REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2015 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Date: 2016-05-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, European security, anti-discriminatory measure, application of EU law, data protection, fundamental rights, human rights, illegal migration, terrorism

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 19.5.2016  COM(2016) 265 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2015 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights {SWD(2016) 158 final}  
 
 
1. Introduction 

The EU faced numerous challenges in 2015: security threats, unprecedented arrivals of refugees and 

migrants, a  rise in populism and xenophobia. These put EU values and solidarity to the test. Facing 

such challenges, it is vital to uphold the EU's common values of democracy, fundamental rights and 

the rule of law. 

The  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  entered  into  force  in  2009.  It  has  proven  to  be  an  important 

reference point for European1 and national courts. The European Commission promotes its respect in 

all EU actions and works closely with national, European and international organisations to this end. 

This sixth annual report reviews how the EU and its Member States applied the Charter in 2015. The 

focus section presents the 2015 Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights, which debated ‘Tolerance 

and respect: preventing and combating Antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe’. 

In 2016, the Colloquium on Fundamental Rights will be devoted to the issue of "Media Pluralism and 

Democracy".  The  colloquium  will  discuss  the  links  between  media  pluralism  and  democracy  in  the 

context  of  the  changing  media  environment  characterised  by  increased  media  convergence  and  the 

development of the digital single market. It will explore the many aspects of media pluralism ranging 

from  media  independence  and  media  regulation  to  questions  of  freedom  of  speech  and  journalistic 

freedom.  It will be preceded by consultations with civil society and stakeholders. 

2. Charter application in and by the EU 

2.1 Charter mainstreaming and better regulation 

Systematic  fundamental  rights  checks  during  the  legislative  process  are  necessary  to  ensure 

compliance  of  draft  legislation  with  the  Charter.  The  Commission's  Better  Regulation  agenda2 

revised existing guidelines for improving impact assessments of draft legislation and policies. Better 

regulation  aims  to  boost  transparency  in  EU  decision-making  and  improve  the  quality  of  laws.  A 

‘better regulation toolbox’3 includes a fundamental rights checklist that the Commission is to use when 

conducting assessments. In 2015, the Commission trained specific departments to ensure that officials 

have the tools to apply a fundamental rights-based approach to policy and lawmaking. 

In  September  2015,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  on  fundamental  rights  in  the 

European Union 2013-20144. It set out concerns on individual fundamental rights situations in some 

1 General Court, Civil Service Tribunal, and Court of Justice (CJEU). 
2 Better regulation for better results — An EU agenda, COM(2015) 215 final, 19.05.2015. 
3 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm. See Tool 24 ‘Fundamental Rights and Human 
Rights’, p. 176. 
4 2014/2254(INI)., available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-
2015-0286&language=EN&ring=A8-2015-0230. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
Member  States  and  called  for  a  framework  to  monitor  the  rule  of  law.  In  June  2015,  the  Council 

adopted conclusions on the Charter's application in 2014.5 

2.2. Mainstreaming the Charter in legislative and policy actions 

EU  institutions  are  obliged  to  comply  with  the  Charter  in  all  their  actions.  This  compliance  is 

scrutinised by the CJEU. In 2015, the Commission continued to ensure systematic compliance checks 

of  its  legislation  and  policies.  In  addition,  it  advanced  legislative  projects  to  promote  fundamental 

rights. 

In  December  2015,  Parliament  and  Council  agreed  the  data  protection  reform  package.6  This  is 

essential to protect the fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data (Articles 7 and 8 

of the Charter) and is a key building block of the digital single market. It consists of a general Data 
Protection Regulation7 and a Data Protection Directive for police and criminal justice authorities8. The 

directive will replace existing legislation and become applicable in early 2018. 

