REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law
Date: 2014-01-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: criminal liability, directive (EU), judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, national implementing measure, racism, xenophobia













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0027 - EN











|



52014DC0027

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law /* COM/2014/027 final */









1.           Introduction
All forms and manifestations of racism and
xenophobia are incompatible with the values upon which the EU is founded. The
Lisbon Treaty provides that the Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of
security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia[1].
Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on
combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of
criminal law[2]
(hereinafter ‘the Framework Decision’) was adopted unanimously on 28 November 2008,
after seven years of negotiations. The complicated nature of these negotiations
was mainly due to the disparity of the Member States’ legal systems and
traditions as regards protection of the right to freedom of expression and its
limits, and yet there was enough common ground to define a Union-wide criminal-law
approach to the phenomenon of racism and xenophobia in order to ensure that the
same behaviour constitutes an offence in all Member States and that effective,
proportionate and dissuasive penalties are provided for natural and legal
persons having committed or being liable for such offences.
The fight against racism and xenophobia
must be framed within a fundamental rights context: the Framework Decision is
based on the need to protect the rights of individuals, groups and society at
large by penalising particularly serious forms of racism and xenophobia while respecting
the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and association. It thereby
embodies ‘the vital importance of combating racial discrimination in all its
forms and manifestations’, as underlined by the European Court of Human Rights,
which has upheld that it may be necessary in ‘democratic societies to sanction
or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or
justify hatred based on intolerance’[3].
The Framework Decision must be applied in conformity with fundamental rights,
in particular freedom of expression and association, as enshrined in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In accordance with Article 10(1) of
Protocol No 36 to the Treaties, prior to the end of the transitional period
expiring on 1 December 2014, the Commission does not have the powers to launch
infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU with regard to Framework Decisions
adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.  
The Framework Decision now requires the
Commission to draw up a written report assessing the extent to which Member
States have implemented all provisions of this legislation. This report is
based on the transposition measures notified by Member States (see Annex) and
technical information requested from them by the Commission during its analysis
(including national case law, preparatory work, guidelines, etc.), as well as
on information gathered from five governmental expert group meetings and a study
contracted by the Commission[4].

Member States were obliged to transmit the
text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations
imposed on them under the Framework Decision by 28 November 2010. All Member
States have notified the national measures taken to comply with the Framework
Decision.
2.           Main elements of the
Framework Decision
The Framework Decision defines a common criminal-law
approach to certain forms of racism and xenophobia, namely with regard to two
types of offences, commonly known as racist and xenophobic hate speech and hate
crime[5].

As regards ‘hate speech’, Member States must
ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable when directed
against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to
race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin:
–                        
publicly inciting to violence or hatred,
including by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
material;
–                        
publicly condoning, denying or grossly
trivialising
–              
crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and
war crimes as defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of the
International Criminal Court (hereinafter ‘ICC’); or
–              
the crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter
of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8
August 1945,
when the conduct is carried out in a manner
likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or one or more of its
members.
Under Article 1(2) of the Framework
Decision, Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either
(i) carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or (ii) which is threatening,
abusive or insulting. Under Article 1(4), any Member State may make punishable
the act of denying or grossly trivialising the above-mentioned crimes only
if these crimes have been established by a final decision of a national court
of this Member State and/or an international court, or by a final decision of
an international court only. This possibility is not provided for the act of
condoning the above-mentioned crimes. 
With regard to ‘hate crime’, Member States
must ensure that racist and xenophobic motivation is considered as an
aggravating circumstance, or alternatively that such motivation may be taken
into account by the courts in determining the applicable penalties.
