORDERScope:TheEuropeanAccountPreservationOrder(EAPO)Procedure124isarelativelynewtoolthatcameintoforce in January 2017. The provisions under the regulation can be used in cases, when thecompensationisclaimedincivilproceeding.TheEAPOisanoptionalprocedure,applicableonlyinciviland commercialmatterswith cross- border nature. Similarly as procedures to freeze assets in thecriminalmatters,theEAPOletsacourtinoneEUcountryfreezefundsinthebankaccountofadebtorinanotherEUcountry.

120https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_small_claims-42-en.do121EuropeanCommissionDGforJusticeandConsumers:Thenewfast-trackcourtforsmallerpurchases,FactSheet,

July2017122RafalManko:Europeanisationofcivilprocedure-Towardscommonminimumstandards?EuropeanParliamentary

ResearchService,June2015,accessed:26.6.2018123https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_order_for_payment_procedures-41-en.do124REGULATION(EU)No655/2014OFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCILof15May2014

establishingaEuropeanAccountPreservationOrderproceduretofacilitatecross-borderdebtrecoveryincivilandcommercialmatters

45

Characteristics:

• TheEAPOappliestopecuniaryclaimsthatpreventthedebtortransferorwithdrawfundsfromhis/herbankaccountmaintainedinaMemberState.

• Similarly as ESCP it excludes certain claims (Article 2) such a matrimonial and quasi-matrimonial,buttypeofcross-borderclaimscoveredbytheEAPOprocedurecouldinthiscaseincludealsolabourlawclaimsordamagesandinjuries.

• The preservation order can be available even before the creditor (the claimant) initiatesproceedingsinaMemberStateagainstthedebtororatanystageduringsuchproceedingsupuntiltheissuingofthejudgmentorcourtsettlement(Article5(a)).

• Similarly,thePreservationOrdercanbeavailableafterthecreditor(theclaimant)hasalreadyobtainedajudgment(Article5(b)).

• ThedebtorinlinewiththeArticle11shallnotbenotifiedoftheapplicationforPreservationOrderortobeheardpriortotheissuingoftheOrder.

• TheapplicationprocedureforaPreservationOrderisdescribedundertheArticle8andtheCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1823125sets up the content of the forms(there are 9 forms) necessary for the EAPO Procedure that are available at the E-justicePortal126.

• However,inacasewherethecreditor(theclaimant)hasnotyetobtainedajudgmentorcourtsettlement, the court shall require the creditor (the claimant) to provide a security for anamount sufficient to prevent abuseof the Procedure and to ensure compensation for anydamagesufferedintheextentofthecreditor’sliabilityfordamagecausedtothedebtorbythePreservationOrderduetofaultonthecreditor’s(claimant’s)part.(Article12(1))

• Therecanbeexceptions,whenthecourtmaydispensewiththerequirementtoprovidethesecurity.

• The Article 14 describes how request for the obtaining of account information shall beprocessed

• Article18setsuptime-limitsforthedecisionontheapplicationofthePreservationOrder.• The Chapter 3 of the EAPO deals with recognition, enforceability and enforcement of the

preservation order,with regard the implementation of EAPO inMember State other thanwherethePreservationOrderhasbeenissued.

• Representationbya lawyershallnotmemandatory intheEAPOproceedingsunless,underthelawofMemberStateofthecourtortheauthoritywithwhichtheapplicationforremedyislodgedrequiressuchrepresentationinitsnationallaw.(Article41)

• The court fees for the EAPO Procedure shall not be higher than the fees for obtaining anequivalentnationalorder.

• However,therecanbeadditionalcostsrelatedtotheEAPOProcedure,suchtranslationfees,asanytranslationmadeshallbedonebyapersonqualifiedtodotranslationsinoneoftheMemberStates(Art.49(3)),feeschargedbytheenforcingauthoritieswhichareinvolvedinprocessing of EAPO or in providing account information pursuant to Article 14. Such fees,however, shall be set transparently on the basis of a scale of fees or other set of rules

125CommissionImplementingRegulation(EU)2016/1823.126https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_account_preservation_order_forms-378-en.do?clang=en

46

established inadvancebyeachMemberState.Further, thecosts incurredbythebanksforimplementingthepreservationordershallbetakenintoaccount.

