30.3.2004 EN C 80/111 Official Journal of the European Union
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:
— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on theActivities of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, together with
proposals to recast Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97’, and
— the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia (Recast version)’
(COM(2003) 483 final — 2003/0185 (CNS))
(2004/C 80/27)
On 15 September 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentionedproposals.
The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 November 2003. The rapporteur wasMr Sharma.
At its 404th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 2003), the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 119 votes in favour and no votes against with one
abstention.
1. Gist of the Commission document
1.1. The Commission document is divided into two parts:
a Communication which evaluates the Centre and a proposal
for recasting its founding Regulation.
1.1.1. The Communication constitutes the Commission’s
considered view of the progress made by the Centre so far and
takes account of the findings of an external evaluation carriedout for the Commission by the Centre for Strategy and
Evaluation Services and of the reactions of the various
stakeholders to this evaluation.
1.1.2. The analysis first focuses on the primary objective of
the Centre, viz to ‘Provide the Community and its Member
States with objective, reliable and comparable data at Europeanlevel on the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-
Semitism’, and on the means used to achieve this. It then looks
at the other activities undertaken by the Centre, such as roundtables, research, dissemination of information and data andannual reports.
1.1.3. The Communication goes on to examine the
resources available to the Centre and the appropriateness of itsobjectives, in particular in the light of the legislative and
political changes which have taken place since its founding.
This section also examines the proposals to alter its geographi-cal coverage, its name and even the scope of its remit.1.1.4. The Commission reviews the Centre’s organisational
efficiency, addressing the following aspects:
— management structure, comprising a management board,
an executive board and a director;
— the organisational structure;— the development and monitoring of work programmes;— finance and administration;
— recruitment and setting up the Centre;
— relations with the Commission and other European
institutions.
1.1.5. The Commission, after summarising the main find-
ings of the external evaluation, concludes that the overall
picture of the performance of the Centre is mixed. The Centrehas made considerable progress, but it is clear that, in terms ofits output so far, improvements in quality and value are still
possible and necessary, particularly as regards the objectivity
and comparability of data. Furthermore, to have maximumimpact on the policies and practices of the Union and Member
States, the Centre should, without prejudice to its autonomy,
take account in its work programmes the priorities of theCommunity.
1.2. The findings set out in the Communication are reflected
in the second part of the document which contains a
recast version of Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 whichestablished the Centre and governs its activities.
C 80/112 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
2. General comments
2.1. The Committee organised a hearing entitled The role
and the function of the European Monitoring Centre on
Racism and Xenophobia on 7 October 2003. A range of
representatives of national and European civil society organis-ations attended to give their views on the Commission’s
communication. Their views have informed the Committee’s
opinion.
2.2. There is much in this Communication that the Com-
mittee can welcome, in particular:
— The Commission’s rejection of the independent evalua-
tor’s recommendation that the Board of the EUMC
should consist of representatives of Members States’governments. The proposal is rejected on the basis thatthis is likely to be seen as unacceptable interference in the
independence of the Monitoring Centre.
— The Commission’s restatement of the need to ensure that
the EUMC continues to enjoy complete independencefrom Member States.
— The extension of the EUMC’s role, tasks and areas of
activity in keeping with the developments in the European
Community’s competencies since the adoption of the
Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 (Article 13, AmsterdamTreaty and Community competence in the areas of
Immigration, Refugee and Asylum issues).
— The linking of the EUMC’s objective to the development
of the EU as an area of freedom, security and justice.
— The linking of the EUMC’s work to the priorities of the
EU, so as to inform the policy development process at
European and at Member State levels.
— The EUMC’s remit has been formally extended to include
other forms of related intolerance, for example, religious
intolerance.
— Widening the EUMC’s remit to enable it to engage with
candidate countries.
— Allowing greater flexibility for joint ventures between the
EUMC and other international organisations such as theCouncil of Europe.— The placing of greater emphasis on measuring the
performance of the EUMC against its objectives and
programme of work.
— The adjustments that have been made to the Regulation
with regard to the decision-making processes of the
Management Board and Executive Board which shouldlead to more efficient decision-making.
— The inclusion of organisational management, planning
and budgetary control as required competencies of BoardMembers.
3. Specific comments
3.1. The objective
3.1.1. The recast objective of the Monitoring Centre reads
as follows:
‘The prime objective of the Centre shall be to provide the
relevant institutions and authorities of the Community and itsMember States, more especially within the fields referred to in
Article 4(3) with objective, reliable and comparable data at
European level on the phenomenon of racism and xenophobia,anti-Semitism and related intolerance in order to help themwhen they take measures or formulate courses of action within
their respective spheres of competence. In so doing, the centre
shall contribute to the development of the Union in the areaof freedom, security and justice.’
3.1.2. The Committee agrees with the European Com-
mission that the focus of the EUMC should remain racism and
xenophobia and that the scope of the remit of the EUMCshould not be broadened to include other ground of discrimi-
nation like gender, sexual orientation, age, etc. At the same
time the Committee agrees with the European Commissionthat the scope of the phenomena of racism and xenophobia
should be interpreted broadly and should encompass related
intolerance.
3.1.3. At the same time the Committee welcomes the
extension of the EUMC’s role, tasks and areas of activity in
keeping with the developments in the European Community’s
competencies, e.g. inclusion of Article 13 in the Treaty and theCommunity competence in the areas of Immigration, Refugeeand Asylum issues.