3.           Transposition by the
Member States
3.1.        Racist and xenophobic hate
speech (Article 1)
3.1.1.     Public incitement to
violence or hatred
While the criminal codes of most Member
States contain provisions that deal with conduct falling under ‘incitement to
violence or hatred’, the terminology used (‘provoking’, ‘stirring up’, ‘propagation’,
‘promoting’, ‘instigating’, ‘urging’, etc.) and the criteria applied vary. DK,
FI and SE do not have specific provisions for the conduct of incitement and use
provisions which incriminate threatening, insulting, abusive, defamatory or
contemptuous language on the basis of race, colour, religion or belief,
national or ethnic origin.
The majority of Member States make specific
reference to both violence and hatred (BE, BG, DE, EE, ES, EL, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, PT, SI, SK). The incrimination of public incitement to both violence
and hatred is relevant for the effectiveness of this instrument. Whereas EE, EL
and PT make reference to both terms, EE requires a resulting danger to the
life, health and property of a person, EL incriminates inciting to acts or
actions likely to lead to hatred or violence and PT requires an additional organisational
element on the part of alleged perpetrators, neither of which is provided for
by the Framework Decision. While CZ, IE, HU, PL, RO and UK legislation
expressly mentions only hatred, IE and UK consider the concept of violence to
be effectively covered by the term hatred, CZ considers it to be covered in
certain circumstances, and HU considers it to be covered through national case
law.
Under the Framework Decision, the victims
of incitement comprise a group of persons or a member of such group. Twelve
Member States (BE, DE, EL, FR, HR, CY, LT, LU, MT, AT, PT and SK) expressly
mention groups and individual members in accordance with the Framework Decision;
in NL incitement to hatred is directed against persons while incitement
to violence is directed against a person. Eight Member States (CZ, DK,
IE, ES, HU, RO, FI and SE) only make express reference to a group of people.
Seven Member States make no express reference to groups or individuals.
According to BG, LV, PL and SI, their respective offences cover acts against
both groups and individuals; EE, IT and UK have provided no detailed information.
In EE incitement is incriminated if it results in danger of a person.
The Framework Decision comes into play when
the victims of incitement are defined by reference to race, colour, religion,
descent or national or ethnic origin. The list of grounds has not been
transposed in all Member States but the objective appears to be generally met.
BE, HR, CY and SK make express mention of all the grounds and LU appears to
have done so with family status corresponding to the term descent. DK, IE, AT,
PT, SE and UK mention all the grounds apart from descent, while BG, DE, ES, FR,
IT, LV and HU omit references to both colour and descent. MT and SI omit
references to descent and national origin, while LT makes no mention of colour
and ethnic origin. CZ, EL, NL, PL and RO omit references to colour, descent and
national origin. The term origin (EE, FR, SI and FI) and ethnic origin (RO) can
be considered to be of equal meaning to the term descent. The term nationality
(BG and LT) appears not to reflect the broader meaning of the term national
origin.
3.1.2.     Public dissemination or
distribution of tracts, pictures or other material inciting to violence or
hatred
The Framework Decision stipulates that acts
of public incitement to violence or hatred by public dissemination or
distribution of tracts, pictures or other material shall also be criminalised,
indicating that not only oral communication should be covered. As required, the
majority of Member States mention the specific means of dissemination in the
provisions dealing with the offence itself (BE, BG, DE, EL, IE, FR, HR, CY, LT,
LU, MT, NL, PL, PT and UK). However, other Member States refer to general
interpretation sections of the Criminal Code (CZ, HU and SK) or point to
official reports (FI) or preparatory works (SE) on the matter. LV refers to case law in which online communication is penalised. ES uses the expression disseminates
offensive information and IT the term propagates ideas. EE,
AT and SI stipulate only that the act must be committed publicly and DK publicly
or with the intention of wider dissemination. 
3.1.3.     Public condoning, denial or
gross trivialisation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
The Framework Decision stipulates that
Member States must criminalise the public condoning, denial and gross
trivialisation of the crimes defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of
the ICC (crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes), directed
against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to
race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct
is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such
a group or a member of such a group.
