Analysis and comparative review of equality data collection practices in the European Union : equality data indicators : methodological approach overview per EU Member State, technical annex.
Date: 2017-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: EU Member State, comparative analysis, data collection, equal treatment, social indicator, statistical method

Equality data indicators: 

Methodological approach 

Overview per EU Member State 

Technical annex 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Equality 
Unit JUST/D1 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Analysis and comparative review of equality data collection 
practices in the European Union 

Equality data indicators: 

Methodological approach 

Overview per EU Member State 

Technical annex 

Author: Thomas Huddleston 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  report  has  been  drafted  for  the  project  Analysis  and  comparative  review  of  equality  data  collection 
practices in the EU with contributions from:  
International team 
Mark Bell, Isabelle Chopin, Lilla Farkas, Catharina Germaine, Stefanos Grammenos, Thomas Huddleston, Timo 
Makkonen, Michelle Troost, Marcel Zwamborn.  
National experts 
AT: Katrin Wladasch, BE: Hannah Vermaut and Louise Callier, BG: Daniela Mihailova, CY: Nicos Trimikliniotis, 
CZ: Miroslav Dvorak, DE: Andreas Hieronymus, DK: Ruth Emerek, EE: Jelena Helemae, EL: Berry (Varvara) 
Lalioti, ES: Jose Manuel Fresno, FI: Simo Mannila, FR: Thomas Kirszbaum, HR: Antonija Petričušić, HU: Balazs 
Toth,  IE:  Ursula  Barry, IT:  Chiara  Favilli,  LV:  Tana  Lace,  LT:  Boguslavas  Gruzevkis  and  Vaida  Jusaite,  LU: 
Claudia Hartmann Hirsch, MT: Romina Bartolo, NL: Tanja van den Berge, PL: Lukasz Bojarski, PT: Rosário 
Mauritti, RO: Romanita Iordache, SK: Sarlota Pufflerova, SI: Sara Brezigar, SE: Yamam Al-Zubaidi, UK: Omar 
Khan. 

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 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

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

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

ISBN 978-92-79-66079-5   

doi:10.2838/142   

DS-04-17-179-EN-N 

© European Union, 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Methodological approach 
Executive summary   
Background on indicators of equality data collection 
Dimension 1: Regulation of equality data   
Dimension 2: Validity of equality data 
Dimension 3: Reliabilty of equality data 
Dimension 4:  Comprehensiveness of equality data 
Dimension 5: Use of equality data to promote equality in practice 

Overview per EU Member State 
Austria  
Belgium  
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus  
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France  
Germany 
Greece  
Hungary 
Ireland  
Italy 
Latvia   
Lithuania 
Luxembourg   
Malta   
Netherlands 
Poland  
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain   
Sweden 
UK 

Technical annex 
Comparative summary 
Austria  
Belgium  
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus  
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France  
Germany 
Greece  
Hungary 
Ireland  

3 

5 
9 
12 
14 
17 
20 
23 

25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

53 
55 
57 
59 
61 
63 
65 
67 
69 
71 
73 
75 
77 
79 
81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Italy 
Latvia   
Lithuania 
Luxembourg   
Malta   
Netherlands 
Poland  
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain   
Sweden 
UK 

83 
85 
87 
89 
91 
93 
95 
97 
99 
101 
103 
105 
107 
109 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Executive summary 

EU28 Average: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

EU28 Average 

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 
Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

28% 

17% 

33% 

19% 

18% 

15% 

13% 

13% 

37% 

61% 

50% 

50% 

17% 

51% 

31% 

21% 

39% 

75% 

55% 

55% 

22% 

29% 

22% 

15% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

49% 

80% 

71% 

62% 

34% 

43% 

30% 

22% 

29% 

32% 

31% 

14% 

16% 

17% 

34% 

52% 

48% 

43% 

21% 

31% 

22% 

17% 

13% 

24% 
Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is allowed based on specific exemptions in all EU Member States, but 

 

is a relative weakness in nearly all EU Member States’ equality policies 
In most EU Member States, equality data is poorly regulated & little used in practice beyond 
basic monitoring & planning on the grounds of age, disability & ethnic origin 

  Data on equality grounds is usually designed without community consultations, options for 

self-definition, or common definitions for the purposes of equality 

  Available data on age is more complete, reliable & comprehensive, while data on 

religion/belief is less regular & data on disability & ethnic origin is often proxy-based 

  Beyond complaints, little statistical data exists in most areas on racial origin & LGBTI persons 

5 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Is equality data 
collection… 

Regulated 

Valid 

Reliable 

Comprehensive 

Used 

UK 

FI 

NL 

IE 

PT 

BE 

HU  HR 

IT 

EU28 

FR 

BG 

CZ 

SE 

DE 

RO 

EE 

LU 

AT 

PL 

DK 

ES 

GR 

LT 

LV  MT 

SI 

CY 

SK 

100% 

100% 

71% 

42% 

38% 

11% 

67% 

44% 

17% 

28% 

15% 

33% 

17% 

13% 

16% 

13% 

8% 

14% 

17% 

11% 

13% 

25% 

17% 

13% 

13% 

17% 

17% 

13% 

13% 

98% 

83% 

96% 

76% 

65% 

54% 

27% 

31% 

60% 

37% 

33% 

27% 

30% 

41% 

9% 

27% 

32% 

33% 

15% 

31% 

25% 

20% 

14% 

24% 

25% 

19% 

21% 

8% 

20% 

91% 

94% 

82% 

50% 

57% 

51% 

35% 

39% 

31% 

39% 

51% 

17% 

37% 

29% 

47% 

23% 

42% 

37% 

32% 

28% 

28% 

30% 

34% 

32% 

29% 

21% 

15% 

12% 

16% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

44% 

44% 

59% 

39% 

74% 

50% 

49% 

53% 

66% 

53% 

64% 

44% 

31% 

47% 

50% 

44% 

47% 

49% 

26% 

49% 

36% 

26% 

39% 

29% 

36% 

10% 

92% 

71% 

53% 

45% 

18% 

43% 

33% 

4% 

27% 

22% 

12% 

16% 

18% 

0% 

29% 

51% 

12% 

0% 

24% 

14% 

10% 

12% 

0% 

0% 

10% 

2% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

Legend: 
Red (Scores 01-19) = Major weakness 
Orange (Scores 20-39) = Area of Weakness 
Yellow (Scores 40-60) = Mixed Area with Strengths and Weaknesses 
Light green (Scores 61-80) = Area of Strength 
Green (Scores 81-100) = Major strength  
Note: Table ranked by overall average across all 5 dimensions 

  Only Finland, the Netherlands & UK have successful systems for equality data collection to promote equality in practice, although Ireland & Portugal are not far 

behind despite their weaknesses on data regulation, reliability, comprehensiveness & use 

  Equality data collection is a key measure of the strength of the implementation of anti-discrimination law. The strength of equality data collection, as measured by 
these indicators, is strongly & positively correlated to the strength of anti-discrimination laws, definitions & equality policies. The strength of anti-discrimination 
laws is measured by the Migrant Integration Policy Index (see www.mipex.eu/anti-discrimination). The strength of equality data collection is also strongly & 
positively correlated to the public’s level of awareness about their rights as discrimination victims, as measured by Eurobarometer 

  Accordingly, equality data collection, particularly its regulation & use, tends to be weaker in countries with more recent anti-discrimination laws and more recent 

EU membership 

  Each dimension of equality data collection is strongly & positively correlated to each other. Equality data is generally regulated, valid, reliable, comprehensive & 
used to a similar extent within the same country. A few countries have highly regulated, valid, reliable, comprehensive & used data, while many more have data 
with limited regulation, validity, reliability, comprehensiveness & use.  

  The collection of data on equality grounds is also strongly & positively linked together. Countries with more robust data on several grounds tend to collect robust 
data on all grounds, while countries with less robust data tend to have similar problems on data collection across all equality grounds. The differences in equality 
grounds are also generally similar across EU Member States. Countries generally collect more robust data on age &, to a lesser extent, disability & ethnic origin and 
less robust data on religion/belief, racial origin, sexual orientation & gender identity. 

6 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

1.  Dimension 1: Regulation of equality data: Although all EU Member States’ laws allow for equality data based on 
several sensitive data exemptions, only around one-third mandate equality data collection for equality bodies in 
all grounds or for employers on the ground of disability, with little guidance from the law on how to collect this 
data.  

Conclusions:  

 

 

Limited mandate and resources for equality bodies & employers to collect equality data beyond the 
ground of disability 
Little official guidance provided on how to collect valid, reliable and comprehensive equality data  

2.  Validity of equality data: Available equality data in most EU Member States raises major issues of data validity 
except on the ground of age. The groups concerned are hardly ever consulted in the design of equality data and 
the resulting data is too often based on proxies for disability, ethnicity and religion/belief and completely missing 
on racial origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and multiple grounds.  

Conclusions:  

 

Little-to-no community consultations with the groups concerned to set the national definitions for 
equality data on all grounds  

  Few options are given to people for self-definition in the national census or surveys on any grounds of 

disability, racial or ethnic origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation and gender identity 

3.  Reliability of equality data: While reliable data is collected for age and, to some extent, disability, most other 
equality data in EU Member States is not well defined, comparable, regular, diversified or disaggregated. 
Relatively few national actors collect data on grounds other than age. Their national survey or administrative 
data on LGBTI, race, religion/belief are rare and incomparable at national or international level. Proxy-based 
ethnicity data is more readily available from national survey and administrative sources, but often not 
comparable across countries. For most grounds and countries, the most reliable and regular sources are 
European data and surveys and national complaints data, which are critical for filling these major data gaps. 

Conclusions:  

  Few national surveys & few initiatives conducted by a wide variety of methods and actors (i.e. NGOs, 

researchers, equality bodies, local and regional statistical bodies) 

  National surveys or administrative data often are not disaggregated due to small sample sizes or 

incomplete datasets  

  European sources (e.g. FRA surveys, European Social Survey, LFS/SILC ad hoc modules) are often the only 

major source on disability, ethnic/racial origin, religion, sexual orientation & gender identity 

4.  Comprehensiveness of equality data: Comprehensive data is only collected for age and, to some extent, 
disability. Data on access to justice is a major gap. While most EU Member States systematically data on 
discrimination complaints and hate crimes disaggregated by ground, hardly any do so for crime victimisation or 
for the number and outcomes of discrimination cases brought to court. Most equality data provide general 
estimates of the population and data on employment and education based on age, disability and proxy-based 
ethnic origins. Very few EU Member States collect comprehensive data on racial origin, religion/belief, sexual 
orientation and gender identity. Major data gaps also emerge in the area on social inclusion (i.e. housing, health, 
poverty, social exclusion).  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Conclusions:  

  Social inclusion and living conditions are a major gap for many equality grounds 
  Targeted comprehensive surveys may be the necessary solution for the under-sampling of small or under-

sampled groups (i.e. LGBTI, immigrants, religions) in mainstream surveys 

  The number and outcomes of discrimination cases are rarely collected or disaggregated 

5.  Use of equality data to promote equality in practice: On all grounds, the available national and EU-wide 

equality data, even the most reliable and comprehensive data, seems to be significantly underused and likely 
little known, as equality data is hardly ever given a structural role in policymaking and service-delivery. A 
minority of EU Member States require that equality data on age, disability and ethnicity are used for positive 
actions, remedies or sanctions or national monitors. Additional examples emerge of local monitors on all 
grounds, including under-covered grounds like sexual orientation, gender identity and religion/belief. Very few 
Member States go further to systemically use equality data in discrimination cases, lawmaking or evaluation. 

Conclusions:  

  On most grounds, available equality data is usually not a systematic or obligatory part of policymaking, 

planning, implementation and evaluation 

  Few national and local equality monitors have been created on equality grounds in order to raise awareness 

and use of equality data 

  Equality data is rarely used in discrimination cases and the design of remedies, sanctions and positive actions 

8 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Background on indicators of equality data collection 

Introduction 

The purpose of the equality data collection indicators was twofold:  

a) 

indicators to evaluate Member States practices in the field of equality data collection relating to: 
 
 
 

the extent a Member States collects equality data; 
the sources that are used; 
the existing national legislation or action plans relevant to data collection. 

b)  country fact sheets describing the state of art in each EU Member State: 

  a summary of the relevant legal framework for equality data collection; 
  how equality data is collected; 
  who is responsible for equality data collection; 
 

cases of best practice in equality data collection. 

The paradigm called an evidence-based approach to good governance – integrating expertise, research and evaluation 
on policies to improve decision-making and accountability- is becoming dominant in the public sector. The European 
Commission  has  indeed  actively  promoted  the  collection  and  use  of  data  in  the  context  of  equality  and  non-
discrimination,  and  quite  rightly  continues  to  do so, as  the  present  Invitation to  tender  for  its  part  demonstrates. 
Without reliable and adequate data, it is impossible to know whether the existing equality legislation and policies are 
having the desired impacts or to make informed decisions about future action.  

Indicators can be quantitative or qualitative and are essentially of instrumental value, as they serve the purpose of 
measuring the degree of progress in achieving a particular goal. In short, indicators allow for monitoring and 
comparison and serve as a basis for policymaking. In the terminology of Eurostat : “[an indicator is a s]ummary 
measure related to a key issue or phenomenon and derived from a series of observed facts. Indicators can be used 
to reveal relative positions and/or show positive or negative change.”1  

Indicators on equality data collection measure the existence nationally of a comprehensive and reliable monitoring 
system on discrimination through assessment of the following: a) extent to which each country collects data; b) 
sources that are used; c) legal framework and action plans for data collection. The monitoring system itself serves 
the broader objective of ensuring that equal treatment legislation is implemented in practice and is yielding the 
desired results. The design of the indicators were grounded in European and international norms and the highest 
benchmarks on anti-discrimination law, data protection and equality data collection. Top scores were given to laws, 
procedures and uses of equality data that meet European norms and standards, while middle and lower scores were 
given in cases where equality data is impossible, obstructed or unavailable/unused. The exact benchmarks and 
structures of the indicators were agreed with the European Commission in the design phase of the project and 
reconfirmed after the calculation of the indicator results. These norms and benchmarks had been mapped in this 
project’s handbook and national mapping reports.  Overall, these equality data indicators analyse and compare to 
what extent equality data can be and is being used by Member States. This benchmarking exercise also allows 
Member States to identify potential areas for improvement in their current equality data legislation, practice or use 
and clearly identify best practices and trends in other EU Member States.  

1   Eurostat, RAMON – Eurostat’s Concepts and Definitions Database. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/metadata.  

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Methodology & scoring 

The indicators aimed to measure distinct dimensions of equality data collection from law to practice: 

 

Legal and policy indicators: Do laws and policies allow for the collection of equality data for 
all grounds and areas of life? 

  Process/implementation indicators: Is equality data properly and regularly collected for all 

 

grounds and areas of life? 
Indicators of use in practice: Is equality data regularly used by policy actors to promote 
equality for all grounds and areas of life? 

The indicators equally aim to present the situation disaggregated for each ground and area of life. 
Based on this overall structure, five dimensions of equality data collection were identified through 
the handbook and mapping reports: data regulation, data validity, data reliability, data 
comprehensiveness and data use. For each dimension, individual indicators were designed to 
capture the many elements that compose this dimension, based on the approaches recommended 
in the handbook and the range of practices observed in the Member States. Each indicator was 
turned into questions with a few answer options for each question, so as to do justice to the 
complexity of the realities in Member States. Each answer option reflects the relative distance to the 
ultimate benchmark and is given a scoring number.  

Each individual indicator was structured in such a way to allow for disaggregated comparison 
between grounds. Similar indicators were constructed about data collection on age, ethnic or racial 
origin, gender identity, religion/belief, sexual orientation and multiple grounds, so that data 
availability can be compared between the different grounds. The construction of sub-ground 
indicators (e.g. age disaggregated by age brackets or ethnicity disaggregated by type of group) did 
not prove necessary to capture the range of policies in the Member States. Indicators under the 
‘comprehensiveness’ dimension were also be structured in a similar way for each area of life (e.g. 
employment, vocational training, education, health and housing). This comparable structure by 
ground and by area allow for comparisons of data availability by ground across all areas (e.g. age 
data in country X may be better available in education and health than in employment and housing?) 
or by area across all grounds (e.g. equality data on health in country Y may be fully available for age, 
gender and sexual orientation but missing for race, ethnicity and religion).  

This list of indicators was assembled into a questionnaire answered by the national expert, who is 
best equipped to provide the qualitative information necessary for scoring. The MPG central team 
pre-completed the questionnaire based on the experts’ national mapping reports, as these sources 
were sufficiently comprehensive to provide most of the data necessary for the indicators. Where 
data was missing or confusing, these gaps were highlighted for the experts by the central team. 
Using the experts’ comments and scores for these indicators, the central team was able to conduct a 
final quality and consistency check of the data to guarantee that the questions were understood in a 
proper and consistent way across all countries. Any final recodings of the indicators was then 
checked with the national experts where necessary. In the end, only two initial indicators were 
dropped due to concerns of a lack of comparable answers between experts and a lack of coherent 
variation between countries (i.e. on coverage of vocational training and the international 
comparability of definitions). 

