Fundamental rights report 2021.
Date: 2021-06-10
Institutions: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Subjects: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, activity report, operation of the Institutions

FUNDAMENTAL 
RIGHTS REPORT
― 2021

T
R
O
P
E
R

F

U

N

D

A

M

E

N

T

A

L

R

I

G

H

T

S

R

E

P

O

R

T

―

2

0

2

1

 
 
 
 
— A great deal of information on the European Union Agency for Fundamental 

Rights is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the FRA website 
at fra.europa.eu 

The Fundamental Rights Report 2021 is published in English. 

— FRA’s annual Fundamental Rights Report is based on the results of its own 
primary quantitative and qualitative research and on secondary desk 
research at national level conducted by FRA’s multidisciplinary research 
network, FRANET. 

Relevant data on international obligations in the area of human rights are 
available via FRA's European Union Fundamental Rights Information System 
(EFRIS) at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/databases/efris/.

FUNDAMENTAL 
RIGHTS REPORT
― 2021

T
R
O
P
E
R

1
2
0
2
―
T
R
O
P
E
R
S
T
H
G
R
L
A
T
N
E
M
A
D
N
U
F

I

© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2021 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union Agency for 
Fundamental Rights copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

Neither the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights nor any person acting on behalf of the Agency is 
responsible for the use that might be made of the following information.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021

Print 

ISBN 978-92-9461-251-9 

ISSN 2467-2351 

doi:10.2811/432553 

TK-AL-21-001-EN-C

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-9461-252-6 

ISSN 2467-236X 

doi:10.2811/379446 

TK-AL-21-001-EN-N

Photos: see page 289 for copyright information

 
 
 
 
Contents

FOREWORD  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

 3

1 

THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: A YEAR IN REVIEW   � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �  4

1.1.  AN UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGE TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2.  EMERGENCY MEASURES: IMPACT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.3. 

1.4. 

IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN DAILY LIFE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

IMPACT OF PANDEMIC ON RIGHTS OF PARTICULAR GROUPS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   27

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   36

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   39

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   39

2 

IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF THE CHARTER AT NATIONAL LEVEL   � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �  44

2.1.  A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   46

2.2.  THE CHARTER AND THE JUDICIARY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   46

2.3.  THE CHARTER AND LAWMAKERS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2.4.  THE CHARTER AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   54

2.5.  THE CHARTER AND OTHER ACTORS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   55

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   59

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3 

EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION   � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �  64

3.1. 

EU INITIATIVES ENERGISE EQUALITY PUSH WHILE EQUALITY TREATMENT DIRECTIVE REMAINS STALLED  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   69

3.2.  PROMOTING EQUALITY AT NATIONAL LEVEL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   70

3.3.  NEED TO BOLSTER EQUALITY BODIES PERSISTS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.4.  EQUAL TREATMENT AND RIGHTS OF OLDER PERSONS DURING THE PANDEMIC AND BEYOND   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.5.  A LONG WAY TO GO FOR LGBTI EQUALITY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   78

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   84

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   87

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   87

4 

RACISM, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �  94

4.1.  DISCRIMINATION, HATE AND VIOLENCE REMAIN POWERFUL SCOURGES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   97

4.2. 

IMPLEMENTING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AGAINST RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, ANTISEMITISM AND RELATED INTOLERANCE  . 102

4.3.  NATIONAL EFFORTS TO TACKLE RACISM, ANTISEMITISM AND XENOPHOBIA, EXTREMISM AND HATE CRIME  . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  113

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  113

5 

ROMA EQUALITY AND INCLUSION  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �   118

5.1. 

TOWARDS A NEW EFFORT TO IMPROVE ROMA LIVES IN THE EU  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

5.2.  A NEW EU ROMA STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR EQUALITY, INCLUSION AND PARTICIPATION UNTIL 2030  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   140

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   140

PB

1

6 

ASYLUM, VISAS, MIGRATION, BORDERS AND INTEGRATION  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �  146

6.1. 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AT BORDERS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

6.2.  ASYLUM, IMMIGRATION, AND RETURN PROCEDURES DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

6.3. 

 EU LARGE-SCALE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   166

6.4.  REFUGEE AND MIGRANT INTEGRATION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   168

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  171

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

7 

INFORMATION SOCIETY, PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �  180

7.1.  DATA PROTECTION MOVES FORWARD, BUT NEW THREATS EMERGE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

7.2.  RECONCILING RIGHTS – DATA PROTECTION AND ITS LIMITS IN SELECT FIELDS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   190

7.3.  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: NEED FOR STRONG FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SAFEGUARDS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   194

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   199

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   202

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   202

8 

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �  208

8.1. 

 COVID-19 EXACERBATES ALREADY POOR LIVING CONDITIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   214

8.2. 

 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS IN ASYLUM AND MIGRATION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   221

8.3. 

 CHILDREN IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS: INCORPORATING THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS DIRECTIVE INTO NATIONAL LAW   . . .   227

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  229

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

9 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �  236

9.1. 

EU AND MEMBER STATES STRIVE TO IMPROVE VICTIMS’ RIGHTS PROTECTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   242

9.2.  VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  246

9.3.  CHALLENGES TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE PERSIST   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  256

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  259

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  259

10 

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES  � � � � � � � � � � � � �  264

10.1.  THE CRPD AND THE EU: NEW STRATEGY AND PANDEMIC TAKE CENTRE STAGE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  268

10.2.  CRPD IN EU MEMBER STATES: PANDEMIC HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO NEEDS OF 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   270

10.3.  CRPD MONITORING FRAMEWORKS: KEY CHALLENGES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   281

FRA OPINIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  282

INDEX OF COUNTRY REFERENCES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  284

ENDNOTES   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  284

Country abbreviations

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EL 

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Greece

2

ES 
EE 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 

Spain
Estonia 
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy

LT 
LU 
LV 
MK 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 

Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
North Macedonia
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland

PT 
RO 
RS 
SE 
SK 
SI 
UK 

Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Sweden
Slovakia
Slovenia
United Kingdom

3

Foreword

The year 2020 was one of remarkable juxtapositions. On the one hand, the EU introduced and 
developed multiple policy and legal frameworks, long-term strategies and action plans relating 
to a broad spectrum of fundamental rights. The reflection and foresight they embody will shape 
political agendas for years to come – whether on equality, social inclusion, artificial intelligence, 
migration, disability, victims’ rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

On the other hand, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic served as a brutal reminder of how 
quickly unanticipated challenges can dominate world events – and underlined the importance 
of being able to tear up scripts and adapt on the spot. It too will surely leave a lasting mark.

Not surprisingly, this year’s focus section, ‘The Coronavirus pandemic and fundamental rights: 
a year in review’, explores the pandemic’s profound effect on a wide range of human and 
fundamental rights. The section also highlights some positive measures nimbly devised by 
diverse authorities. Yet mostly it paints a rather grim picture of challenges and inequalities 
often exacerbated by the – still ongoing – health crisis. 

The report’s remaining chapters review the main developments of 2020 regarding: the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights; equality and non-discrimination; racism, xenophobia and related 
intolerance; Roma equality and inclusion; asylum, borders and migration; information society, 
privacy and data protection; rights of the child; access to justice; and the implementation of 
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The report covers the 27 EU Member 
States as well as the Republic of North Macedonia (hereafter North Macedonia) and the Republic 
of Serbia. 

The Fundamental Rights Report 2021 also presents FRA’s opinions on the outlined developments. 
Separately available in all EU languages, these opinions recommend a range of evidence-based, 
timely and practical actions for consideration by EU bodies and national governments.

As always, we thank FRA’s Management Board for overseeing this report from draft stage 
through publication, as well as the Scientific Committee for its advice and expert support. 
Such guidance helps guarantee that the report is scientifically sound, robust and well founded.

Special thanks go to the National Liaison Officers, whose input bolsters the accuracy of EU Member 
State information. In addition, we are grateful to the various institutions and mechanisms – such 
as those established by the Council of Europe – that consistently serve as valuable sources of 
information for this report.

Elise Barbé
Chairperson of the FRA Management Board

Michael O’Flaherty
Director

2

3

THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC 
AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: 
A YEAR IN REVIEW

1

1�1� 

AN UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGE TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 

1�2� 

EMERGENCY MEASURES: IMPACT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 

1�3� 

IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN DAILY LIFE 

1�3�1�  SOCIAL INTERACTION 

1�3�2�  HEALTHCARE 

1�3�3�  EDUCATION 

1�3�4�  WORK AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY 

1�3�5� 

JUSTICE 

1�3�6�  TRAVELLING WITHIN AND INTO THE EU 

1�3�7�  PRIVACY AND PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION – USE OF 

TECHNOLOGY TO FIGHT THE PANDEMIC 

1�4� 

IMPACT OF PANDEMIC ON RIGHTS OF PARTICULAR GROUPS 

1�4�1�  OLDER PERSONS 

1�4�2�  PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

1�4�3�  VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

1�4�4�  ROMA AND TRAVELLERS 

1�4�5�  LGBTI PEOPLE 

1�4�6�  REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS 

1�4�7�  HOMELESS PEOPLE 

1�4�8�  DETAINEES 

1�4�9�  ETHNIC MINORITIES 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

4

5

11

16

16

17

18

20

23

24

25

27

27

28

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

36

39

5

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe, authorities across the 

European Union adopted myriad restrictive measures to protect people’s 

lives and health� These interfered with a wide range of fundamental 

rights, such as to movement and assembly; to private and family life, 

including personal data protection; and to education, work and social 

security� The pandemic and the reactions it triggered exacerbated 

existing challenges and inequalities in all areas of life, especially 

affecting vulnerable groups� It also sparked an increase in racist incidents� 

A human rights-based approach to tackling the pandemic requires 

balanced measures that are based on law, necessary, temporary and 

proportional� It also requires addressing the pandemic’s socio-economic 

impact, protecting the vulnerable and fighting racism�

“We must look out for each 
other, we must pull each 
other through this� Because if 
there is one thing that is more 
contagious than this virus, it is 
love and compassion� And in the 
face of adversity, the people of 
Europe are showing how strong 
that can be�”

Ursula von der Leyen, President of 
the European Commission, Speech at 
the plenary session of the European 
Parliament, 26 March 2020

1�1� 
AN UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGE TO 
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures it prompted raised an 
unprecedented collective challenge to the fundamental and human rights of 
everyone living in the EU. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines 
these rights.1

Fundamental and human rights obligations of EU Member States also derive 
from other international human rights instruments. These include the European 
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),2 or the treaty system of the European 
Social Charter,3 and the instruments adopted in the context of the United Nations 
(UN), such as the international covenants on civil and political rights and on 
economic, social and cultural rights.4 In addition, fundamental and human rights 
are well rooted in the constitutions and legislation of EU Member States. They 
are also among their commonly shared values on which the EU is founded.5

All these instruments shape the human and fundamental rights framework 
that calls for a rights-based approach in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic 
and its consequences.

This chapter takes a look at measures imposed in response to the pandemic, 
and explores their implications for a wide range of rights. Specifically, it first 
looks at states of emergency, and equivalent emergency situations and 
measures, that Member States 
have declared (Section 1�2). It then 
examines the pandemic’s impact 
on rights in key areas of daily life 
(Section 1�3), and on the rights of 
particular groups in our diverse 
societies (Section 1�4).

The evidence provided is mainly 
linked  to  provisions  of  the  EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights, 
which is of particular importance 
in the EU context.

5

4

 
EU and its 
Member States 
bound by Charter 
when tackling the 
pandemic

Tackling a public health crisis is primarily 
the responsibility of EU Member States� EU 
institutions, as required by the EU Treaties, 
provide coordination and support� The EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights applies, 
however, when the measures taken by the 
Member States to contain COVID-19 are 
linked to the implementation of EU law�

is obligatory for EU institutions and for 
Member States when implementing EU 
law�

In addition, EU Member States remain 
bound by the provisions of the ECHR 
and by other international human rights 
obligations�

For instance, they may affect non-
discrimination and equality in accessing 
rights (e�g� in healthcare, education, 
services, social protection), freedom of 
movement within the EU, the internal 
market, working conditions, data 
protection, or asylum and migration� 
More broadly, the emergency measures 
have implications for human dignity, the 
functioning of democratic institutions, 
rule of law and the overall respect for 
human rights – all core EU values� In 
this regard, upholding the Charter when 
taking decisions to fight the pandemic 

As the European Affairs Committee of the 
French Senate stressed – while recognising 
the need for Member States to take urgent 
measures to tackle COVID-19 – “the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union continues to apply during the 
pandemic”�*

For more on the Charter, see Chapter 2�

* France, Senate (Sénat), European Affairs 
Committee (2020), Minutes of the session 
of 6 May 2020, ‘Respect for the rule of law 
in Europe during the COVID-19 epidemic’.

6

7

Throughout the year, the CoE Commissioner 
for Human Rights raised issues of particular 
concern as regards vulnerable groups, 
for example older persons; persons with 
disabilities; persons in care facilities; 
Roma and Travellers; refugees and 
migrants, including in the context of rescue 
operations at sea and migration detention; 
or prisoners�5

Treaty bodies of the CoE also provided 
human rights guidance on specific topics, 
such as the treatment of persons deprived 
of their liberty; the protection of children 
against sexual exploitation and abuse; 
human rights principles guiding health 
decisions; tackling domestic violence and 
gender-based violence against women; 
fighting trafficking in human beings; and 
COVID-19 tracing apps and their side effects 
on data protection�6

Of particular importance in the context 
of the health crisis was the ‘Statement of 
interpretation on the right to protection 
of health in times of pandemic’ (Article 11 
of the European Social Charter) by the 
European Committee of Social Rights 
(ECSR)� It called for the adoption of all 
necessary emergency measures and 
highlighted the goal of “health equity”�7

In a rare public statement, the European 
Commission against Racism and Intolerance 
(ECRI) raised the alarm about the situation 
of Roma and migrants as well as LGBTI 
persons during the pandemic, and provided 
guidance�8

A human rights-
based framework 
to tackle the 
COVID-19 
pandemic

Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
international organisations have recalled 
that fighting against the pandemic is 
also a matter of human rights� They have 
consistently promoted a rights-based 
approach to tackling the pandemic�

Such an approach requires, for example, 
protecting everyone’s right to life and the 
right to health without discrimination, 
paying attention to the needs and rights 
of the most vulnerable, balancing rights 
when adopting restrictive measures, or 
using emergency legislation and measures 
in compliance with the standards and 
guarantees of international human rights 
law for emergency situations� It also requires 
ensuring transparency and involving those 
concerned in decision making�

As the UN Secretary General underlined 
in April 2020, “human rights can and must 
guide COVID-19 response and recovery” 
while “people – and their rights – must be 
front and centre”�1

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for 
Human Rights (OHCHR) provided guidance 
throughout 2020�2 It published a compilation 
of statements that UN human rights 
treaty bodies adopted on COVID-19, which 
addressed rights-related issues based on 
their mandate� In addition, the OHCHR 
prepared a toolkit translating international 
human rights standards, as the 
international human rights instruments and 
relevant jurisprudence shaped them, “into 
an operational contribution to strengthen 
the human rights-based approach”�

The human rights-based approach is also 
at the heart of the work of the Council 
of Europe (CoE) on the pandemic� For 
example, the CoE addressed guidance to 
governments on respecting human rights, 
democracy and the rule of law in the 
context of the pandemic�3 It is a useful, 
practical reminder for CoE member States 
of their obligations on issues such as 
derogating from the ECHR and upholding 
the rule of law and democratic principles 
in times of emergency; human rights 
standards, including freedom of expression, 
privacy and data protection, protection of 
vulnerable groups from discrimination and 
the right to education; and protection from 
crime and protecting victims of crime, in 
particular regarding gender-based violence 
and human trafficking�

The CoE also focused on children by 
adopting a rights of the child perspective 
when reviewing measures taken�4

6

7

Different aspects of life are becoming 
ever more digital during the pandemic� 
Reflecting the general trend, the CoE 
Human Rights Education for Legal 
Professionals (HELP) platform for online 
human rights education went from 42,000 
users in January to 78,000 in December 
2020� HELP topical courses cover both the 
CoE and EU legal systems�9

Academic analysis also focused on the 
impact of the pandemic and the measures 
taken to contain it on human and 
fundamental rights� Debates and country 
reports examined how states used their 
emergency powers from the perspectives 
of democracy, human rights and the rule of 
law�10

Research suggested models for assessing 
human rights protection and promotion 
during the pandemic in a comprehensive 
way� These models aim to measure the 
impact on economic and social rights, civil 
and political rights, equality and non-
discrimination, as well as the rule of law�11

1 UN Secretary General (2020), Statement 
‘We are all in this together: Human rights 
and COVID-19 response and recovery’, 
23 April 2020; UN Secretary General (2020), 
Policy Brief ‘COVID-19 and human rights – 
We are all in this together’, 23 April 2020.

2 OHCHR (2020), ‘COVID-19 guidance’, 
13 May; OHCHR, Human Rights Treaties 
Branch (HRTB) (2020), ‘Compilation of 
statements by human rights treaty bodies 

in the context of COVID-19’, September; 
OHCHR, HRTB (2020), ‘Internal HRTB 
toolkit of treaty law perspectives and 
jurisprudence in the context of COVID-19’, 
15 July 2020.

3 CoE (2020), ‘Coronavirus: Guidance to 
governments on respecting human rights, 
democracy and the rule of law’, 8 April 
2020.

4 CoE (n.d.), ‘Protecting and empowering 
children during the Covid-19 pandemic’.

5 CoE Commissioner for Human Rights (n.d.), 
‘Pandemic and human rights’.

6 CoE, ‘Covid-19: Human rights are more 
important than ever in times of crisis’.

7 CoE, ECSR (2020), Statement of 
interpretation on the right to protection of 
health in times of pandemic, 21 April 2021.

8 CoE, ECRI (2020), Statement on the impact 
of the Covid-19 pandemic and related 
government responses on groups of 
concern to ECRI, 19 May 2020.

9 CoE (n.d.), ‘HELP online courses’.

10 Verfassungsblog (2020), ‘COVID 19 and 
states of emergency’.

11 Scheinin, M. and Molbæk-Steensig, H. 
(2020), ‘Pandemics and human rights: Three 
perspectives on human rights assessment 
of strategies against COVID-19’, European 
University Institute, Department of Law, EUI 
Working Paper LAW 2021/01.

First and foremost, the deadly impact of the virus and the obligation of 
governments to act to protect the rights of people to life (Article 2) and 
health (Article 35 on healthcare) required their urgent action.

Following advice and guidance by national, EU and international health 
authorities, including the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control 
(ECDC), they took a wide range of measures to deliver on this obligation. 
These measures ranged from imposing curfews, travel restrictions and bans, 
and preventing people from meeting, to closing schools and restricting the 
functioning of many economic sectors.

8

9

Towards 
a European 
Health Union

On 11 November 2020, the 
European Commission took a first 
step towards a European Health 
Union, acknowledging that more 
coordination at EU level is necessary 
to tackle the pandemic and future 
health crises effectively.

Its proposal refers to the EU’s 
obligation to ensure a high level 
of human health protection, as the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 
requires. It aims to strengthen the 
EU’s health security framework and 
reinforce its crisis preparedness, 
enhancing the mandates of the two 
key EU agencies, the ECDC and the 
European Medicines Agency (EMA).*

* European Commission (2020), 
Communication from the 
Commission on Building a European 
Health Union, COM(2020) 724 final, 
Brussels, 11 November 2020.

However,  many  of  these  measures  had 
significant implications for nearly all other rights 
that international human rights law enshrine 
and the Charter sets out. For instance, they 
interfered with:

 ― the right to the integrity of the person and 
the prohibition on selecting persons when 
practising medicine and biology (Article 3);
 ― the rights to liberty and security (Article 6), 
private and family life (Article 7) and the 
protection of personal data (Article 8);
 ― the  freedoms  of  religion  (Article  10), 
expression and information (Article 11) and 
assembly and association (Article 12);
 ― the prohibition of discrimination (Article 21);
 ― and  the  freedoms  of  movement  and 

residence (Article 45).

They also affected how people access and enjoy 
many social and economic rights, in particular:

 ― the right to education (Article 14);
 ― rights related to the labour market (e.g. to 
engage in work, to conduct a business and 
make use of property, or to fair and just 
working conditions; Articles 15, 16 and 17, 
and 31 respectively);

 ― the right to social protection and assistance 

(Article 34);

 ― or the right to healthcare (Article 35) for 
reasons  other  than  COVID-19,  including 
mental health.

The pandemic particularly affected:

 ― the rights of children (Article 24);
 ― older persons, especially those living in institutions (Article 25);
 ― persons with disabilities (Article 26);
 ― as well as the equal access to rights (Article 21) of vulnerable groups of 
the population such as Roma, refugees and migrants, or homeless people.

Moreover, it had implications on people’s access to justice and their right to 
an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47).

Overall, the pandemic exacerbated already existing challenges and inequalities. 
According to the United Nations, it had major implications on the efforts 
to achieve the global Agenda 2030 for sustainable development and its 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).6 The global Agenda 2030 and the SDGs 
are closely linked and reflect human and fundamental rights commitments 
and obligations.7 Its core principle requires that “no one will be left behind”.8

By accelerating the process of digitalisation of our societies, the pandemic 
also revealed how important it is, for that purpose and for equality, to ensure 
that everyone has access to the internet and appropriate digital equipment 
and is able to profit from technological developments.

8

9

FRA ACTIVITY
Highlighting the pandemic’s fundamental 
rights implications
Between April and November 2020, FRA 
published a series of six bulletins looking 
at the impact on fundamental rights of the 
COVID-19 pandemic across the EU and the 
measures to contain it.*

and other emergency situations; impact 
on key areas of daily life; and impact on 
particular groups in society.

These bulletins aim to provide evidence 
to inform the efforts of the EU and its 
Member States to provide rights-based 
responses to the pandemic and its 
consequences.

Five of the bulletins looked at three 
fundamental rights aspects of the impact 
of the pandemic: states of emergency 

In addition, Bulletin 2 had a specific 
focus on contact-tracing apps, Bulletin 3 
considered how the pandemic has 
affected older persons, and Bulletin 6 
addressed the impact of the pandemic on 
social rights. Bulletin 5 looked specifically 
at the pandemic’s impact on the rights of 
Roma and Travellers.

* FRA (2020), Fundamental rights 
implications of COVID-19.

Vaccination plans 
in full respect 
of fundamental 
rights

In late December 2020, vaccination 
against COVID-19 started in some Member 
States�* It will be crucial to ensure that 
the rollout of the vaccines fully respects 
fundamental rights, including equitable 
access to vaccines, the principle of non-
discrimination and the right to personal 
data protection�

In this regard, the statement of the CoE’s 
Committee on Bioethics about equitable 
access to vaccination underlines that, 
within each group that the prioritisation 
process defined, everyone, without 
discrimination, should be offered a fair 
opportunity to receive a safe and effective 
vaccine�***

Encouragingly, national vaccination plans, 
in line with EU guidelines,** prioritise 
healthcare workers, older persons, those 
with pre-existing health conditions, and 
those at greater risk of exposure to the 
virus due to their living settings and 
conditions� These may include people 
living in care settings, Roma and Traveller 
settlements, refugee and migrant facilities, 
prisons or homeless shelters�

Vaccination plans and rollouts have 
important fundamental rights implications� 
So do interrelated issues� For example, free 
and informed consent to have the vaccine 
is linked to the right to personal integrity, 
and access to rights depending on whether 
people have been vaccinated or not (e�g� 
‘vaccine passports’) is linked to equality� 
These topics will be under scrutiny in 2021�

* European Commission (2020), ‘European 
Commission authorises first safe and 
effective vaccine against COVID-19’, press 
release, 21 December 2020; Euractiv (2020), 
‘EU begins vaccinations to end Covid 
“nightmare”’, 28 December 2020.

** European Commission (2020), 
‘Coronavirus vaccines strategy’; ECDC 
(2020), ‘ECDC releases COVID-19 vaccination 
rollout strategies for EU/EEA’, 22 December 
2020.

*** Council of Europe, Committee on 
Bioethics (2021), ‘COVID-19 and vaccines: 
Equitable access to vaccination must be 
ensured’, 22 January 2021.

10

11

1�2� 
EMERGENCY MEASURES: IMPACT ON 
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Starting in the spring of 2020, to contain the spread of the virus, the majority 
of EU Member States, exercising their national competence, officially declared 
a state of emergency or resorted to other equivalent emergency legislation. 
This other legislation included declaring, for example, a ‘state of alarm’, 
‘state of health emergency’, ‘state of epidemic situation’, ‘state of calamity’, 
or ‘state of danger’.9

Nine EU Member States – Bulgaria, Czechia, Finland, Estonia, Hungary, 
Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, and Spain – declared an official state of 
emergency or equivalent, based on constitutional provisions.10 Another five 
EU Member States declared a state of emergency under their ordinary laws – 
namely France, Germany, Italy, Latvia and Slovakia.

This meant granting governments extraordinary decision-making powers. It 
affected all human rights and allowed governments to impose restrictions 
on many of them, such as the freedom of movement, including travelling 
within the EU and within countries, the freedom of assembly, the right to 
private and family life, the right to access goods and services or the right to 
work and conduct a business.

10

11

 
As the situation improved, states of emergency or equivalent legislation 
were gradually lifted or eased over the summer, only to be partially or 
fully reinstated in the autumn with the ‘second wave’ of the pandemic. 
This happened, for example, in Czechia, France and Slovakia. Emergency 
legislation remained in force in Italy. Other Member States – such as Bulgaria, 
Hungary, Portugal, Romania and Spain – kept in force or introduced special 
emergency legislation that replaced previously applied states of emergency 
or similar legal regimes.11

During 2020, three EU Member States (Estonia, Latvia and Romania), as well 
as North Macedonia and Serbia, gave notice under Article 15 of the ECHR 
that they exercised their right to temporarily derogate from their obligations 
enshrined in the Convention.12 In December, for the second time in a year, 
Latvia notified the CoE under Article 15 about measures taken concerning in 
particular the freedom of assembly.13 Such notices reveal the gravity of the 
situation. At the same time, however, they ensure transparency and comply 
with the rules set in the ECHR.

As many as 13 EU Member States – Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, 
Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and 
Slovenia – adopted exceptional, emergency and restrictive measures without 
declaring a state of emergency or introducing equivalent legislation during 
the pandemic.14

The use of emergency legislation drew the attention of the European 
Parliament and the European Commission.

In a November 2020 resolution, the European Parliament, echoing the CoE’s 
Venice Commission,15 recalled that “even in a state of public emergency, 
the fundamental principles of the rule of law, democracy and respect for 
fundamental rights must prevail, and that all emergency measures, derogations 
and limitations are subject to three general conditions, those of necessity, 
proportionality in the narrow sense and temporariness”.16 It called on Member 
States “to explicitly define in a legislative act, where a de facto state of 
emergency is maintained, the objectives, content, and scope of the delegation 
of power from the legislature to the executive”.

A stringency 
index to 
measure 
strictness of 
policies

Oxford University has developed 
a COVID-19 Government Response 
Tracker. Through 19 indicators it 
systematically collects information 
on policy responses to the pandemic, 
such as school closures and travel 
restrictions. It now has data from 
more than 180 countries. The tool 
also includes a ‘stringency index’, 
which records the strictness of 
policies that restrict people’s 
behaviour.

University of Oxford, Blavatnik 
School of Government, ‘Coronavirus 
government response tracker’.

12

13

According to the Venice Commission, a system of de jure constitutional state 
of emergency is preferable to a de facto extra-constitutional one because it 
“provides for better guarantees of fundamental rights, democracy and the 
rule of law and better serves the principle of legal certainty”.17 However, 
the constitutional framework of Member States may not always provide 
for such options.

The European Commission has been monitoring the emergency measures 
in all the Member States. Its first annual Rule of Law Report, published in 
September 2020, reflected this where relevant.18 The Commission monitored 
in particular if safeguards exist to ensure that measures are necessary, strictly 
proportionate and clearly limited in time, and if parliamentary and judiciary 
oversight, as well as scrutiny by the media and by civil society, continue.

For more about the rule of law, see Chapter 9.

FRA ACTIVITY

Highlighting civil society experiences
COVID-19 and measures introduced to 
contain it had a strong impact on civil 
society organisations and their work. 
There were obvious practical challenges, 
such as reduced access to beneficiaries, 
travel bans, or the cancellation of events. 
In addition, there were far-reaching 
consequences on the space to operate, 
notably as regards access to decision-
makers, freedom of assembly and, to 
some extent, freedom of expression.*

operations and activities since March 2020 
had been negative. Of those who said the 
measures had a negative impact, 41 % 
were very worried and 52 % somewhat 
worried that this would persist for the 
next 6 months.

In November 2020, FRA conducted an 
online consultation with its civil society 
network, the Fundamental Rights 
Platform, on how measures taken since 
March 2020 to address the COVID-19 
pandemic affected their work, and how 
organisations could mitigate adverse 
effects. In total, 177 human rights civil 
society organisations (CSOs) from across 
the EU completed the brief online survey. 
For many CSOs, measures to contain the 
pandemic exacerbated pre-existing civic 
space challenges.**

The majority (75 %) of the responding 
CSOs found the measures to contain the 
pandemic overall justified. Fewer (56 %), 
albeit still the majority, considered them 
proportional. Moreover, most CSOs (75 %) 
said that the impact of measures on their 

Some restrictions affected CSOs’ physical 
access to their beneficiaries, e.g. older 
persons, asylum seekers and protestors. 
They significantly affected 44 % of CSOs. 
More than a quarter (27 %) faced financial 
difficulties “often”, and 15 % “every time”. 
Almost a third (29 %) also said that 
reduced work contribution by volunteers 
was “often” an important practical 
challenge, and 18 % “every time”.

The full results from the consultation, 
including examples of promising 
practices – such as dedicated financial 
support to CSOs – will be published in 
autumn 2021 as part of FRA’s upcoming 
report on civic space in the EU.

* FRA, COVID-impact on civil society 
work – Results of consultation with FRP 
2020, Vienna, 24 February 2021.

**FRA (2018), Challenges facing civil 
society organisations working on human 
rights in the EU; FRA (2020), Civic space – 
Experiences of organisations in 2019.

12

13

It is a basic international human rights principle that any restrictions to a right – 
including in emergencies, when certain rights may even be suspended – must 
be prescribed by law, proportionate, necessary and non-discriminatory, and of 
limited duration. The approach of the European Parliament and the European 
Commission adheres to this principle.19 The European Court of Human Rights 
(ECtHR) has based well-established case law on Article 15 of the ECHR. It also 
provides that derogations from the ECHR, which may result in the suspension 
of certain rights, need to be notified, and should happen only in exceptional 
circumstances and in a limited and supervised manner.20

Moreover, certain rights – such as the right to life, or the right to be free from 
torture and other inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment – are non-
derogable. Last but not least, emergency measures must be under parliamentary 
and judicial scrutiny. Governments should not use their extraordinary powers 
to bypass parliaments and their legislative function on issues unrelated to the 
pandemic.21 The CoE also points out that “as a general rule, fundamental legal 
reforms should be put on hold during the state of emergency”.22

Tackling 
disinformation 
while 
upholding 
rights

An emergency can generate disinformation and the spread of conspiracy theories. They may 
negatively affect citizens’ trust in democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. In a health 
crisis, they may affect public trust in the efforts of the authorities and undermine the fight 
against the pandemic. Fighting disinformation is therefore an important aspect of safeguarding 
fundamental rights in times of emergency, including protecting people’s life and health.

The results of a large-scale online survey about COVID-19 disinformation/fake news in France, 
Italy, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom came out in September. Over half of those 
surveyed in each country had seen COVID-19 disinformation/fake news, it found. A smaller but 
substantial portion reported sharing COVID-19 disinformation with others either intentionally or 
unintentionally.* Despite significant differences between countries, respondents who had seen 
and/or shared COVID-19 disinformation/fake news tended overall to be younger, daily users of 
social media, with fewer years of formal education and more likely to self-identify as a minority.

Effectively fighting disinformation needs adequate and accurate data, and transparency about 
the data and the criteria used to inform and justify authorities’ decisions. However, evidence 
collected by FRA indicated data gaps in 2020 – for example, regarding the numbers of infections 
and deaths of people living in institutional settings.**

On 13 November 2020, the European Parliament called on Member States to provide citizens 
with comprehensive, up-to-date, precise and objective information about public health and 
measures taken to safeguard it. Furthermore, it urged Member States to fight disinformation 
that discredits or distorts scientific knowledge, but at the same time to ensure freedom of 
expression and information, and media pluralism. They should not create a chilling effect 
on freedom of expression and on journalists, healthcare workers or others by resorting to 
criminalisation or disproportionate sanctions.***

For its part, the European Commission highlighted the crucial role that freedom of expression 
and a pluralistic democratic debate play in fighting disinformation.****

* Crime and Security Research Institute, Cardiff University (2020), ‘Survey of public attitudes 
to coronavirus disinformation and fake news in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK – 
Summary findings’.

** FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications: With a focus on older people, p. 37.

*** European Parliament (2020), Resolution on the impact of COVID-19 measures 
on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, P9_TA(2020)0307, Brussels, 
13 November 2020.

**** European Commission (2020), Tackling COVID-19 disinformation – Getting the facts 
right, JOIN(2020) 8 final, 10 June 2020.

14

15

States of emergency and emergency measures under judicial 
scrutiny
The examples below highlight select high court decisions that examined 
limitations on freedom of movement, including travelling within a given 
country, on freedom of assembly and demonstration, and on freedom of 
religion. Other areas of life and the impact of emergency measures on 
relevant rights are covered in the following sections.

The Belgian Council of State rejected an urgent appeal to suspend a prohibition 
on protest. It stated that the infringement of the freedom to demonstrate was 
not sufficient to justify the urgency of the appeal.23 The court highlighted, 
however, that the measure banning protests was temporary and subject to 
continuous review.

The Greek Council of State rejected a similar appeal for the suspension of 
an order prohibiting demonstrations. It considered the order justified for 
overriding reasons of public interest relating to the protection of public health.24

The French Council of State ruled that the prohibition of demonstrations in 
public is justified only when COVID-19 physical distancing and other preventive 
measures cannot be respected or when the event may bring together more 
than 5,000 people.25 Considering the scope of and grounds for the curfew 
restricting freedom of movement, the same court concluded in October that 
the curfew did not violate fundamental rights.26

In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on an application for 
a temporary injunction. It found that some local authorities infringed the 
freedom of assembly when they banned an assembly after interpreting 
a regulation in Hesse as generally prohibiting any meeting of more than 
two persons.27

In a separate case, the court provisionally disapplied a provision of a COVID-
19-related regulation in Lower Saxony. The provision did not allow for case-
by-case exceptions to the general ban on religious services and other religious 
gatherings, even where there was no significant increase in the infection 
risk.28 The court had previously ruled that prohibitions of religious services 
are severe limitations of religious freedom and require strict scrutiny of 
proportionality in the light of new developments concerning the pandemic.29

In April, the Slovenian Constitutional Court assessed if a government ordinance 
restricting freedom of movement and assembly in public places, and banning 
the movement and travel of residents outside their municipalities, was 
constitutional. To ensure that the measures were proportionate, the court 
ordered the government to assess, at least every seven days, if they remain 
necessary to achieve the objectives pursued.30 The same court, however, 
found in August that measures restricting movement between municipalities 
were proportionate.31

These national high court decisions confirm, first of all, the critical role 
of the judiciary as a safeguard for human and fundamental rights when 
emergency legislation applies. Second, they also confirm that all restrictions 
of rights need to be in line with international standards (i.e. legality, necessity, 
temporariness, proportionality). Third, they prove that in each case the 
balancing of requirements deriving from different rights and objectives 
is a challenging exercise. This makes it important to collect evidence on 
fundamental and human rights implications of the pandemic, and to provide, 
promote and make visible the guidance from international human rights 
bodies, as well as international human rights jurisprudence.

14

15

1�3� 
IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON FUNDAMENTAL 
RIGHTS IN DAILY LIFE

This section outlines how COVID-19 has affected fundamental rights in six key 
areas of daily life, namely social interaction, healthcare, education, work, the 
judicial system, and travel to and within the EU. It also highlights concerns 
regarding privacy and personal data protection.

1�3�1�  Social interaction
At the outbreak of the pandemic, EU 
Member States introduced physical 
distancing measures limiting social 
interaction.32  Most  instituted 
mandatory  physical  distancing 
measures for everyone, such as 
suspension  of  mass  gatherings, 
stay-at-home  requirements 
(including quarantine measures), 
closure of public spaces, limitations 
in  public  transport  and  physical 
distancing when outside the house.

In  some  cases  entire  provinces, 
regions or cities were placed under 
quarantine (e.g. in Austria, Bulgaria, 
Italy  and  Lithuania).  In  others, 
leaving home without a permit was 
prohibited (e.g. in France, Greece, 
Italy and Spain).

Such measures affected different rights enshrined in national constitutions, EU 
and international human and fundamental rights instruments. They primarily 
affected the right to liberty and security, including freedom of movement, 
and the right to private and family life. They also had an impact on other 
rights, such as the right to protection of personal data, freedom of religion, 
the right to education, work and business-related rights, or the right to health, 
especially mental health.

The use of the internet and digital communication tools helped keep alive 
some interaction between people, alleviating feelings of loneliness and 
psychological stress. At the same time, it highlighted the importance of 
having access to the internet and digital equipment, and of digital literacy.

Social and physical distancing measures were lifted or eased over the 
summer,33 but were largely reintroduced after the summer to mitigate the 
health impact of subsequent pandemic waves.34 The adoption and easing of 
measures varied in each country and region depending on its epidemiological 
situation. Sanctions were introduced to ensure enforcement – typically fines, 
but in some cases also custodial sentences.

Courts and oversight bodies scrutinised if actions enforcing such measures 
complied with fundamental rights. For example, France’s highest administrative 
court ruled out the use of drones to observe if people were respecting the 
lockdown rules in Paris.35

16

17

 
In Poland, the Ombuds body warned that no legal provision permitted police 
officers to forward personal data obtained from police interventions to 
the sanitary inspector for imposing penalties.36 In Slovenia, the Ombuds 
body stated that the failure to comply with the government decree on the 
mandatory use of face masks in enclosed public spaces could not be penalised 
because it was not based on proper legal grounds.37

A common factor in these cases is that they highlight that not only do the 
measures themselves need to comply with human rights standards – so do 
the authorities’ enforcement actions.

1�3�2�  Healthcare
The measures taken to fight the pandemic have sometimes had an adverse 
impact on the right they sought to protect, namely the right to health and 
healthcare. It requires ensuring access to both preventive healthcare and 
medical treatment.38 A major issue was how to ensure access to healthcare 
on an equal footing for all, in a context where health systems had to prepare 
for and faced huge pressure, as well as limited staff and equipment (e.g. 
intensive care beds).

FRA’s collected evidence indicated cases of de-prioritisation based on age 
and medical triage on the same ground.39 At the same time, the need to fight 
the pandemic, to prevent health staff and patients from infections, and to 
prioritise treating people infected with COVID-19 led to de-prioritising access 
to healthcare for reasons other than COVID-19. That sometimes affected 
patients with other critical health conditions such as cancer, or people facing 
mental health issues.40

Physical access to doctors and healthcare services, including hospitals, was 
limited, at least at the onset of the pandemic. Non-urgent medical treatment, 
including surgical interventions, was often postponed. For example, in Romania 
the number of hospitalised cancer patients dropped by 46 % between 2019 
and 2020.41 In Finland, at the end of August 2020, 137,165 patients were 
waiting to receive non-urgent specialised healthcare.42

This situation affected particularly older people, as they are more likely to 
have pre-existing health conditions requiring medical attention.

16

17

More broadly, certain groups of the population, in particular people living 
in institutions, people with disabilities, Roma and Travellers, refugees and 
immigrants, or homeless people, may face compounded difficulties in accessing 
healthcare.43 People also reported incidents of discrimination based on their 
racial or ethnic minority background.44

Such practices raised concerns about the equal treatment of all when accessing 
healthcare. Several German medical associations recommended, for instance, 
that prioritisation in providing medical treatment should follow the principle 
of equality.45 It should not only cover those infected with COVID-19 and should 
not be based solely on age or social criteria. The main criteria are the urgency 
of treatment and its chances of success.

Last but not least, the pandemic has put a lot of pressure on healthcare 
workers, threatening their rights to life and health. Healthcare workers have 
been the most infected community during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a World 
Health Organization (WHO) report highlights.46

Data from EU Member States corroborate this finding.47 In Ireland, for example, 
healthcare workers exceeded 20 % of the total number of COVID-19 infections 
as of the middle of October. Several COVID-19 hospital units in Romania 
temporarily suspended their operations because so many medical workers 
were either sick or in quarantine. Reports of burnout among medical staff 
emerged in Latvia.

As an acknowledgement of their efforts, many Member States introduced 
additional financial benefits in 2020.48 To address staff shortages, several 
Member  States  also  relaxed  recruitment  procedures  and  the  working 
conditions of medical staff. Some countries also mobilised military staff to 
support hospitals.

1�3�3�  Education
By late March 2020, almost all EU Member States had closed their educational 
facilities. This led to an unprecedented shift to distance learning to ensure 
the continuity of education.49 Educational facilities started reopening in late 
spring. After the summer break most Member States sought to keep them 
open, in particular primary schools, to minimise the impact on children’s right 
to education and their well-being.

However, the rise of infections in autumn soon led many to close them again 
and reintroduce distance learning to varying extents.50 Some kept a number 
of schools open for children of parents working in ‘essential’ professions, or 
for families that had no other solution but childcare provided by grandparents. 
In some cases authorities distinguished between age groups, usually keeping 
older children in distance learning.

The sudden transition to distance learning affected the education of all 
children. Educational systems were not prepared for such a swift transition. 
They often lacked the necessary digital infrastructure or training. Fewer than 
40 % of educators felt ready to use digital technologies in teaching, according 
to the 2018 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 
Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), but there were wide 
differences between Member States.51 Moreover, children in many cases 
lacked support to cope with the needs of distance learning, although measures 
such as special leaves for parents to stay at home and take care of their 
children were helpful.

18

19

The European Commission highlighted that many low-income homes have 
no access to computers, and broadband access varies widely across the 
EU depending on household income.52 Throughout the EU, children from 
socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds were particularly negatively 
affected, FRA’s evidence confirms. They lacked adequate computer equipment, 
internet access and appropriate work spaces, as well as home support. This 
situation exacerbated existing learning inequalities.53

For example, in Bulgaria the Ombuds body expressed concern that some 
70,000 children, particularly from families with low incomes, unemployed 
parents or more than one child, did not have computers and internet access.54 
In Romania, 25 % of all children did not have access to online education, 
a survey by the NGO Save the Children shows.55 In Spain, a survey with 
almost 11,000 respondents found that only one third of Roma children had 
access to a computer at home and more than 40 % of Roma students did 
not have access to the internet.56

EU action plan 
promotes 
digital 
education

Member States are responsible for 
education, in particular for teaching 
and the organisation of their 
education systems. However, the 
EU can contribute and support their 
efforts, including through guidance 
and recommendations. The European 
Commission published its Digital 
Education Action Plan 2021–2027 
on 30 September 2020. It sets out 
key measures for high-quality and 
inclusive digital education and 
training where the EU can bring 
added value to national efforts.

Acknowledging the impact of 
the pandemic on education and 
training systems, the Action Plan 
points out that these difficult 
circumstances accelerated the digital 
transformation, triggering rapid, 
large-scale change. In this light, the 
Action Plan asks Member States 
to develop higher quality, more 
accessible and more inclusive digital 
teaching, learning and assessment, 
making full use of the EU’s Recovery 
and Resilience Facility to adapt their 
education and training systems to 
the digital age.

European Commission (2020), Digital 
Education Action Plan 2021–2027: 
Resetting education and training for 
the digital age, COM(2020) 624 final, 
30 September 2020.

Another issue that required attention is the 
protection of children’s privacy and personal 
data  in  digital  education  settings.  The  CoE 
adopted relevant guidelines in November 2020 
addressing policymakers, data controllers and 
the industry.57

For more information on the impact of COVID-19 
on children’s rights, see Chapter 8.58

18

19

Encouragingly, all Member States intensified their efforts to support schools’ 
capacity for distance learning – for example, by creating online platforms, and 
providing disadvantaged pupils with digital devices and internet connections.59 
To promote the digitisation of schools, Germany increased its investments in 
the School Digital Pact to € 6.5 billion.60 The funding can be used, for example, 
to procure suitable devices for teachers, as well as for pupils in need, who 
can receive them through their schools.

Such efforts deliver on the obligation to ensure the right of children to 
education. During emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, that right 
requires effective distance learning systems. By including targeted measures 
for children in more disadvantaged socio-economic situation, those efforts 
also deliver on the obligation to ensure the equal access of all children to 
education. At the same time, they help bridge the digital divide between 
different social groups, implementing the principle of the European Pillar 
of Social Rights that everyone has the right to access essential services, 
including digital communications.61

1�3�4�  Work and business activity
Many sectors of the economy remained closed for long periods during 2020. 
The impact on a range of social and economic rights became increasingly 
clear, in particular on those relating to work. These include the rights to 
engage in work, to fair and just working conditions, to conduct a business 
and to make use of property.

T he  pandemic  exacerbated 
existing inequalities, widening the 
gap  between  rich  and  poor  and 
disproportionately affecting those 
in precarious and low-income jobs, 
young people, women and minority 
ethnic groups. It exposed serious 
gaps  in  EU’s  and  Member  States’ 
social safety nets, raising concerns 
about the effective implementation 
of the right to social security and 
assistance.

The  EU  and  Member  States  put 
in  place  wide-ranging  economic 
support measures to mitigate the 
impact on businesses, workers and 
their families and to bolster their 
incomes.62 These included helping 
businesses by supplementing wages; 
other  financial  support,  including 
unemployment benefits and relief for 
home owners and renters; support 
and compensation for self-employed people and businesses (e.g. by covering 
loss of monthly turnover to a certain extent); support for particular groups 
in society; support for people with caring responsibilities; sick leave; and 
support for people in quarantine.

Several Member States introduced programmes specifically targeting those 
employed in precarious forms of work, such as seasonal workers, domestic 
workers or those on ‘zero-hours’ contracts. However, the pandemic worsened 
the already precarious situation of platform workers, research published by 
the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) shows.63

20

21

EU action counters 
pandemic’s social 
and economic 
impact

The EU took extensive measures in 2020 
to contain the spread of the pandemic, 
counter its socio-economic impact and 
support national healthcare systems�*

In May, the Council of the EU adopted the 
European instrument for temporary support 
to mitigate unemployment risks in an 
emergency (SURE), a temporary scheme 
to provide up to € 100 billion in loans to 
Member States to support businesses 
and self-employed people, among other 
purposes�**

In November, the European Parliament and 
the Council of the EU reached agreement 
on a recovery package of € 1�8 trillion�*** 
It combines the EU budget for 2021–27 and 
NextGenerationEU, a temporary recovery 
instrument allowing the Commission to 
raise funds on the capital market to address 
the immediate economic and social damage 
the pandemic has caused in the Member 
States�

To monitor progress systematically 
across the EU, on 17 December Eurostat 
launched the European Statistical Recovery 
Dashboard� It gives monthly and quarterly 
indicators from a number of statistical areas 
that are relevant to tracking the economic 
and social recovery from the COVID-19 
pandemic�****

* See the European Commission’s 
Coronavirus response web page for an 
overview.

** Council Regulation (EU) 2020/672 of 19 
May 2020.

*** European Commission welcomes 
agreement on €1.8 trillion package to 
help build greener, more digital and more 
resilient Europe.

**** See an overview of relevant data 
in the European Statistical Recovery 
Dashboard.

Overall, in spite of all efforts, unemployment rose, particularly among young 
persons. The number of unemployed young persons (under 25) was much 
higher in December 2020. Compared with December 2019, it increased by 
438,000 persons in the EU, an increase of 3 percentage points (from 14.8 % 
to 17.8 %).

The EU unemployment rate was 7.5 % in December 2020, according to 
Eurostat.64 That was up from 6.5 % in December 2019, an increase of around 
15 %. This increase amounts to around 1.95 million more people unemployed. 
Almost 1.1 million of them were women, showing that women are affected 
more than men.

Unemployment  rates  were  alarmingly  high  in  certain  EU  countries 
and in particular sectors of the economy, such as tourism, hospitality, 
entertainment and the arts, in which businesses and related employment 
were disproportionally affected. The risk of layoffs or reduced hours in the 
second quarter of 2020, measured as a probability from 0 to 1, was 0.5 for 
the sector of accommodation and food services and more than 0.3 for other 
services.65

Another significant consequence of the pandemic was the expanded use of 
teleworking. In July a third (34 %) of respondents were solely working from 
home, according to the second Eurofound ‘Living, Working and Covid-19’ 
survey.66 Telework/information and communication technology mobile work 
(T/ICTM) tends “to extend working hours, create an overlap between paid 
work and personal life due to a blurring of work-life boundaries, and also 
lead to the intensification of work”.67 Eurofound advised better regulation 
of T/ICTM, including the ‘right to disconnect’ to improve work-life balance.68

For many types of work, teleworking arrangements, and hence saving jobs, 
were not an option. These jobs are often lower paid. Those who telework 
tend to be relatively privileged in terms of their high levels of educational 
qualifications and economic resilience, Eurofound’s data show.69

20

21

From a fundamental rights perspective, the evidence presented here indicates 
the areas where action by duty-bearers is most urgent. This action needs to 
have a particular focus on those most affected by unemployment, reduced 
working hours and income. It also needs to pay attention to the new working 
environment that moving to teleworking arrangements creates – especially 
for those who face more challenges to keep their work-life balance, including 
as a result of caring responsibilities.

Pandemic proves 
particularly 
challenging for 
women

The pandemic has disproportionately 
affected women, particularly in 
employment, work-life balance and caring 
responsibilities, evidence indicates� They 
have also been more exposed to health 
risks, as they are more represented among 
essential workers, especially as frontline 
workers in the health and care sector�*

For example, people are returning to more 
traditional gender roles at home, research 
by the Vienna University of Economics and 
Business and the Chamber of Labour in 
Austria shows�** Women report feeling 
that they do most of the work at home 
and that they are under intense pressure 
to handle the multiple responsibilities of 
telework, childcare and domestic work�

Women are more likely than men to be 
caring for a child and, as a result, are 
finding it more difficult to work from home, 
a survey by the Irish Central Statistics 
Office reveals� Similarly, the expansion of 
unpaid work in the care of children, older 
family members and the home is a serious 
challenge for women’s professional lives, 
the women’s office of the trade union 
Pancypriot Confederation of Labour 
highlights�***

Unemployment prompted by the pandemic 
also affects women more adversely than 
men, a study published by the National 
Institute for Demographic Studies in France 
(INED) shows�**** Only two in three 
women employed on 1 March 2020 were 
still in employment two months later, 
compared with three in four men� This 
corroborates Eurostat’s data�

* For a comprehensive presentation of 
gendered impacts of the pandemic, see 
the European Institute for Gender Equality’s 
dedicated web page on COVID-19 and 
gender equality.

** Vienna University of Economics and 
Business and Chamber of Labour (2020), 
Online survey on time use of couples 
during COVID-19.

*** FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications, p. 22.

**** INED (2020), How the COVID-19 
epidemic changed working conditions in 
France, July 2020.

22

23

1�3�5�  Justice
Restrictive measures affected the work of courts in EU Member States.70 
This had an impact on people’s access to justice, which is important for 
ensuring the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial. From the end of 
May 2020, courts began to resume functioning in many Member States, but 
new restrictions were adopted in the autumn.

Courts were often closed down, ‘non-urgent’ cases and investigations were 
suspended, and hearings were postponed. In many cases this extended 
both proceedings and case backlogs.71 In some cases concerns were also 
raised about people missing judicial deadlines.72 Detailed information on 
temporary measures taken in EU Member States is available on the European 
Commission’s e-Justice Portal.73 The CoE has also created a web page on 
national judiciaries’ COVID-19 emergency measures.74

To mitigate the effects of the pandemic and ensure the continuity of justice 
as much as possible, digital and videoconference tools were used. However, 
challenges emerged with respect to the judicial system’s ability to work 
remotely using electronic devices for communication, to access files through 
databases, and to conduct proceedings by videoconference. This affected in 
particular those Member States with less developed information technology 
(IT) systems in their judiciaries.

Overall, the pandemic accelerated the digitalisation of justice. In this process 
it is crucial to ensure the respect of the minimum standards developed under 
Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR, regarding effective 
participation in proceedings, particularly criminal ones, including one’s right 
to be present, and the principle of publicity. Ensuring appropriate training for 
the judiciary is also important. For more on access to justice, see Chapter 9.

“The [ECtHR] has established 
that physical absence does not 
necessarily constitute a violation 
of the right to a fair trial� The 
ECtHR has pointed to several 
international law instruments 
that provide for participation in 
the trial using videoconferencing 
as a way of respecting Article 6 
of the ECHR, and it has adopted 
several judgments as regards 
the use of videoconferencing� 
It should be noted that, when 
establishing videoconferencing 
in courts, due attention should 
be paid to the preservation of 
the right of defence�”

The Consultative Council of European 
Judges (CCEJ) of the Council of Europe 
(2020), Statement of the President of 
the CCEJ on the role of judges during 
and in the aftermath of the COVID-19

Guidance on 
online court 
proceedings

On 15 April 2020, Finland’s National 
Courts Administration published 
a guide on online court proceedings 
for legal practitioners to follow 
during the emergency. The guide 
includes practical information on 
various communication tools as well 
as general recommendations on how 
to organise court proceedings online.

Finland, National Courts 
Administration (2020), ‘A guide 
for courts to use remote access in 
proceedings’, 15 April 2020.

22

23

1�3�6�  Travelling within and into the EU
In March 2020, EU Member States restricted travel by introducing controls 
at the internal borders between them and limiting the movements of those 
entering and leaving their territory.75

In a number of cases, the restrictions partially or almost completely closed 
borders, through banning flights, closing airports or reducing the number 
of border-crossing points. More often they meant requirements to undergo 
health checks, present a negative COVID-19 test and/or self-isolate after 
entry for a certain period, which could be up to 14 days. There were also 
exemptions – for example for healthcare, cross-border or seasonal workers.76

These practices interfered with the freedom of movement and residence 
enshrined in Articles 21 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, 
and Article 45 of the Charter. This is a fundamental component of Union 
citizenship. Details about its exercise are set in Directive 2004/38/EC on the 
right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside 
freely within the territory of the Member States.77

The restrictions and controls were based on Article 28 of the Schengen Borders 
Code (Regulation (EU) 2016/399), which allows this possibility under strict 
conditions and for a limited period.78 Articles 27 and 29 of Directive 2004/38/EC 
also justify measures restricting the freedom of movement in cases of 
“diseases with epidemic potential”, such as COVID-19, provided they comply 
with the principle of proportionality.

In this context, when implementing public health measures, the European 
Commission noted that these must not discriminate between Member States’ 
own nationals and resident EU citizens.79 It also underlined that a Member 
State must not deny entry to EU citizens or third-country nationals residing on 
its territory and must facilitate the transit of other EU citizens and residents 
who are returning home.

In May 2020, the European Commission proposed a return to the unrestricted 
free movement of persons in the EU and the Schengen area, as the health 
situation was improving.80 By July, all EU Member States eased their travel 
restrictions regarding internal borders.

However, the increase in infections in the autumn resulted in new border 
controls and travel restrictions. This time the restrictions were less severe, 
in line with the Council Recommendation on a coordinated approach to the 
restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, adopted 
in October.81

“Without the return to a fully 
functional Schengen Area, we 
are still missing an essential 
stepping-stone on our way 
to recovery� A complete 
return to free movement, no 
discrimination, mutual trust 
and solidarity are of utmost 
importance and core values of 
the EU�”

Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Chair of 
the European Parliament Committee on 
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, 
Press release, 19 June 2020

24

25

‘Re-open EU’ 
platform 
guides 
travellers

On 15 June, the Commission launched 
the web platform ‘Re-open EU’. 
Available in all EU languages, it 
provides real-time information on 
borders, available transport, travel 
restrictions, health and safety 
measures and other practical 
information for travellers. National 
governments also publish up-to-
date online information on travel 
restrictions.

The ECDC started publishing a weekly map of 
EU Member States and regions, marking areas 
in ‘traffic light’ colours (red, orange and green), 
depending on the COVID-19 infection rates, to 
facilitate the EU’s coordinated approach.82 Border 
controls, mandatory health tests, self-isolation 
rules and lists of ‘safe’ countries and regions 
were applied, depending on the epidemiological 
developments, but Member States avoided 
closing down their internal borders in the rest 
of the reporting period. In this way they served 
better  the  requirements  of  the  freedom  of 
movement, as enshrined in EU law.

European Commission (2020), web 
platform ‘Re-open EU’.

At the onset of the pandemic, Member States 
restricted travel to and from third countries, 
with  special  measures  and  exemptions  for 
certain categories. To promote a coordinated 
approach to border controls, on 16 March 2020, 
the European Commission recommended the 
temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU to prevent the further 
spread of COVID-19.

These restrictions – initially for 30 days – were extended until 30 June, when the 
Council of the EU adopted a recommendation providing for coordinated gradual 
lifting of travelling restrictions from third countries.83 This recommendation is 
regularly reviewed and amended on the basis of health data and containment 
measures in each country. Its last amendment in 2020 was in December and 
included a list of third countries whose residents could be allowed to enter 
the EU for non-essential travel.84

In October, the Commission published guidance on persons exempted from the 
temporary restriction on non-essential travel to the EU.85 This is necessary to 
ensure the respect of the right of certain third-country nationals (e.g. family 
members of Union citizens, third country nationals holding a valid residence 
permit, cross-border workers) to enter the EU. That is linked to the exercise 
of other rights, for example to private and family life or to engage in work. 
Other exemptions served the needs of Member States for workers, for 
instance seasonal workers in agriculture or healthcare workers.

1�3�7�  Privacy and personal data protection – use of technology 
to fight the pandemic
Following advice from international and EU health institutions, most Member 
States used digital tracking and monitoring tools to limit the spread of the 
pandemic, particularly tracing apps.86 Some countries also allowed health and 
police authorities to access traffic and geolocation data from telecommunication 
providers to track individuals subject to quarantine measures.87

Other technological tools were employed, as well. These included, for example, 
drones to monitor compliance with physical distancing measures in public 
spaces; online forms or text messages before leaving the house or for 
travelling across the EU; thermal cameras to measure people’s temperatures; 
and collecting and sharing of lists of patients with COVID-19.88

24

25

FRA’s  Bulletin  2  focused  on  these  tools  and  their  fundamental  rights 
implications.89 It highlighted that tools that interfere with the right to privacy 
and personal data protection need to be grounded in law, and must be 
necessary and proportionate, as the General Data Protection Regulation 
(GDPR)90 and ultimately the EU Charter (Articles 7 and 8) require. It also noted 
that Article 23 of the GDPR provides the possibility for legislative measures to 
restrict data subjects’ rights, including where required for public health reasons.

As  regards  COVID-19-tracing  apps,  the  EU’s  eHealth 
network,91 the European Commission92 and the European 
Data Protection Board93 adopted guidance on how to 
uphold data protection standards in the development 
and use of tracing apps.

At the CoE level, two joint statements by the Chair of the 
Consultative Committee of Convention 108 (the Council of 
Europe Convention on the protection of individuals with 
regard to automatic processing of personal data) and the 
Data Protection Commissioner recalled the principles to 
be upheld to help fight the pandemic while respecting 
individuals’ right to privacy and data protection, and 
warned against unwanted effects.94 The Council of Europe 
report Digital solutions to fight COVID-19, published in 
October, examined key legal and policy developments 
from a data protection perspective, focusing in more depth 
on the use of tracing apps and other monitoring tools.95

In April, the OECD also published recommendations for preserving privacy 
when using apps and biometric data in the fight against COVID-19.96

A set of common recommendations emerged from these documents aiming 
to safeguard privacy and data protection. They all emphasised the need to 
ensure that only minimal, accurate and secure data are collected, and that 
they are processed in a transparent way and with appropriate technological 
methods. For tracing apps this implies, for instance, using Bluetooth proximity 
data, decentralised storage methods and open source codes. They also noted 
that any data collection and processing to address the pandemic must be 
limited in time and linked to the health crisis. Finally, they emphasised that 
using such digital tools should be voluntary.

At national level, in most cases data protection authorities (DPAs) provided 
extensive guidance on how to employ tracing apps in line with international 
rules and guidance, and monitored their use, as far as possible.97 Member 
States developed and used tracing apps that overall complied with this 
guidance. Notably, all use of tracing apps was voluntary.98

For more on privacy and data protection, see Chapter 7.

26

27

1�4� 
IMPACT OF PANDEMIC ON RIGHTS 
OF PARTICULAR GROUPS

The pandemic affects everyone, but its impact has not been even across 
society. The pandemic and the measures to contain it hit vulnerable groups 
harder, FRA evidence and other data suggest.99 Overall, the pandemic 
accentuated the fundamental rights challenges that certain groups already 
faced. Thus it further entrenched existing inequalities and discrimination, 
and exacerbated social exclusion and marginalisation.

1�4�1�  Older persons
Older people have been severely affected by the pandemic – especially 
those living in institutional settings or with underlying health conditions.100 
The death toll was much higher than in other age groups. Infection and 
mortality rates for those in institutions were worrying.101 In addition, the 
measures to contain the pandemic affected older people’s right to a life of 
dignity, independence and participation, as enshrined in Article 25 of the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights, and their right to non-discrimination based 
on age (Article 21).

For  example,  older  persons  faced 
more restrictions relating to physical 
distancing (e.g. bans on visiting those 
living  in  institutions,  and  stay-at-
home rules or recommendations) and 
accessing goods and services.102

26

27

Council of Europe 
bodies highlight 
pandemic’s 
effects

The Steering Committee on Anti-
discrimination, Inclusion and Diversity 
(CDADI) of the Committee of Ministers of 
the CoE published a study on the anti-
discrimination, diversity and inclusion 
dimensions of the pandemic�*

The Parliamentary Assembly of the 
CoE adopted, on 13 October 2020, 
Resolution 2340 on the humanitarian 
consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic for 
migrants and refugees�**

* CoE, Committee of Ministers, CDADI 
(2020), Study, COVID-19: an analysis of the 
anti-discrimination, diversity and inclusion 
dimensions in Council of Europe member 
states, November 2020.

** CoE, Parliamentary Assembly (2020), 
Resolution 2340 on humanitarian 
consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic for 
migrants and refugees, 13 October 2020.

 
There is also evidence of problems in access to medical treatment for reasons 
other than COVID-19; medical triage practices based on age as a deciding 
factor when selecting whom to treat in hospitals faced with large numbers 
of patients and limited resources; an adverse impact on their psychological 
well-being and mental health; and discriminatory public discourse or practices, 
particularly about their participation in the labour market.

FRA dedicated the focus section of Bulletin 3 to the pandemic’s impact on 
the fundamental rights of older persons. For more on the rights of older 
persons, see Chapter 3.

1�4�2�  Persons with disabilities
The consequences were also grave for many people with disabilities.103 
Pre-existing health conditions increased the risks to their health and lives 
from a possible COVID-19 infection. The risks proved to be higher for those 
in institutional care settings, who also faced bans on visits, isolation and 
psychological stress.104

A major issue was the disruption of and decrease in essential services for 
persons with disabilities. They include education, schools and other learning 
support for children with disabilities, healthcare, community-based and at-
home support, and facilitated transport.105 Transition to digital and remote 
learning and working arrangements did not help much either. It revealed 
a risk of an increased digital divide between persons with disabilities and 
the rest of the population.

Member States took a number of measures to address these challenges, in 
line with their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities (CRPD).106 The CRPD is also binding on the EU. Moreover, 
Article 26 of the Charter provides for “the right of persons with disabilities 
to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social 
and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community”.

The measures included, for example, additional funding for services to persons 
with disabilities, targeted financial assistance, financial support for maintaining 
persons with disabilities in employment, special leave for persons with 
disabilities and those facing pre-existing health conditions, special leave for 
parents of children with disabilities following school or day-centre closure, 
home assistance for students or special arrangements for schools with 
children with disabilities, and targeted hotlines for psychological support 
and assistance.107

Despite these efforts, the situation worsened for persons with disabilities 
because of the pandemic, and further action is needed, FRA’s evidence 
suggests. For more on this topic, see Chapter 10.

1�4�3�  Victims of domestic violence
Based on previous experiences, already at the outset of the pandemic WHO 
warned of a likely increase in intimate partner violence against women.108 
In 2020, domestic violence incidents increased, evidence collected by FRA 
confirmed.109 For example, Czechia and Germany indicated that calls to their 
national domestic violence hotlines rose by 50 % and 20 %, respectively, 
between March and June.110

28

29

In Italy, calls to the national helpline between 1 March and 16 April increased 
by 73 %, and the number of victims asking for help increased by 59 %, 
compared with the same period in 2019, according to a report published by 
the National Institute for Statistics in June.111 The data also show that 45 % 
of the victims reported being afraid for their safety and life, 73 % decided 
not to report the violence to the police, 93 % of the incidents occurred at 
home, and 64 % involved children witnessing violence.

In June, the Technical University of Munich in Germany published the findings 
of a representative online survey on women and children’s experiences of 
domestic violence during the pandemic.112 It asked around 3,800 women 
aged 18 to 65 about their experiences during the lockdown period between 
22 April and 8 May. About 3 % of women respondents became victims of 
physical violence at home. In 6.5 % of all households, children were subjected 
to corporal punishment.

Member States took steps to address rising levels of domestic violence, as FRA 
reported.113 Measures included, for example, awareness raising; provision of 
information in a safe environment; keeping hotlines active; opening shelters 
for victims; and continuing to issue protection orders and handle court cases 
of domestic violence during the lockdown. In 2020, the European Institute for 
Gender Equality (EIGE) assessed more systematically the measures taken by 
Member States to protect women against intimate partner violence.114 The 
relevant report is expected in 2021.

Member States are obliged to address domestic violence effectively to deliver 
on their duties to protect women and children. Domestic violence is a severe 
violation of their fundamental rights, which the Istanbul Convention of the 
Council of Europe enshrines.115 EU law also binds Member States to provide 
support services to victims based on individual assessments of their specific 
protection needs, according to the Victims’ Rights Directive.116

On violence against women and children, including the increased risk of 
children being exposed to sexual abuse, see also Chapter 8 and Chapter 9.

1�4�4� Roma and Travellers
Roma and Travellers often live in marginalised settings, in substandard and 
overcrowded housing conditions. Not only did they face an increased risk 
of contracting COVID-19, but containment measures also disproportionately 
affected them. Evidence points to the heightened risk of disrespect and 
violation of Roma and Travellers’ fundamental rights, as enshrined in the 

28

29

EU Charter.117 This concerns in particular their right to non-discrimination and 
equal treatment with the non-Roma population, including in healthcare, work, 
education, social security and assistance, and housing.

In September 2020, FRA’s Bulletin 5 examined the situation of Roma and 
Travellers during the first wave of the pandemic. In a number of countries, 
entire Roma neighbourhoods were put in strict quarantine. Lockdowns left 
many Roma unemployed if they had been engaged in precarious work, 
and many could not work as street vendors and travelling traders. Working 
informally, and sometimes having no formal registration of residence, made 
it difficult for them to claim support and benefits available to workers in 
the formal labour market. This resulted in increased poverty and risk of 
malnutrition.

Housing deprivation or poor housing conditions, and limited access to water, 
electricity and sanitation, created serious health concerns. Barriers to accessing 
health services exacerbated them. The younger generation faced yet another 
hurdle: without internet access and appropriate IT equipment, they run the 
risk of falling even further behind at school or even dropping out.

Amid these difficult realities, the persistent scourge of antigypsyism remained 
ever present. Media and social networks especially portrayed Roma as 
a public health hazard and responsible for spreading the virus. For more on 
this topic, see Chapter 5.

