COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Equality bodies and the implementation of the Commission Recommendation on standards for equality bodies Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council on the application of Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (‘the Racial Equality Directive’) and of Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the Employment Equality Directive’)
Date: 2021-03-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: age discrimination, application of EU law, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, gender mainstreaming, harassment at work, racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 19.3.2021  SWD(2021) 63 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Equality bodies and the implementation of the Commission Recommendation on standards for equality bodies Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council on the application of Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (‘the Racial Equality Directive’) and of Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the Employment Equality Directive’) {COM(2021) 139 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

2.  MANDATE ................................................................................................................. 3 

2.1.  Scope ................................................................................................................. 4 

2.1.1.

  Grounds and fields covered by equality bodies ................................... 4 

2.1.2.

  Structure of equality bodies ................................................................. 4 

2.2.  Role .................................................................................................................... 6 

2.2.1.

  Assistance and decision-making .......................................................... 6 

2.2.2.

  Surveys, reports, recommendations and promotion .......................... 10 

3. 

INDEPENDENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................... 16 

3.1. 

Independence ................................................................................................... 16 

3.1.1.

  Legal status and place in the administrative structure ....................... 16 

3.1.2.

  Budgetary independence.................................................................... 17 

3.1.3.

  Rules on leadership ............................................................................ 17 

3.1.4.

  Accountability ................................................................................... 18 

3.1.5.

  Political context and public opinion .................................................. 18 

3.2.  Resources ......................................................................................................... 19 

3.3.  Complaint submission, access and accessibility ............................................. 21 

3.3.1.

  Complaint submission ....................................................................... 21 

3.3.2.

  Physical presence across the territory ................................................ 22 

3.3.3.

  Accommodate and reflect diversity ................................................... 22 

3.3.4.

  Awareness of the existence of the equality body .............................. 23 

4.  COORDINATION AND COOPERATION ............................................................. 24 

4.1.  Coordination and collaboration between (and within) equality bodies ........... 25 

4.2.  Cooperation with public authorities ................................................................ 25 

4.3.  Cooperation with other relevant stakeholders ................................................. 26 

5.  CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Equality bodies and the implementation of 
the Commission Recommendation on 
standards for equality bodies 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  staff  working  document  accompanies  the  report  on  the  application  of  Directive 
2000/43/EC1  (hereafter  the  ‘Racial  Equality  Directive’)  and  of  Directive  2000/78/EC2 
(hereafter the ‘Employment Equality Directive’) (‘the 2021 Application report’).  

The purpose of this document is to take stock of the current situation regarding equality 
bodies across the EU and to assess the current situation concerning the implementation of 
Commission  Recommendation  2018/951  of  22 June 2018  on  standards  for  equality 
bodies (‘the Recommendation’)3. 

The bodies examined in this document are those referred to as ‘bodies for the promotion 
of equal treatment’ (the ‘equality bodies’) in Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive, 
Article  12  of  Directive  2004/113/EC4  (‘(hereafter  ‘the  Gender  Equality  Directive  in 
goods  and  services’),  Article  20  of  Directive  2006/54/EC5  (‘the  Gender  Equality 
Directive  in  employment’)  and  Article  11  of  Directive  2010/41/EU6  (‘the  Gender 
Equality Directive in self-employment’)7. 

These  articles  require  Member  States  to  designate  (and  to  make  the  necessary 
arrangements  for8)  a  body  or  bodies  to  promote,  analyse,  monitor  and  support  equal 

in 

of 

or 

and 

racial 

origin 

ethnic 

occupation 

irrespective 

employment 

1 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between 
persons 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0043). 
2  Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  of  27  November  2000  establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
treatment 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078). 
3 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32018H0951)  
4  Council  Directive  2004/113/EC  of  13  December  2004  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment 
between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32004L0113). 
5  Directive  2006/54/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2006  on  the 
implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of 
employment 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0054). 
6 Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of 
the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  men  and  women  engaged  in  an  activity  in  a  self-employed 
capacity 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0041). 
7 New provisions on equality bodies are also included in the proposal for a Pay Transparency Directive that 
was 
final; 
on 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/aid_development_cooperation_fundamental_rights/com-2021-
93_en_0.pdf); as these provisions are not yet in force, they are not covered in this staff working document. 
8 This specification is provided for only in the Gender Equality Directives in employment and in goods and 
services. 

Council  Directive 

the  Commission 

(COM(2021) 

86/613/EEC 

4  March 

occupation 

repealing 

adopted 

(recast) 

2021 

and 

and 

93 

by 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
treatment  of  all.  Their  provisions  are  almost  identical  and  give  powers  to  the  equality 
bodies to provide independent assistance to victims, to produce independent surveys and 
reports, and to  issue recommendations. The Gender Equality Directives in employment 
and  self-employment  add  a  further  role  for  the  bodies:  to  exchange  information  with 
corresponding  European  bodies,  such  as  the  European  Institute  for  Gender  Equality 
(EIGE). 

While  Member  States  are  obliged  to  meet  the  minimum  requirements  set  out  by  the 
Directives,  they  have  a  wide  margin  of  discretion  to  decide  on  the  structure  and 
functioning  of  their  equality  bodies.  This  has  led  to  major  differences  in  the  mandate, 
functions, structure, independence and resources  allocated to  equality  bodies across the 
EU. On the one hand, these differences appear to  be the natural  expression of Member 
States’  differences  in  legal  cultures  and  administrative  structures.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
has  resulted  in  very  different  levels  of  protection  against  discrimination,  from  one 
Member State to another. That is why, in 2018, the Commission recommended common 
standards for equality bodies.  

The  Recommendation  lists  measures  to  achieve  an  optimal  enforcement  of  the 
Directives’  provisions  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  can  effectively  perform  their 
functions.  It  focuses  on  (i)  the  mandate  of  equality  bodies,  (ii)  their  independence, 
effectiveness  and  accessibility,  and  (iii)  the  coordination  and  cooperation  between 
equality bodies (and other entities) across the EU.  

This staff working document follows the structure of the Recommendation and examines 
the current situation in these various areas.  

The  analysis  is  based  both  on  specific  contributions  received  during  the  preparation  of 
the 2021 Application report or on pre-existing information from the Member States9, the 
European  Network  of  Equality  Bodies  (Equinet)10,  the  European  Union  Agency  for 
Fundamental  Rights  (FRA),  the  European  Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance 
(ECRI),  equality  bodies,  civil  society  and  the  European  Network  of  legal  experts  in 
gender  equality  and  non-discrimination1112.  It  also  builds  on  good  practices  that  were 
shared during the Good Practice Exchange Seminar co-organised by the Commission and 
the Swedish government in June 201913. 

9 Chapter III of the Recommendation invites Member States ‘to include information on how they take the 
[…] Recommendation into account in their communications on the application of Directives 2000/43/EC, 
2000/78/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC’. 
10  For  Equinet’s  contribution  to  the  2021  Application  report,  see:  https://equineteurope.org/2020/a-
perspective-from-the-work-of-equality-bodies-on-european-equality-policy/. 
11 https://www.equalitylaw.eu/. 
12  See  in  particular  the  2018  report  ‘Equality  bodies  making  a  difference’,  written  by  Niall  Crowley 
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/equality_bodies_making_a_difference.pdf) 
2020 
comparative analysis of non-discrimination law in Europe (https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5118-a-
comparative-analysis-of-non-discrimination-law-in-europe-2019-1-72-mb). 
13  The  seminar  brought  together  the  members  of  the  EU  High  Level  Group  on  Non-Discrimination, 
Equality and Diversity, as well as the FRA, Equinet and a few national equality bodies. It offered support 
for a shared understanding of the Recommendation and established good practices for its implementation.  

and 

the 

3 

 
 
                                                 
2.  MANDATE 

The  first  standards  put  forward  by  the  Recommendation14  concern  the  equality  bodies’ 
mandate.  They  cover  the  scope  of  powers  and  functions  of  equality  bodies  (i.e. 
independent  assistance,  surveys,  reports  and  recommendations).  They  also  cover  the 
promotion of equality. 

2.1.  Scope  

2.1.1.

  Grounds and fields covered by equality bodies 

The  Gender  Equality  Directives15  and  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  (‘the  Directives’) 
require  Member  States  to  create  or  nominate  (an)  equality  body(ies).  On  grounds  of 
racial  or  ethnic  origin,  this  is  required  in  fields  (self-)employment  and  occupation, 
education, social protection and social advantages including healthcare and access to and 
supply of goods and services. On the ground of sex, this is required in the fields of (self-) 
employment and access to and supply of  goods and services. Directive 79/7/EEC16 (the 
Gender Equality Directive in  the field  of social security) and the Employment  Equality 
Directive do not include provisions related to equality bodies. 

The  Recommendation  suggests  to  entrust  equality  bodies  with  all  the  grounds  listed  in 
Article  19  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  EU  (‘TFEU’)  (sex,  racial  or  ethnic 
origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation) in all the above-mentioned 
fields  ((self-)  employment  and  occupation,  education,  social  protection  and  social 
advantages including healthcare, and access to and supply of goods and services).  

More  specifically,  it  encourages  Member  States  to  designate  an  equality  body  to  cover 
discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation 
within  the  scope  of  the  Employment  Equality  Directive.  In  addition,  it  invites  Member 
States  to  consider  extending  the  equality  bodies’  mandate  to  all  prohibited  grounds  of 
discrimination  in  the  fields  of  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services,  education, 
social  protection  and  social  advantages.  It  also  encourages  them  to  cover  hate  speech 
related to these grounds in these areas17. 

In most Member States, national provisions have given a mandate to equality bodies that 
goes  beyond  the  strict  requirements  of  the  Directives,  even  before  the  adoption  of  the 
Recommendation. In all but three Member States18, the equality bodies are competent in 
relation to all the grounds covered by the Employment Equality Directive. In around two 
thirds of Member States, equality bodies are competent in relation to all the grounds and 
all the fields mentioned in the Recommendation. Following the Commission’s adoption 
of the Recommendation, two Member States19 indicated that they would initiate reforms 
to align their legal framework with the provisions of the Recommendation. 

