Help us make the FRA website better for you!
Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.
The Victims’ Rights Directive requires empowering victims and encouraging them to report crimes to the police (recital 63). At the trial stage, the Directive provides victims with the right to participate actively in criminal proceedings, including by providing evidence (Article 10(1)). The need for effective communication with victims and a safe environment for them to report crime is a priority in the EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020–2025).
All victims should be able to effectively report crime in practice. However, FRA’s data over the years have consistently pointed to a major obstacle to the realisation of victims’ rights as well as to the effective investigation and prosecution of crime: that of ‘underreporting’ by victims to the police and other services. Underreporting may result in failure to ensure access to justice for all on an equal footing, and it undermines victims’ rights to support and protection. It also compromises the effectiveness of national authorities in investigating and punishing crime, as most crime is not brought to their attention.
In comparison with officially recorded crime statistics, which are largely based on crimes that victims do report to the police and which make it into the criminal justice system’s official records, the majority of crimes go unreported. This disparity between officially recorded crime rates and what crime victimisation surveys reveal about the scale of under-reporting has been consistently shown over several decades by those countries that carry out surveys on crime victimisation. FRA’s own survey data strongly confirm that underreporting is not an isolated phenomenon that is particular to any single group of the population surveyed by FRA. On the contrary, it applies to the general population and cuts across all groups. This is especially the case in relation to experiences of violent crime and harassment, where victims generally do not report the vast majority of incidents to the authorities. For example (see Figure 1):
- With regard to the general population and violent crime, results from FRA’s Crime, safety and victims’ rights – Fundamental Rights Survey (2021) (35,000 survey respondents), show that victims only reported 30 % of incidents involving physical violence to the police in the five years before the survey in the EU-27. The EU gender-based violence survey (2024, 114,023 respondents) similarly points to low reporting rates of incidents of violence against women to the police, with 13.9 % of victims of physical violence or threats, or sexual violence by any perpetrator during their lifetime reporting to the police. The survey was conducted by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE, with results published in 2024.
- Survey findings of particular groups in the population reveal similarly low reporting rates to the police (see Figure 1). Where FRA has undertaken the same survey repeatedly and data can be compared between different rounds of the surveys, little improvement has been noted over the years.
Figure 1 – Reporting rates of physical violence by victims to the police, by FRA survey (%)
Notes: The figure uses data from different FRA surveys and shows the reporting rates to the police for experiences of violence.
For the specific questions asked in the surveys, see the related questionnaires and technical reports.
i) Reporting rate to the police of physical violence experienced in the 5 years before the survey;
ii) Reporting rate of physical violence or threats, or sexual violence by any perpetrator during lifetime;
iii) Reporting rate to the police of most recent incident of physical or sexual violence because of identifying as LGBTIQ in the 5 years before the survey;
iv) Reporting rate to the police of most recent incident of racist violence in the past 5 years;
v) Reporting rate to the police of the most recent incident of physical attack because of being Roma in the past 5 years;
vi) Reporting rate to the police of most recent incident of racist violence in the past 5 years;
vii) Reporting rate to the police of antisemitic violence in the past 5 years
Source: FRA (2021), Crime, Safety and Victim’s Rights – Fundamental Rights Survey; FRA, EIGE, Eurostat (2024), EU gender-based violence survey - Key results. Experiences of women in the EU-27; FRA (2024), LGBTIQ at a crossroads: progress and challenges;FRA (2024),Being Muslim in the EU – Experiences of Muslims; FRA (2022), Roma in 10 European Countries. Main results – Roma survey; FRA (2023), Being Black in the EU; and FRA (2024), Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism – EU Survey of Jewish People.
Regarding crimes other than violence, FRA data show that rates of reporting harassment tend to be generally significantly lower than rates of reporting violent crime, a finding that cuts across all surveys (relating to both the general population and particular groups of the population):
- 11 % of people in the EU-27 (general population) who experienced harassment in the five years before the survey reported the most recent incident to the police (Crime, safety and victims’ rights – Fundamental Rights Survey, 2021).