1�4�5�  LGBTI people
The pandemic compounded challenges for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and 
intersex (LGBTI) persons, who are protected against discrimination under 
Article 21 of the EU Charter. In April, the OHCHR drew attention to COVID-19’s 
impact on LGBTI people and their rights. It underlined issues such as limited 
access to health services; stigmatisation, discrimination and hate speech, and 
even being blamed for the pandemic; increased risk of violence; and difficulties 
in accessing the labour market and social assistance services and benefits.118

30

31

Mitigating the 
pandemic’s 
impact on LGBTIQ 
people

The European Commission 
issued its first-ever EU lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, trans, non-binary, 
intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) 
equality strategy in 2020� It 
noted that it will encourage 
Member States to make full 
use of the NextGenerationEU 
financial instrument to mitigate 
the disproportionate impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic on 
LGBTIQ people and to advance 
LGBTIQ equality�

Also in April, ILGA-Europe sent an open letter 
to the President of the European Commission, 
urging the Commission to keep equality for 
all at the core of EU policies.119 It warned, 
for example, that young LGBTI people were 
particularly at risk, finding themselves trapped 
in hostile, locked-down family situations.

In  June,  ILGA-Europe  published  a  rapid 
assessment report presenting evidence of 
the  impact  of  COVID-19  on  LGBTI  people, 
organisations and communities in Europe and 
Central Asia.120

European Commission (2020), 
Union of Equality: LGBTIQ 
Equality Strategy 2020–2025, 
COM(2020) 698 final, Brussels, 
12 November 2020.

Intersex people face a highly increased risk 
of being unable to access healthcare because 
of their medical history, even when infected 
with  COVID-19,  the  Organisation  Intersex 
International Europe (OII Europe) found in an 
online survey. Most respondents (62 %) said 
that their mental health had deteriorated and 
21 % that they had experienced a relapse into a previous mental health 
condition as a result of the pandemic.121

For more information on the rights of LGBTI persons, see Chapter 3.

1�4�6�  Refugees and migrants
Asylum seekers, refugees and migrants have also been disproportionally 
affected. These include children, and in particular unaccompanied minors. FRA’s 
COVID-19 bulletins,122 and its quarterly bulletins on migration,123 repeatedly 
reported on their situation during the pandemic. The measures taken to 
contain it had an impact on their rights, as enshrined in EU law, including 
the EU Reception Conditions Directive for those recently arrived in the EU.124

Overcrowded accommodation, poor hygiene conditions and limited access 
to health services increased the risk of infection among all different migrant 
groups, evidence shows.125 Research in a number of countries found that 
infection rates were much higher among them, in particular for those who 
were at risk of poverty and social exclusion and were living in overcrowded 
housing and poor hygienic conditions, than in the general population.126

30

31

Evidence from some Member States suggests that the pandemic resulted 
in job losses, especially among those in precarious and unofficial jobs, and 
rising poverty levels among asylum seekers, refugees and migrants.127

The situation was particularly challenging in reception and detention facilities, 
as the ECDC also highlighted.128 Member States introduced physical distancing 
or quarantine measures, banned residents from leaving accommodation 
facilities, and restricted or did not allow visits, including by providers of 
social services.129

Evidence collected by FRA indicated concerns that such measures in severely 
overcrowded camps could deepen human suffering, increase existing tensions 
and exacerbate the risk of violence. Moreover, restrictive measures affected 
the right of asylum seekers to look for protection in the territory of the EU, as 
well as their right and that of migrants to access relevant procedures, their 
residence status and permits, and the enjoyment of other rights, including 
to access health services and education.

In March 2020, FRA, in cooperation with the Special Representative of the CoE 
on Migration and Refugees, published an analysis on fundamental rights at 
the external borders of the EU, including during a pandemic.130 It underlines 
that “[p]rotection needs cannot be set aside while implementing measures 
to address public health considerations at the borders” and therefore “[r]
efusing entry of all asylum applicants, or of those of a particular nationality, 
does not comply with the right to seek asylum and could lead to a risk of 
violating the principle of non-refoulement”.

For more information on asylum and migration, see Chapter 6. On issues 
relating to children, see Chapter 8.

1�4�7�  Homeless people
Homeless people live constantly in conditions that 
jeopardise their right to life and health and often violate 
human dignity. Worryingly, homelessness increased 
during the pandemic.131 This reflected job dismissals 
and loss of income, which may lead to failure to pay 
rent or a mortgage, and hence may result in eviction.

At the outset of the pandemic, the European Federation 
of National Organisations Working with the Homeless 
(FEANTSA)  warned  that  COVID-19  put  homeless 
people’s health at greater risk because of poor living 
conditions combined with the fact that many of them 
have underlying medical conditions.132

Difficulties in and barriers to accessing healthcare, 
including  testing  and  protective  equipment,  and 
lack of information on hygiene measures increased 
demand for places in shelters. That led to overcrowding 
because shelters needed to reduce their capacity to 
comply with physical distancing measures. Together 
with disruption in other support services, including 
the provision of food, it heightened health risks and 
further worsened the living conditions of homeless 
people.133 Containment measures, in particular stay-
at-home, curfew and physical distancing measures, 
added further hardship.

32

33

Focus on 
adequate 
housing

In March, the UN Special Rapporteur 
on the right to adequate housing 
urged states to:

—  cease all evictions;

—  provide emergency housing 

with services for those who are 
affected by the virus and must 
isolate;

—  ensure that enforcing 

containment measures (e.g. 
curfews and stay-at-home 
measures) does not lead to the 
punishment of homeless people;

—  provide equal access to testing 

and healthcare;

—  provide adequate housing.

UN Special Rapporteur on the 
right to adequate housing (2020), 
‘“Housing, the front line defence 
against the COVID-19 outbreak,” 
says UN expert’.

FEANTSA noted that staying at home is not 
an option for homeless people. Nevertheless, 
FEANTSA reported sanctions against homeless 
people who infringed lockdown rules.134

National, regional and local authorities adopted 
measures to alleviate the difficulties homeless 
people or people at risk of homelessness face.135 
For example, France, the Netherlands and Spain 
introduced moratoria on evictions and/or rent 
increases. In Belgium and France, the number 
of available accommodation places, including 
in hotels, increased.

Municipal authorities (e.g. Barcelona, Budapest, 
Lisbon and Madrid) also took action. Authorities 
in Belgium, France and the Netherlands set up 
special accommodation facilities for homeless 
people who become infected. French authorities 
distributed vouchers enabling homeless people 
to buy food and hygiene products. In Finland, 
service centres for homeless people took their 
services  to  the  streets,  offering  meals  and 
guidance.

Nevertheless, the authorities need to devote 
systematic  attention  and  action  to  their 
obligation to protect the human dignity and 
the rights to life and health of people deprived 

of their right to housing and experiencing homelessness.

1�4�8�  Detainees
The  structure  and  internal  organisation  of  prisons,  particularly  when 
overcrowded, make it difficult to observe hygiene and physical distancing 
rules. This exposes both detainees and staff to severe risks to their life and 
health. To avoid the spread of COVID-19 in prisons, authorities in Member 
States adopted restrictive measures.136

These measures concerned visits to detainees, time granted outside their 
cells, sports and other external activities, and prison transfers. Sometimes 
they included total bans on visits, including from their lawyers. That could 
undermine their right to access to justice. People infected had to quarantine. 
Preventive quarantine applied in many cases to those newly entering a facility.

The restrictions affected the rights of detainees and put a severe psychological 
strain on them, affecting their mental health. In some cases they increased 
tension. For instance, in Italy, they led to revolts in detention facilities, 
during which some prisoners died, and several others and prison officers 
were injured.137

These challenges prompted many international organisations,138 national 
human rights and monitoring bodies139 and CSOs140 to call on authorities to 
drastically reduce prison populations through measures such as temporary 
or early releases and minimising pre-trial detention. For example, the UN 
High Commissioner for Human Rights encouraged authorities to “examine 
ways to release those particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 as well as low-
risk offenders”.141

32

33

For its part, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman 
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) of the CoE issued a statement 
of principles in March 2020 relating to the treatment of persons deprived of 
their liberty during the pandemic.142 In a follow-up statement in July, the CPT 
welcomed that most states had increased the use of non-custodial measures as 
alternatives to detention, such as suspending or deferring sentences, bringing 
forward conditional release, temporary release, commuting imprisonment 
into house arrest or extended use of electronic monitoring.143

After the first phase of the pandemic, restrictive measures were eased, FRA 
evidence shows. Alternative arrangements (e.g. using protective screens 
during visits) ensured access to lawyers and communication with family 
members.144

Most importantly, a significant number of EU Member States adopted measures 
to reduce their prison population. For example, between mid-March and 
mid-May, France reduced its prison population by 13,082.145 In Germany, 
several Länder released prisoners in the last stages of their prison sentences 
for minor criminal offences.146

A new law adopted in Portugal on 9 April provided for an amnesty for 
prison sentences and remaining prison terms of up to two years, as well 
as for special measures for vulnerable inmates aged 65 or more, with the 
exception of those convicted for serious crimes.147 Portugal also established 
an extraordinary leave regime.

In October, Italy allowed the extension of ‘special leaves’ from prison and 
permitted detainees with sentences of up to 18 months to serve them in 
home custody until 31 December 2020, monitored using electronic bracelets.148 
Exceptions applied for those serving sentences for serious offences.

Measures to reduce prison populations were also adopted in Cyprus, following 
an intervention by the Ombuds body.149

1�4�9�  Ethnic minorities
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an increase in racist and xenophobic 
incidents, including verbal insults, harassment, physical aggression and online 
hate speech, according to evidence that FRA and other sources collected.150 
This increase undermines and violates Article 21 of the Charter, EU criminal 
provisions combating racism and xenophobia,151 and the Racial Equality 
Directive.152

Initially,  racist  incidents  targeted  people  of 
perceived  Chinese  or  other  Asian  origin.  For 
example, according to the French Public Defender 
of Rights (Ombuds institution and equality body), 
anti-Asian racism took on a new dimension with 
insults and assaults in public places and harassment 
of children at school.153 By 19 June, the German 
Federal Anti-discrimination Office had received 
some 300 requests for counselling about COVID-
19-related incidents,154 mostly targeting people 
of Asian origin.

34

35

Other minority groups were also blamed and attacked, particularly on social 
media. This also concerned religious groups, as the UN Special Rapporteur 
on freedom of religion or belief highlighted in a statement in April 2020.155 
Conspiracy theories driven by antisemitism emerged.156

Highlighting 
the pandemic’s 
effect on diverse 
communities

The European Network against Racism 
released in May 2020 the EU-wide 
interactive map of COVID-19’s impact on 
racialised communities� It also documents 
hate speech and hate crime incidents linked 
to COVID-19�

European Network against Racism 
(2020), ‘COVID-19 impact on racialised 
communities: Interactive EU-wide map’, 
12 May 2020.

This particularly affected Roma and people with 
an immigrant background. Some politicians, 
other public figures and media outlets stirred 
racist perceptions, while others countered 
hatred  and  promoted  non-discrimination 
and tolerance. Persons of Chinese or other 
Asian origin, and other minority groups, also 
encountered  discrimination  in  accessing 
goods, including access to health services 
and education.157

Reports pointed to the strict enforcement 
of containment measures against minority 
groups. A June report by Amnesty International 
covered incidents in 11 EU Member States. It focused on the disproportionate 
impact of enforcement measures on people of North African and sub-Saharan 
origin, and other minority ethnic groups living in working-class districts, 
including cases of disproportionate use of force.158

For more information on developments pertaining to racism, see Chapter 4.

34

35

FRA opinions

The pandemic and the measures adopted to contain it 
have seriously affected all aspects of our personal and 
collective life, including the functioning of our democratic 
institutions, as the evidence shows. The pandemic has 
revealed new challenges to upholding the fundamental 
values of the functioning of our states and the European 
Union. It has implications for our fundamental rights. 
Restrictions have an impact on our personal and social 
interaction,  and  on  the  protection  of  our  sensitive 
personal data. At the same time, the social and economic 
consequences of the pandemic will be lasting and will 
significantly exacerbate already existing inequalities.

It is essential, as many have stressed at international, 
EU and national levels, that emergency and restrictive 
measures fully respect international human rights and rule 
of law standards, as international instruments enshrine 
them and relevant case law shapes them. A large number 
of documents from authoritative sources have identified 
these standards, which provide guidance to duty-bearers 
on how to better protect the rights of people to life and 
health without negating all their other rights.

As the European Parliament underlined, “even in a state 
of public emergency, the fundamental principles of the 
rule of law, democracy and respect for fundamental 
rights must prevail”. In this respect, the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights is of major importance when it comes 
to EU actions, and actions of Member States that fall 
within the scope of EU law. FRA’s bulletins throughout 
2020 highlighted with evidence the implications on 
fundamental rights in the EU context.

FRA OPINION 1�1

EU Member States should assess and 
balance the requirements of different 
fundamental and human rights when 
adopting restrictive measures in an 
emergency, such as the one presented 
by the COVID-19 pandemic� To achieve 
this balance, they should take into 
consideration  international  human 
and  fundamental  rights  standards, 
including  relevant  case  law  and 
guidance  by  international  human 
rights bodies� They should also involve 
national statutory human rights bodies 
when designing, implementing, and 
monitoring  restrictive  measures� 
These measures should be necessary, 
temporary and strictly proportionate�

EU  Member  States  should  ensure 
that restrictive measures are based 
on law and that courts, parliaments, 
statutory human rights bodies and 
other  stakeholders,  including  civil 
society, can scrutinise them�

EU  institutions  should  continue  to 
monitor emergency measures in the 
light of the EU’s founding values as laid 
down in Article 2 of the TEU, including 
fundamental rights, rule of law and 
democracy� Policy documents, such as 
the new annual European Rule of Law 
Mechanism report, should reflect the 
outcome of monitoring the emergency 
measures, where relevant�

36

At national level, restrictive measures have been under 
scrutiny by courts, parliaments, human rights bodies, 
civil  society  and  other  stakeholders.  Although  they 
recognised the need for emergency measures to contain 
the pandemic, they objected to those that were not based 
on law, lasted for a long time and were disproportionate. 
They also stressed the importance of fighting COVID-19-
related discrimination, hate speech and racism.

Modern science responded to this challenge in record 
time, making vaccines available as early as the end of 
2020. Still, the pandemic exposed gaps and limitations 
in the capacity and preparedness of our healthcare, 
education, employment and social protection systems 
to deal with such a crisis, and deliver on the obligation 
to fulfil the rights of all to health, education, work and 
social security and assistance. It also revealed gaps in our 
capacity to protect the rights of those more vulnerable. 
The pandemic is a litmus test of our readiness to respect 
the promise of the global Agenda 2030 to “leave no 
one behind” in achieving a socially just transition to 
sustainable development.

Despite  the  shortcomings,  however,  the  EU  and  its 
Member States made considerable efforts to support their 
healthcare, education and social protection systems, and 
to assist individuals and businesses against the economic 
downturn and the risk of unemployment.

FRA OPINION 1�2

EU Member States should improve 
the  resilience  of  their  healthcare, 
social welfare and social assistance 
systems to ensure that they provide 
equitable services to everyone even 
during  a  crisis�  To  achieve  this  in 
a  coordinated  way  across  the  EU, 
the European Commission’s proposal 
for a strong European Health Union 
should be adopted without delay� The 
proposal aims to seriously improve the 
protection of health, but also social and 
economic life across the EU�

FRA OPINION 1�3

EU Member States should enhance 
their efforts to ensure the continuity 
of education for all children under any 
circumstances, particularly in times of 
crisis such as the one presented by the 
COVID-19 pandemic� In this respect, 
they  should  prioritise  establishing 
a digital infrastructure across all levels 
of education, and ensure appropriate 
training to familiarise teachers with 
working in a digital environment� In 
this regard attention should be given 
to the Digital Education Action Plan 
(2021–2027), which suggests this, and 
calls for stronger cooperation at EU 
level to make education and training 
systems fit for the digital age�

EU  Member  States  should  also 
ensure that this digital infrastructure 
is inclusive� This means catering to 
the needs of those who are socially 
excluded  and  vulnerable,  such  as 
children with disabilities, children of 
Roma and Travellers, and children of 
migrants and refugees�

37

The  EU’s  added  value  was  once  again  of  critical 
importance. It put in place various instruments to help 
Member States finance their actions. Looking forward, 
the EU institutions reached agreement on a recovery 
package of € 1.8 trillion. It combines the EU budget for 
2021–2027 and NextGenerationEU, a temporary recovery 
instrument allowing the European Commission to raise 
funds on the capital market to address the immediate 
economic and social damage caused by the pandemic.

These  EU  financial  measures,  together  with  policy 
instruments promoting human and fundamental rights, 
such  as  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  form 
a comprehensive framework to support national efforts.

FRA OPINION 1�4

The  EU  and  its  Member  States 
should continue to fight COVID-19-
related discrimination, hate speech 
and racism against ethnic minority 
groups,  migrants  and  refugees,  or 
people with a migrant background� 
This includes strengthening measures 
against disinformation that spreads 
hate speech, and discriminatory and 
racist perceptions, particularly online�

FRA OPINION 1�5

EU Member States should focus on 
the needs of vulnerable groups that 
are most at risk of infection and/or 
severe disease� These groups include 
older people, people in care homes, 
persons  with  pre-existing  health 
conditions, and those living in limited 
and overcrowded spaces or poor living 
and housing conditions� This last group 
includes many Roma and Travellers, 
and people in reception or detention 
facilities for migrants and refugees, 
prisons, and shelters for homeless�

This also requires prioritising these 
groups for vaccination and ensuring 
they enjoy equitable access to health 
and social services as necessary�

38
38

39

Index of country 
references
AT  12, 16

BE   12, 15, 33

BG   11, 12, 16, 19

CY   12, 34

CZ   11, 12, 28

DA  12

DE   11, 15, 18, 20, 28, 29, 34

EE   11, 12

ES   11, 12, 16, 19, 33

FI   11, 17, 33

FR   11, 12, 15, 16, 33, 34

GR   12, 15, 16

HR   12

HU   11, 12

IE   12, 18

IT   11, 12, 16, 29, 33, 34

LT   12, 16

LU   11

LV   11, 12, 18

MK  12

MT  12

NL   12, 33

PL   12, 17

PT   11, 12, 34

RO   11, 12, 17, 18, 19

RS  12

SE   12

SI   12, 15, 17

SK   11, 12

Endnotes

1 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2012 C 326.

2  Council of Europe (CoE), Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 

Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950.

3  CoE, European Social Charter and Additional Protocols, 18 October 1961; CoE, 

European Social Charter (revised), 3 May 1996.

4  United Nations (UN), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 

16 December 1966; UN, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural 
Rights, 16 December 1966.

5 

Treaty on European Union, Art. 2, Art. 6(3).

6  UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable 

Development Goals, The 17 Goals website.

7 

FRA (2019), Focus, Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in the EU: 
a matter of human and fundamental rights.

8  UN, General Assembly (2015), Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda 

for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015; FRA (2019), 
Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in the EU: a matter of human 
and fundamental rights.

9  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 15–17; Verfassungsblog (2020), ‘COVID 19 
and states of emergency’; Democracy Reporting International (2020), ‘The rule of 
law stress test – EU Member States’ responses to Covid-19’.

10  Venice Commission (2020), Interim report on the measures taken in the EU 

Member States as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and their impact on democracy, 
the rule of law and fundamental rights, Strasbourg, 8 October 2020, pp.8-14,

11  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 

implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 15–17.

12  CoE Treaty Office, ’Notifications under Article 15 of the Convention in the context 

of the COVID-19 pandemic’, last update 4 January 2021.

13 

Ibid.

14  Venice Commission (2020), Interim report on the measures taken in the EU 

Member States as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and their impact on democracy, 
the rule of law and fundamental rights, Strasbourg, 8 October 2020, pp.8-14; 
FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 15-17. ‘State of emergency’ here refers to 
a formally declared general state of emergency and does not include other sectoral 
regimes, such as for instance the Public Health Emergency Order declared in Malta 
on 7 March 2020 (LN 115 of 2020), issued under the Public Health Act (CAP. 465) 
with effect until 30 June (LN 243 of 2020, Second Repealing Regulations, 2020).

15  CoE, Venice Commission (2020), ’Respect for democracy, human rights and the 
rule of law during states of emergency – Reflections’, Strasbourg, 26 May 2020; 
CoE, Venice Commission (2020), ‘Interim report on the measures taken in the EU 
Member States as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and their impact on democracy, 
the rule of law and fundamental rights’, Strasbourg, 8 October 2020.

16  European Parliament (2020), Resolution on the impact of COVID-19 measures on 
democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, P9_TA(2020)0307, Brussels, 
13 November 2020.

17  CoE, Venice Commission (2020), ‘Interim report on the measures taken in the EU 
Member States as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and their impact on democracy, 
the rule of law and fundamental rights’, Strasbourg, 8 October 2020, p.8.

18  European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report: The rule of law situation in 

the European Union, COM(2020) 580 final, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

19  OHCHR (2020), ‘Emergency measures and COVID-19: Guidance’, 27 April 2020; 
Council of Europe (2020), Respecting democracy, rule of law and human rights 
in the framework of COVID-19 sanitary crisis: A toolkit for member States, SG/
Inf(2020)11, 7 April 2020.

20  European Court of Human Rights (2020), ‘Guide on Article 15 of the European 
Convention on Human Rights: Derogation in time of emergency’, 31 August 
2020; UN Human Rights Committee (2001), General Comment No� 29 – States of 
emergency (Article 4), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001.

21  European Parliament (2020), Resolution on the impact of COVID-19 measures on 
democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, P9_TA(2020)0307, Brussels, 
13 November 2020.

22  CoE (2020), Respecting democracy, rule of law and human rights in the framework 
of COVID-19 sanitary crisis: A toolkit for member States, SG/Inf(2020)11, 7 April 
2020, p.4

38

39

23  FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental right implications, p. 17.

24  Greece, Council of State (2020), Decisions N262/2020 and N263/2020, 18 November 2020.

25  France, Council of State (2020), Decision 440846, 440856, 441015, 13 June 2020.

26  France, Council of State (2020), Decision 445430, 23 October 2020.

27  Germany, Constitutional Court (2020), Decision 1 BvQ 828/20, 15 April 2020.

28  Germany, Constitutional Court (2020), Decision 1 BvQ 44/20, 29 April 2020.

29  Germany, Constitutional Court (2020), Decision 1 BvQ 31/20, 10 April 2020.

30  Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, p. 17.

31  Slovenia, Constitutional Court (2020), Decision U-I-83/20, 27 August 2020.

32  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 16–17; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 19-21.

33  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 19–20; FRA 

(2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 19-20.

34  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 17-20.

35  France, Council of State (2020), Decision 440442, 440445, 18 May 2020.

36  Poland, Polish Ombuds body (2020), ‘Letter to Minister of the Interior and Administration’, 28 May 2020.

37  Slovenia, Ombuds body (2020), Ombudsman says failure to wear mask in enclosed spaces cannot be penalised, 27 July 2020.

38  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 26; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 38-39; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 27-28.

39  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 26; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 38-39; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 27-28.

40  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 26; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 41; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in 
the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 21-22.

41  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 21-22.

42  Ibid.

43  For example, regarding Roma and Travellers, see FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers, 

pp. 19-20.

44  See for example FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 34-35.

45  German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive and Emergency Medicine (2020), ‘COVID-19: Clinical-ethical recommendations’, 26 March 

2020.

46  World Health Organization (WHO) (2020), ‘Protecting the health workers who protect us all’, 17 September 2020.

47  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, p. 22.

48  Ibid.

49  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 18; Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in 
the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 22-23; Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – 
Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 20-21; Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications, pp. 20-21.

50  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 22-24.

51  OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 results, OECD Publishing, Paris. The main survey (International Standard Classification of Education level 2) was 

conducted in 31 OECD countries, including 22 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 
France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden).

52  European Commission (2020), ‘Digital education action plan 2021–2027’.

53  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 20–21; 

Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers, pp. 13–15; Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – 
Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 22–24; European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2020), ‘Educational inequalities 
in Europe and physical school closures during COVID-19’, Fairness policy brief series:04/2020; UN (2020), Policy brief: Education during 
COVID-19 and beyond, August 2020.

54  Bulgaria, Bulgarian Ombuds body (2020), Recommendation to the Minister for Education, 9 September 2020.

55  Romania, Save the Children (2020), Study on the starting conditions of the school year 2020-2021 under COVID-19 pandemic in Romania.

56  Spain, Fundación Secretariado Gitano (2020), Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the Roma population, April 2020.

57  CoE, Consultative Committee of the convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data – 

Convention 108 (2020), Children’s data protection in an education setting: Guidelines, 20 November 2020.

58  See also CoE (2020), The COVID-19 pandemic and children: Challenges, responses and policy implications, September 2020.

59  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 22-24.

60  Germany, Federal Government (Bundesregierung) (2020), ‘Information for families’, 6 October 2020.

61  European Pillar of Social Rights, Principle 20, OJ C 428. On access to the internet as a right and its link with education, see Pollicino, O. (2020), 

‘Right to internet access: Quid Iuris?’, in von Arnauld A., von der Decken, K. and Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook on new human rights: 
Recognition, novelty, rhetoric, Cambridge University Press, pp.263-275.

62  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 19-21; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 24-25.

40

41

63  Franklin, P., Schaapman, M. and Berastegui, P. (2020), ‘Covid-19: A “stress test” for workers’ safety and health’, in Countouris, N. and Jagodziński, 

R. (eds.), Benchmarking working Europe 2020, Brussels, ETUI and ETUC, pp. 119-136, at pp. 126-128.

64  Eurostat, ‘Unemployment by sex and age – monthly data’ (last accessed 8 February 2021). Eurostat complemented the data on unemployment 
with additional indicators, e.g. underemployed part-time workers, persons seeking work but not immediately available and persons available 
to work but not seeking it. It released them together with Labour Force Survey data for the second quarter of 2020 to capture in full the 
unprecedented labour market situation that the COVID-19 outbreak triggered. For November 2020, see Eurostat, ‘Euro area unemployment at 
8�3%’, news release – Euroindicators, 4/2021, 8 January 2021.

65  Eurostat (2020), ‘COVID-19 labour effects across the income distribution’.

66  Eurofound (2020), Telework and ICT-based mobile work: Flexible working in the digital age, updated July 2020. See also Vargas Llave, O. and 

Weber, T. (2020), ‘Telework and the “right to disconnect”’.

67  Eurofound and International Labour Office (2017), Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of work, p. 58.

68  Eurofound (2019), ‘Right to disconnect’, European Observatory of Working Life.

69  Eurofound (2020), Living, working and COVID-19, updated November 2020.

70  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 28; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, p. 28; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 23–24; FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 24.

71  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 24.

72  Croatian Ombuds body (2020), ‘To enable the efficient functioning of the judiciary even in extraordinary circumstances’, 29 April 2020.

73  European Commission (2020), ‘Impact of COVID-19 on the justice field’, e-Justice portal.

74  CoE, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2020), ‘National judiciaries’ COVID-19 emergency measures of COE member States’.

75  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 22-24.

76  FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, p. 29 and 

p. 31.

77  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family 
members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing 
Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.

78  Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the 

movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code).

79  European Commission (2020), Covid-19 Guidelines for border management measures to protect health and ensure the availability of goods 

and essential services, 2020/C 86 I/01, OJ C 86I, 16 March 2020.

80  European Commission (2020), Towards a phased and coordinated approach for restoring freedom of movement and lifting internal border 

controls, C(2020) 3250 final, Brussels, 13 May 2020.

81  Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 of 13 October 2020 on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the 

COVID-19 pandemic.

82  European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), ‘Maps in support of the Council Recommendation on a coordinated approach to 

travel measures in the EU’.

83  Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 of 30 June 2020 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible 

lifting of such restriction.

84  Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/2169 of 17 December 2020 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on 

non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction.

85  European Commission (2020), Guidance on persons exempted from the temporary restriction on non-essential travel to the EU as regards the 

implementation of Council Recommendation 2020/912 of 30 June 2020, COM(2020) 686 final, Brussels, 28 October 2020.

86  WHO (2020), ‘Digital tools for COVID-19 contact tracing – Annex contact tracing in the context of COVID-19’, 2 June 2020; ECDC (2020), ‘Contact 

tracing for COVID-19: Current evidence, options for scale-up and an assessment of resources needed’, April 2020.

87  FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 54-55.

88  Ibid., pp. 55-56.

89  Ibid., pp. 41-56.

90  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the 
processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).

91  European Commission (2020), ‘e-Health network’.

92  European Commission (2020), Guidance on apps supporting the fight against COVID 19 pandemic in relation to data protection, C(2020) 2523 

final, 16 April 2020.

93  European Data Protection Board (2020), Guidelines 04/2020 on the use of location data and contact tracing tools in the context of the COVID-19 

outbreak, 21 April 2020.

94  CoE, Chair of the Committee of Convention 108 and Data Protection Commissioner (2020), ‘Joint statement on the right to data protection 
in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic’, Strasbourg, 30 March 2020; CoE, Chair of the Committee of Convention 108 and Data Protection 
Commissioner (2020), ‘Joint statement on digital contact tracing’, 28 April 2020.

95  CoE (2020), Digital solutions to fight COVID-19, October 2020.

96  OECD (2020), ‘Tracking and tracing COVID: Protecting privacy and data while using apps and biometrics’, 23 April 2020.

97  FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 46-51.

98  Ibid., pp. 52-53.

99  FRA (2020), Bulletins on fundamental rights implications of COVID-19.

40

41

100 FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 31-32; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 33-36; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 33–41; FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 27-29; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications: Focus on social rights, p. 29.

101  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 33.

102 Ibid, pp. 33-41.

103 FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 30; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 33-36; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 27-29; FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 29; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: 
Focus on social rights, pp. 29-31.

104 FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 29.

105 FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 35-36.

106 UN, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 13 December 2006.

107 FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 30; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, p. 36; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 28; FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in 
the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 29; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: 
Focus on social rights, pp. 30-31.

108 WHO (2020), COVID-19 and violence against women – What the health sector/system can do, 26 March 2020.

109 FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 32; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 32; FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in 
the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 31-32.

110  FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 31.

111  Ibid.

112  Technical University of Munich (2020), ‘Domestic violence during the coronavirus pandemic’, 2 June 2020.

113  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 32; Bulletin #4 – 

Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 32.

114  EIGE (2020), ‘Covid-19 wave of violence against women shows EU countries still lack proper safeguards’, 18 November 2020.

115  CoE, Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, CETS No. 210, 2011; CoE, 
‘Women’s rights and the COVID-19 pandemic’; CoE, ‘Protecting and empowering children during the Covid-19 pandemic’, in particular the 
Declaration of the Committee of the Parties to the Istanbul Convention on the implementation of the Convention during the COVID-19 
pandemic, 20 April 2020.

116  Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support 

and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315.

117  FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers. See also FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 32; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 36-37; FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications, p. 30; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, p. 32.

118  OHCHR (2020), ‘Topics in focus: COVID-19 and the human rights of LGBTI people’, 17 April 2020.

119  ILGA-Europe (2020), ‘Open letter to President Ursula von der Leyen: Keeping equality for all at the core amid the COVID-19 crisis’, 20 April 2020.

120 ILGA Europe (2020), COVID-19 impacts on LGBTI communities in Europe and Central Asia: A rapid assessment report, 19 June 2020.

121  Organisation Intersex International Europe (OII Europe) (2020), ‘Covid-19 survey report’, 20 December 2020.

122  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 18, 19, 24, 26, 28, 29 and 35; FRA (2020), 

Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 21, 22, 25 and 30-32; 
FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 25; FRA (2020), 
Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 23, 33 and 35-36; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 31-32.

123  FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #2 – Migration: Key fundamental rights concerns, 27 May 2020; FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #3 – Migration: 
Key fundamental rights concerns, 27 July 2020; FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #4 – Migration: Key fundamental rights concerns, 6 November 
2020.

124 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for 

international protection (recast), OJ L 180.

125  FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #2 – Migration: Key fundamental rights concerns, 27 May 2020; FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #3 – Migration: 
Key fundamental rights concerns, 27 July 2020; FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #4 – Migration: Key fundamental rights concerns, 6 November 
2020. See also FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, p. 31.

126 France, Roederer, T., Mollo, B., Vincent, C., Nikolay, B., Llosa, A., Nesbitt, R., Vanhomwegen, J., Rose, T., Anna, F., Torre, C., Fourrey, E., Simons, 
E., Goyard, S., Janin, Y., Vratskikh, O., Coury, A., Vanel, S., Mendiharat, P., Porten, K., Hennequin, W., Mills, C. and Luquero, F. (2020), ‘High 
seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among people living in precarious situations in Ile de France’, 5 October 2020; Denmark, State Serum 
Institute (2020), ‘Status of COVID-19 infection among ethnic minorities in Denmark’, 2 October 2020.

127  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, pp. 31-32.

128 ECDC (2020), Guidance on infection prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in migrant and refugee reception and detention 

centres in the EU/EEA and the United Kingdom, 15 June 2020.

129 FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #2 – Migration: Key fundamental rights concerns, 27 May 2020; FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #3 – Migration: 
Key fundamental rights concerns, 27 July 2020; FRA (2020), Quarterly bulletin #4 – Migration: Key fundamental rights concerns, 6 November 

42

43

2020. See also FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU - Fundamental rights implications, p. 29; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – 
Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, p. 31.

130 FRA and Council of Europe (2020), Fundamental rights of refugees, asylum applicants and migrants at the European borders, March 2020.

131  FRA (2020) Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU - Fundamental rights implications, p. 31; Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in 

the EU - Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 39-40; Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – 
Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 30-31; Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications: Focus on social rights, p. 26.

132  FEANTSA (2020), ‘COVID-19: “Staying home” not an option for people experiencing homelessness’, 18 March 2020. See also FEANTSA (2020), 

Homeless in Europe: The impact of COVID-19 on homeless people and services, October 2020.

133  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 31; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 39-40; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 30-31; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, p. 26.

134 FEANTSA (2020), ‘FEANTSA flash: November 2020’.

135  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 31; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 39-40; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, pp. 30-31; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, p. 26.

136 FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 38-

39; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 29-30; FRA 
(2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, p. 31; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, p. 28.

137  Italy, Rai news (2020), ‘Protest against coronavirus restrictions- Prison riots: Three inmates dead in Rieti, nine in Modena’, 10 March 2020.

138 OHCHR (2020), ‘Press briefing note on COVID-19’, 3 April 2020; Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2020), ‘COVID-19 pandemic: 

Urgent steps are needed to protect the rights of prisoners in Europe’, 6 April 2020; OSCE (2020), ‘Don’t forget those behind bars during 
coronavirus pandemic, OSCE PA human rights leaders say’, 29 April 2020.

139 For example, France, General Controller of Places of Deprivation of Freedom (2020), ‘Health situation of prisons and administrative detention 

centres’, 17 March 2020.

140 European Prison Litigation Network (2020), ‘COVID-19 in prisons: More than 50 European NGOs ask international organisations to take 

immediate action’, 18 March 2020.

141  OHCHR (2020), Urgent action needed to prevent COVID-19 “rampaging through places of detention”, 25 March 2020.

142 CoE, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT0 (2020), ‘Statement of 
principles relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic’, 
20 March 2020.

143 CPT (2020), ‘Follow-up statement regarding the situation of persons deprived of their liberty in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 

pandemic’, 9 July 2020.

144 FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact-tracing apps, pp. 38-

39; FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on older people, p. 29-30; FRA 
(2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental Rights Implications, p. 31; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: Focus on social rights, p. 28.

145 According to information provided to FRA by the French government based on their official response to the European Committee for the 

Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).

146 Germany, Ministry of Justice North Rhine-Westphalia (2020), How are prisons prepared for the corona pandemic?, accessed 4 May 2020; 

Germany, NDR (2020), ‘Corona: Interruption of detention for up to 60 offenders’, 1 April 2020; Germany, Der Tagesspiegel (2020), ‘How Berlin’s 
criminal court is fighting against the state of emergency’, 4 April 2020.

147 Portugal, Law no� 9/2020, which approves the exceptional regime for easing the execution of sentences and free measures, in the context of 

the pandemic COVID-19, 10 April 2020.

148 Italy, Decree 137/2020, 28 October 2020.

149 Cyprus, Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights, (2020), COVID-19 and human rights, p.7.

150 FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, pp. 33-36; FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental Rights Implications, pp. 33-35.

151  Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by 

means of criminal law, OJ L 328.

152  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic 

origin, OJ L 180.

153  France, Public Defender of Rights (2020), ‘Discrimination and origins: The urgent need for action’, 22 June 2020.

154 Germany, Federal Anti-discrimination Office (2020), ‘Questions and answers on discrimination in the age of corona’, 19 June 2020.

155  OHCHR, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (2020), ‘UN expert warns against religious hatred and intolerance during 

COVID-19 outbreak’, 22 April 2020.

156 Anti-Defamation League (2020), ‘Coronavirus crisis elevates antisemitic, racist tropes’, 22 March 2020; FRA (2020), Antisemitism: Overview of 

antisemitic incidents recorded in the European Union 2009–2019 – Annual update, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

157  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 - Coronavirus pandemic in the EU - Fundamental rights implications, pp. 33-36; FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus 

pandemic in the EU – Fundamental Rights Implications, pp. 33-35. For Roma see FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – 
Impact on Roma and Travellers, in particular pp. 26–27.

158 Amnesty International (2020), ‘Europe: Policing the pandemic: Human rights violations in the enforcement of COVID-19 measures in Europe’, 

24 June 2020. 

42

43

IMPLEMENTATION AND USE 
OF THE CHARTER AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

2

A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY 

2�1� 

2�2� 

THE CHARTER AND THE JUDICIARY 

2�2�1�  CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW 

2�2�2�  INTERPRETATION OF NATIONAL LAW 

2�2�3�  PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS 

2�2�4�  REQUESTS FOR PRELIMINARY RULINGS 

2�3� 

THE CHARTER AND LAWMAKERS 

2�3�1�  USE OF THE CHARTER OUTSIDE THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 

2�3�2�  USE OF THE CHARTER IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 

2�4� 

THE CHARTER AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES 

2�5� 

THE CHARTER AND OTHER ACTORS 

2�5�1�  NHRIS AND OTHER INDEPENDENT BODIES 

2�5�2�  CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS, PROFESSIONAL 

ASSOCIATIONS, AND ACADEMIA 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

44

46

46

46

48

48

49

51

51

52

54

55

56

57

59

61

45

The year 2020 marked a special milestone for the EU Charter 

of Fundamental Rights� On 7 December, it was exactly 20 years 

since the EU proclaimed the Charter in Nice� The European 

Commission used that date to launch its new ‘Strategy to 

strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental 

Rights in the EU’� The strategy puts increased focus on the 

Charter’s application in the Member States and on the role of 

national actors in making the Charter effective in people’s lives� 

It provides a blueprint for further collective efforts in the years 

to come� The Commission also encouraged a more concerted 

implementation of the Charter at EU level� Meanwhile, its use 

by national courts, parliaments, governments and other actors 

continued to show mixed results� National courts paid growing 

attention to the Charter, but government measures to promote 

its application remained sparse� Although the COVID-19 crisis 

strained fundamental rights protection, it also spurred more 

attention to the EU’s bill of rights�

44

45

2�1� 
A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is of equal relevance 
to the EU and its Member States.1 Consequently, the European Commission’s 
new strategy to strengthen its application stresses that all its aspects – 
prevention, promotion, implementation and enforcement – need to build 
on shared responsibility and require a collective effort from all concerned.

The strategy stresses that the Charter is a tool for “national and local authorities, 
including law enforcement authorities, rights defenders, legislators, judges 
and other legal practitioners, and civil society organisations [CSOs] active 
in  fundamental  rights.  All  these  key  actors  for  the  Charter’s  effective 
application have a role to play in making the Charter a reality in people’s lives.”2

2�2� 
THE CHARTER AND THE JUDICIARY

Judges are the key to making the Charter relevant in people’s lives, as the 
new Charter strategy highlights. The use of the Charter in national courtrooms 
is becoming more explicit and frequent.

At  the  same  time,  the  strategy  stresses  that  knowledge  remains  low 
among national justice practitioners. FRA has analysed consultations by the 
Commission for the purposes of the Charter strategy. Fewer than one third 
of legal professionals consulted have benefited from training on the Charter, 
the results show. Most of the judges and other judicial practitioners consulted 
would welcome training on the Charter to share experiences.3 This points to 
a potential for a more prominent role of the Charter in the future.

As in previous years, FRA asked its research network, FRANET, to identify 
at least two of the most relevant cases in each Member State in which the 
Charter played a relevant role. These cases were decided in 2020. Nearly 
half concerned either policies on border checks, asylum and immigration or 
the area of criminal law. This is similar to previous years.

In many Member States, judgments used the Charter in Dublin procedures or in 
European Arrest Warrant cases. This is also consistent with earlier findings, as 
is the relative prominence of certain articles: 19 of the 50 decisions analysed 
referred to the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47).

In 22 of the 50 national (high) court decisions analysed, the judges brought 
in the Charter as a legal argument. The intensity of the Charter’s usage in 
the judicial decisions varies. The spectrum ranges from cases in which they 
assess national law directly against the Charter to those in which the Charter 
provides a source of information rather than a decisive normative source.4

2�2�1�  Constitutional review
Given that the Charter is a constitutional standard, constitutional courts have 
a relevant role in its application.

The Constitutional Court of Germany confirmed this, stressing in a European 
Arrest Warrant case that “fundamental rights of the Basic Law are not applied 
as a direct standard of review when deciding legal questions that are fully 
determined by Union law”.5 In areas that EU legislation harmonises, it is thus 
not national fundamental rights but EU fundamental rights, including the 
Charter, that serve as the relevant standard.

“With the Charter, we have made 
a clear shift from the EU being 
primarily an economic venture, 
to a Union built on shared values 
and fundamental rights�”

Věra Jourová, Vice-President for 
Values and Transparency, European 
Commission, speech at the event 
‘Reinforcing the EU Charter: Rights of 
people in the EU in the next decade’, 
7 December 2020

“The Charter has strengthened 
the role of judges as ‘guardians 
of democracy, liberty and justice’ 
in the EU legal order, since 
judges are called upon to provide 
effective judicial protection of 
the rights that EU law confers 
on individuals, including those 
recognised by the Charter�”

Koen Lenaerts, President of the Court 
of Justice of the European Union, 
speech at the event ‘Reinforcing the EU 
Charter: Rights of people in the EU in 
the next decade’, 7 December 2020

46

47

 
 
In Austria too, the Constitutional Court underlined that the Charter forms 
a standard of constitutional review.6 Frequently, a review of national norms 
and decisions against the Charter takes place before administrative courts. 
For example, the highest administrative court quashed a decision not to hold 
a hearing in an asylum procedure.7

In Italy, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed its jurisdiction concerning cases of 
conflict between national legal principles and the principles enshrined in the 
Charter. In a case addressing the legality of national provisions establishing 
that third-country citizens wishing to apply for certain child allowances must 
hold an EU long-term residence permit, the court stressed the Charter’s role 
in constitutional review. The Charter complements the guarantees that the 
Italian constitution lays down, thereby excluding any protection gaps.8

In Croatia, the Constitutional Court examined a provision of the Act on 
International and Temporary Protection. The act allows an administrative body 
to decide on detention. In the view of the petitioner, that violated guarantees 
of national constitutional law. The court stressed that the examination is not 
to be limited to national constitutional law, but also includes the Charter.9

In Estonia, the Supreme Court drew the legislature’s attention to the fact that 
a provision allowing a court to deprive a person of liberty “must be sufficiently 
precise and foreseeable to apply in accordance with both the case law of 
the European Court of Human Rights and Article 52 (1) of the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights, to avoid any risk of arbitrariness”.10

The Charter is most frequently used in combination with provisions of national 
constitutional law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 
This also applies where national law is checked against higher ranking law.

For instance, the Constitutional Court in Romania had to determine the legality 
of provisions that allow judges to assess the appropriateness of the length of 
a procedure when they were themselves responsible for the delay. Having 
checked the provision against the relevant norms, including Article 47 of 
the Charter, the court ruled that Article 524, paragraph 3, of the Romanian 
Code on Civil Procedure is unconstitutional and hence no longer applicable.11

“Rights of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights can be 
asserted as constitutionally 
guaranteed rights according to 
Art� 144 B-VG and […] within 
the scope of application of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights 
[…] they form an examination 
standard in the procedure of 
general norm control�”

Austria, Constitutional Court, 
Case G302/2019, 26 June 2020

FRA ACTIVITY

New e-guidance on 
Charter’s scope of 
application
In 2020, FRA developed an online 
tool to support national judges on 
questions concerning the applicability 
of the Charter. This new Charter 
e-guidance includes elements that 
they can use in judgments, but it 
can be equally useful to other legal 
practitioners.

The tool has two components: step-
by-step guidance for a specific case 
through a series of questions on the 
Charter’s applicability; and a set of 
concrete examples of cases, allowing 
users to assess and expand their 
knowledge.

The tool is available on the agency’s 
website, in a section entitled 
‘FRA e-learning’. It complements 
other FRA Charter tools, such as 
Charterpedia, the Charter country 
factsheets, videoclips on the Charter, 
thematic handbooks and more 
(available online on FRA’s webpage 
on ‘FRA Charter resources’).

46

47

2�2�2�  Interpretation of national law
Sometimes the Charter can be used as a constitutional standard for checking 
national legislation. However, in most cases, courts check national law against 
EU secondary law as interpreted in light of the Charter.

It is widely established that, if national law falls within the scope of EU law, 
national judges need to interpret it in light of the Charter.

A case from Ireland illustrates this. It raised the question of whether or not 
the right to a fair trial (Article 47) obliges Member States to provide legal aid 
not only to natural but also to legal persons. The judgment rejected such an 
interpretation. It stressed that, contrary to the applicant’s claim, the Court of 
Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law does not establish a general 
requirement that legal aid must, in principle, be available to all persons 
relying on the Charter.

The Irish court referred explicitly to the “interpretative obligation (also known 
as the doctrine of harmonious interpretation)” of national courts. Quoting the 
CJEU, it explained that this requires national courts to use the “whole body 
of rules of law and to apply methods of interpretation that are recognised 
by those rules in order to interpret it, so far as possible, in the light of the 
wording and the purpose of the directive concerned in order to achieve the 
result sought by the directive”.12 Where such an interpretation would be 
contra legem (against the wording of the law in question), that law must 
not be applied.

The obligation to disregard national law that contradicts EU law might 
already follow from national constitutional law. In Poland, the Supreme 
Court underlined that the duty for judges to disregard laws in conflict with 
the Charter follows from Article 91 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic 
of Poland, which provides that international agreements have precedence 
in the event of a conflict of laws.13 However, the Constitutional Court later 
deemed the Supreme Court’s approach to contradict both constitutional law 
and even Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).14

2�2�3�  Protecting individual rights
Where courts apply the Charter, individuals can end up with more or better-
protected rights.

In Czechia, the Constitutional Court referred to the legal status of consumer 
protection. This is a fundamental right under the Charter, but the national 
legal order does not recognise it as such. The case concerned a proofreading 
company that delivered a service that did not satisfy the claimant. The 
Constitutional Court pointed out that the district court could have applied 
Article 38 of the Charter to ensure a high level of consumer protection when 
applying relevant provisions of the civil code.

Data protection is an area where national courts frequently refer to the 
rights of individuals.

“Among the sources of EU 
law, the Charter has particular 
importance for the activities of 
the Constitutional Court, which 
the Constitutional Court has 
described in its previous case 
law as part of the reference 
framework for review […] or has 
emphasised the need to look at 
the matter also from the point of 
view of the Charter�”

Czechia, Constitutional Court, 
Case II. ÚS 78/19, 24 January 2020

48

49

In Spain, the Supreme Court had to deal with an app called ‘Juas’. It describes 
its main purpose as follows: “Laugh out loud playing prank calls to your 
friends and sharing their reactions”. After a person was not amused at being 
subjected to this game, the Spanish Data Protection Agency concluded that 
the company had committed a data-processing breach without consent. It 
imposed a fine of € 6,000. The Supreme Court upheld that decision, making 
extensive reference to the Charter and relevant CJEU case law.15

In Hungary, the Charter played a role in deciding on the redress available to 
an applicant for the position of a judge. The plaintiff had twice applied for two 
different positions at Budapest-Capital Regional Court. In both procedures, the 
plaintiff received the highest scores in the evaluation process. Nonetheless, 
in both procedures, the President of the National Office for the Judiciary (NOJ) 
declared the application unsuccessful.

The case came before the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether or 
not the Hungarian legislation gave the plaintiff the right to challenge the 
resolutions of the President of the NOJ. Interpreting national law in light 
of Article 2 of the TEU, Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU), and Article 47 of the Charter, the court declared that 
the plaintiff did have that right.16

2�2�4�  Requests for preliminary rulings
In 2020, courts from EU Member States sent 556 requests for preliminary 
rulings to the CJEU. Of these, 72 made reference to the Charter. This proportion, 
13 %, is broadly in line with previous years.

“The rights of subjects laid 
down in the Treaty on European 
Union and in the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European 
Union take precedence over 
provisions of national law which 
are contrary to them� The same 
applies to the [Charter], which 
under Article 6 (1) of the [TFEU] 
has the same legal force as the 
Treaties�”

Bulgaria, Supreme Administrative Court, 
Case 7423/2020, 20 August 2020

48

49

FIGURE 2�1:  REQUESTS FOR PRELIMINARY RULINGS, 2009–2020, AND 

NUMBER THAT REFER TO THE CHARTER

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

641

568

533

556

423

404

385

450

428

435

470

301

24

33

0

68

64

48

52

53

50

84

100

72

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Source: FRA, 2021 [based on data received from the CJEU]

Charter

Total

Requests for preliminary rulings may concern technical details or issues of 
political relevance. Two examples from Latvia illustrate this.

In one case, the Supreme Court requested a CJEU preliminary ruling about 
certain swamp lands included in an area protected under Natura 2000. National 
law places an absolute ban on cranberry plantations on this land. EU legislation 
provides that compensation for restrictions on the use of protected lands 
is to be provided.

The national court requested guidance on the situation when an owner 
is neither allowed to undertake commercial activity (making cranberry 
plantations) nor entitled to compensation. It asked the CJEU if such a situation 
is compatible with the right to property (Article 17), taking into account that 
the owner knew about the situation before acquiring the land.17

A second case involved a matter of major political interest: the use of languages 
in Latvian universities. The preliminary ruling request concerned amendments 
to the law on the establishment of higher educational institutions. The law 
provides that all establishments of higher education – state and private – must 
implement study programmes in Latvian only, except in a very few cases in 
which courses in EU languages are permitted.

The Constitutional Court found that the norm violated academic freedom 
as protected by the constitution. It referred questions to the CJEU regarding 
the compatibility of the law with both free movement of services and the 
freedom of establishment, as well as with the freedom to conduct a business, 
as provided by Article 16 of the Charter.18

When national courts request preliminary rulings and the CJEU provides its 
judgment, the national courts can proceed with the case based on the CJEU’s 
interpretation. This process can trigger additional legal questions for the 
national courts to clarify.

For example, in Poland, the Supreme Court issued a decision establishing 
criteria to assess when a court formation is unduly appointed, including 
appointments under the current Act on the National Council for the Judiciary.19 
Due to the manner in which the present Council is constituted, the Supreme 
Court ruled that panels convened by the Supreme Court are defective when 

50

51

they include individuals appointed based on a recommendation by the current 
Council. This Supreme Court decision aimed to implement a judgment of the 
CJEU regarding the independence and impartiality of courts. However, it was 
then deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.20

2�3� 
THE CHARTER AND LAWMAKERS

The European Commission’s new Charter strategy stresses that national 
parliaments  are  central  to  promoting  and  protecting  Charter  rights.  It 
also acknowledges that the use and awareness of the Charter in national 
parliaments remain low. In its strategy, the European Commission invites “the 
European Parliament and national parliaments to develop interparliamentary 
cooperation on issues related to the application of the Charter, to which the 
Commission stands ready to contribute”.21

Moreover, the strategy calls on the Member States to use impact assessments 
and legislative scrutiny procedures to ensure that initiatives implementing EU 
law comply with the Charter.22 So far, these procedures tend not to refer to 
the Charter, even though a significant part of national law and policymaking 
falls under the scope of EU law and so has to conform fully with the Charter.23

Nevertheless, there are examples of national law- and policymaking referring 
to the Charter in 2020. FRA analysed 33 examples of political debates and 35 
examples of impact assessments or legal scrutiny procedures from across 
the EU. Data protection emerges as the policy area with the most examples 
of Charter use.

2�3�1�  Use of the Charter outside the legislative process
Sometimes national political debates with no link to a specific legislative 
process refer to the Charter.

For instance, the parliament in Belgium adopted a resolution on the so-called 
LGBT-free zones in Poland. It referred to the prohibition on discrimination in 
Article 21 of the Charter.24 The Irish parliament also referred to the Charter 
when criticising related government policies in Poland. It considered that 
they violate freedom of expression and information (Article 11) and non-
discrimination (Article 21).25

A group of parliamentarians addressed similar concerns in Italy.26 These 
members of the Senate drew attention to arrests and pre-trial custody of 
activists in Poland. They also highlighted the need to respect non-discrimination 
(Article 21). They asked if the Italian minister for foreign affairs was aware 
of these events and if he was considering advocating the liberation of the 
activists and intervention by the European Commission.

Another example also involved a group of Italian senators. They asked the 
government if it was aware of allegations concerning municipal elections in 
Venice. Candidates had reported to the local press that they had sent a formal 
letter to the President of the European Commission, alleging the violation 
of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in local elections (Article 40 
of the Charter) and of Directive 94/80/EC. They argued that the municipal 
authorities of Venice had not provided adequate information to EU citizens 
living in Venice on how to participate as voters in the municipal elections, 
which require local registration.27

COVID-19 and related government measures prompted political debates 
concerning the fundamental rights foundations that need to be respected 
when designing and implementing national policies to counter the pandemic.

51

50

 
In France, the European Affairs Committee of the Senate recognised the need 
for Member States to take urgent measures to tackle the COVID-19 epidemic, 
but stressed that “the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
continues to apply during the epidemic”.28

2�3�2�  Use of the Charter in the legislative process

Debates on adopting bills

Interventions in parliamentary debates sometimes use the Charter to argue 
for or against the adoption of a bill. For instance, in Portugal, the Charter 
was used to support a bill that aims to exempt students with disabilities 
from paying tuition fees.29 Parliamentarians in Portugal also referred to 
the Charter when opposing proposals to legalise euthanasia.30 Meanwhile, 
others rejected the introduction of a new national charter on digital rights, 
stating that such an initiative would duplicate rights that other instruments, 
including the Charter, already established.31

Lawmakers also referred to the Charter when discussing COVID-19-related 
measures. For instance, in Estonia a member of parliament made reference 
to the Charter when expressing concerns about data protection related to 
a COVID-19 hotline.32

In Finland, the parliament discussed a government decree that temporarily 
restricted the freedom of movement to and from the capital region of Uusimaa in 
order to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Members referred to the 
Charter given that it specifically provides a right to free movement (Article 45).33

Similar debates took place in other countries, such as Croatia, where data 
protection (Article 8) was referred to in the context of introducing electronic 
tracking of people’s locations.34

Preparation of national bills

Explanations of bills tend to refer to the Charter when the bills are implementing 
EU legislation and are relevant to fundamental rights. The preparatory work 
for bills also refers to the Charter to bolster arguments in favour of legislative 
proposals.

For instance, in the context of ratifying the Protocol of Amendment to 
the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic 
Processing of Personal Data, Estonia made reference to the fact that data 
protection “has recently been included as a fundamental right in Article 8 
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights”.35

In Croatia, a legislative proposal to establish an ombudsperson for the elderly 
referred to the Charter, which recognises the rights of elderly people to lead 
a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural 
life (Article 25).36

In Hungary, a member of parliament submitted a bill to bring Hungarian 
legislation on civil society organisations in line with the CJEU’s judgment in 
case C-78/18.37 It refers to the respect for private and family life (Article 7), data 
protection (Article 8) and freedom of assembly (Article 12).38 The legislature 
did not take the bill into consideration.

In Lithuania, a bill amending the Law on Criminal Intelligence states in its 
explanation that the provisions of the law that was then in force would 

52

53

violate the Charter. Therefore, the obligations under the Charter were one 
of the motivations of the bill.39

In Romania, a bill seeks to amend existing anti-discrimination legislation by 
adding colour as a protected ground of discrimination. It specifies that that 
is a protected ground under Article 21 of the Charter.40

(Legal) opinions on bills

In  Bulgaria,  the  president  maintained  that  the  proposal  to  criminalise 
“distributing incorrect information about the spread of an infectious disease” 
contradicted a number of EU and international standards, including the freedom 
of expression and information as laid down in Article 11 of the Charter. The 
president also opposed a provision for a mandatory upper limit on the prices 
of goods and services during a state of emergency. He maintained that this 
would violate the principle of free movement of goods and services and the 
freedom to conduct a business, stipulated in Article 16 of the Charter. Both 
provisions were removed from the bills.41

The Supreme Bar Council of Bulgaria also argued against a bill by invoking 
the Charter. Increased punishments for computer crimes, sexual crimes, and 
crimes against intellectual property would render these crimes ‘serious’ and 
thus allow the tracing of contacts, locations and other circumstances of the 
personal lives of citizens and their correspondence. The council argued that 
this would bring a risk of violating citizens’ rights, including the right to private 
and family life (Article 7) and data protection (Article 8).42

In Finland, amendments were proposed to the Communicable Diseases 
Act to develop a mobile application that helps trace and alert people who 
may have been exposed to COVID-19. The Constitutional Law Committee of 
Parliament referred to the Charter when reviewing their constitutionality.43 
The parliament and the president adopted the bill after the amendments 
that the committee suggested were introduced.

In the Netherlands, the Council of State used the Charter (in addition to the 
ECHR) to check if emergency measures to restrict the movement of persons 
due to COVID-19 were allowed.44 The council stressed the importance of 
proportionality but also the need to draft measures clearly and publish them 
in such a way that citizens can adhere to them.

52

53

2�4� 
THE CHARTER AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES

The new Charter strategy stresses that national and local administrations, as 
well as law enforcement authorities, are “central to promoting and protecting 
Charter rights”. The European Commission intends “to work hand in hand with 
Member States’ national and local authorities to ensure the full application of 
the Charter and of EU laws that promote and protect the rights it enshrines”.45

To prevent Charter violations, the Commission stresses that a regular dialogue 
with Member States and law enforcement authorities is useful to resolve, 
at an early stage, any emerging issues of incompatibility. Moreover, the 
strategy underlines that it is “important that Member States promote the 
development of tools, monitoring mechanisms, training and strategies to 
ensure compliance with the Charter”.46

More specifically the new strategy calls on the Member States to deliver on 
10 points. It invites them to:

 ― share best practices on the use and awareness of the Charter, including 

at local level;

 ― nominate a Charter focal point to ease coordination and cooperation;
 ― use impact assessments and legislative scrutiny procedures to ensure 

that initiatives implementing EU law comply with the Charter;

 ― develop guidance and training for national and local administrations;
 ― ensure that EU funds are used in compliance with the Charter and establish 
the arrangements provided in the Common Provisions Regulation47;
 ― support national and local staff to design and implement programmes 
that comply with the Charter, in cooperation with the Commission;
 ― facilitate the coordination and coherent implementation of enabling 
conditions for EU funds and make the best use of available technical 
assistance;

 ― include fundamental rights bodies in the monitoring committees;
 ― promote a supportive and safe environment for CSOs and rights defenders 

in their country, including at local level;

 ― develop initiatives to promote people’s awareness of their Charter rights 
and of where to turn when their rights are breached, in particular by 
empowering local actors.

The strategy also expects solid cooperation from the Member States in the 
Council. It invites the Council to contribute to better implementation of the 
Charter by promoting exchanges among Member States in its Working Party 
for Fundamental Rights, Citizens’ Rights and Free Movement of Persons 
(FREMP) and to follow up on the Commission’s annual report that will be 
published in the course of 2021.

Policies related to the Charter and on promoting the application of its provisions 
could help increase awareness of the instrument. Awareness of the Charter 
is lower than of the key human rights catalogues established at the level of 
the Council of Europe (ECHR) or the United Nations (Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights), FRA survey data show.48

However, the data also suggest that there is less of a gap between the 
awareness of the ECHR and the awareness of the Charter in countries that 
have more recently ratified the ECHR. This indicates that time is a key factor 
in raising awareness of a human rights catalogue.

54

55

 
FIGURE 2�2: AWARENESS OF HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS

Notes: Out of all respondents 
in the EU-27 who were asked 
to complete the section ‘Rights 
awareness & responsibilities’ 
of FRA’s Fundamental Rights 
Survey 2019 (n = 24,354); 
weighted results.

European Convention on Human Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

68

67

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

Source:  FRA, Fundamental Rights Survey 2019 [Data collection in cooperation 

with CBS (NL), CTIE (LU) and Statistics Austria (AT)]

Raising awareness through training and education

A number of existing practices can guide the development of similar initiatives 
concerning the application of the Charter.

For instance, in 2020, the Ministry of Justice of Finland organised an online 
course on fundamental rights and human rights in the legislative drafting 
process.49 In the Netherlands, the Expert Centre on European Law of the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides general information about the Charter.50

In Italy, the Milan Bar Association (Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano) organised 
a training session on applying the Charter in national judicial proceedings 
concerning family reunification and legislation countering terrorism. The 
training was part of the EU-funded project ‘Lawyers4Rights’, involving legal 
professionals based in Bulgaria, Italy and Spain.

The local dimension of the Charter was emphasised in Croatia. The Association 
of Cities (Udruga Gradova) published an online article on the role of local 
authorities in implementing the Charter.51

In Italy, the School Department of the Emilia-Romagna Region carries out an 
educational programme on rights awareness. It focuses on educating young 
people about the Charter.52 It consists of a game for students and an e-learning 
platform for teachers, providing some key definitions and instruments that 
can be used during the training sessions. A mobile phone app allows the 
students to play from home as well.

2�5� 
THE CHARTER AND OTHER ACTORS

The new strategy on better implementation of the Charter stresses that, 
even though public authorities are primarily responsible for upholding and 
promoting the Charter, other actors also play a role in its implementation. 
Rights defenders, such as national human rights institutions (NHRIs), but also 
civil society, including academia, have an important role in promoting the use 
and awareness of the Charter and a culture of values.53 The strategy calls on 
the Member States to increase the capacity of these actors.

54

55

 
2�5�1�  NHRIs and other independent bodies
NHRIs, ombuds institutions, equality bodies and other statutory bodies play 
an important role in the national fundamental rights landscape. However, 
NHRIs appear to not yet be using the full potential of the Charter. Only four 
of the 33 NHRIs that FRA consulted for a previous report said they use the 
Charter systematically.54

Nonetheless, some do invoke the Charter in their work. For instance, in 
Slovenia, the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, the national equality body, 
issued recommendations on a legislative proposal amending the Housing Act. 
The advocate argued for extending the right to apply for non-profit rental 
housing to all third-country nationals to avoid a violation of the Charter 
(Article 34 on social security and social assistance).55

In the context of COVID-19-related measures, the National Data Protection 
Authority (Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados, CNPD) in Portugal 
issued guidelines for the collection of workers’ health data, namely their body 
temperature. It invoked Article 8 of the Charter, stressing that the consent 
of the data subjects is relevant only if conditions guarantee that it is free 
and informed. The authority considered this to be extremely difficult in the 
context of a working relationship.56

Where NHRIs are also active in the field of litigation, they may also make use 
of the Charter. For example, in Estonia the Chancellor of Justice referred to 
non-discrimination (Article 21) and the integration of persons with a disability 
(Article 26) in a submission to the CJEU. She raised the question of whether or 
not an official whose hearing is impaired can be dismissed without assessing 
if reasonable accommodation can be provided so that he can, for instance, 
carry out his job using hearing aids.57 The case is likely to clarify the duty to 
provide reasonable accommodation within the scope of Directive 2000/78/EC 
establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and 
occupation.

Where national bodies have a mandate to deal with individual complaints, the 
Charter offers an important standard. In Lithuania, the Equal Opportunities 
Ombuds institution referred to equality (Article 20) and the rights of the 
elderly (Article 25) in a decision on discrimination on the ground of age. The 
case concerned a job advertisement targeting people aged 30 to 50. The 
offender amended the advertisement.58

In Slovakia, the Office of the Public Defender of Rights (Kancelária verejného 
ochrancu práv) referred to the Charter when assessing various complaints 
related to data protection, access to documents, refusal of an exemption for 
entry into the territory of the Slovak Republic for the complainant’s fiancée, 
and the failure of a Slovak embassy to issue a national visa. It identified 
violations in all four cases.59

National bodies also use the Charter in training contexts or to raise rights 
awareness. For example, in Belgium, the equality body referred to the rights 
of the elderly (Article 25) on the occasion of the International Day of Older 
Persons (1 October).60 In Romania, the country’s NHRI organised a training 
course on the Charter for lawyers.61

“The implementation of returns 
carries significant risks related 
to the fundamental rights set out 
in the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights, including the right to 
life, the prohibition of torture, 
inhuman or degrading treatment 
or punishment, the right to 
an effective remedy and the 
principle of non-refoulement�”

Slovakia, Ombuds institution, 
Annual report submitted to 
the parliament, p. 15

56

57

2�5�2�  Civil society organisations, professional associations, and 
academia
Civil society organisations and other associations sometimes raise Charter-
related arguments when commenting on bills, and in the broader context 
of law- and policymaking.

For instance, in Austria, the Association of the Wood and Paper Industry 
Austria and Austropapier invoked the right to conduct a business (Article 16) 
when criticising a bill. The bill aims to temporarily oblige wood-processing 
companies to give priority to buying damaged timber from the surrounding 
region when there is a threat of mass propagation of certain forest pests.62

In Luxembourg, the Chamber of 
Employees commented on a bill 
that introduced the obligation to 
wear masks in certain conditions. 
Referring  to  the  Charter,  the 
opinion emphasised that the state’s 
interference in the private life of 
citizens must be strictly limited to 
the absolute minimum necessary.63

Advocacy  campaigns  have  also 
used  the  Charter.  In  Germany, 
the  German  Bar  Association 
voiced  serious  concerns  about 
the announcement of the Greek 
government that it would suspend 
the registration of asylum seekers 
for  one  month.  The  association 
referred  to  the  Charter,  among 
others.64 In Sweden, seven of the largest CSOs published an opinion piece in 
a major daily newspaper. It referred to the Charter, calling on the government 
to rescue unaccompanied minors stuck in refugee camps on the Greek islands.65

Interest groups and NGOs also use the Charter in strategic litigation. For 
instance, in Hungary, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union brought a case in 
the CJEU against the European Commission, for failing to comply with the 
right to freedom of expression and information (Article 11) concerning public 
lighting projects that the EU financed. A company in which allegedly persons 
close to the government held an interest won the tenders. The European 
Anti-Fraud Office investigated the matter, but the outcome was not made 
public. Meanwhile, the case before the CJEU was still pending at the time 
of writing. 66

Transparency issues also came up in Malta, where a law allows only EU citizens 
who have been resident for more than five years to request information from 
the government. Access-Information, a non-profit organisation, challenged 
this law in court, arguing that it violates a number of legal provisions, including 
the Charter.67

Finally,  academia  can  also  play  an  important  role  in  promoting  the 
implementation of the Charter.