14 See Recommendation 1.1 of Chapter II. 
15 These cover the above-mentioned Directives 2004/113/EC, 2006/54/EC and 2010/41/EU. 
16 Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of 
equal  treatment  for  men  and  women  in  matters  of  social  security  (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31979L0007). 
17 See Recommendation 1.1.1. (1) and (2) of Chapter II. 
18 Spain, Portugal and Finland. 
19 Spain and Estonia. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  in  about  two  thirds  of  Member  States,  equality  bodies  have  the  power  to 
address  hate  speech.  In  about  10  Member  States,  equality  bodies  count  ‘addressing 
violence against women’ and ‘addressing hate crimes’ as part of their functions. 

2.1.2.

  Structure of equality bodies 

The Directives do not contain provisions on the structure of equality bodies.  

Most Member States have set up one body in charge of all grounds of discrimination (i.e. 
a multi-ground equality body).  

One  Member  State20  only  has  single-ground  equality  bodies  (each  body  covering  one 
ground  of  discrimination,  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  and  sex/gender)  and  is  currently 
preparing  a  reform  of  its  Equality  law  that  would  create  a  new  multi-ground  equality 
body. Other Member States have put in place two bodies (i) a multi-ground body and (ii) 
a separate single-ground body to cover a specific ground such as disability or gender. As 
a result, a number of Member States have several equality bodies. 

In  practice,  multi-ground  bodies  often  have  several  mandates.  In  addition  to  their 
‘equality  mandate’,  they  can  for  instance  be  a  National  Human  Rights  Institution 
(NHRI)21 or an Ombudsperson22. 

The Recommendation23 refers to the importance of putting in place an internal structure 
that  allows  equality  bodies  to  focus  sufficiently  on  each  ground  and  each  part  of  their 
mandate. Another key issue is to ensure balanced resources.  

2.1.2.1. 

Issues specific to multi-ground bodies 

There  are  undeniable  advantages  with  instituting  multi-ground  bodies,  such  as  easing 
access  for  complainants,  cost-effectiveness  and  capacity  to  deal  with  multiple 
discrimination and intersectionality24.  

However,  multi-ground  bodies  also  face  challenges,  for  instance  to  ensure  sufficient 
focus and visibility on each of the grounds covered, partly due to limited resources. 

A good practice could be for the equality bodies to work on three levels to:  

1)  join-up activities, seeking progress on all the grounds covered (‘multi-ground 

level’); 

2)  address issues specific to one particular ground, drawing attention to it (‘single-

ground level’); 

20 Spain.  
21  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (NHRIs)  are  state-mandated  bodies,  independent  of  government, 
with  a  broad  constitutional  or  legal  mandate  to  protect  and  promote  human  rights  at  the  national  level. 
NHRIs  address  the  full  range  of  human  rights,  including  civil,  political,  economic,  social  and  cultural 
rights. For more information, see: http://ennhri.org/about-nhris/. 
22 An Ombudsperson is generally an independent institution mandated to protect the rights and freedoms of 
citizens against public authorities, for instance by investigating complaints about maladministration. 
23 See Recommendation 1.1.1.(3) of Chapter II. 
24  On  multiple  discrimination  and  intersectionality,  please  refer  to  Chapters  2.1  and  2.3.3  of  the  2021 
Application report. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
3)  respond to the particular identity, experience and situation of groups at the 

intersection between the grounds covered (‘cross-ground level’). 

2.1.2.2. 

Issues specific to multi-mandate bodies 

In  about  half  the  Member  States,  equality  bodies  have  multiple  mandates.  Historically, 
the ‘equality mandate’ was often given to a pre-existing body. 

The  advantages  identified  in  those  set-ups  include  possible  synergies  between  the 
functions exercised under each mandate, mutual learning, cost savings, broadening staff 
expertise,  greater  availability  for  victims  (through  a  ‘one-stop-shop’).  Multi-mandate 
bodies may also be better known by the public. 

On  the  other  hand,  reported  challenges  include  competition  for  resources  between  the 
different  mandates  of  the  body,  and  sometimes  the  equality  mandate  lacking  and/or 
losing priority and visibility compared to the other mandates.  

Only half of the multi-mandate bodies actively manage their multiple mandates. In a few 
Member States, the equality mandate has lost priority due to budget cuts or a change in 
leadership. 

Good  practice  in  this  field  includes  a  dedicated  leadership  for  the  equality  mandate, 
balanced  resources  allocated  to  each  mandate,  a  separate  and  specialised  department 
dedicated  to  the  equality  mandate  and/or  a  specific  annual  report  focusing  only  on  the 
equality mandate. 

Conclusion 

In  most  Member  States,  the  grounds  and  fields  of  discrimination  put  forward  by  the 
Recommendation  are  protected  under  the  mandate  of  one  or  more  national  equality 
bodies.  However,  there  are  still  gaps  in  the  protection  for  some  grounds  and/or  some 
fields in around a third of Member States. Two Member States have indicated that they 
intend to carry out further reforms in this field as a follow-up to the Recommendation. 

Multi-ground bodies are widespread. Although this has advantages, those bodies need to 
be supported by a clear organisational structure to ensure sufficient focus and resources 
for each ground. Progress is still needed in that direction. 

A  similar  need  has  been  highlighted  for  multi-mandate  bodies,  which  are  also  NHRI 
and/or  Ombudsperson,  to  preserve  the  strength  and  visibility  of  the  equality  mandate. 
Good  practice  includes  giving  the  equality  mandate  to  a  specific  department  with 
dedicated resources and leadership. 

2.2.  Functions 

Equality  bodies  exercise,  either  formally  or  via  specific  tasks  executed  in  practice,  the 
functions provided to them in the Directives: independent assistance to victims, and the 
production of independent surveys, reports and recommendations.  

2.2.1.

  Assistance and decision-making  

The  Directives  require  Member  States  to  ensure  that  their  equality  bodies  provide 
independent  assistance  to  victims  of  discrimination  in  pursuing  their  complaints  about 

6 

 
 
discrimination.  The  Directives  do  not  mention  any  specific  form  of  assistance.  The 
Recommendation  goes  into  more  details  and  lists  several  powers  that  Member  States 
could consider granting to their equality bodies. These include25: 

- receiving and handling individual or collective complaints; 
- providing legal advice to victims, including in pursuing their complaints; 
- representing complainants in court; 
- acting as amicus curiae26 or expert; 
- engaging in activities of mediation and conciliation; 
- engaging or assisting in strategic litigation27; 
- issuing recommendations in individual or collective cases of discrimination; 
- issuing legally binding decisions in individual or collective cases of 
discrimination; and 
- gathering relevant evidence and information. 

These  activities  can  be  divided  into  two  groups  (i)  support  and  litigation  and  (ii) 
decision-making. 

2.2.1.1.  Support and litigation28 

The  function  of  support  and  litigation  covers  activities  of  equality  bodies  in  assisting 
victims of discrimination, including by:  

  offering legal advice about rights and means of redress; 
  providing support to file a complaint;  
  handling complaints through amicable settlements29; 
 
 
 
  acting as amicus curiae or engaging in strategic litigation; 
  carrying out situation testing33. 

representing victims or victims’ organisations in cases30;  
taking cases in their own name31;  
intervening in support of a party32; 

25 See Recommendation 1.1.2.(1), (2), (3) and (4) of Chapter II.  
26 When an equality body acts as amicus curiae, it submits its observations as an expert in equality law to 
assist the court, without seeking a particular outcome or without taking sides for one of the parties to the 
case.  
27 ‘Strategic litigation’ refers to the use of litigation strategies to elicit social, legal or policy change and is 
often carried out by civil society organisations and/or lawyers as a form of activism. 
28 Besides the sources mentioned in the introduction of this staff working document, this section makes use 
also of the following publication : Tamas, K., ‘The legal standing of equality bodies’, European Equality 
Law Review, 2019, no. 1, prepared for the European Commission, at:  
https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/4930-european-equality-law-review-1-2019-pdf-1-051-kb.  
29  This  refers  to  a  situation  where  the  equality  body  supports  a  process  in  which  the  victim  and  the 
perpetrator enter into a dialogue with the aim of finding a constructive solution. 
30 This power could be exercised through representation, with consent of the victim or the organisation, by 
the equality body’s own staff or by engaging and paying a lawyer to represent the party before the court. 
31 This refers to equality bodies taking a case before the court without an identifiable victim being a party 
to  the  proceedings.  This  includes  cases  of  actio  popularis  (i.e.  claims  whereby  the  organisation  bringing 
the  claim  acts  in  the  public  interest  on  their  own  behalf,  without  a  specific  complainant  to  support  or 
represent,  where  the  discrimination  case  affects  a  larger,  unidentifiable  group  of  persons).  In  some  legal 
traditions, it  may also include bringing the  case of an identifiable victim,  with their consent,  but  without 
this victim formally becoming a party to the proceedings. 
32 This refers to a situation where the victim is a party to the proceedings and the equality body intervenes 
on their side as an interested party to seek a particular outcome in a case. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
When carrying out  some of these activities, equality bodies may not  only play  a useful 
role in assisting individual victims of discrimination, but may also serve a wider interest. 
For  instance,  when  equality  bodies  have  the  power  to  litigate  in  their  own  name,  they 
may engage in cases of collective discrimination to represent the public interest, without 
there being a specific complainant34. This may be particularly beneficial in tackling cases 
of  discrimination  caused  by  artificial  intelligence35  and/or  in  cases  of  discriminatory 
public speech affecting a large group of people. Engaging in strategic litigation is another 
such example. This particular form of litigation serves a broader objective of promoting 
equality. Here, the equality body selects suitable cases (‘test cases’) to bring to court with 
the ambition that these legal proceedings will have a positive impact on law and policy 
development and will set a precedent for similar cases.  

The extent to which equality bodies can exercise support and litigation functions varies 
widely from one Member State to the other.  

For  instance,  in  fewer  than  10  Member  States,  equality  bodies  have  legal  standing36  to 
represent  victims  of discrimination before the courts.  In less than half, they  report they 
can bring proceedings in their own name (with or without an identifiable victim) and in a 
few Member States, the bodies reportedly have legal standing to act in legal proceedings 
in support of a party.  In about half of the Member States, equality bodies indicate they 
have the power to submit amicus curiae briefs or to take similar actions. In about half of 
the  Member  States,  the  equality  bodies  say  that  they  have  been  involved  in  strategic 
litigation37. 

Some Member States have granted very limited powers to equality bodies in relation to 
litigation.  Indeed,  a  few  bodies  indicate  not  having  legal  standing  for  any  of  the 
following  forms  of  assistance:  (i)  representing  victims  of  discrimination  before  courts, 
(ii)  bringing  proceedings  in  their  own  name,  (iii)  intervening  in  support  of  a  party  and 
(iv) submitting amicus curiae (or similar) letters. 