This provision can be transposed without an
express reference to the ICC Statute if the relevant national legislation
provides for definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
which mirror the Statute. Eight Member States (BG, HR, CY, LU, LT, MT, SI and SK) criminalise the three types of conduct (i.e. publicly condoning, denying
and grossly trivialising). CY, LU, MT, SI and SK make express reference to, or
very closely reproduce, the aforementioned articles of the Statute. SK requires
that the conduct must vilify or threaten the group or individual.
Seven Member States do not expressly refer
to all three types of conduct, with ES, FR, IT and PL referring only to
condoning, PT to denying and LV and RO to condoning or denying (RO incriminates
minimisation only through distribution of materials). LV and PT refer to
all international crimes while RO refers to genocide and crimes against
humanity, and ES and IT only to genocide.
In terms of the requisite effect of the conduct
being likely to incite to violence or hatred, FR, IT, LV, LU and RO do not
require that the conduct be carried out in a manner likely to incite to
violence and hatred, while BG, ES, PT and SI require more than a mere
likelihood of incitement.
Thirteen Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, IE, HU, NL, AT, FI, SE and UK) have no criminal-law provisions governing this
conduct. DE and NL state that national case law applicable to Holocaust denial
and/or trivialisation would also apply to the conduct covered by this article.
3.1.4.     Public condoning, denial or
gross trivialisation of the crimes defined in the Charter of the International
Military Tribunal
The Framework Decision obliges Member
States to criminalise the public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of
crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by major
war criminals of the European Axis countries. Such conduct can be considered as
a specific manifestation of antisemitism when it takes place in a way that is
likely to incite to violence or hatred. It is therefore essential that this
conduct be incriminated under national penal codes.[6]
This provision can be transposed without a
specific reference to the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, as
long as it is evident that it refers to specific historical crimes committed by
the European Axis countries. FR, CY, LU and SK make explicit reference to the
Charter of the International Military Tribunal, but FR law is currently limited
to contesting crimes and LU law does not refer to crimes against peace.
Six Member States (BE, CZ, DE, LT, HU and
AT) make reference to the National Socialist regime or Nazi Germany
as the relevant perpetrators of these crimes. Of these 6, BE makes specific
reference to genocide only, while CZ and HU refer to genocide and other crimes
against humanity. RO makes reference to denial and condoning of the Holocaust, referring
to minimisation only in relation to the distribution of materials. SI
refers to denial, condoning and trivialisation of the Holocaust. LT and PL limit
the incrimination by referring to crimes committed by the National Socialist
regime against the Lithuanian or Polish nation or citizens,
respectively, with PL making reference only to denial in this respect.
The remaining 15 Member States (BG, DK, EE,
EL, IE, ES, HR, IT, LV, MT, NL, PT, FI, SE and UK) have no specific provisions
criminalising this form of conduct. NL, FI and UK have submitted sentencing
rulings for trivialisation, condoning and denial of the Holocaust, based on criminal-law
provisions punishing respectively incitement, ethnic agitation or stirring up
of hatred. 
3.1.5.     Optional qualifiers
Certain Member States have made use of the
option provided by Article 1(2) allowing Member States to punish only hate
speech which is either (i) carried out in a manner likely to disturb public
order or ii) which is threatening, abusive or insulting. CY and SI mirror this provision
by providing for both alternatives mentioned. AT makes the crime of incitement
to violence (not to hatred) dependent on it being likely to disturb public
order. DE makes all conduct mentioned above dependent on being capable of
disturbing the public peace. Similarly, HU case law points to such conduct
being dependent on a likely disturbance of public peace. MT appears to make the
crime of incitement to violence or hatred dependent on it being threatening,
abusive or insulting while, like LT, the crime of condoning, denial or
trivialisation is dependent on either of the two options. IE and the UK make the conduct of stirring up hatred dependent on it being threatening, abusive or
insulting. 