• Thedebtormay appeal against the EAPO to the competent court of theMember State oforigin,butthereare limitedpossibilitiestoappealagainstenforcementoftheEAPObeforethecompetentenforcementauthorityoftheMemberStateofenforcement.(Chapter4)

5.3RECOGNITIONANDEXECUTIONOFFREEZINGANDCONFISCATIONORDERSThe legal assessment127- clearly shows, that the situation of access to compensation significantlyimprovedsinceLaStradaInternational’searlierprojectoncompensationwasconducted(Comp-Act2009–2012); compensationisnowgrantedtovictimsbythecourts.Theassessmentshowedthatjudicialproceedingsforcompensationconcludedwithadecisiontoawardcompensationtotraffickedorexploitedpersonwaspresentin67%ofthecases(i.e.40cases).However,only27%(i.e.11cases)of the awarded executory titles were paid or are being paid to various extents. In other words,compensationwasgranted in40cases,but in29of thesecasesvictimsdidnot receiveany actualpaymentofthegrantedcompensation.Criminal investigations of trafficking in human beings still rarely include in depth financialinvestigations,althoughinordertodisruptorganizedcriminalactivitiesandtodemonstratethatthecrimedoesn’tpayoff,this isessential.Accordingtothesurveyofstatistical information2010-2014conductedbyEuropol128,only2,2%oftheestimatedproceedsofcrimewereprovisionallyseizedorfrozen, however only 1,1%of the crimeprofitswere finally confiscated at the EU level. The studyfurtherestimatesthattheannualvalueofprovisionallyseized/frozenassetsintheEUisaround€2,4billion,withabout€1,2billionfinallyconfiscatedeachyearatEUlevel.5.3.1TRACINGOFTHEASSETSProceeds from trafficking in human beings are often acquired in other countries than where theorganizedgroupoperatesorwherethecriminalproceedingstakesplace.Oftentheproceedsarefoundin the countryoforiginof theperpetrator. Cooperationand swift exchangeof informationamongnationalauthoritiesareinthisregardessential.TheCamdenAssetsRecovery InteragencyNetwork (hereinafterCARIN)an informalnetworkof lawenforcementandjudicialpractitioners,isspecialistinthefieldofassettracing,freezing,seizureandconfiscation. It is an interagency network, established in 2004, with the purpose to increase theeffectivenessofitsmembers'efforts,onamulti-agencybasis,todeprivecriminalsoftheirillicitprofits.TheCARINpermanentsecretariatisbasedatEuropolheadquartersinTheHague.CurrentlyCARINhas54registeredjurisdictions,includingof28EUMemberStates.Scope:Thecooperationmechanismforthepurposeoftracingandidentifyingproceedsofcrimeandothercriminalrelatedproperty,hasbeenestablishedbytheCouncildecision2007/845/JHAof6December

127SorrentinoL,Legalassessmentcompensationpractises,,LaStradaInternational,July2018128EuropolCriminalAssetsBureau:Doescrimestillpay?CriminalassetsrecoveryintheEU.2016

47

2007concerningcooperationbetweenAssetRecoveryOffices(ARO)oftheMemberStatesinthefieldoftracingandidentificationofproceedsfrom,orotherpropertyrelatedto,crime129.Characteristics:

• TheDecisionrecognisesCARINbyprovidingalegalbasisforexchangeofinformationbetweenAROsofallMemberStates.

• The Council decision requires Member States to establish or designate "Asset RecoveryOffices",whosefunctionistofacilitateeffectivecooperationandexchangeofinformationintheassetrecoveryarea.