For example, in Slovenia, two academics drew attention to the importance 
of the Charter in a daily newspaper. They stressed that, although as much 
as 80 % of national legislation has its source in EU law, the Charter has so 
far not been used much.68

56

57

In Italy, a research centre published a blog series entitled ‘All EU-r rights’ 
because it found it “difficult to find expert information in an accessible, 
concise format which is written in an understandable language”. The series 
addresses a wider audience by providing short article-by-article comments 
on the Charter’s provisions.69

Academic writings published in 2020 used the Charter’s anniversary to take 
stock of its implementation70 or deal with general Charter-related issues.71 
Other writings analysed specific aspects of the Charter, such as social rights,72 
asylum-related questions,73 protection of children,74 coronavirus-related 
aspects,75 remedies and access to justice,76 administrative law,77 the use of the 
Charter before national courts,78 the interaction between the national legal 
system and the Charter,79 or other aspects.80 Moreover, extensive article-by-
article commentaries were published in French81 and Greek,82 which can also 
provide useful guidance for legal practitioners when applying the Charter.83

58

59

FRA opinions

The Charter is of fundamental relevance for the EU, national and local levels of 
government, binding them whenever they are acting within the scope of EU 
law. However, at national level, engagement with the Charter remains rather 
limited, the evidence shows. This indicates a need for further support by the EU 
and its Member States, as well as reinforced cooperation. The following three 
opinions address the EU, national and local levels of government, respectively.

EU level

Whereas the new European Commission strategy to 
strengthen the application of the Charter dedicates 
increased political attention to the national level, it also 
announces additional EU guidance, stimulus and support, 
including through new EU programmes. For instance, it 
announces that the European Commission will strengthen 
its partnership with EU Member States in various contexts 
to better help them implement the Charter.

In addition, the European Commission invites both the 
Council and the Parliament, respectively, to enter into 
an ‘inter-institutional discussion’ with the Commission. 
Agencies are also of relevance in this regard. Whereas 
FRA and its work are frequently referred to, the strategy 
does not in more general terms address the role of EU 
agencies. EU agencies all can contribute to the application 
of the Charter, although awareness of the Charter and 
obligations under it vary between agencies, as does 
their readiness to increase their investment in raising 
awareness, FRA has reported.

FRA OPINION 2�1

The EU institutions, when discussing the 
application of the Charter as suggested 
in the European Commission’s Charter 
strategy,  should  make  sure  that 
evidence from relevant national actors 
is sufficiently taken into account� In 
addition to FRA, attention should also 
be dedicated to other EU agencies that 
have the potential to contribute to 
better implementation and promotion 
of the rights in the Charter� Finally, 
the Committee of the Regions could 
engage  in  an  annual  exchange  of 
promising practices and challenges 
in the application and promotion of 
the Charter provisions at local level� 
This could provide additional evidence 
to feed into the ‘inter-institutional 
discussion’ at EU level, to which the 
Charter strategy refers�

The Charter is important not only for the key EU institutions 
but for all EU actors, such as, for instance, the Committee 
of the Regions. Especially its Commission for Citizenship, 
Governance, Institutional and External Affairs (CIVEX) 
has an obvious role to play in highlighting local practices and fostering 
an exchange amongst regional and local actors on how best to apply and 
promote the Charter.

58

5959

National level

The data collected for this and earlier fundamental rights 
reports point to a lack of national policies to promote the 
application of the Charter. Consequently, the 2020 Charter 
strategy puts a major focus on the role of EU Member 
States in implementing the Charter. Given the number 
of concrete proposals for Member States to take action, 
the strategy forms a blueprint for the years to come.

Application of the Charter could be strengthened by setting 
up Charter focal points in the national administrations, 
adapting procedures concerning impact assessments and 
legal scrutiny, ensuring that committees with sufficient 
Charter expertise monitor the management of EU funds 
or, finally, establishing and/or strengthening NHRIs.

Other measures that the strategy lays down require 
refreshed national policy measures, for example in the area 
of training, awareness raising or promoting a supportive 
and safe environment for CSOs and rights defenders. 
These proposals will require a shift in the fundamental 
rights culture at national level, which so far appears rather 
focused on national constitutional law and the ECHR, 
thereby underusing the added value of the Charter.

Local level

Local administrations are not very aware of the Charter, 
according  to  FRA’s  analysis  of  the  data  from  the 
consultations that the European Commission carried 
out while preparing the strategy. At the same time, 
the Charter “applies to regional or local bodies, and to 
public organisations, when they are implementing Union 
law” (see Explanations, Article 51, Official Journal of the 
European Union C 303/17 - 14.12.2007).

The strategy uses the term ‘local’ 17 times. It not only calls 
for the sharing of best Charter practices at local level and 
promoting a supportive and safe environment for CSOs 
and rights defenders at local level, but also demands that 
Member States provide sufficient guidance at local level 
so that local authorities can comply with their Charter 
duties. The strategy also points to the potential of local 
actors to raise awareness about people’s rights and about 
what people can do if their rights are breached.

FRA is currently working on a concept for human rights 
cities in the EU. That framework of commitment will 
integrate various Charter-related components and could 
help increase Charter engagement at local level.

FRA OPINION 2�2

EU Member States should consider 
establishing dedicated Charter focal 
points,  as  invited  to  do  under  the 
Charter  strategy�  This  would  allow 
governments to coordinate national 
actions with actions at EU, regional 
and local levels to implement the new 
Charter  strategy  more  effectively� 
Ideally,  the  implementation  of  the 
strategy would follow a structured 
process based on concrete targets, 
milestones and timelines� This could 
take the form of a dedicated Charter 
action  plan,  or  making  specific 
references to the Charter in existing 
action plans or strategies� To allow 
for mutual learning and synergetic 
exchange, adopting and implementing 
these planning documents should go 
hand in hand with coordination at EU 
level – for instance, through targeted 
discussions in FREMP�

FRA OPINION 2�3

EU Member States should promote 
the  new  Charter  strategy  among 
local  and  regional  authorities,  and 
explore how these authorities could 
more regularly refer to and promote 
fundamental rights in general and the 
Charter’s added value in particular� 
Local and regional authorities should 
ensure that relevant local and regional 
instruments, procedures and policies 
refer to the Charter� Existing Charter 
practices should be communicated to 
the new national Charter focal points 
to ensure that these can share such 
practices and experiences with other 
Member States – for instance, through 
the European e-Justice Portal� Cities 
could  consider  becoming  human 
rights cities and thereby stepping up 
fundamental  rights  considerations 
in  their  work,  programmes,  and 
activities�

60
60

61

Index of country 
references
AT   47, 57

BE   51, 56

BG   53, 55

CZ   48

DE   46, 57

EE   47, 52, 56

ES   49, 55

FI   52, 53, 55

FR   52, 58

GR   57, 58

HR   47, 52, 55

HU   49, 52, 57

IE   48, 51

IT   47, 51, 55, 58

LT   52, 56

LU   57

LV   50

MT  57

NL   53, 55

PL   48, 50, 51

PT   52, 56

RO   47, 53, 56

SE   57

SI   56, 57

SK   56

Endnotes

1 

2 

3 

For Charter chapters in previous Fundamental Rights Reports, see FRA’s webpage 
on the agency’s Charter resources.

European Commission (2020), Strategy to strengthen the application of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU, COM(2020) 711 final, 2 December 2020, 
p. 3.

See FRA (2020), Analysis of the targeted consultations for the Commission’s new 
Charter strategy.

4  Compare for instance two examples that come from the same court. See Slovakia, 

Constitutional Court, Case II� ÚS 376/2019-61, ECLI:SK:USSR:2020:2.US.376.2019.2; 
Constitutional Court, Case I� ÚS 183/2019-194, ECLI:SK:USSR:2020:1.US.183/2019, 
11 February 2020.

5  Germany, Constitutional Court, Case 2 BvR 1845/18, 

ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rs20201201.2bvr184518, 1 December 2020. With this decision, 
the Second Senate of the Court followed the landmark judgment delivered 
by the First Senate in November 2019 (on the right to be forgotten). See 
Bundesverfassungsgericht (2020), ‘Successful constitutional complaints against 
surrender to Romania for the purposes of criminal prosecution and the execution 
of a custodial sentence’, press release, 30 December 2020; FRA (2020), Ten years 
on: Unlocking the Charter’s full potential, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

6  Constitutional Court of Austria, Case G302/2019, 26 June 2020.

7  Austria, Highest Administrative Court, Case Ra 2019/14/0509, 19 February 2020.

8 

Italy, Constitutional Court, Ordinance No� 182/2020, 8.7.2020. The Constitutional 
Court decided to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) if the 
Charter applies to birth and maternity allowances and if, consequently, the EU law 
must be interpreted as allowing national law to exclude third-country citizens who 
hold a work permit but not an EU long-term residence permit from such benefits.

9  Croatia, Constitutional Court, Case U-I-503/2018, 24 June 2020. In its assessment 
the Court also referred to CJEU case law, CJEU, Case C-601/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:84, 
15 February 2016.

10  Estonia, Supreme Court, Case 3-19-1068, 17 April 2020.

11  Romania, Constitutional Court, Case No� 2�493/271/2016, 16 July 2020.

12 

Ireland, High Court, Case IEHC 454, 15 September 2020. On the limits of this 
harmonious interpretation, see also Germany, Federal Labour Court, Case 1 AZR 
149/19, ECLI:DE:BAG:2020:210120.U.1AZR149.19.0, 21 January 2020. Another case 
from Ireland asked if a 2011 act is valid under an EU directive properly interpreted 
in light of the Charter. The case concerns a prominent murder. Key evidence was 
obtained through access to mobile communication data. The judge had doubts 
that access to data under the Irish act of 2011 meets the standards identified by 
the CJEU in its jurisprudence (which again strongly relies on the Charter) and asked 
the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. Ireland, Supreme Court, Case record No: 2019/18, 
24 February 2020.

13  Poland, Supreme Court, Case BSA I-4110-1/20, 23 January 2020.
14  Poland, Constitutional Court, Case U 2/20, 20 April 2020.

15  Spain, Supreme Court, Case STS 2031/2020, 22 June 2020, ECLI:ES:TS:2020:2031.

16  Hungary, Supreme Court (Kúria), Mfv. 10.251/2019/12, 22 April 2020. Note that the 

European Commission also makes a link between judicial independence and the 
Charter (see European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report – The rule of 
law situation in the European Union, COM(2020) 580 final, Brussels, 30 September 
2020, p. 26). It expressed its concern about the “absence of effective control 
over the NOJ President increas[ing] the possibility of arbitrary decisions in the 
management of the judicial system”. See European Commission (2020), 2020 
Rule of Law Report – Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Hungary, 
SWD(2020) 316 final, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

17  Latvia, Senate of the Supreme Court Department of Administrative Law, Case 
No� SKA-238/2020, ECLI:LV:AT:2020:0603.A420186017.4.L, 3 June 2020. For the 
CJEU proceedings, see Case C-234/20 or C-238/20.

18  Latvia, Constitutional Court, Case No� 2020-33-11, 14 July 2020.

19  Poland, Supreme Court, Case BSA I-4110–1/20, 23 January 2020.
20  Poland, Constitutional Court, Case U 2/20, 20 April 2020.

21  European Commission (2020), Strategy to strengthen the application of the 

Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU, COM(2020) 711 final, 2 December 2020, 
pp. 5 and 7.

22 

Ibid., p. 6.

23  FRA (2020), Ten years on: Unlocking the Charter’s full potential, Luxembourg, 

Publications Office, p. 11.

60

61

24  Belgium (2020), ‘Resolution on the so-called LGBT-free zones in Poland’. A minister also referred to the Charter when being questioned about 
the use of private investigators to shadow journalists in 2016. See Vlaams Parlement, Commission for Culture, Youth, Sports and Media (2020), 
‘Commissievergadering’, 9 January 2020.

25 

Ireland, Houses of the Oireachtas (2020), ‘European Council meeting: Statements’, Dail Eireann debate, 5 March 2020.

26  Italy, Senate (2020), oral question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs No� 3-01881, 1 September 2020.

27  Italy, Senate (2020), written question to the Ministry of the Interior No� 4-04159, 5 October 2020.

28  France, Senate, European Affairs Committee (2020), Minutes of the session of 6 May 2020 – ‘Respect for the rule of law in Europe during the 

COVID-19 epidemic’.

29  Portugal (2020), Parliament’s Official Gazette, Series II-A, No� 49, 13 February 2020, p. 49.

30  Portugal (2020), Parliament’s Official Gazette, Series I, No� 35, 29 February 2020, pp. 62-63.

31  Portugal (2020), Parliament’s Official Gazette, Series I, No� 8, 2 October 2020, pp. 10-11.

32  Estonia (2020), Amendment of Weapons Act and Rescue Act, parliamentary debate, 15 April 2020.

33  Finland, Parliament (2020), Minutes of the plenary session on 27 March 2020, PTK 40/2020.

34  Croatia (2020), Parliamentary debate of 25 March 2020 on the final proposal for the Act on Amendments to the Electronic Communications Act 
(Konačni prijedlog zakona o dopunama Zakona o elektroničkim komunikacijama), urgent procedure, first and second readings, No. P.Z.881.

35  Estonia, Act on Ratification of the Protocol of Amendment to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic 

Processing of Personal Data 143 SE (Isikuandmete automatiseeritud töötlemisel isiku kaitse konventsiooni muutmise protokolli ratifitseerimise 
seadus 143 SE).

36  Croatia, Parliament (2020), Proposal for the Act on the Ombudsperson for the Elderly No� P�Z�847 and P�Z�944. See also the Proposal for the Act 
on National Benefit for the Elderly, with the Final proposal for the act, No. P.Z.947. In May 2020, the Croatian Parliament adopted the Act on 
National Benefit for the Elderly, which entered into force on 1 January 2021 (OG 62/2020).

37  CJEU, C-78/18, Commission v. Hungary, 18 June 2020.

38  Hungary, Bill No� T/12790 on the changes to the financial support of non-governmental organisations for the strengthening of the civil society 
sector on the occasion of the international day of charity (T/12790 törvényjavaslat a jótékonyság világnapja alkalmából a civil társadalom 
megerősítése céljából a civil szervezetek támogatásának módosításáról).

39  Lithuania, explanatory note on the law on criminal intelligence of the republic of Lithuania No XI-22345, available online.

40  Romania, Legislative proposal to supplement and amend Government Ordinance 137/2000 on preventing and combating all forms of 

discrimination.

41  See President of the Republic of Bulgaria (2020), Justification for returning for new deliberation in the National Assembly of provisions of the 
Act on Measures and Activities during the State of Emergency Declared by Decision of the National Assembly of 13 March 2020 (Мотиви за 
връщане за ново обсъждане в Народното събрание на разпоредби от Закона за мерките и действията по време на извънредното 
положение, обявено с решение на Народното събрание от 13 март 2020 г�, приет от 44-то Народно събрание на 20 март 2020 г�).

42  Bulgaria, Supreme Bar Council (2020), Statement of the Supreme Bar Council on Letter No. 04-00-11, 29 June 2020 requesting statements on 
a draft decision by the Council of Ministers for Approving Draft Amendments and Supplements to the Criminal Code (Становище от Висшия 
адвокатски съвет относно: Писмо, изх. No04-00-11/29.06.2020 г. с искане за становище по проект на Решение на Министерски 
съвет за одобряване на Закон за изменение и допълнение на Наказателния кодекс), 20 July 2020.

43  Finland, Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament, ‘Statement 20/2020’. (Perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunto PeVL 20/2020 vp / 

grundlagsutskottets utlåtande GrUU 20/2020 rd).

44  Netherlands, State Council (2020), ‘Information about the constitutional aspects of proposed crisis measures and measures that have been 

taken’ (‘Voorlichting over grondwettelijke aspecten van (voor)genomen crisis maatregelen’), 25 May 2020.

45  European Commission (2020), Strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU, COM(2020) 711 final, 

2 December 2020, p. 5.

46  Ibid.

47  Ibid.

48  See FRA (2020), What do fundamental rights mean for people in the EU?, Fundamental Rights Survey, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

49  Information provided to FRA by FRANET.

50  Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (n.d.), ‘Handvest grondrechten’.

51  Croatia, Association of Cities (2020), ‘Uloga lokalnih vlasti u provedbi europske Povelje o temeljnim pravima?’

52 

Italy, Emilia-Romagna Region (n.d.), ‘Diritti Si Nasce 2019–2020 – Laboratorio condotto dai nostri operatori’.

53  European Commission (2020), Strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU, COM(2020) 711 final, 
2 December 2020, p. 3 and pp. 10-13. See also FRA (2019), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on its 10th anniversary: Views of civil 
society and national human rights institutions, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

54  FRA (2020), Strong and effective national human rights institutions, Luxembourg, Publications Office, pp. 78-81.

55  Slovenia, Advocate of the Principle of Equality (2020), Letter of 18 August 2020 regarding draft act amending the Housing Act, 21 July 

2020, No. 0709-62/2020/1. The advocate referred to Art. 34 of the Charter in conjunction with Art. 11 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 
25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.

56  Portugal, CNPD (2020), ‘Resposta da CNPD ao requerimento 19/XIV (1.ª) EI’, 12 May 2020. The Portuguese Ombuds institution also referred to 

the Charter in a recommendation to the Minister for Education regarding the free distribution of school textbooks. Portugal, Ombuds institution 
(2020), ‘Recommendation no� 1/B/2020’, 2 January 2020.

57  Estonia, Chancellor of Justice (2020), submission in Case C-795/19.

58  Lithuania, Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson (2020), Inquiry no� (20)SN-87)SP-50, 22 May 2020.

59  Slovakia, Kancelária verejného ochrancu práv (2020), Annual report.

60  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘Protégeons mieux les droits fondamentaux de nos aîné·e·s’.

62

63

61  For more information, see the website of the Romanian NHRI.

62  See Austria, Ministerial Draft Federal Act amending the Forestry Act 1975; Association of the Wood and Paper Industry Austria and 

Austropapier (2020), ‘Opinion on the Ministerial Draft Federal Act amending the Forestry Act 1975’, 28 May 2020.

63  Luxembourg, Opinion of the Chamber of Employees on Bill no. 7622 regarding introducing a series of measures to combat the Covid-19 

pandemic and modifying: (1) the amended act of 25 November 1975 concerning the delivery to the public of medicines; (2) the amended act of 
11 April 1983 regulating the market and the advertising of medicines, 13 July 2020, pp. 3 and 7.

64  Germany, German Bar Association (2020), ‘Die Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der EU kann man nicht aussetzen’, press release, 3 March 2020.

65  Sweden, Expressen (2020), ‘Ensamkommande i Grekland måste räddas till Sverige’, 7 July 2020.

66  The case is currently pending before the General Court; see CJEU, Case T-517/19, Homoki v. Commission.

67  On 5 March it went to a higher level, the Information and Data Protection Appeals Tribunal. See Access-Information (2020), ‘Malta: Access Info 

in court to defend the right of access to information’, 5 March 2020.

68  Weingerl, P. and Tratnik, M. (2020), ‘Naj Listina EU o temeljnih pravicah ne bo za okras’, Večer, 5 February 2020.

69  Toggenburg, G. N., ‘All EU-r rights’, EUreka!, EURAC research.

70  Svobodová, M., Scheu, H. and Grinc, J (2020), The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: 10 years in practice – evaluation 

and prospects (Listina základních práv Evropské unie: 10 let v praxi – hodnocení a výhled), Auditorium, Prague; Lenaerts, K. (2020), ‘Let the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights be reality for everyone: 10 years since the Charter became legally binding’ (‘Aby Karta praw podstawowych 
Unii Europejskiej była rzeczywistością dla wszystkich: 10 lat, odkąd Karta jest prawnie wiążąca’), Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, Vol. 2020, No. 
2, p. 4; Krommendijk, J. and De Waele, H. (2020), ‘Ten years of binding EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Netherlands: Another world 
to win?’ (‘Tien jaar bindend EU-Handvest van de Grondrechten in Nederland: nog een wereld te winnen?’), Tijdschrift voor Europees en 
Economisch Recht, Vol. 2020, No. 3, pp. 127–131; Rosas, A. (2020), ‘20 years of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (‘20 år av EU:s stadga 
om de grundläggande rättigheterna’), Tidskrift utgiven av Juridiska föreningen i Finland, Vol. 156, No. 2, pp. 265–274; Tinière, R. and Vial, C. 
(2020), The ten years of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Overview and outlook (Les dix ans de la Charte des droits 
fondamentaux de l’Union européenne. Bilan et perspectives), Bruylant, Brussels.

71  Ruggeri, A. (2020), ‘The Nice–Strasbourg Charter in the European constitutional system’ (‘La Carta di Nizza-Strasburgo nel sistema 

costituzionale europeo’), Rivista AIC, No. 3/2020; Surdykowska, B. (2020), ‘A recent look of the CJEU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union’ (‘Świeże spojrzenie TSUE na Kartę praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej’), Praca i Zabezpieczenie Społeczne, 61, 2/2020, 
p. 12; Gilliaux, P. (2020), ‘The binding force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ (‘La force obligatoire de la Charte des 
droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne’), Revue des droits de l’homme, No. 122, p. 69; Oana-Mihaela, S. (2020), European Union legal 
instruments for the protection of fundamental human rights (Instrumente juridice de protectie a drepturilor fundamentale la nivelul Uniunii 
Europene), C�H� Beck Publishing, Bucharest.

72  Van der Mei, A. (2020), ‘The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and extra statutory holidays’ (‘Het EU-Handvest van de Grondrechten en 

bovenwettelijke vakantiedagen’), Tijdschrift Recht en Arbeid, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 26–28.

73  Stoyanova, V. (2020), Anti-smuggling and anti-trafficking measures: Are they compatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?, 

Delegation for Migration Studies, Report 2020:4; the full report in English and a summary in Swedish are available here.

74  Wenger-Haargassner, G. (2020), ‘Art. 24 CFR and the law of parent and child: Reform proposals from a fundamental rights perspective’ (‘Art 24 

GRC und Kindschaftsrecht: Reformvorschläge aus grundrechtlicher Perspektive’), Zeitschrift für Familien- und Erbrecht, No. 2/2020, p. 61.

75  Trstenjak, V. (2020), ‘Fundamental rights at the time of corona crisis from the perspective of EU law’ (‘Temeljne pravice v času koronakrize 

z vidika prava EU’), Pravna praksa, Časopis za pravna vprašanja, Vol. 39, No. 22, supplement, pp. I–VIII.

76  Gombos, K. (2020), The effects of the European law on the right to remedy (Az európai jog hatásai a jogorvoslathoz való jogra), Budapest, 

Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetem.

77  Cuculoska, I. (2020), ‘The scope of application of the Charter’s right to good administration of the European Union’, Journal of Liberty and 

International Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 20–28; Vrabie, M. (2020) ‘Judicial review of administrative action at national level under the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights and general principles of EU law’, Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 25–49.

78  Friedl, P. (2020), ‘A new European fundamental rights court: The German Constitutional Court on the right to be forgotten’, European Papers, 

Vol. 5, No. 1, European Forum, Insight of 24 March 2020, pp. 447–460; John, G. (2020), The Fundamental Rights Charter in the rulings of the 
Constitutional Court (Die Grundrechtecharta in der Judikatur des Verfassungsgerichtshofes), Verlag Österreich, Wien; Kühling, J. (2020), ‘The 
“right to be forgotten” before the Federal Constitutional Court: November (r)evolution for the fundamental rights architecture in the multi-level 
system’ (‘Das „Recht auf Vergessenwerden“ vor dem BVerfG Novembe(r)evolution für die Grundrechtsarchitektur im Mehrebenensystem’), 
Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift, Vol. 2020, No. 5, pp. 275–279; Edenharter, A. (2020), ‘The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as review 
standard for the Federal Constitutional Court’ (‘Die EU-Grundrechte-Charta als Prüfungsmaßstab des Bundesverfassungsgerichts’), 
Die Öffentliche Verwaltung, Vol. 2020, No. 9, pp. 349–357; Lazzarini, N. (2020), ‘Dual preliminarity within the scope of the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights in the light of Order 182/2020 of the Italian Constitutional Court’, European Papers, Vol. 5, No. 3.

79  See the 28 contributions in Bobek, M. and Adams-Prassl, J. (2020), The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU Member States, Hart, Oxford; 
Denizeau-Lahaye, C. (2020), ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the preliminary ruling, source of a renewed 
judicial dialogue’ (‘La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne dans le renvoi préjudiciel en interprétation, source d’un dialogue 
juridictionnel renouvelé’), Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 13–22.

80  Vrettou, B. (2020), ‘Τhe concept of future generations and its reference to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the national constitutions 
of EU countries’ (‘Η έννοια των μελλοντικών γενεών και η αναφορά τους στον Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ και στα εθνικά 
συντάγματα των χωρών της ΕΕ’), Centre οf International and European Economic Law and Bar Association of Thessaloniki, No. 1/2020, 
p. 37; Gambino, S. (2020), ‘Fundamental rights between the “EU Charter of Fundamental Rights” and “multi-level constitutionalism”’ (‘I diritti 
fondamentali fra “Carta dei diritti UE” e “costituzionalismo multilivello”’), La Cittadinanza Europea, Vol. 200, No. 1, pp. 47–85.

81  Picod, F., Rizcallah, C. and Van Drooghenbroeck, S. (eds.) (2020), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Article-by-article 

commentary (Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne. Commentaire article par article), 2nd edn, Bruylant.

82  Sachpekidou, E., Tagaras, C., Kanellopoulou-Malouchou, N., Karagiannis, V., Lentzis, D., Marouda, M.-N., Sarmas, D., Takis, A. and Tsolka, 
O. (2020), Article-by-article commentary on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Κατ’ άρθρο ερμηνεία του Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών 
Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης), Nomiki Bibliothiki.

83  For additional article-by-article commentaries, see FRA (n.d.), ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’.

62

63

EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION

3

3�1� 

EU INITIATIVES ENERGISE EQUALITY PUSH WHILE EQUALITY 
TREATMENT DIRECTIVE REMAINS STALLED 

3�1�1�  EU EQUALITY STRATEGIES AND ACTION PLANS ADVANCE 

EQUALITY AGENDA 

3�1�2� 

IMPORTANCE OF EQUALITY DATA FOR PROGRESS 

3�2� 

PROMOTING EQUALITY AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

3�3�  NEED TO BOLSTER EQUALITY BODIES PERSISTS 

3�3�1�  DIVERSE HURDLES TO EFFECTIVENESS REMAIN 

3�3�2�  EU CALLS FOR STRENGTHENING EQUALITY BODIES 

3�4� 

EQUAL TREATMENT AND RIGHTS OF OLDER PERSONS 
DURING THE PANDEMIC AND BEYOND 

3�4�1�  PANDEMIC UNDERMINES OLDER PERSONS’ WELL-BEING AND RIGHTS 

3�4�2�  EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES EXPRESS CONCERN 

3�4�3�  PANDEMIC SPURS SOME POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS 

3�5�  A LONG WAY TO GO FOR LGBTI EQUALITY 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

64

69

69

70

70

71

72

74

74

74

76

76

78

84

87

65

UN & CoE

14 

January

In Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania (No� 41288/15), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 
rules that the domestic court’s refusal to investigate hate speech comments posted on Facebook 
next to a photograph of a male same-sex couple kissing discriminated against them� The ECtHR 
finds that the applicants’ sexual orientation played a role in the domestic authorities’ refusal 
to launch a pre-trial investigation, thereby violating the prohibition of discrimination taken in 
conjunction with the right to respect for private and family life, and the right to an effective 
remedy under Articles  8, 13 and 14of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)�

27 

February

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance 
(ECRI) publishes its annual report for 2019�

3

17–19

31 

March

In its concluding observations on 
Hungary, the United Nations Committee 
on the Rights of the Child called on the 
government to act, adopt a strategy, 
and provide information and support to 
vulnerable children, including specific 
measures targeting girls, Roma children, 
asylum-seeking and migrant children 
and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender 
and intersex children�

ECRI publishes its sixth 
monitoring reports on 
Belgium and Germany 
and conclusions on the 
implementation of the 
recommendations in 
respect of Luxembourg�

Council of Europe (CoE) 
Commissioner for Human Rights 
releases recommendations 
calling on the Bulgarian 
authorities to strengthen the 
capacity of police officers, 
prosecutors and judges to 
effectively investigate and 
prosecute violence against 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and 
intersex (LGBTI) persons�

19 

May

ECRI adopts a public statement on the impact of the 
pandemic and related government responses on 
groups of concern to ECRI�

2

15

26

June

ECRI publishes its sixth 
monitoring report on 
Austria and conclusions 
on the implementation of 
the recommendations in 
respect of Denmark�

United Nations Independent 
Expert on Sexual Orientation 
and Gender Identity submits 
to the United Nations Human 
Rights Council and United 
Nations General Assembly 
a report documenting the 
global reach and impact of gay 
and transgender ‘conversion 
therapy’� It calls for nations 
around the world to ban 
this scientifically discredited 
practice�

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council 
of Europe (PACE) adopts Resolution 2331 
promoting access to contraception in 
Europe, with specific attention to lesbian 
and bisexual women and trans and 
intersex people, who are particularly 
exposed to both financial and cultural 
barriers to accessing contraception� It also 
refers to the situation of vulnerable and 
marginalised groups, including lesbian 
and bisexual women and trans and 
intersex people, people with a migrant 
background, persons with disabilities, and 
ethnic and linguistic minorities, who are 
particularly exposed to barriers in access to 
contraception�

65

64

UN & CoE

July

9 

16 

In Y.T. v. Bulgaria (No� 41701/16), the ECtHR rules that 
the domestic court’s refusal to allow a transsexual 
person of male appearance to be registered as 
a male, without giving relevant and sufficient reasons 
and without explaining why it had been possible to 
recognise identical gender reassignment in other cases, 
violates his right to respect for private and family life 
under Article 8 of the ECHR�

In Rana v. Hungary (No� 40888/17), the 
ECtHR rules that the lack of access to 
legal gender recognition procedures by 
non-Hungarian citizens legally residing in 
Hungary violates the right to respect for 
private and family life under Article 8 of the 
ECHR�

September

8

The CoE Steering committee on anti-discrimination, diversity and inclusion (CDADI) 
decides to set up two working groups on Covid-19 responses in the field of anti-
discrimination, and on national minority and youth participation�

October

13

22

23

CERD publishes 
concluding 
observations on the 
combined 24th to 26th 
periodic reports of 
Spain�

PACE adopts 
Resolution 2348 on ‘the 
principles and guarantees 
of advocates’, who continue 
to be targeted for their 
involvement in human 
rights-related cases, such as 
defending LGBTI persons�

—  PACE adopts Resolution 2339 on upholding 

human rights in times of crisis and pandemics, 
highlighting that both the pandemic and state 
measures in response disproportionately 
affected women, people living in 
institutionalised settings, people belonging 
to national minorities, Roma and Travellers, 
migrants, LGBTI people and youth, and calling on 
States to improve responses and bring about the 
transformation to a more inclusive society that 
the crisis demands�

—  Committee on the Elimination of Racial 

Discrimination (CERD) publishes concluding 
observations on the combined 23rd to 25th 
periodic reports of Bulgaria�

November

26

27

CDADI publishes the study 
‘COVID-19: An analysis of 
the anti-discrimination, 
diversity and inclusion 
dimensions in Council of 
Europe member states’�

PACE adopts Resolution 2351 on the 
gender dimension of foreign policy, which 
stresses that the inclusion of a gender 
and intersectional dimension in foreign 
policy can benefit society as a whole� 
Participation, protection, inclusion and 
non-discrimination are guiding principles 
for a strong, inclusive gender dimension 
of foreign policy�

PACE publishes a report 
on preserving national 
minorities in Europe�

December

3

8

CoE Commissioner for 
Human Rights publishes 
a memorandum on the 
stigmatisation of LGBTI 
people in Poland�

—  ECRI publishes its sixth monitoring reports on Slovakia 

and Czech Republic�

—  ECRI publishes its conclusions on the implementation of 

the recommendations in respect to Sweden�

66

67

EU

5 

European Commission presents the 
European Union (EU) gender equality 
strategy 2020–2025�

2 

23 

In CO v. Comune di Gesturi (C-670/18), the Court 
of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules that 
it falls to the national court to determine whether 
a call for expressions of interest relating to 
a consultancy role that excludes retired persons 
from participating is discrimination on the ground 
of age as laid down in Directive 2000/78/EC, in 
so far as, first, the underlying legislation pursues 
a legitimate employment policy and labour market 
objective and, second, the means used to achieve 
it are appropriate and necessary�

In NH v. Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI-Rete 
Lenford (C-507/18), the CJEU rules that a senior lawyer’s 
statement during a radio interview that suggested that 
he would never hire a gay person to work in his law firm 
constitutes discrimination in employment� The statement 
established the lawyer’s intention to discriminate on one 
of the grounds laid down in Directive 2000/78/EC, was 
broadcast to the public, and he was or may be perceived 
as being capable of exerting a decisive influence on 
recruitment decisions of potential employers in his firm�

18 

March

April

June

The European Commission and the Croatian 
Presidency of the Council of the EU host a High-level 
conference on “Fighting discrimination on grounds 
of religion and ethnicity: vulnerabilities of Muslim 
communities and the effects of the coronavirus 
crisis”�

European Commission publishes a comprehensive 
report on legal gender recognition procedures and 
their impacts on the lives of trans people in EU 
Member States�

17 

18 

September

European Parliament adopts a resolution on the proposal for a Council 
Decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by 
Poland of the rule of law (COM(2017)0835 – 2017/0360R(NLE)), calling 
on the country to comply with the provisions of the resolution of 
18 December 2019 on equal treatment of LGBTI persons�

European Commission presents 
the EU anti-racism action plan 
2020–2025�

7 

9 

22 

October

European Commission presents 
the EU Roma strategic 
framework for equality, inclusion 
and participation 2020–2025�

Council of the European Union 
adopts conclusions on human 
rights, participation and well-
being of older persons in the era 
of digitalisation�

European Parliament adopts a resolution on the 
employment and social policies of the euro area 
2020 (2020/2079(INI)), calling for access to public, 
solidarity-based and adequate old-age pensions for 
all workers that are above the poverty threshold�

12 

24 

November

European Commission presents its first-
ever strategy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
trans, non-binary, intersex and queer 
(LGBTIQ) equality 2020–2025 in the EU�

European Commission presents the action plan on 
integration and inclusion 2021–2027�

66

67

The European Commission in 2020 adopted major strategies 

and action plans to promote a Union of Equality, forging 

a comprehensive framework for EU and national action� While 

the adoption of the Equal Treatment Directive remained stalled, 

the Commission highlighted the need to strengthen equality 

bodies and improve equality data� Efforts to promote the rights 

of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, non-binary, intersex and queer 

(LGBTIQ) people gained momentum with the adoption of the 

first-ever EU strategy on LGBTIQ equality� However, evidence also 

showed that, in some areas and Member States, LGBTIQ people’s 

experiences of discrimination and hate crime are increasing� 

Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures it 

prompted sometimes exacerbated social inequalities, with older 

persons hit particularly hard�

68

69

3�1� 
EU INITIATIVES ENERGISE EQUALITY PUSH WHILE 
EQUALITY TREATMENT DIRECTIVE REMAINS 
STALLED

Article 19 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) provides the 
basis for EU legislation to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or 
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The EU 
has adopted comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation protecting against 
discrimination on grounds of gender, racial or ethnic origin in key areas of 
life. More limited is the protection of EU law against discrimination based on 
religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. These grounds are 
only protected in the area of employment.

To bridge this protection gap, the European Commission proposed in 2008 
an Equal Treatment Directive.1 Twelve years after the Commission tabled this 
proposal, EU Member States had not reached the unanimity needed in the 
Council of the EU to adopt this important instrument to fight discrimination 
and promote equality.2

Nevertheless, the European Parliament reiterated its support for the proposal, 
calling again for its quick adoption.3 The Commission also continued to work 
towards the adoption of its proposal. Delivering its 2020 work programme,4 
in the EU anti-racism action plan, the Commission encouraged Member 
States to “swiftly reach an agreement on the 2008 Commission proposal 
to implement equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or 
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”.5

3�1�1�  EU equality strategies and action plans advance equality 
agenda
The year 2020 saw considerable strategic planning for shaping and promoting 
the equality agenda in the EU. The European Commission adopted multiple 
strategies and action plans towards a Union of Equality,6 calling on Member 
States to develop their national strategies and action plans in line with the 
EU. FRA’s data and evidence, as well as its expert assistance, have helped 
shape these initiatives.7

A common and promising element of all these EU strategies and action 
plans – serving as a model for future initiatives – is that they call for both 
mainstreaming equality in all policy areas and providing targeted measures 
for vulnerable groups. They also address intersectionality – where several 
grounds of discrimination interact with each other at the same time, making 
them inseparable – calling for actions to tackle intersecting and multiple forms 
of inequalities. Moreover, they call for the participation of beneficiaries and 
monitoring the effectiveness and impact of policies.

The EU strategies and action plans on equality draw on the experiences of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the EU anti-racism action plan highlights 
that the pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities and raised the issue 
of minorities, especially those with a racial or ethnic background, being 
targeted and scapegoated for the pandemic. Similarly, the EU Roma strategic 
framework states that stepping up efforts to achieve Roma equality, inclusion 
and participation is increasingly important as the pandemic has revealed 
the “extreme exposure of excluded and marginalised Roma communities 
to negative health and socioeconomic impacts”.8 The LGBTIQ strategy also 
points out that “the COVID-19 crisis has led to yet higher levels of hatred, 
violence and discrimination against LGBTIQ people”.9

68

69

 
Promoting 
equality

Finally, all these initiatives raise 
awareness of the financial tools 
that  are  available  to  support 
reforms  and  investments  that 
promote  equality,  in  particular 
the EU structural and investment 
funds  2021–2027  and  the 
NextGenerationEU  recovery 
instrument.10

3�1�2�  Importance of equality 
data for progress
EU  equality  strategies  and 
action  plans  adopted  in  2020 
acknowledge  the  significance 
of  robust  equality  data11  for 
developing  evidence-based 
non-discrimination  policies 
and  for  implementing  EU  anti-
discrimination legislation.

The following EU strategies and action plans 
promoting equality were adopted in 2020:

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

 A Union of Equality: EU Gender Equality 
Strategy 2020–2025

 A Union of Equality: EU anti-racism 
action plan 2020–2025

 A Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic 
framework for equality, inclusion and 
participation for 2020–2030

 A Union of Equality: LGBTIQ Equality 
Strategy covering the years 2020–2025

 Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 
2021–2027

For example, the LGBTIQ equality 
strategy  invites  FRA  and  the 
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) to continue providing Member 
States with technical assistance and methodological support on the design 
and implementation of data collection.12 Similarly, an aim of the EU anti-
racism action plan is for Member States “to move towards the collection of 
data disaggregated on the basis of racial or ethnic origin, in order to capture 
both subjective experiences of discrimination and victimisation and structural 
aspects of racism and discrimination”.13

In addition, the EU High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality and 
Diversity (HLG) agreed in 2020 to prolong the mandate of the Subgroup on 
Equality Data until 2025. The HLG continued to entrust FRA with a coordination 
role. The subgroup was first created in 2018 to support Member States in 
their efforts to improve the collection and use of equality data through 
guidelines and other tools.14

3�2� 
PROMOTING EQUALITY AT NATIONAL LEVEL

A number of Member States proposed initiatives 
to enhance their equality policies. Some introduced 
or discussed new equality legislation.

In an interesting development, Romania introduced 
the concept of “moral harassment” at work in 
its  anti-discrimination  law.15  The  Labour  Code 
was also amended to include anti-discrimination 
provisions.16

In Malta, some progress was made in parliament 
on the adoption of a new equality law widening 
the scope of application of equality.17 In Sweden, 
a government report presented proposals for 
improving supervision of its anti-discrimination 
law.18

70

71

 
In the Netherlands, the government initiated a bill aimed at ensuring better 
supervision of equal opportunities in recruitment. It obliges employers to 
implement recruitment methods that prevent discrimination.19

Several developments occurring in a number of Member States may have 
a positive impact on institutional structures that play a role in promoting 
equality.

Belgium established the management board of the Federal Institute for 
the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights.20 In Malta, discussions in 
parliament focused on the creation of a national human rights institution 
that will carry out the equality body’s mandate.21

In Spain, the government re-established the Ministry of Equality, which has 
overall responsibility for proposing and implementing the government’s 
equality policy, including through the collection and analysis of equality 
data.22 In Sweden, the proposals submitted to the government included 
strengthening the powers of the equality Ombuds institution.23

Other Member States developed campaigns to promote equality. In Estonia, 
the focus was on migrant workers, the LGBTI community, national minorities, 
people with disabilities, and religious beliefs.24 In Slovakia, a campaign was 
launched to raise awareness of discrimination in the workplace.25

In Slovenia, the Human Rights Ombuds institution recommended in its 
Annual Report to adopt legislation that would allow collecting equality data 
disaggregated as per individual personal circumstances.26

3�3� 
NEED TO BOLSTER EQUALITY BODIES PERSISTS

Equality and other human rights bodies with an equality mandate continue to 
face challenges that affect their ability to act independently and effectively. 
FRA provided an overview in 2020 of the roles of national human rights 
institutions (NHRIs) in the EU, many of which also serve as equality bodies. 
It underlined the importance of a strong mandate, independent functioning, 
and adequate resources.27

EU equality strategies and action plans adopted in 2020 call for strengthening 
equality bodies, in line with the 2018 Commission Recommendation on 
standards for equality bodies.28 For its part, the European Commission’s 
strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
in the EU underlines the important role NHRIs play in making the Charter 
a reality for people.29

70

71

 
Pandemic shifts 
focus to structural 
inequalities

The COVID-19 pandemic had an important 
impact on equality bodies, shifting much of 
their focus and actions on issues related to 
structural inequalities and discrimination�

•  older persons;

•  people with a minority racial or ethnic 
background including, in particular, 
Roma;

They identified certain groups of the 
population as being disproportionately 
affected by the pandemic, namely:

•  women and girls;

•  people with disabilities;

• 

children;

•  and LGBTIQ groups�

Equality bodies also find enhanced 
challenges for all these groups depending 
on the socio-economic background and 
disadvantage of each person�

Moreover, equality bodies have identified 
among their priority areas of work during 
and beyond the pandemic healthcare 
and care provision, education, as well as 
access to digitalised services� Equality 
bodies see an opportunity to develop and 
communicate new narratives on equality as 
enabling an effective response to overcome 
the effects of the pandemic�

For an overview of equality bodies’ 
responses to the pandemic, see the 
European Network of Equality Bodies’ 
(Equinet) webpage on the response to 
COVID-19�

3�3�1�  Diverse hurdles to effectiveness remain
International monitoring bodies raised concerns in a number of Member 
States about equality bodies’ compliance with international standards on 
independence (see also Chapter 4). Such concerns regarded, for example, 
the selection and nomination of equality bodies’ leadership, budgets, and 
recruitment procedures.

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) provided 
recommendations to Austria,30 Slovakia,31 and Germany32 in that respect. In 
Austria and Germany, ECRI drew further attention to their limited mandates 
and lack of sufficient human and financial resources. ECRI also recommended 
a wider mandate for the Czech equality body.33

The monitoring body of the Framework Convention for the Protection of 
National Minorities of the Council of Europe recommended that Spain sets 
up an independent equality body.34

72

73

Meanwhile, Equinet pointed to limitations in its mandates and inadequate 
resources, compromising both its independence and its effectiveness.35

Hungary merged the Equal Treatment Authority in 2020 and transferred its 
powers to the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights.36 The latter institution 
has a stronger constitutional status, but some civil society organisations argued 
that the merger will lead to less ambitious anti-discrimination case law.37

In Poland, the term of office of the Ombudsperson, who also assumes the 
role of an equality body, came to an end in September 2020. According to 
law, the outgoing Ombudsperson remains on duty until their replacement is in 
position.38 However, Members of Parliament from the ruling coalition lodged 
an appeal to the Constitutional Court against this provision; it was still pending 
at the end of 2020.39 The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe raised 
concerns about the full and effective functioning of the Ombuds institution, 
underlining the “utmost importance” of ensuring continuity in office.40

In North Macedonia, a Constitutional Court decision annulled the new anti-
discrimination law for procedural reasons.41 The law was adopted again in 
October 2020. This allowed enactment of the procedure for electing members 
of the new equality body, putting an end to a prolonged standstill period in 
the functioning of the former equality body. However, criticism was raised 
about the appointment process.42

Tensions arose with respect to other national human rights bodies, which had 
an impact on their effectiveness and independence. In Slovakia, the parliament 
refused to acknowledge the annual activity report of the Ombudsperson, as 
a sign of disapproval of her protection and promotion of the rights of LGBTIQ 
people and her position on abortion.43

FRA ACTIVITY
Highlighting low 
reporting rates 
and awareness of 
equality bodies 
among Roma
FRA’s Roma and Travellers survey, 
published in 2020, found that few 
incidents of discrimination are 
reported to equality bodies. This 
confirms what has been seen in 
previous surveys.

Only 5 % of respondents who felt 
discriminated against reported the 
last incident to an equality body. 
In addition, Roma and Travellers’ 
awareness of the existence of 
statutory specialised bodies 
with a legal mandate to receive 
discrimination complaints is rather 
low. Only one third (33 %) of 
respondents knew of at least one 
equality body in the country where 
they reside.

See Chapter 5 for more information.

FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers 
in six countries, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

PROMISING PRACTICE
Providing guidance to fight 
discrimination
The French Ombudsinstitution published the practical guide Discrimination 
testing, a methodology to follow for people who feel they have been 
discriminated against and wish to validate their suspected discrimination.

See French Ombuds institution (Défenseur des droits) (2020), 
Discrimination testing, a methodology to follow (Le test de 
discrimination, une methodologie à respecter), July 2020.

72

73

3�3�2�  EU calls for strengthening equality bodies
In various policy documents issued in 2020, the European Commission insisted 
on the need to strengthen the mandate, effectiveness, and independence of 
equality bodies. This is in line with the 2018 Commission Recommendation 
on standards for equality bodies.44

The Commission announced in the EU anti-racism action plan45 that, in its 
forthcoming 2021 report on implementation of the Racial Equality Directive, it 
will examine the role and independence of equality bodies and the potential 
need for new legislation to strengthen them.46 The EU equality strategy for 
LGBTIQ persons states that the Commission will also examine the role of 
equality bodies with respect to implementation of the Employment Equality 
Directive.47

The Commission’s proposal for a Council Recommendation on Roma equality, 
inclusion and participation states that Member States should support equality 
bodies to work effectively and independently in protecting and promoting the 
rights of Roma, including through their involvement in EU Funds programmes.48

In the specific field of fighting anti-Muslim discrimination, the crucial role of 
equality bodies and the need to strengthen cooperation with civil society 
organisation was underlined in the High level conference hosted in June 2020 
by the Commission’s Coordinator on combating anti-Muslim hatred jointly 
with the Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU and Equinet.49

3�4� 
EQUAL TREATMENT AND RIGHTS OF OLDER 
PERSONS DURING THE PANDEMIC AND BEYOND

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major threat to the life and health of 
older persons,50 who are overall at greater risk if infected with the virus. The 
pandemic and measures adopted to protect the right to life and health also 
had a huge impact on older persons’ well-being and related rights.51

Concerns were raised whether or not certain measures complied with the 
principle of non-discrimination based on age and the right to lead a life of 
dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life, as 
enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.52

At the same time, the pandemic helped shed light on the situation of older 
persons and put in focus the need for their equal treatment and respect of 
their rights, particularly with regard to care homes.

3�4�1�  Pandemic undermines older persons’ well-being and rights
FRA’s bulletins on the pandemic pointed to its profound threat to older persons’ 
life and health, in particular for those living in care homes, where infection 
and mortality rates were high.53

Instances of sick and dying people left unattended were also reported, 
signalling a flagrant failure to protect their fundamental rights.54 In a shocking 
case in March 2020, the military in Spain found older persons in care homes 
who had been abandoned and had died as a result of COVID-19 infection.

Overall, testing to prevent the spread of the virus among older persons 
during the first wave of the pandemic was not systematic. At the outset of 
the pandemic, some Member States tested staff and residents in care homes 
only when a case was detected.55 Limited use of testing continued to be an 
issue throughout the year.56

74

75

 
Moreover, barriers in accessing health services for reasons other than COVID-19 
particularly affected older persons, who are more likely to have a number of 
health conditions that require medical care.57 Concerns were also reported 
about the use of triage, whereby age could potentially be used as a deciding 
factor when deciding who to treat in hospitals faced with large numbers of 
patients and limited resources.58

Member States imposed stricter measures targeting older persons and 
affecting their right to move freely, be independent and participate in social 
life. These included obligations to stay at home for longer periods than the 
general population and to self-isolate and not meet people; special rules for 
shopping (e.g. allowing shopping only during limited time slots); accessing 
services; using public transport; accessing workplaces; leisure time; and 
participating in communal and voluntary activities.59 The restrictions were even 
harder for those living in institutions, where strict visit bans also applied.60

During the summer these measures were either lifted or eased, but they 
were enforced again – to varying degrees – during the second wave of the 
pandemic in the autumn.61

These measures meant many older people were more dependent on help 
from family members, or on social assistance and support, to access goods 
and services, including shopping for food and other necessary items.62 They 
also affected the employment situation of older workers, increasing, for 
example, the risks of long-term unemployment or barriers to the use of 
digital tools, which are necessary to work effectively from home.63

Research across a number of EU Member States, such as Belgium, Germany, 
Ireland, the Netherlands, and Portugal, suggests that the pandemic deepened 
the feelings of stress, fear and isolation among older persons.64

74

75

3�4�2�  Equality and human rights bodies express concern
Many equality and other human rights bodies raised concerns about equality 
and respecting the rights of older persons during the pandemic.65

In Belgium, Unia, an independent public institution that fights discrimination 
and promotes equal opportunities, focused on the right of older persons to 
access health care.66 It also published a report showing that the majority 
of individual complaints related to COVID-19 measures came from older 
persons – for example, on the discriminatory consequences of different 
measures, including those requiring digital skills.67

In Cyprus, the Commissioner for Administration and Protection of Human 
Rights, in her capacity as a NHRI and National Preventive Mechanism, issued 
a statement regarding the implementation of measures at social care homes.68

In Finland, the Non-Discrimination Ombuds institution69 and the Deputy 
Parliamentary Ombuds institution70 held that restrictions such as banning 
visits to care homes may constitute unfavourable treatment and might not be 
proportional to their aim. The National Ombuds institution in Spain also focused 
on the situation of older persons in residential institutions.71 In April, the Ombuds 
institution sent a comprehensive set of formal recommendations to different 
communities across the country on the functioning of these institutions.72

In Germany, the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (FADA) examined 
derogatory public statements categorising older persons as “old and weak”.73 
FADA concluded that such a categorisation can lead to a feeling of being 
worthless and can be an expression of structural discrimination. The Polish 
Ombuds institution looked at discriminatory speech against older persons74 
and issued a number of recommendations on state and social obligations 
towards them.75

In Lithuania, the equality body expressed concerns about restrictions imposed 
on older persons in the workplace or when receiving services or goods during 
quarantine.76 In Slovenia, the equality body concluded that rules allowing 
persons aged over 65 to shop only during a specified period of time amounted 
to direct discrimination and suggested more proportionate measures.77 The 
Ombuds institution in Slovakia raised the same issue.78 In Serbia, the equality 
body submitted a legislative proposal to prevent the punishment of older 
persons suffering from dementia who violated curfew restrictions.79

The equality body in Slovenia also conducted research based on qualitative 
and quantitative methods. This included an online survey focusing on the 
experiences and the perception of the situation of care homes residents.80 
Final results of the research are to be published in 2021. According to 
preliminary results, almost 60 % of residents said they felt worse because 
of the restrictions, mostly missing spending time with relatives.

3�4�3�  Pandemic spurs some positive developments
The disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older people 
focused public attention on the living conditions and particular challenges 
that older people face. Given older people’s increased risks if infected, efforts 
to contain the virus highlighted the attention our societies pay to protecting 
older people’s life and health.

Measures to alleviate the restrictions’ impact

At national level, governments, regional and local authorities, and civil society 
mobilised to protect the rights of older persons and mitigate the impact of 
the restrictions imposed on them.81

76

77

FRA ACTIVITY

Focus on age and 
digitalisation
At the request of the German 
Presidency of the Council of the 
EU, FRA prepared a background 
paper to inform discussions at the 
international online conference 
‘Strengthening older people’s rights 
in times of digitalisation – Lessons 
learned from COVID-19’.

One of the main conclusions was 
that the digital divide between 
generations is significant and 
increases with age. Citing FRA’s 2019 
Fundamental Rights Survey, the 
paper indicates that, among survey 
respondents, one in five people 
(20 %) aged 75 and older said they 
use the internet at least occasionally, 
compared with 98 % of those 
between 16 and 29.

See FRA (2020), Selected findings 
on age and digitalisation from FRA’s 
Fundamental Rights Survey.

FRA identified across Europe:

 ― measures to ensure additional funding to support older persons;
 ― community-based assistance services for those most in need due to their 
particular health conditions, disability or socio-economic background 
(e.g. help with shopping for food and hygiene products, help with the 
housework, keeping company and providing psychological assistance);
 ― innovative medical services, such as online prescription systems and 

telemedicine/online visits to medical doctors;

 ― hotlines and initiatives to reduce isolation;
 ― and measures to protect older workers.

The use of new technologies and digital tools was a major element in many 
of these measures (e.g. for telemedicine or online communication with 
family and friends), revealing their significant potential to improve the lives 
of older persons.

A number of Member States started to roll out their vaccination plans at the 
end of 2020,82 including older persons among the priority groups to receive 
COVID-19 vaccines, in line with EU guidelines.83

Beyond the pandemic

A more general public debate gained momentum in 2020, promoting a rights-
based approach to ageing and the need to fight ageism.84

At EU level, the Council of the EU adopted conclusions on the human rights, 
participation and well-being of older persons in the era of digitalisation.85 
The conclusions take a rights-based approach, acknowledge the right of older 
persons to equal treatment, and call for strengthening of social inclusion and 
mainstreaming of ageing in all policy areas. The conclusions have a particular 
focus on the opportunities of digitalisation, but also highlight potential risks 
for older persons, recalling the significant digital divide between generations.

The European Commission released in 2020 its first-ever report on the impact 
of demographic change in the EU, highlighting long-term demographic trends, 
including ageing.86 However, the rights-based approach was missing in this 
document. The Commission also published a review of age discrimination in 
regional and national law outside the employment field.87

At national level, a number of measures promoting the rights of older persons 
were adopted or suggested.

For example, in Bulgaria, older persons remained among the priority target 
groups of the National Employment Action Plan 2020.88 In Portugal, the Law 
approving the Major Planning Options for 2020–2023 highlighted targeted 
measures to support older persons in areas such as housing and residential 
institutions, loneliness and isolation, and combating all types of violence 
against them.89

In Belgium, a proposal for a resolution was submitted to the Flemish Parliament 
on the setting up of a Commissioner’s Office for the rights of older persons.90

Meanwhile, throughout the year, national high courts in a number of countries 
examined cases of discrimination against older persons based on age in 
employment and pension rights.

Court decisions ruled against discriminatory law provisions in Greece91 and 
Lithuania92, and on cases concerning discriminatory practices of employers 
in Bulgaria93 and Czechia,94 in an effort to protect the rights of older persons. 

76

77

In Greece, in particular, the Council of State, the highest administrative court, 
invoked the Employment Equality Directive and decided against a ministerial 
decision setting an age limit on hiring doctors in public hospitals.

Equality and human rights bodies also examined cases of discrimination and 
promoted the equal treatment of older persons – for example, with regard 
to accessing bank credit (Czechia95) and state-supported loans (Hungary96) 
and employment, services and political participation (Romania97).

3�5� 
A LONG WAY TO GO FOR LGBTI EQUALITY

There were positive legal and policy 
developments regarding the rights 
of  lesbian,  gay,  bisexual,  trans, 
non-binary, and intersex (LGBTI)98 
persons in some Member States 
in  2020.  However,  these  were 
accompanied by a weakening of 
such rights in others.

Many countries adopted targeted 
action  plans,  but  studies  and 
surveys  conducted  in  several 
Member  States  still  showed 
very high levels of experiences 
of  discrimination  among  LGBTI 
persons. Regression in the general 
population’s  attitudes  towards 
LGBTI persons was also observed 
in many Member States.

The  struggle  to  safeguard  their 
rights became even more difficult 
in times of crisis. To address this, 
the European Commission adopted 
its first LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 
in  2020.99  Meanwhile,  courts 
continued to play an important role 
in enforcing LGBTI persons’ rights.

New EU  
LGBTIQ 
Equality 
Strategy

* European Commission 
(2020), A Union of 
equality: LGBTIQ 
equality strategy 2020–
2025, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

** European 
Commission (2020), 
Final report 2015–2019 
on the list of actions 
to advance LGBTI 
equality, Luxembourg, 
Publication Office.

*** FRA (2020), A long 
way to go for LGBTI 
equality, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

The European Commission adopted the 
first-ever EU strategy on lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, trans, non-binary, intersex and 
queer (LGBTIQ) equality – the LGBTIQ Equality 
Strategy 2020–2025* – on 11 November 
2020.

The strategy builds on the list of actions 
to advance LGBTI equality.** It sets out 
a series of targeted actions around four main 
pillars that focus on tackling discrimination, 
ensuring safety, building inclusive societies, 
and leading the call for LGBTIQ equality 
around the world. 

The findings of FRA’s second LGBTI 
survey,*** published in May 2020, clearly 
show why the equality strategy was needed. 
The survey provides evidence on where 
concrete action is most needed to ensure 
equality for LGBTI people in the EU.

The survey, which was conducted before the 
COVID-19 crisis, shows that some progress 
has been achieved since 2012. However, 
in some areas and certain countries, the 
situation has deteriorated. Overall, more 
LGBT respondents in 2019 (43 %) than 
in 2012 (37 %) felt discriminated against 
in the 12 months before the survey in all 
areas of life asked about. The difference 
was markedly more pronounced for trans 
respondents (60 % in 2019 compared with 
43 % in 2012).

78

79

 
PROMISING PRACTICE
Providing 
a supportive school 
environment
In the Netherlands, the law obliges 
schools to provide a supportive 
environment for LGBT students. 
The Gender and Sexuality Alliance 
(GSA) Education Standard is a  tool 
that aims to help schools achieve 
this. Recognised by the Ministry of 
Education in 2020, it sets criteria for 
secondary schools to assess whether 
or not they provide a supportive 
environment for LGBT persons in 
an adequate way. The criteria are 
constructed around three basic 
principles: good knowledge transfer, 
good support and good policy.

See GSA Netwerk (2020), ‘GSA 
education standard’ (‘GSA 
Onderwijsstandaard’).

Among positive developments, national action plans (NAPs) addressing the 
rights of LGBTI persons were adopted or further implemented in several 
Member States, including Denmark,100 Finland,101 France102 and Sweden.103 In 
North Macedonia, as announced in 2019,104 the Ministry of Labour and Social 
Policy established a working group to draft the first national action plan on 
LGBTI rights.

Several Member States launched awareness campaigns addressing discrimination 
against LGBTI persons – for example, Slovakia,105 Luxembourg106 and Estonia.107

Studies show persisting discrimination

Studies and surveys conducted in several Member States showed persistently 
high levels of discrimination and harassment (verbal and physical), confirming 
the findings of FRA’s LGBTI survey. In some countries, studies also showed 
notable decreases in the general population’s social acceptance of LGBTI 
people. FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey conducted in 2019 addressed 
people’s attitudes towards different minority groups. The results showed 
that 17 % and 14 % of respondents would feel uncomfortable having a trans 
or LGBT neighbour, respectively.

Several studies on discrimination against LGBTI people were conducted in 
Bulgaria. An online questionnaire among LGBTI students aged 14–19 showed 
that 70.6 % of respondents had been verbally harassed during the last year, 
34.2 % had been physically harassed, and 19.1 % had been attacked.108 
Another study concluded that negative stereotyping, LGBTI invisibility at 
school, and lack of internal support for victims of bullying were among the 
most critical problems in Bulgaria.109 According to a study on perceptions of 
homosexuality,110 48 % of respondents were not accepting of homosexuality.

A Greek survey examined LGBTQ youth’s experiences in Greek secondary 
education,111 revealing that 84.9 % of children hear in school the word “gay” 
associated with negative connotations.

According to a study in Cyprus that analysed the participation of LGBTQI+ 
persons in public life and politics, 72 % of the LGBTQI+ respondents felt that 
they could not engage in political processes without the risk of discrimination; 
63 % felt that, if they engaged in politics, their views would not be taken 
into account.112

A German survey on LGBTQI* people in the labour market showed that, on 
average, 30 % of LGBTQI* people have experienced discrimination in their 
work life within the last two years.113

In France, with the support of the Defender of Rights, a study analysed the 
methods for establishing proof of sexual orientation in asylum applications 
and compliance with relevant national and international standards. The study 
identified two key difficulties that undermine the credibility of the risks of 
persecution: late declaration of sexual orientation in the proceedings and 
the lack of self-determination.114

Some Member States still record a high number of cases of discrimination 
against LGBTI people. In Belgium, Unia115 expressed particular concern 
about this development.116 Its annual statistics show an increase in cases 
of discrimination.117 Studies conducted in Serbia also showed high rates of 
experienced discrimination in different situations.118

78

79

Hate speech and hate crime

Some Member States addressed the issue of hate crime based on gender 
identity or sexual orientation and the way it is recorded (Austria,119 the 
Netherlands120). For more information on hate crime and hate speech, see 
Chapter 4 on racism, xenophobia and related intolerance.

In 2020, numerous Polish local councils adopted resolutions declaring their 
jurisdictions zones that are “free of LGBT ideology”, or “family charters” 
opposing the “propaganda of homosexuality and sexualisation of children”.121 
As of October 2020, some courts had quashed four such resolutions,122 but 
other courts dismissed complaints as inadmissible.123 The Polish Ombuds 
institution, the European Parliament124 and the European Commission125 
strongly condemned the ‘LGBT-free-zone’ resolutions. The EU rejected 
applications for grants under a twinning programme from six Polish cities 
because they were not in line with the funding programme’s objectives of 
“equal access and non-discrimination”.

In Belgium, a drunk man was found guilty of attacking a man and his male 
partner in a car park. The court noted that the use of abusive language may 
indicate that the assault was motivated by homophobia.126

In Poland, a regional court in Krakow dismissed in December 2020 (in the first 
instance) a complaint against an archbishop who referred to LGBTI persons as 
a “rainbow plague”. It found that these words did not exceed the permissible 
“defence of the faith”.127

In contrast, in Greece, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the Bishop 
of Kalavryta, who published a homophobic blog post calling for Orthodox 
community action.128 It found that the conviction did not violate his freedom 
of expression, as the blog post could cause discrimination and hatred. It was 
the first time the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for hate speech.

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and ILGA-Europe stated 
that, in Poland, the extent of hate speech against the LGBT community is 
particularly large in public life. They noted the repeated leniency of authorities 
towards homophobic acts and the disproportionate sanctions faced by LGBT 
activists opposing homophobic hate speech.129

The Helsinki Foundation published a statement on events in Warsaw on the 
night of 7-8 August 2020, following the detention of an LGBT+ activist. It 
blamed public authorities for the escalation of violence against the activists 
and condemned the brutal suppression of the protest, the use of physical 
violence, and the disproportionate use of detention.130 A report published 
by the Ombuds institution described as degrading the treatment of people 
detained by the police in August in Warsaw (after the arrest of the activist 
of the ‘Stop Bullshit’ movement).131

‘Conversion’ therapies

The United Nations published a report132 on the global impact of gay and 
transgender ‘conversion therapy’ in light of increasing responses to ‘gender 
ideology’ and discussions about ‘conversion therapies’.133 It called on states 
to ban this scientifically discredited practice, which may amount to torture.

Some Member States addressed this issue. In Germany, the parliament 
adopted the Law to protect against conversion treatments.134 The Swedish 
Agency for Youth and Civil Society reviewed and compiled data on conversion 
attempts.135 In Portugal, the professional association of psychologists issued 

80

81

guidelines on psychological interventions involving LGBTI people, condemning 
any involvement of psychologists in ‘conversion’ therapies.136 In Poland, the 
Ombuds institution called on the Prime Minister to prohibit such therapy.137

Gender recognition, third gender

Many Member States took steps to improve equality on the ground of gender 
identity. In Belgium,138 anti-discrimination laws were expanded to explicitly 
cover gender identity, gender expression, and sexual characteristics.

In Austria, a registry office issued for the first time a birth certificate with the 
gender entry ‘inter’, after a complaint against the Minister of the Interior.139 
The software of the Central Register of Civil Status has since been amended 
to allow the following options: ‘diverse’, ‘inter’, ‘open’ and ‘no entry’.140

In Germany, the Federal Court of Justice ruled141 that application to the registry 
to change or delete gender information or the entry ‘diverse’ under the Civil 
Status Act is restricted to intersex persons who have a medical certificate 
confirming that they cannot be physically assigned to either male or female 
gender. Consequently, this does not include people with ‘only’ perceived 
intersexuality, who must submit an application to the court in accordance 
with the Transsexual Persons Act.

In contrast, the parliament in Hungary adopted in May 2020 a law142 that 
reverses the legal recognition of gender reassignment for trans and intersex 
people.143 According to the law, a person’s birth sex, as indicated on their birth 
certificate and civil registry, will be included on all identification documents 
that contain reference to the sex. This prevents transgender people from 
changing their first name. Two months later, the European Court of Human 
Rights (ECtHR) decided on an earlier application against Hungary and ruled 
that the denial of legal gender recognition to non-Hungarian citizens legally 
residing in the country violates Article 8 of the European Convention on 
Human Rights.144

Intersex rights

Despite some positive developments, intersex children are still not sufficiently 
protected from unnecessary surgery across the EU.

In Germany, the government presented a bill on the protection of children with 
variations in gender development.145 The draft bill aims to prohibit changes to 
a child’s sexual characteristics “if these lead to a change in the innate sex”.146

In its report on Austria, ECRI147 recommended banning unnecessary ‘sex-
normalising’ surgery until a child is able to participate in the decision-making, 
to effectively protect children’s right to bodily autonomy.

In its concluding observations on Belgium, the Committee on Economic, Social 
and Cultural Rights (CESCR) expressed its concern about intersex minors and 
in particular the practice of performing medically unnecessary – and often 
irreversible – surgical procedures that are detrimental to their physical and 
mental integrity.148

The Advocate of the Principle of Equality published a special report on medical 
procedures for intersex people in Slovenia,149 showing key stakeholders’ lack 
of knowledge about intersexuality and that unnecessary medical procedures 
are performed without informed consent.

