Fundamental rights : challenges and achievements in 2013.
Date: 2014-07-24
Institutions: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, activity report, anti-discriminatory measure, approximation of laws, fundamental rights, human rights

Country codes

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

HR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Czech Republic

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Germany

Denmark

Estonia

Greece

Spain

Finland

France

Hungary

Croatia

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Sweden

Slovenia

Slovakia

United Kingdom

HIGHLIGHTS

2013

Fundamental rights:

key legal and policy

developments in 2013

HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  took  a  variety  of  important  steps  in  2013  to  protect  and  promote  fundamental  rights  by 

assuming new international commitments, revamping legislation and pursuing innovative policies on the ground. Yet, fun-

damental rights violations seized the spotlight with distressing frequency: would-be migrants drowned off the EU’s coast, 

unprecedented mass surveillance, racist and extremist-motivated murders, child poverty and Roma deprivation.

In response, the EU completed a series of important legal reforms, particularly in asylum, while Member States worked to 

transpose the EU Victims’ Directive into national law and pursued their national Roma integration strategies. Still, new laws 

on the books do not necessarily transform the situation on the ground. Crisis-driven austerity measures raised some funda-

mental rights concerns. A persisting gap between law and practice troubled a broad spectrum of human rights observers, 

particularly in asylum policy, Roma integration and child and victims’ rights. 

This year’s FRA annual report looks at fundamental rights-related developments in asylum, immigration and integration; 

border control and visa policy; information society, respect for private life and data protection; the rights of the child and 

the protection of children; equality and non-discrimination; racism, xenophobia and related intolerance; access to justice 

and judicial cooperation; rights of crime victims; EU Member States and international obligations.

It features two new chapters, one on Roma integration following the drawing up of the national Roma integration strategies 

and a second looking at the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and especially its use before national courts as it approaches 

its fifth anniversary as a binding document. 

FOCUS

This year’s Focus section examines how the EU and its Member States, as part of their efforts to assume a pole 

position in the international human rights apparatus, could embed fundamental rights considerations more 

firmly in their policy making processes. By way of illustration, the Focus outlines for consideration 20 tools that 

could form part of a future EU strategic framework on fundamental rights.

The full report and the annual report 

summary – Highlights 2013 – are available in 

English, French and German. These documents 

are available for download at: fra.europa.eu.

FRA - EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria

Tel. +43 1580 30-0 – Fax +43 1580 30-699

fra.europa.eu – info@fra.europa.eu

facebook.com/fundamentalrights

linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency

twitter.com/EURightsAgency

ISSN 1831-0362 (print) 

ISBN 978-92-9239-453-0 (print)

ISSN 1977-9755 (online)

ISBN 978-92-9239-456-1 (online)

d

o

i

:

1

0

.

2

8

1

1

/

6

9

2

5

6

T

K

-

A

G

-

1

4

-

0

0

1

-

E

N

-

C

F

R

A

F

u

n

d

a

m

e

n

t

a

l

r

i

g

h

t

s

:

c

h

a

l

l

e

n

g

e

s

a

n

d

a

c

h

i

e

v

e

m

e

n

t

s

i

n

2

0

1

3

ANNUAL REPORT
2013

Fundamental rights: 
challenges and 
achievements in 2013

Acronyms

ECHR 

CJEU 

 European Convention on Human Rights

 Court of Justice of the European Union 
(CJEU is also used for the time predating 
the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty 
in December 2009)

EASO 

ECRI 

European Asylum Support Office

 European Commission against Racism 
and Intolerance

ECtHR 

 European Court of Human Rights

EDPS 

European Data Protection Supervisor

EU-MIDIS  

 European Union Minorities and 
Discrimination Survey

FRA  

 European Union Agency for Fundamental 
Rights

FRANET 

 Network of Legal and Social Science 
Experts (FRA)

LGBT 

NHRI 

NGO  

TEU 

TFEU 

UN 

 Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

National Human Rights Institute

 Non-governmental organisation

 Treaty on European Union

 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

 United Nations

Note:  A list of international and regional human rights conventions 

and their abbreviations can be found in Chapter 10.

The FRA highlights the titles of the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by using 
the following colour code:

Dignity

Freedoms

Equality

Solidarity

Citizens’ rights

Justice

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A great deal of information on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the FRA website at fra.europa.eu.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Cover picture: iStockphoto; European Commission; OSCE (Milan Obradovic) 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria
Tel. +43 1580 30-0 – Fax +43 1580 30-699
Email: info@fra.europa.eu – fra.europa.eu

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-9239-456-1 (online version) 
doi:10.2811/69283 (online version) 

ISBN 978-92-9239-453-0 (print version)
doi:10.2811/69256 (print version)

© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014
Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Printed on process chlorine-free recycled paper (PCF)

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

•   one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); 

from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); 

by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 

calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

Fundamental rights:
challenges and 
achievements in 2013

Foreword

2013 was characterised by an intense debate on how best to protect and promote the rule of law within the European 
Union (EU). This year’s Focus section, ‘An EU internal strategic framework for fundamental rights: joining forces to 
achieve better results’, therefore looks at how to improve the protection of fundamental rights within EU Member 
States and the Union they are collectively building. To ensure that the EU and its Member States fulfil their legal 
obligations, fundamental rights must become more firmly embedded in the EU’s policy cycle.

FRA’s 2011 Annual report dedicated its focus section to the theme ‘Bringing rights to life: The fundamental rights 
landscape of the European Union’ describing the existing system of fundamental rights protection in Europe. Last 
year’s focus examined ‘The European Union as a Community of values: safeguarding fundamental rights in times of 
crisis’; it dealt with the question on how the existing system reacts under the stress test of different crisis phenomena. 
Building on these previous focus sections, this year’s looks forward, offering some ideas for strengthening the Union’s 
fundamental rights profile and rendering the efforts of different actors at all governance layers more efficient.

Based on the agency’s new Multi Annual Framework for 2013–2017, this year’s Annual report follows a slightly 
revised structure including a chapter on the integration of Roma populations in Europe. The reader will also discover 
another new chapter on ‘The Charter before national courts and non‑judicial human rights bodies’. In this chapter, 
we throw light on a less prominent but very important aspect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, namely its 
use before national courts.

Looking at the future of FRA’s Annual report, the reader will see more changes in future: next year’s annual report 
will become shorter and sharper. We thus seek to meet our stakeholders’ expectations who, over the past years, 
have provided such valuable feedback on and recognition of our annual report.

As in past years, we would like to thank the FRA Management Board for its diligent oversight of the Annual report 
from draft stage through publication, as well as the FRA Scientific Committee for its invaluable advice and expert 
support. Such guidance helps guarantee that this important FRA report is scientifically sound, robust and well‑founded. 
Special thanks go to the National Liaison Officers for their comments on the draft, thereby improving the accuracy of 
EU Member State information. We are also grateful to various institutions and mechanisms, such as those established 
by the Council of Europe, which continue to provide valuable sources of information for this report.

Maija Sakslin 
Chairperson of the Management Board 

Morten Kjaerum
Director

3

The FRA Annual report covers several titles of the  
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,  
colour coded as follows:

FREEDOMS

EQUALITY

 Asylum, immigration and integration
 Border control and visa policy
 Information society, respect for private life and data protection

 The rights of the child and the protection of children
 Equality and non-discrimination
 Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance
 Roma integration

JUSTICE

 Access to justice and judicial cooperation
 Rights of crime victims

Contents

FOREWORD  �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  3

FOCUS

AN EU INTERNAL STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: JOINING FORCES 
TO ACHIEVE BETTER RESULTS  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  7

CHARTER

THE EU CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS AND NON‑JUDICIAL 
HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES  �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  21

1  ASYLUM, IMMIGRATION AND INTEGRATION  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  37

1.1.  EU faces challenges managing sea borders  .......................................................................................................... 38
1.2.  CJEU provides authoritative interpretation of EU asylum law  ............................................................................ 39
1.3.  Member States slow to implement EU law safeguards: the example of effective 

return‑monitoring systems  ...................................................................................................................................... 45

1.4.  Some Member States require excessive or disproportionate fees for residence permits – 

an example of practical obstacles for migrant integration  ................................................................................ 48
Outlook  ................................................................................................................................................................................. 51
Annex  ................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Index of Member State references  .................................................................................................................................. 55
Endnotes  .............................................................................................................................................................................. 56

2  BORDER CONTROL AND VISA POLICY �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  61

2.1.  EU adopts and proposes new legislation  ...............................................................................................................  61
2.2.  Number of arrivals in southern Europe rises  ........................................................................................................ 63
2.3.  Large‑scale IT systems in the areas of borders and visas  .................................................................................. 65
2.4.  Towards a focus that includes the fundamental right aspects of EU visa policy  ............................................ 69
Outlook  ................................................................................................................................................................................. 71
Index of Member State references  .................................................................................................................................. 72
Endnotes  .............................................................................................................................................................................. 73

3 

INFORMATION SOCIETY, RESPECT FOR PRIVATE LIFE AND DATA PROTECTION  �����������������������������������������������������  81

3.1.  Mass surveillance revelations spark global concern  ........................................................................................... 81
3.2.  EU recognises need for robust data protection regime  ...................................................................................... 85
3.3.  Information society: EU moves to protect and codify fundamental rights online  .......................................... 89
Outlook  ................................................................................................................................................................................. 95
Index of Member State references  .................................................................................................................................. 96
Endnotes  .............................................................................................................................................................................. 97

4 

THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  103

4.1.  Europe takes steps to improve access to child‑friendly justice  ....................................................................... 103
4.2.  Europe tackles violence against children  ............................................................................................................ 106
4.3.  Europe takes aim at child poverty  ........................................................................................................................ 112
Outlook  ............................................................................................................................................................................... 116
Index of Member State references  ................................................................................................................................ 117
Endnotes  ............................................................................................................................................................................ 118

5 

EQUALITY AND NON‑DISCRIMINATION  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127

5.1  EU legislation on equal treatment between persons stalls  .............................................................................. 127
5.2  Discrimination on all grounds persists in the EU  ................................................................................................ 129
5.3  Discrimination hinders full participation in society  ............................................................................................ 131
5.4  Member States adopt measures to counter discrimination  ............................................................................. 134
5.5  EU deploys EU structural funds in countering discrimination  ........................................................................... 137

5

Outlook  ............................................................................................................................................................................... 139
Index of Member State references  ................................................................................................................................ 140
Endnotes  ............................................................................................................................................................................ 141

6  RACISM, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  149

6.1  Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance again top political agenda  ....................................................... 149
6.2  Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance fuel incidents and brutal crimes  ............................................ 151
6.3  Discriminatory ethnic profiling persists  ............................................................................................................... 155
6.4  Responses to manifestations of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance  ............................................. 156
6.5  EU Member States need better official data collection to address racist crime effectively  ....................... 158
Outlook  ............................................................................................................................................................................... 159
Index of Member State references  ................................................................................................................................ 160
Endnotes  ............................................................................................................................................................................ 161

7  ROMA INTEGRATION  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  169

7.1.  European institutions renew political commitment to Roma inclusion and integration  .............................. 169
7.2.  Member States begin implementation of national Roma integration strategies  ......................................... 170
7.3.  Member States target integration in four priority areas ................................................................................... 173
7.4.  Anti‑Gypsyism, hate speech and hate crime against Roma  ............................................................................. 179
Outlook  ............................................................................................................................................................................... 181
Index of Member State references  ................................................................................................................................ 182
Endnotes  ............................................................................................................................................................................ 183

8  ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION  ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  191

8.1.  EU and other international actors take steps to strengthen the rule of law and justice systems  ............. 191
8.2.  Member States reform court procedures to facilitate access to justice  ......................................................... 197
8.3.  Member States turn attention to non‑judicial mechanisms  ............................................................................. 201
Outlook  ............................................................................................................................................................................... 203
Index of Member State references  ...............................................................................................................................  204
Endnotes  ............................................................................................................................................................................ 205

9  RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  211

9.1.  EU Member States take steps to enhance victims’ rights  ................................................................................ 211
9.2.  Member States enhance victims’ access to compensation  .............................................................................. 214
9.3.  Member States move to strengthen rights of victims of domestic violence 

and violence against women  ................................................................................................................................ 215
9.4.  EU focuses on enhancing rights of hate crime victims ...................................................................................... 218
9.5.  Member States address rights of victims of trafficking and severe forms of labour exploitation  ...........  221
Outlook  ..............................................................................................................................................................................  225
Index of Member State references  ...............................................................................................................................  226
Endnotes  ...........................................................................................................................................................................  227

10  EU MEMBER STATES AND INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 233

10.1  Fundamental rights landscape grows ever more intricate  ..............................................................................  233
10.2 Member States accept new Council of Europe instruments  ............................................................................  234
10.3 OSCE monitoring provides human rights feedback ............................................................................................ 240
10.4 Member States accept UN treaties  ....................................................................................................................... 240
10.5 National‑level monitoring and follow‑up supports human rights performance  .......................................... 246
Outlook  ............................................................................................................................................................................... 249
Index of Member State references  ...............................................................................................................................  250
Endnotes  ............................................................................................................................................................................ 251

6

An EU internal strategic framework 
for fundamental rights: 
joining forces to achieve better results

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 
before national courts and non-judicial 
human rights bodies

FOCUS
FOCUS

An EU internal strategic 
framework for fundamental 
rights: joining forces to achieve 
better results

The European Council will map out new strategic priorities in 2014 for the European Union (EU) in policy fields 
linked to fundamental rights. A new European Parliament and European Commission will support the EU in 
concluding the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). To make sure that the EU and 
its Member States, which form a community of values, fulfil their legal obligations, fundamental rights must 
become more firmly embedded in the EU’s policy cycle: public authorities at all layers of governance must join 
up to guarantee that the EU and its Member States fully conform to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
EU in Justice and Home Affairs, and all other policy fields in which they interact. This could best be provided 
in a ‘Strategic EU Framework on fundamental rights’ complementing the newly presented EU Framework on 
strengthening the rule of law. This focus section presents some first thoughts on how fundamental rights 
considerations could feed more systematically into concrete policy making at national and EU level without 
interfering with the principle of subsidiarity and the balance between the different layers of governance. Rather 
than describing the format of such a strategic EU framework, this focus section presents ideas for some of its 
potential content (‘tools’).

This  focus  section  of  the  Annual  report  explores 
how to improve the protection of fundamental rights 
within  EU  Member  States  and  the  Union  they  are 
collectively building. It thus forms the third pane in 
a triptych of focus sections. The first presented the 
fundamental rights landscape in Europe, that is the 
standards, institutions and mechanisms existing at all 
levels of governance of the United Nations (UN), the 
Council of Europe, the EU and its Member States.1 The 
second pane analysed whether and how to safeguard 
fundamental rights in times of crisis, be it economic, 
social or political.2

The  evidence  FRA  has  collected  over  the  years 
 consistently shows that there is no room for compla‑
cency. If fundamental rights are to be safeguarded, all 
those involved must commit to them with vigour. The 
rule of law debates, which gained intensity in 2013, 
confirmed this, by focusing on how to ensure that all 
EU Member States uphold the values of the Union as 
enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union 
(TEU). The debates signalled clearly that respect for 
these values cannot be taken for granted but requires 
a shared and regularly renewed commitment by all 
those concerned, at all levels of governance.3

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human 
dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law 
and respect for human rights, including the rights of 
persons belonging to minorities. These values are common 
to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, 
non‑discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and 
equality between women and men prevail.”

Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 2, OJ 2012 C 326

The  year  2014  offers  a  window  of  opportunity  to 
 underline and promote these shared values. Indeed, 
as the Stockholm Programme runs its course by the end 
of the year, the EU will again need to define its strategic 
priorities in policy fields relevant to fundamental rights, 
including immigration, asylum, visa, border control, 
integration, criminal justice and civil justice.4

During the year, the EU will continue to take decisive 
steps towards acceding to the ECHR, thereby submitting 
the Union to an external fundamental rights scrutiny 
and further improving fundamental rights protection 
in the EU. At the end of 2014, the transitional period for 
police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal 
matters elapses. In practice, this means that the jurisdic‑
tion of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) 

7

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

will be extended and the European Commission will be 
entitled to bring infringement procedures in additional 
areas of relevance to fundamental rights to the court.5

The question then arises how the EU and its Member 
States  could  establish  a  more  structured  frame‑
work for developing and implementing fundamental 
rights‑related policies at various levels of governance, 
and this in a joint effort. Such an internal framework 
could be equivalent to the EU Strategic Framework and 
Action plan, which has been guiding the EU’s external 
human  rights  policies  since  2012.  Adopting  such 
a framework would show that EU practices at home 
accord with what the EU projects to the outside world.6

Before suggesting 20 tools that could be used to make 
such a framework a reality, this focus section outlines 
how discussions on the EU’s values gained momentum 
in 2013 and how fundamental rights fit into that picture.

Debate on EU values gains 
momentum in 2013
The  debate  on  the  EU’s  values  gained  intensity 
and depth in 2013 as a result of proposals and ideas 
tabled by the European Commission,7 the European 
Parliament,8  ministers,9 academic writers10, policy con‑
sultants11 and civil society organisations.12 The idea of 
a new instrument to protect the EU values in Article 2 
of the TEU garnered increasing consensus, but views 
diverged on the actors to involve, the procedures to 
apply and whether or not to impose sanctions.13

In May 2013, the Council of the European Union called 
for “consensus on what needs to be done in a system‑
atic way to protect fundamental rights even at a time 
of severe economic crisis and to promote the rule of 
law, while also respecting the national constitutional 
traditions of the Member States”.14 The Council further 
stressed the need “to take forward the debate [on the 
rule of law] in line with the Treaties on the possible need 
for and shape of a collaborative and systematic method 
to tackle these issues”.

The Council of the European Union raised seven points 
to guide this debate, stressing that the discussion and 
respective proposals should:

1.  be  inclusive  in  terms  of  relevant  bodies  and 

 participation of civil society;

2.  be  based  on  an  agreed  understanding  of  the 
 problems to be addressed and methods applied;

3.  guarantee full synergy and avoid overlaps, especially 

with the Council of Europe;

4.  identify the EU’s added value of action;

5.  consider the full range of possible avenues and seek 

consensus among Member States;

6.  be based on transparency and equality;

7.  aim at real positive impact on the lives of ordinary 

persons.

The European Parliament also voiced its views, calling 
on the European Council, the European Commission and 
national parliaments to take action in order to protect 
Article 2 values. It underlined, vis‑à‑vis the European 
Commission, that infringement procedures are insuf‑
ficient  to  guarantee  such  respect. It  also  provided 
benchmarks for “a new and more effective method of 
safeguarding fundamental values”, including judicial 
independence, synergy or respect for national consti‑
tutional traditions and equality among Member States. 
The European Parliament called on national parliaments 
to “enhance their role in monitoring compliance with 
fundamental  values  and  to  denounce  any  risks  of 
deterioration of these values that may occur within 
the EU borders”.15

On a more operational level, the European Parliament 
reiterated that “the setting up of such a mechanism 
[to  safeguard  fundamental  rights]  could  involve 
a rethinking of the mandate of the European Union 
Agency for Fundamental Rights [FRA], which should 
be enhanced to include regular monitoring of Member 
States’ compliance with Article 2 TEU”.16 The parliament 
recommended the creation of a “monitoring mecha‑
nism, to be dealt with by the [European] Commission 
with exclusive priority and urgency, coordinated at the 
highest political level and taken fully into account in the 
various EU sectoral policies”.17

The European Parliament also recommended setting up 
a commission to ensure the continued and robust use 
of the eligibility prerequisites that states must currently 
fulfil to join the EU, known as the Copenhagen criteria. 
This commission would be a high‑level group that would 
cooperate with existing mechanisms and structures to 
ensure the Copenhagen criteria’s continued use.18 In 
early 2014, the European Parliament reiterated these 
proposals and called on the European Commission, “in 
collaboration with the FRA, to adopt a decision estab‑
lishing this ‘new Copenhagen mechanism’, as it did 
for the monitoring of corruption in the EU and in the 
Member States, and to revise the FRA rules in order to 
give it enhanced powers and competences”.19

In November 2013, the European Commission convened 
the  ‘Assises  de  la  justice’  conference,  where  over 
100 contributions to the discussions on the rule of law 
and future of justice policies were submitted.20 The dis‑
cussions and submissions fed into the Commission’s 
EU Justice Agenda for 202021 and into a new framework 
to strengthen the Rule of Law.22

8

An EU internal strategic framework for fundamental rights: joining forces to achieve better results

“Today everybody mentions the situation in Hungary and 
Romania. Are we sure that we will not see such a situation 
again in a couple of weeks in another EU country? Now let 
us be honest – and some of the parliamentarians have said 
it very clearly – we face a Copenhagen dilemma. We are 
very strict on the Copenhagen criteria, notably on the rule 
of law in the accession process of a new Member State but, 
once this Member State has joined the European Union, we 
appear not to have any instrument to see whether the rule 
of law and the independence of the judiciary still command 
respect.”

“We as a European Union need to stand firm on our values 
and on the rule of law, and that is why I think that we 
need to put in place an objective mechanism to assess the 
judicial systems in all of our […]Member States, because 
our infringement procedures are too technical and too slow 
to react to high‑risk situations concerning the rule of law, 
and because the Article 7 procedure is a nuclear option that 
should only be used by the Commission, Parliament and the 
Council when there is really no other solution.”

Viviane Reding, Vice President of the European Commission, speech to 
the European Parliament on 12 September 2012, Doc. 13780/12, PE 413, 
Annex III, available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?
l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%2013780%202012%20INIT

This  framework  is  meant  “to  address  and  resolve 
a  situation where there is a systemic threat to the rule 
of law”, complementing the infringement procedure 
under Article 258 of the TFEU as well as the procedures 
under Article 7 of the TEU.23 Rule of law is referred to as 
“a constitutional principle with both formal and substan‑
tive components […] intrinsically linked to respect for 
democracy and for fundamental rights”.24

The  framework  as  presented  by  the  European 
Commission is “not designed to be triggered by indi‑
vidual breaches of fundamental rights or by a miscar‑
riage of justice”. Rather it will be activated in “situations 
where the authorities of a Member State are taking 
measures or are tolerating situations which are likely 
to systematically and adversely affect the integrity, 
stability or the proper functioning of the institutions 
and the safeguard mechanisms established at national 
level to secure the rule of law.”25

The European Commission envisages a three‑stage 
 process  for  the  mechanism.  First,  the  Commission 
assesses if there are “clear indications of a systemic 
threat to the rule of law”. Such an “assessment can 
be based on the indications received from available 
sources and recognised institutions, including notably 
the bodies of the Council of Europe and the European 
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights”.26 In this first 
stage, the Commission could send a “rule of law opinion” 
substantiating its concerns and allowing the EU Member 
State to respond. The opinion would be made public, 
but the exchanges with the Member States would, as 
a rule, be kept confidential.

At a possible second stage, if the European Commission 
finds that there is “objective evidence of a systemic 

threat and that the authorities of that Member State 
are not taking appropriate action to redress it”, it would 
issue a “rule of law recommendation”. The Commission’s 
assessment and conclusions would be based on a dia‑
logue with the Member State concerned.

At  a  third  stage,  the  European  Commission  would 
monitor the follow‑up to that recommendation. If the 
EU Member State does not follow up the recommenda‑
tion in satisfactory fashion, the Commission will assess 
the possibility of activating one of the procedures laid 
down in Article 7 of the TEU.

This  new  rule  of  law  framework  clarifies  how  the 
European  Commission  will,  in  the  future,  proceed 
in  situations  where  an  EU  Member  State  runs  the 
risk of violating the Article 2 values. It complements 
both  the  European  Commission’s  first  corruption 
report  as   presented  in  early  201427  and  its  efforts 
to  assist  the  EU  and  Member  States  to  “achieve 
more  effective  justice  by  providing  objective,  reli‑
able and comparable data on the functioning of the 
justice  systems  of  all  Member  States”  through  its 
annual “Justice Scoreboard”.28

Protecting and promoting fundamental rights is a means 
to prevent rule of law crises proactively. Moreover, less 
regard for fundamental rights can indicate systemic 
deficiencies in the rule of law.29 Given the persisting 
fundamental  rights  challenges  that  FRA  evidence 
consistently identifies, and recognising the window of 
opportunity offered by the incoming 2014–2019 legisla‑
tive period, EU Member States and institutions could, 
therefore, consider complementing this rule of law 
framework with a strategic fundamental rights frame‑
work. Bearing in mind the interdependencies between 
the  rule  of  law  and  fundamental  rights  (Table  0.1), 
a renewed and enlarged commitment to fundamental 
rights could be beneficial to the European Commission’s 
rule of law framework.

Complementing the European Commission’s  framework 
on  the  rule  of  law  with  a  strategic  framework  on 
fundamental  rights  would  allow  the  EU  to  take 
three steps forward:

 u enable  a  more  encompassing  and  substantial 
 reading  of  the  rule  of  law,  covering  explicitly  all 
fundamental  rights  corresponding  largely  to  the 
values  in  Article  2  of  the  TEU  (see  Table  0.1) –  ar‑
eas where the EU undoubtedly plays a role and has 
much to offer in terms of standards and procedures;

 u render  the  EU’s  role  more  inclusive  by  involving 
all relevant players, including the European Parlia‑
ment, the Council of the European Union and other 
relevant EU bodies as well as relevant actors at na‑
tional  level,  such  as  national  parliaments,  bodies 
with a human rights remit and civil society;

9

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Table 0.1:  TEU Article 2 values compared with the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Values as listed in Article 2 TEU 

Equivalence in the Charter (shaded Charter titles cover 
the  corresponding Article 2 values only partly)

Human dignity

Human dignity (Title I)

Freedom

Democracy

Equality

Freedoms (Title II)

Citizens’ rights (Title V)

Equality (Title III)

The rule of law 

Justice (Title VI); Citizens’ rights (Title V)

Respect for human rights

All titles of the Charter

Rights of persons belonging to minorities

Equality (Title III)

Pluralism

Non‑discrimination

Tolerance

Justice

Solidarity

Equality (Title III) 

Equality (Title III)

Equality (Title III)

Justice (Title VI)

Solidarity (Title IV)

Equality between women and men

Equality (Title III)

Source: 

FRA

 u not  only  address  the  behaviour  of  EU  Member 
States but also put emphasis on the EU’s own per‑
formance in terms of upholding the rule of law and 
safeguarding fundamental rights.

Towards an EU strategic 
framework on fundamental 
rights

A renewed commitment to fundamental rights could 
be instrumental in ensuring that the EU and its Member 
States conform to their obligation to “respect the rights [as 
laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights], observe 
the principles and promote the application thereof”.30 
Moreover, providing a new internal EU strategic frame‑
work would be beneficial to promote “the well‑being of 
its peoples”, including social progress and social inclusion, 
“social justice and protection, equality between women 
and men, solidarity between generations and protec‑
tion of the rights of the child” – which are all explicit 
and overarching EU aims.31 Adopting such a framework 
would increase the consistency between the EU’s policies 
towards other countries and the Union’s commitment to 
its own institutions and its Member States.

Three  questions  arise  when  proposing  a  strategic 
framework on fundamental rights:

 • What  would  an  EU  strategic  framework  deliver? 
A  well‑designed  and  implemented  EU  strategic 
framework  could  help  render  the  interventions  of 
the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and 
the European Commission in the area of fundamen‑
tal  rights  more  structured,  better  coordinated  and 
effective. Such a framework, which would include 
existing  strategies  in  specific  sectors,  would  help 
give effect to the Union’s obligation to comply with 
fundamental  rights  in  the  development  of  its  leg‑
islation and policies, as well as that of EU Member 
States when they implement EU law. Such effects 
would enhance the levels of trust between Mem‑
ber  States’  legal  systems  and,  among  those  who 
live there, in the EU. The protection of fundamental 
rights is considered as the value that is most repre‑
sentative of the EU.32 The protection of fundamental 
rights is not only expected but also instrumental for 
the  EU’s  functioning.  High  levels  of  trust  between 
national  legal  systems  are  essential  in  a  system 
such  as  the  EU’s,  which  is  built  on  mutual  recog‑
nition  and  makes  use  of  such  instruments  as  the 
European Arrest Warrant.33

10

An EU internal strategic framework for fundamental rights: joining forces to achieve better results

Whereas the values in Article 2 are “common to 
the Member States”, the fulfilment of these fun‑
damental rights standards varies within the EU. As 
the CJEU confirmed in the context of asylum law, 
“European Union law precludes the application of 
a  conclusive  presumption  that  the  [responsible] 
Member State […] observes the fundamental rights 
of the European Union.”34 An EU strategic framework 
could make evidence and assessments accessible to 
form a basis for trust, allowing for reliable but not 
not “conclusive”, presumptions that Member States 
reach the shared standards. Equally, such a stra‑
tegic framework could provide further instruments 
to guarantee that the EU itself conforms with the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECHR and other 
human rights standards.

 • How  would  an  EU  strategic  framework  achieve 
this  aim?  Whereas  the  rule  of  law  framework  is 
reaching out to areas beyond the scope of EU law, 
an  EU  strategic  framework  on  fundamental  rights 
would concentrate on areas covered by EU law and 
pay respect to the principle of subsidiarity. It would 
also be more encompassing than the framework for 
strengthening the rule of law, as it would cover all 
Charter rights (see Table 0.1); it would bring all ac‑
tors together; and it would establish a policy cycle 
making  the  respect  for  the  Charter  a  permanent 
and operational policy consideration rather than an 
ad hoc and crisis‑driven concern.

An EU strategic framework should start with the 
EU itself, including the way EU law is created: legis‑
lation that is understood by both those to whom it 
is addressed and its intended beneficiaries, and that 
is perceived as legitimate, could be better imple‑
mented at all layers of governance. An EU strategic 
framework  would –  through  tools  such  as  those 
proposed  in  the  following  section –  help  ensure 
that fundamental rights are taken into account at 
all stages of enforcement. EU law is typically imple‑
mented not by EU bodies but by a variety of actors 
at different layers of governance, including the local 
level. An EU strategic framework could substantially 
contribute to more coordination, cooperation and 
participation. The 20 tools proposed below should 
be able to enhance the quality of legislation and 
to lead to better implementation and higher levels 
of trust without any of them extending the field of 
EU law application or necessitating any changes to 
the EU treaties.

 • Who are the relevant actors in such an EU  strategic 
framework?  Against  the  backdrop  of  the  EU  sys‑
tem’s  multilevel  character,  a  strategic  EU  frame‑
work  would  need  to  involve  the  EU  level  as  well 
as the national, regional and local levels so that all 
fundamental  rights  actors  can  join  efforts  within 
their  respective  competencies.  Such  a  joined‑up 

approach would aim at achieving shared objectives 
while optimising the potential for synergies.

FRA evidence shows that institutions and procedures 
at international, European, national,regional and local 
levels tasked with the protection of fundamental rights 
should better coordinate responses to fundamental 
rights, ensuring that the various components work 
well together without leaving gaps in rights protection.35

By way of illustration, FRA submits for consideration 
20 tools that could form part of a future EU strategic frame‑
work. To facilitate readability, these tools are divided into 
clusters at three levels: EU, Member State and general. 
Taken together, the three clusters form building blocks 
for a genuine EU internal fundamental rights strategy 
that  would  link  all  relevant  actors  in  a  fundamental 
rights policy cycle. Investing in the implementation of 
only some of these tools could contribute to increasing 
consistency  between  the  EU’s  external  and  internal 
behaviour in the area of fundamental rights protection.

Tools at EU level 

1� 

 Assessing 
fundamental 
rights 
implications

EU-level tools

Ex ante 
assessments

Legislative 
mainstreaming 

Policy cycle

Peer evaluation

Annual 
consultation

Rights‑proofed 
EU funds

Implementation 
guidelines

Cooperation with 
Council of Europe

To avoid the EU legislature 
unnecessarily  compro‑
mising fundamental rights 
and exceeding “the limits 
imposed  by  compliance 
with the principle of pro‑
portionality in the light of 
[…] the Charter”,36 various 
EU  mechanisms  assess 
fundamental rights impacts 
and  the  compatibility  of 
forthcoming  EU  legisla‑
tion  with  human  rights 
standards. These could be 
reviewed to identify poten‑
tial improvements. Such an 
exercise could look into the practical application of dif‑
ferent mechanisms such as the European Commission’s 
Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights by the European Union,37 the 
Council’s Guidelines on methodological steps to be 
taken  to  check  fundamental  rights  compatibility  in 
the  Council’s  preparatory  bodies38  or  the  European 
Parliament’s Rule 36 on “respect for the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union”.39 It would 
also be worth exploring how to involve independent 
external expertise where doubts arise about compat‑
ibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and how 
to involve grass‑roots civil society organisations when 
assessing upcoming EU legislation’s potential impacts.40 

11

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Such avenues could further increase the efficiency and 
transparency of the existing mechanisms. Moreover, 
such mechanisms should also be used where the EU is 
involved in austerity measures: the European Parliament 
called on the Troika composed of the European Central 
Bank, the European Commission and the International 
Monetary Fund to ensure compliance with fundamental 
rights, “as failure to comply constitutes an infringement 
of EU primary law”.41

2� 

 Mainstreaming fundamental rights as 
required by primary law

Fundamental rights should not be reduced to a function 
of imposing limits on legislation and public adminis‑
tration.  Fundamental  rights  have  a  dual  role:  they 
do not act just as a shield; they are also an enabling 
‘sword’ that can point towards the design, adoption and 
implementation of certain initiatives, thereby fencing 
potential violations.42 In certain instances, this active, 
galvanising function is not an option but a legal obliga‑
tion. According to the TFEU, the Union must “in all its 
activities” aim to “eliminate inequalities, and to pro‑
mote equality, between men and women” (Article 8), 
to “take into account requirements linked to the pro‑
motion of a high level of employment, the guarantee 
of adequate social protection, the fight against social 
exclusion, and a high level of education, training and 
protection of human health” (Article 9) and to “combat 
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, 
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation” 
(Article 10). As the Lisbon Treaty approaches its fifth 
anniversary as a binding treaty in late 2014, it is time 
to assess how the EU legislator has delivered on this 
transversal fundamental rights obligation to promote 
fundamental rights actively throughout all policy fields. 
It is also important to check the competence basis in 
EU treaties that can be used to improve the enjoyment 
of fundamental rights in the different policy fields (see 
Tool 8, on the cooperation between the EU and the 
Council of Europe).43

3� 

 Developing implementation guidelines

EU  law  is  often  the  result  of  difficult  compromises 
achieved after long negotiations, so sometimes it is 
vague or contains broad scope for exceptions or dero‑
gation at national level. The CJEU has, for example, 
issued over 20 rulings since 2009 clarifying provisions 
of the EU asylum acquis alone.44 It would therefore be 
useful to introduce, especially in policy contexts that are 
sensitive in terms of fundamental rights, explanations 
that can guide national authorities in implementing 
EU legislation in a way that avoids violating funda‑
mental rights. Recent examples include the European 
Commission’s guidance on the implementation of the 
Family Reunification Directive,45 the Victims Directive46 
and the Free Movement Directive.47 Where such guid‑
ance  aims  specifically  at  protecting  and  promoting 

fundamental rights – such as the guidance FRA offers 
on  personal  name  records48  or  on  apprehending 
irregular migrants49 – it could form an important ele‑
ment of an EU strategic framework on fundamental 
rights. Implementing guidelines could also serve the 
strategic framework in advising on how fundamental 
rights concerns should be taken into consideration when 
implementing legislation that is not specific to funda‑
mental rights, such as a regulation on specific EU funds 
(see Tool 5).

4� 

 Establishing peer-monitoring and 
peer-evaluation practices

A true fundamental rights culture requires the regular 
and independent monitoring of how relevant legislation 
is applied. Schengen evaluations covering sea borders 
should  review,  for  example,  as  part  of  their  overall 
assessment, if instructions and training provided to law 
enforcement officers patrolling sea borders adequately 
address fundamental rights and in particular the prin‑
ciple of non‑refoulement. To this end, evaluators should 
be provided with appropriate guidance and training on 
fundamental rights. Ex post evaluation of legislation is 
especially useful if fed into a reform of EU legislation and 
policies as part of a fundamental rights policy cycle. To 
provide for a general evaluation format across all Justice 
and Home Affairs policies, the European Commission 
could submit a proposal according to Article 70 of the 
TFEU, “laying down the arrangements whereby Member 
States, in collaboration with the Commission, conduct 
objective and impartial evaluation of the implementation 
of the Union policies”. The results of such an evaluation, 
which involves input from independent expert bodies and 
civil society organisations, should be reported back to the 
European and national parliaments and feed directly into 
the fundamental rights policy cycle (see Tool 7).

5� 

 Guaranteeing that use of EU funds 
is ‘fundamental-rights-proof’

EU funds are administered in a decentralised way. It is 
important to ensure that all EU‑financed projects and 
activities adhere to the obligations flowing from the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU should make this 
explicit in the operational parts of the respective legal 
instruments rather than in their preambles.50 In addition, 
ex ante conditionalities could be introduced whenever 
the EU provides funds. The regulation laying down such 
conditionalities for Structural Funds disbursals adopted at 
the end of 201351 was an encouraging example but could 
be expanded and improved. When reviewing expendi‑
tures, the Court of Auditors should take into account ex 
ante conditionalities, and other provisions related to 
fundamental rights, in ‘basic measures’, or secondary 
provisions on which an expenditure is based. The pos‑
sibility of introducing sanctions should be considered in 
cases where the use of EU funds infringes fundamental 
rights. Moreover, it appears important that any bodies 

12

An EU internal strategic framework for fundamental rights: joining forces to achieve better results

set up at national level to decide which projects receive 
EU funding, such as boards, include ‘fundamental rights 
focal points’ from relevant departments of the admin‑
istration  as  well  as  independent  fundamental  rights 
experts. These fundamental rights experts could be 
selected from academia, national human rights institu‑
tions (NHRIs) or non‑governmental organisations (NGOs). 
All tools developed for the planning, implementation and 
evaluation of EU‑funded projects should incorporate fun‑
damental rights in an effective and meaningful manner. 
This not only helps protect and promote fundamental 
rights but also avoids tensions with EU primary law and 
obligations under international law.52

6� 

 Creating an EU fundamental rights 
policy cycle

At the end of 2012, the European Parliament called for 
“the launch of a ‘European fundamental rights policy 
cycle’, detailing on a multiannual and yearly basis the 
objectives to be achieved and the problems to be solved”. 
Such a cycle should “foresee a framework for institu‑
tions and the FRA, as well as Member States, to work 
together by avoiding overlaps, building on each others’ 
[...] reports, taking joint measures and organising joint 
events with the participation of NGOs, citizens, national 
parliaments, etc.”53 It would help ensure that national 
experiences feed into EU‑level policy developments, 
and that EU‑level developments are implemented on the 
ground. It would further allow better coordination of the 
policies of the European Parliament, the Council of the 
European Union and the European Commission that are 
relevant to fundamental rights, rendering their respec‑
tive roles and interventions more efficient. A policy cycle 
would also, for example, assign specific objectives to the 
different fundamental rights reports which the European 
Parliament, the European Commission and FRA deliver 
annually. Such a policy cycle would ensure that these 
reports are presented in a timely manner to feed best 
into the relevant processes. The development of an 
EU action plan on fundamental rights would be an appro‑
priate framework for a fundamental rights cycle; such an 
action plan could be inspired by some of the promising 
practices existing at national level (see Tool 12).

7� 

 Increasing coordination at EU level 
through an annual consultation 
meeting

Assigning ‘fundamental rights focal points’ in relevant 
units of the European Parliament, Council of the EU and 
European Commission administrations could support the 
work and impact of the parliament’s Committee on Civil 
Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), the Council 
of  the  EU’s  Working  Party  on  Fundamental  Rights, 
Citizens Rights and Free Movement of Persons (FREMP) 
and the relevant units in the European Commission’s 
Directorate‑General Justice. Moreover, the European 
Commission, the European Parliament and the Council 

of the EU could benefit from periodic consultation with 
relevant  stakeholders  and  experts,  bringing  them 
together with independent EU expert bodies, such as 
FRA, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), 
the European Ombudsman and representatives from 
the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic 
and Social Committee, the European network of national 
equality bodies (Equinet), the European Network of 
NHRIs and the European Network of Ombudsmen, as 
well as EU‑level umbrella organisations representing 
NGOs. Such an annual consultation meeting should 
establish communication channels with national‑level 
actors by, for instance, allowing prior online submis‑
sions to a dedicated web forum, which could structure 
input and feedback in a systematic way. Such a regular 
fundamental rights consultation meeting would ideally 
take place before the European Commission finalises its 
annual work programme, to guarantee that its results 
feed into EU‑level legislative and policy planning. The 
exercise should ensure that those attending have an 
opportunity to provide feedback, including on the effec‑
tiveness of measures taken to safeguard fundamental 
rights in the implementation of EU law. There should be 
full transparency on whether and how such feedback 
and input are taken into account.

8� 

 Developing greater synergies between 
the EU and the Council of Europe

In line with the “guidelines on the Relations between 
the Council of Europe and the European Union” adopted 
in 2005 by the Heads of State and Government of the 
Member States of the Council of Europe, both inter‑
national  organisations  “should  work  towards  joint 
activities,  when  they  add  value  to  their  respective 
endeavours [… and] consult regularly at all appropriate 
levels, including the political level, to make better use 
of each other’s relevant expertise”.54 In addition to 
the EU joining selected Council of Europe conventions, 
the cooperation,55 which at technical level is already 
active, fruitful and efficient,56 should be construed as 
a two‑way process also covering the Council of Europe’s 
political bodies. To increase the level of implementation 
of Council of Europe standards, the EU could offer its 
legal leverage, including the principles of supremacy 
and direct effect. In this regard, the guidelines stress 
that  the  “European  Union  shall  strive  to  transpose 
those aspects of Council of Europe Conventions within 
its competence into European Union Law”.57 To make 
this commitment more operational, it would be timely 
to map existing EU legislation covering issues dealt 
with in Council of Europe conventions and explore the 
potential to complement the already existing acquis 
with new EU legislation. Another concrete project of 
close cooperation providing added value would be the 
establishment of a shared European fundamental rights 
information system that would increase the accessibility 
and visibility of the standards, reports and analysis pro‑
duced by the Council of Europe (see Tool 18).

13

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Tools at Member 
State level 

9� 

 Recognising the 
local dimension 
of multilevel 
protection of 
rights

(Sub-)national 
tools

Multilevel 
protection

National 
cooperation

National 
parliaments

Business

Action plans

Awareness raising

Independent 
monitoring

The subnational – that is, 
regional and local – dimen‑
sion of fundamental rights 
is the one that is closest to 
the individual and hence 
of the utmost importance. 
For the EU’s external rela‑
tions,  the  Council  of  the 
EU emphasised that local 
authorities and their asso‑
ciations  are  “important 
actors for change in reducing poverty and in pro‑
moting human rights and democracy [and] are key 
to the enhancement of public sector accountability 
to  citizens,  as  well  as  promoting  justice  and  core 
principles of equality including the rights of women 
and girls, ensuring transparency, and broad‑based 
participation in the public sphere, building resilience 
and reaching out to all citizens, including vulnerable 
groups”.58 The same could be said for the situation 
within the EU. FRA has underlined in various contexts 
that it is important that different actors at the national 
and the sub‑national level join their efforts to protect 
and promote fundamental rights, which play an essen‑
tial role in this regard. The Committee of the Regions 
adopted  the  Charter  for  multilevel  governance  in 
Europe, reaffirming the importance of “coordinated 
action by the European Union, the Member States 
and regional and local authorities according to the 
principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and partner‑
ship, taking the form of operational and institutional 
cooperation in the drawing up and implementation of 
the European Union’s policies”.59 This Charter empha‑
sises that multilevel governance helps governments 
at different levels and in different states “to learn 
from each other, experiment with innovative policy 
solutions, share best practices and further develop 
participatory democracy, bringing the European Union 
closer to the citizens.” One of the objectives of multi‑
level governance as outlined in the Charter is precisely 
“ensuring maximum fundamental rights protection at 
all levels of governance”. Pilot research conducted by 
FRA has identified a number of steps that can be taken 
to enhance the implementation of fundamental rights 
at local and regional levels. A joined‑up e‑toolkit for 
local, regional and national public officials is available 
at the FRA website.60

14

10� 

 Increasing cooperation at 
national level

Cooperation between different bodies contributes to 
the effectiveness of the rights enshrined in the Charter. 
The need is not so much to establish new mechanisms 
and procedures as to develop further the available 
resources, existing channels and forums for regular 
exchanges and synergies between existing structures.61  
Such increased levels of cooperation and coordination 
are particularly important in countries organised in 
a federal structure, in which the implementation of 
fundamental rights falls under the competences of 
different levels of authorities. Ombudsperson institu‑
tions, NHRIs, equality bodies, data protection authori‑
ties, national parliamentary committees dealing with 
fundamental rights issues and local authorities that are 
closest to the citizens could develop more concrete syn‑
ergies, for example by setting up formal and/or informal 
fundamental rights networks (see also Tool 14).

11� 

 Recognising the role of national 
parliaments

EU directives are binding on the Member States about 
the result to be achieved, but leave to national parlia‑
ments the choice of form and methods. This is of special 
relevance where directives are likely to raise funda‑
mental rights concerns, as was the case, for instance, 
with the Data Retention Directive. The Treaty of Lisbon 
increased the relevance of national parliaments by 
giving them a role in evaluating EU policy implemen‑
tation in the former third pillar and in the activities of 
Eurojust and Europol.62 National parliaments also play 
a special role at EU level in developing judicial coopera‑
tion in civil matters based on the principle of mutual 
recognition of judgments.63 Against this background, 
the national parliamentary committees dealing with 
fundamental rights could possibly be brought together 
in an EU‑wide network and gain more direct access to 
the relevant EU developments.64

12� 

Establishing national action plans

National action plans (NAPs) in the area of fundamental 
rights protection have proved to be “useful tools for 
clarifying the authorities’ responsibilities and for iden‑
tifying and addressing gaps in human rights protec‑
tion”.65 EU Member States such as Croatia, Finland, the 
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom 
(Scotland)  have  experience  with  such  action  plans 
and  a  number  of  other  Member  States  including 
Austria and Greece are considering introducing NAPs. 
The  integration  of  international  reporting  obliga‑
tions into a NAP process can improve the coordina‑
tion of reporting and would render it more efficient 
and cost‑effective. Such a combined approach could 
also provide for the exchange of promising practices 
between Member States. Moreover, NAPs and their 

An EU internal strategic framework for fundamental rights: joining forces to achieve better results

evaluations could feed into the national positions in 
the EU legislative process and hence link the different 
layers of governance so that experiences and evidence 
from the ground do not get lost but rather contribute 
to an EU fundamental rights policy cycle (see Tool 6).

13� 

 Increasing rights awareness 
within the EU

Data  collected  by  FRA,  as  well  as  Eurobarometer 
 surveys, show that rights awareness tends to be very 
low among both the general population and minority 
groups.  This  is  true  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights, in general,66 as well as with relevant legislation, 
more specifically. In the case of equality legislation, for 
example, almost 60 % of 23,500 immigrants and ethnic 
minorities interviewed by FRA “were either unaware or 
unsure about the existence of legislation covering […] 
non‑discrimination  on  the  basis  of  racial  or  ethnic 
origin.”67 In relation to equality legislation, such low 
rates of rights awareness are especially striking since 
the relevant EU directives set out an explicit obligation 
to make rights known.68 EU Member States, with the 
support of the EU, should revamp their plans to better 
target their awareness‑raising efforts.

14� 

 Ensuring strong and independent 
national-level monitoring

To improve access to justice, the EU and its Member 
States  should  keep  non‑judicial  and  quasi‑judicial 
bodies, as well as courts, in mind. All EU Member States 
should appoint or establish NHRIs with a view to their 
full accreditation (A‑status) under the so‑called Paris 
Principles.69 Currently, only 11 of the 28 EU Member 
States  have  fully  compliant  (A‑status)  NHRIs  and 
an  additional  seven  have  NHRIs  with  B‑status.  The 
EU could establish or promote similar minimum stand‑
ards for the independence and effectiveness of other 
bodies with a human rights remit, in particular those 
required under EU law, such as equality bodies or data 
protection  authorities.  Current  EU  legislation  does 
not provide clear standards, but recent CJEU jurispru‑
dence points to shortcomings in the independence of 
data protection authorities.70

15� 

 Creating a business environment 
that respects and promotes 
fundamental rights

EU  law  establishes  duties  between  private  parties 
and  regulates  large  areas  of  economic  activity  in 
EU  Member  States.  It  is,  therefore,  important  that 
EU law recognise economic players’ special respon‑
sibilities  with  regard  to  fundamental  rights  as  the 
proposed Directive on non‑financial information dis‑
closure does,71 or that it acknowledge the importance 
of social, labour and environmental concerns as the 
legislative package for the modernisation of public 

procurement  does.72  The  renewed  EU  strategy  on 
corporate social responsibility (CSR) identifies human 
rights as a prominent aspect and requires enterprises 
to have in place a process to integrate human rights 
into their business operations in close collaboration 
with their stakeholders.73 As part of its strategy, the 
European Commission published an Introductory guide 
to human rights for SMEs and human rights guidance 
for three sectors: employment and recruitment agen‑
cies; information and communication technology; and 
oil and gas. The guide and other guidance strengthen 
the link between the EU’s CSR activities and the United 
Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human 
Rights (UNGPs). EU Member States are encouraged to 
develop national action plans to implement the UNGPs. 
Where Member States decide to develop stand‑alone 
action plans (see Section 10.5.3), they should make 
sure that fundamental rights protection is prominently 
integrated into these.

General tools 

16� 

 Involving 
civil society 
organisations 
(CSOs) in policy 
development 
and assessment

General tools

Civil society

Trust 
enhancement

Information 
system

Indicators

Promising 
practices

Civil  society  is  a  main 
stakeholder in the field of 
fundamental rights protec‑
tion. For the EU’s external 
relations,  it  is  recognised 
that  there  is  a  need  to 
“develop  country  roadmaps  for  engagement  with 
CSOs, to improve the impact, predictability and vis‑
ibility of EU actions, ensuring consistency and synergy 
throughout the various sectors”.74 Increasingly, the EU is 
also involving civil society within the EU in contexts rel‑
evant to fundamental rights. The experience of FRA with 
its Fundamental Rights Platform,75 for instance, inspired 
the establishment of similar mechanisms at Frontex and 
Easo. It appears the right time to make civil society input 
possible on a wider scale, so that relevant NGOs are 
heard when the impact of upcoming EU legislation is 
assessed or where the implementation of existing legis‑
lation is reviewed. It would also be beneficial to provide 
at national level regular channels and allow key civil 
society actors to meet, exchange experiences and best 
practices and formulate proposals for the improvement 
and implementation of policies. Building on FRA’s experi‑
ence with its Fundamental Rights Platform, establishing 
similar platforms at national level could be considered 
where comparable tools do not yet exist. The shaping 
of fundamental rights policies through participation of 
various segments of society is one of the key concerns 
of the Paris Principles for NHRIs.

15

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

17� 

 Investing in transnational trust and 
accessibility of fundamental rights 
knowledge

Mutual trust can be enhanced by fostering transnational 
contacts between practitioners. National judges and 
other law enforcement agencies should be trained to 
make certain that, in cooperating with their counter‑
parts from other EU Member States, they take into 
account their duty under EU law to ensure that no deci‑
sion implementing EU law violates either substantive 
standards or procedural rights that are embodied in 
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or in the general 
principles of EU law. To underpin such measures, the 
EU  should  provide  sufficient  funds  for  the  relevant 
EU funding schemes. Training modules and a general 
guide on the scope of the Charter might also be helpful 
instruments.76 FRA has developed – in cooperation with 
the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human 
Rights (ECtHR) – a series of handbooks on CJEU and 
ECtHR case law in targeted areas.77 Additional hand‑
books could be prepared to raise awareness among 
legal practitioners about the scope of the Charter’s 
safeguards. The European fundamental rights informa‑
tion system, proposed below, could also cover national 
case law referring to the Charter as well as the role 
of the Charter before non‑judicial bodies, thereby pro‑
viding evidence of how the Charter is, de facto, used 
at national level.

18� 

 Establishing a European fundamental 
rights information system

The EU could also provide funds for the creation of 
a European fundamental rights information system that 
would form a hub, bringing together, in an accessible 
manner, existing information from the United Nations 
(UN) (mainly from the treaty bodies and special pro‑
cedures but also from other sources), the Council of 
Europe (monitoring mechanisms and expert bodies), 
the  Organization  for  Security  and  Co‑operation  in 
Europe, the EU (data from the European Commission, 
including Eurostat; FRA; Council working parties such as 
Genval, the Working Party on General Matters including 
Evaluation, or SchEval, the Working party on Schengen 
Evaluation Mechanisms; the European Ombudsman; 
etc.). Such a system would enhance transparency and 
objectivity and increase awareness about European and 
international standards, especially those of the Council 
of Europe in the EU context. It would also allow prac‑
titioners to make an informed assessment of a given 
country’s fundamental rights situation in a specific area.

19� 

 Developing fundamental rights 
indicators

To allow comparable assessments of fundamental 
rights  legislation,  policies  and  their  effects,  it  is 
important to develop fundamental rights indicators. 

The indicators should be organised in a systematic 
framework, such as that applied by FRA, which is built 
on that of the UN Office of the High Commissioner 
for Human Rights. This ‘S‑P‑O’ (structure–process–
outcome) framework captures the situation on the 
ground (outcome) and policy and structure levels. 
Reliance on such an information system should not, 
of course, be a substitute for a case‑by‑case assess‑
ment required in the practical application of mutual 
recognition, since each individual case confronting 
a national authority may present its own particulari‑
ties. A system of indicators would also only indicate 
concerns, not replace a thorough contextualisation 
and analysis in detail when indicators point to the 
need for such. The need for developing reliable and 
objective fundamental rights indicators is increas‑
ingly  recognised.  For  instance,  in  the  context  of 
monitoring  and  evaluating  national  strategies  for 
Roma integration, the Council recommended Member 
States to make use of “any relevant core indicators or 
methods of empirical social research or data collection 
for monitoring and evaluating progress on a regular 
basis, particularly at the local level, enabling efficient 
reporting on the situation of Roma in the Member 
States  with  the  optional  support  of  the  European 
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights”.78

20� 

 Exchanging promising practices 
across borders in a spirit of a shared 
‘fundamental rights culture’

The EU and its Member States should approach the 
revamping of their shared ‘fundamental rights culture’ 
by exchanging promising practices through more and 
better‑structured multilateral and bilateral contacts. 
Such a culture would perceive constructive critique as 
a natural part of a shared desire to pool forces and expe‑
riences to raise the bar in the area of fundamental rights 
protection. To give just one example: the European 
e‑justice portal could become a suitable access point for 
promising practices on how best to live up to EU stand‑
ards on justice.79 It could, for instance, offer a search 
function for vetted practices. FRA initiated a modest 
attempt in this regard with an online toolkit for public 
officials, which includes examples under various head‑
ings of how to better join up fundamental rights.80 
Simple and practical tools are needed to ensure that 
fundamental rights standards are upheld in practice. 
The identification of such practical tools is again to be 
based on an open exchange of experiences. To give an 
example from the area of home affairs: Member States’ 
experts and the European Commission in collaboration 
with FRA developed concrete practical guidance on 
apprehension practices in the form of ‘dos and don’ts’ 
for immigration law enforcement officials.81  Practical 
support to mainstream fundamental rights at the opera‑
tional level should be a priority for the allocation of 
funds (for instance under the future Internal Security 
Fund and the Asylum and Migration Fund; see Tool 5).

16

An EU internal strategic framework for fundamental rights: joining forces to achieve better results

Conclusion

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  have  come  a  long 
way in developing their community of values, even 
if  economic,  social  and  political  crises  in  several 
Member States put these values under stress. Debates 
on how to safeguard the EU’s founding values, as 
enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU, gained in depth and 
intensity in 2013. These values are shared between 
the EU and its Member States and include respect 
for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the 
rule of law, respect for human rights and the rights 
of persons belonging to minorities, but also pluralism, 
non‑discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and 
equality between women and men. The Charter of 
Fundamental Rights largely covers these values and 
further defines them.

Against the backdrop of major policy discussions and 
developments that will occur in 2014, this focus sec‑
tion proposes a toolbox with which a new EU strategic 

fundamental rights framework could be shaped. Since 
such a framework would be ‘co‑owned’ by the EU and 
its Member States, it could strengthen the commit‑
ment to fundamental rights at the EU, national and 
sub‑national levels. Some of the tools proposed here 
are relevant mainly at the EU level, others at the (sub‑)
national level and still others at both levels. The list of 
20 tools proposed is neither exhaustive nor definitive; 
other tools could be added, discussed and used.

In any event, making use of such a toolbox could help 
shape an EU internal framework for fundamental rights 
that mirrors the existing external fundamental rights 
framework. This would send a strong signal to the out‑
side world, showing that the EU and its Member States 
are prepared to ‘walk their talk’ and thus increase the 
consistency between the Union’s internal and external 
behaviour. The challenge now is to get all the actors 
concerned to make use of these tools to achieve the 
expected result: promoting fundamental rights to safe‑
guard the rule of law.

Strategic framework toolbox

EU-level tools

(Sub-)national tools

General tools

Ex ante 
assessments

Legislative 
mainstreaming 

Implementation 
guidelines

Peer evaluation

Rights‑proofed 
EU funds

Multilevel 
protection

National 
cooperation

National 
parliaments

Action plans

Awareness 
raising

Policy cycle

Independent monitoring

Annual consultation

Business

Cooperation with 
 Council of Europe

Civil 
society

Trust 
enhancement

Information 
system

Indicators

Promising 
practices

17

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

FRA (2012), Bringing rights to life: The fundamental rights 
landscape of the European Union, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office of the European Union (Publications Office), 
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/bringing‑rights‑
life‑fundamental‑rights‑landscape‑european‑union.

FRA (2013), The European Union as a Community of 
values: Safeguarding fundamental rights in times of crisis, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.europa.eu/
en/publication/2013/european‑union‑community‑values‑
safeguarding‑fundamental‑rights‑times‑crisis.

European Commission (2014), A new EU framework 
to strengthen the rule of law, COM(2014) 158 final, 
11 March 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/
effective‑justice/files/com_2014_158_en.pdf.

See FRA’s contribution to the consultation processes leading 
up to the new document: FRA (2013), Fundamental rights in 
the future of the European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs, 
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_submission_
on_the_future_of_eu_ justice.pdf. See also FRA (2009), 
The Stockholm Programme: A chance to put fundamental 
rights protection right in the centre of the European Agenda, 
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/538‑
FRA‑comments‑on‑Stockholm‑Programme.pdf.

See Art. 10 of Protocol No. 36 on transitional provisions, 
OJ C 326, 26 October 2012.

Council of the European Union (2012), EU strategic 
framework and action plan on human rights and democracy, 
adopted in June 2012, www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/
cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf.

Reding, V. (2013), ‘The EU and the rule of law: What next?’, 
speech given at CEPS on 4 September 2013, http://europa.
eu/rapid/press‑release_SPEECH‑13‑677_de.htm.

See e.g. European Parliament, Resolution of 
3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: 
Standards and practices in Hungary (pursuant to the 
European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012), 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7‑TA‑2013‑315

See, for example, the letter sent by four EU Member 
State foreign affairs ministers to the President of the 
Commission, highlighting the need for a new and more 
effective mechanism to safeguard fundamental values in 
Member States, see Council of the European Union (2013), 
Council conclusions on fundamental rights and rule of law 
and on the Commission 2012 Report on the Application of 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 
Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, 6 and 7 June 
2013, p. 2, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_
data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/137404.pdf, and Council of the 
European Union (2013), ‘3235th Council meeting General 
Affairs’, Press release, 22 April 2013, p. 8, http://www.
consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/
genaff/136915.pdf

10 

11 

See e.g. Closa, C., Kochenov, D. and Weiler, J. H. H. 
(2014), ‘Reinforcing rule of law oversight in the 
European Union’, RSCAS 2014/25, http://cadmus.eui.eu/
bitstream/handle/1814/30117/RSCAS_2014_25_FINAL.
pdf?sequence=3.

See e.g. Advisory Council on International Affairs (2014), 
The rule of law, safeguard for European Citizens and 
foundation for European Cooperation, http://www.aiv‑
advies.nl/ContentSuite/upload/aiv/doc/webversie_AIV87_
ENG_2(1).pdf; Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law (2013), 
Safeguarding the Rule of Law, Democracy and Fundamental 
Rights: A Monitoring Model for the European Union, 

http://www.biicl.org/files/6758_main_report_15_11_2013_
commission_consultation.pdf; Centre for European Policy 
Studies (2013), The Triangular Relationship between 
Fundamental Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in the 
EU. Towards an EU Copenhagen Mechanism, http://www.
ceps.be/ceps/dld/8617/pdf.

Joint NGO statement on the forthcoming European 
Commission Communication on safeguarding the rule 
of law in the EU, 10 March 2014, http://www.hrdn.eu/
hrdn/eu‑internal‑human‑rights‑policy.php?menu_
selected=124&sub_menu_selected=1020&language=US

For an overview, see, for example, Democracy Reporting 
International (2013), ‘Proposals for new tools to protect 
EU values: An overview’, Briefing Paper 43, http://www.
democracy‑reporting.org/files/dri‑bp‑guiding_principles_
for_new_tools_to_protect_eu_values_2013‑11‑11‑3_rms.
pdf; Toggenburg, G. N. (2013), ‘Was soll die EU können 
dürfen, um die EU‑Verfassungswerte und die 
Rechtsstaatlichkeit der Mitgliedstaaten zu schützen?’, ÖGfE 
Policy Brief 10, 2013, http://www.oegfe.at/cms/uploads/
media/OEGfE_Policy_Brief‑2013.10.pdf.

Council of the European Union (2013), Council conclusions 
on fundamental rights and rule of law and on the 
Commission 2012 Report on the Application of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Brussels, p. 5, 
point 11.

European Parliament, Resolution of 3 July 2013 on 
the situation of fundamental rights: Standards and 
practices in Hungary (pursuant to the European 
Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012), para. 64, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7‑TA‑2013‑315.

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Ibid., para. 80.

17 

Ibid., para. 70.

18 

Ibid., para. 79.

19 

European Parliament, Resolution as of 27 January 2014 
on the situation of fundamental rights in the European 
Union, para. 10, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7‑2014‑
0051&language=EN&mode=XML.

20  See  discretionary hyphenhttp://ec.europa.eu/justice/

events/assises‑justice‑2013/index_en.htm.

21 

COM(2014) 144 final as of 11 March 2014,  discretionary 
hyphenhttp://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective‑justice/files/
com_2014_144_en.pdf.

22 

COM(2014) 158.

23 

Ibid., p. 3.

24 

Ibid., p. 4.

25 

Ibid., p. 6.

26 

Ibid., p. 7.

27 

European Commission (2014), EU anti‑corruption report, 
COM(2014) 38 final as of 3 February 2014, http://ec.europa.
eu/dgs/home‑affairs/e‑library/documents/policies/
organized‑crime‑and‑human‑trafficking/corruption/docs/
acr_2014_en.pdf.

28  See COM(2013) 160 final as of 27 March 2013; and 

COM(2014) 155 final as of 11 March 2013.

29  Compare von Bogdandy, A. and Ioannidis, M. (2014), 

‘Systemic deficiency in the rule of law: What it is, what 
has been done, what can be done’, Common Market Law 
Review, Vol. 51,No.1,pp. 59–96, 76.

30  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 

Art. 51 (1).

31 

Treaty on European Union, OJ C 83, 30 March 2010, Art. 3, 
p. 13.

18

An EU internal strategic framework for fundamental rights: joining forces to achieve better results

32 

33 

See e.g. Eurobarometer 69, Values of Europeans, p. 21, 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb69/
eb69_values_en.pdf.

See Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the 
European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures 
between Member States, in OJ L 190, 18 July 2002.

34  CJEU, Joined cases C‑411/10 and C‑493/10, N. S. v. Secretary 
of State for the Home Department and M. E. and Others v. 
Refugee Applications Commissioner & Minister for Justice, 
Equality and Law Reform, 21 December 2011, para. 105.

35 

See FRA (2013), Joining up fundamental rights: Toolkit 
for local, regional and national public officials, http://fra.
europa.eu/en/joinedup/home; and FRA (2012), Bringing 
rights to life: The fundamental rights landscape of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://
fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/bringing‑rights‑life‑
fundamental‑rights‑landscape‑european‑union.

36  See CJEU, Joined cases C‑293/12 and C‑594/12, Digital Rights 
Ireland Ltd v. The Minister for Communications, Marine and 
Natural Resources, The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law 
Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána Ireland 
and The Attorney General and Kärtner Landesregierung, 
Seitlinger and Others, 8 April 2014.

37 

COM(2010) 573 final, 19 October 2010.

38  Council of the European Union (2011), Guidelines on 

methodological steps to be taken to check fundamental 
rights compatibility in the Council’s preparatory bodies, 
Council Doc 10140/11 18 May 2011, http://register.consilium.
europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2010140%202011%20INIT.

39  See: rule 36 on “respect for the Charter of Fundamental 

Rights of the European Union”.

40  Compare also de Witte, B., et al (2010), Legislating 

after Lisbon, p. 29, http://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO/
Documents/EUDO‑LegislatingafterLisbon(SD).pdf.

41 

European Parliament (2014), Resolution of 13 March 2014 on 
Employment and social aspects of the role and operations 
of the Troika (ECB, Commission and IMF) with regard to 
euro area programme countries, 2014/2007(INI), www.
europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=‑//EP//
TEXT+TA+P7‑TA‑2014‑0240+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

42  de Schutter, O. (n.d.), The new architecture of fundamental 
rights policy in the EU, http://cms.horus.be/files/99907/
MediaArchive/Presentation_110215_ODeSchutter_2FRAND.
pdf.

43  Compare in this regard, for instance, European Commission 

(2010), European Disability Strategy, 2010‑2020, 
COM(2010) 636 final, 15 November 2010.

44  For an overview, see FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: 
Challenges and achievements in 2012, Annual Report, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office, Chapter 1, http://fra.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑safeguarding‑
fundamental‑rights‑in‑crisis_en.pdf. Some of the cases 
listed as pending have since been decided.

45 

European Commission (2014), Communication on guidance 
for application of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to 
family reunification, COM(2014)210 final as of 3 April 2014.

46  European Commission (2013), Ares (2013)3763804, 

19 December 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/
files/victims/guidance_victims_rights_directive_en.pdf.

49  FRA (2013), Apprehension of migrants in an irregular 

situation: Fundamental rights considerations, http://fra.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑apprehension‑ 
migrants‑irregular‑situation_en.pdf.

50  Compare consideration No. 24 of COM(2011) 751 final, 

consideration No. 4 of COM(2011) 753 final or consideration 
No. 3 of COM(2011) 750 final.

51 

52 

53 

See Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, OJ L 347 as of 
20 December 2013, pp. 320–469.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
(CRPD), Article 4 (1) (c), requires parties to take into account 
the protection and promotion of rights “in all policies and 
programmes”.

European Parliament (2012), resolution of 12 December 2012 
on the situation of fundamental rights in the European 
Union, para. 20, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/
getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7‑TA‑2012‑0500&language
=EN&ring=A7‑2012‑0383.

54  Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2005), Action 
Plan, CM(2005) 80 final, 17 May 2005, www.coe.int/t/dcr/
summit/20050517_plan_action_en.asp.

55 

For the priorities for 2014–2015, see Council 
document 16444/13, 19 November 2013, http://register.
consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=fals
e&f=ST%2016444%202013%20INIT.

56  See, for example, the overview of the cooperation 

between the European Union Agency for Fundamental 
Rights and the Council of Europe, July 2012 to 
June 2013, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra‑coe‑cooperation‑overview‑2012‑2013_en.pdf.

57  Guideline No. 5 (Appendix 1 of the Action Plan).

58  Council Conclusions of 22 July 2013 on Local Authorities in 

Development, Council document 12459/13, 22 July 2013, 
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&g
c=true&sc=false&f=ST%2012459%202013%20INIT.

59  Committee of the Regions (2014), Resolution on the 

Charter for multilevel governance in Europe, 3 April 2014, 
http://www.cor.europa.eu/en/activities/governance/
Documents/mlg‑charter/en.pdf.

60  http://fra.europa.eu/en/joinedup/home.

61 

FRA (2010), National human rights institutions in the 
EU Member States: Strengthening the fundamental 
rights architecture in the EU I, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra_uploads/816‑NHRI_en.pdf.

62  Arts. 70, 85 and 88 of the TFEU.

63  Arts. 81 of the TFEU.

64  A comparable structure exists for parliamentary 

committees dealing with EU integration (the Conference of 
Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments 
of the EU).

65  Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2014), 

background paper on national action plans.

66  For proposals to increase awareness about the Charter, 

see FRA (2012), Bringing the Charter to life: Opportunities 
and challenges of putting the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights into practice, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
copenhagen‑seminar‑report.pdf.

47  European Commission (2009), COM(2009) 313 final as of 

67 

2 July 2009.

48  FRA (2014), Twelve operational fundamental rights 

considerations for law enforcement when processing 
Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, http://fra.europa.
eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2014‑fundamental‑rights‑
considerations‑pnr‑data‑en.pdf.

FRA (2010), EU‑MIDIS, Data in Focus 3: Rights awareness 
and equality bodies – strengthening the fundamental 
rights architecture in the EU III, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office, p. 3, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra_uploads/854‑EU‑MIDIS_RIGHTS_AWARENESS_EN.PDF.

68  See Art. 10 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing 

the principle of equal treatment between persons 

19

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

irrespective of racial and ethnic origin, OJ 2000 L 180 (Racial 
Equality Directive) or Art. 12 of Council Directive 2000/78/
EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in 
employment and occupation, OJ 2000 L 303 (Employment 
Equality Directive).

69  UN, General Assembly (1993), The principles relating to the 
status and functioning of national institutions for protection 
and promotion of human rights (The Paris Principles), 
Resolution A/RES/48/134, 20 December 1993. See also FRA 
(2012), Handbook on the establishment and accreditation 
of national human rights institutions in the European Union, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office.

70  CJEU, Commission v. Germany, C‑518/07, 9 March 2010; 

and Commission v. Austria, C‑614/10, 16 October 2012. See 
also the Advocate General’s Conclusions, Commission v. 
Hungary, C‑288/12, 10 December 2013.

71 

European Commission (2013), COM(2013)207 final.

72 

73 

The package was proposed in late 2011 and adopted in 
early 2014, for information see: http://ec.europa.eu/
internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/
reform_proposals/index_en.htm.

European Commission (2011), Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions: A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 
for corporate social responsibility, COM(2011) 681 final, 
25 October 2011, p. 14, Section 4.8.2, http://eur‑lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:
PDF.

74 

European Commission (2012), The roots of democracy 
and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with 
civil society in external relations, COM(2012) 492 final 
as of 12 September 2012, p. 9, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0492:FIN:EN:PDF.

75 

76 

For more information, see the FRA website  (http://fra.
europa.eu/en/cooperation/civil‑society) and Kjaerum, M. 
and Toggenburg, G. N. (2012), ‘The Fundamental Rights 
Agency and civil society: Reminding the gardeners of their 
plants’ roots’, European Diversity and Autonomy Papers, 
EDAP 02/2012, available at: http://webfolder.eurac.edu/
EURAC/Publications/edap/2012_edap02.pdf.

FRA (2012), ‘Bringing the Charter to life: Opportunities 
and challenges of putting the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights into practice’, Copenhagen Seminar Report, Danish 
Presidency of the Council of the European Union and 
EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, http://fra.europa.eu/
sites/default/files/copenhagen‑seminar‑report.pdf.

77  See FRA (2013), Handbook on European law relating to 

asylum, borders and immigration, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/handbook‑
european‑law‑relating‑asylum‑borders‑and‑immigration.

78  Council of the European Union (2013), Council 

recommendation on effective Roma integration measures 
in the member states, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/
uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/139979.pdf.

79  Available at:  https://e‑justice.europa.eu/home.do?action= 

home&plang=en.

80  Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/joinedup/home. 
See examples at, for instance: http://fra.europa.eu/en/
joinedup/tools/communicating‑fundamental‑rights/
engaging‑public/champions.

81 

FRA (2014), Twelve operational fundamental rights 
considerations for law enforcement when processing 
passenger name record (PNR) data, http://fra.europa.
eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2014‑fundamental‑rights‑
considerations‑pnr‑data‑en.pdf.

20

The EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights before national courts and 
non-judicial human rights bodies

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), the EU’s human rights bill, expresses the 
values at the heart of the Union which all Member States have pledged to uphold. Although a new instrument, it 
is gaining in use and prominence. As the Charter approaches its fifth anniversary as a binding document in 
December 2014, it is timely to explore its impact. Much is already known about how the Charter works at the 
level of the EU. Indeed, the Charter primarily addresses the EU, including its institutions and bodies. However, 
there is more to the Charter, namely its use at national level. The Charter binds the EU Member States and 
thereby all its authorities at various levels of governance, including regions or municipalities when they are 
acting in the scope of EU law. One indicator of how the Charter penetrates national legal systems is its use in 
national court rooms. For the first time, the FRA Annual report looks at national court judgments and the use of 
the Charter by national bodies with a human rights remit such as national human rights institutions, equality 
bodies and Ombudsperson institutions, thereby throwing light on a lesser‑known side of the Charter’s life.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union (Charter) is cited across EU legislative and admin‑
istrative  acts,  European  Parliament  petitions  and 
European Ombudsman cases. Similarly, it is carving an 
ever deeper imprint into jurisprudence, with a steady 
rise in mentions of its provisions by the Court of Justice 
of the European Union (CJEU). The number of decisions 
in which the CJEU (in all its formations: Court of Justice, 
General Court and Civil Service Tribunal) quotes the 
Charter in its reasoning, for example, more than quad‑
rupled  in  three  years  to  114  decisions  in  2013 
from 27 in 2010 (some 7 % of the total number of deci‑
sions in 2013 as opposed to 2 % in 2010, see Figure 0.1),1 
whereas the general number of CJEU decisions in the 
same  time  increased  only  from  1,152 in 2010  to 
1,587 in 2013 – a rise in three years of almost 38 %. In 
2013 alone, the CJEU referenced the Charter more often 
than in the nine years from the Charter’s proclamation 
in late 2000 to the end of 2009, when it became legally 
binding with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

The CJEU’s increasing number of citations makes the 
Charter relevant in practice, as demonstrated by the 
greater interest from national courts which can refer 
cases to the CJEU. Such requests for preliminary rulings 
by national courts invoking the Charter increased from 

18 in 2010 to 27 in 20112 and reached 41 in 2012. In 2013, 
9 % of the cases that national courts referred to the 
CJEU (41 of them) cited the Charter.3 Figure 0.2 shows 
the  rise  in  such  references  over  the  years  and  the 
Charter title that the courts referenced.

Figure 0.1: Number of decisions in which the CJEU 
references the Charter in 
its reasoning, 2010–2013

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

114 

87 

47 

27 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Source: FRA 2013, based on CJEU data

21

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Figure 0.2:  Total number of requests for preliminary rulings in which national courts mention the Charter, 

by Charter title, 2010–2013

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

I. Dignity 

II. Freedoms 

III. Equality 

IV. Solidarity 

V. Citizens' rights 

VI. Justice 

Note:  This chart excludes cases concerned with Title VII (general provisions) of the Charter.

Source:  European Commission (2014), 2013 report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, p. 8

Figure 0.3:  Number of requests for preliminary rulings in which national courts mention the Charter, 

by EU Member State, 2010–2013

25

20

15

10

5

0

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EL EE ES FI

FR HR HU IE

IT

LT LV LU MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Note:  Croatia is included as from the date it joined the EU, 1 July 2013.

Source:  Data available with the European Commission

Figure 0.4: Requests for preliminary rulings: total number and number referring to the Charter, 

by EU Member State, 2013

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

97

62

26

19

6

26

24

20

10

1

2

3

7

6

5

2

3

2

3

4

1

3

4

2

9

10

5

46

5

17

14

12

12

1

1

1

1

14

4

3

LT LV LU MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EL EE ES FI FR HR HU IE
32 % 4 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 2 % 0 % 0 % 67 % 12 % 25 % 13 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 15 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 11 % 8 % 7 % 6 % 0 % 0 % 75 % 0 %

IT

Total number 

Number referring to fundamental rights 

Note:  The percentage figure below the country code corresponds to the share of requests for preliminary rulings referring to 

the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Source:  FRA 2014; CJEU (2014), Annual Report 2013

22

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before national courts and non‑judicial human rights bodies

When looking at the EU Member States’ courts and how 
often they refer to the Charter when approaching the 
CJEU for a preliminary ruling, no overall trend appears. 
As shown in Figure 0.3, Austria shows a definite rise in 
Charter‑related requests, but most Member States do 
not display such a clear‑cut trend (e.g. Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Ireland and Italy). Some Member States’ courts have 
yet to make a single reference to the Charter in their 
requests for preliminary rulings by the CJEU since the 
Charter entered into force. Besides Croatia, which joined 
the EU only in July 2013, this applies to Cyprus, Denmark, 
Hungary and Slovenia.

However, national courts also use the Charter beyond 
requests to the CJEU for preliminary rulings. Indeed, only 
a fraction of cases in which national courts refer to the 
Charter reach the CJEU. The Charter is regularly used in 
national courtrooms. Nevertheless, so far the attention 
has been focused on the EU institutions’ Charter use, for 
instance before the CJEU.4 Less light has been thrown 
on how national courts use the Charter.5

Given that EU law is mainly implemented at national level 
through national institutions, the national judiciary’s use 
of the Charter is an important facet to examine. Every 
judge at national level serves two masters, the national 
and EU systems, and has hence to apply – where appro‑
priate – EU law, including the Charter. In fact, national 
courts began using the Charter before it became legally 
binding. In some of these cases, they even used the 
Charter  to  prevent  the  application  of  contradictory 
national norms.6 It thus appears timely and important 
to take up the Council of the European Union’s recent 
call and follow the Charter’s use in national courtrooms.

“The Council considers it important to follow developments 
in evolving case‑law and notes the Fundamental Rights 
Agency’s work in publishing regular updates in this regard.”

Council of the European Union (2013), Council conclusions on 
 fundamental rights and rule of law and on the Commission 2012 
 Report on the Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the  European Union, Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting 
 Luxembourg, 6 and 7 June 2013, Point 2, available at: www.consilium.
europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/137404.pdf

To  examine  national  developments,  FRA  asked  its 
Franet contractors to provide key information across 
the 28 EU Member States on national case law refer‑
ring to the Charter. More specifically, FRA requested 
information on up to five national judgments, preferably 
from the highest courts, including constitutional courts, 
supreme courts and the highest administrative courts 
which used the Charter in their reasoning.

For Belgium, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Sweden, Franet 
experts did not identify any judgments satisfying this 
request. For the other Member States, FRA received 
information on 70 judgments altogether, 50 of which 
were  delivered  by  a  high  court.  Since  the  national 
experts were asked to identify the five most relevant 

judgments and in many Member States fewer than 
five were found, this set of judgments probably rep‑
resents a good proportion of the most relevant 2013 
Charter references made before the 28 EU Member 
States’ national courts. Nevertheless, the sample is still 
limited, since references to the Charter before lower 
courts will often not be traceable because these sorts 
of decisions are not public and courts’ registers do not 
mark Charter references.

Very often, the national court only reports that  parties 
referred to the Charter but does not picking up the 
Charter in its own legal arguments. In Belgium, for 
instance, the Constitutional Court in 2013 handed down 
judgments referring to Article 47, Article 18 and Articles 
20, 21, 26 and 34 of the Charter without relying on these 
provisions in its own reasoning.7 The 70 judgments that 
were included in the sample did not contain such refer‑
ences to the Charter.

The Charter’s ‘national life’ also unfolds outside the 
courtroom before other bodies with a human rights 
remit,  such  as  national  human  rights  institutions 
(NHRIs), equality bodies and Ombudsperson institu‑
tions. Therefore, this chapter offers some additional 
information on the use of the Charter outside court‑
rooms in the Section on ‘How non‑judicial bodies at 
national level use the Charter’.

How national courts deploy 
the Charter

The most relevant policy fields

Of the relevant judgments that national courts handed 
down in 2013, the most prevalent substantive areas 
were on asylum and immigration. Out of the 70 judg‑
ments analysed for the year 2013, the largest group, 
namely 14 judgments, concerned these two fields. 
Other  prominent  areas  for  the  year  were  tax  law 
(nine judgments) and consumer protection (six judg‑
ments). There were also four judgments in each of the 
following fields: employment, social security, expro‑
priation/compensation and administrative procedures. 
These findings are similar to those of 2012, when FRA 
looked into 240 national judgments by 15 EU Member 
States’ courts and found that half dealt with asylum 
and  immigration  issues.8  Asylum  and  immigration 
unsurprisingly comprise the lion’s share of rulings, 
because they are defined principally by EU secondary 
law and are highly sensitive from a fundamental rights 
point of view.

The patterns of reference to the Charter differ between 
national and CJEU judgments. For the CJEU, 114 decisions 
referred to the Charter in 2013;9 in contrast to national 
courts, these judgments dealt principally with the EU 

23

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Figure 0.5: Charter‑related judgments, national or CJEU, by policy area (%)

National judgments  

CJEU judgments 

21 % 

13 % 

9 % 

57 % 

39 % 

21 % 

21 % 

9 % 

10 % 

Asylum and immigration 

Tax law 

Common Foreign and Security 

Competition 

Consumer protection  

Other areas 

Employment 

Asylum and immigration

Other areas 

Source: FRA, 2013, own data

Common Foreign and Security Policy, as well as with 
competition policies. The EU plays a strong role in both 
these fields, with competition policy a prime example 
of  an  area  in  which  the  EU  is  also  entrusted  with 
implementation. Other very prominent areas – again, 
similar to the situation before national courts – included 
employment (particularly employment at EU institu‑
tions), and asylum and immigration.

Charter rights that receive most 
prominent use

The  right  to  an  effective  remedy  and  a  fair  trial 
(Article  47)  was  the  Charter  right  most  frequently 
referred to in national courtrooms. Indeed, this right 
and  the  right  to  good  administration  (Article  41) 
together accounted for almost a quarter (23 %) of all the 
national references analysed. The Charter’s horizontal 
provisions  on  its  application  and  scope  (Articles  51 
and 52) represent almost another quarter (22 %) of the 
national judgments. The right to privacy and family life 
(Article 7), the rights of the child (Article 24) and the 
right to non‑discrimination (Article 21) were referred to 
in one in five of the cases (19 %) analysed. Additionally, 
25  of  the  remaining  Charter  articles  received  one 
or two references.

In the national judgments analysed, 22 Charter  articles 
received no mention at all. These concern some rights 
not easily compromised by EU law, including the right 
to life (Article 2), the right to the integrity of the person 
(Article 3) and the prohibition of slavery and forced 
labour (Article 5). Others left unmentioned concern 
rights that are especially relevant to policy fields where 
the EU’s competence is limited, such as the right to 
marry and found a family (Article 9), the freedom of 
arts and science (Article 13) or the right to education 
(Article 14). It is also not surprising that national courts 

failed to refer to rights that address the EU level, such 
as the right to access to documents (Article 42), related 
to the European Ombudsman (Article 43), the right to 
petition (Article 44), or diplomatic and consular pro‑
tection  (Article  46).  An  easy  explanation  does  not, 
however, suggest itself for the entire picture. Of the 
12 rights listed under the Charter’s ‘solidarity’ title, for 
instance, the national judgments analysed made no 
mention of eight.

When comparing the 2013 national court decisions 
analysed with the 114 CJEU decisions that refer to the 
Charter, both differences and similarities emerge. The 
right to an effective remedy and a fair trial is used most 
often, at both the EU and national levels. The right to 
good administration comes second, again in both CJEU 
and national court references. Finally, both the CJEU 
and national courts give the right to non‑discrimination 
similar importance. However, these 2013 judgments 
also reveal differences. Close to 10 % of the national 
judgments analysed referred to the rights of the child, 
but  the  CJEU  share  is  much  smaller:  it  mentioned 
Article 24 in just three of its 114 Charter‑related deci‑
sions. The right to private and family life (Article 7) 
also features more prominently in the national cases 
analysed than in the CJEU’s 2013 decisions. In contrast, 
the CJEU refers more often to the right to property 
(Article 17) and the freedom to conduct a business 
(Article 16). With regard to the horizontal provisions in 
Title VII of the Charter, national courts often referred 
to the Charter’s field of application (Article 51). The 
CJEU invoked this article less often, preferring instead 
to refer to the scope and interpretation of rights and 
principles (Article 52). This reflects the nature of the 
articles. Article 51 incorporates EU Member States as 
Charter addressees, whereas the Charter’s interpre‑
tation (Article 52) falls as a core task to the CJEU as 
interpreter of EU primary law.

24

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before national courts and non‑judicial human rights bodies

Figure 0.6: References to Charter articles in national court and CJEU decisions, by article (% of total Charter 

references in decisions analysed)

35 %

30 %

25 %

20 %

15 %

10 %

5 %

0 %

16 - Freedom to
7 - Private and
family life
conduct a business

17 - Property

20 - equality
before the law

21 - Non-
discrimination

24 - Rights of
the child

48 - Presumption of innocence
47 - Effective remedy
41 - Good
51 - Field of
and right of defence
administration
and fair trial
application

52 - Scope
of rights

Other rights

Note:   The category ‘other rights’ contains different rights for national courts and the CJEU.

Source:  FRA, 2014

Member States 

CJEU 

The reach of the Charter and the scope 
of EU law

not appear to make any difference to the outcome 
of these cases.

National  procedural  laws  differ  substantially  on 
the  degree  to  which  the  arguments  put  forward 
by the parties determine the scope of the proceed‑
ings. Consequently, whether or not a Court can raise 
a ‘Charter argument’ independently (ex officio) dif‑
fers from state to state.10 In 2013, out of the 70 cases 
examined, 31 included an earlier invocation by parties. 
In a further 33 cases, the adjudicating Court raised the 
Charter as a legal argument in its reasoning without 
the parties having done so.11 Thus, the Charter enters 
national courtrooms not only by the initiative of the 
parties but also through the national courts, which 
themselves often invoke the Charter as a legal source.

Since the Charter addresses the EU Member States 
“only  when  they  are  implementing  Union  law” 
(Article 51), one critical argument for a national court 
to refer to the Charter would seem to be that EU law 
applies to the case at hand. Although this holds true 
in part for courts, parties do not necessarily appear to 
check whether or not EU law applies. However, there 
are also national judgments in which the Court uses 
the Charter in its reasoning in cases that do not dis‑
play any link with EU law. In most of these cases, the 
Charter was referred to in a rather superficial manner; 
the court did not explicitly state whether or not the 
Charter directly applies. In any event, the Charter did 

The Charter was invoked, as were other international 
documents,  in,  for  instance,  a  Czech Republic  case 
concerning the violation of human dignity. A woman 
who was chained to a toilet for four hours in a psychi‑
atric hospital died, allegedly as a result of insufficient 
supervision.12 In other cases, the Charter functioned as 
an “additional confirmation” of the rights guaranteed 
by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).13 
In cases appearing to fall outside the scope of EU law, 
the Charter often served to strengthen rights guaran‑
teed by national constitutional law. In a judgment from 
Portugal, for instance, Article 53 of the Constitution, 
laying down the right to job security, is described as 
central  element  in  the  constitutional  architecture 
whose “extreme importance […] is […] consolidated by 
its condition as a principle of European public law, as 
stated in […] Article 30 of the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights”.14 Sometimes national courts used the Charter 
to interpret national law. In an Italian case concerning 
gender balance in an executive body of a municipality, 
the court referred to Charter Articles 21 and 23, con‑
cluding that “a normative corpus exists and it should 
become the tool for interpreting the domestic legal 
order”.15 Another Italian court judgment, while recog‑
nising that the Charter did not apply to the case at hand, 
seemed to say that this would not necessarily limit its 
interpretative value. The Italian court underlined that 

25

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

the Charter was an expression of common principles of 
European legal systems and therefore had – as a source 
of interpretation – a function within the national legal 
system even outside the scope of EU law.16

In contrast, however, other national courts have denied 
the Charter’s interpretive function precisely because 
they recognise the case as falling outside the scope 
of EU law. In a judgment from Portugal, for instance, 
the  court  recalls  that  the  Charter  applies  to  the 
EU Member States only when they are implementing 
EU law. Accordingly, the constitutional court found that 
the interpretation of what is the right to a fair trial as 
enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution is not “directly 
bound up in the hermeneutical assessment emitted by 
the Charter”. Rather, what should apply is an “autono‑
mous interpretation, founded within the precinct of 
internal constitutional rule‑making, even”, the court 
continues, “if it is unable to disregard the enlightening 
function of other external sources about the contents 
of the fundamental rights in question”.17

When  the  national  courts  examine  whether  or  not 
the  facts  of  a  case  fall  within  the  scope  of  EU  law, 
their approaches differ widely. In some judgments, 
a detailed assessment is provided. This assessment 
sometimes includes reference to the case law of the 
CJEU in general or to specific judgments. An Austrian 
court,18 for instance referred to the CJEU judgment in the 
Åkerberg‑Fransson case19 and a Danish court20 referred 
to the CJEU judgment in the Marks & Spencer case.21 
In some judgments, the national court even provides 
a detailed assessment of the facts of the case against 
the CJEU’s case law concerning the scope of law. Such 
was the case when an Irish court referred to the CJEU 
judgment in the Zambrano case and the subsequent 
CJEU case law, and presented the respective principles 
of EU law.22 There are also examples where judgments 
deal with the scope of EU law by referring to state‑
ments in earlier national court judgments or opinions 
from academic literature.23

At the other end of the spectrum, there are national 
judgments that do not even raise the question of the 
Charter’s applicability and yet nevertheless provide 
an interpretation of the Charter. In a Slovak Republic 
case, for instance, a regional court invoked the Charter 
without examining its scope and applicability and stated 
that “Article 98” would oblige all EU Member States to 
ensure a high level of consumer protection. What is 
meant, instead, is obviously Article 38, not 98, and it 
merely states that “Union policies [not Member States] 
shall ensure a high level of consumer protection”.24

In  general,  it  appears  that  national  courts  do  not 
 consistently address in their judgments the question 
of whether or not the Charter applies. While national 
courts frequently quoted Article 51 on the field of appli‑
cation of the Charter, such a reference rarely led them to 

decide how the situation at stake would qualify under 
this  provision.25  Equally,  few  judgments  provide  an 
interpretation of Article 51, even if they identify a wider 
or a more restrictive reading of the Charter’s scope. 
A judgment from Malta might serve as an example of 
the latter type of reading. The Maltese court stated 
that the Charter was “totally unrelated [to the facts 
of the case] as the rights in the Charter only apply to 
administrative acts of the European Institutions and 
to the regulations, directives and decisions emerging 
from the Treaties”.26

The standing of the Charter in the 
national legal system

In  many  cases  analysed,  the  Charter  was  used  to 
add  (additional)  legal  heft  to  the  interpretation  of 
a national law provision, including cases dealing with 
national constitutional law. To give an example from 
Spain, the Constitutional Court referred to its standing 
case law when stating that treaties and international 
agreements including EU law may constitute “valuable 
interpretive criteria of the meaning and scope of the 
rights and freedoms recognised by the Constitution”. 
The court underlined that these “valuable interpretive 
criteria” also includes the interpretation developed by 
the organs established in those treaties and interna‑
tional agreements.27 Such judgments reveal that the 
Charter’s guiding function is not necessarily limited 
to  cases  where  EU  law  in  general  and  the  Charter 
in particular apply.28

Less  frequent  were  judgments  using  the  Charter  to 
 interpret EU secondary law, although there is an example 
from  France  in  the  context  of  the  Free  Movement 
Directive (2004/38/EC). There are also cases where the 
Charter, secondary law and national law implementing 
EU legislation are looked at from the perspective of 
a triangular relationship, as a German judgment did. At 
stake was the scope of Article 2 (2) of the Employment 
Directive (2000/78/EC), which says that the directive 
“shall be without prejudice to measures laid down by 
national law which, in a democratic society, are neces‑
sary for public security, for the maintenance of public 
order and the prevention of criminal offences, for the 
protection of health and for the protection of the rights 
and freedoms of others.” The case concerned alleged 
age discrimination in a regional provision, which required 
house inspectors to be no older than 70. The national 
court admitted that the provision did indeed compromise 
Article 21 of the Charter, but it argued that this intrusion 
was justified in accordance with Article 52 (1) of the 
Charter. The justifications for interference under that 
article are, the court said, “for the very same reasons” 
as those justifying interferences with fundamental rights 
under national constitutional law.29

In the United Kingdom, the standing of the Charter in 
the national legal system was addressed explicitly in 

26

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before national courts and non‑judicial human rights bodies

some judgments and consequently picked up in the 
political debate. In a case concerning an asylum seeker 
who was returned to his country of origin, the claimant 
argued that the UK government interfered with his 
rights under Article 7 of the European Charter, among 
others, by causing private information to be disclosed to 
his home country’s authorities. In the end, the claim was 
dismissed. However, the judge referred to the judgment 
of the CJEU in the case N. S. v. Secretary of State for the 
Home Department,30 stressing that:

“The constitutional significance of this  decision 
can hardly be overstated. The Human Rights 
Act  1998  incorporated  into  our  domestic 
law large parts, but by no means all, of the 
European  Convention  on  Human  Rights. 
Some parts were deliberately missed out by 
Parliament. The Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union contains, I believe, all 
of those missing parts and a great deal more. 
Notwithstanding the endeavours of our political 
representatives at Lisbon it would seem that 
the much wider Charter of Rights is now part 
of  our  domestic  law.  Moreover,  that  much 
wider Charter of Rights would remain part of 
our domestic law even if the Human Rights 
Act were repealed.”31

In another judgment, a national court in the United 
Kingdom took a more operational approach to the 
standing of the Charter. The case concerned two appli‑
cants: a cook at the Sudanese embassy and a member 
of the domestic staff of the Libyan embassy. Both 
had made claims arising out of their employment and 
were met with pleas of state immunity. These pleas 
were upheld by two separate employment tribunals 
and both parties appealed. The claimants invoked 
Article 47 of the Charter and argued that the State 
Immunity Act 1978 (SIA), which provides for state 
immunity in UK law, should be disapplied to the extent 
the claims fell within the material scope of EU law. The 
employment appeal tribunal addressed the question 
whether a direct application of the Charter implies that 
national law contrary to the Charter must be disapplied 
in a claim litigated between private individuals. The 
Court stated that the claims relating to discrimina‑
tion, harassment and breaches of the Working Time 
Regulations were subject to Article 47 of the Charter, 
but those for unfair dismissal and minimum wages 
were  not.  The  Court  concluded  that,  whereas  the 
Human Rights Act “does not permit the disapplica‑
tion of any statutory provision, […] EU law requires it 
where it concerns the material scope of EU law”; thus, 
for the claims covered by EU law, certain provisions of 
the SIA were “to be disapplied”.32 The discussions that 
were sparked by these judgments led the European 
Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons to pre‑
pare a report on the application of the Charter in the 
UK, which will be presented in 2014.

The sample of cases analysed here does not contain 
cases where the standing of the Charter was addressed 
in other Member States, but this should not lead to the 
conclusion that national courts in other countries did 
not address the Charter’s legal standing. A look back 
to 2012 is instructive in this regard. The Constitutional 
Court in Austria had referred to a principle of equiva‑
lence and concluded that the rights of the Charter can 
be  invoked  as  constitutional  rights  and,  within  the 
scope of the Charter, constitute a standard of review 
in the proceedings of constitutional complaints, in par‑
ticular pursuant to specific provisions of the Austrian 
Constitution (Articles 139 and 149).33 In the same year, 
the Constitutional Court of Romania said that Charter 
provisions are applied when checking constitutionality, 
basing this Charter role on the Romanian constitution’s 
integration clause in Article 148.34 In 2013, a national 
court in France stressed, in a case concerning the lack of 
suspensive effect of an appeal against expulsion orders, 
that the national judge does not have the power under 
the Code of Administrative Justice to rule on the com‑
patibility of such laws with the provisions of an inter‑
national convention or reject their application under 
the European Union law. However, the court added that 
the situation is different where these legal dispositions 
appear to be manifestly incompatible with European 
Union law requirements, which was – according to the 
national court – not the case.35 In a case in Cyprus, the 
parties referred in their argumentation to the Charter 
as higher‑ranking law. The court, however, limited itself 
to establishing that Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter are 
largely identical to the national constitution’s provisions 
and “for that reason” there was no need to refer a ques‑
tion of interpretation to the CJEU.36

The Charter and other non-national 
legal sources

Even if the Charter within the EU system is the most 
prominent legal source of fundamental rights, it is by 
no  means  the  only  relevant  document  in  the  field. 
The Charter text makes the link to the ECHR explicit. 
Article  52  (3)  of  the  Charter  establishes  that  the 
“meaning and the scope” of the rights in the Charter 
are linked to the corresponding rights in the ECHR. This 
parallelism is reflected in national case law. In nearly 
two thirds of the 69 national judgments, reference was 
made to the ECHR. Just as the data collection for 2012 
revealed, there is a degree of parallelism in using the 
ECHR and the Charter.

A few judgments explicitly mention the relationship 
between  the  Charter  and  the  ECHR  by  referring  to 
Article 52 (3) and underlining that the meaning and 
the scope of the rights mentioned in both instruments 
are the same. In Romania, a court identified Charter 
Article 41 as a benchmark for the administrative con‑
duct of EU Member States’ public authorities. Where the 
state complies with this benchmark, protection ensured 

27

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

by Article 6 of the ECHR is guaranteed.37 Conversely, 
in  a  judgment  from  the  Netherlands,  the  national 
court, “not taking into consideration whether in this 
case the law of the Union is implemented in the sense 
of [A]rticle 51”, checked the national norms against 
Article 6 of the ECHR and concluded that national law 
is not contrary to Article 6 of the ECHR and therefore, 
given the similarity of the provisions in the ECHR and the 
Charter, also not contrary to Article 47 of the Charter.38

Where national courts are confronted with differences 
in wording between the Charter and the ECHR, European 
Court  of  Human  Rights  (ECtHR)  case  law  may  play 
a special role. For instance, unlike the ECHR’s wording, 
the Charter establishes in Article 47 (2) that everyone 
shall have “the possibility” of being advised, defended 
and represented in judicial proceedings. Given ECtHR 
case law establishing that a statutory obligation to be 
represented by a lawyer before certain courts does 
not infringe Article 6 of the ECHR, a national court in 
Germany developed case law clarifying that such an 
obligation is thus also in line with Article 47 of the 
Charter.39 In another judgment delivered by a German 
court, EU secondary law was interpreted not through 
CJEU case law but through that of the ECtHR. The judg‑
ment concerned the Free Movement Directive and how 
it relates to homosexual relationships. Since the ECtHR 
subsumes questions of sexual self‑determination and 
of one’s sex life under the term ‘private life’ protected 
by Article 8 (1) of the ECHR, the court saw no need for 
a preliminary ruling by the CJEU. Against the background 
of the EctHR’s case law, the national court had no doubts 
on the classification of homosexuality and considered 
the feature of “sexual orientation” to be an element 
which forms identity as defined in Article 10 (1) (d) of 
EU Directive 2004/83/EC.40

Unlike  the  ECHR,  Charter  Article  53  also  recognises 
other international agreements to which the Union or 
all the EU Member States are party. Where national 
courts use the Charter in their reasoning, they some‑
times refer in parallel to other international documents. 
Such parallel references are not as frequent as parallel 
references to the ECHR. Most prominently featured 
is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to 
which six judgments referred. Judgments also made 
three references to the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights; two references to the International Covenant on 
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; two references to 
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 
two references to the European Social Charter; and one 
reference to the Convention on the Elimination of All 
Forms of Racial Discrimination.

National courts and the Court of Justice 
of the European Union

In 41 of the 70 judgments analysed, the CJEU was not 
mentioned at all. However, 13 judgments referred to the 

court in general terms and 17 also referred to specific 
CJEU judgments. National courts might also refer to CJEU 
case law more generally, as a judgment from Poland 
shows.  In  this  example,  the  national  court  denied 
a violation of Article 47 of the Charter, “as neither this 
provision nor the Court of Justice of the European Union 
provide such procedural requirements”.41 Other judg‑
ments gave concrete and detailed reference to CJEU 
judgments, at times setting them into the perspective 
of national law. In a ruling from Slovakia, for instance, 
the national Constitutional Court’s conclusions are set 
in relation to the CJEU’s conclusions.42

Figure 0.7  References to the CJEU in 

the context of the Charter in 
national judgments (analysed)

12 

40 

16 

Judgments containing general
references to the CJEU  

Judgments containing references
to speciﬁc case law of the CJEU 

Judgments not referring at all to the CJEU
in the context of the Charter 

Source: FRA, 2014

The CJEU’s jurisprudence was used to provide guidance 
in the interpretation of national constitutional law out‑
side the scope of EU law, for example in a judgment 
from Spain. In a case concerning the civil legislation 
that regulates the order of surnames in Spain and civil 
registration of names, the national court used the CJEU 
judgment in C‑208/09, the Sayn‑Wittgenstein case, to 
stress that the name of a person is an element of his 
or her identity and privacy, whose protection is guar‑
anteed by Article 7 of the Charter.43

Some preliminary references were sparked by a doubt 
concerning the interpretation of a Charter right, without 
it necessarily translating into questions explicitly men‑
tioning the Charter. In some cases, national courts do 
not share a party’s view that the Charter right in ques‑
tion was not clear in a given context. For instance, in 
an Austrian judgment, the court saw no need to ask 
for clarification on the (non‑)applicability of Article 47 
in the context of national electricity legislation.44 In 
a case from Lithuania, the Supreme Court decided to 
stay the proceedings and refer to the CJEU question 
in the context of Article 47 of the Charter and the 
applicability of consumer protection rules. The case 
concerned a contract concluded between a practising 
lawyer  and  a  natural  person;  it  was  unclear  if  this 

28

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before national courts and non‑judicial human rights bodies

contract  should  be  viewed  as  concluded  between 
a customer and a business service provider, which 
would make consumer protection rules applicable. In 
an Estonian case concerning Article 47 of the Charter, 
the question arose whether a circuit court was entitled 
to suspend the procedure and refer the case to the 
CJEU for a preliminary ruling.45 The case concerned an 
Estonian–Latvian Territorial Cooperation Programme 
implemented under the EU’s cohesion policy. The deci‑
sions of the programme’s monitoring committee could 
not be appealed against, raising the question of their 
conformity with the Charter, especially with Article 47.

The Netherlands made a preliminary reference to the 
Court of Justice in the context of the Charter right to 
good administration (Article 41).46 The national court 
sought guidance from the CJEU on how to read the “right 
of defence” in the administrative context. The Dutch 
court acknowledges CJEU case law, recognising that this 
right is now also laid down in Article 41 of the Charter. It 
notes, however, that CJEU case law shows that the right 
is not absolute and that the Charter, “according to its 
wording, is only addressed to institutions, bodies, offices 
and agencies of the Union”. A judgment delivered in 
Portugal illustrates a case in which the court discussed 
in detail whether or not to refer it to the CJEU.47 In a case 
concerning a legal amendment to lower the pension 
rights of former communist security officials, a regional 
Court in Poland  requested the CJEU for a preliminary 
ruling whether the amendment was not infringing with 
Charter Articles 1 (human dignity), 17 (right to property), 
20 (equality before the law), 21 (non‑discrimination) 
and 47 (right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial). 
For this case, Protocol No. 30 on the applicability of the 
Charter is of relevance. 48

How non-judicial bodies at 
national level use the Charter
Fundamental  rights  generally,  and  the  Charter 
 specifically, should be embedded within the work of all 
entities that provide and support access to justice at all 
levels of government. Courts alone do not carry out this 
function. A range of bodies with a human rights remit, 
some of which are considered non‑judicial in that they 
do not adjudicate cases, also play a crucial role. Some 
of these bodies are called quasi‑judicial; they adjudicate 
cases but are not courts of law. EU Member States have 
a wide range of such bodies, whose powers, goals and 
operations vary greatly.

To explore the extent to which these bodies make 
use of the Charter and related EU fundamental rights 
law, the European Commission (DG Justice, C1) started 
in  2013  to  collect  information  from  NHRIs  accred‑
ited under the Paris Principles, equality bodies and 
ombudsperson institutions as well as specific ombud‑
sperson institutions for children. The information was 

collected through the respective European networks 
of these four types of bodies, and FRA was asked to 
provide an analysis.

The  categorisation  into  the  four  types  of  bodies 
 mentioned is not clear cut: an NHRI can at the same time 
serve as an equality body and also as an ombudsperson 
institution, and any of these bodies could also have 
an explicit mandate regarding children, thus forming 
part of the European network for such bodies. In addi‑
tion, a designated equality body is a requirement for 
all Member States under EU law,49 whereas no such 
legal requirement exists for the other bodies. Basically, 
each Member State could have an entity in each of the 
four  categories,  but,  commonly,  Member  States  do 
not have all types. Some states have more than one 
of a particular type of body; the United Kingdom, for 
example, has separate NHRIs for Scotland and Northern 
Ireland, as well as one for England and Wales (for more 
details on NHRIs, see Chapter 8 on access to justice 
and judicial cooperation and Chapter 10 on EU Member 
States and international obligations). A short question‑
naire containing six broad questions was sent to the 
relevant bodies in all EU Member States. The questions 
concerned the role of the Charter in:

1.  training
2.  awareness raising
3.  processing complaints
4.  advising government
5.  litigating cases before courts
6.  mediation.

Each of the six areas contained subquestions to quantify 
the responses, such as how many persons had under‑
gone training on the Charter or how many cases had 
related to the Charter. Not all the questions would be 
applicable to all bodies; some provide training, others 
advise governments and yet others process complaints 
or litigate on behalf of complainants.

The  time  frame  about  which  answers  should  be 
 provided  was  between  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Charter, in December 2009, and the questionnaire’s 
cut‑off date, 31 October 2013. The last two areas, litiga‑
tion and mediation, were an exception: answers about 
them were to refer solely to 2013.

All  told,  there  are  approximately  100  bodies  of 
the  four  types  across  the  28  EU  Member  States.  In 
total, there were 43 responses to the questionnaire. 
Bodies  across  all  four  types  responded  from  25  of 
the 28 EU Member States. Among the respondents 
were  five  specialised  in  children  and  five  regional 
Ombudsperson institutions (from Italy and Spain). The 
European Ombudsman also responded.

Of  the  six  questions,  some  received  more  concrete 
responses, largely because of the nature of the issues 

29

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

they  cover  being  more  or  less  precise.  Awareness 
raising, in particular, tends to be done through general 
campaigns on, say, equality. A particular role for the 
Charter, or relevant EU legislation which the question‑
naire also addressed, cannot usually be distinguished. 
Training has a similar nature in that it tends to cover 
issues and  principles,  drawing  on the most relevant 
sources which may include UN, Council of Europe and 
EU law. But again, specific references to EU fundamental 
rights standards might not be needed for training, so it 
is difficult to pinpoint the role these standards play in 
training. Still, it is clear from the responses, in particular 
from the equality bodies, that the transposed EU law on 
equality is very influential.

Processing  complaints  and  advice  is  more  easily 
 associated with EU fundamental rights. The same applies 
to litigation where the bodies in question have judicial 
functions or can support or bring cases before courts. 
Finally, the sixth area, mediation, is difficult to associate 
with any legal standards, given that legal arguments 
are probably not at the core of such a process. The brief 
overview of the responses below consequently focuses 
on those provided to Questions 3, 4 and 5.

Comparability is essential for detailed analysis. The 
diversity of the organisations that responded to ques‑
tions that were intentionally brief and straightforward 
did not allow for a strong comparative framework. For 
this reason, the number of bodies responding positively 
or negatively should be read as a general indication 
rather than as a detailed review.

Training and awareness raising

About half of the bodies (22 of the 43 that responded) 
provided training related to the Charter and or EU leg‑
islation. The scope of the training varied from general 
staff‑only training to outreach including thousands of 
participants. Twenty‑one bodies said they provided no 
training, with six explaining that training was outside 
their mandate. A few said they limited their training 
focus to the ECHR or, for bodies active in this area, to 
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

More  concrete  examples  of  engagement  with  EU 
 fundamental rights instruments include the Romanian 
Institute of Human Rights. It organises a week‑long 
summer course every year, to which a Charter module 
was added after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty 
in 2009. Practitioners and academics participate, some 
30 per year.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman in Sweden organised 
internal  training  for  some  50  persons  covering  the 
Charter in greater detail. The Public Defender of Rights 
in Slovakia said it covers the Charter right to good 
administration (Article 41) in all staff training.

Slightly fewer than half (18) of the bodies provided 
awareness raising on EU fundamental rights. About 
half (22) responded negatively, with five stating that it 
was not within their mandate. A few others said they 
focused on the ECHR and the UN Convention on the 
Rights of the Child. The Mediator in Luxembourg said it 
planned a campaign on Article 41 of the Charter.

Processing complaints

Of  the  43  bodies  which  responded,  26  processed 
complaints using EU fundamental rights. Seventeen 
answered no. Of these, 12 responded that they had not 
yet received any complaints related to EU fundamental 
rights. Two said that they were not mandated to deal 
with complaints or cases.

Complaints that refer to EU fundamental rights appear 
to be limited. The European Ombudsman replied that 
some 13 % of cases referred explicitly to the Charter. 
The Parliamentary Ombudsman in Sweden estimates 
that only applicants include such references in a mere 
1 %–3 % of complaints. It could not identify any case 
where the Charter would have had a clear and trace‑
able impact on the outcome. The Defender of Rights in 
France estimated the equivalent number to be a frac‑
tion  of  1  %.  The  Ombudsman  in  Greece  concluded 
that in some 2 %–3 % of cases the complainant would 
invoke the Charter. The Advocate of the Principle of 
Equality, the equality body in Slovenia, reported that 
15 % of complaints made reference to EU fundamental 
rights, but that in the majority of these cases the EU 
element was provided by the Advocate of the Principle 
of Equality, not the complainant.

As for the Charter’s influence on substantive issues, the 
European Ombudsman stressed public administration 
and the related relevance of Charter Article 41, as did the 
Parliamentary Ombudsman in Finland. The Ombudsman 
in Greece, the equality body, referred to discrimina‑
tion against Roma. Other equality bodies, including the 
National Centre for Human Rights in Slovakia and the 
Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism 
in Belgium, also noted that the equality title of the 
Charter was influential. The Parliamentary Ombudsman 
in Finland also mentioned cases concerning freedom of 
movement, access to healthcare and discrimination on 
the basis of religion.

Advising government

Around half (21) of the bodies that replied to the survey 
provide advice to governments on the basis of the 
Charter or related EU legislation. Of those responding, 
17 answers were negative, with 10 of the bodies not 
having a mandate to provide such advice. Of those 
lacking a mandate on the Charter, four reported that 
they were authorised to advise on the basis of other 
instruments, such as the constitution or international 

30

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before national courts and non‑judicial human rights bodies

treaties. The National Commission for the Promotion of 
Equality in Malta reported that it had used EU secondary 
legislation on discrimination to provide advice. Although 
the Charter is a relative newcomer among human rights 
instruments and many bodies do not have mandates 
explicitly referencing the Charter, the act establishing 
the  Danish  Institute  for  Human  Rights  contains  an 
explicit reference to the Charter as part of the basis on 
which the body should operate.50 The Human Rights 
Defender in Poland has advised the government on 
the basis of the Charter in relation to age discrimina‑
tion, gender equality, rights of persons with disabilities 
and data protection.

Litigating cases before courts 
and mediation

Litigation before courts based on EU fundamental rights 
law was used by just over a quarter (12) of the bodies 
responding. This also reflects the limited mandate of 
many of the bodies. In fact, out of 30 responses saying 
that the body did not litigate, 18 said that their mandate 
prevented them from bringing cases before a court. 
Another four of those 30 responses said they had not 
dealt with any cases related to EU fundamental rights 
law. One of the 43 responses was not clear on whether 
or not litigation was possible.

Four of the bodies provided explicit examples of how 
the Charter had related to their litigation work. The 
Public Defender of Rights in the Czech Republic assisted 
a court case that concerned discrimination. The Human 
Rights Defender in Poland has motioned the constitu‑
tional court, supported by the Charter in relation to the 
freedom of assembly, rights of persons with disabilities 
and data protection. The Commissioner for Fundamental 
Rights in Hungary has sought the Charter’s support 
when bringing cases to the constitutional court con‑
cerning data protection, right to an effective remedy 
and to a fair trial, freedom of information, the right 
to property and the right to social security. The Public 
Defender in Spain reported that claimants use Article 41 
of the Charter to argue that bodies within the public 
administration should justify their decisions.

Five of the bodies referred to mediation in the context 
of EU fundamental rights. Thirty‑five responded nega‑
tively. Of these, 12 responded that the reason was a lack 
of mandate for it. Six of the 35 stated that it would be 
possible to rely on EU fundamental rights if there were 
a case appropriate for mediation.

Conclusion

It is in the fields of asylum and immigration that national 
courts most often refer to the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union. More than one in five 
of the cases analysed deal with these policies (21 %). 
The Charter right that national courts most commonly 
refer to is the right to an effective remedy and a fair 
trial (Article 47). Together with the right to good admin‑
istration (Article 41), these rights formed a quarter of 
all the references to the Charter in the 2013 judgments 
analysed. This reflects the situation before the CJEU, 
which invokes Articles 41 and 47 in half of all the cases 
in which it refers to the Charter.

Of all the cases in which national courts referred to the 
Charter, 22 % were devoted to the Charter’s horizontal 
provisions, encompassing its scope (Article 51) and 
interpretation (Article 52). Despite these provisions’ 
prominence before national courts, their judgments 
rarely analyse the Charter’s reach in detail. The Charter 
is often rather superficially referred to as a means of 
interpretation, without the question of whether or not 
the Charter applies being addressed.

Occasionally, national courts also refer to the Charter 
in their reasoning in cases that clearly fall outside the 
scope of EU law. As an expression of the values on 
which the Union is built and to which all Member States 
adhere, the Charter thus reverberates beyond EU law.

National courts tend to cite in parallel the Charter, which 
is the EU human rights bill, and the ECHR, the Council 
of Europe’s human rights treaty. In nearly two thirds of 
the judgments analysed, the courts paired references 
to the Charter and the ECHR.

The  Charter  is  also  used  and  referred  to  before 
bodies with a human rights remit, including NHRIs, 
Ombudsperson  institutions  and  equality  bodies. 
However, given the diversity of these institutions, the 
role of the Charter is more mixed and less pronounced 
than before national courts. Just like the national courts, 
the bodies with a human rights remit often refer both to 
the Charter and to human rights treaties, although the 
latter see more use than the former. Many of the bodies 
are specialised equality bodies, which tend to draw 
on the Charter’s equality title. However, other rights, 
including to data protection and to good administration, 
are also highlighted before such bodies. Nevertheless, 
there remains potential for much greater use of the 
Charter before bodies with a human rights remit.

31

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7  

8  

European Commission (2012), 2011 report on the 
application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, p. 8, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental‑rights/
files/charter_report_en.pdf; European Commission 
(2013), 2012 report on the application of the EU Charter 
of Fundamental Rights, p. 24, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/
fundamental‑rights/report/2012/index.html.

European Commission (2012), 2011 report on the 
application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, p. 8, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental‑rights/files/
charter_report_en.pdf.

European Commission (2014), 2013 report on the application 
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, p. 7.

European Parliament (2012), ‘Main trends in the recent 
case law of the EU Court of Justice and the European 
Court of Human Rights in the field of fundamental 
rights’, PE462.446, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2012/462446/IPOL‑LIBE_
ET(2012)462446_EN.pdf. A recent example is de Burca, G. 
(2013), ‘After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The 
Court of Justice as a human rights adjudicator’, Maastricht 
Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 168–184.

For exceptions confirming the rule, see de Visser, M. (2013), 
‘National constitutional courts, the Court of Justice and 
the protection of fundamental rights in a post‑Charter 
landscape’, Human Rights Review; Bazzocchi, V. (2011), ‘The 
European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the courts’, in 
Di Federico, G. (ed.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 
Springer, pp. 55–75.

Italy, Corte Appello Firenze sez. lav (2007), judgment 
of 9 June 2007, quoted by Amici, F., Papa, V,. and Sacca 
E., (2009), The courts and the Nice Charter: Technical 
arguments and interpretative activity, p. 259, http://csdle.
lex.unict.it/Archive/AC/Dossiers/EU%20law/20120206‑
101728_INT_dossier12_fund‑rights_2009pdf.pdf; Italy, 
Tribunale Ravenna (2008), judgment of 16 January 2008, 
quoted ibid., p. 268.

Belgium, Cour constitutionnelle/Grondwettelijk Hof, 
No. 73/2013, 30 May 2013, No. 107/2013, 18 July 2013, and 
No. 124/2013, 26 September 2013.

Similarly, the ACA general report on the implementation 
of the Charter (seminar of 24 November 2011) states: “The 
area of law in which the Charter seems to have played the 
most prominent role to date is immigration and asylum law: 
apart from Spain, Hungary and Austria, the Charter has had 
an impact (to a greater or lesser extent) in this area of law 
in every country.” ACA, General report, www.aca‑europe.
eu/seminars/DenHaag2011/Gen_Report_en.pdf.

9  

For the list of the 114 decisions, see the annex to European 
Commission (2014), 2013 report on the application of 
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

10   See Association of the Councils of State and Supreme 

Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union (2012), 
General report, p. 10, www.aca‑europe.eu/seminars/
DenHaag2011/Gen_Report_en.pdf.

11  

In some of the judgments, it remained unclear whether or 
not the Charter had already been referred to by the parties.

12   Czech Republic, Nejvyšší soud, Case 30 Cdo. 3223/2011, 

14 May 2013, www.nsoud.cz/Judikatura/judikatura_ns.nsf/
WebSearch/BDA2B059E16E4F1EC1257B97002EB949?
openDocument&Highlight=0; see, similarly, Poland, 
Sąd Apelacyjny w Białymstoku, Case I SA/Wa 1012/13, 
17 April 2013, http://orzeczenia.bialystok.sa.gov.pl/
content/$N/150500000001006_II_AKzw_000665_2013_
Uz_2013‑04‑17_001.

13   Poland, Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie, 
Case I SA/Wa 1012/13, 6 May 2013, http://orzeczenia.nsa.
gov.pl/doc/020019FFCB.

14   Portugal, Tribunal Constitucional, Case 754/13, 

29 August 2013, www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/
acordaos/20130474.html.

15  

Italy, Tribunale regionale amministrativo (TAR) – Rome 
(second section), Case 633, 21 January 2013.

16  

Italy, Corte Suprema di Cassazione, Case 41, 3 January 2013.

17   Portugal, Tribunal Constitucional, Case 117/12, 

15 July 2013, http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/
tc/acordaos/20130404.html; for a similar emphasis 
on autonomy, see Portugal, Tribunal Constitucional, 
Case 274/2013, 23 May 2013, www.tribunalconstitucional.
pt/tc/acordaos/20130274.html.

