Introduction

After the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights[1], in December 2009, the Commission adopted a Strategy on the effective implementation of the Charter[2] setting as an objective that the EU is beyond reproach as regards the respect of fundamental rights, in particular when it legislates. The Commission is further committed to preparing annual reports to better inform citizens on the application of the Charter and to measure progress in its implementation. This Annual Report meets the longstanding and legitimate expectation of placing fundamental rights at the heart of EU policies. It is intended to act as the basis of an informed dialogue between all EU institutions and Member States.

This Report covers the year 2012 and informs the public of the situations in which they can rely on the Charter and on the role of the European Union in the field of fundamental rights. In covering the full range of Charter provisions on an annual basis, the Annual Report aims to track where progress is being made, and where new concerns are arising.

The Annual Report is based on the actions taken by the EU institutions, on the analysis of letters and petitions from the general public and questions from the European Parliament. In addition, the report covers key developments as regards the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and for the first time information of the case law of national Courts on the Charter, based on the contributions received from Member States and further analysis done by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU

In the European Union, the protection of fundamental rights is guaranteed both at national level by Member States' constitutional systems and at EU level by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Charter applies to all actions taken by the EU institutions. The role of the Commission is to ensure that all its acts respect the Charter. All EU institutions (including the European Parliament and the Council) must respect the Charter, in particular throughout the legislative process.

The Charter applies to Member States when they implement EU law. The factor connecting an alleged violation of the Charter with EU law will depend on the situation in question. For example, a connecting factor exists: when national legislation transposes an EU Directive in a way contrary to fundamental rights, when a public authority applies EU law in a manner contrary to fundamental rights, or when a final decision of a national court applies or interprets EU law in a way contrary to fundamental rights.

If a national authority (administration or court) violates fundamental rights set out in the Charter when implementing EU law, the Commission can take the matter to the CJEU. The Commission is not a judicial body or a court of appeal against the decisions of national or international courts. Nor does it, as a matter of principle, examine the merits of an individual case, except if this is relevant to carry out its task of ensuring that the Member States apply EU law correctly. In particular, if it detects a wider problem, the Commission can contact the national authorities to have it fixed, and ultimately it can take a Member State to the CJEU. The objective of these proceedings is to ensure that the national law in question - or a practice by national administrations or courts - is aligned with the requirements of EU law.

When individuals or businesses consider that an act of the EU institutions directly affecting them violates their fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, they can bring their case before the CJEU, which, subject to certain conditions, has the power to annul such an act.

The Commission cannot examine complaints which concern matters outside the scope of EU Law. This does not necessarily mean that there has not been a violation of fundamental rights. If a situation does not relate to EU law, it is for the Member States alone to ensure that their obligations regarding fundamental rights are respected. Member States have extensive national rules on fundamental rights, which are guaranteed by national judges and constitutional courts. Accordingly, complaints need to be directed to the national level in the first instance.

In addition, all EU countries have made commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), independent of their obligations under EU law. Therefore, as a last resort and after having exhausted all legal remedies available at national level, individuals may bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for a violation by a Member State of a right guaranteed by the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has designed an admissibility checklist in order to help potential applicants work out for themselves whether there may be obstacles to their complaints being examined by the Court[3].

Overview of the letters and questions to the Commission on fundamental rights

Among the letters from the general public on fundamental rights issues received by the Commission in 2012, 58% concerned situations where the Charter could apply. In a number of cases, the Commission requested information from the Member States concerned or explained to the complainant the applicable EU rules. In other cases, the complaints should in fact have been addressed to the national authorities or to the ECtHR. Where possible, complainants were redirected to other bodies for more information (such as national data protection authorities).

Among the questions and petitions from the European Parliament approximately 75% concerned issues within EU competence. In a number of cases, the Commission contacted the Member States to obtain clarifications on alleged violations. The replies given by the Commission explained or clarified the relevant policies and on-going initiatives.

[1] Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0389:0403:en:PDF

[2] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/intro/doc/com_2010_573_en.pdf

[3] Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Applicants/Apply+to+the+Court/Checklist/

3. Equality

The year 2012 witnessed a number of serious incidents of racism and xenophobia in the EU, including racist and xenophobic hate speech and violence against Roma and immigrants. Data collected by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency indicated that on average, minorities are victims of assault or threat more often than the majority population.

The Commission assessed Member States' National Roma Integration Strategies and evaluated, in particular, the key areas of education, employment, healthcare and housing, and how specific requirements (cooperation with civil society, with regional and local authorities, monitoring, antidiscrimination and establishment of a national contact point) as well as funding for Roma integration are addressed.

The Commission launched infringement proceedings against Malta on the grounds of its failure to correctly implement into its national law the EU free movement rules and, more particularly, the right of same-sex spouses or registered partners to join EU citizens in Malta.

The Commission took steps for the implementation in Member States of the 116 000 hotline (www.hotline116000.eu) which offers help and support for missing children and their families. At the end of the year, the hotline was available in 22 Member States.

In the European Strategy Better Internet for Children, the Commission has set out a plan to give children the digital skills and tools they need to use the Internet to their advantage, safely and responsibly.

The Council adopted the EU framework to promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Non-discrimination

The Charter prohibits any discrimination based on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation. The Charter also prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality, within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions. Discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin is a violation of the principle of equal treatment and is prohibited in the workplace and outside the workplace. In the area of employment and occupation, EU legislation prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Discussions in the Council continued on the Commission proposal for new rules on Equal Treatment[63]. During 2012, the Danish and Cypriot Presidency focused, inter alia, on the material scope of the Directive and the rules on age and financial services. The aim was to improve the text on a technical level, to clear the way for a future political compromise.

Manifestations of intolerance to pluralism in the EU

The year 2012 witnessed a number of serious incidents of racism and xenophobia in the EU, including racist and xenophobic hate speech and violence against Roma and immigrants. Data collected by the FRA Indicates that on average, minorities are victims of assault or threat more often than the majority population. FRA' survey finds that "Nearly every fifth Roma and every fifth Sub-Sahara African interviewed considered that they had been a victim of racially motivated in-person crime of assault or threat and serious harassment at least once in the last 12 months"[64]. Still, victims of crime are often unable or unwilling to seek redress against perpetrators. For this reason many crimes remain unreported and unprosecuted. This illustrates the need to build confidence among victims and witnesses of hate crime in the criminal justice system and law enforcement[65]. FRA further points out that only four Member States (Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and UK) collect comprehensive data on hate crime, including a range of bias motivations, types of crimes and characteristics of incidents, whereas in 14 Member States the data collection is limited and the data are not usually made publicly available.[66]

The Special Eurobarometer (393) on Discrimination in the EU in 2012[67], undertaken at the request of the Commission, shows that discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin continues to be regarded as the most widespread form of discrimination in the EU. It is notable that 56% of respondents reported it as ‘widespread’. 39% reported that discrimination on the basis of religion or beliefs is widespread and 46% of respondents regard discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation to be widespread.

The Commission received many letters and parliamentary questions on racism, xenophobia and antisemitism, which underlined the need for the Member States to step up their efforts to tackle these problems. The issues brought to the attention of the Commission included, in particular, xenophobic violence against ethnic minorities and immigrants, racism and xenophobia against Roma and Jews, and citizens of certain Member States.

In response to these concerns, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to fight against racism and xenophobia by all means available under the Treaties and recalled the responsibility of the Member States' authorities to effectively implement the EU legislation prohibiting racist or xenophobic hate speech and hate crime based on a racist or xenophobic motivation. This legislation obliges Member States to penalise racist or xenophobic hate speech and to ensure that racist or xenophobic motivation behind other offences is taken into account in the determination of applicable sentences. By the end of the year, all but two Member States had communicated to the Commission their national laws transposing this Framework Decision. The Commission will assess the compliance of those national laws in a report to be presented by the end of 2013.

The 6th seminar between the European Commission and the State of Israel on the Fight against Racism, Xenophobia and Antisemitism was held in June 2012 to exchange information and experiences on data and trends of racism and antisemitism in the EU, combating hate speech, access to justice as an effective redress against discrimination and hate crimes, as well as on the prevention of racism, xenophobia and antisemitism through education, training and Holocaust remembrance.