33  Situation  testing  is  a  method  helping  to  bring  to  light  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  a  pair-
comparisontesting  e.g.  matched  pairs  test  application  for  a  job  vacancy,  using  an  identical  application 
differing solely as regards a particular characteristic under examination (e.g. age). 
34 See, for instance, the case of Feryn, where the CJEU argued that ‘Article 7 of Directive 2000/43 does not 
preclude  Member  States  from  laying  down,  in  their  national  legislation,  the  right  for  associations  with  a 
legitimate  interest  in  ensuring  compliance  with  that  Directive,  or  for  the  body  or  bodies  designated 
pursuant  to  Article  13  thereof  [i.e.  the  equality  bodies],  to  bring  legal  or  administrative  proceedings  to 
enforce the obligations resulting therefrom without acting in the name of a specific complainant or in the 
absence of an identifiable complainant’ (judgment of 10 July 2008, Feryn, C-54/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397, 
paragraphs 26-27).  
35  For  more  on  the  challenges  created  by  AI  and  the  equality  bodies’  perspective  on  the  subject,  see 
Equinet’s report Regulating for an equal AI: a new role for equality bodies. 
36 ‘Legal standing’ refers to the right or ability to bring a legal action to a court of law, or to appear in a 
court. Following article 7(2) of the Racial Equality Directive, 9(2) of the Employment Equality Directive 
and the respective articles of the Gender Equality Directives (Article 8(3) of 2004/113/EC, Article 17(2) of 
2006/54/EC  and  article  9(2)  of  2010/41/EU),  associations,  organisations  or  other  legal  entities,  with  a 
legitimate  interest  in  combatting  discrimination,  and  with  the  approval  of  the  complainant,  should  be 
allowed  to  engage  in  discrimination  disputes  either  on  behalf  or  in  support  of  the  complainant.  Member 
States  have  discretion  in  setting  criteria  and  conditions  for  the  legal  standing  of  those  entities.  Legal 
standing is a concept that is closely linked to national procedural law and legal traditions. 
37 In one Member State, the equality body reported that reforms are underway so to allow the equality body 
to engage in this form of litigation. 

8 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
In addition, in Member States where several equality bodies co-exist, it may be that the 
legal  standing  of  each  equality  body  differs  leading  to  a  fragmented  situation  for  those 
seeking help.  

Most equality bodies attempt to reach amicable out of court settlements. In about a third 
of  Member  States,  the  equality  bodies  always  aim  for  an  amicable  settlement,  and  in 
about half, the bodies say they sometimes do.  

Although an equality body may have the powers to engage in certain forms of support or 
litigation, important differences exists when it comes to using those powers in practice. 
For  example,  among  the  equality  bodies  engaging  in  litigation  cases,  some  reported 
having pursued more than 10 cases in 2019 in relation to ethnic or racial discrimination, 
while this number was one or zero for several other equality bodies. For equality bodies 
engaging in friendly settlements, it appears that some multi-ground bodies have less than 
50  successful  friendly  settlements  each  year38  (across  all  grounds),  while  other,  similar 
bodies, have reported several hundreds (across all grounds) each year. 

A major reason for inaction seems to be a lack of funding combined also with a risk of 
having  to  pay  high  legal  costs  when  losing  a  court  case.  This  may  lead  to  a  situation 
where an equality body would primarily act in cases that are not too complex or where 
there  is  a  low  risk  of  losing  the  case.  This  may  cause  frustration  for  victims  and  limit 
trust and the effectiveness of offering victim assistance. 

2.2.1.2.  Decision-making in discrimination cases 

In some Member States, equality bodies have (primarily) been granted a decision-making 
power,  which  includes  issuing  recommendations  and  binding  decisions  in  individual 
and/or  collective  cases  of  discrimination.  This  may  be  understood  as  going  beyond 
offering assistance to victims.  

If  the  equality  body  has  the  power  to  issue  legally  binding  decisions  in  discrimination 
cases,  the  Recommendation  explicitly  encourages  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the 
equality body:  

  can gather the relevant evidence and information in accordance with national law;  
  has the capacity to issue adequate, effective and proportionate sanctions; and  
  puts in place an effective judicial remedy and standards of due process, in 

particular when it comes to the right to appeal39.  

In  about  two  third  of  Member  States,  equality  bodies  have  the  power  to  carry  out  ex 
officio investigations40.  

Although in most Member States, equality bodies can make recommendations on claims 
of discrimination, they only have the power to take legally binding decisions on claims -
and therefore act as a quasi-judicial body - in fewer than 10 Member States. In most of 
these Member States, equality bodies can defend these decisions before the courts (if an 
appeal were to be lodged).  

38 For the period 2015-2020. 
39 See Recommendation 1.1.2.(4), (5) and (6) of Chapter II. 
40 For issues of coordination and cooperation in this respect, see Part 4. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
In some Member States where the equality body can take binding decisions, they do not 
have the power to impose sanctions. In a few Member States, the sanctions that equality 
bodies can impose have been identified as insufficient and lacking a deterrent effect. As 
good practice, one Member State has announced reforms offering powers to the decision-
making  section  of  the  equality  body  to  order  interim  measures,  impose  administrative 
penalties, order payment of compensation including for non-pecuniary damages, request 
the infringements to cease and be remedied, and order further sanctions if its findings are 
ignored. 

While a few equality bodies have good practice in place to ensure an effective follow-up 
of the decisions they have taken41, a lack of or a limited follow-up has been observed in 
other Member States. The latter may hinder a high level of compliance with the decisions 
made and does not lead to an effective enforcement of equality legislation.  

Another  challenge  is  observed  in  a  few  Member  States  where  equality  bodies  have  a 
decision-making role alongside their function of victim assistance. The latter may reflect 
negatively  on  the  impartiality  of  the  equality  body  when  it  has  to  decide  on  a  case  of 
discrimination, and therefore take a side. The dual function may also lead to problems of 
prioritisation. Indeed, the bulk of the resources risk becoming absorbed by the decision-
making function to the detriment of the amount of resources spent on other activities. In a 
few Member States, the equality bodies have (or exercise) very limited powers for victim 
assistance  precisely  to  avoid  the  challenges  linked  to  holding  the  dual  function  and/or 
because of the resources required for the decision-making function.   

In such a situation, good practice could be to ensure that where the equality body has a 
decision-making  function  alongside  other  functions,  each  function  is  provided  by  a 
different department or by different staff and is supported by the necessary resources. For 
instance, one Member State has announced reforms so that the decision-making function 
would  be  carried  out  by  a  separate  equality  board,  of  a  quasi-judicial  nature.  The 
chairperson and members of this board would be appointed separately. 

Conclusion 

Equality  bodies  can  have  important  powers  in  supporting  victims  and/or  engaging  in 
litigation, both in individual and in collective cases of discrimination. These powers are 
not only beneficial for individual victims, they also serve the public interest and promote 
equality. Good practice in line with the Recommendation involve entrusting the equality 
bodies with a broad set of powers and appropriate legal standing to enable them to offer 
effective assistance to victims. 

In  addition,  some  equality  bodies  have  the  competence  to  issue  recommendations  or 
binding  decisions  in  cases  of  discrimination.  Good  practice  involves  separating  the 
decision-making  function  from  other  functions  and  allowing  those  equality  bodies  to 
carry  out  investigations,  to  issue  appropriate  sanctions  and  to  follow-up  on  their 
decisions. 

While in several Member States, equality bodies have a broad range of powers to achieve 
the  goal  of  victim  assistance,  this  is  not  the  reality  in  all  countries.  Moreover,  even  in 
Member States where equality bodies have certain powers on paper, they are not always 

41  As  also  advised  in  Recommendation  1.2.2.(3)  of  Chapter  II  (on  ‘resources’),  Member  States  should 
enable equality bodies to monitor effectively the execution of their own decisions. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
able  to  apply  them  to  a  significant  extent  in  practice,  partly  because  of  insufficient 
resources.  

2.2.2.

  Surveys, reports, recommendations and promotion 

While  the  Directives  require  equality  bodies  to  conduct  independent  surveys,  publish 
independent  reports  and  make  recommendations  on  any  issue  related  to  discrimination, 
the  Recommendation  provides  a  number  of  examples  of  what  this  could  entail.  It  also 
specifies  the  role  equality  bodies  can  play  in  promoting  equality.  This  outlines  the 
potential  of  equality  bodies  to  be  centres  of  knowledge  on  discrimination  and  equality, 
influencing public policies and driving social change. 

2.2.2.1. 

Independent surveys 

As  emphasised  in  the  2021  Application  report42,  equality  data  collection  is  crucial  but 
remains  challenging.  The  Recommendation  encourages  Member  States  to  enable  their 
equality bodies to regularly carry out independent surveys43. It specifies that the surveys 
should serve to gather a sufficient amount of sound quantitative and qualitative data on 
discrimination  to  enable  the  analysis  necessary  to  draw  evidence-based  conclusions  on 
where the main challenges lie and how to address them. It therefore sets a vision where 
equality bodies play a central role in collecting national data on discrimination.  

In  cases of indirect  discrimination,  including when caused by  artificial intelligence, the 
collection  of  a  comprehensive,  regular  and  comparable  set  of  equality  data  is  of  great 
importance  to  allow  equality  bodies  to  offer  victim  assistance  and  to  contribute  to 
effective  rights  enforcement.  Data  collected  will  also  feed  in  the  independent  reports 
from the equality bodies and will help them make recommendations. 

In around a third of Member States, equality bodies do not carry out surveys or have not 
done  so  for  a  number  of  years.  The  main  cause  for  inaction  appears  to  be  the  lack  of 
sufficient resources to carry out such tasks.  

In the second third of the Member States, equality bodies do carry out surveys but face 
limitations in their capacity to do so on a regular basis, for all discrimination grounds or 
in  a  manner  that  guarantees  sufficient  quality  of  the  data.  The  lack  of  resources  is 
frequently mentioned as a cause for these limitations. 

Finally,  in  the  last  third  of  Member  States,  equality  bodies  do  conduct  regular  surveys 
without being limited in their capacity to do so.   

