Considering that the directive imposed the obligation to ensure that access to any victim support services is not dependent on a victim making a formal complaint with regard to a criminal offence to a competent authority, we believe that it would be useful for the future instrument to pay special attention to explaining how the term is understood and used in the extrajudicial procedures to which it refers to.
MJ
Ministry of Justice
Public authority · Romania
not in the EU Transparency RegisterThis organization files on consultations without a register number, so its record here is built from its filings alone. Register facts — staff, costs, accreditations — are not available for it.
4
positions filed
in the 583 files tracked
4
legislative files
of 583 tracked
0
with a full position paper
attached to a submission
Counts here are a floor, never a total: they cover the 583 consultation files tracked so far (42,224 submissions, mostly 2025–26), so an organization's real filing history is larger, not smaller.
Track Ministry in PolicySpeak: request access →
Work at Ministry of Justice? so we know who speaks for it.
Their record over time
Ministry of Justice filed 4 positions between 5 Feb 2021 and 18 Sept 2025, across 4 of the 583 legislative files tracked here.
2021 · 2 filed2022 · 1 filed2025 · 1 filed
What they argued
1) The definition of follow-up seems too broad for the directive to function effectively, even in conjunction with the definition of feedback. Virtually any procedure following the receipt of a report is considered a follow-up.
The Ministry of Justice in Sweden shares the view that the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of digitalisation to maintain access to justice during these difficult times. Access to justice is an important fundamental right which must constantly be improved and ensured, including through making the judicial system more efficient.
The Latvian courts support the objective of the initiative to establish common rules to facilitate the transfer of criminal proceedings between the competent authorities of the Member States, pointing out that, prima facie, this framework could be best achieved through option 3.
Filed in Latvian · English published by the European Commission
Looking for an argument rather than an organization? Search every submission for a phrase and see everyone who used it.
Put Ministry of Justice next to another organization. Same files, same register facts, side by side. Compare →
Turns up on the same files
Organizations that also filed on at least two of the same consultations. A shared interest in the same dossiers — not evidence of coordination, and we do not suggest any.
Is this your organization?
Everything on this page comes from Ministry of Justice’s own submissions to the European Commission — we have added nothing and interpreted nothing. If something is wrong or out of date, email info@policyspeak.com and we will correct it. If you are an individual named in a record, our privacy policy sets out your rights to correction, objection and removal.
Quotes are verbatim from submissions published by the European Commission, trimmed to their opening passage and never summarized by a model. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.