80

81

Same-sex couples

Improvements in the family rights of same-sex couples occurred in some 
Member States. For example, in Croatia, the Constitutional Court ruled that 
courts and other bodies are obliged to interpret and apply the Foster Care Act 
in a way that enables everyone to participate in the public foster care service 
under equal conditions, regardless of whether a potential foster parent lives 
in a formal or an informal partnership. This allows same-sex life partners to 
participate in the foster care system.150

Ireland further improved the legal recognition of parental rights of female 
same-sex couples in cases of donor-assisted human reproduction, equating 
the legal position of female same-sex parents with that of opposite-sex 
parents,151 and regulated the retrospective recognition of parentage.152

In  Slovenia,  the  Advocate  of  the  Principle  of 
Equality assessed as discriminatory provisions 
of the Family Code and the Civil Union Act that 
preclude same-sex couples from marrying and 
applying for adoption. The advocate submitted 
a request for the constitutional review of both 
acts to the Constitutional Court.153

On  the  other  hand,  in  Poland,  the  Supreme 
Administrative Court ruled that a Polish transcript in 
the civil status register of a foreign birth certificate 
indicating same-sex persons as the parents of 
a child would be contrary to the basic principles of 
the legal order.154 In this regard, on 20 June 2020, the 
ECtHR communicated several complaints against 
Poland concerning, in principle, discrimination 
against same-sex couples in different aspects of 
their private life, resulting from their inability to 
gain legal recognition of their unions in Poland.155

Impact of COVID-19 measures

LGBTI persons faced particular challenges because of the pandemic and the 
measures introduced to contain it. In many countries, studies were conducted 
on the impact of the pandemic on LGBTI persons and their well-being during 
the lockdowns. The studies showed a higher negative impact on mental 
health than in the general population and an increase in domestic violence, 
particularly against young LGBTI people.156

For example, studies in Belgium157 showed that the measures had a strong 
impact on depression, anxiety, loneliness and suicidal feelings.158 In Spain, 
a report on activities of the National Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transexuals 
and Bisexuals (FELGTB) found an important increase in consultations related 
to hate speech against LGTBI people, psychological care, family conflicts, 
violence and harassment, as well as the need for guidance.159

In Belgium, Unia reported a resurgence of domestic violence against young 
LGBT people. It stated that they are ‘trapped in an unsafe environment, 
exacerbated by the pressure of the quarantine measures’, which may lead to 
suicide attempts, self-harm, and addiction.160 In Finland, medical treatments 
for gender dysphoria patients were classified as non-urgent healthcare, 
decreasing their availability.161

82

83

Some Member States took measures to address these issues. The Spanish 
Ministry of Equality issued several guides for LGTBI people facing the pandemic, 
hate crime, and violence.162 In Sweden, additional resources were granted to 
NGOs to address increased vulnerability during the pandemic, including for 
LGBTI victims of violence.163 In Portugal, the parliament recommended that 
the government support LGBTI organisations during the crisis. 164 Authorities 
endorsed a campaign aimed at collecting funds to set up an emergency 
network for LGBTQI+ people in financial distress, permitting donations to 
the campaign to be tax deductible.165

82

83

FRA opinions

FRA OPINION 3�1

Learning  from  the  lessons  of  the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the EU legislator 
should continue to explore all possible 
avenues to adopt the Equal Treatment 
Directive without further delay� This 
would ensure that EU legislation offers 
comprehensive  protection  against 
discrimination on grounds of religion 
or belief, disability, age and sexual 
orientation in key areas of life, such as 
education; social protection, including 
social security and healthcare; and 
access to and supply of goods and 
services  available  to  the  public, 
including housing�

Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (TFEU) provides the basis for EU legislation to 
combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, 
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The 
Council of the EU has adopted comprehensive legislation 
protecting against discrimination on grounds of gender or 
racial or ethnic origin in key areas of life. These include 
employment and occupation; education, though this is 
not covered by the gender equality directives; social 
protection; and access to and supply of goods and services 
that are available to the public, including housing. In 
contrast, EU legislation protects against discrimination 
on  grounds  of  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  and 
sexual orientation only in the area of employment and 
occupation.

As a result, some of the protected characteristics set out 
in Article 19 of the TFEU (sex and racial or ethnic origin) 
enjoy wider protection than others (religion or belief, 
age, disability and sexual orientation), resulting in an 
artificial hierarchy of protected grounds. The European 
Commission proposed an Equal Treatment Directive in 
2008. Its adoption would close this gap by extending protection against 
discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, age, disability and sexual 
orientation to the areas of education, social protection, and access to, and 
supply of, goods and services available to the public. No progress on adoption 
of the Commission’s proposal was achieved at EU Council level in 2020.

The European Parliament reiterated its call to adopt the proposal, while the 
European Commission continued to encourage Member States to swiftly reach 
an agreement on the text. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic underscored 
the increased risk of discrimination that people may face in times of health 
crises on various grounds beyond sex and racial or ethnic origin, in particular 
age.

84

Evidence suggests that older people were among the 
hardest hit by and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Older 
persons had a greater health risk than younger age groups 
because of their higher incidence of underlying health 
conditions.

The pandemic also had broader implications, affecting older 
persons’ well-being and rights. Ageist stereotypes and 
discriminatory discourse; restrictive measures based on 
age; difficulties in accessing goods and services, including 
because of the digital divide between generations; and 
feelings of isolation and stress undermined their right 
to lead a life of dignity, independence and participation, 
enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. These 
factors also undermined their right to equal treatment and 
opportunities, as set out in the Charter and the European 
Pillar of Social Rights.

On the other hand, various actors took measures to 
alleviate the pandemic’s impact on older persons, and to 
protect and help implement their rights, including through 
using new technologies and digital tools. Moreover, the 
broader discussion on the rights of older persons and their 
well-being gained momentum in 2020. The Council of 
the EU adopted conclusions calling on EU institutions and 
Member States to use a rights-based approach to ageing, 
including in their pandemic exit strategies. It further 
highlighted the need to take advantage of digitalisation 
opportunities to promote older persons’ well-being.

FRA OPINION 3�2

EU institutions and Member States 
should  adopt  and  mainstream 
a  rights-based  approach  towards 
ageing and older persons, including 
in  their  pandemic  exit  strategies� 
This approach should be reflected in 
all relevant initiatives and policies, 
including in actions to implement the 
European Pillar of Social Rights and 
promote social inclusion policies� This 
means:

 Ë combating ageist perceptions that 
lead to age discrimination, which 
are barriers to the equal treatment 
of  older  persons  and  the  full 
enjoyment of their fundamental 
rights;

 Ë promoting  the  participation  of 
older persons in all aspects of social 
life, including in the design and 
monitoring of the implementation 
of measures that affect them;

 Ë focusing on those who are more 
vulnerable  and  delivering  on 
particular needs they may have by 
using all available means, including 
accessible new technologies and 
digital tools, while also maintaining 
non-digital services;

 Ë collecting and analysing robust 
data and evidence about the rights 
and well-being of older persons�

85

Certain Member States have introduced legal and policy 
measures  that  jeopardise  the  fundamental  right  to 
equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation. FRA’s 
second LGBTI survey and surveys conducted in several 
Member States showed high levels of discrimination and 
harassment towards LGBTI+ persons across the EU, and 
a notable decrease in social acceptance. Hate speech 
against LGBTI+ persons in public discourse is a particularly 
worrying phenomenon, as it further incites discrimination.

Measures to contain the pandemic particularly affected 
LGBTI+ persons, especially young people living at home 
who faced familial violence because of their sexual 
orientation  and/or  gender  identity.  In  this  regard, 
safeguarding their rights became even more difficult.

To address and improve the situation of LGBTIQ persons, 
the European Commission adopted its LGBTIQ equality 
strategy 2020–2025. This sets out a series of targeted 
actions around four main pillars focused on tackling 
discrimination, ensuring safety, building inclusive societies 
and leading the call for LGBTIQ equality around the world. 

FRA OPINION 3�3

EU Member States are encouraged to 
avoid any actions that jeopardise the 
fundamental right to equal treatment 
regardless of sexual orientation and 
gender  identity  and  to  continue 
adopting action plans in line with the 
Commission’s LGBTIQ equality strategy� 
They are encouraged to adopt and 
implement legal and policy measures 
to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
trans and intersex persons can fully 
enjoy their fundamental rights under 
EU and national law�

EU Member States should consider the 
available evidence on discrimination, 
including data from FRA’s second LGBTI 
survey, to identify and adequately 
address protection gaps� They should 
also take into account the guidance 
provided  by  the  LGBTIQ  equality 
strategy� In particular, measures should 
be taken to effectively combat hate 
speech and hate crime and to address 
the harmful impacts of homophobic 
and transphobic statements made by 
public authorities and officials�

86
86

87

Index of country 
references
AT  73, 80, 81

BE  71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82

BG  77, 79

CY  76, 79

CZ  73, 77, 78

DA  79

DE  73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81

EE  71, 79

ES  71, 73, 74, 76, 82, 83

FI  76, 79, 82

FR  79

GR  77, 78, 79, 80

HR  74, 82

HU  73, 78, 81

IE  75, 82

LT   76, 77

LU   79

MK  73, 79

MT  70, 71

NL   71, 75, 80

PL   73, 76, 80, 81, 82

PT   75, 77, 80, 83

RO   70, 78

RS  76, 79

SE   70, 71, 79, 80, 83

SI   71, 76, 81, 82

SK   71, 73, 76, 79

Endnotes

1 

European Commission (2008), Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing 
the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or 
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM/2008/0426 final.

2  The German Presidency of the Council circulated a questionnaire to Member 
States exploring ways to move the discussion forward, but no breakthrough 
was possible. See Council of the European Union (2020), ‘Main results of the 
videoconference of employment and social policy ministers’, 3 December 
2020.

3 

European Parliament (2020), European Parliament resolution on the situation 
of fundamental rights in the European Union – Annual Report for the years 
2018–2019, P9_TA(2020) 0328, Brussels, 26 November 2020.

4  European Commission (2020), Commission work programme 2020, 

COM(2020) 37 final, Brussels, 29 January 2020.

5  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 

2020–2025, COM(2020) 565 final, Brussels, 18 September 2020, p. 6.

6  Putting forward a Union of Equality the European Commission also adopted in 
March 2021 the strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021-2030, 
COM(2021) 101 final, 3 March 2021.

7  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU gender equality strategy 

2020–2025, COM(2020) 152 final, Brussels, 5 March 2020, p. 3; European 
Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020–
2025, Brussels, COM(2020 565 final, 18 September 2020, pp. 2–3; European 
Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU Roma strategic framework 
for equality, inclusion and participation 2020–2030, COM(2020) 620 final, 
Brussels, 7 October 2020, pp. 4–5; European Commission (2020), A Union 
of equality: LGBTIQ equality strategy 2020–2025, COM(2020) 698 final, 
Brussels, 12 November 2020, pp. 3–4; European Commission (2020), Action 
plan on integration and inclusion 2021–2027, COM(2020) 758 final, Brussels, 
24 November 2020, p. 23.

8  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU Roma strategic 

framework for equality, inclusion and participation 2020–2030, COM(2020) 620 
final, Brussels, 7 October 2020, p.2.

9  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: LGBTIQ equality strategy 

2020–2025, COM(2020) 698 final, Brussels, 12 November 2020, p.13.

10  European Commission (2020), Recovery plan for Europe, Brussels, December 

2020.

11  European Commission (2017), European handbook on equality data, Brussels, 

14 March 2017, p. 15; European Commission, High Level Group on Non-
Discrimination, Equality and Diversity, Subgroup on Equality Data (2018), 
Guidelines on improving the collection and use of equality data, Brussels.

12  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: LGBTIQ equality strategy 

2020–2025, COM(2020) 698 final, Brussels, 12 November 2020.

13  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 

2020–2025, Brussels, 17 June 2020, p. 16.

14  European Commission, High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality 
and Diversity, Subgroup on Equality Data (2018), Guidelines on improving 
the collection and use of equality data, Brussels; FRA (2019), Compendium 
of practices for equality data collection; FRA (2019), Equality data mapping 
diagnostic tool.

15  Romania, Parliament (2020), Law No. 167/2020 on amending Government 

Ordinance No. 137/2020 on preventing and punishing all forms of discrimination 
and Art. 6 of Law No. 202/2002 on equal opportunities and treatment 
between women and men (Legea 167/2020 pentru modificarea şi completarea 
Ordonanţei Guvernului nr. 137/2000 privind prevenirea şi sancţionarea tuturor 
formelor de discriminare, precum şi pentru completarea Art. 6 din Legea nr. 
202/2002 privind egalitatea de şanse şi de tratament între femei şi bărbaţi), 
published in the Official Journal No. 713, 7 August 2020.

16  Romania, Law No.151/2020 on the amendment of the Law no. 53/2003 - 

Labour Code (Legea 151/2020 pentru modificarea şi completarea Legii nr. 
53/2003 - Codul muncii), published in the Official Journal no. 658, 24.07.2020.

17  Malta, Parliament (2020), Bill No. 96, Adjunct Committee for the Consideration 

of Bills, 18 November 2020.

18  Sweden, Ministry of Employment (Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet) (2020), 

Public inquiry report on a more efficient supervision of the anti-discrimination 
law (Effektivare tillsyn över diskrimineringslagen – Aktiva åtgärder och det 
skollagsreglerade området), 15 December 2020.

86

87

19  Netherlands, State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment (Staatssecretaris van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid) (2020), Bill for 

Act on supervision of equal opportunities in recruitment and selection (Wijziging van de Arbeidsomstandighedenwet en de Wet allocatie 
arbeidskrachten door intermediairs in verband met de invoering van de verplichting om over een werkwijze te beschikken die gericht is op 
het creëren van gelijke kansen in het proces van werving en selectie en het toezicht daarop (Wet toezicht gelijke kansen bij werving en 
selectie)), 8 September 2020.

20  Belgium, Het Laatste Nieuws (2020), ‘New federal human rights institute FIRM finally has a president and vice-president’ (‘Nieuw 

federaal mensenrechteninstituut FIRM heeft eindelijk voorzitter en vicevoorzitter’), 3 September 2020.

21  Malta, Parliament (2019), Bill No. 97, Human Rights and Equality Commission, 12 November 2020.

22  Spain, Ministry of Territorial Policy and Public Function (Ministerio de Política Territorial y Función Pública) (2020), Royal Decree 455/2020 
of 10 March on the structure of the Ministry of Equality (Real Decreto 455/2020, de 10 de marzo, por el que se desarrolla la estructura 
orgánica básica del Ministerio de Igualdad), 10 March 2020.

23  Sweden, Ministry of Employment (Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet) (2020), Public inquiry report on a more efficient supervision of 
the anti-discrimination law (Effektivare tillsyn över diskrimineringslagen – Aktiva åtgärder och det skollagsreglerade området), 
15 December 2020.

24  Estonia, Social Ministry (Sotsiaalministeerium) (2020), ‘Campaign “Everyone is different but equally human” ’ (‘Kampaania “Kõik on 

erinevad, kuid sama palju inimesed” ’), 24 January 2020.

25  Slovakia, Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (2020),‘Campaign “For brighter Mondays” ’ (‘Kampan “Za pekné pondelky” ’).

26  Slovenia, Human Rights Ombudsperson (Varuh človekovih pravic), Annual Report of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of 

Slovenia for 2019, June 2020, Recommendations 5 and 6 at pp. 37 and 38.

27  FRA (2020), Strong and effective national human rights institutions – Challenges, promising practices and opportunities, Luxembourg, 

Publications Office of the European Union (Publications Office).

28  European Commission (2018), Commission recommendation on standards for equality bodies, C(2018) 3850 final, Brussels, 22 June 2018.

29  European Commission (2020), Strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU, COM/2020/711 

final, 2 December 2020.

30  Council of Europe (2020), ECRI report on Austria, 2 June 2020.

31  Council of Europe (2020), ECRI report on the Slovak Republic, 14 December 2020.

32  Council of Europe (2020), ECRI report on Germany, 17 March 2020.

33  Council of Europe (2020), ECRI report on the Czech Republic, 1 October 2020.

34  Council of Europe, Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) (2020), Fifth 

opinion on Spain, 15 October 2020.

35  Equinet (2020), European equality policy strategies equal treatment directives, and standards for equality bodies, Brussels, Equinet.

36  Hungary, National Legislation (Nemzeti Jogszabálytár) (2020), Act CXXVII of 2020 amending certain laws to ensure more effective 

enforcement of the requirement of equal treatment (2020. évi CXXVII. törvény egyes törvényeknek az egyenlő bánásmód követelménye 
hatékonyabb érvényesítését biztosító módosításáról), December 2020.

37  Hungary, European Commission, European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2020), Flash report, 

26 November 2020; 18 Civil Societies Organisations (2020), Statement: The merger of the equal treatment authority into the office of 
the Commissioner for fundamental rights is a very bad step, 19 November 2020.

38  Poland, Commissioner for Human Rights (1987), Act on the Commissioner for Human Rights, Art. 3(6), 15 July 1987.

39  Poland, Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (2020), ‘The Venice Commission is concerned by the risk of paralysis of the 

Ombudsman institution of Poland’, 12 October 2020; Ombuds institution (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) (2020), Hearing of the 
Constitutional Court on the extension of the term of office of the Ombuds Institution (Rozprawa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w sprawie 
przedłużenia kadencji RPO), 23 October 2020.

40  Poland, Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (2020), ‘The Venice Commission is concerned by the risk of paralysis of the 
Ombudsman institution of Poland’, 12 October 2020; Commissioner for Human Rights (2020), The Ombudsman before the Polish 
Constitutional Tribunal, 14 October 2020.

41  North Macedonia, Constitutional Court (2020), Decision 115/2019, 14 May 2020.

42  North Macedonia, Libertas (2020), ‘The network for protection against discrimination: The commission for prevention and protection 

against discrimination remains subject to a political party deal’ (‘Мрежа за заштита од дискриминација: Комисијата за спречување 
и заштита од дискриминација останува да се избира по пат на партиски договор?!’), 23 October 2020; European Commission, 
European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2020), Flash report, 1 December 2020. See also European 
Commission (2020), Country report: Non-discrimination – North Macedonia 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

43  Slovakia, European Commission, European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2020), Flash report, 

23 June 2020.

44  European Commission (2018), Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/951 of 22 June 2018 on standards for equality bodies, 

OJ 2018 L 167, 22 June 2020.

45  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020–2025, COM(2020) 565 final, Brussels, 18 September 

2020.

46  Council of the European Union (2000), Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment 

between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ 2000 L 180, 29 June 2000.

47  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: LGBTIQ equality strategy 2020–2025, COM(2020) 698 final, Brussels, 12 November 

2020.

48  European Commission (2020), Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, COM(2020) 621 

final, Brussels, 7 October 2020.

88

89

49  Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU, European Commission and Equinet (2020) Summary report of the conference “Fighting 

discrimination on grounds of religion and ethnicity: Vulnerabilities of Muslim communities and the effects of covid-19 crisis”, 18 June 
2020.

50  The term ‘older persons’ here relates not only to a person’s ‘chronological age’ (for example, being over 55, 60, 65 or 70 years) and 
the biological process of getting older. Being ‘old’ and treated as an ‘old person’ is also a social construction linked to social realities 
and perceptions about age that change over time and differ across societies within Europe and globally. See also FRA (2018), Shifting 
perceptions: Towards a rights-based approach to ageing, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p.6.

51  FRA (2020), Fundamental rights implications of COVID-19, in particular Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU with a focus on older 

people.

52  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2012 C 326, Arts. 21 and 25.

53  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU with a focus on older people, p. 33. Regarding the situation in institutional 

settings in particular countries, see, for example, Spain, Ministry of the Social Rights and Agenda 2030 (Ministerio de Derechos Sociales 
y Agenda 2030) (2020), COVID-19 and care centres (Informe del Grupo de Trabajo Covid 19 y Residencias), 24 November 2020; Amnesty 
International (2020), Abandoned to their fate: The lack of protection and discrimination of the elderly in residences during the COVID-19 
pandemic in Spain, 8 June 2020; Cyprus (2020), Euronews (2020), ‘Cyprus – COVID-19: 197 new cases and one death – The 35 cases in 
a nursing home’ (‘Κύπρος – COVID-19: 197 νέα κρούσματα και ένας θάνατος - Τα 35 κρούσματα σε γηροκομείο’), 2 November 2020; 
Phileleftheros (2020), ‘Death in nursing homes a nightmare – “To be held accountable” ’ (‘Eφιάλτης οι θάνατοι σε γηροκομεία – “Να 
αποδοθούν ευθύνες” ’), 23 December 2020.

54  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU, p. 27.

55  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU with a focus on older people, p. 38.

56  For example, see Belgium, VRT NWS (2020), ‘Coronavirus re-emerged in half of Flemish residential care centres: “No longer shortage 

of materials, but staff” ’ (‘Coronavirus opnieuw opgedoken in helft van Vlaamse woonzorgcentra: “Geen tekort meer aan materiaal, wel 
aan personeel” ‘), 27 October 2020; Latvia, Latvian Public Media (Latvijas Sabiedriskie Mediji) (2020), ‘Health inspectorate: Many social 
care centers have problems with COVID-19 screening’ (‘Veselības inspekcija: Daudzos sociālās aprūpes centros problēmas ar Covid-19 
skrīningu’), 6 January 2020.

57  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU with a focus on older people, p. 41.

58  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU, p. 26.; FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Focus on 

social rights, p. 27.

59  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU with a focus on older people, p. 39.

60  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU, p. 27.

61  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Focus on social rights, p. 28. For an example of restrictive measures 

introduced during the second wave of the pandemic for older persons living in institutions, see Sweden, Ministry of Health and Social 
Affairs (Socialdepartementet) (2020), ‘Ordinance on a temporary ban on visits to special forms of housing for the elderly to prevent the 
spread of COVID-19 disease’ (‘Förordning (2020:979) om tillfälligt förbud mot besök i särskilda boendeformer för äldre för att förhindra 
spridningen av sjukdomen covid-19’), 21 November 2020.

62  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU, p. 31.

63  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Focus on social rights, p. 29.

64  FRA (2020), Bulletin #6 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Focus on social rights, pp. 27, 29 and 31. See also Ireland, Health Information 
and Quality Authority (2020), The impact of COVID-19 on nursing homes in Ireland, Cork, Health Information and Quality Authority; 
Belgium, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (2020), ‘Corona makes elderly people crave close contacts’ (‘Corona doet ouderen snakken naar hechte 
contacten’), 19 June 2020; Germany, BIVA (2020), ‘Position paper: Half a year of Corona in the nursing home – What the crisis teaches 
us’ (‘Positionspapier: Ein halbes Jahr Corona im Pflegeheim – Was uns die Krise lehrt’), 8 September 2020; The Netherlands, The Social 
and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER), Perspective on Recovery – Advice Thinktank Coronacrisis (Perspectief op Herstel), January 
2021; Portugal, University of Coimbra (2020), ‘Covid-19: study assesses the impact of social isolation on the physical and psychological 
well-being of adults and the elderly’ (‘Covid-19: estudo avalia o impacto do isolamento social no bem-estar físico e psicológico de adultos 
e idosos’), 12 October 2020.

65  For an overview of the work of equality bodies and national human rights institutions on COVID-19 and its implications for equality and 

fundamental and human rights, see Equinet’s webpage on the response to COIVD-19 and the European Network of National Human Rights 
Institutions (Ennhri) webpage on COVID-19 and human rights.

66  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘Disabled and elderly people have the right to be cared for’ (‘Les personnes handicapées et les personnes âgées 

ont le droit d’être soignées’), 10 April 2020.

67  Belgium, Unia (2020), COVID-19: Putting human rights to the test (COVID-19: Les droits humainsmis à l’épreuve), Unia, Brussels.

68  Cyprus, Commissioner for Administration and Protection of Human Rights (2020), Statement on social care homes for older persons 

(Αυτεπάγγελτη Tοποθέτηση Επιτρόπου Διοικήσεως και Προστασίας Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων υπό την ιδιότητά της ως Μηχανισμός 
Πρόληψης των Βασανιστηρίων και Άλλων Μορφών Σκληρής, Απάνθρωπης ή Εξευτελιστικής Μεταχείρισης ή Τιμωρίας (NPM), 
αναφορικά με τη λήψη μέτρων που αφορούν τις στέγες ηλικιωμένων για αντιμετώπιση της εξάπλωσης της πανδημίας του ιού 
COVID-19 και την μετά COVID-19 εποχή), 11 August 2020.

69  Finland, Non-Discrimination Ombuds institution (Yhdenvertaisuusvaltuutettu/diskrimineringsombudsmannen) (2020), ‘Statement – Opinion 
of the Equality Ombuds institution on the age limit of 70 years for the coronavirus epidemic’ (‘Statement – Yhdenvertaisuusvaltuutetun 
lausunto 70-vuoden ikärajasta koronavirusepidemian osalta’), 3 July 2020.

70  Finland, Deputy Parliamentary Ombuds institution (Eduskunnan apulaisoikeusasiamies/riksdagens biträdande justitieombudsman) (2020), 

Decision EOAK/3787/2020, 7 September 2020.

71  Spain, National Ombuds institution (Defensor del Pueblo) (2020), National report 2019 (Informe annual 2019) and discussion of the report 

in the Spanish parliament, 25 June 2020.

72  Spain, National Ombuds institution (Defensor del Pueblo) (2020), Rest homes, healthcare and COVID-19 emergency information 

(Residencias de mayores, atención sanitaria e información emergencia Covid-19), 23 April 2020.

88

89

73  Germany, Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes) (2020), ‘Experiences of discrimination related to 

the Corona crisis’ (‘Diskriminierungserfahrungen in Zeiten von Corona’).

74  Poland, Ombuds institution (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) (2020), ‘The specificity of discriminatory speech used against older persons’ 

(Specyfika mowy dyskryminującej używanej wobec osób starszych (elderspeak)).

75  Poland, Ombuds institution (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) (2020), ‘Provide help to those most in need – The position of the Ombuds 

institution and the committee of experts for older people’ (‘Zapewnić pomoc najbardziej potrzebującym – stanowisko RPO i Komisji 
Ekspertów ds. Osób Starszych po spotkaniu on-line 8 kwietnia 2020 r.’), 21 April 2020.

76  Lithuania, Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombuds institution (Lygių galimybių kontrolieriaus tarnyba) (2020), ‘Quarantine restrictions on 
the elderly can lead to discrimination’ (‘Vyresnio amžiaus žmonėms taikomi karantino ribojimai gali virsti diskriminacija’), press release, 
20 May 2020.

77  Slovenia, Advocate of the Principle of Equality (Zagovornik načela enakosti) (2020), Assessment of the discriminatory character of Article 
2.a of the Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the offering and sale of goods and services to consumers in the Republic of Slovenia 
(during the new Coronavirus epidemic) (Ocena diskriminatornosti 2�a člena Odloka o začasni prepovedi ponujanja in prodajanja blaga in 
storitev potrošnikom v republiki Sloveniji (v času epidemije novega koronavirusa)), 31 August 2020.

78  Slovakia, Ombuds institution (Verejná ochrankyna prav) (2020), Opinion concerning a blanket ban on shopping for seniors outside 

allotted time, 23 April 2020; Slovakia, Public Health Authority (Úrad verejného zdravotníctva) (2020), ‘Measures from the Public Health 
Office of the Slovak Republic when endangering public health’ (‘Opatrenie Úradu verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky pri 
ohrození verejného zdravia’), 14 October 2020.

79  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti) (2020), Recommendation of measures to the 

Ministry of the Interior regarding the registration of older citizens’ vehicles during the state of emergency (Preporuka mera Ministarstvu 
unutrašnjih poslova povodom registracije vozila starijih građana u vreme vanrednog stanja), Belgrade, 31 March 2020; Recommendation 
of measures to the Ministry of Health regarding elderly helplines (Preporuka mera Ministarstvu zdravlja u vezi brojeva telefona 
namenjenih pomoći starijim licima), Belgrade, 6 April 2020; Initiative to the MOI regarding punishment of persons suffering from 
dementia (Inicijativa MUP povodom kažnjavanja osoba obolelih od demencije), Belgrade, 13 April 2020.

80  Slovenia, Advocate of the Principle of Equality (Zagovornik Načela Enakosti) (2020), ‘Advocate on International Day of Older Persons: 

While protecting the public interest, measures should be as proportionate as possible’ (‘Zagovornik ob mednarodnem dnevu starejљih: 
Ob varovanju javnega interesa naj bodo ukrepi čim bolj sorazmerni’), 1 October 2020.

81  FRA (2020), Bulletin #3 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU with a focus on older people, pp. 40 and 41.

82  European Commission (2020), ‘European Commission authorises first safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19’, press release, 

Brussels, 21 December 2020; Euractiv (2020), ‘EU begins vaccinations to end Covid “nightmare” ’, 28 December 2020.

83  European Commission (2020), Coronavirus vaccines strategy; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (2020), ‘ECDC 

releases COVID-19 vaccination rollout strategies for EU/EEA’, 22 December 2020.

84  On ageism and the rights-based approach to ageing see FRA (2018), Shifting perceptions: Towards a rights-based approach to ageing, 

Luxembourg, Publications Office.

85  Council of the EU (2020), ‘Improving the well-being of older persons in the era of digitalisation: Council adopts conclusions’, press 

release, 12 October 2020.

86  European Commission (2020), ‘European Commission adopted Report on the impact of demographic change in Europe’ press release, 

Brussels, 7 June 2020.

87  European Commission, European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2020), Age discrimination law 

outside the employment field, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

88  Bulgaria, Council of Ministers (Министерски съвет) (2020), National employment action plan 2020 (Национален план за действие по 

заетостта през 2020 г.), 6 February 2020.

89  Portugal, Parliament (2020), Law 3/2020 approving the Major Planning Options for 2020–2023 (Lei n.º 3/2020 que aprova as Grandes 

Opções de Plano para 2020–2023), 31 March 2020.

90  Belgium, Flemish Parliament (Vlaams Parlement) (2020), Draft resolution on the creation of a Commissioner’s Office on the rights of 

older persons (Voorstel van resolutie over de oprichtingvan een ouderenrechtencommissariaat), 16 November 2020.

91  Greece, Council of State (Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας) (2020), Decision No� 102/2020, 23 January 2020.

92  Lithuania, Constitutional Court (Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas) (2020), Case No� 2/2019, 3 June 2020.

93  Bulgaria, Supreme Administrative Court (Върховният административен съд) (2020), Decision No� 5023 on administrative case No� 

13911/2019, 28 April 2020.

94  Czechia, Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) (2020), Case file No� 21 Cdo 3834/2018, 28 August 2020.

95  Czechia, Public Defender of Rights (Veřejny ochránce práv) (2020), ‘Opinion of the public defender of rights: An older person cannot be 

refused short-term credit based on his or her age’ (‘Nelze odmítnout krátkodobý úvěr seniorovi jen kvůli věku’), 21 July 2020.

96  Hungary, Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (Az alapvető jogok biztosának) (2020), Decision on birth-related state-

supported loans (Jelentése az AJB-541/2020 számú ügyben a babaváró hitel jogosultsági feltételeivel összefüggésben).

97  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării) (2020), Decisions on 

employment (12 August 2020), services (3 June 2020) and political participation (27 May 2020).

98  LGBTI is an acronym for ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex’ persons and is meant to cover ‘persons of diverse sexual 

orientation, gender identity, gender expressions or sex characteristics’. To clearly include anyone whose identity does not fit into a binary 
classification of sexuality and/or gender (queer), variations of the acronym also add Q or (+). In this chapter, we use the acronyms as they 
are used in cited reports and studies.

99  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: LGBTIQ equality strategy 2020–2025, COM(2020) 698 final, Brussels, 12 November 

2020.

100 Denmark, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Udenrigsministeriet) (2018), Action plan for promoting security, well-being and equal opportunities 

for LGBTI people (Handlingsplan til fremme af tryghed, trivsel og lige muligheder for LGBTI-personer), Copenhagen, Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs. Within the framework of the NAP, in August 2020, the Danish government published Freedom to diversity (Frihed til 
forskellighed), based on the Inter-ministerial Working Group’s review of Danish legislation.

90

91

101 Finland, Government (Valtioneuvosto/statsrådet) (2020), Gender equality action plan (Suomi tasa-arvon kärkimaaksi, hallituksen tasa-

arvo-ohjelma 2020–2023, valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös), 30 April 2020.

102 France, Government (2020), National action plan on equal rights, hate and LGBT+ discrimination 2020–2023 (Plan national d’actions pour 

l’égalité des droits, contre la haine et les discriminations anti-LGBT+ 2020-2023).

103 Sweden, Ministry of Employment (Arbetsmarknadsdepartamentet) (2020), ‘The Police Authority and the Ombuds institution for children 

gets new LBGTI assignment’ (‘Polisen och BO får nya hbtq-uppdrag’), press release, 26 June 2020.

104 North Macedonia, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Министерство за труд и социјална политика) (2019), ‘We are advancing the 
rights of the LGBTI community, enabling equal protection for all’ (‘Ги унапредуваме правата на ЛГБТИ заедницата, овозможуваме 
еднаква заштита за сите’).

105 Slovakia, Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (2020),‘Campaign “For brighter Mondays” ’ (‘Kampan “Za pekné pondelky” ’).

106 Luxembourg, IMS Luxembourg (2020), ‘LGBTI inclusion – 2020 project’.

107 Estonia, Ministry of Social Affairs (Sotsiaalministeerium) (2020), ‘ “Everyone is different, but so many people” campaign’ (‘Kampaania 

“Kõik on erinevad, kuid sama palju inimesed”’), 24 January 2020.

108 Bulgaria, Dragoeva, L. and Naydenov, P. (2020), Attitudes to LGBTI students in Bulgarian schools: National study (Нагласи към ЛГБТИ 
учениците в българските училища: национално проучване), Sofia, Foundation ‘Resource Center Bilitis’; Pisankaneva, M. and 
Atanasova, B. (2020), CHOICE national report: Bulgaria, Sofia, Foundation ‘Resource Center Bilitis’.

109 Bulgaria, Pisankaneva, M. and Atanasova, B. (2020), CHOICE national report: Bulgaria, Sofia, Foundation ‘Resource Center Bilitis’.

110 Bulgaria, Pew Research Center (2020), The global divide on homosexuality persists, Washington, D.C., Pew Research Center. See also 

Ivanova, S. and Georgieva, A. (2020), Attitudes to LGBTI persons in Bulgaria (Нагласи към ЛГБТИ хората в България), Sofia, Noema; 
Ivanova, S. and Georgieva, A. (2020), Study among LGBTI persons in Bulgaria (Проучване сред ЛГБТИ хората в България), Sofia, 
Noema.

111  Greece, Colour Youth (2020), First Greek National School Climate Survey – Results report: The experiences of LGBTQ youth in Greek 

secondary education, Athens, Colour Youth.

112  Cyprus, Avgousti A. and Vasiliou E. (2020), Voiceit: Strengthening LGBTQI+’s voice in politics – National report – Cyprus, ACCEPT LGBT 

Cyprus, June 2020.

113  De Vries, L., Fischer, M., Kasprowski, D., Kroh, M., Kühne, S., Richter, D. and Zindel, Z. (2020), LGBTQI* people on the labor market: Highly 

educated, frequently discriminated against, DIW Weekly Report 36, Berlin.

114 France, Borrillo D. (ed.) (2020), Proof of sexual orientation in asylum applications (La preuve dans les demandes d’asile en raison de 

l’orientation sexuelle), April 2020.

115  Unia is an independent public institution that fights discrimination and promotes equal opportunities.

116 Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘Homophobia at work not taken seriously enough’ (‘Holebifobie op de werkplek wordt te weinig serieus 

genomen’), 15 May 2020.

117  Belgium, Unia (2019), Statistics report 2019 (Cijferverslag 2019), Brussels, Unia.

118 Serbia, IDEAS and GLIC (2020), Annual LGBTI+ Research (Godišnje LGBTI+ istraživanje), Belgrade, pp. 2, 7–9; Geten (2020), Report – 

Research on needs of transgender and non-binary individuals in the Republic of Serbia (Istraživački izveštaj – istraživanje o potrebama 
transrodnih i nebinarnih osoba u Republici Srbiji), Belgrade, pp. 2, 11–12.

119 Austria, National Council (Nationalrat) (2020), Resolution of the National Council of 9 July 2020 on the recording of attacks based on 

gender or sexual orientation (Entschließung des Nationalrates vom 9. Juli 2020 betreffend Erfassung von hassmotivierten Übergriffen 
aufgrund des Geschlechts oder der sexuellen Orientierung), 9 July 2020.

120 Netherlands, Minister of Justice and Security (Minister van Justitie en Veiligheid) (2018), Amendment of among other things the 

Criminal Code in connection with the re-evaluation of punishability of offences of expression (Wijziging van onder meer het Wetboek 
van Strafrecht in verband met de herwaardering van de strafbaarstelling van enkele actuele delictsvormen (herwaardering 
strafbaarstelling actuele delictsvormen), sent to House of Representatives, 16 May 2018, amendment came into force in 2020; 
Designation of discrimination (Aanwijzing discriminatie) (2018A009), Beleid en Straffen, Openbaar Ministerie (om�nl).

121  In October 2020, 63 cities/municipalities, counties and voivodeships declared themselves free from ‘LGBT ideology’, while 17 adopted the 

Charter of the Rights of Family. See Stowarzyszenie Miłość nie Wyklucza (2020), ‘Resolutions “against LGBT ideology” – resolutions against 
equality and dignity’ (‘Uchwały “przeciwko ideologii LGBT” – uchwały przeciwko równości i godności’), 9 October 2020.

122 Poland, Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in Gliwice (2020), Case No� III SA/Gl 15/20, 15 July 2020, finding that the resolution 
of the local council in Istebna is unlawful and thus invalid as it was adopted without a legal basis and excludes LGBT people from the local 
community.

123 Poland, Decision of the Regional Administrative Court in Rzeszów (2020), Case No� II SA/Rz 27/20, 8 September 2020.

124 European Parliament (2019), ‘Parliament strongly condemns “LGBTI-free zones” in Poland’, press release, 18 December 2019.

125 Poland, Euronews (2020), ‘EU funding withheld from six Polish towns over “LGBT-free” zones’, 30 July 2020.

126 Belgium, Court of First Instance of Dendermonde, Public Prosecutor’s Office (Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde, Openbaar 

Ministerie) (2020), D.W.T and Unia v. B.T., 23 July 2020.

127 Poland, Onet (2020), ‘The verdict was passed on the words of Archbishop Jędraszewski on the “rainbow plague” ’ (‘Zapadł wyrok 

w sprawie słów abp. Jędraszewskiego o “tęczowej zarazie” ’), 14 December 2020.

128 Greece, Supreme Court (Απόφαση Αρείου Πάγου) (2020), Decision No� 858/2020.

129 ILGA-Europe (2020), Annual review of the human rights situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people in Europe and 

Central Asia, Brussels, ILGA-Europe; Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (2020), Memorandum on the stigmatisation of 
LGBTI people in Poland, 3 December 2020.

130 Poland, Helsinki Foundation (2020), ‘Statement on the events in Warsaw on the night of 7–8 August 2020 after the detention of LGBT+ 

activist Margot’ (‘Oświadczenie w sprawie wydarzeń w Warszawie w nocy z 7 na 8 sierpnia 2020 r. po zatrzymaniu aktywistki LGBT+ – 
Margot’), 8 August 2020. See

90

91

131  Poland, Commissioner for Human Rights (2020), ‘Not just degrading treatment... KMPT’s final report on the arrests on 7 August in 

Warsaw. There are specific recommendations for MSWiA and the police’ (‘Nie tylko poniżające traktowanie... Końcowy raport KMPT 
o zatrzymaniach 7 sierpnia w Warszawie. Są konkretne zalecenia dla MSWiA i policji’), 9 September 2020.

132 United Nations General Assembly, (2020), Practices of so-called ‘conversion therapy’, A/HRC/44/53, 1 May 2020.

133  ‘Conversion therapy’ is a term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, aimed at effecting a change from non-

heterosexual to heterosexual and from trans or gender diverse to cisgender. Depending on the context, the term is used for a multitude 
of practices and methods, some of which are clandestine and therefore poorly documented. They are based on the belief that a person’s 
sexual orientation and gender identity can be changed or suppressed.

134 Germany, Federal Law Gazette (2020), Law to Protect against Conversion Treatments (Gesetz zum Schutz vor Konversionsbehandlungen), 

12 June 2020; Germany, Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I Nr� 28 (2020), Bonn, 23 June 2020.

135 Sweden, Ministry of Employment (Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet) (2020), Assignment to the Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society 

to review and compile knowledge about LGBTI persons’ vulnerability of so-called conversion attempts’ (‘Uppdrag till Myndigheten 
för ungdoms- och civilsamhällesfrågor att kartlägga och sammanställa kunskap om unga hbtq-personers utsatthet för s.k. 
omvändelseterapi’), 31 July 2020.

136 Portugal, Order of Portuguese Psychologists (Ordem dos Psicólogos Portugueses) (2020), Guidelines for professional practice in the 
field of palliative care – psychological intervention with LGBTQ people (Linhas de Orientação para a Prática Profissional no Âmbito 
da Intervenção Psicológica com LGBTQ), Lisbon, Ordem dos Psicólogos Portugueses. See also the Order of Portuguese Psychologists 
webpage.

137 Poland, Ombuds institution (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) (2020), ‘Conversion therapies should be banned in Poland. RPO address to the 

Prime Minister’ (‘Terapie konwersyjne powinny być w Polsce zakazane. Wystąpienie RPO do premiera’), 9 October 2020.

138 Belgium, Parliament (2020), Law amending the Law of 10 May 2007 to combat discrimination between women and men as regards 

the prohibition of discrimination against paternity or co-motherhood (Wet tot wijziging van de wet van 10 mei 2007 ter bestrijding van 
discriminatie tussen vrouwen en mannen wat het discriminatieverbod op vaderschap of meemoederschap betreft, Loi modifiant la loi 
du 10 mai 2007 modifiant, en ce qui concerne l’interdiction), Belgian Official Gazette, 28 February 2020.

139 Austria, Litigation Association of NGOs against Discrimination (Klagsverband) (2020), ‘Stage victory for the rights of intersex persons’ 

(‘Etappensieg für die Rechte von intergeschlechtlichen Personen’), 20 July 2020.

140 Austria, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA (2020), ‘Third gender – success after criminal complaint: First birth certificate issued with “inter” ’ 

(‘Drittes Geschlecht - Erfolg nach Strafanzeige: Erste Geburtsurkunde mit “inter” ausgestellt’), 16 July 2020.

141 Germany, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) (2020), Decision of 22 April 2020, BGH XII ZB 383/19, 22 April 2020.

142 Hungary, (2020), Act XXX of 2020 on the amendment of certain laws related to public administration and on donating property (2020. évi 

XXX. törvény egyes közigazgatási tárgyú törvények módosításáról, valamint ingyenes vagyonjuttatásról), 2 July 2020.

143 Hungary, National Legislation (Nemzeti Jogszabálytár) (2020), Art. 33 of Act XXX of 2020, amending Act I of 2010 on civil registration 
procedure (2010. évi I. törvény az anyakönyvi eljárásról). For a translation of the article and its analysis in English, see European 
Commission, European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2020), Flash report – Amendment of the 
provisions on legal recognition of gender, 30 June 2020.

144 ECtHR (2020), Rana v. Hungary, No. 40888/17, 16 July 2020; Háttér (2020), ‘European Court of Human Rights: Hungary should allow legal 

gender recognition for non-citizens’, 16 July 2020.

145 Germany, German Bundestag (Deutscher Bundestag) (2020), Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung� Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum Schutz 

von Kindern mit Varianten der Geschlechtsentwicklung, printed document 19/24686, 25 November 2020.

146 Germany, German Institute for Human Rights (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte) (2020), Stellungnahme Referentenentwurf eines 

Gesetzes zum Schutz von Kindern vor geschlechtsverändernden operativen Eingriffen Referentenentwurf des Bundesministeriums der 
Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz vom 09�01�2020, February 2020.

147 ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), adopted on 7 April 2020 and published on 2 June 2020.

148 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2020), Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of 

Belgium, E/C.12/BEL/CO/5, 26 March 2020.

149 Slovenia, Advocate of the Principle of Equality (Zagovornik načela enakosti) (2020), Special report: The position of intersex people in 
medical procedures (Posebno poročilo: Položaj interspolnih ljudi v medicinskih postopkih), Ljubljana, Zagovornik načela enakosti.

150 Croatia, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (Ustavni Sud Republike Hrvatske) (2020), Decision of the Constitutional Court of 
the Republic of Croatia No. U-I-144/2019 and others (Odluka i rješenje Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske broj: U-I-144/2019 i dr.), 
29 January 2020.

151  Ireland, Houses of the Oireachtas (2015), Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, No� 9/2015. In November 2019, the then Minister for 
Health, Simon Harris, signed the Children and Family Relationships Act (Parts 2 and 3) (Commencement) Order 2019, appointing 4th May 
2020 as the date on which Parts 2 and 3 of the 2015 Act would be commenced.

152 Ireland, Tobin, B. (2020), ‘Assisted reproductive techniques and Irish law – No child left behind?’ Irish Jurist, Vol. 64, 5 May 2020.

153 Slovenia, Advocate of the Principle of Equality (Zagovornik načela enakosti) (2020), Assessment of the discriminatory character of the 

Family Code and the Civil Union Act, 2 December 2020.

154 Poland, Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) (2020), Resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative 
Court of 2 December 2020, Case No� II OPS 1/19, 2 December 2020; Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 February 2020, 
Case No� II OSK 1330/17, 11 February 2020; Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 10 September 2020, Case No� II OSK 1390/18, 
10 September 2020.

155 Poland, Johnson, P. (2020), ‘New ECHR cases about discrimination against same-sex couples in Poland’, 24 July 2020.

156 See also FRA bulletins at Fundamental rights implications of COVID-19.

157 Belgium, Cavaria (2020), The impact of COVID-19 on LGBTI-persons: A call for policy makers (De impact van COVID-19 op LGBTI-personen: 

een oproep aan beleidsmakers), Ghent, Cavaria.

158 Belgium, Cavaria (2020), ‘Research LGBTI+ and COVID-19: The results’ (‘Onderzoek LGBTI+ & COVID-19: resultaten’), 27 May 2020.

92

93

159 Spain, National Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transexuals and Bisexuals (Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gais, Trans y Bisexuales) 

(2020), Report 2020: Impact of the state of emergency caused by COVID-19 on the FELGTB’s rainbow information, guidance and service 
line (Informe 2020. Impacto del estado de alarma provocado por el COVID-19 en el servicio de información, orientación y atención línea 
arcoiris de FELGTB), Madrid, FELGTB.

160 Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘Homophobia at work not taken seriously enough’ (Holebifobie op de werkplek wordt te weinig serieus genomen), 

15 May 2020.

161 Finland, Amnesty International Finland (2020), ‘Coronavirus and human rights in Finland: Amnesty monitors these issues’ (‘Koronavirus ja 

ihmisoikeudet Suomessa: näitä asioita Amnesty seuraa’).

162 Spain, Ministry of Equality (Ministerio de Igualdad) (2020), Opening doors: the LGTBI group facing COVID-19: Resource guide for coping 
with exclusion and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity during the COVID-19 crisis (Abriendo puertas: el 
colectivo LGTBI frente al COVID-19. Guía de recursos para hacer frente a la exclusión y a discriminaciones por orientación sexual 
e identidad de género durante la crisis por COVID-19); Madrid, Ministry of Equality (Ministerio de Igualdad) (2020), Quick guide for victims 
of hate crimes because of LGTBI-phobia (Guía rápida para victimas de delitos de odio por LGTBIFOBIA); Madrid, Ministry of Equality 
(Ministerio de Igualdad) (2020), Quick guide for victims of intragender violence during the state of emergency (Guía rápida para víctimas 
de violencia intragénero durante la vigencia del estado de alarma).

163 Sweden, Ministry of Employment (Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet) (2020), ‘Measure to meet increased vulnerability due to the new 

corona virus’ (‘Satsning för att möta ökad utsatthet i samband med det nya coronaviruset’), 1 April 2020. For more information on the 
Swedish government’s measures to meet increased vulnerability as a result of the pandemic, see FRANET (2020), Country study, 4 May 
2020.

164 Portugal, Parliament (2020), Resolution 69/2020, 10 July 2020.

165 Portugal, Público (2020), ‘Pride LGBTI+ Parade from Lisbon launches new campaign to help those in need’ (‘Marcha do Orgulho LGBTI+ de 

Lisboa lança nova campanha para auxiliar os mais aflitos’), 21 September 2020.

92

93

RACISM, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED 
INTOLERANCE

4

4�1� 

DISCRIMINATION, HATE AND VIOLENCE REMAIN POWERFUL SCOURGES  97

4�1�1�  EXTREMISM AND EXTREMIST VIOLENCE 

4�1�2�  HATE CRIME 

4�1�3�  HATE SPEECH 

4�1�4�  ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION AND INTOLERANCE 

4�1�5�  SPOTLIGHT ON RACISM IN POLICING 

4�2� 

IMPLEMENTING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AGAINST RACISM, 
XENOPHOBIA, ANTISEMITISM AND RELATED INTOLERANCE 

4�2�1�  EU POLICY DEVELOPMENTS: TOWARDS A MORE HOLISTIC APPROACH 

4�2�2�  RACIAL EQUALITY DIRECTIVE 

4�2�3�  FRAMEWORK DECISION ON RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA 

4�2�4�  COURTS ADDRESS HATE SPEECH AND HATE CRIME 

4�3�  NATIONAL EFFORTS TO TACKLE RACISM, ANTISEMITISM AND 

XENOPHOBIA, EXTREMISM AND HATE CRIME 

4�3�1�  NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND STRATEGIES 

4�3�2�  BEYOND ACTION PLANS: DIVERSE NATIONAL ACTIONS 

TARGET HATE AND EXTREMISM 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

94

97

98

98

99

100

102

102

103

104

106

107

107

109

110

113

95

UN & CoE

23 

January

UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) publishes its 
concluding observations on the combined 22nd to 24th periodic reports of Ireland�

12

27 

February

Council of Europe’s (CoE’s) Committee of Ministers adopts 
the Resolution on the implementation of the Framework 
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Finland�

CoE’s European Commission against Racism and 
Intolerance (ECRI) publishes its 2019 annual report�

17

18

19

31 

March

ECRI publishes its 
sixth monitoring 
report on Germany�

ECRI publishes its 
sixth monitoring 
report on Belgium�

ECRI publishes its conclusions 
on the implementation of 
priority recommendations in 
respect of Luxembourg�

CoE’s Commissioner for Human Rights 
publishes recommendations on 
racism, intolerance and discrimination 
in her report on a visit to Bulgaria�

2

15 

17 

June

ECRI publishes its sixth 
monitoring report on 
Austria, and conclusions 
on the implementation of 
priority recommendations 
in respect of Denmark 
and Serbia�

UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms 
of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia 
and related intolerance reports on ‘Combating 
glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other 
practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary 
forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia 
and related intolerance’�

UN Human Rights Council adopts a 
resolution on ‘The promotion and 
protection of the human rights and 
fundamental freedoms of Africans 
and of people of African descent 
against police brutality and other 
violations of human rights’� 

2

July

UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, 
xenophobia and related intolerance publishes the report on her visit to the 
Netherlands� 

1

September

In R. R. and R. D. v. Slovakia (No� 20649/18), European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 
rules that failing to investigate the applicants’ allegation of police racism violated 
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (prohibition of 
discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR (prohibition of torture)� 

8

October 

In Ayoub and Others v. France (Nos� 77400/14, 34532/15 and 34550/15), ECtHR rules 
that the dissolution of paramilitary-type far right associations did not violate their 
freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 of the ECHR), examined in light of 
their freedom of expression (Article 10)� 

24

November 

CERD publishes General recommendation No� 36 on preventing and combating racial 
profiling by law enforcement officials�

8

December

ECRI publishes its sixth monitoring report on Czechia and Slovakia, and conclusions on 
the implementation of priority recommendations in respect of Sweden� 

95

94

EU

June

19 

24 

European Parliament adopts a resolution on ‘The anti-
racism protests following the death of George Floyd’�

European Commission adopts EU strategy on victims’ 
rights (2020–2025), promoting integrated and targeted 
support to victims with special needs, such as victims 
of hate crimes�

July

24

European Commission adopts new EU security union 
strategy 2020–2025, drawing attention to the growing 
threat of violent right-wing extremism and attacks 
inspired by racism� 

September

18

European Commission publishes ‘A Union of equality: EU 
anti-racism action plan 2020–2025’, its plan to step up 
action against racism in the EU�

October

19

European Commission announces a new “comprehensive 
strategy on combating antisemitism, to complement 
and support Member States’ efforts as part of the Work 
Programme 2021”, in light of increasing antisemitic 
violence and hate crime� 

December

2

15

Council of the EU approves a Council declaration on 
mainstreaming the fight against antisemitism across 
policy areas�

European Commission publishes a proposal for a 
regulation on a single market for digital services 
(Digital Services Act), which among others aims to 
improve the mechanism for the online removal of illegal 
discriminatory and hate speech content�

96

97

The year 2020 was a challenging one� The COVID-19 pandemic 

brought to the surface existing racism, xenophobia and related 

intolerance and exacerbated them� The health crisis was 

increasingly used as a pretext to attack minorities – including 

migrants, people with immigrant backgrounds and Roma – who 

were already subject to racial and ethnic discrimination, hate 

speech and hate crime� The Black Lives Matter movement 

mobilised societies across the globe to address racism and 

discrimination by law enforcement authorities� The European 

Commission adopted its first ever anti-racism action plan, 

setting out concrete measures for tackling racism and ethnic 

discrimination in the EU� A number of EU Member States took 

steps to develop national anti-racism action plans and other 

measures to address extremism, hate crime and hate speech�

“Racism is a poison� Hatred is 
a poison� And this poison exists 
in our society and it has already 
been responsible for far too 
many crimes�”

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, 
statement of 20 February 2020

4�1� 
DISCRIMINATION, HATE AND VIOLENCE REMAIN 
POWERFUL SCOURGES

Racism and prejudice, as well as extremist sentiments and violence, posed 
serious challenges across the EU in 2020. Several people were murdered in 
hate-based and extremist crimes, as in previous years.

4�1�1�  Extremism and extremist violence
In February, a far-right extremist gunman killed nine people at two shisha 
bars in the German city of Hanau.1 The attack underscored that right-wing 
extremism remains a potent threat throughout the EU.

The Irish Network against Racism warned of an increased far-right presence 
online in 2019, targeting asylum seekers, refugees, Muslims and people of 
African descent.2 These same groups continued to be the central focus of 
the Austrian right-wing extremist scene in 2020.3 Portugal also recorded 
a variety of troubling incidents involving nationalist groups.4

Europol, in its most recent report, noted that paramilitary groups emerged 
in several Member States in 2019, “pretexting the impotence of the state 
to protect the population against the perceived threat from Islam and 
immigration”. These Member States included Belgium, France and Slovenia.5

In Denmark, both right-wing and Islamist extremists used COVID-19 as a 
pretext to spread hate.6

Towards the end of the year, several incidents in France and Austria were 
brutal reminders of the continuing danger posed by Islamist extremism. In 
October, a jihadist sympathiser beheaded a French middle-school teacher 
after he showed cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in class.7 A few 
days later, a man entered a church in Nice and stabbed the warden and two 
worshippers.8 In November, a radicalised gunman, with ties to the so-called 
Islamic State (IS), killed four and seriously injured 22 in Vienna, Austria.9

96

97

 
4�1�2�  Hate crime
Hate crime also remained a pervasive scourge throughout the EU.

In Portugal, the Judiciary Police is investigating whether or not the murder 
of a black actor – in July of 2020 – had a racist motive.10

Meanwhile, official data published in 2020 – in Denmark, Finland, and 
Slovakia11 – show a rise in recorded hate crime incidents. A Danish police 
report, for example, shows a 27 % increase in recorded incidents in 2019 
compared with 2018.12 More than half of the 569 criminal offences recorded 
as hate crimes related to race and ethnic origin. Similarly, in Finland 72.3 % 
of a total of 650 recorded incidents in 2019 involved bias against ethnic and 
national background.13

Likewise, data published in 2020 from civil society organisations (CSOs) in 
Belgium14 and Greece15 show high rates of bias-motivated harassment and 
violent incidents in 2019.

4�1�3�  Hate speech
Evidence published in 2020 shows a surge in hate speech targeting migrants 
and ethnic minorities in several Member States in 2019 – particularly online, 
and often by media or political figures. This trend intensified in 2020 with 
the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

National human rights bodies raised concerns about the growing rate of hate 
speech in Belgium,16 Bulgaria17 and Spain18 in 2019. Reporting from Bulgaria 
in 2019, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (CoE) 
warned of “rampant intolerance manifested towards minority groups”.19

Media monitors noted a rise of racist and misogynistic hate speech in Malta.20 
A Spanish non-governmental organisation monitoring Islamophobia showed 
an increase in anti-Muslim hate speech online in 2019.21

Politicians used their platforms and election campaigns to fuel intolerance. 
News media published increasing amounts of hate speech by political 
candidates in 2019, the Irish Network against Racism reported.22 The Bulgarian 
Helsinki Committee highlighted the role of politicians during 2019 in reinforcing 
negative stereotypes and discriminatory perceptions of minority groups.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 further exacerbated the 
problem. Ethnic minority groups became scapegoats, hate speech increased, 
and conspiracy theories proliferated.23

For  example,  the  Belgian  equality  body 
reported  a  surge  in  hate  speech  against 
asylum  seekers,  Jews,  and  Asians.24  The 
Italian police documented an upsurge in 
verbal  assaults  and  hate  speech  against 
Chinese, Filipino and Japanese citizens.25

Racism,  conspiracy  theories  and 
disinformation  proliferated  in  Swedish 
far-right  media  channels.26  In  Germany, 
conspiracy theories about the pandemic’s 
origin and the related restrictions surged 
online.27

Social media content in Austria28 blamed 
migrants and refugees for the spread of 

98

99

PROMISING PRACTICE
Combating hate by 
building awareness
The project ‘Dialogue instead of 
hate’ explores the legal boundaries 
between freedom of expression 
and hate speech through discussion, 
reflection, and role play with hate 
speech offenders. It was developed 
in Austria in cooperation with 
judges and public prosecutors, and 
replicated in Luxembourg.*

In Bulgaria, art serves as the main 
tool in a multimedia awareness-
raising campaign against hate 
crime and hate speech. It was 
developed through public discussions 
in 11 cities, and resulted in urban 
art interventions, a theatrical 
performance, and a virtual video 
documentary.**

* Austria, Neustart, Dialog statt Hass; 
Luxembourg, respect.lu, Dialoguer au 
lieu de haïr.

** Bulgaria, Bulgarian Helsinki 
Committee, No Hate BG: Заедно 
в защита на малцинствата 
и противодействие на 
престъпленията от омраза.

COVID-19, human rights organisations reported. In several Member States, 
the spread of the virus was linked to living conditions in Roma settlements. 
(For more on Roma, see Chapter 5).

Antisemitic rhetoric was also a concern. Such rhetoric was reported in Poland, 
among others.29 The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief also 
warned of the alarming rise in antisemitic hate speech, including conspiracy 
theories, since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis.30

4�1�4�  Ethnic discrimination and intolerance
Hate crime and hate speech are extreme manifestations of discrimination. 
They are part of a wider pattern of prejudice and discriminatory perceptions 
and practices faced by ethnic minorities and migrants throughout the EU.

For example, in a FRA survey covering almost 4,700 Roma and Travellers in 
five EU countries and the United Kingdom, almost half of the respondents 
(45 %) said they felt discriminated against in the 12 months before the 
survey.31 (For more information, see Chapter 5 on Roma.)

Likewise,  findings  of  representative  surveys  in  Denmark32 and  in  the 
Netherlands33 show high levels of perceived discrimination by ethnic minorities 
and descendants of migrants in various domains of life when compared to 
people without a migrant background.

France34 and Belgium35 have high rates of discrimination on grounds of race 
and ethnicity in access to employment, equality bodies report. In Austria, 
reported cases of discrimination in education increased by 36 % between 
2018 and 2019, data published in 2020 show.36 Of these, 44 % concerned 
ethnicity, and 43 % religion and belief.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns emerged about ethnic discrimination, 
especially against persons of Asian origin, in access to healthcare, education 
and housing.37 Small-scale surveys and reports looking into discrimination 
experiences  of  people  of  Chinese  origin  linked  to  COVID-19  revealed 
a high prevalence of racist and xenophobic incidents in Germany,38 in the 
Netherlands,39 and in Spain.40

Research findings based on discrimination testing in Belgium showed an 
increase in discrimination against citizens of Moroccan descent in access to 
rental housing after the first lockdown.41

These figures should come as no surprise in light of evidence of persisting 
discriminatory perceptions of ethnic minorities, religious groups and migrants 
across the EU.

FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey in 2019 addressed people’s views on people 
from selected groups, including Jews, Muslims and Roma.42 On average, in 
the EU-27, 46 % of the respondents to the survey would feel uncomfortable 
having a Roma as a neighbour, 33 % an asylum seeker or a refugee, 32 % 
a Muslim, and 14 % a Jewish person.43

98

99

Notes:

a  Out of all respondents in 

b 

the EU-27 who were asked 
to complete the section 
‘Tolerance and equality’ 
of the Fundamental Rights 
Survey (n = 26,493); 
weighted results.

The question asked in the 
survey was “First, how 
would you feel about having 
someone from one of the 
following groups as your 
neighbour?” Respondents 
could answer by selecting 
a value from a scale, 
ranging from ‘1 – Totally 
uncomfortable’ to ‘7 – Totally 
comfortable’. In addition, 
respondents had the option 
to answer ‘Prefer not to say’ 
or ‘Don’t know’. The results 
presented in the figure 
correspond to answers 1 to 3 
on this scale.

FIGURE 4�1:  PEOPLE WHO FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HAVING 

A NEIGHBOUR FROM SELECTED GROUPS (EU-27, %)a, b

Roma

46

Asylum seeker/refugee

Muslim

Trans person

Gay, lesbian,
bisexual person

33

32

25

20

Jewish person

14

Person with disability

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Source:  FRA, Fundamental Rights Survey 2019 [Data collection in cooperation 

with CBS (NL), CTIE (LU) and Statistics Austria (AT)]

The general populations in Bulgaria,44 Czechia45 and Latvia46 have comparable 
attitudes to Roma, asylum seekers and other minorities, surveys confirm. 
In Slovakia, the COVID-19-triggered lockdown of Roma localities was one 
of the government measures that received the highest support, a 2020 poll 
revealed.47

On the other hand, the global antiracism mobilisations inspired by the Black 
Lives Matter movement have increased the general population’s understanding 
of racism and its impact on individuals. In Austria, for example, 55 % of 
participants in an online survey in 2020 supported more severe punishment 
of racist offences.48 Similarly, 63 % of respondents to an opinion poll for 
a Dutch television programme were in favour of ongoing demonstrations 
against racism.49

4�1�5�  Spotlight on racism in policing
With thousands of people marching in European cities and around the world 
in support of protests in the USA following the death of George Floyd, police 
racism became a more pressing issue in the EU, too.

100

101

The European Parliament issued a resolution recognising past oppression and 
addressing the need to counter institutional racism in the police, including 
racial profiling.50 The European Commission’s new anti-racism action plan urges 
Member States to step up their efforts to prevent discriminatory attitudes 
among law enforcement authorities. The Victims’ Rights Strategy stresses, 
among other things, the need for a safe environment for reporting crime. 51 
(For more information, see Chapter 9 on Access to justice).

Discriminatory profiling based on ethnicity persists, surveys and international 
monitoring bodies’ reports underlined.52 Some countries also reported 
disproportionate enforcement of COVID-19-related restrictions.

One fifth of almost 300 respondents of African descent reported in a survey 
by the Finnish Ombuds institution that they had experienced ethnic profiling 
by police or private security.53

In the Netherlands, in the first nine months of 2020, 168 complaints were 
filed to the police for discriminatory treatment and ethnic profiling by police 
officers.54 A survey asked 750 citizens in Amsterdam how they experience 
contacts with the police. Of the 255 respondents who had had contact with 
the police in the previous 12 months, 48 % believed it was because of their 
ethnic origin, skin colour or appearance.55

Research in Belgium linked ‘police selectivity’ to negative perceptions of 
certain groups.56

Meanwhile, FRA’s Roma and Traveller survey findings show the extent to 
which members of this ethnic minority experience racial profiling by the 
police.57 For more information, see Chapter 5 on Roma.

Eradicating  racial  discrimination  in  policing 
featured in recommendations of the UN Special 
Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism 
following her visit to the Netherlands.58 The 
UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms 
of Racial Discrimination (CERD) also addressed 
racial profiling by the police in its report on 
Ireland.59 So did the CoE’s European Commission 
on Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in country 
monitoring reports on Austria60 and Germany.61 
ECRI also recommended that Slovakia allocate 
adequate funds to investigate racially motivated 
misconduct or violence by the police.62

FRA’s bulletins on the impact of COVID-19 on 
fundamental rights in the EU included allegations 
of disproportionate enforcement of COVID-19-
related restrictions on ethnic minority groups.63 
Human rights organisations across Belgium,64 
France65 and Spain66 also recorded a significant 
increase in police abuse of ethnic minorities 
during pandemic-related lockdowns. They called 
for action against the discriminatory impact of 
checks and sanctions imposed in connection 
with lockdown measures.

Discussions on preventing and countering police 
racism, spurred by cases across the EU and by 
the Black Lives Matter movement, triggered 

101

100

various developments at national level. These include enabling independent 
complaints mechanisms and ensuring accountability and sanctions.

In Germany, criminal investigations and disciplinary proceedings were 
opened against police officers suspected of having shared racist and neo-
Nazi content.67 Furthermore, the German catalogue of measures to combat 
right-wing extremism and racism includes specific measures targeting the 
police, among others to improve exchanges with the Länder on possibilities for 
disciplinary action.68 The new Berlin Anti-Discrimination Act (see Section 4�2�2�) 
allows complaints against police discriminatory treatment.69

Portugal  has  been  developing  a  Discriminatory  Practices  Prevention 
Plan regulating police officers’ recruitment, training, online presence and 
community interaction.70 In addition, a new order prohibits police officers 
from wearing tattoos containing party, extremist and racist symbols, or 
images that encourage violence. Police officers with such tattoos have 180 
days to remove them.71

In France, three police officers face charges including several aggravating 
circumstances, such as ‘racist remarks’, after beating a music producer.72 
In  Belgium,  the  chief  of  the  federal  police  publicly  condemned  racist 
comments made in a closed Facebook group for police officers, and pledged 
to investigate.73

Meanwhile, civil society organisations continued to speak out against ethnic 
profiling in Austria,74 Belgium75 and the Netherlands.76

4�2� 
IMPLEMENTING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
AGAINST RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, ANTISEMITISM 
AND RELATED INTOLERANCE

Action to combat racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and related intolerance 
at EU level rests on an established legal framework dating back more than 
two decades. This includes the Racial Equality Directive and the Council 
Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia.77

In monitoring the application of EU law, the European Commission has often 
called on Member States to fully and correctly enforce the provisions of these 
legal acts in their national frameworks. To support effective implementation 
of the legal protections, the EU in 2020 took decisive steps towards a more 
holistic approach to addressing racism, xenophobia and related intolerance.

4�2�1�  EU policy developments: towards a more holistic approach
In 2020, the EU stepped up its efforts to act against racism by adopting the 
first EU anti-racism action plan, for 2020–2025.78 The action plan addresses 
both individual and structural forms of racism, sets out a series of measures, 
including mainstreaming combating racism in all EU policies, and calls for 
closer and regular coordination and consultation. 

Racism, bias-motivated violence and harassment, and protection and support 
for victims of hate crime feature in a number of other key strategic documents 
that the European Commission adopted in 2020. These include the EU’s strategy 
on victims’ rights (2020–2025),79 the new EU Roma strategic framework,80 
and the new Security Union strategy 2020–2025.81 The Commission’s action 
plan on integration and inclusion 2021–2027 stresses that national integration 
strategies should be aligned with national action plans against racism and 
racial discrimination.82 (For more information, see Chapter 3 on Equality.)

PROMISING PRACTICE
Tackling racial 
profiling
‘You look like someone we are 
looking for’ is a project by Skåne’s 
City Mission in collaboration with 
Malmö against Discrimination (anti-
discrimination office). It targets 
young people at risk of racial profiling 
in Sweden. The project aims to raise 
awareness, offer legal help, and 
address the invisibility of the racial 
profiling by collecting victims’ stories 
in a book to give them a voice.

See Sweden, Skånes Stadsmission, 
‘Du ser ut som någon vi leter efter – 
Rasprofilering utifrån ungas egna 
röster’.