National data systems and data collection processes are often inadequate in the field of 
discrimination,  notably for lack of  resources.  In  addition,  data collection  in  the field  of 
equality  and  non-discrimination,  especially  data  disaggregated  by  ground,  is  not 
harmonised across the EU, which constitutes a barrier to producing comparable national 
data sets in this area44.  

42 See Chapter 2.5. of the 2021 Application report. 
43 See Recommendation 1.1.2(7) of Chapter II. 
44 On data collection, and what has been put in place to improve it, see Chapter 2.5 of the 2021 Application 
report. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Good  practice  to  overcome  these  challenges  include  devoting  a  separate  part  of  the 
permanent  budget  of  an  equality  body  to  surveys  and  dedicating  adequately  qualified 
staff to this function. Having a dedicated budget for research projects or receiving funds 
from external sources (EU funding, different ministries) to carry out annual surveys are 
other possibilities.  

Other good practice follow from putting in place channels of cooperation45.  

For  instance,  when  collecting  data,  some  equality  bodies  have  developed  working 
relations  with  national  statistical  offices.  Others  have  worked  closely  together  with 
government officials to explore innovative approaches to improve the collection and use 
of equality data based on the guidelines issued by the Subgroup on Equality Data of the 
EU High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality and Diversity46. Equality bodies 
across the EU have also joined forces under the auspices of Equinet’s Working Group on 
Research  and  Data  Collection,  to  further  improve  and  coordinate  (comparable)  data 
collection. 

2.2.2.2. 

Independent reports 

The Directives do not set a frequency for the equality bodies to publish their independent 
reports.  

The Recommendation encourages Member States to enable their equality bodies to do so 
‘regularly’47. It states that the scope of the independent reports should be broad enough to 
make  possible  an  overall  assessment  of  the  situation  regarding  discrimination  in  the 
Member State, for each of the grounds covered. 

It  also  recommends  allowing  equality  bodies  to  carry  out  independent  research  and  to 
collect detailed data on the complaints they handle or follow (e.g. number of complaints 
per ground, duration of proceedings and outcome of administrative and judicial cases)48. 
These recommendations complement those on surveys and data collection to ensure that 
equality bodies regularly produce comprehensive overviews of the national situation on 
discrimination.  

By  being  in  direct  contact  with  victims,  equality  bodies  have  access  to  a  lot  of 
information  about  discrimination  cases.  Most  of  them  keep  a  record  of  the  complaints 
they handle and of the decisions they take (when they have such powers)49. However, the 
detail and accuracy of the information gathered varies from one body to another. In most 
instances, they share the information with the public through their websites and reports. 
However, in a few cases, information is only communicated upon request. 

the 

collection 

45 On coordination and cooperation, see Part 4. 
46 The Subgroup on Equality Data brings together representatives of EU Member States and Norway, the 
European  Commission,  Eurostat  and  FRA  with  the  aim  to  support  Member  States  in  their  efforts  to 
at: 
improve 
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=112035. 
47 See Recommendation 1.1.2(8) of Chapter II. 
48 See Recommendation 1.1.2(9) of Chapter II. 
49 For an overview of the data collected per equality body, please see the website of Equinet, where data 
their  own  website: 
collected  by  each  equality  body 
https://equineteurope.org/what-are-equality-bodies/european-directory-of-equality-bodies/. 

equality  data.  The  guidelines 

is  available,  as  well  as  a 

and  use  of 

available 

link 

are 

to 

12 

 
 
                                                 
In all Member States except two, equality bodies publish reports regularly. In these two 
Member States, the resources attributed to the equality mandate are scarce, which partly 
explains this inaction. 

Among  those  who  do  publish  reports,  a  significant  number  of  equality  bodies  only 
publish annual activity reports (sometimes responding to a legal obligation). The quality 
of these reports varies and they do not always contain a detailed analytical overview of 
the challenges and the current situation of discrimination in the country. Sometimes, the 
independence  of  the  report  may  also  be  questioned.  This  can  be  the  case  for  instance 
when equality bodies are financially dependent on, or overseen by, public authorities50. 

In  around  a  third  of  Member  States,  equality  bodies  do  publish  independent  reports 
regularly,  both  on  their  annual  activity  and  on  specific  topics  related  to  discrimination 
thanks to the data drawn from their surveys and the research they carry out or fund.  

Resources  and  independence  appear  as  the  main  issues  hampering  the  production  of 
reports by equality bodies. In a significant number of cases, resources are used in priority 
to assist victims, especially when there are legal obligations to treat complaints.  

Good practice to improve the situation include devoting a separate part of the budget to 
reports and dedicating adequately qualified staff to this function.  

2.2.2.3.  Recommendations 

In  line  with  the  Directives,  equality  bodies  must  be  able  to  make  recommendations  on 
any  discrimination  issue.  The  Recommendation  strengthens  this  advisory  function  by 
saying  that  equality  bodies’  ‘recommendations’  directed  to  public  authorities,  for 
instance on legislation, policy, procedure, programmes and practice, should be taken into 
account. Member States should also ensure that the authorities inform the equality body 
and publicly report on their subsequent actions51. This gives equality bodies the potential 
to play a prominent role in the definition of public policies. 

The function of issuing recommendations goes hand in hand with the ability of equality 
bodies to gather data and produce qualitative assessments of the challenges and current 
situation in  matters  of discrimination, as  the knowledge  emerging from those functions 
will inform the recommendations they give.  

Almost  all  equality  bodies  issue  recommendations.  Most  of  them  issue  general 
recommendations  in their annual  or thematic  reports.  In  addition,  they may  produce  ad 
hoc  recommendations  or  opinions  to  public  authorities  on  specific  issues,  during  the 
policy-making or legislative process. Equality bodies generally report having the power 
to advise governments on the development, adoption and amendment of law and policy. 

In  some  Member  States,  the  ‘recommendations’  provision  in  the  Directives  has  been 
interpreted as (also) covering individual recommendations to victims of discrimination52. 

In  practice,  some  equality  bodies  are  very  much  involved  in  the  public  debate.  Public 
authorities ask for their opinion, which is often followed-up in practice. In a number of 

50 On independence, see Part 3.1. 
51 See Recommendation 1.1.2(10) of Chapter II. 
52 On recommendations in individual cases, see Part 2.2.1.2. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
instances,  though,  their  lack  of  resources  and  independence  or  the  unfriendly  political 
climate in  which they operate, may hamper the  process.  In  a number of  cases, equality 
bodies regret the absence of any response from the relevant public authorities or the fact 
that they are not engaged early enough in the policy-making or legislative process53. 

Good  practice  involves  the  early  consultation  of  equality  bodies  during  the  policy-
making  process  as  well  as  establishing  an  obligation  for  public  authorities  to  ask  the 
advice  of  equality  bodies  and  to  report  on  how  the  bodies’  recommendations  were 
addressed. 

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, existing patterns of discrimination have been 
brought  to  light  and  exacerbated54.  A  significant  number  of  equality  bodies  have  used 
their advisory role to highlight the needs of vulnerable and discriminated groups and the 
necessity  for  everybody  –  e.g.  public  authorities,  employers,  media  –  to  continue  to 
respect  human  rights  and  non-discrimination  legislation.  These  recommendations  have 
taken  the  form  of  public  statements,  communications  and  letters  to  targeted  audiences, 
public authority, private companies and media outlets. 

2.2.2.4.  Promotion 

In  the  Directives,  equality  bodies  are  referred  to  as  ‘bodies  for  the  promotion  of  equal 
treatment’. However, their role of promotion is not further detailed. 

The  Recommendation  states  that  this  role  may  include  preventing  discrimination  by 
providing  training,  information,  advice,  guidance  and  support  to  duty  bearers  having 
obligations  under  the  Directives,  institutions  and  individuals,  and  raising  public 
awareness of the bodies' existence, of the content of the existing anti-discrimination rules 
and of how to seek redress55.  

This role could also encompass engaging in public debate, having a regular dialogue with 
public  authorities,  communicating  with  (representatives  of)  discriminated  groups  and 
stakeholders, and promoting good practice and positive actions56. 

Most equality bodies report being active in this field in one way or another. Relevant and 
interesting practices and initiatives have been reported, aiming both at raising awareness 
of  the  laws  and  the  existence  of  the  equality  body,  and  at  promoting  diversity  and 
equality, more generally. These include: 

-  providing training and/or educational sessions aimed at employers, public 

authorities, schools and real estate agencies; 

-  drafting and sharing guidelines, codes of conduct and brochures on specific fields 

and/or grounds of discrimination; 

-  using online information and awareness campaigns in the media, including 
making full use of social media and internet platforms to reach the largest 
audience; 

-  organising awareness-raising events and projects targeting the public; 

53 More on coordination and cooperation between equality bodies and public authorities, see Part 4.2. 
54 For more information regarding the impact of the pandemic on fundamental rights, see FRA Bulletin 6 
2020 (https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/covid19-rights-impact-november-1#TabPubRelated). 
55 See Recommendation 1.1.2(11) of Chapter II. 
56 See Recommendation 1.1.2(12) of Chapter II. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
-  organising annual or ad hoc themed weeks or days (for example against racism or 

LGBTIQ-phobia); 

-  organising roundtables and sharing practices in specific fields and grounds57; 
- 

creating different annual awards to reward and promote actions by individuals or 
organisations in equality; 
cooperating and partnership with specialised civil society organisations, social 
partners and other relevant stakeholders in relation to all of the above activities; 

- 

-  building capacity and advising. 

In all the areas of promotion, there seems to be major differences in the equality bodies’ 
powers and in how active equality bodies are in promoting equality and in engaging with 
public authorities and relevant stakeholders, including civil society organisations, social 
partners and private actors58. For example, in around four Member States equality bodies 
report not having a function to organise training, advising and capacity-building activities 
for stakeholders (for instance employers) on meeting their obligations. 

As  put  forward  in  the  2021  Application  report59,  a  major  challenge  remains:  the 
underreporting of cases of discrimination and lack of awareness of victims of their rights 
and of existing mechanisms for receiving assistance or redress, including from  equality 
bodies.  

Different levels of engagement may be linked to limited resources, to the absence of an 
explicit  obligation  in  the  Directives  for  equality  bodies  ‘to  promote,’  as  well  as  to 
challenges  on  the  independence  of  the  equality  body  or  to  the  difficult  political  and/or 
public climate in which they have to operate.  

