Directive (EU) 2026/1472 Amending the EU Victims’ Rights Directive | VST Overview & Official English Text

This page reproduces the official EU English text of Directive (EU) 2026/1472 alongside VST’s Traditional Chinese translation and overview. The overview highlights the principal amendments and compares the revised EU framework with Taiwan’s Crime Victim Rights Protection Act. As an amending act, Directive (EU) 2026/1472 should be read together with the 2012 Directive and the 2026 consolidated text.

I. Editorial Overview

1. Legislative Context

Directive (EU) 2026/1472 significantly amends the 2012 Victims’ Rights Directive (Directive 2012/29/EU). The 2012 Directive established common EU minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of all victims of crime. Its implementation nevertheless revealed substantial problems, particularly significant disparities among Member States.

In 2022, the European Commission evaluated the implementation of the Directive. The SWD(2022) 179 final evaluation found that the 2012 Directive had generally improved victims’ access to information, support, protection and participation in criminal proceedings. It nevertheless identified continuing shortcomings in access to information, protection for victims with specific needs, specialist support, participation in criminal proceedings and access to compensation from offenders.

Consequently, in 2023, the Commission proposed the amendment draft 2023/0250(COD). This draft included several progressive reforms, such as requiring states to advance payment of compensation awarded by courts and subsequently recover it from offenders; granting victims a general right to effective remedies when their rights under this Directive are violated; and mandating that multi-disciplinary and integrated services for child victims be provided on the same premises. However, some of these reforms were weakened or removed during negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council, resulting in the compromise text adopted in 2026.

Important advances under the 2026 Directive include the establishment of the EU-wide 116 006 victims’ helpline; improved digital and third-party reporting; stronger general and specialist support services; targeted and integrated services for child victims; individual assessments; information and emotional support at court premises; legal aid; protection of privacy and contact details; physical protection; cooperation between authorities; and professional training.

The final compromise also falls short in several respects. For example, while the 2023 proposal would have required the State to advance the compensation awarded against an offender, the final Directive requires only that Member States establish implementation or enforcement measures. Member States may decide whether to advance all or part of the compensation in certain cases involving intentional violent crime. The proposed general right to an effective remedy was not retained. The requirement that multi-agency services for children be provided on the same premises was also replaced by a requirement that Member States consider making such arrangements.

Directive (EU) 2026/1472 entered into force on 20 July 2026. As a general rule, Member States must transpose it by 2 July 2028, while the information and communication technology measures under Article 26b are subject to a later deadline of 2 July 2030. Alongside the transposition and implementation of the new Directive, the European Commission is preparing a new EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights (2026–2030). A public consultation was launched on 13 August 2026, inviting views from victims, civil society organisations, judicial and law enforcement authorities, support services and other stakeholders. The consultation remains open until 5 November 2026, and the new Strategy is expected by the end of 2026 as the next step in strengthening the protection of victims’ rights.

2. Why It Matters for Taiwan

The most significant institutional difference between the EU and Taiwan lies in the regulatory model for the scope of victim protection. In principle, the 2012 Directive protects all victims of crime. As long as a person has directly suffered physical, mental, emotional harm, or economic loss caused by a criminal offence, they enter the framework of victims’ rights protection. Varying degrees of support and protection are then provided based on individual needs, risks, and the nature of the crime. In other words, the EU adopts a “fundamental rights model.”

Taiwan comprehensively amended its Crime Victim Rights Protection Act in 2023. Although this significantly enhanced the protection of victims’ rights and drew upon the EU’s 2012 Directive, its scope of application remains distinctly narrower. Article 3 of the current Act defines a “crime victim” as a person whose life, body, or sexual autonomy has been infringed upon by criminal acts as defined in the Act. Furthermore, Article 13 enumerates the targets for protection services, specifying the bereaved families of the deceased, those who suffer grievous bodily harm, victims of sexual autonomy infringement, as well as victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, child victims, and victims in designated cases of major public interest or societal concern. That is to say, Taiwan primarily maintains an “enumerated protection model” rather than establishing common fundamental rights for all crime victims from the outset.

The 2026 Directive further highlights the difference between these two approaches. The new provisions expressly require particular attention to be paid, among others, to the specific needs of victims of trafficking in human beings, organised crime, exploitation, hate crime, terrorism, torture and enforced disappearance, as well as victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Particular attention must also be paid, where applicable, to victims of online forms of those crimes when conducting individual assessments.