In the final scoring process, equal weighting was given to each indicator and ground in order to 
guarantee an equal consideration of all aspects and to ensure the greatest transparency and 
usability of the results. Each indicator received one of several possible scores which were generally 

10 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

translated into a 0-1 or 0% to 100% scale. Certain questions were aggregated together to create one 
indicator. Individual indicator scores were then be averaged together by ground (e.g. all age 
questions on validity were averaged together) and then these ground averages were averaged 
together to obtain the average per dimension (e.g. average score on validity for age, disability, 
ethnic origin, racial origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation & gender identity). A simple average of 
all dimensions was calculated by ground and overall, but not used in the graphical representations of 
the indicators, as the variations between the EU Member States was often too marginal for ranking 
purposes. 

Overall, comparison and rankings can then be made based on these scores as a means to provide a 
broad-brush overview for policy comparison. The meaning of the score in terms of its favourability of 
equality data collection is described on the table below. These descriptions should be read as the 
“key” to the assessment of Member State performance—they give indications of what a country’s 
equality data policies look like: 

1-19   = Major weakness 

21-39   = Area of weakness 

40-60   = Mixed area of strengths & weaknesses 

61-80  = Area of strength  

81-100  = Major strength 

11 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Dimension 1: Regulation of equality data  

List of indicators 

1. Regulated 
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per Directive 95/46/EC) 
Note: This indicator was aggregated into the dimension score but not the dimension’s sub-scores 
by equality ground 

B) Anti-discrimination legislation (equality data duty on equality bodies) 

C) Anti-discrimination legislation (equality data duty on employers) 

D) Specific equality data legislation or guidance 

Key findings 

Key findings: Although all EU Member States’ laws allow for equality data based on several sensitive 
data exemptions, only around one-third mandate equality data collection for equality bodies in all 
grounds or for employers on the ground of disability, with little guidance from the law on how to 
collect this data.  

1.  Limited mandate and resources for equality bodies & employers to collect equality data beyond 

the ground of disability 

2.  Little official guidance provided on how to collect valid, reliable and comprehensive equality data  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Comparative overview 

Dimension 1: Regulation of equality data

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

UK

FI NL HU HR

IE

PT BG EU28 ES

IT

CZ AT GR MT

SI

DE

FR

LU SE

RO DK

LT

LV

CY

SK

BE

PL

EE

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

1. Regulated 
# of countries with relevant provision 
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as 
per Directive 95/46/EC) 

B) Anti-discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies) 
C) Anti-discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers) 

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance 

Consent 

Employment 

Health/life 

Public 

Members 

Legal claim 

Medicine 

Public interest 

28 

Age 

5 

4 

5 

24 

28 

Disability 

Ethnicity 

8 

13 

7 

7 

3 

6 

27 

Race 

7 

3 

5 

25 

27 

28 

25 

Religion/belief 

5 

3 

5 

Sexual 
orientation 
5 

3 

3 

Gender Identity 

5 

3 

3 

13 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Dimension 2: Validity of equality data  

List of indicators 

2. Valid 
Note: Data on multiple grounds was not aggregated into the dimension score 
A) The group concerned was consulted in the design of the definitions used  

B) Coverage of group: 
1.0 = Complete 
0.75 = Complete proxy 
0.5 = Partial  
0.25 = Partial proxy 
0 = No coverage 
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy means indirect method of identification used. 

C) Self-definition is also used in equality data 

Key findings 

Key findings: Available equality data in most EU Member States raises major issues of data validity 
except on the ground of age. The groups concerned are hardly ever consulted in the design of 
equality data and the resulting data is too often based on proxies for disability, ethnicity and 
religion/belief and completely missing on racial origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and 
multiple grounds.  

1.  Little-to-no community consultations with the groups concerned to set the national definitions 

for equality data on all grounds  

2.  Few options are given to people for self-definition in the national census or surveys on any 

grounds of disability, racial or ethnic origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation and gender identity 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Comparative overview 

Validity of equality data

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

UK NL

FI

IE

PT

IT

BE

SE EU28 FR

LU EE HR

PL

CZ HU BG RO DK

LV

LT

SI

SK

ES MT AT GR DE

CY

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

2. Valid 
# of countries with relevant provision or 
(average of countries’ scores) 
A) The group concerned was consulted in 
the design of the definitions used  

B) Coverage of group: 
1.0 = Complete 
0.75 = Complete proxy 
0.5 = Partial  
0.25 = Partial proxy 
0 = No coverage 
Complete means entire group covered. 
Proxy means indirect method of 
identification used. 

C) Self-definition is also used in equality 
data 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnicity 

Race 

Religion/belief 

Sexual 
orientation 

Gender Identity  Multiple 
grounds 

5 

5 

9 

5 

5 

6 

6 

5 

(0.98) 

(0.72) 

(0.62) 

(0.21) 

(0.63) 

(0.31) 

(0.18) 

(0.12) 

Complete: 27 
Complete proxy: 
0 
Partial: 1  
Partial proxy: 0 
No coverage: 0 
19 

Complete: 15 
Complete proxy: 
2 
Partial: 4 
Partial proxy: 7 
No coverage: 0 
17 

Complete: 6 
Complete proxy: 
8 
Partial: 7 
Partial proxy: 7 
No coverage: 0 
16 

Complete: 2 
Complete proxy: 
0 
Partial: 0 
Partial proxy: 14 
No coverage: 12 
3 

Complete: 14 
Complete proxy: 
0 
Partial: 5 
Partial proxy: 5 
No coverage: 4 
20 

Complete: 7 
Complete proxy: 
0 
Partial: 2 
Partial proxy: 3 
No coverage: 16 
11 

Complete: 3 
Complete proxy: 
0 
Partial: 3 
Partial proxy: 2 
No coverage: 20 
7 

Complete: 1 
Complete proxy: 
0 
Partial: 3 
Partial proxy: 3 
No coverage: 21 
6 

16 

 
  
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Dimension 3: Reliability of equality data  

List of indicators 

3. Reliable 
A) Nationally comparable: Common definitions collected for equality data at national level  
B) Regularity of national survey collection (option D under 3C) 
1.0 = Annually (Every Year) 
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years) 
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2-5 years) 
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years) 
0 = Only once, not repeated yet 
C) Regularity of national administrative data collection (options A and B under 3C) 
1.0 = Annually (Every Year) 
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years) 
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2-5 years) 
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years) 
0 = Only once, not repeated yet 
D) Number of types of actors collecting equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5) 
a) National official bodies (incl. national statistical institute) 
b) Local or regional official bodies 
c) Equality body/bodies 
d) Research/academia 
e) Non-governmental organisations 
Note that the collection of complaints data should not be counted more than once. 

E) Controls & disaggregation of data used to control for other key factors determining inequalities (e.g. socio-economic status) 

Key findings 

Key findings: While reliable data is collected for age and, to some extent, disability, most other 
equality data in EU Member States is not well defined, comparable, regular, diversified or 
disaggregated. Relatively few national actors collect data on grounds other than age. Their national 
survey or administrative data on LGBTI, race, religion/belief are often rare and incomparable at 
national or international level. Proxy-based ethnicity data is more often available from national 
survey and administrative sources, but often not comparable across countries. For most grounds and 
countries, the most reliable and regular sources are European data and surveys and national 
complaints data, which are critical for filling these major data gaps. 

1.  Few national surveys & few initiatives conducted by a wide variety of methods and actors (i.e. 

NGOs, researchers, equality bodies, local and regional statistical bodies) 

2.  National surveys or administrative data are usually not disaggregated due to small sample sizes 

or incomplete datasets  

3.  European sources (e.g. FRA surveys, European Social Survey, LFS/SILC ad hoc modules) are the 

only major source on disability, ethnic/racial origin, religion, sexual orientation & gender identity 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Comparative overview 

Reliability of equality data

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

FI

UK NL

PT

FR

BE

IE

DE

EE HR EU28 LU CZ HU GR

LT

AT

IT

ES

SE

LV DK

PL

RO MT BG SK

SI

CY

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

3.  Reliable 
# of countries with relevant provision or 
(average of countries’ scores) 
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage) 

B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C) 
1.0 = Annually (Every Year) 
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years) 
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2-5 years) 
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years) 
0 = Only once, not repeated yet 
C) Regularity of national administrative 
data collection (options A and B under 3C) 
1.0 = Annually (Every Year) 
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years) 
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2-5 years) 
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years) 
0 = Only once, not repeated yet 
D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 
0.6 for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5) 
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute) 
b) Local or regional official bodies 
c) Equality body/bodies 
d) Research/academia 
e) Non-governmental organisations 
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once. 
E) Controls & disaggregation of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio-
economic status) 

Age 

25 

Disability 

Ethnicity 

Race 

Religion/belief 

Sexual 
orientation 

Gender Identity 

11 

15 

4 

11 

4 

2 

(0.87) 

(0.64) 

(0.58) 

(0.25) 

(0.26) 

(0.25) 

(0.13) 

(0.93) 

(0.86) 

(0.62) 

(0.18) 

(0.22) 

(0.12) 

(0.09) 

(0.50) 

(0.51) 

(0.61) 

(0.34) 

(0.38) 

(0.41) 

(0.34) 

16 

10 

11 

5 

6 

5 

3 

19 

 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Dimension 4: Comprehensiveness of equality data  

Indicators: Definition & finalisation 

4. Comprehensive 
A) Population estimation 

B) Employment 

C) Education 

D) Housing  

E) Health 

F) Poverty/Social Exclusion 

G) Crime victimisation 

H) Discrimination complaints 

I) Discrimination cases 

J) Outcomes of discrimination cases 

Key findings 

Key findings: Comprehensive data is only collected for age and, to some extent, disability. Data on 
access to justice is a major gap. While most EU Member States systematically data on discrimination 
complaints and hate crimes disaggregated by ground, hardly any do so for crime victimisation or for 
the number and outcomes of discrimination cases brought to court. Most equality data provide 
general estimates of the population and data on employment and education based on age, disability 
and proxy-based ethnic origins. Very few EU Member States collect comprehensive data on racial 
origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation and gender identity. Major data gaps also emerge in the 
area on social inclusion (i.e. housing, health, poverty, social exclusion).  

1.  Social inclusion and living conditions are a major gap for many equality grounds 

2.  Targeted comprehensive surveys may be the necessary solution for the under-sampling of small 

or under-sampled groups (i.e. LGBTI, immigrants, religions) in mainstream surveys 

3.  The number and outcomes of discrimination cases are rarely collected or disaggregated 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Comparative overview 

Comprehensiveness of data

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

FI

NL UK HR BG SE

BE

FR

CZ

IT

LU EU28 DK GR

EE

PL DE

PT

AT

IE MT HU CY

LT

RO SI

ES

LV

SK

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

4.  Comprehensive 
# of countries with relevant provision  
A) Population estimation 

B) Employment 

C) Education 

D) Housing  

E) Health 

F) Poverty/Social Exclusion 

G) Crime victimisation 

H) Discrimination complaints 

I) Discrimination cases 

J) Outcomes of discrimination cases 

Age  

Disability 

Ethnicity 

Race 

Religion/belief 

28 
28 
28 
27 
27 
27 
21 
24 
8 
5 

24 
28 
26 
24 
24 
24 
13 
24 
8 
4 

23 
20 
23 
17 
17 
18 
17 
25 
8 
5 

7 
8 
9 
8 
6 
6 
16 
24 
8 
4 

19 
11 
11 
10 
9 
8 
16 
24 
8 
5 

Sexual 
orientation 
5 
8 
6 
4 
5 
4 
14 
25 
8 
5 

Gender Identity 

2 
4 
4 
2 
4 
3 
12 
24 
8 
5 

22 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Dimension 5: Use of equality data to promote equality in 
practice 

List of indicators 

5. Used 
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, equality, integration) 

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, equality, integration) 

C) Proof in discrimination cases 

D) Use of remedies & sanctions 

E) Planning for equality or positive actions 

F) Law- and policy-making 

G) Evaluation of anti-discrimination legislation 

Key findings 

Key findings: On all grounds, the available national and EU-wide equality data, even the most 
reliable and comprehensive data, seems to be significantly underused and probably not well-known, 
as equality data is hardly ever given a structural role in policymaking and service-delivery. A minority 
of EU Member States require that equality data on age, disability and ethnicity are used for positive 
actions, remedies or sanctions or national monitors. Additional examples emerge of local monitors 
on all grounds, including under-covered grounds like sexual orientation, gender identity and 
religion/belief. Very few Member States go further to systemically use equality data in discrimination 
cases, lawmaking or evaluation. 

1.  On most grounds, available equality data is usually not a systematic or obligatory part of 

policymaking, planning, implementation and evaluation 

2.  Few national and local equality monitors have been created on equality grounds in order to 

raise awareness and use of equality data 

3.  Equality data is rarely used in discrimination cases and the design of remedies, sanctions and 

positive actions 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: methodological approach 

Comparative overview 

Use of equality data to promote equality in practice 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

UK

FI NL RO IE

BE HU DE

IT

AT EU28 PT

CZ BG PL

EE

FR

ES DK

LV

SI HR MT

SE

LU GR

LT

CY

SK

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

5. Used 
# of countries with relevant provision  
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration) 
B) Official local monitors  

C) Proof in discrimination cases 

D) Use of remedies & sanctions 

E) Planning for equality or positive actions 

F) Law- and policy-making 

G) Evaluation of anti-discrimination legislation 

Age  

Disability 

Ethnicity 

Race 

Religion/belief 

8 

7 
10 
4 
11 
10 
6 

10 

6 
8 
7 
14 
11 
6 

5 

3 
8 
2 
2 
3 
4 

5 

3 
8 
2 
4 
4 
5 

13 

9 
9 
2 
11 
11 
6 

24 

Sexual 
orientation 
6 

5 
8 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Gender Identity 

4 

3 
7 
1 
3 
3 
5 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Austria: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Total

Valid

Age

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

17% 

15% 

32% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

33% 

50% 

25% 

8% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

96% 

34% 

80% 

0% 

4% 

8% 

0% 

44% 

90% 

60% 

80% 

10% 

30% 

20% 

20% 

24% 

57% 

43% 

57% 

0% 

0% 

14% 

0% 

24% 

55% 

44% 

48% 

4% 

7% 

8% 

4% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is a greater area of weakness in Austria than in most EU countries, 
critically so on grounds of racial origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation & gender identity  
  As in most EU countries, Austria’s data is poor or very poor on all grounds except disability in 
terms of data regulation, validity & reliability, due to a lack of clear mandates & guidance, 
the frequent use of proxies & limited community consultation 

  Data on age, disability & ethnic origin are sometimes used in Austria for monitoring, 

planning & policymaking, but rarely on other grounds or for discrimination cases & sanctions 

25 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Belgium: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Total

Valid

Age

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

11% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

54% 

67% 

50% 

92% 

42% 

42% 

50% 

50% 

51% 

96% 

76% 

95% 

0% 

4% 

42% 

46% 

59% 

90% 

80% 

80% 

20% 

80% 

40% 

20% 

43% 

71% 

71% 

57% 

14% 

14% 

57% 

14% 

42% 

65% 

55% 

65% 

15% 

28% 

38% 

26% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is slightly more developed in Belgium than in most EU countries, 

with more reliable data available & used on all grounds 

  As in most EU countries, Belgium’s equality data collection is based on limited formal 

guidance, the frequent use of proxies & limited community consultation 

  Notwithstanding these weaknesses, data on age, disability & ethnic origin score relatively 
well in terms of validity, reliability & comprehensiveness as well as their increasing use in 
monitoring, policymaking, evaluation & sanctions 

26 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Bulgaria: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

33% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

33% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

27% 

67% 

33% 

50% 

0% 

17% 

49% 

13% 

29% 

0% 

67% 

29% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

66% 

100% 

90% 

90% 

30% 

90% 

30% 

30% 

16% 

14% 

14% 

29% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

31% 

53% 

37% 

46% 

16% 

47% 

9% 

9% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection is an area of weakness for Bulgaria to 

promote equality in practice 

  Critically, hardly any data is collected in Bulgaria on grounds of racial origin, sexual 

orientation or gender identity 

  On age, disability, ethnicity & religion, data is more regulated & comprehensive, due to the 

census, but not very reliable, due to a lack of more regular, disaggregated & diverse sources  
  The available data is rarely used to improve equality in Bulgaria except for the occasional use 

in discrimination cases & in positive measures based on ethnicity 

27 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Croatia: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

44% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

33% 

67% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

31% 

67% 

67% 

50% 

0% 

39% 

68% 

68% 

68% 

0% 

67% 

64% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

4% 

74% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

40% 

100% 

40% 

40% 

4% 

0% 

14% 

14% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

38% 

54% 

63% 

53% 

15% 

53% 

15% 

15% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection in Croatia is allowed, but uneven, with 
strengths on some grounds, weaknesses on others & a significant underuse in practice 

  Critically, hardly any data is collected in Croatia on grounds of racial origin, sexual 

orientation or gender identity 

  Better regulated, reliable & comprehensive data is available on grounds of age, disability, 

ethnic origin & religion/belief 

  However, available data is hardly ever used to systematically improve equality in Croatia, 

except in the design of sanctions for disability discrimination in employment & the 2013-15 
Action Plan for the Roma national minority 

28 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Cyprus: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

 

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

13% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

33% 

8% 

8% 

8% 

8% 

0% 

0% 

12% 

18% 

28% 

4% 

4% 

9% 

9% 

9% 

36% 

80% 

40% 

30% 

30% 

30% 

20% 

20% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

11% 

26% 

15% 

8% 

8% 

9% 

6% 

6% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is critically weak in Cyprus, far below the efforts in most EU Member 

States to expand, improve & use the available data 

  Equality data is not required in regulations or systematically used for monitoring, 

policymaking, planning or discrimination cases & sanctions 

  Most available data raises concerns of data validity & reliability, while data on age is 

relatively comprehensive 

  Critically, hardly any data is collected on grounds of ethnic & racial origin, sexual orientation 

or gender identity, far below the majority of other EU countries 

29 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Czech Republic: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

17% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

30% 

33% 

33% 

67% 

0% 

67% 

42% 

0% 

37% 

84% 

74% 

41% 

0% 

29% 

33% 

0% 

53% 

90% 

90% 

50% 

30% 

40% 

40% 

30% 

18% 

14% 

29% 

29% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

30% 

44% 

52% 

37% 

9% 

30% 

26% 

9% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection is an area of weakness for the Czech 

Republic to promote equality in practice 

  Data on ethnicity & religion are captured in the census based on self-definition 
  Data on age & disability are more reliable & comprehensive, with more regular, harmonised 

& disaggregated data 

  Data on sexual orientation are partial & limited, while hardly any data is collected on the 

grounds of racial origin & gender identity 

  Overall, the available data is rarely used for policymaking, except for the employment of the 

disabled & for the work of the Government Council for Roma Community Affairs 

30 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Denmark: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

13% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

25% 

33% 

8% 

28% 

92% 

52% 

25% 

52% 

0% 

42% 

50% 

42% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

49% 

80% 

80% 

80% 

20% 

20% 

30% 

30% 

10% 

29% 

0% 

43% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

23% 

47% 

28% 

40% 

4% 

12% 

16% 

14% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is a greater area of weakness in Denmark than in most EU countries, 
critically so on grounds of racial origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation & gender identity  

  Data collection is allowed but neither well-regulated in anti-discrimination law nor well-used 
in practice, except in integration monitors & some age employment discrimination cases  
  Data on racial origin, religion & LGBTI are partial, irregular & missing in most areas of life 
  While relatively comprehensive data is collected on age, disability & ethnic origin, the data 
on disability & ethnic origin are usually designed based on less reliable proxies, without 
community consultation in the process & without options for self-definition 

31 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Estonia: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

8% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

32% 

67% 

50% 

42% 

82% 

62% 

67% 

82% 

8% 

4% 

67% 

53% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

4% 

47% 

80% 

80% 

80% 

10% 

60% 

10% 

10% 

12% 

29% 

0% 

57% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

28% 

51% 

38% 

57% 

4% 

36% 

4% 

3% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection in Estonia is uneven & relatively weak for 

promoting equality in practice 

  Data collection is allowed in Estonia but is one of the poorest regulated & least used in the 
EU for policymaking, with the exceptions of monitoring & planning on ethnicity & age  
  Relatively reliable & comprehensive data is collected on grounds of age, disability, ethnic 
origin & religion/belief, although data on disability is partial & data on religion is irregular 

  Critically, hardly any data is collected on grounds of racial origin, sexual orientation or 

gender identity in Estonia, far behind the majority of other EU countries 

32 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Finland: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

100% 

83% 

94% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

58% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

42% 

83% 

100% 

100% 

80% 

80% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

88% 

92% 

92% 

84% 

81% 

89% 

88% 

88% 

Sexual orientation 

100% 

100% 

Gender identity 

100% 

100% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Finland has one of the most successful systems for equality data collection in the EU, with 

highly regulated, valid, reliable & comprehensive data on nearly all grounds 

  Equality data collection is based on clear mandates & guidance from the Non-Discrimination 

Act, government action plans bodies & community consultations 

  Data on religion/belief are not complete in Finland, unlike in 14 other EU countries, while 
data on ethnic & racial origin are usually based on proxies (see instead Netherlands & UK) 

  Finland’s high quality available data could be used more systematically beyond 
policymaking, for example in discrimination cases, remedies & sanctions  

33 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

France: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

15% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

33% 

67% 

58% 

42% 

8% 

8% 

42% 

0% 

51% 

96% 

66% 

46% 

42% 

46% 

42% 

22% 

53% 

70% 

60% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

40% 

20% 

12% 

29% 

43% 

14% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

31% 

52% 

52% 

36% 

22% 

19% 

25% 

8% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection in France is allowed, but uneven, with a few 

strengths on some grounds & many weaknesses on others 

  Available data is underused for equality (e.g. in discrimination cases, sanctions & evaluation) 
  Equality data is systematically regulated & used only for the employment of the disabled  
  Relatively complete, reliable & comprehensive data on age is little used for equality policies 
  As a result, many actors are collecting data in many areas of life on the grounds of ethnic & 
racial origin, religion/belief & LGBTI, but only on an ad hoc basis, often based on imperfect 
proxies & without community consultations & common definitions 

34 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Germany: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

16% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

67% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

9% 

33% 

8% 

8% 

8% 

47% 

92% 

92% 

96% 

4% 

17% 

29% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

8% 

44% 

80% 

80% 

60% 

20% 

30% 

20% 

20% 

29% 

29% 

57% 

57% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

28% 

47% 

61% 

44% 

9% 

18% 

8% 

8% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection in Germany is allowed, but uneven, with 

strengths on some grounds & many weaknesses on others 

  Data is regularly gathered in many areas of life on age, disability & ethnic origin 
  However, Germany’s available data is very poor in terms of data regulation & validity, due to 
the frequent use of partial proxies, little-to-no community consultation, few options for self-
definition & a lack of clear mandates & guidance in anti-discrimination law 

  Critically, hardly any reliable data is collected in Germany on grounds of religion/belief, racial 

origin, sexual orientation or gender identity 

35 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Greece: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

17% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

14% 

67% 

8% 

8% 

8% 

17% 

0% 

0% 

34% 

68% 

28% 

52% 

52% 

13% 

12% 

12% 

49% 

80% 

30% 

80% 

80% 

30% 

20% 

20% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

21% 

43% 

20% 

28% 

28% 

12% 

6% 

6% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is a greater area of weakness in Greece than in most EU countries, 
critically so on grounds of disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation & gender identity  
  Equality data in Greece is one of the poorest regulated & least used in the EU for policy, with 

the one exception of its employment quota law for vulnerable groups e.g. disabled  
  Only data on age obtains high scores for its validity, reliability & comprehensiveness  
  Greece’s available data on grounds of ethnic/racial origin & disability are based on partial 
proxies without community consultation, common definitions & options for self-definition 

36 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Hungary: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

67% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

100% 

100% 

67% 

33% 

67% 

33% 

33% 

27% 

33% 

33% 

35% 

65% 

50% 

83% 

55% 

0% 

67% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

41% 

17% 

8% 

39% 

80% 

50% 

50% 

20% 

30% 

20% 

20% 

33% 

43% 

57% 

57% 

14% 

29% 

14% 

14% 

40% 

64% 

58% 

62% 

15% 

47% 

17% 

15% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection in Hungary is uneven, with some strengths on age, ethnic origin & 
disability, major weaknesses on racial origin & LGBTI as well as issues of data validity, 
reliability & comprehensiveness across grounds  

  Equality data is regulated by the Census, Equal Treatment Authority & a few positive actions 
  However this data is often not regular, disaggregated or covering key areas (housing, health, 

poverty, discrimination cases & their outcomes) 

  Critically, hardly any data is collected in Hungary on grounds of racial origin, sexual 

orientation or gender identity 

37 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Ireland: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

42% 

76% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

33% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

50% 

72% 

72% 

100% 

100% 

83% 

56% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

42% 

26% 

52% 

56% 

16% 

44% 

70% 

70% 

70% 

10% 

70% 

10% 

10% 

45% 

100% 

43% 

43% 

0% 

43% 

43% 

43% 

50% 

75% 

64% 

57% 

14% 

60% 

48% 

29% 

Red (Score 01-19):   Major weakness 
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Despite its weaknesses, equality data collection in Ireland is one of the more advanced in the 
EU, but far behind Finland, Netherlands & UK in terms of regulation, reliability & coverage 
  Data on age & disability are complete & regular, while well-designed data on other grounds 
is more ad hoc & missing in areas like crime victimisation & discrimination cases/outcomes 

  Data is not collected on racial origin or gender identity & limited to the number of 
discrimination complaints, while data on sexual orientation is also very limited 

38 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Italy: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

17% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

60% 

67% 

67% 

42% 

42% 

67% 

100% 

100% 

31% 

64% 

72% 

22% 

18% 

4% 

18% 

18% 

50% 

80% 

80% 

40% 

40% 

30% 

40% 

40% 

27% 

29% 

43% 

29% 

14% 

14% 

29% 

29% 

36% 

48% 

59% 

26% 

23% 

23% 

37% 

37% 

Red (Score 01-19):   Major weakness 
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection in Italy is allowed, but uneven, poorly 
regulated & little used to promote equality, with some strengths on grounds of age & 
disability but many weaknesses on others, especially ethnic/racial origin & religion/belief 

  Equality data collection is only promoted through the Framework Law on Disability 
  Despite ad hoc consultations with community organisations, common definitions on 
ethnic/racial origin & LGBTI have not been added into regular data sources & surveys 
  As a result, this data is often not regular, disaggregated or covering key areas (housing, 

health, poverty, discrimination cases & their outcomes) 

39 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Latvia: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

13% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

25% 

67% 

67% 

29% 

68% 

68% 

67% 

68% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

26% 

60% 

60% 

60% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

10% 

29% 

43% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

19% 

45% 

48% 

39% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Red (Score 01-19):   Major weakness 
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is a greater area of weakness in Latvia & the Baltics than in most EU 

countries, critically so for race, religion/belief, sexual orientation & gender identity  

  Equality data is allowed in Latvia as in all EU countries, but is one of the poorest regulated & 

least used in the EU 

  Data on age, disability and ethnic origin is collected by a few actors, occasionally used in 
policy planning, relatively complete, regular & comprehensive, except in terms of crime 
victimisation, discrimination complaints, cases & their outcomes 

40 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Lithuania: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

13% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

24% 

33% 

8% 

32% 

84% 

48% 

67% 

33% 

8% 

8% 

67% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

8% 

36% 

70% 

70% 

30% 

20% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

19% 

37% 

25% 

26% 

7% 

26% 

6% 

4% 

Red (Score 01-19):   Major weakness 
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is a greater area of weakness in Lithuania & the Baltics than in most 
EU countries, critically so for race, religion/belief, sexual orientation & gender identity  

  Equality data in Lithuania is one of the poorest regulated & least used in the EU 
  Even the relatively complete, regular & comprehensive data on age is not systematically 
used for policy & discrimination cases, while disability data is based on partial proxies 
  The self-declared data on the grounds of ethnic origin & religion/belief in the census is too 

irregular & general to be a reliable & comprehensive source for equality data  

  Critically, only complaints data exists on racial origin, sexual orientation & gender identity 

41 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Luxembourg: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

14% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

33% 

67% 

33% 

37% 

92% 

42% 

25% 

72% 

8% 

67% 

67% 

0% 

12% 

22% 

22% 

0% 

50% 

80% 

60% 

70% 

70% 

30% 

30% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

26% 

48% 

34% 

33% 

18% 

24% 

24% 

2% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is a greater area of weakness in Luxembourg than in most EU 
countries, similar to France & Germany but far behind Belgium & the Netherlands  

  Equality data in Luxembourg is one of the poorest regulated & least used in the EU, with the 

exception of the employment of disabled persons under Law 12 September 2003  
  Regular & comprehensive data on ethnic/racial origin are based on proxies, without 

community consultation & common definitions 

  Data on disability, religion/belief & sexual orientation are less harmonised, more ad hoc & 

incomplete, e.g. in terms of crime victimisation & discrimination cases   

42 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Malta: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

17% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

19% 

67% 

67% 

8% 

8% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

21% 

48% 

48% 

12% 

8% 

8% 

12% 

12% 

39% 

80% 

80% 

20% 

30% 

20% 

20% 

20% 

2% 

0% 

14% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

18% 

39% 

48% 

8% 

9% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is critically weak in Malta, far below the efforts in most EU Member 

States to expand, improve & use the available data 

  Equality data is one of the poorest regulated & least used in the EU, except in the mandates 
of the National Commission Persons with Disability & Employment & Training Corporation 
  A few actors collect relatively complete, regular & comprehensive data on age & disability 
  Critically, data on grounds of ethnic/racial origin, sexual orientation & gender identity is 

largely limited to the number of discrimination complaints/cases 

43 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Netherlands: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

71% 

96% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

67% 

67% 

100% 

100% 

82% 

72% 

72% 

67% 

100% 

100% 

67% 

67% 

67% 

67% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

76% 

100% 

100% 

83% 

56% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

53% 

43% 

43% 

57% 

57% 

57% 

57% 

57% 

71% 

67% 

67% 

67% 

67% 

67% 

67% 

67% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  The Netherlands has one of the most successful systems for equality data in the EU 
  Clear mandates & guidance exist for NIHR, municipalities & state services, but not employers  
  Data on all grounds are well-defined through community consultations & self-definition & 

then collected in most major areas of life through regular, disaggregated & diverse sources  

  Data on age, disability, religion & gender identity are collected by fewer actors & often 

without common definitions for the purposes of equality  

  The Netherlands’ high quality data could be used more systematically beyond monitoring, 
evaluation & discrimination cases, e.g. to design positive actions, remedies & sanctions 

44 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Poland: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

11% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

31% 

67% 

67% 

28% 

88% 

48% 

50% 

33% 

0% 

4% 

67% 

13% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

4% 

47% 

90% 

80% 

50% 

30% 

40% 

20% 

20% 

14% 

29% 

43% 

29% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

25% 

55% 

48% 

32% 

7% 

24% 

5% 

5% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is a greater area of weakness in Poland than in most EU countries, 
critically so on grounds of racial origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation & gender identity  

  Data collection is allowed but neither well-regulated in anti-discrimination law nor well-used 
in practice, except occasionally in policymaking on the grounds of age, disability & ethnicity  

  Beyond complaints data, little reliable statistical data is collected in most areas of life on 

grounds other than age & disability 

  The self-declared data on the grounds of ethnic origin & religion/belief in the census is too 

irregular & general to be a reliable & comprehensive source for equality data  

45 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Portugal: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

38% 

65% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

100% 

67% 

100% 

67% 

67% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

58% 

58% 

100% 

33% 

33% 

57% 

92% 

72% 

96% 

96% 

22% 

12% 

12% 

44% 

70% 

70% 

70% 

70% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

18% 

0% 

43% 

29% 

29% 

0% 

14% 

14% 

44% 

52% 

70% 

64% 

64% 

26% 

14% 

14% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Despite its weaknesses, equality data collection in Portugal is one of the more advanced in 
the EU, but behind Finland, Netherlands & UK in regulation, coverage & use on all grounds 

  Equality data collection is regulated & used for policymaking on ethnic/racial origin in terms 
of the CICDR & immigrant integration as well as on disability in terms of employers’ duties, 
while official monitoring is more recent on sexual orientation & sexual identity  

  While data is often designed based on common definitions, self-definition & community 

consultation, data is irregular & incomplete on religion & proxy-based on ethnic/racial origin 

  Data on victimisation, discrimination cases & outcomes is not fully available on all grounds  

46 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Romania: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

13% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

27% 

67% 

50% 

23% 

84% 

9% 

50% 

29% 

0% 

4% 

50% 

29% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

0% 

31% 

80% 

80% 

20% 

10% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

51% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

29% 

71% 

43% 

0% 

27% 

60% 

42% 

34% 

9% 

34% 

11% 

0% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection in Romania is allowed, but weak, 
particularly in terms of data regulation, validity, reliability & comprehensiveness 

  While equality data may be cited in discrimination cases & equality monitoring & strategies, 
only data on age is complete, regular & comprehensive & only comprehensive on disability 