In  a  number  of  Member  States,  the  law  has  imposed  positive  equality  duties  on  public 
and/or private organisations. It requires them to be proactive in promoting equality and/or 
preventing  discrimination.  In  this  case,  a  good  practice  is  to  enable  equality  bodies  to 
support and/or enforce these obligations. 

Conclusion 

Equality bodies can play an important role in collecting data and reporting on the current 
situation  of  discrimination  and  equality  in  their  Member  State,  building  an  expertise  in 
these  fields,  issuing  recommendations,  contributing  to  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  and 
promoting  both  equality  and  their  own  role.  This  is  (partly)  acknowledged  by  the 
Directives and further detailed in the Recommendation.  

Best practice to fulfil this role and to raise awareness include carrying out very regular 
surveys,  engaging  in  research  projects,  publishing  both  annual  and  ad  hoc  reports  and 
conducting regular promotion actions. 

57  EU  wide  exchanges  of  good  practices  involving  equality  bodies  have  taken  place,  including  in  the 
context  of  tackling  anti-Muslim57  and  Roma57  discrimination,  with  the  support  of  the  Equinet,  the 
Commission and Member States. 

58 On coordination and cooperation, see Part 4. 
59 See Part 2.2.1 Defense of rights. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
However, national practice still vary widely from one equality body to another and most 
equality  bodies  do  not  have  sufficient  resources  or  the  independence  to  fully  fulfil  this 
role. 

3. 

INDEPENDENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS  

The effectiveness of equality bodies in fulfilling their role varies significantly depending 
not only on the range of their mandate and functions, but also on how they can put these 
into practice. The latter  largely depends  on the extent to  which the equality bodies  can 
operate  independently,  the  resources  allocated  to  them  and  the  availability  and 
accessibility of the services they offer. 

3.1.  Independence  

The Directives do not refer to the independence of equality bodies as such but they state 
that  they  must  provide  ‘independent’  assistance  to  victims  of  discrimination,  conduct 
‘independent’ surveys and publish ‘independent’ reports. 

The  Recommendation  invites  Member  States  to  consider  measures  to  guarantee  the 
independence of the equality bodies in carrying out their tasks60. These concern: 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

the organisation of those bodies; 
their place in the overall administrative structure;  
the allocation of their budget; 
the procedures for handling resources; 
in particular procedures for appointing and dismissing staff, including persons 
holding leadership positions; 
restrictions to the ability of staff , including persons holding leadership positions 
and board members, to engage in any action or activity incompatible with their 
duties. 

Almost all equality bodies enjoy functional – de jure – independence; their independence 
is established by legal provisions. However, this does not always guarantee that they are 
also  de  facto  independent.  In  practice,  several  factors  come  into  play  to  influence  the 
equality bodies’ independence and the independent exercise of their functions. 

3.1.1.

  Legal status and place in the administrative structure 

Most equality bodies are set up as a separate legal entity.  

However, in a few Member States, they are part of a ministry. In such cases, their staff, 
resources, leadership and internal organisation are usually directly under the authority of 
the  government.  A  strong  leadership  and  specific  internal  rules  are  good  practice  to 
mitigate this structural weakness. 

Legal  personality  is  however  not  in  itself  a  guarantee  for  independence  as  many  other 
aspects come into play.  

60 See Recommendation 1.2.1 of Chapter II. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.1.2.

  Budgetary independence 

Even when the equality body is a separate legal entity, its budget (or at least part of it) is 
generally  set  by  the  government  and/or  the  parliament.  It  may  therefore  be  affected  by 
budgetary cuts and changing political priorities. 

In  some  Member  States,  the  independence  of  the  equality  body  is  affected  by  their 
budgetary  dependence.  For  example,  when  the  approval  of  their  annual  budget  by 
parliament is tied to the approval of their yearly activity report, or when the allocation of 
their budget by a ministry corresponds to pre-determined goals and directions set by the 
government. 

The  ability  for  the  leadership  of  equality  bodies  to  allocate  and  manage  funds 
independently,  once  a  budget  has  been  awarded  to  them,  is  also  important.  This  is  the 
case in most Member States. However, in a number of equality bodies, the leadership has 
limited or no power in budgetary matters. This  reduces considerably their ability to  act 
independently.  

In a few cases, when equality bodies form part of a ministry or of a larger multi-mandate 
body, they have no budget of their own and take no part in the budgetary decisions. 

To  mitigate  negative  effects  for  equality  bodies,  a  good  practice  seems  to  be  a 
multiannual budget set in law, managed independently by the leadership of the equality 
body. In the case of multi-mandate institutions, a separate budget or an adequate amount 
of funds could be earmarked for the equality mandate. 

In addition, equality bodies could be entitled to raise funds, from within and outside the 
Member State, in a way which would not compromise their independence. For example, 
some  have  applied  for  and  been  awarded  action  grants  under  the  call  for  proposals  to 
promote  the  effective  implementation  of  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  under  the 
EU Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) programme61.   

3.1.3.

  Rules on leadership 

Rules on selection, appointment (or revocation) and accountability of the persons holding 
leadership  positions  are  also  key  to  the  independence  and  effectiveness  of  an  equality 
body. The quality, competence and integrity of those in leadership positions influence the 
internal culture and practice of equality bodies, and have the potential to counterbalance 
structural weaknesses.   

In practice, the leadership of equality bodies is  ensured either by  a single head or by  a 
board, the former being slightly more frequent than the latter. 

The government – minister(s), prime minister or president – usually appoints the head of 
the equality body or some members of the board. A better practice in light of the equality 
body’s independence, applied in a growing number of Member States, is to involve the 
parliament,  with  a  (qualified)  majority  vote.  The  parliament  could  even  be  responsible 
for the appointment.  

61  See  Regulation  (EU)  No  1381/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 December  2013 
establishing a Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme for the period 2014 to 2020, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 62–
72.  

17 

 
 
                                                 
Other  arrangements  include  appointments  of  board  members  by  various  organisations 
and/or institutions or involving these organisations in the selection procedure. While this 
ensures  representation  of  various  actors  and  opinions,  there  is  a  risk  of  appointed 
members’ independence being affected. 

A public call for applications is a good practice to ensure the largest and most inclusive 
pool of candidates. This is organised in some Member States. 

Most of all, transparent and competence-based selection procedures are needed to ensure 
the qualification and legitimacy of the leadership. However, selection procedures do not 
yet necessarily fulfil both these criteria. . Good practice includes setting key requirements 
beforehand  (e.g.  expertise  in  human  rights,  discrimination  and  equality,  and  number  of 
years of experience), not to leave room for too much discretion in the selection process, 
and to put in place legal remedies. This can avoid appointments to be controversial and to 
affect the (perceived) independence of the equality body. 

To ensure the independence of the leadership once appointed, and prevent any conflict of 
interest,  a  number  of  Member  States  have  also  limited  the  ability  of  the  leadership  to 
engage in other professional and/or political activities.   

Rules limiting the possibility to revoke the leadership of equality bodies (e.g. for health 
reasons or financial mismanagement) is also a good practice to ensure that it can exercise 
its functions independently.  

3.1.4.

  Accountability 

A  significant  number  of  equality  bodies  are  accountable  to  the  government,  which  can 
impair their independence. In recent years, though, a growing number of equality bodies 
have become accountable to the parliament. Other accountability mechanisms exist, for 
example when the equality body reports both to the government and to the parliament. In 
a  minority  of  cases,  the  legislation  does  not  contain  any  particular  accountability 
provision  at  all  or  the  equality  bodies  are  accountable  to  audit  authorities.  The  latter  is 
considered as good practice.  

When equality bodies are accountable to the parliament, it is usually through their annual 
report. A good practice is for the parliament to debate the report but not to subject it to 
any formal approval.  

3.1.5.

  Political context and public opinion 

In  some  countries,  the  national  political  context  and/or  the  public  opinion  may  be 
unfriendly  to  (some  of)  the  activities  of  equality  bodies.  Controversial,  non-transparent 
and/or political appointments for heads of equality bodies and unfair sanctions sometimes 
made the headlines. 

In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  equality  bodies  appear  to  benefit  from  de  facto 
independence, despite being dependent on the government for their budget, appointment 
of their leadership and/or accountability. However, legal safeguards should be in place to 
resist  political  interference  if  circumstances  change.  In  the  absence  of  such  safeguards, 
political interference can have damaging consequences and negatively affect the effective 
functioning of the equality body. 

Conclusion 

18 

 
 
The  independence  of  equality  bodies  is  vital  in  fully  exercising  their  functions. 
Therefore,  the  Recommendation  invites  Member  States  to  consider  measures  to 
guarantee this independence of equality bodies in carrying out their tasks. 

Best  practice  includes  setting  up  a  separate  legal  entity,  a  budget  protected  by  legal 
provisions, transparent and competency-based selection procedures for the leadership and 
limited sanctions/accountability.  

A  significant  number  of  equality  bodies  do  not  meet  all  these  criteria  and  are  still 
dependent  on  the  government.  In  practice,  this  is  not  an  issue  under  most  political 
circumstances (the equality body may still function quite independently in practice) but it 
could raise serious concerns in less consensual political climates. 

3.2.  Resources  

Without  appropriate  financial  and  human  resources,  equality  bodies  cannot  properly 
perform their duties. 

While the Directives are silent in this field, the Recommendation62 invites Member States 
to  provide  each  equality  body  with  the  human,  technical  and  financial  resources, 
premises  and  infrastructure  necessary  to  perform  its  tasks  and  exercise  its  powers 
effectively, after taking into account the powers and tasks allocated.  

It also states that resources can only be considered adequate if they allow equality bodies 
to  carry  out  each  of  their  equality  functions  effectively,  within  reasonable  time  and 
within  the  deadlines  established  by  national  law.  It  also  provides  that  the  staff  of  the 
equality bodies must be sufficiently numerous and adequately qualified in terms of skills, 
knowledge  and  experience,  to  fulfil  adequately  and  effectively  each  of  the  equality 
bodies’ functions.  

In practice, the level of funding and staffing varies considerably from one Member State 
to another. Data collection on the resources does not always allow an exact comparison. 
However, the differences are quite remarkable with some equality bodies declaring that 
they function with a budget below half a million euros and/or less than 5 staff members 
while others declare more than 50 staff members and a budget of several million euros. 
This can be partly explained by different population sizes and the cost of living (which 
affects salaries and other costs) but not in all cases.  In fact, some small Member States 
have equality bodies with high levels of funding and staff, while bigger Member States 
do not. 