Websites targeted against citizens from Central and Eastern European Member States

Xenophobic and intolerant attitudes can target all citizens. In the Netherlands, the PVV Party created a website directed against citizens from certain Central and Eastern European Member States. In Belgium the Vlaams Belang party took a similar initiative. In reaction to these developments, the Commission stressed that it is unacceptable that EU citizens exercising their right to move should become victims of hate speech[68]. The EP warned against destroying the very basis of the Union, namely pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and freedom of movement[69].

EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies

Action to support Roma lies first and foremost in the hands of Member States that have the primary responsibility and the competences to change the situation of a marginalised population. The Commission's assessment of the National Roma Integration Strategies submitted by the Member States[70] evaluated, in particular, the Member States’ approaches to the four key areas of education, employment, healthcare and housing, and on how structural requirements (cooperation with civil society, with regional and local authorities, monitoring, antidiscrimination and establishment of a national contact point) as well as funding are addressed. The Commission concluded that Member States need stronger efforts to live up to their responsibilities, by adopting more concrete measures, explicit targets for measurable deliverables, clearly earmarked funding at national level and a sound national monitoring and evaluation system. In addition, attention should be devoted to anti-discrimination and segregation measures and to a close dialogue with (Roma) civil society (alongside regional and local authorities) in the implementation and monitoring of national strategies.

Following the assessment of the National Roma Integration Strategies the Commission organised the first meeting of National Roma Contact Points on 2 -3 October 2012 in Brussels. This network is designed as a forum where Member States are enabled to exchange their good practices and adopt common approaches where appropriate. National Contact Points from all Member States and National Contact point from Croatia participated in the pilot session reflecting the importance of the topic.

Many Members of the European Parliament are also involved in the process. The European Commission received several written questions concerning Roma. The questions were mainly focused on policies of particular Member States pointing on possible discrepancies with the EU framework and some of them addressed particular aspects of Roma discrimination (e.g. dismantling of Roma camps in some member States).

In regard to the Roma and in the context of its multi-annual programming the FRA completed in 2011 and published in 2012 results of a major pilot household survey of Roma in 11 EU Member States working in parallel with a UNDP/World Bank survey commissioned by DG Regional Policy. In addition, the FRA conducted interviews with several local authorities in the Member States covered by the FRA’s research. In 2012 the FRA expanded its research to cover the remaining EU Member States, as part of its multi-annual Roma Programme

Fight against homophobia

The European Parliament raised concerns on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the internal market and called for the adoption of a Roadmap for equality without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, in its resolution on the fight against homophobia adopted in May 2012[71].

The Commission launched, in 2012, infringement proceedings against Malta on the grounds of its failure to correctly implement in its national law the EU free movement rules and more particularly the right of same-sex spouses or registered partners to join EU citizens in Malta and reside there with them. As a result of the Commission's action, the Maltese legislation was modified and is now compatible with EU rules on the rights of EU citizens to free movement and non-discrimination.

The Commission intervened in the context of the negotiations of a Council of Europe recommendation on risk behaviours having an impact on blood donor management. The Commission's intervention aimed at ensuring that the draft text would not discriminate donors based on sexual orientation. As a result, the Council of Europe committed to a project for further data collection which should allow for the eventual definition of donor deferral criteria that are based on objective recognised risks and their relevance to blood safety, irrespective of the sexual orientation of the potential donor.

Lithuania: amendment of the Law on the protection of minors

The new Lithuanian Law on the protection of minors is linked to the implementation of EU rules on Audiovisual Media Services and on E-commerce. The Commission explained in 2010 that some provisions included in the first draft of this law could violate the prohibition of discrimination and the freedom of expression enshrined in the Charter, because they restricted broadcasts on homosexuality. These provisions have been removed from the law that was adopted by the Parliament.

Rights of persons belonging to minorities

Safeguarding the rights of persons belonging to minorities is one of the founding values of the European Union. The respect of those rights is explicitly mentioned in article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union. In addition, any discrimination on the basis of membership of a national minority is explicitly prohibited in the Charter. However as the Commission has no general powers as regards minorities, in particular, over matters concerning the definition of what is a national minority, the recognition of the status of minorities, their self-determination and autonomy or the regime governing the use of regional or minority languages, it is up to the Member States to take decisions about minorities and the use of language on their respective territories.

A number of EU legislation and programmes contribute to addressing certain difficulties which are likely to affect persons belonging to minorities, such as discrimination and incitement to violence or hatred based on race or national or ethnic origin. The Commission also supports projects related to regional and minority languages through a variety of programmes, including in areas such as education and training, culture and youth support. In particular, the Lifelong Learning Programme finances projects to promote language learning and linguistic diversity, either through the different sub-programmes (Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci or Grundtvig) or through its transversal programme (key activity 2 ‘Languages’). The Youth in Action programme promotes mobility within and beyond the EU borders, non-formal learning and intercultural dialogue, and encourages the inclusion of all young people, regardless of their educational, social and cultural background. One of the permanent priorities of the programme is the inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities, notably migrants and Roma youth.

Discrimination on the ground of age

The CJEU ruled on a case where the compliance of a Swedish provision with the age discrimination rules contained in Directive 2000/78/EC establishing equal treatment in employment[72] was called into question.[73] The provision allows employers to terminate employment contracts on the sole ground that the employee has reached the age of 67, without taking into account the amount of the retirement pension which the person concerned may ultimately receive. The Court stated that such a rule does not constitute discrimination on grounds of age if the use of a certain age as applicable criterion for the termination of contracts is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including objectives of employment and labour-market policies, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. In this context, the Court pointed out that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age set out in the Directive must be read in the light of the right to engage in work recognised in Article 15 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Court took the view that the Swedish provision fulfils the requirement of necessity, highlighting that the provision does not force the persons concerned to withdraw definitely from the labour market. After the termination of the employment contract due to the provision, the employer and former employee can freely agree on a fixed-term contract. Furthermore, persons who receive only a low earnings-related pension are entitled to a retirement pension in the form of basic coverage. Therefore the Court found that the Swedish provision does not constitute discrimination on grounds of age.

Another interesting case[74] involved a clause of the collective agreement applicable to cabin crew members of Tyrolean Airways, according to which the professional experience with another airline belonging to the same group of companies (Austrian Airlines) was not taken into account in determining pay grades. The compatibility of this provision with Directive 2000/78 and Article 21 of the Charter was challenged in so far as in the applicants' allegations, it constituted (indirect) discrimination on grounds of age. The Court, observing that the provision in question was based on a criterion which was neither inextricably nor indirectly linked to the age of employees, rejected a similar reasoning and concluded there was no discrimination on grounds of age.

The Court confirmed the Commission's assessment that the lowering of the mandatory retirement age for judges, prosecutors and notaries in Hungary[75], introduced with a very short transitional period was incompatible with EU equal treatment law. Hungary will have to change these rules to comply 70with EU law (see Chapter 6. Justice).

Rights of the child

The Charter guarantees the right to such protection and care as is necessary for the well-being of children (Article 24 of the Charter). This Article is based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by all 27 Member States. The Charter recognises children as bearers of autonomous rights, not just as subjects in need of protection. It recognises the need to protect children from abuse, neglect, violations of their rights and situations which endanger their well-being.

The Charter further provides that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all actions relating to children. This principle applies to all actions concerning children. It includes the child's right to maintain contact with both parents in case of a divorce, the right to express their views freely and for their views to be taken into consideration on matters which concern them. An important principle of the Charter is that when decisions are being made on what is in the best interests of children, children should have the opportunity to express their views and these views should be taken into account.

The EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child[76] , adopted in 2011, aims to put in practice the rights of the child enshrined in the Charter and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child through a comprehensive programme of actions for the years 2011-2014. The 7th Forum on the Rights of the Child focused on supporting child protection systems through the implementation of the EU Agenda. National authorities responsible for protecting and promoting the rights of the child, NGO's active in the field, experts and professionals working with children and the EU exchanged best practices. The Forum highlighted the need to empower children and provide opportunities for their participation, to gather better data for informed policy-making, to foster better inter-agency co-operation and to increase efforts in training of professionals.