“It is not enough to be against 
racism� We have to be active 
against it�”

European Commission, A Union of 
equality: EU anti-racism action plan 
2020–2025, 18 September 2020

102

103

 
In 2020, the Council of the EU adopted a declaration on mainstreaming the 
fight against antisemitism. It stressed that “[t]he fight against antisemitism 
is a cross-cutting issue involving various levels of government and policies 
at local, national and European level.”83 It also reaffirmed its call on Member 
States to endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) 
working definition of antisemitism, which is not legally binding. (For more 
information on national developments, see Section 4�1�)

The new EU Security Union strategy 2020–2025 draws attention to the 
growing threat of violent right-wing extremism and attacks inspired by 
racism. It acknowledges that “law enforcement training related to racism and 
xenophobia must be an essential component of an EU culture of security”.84 In 
a dedicated resolution on the strategy, the European Parliament welcomed the 
Commission’s counter-terrorism agenda85 and called on the Commission and 
Member States to implement a holistic approach to countering radicalisation, 
combining security, education, social, cultural and anti-discrimination policies.86

Council conclusions adopted in December underline that the terrorist threat 
“emanates from all types of violent extremism, including religious and 
politically motivated violent extremism, and targets our free and open 
societies”.87

4�2�2�  Racial Equality Directive

Twenty years after the adoption of the Racial 
Equality Directive,88 Member States still need to 
step up efforts to implement its provisions more 
effectively, reports by the European Commission 
and international monitoring bodies underline. The 
directive prohibits discrimination based on ethnic 
or racial origin in the areas of employment and 
occupation, social protection, social advantages, 
education and access to and supply of goods and 
services which are available to the public.

As  part  of  its  close  monitoring  of  the 
implementation of the directive, the European 
Commission  continued  with  infringement 
proceedings concerning discrimination against 
Roma children in education, ongoing in Czechia89, 
Hungary,90 and Slovakia.91

In 2021, the Commission will report on the implementation of the directive, and 
by 2022 it will present legislation required to address possible shortcomings 
identified in the implementation report, including to strengthen the role and 
independence of equality bodies.92 The directive requires all Member States 
to designate an equality body to provide independent assistance to victims of 
discrimination, conduct independent surveys and issue independent reports 
and recommendations.

ECRI raised its concerns about the independence of such bodies in a number 
of Member States, including Austria,93 Germany94 and Spain.95 In Malta, a bill 
aiming to create a National Human Rights Institution, in line with the UN 
Paris Principles, was pending at the end of 2020.96 (For more information, 
see Chapter 3 on Equality.)

ECRI and CERD also expressed their concerns about the complexity and the 
ambiguity of the national legal provisions against ethnic discrimination in 
Austria97 and Ireland.98

102

103

Yet there were also positive legal developments.

In Malta, the new Equality Bill adopts an inclusive definition of harassment, 
and considers it tantamount to discrimination. It also addresses victimisation, 
as laid out in the Racial Equality Directive.99

In the Netherlands, the government initiated a bill requiring employers to 
prevent discrimination, including on race grounds, during recruitment.100 Upon 
its approval by the Dutch parliament, employers will be obliged to implement 
measures aimed at ensuring an objective recruitment process.

In Germany, the Berlin House of representatives adopted an Anti-Discrimination 
Act, which goes beyond the scope of the Racial Equality Directive. It extends 
protection against direct and indirect discrimination and harassment by 
public authorities on a number of grounds, including ethnic origin, racist or 
antisemitic labelling, language, religion and belief.101

4�2�3�  Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia
The Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia defines a common 
criminal law approach to racist and xenophobic hate speech and hate crimes, 
which are among the most severe manifestations of racism and xenophobia.102 
However, 12 years after its adoption, several Member States have not yet 
fully and correctly incorporated its provisions into national law.103

The European Commission initiated infringement procedures against Estonia 
and Romania, alleging that their legislation does not fully and accurately 
transpose the provisions of the Framework Decision.

The Commission noted that the Estonian Criminal Code does not explicitly 
ensure that racist and xenophobic motivations for crimes are taken into 
account as aggravating circumstances. Estonia does not provide for adequate 
penalties for hate speech. It has also failed to transpose the criminalisation 
of public condoning, denying or gross trivialisation of international crimes 
and the Holocaust, as well as to correctly transpose the criminalisation of 
public incitement to violence or hatred against groups.

Conversely, Romania only criminalised incitement to hatred against a group 
of persons defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national 
or ethnic origin, but not when addressed towards an individual member of 
such groups. Moreover, it failed to correctly define hate speech, and did not 
criminalise incitement to violence.104

Romania did make efforts to improve its legal framework on combatting 
racism in 2020, focusing on racism against Roma. Specifically, it initiated 
a draft Law to combat and prevent antigypsyism.105 For more information, 
see Chapter 5 on Roma.

Meanwhile, ECRI identified gaps in the legislation against the public expression 
of and incitement to hatred by persons exercising public office in Belgium.106 
It raised similar concerns in its reports on Austria107 and Serbia.108

Both the CoE Commissioner for Human Rights109 and the Bulgarian Ombuds 
institution110 pointed to deficiencies in the national legal framework for 
combating hate crime in Bulgaria, including the lack of effective measures 
for prosecuting offenders.

Regarding Ireland, CERD recommended that it introduce and enforce “legislative 
provisions that include racist motivation as an aggravating circumstance that 
will result in a penalty enhancement”.111 In November, the Irish Ministry of 

104

105

Justice initiated a bill introducing a statutory aggravation model for hate crime 
offences.112 A public consultation report also revealed that there is a clear 
need for more protection from incitement to hatred.113

The Netherlands amended its Criminal Code to criminalise the incitement to 
hatred, discrimination or violence against persons on grounds such as race, 
religion or belief.114 The Dutch House of Representatives also initiated a draft 
bill increasing penalties by one third for criminal offences with a discriminatory 
motivation on various grounds, including race and religion.115

The Portuguese Minister of Justice announced in December the revision of 
the relevant provisions on hate speech within the Criminal Code.116 Similarly, 
the Minister of Justice of Luxembourg announced the drafting of a bill for 
addressing hate crime as such in the national criminal law.117

Research published in 2020 shows that a large number of complaints involving 
hate speech and hate crime are not prosecuted. In Belgium, this is because of 
the difficulty in identifying the perpetrators or collecting evidence.118 Czechia 
does not systematically monitor online hate speech, so usually only cases 
that gain media visibility are prosecuted.119 In Portugal, the Victim Support 
Association (Apoio à Vítima) proposed a set of recommendations to increase 
the visibility of hate crimes by making the motivation behind them explicit 
in the Criminal Code.120

Beyond the Framework Decision, Member States took other steps to address 
online incitement to hatred and violence.

A law against hate on the internet in Austria entered into force on 1 January 
2021.121 It specifically addresses racist and xenophobic hate on the internet, 
and aims to strengthen the procedural rights of victims of online hate speech – 
for example, by ensuring process support to victims of hate speech on the 
internet and abolishing court costs for victims of hate speech.

104

105

In Germany, pending legislation would make providers responsible for 
reporting content suspected of hate speech on their online platforms.122 
Luxembourg123 plans to make them responsible for ensuring that audiovisual 
material respects the provisions set by the Audiovisual Media Services 
Directive.124

4�2�4� Courts address hate speech and hate crime
In 2020, several decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 
and domestic courts bolstered the fight against hate crime and hate speech. 
Notably, courts reasserted the importance of considering racial or xenophobic 
motives when judging a crime, and set limits for relying on freedom of 
expression to justify hate speech and incitement to hatred.

In R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, the ECtHR condemned Slovakia for failing to 
investigate the alleged ethnic discrimination against the two applicants of 
Roma origin, who had been victims of inhuman or degrading treatment by 
the police.125 The court argued that “State authorities have the additional duty 
to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive […]. Treating racially 
induced violence and brutality on an equal footing with cases that have no 
racist overtones would be to turn a blind eye to the specific nature of acts 
which are particularly destructive of fundamental rights”.126 The ECtHR thus 
found a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction 
with Article 3 (prohibition of torture).

Similarly, the German Federal Court of Justice reiterated the importance of 
always weighing a defendant’s attitude against his or her actions.127 In that 
instance, the defendant had sprayed school buildings with far-right slogans, 
and joined a masked Nazi-inspired torchlight procession. The court established 
xenophobic goals and motivations behind both his crimes, damage to property 
and violation of the prohibition of uniforms under the Assembly Act.

In Ayoub and Others v. France, the ECtHR ruled that the dissolution of 
paramilitary-type far-right associations in France constituted a necessary 
interference in a democratic society.128 It found that “the objectives actually 
promoted and put into practice by the members of these associations, including 
on various occasions by violent means, indisputably contained elements of 
incitement to hatred and racial discrimination aimed in particular at Muslim 
immigrants, Jewish people and homosexuals”.129 Accordingly, the court found no 
violation of their freedom of assembly and association (Article 11), examined 
in the light of their freedom of expression (Article 10).

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of Finland, the activities of such groups 
represent in themselves an abuse of those freedoms.130 More specifically, 
“invoking freedom of association or freedom of expression in order to drive 
down parliamentary democracy, to promote the National Socialist cause, or to 
justify the abuse of a group of people is an abuse of the right of the former, 
since the aim is to overturn democratic structures or essentially reduce other 
fundamental and human rights”.131 The termination of the Nordic Resistance 
Movement, whose writings promoted ethnic agitation and whose activities 
implied illegal violence, was imperative.

In Greece, judges reached a verdict in the Golden Dawn’s trial, which lasted five 
years and covered four cases, with 68 defendants and over 200 witnesses.132 
The court sentenced the party’s leader and six former members of parliament 
to 13 years in prison for “running a criminal organisation”. It found several 
others guilty of affiliation.

In a number of Member States, courts convicted individual political figures 
for hate speech.

106

107

A Dutch party representative had asked his audience whether they wanted 
“more or fewer Moroccans”. The Court of Appeal of The Hague, while noting 
the importance of freedom of expression in political discourse, confirmed that 
politicians are under a special responsibility to avoid statements insulting racial 
or ethnic groups.133 For the purposes of section 137c of the Dutch Criminal 
Code, then, the court clarified that ‘Moroccans’ could qualify as a ‘race’. The 
judgment is not final; an appeal is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

A Czech political party secretary made remarks against lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
trans and intersex persons, Jews and Roma in the restaurant of the Chamber 
of Deputies. The Supreme Court confirmed that the remarks still amounted 
to public incitement to hatred and approval of genocide.134 It argued that 
“speeches by political officials made on the premises of Parliament, though 
not publicly accessible, send a signal about how the elites are able to behave 
and thereby shape generally perceived patterns of behaviour”.

4�3� 
NATIONAL EFFORTS TO TACKLE RACISM, 
ANTISEMITISM AND XENOPHOBIA, EXTREMISM 
AND HATE CRIME

4�3�1�  National action plans and strategies
In 2001 the UN World Conference against racism called on countries to develop 
and elaborate national action plans against racism.135 Some 20 years later, 
the EU and Member States took steps towards establishing a “framework for 
delivery”. The EU anti-racism action plan “encourages all Member States to 
develop and adopt national action plans against racism and racial discrimination 
by the end of 2022” and sets out to develop common guiding principles for 
national action plans in 2021.136

In 2020, more Member States than in previous years took steps towards 
developing national anti-racism strategies (see Table 4�1). National parliaments 
also played a role. For example, in Luxembourg137 and Portugal,138 they adopted 
motions calling on the governments to develop a strategy against racism.

National approaches are diverse.

Austria is developing both a broader action plan against racism and one 
against antisemitism.139 Belgium has taken steps to adopt a national strategy 
that builds up on policy initiatives at local and regional levels.140 The existing 
strategy in Lithuania141 was extended. In Slovakia,142 a new strategy is under 
development following an evaluation of the previous one.

A closer look, however, shows some weaknesses, which could negatively 
affect their impact, as ECRI and CERD noted. For example, in its report on 
Germany, ECRI raised concern that the national action plan against racism 
“does not contain concrete objectives, measures, timelines, budgets, indicators 
with starting and target values, and the authority and member of staff 
responsible for achieving each objective and implementing each measure”.143 
CERD raised similar concerns in its report on Ireland.144

FRA ACTIVITY
National strategies 
on antisemitism
For the first time, FRA’s annual 
overview of antisemitic incidents 
recorded in the EU provided an 
overview of national strategies on 
antisemitism.

Eleven years after the Council of the 
EU invited Member States to adopt 
and implement holistic strategies 
to prevent and fight all forms of 
antisemitism, some states reported 
that they had national strategies 
or action plans in place (Czechia, 
Germany, Finland, France, Poland 
and Sweden). Others stated that 
they are in the process of developing 
such documents (Austria, Bulgaria, 
Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Romania 
and Slovakia).

FRA’s report also provides 
information on how national, 
regional or local authorities use 
the non-legally binding working 
definition of antisemitism adopted 
by the International Holocaust 
Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

For more information, see 
FRA (2020), Antisemitism – Overview 
of antisemitic incidents recorded 
in the European Union 2009–2019, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office, 
pp. 87–88.

106

107

 
TABLE 4�1:  EU MEMBER STATES’/CANDIDATE COUNTRIES’ ACTION PLANS AND STRATEGIES AGAINST RACISM, XENOPHOBIA AND 

ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION, 2020

Country code

Period covered

Name of the strategy or action plan in English

AT

BE

BE – Brussels 
Capital Region

CZ

DE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LV

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

RS

MK

Under development National action plan to combat racism and discrimination

2018 onwards

The Austrian strategy for the prevention and countering of violent extremism and de-
radicalisation

Under development National action plan against racism

2019-2020

Brussels action plan to fight against racism and discrimination

2020

Concept on the fight against extremism for 2020

2017 onwards

National action plan to fight racism

2016 onwards

Federal government strategy to prevent extremism and promote democracy

2020-2023

2019-2021

2011 onwards

National action plan against racism and intolerance

National Integration Strategy

National comprehensive strategy against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and 
related intolerance

2019-2021

Action plan to combat hate crimes

Under development National action plan to combat racism and to promote good relations (2021–2022)

2018-2020

2017-2022

National plan against racism and antisemitism (2018–2020)

National plan for combating discrimination

Under development

National plan for protection and promotion of human rights and combating 
discrimination 2021–2027

Under development Anti-discrimination action plan 2021–2023

2011-2020

2017-2020

2019-2021

National social inclusion strategy

The migrant integration strategy

Diversity & integration strategy 2019–2021

Under development Action Plan Against Racism for Ireland

2020-2021

2021-2023

2019-2020

National integration plan for persons entitled to international protection

Action plan for promotion of non-discrimination

National identity, civil society and integration policy implementation plan

2016 onwards

National anti-discrimination action programme

2018-2021

Action plan labour market discrimination

Under development National equality plan for 2021–2030

2015-2020

Strategic plan for migration

Under development National action plan against racism and discrimination

Under development

National strategy on preventing and combating antisemitism, xenophobia, radicalisation and 
incitement to hate speech

2016 onwards

National plan to combat racism, similar forms of hostility and hate crime

2019-2023

Resolution on the national programme for the prevention and suppression of crime 2019–
2023

2020-2024

Strategy on combating extremism for years 2020–2024

Under development

Strategy against discrimination

2016-2020

2016–2020 national equality and non-discrimination strategy

Under development Action plan for implementation of ECRI 2016 recommendations for North Macedonia

Note: Information based on input by FRA’s national liaison officers (December 2020).

Source:  FRA, 2020

108

109

4�3�2�  Beyond action plans: diverse national actions target hate and 
extremism

Combating hate crime

In addition to efforts towards designing national action plans, Member States 
also reported targeted measures for combating hate crime.

Lithuania established a working group to promote effective responses to 
hate crime and hate speech. Its plan for 2020-2022 covers strengthened 
cooperation with civil society organisations, dialogue with communities at 
risk of hate victimisation, and strengthening the abilities of law enforcement 
agencies to recognise hate crime and hate speech.145 In addition, the General 
Prosecutor’s Office updated its recommendations on the organisation of 
pre-trial investigation and published a list of prosecutors who specialise in 
hate crime and hate speech.146

Efforts to improve national hate crime recording were also made in Belgium 
and Ireland, where in 2020 FRA and the ODIHR facilitated national diagnostic 
workshops.147

Furthermore, Austria’s police and judicial administration started technical 
implementation of systemic collection of bias motives in their databases.148 
In Slovenia, a working group of prosecutors introduced a working definition 
of ‘hate crime’, aimed at helping to flag hate crime, without affecting the 
legal classification of a criminal offence.149

Extremism

There were also developments in addressing extremism in a number of 
Member States.

In Germany, following the attack in Hanau, the Federal Cabinet established 
a commission for combating right-wing extremism and racism, appointed an 
independent expert body on hostility against Muslims, and adopted a package 
outlining measures to combat right-wing extremism and racism.150

In the aftermath of the November terrorist attack in Vienna, the Austrian 
government announced a new comprehensive package against all forms 
of terrorism.151

To counter emerging paramilitary groups, Slovenia amended its provisions on 
border controls and public order. Conduct by individuals or groups that gives 
the impression that they are performing police duties during state border 
controls is now subject to fines.152 Courts also addressed extremism, and ruled 
to dissolve paramilitary groups. For more information, see Section 4�2�4�

108

109

FRA opinions

FRA OPINION 4�1

EU Member States should fully and 
correctly  transpose  and  apply  the 
Framework  Decision  on  Racism 
and  Xenophobia  to  criminalise 
racist hate crime and hate speech� 
Accordingly,  Member  States  shall 
take  the  necessary  measures  to 
ensure that a racist or xenophobic 
motive is considered an aggravating 
circumstance or, alternatively, that 
the courts may take such a motive 
into consideration in determining the 
penalties�

In addition to fully transposing and 
enforcing EU legislation on fighting 
hate crime, Member States should 
put measures in place that encourage 
victims and witnesses to come forward 
and report hate crime� They should 
also strengthen the ability of national 
law enforcement systems to correctly 
identify and record hate crime�

The  Council  Framework  Decision  on  Racism  and 
Xenophobia (2008/913/JHA) sets out a common criminal 
law approach to certain forms of racism and xenophobia 
that amount to hate speech and hate crime. The European 
Commission initiated infringement procedures against 
two Member States that had not fully and correctly 
incorporated the Framework Decision into national law.

International monitoring bodies similarly revealed legal 
gaps in the criminal codes of a number of Member States 
as regards hate speech or the criminalisation of racial 
or xenophobic motivation as aggravating circumstance. 
Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 
and national high courts set limits on relying on freedom 
of speech to justify hate speech and incitement to hatred.

Racism and extreme right-wing sentiments continued to 
pose serious challenges across the EU in 2020. Several 
people were murdered in hate and extremist crimes, 
following a trend seen in previous years. International 
and national human rights bodies raised concerns about 
the growing rate of hate speech online, often perpetrated 
by media or political figures, and targeting migrants and 
ethnic minorities.

Ethnic  minorities,  including  migrants,  increasingly 
experience discrimination across different areas of life, 
and discriminatory perceptions and stereotypes persist 
among the general public, survey findings revealed. These 
trends intensified with the outbreak of the COVID-19 
pandemic, as FRA and others reported.

110

Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits 
any discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin and 
race. Similarly, the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/
EC) prohibits any discrimination on grounds of ethnic or 
racial origin in access to education; employment; services, 
including  housing;  and  social  protection,  including 
healthcare. A number of EU Member States still do not 
implement the directive’s provisions correctly, reports of 
the European Commission and of international human 
rights monitoring bodies show.

The Commission continued infringement procedures 
against Member States that discriminated against Roma 
children in education. Meanwhile, international human 
rights bodies raised concerns about the independence 
of the equality bodies established by the Racial Equality 
Directive.

FRA OPINION 4�2

EU Member States should significantly 
improve  the  effectiveness  of 
their  measures  and  institutional 
arrangements for applying fully and 
correctly the Racial Equality Directive� 
In particular, Member States should 
enhance the independence of equality 
bodies� They should ensure that such 
bodies are appropriately mandated 
and resourced to fulfil effectively the 
tasks assigned to them in the EU’s non-
discrimination legislation�

Whereas some forms of ethnic profiling can be legal, 
discriminatory profiling contradicts the principles of 
the  International  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of 
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and other 
international  standards,  including  those  embodied 
in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) 
and related jurisprudence of the ECtHR, as well as the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 11 (3) of the 
Police Directive (2016/680) on automated individual 
decision-making prohibits “[p]rofiling that results in 
discrimination against natural persons on the basis of 
special categories of personal data”. These include data 
revealing racial or ethnic origin and religious beliefs, and 
genetic and biometric data.

Discriminatory profiling based on ethnicity persists in 
the EU, as previous fundamental rights reports noted, 
and  surveys  and  international  monitoring  bodies’ 
reports attest. Some countries reported disproportionate 
enforcement of COVID-19-related restrictions with respect 
to ethnic minority groups. Discussions of preventing and 
countering police racism, spurred by cases across the 
EU and by the Black Lives Matter movement, triggered 
developments at both EU and national levels.

FRA OPINION 4�3

EU Member States should adopt the 
necessary measures to prevent and 
eradicate  discriminatory  attitudes 
among  police  officers�  This  can 
be  done  by  assessing  existing 
safeguards against institutional forms 
of  discrimination,  including  clear 
mission statements, robust systems 
of performance review with regard to 
preventing institutional discrimination, 
and inclusive and effective independent 
complaint mechanisms�

Specific, practical and ready-to-use 
guidance against discriminatory ethnic 
profiling by police officers exercising 
their duties should be issued by law 
enforcement authorities, included in 
standard operating procedures and 
codes of conduct, and systematically 
communicated to frontline officers�

111

In 2020, the EU stepped up its efforts to act against racism. 
The European Commission adopted its first EU anti-racism 
action plan, for 2020–2025. It also addressed racism, 
bias-motivated harassment and violence, and protection 
and support for victims of hate crime in a number of 
other policy instruments, including the EU’s strategy 
on victims’ rights 2020–2025 and the new EU Roma 
strategic framework.

Almost 20 years after the UN World Conference against 
racism called on countries to develop and elaborate 
national  action  plans  against  racism,  the  European 
Commission encouraged all EU Member States to develop 
and adopt national action plans against racism and racial 
discrimination by the end of 2022. In 2020, a number of 
Member States took steps towards developing national 
action plans to fight racism, xenophobia and related 
intolerance.

International monitoring bodies, however, raised concerns 
about weaknesses in the design of such national action 
plans, noting that these could negatively affect their 
implementation, impact and monitoring. Some fail to 
address racism comprehensively; many lack precision 
in defining concrete steps; and there is a shortage of 
means to meet the objectives, of benchmarks and of 
indicators to measure progress.

FRA OPINION 4�4

EU Member States are encouraged to 
develop dedicated national action plans 
to fight racism, racial discrimination, 
antisemitism, xenophobia and related 
intolerance� Implementing such plans 
would  provide  EU  Member  States 
with an effective framework towards 
meeting their obligations under the 
Racial  Equality  Directive  and  the 
Framework Decision on Combating 
Racism and Xenophobia�

In line with the EU anti-racism action 
plan,  EU  Member  States  should 
consider developing national plans 
in a participatory manner, involving 
regional and local authorities, equality 
bodies and civil society� Moreover, 
the  impact  and  effectiveness  of 
actions taken should be regularly and 
transparently assessed, pursuant to 
clear goals and timelines, informed by 
evidence and by using performance 
indicators�

112
112

113

Index of country 
references
AT  97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 105, 107, 109

BE  97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 

107, 109

BG  98, 100, 104

CZ  100, 103, 105, 107

DA  97, 98, 99

Endnotes

1  Germany, Federal Public Prosecutor General (Generalbundesanwalt) (2020), 
‘Mitteilung zum Stand des Ermittlungsverfahrens wegen des Anschlages in 
Hanau am 19. Februar 2020’, press release, 20 February 2020.

2 

Ireland, Irish Network against Racism (2020), Reports of racism in Ireland 2019.

3  Austria, Federal Ministry of the Interior (2020), Report on the Protection of the 

Constitution 2019 (Verfassungsschutzbericht 2019), p. 86.

4  European Network against Racism (ENAR) (2020), ‘Urgent solidarity call to 

support Portuguese anti-racist activists’, 3 September 2020.

5  Europol (2020), Terrorism situation and trend report 2019 (TE-SAT), June 2020, 

p. 18.

6  Denmark, Danish Centre for Prevention of Extremism (Nationalt Center for 
Forebyggelse af Ekstremisme), Danish right-wing extremist groups under 
COVID-19: Propaganda and incitement to violence (Danske højreekstremistiske 
miljøer under COVID-19: Propagandasammenhænge og voldsopfordringer), 
June 2020.

DE  97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 

7  France, Ministry of the Interior (Ministère de l’intérieur), ‘Hommage national 

EE  104

ES  98, 99, 101, 103

FI  98, 101, 106

FR  97, 99, 101, 102, 106

GR  98, 106

HU  103

IE  97, 98, 101, 103, 104, 107, 109

IT  98

LT  107, 109

LU  105, 106, 107

LV  100

MT  98, 103, 104

NL  99, 101, 102, 104, 105

PL  99

PT  97, 98, 102, 105, 107

RO  104

RS  104

SE  98

SI  97, 109

SK  98, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107

UK  99

rendu à Samuel Paty’, 21 October 2020.

8  France, Government (Gouvernement) (2020), ‘Cérémonie d’hommage national 

aux victimes de l’attentat du 29 octobre 2020’, 7 November 2020.

9  Austria, Federal Chancellery (2020), ‘Austrian Federal Chancellor Sebastian 
Kurz’ speech on the terror attack on 2 November 2020’, November 2020.

10  Portugal, Commission for Equality and against Racial Discrimination (Comissão 

para a Igualdade e Contra a Discriminação Racial) (2020), press release 
(Comunicado), 27 July 2020.

11  Slovakia, Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic (Ministerstvo vnútra SR) 

(2020), Štatistika kriminality v Slovenskej republike za rok 2020.

12  Denmark, Danish National Police (Rigspolitiet) (2020), Hadforbrydelser i 2019 – 

Rigspolitiets årsrapport vedrørende hadforbrydelser, 7 October 2020.

13  Rauta, J. (2020), Hate crimes reported to the police in Finland in 2019 (Poliisin 

tietoon tullut viharikollisuus Suomessa 2019), Reports of the Police University 
College of Finland 16/2020, Tampere.

14  Belgium, Collective against Islamophobia in Belgium (Collectif contre 

l’islamophobie en Belgique) (2020), Annual report 2019 (Rapport d’activités 
2019).

15  Greece, Racist Violence Recording Network (2020), Annual report 2019.

16  Belgium, Unia (2020), Statistics report 2019 (Cijferverslag 2019), 22 June 2020.

17  Bulgaria, Ombuds institution of the Republic of Bulgaria (Омбудсман на 
Република България) (2020), Annual report of the work of the Ombuds 
institution in 2019 (Годишен доклад за дейността на Омбудсмана 2019 г.), 
Sofia, Ombuds institution of the Republic of Bulgaria.

18  Spain, National Ombuds institution (Defensor del Pueblo) (2020), ‘El Defensor 
asegura que el derecho de las minorías al uso de la lengua propia está 
plenamente garantizado por la constitución’, press release, 12 March 2020.

19  Council of Europe (CoE), Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of 

Europe (2020), Report following her visit to Bulgaria from 25 to 29 November 
2019, 31 March 2020.

20  Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2020), Monitoring media 

pluralism in the digital era: Application of the media pluralism monitor in the 
European Union, Albania and Turkey in the years 2018–2019, Fiesole, European 
University Institute.

21  Spain, Observatory of Islamophobia in the Media (Observatorio de la 

Islamofobia en los Medios) (2020), ‘Islamofobia y delitos de odio: Mecanismos 
de denuncia’, 14 January 2020.

22  Ireland, Irish Network against Racism (2020), Reports of racism in Ireland 2019.

23  FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 

implications, July 2020.

24  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘COVID-19: Human Rights Put to the test’ (COVID-19: Les 

droits humains mis à l’épreuve).

25  FRA (2020), Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications. 

Italy, 2 July 2020.

26  Sweden, Expo (2020), “A tsunami of hatred” – Racism, conspiracy theories and 
disinformation in the tracks of the corona crisis (“En tsunami av hat” – Rasism, 
konspirationsteorier och disinformation I coronakrisens spår).

112

113

27  Germany, Federal Association of Departments for Research and Information on Antisemitism (Bundesverband der Recherche-und 

Informationsstellen Antisemitismus) (2020), Antisemitismus im Kontext der Covid-19-Pandemie, Berlin.

28  Austria, Anti-Discrimination Office Styria (Anti-Diskriminierungsstelle Steiermark), BanHate.

29  Pankowski, R., Tatar, A. and Dzięgielewski, J. (2020), Wirus nienawiści: Brunatna Księga czasu epidemii, Warsaw, ‘Never Again’ 

Association (Stowarzyszenie “Nigdy Więcej”), May 2020.

30  OHCHR (2020), ‘Rise in antisemitic hatred during COVID-19 must be countered with tougher measures, says UN expert’, press release, 

17 April 2020.

31  FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers in six countries, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

32  Denmark, Ministry of Immigration and Integration (Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet), The Citizenship Survey 2020 

(Medborgerskabsundersøgelsen 2020).

33  Andriessen, I., Hoegen Dijkhof, J.L., Van der Torre, A., Van den Berg, E., Pulles, I.,Iedema, J. and De Voogd-Hamelink, M. (2020), Perceived 

discrimination in the Netherlands II (Ervaren discriminatie in Nederland II), Den Haag, Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. See also 
Netherlands, House of Representatives, (TweedeKamer) (2020), ‘Discrimination rates in 2019’ (Discriminatiecijfers in 2019) 28 April 2020 
and ‘Cabinet approach to discrimination’ (Kabinetsaanpak van discriminatie) 15 June 2020.

34  France, Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits) (2020), Discriminations et origines: L’urgence d’agir, 15 June 2020.

35  Belgium, Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue and Unia (2020), Socio-economic monitoring 2019: Labour 

markets and origin (Socio-economische monitoring: Arbeidsmarkt en origine 2019).

36  Austria, Initiative for an Education System free of Discrimination (Initiative für ein diskriminierungsfreies Bildungswesen, IDB) (2020), 

Discrimination in the Austrian education sector – Report 2019 (Diskriminierung im österreichischen Bildungswesen – Bericht 2019), p. 12.

37  FRA (2020), ‘Fundamental rights implications of COVID-19’.

38  Germany, Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes) (2020), Diskriminierungserfahrungen im 

Zusammenhang mit der Corona-Krise, Berlin, May 2020.

39  Netherlands, Avrotos (2020), ‘“Stinkchinees!” Dit is wat Chinese Nederlanders naar hun hoofd geslingerd krijgen sinds het uitbreken van 

het coronavirus’, 13 February 2020.

40  Spain, Council for the Elimination of Racial or Ethnic Discrimination (Consejo para la Eliminación de la Discrimación Racial o Étnica) (2020), 
Recommendation for avoiding discriminatory attitudes and discourses in the current context of the health, social and economic crisis 
(Recomendación Evitar actitudes y discursos discriminatorios en el actual contexto de crisis sanitaria, social y económicaRecomendación 
Evitar actitudes y discursos discriminatorios en el actual contexto de crisis sanitaria, social y económica), 13 April 2020.

41  Belgium, Feron, L. (2020), ‘Corona increases rental discrimination against Moroccan Belgians’, VUB Press, 15 October 2020.

42  FRA (2020), Fundamental Rights Survey 2019. Data collection in cooperation with CBS (NL), CTIE (LU) and Statistics Austria (AT).

43  Note that results vary between Member States. See FRA (2020), Fundamental Rights Survey 2019. Data collection in cooperation with 

CBS (NL), CTIE (LU) and Statistics Austria (AT).

44  Bulgaria, Center for the Study of Democracy (Център за изследване на демокрацията) (2020), ‘How far-right messages on the 

internet reach and influence young people in Bulgaria’ (Как крайнодесните послания в интернет достигат и влияят на българските 
младежи), Sofia; and Ivanova, E., Dimotrova, B. and Abdullah, A. (2020), ‘Majority and minorities – attitudes towards the different’ 
(‘Мнозинство и малцинства – нагласи към различните’), Alpha Research, 30 March 2020.

45  Czechia, Holas, J. (2020) ‘Security, criminality and prevention’ (‘Bezpečí, kriminalita a prevence’), Prague, Institute of Criminology and Social 

Prevention.

46  Latvia, Interdepartmental Coordination Center (Pārresoru koordinācijas centrs) (2020), Latvia National Development Plan 2021-2027’ 

(Latvijas Nacionālais attīstības plans 2021–2027.gadam), Riga, 4 February 2020.

47  Slovakia, Institute for research in social communication SAV (Ústav výskumu sociálnej komunikácie SAV), Vláda dostala od občanov 

slabšiu dvojku, press release, 5 May 2020.

48  Beinschab, S. (2020), Racism report: A study on the perception of racism in Austria (Rassismus Report: Eine Studie über die Wahrnehmung 

von Rassismus in Österreich), July 2020.

49  Kester, J. (2020), Onderzoek: Racisme in Nederland. EenVandaag Opiniepanel Rapport, 15 June 2020.

50  European Parliament (2020), Resolution of 19 June 2020 on the anti-racism protests following the death of George Floyd 

(2020/2685[RSP]).

51  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020–2025, COM(2020) 565, Brussels, 18 September 2020, 

p. 7; European Commission (2020), EU Strategy on victims’ rights 2020–2025, COM(2020) 258, Brussels, 24 June 2020, pp. 4–5.

52  Previous fundamental rights reports reported on this, see: FRA (2020), Fundamental Rights Report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office; 
FRA (2019), Fundamental Rights Report 2019, Luxembourg, Publications Office. See also CoE, ECRI, Statement on racist police abuse, 
including racial profiling, and systematic racism.

53  Finland, Non-Discrimination Ombuds institution (Yhdenvertaisuusvaltuutettu/diskrimineringsombudsmannen) (2020), ‘Selvitys 

afrikkalaistaustaisten henkilöiden kokemasta syrjinnästä’ (‘A study on discrimination experienced by persons of African descent’), 
Helsinki, 9 June 2020.

54  RTL Nieuws (2020), ‚Meer klachten over racistisch optreden agenten, politie erkent zelden schuld‘, news release, 28 November 2020.

55  Kuppens, J. and Ferwerda, H. (2020), The experiences and opinions of citizens concerning the police, baseline measurement: Street 

interviews with Amsterdam citizens on police action and ethnic profiling (Ervaringen en meningen van burgers met de politie, nulmeting: 
Straatgesprekken met Amsterdamse burgers over politieoptreden en etnisch profileren), Arnhem, Bureau Beke.

56  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘Research takes a close look at selectivity in police action’ (‘Onderzoek neemt selectiviteit bij politieoptreden onder 

de loep’), 2 July 2020.

57  FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers in six countries, p. 37.

58  UN OHCHR (2020), Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related 

intolerance on her visit to the Netherlands, 2 July 2020.

59  UN, CERD, Concluding observations on the combined fifth to ninth reports of Ireland, 23 January 2020.

114

115

60  CoE, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) (2020), ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 

2 June 2020.

61  CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Germany (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 17 March 2020.

62  CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Slovakia (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 1 October 2020.

63  See in particular FRA (2020), Bulletin #4 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, July 2020. See also CoE, 

ECRI, Statement on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and related government responses on groups of concern to ECRI, 19 May 2020.

64  Ligue des Droits Humains (2020), Abus policiers dans le cadre du confinement: le rapport de Police Watch, 16 June 2020.

65  Human Rights Watch (2020), ‘Open letter to the government of France’, Paris, 13 May 2020.

66  Rights International Spain (2020), ‘COVID-19 health crisis: Racism and xenophobia during the state of alarm in Spain’ (‘Crisis sanitaria 

COVID-19: Racismo y xenofobia durante el estado de alarma en España’), Madrid, Rights International Spain.

67  Germany, Ministry of the Interior of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen) (2020), 

‘Extremistische Chats – Reul verspricht Aufklärung’.

68  Germany, Federal Government (Die Bundesregierung) (2020), Maßnahmenkatalog des Kabinettausschusses zur Bekämpfung von 

Rechtsextremismus und Rassismus, Berlin, 25 November 2020, Nos. 11, 13 and 18.

69  Germany, State Anti-Discrimination Act Berlin (Landesantidiskriminierungsgesetz Berlin), 11 June 2020.

70  Portugal, Inspectorate General of Home Affairs (Inspeção-Geral da Administração Interna) (2020), Discriminatory Practices Prevention Plan 

(Plano de Prevenção de Práticas Discriminatórias nas Forças e Serviços de Segurança).

71  Portugal, Expresso (2020), ‘Polícias portugueses têm seis meses para remover tatuagens racistas e partidárias’.

72  France, Press conference on the Zecler case held by Rémy Heitz, Public Prosecutor at the Tribunal of Paris (Affaire Zecler: l’intégralité de 

la conférence de presse du procureur de Paris), 29 November 2020.

73  Belgium, Vanden Bussche, S. (2020), ‘Racism and incitement to violence in closed police Facebook group’ (Racisme en aanzetten tot 

geweld in gesloten Facebookgroep politie), 31 August 2020.

74  Amnesty International Austria (2020), ‘Open letter as of 6 August 2020: consequent and human rights compliant police reforms’ (‘Offener 

Brief: konsequente und menschenrechtskonforme Polizeireformen’), 6 August 2020.

75  Belgium, Minderhedenforum (2020), ‘Campaign “stop ethnic profiling”’ (‘Campagne “stop etnisch profileren”’), 10 June 2020.

76  Public Interest Litigation Project (2020), ‘Dutch border police in court for ethnic profiling’, press release, 12 June 2018.

77  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or 

ethnic origin, OJ L 180 (Racial Equality Directive); Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain 
forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.

78  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020–2025, COM(2020) 565, Brussels, 18 September 2020.

79  European Commission (2020), EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020–2025), COM(2020) 258, Brussels, 24 June 2020.

80  European Commission (2020), EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation for 2020–2030, COM(2020) 620, 

Brussels, 7 October 2020.

81  European Commission (2020), EU Security Union strategy 2020–2025, COM(2020) 605, 24 July 2020.

82  European Commission (2020), Action plan on integration and inclusion 2021–2027, COM(2020) 758, 24 November 2020, p. 22.

83  Council of the European Union (2020), Council Declaration on mainstreaming the fight against antisemitism across policy areas, 

2 December 2020, p. 5.

84  European Commission (2020), EU Security Union Strategy 2020–2025, COM(2020) 605, 24 July 2020, pp. 9–10.

85  European Commission (2020), A counter-terrorism agenda for the EU: Anticipate, prevent, protect, respond, COM(2020) 795, Brussels, 

9 December 2020.

86  European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the EU Security Union Strategy (2020/2791[RSP]), p. 6.

87  Council of the European Union (2020), ‘Council conclusions on internal security and European police partnership’, 13083/1/20 REV 1, 

Brussels, 24 November 2020, para. 59.

88  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or 

ethnic origin, OJ L 180 (Racial Equality Directive).

89  European Commission (2020), Infringement number 20142174.

90  European Commission (2020), Infringement number 20152206.

91  European Commission (2020), Infringement number 20152025.

92  European Commission, A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020–2025, COM(2020) 565, Brussels, 18 September  2020, p. 6.

93  CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 2 June 2020.

94  CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Germany (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 17 March 2020.

95  CoE, Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2020), Fifth opinion on Spain, 

Strasbourg, CoE, 15 October 2020.

96  Malta, Malta Parliament, No. 97 Bill, Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill, 12 November 2019.

97  CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 2 June 2020.

98  UN, CERD (2020), Concluding observations on the combined fifth to ninth reports of Ireland, 23 January 2020.

99  Malta, Bill 96 of 2019, The Equality Bill, 11 March 2020.

100 Netherlands, House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer), Equal Opportunities Supervision Act (Wet toezicht gelijke kansen bij werving en 

selectie).

101 Germany, State Anti-Discrimination Act Berlin (Landesantidiskriminierungsgesetz Berlin), 11 June 2020.

102 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia 

by means of criminal law.

115

114

103 European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020–2025.

104 European Commission (2020), ‘October infringements package: Key decisions’, press release, 30 October 2020.

105 Romania, Chamber of Deputies (Camerei Deputaților) (2020), Anti-Gypsyism (Anti-Tziganism) Law (Lege privind unele măsuri pentru 

prevenirea și combaterea antițigănismului).

106 CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Belgium (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 2 June 2020, p. 20.

107 CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 2 June 2020, p. 20.

108 CoE, ECRI (2020), ‘ECRI conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Serbia subject to interim follow-up’, 

Strasbourg, CoE, 2 June 2020, p. 5.

109 CoE, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (2020), Report following her visit to Bulgaria from 25 to 29 November 2019, 

31 March 2020.

110 Bulgaria, Ombuds institution of the Republic of Bulgaria (Омбудсман на Република България) (2020), Annual report of the work of the 
Ombuds institution in 2019 (Годишен доклад за дейността на Омбудсмана 2019 г.), Sofia. For an English summary of the report, see 
the website of the Ombuds institution.

111  UN, CERD (2020), Concluding observations on the combined fifth to ninth reports of Ireland, 23 January 2020.

112  Ireland, Criminal Justice (Hate Crime) Bill 2020.

113  Ireland, Department of Justice and Equality (2020), Legislating for hate speech and hate crime in Ireland: Report on the public 

consultation 2020, 17 December 2020.

114 Netherlands, Senate (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal) (2020), ‘Herwaardering strafbaarstelling actuele delictsvormen’.

115  Netherlands, House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal) (2020), Bill by Members Buitenweg and Segers 

amending the Criminal Code in order to introduce discriminatory motivation as a ground of aggravation (Voorstel van wet van de leden 
Buitenweg en Segers tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht in verband met de invoering van het discriminatoir oogmerk als 
strafverzwaringsgrond).

116 Portugal, Criminal Code 1982, 1995 version (Código Penal de 1982 Versão Consolidada Posterior a 1995).

117  Luxembourg (2020), The Luxembourg Government (Le government luxembourgeois), ‘Sam Tanson a participé au Conseil des ministres de 

la Justice de l’Union européenne’, press release, 9 October 2020.

118 Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘How to tackle discrimination and hatred? A task for the court and for society as a whole’ (‘Hoe pak je discriminatie 

en haat aan? Een opdracht voor het gerecht én voor de hele samenleving’), 18 November 2020.

119 Czechia, Office of the Public Defender of Rights (2020), Expressions of hate on the internet and the decision making of Czech courts 

(Nenávistné projevy na internetu a rozhodování českých soudů), Brno.

120 Portugal, Victim Support Association (Apoio à Vítima) (2020), ‘Recommendations for public policies and legislative changes for greater 

effectiveness in combating the phenomenon of hate crimes’ (‘Recomendações para políticas públicas e alterações legislativas para uma 
maior eficácia no combate ao fenómeno dos crimes de ódio’), February 2020.

121  Austria, Federal Act implementing measures taken to combat hate on the Internet (Hate on the Internet Combating Act) (Bundesgesetz, 
mit dem Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung von Hass im Netz getroffen werden (Hass-im-Netz-Bekämpfungs-Gesetz – HiNBG); Federal Law 
Gazette I 148/2020.

122 Germany, Federal Council (Bundesrat) (2020), Act to combat right-wing extremism and hate crime (Gesetz zur Bekämpfung des 

Rechtsextremismus und der Hasskriminalität. Gesetzesbeschluss des Deutschen Bundestages), printed document 339/20, 19 June 2020.

123 Luxembourg, Parliament, Bill amending the amended law of 27 July 1991 on electronic media (Projet de loi portant modification de la loi 

modifiée du 27 juillet 1991 sur les médias électroniques).

124 European Parliament and Council (2018), Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 

2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law regulation or administrative action 
in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing 
market realities, 14 November 2018.

125 ECtHR, R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, No. 20649/18, 1 September 2020.

126 Ibid., [201].

127 Germany, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 3 StR 40/20, 20 August 2020.

128 ECtHR, Ayoub and others v France, No. 77400/14 and others, 8 October 2020.

129 ECtHR, Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244, October 2020.

130 Finland, Supreme Court (Korkein Oikeus), KKO:2020:68, 22 September 2020.

131  Ibid, [41].

132 See, for example, ‘Golden Dawn Watch’ or ‘Jail Golden Dawn’.

133  Netherlands, Court of Appeal of The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag), 22-000007-17, 4 September 2020.

134 Czechia, Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud), 8 Tdo 81/2020, 12 February 2020.

135 UN (2020), World conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance: declaration, September 2001, 
Durban (Durban Declaration). Also echoed by Council of the European Union, Council Declaration on the fight against antisemitism and 
the development of a common security approach to better protect Jewish communities and institutions in Europe, December 2018.

136 European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020–2025, COM(2020) 565, Brussels, 18 September  2020, 

p. 17.

137 Luxembourg, Parliament (La Chambre des Députés) (2020), ‘Motion filed by MP Sven Clement’ (‘Motion déposé par député Clement 

Sven’), 1 July 2020.

138 Portugal, Parliament (Parlamento) (2020), Draft Resolution 292/XIV/1 recommending the design and implementation of a national 

strategy to combat racism (Projeto de Resolução 292/XIV/1 Recomenda a elaboração e implementação de uma estratégia nacional de 
combate ao racismo).

116

117

139 ECRI (2020), Observations by the Republic of Austria in respect of the sixth report by the European Commission against Racism and 

Intolerance (ECRI) on Austria, May 2020.

140 Belgium, Muylle, N. (2020), ‘Outline of action plan against racism approved’ (‘Krijtlijnen voor actieplan tegen racisme goedgekeurd’), 

25 September 2020.

141 The original plan was for 2017–2019, but it was amended to cover 2020 as well. See Lithuania, Ministry of Labour and Social (Socialinės 

Apsaugos ir darbo Ministras) (2020), ‘Dėl nediskriminavimo skatinimo 2017–2020 metų veiksmų plano patvirtinimo’, Vilnius, 18 February 
2020.

142 Slovakia, Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic (Ministerstvo vnútra SR) (2020), Koncepcia boja proti radikalizácii a extrémizmu 

do roku 2024.

143 CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Germany (sixth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, CoE, 17 March 2020.

144 UN, CERD (2020), Concluding observations on the combined fifth to ninth reports of Ireland, 23 January 2020.

145 Lithuania, Minister of the Interior (Lietuvos Respublikos Vidaus reikalų ministras), Order on the Establishments of Work Group No. 1V-162 

(Įsakymas dėl darbo grupės sudarymo), 24 February 2020; see the Work Plan for 2020–2022 of the Work Group for Effective Response 
towards Hate Speech and Hate Crime in Lithuania (Darbo grupės veiksmingam atsakui į neapykantos nusikaltimus ir neapykantos kalbą 
Lietuvoje skatinti 2020–2022 metų veiklos planas).

146 Lithuania, General Prosecutor’s Office (Lietuvos Respublikos Generalinė Prokuratūra) (2020), Methodological recommendations for pre-

trial investigation, organisation and management of hate crime and hate speech (Ikiteisminio tyrimo dėl neapykantos nusikaltimų ir 
neapykantą kurstančios kalbos atlikimo, organizavimo ir vadovavimo jam ypatumų metodinės rekomendacijos), 30 March 2020.

147 See FRA (n.d.), ‘Technical assistance to national law enforcement and criminal justice authorities’.

148 See Austria, Bundesministerium Inneres (n.d.), ‘Projekt zur systematischen Erfassung von Vorurteilsmotiven bei Strafanzeigen („Hate 

Crime“)’; UN Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review (n.d.), ‘Third national report of Austria’, 7 October 2020.

149 Slovenia, Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office (Vrhovno državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije), email, 2 October 2020.

150 Germany, Federal Government (Bundesregierung) (2020), ‘Bundesregierung verstärkt Kampf gegen Rechtsextremismus und Rassismus’, 
18 March 2020; Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community (Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bauen und Heimat) (2020), 
‘Bundesinnenminister Seehofer beruft Mitglieder für Unabhängigen Expertenkreis Muslimfeindlichkeit’, press release, 1 September 2020; 
Federal Government (Bundesregierung) (2020), ‘Maßnahmenkatalog des Kabinettausschusses zur Bekämpfung von Rechtsextremismus 
und Rassismus’, 25 November 2020.

151  Austria, Federal Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt), ‘Bundeskanzler Kurz: Terrorismus und politischen Islam mit allen Mitteln bekämpfen’, 

11 November 2020.

152 Slovenia, The Protection of public order and peace act (Zakon o varstvu javnega reda in miru), 22 June 2006, and subsequent 

modifications.

116

117

ROMA EQUALITY AND INCLUSION

5

5�1� 

TOWARDS A NEW EFFORT TO IMPROVE ROMA LIVES IN THE EU 

5�1�1�  ANTIGYPSYISM AND DISCRIMINATION 

5�1�2�  LITTLE PROGRESS IN CLOSING THE EDUCATIONAL GAP 

5�1�3�  POOR HOUSING CONDITIONS REMAIN A CONCERN 

5�1�4� 

 HEALTH EFFORTS FOCUS ON EMERGENCY RESPONSES, NOT 
LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS 

5�2�  A NEW EU ROMA STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR EQUALITY, 

INCLUSION AND PARTICIPATION UNTIL 2030 

5�2�1�  MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

123

125

128

131

134

135

136

138

140

118

119

UN & CoE

23

27 

January

—  Council of Europe’s (CoE’s) Advisory Committee 

for the Framework Convention for the Protection 
of National Minorities (FCNM) publishes its fourth 
opinion on Poland�

FCNM Advisory 
Committee publishes 
its fourth opinion on 
Portugal�

—  United Nations Committee on the Elimination of 

Racial Discrimination (CERD) publishes its concluding 
observations on Ireland�

20-21

27 

February

1st meeting of 
the Committee of 
Experts on Roma 
and Traveller 
Issues (ADI-ROM)

European Commission 
against Racism and 
Intolerance (ECRI) 
publishes its annual 
report�

17

18 

26 

March

ECRI publishes its sixth 
report on Germany�

ECRI publishes its sixth 
report on Belgium�

UN Committee on 
Economic, Social and 
Cultural Rights (UN CERD) 
issues its concluding 
observations on Belgium�

28 

April

UN Human Rights 
Committee publishes its 
concluding observations 
on Portugal�

14

28

May

—  In Hirtu and others v. France, European Court of 

Human Rights (ECtHR) finds that French authorities, 
who in 2013 forcibly evicted Roma settlers from a 
municipal land, violated the applicants’ rights under 
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) 
and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the 
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)�

—  European Committee of Social Rights unanimously 
votes to issue interim measures against Belgium, 
concerning Romani Travellers whom a large-scale 
police operation targeted�

In A.P. v. Slovakia, ECtHR finds that Slovak authorities 
had violated the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of 
the ECHR (protection against inhuman and degrading 
treatment)� In February 2015, two municipal police 
officers allegedly beat the applicant, of Roma origin, 
while investigating him in relation to a violent crime� 

118

119

UN & CoE

June

2 

ECRI publishes its sixth report on Austria; and its 
conclusions on the implementation of priority 
recommendations in respect of Denmark and Serbia�

September

1

In R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, the ECtHR finds a violation 
of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in 
conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of 
the ECHR, where two applicants claimed they were 
subjected to police violence in 2013 during a large-scale 
police operation in a Roma settlement� 

October

8-9

12

15

23

ADI-ROM discusses 
impact of the COVID-19 
pandemic on Roma and 
Travellers during its 
2nd meeting�

FCNM Advisory 
Committee publishes 
its fifth opinion on 
Hungary, and its fourth 
opinion on Bulgaria�

FCNM Advisory 
Committee publishes its 
fifth opinion on Spain�

Committee of Ministers 
adopts two resolutions 
on the implementation 
of the FCNM by 
Denmark and by 
Poland�

November

5

23

In X and Y v. North Macedonia, where two applicants 
claimed they were subjected to police violence 
during an investigation in May 2014, the ECtHR finds 
a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (prohibition of 
torture), as domestic authorities failed to investigate 
the allegations�

In ERRC and MDAC v. Czech Republic 157/2017, 
European Committee of Social Rights finds a violation 
of Article 17 of the 1961 Charter and concludes 
that Czechia failed to fulfil its obligations to ensure 
appropriate social and economic protection of Roma 
children and children with disabilities�

December

8

ECRI publishes its sixth 
reports on Slovakia and 
Czechia�

120

121

EU

17 

February

European Commission launches a feedback 
period for the Roadmap on EU post-2020 
Roma equality and inclusion policy�

17 

September

European Parliament adopts a resolution 
on the implementation of national Roma 
integration strategies: combating negative 
attitudes towards people with Romani 
background in Europe (2020/2011(INI))� 

7 

8 

12 

October

European Commission adopts the 
new EU Roma strategic framework for 
equality, inclusion and participation until 
2030, including a proposal for a Council 
recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion 
and participation�

International Holocaust 
Remembrance Alliance 
(IHRA) adopts a legally 
non-binding definition 
of ‘antigypsyism’�

During a high-level conference, EU Commission 
launches, together with the German Presidency, 
the new EU Roma strategic framework for equality, 
inclusion and participation until 2030, and reaffirms 
the joint commitment to fight antigypsyism�

120

121

The first EU Framework on National Roma Integration Strategies 

ended in 2020, and the new 10-year strategic framework 

started in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic� The first 

framework brought little overall progress� Evaluations show 

some gains in education and poverty reduction, but none, 

or even deterioration, in crucial areas such as employment, 

healthcare and housing� The new EU Roma Strategic Framework 

for equality, inclusion and participation sets ambitious targets 

in seven key areas: non-discrimination, inclusion, participation, 

education, employment, health and housing� It sets out a 

stronger monitoring framework, with a range of quantifiable and 

measurable targets to track progress� Meanwhile, the pandemic 

affected Roma and Traveller communities disproportionately 

by amplifying inequalities and, in some countries, fuelling 

antigypsyism and anti-Roma prejudice�

122

123

5�1� 
TOWARDS A NEW EFFORT TO IMPROVE ROMA 
LIVES IN THE EU

The EU framework on national Roma integration strategies, which the 
European Commission established, ended in 2020.1 This framework set 
out to make a tangible difference to Roma people’s lives. It asked Member 
States to develop national Roma integration strategies or integrated sets of 
policy measures. They had not reached the ambitious goals in education, 
employment, healthcare and housing by 2020.2

The Commission’s evaluation3 of the framework found that, over the past 
10 years, progress in Roma integration has been limited, even if there are 
significant differences across policy areas and countries. While the framework 
contributed to the development of EU and national instruments and structures 
aiming to promote Roma inclusion, it did not achieve its goal of “putting an 
end to the exclusion of Roma”. 4

FRA data show that Member States made only little progress in the areas 
of education and poverty reduction, and there was no progress, or even 
deterioration, in employment, housing and health. For example, Roma 
participation in compulsory education did increase. Yet school and class 
segregation remains a pressing problem that undermines inclusion and 
access to quality education.5 More needs to be done to ensure the meaningful 
inclusion of Roma and Travellers6 until they can fully enjoy their fundamental 
rights, FRA’s data underline.7

Both the Commission’s evaluation of the framework and its annual assessment 
of the implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategies identified 
key challenges that need to be addressed to increase the effectiveness of 
a new EU framework. These include the need for: better mainstreaming of 
measures and policies, a clear focus on fighting antigypsyism, improving 
partnerships and Roma participation, consideration of diversity among Roma 
(with a focus on Roma women, youth and children), and better target setting, 
data collection and reporting to promote policy learning.

The European Commission launched its new EU Roma strategic framework in 
2020. Seeking to achieve more and faster progress, it promotes equality, socio-
economic inclusion, and meaningful participation of Roma (see Section 5�2 
for more on the new framework).8 This new effort is particularly important 
given that the COVID-19 pandemic both underlined and exacerbated excluded 
and marginalised Roma communities’ exposure to negative health and 
socioeconomic impacts.

122

123

 
Reports by relevant monitoring bodies of the UN and Council of Europe 
(CoE), published in 2020, further highlighted the need for action. These 
reports covered Austria,9 Belgium,10 Bulgaria,11 Czechia,12 Hungary,13 Ireland,14 
Portugal,15 Slovakia16 and Spain.17 Taking due account of country-specific 
differences as regards the general situation of Roma, they reached similar 
conclusions regarding several aspects of the situation of Roma, Travellers 
and Sinti in these countries. Despite some legal and policy developments that 
aimed to improve the situation of Roma, many continue to live on the margins 
of society. Discrimination and social exclusion in education, health, employment 
and housing persist. Many Member States do not effectively address hate 
speech and hate crime. Recommendations point out the importance of 
developing concrete strategies supported by clear targets, and coordination 
and monitoring mechanisms.

Available evaluation and monitoring reports also found that the implementation 
of the national Roma integration strategies up to 2020 shows very limited, 
if any, progress.

For example, in the Netherlands, the Sinti and Roma Inclusion Monitor covers 
the areas of education, work, health, housing, safety, freedom of choice, and 
contact with the local government. It shows that the social inclusion of Roma 
and Sinti still lags behind in all policy areas.18 Poland has achieved none of the 
indicators that its national Roma strategy set for 2016–2020, a government 
evaluation report highlighted.19 Similarly, in Italy, the Civil Society Monitoring 
found no progress in Roma inclusion.20

In Finland, the implementation of policies at local level suffered for lack of 
funding, except for localities with strong Roma civil society organisations.21 
In Cyprus, the Commissioner of Administration and the Protection of Human 
Rights reported that, without basic education and Greek language skills, the 
chances of Roma people to access the labour market are negligible, and their 
economic dependency on the state continues.22

FRA ACTIVITY
COVID-19 pandemic 
widens gap 
and jeopardises 
previous progress
The pandemic affected many Roma 
and Travellers disproportionally – 
particularly those living in socially 
excluded and marginalised settings. 
FRA highlighted this concern in 
September 2020, in its COVID-19 
Bulletin 5 on Roma and Travellers in 
15 EU Member States.

It noted that emergency measures 
did not take into account the poverty 
and marginalisation of Roma and 
Travellers, or their lack of access 
to education, housing and health 
services. Precarious housing was of 
particular concern, as it prevented the 
introduction of effective hygienic and 
social distancing measures.

Antigypsyism also increased in some 
countries during the pandemic. 
Distance education disproportionately 
affected Roma children who have 
no access to the internet and/or 
computers.

However, during the second wave of 
the pandemic, some Member States 
did introduce new targeted measures 
to improve the situation of Roma.

See FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – 
Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – 
Impact on Roma and Travellers.

124

125

In some countries, recent policy developments may influence the future 
prospects of Roma or Travellers inclusion.

For example, in Belgium, in November, the Flemish government announced its 
decision to stop supporting the National Minorities Forum, which implements 
targeted programmes with caravan residents. However, the Council of State 
suspended the implementation order.23

In Ireland, the Prime Minister appointed a senator of Traveller origin to the 
upper house of the Oireachtas (parliament).24 This appointment is the first 
special measure the state has taken to ensure Traveller representation in 
the Irish political system.25 In North Macedonia, a Roma woman was elected 
as a Member of Parliament in July 2020.26 In Slovakia, the new government 
declared its strong commitment to Roma inclusion.27

In 2020, eleven Member States were awarded funding under the EU Rights, 
Equality and Citizenship Programme to establish or further develop their 
national Roma platforms. In Greece and Portugal, the programme plans include 
projects that promote political participation among Roma communities, with 
a special focus on engaging youth and women in national- or local-level 
policy development.28

Meanwhile, the Greek National Commission for Human Rights, in its submission 
to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, called upon the competent 
state authorities to create, in the next National Strategy for the Social 
Inclusion of Roma, monitoring and accountability mechanisms with Roma 
representation.29

5�1�1�  Antigypsyism and discrimination
Antigypsyism remains widespread. Recent data from FRA’s Fundamental Rights 
Survey 2019 underscore this reality. In that survey, almost half of the general 
population across the EU-27 indicated that they would feel uncomfortable 
having Roma or ‘Gypsies’ as neighbours (Figure 5.1).

PROMISING PRACTICE

Empowering 
women as drivers 
of change
The Czech non-governmental 
organisation Slovo21 implemented 
the project ‘Bidaripen/Audacity – 
local Roma leaders’ between April 
and September 2020. It supported 
36 Roma women at the local level 
in some of the most disadvantaged 
localities in Czechia.

Its objective is to empower women 
as drivers of change. They acquired 
the skills necessary to identify the 
needs and requirements for local 
development and how to improve 
the quality of life. They learned how 
to engage with representatives of 
municipalities and other stakeholders. 
The project thus created a network of 
local women leaders, who continue 
to support each other even after the 
project formally ended.

For more information, see Slovo21’s 
webpage on the project.

Defining 
antigypsyism

In October 2020, the International 
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) 
adopted a legally non-binding definition of 
antigypsyism:

“Antigypsyism/anti-Roma discrimination is 
a manifestation of individual expressions 
and acts as well as institutional policies 
and practices of marginalization, exclusion, 
physical violence, devaluation of Roma 
cultures and lifestyles, and hate speech 
directed at Roma as well as other individuals 
and groups perceived, stigmatized, or 
persecuted during the Nazi era, and still 
today, as ‘Gypsies.’ This leads to the treatment 
of Roma as an alleged alien group and 
associates them with a series of pejorative 
stereotypes and distorted images that 
represent a specific form of racism.”

See webpage on the 
IHRA working definition 
of antigypsyism/anti-
Roma discrimination.

124

125

FIGURE 5�1: SHARE OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE HAVING ROMA AS THEIR NEIGHBOURS (%)a,b

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

67

64

57

59

47

46

47

55

53

56

52 52

46

41

34

33

44

16

54

47

42

42

41

34

31

31

38

30

30

22

EU-27 AT BE BG HR CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE EL HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES SE

MK

UK

Source:  FRA, Fundamental Rights Survey 2019 [Data collection in cooperation with CBS (NL), CTIE (LU) and Statistics Austria (AT)]

 
Notes:

a  Out of all respondents in the EU-27 + 
MK+UK who were asked to complete 
the section ‘Tolerance and equality’ 
of the survey (n = 28,240); weighted 
results.

b  The question asked in the survey 

was ‘First, how would you feel about 
having someone from one of the 
following groups as your neighbour?’ 
Respondents could answer by 
selecting a value from a scale, ranging 
from ‘1 – Totally uncomfortable’ to 
‘7 – Totally comfortable’. In addition, 
respondents had the option to answer 
‘Prefer not to say’ or ‘Don’t know’. 
The results presented in the figure 
above correspond to answers 1 to 3 
on this scale.

Recent national surveys on public attitudes towards Roma confirm the 
high levels of intolerance illustrated in FRA’s survey. In Bulgaria, 80 % of 
respondents stated that they do not trust Roma, while only 51.2 % would 
accept ‘living in the same country with Roma’.30 In Romania, seven out of 10 
do not trust Roma, and two out of three Romanians believe that Roma are 
dangerous, a survey found. At the same time, seven out of 10 respondents 
believe that the government should invest in high-quality education to 
support Roma inclusion.31 

Discrimination against and harassment of Roma and Travellers are even 
higher in the five western EU Member States covered in FRA’s Roma and 
Traveller Survey (Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden) than 
in the previously surveyed eastern and southern European countries, the 
new survey results (from 2019) show. In these western EU Member States, 
almost every second Roma and Traveller felt discriminated against in the 
last 12 months, while 44 % experienced hate-motivated harassment in the 
same period. Moreover, every tenth respondent said that law enforcement 
agencies ethnically profiled them in the 12 months before the survey.32

Trust in the police and the judicial system remain a problematic issue. Such 
trust is notably lower among Roma and Travellers than among the general 
population. It is even lower among Roma and Travellers who have been 
victims of discrimination, harassment and violence.33

In 2020, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued two judgements 
about police violence and discrimination against Roma in Slovakia.

In R.R. v. Slovakia, the ECtHR concluded that Slovak authorities had failed to 
investigate the alleged discrimination in the planning of a police operation. 
The court found a violation of Article 14 (protection from discrimination) in 
conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of torture).34 For more information on 
this case, see Chapter 4.

126

127

A.P. v. Slovakia concerned the unjustified use of police force when investigating 
a Roma teenager. The court found a violation of Article 3. However, it did not 
find sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim that the police acted 
in a discriminatory way. Two judges disagreed with this decision, cautioning 
“against setting an excessively high threshold for the Court to address the 
merits of complaints under Article 14, especially those brought by applicants 
belonging to groups subject to discrimination”.35

On 14 May 2020, the CoE’s European Committee of Social Rights issued interim 
measures against Belgium in relation to a large-scale police operation that 
had taken place in May 2019.36 The committee ordered national authorities to 
guarantee that those affected were given access to housing, water, sanitation, 
electricity, medical and social assistance, and legal aid.37

Meanwhile, in a positive development, on 15 December 2020, Romania 
adopted legislation specifically combating antigypsyism (‘Anti-Tziganism’). It 
was the first country in the EU to do so. Article 2 of the bill defines antigypsyism 
as “both the perception of the Roma expressed as hatred against them, as 
well as a verbal or physical manifestations, motivated by hatred against 
Roma directed against Roma or their properties; against institutions/NGOs, 
leaders of Roma communities or their places of worship, traditions and 
Romani language”.

The new law makes punishable by imprisonment acts that promote ‘anti-
Gypsy’ ideas, conceptions or doctrines. It also provides for punishment for 
distributing or making public ‘anti-Gypsy’ materials, disseminating ‘anti-Gypsy’ 
symbols, and initiating or establishing an organisation with an ‘anti-Gypsy’ 
character.38

Scapegoating Roma and Travellers during the pandemic

Prejudice and discrimination against, and harassment of, Roma and Travellers 
increased in certain EU countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, FRA’s evidence 
suggests.39 This was particularly visible during the first wave, when anti-Roma 
rhetoric “presented Roma as a general threat to the general population” in 
certain countries, including Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia.40

Furthermore, national and local government officials, as well as far-right 
politicians, made several discriminatory statements based on negative 
stereotypes of Roma. They often received widespread media attention 
and dissemination. Such incidents were reported, for example, in Austria,41 
Bulgaria,42 Greece,43 Portugal44 and Slovakia.45

Media reports scapegoating Roma for spreading the virus appeared in several 
media outlets as well. In Romania, for example, the town of Țăndărei was 
cordoned off in March as a precautionary measure.46 A news agency reported 
the issue in racial terms, claiming that 800 Roma had returned from abroad, 
had brought the disease, and were refusing isolation.47 The same narrative 
appeared on television, including prime-time television.48

PROMISING PRACTICE

Raising awareness 
among media 
professionals
In Germany, an interdisciplinary 
and transcultural team under the 
lead of the Roma organisation 
Amaro Foro is developing a training 
programme for media professionals, 
e.g. journalists, editors and chief 
editors, photographers, and picture 
editors. The team is also cooperating 
with journalism schools to include 
antigypsyism in their curricula.

The training programme will result 
in a handbook in 2024. It will be 
available to media professionals 
free of charge. The project plans to 
later help Roma and Sinti become 
journalists themselves. Together 
with the participating photographers 
and Roma activists, the team is 
setting up a photo pool and making 
it available free of charge to counter 
stereotypical images.

For more information, see Amaro Foro’s 
webpage on the project.

126

127

In response to such statements and news broadcasts, the Romanian National 
Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD) issued sanctions against a local 
newspaper,49 a government official, the former president of Romania,50 and 
a university professor.51 In Portugal, the Commission for Equality and Against 
Racial Discrimination fined a right-wing party leader.52

In Italy,53 Romania,54 Slovakia55 and Spain,56 some government officials, civil 
society organisations and human rights institutions published statements in 
an effort to combat discrimination and antigypsyism.

Meanwhile, incidents of alleged police violence were reported in Romania,57 
Slovakia,58 and North Macedonia.59

In Romania, for example, NGOs reported disproportionate use of police force 
when enforcing quarantine measures. A video recording shows police officers 
handcuffing and beating eight men in Bolitin-Vale. The Prosecutor’s Office 
opened an investigation, which is still ongoing.60

5�1�2�  Little progress in closing the educational gap
In the five western EU countries surveyed in 2019, around half (55 %) of Roma 
and Traveller children aged from three years up to compulsory schooling age 
participate in early childhood education, FRA data show. Almost two thirds 
of young Roma and Travellers aged 18 to 24 dropped out of education or 
training before they completed upper secondary education. Moreover, Roma 
and Traveller children frequently experience hate-motivated bullying and 
harassment while in school.61

Segregation of Roma children has long been a concern. FRA data from 2016, 
for example, show that, in nine EU Member States with significant Roma 
populations, 46 % of Roma children attend schools where all or most of 
their schoolmates are Roma, which hinders their access to equal and quality 
education.62

Reports issued by the Council of Europe and others in 2020 show that the 
issue persists across several EU countries.