Sometimes,  the  data  on  resources  are  not  fully  transparent.  For  instance,  when  the 
equality body is part of a ministry or of a multi-mandate body, it is not always possible to 
determine the exact level of funding and staffing that goes to the equality mandate. 

When  it  comes  to  trends,  most  equality  bodies  have  seen  their  budget  and  staff  slowly 
increase  in  the  last  years,  although,  for  a  few  of  them,  this  increase  came  after  major 
budget cuts. In a few cases, equality bodies have seen their budget heavily cut some years 
ago, sometimes almost by half. In other Member States, resources have slowly decreased. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  a  few  Member  States,  the  equality  body’s  budget  has  sharply 

62 See Recommendation 1.2.2(1) and (2) of Chapter II. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
increased in recent years. Some have reported sharp increases following the publication 
of  the  Recommendation.  Nevertheless,  most  equality  bodies  point  to  inadequate 
resources (e.g. lack of funding, insufficient staff or lack of appropriate qualifications) as 
the main factor limiting their ability to: 

engage in (strategic) litigation;  
carry out surveys and research; 

-  devote equal and proportionate attention to all grounds and/or fields; 
- 
- 
-  publish reports apart from their annual report;  
- 
- 
- 
- 

issue recommendations; 
engage in prevention and promotion activities; 
ensure local and regional representation; 
engage in meaningful cooperation and coordination at different levels. 

A number of equality bodies face  an increase in  workload  - for  example, caused by an 
increase in the number of complaints, or by additional tasks entrusted to them. However, 
this  increase  in  workload  is  not  accompanied  with  an  increase  in  resources.  This  is  a 
major  concern  as  it  may  lead  to  the  inability  of  the  equality  body  to  deliver  on  its 
additional/new tasks, and/or to a global reduction of its effectiveness. 

Some equality bodies also face specific issues, for example, when they do not have their 
own  premises  and  rely  on  the  government  or  regional  authorities  to  provide  them  with 
offices. This may impair their ability to perform their duties independently vis-à-vis those 
authorities. 

In a few Member States, equality bodies are not free to hire their own staff or to manage 
them,  as  this  prerogative  remains  with  the  ministry  or  the  entity  they  belong  to 
(Ombudsperson or NHRI). This may have a negative impact on the level of expertise and 
loyalty of the staff and their dedication to the equality mandate. 

In  multi-mandate  bodies,  the  resources  devoted  to  the  equality  mandate  are  sometimes 
very low compared to the overall resources, which can prevent the effective functioning 
of  the  equality  body.  Some  equality  bodies  have  been  able  to  benefit  from  additional 
resources  (e.g.  EU  funding,  contribution  from  national  public  authorities)  to  carry  out 
specific projects, but this funding is generally limited in time and purpose. 

Conclusion 

Without  appropriate  financial  and  human  resources,  equality  bodies  cannot  properly 
perform their duties.  

Some  good  practice  has  been  reported  with  infrastructure,  staff  and  budget  allowing 
equality  bodies to  adequately  and effectively  fulfil their different  functions in  all fields 
and grounds in line with the Recommendation.  

Trends in funding and resources are rather positive. However, in  absolute numbers, the 
level  of  resources  is  a  major  source  of  concern.  Most  equality  bodies  consider  their 
resources  inadequate  –  in  terms  of  funding,  number  of  staff  and/or  skill  set  of  staff. 
Another major concern is the attribution of new  tasks without additional  resources that 
may jeopardize the global effectiveness of an equality body. 

20 

 
 
3.3.  Complaint submission, access and accessibility 

To fulfil their role  in  promoting equality and in  assisting victims of discrimination,  the 
public  needs  to  know  about  the  services  provided  by  the  equality  bodies  and  those 
services need to be easily accessible. This is even truer in a context where those most at 
risk  of  discrimination  face  barriers  in  reporting  their  case63,  in  part  because  of  the 
potential costs and complexity of the procedure. 

While the Directives do not contain rules on accessibility, the Recommendation promotes 
good practice on access and accessibility64: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

complaint submission via a free and simple procedure, orally, in written form and 
online,  in  a  language  of  the  complainant's  choosing  which  is  common  in  the 
Member State where the equality body is located; 
confidentiality  for  witnesses,  whistle-blowers  and,  to  the  extent  possible,  for 
complainants; 
easy  access  to  all  services65  for  all,  in  particular  accessibility  for  people  with 
disabilities; 
local/regional  offices  or  local/regional  presence  of  the  equality  body  where 
necessary for geographical or other reasons; 
sufficient  resources  to  raise  awareness  about  the  existence  of  the  equality  body 
and its role in assisting victims. 

3.3.1.

  Complaint submission 

To help victims exercise their rights and report instances of discrimination, the procedure 
to  contact  equality  bodies  and  submit  complaints  should  be  as  simple  as  possible, 
allowing for different means of submission in languages ‘common in the Member State 
where the equality body is located.’ It should entail no cost.  

Data show that, in almost all Member States, complaints can be made orally (by phone or 
face-to-face),  in  written  form  or  online,  in  line  with  the  Recommendation.  In  one 
Member  State,  though,  making  a  complaint  online  is  not  possible.  In  a  few  Member 
States,  making  a  complaint  by  phone  is  not  an  option.  Besides,  most  equality  bodies 
declare  receiving  complaints  in  languages  other  than  the  official  language(s)  of  their 
country. 

However, no comprehensive data are currently available on the costs and complexity of 
the different procedures in each Member State. 

3.3.2.

  Physical presence across the territory 

Good access to equality bodies also has a physical dimension, determined by the location 
of  the  main  office,  its  visibility  and  whether  there  are  local  and/or  regional 
representations. 

63 See Chapter 2.2.1 ‘Defence of rights’ of the 2021 Application report.  
64 See Recommendation 1.2.3 of Chapter II. 
65  Namely,  easy  access  to  the  equality  body’s  physical  premises,  their  information  and  communication 
including information technologies, and services and products such as documents and audiovisual material 
or meetings and events open or provided to the public. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
In around a third of Member States, the equality body’s main premises are reported not to 
be visible or open to the public. 

Local  or  regional  offices  or  presence  are  considered  a  good  practice,  where  this  is 
necessary  for  geographical  or other reasons,  as they can bring equality  bodies closer to 
the individuals, offer face-to-face contact and ensure local outreach and visibility. They 
are key to overcoming high levels of underreporting by victims.  

Around half of Member States offer a local or regional presence in various set-ups. Some 
equality bodies have a few local offices spread across the national territory. Others have 
secured  a  local  presence  through  other  bodies  such  as  non-governmental  organisations 
which  represent  them  and  provide  some  of  their  services.  Some  equality  bodies  rather 
organise local outreach activities. However, equality bodies in a few Member States have 
declared  that  their  local  presence  had  decreased  in  the  recent  years  due  to  insufficient 
resources. 

The physical presence of equality bodies can appear less and less necessary in a time of 
digitalisation.  Digitalisation  is  essential  to  reach  the  largest  population  and  specific 
groups  across  the  whole  territory  –  especially  in  the  context  of  crises,  such  as  the 
COVID-19  pandemic.  However,  some  people,  especially  from  vulnerable  and 
discriminated groups, have limited IT-literacy and/or access to digital tools66. This is why 
physical presence remains crucial to reach the whole population. 

3.3.3.

  Accommodate and reflect diversity 

The services provided for by equality bodies must be equally available to all, whatever 
their  personal  characteristics.  To  be  as  inclusive  as  possible  and  to  improve  trust,  it  is 
important that the equality body’s staff reflects the diversity that exists in society. People 
from  vulnerable  and  discriminated  groups  should  also  be  involved  in  the  work  and 
activities the equality bodies undertake.  

Equal access and accessibility are particularly important for people with disabilities. It is, 
for instance, essential that  the premises of the  equality bodies  are physically  accessible 
for  people  with  mobility  impairment.  Similarly,  their  online  material  and  promotion 
campaigns  must  be  accessible,  among  others,  for  people  with  visual  or  hearing 
impairments. 

to  cater  for  diversity  can  also 

Adaptations 
into  account  and 
accommodating  other  personal  characteristics  such  as  literacy  issues  in  written 
procedures,  scheduling  issues  for  people  with  caring  responsibilities,  transportation 

include 

taking 

66 According to the European  Disability Forum and  Age Platform Europe, the digital divide (in terms of 
digital literacy and access to IT tools) affects mainly the elderly and people with disabilities. In 2015, one 
in  three  persons  with  disabilities  has  never  used  the  Internet,  which  represents  54%  of  those  who  have 
never been online. Besides, more than 69% of people who lack basic digital skills are aged over 55 years 
(https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/european-disability-forum-recommendations-inclusive-digital-
single-market). 
Roma  communities  are  also  affected  by  the  digital  divide,  as  evidenced  by  the  very  difficult  access  to 
online  schooling  during  the  pandemic  (https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/covid19-rights-impact-
september-1), 
field 
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/portfolio_of_indicators_en.pdf)  

developed 

although 

further 

needs 

data 

this 

be 

in 

to 

For  more  info  on  the  digital  inclusion  policy  of  the  Commission,  see  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/policies/digital-inclusion-and-web-accessibility  

22 

 
 
                                                 
issues  linked  to  costs  or  distance  and  translation  needs  when  people  do  not  speak  a 
language commonly used in the Member State where the equality body is situated. 

Data  currently  available  on  the  accommodation  for  people  with  disabilities  and 
adaptations  to  cater  for  diversity  by  equality  bodies  are  not  sufficient  to  describe  the 
situation on the ground in detail. In general, though, it appears that in more than half of 
Member  States,  equality  bodies  have  taken  measures  and/or  established  procedures  to 
protect  the  rights  of  people  with  disabilities  and/or  to  cater  for  diversity.  However,  in 
other  countries,  people  can  only  rely  on  informal  good  practice  that  is  not  necessarily 
systematically applied. 

3.3.4.

  Awareness of the existence of the equality body 

The Recommendation invites Member States to provide ‘sufficient budget and resources 
to  equality  bodies  to  enable  them  to  carry  out  effective  awareness-raising  aimed  at 
informing the public of their existence and of the possibility to submit complaints about 
discrimination.’  