- 3 % of respondents to FRA’s survey LGBTIQ at a crossroads: progress and challenges, 2024 (see data explorer) reported incidents of hate-motivated harassment experienced in the five years before the survey to the police.
- 6 % of respondents to FRA’s survey Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism, 2024 reported the most recent incident of (online or offline) harassment in the last 12 months to the police.
Across all surveys, people who did not report the most recent incident of violence to the police were asked to indicate one or more reasons why they did not report. Responses to all FRA surveys relating to crime victimisation show that the reasons victims give for not reporting are broadly similar across all surveys. There is also little change over the years where FRA has undertaken the same survey repeatedly and data can be compared between different rounds of the surveys. FRA’s qualitative research on crime victims - which uses in-depth interviews with victims and criminal justice practitioners, alongside victim support organisations - backs this up (see, for example, Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019).
Many victims (across all FRA surveys) responded that they did not report crime victimisation because they did not consider the incident to be serious enough or worth reporting, they did not wish anyone to know, or they decided to handle it themselves or with the help of family or friends. Generally, such reasons are more often given in relation to non-violent incidents such as harassment – which could also help to explain a lower reporting rate for such crimes compared with violent crime.
Victims across all FRA surveys also mention ‘low trust in police’ as a frequent reason for not reporting (see Chapter 2 on ‘Ensuring protection against secondary victimisation’ for more on this). Other frequent responses victims gave for not reporting highlight areas that need attention to increase reporting rates. They include the following three reasons:
- “Nothing would happen or change by reporting the incident; the police won’t do anything about it”.
- One in five people in the EU-27 (general population) (18 % for violence and 20% for harassment) did not report as they believed that the police would “not do anything about the incident” (Crime, safety and victims’ rights – Fundamental Rights Survey, 2021).
-
Closely related, the answer “Nothing would happen or change by reporting the incident” was the most commonly given reason for not reporting the most recent incident of bias-motivated violence or harassment. At least one third of respondents to each of FRA’s surveys indicated this reason, including:
- 44 % of respondents to FRA’s survey LGBTIQ at a crossroads: progress and challenges, 2024 who did not report the most recent hate-motivated physical or sexual attack and 36 % of those who did not report the latest incident of harassment.
- 36% of victims who experienced racist violence, in addition to 47 % of people who did not report harassment (Being Black in the EUsurvey, 2023).
- 61 % of victims of antisemitic violence, 52 % of victims of antisemitic harassment (Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism, 2024).
- 41% of Muslim victims of racist violence (Being Muslim in the EU – Experiences of Muslims, 2024).
Findings from FRA’s qualitative work on victims (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019), which included interviews with 83 adult victims of violent crime, including 35 victims of intimate partner violence, shed light on what lies behind victims feeling that little would change or be done by the police as a result of reporting. For example, some victims interviewed by FRA (who had reported to the police) described having to report several separate instances of violence before an investigation was initiated, while others described the police as unresponsive. One interviewee spoke of the feeling of having to prove that her complaints were trustworthy, while other victims had to report the same crime multiple times before their complaints were accepted.
Tellingly, some of the victims who did report to the police told FRA that they would not report to the police again if they fell victim to a similar offence. Underlining this point, FRA survey findings also include information that highlights victims’ frequent dissatisfaction with how the police treat their complaints (see more on this in Chapter 2 on ‘Ensuring protection against secondary victimisation’ and ‘Training’).
- “Reporting is too burdensome”.
- Another frequently cited reason for not reporting is because respondents perceive procedures to be too bureaucratic, time consuming or inconvenient. For example:
- 11 % of respondents (general population Fundamental Rights Survey, 2021) who did not report violent incidents and 14% who did not report harassment cited this reason.
- 20 % of victims of racist harassment and 19 % of victims of racist violence also gave this reason (Being Black in the EU, 2023).
Again, this is backed up by FRA’s qualitative data (Justice for victims of violent crime, Part II, 2019), which highlight that one important aspect of the criminal justice system’s accessibility is how easy or difficult it is for victims to report to the police. This depends on factors such as ensuring procedures are less bureaucratic and accommodating the rights and needs of victims, as well as fostering victim-friendly attitudes among the police and other practitioners.