“My 13-year-old son never 
dared to tell at school that 
he was a caravan resident, 
as a precaution against being 
treated badly� In fact, we cannot 
express our identity freely and 
have to hide, this is not normal�”

Netherlands, woman, 35, Travellers 
and Sinti, FRA survey on Roma and 
Travellers in six countries

128

129

Specifically, Council of Europe reports published in 2020 on Bulgaria,63 Czechia,64 
Hungary65 and Slovakia66 point to de facto segregation of Roma children. The 
Czech67 and Slovak68 reports highlight persistent overrepresentation of Roma 
children in special education, which could amount to indirect discrimination. 
In Slovakia, the Ministry of Education acknowledged the problem, set up an 
Inclusive Education Department, and appointed a state secretary responsible 
for inclusive education.69 In Czechia, Roma organisations have criticised 
proposed changes to current legislation on educating children with special 
education needs, as they might lead to further segregating Roma children.70

As part of its monitoring of the implementation of the Racial Equality 
Directive,71 the European Commission continued infringement proceedings 
against Czechia,72 Hungary,73 and Slovakia74 for discrimination against Roma 
children in education. For more information, see Chapter 4.

In Romania, the High Court of Justice and Cassation upheld the decision of 
the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) in a segregation 
case. In 2016, the CNCD found that a school in Iasi disproportionately placed 
Roma children in a separate building, which was in poor condition and less 
well equipped. The court issued a fine and ordered the school to prepare 
a desegregation plan.75

Similarly, the Curia, the Supreme Court of Hungary, concluded in an actio 
popularis lawsuit that an elementary school in Gyöngyöspata had segregated 
Roma pupils, and thus denied them access to equal education. The court 
awarded damages of nearly HUF 100,000,000 (€ 280,000) to the 63 plaintiffs.76 
Politicians widely criticised the decision, including the appropriateness of 
financial compensation.77 As a result, the parliament amended the law on 
education for the future to allow compensation only “in the form of education 
and training services” and to prevent financial compensation.78

More measures needed for inclusive education

In 2020, Member States introduced or continued various measures to improve 
Roma children’s participation in and access to education.

For example, in Slovakia, mandatory pre-school education at the age of five for 
all children will commence from 1 September 2021.79 Slovenian kindergartens 
and primary schools continued to employ Roma mediators to facilitate and 
encourage the participation of Roma children in early childhood education.80 
At the same time, the Human Rights Ombuds institution noted that there 
are continuous problems in primary schools, preventing Roma children from 
accessing primary education. The Ombuds institution also criticised the lack of 
data on attendance and performance of Roma children in primary schools.81

Bulgaria introduced compulsory education at the age of four82 for all children, 
to improve pre-school attendance among vulnerable children. Meanwhile, the 
country’s Supreme Administrative Court struck down a positive scholarship 
measure supporting Roma students;83 it found that the measure discriminated 
against non-Roma pupils.

In Poland, the education of Roma children will be one of the priority areas 
for the 2020–2024 government period, the Parliamentary Commission of 
National and Ethnic Minorities announced.84 In Italy, a ministerial decree 
introduced new targeted measures fostering the inclusive education of Roma 
children.85 The Netherlands continued its support scheme programme for 
schools educating pupils from vulnerable groups, such as Roma and Sinti.86

128

129

Portugal87 introduced scholarship programmes for Roma students attending 
secondary and higher education. In 2020, Greece started to implement the 
“Inclusive schools for Roma”88 project and introduced a scholarship program 
for higher education students.89

In France, a new ministerial decree90 specifies the list of supporting documents 
for school enrolment, so that municipalities do not impose unreasonable 
requirements (e.g. electricity bills), which those living in informal settlements 
cannot meet.

In Austria, an ECRI report noted that the programme financed through the 
European Social Fund – which invited organisations to develop projects 
that offer vocational and educational guidance, vocational training, and 
counselling – indicated positive results. These include an increasing percentage 
of Roma with vocational training and recognised qualifications.91

Lastly, several Member States, including Croatia,92 Ireland93 and Spain,94 
introduced measures to incorporate Roma and Traveller history, culture or 
language in their education systems.

Digital gap widens education gap

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the education of all children, but Roma and 
Traveller children living at risk of poverty and social exclusion appeared to 
be more vulnerable to the swift transition to distance education.95

Roma and Travellers in segregated and marginalised settings often lack the 
necessary IT equipment and/or access to the internet. Most Roma in eastern 
and southern Member States have no access to the internet or to a computer, 
according to FRA data from 2016. Only 30 % stated that they have access to 
the internet. In the five western Member States FRA surveyed in 2019, the 
situation is significantly better: 72 % of the Roma and Travellers said they have 
access to the internet, and that 80 % of children below the age of 18 do so.

FIGURE 5�2: ACCESS TO INTERNET AT HOME FOR ROMA AND TRAVELLERS 
AND THEIR CHILDREN AGED 6-17, COMPARED WITH GENERAL 
POPULATION (%)a,b

80

72

90 % EU-27 general population
(2019 Eurostat)

30

30

 Notes:
a  Out of all household 

members and children aged 
6–17 (RTS: n = 12,873; 
EU-MIDIS II n = 33,274); 
weighted results.

b  EU-5: countries covered by 
the Roma and Travellers 
Survey 2019 – BE, FR, IE, 
NL and SE. EU-9: countries 
covered by EU-MIDIS II 
2016 – BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, 
HU, PT, SK and RO.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Roma and
Travellers
in EU-5

Roma and Traveller
children aged
6-17 in EU-5

Roma in EU-9

Roma children
aged 6-17 in EU-9

RTS 2019

EU-MIDIS II 2016

Sources: FRA, RTS 2019 and EU-MIDIS 2016; Eurostat 2019, general population 

([ISOC_CI_IN_H] last accessed on 22 January 2021)

130

131

A  few  Member  States  carried  out  national  data 
collections to measure the effects of distance learning. 
In Bulgaria, only 21 % of Romani-speaking students 
have access to a computer, compared with 70 % of 
Bulgarian-speaking  students.96  In  Romania,  32  % 
of all students enrolled in pre-university education 
were estimated to have little or no access to online 
education.97

In Slovakia, 18.5 % of all primary and secondary students 
did not study online at all during the spring term in 
2020. The highest share of pupils not participating 
in online education was in schools with significant 
proportions of Roma children.98 In Greece, the National 
Commission for Human Rights expressed concern about 
participation of Roma children in compulsory education 
during distance learning measures due to the lack of 
internet access and IT equipment.99

To  mitigate  the  negative  effects  of  distance  learning,  a  few  national 
governments introduced supportive measures for vulnerable populations. 
In most cases, the measures included Roma and Travellers, but did not 
explicitly target them.

In Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia, ministries 
allocated funds to purchase and distribute IT equipment and/or internet 
access among vulnerable communities.100 In Croatia, the Ministry of Science 
and Education also allocated funds to primary schools to purchase laptops 
and printers for Roma assistants 101 and increased funds for Roma students.102

Meanwhile, children dependent on school canteens continued to receive 
food packages in Portugal.103 Lithuania provided possibilities to receive free 
meals for Roma children entitled to social assistance.104

Throughout the pandemic, Roma education mediators and assistants played 
an important role in a number of countries by ensuring communication 
between families and schools, visiting the homes of vulnerable children, or 
even disseminating study materials for children without internet access.105

5�1�3�  Poor housing conditions remain a concern
Some 61 % of Roma in the nine eastern and southern Member States surveyed 
by FRA in 2016, and 35 % of Roma and Travellers in the five western Member 
States surveyed in 2019, suffer from housing deprivation – compared with 
18 % of the general population across the EU-27. This means that their homes 
are too dark, have damp walls or leaking roofs, or lack an indoor bathroom, 
shower or indoor toilet. Access to tap water inside the dwelling was not 
available for 30 % of Roma in eastern and southern Member States and for 
9 % of Roma and Travellers in western Member States.106

Moreover, Roma and Travellers often live in informal dwellings and camps. 
In Portugal, substandard housing is a major obstacle to Roma inclusion.107 In 
Italy, the current housing legislation perpetuates discrimination, so legislative 
changes are needed to effectively support inclusive Roma housing, a civil 
society monitoring report concluded.108

130

131

In France, the slum clearance policy continued. Local councils received 
increased financial support in 2020 to reduce the number of informal camps 
and settlements. Between 2018 and 2019, almost 3,000 people gained access 
to secure housing and 5,900 people received healthcare support, according 
to the Interministerial Delegation for Housing.109

In Cyprus, the Commissioner of Administration and the Protection of Human 
Rights issued a report on the living conditions of Roma. It states that residents 
of remote Roma settlements should be relocated to urban centres, where 
they can be more easily integrated into the wider Cypriot society.110

Pandemic brings lockdowns, evictions, and limited support

Insecure and deprived housing conditions were particularly problematic for 
Roma and Travellers during the pandemic, as overcrowding and lack of access 
to clean water sanitation increase the likelihood of infection.111

During the first wave of the pandemic, entire Roma neighbourhoods in 
Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia faced lockdown measures.112 
In Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia, national or local governments deemed 
such measures necessary because of the high number of migrant workers 
returning from countries with high infection rates, such as Italy.

It was not always clear that lockdowns and other restrictive measures 
introduced in Roma neighbourhoods were proportionate. For example, Bulgaria 
placed six Roma neighbourhoods under quarantine as a precautionary measure 
even before any cases were identified.113

In Portugal, an entire Roma neighbourhood came under surveillance after 
one child tested positive. Authorities tested the entire community and found 
no other cases of COVID-19.114 After a media report, the confinement of the 
community was lifted.

In Slovakia, the government initially announced that it would introduce 
lockdown measures only if more than 10 % of inhabitants were infected.115 In 
April, it placed five Roma settlements under lockdown without any information 
on the infection rates.116

Roma and Travellers in Belgium, France, Ireland and the Netherlands were 
subject to the general restrictions on free movement.117 France,118 Hungary,119 
Ireland120 and Italy121 suspended forced evictions and expulsion orders. Despite 
this, seven evictions in Italy were reported between February and June.122 In 
Hungary123 and Ireland,124 emergency measures suspending forced evictions 
expired after the first wave; no similar measures were introduced during the 
second wave in autumn 2020.

In April, police operations took place in two unofficial Traveller sites in Belgium. 
The authorities seized their caravans and left the affected Traveller families 
homeless, without offering them any alternative housing solution, social aid, or 
COVID-19 emergency support.125 On 27 April, the European Roma Rights Centre 
(ERRC) brought a complaint before the Committee of Social Rights, alleging 
that this operation amounted to ethnically targeted collective punishment.126

In Bulgaria127 and Lithuania,128 several illegal dwellings were demolished 
despite the pandemic. In Lithuania, the municipality reportedly provided 
social housing to 50 families out of 400 former inhabitants. In Bulgaria, 13 
Roma families gained access to communal housing for 2 years, while the 
other 11 families accessed housing through their relatives and friends.129

132

133

A lack of legal residence can be a barrier to accessing basic services. This 
was one of the diverse challenges observed during the pandemic.

In Bulgaria, the majority of those without a permanent address are Roma, 
the NGO Helsinki Committee reported. They will most likely not be able 
to benefit from the general support scheme if it is linked to a registered 
address.130 In Italy, the government allocated € 400 million for food vouchers 
to support vulnerable groups.131 Initially the support scheme was available 
only to people “legally residing” on municipal territories. In April 2020, a court 
decision declared that the support scheme must be available to any person, 
regardless of their residence status.132

To compensate for the restricted access to services during the first lockdown, 
some governments introduced supportive measures. Access to clean water 
and sanitation was provided for Roma neighbourhoods in Bulgaria, Portugal, 
Slovenia and Spain.133

Ireland allocated funds to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and lessen the risk of 
infection to families residing in Traveller-specific accommodation. It included 
measures for Travellers living on both authorised and un-authorised sites. 
Additional sanitary facilities and accommodation were provided to allow for 
self-isolation or to alleviate overcrowding.134

In Belgium, the Walloon government responded to the challenges during the 
second wave and introduced new measures to ensure secure and sanitary 
Traveller accommodation.135 Greece allocated more than € 2.5 million to 106 
municipalities with Roma settlements and camps, for emergency measures 
such as disinfection and the provision of drinking water and food during 
lockdowns.136 Similarly, in Slovakia, the government allocated € 5.6 million 
to remedy negative impacts of COVID-19 on Romani communities.137

132

133

5�1�4�   Health efforts focus on emergency responses, not long-term 

solutions

Adverse  living  conditions  and  limitations  in  accessing  health  services 
undermine the health of Roma and Traveller communities. This has serious 
long-term implications. For example, FRA’s 2019 survey on five western EU 
Member States suggests that Roma and Travellers on average live 10 fewer 
years than the general population.138

Roma and Travellers also face barriers to accessing health services. On 
average, 74 % of Roma in the nine EU Member States surveyed by FRA in 
2016 said they were covered by medical insurance, but only 45 % indicated 
this in Bulgaria and 54 % did so in Romania.139 Meanwhile, 83 % in in the five 
EU countries surveyed in 2019 said they had health insurance.140

In 2020, the European Roma Rights Centre published two research studies 
initiated in 2016. They show that Romani women suffer from rights violations 
in the field of maternity care in Hungary141 and Bulgaria.142

In May 2020, the Supreme Court of Hungary found that a Miskolc hospital 
engaged in a discriminatory practice by requiring individuals accompanying 
expecting mothers to purchase certain clothing for hygienic purposes. Refusing 
it could have resulted in a denial of visits, leaving mothers to give birth 
without support from their chosen companions. The court found that the 
practice constituted both direct (financial situation) and indirect (Roma 
origin) discrimination.143

In North Macedonia, the Bitola Court of Appeals awarded damages to the 
husband and children of a 24-year-old Roma woman, who died during 
childbirth due to medical malpractice. A Roma NGO brought the case to court, 
using strategic litigation to address discrimination in the public health system.144

In September 2020, the Czech Deputy Ombudsperson called on decision 
makers to discuss a draft bill addressing financial compensation for women 
who had been sterilised without consent starting in the 1970s, and who have 
been fighting for compensation for decades.145

In November 2020, the European Committee of Social Rights issued its 
decision146 on a complaint against Czechia. In 2015, 24 % of institutionalised 
children under the age of three were Roma, and 40 % were children with 
disabilities, the applicants claimed. The committee found a violation of 
Article 17 of the 1961 European Social Charter.147 It concluded that Czechia 
failed to fulfil its obligations to ensure appropriate social protection of Roma 
children and children with disabilities.

134

135

The pandemic did prompt some positive health-related efforts. France 
introduced mobile testing campaigns and mobilised health mediators to 
reach out to Roma and Travellers living in illegal camps and squats.148 In 
Portugal, local governments provided hygiene products and medicines to 
households in quarantine, including Roma households.149 In Slovakia, the 
government sent military doctors to test Romani communities, assisted by 
health mediators, many of whom are Roma.150

In fact, all countries with existing networks mobilised health mediators. Beyond 
completing their usual tasks, health mediators supported local and national 
authorities in various ways – for example, in providing medical assistance, 
quarantining persons, monitoring compliance with social distancing and 
hygiene requirements, and even providing psychological support to families.151 
Greece152 and Bulgaria153 trained and employed new health mediators to 
provide additional support during the emergency period.

5�2� 
A NEW EU ROMA STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR 
EQUALITY, INCLUSION AND PARTICIPATION 
UNTIL 2030

The European Commission published its Communication on the new EU Roma 
strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation on 7 October 
2020.154 The framework links to other EU policy documents, such as the 
new child guarantee (see Chapter 8 on rights of the child). The framework 
sets the specific target of “cut[ting] the poverty gap between Roma children 
and other children by at least half”, which is in line with principle 11 of the 
European Pillar of Social Rights. It also includes a proposal for a Council 
Recommendation.155

The new framework is part of the EU’s overall strategy towards a ‘Union 
of Equality’ and a first step in implementing the EU anti-racism action plan 
2020–2025.156 It will contribute to the implementation of the European Pillar 
of Social Rights and to the development of equal and inclusive democratic 
societies in line with the global Agenda 2030.

The new framework incorporates lessons learned from the previous decade. 
It acknowledges that the fight against antigypsyism and fostering trust are 
key to effective policies that, in line with Article 21 of the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights, “fight and prevent antigypsyism and discrimination”.

National strategic frameworks should ensure consultation and cooperation 
with Roma civil society and promote the active participation of Roma at all 
stages of policymaking and implementation. National Roma Contact Points 
(NRCPs) should have a clear, strong mandate and sufficient resources.157 To 
improve implementation, national strategies should set out baselines and 
targets to reach the EU objectives based on concrete measures, budget and 
mechanisms for reporting, monitoring and evaluating progress.

The European Commission also adopted a proposal for a Council recommendation 
with reference to the COVID-19 pandemic.158 It emphasises the diversity within 
and between Roma communities and strengthens the use of EU and national 
funds. It highlights that monitoring and reporting are essential.

For  the  first  time,  quantified  targets  are  linked  to  the  objectives.  The 
recommendation asks FRA to carry out regular surveys in 2020, 2024 and 
2028 to provide the data for measuring progress, and to support Member 
States in developing methods to collect such data themselves.

“We urge Member States to 
commit to a new EU Roma 
strategic framework for equality, 
inclusion and participation to 
bring social fairness and more 
equality in all senses of the 
word�”

Ursula von der Leyen, President 
of the European Commission; Věra 
Jourová, Vice-President for Values 
and Transparency; and Helena Dalli, 
Commissioner for Equality, statement, 
31 July 2020

134

135

 
5�2�1�  Monitoring and data collection
Data collection, monitoring and reporting systems should be 
strengthened, the evaluation of the previous EU framework 
shows. In the EU Member States, a lack of reliable data that 
are disaggregated by ethnicity and a lack of transparency and 
accountability mechanisms remain key challenges.159 While 
respecting data protection and human rights principles, as 
well as the census recommendations on collecting ethnic 
data issued by the United Nations Economic Commission for 
Europe and EUROSTAT, FRA continues to fill the data gap for 
several Member States.160

In 2020, FRA started to work on its fifth survey on Roma 
populations in eight EU Member States and two candidate 
countries (Czechia, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, 
Portugal, Romania, North Macedonia and Serbia). In addition, 
the national statistical institutes in Bulgaria161 and Slovakia162 
are beginning to collect data on Roma populations using methods comparable 
to those that FRA uses. These data collections will be used to populate core 
indicators for measuring progress in the implementation of the new EU Roma 
strategic framework.

Countries increase data collection efforts

In  2020,  the  Conference  of  European  Statisticians  endorsed  a  new 
methodological guide for data disaggregation in poverty measurement. It 
describes how to include hard-to-reach groups in poverty measurement, 
referring to FRA’s methodology.163 It includes recommendations and good 
practices to ensure respect of the human rights-based principles in data 
collection that the UN promotes: participation, self-identification, data 
disaggregation, transparency, privacy and accountability in the design, 
collection and use of data. They particularly apply to minority groups that 
are considered hard-to-reach or elusive populations.164

Slovakia provides an example of how to integrate residents of marginalised 
Roma communities in the regular EU-SILC (Statistics on Income and Living 
Conditions). In both 2018 and 2020,165 it incorporated the questionnaire module 
that FRA developed about experiences of discrimination and harassment. In 
2020, Czechia started to establish a methodology for collecting ethnically 
segregated data.166 In Croatia, the Office for Human Rights continued to process 
the data collected in the 2018 baseline study for the effective implementation 
of the national Roma inclusion strategy.167

FRA ACTIVITY
Roma and 
Travellers survey 
2019
In September 2020, FRA launched 
its first report on the results of 
the Roma and Travellers survey 
2019. It provided, for the first time, 
comparable data in five western 
EU Member States and the United 
Kingdom on the situation of Roma 
and Travellers with a nomadic 
lifestyle.

The survey collected information 
from 4,659 respondents aged 16 
years or older who self-identified 
as Roma or Travellers in Belgium, 
France, Ireland, the Netherlands, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
It paid particular attention to the 
principle of participation by including 
communities in the preparation, 
sampling and implementation of the 
survey.

The survey findings were discussed 
at high-level conferences involving 
Roma and Traveller communities in 
Belgium (19 November 2020) and 
Ireland (organised by Travellers on 
7 December 2020).

136

137

FRA ACTIVITY
Providing data on 
vulnerable groups
The Bulgarian National Statistical 
Institute, in partnership with 
FRA, started to develop and test 
innovative methods to reach out 
to specific vulnerable groups at 
regional and local levels. With support 
from the EEA/Norwegian Financial 
Mechanism, the project responds to 
the demand for data disaggregated 
by various vulnerability criteria 
(ethnicity, gender, disability, age, 
region, etc).

Despite the pandemic-related 
challenges, the representative 
survey was completed in 2020, 
with an effective sample of 30,030 
respondents from 12,086 households.

The objectives that the new EU Roma strategic framework sets – monitoring, 
indicators, and related targets and reporting – are embedded in core EU 
policy cycles, such as the European Semester. However, the persisting lack of 
disaggregated data on people with Roma background poses a challenge to the 
monitoring progress. It hampers efforts to identify the effects of investment 
in Roma inclusion in mainstream social inclusion and other measures.

The new EU Roma strategic framework suggests an indicator framework. FRA 
developed this to allow an assessment of three essential and interrelated 
indicators in reference to specific human rights standards that the UN Office 
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights recommends:168

 ― the legal and policy frameworks in place (structural indicators);
 ― the concrete interventions to implement the frameworks (process 

indicators); and

 ― the achievements, as seen in the experience of the rights holders (outcome 

indicators).

FRA ACTIVITY
Developing indicators to measure 
progress

In 2020, the European Commission 
and FRA relaunched the EU Roma 
Working Party to develop, together 
with EU Member States, a portfolio 
of indicators to measure progress 
on Roma equality and inclusion.

The proposed set of headline 
indicators uses FRA’s survey 
data as a baseline. FRA prepared 
a background paper for 
a monitoring framework, to provide 
guidance for the Member States 
on how to collect the portfolio of 
indicators.

The working party also facilitates 
the exchange of experiences 

between Member States in regard 
to data collection, monitoring and 
reporting.

In 2021, the EU Roma Working Party 
will continue to support Member 
States in their efforts to develop 
their own data collection and 
national indicators, and to exchange 
good practices. The first round of 
country reporting under the new 
framework will take place in 2023, 
reporting on 2021 and 2022.

See FRA’s webpage on ‘Roma 
Working Party – Consultations on 
the Roma inclusion monitoring 
framework’.

136

137

FRA opinions

Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 
prohibits discrimination based on ethnic or social origin 
or membership of a national minority. For the past 20 
years, the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) has 
promoted equal treatment and prohibited direct and 
indirect discrimination, including harassment, based on 
racial or ethnic origin, in areas such as employment, 
education, social protection and advantages, healthcare, 
or accessing goods and services, including housing.

However, antigypsyism, a significant barrier for progress 
in Roma inclusion, is deeply rooted. Almost half of EU 
citizens (46 %) would be uncomfortable having Roma 
or Travellers as neighbours, FRA’s Fundamental Rights 
Survey 2019, which addressed the general population, 
shows. The COVID-19 pandemic, which affected Roma 
and Traveller communities disproportionately, amplified 
inequalities and, in some countries, fuelled further 
antigypsyism and anti-Roma prejudice.

FRA OPINION 5�1

Drawing on lessons learned during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, EU Member States 
should ensure that the fight against 
discrimination and antigypsyism is 
mainstreamed in all policy areas of 
their national Roma strategies� The 
strategies  should  include  targeted 
measures  to  tackle  antigypsyism 
and  discrimination  affecting  Roma 
and Travellers�

Such measures should be designed 
and implemented together with Roma 
communities and their representatives 
to promote positive narratives about 
Roma and Travellers, raising awareness 
of  their  history  of  discrimination, 
segregation and persecution�

138

Article 14 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 
enshrines the right to education. The European Pillar 
of Social Rights emphasises that everyone has the 
right to high-quality and inclusive education (Chapter 1, 
principle 1). Across the EU, including in western Member 
States, the majority of young Roma and Travellers drop 
out of education or training early, the most recent data 
show. Despite a little progress in the past decade, 
the educational gap between Roma and the general 
population remains significant.

Moreover, Roma and Travellers living in segregated 
and marginalised settings often lack the necessary 
IT equipment and/or internet access, FRA’s and other 
research findings show. Persistent inequality and the lack 
of successful policies to provide basic infrastructure and 
services widen the gap between Roma and Travellers and 
the general population. They also affect the opportunities 
of  Roma  children  to  access  education  equally.  The 
COVID-19 pandemic made these realities very visible. 
FRA’s  research  also  shows  that  some  mainstream 
measures have failed to reach Roma and Travellers.

FRA OPINION 5�2

EU Member States should implement 
coordinated measures to ensure that 
socially excluded and marginalised 
Roma  and  Traveller  children  have 
access  to  distance  learning  tools� 
Any measures in education should 
include targeted actions tailored to 
specific needs of the diverse Roma 
and  Traveller  groups,  drawing  in 
particular from positive experience 
with Roma teaching assistants and 
mediators�  Member  States  should 
consider encouraging the recruitment, 
training  and  deployment  of  more 
Roma mediators and teachers with 
a Roma background� They should also 
ensure that targeted measures are 
sustainable and well-funded, making 
use  of  EU  funds  as  well  as  other 
funding opportunities for measures 
targeting Roma as well as for structural 
reforms for inclusive education�

FRA OPINION 5�3

EU Member States should prioritise 
the implementation of the new EU 
Roma  strategic  framework�  Their 
national plans should define ambitious 
objectives and targets, which take 
into  account  lessons  learned  from 
the  previous  EU  framework  and 
evaluations  of  national  strategies 
as well as the COVID-19 pandemic� 
Effective monitoring systems should 
assess progress, measuring the impact 
of  both  mainstream  and  targeted 
measures for the social inclusion of 
Roma and Travellers, as well as the 
effective use of national and EU funds�

The new EU Roma strategic 
framework  for  equality, 
inclusion and participation is 
part of the EU’s overall political 
guidelines for building a Union 
of equality. It will contribute to 
the EU anti-racism action plan 2020–2025 and to 
implementing the principles of the European Pillar of 
Social Rights and the UN Sustainable Development 
Goals.

The previous EU framework for national Roma 
integration strategies, which aimed to close the 
gap between Roma and the general population, 
did not reach its ambitious goals for education, 
employment, healthcare and housing by 2020. 
Member States made only little progress in certain 
areas of education and poverty reduction, and no 
progress – or conditions even deteriorated – in 
employment, housing and health, FRA data show.

National  Roma  strategies  should 
include  specific  reference  to  the 
meaningful participation of Roma and 
Travellers in designing, assessing and 
monitoring implementation measures 
and actions�

Based on an evaluation of the previous framework, 
the European Commission recognised the urgent 
need to renew and step up the commitment to Roma 
equality, inclusion and participation at both European 
and national levels. The new strategic framework 
sets seven objectives and related targets to achieve 
by 2030, with a focus on fighting antigypsyism and 
discrimination and on promoting the full participation and inclusion of Roma, 
through a combination of mainstream and targeted policies.

139

Index of country 
references
AT  124, 127, 130

BE  124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133

BG  124, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133, 

134, 135, 136

CY  124, 132

CZ  124, 129, 134, 136

ES  124, 128, 130, 133, 136

FI 

124

FR  126, 130, 132, 135

GR  124, 125, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 

135, 136

HR  130, 131, 136

HU  124, 129, 131, 132, 134, 136

IE 

124, 125, 126, 130, 132, 133

IT 

124, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 136

LT  131, 132

MK  125, 128, 134, 136

NL  124, 126, 129, 132

PL  124, 129

PT  124, 125, 127, 128, 

RO  126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 

136

RS  136

SE  126

SI 

129, 133

SK  124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 

132, 133, 135, 136

Endnotes

1 

European Commission (2011), An EU framework for national Roma integration 
strategies up to 2020, COM(2011) 173/4.

2  European Parliament (2019), Resolution of 12 February 2019 on the need for 

a strengthened post-2020 strategic EU framework for national Roma inclusion 
strategies and stepping up the fight against anti-Gypsyism (2019/2509(RSP)), 
P8_TA (2019)0075, Strasbourg, 12 February 2019.

3 

European Commission (2018), Evaluation of the EU framework for national 
Roma integration strategies up to 2020, SWD (2018) 480 Final, Brussels, 
4 December 2018.

4 

Ibid.

5  European Commission (2017), Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-

2016), SWD (2017) 458 Final, Brussels, 30 August 2017.

6 

‘Roma’ and ‘Travellers’ are used as umbrella terms according to the definition 
of the CoE. They encompass Roma, Sinti, Kale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari, 
Balkan Egyptians, Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal) and groups such as 
Travellers, Yenish and the populations designated under the administrative term 
Gens du voyage, as well as people who identify themselves as Gypsies. FRA, 
like the CoE, adds the term ‘Travellers’ as necessary to highlight actions that 
specifically include them. See CoE (2012), ‘Descriptive glossary of terms related 
to Roma issues’, Strasbourg, 18 May 2012.

7  FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers in six countries, Luxembourg, Publications 

Office�

8  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU Roma strategic 

framework for equality, inclusion and participation; European Commission 
(2020), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the Council, COM/2020/620 final

9  Council of Europe (CoE), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance 
(ECRI) (2020), ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring cycle), 2 June 2020.

10  CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on Belgium (sixth monitoring cycle), 18 March 

2020, paras. 84–92.

11  CoE, Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of 
National Minorities (2020), ‘Fourth opinion on Bulgaria – adopted on 26 May 
2020’, ACFC/OP/IV(2020) 001Final, 26 May 2020.

12  CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on the Czech Republic (sixth monitoring cycle).

13  Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of 

National Minorities (ACFC) (2020), Fifth opinion on Hungary, CoE.

14  UN CERD (2020), Concluding observations on the combined fifth to ninth 

reports of Ireland, UN Doc� CERD/C/IRL/CO/5-9, 23 January 2020, paras. 31–32.

15  ACFC (2020), ‘Fourth opinion on Portugal adopted on 28 June 2019’, CoE.

16  CoE, ECRI (2020), ECRI report on the Slovak Republic (sixth monitoring cycle).

17  ACFC (2020), Fifth opinion on Spain, CoE.

18  Seidler, Y., Van Leeuwen, R., Koster L., Van Sam, M., Van Wensveen, P. and 
Jorna, P. (2020), ‘Monitor Sociale Inclusie (meting 4): Derde vervolgmeting 
naar de woon- en leefomstandigheden van Roma en Sinti in Nederland‘, 
Erasmus University Rotterdam.

19  Szostakowicz, M., Seutowicz, K and Iwaniak. A. (2020), ‘Badanie ewaluacyjne 
Programu integracji społeczności romskiej w Polsce na lata 2014 – 2020, 
Warsaw 2020’.Badanie ewaluacyjne Programu integracji społeczności romskiej 
w Polsce na lata 2014–2020’.

20  European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (2020). 
Civil society monitoring report on implementation of the national Roma 
integration strategy in Italy. Identifying blind spots in Roma inclusion policy, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office.

21  Finland, Romaniasiain neuvottelukunta (n.d.), ‘National Roma policy 2018–2022 

(ROMPO2)’, and information obtained from the National Advisory Board 
for Romani Affairs by email and phone on 14 September 2020. See also, for 
example, the action plan for 2020 of the Regional Advisory Board for Romani 
Affairs in Northern Finland, Lindgren, H. (2020), ‘Pohjois-Suomenalueellisen 
romaniasiain neuvottelukunnan toimintasuunnitelma toimikaudeksi 2020’.

22  Commissioner of Administration and the Protection of Human Rights (2020): 
Report regarding the living conditions of the Roma community in Cyprus

23  Belgium, Raad van State (Council of State), Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak 

Voorzitter van de Xe Kamer, Arrest No� 249�047 van 25 november 2020.

140

141

24  Marie O’Halloran (2020), ‘Seanad elections: Traveller candidate narrowly loses out on election’, Irish Times, 1 April 2020.

25  Pavee Point (n.d.), ‘Submission to the Human Rights Committee: Ireland’s examination in relation to the International Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights – Suggested list of issues for Ireland –130th session of the human rights committee (12 October to 6 November 
2020)’.

26  Member of Parliament in North Macedonia, Assembly of the Republic of Northern Macedonia (Sobranie na Republika Severna 

Makedonija),

27  Slovakia, Government of the Slovak Republic (Vláda SR) (2020), ‘Programme statement of the Slovak government, adopted by 

resolution 239/2020 on 17 April 2020’.

28  European Commission (2020), ‘Call for proposals limited/restricted to National Roma Platforms’.

29  GNCHR (2020), Information relevant to the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Submission to the UN Committee 

on the Rights of the Child, January 2020.

30  Ivanova, E., Dimitrova, B. and Abdullah, A. (2020), ‘Majority and minorities – attitudes towards the different’ (’Мнозинство 

и малцинства – нагласи към различните’), Alpha Research, 30 March 2020.

31  Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategies (Institutul Român pentru Evaluare și Strategii, IRES) (2020), Perception of Roma in the 

time of COVID-19 pandemic (Percepția asupra Romilor în timpulpandemiei de COVID-19).

32  FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers in six countries, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 37.

33  Ibid, p. 40.

34  ECtHR, R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, No. 20649/18, Judgment, 1 September 2020.

35  ECtHR, A.P. v. Slovakia, No. 10465/17, Opinion, 28 May 2020, para. 3.

36  FRA, Fundamental Rights Report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 90.

37  CoE, European Committee of Social Rights (2020), Decision on admissibility and on immediate measures, European Roma Rights Centre 

(ERRC) v. Belgium, Complaint No. 185/2019, 14 May 2020.

38  Romania, Chamber of Deputies (Camerei Deputaților) (2020), Anti-Gypsyism (Anti-Tziganism) Law (Lege privind unele măsuri pentru 

prevenirea și combaterea antițigănismului).

39  FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers, p. 26.

40  Ibid, p. p. 27.

41  Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) (2020), ‘ÖVP und SPÖ gegen Hermann-Auslieferung’, 15 September 2020.

42  Darik News (2020), ‘Sidi: The Roma are rebelling because they are not used to obeying the law’ (‘Сиди: Ромите се бунтуват, защото 
не са свикнали да спазват законите’), 17 April 2020; Nova Television (Нова телевизия) (2020), ‘IMRO want strict measures against 
crime’ (‘От ВМРО искат строги мерки срещу престъпността’), 20 May 2020.

43  Greece, Iefimerida (2020), ‘Report by the Mayor of Larissa: the Roma did not respect protective measures in the settlement’ 

(‘Καταγγελία δημάρχου Λάρισας: Οι Ρομά δεν τηρούσαν τα μέτρα προστασίας στον οικισμό’), 13 April 2020.

44  FRA (2020), ‘Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers communities: Portugal’, pp. 19–21.

45  My Novohrad (2020). ‘The mayor was considering closing the Roma housing estate, asking the prime minister for an opinion’ (‘Primátor 

zvažoval zavrieť rómske sídlisko, žiada premiéra o stanovisko’), 18 March 2020.

46  Romania, Ministry of the Interior (Ministerul Afacerilor Interne), Military order No� 7 of 4 April 2020 on measures to prevent the spread of 

COVID-19 (Ordonanță Militară nr. 7 din 4 aprilie 2020 privind măsuri de prevenire a răspândirii COVID-19).

47  RADOR (2020), ‘The city of Ţăndărei is currently the focus of coronavirus infection in Ialomiţa County’ (‘Oraşul Ţăndărei este în prezent 

focarul infecţiei de coronavirus din judeţul Ialomiţa’), 4 April 2020.

48  Antena3 (2020), ‘Synthesis of the day� What are violent criminals who returned to Romania from European countries capable of?’ 

(‘Sinteza Zilei. De ce sunt capabili infractorii violenți care s-au întors în România din țări europene’), 20 April 2020.

49  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul National pentru Combaterea Discriminarii) (2020), ‘Press release on the 

decisions adopted by the CNCD Board of Directors at the meeting of 3 June 2020’ (‘Comunicat de presă referitor la hotărârile adoptate 
de Colegiul director al CNCD în ședința din data de 03 iunie 2020’).

50  Romania, NCCD (2020), ‘Press release regarding the decisions adopted by the Board of Directors of CNCD in the meeting of 20 May 

2020’ (‘Comunicat de presă referitor la hotărârile adoptate de Colegiul director al CNCD în ședința din data de 20 mai 2020’).

51  Romania, NCCD (2020), ‘Press release regarding the decisions adopted by the Board of Directors of CNCD in the meeting of 6 May 2020’ 

(‘Comunicat de presă referitor la hotărârile adoptate de Colegiul director al CNCD în ședința din data de 06 mai 2020’).

52  Público (2020), ‘André Ventura multado em mais de 400 euros por discriminar ciganos’ (‘André Ventura fined more than € 400 for 

discriminating against Roma people’), 18 November 2020.

53  isNews (2020), ‘Coronavirus in Campobasso, the defence: The fault of the Roma? But we are not greasers’ (‘Coronavirus a Campobasso, 

la difesa: “Colpa dei rom? Ma noi non siamo untori”’), 10 May 2020.

54  FRA (2020), Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers communities – Romania, pp. 14–15.

55  Sliz, M. (2020), ‘Coronavirus: Will the epidemic cause an increase in hatred of the Roma?’ (‘Koronavírus: Vyvolá epidémia nárast 

nenávisti voči Rómom?’), Aktuality.sk, 7 April 2020.

56  Unión Romaní (2020), ‘Press release on informational anti-Gypsyism related to the COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic – Media that fuel 
racism’ (‘Comunicado de prensa ante el antigitanismo informativo relacionado con la epidemia del coronavirus COVID-19 – Medios que 
alimentan el racismo’), 17 March 2020.

57  Amnesty International (2020), Policing the pandemic� Human rights violations in the enforcement of COVID-19 measures in Europe, p. 25.

58  Romea.cz (2020), ‘Slovak police officer said to have beaten five Romani children in Krompachy settlement and threatened to shoot 

them’, 29 April 2020.

59  European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) (2020), Roma rights in the time of COVID, September 2020, pp. 32–34.

140

141

60  Amnesty International (2020), Policing the pandemic� Human rights violations in the enforcement of COVID-19 measures in Europe, p. 25.

61  FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers in six countries, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

62  FRA (2018), Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey: Roma – Selected findings, p. 68.

63  FCNM Advisory Committee (2020), ‘Fourth opinion on Bulgaria’, ACFC/OP/IV(2020)001Final, CoE.

64  ECRI (2020), ECRI report on the Czech Republic (sixth monitoring cycle), CoE, p. 26.

65  FCNM Advisory Committee (2020), ‘Fifth opinion on Hungary’, ACFC/OP/V(2020)002Final, CoE.

66  ECRI (2020), ECRI report on the Slovak Republic (sixth monitoring cycle), CoE, p. 26.

67  ECRI (2020), ECRI report on the Czech Republic (sixth monitoring cycle), CoE, p. 25.

68  ECRI (2020), ECRI report on the Slovak Republic (sixth monitoring cycle), CoE, p. 29.

69  Slovakia, Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (Ministerstvo školstva SR) (2020), ‘Nultý akčný plán je prvotným východiskom pre 

urýchlené naštartovanie funkčných zmien k zvýšeniu inkluzívnosti vo vzdelávaníʼ, 24 November 2020.

70  Czechia, Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs (Rada vlády pro záležitosti romské menšiny) (2020), Minutes of the meeting of the 
Committee for the Education of Roma (Zápis z jednání Výboru pro vzdělávání Romů), 15 September 2020. See government proposal in: 
Ministry for Education, Youth and Physical Education (2020). Návrh vyhlášky, kterou se mění vyhláška č. 27/2016 Sb., o vzdělávání žáků 
se speciálními vzdělávacími potřebami a žáků nadaných, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, December 4, 2020.

71  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or 

ethnic origin, OJ L 180 (Racial Equality Directive)�

72  European Commission (2020), Infringement number 20142174.

73  European Commission (2020), Infringement number 20152206.

74  European Commission (2020), Infringement number 20152025.

75  Romania, High Court of Justice and Cassation (Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie), Decision No� 1015/2020, 20 February 2020.

76  Hungary, Curia (Kúria), Pfv�IV�21�556/2019/22, 12 May 2020.

77  HírTV (2020); ‘Fidesz: A gyöngyöspatai ítélet csak feszültséget szít’, 12 January 2020.

78  Hungary, Art. 18 of Act No. 87 of 2020, establishing Art� 59-4 of Act No� 190 of 2011 on National Public Education. (2020. évi LXXXVII. 

törvény a nemzeti köznevelésről szóló 2011. évi CXC. törvény módosításáról).

79  Slovakia, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport (2019), Revízia výdavkov na skupiny ohrozené 

chudobou alebo sociálnym vylúčením: Záverečná správa (Revision of expenses for groups at risk of poverty or social exclusion: Final 
report), March 2020.

80  Slovenia, Government of the Republic of Slovenia (Vlada Republike Slovenije) (2020), Sedmo poročilo Vlade Republike Slovenije 

o položaju romske skupnosti v Sloveniji: Priloga 1 – Uresničevanje ukrepov NPUR 2017–2021 v letu 2019, Ljubljana, Government of the 
Republic of Slovenia.

81  Information provided by the Human Rights Ombudsperson (Varuh človekovih pravic) to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of 

Slovenia, 15 March 2021, e-mail of 15 March 2021.

82  Bulgaria, Amendments to the pre-school and school education act (Закон за изменение и допълнение на Закона за предучилищното 

и училищното образование), 18 September 2020.

83  Bulgaria, Supreme Administrative Court- Fifth Division (Върховният административен съд на Република България – Пето 

отделение), Decision No� 458 of 13 January 2020 in Case No. 5375/2019.

84  Poland, Parliament (Sejm), 5th Session of the Parliamentary Commission of National and Ethnic Minorities (Komisji Mniejszości 

Narodowych i Etnicznych), 21 January 2020.

85  Italy, Ministry of Labour and Social Policies (Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali) (2020), Direzione Generale per la lotta alla 

povertà e per la programmazione sociale, Il Direttore Generale, m_lps.41. Registro Decreti.R.0000284.06-08-2020.

86  Netherlands, Minister for Primary and Secondary Education and Media (Minister voor Basis en Voortgezet Onderwijs en Media) (2020), 
‘Tweede Regeling bekostiging personeel PO 2020–2021 en vaststelling bedragen voor ondersteuning van leerlingen in het PO en VO 
2020–2021’, Staatscourant, 4 September 2020.

87  For more information, see the list of scholarships of the fourth edition of the Operational Programme for Promoting Education, on the 

High Commissioner for Migration’s web page.

88  European Commission, Inclusive Schools for Roma, Grant agreement number: 881953 – Inclusive Schools REC-AG-2019 / REC-RDIS-DISC-

AG-2019.

89  Greece, General Secretariat for Social Solidarity and the Fight against Poverty (2020), ‘Press release on the signing of a Cooperation 

Protocol between the General Secretariat and the Hellenic Open University’ (‘Υπογραφή Πρωτοκόλλου συνεργασίας μεταξύ της Γενικής 
Γραμματείας Κοινωνικής Αλληλεγγύης και Καταπολέμησης της Φτώχειας και του Ελληνικού Ανοικτού Πανεπιστημίου (ΕΑΠ)’), 7 August 
2020.

90  France, Decree No. 2020-811 specifying the documents that may be requested in support of an application for enrollment on the list 
provided for in Art. L. 131-6 of the Education Code (Décret n° 2020-811 précisant les pièces pouvant être demandées à l’appui d’une 
demande d’inscription sur la liste prévue à l’article L. 131-6 du code de l’éducation)Décret n° 2020-811 précisant les pièces pouvant être 
demandées à l’appui d’une demande d’inscription sur la liste prévue à l’article L. 131-6 du code de l’éducation, 29 June 2020.

91  Council of Europe (CoE), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) (2020), ECRI report on Austria (sixth monitoring 

cycle), 2 June 2020.

92  Croatia, Ministry of Science and Education (Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja) (2020), ‘Decision on the introduction of the curriculum 
for the subject language and culutre of the Roma national minority for elementary and secondary schools in the Republic of Croatia 
(model C)’ (Odluka o donošenju kurikuluma za nastavni predmet Jezik i kultura romske nacionalne manjine u osnovnim školama 
u Republici Hrvatskoj (model C)), 29 April 2020.

93  Ireland, Irish Traveller Movement (2020), Newsletter, August 2020.

142

143

94  Spain, Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (Ministerio de Educación y Formación profesional) (2020), ‘El MEFP presenta un 

protocolo para la inclusión de la historia y la cultura gitana en el currículo escolar’, press release, 14 February 2020.

95  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implication; FRA (2020), Bulletin #2 Coronavirus pandemic 
in the EU – Fundamental rights implications: With a focus on contact tracing apps; European Commission (2020), Overview of the impact 
of coronavirus measures on the marginalised Roma communities in the EU.

96  Hristova, A., Petrova, S. and Papazova, E. (2020), Assessing the impact of distance learning in an electronic environment or other non-

presence forms on the effectiveness of school education (Оценка на въздействието на обучението от разстояние в електронна 
среда или други неприсъствени форми върху ефективността на училищното образование), Sofia, Institute for Research in 
Education (Институт за изследвания в образованието).

97  IRES (2020), School during the state of emergency – Romanian children’s access to online education (Școala în stare de urgență – Accesul 

copiilor școlari din România la educație online), May, p. 1.

98  Slovakia, Institute of Educational Policy, Ministry of Education, Research, Science and Sport (Inštitút vzdelávacej politiky, Ministerstvo 

školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu SR) (2020), ‘Hlavné zistenia z dotazníkového prieskumu v základných a stredných školách o priebehu 
dištančnej výučby v školskom roku 2019/2020’.

99  Greece, National Commission for Human Rights (2020), Submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, January 2020; Report 
on the need for protection of human rights with regard to the measures taken in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and 
recommendations to the State, June 2020.

100 FRA (2020), Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers.

101 Croatia Ministry of Science and Education: Decision of 5 June 2020 on the allocation of funds to primary schools for the purchase of 

laptops and printers for Roma assistants (Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja) (2020).

102 Croatia Ministry of Science and Education: Decision of 15 December 2020 on the allocation of funds to the Roma education fund 

(Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja) (2020).

103 FRA (2020), Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Traveller communities – Portugal, 29 September 2020, p. 16.

104 Information provided by the Department of National Minorities under the Government of Lithuania.

105 FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers.

106 European Commission (2020), Analytical document accompanying the EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and 

participation, SWD(2020) 530 final, Brussels, 7 October 2020, ‘Annex 2: Baselines for EU headline indicators’.

107 FCNM Advisory Committee (2020), Fourth opinion on Portugal adopted on 28 June 2019, CoE, p. 36.

108 European Commission (2020), Civil society monitoring report on implementation of the national Roma integration strategy in Italy, 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers.

109 Information provided to FRANET in November 2020 by the Interministerial Delegation for Housing (Délégation interministérielle 

à l’hébergement et à l’accès au lodgement, DIHAL), which serves as the National Roma Contact Point (NRCP) in France.

110 Commissioner of Administration and the Protection of Human Rights (2020): Report regarding the living conditions of the Roma 

community in Cyprus.

111  FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers, 15 June 2020.

112  Ibid.

113  FRA (2020), Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers communities: Bulgaria. p.3.

114 FRA (2020), Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers communities, 15 June 2020.

115  Slovakia, Government (Vláda SR) (2020), Resolution 195/2020 adopted on 2 April 2020.

116 Šimoňákový, M. (2020), ‘Päť osád na Spiši uzavrelu pre koronavírus. Budú izolované’, Korzár, 8 April 2020.

117  FRA (2020), Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers.

118 France, Law No� 2020–546 of 11 May 2020 extending the state of health emergency and supplementing its provisions (Loi n° 2020-546 

du 11 mai 2020 prorogeant l’état d’urgence sanitaire et complétant ses dispositions).

119 Korona virus (2020). ‘A kormány felfüggesztette a végrehajtásokat és a kilakoltatásokat’.

120 Ireland, Houses of Oireachtas, Residential Tenancies and Valuation Act, No� 7 of 2020, Section 13(b).

121  Italy, Decree-Law 17 March 2020, No. 18, Strengthening measures of the National Health Service and economic support for families, 

workers and businesses connected to the epidemiological emergency from COVID-19 (20G00034) (GU General Series no� 70 of 17 March 
2020) (Decreto-legge 17 marzo 2020, n. 18, Misure di potenziamento del Servizio sanitario nazionale e di sostegno economico per 
famiglie, lavoratori e imprese connesse all’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19).

122 ERRC (2020), Roma rights in the time of COVID, September 2020.

123 ERRC (2020), ‘Hungary: Forced evictions of Roma mark the end of the COVID-19 moratorium’, 8 October 2020.

124 Ireland, Residential Tenancies and Valuation Act 2020�

125 ERRC (2020), Roma rights in the time of COVID, 9 September 2020.

126 CoE, European Committee of Social Rights (2020), European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium, Complaint No. 195/2020, 28 May 

2020.

127 Manev, G. (2020), ‘Illegal buildings in a neighbourhood in Stara Zagora are demolished’ (’Събарят незаконни постройки в махала 

в Стара Загора’), Nova Television, 4 August 2020.

128 Baltic News Network (2020), ‘BNN Research | Roma settlement in Vilnius vanishes, but thorny issues won’t go away’, 11 June 2020.

129 European Roma Rights Centre (2020): Despair in Stara Zagora as Roma family homes are demolished. 10 August 2020.

  Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (2020): 1095 social housing units to be built for over 2500 people with European 

Funds. (1095 социални жилища за над 2 500 души се изграждат с европейски средства).

142

143

130 Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Български хелзинкски комитет) (2020), ‘A huge number of people in Bulgaria are without address 

registration’ (‘Огромен брой хора в България са без адресна регистрация’), press release, 30 April 2020.

131  Italy, Decree of the Division of Civil Protection No. 658 of 29 March 2020. (‘Ocdpc n.658 del 29 marzo 2020. Ulteriori interventi urgenti 

di protezione civile in relazione all’emergenza relativa al rischio sanitario connesso all’insorgenza di patologie derivanti da agenti virali 
trasmissibili.’)

132 Italy, Ordinary Count of Rome (Tribunale Ordinario di Roma), Sezione Dritti della Persona e Imigrazione Civile, No. 18957/2020, 21 April 

2020.

133  FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers.

134 Information provided to FRA in April 2021 by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland.

135 Belgium, Government of Wallonia, Minister of Local Government and Housing (Ministre du Logement, des Pouvoirs Locaux et de la Ville) 

(2020), Circulaire “Coronavirus: Gens du Voyage”, 3 November 2020.

136 Greece, Ministry of the Interior (2020), Decision by the general manager Local Government Finance and Development Policy on the 
Extraordinary distribution of amount 2. (Υπουργείο Εσωτερικών), 2 April 2020, ‘Extraordinary allocation of €20,000,00 from the 
Central Autonomous Resources for 2020 to the Municipality of Central Corfu and the Diapontia Islands, to meet needs to avoid the 
spread of COVID-19 coronavirus in Roma settlements and camps�’, 2 April 2020. ‘Extraordinary allocation of €50,000,00 from the 
Central Autonomous Resources for 2020 to the Region of Thessaly, to meet needs to avoid the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus to 
Roma settlements and camps�’, 10 April 2020. Greece, Ministry of Interior, ‘Extraordinary allocation of 50�000,00€, from the Central 
Autonomous Resources for 2020 to the Municipality of Larissa, to meet needs to avoid the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus in Roma 
settlements and camps�’, 10 April 2020. ‘Extraordinary additional € 45,000�00, from the Central Autonomous Resources for 2020 to 
Municipalities of the country, to meet needs to avoid the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus in Roma settlements and camps�’, 16 April 
2020, Extraordinary allocation of €20,000,00 from the Central Autonomous Resources for 2020 to the Municipalities of Iasmos and 
Maronia-Sapon N�Rodope, to meet needs to avoid the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus in Roma settlements and camps.’, 28 April 
2020. Extraordinary allocation of €45,000�00, from the Central Autonomous Resources for 2020, to the Municipalities of Kordelio-
Evosmos and Kileller, to meet needs to avoid the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus in Roma settlements and camps.’, 6 May 2020.

137 Slovakia, Ministry of the Interior (Ministertvo vnútra SR) (2020), National project: ‘Support of actions targeting adverse situations 

associated with COVID-19 in municipalities with the presence of marginalized Romani communities’ (‘Ministerstvo vnútra schválilo dva 
projekty na zmiernenie následkov pandémie v marginalizovaných rómskych komunitách financované z eurofondov’).

138 FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers in six countries. Roma and Travellers survey in Belgium, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

139 FRA (2018), A persisting concern: Anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 41.

140 FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers survey 2019 in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, p. 94.

141 ERRC (2020), Reproductive rights of Romani women in Hungary, Brussels, ERRC, April 2020.

142 ERRC (2020), Reproductive rights of Romani women in Bulgaria, Brussels, ERRC, April 2020.

143 Hungary, Supreme Court, Pfv�IV�20�677/2019/8, judgment of 20 May 2020.

144 Court of Appeals Bitola, S.P., E.P., M.B. and N.P. v. JZU Klinička bolnica ‚D-r Trifun Panovski‘ Bitola and JZU ‚Opšta bolnica D-r Trifun Panovski‘ 

Prilep, Case No: ГЖ-681/20. For more on the strategic litigation efforts, see Salioska N. and Trenkoska T. (2014), Law in practice: Analysis 
of the challenges in the legal protection of the right to health and health care of the Roma from the practice of ROMA S.O.S., Prilep, 
Roma SOS.

145 Czechia, Ombudsperson (2020), ‘Unlawfully sterilised women have a right to compensation, asserts the Deputy Ombudsperson’ 
(‘Nezákonně sterilizované ženy mají právo na odškodnění, vyzývá zástupkyně ombudsmana’), press release, 11 September 2020.

146 CoE, European Committee for Social Rights, Decision on Complaint No. 157/2017, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and Mental 

Disability Advocacy Centre (MDAC) v. Czech Republic.

147 CoE (1961), European Social Charter.

148 France, Chandioux, O. (2020) ‘Coronavirus: Samu and police intervention in a Travellers’ camp in Schoeneck’ (‘Coronavirus:intervention 

du Samu et de la police dans un camp de gens du voyage à Schoeneck’), France Bleu, 12 March 2020.

149 FRA (2020), Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers communities: Portugal, p. 4.

150 Romea.cz (2020), ‘Slovakia: 40 FAQs about COVID-19 testing in marginalized Roma communities’, 6 April 2020.

151  FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers., p. 20.

152 For more information, see FRA (2020), ‘Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights implications’, 2 July 2020, pp. 14-17.

153 Bulgaria, National Network of Health Mediators (Национална мрежа на здравните медиатори) (2020), ‘The training of new health 
mediators in 2020 has begun’ (‘Започна обучението на нови здравни медиатори през 2020 година’), press release, 7 May 2020.

154 European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation, COM(2020) 

620 final, Brussels, 7 October 2020.

155 European Commission (2020), Proposal for a Council recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, {SWD(2020) 530}, 

COM(2020) 621 final, Brussels, 7 October 2020.

156 European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020–2025, COM(2020) 565 final, Brussels, 18 September 

2020.

157 European Commission (2020), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, A Union of equality: EU 

Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation SWD(2020) 530 final.

158 European Commission (2020), Proposal for a Council recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, {SWD(2020) 530}, 

COM(2020) 621 final, Brussels, 7 October 2020.

159 European Commission (2018), Report on the evaluation of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020, 

COM(2018) 785 final, Brussels, 4 December 2018.

160 UNECE/EUROSTAT (2006), Conference of European Statisticians Recommendations for the 2010 Censuses of Population and Housing, UN, 

New York and Geneva, 2006.

144

145

161 Bulgarian National Statistical Institute (n.d.), ‘Project: Novel approaches to generating data on hard-to-reach populations at risk of 

violation of their rights’.

162 Slovak National Roma Contact Point Office, Project: Monitoring and evaluation.

163 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2020), Poverty measurement: Guide to data disaggregation, New York and Geneva, 

UN, 2020.

164 United Nations (2018), A human rights-based approach to data: Leaving no one behind in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

165 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2020), Poverty measurement: Guide to data disaggregation, New York and Geneva, 

UN, p. 70-71.

166 Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs (2020), ‘Creating a system for quantitative data collection to evaluate the situation of 

Roma in Czech society’.

167 Croatia, Government, Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities (Ured za ljudska prava i prava nacionalnih manjina) 

(n.d.). Roma Inclusion - Fulfilling Preconditions for Successful Implementation of National Minority Policies - PHASE I (Uključivanje Roma - 
Ispunjavanje preduvjeta za učinkovitu provedbu politika usmjerenih na nacionalne manjine – FAZA I).

168 UN (2012), Human rights indicators: A guide to measurement and implementation, New York and Geneva, UN.

144

145

ASYLUM, VISAS, MIGRATION,  
BORDERS AND INTEGRATION

6

6�1�1�  DEATHS AND DISAPPEARANCES 

6�1� 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AT BORDERS 

6�1�2�  REFOULEMENT AND COLLECTIVE EXPULSIONS: NEW LEGAL STANDARDS 

6�1�3�  REFOULEMENT AND ILL-TREATMENT ALLEGATIONS 

6�1�4� 

INVESTIGATING ALLEGED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AT BORDERS 

6�1�5�  DIFFICULTIES IN FINDING A SAFE PORT 

6�1�6�  KEEPING NEW ARRIVALS AT BORDERS 

6�1�7�  TURNING BACK PEOPLE AT INTERNAL EU BORDERS 

152

153

154

155

157

158

158

160

6�1�8�  SANCTIONS AGAINST HUMANITARIANS WHO HELP MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES  161

6�2�  ASYLUM, IMMIGRATION, AND RETURN PROCEDURES DURING 

COVID-19 PANDEMIC 

6�2�1�  ACCESS TO ASYLUM 

6�2�3�  INCREASED FOCUS ON NON-REMOVED MIGRANTS 

6�2�4�  NEW CJEU JUDGMENTS INFORM RETURN PROCEDURES 

6�3� 

 EU LARGE-SCALE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 

6�3�1�  PROGRESS IN ESTABLISHING THE SYSTEMS 

6�3�2�  USE OF ALGORITHMS IN FUTURE EU IT SYSTEMS 

6�4� 

REFUGEE AND MIGRANT INTEGRATION 

6�4�1�  A NEW EU ACTION PLAN ON INTEGRATION AND INCLUSION 

6�4�2�  THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF LONG-TERM RESIDENTS 

FRA OPINIONS 

146

ENDNOTES 

162

162

164

165

166

166

167

168

169

169

171

173

147

UN & CoE

15

30 

January

Ambassador Drahoslav Štefánek takes up 
his functions as the Council of Europe (CoE) 
Secretary General’s Special Representative 
on Migration and Refugees�

CoE Parliamentary Assembly adopts 
resolution and recommendation 
on ‘Missing refugee and migrant 
children in Europe’�

10

13

20 

February

CoE publishes a study 
on gender-based 
asylum claims and 
non-refoulement 
under the Istanbul 
Convention�

N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC] (Nos� 8675/15 and 8697/15) concerns the summary returns 
of two sub-Saharan Africans who entered the Spanish enclave of Melilla by scaling the 
border fence� European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finds that the applicants – who 
had no arguable claim under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights 
(ECHR) – did not use other means to seek legal entry into Spain� Hence, the lack of 
individual removal decisions was because of their own culpable conduct and did not 
violate the prohibition of collective expulsion�

17

25

26 

In M.A. and Others v. Bulgaria 
(No� 5115/18), ECtHR finds that 
the removal to China of Uighur 
Muslims at risk of being placed 
in ‘re-education camps’ would 
violate Article 2 (right to life) 
and Article 3 (prohibition of 
torture) of the ECHR�

March

European Committee for the Prevention of 
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment (CPT) publishes report on Hungary, 
which finds that between 2017 and 2018 nothing 
had been done to put in place effective safeguards 
to prevent ill-treatment of persons returned by the 
police through the border fence to Serbia�

World Health Organization 
(WHO) publishes interim 
guidance for refugee and 
migrant health in relation 
to COVID-19 in the WHO 
European region�

—  In Bilalova and Others v. Poland (No� 23685/14), ECtHR 
rules that the pre-removal detention of the children of 
a Russian woman violated Article 5 (1) (f) of the ECHR, 
since national authorities did not take into account 
the children’s vulnerability, including by not exploring 
alternatives and not limiting the duration of detention�

—  CoE Commissioner for Human Rights calls for 

continuation of search-and-rescue activities at sea 
and the release of immigration detainees during the 
COVID-19 pandemic�

7 

9 

April

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human 
Rights publishes guidance on the human rights 
dimensions of COVID-19, focusing on migrants�

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) issues 
practical recommendations and good practice 
guidelines to address protection concerns in the 
context of the COVID-19 pandemic�

12

13

26

May

Sudita Keita v. Hungary (No� 42321/15) concerns 
a stateless person who was unable to regularise 
his stay for 15 years� ECtHR rules that Hungary, 
by not providing an effective and accessible 
procedure enabling the person to have his status 
as a stateless person determined, violated the 
right to respect for private life under Article 8 of 
the ECHR�

—  UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of 

migrants submits his report on the right to freedom 
of association of migrants and their defenders� It 
examines recent trends in restrictions on freedom 
of association for migrants and civil society 
organisations working to protect migrants’ rights�

—  UN Migration Network calls on states to suspend 
forced returns during the COVID-19 pandemic, to 
protect the health of migrants and communities�

UN Committee on Migrant 
Workers and UN Special 
Rapporteur on the 
human rights of migrants 
publish a joint guidance 
note on the impacts of 
the COVID-19 pandemic 
on the human rights of 
migrants�

19

—  UN Special Rapporteurs on the human rights of migrants and on torture and 
other forms of ill-treatment jointly call on Croatia to investigate reports of 
excessive use of force by police in migrant pushback operations, including 
acts amounting to torture and ill-treatment, and punish those responsible�

—  CoE Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) 

issues guidance on the entitlement of victims of trafficking in human 
beings, and persons at risk of being trafficked, to international protection�

25

June

Moustahi v. France (No� 9347/14) concerns children 
apprehended after irregularly entering the French 
overseas territory of Mayotte and detained together 
with unrelated adults� ECtHR finds that France violated 
Article 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment), Article 5 (right to 
liberty), and Article 8 (right to family life) of the ECHR�

147

146

UN & CoE

July

2 

23 

—  N.H. and Others v. France (No� 28820/13 and two others) 

concerns asylum applicants who were forced to live on the 
streets for months in precarious living conditions� ECtHR 
concludes that the French authorities were responsible for 
the inhuman and degrading living conditions, in violation of 
Article 3 of the ECHR�

—  CoE Special Representative of the Secretary General on 

Migration and Refugees publishes a handbook on family 
reunification for refugee and migrant children�

M.K. and Others v. Poland (No� 40503/17 
and two others) concerns Russian 
nationals fleeing from Chechnya� ECtHR 
finds that refusing them entry into Poland 
pending the examination of their asylum 
claims violated Article 3 of the ECHR, and 
rejecting them at the border without an 
individual assessment of their claims 
amounted to collective expulsion�

August

27

European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) 
approves CoE action plan on fostering international 
co-operation and investigative strategies in fighting the 
smuggling of migrants�

September

18

GRETA issues compendium of good practices in 
addressing trafficking in human beings for the purpose 
of labour exploitation�

October

8

27

UN Special Rapporteur 
on the human rights of 
migrants, and other UN 
experts, condemn the 
criminalisation in Italy of 
those saving lives in the 
Mediterranean�

M.A. v. Belgium (No� 19656/18) concerns an individual’s 
removal to Sudan  despite a court decision suspending the 
measure� ECtHR finds that the Belgian authorities violated 
the prohibition of ill-treatment (Article 3 of the ECHR), on the 
grounds of procedural defects prior to the removal, and violated 
the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the ECHR) by not 
respecting the suspensive effect of the initial court order�

November

19

24

CPT publishes report on Greece� It finds inhuman 
and degrading conditions in immigration detention, 
pushbacks and ill-treatment of detained migrants 
by the police�

UN Secretary General publishes the first report on the 
impact of the Global Compact for Migration in the two 
years since its adoption� It notes efforts required to 
improve migration governance�

December

10

18

Shiksaitov v. Slovakia (No� 56751/16) concerns the 
detention of a refugee of Russian origin recognised 
by Sweden, with a view to his extradition to Russia� 
ECtHR finds violation of Article 5 (1) (right to liberty 
and security) and Article 5 (5) (enforceable right to 
compensation) of the ECHR�

UN Migration Network 
calls on governments 
to include migrants 
in their COVID-19 
response and 
recovery�

148

149

EU

1

February

With the withdrawal of the 
United Kingdom (UK) from the 
EU, citizens of the UK become 
third-country nationals for 
the EU�

16

19

30 

March

European Commission 
issues COVID-19 
guidelines for border 
management to 
protect health and 
ensure the availability 
of goods and essential 
services�

In L.H. v. Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal 
(C-564/18), Court of Justice of the European Union 
(CJEU) states that the list of inadmissibility grounds in 
the Asylum Procedures Directive is exhaustive, such 
grounds are cumulative, and the concept of ‘safe third 
country’ cannot be applied if one of those conditions 
has not been satisfied�

—  EU adopts new regulation on the European image-

archiving system or False and Authentic Documents 
Online (FADO) (Regulation (EU) 2020/493)�

—  European Commission publishes guidance on the 
implementation of COVID-19-related temporary 
restrictions on non-essential travel to the EU, on the 
facilitation of transit for the repatriation of EU citizens, 
and on the effects on visa policy�

2 

16 

April

—  In C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17, CJEU finds that Poland, Hungary and Czechia 
breached EU law by refusing to comply with the temporary mechanism for the 
relocation of applicants for international protection�

—  In Ruska Federacija v. I.N. [GC] (C-897/19 PPU), CJEU rules that nationals of the 
European Economic Area (EEA) can benefit from the EEA Agreement, as an 
integral part of EU law, to gain protection from extradition to a third country 
under the principle of non-refoulement�

European Commission 
presents guidance on 
implementing EU rules 
on asylum, return 
and resettlement 
procedures during the 
COVID-19 pandemic�

14

May

In FMS and Others [GC] (C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 
PPU), CJEU clarifies that placing asylum applicants 
or returnees in a transit zone at the Hungarian-
Serbian border counts as detention� It reconfirms 
that judicial review of detention measures and 
of return decisions must always be available, in 
accordance with Article 47 of the Charter�

11

25

June

In WT (C-448/19), CJEU interprets the Long-term 
Residents Directive (2003/109/EC) as precluding 
national measures that provide for automatic expulsion 
of long-term residents convicted of criminal offences 
carrying sentences of more than one year without 
examining whether or not they pose a sufficiently 
serious threat to public order and security�

In Ministerio Fiscal v. VL (C-
36/20 PPU), CJEU underlines that 
the lack of places in a reception 
facility cannot justify holding 
an applicant for international 
protection in detention�

148

149

EU

July

1 

16 

EU–Belarus visa 
facilitation and 
readmission agreements 
enter into force�

Milkiyas Addis v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-517/17) 
concerns a beneficiary of international protection 
who submitted a new application in another Member 
State� CJEU clarifies that the reviewing court is entitled 
to correct the asylum authority’s omission of not 
conducting the personal interview if the court can 
guarantee all conditions of a personal interview which 
the Asylum Procedures Directive prescribes�

September

19

23

30

In JP (C-651/19), the CJEU rules that in the case 
of a subsequent asylum application, the Asylum 
Procedures Directive, read in light of Article 47 of 
the Charter (right to an effective remedy), does 
not preclude national legislation which provides 
that appeals against an inadmissibility decision  are 
subject to a deadline of 10 days�

European Commission 
presents a new Pact on 
Migration and Asylum, 
a package of hard law 
proposals and soft law 
instruments� It sets 
out a new approach to 
migration and asylum, 
with a stronger focus on 
border procedures�

In B. v. Centre public d’action 
sociale de Liège (C-233/19), CJEU 
clarifies that the enforcement 
of a return decision issued to 
a seriously ill person must be 
automatically suspended when 
there is reasonable ground to 
believe that the individual’s 
health would irreversibly 
deteriorate if returned�

October

21

28

European Commission publishes the 
Third report on the progress made in 
the fight against trafficking in human 
beings, which also addresses trafficking 
in the context of international 
migration and child trafficking� 

European Commission publishes 
COVID-19 guidance on persons exempted 
from the temporary restriction on non-
essential travel to the EU, implementing 
Council Recommendation 2020/912 of 
30 June 2020�

November

24

30

—  In R.N.N.S. and K.A. [GC] (C-225/19 and C-226/19), the CJEU holds that, if a 

Member State refuses to issue a Schengen visa because of an objection raised 
by another Member State, it must indicate the identity of the objecting Member 
State and the specific ground for refusal, accompanied, where appropriate, by 
the reasons for that objection� This is to respect the right to an effective remedy�

—  European Commission publishes new action plan on integration and inclusion for 
2021–2027�European Commission publishes new action plan on integration and 
inclusion for 2021–2027�

European Data Protection 
Supervisor adopts opinion 
on the Pact on Migration 
and Asylum, calling for 
an in-depth fundamental 
rights and data protection 
impact assessment�

December

17

—  In Commission v. Hungary [GC] (C-808/18), CJEU finds that the Hungarian law 

and practice of escorting apprehended migrants in an irregular situation back to 
the outer side of the border fence with Serbia, without issuing a return decision 
and respecting other safeguards, is in breach of the Return Directive (Directive 
2008/115/EC)� Restricting access to asylum and unlawfully detaining applicants 
in transit zones constitute infringements of EU asylum acquis�

—  European Parliament adopts resolution on the implementation of the Return 
Directive (2008/115/EC), based on an implementation assessment by the 
European Parliamentary Research Service�

150

151

Respect for fundamental rights at borders remained one of the 

top human rights challenges in the EU� Deaths at sea, delays in 

assigning a safe port to rescued migrants and threats against 

humanitarian rescue boats continued� So did allegations of 

pushbacks and violence� The European Commission presented 

a new Pact on Migration and Asylum, a package of hard law 

proposals and soft law documents that puts a stronger focus 

on border procedures and proposes new forms of solidarity� 

Meanwhile, asylum procedures were adapted to cope with 

COVID-19-related restrictions� The EU made progress in 

establishing its large-scale information technology (IT) systems 

and started exploring the use of artificial intelligence for border 

control and migration management� Following Brexit, citizens of 

the United Kingdom became subject to new rules�

150

151

6�1�  FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AT BORDERS

From 2015 to 2019, Europeans saw immigration as the main challenge facing 
the EU. This changed with the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020.