  Data on disability, ethnic origin & religion/belief are partial & irregular  
 

Little data exists on race & sexual orientation (complaints data) or gender identity (none) 

47 

 
 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Slovakia: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

13% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

20% 

50% 

8% 

16% 

43% 

18% 

50% 

13% 

0% 

0% 

50% 

29% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

4% 

10% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

10% 

25% 

9% 

15% 

0% 

18% 

1% 

1% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is critically weak in Slovakia, far below the efforts in most EU 

Member States to expand, improve & use the available data 

  Equality data is not required in regulations or systematically used for monitoring, 

policymaking, planning or discrimination cases & sanctions 

  Most available data raises concerns of validity, reliability & comprehensiveness due to a lack 
of common definitions, community consultations & regular, disaggregated & diverse sources  

  Critically, hardly any reliable or comprehensive data is collected on disability, ethnic & racial 
origin, sexual orientation or gender identity, far below the majority of other EU countries 

48 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Slovenia: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

17% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

21% 

33% 

8% 

75% 

0% 

42% 

8% 

0% 

15% 

64% 

24% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

29% 

70% 

70% 

20% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

6% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

16% 

36% 

30% 

23% 

3% 

11% 

4% 

3% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is critically weak in Slovenia, far below the efforts in most EU 

Member States to expand, improve & use the available data 

  Equality data is only required for monitoring on the ground of disability & used on an ad hoc 
basis to design positive actions e.g. employment for youth, disabled or the Roma minority  
  Beyond complaints data, hardly any statistical data is collected through the partial proxies 

used on disability, ethnic origin, religion/belief & sexual orientation  

49 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Spain: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

25% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

20% 

67% 

58% 

30% 

68% 

68% 

25% 

52% 

8% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

14% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

26% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

12% 

0% 

29% 

14% 

14% 

0% 

14% 

14% 

21% 

41% 

50% 

35% 

14% 

2% 

3% 

3% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  Equality data collection is a greater area of weakness in Spain than in most EU countries, 

critically so on grounds of racial origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation & gender identity  
  Even the complete, reliable & comprehensive data on age is little used for equality policies 
  Data on disability & ethnic/racial origin is regular & comprehensive, but less complete, due 

to the reliance on proxies & limited community consultations 

  Data is also missing on victimisation, discrimination complaints & cases on all grounds 

50 

 
 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

Sweden: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

13% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

Racial origin 

Religion/belief 

Sexual orientation 

Gender identity 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

41% 

33% 

67% 

29% 

64% 

48% 

25% 

48% 

0% 

67% 

67% 

67% 

4% 

13% 

24% 

4% 

64% 

80% 

70% 

80% 

20% 

80% 

60% 

60% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

28% 

35% 

37% 

31% 

5% 

32% 

30% 

26% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  As in most EU countries, equality data collection in Sweden is allowed, but weak for 

promoting equality, far behind Finland, the Netherlands & UK on all dimensions & grounds 

  Equality data is not required in regulations or systematically used for monitoring, 

policymaking, planning or discrimination cases & sanctions 

  Sweden’s relatively regular, complete & comprehensive data is usually designed by a few 

actors without community consultations, options for self-definition or common definitions 
for the purposes of equality 

  Disaggregated data is also missing on discrimination cases & their outcomes for each ground  

51 

 
 
Equality data collection indicators: Overview per EU Member State 

UK: Equality data collection by dimension & ground

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regulated

Valid

Reliable

Comprehensive

Used

Average for all grounds Age

Disability

Ethnic origin

Racial origin

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Regulated  Valid 

Reliable  Comprehensive  Used 

Average for all 
dimensions 

Average for all grounds 

100% 

98% 

Age 

Disability 

Ethnic origin 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

91% 

96% 

96% 

100% 

100% 

96% 

Racial origin 

100% 

100% 

Religion/belief 

100% 

100% 

Sexual orientation 

100% 

100% 

Gender identity 

100% 

83% 

96% 

86% 

82% 

82% 

90% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

30% 

92% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

71% 

71% 

94% 

99% 

99% 

99% 

99% 

97% 

91% 

73% 

Red (Score 01-19):    
Orange (Score 20-39): 
Yellow (Score 40-60): 
Light green (Score 61-80): 
Green (Score 81-100): 

Major weakness 
Area of Weakness 
Mixed Area of Strengths & Weaknesses 
Area of Strength 
Major strength 

  The UK has one of the most longstanding & successful systems for equality data collection in 
the EU, with highly regulated, valid, reliable & comprehensive data on nearly all grounds 

  Equality data collection is systematically used & well-regulated on clear mandates & 
guidance from UK law, action plans, the EHRC & regular community consultations 

  Data on all grounds except gender identity are complete, regular, diverse & comprehensive, 

including on crime victimisation, discrimination complaints, cases & outcomes 

  Data on the grounds of sexual orientation & gender identity could be further mainstreamed 
into monitoring at national & local level in all areas of life (see good practice in Finland) 

52 

 
 
Comparative summary

Consent

Employment

Health/life

28

Age

5

4

5

Age

5

24

28

Disability

Ethnicity

8

13

7

7

3

6

Disability

Ethnicity

5

9

Public

27

Race

7

3

5

Race

5

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

25

27

28

25

AVERAGE

26,5

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation Gender Identity

5

3

5

5

3

3

5

3

3

6,0

4,6

4,9

RANGE

4

3

10

4

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

5

6

6

5

AVERAGE

5,8

RANGE

4

0,98

0,72

0,62

0,21

0,63

0,31

0,18

0,12

0,47

0,61

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

Complete: 27
Complete proxy: 0
Partial: 1 
Partial proxy: 0
No coverage: 0

Complete: 15
Complete proxy: 2
Partial: 4
Partial proxy: 7
No coverage: 0

Complete: 6
Complete proxy: 8
Partial: 7
Partial proxy: 7
No coverage: 0

Complete: 2
Complete proxy: 1 
Partial: 0
Partial proxy: 13
No coverage: 12

Complete: 14
Complete proxy: 0
Partial: 5
Partial proxy: 5
No coverage: 4

Complete: 7
Complete proxy: 0
Partial: 2
Partial proxy: 3
No coverage: 16

Complete: 3
Complete proxy: 0
Partial: 3
Partial proxy: 2
No coverage: 20

Complete: 1
Complete proxy: 0
Partial: 3
Partial proxy: 3
No coverage: 21

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

19

17

16

Age

25

0,87

Disability

Ethnicity

11

0,64

15

0,58

3

Race

4

0,25

20

11

7

6

12,4

17

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation Gender Identity

11

0,26

4

2

0,25

0,13

AVERAGE

10,3

RANGE

13

0,93

0,86

0,62

0,18

0,22

0,12

0,09

0,4

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex53D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)
AVERAGE

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

C) Education

D) Housing 

E) Health

F) Poverty/Social Exclusion

G) Crime victimisation

H) Discrimination complaints

I) Discrimination cases

J) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

0,50

0,51

0,61

0,34

0,38

0,41

0,34

16

10

11

5

6

5

3

0,4

8,0

3,9

0

8

4

8,66

Age 

28
28
28
27
27
27
21
24
8
5

4,60

5,56

Disability

Ethnicity

24
28
26
24
24
24
13
24
8
4

23
20
23
17
17
18
17
25
8
5

1,95

Race

7
8
9
8
6
6
16
24
8
4

3,57

1,95

1,11

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation Gender Identity

AVERAGE

RANGE

19
11
11
10
9
8
16
24
8
5

5
8
6
4
5
4
14
25
8
5

2
4
4
2
4
3
12
24
8
5

15,4

15,3

15,3

13,1

13,1

12,9

15,6

24,3

8,0

4,7

22

24

22

22

20

21

5

1

0

1

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation Gender Identity

AVERAGE

RANGE

8

7

10
4
11

10
6

10

6

8
7
14

11
6

13

9

9
2
11

11
6

5

3

8
2
2

3
4

5

3

8
2
4

4
5

6

5

8
2
3

4
5

4

3

7
1
3

3
5

7,3

5,1

8,3

2,9

6,9

6,6

5,3

9

6

2

6

12

8

2

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex54Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

0

0

0

0

Disability

Ethnicity

0,75

0,25

1

0

Disability

Ethnicity

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Race

0

0

Race

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Since the amendments to the Equal Treatment Legislation on 1.8.2008, decisions of the Equal Treatment Commission 
have to be published in  anonymous form at the website of the Federal Chancellery. Moreover, also judgements relating 
Law on the employment of persons with disabilities: Obligation to maintain a register of the employment of registered 
disabled persons 

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Policy measures in relation to the grounds of racial and ethnic origin are limited to those in the field of ‘integration’, 
where nationality or migration background are the indicators (proxies) applied. Data on Austrian national minorities 
(Croats, Slovenes, Hungarians, Slovacs, Tchechs and Roma) had been collected by the category of language until the last 
population census in 2001. Since then data that relates (also)is only available based on self‐estimation and hence very 
vague. Data in relation to the ethnic affiliation or racial origin,race of groups that are not recognised as national 
minorities is collected by the proxies of nationality and/or migration background. Disability: only a specific group of 
persons with disabilities, namely regsitered ones, are counted

Ethnicity: Mixture of proxy and self‐identification used

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

Disability: The proxy of health for disability is not used for collecting data, but would be the only reference, how 
protection of personal data in relation with disability could be addressed. Data on persons with disabilities is partly 
collected according to the EU‐SILC definition covering are all those over 16 who themselves have indicated during the 
survey that they experience a subjectively perceived limitation during at least six months while carrying out daily work 
and partly based on the legal status of a person with disability. Ethnicity: Different proxies applied

Austria

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification 
used
C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

0

Age

1

1

1

B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

0

0,5

0

0,5

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

0,8

0,2

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐
economic status)

1

0

0,2

0,4

Data is collected on a regular basis segregated according to gender, age and nationality or migration background. 
Specific data is also collected on the situation of persons with disabilities and has been published twice in form of a 
report of the federal government on the situation of people with disabilities in Austria

0

0

0

0

Institute of Higher Studies (IHS) has conducted a research on discrimination of migrants at the Austrian labour market. 
Aim of the study was to identify the amount of discrimination in access to employment as well as in payment. In order to 
reach this aim two methods of data collection were applied. Differences between Austrians and migrants in payment 
were analysed based on data of the microcensus and of the labour market data base taking into consideration 
differences on grounds of different types of work and such with a mere discriminatory component. 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex55Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

0
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
0

0

0
0

0
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

0
1

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

Age 

1

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1

0

0
1

1
0

Disability

Ethnicity

1

0

0

0
1

1
0

1

1

0

0
1

1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0

0
0

Race

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1

1

0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1

0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1

0
1

Only hate crime data collected broken down by movation, be it racist, xenophovic, anti‐Semitic, Islamophobic or right‐
wing extremist.
Equal Treatment Commission have to be publish all its own decision as well as judgments relating to a violation to the 
principle of non‐discrimination 

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

1

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

The Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, in charge of ‘integration’, has elaborated a national action 
plan for integration, which entered into force in 2011. It defines 25 indicators for integration in the fields of education, 
labour market, housing, social inclusion, health, political participation, etc., the progress of which is measured by 
Statistik Austrian and published in form of a statistical yearbook on migration and integration. Main points of criticism 
were and still are the approach oriented at deficits rather than at structural discrimination patterns

The City of Vienna has started to monitor the level of diversity within their own staff as well as within their population by 
way of the so‐called ‘Diversity and Integration Monitor’ in 2008. The Monitor aims at providing a picture of the Viennese 
population segregated in relation to gender, age and migration background in order to develop strategies fostering 
integration. IHS has undertaken research on situation of LGBTI people in Vienna contracted by the city of Vienna. 
Institute of Higher Studies (IHS) by order of the Austrian National Union of Students has undertaken a research on 
experiences of discrimination by Austrian students
In Austria statistical evidence is permitted by national law in order to establish indirect
discrimination. It follows the general and very broad admissibility conditions of evidence in court. In Austria statistical 
evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is not used in practice. There is a general lack of awareness about 
indirect discrimination and the possibility or
necessity to use statistical data as evidence. There is no developed tradition to use
examples from other jurisdictions in court.

Only statistics on disability are used for designing positive action measures. 

Integration indicators are part of the policymaking process on integration

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex561

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

1

Age

1

1

1

Belgium

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification 
used
C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐
economic status)

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

0

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

1

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Race

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

0

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0,5

0,75

0,25

0,25

0

0

0,5

0

0,5

0

0,25

To establish the Socioeconomic Monitoring, representatives of ethnic minorities were involved in defining and 
conceptualizing the data collection pertaining to ethnic minorities (see page 29 of national report)

Sexual orientation: partial (see page 13 and page 29 of NP)
Disability: partial (see page 9 of NP)

1

1

Disability

0

1

1

Ethnicity

1

0,75

1

1

1

0,8

0,8

1

1

1

Race

0

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

1

0,5

1

0,5

Socioeconomic Monitoring is conducted at the national level, although other local and regional bodies use other 
conceptualizations of ethnic minorities

Ethnicity: it is not legally obliged to collect data biannually, but de facto it is done biannually

0,2

0,6

0,8

0

0

0

0

Ethnicity: annually (in the national register)

Policy Research Centre on Equal OpportunitiesEquality Policies (a consortium of different academic institutions) supports 
the Flemish Government to offer adequate and proactive responses to social developments and challenges. Since 2002, it 
has conducted most of the policy oriented research and data collection on LGBT in Flanders.   (e.g. Zzip survey, Violence 
against lesbian, gay and bisexual people, etc.).NGO Minorities Forum conducted discrimination tests, revealing that 2 out 
of 3 state‐subsidised domestic help services are prepared to discriminate against ethnic minority cleaners when asked for 
by a customer. The study was the main motive for a joint action of 5 Belgian NGO’s (Samenlevingsopbouw Antwerpen, 
Hand in Hand, KifKif, Movement X and Minderhedenforum) to demand for discrimination testing as a legal instrument to 
be used against perpetrators of discrimination. Religion: Flemish Government is preparing a survey which allows to 
collect equality data along religion/belief (see p. 30). This survey has not been conducted yet. For Gender Identity, the 
Emancipation Barometer has been conducted by Amazone, a non‐governmental non‐profit organization (see p. 27)

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

Age 

1
1

Disability

Ethnicity

1
1

1
1

Race

0
0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1

0
1

0
0

Diversity barometer: Employment

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex57D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1

1
1

0

1
1
1
1
0

1
1

0

1
1
1
1
0

1
1

0

0
0
0
0
0

1
1

0

1
1
1
1
0

1
1

0

1
0
0
0
0

1
1

0

0
0
0
0
0

1
1

0

Police services and the Public prosecutor's department holds statistics on the number of discrimination offence and hate 
crimes. These are published in annual reports. However, these data are not broken down per criteria and questions of 
reliability have risen. The registration of discrimination offences and hate crimes serves to assign these cases to 
magistrates specialized in these types of offences and is also regularly analysed by the Interfederal Centre for Equal 
Opportunities to get a better understanding of the occurrences and circumstances of the offences. 

Belgium’s equality body, the Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities, collects and publishes data on the number of 
notifications, and the extrajudicial and judicial cases of discrimination along (among others) racial criteria (including 
nationality, alleged race , colour, descent, national or ethnic origin), disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, and 
age

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

1

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

1

0

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

1

C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

0

1

0

1
1

1

0

1

0

1
1

1

0

0

0

1
1

0

0

0

0

0
1

0

0

0

0

0
1

1

0

0

0

1
1

0

0

0

0

0
1

Socioeconomic Monitoring with administrative data from Register and Crossroads Bank for Social Security based on 
ethnic origin and migration background. Gathered biannually by Equality Body and Federal Public Service. For Diversity 
Barometers, collected on labour market, housing and education. Diversity Barometers, biannually, data are collected on 
discrimination, attitudes and participation related to different equality grounds in the labour market, in housing and in 
education. In 2012, the Diversity Barometer on labour market was published, containing the results of discrimination 
testing in recruitment procedures based on ethnicity, age and disability, results of surveys on attitudes and experiences of 
discrimination pertaining to ethnicity, age, disability and sexual orientation, and the labour market participation of 
people along ethnicity, age and disability.  In 2014, the Diversity Barometer on housing was published, containing the 
results of discrimination testing in house rental accommodation based (among others) on ethnicity and disability, the 
results of qualitative interviews on attitudes and experiences of discrimination pertaining to ethnicity, disability, sexual 
orientation, age and religion, and figures on the cost of housing and house ownership along nationality, age and 
disability (based on EU‐SILC data and other regional surveys).  Currently, a Diversity Barometer on education is being 
conducted, focusing on unequal treatment, attitudes and participation along (among others) ethnicity, disability and 
sexual orientation. It will be published in 2016 or 2017. 

