EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 19.6.2009 
SEC(2009)781 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIA MENT, THE COUNCIL,  
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF  THE REGIONS 
 
Implementation, results and overall assessmen t of the 2007 European Year of Equal 
Opportunities for All 
  
The 2007 European Year of Equal Opportunities for All 
 
A Few Facts at a glance! 
{COM(2009)269} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Key facts, figures and examples of the 2007 EYEO.......................................................... 3  
2. Breakdown of EYEO actual expendi ture - Budget line 04 04 12 ...................................... 6  
3. On-going Evaluation of the 2007 European Year of Equal Oppor tunities for All – 
Towards a Just Society................................................................................................. 7  
 
 
EN 3   EN 1.  KEY FACTS , FIGURES AND EXAMPLES OF THE 2007  EYEO 
AT NATIONAL LEVEL  
• 30 participating countries 
• 30 National Implementing Bodies involving 100 staff members 
• 434 Implemented Actions by around 1.000 Ac tion Leaders and their Partners, 
which delivered 1.600 outputs, consisting of  more than 1.000 meetings and events, 
circa 440 national-level campaigns and over 120 studies and surveys 
• Over 1700 received EYEO moral support, c onsisting of 1226 meetings and events, 
425 campaigns and 59 studies 
• More than 140 networks, working groups or instances of cross-se ctoral cooperation 
involving various branches of government, equality bodies, organisations or civil 
society were generated as a direct result of the EYEO 
AT EU LEVEL  
The EYEO produced inte r alia the following: 
• 530 participants in the launc hing conference in Berlin a nd over 700 in the closing 
conference in Lisbon 
• The website was visited by overall 894.934 viewers  
• The stand set up at the Eurovision Village  in Helsinki, Finl and, during Eurovision 
week (5-12 May), attracted 320.000 visitors 
• At least 3.611 media clippings , largely in the form of clippings in print, which 
achieved over at least 370 million contacts altogether 
• 700 deliveries of printed information, prom otional material and stands to NIBs, 
national correspondents, NGOs and public authorities  
 
EN 4   EN  
LEGACY  
• Many lasting processes or bodies  are to be considered as directly resulting from the 
EYEO across the 30 particip ating countries, such as: 
• The Flemish Centre for Equal Opportuni ties has soared by 77% between 2006 and 
2007, with 2.917 new dossiers opened, 126 of which were on the age ground (Belgium ) 
• A National Scheme for Gender Equality has been drawn up ( Cyprus ) 
• Upgrading of the radio and television pr ogrammes of the Cyprus Broadcasting 
Corporation addressed to th e Turkish Cypriot community( Cyprus ) 
• A working Group for Freedom and Religi ons became operational in December 
2007 ( Czech Republic ) 
• A new body dealing with socially excluded Roma localities, two committees on the 
prevention of domestic violen ce and reconciliation of work and family within the 
Governmental Council for equal opportunities of women and men ( Czech 
Republic ) 
• Agreement of cooperation between the Na tional Equal Opportunity Network and 
the Ombudsman for Minority Affairs and be tween the National Equal Opportunity 
Network and the Equal Treatment Authority” (Hungary ) 
• A support group was established for young people who identify as transgender 
(Ireland ) 
• Same-sex partnership legislative proposal at the Parliament ( Liechtenstein ) 
• Significant increase in the membership re ceived by the National Association of 
Lesbian and Gay Liberation ( Norway ) 
• A woman was elected chairperson of the Norwegian Olympic Committee for the 
first time ( Norway ) 
• LGBT NGOs now sit on the Advisory Council of the CIG (Commission for 
Citizenship and Gender Equali ty). Different religions ar e now represented in the 
Advisory Council of the ACIDI (Hi gh Commission for Immigration and 
Intercultural Dialogue) ( Portugal ) 
• Incorporation of the needs of disabled persons into  the economic and social 
development programmes of all regions ( Slovakia ) 
 