18   Austria, Verwaltungsgerichtshof, judgment 2012/15/0021, 

19 March 2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=
Vwgh&Dokumentnummer=JWT_2012150021_20130319X00.

19   CJEU, Case C‑617/10, 26 February 2013.

20   Denmark, Landsskatteretten, Case 04‑0002640, judgment 

of 4 June 2013, www.afgoerelsesdatabasen.dk/ShowDoc.
aspx?q=04‑0002640&docId=dom‑lsr‑04‑0002640‑full.

21   CJEU, C‑446/03, Marks & Spencer, 13 December 2005.

22   See Ireland, High Court (2013), Case IEHC 246s, judgment 
of 30 April 2013, especially para. 50, www.courts.ie/
judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/917c1
eda50f25d3d80257b8f002fbcb7?OpenDocument.

23   See Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof, judgment 8 Ob 7/13g, 

4 March 2013, at 2.3, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/
JJT_20130304_OGH0002_0080OB00007_13G0000_000/
JJT_20130304_OGH0002_0080OB00007_13G0000_000.pdf.

24   See Slovakia, Okresný súd Piešťany, Case 7C/127/2012, 
judgment of 1 August 2013, www.justice.gov.sk/
Stranky/Sudne‑rozhodnutia/Sudne‑rozhodnutie‑detail.
aspx?PorCis=3622CDA6‑5E78‑47D8‑9B3C‑B6962D4019EA&P
ojCislo=169769.

25   Examples of judgments explicitly denying that the scope of 

the Charter is activated are Hungary, Alkotmánybírósága, 
Case 3140/2013, judgment of 24 June 2013; Netherlands, 
Centrale Raad van Beroep, Case BZ2161, judgment of 
22 February 2013, http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspra
ak?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2013:BZ2161; Netherlands, Centrale 
Raad van Beroep,Case 1090, judgment of 12 July 2012, 
http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:C
RVB:2013:1090.

26   Malta, Criminal Court of Appeal, Case 98/2011, judgment of 

15 July 2013.

27   Spain, Tribunal Constitucional, Case 61/2013, judgment of 
14 March 2013, http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/docs/
BOE/BOE‑A‑2013‑3797.pdf.

28   See Spain, Tribunal Constitucional, Case 167/2013, judgment 

of 7 November 2013, http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/
docs/BOE/BOE‑A‑2013‑11678.pdf.

29   Germany, Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 
Case 7 C 897/13.N, judgment of 7 August 2013, 
http://openjur.de/u/642867.html.

30   CJEU, Case C‑411/10, N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home 

Department, judgment of 21 December 2011.

31   United Kingdom, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division – 

Administrative Court), Case EWHC 3453 (Admin), judgment 
of 7 November 2013.

32   United Kingdom, Employment Appeal Tribunal, 

Case UKEAT 0401_12_0410, judgment of 4 October 2013, 
www.bailii.org/cgi‑bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/
UKEAT/2013/0401_12_3004.html&query=Janah+and+v+and
+Libya+and+Benkharbouche+and+v+and+Embassy+and+of
+and+the+and+Republic+and+of+and+Sudan%92&method=
boolean.

32

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before national courts and non‑judicial human rights bodies

33   Austria, Verfassungsgerichtshof, Case U466/11; U1836/11, 

judgment of 14 March 2012, www.ris.bka.gv.at/
Dokumente/Vfgh/JFT_09879686_11U00466_2_00/
JFT_09879686_11U00466_2_00.html.

34   Romania, Curtea Constituţională a României, 

Case 1021D/2012, judgment of 20 November 2012, 
www.ccr.ro/files/products/D0967_12.pdf.

35   France, Haute Cour administrative, judge for urgent cases, 
Case No. 371316, judgment of 23 August 2013, www.
legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?oldAction=rechJuriAd
min&idTexte=CETATEXT000027990506&fastReqId=8853375
19&fastPos=34.

36   Cyprus, Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 77/2012, judgment 
of 13 February 2013, www.cylaw.org/cgi‑bin/open.pl?file=/
apofaseis/aad/meros_1/2013/1‑201302‑77‑12PolEf.htm.

37   Romania, Înalta Curte de Casaţie și Justiţie, 

Case 2001/54/2011, judgment of 22 January 2013.

38   Netherlands, Administrative Jurisdiction Division 
of the Council of State, Case BZ2265, judgment of 
25 February 2013, http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak? 
id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2013:BZ2265.

39   Germany, Bundesfinanzhof, Case X K 11/12, judgment of 
6 February 2013, para. 13, www.bundesfinanzhof.de/
entscheidungen/entscheidungen‑online.

40   Germany, Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden‑Württemberg, 

Case A 9 S 1872/12, judgment of 7 March 2013, http://lrbw.
juris.de/cgi‑bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Geri
cht=bw&GerichtAuswahl=VGH+Baden‑W%FCrttemberg&Ar
t=en&sid=4f6610e44d88e7782a6911dc4ee61600&nr=16837
&pos=0&anz=1.

41   Poland, Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Case II OZ 327/13, 
judgment of 1 August 2013, http://orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl/
doc/46581FD26A.

42   Slovakia, Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky, 

Case II. ÚS 499/2012‑47, judgment of 10 June 2013, 
http://portal.concourt.sk/SearchRozhodnutia/rozhod.
do?urlpage=dokument&id_spisu=499748.

43   See Spain, Tribunal Constitucional, Case 167/2013, judgment 

of 7 November 2013, http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/
docs/BOE/BOE‑A‑2013‑11678.pdf.

44   Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof, Case 8Ob7/13G, judgment 
of 4 March 2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/
JJT_20130304_OGH0002_0080OB00007_ 
13G0000_000/JJT_20130304_OGH0002_0080OB00007_ 
13G0000_000.pdf.

45   Estonia, Riigikohtu halduskolleegium, Case 3‑3‑1‑2‑13, 

judgment of 21 March 2013, http://www.nc.ee/?id=11&tekst
=RK/3‑3‑1‑2‑13.

46   Netherlands, Hoge Raad, Case BR0671, decision of 

22 February 2013: http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak? 
id=ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BR0671.

47   Portugal, Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Case 149/11.4YFLSB, 
judgment of 26 June 2013, www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad
9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/f3a3d72faffbb1c180257b160053d
34b?OpenDocument.

48   Poland, Częstochowa Regional Court, R. Panczyk v. Ministry 
of Interior and Administration, IV U 147/02, 20 December 
2013. See also consolidated versions of the TEU and 
TFEU Protocol No. 30 on the application of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland 
and to the United Kingdom, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/
legal‑content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2012:326:TOC.

49   Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing 

the principle of equal treatment between persons 
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (Racial Equality 
Directive), OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22, Art. 13; Council Directive 
2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the 
principle of equal treatment between men and women in 
the access to and supply of goods and services (Gender 
Goods and Services Directive), OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37, Art. 12; 
Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the 
principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of 
men and women in matters of employment and occupation 
(recast) (Gender Equality Directive), OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23, 
Art. 20.

50   Act No. 553 of 18 June 2012, Art. 2 (6).

33

Asylum, immigration and integration

Border control and visa policy

Information society, respect for 
 private life and data protection

Freedoms
Freedoms

1 

Asylum, immigration and integration  �������������������������������������  37

1�1�  EU faces challenges managing sea borders  �����������������  38

1�2�  CJEU provides authoritative interpretation 

of EU asylum law  ������������������������������������������������������������  39

1�3�  Member States slow to implement 

EU law safeguards: the example of effective 
return-monitoring systems  �������������������������������������������  45

1�4�  Some Member States require excessive 

or disproportionate fees for residence permits – 
an example of practical obstacles for migrant 
integration  �����������������������������������������������������������������������  48

Outlook  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  51

Annex  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  52

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE
January
February
March
April
May
June
23 July – In Suso Musa v� Malta, 
the ECtHR clarifies the concept 
of detention “to prevent an 
unauthorised entry” under 
Article 5 (1) of the ECHR� 
It considers that, if a state 
enacts legislation explicitly 
authorising the entry or stay 
of immigrants pending an 
asylum application, an ensuing 
detention for the purpose of 
preventing an unauthorised 
entry may raise an issue about 
the lawfulness of detention 
under Article 5 (1) f of the ECHR
July
August
September
October
November
6 December – The UN High 
Commissioner for Refugees 
launches an emergency 
operation to improve 
conditions for refugees and 
asylum seekers in Bulgaria
December

EU
January 
February 
25 March – The European Commission tables proposal to revise the directive on admission 
of students (COM(2013) 151 final)
March 
April 
30 May – In Arslan, the CJEU confirms that a person who applies for asylum from 
pre-removal detention can, under certain conditions, continue to be kept in detention
May 
4 June – In ZZ, the CJEU interprets the provision of the Free Movement Directive (2004/38/EC) 
on notification of grounds for refusing residence, which allows Member States to refrain 
from disclosing certain information on grounds of state security

4 June – The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) starts a Special Support Plan in Italy

6 June – In MA, the CJEU rules on the application of the Dublin Regulation to 
unaccompanied minors, placing particular importance on the best interests of the child

17 June – The European Commission publishes the 4th Annual Report on Immigration and 
Asylum, calling for forward-looking policies on migration

26 June – Four revised EU asylum instruments are published in the Official Journal
June 
4 July – European Parliament adopts a resolution on the impact of the crisis on access to 
care for vulnerable groups
July 
August 
10 September – In M�G� and N�R�, the CJEU rules on the applicability of Article 41 (2) (a) of 
the Charter to decisions prolonging pre-removal detention

19 September – The CJEU rules that entry bans should normally not extend beyond five 
years (Filev, Osmani)

24 September – In Demirkan, the CJEU rules that the standstill clause in Article 41 of the 
Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement prevents states from imposing new and 
more stringent procedural or financial requirements on Turkish nationals, other than those 
that were already in force at the time the agreement came into being� The clause does not 
apply to Turkish nationals who wish to make use of – rather than provide – services
September 
17 October – EASO starts an operation in support of Bulgaria
October 
7 November – In X, Y and Z, the CJEU provides guidance on homosexual asylum seekers

14 November – In Kaveh Puid, the CJEU provides further guidance on the extent of the 
rights of asylum seekers subject to a transfer under the Dublin Regulation in the light of 
Article 4 of the Charter

29 November – The European Commission announces a grant of €5�6 million in emergency 
funding to deal with increased arrivals in Bulgaria
November 
4 December – The European Commission adopts the Communication on the work of the 
Task Force Mediterranean (COM(2013) 869 final)
December 

36

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

Asylum, immigration 
and integration

Almost 400 migrants died off the Italian island of Lampedusa in October 2013. That underlined how dangerous it 
can be for those in need of protection to reach the European Union (EU). In response to the tragedy, the European 
Commission set up the Task Force Mediterranean together with EU Member States. The EU also completed the 
second phase of the harmonisation of EU asylum laws in 2013, publishing four revised asylum instruments, 
including two directives on asylum procedures and reception conditions of asylum seekers, and revised Dublin 
and Eurodac regulations. These new EU laws do not, however, translate immediately into harmonised Member 
State practices. The chances that an asylum petition will be accepted still vary widely, hinging largely on the 
Member State in which it is lodged. The challenge is, therefore, to close this gap by identifying and addressing 
obstacles to common practice. The difficult negotiations that led to the EU asylum framework, for example, 
have created rules that are often complex, vague or unclear in their relationship to the rights set forth in the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This chapter does not aim to provide a comprehensive 
overview of the many developments which took place 
in 2013 in the field of asylum, immigration and integra‑
tion. For this, references to other sources are provided. 
After a brief description of the discussions triggered 
by the tragedy near Lampedusa in October 2013, the 
chapter focuses on three specific issues that illustrate 
a broader challenge to fundamental rights relating to 
the topics of this chapter, namely the gap between 
theory and practice. Although the introduction of fun‑
damental rights safeguards at the EU level is important, 
this does not automatically mean that they are applied 
by EU Member States. Even less does it mean that such 
application occurs in a harmonised manner. Each of the 
following sections describes hurdles that need to be 
overcome to have EU law applied in practice. Section 1.1 
describes the role of the judiciary in clarifying how 
EU law should be applied. Section 1.2 illustrates the slow 
pace of implementation of EU law safeguards using the 
example of forced return monitoring. Section 1.3 looks 
at practical obstacles in implementation, exemplified 
by fees for residence permits.

On  asylum,  the  forthcoming  annual  report  by  the 
European Asylum Support Office (EASO) will describe 
major developments in 2013. These will include the 

Key developments in the area of asylum, 
immigration and integration

• 

In a Task Force Mediterranean communication, the 
European Commission proposes a set of actions to reduce 
the death toll in the Mediterranean sea following a tragic 
incident near Lampedusa.

•  The conflict in Syria creates over 2.2 million refugees, mainly 
in the Middle East; two EU Member States establish ad hoc 
admission procedures for Syrians.

•  The second phase of the harmonisation of EU asylum policies 
draws to a close in June 2013 with the publication of four 
revised instruments of EU law.

•  The Court of Justice of the European Union issues seven 

preliminary rulings relating to asylum. In one of these, the 
court highlights the importance to be given to Article 24 (2) 
of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights regarding the rights 
of the child and in particular to the best interests principle.

•  The European Court of Human Rights clarifies that detention 

“to prevent an unauthorised entry” under Article 5 (1) f of the 
European Convention on Human Rights is not allowed where 
an asylum seeker has the right under EU law to enter and 
stay in a state pending examination of an asylum request.

37

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

•  A code of conduct for joint return operations 

coordinated by Frontex is adopted, which also covers 
forced return monitoring.

•  Negotiations on the draft Seasonal Workers Directive 

come to an end, with the Council of the European Union 
and the European Parliament reaching political agreement 
on the text.

•  The European Commission publishes a proposal to review 
the directive on the admission of students, which also 
covers au pairs.

sudden increase of Western Balkan asylum applicants 
in  Hungary  and,  more  importantly,  the  situation  in 
Bulgaria, where irregular border crossings and appli‑
cations for international protection rose substantially 
in the second half of 2013, triggering an emergency 
response  by  EASO  and  the  United  Nations  High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). For other issues 
that continued to be concerns in 2013, such as immi‑
gration detention and the situation of migrants in an 
irregular situation, the reader may consult various pub‑
lications by civil society organisations.1 For an update on 
EU anti‑trafficking policies, see the EU anti‑trafficking 
website  (http://ec.europa.eu/anti‑trafficking/).  For 
other developments in the field of legal migration and 
integration, the reader can consult the regular bulletins 
by the European Migration Network.

1�1� 

EU faces challenges 
managing sea borders

A boat carrying some 500 migrants capsized near the 
Italian island of Lampedusa on 3 October. The resultant 
deaths  of  366  persons  illustrated  an  alarming  and 
unresolved gap in the EU’s protection of individuals’ 
core  rights  (see  also  Section  2.1,  on  border  control 
and visa policy).

Although the EU is taking action to combat smuggling 
and trafficking in human beings, both within the EU as 
well as to or from third countries, it has so far done 
little to offer alternative ways to seek safety for those 
who flee persecution or serious harm. Two comprehen‑
sive reports, the first published by FRA in March 20132 
and the second by the UN Special Rapporteur on the 
human rights of migrants in April 2013,3 describe in 
detail  the  fundamental  rights  challenges  linked  to 
the management of sea borders. Both reports note 
this  management’s  impact  on  the  human  rights  of 
migrants and present several suggestions on how to 
improve the situation.

The Special Rapporteur calls for a human rights‑based 
approach  to  border  management,  whereby  the 
rights of migrants should be the first consideration. 
Repressive measures alone have been shown to be 

38

counterproductive,  driving  migrants  further  under‑
ground and increasing the power of smuggling rings. 
As suggested in  Section 2.1, another consequence is 
that flows simply move from one part of the EU external 
border to another.

FRA ACTIVITY

Protecting fundamental rights 
at Europe’s southern sea borders

In March 2013, FRA published the first report from 
its research on third‑country nationals at external 
borders. The report notes, for example, that fish‑
ermen  should  not 
face negative conse‑
quences, 
including 
the  risk  of  criminal 
proceedings  for  hu‑
man  smuggling, 
if 
rescue  mi‑
they 
grants at sea. Coop‑
eration  with 
third 
countries should not 
lead  to  circumvent‑
fundamental 
ing 
rights 
safeguards: 
joint operations with 
third  countries  must 
be  conditional  on  full  respect  for  fundamental 
rights. The report, which offers some 50 opinion 
to address the gaps FRA identified, says that op‑
erational plans and other documents guiding joint 
operations or patrols with third countries must be 
drafted  in  such  a  way  as  to  mitigate  the  risk  of 
fundamental rights violations. In particular, guide‑
lines  should  have  clear  provisions  on  the  use  of 
force,  the  prohibition  of  torture,  inhuman  or  de‑
grading treatment or punishment, and respect for 
the principle of non‑refoulement.

Source: FRA (2013), Fundamental rights at Europe’s southern sea 
borders, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union  
(Publications Office)

Following the Lampedusa tragedy in October 2013, 
European leaders discussed what action to take. In 
a  10  October  press  release,  the  UNHCR  called  for 
10 urgent measures to prevent further tragedies and 
improve burden sharing. They range from strengthening 
Mediterranean search and rescue capacity, through set‑
ting up a predictable mechanism for disembarkation of 
migrants in a safe place, to reinforcing protection sys‑
tems in transit countries from where migrants embark. 
On 18 October, Italy started operation Mare Nostrum, 
deploying military vessels to increase its search and 
rescue capacity in the central Mediterranean. According 
to the Italian Ministry of Interior, by the end of 2013 
Mare Nostrum had assisted 4,323 persons in 34 search 
and rescue operations.

Asylum, immigration and integration

At the EU level, the Justice and Home Affairs Council 
asked the European Commission to convene a task force 
to identify the tools which the EU has at its disposal 
to prevent such tragedies and which could be used in 
a more effective way.4 The European Council gave it 
the job of identifying priority actions to be taken in 
the short term based on the principles of prevention, 
protection and solidarity.5 The European Parliament 
stressed  that  the  Lampedusa  tragedy  should  be 
a turning point for Europe.6

As requested, the European Commission established the 
Task Force Mediterranean with EU Member States and 
relevant agencies, including FRA. The task force pre‑
sented its results on 4 December, suggesting 38 actions 
which either had already begun or could start in the 
short  term.  These  include  measures  in  five  areas: 
cooperation with third countries; reinforced refugee 
protection; the fight against trafficking and smuggling; 
better border surveillance; and enhanced solidarity with 
Member States dealing with high migration pressure.7 
The actions focus on combating international crime 
and preventing, in cooperation with third countries, 
migrants from embarking on perilous crossings. Little 
reference is made to enhancing rescue at sea (pri‑
marily in relation to building capacities in North Africa), 
although the task force includes actions to strengthen 
border surveillance. Operational cooperation with third 
countries must be in full compliance with fundamental 
rights. On 20 December, the European Council wel‑
comed the task force’s proposed actions and called for 
a full‑fledged effort to implement them. It also asked 
the European Commission to report back to the Council 
on their implementation.8

A number of the task force’s actions have the potential 
to reduce the risk of deaths at sea or otherwise protect 
migrants’ fundamental rights, but the opportunity for 
a more wide‑ranging policy change in external border 
management was missed. Legal avenues for refugees 
to reach safety remain very limited, thus keeping them 
dependent on smugglers in many cases. Similarly, the 
task force is very cautious in exploring joint asylum 
processing by EU Member States.

The discussion in the task force raised again the issue of 
intra‑EU solidarity, with Member States at the external 
borders of the EU calling for more support from other 
Member  States.  Mediterranean  EU  Member  States 
highlighted the particular challenges in dealing with 
persons who are often traumatised following a perilous 
sea crossing, stressing that their humanitarian needs 
differ from those of applicants for international protec‑
tion arriving by air. According to Eurostat (migr_asyap‑
pctza, extracted on 2 May 2014), 70 % of all asylum 
applications lodged in the EU in 2013 were registered in 
five EU Member States. In descending order of applica‑
tions, Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom 
and Italy received the lion’s share of the total number of 

applications – an argument used to counter the southern 
EU Member States’ calls for more solidarity measures. 
The issue remained largely unresolved, possibly also 
because  the  situation  in  the  Mediterranean  would 
require geographically broader international solidarity.

A joint commitment by all Mediterranean states and 
with the support of other affected or interested coun‑
tries, both within and without the EU, seems necessary 
to address unsafe migration by sea and to reduce the 
number of tragedies like the one which occurred off 
Lampedusa in October 2013. With its humanitarian and 
fundamental rights tradition, the EU would be best 
placed to initiate a process aiming to achieve this.

1�2�  CJEU provides 
authoritative 
interpretation of 
EU asylum law

This  section  touches  upon  a  first  obstacle  in 
 implementing EU law. It describes the role of courts, 
and of the CJEU in particular, in clarifying and developing 
EU law. In the field of asylum, EU law has been adopted 
after long and often difficult negotiations, resulting in 
compromise texts which are difficult to apply, leaving 
the task of clarifying these provisions to the courts 
and practitioners. Furthermore, the law’s relationship 
to fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter may be 
unclear. Despite all harmonisation efforts to date, there 
are major differences between how Member States 
adjudicate asylum claims.

The second phase of harmonisation of the EU asylum 
acquis was completed in June 2013. Although they keep 
the main building blocks of the acquis unchanged, the 
revisions  are  important  from  a  fundamental  rights 
point of view. The most important changes include 
the regulation at EU level of the detention of asylum 
seekers; access by the police and Europol to the Eurodac 
database containing fingerprints of all international 
protection applicants; and the strengthening of safe‑
guards for vulnerable persons requesting asylum. In 
addition, the revised Dublin Regulation introduces an 
early warning mechanism to prevent the deterioration 
or collapse of asylum systems, with EASO playing a key 
role. The agreed legal texts are complex and often diffi‑
cult to understand, even for specialists. Table 1.1 lists the 
three most important changes relating to fundamental 
rights for each of the four revised instruments.

While harmonisation is progressing, overcoming the 
large differences in practice appears more difficult. 
Many  EU  Member  States  continued  to  implement 
training, quality initiatives and other measures, with 
the support of EASO, the UNHCR and other actors, to 

39

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Table 1.1:  EU asylum instruments revised in 2013

Revised 
instrument

Original 
instrument

Dublin Regula‑
tion (EU) 
No. 604/2013 
(recast)

Dublin Regu‑
lation (EC) 
No. 343/2003

Eurodac Regu‑
lation (EU) 
No. 603/2013
(recast)

Eurodac Regu‑
lation (EC) 
No. 2725/2000

Reception 
Conditions 
Directive 
2013/33/EU
(recast)

Reception 
Conditions 
Directive 
2003/9/EC

Asylum 
Procedures 
Directive 
2013/32/EU
(recast)

Asylum Proce‑
dures Directive 
2005/85/EC

Three main changes relating to fundamental rights 

· 

· 
· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 
· 

 Prohibits transfer of asylum seekers to Member 
States whose asylum system are facing systemic 
deficiencies;
 offers children stronger safeguards;
 requires personal interview before transfer deci‑
sions taken

 Gives police and Europol access to Eurodac as 
of 2015 to prevent, detect or investigate serious 
crimes;
 strengthens language on the duty to inform 
data subjects of the purpose of personal data 
processing;
 European Commission’s Eurodac evaluation must 
also address whether law enforcement’s Eurodac 
access has led to indirect discrimination against ap‑
plicants for international protection

 Regulates detention of asylum seekers, introduc‑
ing safeguards, but allowing detention of children 
under certain circumstances;
 requires that asylum seekers be given effective ac‑
cess to the labour market no later than nine months 
from the date of their application;
 introduces new safeguards for vulnerable appli‑
cants, including a duty to put in place a system to 
identify vulnerable persons

 To enhance the quality of first‑instance asylum 
procedures, makes new provisions on staff training, 
gender‑sensitive procedures, personal interview 
and special procedural guarantees for applicants 
with specific needs;
 limits application of accelerated asylum procedures;
 strengthens the right to an effective remedy 
against a negative asylum decision, requiring that 
removal be suspended automatically or, in limited 
exceptions, upon request

Geographical 
applicability

All EU Member States 
and Schengen Associ‑
ated Countries (SAC)

All EU Member States 
except Ireland, which 
is not bound by the 
recast version; all 
SAC, but further 
negotiations required 
with them regard‑
ing police access to 
Eurodac

All EU Member 
States, except 
Denmark. Ireland and 
the United Kingdom 
are not bound by the 
recast version

All EU Member 
States, except 
Denmark. Ireland and 
the United Kingdom 
are not bound by the 
recast version

Note:  Schengen Associated Countries (SAC) are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

Source:  FRA, 2014

enhance the quality of asylum decisions and to bring 
Member State practices closer together.9 Nevertheless, 
the chances of obtaining asylum still vary consider‑
ably  depending  on  the  Member  State  in  which  an 
application is submitted.

Figure  1.1  compares  EU  Member  States’  national 
asylum authorities’ decisions on three nationalities 
from  which  a  significant  number  of  persons  have 
been granted protection by Member States. To ensure 
comparability, the graphs include only Member States 
with more than 50 decisions for a particular nationality 
dating from 2013. Figure 1.1 shows not only that there 
are substantial differences between persons granted 

protection –  refugee  status,  subsidiary  protection 
status, humanitarian status (i.e. a form of national pro‑
tection) – and those rejected. It also shows significant 
differences in applying the definitions of ‘refugees’ 
and  ‘beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection’,  which 
impact on the rights and prospects of integration of 
those allowed to stay.

Figure 1.1 must be interpreted with caution, as divergent 
practices by national asylum authorities are one, but 
not the only, reason for the differences in the statistics. 
Other factors include variations in the profile of appli‑
cants from a specific country present in EU Member 
States, the incorrect recording of applicants’ nationality 

40

Figure 1.1:  National first‑instance asylum authorities’ decisions on three nationalities (%)

Eritrea

Asylum, immigration and integration

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

5

MT

6

IT

18

UK

19

NL

20

DE

76

FR

31

SE

Rejected 

Refugee status 

Subsidiary protection status 

Humanitarian status 

Somalia

83

62

62

47

49

10

NL

10

ES

IT

38

27

16

16

FI

MT

AT

UK

DE

BE

DK

SE

FR

Rejected 

Refugee status 

Subsidiary protection status 

Humanitarian status 

41

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Figure 1.1: (continued)

Syria

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

5

5

5

6

9

10

11

13

13

14

17

18

26

47

40

37

MT

PL

BG

FR

BE

DE

ES

CZ

RO

SE

NL

DK

UK

AT

FI

HU

CY

EL

IT

Rejected 

Refugee status 

Subsidiary protection status 

Humanitarian status 

Notes:  The data cover only three nationalities and include only EU Member States with more than 50 decisions taken on each of 
these nationalities in 2013. Data on humanitarian status not available for Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France and Hungary.

Source:  Eurostat, migr_asydcfsta, data extracted on 24 March 2014

and the fact that Dublin transfers may be recorded 
as negative decisions.

the past five years in the number of CJEU rulings in the 
field, as Figure 1.2 illustrates.

National  courts  and  the  CJEU  continued  to  play  an 
 important role in clarifying and interpreting EU law. 
National courts in 2013 submitted eight requests to 
the CJEU for preliminary rulings relating to the asylum 
acquis.10 These primarily concern the interpretation of 
the Qualification Directive. Unlike in previous years, no 
new case on the interpretation of the Dublin Regulation 
was submitted to the CJEU in 2013.

At  the  same  time,  in  2013,  the  CJEU  issued  seven 
judgments,  providing  guidance  on  the  application 
of  the  Dublin  Regulation  (four),  the  Qualification 
Directive (one), the Asylum Procedures Directive (one) 
and the possibility of prolonging pre‑removal detention 
under the Return Directive in case a person in return 
procedures seeks asylum (one). Table 1.2 outlines the 
main elements of the CJEU rulings.

The increasing role the CJEU plays in interpreting the EU 
asylum acquis indicates that practitioners have many 
questions on its application. By the end of 2013, the 
CJEU had ruled on 20 requests for preliminary rulings 
submitted by national courts. Since its first two rulings 
on asylum in 2009, there is a clear upward trend over 

As  Figure  1.2  illustrates,  a  comparatively  large 
number of judgments (eight) relates to the interpreta‑
tion of the Dublin Regulation (cases listed in yellow). 
Persons in Dublin procedures were also the subject 
of two ECtHR judgments on the return of a Somali 
from  the  Netherlands  to  Italy  and  of  a  Sudanese 
from Austria to Hungary.11 Although the ECtHR did not 
object to either of these transfers, the cases illus‑
trate that the application of EU asylum law continues 
to raise questions concerning its compatibility with 
basic human rights.

Half of the CJEU judgments listed in Figure 1.2 relate 
to the Qualification Directive. As described in the FRA 
2012 Annual report, the questions referred to the CJEU 
concern clarifications on the situation of Palestinians, 
cessation and exclusion from refugee status and the 
scope of persons entitled to subsidiary protection. In 
addition, two judgments provide more clarity on the 
meaning of persecutions on the grounds of religion 
and sexual orientation.

The body of CJEU and ECtHR case law related to asylum is 
growing. Coupled with very detailed, but often unclear, 

42

Table 1.2: CJEU 2013 preliminary rulings on the EU asylum acquis

Asylum, immigration and integration

Case reference

H. I. D. and B. A. v. 
Refugee Applica‑
tions Commissioner 
and Others, Case 
C‑175/11, 31 January 

Mehmet Arslan v. 
Policie ČR, Krajské 
ředitelství policie 
Ústeckého kraje, 
odbor cizinecké pol‑
icie, Case C‑534/11, 
30 May 

Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf 
v. Darzhavna agent‑
sia za bezhantsite 
pri Ministerskia 
savet, Case C‑528/11, 
30 May

MA and Others v. 
Secretary of State 
for the Home De‑
partment, C‑648/11, 
6 June 

Minister voor 
Immigratie en 
Asiel v. X, Y and Z, 
C‑199/12 to C‑201/12, 
7 November

Judgment

Asylum Procedures Directive (2005/85/EC)
Article 23 (3) and (4) of the directive allows Member States to prioritise or process ap‑
plicants from a certain country of origin through accelerated procedures, but the basic 
principle and guarantees set out in Chapter II of that directive must be complied with

Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC)
The directive does not apply to persons seeking international protection as long as they 
are in the asylum procedure
If asylum seekers lodge an application from pre‑removal detention, EU Member States 
may keep them in detention if, after an assessment on a case‑by‑case basis of all the 
relevant circumstances, the application is found to have been made solely to delay or 
jeopardise the enforcement of the return decision and it is objectively necessary to pre‑
vent the person concerned from permanently evading return

Dublin Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003
If an EU Member State is not indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of the 
regulation, it is allowed to examine an application for asylum even though no circum‑
stances exist which establish that the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of that regula‑
tion is applicable. Such possibility is not conditional on the Member State responsible 
under those criteria having failed to respond to a request to take back the asylum seeker 
concerned
The Member State in which the asylum seeker is present is not obliged, during the 
process of determining the Member State responsible, to ask the Office of the UNHCR to 
present its views

Dublin Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003
Where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his or her family legally present in 
the territory of an EU Member State has lodged asylum applications in more than one 
Member State, the Member State in which that minor is present after having lodged an 
asylum application there is to be designated the ‘Member State responsible’
The CJEU noted that the effect of Article 24 (2) of the Charter on the rights of the child, 
in conjunction with Article 51(1) thereof on the Charter’s field of application, is that the 
child’s best interests must also be a primary consideration in all decisions adopted by the 
Member States relating to the issue at stake in this concrete case

Qualification Directive (Directive 2004/83/EC) and its application to homosexuals:
· 
· 

 homosexuals can be regarded as a particular social group;
 the criminalisation of homosexual acts per se does not constitute an act of persecu‑
tion, unless applied also in practice;
 when assessing an application for refugee status, the competent authorities cannot 
reasonably expect an asylum seeker to return to his or her home country and – to 
avoid the risk of persecution – conceal his homosexuality there or exercise reserve in 
the expression of his sexual orientation

· 

Bundesrepublik 
Deutschland v. 
Kaveh Puid, Case 
C‑4/11, 14 November

Dublin Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003
Dublin transfers to an EU Member State with systemic deficiencies in the asylum proce‑
dure and in the conditions for the reception of asylum seekers are not allowed. In such 
cases, the Member State in which the applicant is present does not have to take responsi‑
bility under Article 3 (2) of the Dublin Regulation, but must examine if other Dublin criteria 
are applicable

Shamso Abdullahi 
v. Bundesasylamt, 
Case C‑394/12, 
10 December 

Dublin Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003
An asylum seeker can call into question the transfer to the Member State of first entry into 
the EU only by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure, and in the condi‑
tions for the reception in that Member State, that provide substantial grounds for believing 
that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or de‑
grading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Source:  http://curia.europa.eu

43

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Figure 1.2:  CJEU preliminary rulings on asylum, by number of cases, 2009–2013

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

C-179/11

C-620/10

C-254/11

C-364/11

C-71/11

and

C-99/11

C-277/11

C-175/11

C-648/11

C-528/11

C-4/11

C-199/12

to

C-201/12

C-534/11*

C-394/12

C-19/08

C-465/07

C-175/08 to
C-179/08

C-31/09

C-57/09 and
C-101/09

C-69/10

C-411/10 and
C-493/10

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Notes:  * Refers to Directive 2008/115/EC on returns, but also affects detention of persons seeking international protection. 

Cases in yellow relate to the application of the Dublin Regulation.

Source:  http://curia.europa.eu

EU legislation, that makes this area of law complex. The 
applicable law must be made known to legal practi‑
tioners, to ensure harmonised application throughout 
the EU, respectful of the safeguards enshrined in the 
ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Even more often, national courts are asked to inter‑
pret and apply the EU asylum acquis. Domestic case 
law in EU Member States clarifies how fundamental 
rights provisions included in EU legislation are to be 
applied  in  practice.  Asylum  offices  and  other  parts 
of  the  national  administration  dealing  with  asylum 
issues usually follow the line taken by domestic higher 
courts. Hence, their judgments have a direct impact 
on what happens on the ground. The collection and 
comparison of national case law in this field is there‑
fore  of  great  value,  especially  in  the  asylum  area, 
where EU law plays a crucial role. In 2013, FRA asked 
its Franet partners to communicate up to five judg‑
ments where national courts made use of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights. Around a fifth of the judgments 
communicated concerned asylum and migration issues, 
making this policy field an area where national courts 
are most likely to use the Charter in their reasoning 
(see Chapter on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).

European and national courts play an essential role in 
clarifying and developing EU law. They can also ensure 
that due weight is given to fundamental rights. In MA 
(C‑648/11), for example, the CJEU clarified that states 
are to give primary consideration to the child’s best 
interests in all decisions relating to the provision of 
the Dublin Regulation (Article 6). The guidance courts 

provide is one important element needed to bridge the 
gap between the law and the reality on the ground.

Promising practice

Making national case law on asylum 
more accessible

The Irish Refugee Council, in partnership with the 
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) 
and  the  Hungarian  Helsinki  Committee,  set  up 
a database collecting case law on the EU asylum 
acquis.  By  allowing  searches  by  theme,  it  helps 
legal  practitioners,  including  asylum  lawyers 
and  judges,  identify  relevant  cases  from  other 
jurisdictions  pertaining  to  a  particular  issue. 
The high download figures confirm the need for 
such  a  tool:  from  September  to  December  2013, 
11,500 visitors accessed the database 15,071 times, 
downloading 1,426 files.

The  project  was  funded  by  the  European 
Commission’s  European  Refugee  Fund.  Initially 
launched in 2012, the database was reinvigorated 
in September 2013. At the end of 2013, it contained 
633 domestic cases from 17 EU Member States, in 
addition  to  all  relevant  CJEU  cases  and  selected 
cases from the ECtHR. National cases are selected 
in the light of their importance in the application 
and interpretation of EU asylum law. The database 
contains  English  and  original‑language  case 
summaries as well as the full cases.

Source: www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en

44

Asylum, immigration and integration

FRA ACTIVITY

Providing practitioners with guidance 
on European asylum, borders and 
immigration law

FRA  published  its  second  handbook  on  European 
law together with the ECtHR in June 2013. It covers 
the  field  of  asylum,  borders  and  immigration  in 
English, French, German and Italian. The handbook 
is  intended  to  assist 
in 
practitioners 
navigating 
complex 
EU  legislation  and  the 
substantial  CJEU  and 
ECtHR  case  law.  For 
each  topic,  applicable 
EU 
and 
legislation 
provisions of the ECHR 
as well as the body of 
case  law  by  the  two 
European  courts  are 
presented  next 
to 
each  other,  helping 
the reader to see where the two systems converge 
and  where  they  diverge.  In  the  first  six months 
after  its  publication,  all  3,000 English‑language 
print copies of the handbook were distributed, in 
addition  to  over  2,000 copies  in  French,  German 
and Italian. During the same period, the handbook 
was  accessed  on  the  FRA  website  17,000 times. 
This illustrates the strong interest among lawyers 
and  other 
in  such  a tool. 
A second  edition  of  the  handbook,  including  the 
recast activities, and other language versions will 
appear in 2014.

legal  practitioners 

Source: http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/asylum‑migration‑borders

1�3�  Member States slow 
to implement EU law 
safeguards: the 
example of effective 
return-monitoring 
systems

The second section illustrates the slow pace with which 
Member States apply EU legal safeguards in practice. To 
do so, it analyses the implementation of a specific pro‑
vision of the Return Directive (2008/115//EC), namely 
Article 8 (6) on effective return monitoring. The directive 
introduced this new fundamental right safeguard; very 
few Member States had effective return‑monitoring 
systems in place before 2008.12 Once the directive was 
adopted in 2008, almost all EU Member States needed 
to  amend  their  national  legislation  and  adapt  their 
practice to the new rule. These Member State changes 

are, however, taking much longer than initially envis‑
aged, given that the deadline to transpose the directive 
expired in December 2010.

Five years after the adoption of the Return Directive 
and three years after the transposition period expired, 
one  third  of  EU  Member  States  still  need  to  put  in 
place  an  effective  return‑monitoring  system.  This 
time lag illustrates the importance of following up and 
supporting Member States in the implementation of 
EU rules, particularly when these are new and little 
experience  is  available.  The  European  Commission 
carried out important related work in 2013, through its 
regular meetings with Member States and bilateral dis‑
cussions with them. It will, however, need to continue 
such work in the future.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 
recommended setting up common rules covering “inde‑
pendent, neutral, transparent and effective monitoring 
procedures” to extend to the entire removal process.13 
The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention 
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment (CPT) published its report on the monitoring 
of a return flight in 2012, commenting on issues such 
as escort staff’s use of restraints and the need for a ‘fit 
to fly certificate’.14

Third‑country nationals who do not fulfil the conditions 
for entering or staying in the EU receive a return deci‑
sion, which the authorities may enforce if it is not com‑
plied with voluntarily. The implementation of a return 
decision must respect the principle of non‑refoulement 
and take due account of the best interests of the child, 
family  life  and  the  third‑country  national’s  health 
status.15  Depending  on  individual  circumstances, 
EU Member States should facilitate voluntary return 
by extending the period for voluntary departure. They 
may, for example, consider children attending schools 
or family and social ties.16 In 2013, Frontex‑coordinated 
operations alone returned 2,159 persons to their home 
countries. This is only a small portion of the total number 
of forced removals that Member States carried out 
directly. Spain, for instance, chartered 153 return flights 
and coordinated only six through Frontex in 2012.17

FRA considers that systems of forced return monitoring 
are effective if they cover all removal activities, from 
before departure to arrival and reception in the destina‑
tion country, and if an organisation – independent from 
the authorities enforcing return – carries them out on an 
ongoing basis (in other words excluding pilot projects).18

Based on these criteria, the number of EU Member 
States providing for effective return monitoring, either 
by legislation or cooperation agreements with third 
parties, rose from 15 at the end of 2012 to 19 at the 
end of 2013 (see Figure 1.3). These mechanisms did not 
include regular on‑board observation in all cases in 2013.

45

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Figure 1.3:  Independent forced return monitoring systems, by EU Member State

Independent
monitoring system
in place

No independent
monitoring system

Note: 

In Germany, return monitoring is in place for departures from some, but not all, airports.

Source: FRA, 2013

In 2013, two EU Member States, Bulgaria and Poland, 
established  a  legal  basis  for  return  monitoring.  In 
Bulgaria, the Ombudsman as well as representatives 
of national or international NGOs may be invited to 
observe.19 In practice, local NGO monitoring, funded by 
the European Return Fund, remained limited in 2013 to 
observing the transport from the detention centre to 
the airport departure hall. In Poland, NGO monitoring is 
a well‑established practice extending also to on‑flight 
observations. A new Act on Foreigners provides a legal 
basis for return monitoring.20 Malta extended the remit 
of the Board of Visitors of Detained Persons to moni‑
toring “proceedings relating to the involuntary return” 
at the very end of 2012, thereby granting the board 
a wide yet unspecified scope of action.21 In Spain, the 
Ombudsman has taken an increasing part in monitoring 
several phases of return flights, including on‑board 
monitoring  of  a  Frontex‑coordinated  operation  for 
the first time.

The  United  Kingdom,  like  Ireland,  is  not  bound  by 
the Return Directive. Nevertheless, it is among the 
Member States that provide for effective monitoring. 
In Germany, return monitoring is in place for removals 
departing from some, but not all, airports. Slovakia 
continues to provide in law for the possibility of inde‑
pendent monitoring by NGOs, but it has yet to use this 
possibility in practice.

Not included in these 19 EU Member States are those 
which  implement  monitoring  mainly  by  an  agency 
belonging to the branch of government responsible for 
return (Portugal,22 Sweden23) as well as Member States 
where monitoring has continued to be carried out on an 
informal basis (Finland24). Ombudsmen in Finland and 
Sweden are empowered to observe return operations, 
but they have not yet done so. Five Member States lack 
effective monitoring systems: Croatia, France, Greece, 
Italy and Slovenia.

46

Asylum, immigration and integration

In two of the EU Member States excluded from these 19, 
however, the structure and operation of monitoring sys‑
tems were pending finalisation of legislation. Finland 
proposed a bill amending the Aliens Act, which assigns 
the Ombudsman the duty of monitoring the removal 
process.  In  Greece,  based  on  the  law  providing  for 
a monitoring system to be operated under the Greek 
Ombudsman,25 the Ombudsman submitted a recom‑
mendation  on  the  functioning  of  a  comprehensive 
monitoring system; this will be used as a basis for the 
Common Ministerial Committee of the Minister of the 
Interior and the Minister of Public Order to regulate the 
organisation and function of the system. The recom‑
mendation provides for monitoring by the Ombudsman, 
who can cooperate with NGOs acting under his/her 
supervision. The Return Fund is expected to finance 
such a mechanism. Amendments to the Aliens Act in 
Slovenia were prepared in 2013, including provisions 
on the monitoring of forced returns by independent 
organisations or institutions.26 In late 2013, Swedish 
media discussed the need to establish an effective 
forced return monitoring system as a requirement to 
participate in Frontex operations.

Promising practice

Cooperating with monitoring system 
in destination country

Return‑monitoring  mechanisms  in  Germany  and 
Spain have been able to cover post‑return phases 
by  cooperating  with  the  Ombudsman  office  in 
Serbia in its function as NPM. For Germany, such 
post‑return  monitoring  was  extended  in  2013  to 
most Frontex‑coordinated returns to Serbia.

How often monitors are on the return flights varies 
among EU Member States. In 2013, not all Member 
States  which  had  a  system  in  place  actually  had 
a  return  flight  accompanied.  Only  11  of  the  19  EU 
Member States which FRA considers to have effec‑
tive return‑monitoring systems had monitors on board 
either  systematically  or  occasionally:  Austria,  the 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the 
United Kingdom. In Germany, although no monitors 
accompanied return flights, the church‑led monitoring 
forum at Düsseldorf Airport continued to cooperate with 
the National Preventative Mechanism (NPM) estab‑
lished under the Optional Protocol to the Convention 
against Torture (OPCAT) in Serbia, thereby covering 
post‑return monitoring. The regional interior ministry 
in North Rhine‑Westphalia, including Düsseldorf Airport, 
issued a new checklist for preparing, carrying out and 
documenting forced returns in 2013.27

Among  those  EU  Member  States  that  have  effec‑
tive monitoring systems in place, eight publish the 

observers’ findings, at least in part ( Bulgaria, the Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland 
and the United Kingdom). Other Member States share 
the results internally with the institutions involved. 
In  Austria,  for  example,  reports  are  forwarded  to 
the Volksanwaltschaft (Ombudsperson and National 
Prevention Mechanism under OPCAT).

Promising practice

Using synergies between the National 
Preventative Mechanism and forced 
return monitoring

A  legal  expert  from  the  National  Ombudsman  in 
Denmark regularly observes return operations, as 
part  of  its  role  since  April  2011  to  monitor  forced 
returns. In 2013, it monitored 15 return operations, 
including  in  seven  cases  the  actual  return  flight. 
The Ombudsman considered that these operations 
were all handled in line with fundamental rights.

The  Ombudsman’s  monitoring  role  is  linked  to  its 
function  as  the  National  Preventative  Mechanism 
(NPM)  under  OPCAT.  Synergies  with  its  mandate 
as  NPM  consist  in  the  build‑up  of  solid  human 
rights  expertise  as  a  common  assessment  basis, 
knowledge  of  police  and  holding  facilities  and 
methodological  expertise 
inspections.  The 
Ombudsman  publishes  annual  reports  on  forced 
return monitoring, which include recommendations 
to  the  police  relating  to,  for  example,  the 
documentation  of  work  in  connection  with  forced 
returns  or  the  revision  of  internal  guidelines.  The 
reports are available at: http://en.ombudsmanden.
dk/publikationer/summary/.

in 

A similar practice has evolved in Spain, where the 
Ombudsman office in its capacity as NPM monitors 
several  phases  of  return  operations,  including 
treatment on the plane, and issues recommendations 
concerning  forced  returns.  Annual  reports  are 
available 
at:  www.defensordelpueblo.es/es/
Documentacion/Publicaciones/anual/index.html.

Monitors were present on more than half of the joint 
return operations (JROs) that Frontex coordinated in 
2013, including monitoring the flight on board. Over the 
past three years, however, the number of observers has 
not increased. This may be partly because the Member 
States  organise  the  operations  to  invite  observers, 
which may happen systematically, rarely or not at all 
depending on the Member State, as well as because of 
the availability of observers.

Having  an  effective  forced  return  monitoring 
system in place is a prerequisite for participating in 
Frontex‑coordinated  JROs.  The  participation  of  an 
EU Member State without such a system may ultimately 
be postponed or cancelled.28 However, eight Member 

47

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Table 1.3:  Number of Frontex‑coordinated joint return operations (JROs) with monitors present

Year

2011

2012

2013

Number of JROs 
and total number 
of returnees

Number of JROs with 
monitors present on board

Percentage of 
JROs with moni‑
tors present

Percentage of 
returnees in 
monitored JROs

39 JROs with 
2,059 returnees

38 JROs with 
2,110 returnees

39 JROs with 
2,152 returnees

23 JROs with 
1,147 returnees

23 JROs with 
1,059 returnees

20 JROs with 
937 returnees

59

60

51

56

50

44

Source:  Frontex, 2014

States  which  lack  effective  monitoring  systems, 
according to the FRA’s assessment, participated in 36 
of a total of 39 joint return flights in 2013. Four of them 
(France, Ireland, Italy and Sweden) were responsible 
for organising seven of these operations. More than half 
of the persons returned in JROs in 2013 (1,215 of a total 
2,152  returnees)  were  returned  without  monitoring 
on the flight.

In some cases, the organising EU Member State invited 
observers from other Member States to monitor the 
return on its behalf, which is possible under the Code 
of  Conduct  for  Joint  Return  Operations  coordinated 
by Frontex.29 In 2013,  Germany, Sweden, France and 
Spain made use of this possibility. The first two invited 
observers  from  Austria,  and  the  last  two  invited 
observers  from  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium,  to 
monitor the return operations they had organised. In 
addition, Germany, Ireland, and Spain exceptionally 
assigned monitors to individual Frontex‑coordinated 
flights. They included representatives from the authori‑
ties in Germany and the Ombudsman in Spain.

A  European  Commission  project  launched  in  2013, 
 implemented by the International Centre for Migration 
Policy Development, aims to elaborate a training manual 
and a set of guidelines to be used by all monitors, based 
on existing best practice, and to design a framework for 
a European pool of forced return monitors. Frontex and 
FRA participate as observers in the project.

In 2013, the availability of guidelines and training for 
effective monitoring continued to differ significantly. 
Some  EU  Member  States  have  developed  specific 
guidelines for observers or refer to guidance provided 
in legal and policy documents.30 Others rely on the 
experience of the monitoring organisation, which may 
not be possible for organisations recently assigned 
a monitoring function. The NGO that monitors returns 
in  Bulgaria,  for  example,  has  limited  experience  in 
migration issues. The participating organisations in 
Poland each apply their own tools. To date, no specific 

guidelines or training apply in Malta, which currently 
applies the standards used for monitoring detention 
conditions. European guidelines and monitoring tools, 
including from the Committee on the Prevention of 
Torture, which is increasingly focusing on forced returns, 
would be useful.31

Specific  operational  criteria  for  effective  return 
 monitoring were set out in the Frontex Code of Conduct 
for Joint Return Operations coordinated by Frontex, 
adopted on 7 October 2013, which was prepared with 
the support of the Consultative Forum of Frontex, com‑
posed of 15 organisations, including EU agencies (such as 
FRA and EASO), international organisations and NGOs. 
These criteria relate to respect for the fundamental 
rights of returnees, the use of coercive measures, fit‑
ness to travel and return monitoring, among others. 
The code applies only to Frontex‑coordinated returns, 
which amounted to 39 flights with the participation 
of 20 Member States in 2013. Frontex’s Fundamental 
Rights  Officer  also  started  observing  forced  return 
operations in her monitoring function.

1�4�  Some Member States 

require excessive or 
disproportionate fees 
for residence permits – 
an example of practical 
obstacles for migrant 
integration

Encouraging and improving migrant integration is an 
important tool to build a stronger and inclusive Europe, 
but a number of obstacles, which might appear trivial, 
such as excessive fees, often stand in the way. Europe 
2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth underlined the potential benefits of improved 
migrant integration in the labour markets.32 This means 

48

Asylum, immigration and integration

closing the gap between migrants and the general 
population in regard to employment, education, pov‑
erty and social inclusion.33 Integration as part of building 
social cohesion means not only including immigrant, but 
also recognising their contributions to social capital and 
giving them access to it. Migrants should be enabled 
to take full advantage of their potential. As ever more 
of the population has an immigrant background, diver‑
sity needs to be embraced within social cohesion. This 
means also tackling discrimination, racism and xeno‑
phobia by promoting more equal and diverse societies 
(see Chapter 5 on equality and non‑discrimination).

The  CJEU  has  also  pointed  out  that  “excessive  and 
 disproportionately” high fees for residence permits, 
in the context of the Long‑Term Residence Directive, 
hinder the right of residence and create yet another 
obstacle  to  integration.34  The  court  noted  that 
“[c]harges which have a significant financial impact 
on third‑country nationals who satisfy the conditions 
laid down by Directive 2003/109 for the grant of those 
residence permits could prevent them from claiming the 
rights conferred by that directive […]”. The court also 
noted that “it is apparent from recitals 4, 6 and 12 that 
its principal purpose is the integration of third‑country 
nationals who are settled on a long‑term basis in the 
Member  States.”35  Excessive  and  disproportionate 
fees for residence permits may create obstacles that 
negatively  affect  the  integration  process,  which  is 
beneficial both for achieving the mid‑ and long‑term 
EU social inclusion objectives and for building trust 
between  migrants  and  Member  States  in  cohesive 
and inclusive societies.

Because integration is a long‑term process, the length 
of residence of the migrant in the country is an impor‑
tant factor, as is family unity. The Zaragoza integration 
indicators include long‑term residence among those 
relevant to active citizenship.36 The proportion of immi‑
grants who have acquired permanent or long‑term 
residence status is relevant against this background, 
as they mostly enjoy the same socioeconomic rights 
and responsibilities as nationals.

The European Parliament has also acknowledged that 
long‑term residence entitlement is a key prospect for 
integration and that entry and residence must be gov‑
erned by clear, fair and non‑discriminatory rules, which 
must conform to the standards of the rule of law at 
national and EU levels. When immigrants take up and 
use equal rights and responsibilities, they send a strong 
signal to themselves and others about their sense of 
belonging in the country.37

The EU has harmonised its immigration  procedure for 
certain  types  of  immigration  through  the  adoption 
of  a  number  of  instruments,  namely  the  Long‑Term 
2003/109/EC),38 
Residence  Directive 
the Single  Permit  Directive  (Directive  2011/98/EU),39 

(Directive 

the ‘EU Blue Card’ Directive for highly skilled migrants 
(Directive 2009/50/EC)40 and the Researcher Directive 
(Directive 2005/71/EC).41 Third‑country nationals can 
join their lawfully resident family members, if the condi‑
tions laid down in the Family Reunification Directive are 
fulfilled (Directive 2003/86/EC).42 Similarly, once granted 
protection status, refugees and their family members 
are issued residence permits (Directive 2011/95/EU).43 
Family members of EU nationals, including third‑country 
nationals, enjoy the right to free movement and resi‑
dence  in  the  EU  (Directive  2004/38/EC).44  Students, 
school pupils, unremunerated trainees and volunteers45 
also  enjoy  special  admission  rules,  but  their  stay  is 
not long‑term and their integration is not particularly 
promoted through access to equal treatment rights.

EU legislation does not determine the fee to be paid 
for a residence permit, but the Single Permit Directive 
states that the fee shall be “proportionate” and “based 
on the services actually provided for the processing 
of  applications  and  the  issuance  of  permits”. 46  In 
practice,  disproportionality  high  fees  may  create 
obstacles to access the rights included in the directive. 
Disproportionally high fees and frequent renewals may 
add up to considerable sums for large or low‑income 
families, an important part of the migrant workforce 
which is either low‑skilled or employed in positions not 
matching the individuals’ skills.

EU  Member  States  collect  the  fees  for  receiving, 
 processing  and  issuing  a  decision  on  the  residence 
status. They often collect an additional fee when issuing 
the identity document that proves this residence status. 
In addition to the permit fee, if subject to visa obliga‑
tions, the third‑country national may be required to pay 
a visa fee. When the permits expire, renewal fees will 
have to be paid.

In practice, fees vary substantially depending on the 
EU Member State and type of permit. As Figure 1.4 
shows, the fee for the same permit can be several 
times higher in one Member State than in another. 
Member States’ fees for a particular permit may also 
vary from applicant to applicant depending on the 
length of stay, purpose of residence, processing time 
and place of application (for instance at an embassy or 
in the Member State, or in a decentralised authority, 
such as a state or municipality). Needless to say, the 
general price level varies between the Member States. 
In the CJEU case referred to above, the court was of 
the opinion that the fee may vary depending “on the 
type of residence applied for and the verifications 
which the Member State is required to carry out in that 
respect”, but that they cannot be “excessive in the light 
of their significant financial impact” on the nationals 
applying for the permit.47 To illustrate the dispropor‑
tionate nature of fees, it compared the lowest fee for 
a long‑term residence permit, which was about seven 
times as high as the cost of a national identity card.

49

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Figure 1.4:  Overview of fees collected for permits issued to main applicants under six directives, EU‑24 (€)

1,000

900

NL

800

700

600

NL

s
o
r
u
E

500

FI

BG, EL

FI

400

300

SE

FR, IT, PT

FR, IT, SE

FI

FR, NL

200

100

0

AT, BE, BG*, CY,
DE, EE, EL, ES,
FR*, HR, HU, IT,
LT, LU, LV*, PT,
RO, SK

AT, BE, CY, CZ,
DE, EE, ES, FI,
HR, HU, LT, LU,
LV*, NL, PL, RO,
SE, SI, SK

AT, BE, BG*, CY,
CZ, DE*, EE, EL,
ES, HR, HU, LT,
LV*, LU, PL, PT,
RO, SI, SK

AT, BE, BG, CY,
CZ, DE, EE, EL,
ES, FI, FR, HR,
HU, IT, LT, LV, LU,
NL, PL, PT, RO,
SE, SI, SK

AT, BE, BG, CY,
CZ, DE, EE, EL,
ES, FI, FR, HR,
HU, IT, LT, LU,
LV*, NL, PL, PT,
RO, SE, SI, SK

AT, BE, BG*, CY,
CZ, DE, EE, EL,
ES, HR, HU, IT,
LT, LU, LV*, PL,
PT, RO, SE, SI,
SK

Directive
2011/98/EU

Directive
2003/109/EC

Directive
2009/50/EC

Directive
2011/95/EU

Directive
2004/38/EC

Directive
2003/86/EC

Notes:  The directives covered are the Single Permit Directive (Directive 2011/98/EU), the Long‑Term Residence Directive 

(Directive 2003/109/EC), the Directive for Highly Qualified Third‑Country Nationals (Directive 2009/50/EC) and those 
for issuing permits to refugees (Directive 2011/95/EU), family members of EU nationals (Directive 2004/38/EC) and of 
third‑country nationals (Directive 2003/86/EC).

The Single Permit Directive (Directive 2011/98/EU) does not apply in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia.

The United Kingdom is not included in the table, as it is not bound by any of the directives listed. Ireland is bound only 
by Directive 2005/71/EC and Denmark by Directive 2004/38/EC; they are also not included in the table. Malta is not 
included in the table.

The fees in EU Member States marked with * extend beyond one unit of the scale: in Bulgaria, the fee varies 
between €107 and €230, in Germany between €100 and €250, in France between €19 and €260, in Latvia between 
€114 and €359 for Directives 2011/98/EU, 2003/109/EU and 2004/38/EU, and between €85 and €313 for Directives 
2009/50/EC and 2003/86/EC.

Source:  See Annex ‘Fees (€) for residence permit issued under respective directive, 25 EU Member States, end 2013’

In Hungary, for instance, the fee for the main permit 
holder is €60 for a single permit and for highly quali‑
fied third‑country nationals, and €33 for a long‑term 
residence permit. In Spain, the main permit holder need 
pay only €26 for a single permit, or for permits for 
researchers or highly qualified third‑country nationals, 
whereas employers contribute €194–€388 to these per‑
mits, depending on the third‑country national’s salary.

In other EU Member States, the fees could be 10 times 
as high. In Bulgaria, the fee for a long‑term residence 
permit is €511 and €107–€230 for a single permit and for 
highly qualified third‑country nationals. In Finland, the 
fee for a single permit is €500, and for a highly qualified 
third‑country national it is €425. In the Netherlands, 
the fee for these permits is €861.

The fees under the Free Movement Directive48 are lowest 
in Hungary (€3–€32), Romania (€3) and Slovakia (€5) 
and highest in Finland (€114) and Latvia (€114–€359). 
Under the Family Reunification Directive,49 they are 
lowest in Spain (€10) and highest in Finland (€425).

Slightly more than half of the EU Member States do not 
collect fees for issuing residence permits to refugees or 
beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

As Figure 1.4 illustrates, most Member States collect not 
more than €200 for these permits, whereas Finland, 
Greece and the Netherlands collect considerably higher 
amounts for some permits.

50

 
 
 
Asylum, immigration and integration

Outlook

The risk that migrants including children may die in their 
quest for a better life in the EU has yet to be allayed. 
The prevention of such tragedies in future is an absolute 
priority. The Task Force Mediterranean has prepared 
actions  to  guarantee  rescue  obligations  as  part  of 
surveillance operations; 2014 will show how far they 
are successful or if more comprehensive steps need to 
be taken. If more far‑reaching decisions are needed, 
the year will also make clear whether or not there is 
a political will to take them, such as opening up legal 
channels for protected entries.

Changes to most pieces of EU legislation in this field 
are to be finalised. This is only a first step to intro‑
ducing changes on the ground. The same is true of 
fundamental  rights  safeguards,  which  have  often 
been adopted after difficult negotiations. In its sub‑
mission on the future of Home Affairs policies, FRA 
highlights the need to focus on ensuring that legisla‑
tion is effective and functions well. EU and Council of 
Europe standards on fundamental and human rights, 
which are woven into the fabric of EU law, need to be 

applied in practice. Border guards, consular officials, 
immigration officers and asylum officers, as well as 
other persons taking decisions affecting individuals on 
a daily basis, need simple and practical tools to help 
them in their roles.

In  the  year  to  come,  the  different  EU  bodies  and 
 agencies will be called on to contribute to the realisa‑
tion of EU laws according to their mandate and capacity. 
It  is  essential  that  all  those  concerned  give  funda‑
mental rights safeguards a central role: the European 
Commission when it supervises and assists Member 
States with the transposition and implementation of 
EU  law;  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  when  it 
discusses, for example, the follow‑up actions taken 
by the Task Force Mediterranean; and the European 
Parliament when exercising its mandate. Similarly, EU 
agencies, including Frontex and EASO in particular, will 
be requested to embed fundamental rights ever more 
deeply into their daily work with Member States. FRA’s 
expertise will continue to be required. The concerted 
support of all relevant actors is needed to bridge the 
yawning gap between law and practice. This must be 
the focus of work in 2014.

51

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Annex

Table A: 

Fees for residence permits issued under respective directive, 24 EU Member States, 2013 (€) 

Table A1: (continued)

e Directive 
2011/98/EU

t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
U
E

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IT

LT

LV

LU

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

Single 
permit

120 (120)

12

107–230

120

n/a

Directive 2003/109/EC

Directive 2009/50/EC

Directive 2011/95/EU

Directive 2004/114/EC

Directive 2005/71/EC

Directive 

Directive 

2004/38/EC

2003/86/EC

Long-term 
 resident 
third-country 
nationals

… and their family 
members

Highly 
qualified 
third-country 
nationals

… and their 
family 
members

Refugees

… and their 
family 
members

Students

School pupils Unremuner-

Volunteers Researchers ��� and their 

Family 

Family 

ated trainees

family 

members

 members of EU 

members of 

nationals

third-country 

170

12

511

200

93 (37)

120 (120)

12

120

12

120 (120)

12

107–230

107–230

107–230

n/a

93 (37)

50

130

n/a

130 (37)

0

12

23

–

0

0

12

120 (120)

120 (120)

120 (120)

120 (120)

107–230

107–230

107–230

107–230

107–230

107–230

–

112

93 (37)

93 (37)

100–110

135 (55)

100–135 (50–67)

100–250

100–135 (55)

100–135 (55)

100–135 (55)

80–110

80–110 (40–65)

80–110

80–250

100–135 (55)

24–160

64 (24)

64 (24)

86–100

64–65 (24–25)

150

26

500

19–260

98–150

60

600

42

156

260

98–150

33

150

42

425 (200)

260

98–150

33

153–173

273 (74)

153–173 (74)

116

71

116

150

26

425

260

150

26

425 (200)

260

98–150

98–150

60

273

116

60

153–173 (74)

116

0

0

10

0

19

0

0

43

0

0

0

0

0

19

98–150

60

153–173

116

114–359

114–359

114–359 (28–171)

85–313

114–359

78–199

78–199

85–313

85–313

85–313

114–359

114–359

114–359 (0)

114–359 (28–171)

85–313

50

861

n/a

149

180

224

n/a

50

152

165

321

60

112

107

50

152

93

149

179

112 (56)

12

50

861

93

199

180

224

66

50

228

93

149

120

112 (56)

66

170 (0)

170 (0)

137 (0)

170 (0)

170 (0)

0

0

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

93

0

179

0

0

0

64–65

64–65

64–65

96–100

64–65 (24–25)

64–65 (24–25)

12

34

93

n/a

15

300

77

60

153

0

50

304

93

149

120

112

66

40

12

34

n/a

15

200

77

60

153

0

50

304

93

149

120

56

13

5

0

34

n/a

15

425

77

60

0

50

760

n/a

149

120

112

66

5

0

n/a

34

93 (37)

80–110

64–65

n/a

15

425

0

60

153

0

50

n/a

149

120

112

13

5

42–604

120

12

100

93

150

26

425

260

60

116

50

304

93

149

120

112

66

5

120 (120)

12

n/a

93 (37)

150

26

425

260

60

116

50

228

93

149

120

66

5

112 (56)

nationals

120 (120)

12

107–230

200

93 (37)

135 (55)

150 (0)

10

425 (200)

260 (135)

60

116

50

228

93

149

179

168 (84)

12

137 (0)

56

12

9

20

0

23‑29

31–35

0

10

114

0

3–32

32

29

0

42

0

15

3

0

12

5

150–98

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

153–173

153–173

153–173 (74)

153–173 (74)

Notes:  Amounts are expressed in euros. Other currencies have been converted to euros according to exchange rates at end 2013. Figures in 

brackets are fees for children (normally, but not always, applying to person younger than 18 years).

Fees reflected in the table include the total fees for the first application. The total fee includes fees for application, processing, granting and 
issuing the permit (identification card) and for Italy also revenue stamps. It does not include visa fees. Fees for renewals are not covered.

In Belgium, an administrative fee is added, which varies according to the municipality. Reduced fees may apply to certain nationalities, for 
example in Portugal for nationals of countries belonging to the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (except for East Timor) or in 
the Netherlands for Turkish nationals. In Spain, the employers contribute €194 to €388 to the total residence fee, in addition to the fee paid 
by the applicant, for a single permit, and for permits for researchers and highly qualified third country nationals.

52

 
 
 
 
Table A: 

Fees for residence permits issued under respective directive, 24 EU Member States, 2013 (€) 

Table A1: (continued)

Directive 2003/109/EC

Directive 2009/50/EC

Directive 2011/95/EU

Directive 2004/114/EC

Directive 2005/71/EC

Asylum, immigration and integration

Directive 
2004/38/EC

Directive 
2003/86/EC

Family 
 members of EU 
nationals

Family 
members of 
third-country 
nationals

56

12

9

20

0

23‑29

31–35

0

10

114

0

120 (120)

12

107–230

200

93 (37)

135 (55)

64–65 (24–25)

150 (0)

10

425 (200)

260 (135)

family 
members

120 (120)

12

120

12

107–230

107–230

100

93

n/a

93 (37)

80–250

100–135 (55)

96–100

64–65 (24–25)

150

26

425

260

150

26

425

260

Long-term 

… and their family 

… and their 

Refugees

… and their 

Students

members

family 

third-country 

members

family 

members

School pupils Unremuner-
ated trainees

Highly 

qualified 

nationals

Volunteers Researchers ��� and their 

120 (120)

120 (120)

120 (120)

120 (120)

120 (120)

107–230

107–230

107–230

107–230

107–230

107–230

107–230

107–230

12

12

0

100–110

135 (55)

100–135 (50–67)

100–250

100–135 (55)

100–135 (55)

100–135 (55)

80–110

80–110 (40–65)

80–110

24–160

64 (24)

64 (24)

86–100

64–65 (24–25)

64–65

64–65

64–65

34

93

34

34

93 (37)

93 (37)

n/a

15

300

77

n/a

15

200

77

n/a

15

425

77

0

n/a

34

93 (37)

80–110

64–65

n/a

15

425

0

e Directive 

t

2011/98/EU

Single 

permit

120 (120)

 resident 

third-country 

nationals

170

12

511

200

93 (37)

a

t

S

r

e

b

m

e

M

U

E

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IT

LT

LV

LU

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

19–260

98–150

12

120

n/a

150

26

500

60

116

50

861

n/a

149

180

224

n/a

600

42

156

260

33

71

50

152

165

321

60

112

107

120 (120)

12

n/a

93 (37)

425 (200)

260

98–150

150

42

33

116

50

152

93

149

179

12

120

12

50

130

150

26

425

260

60

273

116

50

861

93

199

180

224

66

130 (37)

425 (200)

12

n/a

150

26

260

60

116

50

228

93

149

120

66

0

12

23

–

0

0

0

10

0

19

0

0

43

0

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

–

112

0

0

0

0

19

60

116

0

0

93

0

179

0

0

0

112 (56)

112 (56)

170 (0)

170 (0)

137 (0)

170 (0)

170 (0)

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

150–98

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

98–150

153–173

273 (74)

153–173 (74)

153–173 (74)

153–173

60

153

0

60

153

0

60

153–173

0

60

153

0

60

60

153–173

153–173 (74)

116

116

3–32

32

29

60

153–173 (74)

116

114–359

114–359

114–359 (28–171)

85–313

114–359

78–199

78–199

85–313

85–313

85–313

114–359

114–359

114–359 (0)

114–359 (28–171)

85–313

50

304

93

149

120

112

66

40

50

304

93

149

120

56

13

5

50

760

n/a

149

120

112

66

5

50

42–604

n/a

149

120

112

13

5

50

304

93

149

120

112

66

5

50

228

93

149

120

112 (56)

66

5

0

42

0

15

3

0

12

5

50

228

93

149

179

168 (84)

12

137 (0)

The United Kingdom is not included in the table, as it is not bound by any of the directives listed. Ireland is bound only by Directive  2005/71/
EC and Denmark by Directive 2004/38/EC; they are also not included in the table. Malta is not included in the table. In Sweden, 
Directive 2004/114/EC is not fully implemented, as only students are included, whereas school pupils, unremunerated trainees and 
volunteers are excluded categories.

Member States’ fees for a particular permit may vary depending on the length of stay, purpose of residence, processing time and place of 
application (for instance at an embassy or in the Member State).

n/a 

not applicable.

53

 
 
 
 
 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Sources:  Austria, Fee Act (Gebührengesetz), BGBl 267/1975 as amended by BGBl I 70/2013, Sections 6 and 8; Belgium, Fees 

for electronic residence cards (Prijs van de elektronische vreemdelengenkaarten); Bulgaria, Tariff No. 4 for fees 
collected in the system of the Ministry of the Interior under the State Fees Act (Тарифа 4 за таксите, които се събират 
в системата на Министерство на вътрешните работи по Закона за държавните такси), 10 March 1998; Croatia, 
Act on Amendments to the Administrative Fees Act (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o upravnim pristojbama) 
(2010), Official Gazette (Narodne novine) No. 60/2010; Czech Republic, Act No. 634/2004 Coll., on administrative fees, 
as amended, Items 116–118 (Zákon č. 634/2004 Sb., o správních poplatcích, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, položky 
116–118); Cyprus, Aliens and Immigration Law Cap. 105 (Ο περί Αλλοδαπών και Μεταναστεύσεως Νόμος Κεφ. 105); 
Estonia, State Fees Act (Riigilõivuseadus), 22 April 2010; Finland, Decree by the Ministry of the Interior on payments for 
services by the Immigration Service (Sisäasiainministeriön asetus Maahanmuuttoviraston suoritteiden maksullisuudesta/
Inrikesministeriets förordning om Migrationsverkets avgiftsbelagda prestationer, No. 1038/2012) and Decree by the 
Ministry for the Interior on the grounds of payment for services by the police in 2013 (Sisäasiainministeriön asetus 
poliisin suoritteiden maksullisuudesta vuonna 2013/Inrikesministeriets förordning om polisens avgiftsbelagda 
prestationer år 2013, No. 850/2012); France, Code of entry and stay of foreigners and asylum rights (CESEDA – Code 
de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile), Art. L512‑1, L552‑1, L522‑2; Germany, Residence regulation 
(Aufenthaltsverordnung, Kapitel 3 –Gebühren (§§ 44–54);Greece, Law 3386/2005, Codification of Legislation on the 
Entry, Residence, and Social Integration of Third Country Nationals in Greek Territory (Κωδικοποίηση νομοθεσίας για την 
είσοδο, διαμονή και κοινωνική ένταξη υπηκόων τρίτων χωρών στην Ελληνική Επικράτεια) (OG A’ 212/23 August 2005; 
Hungary, Decree of the Minister of Justice and Law Enforcement No. 28/2007 (V. 31.) IRM on the fees of procedures 
relating to the entry and stay of persons enjoying free movement and residence and third‑country nationals (28/2007. 
(V. 31.) IRM rendelet a szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek, valamint a harmadik országbeli 
állampolgárok beutazásával és tartózkodásával kapcsolatos eljárások díjáról); Italy, Decree of the Ministry of Economics 
and Finance of 6 October 2011 on issue and renewal of stay permits (Decreto 6n ottobre 2011 contributo per il rilascio 
ed il rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno (11A16810), GU n. 304 del 31‑12‑2011; Latvia, Regulation No. 1034 on the State 
fee for examination of the documents necessary for the requesting a visa, residence permit or the status of a long‑term 
resident of the European Community in the Republic of Latvia and the services related thereto (Noteikumi Nr. 1034 
‘Noteikumi par valsts nodevu par vīzas, uzturēšanās atļaujas vai Eiropas Kopienas pastāvīgā iedzīvotāja statusa Latvijas 
Republikā pieprasīšanai nepieciešamo dokumentu izskatīšanu un ar to saistītajiem pakalpojumiem’); Lithuania, Act 
on specific amount of fees and charges and rules on payment and repayment of these fees and charges (Lietuvos 
Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimas Dėl konkrečių valstybės rinkliavos dydžių ir šios rinkliavos mokėjimo ir grąžinimo 
taisyklių patvirtinimo), No. 1458, 15 December 2000 (as last amended on 30 October 2013), Art. 2(27); Law on fees 
and charges (Lietuvos Respublikos rinkliavų įstatymas), No. VIII‑1725, 13 June 2000 (as last amended on 14 May 2013), 
Art. 6(7); Luxembourg, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Grand‑Ducal Regulation of 19 June 2013 amending: 1. the Grand 
Ducal regulation amended on 5 September 2008 to implement certain provisions concerning administrative formalities 
required by the law of 29 August 2008 on the free movement of persons and immigration; 2. The Grand‑Ducal regulation 
amended on 5 September 2008 laying down the terms and conditions for the issuance of a residence permit as an 
employee (Règlement grand‑ducal du 19 juin 2013 modifiant 1. le règlement grand‑ducal modifié du 5 septembre 2008 
portant exécution de certaines dispositions relatives aux formalités administratives prévues par la loi du 29 août 2008 
sur la libre circulation des personnes et l’immigration; 2. le règlement grand‑ducal modifié du 5 septembre 2008 fixant 
les conditions et modalités relatives à la délivrance d’une autorisation de séjour en tant que travailleur salarié. Note to 
the public: fee for granting residence permits issued to third‑country nationals Note au public : Taxe de délivrance pour 
les titres de séjour délivrés aux ressortissants de pays tiers; Netherlands, Passport Fee Decree (Besluit paspoortgelden), 
8 November 1991, Art. 6.1.a; Aliens regulation 2000 (sregeling Voorschrift Vreemdelingen) Art. 3.34–3.34k); Poland, 
Ordinance of Ministry of Interior and Administration on fees paid by foreigners for issuance and replacement of the 
cards and other documents in foreigners’ cases (Rozporządzenie Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji z dnia 
18 sierpnia 2003 r. w sprawie opłat pobieranych od cudzoziemców za wydanie i wymianę karty pobytu i innych 
dokumentów w sprawach cudzoziemców), 18 August 2003; Act on stamp duty (Ustawa z dnia 16 listopada 2006 r. 
o opłacie skarbowej), 16 November 2006; Portugal, Order 1334‑E/2010, establishing the schedule of fees and other 
extra charges to be levied by the administrative procedures provided for by Law 23/2007 of 4 July (Portaria n.º 1334‑
E/2010, que estabelece a tabela de taxas e demais encargos a cobrar pelos procedimentos administrativos previstos 
na Lei n.º 23/2007, de 4 de julho), 31 December 2010; Government Emergency Ordinance No. 194/2002 regarding the 
aliens’ regime in Romania (Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 194 din 12 decembrie 2002 privind regimul străinilor 
în România), 12 December 2002; Slovakia, Act No. 145/1995 Coll. on administrative fees as amended (Zákon č. 145/1995 
Z.z. o správnych poplatkoch), 22 June 1995; Slovenia, Administrative fees act (Zakon o upravnih taksah), 26 January 2000, 
and subsequent modifications; Spain, Organic Law 4/2000, 11 January, on foreigners’ rights and freedoms in Spain and 
their social integration; Sweden, Regulation (1997:691) on fees at missions abroad (Förordning (1997:691) om avgifter vid 
utlandsmyndigheterna)

54

Asylum, immigration and integration

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 41, 48, 54

BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 37, 52, 54

BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 38, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54

CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

CZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 50, 54

DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54

DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 47, 50, 53

EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 54

EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 47, 50, 54

ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54

FI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 47, 50, 54

FR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 42, 46, 48, 50, 54

HR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 54

HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 42, 47, 50, 54

IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 46, 48, 50, 53

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 48, 52, 54

LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 54

LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 54

LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 54

MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 46, 48, 50, 53

NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54

PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 47, 48, 50, 54

PT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 52, 54

RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 54

SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 46, 48, 53, 54

SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 47, 50, 54

SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 50, 54

UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 40, 46, 47, 50, 53

55

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented 
Migrants (PICUM) (2013), Children first and foremost, 
February 2013; Vanderbruggen, M., Flemish Refugee Action, 
Phelps, J., Detention Action, Sebtaoui, N., France terre 
d’asile, Kovats, A., Menedék and Pollet, K., ECRE (2014), 
Point of no return: The futile detention of unreturnable 
migrants, January 2014, http://pointofnoreturn.eu/
wp‑content/uploads/2014/01/PONR_report.pdf; Human 
Rights Watch (2013), World Report 2013. See also the PICUM 
Bulletin, providing news on the situation of undocumented 
migrants in Europe every two months; the International 
Detention Monitor for monthly immigration detention 
news; and Refugees and Migrants, Amnesty International.

FRA (2013), Fundamental rights at Europe’s southern sea 
borders, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European 
Union (Publications Office).

United Nations (UN) (2013), Regional study: Management of 
the external borders of the European Union and its impact 
on the human rights of migrants, Report of the Special 
Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François 
Crépeau, UN Doc A/HRC/23/46, 24 April 2013.

Council of the European Union, 3260th Council meeting, 
Justice and Home Affairs, Luxembourg, 7–8 October 2013.

European Council (2013), Conclusions, 24/25 October 2013, 
para. 48.

European Parliament (2013), Resolution on migratory flows 
in the Mediterranean, with particular attention to the tragic 
events of Lampedusa, 2013/2827(RSP), 23 October 2013.

European Commission (2013), Communication on the work 
of the Task Force Mediterranean, COM(2013) 869 final, 
4 December 2013.

European Council (2013), Conclusions, 20 December 2013.

See: EASO (2014 forthcoming), Annual report on the 
situation of asylum in the EU 2013; and, for Central Europe, 
the UNHCR overview of quality initiatives listed on its 
website, www.unhcr‑centraleurope.org/pdf/what‑we‑do/
ensuring‑legal‑protection/refugee‑status‑determination/
quality‑initiatives‑in‑europe.html.

10  

Ireland, Supreme Court, HN, C‑604/12, 8 March 2013; 
Belgium, Cour du travail de Bruxelles, Saciri and 
Others, C‑79/13, 5 April; Netherlands, Dutch Council 
of State, A., C‑148/13 to C‑150/13, 31 May; Germany, 
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden‑Württemberg, T., C‑373/13, 
18 October 2013; Germany, Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht 
München, Shepard, C‑472/13, 25 October 2013; Germany, 
Oberlandesgericht Bamberg, Qurbani, C‑481/13, 
15 November 2013; Belgium, Constitutional Court, M’Bodj, 
C‑542/13, 29 November; Belgium, Cour du travail de 
Bruxelles, Abdida, C‑562/13, 13 December.

11   ECtHR, Mohamed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands 

and Italy (dec), No. 27725/10, 2 April 2013; ECtHR, Mohamed 
v. Austria, No. 2283/12, 6 June 2013.

12   FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: Challenges and 

achievements in 2012, Annual report, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office; FRA (2012), Fundamental rights: 
Challenges and achievements in 2011, Annual report, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office.

13   Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, 

Recommendation 2028, 22 November 2013, point 7.1.6.

14   Council of Europe, European Committee for the Prevention 

of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment (CPT) (2013), Report to the Government of 
the United Kingdom on the visit to the United Kingdom, 
Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 18 July 2013.

15   Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of 

the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and 
procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying 
third‑country nationals, OJ 2008 L348/98, Art. 5.

16  

Ibid., Art. 7 (2).

17   Spain, Defensor del Pueblo (2012), Informe Anual 2012 – 
Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura, www.
defensordelpueblo.es/es/Mnp/InformesAnuales/
InformeAnual_MNP_2012.pdf.

18   FRA (2012), Fundamental rights: Challenges and 

achievements in 2012, Annual report, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, p. 55.

19   Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act, Article 39a (2) 

(amended, State Gazette 23/08 March 2013), http://lex.bg/
bg/laws/ldoc/2134455296.

20  

Ibid., adopted on 12 December 2013, expected to enter into 
force on 1 May 2014.

21   Malta, L.N. 251 of 2012, Immigration Act (CAP.217), Board of 

Visitors for Detained Persons (Amendment) Regulations, 
2012, http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.
aspx?app=lp&itemid=23503&l=1.

22   Portugal, Law 29/2012 of 9 August,  http://dre.pt/
pdf1sdip/2012/08/15400/0419104256.pdf.

23   Sweden, Aliens Act 2005:716,  http://sweden.gov.se/

content/1/c6/06/61/22/bfb61014.pdf.

24  

In Finland, there has been an ad hoc monitoring system, 
based on an oral agreement between the Municipal Police 
of Helsinki and the District Court of Helsinki, whereby 
a person working at the District Court may on some 
occasions join a return flight.

25   Law 3907/2011, Art. 23 (6).

26  

Information provided by the Uniformed Police Directorate at 
the General Police Directorate (Generalna Policijska uprava, 
Uprava uniformirane policije) at the end of 2013.

27   Germany, Ministerium für Inneres und Kommunales 
des Landes Nordrhein‑Westfalen, Checkliste zur 
Vorbereitung, Durchführung und Dokumentation von 
Rückführungsmaßnahmen auf dem Luftweg, www.mik.
nrw.de/themen‑aufgaben/auslaenderfragen/erlasse/
aufenthaltsbeendigung.html.

28   Frontex, Code of Conduct for Joint Return Operations 

coordinated by Frontex, Art. 13(2), http://frontex.europa.eu/
assets/Publications/General/Code_of_Conduct_for_ Joint_
Return_Operations.pdf.

29  

Ibid., Art. 14(5).

30   See: FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: Challenges and 

achievements in 2012, Annual report, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, p. 58.

31   See: Council of Europe, European Committee for the 

Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment 
or Punishment (CPT) (2013), Report to the Government of 
the United Kingdom on the visit to the United Kingdom 
from 22 to 24 October 2012, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 
18 July 2013. The CPT also monitored a return flight from the 
Netherlands to Lagos from 16 to 18 October 2013.

32   European Commission (2010), Communication from the 

Commission, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable 
and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, 3 March 2010.

33   Huddleston, T., Niessen, J., and Tjaden, J.D. (2013), Using 
EU indicators of immigrant integration, Migration Policy 
Group/European Services Network, European Commission 
DG Home Affairs, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home‑affairs/
e‑library/documents/policies/immigration/general/docs/
final_report_on_using_eu_indicators_of_immigrant_
integration_ june_2013_en.pdf.

56

Asylum, immigration and integration

34  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 

41   Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on 

concerning the status of third‑country nationals who are 
long‑term residents, Art. 4, applicable to those who have 
resided in an EU Member State for more than five years, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/legal‑content/en/ALL/;jsessionid=
JFtBTC5YkWlBjwvcT3vG6qC2BSFs5hYCBhY9hJVLyVQVnS98vF
k2!359963063?uri=CELEX:32003L0109.

35   CJEU, European Commission v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 

C‑508/10, 26 April 2012.

36   The 2010 Zaragoza meeting of the ministers responsible 
for integration agreed on these EU indicators, and on 
3–4 June 2010 the Justice and Home Affairs Council called 
on the Commission to launch a pilot project to evaluate 
integration policies. Currently, naturalisation rates, 
long‑term residence rates and immigrants among elected 
representatives have been proposed as relevant indicators 
of active citizenship in the EU.

37 

European Parliament, Resolution 2012/2131(INI) of 
14 March 2013 on the integration of migrants, its effects 
on the labour market and the external dimension of social 
security coordination.

38  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 

concerning the status of third‑country nationals who are 
long‑term residents, Art. 4. This applies to those who reside 
in an EU Member State for more than five years.

39   Council Directive 2011/98/EU of 13 December 2011 on a single 

application procedure for a single permit for third‑country 
nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member 
State and on a common set of rights for third‑country 
workers legally residing in a Member State, Art. 1. It had to 
be transposed by 25 December 2013 (Art. 16).

40  Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the 

conditions of entry and residence of third‑country nationals 
for the purposes of highly qualified employment, Art. 14.

a specific procedure for admitting third‑country nationals 
for the purposes of scientific research.

42   Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to 

family reunification.

43  Council Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on 

standards for the qualification of third‑country nationals 
or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international 
protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons 
eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the 
protection granted (recast).

44  Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of 

citizens of the Union and their family members to move 
and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, 
Art. 24.

45  Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on 

the conditions of admission of third‑country nationals for 
the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated 
training or voluntary service.

46  Directive 2011/98/EU of 13 December 2011 on a single 

application procedure for a single permit for third‑country 
nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member 
State and on a common set of rights for third‑country 
workers legally residing in a Member State, Art. 10.

47   CJEU, European Commission v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 

C‑508/10, 26 April 2012.

48  Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of 

citizens of the Union and their family members to move and 
reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

49   Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to 

family reunification.

57

2 

Border control and visa policy  �������������������������������������������������  61

2�1�  EU adopts and proposes new legislation  ���������������������  61

2�2�  Number of arrivals in southern Europe rises  ���������������  63

2�3�  Large-scale IT systems in the areas of borders 

and visas  �������������������������������������������������������������������������  65

2�4�  Towards a focus that includes the fundamental 

right aspects of EU visa policy  ��������������������������������������  69

Outlook  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  71

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE
January
February
March
24 April – The UN Special 
Rapporteur on the human 
rights of migrants publishes his 
findings on the management of 
the external borders of the EU 
and its impact on human rights 
of migrants

25 April – In Savriddin 
Dzhurayev v� Russia, the 
ECtHR reiterates the obligation 
to comply with interim 
measures issued by the court 
under Rule 39 of the Rules 
of the Court
April
May
June
July
August
5 September – In I� v� Sweden, 
the ECtHR clarifies that the 
right of a state to intervene 
in cases lodged by one of its 
nationals against another state 
set forth in Article 36 of the 
ECHR does not apply to cases 
where the applicant raises fear 
of being returned to his or her 
country of nationality
September
October
November
December

EU

17 January – In Mohamad Zakaria, the CJEU confirms that border checks have to be carried 
out with full respect for human dignity
January 
28 February – The European Commission proposes the Smart Borders package
February 
14 March – Visa Information System (VIS) becomes operational in west and central African 
countries, 2013/122/EU

21 March – In Shomadi, the CJEU clarifies that a holder of a local border traffic permit 
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No� 1931/2006 has a right to move freely within the border 
area for a period of three months and to have a new right to a three-month stay each time 
that his or her stay is interrupted (this duration of stay differs from the normal Schengen 
rules)
March 
9 April – The second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) becomes operational

12 April – The European Commission proposes new rules for Frontex-coordinated sea 
operations
April 
May 
6 June – VIS becomes operational in east and southern Africa, 2013/266/EU

26 June – Regulation (EU) No� 610/2013 amends parts of the Schengen Borders Code, 
strengthening its fundamental rights provisions
June 
July 
August 
5 September – VIS becomes operational in South America, 2013/441/EU

30 September – The last set of regions for introducing VIS are determined
September 
7 October – Regulation (EU) No� 1053/2013 establishing a new evaluation and monitoring 
mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis is published

17 October – Through its ruling in Michael Schwarz v� Stadt Bochum, the CJEU endorses 
storage of biometric data in passports

22 October – Regulation (EU) No� 1052/2013 establishing Eurosur is published

22 October – Regulation (EU) No� 1051/2013 on temporary reintroduction of border control 
at internal borders in exceptional circumstances is published
October 
14 November – VIS becomes operational in southeast and central Asia, as well as in the 
occupied Palestinian territories
November 
4 December – European Commission Communication on the work of the Task Force 
Mediterranean

19 December – In Koushkaki, the CJEU provides guidance on the refusal of Schengen visas
December 

60

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 

Border control 
and visa policy

In 2013, there was a jump in irregular arrivals of third‑country nationals at the European Union’s (EU) southern sea 
borders, as well as pressure on the Greek and Bulgarian land borders from Syrians fleeing civil war. These made 
it all the more urgent for the EU to modernise its border control, also in the light of fundamental rights. As part of 
the overhaul of its legal framework, the EU adopted important pieces of border control and visa policy legislation 
and began deliberations on another five proposals. Although these instruments primarily seek to manage 
access to the EU, they all affect fundamental rights. The EU also continued to deploy modern technologies in the 
border and visa areas. The risks and benefits, however, that these modern technologies pose for the upholding 
of fundamental rights remain largely unexplored. The European border surveillance system, originally intended 
for fighting irregular migration, has the potential, if properly implemented, to save the lives of migrants at sea. 
The smart borders proposals triggered, for example, fundamental rights concerns over the possibility that the 
technology might contribute to mislabelling some third‑country nationals as overstaying their visas.

2�1� 

EU adopts and 
proposes new 
legislation

The  EU  reshaped  its  legislation  in  this 
field  in  2013.  It  adopted  new  regulations 
and  the  European  Commission  proposed 
another  five.  In  addition,  the  second 
generation  of  the  Schengen  Information 
System  (SIS  II),  which  holds  information 
on persons and objects wanted or missing 
in  the  Schengen  area,  started  opera‑
tions  on  9 April 2013.1  The  application  of 
the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS),  which 
stores  data  on  third‑country  nationals 
applying  for  short‑term  visas,  continued 
to be expanded in Africa,2 South America,3 
Central Asia4 and South‑East Asia5 and was 
extended to the occupied Palestinian terri‑
tories. The remaining regions for VIS roll‑out 
have  now  also  been  determined.6  By  the 
end of 2013, one quarter of all visa applica‑
tions, and two thirds of refused visas, were 
registered in VIS.7

Key developments in the area of border control and visa policy

•  The EU adopts a regulation on the European border surveillance 
system, Eurosur, set up to fight irregular immigration, prevent 
cross‑border crime and contribute to the protection of migrants’ 
lives at sea.

•  The European Commission tables the smart border package, which 

suggests the fingerprinting of all short‑term visitors to the EU (entry/
exit system) and the creation of a programme to facilitate border 
checks for frequent travellers (Registered Travellers Programme).

•  SIS II, an upgraded version of the Schengen Information System which 

stores biometric data, becomes operational after years of delay.

•  The gradual regional roll‑out of the Visa Information 

System (VIS) continues.

•  The Schengen rules are amended, introducing a new evaluation 
and monitoring system, revising rules for the reintroduction of 
intra‑Schengen border controls and strengthening fundamental rights.

•  Frontex’s Fundamental Rights Officer and Consultative Forum are 
operational and advise Frontex on fundamental rights issues.

•  The European Commission presents a proposal for a regulation 

establishing rules for Frontex‑coordinated sea operations.

61

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

The adopted instruments are listed in Table 2.1. Although 
fundamental rights are normally not at the core of these 
instruments, they are relevant to fundamental rights.

Table  2.2  lists  the  new  regulations  the  European 
Commission  proposed  in  2013.  They  include  new 
rules for Frontex‑coordinated sea operations, which 

Table 2.1:  Overview of adopted legislation in 2013

Instrument and subject

Date of adoption

Main issue(s) relating to fundamental rights

Regulations

26 June

Amendments to the Schengen 
Borders Code 
Regulation (EU) No. 610/2013

22 October

Creation of a European border 
surveillance system (Eurosur)
Regulation (EU) No. 1052/2013

Revised system to monitor 
and evaluate application of the 
Schengen acquis
Regulation (EU) No. 1053/2013

Temporary introduction of con‑
trols at internal EU borders in case 
of serious deficiencies of external 
border controls
Regulation (EU) No. 1051/2013

7 October

22 October

Amendments to visa 
requirements
Regulation (EC) No. 1289/2013

11 December 

Other instruments

SIS II becomes operational on 
9 April
Council Decision 2013/158/EU and 
2013/157/EU

7 March

A new article on fundamental rights is 
added – Article 3(a);
the provision on the need to respect human dignity 
during border checks now includes an express refer‑
ence to vulnerable persons – Article 6(1);
clear rules have been introduced in the annex to the 
code on how to deal with asylum applications sub‑
mitted at border‑crossing points shared with third 
countries

The purpose of Eurosur is also to contribute to ensuring 
the protection and saving the lives of migrants, which 
must be monitored and evaluated;
it includes strong data protection safeguards;
it is prohibited to share information with third countries 
which could use them to violate migrants’ fundamental 
rights

The system covers the entire Schengen acquis, thus in‑
cluding its fundamental rights provisions, and, although 
these are not explicitly referred to in the regulation, 
they will also be assessed during Schengen evaluations

The reintroduction of internal border controls is excep‑
tionally allowed if there is a serious threat to public 
policy or to internal security, circumscribing limitations 
to the free movement of persons within the Schengen 
zone

A mechanism for suspending the visa waiver in emer‑
gency situations is introduced. It may make it more 
difficult for persons in need of protection to leave their 
countries

SIS II introduced the possibility of storing fingerprints 
and facial images and exchanging such data. It includes 
data protection safeguards

Commission implementing deci‑
sions on the roll‑out of VIS:
2013/122/EU
2013/266/EU
2013/441/EU
2013/642/EU

Commission implementing deci‑
sion determining the remaining 
regions for the VIS roll‑out:
2013/493/EU

Source: http://eur‑lex.europa.eu

7 March
5 June
20 August
8 November

Third‑country nationals applying for visas will be 
fingerprinted and information on applicants included 
in the VIS database. VIS includes data protection 
safeguards

30 September

When VIS becomes operational, third‑country nationals 
applying for visas will be fingerprinted and information 
on applicants included in the VIS database

62

Border control and visa policy

have a substantial bearing on the rights of migrants 
and refugees intercepted or rescued at sea. The other 
three legislative proposals are usually referred to as 
the smart border package, consisting of the entry/
exit system, for the electronic recording of the dates 
of entry and exit of third‑country nationals, and the 
Registered Travellers Programme, facilitating border 
crossing for bona fide travellers. (For more informa‑
tion on these proposals and their fundamental rights 
implications, see Section 2.2.)

The new legislation adopted in 2013 and the proposed 
legislation have a particular impact on the work of 
Frontex as well as on the EU Agency for Large‑Scale 
IT [information technology] Systems (eu‑LISA), which 
manages VIS and the SIS II central databases, in addi‑
tion to Eurodac (see Chapter 1 on asylum, immigra‑
tion and integration). Under the Eurosur Regulation, 
Frontex is jointly responsible with Member States for 
maintaining  and  updating  the  European  Situational 
Picture  and  Situational  Picture  on  the  area  beyond 
EU frontiers and ensuring the smooth running of the 
Eurosur coordination network.

Frontex continued its efforts to incorporate fundamental 
rights into its activities. The Frontex Fundamental Rights 
Officer and its Consultative Forum – a body of 15 organi‑
sations with fundamental rights expertise – contributed 
substantially  to  the  mainstreaming  of  fundamental 
rights into Frontex activities. The Fundamental Rights 
Officer reviewed and commented on the operational 
plans  of  Frontex‑coordinated  operations.  Frontex 
adopted a Code of Conduct for Joint Return Operations 

Table 2.2:  Overview of EU legislation proposed in 2013

coordinated by Frontex on 7 October 2013 and pub‑
lished  it  in  November  2013,  drawing  on  input  from 
the Consultative Forum and the Fundamental Rights 
Officer. The Consultative Forum visited the Frontex 
operation  Poseidon  in  Greece  and  Bulgaria  to  gain 
a better understanding of the challenges in operation‑
alising fundamental rights. The European Ombudsman 
issued a report in November 2013 following an inquiry 
launched on its own initiative seeking to clarify how 
Frontex implements fundamental rights.8 Whereas the 
European  Ombudsman  acknowledged  that  Frontex 
adequately  addressed  12  out  of  13  recommenda‑
tions submitted by her,9 little progress was made on 
introducing a complaints mechanism for fundamental 
rights  infringements  in  all  Frontex‑labelled  joint 
operations. By the end of the year, Frontex and its 
Fundamental Rights Officer were working to establish 
an effective monitoring mechanism.

2�2�  Number of arrivals in 
southern Europe rises

In  2013,  an  increasing  number  of  persons  under‑
took a perilous journey by sea, seeking safety from 
persecution and violence or poverty, or to join their 
families  in  Europe.  As  Figure  2.1  shows,  the  total 
number of third‑country nationals arriving on Europe’s 
shores increased substantially in 2013, reaching some 
57,000 persons. Increases were particularly visible in 
Greece and Italy. Arrivals by sea in the eastern and 
central  Mediterranean  increasingly  include  Syrians 
fleeing domestic conflict. In Italy in 2013, the number 

Instrument

Status at year end

Commission proposal

New rules for Frontex‑coordinated sea 
operations, dealing with sensitive issues 
such as where to disembark migrants 
rescued at sea

Council and European Parlia‑
ment finalised their position 
and started negotiations in 
December 2013

COM(2013) 197 final, 
12 April 2013

Regulation to register entry and exit data 
of third‑country nationals (entry/exit 
system)

Amendments to the Schengen Borders 
Code necessary to introduce an entry/
exit system and a registered traveller 
programme

Regulation to establish a registered travel‑
ler programme allowing simplified border 
crossing for screened passengers

Council and European Parlia‑
ment are still defining their 
positions

COM(2013) 95 final, 
28 February 2013

COM(2013) 96 final, 
28 February 2013

COM(2013) 97 final, 
28 February 2013

Abolishing visa requirements for 
Moldovans

Proposal tabled

COM(2013) 853 final, 
27 November 2013

Source: http://eur‑lex.europa.eu

63

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

of arrivals by sea was the second‑highest in the last 
10 years, after the 2011 events in Tunisia and the civil 
war in Libya persuaded over 60,000 persons to make 
the journey. In 2013, 43,000 persons arrived at Italian 
coasts. The authorities continued to collaborate with 
international organisations and NGOs which were part 
of the Praesidium project, a promising practice identi‑
fied by the FRA report on Europe’s sea borders.

As indicated in last year’s Annual report, in Greece, 
increased arrivals by sea mirror a substantial reduc‑
tion of irregular crossings at the Greek land border 
in  the  Evros  region,  after  the  deployment  of  some 
1,800 additional police officers at the border and the 
December 2012 construction of a 12‑kilometre‑long 
fence  along  the  land  border  with  Turkey.  Amnesty 
International and ProAsyl reported collective expul‑
sions of refugees and migrants in the Aegean Sea.10 
Many of those who cross come from refugee‑producing 
countries, such as Eritrea, Somalia and Syria.11

Irregular land crossings shifted from Greece to Bulgaria.12 
In addition, in 2013 the number of irregular migrants 
increased substantially, including in Hungary (25,000 per‑
sons). Bulgaria followed Greece’s example by deploying 
an additional 1,500 police officers on the border and 
debated the construction of a 30‑kilometre‑long border 
fence,13  covering  some  12  %  of  its  land  border  with 
Turkey. As a result of the actions taken, in December 2013 
the number of irregular arrivals fell dramatically. Given 
that  a  significant  number  of  persons  crossing  the 

Turkish–Bulgarian land border were Syrians, the ques‑
tion arises whether people who could be in need of 
international protection are at risk of being denied entry.

In 2013, in line with the five‑year trend, Spain saw 
another decrease in sea arrivals, while the borders 
between Spain and Morocco at the cities of Ceuta and 
Melilla – the only land borders between Europe and 
Africa – experienced a considerable increase in pressure 
by both land and sea. As a result, Spanish authorities 
introduced additional measures to stop entries over the 
fences by adding a razor‑wire barrier to the Melilla fence 
and reinforcing surveillance.

According to information provided to FRA by the Spanish 
NGO CEAR (Comisión Español de Ayuda al Refugiado), 
those who manage to reach Ceuta and Melilla include 
persons from Syria, Somalia or Mali who may be in need 
of international protection. Only very few applied for 
international protection, however, and, of these, citizens 
of Syria, Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon and Mali are said to 
have withdrawn their applications.14 Institutions such 
as  the  Ombudsman  and  the  Special  Rapporteur  on 
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, 
xenophobia  and  related  intolerance  recommended 
a policy review to ensure access to asylum and fair 
and efficient asylum procedures in the enclaves.15

Border surveillance policies must be implemented with 
full respect for fundamental rights, including the prin‑
ciple of non‑refoulement and the prohibition of collective 

Figure 2.1:  Arrivals of third‑country nationals by sea in four EU Member States, 2003–2013

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: National police data, 2013

64

EL 

ES 

IT 

MT 

Border control and visa policy

expulsion set forth in Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights. In 2013, the EU strengthened 
fundamental rights safeguards by introducing a new 
Article 3a into the Schengen Borders Code. It obliges 
Member States to apply the code in full compliance with 
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and with “obliga‑
tions related to access to international protection”. This 
creates an enhanced opportunity for the EU to monitor 
and evaluate, through the new Schengen governance 
system, whether such fundamental rights safeguards are 
put into practice. It should help to ensure that no EU funds 
are allocated to policies which undermine such standards. 
The construction of fences, as undertaken or planned at 
sections of land borders in Bulgaria, Greece and Spain, 
limits the ability of persons in need of international 
protection to seek safety. Many undocumented asylum 
seekers who would try to use official border‑crossing 
points would be intercepted by third‑country authorities 
before reaching the external EU border.

2�3�  Large-scale IT systems 
in the areas of borders 
and visas

Important  steps  were  taken  in  2013  towards  the 
increased use of modern technologies in the field of 
asylum (for more information on Eurodac, see also 
Chapter  1  on  asylum,  immigration  and  integration), 
visa and border management, making it possible to 
collect and store information not only on third‑country 
nationals but also on EU citizens.

The new version of the Schengen Information System, 
SIS II, which contains information on entry bans, became 
operational  on  9  April.  The  application  of  the  Visa 
Information System (VIS), storing personal data and bio‑
metric identifiers (fingerprints) of visa applicants, was 
extended to more than 70 states in Africa, Latin America 
and Asia. It also includes information on the invitees 
(sponsors of the visa applicant, often EU citizens) but 
not their biometric information. The worldwide VIS 
roll‑out will continue in 2014.

At the end of 2013, three existing IT systems were 
operational.

 • SIS  II  holds  data  on  persons  and  objects  (such  as 
banknotes, cars, vans, firearms and identity docu‑
ments)  wanted  or  missing  in  the  Schengen  area, 
as  well  as  on  persons  to  be  denied  entry  into 
Schengen.

 • VIS collects data on third‑country nationals apply‑

ing for short‑term visas.

 • Eurodac  primarily  tracks  persons  lodging  asylum 

requests.

Fingerprints  can  be  stored  in  all  three  databases. 
Through  the  Automated  Fingerprint  Identification 
System (AFIS),16 fingerprints can later be compared 
with those stored in VIS and Eurodac. The EU Member 
States will also use SIS II in the same way, once this 
is possible technically.17

In  addition,  the  creation  of  two  further  IT  systems 
was proposed in 2013 as part of a package on ‘smart 
borders’. These are:

 • an entry/exit system to record entry and exit data 
of each third‑country national at the external bor‑
der and to record who are entitled to stay in the EU 
for  a  period  not  exceeding  three  months  (short 
stay)  regardless  of  whether  they  are  exempted 
from a visa or not;

 • a registered travellers programme to allow pre‑vet‑
ted third‑country nationals who are at least 12 years 
old and travel frequently to pass through a simpli‑
fied border check with the use of a token.

In spite of the speed of technological and policy devel‑
opments, risks and benefits for fundamental rights 
that modern technologies create are not fully known, 
particularly in the context of VIS and SIS II. FRA recently 
reported  on  the  difficulties  EU  citizens  face  when 
accessing remedies for data protection violations. One 
reason is that only a few civil society organisations are 
available to support victims of data protection violations 
in complaints procedures.18 Because most of the data 
subjects referred to in this chapter are third‑country 
nationals,  they  can  be  expected  to  have  even  less 
access to support organisations.

New technologies may also bring with them opportuni‑
ties for improved fundamental rights protection. Using 
biometrics minimises mistakes in identification, which 
may be an advantage for the person concerned. The 
risk of being mistakenly identified as a wanted criminal 
should be close to non‑existent. Perhaps there are pos‑
sibilities to optimise SIS II for identification of missing 
children, for instance.19 These are topics which are as 
yet largely unexplored and affect fundamental rights.

The ‘smart borders’ proposal prompted a discussion on 
its fundamental rights impact. The concerns raised relate 
to data protection, the right to privacy and whether the 
proposal meets its objective of counteracting irregular 
migration, since the EU does not have a clear policy on 
managing over‑stayers.20 Such a policy should not only 
include the removal option. It should also include meas‑
ures to ensure that persons who cannot be removed 
are not left in legal limbo but receive, at a minimum, 
a certification of postponed removal.21 The European 
Data Protection Supervisor, for example, noted in its 
opinion  that  the  ‘smart  borders’  proposal  is  costly, 
unproven and intrusive.22 NGOs have also pointed to 

65

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

the high costs, and have raised concerns in relation to 
data protection issues23 and on the proportionality of 
collecting large amounts of personal data, including 
fingerprints. The entry/exit system would collect the 
fingerprints  of  third‑country  nationals  who  are  not 
required to hold visas, whereas those required to hold 
a visa are already included in VIS. As the database will 
provide information only on whether a person has left 
the EU on time but not on the location of over‑stayers, 
the question arises whether the entry/exit system can 
contribute to combating irregular migration.24 However, 
VIS includes information on the inviters, which can be 
relevant when trying to locate over‑stayers.

A few governments have actively consulted civil society 
on the ‘smart borders’ proposals. When requested to 
present its views, the Danish Institute for Human Rights 
(Institut for Menneskerettigheder) expressed concern 
about  the  necessity  of  establishing  these  systems 
and recommended assessing how the fundamental 
rights of third‑country citizens would be affected. The 
institute also highlighted the importance of the right 
to information about the proposal and recommended 
that this information be made available in the relevant 
languages.25 In Finland, the government invited civil 
society representatives to its meetings on the smart 
borders proposal. The representatives expressed con‑
cerns about the threshold for access to the database 
by law enforcement and sought safeguards to ensure 
that persons granted a right to stay (such as asylum 
seekers) do not appear as over‑stayers.26

Fundamental rights concerns in the context of large 
systems and biometrics relate to the necessity and 
proportionality of the information and data protection 
safeguards in place. Other relevant fundamental rights 
are non‑discrimination, the right to asylum, the right 
to leave your country, the protection of persons with 
disabilities, older persons and children, and the right to 
liberty and security of person (if the person is detained 
as a consequence of being wrongly entered in SIS II or 
the entry/exit system, or not entered, in which case 
the departure of the person from the territory of the 
EU Member States will not have been registered).27

Table  2.3  illustrates  these  information  technology 
systems, the categories of persons they cover, the 
type  of  biometric  data  stored  and  the  number  of 
persons they cover.

In addition, VIS (Article 9) and the proposed Registered 
Travellers Programme (Article 25) include provisions 
on storing the personal data of the person liable to 
pay the applicant’s subsistence costs during the stay. 
The  inviting  personcould  be  either  an  EU  citizen  or 
a third‑country national. These articles also provide 
for storage of information on the main purpose and 
destination, duration of travel, intended date of arrival 
and departure, border of first entry, place of residence, 

current occupation and employer, and for students the 
name of the educational establishment.

The processes for taking fingerprints need to respect 
the dignity of the person. Responding to proposals by 
civil society, the Netherlands also plans to introduce 
fingerprint‑free identity documents.28 Persons whose 
fingertips are burnt or worn down, or who have been 
working manually, may be unable to provide finger‑
prints. In this case, the legitimate fundamental rights 
concern is if this person will be discriminated against in 
the context of decisions such as the granting of a visa. In 
the context of VIS, the principle of non‑discrimination is 
respected, because, according to the Visa Code, “The fact 
that fingerprinting is physically impossible […] shall not 
influence the issuing or refusal of a visa”.29 Alternatives 
for persons unable to register biometric data should 
not be stigmatising or profiling. It is also possible that 
technical or human errors cause failures in registering 
fingerprints. The German Federal Commissioner for 
Data Protection (Datenschutzbeauftragter) has raised 
the  concern  that  travellers  could  appear  in  wanted 
lists by mistake because of technical shortcomings.30 
Therefore, data subjects need to be able to challenge 
a wrong data entry and to access an effective remedy 
(Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union).

To facilitate return in line with the objective of counter‑
acting irregular migration, the VIS Regulation (Article 31) 
and the proposed entry/exit system allow for data to 
be shared for return purposes, if protection safeguards 
are respected, with countries of origin and three inter‑
national organisations (the International Organization 
for Migration, the United Nations High Commissioner 
for Refugees and the Red Cross). The Article 29 Data 
Protection Working Party pointed to the need for strong 
safeguards when data are transferred to third coun‑
tries where data protection standards are inadequate.31 
Strong safeguards are indeed necessary, as such data 
transfers  entail  risks  for  the  data  subject  and  their 
family members if, for example, information is passed 
on to the country of origin that the data subject has 
applied for asylum in Europe.

EU Member States may outsource the registration of fin‑
gerprints to external service providers selected on the 
private market. The Visa Code makes Member States 
accountable for ensuring respect of human dignity and 
non‑discrimination against applicants, including in case 
of outsourcing, and the Member States need to deter‑
mine how they effectively ensure such accountability.

Large EU IT systems are managed by eu‑LISA. Various 
authorities are allowed to search existing and planned 
databases. Europol and Eurojust may access certain 
categories of alerts in SIS, and Europol may also access 
VIS and Eurodac. At a national level, as illustrated in 
Table 2.3, such authorities may include law enforcement, 

66

Table 2.3:  Current and planned large EU IT databases including biometric data

SIS II

VIS

Eurodac

Entry/exit system

Third‑country 
nationals who ap‑
ply for a short‑stay 
visa, valid up to 
three months (VIS 
Regulation, Arti‑
cle 9; Visa Code, 
Article 13)

Asylum seekers 
and apprehended 
irregular migrants 
and refugees (Eu‑
rodac Regulation, 
Articles 9 and 14)

Third‑country 
nationals who 
stay a maximum 
of three months, 
visa free or as visa 
holders (Entry‑exit 
proposal, Arti‑
cles 11 and 12)

Border control and visa policy

Registered 
Travellers Pro‑
gramme (RTP)

Frequent travellers 
who benefit from 
simplified border 
checks (RTP pro‑
posal, Article 13)

Third‑country 
nationals to be 
refused entry; 
missing children; 
witnesses and 
persons required 
to appear before 
a judge (Conven‑
tion implement‑
ing the Schengen 
Agreement, 
Articles 96–98)

Fingerprints (SIS II 
Regulation, Arti‑
cles 20 and 22)

Law enforcement, 
judicial authorities 
and authorities 
responsible for 
border controls, 
customs checks 
and visas (SIS II 
Regulation, 
Article 27)

d
e
d
u
l
c
n

i

s
n
o
s
r
e
P

c
i
r
t
e
m
o
B

i

r
e
fi
i
t
n
e
d

i

i

s
s
e
c
c
a
g
n
v
a
h
s
e
i
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
A

  Depends on the 
n
o
i
t
n
e
t
e
r
a
t
a
D

type of alert, 
maximum three 
years and pos‑
sibility to prolong 
(SIS II Regulation, 
Article 29)

Source: FRA, 2014

10 fingerprints if 
the applicant is 
at least 12 years 
old (VIS Regula‑
tion, Articles 5 
and 9; Visa Code, 
Article 13)

Visa authori‑
ties, authorities 
responsible for 
border controls 
and immigration 
law enforcement, 
and authorities 
responsible for in‑
vestigating serious 
criminal offences 
(VIS Regulation, 
Articles 3, 6 and 
15–22)

Maximum 
five years (VIS 
Regulation, 
Article 23)

10 fingerprints of 
persons who are at 
least 14 years old 
(Eurodac Regula‑
tion, Articles 9 
and 14)

10 fingerprints 
of third‑country 
nationals who are 
at least 12 years 
old (entry/exit pro‑
posal, Article 12)

Four fingerprints of 
persons who are 
at least 12 years 
old (RTP proposal, 
Articles 5 and 8)

Visa and border 
authorities of any 
Member State 
(RTP proposal, Ar‑
ticles 3(8) and 23)

Asylum authori‑
ties, law enforce‑
ment authorities 
after 2015 (Eurodac 
Regulation, Arti‑
cles 5 and 46)

Border, visa and 
immigration au‑
thorities (En‑
try‑exit proposal, 
Article 7).
Law enforcement 
authorities (follow‑
ing an evaluation 
two years after 
entry into force, 
Entry‑exit propos‑
al, Article 46)

Asylum seek‑
ers maximum 
10 years; irregular 
immigrants maxi‑
mum 18 months 
(Eurodac, Arti‑
cles 12 and 16)

181 days for exit‑
ing persons and 
five years for 
over‑stayers (En‑
try‑exit proposal, 
Article 20)

Maximum five 
years (RTP pro‑
posal, Article 34)

judicial authorities, asylum authorities and authorities 
responsible for border controls, customs checks and 
visas. EU Member States are required to specify the indi‑
vidual authorities that have permission to search data 
and for what purpose.32 Nevertheless, access by law 
enforcement authorities to Eurodac and to the planned 
entry/exit system has been contentious, because of 
possible indirect discrimination against asylum seekers 
among other reasons. The police have access to finger‑
prints of all asylum seekers and refugees, but usually 

not of all EU citizens or third‑country nationals staying 
in their territory, so asylum seekers and refugees are 
more likely than other segments of the population to 
appear in criminal statistics.33 In the context of the Data 
Retention Directive, a request for a preliminary ruling 
has been forwarded to the CJEU. The Advocate General 
has issued an opinion, saying that the directive itself, 
not  the  Member  States,  needs  to  define  minimum 
guarantees for accessing data and their use. He also 
questions the justifications given for keeping the data 

67

 
 
 
 
 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

for up to two years (see also Chapter 3 on information 
society, respect for private life and data protection).

Critical points relating to large‑scale databases include:

 • Collecting  and  including  information  on  the  data 
 subject – the data subject must have access to infor‑
mation on the biometric enrolment process, including 
measures in place to control the quality, purpose and 
content of the personal data stored in addition to fin‑
gerprints and how long the information will be kept.

 • Storing information on the data subject – it is vital 
to ensure the lawfulness of data operations and ac‑
cess to information stored, and that information is 
not kept longer than allowed.

 • Authorities’ access to information on the data sub‑
ject – the  access  to  the  databases  to  undertake 
searches  should  be  well  defined  to  limit  users’ 
discretion.

The entry/exit system and the Registered Travellers 
Programme are planned to operate also through auto‑
mated border controls, usually referred to as ABC‑gates. 
This would speed up the entry process. At the end of 
2013, 10 EU Member States had introduced automatic 
border controls, at least at some of their border crossing 
points. Another six Member States were piloting these, 
as Figure 2.2 illustrates. Most ABC systems currently use 
facial recognition as the main biometric authentication 
method. ABC‑gates are normally available only for EU 
citizens, with minor exceptions: the Flux programmes in 
the Netherlands and ABG+ GE in Germany can be used 
by United States (US) citizens, and the United Kingdom 
is piloting a Registered Traveller Scheme for selected 
non‑EU citizens (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand 
and the USA). Finland has also piloted the use of e‑gates 
by citizens from Japan, South Korea and the United States.

The automation of border checks affects fundamental 
rights, both putting them at risk and offering enhanced 
opportunities to safeguard them. EU citizens who enter 

Figure 2.2:  Deployment of automated border control gates, by EU Member State

Operational

Pilot

Planned

Source: Frontex, 2013

68

Border control and visa policy

the Schengen area, for example, ought not to be exposed 
to systematic data checks.34 Germany therefore plans 
to introduce a mechanism that is intended to ensure 
that passengers are only randomly singled out for fur‑
ther checks, to prevent systematic checks of travellers. 
Persons whose fingerprints or faces are not recognised 
by the machine are directed to manual checks, but any 
assumption that such persons are high‑risk migrants 
should be avoided. The gates may also make it more 
difficult to identify abducted children, at least if children 
can use the gates without border guard intervention, 
or to identify victims of trafficking in human beings, as 
FRA pointed out in its 2012 Annual report. Substituting 
machines  for  human  judgment  may,  however,  also 
reduce the risk that individual border guards discrimi‑
nate on the basis of ethnic profiling when carrying out 
manual checks. Civil society is rarely consulted in the 
planning of ABC gates, but the United Kingdom, for 
instance, consults disability groups, which was reported 
as a promising practice in the FRA Annual report 2012.

FRA ACTIVITY

Analysing the fundamental rights 
aspects of biometric data

FRA  will  carry  out  a  project  analysing  the 
fundamental  rights  implications  of  collecting, 
storing and using biometric data in large databases 
in the areas of visas, borders and asylum (Eurodac, 
VIS  and  SIS  II).  The  project  will  contribute  to  the 
discussions on the effectiveness and weaknesses 
of  these  databases  from  a  fundamental  rights 
perspective.  The  findings  will  inform  the  debate 
on the smart borders proposals.

2�4�  Towards a focus 
that includes the 
fundamental right 
aspects of EU visa 
policy

The European Commission has assessed the compat‑
ibility of Member States’ legislation on the right to 
appeal with the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, its 
public consultation on the treatment of visa applicants, 
and the suggestion of exploring possibilities for pro‑
tected entry, such as guidelines on a common approach 
to humanitarian permits or visas. The results indicate 
an increasing trend towards viewing visa policies in 
a fundamental rights context.