In 2015, Parliament and Council agreed directives on the presumption of innocence and the right to 

be present  at trial9 and on special safeguards for  children in criminal proceedings.10 These will 

promote  the  fundamental  rights  to  an  effective  remedy  and  a  fair  trial,  and  to  the  presumption  of 

innocence and rights of defence (Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter). The Victims’ Rights Directive11 

entered into force in November 2015. It lays down binding rights for victims, including the right to be 

recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive, tailored, professional and non-discriminatory manner. 

Furthermore,  the  Directive  on  the  coordination  and  cooperation  measures  to  facilitate  consular 
protection  for  unrepresented  citizens  of  the  Union  in  third  countries12  was  adopted.  Amongst 

others the Directive clarifies when and how third country family members of EU citizens can receive 

5 Outcome of the Council meeting, 23 June 2015, (10228/15) p.17. 
6 See European Commission press release Agreement on Commission’s EU data protection reform will boost 
Digital Single Market, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6321_en.htm. 
7 Proposal for a Regulation 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, 25.1.2012. 
8 Proposal for a Directive 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, 25.1.2012. 
9 Proposal for a Directive 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 final, 27.11.2013. 
10 Proposal for a Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, 
COM(2013) 822 final, 27.11.2013. 
11 Directive 2012/29/EU 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 L 315, 25.10.212, 
p.57. 
12Council Directive 2015/637/EU on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection 
for  unrepresented  citizens  of  the  Union  in  third  countries  and  repealing  Decision  95/553/EC,  OJ  L  106, 
20.04.2015, p. 1. 

3 

 
                                                            
protection with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of the right to consular protection, and of the right 

to respect for private and family life as recognised in Article 7 of the Charter. 

In  May  2015,  the  Commission  presented  a  European  Agenda  on  Migration,1314  outlining  urgent 

measures to better manage migration at EU level. It proposed to develop President Juncker’s political 

guidelines based around four comprehensive pillars: 

1.  reducing incentives for irregular migration; 

2.  border management — saving lives and securing external borders;  

3.  fulfilling Europe’s duty to protect through a strong common asylum policy; and 

4.  developing a new policy on legal migration.  

Specific focus was given to urgent action to prevent deaths at sea. This included a proposal for an EU-

wide resettlement scheme across all Member States to offer 20 000 places to displaced persons in clear 

need  of  international  protection  in  Europe15  and,  more  recently,  a  proposal  for  a  voluntary 

humanitarian admission scheme with Turkey.16 

The proposed policy initiatives are directly relevant for the protection and promotion of fundamental 

rights.  For  example,  for  returns,  the  Commission  published  a  Return  Handbook17  to  support  the 

September 2015 Action Plan on Return.18 The handbook provides guidance for national authorities 

including  on  how  to  ensure  that  any  return  operation  fully  complies  with  fundamental  rights, 

especially for unaccompanied children. 

As one immediate action to help frontline Member States facing disproportionate migratory pressures 

at the EU’s external borders, the Commission proposed to develop a ‘hotspot approach’. Hotspots can 

help Member States to better secure fundamental rights safeguards in practice, if efforts are shared to 

ensure that sufficient resources and staff are in place. Since the Western Balkans Leaders’ meeting in 

October 2015, the Commission has been closely following developments along the Western Balkans 

route. In the Leaders’ Statement, Greece and the Western Balkan countries committed to increase their 

13 A European Agenda on Migration, COM(2015) 240 final, 13.5.2015. 
14 This report covers main 2015 developments. A snapshot of the overall progress in implementing the European 
Agenda on Migration and the latest proposals can be found at the website http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-
affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/index_en.htm  
Informative fact sheets can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-
agenda-migration/background-information/index_en.htm  
15 Commission recommendation on a European resettlement scheme, C(2015) 3560 final, 8.6.2015. 
16 Commission recommendation for a voluntary humanitarian admission scheme with Turkey, C(2015) 9490, 
15.12.2015. 
17 Commission recommendation establishing a common ‘Return Handbook’ to be used by Member States’ 
competent authorities when carrying out return related tasks, C(2015) 6250 final, 1.10.2015. 
18 EU Action Plan on return, COM(2015) 453 final, 9.9.2015. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
reception  capacities  to  enable  better  and  more  predictable  management  of  migration  flows.  To  this 

end, the Commission has granted both emergency and humanitarian assistance. 