- “Did not report due to fear or shame”.
Significant numbers of respondents to FRA surveys, as well as interviewees covered by FRA’s qualitative research, have consistently mentioned not reporting due to fear or shame. These answers were given in FRA’s surveys in response to questions about reasons for not reporting - such as being afraid of intimidation by the perpetrator/s, fearing problems with residence permits/residence or visa status (in the case of third country nationals), fear of inappropriate reactions, fear of losing children or feeling ashamed or to blame for the incident. For example:
- About one in ten respondents to the Fundamental Rights Survey (general population) did not report the most recent incident of violence to the police for fear of reprisals.
- 15 % of Jewish respondents to FRA’s survey Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism, 2024 did not report antisemitic violence because they feared the offender or reprisals.
- Many respondents to FRA’s 2014 Violence against women survey cited fear of the offender or of reprisals as a frequent reason for not contacting the police following the most serious incident of violence (11% in cases of physical partner violence; 20% in cases of sexual partner violence).
- One in five women who had experienced sexual violence (both partner and non-partner violence) did not report due to shame or embarrassment.
- 20 % of respondents to FRA’s survey LGBTIQ at a crossroads: progress and challenges, 2024 had not reported the most recent hate-motivated physical or sexual attack because they felt ashamed or embarrassed and did not want anyone to know about it.
- A FRA report (Severe labour exploitation, workers’ perspectives, 2019) highlighted that one of the main impediments to reporting to the police for victims of labour exploitation with irregular residence status was fear of being returned to their country of origin.
Reporting different types of crime In stark contrast to other crime types covered by FRA’s research, FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey indicated high rates of people reporting property crime or online banking or payment card fraud. For such crimes, reporting is typically a prerequisite for receiving compensation for the incident. For example, 73 % of burglaries were reported to the police, while 95 % of online banking or payment card frauds were reported (to the police or other authorities). Reasons for such differences in the reporting behaviour of victims with regard to these crimes could be linked to well established practices and known beneficial outcomes for victims (e.g. the obligation to report property crime for insurance claim purposes), in contrast with the barriers victims face in reporting especially difficult experiences of violent crime, in particular sexual crimes. |
Specific challenges in reporting may be particular to certain groups in vulnerable situations, which need to be taken into account when seeking solutions to encourage reporting and to provide effective support services to victims (Encouraging hate crime reporting, 2021). Gender, alongside ethnic, migrant or socioeconomic status and other factors, can add additional barriers for victims when it comes to reporting.
Figure 2 – Specific challenges in reporting victimisation for certain groups of victims
Specific challenges in reporting victimisation for certain groups of victims |
Specific challenges for victims with disabilities:
Source: FRA (2015), Equal protection for all victims of hate crime: The case of people with disabilities; FRA (2015), Violence against children with disabilities: Legislation, policies and programmes in the EU. |
Specific challenges for child victims:
Source: FRA (2023), Mapping of national child protection systems in the European Union; FRA (2017), Child-friendly justice – Perspectives and experiences of professionals on children’s participation in civil and criminal judicial proceedings in 10 EU Member States; FRA (2019), Children deprived of parental care found in an EU Member State other than their own: A guide to enhance child protection focusing on victims of trafficking; FRA (2015), Violence against children with disabilities: legislation, policies and programmes in the EU. |
Specific challenges for victims who are asylum seekers, refugees or irregular migrants:
Source: FRA (2016), Current migration situation in the EU: hate crime; FRA (2019), Protecting migrant workers from exploitation in the EU: Workers’ perspectives. |
Specific challenges for victims living in institutional and other segregated settings:
Source: FRA (2023), Underpinning victims’ rights. FRA is currently conducting research on the fundamental rights protection of persons with disabilities in institutions (results available in 2025). For more information, see the project page. |
Specific challenges for victims of gender-based violence:
Source: FRA (2014), Violence against women survey |
FRA research (Underpinning victims’ rights, 2023) has highlighted various key actions needed to increase reporting rates. For example:
- Improve police responses to victims – see Chapter 2.