This does not mean that these victims were brought within the scope of EU protection only in 2026. The 2012 Directive already applied to all victims of crime. The real advance made by the 2026 Directive lies in its clearer requirement that Member States respond to the particular risks and needs associated with different crimes and different victims through individual assessments and targeted and integrated support.

This institutional logic holds significant reference value for Taiwan. Victims of fraud, major property crimes, hate crimes, digital crimes, or other emerging forms of crime may suffer severe economic loss, psychological trauma, social isolation, or security threats, even if they have not endured grievous bodily harm or sexual autonomy infringement. Core international crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, involve even more complex, compounding needs, including medical, psychological, legal assistance, life reconstruction, cross-border support, and evidence preservation. Whether a victim can access basic support should not entirely depend on whether the name of the offence or the resulting harm falls into pre-enumerated categories.

Transnational repression is a prime example illustrating this difference. Transnational repression can be carried out through various means, including intimidation, defamation, harassment, vandalism, stalking, violence, digital surveillance, or pressure exerted on family members. The criminal liability for individual acts may vary in severity, but if they involve sustained pressure from a foreign government, its agents, or related networks, the overall security and psychological risks faced by the victim can be far greater than what a single offence might suggest. The European Parliament’s resolution 2025/2179(INI), adopted on 16 June 2026, called for the EU to address transnational repression through a “comprehensive, victim-centred and intersectional” approach, and to establish mechanisms for protection, legal and administrative assistance, and psychosocial support. Under the EU victims’ rights framework, as long as the specific behaviour constitutes a criminal offence under a Member State’s national law, the victim can, in principle, enter the general victims’ rights system, followed by an individual assessment based on actual risks and needs. In contrast, in Taiwan, if a case does not meet the criteria of the service targets enumerated in Article 13 of the Crime Victim Rights Protection Act, it may be difficult for the victim to access the comprehensive protection and service system.

Therefore, in the next phase of legislative amendments, Taiwan should consider gradually transitioning from an “enumerated protection” model to a “fundamental rights” model. This would involve initially ensuring that all victims suffering physical, mental, emotional, or economic harm as a result of a criminal offence can access basic information, referrals, needs assessments, and necessary support. Subsequently, enhanced specialist services and protection would be provided based on the severity of the harm, vulnerability, safety risks, and individual needs. This is not merely an expansion of service targets; it is a repositioning of the crime victim rights protection system to ensure it can adequately respond to the risks posed by transnational repression, digital crimes, core international crimes, and other emerging forms of crime in the future.

3. Key Amendments

  1. Reducing Disparities Among Member States and Strengthening Cross-Border Support:
    The 2012 Directive established common EU minimum standards, but differences in national systems and resources continued to produce disparities in implementation. The 2026 amendments therefore strengthen common services and cross-border assistance. Article 3a establishes the EU-wide 116 006 victims’ helpline; Article 17 facilitates remote participation in criminal proceedings for victims residing in another Member State; Article 26a requires protocols or guidelines for inter-agency coordination and cooperation; and Article 26b enables victims to exercise certain rights through information and communication technologies. The objective is not merely to harmonise the wording of national laws, but to reduce disparities in protection arising from where victims live or differences among Member States’ systems.
  2. Lowering Barriers to Reporting and Seeking Help:
    Victims must first be able to access the system before they can exercise their subsequent rights. The newly inserted Article 5a requires free, accessible, user-friendly, safe and readily available channels for reporting criminal offences. It also requires digital reporting to be available in appropriate cases and facilitates reporting with the assistance of third parties. This allows victims who are reluctant to report directly because of fear of retaliation, concerns about their residence status or distrust of public authorities to seek assistance through civil society organisations or other third parties. The 116 006 victims’ helpline established under the new Article 3a also enables victims to obtain information about their rights, emotional support and referrals to relevant services without first having to navigate complex divisions of responsibility among public authorities.
  3. Individual Assessments and Targeted, Integrated Support:
    The 2026 amendments substantially strengthens individual assessments under Article 22, requiring the early identification of victims’ support and protection needs, including the risks of secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation, and retaliation, with ongoing reviews as circumstances change. Article 9 reinforces specialist support for victims with specific needs, while the new Article 9a establishes targeted and integrated services for child victims, enabling judicial, medical, psychological, and social support to be coordinated. The particular attention given to victims of hate crime, terrorism, torture, enforced disappearance, and core international crimes does not create a hierarchy of victimhood; rather, it requires the system to respond to the specific harm and needs caused by different offences.
  4. Strengthening Procedural Participation and Rights Protection:
    The 2026 amendments not only protect victims’ access to criminal proceedings, but also strengthen the conditions necessary for their effective participation. The newly inserted Article 10a requires emotional support and practical information to be provided on court premises. Article 10b establishes the right to be informed of certain decisions taken during court proceedings and to request their review. Article 13 strengthens access to legal aid; Article 19 seeks to prevent unnecessary contact between victims and offenders; and Article 21 strengthens the protection of contact details, including residential addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses. Taken together, these measures reflect the principle that participation in proceedings means more than simply allowing victims to enter a courtroom. Victims must be able to exercise their rights effectively in conditions that are safe, understandable and designed to prevent further victimisation.
  5. Adequate Resources, Personnel Training, and Review Mechanisms:
    The 2026 amendments also address the institutional conditions required to make victims’ rights effective in practice. Article 25 strengthens professional training for police officers, court staff, judges, prosecutors and victim support services. Article 26a requires protocols or guidelines for inter-agency coordination and cooperation. Article 28 strengthens the collection of statistics on victims and data showing how victims access their rights. The newly inserted Article 28b requires Member States to ensure sufficient human and financial resources, while Article 29 requires the Commission to submit a report reviewing the implementation of the Directive by 2 July 2032. Victims’ rights therefore concern not only individual entitlements within criminal proceedings, but also institutional organisation, budgets, professional capacity, inter-agency cooperation and continuous review.