EN 5   EN  
EXAMPLES AMONG THE 434  IMPLEMENTED ACTIONS  
• Support of the Roma integration principl e throughout the multi cultural education 
courses for primary and secondary school teachers ( Czech Republic ) 
• Diversity in Employment - Guide for Em ployers on affirmative action regarding 
the hiring of people with  disabilities (Finland) 
• For the equal opportunities of Travel lers in the area of Angoulême ( France ) 
• Conference “Diversity as a Chance – Diversity in German businesses” ( Germany ) 
• Creation of a Federal network of  anti-discrimination offices ( Germany ) 
• The development of a public awareness campaign on ageism and older people 
(Ireland ) 
• Seminar on the Participation of Black and Ethnic Minority Groups in Public Policy 
Development and the Delivery of Public Services ( Ireland ) 
• Network of local institu tions against discriminati on on the grounds of sexual 
orientation and gender identity ( Italy ) 
• Rights for young employees - LOs (Confed erations of Trade Unions) Summer 
Patrol ( Norway ) 
• Equal Opportunities Trips walking and cycl ing through the diversity of Amsterdam 
(The Netherlands ) 
• Playground – a TV spot to address the lack  of awareness of negative stereotypes 
and discrimination existing in society (Poland) 
• Voices of Africa – Internet Radio focu sing on young supporters of football teams 
(Poland ) 
• Inter-culturalism in Ireland, North and South, as part of  intercultural week 2007, 
thereby accentuating the be nefits of diversity ( United Kingdom ) 
• As well as several studies addressing in particular  discrimination based on sexual 
orientation carried out in Estoni a, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland. 
 
EN 6   EN 2. BREAKDOWN OF EYEO  ACTUAL EXPENDITURE - BUDGET LINE 04 04 12 
Initial budget planned for the EYEO  was 15 Mio€, out of which:  
• 7,35 Mio€ for EU level activities (of which 5,1 Mio€ for EU-wide campaign); 
• 7,65 Mio€ for Actions at national level that Me mber States had to match with an equal 
share of public or private funding. 
The total planned budget for the 27 Member States was thus amounting 22,65 Mio€. The participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein and No rway, and the planned contributions of some 
countries exceeding their 50% share, brought th e total planned budget to more than 25 Mio€. 
This total final expenditure of circa 23,5Mio€
 thus represented a bit less than 93% of the total 
planned one for the 30 Participating countries. Activity EYEO actual 
expenditure 
EU-wide information and promotional campaign  5 056 513,21 €
EU-level conferences (of which the opening, closing, European 
Parliament, etc.)  987 021,94 €
Eurobarometer 2007 774 041,70 €
Eurobarometer 2008 491 665,00 €
Euroflash 2008 237 205,82 €
On-going Evaluation of the EYEO 377 940,00 €
S/Total EU level activities 7 546 447,82 €
EU contribution to the co-funding of  the 434 Actions implemented at 
national level  6 790 965,14€
Grand Total of EU contribution to  EYEO Actions and activities 14 337 412,96€
p.m. National contributions from 30 Pa rticipating countri es to the co-
funding of the 434 Actions implemented at national level 9 143 442,63€
GRAND TOTAL of EYEO (E U + national) funding 23 480 855,59 €
 
