Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament The application of Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin
Date: 2006-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC Directive, anti-discriminatory measure, application of EU law, racial discrimination, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.10.2006 
COM(2006) 643 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

The application of Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of 
equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. INTRODUCTION 

EC  legislation  was  adopted  six  years  ago  with  a  view  to  tackling  discrimination  on  the 
grounds  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  and  sexual  orientation. 
This  legislation  has  had  a  major  impact  in  raising  the  level  of  protection  against 
discrimination for people throughout the EU. However, there have been delays in transposing 
these  rules  into  national  law  in  some  Member  States,  and  additional  efforts  are  needed  to 
ensure effective implementation and enforcement of the legislation. 

This  report  focuses  on  Directive  2000/43/EC  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment 
between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin1. This Directive was the first adopted 
unanimously by the Council under the new Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Community which entered into force on 1 May 1999. It was part of a package of proposals 
put forward by the Commission in November 1999, which included a proposal for a second 
Directive  on  discrimination  on  grounds  of  religion  and  belief,  age,  disability  and  sexual 
orientation,  and  an  action  programme  providing  financial  support  for  activities  to  combat 
discrimination.  

Rather  than  give  a  detailed  account  of  the  transposition  of  the  provisions  of  Directive 
2000/43/EC in the Member States, the aim of this report is to flag up certain aspects that are 
particularly  problematic  or  important  and  to  identify  good  practice.  It  concentrates  on  the 
impact  of  the  Directive,  transposition-related  problems,  dissemination  of  information,  the 
enforcement  of  rights,  the  role  of  equality  bodies,  the  social  partners  and  NGOs,  positive 
action and recommendations for the future. 

In accordance with Article 17 of the Directive, the Member States had to communicate to the 
Commission the information necessary for this report by 19 July 2005. Despite a reminder in 
May  2005,  many  Member  States  missed  the  deadline,  and  some  did  not  respond  at  all.  By 
December  2005  Austria,  Poland,  the  UK,  France,  Germany,  Lithuania  and  Portugal  had 
provided  no  information  to  the  Commission,  nor  had  the  social  partners,  apart  from  the 
ETUC.  The  Commission  consulted  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  on  Racism  and 
Xenophobia  (EUMC),  the  social  partners2  and  civil  society  organisations3.  A  number  of 
national equality bodies also contributed information. 

2. THE IMPACT OF DIRECTIVE 2000/43/EC 

Whilst  Directive  2000/43/EC  built  on  some  of  the  concepts  of  EC  legislation  prohibiting 
discrimination  on  grounds  of  sex  and  nationality,  the  final  text  adopted  by  the  Council  was 
innovative in many ways. Besides covering all persons, the Directive extended the scope of 
protection against discrimination well beyond the traditional area of employment  into fields 
such as social advantages, health care, education and, crucially, access to goods and services 

1 
2 

3 

Official Journal L 180, 19.07.2000, p. 22. 
The  European  Trade  Union  Confederation  (ETUC),  the  Union  of  Industrial  and  Employers' 
Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and 
of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP), the Confédération Européenne des Cadres (CEC), 
the  Union  européenne  de  l'artisanat  et  des  petites  et  moyennes  enterprises  (UEAPME)  & 
EUROCADRES (representing managerial staff). 
The  Social  Platform  of  Social  NGOs,  the  European  Network  against  Racism  (ENAR),  the  European 
Disability Forum (EDF), the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), the AGE Platform and 
the European Roma Rights Centre. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
which are available to the public, including housing. In some Member States issues linked to 
the  division  between  the  public  and  private  sphere  exist,  and  perceptions  of  interference  in 
freedom  of  decision  or  contract.  Where  goods,  services  or  jobs  are  advertised,  even  if  it  is 
only by way of a notice in a window, for example, then they are available to the public and 
consequently fall within the scope of the Directive. 