The December 2015 proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Border and Coast Guard 

(‘the Agency’)19 is also significant for safeguarding fundamental rights. It foresees the adoption of a 

code of conduct applicable to all border control operations coordinated by the Agency and of a code of 

conduct for return. A fundamental rights officer monitors the Agency's respect of fundamental rights 

and a complaint mechanism would deal with any violations of fundamental rights during operational 

activities. Joint operations or rapid border interventions could be suspended or stopped in the case of 

any breach of fundamental rights or international protection obligations. The Agency is to draw up a 

fundamental  rights  strategy  with  specific  focus  on  children,  victims  of  human  trafficking,  people  in 

need  of  medical  assistance  or  of  international  protection,  people  in  distress  at  sea,  and  others  in  a 

vulnerable situation. The common core curricula for the Agency's border guard training would support 

compliance with the Charter. 

Full compliance with fundamental rights is one of five guiding principles of the European Agenda on 

Security.20 It highlights that security and respect for fundamental rights are not conflicting aims, but 

complementary policy objectives. Ensuring security is an essential prerequisite for the protection and 

free exercise of fundamental rights. At the same time, all security measures must respect fundamental 

rights  and  the  rule  of  law,  and  comply  with  the  principles  of  necessity,  proportionality  and  legality, 

with appropriate safeguards to ensure accountability and judicial redress. The Commission’s counter-

terrorism  proposals  —  following  the  Paris  attacks  in  November  2015  —  reflect  this  approach.  The 

proposed  Directive  on  Terrorism21  highlights  the  importance  of  respecting  fundamental  rights  in 

transposing criminal law provisions into national law. It protects the fundamental rights of victims and 

potential  victims.  It  criminalises  preparatory  acts,  such  as  training  and  travel  abroad,  for  terrorist 

purposes, aiding or abetting, inciting and attempting terrorist acts, and terrorist financing. It also seeks 

to ensure that any limits on fundamental rights of suspects and accused do not go further than what is 

strictly  necessary,  thus  upholding  the  principles  of  legality  and  proportionality  of  criminal  offences 

and penalties (Article 49 of the Charter). 

The  importance  of  fundamental  rights  in  security  action  is  reflected  in  the  prominence  given  to 

preventive  actions  in  the  context  of  counter-terrorism  policies.  The  EU  response  to  extremism  must 

not lead to stigmatisation of any group or community, but rather draw on common European values of 

tolerance, diversity and mutual respect. The Agenda on Security seeks to address the root causes of 

19 Proposal for a Regulation on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
2007/2004, Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC, COM(2015) 671 final, 
15.12.2015. 
20 The European Agenda for Security, COM(2015) 185 final, 28.4.2015. 
21 Proposal for a Directive on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on 
combating terrorism, COM(2015) 625 final, 2.12.2015. 

5 

 
                                                            
extremism  through  education,  youth  participation,  interfaith  and  intercultural  dialogue,  and 

employment  and  social  inclusion.  It  emphasises  the  importance  of  combating  discrimination,  racism 

and xenophobia, and highlights the EU's key actions in this field. 

This  was  also  reflected  in  the  "Declaration  on  promoting  citizenship  and  the  common  values  of 
freedom,  tolerance  and  non-discrimination  through  education"  (Paris  Declaration)22,  following  the 

informal  meeting  of  EU  Education  Ministers  on  17  March  in  Paris,  which  provides  a  set  of 

recommendations on the important role of education in promoting fundamental values such as active 

citizenship,  mutual  respect,  diversity,  equality  and  social  inclusion,  and  in  preventing  violent 

extremism. As a follow-up to the Paris Declaration, the Commission and the Member States agreed on 
a set of new priority areas for cooperation at EU level until 2020.23 

Finally, on 19 October 2015 the Commission hosted the High-level Ministerial Conference "Criminal 

justice response to radicalisation", to exchange experiences on preventing radicalisation in prisons and 

rehabilitation  programmes  for  foreign  fighters  and  returnees.  The  joint  commitment  of  the  Member 

States to act in this area was confirmed in the Council Conclusions on "enhancing the criminal justice 
response to radicalisation leading to terrorism and violent extremism" of 20 November 2015.24 

2.3.  Mainstreaming  the  Charter  in  international  agreements  and  ensuring 
consistency in human rights 

Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union guides the EU’s external action. 