Regulation 539/2001/EC, listing third countries whose 
nationals need a visa to enter the Schengen countries 
and those whose nationals are exempted from the 

visa requirement, was amended in 2013. Among other 
objectives, the amendment allowed for the temporary 
reintroduction  of  visa  requirements  in  emergency 
situations. This is when a Member State is faced with 
a major increase in the number of irregular immigrants 
and unfounded asylum requests originating from a par‑
ticular country. The Member State may then ask the 
European Commission to suspend the visa waiver for 
that country. When a visa‑exempt third country does 
not reciprocally respect the visa‑free regime for the 
citizens of all Member States, the amendment also 
introduces a revised reciprocity mechanism with a view 
to enhancing the credibility of the EU visa policy and to 
enhance solidarity among Member States.35

The  arguments  for  introducing  such  an  emergency 
clause have been irregular immigration and the submis‑
sion of asylum requests by nationals of Western Balkan 
countries with low recognition rates for asylum or pro‑
tection claims.36 The Council of Europe Commissioner 
for Human Rights noted that the authorities of some 
Western Balkan states are restricting the departure of 
individuals whom they consider at risk of applying for 
asylum in an EU Member State. He noted that between 
2009 and 2012,  in  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia (FYROM) alone, about 7,000 citizens were 
not allowed to leave the country, because authorities 
confiscated  the  passports  of  those  returned  by  an 
EU Member State.37

Humanitarian visas

The idea of creating a ‘humanitarian’ visa for persons 
in need of protection has emerged as a consequence 
of the Syrian civil war. In principle, such a visa could be 
a long‑term national visa or a short‑term entry visa, 
governed by the EU common visa policy, followed by 
a permit once the person is in the EU. The Task Force 
Mediterranean indicates that the European Commission 
will explore possibilities for protected entry in the EU, 
possibly including guidelines on a common approach 
to humanitarian permits or visas.38 Syrian nationals 
are subject to the short‑stay visa requirement to enter 
the  EU.  In  addition,  10  EU  Member  States  (Austria, 
Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, 
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain) require 
Syrian nationals to hold an airport transit visa when 
passing through the international transit areas of air‑
ports situated on their territory.39 In a completely dif‑
ferent context, the Visa Code40 has developed a specific 
scheme facilitating the issuing of visas, for instance for 
members of the Olympic family41 (Article 49, Annex XI), 
responding to the particular, exceptional and tempo‑
rary needs faced by the Schengen countries hosting 
Olympic Games. In its communication on Syria, the 
EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs called on 
Member States to adopt a generous attitude towards 
the granting of humanitarian visas, or entry permits, to 
persons displaced by the Syrian crisis who have family 

69

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

members in the EU. However, some Member States 
have in contrast tightened their practices; for instance, 
as  of  1 December 2013  Denmark  will  grant  Syrians 
a Schengen visa only in extraordinary situations, for 
example the life‑threatening illness or death of a family 
member resident in Denmark.42

Treatment of visa applicants

EU Member States’ consulates have an obligation to 
ensure that applicants are received courteously and 
their  dignity  is  respected,  according  to  Article  39 
of the Visa Code. DG Home Affairs of the European 
Commission launched a public consultation between 
25 March 2013 and 17 June 2013 to gather the views and 
experiences of the “main users” of the common visa 
policy.43 A third of the 1,084 respondents, representing 
17 nationalities, rated consular staff as not friendly. In 
general, most of the respondents complained that the 
employees of visa application centres, who are typically 
external service providers, were poorly informed and 
that they refused to accept applications for multiple 
entry visas. The respondents criticised that centres’ 
services did not justify the high service charges, as, 
for instance, the staff did not take responsibility for 
the safety of passports entrusted to them. Embassies 
must ensure that external service providers, just like 
the embassies themselves, respect human dignity and 
the principle of non‑discrimination.44

More than half of the respondents (57 %) said that 
obtaining  all  the  necessary  supporting  documents 
required for a visa is difficult. The aim of the EU visa 
policy is to facilitate legitimate travel and tackle illegal 
immigration. Almost half of the respondents said that 
they would avoid travelling to the Schengen area based 
upon their experiences with the visa process (46 %), 
whereas a slight majority (54 %) said that they would 
not be deterred.

The right to appeal a negative visa 
decision

From a fundamental rights point of view, a particu‑
larly important EU visa acquis safeguard is the right to 
appeal against a visa decision. The following paragraphs 
describe developments on this matter, building on the 
overview that FRA provided in its 2012 Annual report.45

A visa applicant has the right to appeal if a visa has been 
refused, revoked or annulled.46 After careful analysis 
of the information provided by EU Member States on 
the right to appeal against a visa refusal/annulment/
revocation, the European Commission concluded that the 
right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial enshrined 
in Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 
requires that the appeal against a visa refusal, annulment 
or revocation includes, at least or as the last instance 
of appeal, access to a judicial body. The Commission 

considered that the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, 
Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are not compliant with 
Article 47 of the Charter combined with the relevant 
articles of the Visa Code, as these Member States do 
not provide access to a judicial body. Letters of Formal 
Notice were sent to these Member States in early 2013. 
The amending act introducing into Hungarian law the 
possibility for judicial review as a last instance of appeal 
against decisions to refuse, revoke or annul a Schengen 
visa entered into force on 1 July 2013.47 The initial replies 
from the other Member States concerned stated their 
disagreement with the analysis made by the Commission.

To make the appeal effective, the applicant needs to 
have sufficient information on the grounds for refusal 
and the procedures to follow. The timelines, language 
and other formal requirements for submitting an appeal 
should not pose unsurmountable obstacles.

Table 2.4 illustrates how a few EU Member States address 
the right to appeal against a visa decision in practice. It 
gives examples of timelines for submitting an appeal 
and related language requirements, two important fac‑
tors in deciding whether or not the right to appeal can 
be considered to constitute an effective remedy.

The  reason  for  refusing  a  visa  is  often  that  the 
EU Member State doubts the applicant’s intention to 
leave the Schengen territory before the visa expires. 
This was the subject in the Koushkaki case,50 for which 
the Administrative Court in Berlin requested a prelimi‑
nary ruling from the CJEU. The CJEU concluded that the 
Member  State  cannot  refuse  to  issue  the  applicant 
a Schengen visa unless one of the grounds for refusal 
of a visa listed in the Visa Code is met.51 Refusal on other 
grounds based on national legislation is not allowed. 
The authorities have wide discretion in the examination 
of that application within the provision of the Visa Code, 
with a view to ascertaining if one of those grounds for 
refusal can be applied to the applicant. When deciding 
on the application, the authorities must be satisfied that 
there is no reasonable doubt that the applicant intends 
to leave the territory of the Member States before the 
visa expires. This must be determined in the light of the 
general situation in the applicant’s country of residence 
and of the applicant’s individual characteristics.

The  Highest  Administrative  Court  in  Austria has,  in 
three cases,52 said that consular staff must explain the 
concrete reasons why they doubt an applicant intends 
to return. Specifying the reasons enables applicants to 
submit counter‑evidence, allowing them to benefit from 
an effective remedy.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania ruled 
that the conditions for issuing a visa under the Visa 
Code must be met.53 According to Lithuanian national 
law, multiple‑entry short stay visas may be issued to 
a foreigner if he or she owns property in the country. 

70

Border control and visa policy

Table 2.4:  Schengen short‑stay visa data, by EU Member State

EU 
 Member 
State 

Short‑term 
Schengen 
visas issued

Short‑term 
Schengen 
visas refused, 
revoked or 
annulled

Appeals 
against refusal, 
revocation or 
annulment

Decision 
reversed/to be 
re‑examined

Language in 
which the 
appeal has to 
be submitted 

Timeline for 
submitting 
the appeal

DE

1,900,738

162,241

520 judicial 
appeals48

3, and
30 out‑of‑court 
settlements

German

One month

DK49

FR

99,894

6,279

2,337,231

249,018

787

2,295 

82

786 

Any language

No deadline

French

Two months

Sources:  Denmark, Justitsministeriet; France, Ministère de la Justice; Germany, Bundesministerium der Justiz und für 

Verbraucherschutz

In this case, a visa had been issued on this ground, but 
the Border Guards later revoked it because they were 
of the view that the uninhabitable property was being 
sold by one foreigner to another to abuse the right to 
enter Lithuania. The court was of the opinion that, under 
Article 34 (2) of the Visa Code, a visa shall be revoked 
where it becomes evident that the conditions for issuing 
it are no longer met. The court therefore considered 
that the sale of the property registered in Lithuania was 
sufficient ground to revoke the Schengen visa, because 
the purpose of the visa had disappeared.

Outlook

The  purpose  of  Eurosur,  the  European  border  sur‑
veillance system, includes protecting and saving the 
lives of migrants. The implementation of the Eurosur 
Regulation, begun in December 2013, will show whether 
it will serve only to control immigration or operational, 
technical  and  financial  aspects  will  be  put  in  place 
so that it can live up to its life‑saving commitments. 
These would include concrete guidance comprised in 
the Eurosur handbook, to be adopted by the European 
Commission. Statistics on persons rescued at sea will 
help monitor Eurosur’s life‑saving commitments.

States  referred  to  in  this  chapter  shows.  Because 
third‑country nationals have even less access to legal 
assistance in complaint processes than EU citizens, they 
are in a particularly vulnerable situation. Provided they 
can raise the necessary resources, civil society organi‑
sations could be expected to focus increasingly on the 
implementation of fundamental rights safeguards in VIS 
and SIS II. They might also be expected to act as inter‑
mediaries so that victims of fundamental rights viola‑
tions can make effective use of complaint mechanisms.

Discussions on the smart border proposals will con‑
tinue, most likely accompanied by calls for an adequate 
assessment of their impact on fundamental rights in 
terms of opportunities and risks. Adequate safeguards 
to  ensure  fundamental  rights  are  needed,  since  all 
third‑country nationals coming for a short‑stay visit will 
be included in the EU’s large‑scale databases. Through 
‘privacy by design’, improved technologies may address 
some concerns. To reduce the risk of wrongly labelling 
somebody in the entry/exit system as an over‑stayer, 
it will be increasingly important that exit registration 
can function not only at air borders but also at land and 
sea borders. Safeguards should also ensure that, if the 
third‑country national has legal permission to stay, the 
system is updated.

An additional challenge for the upcoming years is devel‑
oping ways for assessing how the use of modern tech‑
nologies in border management affects fundamental 
rights. Victims of data protection violations generally 
face difficulties in accessing remedies, as the FRA report 
on Access to data protection remedies in EU Member 

EU Member States will increasingly have to consider 
fundamental rights implications when implementing 
visa policies. For example, applicants may more and 
more demand better explanations of why their visas 
have  been  refused,  so  that  they  can  exercise  their 
right to appeal.

71

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62, 70

BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 63, 64, 65

CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

CZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 70

DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66, 68, 69, 71

DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 71

EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 64, 65, 69

ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 65, 69

FI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66, 68, 70

FR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 71

HR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 70

IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 64, 69

LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 71

LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66, 68, 69

PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

PT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68, 69

72

Border control and visa policy

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

Council Decision 2013/158/EU of 7 March 2013 fixing the 
date of application of Regulation (EC) No. 1987/2006 
on the establishment, operation and use of the second 
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), 
OJ 2013 L87, p. 10, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/legal‑content/
EN/ALL/;jsessionid=jkLmT2SVtjs3pjBvJJs2jyfwwGhKtCsLpv
TZJBzLWzRTvPKJydXT!864384702?uri=CELEX:32013D0158; 
Council Decision 2013/157/EU of 7 March fixing the date of 
application of Decision 2007/533/JHA on the establishment, 
operation and use of the second generation Schengen 
Information System (SIS II), OJ 2013 L87, p. 8, http://eur‑lex.
europa.eu/legal‑content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32013D0157. 

European Commission, Commission Implementing 
Decision 2013/122/EU of 7 March 2013 determining the 
date from which the Visa Information System (VIS) is to 
start operations in a fourth and a fifth region, OJ L 2013 65, 
p. 35, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home‑affairs/what‑we‑do/
policies/borders‑and‑visas/schengen‑information‑system/
index_en.htm; European Commission, Commission 
Implementing Decision 2013/266/EU of 5 June 2013 
determining the date from which the Visa Information 
System (VIS) is to start operations in a sixth and a seventh 
region, OJ L 2013 154, p. 8, www.esteri.it/mae/normative/
Normativa_Consolare/Visti/2013/20130606_Commission_
Implementig_Decision_2013_266_EU.pdf.

European Commission, Commission Implementing 
Decision 2013/441/EU of 20 August 2013 determining 
the date from which the Visa Information System (VIS) 
is to start operations in an eighth region, OJ L 223, p. 15, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= 
OJ:L:2013:223:0015:0016:EN:PDF.

European Commission, Commission Implementing Decision 
2013/642/EU of 8 November 2013 determining the date 
from which the Visa Information System (VIS) is to start 
operations in a ninth, a tenth and an eleventh region, 
OJ L 299, p. 52, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:299:0052:0053:EN:PDF.

Ibid.

European Commission, Commission Implementing Decision 
2013/493/EU of 30 September 2013 determining the third 
and last set of regions for the start of operations of the Visa 
Information System (VIS), OJ L 268, p. 13, http://eur‑lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:268:001
3:0016:EN:PDF.

European Commission, Directorate General Home Affairs 
(2013), Overview of Schengen Visa Statistics 2009‑
2012, p. 39, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home‑affairs/
what‑we‑do/policies/borders‑and‑visas/visa‑policy/docs/
overview_of_schengen_visa_statistics_en.pdf.

European Ombudsman (2013), Special Report of the 
European Ombudsman in own‑initiative inquiry OI/5/2012/
BEH‑MHZ concerning Frontex, 7 November 2013, 
www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/specialreport.faces/
en/52465/html.bookmark#hl0.

European Ombudsman (2013), Decision of the European 
Ombudsman closing own‑initiative inquiry OI/5/2012/
BEH‑MHZ concerning the European Agency for the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External 
Borders of the Member States of the European Union 
(Frontex), 12 November 2013, www.ombudsman.europa.eu/
en/cases/decision.faces/en/52477/html.bookmark#hl12.

10   Amnesty International (2013), Frontier Europe: Human 

rights abuses on Greece’s border with Turkey, available at: 
www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR25/008/2013/en/
d93b63ac‑6c5d‑4d0d‑bd9f‑ce2774c84ce7/eur250082013en.
pdf; Pro Asyl (2013), Pushed back: Systematic human 
rights violations against refugees in the Aegean Sea 

and at the Greek–Turkish land border, www.proasyl.
de/fileadmin/fm‑dam/l_EU_Fluechtlingspolitik/
proasyl_pushed_back_24.01.14_a4.pdf.

11  

Frontex (2013), FRAN Quarterly, Quarter 1, January–
March 2013, July 2013, pp. 19 and 22; Frontex (2013), FRAN 
Quarterly, Quarter 2, April–June 2013, September 2013, 
pp. 20–21, 23 and 26.

12   Frontex (2013), FRAN Quarterly, Quarter 1, January–

March 2013, July 2013, p. 5.

13   See United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR) (2014), UNHCR observations on the current asylum 
system in Bulgaria, 2 January 2014, p. 32, www.refworld.
org/docid/52c598354.html.

14   Preliminary figures from the Spanish Ministry of the Interior 
(Office for Asylum) provided to FRA by UNHCR Madrid.

15   United Nations (UN), General Assembly (2013), Human 
Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on 
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, 
xenophobia and related intolerance, Mutuma Ruteere, 
UN Doc. A/HRC/23/56/Add.2, 6 June 2013, paras. 44–48; 
Spain, Defensor del Pueblo (2013), ‘La Defensora del Pueblo 
pide el traslado a la península de los solicitantes de asilo de 
Ceuta y Melilla en situación de vulnerabilidad’, statement, 
26 December 2013, www.defensordelpueblo.es/es/Prensa/
Notas/contenido_1388063458872.html.

16   European Commission (2011), ‘Frequently asked questions: 
The Visa Information System goes live’, Press release, 
Brussels, 11 October 2011, http://europa.eu/rapid/
press‑release_MEMO‑11‑682_en.htm?locale=en.

17   Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of 20 December 2006 

on the establishment, operation and use of the second 
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), 
Art. 22(c), http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/legal‑content/EN/
ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006R1987.

18   FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) 

(2014), Access to data protection remedies in EU Member 
States, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European 
Union (Publications Office).

19   European Commission (2013), Missing children in the 

European Union: Mapping, data collection and statistics, 
prepared by ECORYS Nederland BV for the European 
Commission, DG Justice, pp. 59‑60, http://ec.europa.
eu/justice/fundamental‑rights/files/missing_children_
study_2013_en.pdf; Fight against invisibility: To search 
and protect unaccompanied minors through the SIS II, 
project implemented by Italy under the European Crime 
Prevention Network.

20   European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (2013), 

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on 
the proposals for a regulation establishing an entry/exit 
system (EES) and a regulation establishing a registered 
traveller programme (RTP), 18 July 2013; Article 29 Data 
Protection Working Party (2013), Opinion 05/2013 on smart 
borders, 00952/13/EN, WP206, pp. 11–12, http://ec.europa.
eu/justice/data‑protection/article‑29/documentation/
opinion‑recommendation/files/2013/wp206_en.pdf; Initial 
appraisal of a European Commission Impact Assessment 
Smart Borders Package: European Commission proposal on 
the entry/exit data of third‑country nationals crossing the 
external borders of the EU, September 2013.

21   FRA (2011), Fundamental rights of irregular migrants in the 

European Union, Luxembourg, Publications Office, pp. 27–38.

22   European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (2013), 

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the 
proposals for a regulation establishing an entry/exit system 
(EES) and a regulation establishing a registered traveller 
programme (RTP), 18 July 2013.

23   France, Cimade (2013), ‘“Frontières intelligentes”: une 

nouvelle “invention” de l’Union européenne pour le 

73

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

contrôle de ses frontières’, 1 August 2013, www.lacimade.
org/nouvelles/4557‑‑‑Fronti‑res‑intelligentes‑‑‑‑‑
une‑nouvelle‑‑‑invention‑‑‑de‑l‑Union‑Europ‑enne‑pour‑le
‑contr‑le‑de‑ses‑fronti‑res.

24   Meijers Committee, Standing committee of experts 
on international immigration, refugee and criminal 
law (2013), Note Meijers Committee on the Smart Borders 
proposals COM(2013) 95 final, COM (2013) 96 final and 
COM (2013) 97 final), 3 May 2013, www.commissie‑meijers.
nl/assets/commissiemeijers/CM1307%20Note%20
Meijers%20Committee%20on%20the%20Smart%20
Borders%20proposals.pdf.

25   Denmark, Institut for Menneskerettigheder (2013), Høring 
over forslag til forordninger om intelligente grænser, 
22 April 2013, J. No. 540. 10/289 69 /HSC/ LUJ J /RF J,http://
menneskeret.dk/files/pdf/Hoeringssvar/2013/50_B_
Forordninger_om_intelligente_gr%E6nser_(smart_
borders)%2022.04.2013.pdf.

26   Finland, Government, EU committee, Division 6, Minutes of 

meetings on 4 November 2011 and 21 March 2013.

27   EDPS (2005), Opinion of the European Data Protection 
Supervisor of 19 October 2005 of the three proposals 
regarding the Second Generation Schengen Information 
System (SIS II), OJ 2005 C 91, p. 38, http://eur‑lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:091:0038
:0056:EN:PDF; EDPS (2012), Executive summary of the 
Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on 
the proposal for a Council regulation on migration from 
the Schengen Information System (SIS) to the second 
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (recast), 
2012/C 336/06, OJ 2012 C 336, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:336:0010:0012:EN:
PDF; EDPS (2006), Opinion of the European Data Protection 
Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning 
access for consultation of the Visa Information System 
(VIS) by the authorities of Member States responsible for 
internal security and by Europol for the purposes of the 
prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences 
and of other serious criminal offences, COM(2005) 600 final, 
OJ 2006 C 97, p. 6, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:097:0006:0010:EN:PDF; 
Meijers Committee, Standing committee of experts on 
international immigration, refugee and criminal law (2013), 
Note on the Smart Borders proposals (COM(2013) 95 final, 
COM(2013) 96 final and COM(2013) 97 final), 3 May 2013, 
www.commissie‑meijers.nl/assets/commissiemeijers/
CM1307%20Note%20Meijers%20Committee%20on%20
the%20Smart%20Borders%20proposals.pdf.

28   Netherlands, Vrijbit (2013), ‘Vingerafdrukweigeraars’ 
verzoeken met actie “Hoge Hoed” ingrijpen minister’, 
15 July 2013, www.vrijbit.nl/dossiers/dossier‑paspoortwet/
item/940‑vingerafdrukweigeraars‑verzoeken‑met‑a
ctie‑hoge‑hoed‑ingrijpen‑minister.html; De Nationale 
Ombudsman (2013), ‘Principiële weigeraars biometrische 
gegevens paspoort’, letter to the Minister of the 
Interior and Kingdom Relations, 4 September 2013, 
www.nationaleombudsman‑nieuws.nl/sites/default/
files/130904_minbzk_plasterk_weigeraars_biometrische_
gegevens_in_paspoort.pdf; Platform Bescherming 
Burgerrechten (2013), ‘Platform Overleg 27 Augustus 2013’, 
7 October 2013, http://platformburgerrechten.
nl/2013/10/07/platform‑overleg‑27‑augustus‑2013.

29   Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 of the European Parliament 

and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community 
Code of Visas (Visa Code), Art. 23(4), http://eur‑lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:
EN:PDF.

31  Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2013), 

Opinion 05/2013 on smart borders, 00952/13/EN, WP206, 
pp. 11–12, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data‑protection/
article‑29/documentation/opinion‑recommendation/
files/2013/wp206_en.pdf.

32   List of competent authorities which are authorised 
to search directly the data contained in the second 
generation Schengen Information System pursuant 
to Article 31(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and 
Article 46(8) of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA on 
the establishment, operation and use of the second 
generation Schengen Information System, OJ C 103, p. 3, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/legal‑content/EN/TXT/?uri=u
riserv:OJ.C_.2013.103.01.0001.01.ENG; List of competent 
authorities the duly authorised staff of which shall have 
access to enter, amend, delete or consult data in the Visa 
Information System (VIS), OJ 2012 C 79/5, 17 March 2012, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/legal‑content/EN/TXT/?ur
i=uriserv:OJ.C_.2013.103.01.0001.01.ENG; Regulation 
(EU) No. 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the 
comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of 
Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 establishing the criteria and 
mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible 
for examining an application for international protection 
lodged in one of the Member States by a third‑country 
national or a stateless person and on requests for the 
comparison with Eurodac data by Member States’ law 
enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement 
purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No. 1077/2011 
establishing a European Agency for the operational 
management of large‑scale IT systems in the area of 
freedom, security and justice (recast), Art. 5, http://eur‑lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:000
1:0030:EN:PDF.

33   UNHCR (2012), An efficient and protective Eurodac, 

November 2012, www.unhcr.org/50adf9749.pdf; Meijers 
Committee (2012), Note Meijers Committee on the EURODAC 
proposal, 10 October 2012.

34   Regulation 562/2006 of 15 March 2006 establishing 

a Community Code on the rules governing the movement 
of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), 
Art. 7(2), available at: http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0001:0032:EN:PDF.

35   Regulation (EC) No. 1289/2013 of 11 December 2013 

amending Regulation 539/2001 listing third countries whose 
nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing 
the external borders and those whose nationals are 
exempt from that requirement, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0074:0080:EN:
PDF.

36   European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (2013), Asylum 

applicants from the Western Balkans: Comparative analysis 
of trends, push–pull factors and responses, December 2013, 
www.refworld.org/docid/53218ead4.html.

37   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights 
(2013), ‘EU border control policies negatively affect 
human rights’, press release, 6 November 2013, issued 
in conjunction with the launch of Council of Europe, 
Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), The right to leave 
a country, issue paper, October 2013, p. 48, www.coe.int/t/
commissioner/source/prems/prems150813_GBR_1700_
TheRightToLeaveACountry_web.pdf.

38   European Commission (2013), Communication, on the work 
of the Task Force Mediterranean, COM(2013) 869 final, 
4 December 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home‑affairs/
what‑is‑new/news/news/docs/20131204_communication_
on_the_work_of_the_task_force_mediterranean_en.pdf.

30   Bergmann, K. (2013) ‘Smart Border: EU‑Pläne zur 

Grenzüberwachung „verletzen Grundrechte“’, Zeit Online, 
5 March 2013, www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2013‑03/
schaar‑smart‑border.

39   European Commission, DG Home Affairs (2013), List of third 
countries whose nationals are required to be in possession 
of an airport transit visa when passing through the 
international transit area of airports situated on the territory 

74

Border control and visa policy

of one/some Member States, 10 June 2013, http://ec.europa.
eu/dgs/home‑affairs/e‑library/documents/policies/
borders‑and‑visas/visa‑policy/docs/annex_7b_
atv‑national_lists.en.pdf.

46   Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing 
a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), Art. 3 (3), 
Art. 34 (7), http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:EN:PDF.

40   Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing 

47   Hungary, Act No XCIII of 2013 amending certain law 

a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), Annex 5, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:EN:PDF.

enforcement related acts, Official Gazette No. 2013/101 of 
20 June 2013, pp. 55270–55317.

48   For administrative appeals, there are no separate statistics 

41   Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 of The European Parliament 

for Schengen visas.

and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community 
Code on Visas (Visa Code), Annex XI, ‘Specific procedures 
and conditions facilitating the issuing of visas to members 
of the Olympic family participating in the Olympic Games 
and Paralympic Games’, Art. 2(2), http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:EN:
PDF.

42   Denmark, Udlændingestyrelsen (2013), ‘Ny visumpraksis 
for personer fra Syrien og Djibouti’, Press release, 
29 November 2013, www.nyidanmark.dk/da‑dk/nyheder/
nyheder/udlaendingestyrelsen/2013/ny_visumpraksis_
personer_syrien_djibouti.htm.

43   European Commission, DG Home Affairs (2012), Public 

consultation: Improving procedures for obtaining short‑stay 
‘Schengen’ visas – summary of responses, 31 July 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home‑affairs/what‑is‑new/
public‑consultation/2013/docs/consultation_025/
report_on_the_results_of_the_consultation_en.pdf.

44   Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing 

a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), Annex 5, http://
eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:
243:0001:0058:EN:PDF.

45   FRA (2012), Fundamental rights: Challenges and 

achievements in 2012, Annual report, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, pp. 91–95.

49   Preliminary estimates, not official and validated statistics.

50   CJEU, C‑84/12, Koushkaki, 19 December 2013.

51   Grounds for refusal are not providing justification for the 
purpose and conditions of the intended stay, or proof 
of subsistence for the stay; doubts on the supporting 
documents; an alert having been issued in SIS with the 
purpose of refusing entry. See the Visa Code, Art. 32(1).

52   Austria, Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 2013/21/0064, Decision, 

2 August 2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=
Vwgh&Dokumentnummer=JWT_2012210158_20130516X00; 
Austria, Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 2012/21/0158, Decision, 
16 May 2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=V
wgh&Dokumentnummer=JWT_2013210057_20130802X00; 
Austria, Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 2013/21/0057, Decision, 
2 August 2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=
Vwgh&Dokumentnummer=JWT_2013210064_20130802X00.

53   Lithuania, Supreme Administrative Court, A. A. v. Migration 
department under the Ministry of the Interior of the 
Republic of Lithuania, No. A‑858‑762/2013.

75

3 

Information society, respect for private life 
and data protection  ������������������������������������������������������������������  81

3�1�  Mass surveillance revelations spark global concern  ���  81
3�1�1�  European Union takes action in response 

to mass surveillance news  ������������������������������  82

3�1�2�  EU Member States respond to mass 

surveillance  �������������������������������������������������������  84
3�1�3�  Requests for information and remedies  ��������  85

3�2�  EU recognises need for robust data protection 

regime  �����������������������������������������������������������������������������  85
3�2�1�  Reform of the EU data protection regime  ������  86
3�2�2�  Key reforms affect data protection 

authorities  ���������������������������������������������������������  87
3�2�3�  Raising awareness of data protection  ������������  88
3�2�4�  Reform and implementation of 

the Data Retention Directive  ���������������������������  88
3�2�5�  Google  ���������������������������������������������������������������  89

Information society: EU moves to protect and 
codify fundamental rights online  ����������������������������������  89
The protection of fundamental rights online  ���� 90
3�3�1� 
3�3�2�  Codifying fundamental rights online  ��������������  90
3�3�3�  Corporate social responsibility  ������������������������  90
Intermediary liability  ���������������������������������������  92
3�3�4� 
3�3�5�  Right to an effective remedy  ��������������������������  92
3�3�6�  Fighting cybercrime  �����������������������������������������  93

3�3� 

Outlook  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  95

UN & CoE

January
19 February – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declares inadmissible an application brought by two 
co-founders of The Pirate Bay, one of the biggest file-sharing websites� The Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v� Sweden 
case focuses on the violation of their rights to freedom of expression, because the two were convicted of committing 
crimes under the Copyright Act� Sharing files online falls under the right to “receive and impart information” enshrined 
in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but the domestic courts had correctly balanced the 
applicants’ right against the need to protect copyright

25–27 February – In the recommendations of the first 10-year review event of the World Summit on the Information 
Society, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) reaffirms that the same human 
rights that apply in the offline world should also be protected online
February
March
17 April – The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 
opinion and expression publishes his annual report, indicating that state communications surveillance undermines the 
human rights to privacy and freedom of expression

18 April – The ECtHR rules in M�K� v� France that there were insufficient safeguards for the authorities’ collection, 
retention and deletion of the fingerprints of a person suspected, but not convicted� of theft, violating that person’s 
right to respect for private life
April
May
4 June – The ECtHR concludes that the Peruzzo and Martens v� Germany case is inadmissible� The court’s order to 
collect cellphone material from people convicted of serious crimes and store it in databases in the form of DNA profiles 
was necessary and proportionate

11 June – The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopts a Declaration on Risks to Fundamental Rights stemming 
from Digital Tracking and other Surveillance Technologies

20–21 June – European stakeholders meet in the regional forum European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) 
to discuss how to use an open and safe internet to serve the public interest

24 June – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights 
adopts the report National security and access to information and urges governments to align their laws in relation to 
whistleblowers with a set of global principles

25 June 2013 – The ECtHR finds in Youth Initiative for Human Rights v� Serbia that the refusal of the Serbian intelligence 
agency to provide information on the number of people it had subjected to electronic surveillance violated the right of 
the applicant non-governmental organisation (NGO) to receive information
June
16 July – The ECtHR finds in Nagla v� Latvia that the seizure of data storage devices kept in a journalist’s home violated 
the right to freedom of expression, including journalists’ right not to disclose their sources
July
August
September
10 October – The ECtHR rules in Delfi AS v� Estonia that finding an internet news portal liable for offensive online 
comments of its readers is a justified and proportionate restriction on the portal’s right to freedom of expression

22–25 October – The first focus session on human rights on the internet in the Internet Governance Forum ends with 
a call to enhance its role in the field of human rights protection on the internet, as well as for the states to consult 
stakeholders during the legislative procedure
October
8 November – The ministers responsible for media and information society in the Council of Europe member states 
adopt a political declaration and three resolutions on internet freedom, the role of media in the digital age and the 
safety of journalists at the Council of Europe Ministerial Conference in Belgrade
November
18 December – The United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age
December

11 January – The European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) officially opens at the European Union (EU) law enforcement agency 

EU

7 February – The European Commission publishes a Joint Communication on Cyber Security Strategy of the European Union: 

an Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace

7 February – The European Commission adopts a proposal for a directive on measures ensuring a high common security 

level across EU network and information systems

19 March – The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) adopts its judgment in the Sophie in ’t Veld MEP v� European 

Commission case about the transparency of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents, by annulling the 

Commission Decision of 4 May 2010, which refused to grant access to documents

27 March – The European Commission proposes a new regulation on Europol, which suggests amending data protection 

24 April – The European Commission adopts the green paper Preparing for a fully converged audiovisual world: Growth, 

24 April – The European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) rejects the EU Passenger 

13 May – The European Commission presents plans for the Global Internet Policy Observatory to monitor internet-related 

policy and regulatory and technological developments across the world

30 May – In Commission v� Sweden, the CJEU orders Sweden to pay a €3,000,000 lump sum for its delay in transposing the 

Name Record (PNR) proposal

April 

Data Retention Directive into national law

May 

and other surveillance programmes

10 June – Vice-President Viviane Reding sends a letter to the United States (US) Attorney General to enquire about PRISM 

13 June – In Michael Schwarz v� Stadt Bochum, the CJEU concludes that the interference of security features and biometrics 

in EU Member State passports and travel documents with personal data protection is proportionate

25 June – The Council of the European Union approves the comprehensive text delivered by the Friends of the Presidency 

Group on Cyber Issues regarding the implementation of the European Strategy for Cybersecurity

4 July – The European Parliament passes a resolution instructing LIBE to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the US 

surveillance programmes

12 August – The Directive on Attacks against Information Systems is adopted; it will strengthen the protection of personal 

data by reducing the ability of cybercriminals to abuse victims’ rights with impunity

11 September – The European Commission presents a proposal for a regulation laying down measures concerning the 

European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a connected continent

21 October – LIBE adopts its report on the General Data Protection Regulation and the separate directive for the law 

(Europol)

January 

February 

safeguards

March 

creation and value

June 

July 

August 

September 

enforcement sector

October 

November 

December 

10 December – The CJEU Advocate General issues his opinion on the Commission v� Hungary case, suggesting a breach of 

the independence of the Hungarian data protection authority (DPA)

12 December – In his opinion, the CJEU Advocate General concludes that the Data Retention Directive is incompatible with 

the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

18 December – The rapporteur of the LIBE inquiry committee on mass surveillance suggests, in his preliminary conclusions, 

suspending the Safe Harbour and the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) agreements, creating a European data 

cloud and guaranteeing judicial redress for EU citizens whose data are transferred to the United States of America (USA)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UN & CoE

19 February – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declares inadmissible an application brought by two 

co-founders of The Pirate Bay, one of the biggest file-sharing websites� The Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v� Sweden 

case focuses on the violation of their rights to freedom of expression, because the two were convicted of committing 

crimes under the Copyright Act� Sharing files online falls under the right to “receive and impart information” enshrined 

in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but the domestic courts had correctly balanced the 

applicants’ right against the need to protect copyright

25–27 February – In the recommendations of the first 10-year review event of the World Summit on the Information 

Society, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) reaffirms that the same human 

rights that apply in the offline world should also be protected online

17 April – The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 

opinion and expression publishes his annual report, indicating that state communications surveillance undermines the 

human rights to privacy and freedom of expression

18 April – The ECtHR rules in M�K� v� France that there were insufficient safeguards for the authorities’ collection, 

retention and deletion of the fingerprints of a person suspected, but not convicted� of theft, violating that person’s 

right to respect for private life

4 June – The ECtHR concludes that the Peruzzo and Martens v� Germany case is inadmissible� The court’s order to 

collect cellphone material from people convicted of serious crimes and store it in databases in the form of DNA profiles 

was necessary and proportionate

11 June – The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopts a Declaration on Risks to Fundamental Rights stemming 

from Digital Tracking and other Surveillance Technologies

20–21 June – European stakeholders meet in the regional forum European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) 

to discuss how to use an open and safe internet to serve the public interest

24 June – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights 

adopts the report National security and access to information and urges governments to align their laws in relation to 

whistleblowers with a set of global principles

25 June 2013 – The ECtHR finds in Youth Initiative for Human Rights v� Serbia that the refusal of the Serbian intelligence 

agency to provide information on the number of people it had subjected to electronic surveillance violated the right of 

the applicant non-governmental organisation (NGO) to receive information

16 July – The ECtHR finds in Nagla v� Latvia that the seizure of data storage devices kept in a journalist’s home violated 

the right to freedom of expression, including journalists’ right not to disclose their sources

10 October – The ECtHR rules in Delfi AS v� Estonia that finding an internet news portal liable for offensive online 

comments of its readers is a justified and proportionate restriction on the portal’s right to freedom of expression

22–25 October – The first focus session on human rights on the internet in the Internet Governance Forum ends with 

a call to enhance its role in the field of human rights protection on the internet, as well as for the states to consult 

stakeholders during the legislative procedure

8 November – The ministers responsible for media and information society in the Council of Europe member states 

adopt a political declaration and three resolutions on internet freedom, the role of media in the digital age and the 

safety of journalists at the Council of Europe Ministerial Conference in Belgrade

18 December – The United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

EU

11 January – The European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) officially opens at the European Union (EU) law enforcement agency 
(Europol)
January 
7 February – The European Commission publishes a Joint Communication on Cyber Security Strategy of the European Union: 
an Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace

7 February – The European Commission adopts a proposal for a directive on measures ensuring a high common security 
level across EU network and information systems
February 
19 March – The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) adopts its judgment in the Sophie in ’t Veld MEP v� European 
Commission case about the transparency of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents, by annulling the 
Commission Decision of 4 May 2010, which refused to grant access to documents

27 March – The European Commission proposes a new regulation on Europol, which suggests amending data protection 
safeguards
March 
24 April – The European Commission adopts the green paper Preparing for a fully converged audiovisual world: Growth, 
creation and value

24 April – The European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) rejects the EU Passenger 
Name Record (PNR) proposal
April 
13 May – The European Commission presents plans for the Global Internet Policy Observatory to monitor internet-related 
policy and regulatory and technological developments across the world

30 May – In Commission v� Sweden, the CJEU orders Sweden to pay a €3,000,000 lump sum for its delay in transposing the 
Data Retention Directive into national law
May 
10 June – Vice-President Viviane Reding sends a letter to the United States (US) Attorney General to enquire about PRISM 
and other surveillance programmes

13 June – In Michael Schwarz v� Stadt Bochum, the CJEU concludes that the interference of security features and biometrics 
in EU Member State passports and travel documents with personal data protection is proportionate

25 June – The Council of the European Union approves the comprehensive text delivered by the Friends of the Presidency 
Group on Cyber Issues regarding the implementation of the European Strategy for Cybersecurity
June 
4 July – The European Parliament passes a resolution instructing LIBE to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the US 
surveillance programmes
July 
12 August – The Directive on Attacks against Information Systems is adopted; it will strengthen the protection of personal 
data by reducing the ability of cybercriminals to abuse victims’ rights with impunity
August 
11 September – The European Commission presents a proposal for a regulation laying down measures concerning the 
European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a connected continent
September 
21 October – LIBE adopts its report on the General Data Protection Regulation and the separate directive for the law 
enforcement sector
October 
November 
10 December – The CJEU Advocate General issues his opinion on the Commission v� Hungary case, suggesting a breach of 
the independence of the Hungarian data protection authority (DPA)

12 December – In his opinion, the CJEU Advocate General concludes that the Data Retention Directive is incompatible with 
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

18 December – The rapporteur of the LIBE inquiry committee on mass surveillance suggests, in his preliminary conclusions, 
suspending the Safe Harbour and the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) agreements, creating a European data 
cloud and guaranteeing judicial redress for EU citizens whose data are transferred to the United States of America (USA)
December 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

Information society, 
respect for private life 
and data protection

Unprecedented revelations about the United States’ and United Kingdom’s mass surveillance of global 
telecommunication and data flows captured international newspaper headlines for weeks in 2013. This put 
the issue of privacy in the public spotlight and highlighted the gap between rapidly evolving technologies and 
current laws safeguarding the right to privacy. The revelations occurred while the EU was in the midst of its most 
important data protection legislation reform in 20 years and, by forcefully underlining the need for a strong data 
protection framework, marked a turning point in the debate. Disturbed by these revelations, EU and Member 
State policy makers took immediate steps to shore up data protection rules, while civil society pushed for 
greater transparency and more effective remedies before data protection authorities and courts. In reaction to 
the revelations, the EU legislature successfully incorporated significant reforms into the data protection reform 
package. Despite some progress, the reform had not been finalised by the end of 2013.

3�1�  Mass surveillance 
revelations spark 
global concern

Beginning in June 2013, United States National Security 
Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden leaked docu‑
ments to several media outlets, revealing operational 
details of global surveillance programmes carried out 
by the NSA and by the United Kingdom’s Government 
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Of particular 
interest  in  the  EU,  the  global  programmes  targets 
included EU institutions and Member States’ embassies.1

Just weeks before these revelations sent shockwaves 
across the EU and the globe, the United Nations Special 
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right 
to freedom of opinion and expression, noting this gap 
between rapidly evolving technologies and current 
laws safeguarding the right to privacy, pointed out 
specific shortcomings, such as a lack of judicial over‑
sight of surveillance measures (see also Chapter 10 
on EU Member States and international obligations).2 
The UN General Assembly, echoing the calls of the UN 
Special Rapporteur, asked member states to review 
their legislation on such surveillance to ensure that it 

Key developments in the area of information society, 
respect for private life and data protection

•  Revelations of mass surveillance reverberate across the 

areas of information society, privacy and data protection. 
These revelations cause civil society organisations to 
protest and call for better protection; they also incite EU and 
EU Member State policy makers and legislators to adopt 
more robust measures, tighten legislative protection and 
propose greater data protection safeguards.

•  As a result of the revelations, the UN General Assembly 

adopts an unprecedented text on the protection of privacy.

•  The revelations – which are made while the EU is in the midst 
of its biggest data protection legislation reform in 20 years – 
make clear that the fundamental rights protection in the 
digital world needs greater attention.

•  The European Parliament adopts its report on the data 

protection reform package, but the reform is delayed in the 
Council of the European Union.

was aligned with their international human rights obli‑
gations. It adopted a resolution on the right to privacy 
in the digital age in December 2013.3

81

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

As media published the first revelations, the Council of 
Europe Committee of Ministers adopted a Declaration 
on Risks to Fundamental Rights stemming from Digital 
Tracking and other Surveillance Technologies. The dec‑
laration said: “legislation allowing broad surveillance of 
citizens can be found contrary to the right to respect of 
private life. These capabilities and practices can have 
a chilling effect on citizen participation in social, cultural 
and political life and, in the longer term, could have 
damaging effects on democracy.”4 On 24 October 2013, 
the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 
published  a  human  rights  comment5  highlighting 
the threats to human rights and the right to privacy 
when secret surveillance spreads. In addition, min‑
isters responsible for media and information society 
adopted  a  political  declaration  in  November  2013, 
underlining that “any […] surveillance for the purpose 
of the protection of national security must be done 
in  compliance  with  existing  human  rights  and  rule 
of law requirements”.6

Table  3.1  details  the  most  publicised  surveillance 
 programmes, but subsequent revelations made clear 
that these represent just the ‘tip of the iceberg’.7

Table 3.1:  Main surveillance programmes

3�1�1� 

European Union takes action in 
response to mass surveillance 
news

“The surveillance scandals have been a wake‑up call, and 
Europe is responding.”

Vice‑President Viviane Reding, ‘A data protection compact for 
Europe’, 28 January 2014, Speech/14/62, available at: http://
europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_SPEECH‑14‑62_en.htm

The European Parliament, European Commission and 
Council  of  the  European  Union  reacted  promptly  to 
the Snowden revelations, taking a number of steps 
that expressed concern about the mass surveillance 
programme, sought clarification and worked to rebuild 
trust, for example, in data flows. Table 3.2 summarises 
these measures. The European Parliament instructed 
LIBE to conduct an inquiry.8 Its draft report, finalised in 
January 2014, launches ‘a European digital habeas corpus 
for protecting privacy’, based on eight concrete actions. 
These include the adoption of the EU data protection 
reform package by 2014 (for more on the data protec‑
tion reform package, see Section 3.2), the enhanced 
protection  of  whistleblowers,  the  development  of 

Name of the 
programme

Description of alleged programme

PRISM

XKeyscore

Upstream

Bullrun

MUSCULAR

Tempora

Edgehill

Provides the NSA with direct access to the central servers of nine leading United States 
internet companies, allowing them to collect customer material including search histories, 
the contents of emails, file transfers and live chats.

Allows NSA analysts to search, without prior authorisation, through vast databases contain‑
ing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of internet users, as well as 
their metadata.

Collection programmes operated by the NSA, consisting of warrantless wiretapping of 
cable‑bound internet traffic. 

Decryption programme run by the NSA in an effort to break through widely used encryption 
technologies, allowing the NSA to circumvent encryption used by millions of people in their 
online transactions and emails.

Joint programme operated by the NSA and GCHQ to intercept, from private links, data traffic 
flowing between major platforms such as Yahoo, Google, Microsoft Hotmail and Windows 
Live Messenger.

Upstream surveillance activity allowing GCHQ to access large fibre optic cables that carry 
huge amounts of internet users’ private communications and then share them with the NSA. 

Decryption programme, operated by GCHQ, intended to decode encrypted traffic used by 
companies to provide remote access to their systems.

Sources:  Moraes, C. (2013), Working Document 1 on the US and EU surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens’ 

fundamental rights, PE524.799v01‑00, Brussels, 11 December 2013; Bowden, C. (2013), The US surveillance programmes 
and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights, study for the European Parliament, PE 474.405, Brussels, 
September 2013

82

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

a European strategy for greater IT independence and 
the suspension of specific US–EU agreements.

The 2013 draft report, adopted in spring 2014,9 focuses 
on Decision 2000/520/EC, the so‑called Safe Harbour 
Decision,10 which provides the legal basis for the transfer 
of personal data from the EU to US companies. These 
transfers rest on the Safe Harbour Privacy Principles, 
and on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), 
the first of which guarantees that the US companies 
registered offer the ‘adequate’ level of privacy protec‑
tion that EU law requires.

On 27 November 2013, based on the working group’s 
report, the European Commission published two com‑
munications on the consequences of the revelations.12

The first, the Communication on the Functioning of 
the Safe Harbour, assesses the implementation of the 
Safe  Harbour  Decision  and  recommends  a  number 
of improvements.13 The communication suggests, for 
example, that companies inform their customers when 
US public authorities are allowed to collect and process 
data for reasons of national security, public interest 
or law enforcement.

The Council of the European Union set up an ad hoc EU–US 
working group to establish the facts about the US sur‑
veillance programmes and their impact on fundamental 
rights in the EU and on the personal data of EU citizens. 
On 27 November 2013, the working group published its 
findings.11 As well as describing the data protection guar‑
antees in place, the report highlights the discrepancies 
between the US and the EU data protection legal regimes.

The second, the Communication on Rebuilding Trust 
in EU–US Data Flows,14 assesses the large‑scale sur‑
veillance’s impact on various EU–US agreements. It 
questions  the  necessity  and  proportionality  of  the 
US surveillance programmes in the context of national 
security. The communication highlights the relevance 
of the data protection reform package in this context. 
Once adopted, the reform will enhance EU citizens’ data 

Table 3.2:  Key EU documents adopted in the aftermath of the mass‑surveillance revelations

Body

Title

Reference

European 
Commission

10 June 2013 – Vice‑President Viviane Reding requests explanations 
of and clarifications on the PRISM programme 

European 
Commission

19 June 2013 – Vice‑President Reding and Commissioner Cecilia 
Malmström send a letter to US authorities expressing their concerns 
about the consequences of US surveillance programmes for the 
fundamental rights protection of Europeans

European 
Parliament

Resolution of 4 July 2013 on the US NSA surveillance programme, 
surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on 
EU citizens’ privacy

P7_TA(2013)0322

European 
Parliament

Resolution of 23 October 2013 on the suspension of the TFTP agreement 
as a result of US NSA surveillance

P7_TA(2013)0449

Council of the 
European 
Union

Report of 27 November 2013 on the findings by the EU Co‑chairs of the 
ad hoc EU–US Working Group on Data Protection

16987/13

European 
Commission

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the Council: Rebuilding trust in EU–US data flows 

COM(2013) 846 final of 
27 November 2013

European 
Commission

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the Council on the functioning of the Safe Harbour from the perspec‑
tive of EU citizens and companies established in the EU 

COM(2013) 847 final of 
27 November 2013

European 
Commission 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the Council on the joint report from the Commission and the US 
Treasury Department regarding the value of TFTP provided data

COM(2013) 843 final of 
27 November 2013

European 
Parliament

Draft report of 8 January 2014 on the US NSA surveillance programme, 
surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU 
citizens’ fundamental rights and on transatlantic cooperation in justice 
and home affairs

PE526.085v02‑00

Source:  FRA, 2013

83

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

protection guarantees (for more on data protection 
reform, see Section 3.2). It also suggests improving the 
Safe Harbour Decision and enhancing the safeguards it 
provides in the context of law enforcement cooperation. 
It calls for the strengthening of privacy on the internet, 
which should not undermine the freedom, openness 
and security of cyberspace (for more on the information 
society, see Section 3.3).

3�1�2� 

EU Member States respond to 
mass surveillance

In EU Member States, reactions to the revelations varied 
from a complete lack of response to popular protest. In 
Finland, for example, citizens submitted an initiative to 
reform data protection legislation. Entitled ‘Yes we can: 
The law for safeguarding of freedom of expression and 
privacy internationally’, the proposal was submitted to 
the Ministry of Justice online service on 8 July 2013, but it 
has not yet brought about concrete legislative changes.15 
The initiative proposes criminalising disproportionate 
citizen surveillance and making it a universal crime, 
whose perpetrators could be prosecuted in Finland 
even if the act has been committed elsewhere. It also 
proposes to extend the authorities’ and telecommuni‑
cation operators’ liability to report mass personal data 
collection, storage and use. At the moment, the Finnish 
Ministry of the Interior alone reports to the European 
Commission on data retention practices; companies are 
not obliged to report on their data protection practices 
at all. The initiative also includes provisions aiming to 
protecting the legal status of whistleblowers, forbidding 
their extradition or the rejection of their applications for 
entry or residence permits.

In  Germany,  the  Conference  of  Data  Protection 
Commissioners sharply criticised the lack of clarifica‑
tion by the US authorities on the scope of the mass 
surveillance programmes and called on the govern‑
ments of the Federation and the states (Länder) to 
protect fundamental rights, strengthen the oversight 
of  intelligence  services,  and  stop  and  prevent  any 
unconstitutional cooperation of intelligence services.16 
Civil society reacted strongly. On 7 September 2013, 
several thousand people protested in Berlin against 
surveillance. The rally, organised and supported by 
a broad coalition of 85 civil liberties organisations, pri‑
vacy advocacy groups, journalists’ federations, political 
parties and their youth organisations,17 attracted around 
15,000 protestors.18 Under the banner of ‘Freedom Not 
Fear – Stop Surveillance Mania!’ (Freiheit statt Angst. 
Stoppt  den  Überwachungswahn!),  the  protestors 
objected to telecommunications surveillance by secret 
services, data retention, body scanners, biometrics, 
passenger name record registration and video surveil‑
lance. They called for a strong European data protection 
regime, an independent evaluation of existing surveil‑
lance powers and a moratorium on planned surveillance 
measures.19 In addition, new types of group protests 

boomed: ‘walk‑ins’ near the offices of domestic and 
US intelligence agencies attracted media attention;20 
and at ‘cryptoparties’ information technology experts 
trained people in how to protect and encrypt their data 
and electronic communications.21

Some  EU  Member  States  assessed  reform  of 
 intelligence  service  legislation  in  the  light  of  the 
Snowden  revelations. In France22 and Hungary,23 for 
example, amendments regulating intelligence ser‑
vices’ access to personal data prompted criticisms from 
civil society organisations, politicians24 and specialist 
bodies such as the French National Digital Council25 and 
the Hungarian DPA,26 respectively. In November 2013, 
the  Hungarian  Constitutional  Court  validated  the 
related law’s constitutionality. The court ruled that 
a counter‑terrorism organisation was not violating 
the right to privacy by collecting covert intelligence 
on citizens based on ministerial permission rather than 
on a court warrant.27

On  19 July 2013,  the  German  Federal  Government 
 presented an eight‑point programme to help clarify 
the facts on mass surveillance and ensure more robust 
protection  of  privacy  and  data.  Entitled  ‘Germany 
is  a  country  of  freedom’,  the  programme  suggests 
the following steps:

1)  suspend  the  administrative  agreements  on 
 communication surveillance with France, the United 
Kingdom and the US as quickly as possible;

2)  hold expert talks with the US to examine the topic;

3)  push for an international data protection  agreement 
(in the form of an additional protocol to Article 17 
of  the  International  Covenant  for  Civil  and 
Political Rights);

4) promote  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Data 
Protection Regulation, including the obligation for 
private companies to report data transfers to third 
countries (see Section 3.2);

5)  develop standards under which EU Member States’ 

intelligence agencies may cooperate;

6)  develop  and  implement  a  European  information 
 technology  strategy  in  collaboration  with  the 
European Commission;

7)  establish a roundtable discussion on the subject of 
‘security technology for information technology’, in 
public–private partnership with research institutes 
and private companies;

8)  strengthen citizens’ information technology security 
education through an internet safety awareness ini‑
tiative (‘Deutschland sicher im Netz’).28

84

The German government suspended the administrative 
agreements with the US in August. It also held talks 
with France and the United Kingdom. Many questions 
remain unanswered, however, and it is impossible to 
know which direction the talks on a so‑called ‘No Spy 
Agreement’ will take.

In  the  Netherlands,  the  revelations  triggered 
 parliamentary  questions.  On  2 December 2013,  the 
government established a commission to assess the Act 
on the Information and Security Agencies 2002 (Wet op 
de inlichtingen‑ en veiligheidsdiensten 2002). It found 
that the agencies’ powers should be extended, given 
the new threats to national security from cyberattacks 
and digital espionage.29

In  Slovenia,  the  revelations  also  prompted 
a  parliamentary question. The government responded 
on  28  November  2013,  saying  that  overarching 
large‑scale  surveillance  is  not  permissible,  due  to 
human rights protection standards, including data pri‑
vacy rights, and the rule of law.30

3�1�3�  Requests for information and 

remedies

The Snowden revelations also prompted calls for more 
transparency and prompted some to seek remedies for 
alleged rights violations before data protection authori‑
ties and the ECtHR.

In October 2013, Polish NGOs requested  information 
from  various  state  agencies  and  institutions  on 
the  surveillance  programmes.31  Some,  such  as  the 
DPA,  provided  comprehensive  answers  about  their 
PRISM‑related activity. Others responded only in part 
and in general terms. The Polish Parliament’s secret 
services committee confirmed, for example, that there 
was neither a meeting on PRISM nor did any individual 
committee member motion to discuss that mass surveil‑
lance programme. Finally, some entities, such as the 
intelligence services, replied that they could not answer 
any of the questions because of national security con‑
cerns or other confidentiality reasons.32 All the answers 
are published online.33

The  Polish  Human  Rights  Defender  called  for 
an   investigation  into  PRISM.34  The  Prosecutor 
General  informed  the  Human  Rights  Defender  on 
19 November 2013 that he had not found any grounds 
to launch such an investigation.35

The Irish data protection authority assessed Facebook’s 
compliance with data protection law in the light of the 
Snowden revelations. The Irish authority dismissed 
Europe‑v‑Facebook.org’s complaint as frivolous and 
vexatious, given that Facebook had acted within the 
terms of the EU–US Safe Harbour data‑sharing agree‑
ment.36 On 21 October 2013, the High Court granted 

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

permission to seek judicial review of the Data Protection 
Commissioner’s decision. A hearing on the case is likely 
to take place in 2014.

The  National  Commission  for  Data  Protection  of 
Luxembourg said in the summer of2013 that it was 
looking  into  data  transfers  to  the  NSA  by  Skype, 
a voice‑over‑internet protocol and instant messaging 
service belonging to US‑based information technology 
company Microsoft. In November 2013, it announced 
that the transfer of certain types of data to affiliated 
companies  in  the  United  States,  as  established  in 
the privacy policies of both companies, is operating 
legally, in accordance with the rules of the adequacy 
Decision 2000/520/EC of the European Commission to 
implement the Safe Harbour agreement. Therefore, the 
DPA found no violation of the legislation’s provisions on 
personal data protection by either Skype or Microsoft. 
The DPA emphasised that its decision could not be seen 
as confirming the existence or otherwise of surveillance 
programmes such as PRISM, since its competence was 
limited to the two companies’ Luxembourg activities.37

In September 2013, three civil society organisations 
and one individual complained before the ECtHR that 
the United Kingdom’s GCHQ surveillance programmes 
violated their right to privacy under Article 8 of the 
ECHR. The ECtHR communicated the complaint to the 
government of the United Kingdom.38

3�2�  EU recognises need for 
robust data protection 
regime

The Snowden revelations in the spring of 2013 marked 
a turning point in discussions on the EU data protec‑
tion reform, forcefully underlining the need for a strong 
data protection framework.

European Commission Vice‑President Viviane Reding, 
who categorised the revelations of mass surveillance 
as a wake‑up call for the EU legislature, emphasised the 
need for a robust, clear and enforceable data protec‑
tion legal framework to ensure the protection of the 
fundamental rights of those living in the EU.

“A strong legislative framework with clear rules that 
are enforceable also in situations when data is transferred 
and processed abroad is, more than ever, a necessity. It 
would provide legal certainty and protection for European 
data subjects and companies.”

Vice‑President Viviane Reding, ‘Mass surveillance is unacceptable – US 
action to restore trust is needed now’, 9 December 2013, Speech/13/1048, 
available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_SPEECH‑13‑1048_en.htm

85

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

3�2�1�  Reform of the EU data 

protection regime

Globalisation  and  the  rapid  growth  of  information 
technology  have  fundamentally  reshaped  the  way 
personal data are collected and processed since the 
1995 adoption of Directive 95/46/EC.39 Even before the 
Snowden revelations, there was a need to strengthen 
individuals’ fundamental rights to data protection and 
to boost the digital economy in the EU, which led the 
European  Commission,  in  January  2012,  to  propose 
a comprehensive reform of this directive (see Table 3.3).

The new General Data Protection Regulation40 aims to 
create a single set of binding EU data protection rules. 
Once adopted, it will replace Directive 95/46/EC. The 
Data Protection Directive,41 which would replace the 
Data  Protection  Framework  Decision, 42  covers  law 
enforcement authorities’ processing of personal data.

In 2013, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) 
published  additional  comments43  on  the  reform  to 
ensure that the new data protection regime is effective 
in practice. Its comments responded to amendments 
proposed  by  various  European  Parliament  commit‑
tees. The Article 29 Working Party also discussed the 
reform and issued an opinion44 on the draft directive 
and a working document45 on the implementing acts 
of the draft regulation.

summarising the intense pressure, stating that European 
lawmakers were “fed up” with US lobbying.46 While 
the lobby groups generally supported the single set of 
data protection rules that the regulation would set up 
in the EU, they opposed the supposed administrative 
burden, increased accountability and heavier fines – to 
name just a few of the contentious elements.

“The scandal has an impact. But MEPs [Members of 
the European Parliament] are aware that we’re also 
discussing the broader issue: fundamental rights and 
privacy in general, especially when it concerns the issue 
of governmental intelligence. […] Another important 
impact on the debate is that all MEPs, politicians but also 
individuals now see the importance of having a common 
European legal framework. This protects our personal 
rights, also in the internet environment.”

Jan Philipp Albrecht, Member of the European Parliament, LIBE rap‑
porteur on the draft regulation, Brussels, 26 September 2013

The LIBE rapporteurs adopted their draft reports on the 
draft regulation47 and directive48 in January, and four 
other European Parliament committees also released 
opinions  proposing  amendments.  After  months  of 
negotiations on the proposed amendments, LIBE voted 
on 21 October 2013 by an overwhelming majority in 
favour of several compromise amendments that would, 
in broad terms, strengthen the reform package’s data 
protection  safeguards.  The  plenary  is  to  adopt  the 
package in spring 2014.

Unprecedented lobbying from partisan US  companies 
and civil society organisations dogged the European 
legislature as the Parliament worked out the details 
of  the  new  data  reform  package.  The  Chair  of 
the  Article  29  Working  Party  spoke  plainly  when 

The  LIBE  amendments  incorporated  into  the  draft 
strengthen  various  protections.  These  include,  for 
example, reinforcing the role to be given to the future 
European Data Protection Board. They also tighten the 
rules on consent needed before an individual’s data 

Table 3.3:  Data protection reform package proposals

EU instrument

Draft regulation

Draft directive 

Title

Reference

European Parliament report

Proposal for a regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council 
on the protection of individuals with 
regard to the processing of personal 
data and on the free movement of such 
data (General Data Protection 
Regulation) 

Proposal for a directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on the 
protection of individuals with regard to 
the processing of personal data by 
competent authorities for the purposes 
of prevention, investigation, detection 
or prosecution of criminal offences or 
the execution of criminal penalties, and 
the free movement of such data 

COM(2012) 11 final, 
Brussels, 
25 January 2012 

Draft European Parliament 
Report voted in LIBE on 
21 October 2013: 
C70025/2012 – 2012/0011(COD)

COM(2012) 10 final, 
Brussels, 
25 January 2012 

Draft European Parliament 
Report voted in LIBE on 
21  October 2013: 
C70024/2012 – 
2012/0010(COD)

Source:  FRA, 2013

86

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

are processed. They merge the right to data portability 
with the right of access, allowing individuals to request 
that their data be moved from one service provider to 
another. They also subsume the ‘right to be forgotten 
and to erasure’ under the ‘right to erasure’. Together, 
these changes make it possible for individuals to request 
that their personal data be erased from a website. The 
LIBE amendments also make mandatory the appoint‑
ment  of  a  data  protection  officer  for  any  company 
which processes the data of 5,000 data subjects in any 
given consecutive 12‑month period. They also restrict 
the grounds for transfer of personal data to countries 
outside the European Economic Area.

The  LIBE  amendments  focused  particularly  on 
strengthening national DPAs, which are required by 
EU law and function as the first line of defence against 
data protection violations.

LIBE secured, for example, enhanced DPA  independence, 
the lack of which has been a focus of pointed criticism 
in recent years. The committee’s input ensured that 
DPAs will be given adequate financial resources and 
staff to carry out their obligations. These encouraging 
developments are in line with previous FRA opinions,49 
which expressed concern at the lack of independence 
of DPAs. LIBE also improved access to remedies by 
strengthening the DPAs’ sanctioning power: sanctions 
can now include the obligation to perform periodic 
audits, and fines could be as high as €100 million or 
5 % of annual global turnover. These powers are to be 
exercised “in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive 
manner”. These amendments were supported by FRA 
findings published in Access to data protection remedies 
in EU Member States.

The Snowden revelations did not lead the Council of 
the EU to finalise the data protection reform by the 
end of 2013. EU Ministers of Justice, meeting both 
informally in January 2013 in Dublin and in July 2013 
in  Vilnius  and  at  formal  Justice  and  Home  Affairs 
meetings  of  the  Council  of  the  EU,  discussed  data 
reform  intensively.  The  main  topics  of  discussion 
were controllers’ obligations, risk‑based approaches, 
specific rules for small‑ and medium‑sized enterprises, 
‘one‑stop‑shop’ mechanisms enabling complainants to 
access remedies before a single DPA, the consistency 
mechanism and questions relating to judicial review 
and judicial redress.

3�2�2�  Key reforms affect data 

protection authorities

FRA ACTIVITY

Researching access to data protection 
remedies in EU Member States

The FRA conducted research on how data protec‑
tion  violations  are  remedied  in  practice  in  order 
to identify the main challenges faced by different 
actors and ways to improve access to such rem‑
edies.  The  research  shows  that  the  bodies  most 
commonly  turned  to  when  seeking  remedies  in 
this  field  are  DPAs,  while  judicial  procedures  are 
rarely used. However, the research, based on an 
analysis of legal frameworks in the 28 EU Member 
States complemented by fieldwork research with 
over  700  people  in  16  EU  Member  States,  found 
great  variations  in  the  national  DPAs’  powers  to 
remedy  data  protection  violations.  While  some 
non‑judicial bodies have sufficient powers to offer 
effective remedies, there is minimal coordination 
between DPAs and other non‑judicial bodies. The 
project identifies other areas where work remains 
to be done, suggesting, for example, the need for 
measures raising awareness about EU legislation. 
The findings of the FRA project Access to data pro‑
tection remedies in EU Member States are feeding 
into the European Commission’s work on the data 
protection reform package.

For more information, see: Access to data protection remedies 
in EU Member States, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/fra‑2014‑access‑data‑protection‑remedies_en.pdf

As  the  FRA  stated  in  its  previous  annual  reports 
and   discussed  in  the  joint  Council  of  Europe–FRA 
Handbook on European data protection law,50 the CJEU 
has addressed concerns about the independence of 
the  DPAs.  The  CJEU  interpreted  Directive  95/46/EC 
in terms of independence in two landmark decisions 
regarding Austria and Hungary.51 In response to the 
CJEU judgment of 16 October 2012, which considered 
that the Austrian DPA lacked independence, Austria 
passed legislation in 2013 amending its legal frame‑
work.  As  of  1 January 2014,  a  new  data  protection 
authority  will  replace  the  previous  data  protection 
commission.52  In  European  Commission  v.  Hungary, 
a case which also relates to requirements for DPAs’ 
independence, the CJEU is expected to deliver a judg‑
ment in 2014. The CJEU Advocate General concluded on 
10 December 2013 that Hungary had violated EU law 
by terminating the Data Protection Commissioner’s 
mandate  ahead  of  its  stipulated  term  and  recom‑
mended that the CJEU declare Hungary in violation of 
DPA independence requirements.53

The role data protection authorities play in enforcing 
data  protection  guarantees  is  pivotal.  Like  other 
non‑judicial bodies protecting fundamental rights, their 
independence is crucial (see Chapters 8 on access to 
justice and judicial cooperation, and 10 on EU Member 
States and international obligations).

The consequences of the CJEU case law for DPAs’ inde‑
pendence triggered national legislation reform in other 
EU  Member  States  as  well.  The  Latvian  Parliament 
worked on amendments to the Personal Data Protection 
Law54 at the end of 2013. The amendments specify the 
duties and competences of the State Data Inspectorate, 

87

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

in particular in the area of complaints related to data 
protection violations. In Lithuania, on 27 November 2013, 
the new regulation strengthening the independence of 
the Data Protection Inspectorate55 was approved. Under 
this regulation, the director is now in charge of the DPA’s 
administrative structure, whereas this was previously 
a governmental responsibility. The director acts in this 
context in total independence. The Slovakian Parliament 
passed a data protection law on 30 April 2013, enhancing 
the transposition of the Data Protection Directive.56 In 
Poland, the key change discussed was the establishment 
of local branches of the DPA in order to decentralise the 
institution and make it more accessible to individuals living 
outside Warsaw, where it currently has its headquarters, 
but a lack of funds has so far kept this from happening.

The 2010 FRA report Data Protection in the European 
Union: The role of national data protection authorities 
considered the appointment procedure for the Greek 
DPA  a  promising  practice.57  The  Greek  constitution 
requires a four‑fifths majority of the Conference of the 
Presidents, a parliamentary instrument, to approve the 
appointment of all independent authority members, 
including of the Greek DPA. This practice still exists. 
Owing to a lack of broad consensus among current par‑
liamentary political forces, however, it is not always 
possible to reach the consensus necessary for these 
appointments.  This  issue  has  affected  other  inde‑
pendent authorities, but not the Greek DPA.

3�2�3�  Raising awareness of data 

protection

That there is a lack of awareness about data protection 
safeguards is the overarching finding of the FRA report 
Access to data protection remedies in EU Member States. 
To address this, the FRA and the Council of Europe final‑
ised the publication of an easy‑to‑use handbook, and 
DPAs in several EU Member States launched projects, 
for example creating booklets intended to raise young 
people’s awareness of data protection and ensure that 
they are better informed of their rights.

FRA ACTIVITY

Presenting EU and Council of Europe 
law on data protection

FRA, the Council of Europe and the ECtHR drafted 
a  Handbook  on  European  data  protection  law  to 
provide an overview of EU and Council of Europe 
law on data protection. Designed for legal practi‑
tioners who are not specialists in the field of data 
protection,  the  handbook  examines  the  relevant 
law  in  this  field  stemming  from  both  European 
systems, including important selected case law.

For more information, see: Handbook on European data pro‑
tection law, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/
files/fra‑2014‑handbook‑data‑protection‑law_en.pdf

Promising practice

Fighting misuse of children’s personal 
data and raising awareness

In  several  Member  States,  DPAs  implemented 
various activities targeted specifically at protect‑
ing  children  (see  Chapter  4  on  the  rights  of  the 
child and the protection of children).

The German State Commissioner for Data Protec‑
tion and Freedom of Information in Rhineland‑Pa‑
latinate launched the first German DPA website to 
specifically target young people. It raises aware‑
ness  of  data  protection  issues  and  disseminates 
knowledge  on  how  to  protect  personal  data  in 
general  and  on  the  internet  in  particular.  It  pro‑
vides  concrete  suggestions  about  how  to  pro‑
tect  personal  data  when  using  social  media  or 
games consoles.

For more information, see: www.youngdata.de

The Hungarian National Authority for Data Protec‑
tion  and  Freedom  of  Information  issued  a  book‑
let  on  data  protection  for  children.58  Its  purpose 
is to draw attention to the risks of children’s in‑
ternet  use,  specifically  of  those  aged  10–16,  to 
identify  future  challenges  and  to  promote  the 
conscious use of the internet and the exercise of 
privacy rights.

For more information, see: Hungarian National Authority for 
Data Protection and Freedom of Information (2013), Key to the 
World of the Internet!, available at: www.naih.hu/files/2013‑
projektfuzet‑internet.pdf

3�2�4�  Reform and implementation of 

the Data Retention Directive

The  EU  continues  its  work  on  revising  the  Data 
Retention Directive,59 which supports the fight against 
crime and terrorism by requiring telecommunications 
service providers to retain traffic and location data 
for between six months and two years from the date 
of the communication.

Several EU Member States amended their legislation, 
while others questioned the legality of the adopted 
laws  transposing  the  Data  Retention  Directive  into 
national law. The Belgian Government for example, 
adopted a royal decree transposing the Data Retention 
Directive into Belgian law.60 In Poland, a legislative 
amendment to the telecommunications law reduced 
the data retention period to 12 from 24 months and 
prohibited the use of data retention in civil proceed‑
ings.61 The Danish Parliament decided to postpone its 
review of data retention rules until the parliamentary 
year 2014–2015, in order to await the revision of the 
Data Retention Directive.62 The Slovenian Information 
Commissioner requested a constitutional review of the 
new Electronic Communications Act governing data 

88

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

retention, which entered into force in January 2013.63 
According to the Constitutional Court, this task falls 
under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  CJEU,  so  it 
delayed a review until the CJEU delivers its decisions on 
the related joined cases of Ireland and Austria, C‑293/12 
and C‑594/12 respectively.64

On 12 December 2013, a CJEU Advocate General issued 
his opinion on the joined cases of Ireland65 and Austria66 
in relation to the Data Retention Directive. The prelimi‑
nary rulings concerned the compatibility of the Data 
Retention Directive with key fundamental rights. For 
the Advocate General, “The Data Retention Directive 
is as a whole incompatible with Article 52 (1) of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 
since the limitations on the exercise of fundamental 
rights which that directive contains because of the 
obligation  to  retain  data  which  it  imposes  are  not 
accompanied by the necessary principles for governing 
the guarantees needed to regulate access to the data 
and their use.”

3�2�5�  Google

Google privacy policy

The French DPA ordered Google on 20 June 2013 to 
comply with French data protection law within three 
months. When Google did not comply, the French DPA 
initiated a formal procedure for imposing sanctions, 
fining Google €150,000 on 3 January 2014.67

The  United  Kingdom’s  DPA  said  in  July  2013  that 
Google’s privacy policy raised serious concerns about 
its compliance with the Data Protection Act and that it 
was investigating.68 The Information Commissioner’s 
Office (ICO) instructed Google to revise its privacy policy 
by 20 September to make it more informative.69 In the 
absence of any changes, the ICO could initiate formal 
enforcement actions, but by the end of the reporting 
period the DPA had not taken any action.

The  Spanish  DPA  fined  Google  €300,000  on 
19 December 2013 for violating Spanish data protec‑
tion  law,  saying  that  Google  had  carried  out  illegal 
processing linked to its new privacy policy.70

Google search engines

In Germany, the Federal Court of Justice decided in 
favour of complainants who demanded that Google 
stop  a  search  engine  function  that  resulted  in  the 
automated display of compromising terms when the 
complainants’ names were typed into the Google search 
field. The court did not expect Google to take precau‑
tionary measures to prevent this function’s unintended 
effects from ever occurring. The judges ruled, however, 
that  the  company  must  examine  affected  people’s 
claims and stop the automated display of terms, called 

‘predictions’, shown when searching a person’s name 
if this is necessary to protect complainants’ privacy.71

In another case, an individual who wanted material 
erased from a newspaper internet page lodged a com‑
plaint with the Spanish Data Protection Authority (AEPD). 
In this case, the Spanish DPA held that the material was 
lawfully published and declined to order removal. The 
case went to the Spanish National High Court (Audiencia 
Nacional), which proceeded to refer a series of prelimi‑
nary questions to the CJEU. In Google v. AEPD, the CJEU 
Advocate General issued his opinion on 25 June 2013.72 
The Advocate General concluded that Google was not 
responsible for the information or the dissemination of 
search result data. The Advocate General declined to 
classify Google as a ‘controller’ of personal data within 
the  meaning  of  the  Data  Protection  Directive  and, 
finally, considered that the directive does not provide 
for a general ‘right to be forgotten’. The CJEU will deliver 
its judgment in 2014.

Google Street View

In July 2013, Google started photographing Slovenian 
streets for its Google Street View application. The 
Information Commissioner reported that Google had 
committed to adopting measures aimed at reducing 
the interference with privacy, which inevitably occurs 
in such cases. These measures include: informing 
the public regularly on the locations of Google cars; 
providing  more  information  on  the  street  view 
application;  blurring  faces  and  number  plates  in 
photographs before publication; installing a ‘report 
error’ button on each image; introducing security 
procedures and measures for the protection of col‑
lected data; training drivers; and adapting shooting 
schedules and locations.73

3�3� 

Information society: 
EU moves to protect 
and codify fundamental 
rights online

Modern  technologies  have  a  considerable  impact 
on the protection of fundamental rights, since they 
present fresh ways to fully realise these rights while 
also posing new challenges to their protection. The 
Snowden revelations on mass surveillance provided 
a prominent example. For the first time in 2013, the 
Internet Governance Forum74 organised a plenary ses‑
sion on human rights on the internet. Access to and 
use of the internet from a human rights perspective 
were  at  the  forefront  of  discussions.  It  was  unani‑
mously accepted that human rights and freedom of 
expression  online  should  remain  a  priority  of  the 
Governance Forum’s agenda.75

89

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

3�3�1� 

The protection of fundamental 
rights online

The  protection  of  fundamental  rights  in  the  digital 
 environment is a much discussed issue. It is now univer‑
sally accepted that human rights online are protected 
to the same extent as they are in the physical world.76 
At regional level, the Council of Europe adheres to this 
view, affirming in its Internet Governance Strategy that 
human rights law applies equally online and offline.77 
The EU has also accepted in its Cybersecurity Strategy 
that core EU values apply both in the physical and in the 
digital world and that fundamental rights, as enshrined 
in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, should be 
promoted in cyberspace.78

“For cyberspace to remain open and free, the same norms, 
principles and values that the EU upholds offline should 
also apply online.”

Cecilia Malmström, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, ‘Delivering 
a cybersecurity strategy to protect an interconnected Europe’, 
16 May 2013, Speech/13/423, available at: http://europa.eu/
rapid/press‑release_SPEECH‑13‑423_en.htm?locale=en

The  European  Commission  Cybersecurity  Strategy 
emphasises the respective tasks of key government 
and  private  sector  players:  governments  need  to 
safeguard access and openness, respect and protect 
fundamental rights online and maintain the reliability 
and interoperability of the internet. The private sector 
owns and operates significant parts of cyberspace, and 
so any initiative in this area must recognise its leading 
role if it is to succeed.79

3�3�2� 

Codifying fundamental rights 
online

The private sector’s contribution is essential when it 
comes to the implementation of fundamental rights 
online. In fact, representatives of the private sector, 
individuals, NGOs and government actors are working 
together on all matters related to the internet’s devel‑
opment.  In  2013,  the  multi‑stakeholder  approach 
achieved concrete results in the codification of online 
fundamental rights. Both the draft Council of Europe 
guide to human rights for internet users and the Charter 
of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet were 
made available. In addition, the EU published the Code 
of EU Online Rights. Table 3.4 shows the similarities and 
differences between these texts.

against  specific  content,  applications  and  services, 
or specific classes thereof, except in a very limited 
number of cases when reasonable traffic management 
can be applied. These measures must be transparent, 
non‑discriminatory and proportionate.

The  Code  of  EU  Online  Rights, 81  published  on 
21 December 2012, does not establish new rights, nor 
is it directly enforceable. It summarises and consolidates 
the minimum existing rights deriving from EU legislation 
on electronic communications, electronic commerce, 
data protection and consumer protection. According 
to the code, the fundamental rights enshrined in the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should be respected 
and the open and neutral character of the internet 
should be preserved.

The  Charter  of  Human  Rights  and  Principles  for  the 
Internet is the flagship document of the Internet Rights 
and Principles Dynamic Coalition.82 This coalition is part 
of  the  Internet  Governance  Forum,  which  provides 
a neutral space for all stakeholders to discuss issues 
related to internet governance.83 The coalition consists of 
researchers, lawyers, activists, NGOs, intergovernmental 
organisations, government representatives and internet 
service providers. The Charter is based on existing human 
rights standards, notably the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights. It should serve as a policy document for all 
stakeholders. It is underpinned by the idea that everyone 
has the right to access and make use of the internet. 
Based on the consultations for the Charter, the Coalition 
also compiled ‘Ten Internet Rights and Principles’ which 
must form the basis of internet governance.84 Some of 
these principles draw directly on fundamental rights such 
as free expression, privacy, life, liberty and security.

In line with the its Internet Governance Strategy for the 
years 2012–2015, 85 the Council of Europe finalised a draft 
guide to human rights for internet users.86 The guide 
raises awareness and helps internet users understand, 
exercise and enjoy the rights they have online. It does 
not create new rights but builds on the rights enshrined 
in the ECHR and other Council of Europe documents, as 
interpreted by the ECtHR. The guide provides informa‑
tion about their application to online environments. It 
should be adopted by the Council of Europe Committee 
of Ministers in 2014.

3�3�3� 

Corporate social responsibility

The European Commission’s proposal for a regulation 
laying down measures concerning the European single 
market for electronic communications and to achieve 
a connected continent80 establishes the freedom of 
end‑users to access and distribute information and con‑
tent, run applications and use services of their choice via 
their internet access service. It aims to guarantee a truly 
free and open internet; operators are prohibited from 
blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating 

As a result of the multi‑stakeholder model  underpinning 
internet  governance,  private  sector  actors  play  an 
important role in safeguarding fundamental rights in 
the  digital  environment.  The  UN  Guiding  Principles 
on  Business  and  Human  Rights  have  gained  broad 
acceptance  and  are  the  global  reference  point  for 
business  and  human  rights.  They  are  based  on  the 
three pillars of the UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ 
Framework, which are:

90

‑

m
u
s
n
o
c
g
n
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
s
e
p
i
c
n
i
r
p
d
n
a

l

s
t
h
g
R

i

t
c
i
fl
n
o
c

f
o
e
s
a
c
n

i

s
r
e

n
e
h
w
e
b
a
c
i
l

l

p
p
a

l

s
e
p
i
c
n
i
r
p
d
n
a

s
t
h
g
R

i

e
n

i
l

n
o
s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

r
o
s
d
o
o
g
g
n
y
u
b

i

f
o
e
s
u
e
h
t
e
t
o
m
o
r
p

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
e
n

i
l

n
o

s
t
h
g
i
r
g
n
i
t
s
i
x
e

i

i

m
u
m
n
m
s
e
t
a
d

i
l

o
s
n
o
c

n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
d
n
a

o
t

r
e
d
r
o
n

i

,

e
c
n
e
d

t
I

.

l

e
b
a
e
c
r
o
f
n
e
y
l
t
c
e
r
i
d

n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
a
t
a
d

,

e
c
r
e
m
m
o
c

n
e
h
w
e
b
a
c
i
l

l

p
p
a

l

s
e
p
i
c
n
i
r
p
d
n
a

s
t
h
g
R

i

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
e
n

i
l

n
o
g
n
i
s
u
d
n
a
g
n
i
s
s
e
c
c
a

r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
e
s
a
e
r
c
n

i

o
T

‑
fi
n
o
c
d
n
a

s
s
e
n
e
r
a
w
a

t
i

s
i

r
o
n
s
t
h
g
i
r

w
e
n

c
i
n
o
r
t
c
e
e

l

,

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
n
u
m
m
o
c

h
s
i
l

b
a
t
s
e
t
o
n
s
e
o
d
t
I

l

c
i
n
o
r
t
c
e
e
n
o
n
o
i
t
a
l
s
i
g
e

l

U
E

n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

e
n

i
l

n
O
U
E

f
o
e
d
o
C

,

a
d
n
e
g
A

l

a
t
i
g
D
(

i

)
6
1
n
o
i
t
c
A

s
t
h
g
R

i

d
e
r
e
v
o
c

s
t
h
g
R

i

e
s
o
p
r
u
P

i

g
n
d
n
a
t
s

l

a
g
e
L

s
i
s
a
b

l

a
g
e
L

y
b
d
e
t
a
e
r
C

e
m
a
N

e
n

i
l

n
 o
s
t
h
g
i
r

l

a
t
n
e
m
a
d
n
u
f

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
c
fi
d
o
C

i

:

4

.
3
e

l

b
a
T

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

‑
o
r
p
p
a

,
t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

e
h
t
g
n
v
o
v
n

i

l

i

s
n
o
i
t
c
a

r
o
f

y
t
e
i
c
o
s

f
o
s
t
h
g
i
r

,

l

e
g
d
e
w
o
n
k
o
t

s
s
e
c
c
a

,

n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p

s
n
o
i
s
n
e
m
d

i

l

l

a
b
o
g
d
n
a

,
s
e
i
t
i
l
i

b
a
s
i
d
h
t
i

l

w
e
p
o
e
p
f
o
s
t
h
g
i
r

,

d

l
i

h
c
e
h
t

e
c
n
a
n
r
e
v
o
g
t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o

c
i
l

b
u
p
n

i

n
o
i
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
p
e
n

i
l

n
o

,

k
r
o
w
o
t

t
h
g
i
r

l

o
o
t
y
c
a
c
o
v
d
a
n
a
d
n
a

l

a
i
r
t

r
i

a
f
d
n
a
y
d
e
m
e
r

l

a
g
e

l

,
s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

l

a
i
c
o
s

d
n
a
h
t
l
a
e
h

,

n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c

,
s
r
i

a
f
f
a

l
i

v
i
c
d
n
a

s
e
s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

,
s
t
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
g
r
o
f

a
t
a
d

l

a
t
i
g
d

i

,

y
c
a
v
i
r
p

,

l

y
b
m
e
s
s
a
e
n

i
l

n
o

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

,
l

a
c
o

l

e
h
t

r
o
f

e
s
u

,
s
s
e
c
c
a

t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

n

i

n
o
i
t
a
n
m

i

i
r
c
s
i
d
‑
n
o
n

d
n
a
e
u
g
o
a
d
r
o
f

i

l

i

t
n
o
p

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
f

,
f
e

i
l

e
b
d
n
a
n
o
g

i

i
l

e
r

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
f

s
n
o
i
s
i
c
e
d
y
c
i
l

o
p
e
m
a
r
f

,

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

d
n
a
n
o
i
s
s
e
r
p
x
e
f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
f

n
a
c

t
a
h
t

t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d
a

,

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
s
d
n
a
y
t
r
e
b

i
l

,

e
c
n
a
n
r
e
v
o
g
d
n
a

n
e
e
w
t
e
b
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o
o
c

,
t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

e
h
t
h
g
u
o
r
h
t

t
n
e
m
p
o
e
v
e
d

l

l

,
s
r
e
d
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

t
n
e
r
e
f
f
i
d

o
t

t
h
g
i
r

,
t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

e
h
t

s
s
e
c
c
a
o
t

t
h
g
R

i

e
c
n
e
r
e
f
e
r

a

i

:
e
d
v
o
r
p
o
T

i

g
n
d
n
b
t
o
N

i

n
o
s
e
i
t
i
l
i

b
i
s
n
o
p
s
e
r
d
n
a

s
e
i
t
u
d

,
t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

e
h
t

r
o
f

r
e
d
r
o

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

d
n
a

l

a
i
c
o
s
e
t
a
i
r
p

s
e
s
u
a
l
c

l

a
r
e
n
e
g

,
t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

e
h
t

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
f

,

n
o
i
t
a
n
m

i

i
r
c
s
i
d
‑
n
o
n
d
n
a

s
s
e
c
c
A

d
n
a

s
s
e
n
e
r
a
w
a
e
s
i
a
r
o
T

t
o
n
s
e
o
d
t
I

.

i

g
n
d
n
b
t
o
N

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
r
a
l
c
e
D

l

i

a
s
r
e
v
n
U
e
h
T

d
n
a

i

s
t
h
g
R
t
e
n
r
e
t
n

I

n
a
m
u
H
f
o
r
e
t
r
a
h
C

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a

i

s
t
h
g
R
n
a
m
u
H

c
i
m
a
n
y
D
s
e
p
i
c
n
i
r
P

l

d
n
a

s
t
h
g
R

i

e
h
t
p
u
e
k
a
m

t
a
h
t

s
t
n
a
n
e
v
o
c

n
a
m
u
H
f
o

l
l
i

B

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

I

s
n
o
i
t
a
N
d
e
t
i
n
U
e
h
t

t
a

s
t
h
g
R

i

n
o
i
t
i
l

a
o
C

e
h
t

r
o
f

l

s
e
p
i
c
n
i
r
P

t
e
n
r
e
t
n

I

n
o
n
o
i
t
n
e
v
n
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
e
h
T

e
p
o
r
u
E

f
o

l
i
c
n
u
o
C

n
a
m
u
h
n
o
e
d
u
G

i

e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
e

,

l

e
p
o
e
p
g
n
u
o
y
d
n
a
n
e
r
d

l
i

h
c

‑
r
e
d
n
u
o
t
e
g
d
e
w
o
n
k

l

n
a
m
u
h
f
o
n
o
i
t
a
n
a
p
x
e

l

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
e
h
t
y
b
d
e
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
n

i

d
n
a
y
c
a
v
i
r
p

,

n
o
i
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
p
d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

,

y
c
a
r
e
t
i
l

d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
e

,

n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
a
t
a
d

r
e
s
u
t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

y
r
e
v
e

d
e
s
i
l

a
i
c
e
p
s

t
u
o
h
t
i

w

e
v
i
t
s
u
a
h
x
e
n
a

r
e
h
t
i
e
n

‑
n
e
v
n
o
c
e
p
o
r
u
E

f
o

l
i
c
n
u
o
C

e
v
i
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
r
p
a

r
o
n

s
a

s
t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n

i

d
n
a

s
n
o
i
t

s
r
e
s
u

,

l

y
b
m
e
s
s
a

,

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

d
n
a
n
o
i
s
s
e
r
p
x
e

l

p
e
h
o
t

l

o
o
t

a

s
a
e
v
r
e
s

s
i

t
I

.
s
t
h
g
i
r

w
e
n
e
t
a
e
r
c

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a

i

s
t
h
g
R
n
a
m
u
H

s
r
e
t
s
i
n
M

i

f
o
e
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
C

t
e
n
r
e
t
n

i

r
o
f

s
t
h
g
i
r

e
n

i
l

n
o
r
i
e
h
t

f
o
e
g
a
t

s
t
h
g
i
r

i

s
e
d
e
m
e
r

‑
n
a
v
d
a
e
k
a
t
d
n
a
d
n
a
t
s

s
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
s

s
t
h
g
i
r

i

s
t
h
g
R
n
a
m
u
H
f
o
t
r
u
o
C

3
1
0
 2

,

A
R
F

:
e
c
r
u
o
S

91

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

 • the  state  duty  to  protect  against  human  rights 

abuses by third parties, including businesses;

 • the  corporate  responsibility  to  respect  human 
rights, meaning both to avoid human rights viola‑
tions and to address the negative consequences if 
companies are involved in such violations;

 • the  need  for  greater  access  to  effective  remedies 
for victims of business‑related human rights viola‑
tions, through both judicial and non‑judicial means 
(see Chapter 10 on Member States and international 
obligations).87

As part of its policy on corporate social  responsibility,88 
the European Commission issued in June 2013 three 
guides applying the UN Guiding Principles in the fol‑
lowing business sectors: employment and recruitment 
agencies, ICT, and oil and gas. The ICT sector guide89 
is not a legally binding instrument, but it is designed 
to help all ICT companies effectively implement the 
principles into their policies. In particular, the guide sets 
out the key elements of corporate social responsibility 
to respect human rights, which are: developing a human 
rights policy commitment; carrying out a human rights 
impacts assessment, whose findings should then be 
integrated; tracking and communicating how effectively 
the impacts are addressed; and putting in place remedy 
mechanisms. For each of these elements, the guide 
summarises the standards set out in the UN Guiding 
Principles, explains why they is important and offers 
guidance, indicating possible approaches the company 
could use to tackle the issues. It also offers a list of 
resources for further information and provides exam‑
ples from everyday business life, such as how an ICT 
company uses icons to inform users on privacy issues 
or how a telecommunications company has developed 
a global framework agreement.

3�3�4� 

Intermediary liability

The extent to which an internet portal can be held 
accountable for content uploaded by users of blogs or 
news portals is a topic of debate. It raises the question 
of the scope of intermediary liability, particularly in 
cases where defamatory comments are posted by such 
readers. The ECtHR judgment in the Delfi AS v. Estonia 
case90  raised  considerable  concern  among  internet 
actors. The ECtHR held that finding a portal liable for 
offensive comments posted by readers below one of 
the online articles was a justified and proportionate 
restriction to the portal’s right to freedom of expression.

In Poland, the Supreme Administrative Court91 held that 
an individual has the right to ask an internet service pro‑
vider to disclose email and internet protocol addresses 
associated  with  offensive  online  communications, 
because such data are necessary for the victims of an 
online privacy breach to claim their rights effectively 

before the court. Most internet service providers had 
claimed that, according to e‑commerce law,92 these 
data could be accessed only by enforcement agencies, 
and courts had usually accepted this argument. The 
Supreme Administrative Court, however, ruled that 
internet service providers should allow individuals to 
access the data if this serves a legitimate aim and is 
proportionate to the circumstances of a particular case.

In the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal issued its 
decision in the Tamiz v. Google case,93 which concerned 
Google’s liability for defamatory comments posted on 
a blog hosted by Google’s blog service. The High Court 
had held that Google cannot be considered a publisher 
due to its passive role in relation to individual blog posts 
and comments. The Court of Appeal generally supported 
these findings. It considered separately, however, the 
period after the notification of the complaint, concluding 
that Google might as well have become a publisher, 
since it allowed the defamatory comments to remain 
on the blog after the notification. The appeal was dis‑
missed, nonetheless, since the court found that the 
damage to the applicant’s reputation was trivial.

Many  consider  the  Google–Vividown  case  the 
most   significant  Italian  case  on  internet  rights.  In 
February 2013, the Court of Appeal overturned the first 
instance ruling, which had sentenced three Google man‑
agers to six months in prison because Google’s search 
engine broadcast a video showing a boy with disabilities 
being bullied. The Court of Appeal held that the uploader 
of the video was responsible, not the hosting site.

3�3�5�  Right to an effective remedy

FRA ACTIVITY

Securing remedies for online data 
protection violations

The FRA report Access to data protection remedies 
in  EU  Member  States,  drafted  in  2013  and  pub‑
lished in 2014, examines the availability of EU rem‑
edy mechanisms to address data protection viola‑
tions. It identifies challenges faced by individuals 
and suggests improvements. The data protection 
violations  most  frequently  mentioned  during  the 
fieldwork research in 16 EU Member States relate 
to  internet‑based  activities.  This  includes  social 
media, online shopping, leakage of personal data 
from  e‑shops,  email  account  and  database  hack‑
ing, identity theft, security breaches and misuse of 
personal data by global internet companies. It is for 
this reason that effective remedies on the internet 
need to be put in place. (see also Section 3.2.3)

For more information, see: FRA (European Union Agency 
for Fundamental Rights) (2014), Access to data protec‑
tion remedies in EU Member States, Luxembourg, Publica‑
tions Office of the European Union (Publications Office)

92

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

The internet’s uniqueness does not alter the principle 
that  victims  of  fundamental  rights  violations  need 
access to remedies. The right to an effective remedy 
is  enshrined  in  all  the  main  documents  mentioned 
that set out internet users’ fundamental rights. The 
frequent violation of rights online makes the exist‑
ence of proper remedy mechanisms in the informa‑
tion society field indispensable. At the same time, the 
crucial role the private sector plays in internet govern‑
ance creates challenges for the proper implementation 
of remedial avenues.

Promising practice

In  France,  the  DPA  created  an  online  document, 
available  on  its  website,  entitled  “How  do  I  re‑
move  personal  information  from  a  search  en‑
gine?” This tip sheet gives instructions about the 
procedure to be followed, including a template for 
a  letter  to  be  sent  to  the  webmaster  of  the  site 
and  information  about  the  procedure  for  volun‑
tary deindexation of the website.

For more information, see: www.cnil.fr/documentation/
fiches‑pratiques/fiche/article/comment‑effacer‑des‑
informations‑me‑concernant‑sur‑un‑moteur‑de‑recherche/

3�3�6� 

Fighting cybercrime

The EU adopted a number of policy initiatives in 2013 
aimed at strengthening the fight against cybercrime. 
In a majority of cases, criminal activities conducted 
online  result  in  infringements  of  human  rights  and 
fundamental freedoms. The EU cybersecurity strategy, 
adopted  on  7 February 2013,  sets  out  as  one  of  its 
main principles the protection of fundamental rights, 
freedom of expression, personal data and privacy, and 
it expresses the view that ‘individuals’ rights cannot 
be secured without safe networks and systems’. At 
the same time, the strategy states that ‘cybersecu‑
rity can only be sound and effective if it is based on 
fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
and the EU core values’.

Some clear examples of violations of human rights and 
fundamental freedoms by criminal activities carried out 
online are the production and dissemination of child 
sexual abuse content, which is a gross violation of the 
children’s rights, and also intrusions into IT systems, 
which in most cases has a direct impact on users’ pri‑
vacy and/or result in data breaches.

To step up the fight against cybercrime, with the  objective 
of better protecting citizens’ fundamental rights, the EU 
legislature adopted, on 12 August 2013, a directive on 
attacks against information systems. This directive com‑
plements the already adopted Directive 2011/93/EU of 
13 December 2011, which introduced common measures 

against the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of 
children and child pornography.

Furthermore, the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) was 
created in January 2013 within Europol, becoming the 
European focal point in the fight against cybercrime, 
with the main task of assisting in and coordinating 
cross‑border cybercrime investigations in the following 
three priority areas: intrusion, child sexual abuse online 
and payment card fraud.

The  findings  of  three  wide‑scale  FRA  surveys  on 
 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, 
violence against women and antisemitism reveal that 
online manifestations of hate crime are an increas‑
ingly serious problem, as the internet can be used as 
a platform for hate and harassment. The anonymity 
the internet affords may lead some users to publish 
offensive material online.

The findings of the FRA EU LGBT survey94 showed that, 
in the 12 months prior to the survey, one in five (19 %) 
of all respondents were victims of harassment, which 
they thought happened in part or completely because 
they were perceived to be LGBT.95 Almost one in 10 
(9 %) of the most recent incidents of hate‑motivated 
harassment and 6 % of the most serious experiences 
of discrimination happened online.96

Data from the FRA survey on gender‑based violence 
against women97 show that one in 10 (11 %) women 
in the EU has been a victim of cyberharassment at 
least once since the age of 15, and 5 % were victims of 
cyberharassment in the 12 months before the survey. 
The risk of women aged 18–29 becoming the target 
of threatening or offensive advances on the internet 
is twice as high as it is for women aged 40–49 and 
more than three times higher than it is for women 
aged 50–59. Based on the FRA survey, 5 % of women 
in  the  EU  have  experienced  one  or  more  forms  of 
cyberstalking98 since the age of 15, and 2 % did so in 
the 12 months preceding the survey. Taking the victim’s 
age into consideration, the 12‑month rates vary from 
4 % among 18–29 year olds to 0.3 % among women 
aged 60 and over.

The  FRA  survey  on  discrimination  and  hate  crimes 
against  Jews99  indicates,  similarly,  that  victims  see 
online antisemitism as a serious problem. Three quar‑
ters of all respondents (75 %) view it as either ‘a very 
big’ or a ‘fairly big problem’, and almost as many (73 %) 
believe it has increased over the past five years. Overall, 
10 % of respondents have experienced offensive or 
threatening antisemitic comments made about them 
on the internet.

In the United Kingdom, two people who made abusive 
and  menacing  comments  to  a  feminist  campaigner 
on Twitter were sentenced to 12 and eight weeks in 

93

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

prison.100 The recipient of the menacing tweets char‑
acterised this case, however, as a “small drop in the 
ocean” compared with the hate speech she and other 
women had been subjected to online. The case exem‑
plifies the major problems faced and the challenge of 
finding solutions using traditional legal means.

Action is needed to prevent the misuse of the internet 
as a zone where hate crime can be committed with 
impunity. The EU and its Member States should identify 
effective methods and promising practices to address 
growing concerns about online hate. This is particularly 
true because the nature of online hate crime implies 
an  issue  that  is  not  confined  within  the  borders  of 
individual Member States but a cross‑border problem 
that must be tackled jointly (see Chapter 6 on racism, 
xenophobia and related intolerance).

campaigns.  In  Austria,  the  Advisory  Board  on  the 
Information Society at the Federal Chancellery met 
four times in 2013101 to discuss relevant developments 
at European and global level – such as the European 
Commission’s Digital Agenda for Europe,102 the telecom‑
munications package,103 the Internet Governance Forum 
and the European Dialogue on Internet Governance 
(EuroDIG)104 – and at national level, such as strength‑
ening information security in Austria and providing 
a safer internet. In this context, Safer Internet Day, on 
5 February 2013, dealt with online rights and responsi‑
bilities. The French government announced its roadmap 
for digital issues at the end of February.105 As well as 
increasing the use of information and communications 
technologies among young people and enhancing the 
competitiveness of companies through digital technolo‑
gies, the roadmap also aims to ensure the protection of 
civil liberties on the internet.

FRA ACTIVITY

Tackling cyberhate

The FRA organised its annual fundamental rights 
conference for 2013 on the subject of hate crime, 
including a workshop dedicated to cyberhate. The 
conference workshop, held in Vilnius on 12–13 No‑
vember 2013,  discussed  problems  related  to  the 
rise of cyberhate, the challenges in combating it, 
good practices and possible solutions. Key points 
raised include the need to strengthen education, 
training and cyberliteracy for all actors, including 
law  enforcement,  users,  companies  and  govern‑
ments,  as  well  as  enhancing  transparency  and 
reporting in order to raise awareness. This could 
be achieved by reducing the anonymity of users 
while  ensuring  data  protection.  As  online  hate 
speech is a global problem, a common approach 
is  needed.  The  differences  in  legislation  and  the 
criminal codes’ definitions should be harmonised, 
so  that  victims  are  all  treated  on  equal  terms. 
Minimum standards on what is absolutely not al‑
lowed should also be set. Other suggestions con‑
cerned the development of mechanisms to report 
unwanted content that go beyond the legal pros‑
ecution  of  hate  speech.  To  raise  young  people’s 
awareness and respond to the challenge of impu‑
nity, participants strongly suggested establishing 
cyber‑actors  in  law  enforcement  within  private 
services and content and platform providers, such 
as  an  ombudsman  for  Facebook.  Good  practices 
reported  include  child  helplines  in  the  United 
Kingdom, dedicated police officers for cyberhate 
in Finland, awareness‑raising campaigns in Den‑
mark and a Belgian Federal Police unit working in 
schools and engaging with potential victims.

At national level, EU Member States have also become 
active  in  ensuring  respect  for  human  rights  in  the 
digital environment and promoting awareness‑raising 

94

Promising practice

Discouraging children’s risky online 
behaviour

The Spanish initiative ‘You choose’, aimed at 10–15 
year olds, uses worksheets and a comic to make 
students  think  about  the  possible  consequences 
of their online actions. There is a focus on social 
networks and risk situations such as cyberbully‑
ing and online sexual harassment.

For more information, see: www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/
index‑ides‑idphp.php

FRA ACTIVITY

Putting numbers to gender-based 
violence against women

The  FRA  EU‑wide  survey  on  gender‑based  vio‑
lence against women shows that 5 % of women 
in the EU have experienced one or more forms of 
cyberstalking since the age of 15, and 2 % expe‑
rienced it in the 12 months preceding the survey. 
Compared with an average 2 % prevalence of ex‑
periences of cyberstalking for all women, those in 
the youngest age group in the survey, 18–29, were 
most  affected.  For  these  women,  cyberstalking 
accounted for the majority of their experiences of 
stalking in the 12 months before the survey.

The  survey  defined  three  specific  behaviours  as 
cyberstalking:  sending  emails,  text  messages 
(SMS) or instant messages that were offensive or 
threatening;  posting  offensive  comments  about 
the respondent on the internet; and sharing inti‑
mate photos or videos of the respondent on the 
internet  or  by  mobile  phone.  To  be  considered 
stalking, these incidents had to take place repeat‑
edly and the same person had to perpetrate them.

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

At EU level, the data protection reform package will 
remain high on the EU legislature’s agenda. The Council 
of the European Union and the post‑election European 
Parliament will need to enter negotiations quickly to 
make it possible to adopt the reform by the end of 2014. 
CJEU judgments will also continue to provide guidance 
on how to amend legislation; those issued on the Data 
Retention Directive directly affected data protection 
safeguards and also clarified the independence required 
of data protection authorities.

Outlook

The  mass  surveillance  scandal  that  affected  users’ 
confidence in the internet and violated their privacy 
will influence policy development in 2014. How users’ 
trust in information technologies and communications 
will be restored will dominate the debates linked to 
the information society, privacy and data protection. 
The Snowden revelations will necessarily result in calls 
for enhanced fundamental rights compliance in any 
discussions linked to internet governance. Follow‑up 
initiatives, launched in 2013, will necessitate increased 
involvement of policy makers and the private sector, 
with private sector actors needing to engage more in 
fundamental rights enforcement.

95

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 89, 94

BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

CZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 84, 85, 88, 89, 97, 98

DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 92

EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

FI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 94

FR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 84, 85, 93

HR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 84, 87

IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 92

LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 87

MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 92

PT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 88, 89

SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 84, 85, 89, 92, 93, 94

96

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

Bigo, D., Carrera, S., Hernanz, N. Jeandesboz, J., Parkin, J., 
Ragazzi, F. and Scherrer, A. (2013), Mass surveillance of 
personal data by EU Member States and its compatibility 
with EU law, Centre for European Policy Study (CEPS) paper 
in Liberty and Security in Europe, No. 61, p. 2.

United Nations (UN), Human Rights Council (2013), Report 
of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection 
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 
17 April 2013, para. 50 and 51, www.ohchr.org/Documents/
HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.
HRC.23.40_EN.pdf.

UN, General Assembly (2013), Resolution 68/167 on the 
right to privacy in the digital age, 18 December 2013, 
www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/
RES/68/167.

Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2013), 
Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on risks to 
fundamental rights stemming from digital tracking and 
other surveillance technologies, 11 June 2013, wcd.coe.
int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2074317&Site=CM&BackColorInterne
t=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogge
d=F5D383.

Council of Europe, The Council of Europe Commissioner’s 
human rights comment (2013), Human rights at risk when 
secret surveillance spreads, http://humanrightscomment.
org/2013/10/24/human‑rights‑at‑risk‑when‑secre
t‑surveillance‑spreads/.

Council of Europe, Conference of Ministers responsible for 
Media and Information Society (2013), Political declaration: 
Freedom of expression and democracy in the digital age, 
opportunities, rights, responsibilities, 8 November 2013, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/belgrade2013/
Belgrade%20Ministerial%20Conference%20Texts%20
Adopted_en.pdf.

Ibid., p. 1.

European Parliament (2013), Resolution on the US National 
Security Agency surveillance programme, surveillance 
bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU 
citizens’ privacy, 4 July 2013, Brussels, www.europarl.
europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7‑TA‑201
3‑0322&language=EN.

European Parliament, Committee on Civil Liberties, 
Justice and Home Affairs (2014), Draft Report on 
the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance 
bodies in various Member States and their impact on 
EU citizens’ fundamental rights and on transatlantic 
cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs, www.europarl.
europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=‑%2f%2fEP%2f
%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE‑526.085%2b02%2b
DOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN.

10   European Commission (2000), Decision 2000/520/EC 

on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe 
harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked 
questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, 
Brussels, 26 July 2000, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML.

11   Council of the European Union (2013), Report on the 

findings by the EU Co‑chairs of the ad hoc EU–US Working 
Group on Data Protection, Doc. 16987/13, Brussels, 
27 November 2013.

12   European Commission (2013), Communication to the 

European Parliament and the Council: Rebuilding trust 
in EU–US data flows, COM(2013) 846 final, Brussels, 
27 November 2013; European Commission (2013), 
Communication to the European Parliament and the Council 
on the functioning of the Safe Harbour from the perspective 

of EU citizens and companies established in the EU, 
COM(2013) 847 final, Brussels, 27 November 2013.

13   European Commission (2013), Communication to the 

European Parliament and the Council on the functioning 
of the Safe Harbour from the perspective of EU citizens 
and companies established in the EU, COM(2013) 847 final, 
Brussels, 27 November 2013.

14   European Commission (2013), Communication to the 

European Parliament and the Council: Rebuilding trust 
in EU–US Data Flows, COM(2013) 846 final, Brussels, 
27 November 2013.

15   Finland, ‘Kyllä me voimme: Laki sananvapauden ja 

yksityisyydensuojan kansainvälisestä turvaamisesta (Lex 
Snowden)’https://www.kansalaisaloite.fi/fi/aloite/442, 
www.kansalaisaloite.fi/fi/aloite/442.

16   Germany, Konferenz der Datenschutzbeauftragten 
des Bundes und der Länder (2013), ‘Entschließung: 
Keine umfassende und anlasslose Überwachung durch 
Nachrichtendienste! Zeit für Konsequenzen’, Resolution, 
5 September 2013, www.datenschutz.bremen.de/sixcms/
detail.php?gsid=bremen236.c.9292.de.

17   Demonstration ‚Freiheit statt Angst’ (2013), Bündnispartner 
2013. See: http://blog.freiheitstattangst.de/bundnispartner‑ 
2013/.

18   Spiegel Online (2013), ‘NSA‑Protest in Berlin. Freiheit 
unterm Alu‑Hut’, 7 September 2013, www.spiegel.de/
netzwelt/netzpolitik/freiheit‑statt‑angst‑2013‑demonst
ration‑gegen‑nsa‑ueberwachung‑a‑920927.html.

19   Demonstration ‘Freiheit statt Angst’ (2013), ‘Unsere 
Forderungen’, http://blog.freiheitstattangst.de/
unsere‑forderungen/.

20   Spiegel Online (2013), ‘Proteste am Dagger Complex. Mit 

Lampions gegen die NSA’, 1 September 2013; Deutsche 
Welle, ‘Verhaltener Protest gegen NSA‑Überwachung’, 
30 July 2013, www.dw.de/verhaltener‑protest‑gegen‑ns
a‑%C3%BCberwachung/a‑16986575.

21   Deutsche Welle (2013), ‘Cryptoparties boom following 

NSA scandal’, 20 July 2013, www.dw.de/cryptoparties‑boo
m‑following‑nsa‑scandal/a‑16964049.

22   France, Loi n° 2013‑1168 relative à la programmation 

militaire pour les années 2014 à 2019 et portant diverses 
dispositions concernant la défense et la sécurité nationale, 
18 December 2013, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.
do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000028338825&dateTexte
=&categorieLien=id.

23   Hungary, Egyes törvényeknek a nemzetbiztonsági 

ellenőrzés új szabályainak megállapítása érdekében 
szükséges módosításáról szóló 2013. évi LXXII. törvény.

24   Untersinger, M. (2013) ‘Surveillance d’Internet: 

Inquiétudes autour de la loi de programmation militaire’, 
Le Monde, 26 November 2013, www.lemonde.fr/
technologies/article/2013/11/26/surveillance‑d‑interne
t‑inquietudes‑autour‑de‑la‑loi‑de‑programmat
ion‑militaire_3518974_651865.html. See also: Hungary, 
Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, http://tasz.hu/adatvedelem/
megfigyelessel‑korrupcio‑ellen.

25   France, Conseil National du Numérique (2013), Avis sur les 

libertés numériques n° 2013‑5, 6 December 2013, www.
cnnumerique.fr/libertes‑numeriques/.

26   Hungary, Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság 
Hatóság, NAIH‑4867‑4/2012/J, response letter provided 
for the purposes of the present report by the National 
Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information 
to data request, 24 November 2013.

27   Hungary, Alkotmánybíróság, 32/2013. (XI. 22.) AB határozat, 

22 November 2013.

97

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

28   Germany, Bundesregierung (2013), ‘NSA‑Aufklärung. 
Deutschland ist ein Land der Freiheit’, Press release, 
19 July 2013, www.bundesregierung.de/ContentArchiv/DE/
Archiv17/Artikel/2013/07/2013‑07‑19‑bkin‑nsa‑sommerpk.
html.

42   Council of the European Union (2008), Council Framework 
Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the 
protection of personal data processed in the framework 
of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Data 
Protection Framework Decision), OJ 2008 L 350.

29   The Netherlands, Commissie evaluatie Wiv 2002 (2013), 
Evaluatie Wet op de inlichtingen‑ en veiligheidsdiensten 
2002, www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten‑en‑publicaties/
rapporten/2013/12/02/rapport‑evaluatie‑wiv‑2002.html.

30   Slovenia, Ministrstvo za pravosodje, ‘Sporočila za 
javnost po 35. redni seji Vlade RS’, Press release, 
28 November 2013, www.mp.gov.si/si/novinarsko_
sredisce/novica/select/sporocilo_za_ javnost/articl
e/12447/6713/592f3cdc597266ddb17c10a531c7e0e6/?tx_
ttnews%5Byear%5D=2013&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=11.

31   Finland, Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka (2013), ‘100 
pytań o inwigilację do polskich władz’, Press release, 
16 October 2013, www.hfhr.pl/100‑pytan‑o‑inwigilacje‑d
o‑polskich‑wladz.

32   The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) 

complained against the Central Anti‑Corruption Bureau’s 
refusal to provide some of the requested information and 
asked the other intelligence agencies which refused to 
provide information to reconsider this request.

33   Finland, Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka (2013), 

‘Amerykański program PRISM – odpowiedzi na wnioski 
o informację publiczną’, Press release, 6 December 2013, 
www.hfhrpol.waw.pl/precedens/aktualnosci/
amerykanski‑program‑prism‑odpowiedzi‑na‑wnioski‑
o‑informacje‑publiczna.html.

34   Poland, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, ‘Wystąpienie 

do Prokuratora Generalnego w sprawie zapobiegania 
sytuacjom nieautoryzowanego przetwarzania danych 
osobowych polskich internautów’, RPO/738662/13/I/115.2 
RZ, Press release, 23 September 2013.

35   Poland, Prokurator Generalny (2013), PG Ko1 2353/13, 

19 November 2011.

36  

Irish Times (2013), ‘Facebook decision can be reviewed’, 
24 October 2013, www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/
technology/facebook‑decision‑can‑be‑reviewed‑1.1571049.

37   Luxembourg, Commission nationale pour la protection des 
données (2013), ‘Pas de violation constatée en matière de 
protection des données de la part de Skype et Microsoft au 
Luxembourg’, Press release, 18 November 2013, www.cnpd.
public.lu/fr/actualites/national/2013/11/skype‑microsoft/
index.html.

38   European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Big Brother 

Watch and others v. the United Kingdom, No. 58170/13, 
communicated on 9 January 2014; see also European Court 
of Human Rights (ECtHR), Centrum för Rättvisa v. Sweden, 
No. 35252/08.

39   Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals 
with regard to the processing of personal data and on the 
free movement of such data, OJ 1995 L 281.

40   European Commission (2012), Proposal for a Regulation 

of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
protection of individuals with regard to the processing 
of personal data and on the free movement of such data 
(General Data Protection Regulation), COM(2012) 11 final, 
Brussels, 25 January 2012.

41   European Commission (2012), Proposal for a Directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of 
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data 
by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, 
investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal 
offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the 
free movement of such data, COM(2012) 10 final, Brussels, 
25 January 2012.

43   European Data Protection Supervisor (2013), Additional 
EDPS comments on the data protection reform package, 
15 March 2013, https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/
webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/
Comments/2013/13‑03‑15_Comments_dp_package_EN.pdf.

44   Article 29 Working Party (2013), Opinion 01/2013 

providing further input into the discussions on the 
draft Police and Criminal Justice Data Protection 
Directive, WP 201, 26 February 2013, http://ec.europa.
eu/justice/data‑protection/article‑29/documentation/
opinion‑recommendation/files/2013/wp201_en.pdf.

45   Article 29 Working Party (2013), Working 

Document 01/2013: Input on the proposed implementing 
acts, WP 200, 22 January 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/
justice/data‑protection/article‑29/documentation/
opinion‑recommendation/files/2013/wp200_en.pdf.

46   Financial Times, 4 February 2013.

47   European Parliament, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice 
and Home Affairs (2013), Draft report on the proposal 
for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the 
processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such data (General Data Protection Regulation), Brussels, 
16 January 2013.

48   European Parliament, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice 
and Home Affairs (2012), Draft report on the proposal for 
a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing 
of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes 
of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution 
of criminal offences or the execution of criminal 
penalties, and the free movement of such data, Brussels, 
20 December 2012.

49   FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental 

Rights) (2010), Data Protection in the European Union: The 
role of national data protection authorities (Strengthening 
the fundamental rights architecture in the EU II), 
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union 
(Publications Office); see also FRA (2012), FRA opinion 
on the proposed data protection reform package, Vienna, 
1 October 2012; and FRA (2014), Access to data protection 
remedies in EU Member States, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office.

50   FRA and Council of Europe, European Court of Human 

Rights (2014), Handbook on European data protection law, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office.

51   Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), C518/07, 
European Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, 
9 March 2010; CJEU, C614/10, European Commission 
v. Republic of Austria, 16 October 2012.

52   Austria, 83. Bundesgesetz, mit dem das 

Datenschutzgesetz 2000 geändert wird (DSG‑Novelle 2014), 
23 May 2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/
BGBLA_2013_I_83/BGBLA_2013_I_83.html.

53   CJEU, C288/12, European Commission v. Hungary, Advocate 

General’s Opinion, 10 December 2013.

54   Latvia, Likumprojekts ‘Grozījumi Fizisko personu datu 

aizsardzības likumā’, http://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS11/
saeimalivs11.nsf/0/B0CA8FC1A876870BC2257C310050C99
7?OpenDocument.

55   Lithuania, LR Vyriausybė (2013), Nutarimas dėl Valstybinės 
duomenų apsaugos inspekcijos administracijos struktūros 
tvirtinimo, No. 1082, 27 November 2013.

98

56   Slovakia, Zákon č. 122/2013 Z.z. o ochrane osobných údajov, 

72   CJEU, C131/12, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia 

Information society, respect for private life and data protection

30 April 2013.

57   FRA (2010), Data Protection in the European Union: The role 

of national data protection authorities (Strengthening the 
fundamental rights architecture in the EU II), Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

58   Hungary, National Authority for Data Protection and 

Freedom of Information (2013), Key to the World of the 
Internet!, www.naih.hu/files/2013‑projektfuzet‑internet.
pdf.

59   Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and 

of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data 
generated or processed in connection with the provision 
of publicly available electronic communications services 
or of public communications networks and amending 
Directive 2002/58/EC, OJ 2006 L 105.

60   Belgium, Koninklijk besluit tot uitvoering van artikel 126 

van de wet van 13 juni 2005 betreffende de elektronische 
communicatie/Arrêté royal portant exécution de l’article 
126 de la loi du 13 juin 2005 relative aux communications 
électroniques, 19 September 2013, www.ejustice.just.fgov.
be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=201309192
0&table_name=loi.

61   Poland, Ustawa o zmianie ustawy – Prawo 

telekomunikacyjne oraz niektórych innych ustaw, 
16 November 2012.

62   Denmark, Politi og Strafferetsafdelingen, Report on various 

questions regarding the Danish data retention regulations, 
case no. 2012‑187‑0020, document no. 549331, www.ft.dk/
samling/20121/almdel/reu/bilag/125/1200765.pdf.

63   Slovenia, Zakon o elektronskih komunikacijah, ZEKom‑1, 

20 December 2012.

64   Slovenia, Ustavno sodišča Republike Slovenije, UI65/1316, 

26 September 2013,.

65   CJEU, C293/12, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 
High Court of Ireland, lodged on 11 June 2012, Digital Rights 
Ireland Ltd v. Minister for Communications, Marine and 
Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law 
Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland 
and the Attorney General, 25 August 2012.

66   CJEU, C594/12, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 
Austrian Constitutional Court, lodged on 19 December 2012.

67   France, Commission nationale de l’informatique et 
des libertés (CNIL) (2014), Délibération n° 2013420, 
3 January 2014, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.
do?oldAction=rechExpCnil&id=CNILTEXT00002845026
7&fastReqId=2000051504&fastPos=1.

68   United Kingdom, Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 
(2013), ‘ICO statement regarding investigation into Google 
privacy policy’, 2 April 2013, www.ico.org.uk/news/
latest_news/2013/ico‑statement‑investigation‑google‑pri
vacy‑policy‑02042013.

69   United Kingdom, ICO (2013), ‘ICO update on Google 
privacy policy’, 4 July 2013, www.ico.org.uk/news/
latest_news/2013/ico‑update‑on‑google‑privac
y‑policy‑04072013.

70   Spain, Agencia Española de Protección de 

Datos (AEPD) (2013), ‘The AEPD sanctions Google for 
serious violation of the rights of the citizens’, Press release, 
19 December 2013.

71   Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (2013), ‘Bundesgerichtshof 
 entscheidet über die Zulässigkeit persönlichkeitsrechts‑
verletzender Suchergänzungsvorschläge bei “Google”’, 
Press release No. 87/2013, 14 May 2013, http://juris.
bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/document.
py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=64071&linke
d=pm.

Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja 
González, 25 June 2013, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/
document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138782&pageInde
x=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=
1&cid=1090622.

73   Slovenia, Informacijski pooblaščenec (2013), ‘Snemanje ulic 

za storitev Google Street View’, Press release, 2 July 2013, 
www.ip‑rs.si/novice/detajl/snemanje‑ulic‑za‑storitev‑googl
e‑street‑view/?cHash=2113761ece703e0badf20352fa2faa35.

74   See: Internet Governance Forum,  www.intgovforum.org/

cms/.

75  

Internet Governance Forum (2013), 8th meeting of the 
Internet Governance Forum: Chair’s summary, p. 16, www.
intgovforum.org/cms/Chair’s%20Summary%20IGF%20
2013%20Final.Nov1v1.pdf.

76   UN, Human Rights Council (2012), Resolution 20/8 on 
the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human 
rights on the Internet, http://daccess‑dds‑ny.un.org/
doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.
pdf?OpenElement; UNESCO (2013), First WSIS+10 Review 
Event, Final Recommendations, 27 February 2013, p. 3, 
www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/
CI/pdf/wsis/WSIS_10_Event/wsis10_recommendations_
en.pdf. In November 2013 (195 UNESCO states endorsed the 
Final Recommendations). See also: UN, General Assembly 
(2013), Resolution 68/167 on the right to privacy in the 
digital age, 18 December 2013, www.un.org/en/ga/search/
view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167.

77   Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2011), Internet 
Governance Strategy 2012–2015, CM(2011) 175 final, 
15 March 2012.

78   European Commission (2013), Cybersecurity strategy of 

the European Union: an open, safe and secure cyberspace, 
Joint COM(2013) 1 final, Brussels, 7 February 2013, http://
eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=JOIN:201
3:0001:FIN:EN:PDF.

79  

Ibid.

80   Proposal for a Regulation of the European parliament and of 
the Council laying down measures concerning the European 
single market for electronic communications and to achieve 
a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/
EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) 
No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012, COM(2013) 0627 final, 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital‑agenda/en/news/regulatio
n‑european‑parliament‑and‑council‑laying‑down‑mea
sures‑concerning‑european‑single.

81   European Commission (2012), Code of EU Online Rights, 
Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/digitalagenda/sites/
digitalagenda/files/Code%20EU%20online%20rights%20
EN%20final%202.pdf.

82  

Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (2013), Charter for 
Human Rights and Principles for the internet, (version 2.0), 
http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wpcontent/
uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf.

83   See: Internet Governance Forum,  www.intgovforum.org/

cms/.

84  

Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (2011), ‘Ten internet 
rights and principles’, http://internetrightsandprinciples.
org/images/IRPflyer.pdf.

85   Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2011), Internet 
Governance Strategy 2012–2015, CM(2011) 175 final, 
15 March 2012.