7th European Forum on the Rights of the Child

In the context of the 7th European Forum on the Rights of the Child held on 13-14 November 2012 , the Commission organised a workshop on the involvement of child welfare authorities in cases relating to child custody with a cross-border dimension.

The discussion covered a wide range of Member States, and the discussion focused on the organisation of the supervision of custody rights. Participants noted that child welfare authorities have different powers depending on the Member State and all Member States strive to give primary consideration to the child's best interests whilst fostering, insofar as possible, arrival at amicable solutions to parental conflict. Participants discussed the structure and roles and responsibilities, capacity of the child welfare authority, and cooperation including cross-border cooperation. It emerged that Member States have very different systems in this area. Most of the interventions stressed that it is crucial to better inform children and parents coming from different Member States and to ensure appropriate training of social workers involved in cross-border situations. Participants also looked at how to foster better cooperation between local and central child welfare authorities, as well as cross-border cooperation.

The new Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime[77] clearly states that the child's best interests should be a primary consideration in criminal proceedings. A child will benefit from this Directive whether he or she has directly suffered from a crime or suffered indirectly as the victim's child or sibling. The Directive requires all national actors to adopt a child-sensitive approach and to ensure that children can understand and be understood when they participate in police investigations and judicial proceedings. Special protection measures for children have been included in the Directive to protect children throughout criminal investigations and court proceedings. Child victims can suffer terrible psychological and physical harm. The Directive requires that child victims must have access to victim support, including specialised support targeted to their needs.

The Internet offers children new opportunities to be creative, to learn and to express themselves. In the European Strategy Better Internet for Children[78], the Commission set out a plan to give children the digital skills and tools they need to use the Internet to their advantage, safely and responsibly. Today, 75% of children use the Internet, and 4 out of every 10 children report having encountered risks online such as cyber-bullying, exposure to user-generated content promoting anorexia or self-harm or misuse of their personal data. The Commission outlined a range of measures, which will be implemented by different means including industry self-regulation. Cooperation through the Coalition to make the Internet a better place for kids, set up in December 2011, will be vital to this process. The measures aim to:

o Stimulate the production of creative and educational online content for children and develop platforms which give access to age-appropriate content

o Scale up awareness raising and teaching of online safety in all EU schools to develop children's digital and media literacy and self-responsibility online

o Create a safe environment for children where parents and children are given the tools necessary for ensuring their protection online – such as easy-to-use mechanisms to report harmful content and conduct online, transparent default age-appropriate privacy settings or user-friendly parental controls;

o Combat child sexual abuse material online by promoting innovative technical solutions by police investigations.

The Commission took steps towards the implementation in Member States of the 116 000 hotline[79] (www.hotline116000.eu), which offers help and support for missing children and their families[80]. EU law requires that Member States make every effort[81] to have the hotline operational and this is mandatory since 25 May 2011. To improve the quality of existing hotlines and encourage the setting up of new ones, the Commission made funding available (€3 Mio), through the DAPHNE III Programme. As the implementation process of the 116 000 hotline was lagging, the Commission reminded the Member States of their obligations in a joint letter sent on the occasion of the International Missing Children's Day. At the end of the year, the hotline was available in 22 Member States. To boost awareness and promote the use of the 116 000 hotline and helpline numbers a dedicated website[82] was launched by the Commission providing information and links to the number operators in all Member States.

The standards of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are at the heart of all EU action concerning unaccompanied migrant children. The Commission actions are based on three main strands of action: preventing unsafe migration and trafficking of children, while increasing protection capacities in non-EU countries; applying reception measures and providing procedural guarantees until a durable solution is found. Furthermore, these actions aim to ensure durable solutions by individually assessing on a case by case basis the return of children to their country of origin, granting them international protection or resettling them in an EU country. The Commission’s assessment found that Member States still have to increase efforts as regards data gathering and funding or improving reception facilities.

Children are placed at the heart of the EU's efforts to address trafficking in human beings. The Trafficking Strategy 2012-2016, adopted in June 2012, puts a special emphasis on the support of child victims of trafficking to strengthen their identification, protection and assistance. The Strategy prioritises the prevention of crime, prosecution of traffickers, protection of the victims, cooperation and coordination and thus complements the Trafficking Directive (2011/36/EU). The Strategy stresses the importance of comprehensive and child-sensitive protection systems where the needs of diverse groups of children, including boys and girls who are victims of trafficking, can be met through interagency and multidisciplinary coordination. The Strategy calls on Member States to strengthen child protection systems for trafficking situations and ensure, where return is deemed to be the child’s best interest, the safe and sustainable return of children to the country of origin, in and outside the EU, and prevent them from being re-trafficked.

Integration of persons with disabilities

The Charter provides that the Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.

The EU is bound by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) since 22 January 2011. This implies that the rights enshrined therein need to be implemented and respected by the EU in its legislative actions as well as its policy-making, to the extent of its competences. In addition to the EU, all member states have signed the Convention and 24 among them have ratified it.

After extensive discussion, the Council adopted the Commission's proposal for an EU framework to promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the Convention as foreseen in Article 33 (2). In preparing its proposal the Commission has taken into account the requirements in terms of tasks to be performed and the independence in executing those tasks as well as the possible role of all relevant Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies. It also consulted with persons with disabilities and their representative organisations through the European Disability Forum.

As a result of this analysis, the Commission has identified the following EU institutions and bodies to form together "the EU framework":

· the European Parliament (represented by the Petitions Committee);

· the European Ombudsman;

· the European Commission;

· the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA);

· the European Disability Forum (EDF), the main EU-level umbrella organisation of people with disabilities.

The EU framework's mandate covers areas of EU competence, and it is a complement to the national frameworks and independent mechanisms which bear the main responsibility for the promotion, protection and monitoring of the UNCRPD in the Member States. It also addresses the implementation of the UNCRPD by the EU institutions acting as Public Administration, for example, in relation to staff matters and interaction with citizens.

The Commission also organised the third Work Forum on the implementation of the UN Convention in the EU. This Forum provided a platform for mutual learning and exchange of good practice between the governance mechanisms set up by the Member States under Article 33 of the UNCRPD.

With the support of the Commission, the Academic Network of European Disability Experts, launched a comprehensive online database (DOTCOM[83]) about laws, policies, strategies and initiatives put in place at EU-level and in the Member States to implement the UN Convention.

Progress was made in disability mainstreaming to ensure that disability rights are reflected in legislative acts. For example, measures in favour of persons with disabilities and with reduced mobility are included in the new Regulations on passenger rights covering maritime and inland waterways transport entering into force on 18 December 2012) and bus & coach transport (applying from 1 March 2013). The Commission published guidelines clarifying the rights of disabled passengers and people with reduced mobility when they travel by air to ensure the correct implementation of Regulation 1107/2006.

Constitutional Court of Romania[84]

The constitutionality of a Romanian law obliging both public and private sectors' employers to recruit a certain number of persons with disabilities, or pay a special tax instead was challenged by a company providing security services. Even though the national legislation at stake was not adopted to implement any specific EU legal instrument the Court pinpointed the reasons justifying such positive obligation on employers by referring to Article 26 of the Charter, in addition to the corresponding provision of the Romanian Constitution, therefore concluding for the constitutionality of such legislation.

[63] Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM(2008) 426 final, 2.7.2008.

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0426:EN:NOT

[64] FRA, EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 06 - Minorities as Victims of Crime, November 2012. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2012-eu-midis-dif6_0.pdf

[65] FRA, Making Hate Crimes Visible in the European Union: Acknowledging Victim's Rights, November 2012. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/making-hate-crime-visible-european-union-acknowledging-victims-rights.

[66] Making hate crimes visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims' rights, November 2012; EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 6: Minorities as Victims of Crime, November 2012.

[67] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_399_380_en.htm.

[68] Vice President Reding's statement in the European Parliament on 13 March 2012, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20120313&secondRef=ITEM-012&language=EN.

[69]Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0087+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.

