Delivering judgment on 2 October 2025, the CJEU confirmed that an award of only €642.62 for “out-of-pocket” expenses granted by the Irish Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal to a man who suffered serious injuries in an attack, including permanent vision loss, could not represent “fair and appropriate” compensation within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC.

Background

On 12 July 2015, LD, a Spanish national residing in Ireland, was the victim of a violent criminal assault committed by a group in front of his home in Dublin. LD suffered permanent partial loss of vision and other serious injuries, including mental distress and anxiety.

Having been absent from work following the assault, LD was dismissed by his employer and was unemployed at the time that he submitted his application for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal (CICT) under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted.

The CICT found that LD had suffered personal injuries and other material loss and that he had not obtained compensation from other sources, awarding him an ex gratia sum of €642.62 in respect of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him as a direct result of the crime.

In August 2019, LD brought High Court proceedings seeking inter alia a declaration that the Scheme is incompatible with Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims and/or Articles 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the scheme failed to provide for fair and appropriate compensation by reason of the exclusion of general damages, and a declaration that as a victim of crime, LD was entitled to such damages for pain and suffering.

The High Court

The High Court stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

1. Does the obligation imposed on member states by Article 12(2) of the Directive to provide “fair and appropriate compensation” to victims of violent intentional crimes, require that a victim be compensated for both material and non-material loss within the meaning of Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV (Case C[‑]129/19, EU:C:2020:566)?

2. If so, what forms of loss fall within the scope of “non-material loss”?

3. Does a victim’s “pain and suffering” fall within the scope of “non-material loss”?

4. If the answers to questions 1 and 3  is yes, and bearing in mind that member states are required to ensure that their schemes are financially viable, what relationship should the “fair and appropriate compensation awarded to a victim pursuant to the Directive bear to the damages in tort that would be awarded to that victim as against the relevant perpetrator as tort-feasor?

5. Can the compensation established for victims of violent intentional crimes under the Irish scheme be regarded as “fair and appropriate compensation to victims” within the meaning of Article 12(2) of the Directive if a victim is awarded the sum of €645.65 as compensation for a serious eye injury resulting in permanent sight impairment?

The CJEU

The CJEU summarised the essential question asked by the High Court as being whether Article 12(2) of the Directive must be interpreted as precluding a national scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes which, as a matter of principle, excludes, as regards non-material harm, any compensation for pain and suffering endured by such victims.

Noting the obligation on member states pursuant to the Directive to ensure that national rules provide for fair and appropriate compensation for victims of violent intentional crimes, the CJEU considered that such compensation is not necessarily required to ensure the complete reparation of material and non-material loss suffered by that victim, but that a member state would exceed its discretion under that provision if the national provisions provided compensation that was purely symbolic or manifestly insufficient having regard to the seriousness of the consequences for the victim.

In this regard, the CJEU stated that the compensation represents a contribution to the reparation of material and non-material losses suffered by the victim and “may be regarded as ‘fair and appropriate’ only if it compensates, to an appropriate extent, the suffering to which those victims have been exposed”.

Observing that the relevant provision does not contain express reference to non-material harm, the CJEU reasoned that its broad wording “in no way” limits the scope of the compensation provided for therein as regards the types of harm in respect of which it is capable of contributing to reparation.

The CJEU further observed inter alia that the scope of the concept of ‘victims’ as contained in Article 12(2) is clarified by the definition set out in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2012/29, which refers to a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence. 

In that regard, the CJEU determined that it is clear from the wording of the latter provision that it covers both victims who have suffered material harm and those who have suffered non-material harm, including pain and suffering.

In the circumstances, the CJEU found it apparent that no distinction can be drawn according to the types of harm suffered or the consequences to which those victims may be exposed.

In the circumstances, the Court held that the compensation provided for in Article 12(2) of the Directive must be capable of contributing to the reparation of any non-material harm, including harm relating to pain and suffering, and that the compensation for the harm suffered by LD could not, subject to verification by the referring court, constitute fair and appropriate compensation within the meaning of Article 12(2) if non-material harm was excluded from that compensation in so far as it would cover only part of the harm suffered by him and could not be regarded as taking into account the seriousness of the consequences of the crime perpetrated against him.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the CJEU answered that Article 12(2) of the Directive:

LD v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal & Ors, Case C‑284/24, EU:C: 2025:741