86   Council of Europe, Committee of Experts on Rights of 

Internet Users (2013), Draft recommendation of the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on a guide on 
human rights for Internet users, MSI DUI (2013)07Rev7, 
6 December 2013.

99

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

87   UN, Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

98   The survey defined three specific behaviours as 

Rights (2011), Guiding Principles on Business and Human 
Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect 
and Remedy” Framework, New York and Geneva.

88   European Commission (2011), Communication to the 

European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 
A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate 
social responsibility, COM(2011) 681 final, Brussels, 
25 October 2011.

89   European Commission (2013), ICT sector guide on 

implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business 
and Human Rights, June 2013, www.ihrb.org/pdf/
eu‑sector‑guidance/EC‑Guides/ICT/EC‑Guide_ICT.pdf.

90   European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Delfi AS v. Estonia, 
No. 64569/09, 10 October 2013, pending before a Grand 
Chamber of the ECtHR.

91   Poland, Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, I OSK 1666/12, 

21 August 2013.

92   Poland, Ustawa o świadczeniu usług drogą elektroniczną, 

18 July 2012.

93   United Kingdom, Court of Appeal (2013), Tamiz v. Google, 

EWCA Civ 68, www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/68.
html.

94   The FRA EU LGBT survey was conducted online in the 

27 EU Member States and Croatia between April and July 2012. 
The survey collected information from 93,079 people 
aged 18 and above who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or 
transgender, and who lived in the EU or Croatia.

95   FRA (2013), EU LGBT survey: Results at a glance, 

Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 23, http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publication/2013/eu‑lgbt‑survey‑european‑unio
n‑lesbian‑gay‑bisexual‑and‑transgender‑survey‑results.

cyberstalking: sending emails, text messages (SMS) or 
instant messages that were offensive or threatening; 
posting offensive comments about the respondent on 
the internet; and sharing intimate photos or videos of 
the respondent on the internet or by mobile phone. To 
be considered stalking, these incidents had to take place 
repeatedly and the same person had to perpetrate them.

99   The FRA survey on discrimination and hate crimes against 

Jews was conducted online in eight EU Member States – 
Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom – in September and October 2012. 
The survey covered 5,847 self‑identified Jews aged 16 and 
over. FRA (2013), Discrimination and hate crime against 
Jews in EU Member States: Experience and perceptions of 
antisemitism, Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑discrimination‑hat
e‑crime‑against‑jews‑eu‑member‑states_en.pdf.

100   United Kingdom, BBC News, ‘Two guilty over abusive 

tweets to Caroline Criado‑Perez’, 7 January 2014, www.bbc.
com/news/uk‑25641941.

101   See: Beirat für Informationsgesellschaft,  www.bka.gv.at/

site/4293/default.aspx.

102   European Commission (2010), A digital agenda for Europe, 
COM(2010) 245 final, Brussels, 26 August 2010, http://
eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELE
X:52010DC0245:EN:NOT.

103   European Commission (2013), Communication from the 

Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions on the Telecommunications 
Single Market, COM(2013) 634, Brussels, 11 September 2013, 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital‑agenda/en/news/
communication‑commission‑european‑parliament‑c
ouncil‑european‑economic‑and‑social‑committee‑a‑0.

96   FRA (2014 forthcoming), EU LGBT survey: Main results, 

104   See: European Dialogue on Internet Governance,  www.

Luxembourg, Publications Office.

eurodig.org/.

97   The FRA survey on violence against women interviewed 
42,000 women (face‑to‑face interviews), who were 
between 18 and 74 years old and lived in any of the 28 EU 
Member States (approximately 1,500 per country). The 
respondents were selected based on random sampling. 
The data were collected between April and July 2012. 
FRA (2014), Violence against women: An EU‑wide survey – 
main results, Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.
europa.eu/en/publication/2014/vaw‑survey‑main‑results.

105   See:  www.gouvernement.fr/premier‑ministre/

le‑gouvernement‑presente‑la‑feuille‑de‑route‑pour‑le
‑numerique.

100

The rights of the child and the protection 
of children

Equality and non-discrimination

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

Roma integration

Equality
Equality

4 

The rights of the child and the protection of children  ��������� 103

4�1�  Europe takes steps to improve access 

to child-friendly justice  ������������������������������������������������ 103

4�2�  Europe tackles violence against children  ������������������� 106
4�2�1�  Domestic violence and sexual abuse  ����������� 107
4�2�2�  Violence on the internet rises  ����������������������� 109
4�2�3�  Bullying  ����������������������������������������������������������� 110
4�2�4�  Other forms of violence  ��������������������������������� 111

4�3�  Europe takes aim at child poverty  ������������������������������ 112

4�3�1�  European Commission offers guidance 

on promoting children’s well-being  �������������� 112

4�3�2�  Member States seek solution 

to child poverty  ���������������������������������������������� 113

Outlook  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 116

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE
January
February
27 March – The Council of Europe Commissioner 
for Human Rights issues a statement, with 
reference to his visit to Estonia, according to 
which all children should be granted citizenship 
automatically at birth even when their parents 
are stateless
March
17 April – The United Nations Committee on 
the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) issues General 
comment No� 15 on the right of the child to the 
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard 
of health and General comment No� 16 on State 
obligations regarding the impact of the business 
sector on children’s rights

23 April – The Parliamentary Assembly of the 
Council of Europe adopts a Resolution on fighting 
child sex tourism and a Resolution on ending 
discrimination against Roma children
April
29 May – The UNCRC issues General comment 
No� 17 on the right of the child to rest, leisure, 
play, recreational activities, cultural life and the 
arts and General comment No� 14 on the right of 
the child to have his or her best interests taken as 
a primary consideration
May
June
8 July – The UNCRC issues its Concluding 
observations on the combined third and fourth 
periodic reports of Slovenia
July
20 August – The CoE Commissioner for Human 
Rights warns that child labour remains a serious 
concern in Europe
August
September
1 October – The Parliamentary Assembly of the 
CoE adopts a Resolution on violations of the 
physical integrity of children

9 October – The CoE Commissioner for Human 
Rights warns that austerity measures weaken 
children’s rights protection

16 October – The Committee of Ministers of the 
CoE adopts a Recommendation on ensuring full 
inclusion of children and young persons with 
disabilities in society

29 October – The UNCRC issues its Concluding 
observations on the combined third and fourth 
periodic reports of Luxembourg and of Lithuania
October
22 November – The CoE Commissioner for Human 
Rights warns that more systematic consideration 
should be given to the best interests of the child 
in migration and asylum policies and procedures
November
December

EU
January 
20 February – The European Commission adopts a recommendation on Investing 
in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage
February 
12 March – The European Commission adopts a Communication on enhancing 
maternal and child nutrition in external assistance
March 
6 April – The deadline passes for transposing into national law the Directive on 
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, 
which also includes child victims

24 April – The European Commission adopts the green paper Preparing for a fully 
converged audiovisual world: Growth, creation and values, covering also the 
protection of children
April 
May 
12 June – The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopt 
a regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, also 
covering children with protection measures

12 June – The European Parliament adopts a resolution on the European 
Commission Communication Towards social investment for growth and 
cohesion – including implementing the European Social Fund 2014–2020, urging 
the Commission and the Member States to take immediate action to fight child 
poverty

13 June – The Council of the EU adopts Conclusions on an EU Framework for the 
provision of information on the rights of victims of trafficking in human beings

26 June – The European Parliament and the Council of the EU adopt the recast 
Asylum Procedures Directive, Reception Conditions Directive, Dublin Regulation 
and Eurodac Regulation including child-specific provisions on access to 
child-friendly asylum procedures and reception conditions

26 June – Regulation (EU) No� 610/2013 amending parts of the Schengen Borders 
Code is published, requiring that training curricula for border guards shall 
include specialised training for detecting and dealing with situations involving 
vulnerable persons, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking

27–28 June – EU leaders at the European Council meeting in Brussels endorse 
a comprehensive plan to combat youth unemployment
June 
July 
August 
12 September – The European Parliament adopts a resolution on the situation of 
unaccompanied minors in the EU, identifying the areas in which further efforts 
are to be made at national and EU levels to strengthen the protection of this 
group of particularly vulnerable children
September 
October 
27 November – The European Commission adopts a proposal for a directive 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on procedural safeguards for 
children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings

25 November – The European Commission adopts a Communication to the 
European Parliament and the Council, Towards the elimination of female genital 
mutilation
November 
17–18 December – The European Commission organises the eighth European 
Forum on the Rights of the Child on the role of child protection systems

18 December – The deadline passes for transposing the Directive on combating 
the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography
December 

102

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 

The rights of the child and 
the protection of children

Poverty and violence harm the lives of too many children across the European Union (EU). To tackle the pressing 
and persistent problem of child poverty, the European Commission issued a recommendation setting forth 
a common approach. EU Member States will need to put this framework into practice. Yet, across many Member 
States, education budgets that contribute to children’s well‑being have fallen prey to crisis‑driven cuts. 
Similarly, budget cuts to child protection services may put at risk safety nets needed by children afflicted by 
violence, even as new technologies, especially the internet, increase the risk of some types of violence. The EU 
and a number of Member States have taken steps to combat violence and child sexual abuse, as well as other 
forms of violence affecting children; 2013 marked the deadline for Member States to transpose two related 
directives. In another high‑priority field, the treatment of children was often inappropriate in judicial 
proceedings, as crime victims or witnesses, and in civil proceedings, although recent legal reforms are expected 
to improve the situation.

At the international level, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 
was particularly active during 2013, releasing four general comments. 
One of the most relevant is the comment dealing with the ‘best inter‑
ests of the child’, which is one of the principles included in Article 24 
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The committee noted that 
this is a dynamic concept encompassing various issues that continu‑
ously change, so the general comment does not prescribe what is 
‘best’ for the child in any given situation, but rather aims to provide 
a framework for assessing and determining a child’s best interests in 
each case. The other general comments relate to child rights and busi‑
ness, the right to health and the right to play.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 
a communications procedure,1 which allows individual children to file 
complaints about violation of their rights directly to the committee, 
was opened for signature in February 2012. By the end of 2013, only 
four EU Member States had ratified the protocol: Germany, Portugal, 
Slovakia and Spain. The protocol will enter into force in April 2014, 
after reaching a total of 10 ratifications worldwide.

4�1�  Europe takes steps to improve 
access to child-friendly justice

Europe aims to ensure the rights of children in the justice system and 
provide for their needs, given that responses are often inappropriate 

Key developments in the area 
of children’s rights

•  The European Commission adopts 

a recommendation providing EU Member 
States with a common framework to act 
against child poverty.

•  The deadlines for transposing the Human 
Trafficking Directive and the Directive on 
sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and child 
pornography are reached in 2013. During 
2012 and 2013, a majority of EU Member States 
reform civil and criminal law, thereby affecting 
the way children access justice.

•  The EU continues to adopt measures against 

violence against women and girls, such as the 
Regulation on mutual recognition of protection 
measures and the Communication on the 
elimination of female genital mutilation.

• 

Justice systems in EU Member States are not 
properly responding to the specific needs and 
rights of children in criminal and  
civil proceedings.

103

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

and  lacking  sensitivity  to  childrens’  specific  needs. 
Ensuring child‑friendly justice and the implementation 
of the Council of Europe Guidelines on child‑friendly 
justice2 are among the objectives of the EU agenda for 
the rights of the child.3

The rights of children involved as victims or witnesses 
in criminal proceedings have thus been strengthened 
through the victims package, mainly the 2012 Directive 
on establishing minimum standards on the rights, 
support  and  protection  of  victims  of  crime4  and 
the Directive on sexual abuse and exploitation of 
children and child pornography, which established 
a number of procedural guarantees.5

December 2013 was the deadline for EU Member States 
to transpose the Directive on sexual abuse and exploi‑
tation and child pornography to national law. Member 
States should ensure that child victims of crimes cov‑
ered by this directive receive appropriate assistance 
before, during and after the criminal proceedings; they 
should avoid unjustified delay; they should train profes‑
sionals responsible for interviewing children; and they 
should organise hearings without the presence of the 
public. Under the EU Victims’ Directive, Member States 
will have to ensure that special protection measures 
are available for all child victims participating in criminal 
proceedings. Such protection measures include, for 
example, the possibility of recording all interviews 
audiovisually and that interviews must be carried out 
by trained professionals and in premises designed or 
adapted  for  that  purpose.  Member  States  have  to 
transpose this directive by 16 November 2015.

wherever possible. Furthermore, it lays down that 
professionals such as law enforcement and judicial 
authorities should receive specific training on the 
needs of children.

In  line  with  the  above  legislative  measures,  the 
European Commission in close cooperation with FRA 
has embarked on a project gathering data on children 
and  justice  in  all  EU  Member  States.  The  project 
analyses the legal safeguards provided to children in 
the  different  national  systems,  determines  justice 
indicators, and provides statistical data on children’s 
involvement in justice proceedings. Different findings 
will be available throughout 2014 and 2015. In parallel, 
FRA examines children’s actual treatment in justice 
procedures through fieldwork research complementing 
the Commission’s research and assessing how the 
Council of Europe Guidelines on child‑friendly jus‑
tice are applied.

During  the  project’s  first  stage,  FRA  interviewed 
574 professionals in 10 EU Member States about their 
experiences  regarding  court  hearings  on  issues  of 
domestic violence, sexual abuse and custody, as well 
as visiting rights within divorce procedures. The profes‑
sionals were asked about the extent and quality of 
these hearings, as well as their impact on the child.

“Ideally, the child won’t leave the hearing burdened by any 
more negative emotions or with a bad impression. This is 
what we are aiming for.”

Estonia, child protection specialist, female (FRA, Research on child‑friendly 
justice)

“[...] I could never give my full testimony, I could never say 
everything about how I feel, what is on my mind or what 
bothers me and other things. And then they interrupted me 
constantly [...]”

Croatia, 14‑year‑old boy, involved in a child custody proceeding (FRA, 2013, 
Research on child‑friendly justice)

The EU promotes child‑friendly justice for children 
victims of crime but also for children suspected or 
accused of crimes. The European Commission has 
adopted a proposal for a Directive on procedural safe‑
guards for children suspected or accused in criminal 
proceedings.6 The proposal includes several measures 
to protect children’s rights, the core measure being 
mandatory access to a lawyer at all stages of the 
proceedings  with  the  exception  of  certain  minor 
offences. Children shall also benefit from other safe‑
guards, such as being promptly informed about their 
rights, being assisted by their parents (or other appro‑
priate persons), the right to an individual assessment, 
the right to receive medical examination and being 
kept separately from adult inmates if deprived of 
liberty. Moreover, deprivation of liberty should be 
considered as a measure of last resort and recourse 
to  alternative  measures  that  should  be  ensured 

The main findings of the 2013 FRA research point to very 
different practices in treating children in judicial proceed‑
ings, depending on the severity and type of cases, and 
the  approach  adopted  by  individual  judges  or  other 
professionals involved in the case. In some EU Member 
States, children’s participation in judicial proceedings is 
more formalised, standardised and adapted to children 
needs than in others. Many professionals, such as judges, 
police or social workers, were not aware of the Council 
of Europe guidelines and relied mainly on national regu‑
lation and/or on their own understanding and judgement. 
The majority of respondents said that information pro‑
vided to children can be improved in terms of consist‑
ency, amount, clarity and child‑appropriateness. Many 
also highlighted a need for multi‑agency cooperation 
and better training for judges on child‑related issues and 
for social professionals on legal issues.

During  2013,  half  of  the  EU  Member  States  have 
 discussed proposals or have approved legal reforms 
that affect the way children, particularly victims and 
witnesses, access the justice system, how they are 
heard during proceedings and the type of assistance 
provided to them (for more information on access to 
justice, see Chapter 8).

104

FRA ACTIVITY

Listening to children’s voices

After having interviewed 574 professionals about 
the  treatment  of  children  in  justice  proceedings, 
FRA  is  now  interviewing  children  themselves 
about their experiences with the justice system.

Interviews with children are being carried out dur‑
ing  2014  in  10  EU  Member  States.  Children  are 
asked  questions  about  the  way  that  they  were 
treated by justice officials; who heard them, how 
and  where;  how  they  were  supported;  what  ef‑
fect  this  treatment  had  on  them;  and  how  they 
would  have  liked  to  be  treated,  or  how  to  make 
justice a better experience for children.

A preparatory phase was implemented in 2013 to 
identify  appropriate  channels  to  reach  children, 
implement  protection  mechanisms  and  develop 
and test the research instruments.

This research will lead to a broader assessment of 
the impact on various practices of involving chil‑
dren  in  judicial  proceedings.  It  also  will  help  to 
identify  promising  practices  as  well  as  areas  for 
improvement. Publication of the research findings 
is planned for 2015.

The Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal  Procedure7 
in Poland have been reviewed. Now a hearing with 
a child may take place in a specially adapted room either 
on or outside the premises of the court. Additionally, 
such hearings will have to be recorded. A hearing with 
a victim will be allowed only if the testimony is relevant 
to the proceedings; the hearing shall be conducted only 
once, unless there is evidence of relevant circumstances 
that need to be explained in a second hearing, or it is 
requested by the accused if he or she had no counsel 
at the time of the first interview with the victim. This 
protection covers children who, at the time of a hearing, 
are under 15 years of age. Children aged over 15 years 
are  obligatorily  heard  in  the  conditions  mentioned 
above only if there is a reasonable risk that hearing 
them in other conditions could have a negative impact 
on their mental state. Additionally, the application of 
these procedures has been extended to witnesses.

The Czech Republic has also adopted new legislation 
affecting proceedings with child victims, through the 
adoption  of  the  Victims  Rights  Act,8  in  force  since 
August 2013. It considers a child a particularly vulner‑
able victim, so it provides for special rights such as the 
right to specialised aid free of charge (such as psycho‑
logical or social aid) or the right to have testimony 
translated by an interpreter of the same or the opposite 
gender. The questioning of a child is also regulated dif‑
ferently from that of an adult: a child has to be treated 
in a sensitive way and audiovisual devices might be 
used to record the testimony.

The rights of the child and the protection of children

With the new Act strengthening the rights of victims of 
sexual abuse, Germany prescribes standards for the 
qualification of judges who hear child victims of sexual 
abuse, strengthens the efforts to avoid multiple hear‑
ings and guarantees that hearings are conducted by 
experienced youth public prosecutors.9

The Slovak parliament passed an amendment to the 
Code of Criminal Procedure10 to ensure that child wit‑
nesses up to the age of 18 are entitled to a number of 
protections. The previous code offered special protec‑
tion only to children up to 15 years of age. The protection 
measures relate to the examination of child witnesses 
and the need to avoid questions about issues that might 
negatively affect their mental and moral integrity. The 
examination should be conducted so that there is no 
further need to repeat it; follow‑up examinations are 
allowed only in specifically justified cases and require 
a prosecutor’s consent.

In the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Justice launched 
a consultation aimed at improving the Code of Practice 
for Victims of Crime.11 The revised code in force since 
December 2013 provides victims with an entitlement 
to receive a needs assessment from the police to ascer‑
tain the help and support the victim may need. The 
code  also  includes  a  dedicated  section  written  in 
child‑accessible  language  for  child  victims  under 
18 years of age. All children under the age of 18 at the 
time of the offence will qualify for enhanced entitle‑
ments, which include timely referral to support ser‑
vices; access to therapy or counselling throughout the 
investigation and prosecution where appropriate and 
available; and the provision of advice and information 
regarding special measures available for vulnerable 
witnesses. All service providers are also placed under 
a  duty  to  give  primary  consideration  to  the 
child’s best interests.

“Well, now and then I felt very sad. I felt very angry. And 
I felt frightened, because I had not realised that they 
[stepfather and mother] were able to listen to everything 
I said. Well, sometimes I felt easy. And sometimes I felt 
happy that all this was over. I liked that the family assistant 
was with me. Actually, all in all, the proceeding gets the 
mark ‘good’.”

Germany, 15‑year‑old girl, victim of domestic violence, involved in 
a criminal proceeding (FRA, Research on child‑friendly justice)

Countries  have  made  reforms  to  the  way  the 
 justice system responds not only to child victims or 
witnesses of crimes but also to children accused of 
breaking the law.

In  Poland,  the  amendment  to  the  Act  on  juvenile 
 justice12 introduces a maximum time for which a child 
may be detained in a juvenile police shelter following 
a decision to place him or her in a shelter or with a foster 
family. The act also clarifies and enumerates the rights 

105

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

of children detained in juvenile police shelters and rules 
on  the  obligation  to  inform  a  minor  about  his  or 
her procedural rights.

Luxembourg finished the construction of a juvenile 
‘secure unit’ in one of the two socio‑educational cen‑
tres  (one  centre  for  females,  one  for  males)  in 
response to criticism by the UN Committee for the 
Prevention of Torture. The committee has censured 
Luxembourg for imprisoning young persons in the 
regular penitentiary centre together with adult crimi‑
nals.13  In  July  2013,  the  Ministry  of  Family  and 
Integration proposed a bill about this secure unit, as 
well as a draft decree on the organisation of this unit.14 
The  draft  defines  rights  and  obligations  of  child 
offenders.  It  includes  precise  guidelines  for  body 
search (for example, intimate search has to be done 
by a medical doctor), ensuring respect for funda‑
mental rights and defining disciplinary measures and 
procedures within the closed facility.

In the Netherlands, a criminal justice bill for juvenile 
offenders  was  passed.  It  allows  judges  to  choose 
between juvenile and adult criminal law in cases of 
serious felonies committed by juveniles from the age 
of 16 to 23 years. The Ombudsman for Children has 
called on the government to amend the new bill so 
that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 
will not be breached.15 The new bill means a deteriora‑
tion of the situation for 16‑ to 17‑year‑olds, since they 
are  presently  judged  according  to  juvenile  crim‑
inal law only.

The  Department  of  Justice  in  Northern Ireland,  the 
United Kingdom, has initiated a public consultation on 
the current policy, legislation and operational matters 
around children in custody, the potential for change and 
the impact any such changes may have.16 Input received 
will feed into the ongoing legislative discussion.

Children  with  special  needs  are  also  taken  into 
 consideration when reforming access to justice. Latvia, 
for example, is discussing draft regulations for the police 
to support children with special needs.17 The draft regu‑
lations determine the procedure whereby the police 
evaluate if the child has special needs and if specialist 
support is required. A child with hearing impairments 
will have to be provided with a sign language inter‑
preter, and a child with communication difficulties will 
have to be provided with a psychologist. A child brought 
to the police will have to be provided with a secure 
environment, movement opportunities and opportuni‑
ties to visit an accessible toilet.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has dealt 
with  the  issue  of  procedural  guarantees  and 
child‑friendly justice in the case Vronchenko v. Estonia. 
The court recognised the violation of the applicant’s 
right to defence, as he was never given the opportunity 

to have questions put to the victim, a girl victim of 
sexual abuse. The court points out, however, that this 
recognition should not be interpreted as an obligation 
to have a cross‑examination. The authorities should 
rather have examined if it was possible to put questions 
to the witness, for example through the defendant’s 
lawyer, police investigator or psychologist, in an envi‑
ronment under the control of the investigating authori‑
ties  to  prevent  any  harm  and  repeat  victimisation 
to the child.18

Reforms have also affected the way that children are 
treated in civil proceedings. In Belgium, for example, 
a new act establishes the Family and Youth Tribunal.19 
It also introduces the principle of “one family, one 
case, one judge”, which means that all substantive 
decisions and decisions on interim measures of any 
familial nature (including marriage, divorce, child sup‑
port, adoption, filiation, housing and liquidation of 
estates) will be grouped together and decided on by 
a single judge. Previously, the competences related 
to family disputes were spread among several juris‑
dictions, which led to a multiplication of court pro‑
ceedings  and  increased  costs  for  citizens  and  the 
Department of Justice. The law also means that chil‑
dren over 12 years of age must be informed of their 
right to be heard by the judge in family civil litigations. 
Children under 12 years of age will be heard only at 
their request or at the request of the parties, the 
Public Prosecutor or the judge.

In Italy, Law 219/2012 entered into force in January 2013, 
introducing a new provision in the Civil Code that estab‑
lishes the right of a child who is 12 years or younger to 
be heard in all matters that affect him or her, if the child 
is capable of forming his or her own views.20 At the 
same time, national case law has reaffirmed the need 
to comply with international standards on child‑friendly 
justice on different occasions. The Supreme Court has 
stressed in Judgment No. 11687 the right of the child to 
be  effectively  heard,  in  compliance  with  the 
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 24 
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The judgment 
annulled the decision of the appeal court on the condi‑
tions of separation of the parents, because the child 
had not been heard.21

4�2�  Europe tackles violence 
against children

Violence still affects the lives of too many children in 
Europe. The EU and a number of EU Member States 
have taken steps to combat domestic violence and child 
sexual abuse, bullying, corporal punishment and other 
forms of violence affecting children, such as forced 
marriages. Budget cuts to child protection services, and 
the risks associated with the misuse of new technolo‑
gies  are  some  of  the  factors  which  exacerbate 

106

The rights of the child and the protection of children

problems. Various initiatives have been taken in 2013 
at  both  international  and  European  levels  to 
address the problem.

Violence has been identified as a significant cause of 
mortality and morbidity in children, particularly ado‑
lescents, by the Committee on the Rights of the Child 
in its General comment No. 15.22 In line with it, the 
Special Representative of the Secretary‑General on 
Violence against Children has underlined in its annual 
report23 that the urgency of protecting children from 
violence has not diminished. While progress in child 
protection remains patchy across the world, children 
continue to be subject to violent practices in schools, 
care, justice institutions and the home.

As pointed out in a 2013 World Health Organization 
(WHO) report,24 every year at least 850 children aged 
under 15 years die from maltreatment in Europe. In 
addition, it is estimated that 18 million children in 
Europe  suffer  from  sexual  abuse,  and  44  million 
from physical abuse.

4�2�1�  Domestic violence and 
sexual abuse

The EU has taken a step towards better protection of 
domestic violence victims, including children, by guar‑
anteeing that from January 2015 restraining measures 
against perpetrators are effective across the EU and not 
just in the Member State in which they are issued. This 
new order25 will complement the ‘European protection 
order’, adopted in December 2011, extending its applica‑
tion from criminal to civil matters (see Chapter 9 on the 
rights of crime victims).

A wider ratification of the Council of Europe Convention 
on the protection of children against sexual exploitation 
and sexual abuse, known as the Lanzarote Convention,26 
represent s  another  accomplishment.  So  far, 
18 EU Member States have ratified it: Austria, Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, 
Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal, 
Romania  and  Spain  before  2013,  as  well  as  Italy, 
Lithuania, Slovenia and Sweden during the year.

The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and 
combating violence against women and domestic vio‑
lence, known as the Istanbul Convention,27 has not yet 
reached the minimum number of ratifications to enter 
into force. Only three EU Member States have ratified 
the  convention,  Austria,  Italy  and  Portugal, 
all during 2013.

The FRA survey, which is based on interviews with 
42,000 women across the EU, also highlights children’s 
direct exposure to domestic violence and their risk of 
victimisation later in life. In connection with this, 41 % 
of violent incidences against mothers are witnessed by 

at least one child. Moreover, 7 % of women who had 
a current or previous partnership and had experienced 
violence  in  their  partnership  reported  threats  by 
a partner that they would take the children away. In 
3 % of the cases, the partner threatened to hurt the 
children, and 3 % of the women state that the partner 
actually did so.

FRA ACTIVITY

Asking women about their 
experiences of violence 
during childhood

Women  in  all  EU  Mem‑
ber  States  were  asked 
about  their  experiences 
of violence during child‑
hood  in  a  FRA  survey. 
The  results  show  that 
27  %  of  women  have 
experienced some form 
of  physical  abuse 
in 
childhood  at  the  hands 
of  an  adult,  and  just 
over  one  in  10  wom‑
en  (12  %)  has  experi‑
enced some form of sexual abuse by an adult be‑
fore  she  was  15  years  old.  This  corresponds  to 
21 million women in the European Union.

Women’s perception of whether violence against women 
is common in their country is closely connected to their 
personal experiences of domestic or non‑partner vio‑
lence, their awareness of other women who are victims 
of violence, and their awareness of campaigns addressing 
violence against women. The interplay between these 
factors needs to be taken into account when interpreting 
data from the different EU Member States.

December  2013  was  the  deadline  for  EU  Member 
States to transpose the Directive on sexual abuse and 
exploitation and child pornography into national law.28 
Thus, 2013 continued to witness criminal law reforms 
in the area of sexual abuse, domestic violence, child 
pornography and sex tourism in Member States such 
as Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and the 
Netherlands. Other Member States, such as Lithuania, 
Poland and Spain, are still discussing draft proposals.

Austria introduced a new law in July 2013 altering the 
Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure29 to intro‑
duce  changes  to  sexual  crime  legislation.  The  law 
defines child prostitution and the crime of human traf‑
ficking. It increases the minimum punishment for the 
crime of rape from six months to one year, and the 
punishment  for  sexual  coercion  with  severe  conse‑
quences  for  the  victim  (e.g.  severe  bodily  harm  or 

107

 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Figure 4.1:  Childhood experience of any physical or sexual violence before the age of 15 (%)

FI
EE
FR
LU
DK
DE
SE
UK
SK
EU-28
LV
CZ
IT
NL
AT
HR
BG
ES
IE
PT
BE
HU
EL
RO
MT
LT
PL
SI
CY

51

48

44

43
42

42

41

36

34

33
33

32

31
30

30
30

29

28

26
25
25

24
23
23

21

18

17

12
12

10

20

30

40

50

Source:  FRA (2012), Gender‑based violence against women survey data set

pregnancy) from one year to a minimum of five years. 
Victims under 14 years shall be granted psychosocial 
aid. The ban on working with children if convicted of 
a sexual crime against children has been modified in 
conformity with Directive 2011/93 to include professional 
activities involving intensive  contacts with children.

Austria also has a new law on child protection.30 Among 
other changes, it structures the process regulating the 
assessment of when the child’s best interests are endan‑
gered,  and  unifies  it  for  all  Austrian  provinces.  Two 
well‑trained specialists must assess if there is an immi‑
nent danger to the child’s best interests. It also explicitly 
lists the persons and institutions that are obliged to 
notify the Child and Youth Welfare Office when they have 
reason to believe that the child’s welfare is in danger.

In Hungary, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights 
released a report on child prostitution. It highlights that 
the most serious obstacles to effectively tackling child 
prostitution are the lack of cooperation between authori‑
ties and institutions, the lack of knowledge, professional 
guidelines and protocols, and the fact that the police 
treats children in prostitution as offenders and not as 
victims.31 Hungary had reformed its criminal code in 2012, 
making some changes to its treatment ofsexual violence; 
the 2012 reform further defined child prostitution and 
increased the time within which legal proceedings may 
be brought for certain crimes up to the age of 23 years.

FRA ACTIVITY

Researching European guardians for 
children victims of trafficking

During 2013, FRA reviewed guardianship systems 
in the 28 EU Member States to identify promising 
practices. The review covered issues such as the 
role of the guardians, their qualification and train‑
ing, and the procedure for appointing a guardian. 
The research also explored how specific guardian‑
ship mechanisms used for child victims of traffick‑
ing relate to guardianship arrangements for other 
children who are temporarily or permanently de‑
prived of their family environment.

FRA was requested to support the European Com‑
mission to develop a best practice model on the 
role  of  guardians  and/or  representatives  of  child 
victims of trafficking, as suggested in the EU An‑
ti‑Trafficking Strategy 2012–2014. To do so, it up‑
dated parts of the report on Child trafficking in the 
European  Union:  Challenges,  perspectives  and 
good practices, published by FRA in July 2009.

As  a  result  of  this  research,  FRA  will  publish 
two  reports  in  2014:  a  good  practice  model  on 
guardianship and legal representation of children 
victims of trafficking and a comparative report on 
the guardianship systems in the 28 Member States.

108

The rights of the child and the protection of children

A number of EU Member States have reformed laws 
regulating domestic violence against women and chil‑
dren. In Latvia, for example, the notion of emotional 
abuse has been widened; now the violent treatment of 
a person close to a child in the child’s presence shall 
also be recognised as emotional abuse.32 Italy adopted 
a new law decree introducing an aggravating sanction 
for the perpetrator if the domestic violence has taken 
place in presence of a child and introducing the possi‑
bility of granting a permit to stay for victims of domestic 
violence who are third‑country nationals.33 The law 
decree promotes prevention programmes in schools 
and  the  reinforcement  of  support  programmes  for 
women victims of violence and their children.

Promising practice

Compensating victims of family 
sexual abuse

To  compensate  victims  of  family  sexual  abuse, 
Germany  has  established  a  €50  million  sexual 
abuse  fund  (Fonds  Sexueller  Missbrauch).  The 
Länder  should  add  another  €50  million  to  the 
fund. The establishment of a fund for victims of 
sexual abuse in institutional settings and outside 
family context is under discussion.38

People who were sexually abused in their fami‑
lies as a child and still suffer from the effects to‑
day may apply for benefits in kind up to a value of 
€10,000. This provision covers cases of violence 
that  occurred  between  the  founding  of  the  Ger‑
man  Republic  in  May  1949  and  June  2013.  Re‑
quests  for  such  benefits  can  be  submitted  until 
30 April 2016. The offer of assistance ranges from 
cost transfers for psychotherapeutic care to train‑
ing  and  qualification  measures  or  other  tailored 
support in special cases.39

For more information, see: www.fonds‑missbrauch.de/

In the Netherlands, the Act for a Mandatory Reporting 
Code on Domestic Violence and Child Abuse entered 
into effect on 1 July 2013,34 making it compulsory for 
organisations and independent professionals to adhere 
to a reporting code. The code targets domestic violence 
and  child  abuse,  including  sexual  violence,  female 
genital mutilation, honour‑based violence, senior abuse 
and forced marriage. It applies to organisations and 
independent professionals in education, healthcare, 
childcare, youth care, social work and the criminal jus‑
tice system, who are obliged to report cases of sus‑
pected child abuse. Organisations and independent 
professionals have to draw up their own systems on 
how to report, tailored to their specific situation. The 
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport has published 
a model reporting code that can be used for this pur‑
pose.35 The Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate held a survey 
before the act entered into force and concluded that 

reporting codes for domestic violence and child abuse 
have not been adequately used in the healthcare sector, 
with its subsectors varying in the extent to which they 
had adopted such codes.36

At the policy level, the Netherlands is also discussing 
an action plan against child sex tourism.37 It contains 
measures to address child sex tourism, including con‑
fiscating the passports of repeat offenders and closer 
cooperation between Dutch officials and officials from 
countries where child sex tourism is common, such as 
Brazil,  Thailand,  the  Philippines  and  India.  This  will 
include deploying police experts to help track down 
offenders, improving the international registration of 
offenders and information exchange between countries.

4�2�2�  Violence on the internet rises

The safety of children is particularly at risk on the internet 
both from adult predators and from young people them‑
selves uploading sexually explicit material. The threat of 
online child sexual exploitation is increasing as tech‑
nology develops and offenders find more secure methods 
to distribute abusive material, as reported by Europol.40 
The amount of video material depicting child sexual 
abuse available online has grown substantially. It is esti‑
mated that only between 6 % and 18 % of child abusive 
material is currently traded for money, given the wide 
availability of free material, especially using peer‑to‑peer 
technology,  by  which  individuals  exchange  files.  An 
increase in the distribution of sexual images and videos 
by young people themselves – known as ‘sexting’ – is 
equally  alarming.  According  to  the  Virtual  Global 
Taskforce, a network of law enforcement agencies, NGOs 
and industry, 15 % of 11‑ to 16‑year‑olds in Europe say 
that they have received sexual messages from peers.41

European stakeholders have taken several initiatives to 
promote child safety on the internet. The European 
Commission has adopted a green paper42 to regulate 
reporting tools for users, age‑appropriate privacy set‑
tings, use of parental control and effective removal of 
child  abuse  material.  In  addition,  a  new  European 
Cybercrime  Centre,  focusing  on  online  child  sexual 
exploitation, among other activities, was opened in 
January  2013.43  Under  the  Daphne  III  Programme, 
a European awareness‑raising campaign on cyberbul‑
lying called Delete Cyberbullying44 was launched in 
February 2013. The project contributes to developing 
a common approach to risk prevention by setting guide‑
lines to children, families and parents (see also Chapter 3 
on  information  society,  respect  for  private  life 
and data protection).

Member States have adopted a number of legislative 
and policy actions. In Luxembourg, a bill45 is being dis‑
cussed to address cyberharassment. The bill is expected 
to empower victims, especially students, to go to court. 
In Italy, the National Authority for Children has signed 

109

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

an agreement with the Head of Police to disseminate 
promising practices in relation to the correct use of web 
technologies  by  children.  The  Observatory  against 
Paedophilia and Child Pornography has launched its 
own website with the aim of spreading the knowledge 
of this phenomenon, including laws and practical infor‑
mation for victims46 (see promising practice on web 
technologies in Chapter 3).

A 2013 report by the Dutch Ombudsman for  Children47 
noted a 158 % increase in notifications of child pornog‑
raphy between 2011 and 2012. Online grooming (an 
adult approaching a minor with the aim of sexual abuse) 
has been punishable since 2010. There have been sev‑
eral cases, including a 2013 case before the Supreme 
Court48 and a case before the District Court of Assen, 
where a man was accused of grooming 300 girls through 
the internet between 2005 and 2013. The prosecution’s 
focus is shifting from the downloading of child pornog‑
raphy to the sexual abuse of children and the production 
and distribution of child pornography. Spain approved 
the Second Strategic Plan on childhood and adolescence 
2013–2016; one of its eight objectives is the prevention 
of online abuse and grooming, and it also plans criminal 
law reform on the issue.49

An innovative and controversial program to detect men 
looking for webcam sex with children coming from 
developing countries was also developed by a Dutch 
organisation, Terres des Hommes.50 With the aid of 
a computer‑generated 10‑year‑old girl, ‘Sweetie’, the 
organisation  was  able  to  identify  more  than 
1,000 sex predators from more than 65 countries in less 
than two and a half months. The video footage and all 

information obtained on predators have been trans‑
ferred to police authorities.

4�2�3�  Bullying

Cyberbullying is another common threat to children’s 
well‑being,  with  severe  effects  that  can  lead  to 
self‑harm. Cyberbullying is understood as a form of 
bullying that takes place using electronic technology. 
Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages 
or emails, rumours sent by email or posted on social 
networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, 
websites or fake profiles. During 2013, a few cases of 
suicide appeared in the media in several EU Member 
States, such as in Italy, where in May 2013 a 14‑year‑old 
girl from Novara committed suicide after some offen‑
sive videos were posted online. Bullying is not limited to 
the internet, being widespread also in schools. To raise 
awareness of the very serious effects of this phenom‑
enon, members of the European Parliament called for 
the establishment of a European Day against Bullying 
and School Violence in January 2013.51

FRA conducted the first ever online EU‑wide survey 
to establish an accurate picture of the lives of lesbian, 
gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and their 
experiences with regard to fundamental rights.52 A total 
of 93,079 LGBT persons took part in the survey. Asked 
about their experiences during childhood, more than 
eight in 10 respondents in each LGBT subgroup and 
in each EU Member State have witnessed negative 
comments or conduct during their schooling because 
a schoolmate was perceived to be LGBT; in other words, 
in all EU Member States more than 80 % of LBGT people 

Figure 4.2:  Heard or seen negative comments or conduct because a schoolmate/peer was perceived to be 
L, G, B or T at school before the age of 18, by EU Member State and by LGBT group (%)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

83 83 84 85 86 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 91 91 92 93 93 93 93 94 95 95 96 97

91

90 92 92 90 90

V
L

Z
C

K
D

E
E

K
S

I

S

T
L

L
N

O
R

E
S

T
A

I
F

E
B

E
D

U
H

R
F

L
P

S
E

T
M

U
L

R
H

T

I

E

I

T
P

K
U

G
B

L
E

Y
C

e
g
a
r
e
v
a

T
B
G
L
U
E

n
e
m
y
a
G

n
e
m
o
w
n
a
b
s
e
L

i

n
e
m
o
w

l

a
u
x
e
s
i
B

n
e
m

l

a
u
x
e
s
i
B

r
e
d
n
e
g
s
n
a
r
T

Note: Answers include ‘rarely’, ‘often’ and ‘always’.

Source:  FRA (2012), EU LGBT survey

110

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The rights of the child and the protection of children

surveyed have heard or seen negative comments or 
conduct towards a peer perceived to be lesbian, gay, 
bisexual or transgender (Figure 4.2).

Two thirds (68 %) of all respondents who answered 
the question say these comments or this conduct has 
occurred often or always during their schooling before 
the age of 18. The highest rates are in Bulgaria, Cyprus, 
Greece, Ireland, Malta, Spain and the United Kingdom.53 
Two thirds (67 %) of all respondents say they often or 
always hid or disguised the fact that they were LGBT 
during their schooling.

Bullying and violence in schools remains an important 
concern in the EU. Many Member States have taken up the 
matter to address issues of school violence and bullying. 
A government bill was tabled in Finland’s Parliament 
on  6 June 2013  aiming  to  reduce  bullying  by  shifting 
emphasis from individual measures and reparation to col‑
lective measures and prevention. The legislative proposal 
includes an obligation to offer services by school welfare 
officers and psychologists to pupils at the secondary level 
of schooling, not only to primary pupils as in the present 
legislation.54 Bulgaria has set up an expert working group 
at the Ministry of Education, which developed a mecha‑
nism for combating school bullying.55 In Greece, the Centre 
for the Prevention of School Violence established by the 
Ministry of Education in 201256 presented, according to 
reports, the findings of a major survey based on a sample 
of 41,422 school children showing that 33 % were vic‑
tims of violence because of their place of origin and 11 % 
because they belonged to a minority group.57

The  Action  Plan  Against  Bullying  in  schools  in  the 
Netherlands58 contains a proposal for an act that will 
oblige all primary and secondary schools to employ 
effective measures against bullying, ensure its moni‑
toring and appoint a person who coordinates actions 
tackling  bullying.  In  2013,  the  State  Secretary  for 
Education, Culture and Science appointed a committee 
of independent experts that will review the effective‑
ness  of  anti‑bullying  programmes.59  It  is  expected 
that a legislative proposal will be sent to the House of 
Representatives in 2014.60

Research shows that children are significantly more 
vulnerable to school violence if they belong or are per‑
ceived to belong to a minority group, such as migrant, 
Roma or LGBT children.

There  were  numerous  racist  incidents  involving 
 students but also parents and even teachers against 
students,  as  reported  by  the  Greek  Ombudsman  in 
September 2013. The majority are related to the ethnic 
and racial background of the students. Teachers are 
often seen as tolerating this type of violence.61

bullying. A common theme was for young people to 
be called a ‘terrorist’ or a ‘bomber’, and told to ‘go 
back to where they came from’. These constant insults 
left many young people feeling upset, insecure and 
frustrated62 (for more information on racism and ethnic 
discrimination, see Chapter 6).

4�2�4�  Other forms of violence

Other forms of violence also afflict children, such as 
genital mutilation, forced marriages and corporal pun‑
ishment. EU Member States are increasingly moving to 
criminalise forced marriages and corporal punishment 
and the EU has taken aim at female genital mutilation. 
The European Commission adopted a Communication 
to the European Parliament and the Council: Towards 
the  elimination  of  female  genital  mutilation.63  The 
Communication aims at supporting Member States in 
the protection of girls, the prosecution of parents and 
cutters, and especially prevention through education 
and awareness raising. Female genital mutilation can 
be prosecuted in all Member States, either through gen‑
eral criminal legislation or through specific criminal law 
provisions, such as those existing in Austria, Belgium, 
Croatia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Spain,  Sweden  and  the  United Kingdom.  However, 
very few cases are actually prosecuted and sentenced.

Germany is one of the Member States that changed 
their penal codes recently to penalise the mutilation 
of  female  genitalia.  The  new  act  clearly  classifies 
female genital mutilation as a crime, punishable with 
imprisonment of at least one year. Moreover, the pro‑
cedural rights of victims have been strengthened and 
the limitation period is set to begin only when victims 
attain their majority.64

After a controversial 2012 court case in Germany (for more 
information, see Chapter 5 of the 2012 Annual report, 
on equality and non‑discrimination) the issue of male 
circumcision has continued to be high on the European 
agenda. Despite the objections of those who see circum‑
cision as an issue of religious freedom, the Council of 
Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution 
on children’s right to physical integrity in October 2013.65 
This initiative aims to include medically unjustified viola‑
tions of children’s physical integrity within the body of 
human rights standards. Governments are recommended 
to restrict certain practices, such as the circumcision of 
young boys for religious reasons and surgery to ‘nor‑
malise’ the genitalia of intersex children, until a child is old 
enough to consent or refuse consent. The resolution also 
calls on states to define the medical and sanitary condi‑
tions for these practices as well as adopt legal provisions 
to ensure that certain operations will not be undertaken 
before a child reaches the age of consent.

The United Kingdom’s main child helpline reported 
a 65 % increase in young people experiencing racist 

Children’s ombudspersons from five Nordic countries 
(the EU Member States Denmark, Finland and Sweden, 

111

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

as well as Iceland and Norway) agreed in September 
to work with their respective governments to restrict 
male circumcision so that it is no longer performed 
on non‑consenting, underage boys for non‑medical 
reasons.66  In  addition,  medical  associations  from 
17  European  countries  also  voiced  their  opposition 
to routine male circumcision of infants and boys as 
a medically unnecessary procedure which goes against 
medical ethics. In a 2013 edition of the medical journal 
Pediatrics,  paediatricians  and  medical  associations 
agreed  that  “[c]ircumcision  fails  to  meet  the  com‑
monly accepted criteria for the justification of preven‑
tive medical procedures in children,” and that existing 
research does not justify “surgery before boys are old 
enough to decide for themselves.”67

The issue of forced marriage has been analysed in a FRA 
study  to  be  published  in  2014.  Seven  out  of  28 
EU Member States define forcing a person to marry 
against his or her will as a specific criminal offence. 
These states are Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, 
Denmark, France and Germany. There is a trend towards 
criminalising  forced  marriage  across  Europe.  Three 
Member States passed specific legislation to combat 
forced  marriage  in  2013  (Croatia,  France  and  the 
Netherlands), and three others (Luxembourg, Malta 
and  the  United  Kingdom)  are  currently  addressing 
forced marriage in legislative proposals. Certain coun‑
tries  have  legal  age  limits  against  child  marriage, 
requiring both spouses to be at least 18 years old, such 
as France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. In 
others, the marrying of persons under 18 would require 
parental  approval.  In  yet  others,  the  limit  is  set  at 
16 years or below, in cases where the law of the country 
of origin (for non‑citizens) is applied.

In  recent  years,  the  number  of  EU  Member  States 
enacting laws to prohibit the corporal punishment of 
children has increased. In particular, 16 Member States 
have prohibited corporal punishment of children in all 
settings: the home, schools, penal system and care 
settings.68  During  the  last  five  years,  nine  Member 
States  have  received  recommendations  to  prohibit 
corporal punishment in the Universal Periodic Review 
carried out by the UN Human Rights Council: Belgium,69 
Estonia,70  Ireland,71  Italy,72  Lithuania,73  Malta,74 
Slovakia,75 Slovenia76 and the United Kingdom.77

Regional mechanisms were used in 2013 to challenge the 
legality of physical punishment of children. In July, the 
European Committee on Social Rights declared a series 
of complaints admissible under its collective complaints 
procedure;  they  claim  that  Belgium,  Cyprus, 
Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy and Slovenia are 
not complying with their obligations under the European 
Social Charter, which requires EU Member States to pro‑
tect children from violence in all settings.78 Several of 
the Member States have since made commitments to 
abolish all corporal punishment of children.

The fact that young people within the justice system 
are  particularly  vulnerable  to  violence  is  also  con‑
firmed  by  a  recent  study  about  the  experiences  of 
young people in custody in five EU Member States, 
namely  Austria,  Cyprus,  the  United  Kingdom  (only 
England), the Netherlands and Romania.79 According 
to the views of over 120 children, violence appears to 
be a relatively common practice in custody, with staff 
using violent methods to assert their positions or to 
stop incidents among youth. Similar results came up in 
a research published by the Ombudsman for Children 
(Barnombudsmannen) in Sweden about the situation of 
children in police cells and in remand prisons.80 Children 
met by the researchers described police cell staff who 
are tyrannical and use various means to break the child’s 
spirit. These might be threats, fear of physical violence, 
put‑downs and various power games. More positively, 
the findings also show that, in the context of investiga‑
tive custody, prison staff only rarely use their power to 
put the young inmates down. No child reported that he 
or she was afraid of the staff at the remand prison, or 
had experienced threats or fear of physical violence.

4�3�  Europe takes aim 

at child poverty

Child poverty continued to afflict the lives of many 
children  in  Europe.  Addressing  child  poverty  was 
a prominent feature in the European and national policy 
agendas, as well as in the national media. Some of the 
main issues were education budget cuts and the impact 
of child poverty on specially vulnerable groups. The 
European Commission’s adoption of a child poverty 
recommendation was a step forward in 2013.

Eurostat published in 2013 a study analysing existing 
data on child poverty. According to Eurostat, in 2011, 
27 % of children (aged 0–17) in the EU‑27 were at risk 
of poverty or social exclusion, compared with 24 % of 
adults (18–64) and 20 % of the elderly (65 or over). 
Moreover, 49 % of children whose parents’ level of 
education was low were at risk of poverty, compared 
with 7.5 % of children whose parents’ level of education 
was high. Children with a migrant background were at 
a greater risk of poverty than children whose parents 
were native born (13 points higher). As regards living 
conditions, 18 % of single‑parent households were 
severely materially deprived, compared with 9.6 % of 
two‑parent households with dependent children.81

4�3�1� 

European Commission offers 
guidance on promoting 
children’s well-being

Following the conclusions on child poverty and social 
exclusion agreed by the Council of the European Union 

112

in  2012,  the  European  Commission  adopted  in 
February 2013 the recommendation Investing in chil‑
dren: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage.82 The recom‑
mendation provides guidance to Member States on how 
to  tackle  child  poverty  and  promote  children’s 
well‑being, and sets up a common European frame‑
work, based on recognition of children as rights holders. 
By doing so, it takes a step away from the dominant 
paradigm  of  seeing  children  solely  as  dependents, 
towards an emphasis on children’s independence.

“While policies addressing child poverty are primarily the 
competence of Member States, a common European 
framework can strengthen synergies across relevant policy 
areas, help Member States review their policies and learn 
from each other’s experiences in improving policy 
efficiency and effectiveness through innovative 
approaches, whilst taking into account the different 
situations and needs at local, regional and national level”.

European Commission (2013), Commission Recommendation of 20 Febru‑
ary 2013, Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage, 
Brussels, 20 February 2013

The European Commission recommends that Member 
States organise and implement policies to address child 
poverty  and  social  exclusion,  promoting  children’s 
well‑being, through strategies based on three pillars:

 • access  to  adequate  resources –  support  parent’s 
participation  in  the  labour  market  and  provide  for 
adequate living standards through a combination of 
benefits;

 • access  to  affordable  quality  services –  reduce 
 inequality  at  a  young  age  by  investing  in  early 
childhood  education  and  care,  improve  education 
systems’  impact  on  equal  opportunities,  improve 
the  responsiveness  of  health  systems  to  address 
the needs of disadvantaged children, provide chil‑
dren with safe, adequate housing and living envi‑
ronment, and enhance family support and the qual‑
ity of alternative care settings;

 • children’s 

right 

to  participate –  support 

the 
 participation of all children in play, recreation, sport 
and cultural activities and put in place mechanisms 
that  promote  children’s  participation  in  decision 
making that affects their lives.

The  Commission  also  recommends  developing 
 implementation  and  monitoring  mechanisms,  and 
strengthening the use of research. The recommendation 
includes a set of indicators to monitor child well‑being. 
The Member States should make full use of relevant EU 
instruments, by addressing child poverty and social 
exclusion as a key issue within the Europe 2020 Strategy 
and by mobilising the relevant EU financial instruments.

Following  from  the  Eu ro pea n  Com mission’s 
 recommendation, the European Platform for Investing 

The rights of the child and the protection of children

in Children was launched in early 2013. It is an online 
platform  managed  by  the  European  Commission’s 
Directorate‑General for Employment, Social Affairs and 
Inclusion. The platform is a tool to share the best of 
policy making for children and their families, and foster 
cooperation and mutual learning in the field.83

Provision of childcare services is essential to ensure 
parents can work. There are clear linkages between 
child poverty and parental unemployment. To reach the 
EU’s employment targets and improve the overall eco‑
nomic situation, it is essential that more parents work, 
especially  women.  The  European  Commission  in 
a 2013 report addressed recommendations to 11 Member 
States on female employment, childcare availability and 
quality, full‑day school places and care services. The 
report finds that just eight Member States, Belgium, 
Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom, have met the targets 
agreed by the European Council on availability and 
accessibility of childcare services.84

4�3�2�  Member States seek solution 

to child poverty

UNICEF published a study of child well‑being in the 
world’s 29 most advanced economies.85 Five dimen‑
sions of children’s lives have been considered: material 
well‑being, health and safety, education, behaviours 
and  risks,  and  housing  and  environment.  In  total, 
26 internationally comparable indicators have been 
included in the overview. The key findings show the 
Netherlands as the clear leader and as the only country 
ranked among the top five countries in all dimensions 
of child well‑being. Nordic EU Member States – Finland 
and Sweden – sit just below the Netherlands at the top 
of the child well‑being table. Three southern Member 
States – Italy, Portugal and Spain – are in the bottom 
half of the table. The three poorest countries surveyed, 
Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Romania,  together  with 
crisis‑struck Greece and one of the richest, the United 
States of America, occupy the bottom five places. The 
EU as a whole (except for Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and 
Malta, which were not included in the survey) is ranked 
worse  (15.6)  than  some  non‑EU  countries  at  12.12 
(Canada, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the USA).

EU Member States have also produced their own data or 
studies on child well‑being and child poverty. Despite the 
favourable results for the Netherlands in the UNICEF 
research, the Dutch Ombudsman for Children produced 
in June a report on poverty among children, which con‑
cluded that one in nine Dutch children are growing up in 
poverty.86 The report examined the policies of 198 out of 
408 municipalities to combat child poverty, given their 
key role in fighting poverty. Only three municipalities 
have policies specifically targeting children living in pov‑
erty. The Ombudsman for Children advised municipalities 
to  provide  a  Children’s  Package  to  households  with 

113

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

incomes below a certain threshold. Within a week after 
the report was released, 26 municipalities announced 
that they would provide such a Children’s Package.87

In 2013, the Central Statistical Office in Poland published 
a report on poverty showing that young people, including 
children, are the social groups at the greatest risk of 
poverty. In 2012, 10 % of people aged under 18 experi‑
enced extreme poverty.88 The Statistics Office of Estonia 
published, in its blog, data on relative poverty to show 
that every sixth child in Estonia was living below the 
relative poverty line and one child in 11 was below the 
absolute poverty line or in deep material deprivation 
in 2011. According to this information, there have been 
no significant changes in the percentages since 2007.89

In  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Office  of  the  Children’s 
Commissioner published a child rights impact assessment 
of budget decisions made between 2010 and 2015. The 
findings were worrying.90 The assessment concludes 
that, despite some progressive policies and the apparent 
commitment of the United Kingdom government, “fami‑
lies with children have lost more as a result of the eco‑
nomic policies modelled than those without children, and 
some of the most vulnerable groups have lost the most.”91

The  impact  of  the  financial  crisis  on  women  with 
 children is also affecting children’s standard of living. 
In Slovakia, a report on gender equality concludes that 
the crisis has significantly worsened the financial situ‑
ation of mothers with small children, which may have 
deepened the poverty of families.92 The crisis has pro‑
voked a massive transfer of women into the sphere of 
unpaid jobs; according to the report’s authors, this has 
been caused by the steep increase in childcare fees.

National committees of UNICEF have also produced studies 
on child poverty in Germany, Greece93 and Spain.94 The 
survey in Germany found that, between 2000 and 2010, 
8.6 % of children in Germany experienced long‑term 
poverty because they lived in households earning less 
than 60 % of the average income.95

Several EU Member States have policies that address 
poverty in general, or which target families specifically. 
In addition, other Member States have action plans or 
other policies to target child poverty directly. In June 2013, 
Belgium adopted a national action plan to fight child 
poverty. It aims to implement the European Commission 
Recommendation Investing in children: Breaking the cycle 
of disadvantage. The plan is a result of collaborative work 
between the federal government, the communities, the 
regions and other stakeholders, and includes a total of 
140 actions across the three pillars. The plan stresses, 
among other things, the importance of improved access 
to work and financial support for families with children, 
helping parents to combine work and family, and the 
promotion of children’s participation in social activities, 
leisure time and cultural and sporting events.96

Promising practice

Researching the lives of children

Growing Up in Ireland is a national study of chil‑
dren, the results of which will feed into different 
governmental  policy  areas.  The  study  seeks  to 
examine the factors that contribute to or under‑
mine the well‑being of children in contemporary 
Irish families. It was launched in 2006 as part of 
the National Children’s Strategy. The research will 
take  place  over  a  number  of  years  and  involves 
examining  the  progress  and  well‑being  of  the 
same group of children (about 20,000 individuals) 
on  a  number  of  occasions  at  important  points 
throughout their childhood. It includes qualitative 
and quantitative research methods.

The  most  recent  report,  published  in  Septem‑
ber  2013,  noted  that  the  impact  of  poverty  on 
children was already apparent by three years of 
age.  Other  areas  covered  by  the  reports  are 
well‑being,  education,  health,  family  situation 
and other social issues.

The project has set up a Children’s Advisory Fo‑
rum formed of 84 children to make sure the voic‑
es  of  children  are  heard  within  the  study.  Their 
role is to advise the researchers on how best to 
run the study and to make sure views and opin‑
ions of children and young people are taken into 
consideration when making decisions.

Growing  Up  in  Ireland  is  a  government  study 
funded by the Department of Children and Youth 
Affairs, in association with the Department of So‑
cial Protection and the Central Statistics Office.

For more information, see: www.growingup.ie

The  Spanish  National  Action  Plan  for  Social 
Inclusion 2013–201697 integrates all the Spanish policies 
against  poverty  and  social  exclusion  and  includes 
240 measures intended to rescue 1.5 million people from 
poverty, in accordance with the Europe 2020 Strategy. 
The plan is the first to include the fight against child 
poverty as a top priority and a cross‑cutting objective, 
as well as a Special Fund intended to cover children’s 
basic needs (€17 million). The total funds assigned to 
the plan amount to €136,600 million.

“During the past few years, some of our member 
institutions have seen their areas of action reduced, human 
and material resources cut and even their very existence 
called into question.”

European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (2012), Position paper 
on the consequences of the economic crisis on independent children’s 
rights institutions, October 2012

Bulgaria included a child objective within its newly 
adopted National Strategy for Reduction of Poverty 
and  Social  Inclusion  2020.  One  of  its  main  aims  is 

114

to  reduce  the  current  number  of  children  living  in 
poverty  by  78,000.98  Germany’s  Federal  Council 
passed in July 2013 the Act Easing Administration in 
the Area of Child and Youth Welfare Services, which 
should improve access to childcare and youth care for 
low‑income parents and simplify procedures with youth 
welfare offices.99

Child poverty and education

The financial crisis has produced a number of cuts in 
education expenditure in EU Member States. According 
to a 2013 report published by the European Commission,100 
20  EU  Member  States  cut  their  national  education 
budgets  in  2011–2012.  Cuts  of  more  than  5  %  were 
observed in Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania and the United 
Kingdom (Wales), whereas decreases between 1 % and 
5  %  were  seen  in  Belgium  (French  Community), 
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Ireland, 
Poland,  Slovak ia,  Slovenia,  Spain  a n d  t h e 
United Kingdom (Scotland).

Some EU Member States took several initiatives to 
address specifically the issue of poverty and access to 
education. School drop‑out rates remain a problem that 
has to be countered in some Member States. Often the 
reasons are family poverty, remoteness of small villages 
from school, low level of education of the parents, 
healthcare problems, poor language skills and discrimi‑
natory attitudes. According to UNICEF research, Bulgaria 
has the lowest average drop‑out age (14.3 years) among 
the  EU  Member  States.101  The  government  adopted 
a strategy for the prevention and reduction of the pro‑
portion of children dropping out of school 2013–2020, 
to ensure equal access to students and to support their 
families by offering textbooks and assistance for the 
purchase of compulsory books.102

Finland, which is one of the countries ranked highest 
by  the  Programme  for  International  Students 
Assessment (PISA), is considering increasing the age of 
compulsory education. The government introduced in 
August 2013 a structural policy programme on boosting 
economic growth. It aims to ensure that young people 
are trained and enter working life. To achieve this, 
pre‑school will be made obligatory, secondary school 
attendance  increased  and  the  age  of  compulsory 
schooling raised from 16 to 17 years.103

Austria modified its School Allowance Act,104 introducing 
a significant change to the way school allowance is 
assigned to children in need (e.g. covering costs for 
studying in specialised schools away from the family 
home, or transport costs). The granting or the amount 
of a school allowance is dependent not on good grades 
any more, but only on the financial and social situation 
of the family. The former system also required children 
to be good students.

The rights of the child and the protection of children

When it comes to poverty and access to education, 
a number of groups are particularly affected by lack 
of resources or by high drop‑out rates. Among those 
are  migrant  children,  Roma  children  and  children 
with disabilities.

The European Commission acknowledged the case of 
migrant children and the difficulties in accessing school 
in a report presented in April 2013.105 The report says 
that newly arrived migrant children are more likely to 
face segregation and end up in schools with fewer 
resources. This leads to underperformance and a high 
probability that the children will drop out of school 
early.  The  study  suggests  that  EU  Member  States 
should  provide  targeted  educational  support  for 
migrant children, such as specialist teachers, and sys‑
tematic involvement of parents and communities to 
improve their integration. The study examines national 
policies in support of newly arrived migrant children in 
15 Member States. It finds that Denmark and Sweden 
have the best models, based on offering targeted sup‑
port and a reasonable level of autonomy for schools 
(for  more  information  on  asylum  and  migration, 
see Chapter 1).

In the United Kingdom, the Office of the Children’s 
Commissioner for England published a study on the 
experiences of disabled children living in poverty.106 It 
found that some disabled and young people were living 
without adequate heat, food and housing, and that they 
faced clear barriers in accessing a range of services 
(health, education, play and leisure activities) in com‑
parison with other children. Although there were posi‑
tive stories of local authority and school support, there 
were also cases of parents experiencing difficulties in 
accessing appropriate and stimulating learning oppor‑
tunities, families having to travel long distances to 
receive appropriate education services, and insufficient 
personal  assistance  and  support  being  provided 
in some areas.

“I am deeply concerned that limited attention is being paid 
to the risks of child labour in Europe. In most countries 
officials are aware of the problem, but few are willing to 
tackle it. That data and figures are almost non‑existent or 
highly approximate is a point of worry in itself. One cannot 
fight a problem without information about its extent, 
character and effects.”

Muižnieks, N., Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 
Child labour in Europe: A persisting challenge, Human Rights Comment, 
20 August 2013

FRA research in 11 EU Member States shows that one 
out of 10 Roma children of compulsory school age in 
Greece and Romania are working outside their home. 
Working  conditions  are  generally  unsafe,  as  their 
occupation mostly consists of collecting objects for 
reselling or recycling, or begging on the street for 
money107 (see also Chapter 7 for more information 
on Roma children).

115

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

FRA ACTIVITY

Mapping child protection in Europe

The  European  Commission  plans  to  develop  EU 
guidelines on child protection systems. This is en‑
visaged in the EU Strategy towards the Eradication 
of Trafficking in Human Beings108 and in line with 
the EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child and the 
identified  need  to  gather  data  to  fill  the  gaps  in 
knowledge about the situations and needs of the 
most vulnerable groups of children.

To  develop  the  guidelines,  the  Commission  has 
asked FRA to analyse the child protection systems 
in the 28 Member States. The mapping will focus 
in particular on the national legal framework, the 
structure  and  functions  of  the  current  national 
system,  care  by  state  and  non‑state  actors,  in‑
ter‑agency  cooperation,  cross‑border  coopera‑
tion, data collection and monitoring.

The results will be published at the end of 2014.

Outlook

Translating the European Commission’s  recommendation 
on child poverty into reality at national level will be 
a challenge, especially in EU Member States that are 
still struggling with the impact of the economic crisis. 
Member  States  will  need  to  reassess  their  policies 
addressing child welfare in all its aspects – material 
deprivation and access to education, health and social 
services – to ensure that they are in the best interests 
of the child, in line with the United Nations Convention 
of  the  Rights  of  the  Child  and  the  EU  Charter  on 
Fundamental Rights. The economic upturn that may be 
reaching some Member States should allow policies 
that improve child welfare provisions, especially for 
those children in vulnerable situations, such as asylum 
seekers, irregular migrants and Roma.

EU Member States had to transpose two important 
directives into national law in 2013, one on trafficking, 
sexual abuse and exploitation and one on child pornog‑
raphy. These directives improve the way that justice 
systems respond to child victims of or witnesses to 
crimes. The implementation of this new legal frame‑
work  will  require  policy  and  skills  training  in 
2014 and beyond.

The EU Victims’ Directive, the eventual adoption of 
a directive dealing with the protection of children sus‑
pected  or  accused  in  criminal  proceedings  and 
a common framework for child protection will also spark 
developments at national level. EU Member States will 
be required to adapt their criminal law provisions and 
child protection systems while also ensuring that the 
Council of Europe Guidelines on child‑friendly justice 
are fully taken into account. Several upcoming European 
Commission and FRA studies on children and justice will 
help identify challenges and promising practices and 
will  further  guide  national‑level  improvements. 
Collecting data regarding children and justice, as well 
as in other child rights’ fields, remains fundamental to 
effectively address violations of children’s rights.

More EU Member States should ratify the third protocol 
to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which 
entered into force in April 2014, to allow children to 
bring  individual  claims  of  human  rights  violations 
against their countries.

116

The rights of the child and the protection of children

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110, 108, 111, 112, 115

BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115

BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 111, 113, 114, 115

CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 112, 113, 115

CZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 112, 115

DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115

DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 111, 112, 113, 115

EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 104, 106, 112, 114, 115

EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 111, 113, 114, 115

ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 107, 111, 113, 114, 115

FI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 111, 113, 115

FR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 112, 113, 115

HR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 107, 111, 112, 113, 115

HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 108, 115

IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 111, 112, 114, 115

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115

LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 107, 112, 113, 115

LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 107, 109, 112

LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 107, 109, 113, 115

MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 111, 112, 113

NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113

PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 107, 114, 115

PT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 107, 113, 115

RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 112, 113, 115

SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 111, 112, 113, 115

SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 107, 112, 113, 115

SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 105, 112, 115

UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115

117

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

United Nations (UN), Optional Protocol to the Convention on 
the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure, 
9 June 2011, https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/
signature/2012/ctc_4‑11d.pdf.

Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2010), 
Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of 
Europe on Child‑Friendly justice, 17 November 2010, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/
Guidelines%20on%20child‑friendly%20justice%20and%20
their%20explanatory%20memorandum%20_4_.pdf.

European Commission, An EU agenda for the rights of the 
child, COM(2011) 60 final, Brussels, 15 February 2011, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/children/docs/
com_2011_60_en.pdf.

4   Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime in 
the EU OJ 2012 L 315/55, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:315:0057:0073:E
N:PDF.

5  

6  

7  

8  

Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse 
and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, 
OJ 2011 L 335/1, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:335:0001:0014:EN:PDF.

European Commission (2013), Proposal for a Directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on procedural 
safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal 
proceedings, 27 November 2013, COM(2013) 822 final, 
Brussels.

Poland, Kodeks Karny i Kodeks Postępowania Karnego.

Czech Republic, Zákon o obětech trestných činů, 
30 January 2013, www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2013‑45.

9   Germany, Gesetz zur Stärkung der Rechte von Opfern 

sexuellen Missbrauchs, BGBl. 2013 I No. 32, 29 June 2013.

10   Slovakia, Zákon č. 301/2005 Z.z. (Trestný poriadok), which 

took effect on 1 August 2013.

11   United Kingdom, Ministry of Justice (2013), Code of practice 
for victims of crime, Chapter 3, https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/254459/code‑of‑practice‑victims‑of‑crime.pdf.

12   Poland, Ustawa z dnia 30 sierpnia 2013 o zmianie ustawy 

o postępowaniu w sprawach nieletnich oraz niektórych 
innych ustaw, 30 August 2013.

13   Council of Europe, European Committee for the Prevention 

of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment (CPT), Report on Luxembourg, Strasbourg, 
29 April 2004, www.cpt.coe.int/documents/
lux/2004‑12‑inf‑fra.htm#_Toc48357642.

14   Luxembourg, Chambre des Deputés (2013), Draft bill 

No. 6593 on the security unit of the socio‑educational 
centre of the State, www.gouvernement.lu/salle_presse/
conseils_de_gouvernement/2013/06‑juin/14‑conseil/.

15   Netherlands, Kinderombudsman (2013), 
Kinderrechtenmonitor 2013, The Hague, 
www.dekinderombudsman.nl/ul/cms/fck‑uploaded/
Kinderrechtenmonitor2013‑drukproef.pdf.

16   UK, Northern Ireland, Department of Justice (2013), 

Consultation: Custodial arrangements for children in Northern 
Ireland, www.dojni.gov.uk/index/public‑consultations/
current‑consultations/consultation‑custodial‑arrangeme
nts‑for‑children‑in‑northern_ireland.pdf.

17   Latvia, Noteikumu projekts ‘Kārtība, kādā policijas 

noskaidro, vai bērnam ir īpašas vajadzības, pieaicina 
kompetentu speciālistu un nodrošina apstākļus bērna īpašo 
vajadzību apmierināšanai’, www.mk.gov.lv/doc/2005/
IEMNot_231013_ipas_vajadz‑1.1935.doc.

18   European Court of Human Rights, Vronchenko v. Estonia, 

No. 59632/09, 18 July 2013, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/
eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001‑122431.

19   Belgium, Wet betreffende de invoering van een familie‑ en 
Jeugdrechtbank/Loi portant création d’un tribunal de la 
famille et de la jeunesse, 30 July 2013, www.ejustice.just.
fgov.be/mopdf/2013/09/27_2.pdf.

20  

Italy, Disposizioni in materia di riconoscimento dei figli 
naturali, 17 December 2012.

21  

Italy, Corte Suprema di Cassazione, Sezione Prima Civile, 
Judgment No. 11687 (1115), 15 May 2013, 
www.marinacastellaneta.it/blog/wp‑content/uploads/ 
2013/06/11687.pdf.

22   UN, Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment 
No 15 on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the 
highest attainable standard of health (Art. 24), CRC/C/GC/15, 
www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/GC/CRC‑C‑GC‑15_ 
en.doc.

23   UN, Annual report of the Special Representative of the 

Secretary‑General on Violence against Children, A/68/274, 
6 August 2013, http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/
sites/default/files/documents/docs/A‑68‑274_EN_0.pdf.

24   World Health Organization (WHO), World Health 

Organization Regional Office for Europe (2013), European 
report on preventing child maltreatment, www.euro.who.
int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/217018/European‑Repor
t‑on‑Preventing‑Child‑Maltreatment.pdf.

25   Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament 

and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of 
protection measures in civil matters, http://eur‑lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:181:0004:0012:e
n:PDF.

26   Council of Europe, Convention on the protection of children 
against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, CETS No. 201, 
2007, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/treaties/
html/201.htm.

27   Council of Europe, Convention on preventing and combating 
violence against women and domestic violence, CETS 
No. 210, 2011, www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/
treaties/html/210.htm.

28   Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse 
and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, 
and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA, 
OJ 2011 L 335/1, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:335:0001:0014:EN:PDF.

29   Austria, Sexualstrafrechtsänderungsgesetz, 

BGBl I Nr. 116/2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/
BgblAuth/BGBLA_2013_I_116/BGBLA_2013_I_116.html.

30   Austria, Bundesgesetz über die Grundsätze für Hilfen für 
Familien und Erziehungshilfen für Kinder und Jugendliche, 
Bundes‑ Kinder‑ und Jugendhilfegesetz, BGBl I Nr. 69/2013, 
www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2013_ 
I_69/BGBLA_2013_I_69.pdf.

31   Hungary, Alapvető Jogok Biztosának Hivatala (2011), Report 

No. AJB‑1472/2011 about tackling child prostitution, 
www.obh.hu/allam/aktualis/htm/kozlemeny20111205.htm.

32   Latvia, Grozījumi Bērnu tiesību aizsardzības likumā, 

30 May 2013.

33  

Italy, Ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione del Consiglio 
d’Europa sulla prevenzione e la lotta contro la violenza nei 
confronti delle donne e la violenza domestica, 1 July 2013.

118

The rights of the child and the protection of children

34   Netherlands (2013), ‚Verplichte meldcode huiselijk geweld 
en kindermishandeling‘, Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der 
Nederlanden, Vol. 2013, No. 247, https://zoek.
officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb‑2013‑247.pdf.

51   EPP Group (2013), Bullying: Towards the establishment of 
a European Day against bullying and school violence, 
17 January 2013, www.eppgroup.eu/press‑release/Towards‑
a‑European‑Day‑against‑bullying‑%26‑school‑violence.

35   Netherlands, Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en 

52   FRA (2013), EU LGBT survey: Results at a glance, 

Sport (2013), Model reporting code: Domestic violence and 
child abuse. Action plan for responding to signs of domestic 
violence and child abuse, www.government.nl/
documents‑and‑publications/reports/2013/03/14/mode
l‑reporting‑code‑domestic‑violence‑and‑child‑abuse.html.

36   Netherlands, Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg (2013), 

Invoering van meldcode(s) huiselijk geweld en kindermis‑
handeling binnen een aantal gezondheidszorgsectoren nog 
onvoldoende, Utrecht, www.igz.nl/zoeken/download.aspx?
download=Invoering+van+meldcode(s)+huiselijk+geweld+ 
en+kindermishandeling+binnen+een+aantal+gezondheidsz
orgsectoren+nog+onvoldoende.pdf.

37   Netherlands, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (2013), 

Plan van Aanpak Kindersekstoerisme, www.rijksoverheid.
nl/bestanden/documenten‑en‑publicaties/rapporten/ 
2013/10/10/bijlage‑plan‑van‑aanpak‑kindersekstoerisme/
lp‑v‑j‑0000004187.pdf.

38   Germany (2013), Fonds sexueller Missbrauch im familiaren 
Bereich, www.fonds‑missbrauch.de/fileadmin/content/
Flyer_FSM_2.pdf.

39   Germany, Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen 
und Jugend (2013), ‘Bundesregierung errichtet Fonds 
Sexueller Missbrauch zur Hilfe von Betroffenen’, press 
release, 29 April 2013.www.bmfsfj.de/BMFSFJ/
aktuelles,did=197690.html

40   Europol (2013), Socta 2013 public version EU serious and 
organised crime threat assessment, Europol, The Hague, 
www.europol.europa.eu/content/eu‑serious‑and‑organise
d‑crime‑threat‑assessment‑socta.

41   Europol, European Cybercrime Centre (2013), Virtual 
Global Taskforce environmental scan 2012, www.
virtualglobaltaskforce.com/wp‑content/uploads/2013/05/
VGT‑Environmental‑Scan.pdf.

42   European Commission (2013), Preparing for a fully 

converged audiovisual world: Growth, creation and values, 
COM/2013/0231 final, Brussels, 24 April 2013, http://eur‑lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0231:FI
N:EN:HTML.

43   Europol, A collective EU response to cybercrime, 

 www.europol.europa.eu/ec3.

44   Coface, Delete cyberbullying,  http://deletecyberbullying.

eu/about/.

45   Luxembourg, Chambre des Députés (2012), 1) approbation 

de la Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur la 
cybercriminalité ouverte à la signature à Budapest le 
23 novembre 2001, 2) approbation du Protocole additionnel 
à la Convention sur la cybercriminalité, relative 
à l’incrimination d’actes de nature raciste et xénophobe.

46  

Italy, Osservatorio per il contrasto della pedofilia e della 
pornograia minorile, www.osservatoriopedofilia.gov.it/.

47   Netherlands, Kinderombudsman (2013), 
Kinderrechtenmonitor 2013, The Hague, 
www.dekinderombudsman.nl/ul/cms/fck‑uploaded/
Kinderrechtenmonitor2013‑drukproef.pdf.

48   Netherlands, Hoge Raad (2013), Case No. S12/01819, 

ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BZ9941, 14 May 2013, http://deeplink.
rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BZ9941.

49   Spain (2013), Plan stratégico de infancia y adolescencia 
2013–2016, 5 April 2013, www.observatoriodelainfancia.
msssi.gob.es/documentos/PENIA_2013‑2016.pdf.

50   Terre des Hommes (2013), Stop webcam child sex tourism, 

www.terredeshommes.org/webcam‑child‑sex‑tourism/.

Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.europa.eu/en/
survey/2012/eu‑lgbt‑survey.

53   See FRA (2013), Survey data explorer: EU LGBT survey 2012, 

http://fra.europa.eu/DVS/DVT/lgbt.php.

54   Finland (2013), Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle oppilas‑ ja 
opiskelijahuoltolaiksi ja eräiksi siihen liittyviksi laeiksi.

55   Bulgaria, Министерски съвет (2013), Доклад за 

изпълнението на „Национална програма за закрила на 
детето за 2012 г.“, Sofia.

56   Greece, Ministry Circular 159704/Γ7/17‑12‑2012,  http://users.
sch.gr/skontax/autosch/joomla15/egkyklioi/idrysh.pdf.

57   Greece, information not publicly available but widely 

accessible through several media sources, available at: 
www.tanea.gr/news/greece/article/5094019/parathrhthri
o‑kata‑ths‑bias‑treis‑stoys‑deka‑mathhtes‑einai‑thy
mata‑endosxolikhs‑bias/.

58   Netherlands, Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en 

Wetenschappen (2013), Plan van aanpak tegen pesten, 
www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten‑en‑publicaties/
rapporten/2013/03/25/plan‑van‑aanpak‑tegen‑pesten.html.

59   Netherlands, Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en 

Wetenschappen (2013), ‘Onderzoek naar effectieve 
anti‑pestprogramma’s’, Press release, 2 December 2013, 
www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2013/12/02/onderzoek‑naa
r‑effectieve‑antipestprogramma‑s.html.

60   Netherlands, Inspectie Jeugdzorg (2013), ‘Onderzoek naar 

aanwezigheid Meldcode en verklaring Omtrent het Gedrag‘, 
press release, 21 November 2013, www.inspectiejeugdzorg.
nl/actueel/nw_detail.asp?id=0354.

61   Greece, Συνήγορος του Πολίτη (2013), Ειδική Έκθεση «Το 
φαινόμενο της ρατσιστικής βίας στην Ελλάδα και 
η αντιμετώπισή του», September 2013, www.synigoros.gr/
resources/docs/eidikiekthesiratsistikivia.pdf.

62   United Kingdom, ChildLine (2013), Can I tell you something? 
What’s affecting children in 2013, www.nspcc.org.uk/
news‑and‑views/media‑centre/press‑releases/2014/
childline‑report/childline‑report_can‑i‑tell‑you‑something_
wdf100354.pdf.

63   European Commission (2013), Communication form the 

Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: 
Towards the elimination of female genital mutilation, 
COM(2013) 833 final, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0833:FIN:EN:PDF.

64   Germany, Gesetz zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuches: 
Strafbarkeit der Verstümmelung weiblicher Genitalien, 
BGBl I 2013 No. 58, 27 September 2013, p. 3671, www.bgbl.
de/Xaver/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_
BGBl&jumpTo=bgbl113s3671.pdf.

65   Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (2013), 

Children’s right to physical integrity, Resolution 1952, 
1 October 2013, http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/
XrefViewPDF.asp?FileID=20174&Language=EN.

66   Nordic Ombudsmen for Children and Pediatric Experts 

(2013), Resolution: Let boys decide for themselves whether 
or not they want to be circumcised, 30 September 2013, 
www.crin.org/en/library/news‑archive/male‑circumcisio
n‑nordic‑ombudspersons‑seek‑ban‑non‑therapeutic‑male.

67   Frisch, M. et al. (2013), ‘Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 
Technical report and policy statement on Male 
circumcision’, Pediatrics, Volume 131, No. 4, April 2013, 
abstract available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/
content/131/4/796.full.pdf.

119

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

68   Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of 

87   Netherlands, Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en 

Children (2013), Prohibiting corporal punishment: Achieving 
equal protection for children in EU Member States, progress 
report, www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/
reports/Europe%20Report%20web.pdf.

69   UN, Human Rights Council (2011), Report of the Working 
Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Belgium, 
A/HRC/18/3, 11 July 2011.

70   UN, Human Rights Council (2011), Report of the Working 
Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Estonia, 
A/HRC/17/17, 28 March 2011.

71   UN, Human Rights Council (2011), Report of the Working 

Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Ireland, 
A/HRC/19/9, 21 December 2011.

72   UN, Human Rights Council (2010), Report of the Working 

Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Italy, 
A/HRC/14/L.10, 18 June 2010.

73   UN, Human Rights Council (2011), Report of the Working 
Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Lithuania, 
A/HRC/19/15, 19 December 2011.

74   UN, Human Rights Council (2009), Report of the Working 

Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Malta, A/HRC/12/7, 
4 June 2009.

75   UN, Human Rights Council (2009), Report of the Working 
Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Slovakia, 
A/HRC/12/7, 5 June 2009.

76   UN, Human Rights Council (2010), Report of the Working 
Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Slovenia, 
A/HRC/14/L.10, 18 June 2010.

77   UN, Human Rights Council (2012), Outcome of the Universal 
Periodic Review: United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland, A/HRC/DEC/21/107, 12 October 2012.

78   Council of Europe, European Committee of Social Rights 
(2013), Decisions on admissibility of cases No. 92 to 
98/2013, 2 July 2013, www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/
socialcharter/Complaints/Complaints_en.asp.

79   Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) (2013), Ending 

violence against children in custody, London, CRAE, 
www.crae.org.uk/media/29853/speaking_freely_ending_
violence_against_children_in_custody_european_
research_report_condensed.pdf.

80   Sweden, Barnombudsmannen (2013), Från insidan. Barn och 

unga berättar om tillvaron i arrest och häkte. 
Barnombudsmannens årsrapportering 2013, 
Barnombudsmannen, Stockholm.

81   Eurostat (2013), Children were the age group at the highest 
risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2011, Statistics in Focus 
Vol. 4, Brussels, European Commission, available at: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/
KS‑SF‑13‑004/EN/KS‑SF‑13‑004‑EN.PDF.

82   European Commission (2013), Commission Recommendation 
of 20 February 2013, Investing in children: Breaking the 
cycle of disadvantage, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/
justice/fundamental‑rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf.

83   European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC) (2013), 

http://europa.eu/epic.

84   European Commission (2013), Barcelona objectives, 

Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/
gender‑equality/files/documents/130531_barcelona_en.pdf.

85   UNICEF Research Office (2013), Child well‑being in rich 

countries: A comparative overview, Florence, 
www.unicef‑irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf.

86   Netherlands, Kinderombudsman (2013), 
Kinderrechtenmonitor 2013, The Hague, 
www.dekinderombudsman.nl/ul/cms/fck‑uploaded/
Kinderrechtenmonitor2013‑drukproef.pdf.

 Werkgelegenheid (2013), ‘Intensivering armoede‑ en 
schuldenbeleid’, letter sent to House of Representatives 
(Tweede Kamer der Staten‑Generaal), No. 2013‑
0000090830, 3 July 2013, www.rijksoverheid.nl/
ministeries/szw/documenten‑en‑publicaties/
kamerstukken/2013/07/03/intensivering‑armoede‑en‑
schuldenbeleid.html.

88   Poland, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (2013), Ubóstwo 

w Polsce w świetle badań GUS, report, Warsaw, Główny 
Urząd Statystyczny.

89   Estonia, Statistikaamet (2013), ‘Iga kuues Eesti laps elab 
suhtelises vaesuses’, Statistikablogi, 30 May 2013, http://
statistikaamet.wordpress.com/tag/suhteline‑vaesus/.

90   United Kingdom, Office of the Children’s 

Commissioner (2013), A child rights impact assessment of 
budget decisions: Including the 2013 Budget, and the 
cumulative impact of tax‑benefit reforms and reductions in 
spending on public services 2010–2015, http://dera.ioe.
ac.uk/18034/1/A_Child_Rights_Impact_Assessment_of_
Budget_Decisions.pdf.

91  

Ibid., p. 5.

92   Slovakia, Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny 

SR (2013), Správa o rodovej rovnosti za rok 2012, May 2013.

93   UNICEF, Greek National Committee (2013), Η κατάσταση 

των παιδιών στην Ελλάδα 2013, www.unicef.gr/pdfs/
Children‑in‑Greece‑2013.pdf.

94   UNICEF, Spanish National Committee (2012), La infancia en 
España 2012–2013: El impacto de la crisis en los niños, 
www.unicef.es/sites/www.unicef.es/files/Infancia_2012_ 
2013_final.pdf.

95   UNICEF, German National Committee (2013), ‘UNICEF‑Bericht 
zur Lage von Kindern in Deutschland 2013’, press release, 
24 October 2013, www.unicef.de/kinderbeiuns.

96   Belgium (2013), Plan national de lutte contre la pauvreté 
infantile, Lutter contre la pauvreté infantile et favoriser le 
bien‑être des enfants, Brussels, www.mi‑is.be/sites/default/ 
files/doc/nationaal_kinderamoedebestrijdingsplan_fr.pdf.

97   Spain, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales 

e Igualdad (2013), Plan Nacional de Acción para la Inclusión 
Social del Reino de España 2013–2016, www.msssi. 
gob.es/ssi/familiasInfancia/inclusionSocial/docs/
PlanNacionalAccionInclusionSocial_2013_2016.pdf.

98   Bulgaria, Министерски съвет, Национална стратегия за 

намаляване на бедността и насърчаване на 
социалното включване 2020, www.strategy.bg/
FileHandler.ashx?fileId=3303.

99   Germany, Gesetz zur Verwaltungsvereindachung in der 

Kinder‑ und Jugendhilfe, 29 August 2013, http://dipbt.
bundestag.de/extrakt/ba/WP17/508/50808.html.

100   European Commission (2013), Funding of education in 
Europe 2000–2010: The impact of the economic crisis, 
Euridice Report, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/
thematic_reports/147EN.pdf.

101   UNICEF, Bulgaria (2013), Изгубено бъдеще? Изследване на 

феномените на необхващане в училище, www.unicef.
bg/assets/RSN_Fianl_BUL_FINAL06n.pdf.

102   Bulgaria, Министерски съвет (2013), Стратегия за 

превенция и намаляване дела на отпадащите 
и преждевременно напуснали образователната 
система 2013–2020, www.strategy.bg/
PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg‑BG&Id=870.

103   Finland, Ministry of Finance (2013), ‘A structural policy 

programme to strengthen conditions for economic growth 
and bridge the sustainability gap in general government 
finances’, Press release 350/2013, 29 August 2013.

120

The rights of the child and the protection of children

107   FRA (2012), The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States: 

Survey results at a glance, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/situation‑roma‑1
1‑eu‑member‑states‑survey‑results‑glance.

108   European Commission (2012), The EU strategy towards 

the eradication of trafficking in human beings 2012–2016, 
COM(2012) 286 final, Brussels, 19 June 2012, http://
ec.europa.eu/home‑affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/
trafficking_in_human_beings_eradication‑2012_2016_
en.pdf.

104   Austria, Schülerbeihilfengesetz, BGBl. Nr. 455/1983, last 
modified by BGBl. I Nr. 75/2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/
GeltendeFassung/Bundesnormen/10009531/
Sch%c3%bclerbeihilfengesetz%201983%2c%20
Fassung%20vom%2012.11.2013.pdf.

105   European Commission (2013) Study on educational support 

for newly arrived migrant children, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/
study/2013/migrants_en.pdf.

106   Larkins, C., Thomas, N., Judd, D., Lloyd, J., Carter, B. and 

Farrelly, N. (2013), ‘We want to help people see things our 
way’: A rights‑based analysis of disabled children’s 
experience of living with low income. London, Office of the 
Children’s Commissioner, www.plymouth.gov.uk/
pscbseethingsourway.pdf.

121

5 

Equality and non-discrimination  ������������������������������������������� 127

5�1  EU legislation on equal treatment between 

persons stalls  ���������������������������������������������������������������� 127

5�2  Discrimination on all grounds persists in the EU  �������� 129

5�3  Discrimination hinders full participation in society  ��� 131

5�4  Member States adopt measures 

to counter discrimination  ��������������������������������������������� 134
Countering discrimination on the ground 
5�4�1 
of age  �������������������������������������������������������������� 134
Countering discrimination on the ground 
of disability  ����������������������������������������������������� 135
Countering discrimination on the grounds 
of sexual orientation and gender identity  ��� 137

5�4�2 

5�4�3 

5�5  EU deploys EU structural funds in countering 

discrimination  ��������������������������������������������������������������� 137

Outlook  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE

15 January – European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rules in Eweida and Others v� United Kingdom that it is unlawful 
to prohibit wearing a religious symbol at work where it poses no health and safety hazard and to refuse services – 
including in the exercise of public authority – to homosexual couples on grounds of religious beliefs

29 January – European Committee of Social Rights finds 22 states in breach of the prohibition of discrimination 
in employment (Article 1�2 of the European Social Charter, ESC) and 12 states in violation of the right to equal 
opportunities and equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation without discrimination on grounds of sex 
(Article 20)
January
12 February – ECtHR rules in Vojnity v� Hungary that the complete removal of a father’s access rights on the grounds 
that his religious convictions were detrimental to his son’s upbringing, without any evidence that those practices 
exposed his son to a risk of actual harm, amounts to a violation of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 of the 
European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR), read in conjunction with the right to respect for private and family life 
(Article 8)

19 February – In X and Others v� Austria, the ECtHR finds that not allowing same-sex partners to adopt their partner’s 
child is discriminatory when national law allows unmarried different-sex partners to do so
February
1 March – United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) issues observations 
on Austria, Cyprus, Greece and Hungary

15 March – Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Committee on Equality and Non-discrimination 
issues a report on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity
March
24 April – PACE issues a resolution on safeguarding human rights in relation to religion and belief, and protecting 
religious communities from violence
April
May
26 June – PACE adopts resolution 1945 (2013) Putting an end to coerced sterilisations and castrations, as it considers 
that these acts constitute grave violations of human rights
June
10 July – Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopts a recommendation on gender equality and media

26 July – CEDAW issues observations on the United Kingdom
July
August
4 September – Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights intervenes on his own initiative in Valentin 
Câmpeanu v� Romania concerning access to justice for persons with disabilities

13 September 2013 – UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities issues Concluding observations on Austria
September
16 October – Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issues a recommendation on ensuring full inclusion of 
children and young persons with disabilities into society
October
7 November – ECtHR rules in Vallianatos and Others v� Greece that by excluding same-sex couples living in Greece from 
registering a civil union, without giving any convincing and weighty reasons capable of justifying the exclusion, the 
Greek State violates rights protected by the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) in conjunction with the right to 
respect for private and family life (Article 8) of the ECHR

7 November – In E�B� and Others v� Austria, the ECtHR rules that Austria discriminated against four gay men when it 
refused to delete from their criminal record convictions under its discriminatory age of consent law
November
6 December – European Committee of Social Rights finds eight EU Member States in breach of the rights of elderly 
persons (Article 23 of the ESC) on the grounds that they failed to have sufficiently comprehensive legislation 
prohibiting discrimination on the ground of age

11 December – Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issues a recommendation on ensuring full, equal and 
effective participation of persons with disabilities in culture, sports, tourism and leisure activities
December

124

EU

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

disabilities

July 

August 

European Union

redundancy

September 

October 

November 

December 

11 April – In HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v� Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB and HK Danmark 

acting on behalf of di Lone Skouboe Werge v� Pro Display A/S16, the CJEU interprets and clarifies the concept of 

disability under the Employment Equality Directive in line with Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights 

of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

large companies and groups

16 April – European Commission issues a proposal on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain 

16 April – European Parliament adopts a Resolution on transposition and application of Council Directive 2004/113/EC 

implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women

24 April – European Commission issues a proposal on promoting free movement of citizens and businesses by 

simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU

25 April – CJEU rules in Asociaţia ACCEPT v� Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării that homophobic 

statements by a shareholder of a football club may put a burden on the club to prove that it does not have 

a discriminatory employment policy

30 May – European Commission refers Slovakia to the CJEU for not paying disability benefits to severely disabled 

persons living in other EU Member States, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland

24 June – Council of the European Union issues guidelines to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights 

by LGBT and intersex persons in the foreign policy of the EU

4 July – European Parliament adopts a resolution on the impact of the crisis on access to care for vulnerable groups

4 July – CJEU rules in Commission v� Italy that Italy failed to fulfil its obligations under the Employment Equality 

Directive by not implementing Article 5 on the duty to provide for reasonable accommodation of persons with 

11 September – European Parliament issues a resolution on endangered languages and linguistic diversity in the 

26 September – CJEU rules in HK Danmark v� Experian A/S that the practice of age-related contribution levels in 

an occupational pension scheme could be objectively justified, but national courts have to decide if they are an 

appropriate and necessary measure to achieve the legitimate aim

26 September – CJEU rules in Dansk Jurist-og Økonomforbund v� Indenrigs-og Sundhedsministeriet that Article 6 (2) of 

the Employment Equality Directive is applicable only to retirement or invalidity benefits under an occupational social 

security scheme� It also rules that Articles 2 and 6 (1) of the directive must be interpreted as precluding a national 

provision under which a civil servant who has reached the age at which he is able to receive a retirement pension 

is denied, solely for that reason, entitlement to availability pay intended for civil servants dismissed on grounds of 

7 November – CJEU rules that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons may be perceived as a particular 

social group for the purpose of the Qualification Directive, making them eligible for asylum in the EU if punishment for 

homosexual acts is applied in their home countries

10 December – European Parliament adopts the EU financial package on rights and equality for 2014–2020

11 December – European Parliament adopts a resolution on women with disabilities, focusing on the discrimination 

generated by the intersection of gender and disability

12 December – CJEU rules in Frédéric Hay v� Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres 

that employees entering into a civil partnership with a same-sex partner in a Member State where homosexual 

marriage is not possible must be granted the same benefits as those granted to their colleagues upon marriage

17 December – European Parliament adopts general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, 

the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UN & CoE

15 January – European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rules in Eweida and Others v� United Kingdom that it is unlawful 

to prohibit wearing a religious symbol at work where it poses no health and safety hazard and to refuse services – 

including in the exercise of public authority – to homosexual couples on grounds of religious beliefs

29 January – European Committee of Social Rights finds 22 states in breach of the prohibition of discrimination 

in employment (Article 1�2 of the European Social Charter, ESC) and 12 states in violation of the right to equal 

opportunities and equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation without discrimination on grounds of sex 

12 February – ECtHR rules in Vojnity v� Hungary that the complete removal of a father’s access rights on the grounds 

that his religious convictions were detrimental to his son’s upbringing, without any evidence that those practices 

exposed his son to a risk of actual harm, amounts to a violation of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 of the 

European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR), read in conjunction with the right to respect for private and family life 

19 February – In X and Others v� Austria, the ECtHR finds that not allowing same-sex partners to adopt their partner’s 

child is discriminatory when national law allows unmarried different-sex partners to do so

1 March – United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) issues observations 

on Austria, Cyprus, Greece and Hungary

15 March – Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Committee on Equality and Non-discrimination 

issues a report on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity

24 April – PACE issues a resolution on safeguarding human rights in relation to religion and belief, and protecting 

religious communities from violence

26 June – PACE adopts resolution 1945 (2013) Putting an end to coerced sterilisations and castrations, as it considers 

that these acts constitute grave violations of human rights

10 July – Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopts a recommendation on gender equality and media

26 July – CEDAW issues observations on the United Kingdom

4 September – Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights intervenes on his own initiative in Valentin 

Câmpeanu v� Romania concerning access to justice for persons with disabilities

13 September 2013 – UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities issues Concluding observations on Austria

16 October – Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issues a recommendation on ensuring full inclusion of 

children and young persons with disabilities into society

7 November – ECtHR rules in Vallianatos and Others v� Greece that by excluding same-sex couples living in Greece from 

registering a civil union, without giving any convincing and weighty reasons capable of justifying the exclusion, the 

Greek State violates rights protected by the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) in conjunction with the right to 

respect for private and family life (Article 8) of the ECHR

7 November – In E�B� and Others v� Austria, the ECtHR rules that Austria discriminated against four gay men when it 

refused to delete from their criminal record convictions under its discriminatory age of consent law

6 December – European Committee of Social Rights finds eight EU Member States in breach of the rights of elderly 

persons (Article 23 of the ESC) on the grounds that they failed to have sufficiently comprehensive legislation 

prohibiting discrimination on the ground of age

11 December – Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issues a recommendation on ensuring full, equal and 

effective participation of persons with disabilities in culture, sports, tourism and leisure activities

(Article 20)

January

(Article 8)

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

EU

January 
February 
March 
11 April – In HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v� Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB and HK Danmark 
acting on behalf of di Lone Skouboe Werge v� Pro Display A/S16, the CJEU interprets and clarifies the concept of 
disability under the Employment Equality Directive in line with Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

16 April – European Commission issues a proposal on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain 
large companies and groups

16 April – European Parliament adopts a Resolution on transposition and application of Council Directive 2004/113/EC 
implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women

24 April – European Commission issues a proposal on promoting free movement of citizens and businesses by 
simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU

25 April – CJEU rules in Asociaţia ACCEPT v� Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării that homophobic 
statements by a shareholder of a football club may put a burden on the club to prove that it does not have 
a discriminatory employment policy
April 
30 May – European Commission refers Slovakia to the CJEU for not paying disability benefits to severely disabled 
persons living in other EU Member States, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland
May 
24 June – Council of the European Union issues guidelines to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights 
by LGBT and intersex persons in the foreign policy of the EU
June 
4 July – European Parliament adopts a resolution on the impact of the crisis on access to care for vulnerable groups

4 July – CJEU rules in Commission v� Italy that Italy failed to fulfil its obligations under the Employment Equality 
Directive by not implementing Article 5 on the duty to provide for reasonable accommodation of persons with 
disabilities
July 
August 
11 September – European Parliament issues a resolution on endangered languages and linguistic diversity in the 
European Union

26 September – CJEU rules in HK Danmark v� Experian A/S that the practice of age-related contribution levels in 
an occupational pension scheme could be objectively justified, but national courts have to decide if they are an 
appropriate and necessary measure to achieve the legitimate aim

26 September – CJEU rules in Dansk Jurist-og Økonomforbund v� Indenrigs-og Sundhedsministeriet that Article 6 (2) of 
the Employment Equality Directive is applicable only to retirement or invalidity benefits under an occupational social 
security scheme� It also rules that Articles 2 and 6 (1) of the directive must be interpreted as precluding a national 
provision under which a civil servant who has reached the age at which he is able to receive a retirement pension 
is denied, solely for that reason, entitlement to availability pay intended for civil servants dismissed on grounds of 
redundancy
September 
October 
7 November – CJEU rules that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons may be perceived as a particular 
social group for the purpose of the Qualification Directive, making them eligible for asylum in the EU if punishment for 
homosexual acts is applied in their home countries
November 
10 December – European Parliament adopts the EU financial package on rights and equality for 2014–2020

11 December – European Parliament adopts a resolution on women with disabilities, focusing on the discrimination 
generated by the intersection of gender and disability

12 December – CJEU rules in Frédéric Hay v� Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres 
that employees entering into a civil partnership with a same-sex partner in a Member State where homosexual 
marriage is not possible must be granted the same benefits as those granted to their colleagues upon marriage

17 December – European Parliament adopts general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, 
the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
December 

125

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

Equality and 
non-discrimination

The EU benefits from a solid legal framework with which to counter discrimination, especially on grounds of 
racial or ethnic origin. The European Commission’s proposal for a Horizontal Directive, designed to provide 
comprehensive protection against discrimination on all grounds equally, remains stalled. Discrimination often 
excludes those affected, erecting barriers that prevent some from participating in society on an equal and 
non‑discriminatory footing. FRA survey results have shown, for example, that many lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
transgender (LGBT) persons fear holding hands with a partner in public; one in five Jews face discrimination 
or harassment; and women in the EU regularly experience harassment at work. EU Member States and EU 
institutions recognise that barriers to full participation exist. Some are adopting measures to tackle the issue, 
also drawing on EU funds to address discrimination and unequal treatment.

5�1 

EU legislation on equal 
treatment between 
persons stalls

The EU enjoys a solid legal framework with which to combat 
discrimination,1 but the principle of equal treatment does not 
yet cover European society in all its diversity.2 To rectify this, 
the European Commission proposed, in 2008, a directive on 
implementing the principle of equal treatment between per‑
sons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation, known as the Horizontal Directive.3 Five years 
have passed since this proposal was made, with little pro‑
gress to report in the intervening period. The year 2013 was 
no different. The Council of the European Union continued to 
examine the proposal in the framework of the Working Party 
on Social Questions. The Council says “there is still a need for 
further work on the proposal”,4 although work done under 
the Irish Presidency clarified the scope of the proposal in 
the fields of education and social protection, and elaborated 
some of its provisions.5

The European Commission is also continuing to work on 
the European Accessibility Act. The initiative was originally 
intended for adoption in September 2012.6 Preparatory work 
continued in 2013 for the act, which aims at improving access 
for persons with disabilities and elderly persons to the market 

Key developments in the area of 
equality and non‑discrimination

•  The legislative package for the EU Structural Funds is 

adopted. It includes thematic ex ante conditionality on 
Roma inclusion and general ex ante conditionality on 
Member States’ administrative capacity for the 
implementation and application of Union 
anti‑discrimination law and policy.

•  The new EU programme for Rights, Equality and 

Citizenship was adopted in December 2013 for the 
period 2014–2020. The programme will promote 
fundamental rights, combating all forms of 
discrimination and fighting racism. It will also continue 
to provide funding for Roma inclusion.

•  Discussions on the proposed Horizontal Directive 

continue to stall.

•  The European Accessibility Act, covering access to 

goods and services for persons with disabilities and 
elderly persons, is still under preparation.

•  The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, 
Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee) argues that 
the EU lacks a comprehensive policy to protect fully the 
fundamental rights of LGBT and intersex persons.

127

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

in goods and services. It intends to harmonise acces‑
sibility requirements across the EU Member States.

Civil society organisations continued to engage closely 
in  developing  the  Accessibility  Act.  In  January,  the 
European Disability Forum published a position paper 
calling for a wider legal basis for the act, which takes 
into account the potential benefits for social inclusion 
and equality of viewing persons with disabilities as con‑
sumers.7 There were several consultations with stake‑
holders, including users and industry. Contributions 
were received from EU‑level non‑governmental organi‑
sations (NGOs) and industry organisations.

A coalition of organisations acting on behalf of the 
railway  sector  and  passengers  also  issued  a  joint 
statement highlighting the relevance of EU funding 
for projects enhancing transport accessibility8 (for 
more information on the role of EU funding in coun‑
tering discrimination, see Section 5.5) The Accessibility 
Act  is  included  in  the  European  Commission’s 
work  programme  for  2014,  with  March  2014  as 
a target adoption date.9

The EU lacks a comprehensive policy to protect fully 
the  fundamental  rights  of  lesbian,  gay,  bisexual, 
transgender and intersex (LBGTI) persons, the European 
Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and 
Home Affairs (LIBE) argues. The LIBE Committee called 
on the European Commission, EU Member States and 
relevant agencies to work jointly on a comprehensive 
policy to protect fully the fundamental rights of LGBTI 
persons, the so‑called EU Roadmap against homophobia 
and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and 
gender identity.10 Ministers of 11 EU Member States 
also signed a joint statement on the occasion of the 
2013 international day against homophobia, calling for 
a comprehensive EU‑wide approach to LGBT issues.

According  to  the  European  Commission,  adopting 
a  targeted approach would be more efficient than devel‑
oping a comprehensive approach in the fight against 
homophobia.  Fully  implementing  the  Employment 
Equality Directive and the Victims’ Directive, as well as 
adopting the Horizontal Directive, would offer legal pro‑
tection against homophobic and transphobic discrimi‑
nation, the Commission argues. In terms of concrete 
action, following the publication of the FRA survey on 
LGBT discrimination, the European Commission brought 
together 14 interested Member States to discuss and 
exchange existing best practices in those areas the 
survey identified as displaying the greatest problems.

A significant step in strengthening protection against 
discrimination on the grounds of disability was taken 
in jurisprudence relating to the Employment Equality 
Directive. In HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette 
Ring  v.  Dansk  Almennyttigt  Boligselskab  DAB  and 
HK  Danmark  acting  on  behalf  of  di  Lone  Skouboe 

Werge v. Pro Display A/S, the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (CJEU) updated its interpretation of 
the concept of disability as a limitation, which results 
in particular from physical, mental or psychological 
impairments that, in interaction with various barriers, 
may hinder the full and effective participation of the 
person concerned in professional life on an equal basis 
with other workers.11

FRA ACTIVITY

Assessing equality and 
non-discrimination in the European 
Union: a patchwork of standards

The  European  Commission  requested  that  FRA 
provide an opinion on the situation of equality in 
the EU 10 years on from initial implementation of 
the  equality  directives.  The  Commission,  under 
Article  17  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive,  is  re‑
quired  to  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and 
the Council on the implementation of both the Ra‑
cial Equality Directive and the Employment Equal‑
ity Directive, taking into account FRA’s views.

Published in October, the FRA opinion argues that 
people  continue  to  face  discrimination  in  their 
daily lives, despite considerable progress nation‑
ally and EU‑wide in policies and laws beyond the 
area of employment.

The  opinion  also  shows  that,  although  the 
EU made no discernible progress on adopting the 
Horizontal  Directive  on  non‑discrimination,  this 
did not, however, prevent national systems from 
broadening the scope of their protection. A num‑
ber of Member States adopted legal measures to 
extend  protection  across  a  range  of  grounds, 
leading to a patchwork of standards across the EU.

Another  important  aspect  of  equality  and  non‑
discrimination  is  the  awareness  people  have  of 
their rights. A large body of FRA evidence shows 
that  people  lack  rights  awareness.  The  opinion 
therefore  emphasises  the  need  for  national  and 
local authorities to intensify rights awareness ac‑
tivities.  These  should  bring  EU  antidiscrimination 
legislation  to  the  public’s  attention  and  focus  on 
targeting persons most at risk of discrimination.

The  opinion  also  argues  that  Member  States 
should ease access to justice to ensure equality in 
practice,  by  broadening  the  mandate  of  equality 
bodies to deal with complaints where this is not 
already the case. In addition, the rules should be 
relaxed  to  enable  civil  society  organisations  to 
take cases forward on behalf of those who have 
been discriminated against.

For more information, see FRA (2013), Opinion of the European 
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on the situation of equality 
in the European Union 10 years on from initial implementation of 
the equality directives, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/fra‑2013‑opinion‑eu‑equality‑directives_en.pdf

128

Equality and non‑discrimination

By aligning the Employment Equality Directive with 
Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the CJEU distanced 
itself from its previous jurisprudence, which relied on 
a medical approach to disability.12 It adopted instead 
a social model approach that more closely mirrors that 
of the CRPD. Moreover, the decision exemplifies the 
move within the CJEU to interpret existing EU law in line 
with the Union’s international legal obligations.

5�2  Discrimination 

on all grounds persists 
in the EU

The Horizontal Directive’s lack of progress makes it clear 
that policy makers are failing to acknowledge fully the 
extent and gravity of discrimination in the EU. FRA 
evidence and national human rights bodies’ data tes‑
tify to persistent and widespread discrimination. (See 
Chapter 6 on racism, xenophobia and related intolerance 
and Chapter 7 on discrimination against Roma.)

The  FRA  survey  on  minorities  and  discrimination13 
 confirms that migrants and members of minority groups 
regularly face discrimination. The findings show that 
in the 12 months preceding the survey half the Roma 
respondents suffered discrimination because they are 
Roma. Sub‑Saharan Africans (41 %) experienced the 
second‑highest rate of overall discrimination, and a third 
of North Africans report being discriminated against. 
Eight in 10 of those who experienced discrimination did 
not report their most recent experience to any organisa‑
tion, mainly because they believed that nothing would 
happen even if they were to report the incident.

“The EU was founded after Europe […] lived through the 
atrocities during World War II. All of us have a duty in 
ensuring that no one is discriminated against, or being 
subject to violence because of their ethnicity, religious 
beliefs, gender or sexual orientation. Too few are standing 
up against intolerance today. We need political leaders who 
do not flirt with populism and xenophobia.”

Cecilia Malmström, ‘Crimes against the foundation of society’, 12 Novem‑
ber 2013, available at: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/malmstrom/

Jewish persons in the EU still experience  discrimination 
on various grounds, as FRA’s survey on antisemitism 
shows (see Chapter 6 on racism, xenophobia and related 
intolerance).14 Over one third of Jewish persons expe‑
rienced discrimination in the 12 months preceding the 
survey, whether on the grounds of their ethnic back‑
ground, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or 
belief, disability or any other reason. About one in five 
respondents felt they were discriminated against or 
harassed on the grounds of their religion or beliefs. 
In  addition,  about  one  in  10  respondents  indicated 
that they felt discriminated against or harassed on 

the grounds of both ethnicity and religion, which is 
the most common combination of grounds. The most 
common settings where discrimination was felt were 
the workplace and when looking for work.

About two thirds of those who experienced physical 
violence or threats of violence did not report the most 
serious incident to the police or to any other organi‑
sation. Of those who said that they felt discriminated 
against in the 12 months before the survey because 
they were Jewish, more than eight in 10 did not report 
the most serious incident to any organisation. The main 
reason for not reporting was a lack of confidence that 
reporting the incident would improve the situation.

Women in the EU also regularly face sexual harassment 
at work, as the findings of FRA’s survey on violence 
against  women  show  (for  more  information  on  this 
survey, see Chapter 9 on rights of crime victims). Of 
those women who have experienced sexual harass‑
ment at least once since the age of 15, 32 % indicated 
a colleague, a boss or a customer as the perpetrator(s). 
This shows the need for employers’ organisations and 
trade unions to promote awareness of sexual harass‑
ment at work. Under‑reporting is again a characteristic 
of the experience of discrimination, with only 13 % of 
women reporting to police the most serious incident 
of non‑partner violence.

Despite low reporting levels, evidence from equality 
bodies  and  research  institutes  can  give  an  idea  of 
the  prevalence  of  given  types  of  discrimination. 
Evidence from Belgium,15 Bulgaria,16 Croatia,17 France,18 
Germany,19 Greece,20 Italy,21 Ireland22 and Sweden23 
shows that ethnic and/or racial discrimination was 
the most frequently reported type in 2012, particu‑
larly in the area of employment. In Germany, research 
conducted by experts on migration and integration24 
shows that visible minorities such as persons with 
a Turkish migrant background and persons of African, 
Asian or Latin American origin, as well as Muslims, 
are  especially  vulnerable  to  discrimination  on  the 
labour  market,  at  public  offices  and  authorities  or 
while seeking accommodation.

Relatively high levels of discrimination on the ground 
of age were identified in Belgium,25 Denmark26 and 
France.27  Age  and  disability  were  the  most  com‑
monly reported grounds of discrimination in the Czech 
Republic.28  Equality  bodies  in  Poland29  ranked  dis‑
ability and gender discrimination as the most frequent 
grounds of discrimination.

Most  complaints  reported  to  the  equality  body  in 
Estonia related to discrimination on the ground of sex.30 
In addition, discrimination against pregnant women 
and parents is considered direct discrimination on the 
grounds of sex in Estonia.31 Evidence of discrimination 
against pregnant women on the labour market was 

129

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

FRA ACTIVITY

Highlighting discrimination and hate crime against lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
transgender (LGBT) persons

Recognising the lack of robust and comparable data on respect for, protection of and fulfilment of the fundamental 
rights of LGBT persons, in 2010 the European Commission, following calls from the European Parliament, asked FRA 
to collect comparable survey data on hate crime and discrimination against LGBT persons in all EU Member States. 
In response, FRA developed the EU survey of discrimination against and victimisation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
transgender persons (EU LGBT survey).

The online survey of over 93,000 LGBT people across the EU reveals widespread bullying and harassment that start 
early on in school and carry over into work, housing, social services and access to other goods and services. Without 
proper intervention, such behaviour may turn into hate crime. About 80 % of the respondents recalled negative 
comments or bullying at school and close to 50 % said they had felt personally discriminated against or harassed 
because of being LGBT.

The results show that LGBT persons in the EU suffer from not being able to be themselves at school, at work or in 
public. Many, therefore, cover up their identity, guarding their actions and living in isolation and even fear. Others, 
choosing to act as themselves, may experience discrimination and even violence. Member States differ in how LGBT 
persons perceive and experience violence, harassment and discrimination. This also holds for the perception of wide‑
spread negative attitudes towards LGBT persons, and whether LGBT persons avoid certain locations or behaviours for 
fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed because of being LGBT. The survey’s headline findings are:

•  Almost half (47 %) of the respondents said that they felt personally discriminated against or harassed on the 

grounds of sexual orientation in the year preceding the survey.

•  Over 80 % of respondents in every Member State recall negative comments or bullying of LGBT youth at school.

•  Two thirds (67 %) of all respondents said they often or always hid or disguised that they were LGBT during their 

schooling before the age of 18.

•  Two thirds of respondents across all Member States are scared of holding hands in public with a same‑sex partner. 

For gay and bisexual male respondents, this figure reached 74 % and 78 %, respectively.

•  One in five of those respondents who were employed and/or looking for a job in the 12 months preceding the 
survey felt discriminated against in these situations in the past year. This figure rises to one in three for transgen‑
der respondents.

•  Of those respondents who had a paid job during the past five years, nearly half (43 %) experienced negative com‑
ments or conduct at work because of being LGBT. More than half (55 %) of transgender respondents had experi‑
enced such hostility and one in five (18 %) said this behaviour happened often or always.

•  Of the respondents who had visited a café, restaurant, bar or nightclub in the year preceding the survey, one in 

five (18 %) felt personally discriminated against at that location because of being LGBT.

•  A quarter (26 %) of all EU LGBT survey respondents had been attacked or threatened with violence in the previous 

five years.

•  About three in 10 of all transgender respondents said they were victims of violence or threats of violence more 

than three times in the past year.

•  A majority of respondents who had experienced violence (59 %) in the past year said that the last attack or threat 

of violence happened partly or entirely because they were perceived to be LGBT.

•  Fewer than one in five (17 %) reported the most recent incident of hate‑motivated violence to the police.

•  More than four in five respondents said that casual jokes about LGBT persons in everyday life were widespread.

•  Almost half of the respondents believe that offensive language about LGBT persons by politicians was widespread 

in the Member State where they live.

For more information, see FRA (2013), EU LGBT survey – European Union lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender survey: Results at a glance, available at: 
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu‑lgbt‑survey‑results‑at‑a‑glance_en.pdf; data available through data explorer tool at: http://fra.europa.eu/DVS/
DVT/lgbt.php

identified in research conducted by the Equal Treatment 
Commission  in  the  Netherlands32  and  the  Equality 
Ombudsman in Sweden.33

Rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 
in 2013 also emphasise the reality of discrimination in 

the EU. In January, the ECtHR handed down judgments 
relating to the expression of religious belief in the work‑
place and discrimination. In Eweida and Others v. the 
United Kingdom,34 the issue related to wearing visible 
symbols of religion at the workplace. The case related 
to four applicants.

130

Equality and non‑discrimination

Concerning the first applicant, the court held that the 
plaintiff’s right to manifest her religious beliefs by vis‑
ibly wearing a cross at work had been infringed by her 
employer, as there was no evidence that the wearing 
of the small cross would encroach on the interests of 
others. Concerning the second applicant, the court ruled 
that there had been no violation of the right to freedom 
of religion, as forbidding the visible wearing of a cross 
was justified for health and safety reasons for those 
working on hospital wards.

With respect to the third and fourth applicants, the 
issue related to the conflict between a person’s reli‑
gious beliefs and their refusal to provide a service to 
someone because of their sexual orientation. Here, the 
ECtHR ruled that the right to manifest religious beliefs 
cannot be to the detriment of other groups, particularly 
if it results in discrimination. The plaintiffs’ employers 
had equal opportunity policies in place that required 
employees to act in a way that did not discriminate 
against others. The court ruled that, even though the 
right to manifest religious belief at work is protected, 
that right must be balanced against the rights of others.

In November, the ECtHR ruled in Vallianatos and Others 
v. Greece35 that by excluding same‑sex couples living 
in Greece from registering a civil union – a legal form 
of partnership available to opposite‑sex couples – the 
Greek State violated rights protected by the prohibition 
of discrimination (Article 14) in conjunction with the 
right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) 
of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

At the end of 2013, the court had pending six conjoined 
cases regarding the refusal of the Italian authorities to 
register homosexual marriages contracted abroad and 
the inability of same‑sex couples to contract marriage 
or any other type of civil union in Italy.36

S. A. S. v. France,37 another pending case, relates to 
a complaint made by a practising Muslim woman who 
argued that, by forbidding her to wear a full‑face veil 
in public, her employers had breached ECHR articles on 
the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading 
treatment (Article 3); the right to respect for private and 
family life (Article 8); freedom of thought, conscience and 
religion (Article 9); freedom of expression (Article 10); 
freedom of assembly and association (Article 11); and 
the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14).

Case law at the national level also dealt with the issue 
of  discrimination;  a  number  of  rulings  clarified  an 
important Racial Equality Directive concept on genuine 
and determining occupational requirements.38 These 
requirements allow for differences in treatment based 
on a characteristic related to racial or ethnic origin, 
which do not constitute discrimination by reason of 
the  nature  of  the  particular  occupational  activities 
concerned or of the context in which they are carried 

out. As in the case of other such specific measures, 
genuine and determining occupational requirements 
are subject to the requirements of objectivity, legiti‑
macy and proportionality.

The  Labour  Court  in  Belgium,  for  example,  ruled 
in  January  that  a  general  requirement  made  by  an 
employer for employees not to wear religious symbols 
does not constitute a genuine occupational requirement 
as defined by the Anti‑Discrimination Act.39

In Germany, the Federal Labour Court decided in a case 
where the complainant challenged his dismissal after 
his employer had learned that he was infected with HIV. 
The court ruled that dismissal solely on the grounds 
of HIV infection violates the General Equal Treatment 
Act. The court reasoned that HIV must be considered 
a disability in the sense of the act and of the CRPD.

In  Romania,  the  national  equality  body  published 
a  decision in the case of  R. S. I. v. S. C. CDI Oilfield 
Service SRL and S. C. Adecco Resurse Umane SRL.40 
The claimant was a mechanic with a hearing disability 
dismissed for failing an evaluation test carried out by 
a human resources company hired by his employer. 
The claimant complained that his employer did not 
inform the human resources company about his hearing 
impairment and that, since he was not informed about 
the test, he did not ask for an interpreter. The equality 
body established direct discrimination on the grounds 
of disability with regards to dismissal, as the employer 
did not accommodate the first evaluation test to the 
disability of the complainant.

