Share:
EU-wide compensation for victims of intentional violence
Victims of violence must receive adequate compensation throughout the EU. The member states are not allowed to limit this compensation to certain crimes, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in Luxembourg on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 (Ref .: C-601/14). Thereafter, Italy has insufficiently implemented the EU requirements.
According to a 2004 EU directive, victims of intentional acts of violence should be entitled to "fair and equitable compensation," regardless of the place of the crime and the victim's origin. This should strengthen and protect freedom of movement within the EU.
In Italy, there are various special laws that promise a victim compensation. These laws, however, each relate to certain types of intentional violence, in particular terrorism and organized crime. Other serious offenses, as well as rape and other serious sexual assault, are missing.
In its complaint, the EU Commission accuses Italy of failing to comply with its obligations under EU law.
The ECJ has now granted the lawsuit. "The Directive obliges Member States to adopt national rules to protect freedom of movement in the Union, which in these cases ensure fair and adequate minimum compensation for the victims of all domestic acts of deliberate violence," said the Luxembourg judges. Citizens from other EU states should not be disadvantaged.
It is true that the member states are likely to specify the concept of "deliberate violence" themselves. "However, they can not limit the scope of the Victims Compensation Scheme to specific intentional acts of violence."
Thus, the Luxembourg judges leave open whether the compensation for victims must also include psychological violence.
The Victims Compensation Act in Germany requires a "deliberate, unlawful assault". According to previous case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG) in Kassel, this can also be intentional assaults by children; on the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators is not important (judgment of 8 November 2007, Ref .: B 9 / 9a VG 3/06 R).
The BSG has also taken the concept of "assault" as far as possible. Thus, at least relatives can get compensation if they only witness violent acts and thereby suffer a mental shock (judgment of 7 November 2001, ref .: B 9 VG 2/01 R). Victims of child abuse do not have to explain the course of events and thus also the use of physical violence in the narrower sense (judgment and JurAgentur report of 18 November 2015, ref .: B 9 V 1/14 R).
In a case of severe stalking, however, the BSG ruled that the wording of the law excludes compensation in the case of pure psychological violence (judgment and JurAgentur report of 7 April 2011, ref .: B 9 VG 2/10 R). The same applies to the mere threat of a firearm (judgment and JurAgentur release dated 16 December 2014, ref .: B 9 V 1/13 R).
In addition to social reasons, compensation for victims of violence is justified, above all, by the state's monopoly on the use of force. After that, possession and use of weapons are restricted. Citizens are only allowed to use force in self-defense. In return, the state promises to protect its citizens from violence. And he pays compensation if he could not keep that promise. mwo / fle