• ThekeyfunctionoftheAROsistotraceandidentifyassetsontheirnationalterritory.• TheAROofficeshavebeenestablishedbyallEUmemberstatesasapartofadministrative,

law-enforcementorjudicialauthority.• TheArticle2oftheDecisionrequirestheAROstoexchangeinformationandbestpractices,

bothuponrequestandspontaneously.• ThemostsignificantproblemsfacedbyAROsaccordingtotheReportfromtheCommissionto

the European Parliament and the Council 130 are related to limited access to all relevantdatabasesatthenationallevel,thatwouldallowthemtoperformtheirtaskmoreeffectively.The limited powers of assets recovery offices are also identified by TransparencyInternational131asoneofthedifficultythatpreventeffectiveapplicationoftheEuropeanlegalframeworkintheareaofconfiscationofinstrumentalitiesandproceedsofcrime.

• TheAROPlatformwasestablishedin2008whichmeets2timesayearinordertodiscussassetrecoveryandassetmanagementrelatedissuesandexchangebestpractices.

The Europol Criminal Assets Bureau (ECAB) was established in 2007 in order to assist financialinvestigation in tracing criminal proceeds worldwide, in cases where assets have been concealedbeyondtheirjurisdiction.TheECABalsohoststheCARINsecretariat.TheCommissionalsoencouragedtheECABtoplaytheco-ordinationrolebetweennationalAROs.1325.3.2FREEZINGANDCONFISCATIONOFCRIMINALASSETS5.3.2.1FREEZINGOFCRIMINALASSETSAfreezingorderisajudicialdecisionissuedtofreezeanassetorfundsinordertoprovisionallypreventthedestruction,transformation,moving,transferordisposalofproperty.Thefreezingordercanbefollowedbyaconfiscation133.Scope:

129https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:332:0103:0105:EN:PDF130ReportfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilconcerningcooperationbetweenAROs

from12.4.2011accessed:29.6.2018131TranspatencyInternationalBulgaria,Romania,Italy:PolicyPaper-ConfiscationofCriminalandIllegalAssets:

EuropeanPerspectiveinCombatAgainstSeriousCrime,2015.Accessed:29.6.2018132ReportfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilconcerningcooperationbetweenAROs

from12.4.2011accessed:29.6.2018133EuropeanCommissionFactSheet.SecurityUnion:Regulationonthemutulalrecognitionoffreezingand

confiscationorders,Brussels,21December2016,accessed:29.6.2012

48

ToallowcompetentjudicialauthoritiestoseizepropertyonrequestofanotherMemberState'sjudicialauthorities theCouncil FrameworkDecision2003/577/JHAof22 July2003on theexecution in theEuropeanUnionofordersfreezingpropertyorevidencewasadoptedin2003.ThemainobjectiveistoestablishtheruleunderwhichaMemberStateshallrecognizeandexecuteinitsterritoryafreezingorderissuedbyajudicialauthorityofanotherMemberState(Article1).Characteristics:

• Themutualrecognitionshouldalsoapplytopre-trialordersaccordingtorecital2.• Anyfurtherformalitybeingrequiredandbythesamewayasforafreezingordermadebyan

authorityoftheexecutingstate(Article5).• TheTitle II of theDecision sets a procedure,where the freezingorderof the issuing state

togetherwithtranslatedcertificate(accordingtoArticle9)shallbetransmitteddirectlytothecompetentjudicialauthorityofexecutingstate.

• The judicial authorities of issuing state shallmake all necessary inquires, including via thecontactpointsoftheEuropeanJudicialNetwork,ifthecompetentauthorityforexecutionisunknown.(Article4(3))

• The decision on the freezing order and communication of the decision by the judicialauthorities of the executingwith issuing state shall be as soon as possible and,wheneverpracticable,within24hoursofreceiptofthefreezingorder.(Article5(3)).

• The Framework Decision further provides (limited) grounds for non-recognition or non-executionaswellasforpostponementoftheexecution.(Articles7and8).

5.3.2.2CONFISCATIONOFCRIMINALASSETSAconfiscationmeansafinaldeprivationofpropertyorderedbyacourt.Therearedifferenttypesofconfiscationorders134:

- Classic confiscation order: following a criminal conviction the direct proceed of a crime isconfiscated.Forexample:theconfiscationofacarfromapersonconvictedforcartheft.