EN 7   EN 3. ON-GOING EVALUATION OF THE 2007  EUROPEAN YEAR OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR ALL – TOWARDS A JUST SOCIETY  
Final Report1 - Executive summary  
The 2007 European Year of Equal Opportunities for All 
In May 2006 the European Parliament and the Council adopted a Decision2 to designate 2007 
as the European Year of E qual Opportunities for All – Towa rds a Just Society (EYEO).  
The overarching policy objective of the EYEO  at the EU level3 was to realise the full 
potential of the Europeans through fighting di scrimination and providi ng equal opportunities 
for all, thereby stimulating economic developm ent and creating a solid  foundation for social 
justice and equal opportu nities for all.  
To pursue this global objective, a three-pronged approach was considered necessary. These 
three main global goals, as presented by Vlad imír Špidla, Commissioner for Employment, 
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities at th e Berlin EYEO opening conference, were: to 
better inform people about their rights to equa l treatment; to move cl oser to achieving the 
objective of real equal opportuni ties for all; and to showcase the benefits of diversity for 
societies in the European Union. 
These global goals were embodied in four key themes as established by the EYEO Decision. 
These were also termed the "4 Rs" – Rights, Representation, Recognition and Respect.4 The 
first one,  Rights , focused on raising awareness of the ri ght to equality an d non-discrimination, 
and of the problem of multiple discrimination. EYEO intended to highlight the message that 
all people are entitled to equal treatment, and it aimed to make those groups at risk of 
discrimination more aware of their rights and th e existing European legi slation on the subject. 
The second one,  Representation,  intended to stimulate debate on ways to increase the 
participation in society of groups that suffer fr om discrimination and to  ensure the balanced 
participation of men and women. EYEO intende d to encourage reflec tion and discussion on 
the need to promote greater participation of th ese groups in society overall, as well as through 
Actions specifically designed to combat discrimination.  The third one,  Recognition  focused 
on facilitating and celebrating di versity and equalit y. EYEO intended to emphasise that all 
people, irrespective of their sex, racial or ethnic  origin, religion or beli ef, disability, age or 
sexual orientation, could positivel y contribute to societ y as a whole, in particular through 
emphasising the benefits of diversity.  The last one,  Respect , focused on promoting a more 
cohesive society. EYEO intended to raise aw areness of the importance of eliminating 
stereotypes, prejudice and viol ence, promoting good relations be tween all members of society 
(in particular among young people), and dissemi nating the values underpinning the fight 
against discrimination. 
For the first time ever a Community activity, with in one initiative, had to deal equally with 
the six grounds of discrimination covered by Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Community, that are sex, racial or ethn ic origin, religion or belief, disability, age 
                                                 
1 The full report is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId =en&catId=89&newsId=483&furtherNews=yes 
2 Decision N °771/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006. 
3 The policy context is described further in chapter 2.1 of the full report.  
4 Cf. Decision N °771/2006/EC, reproduced in a slightly abbreviated version. 
 
EN 8   EN and sexual orientation5. At the same time the EYEO repr esented a multi-faceted concept, 
which emphasised transversal issues such as multiple discrimination6 and gender 
mainstreaming. Moreover, the EYEO Decision emphasised a balanced treatment of these 
different grounds of discrimination.  
Another significant feature of the EYEO was its largely decen tralised approach; while co-
ordinated at EU level, EYEO was implemented vi a initiatives originated at the national level 
and supplemented by EU-wide activit ies. The 30 Participant Countries7 were thus required to 
designate a National Implementing Body  (NIB) that had the res ponsibility for planning and 
implementing the EYEO8. As part of the preparation and planning of the EYEO, the NIBs 
were given the responsibility of designing National Strategies (NS), including the 
identification of the existing challenges accord ing to each ground of discrimination and the 
setting up of national pr iorities for the EYEO9 in close co-operation with civil society. 
The overall budget planned for the EYEO amounted  to 15 million €, more than half of which 
(7.65 million €) was allocated to the 27 Member States with the condition that each one of 
them must contribute an equal share of nati onal public or private funding. The remaining 7.35 
million € were allocated to Community-wide measures, including 5.1 million € set aside for an EU-wide information and promotional campaign. This brought the total planned  budget for 
activities in the 27 Member States during the EYEO to 22.65 million  €.
10  
Evaluation of the EYEO11 
The task of the evaluation team was to determ ine whether the EYEO wa s a success both at the 
European level and at the level of the Particip ant Countries; this mean s that every Action or 
activity implemented has not been evaluated i ndividually but at an aggregated level.  
The evaluation process addresse d seven different evaluation i ssues, which also mirror the 
structure of the report, that are Relevance:  the extent to which the EYEO and its objectives 
were justified in relation to the challenges  identified at the EU and national levels;  
Complementarity : the extent to which the EYEO's objectives complemented other EU 
objectives;  Implementation:  the extent to which the implementation process and delivery 
mechanisms supported the attainment of the objectives;  Effectiveness:  the extent to which the 
various EYEO Actions and instruments were im plemented or applied and helped to achieve 
the specific objectives of the EYEO;  Efficiency:  the extent to which the desired effects 
(outputs and outcomes) were achieved at a reasonable cost;  EU-added value:  the extent to 
                                                 