[70] Communication on National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU framework, COM(2012) 226 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0226:FIN:EN:HTML

[71] European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2012 on the fight against homophobia in Europe. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2012-0222&language=EN

[72] Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303 , 02.12.2000, p. 16 - 22

[73] CJEU, Case C-141/11, Hörnfeldt v. Posten Meddelande AB, 05.07.2012

[74] CJEU, Case C-132/11, Tyrolean Airways, 07.06.2012

[75] CJEU, Case C‑286/12, European Commission v. Hungary 06.11.2012

[76] Commission Communication: An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child, COM(2011) 60 final.

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0060:en:NOT

[77] Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012.

[78] Communication on a European Strategy Better Internet for Children, COM(2012) 196 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0196:FIN:EN:PDF

[79] Commission Decision (2007/116/EC) on reserving the national numbering range beginning with ‘116’ for harmonised numbers for harmonised services of social value, OJ L 49, 17.2.2007, p. 30 – 33.

[80] Commission Decision (2007/116/EC) on reserving the national numbering range beginning with ‘116’ for harmonised numbers for harmonised services of social value, OJ L 49, 17.2.2007, p. 30 – 33.

[81] Article 27a of the Universal Service Directive (Directive 2009/136/EC amending Directive 2002/22/EC)

[82] http://www.hotline116000.eu/

[83] http://www.disability-europe.net/dotcom

[84] Constitutional Court of Romania (Curtea Constituţională a României), S.C. "Elbama Star" S.R.L., decision no. 615 of 12.05.2011

4. Solidarity

The Commission's European Consumer Agenda - Boosting confidence and growth set outs the principles for consumer policy in the years to come and identifies specific initiatives which aim at empowering consumers, boosting their trust and putting consumers at the heart of all EU policies.

In line with the Single Market Act, the Commission presented two legislative proposals, one the enforcement of the Posting of Workers Directive , and one on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (the so-called Monti II proposal). Twelve national Parliaments adopted reasoned opinions expressing concerns related, among others, to the added value of the draft Monti II Regulation, the choice of its legal basis and EU competence to regulate this matter. Although the Commission was of the opinion that the principle of subsidiarity has not been breached, it recognised that its proposals were unlikely to gather the necessary political support within the European Parliament and Council to enable its adoption. Consequently, it withdrew this proposal on 26 September 2012 hoping that this would facilitate a rapid negotiation of the other part of the package, namely the proposal for an Enforcement Directive.

CJEU ruled on the compatibility of EU rules on nutrition and health claims made on foods (Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006) with the freedom to choose an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business (Articles 15(1) and 16 of the Charter).

Workers' right to information and consultation

The Charter provides that workers or their representatives must, at the appropriate levels, be guaranteed information and consultation, in good time, in the cases and under the conditions provided for by EU law and national laws and practices.

The Commission is finalising a legislative proposal to lift the exclusion of seafaring workers from the personal scope of application of a number of EU labour law directives following consultation of the European social partners. The Commission’s proposal would extend the scope of application of the Insolvency Directive[85], the Works Council Directive[86], the Information and Consultation Directive[87] and the Transfer of undertakings Directive[88] to seafaring workers.

The Commission monitors the implementation of the legal framework on European Works Council that helps to guarantee the effectiveness of employees’ transnational information and consultation right and launched infringement procedures against Member States that did not adopt the required transposing measures within the determined deadline.

Right of collective bargaining and action

The Charter provides that workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with EU law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action. There is no specific EU law regulating the conditions and consequences of the exercise of these rights at national level[89]. Member States remain, of course, bound by the provisions of the Charter, including the right to strike, in instances where they implement EU law.

In line with the Single Market Act[90], the Commission presented on 21 March 2012 two legislative proposals; one on the enforcement of the Posting of Workers Directive[91], and one on the exercise of the right to take collective action[92] within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (the so-called Monti II proposal). Both proposals were transmitted to the other EU institutions as well as to the national Parliaments of the Member States. The Council started discussions on them and the European Parliament organised a hearing on 18 September 2012. However, twelve national Parliaments adopted reasoned opinions[93] expressing concerns related, among others, to the added value of the draft Monti II Regulation, the choice of its legal basis and the EU competence to regulate this matter.

Although the Commission was of the view that the principle of subsidiarity has not been breached, it nevertheless recognised that its proposal for the Regulation was unlikely to gather the necessary political support within the European Parliament and Council to enable its adoption. Consequently, it withdrew this proposal on 26 September 2012 hoping that this would facilitate a rapid negotiation of the other part of the package, namely the proposal for an Enforcement Directive.

Fair and just working conditions

The Charter guarantees that every worker has the right to working conditions which respect their health, safety and dignity. Every worker has the right to a limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave. There is a substantial body of EU law in this area concerning, in particular, health and safety at work[94].

The social partners at European level pursued their negotiations on the Working time Directive[95], with the aim of conducting a review[96]. On 16 August 2012, the Commission agreed to extend time for their negotiations until 31 December 2012, following a joint request of the social partners indicating that their negotiations were making progress. The Commission has stated that, respectful of the social partners' autonomy, it will not put forward a legislative proposal of its own during the period foreseen under the Treaty for their negotiations. In December, the social partners informed the Commission about the failure of the negotiations.

Blacklisting of workers who are active in raising awareness of the health and safety risk

MEPs have raised concerns on the practice of some employers to blacklist workers who are active in raising awareness on health and safety risks. This practice is contrary to EU law, which provides that workers or workers' representatives with special responsibility for health and safety may not be placed at a disadvantage because they consult or raise issues with the employer regarding measures to mitigate hazards or to remove sources of danger[97]. It is, in first instance, for Member States to ensure that this provision is fully effective and to ensure that violations are followed-up as appropriate by the competent authorities. The Commission may intervene, in its role as Guardian of the Treaty, when there is a breach in the transposition or in the implementation of EU Law by Member States.

Social security and social assistance

The Charter recognises citizens' entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases of maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment. Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security benefits and social advantages in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices. Member States are free to determine the details of their social security systems, including which benefits shall be provided, the conditions of eligibility, how these benefits are calculated, as well as how much contribution should be paid. European rules ensure that the application of the different national legislations respects the basic principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination. They guarantee that migrant EU workers are treated as are national workers and that the application of the different national legislations does not adversely affect them.

The EU Directive on the status of third-country nationals guarantees that long-term residents shall enjoy equal treatment with citizens of the Member State as regards social security, social assistance and social protection as defined by national law. Under Article 11 (4) of that Directive, "Member states may limit equal treatment in respect of social assistance and social protection to core benefits". In a case that concerned housing benefits for a third-country national who was a long-term resident[98], the CJEU observed that according to Article 34 of the Charter, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources. The Court concluded that in so far as the housing benefit for low income tenants at issue fulfils the purpose set out in that provision of the Charter, it has to be considered as a "core benefit" within the meaning of Article 11(4) of the Directive and therefore it has to be granted also to third-country nationals who are long-term residents in a Member State. In carrying out such assessment, national courts should take into account the objective of that benefit, its amount, the conditions subject to which it is awarded and its place in the national system of social assistance.

The Commission defended the right of third-country national seasonal workers to equal treatment with nationals of the admitting Member State in respect of social security rights, as well as, fair treatment of intra-corporate transferees and their family members during negotiations on the reform of applicable EU rules. The Commission made the point that Member States cannot restrict third country nationals' entitlements to receiving social security benefits that are based on their own financial contributions as this would constitute a disproportionate limitation to the right to property, contrary to the Charter and the case-law of the European Court of Human rights[99]. Further to this the amendments to the Commission proposals have been withdrawn.

The Commission published a policy paper that triggered a discussion on measures to prevent poverty and social exclusion in the old age, taking into account the need for gender sensitive solutions[100]. In this context, the Commission also stressed the need to make occupational pensions transferable as not to punish those who are moving countries for professional reasons.

Health care

The Charter recognises that everyone has the right to access preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national law and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of the Union's policies and activities.

The CJEU ruled on the compatibility of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods with the freedom to choose an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business (Articles 15(1) and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)[101]. The case concerned the ban placed by the German authorities on a wine that carried a health claim. The Court considered that the prohibition of such claims is warranted in the light of the requirement to ensure a high level of health protection in the definition and implementation of all the Union’s policies and activities (Article 35 of the Charter). The CJEU considered that by highlighting only the easy digestion of the wine concerned, the claim at issue is likely to encourage its consumption and, ultimately, to increase the risks for consumers’ health inherent in the immoderate consumption of any alcoholic beverage.