Directive  2000/43/EC  contains  clear  and  detailed  definitions  of  discrimination.  While  the 
definition  of  direct  discrimination  set  out  in  the  Directive  was  inspired  by  legislation  in  the 
field of sex discrimination4, the definition of indirect discrimination was drawn from the case 
law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) relating to the free movement of workers5. Both 
harassment  and  an  instruction  to  discriminate  are  deemed  to  be  types  of  discrimination.  It 
should  be  noted  that  the  requirement  to  provide  protection  against  victimisation,  a  crucial 
element  in  allowing  individuals  to  assert  their  rights,  applies  to  all  four  concepts  of 
discrimination - direct or indirect discrimination, harassment or an instruction to discriminate. 

The  Member  States  had  to  introduce  the  detailed  provisions  set  out  in  the  Directive 
concerning the enforcement of rights, including the requirement that the burden of proof rests 
with the defendant once the alleged victim has presented facts from which discrimination may 
be  presumed.  Whilst  Member  States  were  familiar  with  this  obligation  in  terms  of 
discrimination  between  men  and  women  in  the  employment  field,  Directive  2000/43/EC 
extends the rules on the burden of proof into new areas such as access to goods and services. 

The  Directive  was  innovative  in  that  it  obliged  the  Member  States  to  create  a  body  for  the 
promotion of equal treatment of all persons without discrimination on the grounds of racial or 
ethnic origin (if they did not already have one). Several Member States took the very positive 
step of extending the remit of their equality bodies, so that they could deal with discrimination 
based  on  grounds  other  than  race  and  ethnic  origin  (see  below,  Section  3.2,  on  the  role  of 
equality bodies.). 

All the Member States, even those with long-standing race discrimination legislation, had to 
make  some  changes  to  national  law  to  comply  with  the  Directive  (for  example,  the  UK 
amended  its  definitions  of  indirect  discrimination  and  harassment).  Some  Member  States 
brought  in  new,  comprehensive  anti-discrimination  legislation,  although  anti-discrimination 
measures can be found in many Member States’ constitutional provisions as well as in both 
civil and criminal legislation, which can make it difficult to identify the applicable procedure. 

For  some  of  the  EU  10,  the  idea  of  protecting  individuals  against  discrimination  on  the 
grounds of "racial or ethnic origin" was very different from their policies aimed at recognising 
and protecting the rights of "national" minorities6.  

Other problems identified include fundamental issues such as definitions of direct and indirect 
discrimination and harassment in national law, which in some cases differ considerably from 
those  given  in  the  Directive.  It  appears  that  some  Member  States  allow  exceptions  to  the 
principle  of  non-discrimination  which  are  wider-ranging  than  those  permitted  under  the 
Directive.  There  is  a  series  of  problems  related  to  the  enforcement  of  rights  of  victims  of 

4 

5 

6 

Council  Directive  97/80/EC  of  15  December  1997  on  the  burden  of  proof  in  cases  of  discrimination 
based on sex (OJ L 14 of 20/1/1998, p.6). 
Case  C-237/94,  OFlynn,  ECR  1996  I-02617  –  Directive  2002/73/EC  has  now  incorporated  this 
definition in the sex discrimination field (OJ L 269 of 5.10.2002, p. 15).  
For example, the Hungarian and Italian minorities in Slovenia. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
discrimination, such as incorrect transposition of the rules on the burden of proof, the right of 
associations to help victims of discrimination, and sanctions and remedies.  

In several cases, Member States were either very late in communicating to the Commission 
the  measures  transposing  Directive  2000/43/EC  into  national  law,  or  did  not  provide  any 
information at all. The Commission therefore initiated infringement procedures under Article 
226  of  the  EC  Treaty  against  these  States,  most  of  which  were  resolved  as  the  necessary 
legislation  was  brought  into  force.  Only  four  Member  States  were  referred  to  the  European 
Court  of  Justice7,  which  found  them  in  breach  of  their  Treaty  obligations  for  not  having 
transposed  the  Directive  fully  into  national  law.  Two  Member  States  (Germany  and 
Luxembourg)  still  have  not  submitted  to  the  Commission  any  legislation  transposing  the 
Directive.  

The  Commission  is  examining  the  national  legislative  measures  notified  by  the  Member 
States,  in  order  to  assess  their  conformity  with  the  Directive  and  to  ensure  that  victims  of 
discrimination can exercise the rights given to them. It will then take the necessary action to 
ensure full and correct transposition. 