In  response  to  the  April  2015  Joint  Communication  ‘Keeping  Human  Rights  at  the  heart  of  the  EU 

agenda’,25  the  Council  adopted,  in  July,  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Human  Rights  and  Democracy 

(2015–2019). It lists more than 100 actions on human rights and democracy under 34 items.26 Giving 

effect to Article 21, the action plan implements commitments in the Strategic Framework on Human 

Rights  and  Democracy27  and  provides  leverage  for  the  engagement  of  all  EU  authorities  and 

stakeholders and improved mainstreaming of human rights’ considerations in all EU external policies. 

Planned  actions  include  addressing  human  rights  concerns  in  the  impact  assessment  of  policies  that 

could  have  a  significant  impact  in  non-EU  countries.  The  action  plan  sets  out  actions  linked  to  the 

22 http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/2015/documents/citizenship-education-declaration_en.pdf 
23 In the joint 2015 Report on the progress in the implementation of the Education and Training 2020 Strategic 
Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020), available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2015.417.01.0025.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2015:417:TOC 
24 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/20-conclusions-
radicalisation/?utm_source=dsms-
auto&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Conclusions%20of%20the%20Council%20of%20the%20European
%20Union%20and%20of%20the%20Member%20States%20meeting%20within%20the%20Council%20on%20
enhancing%20the%20criminal%20justice%20response%20to%20radicalisation%20leading%20to%20terrorism
%20and%20violent%20extremism 
25 JOIN (2015) 16 final, 28/04. 
26 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/07/20-fac-human-rights/. 
27 Council Document of 25 June 2012, ST 11855/12. 

6 

 
                                                            
Commission’s work on internal fundamental rights compliance, in particular on privacy in the context 

of  risks  of  mass  surveillance,  judicial  reform,  children’s  rights,  gender  equality,  the  fight  against 

racism and xenophobia, migration and counter-terrorism. 

The  Commission's  October  2015  ‘Trade  for  All’  strategy  sets  out  steps  to  ensure  that  fundamental 

rights  are  respected  in  the  EU  and  in  non-EU  countries.28  It  covers  the  right  to  regulate,  and  the 

assessment  of  impacts  on  fundamental  and  human  rights  of  trade  policies  and  agreements.  It  links 

trade policy with advancing human rights in non-EU countries, in particular for child labour, forced 

prison  labour,  and  forced  labour  as  a  result  of  human  trafficking  and  land  grabbing.  Human  rights 

considerations are increasingly being incorporated into EU bilateral free trade agreements and into EU 

export controls policy. 

In September 2015, the Commission finalised negotiations on the EU-US Data Protection ‘Umbrella 

Agreement’. This will ensure data protection safeguards for any transfer of personal data between the 

EU and the US in any police or judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Under the agreement, if their 

personal  data  are  transferred  to  US  law  enforcement  authorities  and  these  data  are  incorrect  or 

unlawfully processed, EU  citizens — non-resident in the US — will be able to obtain redress in US 

courts.29 It constitutes a significant improvement of the situation concerning judicial redress in the US. 

In  August  2015,  the  EU  held  a  dialogue  with  the  UN  Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with 

Disabilities  for the first time  ever over the implementation by the  EU of the  UN Convention on the 
Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  (UNCRPD).30  The  EU  was  represented  by  the  Commission,  as 

focal  point  for  the  EU  under  the  Convention.  The  related  UNCRPD  Committee  adopted  the 

Concluding  Observations in October 2015 and the Commission stated its commitment to implement 

them. 