- Extended confiscation order: following a criminal conviction, the authority can issue aconfiscationorderonacriminalassetwhichisnotthedirectproceedsofthecrimeforwhichthepersonwasconvicted.Forexample:theconfiscationofalargevillaboughtwithmoneyfromdrugtrafficking.

- Third party confiscation order: to deprive someone else than the offender (person orcompany)fromcriminalpropertytransferredtohimbytheoffender.Forinstance,acriminalwhobuysahouseunderthenameofhiswifeoranotherfamilymember.

- Non-convictionbasedorder:confiscationmeasuretakenintheabsenceofaconvictionanddirectedagainstanassetfromillicitorigin/Example:thesuspectisnotconvicted,becauseheissickorhasescaped.

Scope:TheCouncilFrameworkDecision2006/783/JHAof6October2006ontheapplicationoftheprincipleofmutual recognition toconfiscationorders135establishes the rulesaccording towhich the judicial 134EuropeanCommissionFactSheet.SecurityUnion:Regulationonthemutulalrecognitionoffreezingand

confiscationorders,Brussels,21December2016,accessed:29.6.2012135https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:328:0059:0078:EN:PDF

49

authoritiesofoneMemberStatewillrecogniseandexecuteaconfiscationorderinitsterritoryissuedbycompetentjudicialauthoritiesofanotherMemberStateisestablished.Characteristics:

• The Framework Decision establishes for the rule that the value of confiscated property issharedequallybetweentheissuingandexecutingState.

• CompetentIssuingauthoritiesandexecutingauthoritiesmustbeindicatedbyeachMemberStare(Article3).

• Italsoindicates,howthetransmissionoftheconfiscationordershouldlooklikefromissuingtoexecutingstate,theformsrequiredandthelevelofauthentication(Article4and5)

• TheDecisionalsoprovidesforreasonsfornon-recognitionandnon-execution(Article8).

However,thecurrentEUlegislationonmutualrecognitionofboth,freezingandconfiscationordersisoutdated and according to the EC136is no longer alignedwith the latest national and EU rules onfreezinganconfiscation,whichcreatesloopholesthatareexploitedbycriminals.

TherecentDirective2014/42/EUonthefreezingandconfiscationofinstrumentalitiesandproceedsofcrimeintheEuropeanUnion137enhancestheabilityofEUstatestoconfiscateassetsthathavebeentransferredtothirdparties.TheDirective2014stipulatesinitsArticle3(i)thatitappliesalsotocriminaloffencecoveredbytheDirective2011/36/EUonpreventingandcombatingTHB.

5.3.2.3THEWAYFORWARDWhereasthe2014Directiveonthefreezingandconfiscationmakesiteasyforauthoritiestoseizeandconfiscateassetsatnationallevel,the2016ProposalforaRegulationonthemutualrecognitionoffreezingandconfiscationorders138shallimprovethecross-borderaspect.OnJune20,2018theprovisionalpoliticalagreementreachedbytheEuropeanParliamentandCouncilontheCommission'sproposalforanEUregulationonthefreezingandconfiscationofassetsacrossborderswasconfirmedbyMemberStates139.

The new regulation for instance limits number of reasons on which recognition and execution offreezingandconfiscationorderscanberefused.ItwillalsointroduceanewCertificatebasedonwhichtheexecutingstatemayfacilitaterecognition.TheRegulationwillcovermutualrecognitionofalltypesofabovementionedfreezingandconfiscationordersforwhichminimumrulesaresetinthe2014Directive140.TheRegulationwillcoveronlyconfiscationordersissuedwithintheframeworkofcriminalproceeding.Theregulationwillalsosetupcleardeadlinesforfreezingandconfiscationorders.