5�3  Discrimination hinders 

full participation in 
society

Discrimination often results in exclusion from active 
participation in many areas of life, erecting barriers that 
prevent many people from participating in society on 
an equal and non‑discriminatory footing. This hap‑
pens to ethnic, religious, national or sexual minorities 
or migrants, for instance, in the areas of healthcare, 
education,  employment  and  housing,  as  FRA  evi‑
dence consistently shows.41

Examples  include  transgender  persons  in  some 
EU Member States, who often have to meet a complex 
and lengthy set of legally prescribed criteria before 
gender markers in official documents can be changed, 
as FRA has documented.42 Such criteria include proof of 
a medical or psychological diagnosis of transsexuality or 
gender dysphoria/transgenderism. Without such docu‑
mentation, transgender persons may face difficulties 
when they want to participate in simple daily activities 
that require identity documents.

131

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Other barriers to participation stem from stigmati‑
sation and negative stereotyping, leading to fear of 
verbal or physical attack. Nearly half of all respond‑
ents  in  the  EU  LGBT  survey  considered  offensive 
language  about  LGBT  people  by  politicians  to  be 
fairly or very widespread in the country where they 
live.43 Similarly, FRA’s survey of Jewish persons in 
the EU shows that, on average, more than half the 
respondents consider antisemitic comments made in 
the media and by politicians to be a problem in the 
country where they live.44

The survey data also show that many people avoid 
certain events, places or locations in their local area 
or neighbourhood because they fear being harassed 
or attacked. Nearly half of Jewish respondents who 
have been a victim of an antisemitic incident in the 
past 12 months say they avoid certain places because 
they do not feel safe there as a Jew. Similarly, half the 
LGBT survey respondents said they avoid certain places 
or locations for fear of assault, threat or harassment 
because they are LGBT.

“Systematic barriers such as negative cultural attitudes, 
insufficient capacity‑building for potential candidates and 
limited financial resources impede women’s equal 
participation in public life.”

United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 
Women (2013), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of 
Greece adopted by the Committee at its fifty fourth session, 11 February– 
1 March 2013, paragraph 24, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
cedaw/docs/co/CEDAW.C.GRC.CO.7.doc

The European Institute for Gender Equality launched 
its  report  on  the  state  of  gender  equality  in  the 
EU  (excluding  Croatia)  in  June.45  Using  the  Gender 
Equality Index, a statistical tool to measure achieve‑
ments in the area of gender equality over time, the key 
finding shows that Member States have not managed to 
overcome gender gaps. On a scale where 1 stands for 
no gender equality and 100 for full equality, EU Member 
States scored 54 on average. The EU is still far from 
being a gender‑equal society.

The biggest gender gap is within the area of power, 
where the EU scores a mere 38, the results show. This 
means that women are greatly under‑represented in 
decision‑making positions, despite the fact that they 
make up nearly half the workforce and account for more 
than half of tertiary‑level graduates. The second‑largest 
gap identified is in time spent on unpaid caring and 
domestic activities, where the average score is 38.8, 
meaning that women spend considerably more time 
on such activities than men.46

For persons with disabilities, evidence collected by FRA 
in 2013 highlights that the lack of accessible information, 
the absence of training for public authorities, physical 
barriers preventing access to and effective use of build‑
ings and services, and the absence of mechanisms 

through which the voices of persons with disabilities 
can reach decision makers all serve to create obsta‑
cles to participation.47

Promising practices

Addressing the under-representation 
of women in decision-making posts

Acknowledging 
the  under‑representation  of 
women in decision‑making posts, an Italian pro‑
ject aims to increase knowledge and understand‑
ing  of  the  gender  dimension  in  business  leader‑
ship and economic growth. The two‑year project, 
run by the Department for Equal Opportunities at 
the  Italian  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Affairs 
(Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali) and 
Bocconi University, will examine the gender bal‑
ance on the boards of directors and audit commit‑
tees of publicly owned Italian companies.

The project, which is supported by the European 
Commission, will further analyse the consequenc‑
es of the presence of women on the board of di‑
rectors of public and private companies. Entitled 
Women  Mean  Business  and  Economic  Growth – 
Promoting  Gender  Balance  on  Company  Boards, 
the  project  will  suggest  ways  to  increase  the 
number  of  women  employed 
in  high‑level 
positions.

The  project  will  also  promote  the  exchange  of 
good  practices  and  the  beneficial  effects  of  fe‑
male 
leadership  on  economic  growth  and 
business.

For more information, see: www.pariopportunita.gov.it/
index.php/primo‑piano/2396‑qwomen‑mean‑business‑ 
and‑economic‑growthq

The  Promociona  project  aims  to  increase  the 
number  of  women  executives  in  steering  com‑
mittees and management boards of businesses in 
Spain, helping them break through the glass ceil‑
ing  that  women  often  face  at  work.  To  do  so, 
training and development programmes will focus 
on  nurturing  and  retaining  female  talent  within 
companies,  thereby  enabling  businesses  to  re‑
cruit  and  groom  women  to  occupy  senior  man‑
agement jobs. Starting in 2013, the project will run 
until the end of 2015, with funding from the Euro‑
pean Economic Area Financial Mechanism.

For more information, see: www.eeagrants.spain.msssi.gob.
es/docsRelevantes/pdf/folleto_programa_igualdad.pdf

Persons with disabilities also face legal hurdles that 
 prevent them from participating in political and social 
life. This is particularly the case for those with psycho‑
social or intellectual disabilities who have been deprived 
of legal capacity, that is the law’s recognition of a per‑
son’s right to make decisions for him‑ or herself. This 
happens despite the CRPD Committee’s insistence that 
State Parties to the Convention “ensure that persons 

132

Equality and non‑discrimination

Table 5.1:  Right to political participation of persons with psychosocial disabilities and persons with intellectual 

disabilities, by EU Member State

EU 
 Member 
State

Exclusion

Limited participation

Full participation

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Notes:  Data as of December, 2013.

An EU Member State can be represented in more than one column, as persons with psychosocial disabilities and persons 
with intellectual disabilities may be treated differently according to the national law of the respective Member State, or 
because different laws specify different restrictions on the right to political participation.

Source:  FRA, 2013

133

 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

with disabilities, including persons who are currently 
under guardianship or trusteeship, can exercise their 
right to vote and participate in public life.”48

FRA ACTIVITY

Increasing the participation of persons 
with disabilities in political and social 
life – legal capacity and participation 
in elections

In July 2013, FRA published a report that underlines 
the gap between the promise of Article 12 of the 
CRPD, on equal recognition of persons with disabil‑
ities  before  the  law,  and  the  reality  that  persons 
with  disabilities  currently  face  in  the  EU.  The  re‑
port, Legal capacity of persons with mental health 
problems and persons with intellectual disabilities, 
shows that, in a majority of EU Member States, le‑
gal frameworks allow some persons with disabili‑
ties to be deprived of their legal capacity in certain 
circumstances,  despite  the  shift  outlined  in  the 
CRPD from substituted to supported decision mak‑
ing. These national legal frameworks are, howev‑
er, undergoing a transformation, as legal capacity 
is  reframed  in  terms  of  the  support  that  persons 
with disabilities may need to make decisions.

To support reform processes at the national level, 
FRA brought together legal experts from govern‑
ment  ministries  across  the  EU  Member  States 
in October to discuss how to give supported deci‑
sion making a clear and effective legislative basis. 
The seminar, organised by FRA in partnership with 
the  Irish  Department  of  Justice  and  Equality,  the 
Irish  Human  Rights  Commission  and  the  Irish 
Equality Authority, focused on the steps that must 
be taken to build a coherent legislative agenda to 
move successfully to supported decision making.

FRA’s preliminary findings on the political partici‑
pation  of  persons  with  disabilities  indicate  that 
many of them confront legal and practical barriers 
to  exercising  the  right  to  vote.  This  can  deprive 
them  of  the  opportunity  to  participate  in  an  es‑
sential  component  of  democratic  societies.  FRA’s 
work in this area consists of developing indicators 
on the political participation of people with disabil‑
ities to measure the extent to which they are ena‑
bled  to  participate  in  political  life,  particularly 
through voting and standing for elections.

For more information, see: FRA (2013), Legal capacity of persons 
with intellectual disabilities and persons with mental health 
problems, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/
legal‑capacity‑persons‑intellectual‑disabilities‑and‑persons‑men‑
tal‑health‑problems; and FRA (2013), Political participation of 
persons with disabilities, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/
project/2013/political‑participation‑persons‑disabilities

Only a minority of EU Member States have lifted all 
restrictions on the right to vote of people deprived 
of  legal  capacity.  Table  5.1  indicates  that  laws  in 

134

the large majority of Member States continue to tie 
the right to vote to legal capacity. Half of the EU‑28 
automatically  exclude  persons  deprived  of  their 
legal  capacity  from  the  right  to  vote  (exclusion). 
Legislation in several other Member States provides 
for  a  case‑by‑case  assessment  of  the  ability  of 
a person to vote (limited participation).

“It is important to recognise the legal capacity of persons 
with disabilities in public and political life. This means that 
the person’s decision‑making ability cannot be used to 
justify any exclusion of persons with disabilities from 
exercising their political rights.”

CRPD Committee (2013), Draft General Comment on Article 12 of the 
Convention: Equal recognition before the law, 25 November 2013, 
paragraph 44, available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/
DGCArticles12And9.aspx

5�4  Member States adopt 
measures to counter 
discrimination

EU Member States adopted measures in 2013 to enable 
them  to  counter  discrimination  more  effectively. 
Poland, for example, adopted a national action plan 
for equal treatment covering 2013–2016.49 In the United 
Kingdom,  the  Department  for  Culture,  Media  and 
Sport and the Government Equalities Office published 
a policy on Creating a fairer and more equal society.50 
The policy aims at preventing discrimination, including 
discrimination based on age, disability, gender reas‑
signment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy 
and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual 
orientation.  Croatia51  and  Greece52  adopted  similar 
action  plans,  with  that  of  Greece  covering  human 
rights  globally.  Estonia53  and  Finland54  organised 
campaigns promoting diversity and equality. In Spain,55 
the Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality 
(Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad) 
began mapping how discrimination is perceived and 
enacted, with a view to enabling the authorities to draft 
more effective antidiscrimination policies. In Spain as 
well, legislation relating to improving the quality of 
education irrespective of a person’s background came 
into force in December.56

EU Member States also adopted measures targeting 
specific  grounds  of  discrimination  in  2013,  particu‑
larly  regarding  age,  disability,  sexual  orientation 
and gender identity.

5�4�1 

Countering discrimination on 
the ground of age

Recognising that all human rights and fundamental 
freedoms apply to older persons, the draft recommen‑
dation by the Steering Committee for Human Rights of 
the Council of Europe on the promotion of the human 

Equality and non‑discrimination

rights of older persons calls for increasing respect for 
older persons’ autonomy and legal capacity in daily 
life. It also called for promoting the protection of older 
persons in societies where ageism is rising or in situa‑
tions where they may be vulnerable.57

Member  States  adopted  measures  to  encourage 
employers to hire young or older people to counter 
high youth unemployment rates and discrimination 
on  the  ground  of  age.  In  the  Czech  Republic,  the 
national action plan supporting positive ageing for the 
period 2013–2017,58 prepared by the Ministry of Labour 
and Social Affairs, envisages the implementation of 
tools to support older workers. It introduces concepts 
of age management and increases the employment of 
older workers by creating job‑share positions between 
older and younger workers.

Promising practice

Providing the police with guidance on 
antidiscrimination

The National Union of Local Police Chiefs (Unión 
Nacional  de  Jefes  y  Directivos  de  Policía  Local) 
and several NGOs working with migrants, Roma, 
LGBT people and those with intellectual disabili‑
ties in Spain published an antidiscrimination and 
equality guide for the police. The guide addresses 
discrimination  on  specific  grounds,  multiple  dis‑
crimination and hate crime. It also explains where 
discrimination usually takes place, while provid‑
ing  statistical  and  sociological  data  on  popula‑
tions vulnerable to discrimination. The guide fur‑
ther  describes  specific  cases  of  discrimination 
involving the police in Spain and provides infor‑
mation on the legal framework on non‑discrimi‑
nation  at 
international,  European  and 
national levels.

the 

The aim of the guide is to raise awareness among 
the police by providing examples of good practic‑
es in the areas of police adjustment to diversity; 
countering hate crimes; participation of a diverse 
society in public security policies; and avoidance 
of ethnic profiling.

For more information, see: Spain, Programa de colaboración de 
la Open Society Foundations con la Plataforma por la Gestión 
policial de la Diversidad (2013), Guía para la Gestión Policial de 
la Diversidad, available at: http:// gestionpolicialdiversidad.org/
PDFactividades/guia_gestion_policial_diversidad.pdf

Bulgaria introduced subsidies for hiring those under 
29 years of age.59 In Denmark, the government adopted 
similar  measures,  setting  up  programmes  aimed 
at  integrating  young  people  into  the  job  market.60 
Finland launched the Youth Guarantee programme to 
ensure young people’s access to education, training 
and  employment  and  to  prevent  them  from  being 
excluded from society.61

The ‘generation contract’ in France guarantees that 
companies with fewer than 300 employees receive 
financial support when they recruit persons under 26 
or workers with disabilities under 30 or keep in a post 
employees over 57 years of age.62 In Spain, the gov‑
ernment introduced a requirement for profit‑making 
enterprises with more than 100 staff members to pay 
compensation to the state’s social benefits scheme if 
they collectively dismiss workers over 50 years of age.63

Belgium and Germany built upon 2012 campaigns as part 
of the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity 
between Generations, adopting measures to ensure the 
non‑discriminatory treatment of young and older people 
in employment. Measures included awareness‑raising 
campaigns, such as the Belgian Fifty‑plus employees 
are a plus for every company.64 The German Perspektive 
50plus65 campaign aimed at raising awareness of demo‑
graphic issues, activating older long‑term unemployed 
people and integrating them into the job market.

Finally,  the  European  Commission  closed  the 
 infringement procedure on the forced retirement of 
judges in Hungary, which had lowered their mandatory 
retirement age from 70 to 62.66 Hungary amended the 
relevant legal act.

5�4�2 

Countering discrimination on 
the ground of disability

EU Member States continued to bring their legislation 
and policy frameworks in line with their legal obli‑
gations under the CRPD. New legislation was either 
adopted or presented in draft in Austria,67 Belgium,68 
Estonia,69 Hungary,70 Italy,71 Latvia,72 the Netherlands,73 
Portugal74 and the United Kingdom.75

Croatia,76 the Czech Republic,77 Hungary78 and Latvia79 
adopted reforms to remove or reduce restrictions for 
persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities 
who  have  been  deprived  of  legal  capacity.  In  the 
Czech Republic, the Civil Code that came into force on 
1 January 2014 stipulates that a person’s legal capacity 
may be partially limited, with courts deciding the scope 
of the legal capacity limitation, including whether or not 
the individual retains the right to vote.80

Amendments to the Latvian Civil Law in force since 
1 January 2013 envisage that “the person shall not be 
deprived of personal non‑material rights”, including 
the  right  to  vote. 81  Moreover,  a  draft  Assisted 
Decision‑Making Bill setting out a legal framework 
for  supported  decision‑making  was  presented 
in  Ireland  (see  Chapter  10  on  EU  Member  States 
and international obligations).82

Hungary  initiated  reforms  linked  to  the  Concluding 
observations of the CRPD Committee.83 The committee 
expressed concern that the definition of disability in the 

135

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Disability Act84 excludes persons with psychosocial dis‑
abilities. Hungary subsequently amended the Disability 
Act, which as of 1 January 2014 covers persons with 
psychosocial disabilities.85 In addition, the committee 
specifically called upon Hungary to “re‑examine the 
allocation of funds, including regional funds obtained 
from the European Union”, to ensure that they are in 
full compliance with Article 19 of the CRPD.86 This has 
ramifications for the use of the new Structural Funds 
to support the transition from institutional to commu‑
nity‑based care, particularly in the light of the newly 
adopted ex ante conditionalities (for more on ex ante 
conditionalities, see Section 5.5).

Promising practice

Involving NGOs in improving 
accessibility of buildings for persons 
with disabilities

In the Croatian city of Vinkovci, the Committee for 
the  Technical  Examination  of  Buildings  includes 
a  member  representing  Bubamara,  an  NGO  that 
works  to  protect  persons  with  disabilities.  The 
committee runs fieldwork tests of the accessibil‑
ity  of  new  buildings,  a  prerequisite  for  these  to 
gain use permits. The test results feed back into 
the  engineering  works,  allowing  the  removal  of 
any obstacles encountered and preventing these 
in  future  construction  projects.  The  committee 
also raises awareness within the construction in‑
dustry of how to ensure that buildings are acces‑
sible for all. Several Croatian cities have now in‑
cluded  NGO  representatives  on  their  technical 
building committees, a practice recommended by 
the Persons with Disabilities Ombudsman.

For more information, see: www.bubamara.hr/ and www.
bd.undp.org/content/croatia/hr/home/presscenter/articles/ 
2013/10/15/osobe‑s‑invaliditetom‑i‑lokalna‑uprava‑o‑ne‑ 
pristupa‑nosti‑objekata/

Cyprus,87  Denmark,88  Italy,89  Latvia,90   Lithuania,91 
Slovakia92 and the United Kingdom93 introduced action 
plans in the area of disability. The Italian Ministry of 
Labour  and  Social  Policy,  for  example,  approved  in 
February the country’s first National Action Programme 
for the promotion of the rights and integration of people 
with disabilities.94 The plan identifies seven priority 
areas for the implementation of the CRPD and defines 
concrete measures to be implemented by national, 
regional and local authorities.

Other initiatives to enhance the participation of persons 
with disabilities focused on the accessibility of public 
buildings and information, as well as on assistance 
during the voting process. France, for example, requires 
an assessment of the accessibility of state and munic‑
ipal buildings for persons with disabilities, following an 
interdepartmental circular sent out in January.95 As of 

2013, the Austrian Federal Parliament has a tool that 
reads its website’s contents aloud.96

To help guarantee the secrecy of the ballot for persons 
with disabilities who require assistance to vote, the 
Swedish Parliamentary Electoral Committee proposed 
introducing a new provision to the Election Act that 
would include an explicit duty of confidentiality for 
individuals who assist voters.97 In the United Kingdom, 
the parliamentary outreach service in conjunction with 
a not‑for‑profit organisation launched a campaign, Love 
Your Vote, to explain to persons with intellectual disabili‑
ties the parliamentary process, the electoral system, the 
voting process and how to lobby local representatives.

The Employment Equality Directive incorporates the 
duty of ‘reasonable accommodation’ for persons with 
disabilities. This is the employer’s duty to take appro‑
priate measures, where needed, to enable a person 
with a disability to have access to, participate in, or 
advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless 
such measures would impose a disproportionate burden 
on the employer.98

Croatian  lawmakers  amended  the  new  Act  on 
Professional  Rehabilitation  and  Employment  of 
Persons  with  Disabilities.  Reasonable  accommoda‑
tion  at  the  workplace  is  newly  defined  as  “neces‑
sary and adequate accommodation and adjustments, 
which are not disproportionate or inadequate, so as 
to ensure the employment and work of persons with 
disabilities on an equal basis to others in each individual 
case, where necessary”.99

In  some  countries,  measures  of  reasonable 
 accommodation  have  been  applied  to  fields  other 
than  employment,  such  as  education.  In  Bulgaria, 
for instance, the national programme for accessible 
schooling Creating an accessible architectural environ‑
ment 2013 aims to create a supportive environment for 
400 children with intellectual disabilities who have been 
living in institutions that are now scheduled for closure. 
It also aims to give them easier access to 64 pilot kinder‑
gartens and elementary schools near their new accom‑
modation, which consists of small, family‑type centres 
and sheltered housing. This also relates to the inclusive 
education programme, under which 1,331 pupils with 
special educational needs received support to study in 
84 pilot secondary schools.100

The  Flemish  Government  in  Belgium  approved 
a  proposal for a decree on measures for students with 
specific education needs, which it submitted to the 
Flemish Parliament in November 2013.101 The proposal 
provides that children who are able to continue in regular 
education with the help of reasonable adjustments have 
the right to enrol or remain enrolled in regular schools. 
Those who are not able to follow regular education, 
because of what is required to obtain a degree, or for 

136

Equality and non‑discrimination

whom the adjustments to attend regular school would 
be unreasonable, have access to special education.102

5�4�3 

Countering discrimination 
on the grounds of sexual 
orientation and gender identity

Several EU Member States addressed the legal situation 
of LBGT persons in 2013. Malta, for example, removed 
from its Civil Code obstacles relating to the civil status of 
persons who change their assigned sex.103 Poland began 
parliamentary discussions on adopting a formal proce‑
dure of gender recognition.104 In Ireland, the Department 
of Social Protection proposed a Gender Recognition Bill 
to recognise legally the acquired gender of transgender 
persons for all purposes, including dealings with the 
state, public bodies and civil and commercial entities.105

Latvia  adopted  new  Regulations  on  Civil  Status, 
allowing, among other amendments, for legal change 
of gender.106 According to the new law, the registry 
record shall be supplemented if the person has under‑
gone partial or complete gender reassignment and the 
persons’ gender record shall be changed according to 
the certificate issued by the healthcare institution or 
healthcare  practitioner,  which  confirms  the  change 
of the gender.

Similarly, Lithuania simplified the procedure of legal 
gender  recognition  by  obliging  registry  offices  to 
change identity documents upon the submission of 
medical proof of gender‑reassignment surgery.107 The 
Lithuanian Gay League points out, however, that in 2013 
a proposal was put forward envisaging fines for those 
organising protests that would seemingly contradict 
“constitutional moral values and Constitution estab‑
lished principles of family”. If adopted, the proposal 
would apply to situations where LGBT persons would 
be seen to contradict the “morality of society.”108

The  Senate  in  the  Netherlands  voted  in  favour  of 
a law enabling transgender persons to change their 
legal sex without requirements such as sterilisation 
or genital surgery.109

Civil society organisations acknowledged the limited 
progress made with regard to the legal recognition of 
a trans person’s gender in some EU Member States. 
Still, they remained critical of legislative proposals that 
would necessitate sterilisation, divorcing or compul‑
sory medical treatment.110

In Belgium,111 Denmark,112 Finland113 and  France,114 national 
equality bodies and expert working groups focused on 
legislation concerning LBGT persons. The attention here 
is  on  gender  recognition  in  civil  matters,  conditions 
for  gender  reassignment  and  developing  proposals 
for legal reforms to better accommodate the needs of 

LBGT persons. In Cyprus, the Ministry of Justice and Public 
Order not only submitted legislation penalising discrimi‑
nation on the grounds of race, colour, religion, national 
or ethnic origin; it also submitted a bill amending the 
Criminal Code to the Parliament. The bill would penalise 
the public incitement of discriminatory acts or acts of 
hatred  or  violence  against  persons  because  of  their 
sexual orientation or gender identity.115

Action plans and policy measures on countering dis‑
crimination grounded on sexual orientation and gender 
identity were also introduced or updated in Belgium, 
the Netherlands116 and Portugal.117

5�5 

EU deploys EU structural 
funds in countering 
discrimination

The  legislative  package  for  the  European  Union 
Structural Funds for the period 2014–2020 was adopted 
in December 2013.118 These funds, totalling €325 billion, 
are the EU’s principal investment tool for delivering 
Europe 2020 goals, including the reduction of social 
exclusion and creating economic growth and jobs.119

The  regulations  governing  several  specific  funds 
make  specific  reference  to  furthering  equality  and 
non‑discrimination. For the first time, the European 
Social Fund (ESF), which accounts for 23 % of the total 
Structural Funds budget, will include a specific focus on 
fighting discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or 
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation, or those covered by Article 10 of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union, in addition 
to promoting employment and inclusion.120

Of  the  more  than  €74  billion  of  ESF  funds  to  be 
 distributed over the seven‑year financing period, at 
least  20  %  will  be  allocated  to  social  inclusion  and 
€3 billion to the Youth Employment Initiative in regions 
with youth unemployment rates exceeding 25 %.121

Particularly  important  to  the  area  of  equality  and 
non‑discrimination is the inclusion of the requirement 
for EU Member States to show that they have the rel‑
evant legal and policy instruments and measures in 
place before they can apply for funding, including on 
antidiscrimination, gender and disability. The move 
to  require  such  ‘ex  ante  conditionalities’  in  these 
three areas reverses a previous Council of the European 
Union decision removing them.122

Before funds can be allocated, the European Commission 
must assess that a number of criteria attached to each 
conditionality have been fulfilled. Regarding antidis‑
crimination, for example, EU Member States must meet 
certain criteria, including arranging that the bodies 

137

In  addition,  the  Rights,  Equality  and  Citizenship 
Programme  was  adopted  in  December  for  the 
period 2014–2020.124 The programme will contribute 
to fighting discrimination on all the grounds listed in 
Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, namely 
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, dis‑
ability, age or sexual orientation. The funds available 
amount to €439,473,000, merging three programmes: 
Fundamental Rights and EU Citizenship;125 Daphne III;126 
and two chapters of the Progress programme.127

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

that promote equal treatment shall be involved in pro‑
gramme preparation and implementation.123 Particularly 
important  in  the  context  of  disability,  children  and 
older people are the criteria for fulfilment attached to 
the objective of promoting social inclusion, combating 
poverty and any discrimination, which include “meas‑
ures for the shift from institutional to community based 
care”. Table 5.2 presents a summary of the relevant 
ex ante conditionalities.

“The implementation of the priorities financed by the ESF 
should contribute to countering discrimination based on 
sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age 
or sexual orientation by paying particular attention to those 
facing multiple discriminations; discrimination on the 
grounds of sex should be interpreted in a broad sense so as 
to cover other gender‑related aspects in line with the 
jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
The ESF should support the fulfilment of the obligation 
under the UN [CRPD] with regard inter alia to education, 
work and employment and accessibility. The ESF should 
also promote the transition from institutional to 
community‑based care. The ESF should not support any 
action that contributes to segregation or to social 
exclusion.”

European Parliament (2013), Resolution of 20 November 2013 on the 
proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006, 
P7_TA(2013)0483, Strasbourg, 20 November 2013.

Table 5.2:  Common provisions on European funds: selected general and thematic ex ante conditionalities

Area

Antidiscrimination

Gender

Disability

Ex ante conditionality

Administrative capacity to implement and apply EU antidiscrimination law and 
policy in the field of European Structural and Investment (ESI) funds

Administrative capacity to implement and apply EU gender equality law and 
policy in the field of ESI funds

Administrative capacity to implement and apply the United Nations Convention 
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the field of ESI funds in accordance 
with Council Decision 2010/48/EC

Thematic objective

Ex ante conditionality

Promoting social inclusion, 
countering poverty and any 
discrimination

The existence and implementation of a national strategic policy framework for 
poverty reduction aiming at the active inclusion of persons excluded from the 
labour market in the light of the employment guidelines

Promoting sustainable and 
quality employment and 
supporting labour mobility
ESF: Active and healthy ageing

Active ageing policies designed in the light of the employment guidelines

Source:  Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common 

provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic 
Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund 
and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, OJ L 347, 20/12/2013, pp. 320–469, Article 19 
and Annex XI

138

Equality and non‑discrimination

Outlook

The European Commission’s report on the  implementation 
of the Employment Equality Directive and the Racial 
Equality Directive will give new impetus to EU Member 
States to ensure that they offer adequate protection 
against  discrimination  and  unequal  treatment.  This 
could lead to a revision of national policies and instru‑
ments pertaining to equality and non‑discrimination.

The impact of the economic crisis will continue to affect 
the ability of persons in vulnerable situations to partici‑
pate fully in social life in a number of Member States. 
The reformed cohesion policy will make available up 
to €351.8 billion for delivering on Europe 2020 goals, 
which include reducing poverty and social exclusion. 

However, the ability of all those living in the EU to par‑
ticipate fully and equally is also likely to be affected 
by the pace of progress on key legislative and policy 
developments, such as the Horizontal Directive and 
the Accessibility Act.

After meeting for the first time in 2013, the EU‑level CRPD 
monitoring framework set up under the Convention’s 
Article 33 (2) will build up its activities in 2014. In par‑
ticular,  it  will  prepare  a  work  programme  and  take 
steps to ensure public access to key documents and 
information about the work of the framework, which 
is composed of the European Parliament, the European 
Commission, the European Ombudsman, FRA and the 
European Disability Forum representing civil society.

139

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 127, 136

BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 131, 135, 136, 137

BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 135, 136

CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 136, 137

CZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 135

DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 131, 135

DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 135, 136, 137

EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 134, 135

EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 129, 131, 134

ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132, 134, 135

FI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134, 135, 137

FR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 131, 135, 136, 137

HR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 132, 134, 135, 136

HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 135, 136

IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 135, 137

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 129, 131, 132, 135, 136

LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136, 137

LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135, 136, 137

MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130, 135, 137

PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129, 134, 137

PT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135, 137

RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 131

SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 130

SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 136

UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 130, 134, 135, 136

140

Equality and non‑discrimination

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

See: Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 
implementing the principle of equal treatment between 
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 
19 July 2000, pp. 22–26; Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 
27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for 
equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 
2 December 2000, pp. 16–22; Council Directive 2004/113/EC 
of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal 
treatment between men and women in the access to and 
supply of goods and services, OJ L 373, 21 December 2004, 
pp. 37–43.

European Commission (2011), The principle of equal 
treatment between persons, http://europa.eu/
legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/
equality_between_men_and_women/c10935_en.htm.

European Commission (2008), 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, Brussels, 
2 July 2008.

See: Council of the European Union (2013), Progress report 
on the proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the 
principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective 
of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, 
Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU, 7 June 2013, http://
register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=tru
e&sc=false&f=ST %2010039 %202013 %20INIT; Council of 
the European Union (2013), Progress report on the proposal 
for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of 
equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion 
or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, Lithuanian 
Presidency of the Council of the EU, 22 November 2013, 
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&g
c=true&sc=false&f=ST %2016438 %202013 %20INIT.

See: Council of the European Union (2013), Progress report 
on the proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the 
principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective 
of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, 
Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU, 7 June 2013.

European Commission (2011), Roadmap, 
European Accessibility Act: Legislative initiative 
to improve accessibility of goods and services in 
the Internal Market, Brussels, June 2011, http://
ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/
docs/2012_ just_025_european_accessibiliy_act_en.pdf.

European Disability Forum (EDF) (2013), EDF position 
paper: Towards a European Accessibility Act, Brussels, 
January 2013, p. 15, www.edf‑feph.org/Page_Generale.
asp?DocID=13854&thebloc=31902.

Age Platform Europe, Community of European Railway 
and Infrastructure Companies, European Disability Forum 
and European Passengers’ Federation (2013), Towards 
better accessibility of transport services, joint statement, 
January 2013, www.age‑platform.eu/images/stories/Joint_
statement_on_European_Accessibility_Act.pdf.

European Commission (2014), Commission actions expected 
to be adopted in 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/
forward_programming_2014.pdf.

European Parliament (2013), Draft report on the EU 
Roadmap against homophobia and discrimination 
on grounds of sexual orientation and gender 
identity, (2013/2183(INI)), 14 October 2013.

CJEU (2013), joined cases C‑335/11 and C‑337/11.

CJEU (2006), Chacon Navas v. Eurest Colectividades SA, 
11 July 2006. See also FRA (European Union Agency for 
Fundamental Rights) (2011), The legal protection of persons 

with mental health problems under non‑discrimination 
law: Understanding disability as defined by law and the 
duty to provide reasonable accommodation in EU Member 
States, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European 
Union (Publications Office).

13 

14 

FRA (2010), EU‑MIDIS: European Union Minorities and 
Discrimination Survey 2009, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office.

FRA (2013), Discrimination and hate crime against Jews 
in EU Member States: Experiences and perceptions of 
antisemitism, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

15  Belgium, Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition 
to Racism (CEOOR) (2013), Jaarverslag Discriminatie/
Diversiteit 2012 / Rapport annuel Discrimination/
Diversité 2012, www.diversite.be/?action=publicatie_
detail&id=161&thema=2&select_page=216.

16  Daskalova, N., Zhelyazkova, A. and Angelova, V., 

International Centre for Minority Studies and Intercultural 
Relations (2013), Challenging racism at work, www.imir‑bg.
org/imir/reports/CHALLENGING%20RACISM%20AT%20
WORK.pdf.

17 

Croatia, Office of the People’s Ombudsman (2013), 
Report on the occurrences of discrimination for 2012, 
Zagreb, June 2013, www.ombudsman.hr/dodaci/
Izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e%20o%20pojavama%20
diskriminacije.pdf.

18 

France, Défenseur des droits (2013), Annual activity 
report 2012, www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/default/files/
upload/raa‑Defender of Rights‑2012_press02.pdf.

19  Germany, Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes (2013), 

Diskriminierung im Bildungsbereich und im 
Arbeitsleben: Zweiter Gemeinsamer Bericht der 
Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes und der in ihrem 
Zuständigkeitsbereich betroffenen Beauftragten der 
Bundesregierung und des Deutschen Bundestages, 
Berlin, www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/
Downloads/DE/publikationen/Gemeinsamer_Bericht_2013.
pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

20  Greece, Συνήγορος του Πολίτη, Annual report 2012, 

 www.synigoros.gr/resources/docs/stp_ethsia_2012.pdf.

21 

22 

Italy, Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali (2013), 
www.unar.it.

Ireland, Equality Authority (2013), Equality Authority 
annual report 2012, www.equality.ie/en/Publications/
Annual‑Reports/Annual‑Report‑2012‑Final‑onlin
e‑web‑version‑pdf.pdf.

23 

Sweden, Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, Annual 
report 2012, www.do.se/sv/Material/Arsredovisning‑2012/.

24  Germany, Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen 
für Integration und Migration (SVR) (2013), Migrants’ 
experiences of discrimination, Factsheet of the expert 
opinion: Discrimination experiences of persons with 
and without a migrant background including an East/
West comparison, www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/
SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/publikationen/factsheet_engl_
Diskriminierungserfahrungen_Migrant_innen_Ost_West_
Vergleich.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

25  Belgium, (CEOOR) (2013), Jaarverslag  Discriminatie/

Diversiteit 2012 / Rapport annuel Discrimination/
Diversité 2012, www.diversite.be/?action=publicatie_
detail&id=161&thema=2&select_page=216.

26  Denmark, Ligebehandlingsnævnet (2013).

27 

France, Défenseur des droits (2013), Survey on the 
perception of discrimination by job seekers: Executive 
summary, October 2013, www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/
default/files/upload/oit‑synthese.pdf.

141

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

28  Czech Republic, Veřejný ochránce práv (2013), Annual 

report 2012, www.ochrance.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/
zpravy_pro_poslaneckou_snemovnu/Souhrnna_zprava_
VOP_2012‑web.pdf.

29  Poland, Human Rights Defender (2013), Response to 
the request upon access to public information from 
28 October 2013; Poland, Pełnomocnik Rządu do spraw 
Równego Traktowania, Response to the request upon 
access to public information from 28 October 2013.

30 

Estonia, Soolise võrdõiguslikkuse ja võrdse kohtlemise 
volinik (2013), Soolise võrdõiguslikkuse ja võrdse kohtlemise 
volinik: 2012. aasta tegevuse aruanne, www.svv.ee/
failid/Voliniku%202012.%20aasta%20tegevuse%20
%C3%BClevaade.%20Kokkuv%C3%B5te.pdf.

31 

Estonia, Soolise võrdõiguslikkuse seadus, Section 3, para. 1, 
www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/530102013038/consolide.

32  Netherlands, Commissie Gelijke Behandeling (2012), Hoe is 
het bevallen? Onderzoek naar discriminatie van zwangere 
vrouwen en moeders met jonge kinderen op het werk, 
Utrecht.

48  Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2013), 
Concluding observations on Tunisia, CRPD/C/TUN/CO/1, 
13 May 2011, para. 35.

49  Poland, Pełnomocnik Rządu do spraw Równego 

Traktowania (2013), Krajowy Program Działań na Rzecz 
Równego Traktowania na lata 2013–2016, Warsaw, 
10 December 2013.

50  United Kingdom, Department for Culture, Media and Sport 
and Government Equalities Office (2013), Creating a fairer 
and more equal society, www.gov.uk/government/policies/
creating‑a‑fairer‑and‑more‑equal‑society.

51 

Croatia, Ured za ljudska prava i prava nacionalnih 
manjina Vlade Republike Hrvatske (2013), Nacionalni 
program zaštite i promicanja ljudskih prava za razdoblje 
od 2013. do 2016. godine, www.uljppnm.vlada.hr/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113&Itemid=83.

52  Greece, Υπουργείο Δικαιοσύνης (2013), Εθνικό Σχέδιο 

Δράσης για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα, www.opengov.gr/
ministryofjustice/?p=5239.

53 

Estonia, Erinevus rikastab, campaign 2010–2014.

33 

34 

35 

36 

Sweden, Diskrimineringsombudsmannen (2013), Annual 
report 2012, www.do.se/sv/Material/Arsredovisning‑2012/.

ECtHR, Eweida and Others v. The United Kingdom, 
Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10, judgment, 
Strasbourg, 15 January 2013.

54 

55 

ECtHR, Vallianatos and Others v. Greece, 
No. 29381/09 and 32684/09, judgment, 7 November 2013, 
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.
aspx?i=001‑128294#{“itemid”:[“001‑128294”]}.

ECtHR, Orlandi and Others v. Italy, No. 26431/12; Isita and 
Bray v. Italy, No. 26742/12; Goretti and Others v. Italy, 
No. 44057/12; Garullo and Ottocento v. Italy, No. 60088/12; 
Oliari and Longhi v. Italy, No. 18766/11; and Felicetti and 
Others v. Italy, No. 36030/11.

37 

ECtHR, S.A.S. v. France, No. 43835/11, public hearing.

38  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing 

the principle of equal treatment between persons 
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ 2000 L 180, Art. 4.

39  Belgium, Arbeidsrechtbank Tongeren, Joyce V. O. D. B v. R. B. 

NV, No. 11/2142/A, 2 January 2013.

40  Romania, Consiliului Naţional pentru Combaterea 
Discriminării (2013), Hotărârea No. 348/29 05 2013.

41 

42 

See, for example, Chapters 5 and 6 in FRA’s previous Annual 
reports.

FRA (2010), Homophobia, transphobia and discrimination 
on grounds of sexual orientation and gender 
identity, Luxembourg, Publications Office; see also 
FRA (2014 forthcoming), EU LGBT survey: Main results, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office.

43 

FRA (2013), EU LGBT survey: Results at a glance, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office.

44  FRA (2013) Discrimination and hate crime against Jews 
in Member States: Experiences and perceptions of 
antisemitism, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 21.

45 

European Institute for Gender Equality (2013), Report on 
Gender Equality Index: Main findings, http://eige.europa.
eu/sites/default/files/Gender‑Equality‑Index‑Main‑findings.
pdf.

46  More detailed information on gender equality is on the 

European Institute of Gender Equality website, http://eige.
europa.eu.

47 

FRA (2014 forthcoming), Indicators on political participation 
of persons with disabilities, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office.

142

Finland (2013), Yhdenvertaisuus  Etusijalle, 
www.yhdenvertaisuus.fi/kampanjat/yes‑yhdenvertaisuus_ 
etusijalle.

Spain, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad 
(2013), No discriminación, www.msssi.gob.es/ssi/
igualdadOportunidades/noDiscriminacion.

56  Spain, Boletín Oficial del Estado (2013), Ley Orgánica 8/2013, 

de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa, 
www.boe.es/boe/dias/2013/12/10/pdfs/BOE‑A‑2013‑12886.
pdf.

57  Council of Europe, Steering Committee for Human 

Rights (2013), Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)2 of the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on the promotion 
of the human rights of older persons, Strasbourg, Council 
of Europe, CDDH‑AGE(2013)13 final, 30 October 2013, www.
coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/other_committees/
cddh‑age/default_EN.asp?.

58  Czech Republic, Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí (2013), 
Národní akční plán podporující pozitivní stárnutí pro období 
let 2013 až 2017, Prague, Ministerstvo práce a sociálních 
věcí, www.mpsv.cz/files/clanky/14540/III_vlada__Akcni_
plan_staruti_.pdf.

59  Bulgaria, Parliament, Закон за насърчаване на заетостта, 
Art. 36, paras. 1 and 2, www.mlsp.government.bg/BG/law/
law/ZAKON_za_nasyrcavane_na_zaetostta.doc.

60  Denmark, Parliament (2012), Forslag til Finanslov for 
finansåret 2013, 19 December 2012, www.ft.dk/RIpdf/
samling/20121/lovforslag/L1/20121_L1_som_vedtaget.pdf.

61 

62 

63 

Finland, Government (2013), information about the 
initiative, www.nuorisotakuu.fi/en/youth_guarantee.

France, Parlement (2013), Loi n. 2013‑185 du 1er mars 2013 
portant création du contrat de génération, 4 March 2013.

Spain, Government (2013), Real Decreto Ley 5/2013, de 
15 de marzo, de medidas para favorecer la continuidad de la 
vida laboral de los trabajadores de mayor edad y promover 
el envejecimiento activo, 15 March 2013.

64  Belgium, Socialistische Partij Anders (2013), ‘Vijftifplussers 

zijn een plus voor elk bedrijf’, Press release, 
25 October 2013, www.s‑p‑a.be/artikel/vijftigplussers‑zij
n‑een‑plus‑voor‑elk‑bedrijf/.

65  Germany, Deutscher Bundestag (2013), ‘Entwicklung 
und Kosten des Bundesprogramms 50 plus seit dem 
Jahr 2011: Antwort des Staatssekretärs Gerd Hoofe vom 
6. Februar 2013 auf eine Schriftliche Frage der MdB Jutta 
Krellmann (DIE LINKE)’, BT‑Drs. 17/12304, 8 February 2013, 
http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/123/1712304.pdf.

Equality and non‑discrimination

66  European Commission (2013), ‘European Commission closes 
infringement procedure on forced retirement of Hungarian 
judges’, Press release, IP/13/1112, 20 November 2013.

67  Austria, Parliament (2013), Beschluss des Nationalrats vom 
13. Juni 2013, www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/BNR/
BNR_00767/fname_310150.pdf.

68  Belgium, Residence Palace International Press Centre 
(2013), ‘Diverse bepalingen inzake verkiezingen’, 
Press release, 5 July 2013, www.presscenter.org/nl/
pressrelease/20130705/diverse‑bepalingen‑inzak
e‑verkiezingen.

69  Estonia, Sotsiaalministeerium (2013), email correspondence, 

20 November 2013.

70  Hungary (2013), A választási eljárásról szóló 2013. évi 

XXXVI. törvény, Magyar Közlöny, No. 66/2013, http://njt.hu/
cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=159995.243493#foot1.

71 

Italy (2003), Decreto legislativo, 9 July 2003, No. 216.

72 

Latvia (2013), Grozījumi Eiropas Parlamenta vēlēšanu 
likumā, 31 October 2013.

73  Netherlands, Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en 

Koninkrijkrelaties (2013), Letter sent to the House of 
Representatives No. 33829‑1, 18 December 2013.

74  Portugal (2013), Resolução da Assembleia da 

República 47/2013 pelo combate ao empobrecimento e à 
agudização da pobreza entre as mulheres, 4 April 2013, 
http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2013/04/06600/0197201973.pdf.

75  United Kingdom (2013), Electoral Registration and 

Administration Act 2013, c. 6, http://services.parliament.uk/
bills/2012‑13/electoralregistrationandadministration.html.

76  Croatia, Parliament (2012), Zakon o registru birača, Narodne 

novine, No. 144/12, 14 December 2012.

88  Denmark, Kirke‑ og Ligestillingsministeriet (2013), 

Handicappolitisk handlingsplan 2013: Et samfund 
for alle, October 2013, www.sm.dk/data/
Dokumentertilnyheder/2013/Handicappolitisk %20
handlingsplan %202013_ACC.pdf.

89 

Italy, Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociale (2013), 
Proposta di programma di azione biennale per la 
promozione dei Diritti e l’integrazione delle persone con 
disabilità, www.lavoro.gov.it/AreaSociale/Disabilita/
Documents/Programma_azione_disabilita.pdf.

90  Latvia, Ministru kabinets (2013), Apvienoto Nāciju 

Organizācijas Konvencijas par personu ar invaliditāti 
tiesībām īstenošanas pamatnostādnes 2014.–2020.gadam, 
19 November 2013.

91 

Lithuania, Socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministerija (2013), 
Dėl Nacionalinės neįgaliųjų socialinės integracijos 2013–2019 
metų programos įgyvendinimo 2013–2015 metais priemonių 
plano patvirtinimo, No. A1‑43, 5 February 2013.

92  Slovakia (2013), Národný program rozvoja životných 
podmienok osôb so zdravotným postihnutím na 
roky 2014–2020.

93  United Kingdom, Department for Business Innovation and 
Skills and Department for Education (2013), ‘Government 
announces two new programmes for employers 
to take on young disabled people’, Press release, 
18 July 2013, www.gov.uk/government/news/governmen
t‑announces‑two‑new‑programmes‑for‑employers‑
to‑take‑on‑young‑disabled‑people.

94 

Italy, Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociale (2013), 
Proposta di programma di azione biennale per la 
promozione dei Diritti e l’integrazione delle persone con 
disabilità, www.lavoro.gov.it/AreaSociale/Disabilita/
Documents/Programma_azione_disabilita.pdf.

77  Czech Republic, Parliament (2013), Nový občanský zákoník, 
February 2012, Section 55–65, http://aplikace.mvcr.cz/
sbirka‑zakonu/ViewFile.aspx?type=c&id=6144.

95 

France (2013), Circulaire relative à l’accessibilité aux 
personnes handicapées, 3 January 2013, http://circulaires.
legifrance.gouv.fr/pdf/2013/01/cir_36392.pdf.

78  Hungary (2011), Magyarország Alaptörvénye, 25 April 2011.

79 

Latvia (2012), Grozījumi Civillikumā, 29 November 2012.

80  Czech Republic, Parliament (2013), Nový občanský zákoník, 
3 February 2012, Section 55–65, http://aplikace.mvcr.cz/
sbirka‑zakonu/ViewFile.aspx?type=c&id=6144.

81 

Latvia (2012), Grozījumi Civillikumā, 29 November 2012.

82 

Ireland (2013), Assisted Decision‑Making (Capacity) 
Bill 2013 and Explanatory Memorandum, www.oireachtas.
ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2013/8313/
b8313d.pdf.

83  United Nations (UN), Committee on the Rights of Persons 

with Disabilities (2012), Concluding observations on the 
initial periodic report of Hungary, CRPD/C/HUN/CO/1, 
22 October 2012.

84  Hungary, Parliament (1998), A fogyatékos személyek 

jogairól és esélyegyenlőségük biztosításáról szóló 1998. évi 
XXVI. törvény.

85  Hungary, Parliament (2013), 2013. évi LXII. törvény 

a fogyatékos személyek jogairól és esélyegyenlőségük 
biztosításáról szóló 1998. évi XXVI. törvény módosításáról.

86  UN, Committee on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities (2012), Concluding observations on the 
initial periodic report of Hungary, CRPD/C/HUN/CO/1, 
22 October 2012, para. 35.

87  Cyprus, Department for Social Inclusion of Persons 

with Disabilities (2013), Εθνικό Σχέδιο Δράσης για την 
Αναπηρία. Για την εφαρμογή της Σύμβασης του ΟΗΕ για τα 
δικαιώματα των ατόμων με αναπηρίες 2013–2015, Nicosia, 
Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, Republic of Cyprus, 
July 2013.

96  Austria, Parlament (2013), Barrierefreiheit: ‘Leopold’ liest 
Texte auf der Website, www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/AKT/
SCHLTHEM/THEMA/J2013/2013_08_19_Barrierefreiheit_
Leopold.shtml.

97  Sweden, 2011 års vallagskommitté (2013), E‑röstning och 

andra valfrågor, SOU 2013:24, p. 154,: www.regeringen.se/
content/1/c6/21/48/78/89002b33.pdf.

98  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 

establishing a general framework for equal treatment 
in employment and occupation, OJ 2007 L 303, Art. 5.

99  Croatia (2013), Zakon o profesionalnoj rehabilitaciji 

i zapošljavanju osoba s invaliditetom, Narodne novine, 
No. 157/13, http://narodne‑novine.nn.hr/default.aspx.

100  Bulgaria, Министерство на труда и социалната 

политика, Letter No. 05‑10 from 10 October 2013.

101  Belgium, Flemish Government (2013), Ontwerp van 

Decreet betreffende maatregelen voor leerlingen met 
specifieke onderwijsbehoeften, 21 November 2013, 
www.vlaamsparlement.be/Proteus5/showParlInitiatief.
action?id=901710.

102 

Ibid.; Belgium, Vlaams Minister van Onderwijs, Jeugd, 
Gelijke Kansen en Brussel (2013), ‘Na 15 jaar discussie 
keurt Vlaamse regering het ontwerpdecreet rond inclusief 
onderwijs goed’, Press release, 8 November 2013, www.
vcov.be/vcov/Onderwijsflash/tabid/177/language/nl‑NL/
Default.aspx.

103  Malta, House of Representatives (2013), Act VII of 2013, the 

Civil Code (Amendment) Act, 14 June 2013.

104  Poland, Sejm (2013), Results of voting on the draft proposal, 
http://sejm.gov.pl/sejm7.nsf/PrzebiegProc.xsp?nr=1469.

143

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

105 

Ireland, Department of Social Protection, (2013), Gender 
Recognition Bill 2013, www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/
Gender‑Recognition‑Bill‑2013.aspx.

106  Latvia, Ministru Kabineta (2013), Noteikumi Nr. 761 
‘Noteikumi par civilstāvokļa aktu reģistriem’, 
3 September 2013.

107  Council of Europe (2013), Comments on the 10th report by 

Lithuania on the implementation of the European Social 
Charter (RAP/RCha/LTU/10(2013), 11 April 2013.

108  Lithuania, LGL – National LGBT Rights Organization (2013), 

For the recognition of family diversities: Fines for 
thousands, www.lgl.lt/en/news/for‑defiance‑of‑family‑ 
fines‑for‑thousands‑are‑suggested.

109  Netherlands, Eerste Kamer der Staten‑Generaal (2013), 

Wijziging vermelding van geslacht in de 
geboorteakte, www.eerstekamer.nl/
wetsvoorstel/33351_wijziging_vermelding_van.

110 

Ilga Europe (2013), Annual review of the human 
rights situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and 
intersex people in Europe 2013, pp. 18, 37, 125, 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15245131/2013.pdf.

111  Belgium (2013), Interfederaal actieplan tegen homofobe 
en transfobe discriminatie, 10 June 2013, http://igvm‑iefh.
belgium.be/nl/actiedomeinen/transgender/beleid/.

112  Denmark, Justitsministeriet (2013), ‘Information 

outlining the purpose and goals of the workgroup’, 
press release, www.justitsministeriet.dk/sites/default/
files/media/Arbejdsomraader/Ministeriet/Raad/ 
K %C3 %B8nsskifte %20Kommissorium %20‑ %20JM.pdf.

113 

Information provided by the Finnish Sosiaali‑ ja 
Terveysministeriö.

114  France, Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits 

de l’Homme (2013), Opinion on gender identity and 
rectification of gender in civil status, 27 June 2013, 
www.cncdh.fr/sites/default/files/avis_cncdh_identite_de_
genre_27_ juin_2013_1.pdf.

115  Cyprus (2011), ο περί της Καταπολέμησης Ορισμένων 

Μορφών και Εκδηλώσεων Ρατσισμού και Ξενοφοβίας 
μέσω του Ποινικού Δικαίου Νόμος του 2011[134(I)/2011], 
21 October 2011.

116  Netherlands, Tweede Kamer der Staten‑Generaal 

(2013), Emancipatiebeleid: Brief van de minister van 
onderwijs, cultuur en wetenschap aan de voorzitter van 
de Tweede Kamer der Staten‑Generaal, https://zoek.
officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst‑30420‑180.html.

117  Portugal, CIG (2013), Awareness‑Raising Campaign, Dislike 
bullying homofóbico, www.dislikebullyinghomofobico.pt/.

118  Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down 
common provisions on the European Regional Development 
Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and 
the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the 
Common Strategic Framework and laying down general 
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, 
the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, OJ L 347, 
20 December 2013, pp. 320–469.

119  European Commission (2014), Cohesion policy 2014–2020, 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/
index_en.cfm.

120  Regulation (EU) No. 1304/2013 of the European Parliament 

and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European 
Social Fund and repeating Council Regulation (EC) 
No. 1081/2006, OJ 2013 L 347, 20 December 2013, para. 19.

121  Regulation (EU) No. 1304/2013 of the European Parliament 

and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European 
Social Fund and repeating Council Regulation (EC) 
No. 1081/2006, OJ 2013 L 347, 20 December 2013.

122  Council of the European Union (2012), 2011/0276 (COD), 
Addendum 2 to Note 8207/12 ADD 2 Rev 1, Brussels, 
20 April 2012; see also FRA Annual report 2012.

123  Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down 
common provisions on the European Regional Development 
Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and 
the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the 
Common Strategic Framework and laying down general 
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, 
the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, OJ 2013 
L 347, 20 December 2013, pp. 320–469, Art. 19 and Annex XI.

124  Regulation (EU) No. 1381/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing 
a Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme for the 
period 2014 to 2020; Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2013 L 354, 
28 December 2013, pp. 62–72.

125  European Commission, DG Justice, Fundamental Rights 

and Citizenship funding programme, http://ec.europa.eu/
justice/grants/programmes/fundamental‑citizenship/.

126  European Commission, DG Justice, Daphne III funding 
programme, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants/
programmes/daphne/index_en.htm.

127  European Commission, DG Employment, Social 

Affairs & Inclusion, Progress programme (2007–2013), 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=327.

144

6 

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance  ����������������������� 149

6�1  Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance 

again top political agenda  ������������������������������������������� 149

6�2  Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance 

fuel incidents and brutal crimes  ���������������������������������� 151
6�2�1  Racism, xenophobia and related 

intolerance in politics  ������������������������������������� 152
6�2�2  Responding to political intolerance  �������������� 153
6�2�3  Racism and xenophobia persist 

in the European Union  ����������������������������������� 153

6�3  Discriminatory ethnic profiling persists  ���������������������� 155

6�4  Responses to manifestations of racism, 

xenophobia and related intolerance  ��������������������������� 156

6�5  EU Member States need better official data 

collection to address racist crime effectively  ������������ 158

Outlook  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159

17–18 January – Informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on EU action in countering hate crime, racism, 

EU

14 March – European Parliament adopts a resolution on strengthening the fight against racism, xenophobia and 

antisemitism and xenophobia

January 

February 

hate crime

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

against racism

September 

October 

Union

November 

December 

6-7 June – Council of the European Union adopts conclusions calling for an update of the EU Strategy for combating 

radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism

23 September – Ministers of 17 EU Member States meet in Italy to sign the Rome Declaration on diversity and the fight 

12–13 November – Fundamental Rights Conference on hate crime is organised by the European Union Agency for 

Fundamental Rights (FRA) and hosted in cooperation with the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the European 

6 December – Council of the European Union issues conclusions on combating hate crime in the European Union

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE

January
19 February – Council of Europe European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) publishes conclusions on 
the implementation of a number of priority recommendations made in its country reports on Austria, Estonia and the 
United Kingdom, which were released in 2010

19 February – ECRI issues its fourth report on Ireland
February
March
4 April – United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) concludes that the absence of an 
effective investigation by Germany into statements made by Thilo Sarrazin about migrants of Turkish and Arab 
background amounted to a violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 
Discrimination (ICERD)

16 April – Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issues his report following his visit to Greece, with 
a particular focus on intolerance and hate crimes

17 April – CERD issues its Concluding observations on Slovakia
April
26 May – UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, 
issues a report on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the 
implementation of General Assembly resolution 67/154 on glorification of Nazism
May
6 June – Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance 
issues his report on his visit to Spain
June
9 July – ECRI issues its fourth reports on Finland and Portugal, and publishes conclusions on the implementation of 
a number of priority recommendations made in its country reports on Poland and France, which were released in 2010

9 July – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rules in the case Vona v� Hungary that disbanding the Hungarian 
Guard Association (Magyar Gárda), which had been involved in anti-Roma rallies and paramilitary parading, does not 
violate the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)
July
23 August – CERD adopts General Recommendation on combating racist hate speech
August
23 September – CERD issues its Concluding observations on Cyprus and Sweden
September
15 October – ECRI issues its fourth reports on Malta and the Netherlands
October
November
December

146

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UN & CoE

19 February – Council of Europe European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) publishes conclusions on 

the implementation of a number of priority recommendations made in its country reports on Austria, Estonia and the 

United Kingdom, which were released in 2010

19 February – ECRI issues its fourth report on Ireland

4 April – United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) concludes that the absence of an 

effective investigation by Germany into statements made by Thilo Sarrazin about migrants of Turkish and Arab 

background amounted to a violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 

Discrimination (ICERD)

16 April – Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issues his report following his visit to Greece, with 

a particular focus on intolerance and hate crimes

17 April – CERD issues its Concluding observations on Slovakia

26 May – UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, 

issues a report on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the 

implementation of General Assembly resolution 67/154 on glorification of Nazism

6 June – Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance 

issues his report on his visit to Spain

9 July – ECRI issues its fourth reports on Finland and Portugal, and publishes conclusions on the implementation of 

a number of priority recommendations made in its country reports on Poland and France, which were released in 2010

9 July – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rules in the case Vona v� Hungary that disbanding the Hungarian 

Guard Association (Magyar Gárda), which had been involved in anti-Roma rallies and paramilitary parading, does not 

violate the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)

23 August – CERD adopts General Recommendation on combating racist hate speech

23 September – CERD issues its Concluding observations on Cyprus and Sweden

15 October – ECRI issues its fourth reports on Malta and the Netherlands

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

EU

17–18 January – Informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on EU action in countering hate crime, racism, 
antisemitism and xenophobia
January 
February 
14 March – European Parliament adopts a resolution on strengthening the fight against racism, xenophobia and 
hate crime
March 
April 
May 
6-7 June – Council of the European Union adopts conclusions calling for an update of the EU Strategy for combating 
radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism
June 
July 
August 
23 September – Ministers of 17 EU Member States meet in Italy to sign the Rome Declaration on diversity and the fight 
against racism
September 
October 
12–13 November – Fundamental Rights Conference on hate crime is organised by the European Union Agency for 
Fundamental Rights (FRA) and hosted in cooperation with the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the European 
Union
November 
6 December – Council of the European Union issues conclusions on combating hate crime in the European Union
December 

147

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6 

Racism, xenophobia and 
related intolerance

The impact of the economic crisis, high unemployment rates, fears relating to the arrival of migrants and 
a gradual loss of trust in democratic processes fuel racism, xenophobia and related intolerance in the European 
Union (EU). Some political rhetoric at local, national and European levels exacerbates an aggressive tone, not 
least because the media pick up on these messages, which then echo across social media. The EU institutions 
and Member States must therefore remain vigilant and reinvigorate their efforts to counter the expression of 
racism, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their forms.

6�1  Racism, xenophobia 

and related intolerance 
again top political 
agenda

Black ministers of state compared to apes; a centrist 
mayor saying in public that maybe Hitler did not kill 
enough  gens  du  voyage;  Members  of  Parliament 
claiming  that  Zionists  financed  and  organised  the 
Holocaust; the scapegoating of Roma, asylum seekers, 
refugees, migrants and members of ethnic and reli‑
gious minorities for the ills of society; murders moti‑
vated by racist and extremist considerations: all these 
elements contributed to putting racism, xenophobia 
and related intolerance back on the political agenda 
of the EU and its Member States in 2013. These issues 
are increasingly discussed within a broader context of 
‘hate crime’ (see also Chapters 5, 7 and 9).

The  fight  against  racism,  xenophobia  and  related 
 intolerance gained political attention at the highest 
level in January. The Irish Presidency of the Council of 
the European Union then hosted an informal meeting 
of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on EU action to 
counter hate crime, racism, antisemitism and xeno‑
phobia, drawing on FRA evidence presented by FRA’s 
director. This meeting set the stage for the year to 

Key developments in the area of racism, xenophobia 
and related intolerance

•  Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance return to the top 

of the political agendas of the EU, its institutions and 
its Member States.

•  Murders motivated by racism and extremism are committed 

in a number of Member States.

•  Elements of racist and extremist ideology are openly 

expressed in the public sphere in some Member States.

•  Member States take steps to ban extremist parties or groups.

•  All 28 Member States sign the Rome Declaration on diversity 

and the fight against racism.

•  Discriminatory ethnic profiling continues in some Member 
States, including in the context of immigration checks.

•  Few changes take place in the status of official mechanisms 

of data collection on racist and related crime.

•  The Council of the European Union urges Member States and 
the European Commission to take more effective action to 
counter hate crime, including that motivated by racism.

come, focusing the attention of political leaders on 
their duty to counter these phenomena.

The European Parliament further called on “Member 
States to take all appropriate measures to encourage 

149

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

the reporting of hate crimes and of every racist and 
xenophobic crime and to ensure adequate protection 
for people who report crimes and for the victims of 
racist and xenophobic crime” in March1 (see  Chapter 9 for 
more information on the rights of victims of hate crime).

in its findings between, on the one hand, genuine and 
serious incitement to extremism and, on the other hand, 
the right of individuals (including journalists and politi‑
cians) to express their views freely even if they offend, 
shock or disturb others.

The Council of the European Union focused attention 
on the need for more concrete actions to be developed 
to  “counter  extreme  forms  of  intolerance,  such  as 
racism, anti‑Semitism, xenophobia and homophobia”2 
in its June conclusions on fundamental rights and the 
rule of law.

The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of 
Racial Discrimination (CERD) called upon states to give 
due attention to all manifestations of racist hate speech 
and take effective measures to combat them, in its 
general  recommendation  on  combating  racist  hate 
speech issued in September.4

FRA ACTIVITY

Assessing the impact of the 
Framework Decision on Racism and 
Xenophobia, with special attention 
to victims’ rights

Hate  crime  can  vary 
from  everyday  acts 
 committed by individuals on the street or over the 
internet  to  crimes  carried  out  systematically  by 
extremist  groups.  In  this  opinion,  FRA  assesses 
the impact of the Framework Decision on Racism 
and Xenophobia on the rights of victims of crimes 
motivated by hatred and prejudice, including rac‑
ism and xenophobia.

Building  on  evidence  collected  and  analysed  by 
FRA, including its large‑scale surveys and its the‑
matic and Annual reports, the opinion forms part 
of FRA’s work on supporting efforts by EU institu‑
tions and Member States to combat hate crime in 
the EU. It was developed in response to a request 
from the Council of the European Union’s Working 
Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens’ Rights and 
Free Movement of Persons.

The  opinion  encourages  the  EU  and  its  Member 
States to address hate crime with targeted action 
in a number of areas, including awareness raising, 
building  trust  in  law  enforcement,  enhanced 
review,  as  well  as 
 penalties  and 
data collection.

judicial 

FRA (2013), Opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental 
Rights on the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia – with 
special attention to the rights of victims of crime, available at: 
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑opinion‑2‑2013‑ 
framework‑decision‑racism‑xenophobia_en.pdf

In July, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 
issued a factsheet citing a number of cases where it 
ruled speech of a racist, xenophobic, antisemitic or 
aggressively nationalist nature and speech discrimi‑
nating against minorities and immigrants to be “offen‑
sive  and  contrary”  to  the  European  Convention  on 
Human Rights (ECHR).3 The court is careful to distinguish 

In a similar development, ministers of 17 EU Member 
States  met  in  Rome  in  September  to  condemn  the 
stream of racist abuse directed at Cécile Kyenge, Italy’s 
first minister of African origin. Highlighting the special 
responsibilities  of  political  leaders,  they  called  for 
pan‑European action to fight racism by promoting diver‑
sity. All 28 Member States had signed the so‑called 
Rome  Declaration  on  the  matter  by  November,5  by 
which  time  France’s  Minister  for  Justice,  Christiane 
Taubira, also of African descent, had been the subject 
of similar racist abuse.

The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs highlighted the 
dangers of extremism, speaking at the Fundamental 
Rights Conference on hate crime jointly organised by 
FRA  and  the  Lithuanian  Presidency  in  November.6 
She stressed that:

“We have seen the development of Islamophobic, 
anti‑Semitic and white supremacist ideology in 
far‑right  groups.  These  groups  are  also 
anti‑demo cratic, intolerant, and violent. They are 
divisive, using one another to create suspicion 
and hatred between communities. These groups 
are behind a mounting wave of harassment and 
violence targeting asylum seekers, immigrants, 
ethnic  minorities  and  sexual  minorities  in 
many European countries.”7

Finally,  the  Council  of  the  European  Union,  in  its 
 conclusions  on  combating  hate  crime  issued  in 
December, called on

“the Fundamental Rights Agency to continue 
assessing in an objective, reliable and compa‑
rable manner the extent of racism, xenophobia, 
anti‑Semitism and other forms of hate crime 
through EU‑wide surveys and to work together 
with Member States to facilitate exchange of 
good practices and assist the Member States at 
their request in their effort to develop effective 
methods  to  encourage  reporting  and  ensure 
proper recording of hate crimes.”8

(See the FRA activity box on FRA’s antisemitism survey 
on the next page.)

150

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

FRA ACTIVITY

Responding to antisemitism in the European Union

Antisemitism is still a reality in the European Union. Little is known, however, of how it affects Jewish communi‑
ties. That is why FRA conducted a survey asking self‑identified Jews their opinions about trends in antisem‑
itism; how antisemitism affects their everyday life; their personal experiences as victims or witnesses of anti‑
semitic incidents; their worries about becoming a victim of an antisemitic attack; and their actual experiences 
of discrimination because they are Jewish.

•  Two thirds of respondents (66 %) consider antisemitism to be a problem across the EU Member States sur‑
veyed. Three quarters of respondents (76 %) indicate that antisemitism has worsened over the past five years 
in the country where they live.

•  Three quarters (75 %) of respondents consider online antisemitism to be a problem. Almost three quarters of 

respondents (73 %) said that antisemitism online has increased over the last five years.

•  In the 12 months preceding the survey, 26 % of all respondents experienced an incident or incidents involving 
verbal  insult  or  harassment  because  they  are  Jewish;  4  %  experienced  physical  violence  or  threats  of 
violence.

•  Almost half (46 %) of the respondents worry about becoming the victim of an antisemitic verbal insult or 

harassment in the next 12 months, and one third (33 %) fear a physical attack in the same period.

•  Almost two thirds (64 %) of those who experienced physical violence or threats of violence did not report the 
most serious incident to the police or to any other organisation. Three quarters (76 %) of the respondents 
who experienced antisemitic harassment in the five years preceding the survey did not report the most seri‑
ous  incident.  More  than  four  in  five  (82  %)  of  those  who  said  that  they  felt  discriminated  against  in  the 
12  months  preceding  the  survey  because  they  are  Jewish  did  not  report  the  most  serious  incident  to  any 
organisation.

•  Close  to  one  quarter  (23  %)  of  the  respondents  said  that  they  at  least  occasionally  avoid  visiting  Jewish 
events or sites because they would not feel safe there, or on the way there, as a Jew. Over one quarter of all 
respondents (27 %) avoid certain places in their local area or neighbourhood at least occasionally because 
they would not feel safe there as a Jew.

•  One in 10 respondents experienced discrimination when looking for work or at work in the 12 months preced‑

ing the survey.

•  Over half of all survey respondents (57 %) heard or saw someone claiming that the Holocaust was a myth, 

or that it had been exaggerated, in the 12 months preceding the survey.

•  Large proportions of respondents said they considered emigrating from the Member State they live in be‑

cause they do not feel safe there as Jews.

FRA’s survey on antisemitism collected data from 5,847 self‑identified Jewish respondents (aged 16 or over) in 
eight EU Member States: Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
These countries cover over 90 % of the estimated Jewish population in the EU. It is the first EU survey to collect 
comparable data on Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of hate motivated crime, discrimination and 
antisemitism.

FRA (2013), Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of antisemitism, available at: http://fra.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑discrimination‑hatecrimeagainst‑jews‑eu‑member‑states_en.pdf; data available through data explorer tool 
at: http://fra.europa.eu/DVS/DVT/as2013.php

6�2  Racism, xenophobia 

and related intolerance 
fuel incidents and brutal 
crimes

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance manifested 
themselves  in  the  most  brutal  form  in  several 
EU  Member  States  in  2013:  murder  motivated  by 
racism and extremism.

FRA  fieldwork  in  Greece  found  that  Greece  has 
 witnessed a steep increase in phenomena of racist 
violence, discrimination and intolerance, as well as 
extremism, despite the notable decrease in the overall 
violent crime rate in the country.9 Shehzad Luqman, 26, 
a  Pakistani  migrant  worker,  was  stabbed  to  death 
in Athens, Greece, in January, allegedly by two young 
Golden  Dawn  supporters,  whose  trial  started 
in December. Mohammed Saleem, 82, was killed on his 
way back home from mosque in Birmingham, United 
Kingdom, by a man who proclaimed that he wanted to 

151

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

initiate a ‘race war’. Lee Rigby, 25, was murdered in 
broad  daylight  in  the  streets  of  London  in  May  by 
two radicalised Muslim youths. Clément Méric, 18, an 
anti‑fascist activist, died from the consequences of 
a fight with skinheads in Paris, France, in June. Pavlos 
Fyssas, 32, a Greek hip‑hop artist, was stabbed to death 
by  a  Golden  Dawn  party  member  in  September 
in Athens. This was followed by a retaliatory attack, in 
which  two  Golden  Dawn  sympathisers  (Manos 
Kapelonis, 22, and Georgios Fountoulis, 27) were mur‑
dered in front of the party’s headquarters in November.

These murders are at the sharp end of a societal climate 
where intolerant views come to be more openly and 
violently expressed in the EU. Political actors share 
responsibility for enabling such a climate. This is shown 
in the cases of the politicians Cécile Kyenge in Italy and 
Christiane Taubira in France, who were the targets of 
racist abuse by other politicians, with the media often 
serving as an echo chamber and the internet providing 
a further outlet for the expression of such abuse.

6�2�1 

Racism, xenophobia and related 
intolerance in politics

Racism  and  discrimination  against  foreigners  and 
migrants is often fuelled by the discourse of politicians, 
as the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council 
of Europe points out.10 In addition, CERD highlights that 
“the use of racist discourse by some politicians and in 
the media […] vilifies and promotes prejudices against 
persons of foreign origin”.11 FRA evidence also shows 
that Jews often heard antisemitic statements being 
made in the context of political events or speeches.12

“Europe has been experiencing a worrying intensification of 
activities of racist extremist organisations, including 
political parties. […] It worries me deeply that the European 
community and national political leaders appear not to be 
fully aware of the serious threat that these organisations 
pose to the rule of law and human rights. […] National 
authorities need to be vigilant and combat racism and 
extremism at all levels of society.”

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), Europe must 
combat racist extremism and uphold human rights, Human Rights 
Comment, 13 May 2013, available at: http://humanrightscomment.
org/2013/05/13/racist‑extremism/

impact of social integration on national identity, par‑
ticularly as regards accommodating the needs of reli‑
gious minorities, such as Muslims; and makes a case for 
national preference, including when it comes to access 
to the social welfare system.

FRA ACTIVITY

Assessing the effectiveness of 
responses to racism, discrimination, 
intolerance and extremism

Crimes motivated by racism, xenophobia and re‑
lated intolerances persist throughout the Europe‑
an Union, as do the mainstreaming of elements of 
extremist  ideology  in  political  and  public  dis‑
course, and ethnic discrimination. Growing alarm 
was  expressed  at  the  national,  EU  and  interna‑
tional levels concerning violent manifestations of 
racism  and  intolerance.  An  additional  important 
concern  is  the  substantial  parliamentary  repre‑
sentation  of  parties  that  use  paramilitary  tactics 
or are closely associated with paramilitary groups 
and use that extremist rhetoric to target irregular 
migrants  in  Greece,  and  the  Roma  and  Jews 
in Hungary.

In  this  context,  FRA  took  the  initiative  to  collect 
data and compile a thematic situation report that 
examines the effectiveness of responses by pub‑
lic authorities, statutory human rights bodies, civil 
society  organisations  and  others  to  counter  rac‑
ism,  discrimination,  intolerance  and  extremism. 
The  report  takes  Greece  and  Hungary  as  case 
studies to develop concrete and practical propos‑
als for action.

The identification of barriers to counter such phe‑
nomena is, however, relevant to the EU as a whole. 
The  proposals  contained  in  the  report  on  issues 
such as tackling racist and related crime, increas‑
ing  trust  in  the  police  and  countering  extremism 
are, therefore, useful in all EU Member States.

FRA (2013), Thematic situation report: Racism, discrimination, 
intolerance and extremism. Learning from experiences in Greece 
and Hungary, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra‑2013‑thematic‑situation‑report‑3_en_1.pdf

The  year  2013  was  marked  by  steady  support  for 
political parties with largely xenophobic anti‑foreigner, 
anti‑migrant and anti‑Muslim agendas in a number of 
EU Member States including Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech 
Republic, France, Greece, Hungary and the Netherlands.

Groups campaigning on ultra‑nationalist and  xenophobic 
platforms initiated steps to be recognised as political 
parties in their own right, sometimes with success. The 
rhetoric  of  these  groups  and  parties  often  accuses 
European integration of further eroding national sov‑
ereignty; highlights what they consider as the negative 

One example is the application, in November, by the 
newly formed Nationalist Party of Bulgaria to be offi‑
cially recognised as a party, which would allow it to 
benefit from public funding. Stated aims of this party 
are to “smash the Gypsy terror with an iron hand” and 
to “demolish social policies that stimulate the birth rate 
of minorities and parasitism”.13

In  a  development  reminiscent  of  the  events  in 
Gyöngöspata  in  Hungary  in  2011  (see  FRA  Annual 
report 2011, p. 156), the Nationalist Party in Bulgaria 
formed  civil  groups  with  the  cooperation  of  the 

152

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

Bulgarian National Union to patrol areas with large 
migrant  populations  and  where  refugee  camps  are 
located.14 In response, the National Centre for Roma 
Development announced that it would establish its own 
groups to protect Roma from such patrols.15

preventative measures to protect democracy and ban 
the Magyar Gárda.20 It ruled that, if the activities of an 
association amount to widespread racist intimidation 
of a group, then banning it does not contravene the 
European Convention of Human Rights.

The reach of ultra‑nationalistic and xenophobic ideology 
in the EU is also illustrated by the efforts of the newly 
formed Hungarian Dawn (Magyar Hajnal) group to be 
recognised as a political party. ‘Dawn’, here, is a direct 
reference to Greece’s Golden Dawn party. Golden Dawn 
claimed 7 % of the vote in the 2012 elections, is the 
fourth‑largest party in the Hellenic Parliament and has 
an extreme nationalist agenda, from which Magyar 
Hajnal takes inspiration. Magyar Hajnal’s mission is to 
“revive the White and ethnic Hungarian identity”16 and 
its members are screened to establish the ethnic roots 
and religious background of their families, effectively 
checking their ‘racial purity’. The court rejected the 
application on the grounds that it was incomplete, but 
Magyar Hajnal continued its efforts to be recognised as 
a political party, including through seeking to rename 
an existing party.

6�2�2  Responding to political 

intolerance

Political actors have a particular role to play in  countering 
hate speech. The responsibility of political actors in that 
regard was the subject of a conference organised by 
the  Council  of  Europe  and  the  Polish  Ministry  of 
Digitisation (Ministerstwo Administracji i Cyfryzacji) in 
September, at which FRA’s director gave a speech. Next 
to setting out the roles and responsibilities of political 
actors and the media in fighting hate speech, the con‑
ference  highlighted  the  potential  of  education  and 
training on the values of diversity and living together 
in this fight.17

EU Member States have other means at their disposal 
to address racist, xenophobic and extremist actions of 
parties, groups and their membership. They could, for 
example, consider adopting or strengthening existing 
legal provisions to suppress public funding for political 
parties whose members are responsible for racist or 
discriminatory acts, as recommended by ECRI.18 Another 
means would be to forbid and prevent the activities of 
extremist organisations that promote and incite racial 
hatred by disbanding them and declaring them illegal, 
as recommended by CERD.19

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in its 
decision of 9 July 2013, confirmed the disbanding of the 
Hungarian Guard Association (Magyar Gárda) because 
of the activities of its Hungarian Guard Movement. 
These activities included paramilitary rallies in villages 
with Roma populations across Hungary and advocacy 
for racially motivated policies. The court found that the 
Hungarian  authorities  were  entitled  to  take 

Members of Parliament can also be called to account 
by lifting their parliamentary immunity to answer to 
charges levelled against them in court. This was the 
case for Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front 
(Front  National).  Her  immunity  was  lifted  by  the 
European  Parliament  in  July  at  the  request  of  the 
Ministry of Justice in France so that she could answer 
charges  of  “incitement  to  hatred,  discrimination  or 
violence  against  a  group  of  persons  on  grounds  of 
their religious affiliation”.21

The Greek Parliament lifted the immunity of six leading 
Members  of  Parliament  representing  Golden  Dawn 
in October to enable a deeper investigation into their 
alleged  involvement  in  serious  criminal  offences. 
Charges ranged from establishment and participation 
in a criminal organisation, murder and grievous bodily 
harm to money laundering and bribery.22 In addition, 
the  parliament  voted  to  suspend  state  funding  for 
Golden  Dawn.  Furthermore,  in  December  a  Joint 
Ministerial Decision was issued, suspending any kind 
of state funding for Golden Dawn.23

The  initiative  taken  in  December  by  16  state 
 governments in Germany to attempt to ban the far‑right 
National Democratic Party must also be noted. The 
proposed  ban  rested  on  the  notion  that  this  party 
actively  seeks  to  undermine  or  overthrow  the 
free democratic order.24

6�2�3 

Racism and xenophobia persist 
in the European Union

Roma, persons of African descent, migrants and asylum 
seekers continue to face racism and xenophobia in the 
European Union, as evidence from Austria,25 Bulgaria,26 
Finland,27 Germany,28 Greece,29 Hungary,30 Ireland,31 the 
Netherlands,32 Slovakia33 and Sweden34 shows (see also  
Chapter 7 for more information on Roma).

The arrival of asylum seekers and refugees in Bulgaria 
and Hungary in larger numbers than usual fuelled the 
expression of xenophobic sentiments and attitudes in 
these countries. This raises the question of what effect 
the arrival of asylum seekers from Syria and other conflict 
zones in large numbers could have in EU Member States 
not usually considered  traditional destination countries.35

In  Bulgaria,  opinion  polls  showed  that  feelings  of 
 hostility, resentment and fear towards asylum seekers 
and refugees are widespread.36 The Council for Electronic 
Media (Съвет за Електронни Медии) criticised media 
for the way they reported immigration and refugee 

153

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

issues,37 and the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Refugees urged Bulgarian authorities to take steps to 
stem the expression of xenophobia against asylum 
seekers and refugees in the country.38

Promising practice

Acknowledging racist crime: mapping 
Afrophobia in Sweden

The authorities in Sweden refer to racism and dis‑
crimination  against  black  persons  as  Afrophobia. 
Little is known yet about the phenomenon, but the 
Swedish  National  Council  for  Crime  Prevention 
(Brottsförebyggande  rådet)  shows  that  the  num‑
ber of recorded Afrophobic crimes in the country is 
increasing steadily, with about one in five of such 
crimes recorded in 2012 being of a violent nature.

Acknowledging  the  issue,  the  Swedish  govern‑
ment commissioned an NGO (Mångkulturellt Cen‑
trum)  to  map  racism  and  discrimination  against 
persons of African descent in Sweden. This map‑
ping will review official hate crime data and high‑
light  examples  of  good  practice  to  counter  Afro‑
phobia, with a particular focus on awareness‑raising 
activities  for  children  and  youth.  The  results  are 
expected to be published in January 2014.

For more information, see Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet 
(2013), Mångkulturellt centrum ska kartlägga afrofobi, available 
at: www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17988/a/229303

In Hungary, xenophobic sentiments were expressed in 
towns hosting reception and detention centres, such as 
Balassagyarmat, Bicske, Debrecen and Vámosszabadi. 
Incidents involving asylum seekers, related to the over‑
crowding of a refugee reception centre, contributed to 
an  increase  of  xenophobic  sentiments  among  the 
public.39 The 2013 results of a yearly survey of a repre‑
sentative sample of the Hungarian population show that 
36 % of respondents would reject all asylum applications.40

CERD concluded in April that the absence of an effective 
investigation by Germany into statements made by 
Thilo Sarrazin in 2009 about migrants of Turkish and 
Arab  background  amounted  to  a  violation  of  the 
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms 
of  Racial  Discrimination  (ICERD).41  Mr  Sarrazin  was 
a  member  of  the  executive  board  of  the  German 
national bank at the time.

While CERD acknowledged the importance of freedom 
of speech, it concluded that:

“Mr.  Sarrazin’s  statements  amounted  to 
 dissemination of ideas based upon racial supe‑
riority  or  hatred  and  contained  elements  of 
incitement to racial discrimination. By concen‑
trating on the fact that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements 
did not amount to incitement of racial hatred and 

were not capable of disturbing public peace, the 
State party failed its duty to carry out an effec‑
tive investigation whether or not Mr. Sarrazin’s 
statements amounted to dissemination of ideas 
based upon racial superiority or hatred”.

The German government was given 90 days to react to 
the complaint and to decide on measures that needed 
to be undertaken. It informed CERD of its willingness to 
review whether or not existing legislation is sufficient.42

The UN also urged Germany to develop a  comprehensive 
strategy to combat racial discrimination.43 The Human 
Rights Council found deficits in the protection of human 
rights of migrants in the framework of the Universal 
Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR criticised, among other 
matters, the German state’s handling of the 10 murders 
allegedly perpetrated by members of the right‑wing 
extremist group National Socialist Underground (NSU). 
In  response,  Germany  promised  to  enhance  how  it 
tackles discrimination against migrants.44

The internet and social networking sites increasingly 
offer platforms for the expression of racist, xenophobic 
and intolerant sentiments. This is confirmed by FRA 
surveys, such as the EU LGBT survey, the survey on 
antisemitism  and  the  EU‑wide  survey  on  violence 
against women.45 Europol has also highlighted that 
social networking sites are increasingly used by extrem‑
ists to disseminate their ideologies and to radicalise, 
recruit and mobilise their followers.46

“Racist hate speech can take many forms and is not 
confined to explicitly racial remarks. As is the case with 
discrimination […] speech attacking particular racial or 
ethnic groups may employ indirect language in order to 
disguise its targets and objectives […] States parties should 
give due attention to all manifestations of racist hate 
speech and take effective measures to combat them […] 
whether emanating from individuals or groups, in whatever 
forms it manifests itself, orally or in print, or disseminated 
through electronic media, including the Internet and social 
networking sites, as well as non‑verbal forms of expression 
such as the display of racist symbols, images and behaviour 
at public gatherings, including sporting events.”

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013), General 
Recommendation No. 35: combating racist hate speech, Geneva, 
United Nations

The privacy afforded to internet users does not mean 
that they can post racist and xenophobic abuse with 
impunity (see also  Chapter 3). For instance, the Supreme 
Court in Italy found in August that managing a blog 
inciting racial hatred is the same as participating in 
a criminal association.47

Still in Italy, a representative of the Lega Nord political 
party was served with a 13‑month sentence, a €10,000 
fine  and  a  three‑year  ban  on  holding  public  office 
by  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  Padua  in  July. 48 

154

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

The representative was found guilty of incitement to 
commit acts of sexual violence motivated by racism, 
having posted the following comment on Facebook, 
targeting Cécile Kyenge, Italy’s first black minister: “But 
is there no one there who could rape her, just to let her 
understand how a victim of such a ferocious crime 
could feel? Shame!”

In January, the Court of First Instance in Paris, France, 
held that Twitter should provide information to the 
plaintiffs  enabling  them  to  identify  the  authors  of 
tweets posted under antisemitic hashtags (#unbonjuif – 
a good Jew; #unjuifmort – a dead Jew). The court’s 
judgment  also  required  Twitter  to  make  available 
a system on its French platform which enables users to 
report content that falls under the category of crimes 
against humanity and incitement to racial hatred.49

Still in relation to antisemitic content posted online, an 
offender in Latvia received a six‑month suspended 
sentence  in  January  on  the  grounds  of  incite‑
ment to hatred.50

Prosecutors in Belgium51 and the United  Kingdom52 
can also call upon specific guidelines relating to how 
to prosecute online content of a racist nature. The 
Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communica‑
tions  sent  via  social  media  drafted  by  the  Crown 
Prosecution Office for England and Wales describe 
action it is necessary to take before initiating a pros‑
ecution. The first stage requires sufficient evidence 
and the second involves considering the public interest. 
The  guidelines  also  provide  principles  for  initially 
assessing  the  communication’s  content.  Before 
bringing charges, the prosecutors are further encour‑
aged to take into account the context in which the 
interactive social media dialogue takes place and to 
carefully consider if the prosecution would not consti‑
tute a breach of the right to free speech as protected 
by the ECHR.

In Belgium, the Circular regarding the investigation and 
prosecution policy on discrimination and hate crimes 
(including discrimination on the basis of gender)53 aims 
to standardise research policies and prosecution for 
offences, laws and decrees on ‘anti‑discrimination’, 
‘gender’ and ‘racism’, including the phenomenon of 
Holocaust denial. Its specific objectives are identifica‑
tion and more efficient recording of the facts of dis‑
crimination and hate crimes; raising awareness among 
prosecutors,  labour  auditors  and  police;  providing 
guidance in the investigation and prosecution of the 
offences concerned for judges and police officers on 
the  ground;  improving  collaboration  and  mutual 
exchange between police and judicial actors and other 
stakeholders. The circular also notes that special atten‑
tion needs to be paid to investigating offences com‑
mitted over the internet.

Evidence  from  Cyprus,54  Finland55  and  the  United 
Kingdom56 shows that schools can be the theatre of 
racist abuse. Education should, however, offer effective 
means  to  counter  racism.  The  OSCE  Parliamentary 
Assembly acknowledged this in June, when it called 
upon participating States to

“increase efforts to counter racism, xenophobia, 
intolerance  and  discrimination,  also  through 
education, inter alia, by reviewing, as appro‑
priate, educational curricula and textbooks in 
order to ensure that that they are free from 
prejudice and negative stereotypes and by intro‑
ducing or further elaborating sections on toler‑
ance and non‑discrimination.”57

Promising practice

Keeping racism out of the classroom 
and off the playground

The  Immigrant  Council  of  Ireland,  an  NGO  advo‑
cating for and providing legal advice to migrants, 
published  an  anti‑racism  policy  guide  to  assist 
schools  in  ensuring  that  their  anti‑bullying  poli‑
cies  respond  adequately  to  racist  incidents.  The 
guide sets out procedures for identifying, report‑
ing and dealing with racist incidents. It also pro‑
vides  tools  and  management  support  for  school 
staff to directly intervene in racist incidents and 
means of sanctioning offenders.

The guide further stresses the importance of pre‑
ventative  measures,  such  as  running  aware‑
ness‑raising  activities  during  European  anti‑rac‑
ism week, organising intercultural days or inviting 
guest speakers from diverse ethnic backgrounds 
to serve as positive role models.

For more information, see: www.immigrantcouncil.ie/images/
stories/pdfs/Anti‑Racism_policy _2.pdf

6�3  Discriminatory ethnic 
profiling persists
Discriminatory  ethnic  profiling  is  unlawful,  yet  it 
 persists, thereby contributing to the deterioration of 
social cohesion and to loss of trust in law enforcement. 
Evidence  of  such  profiling  was  found  in  Austria,58 
Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, 
Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom (see below). 
The practice involves treating an individual less favour‑
ably  than  others  who  are  in  a  similar  situation,  for 
example by exercising police powers such as stop and 
search solely on the basis of a person’s skin colour, 
ethnicity or religion.59

Persons with an ethnic minority background were found 
to be much more likely to be stopped and searched than 

155

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

members  of  the  majorit y  population  in  the 
Netherlands,60 Spain61 and the United Kingdom.62

The German Institute for Human Rights called for the 
elimination of racial profiling by the German federal 
police and recommended that identity checks should 
not be carried out on the basis of criteria such as a per‑
son’s skin colour.63

The police in Greece continued its large‑scale operation 
(Xenios Zeus) to remove what it referred to as ‘illegal 
immigrants’  in  regions  bordering  Turkey  and  in 
Athens.64  The  operation  ran  from  August  2012  to 
June 2013. It involved about 4,500 police officers and 
led to the apprehension of nearly 124,000 third‑country 
nationals, of whom fewer than 7,000 were found to be 
in the country irregularly. The Greek Ombudsman high‑
lighted the abusive character of transferring people 
who were not suspected in any way to police stations 
during  the  operation  for  the  purpose  of  identity 
checks,65 as evidenced by the low percentage of those 
who  were  actually  found  to  be  in  the  country 
irregularly (5.6 %).66

International monitoring bodies stress the importance 
of protecting the foundations of democratic system and 
the rule of law, and tackling misconduct by law enforce‑
ment officials.67 The Council of Europe Commissioner 
for Human Rights, following his visit to Greece, raised 
concerns about ill‑treatment, including torture, com‑
mitted by law enforcement officials, notably against 
migrants and Roma.68

The Greek police launched internal investigations on 
law enforcement officials, resulting in arrests of police 
officers, including senior officers, and others on various 
charges, including illegal weapons possession, report‑
edly related to Golden Dawn.69 The special report of the 
Greek Ombudsman includes 47 racist incidents in which 
members  of  the  securit y  forces  are  alleged 
to have participated.70

ECRI  recommended  that  the  authorities  in  Ireland, 
Finland and the Netherlands should take steps to pre‑
vent ethnic profiling, whether through adopting legisla‑
tion  on  the  issue  (Ireland),  ensuring  that  visible 
minorities are not profiled (Finland) or training police 
officers about it (Netherlands).71

Similar recommendations were made to Spain by the 
UN  Special  Rapporteur  on  contemporary  forms  of 
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related 
intolerance.72 CERD recommended that Sweden “take 
measures to evaluate the effects of the application of 
the Terrorism Act, including on minority communities, 
and ensure the application of relevant guarantees to 
prevent possible police profiling and any discrimination 
in the administration of justice.”73

Noting that “figures show that people from a black or 
ethnic minority background are up to seven times more 
likely to be stopped and searched by the police than 
those from white backgrounds,”74 the UK government 
launched a consultation on the police’s stop and search 
powers in July, to establish if they are used fairly and 
appropriately.75 The consultation shows that a quarter 
of  people  surveyed  believe  that  stop  and  search 
powers are used in a way that discriminates against 
certain groups, with more than half of respondents 
from black and minority ethnic groups believing this to 
be the case.

The report recommends that the police use stop and 
search powers in compliance with the relevant code of 
practice and equality legislation, as well as establishing 
ways of monitoring the extent to which this is the case. 
In 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission 
found that Asian people were stopped and searched 
about twice  as white people and black people about 
six times as often.76 Five separate police forces took 
action to remedy the situation, which was the subject 
of a publication by the commission in May 2013.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission “concluded 
that where firm action had been taken to reduce race 
disproportionality, and/or overall usage of the [stop and 
search] power, it had succeeded, without prejudice to 
the drop of crime levels.”77 In November, the commis‑
sion published a further report, which reveals that, 
while the use of stop and search by police forces in 
England and Wales has decreased, black and Asian 
people are still disproportionately targeted.78

6�4  Responses to 

manifestations of 
racism, xenophobia and 
related intolerance

EU  Member  States  can  address  manifestations  of 
racism, xenophobia and related intolerance through 
policy responses, by appointing specialised authorities 
or  by  making  changes  to  anti‑racism  strategies 
and action plans.

ECRI recommended to the Netherlands and Portugal 
that they should introduce provisions in their criminal 
codes that would make racist motivation an aggravating 
circumstance.79 Similarly, the UN Special Rapporteur on 
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, 
xenophobia and related intolerance recommended that 
Spain “ensure that racial motivations are harmonized 
throughout the Penal Code in conformity with Article 1 
of the ICERD, and ensure a better implementation of 
the  provisions  relating  to  racial  motivation  as 
an aggravating circumstance”.80

156

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

In  November,  the  Greek  government  submitted  to 
 parliament  another  bill  seeking  to  transpose  the 
Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia into 
national law. This was the third bill of this type set 
before Greek lawmakers in 2013, each being the subject 
of intense political controversy.81 The last draft provides 
for increased sanctions and penalties for those who 
publicly encourage or cause hate or violence against 
individuals or a group of individuals on the basis of their 
race,  skin  colour,  religion,  genetic  origin,  ethnic  or 
national origin and disability, posing a danger for public 
order or a threat to life, freedom or physical integrity 
of these persons.82 Law 4139/2013 on addictive sub‑
stances  and  other  provisions  amended  the  Greek 
Criminal Code, which now provides that committing an 
act motivated by a racist motive constitutes an aggra‑
vating circumstance, and the sentence for such a crime 
cannot be suspended.83

In  Germany,  the  State  Parliament  of  Brandenburg 
(Landtag Brandenburg) voted unanimously in November 
for the integration of an anti‑racism clause into the State 
Constitution. The text prohibits discrimination based on 
ethnicity but also obliges the Land to protect peaceful 
coexistence and to fight the dissemination of racist 
and xenophobic ideas.84

Promising practice

Addressing institutional racism

In  its  report  on  Finland,  ECRI  recommends  that 
law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges 
undergo systematic training and awareness rais‑
ing  on  antidiscrimination  legislation,  racism  and 
tolerance. It also suggests to the authorities that 
they  monitor  and  record  racist  acts  and  hate 
speech committed by the police.

The  Court  of  Appeal  of  Helsinki  (Helsingin  hov‑
ioikeus) conducted an internal study on discrimi‑
nation and racism. It found instances of intolerant 
and racist behaviour among judges and the court 
staff,  including  racist  jokes  and  degrading  lan‑
guage used about minorities in work‑related situ‑
ations and prominent use of derogatory expres‑
sions. The study concludes that such conduct can 
be considered as harassment as stipulated in the 
antidiscrimination legislation.

See: Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism 
and Intolerance (ECRI) (2013), ECRI report on Finland (fourth 
monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, available at: 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑
country/Finland/FIN‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑019‑ENG.pdf; Tuohino, T. and 
Ojala, T. (2013), Yhdenvertaisuus‑.ja tasa arvoselvitys, 
yhteenveto, Helsinki, Helsinki Court of Appeal

A number of EU Member States undertook initiatives 
to improve and enhance their institutional responses 
to combat racism and related intolerance. In Spain, 
a  prosecutor’s  office  was  set  up  in  each  of  the 

50 provinces to investigate offences with discriminatory 
or racist motivations. The activities of these offices are 
coordinated by a national delegate appointed by the 
state’s general attorney.

The Cyprus police, in cooperation with the Office of the 
Commissioner for Administration, issued a circular out‑
lining the police’s official policy in tackling racist vio‑
lence, xenophobia and discrimination.85

FRA ACTIVITY

Fighting hate crime in the 
European Union

A conference on combating hate crime in the EU, 
hosted by FRA in cooperation with the Presidency 
of the Council of the European Union and held in 
Vilnius on 12–13 November 2013, brought together 
more  than  400  policy  makers  and  practitioners 
from national governments, international organi‑
sations,  civil  society,  EU  institutions  and  bodies. 
The  conference  objectives,  apart  from  an  ex‑
change  of  ideas  and  best  practices  on  how  to 
combat hate crime, were in particular to develop 
concrete proposals for a follow‑up to FRA’s opin‑
ions pertaining to hate crime and to explore effec‑
tive  practical  solutions  for  combating  hate  crime 
at the EU and Member State levels.

The conclusions of the conference fed directly into 
the Council Conclusions on combating hate crime 
in the European Union issued in December.

For more information, see FRA (2013), Fundamental rights 
conference: Combating hate crime in the EU – giving victims a face 
and a voice, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/event/2013/
fundamental‑rights‑conference‑2013

Council of the European Union (2013), Council conclusions on 
combating hate crime in the European Union, available at: www.
consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/
jha/139949.pdf

The  Greek  police  set  up  a  direct  telephone  help 
line (11414) for victims of racist violence in January, 
together with an online form for reporting racist crime.86 
By September, 214 complaints were registered through 
the  hotline,  according  to  information  FRA  obtained 
from the Ombudsperson.87

The Inter‑Ministerial Committee on the Fight against 
Racism  and  Antisemitism  in  France  adopted  a  new 
programme in February. The programme aims to pre‑
vent racist violence in schools; fight racism and anti‑
semitism through education at schools, in public offices 
and in sport; and enhance victim support services, 
including through conducting annual victimisation sur‑
veys and strengthening the reporting and investigation 
of hate crime.88

157

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

A coalition of parliamentary groups in Germany  submitted 
a request to the government in June calling on the gov‑
ernment to step up its fight against antisemitism and 
support the life of Jews in the country. One aspect would 
be to establish a permanent expert group tasked with 
analysing and evaluating the situation of antisemitism in 
Germany and detailing measures taken to counter the 
phenomenon. Remembrance also figures as a task; the 
group would need to implement educational measures 
for teachers as well as young people, in cooperation with 
foundations, institutions and memorial places.89

The Council for the Prevention of Racial Discrimination, 
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance was established 
in Poland in February.90 It is responsible for monitoring 
and analysing the occurrence of racist and xenophobic 
incidents and promoting activities to counter racial 
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Still in Poland, the Police strategy for the development 
of  the  system  of  human  rights  protection  for  the 
years 2013–2015 was adopted. One of its main aims is 
to enhance actions towards the prevention of hate 
crimes on the grounds of national, racial or ethnic origin 
and on other grounds.91

6�5 

EU Member States need 
better official data 
collection to address 
racist crime effectively

Reports published by law enforcement agencies and 
criminal justice systems in EU Member States show 
great  fluctuation  in  officially  recorded  crime  with 
racist,  xenophobic,  anti‑Roma,  antisemitic  or 
Islamophobic/anti‑Muslim  motives  in  the  EU 
between 2011 and 2012.92

These reports show decreases in recorded racist crime 
in Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg and 
Scotland (UK). They show increases in recorded racist 
crime in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, 
Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, 
Spain and Sweden, as well as in England, Northern 
Ireland and Wales (all UK).

Data  on  racist  incidents  are  available  for  Austria, 
Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Spain,  Sweden  and  the 
United Kingdom in the Annual report on hate crime 
published by the Office for Democratic Institutions and 
Human Rights (ODIHR).93

The Netherlands and Sweden report a rise in recorded 
anti‑Roma crime, whereas the Czech Republic reports 
a decrease in such crime. The Prosecutor General’s 

Office in Poland began collecting data on anti‑Roma 
crime in 2012. ODIHR reports recorded anti‑Roma data 
from the Czech Republic and Sweden.94

“The Council of the European Union invites Member States 
to collect and publish comprehensive and comparable data 
on hate crimes, as far as possible including the number of 
such incidents reported by the public and recorded by law 
enforcement authorities; the number of convictions; the 
bias motives behind these crimes; and the punishments 
handed down to offenders.

[...]

“The Fundamental Rights Agency [should] work together 
with Member States to facilitate exchange of good 
practices and assist the Member States at their request in 
their effort to develop effective methods to encourage 
reporting and ensure proper recording of hate crimes.”

Council of the European Union (2013), Council Conclusions on combating 
hate crime in the European Union, available at: www.consilium.europa.eu/
uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/139949.pdf

In recorded antisemitic crime, the authorities in Austria, 
Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands 
and Sweden report increases, with a decrease reported 
in the Czech Republic. The Prosecutor General’s Office 
(Prokuratury Generalnej) in Poland began collecting 
data  on  antisemitic  crime  in  2012.  ODIHR  reports 
recorded  antisemitic  data  from  Germany,  Ireland, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom.95

Whereas the authorities in Finland report a decrease in 
recorded  Islamophobic/anti‑Muslim  crime,  those  in 
France, the Netherlands and Sweden report increases. 
The Austrian authorities reported no change in the 
recorded number of crimes. The Prosecutor General’s 
Office in Poland began collecting data on anti‑Muslim 
crime in 2012. ODIHR provides recorded Islamophobic/
anti‑Muslim data for Austria and Sweden.96

On the basis of the data obtained by FRA, official data 
collection mechanisms on crimes with racist, anti‑Roma, 
antisemitic and Islamophobic/anti‑Muslim motivations 
in EU Member States can be classified into three broad 
categories (Table 6.1), which relate to the scope and 
transparency of the data that are recorded:

 • limited  data  available –  data  collection  is  limited 
to  a  few  incidents,  and  data  are,  in  general,  not 
published;

 • good data available – different bias motivations are 

recorded, and data are, in general, published;

 • comprehensive  data  available –  different  bias 
 motivations are recorded, as are characteristics of 
victims and perpetrators, where criminal victimisa‑
tion  has  occurred,  and  the  types  of  crimes  that 
were committed, such as murder, assault or threats, 
and data are always published.

158

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

Table 6.1:  Status of official data collection on racist, anti‑Roma, antisemitic and Islamophobic/anti‑Muslim 

crime in EU Member States, December 2013

Limited data

Good data

Comprehensive data

Few incidents and a narrow range 
of bias motivations are recorded
Data are usually not published

A range of bias motivations 
are recorded
Data are generally published

A range of bias motivations, types of crimes 
and characteristics of incidents are recorded
Data are always published

Bulgaria
Cyprus
Estonia
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Luxembourg
Malta
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia

Finland
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom

Austria
Belgium
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia

Note: 

Spain is underligned as its official data collection on racist and related crime became comprehensive, see first paragraph below.

Source:  FRA, 2013

Data collection on racist and related crime in Spain 
became comprehensive as a result of changes intro‑
duced in relation to what data are collected and training 
offered to frontline police officers on how to record 
racist and related crime. Data are now collected on 
crimes motivated by racism, xenophobia and intoler‑
ance of another person’s religion or beliefs as well as 
antisemitism. In addition, about 20,000 law enforce‑
ment officials received training in how to identify and 
record such crimes in 2013.97

transposed provisions on incitement to racist and xeno‑
phobic violence and hatred, the racist and xenophobic 
motivation of crimes, the liability of legal persons and 
jurisdiction across the EU. The full and correct transposi‑
tion of the existing Framework Decision will constitute 
a  first step towards effectively fighting racism and 
xenophobia by means of criminal law in a coherent 
manner across the EU. Bilateral dialogue between the 
European Commission and Member States will play 
a key role in this process.

Outlook

The Stockholm Programme, which aims to deliver on 
an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s 
citizens, draws to a close in 2014. EU institutions and 
Member States are expected to follow up the Stockholm 
programme, in particular concerning the fight against 
all forms of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance 
within the EU.

The publication of the European Commission’s report 
on the implementation of the Framework Decision on 
Racism and Xenophobia in 2014 will provide important 
information  about  how  EU  Member  States  have 

The collection of reliable, comparable and  comprehensive 
data on racist and related crime would contribute to the 
Framework Decision’s effective implementation. Public 
authorities in Member States will be increasingly called 
on to collect and publish data on such crime, including 
details of prosecutions and the sentences handed down. 
Public authorities in Member States will also look to find 
ways to provide more effective remedies to combat 
racist  abuse  perpetrated  online  or  through 
social media platforms.

159

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 159, 153, 155, 158, 159

BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 155, 158, 159

BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152, 153, 154, 159

CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 155, 157, 158, 159

CZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152, 158, 159

DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159

DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 159

EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 159

EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159

ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159

FI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159

FR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159

HR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 151, 152, 153, 154, 158, 159

IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 159

LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 150, 158, 159

LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 159

LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 155, 158, 159

MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 159

NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159

PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 158, 159

PT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 156, 159

RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159

SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 153, 158, 159

UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 151, 155, 156, 158, 159

160

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

European Parliament (2013), Resolution on strengthening 
the fight against racism, xenophobia and hate 
crime 2013/2543(RSP), Brussels, 14 March 2013, www.
europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7‑ 
TA‑2013‑0090&language=EN&ring=B7‑2013‑0121.

Council of the European Union (2013), Council conclusions on 
fundamental rights and rule of law and on the 
Commission 2012, Report on the Application of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Justice and 
Home Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg, 6‑7 June 2013, 
p. 4, www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/
pressdata/en/jha/137404.pdf.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (2013), Hate 
speech, factsheet, Strasbourg, July 2013, www.echr.coe.int/
Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf.

United Nations (UN), Committee on the Elimination of Racial 
Discrimination (CERD) (2013), Combating racist hate 
speech, CERD/C/GC/35, 29 September 2013, http://tbinternet.
ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?sym
bolno=CERD%2fC%2fGC%2f35&Lang=en.

Rome Declaration (2013),  www.milquet.belgium.be/sites/
default/files/23092013%20De%CC%81claration%20de%20
Rome.pdf.

See FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) 
(2013), Fundamental Rights Conference, Combating hate 
crime in the EU: Giving victims a face and a voice, Vilnius, 
12–13 November 2013, http://fra.europa.eu/en/event/2013/
fundamental‑rights‑conference‑2013.

Cecilia Malmström (2013), Combating hate crime in the EU, 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_SPEECH‑13‑ 
909_en.htm.

Council of the European Union (2013), Council conclusions on 
combating hate crime in the European Union, Justice and 
Home Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 5–6 December 2013, 
www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/
pressdata/en/jha/139949.pdf.

FRA (2013), Thematic situation report: Racism, 
discrimination, intolerance and extremism. Learning from 
experiences in Greece and Hungary, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office of the European Union (Publications 
Office), http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑
thematic‑situation‑report‑3_en_1.pdf.

10   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 

Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crises, 
CommDH/IssuePaper(2013)2, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2130915.

11   United Nations (UN), CERD (2013), Concluding observations 

on the seventeenth to twenty‑second periodic reports of 
Cyprus, adopted by the Committee at its eighty‑third 
session (12‑30 August 2013), CERD/C/CYP/CO 17‑22, p. 5, 
23 September 2013, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/
treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2fC
%2fCYP%2fCO%2f17‑22&Lang=en.

12   FRA (2013), Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in 
EU Member States: Experiences and perceptions of 
antisemitism, Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑discrimination‑ 
hate‑crime‑against‑jews‑eu‑memberstates_en.pdf.

13   The programme of the Nationalist Party of Bulgaria is 
available at: www.dnevnik.bg/getatt.php?filename= 
o_2133887.pdf.

14   Bulgaria, 24 Chasa Newspaper (2013), ‘Боян Расате: 

Получихме разрешение от СДВР да организираме 

граждански патрули’, www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp? 
ArticleId=2445484.

15   Bulgaria, Национален център за развитие на ромите 
в България (2013), Ромски командоси създават 
организация за отбрана от насилие, 20 November 2013, 
http://romacenter.blog.bg/novini/2013/11/20/
romski‑komandosi‑syzdavat‑organizaciia‑za‑otbrana‑ot‑
nasilie.1208989.

16   Magyar Hajna (2013), A Magyar Hajnal rövid programja, 

http://magyarhajnal.com/a‑magyar‑hajnal‑rovid‑program.

17   Tulkens, F. (2013), The hate factor in political speech: Where 
do responsibilities lie?, Report of the Council of Europe 
Conference, www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/
belgrade2013/MCM(2013)002_en_Report_F%20Tulken.pdf.

18   Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism 

and Intolerance (ECRI) (2013), ECRI report on Finland (fourth 
monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 9 July 2013, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/
Finland/FIN‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑019‑ENG.pdf;http://www.coe.
int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/Finland/
FIN‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑019‑ENG.pdf Council of Europe, ECRI (2013), 
ECRI report on Malta (fourth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, 
Council of Europe, 15 October 2013, www.coe.int/t/dghl/
monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/Malta/MLT‑CbC‑IV‑
2013‑037‑ENG.pdf.

19   UN, CERD (2013), Concluding observations on the ninth to 
the tenth periodic reports of Slovakia, adopted by the 
Committee at its eighty‑second session 
(11 February–1 March 2013), CERD/C/SVK/CO/9‑10, 
17 April 2013, http://daccess‑dds‑ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/
GEN/G13/427/96/PDF/G1342796.pdf?OpenElement; UN, 
CERD (2013), Concluding observations on the seventeenth to 
twenty‑second periodic reports of Cyprus, adopted by the 
Committee at its eighty‑third session (12–30 August 2013), 
CERD/C/CYP/CO 17‑22, 23 September 2013, http://tbinternet.
ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?sy
mbolno=CERD%2fC%2fCYP%2fCO%2f17‑22&Lang=en.

20   ECtHR, Vona v. Hungary, application No. 35943/10, 2013, 
 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.
aspx?i=001‑122183.

21   European Parliament (2013), Request for the waiver of the 

parliamentary immunity of Marine Le Pen, P7_
TA(2013)0292, Strasbourg, 2 July 2013, www.europarl.
europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7‑TA‑ 
2013‑0292&format=XML&language=EN.

22   Greece, Ελληνική Αστυνομία (2013), Notice of Greek Police 
Headquarters about the items found during the current 
investigations of Counterterrorism Office in houses of three 
MPs of the political party ‘Golden Dawn’, 5 December 2013, 
www.astynomia.gr/index.php?option=ozo_content&lang=’..
’&perform=view&id=35075&Itemid=1220&lang=.

23   Greece, Ministry of Interior (2013), Joint Ministerial Decision, 

No. 51776, Αναστολή κάθε είδους κρατικής 
χρηματοδότησης στο Πολιτικό Κόμμα «ΛΑΪΚΟΣ 
ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ – ΧΡΥΣΗ ΑΥΓΗ» (OG B 3275/23.12.2013), 
http://static.diavgeia.gov.gr/doc/ΒΛΓΥΝ‑ΜΞΚ.

24   Germany, Bundesrat (2013), ‘Bundesrat reicht 

NPD‑Verbotsantrag beim Bundesverfassungsgericht ein’, 
Press release, 4 December 2013, www.bundesrat.de/
cln_330/nn_8396/DE/presse/pm/2013/253‑2013.html.

25   Philipp, S. and Starl, K. (2013), Living conditions of black 

people in Austrian urban areas in the fields of justice, 
health, work and public space, Graz, www.etc‑graz.at.

26   Bulgaria, Агенция „Алфа Рисръч“ (2013), Обществени 

нагласи – септември 2013 г., http://alpharesearch.bg/
userfiles/file/1013‑Public%20Opinion‑Alpha%20
Research.pdf.

161

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

27   Finland, Ihmisoikeuskeskus, Human Rights Centre annual 
report 2012, http://ihmisoikeuskeskus‑fi‑bin.directo.fi/@
Bin/b50582aed37e1d3c255f6dbfbf177ff6/1390910327/
application/pdf/206665/IOK_toimintakertomus_
ENG_N%C3%84YTT%C3%96.pdf.

28   UN, CERD, CERD/C/82/D/48/2010, 3 April 2013,  www2.ohchr.
org/English/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD‑C‑82‑D‑48‑2010‑
English.pdf.

asylum‑related legal changes in Hungary as of 1 July 2013, 
p. 3, http://helsinki.hu/wp‑content/uploads/HHC‑update‑
hungary‑asylum‑1‑July‑2013.pdf; FRA (2013), Thematic 
situation report: Racism, discrimination, intolerance and 
extremism. Learning from experiences in Greece and 
Hungary, Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑thematic‑situation‑
report‑3_en_1.pdf.

29   FRA (2013), Thematic situation report: Racism, 

40   Hungary, Tárki (2013), Szolid átrendeződés a lakosság 

discrimination, intolerance and extremism. Learning from 
experiences in Greece and Hungary, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra‑2013‑thematic‑situation‑report‑3_en_1.pdf.

30  

Ibid.

31   European Network Against Racism Ireland (ENAR 
Ireland) (2013), Reports of racism in Ireland, http://
enarireland.org/wp‑content/uploads/2013/12/iReport_
QR_2013_3mb.pdf.

32   UN, Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights (2013), Letter of the Chair‑Rapporteur of the Working 
Group on people of African descent, the Special Rapporteur 
in the field of cultural rights, the Independent Expert on 
minority issues, and the Special Rapporteur on 
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, 
xenophobia and related intolerance, 17 January 2013, 
https://spdb.ohchr.org/hrdb/23rd/public_‑_AL_
Netherlands_17.01.13_(1.2013).pdf; Netherlands (2013), 
Letter of the Dutch government, www.scribd.com/doc/ 
177304035/Het‑Nederlandse‑antwoord‑op‑de‑VN‑brief; 
Netherlands, Burgemeester van Amsterdam (2013), 
Uitspraak bezwaarschriftencommissie intocht Sinterklaas, 
30 October 2013; UN, Office of the High Commissioner for 
Human Rights (2013), Black Pete & Sinterklaas: UN experts 
encourage respectful national debate on Dutch tradition, 
web page, 21 November 2013, www.ohchr.org/EN/
NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14013 
&LangID=E.

33   Slovakia, Generálna prokuratúra SR (2013), Správa o činnosti 

Generálnej prokuratúry SR za rok 2012, p. 54.

34   Sweden, Brottsförebyggande rådet (2013), Hatbrott 2012: 

statistik över polisanmälningar med identifierade 
hatbrottsmotiv, www.bra.se/download/18.6b82726313f7b2
34a5839/1372231125966/2013_16_Hatbrott_2012.pdf.

35   See also European Network Against Racism (2013), Racism 
in Europe: ENAR shadow report 2011–2012, http://cms.horus.
be/files/99935/MediaArchive/publications/shadow%20
report%202011‑12/shadowReport_EN_LR%20(3).pdf.

36   Bulgaria, Агенция „Алфа Рисръч“ (2013), Обществени 

нагласи – септември 2013 г., http://alpharesearch.bg/
userfiles/file/1013‑Public%20Opinion‑Alpha%20Research.
pdf; Bulgaria, Dnes.bg (2013), „Роми и пенсионери: За 
бежанците пари има, за нас – не!“, 18 December 2013, 
www.dnes.bg/obshtestvo/2013/12/18/romi‑i‑pensioneri‑
za‑bejancite‑pari‑ima‑za‑nas‑ne.209975; Bulgaria, Group of 
the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the 
European Parliament (2013), „Бежанската вълна –
нараства ли ксенофобията? Може ли ЕС да помогне за 
намаляването на напрежението? – Доклад, www.
mediana.bg/download‑analysis/Report_refugees.doc.

idegenekkel szembeni véleményében, www.tarki.hu/hu/
news/2013/kitekint/20130205_idegenellenesseg.html.

41  

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 
Racial Discrimination (ICERD), CERD/C/82/D/48/2010, 
4 April 2013, http://www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/cerd/
docs/CERD‑C‑82‑D‑48‑2010‑English.pdf.

42   Germany, Bundestag (2013), ‘Entscheidung des 

UN‑Antirassismus Ausschusses im Fall Thilo Sarazzin’, 
BT‑Drs. 18/60, 18 November 2013, p. 4, http://dip21.
bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/000/1800060.pdf.

43  Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 

Universal Periodic Review second cycle: Germany, www.
ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/DESession16.aspx.

44   Germany, Bundesregierung (2013), The Federal Republic of 

Germany’s response to the recommendations set out by the 
UN Human Rights Council in the Universal Periodic Review 
on 25 April 2013, www.institut‑fuer‑menschenrechte.de/
aktuell/news/meldung/article/antwort‑der‑
bundesregierung‑auf‑die‑empfehlungen‑aus‑der‑upr‑
ueberpruefung‑liegt‑vor.html.

45   FRA (2013), Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in 
EU Member States: Experiences and perceptions of 
antisemitism, Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑discrimination‑hate‑
crime‑against‑jews‑eu‑memberstates_en.pdf; FRA (2013), 
EU LGBT survey European Union lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
transgender survey: Results at a glance, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
eu‑lgbt‑survey‑results‑at‑a‑glance_en.pdf. More on the 
FRA survey on gender‑based violence is available at: http://
fra.europa.eu/en/project/2012/fra‑survey‑gender‑based‑violence‑ 
against‑women.

46   Europol (2013), TE SAT 2013: EU terrorism situation and trend 

report, www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
publications/europol_te‑sat2013_lr_0.pdf; see also 
Jugenschutz.net (2013), Rechtsextremismus online 
beobachten und nachhaltig bekämpfen, Mainz, www.netz‑
gegen‑nazis.de/files/bericht2012.pdf.

47  

Italy, Corte Suprema di Cassazione, judgment of 
24 April 2013, No. 33179, www.asgi.it/public/parser_
download/save/cassaz_33179_2013.pdf.

48  

Italy, Tribunale di Padova, judgment of 17 July 2013, no. 1615.

49   France, Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 24 January 2013, 
www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence‑decision&id_ 
article=3594.

37   Bulgaria, Съвет за електронни медии (2013), Declaration, 
5 November 2013, www.cem.bg/download.php?id=4908.

50   Latvia, Rīgas pilsētas Ziemeļu rajona tiesa), 

No. 11840000612/K32‑0202‑13/6, 3 January 2013.

38   UN, High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR 

launches emergency operation to improve conditions for 
refugees and asylum seekers in Bulgaria, 6 December 2013, 
www.unhcr.org/52a1bad09.html.

39   Hungary (2008–2012), Eurostat, Asylum and new asylum 
applicants by citizenship, age and sex annual aggregated 
data, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.
do?dataset=migr_asyappctza&lang=en; Hungarian Helsinki 
Committee (2013), Brief information note on the main 

51   Belgium, Minister of Justice, Minister of Internal Affairs and 
the College of Prosecutors General (2013), Omzendbrief 
betreffende het opsporings‑ en vervolgingsbeleid inzake 
discriminatie en haatmisdrijven (met inbegrip van 
discriminaties op grond van het geslacht)/Circulaire relative 
a la politique de recherche et de poursuite en matière de 
discriminations et de délits de haine (en ce compris les 
discriminations fondées sur le sexe), 17 June 2013, 
www.om‑mp.be/omzendbrief/5198967/omzendbrief.html.

162

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

52   United Kingdom, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) (2013), 

Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications 
sent via social media, www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/
communications_sent_via_social_media/.

65   Greece, Συνήγορος του Πολίτη (2013), Special report: The 
phenomenon of racist violence in Greece and how to it is 
combated, September 2013, www.synigoros.gr/resources/
docs/sronracistviolencesummary2013.pdf.

53   Belgium, Minister of Justice, Minister of Internal Affairs and 
the College of Prosecutors General (2013), Omzendbrief 
betreffende het opsporings‑ en vervolgingsbeleid inzake 
discriminatie en haatmisdrijven (met inbegrip van 
discriminaties op grond van het geslacht)/Circulaire relative 
a la politique de recherche et de poursuite en matière de 
discriminations et de délits de haine (en ce compris les 
discriminations fondées sur le sexe), 17 June 2013, www.
om‑mp.be/omzendbrief/5198967/omzendbrief.html.

54   Cyprus (2013), Αυτεπάγγελτη Παρέμβαση της Αρχής Κατά 
των Διακρίσεων Αναφορικά με την Ανταπόκριση των 
Σχολείων σε Ρατσιστικά Περιστατικά, 11 March 2013, 
report and data provided by the Cypriot Office of the 
Commissioner for Administration.

55   Council of Europe, ECRI (2013), ECRI report on Finland (fourth 
monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 9 July 2013, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/
Finland/FIN‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑019‑ENG.pdf.

56   United Kingdom, ChildLine (2013), Can I tell you something?, 

www.nspcc.org.uk/news‑and‑views/media‑centre/press‑
releases/2014/childline‑report/childline‑report_can‑i‑tell‑
you‑something_wdf100354.pdf.

57   Organization for Security and Co‑operation in Europe, 
Parliamentary Assembly (2013), Istanbul declaration, 
Istanbul, 29 June to 3 July 2013, www.oscepa.org/meetings/
annual‑sessions/1375‑ist‑dec#.