In July 2015, the Commission adopted — as part of Better Regulation — Guidelines on the analysis 

of human rights impacts in trade-related impact assessments.31 These will facilitate analysis of the 

impacts  of  trade  policy  initiatives  on  human  rights  in  both  the  EU  and  partner  countries.  The  Better 

Regulation  Agenda  also  foresees  impact  assessment  on  human  rights  for  proposals  with  an  external 

dimension in general. 

28 Trade for all — Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy, 14.10.2015, COM(2015) 497 final. 
29 These rights will be granted to EU citizens in accordance with the US Judicial Redress Act of 2015 
(H.R.1428) enacted on 24 February 2016 and due to enter into force 90 days thereafter. These rights can be 
granted to citizens of any country, based on criteria defined in the aforementioned Act.   
30 The Committee holds regular dialogues with the State Parties of the Convention based on their national (or 
EU) reports once every few years. • The European Commission submitted the first EU Report in 2014. See 
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/232/64/PDF/G1423264.pdf?OpenElement  
The EU should submit the next combined second and third periodic report in 2021. 
31 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1344. 

7 

 
                                                            
2.4 Court of Justice scrutiny of EU institutions 
In the Schrems case32, the CJEU declared the Commission’s 2000 Safe Harbour Decision33 invalid. 

That decision was an adequacy decision under Article 25(6) of the Data Protection Directive.34 It had 

authorised  transfer  of  personal  data  to  a  non-EU  country,  in  this  case  the  US.  It  had  found  an 

acceptable  level  of  protection  by  reason  of  domestic  law  or  US  international  commitments.  The 

transfer  of  personal  data  to  servers  in  the  US  by  Facebook’s  Irish  subsidiary,  authorised  by  this 

adequacy finding, was challenged before an Irish court, in particular because of revelations on mass 

surveillance in 2013 by US intelligence authorities. 

The Court held that an adequacy decision was conditional on a Commission finding that — in the non-

EU  country  concerned  —  there  is  a  level  of  protection  of  personal  data  that,  while  not  necessarily 

identical, is ‘essentially equivalent’ to that guaranteed in the EU by virtue of the Directive, as read in 

the light of the Charter. The Court held that the 2000 Safe Harbour Decision did not contain sufficient 

findings by the Commission on limits of access by US public authorities to data transferred under the 

decision, and on the existence of effective legal protection against such interference. The Court ruled 

that  legislation  giving  public  authorities  general  access  to  the  content  of  electronic  communications 

must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life. The 

Court’s judgment provided extra justification for the Commission’s approach since November 2013 in 

reviewing the safe harbour arrangements: the Commission seeks to ensure the data protection required 

by EU law. In November 2015, the Commission issued guidance35 on the possibilities of data transfer 

in light of the Schrems ruling, setting out alternative systems for transfers of personal data to the US 

until a new framework is put in place.36 

2.5 European Convention on Human Rights 
The  Commission  remains  committed  to  EU  accession  to  the  Convention.  This  will  strengthen 

fundamental values, improve the effectiveness of EU law and extend the consistency of fundamental 

rights protection in Europe. The opinion of the Court of Justice of December 2014, by which the Court 

has  declared  the  2013  draft  Accession  Agreement  incompatible  with  the  Treaties,  raised  legally  and 

politically complex issues. After a reflection period during which the Commission has examined the 

best way forward, the Commission, in its capacity as EU negotiator, is now consulting with the special 

32 C-362/14. 
33 Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/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. 
34 Directive 95/46/EC 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 L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. 
35 COM(2015) 566 final. 
36 On 2 February 2016, the European Commission and the US agreed a new framework for transatlantic data 
flows: the EU-US Privacy Shield. The Commission presented a draft adequacy decision, taking account of the 
requirements set out in the Schrems ruling, on 29 February 2016.  

