Working Group Meeting

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT Directorate F: Social Statistics Doc. CR/WG2017/13 MINUTES, DRAFT 29/05/2017 Statistics on Crime and Criminal Justice Working Group Meeting Euroforum, Luxembourg, March

2 1. Welcome and introduction The Working Group Meeting about Statistics on Crime and Criminal Justice is a yearly, invite-only event. All participants were physically present; the language for all hearings and documents was English. The meeting was chaired by Didier Dupré, Head of unit F4 Income and living conditions; Quality of life, Eurostat. Mr. Dupré welcomed the participants and informed shortly about organizational changes since the 2016 meeting. Except Greece, Cyprus and Malta, all EU Member States were represented, in addition Norway, Switzerland, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo. European Commission Directorates-General for Migration and Home Affairs, and Justice and Consumers were represented, as well as The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the European Institute for Gender Equality, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, The European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, and the Luxembourg office of Gesellschaft für Organisation, Planung und Ausbildung. In addition were invited experts from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and Institut für Kriminalwissenschaften. 2. Adoption of the agenda (Doc. CR/WG2017/2) Mr Dupré presented the draft agenda and described the main topics. The assembly was invited to propose more items for discussions under point 11 of the agenda. The agenda was adopted as proposed. On the second day, the assembly agreed to change the sequence slightly due to travel arrangements of some of the speakers. 3. Adoption of the draft minutes of the previous meeting (Doc. CR/WG2016/08) Mr Dupré informed the Working Group that the draft minutes of the previous meeting had been available since April last year, and invited proposals or comments. The minutes were adopted as proposed. 4. Update on Commission policies and activities Presentation: Richard Caine (DG HOME) informed about upcoming activities. An action plan for the next 4 years is under preparation, which will set out the Commission's plans in the area of data on crime, including desired topics for future expansion of regular crime statistics. In March, DG HOME will launch a call for tender for a survey of data availability for offences that are not covered yet and where data availability has not already been assessed via an exploratory data collection. The results of this survey will provide a basis for decisions about any expansion of regular crime statistics. DG HOME stated support for the ongoing implementation of the ICCS, and aired an idea of future standardization of recording systems. Discussion: Eurostat expressed that data availability surveys indeed has advantages over explorative data collections. There was some discussion about the treatment of offences which would often be encountered in combination with other offences, such as organized crime (as distinct from offences 1

3 carried out by organised crime, e.g. drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, etc.) and hate crime, and how to deal with these in light of the principle offence rule widely in application. Questions about SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) indicators regarding crime were raised, since some overlap new demand for data on offences. Conclusion: There was wide agreement that decisions about expanding the data collection should be based on evidence of availability of statistics, which in most cases means waiting for the results of the availability survey. Eurostat will assist and coordinate work on availability studies and future expansion, according to current agreements. Eurostat also made it clear that data for the SDG indicators will only be provided for topics where there already exists a collection routine. Presentation: Peter David (DG HOME) informed about policy needs for statistics related to the facilitation of irregular migration, and explained the distinction between the ICCS definition of "migrant smuggling" and the definition of "facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence", as in the EU legislation. In addition to the slightly different definitions, there is need for separate figures on facilitated entry/transit and residence to be collected. As it emerged from the preliminary results of the Evaluation of the Facilitators Package implementation, it is clear that better statistics are needed for measuring the effectiveness and impact of EU legislation on the facilitation of irregular migration. The assembly was encouraged to send data and metadata as much as possible, even in cases where many figures might be missing. Furthermore to provide information on how these different definitions of the offence of migrant smuggling are recorded nationally. Discussion: Eurostat informed about the two recent data collection questionnaires on these topics, including a few selected results. Concerns were raised about interpreting changes over time, and appeal for viewing migrant smuggling in a wider context, i.e. also being able to measure illegal entries. While acknowledging the importance of the EU legal and policy needs, Eurostat proposed to check if the ICCS figures could also be derived from the contributions of Member States without posing too much burden for respondents. DG HOME stated their readiness to answer questions and inform about the definitions and details when requested. Conclusion: Eurostat will review all the 2015-data as part of the development of the regular data collection and consult DG HOME along the process. The goal is to incorporate the topics into the regular collection, which will be launched by the end of Presentation: Sammy Lauritsen (DG JUST) informed on the coverage and quality of data collected for non-criminal justice, with emphasis on court data as well as the pilot collection of data regarding anti-money laundering. Complete data for the various court stages are needed in order to evaluate the efficiency of the justice system. DG JUST s main interest was to know the reasons for missing data and if some of the Member States, who do not currently deliver data, would do so in the future. Unlike the general court efficiency statistics, the directive on anti-money laundering contains an article providing the details for the statistics are obliged to report. DG JUST launched a pilot questionnaire in late2016, and data collection is still ongoing (even if first results were published in the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard). The Commission will discuss a revision of the questionnaire, including the possibility for future integration with the regular data collection. Discussion: in some cases the missing data can be explained by long production time/limited number of updates to the online database, and a later data collection time could reduce this problem. There were also clearing up about some of the technical points, and NSIs expressed wishes to 2