- Provide reliable victim support services – see Chapter 3.
- Introduce alternative measures for victims to report crime.
- Establish systems of proactive monitoring.
While the first two of these factors will be looked at in Chapters 2 and 3, the following section focuses on alternative measures for victims to report (such as via third party reporting) and on proactive monitoring of places/institutions where victimisation can be ‘hidden’, to illustrate concrete actions that can address some of the most challenging or frequent reasons why victims do not report.
When it comes to increasing the options that victims have to report crime and overcome the first hurdle of deciding whether to report an incident, effective practices do exist. One such measure is third-party reporting, which has proven to be especially helpful to victims who may be in a particularly vulnerable situation due to the nature of the crime they have experienced (for example hate crime) and/or their personal characteristics or situation.
Third-party reporting allows victims, family members or witnesses to inform an appropriately trained third party – such as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) or community organisation – about a crime. This ‘third party’ can then, with the victim’s consent, report the crime to the police without victims having to get in direct contact with the police themselves, thus facilitating victims’ access to support, protection and justice.
Third-party reporting is distinct from third parties representing victims in criminal proceedings. Under the jurisdictions of the EU Member States, most crimes can be reported by anyone who is aware of a crime (e.g. as a witness). Third-party reporting by an organisation such as a community-focused civil society organisation is a specific form of such crime reporting.
FRA data show that although most victims who inform others about a crime do so via crime reporting to the police, victims also often choose to seek assistance from or approach entities other than the police. This practice highlights a clear role for third parties to help bring crimes to the attention of authorities and protect and support victims in the process. For example:
- According to the Fundamental Rights survey (2021), besides reporting an incident to the police (30%), 17% of victims of violence were in contact with medical services, and 6% contacted a specialised victim support organisation.
- Of those 18% of victims who reported or informed about the most recent physical or sexual attack, aside from reporting to the police (11%), a significant number of respondents to FRA’s survey LGBTIQ at a crossroads: progress and challenges, 2024 also informed LGBTIQ organisations (3%), someone in the organisation or institution where the incident happened (e.g. at work, service provider - 3%), a hospital or other medical service (3%), or a general victim support organisation (1%).
- Respondents to FRA’s survey Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism, 2024 who reported or informed about experiencing violence in the last 5 years, reported not only to the police (30%), but also informed leaders of Jewish organisations (11%) and Jewish community organisations (10%), for example.
FRA research (e.g. Encouraging hate crime reporting, 2021) shows that informing third parties about the crime who may then report the crime to the competent authorities (police or prosecution) may significantly improve reporting rates by tackling some of the reasons victims consistently give for not reporting, as outlined above. For example:
- With regard to the feeling that nothing will change upon reporting, third-party reporting can play a role in explaining victims’ rights and opportunities for redress.
- When it comes to victims’ belief that reporting is too burdensome, third-party reporting centres or services are often embedded in the community and are more accessible, approachable and convenient for victims to report to. This is evidenced in the data FRA collected on the behaviour of victims related to who they reach out to in the aftermath of their victimisation (see Chapter 3 on ‘Ensuring effective victim support services’). It can also help to address the barrier to reporting presented by low levels of trust in the police. At the same time, some specialist victim support services – such as shelters for victims of domestic violence or rape crisis support centres – can be few and far between, with victims in rural settings not having access to such services that tend to be based in larger urban centres.
Beyond lowering barriers for victims to report, there are other potential benefits of encouraging and strengthening the possibilities of third-party reporting (for governments, police, third parties and victims themselves), such as:
- Uncovering certain patterns in crime and victimisation, which often remain hidden due to high rates of non-reported crime to the police. Third party reporting can add another layer to what is known through official crime statistics and crime victimisation surveys. It can thus increase authorities’ and governments’ understanding of crime and victimisation. This in turn can help to steer them towards more victim-focused policy making. One example of this is FRA’s annually published overview of data on antisemitism, which is based on both official (e.g. officially recorded crime) and unofficial sources (such as information from international organisations) in the EU Member States and in Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia.