Among all above mentioned benefits, the most relevant contribution within the scope of thisassessment is that theRegulationaimsat improving the rightof victimsof crime in cross-bordercontexttocompensation.AccordingtotheproposedArticle31oftheRegulation,thevictim’srightto

136EuropeanCommissionFactSheet.SecurityUnion:Regulationonthemutulalrecognitionoffreezingand

confiscationorders,Brussels,21December2016,accessed:29.6.2012137https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0042&from=EN138ProposalforaRegulationonthemutualrecognitionoffreezingandconfiscationorders,Brussels21.12.2016,

accessed29.6.2018139EuropeanCommisions‘Statement,http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-4238_en.htm140Directive2014/42/EUonthefreezingandconfiscationofinstrumentalitiesandproceedsofcrimeintheEuropean

Union

50

compensationorrestitutionwillhavepriorityovertheissuingorexecutingstateinterest.TheArticle31(4)furtherregulatesonhowtodealwithvictim’scompensation,whenpropertyotherthanmoneyhavebeenconfiscatedandlastlytheparagraph5oftheArticle31statesthatwhentheproceduretocompensateorrestitutethevictimispendingintheissuingstate,theexecutingstatewillwithholdthedispositionoftheconfiscatedpropertyuntil thedecisiononcompensation iscommunicatedtotheexecutingauthority.

51

6.RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendationsshallinclude:

§ To strengthen the rights of undocumented victims and their access to compensation byintroducingSafereportingmechanism.AlthoughtheVictims’RightsDirectiveappliesinanon-discriminatorymanner, there are stillmany structural problemswhymany victims fear toreportthemselvesasvictims.Therisk thatdeportationordersarenotsuspendedoncethevictimisnotformallyrecognizedasavictimorincaseswhenforwhateverreasonsthecriminalproceedingscannotbeinitiatedortheperpetratorisunknown,playsacrucialrole.

§ The“Firewall”conceptmustbeinplaceforundocumentedworkersinordertoenablethemto safely complaint against abusive employers. The fact that labour inspection is oftenaccompaniedby immigrationofficers,or hasa dutytoreportanundocumentedstatusofworkers, puts a structural barrier for labour inspector, that should be able to detectexploitativesituationsandserveallworkers,includingundocumentedworker,inneedofhelpandsupport.

§ TocreateawarenessaboutthepossibilityforvictimstoreportthecrimefromotherEUcountrythanwherethecrimeoccurredandtotrainallrelevantstakeholderstosupportthevictimsincourtproceduresandclaimingcompensation.

§ Alternativemechanismsshouldbeintroducedtobettersupportvictimstoreportcrimeandtotestifyinanothercountrythanthecountryweretheprosecutiontakesplace,includingsupportofvideotestimoniesetc.

§ TocoordinateDublinreturnsofasylumseekers.Toconductappropriateriskassessmentsuponwhichthereturncanbesuspended,ifthereceptionconditionsoftheasylumseekerupontheDublinreturnmayexposehimorherintorisksofre-trafficking.IncaseswhereDublintransfersare not suspended, referrals of potential victims into specialized services are necessary.Otherwise, the states may breach the positive obligation of the Member States to takeprotective measures and the positive obligation to operate an effective administrativeframeworktopreventtraffickingingeneral141

§ Toprovidevictimsincrossbordersituationswithaccesstolegalservicesassoonaspossible.Itisnotedtobeessentialtostayintouchwithonespecializedlawyerthatwouldaccompanythevictimthroughouttheproceedings,regardlessofwherethevictimisactuallydomiciled.

§ Thecooperationonthecasesandfacilitationofaccesstocompensationinthecross-bordercontextrequiresharmonizedcooperationathorizontal level,aswellasverticalcooperationamong various stakeholders (NGOs, police, prosecutors…). Currently each case ismanagedindividually,onadhocbases. Sharingbestpracticesand lessons learnedwith cross-bordercooperation may improve the daily practices of various stakeholders and shape futurestandardizedandharmonizedcross-bordercooperation.