8 

 
                                                            
committee  designated  by  the  Council  on  concrete  solutions  for  the  different  issues  raised  in  the 

opinion of the Court of Justice. 

3. Charter application in and by Member States 
Under scrutiny of the Court of Justice, the Commission oversees Member State compliance with the 

Charter  when  implementing  EU  law.  In  the  case  of  a  breach,  it  can  start  infringement  proceedings. 

National  judges  also  apply  the  Charter  to  ensure  compliance  with  fundamental  rights  by  Member 

States. Where a national court has doubts as to the Charter's applicability or the correct interpretation 

of  its  provisions,  it  can  —  and,  in  the  case  of  a  national  court  of  last  instance,  must  —  refer  to  the 

Court  of  Justice  for  a  preliminary  ruling.  This  helps  to  develop  Charter-related  case  law  and 

strengthens the role of national judges in upholding it. In 2015, national judges made 36 referrals for a 

preliminary ruling.37 

3.1 Infringement procedures 

Since  the  Charter  is  addressed  to  Member  States  only  when  implementing  Union  law,  infringement 

procedures concerning the Charter can only be initiated when a sufficient link to EU law — triggering 

the Charter's applicability — has been established. 

A 2015 example of relevant infringement procedures relates to ensuring the right to a fair trial in 

the implementation of the Asylum Procedures Directive. 

Following  up  on  the  second  implementation  package  of  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration,  the 

Commission  stepped  up  its  efforts  to  ensure  full  application  of  EU  law  for  migration  and  asylum. 

Between September and December 2015, it adopted 49 infringement decisions against Member States 

for  inadequate  implementation  of  legislation  making  up  the  Common  European  Asylum  System. 

These  included  an  infringement  case  against  Hungary  following  changes  in  its  asylum  legislation.38 

Grievances related to the right to an effective remedy set down in Article 46 of the Asylum Procedures 

Directive as read together with Article 47 of the Charter, in particular in view of the restricted scope 

and effectiveness of appeals procedures and the potential lack of judicial independence. Hungary was 

formally  notified  on  10  December  2015.  The  Commission  has  requested  additional  clarification  on 

other outstanding issues and will continue to liaise with the Hungarian authorities. 

In  September  2015,  the  Commission  issued  a  complementary  letter  of  formal  notice  to  Greece  on 

reception capacities for applicants for international protection and failure to put in place arrangements 

to guarantee acceptable living conditions and treatment of unaccompanied children. 

37 27 references referring to the Charter were introduced at the CJEU in 2011, 41 in 2012 and 2013, and 43 in 
2014. See annex II ‘Overview of the applications for preliminary rulings submitted in 2015 which refer to the 
Charter’ in the Staff Working Document. 
38 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6228_en.htm. 

9 

 
                                                            
A  further  case  was  launched,  in  April  2015,  against  a  Member  State  for  discrimination  of  Roma 

children  in  education.  This  violates  the  Racial  Equality  Directive39  and  Article  21  of  the  Charter, 

which prohibits discrimination based on race and ethnic origin. 

3.2 The Court of Justice giving guidance to Member States 

In  2015,  the  Court  of  Justice  continued  to  give  guidance  —  under  the  system  of  referrals  for 

preliminary rulings — to national judges on Charter applicability and interpretation. 

In its first case on Roma discrimination, Chez Razpredelenie,40 the Court held that the installation of 

electricity  meters  at  an  inaccessible  height  in  a  district  densely  populated  by  Roma  is  liable  to 

constitute discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, given that in other districts such meters are 

installed at a normal height. The Court confirmed that the scope of the Race Equality Directive cannot 

be  defined  restrictively.  This  is  because  the  Directive  is  an  expression  of  the  principle  of  equality, 

which is one of the general principles of EU law, as recognised in Article 21 of the Charter. 