Flemish Community: Origin Monitor, Local Citizenship and Integration Monitor, Flemish Regional Indicators survey 
(VRIND) on LGB, disabled, elderly, foreign nationality/origin. For its ‘horizontal equal opportunities policy’, the Flemish 
Government has developed a set of indicators to map the social position and participation of people with disabilities in 
different domains of life. In this policy plan, which has to be approved by February 2016, it premisesindicates its intention 
to use this set of indicators to conduct a ‘Disabilities Monitoring’ by 2018.  French Community Actual Report focused on 
age, gender, nationality, origin, 'trans'. The City of Ghent combines information from the local population register and 
the foreigners register with estimations from community workers to estimate the number of Roma from Bulgarian, Slovak 
and Czech origin. It uses these estimations to monitor labour market participation of Roma in Ghent. These are the only 
available equality data on Roma in Belgium 

In Belgium, statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is not used in practice. Statistical data have 
not so far been invoked in the
context of judicial proceedings neither have they been used to design positive action measures
Subsidies for public institutions are conditional on the employment of a specific percentage of people with a certain age 
category or disability. Integration funds for people with disabilities can also apply sanctions by not granting financial 
support for reasonable accommodations at work

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex58Bulgaria

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification 
used
C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐
economic status)

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

1

Disability

0

1

0

Disability

0

0

0

1

Ethnicity

0

0,5

1

Ethnicity

1

1

Age

0

0

1

Age

0

1

1

Age

1

1

Public

1

Race

0

0

1

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Census Act (2009) regulates data on ethnicity, gender, religion, belief, mother tongue and level of disability. Ministry of 
Interior Act (2014) allows for collection of data on race, ethnicity, religion, health, etc.

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

The authorities do not involve the minority communities in the collection, processing and/or assessment of ethnic data. 
The communities are only involved when non‐governmental organizations conduct surveys. In these cases the 
organization, which conduct the survey usually contact community members and use these as interviewers

Ethnicity: Bulgarian, Turkish, Roma and 'other' 

0

0

0

1

1

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0,25

0,25

0,25

0,25

0,2

0,4

0,2

0,2

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

Age 

1
1

Disability

Ethnicity

1
1

1
1

Race

0
0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1

0
0

0
0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex59D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1

1
1
1
1
0
1

1

1

1
1
1
1
0
1

1

1

0
0
0
0
0
1

1

1

1
1
1
1
0
1

1

1

0
0
0
0
0
1

1

1

0
0
0
0
0
1

1

1

data related to age are collected in the frame of penal proceedings

Commission for Protection against Discrimination collects and publishes in its annual reports data about grounds of 
complaints against discrimination including all categories of equality data
In Bulgaria, there are available statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination
brought to justice. However, those are not comprehensive

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

1

0
0

0
0

0

0

1

0
0

0
0

0

0

1

0
1

0
0

0

0

1

0
0

0
0

0

0

1

0
0

0
0

0

0

1

0
0

0
0

0

0

1

0
0

0
0

In Bulgaria, statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is used in
practice. It is not widespread, but it is not uncommon

Public bodies using positive measures do use statistics to design those on the grounds of ethnicity. Potentially data 
collected are used for general policy making related to pensions (age) and people with disabilities. However only for 
ethnicity is there a specific strategy and its implementation is based on equality data analysis.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex60Croatia

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

1

0

0

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

0

Disability

0

1

1

1

0

0

Ethnicity

0

0,5

1

Public

1

Race

1

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

Anti‐discrimination Act prescribes the Ombudsperson as the body in charge of collecting and analysing statistical data on 
discrimination cases
According to the Act on the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment of Disabled
Persons228 all employers with more than 20 employees, in both public and private
sectors, are obliged to employ a certain number of persons with disabilities. If they fail to
fulfil that obligation, they have to pay compensation. Further, administrative bodies,
judicial bodies, local authorities, public services and legal persons owned by the state or
local authorities are obliged to give priority in employment to persons with disability.
2013, the Government Office for Human Rights and National Minorities published a
brochure for public bodies and institutions on collecting data on equality. It stresses the
need for relevant data in the fight against discrimination and offers various instruments
for obtaining such data (i.e. official statistics, researches, complaints of discrimination,
various administrative bodies’ data and polls)

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

The Census questionnaires, filled in for each person, consisted of following questions related to equality data: surname 
and name; date of birth; personal identification number (OIB or identity card number); sex; citizenship; ethnicity; mother 
tongue; religion; difficulties in performing everyday activities; type of difficulty; physical mobility of the concerned person; 
cause of difficulties; use of the assistance of another person in performing everyday activities.
Ethnicity: 2011 Census data on ethnicity are presented so that first are listed the data on Croats as the majority people, 
then those on 22 ethnic minorities in the Republic of Croatia in the alphabetical order, followed by data on other 
ethnicities, 

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,2

0,2

0,2

NGOS advocating rights of LGBTI persons Pride and LORI are as well involved in data collection practices. For example, 
Pride produced periodically surveys that observe trends in discrimination against LGBTI persons. The latest of such surveys 
deals with violence, discrimination and hate crime against LGBTI persons in Croatia

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex61E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

systematic collection of thereof  that would allow for disaggregated data by gender, age, ethnicity, race, sexual 
orientation, education, type of disability, health, housing, etc.) to be correlated from various sources has not yet been put 
in place

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

0
0
0

0
0

0
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

0
0
0

0
0

0
1

1
1
1

0
0
0

0
0

0
1

1
1
1

Ethnicity: pupils belonging to national minorities. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports keeps a database on the 
integration of members of the Roma national minority in the education system

Disability: Croatian Pension Insurance Fund is in charge for the Register of employees with disabilities. The Register 
contains, inter alia, following data: name and surname, sex, date of birth and social security number, city and country of 
birth, place of residence, education, employment, marital status, age when a disability was diagnosed, cause of disability, 
time of disability, diagnoses and codes of diseases and related health problems, disability and handicap dimensions in 
accordance with classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps (Article 18). 

Government Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities is keeping a Hate Crimes Protocol, a track record 
system in which hate motivated crimes are being recorded
Published by Ombudsperson

Published by Ombudsperson

Published by Ombudsperson

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

Age 

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

1

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

1

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0
0

Ethnicity: The 2013‐2015 Action Plan set following specific aims with respect to improvement of statistical data collection: 
(i) to ensure statistical collection of data on the Roma national minority in the Republic of Croatia (while protecting 
personal data), broken down by gender and age; (ii) to improve the methodology of data collection on the rates of 
poverty, material and social deprivation, education, employment, and quality of living of the Roma population; (iii) to 
improve the methodology of data collection on health, health habits and other health indicators of the Roma population; 
(iv) To improve the method of monitoring the inclusion, representation and participation of the Roma national minority in 
the social, political and cultural life of the community. For a successful monitoring of the implementation, the Action Plan 
foresaw implementation of the following activities: a) to map the endangered micro regions and segregated and 
marginalised settlements in order to obtain an overview of their physical position and a clear view of the condition in each 
of those regions, as well as their differences b) to adopt on the national level a directive (or regulation) on ethnically 
disaggregated data collection, and data collection broken down by gender and age, which will be transferred to the lower 
levels, in order to obtain a clear view of the status of the Roma national minority in different areas c) to establish 
mechanisms for the collection of data on the implementation of measures and activities related to the inclusion and the 
improvement of the status of the Roma national minority on all levels on which the activities take place ‐ national, 
regional and local, which includes data and indicators of the public and executive bodies, but also data and indicators of 
the activities and initiatives of the civil sector.

In Croatia statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is very rarely
used in practice. The use of statistical evidence is not widespread in anti‐discrimination cases. 
According to the Act on the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment of Disabled
Persons228 all employers with more than 20 employees, in both public and private
sectors, are obliged to employ a certain number of persons with disabilities. If they fail to
fulfil that obligation, they have to pay compensation. Further, administrative bodies,
judicial bodies, local authorities, public services and legal persons owned by the state or
local authorities are obliged to give priority in employment to persons with disability.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex621

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

0

Age

0

0,25

Cyprus

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification 
used
C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐
economic status)

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

0

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Race

0

0,25

0,25

0,25

0,25

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Employment requires consent of DPA

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

"The Commissioner carries out surveys and statistics for any matter within his mandate and his duties and may perform 
them in relation to any activity in the public or the private sector or in any practice within his mandate" (Article 44(1) of 

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Small sample sizes in general surveys mean that minority groups are under‐represented or absent from the data: "There 
are no examples in Cyprus of using self‐identification, third‐party categorisation, mutual recognition or proxies as 
methods for defining categories. No consultation with the data subjects was ever carried out in order to determine the 
most suitable categorisation of data." Proxies available for most grounds do not include all groups.

0

0

0

0

Self‐identification only possible regarding discrimination complaints

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0,25

0

0

0

0

0

0,25

0

0,25

0

0,25

Disability: Quota system for employment in public sector: special database with candidates 
meeting the criteria (Law No.146(I)/2009)
One‐off surveys by Equality Body on public attitudes towards homosexuality, religion and disability: 
http://www.no‐discrimination.ombudsman.gov.cy/ereynes/evalotes‐omades‐plythismoy

0,25

0,75

0,4

0,4

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex63B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1

1

1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1

1

0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0

1

0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0

1

0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0

1

0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0

0

0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0

0

0
0
0
1
1
0
0

Disability: Quota system for employment in public sector: special database with candidates 
meeting the criteria (Law No.146(I)/2009)
Age and ethnicity/race: LFS data on employment of different ages and nationalities is insufficient to 
draw any equality‐relevant conclusions or to inform equality policies.
Since 2015, Education ministry monitoring of racial, homophobic or religious violence in schools, 
but without specific legal framework. Number of childdren with disabilities attending special 
schools at primary level is collected by Education Ministry.

Police data on racial incidents and racial crime but ad hoc without legal framework
Equality body mandate No.42(I)/2004 Article 44
Outcome of investigation, not of complaint. Dataset is not clean and standardised

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex64Czech Republic

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

0

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

0

0

0

0

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

The Employment Act  (the "EA") Art. 81 paragraph 1 of EA stipulates that employers with more than 25 employees in 
employment are obliged to employ persons with disabilities, the mandatory ratio is 4 % of the total number of employees

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0,25

1

0

0

0

0

Ethnicity: Czech legislation understands nationality as a matter of free choice. In the 2011 Census, it was possible to state 
even two nationalities. Data on nationality based only on self‐estimation, without the accompanying determinants such as 
country of birth (migration background), mother tongue and others are therefore very vague. LBGT: 2011 Census on 
registered and de facto partnerships of same sex couples

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

0,5

0

0

0

0

0

0

category of nationality is also very difficult to pin down in the Czech legislation

1

0,25

0,25

0,25

0,2

0,2

0,8

0,2

0,4

Sexual orientation: Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientat+K38+D17:K17+C17:K17

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

1

1

1

1

4. Comprehensive

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex65A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
0

1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
0

1

1
0

1
0

0

0

1
1
0

1

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0

1

1
0

0

0

0

0

1
1
0

1

1
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0

1

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0

1

Ethnicity: Roma segregation in schools

Roma ethnicity data collection in the area of  Poverty/Social Exlusion does exist in the Czech Republic (highlighted in red); 
this data collection does not take place very regularly (frequently). This kind of equality data were collected only twice ‐ in 
2006 and lately in 2015 as part of the Analysis of socially excluded Roma localities under the coordination of  the Czech 
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. 
Hate crime data broken down by ground

In the Czech Republic discrimination decisions are registered as such by national courts.
Decisions on discrimination cases are registered by national courts as a special type of
proceedings. They are not differentiated by ground
In the Czech Republic there are no available statistics on the number of cases related to
discrimination brought to justice, however, there are statistics on cases decided by Czech
courts.
According to statistical data provided by the Ministry of Justice, Czech civil courts reached
final and conclusive decisions in 17 discrimination cases in 2014

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

1
0
0

0

0

0

0

1
0
1

0

0

0

0

1
0
0

1

0

0

0

1
0
0

0

0

0

0

1
0
0

0

0

0

0

1
0
0

0

0

0

0

1
0
0

0

0

The state pays allowances to employers whose staff comprise more than 50 % employees with disability

At the government level, the Government Council for Roma Community Affairs is functioning as a consultative organ of 
the Government: approves the annual analysis and provides assessment of the situation of the Roma minority, discusses 
the proposals on methodological support for the regional coordinators for Roma affairs, Roma advisors, field workers and 
assistants, and also monitors the performance of the Agency for Social Inclusion

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex66Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

0

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

0,25

0,75

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0,25

0

0,5

0

0,25

0

0

Disability: Based on available administrative data for early retirement pension (due to work limitations) or disability 
supplement. Ethnicity/race: Based on proxy. Religion: Based on Danish Values Survey. Otherwise only partial proxies 
based on country of origin/citizenship or membership of the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran Church. Sexual 
orientation: Partial as it is dependent of registration of same sex partnership or same sex marriage. Gender Identity: 
Only if the person change her/his Person number (the PNR) from even to odd ‐ or from odd to even 

0

0

1

1

1

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

Ethnicity: Dependent on the use of proxy

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

0

Age

1

1

1

Denmark

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification 
used
C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐
economic status)

0,6

0,6

0,6

1

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

Age 

1
1

Disability

Ethnicity

1
1

1
1

Race

0
0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0
0

0
0

0
0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex67D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1
1
1

1
1

1
0
0

1
1
1

1
1

1
0
0

1
1
1

1
1

1
0
0

0
0
0

0
1

1
0
0

0
0
0

0
1

1
0
0

0
0
1

0
1

1
0
0

0
0
1

0
1

1
0
0

collaboration between The Danish National Institute of Public Health and the Southern University Denmark. It 
investigates health and wellbeing of LGBT persons

mapping of all forms of hate crimes (including those grounded in sexual orientation). The mapping is the first of its kind 
in Denmark. It is based on a representative survey and the results will be used in combination with Ministry of Justice’s 
efforts for future monitoring of hate crimes. Also Victims of violence investigation from 2009 conducted in 2008 by the 
Danish Ministry of Justice

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

1

0
0

0
1

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

1

1

0

0
0

1
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

National Integration Monitor

Local Integration Monitors in Copenhagen and Aarhus

Statistical evidence has been used in some cases on age and gender discrimination. Statistics have not been used in 
cases of indirect discrimination on account of the other discrimination grounds

National Integration Monitor

Data on the age of employees may be retrieved from official surveys on the population as
a whole or on sectors or branches of industry from Statistics Denmark. Data on age may
also be compiled by labour market organisations, employer’s organisations or by individual
employers.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex68Estonia

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid

A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)

Age

1

Consent

Employment

Health/life

0

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

0

0

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0,5

1

0

1

1

Disability

0

Ethnicity

1

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Race

0

0,25

0

Race

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

0

0

1

1

 judicial interpretation might be required

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Authorities are entitled in the Official Statistics Act 2010 to collect national data in the population census on age, ethnic 
origin, native language, religion, health problems, place of birth, place of birth of parents and year of arrival in Estonia. 

Data on religious belief is provided on a voluntary asis in the census.LFS and EU‐SILC code ethnic origin as determined by 
the respondent.

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

Disability: Statistics Estonia started to link data on disability based on surveys with the Register of Social Insurance Board 
but only people registered with the board. Since late 2000‐ties2000s in surveys and Census, Global Activity Limitation 
Index‐type questions are used in Estonia. Thus in the Census 2011 disability was defined as follows: ”:” Long‐term illness or 
health problem – an illness or a health problem which had lasted or was expected to last for at least six months. This also 
includes health problems from which a person had suffered for a long time, but which had not been diagnosed by a 
doctor. In addition, long‐term health problems include recurrent health problems, including conditions which were 
controlled or relieved by regular administration of medication or other treatments.”” . Since 2009 similar definition is used 
in the Estonian Social Survey (EU‐SILC). A question with thea similar wording has been used in other representative social 
surveys, such as the 2006 Estonian Health Interview Survey, the Estonian SHARE survey (covering the population aged 50+ 
in 2010–2011), the 2009 and 2010 Household Budget Survey, the Time Use Survey and the 2011 Population and Housing 
Census (PHC 2011) . The Estonian Labour Force Survey has  used a modified version of this question which refers to work 
activity limitations.