As regards the option provided by Article
1(4), FR, CY, LT, LU, MT, RO and SK have chosen to use it in relation to the
conduct of publicly denying or grossly trivialising the crimes defined in the
ICC Statute. CY, LT, LU, RO and SK use this possibility in relation to the
conduct of publicly denying or grossly trivialising the crimes defined in the
Charter of International Military Tribunal[7].
3.2.        Instigation, aiding and
abetting (Article 2)
With regard to Article 2, which deals with
the instigation and aiding and abetting of the crimes listed in Article 1,
practically all Member States apply the general, horizontal rules regulating
such behaviour[8].
3.3.        Criminal penalties
(Article 3)
The large majority of Member States have
implemented the requirement that conduct involving hate speech is punishable by
criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of
imprisonment. The maximum penalty in relation to hate speech ranges from 1 year
(BE) to 7 years (UK, in the case of a conviction on indictment), and several
Member States (BE, EL, IE, FR, CY, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, FI, SE and UK)
afford the courts the option of imposing a fine as an alternative to
imprisonment. The maximum penalty in relation to public condoning, denial or
gross trivialisation of crimes ranges from 1 year and a fine (BE) to 20 years
(AT), with DE, FR, CY, LV, LT and RO giving the courts the alternative of
imposing a fine or other penalty.
3.4.        Racist and
xenophobic hate crime (Article 4)
The Framework Decision requires Member
States to specifically address racist and xenophobic motivation in their
criminal codes or, alternatively, ensure that their courts take such motivation
into consideration in the determination of penalties. Due to the discriminatory
nature of racist and xenophobic motives and their impact on individuals, groups
and society at large, Member States must ensure that racist and xenophobic
motives are properly unmasked and adequately addressed.
Fifteen Member States (CZ, DK, EL, ES, HR,
IT, CY, LV, LT, MT, AT, RO, FI, SE and SK) have made use of the first option
provided for in Article 4 by stipulating in their criminal codes that racist
and xenophobic motivation shall be considered an aggravating
circumstance with regard to all crimes. Eight Member States (BE, BG, DE,
FR, HU, PL, PT and UK) stipulate that a racist or xenophobic motivation shall
be considered an aggravating circumstance with regard to certain (often
violent) crimes such as murder, serious bodily harm and other violence
against persons or property. Three Member States out of the latter group also
use the second option provided for in Article 4, as they have criminal-law
provisions stating that racist motivation may be taken into account by
the courts (BE) or have provided case law and detailed statistics which
demonstrate that racist and xenophobic motivation is taken into consideration
(DE and UK).
PL, PT and SI refer to general criminal-law
provisions which stipulate that the general motivation of the perpetrator shall
be considered and EE refers to the aggravating circumstance of other base
motives. HU refers to a considerable amount of registered hate crimes and
convictions but has not yet provided the relevant case law. NL refers to an
official guidance document which states that racist or xenophobic motivation
should be taken into account, while IE and LU simply state that motivation can
always be considered by the courts.
3.5.        Liability of legal persons
and applicable penalties (Articles 5 and 6)
Legal persons must be held liable for hate
speech committed by a person who has a leading position within the legal
person or where lack of supervision by such a person has enabled the hate
speech to be carried out by a person under its authority. While the Framework
Decision does not oblige Member States to impose criminal sanctions, penalties
must, in all cases, be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
The legislation of most Member States
(apart from EL, ES, IT and SK[9])
addresses the liability of legal persons in the case of hate speech, the
majority regulating the matter by means of horizontal criminal code provisions[10] and the imposition of
criminal fines.
Article 5 must be transposed with regard to
all persons acting for the benefit of the legal person. Some national
laws are not clear on this point (BE, DK and LU). Others seem to add conditions,
such as the effect that the legal person must have enriched itself (BG),
the requirement that the crime violates any duty of the legal person
(HR) and the rule that action may only be taken against a legal person if the
court had previously imposed punishment on a natural person (HU). 
3.6.        Constitutional rules and
fundamental principles (Article 7)
FR, HU, SE and UK have referred to Article 7
of the Framework Decision in their notifications.