The  Court  again  referred  to  Article  21  to  find  that  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  on  grounds  of 

ethnic origin in the directive does not apply only to persons who have a certain ethnic origin. It also 

applies  to  those  who,  although  not  themselves  a  member  of  the  ethnic  group  concerned,  suffer, 

together  with  the  former,  less  favourable  treatment  or  a  particular  disadvantage  on  account  of  a 

discriminatory  measure.  Finally,  the  Court  referred  to  Article  21  to  interpret  the  concept  of  direct 

discrimination based on race or ethnic origin. 

In Leger,41 the Court assessed a French decree that contraindicated blood donation by men who had 

had sexual relations with other men. The decree was responding to a high prevalence of HIV infection 

in this group of potential donors and the high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases transmissible 

by  blood.  The  Court  stated  that,  as  the  decree  applied  Directive  2004/33  regarding  requirements  for 

blood and blood components,42 the Charter was applicable. It ruled that the contraindication based on 

sexual orientation constituted a limitation of the right to non-discrimination under Article 21(1) of the 

Charter. Under Article 52(1) of the Charter, limitations are justifiable if there is a genuine objective of 

general  interest  recognised  by  the  EU.  This  can  include  the  aim  of  minimising  the  high  risk  of 

transmitting  an  infectious  disease  to  recipients  of  blood  transfusions.  Nevertheless,  the  Court  stated 

that  the  proportionality  requirement  would  only  be  met  if  there  were  no  effective  techniques  for 

39 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, 19/07/2000, p.22. 
40 C-83/14. 
41 C-528/13. 
42 Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components, OJ L 91, 30.3.2004, p. 
25. 

10 

 
                                                            
detecting such infectious diseases or — in the absence of such techniques — if there were no methods 

less onerous than a contraindication that would ensure a high level of health protection for recipients. 

3.3. National case law quoting the Charter 

National  judges  play  a  key  role  upholding  fundamental  rights  and  the  rule  of  law.  In  2015,  the 

Fundamental  Rights  Agency  43  found  that  national  courts  continued  referring  to  the  Charter  for 

guidance and inspiration, even in cases that fell outside the scope of EU law. 

In December 201544, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court held that, in individual cases, protection 

of fundamental rights can include the review of acts determined by Union law if this is indispensable 

to  protect  the  constitutional  identity  guaranteed  by  Article  79  of  Germany's  Basic  Law.  Under  the 

principle  of  individual  guilt,  rooted  in  the  guarantee  of  human  dignity  set  down  in  Article  1  of  the 

Basic Law, a criminal sanction presupposes that the offence and the offender’s guilt are proven in a 

way that complies with applicable procedural rules. The Constitutional Court held that, under Union 

law, a European arrest warrant cannot be executed if it does not meet the requirements stipulated by 
the Framework Decision45, or if the extradition would entail a violation of Union fundamental rights. It 

concluded  that,  in  the  specific  case,  there  was  no  need  to  restrict  the  precedence  of  Union  law  by 

applying  the  standards  of  German  law.  This  is  because  the  Framework  Decision  requires  an 

interpretation  that  takes  into  account  guarantees  of  the  accused's  rights  required  by  Article  1  of  the 

Basic Law in the context of an extradition. 

3.4. Charter awareness raising 

The  2015  Eurobarometer  survey  on  awareness  of  the  Charter46  showed  that  interest  in  information 

about  the  rights  people  enjoy  under  the  Charter  remains  high.  Over  60%  of  respondents  would  like 

more information about the content of the Charter, where to turn if their rights are violated, and when 

the Charter applies and when it does not. 

To raise Charter awareness among practitioners, the Latvian Presidency hosted a conference in Riga in 

April  2015.  The  conference  on  the  applicability  of  the  Charter  by  Member  States  authorities  in 

implementing EU law focused on the Charter's role in the EU legislative process. 

43 FRA 2015 Annual Report, to be published in May 2016. 
44 BVerfG, Beschluss des Zweiten Senats vom 15. Dezember 2015 - 2 BvR 2735/14. 
45 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190 , 18.07.2002, p. 1. 
46 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_420_405_en.htm. 