Further  information  on  the  transposition  of  Directive  2000/43/EC  in  each  Member  State, 
along with links to publications, national legislation and the equality bodies is available at the 
following address (http://europa.eu.int/comm/antidiscrimination).  

3. KEY ISSUES 

3.1 Right of redress 

It  is  clear  from  the  information  provided  by  NGOs  and  governments  that  many  victims  of 
discrimination do not proceed to court with their complaints because of the cost and for fear 
of victimisation. Victims of discrimination are more likely to turn to an NGO or an equality 
body, from which they can usually obtain information and advice quickly and free of charge.  

Article  7(2)  of  the  Directive  provides  that  associations  must  be  allowed  to  help  victims  of 
discrimination  take  cases  to  court,  but  that  the  Member  State  can  determine  which 
associations  have  a  legitimate  interest  in  taking  such  action.  In  most  Member  States, 
associations are able to help victims or represent them in court, but some countries have laid 
down strict rules governing the activities of associations in this area.  

It  appears  from  the  statistics  provided  by  the  Member  States  and  equality  bodies  that  most 
complaints  of  discrimination  before  national  courts  and/or  equality  bodies  involve 
employment, followed by the provision of goods and services and housing. In the majority of 
the  EU  10,  statistics  showed  the  Roma  as  the  group  most  represented  in  complaints. 
Complaints  from  the  travelling  community  were  also  numerous  in  Ireland.  The  number  of 
cases  taken  up  by  the  Roma  indicates  that  the  Directive  is  being  successfully  used  to 
challenge discrimination against that group. 

7 

Judgment against Luxembourg in case C-320/04 and Finland in case C-329/04 on 22.02.05, judgment 
against Germany in Case C-329/04 on 28.04.05, judgment against Austria in case C-335/04 on 4.05.05. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. Equality bodies 

Although  a  number  of  Member  States  already  had  bodies  for  the  promotion  of  equal 
treatment, most of them either created a new body or increased the powers of the existing one. 
Some  Member  States  (Belgium,  Cyprus,  Sweden,  Ireland  and  the  Netherlands)  have  gone 
beyond the requirements of Directive 2000/43/EC in setting up equality bodies that deal with 
all the grounds of discrimination covered by EU anti-discrimination law and/or more general 
human rights instruments. The Directive requires, as a minimum, that the body be able to give 
independent assistance to victims of discrimination, conduct independent surveys concerning 
discrimination,  publish  independent  reports  and  make  recommendations  on  discrimination 
issues.  

The  equality  bodies  in  the  Member  States  include  Ombudsmen,  Labour  Inspectorates  and 
Commissions,  which  sometimes  share  the  tasks  set  out  in  the  Directive.  For  example,  in 
Greece  the  Labour  Inspectorate  is  responsible  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  in  the 
employment field, while the Ombudsman deals with non-employment matters, drafts reports 
and makes recommendations. In Cyprus, Slovenia and Austria, the task of assisting individual 
victims of discrimination is entrusted to a special legal representative rather than the equality 
body. 

From  the  information  provided,  it  is  clear  that  the  equality  bodies  give  legal  advice  to 
individual victims of discrimination, but they only support a small number of cases before the 
courts.  These  are  chosen  on  the  basis  of  the  importance  of  the  legal  point  at  issue,  the 
availability  of  other  help  for  the  victim  (for  example,  from  a  trade  union  or  an  association) 
and  of  course  the  financial  and  human  resources  of  the  equality  body.  Supporting  only 
strategic  litigation  is  a  clear  aim  of  a  number  of  equality  bodies.  An  additional  function 
performed by some equality bodies is that of giving opinions, at the request of individuals or 
legal persons, on whether a particular practice complies with national non-discrimination law. 
In most countries the decision or opinion of the equality body does not have legally binding 
force, but seems by and large to be followed. The individual can always go before the courts 
to obtain a legally binding decision. In Denmark, if the equality body finds that there has been 
unlawful  discrimination  it  can  recommend  the  granting  of  legal  aid  so  that  the  complainant 
can go to court without bearing a financial burden.  