• TherehavebeenintroducednumerousprovisionswithintheEUVictims’Directivethatfostertherightsofvictimsincrossbordercontext.Further,thereareoptionalinstrumentsinplaceon cross border civil proceedings, that can be alternatively used in order to claimcompensationforvictimscrossborders.TherehasbeenconsensusbytheEPandtheCouncil

141ComparethedecisionofECtHRRanstevvs.CyprusandRussia,2010.Accessed:26.7.2018

52

on the proposal of the regulation on mutual recognition of confiscation orders, thatstrengthensthepositionofvictimbyprioritizingher/hisclaimabovethestates’interests.Thepractical use and implementation of the existing tools and instruments may significantlyimprovetheaccesstojusticeofvictimsincrossbordersituation.

53

7.REFERENCES

AnimusAssociation,Country Study, The right to compensation for victimsof trafficking inBulgaria(December2011)

Anti-SlaveryInternational,OpportunitiesandObstacles:EnsuringaccesstocompensationfortraffickedpersonsintheUK(2009)

ASTRA,Positionofhumantraffickingvictimsincourtproceedings,AnalysisofJudicialPracticefor2016(2016)

ASTRA,TraffickinginHumanBeingsforthePurposeofLabourExploitation:ASociologicalPerspective(2017)

Bandurka,I.O.et.al.,AnalysisofthecurrentrightsofvictimsofhumantraffickinginUkrainetoobtaincompensation(Kiev,2011)

Caron,C., ‘UsingPortable Justice toAchieveAdditionalRemedies forTraffickedPersons’ in,GlobalAllianceagainstTrafficinWomen(GAATW),AllianceNews,MaterialJustice,SeekingCompensationinTraffickingCases,Issue27,pp.14-21(Bangkok:July2007)

CouncilofEurope,GRETA,ReportconcerningtheimplementationoftheCouncilofEuropeConventionon Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by [countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany,Romania,Ireland,TheNetherlands](2014-2017)

Cusveller, J., Compensation for victims of human trafficking: inconsistencies, impediments andimprovements, Master thesis criminology, Faculty of Law, VU University Amsterdam/La StradaInternational(August2015)

Dobreva, N., Promotion of the Rights of Trafficked Persons in Bulgaria, A Human Rights BasedApproach,LegalAnalysis(AnimusAssociationFoundation:Sofia,July2013)

Eaves,RightsandRecourse,AGuidetoLegalRemediesforTraffickedPersonsintheUK(2010)

European Commission, Concept NoteWorkshopsMeeting of the EU Civil Society Platform againsttraffickinginhumanbeings(Brussels,29May2018)

EuropeanCommissionDirectorate-GeneralJustice,Freedom&Security,AnalysisoftheapplicationofDirective2004/80/EC relating tocompensationof crimevictims,SYNTHESISREPORT, (12December2008)

European Commission Home Affairs, The EU rights of victims of trafficking in human beings.(Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion,2013)

54

EPRS, The Victims’ Rights Directive 2012/29/EU European Implementation Assessment (EuropeanParliamentaryResearchServiceEx-PostEvaluationUnit,PE611.022,December2017)

FLEX,AccesstoCompensationforvictimsofhumantrafficking,WorkingPaper(July2016)

FRA,VictimsofcrimeintheEU:theextentandnatureofsupportforvictims(Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion,2014)

FRA,HandbookonEuropeanlawrelatingtoaccesstojustice(Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion,2016)

FRA,ImprovingaccesstoremedyintheareaofbusinessandhumanrightsattheEUlevel,OpinionoftheEuropeanUnionAgencyforFundamentalRights.FRAOpinion–1/2017[B&HR](Vienna,10April2017)

FRANETSocialFieldworkResearch,SevereformsofLabourExploitation;Supportingvictimsofsevereformsof labour exploitation in havingaccess to justice in EUmember states, Reports of countries:Austria,Bulgaria,CzechRepublic,Germany,Ireland,theNetherlands,Spain(2014)

Gallagher, A.T., The right to an effective remedy for victims of trafficking in persons: A Survey ofInternationalLawandPolicy(November2010)

German Institute forHumanRights,HumanTrafficking inGermany, StrengtheningVictim’sHumanRights(2009)