4 become more involved in the revision of the questionnaire, if the anti-money laundering data were to be collected by them. Conclusion: Following the work on anti-money laundering, NSIs are ready to be more involved in the development of the data collection tool, also with a view to the potential future integration in the annual data collection. The limited coverage of comprehensive court statistics was acknowledged, as a number of Member States are not able to supply complete data. Regarding the regular statistics, Eurostat will continue development work according to current agreements. Presentation: Lucie Davoine (DG JUST) informed on focused actions against violence against women and results from the Eurobarometer on attitudes towards violence against women. Data on perpetrator-victim relation are important, and there is certainly room for improvement. Even for core offences where perpetrator-victim relation is already requested, such as homicide, there are substantial data omissions. The relatively newly started focused actions involve local, national and EU-level action. Financial support to Member States in developing and implementing practical and targeted information, awareness-raising and education activities to help prevent and combat violence against women. Discussion: As national campaigns are underway to increase awareness and reporting, concerns were raised about misinterpreting increase in statistical figures. Conclusion: In the current situation Eurostat can only encourage more complete data to be sent, for instance on the perpetrator-victim relation. Furthermore, the new survey on gender-based violence will supply relevant information for these actions. 5-7 Eurostat-UNODC joint annual data collection review of 2016 and plans for 2017 Presentation: Arsela Sturc (GOPA) informed about the results, the quality and recommendations for future annual collections. Generally, the yearly data collection covers the previous year, with the possibility of revising figures for the 5 years before that. In order to reduce burden and increase quality, the earlier figures are prefilled in each national questionnaire. This must be taken into account when the questionnaire is to be redesigned in 2017, due to UN-CTS revision. In 2017 the response rate was a bit higher than last year; however some countries (e.g. IS, NO, TR) did not provide the data yet. The methodology guide is to be largely unchanged from last year, while the metadata presently is under revision. Discussion: The changes in penal codes or other data revisions delay the data transmission for some other countries (e.g. FR, UK, DK, PT). New data on arrested persons will become available in DK to be delivered next year. Further improvements in the method of data collection like for instance creation of one common questionnaire for Eurostat and UNODC may be very helpful in further reducing burden on the countries. Conclusion: Eurostat appreciated the cooperation with countries on the data collection and their responsiveness in the validation process. Due to the recent data revisions and updates the final sets publication may be slightly delayed. Presentation: Ole VILLUND (ESTAT.F4) presented the first results of the ESTAT 2016 data collection on THB (for reference year 2015), so far covering 24 replies (of 40 requests). The last data collection on THB was launched by Eurostat with a limited scope in However, at the current stage many of the questionnaire cells in the collections were returned empty. He further 3