The Commission pays particular attention to
ensuring that the transposition of the Framework Decision fully respects all
fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which
result also from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. 
As established by the Charter of
Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, any limitation
on the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms must be provided for by law
and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle
of proportionality, limitations may only be made if they are necessary and
genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others[11].
The European Court of Human Rights has
recognised that tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings
constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. Furthermore it
has held that remarks directed against the Convention’s underlying values could
not be allowed to enjoy the protection afforded under Article 10 (freedom of
expression)[12].

3.7.        Initiation of
investigation or prosecution (Article 8)
Member States must ensure that
investigations into or prosecution of hate speech are not dependent on a report
or an accusation made by the victim, at least in the most serious cases. While
the majority of Member States have specific, often horizontal criminal-law
provisions which ensure ex officio investigation and/or prosecution in
the case of the majority of crimes, including hate speech, certain Member
States have provided case law, official statements and other information to show
that this provision is implemented in practice.
3.8.        Jurisdiction (Article 9)
The legislation of every Member State includes the territoriality principle under which jurisdiction for hate speech
offences is established with regard to conduct committed in whole or in part
within its territory. All Member States apart from IE and UK have also notified criminal-law rules which specifically extend their jurisdiction to
conduct committed by one of (their) nationals. IT, PT and RO appear to
exclude hate speech from this latter jurisdictional rule.
Concerning legal persons, 21 Member States
have provided no conclusive information as regards the transposition of the
rule that jurisdiction must be established when the conduct has been committed for
the benefit of a legal person that has its head office in the territory of that
Member State.
Online hate speech is one of the most
prevalent ways of manifesting racist and xenophobic attitudes. Consequently,
Member States should have the means to intervene in cases of online hate
speech. When establishing jurisdiction over conduct committed within their
territory, Member States must ensure that their jurisdiction extends to cases
where the conduct is committed through an information system, and the offender
or materials hosted in that system are in its territory. It appears that only
CY fully transposes these jurisdictional rules into its legislation. The
legislation of DK, MT and SI makes specific reference to information systems,
and HR refers to the offence being committed through electronic press. CZ, LU,
HU, AT, PT, RO, SK and SE say that their general jurisdictional rules cover
online hate speech situations but have provided no detailed information. On the
other hand, BE, BG, DE, FR and UK have provided case law to show that their
courts have taken cognizance of cases involving information systems, the
majority of which appear to establish jurisdiction when the offender is
physically present/resident in the relevant jurisdiction or when the material
was accessible in that jurisdiction or clearly addressed to that country’s
public.
4.           Suggested practices to
strengthen the implementation of the Framework Decision 
The information obtained from Member States
has shown that the authorities responsible for investigation and prosecution need
practical tools and skills to be able to identify and deal with the offences
covered by the Framework Decision, and to interact and communicate with
victims.[13]
They should have sufficient knowledge of relevant legislation and clear
guidelines.
The existence of special police hate crime
units, special prosecutors’ offices for hate speech and crime, detailed
guidelines, as well as specific training for police, prosecutors and judges are
good practices which may support the implementation of this legislation.
The exchange of information and good
practices by bringing together law enforcement officials, prosecutors and
judges, civil society organisations and other stakeholders can also contribute
to better implementation.
Due to its special character, including the
difficulty of identifying the authors of illegal online content and removing
such content, hate speech on the internet creates special demands on law
enforcement and judicial authorities in terms of expertise, resources and the
need for cross-border cooperation.
Underreporting is common for hate speech
and hate crime[14].
Due to the nature of these crimes, victims often resort to victim-support
services, rather than reporting the crime to the police. Speedy implementation
of the Victims’ Directive is thus essential in order to protect victims of hate
speech and crime.
The existence of reliable, comparable and
systematically collected data can contribute to more effective implementation
of the Framework Decision. Reported incidents of hate speech and hate crime
should always be registered, as well as their case history, in order to assess
the level of prosecutions and sentences. Data collection on hate speech and
hate crime is not uniform across the EU and consequently does not allow for
reliable cross-country comparisons[15].