Environmental protection

The Charter provides for a high level of environmental protection. In line with this requirement the Commission in 2012 adopted a proposal for a new General EU Environmental Action Programme to 2020, "Living well, within the limits of our planet"[1]. The proposed programme builds on the significant achievements of 40 years of EU environment policy, and draws on a number of recent strategic initiatives in the field of environment, including the Resource Efficiency Roadmap, the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the Low Carbon Economy Roadmap. It should secure the commitment of EU institutions, Member States, regional and local administrations and other stakeholders to a common agenda for environment policy action up to 2020.

While many EU Member States are struggling to cope with the economic crisis, the attendant need for structural reforms offers new opportunities for the EU to move rapidly onto a more sustainable path, while involving citizens more directly in environmental policy-making. The overall aim of the proposal is to ensure a high level of protection for the environment, notably by protecting and enhancing natural capital, encouraging more resource efficiency and accelerating the transition to the low-carbon economy, and safeguarding EU citizens from environmental causes of disease –all of which have a direct link to the way citizens interact with the environment in their everyday life. The aims of the Programme can be achieved by better implementation of existing environment legislation through efforts to ensure better provision of information on environment, improved inspections and access to justice. Full integration of environment into other policies in line with the objective of the Charter should also be achieved.

Consumer protection

The Charter provides that Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection, giving guidance to the EU institutions when drafting and applying EU legislation.

The Commission’s "European Consumer Agenda - Boosting confidence and growth"[102], adopted on 22 May 2012 contains both principles for consumer policy in the years to come and a list of specific initiatives which aim at empowering consumers, boosting their trust and putting consumers at the heart of all EU policies in line with Article 38 of the Charter. The Consumer Agenda has four key objectives with an overall objective of creating a borderless Single Market for consumers and businesses:

- reinforcing consumer safety for goods, services and food, strengthening the regulatory framework and making market surveillance more efficient,

- enhancing knowledge through targeted consumer information and education as well as effective support to consumer organisations,

- improving enforcement and securing redress, by strengthening the role of consumer enforcement networks, and

- aligning rights and key policies to economic and societal change, inter alia by adapting consumer law to the digital age.

Following the adoption of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights on 25 October 2011[103] which Member States have to transpose by 13 December 2013 and apply from 13 June 2014, the Commission, in 2012, started an active dialogue with Member States to help them in the transposition process. This new Directive will, in particular, strengthen consumers' rights when buying on the Internet. Consumers will have to be provided with essential information before they order goods or services online, including about the functionality and interoperability of digital content. The new Directive furthermore bans pre-ticked boxes when offering additional services, internet cost traps and charges of which the consumer was not informed in advance.

In particular in view of the forthcoming entry into force of the Consumer Rights Directive, one of the concrete tasks foreseen by the Consumer Agenda is the provision of guidelines regarding the application of consumer information requirements in the digital area. The purpose of guidelines will be to make the information obligations, which traders have vis-à-vis consumers, work effectively in practice and easily enforceable. In addition, this activity aims at achieving a better presentation of the key information on digital products, thus facilitating comparability of different offers.

Indeed, as shown by the available studies, the lack of, or the complexity and unclear/hidden character of information is a major source of problems for consumers when buying digital products. The 2012 "sweep" of websites selling digital products (games, music, video and e-books), which the national enforcement authorities conducted in coordination with the Commission also showed significant problems in this area - 76% of the tested websites showed infringements of consumer legislation. These infringements will be followed up by enforcement activities through the existing channels, such as the Consumer Protection Co-operation (CPC) network of the national consumer enforcement authorities. The ways to improve enforcement, both in cross border cases and in cases affecting a number of Member States and therefore of strong EU relevance will be the subject of the next Consumer Summit organised by the Commission on 18-19 March 2013

In parallel, the Commission worked actively to ensure the full and correct implementation of other existing consumer protection directives.

In relation to the Directive on timeshare[104], which was to be transposed by 23 February 2011, the Commission closed the last open infringement proceedings after all Member States notified full transposition. This new Directive, which replaced the previous Directive 94/47/EC, has considerably enhanced consumer protection in this area, particularly through more stringent rules related to the information the trader has to provide to the consumer both in the pre-contractual stages and in the contract and regarding the consumer's right of withdrawal.

In addition to two open infringement cases, a pre-infringement dialogue via EU Pilot was initiated with 24 Member States regarding the correctness of the transposition of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices. This Directive provides a high level of consumer protection and allows to curb a broad range of unfair business practices, such as providing untruthful information to consumers or using aggressive techniques to influence their choices. In March 2013, the European Commission published a Communication[105] and a Report on the application of the Directive[106], which outlined a series of actions to tackle misleading and aggressive commercial practices across the EU, such as fake ‘free’ offers, ‘bait’ advertising for products which cannot be supplied, and direct targeting of children.

Problems with faulty goods remained one of important concerns for consumers in 2012. This was reflected in a number of questions posed to the Commission on consumer rights under the Directive on consumer sales and associated guarantees 1999/44/EC. EU law provides that the seller is liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered to the consumer (known as a 'legal guarantee'). A consumer who has bought a faulty product has the right to have it repaired or replaced free of charge within two years from the time of delivery. Any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. In their correspondence, consumers in particular asked for clarifications about the burden of proof, guarantees for durable goods and after-sales services exceeding the duration of the legal guarantee.

An issue that received a particular attention in the context of the two above-mentioned Directives related to the practices of marketing by traders of paid-for warranties, which mislead the consumers as to their legal guarantee entitlement under the EU law. In light of a decision taken by a consumer enforcement authority in one Member State concerning the misleading practices of a major supplier of consumer electronics, the Commission urged the enforcers in other countries to also investigate the possible similar breaches on their territories. The Commission will continue to urge Member States to react strongly with regard to misleading practices in this area.

In 2012, several infringement proceedings were opened or continued by the Commission regarding the inadequate transposition and application of the directives on package travel, doorstep selling and unfair terms in consumer contracts. Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts ensures that standard terms that cause a significant imbalance in terms of rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer, are not binding on the latter. The Directive applies to all business-to-consumer contracts and was the subject of several preliminary rulings by the CJEU on the basis of requests from national courts. In particular, in a judgment of 15 March 2012 in Case C-453/10 the Court ruled that Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts does not preclude a Member State from providing that a contract concluded with a consumer by a trader, which contains one or more unfair terms, is to be void as a whole where that will ensure better protection of the consumer. The Court also stated that indicating in a credit agreement an annual percentage rate of charge lower than the real rate must be regarded as ‘misleading’ within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in so far as it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. A number of other CJEU judgments dealt with the interpretation of Directive 97/7/EC on distance contracts, Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices.

Supreme Administrative Court of Czech Republic[107]

The Czech Supreme Administrative Court made reference to Article 38 of the Charter when interpreting EU legislation on television broadcasting activities, including the 2010 Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The case concerned the violation, by a Czech television broadcaster of the prohibition to broadcast TV commercials which are not clearly separate and therefore recognisable from any other parts of the programme, in order to avoid any confusion on the part of the viewer, and the alleged failure of the competent supervisory authority to notify the broadcaster of such breaches. In applying EU rules on television broadcasting activities, the Czech Court considered it essential to refer to Article 38 of the Charter, therefore affirming that the obligation to make TV commercial clearly distinguishable from other parts of the programme aims at ensuring a high level of consumer protection.

[85] Directive 2008/94/EC, on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, OJ L 283, 28.10.2008, p. 36 – 42.

[86] Directive 2009/38/EC on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees, OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28 – 44.

[87] Directive 2002/14/EC on the establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Communit, OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29 – 33.

[88] Directive 2001/23/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses of 12 March 2001, OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16 - 20

[89] Article 153(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) stipulates that it does not apply to the right to strike.