Still, when asked what they see as the two most important issues facing the 
EU in 2020, some 23 % of EU citizens listed immigration. In 10 EU Member 
States, immigration remains the top concern. As Figure 6.1 illustrates, these 
are Member States in southern Europe particularly affected by irregular 
arrivals (Cyprus, Greece, and Malta), and Member States in central Europe 
with low irregular migration figures.1 

Globally, the number of forcibly displaced people remains high. The United 
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports an unprecedented 
79.5 million displaced people at the end of 2019, which roughly corresponds 
to 1 % of humanity.2 Developing countries host some 85 % of those displaced 
across borders. Only one EU Member State, Germany, features among the 
top 10 refugee-hosting countries.3

FIGURE 6�1: TEN EU MEMBER STATES IN WHICH EUROPEANS SEE IMMIGRATION AS THE MAIN EU CHALLENGE, 2020 

EE

LV

LT

CZ

PL

SK

HU

EL

MT

CY

 Note:
Based on responses to 
the question, “What do 
you think are the two 
most important issues 
facing the EU at the 
moment?”

Source:  FRA, 2021 [based on European Commission, Standard Eurobarometer 93, October 2020]

152

153

Asylum applications in the 27 EU Member States, Norway, and Switzerland 
dropped by 31 %, from some 671,200 in 2019 to 461,300 in 2020.4 Most 
applications were lodged in Germany, France, Spain, and Greece. In proportion 
to the resident population, most new asylum applications were in Cyprus, 
Malta and Greece, and fewest in Hungary and Estonia.5

The number of migrants apprehended after crossing the EU’s external land 
or sea border without authorisation continued to drop in 2020. Some 127,579 
people – including 10,537 women and 15,509 children – crossed the border 
irregularly in 2020, according to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency 
(Frontex). This is 11 % fewer than in 2019, although on some routes, particularly 
towards the Canaries, sea crossings increased.6

On 23 September 2020, the European Commission published the new Pact 
on Migration and Asylum. It sets out the Commission’s new approach to 
migration. It puts a stronger focus on border procedures, suggests new 
solidarity measures and seeks to ensure more coherence, integrating the 
internal and external dimensions of migration and asylum policies.7

6�1�1� 
Deaths and disappearances
Some  2,276  people  died  or  went  missing  in 
2020 when trying to cross the sea to reach an 
EU Member State, the International Organization 
for Migration (IOM) estimates. Increasing numbers 
of people are dying or going missing in the Atlantic 
while trying to reach the Canaries.8

The deadliest incident occurred off the coast 
of Senegal in October 2020: some 140 people 
drowned.9 For an increasing number of incidents, 
there  is  little  evidence  on  the  numbers  and 
whereabouts of victims, partly due to reduced 
search-and-rescue capacity, the IOM reports.10 On 
average, at sea, there were more than six victims 
per day. Figure 6.2 illustrates the trend in deaths 
at sea over the past five years.

Some 83 migrants and refugees also died at Europe’s land borders, most of 
them along the western Balkan route and at the Greek-Turkish border. In 
addition, 27 deaths occurred at internal EU borders. The most common causes 
of death are drowning in rivers, traffic accidents, violence, hypothermia and 
exhaustion.11 Border guards regularly have to carry out search-and-rescue 
operations.12

Notes:

Numbers in black correspond to 
the total deaths. 
children.


 = Deaths of 

152

FIGURE 6�2: ESTIMATED FATALITIES AT SEA, 2016–2020, MEDITERRANEAN AND ATLANTIC ROUTE TO CANARIES

5,312
179

3,140
78

2,344
118

2,095
94

2,276
86

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: FRA, 2021 [based on information from IOM, 2020]

153

6�1�2�  Refoulement and collective expulsions: new legal 
standards
Refoulement means returning an individual to a risk of persecution 
or serious harm. Article 78 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (TFEU) and Articles 18 and 19 of the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibit refoulement and collective 
expulsions.

Pursuant to Article 52 (3) of the Charter, these provisions must be 
interpreted in light of the meaning of Article 2 (right to life) and 
Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on 
Human Rights (ECHR) and of Article 4 of Protocol 4 (prohibition 
of collective expulsion) of the ECHR. In 2020, the European Court 
of Human Rights (ECtHR) further clarified the content of these 
provisions. Following new case law in 2020, Table 6.1 shows where 
selected legal standards on the prohibition of refoulement and of 
collective expulsion converge and where they do not.

Notes:

a  Cases in bold and italics are from 2020. Entries shaded in 

yellow highlight significant differences.

b 

c 

d 

Full case names (2020): ECtHR, Asady and Others v. 
Slovakia, No. 24917/15, 24 March 2020; M.A. v. Belgium, 
No. 19656/18, 27 October 2020; M.K. and Others v. Poland, 
Nos. 40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17, 23 July 2020; 
Moustahi v. France, No. 9347/14, 25 June 2020; ECtHR, 
N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 
13 February 2020.

Full case names (before 2020): F.G. v. Sweden [GC], 
No. 43611/11, 23 March 2016; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. 
Italy [GC], No. 27765/09, 23 February 2012; Ilias and Ahmed 
v. Hungary [GC], No. 47287/15, 21 November 2019; ECtHR, 
M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], No. 30696/09, 21 January 
2011; Soering v. the United Kingdom, No. 14038/88, 7 July 
1989.

For further details, see ECtHR, Case law guides on 
immigration and on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR, 
which are regularly updated; and FRA and Council of Europe 
(2020), Handbook on European law relating to asylum, 
borders and immigration – Edition 2020, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, December 2020, Section 4.2.

e  Under EU law, Art. 4 of the Schengen Borders Code requires 

that any decision be taken on an individual basis, which is 
also a general principle of EU law.



TABLE 6�1:  SELECTED LEGAL STANDARDS ON PROHIBITIONS OF REFOULEMENT AND OF COLLECTIVE EXPULSION, UNDER ECTHR 

CASE LAW AS OF 2020a,b,c,d

Non-refoulement

Prohibition of collective expulsion

Standards

Applies to persons present in the 
territory, to non-admission at 
borders, and on high seas

ECtHR judgments  
(paragraphs)

M.K. (129-132, 179) 
Soering (90, 91)

Hirsi (114, 122, 137)

No need to formally request 
asylum; authorities must examine 
bars to removal on their own 
motion if they are aware of facts 
that could put a person at risk

M.A. (81)  
F.G. (127)  
Hirsi (133)

Standards

ECtHR judgments  
(paragraphs)

Applies to persons present in the territory, 
to non-admission at borders, and on high 
seas

Asady (60)

N.D. and N.T. (185, 187)

A state must provide effective access to 
asylum at its borders

M.K. (200, 204)

Hirsi

N.D. and N.T. (209)

The action can concern one or 
more persons

—

The action must concern at least two 
persons

N.D. and N.T. (193-194 
and 202-203)

Requires rigorous scrutiny of the 
individual circumstances of the 
case

Ilias and Ahmed (127)

M.S.S. (301)

Requires a reasonable and objective 
examination of the individual case

Degree of individual examination depends 
on several factors; individual’s own 
culpable conduct may exceptionally forfeit 
the need for an individual expulsion 
decisione

Moustahi (133-137)

Asady (62–71)

N.D. and N.T.  
(201, 209-211)

Effective remedy in case of 
arguable claim implies that the 
removal be suspended until 
a court or tribunal reviews the 
case

M.K. (142–143)

M.S.S. (288, 293)

If there is also an arguable claim under 
Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR, the remedy 
must automatically suspend the removal

M.K. (144)

If there is no arguable claim under these 
two provisions, there must be an effective 
possibility of challenging the expulsion 
decision and having an independent and 
impartial entity re-examine it thoroughly

Moustahi (151)

Source: FRA, 2021

154

155

Note: 

 indicates allegations of ill-treatment 

or excessive use of force.


6�1�3�  Refoulement and ill-treatment allegations
In accordance with the general principles of Union law, any decision relating 
to a person must be taken on an individual basis.13 If authorities stop or 
apprehend people at external borders and there are indications that they 
may wish to make an application for international protection, the authorities 
must tell them how they can apply.14 Nevertheless, allegations of unlawful 
returns or non-admissions continued in 2020, as Figure 6.3 shows.

FIGURE 6�3: CASES OF REFOULEMENT (ALLEGED OR CONFIRMED) AT EU’S EXTERNAL BORDERS, 2020

Polish border guards 
had unlawfully 
returned asylum 
applicants, the 
ECtHR ﬁnds.

Hungarian law 
requires all 
applicants to be 
escorted to the 
Serbian side of 
the border fence.

Many migrants and refugees 
were apprehended at the 
Greek-Turkish land border 
and in the Eastern Aegean 
and returned to Turkey or 
put adrift at sea.

In Cyprus, boats 
with migrants were 
turned back at sea 
towards Lebanon.

Many migrants 
detected in Croatia
were brought back to
the Bosnian or Serbian 
border. Some claimed
that they had not
been allowed to 
request asylum.  

Under Spanish law, people 
caught when jumping the 
fence in Ceuta/Melilla may 
be automatically returned 
to Morocco. 

In April, Malta 
coordinated
search-and-rescue 
operation leading
to disembarkation 
in Libya.

Source: FRA, 2021[based on sources listed in endnotes 15-28]

154

155

FRA ACTIVITY
Analysing the 
fundamental rights 
situation at the 
EU’s external land 
borders
In 2020, FRA released two 
publications on fundamental rights 
at the external border. In March, 
together with the Council of Europe 
Special Representative on Migration 
and Refugees, FRA explained how 
European law applies at borders. In 
December, FRA issued a report on the 
fundamental rights challenges at the 
EU’s external land borders. The report 
also identifies points for future action.

See FRA and Council of Europe (2020), 
Fundamental rights of refugees, asylum 
applicants and migrants at the European 
borders, March 2020; FRA (2020), 
Migration: Fundamental rights issues at 
land borders, December 2020.

In 2020, two EU Member States enacted rules allowing removals without 
an individual procedure.

 ― In early 2020, Turkey announced that it would no longer stop refugees 
and migrants from entering the EU and facilitated their efforts to reach 
the border. Thousands of people arrived at the Greek land border and 
tried to enter the EU by force.15 On 2 March 2020, Greece suspended for 
one month the submission of asylum applications for those who did not 
fulfil entry conditions.16 In April 2020, the authorities lifted the suspension, 
enabling those who arrived in March 2020 to seek international protection.

 ― In June 2020, Hungary introduced a new procedure. It requires individuals 
to express their intent to seek asylum at designated Hungarian embassies 
in Belgrade (Serbia) and Kiev (Ukraine) before being authorised to travel 
to Hungary to apply for international protection.17 Meanwhile, persons who 
crossed the Hungarian border unlawfully and sought asylum continued 
to be escorted to the outer side of the border fence with Serbia, as 
has been occurring since March 2017.18 In October 2020, the European 
Commission opened infringement proceedings against Hungary due to 
this new requirement for applicants to undergo a ‘pre-procedure’.19

In Spain, provisions in the Aliens Law regulate the automatic return to 
Morocco of third-country nationals scaling the fence in Ceuta and Melilla. On 
22 December 2020, the Constitutional Court found these to be constitutional. 
In doing so, it recalled the safeguards in the Aliens Law, which provide that 
such provisions must be applied in conformity with national and international 
law. The court underlined the need to take account of people’s vulnerabilities 
and that there must be real and effective legal entry procedures to access 
asylum.20

A protocol to help apply the Aliens Law’s provisions in line with human rights 
obligations was announced, but remained pending at the end of the year.21 
The authorities granted access to asylum procedures in some cases, but 
a few summary returns also occurred in 2020.22

In other EU Member States too, in 2020, national human 
rights institutions, international organisations, and civil 
society organisations reported removals of persons 
apprehended after an irregular border crossing, without 
an individual identification procedure.23 Most alleged 
incidents concerned Croatia and Greece – including, 
as a new development, at its sea borders with Turkey. 
Some cases allegedly involved ill-treatment and other 
fundamental rights violations.24

For the first time in years, reports of unlawful interceptions 
and returns at sea also emerged from Cyprus.25

In April 2020, Malta coordinated the search-and-rescue 
operation for 51 people who were part of a larger group 
left for several days adrift at sea before they entered 
the Maltese search-and-rescue area. A fishing boat took 
them on board and brought them back to Libya.26

In July 2020, the ECtHR found that Polish border guards had in 2017 unlawfully 
returned asylum applicants at the Terespol border crossing with Belarus.27

156

157

PROMISING PRACTICE

Allowing re-entry
In August 2020, five Eritreans whom 
the Italian Navy unlawfully brought 
back to Libya in 2009 were allowed 
to re-enter Italy. In 2019, the Civil 
Court of Rome (ruling No� 22917 of 
28 November 2019) concluded that 
a 2009 pushback operation was 
unlawful and ordered that an entry 
visa be issued to the victims.

The UN International Law Commission 
envisages re-entry as a form of 
restitution in its 2014 Draft articles on 
the expulsion of aliens (Article 29).

Source: Associazione per gli Studi 
Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) 
(2020),’ Historic victory for the right to 
asylum’ (‘Storica vittoria del diritto di 
asilo)’, 30 August 2020

Notes: 
In addition, in Croatia, by 31 December 
2020, the Internal Control Department of 
the Ministry of the Interior had reviewed 
633 complaints, finding 75 well-founded 
and 132 partially founded, and some 
30 police officers had been punished, 
according to the Ministry of the Interior.

No cases of pushbacks and ill-treatment 
at borders have been investigated in 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Hungary 
(existing investigations concerned pre-
2019 cases), Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, 
Poland, Romania or Slovakia. In France, 
cases investigated concern incidents in 
the region of Calais, but not the external 
border itself. Estonia and Italy did not 
provide information.

Allegations of fundamental rights violations at borders also affected Frontex, 
which opened an inquiry.28

Article 110 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation required 
Frontex to recruit and deploy fundamental rights monitors by December 
2020.29 Together with other mechanisms to protect fundamental rights, the 
monitors constitute an important internal tool to promote full compliance 
with the Charter in Frontex operations.30 At year end, the monitors were 
not yet in place.

6�1�4�  Investigating alleged fundamental rights violations at borders
Under the ECHR, whenever Articles 2 and 3 are violated, competent authorities 
must carry out an effective official investigation.31

The investigation must be prompt, expeditious and capable of leading to the 
identification and punishment of those responsible. It must be thorough and 
make serious attempts to find out what happened. The people responsible for 
the investigation or carrying it out must be independent in practice. Victims 
should be able to participate effectively in the investigation.32

Table 6.2 shows the number of cases of pushback and ill-treatment allegations 
at land and sea borders investigated by the police (e.g. disciplinary bodies) 
and judicial authorities. Except in Croatia, investigations are few.

TABLE 6�2: NUMBER OF ALLEGED PUSHBACKS AND/OR EXCESSIVE USES OF 
FORCE INVESTIGATED AT EXTERNAL LAND AND SEA BORDERS, 
2019–2020

Member  
State

Croatia

Greece

Romania

Slovenia

Spain

Cases investigated  
by police

Cases investigated  
by prosecutors

2019

36

3

0

1

1

2020

2019

2020

25

2

0

1

0

6

4

0

0

0

2

4

1

0

1

Source:  FRA, 2021 [based on information from national liaison officers and 

other national authorities]

In many cases, authorities state that claims are looked into, but that they do 
not contain enough information to initiate criminal investigations.33 In some, 
authorities deny the reported allegations.34

National court cases are few.35 One of the few examples comes from Italy, 
where in July 2020 the Naples public prosecutor indicted the captain of the 
Asso 28, a commercial vessel involved in returning rescued migrants to 
Libya in 2018.36

National preventive mechanisms under the 2002 Optional Protocol of the 
UN Convention against Torture37 and national human rights institutions 
continue to play an important role in monitoring the situation at borders.38 
Although police authorities usually cooperate with them, the Croatian national 
preventive mechanism still faced obstacles to accessing migrants’ files in 
2020, it informed FRA.39

157

156

6�1�5�  Difficulties in finding a safe port
As  in  previous  years,  throughout  2020,  rescue  boats  in  the  central 
Mediterranean remained at sea for a long time while awaiting authorisation 
to enter a safe port.

In 22 instances, vessels had to remain at sea for more than a day (in some 
cases to carry out multiple rescue operations) before the national authorities 
allowed them to dock. These instances involved a total of 3,597 rescued 
migrants and refugees, including at least 954 children. In seven cases, they 
had to wait for a week or more.40

In August 2020, some 25 people remained on board a Danish container ship 
for almost 40 days.41 Among those disembarked in Italy and Malta, only few 
relocated to other EU Member States, partly due to the restrictions related 
to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many refugees and migrants rescued in the Central Mediterranean were 
rescued by Libyan coastguards and brought back to Libya: of the people 
who left Libya by sea, 11,891 disembarked in Libya, compared with 9,225 
in 2019.42 Italy extended its cooperation agreement with Libya in February 
2020.43 Malta signed a memorandum of understanding with Libya in May 
to cooperate in operations against irregular migration.44 As the situation in 
Libya deteriorated, in September 2020 UNHCR asked states to refrain from 
returning to Libya any persons rescued at sea.45

6�1�6�  Keeping new arrivals at borders
One aspect of the legislative proposals of the new Pact on Migration and 
Asylum concerns procedures for people at borders who do not fulfil entry 
conditions, including those rescued at sea. The proposal for a Screening 
Regulation suggests screening such individuals upon arrival, to establish their 
identity, verify if they pose a security or public health threat, and establish 
if they need specific care before channelling them into the appropriate 
procedure.46

Asylum and return procedures are to increasingly take place while people 
stay at or near the border.47 Under the proposed rules, if an asylum applicant’s 
claim is rejected or found inadmissible, they could stay at borders for up to 
six months and, in crisis situations, for up to 10 months (see Figure 6.4).

FIGURE 6�4: TIMELINES OF PROPOSED PROCEDURES AT BORDERS

Screening

5 days
(exceptionally
10 days)

Asylum border
procedure

m 
ylu
s
A

Return border
procedure

up to 12 weeks
(20 weeks in crisis situations)

up to 12 weeks
(20 weeks in crisis situations)

Note:

Under the proposed regulation addressing 
situations of crisis and force majeure 
in the field of migration and asylum, 
COM(2020) 613 final, in situations of 
crisis and force majeure, the timeframe 
for the asylum and the return border 
procedures may each be extended by 
eight weeks.


Asylum/regular
asylum procedure

Removal/regular
return procedure

Sources: Proposed Screening Regulation, COM(2020) 612 final, Article 6; amended Asylum Procedures Regulation proposal, 
COM(2020) 611 final, Articles 41 (11) and 41a (2)

158

159

For several years, Greece and Italy have been implementing the ‘hotspot 
approach’ in selected locations.48 At the external border of the EU, Cyprus, 
Hungary and Spain have set up special facilities for new arrivals.49 Hungary 
closed its facilities in mid-2020, prompted by the CJEU ruling that deemed 
keeping people there beyond four weeks to be unlawful detention.50

Some of these facilities host new arrivals only during the initial identification 
and screening phase. In others, people may also remain there during the 
asylum and/or the return procedure. In these cases, their stay can become 
protracted, causing overcrowding and serious fundamental rights challenges.51

In Greece, the overcrowded camps of Moria (Lesvos) and Vathy (Samos)52 
accommodated thousands of asylum applicants in summer tents or makeshift 
shelters with very limited access to basic services.53 In Moria, five persons, 
most of them children, reportedly died as a result of violent incidents in the 
camp.54 The inhuman conditions55 regularly led to tensions, which escalated 
after the camps were put in quarantine to prevent the spread of the pandemic.

In September 2020, fires destroyed the camp in Moria.56 A temporary tent 
facility in Mavrovouni, still unfit for the winter in December, has been hosting 
asylum applicants until the Greek authorities set up a new facility with the 
support of EU actors.57 Reports of poor and unsanitary living conditions also 
emerged from Pournara in Cyprus58 and the temporary facility in Arguineguín 
in the Canaries (Spain), closed in November 2020.59

Figure 6.5 illustrates that several first reception facilities are situated in 
remote locations, where it may be difficult to adjust reception capacities and 
the provision of services – for example medical services, education, or legal 
counselling – when more people arrive or they stay longer.60

158

159

FIGURE 6�5: FIRST RECEPTION FACILITIES AT OR NEAR THE EXTERNAL BORDER OF THE EU, DECEMBER 2020

250
Tompa transit 
zone (2015) 

450
Röszke transit 
zone (2015) 

282
Fylakio RIC 
Evros (2013)  

420
Pournara camp 
Cyprus (1993) 

10,000
Mavrovouni 
Lesvos (2020)  

512 
Ceuta CETI
(1998)

782
Melilla CETI 
(1998)

250
Messina
CPSA (2017) 

390
Taranto CPSA
(2016) 

250
Lampedusa CPSA
(1998) 

230
Pozzallo CPSA
(2016) 

1014
Vial RIC Chios 
(2016)  

Facility used to host people at the border,
including during their asylum procedures

Facility usually not used to host people
during their asylum procedures

Facility not in use at the end of 2020

648
Vathy RIC Samos 
(2016)  

816
Pili RIC Kos 
(2016)  

860
Lepida RIC 
Leros (2016)  

Source: FRA, 2021

6�1�7�  Turning back people at internal EU borders
Another policy objective of the Pact on Migration and Asylum is to counteract 
unauthorised onward movements of migrants and refugees across the EU.61 
EU law obliges asylum applicants to remain in the EU Member State in which 
they have applied for asylum to await their decision.62

In 2020, some EU Member States in southern Europe and along the Balkan 
route increased the use of intra-EU readmission agreements63 to pass back 
to the neighbouring Member State people whom they apprehended in 
connection with their irregular crossing of an internal EU border. Article 6 (3) 
of the Return Directive allows this for migrants in an irregular situation, if 
the readmission agreement existed before 2009.64 In contrast, for asylum 
applicants, the procedure set out in the Dublin Regulation must be used.65 
Figure 6.6 shows for selected routes how EU Member States used readmission 
agreements and/or refusals of entry to pass migrants back.


Notes:

CETI, migrant temporary stay centre 
(centro de estancia temporal para 
inmigrantes); CPSA, first aid and 
assistance centre (centro primo soccorso 
e assistenza); RIC, reception and 
identification centre. 

Figure does not include facilities used 
for the initial stay of less than 72 hours, 
such as those near the border in Bulgaria 
or Croatia, and the CATE centres (centros 
de atención temporal de extranjeros) in 
Spain.

160

161

FIGURE 6�6: USE OF INTRA-EU READMISSION AGREEMENTS TO PASS BACK MIGRANTS UNLAWFULLY CROSSING AN INTERNAL EU 

BORDER, 2020, SELECTED ROUTES

27,535

TUN, AFG, PAK
(288 children)

1,294

PAK, AFG, BGD
(12 children)

9,949

PAK, AFG, BGD

11,595

ALG, MOR

Source: FRA, 2021 [based on national police data from the sending EU Member State, except for Spain]


Note:

Number of persons readmitted in 2020 
based on readmission agreements. For 
France, it includes refusals of entry. Data 
on individuals passed back from France to 
Spain also include EU nationals.

AFG, Afghanistan; ALG, Algeria; BGD, 
Bangladesh; MOR, Morocco; PAK, 
Pakistan.

Domestic courts in France and Italy reaffirmed the duty to respect procedural 
safeguards on access to asylum.66 The Slovenian Administrative Court (case 
under appeal) found that the authorities had wrongly removed a Cameroonian 
national seeking international protection shortly after he was apprehended 
in connection with his irregular border crossing.67 These cases show the 
importance of respecting individuals’ right to be heard and to be formally 
notified of decisions taken against them.68

6�1�8�  Sanctions against humanitarians who help migrants and refugees
In  the  past,  FRA  expressed  serious  concern  about  actions  intimidating 
humanitarian workers and volunteers who support migrants in an irregular 
situation or take part in search and rescue operations.69 In 2020, measures that 
hampered humanitarian action by civil society continued, particularly holding 
rescue vessels in ports using administrative procedures based on the laws of 
navigation and safety at sea (on which a case is pending before the CJEU).70

161

160

By the end of 2020, civil society organisations operated four rescue vessels and 
two aircraft in the Mediterranean. Six vessels were blocked in ports because 
of ongoing legal proceedings (see Figure 6.7). The European Commission 
clarified that EU law does not permit the criminalisation of non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs) that carry out search and rescue operations at sea if they 
comply with the relevant legal framework.71 It encouraged Member States 
to exempt humanitarian action from sanctions against migrant smuggling, 
as EU law allows.72

FIGURE 6�7: NGO ASSETS INVOLVED IN SEARCH-AND-RESCUE OPERATIONS 

BETWEEN 2016 AND 31 DECEMBER 2020

Source: FRA, 2021 [based on various sources]

6�2�  ASYLUM, IMMIGRATION, AND RETURN 
PROCEDURES DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

6�2�1�  Access to asylum
At the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, national asylum authorities 
closed their facilities to the public or restricted access to their offices. Several 
EU Member States temporarily suspended the registration of new asylum 
applications. In spring, at least 17 EU Member States and Schengen Associated 
Countries temporarily discontinued personal interviews.73

Remote interviews and the use of electronic tools by applicants are among 
the tools and processes put in place or strengthened to cope with the situation 
of force majeure during the pandemic. Some will probably remain part of 
the asylum authorities’ toolbox in future. This will raise new fundamental 
rights challenges.74

Developments in Belgium illustrate this. In October 2020, a court found that 
the online appointment system to register asylum applications was contrary to 
the Reception Act, as it left applicants temporarily without material reception 
support.75 In December 2020, the Council of State suspended asylum interviews 
by videoconference, as national legislation did not provide for such option.76

162

163

PROMISING PRACTICE

Providing advice 
on asylum 
procedures during 
the pandemic
To help national asylum authorities 
and judicial bodies continue 
processing asylum applications 
during the pandemic, the European 
Commission, EASO, and UNHCR issued 
practical guidance in April 2020. It 
advises Member States on medical 
screening, provision of information 
and counselling, guidance on how 
to prevent and protect oneself from 
COVID-19, the use of electronic tools, 
and remote interviewing, to enable 
national authorities to continue 
to register and examine asylum 
applications during the pandemic.

See European Commission (2020), 
COVID-19: Guidance on the 
implementation of relevant EU 
provisions in the area of asylum 
and return procedures and on 
resettlement; EASO (2020), Practical 
recommendations on conducting 
remote/online registration (lodging) 
and Practical recommendations on 
conducting the personal interview 
remotely; UNHCR (2020), Practical 
recommendations and good practice 
to address protection concerns in the 
context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Another challenge is how to quarantine new arrivals. Member States carried 
out health screening and adopted other targeted measures, such as self-
isolation, placement in special isolation units within existing structures, and 
the creation of emergency structures, as EASO reported.77 Italy and Malta 
used vessels to quarantine new arrivals rescued at sea.78

In Malta, some new arrivals were confined for nearly six weeks on private 
vessels in inadequate conditions and without access to legal and social 
counselling. UNHCR and the IOM called for their disembarkation. The Council of 
Europe Commissioner for Human Rights also stressed the need to grant access 
to monitoring bodies and agencies that provide assistance and protection.79

In Slovenia, migrants were placed in containers for 10-14 days (in some 
cases for over a month); these were located in a covered concrete building 
with little daylight.80

Concerns, particularly for unaccompanied children, emerged also from other 
locations – for example, the quarantine area in the Pournara camp in Cyprus,81 
and the bullring in Melilla (Spain).82

6�2�2� 

Residence permits and visas that expired during the pandemic

EU Member States took pragmatic measures to address the situation of 
individuals whose visas or permits expired but who could not depart because 
of travel restrictions.83 Any overstay, if not regularised, could have a negative 
impact on people’s future possibilities of travelling to the EU.

Approximately two thirds of EU Member States took legal or administrative 
measures to extend the validity of visas and/or permits.84 Others formally 
allowed people whose documents or authorisation to stay expired to remain 
temporarily.85 Denmark regularised the past stay of foreigners who had not 
been able to leave before their permits expired upon departure from the 
country.86 Austria (for some categories), Cyprus, Lithuania and the Netherlands 
tolerated the stay of people who were unable to return.87

In a few cases, existing rules continued to apply, although with some 
adjustments, such as online processing of renewal or residence permits in 
Austria,88 or more flexible approaches to requested extensions of permits 
in Germany.89 Some EU Member States adopted special measures only for 
the first phase of the pandemic but not after the summer (see Table 6.3).

TABLE 6�3:  MEASURES TO ADDRESS SITUATION OF VISITORS AND IMMIGRANTS WHOSE RIGHT TO STAY EXPIRED BUT WHO 

COULD NOT DEPART, 27 EU MEMBER STATES, NORTH MACEDONIA AND SERBIA

Country

Holders of short-term  
stay visas

Visa-free visitors

Holders of long-stay visas

Holders of resident permits

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

o

✓

✓✓

o

✓

✓✓

o (May 2020)

✓ ( July 2020)

o (May 2020)

✓ ( July 2020)

✓✓ (September 2020)

✓ (August 2020) 
✓✓ (from August 2020 
upon application)

x

✓ (August 2020) 
✓✓ (from August 2020 
upon application)

o

x (online applications)

✓ (November 2020)

x

o (May 2020)

✓ ( July 2020)

✓

✓✓

o (May 2020)

✓ ( July 2020) 
✓✓ (November 2020 for 
work permits)

x

o

x

o

162

163

Country

Holders of short-term  
stay visas

Visa-free visitors

Holders of long-stay visas

Holders of resident permits

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

MK

RS

✓ (May 2020)

✓ (May 2020)

✓ (May 2020)

x

x+ o

✓✓ (September 2020)

x

✓✓

✓✓ (3 months’ extension)

✓✓ (3 months’ extension)

✓✓ (December 2020)

✓✓ (December 2020)

✓

✓

N/A

✓

✓✓ + ✓ (3 months’ 
extension + temporary 
residence permit)

✓

✓

✓ (3 months’ extension)

✓✓ (3 + 6 + 6 months’ 
extension)

✓✓ (6 months’ extension)

✓

✓

N/A

✓

✓✓ (45 days after 
emergency ends)

✓✓ (45 days after 
emergency ends)

✓✓ (2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 3 months’ extension)

✓✓ (August 2020)  
✓✓ (from October 2020)

✓✓ (August 2020) 
✓✓ (from October 2020)

✓✓ (August 2020) 
✓✓ (from October 2020)

✓✓ (August 2020) 
✓✓ (from October 2020)

o (August 2020)

✓✓ (August 2020)

✓ (August 2020)

o (August 2020)

✓✓ ( July 2020)

✓ (August 2020)

o (August 2020)

o (August 2020)

✓✓ (August 2020)

✓✓ (August 2020)

✓ (August 2020)

✓ (August 2020)

✓✓ (3 months’ extension 
upon application)

✓✓ (3 months’ extension 
upon application)

✓✓ (3 months’ extension 
upon application)

✓✓ (3 months’ extension 
upon application)

o

✓✓

✓✓

✓✓

✓

o

✓✓

✓✓

✓✓

✓

o

✓✓

✓✓

✓✓

✓

o

✓✓

✓✓

✓✓

✓

✓ (May 2020)

✓ (May 2020)

✓ ( July 2020)

✓ ( July 2020)

✓

✓

✓✓

✓✓

✓✓ (August 2020)

✓ (May 2020)

Source: FRA, 2021 [based on sources listed in endnote 85 and information from FRA’s national liaison officers]

6�2�3�  Increased focus on non-removed migrants
Travel restrictions during the pandemic had a considerable 
impact on return operations, almost halting them in spring.90 
The situation of migrants in an irregular situation who are not 
removed gained policy attention.91 This triggered new research.92

Immigrants’ stay may change from regular to irregular. FRA’s 
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-
MIDIS II) shows this. Of the 12,600 first-generation immigrants 
it covers, some 8 % arrived in an irregular manner, whereas 
16 % were in the EU irregularly once (10 %) or more (6 %).93 
Any policy response needs to consider this phenomenon. In 
2017, between 2.1 million and 2.6 million people were present 
irregularly, a 2019 study estimated.94

 Notes:
Date indicates the end date of the special measure. If no date 
is included, the measure was valid on 31 December 2020. If 
two dates, the first indicates the end date of the first lockdown 
before the summer, and the second the end date of the second 
lockdown.

The table does not include asylum applicants, persons with 
a tolerated stay, and persons in return procedures, or measures 
for special categories (e.g. workers in COVID-19-sensitive 
sectors or seasonal workers in Austria). For Ireland, North 
Macedonia and Serbia (not bound by EU law on borders, visa 
and return), the table shows the measures they took in regard 
to all authorisations to stay.

✓✓  Legislative measures/national practices extending 

validity of visa, residence permits or other authorisations 
to stay.

✓ 

o 

x 

Legislative measures/national practices temporarily 
allowing third-country nationals with expired documents 
to stay in the territory.

No extension or new permit but tolerated stay of third-
country nationals with expired documents and unable to 
return.

No specific measures taken. Ordinary legal procedures 
pre-existing the COVID-19 pandemic applied.

N/A  Not applicable.

164

165

6�2�4� New CJEU judgments inform return procedures
In 2020, the CJEU continued to deliver key judgments informing fundamental 
rights standards and safeguards concerning return procedures and pre-removal 
detention. Table 6.4 summarises key points stemming from the CJEU’s most 
recent rulings related to the Return Directive (2008/115/EC).95 It shows the 
need for a careful balance between Member States’ legitimate interests in 
expelling and removing migrants in an irregular situation and respecting 
their fundamental rights.

TABLE 4: 

SELECTED RETURN-RELATED STANDARDS AND SAFEGUARDS STEMMING FROM CJEU RULINGS IN 2020

Standards/safeguards

CJEU judgment

Amending the country of destination in the initial return decision is so substantial that it 
must be regarded as a new return decision. Effective judicial review needs to be available 
against such a decision.

Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and 
C-925/19 PPU, FMS and Others [GC], 
14 May 2020, paras. 112–123

Although Member States may make provision for return decisions to be challenged before 
non-judicial authorities, a person subject to a return decision must, at a certain stage of the 
procedure, be able to challenge its lawfulness before a court, in accordance with Article 47 
of the Charter (right to an effective remedy). In the absence of national rules providing for 
such a judicial review, the national court is entitled to hear an action seeking to challenge 
the return decision.

Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and 
C-925/19 PPU, FMS and Others 
[GC], 14 May 2020, paras. 126–130, 
144–147

The meaning of term ‘detention’ under the Return Directive is the same as defined under 
the Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU in Article 2 (h): ‘confinement of an applicant 
by [an EU] Member State within a particular place, where the applicant is deprived of his or 
her freedom of movement’.

Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and 
C-925/19 PPU, FMS and Others [GC], 
14 May 2020, paras. 224–225

A person subject to a return decision may not be detained pending removal solely on the 
ground that they cannot meet their own needs.

Prolonged pre-removal detention can never exceed 18 months and may be maintained only 
as long as removal arrangements are ongoing and are executed with due diligence.

Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and 
C-925/19 PPU, FMS and Others [GC], 
14 May 2020, paras. 268–272

Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and 
C-925/19 PPU, FMS and Others [GC], 
14 May 2020, paras. 278–280

The lawfulness of pre-removal detention must be subject to judicial review with no 
exception. This requires that, in the absence of national rules providing for a judicial review, 
the national court is entitled to rule on the matter and, if detention is found unlawful, to 
order the release of the person.

Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and 
C-925/19 PPU, FMS and Others [GC], 
14 May 2020, paras. 276–277

A person may be detained in prison for the purpose of removal, separated from ordinary 
prisoners, if the person poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting 
one of the fundamental interests of society or the Member State’s internal or external 
security.

Case C-18/19, W. M. v. Stadt 
Frankfurt am Main, 2 July 2020, 
paras. 45 and 48

The enforcement of a return decision issued to a seriously ill person must be automatically 
suspended when there is reasonable ground to believe that the individual’s health would 
irreversibly deteriorate as a consequence of the return – even when national legislation 
does not provide for this.

Case C-233/19, B. v. Centre 
public d’action sociale de Liège, 
30 September 2020, para. 68

If a parent of a seriously ill adult child who is dependent on that parent is the subject of 
a return decision, and its enforcement may expose that child to a serious risk of grave and 
irreversible deterioration of their state of health, the parent must be able to remain in the 
Member State with the child and benefit from the safeguards pending return in Article 14 of 
the Return Directive.

Case C-402/19, L.M. v. Centre 
public d’action sociale de Seraing, 
30 September 2020, paras. 50–52

Forcibly escorting apprehended migrants in an irregular situation back to the outer side 
of a border fence, to a strip of land devoid of any infrastructure, is equivalent to ‘removal’ 
within the meaning of the Return Directive. Such individuals must be subject of a return 
procedure that complies with the safeguards under the directive.

Case C-808/18, Commission v. 
Hungary [GC], 17 December 2020, 
paras. 248–258, 266

Source: FRA, 2021 [based on CJEU case law]

164

165

Since the Return Directive entered into force in January 2009, the CJEU has 
delivered over 30 rulings interpreting it, and several are pending.96 Nearly 
all of this case law was produced following the activation of the preliminary 
ruling reference procedure.97 Commission v. Hungary (C-808/18) was the first 
case in which the CJEU adjudicated an infringement procedure concerning 
the directive. In addition to elucidating some key legal principles relating to 
the return procedures, this major ruling assessed the practical application of 
the law on the ground against EU law standards.

6�3� 

 EU LARGE-SCALE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 
AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The EU has set up six large-scale IT systems to support Member States to 
manage migration, asylum and borders, enhance judicial cooperation and 
strengthen internal security. The EU agency eu-LISA is responsible for the 
operational management of these systems at central level.98

Three systems are operational: European Asylum Dactyloscopy (Eurodac), 
the Visa Information System (VIS), and the Schengen Information System 
(SIS). The other three are in development: the Entry/Exit System (EES), the 
European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), and the 
European Criminal Records Information System for Third-Country Nationals 
(ECRIS-TCN).99

In future, interoperability will enable authorised users to search and see data 
stored on individuals across these systems, depending on their access rights 
laid down in EU law. Earlier FRA reports have pointed out opportunities for 
and risks to fundamental rights that these systems and their interoperability 
pose.100

6�3�1�  Progress in establishing the systems
The reform of VIS and Eurodac progressed in 2020, but remained pending 
at year end.101

The  European  Commission  advanced  the  preparation  of  the  over  70 
implementing and delegated acts required for the operation of the IT systems. 
It had adopted 14 acts by the end of 2020.102 Although these acts are technical 
in nature, they also have implications for fundamental rights.

For example, pursuant to the SIS Regulation,103 an implementing act will 
define the categories of missing or vulnerable people. When Member States 
enter alerts on missing or vulnerable people in SIS, they have to indicate the 
category and type of case, whenever it is known. This will facilitate follow 
up actions in case of a hit.

In the case of children, it will also help to ensure that these alerts and the 
corresponding procedures serve the best interests of the child in accordance 
with Article 24 of the Charter. One specific category is unaccompanied children, 
which some Member States appear not to register systematically, when 
they go missing from reception facilities.104 Registering them in SIS facilitates 
cross-border tracing when they go missing, contributing to their protection.105

Of the three new systems, the EES will be established first. It is expected 
to start operations in May 2022. The EES will register the entry and exit of 
all third-country nationals admitted for a short stay in the Schengen area. It 
will store identity and travel data, including fingerprints and facial images. 
It will also generate a list of ‘overstayers’, people whose right to stay in 
the Schengen area has expired. Staff operating the system must receive 
fundamental rights training.106

FRA ACTIVITY
Eurodac – guidance 
on how to provide 
information on 
fingerprinting
To provide migrants and asylum 
applicants more effectively with 
information on fingerprinting 
for Eurodac, FRA developed and 
published a leaflet jointly with the 
Eurodac Supervision Coordination 
Group.

The leaflet helps authorities to 
comply with their obligation to 
clearly inform people concerned 
why fingerprints are taken and what 
happens to their biometric data in 
Eurodac. National data protection 
authorities translated the leaflet into 
most EU languages.

See FRA and Eurodac SCG (2020), Right 
to information – Guide for authorities 
when taking fingerprints for EURODAC, 
January 2020.

166

167

As the new generation of IT systems and their interoperability is under 
preparation, few people beyond those entrusted to set them up are aware 
of the fundamental rights safeguards in the systems.

6�3�2�  Use of algorithms in future EU IT systems
In 2020, discussions intensified on the potential use of artificial intelligence 
(AI)-driven technology in home affairs matters.107 Table 6.5 provides two 
examples of the envisaged use of algorithms to predict risks and produce 
analysis to assist decision making.

AI could bring substantial opportunities to improve the efficiency of migration 
preparedness and management, if it is carefully conceived, implemented, 
and monitored with necessary safeguards.

AI also brings fundamental rights risks, as Figure 6.8 illustrates. Profiling may 
be discriminatory,108 insufficient anonymisation may raise data protection 
issues, and the lack of transparency combined with limited availability of 
specialised legal support may make access to remedy more difficult. In its 
report on AI and fundamental rights, FRA has pointed out that the impact of 
the use of AI on fundamental rights should be comprehensively assessed 
(for more, see Chapter 7).109

 Note:

a Pending adoption of amended Eurodac 
recast proposal COM(2020) 614 final.


TABLE 6�5: EXAMPLES OF USE OF ALGORITHMS IN THE NEW EU IT ARCHITECTURE

Example

What it is

Purpose

Who uses it

Safeguards

An algorithm that compares 
the data provided in a visa-
free traveller online application 
with specific risk indicators 
corresponding to identified 
security, irregular migration or 
public health risks (Art. 33 (1), 
recital 27)

The risk indicators are based on 
a combination of data on age 
range, sex, nationality, place 
of residence, education and 
occupation (Art. 33 (4))

l

i

s
e
u
r
g
n
n
e
e
r
c
S
S
A
I
T
E

r
o
f
y
r
o
t
i
s
o
p
e
R

l

a
r
t
n
e
C

s
c
i
t
s
i
t
a
t
S
d
n
a
g
n
i
t
r
o
p
e
R

t
i
l
i

y Repository of clearly defined 
anonymised data relating to 
individuals whose personal 
data are stored in EU IT systems 
(Art. 39 and Art. 66, recital 52 
of Regulations 2019/817 and 
2019/818)

b
a
r
e
p
o
r
e
t
n

I

)
S
R
R
C
(

To assess 
a traveller’s 
risks of irregular 
migration, or 
to security and 
public health, 
and, if so, to 
review the 
application 
manually 
(recital 27)

Frontex (ETIAS 
Central Unit) verifies 
application data 
against the risk 
indicators (Art. 7, 
Art. 22); authorised 
national authorities 
(ETIAS national 
units) assess the 
risks (Art. 26 (6))

Targeted and proportionate use 
(Art. 33 (5))

Not revealing protected attributes – in 
compliance with non-discrimination 
principle (Art. 33 (5))

Human review of the risk assessment 
and of the individual case (Art. 22, 
Art. 26)

Regular reviews of the risks, ex ante 
and ex post evaluations of the indicators 
(Art. 33 (3), Art. 33 (6), Art. 7)

ETIAS Fundamental Rights Guidance 
Board with FRA as a member (Art. 9 (5) 
and Art. 10)

Access to remedy (Art. 64)

Anonymisation of the data contained 
(Art. 66)

General non-discrimination and 
fundamental rights safeguard clause 
(Art. 5)

To obtain 
customisable 
reports and 
cross-system 
statistics and 
data for policy, 
operational and 
data quality 
purposes 
(Art. 66)

Authorised 
border, visa, 
immigration and 
law enforcement 
authorities in 
Member States, 
Europol and Frontex 
(Art. 66) [and in 
future asylum 
authorities and 
EASO]a

166

167

Sources: FRA, 2021 [based on, for ETIAS, Regulation 2018/1240; for Central Repository for Reporting and Statistics, Regulation 

2019/817 (borders and visa) and Regulation 2019/818 (police and judicial cooperation)]

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 6�8: KEY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RISKS OF USING ARTIFICIAL 

INTELLIGENCE IN HOME AFFAIRS

010101
010101
010101
010101

Lack of transparency
on the data used

010101
0101 1

Bias in the design,
training and hence
functioning of
the algorithm
(discriminatory
proﬁling)

Risk of indirect
identiﬁcation of
a person in case
of inadequate
anonymisation

Source: FRA, 2021

AI in migration

010101
010101

Difﬁculty for
affected persons
to rebut the results
of the algorithm

6�4�  REFUGEE AND MIGRANT INTEGRATION

The European Commission underlines in the new Pact on Migration and 
Asylum that “[p]art of a healthy and fair system of migration management 
is to ensure that everyone who is legally in the EU can participate in and 
contribute to the well-being, prosperity and cohesion of European societies”.110 
Integration of third-country nationals is “a key part of the broader EU agenda 
to promote social inclusion”.111

168

169

PROMISING PRACTICE

Facilitating 
children’s Greek 
language learning
The Institute of Educational Policy 
(IEP) developed – in cooperation with 
other partners, including UNICEF – an 
accelerated Greek-language learning 
programme and educational materials 
for topics such as mathematics and 
science. The aim is to accelerate the 
integration in secondary education 
of refugee children who have missed 
out on school or had their education 
interrupted.

A curriculum, an e-platform, teachers’ 
guides, and six teaching textbooks in 
10 different languages support pupils 
a well as teachers.

See UNICEF - Refugee and Migrant 
Response in Europe Situation Report # 
35; UNHCR - Accelerated Education.

FRA ACTIVITY

Exploring the 
fundamental rights 
situation of long-
term residents
In 2020, FRA began research on the 
fundamental rights of long term-
residents in the EU. The research 
will collect information and evidence 
to help EU institutions and Member 
States to respect their rights and 
strengthen their social integration.

6�4�1�  A new EU action plan on integration and inclusion
The European Commission adopted a new action plan on integration and 
inclusion for the period 2021–2027. It covers migrants and EU citizens with 
a migrant background. The action plan focuses on targeted support in four 
fields: employment, education, access to health services, and access to 
adequate and affordable housing. It recognises the need to promote the 
integration of migrant women, to involve the host society better, and to 
strengthen the monitoring and evaluation of integration policies.

The plan covers measures ranging from pre-departure and reception to long-
term integration and the building of inclusive societies.112

Young people are one of the plan’s focus areas. Young people who receive 
international protection face specific integration challenges, as previous FRA 
research shows.113

Young refugees face mental health issues, difficulties in finding adequate 
housing, and discrimination. They also face specific difficulties in accessing 
education and vocational training, in particular if they are beyond the age 
of compulsory education.

The transition to adulthood is typically connected with changes in rights, as 
young people experience a drop in social support and counselling.114 At the 
same time, young people have particular potential to integrate quickly and 
fully, participate in all aspects of life as they develop, and contribute to the 
overall well-being of society.

6�4�2� The fundamental rights of long-term residents
About 10.3 million third-country nationals are long-term residents in the 
EU.115 They are approximately half of the 21.7 million resident third-country 
nationals.116

The Long-Term Residents Directive (2003/109/EC) sets out the rights of 
long-term residents.117 To help refugees acquire long-term residence, in 
September 2020, the European Commission proposed to reduce the time 
required to apply for long-term resident status, from five to three years.118 
If adopted, these changes will help them integrate.

From a legal perspective, the integration and social inclusion of third-country 
nationals are closely linked to their rights and obligations, and to their prospects 
of staying. Those prospects depend on the type of their residence permit.

Not all immigrants residing in the EU for an extended time hold a secure 
residence permit. For example, in 2016, fewer than 50 % of sub-Saharan 
migrants living for at least 10 years in Austria and Portugal, and only 29 % 
of North African migrants living for at least 10 years in Spain, whom FRA 
surveyed in EU-MIDIS II, had secure residence.119

168

169

6�4�3�  New rules for citizens of the United Kingdom

As of 1 February 2020, the United Kingdom is not part of the European Union. 
Since then, citizens of the United Kingdom have been third-country nationals 
in the EU. At the end of 2020, some 862,000 citizens of the United Kingdom 
were living in the EU, according to Eurostat.120

The transition period ended on 31 December 2020. The EU–UK Trade and 
Cooperation Agreement and its protocols now govern the legal relations 
between the EU and the United Kingdom.121 The new arrangements set out 
the conditions for them to work in, travel in or move to the EU, and provisions 
on social security coordination. Regulation (EU) 2019/592 exempts citizens 
of the United Kingdom from visa requirements for short-term stays.122

170

171

FRA opinions

In  2020,  widely  recognised  human  rights  bodies 
reported allegations of individuals being unlawfully 
turned back at land and sea borders, at times with police 
violence. Article 78 (1) of the TFEU and Articles 18 and 
19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibit 
refoulement – meaning the return of an individual to 
a risk of persecution or serious harm – and collective 
expulsions. Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 on 
the European Border and Coast Guard and Article 4 of the 
Schengen Borders Code require border management to 
comply with fundamental rights. In its Pact on Migration 
and Asylum, the European Commission proposed new 
EU rules to monitor fundamental rights at borders.

FRA OPINION 6�1

EU Member States should promptly and 
effectively investigate all allegations 
of  pushbacks  and  ill-treatment  at 
borders, and increase transparency 
on measures taken�

Member  States  should  set  up 
effective and independent monitoring 
mechanisms at borders� To guarantee 
more complete fundamental rights 
compliance, these mechanisms should 
also cover the monitoring of border-
surveillance activities and not only, 
as the Pact on Migration and Asylum 
proposes,  the  pre-entry  screening 
procedure itself�

FRA OPINION 6�2

EU Member States should put in place 
and apply procedures guaranteeing 
that persons are heard before being 
passed  back  to  a  neighbouring  EU 
Member State, and formally notify 
them of the decision taken�

Migrants apprehended in connection with their 
irregular crossing of an internal EU border are not 
systematically heard before they are passed back 
to a neighbouring EU Member State. They are also 
not systematically notified of the decision to pass 
them back to another EU Member State.

As  a  general  principle  of  EU  law,  any  decision 
affecting a person must be taken on an individual 
basis, and persons have the right to be heard. 
These principles are important safeguards to enable 
individuals to raise issues that could bar the passing 
back, and to exercise their right to an effective 
remedy under Article 47 of the Charter.

170

171171

The legislative proposals under the Pact on Migration 
and Asylum put a stronger focus on border procedures, 
while proposing new solidarity mechanisms. Border 
procedures  may  result  in  asylum  applicants  being 
confined to facilities at or near the border, often at 
remote locations where it may be difficult to meet 
reception standards or apply safeguards to prevent 
arbitrary  deprivation  of  liberty,  as  the  Reception 
Conditions  Directive  (2013/33/EU)  and  the  Return 
Directive (2008/115/EC) require. This could result in 
treatment that may not comply with the right to human 
dignity, as guaranteed by Article 1 of the Charter.

The EU and its Member States are exploring the use of 
artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance decision making in 
home affairs, including asylum, borders and immigration. 
AI-driven tools may affect different fundamental rights. 
This is due to, for instance, bias in the design of the 
algorithm; or a lack of transparency in regards to the 
data  used,  which  makes  it  difficult  for  the  person 
concerned to rebut the results produced by such tools.

FRA OPINION 6�3

When implementing the objectives 
of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, 
EU Member States should ensure that 
conditions of stay in first-reception 
facilities at borders are adequate, and 
fully respect the right to liberty and 
other fundamental rights set out in 
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights� 
There  should  be  regular  oversight 
and  preventive  measures  to  avoid 
protracted stays�

FRA OPINION 6�4

EU  institutions,  agencies  and  EU 
Member States should comprehensi-
vely assess the impact on fundamental 
rights of any AI use in the area of 
home affairs, including asylum, visa, 
immigration and borders� Stringent, 
effective and independent oversight 
mechanisms should accompany the 
use of AI�

The  EU  has  set  up  six  large-scale  information 
technology  (IT)  systems  to  support  Member 
States to manage migration, asylum and borders, 
enhance  judicial  cooperation,  and  strengthen 
internal security. Three systems are operational: 
the European Asylum Dactyloscopy (Eurodac), the 
Visa Information System (VIS), and the Schengen 
Information System (SIS). The other three are in 
development: the Entry/Exit System (EES), the 
European Travel Information and Authorisation 
System (ETIAS), and the European Criminal Records 
Information System for Third-Country Nationals 
(ECRIS-TCN).

FRA OPINION 6�5

EU  institutions,  agencies  and  EU 
Member States should continue to 
raise awareness of the fundamental 
rights safeguards in the large-scale EU 
IT systems and their interoperability� 
Data  protection  authorities  should 
be adequately resourced to support 
people who wish to exercise their right 
to access, correction and deletion of 
their data�

The legal instruments setting up such IT systems 
and  their  interoperability  contain  several 
safeguards to protect fundamental rights that the 
Charter enshrines, such as the protection of personal data (Article 8), non-
discrimination (Article 21) and the rights of the child (Article 24). However, 
these safeguards remain little known.

172
172

173

Index of country 
references
AT  163, 169

BE  162

CY  152, 153, 156, 159, 163

DA  158, 163

DE  152, 153, 163

EE  153

ES  153, 156, 159, 161, 163, 169

FR  153, 161

GR  152, 153, 156, 159

HR  156, 157

HU  153, 159, 166

IT 

157, 158, 159, 161, 163

LT  163

Endnotes

1 

European Commission (2020), Standard Eurobarometer 93, October 2020, 
fieldwork in July–August 2020, pp. 31, 35, 37; question QA5. For previous years, 
see European Commission (2015), Standard Eurobarometer 83, p. 48; European 
Commission (2016), Standard Eurobarometer 86, p. 28; European Commission 
(2017), Standard Eurobarometer 88, p. 31; European Commission (2018), 
Standard Eurobarometer 89, p. 4; and European Commission (2019), Standard 
Eurobarometer 91, p. 35.

2  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2020), ‘1 per cent of 

humanity displaced: UNHCR Global Trends report’, 18 June 2020�

3  UNHCR (2020), Global trends – Forced displacement in 2019, Copenhagen, 

UNHCR Global Data Service, June 2020, pp. 2 and 9.

4  EASO (2021), ‘Latest asylum trends – 2020 overview’, February 2021.

5  Eurostat, migr_asyappctza and migr_pop1ctz, data extracted on 23 March 

2021.

6  Frontex, data provided on 15 February 2021. For 6,404 persons, data on their 

gender is not available.

7  European Commission (2020), A new Pact on Migration and Asylum, 

COM(2020) 609 final, Brussels, 23 September 2020. For the list of documents 
presented together with the pact, see European Commission web page.

8 

9 

International Organization for Migration (IOM), Missing Migrants Project, data 
combined from the Mediterranean page and, for the Canaries, the Africa 
regional page, February 2021.

IOM (2020), ‘Deadliest shipwreck of the year claims at least 140 lives’, press 
release, 29 October 2020.

10  IOM (2020), ‘1,200 missing migrants recorded thus far in 2020 may well 

undercount totals since Covid-19 outbreak’, 14 August 2020.

MT  152, 153, 156, 158, 163

11 

IOM, Missing Migrants Project, data provided in February 2021.

NL  163

NO  153

PL  156

PT  169

SI 

161, 163

UK  170

12  See, for example, for Greece, E-evros.gr (2020), ‘14 Turkish dissidents 

trapped for 12 hours on an islet of Evros river’ (‘14 Τούρκοι αντικαθεστωτικοί 
εγκλωβίστηκαν για 12 ώρες σε μια νησίδα του ποταμού Έβρου’), 15 October 
2020; and for Croatia, Dnevnik (2020), ‘Četvorica migranata spašena iz rijeke 
Une, policija ih pronašla pothlađene i iznemogle’ (‘Four migrants rescued from 
the Una River, the police found them hypothermic and exhausted’), 4 March 
2020.

13  Schengen Borders Code, Art. 4; Return Directive (2008/115/EC), OJ 2008 

L 348/98, recital 6.

14  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 

2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international 
protection, OJ L 180, 29 June 2013, pp. 60–95, Art. 8.

15  See Greece (2020), ‘Statement by the government’s spokesperson, Mr Stelios 
Petsas, on the decisions of the Government Council on National Security’ 
(‘Δήλωση Κυβερνητικού Εκπροσώπου Στέλιου Πέτσα, για τις αποφάσεις του 
Κυβερνητικού Συμβουλίου Εθνικής Ασφάλειας’), 1 March 2020; Council of the 
EU (2020), ‘Statement on the situation at the EU’s external borders’, press 
release, 4 March 2020; Greek National Commission for Human Rights (2020), 
‘Reviewing asylum and immigration policies and safeguarding human rights at 
the EU borders’, 5 March 2020; UNHCR (2020), ‘Statement on the situation at 
the Turkey–EU border’, 2 March 2020.

16  Greece, Act of legislative content, Official Gazette 45/A’/02.03.2020.

17  Hungary, Act No. LVIII of 2020 on the transitional rules related to the 

termination of the state of danger and on epidemiological preparedness 
(2020. évi LVIII. törvény a veszélyhelyzet megszűnésével összefüggő átmeneti 
szabályokról és a járványügyi készültségről), Arts. 267–275; Government Decree 
No. 292/2020 on designating diplomatic missions to receive declarations of 
intents for lodging asylum applications (292/2020. (VI. 17.) Korm. rendelet 
a menedékjogi kérelem benyújtására irányuló szándéknyilatkozattal 
kapcsolatban nagykövetségek kijelöléséről). The new procedure is in effect 
until 30 June 2021; Act No� CLXII of 2021 (2020. évi CLXII. törvény), Art. 54.

18  Hungary, Act No. LXXXIX of 2007 on the State borders (2007. évi LXXXIX. 

törvény az államhatárról), Art. 5 (1b).

19  European Commission (2020), ‘October infringements package: key decisions’, 

30 October 2020.

172

173

20  Spain, Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional), 22 December 2020, Decision No� 16819 relating to Spain, Aliens Act amended by 
Organic Law 4/2015 on the protection of citizens’ security (De protección de la seguridad ciudadana), Official State Bulletin No. 77, 
31 March 2015, pp. 27242–27243.

21  The Spanish authorities informed FRA in November 2020 that the envisaged protocol has not yet been approved.

22  See, for example, El Diario (2020), ‘The Government returns nearly 40 people who arrived by boat to the Spanish islands of Chafarinas’ 

(‘El Gobierno devuelve en caliente a cerca de 40 personas que llegaron en patera a las islas españolas de Chafarinas’), 3 January 2020, 
confirmed by Government Delegation in the City of Mellila, press release, ‘In relation to the patera boat in Chafarinas’ (‘En relación a la 
patera en Chafarinas’), 3 January 2020. See also Faro de Melilla (2020), ‘A total of 55 migrants manage to jump the fence’ (‘Un total de 55 
inmigrantes consiguen saltar la valla’), 7 April 2020, p. 2 (260 people attempted to jump the fence; 38 were returned, 55 entered Spain 
and the rest turned back).

23  For an overview, see Refugee Rights Europe and End Pushbacks Partnership (2020), Pushbacks and rights violations at Europe’s borders. 

The state of play in 2020, November 2020.

24  FRA (2020), Migration: fundamental rights issues at land borders, Luxembourg, Publications Office, December 2020. For Croatia, see the 
Danish Refugee Council monthly Border Monitoring Snapshots on the council’s website. See also Croatia, Ombudsman (2020), Report on 
the performance of the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2019, September 2020 (pushbacks, ill-treatment, unlawful 
confiscation and destruction of property); Border Violence Monitoring Network, Centre for Peace Studies, Society for Psychological 
Assistance and Welcome Initiative (2020), Pushback report on children and unaccompanied children in Croatia, May 2020. For Greece, 
see European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) (2020), Report on the visit to Greece from 13 to 17 March 2020 (pushbacks, 
ill-treatment of detained migrants by the police, putting life in danger at sea); see also National Commission for Human Rights (2020), 
‘Statement on the reported practices of pushbacks’ (‘Δήλωση της ΕΕΔΑ σχετικά με τις αναφερόμενες πρακτικές επαναπροωθήσεων’), 
9 July 2020; Amnesty International (2020), ‘Greece/Turkey: Asylum-seekers and migrants killed and abused at borders’, April 2020 
(reporting on unlawful use of force, killings at the border, pushbacks, arbitrary detention and suspension of asylum, physical violence, 
confiscation and destruction of migrants’ belongings); Human Rights 360° (2020), Defending human rights in times of border 
militarization, October 2020 (reporting on unlawful use of force, pushbacks, confiscation of belongings including documents); Human 
Rights 360° (2020), During and after crises: Evros border monitoring report, May 2020 (reporting on private actors patrolling the border, 
suspension of asylum, de facto detention of unaccompanied children). See also the ‘Open letter to Members of the Hellenic Parliament 
calling for an investigation into border abuses’ by 29 organisations, 6 October 2020.

25  UN, Security Council (2021), United Nations operation in Cyprus – Report of the Secretary General, 8 January 2021, S/2021/4, para. 33; 

Human Rights Watch (2020), ‘Cyprus: Asylum seekers summarily returned – Pushbacks against surge of arrivals by boat from Lebanon’, 
29 September 2020; Global Detention Project (2020), Cyprus – COVID-19 updates, 12 November 2020 and 19 May 2020. See also the 
interview with UNHCR in Kathimerini (2020), ‘UNCHR Representative at «Κ»: Pushbacks of boats are contrary to international law’ 
(Αντιπρόσωπος UNCHR στην «Κ»: Τα pushbacks σκαφών είναι αντίθετα προς το διεθνές δίκαιο), 13 September 2020; ECtHR, M.A. 
and Others v. Cyprus, No� 39090/20, letter concerning the decision on interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, 
9 September 2020, published by the organisation KISA. In a letter to the EU Commissioner of Home Affairs, the Minister of Interior of 
Cyprus reported on 21 December 2020 that the 210 migrants returned to Lebanon had not applied for asylum.

26  Malta, Government (2020), ‘Statement by the Government of Malta’, press release PR200673en, 15 April 2020. For more details on this 
incident as well as on other alleged pushbacks, see Amnesty International (2020), Malta: Waves of impunity – Malta’s human rights 
violations and Europe’s responsibilities in the Central Mediterranean, 7 September 2020, pp. 7-11.

27  ECtHR, M.K. and Others v. Poland, Nos. 40503/17 and two others, 23 July 2020. See also ECtHR, M.A. and Others v. Lithuania, 

No. 59793/17, 11 December 2018.

28  See Frontex (2021), ‘Conclusions of the Management Board’s meeting on 20–21 January 2021 on the preliminary report of its Working 

Group on Fundamental Rights and Legal Operational Aspects of Operations in the Aegean Sea’, press release, 21 January 2021.

29  Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard 

and repealing Regulations (EU) No. 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624, OJ L 295, 14 November 2019, pp. 1-131, Art. 110.

30  For an overview of Frontex’s fundamental rights mechanisms, see FRA (2020), Fundamental Rights Report 2020, Luxembourg, 

Publications Office, June 2020, pp. 111-112.

31  ECtHR, Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], Nos. 10865/09 and two others, 17 September 2014, paras. 315-326.

32  Ibid.; ECtHR, Armani da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 5878/08, 30 March 2016, paras. 229-239.

33  See for Croatia, Ombudsman (n.d.), Report on the performance of the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2019, p. 27. 

FRA received similar information from the Hellenic Police in July 2020.

34  European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) (2020), Report on the visit to Greece from 13 to 17 March 2020, pp. 13 and 26. 

See also Greece, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2020), Response of the Greek Government to the report of the European Committee for the 
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Greece from 13 to 17 March 2020, p. 20. 
See also Croatia, Ministry of the Interior (2020), ‘The Croatian police did not record any actions’, press release, 19 November 2020.

35  For past cases, see FRA (2020), Migration: Fundamental rights issues at land borders, December 2020, p. 28 (Spanish case) and 

footnote 145 (Polish cases).

36  See Avvenire (2020), ‘Migrants. Asso 28 case, trial for the rejection of 101 people. Here are the audios’ (‘Migranti. Caso Asso 28, processo 

per il respingimento di 101 persone. Ecco gli audio’), 17 July 2020.

37  Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 

18 December 2002, entered into force on 22 June 2006 (UNTS Vol. 2375, p. 237).

38  Croatia, Ombudsman (2021), Report on the performance of the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2020, (Izvješće pučke 
pravobraniteljice za 2020. Godinu) March 2021; Italy, Ombudsperson (Garante Nazionale dei diritti delle persone detenute o private della 
libertà personale), Report to the Parliament 2020, Relazione al Parlamento 2020, June 2020; Spain, Ombudsperson (Defensor del Pueblo), 
Migration in the Canaries (La migración en Canarias), Madrid, March 2021; Cyprus, Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of 
Human Rights (Επίτροπος Διοικήσεως και Προστασίας Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων) (2020), Report on the visit to the temporary migrant 
reception facility ‘Pournara” in Kokkinotrimithia on 4 December 2020 (Έκθεση αναφορικά με την επίσκεψη στο Κέντρο Προσωρινής 
Υποδοχής και Φιλοξενίας Μεταναστών «Πουρνάρα» στην Κοκκινοτριμιθιά, ημερομηνίας 4 Δεκεμβρίου 2020) (relating to Pournara 

174

175

temporary accommodation centre for new arrivals), 9 December 2020; Greece, Ombudsperson (Συνήγορος του Πολίτη), National 
Preventive Mechanism Against Torture and Ill-treatment - Annual Special Report OPCAT 2019), 31 December 2019 and Bulletin 5 January-
April 2020 (Δελτίο #5: Ιανουάριος–Απρίλιος 2020), 12 May 2020.