5 See Decision N °771/2006/EC, Article 5. 
6 Multiple discrimination refers to the fact that people are discriminated against on more than one ground 
at a time 
7 The 27 Member States of the Eu ropean Union as well as the EEA c ountries (Iceland, Liechtenstein and 
Norway). 
8 A list of National Implementing Bodies can be found in Annex A to the full report. 
9 DG EMPL ensured that the National Strategies and Actions were in line with the objectives of the 
EYEO by evaluating and (if necessary) requesting m odifications to the National Strategies; paying 
particular attention to the proper involvement of civil society; ensuring that all grounds of 
discrimination were dealt with fairly; and that a gender perspective was also included.  
10 With Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway participa ting in the EYEO and some of the countries planning 
to contribute more than the required 50%, the tota l planned budget was eventu ally over 25 million €. 
For a detailed analysis of the actual budget spent (cir ca 23,5 Mio€), see chapter 4.3 on the efficiency of 
the EYEO of the full report.  
11 The evaluation was carried out by a consortium comprising of Eureval and Focus Consultancy and led 
by Rambøll Management.  
 
EN 9   EN which the EYEO produced results which could not  have been satisfactor ily achieved through 
national initiatives alone; Sustainability:  the extent to which the results obtained through the 
EYEO were likely to last beyond 2007.  
The evaluation report relied on ni ne different sources of in formation for evaluating the 
EYEO. These, first of all, included documents su ch as National Strategies and Final Activity 
Reports from the 30 Participant Countries. Sec ondly, 10 country case studies from Belgium, 
Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and the United 
Kingdom were carried out. The report also in cludes information from sources such as 
Summary Information Sheets filled in by Action Leaders for each planned Action, 
questionnaires from Action Lead ers, questionnaires from NIBs, interviews with EU level 
NGOs active in the anti-discrimination fiel d and the European Commission, surveys from 
Eurobarometer from 2007 and 2008 and from Euroflash 200812. It also built upon the final 
report presented by Media Consulta, the contractor  responsible for executing -on behalf of the 
Commission- the EU-wide information and promo tional campaign, and on the participation of 
the evaluation team in the EYEO opening and closing conferences.  
A logic for the EYEO intervention was develope d and its causal links where tested through 
analysis of data available. Where possible th e evaluation team has ba sed the analysis on the 
cross-checking of at least three different data so urces. However, it must be noted that most of 
the data sources consisted of opinions, statemen ts or assessments expressed by people directly 
involved in the EYEO's implementation. Therefore,  to enhance the validit y of the data, special 
weight has been given to statements that ha ve been substantiated by concrete examples.  
As part of the overall evaluati on of the EYEO, four thematic reports were pr oduced, focussing 
on three grounds of discrimination that are (you ng and older) age, racial and ethnic origin and 
sexual orientation as well as on gender mainst reaming. These reports examined how and to 
what extent the four issues have been addr essed during the EYEO both at EU and national 
level.  
Relevance and Complementarity   
In general, the stakeholders believed that the type of intervention  represented by the EYEO 
was an appropriate way of addressing the challenges of equal opportunities. Whereas some stakeholders were initially scep tical about the positive contributi on of having to address all six 
of the grounds of discrimination at once, the evaluation shows that this stimulated an 
increased cooperation between stakeholders a nd impelled some countries to address some 
particularly sensitive grounds of  discrimination, sometimes for the very first time. The key 
objectives of the EYEO (the 4 Rs) were found to  be relevant to the national and European-
level challenges and they provi ded a relevant framework for th e NIBs to develop the national 
EYEO, while allowing wide margins to set th eir own and respective national objectives.  
The EYEO both complemented well and mutually re inforced other EU initiatives in the field 
of equal opportunities, such  as those implemented by th e Directorate General for 
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal O pportunities, including PROGRESS, EQUAL, 
Community Action Programme to  combat discrimination, and elsewhere in the Commission 
                                                