58   Philipp, S. and Starl, K. (2013), Living conditions of black 

people in Austrian urban areas in the fields of justice, 
health, work and public space, Graz, www.etc‑graz.at.

59   FRA (2010), Towards more effective policing. Understanding 
and preventing discriminatory ethnic profiling: A guide, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/fra_uploads/1133‑Guide‑ethnic‑profiling_
EN.pdf.http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra_uploads/1133‑Guide‑ethnic‑profiling_EN.pdf

60   Netherlands, Amnesty International (2013), Proactief 

politieoptreden vormt risico voor mensenrechten: Etnisch 
profilieren onderkennen en aanpakken, Amsterdam, 
Amnesty International, www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/
files/public/rapport_etnisch_profileren_ainl_28_okt_2013.
pdf.

61   Bradford, B., García Añon, J., García Sáez J. A., Gascón 

Cuenca, A. and Llorente Ferrerez, A. (2013), Identificación 
policial por perfil étnico en España: Informe sobre 
experiencias y actitudes en relación con las actuaciones 
policiales, Valencia, Universitat de València, Institut de Drets 
Humans; Tirant lo Blanch, www.uv.es/garciaj/pub/2013_
perfil_etnico.pdf; Metroscopia (2013), Encuesta sobre 
experiencias y actitudes en relación con las actuaciones 
policiales.

62   UN, CERD, 82nd session, 11 February–1 March 2013, Report 
submitted by the EHRC in response to CERD/C/GBR/CO/18‑
20/Add.1, http://daccess‑dds‑ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G13/403/56/PDF/G1340356.pdf?OpenElement.

63   Cremer, H. (2013), ‘Racial Profiling’: Menschenrechtswidrige 
Personenkontrollen nach § 22 Abs. 1 a Bundespolizeigesetz, 
Berlin, Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, p. 31, www.
institut‑fuer‑menschenrechte.de/uploads/tx_commerce/
Studie_Racial_Profiling_Menschenrechtswidrige_
Personenkontrollen_nach_Bundespolizeigesetz.pdf.

64   Greece, Police Headquarters (2012), ‘Police Operation 

“XENIOS ZEUS” in Athens and Evros to tackle illegal 
immigration’, statement of the spokesman of the Greek 
Police, press release, 4 August 2012, www.astynomia.gr/
index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=34&Ite
mid=13&lang=.

66   FRA (2013), Thematic situation report: Racism, 

discrimination, intolerance and extremism. Learning from 
experiences in Greece and Hungary, http://fra.europa.eu/
sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑thematic‑situation‑report‑3_
en_1.pdf.

67   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 
Report by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human 
Rights following his visit to Greece, 28 January to 
1 February 2013, Comm DH(2013), 16 April 2013, https://wcd.
coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2053611; Council of Europe, ECRI 
(2103), Annual report on ECRI activities, www.coe.int/t/
dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Annual_Reports/
Annual%20report%202012.pdf; United States Department 
of State (2013), Country reports on human rights practices 
on Greece 2012, www.state.gov/documents/
organization/204503.pdf.

68   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, Report 

by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 
following his visit to Greece, 28 January to 1 February 2013, 
Comm DH(2013), 16 April 2013, https://wcd.coe.int/
ViewDoc.jsp?id=2053611.

69   Greece, Ministry of Public Order and Citizen Protection, 

Hellenic Police, 1 October 2013, www.astynomia.gr/index.
php?option=ozo_content&lang=’..’&perform=view&id=3256
9&Itemid=1179&lang=; Greece, Ministry of Public Order and 
Citizen Protection, Hellenic Police, 4 October 2013, www.
astynomia.gr/index.php?option=ozo_content&lang=’..’&per
form=view&id=32725&Itemid=1179&lang=.

70   Greece, Συνήγορος του Πολίτη (2013), Ειδική Έκθεση, 

 www.synigoros.gr/resources/docs/
sronracistviolencesummary2013.pdf.

71   Council of Europe, ECRI (2013), ECRI report on Ireland (fourth 

monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 
19 February 2013, www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/
Country‑by‑country/Ireland/IRL‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑001‑ENG.pdf; 
Council of Europe, ECRI (2013), ECRI report on Finland (fourth 
monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 9 July 2013, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/
Finland/FIN‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑019‑ENG.pdf; Council of Europe, 
ECRI (2013), ECRI report on Netherlands (fourth monitoring 
cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 15 October 2013, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/
Netherlands/NLD‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑039‑ENG.pdf.

72   UN, Human Rights Council (2013), Report of the Special 

Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial 
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, 
6 June 2013.

73   UN, CERD (2013), Concluding observations on the combined 
nineteenth to twenty‑first periodic reports of Sweden, 
adopted by the Committee at its eighty‑third session 
(12–30 August 2013), CERD/C/SWE/CO 19‑21, 
23 September 2013, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/
treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2fC
%2fSWE%2fCO%2f19‑21&Lang=en.

74   United Kingdom, Home Office (2013), A consultation on how 
police use stop and search powers has been launched today 
(2 July) by Home Secretary Theresa May, www.gov.uk/
government/news/home‑secretary‑launches‑consultation‑ 
into‑stop‑and‑search.

75   United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of 

Constabulary (2013), Stop and search powers: Are the police 
using them effectively and fairly?, www.hmic.gov.uk/
media/stop‑and‑search‑powers‑20130709.pdf.

163

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

76   United Kingdom, Equality and Human Rights 

Commission (2012), Race disproportionality in stops and 
searches under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public 
Order Act 1994, Briefing paper 5, www.equalityhumanrights.
com/uploaded_files/ehrc_‑_briefing_paper_no.5_‑_s60_
stop_and_search.pdf.

88   France, Premier ministre (2013), Comité interministériel de 
lutte contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme, Infosheet, www.
interieur.gouv.fr/Le‑ministere/Organisation/Delegue‑
Interministeriel‑a‑la‑Lutte‑contre‑le‑Racisme‑et‑l‑
Antisemitisme/Comite‑interministeriel‑de‑lutte‑ 
contre‑le‑racisme‑et‑l‑antisemitisme.

77   United Kingdom, Equality and Human Rights 

89   Germany, Bundestag (2013) ‘Antisemitismus entschlossen 

Commission (2013), Stop and think again: Towards race 
equality in police PACE stop and search, May 2013, p. 7, 
www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/
raceinbritain/stop_and_think_again.pdf.

bekämpfen, jüdisches Leben in Deutschland nachhaltig 
fördern’, BT‑Drs. 17/13885, 11 June 2013, p. 3, http://dip21.
bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/138/1713885.pdf.

90   Poland, Zarządzenie nr 6 Prezesa Rady Ministrów, 

78   United Kingdom, Equality and Human Rights 

13 February 2013.

Commission (2013), New research shows slow improvement 
in police use of stop and search, November 2013, www.
equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/november/new‑
research‑shows‑slow‑improvement‑in‑police‑use‑of‑stop‑
and‑search/; Equality and Human Rights Commission (2013), 
Race disproportionality in stops and searches, 2011–2012, 
November 2013, www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_
files/research/Briefing_papers/briefing_paper_7_final.pdf.

79   Council of Europe, ECRI (2013), ECRI report on Netherlands 

(fourth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 
15 October 2013, www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/
Country‑by‑country/Netherlands/NLD‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑039‑
ENG.pdf; Council of Europe, ECRI (2013), ECRI report on 
Portugal (fourth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of 
Europe, 9 July 2013, www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/
Country‑by‑country/Portugal/PRT‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑020‑ENG.pdf.

80   UN, Human Rights Council (2013), Report of the Special 

Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial 
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, 
6 June 2013, www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/
HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A‑HRC‑23‑56‑ 
Add‑2_en.pdf.

81   FRA (2013), Thematic situation report: Racism, 

discrimination, intolerance and extremism. Learning from 
experiences in Greece and Hungary, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra‑2013‑thematic‑situation‑report‑3_en_1.pdf.

82   Greece, Βουλή των Ελλήνων (2013), Τροποποίηση του 

ν. 927/1979 (Α΄139) και προσαρμογή του στην απόφαση 
πλαίσιο 2008/913/ΔΕ της 28ης Νοεμβρίου 2008, για την 
καταπολέμηση ορισμένων μορφών και εκδηλώσεων 
ρατσισμού και ξενοφοβίας μέσω του ποινικού δικαίου 
(L 328), 20 Νοvember 2013, www.hellenicparliament.gr/
Nomothetiko‑Ergo/Epexergasia‑stis‑Epitropes? 
law_id=1fddd6cf‑874b‑4b4a‑b01d‑05f37f9c598d.

83   Greece, Βουλή των Ελλήνων (2013), Νόμος περί 

εξαρτησιογόνων ουσιών και άλλες διατάξεις 
(OG A 74/20.3.2013), amended Art. 79, para. 3 of the 
Criminal Code, www.et.gr/index.php/2013‑01‑28‑14‑06‑23/ 
2013‑01‑29‑08‑13‑13.

84   Germany, Landtag Brandenburg (2013), ‘Landtag 

Brandenburg beschließt Antirassismus Klausel in der 
Landesverfassung’, press release, 22 November 2013, 
www.landtag.brandenburg.de/de/aktuelles/landtag_ 
brandenburg_beschlieszt_antirassismus‑klausel_in_der_
landesverfassung/629581?_referer=397203.

85   Cyprus Police (2013), Πολιτική για την Αντιμετώπιση και 

Καταπολέμηση της Ρατσιστικής Βίας, της Ξενοφοβίας και 
των Διακρίσεων, 7 August 2013. Data derive from the Office 
of the Commissioner for Administration and from the police.

86   Greece, Ελληνική Αστυνομία (2013),  www.astynomia.gr/

index.php?option=ozo_content&&perform=view&id=23698
&Itemid=0&lang=.

87   FRA (2013), Thematic situation report: Racism, 

discrimination, intolerance and extremism. Learning from 
experiences in Greece and Hungary, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra‑2013‑thematic‑situation‑report‑3_en_1.pdf.

91   Poland, Komenda Główna Policji, Kierunkowa strategia 
policji w zakresie systemowej ochrony praw człowieka, 
www.policja.pl/pol/prawa‑czlowieka/aktualnosci/ 
83431,Kierunkowa‑streategia‑Policji‑w‑zakresie‑
systemowej‑ochrony‑praw‑czlowieka‑na‑la.html.

92   Austria, Bundesministerium für Inneres, Bundesamt für 
Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung (2013), 
Verfassungsschutzbericht 2013, www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_
Verfassungsschutz/Verfassungsschutzbericht_2013.pdf; 
Belgium, Federal Police (2013), Statistiques policières de 
criminalité, Belgique: 2000–2013/Politiële 
criminaliteitsstatistieken, België: 2000–2012, www.polfed‑
fedpol.be/crim/crim_statistieken/2013_trim2/pdf/
nationaal/rapport_2013_trim2_nat_belgique_fr.pdf; 
Croatia, Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova (2013), Pregled 
temeljnih sigurnosnih pokazatelja i rezultata rada u 2012. 
godini, www.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2013/
statistika2012.pdf; Czech Republic, Ministry of Interior, 
Security Policy Department, Annual report: Zpráva 
o problematice extremismu na území České republiky 
v roce 2012, www.mvcr.cz/clanek/extremismus‑vyrocni‑
zpravy‑o‑extremismu‑a‑strategie‑boje‑proti‑extremismu.
aspx; Cyprus, Cyprus Police, Archived statistical data, 
incidents and/or cases of racial nature and/or with racial 
motive 2005–2012, www.police.gov.cy/police/police.nsf/All/
951F52E21604E9DFC2257BD00017AF04?OpenDocument; 
Denmark, Politiets Efterretningstjeneste (2013), Kriminelle 
forhold I 2012 med mulig ekstremistisk baggrund, www.pet.
dk/Nyheder/2013/~/media/Forebyggende%20sikkerhed/
RACI‑rapporter/2012RACIrapportendeligversionpdf.ashx; 
Finland, Poliisiammattikorkeakoulu (2013), Poliisin tietoon 
tullut viharikollisuus Suomessa 2012, www.polamk.fi/poliisi/
poliisioppilaitos/home.nsf/files/9CE3DF593F0561CDC2257C1
4002DF16B/$file/Katsauksia2_web.pdf; France, Ministère 
de l’Intérieur, Annual report of the National Consultative 
Commission on Human Rights 2012: La lutte contre le 
racisme, l’antisémitisme et la xénophobie, www.cncdh.fr/
sites/default/files/cncdh_racisme_02_basse_def.pdf; 
Germany, Bundesministerium des Innern (2013), 
Verfassungsschutzbericht 2012, www.verfassungsschutz.
de/embed/vsbericht‑2012.pdf; UNHCR, Racist Violence 
Recording Network (2013), Annual report, www.unhcr.
gr/1againstracism/11940/?doing_wp_cron=1379691703.167
6959991455078125000; Ireland, Office for the Promotion of 
Migrant Integration (2013), Reported racist crime, www.
integration.ie/website/omi/omiwebv6.nsf/page/statistics‑
RacistIncidentsstatisticscrime‑en; Lithuania, Ministry of the 
Interior (2013), Informatikos ir ryšių departamentas prie 
Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministerijos (2013), 
Nusikalstamumo ir ikiteisminių tyrimų statistika, www.ird.
lt/infusions/report_manager/reports/html_file.php?metai= 
2012&menuo=12&ff=1G_EN&fnr=6&rt=1&oldYear=2012; 
Luxembourg, Police Grand‑Ducale (2013), Rapport 
d’activité 2012 de la Police Grand‑Ducale, www.police.
public.lu/actualites/statistique/rapport_stat_2012/rapport‑
statistique‑2012.pdf; Netherlands, Tierolf, B., Hermens, N., 
Drost, L. and Van der Vos, L. (2013), POLDIS rapportage 2012, 
met themarapportage antisemitisme, Utrecht, 
Verwey‑Jonker Instituut, www.verwey‑jonker.nl/doc/
vitaliteit/Poldis_rapportage_2012_7371_web.pdf; Poland, 
Prokuratura Generalna (2013), Sprawozdania i statystyka, 
www.pg.gov.pl/sprawozdania‑i‑statystyki/
sprawy‑z‑pobudek‑rasistowskich‑lub‑ksenofobicznych‑w‑

164

Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance

2012‑r‑‑2‑627.html; Slovakia, Ministerstvo vnútra (2013), 
Štatistika kriminality v Slovenskej republike, www.minv.
sk/?statistika‑kriminality‑v‑slovenskej‑republike‑za‑
rok‑2012; Spain, Ministerio del Interior (2013), Anuario 
Estadístico del Ministerio del Interior 2012, www.interior.
gob.es/file/63/63661/63661.pdf; Sweden, 
Brottsförebyggande rådet (2013), Hatbrott 2012: Statistik 
över polisanmälningar med identifierade hatbrottsmotiv, 
www.bra.se/download/18.6b82726313f7b234a5839/ 
1372231125966/2013_16_Hatbrott_2012.pdf; 
United Kingdom, Office for National Statistics, Ministry of 
Justice and Home office, An overview of hate crime in 
England and Wales, www.report‑it.org.uk/files/ons_hate‑
crime‑report_2013.pdf; United Kingdom, Scottish 
Government (2013), Statistical bulletin: Crime and justice 
series: racist incidents recorded by the police in 
Scotland 2012–13, www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/ 
00439845.pdf.

93   OSCE, ODIHR (2013), Hate crimes in the OSCE region, 

incidents and responses 2012, Warsaw, ODIHR, pp. 44–50, 
http://tandis.odihr.pl/hcr2012/pdf/Hate_Crime_Report_
full_version.pdf.

94  

Ibid., pp. 54–59.

95  

Ibid., pp. 60–66.

96  

Ibid., pp. 67–71.

97   Spain, Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social, Ministerio 

del Interior (2013), Handbook for training security 
forces in identifying and recording racist or xenophobic 
incidents, http://explotacion.mtin.gob.es/oberaxe/inicio_
descargaFichero.action?bibliotecaDatoId=218.

165

7 

Roma integration  �������������������������������������������������������������������� 169

7�1�  European institutions renew political commitment 

to Roma inclusion and integration  ������������������������������ 169

7�2�  Member States begin implementation of 

national Roma integration strategies  ������������������������� 170
7�2�1�  To make a difference, Member States 

involve local authorities  �������������������������������� 170
7�2�2�  Engaging with civil society  ���������������������������� 171
7�2�3�  Monitoring progress  ��������������������������������������� 172
7�2�4�  EU Structural Funds and national-level 

funding for Roma integration  ������������������������ 173

7�3�  Member States target integration 

in four priority areas  ���������������������������������������������������� 173
7�3�1�  Education  �������������������������������������������������������� 173
7�3�2�  Employment  ��������������������������������������������������� 175
7�3�3�  Housing  ����������������������������������������������������������� 176
7�3�4�  Health  �������������������������������������������������������������� 178

7�4�  Anti-Gypsyism, hate speech and hate crime 

against Roma  ���������������������������������������������������������������� 179

Outlook  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 181

EU
January 
February 
March 
April 
May 
26 June – European Commission issues a Communication on Steps 
forward in implementing national Roma integration strategies

26 June – European Commission issues a Proposal for a Council 
Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the 
Member States
June 
July 
August 
September 
October 
28–29 November – The Plenary Session of the Committee of the 
Regions adopts an explanatory opinion on Roma integration strategies
November 
9 December – Council of the European Union adopts a Recommendation 
on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States

12 December – European Parliament adopts a Resolution on the 
progress made in the implementation of the national Roma integration 
strategies
December 

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE

15 January – European Economic and Social 
Committee issues opinion on the Societal 
empowerment and integration of Roma citizens 
in Europe

29 January – European Court of Human Rights 
(ECtHR) rules in Horváth and Kiss v� Hungary that 
placing Roma children in remedial schools for 
children with disabilities amounts to discrimination
January
19 February – Council of Europe European 
Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) 
issues its fourth report on Ireland
February
20 March – Council of Europe launches the 
European Alliance of Cities and Regions for Roma 
Inclusion
March
23 April – Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of 
Europe adopts Resolution 1927 (2013) on Ending 
discrimination against Roma children
April
30 May – ECtHR rules in Lavida and Others 
v� Greece that continuing the education of Roma 
children in a state school attended exclusively by 
Roma children without implementing effective 
anti-segregation measures can not be justified� 
Municipalities and educational authorities must 
reconsider informal tactics that permit segregation
May
27 June – Eighth European Platform for Roma 
Inclusion takes place in Brussels
June
9 July – ECtHR Vona v� Hungary sentence upholds 
the decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court to 
dissolve the Hungarian Guard Association, which 
had held rallies targeting Roma and using 
anti-Gypsy rhetoric

9 July – ECRI issues its fourth report on Finland

9 July – ECRI issues its fourth report on Portugal
July
August
September
15 October – ECRI issues its fourth report on 
the Netherlands

17 October – ECtHR rules in Winterstein and Others 
v� France that the eviction of traveller families 
from a caravan site where they had been living for 
a long time, without providing alternative 
accommodation or social housing, is a violation of 
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family 
life) of the European Convention on Human Rights
October
November
December

168

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 

Roma integration

Major European Union (EU) institutions and the Council of Europe renewed in 2013 their political resolve and 
launched initiatives to fight the exclusion of and discrimination against Roma, the EU’s largest ethnic minority. 
EU Member States have pledged to improve the situation of Roma in education, employment, health and 
housing, developing concrete national strategies on Roma integration. There is, however, evidence of ongoing 
fundamental rights violations, while for many Roma social exclusion and extreme deprivation remain a daily 
reality. To accelerate progress, the Council of the European Union issued in December 2013 a ‘Recommendation 
on effective Roma integration measures to Member States’, which highlights the need for effective monitoring 
of the implementation of national integration strategies.

7�1� 

European institutions 
renew political 
commitment to Roma 
inclusion and 
integration

In the face of incidents illustrating the discrimination 
and  exclusion  Roma 1  people  face,  the  European 
Commission, the Council of the European Union, the 
European Parliament and the Council of Europe renewed 
their political resolve to fully integrate and include Roma 
in European society. Nonetheless, in some EU Member 
States Roma settlements were destroyed and Roma 
EU citizens forcibly evicted from their homes or returned 
to their countries of origin. In others, political parties 
and extremist groups openly expressed anti‑Roma feel‑
ings, while media attention on alleged child abductions 
stoked negative Roma stereotypes. With the Member 
States’ action plans in place, EU institutions turned their 
attention to effective implementation and monitoring.

i n   a 
T h e   E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n   f o c u s e d  
June Communication on the structural preconditions for 
more effective implementation of integration strate‑
gies. It called on Member States “to adopt or further 
develop a comprehensive approach to Roma integration 

Key developments

•  The Council of the European Union issues a Recommendation 

on Roma integration, providing guidance to EU Member 
States on enhancing the effectiveness of their national Roma 
integration strategies and policies.

•  The Council Regulation on Structural Funds is adopted 

including the ex ante conditionality concerning national 
Roma integration strategies. It is the first time that one 
specific investment priority focusing on the inclusion of 
Roma and other marginalised communities is included as 
a requirement in the Structural Funds.

•  Forced evictions and segregation in education remain 

major concerns.

• 

In the run‑up to the European Parliament elections, some 
political parties and extremist groups in a number of 
EU Member States express anti‑Roma feelings that can 
endanger Roma integration efforts.

•  Spikes in media attention are related to reports of alleged 

child abductions, reinforcing negative stereotypes of Roma.

and endorse a number of common goals”, covering the 
areas of education, employment, health and housing.2 
It also concluded that more effort should be made to 
develop robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks. 

169

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

This includes comparing data and impact indicators to 
measure progress on the ground and ensuring that 
necessary funds are allocated to Roma inclusion efforts.

The European Commission also issued a proposal for 
a Council Recommendation aimed at reinforcing the EU 
Framework “with a non‑binding legal instrument in 
order to make it easier for Member States to turn their 
commitments into reality”.3

The  Council  of  the  European  Union  adopted 
a  recommendation4 that provides guidance to Member 
States on enhancing the implementation of their meas‑
ures to achieve Roma integration. The recommendation, 
adopted  on  9 December 2013,  establishes  the  first 
EU legal instrument for Roma integration.

The  European  Parliament  called  on  the  European 
Commission and Member States to ensure sufficient 
funding for Roma integration. The resolution, adopted 
on 12 December, also focused on EU‑wide monitoring 
of the fundamental rights of Roma, anti‑Roma actions 
and hate crime against Roma. It called for an end to 
segregation in education and aimed at tackling discrimi‑
nation, particularly that faced by Roma women.

The Council of Europe has also taken positive measures. 
Romed, which ran for two years in 22 countries, with 
more than 1,000 trained mediators, entered its second 
phase in 2013.5 The Council of Europe and the European 
Commission’s DG Employment launched a new project 
in Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Slovakia to 
strengthen  political  will  and  build  local  authorities’ 
ability to draft and implement Roma inclusion plans and 
projects.6 The initiative is supported by the European 
Alliance of Cities and Regions for Roma Inclusion and 
draws on the four thematic reports that were produced 
by the Council of Europe Ad hoc Committee of Experts 
on  Roma  Issues  (CAHROM)  in  2013  (on  education,7 
housing8 and anti‑Gypsyism9 and on Roma policy imple‑
mentation (latter report from 2012).

With  positive  political  commitments  in  place  and 
 measures taken by the European institutions, a powerful 
framework has been established to encourage and sup‑
port EU Member States in improving the situation of the 
Roma in education, employment, health and housing 
and in respecting human rights and non‑discrimination.

7�2�  Member States begin 

implementation of 
national Roma 
integration strategies

Each  EU  Member  State  developed  a  national  Roma 
integration  strategy  or  corresponding  set  of  policy 

measures within its broader social inclusion policies in 
response to the European Commission’s Communication 
for an EU Framework for national Roma Integration 
Strategies from May 2011. Many built upon previous or 
existing  Roma  integration  policies  or  action  plans. 
By 2013, nearly all Member States had developed and 
approved their national Roma integration strategies and 
national action plans; however, progress on implemen‑
tation of the strategies varied. Many Member States 
are still working on developing institutional infrastruc‑
ture and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for 
implementing the strategies. In most cases, the Member 
States implemented few actions in 2013, often hindered 
by budgetary cuts and limited financial resources.

Poland,  for  example,  continued  implementing  its 
Programme for the Roma community for 2004–201310 
covering education, Roma and civil society, employ‑
ment, health, housing, security and hate crimes, culture 
and preservation of Roma ethnic identity, and knowl‑
edge  about  Roma.  Legislation  was  in  progress  on 
a multi‑annual programme for 2014–2020.11

In  December,  the  Czech  Republic  approved 
seven  measures aimed at preventing social tension and 
strengthening social cohesion between majority society 
and the Roma minority, including revised housing ben‑
efits, a network of social services in excluded areas and 
the reintroduction of community work. The government 
did not, however, introduce social measures targeting 
Roma specifically, because the delivery of aid based on 
ethnic criteria is unconstitutional.12

Slovakia shifted responsibility for the national  strategy’s 
coordination and implementation to the Ministry of the 
Interior from the Government’s Office and the Prime 
Minister’s authority. NGOs criticised this move sharply, 
claiming that it contributed to inflexibility in imple‑
menting the strategy and left those in charge with less 
time to devote to the issue at hand.13

7�2�1� 

To make a difference, Member 
States involve local authorities

The European Commission’s 26 June Communication 
stressed that “most Member States need to make fur‑
ther efforts and involve local authorities more closely 
and systematically in developing, implementing, moni‑
toring, evaluating and reviewing policy” and asserted 
that Roma integration plans and efforts to implement 
the national Roma implementation strategies should 
also  be  an  integral  part  of  regional  and  local 
level public agendas.14

Bulgaria’s  national  strategy  for  Roma  integration 
required all municipalities to prepare and adopt munic‑
ipal Roma integration annual plans. Municipal plans 
for  2013–2014  were  approved  by  the  end  of  March 
for 220 of 264 municipalities,15 and plans for 2014–2020 

170

Roma integration

will be adopted in 2014. In the United Kingdom, local 
authorities established a National Roma Network as 
a forum for dialogue between central government, local 
authorities and civil society.16

Some EU Member States also began developing regional 
and local action plans to implement their national strat‑
egies. Germany’s Berlin Action Plan for the Inclusion of 
Foreign Roma, the country’s first regional action plan, 
was adopted on 16 July.17 Sweden launched several pilot 
programmes for Roma integration.18

FRA ACTIVITY

Collecting data through local 
engagement

The Local Engagement for Roma Inclusion (LERI) re‑
search project aims to examine and develop ways 
of improving the design, implementation and mon‑
itoring of Roma integration policies and actions at 
local level. This objective corresponds to the issues 
and  needs  identified  by  the  European  Commis‑
sion’s Roma Task Force, namely lack of know‑how 
and administrative capacity at local level, ineffec‑
tive  monitoring  tools  to  measure  progress,  and 
weak involvement of Roma and of civil society ac‑
tors in the design and implementation of Roma‑tar‑
geted interventions, particularly at the local level.

LERI  aims  to  address  those  deficits  through  lo‑
cal‑level  pilot  research  that  will  help  understand 
better the barriers and drivers affecting local‑level 
implementation  and  how  those  barriers  might  be 
overcome.

The LERI project will be carried out in 2014–2016 in 
22  localities  in  11  Member  States:  Bulgaria,  the 
Czech  Republic,  Finland,  France,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Italy,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  the  United 
Kingdom.

FRA (2013), FRA Multi‑annual Roma Programme, primary qualitative 
data: Participatory action research, available at: http://fra.europa.
eu/en/project/2013/multi‑annual‑roma‑programme?tab=local‑ 
engagement

Several  Member  States  set  up  working  groups  or 
 advisory councils comprising representatives of minis‑
tries,  local  authorities,  independent  experts,  Roma 
associations  and  other  civil  society  organisations. 
Croatia, Finland, France, Latvia,19 Romania, Slovenia20 
and Spain established working groups and platforms to 
develop and consult on national Roma integration strat‑
egies. Spain developed an operational plan for the 
2012–2020 national strategy to strengthen coordination 
between different administrative levels.21 Italy also 
established discussion tables at various government 
levels,22 including an interministerial political round 
table to discuss local issues. Roma associations criticised 
the roundtable, however, for not requiring the inclusion 

of Roma community representatives.23 In Slovenia,24 
Roma  representatives,  including  those  from  each 
municipal council, will set up a working body to monitor 
the Roma’s local situation and to report yearly to a com‑
mission set up for the protection of the Roma community.

Belgium  uses  multiple  stakeholder  cooperation  to 
address Roma integration. One example is the regional 
integration centre Foyer in Brussels, which cooperates 
with social services, schools and local governments to 
better address Roma issues.25

At the eighth European Platform for Roma Inclusion 
in June, the Netherlands announced an initiative to 
create a working group on child rights issues as an 
extension of its programme to combat crime and the 
exploitation of Roma children.26

7�2�2� 

Engaging with civil society

In its June Communication, the European Commission 
stressed again that “civil society needs to play an active 
role in implementing and monitoring national strate‑
gies.”27 Simple consultation is not enough. To this end, 
many of the EU Member State working groups set up 
to advise on the development and implementation of 
the national Roma integration strategies include civil 
society organisations, NGOs and representatives of 
Roma associations. Nonethless, questions remained on 
how  exactly  to  define  civil  society’s  role  in  imple‑
menting monitoring national strategies and how to 
consult civil society in practice.

Austria28 and Spain consulted Roma civil society on how 
to implement their national strategies, and Roma civil 
society organisations took part in a consultative council 
and  the  National  Agency  for  Roma  in  Romania.  In 
Belgium, Roma took direct part in consultations on 
social services through a new project initiated in 2013.29

Hungary set up several consultative bodies, which 
involve representatives of Roma minority self‑govern‑
ments and representatives of civil society organisa‑
tions.  The  civil  society  report,  coordinated  by  the 
Decade of Roma Inclusion Secretariat, criticised the 
Roma action plans,30 saying that some new govern‑
ment  policies  undermined  rather  than  sup‑
ported Roma integration.

In Lithuania, civil society organisations, including Roma 
NGOs, criticised the government for failing to make the 
consultative process genuinely inclusive while pre‑
paring the 2012–2014 Roma Action Plan.31

Two NGOs prepared an external evaluation report on 
the national Roma integration strategy after the Slovak 
government failed to involve civil society, formally or 
informally, in the strategy’s implementation and after 
the  government’s  Office  of  the  Plenipotentiary  for 

171

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Roma Communities delayed delivery of its own moni‑
toring report in early 2013.32

developing  more  robust  and  effective  approaches 
to data collection.

Ireland established a steering group including Roma 
representatives. In Bulgaria, nine Roma organisations 
withdrew from the National Council for Cooperation on 
Ethnic and Integration Issues in April, after it failed to 
react  to  ethnically  motivated  Roma  murders.33  In 
response,  to  implement  the  national  strategy,  the 
council formed a commission with the participation of 
Roma  NGOs  and  other  civil  society  organistations 
working in the field of Roma integration.

Every year in Finland, the Regional Advisory Boards of 
Romani Affairs organise consultation days for local 
actors to present their work and provide views on the 
national  Roma  strategy  and  its  implementation. 
Similarly, Portugal established a consultative group 
in June to monitor the national strategy’s implementa‑
tion and Roma communities’ integration.

In  France,  national  consultative  panels  on  illegal 
 settlements and on Gens du voyage bring together civil 
society organisations and national authorities to advise 
on the national strategy.

7�2�3�  Monitoring progress

The  European  Commission  communication  and  the 
Council of the European Union recommendation high‑
lighted the need for monitoring Roma‑targeted inter‑
ventions. Additionally, the European Parliament urged 
EU Member States:

“to  produce  disaggregated  data  with  the 
 assistance of FRA, the UNDP and the World Bank 
on the socio‑economic situation of Roma, the 
degree to which Roma experience discrimination 
on the grounds of ethnic origin, and hate crimes 
committed against them, while fully respecting 
data protection standards and the right to pri‑
vacy, and to develop, in cooperation with the 
Commission, the baseline indicators and meas‑
urable targets that are essential for a robust 
monitoring system […].”34

The  challenge  remains  the  limited  progress  in 
 monitoring. With many action plans still under develop‑
ment, few have been monitored or evaluated to date. 
Data  collection  on  Roma  is  fragmented  in  many 
EU Member States, making it even more difficult to 
monitor the progress of implementation. Fundamental 
questions – such as how to statistically define the popu‑
lation collectively labelled as ‘Roma’ – remain open. 
With incomplete official data on Roma, and with some 
Member States prohibiting data collection by ethnicity, 
progress reports often rely on unofficial sources, such 
as the media, academic studies and NGO reports. FRA’s 
work  on  Roma  integration  in  2014  will  focus  on 

Several EU Member States established special steering 
groups or committees to monitor the implementation 
of their national strategies, for example in Croatia35 and 
Finland.36 In Estonia, an informal working group was 
established to collect data and information on Roma 
and  to  raise  public  awareness  of  Roma  culture.37 
Finland’s steering group on Roma policy implementa‑
tion published its first monitoring report at the end 
of 2013, as did that of the Netherlands, whose report 
will serve as a baseline qualitative study to be con‑
ducted every two years.38 In Hungary, a set of indicators 
developed by the Department of Strategic Planning of 
the State Secretariat for Social Inclusion together with 
independent experts were piloted and were fed into 
the  first  government  monitoring  report  on  the 
Government Action Plan for Social Inclusion.39 France 
developed a set of indicators to monitor implemented 
actions.  Austria  is  carrying  out  several  studies  to 
monitor the inclusion of Roma in education, employ‑
ment, housing and access to healthcare. Bulgaria imple‑
mented a project on the integration of marginalised 
communities  with  a  focus  on  Roma,  including  two 
nationally representative surveys to support data col‑
lection and monitoring.40

To address the particular situation of Roma women, the 
Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health published 
a study41 on domestic violence against Roma women, 
which found that women under‑report these crimes, 
often leaving such violence hidden. FRA’s new study 
on violence against women shows, unfortunately, that 
Roma women share this experience of violence and 
related fears with many other women in the EU.

FRA ACTIVITY

Ad-hoc Working Party on 
Roma Integration

In 2013, FRA held the third meeting of its ad‑hoc 
working party on 26 June in Brussels. It discussed 
EU  Member  States’  progress  and  experiences  in 
setting up monitoring mechanisms. Working party 
members saw the local level as an area of poten‑
tial improvement.

FRA  also  introduced  plans  to  pilot  an  indicator 
framework that will help chart progress in Roma 
integration across the EU.

Furthermore, data collection broken down by ethnicity 
may verge on illegality if data protection standards are 
not rigorously adhered to. In September, it was discov‑
ered that police in southern Sweden had kept a register 
with the names of thousands of Roma Swedes, including 
children and some deceased persons. An investigation 

172

Roma integration

determined that the register had several illegal aspects, 
even though it was not based on ethnicity.42

7�2�4�  EU Structural Funds and 

national-level funding for Roma 
integration

In 2010, the European Commission’s Roma Task Force 
identified limited funding from national budgets and 
EU Structural Funds as a major challenge to the imple‑
mentation of national strategies on Roma integration. 
With this in mind, the Commission revised the Regulation 
on Structural Funds, integrating requirements that must 
be complied with before funds are allocated; these are 
termed ex ante conditionalities (see also Section 5.5 of 
Chapter 5).43 These requirements ensure that socio‑eco‑
nomic integration of marginalised communities such as 
the Roma is achieved through the allocation of directly 
managed EU funds.

The development and adoption of the national Roma 
integration  strategies  has  not  implied  substantial 
changes in the use of EU structural funds,44 but many 
governments, including local authorities, put new or 
planned activities on Roma integration on hold, often 
referring  to  austerity  measures  as  the  reason  for 
funding cuts. Municipalities in Bulgaria, for example, 
were required to develop local action plans, but were 
expected to fund them from existing annual budgets. 
In Ireland, the government reduced spending on pro‑
grammes for Travellers by 4.3 % for 2008–2013, hin‑
dering the full implementation of action plans.45

Additionally,  some  projects,  conceived  within  the 
national action plans and strategies, requested funding 
but  received  none.  This  occurred  in  Romania.46  In 
Hungary, municipalities are required to prepare equal 
opportunity programmes as of 1 July 2013 to participate 
in  tenders  financed  by  either  the  national  budget 
or EU funds.

7�3�  Member States target 
integration in four 
priority areas

Education, employment, housing and health are key 
priority areas for Roma integration. Discrimination in 
these areas violates fundamental rights. Roma integra‑
tion efforts are not, however, limited to these areas; 
such challenges as political participation or gender 
equality are no less important.

7�3�1� 

Education

A wide gap persists between Roma and non‑Roma 
children in education. Roma children across the EU fare 

worse in terms of enrolment, participation, educational 
attainment and completion. On average, 89 % of Roma 
surveyed in a FRA Roma pilot survey had not acquired 
any upper secondary education, compared with 38 % of 
the non‑Roma living nearby.47 Roma girls in particular 
drop out from school early.48

Most individual EU Member States have concentrated 
their efforts on education, particularly in projects and 
activities to improve early childhood education and care 
and in promoting measures to support Roma children 
in completing primary education. Although such steps 
do not always explicitly target Roma, several Member 
States,  including  Austria, 49  Bulgaria,  the  Czech 
Republic,50 Finland,51 Luxembourg and Poland, recently 
introduced free compulsory pre‑school or last year of 
kindergarten. They often also provided financial support 
for Roma and families belonging to disadvantaged or 
vulnerable groups and ensured that special places were 
reserved for children from such backgrounds.

Other forms of educational support for Roma were 
 initiated to promote primary school completion. Poland 
introduced financial support for books and school mate‑
rials, while Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia provided free 
school meals. The Netherlands allocated additional 
state budget funds to primary schools with Roma chil‑
dren, as has the Flanders region in Belgium since 2012.

Croatia supported Roma families with pre‑school and 
kindergarten expenses, and Romania provided disad‑
vantaged  students,  including  Roma,  with  milk  and 
bread, financial aid and financial grants for computers.

Croatia,  Hungary,52  Italy53  and  Poland54  supported 
 scholarship programmes for Roma students in primary, 
secondary and tertiary education.

France provided Roma children with free transport to 
school as part of mainstreamed free transport pro‑
grammes. Italy, in contrast, cut public spending, which 
meant  discontinuing  similar  programmes  in  many 
municipalities, including Milan and Naples.55

Portugal implemented awareness‑raising activities on 
the importance of school, with successful Roma partici‑
pating as ambassadors to share their experiences.56 In 
four Belgian cities, neighbourhood stewards promoted 
awareness of the importance of schooling. In Spain, 
a  nationwide  campaign  encourages  Roma  to  com‑
plete high school.

In Bulgaria, the Ministry of Labour and Social initiated 
three calls for projects57 to improve the integration of 
children from ethnic minorities in primary education 
and to reintegrate dropouts. Portugal piloted alterna‑
tive schooling or vocational paths for students who had 
repeatedly failed the same course, aiming to encourage 
students to continue in secondary education.58 Greece 

173

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

also  targeted  Roma  school  attendance,  with  pro‑
grammes including summer classes to help ease the 
transition to secondary school.

To  increase  the  proportion  of  Roma  students  in 
 universities, Romania allocated a quota of places for 
them, benefiting some 3,000 secondary school students.75

Croatia, Finland,59 France and Luxembourg provide lan‑
guage support to help non‑native speakers integrate 
and achieve. Austrian primary schools may provide 
special language support for children who do not have 
German as a mother tongue.60 Similarly, some Danish 
municipalities launched ‘phasing‑in’ classes for students 
whose first language was not Danish, to help them tran‑
sition into regular classes. In Cyprus,61 bilingual teachers 
helped to facilitate communication among students, 
teachers and parents.

Finland introduced Romani language courses in upper 
secondary schools and at the University of Helsinki.62 
Latvia offered support classes on Latvian, sciences and 
foreign languages, and Roma teachers and assistants 
were hired in various municipalities.63 A new Swedish 
initiative enables students from five national minori‑
ties – including Roma – to study their minority language 
as a native language.64 It is also developing new material 
on Roma language, culture and traditions to improve 
staff and student awareness.65

Several EU Member States continued to deploy Roma 
school mediators and assistants. Greece and Portugal,66 
for example, use such mediators; Germany has a pro‑
ject67 that uses mediators and social education assis‑
tants to help Roma children in primary and secondary 
school with homework. They also intervene in cases of 
conflict and advise parents. In some Austrian schools 
with a high percentage of Roma pupils, Roma school 
assistants provided learning support, helped teachers 
and motivated children in class.68 In France, a project 
on school mediators was launched to encourage school 
participation of children from illegal settlements. In 
Luxembourg,  teachers  received  specific  training  on 
instructing Roma students, with mediation offered in 
several  languages.  The  Netherlands  has  mediators 
and counsellors for Sinti, Roma and Travellers. Poland 
provides Roma assistants and tutors to help Roma chil‑
dren,69 and there are assistants for the entire Roma com‑
munity. Teachers and students attend courses on Roma 
culture, and teachers learn how to prevent discrimina‑
tion.70 In Romania, school principals were instructed on 
the rights of the child,71 and some teachers received 
education in the Romani language and Roma history. In 
Slovakia, 110 Roma teaching assistants were involved in 
the national programme of school inclusion at pre‑school 
level, which targets marginalised Roma communities.72

A Slovenian project focuses on facilitating the inclu‑
sion of Roma children in pre‑school; it provided training 
courses for teachers and awareness‑raising campaigns 
for parents.73 Similarly, a website in Finland74 was set 
up to provide information on Finnish Roma history and 
culture, including teaching materials for schools.

Discrimination in education

EU  Member  States  took  measures  to  combat 
 discrimination in education. The Council Recommendation 
on effective Roma integration also explicitly called on 
Member States to eliminate any school segregation and 
to put an end to “any inappropriate placement of Roma 
pupils in special needs schools.”

D e s p i t e   M e m b e r   St a t e s ’   co m m i t m e n t s   t o 
 non‑discrimination, the segregation of Roma children 
in education remains a widespread problem in Member 
States including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania 
and  Slovakia.  Small  steps  forward  were  made,  but 
challenges remain. Latvia, for example, closed ethnic 
classes following a request by the Ombudsman.76 In 
nearly  a  quarter  of  its  schools, Hungary has  estab‑
lished an integrated pedagogical system designed to 
bridge the gap between educationally disadvantaged 
and non‑disadvantaged children.

Research  studies  and  reports  confirm  evidence  of 
 segregation in education, highlighting the severity of the 
issue and underlining the findings of surveys conducted 
by FRA, the UNDP and the World Bank. The European 
Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance  (ECRI) 
expressed concern about racist acts in Finnish schools 
against Roma children, especially in primary schools, the 
most serious problem being racist insults.77

The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on  contemporary 
forms  of  racism,  racial  discrimination,  xenophobia 
and  related  intolerance78  also  highlighted,  after  his 
visit  to  Spain  in  January,  that  Roma  pupils  continue 
to suffer from school discrimination and segregation, 
high dropout rates in secondary education and limited 
access to university.

In the Czech Republic, the School Inspectorate launched 
in September an investigation of Romani school chil‑
dren at schools for children with mild intellectual dis‑
abilities. The research was in response to a judgment 
by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which 
found that 18 Romani children had been unjustifiably 
reassigned to such special schools. The research found 
that 28 % of pupils attending ‘practical schools’ are 
of Roma origin.79

According to a 2013 survey on segregation in Hungary 
published by the Roma Education Fund,80 “educational 
policy is more segregationist when the Romani popula‑
tion is concentrated in segregated areas of town.” The 
survey compared the impacts of the three factors leading 
to school segregation: segregationist local policies, resi‑
dential segregation and the high number of Roma.

174

Roma integration

Some legal developments highlighted the continued 
wrongful  discrimination  and  segregation  of  Roma 
children in schooling. The Hungarian Equal Treatment 
Authority  (Egyenlő  Bánásmód  Hatóság)  imposed 
a  sanction  on  a  teacher  for  making  an  offensive 
statement towards a child of Roma ethnicity during 
a study hall session.81

that on average only 28 % of Roma aged 16 years and 
older indicated ‘paid work’ as a main activity, compared 
with  45  %  for  non‑Roma  living  nearby.  Of  those 
employed, 23 % held ad hoc irregular jobs, often infor‑
mally, 21 % were self‑employed and 9 % had part‑time 
work.90  These  findings  are  also  reflected  in  other 
studies and research.91

Two significant ECtHR judgments in the field of Roma 
and education in 2013 considered it discriminatory that 
Roma pupils attended schools in which there were no 
non‑Roma students. In the Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary 
case, which became final on 29 April, the ECtHR con‑
sidered discriminatory the placing of two young Roma 
men in schools for people with intellectual disabilities, 
and raised the question of whether this might have 
compromised their integration.82 The ECtHR found that 
the Hungarian government had failed to prove that the 
difference in treatment had not had disproportionately 
prejudicial effects on the applicants. Therefore, the 
treatment violated the European Convention on Human 
Rights’ right to education (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1) 
in  conjunction  with  the  prohibition  on  discrimina‑
tion (Article 14).

The importance of this case lies in the long history of 
school segregation of Roma: placing Roma children in 
special remedial schools for children with intellectual dis‑
abilities, in segregated all‑Roma schools or in all‑Roma 
classes in nominally ‘integrated’ mainstream schools. 
This is a long‑standing practice in the Czech Republic,83 
Latvia,84 Romania85 and Slovakia.86 In this regard, the 
Czech Committee of Ministers on Human Rights, on its 
supervision of the D. H. and Others v. Czech Republic 
case, pointed out that a decreasing number of Roma 
children were educated in ‘special schools’, although 
their overall percentage remains disproportionately 
high. According to the European Roma Rights Centre 
(ERRC), little has changed since the judgment. Such 
Roma‑dominated schools continue to provide an inferior 
education “without qualifications for any job beyond the 
most menial and with no hope for the future.”87

The  Lavida  and  Others  v.  Greece  case, 88  final 
since  30  August,  addressed  a  similar  problem  to 
2012’s Sampani and Others v. Greece,89 which became 
final on 29 April 2013, of placing Roma children in schools 
with no non‑Roma students. The Greek authorities’ 
failure to take antisegregation measures was considered 
discriminatory and a violation of the right to education. 
This practice, like that of placing Roma in schools for 
persons with mental disabilities, was common in other 
countries such as France and Romania.

7�3�2� 

Employment

Roma face a disproportionate risk of unemployment. 
When employed, they occupy mostly low‑skilled, inse‑
cure and low‑paid jobs. Data from the FRA survey reveal 

The  Council  Recommendation  on  effective  Roma 
 integration,  from  December,  recommended  that 
EU Member States “take effective measures to ensure 
equal treatment of Roma in access to the labour market 
and to employment opportunities.”92 The majority of 
2013 initiatives focused on improving workplace inte‑
gration and supporting Roma employment services. 
Many Member States set up or continued projects sup‑
porting Roma job seekers, assisting with such skills as 
training for active job seeking, language courses, guid‑
ance in writing CVs and developing individual employ‑
ment plans. Belgium, Croatia, France, Lithuania, Poland, 
Portugal  and  Slovenia,  for  example,  carried 
out such initiatives.

An Austrian project offered job and career counselling 
to Roma job seekers.93 Germany implemented voca‑
tional guidance programmes for young Roma.94

In Belgium, intercultural mediators began providing 
individualised support to facilitate dialogue between 
local Roma communities and public institutions, and to 
support integration into the workforce for vulnerable 
groups, funded under the ESF.95 Portugal organised 
labour mediators to encourage unemployed Roma to 
sign up at the labour office, and Bulgaria96 established 
an NGO network of Roma labour mediators in June.

Cyprus, whose Roma job seekers often cannot speak 
English or Greek, introduced national and local language 
programmes,97 but Roma participation was minimal. Job 
centres in Denmark also provided language courses.

Portugal offered basic skills adult training programmes 
for adults, to enable Roma, among others, to gain entry 
to other training leading to qualifications.98 Hungary 
also offered adult vocational education and training 
courses, providing special support for training courses 
connected to public work. At least 15 % of individuals 
benefiting from labour market programmes must be 
of Roma origin.

Childcare services and facilities can support integration 
in employment. The Czech Republic and Germany,99 
therefore, took measures to increase their availability.

Some  EU  Member  States  have  taken  measures  to 
address Roma women’s employment challenges. In 
a pilot project, Slovenia trained 23 Roma as cooks and 
waiters,  and  then  set  up  a  restaurant  employing 
four of them. The project promotes Roma inclusion and 

175

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

the preservation of their traditional cuisine.100 Belgium 
launched projects to support pathways to employment 
for Roma women, and Hungary developed such a pro‑
ject for 1,000 Roma women.101 Lithuania initiated a pro‑
ject to foster Roma women’s entrepreneurship through 
traditional crafts such as sewing and embroidery. The 
participants managed all project activities themselves. 
The products are all available for sale, with the proceeds 
reinvested in new empowerment projects for Roma 
women. A new Swedish programme intends to further 
the education of marginalised Roma women to increase 
their opportunities to find employment.

Promising practice

Promoting Roma women’s education 
and employment

The  Türr  István  Training  and  Research  Institute 
and the National Roma Self‑Government of Hun‑
gary implemented a project to enhance the edu‑
cation  and  employability  of  Roma  women.  The 
programme,  Women  Are  the  Opportunity!,  pro‑
vides Roma women with theoretical and practical 
vocational training. Participants are then provid‑
ed  with  employment  in  social  and  child  welfare 
services,  including  as  social  workers  or  nurses. 
The programme combines skills and mentoring.

The programme is targeted at women job hunters 
disadvantaged  by  a  lack  of  education.  Partici‑
pants must have completed primary education.

For more information, see www.tkki.hu/page.php?mid=122

Discrimination in employment

Despite  measures  to  improve  access  to  the  labour 
market and professional qualifications, Roma continue 
to face discrimination both in access to employment 
and in the workplace. The data from surveys conducted 
by  FRA,  the  UNDP  and  the  World  Bank  reflect  this 
reality: a significant part of the gap in employment 
between Roma and non‑Roma cannot be explained by 
education or qualification level.102

A research study in Hungary by the Equal Treatment 
Authority,on employee selection practices, revealed 
that Roma job seekers, or those who were perceived 
to  be  Roma,  faced  10  times  as  high  as  those  for 
non‑Roma.103 A study published in 2013 confirmed such 
discrimination, showing similar results for those par‑
ticipating in public employment schemes.104 The Finnish 
Ombudsman for Minorities105 also confirmed discrimina‑
tion against Roma in employment and housing.

Only  a  few  EU  Member  States  took  action  to 
eliminate  discrimination  in  employment.  Greece 
developed  a  project  to  combat  discrimination  in 
entrepreneurship,  with  a  focus  on  women  and 

young  Roma  and  Muslim  migrants.106  The  Czech 
Republic finished training employment office staff 
on antidiscrimination measures.107

Several legal developments also reflected the extent 
of discrimination against Roma in employment. The 
Croatian  County  Court  of  Varaždin  upheld  a  2012 
Municipal  Court  verdict,  which  considered  a  shop 
owner’s rejection of Roma applications on account of 
their ethnicity as discriminatory.108

The Hungarian EBH determined that a difference in the 
sanctions applied to two public employees for the same 
petty offence was due to the Roma ethnicity of one of 
them, and was therefore discriminatory.109

7�3�3�  Housing

The European Commission, in its first assessment of 
national strategies in 2012, called on EU Member States 
to  close  the  gap  between  Roma  and  non‑Roma  in 
access to housing and to public utilities, including the 
promotion of non‑discriminatory access to housing.110 
The December Council Recommendation on effective 
Roma integration further recommended that Member 
States take effective measures to ensure equal treat‑
ment of Roma in access to housing through “eliminating 
any spatial segregation and promoting desegregation, 
promoting  non‑discriminatory  access  to  social 
housing”111 and ensuring access to public utilities and 
infrastructure.  However,  few  Member  States  took 
action in the housing area in 2013. Housing segregation 
and forced evictions remained a serious concern and 
a  huge  challenge  to  their  successful  integration  in 
many Member States.

The availability and affordability of social housing and 
promoting non‑discrimination in access to housing are 
particularly important. Criteria designed for social housing 
for vulnerable groups often exclude Roma families.112

In Portugal, the Institute of Housing and Urban Renewal 
(Instituto da Habitação e Reabilitação Urbana) collected 
data on Roma community housing conditions and on 
municipal projects, whether finished, under way or 
planned. The survey findings identified 54 municipal 
projects, 11 of which related to housing management.

Cyprus implemented projects to repair houses and build 
prefabricated houses with basic amenities.113 Poland, 
Portugal  and  Romania  also  renovated  housing  or 
improved social housing conditions. Slovakia is building 
new houses in three marginalised Roma municipali‑
ties.114 Greece and Slovenia also undertook infrastruc‑
tural improvements, building access roads and providing 
electricity and sewerage to Roma settlements.

The United Kingdom is allocating GBP 60 million up to 
the end of 2015 to build over 600 new, and refurbish 

176

Roma integration

400 existing, pitches for Travellers.115 French law requires 
cities with more than 5,000 inhabitants to have recep‑
tion areas for Gens du voyage, and it allocates funding 
to  suppor t  housing  and  integration  projec ts 
in illegal settlements.

Promising practice

Building hope

ETP  Slovakia –  Centre  for  Sustainable  Develop‑
ment  continued  to  provide  housing‑deprived 
Roma in Slovakia with the opportunity to secure 
simple, decent and affordable homes.

‘Building  Hope’  enables  clients  to  build  their 
own  houses.  The  project  uses  a  light  construc‑
tion  system  with  less  expensive  recycled  and 
ecological  materials.  The  programme  provides 
professional supervision, assistance with admin‑
istrative requirements, and microloans to finance 
construction.

The basic 25 m2 model includes a bathroom with 
toilet,  washbasin  and  bathtub,  a  kitchen  sink, 
a  room  for  daily  use  and  a  sleeping  area  on  an 
elevated floor. It is possible to enlarge the house 
to 37.5 m2 by enclosing the porch, gaining an ad‑
ditional room to serve as a bedroom.

Construction takes about 12 months. Loans of up 
to  €6,000  are  to  be  repaid  in  10  years.  Partici‑
pating families must take part in ETP educational 
and  financial  savings  programmes,  demonstrat‑
ing a strong commitment to changing their lives.

The project tackles generational poverty and the 
social exclusion of marginalised Roma. It also al‑
lows  unemployed  Roma  to  earn  wages  while 
learning vocational, life and personal skills.

For more information, see www.etp.sk/en/category/
budujeme‑nadej/

Croatia, Portugal and Denmark prioritised the alloca‑
tion of 25 % of social housing to those with special 
concerns. In Luxembourg, home ownership is subsi‑
dised for residents and social housing is accessible for 
all by priority. Slovakia provided a state housing allow‑
ance, although it was not specific to Roma. Three munic‑
ipalities  in  Bulgaria116  prepared  a  pilot  scheme  on 
modern social housing.

Czech law requires equal access to all types of housing, 
including social housing, but a civil society monitoring 
report  pointed  to  a  lack  of  social  housing  as 
a severe problem.117

Some EU Member States, including Croatia, provide 
legal support for housing, concretely financial support 
to enable Roma to obtain the documentation needed 
to  legalise  housing.  The  Czech Republic  distributes 
grants to NGOs that provide housing advice.

Roma civil society has also launched housing  initiatives. 
In the Netherlands, the Association of Dutch Sinti, 
Roma and Caravan Dwellers advocates for a continued 
caravan lifestyle. It also wants to serve as a partner 
for  dialogue  with  public  authorities  in  the 
field of housing.

Discrimination in housing

Despite efforts to improve the Roma housing situation, 
negative developments also took place. In Hungary, 
a programme to reduce segregated neighbourhoods 
faced funding‑related delays.118 Many forced evictions 
were reported in Italy, and housing loan repayment 
problems continued to dog Roma in Greece.119

More than half the Roma population in Slovakia lived 
in 804 marginalised concentrations. Of those Roma, 
12.9 % lived in urban concentrations or ghettos within 
municipalities, 23.8 % lived on the outskirts of munici‑
palities and 17 % lived in segregated areas.120

ECRI noted in its report on Portugal121 that housing is 
the single greatest problem facing the Roma population. 
Many Roma continue to live in precarious conditions, 
often in shanties or tents. Many Roma rehousing pro‑
grammes result in spatial and social segregation and 
discriminatory practices, it noted.

The Swedish Equality Ombudsman noted that, among 
Swedish national minorities, only Roma report cases of 
discrimination. The reports mostly concern housing, 
social services and the provision of goods and services.122

Forced evictions remain a deep‑seated problem, with 
cases  reported  in  2013  in  France,  Greece,  Ireland, 
Italy and Romania.

According to figures gathered by the Human Rights 
League (LDH) and the ERRC, more than 21,537 Roma 
were forcibly evicted from a total of 187 sites in France 
in 2013, more than double the 2012 figure. Law enforce‑
ment officers carried out 165 evictions affecting almost 
19,380 people, and another 22 evictions due to fire, 
floods or attack, affecting 2,157 Roma.123

In response to repeated reports of forced evictions in 
Italy and the segregation of Roma and Sinti in various 
cities, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human 
Rights wrote to the Mayor of Rome in December, saying 
that “the situation of Roma and refugees in Italy is 
a long‑standing concern. Local authorities, including in 
Rome, have an important role to play in improving the 
living conditions of these people.”

After a six‑day notice period, a Romania municipality 
razed  a  Roma  community  in  Eforie  Sud,  leaving 
100  people  without  housing.  Some  families  sought 
shelter in a dilapidated building without facilities or 

177

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

made makeshift huts out of the ruins, only to see them 
bulldozed again two weeks later.124

The Public Defender of Rights125 was asked to review 
the implementation and procedures used in 20 cases 
of forced eviction, mostly involving Roma EU citizens 
of Romanian or Bulgarian origin, in France.

The ERRC lodged a complaint against Ireland before the 
European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR). The com‑
plaint, lodged on 19 April 2013, alleged that the govern‑
ment had violated a number of rights in the Revised 
European Social Charter through evictions and sub‑
standard housing conditions for Travellers.126 The com‑
plaint named the right of the family to social, legal and 
economic protection (Article 16), the right of children 
and young persons to social, legal and economic protec‑
tion  (Article  17)  and  the  right  to  protection  against 
poverty and social exclusion (Article 30).

In its judgment in Winterstein and Others v. France, not 
yet final, the ECtHR held that the eviction of Roma 
families violated the ECHR’s right to respect for private 
and family life and home (Article 8).127 The court noted 
that the claimants had been living on the same site for 
a long time, other housing was not provided to all of 
them, and the domestic authorities failed to assess the 
measure’s proportionality. The ECtHR linked Winterstein 
to its 2012 ruling in the Yordanova case,128 in which it 
found Bulgaria in violation of Article 8,129 and reaffirmed 
that Roma as a minority, and one in a vulnerable situ‑
ation,  require  states  to  pay  special  attention 
to their needs.

In a related case, the Administrative Tribunal of Lyon, 
dealing with social housing for an evicted Roma family, 
also determined that the municipality should provide 
them  with  emergency  accommodation.  A  court  in 
Aix‑in‑Provence also ruled that the municipality did not 
have the right to evict families from private property.130 
The  Greek  Ombudsman  also  intervened  in  a  case 
relating to the eviction of Roma from a camp in Halandri, 
noting that the state should ensure appropriate alterna‑
tive accommodation before demolishing a camp.131 In 
Romania, the Cluj‑Napoca County Court determined 
that  the  eviction  of  more  than  300  Roma  from  the 
Pata‑Rât settlement in 2010 was illegal.132 A similar case 
is under way at the Regional Court of Wroclaw, Poland, 
where the municipality requested the eviction of 20 
persons from an illegal camp in March.

The Slovenian Advocate of the Principle of Equality 
asked Novo Mesto municipality to reconsider social 
housing criteria to ensure that such housing is equally 
accessible to the most disadvantaged groups, including 
Roma.133 In the United Kingdom, the High Court of Justice 
of  England  and  Wales  ruled,  in  a  case  concerning 
housing benefit for two Roma Gypsies who had moved 
from a public to a private caravan site, that the benefit 

calculation  should  not  consider  the  fact  they  were 
Roma.134 In Sweden, compensation was awarded to 
a Roma woman whose landlord had cancelled her con‑
tract, arguing that neighbours would not want to live 
in the same building as a “gypsy”.135

7�3�4�  Health

Poor  living  standards  and  housing  conditions, 
 exacerbated by limited access to healthcare services, 
mean poor health for many Roma. Data from FRA, UNDP 
and World Bank surveys show that a significant propor‑
tion of Roma do not have, or are not aware that they 
have, health insurance; in practice, this deprives them 
of medical services.

The  Council  Recommendation  on  effective  Roma 
 integration acknowledged the need to ensure equal 
treatment of Roma in access to healthcare services. It 
recommended that EU Member States remove barriers 
to  accessing  healthcare.  It  called  specifically  for 
improved  access  to  regular  preventative  medical 
check‑ups and other medical services generally pro‑
vided by national healthcare services, such as free 
vaccination programmes, especially for children and 
Roma in remote areas. Still, few such measures were 
initiated in 2013.

Several Member States worked to improve Roma access 
to public health services. Austria launched a project to 
promote  Roma  access  to  the  public  health  service, 
beginning interviews with health service providers and 
Roma community representatives in 2013.

Health mediators continued their work in  Bulgaria,136 
France,  Italy,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  Sweden.137  In 
Slovakia, for example, health mediators provided infor‑
mation on basic hygiene, early child care, reproductive 
and sexual health and food and environmental safety. 
They  also  ensure  access  to  health  insurance 
cards and vaccinations.138

Several  Member  States  deployed  medical  social 
 assistants or counsellors. The Czech Republic uses 
them but, to date, only a handful have been trained.139 
Cyprus and Hungary have health guard assistants, 
based on a health service model launched in July for 
disadvantaged micro‑regions. Ireland140 and Portugal 
make mobile health units available, while Roma in 
some Bulgarian could use the mobile units for free 
gynaecological and paediatric exams and lab analyses. 
Croatia, Ireland, Italy and Greece141 carried out free 
vaccination  campaigns  for  Roma,  particularly 
for Roma children.

Some  Member  States  implemented  outreach 
 programmes and workshops on medical topics. Finland 
established such programmes on hygiene and health 
and the importance of regular health screening for 

178

Roma integration

Roma. Bulgaria142 provided HIV prevention workshops 
and  Hungary  delivered  healthcare  communication 
campaigns.  Hungary  also  launched  a  professional 
educational  programme  in  2013,  under  which 
low‑skilled persons in the most disadvantaged regions 
received an education on basic health‑related issues. 
Following the training, they can pass on basic preven‑
tative information and advocate healthier lifestyles in 
their local communities. Lithuanian services ran chil‑
dren’s courses on healthy lifestyle, hygiene and sanita‑
tion. Poland provided first‑aid courses and continued 
a prevention project.

Other initiatives, involving financial support, aimed to 
boost  the  numbers  of  Roma  health  professionals. 
Romania introduced a Roma health scholarship pro‑
gramme in 2008 and Bulgaria added a programme in 
2009 for Roma students to attend medical university, 
both of which continued implementation in 2013.

Promising practice

Providing Roma health scholarships

The Open Society Institute in Sofia and the Amal‑
ipe Centre run the Roma Health Scholarship Pro‑
ject,  which  supports  Roma  students  who  study 
medicine, to increase the number of Roma health 
professionals in the healthcare system.

The programme includes preparatory courses. In 
addition, every student has a university professor 
as a mentor. For students enrolled over the sum‑
mer,  Amalipe  organises  an  advocacy  camp.  The 
camp  teaches  students  about  Roma  history  and 
specific  Roma  community  health  problems  as 
well as soft skills, including conflict resolution and 
leadership and advocacy skills.

The programme started as an Open Society Insti‑
tute and Amalipe NGO initiative, but the Bulgarian 
Ministry of Health, having recognised it as one of 
the three leading practices for Roma health inte‑
gration, will manage it from 2014.

For more information, see http://amalipe.com/index.
php?nav=projects&id=38&lang=2

Greek  efforts  to  improve  healthcare  access,  an 
 important development for Roma, encountered finan‑
cial difficulties in 2013. The socio‑medical centres, which 
were  operating  in  municipalities  with  a  high  Roma 
population, ran out of financing because of the coun‑
try’s economic crisis.

Slovakia  introduced  consent  forms  in  minority 
 languages, including in Romani, after several ECtHR 
sentences condemned forced sterilisations. However, 
several NGOs have reported that these forms have had 
only limited effect, because most Roma women are 
illiterate and understand only the spoken language.143

Slovenia  amended  its  legislation  to  provide 
 non‑compulsor y  health  insurance  to  socially 
 disadvantaged groups, including Roma.144 Sweden is 
developing  a  hotline  for  Roma  girls  on  sexual 
and reproductive health.145

A paper on Roma and health mediation in Romania, 
published in late 2013,146 promotes health equity with 
a particular focus on Roma.

The Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare 
began a research project on the health situation of 
Roma.147  The  institute  conducted  a  pilot  study  on 
a sample of 30 individuals at the end of 2013 and will 
carry out the main research from 2014 to 2016.

A Bulgarian programme trained teachers, doctors and 
social workers to cooperate with the Roma community 
and raised awareness on racism and anti‑Roma atti‑
tudes.148 The Czech Republic and Romania also have 
compulsory educational components on ethics, non‑dis‑
crimination and communication in medicine, dentistry 
and pharmacy.149 In Italy, a health mediation project 
was initiated in 2013 in Rome.150

Discrimination in access to health

Few EU Member States made progress in implementing 
measures to reduce discrimination in healthcare. Most 
of those efforts focused on training and awareness 
raising among healthcare professionals regarding Roma.

In addition to the few targeted measures developed in 
some Member States, other legal developments also 
highlighted the issue of Roma and health. The Chamber 
of the ECtHR requested observations on the case Z. K. v. 
Slovakia151 from the government in 2013. The applicant 
is a woman of Roma origin who was sterilised, allegedly 
without informed consent, during the delivery of her 
second child, when she was still underage. The case is 
similar to others in which Slovakia was found responsible 
for forcibly sterilising women of Roma origin without 
their consent: V. C. v. Slovakia,152 N. B. v. Slovakia153 and 
I. G. and Others v. Slovakia,154 the last becoming final on 
29 April. However, the ECtHR did not find a violation of 
the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 of the ECHR) 
on account of their ethnicity in any of the cases.

7�4�  Anti-Gypsyism, hate 

speech and hate crime 
against Roma

A number of reports by European and international 
bodies such as ECRI and CAHROM, and studies carried 
out  by  NGOs,  have  documented  the  prevalence  of 
anti‑Gypsism.  In  July,  ECRI  published  a  report  on 
Portugal155 revealing that, according to NGO reports, 

179

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

“more than half of Roma people have felt discriminated 
against or badly treated by the police” and criticising 
the national strategy for failing to address anti‑Gyp‑
syism as a specific form of racism. In late 2013, CAHROM 
endorsed a thematic report on combating anti‑Gyp‑
syism, hate speech and hate crime against Roma.156

The Research Centre for Culture, Education and anti‑Gyp‑
syism in Mannheim, RomnoKher, commissioned a report 
in July on anti‑Gypsyism and discrimination against Sinti 
and Roma, which found widespread racism in all areas 
of German social life, including in access to education, 
employment and housing and when dealing with public 
authorities.157  Right‑wing  political  parties’  use  of 
anti‑Gypsy speech in the 2013 federal election campaign 
further reflected racial tensions.158

A study in Luxembourg159 also found negative attitudes 
towards Roma and anti‑Gypsyism, with 26 % of resi‑
dents not wanting a Roma neighbour. In the Czech 
Republic, a survey carried out in November 2012 found 
that  71  %  of  respondents  had  a  negative  attitude 
towards Roma, 10 % said that they were disgusted by 
Roma and 43 % were afraid of Roma.160

Various incidents across Europe provide further  evidence 
of racism against Roma. In January, supporters of the 
extremist party Golden Dawn allegedly attacked the 
Roma settlement in Aitoliko, Greece, burning down six 
unoccupied makeshift homes and destroying four vehi‑
cles.161 At the end of May, posters bearing the words 
“Gypsies out of the town forever”162 appeared in the town. 
Other incidents included Golden Dawn members’ verbal 
attacks against Roma outside the Kalamata Messinia 
hospital,163 and incidents in the Ari Messinia village.164

In the Czech Republic, the Municipal Court of Prague 
recognised secondary victimisation in the existence of 
damages beyond material ones, in the case of Roma 
who suffered an attack by right‑wing extremists. It 
overruled the sentence of the Court of First Instance. In 
Hungary, the equality body punished an entertainment 
establishment for refusing entrance to six Roma people 
on account of their ethnicity.165

The  Vilnius  Regional  Court  in  Lithuania  sentenced 
three people for a physical attack on a Roma community 
member,  as  well  as  two  verbal  attacks,  including 
threats.166 An ongoing case in Łódź, Poland, deals with 
an attack and threats to a Roma family in October.167

In Hungary, the Budapest Court of Justice convicted 
three men of premeditated homicide, with the aggra‑
vating  circumstance  of  cruelty,  for  the  murders  of 
six members of the Roma community and the injury of 
others  in  a  series  of  nine  attacks  committed 
in 2008 and 2009. A fourth man was convicted of being 
an accessory to multiple homicide. The court recognised 
a racial motivation behind the crimes.168

A  Hungarian  parliamentary  inquiry  into  this  case 
 established that the National Security Office repeatedly 
failed to prioritise the six murders and to pass relevant 
information to police investigators. The Chair of the 
Parliament’s National Security Committee announced 
in August that the Committee would initiate an inquiry 
into the investigation of the 2008–2009 Roma murders.169

Roma  have  also  been  subject  to  police  abuse.  In 
Slovakia, a Roma man with an intellectual disability 
was wrongly left in police custody for over two months 
following an incident in Moldava nad Bodvou.170

Similarly, the ECRI noted that in Finland “Roma are 
victims of racial profiling and that there are cases of 
police violence when members of this community are 
arrested, but that not much information is available 
on the subject.”171

Several incidents of racist hate speech directed at Roma 
were reported in 2013. In Hungary, a founding member 
of the ruling Fidesz party wrote an opinion column for 
a newspaper in January which used highly offensive 
language,172 comparing Roma to animals.173 Some NGOs 
asked  companies  to  pull  their  advertising  from  the 
newspaper, the Magyar Hírlap, until it stopped pub‑
lishing racist, antisemitic or homophobic articles.

In France, in an interview published on 15 March in the 
French daily paper Le Figaro, the Interior Minister said 
that Roma migrants from Bulgaria and Romania living 
in camps in France had no interest in integrating into 
French society, “for cultural reasons or because they 
are in the hands of begging or prostitution networks”.174

In Slovakia, the Supreme Court acquitted a politician 
(who was later elected regional governor of Banska 
Bystrica) of promoting racial hatred. The court consid‑
ered there was no intention to promote hatred towards 
Roma.  A  Slovenian  court  sentenced  a  person  for 
inciting hatred, violence and intolerance in a comment 
under a Roma‑related article in a news portal. In Spain, 
a  local  Barcelona  court  acquitted  the  mayor  of 
Badalona of inciting discrimination, hatred and vio‑
lence  for  distributing  flyers  linking  Romanian 
Roma to criminality.

In  Romania,  the  National  Council  for  Combating 
Discrimination  investigated  three  cases  regarding 
alleged hate speech. The Mayor of Târgu Mureş was 
fined  for  offensive  remarks  regarding  Roma. 
A  councillor of Alba Iulia was fined for inciting racial 
hatred for a statement made on a Facebook page, 
where he supported the sterilisation of Roma women 
and made derogatory remarks towards Roma. In the 
third case, however, the national council considered 
the  Prime  Minister’s  statements  on  a  BBC  show, 
linking  criminality  and  Roma,  acceptable  under 
freedom of expression.

180

Roma integration

In Italy, the Civil Court of Pescara declared that posters 
and public statements by the Popolo della Libertà (PdL) 
and the Lega Nord in Abruzzo linking Roma to crimi‑
nals were discriminatory.175

In Poland, an ongoing case is examining the possible 
discriminatory nature of a Facebook page on which 
there  was  incitement  to  use  force  against 
Roma in Andrychów.176

In Italy, the Civil Court of Rome ordered the Ministry of 
the Interior to destroy sensitive information on Italian 
Roma. Police obtained these data, including finger‑
prints, in accordance with nomad emergency legislation 
adopted in 2008, which the Council of State declared 
unlawful  in  November  2011.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
Cassation upheld the Council of State’s decision on 
26 June. In Slovenia, it was reported that police officers, 
judges and other public servants with frequent contact 
with Roma received training to overcome prejudices 
towards Roma population.177

Outlook

EU institutions and the Council of Europe will continue 
to  support  Member  States’  efforts  to  improve  the 
socio‑economic situation of Roma and to protect them 
from fundamental rights violations. This will be particu‑
larly important in view of the ongoing economic crisis, 
which affects social solidarity and adds ‘austerity’ argu‑
ments to anti‑Gypsy rhetoric.

Evidence has shown that the successful implementation 
and sustainability of Roma integration actions depend 

on  the  political  will  and  commitment  of  local  and 
regional authorities, because they are responsible for 
translating national strategies into specific actions. 
Learning from past experience, these authorities are 
expected to rely less on one‑off projects and rather 
target Roma explicitly in their mainstream activities 
against poverty and social exclusion, one of the seven 
flagship  initiatives  of  Europe’s  2020  strategy.  They 
should also focus on gaining the trust of Roma com‑
munities through systematic efforts to ensure that they 
can participate actively in an equitable and meaningful 
way in actions that concern them. Successes on the 
ground would, in turn, help win over greater public sup‑
port for Roma integration.

The social and economic integration of Roma, who for 
centuries have been socially excluded and marginal‑
ised,  will  be  a  gradual  process.  It  is,  nevertheless, 
important to show positive achievements and gradual 
progress over time. In this regard, it is expected that 
EU institutions and Member States will focus on devel‑
oping and implementing more effective monitoring 
and evaluation processes.

Regular  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  individual 
 interventions and of the broader national Roma integra‑
tion strategies is needed. To this end, FRA will support 
the Member States through its working party on Roma 
integration developing and testing appropriate tools 
and methods, and a common indicator framework to 
measure progress in guaranteeing the fundamental 
rights of Roma.

181

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178

BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 173, 175, 176

BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180

CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173, 174, 175, 176, 178

CZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180

DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 174, 175, 180 

DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175, 177

EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180

ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 173, 174, 180

FI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 180

FR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 180

HR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178

HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180

IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 172, 173, 177, 178

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 171, 173, 177, 178, 179, 181

LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 175, 176, 179, 180

LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173, 174, 177, 180

LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 174, 175

MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177

PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181

PT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179

RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180

SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 172, 178, 179

SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181

SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180

UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 176, 178

182

Roma integration

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

The use of the term ‘Roma’ in this FRA Annual report 
follows the approach of the Council of Europe, which uses 
the term to refer to “Roma, Sinti, Kale and related groups in 
Europe, including Travellers and the Eastern groups (Dom 
and Lom), and covers the wide diversity of the groups 
concerned, including persons who identify themselves as 
Gypsies.” Council of Europe (2012), Descriptive glossary of 
terms relating to Roma issues, version dated 12 May 2012, 
Strasbourg, http://hub.coe.int/c/document_library/get_fil
e?uuid=83de8f0d‑ee32‑40c9‑b92e‑e77edec4638
8&groupId=10227.

European Commission (2013), Communication from the 
Commission to the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Steps 
forward in implementing National Roma Integration 
Strategies, COM(2013) 454 final, Brussels, 26 June 2013, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CO
M:2013:0454:FIN:EN:HTML.

European Commission (2013), Proposal for a Council 
Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures 
in the Member States, COM(2013) 460 final, Brussels, 
26 June 2013, http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0460:FIN:EN:HTML.

Council of the European Union (2013), Council 
Recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma 
integration measures in the Member States, OJ 2013 C 278, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:
C:2013:378:0001:0007:EN:PDF.

ROMED (2013), About ROMED, http://coe‑romed.org/about.

Council of Europe (2013), ‘ROMACT programme launches in 
Bulgaria and Romania’, Press release, 11 October 2013.

Council of Europe, Ad hoc committee of experts on Roma 
issues (CAHROM) (2013), Thematic report on school 
attendance of Roma children, in particular Roma girls, 
CAHROM(2013)5, Strasbourg, 22 April 2013, http://hub.coe.
int/cahrom1.

CAHROM (2013), Thematic report on social housing for Roma 
and legalisation of Roma settlements and houses, 
CAHROM (2013)18, Strasbourg, 29 October 2013; 
CAHROM (2013), Thematic report on encampment areas 
and other issues relating to Travellers, CAHROM (2013)6, 
Strasbourg, 30 April 2013, http://hub.coe.int/cahrom1.

CAHROM (2013), Thematic report on combating 
anti‑Gypsyism, hate speech and hate crime against Roma, 
CAHROM (2013)21, Strasbourg, 9 December 2013, http://hub.
coe.int/cahrom1.

10   Poland, Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych 

i  Administracji (2003), Program na rzecz społeczności rom‑
skiej w Polsce na lata 2004–2013.

11   Poland, Rada Ministrów(2013), Projekt Programu Integracji 
Społeczności Romskiej w Polsce na Lata 2014–2020, 
30 October 2013.

12   Romea (2013), ‘Czech Senate rejects EU efforts to improve 
Romani integration’, 3 December 2013, http://www.romea.
cz/en/news/czech/czech‑senate‑rejects‑eu‑efforts‑to
‑improve‑romani‑integration.

13   Decade of Roma Inclusion (2013), Civil society monitoring 
report on the implementation of the national Roma 
integration strategy and decade action plan in 2012 in 
Slovakia, Budapest, pp. 21–22, http://www.romadecade.org/
cms/upload/file/9270_file14_sk_civil‑society‑monitoring‑ 
report_en.pdf.

14   European Commission (2013), Communication from the 
Commission to the European Economic and Social 

Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Steps 
forward in implementing national Roma integration 
strategies, COM(2013) 454 final, Brussels, 26 June 2013, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CO
M:2013:0454:FIN:EN:HTML.

15   Bulgaria, Национален съвет за сътрудничество по 

етническите и интеграционните въпроси (2012), 
Документи в помощ на областното планиране 
в съответствие с Националната стратегия на 
Република България за интегриране на ромите 
(2012–2020 г.), 20 December 2012.

16   EUBusiness (2013), ‘Roma integration: Progress report and 

recommendation’, 26 June 2013, http://www.eubusiness.
com/topics/living‑in‑eu/roma‑2.

17   Germany, Abgeordnetenhaus Berlin (2013), Berliner 
Aktionsplan zur Einbeziehung ausländischer Roma, 
19 July 2013.

18   Sweden, Länsstyrelsen i Stockholm (2013), Romsk 

inkludering, Stockholm.

19   Latvia (2012), Romu integrācijas politikas īstenošanas un 

koordinācijas konsultatīvās padomes nolikums, 6 July 2012.

20   Slovenia, Zakon o romski skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji, 

ZRomS‑1, 30 March 2007.

21   Spain, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad 
(2012), Estrategia Nacional para la inclusión Social de la 
Población Gitana 2012–2020, www.msssi.gob.es/ssi/
familiasInfancia/inclusionSocial/poblacionGitana/
estrategiaNacional.htm.

22  

Italy, Giunta Regionale (2013), Istituzione del Tavolo 
regionale per l’inclusione e l’integrazione sociale delle 
persone Rom, Sinte e Camminanti e approvazione avviso 
pubblico, 31 October 2013.

23   Associazione Nazione Rom (2013), ‘Rom Firenze: Richiesta 

interrogazione parlamentare su omissioni della regione 
Toscana’, Firenze Today, 24 May 2013.

24   Slovenia, Zakon o romski skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji, 

ZRomS‑1, 30 March 2007.

25   Foyer (2013), Dienst Roma & Woonwagenbewoners 
Werkjaar 2012: Het overzicht, Brussels, Foyer.

26   Netherlands, Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (2013), 
‘Nieuwe Commissievoorstellen en initiatieven van de 
lidstaten van de Europese Unie’, Kamerstuk 22 112‑1675, 
30 August 2013, p. 5.

27   European Commission (2013), Communication from the 
Commission to the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Steps 
forward in implementing national Roma integration 
strategies, COM(2013) 454 final, Brussels, 26 June 2013.

28   Austria, Bundeskanzleramt, Dialogplattform zur Integration 
der Roma bis 2020, www.bka.gv.at/site/7660/default.aspx.

29   Belgium, Oost‑Vlaams Diversiteitscentrum (OdiCE) (2013), 

‘Interview with Stijn De Reu’, 18 October 2013.

30   Balogh, L., Daróczi, G., Ivány, B., Moldova, Z., Novoszádek, N., 

Kelemen, Á., Koltai, L., Somogyi, E., Szendrey, O. and 
Teller, N. (2013), Updated civil society monitoring report 
on the implementation of the national Roma integration 
strategy and decade action plan in 2012 and 2013 in Hungary, 
Budapest, Decade of Roma Inclusion Secretariat Foundation.

31  

Jungtinių Tautų Vystymo Programos Lietuvoje, Lietuvos 
čigonų bendrijos “Čigonų laužas”, Lietuvos sakaliukų 
sąjungos, Lietuvos žmogaus teisių centro l.e.p. Lietuvos 
vaikų fondo, Nacionalinio socialinės integracijos instituto, 
Romų integracijos namų l.e., Romų visuomenės centro, 
Socialinio įdarbinimo centro “SOPA” (2012), Romų ir su 
romais dirbančių organizacijų rezoliucija dėl romų 
integracijos strategijos Lietuvoje, 15 March 2012.

183

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

32   Slovakia, Vláda SR (2013), Stratégia SR v integrácii rómskych 
komunít, Task C 4, adopted by Government Resolution 
No. 1/2012, 11 January 2012.

33   Център за междуетнически диалог и толерантност 

“Амалипе” (2013), ‘Roma organizations left NCCEII’, 
10 April 2013.

34   European Parliament (2013), Resolution of 12 December 2013 
on the progress made in the implementation of the National 
Roma Integration Strategies (2013/2924(RSP)), Strasbourg, 
www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=‑//EP//
TEXT+TA+P7‑TA‑2013‑0594+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

35   Croatia, Government (2013), Odluka o osnivanju 

Povjerenstva za praćenje provedbe Nacionalne strategije za 
uključivanje Roma, za razdoblje od 2013. do 2020., 
4 July 2013.

36   Finland, Sosiaali‑ ja terveysministeriö (STM)/Social‑ och 

hälsovårdsministeriet (SHM) (2009), Suomen 
romanipoliittinen ohjelma: Työryhmän esitys/Politisk 
program för romerna i Finland: Arbetsgruppens 
promemoria.

37  

Information provided by the Estonian Kultuuriministeerium.

38   Movisie (2013), Nulmeting: Ervaringen en meningen van 
Roma, Sinti en professionals over de sociale inclusie van 
Roma en Sinti in de domeinen van onderwijs, werk, wonen, 
gezondheid en veiligheid, Utrecht, Movisie.

39   Hungary, Szociális Ágazati Információs Rendszer (2012), 

Nemzeti Társadalmi Felzárkóztatási Stratégia indikátor 
rendszer, Budapest.

40   Bulgaria, Project BG051РО001‑6.2.11, ‘Development of 

comprehensive measures for the integration of the most 
marginalized communities among the ethnic minorities, 
with a focus on the Roma’, http://www.mlsp.government.
bg/bg/projects/Publication_6.rar.

41   Törmä, S., Tuokkola, K. and Hurtig, J. (2013), Lähisuhde‑ ja 

perheväkivalta romaninaisten kokemana: Avun tarpeet 
yhteisössä ja palvelujärjestelmässä, Helsinki, Sosiaali‑ ja 
terveysministeriö (STM).

42   The Local (2013), ‘Swedish police’s Roma register ruled 

illegal’, 15 November 2013.

43   Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down 
common provisions on the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development and the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the 
European Regional Fund, the European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, 
http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:
L:2013:347:0320:0469:EN:PDF.

44   European Social Fund (ESF) Learning Network (2014), 

Reinforcing Policy Learning for Roma Inclusion, Joint report 
on the use of Structural Funds for Roma inclusion based on 
country‑by‑country meetings – Key Findings and Proposals.

45   Pavee Point (2013), Travelling with austerity: Impacts of 

cuts on Traveller projects and service, Dublin, Pavee Point.

46   Romania, Ministerul Fondurilor Europene (MFE) (2013), 

Letter to the Centre for Legal Resources No. 35/L544, 
11 November 2013.

47   FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) (2014 
forthcoming), Education: The situation of Roma in 11 EU 
Member States. Roma survey – Data in focus, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office of the European Union (Publications 
Office).

48   Council of Europe, CAHROM (2013), Thematic report on 

school attendance for Roma children, in particular Roma 
girls, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, CAHROM (2013)5, 
22 April 2013, http://hub.coe.int/web/coe‑portal/cahrom1.

49   Austria, Vereinbarung gemäß Art. 15a B‑VG über die 

Einführung der halbtägig kostenlosen und verpflichtenden 
frühen Förderung in institutionellen 
Kinderbetreuungseinrichtungen, BGBl. I Nr. 99/2009, last 
amended by BGBl I Nr. 196/2013.

50   Czech Republic, Vláda České republiky (2013), Informace 

o naplňování dekády romské integrace 2005–2015, Prague.

51   Rajala, S., Salonen, M., Blomerus, S. and Nissilä, L. (2011), 
Romanioppilaiden perusopetuksen tilannekatsaus 2010–
2011 ja toimenpide‑ehdotukset, Helsinki, Opetushallitus.

52   See: www.emet.gov.hu/hatter_1/utravalo_macika.

53   Velto, U. (2013), ‘Mantova, le borse di studio per studenti 

sinti e rom’, 24 January 2013.

54   Poland, Ministerstwo Administracji i Cyfryzacji (MAC) 

(2013), Konkurs stypendialny dla uczniów romskich 
szczególnie uzdolnionych w 2013 r., realizowany dzięki 
dotacji Ministra Administracji i Cyfryzacji.

55   Lesnevskaya, A. (2013), ‘Milano, il comune sospende 

scuolabus per bimbi rom: “A rischio presenza in classe”’, Il 
Fatto Quotidiano, 10 November 2013.

56   Portugal, Programa Escolhas (2013), ‘Lançamento da 

campanha “Boas Notas”’, 2 September 2013.

57   Bulgaria, Министерство на труда и социалната политика 
(2009), BG051PO001‑ 4.1.03 – Интеграция на децата 
и учениците от етническите малцинства 
в образователната система, 19 October 2009.

58   Portugal (2013), Portaria n. 292‑A/2012 que cria, no âmbito 
da oferta formativa de cursos vocacionais no ensino básico, 
uma experiência‑piloto de oferta destes cursos, no ano 
letivo de 2012–2013 e regulamenta os termos e as condições 
para o seu funcionamento, 26 September 2012.

59  

Information provided by the Ministry of Education and 
Culture.

60   Austria, Expertenrat für Integration (2013), 

Integrationsbericht 2013, Vienna.

61   Cyprus (2012), Policy measures of Cyprus for the social 

inclusion of Roma, January 2012.

62  

Information provided by the Ministry of the Environment.

63   See: www.jelgava‑soclp.lv/?sid=160.

64   Sweden, Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet (2013), ‘Fler ska få 

läsa nationella minoritetsspråk’, Press release, 
10 September 2013.

65   Sweden, Regeringen (2012), Regeringens strategi för romsk 

inkludering 2012–2032, 16 February 2012.

66   Portugal (2012), Resolução do Conselho de 

Ministros 68/2012 que procede à renovação, para o período 
de 2013 a 2015, do Programa Escolhas, 9 August 2012.

67   See: Germany, Verband Deutscher Sinti und Roma e.V., 

Landesverband Schlesswig‑Holstein, www.sinti‑roma‑sh.
de/index.php/14‑sample‑data‑articles?start=3.

68   See: Austria, Romano Centro, Lernhilfe und Elternarbeit, 
www.romano‑centro.org/index.php?option=com_conten
t&view=article&id=3%3Alernhilfe&catid=12%3Aprojekt
e&Itemid=4&lang=de.

69   See: Poland, Fundacja Edukacja dla Demokracji, Mniejszości 
aktywne lokalnie, available at: http://mniejszosci.edudemo.
org.pl/dobre‑praktyki/73‑dzialaniamniejszosci/262‑zawo
d‑asystent‑edukacji‑romskiej.

70   Poland, Kultura Polskich Romów (2013), ‘Poznajmy się: 

Edukacja dla integracji – materiały edukacyjne dla uczniów 
romskich’, 8 October 2013.

71  

Information provided by the Romanian Ministry of National 
Education, Press Office.

184

Roma integration

72   See: Slovakia, Vzdelávanie pedagogických a odborných 

zamestnancov, Vzdelávaním pedagogických zamestnancov 
k inklúzii marginalizovaných rómskych komunít, http://web.
eduk.sk/?q=node/33.

73  

Information provided upon request by the Slovenian 
Ministry of Education, Science and Sport.

74   See: Sweden, Romanit.fi, available at: www.romanit.fi/.

75   Romania, Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale, Biroul de Presă 
(2013), Letter No. 170/BP/18.11.2013 sent by email to the 
Centre for Legal Resources, on file with the national focal 
point.

76   Latvia, Ventspils pilsētas dome (2013), Letter No 1‑81/1383 

to the Ombudsperson’s Office, 9 May 2013.

77   Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism 

and Intolerance (ECRI) (2013), ECRI report on Finland (fourth 
monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 9 July 2013, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/
Finland/FIN‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑019‑ENG.pdf.

78   United Nations (UN), General Assembly (2013), Report of 
the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, 
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance 
Mutuma Ruteere. Addendum: Visit to Spain, 6 June 2013, 
A/HRC/23/56/Add.2, www.ohchr.org/Documents/
HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/ 
A‑HRC‑23‑56‑Add‑2_en.pdf.

79   Romea (2013), Czech School Inspectorate: One‑third of 
“practical school” pupils are Romani, 3 December 2013.

91   Messing, V. (ed), Bereményi, B. Kureková, L. Konsteková, J. 
Pamporov, A. and Pop, F. (2013), ‘From benefits to brooms’, 
Case studies report on the implementation of active labour 
market policies for Roma at local level, Neujobs Working 
Paper No. 19.3, Neujobs.

92   Council of the European Union (2013), Council 

recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma 
integration measures in the Member States, OJ 2013 C 378/01, 
Point 1.4.

93   See: Austria, Volkshilfe Österreich, Roma‑Initiative THARA, 

www.volkshilfe.at/thara.

94   See: Germany, Xenos Integration und Vielfalt, Junge Roma in 

Berlin: Berufliche Orientierung zur besseren Integration in 
den Arbeitsmarkt, www.xenos‑panorama‑bund.de/index.
php/projektlandkarte/projektprofile‑lernort‑1/33
3‑junge‑roma‑in‑berlin.

95   For more information, see : Belgium, SPP Intégration Sociale, 

Lutte contre la Pauvreté, Economie Sociale et Politique des 
Grandes Villes/POD Maatschappelijke Integratie, 
Armoedebestrijding, Sociale Economie en Grootstedenbeleid 
(2013), ‘Appel 2014 (année de transition) pour les promoteurs 
du Programme opérationnel objectif Compétitivité régionale 
et Emploi de l’Etat fédéral FSE 2007–2013, objectif 2, axe 1: 
Projet Pilote Rom’, www.mi‑is.be/sites/default/files/doc/
appel_a_projets_rom_2014_valide.doc.

96   Bulgaria, Министерство на труда и социалната политика 

(2012), Национална програма „Активиране на неактивни 
лица”, 18 October 2012.

80   Kertesi, G. and Kézdi, G. (2013), School segregation: School 

97   Cyprus (2012), Policy measures of Cyprus for the social 

choice and educational policies in 100 Hungarian Towns, 
Budapest, Roma Education Fund, Section 5, http://www.
romaeducationfund.hu/news/ref/news‑and‑events/schoo
l‑segregation‑school‑choice‑and‑educational‑policies‑100
‑hungarian‑tow.

81   Hungary, Egyenlő Bánásmód Hatóság (EBH) (2013), ’Case 

340/2013’, Press release.

inclusion of Roma, January 2012.

98   Portugal (2013), Portaria n.º 216‑C/2012, primeira alteração 
à Portaria n.º 1100/2010, de 22 de outubro, que aprova 
o programa de formação em competências básicas e visa 
a aquisição, por parte dos adultos, de competências básicas 
de leitura, escrita, cálculo e uso de tecnologias de informação 
e comunicação, 18 July 2013.

82   European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Horváth and Kiss 

99   Germany, Romano Bündnis Berlin (2013), ‘Position des 

v. Hungary, No. 11146/11, 29 January 2013.

83   Romea (2013), ‘Czech School Inspectorate: One‑third of 
“practical school” pupils are Romani’, 3 December 2013.

84   Council of Europe, Advisory committee on the FCNM (2013), 
Second opinion on Latvia, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 
18 June 2013.

Romano Bündnis (Berlin) zum „Berliner Aktionsplan zur 
(gegen die) Einbeziehung ausländischer Roma“’.

100   Information provided by the Slovenian Ministry of Labour, 

Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

101   See: Hungary, Türr István Képző és Kutató Intézet (TKKI), 

www.tkki.hu/page.php?mid=122.

85   Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2013), 

102   O’Higgins, N. (2012), ‘Roma and non‑Roma in the labour 

Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)7 on the implementation of 
the Framework Convention for the Protection of National 
Minorities by Romania, 18 December 2013, https://wcd.coe.
int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/ResCMN(2013)7&Languag
e=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=DBDCF
2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864.

86   Agence France‑Presse (2013), ‘Slovaks take first step to 
integrating Roma in schools’, 27 September 2013.

87   European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) (2013), Written 

comments by the European Roma Rights Centre concerning 
the Czech Republic for consideration by the European 
Commission on the transposition and application of the Race 
Directive and on the legal issues relevant to Roma 
integration, ERRC, April 2013, p. 9, www.errc.org/cms/
upload/file/czech‑republic‑red‑writte
n‑comments‑5‑april‑2013.pdf.

market in central and south eastern Europe’, Roma Inclusion 
Working Papers, Bratislava, UNDP, p. 35.

103   Hungary, EBH (2011), Employee selection practice in the 

mirror of discrimination, Budapest, EBH.

104   Koltai, L. (2013), A közfoglalkoztatottak jellemzői, Budapest, 

Esély Labor Egyesület, pp. 32–33.

105   Finland, Vähemmistövaltuutettu (2013), 

‘Vähemmistövaltuutetun romaniselvityksen 
tutkimushaastattelut sujuivat onnistuneesti’, Press release, 
22 August 2013.

106   Information provided upon request by the Greek 

Government.

107   Czech Republic, Vláda České republiky (2013), Informace 

o naplňování dekády romské integrace 2005–2015, Prague.

88   ECtHR, Lavida and Others v. Greece, No. 7973/10, 

108   Croatia, Županijskog suda u Varaždinu, Gž‑3684/12, 

30 May 2013.

2 April 2013.

89   ECtHR, Sampani and Others v. Greece, No. 59608/09, 

109   Ibid.

11 December 2012.

90   FRA (2014 forthcoming), Poverty and employment: The 

situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States. Roma survey – 
Data in focus, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

110   European Commission (2012), Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions national Roma integration 
strategies: A first step in the implementation of the EU 
Framework, COM(2012) 226 final, Brussels, 21 May 2012.

185

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

111   Council of the European Union (2013), Council 

132   ERRC (2014), ‘Romanian court victory: Forced eviction of 

recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma 
integration measures in the Member States, 
OJ 2013 C 378/01, Point 1.6.

Roma to Pata‑Rât was illegal’, 7 January 2014.

133   Slovenia, Zagovornik načela enakosti, Case  0700‑

19/2013/1 before 0921‑87/2011‑UEM, 28 March 2013.

112   See: Council of Europe, CAHROM (2013), Thematic report on 

social housing for Roma and legalisation of Roma 
settlements and houses, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 
29 October 2013, CAHROM (2013)18, http://hub.coe.int/
web/coe‑portal/cahrom1.

113   Cyprus (2012), ‘Policy measures of Cyprus for the social 

inclusion of Roma’, January 2012.

114   Slovakia, Ministerstvo vnútra (2013), Zoznam schválených 

žiadostí o dotácie, 23 October 2013.

115   United Kingdom, Department for Communities and Local 

Government (2012), ‘New site funding offers fairer deal for 
Travellers and the settled community’, 7 January 2012.

116   Bulgaria, Министерство на труда и социалната политика 

(2012), BG051PO001‑1/4/5/6.0.01 ‘Интегра’, 
12 November 2012.

117   Decade of Roma Inclusion Secretariat Foundation (2013), 

Civil society monitoring report on the implementation of the 
national Roma integration strategy and decade action plan 
in 2012 in the Czech Republic, Budapest, Decade of Roma 
Inclusion Secretariat Foundation.

134   United Kingdom, High Court of England and Wales (2013), 

R. (Knowles) v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
Marc Willers and Desmond Rutledge Cottle, EWHC 
19 (Admin), 17 January 2013.

135   Sweden, Värmland Nacka tingsrätt (2013), Case 

No. ANM 2011/981, 13 May 2013.

136   See Bulgaria, Сдружение Национална мрежа на 

здравните медиатори, www.zdravenmediator.net/index.
php?pagetype=text&page_id=37.

137   Sweden, Regeringen (2012), Regeringens strategi för romsk 

inkludering 2012–2032, 16 February 2012.

138   Slovakia, Úrad verejného zdravotníctva (2011), Informatívna 
správa o efektívnosti výsledkov získaných plnením 2. Etapy 
Programu podpory zdravia znevýhodnených rómskych 
komunít na Slovensku na roky 2009–2015, pp. 10–12.

139   Czech Republic, Vláda České republiky (2013), Informace 

o naplňování dekády romské integrace 2005–2015, Prague.

140   Hunter, N. (2013), ‘Mobile GP clinic for Roma community’, 

Irish Health, 6 March 2013.

118   Hungary, Társadalmi Felzárkózásért Felelős Államtitkárság 

141   Greece, Δίκτυο Ιατροκοινωνικών Κέντρων (2013) 

(2013), Felzárkózási Stratégia – Nyomonkövetési 
Beszámoló – 2013. Június, pp. 45–47.

‘Αλεξάνδρειας: Δωρεάν εμβολιασμός σε Τσιγγάνους 
μαθητές σε Κορυφή και Παλαιοχώρα’, 28 March 2013.

119   Greece, Βουλή των Ελλήνων (2013), ‘Απάντηση σε 
ερώτηση’, α.π. 2/78194/025/17, Press release, 
September 2013.

120   Slovakia, Ministerstvo vnútra SR (2013), ‘Atlas rómskych 

komunít’.

121   ECRI (2013), ECRI report on Portugal (fourth monitoring 

cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 9 July 2013, para. 92, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/
Portugal/PRT‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑020‑ENG.pdf.

142   Bulgaria, Министерство на здравеопазването (2006), 

Министерството на здравеопазването получава пет 
мобилни медицински кабинети и два флуорграфа за 
обслужване на уязвимите малцинствени групи, 
12 December 2006.

143   Ženské Kruhy (2013), ‘Naše aktivity´, 24 April 2013.

144   Slovenia, Zakon o zdravstvenem varstvu in zdravstvenem 

zavarovanju (ZZVZZ), 12 February 1992 and subsequent 
modifications.

122   Sweden, Diskrimineringsombudsmannen (2013), 

145   Sweden, Regeringen (2012), Regeringens strategi för romsk 

Årsrapport 2012, Stockholm.

inkludering 2012–2032, 16 February 2012.

123   ERRC (2014), ‘Census: Forced evictions of migrant Roma in 

France’, 14 January 2014.

124   Amnesty International (2013) Public statement: Romanian 
Government is failing homeless Roma in Eforie Sud, 
EUR 39/021/2013, 22 October 2013.

125   France, Défenseur des Droits (2013), Bilan d’application de 
la Circulaire Interministerielle du 26 août 2012 relative 
à l’anticipation et à l’accompagnement des opérations 
d’évacuation des campements illicites, 25 June 2013.

126   Council of Europe, European Committee of Social Rights 

(ECSR) (2013), European Roma Rights Centre v. Ireland, 
Complaint No. 100/2013, 19 April 2013.

127   ECtHR, Winterstein and Others v. France, No. 27013/07, 

17 October 2013.

146   World Health Organization (WHO), Regional Office for Europe 
(2013), Roma health mediation in Romania: Case study, Roma 
Health Case Study Series no. 1, Copenhagen, WHO.

147   Finland, Tilastokeskus (2013), Hyvinvointikatsaus, 

9 December 2013.

148   See: Amalipe, Centre for Interethnic Dialogue and Tolerance, 

available at: www.totouchtheuntouchable.com.

149   Czech Republic, Vláda České republiky (2013), Informace 

o naplňování dekády romské integrace 2005–2015, Prague.

150   See: Caritas Roma, www.caritasroma.it.

151   ECtHR, Z. K. v. Slovakia, No. 13606/11, lodged on 

28 February 2011.

152   ECtHR, V. C. v. Slovakia, No. 18968/07, 8 November 2011.

128   ECtHR, Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, No. 25446/06, 

153   ECtHR, N. B. v. Slovakia, No. 29518/10, 12 June 2012.

24 April 2012.

129   FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: Challenges and 

achievements in 2012, Annual report, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, p. 198.

130   France, Tribunal administratif de Lyon, Ordonnance de 

référé (2013) 1302169, 4 April 2013.

154   ECtHR, I. G. and Others v. Slovakia, No. 15966/04, 

13 November 2012.

155   ECRI (2013), ECRI report on Portugal (fourth monitoring 

cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 9 July 2013, www.coe.
int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/Portugal/
PRT‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑020‑ENG.pdf.

131   Greece, Συνήγορος του Πολίτη (2013), ‘Προσωρινή 

αναβολή της κατεδάφισης του καταυλισμού στο Χαλάνδρι 
και συνεργασία για την ολοκλήρωση της 
μετεγκατάστασης των Ρομά, ζητά ο Συνήγορος του 
Πολίτη’, Press release, 13 May 2013.

156   See: Council of Europe, CAHROM (2013), Thematic report on 
combating anti‑Gypsyism, hate speech and hate crime 
against Roma following a thematic visit to Hungary on 
4–6 September 2013, CAHROM (2013)21, Strasbourg, Council 
of Europe.

186

Roma integration

157   End, M. (2012), Antiziganismus, zum Stand der Forschung 

169   Magyar Távirati Iroda (MTI) (2013), ‘A nemzetbiztonsági 

und der Gegenstrategien, RomnoKher‑ Haus für Kultur, 
Bildung und Antiziganismusforschung, Marburg.

bizottság is előveszi a romagyilkosságok ügyét’, HVG, 
10 August 2013.

158   Endstation Rechts (2013), ‘Strafanzeigenflut gegen 

170   ERRC (2013), ‘Slovak investigation bodies disciplined after 

NPD‑Wahlplakate’, 23 August 2013.

159   CEFIS, ‘L’intégration au Luxembourg, indicateurs et 

dynamiques sociales, Parcours de personnes originaires du 
Cap‑Vert et de l’ex‑Yougoslavie’, RED, No. 14.

160   Hurrle, J. (2013), Monitorovací zpráva občanské společnosti 
o plnění národní strategie integrace Romů a akčního plánu 
dekády v České republice v roce 2012, Budapest, Decade of 
Roma Inclusion Secretariat Foundation, p. 35.

161   Ta Nea (2013), ‘Νέα επεισόδια ξέσπασαν σε καταυλισμό 

Ρομά στο Αιτωλικό’, 5 January 2013. According to the media, 
the majority of those who attacked the Roma were 
members of Golden Dawn; Kathimerini (2013), ‘Χρυσαυγίτες 
κατά Ρομά στο Αιτωλικό’, 12 October 2013.

mentally disabled Romani man “forgotten” in custody’, 
14 October 2013.

171   ECRI (2013), ECRI report on Finland (fourth monitoring cycle), 

Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 9 July 2013, p. 33, www.coe.
int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country‑by‑country/Finland/
FIN‑CbC‑IV‑2013‑019‑ENG.pdf.

172   FRA (2013), Racism, discrimination, intolerance and 

extremism: Learning from experiences in Greece and 
Hungary, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 26.

173   World Jewish Congress (2013), ‘Leading Hungarian journalist 
says Gypsies are “animals” and should be “cast out of 
society”’, 10 January 2013.

174   EurActiv.com (2013), ‘French minister accused of racism 

162   Planet Greece (2013), ‘Αφίσες κατά των τσιγγάνων στο 

following Roma comment’, 18 March 2013.

Αιτωλικό0’, 31 May 2013.

175   Cronache di ordinario razzismo (2013), ‘Pescara: Pdl e Lega 

163   Ελευθερια (2013), ‘Επεισόδια Χρυσής Αυγής‑Τσιγγάνων 

Nord condannati per discriminazione’, 1 July 2013.

στο νοσοκομείο Καλαμάτας’, 9 April 2013.

164   Ελευθερια (2013), ‘Νύχτα τρόμου και επεισοδίων με... 

Χρυσή Αυγή’, 10 August 2013.

165   Hungary, EBH (2013), ’Case 143/2013’, press release.

166   Lithuania, Vilniaus apygardos teismas, Decision No.  1A‑755‑

195/2013, 18 December 2013.

167   Poland, Sąd Rejonowy Łódź‑ Śródmieście.

168   Hungary, Budapest Környéki Törvényszék (2013), ‘A 

Budapest Környéki Törvényszék sajtóközleménye a 2013. 
aug. 6‑án hozott elsőfokú ítéletről’, press release, 
7 August 2013.

176   Zarząd Główny Stowarzyszenia Romów w Polsce (2013), 

‘Oświadczenie Zarządu Głównego Stowarzyszenia Romów 
w Polsce w sprawie artykułu „Gazety Wyborczej” 
z dnia 3 i 4 września br. pt. 1,5 tys. internautów zażądało 
wypędzenia Romów z Andrychowa’, 4 September 2013.

177   Slovenia, Republike Slovenije (2012), ‘Drugo poročilo Vlade 

Republike Slovenije o položaju romske skupnosti v Sloveniji: 
Poročilo o izvajanju Zakona o romski skupnosti v Republiki 
Sloveniji (Uradni list RS, št. 33/2007) in Nacionalnega 
programa ukrepov za Rome Vlade republike Slovenije za 
obdobje 2010–2015’, Ljubljana, 21 November 2012.

187

Access to efficient and judicial cooperation

Rights of crime victims

Justice
Justice

8 

Access to justice and judicial cooperation  ���������������������������� 191

8�1�  EU and other international actors take steps to 

strengthen the rule of law and justice systems  �������� 191
8�1�1�  EU adopts new laws to facilitate access 

to justice and judicial cooperation  ���������������� 193

8�1�2�  ECtHR and CJEU provide guidance 

on effective access to justice  ������������������������ 194

8�2�  Member States reform court procedures 

to facilitate access to justice  ���������������������������������������� 197
8�2�1�  Member States tackle length 

of proceedings  ������������������������������������������������ 197

8�2�2�  Member States innovate with 

e-justice tools  ������������������������������������������������� 199

8�3�  Member States turn attention to non-judicial 

mechanisms  ������������������������������������������������������������������ 201

Outlook  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 203

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE
January
February
28 March – United Nations (UN) General Assembly 
adopts Resolution 67/187 on the UN Principles and 
Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal 
Justice Systems
March
April
May
14–15 June – Council of Europe’s Venice Commission 
issues an opinion on the Fourth Amendment to the 
Fundamental Law of Hungary

24 June – UN Human Rights Council adopts 
a resolution on national institutions for the 
promotion and protection of human rights
June
July
August
September
21 October – In Del Río Prada v� Spain, the 
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finds it 
unlawful to extend detention retroactively 
because of a change in case law
October
4 November – In Anghel v� Italy, the ECtHR finds 
a violation of the right to a fair trial when a legal 
representative is not appointed in a concrete and 
effective manner

21 November – UN General Assembly Third 
Committee adopts a resolution on national human 
rights institutions
November
4 December – Council of Europe Commissioner for 
Human Rights releases a research paper on the 
economic crisis’s impact on human rights 
protection
December

190

EU

17 January – Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provides 
further guidelines on legal standing of individuals in direct actions for 
annulment of EU legislative acts in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others

29 January – In Ciprian Vasile Radu, the CJEU addresses the role of 
fundamental rights in the execution of the European arrest warrant

30 January – The European Commission issues a report on Romania 
under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism
January 
26 February – In Stefano Melloni v� Ministerion Fiscal, the CJEU 
elaborates on the role of fundamental rights in the execution of the 
European arrest warrant

26 February – In Åklagaren v� Hans Åkerberg Fransson, the CJEU 
confirms that imposing a combination of non-criminal tax penalties and 
criminal penalties is not contrary to the principle that no one shall be 
tried twice for the same offence
February 
27 March – European Commission publishes the Justice Scoreboard
March 
April 
9–10 May – Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union hosts 
a conference on ‘A Europe of equal citizens: Equality, fundamental 
rights and the rule of law’
May 
7 June – Justice and Home Affairs Council issues Conclusions on 
fundamental rights and the rule of law
June 
17 July – European Commission submits a proposal for a regulation on 
the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)
July 
August 
September 
22 October – Measures D and C1 of the EU Criminal Procedure 
Roadmap – the right of access to a lawyer – are adopted
October 
7 November – In DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand 
Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV, the CJEU provides guidance on how to 
interpret the insured’s right to choose a lawyer

21 November – European Commission publishes the Flash 
Eurobarometer Survey on Justice in the EU

27 November – European Commission adopts the ‘Procedural Rights 
Package’ including five legal measures to strengthen procedural 
safeguards for citizens in criminal proceedings (including part of 
Measure C2 of the EU Criminal Procedure Roadmap)
November 
December 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 

Access to justice and judicial 
cooperation

The need to improve the efficiency and transparency of national justice systems and enhance the 
implementation of existing fundamental rights instruments, the search for an effective rule of law mechanism, 
and further budget cuts extending beyond courts to non‑judicial mechanisms – these were some of the main 
challenges in the area of access to justice and judicial cooperation in 2013. Positively, several EU Member States 
acted to modernise and further develop e‑justice to tackle overly long proceedings. They also continued to 
reform non‑judicial bodies with a human rights remit to strengthen their fundamental rights role. At the EU level, 
a specific tool – a ‘Justice Scoreboard’ – was introduced to boost the efficiency of national judicial systems, and 
the European Commission opened the debate on improvements in the area of justice needed in the next 
five years after the Stockholm Programme.

8�1�  EU and other 

international actors 
take steps to 
strengthen the rule of 
law and justice systems

International and European actors focused in 2013 on 
strengthening  the  rule  of  law,  specifically  on  the 
quality, independence and efficiency of judicial sys‑
tems (see also the Focus and Chapter 10 on EU Member 
States and international obligations).

The  EU’s  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  adopted 
specific  conclusions  on  fundamental  rights  and  the 
rule of law on 7 June 2013. Drawing upon the related 
discussion at the Ireland’s EU Presidency conference 
‘A  Europe  of  equal  citizens:  Equality,  fundamental 
rights and the rule of law’, jointly organised with FRA, 
the  Irish  Equality  Authority  and  the  Human  Rights 
Commission,1 the council emphasised that respecting 
the rule of law is a prerequisite for the protection of 
fundamental rights and that any work in this context 
shall “make full use of existing mechanisms and coop‑
erate with other relevant EU and international bodies, 
particularly with the Council of Europe, in view of its 

Key developments in the area of access to justice 
and judicial cooperation

•  The rule of law and the issue of overall accessibility of 

justice for all persons in the EU, including a full 
understanding of one’s rights and the means to realise 
them in times of ongoing austerity measures, remain high 
on the EU agenda in 2013.

•  The European Commission starts a debate on the shape of 
the EU’s justice policy after the Stockholm Programme in 
the area of justice and home affairs, which comes to a close 
at the end of 2014.

•  The evolving ‘Justice Scoreboard’ tool, which aims to 
enhance the effective functioning of national justice 
systems across the EU, is introduced.

•  The criminal procedure roadmap of the EU takes another 

step forward with the adoption of the Directive on the right 
of access to a lawyer.

•  EU Member States continue to introduce initiatives to 

restructure national justice systems, including through the 
use of e‑justice tools.

•  The UN General Assembly takes a landmark step, issuing 
a resolution calling for a strengthened role for national 
human rights institutions within the UN system.

191

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

key  role  in  relation  to  promotion  and  protection  of 
human rights, democracy and the rule of law.”

FRA ACTIVITY

Promoting the rule of law

The 2013 FRA Symposium, which focused on pro‑
moting  the  rule  of  law,  found  that  any  potential 
assessment should look not only at available laws 
and  institutions  (structures)  or  policies  (process‑
es) but also, and especially, at the situation on the 
ground  (outcome).  Participants  considered  that 
the  rule  of  law  should  be  measured  not  only  in 
EU Member States but also in the EU and its insti‑
tutions.  These  and  other  conclusions  from  the 
symposium  were  also  issued  as  a  Council  docu‑
ment  to  further  inform  the  discussions  of  the 
Council of the European Union on the rule of law.

Source: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2013‑4th‑
annual‑symposium‑report.pdf

In  the  follow‑up  report  on  the  rule  of 
law 
 recommendations  made  to  Romania  under  the 
Co‑operation  and  Verification  Mechanism  in  2012,2 
the European Commission welcomed steps taken to 
restore respect for the constitution and the decisions 
of the Constitutional Court, yet noted that the “lack 
of respect for the independence of the judiciary and 
the  instability  faced  by  judicial  institutions  remain 
a source of concern”.3

In June 2013, the Council of Europe expert body, the 
Venice Commission, issued an opinion on Hungary on 
the compatibility of constitutional amendments with 
the principle of the rule of law. The Venice Commission 
examined the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental 
Law of Hungary, adopted in March 20134 – an adop‑
tion preceded by a critical statement issued jointly by 
the  President  of  the  European  Commission  and  the 
Secretary  General  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  raising 
concerns  about  just  that  compatibility.  The  Venice 
Commission opinion raises new concerns with respect 
to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary.5 
It pointed in particular to the dominant position of the 
President of the National Judicial Office compared with 
the National Judicial Council, to the court case transfer 
system and to the limitations imposed on the role of 
the  Constitutional  Court.  The  European  Parliament6 
and  the  UN  High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights,7 
among others, subsequently reiterated these concerns 
and urged the Hungarian government to address all of 
the issues the Venice Commission had raised over the 
last few years. The Hungarian Parliament responded 
by adopting the Fifth Amendment to the Fundamental 
Law  of  Hungary  on  16 September 2013  to  address 
some of the controversial elements of the previous 
amendment.  It  repealed,  for  example,  the  rules  on 
court case transfers.8

According  to  the  European  Commission  2013  Flash 
Eurobarometer  Survey  on  Justice  in  the  EU,9  public 
perceptions about justice and the rule of law across 
the  EU  are  consistently  low  in  the  Czech  Republic, 
Greece, Italy and Spain. Most respondents think there 
are large differences between national judicial sys‑
tems in terms of quality (58 %), efficiency (58 %) and 
independence (52 %). Majorities in Bulgaria (71 %), 
Slovenia (70 %) and Romania (69 %) think their jus‑
tice system is worse than others in the EU.

In addition to the rule of law discussion, the issue of 
overall accessibility of justice for all persons in the EU, 
including a full understanding of one’s rights and the 
means to realise them in times of ongoing austerity 
measures,  also  continued  to  be  high  on  the  agenda 
in 2013. A trend of cutting legal aid or justice budgets 
in  general  continued  across  the  EU  Member  States, 
including Ireland,10 Portugal11 and the United Kingdom.12

“[Calls] on governments to pursue all the necessary 
measures to ensure access to justice for all, with 
a particular focus on people living in poverty, who need 
to have a full understanding of their rights and the means 
to realise them.”

European Parliament (2013), Resolution on the impact of the financial and 
economic crisis on human rights, 18 April 2013

the  Council  of  Europe 
On  4 December 2013, 
Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  pointed  out  that 
national decisions on austerity measures should not 
have a disproportionate impact on the human rights 
protection  system.  The  commissioner  stressed  the 
need to grant effective access to justice to all during 
economic downturns by maintaining an effective and 
independent judiciary and a legal aid system.13

‘Justice for growth’ issues aim to support the economy 
and its growth. They include the effectiveness of jus‑
tice  systems,  the  independence  of  justice  and  the 
European area of justice based on mutual trust. Such 
issues and the rule of law were at the heart of discus‑
sions on the future of EU justice policy. These discus‑
sions, held at the ‘Assises de la Justice’14 hosted by the 
European Commission in November 2013, are meant 
to feed into the European Commission’s new plan for 
EU justice policy, after the present EU programme for 
justice and home affairs, the Stockholm Programme, 
concludes. FRA contributed to the discussions by sub‑
mitting a paper and following up the ensuing consulta‑
tion process with a more detailed document on the 
future  role  of  fundamental  rights  in  EU  justice  and 
home affairs policies.

EU and Member States move to enhance 
effectiveness of national justice systems

In  the  context  of  its  ‘justice  for  growth’  agenda,  the 
European Commission – drawing mainly on the expertise 

192

Access to justice and judicial cooperation

of the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of 
Justice15 –  also  introduced  its  new  tool,  the  ‘Justice 
Scoreboard’ (see also the  Focus). Through this tool, the 
European  Commission  aims  to  enhance  the  effective 
functioning of EU national justice systems. It will do so 
by regularly bringing together a variety of data – in par‑
ticular, data available about civil and commercial cases – 
to identify any shortcomings and hence support reforms 
in national justice systems.16 The 2013 Justice Scoreboard’s 
data include the business‑friendliness of each country’s 
justice system; justice resources, including budget alloca‑
tion, human resources, workload, use and accessibility of 
justice such as length and cost of proceedings; and the 
use of simplified and alternative dispute resolution pro‑
cedures.  The  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  is  intended  to  be 
a tool that will gradually extend over more areas.

8�1�1� 

EU adopts new laws to facilitate 
access to justice and judicial 
cooperation

Progress on the criminal procedures roadmap  continued, 
with new instruments adopted or proposed.17 In 2013, 
the Council of the EU adopted a directive on the right of 
access to a lawyer (originally intended as Measure D 
and  a  part  of  Measure  C  (C1)  of  the  roadmap).18  The 
directive sets out minimum rules on the rights: to access 
a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest 
warrant (EAW) proceedings from the earliest stage until 
proceedings conclude; to have a third party informed 
upon deprivation of liberty; and to communicate with 
third  persons  and  with  consular  authorities  while 
deprived of liberty. Member States have three years to 
implement this instrument.