[90] Communication from the Commission: Single Market Act, Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence, Working together to create new growth", COM(2011) 206 final.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/docs/20110413-communication_en.pdf

[91] Proposal for a Directive on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, COM(2012) 131 final. Available at:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0131:FIN:EN:PDF

[92] Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, COM(2012) 130 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0130:FIN:EN:PDF

[93] On the basis of Protocol N° 2 to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

[94] The central piece is the Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1-8, which lays down general principles on the protection of workers' health and safety. Several specific directives cover a number of specific risks, e.g. exposure of workers to biological and chemical agents at work, noise, work at the construction sites, manual handling of loads, etc. Another important piece of legislation covers working time and regulates issues such as minimum daily and weekly rest periods, breaks, maximum weekly working time, night work and annual leave.

[95] Report of the Commission: on implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC (‘The Working Time Directive’), COM(2010) 802 final Available at: http://www.ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6420&langId=en

[96] The social partners enjoy autonomy in these negotiations. The duration of this process shall not exceed 9 months, but in accordance with Article 154 (4) TFEU, the period for these negotiations has been recently extended by the Commission until the end of 2012.

[97] Council Directive 89/391/EEC 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

[98] CJEU, Case C-571/10, Kamberaj, 24.04.2012

[99] In its judgment of 16 September 1996 on the case 39/1995/545/631 (Gaygusuz), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that social security rights were property rights and that, accordingly, equality of treatment in social security is guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

[100] White paper: an agenda for adequate, safe and sustainable pensions, COM(2012) 55 final.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7341&langId=en

[101] CJEU, Case C-544/10, Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, 6.9.2012.

[1] COM(2012) 710 final

[102] Communication on a European Consumer Agenda - Boosting confidence and growth, COM(2012) 225 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/consumer_agenda_2012_en.pdf

[103] Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC, Directive 1999/44/EC 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p.64 – 88.

[104] Directive 2008/122/EC on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday

product, resale and exchang, OJ L 33, 3.2.2009, p. 10 - 21,

[105] Communication on the application of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, COM(2013)138 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/ucpd_communication_en.pdf

[106] Report on the application of Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, COM(2013) 139 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/ucpd_report_en.pdf

[107] Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (Nejvyšší správní soud České republiky), case 6 As 26/2010 – 66, FTV Prima v. Czech Council for Radio and TV Broadcasting, 17.03.2011

5. Citizens' rights

The Commission conducted a wide reaching public consultation to gain a broader insight into the main obstacles citizens encounter when they move within the EU. More than 11.500 citizens contributed to this consultation. These results will feed into the debates during the European Year of Citizens and inform the 2013 European Citizenship Report.

The EU adopted new rules to make it easier for EU citizens to stand as candidates in the 2014 European Parliament elections.

The Commission assessed how EU citizens' electoral rights are implemented at local level and suggested that the Member States adopt targeted measures to stimulate citizens' participation and increase overall turnout.

The Commission followed a rigorous enforcement policy with a view to achieving the full and correct transposition and application of the EU free movement rules across the EU. As a result of this policy, a number of Member States amended their legislation or committed to adopt, within a set deadline, amendments aimed at ensuring full compliance with these rules. The Commission has pursued the infringement proceedings with Member States that have not yet complied with the above rules.

Right to vote and stand as a candidate at elections

The Charter guarantees the right of every EU citizen to vote in the European elections in whatever Member State they reside. The Charter also provides for the right of EU citizens to vote and to stand as candidates at municipal elections in the Member State in which they reside.

On 20 December 2012, the EU adopted new rules to make it easier for EU citizens to stand as candidates in the 2014 European Parliament elections[106]. EU citizens who wish to stand as candidates in the Member State where they reside without having the nationality of that Member State will only need to produce an identity document and a declaration stating that they fulfil the eligibility conditions. They will no longer need to travel back to their country of origin to obtain additional documents from their national administration.

In the 2012 Report on municipal elections[107] the Commission assessed how EU citizens' electoral rights are implemented at local level and suggested that the Member States adopt targeted measures to stimulate citizens' participation and increase overall turnout. The Commission also used this opportunity to support non-national EU citizens' involvement in the political life of the municipality in which they reside. The new rule introduced in the Hungarian electoral system which gives non-national EU citizens the possibility to become mayor, and not only a local councillor, is a good example of how non-national EU citizens can become fully integrated in their new community and play an active part in its future.

Reform of the Lithuanian electoral legislation

The Lithuanian electoral legislation in force since 2006 required non-national EU citizens to have resided for at least five years in Lithuania in order to be entitled to vote and to stand as candidates in local elections. The Commission engaged in dialogue with the Lithuanian authorities on this issue, pointing out that under EU rules, EU citizens residing in Lithuania should have the right to vote and to stand as candidates in local elections under the same conditions as nationals. Further to this dialogue, the Lithuanian authorities repealed this legal requirement.

Right to good administration

Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable timeframe by the Institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union. It also includes the right to be heard and to receive a reply.

A huge number of enquiries are addressed by citizens to the Commission, whether by phone, e-mail or correspondence. The Commission commits itself to answering them in the most appropriate manner and as quickly as possible. The general rule applied in the Commission is that every letter is registered and, with the exception of those that are unreasonable, repetitive or abusive, should receive a reply within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the letter. The Commission also takes care that replies are sent in the language of the author of the correspondence, provided that it was written in one of the official language of the Union. For complaints and enquiries by citizens on the application of EU law, the Commission uses an IT tool (called CHAP; “Complaint Handling – Accueil des Plaignants”), for registering and managing correspondence raising potential problems on the way how Member States implement EU law.

All Member States are now using EU Pilot. EU Pilot is a Commission initiative aimed at responding to questions and identifying solutions to problems related to the application of EU law. It is supported by an on-line data base and communication tool. EU Pilot provides the opportunity for Member States to resolve problems before the Commission enters into formal infringement procedures. Cases should, in principle, be dealt with within 20 weeks; thus EU Pilot dialogue facilitates speedy resolution of problems.[108]

The right to good administration is relevant in different areas of EU law. One of them is competition. DG Competition's Manual of Procedures was made publicly available and serves as an internal working tool intended to give practical guidance to staff on how to conduct investigations.

Right of access to documents

The Charter guarantees that any EU citizen and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.

In 2012, the Commission registered 6,011 requests for access to documents, which is slightly less than in 2011. As in the past, 4 out of 5 requests were granted at the initial stage. In 2012, the Commission received 227 confirmatory applications, a significant increase compared to 2011. Such applications are reassessed by case handlers acting independently from the ones that handled the initial application. This review has led to wider access being granted in around half the cases. In 2012, the European Ombudsman closed 20 inquiries into complaints for a refusal to grant access to documents. The Court of Justice handed down five judgments on appeals and the General Court adjudicated in 15 cases concerning the fundamental right of access to documents.

The General Court delivered an important judgment[109] on access to EU internal documents, including legal opinions. The Court pointed out that that disclosure of a document under EU rules on the public access to EU institutions documents would undermine individuals' privacy and integrity. Particular attention should be paid to Article 8 of Regulation 45/2001on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the EU institutions and bodies, which requires the recipient of a transfer of personal data to demonstrate the need for its disclosure and to its Article 18, giving the person concerned the possibility of objecting at any time, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his or her particular situation, to the processing of data affecting him or her.

Right to refer to the European Ombudsman

The Charter provides that any EU citizen and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman on cases of maladministration in the activities of the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice acting in its judicial role.

As was the case in 2011, over 22 000 individuals were helped directly by the European Ombudsman in 2012. This includes individuals who complained directly to the European Ombudsman (2,442 complaints), those who received a reply to their request for information (1,211), and those who obtained advice through the interactive guide on the European Ombudsman's website (19,281).

Over 60% of the complaints (1 467) were within the competence of a member of the European Network of Ombudsmen, of which just over half (740 or 30% of the total) fell within the European Ombudsman's mandate.

Freedom of movement and residence

The Charter guarantees the right of every EU citizen to move and reside freely, whilst respecting certain conditions, within the territory of the Member States. This fundamental right is also included in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

The Commission followed a rigorous enforcement policy with a view to achieving the full and correct transposition and application of the EU free movement rules across the European Union. As a result of this policy, and in particular of its infringement proceedings, an additional number of Member States, in contrast to 2011, amended their legislation or committed to adopt, within a set deadline, amendments aimed at ensuring full compliance with these rules. In 6 out of the 12 infringement proceedings that were launched in 2011, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Member States concerned, the last step before bringing the matter before the Court of Justice of the EU.