5 introduced the THB data availability questionnaires for comments. Eva Dimovne Keresztes from DG HOME (Office of the EU Anti-trafficking Coordinator) presented the policy rationale for data collection on trafficking in human beings and gave an overview of development of EU-wide data collection by Eurostat and DG HOME in the past. The THB data availability questionnaire aims at assessing availability of data that could have increased since 2013 and take into account data needs in the current socio-political context. Increasing knowledge and measuring the scale of THB in the EU is based on Directive 2011/36/EU and was an important objective of the EU Strategy towards Eradicating THB and the Crime Statistics Action Plan (COM (2011) 713). Gathering statistics will be crucial for identifying and addressing policy needs for the new EU policy framework. Discussion: The last data collection on THB was launched by Eurostat with a limited scope in As many of the questionnaire cells in both types of collections were returned empty, Eurostat remarked about the importance to report blank (missing) and zero (known figure) correctly. Some definition problems on forced labour/slavery or sexual exploitation that relate to the THB were identified. Analysing ratios victim/offender to assess the data quality and comparability problems was recommended. At the same time, the data on number of victims is difficult to be collected. The police, that in most cases is a source of the information, may by principle be concentrated on registration of the offenders. For this to be analyzed, the type of registering entity (e.g. police, NGO) should be reported. The importance of collecting information on the gender of children being victims of human trafficking was also recognised. Countries underlined however, that the fact that some data may become available does not mean that it will be comparable. The national data sources can also vary, being for instance different NGO's or the police. The ICCS definition are in line with the definition used in the United Nations Trafficking in Persons Protocol and the same used in the Global Report on Trafficking in Persons published in 2016 by the UNODC. Conclusion: Given the data gaps and comparability issues that still are significant in the topic, any THB data needs to be analysed with caution and there is no intention to analyse trends. For instance, variation in the number of suspects could have explanations, which cannot be differentiated based on the data: greater awareness, more efficient law enforcement or improved recording. However, the EU needs to take policy steps and in order to do address the issue and there is a need for information of more detailed nature. A well-functioning link between the NSI's and the Ministries of Justices was underlined and can be profitable for the data gathering. Countries expressed willingness to cooperate in the data availability survey. Presentation: Michael Jandl from the UNODC informed about the process of the data collection of the 2016 round. He presented also the review process for 2017, which is mainly a result of further steps of implementation of the ICCS and to data needs deriving from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the areas of crime, violence, justice and the rule of law. In addition there are proposed structural changes, and a rotation scheme for part of the survey (two sets of variables are collected alternating years, in order to reduces response burden). The first draft of the new questionnaire of the Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UN-CTS) will be sent to the focal points still in March, the second round or the 4

6 consultation is planned for May The final questionnaire should be ready in the third quarter of UNODC also presented its works on the ICCS implementation manual. The Virtual platform on ICCS was advertised as a working tool to exchange information and questions on the classification and its national implementation. The WG members interested in cooperating in the platform are invited to request access sending an to administrator: reiterer-motolinia@a1.net. Discussion: The review of the UNODC questionnaire and data collection approach was perceived by the WG members as an occasion of even more coherent request definition for the EU. The WG participants stressed the need for a good coordination during the new questionnaire design. The aim of structuring the new questionnaire the way that it is only one file was perceived as a potential good step forward. The need for yearly data collection from victimisation surveys was questioned, and a 5-year frequency was proposed for consideration. Due to the proposed changes in both content and structure of the UN-CTS, the whole Eurostat data processing chain must be modified, in addition to integration of the questionnaires.. There was strong support from Member States to delay the launch of the 2017 data collection to the fourth quarter of 2017, in order to incorporate the updated CTS as soon as possible. Member States also expressed a general commitment to reduce the response time to two months this would be possible as a result of the request not coming before the summer holiday period. Conclusion: By wide agreement, the call for data will be launched as soon as possible after the finalisation of the revised CTS, planned for the fourth quarter of 2017, with responses due two months later. Presentation: Solène Larue, (GOPA) presented the timeline and progress of the work on translation of the ICCS and the implementation booklet. It was underlined the difference between verbatim translation and national legal terminology. Discussion: Although the main goal of the current EU work on the ICCS was to provide its verbatim translation, the issue of interpretation, that is embedded in the wording themselves, was mentioned as a complication in the process. It was stressed that national implementation will require mapping of national legal codes into ICCS categories. Some countries experiences on this are subject of the meeting point 10. In the discussion, it was also underlined that the booklet will need to address the issue of definitions differences between the ICCS and the EU legislation. Eurostat proposed to split the current booklet draft, and develop the chapter about various EU policies into a separate document. In that way the material about general information and technical implementation can be published sooner. Conclusion: The ICCS is an important tool in the collection of comparative crime statistics, therefore translation and implementation guidelines are crucial. The countries will be consulted shortly on new version of the translations. A revised draft of the booklet will be sent to WGmembers after consultation with the experts. 8. Development of a survey on gender-based violence Presentation: Eurostat presented the developments related to the preparation of the survey on 5