Awareness  of  the  existence  and  role  of  equality  bodies  is  a  prerequisite  for  people  to 
make use of the protection and services those bodies offer. FRA data from 2017 do not 
present  a  rosy  picture.  For  instance,  71%  of  respondents  from  minority  ethnic  groups 
were not aware of any organisation that offers support or advice to discrimination victims 
and 62% did not recognise the name of any equality body in their country of residence67.  
There  was  a  better  awareness  of  some  other  groups  at  risk  of  discrimination  such  as 
lesbian,  gay  or  bisexual  (LGB)  respondents  with  about  40%  not  knowing  that  their 
country has an equality body68. Awareness among the general population of the existence 
of at least one equality body in their country – which includes bodies that cover racial or 
ethnic origin, or gender as grounds of discrimination – was also relatively high (61%)69. 

Across discrimination grounds, the  general  population does not  seem  inclined to  report 
their  case  to  an  equality  body  or  to  an  Ombudsperson.  According  to  the  2019 
Eurobarometer,  only  12%  said  that,  if  discriminated,  they  would  prefer  to  report  their 
case to such a body7071. This result was even worse compared to the 2015 Eurobarometer, 
where  17%  said  they  would  prefer  to  report  it  to  their  national  equality  body72.  The 
reasons  for  this  result,  although  not  mentioned  in  the  Eurobarometer,  include  a  lack  of 
awareness of the existence of the equality body73.  

As  underlined  in  the  2021  Application  report74,  resources  and  efforts  are  therefore  still 
very much needed to raise the level of awareness on the existence of equality bodies and 
the  assistance  they  offer,  both  among  the  general  population  and  even  more  among 

67  Second  EU  Minorities  and  Discrimination  survey  (EU  MIDIS  II).  Main  results,  2017,  at: 
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/second-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey-
main-results. 
68 FRA 2019 survey on LGBTI people, at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2018/eu-lgbti-survey-ii 
69 FRA’s submission. 
70 Eurobarometer on discrimination in the EU 2019, at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/special/s
urveyky/2251  
71 35% would prefer to report this to the police while 20% prefer a friend or family member for example 
72 Eurobarometer on discrimination in the EU 2015, factsheet, at : 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/factsheet_eurobarometer_fundamental_rights_2015_en.pdf 
73 For more on the reasons of underreporting, see the 2021 Application report 2.2.1 Defence of rights 
74 See Chapter 2.2.1 on ‘Defence of rights’ and Chapter 2.3.1 on ‘Information’. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
people and groups particularly at risk of discrimination. Together with other factors, such 
as  visibility,  availability,  accessibility  and  trust,  awareness  of  equality  bodies  is  crucial 
for addressing the issue of underreporting.  

Conclusion 

Ensuring  available  and  accessible  assistance  is  key  to  effectively  protecting  victims  of 
discrimination,  in  particular  people  with  disabilities,  and  to  overcoming  the  current 
underreporting of discrimination cases.  

Good  practices  in  line  with  the  Recommendation  include  simple  and  free  complaint 
submission,  and  services  that  are  digitally  and  physically  accessible,  have  outreach  to 
citizens  from  the  whole  territory,  are  well-known  to  the  public  and  the  victims,  and 
designed to accommodate people with disabilities and to adapt to all people. 

Some of the recommendations to ensure easily available support to victims are applied in 
almost  all  Member  States  (e.g.  the  various  means  to  submit  a  complaint).  However, 
additional  efforts  should  be  made  to  cater  for  the  victims’  diverse  needs,  to  provide 
accommodation for people with disabilities, and to bring the equality bodies closer to all 
through  physical  presence  and  outreach  to  people  across  the  territory,  where  this  is 
necessary. In addition, increased efforts and resources would allow for a better awareness 
raising about the existence of equality bodies and the assistance and protection that they 
afford. 

4.  COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 

Equality  bodies  are  not  supposed  to  operate  in  isolation.  Enabling  equality  bodies  to 
regularly  coordinate  and  cooperate  at  different  levels,  on  a  long-term  basis,  is  key  for 
their  good  functioning  and  for  the  effective  exercise  of  their  tasks.  It  is  also  key  for 
mutual learning, coherence and consistency and it may broaden the outreach and impact 
of their work. 

The  Gender  Equality  Directives  in  employment75  and  self-employment76  are  the  only 
directives containing specific obligations in this field. They provide that Member States 
must  ensure  that  equality  bodies  exchange  information  with  corresponding  European 
bodies, such as EIGE.  

The Recommendation encourages Member States to enable coordination and cooperation 
at different levels such as between (and within) equality bodies, with national authorities 
and with relevant stakeholders, including at European and international levels77. 

4.1.  Coordination and collaboration between (and within) equality bodies  

Firstly,  coordination  and  cooperation  should  take  place  between  and  within  equality 
bodies at national level. Mechanisms for coordination and cooperation help to ensure that 
non-discrimination principles are applied consistently.  

75 Article 20(2)(d). 
76 Article 11(2)(d). 
77 See Recommendation 1.3. of Chapter II. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  setup  of  clear  and  effective  mechanisms  for  coordination  and  cooperation  is 
particularly important in Member States where several equality bodies operate and where 
local or regional offices have been established78. Coordination and cooperation are even 
more essential when equality bodies fall under different levels of governance, such as in 
federal  states79.  It  is  also  needed  to  prevent  different  treatment  of  victims  of 
discrimination depending on the sector concerned (for instance in the private versus the 
public sector, or in employment versus service provisions). 

Secondly, cooperation between equality bodies is encouraged at EU level. The Equinet, 
which is supported by the Commission, plays a key role in this regard. In this network, 
national  equality  bodies  regularly  meet  at  EU  level  to  ensure  a  coherent  and  effective 
implementation of the Directives on the ground. More particularly, the network organises 
capacity-building  events  and  ensures  that  information  and  knowledge  flow  efficiently 
between  its  members,  for  instance  by  organising  seminars  and  workshops80.  Recent 
results  of  this  cooperation  and  networking  include  a  project  developing  indicators81  to 
measure compliance with standards for equality bodies and a study on the role equality 
bodies can play in monitoring the equality impact of artificial intelligence82. The work of 
Equinet  also  contributes  to  law  and policy-making  at  national  and EU level,  and raises 
public  awareness  on  issues  related  to  equality  and  non-discrimination.  The  network 
regularly issues publications, launches campaigns and shares concerns and good practice, 
including in response to crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic83.  

Most  Equinet  publications  are  produced  using  surveys  sent  to  the  whole  membership, 
which helps to ensure precious comparable data on key issues. Moreover, equality bodies 
use the network to gather comparative information regarding equality issues and how the 
legislation/policies have been applied to different situations. Many of these requests for 
information concern specific cases encountered by equality bodies, where the responses 
from other equality bodies help them to find a coherent application of EU equality law. 

4.2.  Cooperation with public authorities 

The Recommendation encourages national authorities to engage in dialogue with equality 
bodies  including  by  ensuring  their  timely  and  transparent  consultation  on  policy  and 
legislative  proposals  related  to  the  equality  bodies’  mandate.  The  latter  is  an  important 
aspect  of the equality bodies’ advisory  function.  As pointed out  in  the chapter above84, 
Member  States  should  ensure  that  their  public  authorities  take  account  of  the  equality 
bodies’ ‘recommendations’ addressed to them. As some equality bodies gather evidence 
and  conduct  investigations  in  addition  to  supporting  victims  and  promoting  equal 
treatment  more  generally,  their  cooperation  with  public  inspectorates  or  other  public 
bodies, such as labour inspectorates85 or statistical offices is important, too.  

Good practice has been reported to support dialogue with public authorities, including:  

78 See Part 3.3.2. 
79 In one Member State, a recent decision has been taken to decentralise the equality body. 
80 See: https://equineteurope.org/equinet-at-a-glance/equinet-activities/page/2/ 
81 See: https://equineteurope.org/what-are-equality-bodies/standards-for-equality-bodies/  
82 See: https://equineteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ai_report_digital.pdf 
83 See: https://equineteurope.org/covid-19-response/ 
84 See Part 2.2.2.3. 
85  On  strengthening  equality  bodies’  action  by  establishing  a  close  cooperation  and  coordination  with 
labour inspectorates, see, for instance, Recommendation 2014/124/EU of 7 March 2014 on strengthening 
the principle of equal pay between men and women through transparency, OJ L 69, 8.3.2014. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
  an advisory function provided for in law;  
  equality bodies receiving regular invitations to review new legislation or 

amendments to legislation;  
inclusion of equality bodies in policy working groups;  

 
  organisation of discussions with civil servants to see how they best engage with 

equality bodies;  
setting up of a dedicated board to enable information sharing;  

 
  equality bodies advising governmental bodies on how to better include equality in 

their employment practices;  

  appointment of staff members engaging in relations with parliament;  
  presentation  –  provided  for  by  law  –  of  equality  bodies  annual  reports  to 

parliament. 

However,  in  some  Member  States,  equality  bodies  report  not  having  a  function  to 
participate  in  advocacy  work  at  national  level.  Some  equality  bodies  are  also  facing 
difficulties  in  accessing  legislative  and  policy  fora  and  creating  working  relationships 
with legislators and policy makers.  

Another  challenge  is  to  engage  with  different  state  actors  without  undermining  the 
independence of the equality body, e.g. not to be seen as developing government policies 
or  to  take  ‘orders’  from  the  government.  This  challenge  can  be  overcome  by  Member 
States putting in place processes and guarantees to ensure the independence of equality 
bodies86. 

In  several  Member  States,  national  equality  bodies  are  operating  in  a  difficult  political 
context  or  in  a  situation  of  political  disinterest.  Such  a  climate  is  prone  to  weaken  the 
voice of equality bodies and, therefore, to hinder effective dialogue and cooperation with 
the authorities, putting barriers to the equality bodies’ possible impact including when it 
comes to their advice on new policy and legislative proposals. 

4.3.  Cooperation with other relevant stakeholders 

Member  States  should  also  enable  equality  bodies  to  collaborate  at  national,  European 
and international level with relevant organisations. This allows to share expertise, create 
a  common  understanding  on  equality  issues,  network,  engage  in  cross-border  data 
collection, join forces in awareness-raising campaigns, etc.  

Engagement  with  stakeholders,  such  as  civil  society  organisations,  social  partners, 
academics  or  relevant  private  actors  (including  employers,  real  estate  agencies  and 
service providers) often only exists unofficially and informally. This is unfortunate given 
the good practice identified in more formal and structural arrangements of engagement, 
without these compromising the independence of the equality body.  