In  November  2013,  the  Commission  presented 
a package of five legal measures to strengthen the 
procedural safeguards for citizens in criminal proceed‑
ings,  including  part  of  Measure  C2  on  legal  aid.  It 
consists of three proposals for directives on:

 • strengthening  certain  aspects  of  the  presumption 
of innocence and of the right to be present at trial 
in criminal proceedings;19

 • special  safeguards  for  children  suspected  or 
 accused  in  criminal  proceedings  (see    Chapter  4 
on  the  rights  of  the  child  and  the  protection  of 
children);20

 • provisional  legal  aid  (at  the  early  stages  of  the 
 proceedings and until the competent authority has 
made  a  final  decision  on  the  application  for  legal 
aid)  for  suspects  or  accused  persons  deprived  of 
liberty and legal aid in EAW proceedings.21

These  directives  would  apply  both  to  domestic  and 
cross‑border proceedings. Two European Commission 
recommendations accompany the three proposals for 
directives and focus on:

 • procedural  safeguards  for  vulnerable  persons 
 suspected  or  accused  in  criminal  proceedings,22 
aiming  to  contribute  to  raising  standards  on  the 
procedural  rights  of  vulnerable  adults  and  to  en‑
hancing mutual trust;

 • the right to legal aid for suspects or accused  persons 
in criminal proceedings, aiming to provide common 
objective criteria to be taken into account when as‑
sessing eligibility for legal aid.23

Figure 8.1:  Criminal procedures roadmap

DEC 2009
Treaty of Lisbon /
Stockholm
Programme
(into force)

JUL 2010
Measure B:
information
on rights
(proposal)

JUN 2011
Measures C1 + D:
access to lawyer
and communication
(proposal)

2013
Measure E:
safeguards for
vulnerable
(proposal)

2013
Measures C1 + D:
right to access
to a lawyer
and communication
(adopted)

NOV 2009
Roadmap
(adopted)

MAR 2010
Measure A:
translation and
interpretation
(proposal)

OCT 2010
Measure A:
(adopted)

JUN 2011
Measure F:
green paper
on detention
(published)

MAY 2012
Measure B:
(adopted)

Source:  FRA, 2013

NOV 2013
Measure C2:
legal aid,
presumption
of innocence,
right to be present
at trial and
protection of
children
(proposal)

193

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

The proposal for a regulation on the establishment of 
the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) pre‑
sented a novel development in the area of criminal 
law in 2013. The proposal envisages a decentralised 
EU prosecution office with exclusive competence to 
investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment crimes 
interests.24  European 
against  the  EU’s  financial 
Parliament  discussions  focused  on  the  proposal’s 
safeguards  to  guarantee  the  rights  of  individuals 
involved  in  EPPO’s  investigations  as  laid  down  in 
national 
law  and  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

law,  Union 

FRA ACTIVITY

Establishing the European Public 
Prosecutors’ Office – fundamental 
rights concerns

In response to a European Parliament request of 
20 December 2013,  FRA  examined  the  European 
Commission’s proposal for a regulation to estab‑
lish  a  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office.  FRA 
looked at the proposal’s compatibility with the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular with 
the rights to an effective remedy and to a fair trial 
(Article 47); presumption of innocence and right to 
defence  (Article  48);  legality  and  proportionality 
(Article 49); and the provision that no one shall be 
tried twice for the same offence, or double jeop‑
ardy (Article 50). FRA’s opinion analysed the sub‑
stantive  provisions  of  the  proposal,  focusing  on 
five main issues:

1. judicial review and other safeguards;

2. defence rights;

3. victims’ rights;

4. legal clarity;

5. regular assessment and trust.

It raised a number of fundamental rights concerns, 
particularly  with  regard  to  the  complex  and  at 
times  unclear  interaction  between  the  national 
and EU levels. The opinion underlined the impor‑
tance  of  judicial  review  of  EPPO  activities,  and 
raised the question of where the responsibility for 
such reviews should lie.

Source:  FRA (2014), Opinion of the European Union Agency for 
Fundamental Rights on a proposal to establish a European Public 
Prosecutor’s Office, FRA Opinion – 1/2014, Vienna, available at: 
http://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2014/fra‑opinion‑proposal‑establish‑ 
european‑public‑prosecutors‑office

Another 2013 development aimed to improve access to 
justice in civil proceedings by expanding the scope of 
those who are allowed to bring a claim before a court 
or  other  redress  mechanisms,  known  as  broadening 
legal  standing.  The  European  Commission  adopted 
on  11 June 2013  a  series  of  common,  non‑binding 

194

principles  for  a  collective  redress  mechanism,  under 
which  a  single  court  action  in  an  EU  Member  State 
addresses  many  individual  claims  relating  to  the 
same case collectively.25 National redress mechanisms 
should  be  available  in  different  areas  where  EU  law 
grants   rights  to  citizens  and  companies,  notably  in 
consumer 
 protection,  competition,  environmental 
 protection and financial services.

In  addition,  on  21 May 2013  the  Council  adopted 
two  new  binding  EU  instruments  allowing  disputes 
over online transactions to be settled faster and at less 
cost than through the courts: a Directive on alternative 
dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ADR)26 and 
a Regulation on online dispute resolution for consumer 
disputes (ODR).27 The directive is expected to give all 
EU  consumers  the  chance  to  resolve  domestic  and 
cross‑border disputes without going to court, regard‑
less of product or service type or place of purchase. To 
address the particular needs of online consumers, the 
regulation will create an EU‑monitored online platform 
which  will  allow  disputes  to  be  resolved  online  and 
within a set period of time. Member States are required 
to implement the new rules by July 2015, after which 
the ODR platform is expected to be introduced within 
six months by January 2016.

The  European  Commission  proposed  a  regulation  to 
make  individuals’  access  to  justice  easier,  by  harmo‑
nising and simplifying procedure for small civil and com‑
mercial claims disputes. The proposed regulation would 
also raise the claim threshold to €10,000 from €2,000, 
enabling a greater number of cases to be handled under 
the  procedure.28  The  procedure  would  predominantly 
apply  to  cross‑border  cases  and  not  to  those  where 
a single Member State covers several elements of the 
case, such as when the court’s jurisdiction and the par‑
ties’ domicile are in the same Member State. In addition, 
the European Commission held a public consultation on 
options for improving access to justice at Member States 
level in environmental matters.29

Table  8.1  summarises  the  main  features  of  EU 
 secondary legal instruments discussed in this section 
that aim to improve access to justice.

8�1�2� 

ECtHR and CJEU provide 
guidance on effective access 
to justice

Both  the  CJEU  and  the  ECtHR  delivered  rulings  on 
numerous  access  to  justice‑related  cases  in  2013. 
The  rulings  included  cases,  as  in  2012,  addressing 
various fair trial aspects and defence rights in rela‑
tion to criminal proceedings. The courts also provided 
important  guidance  on  safeguarding  the  right  of 

Access to justice and judicial cooperation

Table 8.1:  EU secondary law proposed, adopted or revised in 2013, aiming to facilitate access to justice

Instrument

Status

Main issues facilitating access to justice 

Directive on alternative 
dispute resolution (ADR) 
for consumer disputes 
(2013/11/EU)

Adopted on 
21 May 2013

Regulation on online 
dispute resolution (ODR) 
for consumer disputes 
(No. 524/2013)

Adopted on 
21 May 2013

Commission Recommen‑
dation on common 
principles for injunctive 
and compensatory 
collective redress mecha‑
nisms in the Member 
States concerning viola‑
tions of rights granted 
under Union law 
(2013/396/EU)

Adopted 
11 June 2013

Directive on the right of 
access to a lawyer 
(2013/48/EU)

Adopted on 
6 November 2013

Proposal for a regulation 
amending regulation 
establishing a European 
Small Claims Procedure 
and regulation creating 
a European order for 
payment procedure

Proposal for a directive on 
the strengthening of the 
presumption of innocence 
and of the right to be 
present at trial in criminal 
proceedings

Proposed on 
19 November 2013

Proposed on 
27 November 2013

•  Make flexible and less costly out‑of‑court settlement 

procedure, ADR, available for all contractual disputes in every 
market sector (except for health and education) and in every 
Member State

•  Introduce quality criteria for all ADR entities to guarantee that 
they operate in an effective, fair, independent and transpar‑
ent way

•  Require traders to inform consumers about ADR and require 
Member States to ensure that consumers can obtain assis‑
tance when they are involved in a cross‑border dispute

•  Establish EU‑wide dispute resolution platform (ODR platform) 

as a single entry point free of charge and in all EU official 
languages, enabling ADR online in relation to disputes arising 
from online purchases

•  Require a network of online dispute resolution facilitators 
consisting of one contact point in each Member State to 
provide support to the resolution of disputes submitted via 
the ODR platform

•  Require traders to inform consumers about the ODR platform

•  Require collective redress mechanism in place for injunctive 
and compensatory relief in a case of infringement of rights 
granted under Union law, which would be fair, equitable, 
timely and not prohibitively expensive

•  Determine requirements that entities representing claimants 

should meet to ensure appropriate representation of 
claimants

•  Recommend establishment of publicly available registers, 

which would set information dissemination rules and allow 
potential claimants to join collective actions

•  Provide for minimum rules on the right of access to a lawyer 
in criminal proceedings from the first stage of police ques‑
tioning and throughout criminal proceedings

•  Provide for the right of an individual subject to a EAW to legal 
advice in both the country where the arrest is carried out and 
the one where it was issued (dual legal representation)

•  Provide for the right to have a third party (such as a family 
member) informed upon deprivation of liberty as well as to 
communicate with consular authorities while deprived of 
liberty

•  Raise threshold of cases defined as ‘small claims’ 

from €2,000 to €10,000, allowing a much wider range of 
disputes to be resolved through a small claims procedure
•  Widen definition of ‘cross‑border’ cases to enable a greater 
number of cases with a cross‑border dimension to be solved 
through a small claims procedure

•  Require better information for individuals on court fees 

related to the small claims procedure, on where to obtain 
assistance in filling in the application and on how to apply for 
a review of the judgment in special circumstances

•  Guarantee that guilt cannot be inferred by any official 

decisions or statements before a final conviction

•  Guarantee that the burden of proof is placed on the prosecu‑
tion and any doubt benefits the suspect or accused person
•  Guarantee that the right to remain silent is maintained and 
not used against suspects to secure conviction and that the 
accused has the right to be present at the trial

195

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Table 8.1:  (continued)

Instrument

Status

Main issues facilitating access to justice 

Proposal for a directive on 
procedural safeguards for 
children suspected or 
accused in criminal 
proceedings

Proposed on 
27 November 2013

Proposal for a directive on 
provisional legal aid for 
suspects or accused 
persons deprived of 
liberty and legal aid in 
European arrest warrant 
proceedings

Proposed on 
27 November 2013

•  Guarantee mandatory access by children to a lawyer at all 

stages

•  Guarantee that children cannot waive their right to be 

assisted by a lawyer

•  Introduce special procedural safeguards, such as the right of 
children to be promptly informed about their rights, to be 
assisted by their parents (or other appropriate persons), not 
to be questioned in public hearings, to receive medical 
examination and, if deprived of liberty, to be kept apart from 
adult inmates

•  Guarantee access to a lawyer from the very beginning 

through the form of ‘provisional legal aid’, until the competent 
authority has made a final decision on the application for 
legal aid

•  Guarantee access to legal aid by suspects at the early stages 
of criminal proceedings (when accused citizens are particu‑
larly vulnerable, especially if deprived of liberty in police 
custody or pretrial detention)

•  Guarantee legal aid for people arrested under a European 

arrest warrant in the light of the need to guarantee dual legal 
representation

Source:  FRA, 2013

access to courts through effective access to legal aid 
and legal representation.

In  the  Radu  judgment,30  the  CJEU  provided  further 
guidance in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal 
matters under the EAW procedure, specifically on the 
person’s right to be heard in line with the standards 
of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  on  judicial 
remedy and fair trial. The CJEU confirmed that a viola‑
tion of the requested person’s right to be heard is not 
among  the  grounds  available  to  Member  States  to 
refuse to execute an EAW. This does not render the 
Framework  Decision  incompatible  with  the  funda‑
mental rights as set out in the Charter, in particular the 
right to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial. 
Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter do not require “that 
a judicial authority of a Member State should be able 
to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued 
for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution 
on  the  ground  that  the  requested  person  was  not 
heard  by  the  issuing  judicial  authorities  before  that 
arrest  warrant  was  issued”.  According  to  the  CJEU, 
such a conclusion would run counter to the objective 
of the EAW system to simplify and speed up extradi‑
tion proceedings between EU Member States. In any 
case,  executing  Member  States  observe  the  right 
to be heard.

The CJEU maintained the same line of thought in its 
Melloni judgment.31 According to the CJEU, the judicial 
authorities  cannot  make  the  execution  of  an  EAW 
conditional  upon  a  fresh  hearing  just  because  the 

warrant was issued without the accused’s presence at 
court. Although the right of the accused to appear in 
person at the trial is an essential component of the 
right  to  a  fair  trial,  this  right  is  not  absolute.  The 
accused may waive this right, provided such waiver 
meets required safeguards and does not run counter 
to any important public interest. The EAW framework 
decision therefore disregards neither the right to an 
effective  judicial  remedy  and  to  a  fair  trial  nor  the 
rights of the defence guaranteed by Articles 47 and 
48 (2) of the Charter, respectively.

In  the  Åklagaren  v.  Hans  Åkerberg  Fransson  case, 
Swedish tax authorities accused Mr Åkerberg Fransson 
of  breaching  his  tax  declaration  obligations,  which 
resulted in a loss of state revenue from various taxes.32 
The CJEU was asked if criminal charges must be dis‑
missed on the ground that the accused had already 
faced tax penalties for the same acts. The CJEU con‑
cluded  that  the  principle  preventing  a  person  from 
being  punished  twice  under  the  Charter  does  not 
preclude an EU Member State from imposing, for the 
same acts of evading declaration obligations in the 
field  of  value‑added  tax,  a  combination  of  criminal 
penalties and non‑criminal penalties.

DAS 

Rechtsbijstand 
Nederlandse 
In 
Verzekeringsmaatschappij  NV,  the  CJEU  provided 
guidance  on  how  to  interpret  an  insured  person’s 
right to choose a lawyer on legal expenses insurance 
under  Article  4(1)  of  Directive  87/344.  In  this  case, 
Jan  Sneller  was  dismissed  from  his  job.  He  wanted 

196

Access to justice and judicial cooperation

to bring an unfair dismissal claim in the Netherlands 
against  his  employer  using  his  DAS  legal  expenses 
insurance. The CJEU held that the insured’s freedom 
to choose legal representation took precedence over 
the insurance contract’s restrictions, which attempted 
to impose the use of the insurance company’s own 
staff lawyers over that of an outside lawyer chosen 
by the insured person.33

The  ECtHR  also  provided  guidance  on  states’ 
 obligations regarding access to justice under the ECHR. 
In Anghel v. Italy, the applicant complained that delays 
in  granting  him  legal  aid  had  infringed  his  right  to 
appeal  against  the  decision  of  the  national  court, 
denying him an effective remedy as required by the 
ECHR.34 The ECtHR held that the deficient and contra‑
dictory information given by the Council of the Bar 
Association and the Ministry of Justice about which 
remedy was available and which time limit was appli‑
cable  contributed  substantially  to  the  applicant’s 
unsuccessful  attempt  to  appeal.  As  for  the  errors 
made by the appointed legal aid lawyers in respect of 
procedural  formalities,  the  ECtHR  held  that  “such 
errors may, when critical to a person’s access to court, 
and when incurable in so far as they are not made 
good by actions of the authorities or the courts them‑
selves, result in a lack of practical and effective rep‑
resentation which incurs the State’s liability under the 
Convention”. The ECtHR concluded that the applicant 
was effectively prevented from exercising his right of 
access  to  a  court  through  a  legal  representative 
appointed under the national legal aid system. There 
was accordingly a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR.

Another case brought before the ECtHR, Del Río Prada 
v. Spain, concerned the postponed release of a pris‑
oner convicted of terrorist offences. Based on a new 
approach  adopted  by  the  Spanish  Supreme  Court 
(Tribunal Supremo), under which reductions in sen‑
tences were applied to individual offences rather than 
to the entire time served,35 the applicant’s release was 
postponed by nine years. The ECtHR (Grand Chamber) 
considered that the applicant could not have foreseen 
either that the Supreme Court would depart from its 
previous  case  law  in  February  2006,  or  that  this 
change in approach would be applied to her and would 
result in the postponement of her release by almost 
nine years. Accordingly, there was a violation of the 
right to no punishment without law (Article 7 of the 
ECHR)  as  well  as  a  violation  of  unlawful  detention 
(Article 5 of the ECHR).

In addition to these case law developments, the ECtHR 
amended the Rules of Court on 6 May 2013 to help the 
court deal with its workload as efficiently as possible, 
thus enhancing access to justice at a procedural level.36 
The new Rule 47 introduces more stringent admissi‑
bility criteria on the form and content of initial com‑
plaints and requires that a complaint be lodged within 

a maximum of six months after the national court’s 
final  decision.  Rule  47  will  come  into  force  as  of 
1 January 2014, that is, before Protocol 15 to the ECHR, 
which  will  further  amend  the  ECtHR’s  admissibility 
criteria,  enters  into  force  (see    Chapter  10  on  EU 
Member States and international obligations).

8�2�  Member States reform 

court procedures to 
facilitate access 
to justice

8�2�1�  Member States tackle length of 

proceedings

EU  Member  States  took  steps  to  improve  court 
 procedures, focusing in particular on overly long pro‑
cedures,  an  issue  of  long  standing  which  bedevils 
many  national  systems.  They  pursued  a  variety  of 
methods to address the problem, turning to legislation 
and non‑legislative solutions as well as improving the 
implementation of previously introduced measures. 
They also innovated court procedures through devel‑
oping e‑tools, in part to streamline procedures as well 
as to cut costs.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European  Union  provides  for  the  right  to  a  hearing 
within a reasonable time. The reasonable time guar‑
antee underlines the importance of rendering justice 
without delay. Although EU Member States adopted 
several measures to speed up trials in previous years 
(see, for example, the FRA Annual report 2012), the 
relevant data from 2013 (Tables 8.2 and 8.3) confirm 
that much more time and effort will be needed, with 
all justice sector actors working in synergy, to over‑
come this structural problem.

Table  8.2  provides  information  on  the  number  of 
 judgments related to the length of proceedings as well 
as  to  fair  trial  (Article  6  of  the  ECHR)  in  general. 
Table 8.3 provides more specific data on the number 
of  cases  under  Article  6  of  the  ECHR  concluded  by 
friendly  settlements  between  the  government  and 
the applicant or government declarations unilaterally 
acknowledging the actual violation.

Several EU Member States continued to experience 
excessive delays of over five years in executing the 
ECtHR’s  judgments  (Table  8.4).  In  2013,  as  in  2012, 
Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Poland and Romania had the 
largest  numbers  of  pending 
leading  cases,  or 
non‑repetitive cases that relate to general or struc‑
tural problems that only legislation can address (see 
FRA Annual report 2012, Table 8.2 and 10.7).

197

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Table 8.2:  Number of ECtHR judgments in 2013 and fair‑trial‑related violations, by EU Member State

ECtHR judgments finding 
at least one violation

Violations of the 
right to a fair trial

Violations of length 
of proceedings

AT

10
(10)

4
(0)

2
(3) 

BE

6
(6)

1
(1)

0
(1)

BG

25
(58)

9
(8)

3
(17)

CY

1
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

CZ

8
(10)

4
(2)

0
(0)

DE

3
(11)

0
(1)

0
(0)

DK

0
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

EE

5
(2)

3
(1)

0
(0)

EL

32
(52)

2
(1)

12
(35)

ES

7
(8)

5
(3)

0
(1)

FI

3
(2)

0
(0)

0
(0)

FR

HR

28
(19)

22
(19)

5
(3)

0
(0)

10
(2)

3
(5)

LV

MT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

UK

Total

HU

40

(24)

1

(0)

25

(9)

IE

1

(2)

0

(0)

1

(2)

IT

34

(36)

7

(3)

16

(16)

LT

10

(7)

2

(2)

2

(1)

LU

1

(1)

1

(0)

0

(1)

10

(10)

2

(1)

1

(2)

5

(1)

0

(0)

1

(0)

NL

0

(5)

0

(2)

0

(0)

14

(56)

2

(1)

3

(6)

11

(22)

0

(5)

6

(17)

83

(70)

19

(13)

11

(10)

SE

3

(4)

0

(0)

0

(0)

24

(20)

2

(0)

20 

(13)

16

(21)

1

(1)

12

(11)

8

(10)

0

(0)

0

(1)

410

(486)

80

(50)

118

(151)

Notes:  The numbers in the first row correspond to the number of judgments in which the ECtHR found at least one violation of the 

ECHR. The second row shows how many of these judgments concerned violations of Article 6 of the ECHR in general and 
the third row shows the number of violations of Article 6 of the ECHR due to excessive length of proceedings in particular.

The number of judgments in 2013 can be compared with the number of judgments from 2012, which are in parentheses.

“A related problem is the excessively slow implementation 
of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. 
This is a phenomenon in several countries where some 
judgments of the Court are still not implemented several 
years later. ‘Cherry‑picking’ and disregarding judgments 
of the European Court of Human Rights have a disruptive 
effect not only on our system of human rights protection, 
but on the very essence of those European values on which 
our Organisation is built.”

Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 
Annual activity report 2012, 10 April 2013, CommDH(2013)5, p. 4, available 
at: https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.
instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2307313&SecMode=1&DocId=20265
00&Usage=2

EU Member States took three main approaches in 2013 
to reduce the length of proceedings, opting to pursue 
legislative and non‑legislative solutions and enhance 
the implementation of previously introduced measures:

 • Croatia,37  Hungary,38  Latvia,39  Lithuania,40  the 
 Netherlands,41 Portugal42 and Slovakia,43 for exam‑
ple, introduced new legislative regimes or amend‑
ed existing laws to tackle undue delays.

 • The  second  group 

to  a  variety  of 
turned 
 non‑legislative  solutions:  Malta  launched  public 
consultations44  while  Bulgaria  created  a  specific 
methodology  to  regulate  courts’  workloads.45  In 
Poland,  new  jurisprudence  clarified  a  period  that 
courts  will  have  to  look  at  when  assessing  the 
overall length of proceedings at a particular stage 
of the case.46 In Slovenia, different justice sectors 
committed  to  working 
jointly  to  reduce  the 
length of proceedings.47

 • Finally,  Finland,48  Greece,49  Ireland,50  Italy51  and 
the United Kingdom,52 for example, mainly contin‑
ued  to  pursue  measures,  which  they  had  intro‑
duced in 2012, aimed at shortening the length of 
judicial  proceedings  (FRA  Annual  report  2012).  In 
Denmark, some criticised a suggestion to shorten 
the length of proceedings by limiting access to ap‑
pellate courts in civil cases, arguing that this would 
individuals’  access 
impede 
disproportionately 
to justice.53

Table 8.3:  Number of friendly settlements and unilateral declarations concerning length of proceedings under 

Article 6 of the ECHR in 2013, by EU Member State

Friendly settlements 
in total (in relation to 
length of proceedings)

Unilateral declarations 
in total (in relation to 
length of proceedings)

AT

1
(1)

0
(0)

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

Total

3
(0)

0
(0)

8
(5)

6
(4)

0
(0)

0
(0)

9
(5)

8
(7)

1
(0)

3
(0)

1
(1)

0
(0)

1
(0)

1
(1)

14
(14)

0
(0)

0
(0)

1
(1)

3
(0)

1
(1)

1
(0)

0
(0)

30
(25)

3
(3)

0

(0)

1

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

2

(0)

1

(1)

92

(14)

36

(8)

4

(4)

4

(4)

17

(4)

13

(10)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

21

(21)

4

(4)

2

(0)

4

(2)

288

(162)

89

(48)

IT

2

(1)

0

(0)

73

(64)

3

(2)

3

(3)

0

(0)

Notes:  The first row shows the number of friendly settlements and the second row shows the number of unilateral declarations in 

relation to complaints concerning excessive length of proceedings under Article 6 of the ECHR.

The four highest numbers in each row are highlighted in blue.

198

 
 
Table 8.2:  (continued)

Access to justice and judicial cooperation

ECtHR judgments finding 

at least one violation

Violations of the 

right to a fair trial

Violations of length 

of proceedings

AT

10

(10)

4

(0)

2

(3) 

BE

6

(6)

1

(1)

0

(1)

BG

25

(58)

9

(8)

3

(17)

CY

1

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

CZ

8

(10)

4

(2)

0

(0)

DE

3

(11)

0

(1)

0

(0)

DK

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

EE

5

(2)

3

(1)

0

(0)

EL

32

(52)

2

(1)

12

(35)

ES

7

(8)

5

(3)

0

(1)

FI

3

(2)

0

(0)

0

(0)

FR

HR

28

(19)

22

(19)

5

(3)

0

(0)

10

(2)

3

(5)

HU

40
(24)

1
(0)

25
(9)

IE

1
(2)

0
(0)

1
(2)

IT

34
(36)

7
(3)

16
(16)

LT

10
(7)

2
(2)

2
(1)

LU

1
(1)

1
(0)

0
(1)

LV

MT

10
(10)

2
(1)

1
(2)

5
(1)

0
(0)

1
(0)

NL

0
(5)

0
(2)

0
(0)

PL

PT

RO

14
(56)

2
(1)

3
(6)

11
(22)

0
(5)

6
(17)

83
(70)

19
(13)

11
(10)

SE

3
(4)

0
(0)

0
(0)

SI

SK

UK

Total

24
(20)

2
(0)

20 
(13)

16
(21)

1
(1)

12
(11)

8
(10)

0
(0)

0
(1)

410
(486)

80
(50)

118
(151)

The five highest numbers of violations in each row are highlighted in blue.

(For a full EU Member State list, see Table 10.5 in Chapter 10 on EU Member States and international obligations.)

Sources: Data extracted from ECtHR Annual report 2013 (as well as from earlier Annual reports)

Promising practice

Supporting access to justice through 
guidelines on the creation of 
judicial maps

The  Council  of  Europe  Commission  for  the  Effi‑
ciency of Justice published guidelines in June 2013 
designed to maximise the service level of justice 
while  optimising  operational  costs  and  invest‑
ments.  Policy  makers  can  use  the  guidelines  to 
undertake reforms and take operational decisions 
to redesign the judicial map of an entire country 
or a part of it. The document, Guidelines on the 
creation of judicial maps to support access to jus‑
tice within a quality judicial system, includes fac‑
tors that should be taken into account when de‑
ciding the size and location of a particular court to 
achieve  the  optimum  level  of  efficiency  and 
quality.

Source: www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/
quality/2013_7_cepej _ Judicial_maps_guidelines_en.pdf

As  reported 
last  year,  various  e‑justice  tools 
are expected  to  help  reduce  procedure  length  and 
facilitate access to justice, including those introduced 
for the first time in 2012 in Belgium, Croatia, Germany 
and Sweden (for more on e‑justice, see Section 8.2.2).

8�2�2�  Member States innovate with 

e-justice tools

communication 
information  and 
The  use  of 
 technology (ICT) can help to facilitate access to justice, 
but  ICT  should  supplement,  not  replace,  traditional 
systems, to avoid alienating those who cannot or do 
not wish to access such technology.

In 2013, e‑justice developments continued to expand, 
by making:

 • electronic communication and information  exchange 
possible  between  the  courts  and  the  parties  (indi‑
viduals and their legal representatives) and

Table 8.3:  (continued)

Friendly settlements 

in total (in relation to 

length of proceedings)

Unilateral declarations 

in total (in relation to 

length of proceedings)

AT

1

(1)

0

(0)

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

3

(0)

0

(0)

8

(5)

6

(4)

0

(0)

0

(0)

9

(5)

8

(7)

1

(0)

3

(0)

1

(1)

0

(0)

1

(0)

1

(1)

14

(14)

0

(0)

0

(0)

1

(1)

3

(0)

1

(1)

1

(0)

0

(0)

30

(25)

3

(3)

73
(64)

3
(2)

3
(3)

0
(0)

IT

2
(1)

0
(0)

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

Total

0
(0)

1
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

2
(0)

1
(1)

92
(14)

36
(8)

4
(4)

4
(4)

17
(4)

13
(10)

0
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

0
(0)

21
(21)

4
(4)

2
(0)

4
(2)

288
(162)

89
(48)

The numbers of friendly settlements and unilateral declaration in 2013 can be compared with the number of judgments 
in 2012, which are in parentheses.

Source:  www.hudoc.echr.coe.int

199

 
 
 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Table 8.4:  Leading cases pending execution in 2012 and 2013 for those five EU Member States with the most 

cases pending execution for more than five years

Average execution time

Leading cases pending > 5 years

2012

2013

Number of cases

Per 10 million 
inhabitants

Number of cases

Per 10 million 
inhabitants

33

32

28

20

27

5.43

43.67

13.11

17.71

7.01

34

32

26

26

17

5.70

43.93

12.96

23.50

4.41

EU 
Member 
State

IT

BG

RO

EL

PL

Note:  The table includes data only on the top five EU Member States where implementation is delayed by more than five years. 
(For a full EU Member State list, see Table 10.6 in Chapter 10 on EU Member States and international obligations.)

Source:  Data extracted from ‘Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights’, 

draft of the Annual report 2013, Council of Europe, April 2014 (as well as from earlier Annual reports)

 • judges’  work  more  efficient  through  the  use  of 
computerised databases for registration and man‑
agement of cases.

Promising practice

Using Twitter to raise awareness 
about case law and existing standards

In April 2013, the CJEU started sharing information 
concerning its decisions as well as certain institu‑
tional events through the social network Twitter.

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/
pdf/2013‑04/cp130045en.pdf

The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  of  Lithuania 
likewise opened its Twitter account in 2013, using 
it to inform the public on its latest decisions and 
activities.

Source: https://twitter.com/LVAT_info

EU Member State are increasingly deploying electronic 
communication and information exchange between 
the courts and the parties; this trend continued in 2013. 
In Austria, since January 2013, electronic entries may 
be filed at courts and the public prosecutor’s office, 
using the citizen card (Bürgerkarte) and online forms, 
through  the  website  www.eingaben.justiz.gv.at.  In 
Croatia, a new amendment to the Civil Procedural Act 
provides for the possibility of electronic communica‑
tion  between  the  court  and  parties  in  proceedings 
before commercial courts. Electronic communication 
is bilateral, allowing both the parties and the court to 
send documents by electronic means.54 Similarly, in 

Lithuania, since January 2013, parties to civil judicial 
proceedings are able to submit procedural documents 
to  the  courts  electronically.55  In  Estonia,  individuals 
increasingly made use in 2013 of the existing online 
tool ‘public e‑file’ to initiate court proceedings. One 
of the system’s advantages was the lower court fees 
for civil court proceedings initiated through the e‑file 
system.  The  Supreme  Court,  however,  held  this  to 
be discriminatory and declared the relevant parts of 
the law on court fees unconstitutional.56 In Slovakia, 
a  newly  adopted  law  introduced  electronic  mail‑
boxes as the means of communication among public 
administration organs as well as between them and 
citizens.57 Every person in possession of an electronic 
mailbox will be able to file legal actions, complaints 
and other court motions electronically.

Promising practice

Enhancing accessibility: the European 
e-Justice Portal goes mobile

From  19 December 2013,  mobile  devices  can  be 
used to consult the European e‑Justice Portal. The 
portal dynamically adapts to the resolution of the 
given device whether it is a smartphone, a tablet 
or a phablet, which is essentially a combination of 
the first two.

Source: https://e‑justice.europa.eu/sitenewsshow.
do?plang=en&newsId=87

As for the e‑registration and management of cases, 
on 4 September 2013, the Cypriot government decided 

200

Access to justice and judicial cooperation

to create an electronic platform to facilitate the courts’ 
work. Through this platform, the government aspires 
to implement the e‑justice approach and make court 
processes  more  accessible  and  efficient.58  Sweden 
initiated  an  electronic  information  flow  in  criminal 
procedures to shorten the length of criminal proceed‑
ings. It also improved citizen’s e‑services, making it 
possible, for example, for parties to litigation to follow 
their cases through the proceedings more effectively.

France from a few regions. Online pre‑reporting ena‑
bles individuals who are victims of theft or fraud, and 
who  do  not  know  the  offender,  to  make  an  initial 
report online. They can then make an appointment 
with the police or gendarmerie station of their choice, 
where the online pre‑report must be signed in order 
to be official.59

Promising practices

Accessing services of non-judicial 
bodies online

Online reporting seems not uncommon when ap‑
proaching non‑judicial bodies to provide testimo‑
ny, lodge a complaint or request assistance. Com‑
plaints  to  the  Hungarian  Commissioner  for 
Fundamental Rights (Alapvető jogok biztosa) can, 
for example, be submitted online, by filling out an 
interactive  online  questionnaire  on  the  website. 
They can also be submitted via the central state 
website  for  online  administrative  case  manage‑
ment (Ügyfélkapu), which requires users either to 
register or to provide an e‑signature.

Source: www.ajbh.hu/forduljon‑a‑biztoshoz_intelligens_
form, www.ajbh.hu/forduljon‑a‑biztoshoz_ugyfelkapu_nelkul 
and https://ugyfelkapu.magyarorszag.hu/

In  Portugal,  the  Ombudsperson  (Provedor  de 
Justiça) website provides an electronic tool for the 
presentation of complaints within the realm of its 
competence  and  responsibilities.60  The  Portu‑
guese Commission for Equality and against Racial 
Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e con‑
tra a Discriminação Racial) also provides an elec‑
tronic tool on its website for the presentation of 
complaints pertaining to racial discrimination.

Source: www.acidi.gov.pt/_cfn/51b1d0c36f0d9/live/
Formul%C3%A1rio+Queixa

Overall,  by  2013  more  than  half  of  the  EU  Member 
States had made it possible to initiate judicial proceed‑
ings through online tools, be it through email or a spe‑
cial portal using electronic signature or e‑ID. Yet, in the 
majority  of  cases,  this  possibility  is  still  limited  to 
specific types of proceedings, mostly in the area of 
civil and/or administrative law. For criminal proceed‑
ings,  police  in  fewer  than  half  the  Member  States 
accept  online  reports  from  individuals  during  the 
investigation phase. These online filings are possible 
only  when  they  relate  to  certain  types  of  criminal 
activity, usually those linked to property damage. In 
France, it has been possible to file complaints online 
about police misconduct since 2 September 2013. The 
statement  cannot  be  anonymous,  and  the  internet 
user  is  notified  that  false  allegations  can  be  prose‑
cuted. During the first half of 2013, France extended 
the existing system of online pre‑reporting to all of 

FRA ACTIVITY

Developing an online tool to enhance 
access to justice by means of 
non-judicial bodies: CLARITY project

A major obstacle to efficient remedies, according 
to FRA research, is the difficulty victims of funda‑
mental rights violations face in finding the correct 
path to have their grievance addressed effective‑
ly.  Many  such  victims  favour  non‑judicial  paths, 
whose  proceedings  are  seen  as  less  expensive, 
swifter  and  more  expert,  the  research  shows. 
In 2013, FRA, together with a group of national hu‑
man rights bodies, started developing a pilot on‑
line tool to help victims of fundamental rights vio‑
lations gain better access to non‑judicial remedies. 
The  pilot  online  tool  is  designed  to  help  identify 
the  most  appropriate  non‑judicial  EU  Member 
State body with a human rights remit for a particu‑
lar  fundamental  rights  issue.  The  tool  will  cover 
different  fundamental  rights  areas,  including  the 
area of non‑discrimination. It will principally target 
intermediaries,  such  as  NGOs  guiding  victims  of 
fundamental  rights  violations  to  a  relevant  body, 
as  well  as  the  victims  themselves.  The  launch  of 
the first prototype of this tool is planned for 2014.

Source: http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2013/clarity‑complaints‑ 
legal‑assistance‑and‑rights‑information‑tool‑you

8�3�  Member States turn 

attention to non-judicial 
mechanisms

It  is  well  established  that  independent  and  strong 
non‑judicial bodies with a human rights remit have 
a role in facilitating access to justice, and hence an 
important place within the fundamental rights land‑
scape (see FRA Annual report 2012, Section 8.6., as 
well  as  the  FRA  Annual  report  2011  Focus).  These 
bodies  include  national  human  rights  institutions 
(NHRIs), equality bodies, ombudsperson institutions, 
data protection authorities (see Chapter 3 on informa‑
tion society, respect for private life and data protec‑
tion) and international treaty‑monitoring bodies (see 
Chapter  10  on  EU  Member  States  and  international 
obligations). The UN General Assembly reiterated the 
role of these institutions in strengthening the rule of 

201

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

law in its resolution adopted on a German initiative 
in December 2013.61

Promising practice

Safeguarding pluralism in 
a non-judicial body’s composition

The Dutch national human rights institution safe‑
guards  pluralism  in  its  composition,  in  line  with 
the  Principles  relating  to  the  Status  of  National 
Institutions  (the  Paris  Principles),  by  engaging 
with other non‑judicial bodies. An advisory coun‑
cil supports the work of the Netherlands Institute 
for  Human  Rights  (College  voor  de  Rechten  van 
de Mens), which opened its doors in October 2012 
(see FRA Annual report 2012). Standing members 
of  this  council  include  the  National  Ombudsman 
(Nationale Ombudsman), and the chairpersons of 
the Dutch Data Protection Agency (College besch‑
erming  persoonsgegevens)  and  the  Justice  Ad‑
ministration  Council.  The  advisory  council  issues 
annual policies and submits recommendations to 
the  Minister  of  Security  and  Justice  on  the  ap‑
pointment of commissioners and deputy commis‑
sioners  to  the  institute.  Between  four  and  eight 
advisory  council  members  are  also  drawn  from 
civil  society  organisations  concerned  with  the 
protection of human rights, organisations of em‑
ployers and employees, and academia.

Source: Netherlands, Netherlands Institute for Human Rights 
(2013), Annual Report 1 October 2012 – 1 October 2013, 
available at: https://mensenrechten.nl/publicaties/
detail/18902

FRA ACTIVITY

Cooperating to strengthen 
fundamental rights protection in an 
evolving human rights landscape

National  and  international  human  rights  bodies 
met  for  the  first  time  in  2013,  reiterating  their 
commitment to work together to strengthen hu‑
man rights protection in Europe. The October 2013 
meeting  brought  together  national  human  rights 
institutions,  equality  bodies  and  ombudsperson 
institutions from across Europe with the Council of 
Europe,  FRA,  the  UN  and  the  OSCE’s  Office  for 
Democratic  Institutions  and  Human  Rights.  The 
meeting  was  therefore  an  important  step  in 
strengthening  the  European  human  rights  and 
equality  architecture  and  promoting  concerted 
action  for  individuals’  human  rights  throughout 
the  region.  It  will  also  help  ensure  that  the  EU’s 
decision makers receive coordinated input to help 
shape the EU’s fundamental rights in Europe.

Source: www.fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
meeting_report_7‑8_oct_2013_en.pdf

202

Some  EU  Member  States  cut  non‑judicial  bodies’ 
budgets, a reflection of the continuing austerity trend 
(see  also  FRA  Annual  report  2012).62  Budget  cuts, 
which  may  force  non‑judicial  bodies  to  provide 
reduced services and hence undercut their ability to 
adhere to their mandate, were reported in 2013 in, for 
example, Bulgaria,63 Ireland,64 Slovakia65 and Spain.66

Merging  various  non‑judicial  bodies  represents 
another  trend.  Ireland  took  further  steps  in  2013 
towards  merging  the  Equality  Authority  and  the 
Human  Rights  Commission 
(see  FRA  Annual 
report 2012).67 In Finland, a new draft proposal was 
made in 2013 to merge two distinct national equality 
bodies into one with a mandate covering all forms of 
discrimination.68 The general aim of the reform is to 
address all forms of discrimination with a coherent set 
of remedies and sanctions.

Promising practice

Launching an online case digest: 
European Ombudsman

To inform the public regularly and more effective‑
ly about its inquiries into possible maladministra‑
tion by EU institutions, bodies, offices and agen‑
cies, the European Ombudsman launched a digest 
of case law on its website in September 2013. The 
digest contains the key findings of the Ombuds‑
man’s  inquiries,  searchable  through  a  variety  of 
categories, with links to the texts of the full deci‑
sions, and other documents where relevant.

Source: www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/digests.faces

Finally,  some  EU  Member  States  continued  to 
 restructure  their  non‑judicial  bodies  in  2013,  as 
reported in the FRA Annual report 2012. The Belgian 
central government, regions and communities took 
the first step in their agreement to convert the cur‑
rent  equality  body  into  an  interfederal  Centre  for 
Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (inter‑
federaal Centrum voor gelijke kansen en bestrijding 
van discriminatie en racisme/Centre interfédéral pour 
l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme) with 
a mandate to address issues in the area of racism at 
those  three  levels.69  This  agreement,  reached  on 
23 July 2013,  entered  into  force  on  15 March 2014. 
Initiatives in Lithuania70 to transform the Ombudsman 
in  2013  (see 
office 
FRA Annual report 2012).

into  an  NHRI  continued 

Access to justice and judicial cooperation

EU Member States will continue searching for the right 
balance  between  the  need  to  restructure  national 
justice  systems  and  cut  unnecessary  costs  and 
ensuring that remedies are accessible in practice to 
everyone,  including  through  effective  and  inde‑
pendent non‑judicial structures or innovative e‑tools. 
The overall role of national human rights structures is 
expected to be further enhanced beyond the national 
level  by  their  increased  integration  in  the  work  of 
all UN organs.

Outlook

Many new legislative and standard setting measures 
in the area of access to justice and judicial cooperation 
are expected to be adopted in 2014 at both the EU and 
national  levels,  including  measures  to  finalise  the 
criminal procedures roadmap or the currently pending 
proposal  for  a  creation  of  the  European  Public 
Prosecutor’s Office. The main focus of EU policy, how‑
ever,  will  undoubtedly  be  on  the  implementation 
of existing measures.

This implementation problem, that is how to ensure 
that existing legislation and case law in the area of 
justice are effective and function well in practice, will 
represent one of the biggest challenges for the EU in 
the post‑Stockholm period. Another challenge will be 
to  develop  an  effective  rule  of  law  mechanism  for 
the EU in close collaboration with national, European 
and international actors.

203

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page 

AT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

BE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

BG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192, 197, 198, 202

CY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

CZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

DE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

DK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

EL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192, 197, 198

ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 192, 197, 202

FI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 202

FR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

HR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 199, 200

HU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 192, 198

IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191, 192, 198, 202

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 192, 197, 198

LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 200, 202

LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a

LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

NL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 198, 202

PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 198

PT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192, 198, 201

RO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 192, 197

SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 201

SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192, 198

SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 200, 202

UK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192, 198

204

Access to justice and judicial cooperation

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

Council of the European Union (2013), Council conclusions on 
fundamental rights and rule of law and on the Commission 
2012 Report on the Application of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, www.consilium.
eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/137404.pdf.

FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental 
Rights) (2013), Fundamental rights: challenges and 
achievements in 2012, Annual report, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office of the European Union (Publications 
Office), Chapter 8.

European Commission (2013), Report from the Commission 
to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in 
Romania under the Cooperation and Verification 
Mechanism, COM(2013) 47 final, Brussels, 30 January 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf.

Council of Europe, Venice Commission (2013), Opinion on the 
Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary, 
adopted by the Venice Commission at its 95th Plenary 
Session, Venice, 14–15 June 2013, CDL‑AD(2013)012), 
www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?country= 
17&year=all.

For the previous opinions of the Venice Commission on 
Hungary from 2012, see FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: 
challenges and achievements in 2012, Annual report, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office, Chapter 8.

European Parliament (2012), Resolution on the situation of 
fundamental rights: Standards and practices in Hungary 
(pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 
16 February 2012), P7_TA‑PROV(2013)0315, Brussels, 
3 July 2013, www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
do?type=TA&reference=P7‑TA‑2013‑0315&language=EN&rin
g=A7‑2013‑0229.

United Nations (UN), Office of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), ‘Hungary must 
revoke worrying constitutional changes – Pillay’, Press 
release, 18 June 2013, www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/
Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13464&LangID=E.

Hungary (2013), Magyarország Alaptörvényének ötödik 
módosítása.

European Commission (2013), Flash Eurobarometer 385: 
Justice in the EU, report, 21 November 2013, http://
ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_385_en.pdf.

10  

Ireland (2013), Civil Legal Aid Regulations 2013 
(SI No. 346 of 2013), http://irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/
si/0346.html.

11   Portugal (2013), Lei 83‑C/2013 que aprova o Orçamento de 
Estado para 2014, 31 December 2013, https://dre.pt/
pdf1sdip/2013/12/25301/0005800295.pdf.

12   United Kingdom, Ministry of Justice, Legal Services 

Commission (2014), Legal Aid statistics in England and 
Wales 2012–2013, 25 June 2013, http://justice.gov.uk/
downloads/publications/corporate‑reports/lsc/legal‑aid‑
stats‑12‑13.pdf.

13   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 

‘Austerity measures across Europe have undermined human 
rights: Safeguarding human rights in times of economic 
crisis’, issue paper, 4 December 2013, https://wcd.coe.int/
ViewDoc.jsp?id=2130915; Council of Europe, Commissioner 
for Human Rights (2013), Safeguarding human rights in 
times of economic crises, CommDH/IssuePaper(2013)2, 
November 2013.

14   European Commission (2013), Assises de la Justice 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/assises‑justice‑2013/
index_en.htm.

15   Council of Europe, Commission for the Evaluation of the 

Efficiency of Justice (2013), The functioning of judicial 
systems and the situation of the economy in the European 
Union Member States: Compiled report, 15 January 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective‑justice/files/
cepej_study_ justice_scoreboard_en.pdf.

16   European Commission (2013), The EU Justice Scoreboard: 

A tool to promote effective justice and growth, 
27 March 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective‑
justice/files/justice_scoreboard_communication_en.pdf.

17   See FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: challenges and 
achievements in 2012, Annual report, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

18   Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer 
in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant 
proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed 
upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third 
persons and with consular authorities while deprived of 
liberty, OJ 2013 L 294/1, 6 November 2013.

19   European Commission (2013), Proposal for a directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council (2013) on the 
strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of 
innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal 
proceedings, COM(2013) 821/2, 27 November 2013.

20   European Commission (2013), Proposal for a directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council (2013) on procedural 
safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal 
proceedings, COM(2013) 822/2, 27 November 2013.

21   European Commission (2013), Proposal for a directive of the 

European Parliament and of the Council (2013) on 
provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons 
deprived of liberty and legal aid in European arrest warrant 
proceedings, COM(2013) 824, 27 November 2013.

22   European Commission (2013), Commission 

Recommendation (2013) on procedural safeguards for 
vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal 
proceedings, C(2013) 8178/2, 27 November 2013.

23   European Commission (2013), Recommendation (2013) on 

the right to legal aid for suspects or accused persons in 
criminal proceedings, C(2013) 8179/2, 27 November 2013.

24   European Commission (2013), Proposal for a Council 

regulation (2013) on the establishment of the European 
Public Prosecutor’s Office, COM(2013) 534 final, 17 July 2013.

25   European Commission (2013), Recommendation  2013/396/
EU of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and 
compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the 
Member States concerning violations of rights granted 
under Union Law, OJ L 201/60.

26   Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for 
consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) 
No. 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on 
consumer ADR), OJ L 165/63.

27   Regulation (EU) No. 524/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute 
resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation 
(EC) No. 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation 
on consumer ODR), OJ L 165/1.

28   European Commission (2007), Proposal for a Regulation of 
the European Parliament and of the Council amending 
Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the European Parliament 
and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European 
Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment 
procedure, COM(2013) 794 final, 19 November 2013.

205

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

29   European Commission, Consultation on Access to justice in 

environmental matters – options for improving access to 
justice at Member State level, http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/consultations/access_ justice_en.htm.

Institutions of the Judicial Branch] aimed at devising 
a sustainable model for regulating the workload in the 
institutions of the judicial branch, 24 October 2013.

46   Poland, Sąd Najwyższy (2013), Resolution No. III SPZP 1/13, 

30   CJEU, C‑396/11, Ciprian Vasile Radu, 29 January 2013.

28 March 2013.

31   CJEU, C‑399/11, Criminal proceedings against Stefano 

Melloni, 26 February 2013. See also the Opinion of the 
Advocate General in this case analysed by FRA (2013), 
Fundamental rights: Challenges and achievements in 2012, 
Annual report, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 236.

32   CJEU, C‑617/10, Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson, 

26 February 2013.

33   CJEU, C‑442/12, Jan Sneller v. DAS Nederlandse 
Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV, 
7 November 2013.

34   ECtHR, Anghel v. Italy, No. 5968/09, 4 November 2013.

35   ECtHR, Del Río Prada v. Spain, No. 42750/09, 

21 October 2013.

36   Council of Europe, ECtHR (2014), Rules of Court, 

1 January 2014, www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_
Court_ENG.pdf.

37   Croatia (2013), Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona 

o parničnom postupku, Narodne novine 25/13, 
21 February 2013, http://narodne‑novine.nn.hr/clanci/
sluzbeni/2013_ 
02_25_405.html; see also: Croatia, Konačni prijedlog zakona 
o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o kaznenom postupku, 
drugo čitanje No. 488, unpublished, www.sabor.hr/konacni‑ 
prijedlog‑zakona‑o‑izmjenama‑i‑dopunama‑02.

38   Hungary (2011), 2011. évi CLXII. törvény a bírák jogállásáról 

és javadalmazásáról, 2 December 2011.

39   Latvia (2013), Grozījumi likumā par tiesu varu, 13 June 2013.

40   Lithuania (2013), Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso 
kodekso 71, 75, 120, 121, 126, 132, 139, 179, 183, 218, 219, 233, 
236, 261, 273, 279, 285, 286, 317, 319, 426, 427, 428, 429, 432 
straipsnių pakeitimo ir papildymo ir Kodekso 
papildymo 131 (1), 430 (1) straipsniais įstatymas, No. XII‑498, 
2 July 2013.

41   Netherlands, De Rechtspraak (2013), ‘Wetswijziging geeft 

bestuursrechter meer armslag’, Press release, 7 January 2013, 
www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Nieuws/Pages/
Wetswijziging‑geeft‑bestuursrechter‑meer‑armslag.aspx.

42   Portugal (2013), Lei 41/2013 aprova o Código do Processo 
Civil, 26 June 2013, http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2013/06/12100/ 
0351803665.pdf.

43   Slovakia, Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR (2013), ‘Legislatívna 
rada vlády schválila návrh reformy súdnych pravidiel’, 
16 April 2013, www.justice.gov.sk/Stranky/aktualitadetail.
aspx?announcementID=1731.

44   Malta, Commission for the Holistic Reform of the Justice 
System (2013), The first document for public consultation 
prepared by The Commission for the Holistic Reform of the 
Justice System, 31 May 2013, http://mhas.gov.mt/en/MHAS‑
Information/KRHG/Documents/Document%20for%20
Public%20Consultation%20by%20the%20Commission%20
for%20the%20Holistic%20Reform%20of%20the%20
Justice%20System.pdf; Malta, Commission for the Holistic 
Reform of the Justice System (2013), The second document 
for public consultation prepared by The Commission for the 
Holistic Reform of the Justice System, 29 July 2013, 
https://opm.gov.mt/en/krhg/Documents/Consultation%20
Document%2029%2007%2013%20Final%20Version%20
English.pdf.

45   See its latest report: Bulgaria, Committee on Analysis and 

Accounting of the Degree of Workload in the Institutions of 
the Judicial Branch (2013), Activities of [Committee on 
Analysis and Accounting of the Degree of Workload in the 

47   Slovenia (2013), Zaveza za izboljšanje stanja v sodstvu, 
4 June 2013, www.mp.gov.si/fileadmin/mp.gov.si/
pageuploads/mp.gov.si/PDF/130604_Zaveza.pdf.

48   FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: Challenges and 

achievements in 2012, Annual report, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, p. 240.

49  

Ibid., p. 238.

50   Legislation is required to give effect to the referendum; the 
government has introduced the Thirty Third Amendment of 
the Constitution (Court of Appeal) Bill 2013, which is likely 
to be passed in 2014: Ireland, Thirty Third Amendment of 
the Constitution (Court of Appeal) Bill 2013, 
www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/
bills/2013/7913/b7913d.pdf.

51   Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) (2013), 

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, 
Implementation of judgments of the European Court of 
Human Rights: Preparation of the 8th report, AS/Jur (2013) 
14 Addendum, 10 May 2013, p. 4, www.assembly.coe.int/
CommitteeDocs/2013/ajdoc142013add.pdf.

52   United Kingdom, Crime and Courts Act 2013, 

 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/contents. See also 
the promising practice: United Kingdom, Open justice: 
Making sense of justice, http://open.justice.gov.uk/courts/.

53   Denmark, Institut for Menneske Rettigheder (2013), 

Statement on memorandum on access to appeal in civil 
cases and memorandum on access to the Supreme Court, 
21 August 2013, www.menneskeret.dk/files/media/
hoeringssvar/86_b_appel20_i20_civile20_sager_
delnotater.pdf and www.menneskeret.dk/files/media/
hoeringssvar/høringsvar_afgivet_i_2013/
august_2013/86_b_appel_i_civile_sager_delnotater.pdf.

54   Croatia (2013), Konačni prijedlog Zakona o izmjenama 

i dopunama Zakona o parničnom postupku, second reading, 
Proposal No. 216, p. 22, www.sabor.hr/Default.
aspx?art=52698.

55   Lithuania, Seimas (2013), Civilinio proceso kodekso 

patvirtinimo, įsigaliojimo ir įgyvendinimo įstatymas: 
Civilinio proceso kodeksas, No. IX‑743, 3 December 2013, 
www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.
showdoc_l?p_id=462215&p_tr2=2.

56   Estonia, Riigikohtu põhiseaduslikkuse järelevalve 

kolleegium, Case No. 3‑4‑1‑20‑13.

57   Slovakia (2013), Zákon č. 305/2013 Z.z. o elektronickej 

podobe výkonu pôsobnosti orgánov verejnej moci, Zákon 
o eGovernmente, 4 September 2013, www.nrsr.sk/web/
Default.aspx?sid=zakony/zakon&MasterID=4500; Slovakia, 
Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR (2013), Projekty eJustice 
zrýchlia súdne konania a priblížia súdy občanom, 
10 October 2013, www.justice.gov.sk/Stranky/
aktualitadetail.aspx?announcementID=1781.

58   Some of the information supplied in this chapter is based on 
data deriving from the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court.

59   France, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Pré‑plainte en ligne, 

 www.pre‑plainte‑en‑ligne.gouv.fr/.

60   Portugal, Provedor de Justiça, Formulário de queixa, 

 http://queixa.provedor‑jus.pt/Queixas/Step1.aspx.

61   UN, General Assembly (2013), A/RES/68/171, 

18 December 2013. See also UN, Human Rights Council 
(2013), Resolution National institutions for the promotion 
and protection of human rights, A/HRC/RES/23/17, 
24 June 2013.

206

62   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 

68   Finland (2013), Draft proposal for the government 

Access to justice and judicial cooperation

proposition for a Non‑Discrimination Act, 12 April 2013.

69   Belgium (2012), Samenwerkingsakkoord tussen de federale 
overheid, de gewesten en de Gemeenschappen voor de 
oprichting van het interfederaal Centrum voor gelijke 
kansen en bestrijding van discriminatie en racisme onder de 
vorm van een gemeenschappelijke instelling zoals bedoeld 
in artikel 92bis van de bijzondere wet van 8 augustus 1980/
Accord de Coopération entre l’autorité fédérale, les Régions 
et les Communautés visant à créer un Centre interfédéral 
pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme et les 
discriminations sous la forme d’une institution commune, au 
sens de l’article 92bis de la loi spéciale de réformes 
institutionnelles du 8 août 1980, 23 July 2012.

70   Lithuania, Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo 

ministerija (2013), Communication of NFP‑Lithuania, 
15 November 2013.

Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crises, 
November 2013, https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.
InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&Instra
netImage=2407768&SecMode=1&DocId=2088892&Usage=.

63   Bulgaria, Ombudsman, www.ombudsman.bg/

news/2816#middleWrapper.

64   Mcquinn, C. (2013), ‘Cuts decimating services, equality 

groups complain’, Independent.ie, www.independent.ie/
irish‑news/cuts‑decimating‑services‑equality‑groups‑complain‑ 
29726492.html.

65   Slovakia, Kancelária Verejného Ochrancu Práv (2014), 

Správa Kancelárie verejného ochrancu práv o výsledkoch jej 
činnosti, hospodárení a podmienkach pre jej činnosť v roku 
2013, www.vop.gov.sk/files/Priloha‑2013.pdf.

66  

67  

International Ombudsman Institute (2013), ‘Spain: Latest 
development regarding two regional Ombudsman 
institutions´, Press release, www.theioi.org/news/spain‑latest‑ 
development‑regarding‑two‑regional‑ombudsman‑
institutions.

Ireland (2013), ‘Appointment of members designate of new 
Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission’, Press release, 
14 April 2013, www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/04/
appointment‑of‑members‑designate‑of‑new‑irish‑human‑
rights‑and‑equality‑commission.

207

9 

Rights of crime victims  ���������������������������������������������������������� 211

9�1�  EU Member States take steps to enhance 

victims’ rights  ��������������������������������������������������������������� 211
9�1�1�  Governments take greater responsibility 

towards victims  ���������������������������������������������� 212

9�1�2�  Many gaps remain, including a lack 
of coordination of support services 
and insufficient funding  ��������������������������������� 213
9�1�3� 
The role of victims in the sentencing phase  ��� 213
9�1�4�  Funding cuts hit support services  ����������������� 214

9�2�  Member States enhance victims’ access 

to compensation  ����������������������������������������������������������� 214

9�3�  Member States move to strengthen rights 

of victims of domestic violence and violence 
against women  ������������������������������������������������������������� 215
9�3�1� 

Istanbul Convention and related 
developments at EU Member State level  ���� 215
9�3�2�  Sexual violence  ���������������������������������������������� 216
9�3�3�  Measures to enhance protection 

of women from domestic violence  ��������������� 216

9�4�  EU focuses on enhancing rights 

of hate crime victims  ��������������������������������������������������� 218
9�4�1�  The need to tackle under-reporting 

by victims �������������������������������������������������������� 220

9�5�  Member States address rights 

of victims of trafficking and severe forms 
of labour exploitation ��������������������������������������������������� 221
9�5�1�  Most Member States increase efforts 

to tackle human trafficking  ��������������������������� 222
9�5�2�  Member States still bring few prosecutions  ��� 223
9�5�3�  Concern that victims may be prosecuted 

for ‘crimes’  ������������������������������������������������������ 223

9�5�4�  Labour exploitation – action needs 

to be stepped up  �������������������������������������������� 225

Outlook  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 225

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE
January
5 February – Portugal becomes the first European 
Union (EU) Member State to ratify the Council of 
Europe Convention on preventing and combating 
violence against women and domestic violence 
(Istanbul Convention)
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
5 September – International Labour Organization 
(ILO) Convention concerning decent work for 
domestic workers enters into force
September
17 October – Council of Europe Group of Experts on 
Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 
(GRETA) publishes the Third General Report on its 
activities
October
November
9 December – Council of Europe and the French 
government organise a hearing on ‘Access to 
Justice for Women Victims of Violence’
December

EU
January 
February 
March 
6 April – Deadline for transposition into national law of the Directive on 
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting 
its victims

15 April – Eurostat publishes its report Trafficking in human beings in 
the European Union
April 
May 
12 June – European Parliament and Council of the European Union adopt 
the Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures taken in 
civil matters

13 June – Council of the European Union adopts conclusions on an EU 
framework for the provision of information on the rights of victims of 
trafficking in human beings
June 
July 
August 
September 
15 October – FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) 
issues an Opinion on the Framework Decision on Racism and 
Xenophobia – with special attention to the rights of victims of crime
October 
12–13 November – FRA holds its annual Fundamental Rights Conference 
on ‘Combating hate crime in the EU: Giving victims a face and a voice’
November 
6 December – Justice and Home Affairs ( JHA) Council adopts conclusions 
on combating hate crime in the EU, proposing concrete actions to 
improve efforts to combat hate crime at EU and national level
December 

210

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 

Rights of crime victims

In 2013, EU Member States worked to transpose the EU Victims’ Directive, which was adopted in October 2012, 
into national law with a view to implementation by the 16 November 2015 deadline. Some Member States made 
considerable progress in strengthening procedural rights and support provisions for victims in line with the 
directive. The Czech Republic, for example, guaranteed many of the rights set out in the directive at the legal 
level, while France stands out as having established a comprehensive victim support service structure across 
the country. Other Member States, however, need to make a significant effort in the coming months if the 
targets outlined in the directive, including the provision of victim support services, are to be met on time. The 
Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures taken in civil matters upon request of the person at 
risk, adopted on 12 June 2013, aims to ensure that protection measures in civil matters issued by one Member 
State will be easily recognised by and applied in other Member States. A number of Member States reformed 
laws and enhanced victims’ rights.

9�1�  EU Member States 
take steps to 
enhance 
victims’ rights

Some  EU  Member  States  overhauled  victims’ 
rights legislation in 2013, driven by the obliga‑
tion to transpose the EU Victims’ Directive into 
national  legislation  by  November 2015.  Some 
governments also enforced their responsibility 
to  make  victims’  access  to  justice  effective 
in  practice,  in  particular  by  initiating,  coordi‑
nating and funding the establishment of sup‑
port  services  by  state  and  non‑state  actors. 
Despite  progress  in  enforcing  victims’  rights, 
gaps  remain  across  various  Member  States, 
including  continuing  low  numbers  of  victims 
granted compensation, lack of coordination of 
support services and the insufficient funding of 
and coverage provided by such services.

In the Czech Republic, a comprehensive Victims’ 
Rights  Act  came  into  force  on  1 August.1  The 

Key developments in the rights of crime victims

•  The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 

adopt a Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures 
taken in civil matters upon request of the person at risk, aiming to 
ensure that all protection measures taken in civil matters in one 
Member State can be applied throughout the European Union.

•  Member States continue efforts to implement Directive  2012/29/EU 

establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and 
protection of victims of crime (EU Victims’ Directive) by amending 
criminal legislation to include measures that protect and empower 
victims and by strengthening victim support structures. Many gaps 
remain, however, such as a lack of coordinated support structures 
and inadequate funding of support organisations.

•  The deadline for transposing Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing 
and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its 
victims (Trafficking Directive) is reached on 6 April 2013.

•  Three EU Member States ratify the Council of Europe Convention on 
preventing and combating violence against women and domestic 
violence (Istanbul Convention). A further three Member States 
signed the Convention in 2013, bringing the total number of EU 
signatories to 17.

211

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

•  The JHA Council adopts conclusions on combating hate crime 
in the EU, inviting Member States to ensure that bias motives 
are taken into consideration throughout criminal proceedings; 
to take appropriate measures to facilitate victims’ reporting 
of hate crimes; to look at measures to build trust in police 
and other state institutions; and to collect and publish 
comprehensive and comparable data on hate crime.

act regulates the position of victims of crime, making 
special provision for “particularly vulnerable victims”, 
for example victims of crimes involving racial hatred 
or  prejudice.  All  victims  have  the  right  to  access  to 
information concerning their rights and obligations, will 
have the chance to file a criminal complaint and are to 
be  informed  about  where  they  can  seek  assistance. 
There  are  also  measures  ensuring  that  particularly 
vulnerable  victims  will  be  interviewed  by  someone 
who  is  specially  trained  and  that  the  same  person 
will conduct hearings.

Poland  amended  its  Criminal  Code  of  Procedure  to 
bring  it  in  line  with  the  Victims’  Directive.2  Crucially, 
the  new  law  introduces  the  formal  obligation  to 
inform victims about their specific rights in prepara‑
tory  proceedings.  The  amendment  also  gives  vic‑
tims and suspects equal rights to access case files in 
pre‑trial proceedings. Victims must be informed about 
this  right  at  the  beginning  of  the  investigation.  The 
new  law  also  introduces  the  right  to  interpretation 
for non‑Polish‑speaking victims.3

In  the  United  Kingdom  (England  and  Wales),  the 
Criminal Procedure Rules were restated in October 2013. 
The resulting revised Criminal Practice Directions were 
amended in line with the Code of Practice for Victims 
of  Crime,  requiring,  for  the  first  time,  that  Victim 
Personal Statements be read to the court if the victim 
so requests, subject to judicial discretion.4

While not all countries took concrete steps to  transpose 
the Directive in 2013, some Member States paved the 
way for progress. The Lithuanian Ministry of Justice, for 
example, adopted a framework plan of implementation, 
which sets out plans to amend the Criminal Procedure 
Code and introduce other measures to improve the pro‑
tection of rights of all victims of crimes in accordance 
with the directive.5 Ireland also announced plans for 
a Criminal Justice (Victims’ Rights) Bill.6

9�1�1�  Governments take greater 

responsibility towards victims

of the EU Victims’ Directive on the provision of victim 
support  services  (see  the  FRA  2012  Annual  report). 
Governments are thus increasing their influence on the 
provision of services by non‑governmental organisa‑
tions  (NGOs).  The  following  trends  can  be  identified 
across Member States in 2013:

 • the  adoption  of 

joint  government  strategies 
 ensuring  a  comprehensive  and  coordinated  ap‑
proach to the implementation of victims’ rights (for 
example, in Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands);

 • the  creation  or  strengthening  of  organisations 
tasked with coordinating efforts to support victims 
(for example, in Denmark and France);

 • the introduction of mechanisms to recognise,  certify 
or accredit generic or specialised support services on 
the basis of explicit standards and criteria (for exam‑
ple, in Austria, Belgium and the Czech Republic).

In Finland, the government took steps to ensure ade‑
quate implementation of the EU Victims’ Directive by 
setting up a commission to prepare a Victims Strategy 
to  cover  all  victim‑related  activities.7  A new  policy 
document, To do justice to victims, presented to the 
Dutch parliament in 2013 sets out proposals to increase 
training on victims’ rights for various actors; improve 
information supply and adapt it to the differing needs 
of  victims;  secure  rights  of  victims  in  cross‑border 
cases; simplify compensation claims; and further the 
professionalisation of victim support and the manda‑
tory contribution of perpetrators to victim support.8

The Irish government established the Victims’ Rights 
Alliance, an association of victim support and human 
rights organisations. The alliance aims to ensure that 
the  EU  Victims’  Directive  is  implemented  within  the 
proposed time frame, covering all victims of crime. The 
alliance  provides  a platform  for  victims’  rights  NGOs 
in  Ireland  to  engage  with  relevant  interest  groups, 
including the government, on the implementation of 
the  directive.  In  late  2013,  the  Croatian  government 
announced plans to adopt a new national strategy for 
victim and witness support for the period 2014–2017.9

In Denmark, a new law establishes a Victims’ Fund for 
the benefit of victims of crime and traffic accidents, 
funded  by  fines  imposed  on  convicted  offenders. 
Through  grants  to  victim  support  services,  research, 
projects  on  education,  information  and  develop‑
ment,  the  fund  will  support  activities  in  the  area 
of victim support.10

Governments are becoming increasingly aware of their 
responsibility to make victims’ access to justice effec‑
tive in practice, in particular by initiating, coordinating 
and funding the establishment of support services by 
state and non‑state actors in line with Articles 8 and 9 

France set up general victim support offices, as stipu‑
lated  by  a 2012  decree11  and  a 2013 circular.12  These 
NGO‑run services are conceived as ‘one‑stop’ offices for 
victim information, guidance and support throughout 
the  criminal  procedure.  Since  piloting  12 such offices 

212

Rights of crime victims

in 2009,  France  opened  another 50 between 2010 
and 2012  and  established  a further 90 in 2013.13 
Furthermore, the Victim Support Service of the Ministry 
of Justice is conducting two pilot projects concerning 
the  implementation  of  Article 22  of  the  Victims’ 
Directive, which obliges Member States to ensure that 
victims receive “a timely and individual assessment [...] 
to identify specific protection needs”.14

In the United Kingdom (England and Wales), since 2012 
Police and Crime Commissioners have been responsible 
for deciding and allocating the budget for most victim 
support. In October 2013, the Ministry of Justice pub‑
lished the government’s response to the consultation 
Improving the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. The 
code introduces the notion of an enhanced service for 
victims in most need.

The Czech Republic’s  newly  adopted Victims’  Rights 
Act  creates  a requirement  for  the  Ministry  of  Justice 
to  accredit  support  services.  State  grants  then  sup‑
port and finance such organisations. Victim support is 
granted to any natural person who is a victim of crime. 
It  comprises  social,  psychological  and  legal  services 
provided by qualified people.

In Austria, since January NGOs providing support and 
protection  in  cases  of  domestic  violence  have  per‑
formed their work on the basis of service contracts, 
the result of the first EU‑wide public procurement pro‑
cedure. This procedure has not resulted in a change in 
the NGOs selected; the organisations providing the ser‑
vice have been operating on the basis of public grants 
since the late 1990s. It has, however, necessitated the 
definition  of  performance  criteria  and  performance 
indicators. It has also strengthened the link between 
the government and NGOs providing support to victims 
of domestic violence and it has enhanced the transpar‑
ency of that cooperation.

Belgium  adopted  criteria  that  organisations  need  to 
fulfil to be recognised as specialised organisations in 
the area of reception and accompaniment of victims 
of  human  trafficking  and  several  severe  forms  of 
smuggling of human beings (see Chapter 2 on border 
control and visa policy). Only Belgian‑based non‑profit 
organisations that have as their main purpose offering 
care, guidance and housing to victims of trafficking and 
aggravated forms of trafficking can be recognised as 
specialised centres. Centres must provide administra‑
tive and legal follow‑up support for victims, and they 
must have a strategic and operational plan explaining 
the administrative, psychosocial, legal and medical sup‑
port available. In addition, each centre must issue an 
annual report with comparable statistical data on the 
care of victims of trafficking, including the number of 
victims, their age and gender, and the form of exploita‑
tion that they experienced. Recognised centres obtain 
the right to act as a civil party in defence of victims 

of human trafficking. Three centres were recognised 
as specialised centres after the entry into force of the 
royal decree in April 2013: PAG‑ASA (Brussels), Payoke 
(Antwerp) and Sürya (Liège).15 These centres, however, 
do not benefit from structural funding.

9�1�2�  Many gaps remain, including 

a lack of coordination of 
support services and 
insufficient funding

Despite  progress,  many  EU  Member  States  still  lack 
a coordinated  approach  to  implementing  measures 
to safeguard the rights of victims, and in more than 
half of Member States the coverage provided by sup‑
port  services  is  far  from  satisfactory.  The  European 
Institute for Gender Equality issued a report recently 
that supports this finding. The report, which focuses 
on specialised support services for women victims of 
intimate partner violence, finds that the level of pro‑
vision of support services to such victims varies sub‑
stantially within the EU in approach, capacity, quality 
and geographical distribution.16 Many Member States 
need to make a significant effort if they are to meet 
the November 2015 target date for implementation of 
the EU Victims’ Directive. In Slovakia, for example, the 
government has not yet begun any of the necessary 
preparatory activities.17 Cyprus lacks a holistic approach 
to victim support, with victims’ rights and measures to 
support them laid out in various laws and no specific 
body in charge of victim support coordination.

9�1�3� 

The role of victims in the 
sentencing phase

Several  EU  Member  States  reformed 
laws  to 
strengthen the role of victims in sentencing after an 
offender’s conviction. For example, Austria amended 
its Penal Procedure Code so that victims of sexual 
offences  and  sexually  motivated  violent  offences 
have  the  right  to  express  their  views  on  the  elec‑
tronically  monitored  house  arrests  of  offenders.18 
In  Belgium,  a bill  has  been  introduced  to  give  vic‑
tims  more  rights  in  debates  about  the  release  of 
offenders. These rights include permission to attend 
and  express  their  views  at  the  special  court  ses‑
sions that decide on the execution of sentences that 
concern  them.19  The  Bill  stops  short,  however,  of 
granting victims the right to appeal against a sen‑
tence they consider too lenient, an omission which 
some have criticised.

In the United Kingdom (England and Wales), the inde‑
pendent Victims’ Commissioner reviewed the statutory 
Victim Contact Scheme covering victims of offenders 
convicted  of  certain  sexual  and  violent offences. 

213

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

The Victims’  Commissioner,  in  her  review  of  the 
scheme (the responsibility of probation services, using 
victim  liaison  officers),  argued  for  better  victim‑ori‑
ented  training  for  liaison  officers  and  parole  board 
members, more information for victims about parole 
board  decisions  and  a more  open  and  transparent 
parole board.20 Since 2007, victims have had the right 
to  make  a Victim  Personal  Statement  for  the  parole 
board,  but  the  new  Code  of  Practice  for  Victims  of 
Crime  granted  victims  for  the  first  time  a statutory 
right to make such a statement and apply to read it to 
the board in person.

9�1�4� 

Funding cuts hit support 
services

Cuts in funding and other austerity measures driven 
by  the  economic  crisis  are  affecting  victim  support 
organisations across many Member States, including 
both  generic  and  specialised  victim  support  pro‑
viders. In 2013, for example, the NGO Victim Support 
Slovakia, the only organisation in Slovakia providing 
services  to  all  victims  of  crime,  did  not  receive  any 
public funds. As a result, the organisation drastically 
curtailed  its  services,  suspending  its  official  website 
and cutting its helpline operating hours to four per day. 
Italy decreased funding for victim support services by 
300 %  between 2011 and 2013.  In 2011,  specific  sup‑
port services were allocated €11.3 million; this fell to 
€9.3 million in 2012 and €3.5 million in 2013.21

FRA ACTIVITY

Mapping EU victim support services

In  2013,  FRA  completed  research  on  victim  sup‑
port services across the EU, and in 2014 it will pub‑
lish comparative findings, including:

•  a  comparative  overview  of  the  28  Member 
States,  concerning  the  extent,  nature  and  con‑
text of victim support service provision;

•  information on different models of victim sup‑
port service provision, analysing Member State 
similarities and differences;

•  promising practices that could offer models for 
adoption in different settings/Member States.

For further information on the project, see http://fra.europa.eu/en/
project/2012/victim‑support‑services‑eu‑overview‑and‑assessment‑ 
victims‑rights‑practice

In contrast, the Dutch government increased funding to 
Victim Support Netherlands, from €22 million in 2012 to 
over €23.2 million in 2013, with a structural subsidy for 
the specialised care of victims of severe violent crimes 
and sexual offences.22

9�2�  Member States enhance 
victims’ access to 
compensation

The numbers of victims’ compensation claims  continue 
to be low and are even declining across the EU. The EU 
Victims’ Directive obliges states to ensure that compe‑
tent authorities provide victims (at first contact) with 
information on how and under what conditions they 
can  access  compensation.23  Victims  are  also  entitled 
to obtain a decision on compensation by the offender 
within a reasonable time during criminal proceedings, 
and Member States should also promote measures to 
encourage offenders to provide adequate compensa‑
tion to victims.24

While some Member States have taken steps to help 
improve  victims’  access  to  compensation,  the  low 
numbers  of  applications  and  awards  are  a matter  of 
concern  in  many  EU  countries,  indicating  that  much 
needs to be done to assist and encourage victims to 
exercise their right to access compensation. According 
to German statistics, for example, only about 10 % of 
victims of violent crime apply for compensation under 
the  Crime  Victim’s  Compensation  Act,  and  less  than 
two in five of these victims (3.7 %) receive compensa‑
tion.25 This figure remained stable in 2011 and 2012. In 
the first nine months of 2013, only 22 crime victims in 
Romania received compensation.26

In  Slovenia,  the  number  was  even  lower,  with  only 
19 compensation  awards  (resulting  from  72 claims), 
totalling  €42,183,  being  granted  to  crime  victims  in 
2013. Thirteen of the 72 claims remain unresolved. In 
Cyprus,  from 2012  to  November 2013,  19 applications 
for compensation were received, nine of which were 
rejected while the rest remain under examination. In the 
Czech Republic, only one application had been received 
and acted upon by November 2013.27 One of the reasons 
for the low numbers of claims, in addition to reasons 
reported  in  the  FRA  2012  Annual  report,  is  the  short 
time frame many Member States apply for victims to 
claim compensation. The FRA 2012 Annual report also 
referred to the possibility that either many victims do 
not consider compensation a main concern or they have 
insurance. In some cases, victims must first exhaust the 
possibility of receiving compensation from the offender 
before they can apply for state compensation.28

The numbers of claims and awards are also extremely 
low in Bulgaria, prompting discussions in the National 
Council for Assistance and Compensation of Victims of 
Crimes about the legal amendments to the Assistance 
and  Financial  Compensation  of  Victims  of  Crime  Act 
necessary  to  make  it  effective  in  protecting  vic‑
tims of crime.

214

Rights of crime victims

Although  the  system  of  compensation  for  crime 
 victims in the United Kingdom is considered to be one 
of the most advanced in the EU, there was an almost 
15 %  reduction  in  applications,  to 47,889,  received 
by  the  Criminal  Injuries  Compensation  Authority 
in 2012–2013. The decline is attributed in part to a new 
scheme, introduced in 2012, which tightened the eligi‑
bility criteria.29 The 10 % decrease in recorded crime 
between 2012 and 2013,  indicating  fewer  crime  vic‑
tims in 2013 than in 2012,30 could also help explain the 
decline in compensation applications.

Finland, the Netherlands (see the Promising practice 
box on advancing compensation payments to all vic‑
tims of crime) and Sweden took steps in 2013 to better 
compensate  crime  victims.  Finland  introduced  an 
amendment to its criminal code concerning forfeiture, 
making it easier for victims to receive compensation. 
After the proceeds of a crime have been ordered forfeit 
to the state, the victim may turn directly to the State 
Treasury  and  apply  for  compensation  without  being 
forced  to  take  the  issue  to  court.  This  procedure  is 
considered much less complicated than a normal civil 
case.31 Sweden simplified the application procedure for 
criminal injuries compensation by producing a simpli‑
fied, electronic form.32

Promising practice

Advancing compensation payments 
to all victims of crime

The Netherlands announced in 2013 that it would 
expand  the  current  advance  payment  provision 
for  compensation  of  victims  to  victims  of  all 
crimes in 2016 and that it would also prolong the 
current  three‑year  request  submission  period. 
One  way  the  Netherlands  provides  for  advance 
payment is through the Central Judicial Collection 
Agency, which is responsible for seizing perpetra‑
tors’ property and using it to compensate victims. 
A  further  promising  practice  is  that  victims  can 
apply  for  compensation  with  help  from  Victim 
Support Netherlands, which recently made it pos‑
sible to apply for such compensation online.

For more information, see www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten‑ 
en‑publicaties/kamerstukken/2013/07/23/beleidsreactie‑
pamflet‑vvd‑fractie‑inzake‑slachtofferbeleid.html

Criminal  courts  continue  to  refuse  to  take  decisions 
on victims’ civil law claims in several Member States. 
In  Slovakia,  for  example,  victims  can  lodge  indem‑
nification  claims  with  the  civil  court  only  after  the 
court or other entitled authority reaches judgment in 
the criminal proceeding.33

9�3�  Member States move 

to strengthen rights 
of victims of domestic 
violence and violence 
against women

9�3�1� 

Istanbul Convention and related 
developments at EU Member 
State level

Three EU Member States (Austria, Italy and Portugal) 
ratified  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  pre‑
venting and combating violence against women and 
domestic violence (Istanbul Convention, CETS No. 210) 
in  2013.  A further  three  signed  the  convention  in 
2013, bringing the total number of EU Member States 
that have signed but not yet ratified the convention 
to 17 (for the full list, see Chapter 10 on EU Member 
States  and  international  obligations).34  Efforts  to 
ratify  the  convention  prompted  legal  reforms  in 
several  Member  States  in  2013,  including  Croatia, 
Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Italy,  Luxembourg  and 
the United Kingdom.

In Croatia, the amendments are extensive and include 
the  introduction  into  Croatian  law  of  definitions  of 
female genital mutilation, forced marriage and many 
aggravated  offences  committed  against  a ‘close’ 
person. The criminalisation of non‑consensual sexual 
intercourse was extended beyond crimes involving the 
use of violence or threat.35 Finland included a definition 
of  stalking  in  its  criminal  code.36  France added  to  its 
criminal law definitions relating to forced marriage and 
inciting female genital mutilation.37 Denmark amended 
its  law,  extending  the  statute  of  limitations  in  cases 
of child victimisation.38

In Italy, 2013 reforms to the Code of Criminal Procedure 
introduced a number of important measures for victims 
of domestic violence, sexual abuse, sexual exploita‑
tion  and  stalking,  focusing  on  victims’  procedural 
rights. Under the new provisions, the public prosecutor 
and  police  are  legally  obliged  to  inform  victims  that 
a lawyer  may  represent  them  during  criminal  pro‑
ceedings and that victims or their lawyers may ask for 
a protected hearing.39 They are also required to inform 
victims about the possibility of accessing legal aid and 
the conditions under which such aid is granted. In addi‑
tion, the law provides that investigations into alleged 
crimes must be concluded within one year after they 
are reported to the police, and residence permits are 
to be extended to foreign nationals who are victims of 
violence, including undocumented migrants.

215

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

In  addition,  Croatian  substantive  criminal  law  now 
takes  into  account  the  long‑term  nature  of  relations 
of domestic violence. The fact that a violent offence 
has been committed against a ‘close person’, including 
an intimate partner, is now considered an aggravating 
factor.  Similarly,  the  Hungarian  parliament  adopted 
a definition  (Article 212a  of  the  Hungarian  Criminal 
Code) specifically covering violence in relationships; it 
entered into force on 1 July 2013.

These  definitions  are  in  line  with  the  recent  case 
law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). 
Until 2009, the court had dealt with non‑lethal cases 
of domestic violence mainly as violations of the right 
to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention 
on Human Rights (ECHR), with the notable exception 
of  Opuz  v.  Turkey,  which  concerned  a case  of  lethal 
domestic  violence  and  where  the  court  found  viola‑
tions of Articles 2, 3 and 14.40 In a series of decisions 
taken in 2013, the court re‑evaluated domestic violence 
cases, stressing the particularly degrading aspects of 
intimate violent relationships.

In a case against Lithuania,41 an applicant alleged that in 
one month alone her live‑in partner had beaten her up 
on five occasions, and she argued that her complaints 
should be examined under Article 3 of the convention, 
which provides that no one shall be subjected to torture 
or to inhuman or degrading treatment. The government 
objected that the injuries sustained by the victim were 
of  a “trivial  nature”.  However,  the  court  pointed  out 
that in previous cases treatment had been considered 
inhuman and degrading when it was such as to arouse 
in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority, 
capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly 
breaking their physical or moral resistance. Accordingly, 
the  court  now  stressed  that  over  a certain  period  of 
time the applicant had been exposed to threats to her 
physical integrity and that this psychological impact is 
an important aspect of domestic violence. On this basis, 
the court concluded that the applicant’s ill‑treatment, 
which on five occasions caused her physical injuries, 
combined with her feelings of fear and helplessness, 
was sufficiently serious to reach the minimum level of 
severity under Article 3 of the convention on prohibition 
of torture and thus triggered the government’s posi‑
tive obligation under this provision. The court upheld 
this  assessment  in  the  later  Eremia  v.  the  Republic 
of  Moldova  case.42  In  the  D. P.  v.  Lithuania  case,  the 
government acknowledged a violation of the Article 3 
of  the  convention,  and  the  court,  taking  note  of  the 
government’s declaration under Article 3, decided to 
strike the complaint from its case list.43

Given the particular significance of Member States’ obli‑
gations under the ECHR to prohibit torture or inhuman 
or degrading treatment and to redress violations, the 
ECtHR’s view that relationships of domestic violence 
can  amount  to  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment 

places  additional  emphasis  on  states’  obligations  to 
acknowledge  fully  the  severe  rights  violations  that 
victims of domestic violence experience, sometimes 
over long periods.

9�3�2�  Sexual violence

The  Istanbul  Convention  defines  sexual  violence, 
including  rape,  as  “non‑consensual  acts  of  a sexual 
nature”, where consent must be given voluntarily “as 
the person’s free will assessed in the context of the 
surrounding circumstances”.44 This is in line with ECtHR 
case law, according to which Member States have an 
obligation to “enact criminal‑law provisions effectively 
punishing rape and to apply them in practice through 
effective investigation and prosecution”.45 The ECtHR 
highlighted  this  view  in  the  M. C.  v.  Bulgaria  case  in 
2003, which concluded that by requiring proof of resist‑
ance by the victim against the offender the criminal 
justice system fell short of punishing all forms of rape 
and  sexual  abuse.  The  obligations  deriving  from  the 
ECHR prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading 
treatment  (Article 3)  and  from  the  right  to  respect 
for private and family life (Article 8) must be seen as 
“requiring the penalisation and effective prosecution 
of  any  non‑consensual  sexual  act,  including  in  the 
absence of physical resistance by the victim”.46

Some  EU  Member  States,  such  as  Belgium,  Croatia, 
Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  have  introduced 
reforms  to  extend  definitions  of  sexual  violence  to 
include all forms of non‑consensual sexual acts. The 
criminal  codes  of  most  Member  States,  however, 
contain definitions of sexual violence that afford pro‑
tection not on the basis of lack of consent to sexual 
acts  but  only  if  certain  additional  requirements  are 
met, including specific means of coercion or the vic‑
tim’s particular state of dependency or defenceless‑
ness.  Portugal,  the  first  EU  Member  State  to  ratify 
the Istanbul Convention, is taking steps to strengthen 
support for victims of sexual violence by establishing 
its first rape crisis centres.

The  FRA  survey  on  violence  against  women  sheds 
light on the importance of criminalising marital rape. 
Member States must afford married women the same 
protection through criminal law provisions as unmarried 
women. Currently, the Bulgarian criminal code does not 
meet this standard.

9�3�3�  Measures to enhance protection 

of women from 
domestic violence

Some  EU Member  States  have  focused  reforms  on 
further  improving  the  protection  of  women  against 

216

Rights of crime victims

domestic violence. The Luxembourg Act on Domestic 
Violence of 30 July 2013 extended the powers of the 
police, public prosecutors and courts to ban an offender 
from the victim’s home and extended the time frames 
of protection measures.47

The  United  Kingdom  rolled  out  Domestic  Violence 
Protection Orders and the Domestic Violence Disclosure 
Scheme nationally in June 2013, following a successful 
2012 pilot.48  In  July,  the  French  government  brought 
forward  draft  legislation  aimed  at  furthering  gender 
equality  and  including  improvements  to  protection 
orders, mainly by speeding up proceedings, extending 
the time frame from four to six months and making it 
a rule that it is the victim who is allowed to stay in the 
home previously shared with the offender.49

A new Italian law gives the local police commissioner 
the  power  to  issue  an  official  restraining  injunction 
and  to  temporarily  revoke  a perpetrator’s  driving 
licence in cases of severe aggression or verbal threats. 
It also makes it possible for police, subject to a public 
prosecutor’s authorisation, to remove the perpetrator 
from the home as a precautionary measure in cases of 
severe forms of aggression.50 The law also introduces 
a legal obligation, in cases of violent crime, to inform 
social services and the victim’s lawyer, or the victim 
personally  if  they  are  not  represented  by  a lawyer, 

FRA ACTIVITY

Surveying violence against women

about a judge’s decision to withdraw or revise restric‑
tive  measures  applied  to  the  offender.51  In  addition, 
judicial  police  can  order  the  offender  to  leave  the 
family home immediately in cases of sexual exploita‑
tion, sexual abuse, personal injury, domestic violence 
and stalking. Electronic devices can be used to monitor 
whether the perpetrator adheres to the injunction to 
leave the house.52

In  a second  reading  in  June,  the  Latvian  parlia‑
ment  adopted  amendments  to  the  law  on  the 
police, allowing police to ban a presumed offender 
from  the  victim’s  home  for  up  to  eight  days. 
This  power  is,  however,  dependent  on  the  vic‑
tim’s written application.53

Given the rapid legislative developments in protection 
measures against domestic violence in many Member 
States, a thorough assessment of the practical effec‑
tiveness of such measures is good practice. An evalu‑
ation in the Netherlands found that restraining orders 
correlate with a lower rate of recidivism in domestic 
violence  cases,  in  part  at  least  because  victims  are 
provided with better support following the issuing of 
a restraining order.54

In Poland in July, the Supreme Audit Office published the 
results of an audit assessing the steps taken by public 

In March 2014, the FRA launched the results of its survey on violence against women, covering all 28 EU Member 
States. The survey is based on face‑to‑face interviews with a representative sample of 42,000 women. The in‑
terviews were carried out in 2012 by trained interviewers, who asked respondents questions concerning their 
personal experiences of violence, including physical and sexual violence, psychological violence by a partner, 
stalking, sexual harassment and violence in childhood. To ensure comparability, the same questions were asked 
in all Member States, using a structured questionnaire developed by the FRA and translated into the national 
languages.

The FRA report on the survey results presents a comprehensive overview of women’s experiences of violence 
from the age of 15 and in the 12 months before the interview. Overall, the survey found that one woman in three 
(33 %) surveyed had experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a (current or previous) partner or non‑part‑
ner since the age of 15. The survey also showed that 8 % had experienced this type of violence in the 12 months 
before the survey.

The results highlight the vulnerability and special needs of victims of sexual violence. Women who have expe‑
rienced sexual violence indicate a number of psychological consequences. They were also more likely to say – 
compared with victims of physical violence – that they felt ashamed, embarrassed or guilty about what had 
happened, which can result in victims of sexual violence not reporting these incidents to the authorities. De‑
pending on the type of violence and perpetrator, some 61 % to 76 % of women did not report the most serious 
incident of physical and/or sexual violence to the police or contact any other support services. The survey com‑
pared the experiences of victims who contacted some service or organisation for support. Victims were least 
satisfied with the assistance they received from the police, compared with other services such as healthcare, 
social support or victim support services, particularly in relation to crimes of sexual violence. The FRA opinions 
refer to the need for multi‑agency cooperation, involving police and other services providers, to address vio‑
lence against women, as well as further specialised victim support services in line with the EU Victims’ Directive 
and the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention.

See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/vaw‑survey‑main‑results

217

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

authorities to address domestic violence. According to 
the findings, the legal reform enacted in 2010 and 2011, 
which introduced the so‑called ‘Blue Card’ procedure, 
failed to significantly improve the situation of domestic 
violence  victims,  in  part  because  the  procedure  was 
overly  bureaucratic.55  A monitoring  report  published 
in  Romania,  assessing  the  initial  implementation  of 
its  2012 legal  reform,  revealed  certain  shortcomings, 
including  lengthy  proceedings  and  a lack  of  public 
awareness  of  the  protection  orders  available  to 
domestic violence victims.

In Lithuania, some particularly disturbing homicides 
sparked debates on the effectiveness of protection 
measures.  In  March,  a woman  called  the  police’s 
emergency  response  centre  for  help,  saying  that 
her  violent  husband  had  returned  in  violation  of 
a restraining  order.  Six  hours  later,  the  victim’s 
brother  called  again  to  inform  the  police  that  his 
sister was dead. A number of similar cases occurred. 
NGOs held a press conference stressing that protec‑
tion does not work in practice.56 On a similar note, 
NGOs  in  Hungary  voiced  frustration  that,  despite 
legislative reforms, little progress has been achieved. 
They  pointed  out  that  victims  often  complain  that 
police officers’ attitudes fail to live up to the police 
service’s brief, and that this discourages victims from 
seeking their help.57

In  Slovenia,  recent  legislative  changes  resulted  in 
the  criminal  offence  of  threatening  another  person 
in cases of domestic violence being prosecuted only 
on the basis of a motion made by the victim. Victims 
must  also  pay  for  legal  representation  if  they  wish 
to prosecute offenders for such offences.58 Bulgaria, 
Latvia and Slovenia also stipulate, in certain cases, 
that  protection  measures,  investigation  or  pros‑
ecution depend on the initiative of the violent crime 
victim. In contrast, an amendment to the Lithuanian 
criminal code ensures that domestic violence offences 
can  be  investigated  and  prosecuted  even  without 
the victim’s consent.59

Following the institution of legislative reforms relating 
to the EU Victims’ Directive, Member States have an 
obligation  to  assess  whether  the  victims’  situation 
has improved, by monitoring the reforms’ impact and 
looking at how victims have accessed the rights set 
out in the directive.60 The conclusions of the Council 
of  Europe  hearing  on  ‘Access  to  Justice  for  Women 
Victims  of  Violence’  on  9 December 2013  empha‑
sised that lengthy criminal proceedings, high levels 
of attrition, corruption, low conviction rates and dis‑
criminatory  practices  constitute  serious  barriers  to 
women victims of violence seeking justice and that 
Council of Europe member states should continue to 
address these issues.

9�4�  EU focuses on 

enhancing rights of 
hate crime victims

Starting  with  the  informal  meeting  of  JHA  ministers 
on 17–18 January 2013 in Dublin, EU action countering 
hate  crime,  racism,  antisemitism,  xenophobia  and 
homophobia  was  in  focus  throughout 2013  (see  also 
Chapter 6 on racism, xenophobia and related intoler‑
ance).  In  March,  the  European  Parliament  called  on 
the European Commission, the Council of the European 
Union and the Member States to strengthen the fight 
against  hate  crime  and  discriminatory  attitudes  and 
behaviour, and called for a comprehensive strategy for 
fighting hate crime, bias violence and discrimination.61 
Similarly,  the  European  Parliament  urged  Member 
States to act against hate crime and to promote anti‑
discrimination policies, if necessary by strengthening 
their national antidiscrimination bodies and promoting 
training within public authorities.62

On  6 June,  the  JHA  Council  adopted  conclusions  on 
fundamental rights, the rule of law and the European 
Commission’s  2012  Report  on  the  application  of 
the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union,  which  refers  to  hate  crimes  and  the  need  to 
assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  EU  legal  norms  in 
fighting hate crimes.63

In October 2013, at the request of the Council of the 
European  Union,  FRA  submitted  an  Opinion  on  the 
Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia – with 
special attention to the rights of victims of crime. The 
following  month,  following  discussions  on  the  legal 
and  policy  framework  and  in  view  of  the  decision’s 
revision, scheduled for the end of 2013, FRA used its 
Fundamental  Rights  Conference  in  November 2013 
to explore effective strategies to combat hate crime. 
The  conference,  organised  in  cooperation  with  the 
Lithuanian Presidency, brought together over 400 deci‑
sion makers and practitioners from across the EU. In 
December 2013,  acknowledging  the  important  role 
of FRA in providing expert independent analysis, the 
Council of the European Union adopted its conclusions 
on combating hate crime in the EU, inviting Member 
States  to  ensure  that  bias  motives  are  taken  into 
consideration  throughout  criminal  proceedings;  take 
appropriate  measures  to  facilitate  the  reporting  of 
hate crimes by victims, including looking at measures 
to build trust in police and other state institutions; and 
collect  and  publish  comprehensive  and  comparable 
data  on  hate  crime.64  The  Council  conclusions  call 
on  FRA  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  good  practices 
amongst  Member  States  (Action 19).  FRA  will  hold 
a seminar on hate crime in 2014, designed to set up 
a community of practice. The seminar, which will take 

218

Rights of crime victims

place on 28–29 April 2014 in Thessaloniki in coopera‑
tion with the Greek Presidency, will aim at promoting 
continuous engagement with Member State authori‑
ties, mandated national human rights institutions and 
civil society organisations.

FRA ACTIVITY

Going further in combating hate crime

At the request of the Council of the European Union, 
FRA  submitted,  in  October,  an  Opinion  on  the 
Framework  Decision  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia – 
with  special  attention  to  the  rights  of  victims 
of crime.

In its opinion, FRA suggested that:

•  legislation adopted at Member State level should 
deal  with  all  forms  of  discrimination  on  an 
equal footing;

•  due attention should be paid to making the bias 
motivation  underlying  hate  crimes  visible 
throughout  criminal  proceedings,  including  to 
the public;

•  legislation allowing courts to deal with bias‑moti‑
vated offences on the basis of increased penalties 
is  a  particularly  reliable  means  of  ensuring  that 
discriminatory motives are taken into account;

•  Member  States  are  encouraged  to  facilitate  the 
reporting of hate crimes and to encourage victims 
and  witnesses  to  report  such  crime,  such  as  by 
looking into measures that could simplify bureau‑
cratic procedures and reporting;

•  on  the  basis  of  clear  and  comprehensive  guide‑
lines,  Member  States  together  with  Eurostat 
should,  on  an  annual  basis,  collect  and  publish 
data  pertaining  to  crimes  committed  with  a  dis‑
criminatory motive.

The FRA opinion is available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/ 
2013/fra‑opinion‑framework‑decision‑racism‑and‑xenophobia‑ 
special‑attention‑rights‑victims

With  regard  to  the  recognition  of  different  forms  of 
hate crime, Member States shifted focus in 2013 from 
racism to include sexual orientation, gender identity 
and  transgender  expressions.  As  part  of  this  trend, 
the Portuguese parliament, for example, unanimously 
approved a revision of the criminal code that will ban 
discrimination  and  hate  crime  against  transgender 
people.  The  parliament  also  added  ‘gender  identity’ 
alongside  ‘sexual  orientation’  to  the  list  of  discrimi‑
natory  motives  leading  to  an  increased  penalty  for 
murder.65 The parliament also stressed the reprehen‑
sibility  of  crimes  motivated  by  the  perceived  sexual 
orientation or gender identity of a victim. It is therefore 
looking at making penalties more severe.66

In  Belgium,  the  Minister  of  Justice,  the  Minister  of 
Internal Affairs and the College of Prosecutors General 
issued  a joint  circular  in  June  with  the  aim  of  estab‑
lishing a unified investigation and prosecution policy for 
discrimination and hate crimes, including discrimina‑
tion on the basis of gender.67 In addition, the criminal 
code was amended, introducing increased penalties for 
manslaughter and intentional personal injury motivated 
by  hate  and  introducing  the  new  criterion  of  hatred 
of  ‘sex  reassignment  as  an  aggravating  motivation 
for these offences.’68

Croatia also introduced changes to its criminal code in 
2013, adding provisions on acts committed out of hatred 
and  incitement  to  violence  against  groups  or  their 
members based on racial, religious, national or ethnic 
affiliation, skin colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender 
identity, disability or other traits.69 Slovakia amended 
its Criminal Statute and Code of Criminal Procedure to 
introduce stricter punishments for all criminal offences 
motivated by national, ethnic or racial hatred as well 
as  hatred  based  on  victims’  complexion  and  hatred 
based  on  victims’  sexual  orientation.70  Hungary also 
amended its criminal code to include an increased pen‑
alty, ranging from two to eight years’ imprisonment, in 
cases of violence against a member of a community, 
national, ethnic or racial group, or against “other social 
groups”, particularly based on disability, gender iden‑
tity or sexual orientation (see Section 6.2.1 for infor‑
mation on the FRA Thematic situation report Racism, 
discrimination,  intolerance  and  extremism:  Learning 
from experiences in Greece and Hungary).71

The Italian legislature also focused on the regulation 
of repression and prevention of gender violence and 
homophobic crimes through criminal law in 2013, with 
parliament passing a bill to protect against homophobia 
and  transphobia.  The  bill  extends  to  the  grounds  of 
homophobia or transphobia the crimes of: discrimina‑
tion or incitement to discrimination (the Reale Law) and 
violence or incitement to violence. It also considers as 
aggravating circumstances those crimes committed for 
purposes of discrimination or hatred (the Mancino Law).

In France, a proposal to extend the limitation period 
from  three  months  to  one  year  for  prosecution  of 
offences  concerning  sexual  orientation,  sex,  gender 
identity or disability reached the parliament in 2013.72

In the United Kingdom (England and Wales), the gov‑
ernment asked the Law Commission to look into the 
possible extension of hate crime to offences committed 
on grounds of discrimination including disability, sexual 
orientation and gender identity. The Law Commission 
launched a public consultation, which ran from June to 
September 2013, to analyse the case for reforming the 
existing statutory offences.73

219

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Greece amended its criminal code in March,  transposing 
Article 4  of  the  Framework  Decision  on  Racism  and 
Xenophobia  which  requires  that  a racist  motive  for 
a crime  be  considered  an  aggravating  circumstance. 
The amendment provides that, for judicial sentencing, 
“the commission of an act of hatred caused due to race, 
colour,  religion,  descent,  national  or  ethnic  origin  or 
sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim con‑
stitutes an aggravating circumstance and the sentence 
is not suspended”.74 In November, the Ministry of Justice 
submitted a bill intended to implement Article 1 of the 
same Framework Decision concerning public incitement 
to bias crimes. Sexual orientation and gender identity 
are not included as protected grounds, although all the 
other grounds covered by the previous amendment of 
the criminal code are included in the draft bill.

9�4�1�  The need to tackle 

under-reporting by victims

FRA  research  has  consistently  pointed  to  victims’ 
systemic under‑reporting to police and to the need to 
facilitate victims’ effective access to criminal justice. 
As victims of hate crime are often unable or unwilling 
to  seek  redress  against  perpetrators,  many  crimes 
remain unreported, unprosecuted and therefore invis‑
ible. In such cases, the rights of victims of crime may 
not  be  fully  respected  or  protected  and  EU Member 
States  may  not  be  upholding  their  duty  to  protect 
fundamental  rights,  including  their  legal  obligations 
to protect and support crime victims as set out in the 
EU Victims’ Directive.

Figure 9.1:  Violence and harassment: most serious physical/sexual attack or threat of violence – did you or 

anyone else report it to the police?

NL

34%

UK

33%

FR

32%

BE

31%

SE

27%

SI

27%

PT

26%

DK

25%

IE

25%

Average

24%

LT

FI

24%

23%

DE

22%

LU

22%

ES

22%

IT

LV

CZ

AT

20%

20%

19%

19%

HR

18%

PL

17%

EL

17%

MT

16%

BG

15%

RO

15%

CY

14%

EE

14%

HU

14%

SK

13%

13%

16%

19%

22%

25%

28%

31%

34%

Source:  FRA, 2013; EU‑LGBT survey data are available at:  http://fra.europa.eu/DVS/DVT/lgbt.php?locale=EN&dataSource= 

LGBT&media=png&width=740&plot=heatMap&topic=3.+Violence+and+harassment&question=fa2_11&superSubset=
1&subset=AllSubset&subsetValue=01‑‑All&answer=01‑‑Yes

220

Rights of crime victims

FRA survey findings show that victims of crime often 
do  not  report  crimes,  whether  to  law  enforcement 
agencies, the criminal justice system, NGOs or victim 
support groups.75 Three quarters (76 %) of the Jewish 
people who say they were victims of antisemitic har‑
assment  in  the  past  five years,  for  example,  did  not 
report the most serious incident to the police or to any 
other organisation.76 The FRA LGBT survey found that 
just one in five (22 %) of the most serious incidents 
of  violence  which  had  happened  to  respondents  in 
the same time period because they were LGBT were 
brought to the police’s attention (see Figure 9.1).77

Victims’ trust in the police and in their ability to react 
to  reports  of  victimisation  in  a manner  sensitive 
to  victims’  rights  and  needs  is  crucial.  In  Bulgaria, 
a three‑year programme, ‘European police and human 
rights’,  focuses  on  discrimination  prevention  as  well 
as on police performance in the light of international 
human rights standards. One specific focus of the pro‑
ject’s training courses is on victims of bias‑motivated 
crime and preventing their secondary victimisation.78 
Another measure to improve a police service’s respon‑
siveness and sensitivity is the creation of specialised 
units or contact officers.79

In Belgium, the police must appoint ‘reference officers’ 
to support their work on discrimination and hate crimes, 
on the basis of a June 2013 circular. These officers are 
tasked with raising public awareness, providing training 
and information to their colleagues and monitoring the 
police service’s performance in discrimination and hate 
crime cases.80 Enabling victims to report crimes to the 
police online is another way to increase reporting.

Promising practice

Reporting hate crime online

The police in the Netherlands developed an  online 
tool in 2013 to enable victims of hate crime to re‑
port the incident to the police anonymously. The 
website explains the concept of hate crimes and 
encourages reporting. Victims are invited to see 
a police office and are informed about their rights 
and legal proceedings.

This tool was inspired by True Vision, a web facil‑
ity providing information for victims and facilitat‑
ing the reporting of hate crimes, implemented by 
the  Association  of  Chief  Police  Officers  in  the 
United Kingdom (England and Wales).

For more information, see www.hatecrimes.nl/info‑en‑links/
achtergrond and www.report‑it.org.uk/home

Increasing  the  public  visibility  of  hate  crime  and 
holding  perpetrators  accountable  is  another  area  in 
which Member States must make progress if they are 
to  combat  hate  crime  successfully.81  The  objectives  of 

acknowledging  victims  and  increasing  the  visibility  of 
hate crimes lie at the heart of a royal decree the Spanish 
government adopted in September, on the recognition 
and comprehensive protection of victims of terrorism. 
The  decree  also  aims  to  improve  victim  support  and 
public administration coordination in relation to victims of 
terrorism.82 Belgium increased the maximum penalty for 
all crimes motivated by discriminatory attitudes through 
legislation that entered into force in February 2013.83

Promising practice

Tackling discrimination and hate 
crime – a police manual

In  Poland,  a  practical  guide  to  antidiscrimination 
measures  for  the  police  defines  and  describes 
various  forms  of  discrimination.  The  manual  of 
good antidiscrimination practices advises on how 
to deal with hate crime and discrimination cases 
in a sensitive manner. The manual, published by 
the National Network of Police Plenipotentiaries 
for  Human  Rights  Protection  and  funded  by  the 
Polish police, benefited from the input of a num‑
ber  of  stakeholders,  including  the  Polish  Human 
Rights Defender, the Government Plenipotentiary 
for  Equal  Treatment  and  several  civil  society  or‑
ganisations 
reli‑
gious  minorities,  people  with  disabilities  and 
the elderly.

representing  LGBT  people, 

For more information, see: Poland, Plenipotentiary of the 
Commander Chief of Police for the Protection of Human Rights 
(Pełnomocnik Komendanta Głównego Policji ds. Ochrony 
Praw Człowieka) (2013), Human first (Po pierwsze człowiek), 
Warsaw 2013, available at: http://isp.policja.pl/isp/
prawa‑czlowieka‑w‑poli/aktualnosci/4344,dok.html

9�5�  Member States address 
rights of victims of 
trafficking and severe 
forms of labour 
exploitation

labour  exploitation, 

In  2013,  EU Member  States  continued  to   implement 
measures  outlined  in  EU  legislation  tackling  human 
trafficking  and 
including: 
Directive 2011/36/EU  on  preventing  and  combating 
trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  vic‑
tims (Trafficking Directive); the EU Strategy towards the 
Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012–2016; 
the  EU  Victims’  Directive;  Directive 2009/52/EC  pro‑
viding for minimum standards on sanctions and meas‑
ures against employers of illegally staying third‑country 
nationals  (Employers’  Sanctions  Directive);  and  the 
draft Seasonal Workers Directive (see also  Chapter 2 
on  border  control  and  visa  policy,  and    Chapter 4  on 
the rights of the child and the protection of children).

221

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

At  the  international  level,  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Convention  concerning  decent  work  for  domestic 
workers in September 2013 marked a major milestone in 
the domestic work sector. Adopted in 2011 by the ILO, the 
convention sets standards to protect domestic workers, 
covering the right to claim rest days, the right to clear 
terms and conditions of employment, the right to a min‑
imum wage and the right to social security coverage. The 
convention also lays out measures concerning children’s 
rights, including the abolishment of child labour.84

At  the  EU  level,  the  JHA  Council,  at  its  6–7 June 2013 
meeting, prioritised for 2014–2017 the tackling of organ‑
ised criminal groups involved in trafficking for labour 
exploitation  and  sexual  exploitation,  including  those 
groups using legal business structures to facilitate or 
disguise  their  criminal  activities.85  The  deadline  for 
Member States to transpose the Trafficking Directive 
into national law was reached in April. Negotiations on 
the draft Seasonal Workers Directive come to an end, 
with the Council of the EU and the European Parliament 
reaching a political agreement on the text. The direc‑
tive was adopted in February 2014 (see also  Chapter 1 
on asylum, immigration and integration). It should har‑
monise the conditions of entry and residence and the 
rights of migrant workers coming to the EU for seasonal 
work, protecting them from labour exploitation.

The EU Anti‑Trafficking Coordinator continued to mon‑
itor the implementation of the EU Strategy towards the 
Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012–2016. 
Closely  linked  to  the  strategy,  the  EU  Civil  Society 
Platform  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  was 
launched in May 2013. The Europe‑wide platform, set 
up by the European Commission, will serve as a forum 
for the exchange of experiences and concrete ideas on 
how best to assist victims, expand their networks and 
prevent  others  from  falling  victim  to  this  crime.  The 
platform comprises over 100 civil society organisations 
working at European, national and local levels in the 
field of human rights, children’s rights, women’s rights 
and gender equality, migrants’ rights and shelters.

Eurostat  published  a report,  Trafficking  in  Human 
Beings in the European Union, that reveals that 62 % of 
victims are trafficked for sexual exploitation and 15 % 
of victims are children. The report, issued in April, is 
based on statistical data from all EU Member States.

9�5�1�  Most Member States increase 
efforts to tackle human 
trafficking

The majority of Member States took positive steps 
in 2013  to  strengthen  national  legislation  to  tackle 
human  trafficking  and  labour  exploitation  and 

provide support to those who are victimised, in line 
with EU legislation.86

Compensation  was  extended 
to  victims  of 
 trafficking  in  several  Member  States,  in  line  with 
Directive 2011/36/EU,  including  Austria,  Estonia, 
Greece, Latvia87 and Luxembourg.

As  a result  of  amendments  to  the  Austrian  Crime 
Victim Act in 2013, third‑country nationals who are 
victims  of  human  trafficking  now  have  access  to 
compensation  and  a right  of  residence  for  special 
protection.88 The state is now also obliged to pay for 
psychological  treatment  for  victims  and  surviving 
dependents  up  to  a certain  maximum  amount 
in  cases  of  crisis  intervention.89  Amendments  to 
Estonia’s  Victim  Support  Act  also  provide  for  vic‑
tims’ –  and  on  some  occasions  their  relatives’ – 
access  to  victim  support,  social  services  and  state 
compensation, in addition to creating a preliminary 
measure allowing victims of trafficking to stay and 
settle in Estonia.90

its  criminal  code 

in  2013, 
Belgium  amended 
 significantly extending the definition of human traf‑
ficking.91 As the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts 
on  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings 
(GRETA)  observed  in  its  recent  report  on  Belgium, 
the ‘means’ element of trafficking – coercion, threat, 
deception – no longer forms part of the definition of 
trafficking under Belgian law; rather, such methods 
are  considered  aggravating  circumstances.  While 
acknowledging that this may contribute to making the 
prosecution of traffickers easier in terms of evidential 
requirements,  GRETA  stressed  that  this  extension 
may lead to confusion with other criminal offences, 
or  to  difficulties  regarding  mutual  assistance  with 
other countries in the anti‑trafficking field.92

In  France,  a law  enacted  in  August 2013  provides 
a new definition of human trafficking and modifies 
the criminal code,93 defining organ retrieval, forced 
labour or services and slavery as forms of exploita‑
tion that can characterise human trafficking.

In  July 2013,  Ireland  passed  criminal  law  legis‑
lation  that  extended  the  scope  of  exploitative 
activities  to  comply  fully  with  the  provisions  of 
Directive 2011/36/EU.94 Other key provisions include: 
the  commission  of  a human  trafficking  offence 
by  a public  official  shall  be  treated  as  an  aggra‑
vating circumstance for sentencing purposes; and 
the adoption of the definition of the term ‘forced 
labour’  to  match  the  definition  contained  in  ILO 
Convention No. 29 of 1930 on Forced or Compulsory 
Labour, in other words “all work or service which is 
exacted from any person under the menace of any 
penalty and for which the person has not offered 

222

Rights of crime victims

himself voluntarily”. The 2008 Criminal Law (Human 
Trafficking) Act did not define the term.

In Italy, the parliament passed a law empowering the 
government to transpose the Trafficking Directive in 
August 2013. The law provides measures to facilitate 
coordination between the institutions responsible for 
the protection and assistance of victims of trafficking 
and those who have expertise on asylum, resulting 
in improved referral mechanisms.

Portugal also transposed Directive 2011/36/EU into 
the national legal system in 2013.95 The 2013 GRETA 
report96 notes, however, that room for improvement 
remains. GRETA said that Portugal could do more to 
ensure  the  effective  identification  of  victims;  take 
a more  proactive  approach  to  support  through, 
for  example,  proactive  labour  inspections  and  the 
training of inspectors in this area; and strengthen its 
focus on supporting male victims of labour exploi‑
tation and child victims of trafficking. As a positive 
step in that direction, in May 2013, the NGO Health in 
Portuguese opened the first refuge in Portugal for the 
support and protection of male victims of trafficking.

In the United Kingdom in December 2013, new draft 
legislation proposed tackling human trafficking and 
severe forms of labour exploitation by, for example, 
increasing prison sentences for convicted slavery and 
trafficking offenders. It also suggested introducing 
Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders and Slavery 
and Trafficking Risk Orders to restrict the activity of 
those who pose a risk and those convicted of slavery 
and trafficking offences, so that they cannot cause 
further harm. It proposed establishing a legal duty 
for police, immigration authorities and other public 
sector staff to report potential victims of trafficking 
to the National Crime Agency.97

In Malta, amendments to the criminal code increased 
fines  and  prison  terms  with  the  aim  of  deterring 
potential  trafficking  offenders.98  Any  person  who 
engages in or makes use of the services or labour 
of a trafficked person shall be liable to punishment 
by  imprisonment.  Moreover,  when  an  offence  is 
committed  for  the  benefit,  in  part  or  in  whole,  of 
a body corporate, the legal person responsible will 
be subject to punishment in addition to the judicial 
winding up and/or temporary or permanent closure 
of the establishment concerned.99

9�5�2�  Member States still bring few 

prosecutions

GRETA,  in  its  latest  country  reports  (2013),  has 
 highlighted the problem of low numbers of cases pros‑
ecuted and offenders convicted in several EU Member 
Ireland,  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland, 
States, 
Portugal and Spain.100

including 

Low success rates in identifying victims and convicting 
offenders show that measures to reach out to victims 
in many Member States are simply ineffective. National 
statistics  on  numbers  of  victims  seeking  support  or 
advice reinforce this view. In Romania, for example, 
in 2013, only three calls concerning possible cases of 
human trafficking were placed to the national hotline, 
and  not  a single  non‑national  contacted  the  hotline, 
according  to  information  provided  by  the  National 
Agency against Trafficking in Persons.101

For only the third time, the Czech Republic’s High Court 
ruled in 2013 on a case related to labour exploitation.102 
An important aspect of this judgment is the clarification 
of the term ‘abuse of situation of dire straits’. The per‑
petrators in this case knew that the victims faced child 
custody issues and were therefore particularly vulner‑
able.  They  offered  the  victims  travel  to  the  United 
Kingdom and promised paid employment. Upon arrival, 
however, the victims were required to work 12‑hour 
shifts in a bakery, endured poor living conditions and 
were forced to give the perpetrators a significant part 
of their income. The victims eventually escaped and 
asked for help at the Czech embassy, which assisted 
in their return to the Czech Republic. A Czech Republic 
regional court described this situation as “trafficking in 
human beings”. Although past judgments have dealt 
with  poor  living  conditions,  this  was  the  first  court 
ruling in the Czech Republic to consider that such con‑
ditions infringed fundamental human rights.103 The four 
perpetrators received unconditional sentences of up to 
nine years in prison.

9�5�3�  Concern that victims may 
be prosecuted for ‘crimes’

Discussions in several Member States in 2013 focused 
on  the  risk  that  victims  of  trafficking  could  be  pros‑
ecuted  for  public  order  offences  which  they  have 
committed  under  duress.  This  issue  was  also  raised 
in a 2013 report by the Organization for Security and 
Co‑operation  in  Europe (OSCE)  Office  of  the  Special 
Representative  and  Co‑ordinator  for  Combating 
Trafficking in Human Beings, entitled Policy and legis‑
lative recommendations towards the effective imple‑
mentation of the non‑punishment provision with regard 
to victims of trafficking.104

Despite considerable efforts to identify and  investigate 
cases of human trafficking, few victims are identified 
and prosecution and conviction rates are low, raising 
concern across Member States.

In its annual report on human trafficking and smuggling 
of human beings, the Centre for Equal Opportunities 
and  Opposition  to  Racism  in  Belgium,  for  example, 
criticised  the  Belgian  police  and  judicial  authorities 

223

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

over  their  handling  of  human  trafficking.  According 
to the centre, victims of human trafficking who have 
committed crimes under coercion are often prosecuted, 
but the wider phenomenon of human trafficking is not 
tackled and the crimes committed by people who bear 
the greatest responsibility go unpunished. This can, in 
part, be explained by victims’ fear of making incrimi‑
nating statements and the fact that some victims do 
not perceive themselves as such.

Several EU Member States altered their legislation to 
prevent  the  criminalisation  of  victims  of  trafficking 
and  introduced  measures  for  their  empowerment 
and protection, thus bringing national law in line with 
the Trafficking Directive.

Bulgaria,  for  example,  amended  its  criminal  code 
in 2013 by adding a new provision stating that when 
a person  who  is  a victim  of  trafficking  is  forced, 
as  a victim,  to  commit  a crime,  the  crime  is  not 

intentional.105  The  amended  Combating  Trafficking  in 
Human  Beings  Act  also  affords  special  protection  to 
victims, and it expands on the definition of exploitation. 
It is now defined as “the exploitation or the prostitution 
of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced 
labour or services, including begging, slavery or prac‑
tices similar to slavery, servitude, or the exploitation 
of criminal activities, or the removal of organs”.106 An 
important change was also made to Slovakia’s Code 
of Criminal Procedure, allowing attorneys to abandon 
criminal prosecution of victims of human trafficking, 
sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, provided that the 
victims have been forced to participate in the criminal 
activity  as  a direct  result  of  said  crimes.107  Similar 
amendments  to  the  Latvian  criminal  law  entered 
into  force  in  April 2013,  providing  that  a person  may 
be released from criminal liability if the offence was 
committed at a time when the person was subjected 
to  human  trafficking  and  the  person  was  forced  to 
commit the offence.108

FRA ACTIVITY

Addressing severe forms of labour exploitation

FRA began research in 2013 into criminal forms of work exploitation of migrants across the EU, involving field‑
work in 21 EU Member States.

The project focuses on:

•  Access to justice for migrants who have become victims of labour exploitation, including the punishment of 
offenders and victims’ claims under civil and labour law. In this respect, the objective is to identify factors 
which support or hinder victims of labour exploitation in accessing justice.

•  Risk  factors  contributing  to  labour  exploitation  of  migrants,  and  preventative  measures  as  a  means  of 

reducing risk.

•  The type and frequency of incidents of labour exploitation and the framework in place to tackle it.

The project is linked to other FRA research, in particular to work on migrants in an irregular situation employed 
in domestic work and on child victims of trafficking, as well as the victim support services project.

The first phase of the project, which was completed in 2013, aimed to obtain a general overview of the situation 
of victims of labour exploitation in all Member States, including the general preconditions that enable victims of 
labour exploitation to access justice.

The  second  phase  of  the  project  (to  be  completed  in  2014)  aims  to  explore  further  the  situation  in  selected 
Member States through social fieldwork research with representatives from professions such as labour inspec‑
tors, health and safety officers and recruitment and employment officers. Fieldwork in the first round of coun‑
tries  (Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Ireland,  Italy,  Poland,  Portugal  and  the 
United Kingdom) began in the second half of 2013, and a further 11 countries (Croatia, Cyprus, France, Germany, 
Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Spain) were selected in late 2013.

Desk research in all 28 Member States in 2014 will further elaborate on legal and institutional questions relating 
to severe forms of labour exploitation. The project aims to shed more light on Member States’ implementation 
of the Employers’ Sanctions Directive, addressing issues such as the liability and sanctioning of legal persons, 
back payments to exploited migrant workers and the facilitation of complaints.