4. Terminology

  • EU Legal Framework:
    At the level of EU primary law, the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union—which has the same legal value as the Treaties—occupy the highest level of the EU legal order. For explanatory purposes, this may broadly be understood as comparable to the constitutional level in Taiwan. The principal forms of EU secondary law include regulations, directives and decisions. Under Article 288 TFEU, a regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. A directive is binding as to the result to be achieved and normally requires transposition into national law by the Member States. A decision is binding in its entirety; where it specifies those to whom it is addressed, it is binding only on them. Whether a regulation, directive or decision constitutes a “legislative act” depends on whether it was adopted through an EU legislative procedure. Under Article 289 TFEU, the ordinary legislative procedure involves joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council, while the Treaties also provide for special legislative procedures. Directive 2012/29/EU and Directive (EU) 2026/1472 are both directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. They are binding on Member States and require transposition into national law. The 2026 Directive amends the 2012 Directive rather than replacing it.
  • Victim:
    Under Article 2 of the 2012 Directive, a “victim” includes a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, directly caused by a criminal offence. Family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result are also included within the scope defined by the Directive. This definition contrasts sharply with Article 3 of Taiwan’s Crime Victim Rights Protection Act, which focuses primarily on infringements of life, body, and sexual autonomy.
  • General and Specialist Support Services:
    Articles 8 and 9 regulate general and specialist victim support services. General support services are, in principle, available to all victims of crime, while specialist support services provide more specialised assistance according to the type of crime, the victim’s personal characteristics or specific needs. The 2026 amendments further strengthen targeted and integrated support, enabling judicial, medical, psychological and social services to respond collectively to victims with multiple needs.
  • Individual Assessment:
    Article 22 requires an assessment of victims’ support and protection needs based on their personal circumstances, the type and nature of the crime, the impact of the harm, their relationship with the offender and the risks to their safety. The assessment must be initiated at the earliest possible stage and reviewed and updated as the victim’s circumstances change.
  • Core International Crimes:
    In this text, “core international crimes” serves as an umbrella term for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, as defined in Articles 6, 7, 8, and 8bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The 2026 amendments (in Articles 9 and 22) explicitly require that attention be paid to the specific support and protection needs of victims of these crimes.
  • Hate Crime and Crime Committed with a Bias or Discriminatory Motive:
    Articles 9 and 22 explicitly refer to “victims of hate crime.” Furthermore, individual assessments under Article 22 require particular attention to “victims of a crime committed with a bias or discriminatory motive.” While conceptually similar, they are not identical: the former focuses on the classification of the offence, whereas the latter approaches the issue from the perspective of the motive and the actual risks faced by the victim, thereby broadening the identification of discriminatory offences.
  • Online Forms of Those Crimes:
    Article 22 requires individual assessments to pay specific attention to the “online forms” of relevant crimes. This scope extends beyond strictly defined “cybercrime” to encompass offences and abuses that could occur offline but are perpetrated, extended, or aggravated via social media, communication platforms, or other digital tools. Thus, the 2026 amendments do not create a separate “cybercrime victims regime”; rather, they extend existing victims’ rights and individual assessments into the digital environment to prevent new gaps in protection from emerging.