For instance, in some Member States, that engagement consists of collaboration on data 
collection,  joint  publications,  common  campaigns  or  events,  sharing  of  resource 
materials, the establishment of networks of equality organisations for instance to develop 
common  anti-discrimination  plans  and  strategies,  or  agreements  with  civil  society 
organisations so they can act as (regional) contact points for the equality body.  

86 On independence, see Part 3.1. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
Several  Member States  have encouraged equality  bodies to  set  up specific structures to 
regularly enter into dialogue with stakeholders, to share advice and build up trust87. For 
instance,  several  equality  bodies  have  reported  a  formal  engagement  with  civil  society 
organisations.  Some  equality  bodies  also  enter  into  such  engagements  without  it  being 
formalised. Only few equality bodies have mentioned formal forms of engagement with 
social  partners.  Some  also  do  this  work  but  do  not  have  any  process  of  social 
engagement. In general, relationships with the social partners are more likely to be with 
the trade unions than with business organisations.  

In  addition,  equality  bodies  engage  with  other  relevant  public  bodies  at  EU  and 
international  level.  Besides  regular  collaboration  with  EU  institutions  and  agencies 
(mainly  FRA  and  EIGE),  most  equality  bodies  have  developed  important  international 
cooperation with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 
and  the  United  Nations  Human  Rights  Treaty  Bodies  (e.g.  the  Committee  on  the 
Elimination of Racial Discrimination), the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human 
Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE-ODIHR) and 
the  Council  of  Europe  (including  the  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  and  ECRI). 
Equinet is actively enabling these links at EU and international level. However, in some 
Member States, equality bodies reported not having a function to participate in advocacy 
work at EU or international level. 

The Recommendation points to encouraging cooperation between equality bodies and the 
National  Frameworks  designated  under  Article  33(2)  of  the  UN  Convention  on  the 
Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  (UNCRPD),  National  Roma  Contact  Points  and  the 
management authorities of the European Structural and Investment Funds. 

Firstly, on cooperation with the National Frameworks under the UNCRPD88, it is worth 
noting that most equality bodies holding an equality mandate on disability are part of the 
Frameworks as “Article 33(2)” bodies themselves.  

Secondly,  several  equality  bodies  have  made  constructive  contributions  to  developing 
and  implementing  national  Roma  integration  strategies,  including  by  cooperating  with 
National  Roma Contact  Points89. However, public  authorities sometimes fail to  involve 
them90.  To  overcome 
its  proposal  for  a  Council 
Recommendation  on  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation91,  included  a  specific 
section92 encouraging Member States to support equality bodies in their cooperation with 

the  Commission, 

this, 

in 

87 In some countries, stakeholders may not trust the equality body because of the perceived or effective lack 
of independence of some equality bodies. 
88 The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which the EU and all Member States 
are  party  to,  requires  that  State  parties  shall,  in  accordance  with  their  legal  and  administrative  systems, 
maintain,  strengthen,  designate  or  establish  within  the  State  Party,  a  framework,  including  one  or  more 
independent  mechanisms,  as  appropriate,  to  promote,  protect  and  monitor  implementation  of  the  present 
Convention. When designating or establishing such a mechanism, States Parties shall take into account the 
principles  relating  to  the  status  and  functioning  of  national  institutions  for  protection  and  promotion  of 
human rights.  
89 Member States are invited to implement national Roma integration strategies and to nominate  national 
Roma contact points. See: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, An EU Framework for 
National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, Brussels, 5.4.2011, COM(2011) 173 final. 
90 
See: 
Bodies.pdf 
91  Proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation  on  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation,  Brussels, 
7.10.2020 COM(2020) 621 final. 
92 See Recommendations 14 and 15 of the proposal. 

https://equineteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Roma_Traveller-Inclusion_Equality-

27 

 
 
                                                 
National  Roma  Contact  Points  and  to  enable  them  to  be  involved  in  the  design, 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the national Roma strategic frameworks. 

Thirdly, in the context of Cohesion policy93, Member States and the Commission should 
ensure that equality between men and women, gender mainstreaming and the integration 
of a gender perspective are taken into account and promoted throughout the programmes 
cycle by taking advantage of the equality bodies’ expertise.  

including 

through  participation 

the  horizontal  enabling  conditions 

The legal framework94 includes equality bodies among the partners to be involved in the 
preparation  of  partnership  agreements  and  throughout  the  preparation,  implementation 
in  monitoring 
and  evaluation  of  programmes, 
committees. Furthermore, to ensure an effective and efficient use of EU funds, a list of 
enabling  conditions  and  corresponding  criteria  for  their  assessment  were  proposed95. 
the  effective  application  and 
Among 
implementation  of the EU Charter of  Fundamental  Rights,  as  well as of the UNCRPD. 
The  thematic  enabling  condition  related  to  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation 
includes  measures  to  prevent  and  eliminate  segregation,  and  arrangements  for  ensuring 
effective partnership with all relevant stakeholders.  The thematic enabling condition on 
gender  equality  calls  for  arrangements  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  are  properly 
involved  in  the  design,  implementation,  monitoring  and  review  of  national  strategic 
frameworks  for  gender  equality.  Equality  bodies  will  therefore  be  essential  in 
guaranteeing  that  equality  is  mainstreamed  throughout  EU  funds’  investments  and 
coherent with national strategies, and should therefore be supported to fulfil this role in 
an effective manner.  

is 

A  cross-cutting  challenge  affecting  cooperation  is  time  and  resources.  Often  equality 
bodies find it hard to commit time to cooperation and coordination activities given their 
already stretched human resources, limited budget and growing workload.  

Conclusion 

A meaningful engagement in activities of cooperation and coordination at different levels 
allows equality bodies to effectively exercise their functions and benefits other bodies. 

The  Recommendation  recognises  this  and  encourages  Member  States  to  take  the 
necessary measures to ensure that equality bodies coordinate and cooperate with a broad 
range  of  actors,  such  as  other  equality  bodies,  public  authorities  and  other  relevant 
organisations. 

Good  practice  includes  setting-up  structured  and  formalised  cooperation  mechanisms, 
including with public authorities, civil society organisations and social partners; creating 
dedicated  networks  or  boards  e.g.  for  exchanging  information  and  organising  joint 
surveys  or  events;  and  providing  by  law  for  a  regular  advisory  function  on  policy 
developments and legislation. 

93 Cohesion policy is the EU's strategy to promote and support the overall harmonious development of its 
Member  States  and  regions  (https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/policy/what/investment-
policy/).(https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/policy/what/investment-policy/). 
94  The  co-legislators  reached  on  1  December  2020  a  political  agreement  on  the  Commission  Proposal 
(COM(2018)375  final)  for  a  Common  Provisions  Regulation  (CPR)  for  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund, the European Social  Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the  European Maritime  and 
Fisheries Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security 
Fund and the Border Management and Visa Instrument, Strasbourg, 29.5.2018, COM(2018) 375 final. 
95 See Annex III and Annex IV to the proposal for a CPR (see previous footnote). 

28 

 
 
                                                 
All  equality  bodies  engage  in  some  form  of  cooperation  and  coordination,  although  to 
varying  degrees  of  intensity  and  scope.  All  too  often,  such  arrangements  remain 
unofficial and informal. 

Regular  and  effective  cooperation  and  coordination  of  equality  bodies  require  clear 
mechanisms  of  engagement,  which  are  formal,  structured  and  transparent.  As  a  cross-
cutting issue, interaction at different levels requires the necessary financial means, staff 
and institutional capacity and is therefore strongly determined by equality bodies having 
sufficient resources. 

5.  CONCLUSION 

Many Member States have enabled their equality bodies to play a meaningful role, going 
beyond the minimum requirements of the Directives. Equality bodies in several Member 
States  have  managed  to  become  important  centres  of  expertise  and  support  on 
discrimination  matters,  for  individuals,  organisations  and  public  authorities.  They 
actively promote equality and social change.  

At  the  same  time,  the  landscape  of  equality  bodies  in  the  EU  is  characterised  by  great 
diversity.  Each  equality  body  has  its  own  traits  in  terms  of  mandate,  functions, 
independence,  effectiveness,  availability,  accessibility,  practices  of  cooperation  and 
collaboration, and political climate it is set in. 

To  some  extent,  this  diversity  reflects  a  variety  in  Member  States’  legal  traditions  and 
legal  systems.  It  also  reflects  different  levels  of  ambition  and  achievement  in  Member 
States pursuing the objectives of the Directives.  

A  key  cross-cutting  issue  is  the  equality  bodies’  inadequacy  of  resources  in  terms  of 
funding and staff. This issue is common to most equality bodies and impacts negatively 
on the execution of all their responsibilities and activities, including data collection.  

Other important challenges include a limited awareness of the equality bodies’ existence, 
limited independence (or insufficient legal safeguards to independence) and limited legal 
standing. In addition, not all equality bodies are competent for all the fields and grounds 
put forward by the Recommendation.  

The  Recommendation  serves  as  a  common  standard  for  the  effective  and  independent 
functioning of equality bodies. Four Member States have reported that they are currently 
working on legislative reforms96 following the Recommendation.  

However,  a  limited  and  unequal  level  of  implementation  of  the  Recommendation 
continues to hinder some equality bodies in effectively exercising their role. In practice, 
this leads to different levels of protection against discrimination across the EU.  

96 With the adoption of the ‘Technical Support Instrument’ by the Council and Parliament on 10 February 
2021, Member States can now be supported when improving their institutional and administrative capacity, 
in particular to mainstream equality, including to improve the effectiveness of equality bodies (https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2021:057:FULL&from=EN) 

29 

 
 
                                                 
Continuing to share good practice and/or guidance at EU level and raising awareness will 
be very beneficial. As already announced97, the Commission will also assess whether to 
propose new legislation to strengthen the role of national equality bodies by 2022. 

97  In  the  2020-2025  the  EU  anti-racism  action  plan  2020-2025  (https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-
and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/eu-anti-racism-action-plan-
2020-2025_en),  the  new  EU  Roma  Strategic  Framework  of  equality,  inclusion  and  participation 
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/new-eu-roma-strategic-framework-equality-inclusion-and-
participation-full-package_en), 
the 
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/lesbian-gay-
bi-trans-and-intersex-equality/lgbtiq-equality-strategy-2020-2025_en). 

2020-2025 

LGBTIQ 

Equality 

Strategy 

and 

30