Using the information and evidence collected in 2014 by the FRA research network, Franet, the FRA will prepare 
a comparative report based on the research findings.

For more information, see: FRA (2009), Child Trafficking in the European Union Challenges, perspectives and good practices, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office, FRA (2011), Migrants in an irregular situation employed in domestic work: Fundamental rights challenges for the European Union and its 
Member States, Luxembourg, Publications Office. and FRA (2012), Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2012, FRA Annual report, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office, Section 9.3

224

9�5�4�  Labour exploitation – action 

needs to be stepped up

GRETA,  which  is  responsible  for  monitoring  the 
 implementation  of  obligations  under  the  Council  of 
Europe’s  Convention  on  Action  against  Trafficking 
in  Human  Beings,  recommended  in  2013  that  action 
against trafficking for labour exploitation be stepped 
up. GRETA evaluated the following eight EU Member 
States in 2012–2013: Belgium, France, Ireland, Latvia, 
Malta, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Key findings include:

 • At the moment, the key focus in most Member States 
is  on  trafficking  for  sexual  exploitation.  This  should 
shift to clearly include trafficking for labour exploita‑
tion  (France,  Latvia,  Spain)  and  existing  policies 
should be adapted accordingly (Poland, Portugal).

 • A more proactive approach towards combating traf‑
ficking for labour exploitation is needed (Ireland, Lat‑
via, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Spain).

 • More  awareness 

regarding 
 trafficking  for  labour  exploitation  (Ireland,  Poland, 
Portugal, Spain).

is  needed 

raising 

 • More research into trafficking for labour  exploitation 

is needed (France, Portugal, Spain).

A FRA project on severe forms of labour exploitation 
aims to address this gap in both policy and research, 
increase  awareness  about  criminal  forms  of  labour 
exploitation beyond trafficking and provide concrete 
suggestions  on  preventative  measures  and  steps 
to support victims.

“In some countries evaluated by GRETA, victims of 
trafficking appear to be treated first and foremost as 
irregular migrants rather than victims in need of specific 
assistance and protection as guaranteed by the 
Convention.”

“The absence of effective regulation of certain labour 
market segments is one of the factors that help to create 
an environment in which it is possible and profitable to use 
trafficked labour.”

International Organization for Migration, Anderson, B. and O’Connell 
Davidson, J. (2003), Is trafficking in human beings demand driven? 
A multi‑country pilot study, Migration Research Series No. 15, quoted in: 
Council of Europe, 3rd General Report on GRETA’s activities, Strasbourg, 
CoE, p. 48

Rights of crime victims

Outlook

Member States have an obligation to victims of crime 
to ensure that the EU Victims’ Directive is implemented 
in practice by November 2015. Developments in 2013 
have  been  positive,  but  much  remains  to  be  done  if 
fundamental rights are to become a reality for victims 
of crime. The true test of the effectiveness of this leg‑
islation will be whether victims and legal professionals 
are aware of it and can apply it in practice.

The  Istanbul  Convention  is  set  to  enter  into  force  in 
2014, with, as of the end of 2013, just two further ratifi‑
cations needed. Its entry into force will have a positive 
effect  on  the  enforcement  of  the  rights  and  protec‑
tion of women across those Council of Europe member 
states  that  ratify  the  convention.  The  publication  of 
findings  from  the  FRA  survey  on  violence  against 
women on 5 March 2014 sheds light on women’s expe‑
riences of physical, sexual and psychological violence 
across Europe. It provides valuable comparable data on 
violence against women as a basis for developing evi‑
dence‑based policy responses at national and EU level.

The 2013 Council of the European Union conclusions on 
combating hate crime provide a new impetus to the EU, 
its institutions and Member States to ensure that the 
values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European 
Union are fully respected in line with the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights. As a follow‑up, a seminar organ‑
ised under the aegis of the Greek Presidency, will look 
to identify actions and exchange good practices that 
EU institutions and Member States can implement to 
combat hate crime in policy and practice. The onus will 
be on increasing acknowledgement and recognition of 
hate crime among law enforcement agencies, public 
authorities and local authorities, and ensuring that vic‑
tims can access justice and seek redress. In view of the 
upcoming European Parliament elections in May 2014, 
the seminar, together with other initiatives, offers an 
opportunity to engage directly with political actors in 
relation to their roles and responsibilities in combating 
hate crime in the EU.

225

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT .................................................................................................................................................................. 212, 213, 215, 222, 224

BE ..................................................................................................................................212, 213, 216, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225

BG ..................................................................................................................................................................214, 216, 218, 221, 224

CY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 213, 214, 224

CZ ...........................................................................................................................................................211, 212, 213, 214, 223, 224

DE .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 224

DK ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 212, 215

EE................................................................................................................................................................................................... 222

EL .......................................................................................................................................................................... 219, 220, 222, 224

ES ..................................................................................................................................................................................223, 224, 225

FI .................................................................................................................................................................................... 212, 215, 224

FR ...........................................................................................................................................211, 212, 213, 215, 219, 222, 224, 225

HR.................................................................................................................................................................. 212, 215, 216, 219, 224

HU .................................................................................................................................................................................218, 219, 224

IE ...........................................................................................................................................................212, 216, 222, 223, 224, 225

IT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 214, 215, 223, 224

LT ...........................................................................................................................................................................212, 216, 218, 224

LU ...................................................................................................................................................................................215, 217, 222

LV ..........................................................................................................................................................217, 218, 222, 223, 224, 225

MT .................................................................................................................................................................................223, 224, 225

NL ...........................................................................................................................................................212, 214, 215, 217, 221, 224

PL .......................................................................................................................................................... 212, 217, 221, 223, 224, 225

PT ..........................................................................................................................................................210, 215, 216, 223, 224, 225

RO.................................................................................................................................................................................. 214, 218, 223

SE ...................................................................................................................................................................................................215

SI ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 214, 218

SK .................................................................................................................................................................. 213, 214, 215, 219, 224

UK ...................................................................................................................................212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 219, 221, 223, 224

226

Rights of crime victims

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

Czech Republic, Zákon o obětech trestých činů, 
30 January 2013, www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2013‑45.

Poland, Ustawa z dnia 27 września 2013o zmianie ustawy 
Kodeks Postępowania Karnego, 27 September 2013.

Ibid.

United Kingdom, Judiciary (2013), Criminal Practice 
Directions (Amendment No. 1) EWCA Crim 2328, 
10 December 2013, paras. F1–F3, www.bailii.org/ew/cases/
EWCA/Crim/2013/2328.html.

Lithuania, Teisingumo ministerija (2014), Communication 
from the FRA’s Lithuanian National Focal Point, 
9 January 2014.

Ireland, Department of the Taoiseach, Legislation 
programme for Autumn Session 2013, www.taoiseach.gov.
ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2013/LEGISLATION_
PROGRAMME_FOR_AUTUMN_SESSION_2013.html; Ireland 
(2013), Speech by Alan Shatter TD, Minister for Justice, 
Equality and Defence at the launch of the Victims’ Rights 
Alliance, 15 November 2013, www.merrionstreet.ie/index.
php/2013/11/speech‑by‑alan‑shatter‑t‑d‑minister‑for‑justic
e‑equality‑and‑defence‑at‑the‑launch‑of‑the‑victims‑righ
ts‑alliance‑on‑friday‑15‑november‑2013‑at‑the‑ma
nsion‑house‑dublin/?cat=66.

7  

Finland, Kansallinen rikosuhripolitiikka ja uhrien tukipalvelut 
‑hanke, information retrieved from the Ministry of Justice 
website. The proposal is due by the end of 2014.

8   Netherlands, Staatssecretaris voor Veligheid en 

Justitie (2013), ‘Visie op slachtoffers’, letter to the House of 
Representatives, No. 348461, 22 February 2013, www.
rijksoverheid.nl/documenten‑en‑publicaties/
rapporten/2013/02/23/visie‑op‑slachtoffers.html.

9  

Croatia, Ministarstvo pravosuđa (2013), written response to 
request for information during the preparation of the FRA 
Annual report, 21 November 2013.

10   Denmark, Act No. 603 of 12 June 2013 on the Victim Fund, 
www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=152108; 
Denmark, Bekendtgørelse nr. 1588 af 19. December 2013 om 
forretningsorden for Rådet for Offerfonden, indgivelse af 
ansøgning om tilskud og behandling af sager om tilskud, 
www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=161042. 
The fund was officially established on 1 January 2014.

11  

France, Décret n° 2012‑681 du 7 mai 2012 relatif aux bureaux 
d’aide aux victimes, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.
do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000025822780&dateTexte
=&categorieLien=id.

12   France, Ministère de la Justice (2013), Circulaire du 

9 janvier 2013 relative à la présentation des bureaux d’aide 
aux victimes et des conditions de mise en oeuvre de leur 
généralisation, www.textes.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/JUST 
1301453C.pdf.

13   France, Code de procédure pénale, Art. D. 47‑6‑15,  www.

legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessioni
d=2D521C125FF4644282401CB98FBEE620.tpdjo05v_
1?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006150959&cidTexte=
LEGITEXT000006071154&dateTexte=20130511.

14   Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, 
and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, 
OJ 2012 L 315, Art. 22(1).

rechte op te treden/Arrêté royal relatif à la reconnaissance 
des centres spécialisés dans l’accueil et l’accompagnement 
des victimes de traite et de certaines formes aggravées de 
trafic des êtres humains et à l’agrément pour ester en 
justice, 18 April 2013, www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/
change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=201304181
4&table_name=loi.

16   European Institute for Gender Equality (2012), Review of the 
implementation of the Beijing platform for action by the EU 
Member States: Violence against women victim support, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union 
(Publications Office).

17  

Information provided by the Slovakian Ministry of Justice 
(Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR) on 6 November 2013.

18   The right to be informed about the upcoming release is 

restricted to victims who filed the petition. Austria (2013), 
2. Bundesgesetz: Änderung des Strafvollzugsgesetzes, der 
Strafprozessordnung 1975, des Jugendgerichtsgesetzes 1988 
und des Bewährungshilfegesetzes, BGBl. 2/2013, 
10 January 2013, www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/
BGBLA_2013_I_2/BGBLA_2013_I_2.pdf.

19   Belgium, no official legislation available yet; Gazet van 

Antwerpen (2013), ‘Kamer geeft slachtoffers meer rechten’, 
press release, 7 November 2013.

20   United Kingdom, Ministry of Justice (2013), ‘Victims’ 

Commissioner calls for more “open and transparent” parole 
board hearings’, www.justice.gov.uk/news/press‑releases/
victims‑com/victims‑commissioner‑calls‑for‑more‑open‑ 
and‑transparent‑parole‑board‑hearings; United Kingdom 
Victims’ Commissioner (2013), How the Victim Contact 
Scheme is operational in practice: Initial findings, May, 
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/victims‑ 
commissioner/letter‑vc.pdf.

21  

Italy, 2013 preliminary budget of the Presidency of the 
Council of Ministers, www.governo.it/trasparenza_
valutazione_merito/bilancio/bilancio_2013/nota_
preliminare_2013.pdf.

22   Netherlands, Slachtofferhulp Nederland (2013), ‘Meer 

geld voor slachtoffers van ernstige geweldsmisdrijven’, 
Press release, 20 February 2013, www.slachtofferhulp.nl/
actueel/meer‑geld‑voor‑slachtoffers‑van‑ernstige‑ 
geweldsmisdrijven‑/.

23   Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, 
and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, 
OJ 2012 L 315, Art. 3(e).

24  

Ibid., Art. 16.

25   Germany, Weißer Ring (2013), Staatliche 

Opferentschädigung in Deutschland im Jahr 2012, www.
weisser‑ring.de/fileadmin/content/Intranet/NEUDZF/OEG_
Statistik_2012_neu.pdf.

26   Romania, Ministerul Justiției (2013), Annex to letter 

No. 94148 of 3 December 2013 of the Ministry of Justice.

27   Some of the information in this chapter is based on FRA 

desk research for this Annual report.

28   See Chapter 9 of the FRA 2012 Annual report: FRA (2013), 

Luxembourg, Publications Office, pp. 257–274.

29   United Kingdom, Criminal Injuries Compensation 

Authority (2013), Annual report and accounts 2012–13, June, 
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/
corporate‑reports/cica/cica‑annual‑report‑2012‑13.pdf.

15   Belgium, Koninklijk besluit inzake de erkenning van de 
centra gespecialiseerd in de opvang en begeleiding van 
slachtoffers van mensenhandel en van bepaalde zwaardere 
vormen van mensensmokkel en inzake de erkenning om in 

30   Most recent statistics show that recorded crime has fallen 
by 10 % (September 2012–September 2013). United 
Kingdom, Office for National Statistics/TNS BMRB, Crime 
Survey for England and Wales, www.crimesurvey.co.uk/.

227

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

31   Finland, Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laeiksi rikoslain 10 
ja 44 luvun sekä sakon täytäntöönpanosta annetun lain 
muuttamisesta.

32   Sweden, Enklare för brottsoffer,  www.

brottsoffermyndigheten.se/pressmeddelande/
enklare‑for‑brottsoffer.

33   Slovakia (2013), ‘Odškodňovanie osôb postihnutých 
násilnými trestnými činmi’, Pro Bono, July 2013.

34   The 17 countries are Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, 
France, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 
the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom.

35   Croatia, Kazneni zakon, Art. 152, Narodne novine, 

Nos. 125/11 and 144/12, 2011.

36   Finland, Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laeiksi rikoslain, 
pakkokeinolain 10 luvun 7 §:n ja poliisilain 5 luvun 9 §:n 
muuttamisesta, 2013.

37   France, Code pénal, Art. 222‑14‑4, stipulates that “forcing 
a person into a marriage contract or a union abroad, using 
fraudulent tactics in order to convince them to leave French 
territory is punished by three years imprisonment and 
a €45,000 fine”, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.
do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticl
e=LEGIARTI000027809362&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid; 
France, Code pénal, Art. 227‑24‑1.

38   Denmark, Forslag L 76 af 20. November 2013 til lov om 

ændring af straffeloven (Gennemførelse af Europarådets 
konvention til forebyggelse og bekæmpelse af vold mod 
kvinder og vold i hjemmet), www.ft.dk/RIpdf/
samling/20131/lovforslag/L76/20131_L76_som_fremsat.
pdf.

39  

Italy, Law 119/2013 of 15 October 2013, Misure urgenti in 
materia di sicurezza e per contrastrare la violenza di genere, 
www.normattiva.it/uri‑res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge: 
2013‑10‑15;119.

40   European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), A. v. Croatia, 

No. 57164/08, 14 October 2010; ECtHR, Hajduova v. Slovakia, 
No. 2660/03, 30 November 2010; ECtHR, Kalucza v. Hungary, 
No. 57693/10, 24 April 2012; and ECtHR, Opuz v. Turkey, 
No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009.

41   ECtHR, Valiulienė v. Lithuania, No. 33234/07, 26 March 2013.

42   ECtHR, Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, No. 3564/11, 
28 May 2013; ECtHR, B. v. the Republic of Moldova, 
No. 61382/09, 16 July 2013; ECtHR, Mudric v. the Republic of 
Moldova, No. 74839/10, 16 July 2013; and ECtHR, N. A. v. the 
Republic of Moldova, No. 13424/06, 24 September 2013.

43   ECtHR, D. P. v. Lithuania, No. 27920/08, 22 October 2013 

(Decision).

44   Council of Europe, Convention on preventing and combating 

violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul 
Convention), CETS No. 210, 2011, Art. 36.

45   ECtHR, M. C. v. Bulgaria, No. 39272/98, 4 December 2003, 

paras. 150 and 153.

46  

Ibid., para. 166.

47   Luxembourg, Code de procédure civile, 30 July 2013.

48   Regioplan (2013), Effectief uit huis geplaatsts? Effect 

evaluatie van de Wet tijdelijk huisverbod, Amsterdam, 
Regioplan, www.rijksoverheid.nl/
documenten‑en‑publicaties/rapporten/ 
2013/11/16/effectevaluatie‑van‑de‑wet‑tijdelijk‑huisverbod.
html.

49   France, Ministère des Droits des femmes (2014), Projet de 

loi pour l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes, Press file, 
http://femmes.gouv.fr/wp‑content/uploads/2014/01/
Dossier‑de‑presse‑Projet‑de‑loi‑pour‑l%C3%A9galit%C3%
A9‑entre‑les‑femmes‑et‑les‑hommes.pdf.

50  

Italy, Law 119/2013, of 15 October 2013, Misure urgenti in 
materia di sicurezza e per contrastrare la violenza di genere, 
www.normattiva.it/uri‑res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge: 
2013‑10‑15;119. www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2013/10/ 
15/13G00163/sg.

51  

Ibid., Art. 299.

52  

Ibid., Art. 384.

53   Latvia, Likumprojekts ‘Grozījumi Likumā par policiju’,  http://

titania.saeima.lv/LIVS11/SaeimaLIVS11.nsf/0/ 
40c2d9d4c086389dc2257b82002c2bb6/$FILE/613_prez.pdf.

54   Regioplan (2013), Effectief uit huis geplaatsts? Effect 

evaluatie van de Wet tijdelijk huisverbod, Amsterdam, 
Regioplan, www.rijksoverheid.nl/
documenten‑en‑publicaties/rapporten/2013/11/16/
effectevaluatie‑van‑de‑wet‑tijdelijk‑huisverbod.html.

55   Poland, Najwyższa Izba Kontroli (2013), Przeciwdziałanie 

przemocy w rodzinie przez administrację publiczną, www.
nik.gov.pl/plik/id,5094,vp,6609.pdf.

56   Lithuania, Lietuvos rytas (2013), ‘Visuomenininkai niršta – 

moterys namuose užmušamos dėl valstybės vangumo’, 
press release, 25 March 2013, www.lrytas.lt/lietuvos‑diena/
aktualijos/visuomenininkai‑nirsta‑moterys‑namuose‑uzmu
samos‑del‑valstybes‑vangumo.htm.

57   The NGO statement is available at:  http://noierdek.

hu/?p=10579.

58   Slovenia, Act amending the Criminal Code of 

10 November 2011.

59   Lithuania, Seimas (2013), Baudžiamojo kodekso 140, 145, 

148, 149, 150, 151, 165 straipsnių pakeitimo ir papildymo 
įstatymas, No. XII‑501, 2 July 2013.

60   Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, 
and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, 
OJ 2012 L 315, Art. 28.

61   European Parliament, Resolution of 14 March 2013 on 

strengthening the fight against racism, xenophobia and 
hate crime, www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?typ
e=TA&reference=P7‑TA‑2013‑0090&language=EN&rin
g=B7‑2013‑0121.

62   European Parliament, Resolution of 4 July 2013 on the 

impact of the crisis on access to care for vulnerable groups, 
www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPOR
T&reference=A7‑2013‑0221&language=EN.

63   Council of the European Union, Council conclusions on 

fundamental rights and rule of law on the Commission 2012 
Report on the application of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union, Justice and Home Affairs 
Council meeting, Luxembourg, 6 and 7 June 2013, www.
consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/
jha/137404.pdf.

64   Council of the European Union, Council conclusions on 

combating hate crime in the European Union, Justice and 
Home Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 
5 and 6 December 2013, www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/
cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/139949.pdf.

65   Portugal, Lei 19/2013, 29.ª alteração ao Código Penal, 
21 February 2013, http://dre.pt/pdf1s/2013/02/03700/ 
0109601098.pdf.

66   Littauer, D. (2013), ‘Portugal passes trans hate crime law’, 

21 January 2013, www.gaystarnews.com/article/portuga
l‑passes‑trans‑hate‑crime‑law210113.

67   Belgium, Omzendbrief betreffende het opsporings‑ en 

vervolgingsbeleid inzake discriminatie en haatmisdrijven 
(met inbegrip van discriminaties op grond van het 
geslacht)/Circulaire relative a la politique de recherche et de 

228

Rights of crime victims

poursuite en matière de discriminations et de délits de 
haine (en ce compris les discriminations fondées sur le 
sexe), 17 June 2013, www.om‑mp.be/omzendbrief/5198967/
omzendbrief.html.

68   Belgium, Wet tot wijziging van artikel 405quater van het 

Strafwetboek en artikel 2 van de wet van 4 oktober 1867 op 
de verzachtende omstandigheden/Loi modifiant 
l’article 405quater du Code pénal et l’article 2 de la loi du 
4 octobre 1867 sur les circonstances atténuantes, 
14 January 2013, www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_
lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2013011406&table_name=loi.

69   Croatia, Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Kazenog zakona, 
Narodne novine No. 144/12, 2012, http://narodne‑novine.
nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2012_12_144_3076.html; Croatia, 
Kazeni zakon, Narodne novine No. 125/11 and 144/12, 2011, 
Art. 117 and 325, http://narodne‑novine.nn.hr/clanci/
sluzbeni/2011_11_125_2498.html and http://
narodne‑novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2012_12_144_3076.
html.

70   Slovakia, Ministerstvo vnútra SR (2013), Dôvodová správa 

k návrhu zákona, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon 
č. 300/2005 Z.z. Trestný zákon v znení neskorších predpisov 
a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony.

71   Hungary, 2012 évi C törvény a Büntető törvénykönyvről, 

Art. 216.

72   France, Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse, 

Art. 65‑3, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidText
e=LEGITEXT000006070722&dateTexte=20080312.

73   United Kingdom, Law Commission (2013), Hate crimes: The 

case for extending the existing offences – a consultation 
paper, http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp213_
hate_crime_amended.pdf.

74   Greece, Art. 66 of Law 4139/2013 (Gazette A 74/20.3.2013), 

amended Art. 79 para. 3 of the Criminal Code.

75   FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental 

Rights) (2013), Opinion of the European Union Agency for 
Fundamental Rights on the Framework Decision on Racism 
and Xenophobia – with special attention to the rights of 
victims of crime, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 12.

76   FRA (2013), Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in 
EU Member States: Experiences and perceptions of 
antisemitism, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

77   FRA (2013), EU LGBT survey: Results at a glance, 

Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 24.

78   Bulgaria, Ministry of Interior (Mинистерство на 

вътрешните работи) (2010), ‘European police and human 
rights’, Press release, www.psychology.mvr.bg/EU_
Programi_Proekti/Proekti/GDOP.htm.

79  

Ibid.

80   Belgium, Circular of 17 June 2013 COL 13/2013 of the Minister 
of Justice, the Minister of Internal Affairs, and the Assembly 
of Attorney‑Generals at the Court of Appeal, www.om‑mp.
be/extern/getfile.php?p_name=4499864.PDF.

81   FRA (2012), Making hate crime visible in the European 

Union: Acknowledging victims’ rights, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

82  Spain, Act 29/2011 of 22 September on the Recognition and 
Comprehensive Protection of the Victims of Terrorism, 
www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder_ Judicial/Audiencia_
Nacional/Actividad_de_la_AN/Victimas_del_terrorismo/
Informacion_basica.

83   Belgium, Wet tot wijziging van artikel 405quater van het 

Strafwetboek en artikel 2 van de wet van 4 oktober 1867 op 
de verzachtende omstandigheden/Loi modifiant l’article 
405quater du Code pénal et l’article 2 de la loi du 
4 octobre 1867 sur les circonstances atténuantes, 

14 January 2013, www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_
lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2013011406&table_name=loi.

84   United Nations (UN), Non‑Governmental Liaison Service 
(2013), Domestic workers´ movement gains momentum, 
www.un‑ngls.org/spip.php?article4366.

85   European Criminal Law Associations’ Forum (Eucrim) (2013), 
p. 82, www.mpicc.de/eucrim/archiv/eucrim_13‑03.pdf.

86  

Including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, 
France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, 
the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the 
United Kingdom, all of which instituted legal reforms 
in 2013.

87   Latvia, Grozījumi likumā ‘Par valsts kompensāciju 

cietušajiem’, 15 November 2012; Latvia, Likumprojekta 
‘Grozījumi likumā Par valsts kompensāciju cietušanjiem” 
sākotnējās ietekmes novērtējuma ziņojums (anotācija)’, 
http://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS11/SaeimaLIVS11.nsf/0/
E84E7920FF27DC2DC2257A87003AB03C?OpenDocument.

88   Austria, Aufenthaltsrecht für besonderen Schutz, § 69a 

(Niederlassungs‑ und Aufenthaltsgesetz).

89   Austria (2013), 58. Bundesgesetz: Änderung des 

Verbrechensopfergesetzes, BGBl 58/2013, 17 April 2013, 
www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/
BGBLA_2013_I_58/BGBLA_2013_I_58.pdf.

90   Estonia, Riigikogu (2013), ‘Riigikogu võttis vastu ohvriabi 
seaduse muudatused’, Press release, 28 March 2013.

91   Belgium, Art. 2 of the Act amending Article 433 quinquies of 
the Penal Code with a view to clarifying and expanding the 
definition of human trafficking, 29 April 2013, www.ejustice.
just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&c
n=2013042915&table_name=loi.

92   Council of Europe, Group of Experts on Action against 

Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) (2013), Report 
concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe 
Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 
by Belgium (first evaluation round), Strasbourg, Council of 
Europe, 25 September 2013, para. 53, p. 20.

93   France, Law No. 2013‑711 bringing a number of provisions 
into line with the community in the field of justice, 
5 August 2013, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.
do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027805521&dateTexte
=&categorieLien=id.

94  

Ireland, Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) (Amendment) Act 
2013, www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0024/
print.html.

95   Portugal, Lei nº 60/2013, transpondo para a ordem jurídica 
interna a Directiva nº 2011/36/UE, do Parlamento Europeu 
e do Conselho, de 5 de Abril, relativa à prevenção e luta 
contra o tráfico de seres humanos e à protecção das vítimas, 
23 August 2013, http://dre.pt/pdf1s%5C2013%5C08% 
5C16200%5C0508805090.pdf.

96   Council of Europe, Group of Experts on Action against 

Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) (2013), Report 
concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe 
Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 
by Portugal (first evaluation round), Strasbourg, Council of 
Europe, 12 February 2013.

97   United Kingdom, Home Office (2013), Draft Modern Slavery 
Bill, www.gov.uk/government/news/modern‑slavery‑whit
e‑paper‑published.

98   Malta, House of Representatives (2013), Bill 16 of 2013, 

the Criminal Code (Amendment No. 2) Act, 
http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.
aspx?app=lp&itemid=25493&l=1. The bill passed its second 
reading in Parliament and is currently with the Committee 
for the Consideration of Bills.

229

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

99   Some of the information in this chapter is based on FRA 

105   Bulgaria, Наказателен кодекс, 1 May 1968, Art. 16a, 

desk research for this Annual report.

100   Council of Europe, Group of Experts on Action against 
Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) (2013), Country 
Evaluation Reports concerning the implementation of the 
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in 
Human Beings, www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/trafficking/
Docs/Publications/Evaluations_en.asp#TopOfPage.

Art. 116a (1), item 8a, Art. 131 (1), item 8a, Art. 159a, 
Art. 159c, amendments http://dv.parliament.bg/DVWeb/
showMaterialDV.jsp?idMat=79027.

106   Bulgaria, Закон за борба с трафика на хора, adopted on 
20 June 2003, Art. 23, Art. 31, and para. 1 of the additional 
norms, items 1 and 2, amendments http://dv.parliament.bg/
DVWeb/showMaterialDV.jsp?idMat=79027.

101   Some of the information in this chapter is based on FRA 

107   Slovakia, Ministerstvo vnútra SR, information on amending 

desk research for this Annual report.

102   Czech Republic, Decision of the High Court in Prague of 

5 March 2013, ref. 10 To 4/2013.

103   La Strada International (2013), Newsletter, Issue 28, 

March 2013.

104   Organization for Security and Co‑operation in Europe 
(OSCE), Office of the Special Representative and 
Co‑ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings 
(2013), Policy and legislative recommendations towards the 
effective implementation of the non‑punishment provision 
with regard to victims of trafficking, www.osce.org/
secretariat/101002.

the Criminal Statute and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
5 August 2013.

108   Latvia, Grozījumi Kriminālprocesa likumā, 

20 December 2012, Section 13; Latvia, Grozījumi 
Krimināllikumā, 13 December 2012, Section 13.

230

EU Member States and  
international obligations

Human rights 
instruments
instruments
Human rights 

10 

EU Member States and international obligations  ���������������� 233

10�1  Fundamental rights landscape grows ever more 

intricate  ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 233

10�2  Member States accept new Council of Europe 

instruments  ������������������������������������������������������������������� 234
10�2�1  Monitoring  ������������������������������������������������������ 236
10�2�2  Economic and social rights: standards and 

compliance  ������������������������������������������������������ 237

10�2�3  Civil and political rights: standards and 

compliance  ������������������������������������������������������ 238

10�3  OSCE monitoring provides human rights feedback  ��� 240

10�4  Member States accept UN treaties  ����������������������������� 240
10�4�1  Monitoring  ������������������������������������������������������ 242

10�5  National-level monitoring and follow-up supports 

human rights performance  ������������������������������������������ 246
10�5�1  National human rights institutions  ��������������� 246
10�5�2  Designation as national mechanisms  ����������� 247
10�5�3   Human rights and business  ��������������������������� 247

Outlook  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 249

EU
January 
February 
March 
5 April – Negotiations between the EU and the 47 Council of Europe 
member states are concluded at negotiators’ level with a draft 
agreement setting out the modalities of EU accession to the European 
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
April 
13 May – EU Annual report on human rights and democracy in the world 
in 2012 published with a strong commitment to the rule of law
May 
June 
July 
August 
September 
October 
November 
December 

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

UN & CoE
January
February
March
17 April –UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion 
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion 
and expression submits a report on the 
implications of states’ surveillance of 
communications for the exercise of the human 
rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and 
expression
April
5 May – The 2008 Optional Protocol to the 
International Covenant on Economic, Social and 
Cultural Rights enters into force after 10 required 
ratifications

28 May – At the 23rd session of the UN Human 
Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the 
human rights of migrants presents a study on the 
rights of migrants in the Euro-Mediterranean 
region focusing in particular on the management 
of the external borders of the EU
May
24 June – Protocol 15 to the European Convention 
on Human Rights opens for signature
June
July
August
5 September – ILO Convention 189 (2011) 
on Domestic Workers enters into force
September
2 October – Protocol 16 to the ECHR opens 
for signature
October
26–29 November –Council of Europe, Steering 
Committee for Human Rights, Draft Declaration of 
the Committee of Ministers on the United Nations 
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 
adopted
November
December

232

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 

EU Member States and 
international obligations

The EU, underlining its desire to put Europe at the heart of the international human rights framework, pursued 
its accession in 2013 to such key instruments as the European Convention on Human Rights. At the same time, 
it encouraged its Member States as well as third countries to engage more with the international human rights 
machinery. EU Member States assumed a large number of new Council of Europe and United Nations human 
rights commitments in 2013 through signatures, ratifications and accessions. Although reluctant to join certain 
conventions, such as those on access to official documents or on migrant work, a number of Member States took 
decisive action on more recent instruments, such as those related to violence against women or to the rights of 
the child. These new commitments offer testimony to the EU’s and its Member States’ determination to lead the 
field of fundamental rights from the front, while they also contribute to the ongoing evolution, and ever more 
tightly interwoven fabric, of international human rights protection.

10�1  Fundamental rights 

landscape grows 
ever more intricate

local,  national  and 

The standards, procedures and institutions that 
ensure human and fundamental rights in the EU, 
or what could be called the EU’s fundamental 
rights  landscape,  is  a multi‑layered  system, 
covering 
international 
organisations, the last of which include the EU 
itself, the Council of Europe, the Organization 
for Security and Co‑operation in Europe (OSCE) 
and the United Nations (UN). In this intricate and 
networked system, all levels contribute to the 
overall  improvement  of  fundamental  rights.1 
This chapter focuses on the core international 
obligations the EU and its Member States have 
taken on, by looking at their formal acceptance 
of  international  human  rights  instruments,  as 
well  as  the  results  of  the  international‑  and 
national‑level monitoring linked to these instru‑
ments. For the first time, a number of chapter 
tables and figures have been moved online to 
ensure they can be updated in a timely fashion. 
They are available on the FRA website under 

Key developments

•  The 2012 EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights 
and Democracy, which runs until 2014, pays increased attention to 
the ratification of human rights instruments in the EU.

•  The EU and Council of Europe member states reach in April 2013 

an agreement on the negotiations of the Union’s accession to the 
European Convention of Human Rights.

•  The individual complaints mechanism under the third optional 

protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 
is set to enter into force, with just one ratification outstanding at the 
end of 2013.

•  The European Court of Human Rights finds violations 

regarding the length of court proceedings in a large number of 
EU Member State cases.

•  The European Committee on Social Rights delivers decisions on five 

cases initiated by Greek pensioners’ organisations regarding pension 
cuts driven by austerity measures. The committee finds violations. 
Of the 16 cases the committee considers in 2013, nine centre on 
corporal punishment of children and children’s social rights.

•  No EU Member States sign or ratify the core United Nations 

Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, nor are there any 
changes in the accreditation of national human rights institutions 
under the Paris Principles in 2013.

233

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

‘International obligations’ at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/ 
publications‑and‑resources/data‑ and‑maps/int‑ 
obligations.

“[F]ormulaic references to fundamental rights do not make 
for better […] policies. […] A first step could be to establish 
an internal EU fundamental rights strategy to complement 
the external strategy.”

Morten Kjaerum, FRA Director, commenting on the future of the EU’s 
Justice and Home Affairs strategy, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/
speech/2014/open‑and‑safe‑europe‑what‑next, and in response to 
Amnesty International’s call in 2013 for an internal EU action plan for 
human rights, mirroring the EU’s external strategic framework on human 
rights, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/assises‑
justice‑2013/files/contributions/02.amnestyinzernationalassisesdelajustice_ 
amnesty _international_en.pdf

States formally express their commitment to  international 
human rights law by becoming parties to treaties. The 
EU  increased  and  underlined  its  collective  commit‑
ment to international human rights law in 2013. In the 
EU  Annual  report  on  human  rights  and  democracy  in 
the world in 2012,2 the EU and its Member States reit‑
erated  pledges  undertaken  at  the  2012 UN  High‑Level 
Conference on the Rule of Law to strengthen the rule 
of  law  at  the  international  level,  by  considering  their 
accession to a number of human rights instruments. This 
commitment to the rule of law at a more global level is 
parallel to the increased efforts in 2013 to ensure the rule 
of law in the EU (see Chapter 8 on access to justice and 
judicial cooperation). The list of instruments considered 
includes the Convention for the Protection of All Persons 
from Enforced Disappearance and the Optional Protocol 
to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on 
the  involvement  of  children  in  armed  conflict,  as  well 
as the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against 
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment 
or  Punishment  (OP‑CAT).  The  pledge  also  extends  to 
considering the acceptance of the individual complaints 
mechanisms established under the Convention against 
Torture, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International 
Convention  on  the  Elimination  of  All  Forms  of  Racial 
Discrimination (ICERD) and the Convention on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities (CRDP).

The  collective  call  for  EU Member  States  to  become 
 parties  to  key  instruments  also  follows  from  the 
2012 EU strategic framework and action plan on human 
rights  and  democracy.3  This  document,  which  covers 
2013  and  stretches  until  the  end  of 2014,  calls  on 
Member States, as well as the EU, to “[i]ntensify the 
promotion of ratification and effective implementation 
of  key  international  human  rights  treaties,  including 
regional [instruments]”.4 More specific language calls 
on Member States to push for “ratification and effective 
implementation” of the UN Convention against Torture 
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment (CAT), including its Optional Protocol, which 
requires the establishment of independent monitoring 
bodies (see Section 10.5.2 below).5 Another example 

234

where the EU‑internal aspect is clear is the develop‑
ment  of  action  plans  on  the  implementation  of  the 
UN  guiding  principles  on  business  and  human  rights 
(see Section 10.5.3).6

The  EU  also  encouraged  Member  States  in 2013  to 
become parties to international human rights instru‑
ments related to areas of EU competence. In particular, 
the European Commission proposed a Council Decision 
‘authorising’ Member States to become parties to the 
International  Labour  Organization’s 2011  Convention 
(No. 189)  on  domestic  workers;  the  convention  also 
entered into force in 2013. The EU would hold the power 
to authorise, since some elements of the convention 
fall within EU competence.7

The  EU  itself  may  also  become  party  to  Council  of 
Europe Convention 108 on the Protection of Individuals 
with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. 
The  convention  is  currently  restricted  to  states,  but 
its  ongoing  modernisation –  in  which  the  European 
Commission  is  participating –  should  also  allow  for 
the accession of regional organisations, including the 
EU.8 Another possible development concerns refugee 
law. The Stockholm Programme encourages the EU to 
become party to the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 
1967 Protocol.9 As can be seen from these examples, 
the EU and its Member States are picking up the pace at 
which they accept international monitoring. The speed 
and the scope of this development could, nonetheless, 
be further improved.

10�2  Member States accept 
new Council of Europe 
instruments

States demonstrate their commitment to human rights 
by, for instance, signing and ratifying human rights trea‑
ties – making it publicly clear to which standards they 
want to be held accountable and to which monitoring 
mechanisms they choose to submit. Figure 10.1 provides 
an overview of EU Member States’ acceptance of key 
Council of Europe instruments, including additional pro‑
tocols. For more details on Member State acceptance 
of Council of Europe instruments, see also the table on 
acceptance of selected Council of Europe instruments, 
at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/
data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations. For the corresponding 
information on UN instruments, see Figure 10.3 and the 
table on the acceptance of selected UN instruments, 
available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑ 
resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations.

In 2013,  60 years  after  the  European  Convention  on 
Human  Rights  (ECHR)  entered  into  force,  several 
developments occurred in relation to Council of Europe 
conventions and protocols. Notably, many EU Member 

Figure 10.1:  Acceptance of key Council of Europe human rights instruments, by EU Member State

EU Member States and international obligations

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AT  BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  EL  ES  FI  FR  HR  HU 

IE 

IT  LT  LU  LV  MT  NL  PL  PT  RO  SE  SI  SK  UK 

Conventions 

Additional protocols 

Source:  Council of Europe, information, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/?pg=/Treaty/MenuTraites_en.asp

States signed the ECHR Additional Protocols 15 and 16 
(see  the  table  on  acceptance  of  selected  Council  of 
Europe  instruments,  available  at:  http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
int‑obligations). These instruments have been adopted 
as a result of the work carried out on the reform of the 
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which was 
initiated at the third summit of heads of state and gov‑
ernment of the Council of Europe in Warsaw in 2005. It 
was shaped particularly by the high‑level conferences 
in  Interlaken (2010),  Izmir (2011)  and  Brighton (2012). 
The reform process gradually introduces changes to the 
ECHR that intend to adjust the ECtHR’s work to evolving 
circumstances and reduce its workload. Ireland signed 
and ratified and 17 additional EU Member States signed 
ECHR Additional Protocol 15 in 2013, which adds a refer‑
ence to the subsidiarity principle and the ECHR doctrine 
of margin of appreciation. It also amends the admis‑
sibility criteria (see also Chapter 8 on Access to justice 
and  judicial  cooperation).  Six EU Member  States  also 
signed ECHR Additional Protocol 16, which enables the 
State Parties’ highest courts to request ECtHR advisory 
opinions on key questions regarding the interpretation 
and application of the ECHR and its protocols.10

Furthermore, a number of EU Member States accepted 
some  key  Council  of  Europe  instruments  in 2013  (in 
parentheses are shown the total numbers of ratifica‑
tions and additional signatures by EU Member States, 
thereby showing the situation at the close of 2013).

 • Latvia, which is already a contracting party to the 
original European Social Charter (1961) (23 ratifica‑
tions and an additional two signatures by EU Mem‑
ber States), also ratified the European Social Charter 
(1996) (19 ratifications and an additional nine signa‑
tures by EU Member States).

 • Belgium,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Slovenia  and  Sweden 
ratified  the  2007  Convention  on  the  Protection  of 

Children  against  Sexual  Exploitation  and  Sexual 
Abuse, and it was signed by Latvia; this leaves the 
Czech  Republic  as  the  last  EU  Member  State  that 
has yet to sign the document (18 ratifications and 
an additional nine signatures by EU Member States).

 • Austria, 

Italy 

ratified 

and  Portugal 

the 
2011  Convention on Preventing and Combating Vio‑
lence  against  Women  and  Domestic  Violence  (Is‑
tanbul  Convention),  and  it  was  signed  by  Croatia, 
Denmark  and  Lithuania.  In  the  2.5  years  since  its 
adoption, 32 of the Council of Europe’s 47 member 
states  have  signed  the  convention,  with  eight  of 
these states also ratifying it (three ratifications and 
an additional 20 signatures by EU Member States).

 • Hungary  ratified  the  2005  Convention  on  Action 
against Trafficking in Human Beings; the Czech Re‑
public is the last EU Member State that has yet to 
sign  the  convention  (25  ratifications  and  an  addi‑
tional two signatures by EU Member States).11

 • The  Czech  Republic  ratified  the  2001  Cybercrime 
Convention  (23  ratifications  and  an  additional  five 
signatures by EU Member States).

 • The  Czech  Republic  and  Spain  signed 

the 
2003  Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cy‑
bercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of 
a racist and xenophobic nature committed through 
computer  systems,  which  aims 
to  enhance 
cross‑border police and judicial cooperation (12 rati‑
fications and an additional 11 signatures by EU Mem‑
ber States).

 • The  United  Kingdom  accepted  the  applicability  of 
the 1987 European Convention for the Prevention of 
Torture  and  Inhuman  or  Degrading  Treatment  or 
Punishment, as amended by its two 1993 protocols, 

235

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

to its sovereign base areas in Cyprus (ratified by all 
EU Member States).

 • All  EU  Member  States  except  Poland  are  party  to 
Protocol  13  to  the  ECHR,  on  “the  abolition  of  the 
death penalty in all circumstances”. Poland signed 
in 2002 when the instrument was adopted but has 
yet to ratify it. The Committee of Ministers of the 
Council of Europe brought up the issue at its meet‑
ing  on  10 April 2013,  where  Poland  declared  that 
the process of ratification was under way.12

The  Council  of  Europe  also  released  a number  of 
human  rights  monitoring  and  evaluation  reports  on 
EU Member States in 2013 (see Table 10.1) containing 
information on a range of issues including the rights of 
minorities, the conditions in prisons and other places of 
involuntary confinement, and racism and intolerance. 
In this respect, the Council of Europe has also begun 
implementing measures for the better coordination of 
its monitoring activities, which should increase their 
effectiveness in the future. Among these measures, the 
Council of Europe plans to develop synergies with the 
monitoring work of other international organisations, 
particularly in follow‑up activities.13

10�2�1  Monitoring

The Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner 
visited a number of member states in 2013, including 

in  the  EU.  In February,  he  visited  Greece,  where  he 
focused on the impunity of perpetrators of hate crime 
as  well  as  asylum‑  and  migration‑related  problems, 
such as the prolonged detention of irregular migrants.14 
In March, the commissioner visited Estonia, where he 
tackled in particular the effects of the economic crisis 
on the enjoyment of human rights, the independence 
and effectiveness of national human rights structures 
and  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  stateless  chil‑
dren.15 In June, he visited Spain, where he addressed 
the  impact  of  austerity  measures  on  children  with 
disabilities,  ill‑treatment  by  and  impunity  of  police 
officers,  detention  incommunicado  and  ethnic  pro‑
filing by law enforcement officials.16 In November, the 
commissioner visited Denmark, where he focused on 
children  in  migration  and  asylum  procedures,  rights 
of  persons  with  disabilities,  and  the  use  of  coercion 
in psychiatric institutions.17

There  are  six monitoring  bodies  of  the  Council  of 
Europe on central human rights issues with a regular 
reporting  cycle:  the  European  Committee  for  the 
Prevention of Torture, the Committee of Independent 
Experts under the European Charter for Regional and 
Minority  Languages,  the  Advisory  Committee  under 
the Framework Convention on National Minorities, the 
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance 
and the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking 
in Human Beings (GRETA), and the Committee of the 
Parties of the Council of Europe on the protection of 
Children against Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation 

Table 10.1:  Council of Europe monitoring reports released in 2013, by EU Member State 

Table 10.1: (continued)

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

CPT

Reports

Visits

ü

ü

ECRML

FCNM

ECRI

GRETA

Total

ü  ü

ü

3

1

0

1

0

ü

ü

ü

3

ü

1

ü

1

0

ES

ü

ü

ü

3

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

LT

LU

LV MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

Total

ü

1

ü

ü

2

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

2

1

3

IT

ü

ü

ü

ü

2

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

4

ü

ü

ü

3

ü

ü

ü

ü

4

ü

ü

ü

ü

3

ü

ü

ü

4

SK

ü

SI

ü

ü

UK

ü

ü

ü

7

10

4

4

13

8

46

CPT 

ECRML 
FCNM 
ECRI 
GRETA 

 (European) Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment
Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages
Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance 
Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

Note: 

For the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the visits to EU Member States during 2013 are also included 
in a separate row.

Source:  Council of Europe, available at: www.coe.int/t/dgi/default_en.asp

236

EU Member States and international obligations

(Lanzarote  Committee)  also  launched  its  first  moni‑
toring cycle in 2013. Table 10.1 provides an overview 
of EU Member States that were covered by monitoring 
reports by these expert bodies in 2013. For economic 
and social rights, and for civil and political rights, the 
dedicated Council of Europe monitoring bodies are dealt 
with in the following subsections.

10�2�2  Economic and social rights: 

standards and compliance

All  EU Member  States  are  among  the  43 parties  to 
either  the  1961  European  Social  Charter  (ESC)  or  the 
1996 ESC,  which  guarantee  social  and  economic 
rights.  Latvia’s  2013  ratification  of  the  1996 ESC 
raised the number of Member States that have rati‑
fied the more developed version to 19 (see the table 
on acceptance of key Council of Europe human rights 
instruments,  available  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/en/
publications‑and‑resources/data‑ and‑maps/int‑
obligations). It is possible to accept some but not all 
ESC provisions. For an overview of which states have 
accepted which rights, see the table on acceptance of 
ESC provisions at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑ 
and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations.

the 
Fourteen EU Member  States  are  bound  by 
the ESC  Providing 
1995 Additional  Protocol 
for  a System  of  Collective  Complaints  (Collective 
Complaints  Procedure  Protocol)  and  another  four 

to 

have signed but not yet ratified the instrument (see 
the table on acceptance of selected Council of Europe 
instruments: 
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑
and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations).  No 
change occurred in 2013 regarding this protocol. Finland 
remains the sole Member State which, in addition to 
the  Collective  Complaints  Procedure  Protocol  itself, 
has accepted the submission of collective complaints 
not only from international non‑governmental organi‑
sations (NGOs) and national trade unions (mandated 
under Article 1 of the collective complaints protocol) 
but  also  from  national  NGOs –  a possibility  available 
under Article 2 of the protocol.

Applications under this protocol to the ESC monitoring 
body, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), 
help illuminate current issues in the area of economic 
and social rights. Of the 15 cases filed in 2013, of which 
14 were against EU Member States,18 seven concern the 
alleged failure to prohibit corporal punishment or other 
cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children in 
individual EU Member States, either in a domestic set‑
ting or in educational institutions. Two complaints focus 
on other social rights of children. The remaining cases 
concern  other  rights  granted  under  the  ESC,  such  as 
the right of employees to organise or the right to social 
security and welfare protection.

The ECSR also delivered 14 decisions, of which 13 related 
to EU Member States, on the merits of complaints filed 
in  previous  years.  These  included  the  decisions  on 

Table 10.1:  Council of Europe monitoring reports released in 2013, by EU Member State 

Table 10.1: (continued)

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

ü

LT

LU

LV MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

ü

1

ü

ü

2

ü

ü

1

1

1

ü

ü

ü

ü

4

ü

ü

ü

3

ü

ü

ü

ü

3

ü

ü

ü

4

ü

ü

ü

ü

4

SK

ü

SI

ü

ü

UK

ü

ü

ü

0

0

2

1

3

CPT

Reports

Visits

ECRML

FCNM

ECRI

GRETA

Total

ü

ü

3

ü  ü

Punishment

ü

ü

ES

ü

ü

ü

3

ü

1

ü

1

ü

ü

2

ü

ü

ü

3

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

CPT 

 (European) Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 

ECRML 

FCNM 

ECRI 

GRETA 

Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages

Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance 

Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

Note: 

For the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the visits to EU Member States during 2013 are also included 

in a separate row.

Source:  Council of Europe, available at: www.coe.int/t/dgi/default_en.asp

Total

7

10

4

4

13

8

46

237

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

five cases initiated by Greek pensioners’ organisations 
regarding pension cuts introduced as austerity meas‑
ures in response to the economic crisis. The applicants 
claimed that these cuts were in breach of Article 12 (3) 
of  the  ESC,  which  stipulates  the  Contracting  Parties’ 
obligation  to  “endeavour  to  raise  progressively  the 
system of social security to a higher level”. The ECSR 
held  that,  although  austerity  measures  may  be  nec‑
essary  in  the  given  situation,  the  cuts’  severity  and 
the state’s failure to look for less drastic measures for 
vulnerable members of society constituted a breach of 
social rights under the ESC.19

Other decisions in 2013 concerned issues such as the 
rights of migrants to social protection and assistance, 
or the right to the protection of health in case of serious 
environmental  pollution.  In  the  area  of  employment 
and labour rights, the ECSR delivered decisions relating 
to the right to work or freedom of association and the 
right to bargain collectively.

The review of the reporting procedure focused in 2013 
on health, social security and social protection, relating 
to  Articles 3,  11,  12,  13,  14,  23  and 30  of  the  ESC  and 
Article 4 of the 1988 Additional Protocol (for the con‑
tent of these provisions, see the table on acceptance of 
ESC provisions at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑
and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations).  They 
cover  rights  appearing  also  under  Title IV  of  the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. During 2013, 
the ECSR examined the application of the 1961 ESC by 
eight EU Member States: the Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Germany, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Spain and the United 
Kingdom. During the same time, the ECSR also exam‑
ined  the  application  of  the  1996 ESC  by  17  Member 
States:  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia, 
Finland,  France,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Lithuania, 
Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia 
and Sweden. Several Member States submitted their 

Figure 10.2: Most violated ECHR provisions

reports too late to be reviewed in 2013, so conclusions 
will be available only in early 2014: Luxembourg and 
Croatia for the 1961 ESC and Portugal for the 1996 ESC.

On  the  conformity  of  national  law  and  practice  with 
ESC provisions, see the table at: http://fra.europa.eu/
en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑
obligations. Romania emerges with the highest level of 
non‑conformity (62 %), followed by Greece (56 %) and 
Poland (46 %). Other EU Member States with non‑con‑
formity above 40 % are Latvia (44 %), Ireland (42 %) 
and Malta (41 %). Romania scored poorly in the appli‑
cation of the right to health (high infant and maternal 
mortality), the right to health and safety at work and 
the right to social and medical assistance.20 At the other 
end of the spectrum, showing strong conformity with 
the  ESC,  are  the  United  Kingdom  (8 %,  actually  only 
one conclusion out of 13), Slovenia (12 %), Cyprus (14 %), 
Denmark  (18 %),  Sweden  (12 %),  Estonia  (20 %),  the 
Netherlands (21 %), Austria (24 %) and Finland (24 %).

10�2�3  Civil and political rights: 

standards and compliance

According  to  its  annual  statistics,  the  ECtHR  handed 
down 497 judgments in 2013 in cases brought against 
the 28 EU Member States, 410 (82 %) of which proved 
to  be  violations,  The  corresponding  numbers  in 2012 
were  648  and  486  judgments  (75 %),  respectively.21 
These numbers suggest a downward trend, which could 
be due to changes in how the ECtHR prioritises cases 
and the number of actual violations reaching the court.

The  most  frequent  subjects  of  proceedings  related  to 
EU Member States before the ECtHR concerned length 
of proceedings (118 judgments), the right to liberty and 
security (89),  the  right  to  fair  trial (80)  and  inhuman 
or degrading treatment (58). For an overview of these 

Right to a fair trial

RO 19

HR 10

BG 9

IT 7

Right to liberty and security

RO 18

BG 10

HU 10

PL 8

Lenght of proceedings

HU 25

SI 20

IT 16

EL 12

SK 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Notes: 

Table covers ECtHR judgments in 2013.

The darkest shade of blue is used for the highest number of ECHR violations, medium blue for a medium number of 
violations and light blue for a lower number of violations.

Source:  ECtHR (2014), Annual report 2013, Strasbourg, ECtHR

238

 
EU Member States and international obligations

subjects,  see  the  table  on  the  number  of  ECtHR  judg‑
ments  finding  a violation  in  2013  at:  http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑
obligations. The subjects of proceedings were almost the 
same as those in 2012; the only difference was that in the 
third place the right to an effective remedy was replaced 
with  that  to  a fair  trial.  A trend  to  fewer  judgments 
finding  EU Member  State  violations  continued  in 2013, 
with  the  number  falling  to  410 cases  from 509 in 2011 
and 486 in 2012, although the percentage of judgments 
finding a violation rose from 75 % in 2012 to 82 % in 2013. 
The ECtHR handed down considerably fewer judgments 
in EU Member States in 2013 on the length of proceed‑
ings (from 151 to 118). Similarly, cases concluding a lack of 
effective investigation fell from 34 to 11, violations of the 
right to an effective remedy from 74 to 56 and the right 
to property from 59 to 37. However, the right to a fair trial 
increased from 50 to 80 and non‑enforcement related to 
a fair trial from 3 to 14.

Figure 10.2 presents the three most violated  provisions 
of  the  ECHR,  and  the  EU Member  States  with  the 
highest number of violations by respective right.

The  ECtHR  also  details  the  number  of  complaints 
it   allocates  to  its  internal  judicial  formations  per 
10,000 population.  Applications  that  are  allocated  to 
a judicial formation are those for which the ECtHR has 
received a correctly completed form, accompanied by 
copies of relevant documents. (See the figure on appli‑
cations allocated to a judicial formation at: http://fra.
europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑
maps/int‑obligations). While some EU Member States 
experienced a relative increase (Malta, Cyprus, Hungary 
and  Slovenia)  or  decline  (Estonia,  Romania,  Sweden 
and the United Kingdom) in the number of applications 
in 2013, in general terms the number of allocated appli‑
cations by Member State remained stable. The number 
of  EU 28  allocated  cases  dropped  by  1,744 cases,  or 
6 %,  from  29,103 in 2012  to  27,359 in 2013.  Romania 
accounted for the bulk of the decline, followed by the 
United Kingdom. Member States that still saw larger 
increases were France, Hungary and the Netherlands.

The 2012 trend of fewer cases pending before the ECtHR 
continued  in 2013.  The  number  fell  to  99,000 cases, 
or  by  some  22 %,  from 128,100  at  the  beginning  of 
the  year.  EU Member  States  together  account  for 
38,303 cases,  or  some  38 %,  a similar  share  to  the 
previous year. Italy, Romania and the United Kingdom 
have the largest number of pending cases, at 14,379, 
6,173 and 2,519 cases, respectively. (See the figure on 
the  number  of  cases  pending  before  ECtHR  judicial 
formations  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑ 
and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations.)

In 2013 as in 2012, the highest number of leading pending 
cases with execution times longer than five years was 
in  Italy,  which  also  had  the  highest  amount  of  just 

satisfaction awarded, at over €71,000,000, down from 
almost €120,000,000 in 2012. For more details on the 
number  of  leading  cases  with  an  average  execution 
time of more than five years and the total compensation 
awarded for cases in 2011, 2012 and 2013 by EU Member 
State, see the table on the number of leading pending 
cases with average execution time of more than five 
years  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑ 
resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations.

The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers examined 
the implementation of ECtHR judgments in a number 
of  member  states,  including  14 EU Member  States: 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, France, Hungary, Ireland, 
Italy,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia, 
Spain and the United Kingdom.22

The Committee of Ministers requested more  information 
from Bulgaria and Romania on certain allegations of 
ill‑treatment  by  the  police.  In  Greece,  the  focus  was 
on  the  availability  of  effective  domestic  remedies 
for excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings 
following pilot judgments rendered by the ECtHR. The 
length of proceedings was also examined in relation to 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Poland and Portugal. In relation 
to  Romania,  the  committee  supervised  the  introduc‑
tion of a mechanism of compensation for or restitution 
of  nationalised  property.  The  committee  noted  with 
satisfaction that Ireland had made significant progress 
towards adopting a legislative and regulatory frame‑
work for a procedure that would help women establish 
whether or not they qualify for a lawful abortion. The 
committee welcomed Malta’s diligence shown in put‑
ting  rapidly  in  place  a mechanism  to  provide  access 
to court in certain childcare cases. The Committee of 
Ministers examined overcrowding in prisons in Poland 
and Italy. The United Kingdom authorities were urged 
to adopt legislation to remove the blanket ban on pris‑
oners’ voting rights. In Slovenia, the committee wel‑
comed the introduction of the compensation scheme 
for the ‘erased’.23 Finally, the Committee considered that 
Spain acted in accordance with the ECtHR by ensuring 
the immediate release of an applicant whose detention 
had been retrospectively extended.24

The process of the accession of the EU to the ECHR, 
foreseen by the Treaty of Lisbon, reached an impor‑
tant milestone in April 2013 when the negotiators of 
the 47 Council of Europe member states and the EU 
finalised a draft accession agreement.25 The lengthy 
12‑page  document,  accompanied  by  a 20‑page 
explanatory report, reflects the intricacies of the EU 
legal  order.  Much  discussion  surrounded  the  issue 
of  attribution  of  responsibility  for  the  implementa‑
tion  of  EU  law.  In  the  draft,  EU Member  States  are 
the  primary  respondents;  the  EU  could  become 
party  to  any  such  dispute  with  equal  rights  to  and 
joint  responsibility  with  a Member  State  under  the 
new ‘co‑respondent’ mechanism.

239

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

The  European  Commission  subsequently  submitted 
a request to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
(CJEU) for an opinion on whether or not the draft acces‑
sion  agreement  is  compatible  with  the  EU  Treaties. 
Among other issues, the CJEU will have to assess the 
fundamental questions of the autonomy of the EU legal 
order and the primacy of EU law, therefore pronouncing 
to what degree the influence of the ECtHR on EU issues 
is acceptable under the treaties.

10�3  OSCE monitoring 

provides human rights 
feedback

The  Organization  for  Security  and  Co‑operation  in 
Europe (OSCE), whose work often focuses on areas out‑
side the EU‑28 involving others of its 57 participating 
states,  also  looked  into  the  situation  in  EU Member 
States  during 2013.  The  OSCE  engages  directly  with 
EU Member States, including in the often confidential 
conflict  prevention  work  of  the  organisation’s  High 
Commissioner for National Minorities.26

OSCE  entities  that  operate  more  publicly  include  the 
Representative on Freedom of the Media,27 who issued 
statements, for example, on 14 EU Member States during 
2013. These statements dealt with issues including the 
intimidation  of  journalists  in  Bulgaria;  the  treatment 
of  journalists  in  Croatia;  freedom  of  expression  and 
media freedom in France; media access to courtrooms 
in Germany; risks to media diversity in Greece; the pro‑
posed  criminalisation  of  particular  online  publications 
in Hungary; criminal defamation legislation in Italy; the 
criminalisation  of  some  speech  in  Romania;  freedom 
of expression and media pluralism in Lithuania; judicial 
pressure on journalists in Slovakia; the decriminalisa‑
tion of defamation in Slovenia; draft legislation limiting 
access  to  information  in  Spain;  and  concerns  about 
a planned agency to regulate print media in the United 
Kingdom. The representative also visited Denmark in 
November 2013 to discuss a new public information law.

The OSCE’s Special Representative and Co‑ordinator for 
Combating Trafficking in Human Beings visited Italy in 
June and Romania in September.28

The  three  Personal  Representatives  of  the  OSCE 
Chairperson‑in‑Office  on  tolerance  and  non‑discrim‑
ination  visited  six  EU Member  States  in  2013,  recom‑
mending  improvements.  They  jointly  visited  Belgium 
(June)  and  Greece  (September).  The  country  visit  to 
Belgium led to recommendations on action in relation to 
Muslim and Jewish communities, concerns with religious 
dress,  and  hate  crime.29  The  Personal  Representative 
on  combating  antisemitism  undertook  four  separate 
visits  to  France  (April),  Italy  (June–July),  Latvia  (July) 
and  Romania  (October).  Following  up  on  the  visit  to 

France,  the  representative  recommended  enhanced 
data collection on hate crime, police training, security 
assistance to Jewish communities and steps to combat 
cyberhate.30 In Italy,31 the representative recommended 
preventative educational and awareness‑raising efforts 
and training for police and prosecutors,32 and in Latvia 
the representative recommended enhancing teaching 
about antisemitism in schools, training for judges and 
prosecutors,  providing  the  Ombudsman’s  office  with 
more resources, and resolving outstanding Second World 
War property restitution processes, since they provide 
fodder for antisemitic discourse.33 In Romania, the rec‑
ommendations focused on hate crime and training of 
police and prosecutors.34

The OSCE levelled sharp criticism at Spain in particular in 
2013. Against an earlier pledge of full cooperation, Spain 
denied  the  OSCE’s  Office  for  Democratic  Institutions 
and  Human  Rights  (ODIHR)  the  right  to  monitor  an 
anti‑monarchy assembly in Madrid. The country had 
earlier  said  it  would  cooperate  fully  with  ODIHR  on 
monitoring freedom of assembly in the country.35

10�4  Member States accept 

UN treaties

As  mentioned  earlier,  one  way  to  assess  states’ 
 commitment  to  human  rights  is  the  extent  of  inter‑
national human rights treaties, and additional features 
under them, that bind the states. Figure 10.3 provides 
an overview of EU Member States’ acceptance of key 
UN  instruments,  including  additional  protocols  and 
acceptance  of  additional  features  such  as  individual 
complaints. For a detailed overview, see the table on 
acceptance of selected UN instruments at: http://fra.
europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑
maps/int‑obligations. For the corresponding informa‑
tion on Council of Europe treaties, see Figure 10.1 and the 
table on acceptance of selected Council of Europe instru‑
ments  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑ 
resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations.

Nine of the UN conventions are labelled core human 
rights  conventions.36  These  nine  and  their  related 
features, the optional protocols and elective mecha‑
nisms built into the actual conventions, are displayed 
in shades of blue in Figure 10.3. Other UN treaties and 
their additional protocols are shaded in red.

The following list highlights key developments related to 
the acceptance of UN human rights instruments in 2013.

 • The 2008 Optional Protocol on individual complaints 
to  the  International  Covenant  on  Economic,  Social 
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR‑OP), which was adopt‑
ed in 2008, came into force in May 2013.37 Portugal 
ratified it in 2013, joining Spain and Slovakia, which 
had become parties earlier.

240

EU Member States and international obligations

Championing human rights

The Council of the European Union emphasises the EU’s 
and its Member States’ commitment to set an example in 
ensuring respect for human rights within their respective 
areas of competence, according to the EU Annual report 
on human rights and democracy in the world in 2012. In 
that report, published in 2013, the council also says the EU 
and its Member States seek to promote human rights and 
the  rule  of  law  worldwide  through  their  relations  with 
third countries. EU Member States as well as the EU itself 
made  a  number  of  pledges  in  this  field  at  the  UN 
High‑Level Conference on the Rule of Law in 2012, con‑
cerning issues ranging from the ratification of various hu‑
man  rights  instruments  to  adopting  specific  national 
laws, programmes or action plans.

For more information, see Council of the European Union, 9431/13, 
13 May 2013, pp. 174–175, and the UN voluntary pledge site on the rule of 
law, available at: www.unrol.org/article.aspx?article_id=170

 • Latvia in 2013 was the second‑last of the EU  Member 
States to become a party to the 1989 Second Op‑
tional  Protocol  to  the  International  Covenant  on 
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the abolition of 
the  death  penalty  (ICCPR‑OP2).  Poland  is  the  re‑
maining signatory EU Member State yet to ratify it.

 • Lithuania signed and ratified the 2006 International 
Convention  for  the  Protection  of  All  Persons  from 
Enforced Disappearance (CPED), including Article 31, 
which  provides  for  individual  complaints.  Poland 
signed the convention.38

 • In 2013, the 2011 Optional Protocol to the  Convention 
on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Pro‑
cedure  (CRC‑OP3)  received  a  large  number  of  ac‑
ceptances from EU Member States. Germany, Por‑
tugal,  Slovakia  and  Spain  ratified  the  protocol, 
while  Croatia  and  Poland  signed  it.  The  protocol 
was set to come into force in early 2014. There are 
still 13 EU Member States that have not yet signed 
the protocol.40

 • The Czech Republic ratified the Optional Protocol to 
the  CRC  on  the  sale  of  children,  child  prostitution 
and  child  pornography  (CRC‑OP2)  in  2013,  leaving 
Ireland as the sole EU Member State yet to ratify it.

 • The  Czech  Republic  ratified  the  United  Nations 
2000  Convention  against  Transnational  Organized 
Crime (UNTOC) in 2013, meaning that all EU Member 
States  are  now  parties.  The  Czech  Republic  also 
ratified the 2000 Optional Protocol to UNTOC on the 
Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, leaving 
Ireland as the sole EU Member State yet to ratify it.

 • Italy  and  Germany  are  the  first  two  EU  Member 
States to become parties to the 2011 ILO convention 
No. 189 concerning decent work for domestic work‑
ers (see earlier in relation to EU action on ‘authoris‑
ing’  the  Member  States  in  this  regard).  They  join 
nine others worldwide. ILO conventions cannot be 
signed in a separate stage indicating commitment 
before  ratification.  The  convention  entered  into 
force on 5 September 2013.

 • Two EU Member States, Italy and Portugal, ratified 
in  2013  the  Optional  Protocol  to  the  Convention 
against  Torture  and  Other  Cruel,  Inhuman  or  De‑
grading Treatment or Punishment (OP‑CAT), bring‑
ing the total number of EU Member States party to 
this instrument to 21.39

The  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities (CRPD)  deserves  particular  attention 
as  a relatively  new  instrument  that  already  boasts 
a large  number  of  State  Parties,  including  the  EU 
itself.  EU Member  States  continued  to  implement 
the  CRPD  in  2013.  The  number  of  EU Member  States 

Figure 10.3: Acceptance of key UN human rights instruments, by EU Member State

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI

FR HU HR IE

IT

LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

Core 

Core - additional 

Non-core 

Non-core - additional 

Note: 

For more details, see the table on acceptance of selected UN instruments, available at:  http://fra.europa.eu/en/
publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations.

Sources:  United Nations, information available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en; 
International Labour Organization, information available at: www.ilo.org/global/standards/lang‑‑en/index.htm

241

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

that have ratified the CRPD remains unchanged at 25, 
of  which  20  have  also  ratified  its  Optional  Protocol, 
enabling  individual  complaints  to  be  made  to  the 
CRPD monitoring committee.

The three EU Member States yet to ratify the CRPD – 
Finland,  Ireland  and  the  Netherlands41 –  took  further 
steps towards ratification. In Ireland, the major obstacle 
to ratification remains the reform of legal capacity legis‑
lation in line with the supported decision‑making model 
required by Article 12 of the CRPD on equal recognition 
before the law.42 On 15 July 2013, the Irish government 
published  the  Assisted  Decision‑Making  (Capacity) 
Bill, which aims to provide a statutory framework that 
maximises  individual  autonomy.43  The  bill  also  pro‑
vides for the establishment of a new statutory office, 
the Office of the Public Guardian, which will supervise 
those who provide support for decision making. The 
bill is expected to be passed in 2014, paving the way 
for ratification of the CRPD.44 In Finland, the working 
group set up to prepare for the convention’s ratification 
was, at the end of 2013, preparing a report outlining the 
revisions needed to bring existing legislation into line 
with the CRPD. The report, currently out for consulta‑
tion, will incorporate the consultation’s comments into 
the legislative proposal for ratification, to be presented 
to parliament during 2014.45

impact  assessment  studies  conducted 
Following 
in  2012,  the  Ministry  of  Health,  Welfare  and  Sport 
in  the  Netherlands  published  two  draft  bills  on 
the  ratification  of  the  CRPD  for  online  consulta‑
tion:  a Ratification  Act46  and  an  Implementation  Act 
defining  the  legal  reforms  necessary  to  implement 
the  CRPD.47  Details  of  the  respective  monitoring 
bodies  required  at  national  level  under  the  CRPD 
are provided in Section 10.5.2 and the table on CRPD 
data  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑ 
resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations.

10�4�1  Monitoring

The  UN  human  rights  treaties  include  international 
monitoring  bodies  (UN  treaty  bodies)  that  supervise 
the compliance of State Parties with that convention. 
Among the means used to do this are periodic reporting 
procedures  as  well  as  an  examination  of  individual 
complaints  (communications).  The  UN  Human  Rights 
Council,  the  47‑member  intergovernmental  body 
serviced by the Office of the High Commissioner for 
Human  Rights  (OHCHR),  offers  two  additional  main 
forms  of  monitoring:  the  Universal  Periodic  Review 
(UPR) and the special procedures. The former is a peer 
review exercise and the latter is carried out by indi‑
vidual experts or working groups. The UN monitoring 
system is also supported by, and partly integrated with, 
a universal system of accredited National Human Rights 
Institutions (NHRIs) (see Section 10.5).

Universal Periodic Review

Through  the  UPR,  the  implementation  of  human 
rights  by  each  UN  member  is  reviewed  once  every 
4.5 years,  based  on  sources  including  a report  sub‑
mitted by the state under review, a report compiled 
by the OHCHR, which contains information gathered 
by the treaty bodies and the special procedures, and 
information received from other relevant stakeholders 
such  as  NGOs,  NHRIs  and  regional  human  rights 
organisations, including FRA. Since its establishment, 
the  UPR  and  the  recommendations  it  issues  have 
earned states’ respect.

FRA ACTIVITY

Contributing to UN human rights 
monitoring

Starting in early 2013, at the request of the OHCHR, 
FRA submits in the formal Universal Periodic Re‑
view  exercise  extracts  of  relevant  reports  it  has 
issued in recent years related to the EU Member 
State  under  review.  This  involved  the  following 
Member  States  in  2013:  Cyprus,  Malta,  Portugal 
and Slovakia.

The  UPR  covered  all  states  between  2006 and 2011. 
Each  EU Member  State  has  therefore  undergone 
the  monitoring  procedure  at  least  once.  Within  the 
second cycle, five EU Member States were reviewed 
in 2012  and  a further five  in 2013:  France,  Germany, 
Luxembourg, Malta and Romania.48

States generally accept the majority of  recommendations 
received under the UPR, but they can also reject, in part 
or in full, their implementation. Of the 165 recommen‑
dations  received  in  the  second review  cycle,  France 
accepted  124 (75 %),  partially  accepted  12 (7 %)  and 
noted (rejected) 29 (18 %). Most of the recommenda‑
tions addressed to France concerned racial discrimina‑
tion, the rights of minorities and migrants, torture, cruel, 
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and 
prison conditions. Germany received 200 recommen‑
dations, accepting 167 (83.5 %), partially accepting two 
(1 %) and rejecting 31 (15.5 %). The recommendations 
emphasised issues such as racial discrimination, rights 
of women and migrants and the ratification or imple‑
mentation of various human rights instruments. As for 
Luxembourg,  of  the  121 recommendations  received, 
112 (93 %) were accepted and nine (7 %) rejected. The 
recommendations  focused  on  migration,  the  rights 
of the child and women’s rights, including in connec‑
tion  with  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings.  For 
Romania, of a total of 157 recommendations, 129 (82 %) 
were  accepted,  three  (2 %)  were  partially  accepted 
and  25 (16 %)  were  rejected.  The  recommendations 
addressed the rights of the child, migration and stepping 

242

EU Member States and international obligations

Table 10.2:  Universal Periodic Review recommendations in 2013, by EU Member State

Total

Accepted

% accepted

Partially 
accepted

% partially 
accepted

Rejected

% rejected

FR

DE

LU

MT*

RO

165

200

121

157

124

167

112

129

75

83.5

93

82

12

2

0

3

7

1

0

2

29

31

9

25

18

15.5

7

16

Notes:  Numbers are approximate as reasoning for rejection varies from state to state and the distinction between the two is not 

always clear.

* Numbers were not yet available at the time of writing.

Source:  United Nations, OHCHR, information available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx

up efforts to ratify or implement various international 
human  rights  instruments.49  Table 10.2  provides  an 
overview  of  the  recommendations  from  the  UPR  for 
the EU Member States reviewed in 2013.

Treaty bodies

UN treaty bodies monitor the implementation of rights 
guaranteed under the respective treaty, offering more 
targeted feedback than the UPR. There are currently 
10 such  bodies,  one  for  each  of  the  nine  core  UN 
human rights conventions and the Subcommittee on 
Prevention of Torture, established under the OP‑CAT, 
which monitors places of detention in State Parties to 
the Optional Protocol (see the legend of Table 10.3 for 
an overview of these treaties).

Treaty  bodies  follow  a regular  review  cycle,  during 
which they review the reports the states submit. These 
typically range from four to five years, with the excep‑
tion of the International Convention on the Elimination 
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which has 
in principle a two‑year cycle. Efforts have continued in 
2013 to synchronise and integrate the reporting under 
the different regimes.

The treaty bodies reviewed several EU Member States 
in 2013. Table 10.3 shows those EU Member States for 
which a treaty body or the UPR working group issued 
in  2013  a final  report  on  their  review.  For  the  UPR, 
the table includes a separate row for actual reviews 
during 2013. The table shows that EU Member States 
are subject to a range of monitoring activities at the 
UN level and, for instance, that the Committee against 
Torture  reviewed  the  largest  number  of  EU Member 
States in 2013.

In  addition  to  states’  reporting,  most  of  the  human 
rights  treaties  also  have 
individual  complaints 
mechanisms.  (For  more  detail,  see  the  table  on 

UN  conventions  with  individual  complaint  mecha‑
nisms  and  number  of  cases  at:  http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
int‑obligations.)  Of  the  nine  core  UN  human  rights 
conventions, two do not yet allow for individual com‑
plaints  to  the  respective  treaty  body.  This  includes 
the International Convention on the Protection of the 
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their 
Families (ICMW),  which  has  no  EU Member  States 
among the 37 signatories and 47 parties worldwide. 
Of  the  State  Parties,  only  two  of  the  required  10 
have recognised the Committee on Migrant Workers’ 
competence in respect of the complaint mechanism. 
The third Optional Protocol to the CRC still fell short, 
with nine ratifications and an additional 36 signatures 
at the end of 2013, including four ratifications and 15 
signatures by EU Member States, of the 10 ratifications 
necessary for its entry into force.50

On  5 May 2013,  the  2008 Optional  Protocol  to  the 
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural 
Rights entered into force after obtaining the 10 required 
ratifications.  At  the  end  of  2013,  the  protocol  had 
11 ratifications  and  34 additional  signatures  world‑
wide,  including  eight signatures  and  three additional 
ratifications from EU Member States. With the protocol 
in force, an individual complaints mechanism similar to 
those under the first Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and 
under the CRPD has been established. The protocol also 
contains an inquiry mechanism; however, only two of 
the current parties, one of them an EU Member State, 
Portugal, have accepted it. The individual complaints 
mechanism itself can, nevertheless, attract significant 
attention  from  complainants,  including  those  from 
EU Member States, given the increased strain on the 
implementation of economic and social rights due to 
the austerity measures introduced by many states in 
the face of the economic crisis (see also Section 10.2.1 
on Economic and social rights for the cases filed with 
the ECSR in this area).

243

 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Table 10.3:  Reports released under UN monitoring procedures in 2013, by EU Member State 

Table 10.3: (continued)

CY

ü

ü

AT

BE

BG

ü

ü

ü

ü

CERD

CESCR

HRC (CCPR)

CEDAW

CAT

SPT

CRC

CMW

CRPD

CED 

UPR

Report

Review

ü

ü

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LV MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SI

UK

Total

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

3

ü

1

1

1

1

1

ü

ü

ü

3

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

2

25

ü

ü

1

ü

ü

1

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

LU

ü

ü

ü

ü

2

SE

ü

SK

ü

ü

ü

ü

4

3

2

5

6

1

2

0

1

2

6

5

Committee 

Convention 

Committee name in full

 Committee on the Rights of the Child (including monitoring of the optional 

CRC 

CMW 

CRPD 

CED 

UPR 

CRC 

ICMW 

CRPD 

CPED 

protocols)

Committee on Migrant Workers

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Committee on Enforced Disappearances

Universal Periodic Review

Total

3

1

0

2

2

Committee 
CERD 
CESCR 
HRC (CCPR) 
CEDAW 
CAT 
SPT 

Convention 
ICERD 
ICESCR 
ICCPR 
CEDAW 
CAT 
OP‑CAT 

Committee name in full
 Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Human Rights Committee
 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
Committee Against Torture
 Sub‑Committee on prevention of torture (including advisory visits for National 
Preventive Mechanisms)

Source:  Compiled by FRA using data from United Nations, OHCHR, 2014

UN special procedures

The  special  procedures  system  is  a central  element 
of the UN human rights machinery and covers the full 
spectrum of human rights. Special procedures under‑
take country visits, send communications on individual 
cases, conduct thematic studies and convene expert 
consultations, contribute to the development of inter‑
national human rights standards, engage in advocacy, 
raise public awareness and provide advice for technical 
cooperation. At the end of 2013, there were 37 thematic 
and 14 country mandates. None of the country man‑
dates concerned EU Member States.

On  various  occasions,  EU Member  States  have 
expressed their support for the system of special pro‑
cedures and pledged to cooperate fully with them. All 
EU Member States have extended a standing invitation 
to all thematic special procedures of the Human Rights 
Council,  thereby  announcing  that  they  will  always 
accept ‘requests to visit’ from all special procedures.

In  this  context,  several  special  procedures  mandate 
holders visited one or more EU Member States in 2013.

 • The  Special  Rapporteur  on  trafficking  in  persons, 
especially  women  and  children,  visited  Italy.  The 
country also received a visit from the Special Rap‑
porteur on freedom of opinion and expression.

 • The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human 

rights in Eritrea visited Malta.

 • The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of 
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and relat‑
ed  intolerance  visited  Spain.  The  country  also  re‑
ceived a visit from the Working Group on enforced 
or involuntary disappearances.

 • The  Special  Rapporteur  on  freedom  of  peaceful 
 assembly and association visited the  United Kingdom. 
The  country  also  received  a  visit  from  the  Special 
Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of 
the right to an adequate standard of living, and on 
the right to non‑discrimination in this context.

 • The Independent Expert on foreign debt and other 
related international financial obligations of States 
on  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  human  rights, 

244

 
Table 10.3:  Reports released under UN monitoring procedures in 2013, by EU Member State 

Table 10.3: (continued)

AT

BE

BG

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

Total

2

0

0

1

2

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

ü

ü

ü

ü

2

ü

ü

ü

CERD

CESCR

HRC (CCPR)

CEDAW

CAT

SPT

CRC

CMW

CRPD

CED 

UPR

Report

Review

CY

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

2

LU

ü

ü

ü

ü

4

EU Member States and international obligations

UK

Total

LV MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

ü

SI

SK

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

2

1

ü

ü

2

1

1

1

1

0

2

2

32

4

3

2

5

6

1

2

0

1

2

6

5

Committee 

Convention 

Committee name in full

CERD 

CESCR 

HRC (CCPR) 

CEDAW 

CAT 

SPT 

ICERD 

ICESCR 

ICCPR 

CEDAW 

CAT 

OP‑CAT 

 Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

Human Rights Committee

Committee Against Torture

Preventive Mechanisms)

 Sub‑Committee on prevention of torture (including advisory visits for National 

Source:  Compiled by FRA using data from United Nations, OHCHR, 2014

Committee 
CRC 

Convention 
CRC 

CMW 
CRPD 
CED 
UPR 

ICMW 
CRPD 
CPED 

Committee name in full
 Committee on the Rights of the Child (including monitoring of the optional 
protocols)
Committee on Migrant Workers
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Committee on Enforced Disappearances
Universal Periodic Review

particularly  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights, 
visited Greece.

 • Greece  and  Hungary  received  visits  from  the 

 Working Group on arbitrary detention.

The  results  of  these  visits  are  presented  in  written 
reports submitted to the UN Human Rights Council and 
can  be  found  on  the  website  of  each  special  proce‑
dures mandate holder.51

holders 

procedures  mandate 

Special 
sent 
35  communications  to  several  EU Member  States  in 
2013: the Czech Republic (3), Denmark (1), Greece (2), 
Hungary (3), Ireland (2), Italy (2), Latvia (1), Malta (1), 
the  Netherlands (2),  Portugal (2),  Romania (1), 
Slovakia (2), 
the 
United Kingdom (4).

Sweden (2) 

Spain (7), 

and 

Special  procedures  publish  reports  and  undertake 
studies  on  issues  of  particular  relevance  for  the  EU. 
At  the  23rd session  of  the  Human  Rights  Council  in 
May 2013,  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  the  human 
rights of migrants presented a report on the rights of 

migrants in the Euro‑Mediterranean region. The study 
was conducted in 2012 and focused in particular on the 
EU’s external border management.52 (See also Chapter 1 
on asylum, immigration and integration.)

In April 2013, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion 
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and 
expression submitted a report on the implications of 
states’  surveillance  of  communications  for  the  exer‑
cise  of  the  human  rights  to  privacy  and  to  freedom 
of opinion and expression. The report underlines the 
urgent  need  to  study  further  new  modalities  of  sur‑
veillance and to revise national laws regulating these 
practices  in  line  with  human  rights  standards.53  (See 
also Chapter 3 on information society, respect for pri‑
vate life and data protection.)

In September 2013, the Special Rapporteur on freedom 
of religion or belief took part in the first interreligious 
round  table  held  in  Cyprus.  In  a subsequent  press 
release,  he  hailed  a key  breakthrough  in  inter‑faith 
communication,  which  allowed  Muslim  and  Greek 
Orthodox  religious  leaders  to  cross  the  Green  Line 
which  still  divides  the  island.54  These  efforts  follow 

245

 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

up the recommendations in the Special Rapporteur’s 
report  on  Cyprus  to  the  22nd session  of  the  Human 
Rights  Council,  in  which  he  stressed  the  importance 
of ensuring that there are no human rights protection 
gaps and that all persons can effectively enjoy their 
fundamental  rights,  including  freedom  of  religion  or 
belief, wherever they live.55

At  the  margins  of  the  68th  session  of  the  General 
Assembly, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cul‑
tural rights convened an event about history teaching. 
The  event,  which  was  organised  by  the  OHCHR  and 
sponsored by Germany and Switzerland, also included 
the  participation  of  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  truth, 
justice, reparation and guarantees of non‑recurrence 
and  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  freedom  of  opinion 
and expression. Whereas many studies and research 
papers have been devoted to the issue of reconcilia‑
tion and reconstruction in post‑conflict societies, the 
human rights and, in particular, cultural rights angles 
have been neglected in the past. It was stressed that 
issues related to the elaboration of cultural and histor‑
ical narratives in divided societies, especially through 
textbooks, need to be carefully considered, given their 
importance in reconciliation processes.56

10�5  National-level 

monitoring and 
follow-up supports 
human rights 
performance

Several of the international treaties and mechanisms 
mentioned  make  use  of  or  even  require  (CRPD  and 
OP‑CAT) the appointment or establishment of national 
bodies  to  monitor  human  rights.  The  UN  is  giving 
increasing weight to the role of NHRIs, enhancing their 
interaction with UN monitoring of human rights. Many 
of the bodies under CRPD and OP‑CAT are NHRIs.

In 2013, the UN emphasised the importance of NHRIs 
in  a resolution  that  encouraged  “Member  States  to 
establish effective, independent and pluralistic national 
institutions or, where they already exist, to strengthen 
them  for  the  promotion  and  protection  of  all  human 
rights  and  fundamental  freedoms  for  all”.  It  stressed 
“the  importance  of  the  financial  and  administrative 
independence and stability of [NHRIs] for the promotion 
and protection of human rights, and note[d] with sat‑
isfaction the efforts of those States that have provided 
their  national  institutions  with  more  autonomy  and 
independence, including by giving them an investiga‑
tive role or enhancing such a role, and encourages other 
Governments to consider taking similar steps”. NHRIs, 
“including ombudsman and mediator institutions,” were 
also encouraged “to seek accreditation status through 

the International Coordinating Committee [of NHRIs]”. 
The  resolution  also  referred  to  “the  strengthening  in 
all regions of regional cooperation among [NHRIs], and 
noting with appreciation the continuing work of […] the 
European Group of [NHRIs].”57

As a follow‑up to the 1993 Vienna world conference on 
human rights, a conference was convened in Vienna in 
2013. It also called for enhanced interaction between 
NHRIs and UN mechanisms, including treaty bodies. The 
conference report also noted “[t]he need for stronger 
cooperation and integration of human rights mecha‑
nisms  at  national,  regional  and  international  level” 
and called for strengthening of “national and regional 
mechanisms in order to better enforce human rights 
obligations and the rule of law.”58

“Establish National Human Rights Institutions in full 
compliance with the Paris Principles, ensuring they are 
equipped with the right to investigate human rights 
complaints and to monitor State compliance with 
international human rights obligations.”

“Strengthen the role of National Human Rights Institutions in 
developing indicators and monitoring compliance, since they 
are bridging the gap between the national and the 
international levels and are key partners regarding 
accountability.”

Recommendation addressed to states, in UN, Office of the UN High 
Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), Conference report, Vienna+20: 
Advancing the protection of human rights – achievements, challenges and 
perspectives 20 years after the World Conference, 27–28 June 2013, available 
at: www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/OHCHR20/ConferenceReport.pdf

10�5�1  National human rights 

institutions

The UN Human Rights Council in particular has given 
accredited NHRIs with A‑status (see Section on accredi‑
tation and international cooperation) an institutional‑
ised role in some of its procedures, for example in the 
context of the UPR. The accreditation of NHRIs is a peer 
review process, which is supported by the OHCHR as 
secretariat.  NHRIs  play  a crucial  role  in  monitoring 
international  obligations.  Organisations  such  as  the 
Council of Europe and FRA similarly work closely with 
NHRIs and other bodies with a human rights remit, such 
as  equality  bodies  or  ombudsperson  institutions.  EU 
legislation requires the existence of equality bodies as 
well as data protection authorities in each EU Member 
State. With the accession of the EU to the CRPD in 2010, 
the EU itself has also had to set up a system of EU‑wide 
monitoring. As reported in earlier FRA Annual reports, 
the EU has also highlighted the importance of NHRIs.59

Accreditation and international cooperation 
NHRIs  cooperate  globally  through  the  International 
Coordinating  Committee  of  National  Institutions  for 
the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC). 
The ICC promotes and supports participation of NHRIs 

246

EU Member States and international obligations

in the international human rights system and facilitates 
cooperation among NHRIs at the global level. The ICC, 
through  its  Sub‑Committee  on  Accreditation,  under‑
takes accreditation of NHRIs for compliance with the 
Paris Principles – which require, for instance, that NHRIs 
be independent, created by law, protected against gov‑
ernmental interference and adequately funded.60 NHRIs 
fully compliant with the Paris Principles are awarded 
A‑status; those not fully compliant, B‑status; and those 
with major concerns, C‑status. There are also institu‑
tions with a human rights remit that have not sought 
or have lost their accreditation.

The number of accredited NHRIs in EU Member States 
was unchanged at the end of 2013 from the previous 
year. The A‑status NHRIs in Croatia and France were both 
up for re‑accreditation, which they gained. The A‑status 
NHRI in Germany was up for re‑accreditation, but this 
assessment was deferred until 2014 to await the out‑
come of a government plan to change the NHRI’s legal 
foundation. The federal government plans to strengthen 
the  NHRI’s  foundation  by  adopting  legislation,  as  the 
Paris Principles require;61 presently, the NHRI is based on 
a unanimously passed motion of the federal parliament. 
Similarly, the review of the B‑status NHRI in Hungary 
was also deferred, in this case to see better how the new 
NHRI, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights,62 oper‑
ates before an assessment is made.63 Several EU Member 
States  took  steps  to  establish  NHRIs;  see  further  in 
Chapter 8 on access to justice and judicial cooperation.

A significant development in 2013 was the deepening 
cooperation  between  NHRIs  in  Europe  through  the 
establishment  of  a permanent  secretariat  for  the 
European Network of NHRIs, previously known as the 
European Group of NHRIs.64

The  number  of  NHRIs  worldwide  has  steadily  risen 
since the accreditation of NHRIs started in the 1990s, 
with the total reaching 105 at the end of 2013, including 
70 with A‑status. The picture in the EU is not as impres‑
sive, however. Currently, only 11 of the 28 EU Member 
States have A‑status NHRIs, for a total of 13 such insti‑
tutions EU‑wide, as the United Kingdom has three: one 
for Northern Ireland, one for Scotland alone and one 
for  England  and  Wales  with  aspects  of  Scotland.  An 
additional  seven  NHRIs  have  B‑status,  for  a total  of 
eight, as Bulgaria has two B‑status accredited institu‑
tions (see Table 10.4). EU Member States must make 
further efforts to establish fully accredited NHRIs. Their 
success would also chime better with the EU’s external 
policy of pushing for such institutions.

10�5�2  Designation as national 

mechanisms

The CRPD and OP‑CAT require State Parties to establish 
or appoint an effective mechanism at the national level 

to monitor implementation of state obligations. Both 
OP‑CAT and the CRPD also instruct states to give due 
regard  to  the  Paris  Principles  when  establishing  this 
national mechanism. Hence, NHRIs fully compliant with 
the Paris Principles, in other words holding A‑status, are 
the bodies that are most likely to meet these criteria. 
(For details on the rights of persons with disabilities, 
see Chapter 5 on Equality and non‑discrimination.)

As  noted  earlier,  the  CRPD  is  of  great  significance 
for the EU. The convention’s Article 33 requires from 
the  parties  different  types  of  bodies  (government 
focal  point,  coordination  mechanism,  and  a moni‑
toring  framework).  Several  of  the  accredited  NHRIs 
(but  also  other  bodies  with  a human  rights  remit), 
as  well  as  equality  bodies,  serve  as  Article 33 (2) 
frameworks for promoting, protecting and monitoring 
implementation.  About  a third  of  EU Member  States 
use accredited, non‑accredited or equality bodies for 
this role. For more detail, see the table on CRPD data, 
available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑ 
resources/data‑and‑maps/int‑obligations.

A number of structural changes for CRPD implemen‑
tation and monitoring took place in 2013. In Portugal, 
for  example,  a Commission  for  Disability  will  act  as 
an  independent  mechanism  until  the  new  National 
Independent  Commission  becomes  operational.65 
After  the  UN Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons 
with Disabilities66 and local NGOs67 criticised the lack 
of  independence  of  Hungary’s  monitoring  mecha‑
nism  under  Article 33 (2),  Hungary  enacted  a new 
Government  Decision68  on  the  National  Disability 
Council (NDC). According to the Government Decision, 
out of the 15 NDC members, only the chair represents 
the government, whilst the other 14 members are del‑
egated by organisations for persons with disabilities.69 
Nevertheless,  NDC members  receive  a considerable 
proportion  of  their  funding  from  the  government, 
which is subject to negotiation every year.70

In  addition,  the  governments  of  Romania71  and 
Slovenia72 designated frameworks to promote, protect 
and monitor CRPD implementation under Article 33 (2). 
Romania, like several other EU Member States, has not 
allocated  any  additional  budget  to  realise  the  inde‑
pendent monitoring framework.73

10�5�3   Human rights and business

Another increasingly strong link between the UN (but 
also  the  Council  of  Europe)  and  EU Member  States 
is related to business and human rights. In 2011, the 
UN Human Rights Council endorsed the Guiding prin‑
ciples  on  business  and  human  rights:  Implementing 
the  United  Nations  ‘Protect,  respect  and  remedy’ 
framework (UN Guiding Principles).74 The UN Guiding 
Principles have three pillars. The first calls upon states 

247

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Table 10.4:  NHRIs, by accreditation status and EU Member State 

Table 10.4:  (continued)

Number of NHRIs 
(number of EU 
Member States 
with NHRI)

Number 
of 
Equality 
Bodies

13

8

1

9

(11)

(7)

(1)

2

4

0

(9)

n/a

A‑status

B‑status

C‑status

No 
 accreditation/
institution

AT

BE

BG

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV MT NL

PL

PT

RO SK

SE

SI

ü

ü* ü*

ü

ü**

ü*

ü* ü

ü** ü*

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

UK

GB NI

SC

ü* ü ü

ü

ü*

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

Notes: 

* Relevant NHRIs also serve as a national equality body under EU law.

** Indicates they have undergone a re‑accreditation process but the results have been postponed until 2014.

Bulgaria has two NHRIs, both with B‑status: the Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Commission for 
Protection against Discrimination of the Republic of Bulgaria.

to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, 
including  business  enterprises,  through  appropriate 
policies,  regulation  and  adjudication.  The  second 
pillar invokes the corporate responsibility to respect 
human rights, according to which business enterprises 
should act with due diligence to avoid infringing on 
the rights of others and to address adverse impacts 
with which they are involved. The third pillar concerns 
the  need  for  greater  access  by  victims  to  effective 
remedy,  both  judicial  and  non‑judicial.  The  initiative 
has gained strong support from other relevant actors 
in the field of human rights, including the Council of 
Europe  Steering  Committee  for  Human  Rights.  The 
committee recommends, in a draft declaration from 
November 2013, recognising the UN Guiding Principles 
“as the current globally agreed baseline for its own 
work  in  the  field  of  business  and  human  rights”.75 
The Steering Committee is drawing up a non‑binding 
instrument addressing gaps in the implementation of 
the UN Guiding Principles at European level, notably as 
regards access to remedies.

The European Commission reacted to the UN Guiding 
Principles  in  its  2011  communication  A renewed  EU 
strategy 2011–2014 for corporate social responsibility. 
In  it,  the  Commission  invited  the  EU Member  States 
to develop, by the end of 2012, national plans for the 
implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.76 In the 
2012 EU strategic framework and action plan on human 
rights and democracy (see Section 10.1), the Council of 
the EU extended the deadline for this task to 2013.77 
In  their  replies  to  a questionnaire  distributed  by  the 
European Commission in 2013, 10 Member States said 
that  they  have  or  intend  to  introduce  a stand‑alone 
national plan for this purpose, whereas 11 were going 
to incorporate these issues into existing national plans 
for promoting the broader concept of corporate social 
responsibility.  The  remaining  Member  States  either 
said  that  they  did  not  mean  to  introduce  a national 
plan in this area or did not respond to the question‑
naire (see Table 10.5 for an overview of Member States’ 
responses, including whether or not they delivered on 
their commitment by the end of 2013).

Table 10.5:  National action plans on business and human rights, by EU Member State 

Table 10.5:  (continued)

New for business 
and human rights

Integrated

None

Delivered

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ü

ES

ü

FI

ü

FR

ü

ü

IT

ü

PL

ü

SE

ü

HR

HU

IE

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PT

RO

SI

SK

UK

Total

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

?

?

ü

?

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

10

12

6

2

ü

Source:  European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion and Members of the High‑Level Group of EU Member 

States representatives on CSR, August 2013

248

 
 
Table 10.4:  NHRIs, by accreditation status and EU Member State 

Table 10.4:  (continued)

Number of NHRIs 

Number 

(number of EU 

Member States 

with NHRI)

of 

Equality 

Bodies

13

8

1

9

(11)

(7)

(1)

2

4

0

(9)

n/a

A‑status

B‑status

C‑status

No 

 accreditation/

institution

AT

BE

BG

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV MT NL

PL

PT

RO SK

SE

SI

ü

ü* ü*

ü

ü**

ü*

ü* ü

ü** ü*

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü*

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

UK

GB NI

SC

ü* ü ü

EU Member States and international obligations

The United Kingdom has three NHRIs, all with A‑status: in Great Britain, the Equality and Human Rights Commission 
covering human rights issues in England and Wales, and certain human rights issues in Scotland (those not devolved to 
the Scottish Parliament); in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and in Scotland alone, the 
Scottish Human Rights Commission. GB stands for Great Britain; NI for Northern Ireland; and SC for Scotland.

Source: United Nations, OHCHR, ICC, available at:  http://nhri.ohchr.org

Outlook

Developments in 2013 show that the EU Member States 
generally – but also the EU itself – continue to accept 
new commitments stemming from Council of Europe 
and UN standards and monitoring mechanisms. This is 
particularly  true  of  some  of  the  more  recent  instru‑
ments, such as the Istanbul Convention related to vio‑
lence against women or the third optional protocol of 
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, providing for 
an individual complaints procedure.

The eagerly awaited accession of the EU to the ECHR 
lies currently in the hands of the CJEU. It is expected to 
deliver a comprehensive opinion on the legal elements 
of this ground‑breaking step. Although it is not gener‑
ally assumed that the CJEU’s response will be negative, 
it is important that it tackle the issues raised by legal 
professionals  on  the  draft  accession  agreement,  as 
EU accession will have significant implications for the 
fundamental rights landscape in Europe.

The EU has the potential to become one of the leading 
actors  in  promoting  emerging  issues,  such  as  the 
notion  of  human  rights  and  business.  Commitment 
and  follow‑up  by  EU Member  States  will  also  be 
essential.  Similarly,  Member  State  action  on  Paris 
Principles‑compliant NHRIs in the EU will indicate pro‑
gress. However, the EU itself may also take action on 
minimum standards for NHRIs and similar entities, such 
as equality bodies and data protection authorities.

EU action has continued to underline its determination 
to become a more active player in the field of human 
rights  and  one  that  is  fully  integrated  in  the  interna‑
tional  system.  Besides  pursuing  its  own  accession  to 
key instruments such as the ECHR or the Convention for 
the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic 
Processing of Personal Data, the EU motivates not only 
its Member States, but also, through various tools, third 
countries to enhance their participation in the interna‑
tional human rights system, thus fulfilling its role of con‑
tributing to the protection of human rights both internally 
and worldwide. This is projected to increase in intensity.

New for business 

and human rights

Integrated

None

Delivered

Table 10.5:  National action plans on business and human rights, by EU Member State 

Table 10.5:  (continued)

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ü

ES

ü

FI

ü

FR

ü

HR

HU

IE

ü

IT

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

?

?

ü

ü

ü

ü

?

ü

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

SI

SK

UK

Total

PL

ü

PT

RO

SE

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

10

12

6

2

ü

249

 
Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

Index of Member State references

EU Member State 

Page

AT .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 233, 238

BE ......................................................................................................................................................................... 235, 238, 239, 240

BG ................................................................................................................................................................238, 239, 240, 247, 248

CY ........................................................................................................................................................236, 238, 239, 242, 245, 246

CZ ..........................................................................................................................................................................235, 238, 241, 245

DE ....................................................................................................................................................... 238, 240, 241, 242, 246, 247

DK ......................................................................................................................................................................... 235, 236, 238, 240

EE.................................................................................................................................................................................. 236, 238, 239

EL ................................................................................................................................................................. 236, 238, 239, 240, 245

ES ....................................................................................................................................... 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245

FI ................................................................................................................................................................................... 237, 238, 242

FR ................................................................................................................................................................ 238, 239, 240, 242, 247

HR.................................................................................................................................................................235, 238, 240, 241, 247

HU ....................................................................................................................................................... 235, 238, 239, 240, 245, 247

IE ..........................................................................................................................................................235, 238, 239, 241, 242, 245

IT .................................................................................................................................................235, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245

LT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 235, 238, 240, 241

LU ..........................................................................................................................................................................................238, 242

LV .................................................................................................................................................................235, 237, 238, 240, 245

MT ............................................................................................................................................................... 238, 239, 242, 244, 245

NL .........................................................................................................................................................................238, 239, 242, 245

PL ......................................................................................................................................................................... 236, 238, 239, 241

PT ............................................................................................................................... 235, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 247

RO........................................................................................................................................................238, 239, 240, 242, 245, 247

SE ......................................................................................................................................................................... 235, 238, 239, 245

SI ..................................................................................................................................................................235, 238, 239, 240, 247

SK ................................................................................................................................................................ 238, 240, 241, 242, 245

UK .......................................................................................................................................235, 238, 239, 240, 244, 245, 247, 249

250

EU Member States and international obligations

Endnotes

All hyperlinks accessed on 30 April 2014.

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2012), 
Bringing rights to life: The fundamental rights landscape of 
the European Union, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the 
European Union (Publications Office), http://fra.europa.eu/
fraWebsite/attachments/FRA‑2012_annual‑report‑201
1‑fundamental‑rights‑landscape_EN.pdf.

Council of the European Union (2013), EU Annual report on 
human rights and democracy in the world in 2012, 9431/13, 
Brussels, 13 May 2013, p. 175, http://register.consilium.
europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st09/st09431.en13.pdf.

Council of the European Union (2012), EU strategic framework 
and action plan on human rights and democracy, 11855/12, 
Luxembourg, 25 June 2012, www.consilium.europa.eu/
uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf.

Ibid., Point 4.

Ibid., Point 17 (b).

Ibid., Point 25 (c).

European Commission (2013), ‘Working conditions: 
Commission urges Member States to implement ILO domestic 
workers convention’, press release, Brussels, 21 March 2013, 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_IP‑13‑264_en.htm; 
Council of the European Union (2014), ‘3290th Council 
Meeting, Economic and Financial Affairs´, Press release, 
Brussels, 28 January 2014, p. 19, www.consilium.europa.eu/
uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/140836.pdf.

Council of Europe, Modernisation of Convention No. 108, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/dataprotection/
modernisation_en.asp.

European Council (2010), The Stockholm Programme: An 
open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, 
OJ C 115/1, 4 May 2010, Section 6.2.1, p. 32, http://eur‑lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:115:000
1:0038:EN:PDF.

10 

Estonia signed on 17 February 2014.

11 

Greece passed legislation 4216/2013 on 10 December 2013 as 
basis for ratification of the treaty.

12   Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2013), 
1168th Meeting (Item 4.1, Point 3), 10 April 2013.

13   Council of Europe (2013), SG/Inf(2013)18, Concrete measures 
for better coordination of monitoring mechanisms and 
modalities for improved follow‑up and assistance, 
9 July 2013.

14   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 

Report by Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for 
Human Rights following his visit to Greece, from 
28 January to 1 February 2013, CommDH(2013)6, Strasbourg, 
16 April 2013, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=205361
1&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=B9BDEE&BackColorIntranet=
FFCD4F&BackColorLogged=FFC679.

15   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 

Report by Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for 
Human Rights following his visit to Estonia, from 25 to 
27 March 2013, CommDH(2013)12, Strasbourg, 20 June 2013, 
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet? 
command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImag
e=2308567&SecMode=1&DocId=2023896&Usage=2.

16   Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2013), 

Report by Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for 
Human Rights following his visit to Spain, from 3 to 
7 June 2013, CommDH(2013)18, Strasbourg, 9 October 2013, 
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet? 
command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImag
e=2389885&SecMode=1&DocId=2077824&Usage=2.

17  At the time of writing, the final report had not been issued. 

Information is available at: www.coe.int/web/commissioner/
country‑report/denmark.

18 

Council of Europe, European Social Charter, Organisations 
entitled to lodge complaints with the Committee, www.coe.
int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/OrganisationsEntitled/
OrgEntitled_en.asp.

19   Council of Europe, European Social Charter, Five decisions on 
the merits of the European Committee of Social Rights 
concerning pension schemes in Greece are public, www.coe.
int/T/DGHL/Monitoring/SocialCharter/NewsCOEPortal/
CC76‑80Merits_en.asp.

20   Council of Europe, European Committee of Social Rights 
(ECSR) (2014), Press briefing elements, Conclusions 2013/
XX‑2, 15 January 2014.

21   ECtHR (2014), Annual report 2013, provisional version, 

Strasbourg.

22   The committee met for this purpose four times during the 
year. The full list of meetings and the corresponding 
documents is in Council of Europe, Human rights meeting 
files, www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/WCD/
DHMeetings_en.asp.

23  On 12 March 2014, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR rendered 
its judgment on Art. 41 in Kurić and Others v. Slovenia and 
decided the question of pecuniary damage.

24   The committee met for this purpose four times during the 
year. The full list of meetings and the corresponding 
documents is in Council of Europe, Human rights meeting 
files, www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/WCD/
DHMeetings_en.asp.

25   Council of Europe (2013), Fifth negotiation meeting between 

the CDDH and ad hoc negotiation group and the European 
Commission on the accession of the European Union to the 
European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg, 
10 June 2013, www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/
Accession/Meeting_reports/47_1(2013)008rev2_EN.pdf.

26   Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), 
OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, www.osce.
org/hcnm.

27   OSCE (2013), Regular report to the Permanent Council by 
Dunja Mijatović, OSCE Representative on freedom of the 
media, 28 November 2013, www.osce.org/fom/109028; 
OSCE (2013), Regular report to the Permanent Council by 
Dunja Mijatović, OSCE Representative on freedom of the 
media, 13 June 2013, www.osce.org/fom/102651.

28   OSCE, Country visits, www.osce.org/cthb/88717.

29   OSCE (2013), Report of the Personal Representatives of the 

OSCE Chairperson‑in‑Office on tolerance and 
non‑discrimination issues, Ambassador Adil Akhmetov, Rabbi 
Andrew Baker and Ambassador Tetiana Izhevska, on the 
country visit to Belgium, CIO.GAL/178/13, 13 December 2013, 
http://tandis.odihr.pl/documents/07843.pdf.

30   OSCE (2013), Report of the Personal Representative of the 

OSCE Chairperson‑in‑Office on combating anti‑semitism, 
Rabbi Andrew Baker, on the country visit to France, CIO.
GAL/147/13, 18 October 2013, http://tandis.odihr.pl/
documents/07780.pdf.

31   OSCE (2013), Regular report to the Permanent Council by 
Dunja Mijatović, OSCE Representative on freedom of the 
media, 28 November 2013, www.osce.org/fom/109028; 
OSCE (2013), Regular report to the Permanent Council by 
Dunja Mijatović, OSCE Representative on freedom of the 
media, 13 June 2013, www.osce.org/fom/102651.

32   OSCE (2013), Report of the Personal Representative of the 

OSCE Chairperson‑in‑Office on combating anti‑semitism, 
Rabbi Andrew Baker, on the country visit to Italy, CIO.
GAL/182/13, 23 December 2013, http://tandis.odihr.pl/
documents/07842.pdf.

251

Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013

33   OSCE (2013), Report of the Personal Representative of the 

52   UN, Human Rights Council (2013), Report of the Special 

OSCE Chairperson‑in‑Office on combating anti‑semitism, 
Rabbi Andrew Baker, on the country visit to Latvia, CIO.
GAL/183/13, 23 December 2013, http://tandis.odihr.pl/
documents/07841.pdf.

34  OSCE (2013), Report of the Personal Representative of the 

OSCE Chairperson‑in‑Office on combating anti‑semitism, 
Rabbi Andrew Baker, on the country visit to Romania, CIO.
GAL/191/13, 30 December 2013, http://tandis.odihr.pl/
documents/07840.pdf.

35   OSCE (2013), ‘OSCE/ODIHR Director disappointed by Spanish 
decision against monitoring of Madrid demonstration´, 
27 September 2013, www.osce.org/odihr/105973.

36   UN, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, The 
core international human rights instruments and their 
monitoring bodies, www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/
Pages/CoreInstruments.aspx.

37   The ICESCR‑OP was to enter into force after 10 ratifications. 
On 5 February 2013, it received the tenth ratification 
(Uruguay), and it entered into force on 5 May 2013. Finland 
ratified the ICESCR‑OP on 31 January 2014.

38   Portugal ratified the CEPD on 27 January 2014, and accepted 

Art. 31, which allows for individual complaints.

39   Greece ratified OP‑CAT on 11 February 2014.

40   CRC‑OP3 received its tenth ratification on 14 January 2014, 
which led to its entering into force on 14 April 2014.

41   All three have already signed the CRPD and Finland has also 

signed the Optional Protocol.

42   FRA (2013), Legal capacity of persons with mental health 
problems and persons with intellectual disabilities, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office.

43  

Ireland, Assisted Decision‑Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 and 
Explanatory Memorandum, www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.
asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2013/8313/b8313d.pdf.

44   Doyle, S., and Flynn, E. (2013), ‘Ireland’s ratification of the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: 
Challenges and opportunities’, British Journal of Learning 
Disabilities, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 171–180.

45   Finland, Ulkoasiainministeriö, Ratification of the Convention 
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities proceeding 
in Finland, http://formin.finland.fi/public/default.aspx? 
contentid=297670&nodeid=15630&contentlan= 
2&culture=en‑US.

46   Netherlands, Staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn 
en Sport (2013), Ambtelijk concept: Rijkswet van... tot 
goedkeuring van het op 13 december 2006 te New York tot 
stand gekomen Verdrag inzake de rechten van personen met 
een handicap (Trb. 2007, 169), http://internetconsultatie.nl/
vnverdraghandicap/document/764.

47   Netherlands, Staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn 
en Sport (2013), Ambtelijk concept: Rijkswet van... tot 
uitvoering van het op 13 december 2006 te New York tot 
stand gekomen Verdrag inzake de rechten van personen met 
een handicap (Trb. 2007, 169), http://internetconsultatie.nl/
vnverdraghandicap/document/766.

48   Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review (UPR), 

www.upr‑info.org/‑Sessions‑.html.

49   Human Rights Council, UPR info’s statistics of UPR 

recommendations, www.upr‑info.org/database/statistics/
index_sur.php.

Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, 24 April 2013, 
www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/
RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.46_en.pdf.

53   UN, Human Rights Council (2013), Report of the Special 

Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right 
to freedom of opinion and expression, 17 April 2013, 
www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/
RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf.

54   UN, Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights 
(2013), UN experts hails ‘key breakthrough for religious 
freedom reached in Cyprus’, 22 October 2013, www.ohchr.
org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID= 
13880&LangID=E.

55   UN, Human Rights Council (2012), Report of the Special 
Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Mission to 
Cyprus, www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/
RegularSession/Session22/AHRC2251Add.1_English.pdf.

56   FRA, Holocaust and human rights education publications, 

http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2006/holocaust‑and‑huma
n‑rights‑education?tab=publications.

57   UN, General Assembly (2014), Resolution adopted by the 

General Assembly on 18 December 2013, 
Resolution A/RES/68/171, National institutions for the 
promotion and protection of human rights, 23 January 2014, 
www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/
RES/68/171.

58   UN, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 
(2013), Conference report, Vienna+20: Advancing the 
protection of human rights – achievements, challenges and 
perspectives 20 years after the World Conference, 
27–28 June 2013, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/
OHCHR20/ConferenceReport.pdf.

59   FRA (2012), Handbook on the establishment and accreditation 

of national human rights institutions in the European Union, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/fra‑2012_nhri‑handbook_en.pdf.

60   UN, General Assembly (1993), The principles relating to the 
status and functioning of national institutions for protection 
and promotion of human rights (The Paris Principles), 
Resolution A/RES/48/134, 20 December 1993.

61  

International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions 
for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2013), 
Report and recommendations of the session of the 
Sub‑Committee on Accreditation (SCA), Geneva, 
November 2013, pp. 21–22, http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/
AboutUs/ICCAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20
NOVEMBER%202013%20FINAL%20REPORT%20ENGLISH.pdf.

62   FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: Challenges and achievements 
in 2012, Annual report, p. 246, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/annual‑report‑2012‑chapter‑8_en.pdf.

63  

International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions 
for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2013), 
Report and recommendations of the session of the 
Sub‑Committee on Accreditation (SCA), Geneva, 
November 2013, pp. 21–22, http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/
AboutUs/ICCAccreditation/Documents/SCA%20
NOVEMBER%202013%20FINAL%20REPORT%20ENGLISH.pdf.

64   While their own website is being set up, some basic 
information is hosted by the Scottish Human Rights 
Commission, www.scottishhumanrights.com/international/
eurochair.

50   The ICESCR‑OP was to enter into force after 10 ratifications. 
On 5 February 2013, it received the tenth ratification 
(Uruguay), and it entered into force on 5 May 2013.

65   Portugal, Despacho 2178/2013, Constituição de uma 

Comissão para a Deficiência, 28 January 2013, http://dre.pt/
pdf2sdip/2013/02/026000000/0566105662.pdf.

51   UN, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 

66   UN, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

Special procedures of the Human Rights Council, www.ohchr.
org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx.

(2012), Concluding observations on the initial periodic report 
of Hungary, adopted by the Committee at its eighth session 

252

EU Member States and international obligations

75   Council of Europe, Steering Committee for Human Rights 

(2013), Draft declaration of the Committee of Ministers on 
the United Nations Guiding Principles on business and 
human rights, 26–29 November 2013, www.coe.int/t/dghl/
standardsetting/cddh/CDDH‑DOCUMENTS/CDDH(2013)
R79_Addendum%20VI_EN.pdf.

76   European Commission (2011), Communication from the 

Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions. A renewed EU strategy 2011‑14 
for corporate social responsibility, COM(2011) 681 final, 
Brussels, 25 October 2011, p. 14, Section 4.8.2, http://
eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:201
1:0681:FIN:EN:PDF.

77   Council of the European Union (2012), EU strategic 

framework and action plan on human rights and democracy, 
11855/12, Luxembourg, 25 June 2012, p. 21, Point 25 (c), 
www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/
pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf.

(17–28 September), p. 5, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_
layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=e
n&TreatyID=4&DocTypeID=5.

67   Hungary, Magyar Fogyatékosügyi Caucus (2012), Additional 
information about Hungary’s compliance with the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 
with respect to the list of issues and replies from the 
Government of Hungary to the list of issues, 
5 September 2012, http://mdac.info/sites/mdac.info/files/
commcrpd_hu_september2012.pdf.

68   Hungary, A Kormány 1330/2013. (VI. 13) határozata az 

Országos Fogyatékosságügyi Tanácsról.

69  

Ibid., Art. 6.

70   Hungary, written information provided by the Ministry of 

Human Resources for the purposes of the present report on 
25 November 2013.

71   Romania, Ministerul Muncii, Familiei, Protecţiei Sociale şi 

Persoanelor Vârstnice, No. 40370/15.10.2012; Romania, 
Institutul Român pentru Drepturile Omului, 
No. 611/12.10.2012.

72   Slovenia (2010), Zakon o izenačevanju možnosti invalidov, 

ZIMI, 16 November 2010; Slovenia (2013), Sklep 
o imenovanju in nalogah članov Sveta za invalide Republike 
Slovenije, 28 October 2013.

73   Romania, Ministerul muncii, Familiei, Protecţiei Sociale şi 
Persoanelor Vârstnice, Direcţia Protecţia Persoanelor cu 
Dizabilităţi (2013), Letter No. 22.441/DPPH/SPSM/23.10.2013 
to the Centre for Legal Resources, on file with the FRA 
contractor in Romania through Franet.

74   UN, Human Rights Council (2011), Report of the Special 

Representative of the Secretary‑General on the issue of 
human rights and transnational corporations and other 
business enterprises, guiding principles on business and 
human rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, 
respect and remedy’ framework, A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011, 
www.business‑humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/
ruggie‑guiding‑principles‑21‑mar‑2011.pdf.

253

A great deal of information on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the FRA website at fra.europa.eu.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Cover picture: iStockphoto; European Commission; OSCE (Milan Obradovic) 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria

Tel. +43 1580 30-0 – Fax +43 1580 30-699

Email: info@fra.europa.eu – fra.europa.eu

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-9239-456-1 (online version) 

ISBN 978-92-9239-453-0 (print version)

doi:10.2811/69283 (online version) 

doi:10.2811/69256 (print version)

© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014

Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Printed on process chlorine-free recycled paper (PCF)

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:
•   one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); 
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); 
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:
•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:
•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

Country codes

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HU 
HR 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Hungary
Croatia
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
United Kingdom

HIGHLIGHTS
2013

Fundamental rights:
key legal and policy
developments in 2013

HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  took  a  variety  of  important  steps  in  2013  to  protect  and  promote  fundamental  rights  by 
assuming new international commitments, revamping legislation and pursuing innovative policies on the ground. Yet, fun-
damental rights violations seized the spotlight with distressing frequency: would-be migrants drowned off the EU’s coast, 
unprecedented mass surveillance, racist and extremist-motivated murders, child poverty and Roma deprivation.

In response, the EU completed a series of important legal reforms, particularly in asylum, while Member States worked to 
transpose the EU Victims’ Directive into national law and pursued their national Roma integration strategies. Still, new laws 
on the books do not necessarily transform the situation on the ground. Crisis-driven austerity measures raised some funda-
mental rights concerns. A persisting gap between law and practice troubled a broad spectrum of human rights observers, 
particularly in asylum policy, Roma integration and child and victims’ rights. 

This year’s FRA annual report looks at fundamental rights-related developments in asylum, immigration and integration; 
border control and visa policy; information society, respect for private life and data protection; the rights of the child and 
the protection of children; equality and non-discrimination; racism, xenophobia and related intolerance; access to justice 
and judicial cooperation; rights of crime victims; EU Member States and international obligations.

It features two new chapters, one on Roma integration following the drawing up of the national Roma integration strategies 
and a second looking at the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and especially its use before national courts as it approaches 
its fifth anniversary as a binding document. 

FOCUS

This year’s Focus section examines how the EU and its Member States, as part of their efforts to assume a pole 
position in the international human rights apparatus, could embed fundamental rights considerations more 
firmly in their policy making processes. By way of illustration, the Focus outlines for consideration 20 tools that 
could form part of a future EU strategic framework on fundamental rights.

The full report and the annual report 
summary – Highlights 2013 – are available in 
English, French and German. These documents 
are available for download at: fra.europa.eu.

FRA - EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria
Tel. +43 1580 30-0 – Fax +43 1580 30-699
fra.europa.eu – info@fra.europa.eu
facebook.com/fundamentalrights
linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency
twitter.com/EURightsAgency

ISSN 1831-0362 (print) 
ISBN 978-92-9239-453-0 (print)

ISSN 1977-9755 (online)
ISBN 978-92-9239-456-1 (online)

d
o

i
:

.

1
0
2
8
1
1
/
6
9
2
5
6

T
K
-
A
G
-
1
4
-
0
0
1
-
E
N
-
1

F

R

A

F

u

n

d

a

m

e

n

t

a

l

r

i

g

h

t

s

:

c

h

a

l

l

e

n

g

e

s

a

n

d

a

c

h

i

e

v

e

m

e

n

t

s

i

n

2

0

1

3

ANNUAL REPORT

2013

Fundamental rights: 

challenges and 

achievements in 2013

Acronyms

ECHR 

CJEU 

 European Convention on Human Rights

 Court of Justice of the European Union 

(CJEU is also used for the time predating 

the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty 

in December 2009)

EASO 

ECRI 

ECtHR 

EDPS 

European Asylum Support Office

 European Commission against Racism 

and Intolerance

 European Court of Human Rights

European Data Protection Supervisor

EU-MIDIS  

 European Union Minorities and 

Discrimination Survey

FRA  

 European Union Agency for Fundamental 

FRANET 

 Network of Legal and Social Science 

Rights

Experts (FRA)

LGBT 

NHRI 

NGO  

TEU 

TFEU 

UN 

 Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

National Human Rights Institute

 Non-governmental organisation

 Treaty on European Union

 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

 United Nations

Note:  A list of international and regional human rights conventions 

and their abbreviations can be found in Chapter 10.

The FRA highlights the titles of the 

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by using 

the following colour code:

Dignity

Freedoms

Equality

Solidarity

Citizens’ rights

Justice