The main outstanding issues raised in the abovementioned infringement proceedings included the incorrect or incomplete transposition of provisions of EU law regarding the rights of entry and residence for family members of Union citizens, including same-sex partners, the conditions for issuance of visas and residence cards for third-country national family members and the safeguards against expulsions. At the same time, the Commission pursued action with some Member States to ensure EU citizens' rights to non-discrimination and to dismantle obstacles to free movement, such as to allow for the registration of foreign double names or to ensure compatibility of Member States legislation on labour migration or expulsion with EU free movement law.

The Commission pursued its dialogue with the Dutch authorities regarding their plans announced in 2011 on labour migration. The Commission had raised a number of concerns as to the compatibility of some of these planned measures with EU law on free movement of EU citizens and workers. Several exchanges allowed solving a significant number of issues in 2012. The Commission will pursue this dialogue with a view to ensuring that any measure put in place is compatible with EU law.

The Commission pursued its dialogue with the Danish authorities on amendments to the Danish Aliens Act which had entered into force in July 2011 and which aimed at introducing stricter rules on the expulsion of aliens, including EU citizens. The Commission was particularly concerned about the compatibility of the Danish rules on expulsion with the material and procedural safeguards laid down in the Free Movement Directive. Further to this dialogue, the Danish authorities committed to initiate amendments ensuring compatibility with EU law. They delivered, in the course of 2012, on some of these commitments, by means of a Bill amending the Aliens Act published on 18 June 2012.

Civil registration in Sweden and Belgium

Sweden amended its legislation to allow for the registration of foreign double surnames for Swedish nationals. As a result, Swedish children of double nationality now enjoy the right to have their full surname (double surname) registered in Sweden without having to go through a lengthy legal procedure, or having to pay an additional fee. The Commission also pursued its infringement proceedings against Belgium to safeguard this same right for children born in Belgium who have one Belgian parent and one parent of another EU Member State.

Diplomatic and consular protection

The Charter guarantees the right of unrepresented EU citizens to seek diplomatic or consular protection from embassies or consulates of other Member States in third countries under the same conditions as nationals. EU citizens must be able to rely effectively on this right when travelling abroad.

The right of unrepresented Union citizens to enjoy the protection of the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State under the same conditions as for the nationals of that Member State is enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (Article 20 (2) c and 23) and in the EU Charter (Article 46). The Commission proposed on 14 December 2011[110] clear and legally binding set of rules on cooperation and coordination between the Member States' consular authorities, with a view to ensuring that Union citizens enjoy effective consular protection, regardless of their nationality.

This proposal is currently being discussed in the Council, and on the 25th of October 2012, the European Parliament adopted its Opinion on the Proposal of the Commission for a Council directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad (ref. A7/0288/2012). The European Parliament called for a common approach of the Union and an increased support from the Union delegations.

Union citizenship

According to EU law, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union is additional to national citizenship and does not replace it. It is for the Member States to decide who their nationals are. They are solely competent to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of their nationality.

EU citizens have a number of rights under EU law but they often do not know about them. Following a proposal made by the Commission in 2011, the European Parliament and Council decided on 21st December 2012[111], that 2013 would be the European Year of Citizens. This would be an occasion to raise citizens' awareness about their EU rights and engage with them in a debate on the development of EU citizenship.

To have a better knowledge of the main obstacles citizens encounter when they move within the EU, the Commission launched a wide reaching public consultation (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/eu-citizen-brochure_en.pdf) to which over 11,500 citizens contributed. These results will feed the debates during the European Year of Citizens and inform the 2013 European Citizenship Report, which is to be adopted together with the Report on progress on implementation of Article 25 around 9 May 2013, which will detail the main developments on EU Citizenship rights since 2010.

[106] Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 on the right to participate in European elections for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. Available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st17/st17198.en12.pdf

[107] Report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the

Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, COM(2012) 99 final.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/com_2012_99_municipal_elections_en.pdf

[108] More detailed information on EU Pilot is available in the Commission's most recent Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law (point 2.1.3 in the Report, and the sections "Early resolution of infringements" in Annexes I and II). The Annual Report can be downloaded from the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/docs/docs_infringements/annual_report_29/sg_annual_report_monitoring_eu_law_121130.pdf

[109] GC, Case T-300/11, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v. European Commission, 22.05.2012

[110] Proposal for a Council Directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad, COM(2011) 881 final.

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0881:FIN:EN:PDF

[111] Decision No 1093/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on the European Year of Citizens (2013), OJ L 325, p. 1

6. Justice

The EU adopted minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime which will ensure that victims are given non-discriminatory minimum rights across the EU, irrespective of their nationality or country of residence.

The implementation of the 2009 EU Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings is well advanced. The first Directive adopted in 2011 is the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. It was followed by the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings adopted in 2012. The next step will be the adoption of the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest.

Over the past years, Hungary has adopted several laws – some of them so-called cardinal laws adopted directly under its new constitution – which raised important fundamental rights concerns and also came under the scrutiny of the Council of Europe. The Commission carried out its legal analysis of those points where there was a link with EU law, in accordance with the scope of application of the Charter (Article 51) and the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties. Following first warning letters at the end of 2011, the Commission acted fast and decided to bring infringement procedures before the CJEU regarding the independence of the data protection supervisory authority and the retirement age of judges, prosecutors and notaries. The CJEU confirmed the Commission's assessment, according to which the mandatory retirement age for judges, prosecutors and notaries within a very short transitional period is incompatible with EU equal treatment law. Hungary will have to change these rules to comply with EU law.

The CJEU ruled in a number of important cases which concerned compliance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.

Right to an effective remedy and right to a fair trial

The Charter provides that when EU rules give a right to a person, he or she can go before a court in case this right is violated. This protection is called a right to an effective remedy, because it provides to individuals a legal solution decided by a tribunal when an authority used EU law in an incorrect way. The right to effective remedy guarantees judicial protection against violations of any EU rule which grants rights to people. It therefore plays a key role in ensuring the effectiveness of all EU law, ranging from social policy, to asylum legislation, competition, agriculture, etc.

The EU legal framework on the rights of victims of crime was significantly reinforced by the adoption, of the Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime[112].

This new Directive will ensure that victims are given non-discriminatory minimum rights across the EU, irrespective of their nationality or country of residence. It will help to ensure that victims are recognised and treated with respect when they come into contact with the police, prosecutors and the judiciary. It also gives victims the procedural rights to be informed, supported and protected and it ensures that they can actively participate in criminal proceedings. Moreover, there is a requirement for practitioners to be trained on the needs of victims and for Member States to facilitate mutual cooperation to improve the access of victims to their rights both at EU and national level.

In the Directive there is a particular focus on the support and protection of victims who are vulnerable to secondary or repeat victimisation or intimidation during criminal proceedings. The Directive sets up a new mechanism of individual assessments that will be required for each victim to determine if they have specific protection needs and whether special measures should be put in place to protect them. These vulnerable groups include children and typically some categories of victims who often are at risk such as victims of terrorism, organised crime, human trafficking, gender-based violence, violence in close-relationship, sexual violence or exploitation, hate crime and victims with disabilities.

The Commission took action immediately after the entry into force of the new Hungarian Constitution and the cardinal laws which implemented it, and did not hesitate to refer Hungary very quickly to the CJEU regarding the independence of its data protection supervisory authority and regarding the retirement age of judges, prosecutors and notaries.

In line with established case law of the CJEU, the Commission considered that the Hungarian rules regarding the retirement age of judges, prosecutors and notaries were in violation of the EU rules on equal treatment in employment, which prohibit discrimination at the workplace on grounds of age. These rules also cover changes to the mandatory retirement age for one profession without an objective justification. In view of the urgency of the matter and the imminent retirement of 236 judges, the Commission referred the matter to the Court to deal with this question in an expedited procedure. The Court reacted promptly and delivered its ruling on 6 November 2012. The Court confirmed the Commission's assessment according to which the mandatory retirement age for judges, prosecutors and notaries, in view of the very short transitional period for its implementation, is incompatible with EU equal treatment law. Hungary will have to change these rules to comply with EU law[113].