The Commission has asked all Member States to provide it with figures about the
incidence and the criminal response to hate speech and hate crime. Data
submitted by 17 Member States are presented in the Annex to this Report. 
Racist and xenophobic attitudes expressed
by opinion leaders may contribute to a social climate that condones racism and
xenophobia and may therefore propagate more serious forms of conduct, such as
racist violence. Public condemnation of racism and xenophobia by authorities,
political parties and civil society contributes to acknowledging the
seriousness of these phenomena and to actively fighting against racist and
xenophobic speech and behaviour[16].
5.           Conclusion
At present it appears that a number of
Member States have not transposed fully and/or correctly all the provisions of
the Framework Decision, namely in relation to the offences of denying,
condoning and grossly trivialising certain crimes. The majority of Member
States have provisions on incitement to racist and xenophobic violence and hatred
but these do not always seem to fully transpose the offences covered by the
Framework Decision. Some gaps have also been observed in relation to the racist
and xenophobic motivation of crimes, the liability of legal persons and
jurisdiction.
The Commission therefore considers that the
full and correct legal transposition of the existing Framework Decision
constitutes a first step towards effectively combating racism and xenophobia by
means of criminal law in a coherent manner across the EU.
The Commission will engage in bilateral
dialogues with Member States during 2014 with a view to ensuring full and
correct transposition of the Framework Decision, giving due consideration to
the Charter of Fundamental Rights and, in particular, to freedom of expression
and association[17].
[1]               Article 67(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU). 
[2]               OJ L 328/55 of 6.12.2008.
[3]               ECtHR judgments of 23.9.1994 (Jersild v. Denmark)
and 6.7.2006 (Erbakan v. Turkey). See also the judgment of 9.7.2013 (Vona
v Hungary), specifically on freedom of assembly and association.
[4]               Study on the legal framework applicable to racist or
xenophobic hate speech and hate crime in the EU Member States
(JUST/2011/EVAL/FW/0146/A4).
[5]               These terms are not, however, used by the Framework
Decision. 
[6]               The ECtHR has stated that ‘denying crimes against
humanity constitutes one of the most serious forms of racial defamation of Jews
and of incitement to hatred of them’ (Garaudy v. France, judgment of
24.6.2003). Moreover, the denial or revision of ‘clearly established
historical facts — such as the Holocaust — […] would be removed from the
protection of Article 10 [freedom of expression] by Article 17’
[prohibition of abuse of rights] of the ECHR (Lehideux and Isorni v. France,
judgment of 23.9.1998). 
[7]               This option cannot be used for the act of condoning
these crimes.
[8]               It appears that only MT dedicates a specific provision
to instigation, aiding and abetting of these crimes.
[9]               SK provides for a form of indirect liability by
allowing for the ‘seizure of a monetary sum’.
[10]             FR has a specific system for certain crimes committed
via the press which excludes liability of legal persons.
[11]             Provided by Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, and similarly by Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human
Rights specifically in relation to freedom of expression. 
[12]             Judgments of 4.12.2003 (Gündüz v. Turkey) and of 24.6.2003 (Garaudy v. France).
[13]             The investigation of racist or xenophobic acts and the
application of appropriate sanctions is necessary in order to comply with
fundamental rights as confirmed by ECtHR,  judgments of 6.7.2005 (Nachova
and Others v. Bulgaria), 10.3.2010 (Cakir v. Belgium), 27.1.2011 (Dimitrova
and Others v. Bulgaria).
[14]             See, in particular, the report from the European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Making hate crime visible in the
European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights 2012.
[15]             Ibidem. 
[16]             See ECtHR judgments of 6.7.2006 (Erbakan v Turkey) and 16.7.2009 (Féret v. Belgium).
[17]             Ref. Article 10 of Protocol No 36 of the Treaty of Lisbon. Infringement procedures for Framework Decisions are not possible before 1 December
2014.