11 

 
                                                            
4.  Focus  section:  2015  annual  colloquium  —  outcomes  and  next 
steps 
On  taking  office,  First  Vice-President  Timmermans  committed  to  organise  an  annual  colloquium  on 

the  state  of  play  of  fundamental  rights  in  the  EU.  The  aim  is  to  improve  mutual  cooperation  and 

political engagement for the promotion and protection of fundamental rights. 

The  first  colloquium  was  held  in  Brussels  in  October  2015  and  focused  on  ‘Tolerance  and  respect: 

preventing and combating Antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe’. This was the first EU-level 

meeting  of  representatives  from  Muslim  and  Jewish  communities  to  discuss  how  to  combat 

Antisemitic  and  anti-Muslim  hatred.  Some  300  participants  attended:  local,  national  and  EU 

policymakers, international and civil society organisations, religious and community leaders, equality 

bodies,  representatives  from  the  worlds  of  education,  work  and  media,  and  academics  and 

philosophers from across the EU. They examined the reasons behind the surge in Antisemitic and anti-

Muslim  incidents  in  Europe,  identified  ways  to  address  the  trends,  and  agreed  to  join  forces  to 

encourage a culture of inclusive tolerance and respect. 

The  colloquium47  identified  key  actions  to  prevent  and  combat  Antisemitic  and  anti-Muslim  hatred, 

including the appointment of two coordinators — one to combat Antisemitism and one to combat anti-

Muslim hatred — to coordinate and strengthen policy responses to address these threats.48 

Important  steps  were  taken  to  combat  hate  speech  online.  The  Commission  initiated  an  EU-level 

dialogue with major IT companies in cooperation with Member States to see how intermediaries and 

other bodies can help tackle online hate speech that incites violence. 

In  2015,  the  Commission  continued  to  monitor  EU  rules  on  combating  racism  and  xenophobia49  to 

ensure a full and correct application. Four Member States changed their criminal rules to align them 

with EU law. The Commission chairs a Member States’ expert group, which, in 2016, will become the 

EU High-level group on racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. It will be a platform for 

best  practice  guidance  and  strengthened  cooperation,  open  to  civil  society  and  community 

representatives, the Fundamental Rights Agency and relevant international organisations. 

In 2015, EUR 5.4 million was made available under the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme 

to national authorities and civil society. The funding is for training and capacity building, exchange of 

47 Conclusions paper, Joining forces against anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hatred in the EU: outcomes of the first 
Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/colloquium-fundamental-rights-
2015/files/fundamental_rights_colloquium_conclusions_en.pdf. 
48 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/fundamental-rights/news/151201_en.htm. 
49 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and 
expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. 

12 

 
                                                            
best practice to prevent and combat racism and xenophobia, strengthening criminal responses to hate 

crime and hate speech, and empowering and supporting victims. 

In  2015,  the  Erasmus+  Programme  allocated  funding  to  implement  actions  identified  in  the 

colloquium50  and  to  empower  all  those  involved  at  local  level  to  build  a  culture  of  tolerance  and 

respect and to overcome prejudices.  

While EU institutions and bodies can accompany and support progress on the ground, the prevention 

and combating of racism and xenophobia is primarily a local endeavour and requires full ownership 

both of the communities concerned and of society at large. 

5. Conclusion 
The Commission is committed to a high level of protection of fundamental rights in the EU. It seeks to 

ensure that all legislative proposals and actions are fully compatible with the Charter. 

The Commission intends to improve cooperation with other EU institutions and agencies, notably the 

Fundamental  Rights  Agency,  and  with  the  Council  of  Europe  to  ensure  that  fundamental  rights  are 

given priority. 

The  Commission  intends  to  promote  awareness  of  common  EU  values  and,  in  particular,  of  the 

Charter  through  targeted  funding  and  training,  dialogue  with  civil  society  and  practical  tools  to 

encourage dialogue between Courts in Member States. 

50See key actions under Section 1 of the conclusions of the Colloquium. 

13