 
12 The Special Eurobarometer  263, “Discrimination in the European Union”, published in January 2007, 
the Special Eurobarometer 296, “Discrimination in the European Union – Perceptions, experiences and 
attitudes”, published in July 2008 and the Euroflash 232, published in February 2008, including a 
question on the level of awareness of Europeans of the EYEO 2007. 
 
EN 10   EN (Lifelong Learning, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, the 2008 European Year of 
Intercultural Dialogue). 
Implementation  
Overall, it is the assessment of the evalua tor that the implementation process and delivery 
mechanisms fully supported the attainme nt of the objectives of the EYEO. 
The management of the EYEO by the Director ate General for Employment, Social Affairs 
and Equal Opportunities was generally very positively assessed by the NIBs. The relatively late signature and conclusion of grant agreem ents between the Commission and the NIBs was 
however seen as a major obstacle to starting the process of implemen tation at the national 
level, despite the fact that al l Participant Countries were enti tled to claim expenses from the 
start of the year. 
A substantial majority of the stakeholders t hought that the decentralised approach was both 
appropriate and effective. Without a doubt, this was the implemen tation element that 
produced the highest satisfaction among the stakeholders. A major ity of national stakeholders 
considered that the overall management structur e of the NIB had helped to achieve effective 
National Strategies and Actions. The direct comm unication with the NIB rather than with the 
EU level was greatly appreciated by seve ral Action Leaders for both linguistic and 
coordination-related reasons. 
Effectiveness and Efficiency  
The fact that 30 Participant Countries took part in the EYEO and that each of them designed 
for the first time a National Stra tegy, presenting in pa rticular national challenges around the 
six grounds of discrimination covered by the Artic le 13 of the EC Treaty, represents the most 
fundamental success of the EYEO. Relevant civ il society stakeholders representing all six 
grounds of discrimination took part in the design of the National Strategies, and thanks to this 
high level of participation acro ss all countries, coupled with th e commitment of all the actors 
involved in implementing ac tivities, EYEO managed to cover all six grounds of 
discrimination in a balanced way, thus creating an  increased understanding of the need to join 
forces. 434 Actions  were successfully implemented by 434 Action Leaders  involving 556 
additional partner organisations . 1,710 further implemented activities  received moral 
support across the 30 Participant Countries. The 434 Actions produced more than 1,600 
concrete outputs, consisting of more than 1,000 meetings and events, circa 440 information 
and promotion campaigns and ove r 120 studies and surveys.  
Most of the Actions were implemented at natio nal level and by national authorities, often with 
the NIB as principal Action Le ader. Although the importance of the involvement of the local 
level was strongly emphasised by the Participant Countries, it appears th at the decentralised 
approach may not have been completely  realised beyond the national level.  
The EYEO produced concrete effects in term s of raised awareness about discrimination 
issues, about the six grounds of discrimination and the issue of multi ple discrimination, as 
well as about the right to non-discrimination and equal treatm ent. The effects of the EYEO on 
valuing the benefits value of diversity and th e need for positive representation were more 
limited. 
 