Integration Monitoring is the major national official regularly conducted survey that enables to assess comparative 
situation of ethnic groups in Estonia. The Ministry of Social Affairs also commissions regularly target‐group based surveys

0,5

0,5

0,5

1

1

1

0,25

B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex690,6

0,6

0,6

0,2

0,4

0,4

0,2

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

1

1

0
0
1

1
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

Estonian Integration Monitoring might be to some  extent considered as basis for Planning for Equality. Welfare 
Development Plan 2016‐2023 has been approved by Estonian Government on June 30th 2016 (beyond scope of this 
research); decreasing discrimination is one of purporces of this Plan. 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex70Finland

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

1

1

1

Age

1

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

Age

1

1

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)

B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

Public

1

Race

1

1

1

Race

1

1

1

1

Ethnicity

1

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

The Non‐Discrimination Act, which was in force until the end of 2014, required authorities
to purposefully and methodically foster equality and draw up a plan for the fostering of
ethnic equality (equality plan). The new Non‐Discrimination Act extends this task to
cover all grounds and extends the responsibility in addition to authorities to providers of
education and to those employers who employ more than 30 employees. According to section 5 of the new Non‐
Discrimination Act it is the responsibility of an
authority to evaluate the realisation of equality in their activities and take necessary
action to foster equality. Taking into consideration the operational environment,
resources and other circumstances, the measures promoting equality must be effective,
practical and proportional. The authority must have a plan of necessary measures to
foster equality. This task of equality planning does not extend to the Lutheran or
Orthodox Church or those private companies that employ fewer than 30 employees using
public power or performing public administrative tasks. The Non‐Discrimination
Ombudsman supervises compliance with equality planning tasks
Based on 4‐year government action plan on human rights and national action plan to promote equality leading to 4‐year 
discrimination monitoring programme

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0,75

0,25

1

0,5

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,5

1

Steering Group of Justice Ministry for equality data includes large group of stakeholders including NGOs

Religion: Tax authorities (which have a link to the population register) have the question 
"Evangelical/Lutheran/Orthodox/Other" but this information is also based on self‐identification which is the criterion in 
surveys where religion is in focus.

1

1

1

Disability

1

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

Concerning sexual orientation/ gender identity no data is collected by means of major statistical instruments, some 
targeted surveys have been made and there is information from NGO SETA representing these groups. The data is 
problematic since the response rate has been low and it is not comparable since a regular collection of quantitative data is 
lacking.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex711

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ethnic minorities have until lately been too small for a proper analysis.

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

Age 

1

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1

0
0
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

0
0
1

1
1

1

1

0
0
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

Race

1

1

0
0
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

0
0
1

1
1

1

1

0
0
1

1
1

1

1

0
0
1

1
1

The key forum for equality data is the web‐page www.yhdenvertaisuus.fi, which contains basic information on equality 
legislation, various tools and also reports on equality data. Equality data is also available through the research reports 
based on them, the key ones listed in III.18. Statistics Finland publishes key information from its data gathering, and the 
web‐information contains always links to contact persons who will be available for further information. Ministries e.g. the 
Ministry of Employment and the Economy  publish the research reports in paper and on the web and they are available to 
all. The equality data made public is usually not utilized directly but rather the research based on it is utilized for policy‐
making and scientific analysis of the Finnish society. 

Monitoring survey of equality planning to local governments and 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex72France

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

Consent

Employment

Health/life

0

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

0

0

0

0

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

The Defender of Rights has the mission to develop, facilitate and follow‐up independent studies and research, but it has 
received no mandate for ordering statistical works or studies by public administrations and their statistical services. 
The Law of 10 July 1987 to promote hiring of disabled workers is the only French law demanding the collection of equality 
data (gender equality, not covered in this report, is the other exception).  The 1987 Law imposes to all employers (private 
and public) of at least 20 employees that at least 6 % of full‐time or part‐time jobs are filled by disabled workers. 

The Defender of Rights (France's national equality body) jointly with the CNIL published in 2012 a handbook for private 
and public human resources managers entitled “Measuring to progress towards equal opportunity”. The guide aims at 
assisting employers facing a complex legal landscape. It brings answers to their questions about the procedures to be 
followed to establish reliable indicators while respecting personal data regulation.

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

Race

0

0

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0,75

0,25

0,25

0,25

0,25

0

0

0

0,25

Religion: Public statistic surveys do not generally ask about religious membership. Ined and Insee's surveys thus ask 
questions on the frequency of religious practices or on the sense of belonging to a religious community, but without asking 
which one. In 2005, Ined however obtained the authorization of the Cnil to introduce a question on the “religion of 
belonging (or of origin)”, as a national strand of the international survey "Generations and Gender".  In 2009, for the 
"Trajectories and Origins" survey, Ined was allowed by the Cnil to raise the questions “Do you have a religion? Which one? 
How important is religion in your life today?” LGBTI: Information on "sexual life" are considered sensitive data, and as 
such they are not available within administrative files and are rarely collected by public statistics for discrimination 
analysis purpose. No survey a fortiori identifies the intersex population. However, some studies address "sexual minorities" 
in reference to international definitions. Disability: As regards to disability, the baseline survey is called "Handicap‐Health" 
(conducted by the Insee). The Direction of the Animation of Research, Studies and Statistics (Dares)  at the Ministry of 
Employment uses all statistical sources describing the employment situation of people with disability, notably the various 
publishing of Insee Continuous Employment Survey and Working Conditions Survey. It's worth noting that the diverse 
sources of data do not adopt a harmonised definition of disability, which is sometimes restrictive (limited to administrative 
recognition) and sometimes broad (situations of incapacity); certain information concerns benefits provided, other 
concerns the individuals. It should also be noted that surveys on discrimination experience do not necessarily distinguish 
disability and health grounds

0

Race

0

0,5

0

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0,5

0

0,5

0

0,5

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

1

1

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0,5

1

1

1

0

0,5

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex730,8

0,8

0,8

0,6

0,8

0,6

0,6

Some NGO implement testings on ethnicity. the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) 
collects its own data on the basis of the received complaints, in parallel of those collected by the 
Police. 

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

Universities or research institutes play a major role in processing data from major national statistical surveys. A large part 
of the scientific work consists in explaining inequalities due to the individuals' characteristics and to discrimination which 
remain unobserved as such. Applied to existing datasets, this quantitative method has been widely implemented in the 
field of employment in order to reveal ethnic or racial penalties. 

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

1

Race

1

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1

1
1
1
1
0

1
0
0

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

Age 

0

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

0

0

0
1

1
0

1

0
1
1
1
0

1
0
0

1

1
1
1
1
1

1
0
0

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

0

0
1

1
0

0

0

1

0
0

0
0

1

1
1
0
0
1

1
0
0

Race

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

0
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

1

1

0
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

0

0

0
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

Disability: The Inter‐Ministerial Committee on Disability held in September 2013 has initiated various measures to improve 
knowledge on people with disabilities. As the Committee recognized, "a large number of information is collected but they 
remain fragmented and little homogeneous notably because of the deficiencies of the information system". The 
Committee proposed to develop spaces for pooling knowledge and analysis of the data both at the national and local 
levels, to broaden and to exploit more quickly the national statistical surveys, and to promote "disability studies". We are 
not aware of any follow‐up of these measures for which the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry of 
Higher education and Research were nominated as leaders. Announced by the Inter‐Ministerial Committee, a report on 
"The links between disability and poverty" was published however in November 2014. 

Every year, in partnership with International Labour Organization's French office, the Defender of Rights publicly release a 
barometric survey of self‐declared discrimination in public and private employment. 

Racial and ethnic origin: statistical offices produce some data revealing inequalities or feeling of discrimination but these 
data do not link up with a recognizable public strategy. The only data regularly collected are those of the Ministries of 
Interior and Justice: annual inventory of racist acts and threats as registered by police forces, register of illicit contents 
pointed out by web surfers, monthly monitoring of complaints processing by prosecutors, data from the national criminal 
records, data of a new software of the Ministry of Justice called Cassiopée

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

As a general rule, public authorities do not collect equality data for the considered grounds. Even when non sensitive data 
are easily available, they usually do not serve anti‐discrimination purposes. For instance, the Halde reviewed all available 
studies and statistics relating to age and employment and its review revealed that the national indicators had not been 
produced to sustain anti‐discrimination policy or legal action. The same could be said of the dashboard on jobs and 
unemployment of people with disabilities. As of origin, statistical offices produce some data revealing inequalities or self‐
reported discrimination experience but these data do not link up with a recognizable public strategy

A small number of local communities created observatories, but they mainly focus on gender inequalities. An example of 
good practice can be found with the National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) who proposed the City of Paris to 
conduct a survey aiming at measuring how gender, social origin, citizenship and migrant background affect its employees' 
career paths, while controlling their effects by taking into account diploma, qualifications, family situation, seniority, etc. A 
second objective was to test the most relevant methods of data collection in view of making it possible on a regular basis. 
The ad hoc Ined survey was not the initiative of the CIty of Paris.  

Recognized as an admissible evidence by the Court of Cassation in June 2002, discrimination testing was enshrined in the 
Law of 31 March 2006 on Equal Opportunity.  In practice, testinsg were only used in discrimination cases by a NGO (SOS 
Racisme) seeking to prove discrimination based on ethnicity.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex74Consent

Employment

Health/life

0

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

1

0

0

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

0,25

0,25

0,25

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Race

0

0

Race

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

0

1

1

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Disability in employment & access to employment: Legal framework for employers to collect data on disability is Article 
80(1) and Article 80(2) in Social Code No. IX 
Social Code contains a regulation on data collection of severely disabled people.

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ethnicity/race: Proxies usually based on nationality or country of birth. Religion: Asked for 1st time in 2011 census. Data 
on membership in Christian churches not on unaffilitated. Disability: Medical approach categorised by 'grade of disability'

0

0,5

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0

Ethnicity: Migrant Background is the only variable used here

0,25

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

0

0

0

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,6

0,6

0,8

0,2

0,2

0,4

0,4

Germany

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

1

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex75B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

1
0
1

0
0

1

1

1
0
1

0
0

1

1

1
0
1

0
0

0

0

1
0
0

0
0

0

0

1
0
0

0
0

0

0

1
0
0

0
0

0

0

1
0
0

0
0

Disability: Ombudspersons in laender do this

The Diversity Charter (Charta der Vielfalt) is a corporate initiative to promote diversity in companies and institutions. 
Certain laender (i.e. Berlin) do this and provide for it in law.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex76Greece

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

Consent

Employment

Health/Life

1

1

Public

1

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Data concerning the membership of a trade union or membership of societies dealing with health, social welfare, etc. is 
regarded as 'sensitive' data. Hence, the collection and processing of such data is allowed only in the cases described in the 
'National Questionnaire' and the 'Summary' for Greece. 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

1

0

0

0

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

Race

0

0,25

0,25

0,25

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Employment quota law (Law 2643/1998) ‐as amended by Laws 2956/2001,  3227/2004,  3454/2006‐ targets vulnerable 
groups, including the disabled and their relatives, obliging employers to inform the Labour Ministry of their total numbers 
among their employees. 

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0,5

0

0

0

0

0

0

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

0

0

0

0

Use of proxies. 

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0,25

0,4

0,4

0,6

0,6

0,4

0,6

0,6

Religion: Education Ministry data can be collected through voluntary self‐identification among students at primary and 
secondary education.  I agree with 'annually' for both 'ethnicity' and 'race'.Nonetheless, I would replace 'irregularly' for 
'religion/belief' with 'ad hoc'. 

The main body that is explicitly devoted, inter alia, to the collection and processing of data on racial or ethnic origin, 
religion or other beliefs, disability, age and sexual orientation in Greece is the ‘Observatory on Combating Discrimination’. 
The Observatory was established in 2011 (thanks to EU funds), operates under the auspices of EKKE and places emphasis 
on the field of employment. The research conducted by the Observatory largely draws on the quantitative and qualitative 
analysis of data from the quarterly LFS, the EU ‐ SILC and public bodies such as the Manpower Employment Organisation 
(OAED) (see e.g. Balourdos and Mouriki, 2012; and Balourdos, Chrysakis, Sarris, Tramountantis and Tsantila, 2014).).  
Although the data used for the Observatory's research is not publically available, the Observatory's research findings have 
been published. Equality bodies collect equality data via complaints. 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex77E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex78Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

1

Disability

0

1

0

Disability

1

1

0

1

Ethnicity

1

0,5

1

Ethnicity

1

0,25

0,25

Public

1

Race

1

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

Equal Treatment Authority shall regularly inform the public and the Parliament about the actual situation of the 
enforcement of equal treatment. In order to do so the Authority publishes annual reports about its activity on its website 
Data on age, disability, ethnic origin for the purposes of positive action at the workplace:
Under Article 63 Paragraph (4) of the ETA, state bodies and companies whose majority is
owned by the state shall be obliged to adopt so‐called ‘equal opportunities plans’ if they employ more than 50 persons

2009 Act for 2011 National Census. Also National Public Education Act involves integrated follow‐up system since 2014 on 
children's ethnic affilitation. 2013 Act on Promotion of Employment and Support of Unemployed allows national minority 
job‐seekers be registered based on voluntary declaration. Also call for ethnic data collection in Decade of Roma Inclusion 
Programme Strategic Plan and National Social Inclusion Strategy. Indicators to be developed as part of National 
Programme on Disability Affairs 2015‐2025.

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

In certain projects or legal procedures members of minority communities have been involved in the collection of ethnic 
data. This was the case with the HHC’s STEPSS project and the CFCF litigation. The preparation, implementation and 
publication of data of 2011 census has been done with the involvement of the national minorities living in Hungary 

Ethnicity: Only common definition of national minorities

0

0

0

1

1

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0,25

0,25

0,5

0,25

Ethnicity: Based on datasets for national minority job‐seekers, children in education and minority election register.

1

1

0,4

0,8

0,6

0,4

Ethnicity: Ethnic profiling data collection method of Hungarian Helsinki Committee. Data concerning sexual orientation, 
gender identity and intersexual status of the persons concerned are collected in all the programmes of the Háttér Support 
Society for LGBT People in Hungary

Hungary

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

1

1

1

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

0

Age

1

0,25

1

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex79E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
0
0

1
1
1
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

1
1
1
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1

1
0
0

The so‐called ‘Hate Crime Record’ of the Budapest seated Athena Institute also has to be mentioned here.  According to 
the description on the Institute’s website the database includes all confirmed cases committed with a clearly identified 
hate motive (in most cases victims are members of racial, ethnic, national, religious or sexual orientation communities) in 
Hungary since 2009 and were reported by authentic sources. While compiling the database Athena Institute analysts have 
reviewed tens of thousands of press accounts, government and NGO reports and other documents. Accordingly, the Hate 
Crime Record is not comprehensive and includes only reported cases ‐ but in general, it provides clear guidance concerning 
bias‐motivated tensions manifest in Hungary. 

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

1
0

1

0
0

1

0

1
1

1

0
0

1

0

1
0

1

0
1

0

0

1
0

0

0
0

1

0

1
0

0

0
0

0

0

1
0

0

0
0

0

0

1
0

0

0
0

 statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is used in practice

Disability for the purposes of benefits in employment: In terms of Article 23 of Act CXCI
of 2011 on the Benefits of Persons with an Altered Ability to Work and the Amendment of
Certain Laws, employers shall be obliged to pay a so called ‘rehabilitation contribution’ to
the state budget if the number of their employees exceeds 25 and the proportion of
persons with disabilities (persons with an altered ability to work) within the workforce is
below five percent. On the other hand, under Government Decree 327/2012 on the
Accreditation of Employers Employing Workers with Disabilities and the Budgetary
Supports for the Employment of Workers with Disabilities, employers are entitled to
support from the central budget if they employ persons with disabilities. This system
naturally requires that record be kept of the disability of employees
Ethnic origin in education. Data on age, disability, ethnic origin for the purposes of positive action at the workplace:
Under Article 63 Paragraph (4) of the ETA, state bodies and companies whose majority is
owned by the state shall be obliged to adopt so‐called ‘equal opportunities plans’ if they employ more than 50 person. 
Pursuant to Article 31 (1) of the Equal Treatment Act local self‐governments shall adopt a so‐called local equal 
opportunities programme for a five year period. In the programme an analysis on the educational, housing, employment, 
health and social status of the disadvantaged groups living in the particular settlement with special attention to the 
groups of women, people living in extreme poverty, the Roma, people living with disabilities as well as children and elderly 
people shall be made

Ethnic origin for the purposes of minority elections

expert panels (deciding on the placement of the children in special schools) to collect data concerning the ethnic affiliation 
of the child (on the basis of the
voluntary decision of the parent to answer this question) and on the educational
institution the child attends

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex80Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

0

Disability

1

1

1

0

1

0

Ethnicity

1

0,5

1

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,5

0,5

Public

1

Race

0

1

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 creates public duty for publically funded bodies to establish an 
equality and human rights assessment for their organisation and an annual report on evidence of progress in furthering 
equality goals. National Disability Authority (NDA) monitors and analyses data on staff with disabilities within the public 
serivce. 

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

Race

0

0,5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,25

1

0,5

CSO QNHS Special Equality Module (2004, 2010, 2014) originally developed in consultation with Equality Authority, 
National Disability Association, Equality and Law Reform, NCCRI, Pavee Point

Agree with the 'partial proxy' for Gender Identity. Ethicity should be 'partial' given the non‐inclusion of Roma and other 
groups. 