In some Member States, the emphasis is on promotion of equal opportunities and prevention 
of  discrimination,  rather  than  legal  support  for  individual  complainants.  The  Finnish 
Ombudsman  for  Minorities  is  an  example  of  an  equality  body  involved  in  a  wide  range  of 
awareness-raising activities. In Belgium, Cyprus and the UK, specific guidance for employers 
is  published  by  the  government  and/or  the  equality  body,  not  only  to  help  them  fulfil  their 
legal obligations, but to make them more generally aware of how to deal with discrimination 
issues.  

A  relevant  issue  considering  the  capacity  of  an  equality  body  to  function  is  the  way  it  is 
funded  (financial  and  human  resources  allocated  to  equality  bodies  vary  hugely  across  the 
Member States). Another issue is specific to Member States which have federal and regional 
governmental  structures.  If  the  equality  body  only  exists  at  one  of  these  levels,  it  may  be 
powerless to act on matters falling within the other spheres of competence. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
3.3. Dissemination of information  

The  importance  of  information  on  the  right  to  non-discrimination  was  a  key  finding  of  the 
public consultation organised by the Commission in 2004 in connection with the Green Paper 
on  Equality  and  non-discrimination  in  an  enlarged  EU8.  There  is  little  point  in  protecting 
legal  rights  if  people  do  not  know  about  them,  and  this  is  recognised  in  Article  10  of  the 
Directive, which requires the Member States to bring to the attention of all persons concerned 
the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to the Directive.  

There  is  insufficient  information  about  the  way  in  which  this  obligation  has  been  fulfilled. 
However, a number of interesting initiatives were undertaken, including a telephone hotline in 
the  Netherlands.  A  notice  about  the  new  rights  had  to  be  put  up  in  every  workplace  in 
Portugal. In the information they provided to the Commission, the Member States pointed to 
the Community Action Programme to combat discrimination, and in particular its information 
campaign.  Under  this  programme,  national  conferences  on  the  fight  against  discrimination 
were  held  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  brochures,  CDs  and  leaflets  were  published,  a 
"diversity  truck  tour"  took  place  and  other  activities  were  financed,  such  as  the  Rome 
Marathon, the theme of which was "I'm running against racism". The website of the Finnish 
information  campaign  has  proved  popular,  with  10,000  hits  a  month.  The  Commission  has 
funded a number of initiatives aimed at training NGOs, lawyers and judges from the Member 
States (and the candidate countries) on the anti-discrimination Directives.9 

3.4. The role of the social partners & NGOs 

The  Directive  stresses  the  role  the  social  partners  can  play  in  promoting  equal  treatment. 
Article 11 requires the Member States to promote dialogue between the two sides of industry 
to foster equal treatment, including through collective agreements, codes of conduct and the 
exchange of good practice. It is clear, from the information provided by the Member States 
that this obligation is met in different ways. Some Member States (such as the Netherlands) 
have  subsidised  projects  run  by  trade  unions  in  cooperation  with  members  of  ethnic 
minorities,  or  with  the  aim  of  promoting  diversity.  In  Belgium,  the  inclusion  of  non-
discrimination  clauses  in  collective  agreements  is  a  well  established  tool  for  fighting 
discrimination. In Italy, the equality body UNAR is providing training for representatives of 
employers' associations and trade unions geared to combating discrimination and encouraging 
diversity. 

In a more general sense, the role of the social partners in the negotiation of anti-discrimination 
policy  and  legislation  is  well  established  in  some  Member  States,  with  long-standing 
consultation  structures  in  place,  such  as  the  Danish  and  Latvian  tripartite  systems.  In  other 
countries,  although  there  may  be  an  obligation  to  consult  the  social  partners  on  social 
legislation, they are not actively involved in the promotion of non-discrimination policy.  

The ETUC notes a trend among governments to favour dialogue on discrimination issues with 
NGOs  rather  than  the  social  partners,  although  from  the  information  received  from  the 
Member States the picture is somewhat mixed.  