7 gender-based violence. The first task force meeting was held in February 2017 and this meeting was mainly brainstorming to share the experiences and exchange the national views. Three main issues were covered during this first TF meeting: existing experiences of conducting GBV / VAW surveys: good practices, key issues; indicators to measure GBV / VAW; and scope of the survey. As a main conclusion the TF agreed that a stand-alone survey (and not a survey module) will be developed and focus will be on main data needs: the indicators need to cover data required by the Istanbul Convention. The possibility to cover the total population (both women and men) was supported but should be tested and costs evaluated. The coverage should be the population 18+ as several experts pointed out that limitations in the coverage of older age groups is not relevant. Faceto-face interview is recommended to collect data on GBV / VAW; however, probably multimode data collection will be used in practice in Member States. Considering the high sensibility of the topic, it was also decided to develop a questionnaire and not only variables accompanied with guidelines, as well as the methodology on how to conduct the survey, to calculate indicators, etc. The work will continue in order to prepare a first draft questionnaire for discussion at the June TF meeting and further TF meetings will focus at all steps in developing the survey on GBV. A final draft questionnaire will be prepared for pretesting at national level in the autumn 2017 and based on the results of the pretesting a revised version of the questionnaire supported by methodology will be prepared for the pilot surveys at national level in Based on pilot surveys, the final version of the questionnaire and survey methodology will be prepared and presented for approval by the Working Group on Statistics on Crime and Criminal Justice in March 2019 for the implementation of the Survey from the second half of 2019 / beginning of 2020 onwards. The financing of the pretesting and piloting will be ensured by Eurostat grants with an important contribution from DG JUST and the European Parliament. They will be the object of a call for proposals in 2017 for around 3 to 4 million euros available in total. Discussion: In the discussion that followed, Eurostat confirmed that no regulation is currently planned for this survey and that funding to support the development and first implementation will be available. It was suggested that the survey needs to be prepared very carefully taking into account specific requirements due to high sensibility of the topic: e.g. well prepared interviewers and fieldwork. To build common an EU-wide survey all steps need to be discussed and agreed: reference period, sampling and achieving a high response rate, weighting methods, mode of the interview, security of respondents, etc. It was also pointed out that this kind of survey is very expensive based on national experiences. Conclusion: The Working Group supported the main conclusions of the task force: to develop a - separate survey, to develop a common questionnaire supported by a common methodology and to test the possibility to cover total 18+ population with the pilot survey. 9 Cooperating agencies 9a. EIGE: Administrative data collection on violence against women, Jurgita Peciuriene Presentation: Jurgita Pečiūrienė (EIGE) informed on EIGE's actions on improvement and harmonisation of data collection at EU level on violence against women: policy documents behind of that work and actions taken by EIGE since The main data needs in EIGE's work are coming from satellite domain of violence against women in EIGE's Gender Equality Index which is updated every second year, monitoring of critical area D Violence against Women in Beijing Platform of Action and population of violence area in EIGE s Gender Statistics Database. To work with the most critical data gaps, EIGE has carried out research analysing the availability and 6

8 comparability of administrative data on violence against women across the EU-28. Based on the study, the recommendations to improve the comparability and reliability of administrative data collection on rape, femicide and intimate partner violence were prepared and list of indicators was proposed. Currently, EIGE is organising the meetings at national level to adapt the proposed indicators and provide guidance to Member States on how to improve and adapt their data collection processes. Discussion: In the discussion followed, representatives of the MS showed the interest to be informed on meetings EIGE will organise at MS level. It was also pointed out that indicators proposed by EIGE on rape, femicide and intimate partner violence are similar with those included in annual data collection at the moment and therefore could be discussed to include them in the core questionnaire in the future. Conclusion: EIGE will inform WG members of the meetings at national level and welcomes a lot if members of the WG could participate in the meeting. On annual data collection, Eurostat clarified that in general should be principle to include all users' needs in common questionnaire if possible. 9b. EMCDDA: Collecting DLO data in Europe: state of play, Teodora Groshkova Presentation: Teodora Groshkova presented DLO (drug law offences) data collection in Europe. EMCDDA is coordinating DLO data collection through Reitox network of local points already long time, in most cases since This process has been revised recently and number of improvements in data collection instrument has been done including adaption of ICCS-UNODC definitions and mapping of ICCS and DLO data collection categories. Parallel data collection was done in 2015 in order to compare the results. Discussion: it was pointed out by participants that this kind of data collection is very important and interesting, however, could be difficult. It was also discussed that probably all data collection exercises on crime cannot be integrated in one questionnaire; however, it is very important that the differences and difficulties in mapping of categories in different data collection exercises were analysed and published. Conclusion: EMCDDA clarified that they are ready to coordinate EU-wide data collection on DLO and provide those data to Eurostat. 9c. FRA: Update on data collected by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights on crime and victimisation, Sami Nevala Presentation: Sami Nevala presented FRA activities, which could be relevant for this WG. Work done by FRA includes data collected with surveys, based on administrative data as well as qualitative data. In 2016, FRA completed fieldwork for second survey of immigrants and ethnic minorities in the EU, which includes immigrants, and ethnic minorities, including Roma. In FRA's work on hate crime, FRA has hosted a working party of EU Member States, which discussed measures that could be taken to improve recording of hate crimes. In FRA is also facilitating the European Commission s subgroup on methodologies for recording and collecting data on hate crime. Since 2016, FRA has collected and published regular updates on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, where additionally to core information focus has been put on trafficking, GBV, hate crimes and drug use. In 2017, FRA will be piloting a new survey on experiences and opinions related to fundamental rights. FRA is also preparing for its second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jewish people in the EU, as well as the next survey on discrimination, hate crime and living conditions of Roma. FRA will continue the analysing of 7