0

1

CSO QNHS Special Equality Module (2004, 2010, 2014) 

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0,5

1

0,5

0

0,5

0,5

CSO QNHS Special Equality Module (2004, 2010, 2014) originally developed in consultation with Equality Authority, 
National Disability Association, Equality and Law Reform, NCCRI, Pavee Point

Ireland

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

1

0

Age

1

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

0,6

0,6

0,8

0,8

0,6

0,8

0,8

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex814. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1
1
1
1
1
0

1
0
0

1

1
1
1
1
1
0

1
0
0

1

1
1
1
1
1
0

1
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0

1

1
1
1
1
1
0

1
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0

QNHS Equality Module asks specifics questions on discrimination experience and unlocks all of the general QNHS questions 
on socio‐economic status

Supported by the Garda Racial, Intercultural and Diversity Office (known as GRIDO), An Garda Síochána has recently (Nov. 
2015) extended its recording of bias motivation indicators for hate motivated incidents on the Garda PULSE system to 
include anti‐Traveller and anti‐Roma, as well as anti‐Muslim, transphobia, age‐related, gender‐related and disability‐
related. These, in addition to the existing bias motivation indicators of anti‐Semitism, homophobia, racism, sectarianism 
and xenophobia, will enable more comprehensive collection of data when recording incidents, and forms part of the victim 
assessment in accordance with the EU Victims Directive 2012/29

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1
1

1
1

0

0

0

0
1

1
1

0

0

0

0
1

1
1

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
1

1
1

0

0

0

0
1

1
1

0

0

0

0
1

1
1

Use of statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is not
widespread. There is no reluctance to use statistical data as evidence in court but there is a tendency to assert that it is 
not always necessary to use statistical evidence. On the other hand cases also fail for lack of substantiation through 
statistical analysis

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex82Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Equality body is allowed but not required to conduct statistical surveys. Framework Law on Disability requires the 
government to promote statistical surveys on the situation of people with disabilities.

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0,5

0

0,5

0,25

0,25

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Race

1

0

Race

0

0,5

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

1

0

0

Disability

0

1

1

0

0

0

Ethnicity

1

0

0

0,5

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

1

0

1

1

Italy

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

0

0

0

0

0,2

0,6

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,4

0,4

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

0

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex83B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

Data on racism as hate crime is collected by law enforcement authorities

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

1
0
0

1

0

1

0

1
0
0

1

0

0

1

1
0
0

0

0

0

0

1
0
0

0

0

0

0

1
0
0

0

0

0

1

1
0
0

0

0

0

1

1
0
0

0

0

Regional examples exist

Data are taken into account by law and policy making, in particular on grounds of age and disability, however no info is 
available regarding equality data.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex84Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

0

0

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Collection of equality data permitted  but not required by Ombudsman Law: role to conduct research and analyse the 
situation

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

Latvia

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,4

0,4

0,4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

1

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex85B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0
1

1

0

0

0

0

0
1

1

1

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

Anti‐discrimination policy monitoring system should cover employment, education, health, welfare and perceived 
discrimination at national level. Ministry of Culture is responsible but not yet implemented due to lack of funding

Latvian national law is silent on the issue of situation testing and the use of statistical
evidence. There is no evidence of them being used and hence no case law.

Data about the situation of the disabledpersons with disabilities in Latvia are used for the monitoring of implementation 
of the guidelines for 2014 – 2020 for the implementation the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as 
well as for the planning of new support measures or for the improvement of the existing support. Equality data (data on 
disability, age, gender) are used by ministries to substantiate national budget proposals during the process of formulating 
the annual national budget
Data about the situation of the disabledpersons with disabilities in Latvia are used for the monitoring of implementation 
of the guidelines for 2014 – 2020 for the implementation the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as 
well as for the planning of new support measures or for the improvement of the existing support Anti‐discrimination policy 
monitoring system should cover employment, education, health, welfare and perceived discrimination at national level. 
Ministry of Culture is responsible but not yet implemented due to lack of funding

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex86Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

0

0

Disability

Ethnicity

0

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Race

0

0,25

0

Race

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Draft proposal for creation of national equality data collection from 2009 was not included in National Anti‐Discrimination 
Programme in 2010. 

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0,25

0

The Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson produced a draft national action plan for equality data collection in 
2009, within the framework of the PROGRESS project implementation. The Office submitted a proposal to the Seimas 
(Parliament) of the Republic of Lithuania to approve the 2011‐2014 National Action Plan for the Development of Equality 
Statistics, providing for the establishment of a working group to identify the needs for statistical information on equality. 
It was proposed to engage different public authorities, research and study institutions, NGOs. However, the plan was not 
approved and no funds for the implementation thereof were assigned

National minority group based on self‐identification in census open question. Disability: Based on degree of 
incapacity/capacity for work

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0

0

1

1

Ethnicity

1

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

Lithuania

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)

B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

0

0

1

0,25

Age

Disability

1

1

1

0

1

1

0,25

0,25

0,2

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,4

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sample size issues

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex874. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex88Consent

Employment

Health/life

0

1

Disability

Ethnicity

Public

0

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

The CET ‐ just as the two other Ombudsbodies ‐ have no mandatory mission to collect sensitive data, but to launch studies 
(act of 2006). When the budget allows for it, the CET runs polls such as in 2009, 2011 and 2015 on the perception of 
A minimum proportion of 5 % of public sector employees must be disabled workers.
For the private sector, employers with 25 employees must employ one disabled worker;
the proportion of disabled workers must be 2% for 50 employees and 4% for 300
employees.
According to Article 12 of the Law of 12 September 2003 on disabled persons, if an private
sector employer refuses to hire the required number of disabled people, a compensation
tax of 50 % of the minimum social salary has to be paid every month to the Treasury by
the employer.
no legal obligation to register data on equality

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

CET is the only poll which asks the interviewees about disability, sexual orientation, religion (self‐identification) – given its 
legal mission, “to analyse and to monitor equality treatment. Breakdown by age, sex, religion, sexual orientation and 
disability is then possible however without any representativity given the size of the groups and the sample 
+D10C10:K10K5D9:K10B10:K10A10:K10

disability: very rarely, the aformentionned polls (CET) was run according to budget availabitlity and the survey ( ESS) was 
run just once.  EVS was run twice.

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0,5

0

0,5

0

CET runs polls such as in 2009, 2011 and 2015 on the perception of discriminations in general and on whether the person 
considers itself a victim or a witness

0

1

0

Disability

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Ethnicity

0

Race

0

0,75

0,25

0

Race

0

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

1

0

0,5

1

0

1

1

Luxembourg

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

0,6

0,6

0,6

0,6

0,6

0,6

age, gender and nationality (proxy of race and ethnicity) are registered by ALL actors. The equality bodies register if 
necessary all the other indicators withour any . Employment agency registers disability for thiose who ask for the disability 
scheme.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex89E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

0

1

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
0
0

0
1

1
1

1
1
0

1
0
0

1
1

1
1

1
1
0

1
0
0

1
1

1
1

1
1
0

1
0
0

0
1

0
1

0
0
0

1
0
0

0
1

0
1

0
0
0

1
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0

1
0
0

On discrimination within the labour market – commissioned by OLAI and run by CEPS: Besch, Sylvain, Hartmann‐Hirsch, 
Claudia, et al.,  2005, Discrimination à l’emploi, rapport au Commissariat du Gouvernement aux Etrangers . This is up to 
now the only analysis on discrimination on the labour market – excluding the public sector. 

Discrimination on the housing market: commissioned by OLAI and run by CEPS in 2010; this study has not been published. 
On top of the discrimination grounds we for two other grounds: user of minimum income (social assistance) and large 
family.

Data on hate crimes are collected by the police, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice. Data are not made 
publicly available.

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

evidence is not provided for by national law in order to establish
indirect discrimination. In Luxembourg statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is not used
in practice.

no statistical data used to design positive action measures 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex90Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

National Commission Persons with Disability has powers to collect, analyse and publish statistics on disability. Not 
mandatory for National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE)
There are no laws that oblige employers to collect equality data and there are therefore no sanctions foreseen in the law

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

With regard to public statistics, the National Statistics Office (NSO) does not include the variables covering ethnic or racial 
origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and religion or belief. With regard to disability, this is based on definitions which 
are identical to those used for the Labour Force Survey

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

1

0

0

Disability

0

1

1

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Race

0

0

0

0

Ethnicity

0

0,25

0,25

0

Ethnicity

0

0

Race

0

Age

1

Disability

1

1

1

Malta

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

0,4

0,4

0,6

0,4

0,4

0,6

0,6

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

0

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex91B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

0

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

Age 

0

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

0

0

0

0

0
0

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0

Disability

Ethnicity

1

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1

0

Race

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0

2012 NCPE study on immigrant and ethnic minority groups, housing and racial discrimination

Industrial Tribunal publishes decisions on discrimination cases within labour market. In Malta there are no available 
statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination
that have been brought to justice. Discrimination cases are not registered as such by national courts.

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

Employment and Training Corporation has authority to set up and maintain register of people with disabilities. No 
national policy measures on data collection for the ground of racial and ethnic origin and sexual orientation and gender 
identity.In its national framework document “Towards a National Migrant Integration Strategy, 2015 ‐2020, Mind D Gap”, 
published in June 2015, the Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties (MSDC), recommends that 
the National Strategy allows for the compilation and collection of valid disaggregated data that should be analysed on a 
regular basis

In Malta, statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is not used
regularly in practice. To date, there has been no case law in Malta relating to the
admissibility or otherwise of statistical evidence and the conditions of its eventual
admissibility, and neither have there been any reported cases where the Court was
reluctant to use statistical data as evidence in Court. Although the Maltese Courts do look
at legal developments in other countries to assist them in reaching their decisions, this is
not obligatory in practice.
There are no laws that oblige employers to collect equality data and there are therefore no sanctions foreseen in the law

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex92Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

1

0

1

1

0

1

Public

1

Race

1

0

1

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

NIHR: One of its powers is to conduct research on human rights and discrimination. (un) equal treatment. 
Article 10 states that the NIHR may conduct a research on the breach of the Equal Treatment Act after a written request 

The Discrimination Instruction 2007 is an official policy document issued by the ministry of Safety and Justice for police, 
PPS, local administration and ADBs which gives guidelines for uniform collection of equality data  to  ensure  effective  
prosecution  of  discrimination  which  is  considered  a  criminal offence in 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,5

1

0,5

1

1

National Surveys, SN, NISR

Race and religion,
Race and gender,
Race and nationality,
Race and disability/chronic illness
Race and sexual orientation
Race and age
Gender and religion
Gender and age

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

Netherlands

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

1

0

1

Age

1

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

0

1

1

0

1

1

0,6

0,6

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0,8

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0,8

1

4. Comprehensive

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex93A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

Age 

0

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1

1

0

0

0
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

1

0

0

0
1

1

1

1

0

0

0
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

Race

1

1

1

0

0

0
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

Discrimination Instruction 2007 for Police and Public Prosecution Services

Statistics available on the number of cases related to
discrimination brought to justice

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

0

0

0
1

1

1

1

0

0

0
1

1

1

1

0

0

0
1

In 1988, 1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009 2010/2011, 2015 the Ministry of social affairs commissioned 
researchers from NISR to report on the extent of integration of minorities in the Netherlands.  Monitor on Racism, Anti‐
Semitism and right‐wing extremism in the Netherlands. A long history of data collection on discrimination experiences on 
the grounds of race, religion and anti‐Semitism. Safety Monitor: LGBT

Municipal Anti‐Discrimination facilities Act (MAFA) obligates municipalities to collect equality data through local 
discrimination registration system of complaints
Statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is used
in practice. This kind of evidence is used quite often by the NIHR, but it is not known to
what extent this is done by the courts, since judgments on equal treatment cases that
are issued by (district) courts are not registered (and therefore cannot be researched)
separately
The 2012 Coalition Agreement contained a proposed 5 %
quota, a positive action measure reserving jobs for disabled people. This quota is,
however, off the table for the next couple of years, as employers made a commitment to
employ more disabled workers in the so‐called Social Accord. Only if they fail to do so
may a legal obligation be imposed after all in 2017

In May 2014, the Dutch government adopted the National Action Programme Labour Market Discrimination in which 
various policy measures related to equality data collection were proposed to gain better insight in the nature and extent of 
discrimination in the labour market and enhance the willingness to report discrimination. These policy measures have 
since been monitored in the annual Letter on progress on Discrimination

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex94Poland

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

Disability

0

1

1

0

0

0

Ethnicity

0

0,5

1

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Polish Equality Body is Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (Ombud). Polish law does not require that Ombud should collect 
equality data. But ETA (by amending Law on Ombud) imposed new competences on the Ombud’s Office. It provides that 

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ethnicity: Act on National and Ethnic Minorities and Regional Languages. 2011 census categories

0

0

0

1

1

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0,25

0

0

0

0

0

0,25

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,2

0,4

0,2

0,2

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

1

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex95B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
0

1
1

1
1
1
0

1
1
0

0
1

0
0
0
1

1
1
0

0
0

0
0
0
1

1
1
0

0
0

0
0
0
1

1
1
0

0
0

0
0
0
0

1
1
0

0
0

0
0
0
0

1
1
0

When designing positive action, there are ways of obtaining more detailed information and statistics: via schools’ 
administrations (for instance, the number of Roma pupils in order to organise a system of Roma education assistants or 
the number of pupils from ethnic minorities in order to plan special subsidies for schools); or via public information 
stemming, for instance, from the payment of special allowances (people with disabilities), employers who apply for special 
subsidies or organisations dealing with particular grounds of discrimination (for instance disability) in order to create 
positive action for people with disabilities. 

Hate crime data includes hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, nationality, xenophobia, faith (lack of faith), religion. 
Additionally, starting January 2016, it will be possible to collect and generate statistical information on crime victims 
including information on their sex, age (year of birth), nationality and citizenship

In Poland discrimination cases are registered as such by national courts.

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

1

1
0

0

0

0

1

1

1
0

0

0

0

0

1

1
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

In Poland statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is not used in
practice.
There have not been any cases involving either direct or indirect discrimination where
statistics were used in order to prove discrimination
For employers, there is a supplementary – this time negative – incentive to employ disabled people. That is, an employer 
who employs at least 25 employees is obliged to pay a monthly sum to the PFRON unless they employ at least 6% disabled 
people.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex961

Age

0

0

0

Age

1

1

1

Age

1

1

1

Portugal

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)

D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification 
used
C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐
economic status)

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

Public

1

Race

1

0

1

Race

1

1

0

1

Ethnicity

1

0,75

0,75

0

0

0

1

1

Disability

1

1

1

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (CICDR, Comissão para a Igualdade e contra a Discriminação 
Racial), and institutes the need to collect information relative to the practice of discriminatory acts; stipulating the 
Article 28 of Law 38/2004 establishes quotas for the employment of people with disabilities of up to 2 % for private 
enterprises and up to 5 % for the public sector. No sanctions are specified in cases where an employer fails to comply 
with the quota and nor are there statistics on the number of people with disabilities employed under the quota. As a 
consequence, one cannot know whether the quotas are being enforced or not.
Plans on immigrant integration, implementation of CRPD and monitoring of data on sexual orientation and gender 
identity

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0,25

0,25

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,6

0,6

0,8

0,8

0,6

0,6

0,6

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

Official surveys collected data that includes proxy indicators to race/ethnicity, also ask the socio‐economic status and 
professional conditions of the respondents and their families

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

1

Race

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex97B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0

0

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0

0

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

0

Hate crime data cannot be disaggregated by ground

In Portugal there are no available statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination

brought to justice. In Portugal discrimination cases are not registered as such by national courts.