8 
9 

COM(2004) 379 final. 
See for example www.era.int. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Trade  unions  also  have  a  clear  role  in  helping  their  members  with  complaints  of 
discrimination under Article 7(2) of the Directive. In Portugal, the right to represent a worker 
in a non-discrimination case is limited to the trade unions, and in Sweden the trade unions are 
the main entity entitled to take legal action.  

3.5. Gender mainstreaming and multiple discrimination 

Although  the  Commission  specifically  asked  the  Member  States  for  information  on  gender 
mainstreaming (in accordance with Article 17(2) of the Directive), not many Member States 
responded. The ETUC noted that the Member States did not seem to have dealt systematically 
with  gender  mainstreaming  in  their  transposition  of  Directive  2000/43/EC.  In  Slovenia  a 
gender discrimination expert was involved in the drafting of the Equal Treatment Act, and in 
Denmark  the  Minister  for  Gender  Equality  promoted  equality  among  ethnic  minorities  in 
2005.  

The AGE Platform drew attention to the risk of multiple discrimination faced by older women 
from  ethnic  minorities,  and  ILGA  was  particularly  concerned  about  the  complex  overlap 
between  religious  identity  and  sexual  orientation.  The  EUMC  pointed  to  the  trend  to  create 
single equality bodies dealing with all the grounds of discrimination, which has the advantage 
of being better able to deal with multiple discrimination, but entails the risk that some grounds 
of  discrimination  might  be  neglected  if  resources  are  not  increased.  The  EUMC  has  looked 
primarily at the impact of the Directive in the field of access to health care by Roma women.  

The Commission is aware of the largely untackled problem of multiple discrimination and has 
launched a study on the subject as part of its work programme for 2006, which will look at 
what is being done in the Member States in this area and make recommendations. 

3.6. Positive action 

As  the  Commission  stated  in  its  2005  Communication  on  non-discrimination  and  equal 
opportunities  for  all10,  the  long-standing  and  persisting  disadvantages  experienced  by  some 
groups are such that a legal right to non-discrimination is not sufficient, and positive measures 
may be necessary to improve equality of opportunity. 

Article 5 of the Directive provides that, with a view to ensuring full equality in practice, the 
principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting 
specific measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to racial or ethnic origin. 
In  this  respect,  it  is  worthwhile  stressing  the  difference  between  positive  action  measures, 
which  are  allowed,  and  so-called  "positive  discrimination"  measures,  which  are  not 
compatible with the Directive.  

On  the  one  hand,  positive  action  measures  aim  to  ensure  full  equality  in  practice  by 
preventing  or  compensating  for  disadvantages  linked  to  having  a  certain  racial  or  ethnic 
origin.  These  measures  may  include,  for  example,  providing  specific  training  to  people 
belonging to groups that do not usually have access to such training, or taking particular steps 
to  ensure  that  certain  racial  or  ethnic  groups  are  fully  informed  about  job  advertisements, 
including,  for  example,  publishing  adverts  in  publications  targeting  these  groups.11  On  the 

10 
11 

COM(2005) 224. 
See, by  analogy,  the judgment of  the European  Court  of Justice of  29 March  2000  in  case  C-185/97, 
Coote. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
other hand, "positive discrimination" measures give an automatic and absolute preference (for 
example in access to employment) to members of a particular group over others for no other 
reason than belonging to that group. 

Attitudes towards positive action vary hugely across the Member States. In the Netherlands it 
is only allowed where there is evidence of structural discrimination on grounds of sex, race 
and disability. In Slovakia positive action is seen specifically as a means of tackling the social 
exclusion  of  the  Roma,  a  controversial  approach  which  was  challenged  before  the 
Constitutional Court and found to be unconstitutional12. A programme of positive action for 
the Roma is also in place in Spain. In Finland positive action is specifically recognised for the 
Sami people. ENAR has called for strengthening of the provisions on positive action, making 
it mandatory for the most vulnerable groups. In Hungary, special scholarships are awarded to 
help Roma students in secondary and higher education. 