3.1.4. Further under Article 3 concerning the tasks, the
Centre is tasked with the following: ‘(c) collect, record andanalyse information and data’, and ‘(g) formulate conclusionsand opinions for the Community and its Member States’.
30.3.2004 EN C 80/113 Official Journal of the European Union
3.1.5. Rather than is the case under the current version of
the Regulation, the new Article 2 ‘Objective’, stipulates that
the primary recipients of the information collected by the
Centre would be ‘the relevant institutions and authorities ofthe Community and the Member States’. This would mean thatcivil society, the social partners and NGOs operating at
European level and in the Member States would no longer be
recipients of the information. In the EESC’s view, civil societywill, also in future, have a very important role to play in
combating racism, xeonophobia and anti-Semitism and the
attendant intolerance. The EESC therefore proposes thatArticle 2 be amended to read as follows: ‘The prime objective
of the Centre shall be to provide the relevant institutions and
authorities of the Community and its Member States, togetherwith civil society and the social partners, ...’.
3.1.6. The Committee holds the view that, whereas it is
convinced that the Monitoring Centre should have a proactive
role in making policy recommendations to EU Institutions andto Member States, this should be reflected in the objective. In
the view of the Committee the relevant part of the recast
objective should be amended by replacing the text ‘in order tohelp them when they take measures or formulate courses of
action within their respective spheres of competence’ by ‘in
order to help them by formulating policy recommendationswhich they can use to take measures or formulate courses of
action within their respective spheres of competence’.
3.2. Civil society involvement in the activities of the Monitoring
Centre
3.2.1. At the present time the involvement of civil society
with the Centre is primarily through the national Round Tables
organised in individual Member States. The Commission is
recommending that the Centre no longer facilitate thesemeetings, thereby losing their only active involvement with
civil society organisations. However the new Regulation does
task the Centre under Article 3 (e) ‘to cooperate with civilsociety including non-governmental organisations, the socialpartners, research centres and representatives of competent
public authorities and other persons or bodies involved in
dealing with racism and xenophobia, in particular by promot-ing dialogue at European level and participating where appro-
priate in discussions or meetings at national level’.
3.2.2. During the hearing of civil society organisations
involved in combating racism and xenophobia, it became clear
that while some Round Table consultations were effective in
some Member States this was not the case in others. TheCommittee therefore accepts the Commission’s views on thevalue of Round Tables and welcomes the proposal that EUMC
should be allowed more flexibility in how and by what means
it wants to involve civil society.
3.2.3. However, the Committee also values the arguments
given by representatives of civil society organisations at itshearing that the national round tables are to date the only
active interaction between the EUMC and the national civil
society organisations. In keeping with the Commission’sapproach the Committee does not want to be too prescriptive.
However, to address the concerns of the civil society organis-
ations the Committee recommends that at national level theEUMC should consult with relevant civil society organisations
and Member States on the design of appropriate formal and
informal structures for ongoing consultation. These structuresmay include the convening of Round Tables.
3.3. Management and governance arrangements
3.3.1. The current arrangements for the appointment of
the majority of management board members are as follows:
‘Member States appoint one independent person with appro-
priate experience in the analysis in the phenomenon of racism
xenophobia and anti-Semitism.
The Commission is proposing to restrict these appointments
to “persons responsible for the running of the body or bodiesfor the promotion of equal treatment of all persons withoutdiscrimination on the grounds of ethnic or racial origin
provided for by Article 13 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC
or of an equivalent public body”.’
3.3.2. Additionally, the Commission’s representation is
increased from one to two members. The Committee sees thevalue of this proposal.
3.3.3. The Committee favours an inclusive EUMC, uniting
all stakeholders and holds the opinion that this should be
reflected in the composition of the Board. Hence the Com-
mittee favours inclusion of one representative of each MemberState, of relevant international partner organisations, of Euro-pean institutions including the EESC (
1) and representatives of
civil society organisations and social partners in the general
board of the EUMC.
(1) See EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation
(EC) establishing a European monitoring centre on racism and
xenophobia (COM(96) 615 final), in OJ C 158, 26.5.1997.
C 80/114 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
3.3.4. The Committee shares the concerns voiced by several
representatives of civil society organisations about the need to
maintain and strengthen the Centre’s independence, not only
with respect to the EU institutions but also to the Member
States which sometimes, disturbed by the Centre’s work,sought to increase their influence over the Management of theCentre. It is therefore important to ensure that the Centre’sManagement Board includes persons who are independent ofMember States. The EESC recommends the deletion of thesecond paragraph of Article 8(1), which stipulates that therepresentatives of the Member States are to be ‘the personsresponsible for the running of the body or bodies for thepromotion of equal treatment of all persons provided for byArticle 13 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC or of an equivalentindependent public body’.
3.3.5. In keeping with the need to maintain the Centre’s
independence, we recommend that the current informal
Brussels, 10 December 2003.
The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Roger BRIESCHarrangements whereby Member States have designated liaison
officers to work with the Centre should continue but should
not be formalised by inclusion in the Regulation governing the
Centre.
3.3.6. The Committee subscribes to the argument of the
Commission that effective and efficient management of theEUMC requires a limited executive management board ofpersons with not only experience in the field of non-discrimi-
nation and equal treatment, but with solid management
background and experience. This does not necessarily have tobe accomplished by limiting the sphere of recruiting Member
States’ representatives from circles of specialised bodies or
equivalent public bodies as meant by the Commission. Thiscan be accomplished by drawing up clear profiles for members
of the executive management board, recruiting them by
transparent and open procedures.