Among other international instruments, the Convention against Torture of 1984 (Article 5, 1, c) and the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999 (Article 7, 2, a) mention passive personality, but only as an optional form of jurisdiction and only with regards to nationals. This principle’s integration into the criminal laws of EU Member States has been parsimonious. 1

Passive personality jurisdiction in criminal matters is a type of protective jurisdiction, traditionally based on the idea that an attack on a country’s national is equivalent to an attack on the country itself. In the initial hypothesis put forth in this guide, given that victims should hold the nationality of an EU Member State when they suffer an offence, passive personality is considerably less helpful than active personality. In most cases victims hold the nationality of a third country, that of the country where the multinational suspected of violations has chosen to invest. Therefore, after briefly presenting the various forms passive personality can take, this section primarily explores the relevance of extending the principle to habitual residents and refugees (as some States have allowed). 2