In  a  number  of  Member  States  (Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Ireland  and  Cyprus),  special 
measures  are  being  used  in  the  specific  context  of  anti-discrimination  and  diversity  training 
for the police. The concept of positive promotion of equality is applied in some countries. In 
both the UK and Finland, public authorities have a statutory duty to actively promote equality. 
Under  Irish  case  law,  employers  may  have  to  take  positive  steps  to  ensure  that  they  do  not 
discriminate  against  particular  employees  on  grounds  of  race,  for  example  where  the 
employees’ 
in 
understanding their rights13. 

linguistic  and/or  cultural  background  might  cause 

them  difficulty 

CONCLUSION 

Directive  2000/43/EC  represents  a  major  step  forward  in  the  fight  against  racial 
discrimination across the EU. Although all the Member States already had some sort of legal 
requirement in respect of equality and non–discrimination, for most of them the transposition 
of  Directive  2000/43/EC  required  fairly  extensive  changes  to  existing  legislation,  or  whole 
new Acts. This may explain the lateness with which many of the Member States transposed 
the Directive, but most of them have now done so.  

The new legal framework has been in force for just over three years, which is not really long 
enough to evaluate its full impact or potential. So far, no cases have been referred by national 
courts to the European Court of Justice under the preliminary ruling procedure, and it is only 
the  ECJ  can  give  definitive  guidance  on  how  to  interpret  the  provisions  of  the  Directive. 
Future judgments will help the Member States to provide clear and uniform protection against 
discrimination throughout the European Union. 

Article  17  of  Directive  2000/43/EC  states  that  the  European  Commission's  report  on  the 
application  of  the  Directive  "shall  include,  if  necessary,  proposals  to  revise  and  update  this 
Directive".  The  Commission  does  not  currently  see  a  need  to  come  forward  with  such 
proposals.  It  has  reached  this  conclusion  on  the  basis  of  the  lack  of  experience  with 
implementation of the Directive since its entry into force and the lack of case law from the 
ECJ.  

The  challenge  for  the  coming  years  will  be  to  ensure  the  full  and  effective  transposition, 
implementation and enforcement of Directive 2000/43/EC. This will entail the establishment 

12 
13 

Judgment of 18.10.2004 (PL.US.8/04). 
Campbell Catering Ltd v Rasaq. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  mechanisms  and  methods  for  observing  and  reporting  on  the  impact  of  national 
implementing  measures.  In  this  context,  it  will  be  important  to  develop  the  statistical  basis 
and  other  indicators.  Yet  the  scarcity  of  ethnic  data  in  most  Member  States  might  hinder 
proper monitoring of the application of Community legislation. 

There have been objections to the collection of such data on the grounds that it would breach 
the provisions of the EU Data Protection Directive14. This does not reflect the true situation. 
The Directive generally prohibits the processing of sensitive personal data. However, certain 
exemptions  to  this  rule  are  provided  for,  including  where  “the  data  subject  has  given  his 
explicit  consent  to  the  processing  of  those  data”  15;  or  “processing  is  necessary  for  the 
purposes  of  carrying  out  the  obligations  and  specific  rights  of  the  controller  in  the  field  of 
employment” 16. Furthermore, “subject to the provision of suitable safeguards, Member States 
may,  for  reasons  of  substantial  public  interest,  lay  down  exemptions”  17.  Thus,  it  is  for  the 
Member States to decide whether or not ethnic data should be collected to produce statistics 
for  combating  discrimination,  provided  that  the  safeguards  set  out  in  the  Data  Protection 
Directive are respected. 

The Commission also recognises that legislation alone is not enough to prevent discrimination 
and to promote equality. It has set out a number of proposals for further action in this area in 
its  Communication  A  Framework  Strategy  on  Non-Discrimination  and  Equal  Opportunities 
for All adopted in June 200518. In particular, 2007 has been designated as the European Year 
of Equal Opportunities for All, a very effective way of raising awareness of the right to non-
discrimination, and a catalyst for action at national level. Properly implemented and enforced 
legislation,  combined  with  complementary  policy  measures  at  national  and  EU  level,  is  the 
key to reducing discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic origin. 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Directive 95/46/EC, OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31. 
Idem, Article 8 (2) a). 
Idem, Article 8 (2) b) See also Article 8 (4). 
Idem, Article 8 (4). 
COM(2005) 224 final of 1 June 2005. 

EN 

9 

   EN