The Commission expressed its concerns about the independence of the judiciary in Hungary more generally and, in particular, on two essential aspects: the powers attributed to the President of the National Judicial Office to designate a court in a given case, and the possibility of a transfer of judges without their consent. The Commission was concerned that these measures could affect the effective application of Union law in Hungary and the fundamental rights of citizens and businesses to an effective remedy by an independent court in Union law cases, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Commission noted that there are on-going discussions between the Hungarian authorities and the Council of Europe and its Venice Commission (which issued an opinion on the matter on 19 March 2012). The Commission will keep the matter under close review to verify compliance with the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in Union law cases, and will take into account whether the amendments will be implemented in line with the Venice Commission's opinions.

The Commission has advanced in negotiations on the proposal for a regulation on the mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters presented in May 2011[114]. This instrument will ensure that victims, or potential victims, who benefit from a protection measure in their Member State of residence, do not lose this protection when crossing borders. In addition, the Commission is currently preparing further action on compensation to crime victims with the aim to address problems at national and/or cross-border level and to propose improvements to ensure victims have proper access to fair and appropriate compensation.

The CJEU delivered important rulings that concern EU competition policy. The Court rejected the claims introduced by three companies[115], who had been fined for participating in a cartel on the market for copper plumbing tubes (used for water, gas and oil installations), that their right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial under Charter (Article 47) had been violated. In three separate proceedings, the companies claimed that the General Court infringed their right to an effective judicial remedy by failing to carry out an adequate review of the Commission’s decision and deferring, to an excessive and unreasonable extent, to the Commission’s discretion. One company also specifically, maintained that competition proceedings before the Commission are criminal proceedings within the meaning of the ECHR, and that, since the Commission is not an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of the ECHR, the General Court is required to carry out a review as regards both matters of fact and law.

Referring solely to the Charter, the CJEU observed that the judicial review of decisions imposing fines in matters of competition law entails a review of legality and, moreover, unlimited jurisdiction. As regards the unlimited jurisdiction in relation to the amount of fines, the Court stated that that jurisdiction empowers the CJEU in addition to carrying out a mere review of the lawfulness of the penalty, to substitute their own appraisal for the Commission’s and, consequently, to cancel, reduce or increase the pecuniary penalty imposed. Finally, the Court held that the CJEU must carry out a review of both the law and the facts, that they have the power to assess the evidence, to annul the Commission’s decision and to alter the amount of a fine. Therefore, the judicial review provided for by EU law is not contrary to the requirements of the principle of effective judicial protection set out in the Charter.

In another case that concerns competition policy[116], the CJEU held that the Commission may legitimately represent the EU before a national court in a civil action for the compensation of damages in respect of a loss it sustained as a result of the existence of cartel practices. This case originated from the Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 ascertaining the existence of a cartel on the market for the sale, installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In June 2008, for the first time ever, the European Commission decided to bring proceedings before a Belgian Trade Court seeking compensation to the financial loss the Union suffered for the above-market rates charged by these companies, as the Union itself had contracted out to them the installation, maintenance and renovation of lifts and escalators in different EU buildings in Belgium and Luxembourg.

The CJEU held that these circumstances do not run counter to either the judiciary’s independence or the principle of equality of arms between parties to civil proceedings in so far as EU law provides for a system of judicial review of Commission decisions in the field of competition policy which affords all the safeguards required by Article 47 of the Charter. The Court therefore ruled that the Charter does not preclude the Commission from bringing an action for compensation for losses sustained by the EU as a result of an agreement or practice contrary to EU law.

Another case[117], concerned the recognition and enforcement in Latvia, under Regulation No 44/2001, of a judgment in default delivered by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (United Kingdom). The CJEU stipulated that this Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which enforcement is sought may refuse, only if it appears to the court, that that judgment is a manifest and disproportionate breach of the defendant’s right to a fair trial referred to in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 47), on account of the impossibility of bringing an appropriate and effective appeal against it.

Enforcement of the Visa Border Code regarding the right of appeal against a visa refusal

The EU Visa Code[118] requires Member States to communicate to the applicant for a short stay visa the reasons on which a decision of refusal is based and to grant the right of appeal against a visa refusal, annulment, or revocation. This relates directly to the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In late 2012, the Commission has already contacted several Member States' authorities where it had concerns regarding the right to appeal against a visa refusal, with a view to make use of the powers conferred to it by the Treaty, should it be confirmed that the right of appeal is not adequately ensured in some of those Member States.

Supreme Court of Estonia (Full Court)[119]

The Supreme Court of Estonia made reference to CJEU case law on Article 47 of the Charter as regards the restrictions on access to tribunals flowing from the requirements under which national legislation grants legal aid to legal persons. The applicant, a company whose action for compensation against the Ministry for Environment had been dismissed, and refused to pay the required court fee on grounds of its unconstitutionality; secondarily, it filed a request for legal aid, at the same time challenging the constitutionality of the law limiting the access to it as far as legal persons are concerned. In declaring that the exclusion of legal persons from legal assistance in civil proceedings contravenes the Estonian Constitution, the Supreme Court recalled the CJEU jurisprudence[120] according to which "the principle of effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not impossible for legal persons to rely on that principle and that aid granted pursuant to that principle may cover, inter alia, dispensation from advance payment of the costs of proceedings and/or the assistance of a lawyer."

Dutch Appeal Court[121]

In a case concerning the application of the EU Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, an obligation contained in the general conditions obliging the consumer to have recourse to means of arbitration was considered contrary to the right of effective remedy as stipulated in Article 47 of the Charter in a judgment by a Dutch Appeal Court. The Court argued that with such clause the consumer loses his right to approach a regular court.

Austrian Administrative Supreme Court

In a case before the Austrian Administrative Supreme Court[122], the assessment by the competent Ministry of the environmental impact of a decision allowing the double-tracking of a certain section of a railroad was contested. The law in question transposed a Directive and the decision of the Ministry on granting or refusing the authorisation falls within the scope of Union law. Referring to Art 47 of the Charter in order to emphasise the relevance of the principle of effective judicial control, the Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible arguing that where Union law provides for a special right to judicial protection, an instance of judicial control furnished with unlimited jurisdiction has to decide before a case can be brought before the Supreme Administrative Court which has to control the impugned decision on the base of facts of the case as assumed by the authority and which is limited in oral hearings to questions of law. However, the Constitutional Court lifted that decision considering that there was no manifest contradiction between Union law and national law.

Presumption of innocence and right of defence

The Charter provides that everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law. It further specifies that respect for the right to defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.

Safeguarding procedural rights of suspect and accused persons remains a priority of the Commission. Both the Charter (especially Articles 47 and 48) and the ECHR (especially Articles 5 and 6) constitute the common basis for the protection of the rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings in the pre-trial and in trial stages.

Mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation implies the development of equivalent standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings. It presupposes that the competent authorities of the Member States trust the criminal justice systems of the other Member States. Mutual trust will be greatly enhanced if Member States are confident that their neighbours have a criminal justice system that guarantees fair trials.

By making progress on these different initiatives, the Commission is keeping-up with the EU commitment to fundamental rights for all citizens and to enhance mutual trust. The implementation of the 2009 Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings[123] is now well advanced. The first Directive adopted already in 2011 is the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings[124]. It was followed by the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings of 22 May 2012.[125] The next step will be the adoption of the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest[126]. Measures such as these, facilitated by the new context for criminal justice after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, will ensure the balanced development of criminal justice within the EU area of justice, freedom and security.

The Commission proposed a new Directive on the confiscation and recovery of criminal assets in the European Union[127]. This Directive will make it easier for Member States to confiscate the profits that criminals make from organised crime. The Directive aims at attacking the financial incentive which drives most serious and organised crime, at protecting the EU economy against infiltration by criminal groups, and at returning criminal assets to governments and citizens. The Directive draws on iInternational Conventions and best practice recommendations. It will simplify existing rules and fill gaps which have benefited persons convicted and suspected of crime until now.

The Commission conducted a thorough impact assessment when preparing its proposal on the confiscation and recovery of criminal assets in the EU and held extensive internal consultations in ord