Heemskerk, M., Willemsen, E./FairWork, Compensation for victims of human trafficking in theNetherlands(September2013)

ICMPD and Department for Equal Opportunities – Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Italy,Guidelines for the Development of a Transnational Referral Mechanism for Trafficked Persons inEurope:TRM-EU(2010)

La StradaCzechRepublic,A summary of the study on theOptions and Limits of Compensation forTraffickedPersonsintheCzechLegalSystem(2009)

LaStradaInternational,COMP.ACT,Toolkitoncompensationfortraffickedpersons(2012)

LaStradaInternationalandAnti-SlaveryInternational,Guidanceonrepresentingtraffickedpersonsincompensation claims. A practical tool for lawyers, counselling centres and service providers(Portuguesetranslation:2014)

Lefoe IBF,COMP.ACTAustria,Possibilities toObtainCompensation forTraffickedPersons inAustria(2011)

55

Milquet, J.,DiscussionpaperfortheworkshopoftheEUCivilSocietyPlatformagainsttrafficking inhumanbeings,(Brussels,29May2018)

MRCI,Trafficking for Forced Labour in Irelandand theUnitedKingdom: IssuesandEmergingGoodPractice(December2010)

OntheRoad,COMP.ACTItalia,DevelopmentofItalianLegislationonCompensation;Stateofartandstrategies(August2012)

OpenGate/LaStradaMacedonia,Therighttocompensationfor traffickedpersons inR.Macedonia(Skopje,June2011)

OSCE,AllianceExpertCoordinationTeamStatementoncompensationfortraffickedpersons,HumanDimensionImplementationMeeting,Specialdayontrafficking=Focusonaccesstojusticeforvictimsoftrafficking(8October2008)

OSCE/ODIHR,CompensationforTraffickedandExploitedPersonsintheOSCERegion(2008)

OSCE/ODIHR,Compensationandothervictims’rights:practiceintheOSCERegion,Trainingsessionforlegalpractitioners(OSCE/ODIHRAnti-TraffickingProgramme,2010)

PICUMMappingFramework,Labourcomplaintsmechanismsystems(2018–tobepublished)

Shrub,M.,Tyurina,G.,Naumovich,T.,CompensationforTraffickedPersonsintheRepublicofBelarus(Teseyltd.:Minsk,2010)

UMAR,LaStradaInternationalandAnti-SlaveryInternational,CompensationfortraffickedpersonsinRomania, Opportunities and obstacles in accessing justice (February 2015, corrected version June2015)

UNGeneralAssembly,Resolution60/147BasicPrinciplesandGuidelinesontheRighttoaRemedyandReparationforVictimsofGrossViolationsofInternationalHumanRightsLawandSeriousViolationsofInternationalHumanitarianLaw(21March2006)

UNHumanRightsCouncil,35thsession,Bestpracticesandhowtoimproveontheeffectivenessofcross-border cooperation between States with respect to law enforcement on the issue of business andhumanrights:StudyoftheWorkingGroupontheissueofhumanrightsandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusinessenterprises(25April2017)

UNODC, Compensation – UNODC perspective and State Practice (power point presentation,simone.heri@unodc.org)

UNODC, UN.GIFT, Anti-human trafficking manual for criminal justice practitioners, Module 13:Compensationforvictimsoftraffickinginpersons(NewYork:2009)

UNOHCHR, Special Rapporteur, Background Paper on State Practices, Concrete Strategies and

56

ImplementationoftheRighttoanEffectiveRemedyforTraffickedPersons(2010)

Weerd, E.A.M. de,Compensation for trafficked persons from state funds: Are compensation fundsappropriatefortraffickedpersons?AcriticalexaminationoffourstatecompensationfundsinEurope.MasterInternationalCrimesandCriminology,VUUniversityAmsterdam(December2011)

Wijers,M.,CompensationofvictimsoftraffickingunderinternationalandDutchlaw(28April2014)

Women’sLinkWorldwide,AccesstoRedressMechanismsinSpain(2011)