9 results of VAW survey, going beyond of prevalence rates and focusing another issues covered in the survey and new scientific articles will be published this year. It was also informed, that Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is currently in the process of replicating FRA s survey on violence against women in ten non-eu countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Discussion: participants were interested on FRA work in hate crimes: possible information on hate crimes against migrants from Syria and other sub-groups based on any survey or other data sources. FRA clarified that sub-groups are not limited, for example, LGBT survey included also hate crimes. However, survey on immigrants and ethnic minorities is covering hate crimes during last 12 months, which means that person needs to be in the country at least one year. Therefore, that survey cannot cover migrants moved in the country recently. Conclusion: Collecting the data and analysing the situation on migration is big issue and very difficult topic. Several events covering those issues are coming and organised by Eurostat as well. It is important to make sure that institutions working on that issues share relevant information and work already done on that issue. 10 Presentations from national offices a) Presentation: Thomas Baumann (DESTATIS) informed about linking the ICCS to German national law. Germany has a very long tradition of classifying offences and making crime statistics. There are several different recording systems, which mainly make output statistics (results of each stage). The linking work began by making correspondence tables between acts in the criminal law, national statistical classes and descriptions of the ICCS classes. The goal is to embed the ICCS into existing national statistical system. This has the advantage of being efficient, but may limit the output. Furthermore, some matches are approximate, due to language or legal differences, and some matches are not achievable. The experiences so far have revealed a need for more detailed data and metadata in order to match classifications, even when you have an existing detailed national system. Discussion: experts pointed out that using English can lead to misunderstanding because of terminology rooted in common-law legal system, while most other jurisdictions in Europe have other legal systems. There were aired an idea of translating also descriptions to all EU languages. Conclusion: Considering the more detailed descriptions is advisable even when the meaning of a short name seems obvious. Eurostat will deliberate the costs and benefits of any more translation work. b) Presentation: François Clanché (Ministerial Statistical Department for Internal Security) informed about the first work on the implementation of the ICCS in France. France has no common classification of crimes between the relevant institutions, thus not the same tradition of a crime statistics system. The implementation of the ICCS in France is therefore about building a new common national classification. A few sections of the ICCS were selected to begin with, and started with mapping at the top level. The experiences so far have revealed that the difficulties typically start at (ICCS-) level 3. Auxiliary data from some of the recording systems helps in cases where the penal code is not detailed enough alone. Discussion: in addition to the mapping difficulties, several inconsistencies were noted in the ICCS itself. A number of questions were listed about definitions and their operationalization. Conclusion: UNODC welcomes feedback through the ICCS forum, for answering questions and 8

10 assembling proposals for change to the next revision of the ICCS. c) Presentation: Alberto Violante (ISTAT) informed about the Italian work in implementing ICCS. This had its basis in an existing national classification, and started with a mapping at the most detailed level. There was identified a number of mismatch types, and mentioned examples of measurable (e.g. age limits) and non-measurable differences in definitions. The experiences so far has revealed the need for auxiliary data, e.g. about the victim, the offender or the situation, where data about the offence is not sufficient for mapping. Furthermore cases of non-transposition of EUlaw were mentioned, and of non-mapping where the law had been transposed (i.e. where the EU definition is not congruent with ICCS). Discussion: There was a general acknowledgment of the problems mentioned. Conclusion: The national implementation processes may vary a great deal due to obvious differences between the countries. After just three presentations, we already heard about both very long and very short traditions, and both top-down and bottom-up approach in the implementation processes. 11 Any other business None 12. Conclusions Mr Dupré thanked the participants and presenters for contributing to a successful meeting and recapped some of the earlier conclusions. The following actions are planned for the near future: Publication of regular crime statistics and accompanying information is planned for April. Regarding trafficking in human beings and irregular migration: o Eurostat will present some technical information about the data quality. o Regular tables will not be uploaded in the Eurobase but selected data will be published as experimental statistics in a Statistics Explained in Eurostat website, including a description of comparability issues. o The compilation of all data will be sent to DG HOME for further analyses. Data availability survey for trafficking in human beings will be dispatched by Eurostat after feedback from DG HOME experts. Development work, such as evaluating new data types and expansion of the regular data collection, will be coordinated by Eurostat according to current agreements with DGs. By the end of March UNODC will send a first proposal for the new revision of the UN-CTS to national focal points. 9