EN 11   EN The effects resulting from the EYEO on coopera tion involving the key stakeholders, such as 
administrative authorities, NGOs, trade unions, civil society organisa tions, organisations 
representing those in risk of being discriminated against, etc. were one of the most interesting 
effects of the EYEO, as they introduced behaviou ral changes and also opened the door to new 
developments in the future. 
Although the Participating Countries had identified national ch allenges concerning 
discrimination in employment, reaching the busine ss sector seems to have been particularly 
difficult and only a limited number of Actions  targeted the businesses and employers. 
Similarly, attracting media attention was a conc ern of all NIBs and Action Leaders, but in 
practice it proved very difficult to mobilise the me dia to report on social issues, in particular 
when other more attractive events oc curred such as national elections.  
The overall conclusion with regard to the effici ency of the EYEO is that the expected outputs 
of the EYEO were achieved at a reasonable co st. All the Participant Countries matched the 
EU grant at the national le vel and some supplied addi tional funding. Overall 15,934,407.77 € 
were spent on national Actions during the EY EO, representing an execution rate of 86%. The 
budget covered the four objectives  of the EYEO equally, whereas  the grounds of racial or 
ethnic origin, gender and disability benefite d from higher budgets than the three other 
grounds.  
However, there are limitations to these conclusi ons. For example, the budget for the EU-wide 
information and promotional campaign is not considered excessive, but the campaign had 
limited effectiveness due to design and timi ng issues, which subsequently reduced its 
efficiency.  
According to the NIBs the majority of Actions delivered more outputs than expected at the 
expected cost. Less than a quarter of the Actio ns delivered less than expected. Furthermore, 
the Eurobarometer surveys provided a valu able source of information concerning 
discrimination issues in Europe by measuring a ttitudes about discrimination before and after 
the EYEO. It is deemed to have been very efficient.  
EU-added value  
The EYEO produced a number of results, which could not have successf ully evolved through 
national initiatives alone. This includes in pa rticular the outcomes achieved by the National 
Strategies and the requirement to cover all grounds of discrimination. The design of the 
National Strategies was also especially im portant. These programming documents would not 
have been developed, especially not with the in tense process of civil society consultation, had 
they not been explicitly requested by the Eu ropean Commission. The requirement to cover all 
grounds of discrimination in a balanced manner led some countries to increase their focus on 
grounds of discrimination that had not previously  been a key focus. This was especially the 
case for discrimination based on sexual orienta tion or for the emergence in some Member 
States of new realities, such as  the one of transgender people.  
The EU-wide information and promotional campai gn contributed the leas t added value to the 
EYEO implementation at the na tional level. Issues of “ too little, too la te and not well enough 
adapted to the national context and the needs of the NIB ” were all raised regarding the 
contribution of the EU-wide activities. Wh ile some NIBs reporte d receiving good support 
from these activities, others stated that especi ally the resources of the EU-wide information 
 
EN 12   EN and promotional campaign could have been used  more effectively and efficiently, had they 
been distributed directly to  the Participant Countries.  
 
EN 13   EN Sustainability and legacy 
Overall, it is the assessment of the evaluati on team that the results obtained by the EYEO 
were sustainable and likely to continue beyond 2007.  
According to the Action Leaders, almost 75 per cent of the 434 Actions were expected to be 
sustained following the end of the EYEO. In pa rticular, the concepts and materials, which 
were developed as components of the 1600 activities implemented throughout the EYEO, 
were expected to remain in use after the EYEO came to an end. The more than 140 new 
networks and co-operations create d during the EYEO were also ve ry likely to continue after 
the end of the EYEO. 
The strong involvement of not only the Eu ropean Commission, but also the European 
Parliament and the Council of Ministers, in th e European Year is also worth highlighting. 
This supportive inter-institutional process led to  the adoption of Council conclusions and a 
Resolution on the follow-up of the EYEO, whic h invited Member Stat es and the Commission 
to continue their efforts in th e field of equal opportunities and anti-discrimination – mainly by 
sustaining the governance mechanisms establis hed during the EYEO, pl ugging the legislative 
gaps in Article 13’s anti-discrimination legislatio n, continuing their efforts to raise awareness, 
and engaging all civil society actors and Social  Partners in these processes, as well as by 
promoting the benefits of diversity. The exp ected long-term impacts of the EYEO were 
thereby indeed pursued by its legacy.