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination,  0
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
0
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

0

Age 

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

0

0

0

0

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
0

0

0

1

1

0

1
0

0

0

0

1

0

1
0

0

0

0

1

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

1
0

0

0

0

0

0

1
0

0

0

0

0

0

Resolution of the Council of Ministers no 5/2011: IV National Plan for Equality, Gender, Citizenship and Non‐

In Portugal statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination can be used in
practice. However, this is not widespread. As far as the author of this report is aware, there
have been no cases in Portugal involving direct or indirect discrimination where statistics
have played a major role. 
Article 28 of Law 38/2004 establishes quotas for the employment of people with disabilities of up to 2 % for private 
enterprises and up to 5 % for the public sector. No sanctions are specified in cases where an employer fails to comply 
with the quota and nor are there statistics on the number of people with disabilities employed under the quota. As a 
consequence, one cannot know whether the quotas are being enforced or not.
Article 28 of Law 38/2004 establishes quotas for the employment of people with disabilities of up to 2 % for private 
enterprises and up to 5 % for the public sector. No sanctions are specified in cases where an employer fails to comply 
with the quota and nor are there statistics on the number of people with disabilities employed under the quota. As a 
consequence, one cannot know whether the quotas are being enforced or not.
Disability: Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 56/2009: 
Approves the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Promoting the collecting and processing of 
“appropriate information, including statistical and research data” to enable the formulation and implementa‐tion of 
policies under UN CRPD, at the National level.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex98Romania

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

0

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

0,5

0,5

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

1

1

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

The national equality body, the National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea 
Discriminării) does not have a specific mandate to stimulate/monitor/prevent the collection of equality data, though 

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,5

1

Ethnic origin: Hungarian ethnicity registered at the census amounted to 1,227.6 thousand persons (6,5%), while the 
number of those who stated themselves as Roma was 621.6 thousand
persons (3.3%). Ukrainians (50.9 thousand persons), Germans (36.0 thousands), Turks (27.7 thousands), 
Russians–Lipovans (23.5 thousands) and Tatars (20.3 thousand persons). Religion: 4.6% roman‐catholic 3.2% reformed 
religion
and 1.9% Pentecostal. Greekcatholic
(0.8%), baptist (0.6%) and adventist of the seventh day (0.4%). The persons with other
religious belief than those above mentioned account for 1.8% of total. 0.2% “Without religious belief” or atheists. 

Age

1

1

1

Disability

0

Ethnicity

1

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0

0,25

0,25

0,25

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

Age 

1

Disability

1

Ethnicity

1

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

0

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex99B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Article 95 of the Education Law (Legea educației naționale)  provides that the county school inspectorates are in charge 
with collecting statistical data relevant for educational indicators without describing the type of data collected or the 
methodology. In practice, information regarding ethnic origin is collected in a rather informal and limited manner in 
schools, in the context of organizing courses in the mother tongue or special measures

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

0

1

1
1

1
0

1

0

1

1
1

1
0

1

0

1

1
1

1
0

0

0

1

1
0

0
0

1

0

1

1
1

1
0

1

0

1

1
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

Disabilities Strategy including specific numbers was adopted but it is not public yet (hehehe) but the most recent draft I 
saw included specific numbers. The same for the Roma Strategy and the Anti‐poverty Strategy. 

In Romania statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is used in
practice, though the use of such evidence is rather limited due to the absence of equality
data.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex100Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Not explict, but implicitly contained the duty to adopt measures that prevent discrimination enshrined in Section 2 ( 3 )  of the Anti‐
discrimination Act. 
Not explict, but implicitly contained the duty to adopt measures that prevent discrimination enshrined in Section 2(3) of the Anti‐
discrimination Act. 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,5

1

Religion: Only recognized religions (22). Other such as Islam have been prevented from being officially recognized. Thus, the only 
(un)official data on Muslims are from the Ministry of Interior and the Slovak Information Service (the secret service) that monitor them 
as a terrorist group. Ethnic origin: A person who is a Slovak citizen can belong to one of the 13 recognized national minorities. Criteria 
clearly defining concepts of ethnic groups and national minorities are not contained in any piece of national legislation 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

There are no official definitions at the national level.
Ethnicity: disagreggation only for national minorities; the "ethnicity" of Roma mainly stands out in conection to racially motivated hate 
crime 

0

0

0

0

1

0,25

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,2

0,2

0,2

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

Slovakia

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,5

0,25

0,5

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

0

1

Age

1

0,25

0

0

0

0,25

0,5

0,5

0

0,4

0,4

0,4

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex101A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1
1

1
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

1
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

census

Disability: relevant institutions, especially those, which operate in the sector of labour, social affairs and family, in the health care 
sector and sector of education, collect various data on people with disabilities and their families.  However, there are issues with 
accessibility, coordination and comparability of the collected data. Some data (e.g. equal treatment, physical accessibility) are not 
collected at all, and no data is properly disaggregated by the form and extent of disability. 
Ethnicity: Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Slovakia for Roma Communities undertakes field data collection from 6 
regional offices (monitoring and mapping the situation of Roma communities and marginalized Roma communities) to be used mainly 
for the implementation of the Strategy of the Slovak republic for Roma integration of up to 2020 , as well as in addressing issues posed 
by national and local public institution, NGOs and representatives of Roma communities. The report on implementation of the activities 
is issued annually.  The author did neither obtain any information confirming that the Office of the Plenipotentiary is using the example 
of sampling methodology in data collection set by FRA, nor any other information on the methodology used

UNDP in cooperation with the Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities and municipalities in Slovakia. Roma settlements were surveyed 
twice, including 1 575 Roma settlements in 2004 and 1 070 Roma settlements in 2013, in order to map their spatial distribution, 
infrastructure, access to services (social, education, healthcare) and activity of their residents (political, cultural and economic).

 the "ethnicity" of Roma mainly stands out in conection to racially motivated hate crime 

Not disaggregated by the equality body and inspectorates of labour (only "the total number" of discrimination complaints received); 
discrimination cases decided by courts not separated at all from other legal cases  

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

Ethnicity: According to the 2015 research report by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights (Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva; an 
advocacy NGO working on behalf of Roma) regarding public interest litigation (actio popularis), there has been (at least)  one successful 
case of using equality data to prove discrimination in a judicial proceeding though actio popularis, in particular the segregation of 
Roma children in a public school. Courts have not adopted the practice of using equality data (i.e. equality statistics) as a proof in 
discrimination cases; at the same time there is a scarcity of equality data available for such use

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex1021

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

0

Age

1

1

1

Slovenia

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification 
used
C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐
economic status)

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

1

0

0

0

0

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

1

0,25

0,25

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act defines which institutions collect (what kind of) data on 
persons with disabilities. The collection services administrative purposes. The Implementation of the Principle of Equal 

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0,25

0,25

0

0

0

0

Ethnicity: Only traditional minority communities are involved in data processing, and also they are involved only in the 
process of creating voting lists

Census since 2002 no longer asks about ethnicity or religion. But self‐identification of ethnicity is still collected through 
residence application form.Schools must report number of Roma pupils enrolled in their establishment based on third‐
party categorisation.Religion: since 2002 census, now only ESS and Eurobarometer declarations of belonging to religion 
or religious minority. LGBT: Only data on same‐sex registered partnership.

0

1

1

0

Census since 2002 no longer asks about ethnicity or religion. But self‐identification of ethnicity is still collected through 
residence application form.Schools must report number of Roma pupils enrolled in their establishment based on third‐
party categorisation.

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

Race

0

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

1

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex103A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

1

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0

1

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0

1

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

Use of double voting right for Italian, Hungarian and Roma communities requires self‐declaration on special voting list. 
Data on ethnic affiliation collected though application forms for Residence Registration are unreliable and not 
comparable.

Police cannot identify person by ethnic affiliation or sexual orientation even for hate crimes 

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0
1

0
0

0

0

0

0
1

0
0

0

0

0

0
1

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0

0

0

0
0

0
0

In Slovenia, statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination is rarely used
in practice. 

Statistical evidence is used to design positive action measures, such as employment measures for young people, the 
disabled or members of the Roma minority. 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex104Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

0

1

0

1

0

0

Disability

0

Ethnicity

0

0,75

0,75

0,25

Public

1

Race

1

0

0

Race

0

0

Race

0

0,5

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

1

1

0

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

Spain

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)
B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

1

Age

0

0

0

Age

0

1

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

0,4

0,4

0,6

0,2

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Council for Promotion of Equal Treatment and Non‐Discrimination mandate to monitor discrimination through data 
collection, analysis and reporting. Also work of Spanish Government's Observatory on Racism and Xenophobia
Obligation for companies with over 50 staff to employ a minumum of 2% people with disabilities

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Based on certificate of disability. Survey on Social Integration and Health 2012, in a section on discrimination, it collects 
data on the types of discrimination faced by respondents, including: age; sex; ethnicity; illness or chronic health issues; 
religion; sexual orientation; none of the above; and don´t know

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

Religion/belief: The CIS undertook enquiries in 2002 and 2008
sexual orientation: The FELGTB developed a cualitative research in 2013 but the sample it not representative to cover the 
national situation

0

0,5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex105A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
0

0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Annual report on the evolution of hate crime in Spain

The Council of Equal treatment used to present an annual report but in recent years it has not produced any reports on 
this, despite the fact that they finance a service managed by a group of NGOs who collect cases of discrimination

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

1

1

0
0

1

0

0

0

0

0
0

1

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

1

0

0

0

0

0
0

1

0

0

0

0

0
0

The Spanish Observatory of Racism and Xenophobia (OBERAXE) have produced annual reports on the situation of racism 
and xenophobia based on the annual survey they developed along with the Spanish Sociological Research Centre (CIS). 
Planned Observatory against the discrimination by sexual orientation and gender identity 

 Statistical evidence has been used in some judgments, especially in cases of
sex discrimination in the employment field, and there is no reluctance to use statistical
data as evidence in court. 
Under the General Law on Persons with Disabilities and their social inclusion Act 2013,  if companies with over 50 staff fail 
to employ a minimum of 2% of people with disabilities  within their total workforce , and do not follow one of the 
alternative options  or fall under oneobtain a valid declaration of the exemptions,exemption,    they will be subject to pay 
sanctions if they fail to collect this data and ensure that they meet this requirement. 

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex106Sweden

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

1

Age

0

0

0

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)

Age

0

1

B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification used.

C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

0

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

Public

1

Race

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ethnicity

0

Race

0

0,75

0

0

0

0

0

Disability

0

1

1

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Disability: In 2012 the government commissioned Statistics Sweden to develop data on the living conditions of persons 
with disabilities during the period 2012‐2015. Data would be used to follow up the National policy on disability. No 
measures or assessment seem to be have taken since then, the final report will be delivered to the government in June 
2016. Sexual orientation: In 2014 the government adopted a Strategy for equal rights and opportunities regardless of 
sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.  The strategy relates to two surveys on the health of sexual 
minorities, one from 2005 and another from 2015

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

0

0

Consultation with a number of representatives of the relevant groups was conducted as part of the study presented by the 
Equality Ombudsman. The study on equality data by the Equality Ombudsman included a consultation with the civil 
society on the issue of categories. There was no actual data collection, what was discussed is only potential definitions and 
categories that could be used in the Survey on Living conditions. No national institution has used the results of the 
consultation as a departure point for data collection. The consultation did not deliver consensus on the categories but 
rather indicated which categories are more acceptable than others.

Religion: Swedish Level of Living Survey: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, other, no religion. This is a 
research project and not an official survey or part of the work of Statistics Sweden.

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

Race

0

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0,25

0

1

0

0,2

0,4

0,4

0,2

0,4

0,2

0,2

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex107E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐economic 
status)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)

C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1

1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
1

1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0

0
1

1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0

Religion: Swedish Level of Living Survey: LNU uses a multidimensional approach, covering individuals’ command over 
resources in terms of family and social relations, material living conditions (income and wealth), health, education, 
working conditions, political life, leisure time activities, housing conditions, etc.
Sexual orientation: Public Health Survey

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

The municipality of Botkyrka initiated in 2015 a project on equality data relating to the Afro‐Swedish community and the 
Muslim community. The project is a part of the priorities for the recently established Local Development Centre for Co‐
operation under the lead of UNESCO (UNESCO LUCS). The project hasn’t been initiated yet and it is difficult to make any 
assessment at this point. 
In Sweden there are national rules on permitted data collection. These rules are not
connected to the Discrimination Act and there is no special legislation helping someone to
collect statistical data for a discrimination case.
Since indirect discrimination requires group impact to be compared, of course, statistical
evidence is permitted. The use of statistical evidence is not regulated in any special way.
As Swedish procedural rules are based on the principle of freedom of evidence such
evidence will – like all other evidence ‐ have to be assessed according to the
circumstances.

Disability: In 2012 the government commissioned Statistics Sweden to develop data on the living conditions of persons 
with disabilities during the period 2012‐2015. Data would be used to follow up the National policy on disability. No 
measures or assessment seem to be have taken since then, the final report will be delivered to the government in June 
2016. 
Sexual orientation: In 2014 the government adopted a Strategy for equal rights and opportunities regardless of sexual 
orientation and gender identity or expression.  The strategy relates to two surveys on the health of sexual minorities, one 
from 2005 and another from 2015
Disability: In 2012 the government commissioned Statistics Sweden to develop data on the living conditions of persons 
with disabilities during the period 2012‐2015. Data would be used to follow up the National policy on disability. No 
measures or assessment seem to be have taken since then, the final report will be delivered to the government in June 
2016. 
Sexual orientation: In 2014 the government adopted a Strategy for equal rights and opportunities regardless of sexual 
orientation and gender identity or expression.  The strategy relates to two surveys on the health of sexual minorities, one 
from 2005 and another from 2015

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex108United Kingdom

1. Regulated
A) Sensitive data exemptions allowed (as per 
Directive 95/46/EC)

B) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on equality bodies)
C) Anti‐discrimination legislation (equality 
data duty on employers)
D) Specific equality data legislation or 
guidance

Consent

Employment

Health/life

1

Age

1

1

1

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

1

1

1

1

Public

1

Race

1

1

1

Race

1

1

1

Members

Legal claim

Medicine

Public interest

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Equality data is regularly used in the private sector as part of compliance with UK equality law

Although the ONS does not appear to have a specific strategy, it does issue guidance on the collection of equality data, 
notably on ethnicity and sexual identity ( http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide‐method/measuring‐
equality/equality/index.html). In 2007, the government conducted a wider review of equality data, which presented 
eight principles for such data collection. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also issued guidance on equality 
data, and specifically on how its collection relates to data protection considerations

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

Multiple grounds

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,5

1

1

1

1

Since the 1991 Census there have been wide consultations on how best to collect ethnicity data. These have included a 
‘Diversity’ advisory group, stakeholder outreach and other exercises up to 6 years in advance of the census, as well as 
the formal consultation process. While there are undoubtedly some concerns and reservations about existing data 
collection categories, in general ethnic minority groups have high response rates and appear to understand and broadly 
agree with the categories. 

Disability

Ethnicity

1

1

1

1

1

1

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,5

0,5

0,5

The ONS Data Collection Methodology team, ONS Survey Control Unit and the National Statistics Harmonisation Group 
coordinate the quality of data collection methodology

0,8

0,8

0,8

0,8

0,8

0,6

0,6

In general NGOs play a role in equality data, but their role is typically focused on interpreting, analysing and publicising 
those data, especially for their advocacy work. NGO are not typically directly involved in the collection of such data, 
though some do analyse these data (or commission academics to support that analysis) in ways that government’s own 
analysis doesn’t always do

2. Valid
A) The group concerned was consulted in the 
design of the definitions used (skip if no 
official data development process ever 
undertaken)

Age

1

1

1

Age

1

1

1

B) Coverage of group:
1.0 = Complete
0.75 = Complete proxy
0.5 = Partial 
0.25 = Partial proxy
0 = No coverage
Complete means entire group covered. Proxy 
means indirect method of identification 
used
C) Self‐definition is also used in equality data 
(skip if no coverage)

3. Reliable
A) Nationally comparable: Common 
definitions collected for equality data at 
national level (skip if no coverage)
B) Regularity of national survey collection 
(option D under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)
C) Regularity of national administrative data 
collection (options A and B under 3C)
1.0 = Annually (Every Year)
0.75 = Regularly (e.g. Every two years)
0.5 = Ad hoc (e.g. Every 2‐5 years)
0.25 = Irregularly (e.g. Every 10 years)
0 = Only once, not repeated yet
(skip if no coverage)

D) Number of types of actors collecting 
equality data (0 for 0, 0.2 for 1, 0.4 for 2, 0.6 
for 3, 0.8 for 4, 1.0 for 5)
a) National official bodies (incl. national 
statistical institute)
b) Local or regional official bodies
c) Equality body/bodies
d) Research/academia
e) Non‐governmental organisations
(skip if no coverage)
Note that the collection of complaints data 
should not be counted more than once.

E) Controls & disaggregations of data are 
used to control for other key factors 
determining inequalities (e.g. socio‐
economic status)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex1094. Comprehensive
A) Population estimation

B) Employment

D) Education

E) Housing 

F) Health

G) Poverty/Social Exclusion

H) Crime victimisation

I) Discrimination complaints

J) Discrimination cases

K) Outcomes of discrimination cases

5. Used
A) Official national monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
B) Official local monitors (discrimination, 
equality, integration)
C) Proof in discrimination cases

D) Use of remedies & sanctions

E) Planning for equality or positive actions

F) Law‐ and policy‐making

G) Evaluation of anti‐discrimination 
legislation

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1

Age 

Disability

Ethnicity

Race

Religion/belief

Sexual orientation

Gender Identity

COMMENTS 

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

Metropolitan (i.e. London) Police now collect regular hate crime data for religion

Equality data indicators collection: Technical annex110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). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
4
-
1
7
-
1
7
9
-
E
N
-
N

PDF  

ISBN: 978-92-79-66079-5 

doi:10.2838/142