11 The regular Eurostat request for 2016 crime data is planned to be launched in the 4 th Quarter 2017, after careful integration with the revised UN-CTS. Data are to be delivered within 2 months after launch. Eurostat will invite national focal points to give feedback on a draft proposal for the booklet about the EU implementation of the ICCS, after the appointed expert has revised it. Eurostat Luxembourg,

12 List of participants WG Crime March 2017 BE Ms Patrizia Klinckhamers Federal Police Belgium BG Ms Adriana Tetevenska BNSI CZ Mr Václav Jonáš Ministry of Justice DK Ms Lisbeth Lavrsen Statistics Denmark DE Mr Thomas Baumann Destatis EE Mr Andri Ahven Ministry of Justice IE Ms Olive Loughnane CSO Ireland EL no participation ES Ms Rosa Mª Tourís López Ministry of Interior FR HR Mr François Clanché Ms Dubravka Rogic - Hadzalic Ministerial Statistical Department for Internal Security Croatian Bureau of Statistics IT Mr Alberto Violante ISTAT CY no participation LV Ms Lidija SPĀRĪTE The Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia LT Ms Vanda Binkienė Statistics Lithuania LU Ms Anne Franziskus STATEC HU Mr Ádám Ferenc PINTÉR Hungarian CSO MT NL no participation Ms Elke Moons Ms Heike Goudriaan CBS CBS AT Ms Barbara Leitner Statistics Austria PL Ms Ilona Rajecka Mr Robert Bieługa Ms Beata Gruszczyńska Central Statistical Office of Poland Ministry of Justice University of Warsaw 11

13 PT Ms Susana Neves Mr António Mendes de Almeida Statistics Portugal Directorate-General for Justice Policy, Ministry of Justice RO Ms Florina Marilena RADOI National Institute of Statistics Romania SI Ms Martina Kontelj Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia SK Mr Martin KOČIŠ Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic FI Mr Pekka Hänninen Statistics Finland SE Mr Levent Kemetli The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention UK Mr John Flatley ONS NO Ms Siri Fossanger Statistics Norway CH Ms Anne-Corinne Vollenweider Wyss OFS AL Ms Albana Berbiu INSTAT MK Ms Lidija Kostovska State Statistical Office of the Republic of Macedonia RS Ms Dragana Nikolić Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia TR Ms Fisun ŞENER Turkish Statistical Office BA Kosovo* Private expert Private expert Ms Vanja Vilipić Ms Amra IBRAHIMAGIC Mr Haris KARACIC Ms Sanije ISMAJLI Mr Jörg-Martin Jehle Mr Michael Jandl Republika Srpska Institute of Statistics RSIS Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina Federal Office for Statistics Statistical Agency of Kosovo This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the 1CJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence Institut für Kriminalwissenschaften UNODC EIGE Ms Jurgita Pečiūrienė EIGE EMCDDA Ms Teodora Groshkova EMCDDA 12

14 FRA Mr Sami Nevala FRA GOPA Ms Solène Larue Ms Arsela Sturc GOPA GOPA HEUNI Ms Natalia Ollus HEUNI DG HOME DG JUST Eurostat Mr Richard CAINE Mr Peter DAVID Ms Éva Dimovné Keresztes Ms Lucie DAVOINE Mr Sammy LAURITSEN Mr Didier DUPRE Ms Agnieszka LITWINSKA Ms Merle PAATS Mr Ole VILLUND HOME.DDG2.D.3 HOME.DDG1.C.1 HOME.PA01 JUST.D.2 JUST.C.1 Eurostat F4 Eurostat F4 Eurostat F4 Eurostat F4 13