- Increasing community engagement of police via reporting centres or services, which can improve confidence in law enforcement by such centres and the people they support (Encouraging hate crime reporting, 2021).
Some organisations are designated as reporting centres or services and are housed in different physical locations such as religious centres, housing associations, medical centres, schools and libraries. Third-party reporting services are usually run by specialist and community-focused civil society organisations that provide online, telephone and in-person assistance to report to the police, and access to victim support services, either directly or through referrals (Encouraging hate crime reporting, 2021).
To facilitate crime reporting to the police by the third-party organisations and to make the cooperation between the police and such third-party centres or services more effective, the police and such services could, for example:
- Agree on protocols that ensure that the police can easily register/record incidents received through third party reporting. For example, when it comes to third-party reports in which the victim’s name and other details are withheld, the police need to have a legal mandate to accept and register such reports, regardless of whether they will lead to a criminal investigation or be used for other reasons, in particular for risk analysis or to design and implement preventive policies and measures.
- Ensure confidentiality and data protection safeguards, as third-party reporting also presents some challenges, particularly in consideration of confidentiality of victims’ data or victim anonymity.
Guidance on how third-party reporting can combat hate crime In the context of hate crime, national and EU-level experts have elaborated key guiding principles which Member States can implement. These principles outline the benefits and use of third-party reporting as an alternative reporting option for victims and include:
These principles, while not legally binding, are endorsed by the High Level Group on combating hate crime and hate speech - an informal Commission Expert Group set up to foster exchange of good practices and how to fill existing gaps and better counter hate crime and hate speech. It is composed of experts from national authorities, international organisations, EU agencies and some EU-wide civil society organisations. |
As mentioned above, people living in institutions (for example children, older people, prisoners and people with disabilities) or those living in isolation (such as victims of labour exploitation or trafficking in human beings) live in situations controlled by others where they have little chance of informing the police about their victimisation or of reaching out to third parties on their own.
Proactive monitoring and access to independent and accessible complaint mechanisms can counter this and enable victims to safely report their victimisation (Underpinning victims’ rights, 2023). Without such proactive support, many victims will continue to have no practical opportunity to report their victimisation to the police; hence, certain crimes will go undetected, perpetrators will enjoy impunity and victims’ rights to access criminal justice will remain theoretical and illusory.
Proactive monitoring of closed institutions includes independent authorities making unannounced visits, during which they can find ways to contact and talk to potential victims about their experiences without victims fearing being exposed to harassment or retribution from the offenders - which can include members of the organisation’s staff (Underpinning victims’ rights, 2023).
FRA data (Protecting migrant workers from exploitation in the EU: boosting workplace inspections, 2018) show that proactive monitoring of workplaces posing a high risk of involving trafficking in human beings and/or labour exploitation can help such victims to report crime. One example of this is the work of investigative units in labour inspectorates that are specialised in combating labour exploitation and trafficking in human beings. Where monitoring staff are trained to spot the signs of trafficking and exploitation, it is more likely to result in a positive outcome for victims of labour exploitation, along with effective investigation and prosecution of exploitative employers. FRA’s training manual How workplace inspectors can protect third-country workers’ rights (2024) presents some key actions workplace inspectors can take to ensure migrant workers’ access to justice.
Finally, despite evidence of the high prevalence of inter-prisoner violence (in addition to a risk of violence from prison staff), reports to the authorities and subsequent criminal proceedings are rare. Monitoring bodies and FRA research also highlight inadequate monitoring and prisoner safety measures by Member States. This could be countered and safe reporting ensured if Member States provide more effective proactive monitoring, and establish safe channels for prisoners to report crime. For example, Member States could establish commissions or bodies to regularly visit detention facilities, as the majority of them have done under the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Underpinning victims’ rights, 2023). FRA’s online Criminal Detention Database outlines information on detention conditions in all 27 EU Member States related to, among other things, protection against violence.