5. Reading Guide

When reading the Directive, it is essential first to understand the relationship among three documents. The 2012 Directive is the original Victims’ Rights Directive. The 2026 Directive is an amending directive and sets out only which provisions are inserted, deleted or amended. The consolidated text incorporates the amendments into the 2012 Directive and is therefore the most convenient version for consulting the complete provisions as amended. The consolidated text is, however, a reading tool and does not constitute a separate new legal act.

The recitals to the 2026 Directive help explain the background to the amendments, their policy objectives and the reasons for changes to particular measures. They should not, however, be relied upon alone to determine the precise content of legal rights. The legislative negotiations between 2023 and 2026 involved substantial compromises, and some of the reforms originally proposed were ultimately narrowed or removed. Determining the obligations imposed on Member States and the rights granted to victims therefore requires careful reference to the operative provisions of the final adopted text.

In practice, readers may first consult the 2026 Directive to identify “what has changed” and then refer to the consolidated text to determine “what the law now provides”. For example, provisions on support services can be found in Articles 8, 9 and 9a; assistance at court premises and procedural rights are addressed in Articles 10a, 10b and 13; and Article 22 is central to individual assessments and protection needs. A policy objective mentioned in the recitals should not, by itself, be taken to mean that the operative provisions establish a legal obligation of the same scope or intensity.

Readers seeking to understand why particular amendments were made may also consult the SWD(2022) 179 final evaluation, the Commission’s COM(2023) 424 final proposal and the European Parliament’s 2023/0250(COD) legislative procedure file. Comparing the original proposal, the legislative negotiations and the final text reveals which reforms were retained, modified or removed.

Finally, the 2026 Directive forms an important legal foundation for the current phase of reform. The European Commission is also preparing a new EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights (2026–2030), which will continue to address the implementation of the Directive, emerging forms of crime and victims’ practical needs. A complete understanding of the latest developments in EU victims’ rights therefore requires not only reading the legal provisions, but also continuing to follow national transposition measures and the development and implementation of the new Strategy.

II. Document Information

Chinese Title: 歐盟第 (EU) 2026/1472 號指令——修正第 2012/29/EU 號犯罪被害人權利、支援和保護最低標準指令(PDF Download)
English Title: Directive (EU) 2026/1472 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2026 amending Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (PDF Download)
Adopting Institutions: European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
Document Date: 17 June 2026
Official Journal: OJ L, 2026/1472, 30.6.2026
Document Number: Directive (EU) 2026/1472
CELEX Number: 32026L1472
Legislative Procedure: 2023/0250(COD)
Document Type: EU directive
Legal Effect: Binding on Member States as to the result to be achieved; transposition into national law is required in accordance with each Member State’s legal system.
Legal Status: In force
Translation Version: First edition, 28 September 2026.

III. Full Text



IV. VST Editorial Note

  • Disclaimer and Licensing: This page reproduces the official EU English text of Directive (EU) 2026/1472 and accompanies VST’s unofficial Traditional Chinese translation and the author’s overview. As Directive (EU) 2026/1472 amends Directive 2012/29/EU, questions concerning current EU law should be examined by reference to the 2012 Directive, the 2026 amending Directive, the latest EUR-Lex consolidated text and the relevant national transposition measures. Legal interpretation and practical application should be based on the official texts published in the Official Journal of the European Union and made available through EUR-Lex. The overview reflects the author’s personal academic and practical views and does not represent the position of any government authority, EU institution or other organisation. Unless otherwise indicated, original VST content is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. This licence applies only to content that VST is entitled to license and does not extend to official EU legal texts or other third-party materials.
  • Suggested Citation: I-Min Hsiao, “Directive (EU) 2026/1472 Amending the EU Victims’ Rights Directive | VST Overview & Official English Text,” Victim Support Taiwan, https://victim-support.tw/en/eu-victims-rights-directive-2026-1472-en/ (accessed [insert date]).
  • Revision Log:
    28 September 2026: Published the first VST English-page edition accompanying the Traditional Chinese translation.
    3 October 2026: Rewrote the VST Overview and Document Information.