39  See also Croatia, Ombudsman (2021), Report on the performance of the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2020 

(Izvješće pučke pravobraniteljice za 2020. Godinu), March 2021, p. 187.

40  A table summarising these cases is available on FRA’s website.

41  See UNHCR (2020), ‘ICS, UNHCR and IOM call on States to end humanitarian crisis onboard ship in the Mediterranean’, 7 September 2020; 

Maritime Executive (2020), ‘Shipping industry calls on EU for plan to safely disembark migrants’, 23 September 2020.

42  See IOM (n.d.), Displacement Tracking Matrix; IOM (2020), Libya monthly update, December 2020, last page.

43  Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministero degli Affari Esteri a della Cooperazione Internazionale) (2020), ‘Nota Farnesina – Libia’, press release, 
9 February 2020; the newspaper Avvenire published the full draft text of the agreement in ‘Memorandum Italy-Libya, the full draft: the 
game of funds in Tripoli’ ‘Esclusiva. Memorandum Italia–Libia, la bozza integrale: la partita dei fondi a Tripoli’, 12 February 2020

44  ‘Statement by the Office of the Prime Minister’, press release, 28 May 2020. The memorandum itself is not publicly available.

45  UNHCR (2020), UNHCR position on the designations of Libya as a safe third country and as a place of safety for the purpose of 

disembarkation following rescue at sea, September 2020.

46  Proposal for a Regulation introducing a screening of third country nationals at the external borders and amending Regulations (EC) 

No� 767/2008, (EU) 2017/2226, (EU) 2018/1240 and (EU) 2019/817, COM(2020) 612 final, Art. 1.

47  Amended proposal for a Regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing 

Directive 2013/32/EU, COM(2020) 611 final, new Art. 41 (11) on the asylum border procedure and new Art. 41a on the return border 
procedure.

48  See European Commission (2015), A European Agenda on Migration, COM(2015) 240 final, Brussels, 13 May 2015.

49  FRA (2020), Migration: Fundamental rights issues at land borders, Luxembourg, Publications Office, December 2020, p. 29.

50  CJEU, FMS and Others v. Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság und Országos Idegenrendeszeti 

Főigazgatóság [GC], Joined cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU, 14 May 2020.

51  On the related fundamental rights challenges, see FRA (2019), Update of the 2016 FRA Opinion on fundamental rights in the hotspots set 
up in Greece and Italy, 11 March 2019; FRA (2016), Opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on fundamental rights 
in the ‘hotspots’ set up in Greece and Italy, FRA Opinion 5/2016 [Hotspots], Vienna, 29 November 2016.

52  Greece, Ministry of Citizen Protection, National Coordination Centre for Border Control, Immigration and Asylum (2020), ‘National 

situational picture regarding the islands at eastern Aegean Sea (8/2/2020)’, ‘National situational picture regarding the islands at eastern 
Aegean Sea (20/4/2020)’, ‘National situational picture regarding the islands at eastern Aegean Sea (30/8/2020)’.

53  As illustrations, see National Commission for Human Rights (2020), ‘The system has collapsed in Samos’ (‘Το σύστημα έχει καταρρεύεσει 
στη Σάμο’), 23 January 2020; UNHCR (2020), ‘Refugees speak of dreadful reality inside Lesvos’ Moria camp’, 19 February 2020; UNHCR 
(2020), ‘Vulnerable asylum-seekers struggle to access medical care on overcrowded Greek islands’, 21 February 2020; Médecins Sans 
Frontières (2020), ‘Warning for Vathy camp on Samos’ (‘Γιατροί Χωρίς Σύνορα: Σήμα κινδύνου για τον καταυλισμό στο Βαθύ της 
Σάμου’), 29 September 2020.

54  Greece, Athens-Macedonian News Agency (2020), ‘15-year-old Afghan stabbed in Moria camp’, 29 January 2020; Sto Nisi (2020), ‘A 

6-year old burned alive in Moria RIC’ (‘Ένα εξάχρονο προσφυγόπουλο κάηκε ζωντανό στο ΚΥΤ της Μόριας’), 16 March 2020; Athens-
Macedonian News Agency (2020), ‘Afghan teen stabbed and killed by young Afghan man in Moria hotspot’, 8 April 2020; Kathimerini 
(2020), ‘Afghan woman killed in Moria camp’, 23 May 2020; Sto Nisi (2020), ‘Stabbing in Moria’ (‘Μαχαίρωμα στη Μόρια’), 27 July 2020. 
On children in migration in 2020, see also Chapter 8.

55  Greece, National Commission for Human Rights (Εθνική Επιτροπή για τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου) (2020), GNCHR Report on the 
Refugee and Migrant Issue (Part B) (Έκθεση Αναφοράς της ΕΕΔΑ για το Προσφυγικό και το Μεταναστευτικό Ζήτημα (Μέρος Β’)), 
pp.33-39 and Reference Report on the Refugee and Migrant Issue (Part B) (Summary in English), 24 September 2020.

56  Greece, Ministry of Migration and Asylum (Υπουργείο Μετανάστευσης και Ασύλου) (2020), ‘The fire that destroyed the RIC of Moria’, 

17 September 2020; See also National Commission for Human Rights (Εθνική Επιτροπή για τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου)(2020), GNCHR 
made a Statement on the fire in Moria and the day after, 11 September 2020.

57  See European Commission, Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission, European Asylum Support Office, the 

European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Europol and the Fundamental Rights Agency, of the one part, and the Government of Hellenic 
Republic, of the other part, on a Joint Pilot for the establishment of a new Multi-Purpose Reception and Identification Centre in Lesvos, 
Brussels, 2 December 2020, C(2020) 8657 final, annex.

58  Cyprus, Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights (Επίτροπος Διοικήσεως και Προστασίας Ανθρωπίνων 

Δικαιωμάτων) (2020), Report on the visit to the temporary migrant reception facility ‘Pournara” in Kokkinotrimithia on 4 December 
2020 (Έκθεση αναφορικά με την επίσκεψη στο Κέντρο Προσωρινής Υποδοχής και Φιλοξενίας Μεταναστών «Πουρνάρα» στην 
Κοκκινοτριμιθιά, ημερομηνίας 4 Δεκεμβρίου 2020), 9 December 2020.

59  Spain, Ombudsperson (Defensor del Pueblo) (2020), ‘Fernández Marugán travels to Gran Canaria to meet with the authorities in charge 
of migration‘ (‘Fernández Marugán viaja a Gran Canaria para entrevistarse con las autoridades competentes en materia migratoria’), 
16 December 2020.

60  See also FRA (2019), Update of the 2016 FRA Opinion on fundamental rights in the hotspots set up in Greece and Italy, Vienna, 4 March 

2019, p. 6.

61  See European Commission (2020), A New Pact on Migration and Asylum, COM(2020) 609 final, Brussels, 23 September 2020.

62  Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic 
Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ 2000 
L 239, pp. 19–62, Art. 21, read in conjunction with the definition of ‘residence permit’ under Art. 1 (excluding from its scope “temporary 
permission to reside in the territory of a Contracting Party for the purposes of processing an application for asylum”).

174

175

63  For a nearly comprehensive overview of intra-EU readmission agreements, see this database: Jean-Pierre Cassarino, ‘Inventory of the 

bilateral readmission agreements linked to readmission’.

64  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures 
in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24 December 2008, pp. 98–107. The European 
Commission recommends the use of readmission agreements in such cases; see Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/820 of 12 May 
2017 on proportionate police checks and police cooperation in the Schengen area, C(2017)3349, OJ 2017 L 122, pp. 79–83, recital 19 and 
point 4.

65  Regulation (EU) No� 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms 
for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the, OJ 2013 
L 180, pp. 31–59.

66  France, Conseil d’État, 7ème chambre, 8 July 2020, No� 440756, paras. 2 and 12 (concerning a mother from the Central African Republic 

and her child passed back to Italy in May 2020); Italy, Court of Rome (Tribunale Ordinario di Roma), Judgment No� 56420/2020, 18 January 
2021 (concerning a Pakistani national informally pushed back to Slovenia). See also Italy, Chamber of Deputies (Camera dei Deputati) 
(2020), Stenographic record of session No. 379 (Resoconto stenografico dell’Assemblea, Seduta n� 379), 24 July 2020; Associazione per 
gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) (2020), ‘Riammissioni informali’ dei cittadini stranieri alla frontiera terrestre italo-slovena, 
lettera aperta dell’ASGI al Governo e ad UNHCR’, 3 August 2020.

67  Slovenia, Administrative Court, judgment I U 1490/2019-92, 16 July 2020. Judgment not final.

68  See also FRA (2020), Migration: Fundamental rights issues at land borders, Luxembourg, Publications Office, December 2020, p. 20.

69  FRA (2020), Fundamental Rights Report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, Section 5.1.4; FRA (2019), Fundamental Rights Report 

2019, Luxembourg, Publications Office, Section 6.1.5; FRA (2018), Fundamental Rights Report 2018, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 
Section 6.3.3.

70  See FRA (2020), ‘December 2020 update – NGO ships involved in search and rescue in the Mediterranean and legal proceedings against 

them’, 18 December 2020; CJEU, Sea Watch case, C-14/21 and Sea Watch, press release, Sea-Watch case referred to the European Court 
of Justice, 24 December 2020 on the request by the Regional Administrative Court of Palermo to the CJEU to clarify how certain rules of 
Directive 2009/16/EC relating to port controls apply to search and rescue vessels.

71  European Commission, Commission guidance on the implementation of EU rules on definition and prevention of the facilitation of 

unauthorised entry, transit and residence, C(2020) 6470 final, Brussels, 23 September 2020, point 4.

72  Ibid., point 5.

73  EASO (2020), COVID-19 emergency measures in asylum and reception systems, 2 June 2020, p. 11.

74  EASO (2020), COVID-19 emergency measures in asylum and reception systems – Issue No. 2, p. 6.

75  Belgium, Brussels Court of First Instance (Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles), Order No� 2020105C, 5 October 2020.

76  Belgium, Council of State (Coseil d’État), Decision No� 249�163, 7 December 2020.

77  EASO (2020), COVID-19 emergency measures in asylum and reception systems, 2 June 2020, p. 16.

78  Italy, Ministry of the Interior, Decree of the Head of the Department of Civil Protection No� 1287 of 12 April 2020 (Decreto del Capo 

Dipartimento n. 1287 del 12 aprile 2020). For Malta, see Times of Malta (2020), ‘Malta charters Captain Morgan boat to house rescued 
migrants off shore’, 30 April 2020. Amnesty International provides a detailed account of the use of Captain Morgan Cruise vessels in Malta 
in May–June; Amnesty International (2020), Malta: Waves of Impunity – Malta’s human rights violations and Europe’s responsibilities in 
the Central Mediterranean, pp. 11–14.

79  UNHCR and IOM (2020), ‘UNHCR, IOM, urge European states to disembark rescued migrants and refugees on board the Captain Morgan 
vessels Council of Europe’, 21 May 2020; Commissioner for Human Rights (2020), ‘Immediate action needed to disembark migrants held 
on ships off Malta’s coast’, 4 June 2020.

80  Slovenia, Human Rights Ombudsman, The Ombudsman’s Report on the Placement of Detainees at the Postojna Aliens Centre, 11 October 

2020.

81  Cyprus, Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights (Επίτροπος Διοικήσεως και Προστασίας Ανθρωπίνων 
Δικαιωμάτων) (2020), Report on the visit to the temporary migrant reception facility ‘Pournara’ in Kokkinotrimithia on 4 December 
2020 (Έκθεση αναφορικά με την επίσκεψη στο Κέντρο Προσωρινής Υποδοχής και Φιλοξενίας Μεταναστών «Πουρνάρα» στην 
Κοκκινοτριμιθιά, ημερομηνίας 4 Δεκεμβρίου 2020), 9 December 2020.

82  Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights (2020), ‘Spain’s authorities must find alternatives to accommodating migrants, 
including asylum seekers, in substandard conditions in Melilla’, letter, 3 September 2020. See also UNCHR and IOM (2020), ‘Urgent 
coordinated response needed to the alarming conditions of migrants and refugees detained in Melilla’, press release, 29 August 2020; 
Amnesty International (2020), ‘It is urgent to transfer and relocate migrants and asylum seekers in Melilla in dignified conditions’ (‘Es 
urgente el traslado y realojo en condiciones dignas de las personas migrantes y solicitantes de asilo en Melilla’), 27 August 2020.

83  See also European Commission (2020), Extension of legal stay related to covid-19 – national practices, 26 May 2020.

84  Bulgaria, Measures and Activities during the State of Emergency Declared by Decision of the National Assembly of 13 March 2020 
and Overcoming the Consequences Act (Закон за мерките и действията по време на извънредното положение, обявено 
c решение на Народното събрание от 13 март 2020 г. и за преодоляване на последиците), 9 April 2020; Czechia, Government 
Resolution No� 1050, 16 October 2020; Denmark, information contained on the Danish Immigration Service’s website; France, Law 
No� 2020–734 of 17 June 2020 relating to various provisions linked to the health crisis, other urgent measures and the withdrawal of 
the United Kingdom from the European Union (Loi n° 2020–734 du 17 juin 2020 relative à diverses dispositions liées à la crise sanitaire, 
à d’autres mesures urgentes ainsi qu’au retrait du Royaume-Uni de l’Union européenne), 17 June 2020; Germany, Ordinance on the 
temporary exemption of holders of expiring Schengen visas from the requirement of a residence permit due to the COVID-19 pandemic 
(Verordnung zur vorübergehenden Befreiung von Inhabern ablaufender Schengen-Visa vom Erfordernis eines Aufenthaltstitels auf Grund 
der COVID-19-Pandemie), 7 April 2020, and Regulation extending the temporary exemption of holders of expiring Schengen visas and 
temporary transit exemption for the purpose of leaving the Schengen area from the requirement of a residence permit due to the 
COVID-19 pandemic (Verordnung zur Verlängerung der vorübergehenden Befreiung von Inhabern ablaufender Schengen-Visa und zur 
vorübergehenden Befreiung zur Durchreise zum Zweck der Ausreise aus dem Schengen-Raum vom Erfordernis eines Aufenthaltstitels 

176

177

auf Grund der COVID-19-Pandemie), 22 June 2020; Greece, Extension of validity of residence titles by Law 4764/2020 Arrangements to 
protect public health from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, to strengthen public transport, speed up the granting of pensions, settle 
debts towards local authorities and other urgent provisions (Νόμος 4764/2020 Ρυθμίσεις για την προστασία της δημόσιας υγείας από 
τις συνέπειες της πανδημίας του κορωνοϊού COVID-19, την ενίσχυση των μέσων μαζικής μεταφοράς, την επιτάχυνση της απονομής 
των συντάξεων, τη ρύθμιση οφειλών προς τους Oργανισμούς Tοπικής Aυτοδιοίκησης και άλλες κατεπείγουσες διατάξεις), article 156, 
paragraph 2 (Official Gazette, issue A’256/23.12.2020); See also Ministerial Decision No� 120889/2020 (Υπουργική Απόφαση Αριθμ. 
οικ. 12889/2020), 30 March 2020, and Ministerial Decision No� 14119/2020 (Υπουργική Απόφαση Αριθμ.οικ.14119/2020), 4 May 2020; 
Hungary, Government Decree 85/2020 (IV�5�) on home affairs and administrative regulations to be applied during the state of danger 
(85/2020. (IV. 5.) Korm. rendelet a veszélyhelyzet során alkalmazandó egyes belügyi és közigazgatási tárgyú szabályokról), 5 April 
2020; Ireland, notices published on the Department of Justice’s website on 20 March 2020, 13 May 2020, 16 July 2020, 18 August 2020, 
18 September 2020, 22 December 2020; Italy, Law-Decree No� 18 of 17 March 2020, converted with amendments into Law No� 27 of 
24 April 2020, on ‘Measures to reinforce the national Healthcare System and to financially support families, workers and business 
during the Covid-19 emergency’ (Decreto-Legge 17 marzo 2020, n. 18, convertito con modificazioni dalla L. 24 aprile 2020, n. 27, Misure 
di potenziamento del Servizio sanitario nazionale e di sostegno economico per famiglie, lavoratori e imprese connesse all’emergenza 
epidemiologica da COVID-1), 24 April 2020, and Law-Decree No� 125 of 7 October 2020, converted with amendments into Law No� 159 
of 27 November 2020, ‘Urgent measures relating the declaration of the state of Covid-19 epidemic emergency and on the operative 
continuity of the Covid alert-system, as well as on the implementation of the Directive 2020/739/EU of 3 June 2020’ (Decreto-legge 
7 ottobre 2020, n. 125, c onvertito con modificazioni dalla L. 27 novembre 2020, n. 159, “Misure urgenti connesse con la proroga della 
dichiarazione dello stato di emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 e per la continuita’ operativa del sistema di allerta COVID, nonche’ 
per l’attuazione della direttiva (UE) 2020/739 del 3 giugno 2020”), 27 November 2020; Luxembourg, Grand-ducal decree of 18 March 
2020 introducing a series of measures to combat COVID-19 (Règlement grand-ducal du 18 mars 2020 portant introduction d’une série de 
mesures dans le cadre de la lutte contre le Covid-19), 18 March 2020, and Act of 20 June 2020 introducing certain temporary measures 
relating to the application of the amended act of 29 August 2008 on the free movement of persons and immigration (Loi du 20 juin 2020 
portant introduction de certaines mesures temporaires relatives à l’application de la loi modifiée du 29 août 2008 sur la libre circulation 
des personnes et l’immigration), 20 June 2020; Malta, notice published on Identity Malta website, 16 March 2020; Poland, Act of 31 March 
2020 amending the Act on special solutions related to the prevention, counteracting and combating of COVID-19, other infectious diseases 
and crisis situations caused by them, as well as some other acts (Ustawa z dnia 31 marca 2020 r. o zmianie ustawy o szczególnych 
rozwiązaniach związanych z zapobieganiem, przeciwdziałaniem i zwalczaniem COVID-19, innych chorób zakaźnych oraz wywołanych 
nimi sytuacji kryzysowych oraz niektórych innych ustaw), 31 March 2020, and the Act of 16 April 2020 on special support instruments in 
connection with the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Ustawa z dnia 16 kwietnia 2020 r. o szczególnych instrumentach wsparcia w związku 
z rozprzestrzenianiem się wirusa SARS-CoV-2), 16 April 2020; Portugal, Decree-Law 10-A/2020 establishing exceptional and temporary 
measures due to the epidemiological situation of the new Coronavirus – COVID-19 (Decreto Lei n.º 10-A/2020, que estabelece medidas 
excecionais e temporárias relativas à situação epidemiológica do novo Coronavírus – Covid-19), 13 March 2020; Romania, Government 
Decision No. 782/2020 on the prolongation of a state of alert starting 15 September 2020 and the measures to be taken during it to 
prevent and combat the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 782 din 14 septembrie 2020 privind prelungirea 
stării de alertă pe teritoriul României începând cu data de 15 septembrie 2020, precum și stabilirea măsurilor care se aplică pe durata 
acesteia pentru prevenirea și combaterea efectelor pandemiei de COVID-19), 14 September 2020; Slovakia, Act No� 73/2020 (73/2020 
Z. z.), 9 April 2020; Spain, Order SND/421/2020 of 18 May adopting measures concerning the extension of authorizations for the stay 
and residence and/or work and other situations of foreigners in Spain, in application of Royal Decree 463/2020 of 14 March (Orden 
SND/421/2020, de 18 de mayo, por la que se adoptan medidas relativas a la prórroga de las autorizaciones de estancia y residencia y/o 
trabajo y a otras situaciones de los extranjeros en España, en aplicación del Real Decreto 463/2020, de 14 de marzo, por el que se declara 
el estado de alarma para la gestión de la situación de crisis sanitaria ocasionada por el COVID-199), 18 May 2020; North Macedonia, 
Decree with legal force on implementation of the Law on Foreigners (Уредбата со законска сила за примена на Законот за 
странци), 20 March 2020, last amended by Decree with legal force on amending the Decree with legal force on implementation of the 
Law on Foreigners (Уредба со законска сила за изменување на Уредбата со законска сила за примена на Законот за странци (*) 
за време на вонредна состојба), 22 June 2020.

85  Belgium, information contained on the Immigration Office’s website; Croatia, Act on Amendments to the Foreigners Act, Official Gazette 

No. 53/2020 (Zakon o dopuni Zakona o strancima,NN 53/2020), 30 April 2020; Czechia, Government Decision No� 198 on an emergency 
measure (Usnesení vlády České republiky č. 198 o přijetí krizového opatření), 12 March 2020; Denmark, information contained on the 
Danish Immigration Service’s website; Estonia, Order of the Police and Border Guard Board No� 1�1-4�1/11, 16 March 2020, and Act 
Amending the Assistant Police Act and Other Acts (measures related to the spread of COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2) (Abipolitseiniku seaduse 
ja teiste seaduste muutmise seadus (COVID-19 haigust põhjustava viiruse SARS-Cov-2 levikuga seotud meetmed)), 7 May 2020; Finland, 
Finnish Immigration Service guidelines MIGDno-2020-658, 18 May 2020, and MIGDno-2020-1356 (not public), 13 October 2020; Latvia, 
Law on the management of the spread of COVID-19 infection (Covid-19 infekcijas izplatības pārvaldības likums), 5 June 2020; Slovakia, 
Act No� 73/2020 (73/2020 Z. z.), 9 April 2020; Slovenia, The intervention measures to contain COVID-19 epidemic and to mitigate its 
consequences for citizens and economy Act (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 in omilitev njenih posledic 
za državljane in gospodarstvo), 2 April 2020; Sweden, ‘Legal position on visa and residence permits for visits due to the outbreak of 
the corona virus’ (‘Rättsligt ställningstagande angående ansökningar om visering och uppehållstillstånd för besök med anledning av 
coronautbrottet (covid-19)’), 20 March 2020; Serbia, Decision on the status of foreign nationals in the Republic of Serbia during the state 
of emergency (Odluka o statusu stranih državljana u Republici Srbiji za vreme vanrednog stanja), 24 March 2020.

86  Denmark, Danish NLO, March 2021.

87  Austria, Decree 2020-0.188.288 (unpublished), 18 March 2020; Cyprus, Ministry of the Interior (2020), ‘Press Release COVID19’, 19 March 

2020; Lithuania, Ministry of Internal Affairs (2020), ‘Legal status of foreigners in the Republic of Lithuania during the quarantine’, 
24 March 2020; Netherlands, Statement of State Secretary for Justice and Security (2020), Parliamentary document (Kamerstuk) 19 637 
No. 2601, 22 April 2020.

88  Austria, Decree 2020-0�184�494 on information concerning the Residence and Settlement Act (NAG – Informationen Information zum 
Verfahrensablauf im Niederlassungsverfahren – Änderungen durch Maßnahmen der Bundesregierung im Zusammenhang mit dem 
Coronavirus (COVID 19)), 17 March 2020.

89  See European Commission (2020), Extension of legal stay related to covid-19 – national practices, 26 May 2020 which reports how 

Germany applied the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz), Section 81 (4).

90  European Migration Network (2021), Inform # 5 – Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on voluntary and forced return procedures and policy 

176

177

responses, January 2021.

91  See Council of the EU (2020), Presidency paper on addressing challenges relating to migrants in a situation of prolonged illegal stay, 

7560/20, Brussels, 27 April 2020.

92  European Migration Network (2020), Responses to long-term irregularly staying migrants: Practices and challenges in EU Member States 

and Norway, Common Template for EMN Study 2020, 17 July 2020, final version.

93  FRA, EU-MIDIS II (2016), Question PR02 Q: “Did you have any type of permit when you FIRST arrived in X?” A: ‘No permit (without 

papers)’; Question PR05 Q: “Since you have been in X, were there any times when you did not have a valid residence permit/papers?” A: 
‘Yes once’ OR ‘Yes several times’. See also FRA (2019), Protecting migrant workers from exploitation in the EU: Workers’ perspectives, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 69.

94  Pew Research Center (2019), ‘Europe’s unauthorized immigrant population peaks in 2016, then levels off’, ‘Appendix C: Unauthorized 

immigrant population trends without waiting asylum seekers, by country’. The estimates also include Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway 
and Switzerland, but not the United Kingdom. Data could be overestimated; see Hosner, R. (2020), ‘One million irregular migrants in 
Germany? A methodological critique of estimates of irregular migrants in Europe published by Pew Research Center’, briefing notes, 
No. 2, Berlin, DeZIM Institut, 14 February 2020.

95  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in 

Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, pp. 98–107).

96  See University of Nijmegen, Centre for Migration Law, CMR Quarterly Overview of CJEU judgments and pending cases (December 2020).

97  Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Art. 267.

98  See the website of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, 

Security and Justice.

99  For an overview of EU large-scale information technology systems, see FRA and ECtHR, Handbook on European law relating to asylum, 

borders and immigration – Edition 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, December 2020, Ch. 2.

100 For more information on FRA’s previous work on fundamental rights risks and opportunities of IT systems and interoperability see FRA 
(2018), Under watchful eyes: Biometrics, EU IT systems and fundamental rights, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 27 March 2018; 
FRA (2020), Fundamental Rights Report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 11 June 2020, Section 5.4; FRA (2018), Interoperability 
and fundamental rights implications, Opinion 4/2018, 19 April 2018; FRA (2019), Facial recognition technology: Fundamental rights 
considerations in the context of law enforcement, 27 November 2019; FRA (2017), Fundamental rights and the interoperability of EU 
information systems: Borders and security, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 7 July 2017.

101 Council of the EU (2020), ‘Visa Information System: Council Presidency and European Parliament reach provisional agreement on main 
elements’, press release, 8 December 2020. For Eurodac, see European Commission, COM(2020) 614 final, Brussels, 23 September 2020. 
Similarly, the consequential amendments to other IT systems that COM(2019) 3 final and COM(2019) 4 final proposed also remained 
pending.

102 On the EES, see the following implementing acts: C/2019/1280, C/2019/1210, C/2019/1220, C/2019/1250, C/2018/6665, C/2018/6629, 
C(2019)1260/F1(not public), C(2019)1230/F1 note public), C(2019)1270/F1 (not public), C(2019)1240/F1 (not public). On ETIAS, see 
delegated acts C/2019/1695, C/2019/1533, C/2019/1532. On SIS, see the implementing act C/2020/2165.

103 Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use 
of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending and 
repealing Council Decision 2007/533/JHA, and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1986/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
Commission Decision 2010/261/EU, Art. 32 (9).

104 Missing Children Europe, information provided to the European Migration Network (EMN) on 28 February 2020; EMN (2020), How do EU 

Member States treat cases of missing unaccompanied minors?

105 FRA (2018), Under watchful eyes – Biometrics, EU IT systems and fundamental rights, Luxembourg, Publications Office, pp. 113–114; FRA 
(2018), Interoperability and fundamental rights implications, Opinion 4/2018, pp. 16–17; FRA (2016), The impact of the proposal for 
a revised Eurodac Regulation on fundamental rights, Opinion 6/2016, pp. 25–26.

106 EES Regulation, Art. 38.

107 European Commission (2020), Opportunities and challenges for the use of artificial intelligence in border control, migration and 

security – Volume 1: Main report, 28 May 2020; European Commission, Feasibility study on a forecasting and early warning tool for 
migration based on artificial intelligence technology, 18 November 2020; European Commission; European Commission, DG Migration and 
Home Affairs (2020), Management plan 2020. See also eu-LISA (2020), ‘The digital transformation of internal security in the EU, AI and 
the role of eu-LISA’, 15 December 2020.

108 FRA (2018), Preventing unlawful profiling today and in the future: A guide, Luxembourg, Publications Office, December 2018, Section 3.2.

109 FRA (2020), Getting the future right – Artificial intelligence and fundamental rights, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 14 December 2020, 

Ch. 5.

110 European Commission (2020), A New Pact on Migration and Asylum, COM(2020) 609 final, 23 September 2020, section 8.

111  Ibid.

112  European Commission (2020), Action plan on integration and inclusion 2021–2027, COM/2020/758 final, Brussels, 24 November 2020.

113  FRA (2019), Integration of young refugees in the EU: Good practices and challenges, Luxembourg, Publication Office.

114 FRA (2020), Fundamental Rights Report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, June 2020, at 5.5.

115  Eurostat, migr_reslong, data for 2019, extracted on 7 January 2021.

116 Eurostat, migr_pop1ctz, data for 2019, extracted on 7 January 2021.

117  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, OJ 

L 16, pp. 44–53.

178

179

118 European Commission, Proposal for a regulation on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC) 2003/109 
and the proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund], COM/2020/610 final, Brussels, 23 September 2020, Art. 71.

119 FRA (2017), Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) – Main results, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 

5 December 2017, p. 83 and Figure 32.

120 Eurostat, migr_pop1ctz, data extracted on 24 March 2020

121  Trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the other part, OJ L 444, 31 December 2020, pp. 14–1462.

122 Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 listing the 

third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt 
from that requirement, as regards the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, OJ L 103, 12 April 2019, pp. 1–4.

178

179

INFORMATION SOCIETY, PRIVACY AND 
DATA PROTECTION

7

7�1� 

DATA PROTECTION MOVES FORWARD, BUT NEW THREATS EMERGE 

185

7�1�1�  BALANCING DATA PROTECTION AND HEALTH: PRIVACY IN 

THE AGE OF COVID-19 

7�1�2�  THE GDPR TWO YEARS ON: MUCH PROGRESS, BUT ROOM 

FOR IMPROVEMENT REMAINS 

7�2� 

RECONCILING RIGHTS – DATA PROTECTION AND ITS LIMITS IN 
SELECT FIELDS 

7�2�1�  LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES RELATED TO CHILD PROTECTION 

AND DATA RETENTION 

7�2�2�  SETTING THE BOUNDARIES OF INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES’ 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

7�3� 

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: NEED FOR STRONG 
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SAFEGUARDS 

7�3�1�  EU REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ON AI TAKES FORM 

7�3�2�  NATIONAL AI INITIATIVES: NEED FOR STRONGER 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SAFEGUARDS 

7�3�3�  AI IN THE AGE OF COVID-19: PROTECTING HEALTH AND 
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROVES CHALLENGING 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

180

186

188

190

191

193

194

194

196

197

199

202

181

UN & CoE

30 

January

In Breyer v. Germany (No� 50001/12), European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) finds that the 
requirement to collect data to identify users of pre-paid SIM cards did not violate Article 8 of the 
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (right to respect for private and family life)�

30 

March

Chair of the Committee of Convention 108 and Data Protection 
Commissioner of the Council of Europe (CoE) publish a joint statement on 
the right to data protection in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic�

8

28 

April

CoE Committee of Ministers publishes 
a recommendation on the human rights 
impacts of algorithmic systems�

Chair of the Committee of Convention 108 and Data 
Protection Commissioner of the CoE publish a joint 
statement on digital contact tracing�

28 

May

World Health Organization publishes interim guidance on ethical considerations to 
guide the use of digital proximity-tracking technologies for COVID-19 contact tracing�

13

June

In Gaughran v. The United Kingdom (No� 45245/15), ECtHR finds that indefinite retention of the 
DNA, fingerprints, and photograph of a man convicted of drunk driving breached his rights under 
Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)�

7

Chair of the Committee of Convention 108 and the Data 
Protection Commissioner of the CoE publish a joint 
statement titled “Better protecting individuals in the context 
of international data flows: the need for democratic and 
effective oversight of intelligence services”�

24

September

Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE (PACE) 
publishes two reports, one on the need for 
democratic governance of AI and one on 
the brain-computer interface�

1

5

12

22

October

PACE publishes two 
reports, one on AI in 
healthcare and one 
on the role of AI in 
policing and criminal 
justice systems�

CoE publishes 
a report entitled 
Artificial 
intelligence and 
labour markets: 
friend or foe?

CoE publishes 
a report on digital 
solutions to 
fight COVID-19, 
which provides 
recommendations 
on data protection�

PACE adopts Resolution 2343 on 
Preventing discrimination caused by the 
use of artificial intelligence, calling on 
CoE member states to review their anti-
discrimination legislation and amend it as 
necessary, to ensure that it covers all cases 
where direct or indirect discrimination 
may be caused by the use of AI, and that 
complainants have full access to justice�

27

November

Committee of Convention 108 adopts Guidelines on Children’s 
Data Protection in an Education Setting�

181

180

EU

January

29 

European Commission publishes a communication on ‘Secure 5G 
deployment in the EU – Implementing the EU toolbox’�

February

19 

European Commission publishes a white paper on artificial 
intelligence (AI) and a report on the safety and liability 
implications of AI, the internet of things and robotics�

April

8 

16 

European Commission issues recommendations 
on a common Union toolbox for the use of 
technology and data to combat and exit from 
the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis

European Commission adopts a communication 
establishing guiding principles on apps supporting 
the fight against COVID-19 pandemic in relation to 
data protection�

June

15 

16 

24 

30 

European Data 
Protection 
Supervisor adopts 
Opinion 3/2020 on 
the European data 
strategy�

European Parliament adopts 
a resolution on the proposal 
for a Council Decision on the 
determination of a clear risk of 
a serious breach by Poland of the 
rule of law (COM(2017)0835 – 
2017/0360R(NLE)), calling on 
the country to comply with the 
provisions of the resolution of 
18 December 2019 on equal 
treatment of LGBTI persons�

European Data 
Protection Supervisor 
publishes its 2020–
2024 strategy ‘Shaping 
a safer digital future: 
A new strategy for 
a new decade’�

—  European Commission 

publishes 
a communication on 
the approach to digital 
transition two years 
after the GDPR�

—  European 

Commission issues 
a communication on 
the way forward on 
aligning the former 
third pillar acquis with 
data protection rules�

July

15 

16 

24 

European Commission 
issues Implementing 
Decision (EU) 2020/1023 
amending Implementing Decision 
(EU) 2019/1765 as regards the cross-
border exchange of data between 
national contact tracing and warning 
mobile applications with regard to 
combating the COVID-19 pandemic�

In Data Protection Commissioner v. 
Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian 
Schrems (C-311/18), Court of Justice of 
the European Union (CJEU) invalidates 
Decision 2016/1250 on the adequacy 
of protection provided by the EU–US 
data protection Privacy Shield�

European Commission 
publishes an EU strategy 
for a more effective fight 
against child sexual abuse 
material�

182

183

EU

10 

September

European Commission publishes draft Interim Regulation on the processing 
of personal and other data for the purpose of combating child sexual abuse 
(COM(2020) 568 final)�

6 

8

October

In Privacy International v. Secretary of State for 
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs e.a (C-623/17), 
and in Joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, 
CJEU confirms that EU law precludes national 
legislation requiring a provider of electronic 
communications services to carry out the general 
and indiscriminate transmission or retention of 
traffic data and location data for the purpose of 
combating crime in general or of safeguarding 
national security�

Council of the EU adopts conclusions on 
digitalisation to improve access to justice, noting 
the potential of AI, and stressing the need to 
promote digital skills, including judicial training and 
awareness-raising�

20 

November

European Data Protection Board 
adopts a statement on the draft 
e-Privacy Regulation, focusing 
on the future role of supervisory 
authorities�

11 

In Orange Romania SA v. ANSPDCP 
(C-61/19), CJEU holds that a contract for 
the provision of telecommunications 
services containing a clause stating 
that the customer has consented to 
the collection and storage of his or her 
identity document cannot demonstrate 
that this customer has validly given 
consent if the data controller ticked the 
box referring to that clause before the 
contract was signed�

2 

14 

15 

December

European Commission adopts 
communication on the 
digitalisation of justice in the EU�

Council of the EU adopts a resolution 
addressing security through 
encryption and the need for security 
despite encryption�

—  European Commission proposes a new 

comprehensive set of rules for all digital 
services: the Digital Services Act and the Digital 
Market Act�

—  European Data Protection Board adopts its 

2021–2023 strategy�

182

183

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic spurred the development and 

uptake of innovative technologies, including artificial intelligence 

(AI), to counter its spread� In parallel, the ongoing use of AI 

technologies brought concerns over the rights to data protection 

and privacy (alongside other rights, such as non-discrimination)� 

EU and international bodies swiftly responded by emphasising 

applicable data protection standards� At the same time, the 

EU continued its work on regulating the use of AI� It published 

a white paper and accompanying report that recognised the 

role of fundamental rights – alongside ethical frameworks – in 

ensuring rights-compliant use of AI� The EU institutions and EU 

Member States also further developed policies and laws that 

affect privacy and data protection, in areas ranging from data 

retention and surveillance to the fight against child sexual abuse 

material�

184

185

7�1� 
DATA PROTECTION MOVES FORWARD, BUT NEW 
THREATS EMERGE

As the pandemic erupted in the EU, regulators turned to the use of technology 
to control its spread. Both public and private bodies resorted to various 
types of data processing. Among other approaches, they developed and 
deployed tracing applications (not always successfully), and health-reporting 
applications and websites, but also drones, thermal cameras, and e-forms 
for exit permits during lockdowns. In addition, some Member States passed 
legislation to permit access to and processing of traffic and location data.1

Several EU and international bodies raised concerns that such processing entails 
novel risks to the rights to private life and data protection, as FRA’s second 
COVID-19 bulletin highlighted. In parallel, data protection experts worked 
to ensure the full enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation 
(GDPR) principles and requirements across different areas, including those 
that the pandemic did not affect. However, further progress is needed to 
ensure greater harmonisation of the GDPR’s application at national level.

184

185

 
7�1�1�  Balancing data protection and health: privacy in the age of 
COVID-19
By the end of March 2020, the European Commission, the European Data 
Protection Board, the Council of Europe, and the Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development had published guidance highlighting common 
minimum standards to safely implement tracing apps and related technologies.2 
They aimed to strike the right balance between the duty to protect public 
health and the duty to ensure the protection of personal data and of privacy.

National data protection authorities (DPAs) and civil society organisations 
(CSOs) took the lead in scrutinising the data protection and privacy compliance 
of measures to protect health. Many CSOs analysed such measures and 
technologies.3 DPAs also produced guidance to ensure that technologies and 
data are used in a data protection-compliant way.4

In several EU Member States, government measures were criticised and 
challenged for not respecting data protection rules. In Bulgaria, for instance, 
the Constitutional Court ruled that the legislative amendment5 allowing access 
to traffic data about individuals in mandatory isolation was unconstitutional, as 
the six-month period for retaining their data was excessive.6 In Croatia, CSOs 
strongly criticised7 the proposed amendments to the Electronic Communications 
Act, which aimed to track the locations of people in self-isolation.8 Less than 
a month later, the government decided to withdraw them.9

In Germany, the requirement to collect personal data and contact information of 
restaurants and bars’ clients raised criticisms and was declared unconstitutional 
by the Constitutional Court of Saarland in August 2020. It found that the 
particular encroachment on the fundamental rights was of such intensity that 
only a parliamentary act – but not a statutory order of the state government – 
would justify it.10

“In the context of the 
coronavirus pandemic, now, 
more than ever, citizens must 
be sure that their personal data 
are well protected� Tracing apps 
can only become an effective 
and widely used tool to support 
the recovery from the pandemic 
when citizens trust that their 
privacy is safeguarded� In this 
respect, the GDPR and EU privacy 
rules play a vital role�”

Věra Jourová, Vice-President for 
Values and Transparency, and Didier 
Reynders, Commissioner for Justice, 
Joint statement ahead of the second 
anniversary of the GDPR, 20 May 2020

186

187

FRA ACTIVITY
Tracing apps and 
related technology: 
fundamental rights 
implications
During 2020, FRA published six 
bulletins collecting information 
about and analysing fundamental 
rights challenges. Bulletins 1, 2 and 
4 highlighted data protection and 
privacy concerns that the use of 
technological tools to combat the 
pandemic raised.

Bulletin 2 focused on tracing apps. 
Several national DPAs called for 
legislation that would provide legal 
clarity on tracing apps, restoring 
public trust and increasing public 
acceptance. Some Member State 
governments made efforts to do so, 
FRA found. However, at the end of 
2020, data-processing concerns and 
lack of clarity about the legal basis 
for such tools remained, alongside 
technical challenges.

The bulletins also highlighted 
concerns about the spread of 
disinformation, particularly online. 
Notably, although the circulation of 
disinformation continues, actions 
at the start of the pandemic 
successfully reduced the impact of 
disinformation, evidence from some 
Member States indicates. Efforts 
to fight disinformation at national 
level included promoting enhanced 
transparency when publishing 
statistics related to the virus; creating 
platforms to rebut disinformation; 
and allocating funds to the media to 
counter disinformation.

For more information, see FRA 
(2020), Bulletin #1, Bulletin #2 and 
Bulletin #4.

In the Netherlands, a draft bill proposed to amend the Telecommunications 
Act to oblige telecommunication service providers to process mobile phone 
metadata and send mobility statistics to the National Institute for Public Health 
and the Environment. The Dutch DPA assessed the bill negatively. Among 
other reasons, it lacked precise definitions, justification of the proportionality 
of the law, and procedural safeguards.11

Measures that private entities and public bodies took to alleviate the effects of 
the lockdown were also critiqued for putting data protection at risk. Notably, 
in the education sector, the push to use novel technologies raised questions 
regarding respect for the private lives of children or students.

Cyprus12 required students to install software that might, among other things, 
film or monitor their eye movements during an exam. The Cypriot DPA criticised 
this in an opinion, emphasising that GDPR safeguards and principles must 
be respected.13 In Germany, the use of teleconferencing apps and digital 
learning platforms raised concerns among several regional (Länder) DPAs.14

Ireland cancelled the Leaving Certificate examinations and replaced them 
with a system of calculated grades. They presented significant data protection 
issues in relation to the fairness and reliability of the process.15 Errors resulted in 
approximately 6,000 students being issued with lower grades than expected, 
and approximately 8,000 with higher grades than there were supposed to be.16

The University of Luxembourg planned to use AI-based video surveillance 
for remote exam invigilation. The National Union of Luxembourg Students 
heavily criticised the system. It was finally abandoned.17

Disinformation related to the virus, or to political measures to combat the 
pandemic, rose rapidly across the EU. Several Member States took action to 
fight and decrease the circulation of fake news and scams.18

In Belgium, for instance, the government has set up an official website19 that 
provides information on the virus and on measures related to confinement 
and deconfinement. The Belgian institute for health publishes daily updated 
statistics.20 Bulgaria amended the Radio and Television Act in December 
2020. The amendments introduce procedures for blocking access to websites 
disseminating disinformation, and establish financial sanctions for the spread 
of disinformation online.21

In  Spain,  the  National  Congress  published  an  advisory  resolution  in 
October 2020. It proposed the introduction of legal amendments to combat 
fake news and unfounded rumours on the internet, including simplified 
mechanisms to report disinformation.22

In Hungary, the Parliament amended the Criminal Code in March 2020 to 
extend the scope of the long-standing offence of fearmongering to the specific 
situation of the periods of special legal orders.23 A complaint highlighted that 
this act would restrict freedom of speech unnecessarily and disproportionately. 
The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint.24

186

187

7�1�2�  The GDPR two years on: much progress, but room for 
improvement remains

In June 2020, the European Commission published its two-year review of the 
application of the GDPR. Overall, the Commission believes that the GDPR has 
met its objective, by offering both stronger protection to individuals and the 
means to enforce it.

Quoting from FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey, the Commission concluded 
that individuals are more empowered and aware of their rights, but that 
more can be done to help individuals exercise their rights – for instance, by 
unlocking the potential of the right to data portability.

FRA ACTIVITY
Fundamental 
Rights Survey 
looks at data 
protection and 
privacy
In June 2020, FRA published the 
findings of the Fundamental Rights 
Survey about individuals’ opinions 
on data protection and technology. 
It interviewed just under 35,000 
people aged 16 years and older in all 
EU Member States, North Macedonia 
and the United Kingdom in 2019.

The findings in that report focus 
mainly on how people share data 
about themselves, their willingness 
to do so, and their awareness of 
the EU’s legal framework for data 
protection. Regarding the GDPR, it 
found that, overall, 69 % of people 
in the EU-27 have heard of the GDPR. 
Men say slightly more often (71 %) 
than women (67 %) that they are 
aware of the GDPR.

For more information, see FRA 
(2020), Your rights matter: Data 
protection and privacy, fundamental 
rights survey.

188

189

FIGURE 7�1: AWARENESS OF THE GDPR, BY COUNTRY (%)

45 43 42 41 35 33 34 30 28 27 27 27 25 26 25 24 24 24 23 17 14 13

4

53 48

62 59

65 66 66 69 69 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 76 76 77

95

83 86 86

51 55 56 57 59

46

38 39

21

79

70

29

E
E

T
L

E
B

T
I

R
F

I

U F
H

K
D

Y
C

O
R

U
L

L
E

G
B

V
L

R
H

L
N

T
M

S
E

T
P

K
S

E
S

I
S

E
D

E
I

T
A

Z
C

L
P

K
M

K
U

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

31 30

69 70

8
2
-
U
E

)
9
1
0
2
(

7
2
-
U
E


Note: Out of all respondents in the 
EU-27, the United Kingdom, and North 
Macedonia who were asked to complete 
the section ‘Technology’ of the survey (n 
= 25,018); weighted results.

Yes

No

Don't know/prefer not to say

Source:  FRA, Fundamental Rights Survey 2019 [Data collection in cooperation 

with CBS (NL), CTIE (LU) and Statistics Austria (AT)]

DPAs’ workload and resources

Throughout 2020, national DPAs highlighted the continuous increase in the 
number of complaints they receive, already identified as an issue in FRA’s 
Fundamental Rights Report 2020. For example, Bulgaria25 reported a 46 % 
increase, France26 a 27 % increase, the Netherlands27 a 79 % increase, and 
Spain28 a 20 % increase in the numbers of complaints. Sweden29  reported 
a 23 % increase in the number of personal data breaches.

National DPAs issued 302 fines in 2020, exceeding € 60 million in total.30 
In 2019, they had issued 144 fines.31 Spain was the Member State with the 
highest total number of fines ordered.32

The European Commission identified a positive trend in DPAs’ financial and 
human resources: “overall, there has been a 42 % increase in staff and 49 % 
in budget for national data protection authorities taken together in the EEA 
between 2016 and 2019”33. However, differences between DPAs remain, 
prompting the Commission to call upon all Member States to fulfil their 
obligations to provide DPAs with adequate resources.34

For example, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner expressed disappointment 
at receiving less than a third of the planned funding required to fulfil the Data 
Protection Commission’s tasks, while it is dealing with major complaints, as 
several large tech companies have their European headquarters in Ireland; 
Google, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, among others, have established their 
EU headquarters in Dublin. The commissioner highlighted that this would 
force the DPA to “reassess its planned expenditure for 2020”.35 In October, 
however, the Irish government announced an important raise in the 2021 
budget, which was welcomed by the DPA.36

Similarly, the Dutch DPA determined that in 2019 it could not deal with 33 % 
of the complaints it received, and called for an increase in its capacity.37

188

189

 
FRA ACTIVITY

FRA and 
EDPS renew 
memorandum of 
understanding
In June 2020, FRA and the European 
Data Protection Supervisor 
(EDPS) renewed their cooperation 
agreement to further strengthen 
data protection across the EU. They 
signed it during the pandemic, and 
insisted that respect for fundamental 
rights, including privacy and data 
protection, has to be centre stage 
to make tracing apps, or any other 
technology, a success.

FRA and the EDPS plan to meet at 
least once a year to exchange views 
on the main forthcoming challenges 
for the fundamental rights to privacy 
and data protection, and to related 
rights.

See Revised memorandum of 
understanding on increasing 
cooperation between the European 
Data Protection Supervisor and 
the European Union Agency for 
Fundamental Rights.

Harmonising practices and procedures

The European Commission also flagged in its evaluation that DPAs could 
improve cooperation on cross-border cases. It recalled that, through the 
existence of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), “close cooperation 
has become daily practice”.38 Yet it noted differences between Member States 
in how they conduct administrative procedures, in their interpretation of key 
concepts, and in how they approach novel cooperation with other DPAs.

In its draft resolution on the European Commission’s evaluation report, the 
European Parliament echoed many of the Commission’s concerns.39 The 
extensive use of specification clauses by Member States when transposing the 
GDPR has fragmented the application of the regulation, the Parliament noted.

The EDPB took note of the European Commission’s concerns. Its 2021–2023 
strategy insists on the need to advance harmonisation, notably in the 
administrative procedures relevant to the functing of the cooperation within 
the so-called One Stop Shop, by developing guidance on key concepts, by 
setting up a coordinated enforcement framework meant to facilitate joint 
actions, and by creating a support pool of experts.40

The Global Privacy Assembly, a consortium of 130 national DPAs worldwide, 
voiced similar concerns. During 2020, it issued a number of resolutions and 
working groups’ reports.41 Notably, concerning the common understanding of 
key concepts, Policy Strategy Working Group 1 adopted the global frameworks 
and standards report, which analyses key concepts and principles from 10 
international frameworks.42

Despite improvements, lack of adequate resources and of harmonisation 
have had an impact on the speed and effectiveness of resolving complaints 
and disputes, as noted above. For example, the EDPB’s first formal resolution 
of a dispute between the Irish and other DPAs, based on Article 65 of the 
GDPR and about a complaint against Twitter,43 was adopted two years after it 
received notification of the breach, and after months of discussions between 
national DPAs.44

7�2� 
RECONCILING RIGHTS – DATA PROTECTION AND 
ITS LIMITS IN SELECT FIELDS

The question of how authorities can use data and technology for tackling 
crime and for security purposes in a way that fully respects fundamental rights 
loomed large in 2020. Terrorist attacks in several Member States renewed 
tensions. Security policy remained high on the agenda, and included calls to 
make full use of available data and technologies to fight criminal activity. Yet 
effective safeguards are lacking to ensure that these will be used in a way 
that complies with fundamental rights.

190

191

 
7�2�1�  Legislative initiatives 
related to child protection 
and data retention
The  use  of  new  technologies 
to fight crime raises numerous 
challenges to fundamental rights. 
However, Member States and 
EU institutions are determined 
to  make  the  best  out  of 
technological developments for 
law enforcement, as the Council 
Conclusions on Internal Security 
and European Police Partnership, 
adopted  in  November  2020, 
stressed.45

Fight against child sexual abuse 
material

In  July  2020,  the  European 
Commission published a com-
munication on an EU strategy 
for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse material (CSAM).46 It 
includes a number of proposals that have legitimate objectives but could 
affect the rights to data protection and respect for private life. One is the call 
to address end-to-end encryption. Moreover, the proposed interim regulation 
to enable communications services to continue detecting child sexual abuse 
online47 raised concerns among both privacy activists48 and institutions.49

As  of  21  December  2020,  the  application  of  the  European  Electronic 
Communications Code50 extends the protection of the ePrivacy Directive to 
over-the-top services, such as web messaging, voice over internet protocol 
(VoIP), chat or web-based email services. The purpose of the CSAM proposal 
is to establish a temporary derogation from this directive, which will allow 
the voluntary detection of child sex abuse material online to continue.

Yet, as the EDPS highlighted in its opinion, the proposal lacks crucial safeguards 
to ensure adequate protection of personal data. The opinion emphasises 
the importance of ensuring that the principles of legality, necessity, and 
propotionality are duly respected: “Due to the absence of an impact assessment 
accompanying the Proposal, the Commission has yet to demonstrate that 
the measures envisaged by the Proposal are strictly necessary, effective and 
proportionate for achieving their intended objective.”51

Surveillance and data retention

With regard to surveillance and data retention, the Court of Justice of the 
European Union issued two decisions in October 2020. They confirm the 
principle that general and indiscriminate data retention or acquisition (bulk 
interception) does not comply with personal data protection, freedom of 
expression, and the right to privacy.52

A study for the European Commission analysed the data retention schemes 
in 10 Member States. The regulatory and institutional framework for data 
retention in those Member States is fragmented, it found. It concluded that 
“in the absence of legal certainty of national legal frameworks on data 
retention, there is a risk that law enforcement authorities cannot access 
important evidence needed to investigate and prosecute crimes”.53

190

191

In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court decided in a landmark judgment 
that the surveillance of extraterritorial communications by the Federal 
Intelligence Service is disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional, as it 
guarantees neither adequate protection for the communications of journalists 
and similar professions nor effective oversight, in particular when it comes 
to international intelligence cooperation.54

However, discussions and negotiations within the Council of the EU mostly 
stalled in 2020. At national level, a few Member States (such as Denmark,55 
Germany,56 and Lithuania57) began to discuss modifying their data retention 
schemes, and several Member States adopted laws aiming to enlarge 
surveillance and security-related powers. They raised concerns and criticism, 
for example in Denmark,58 Ireland,59 Italy,60 and Luxembourg.61

In France, the proposal for a law on global security triggered a wide debate.62 
Several demonstrations took place against multiple aspects of the draft law 
on the ground that they endangered fundamental rights. Notably, the bill 
regulates the use of airborne cameras by drones for a wide range of purposes, 
and widens the grounds to access images from police body-worn cameras. 
The French Défenseur des Droits criticised both aspects as possibly infringing 
respect for private life.63

192

193

7�2�2�  Setting the boundaries of internet intermediaries’ 
responsibilities
In December 2020, the European Commission published the proposal to 
reform the EU’s eCommerce Directive and address certain questions in the 
digital economy, as a package of two draft acts: the Digital Services Act64 
(DSA) and the Digital Markets Act.65 The DSA intends to regulate questions 
around the responsibility of internet intermediaries in crucial issues such as 
illegal online content, online hate or disinformation.

CSOs with data protection expertise published preliminary analyses. They 
welcomed its positive aspects. For example, it does not reverse or diminish the 
prohibition of general monitoring, a crucial rule that the eCommerce Directive 
established. It also lays down specific rules for “very large online platforms”. 
However, the CSOs also warned of potential risks to data protection.66

The proposal covers topical questions, some of which Member States have 
addressed. In Germany, since 2017, the Network Enforcement Act has obliged 
social network platforms to remove hate speech by set deadlines. In June 2020, 
the law was amended to extend platforms’ obligations so that they must now 
report certain types of criminal content to the Federal Criminal Police Office.67 
In May 2020, France adopted a new law requiring online platforms to delete 
hate speech content within 24 hours, but the Constitutional Council declared 
it largely unconstitutional a month later.68 In Austria, a new law introduces 
a legal obligation for platforms to set up a complaint management system 
for handling illegal content and to appoint a responsible representative.69

Several Member States (Austria,70 Denmark,71 Ireland,72 the Netherlands,73 
Spain,74 and Sweden75) either introduced legal proposals to combat online 
hate or announced their intention to do so in 2021. Denmark set up an 
interministerial  working  group  to  devise  recommendations  for  a  new 
regulation regarding illegal content on online platforms.76 However, the 
Danish Commission on Freedom of Speech recommended that the legislator 
should be reluctant to establish new legislation and existing legislation should 
be better enforced.77

These complex questions are also subject to international debates. In January 
2020, the Council of Europe set up the MSI-DIG Committee of Experts on 
Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies. Its task was to develop 
a draft recommendation for the Committee of Ministers on the impacts 
of digital technologies on freedom of expression, and a guidance note on 
best practices by and with internet intermediaries and other stakeholders 
on effective legal and procedural frameworks for self-regulatory and co-
regulatory mechanisms.78

In May 2020, the UN published a guidance note on addressing and countering 
COVID-19-related hate speech.79 It addresses the broader impact of the 
pandemic, not only on the profusion of illegal online hate speech, but also 
on the decision of the main online platforms to replace human content 
moderators with automated decision-making algorithms.80

192

193

7�3� 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: NEED FOR STRONG 
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SAFEGUARDS

Continuing the trend of previous years, 2020 witnessed an ever-increasing use 
of new technologies, in particular technologies that could qualify as AI. The 
arrival of COVID-19 boosted the trend, as new technologies were considered 
important tools for fighting the pandemic. National initiatives, building on 
past analysis, clearly did address potential ethical impacts. Yet, while EU 
initiatives are increasingly grounded in fundamental rights, national initiatives 
rarely introduce specific sets of standards and requirements that should be 
implemented to effectively guarantee the protection of fundamental rights.81

7�3�1�  EU regulatory framework on AI takes form
The EU on numerous occasions highlighted the importance of ensuring 
respect for fundamental rights when dealing with AI. In February 2020, the 
European Commission underlined the need to build a strong legal framework 
for fundamental rights and data protection, and to promote the fundamental 
values of European societies.82 In October, the Presidency of the European 
Council emphasised83 the need for a fundamental rights-based approach to AI.

“Today we are presenting our 
ambition to shape Europe’s 
digital future� It covers 
everything from cybersecurity 
to critical infrastructures, digital 
education to skills, democracy to 
media� I want that digital Europe 
reflects the best of Europe – 
open, fair, diverse, democratic, 
and confident�”

Ursula von der Leyen, President 
of the European Commission, 
‘Shaping Europe’s digital future: 
Commission presents strategies 
for data and Artificial Intelligence’, 
19 February 2020

“Europe needs to develop AI 
that is trustworthy, eliminates 
biases and discrimination, and 
serves the common good, while 
ensuring business and industry 
thrive and generate economic 
prosperity�”

Dragoș Tudorache, Chair, European 
Parliament Special Committee on 
Artificial Intelligence in the Digital 
Age, ‘AI rules: what the European 
Parliament wants’, 21 October 2020

194

195

 
FRA ACTIVITY
Getting the future 
right – artificial 
intelligence and 
fundamental rights
In December 2020, FRA published its 
report on artificial intelligence and 
fundamental rights. Drawing on over 
100 interviews with public and private 
organisations using AI in Estonia, 
Finland, France, the Netherlands 
and Spain, it discusses the potential 
implications for fundamental rights 
and analyses how using or developing 
AI applications takes such rights into 
account. Based on concrete use cases 
of AI in selected areas, it focuses on 
the situation on the ground in terms 
of fundamental rights challenges and 
opportunities when using AI.

The European Commission White Paper 
asserts that any regulatory framework 
for AI must be grounded in the EU’s 
fundamental values, including respect 
for human rights. The FRA report 
provides evidence to support this.

FRA and the German Presidency of the 
Council of the EU co-organised a live 
event on 14 December 2020 to launch 
the report. It called on the EU and its 
Member States to:

•  make sure that AI respects all 

fundamental rights;

•  guarantee that people can 

challenge decisions taken by AI;

•  assess AI before and during its use 

to reduce negative impacts;

•  provide more guidance on data 

protection rules;

•  assess whether or not AI is 

discriminatory;

• 

create an effective oversight 
system.

For more, see FRA (2020), Getting the 
future right – Artificial intelligence 
and fundamental rights, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, and the launch 
event, Doing AI the European way.

The European Commission published a White Paper on artificial intelligence – 
A European approach to excellence and trust84 in February 2020. It repeatedly 
underlined the need to respect fundamental rights, stressing how AI may 
affect them. In the White Paper, the Commission proposes a risk-based 
approach, whereby mandatory requirements would in principle apply only 
to high-risk applications.85

The paper proposes policy options to ensure the trustworthy and secure 
development of AI in Europe, which would promote, first, “an ecosystem 
of excellence”86 that should support the development and uptake of AI 
across the EU; second, “an ecosystem of trust”87 that will define the legal 
requirements applicable to the deployment of AI in high-risk areas; and, third, 
safeguards for “safety and liability”88, to make sure that any AI product or 
service operates safely, reliably and consistently, and that individuals have 
access to efficient remedies.

The Commission invited feedback on the White Paper and received over 
1,250 replies.89

Several Member States published their positions on the AI White Paper, 
such as Finland,90 Germany,91 Ireland92, Lithuania,93 Slovakia,94 Slovenia95 
and Sweden.96 Estonia not only emphasised the need to develop the ethical 
use of AI but also considered the protection of fundamental rights to be of 
critical importance in the application and use of AI.97 Ireland welcomed the 
contents of the White Paper and agreed about the importance of the issues 
raised in it, notably with regard to the ecosystem of excellence and trust.98 It 
addressed, however, the limits of the White Paper and emphasised notably 
the need to address international human rights standards.

Other Member States (such as Bulgaria,99 Germany,100 and Latvia101) and 
Serbia102 referred to the White Paper on AI in their national initiatives, to 
indicate their support of the positions it developed and to promote ethical 
or fundamental rights standards of reliable and trustworthy use of AI at 
national level.

The European Parliament was very active regarding AI in 2020. In June, it 
established a Special Committee on AI in a Digital Age, tasked with “studying 
the impact and challenges of rolling out AI, identifying common EU-wide 
objectives, and proposing recommendations on the best ways forward”.103

The Parliament also adopted three resolutions related to AI in October 2020, 
on ethics,104 civil liability105 and intellectual property.106 Notably, the resolution 
on a framework of ethical aspects of AI, robotics and related technologies 
called on the Commission to establish a comprehensive and future-proof 
European legal framework of ethical principles for developing, deploying 
and using AI, robotics and related technologies in the EU, including software, 
algorithms and data.

The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers published a recommendation on 
the human rights impact of algorithmic systems in April 2020.107 It insisted on 
the importance of compliance with human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
and provided guidelines on various topics, including discrimination, privacy, 
transparency, effective remedies, oversight and impact assessments.

In September, the Council of Europe Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence 
(CAHAI) published its first progress report.108 Two months later, it adopted 
a feasibility study highlighting the need to develop a legal framework for the 
design, development and application of AI based on human rights, democracy 
and the rule of law.109 In October 2020, the Standing Committee of the 

194

195

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe confirmed the need to 
adopt a global regulatory framework for AI.110

7�3�2�  National AI initiatives: need for stronger fundamental rights 
safeguards
At national level, most Member States adopted studies, reports, projects 
and opinions as a basis to foster the use of AI, with a strong focus on its 
development in the public sector.111

National initiatives published or adopted in 2020 focused on four areas: 
health (in Austria,112 Czechia,113 and Spain114); the security and safety of 
data infrastructures (in Croatia,115 Czechia116 and Romania117); research and 
innovation (in Poland,118 Portugal119 and Spain120); and the judicial system (in 
Austria,121 France122 and Poland123).

In addition, by the end of 2020, a majority of Member States had adopted 
national AI strategies,124 following a trend already noted in FRA’s Fundamental 
Rights Report 2020.125

Few Member States, however, included specific in-depth analysis to ensure 
reliable and trustworthy AI. An exception was Bulgaria, where a policy 
document  on  the  development  of  AI  until  2030126  includes  practical 
steps  and  measures  for  the 
implementation  of  AI  ethical 
standards. Likewise, Hungary’s 
AI strategy 2020–2030 includes 
a proposal to adopt an ethics 
code for market participants, to 
guarantee human-centric use of 
AI and respect for basic ethical 
requirements.127

When addressing fundamental 
rights, national policy initiatives 
on  AI128  essentially  focus  on 
three main areas: the right to 
data  protection,  the  right  to 
respect for private life, and the 
right  to  non-discrimination. 
Marginally, they also touch upon 
other fundamental rights, such 
as children’s rights, the right 
to  defence,  and  freedom  of 
information.

National initiatives on the use of AI refer to data protection and privacy 
mostly in the public sector, in particular with regard to health, transport 
and surveillance. They mention discrimination, on the other hand, mostly 
in initiatives related to profiling (such as in Hungary129) and on the use of 
algorithms and automated decision making (Estonia,130 Finland,131 France,132 
Germany133 and the Netherlands134). This focus is similar to the one already 
noted in FRA’s Fundamental Rights Report 2020.135

People are increasingly aware of potential fundamental rights interferences 
stemming from the use of AI. However, there are significant gaps in a number 
of AI strategies. Although some initiatives expressly refer to fundamental 
rights and offer in-depth analysis, most limit themselves to merely mentioning 
the general principle that fundamental rights should be observed.

196

197

For example, these initiatives:

 ― point to the need to protect and strengthen fundamental rights (Germany136 

and the Netherlands137);

 ― ensure that the development of AI-based systems is being made in 
accordance with human rights (Germany,138 Serbia,139 and Slovenia140);
 ― clarify the need to take fundamental rights into account (Cyprus,141 Latvia,142 

and Malta143); or

 ― include a general reference to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 
the GDPR, or other instruments (for example Bulgaria,144 Slovenia,145 
Sweden,146 and the Netherlands147).

As AI technologies are developing at a rapid pace, people raised concerns 
about the lack of measures implemented to mitigate impacts that specific 
technologies might have on fundamental rights. Notable examples are facial 
recognition (in Ireland148 and the Netherlands149), automatic decision-making 
systems (in Finland150), and the increasing use of algorithms in various 
sectors (see research by the Ombuds institution in France151 and the national 
supervisory authority in the Netherlands152).

Public authorities, civil society, and academic experts variously raised the 
need to conduct efficient and comprehensive analysis of the fundamental 
rights impact of the use of AI. As AI technology gets more sophisticated, 
and penetrates a range of fields (from health to education and finance), 
safeguarding fundamental rights takes more work, as civil society organisations 
point out.153 One criticism is that legal instruments such as the GDPR tend to 
be mentioned in national initiatives without clarifying how much and in what 
way the instrument plays a role in ensuring that an AI initiative complies 
with fundamental rights.154

Independent public institutions, such as in Italy,155 also emphasised the 
need to safeguard fundamental rights better for safe and fair use of AI. 
Academic research in Cyprus,156 Germany,157 the Netherlands,158 and Greece159 
similarly pointed out that fundamental rights are not sufficiently assessed 
and addressed.

7�3�3�  AI in the age of COVID-19: protecting health and fundamental 
rights proves challenging
Combating the spread of the Coronavirus became a top priority for the EU 
and its Member States in 2020. Most COVID-19-related measures referred to 
the need to use AI technologies to combat the virus, as noted in Section 7.1.

This strong role that AI played during the pandemic manifested itself by different 
means. First, the development of mobile applications and/or national systems 
to fight the spread of the virus used AI (Bulgaria,160 Croatia,161 Finland,162 
Lithuania,163 Latvia,164 Portugal,165 and Spain166). Second, the development 
and use of AI helped to prevent waves of infection (Austria167) or to facilitate 
diagnosis (Belgium168 and Croatia169). Finally, AI also proved essential in other 
areas that the pandemic affected, namely transport (Belgium170), education 
(Bulgaria171 and Spain172), and surveillance (Croatia173).

196

197

In many instances, AI tools assisted people in various ways during a series 
of lockdowns that were imposed during the year. For example, they helped 
children continue their education during school closures.

However, several of the initiatives using AI systems to fight the pandemic can 
seriously affect the right to privacy and data protection. Some Member States 
developed specific measures and recommendations to protect fundamental 
rights (such as Austria,174 Croatia,175 and Greece176).

The ethical use of AI also came under discussion during its use in the pandemic. 
Some Member States decided to evaluate the impact of the pandemic in 
an ethical review rather than assessing fundamental rights challenges. For 
instance, France177 and Luxembourg178 did so.

PROMISING PRACTICE 

University launches 
course on ethics of 
AI
The Budapest University of 
Technology and Economics in 
Hungary introduced a new course for 
engineering students on the ethics of 
artificial intelligence.

The course aims to raise awareness 
and initiate discussions among the 
engineering students on the potential 
ethical concerns involved in the use 
of AI. The university wants to further 
their critical thinking, encouraging 
them to understand and analyse the 
ethical challenges inherent in the 
introduction of any new AI method, 
as well as the tools available to 
overcome these challenges.

For more information, see Budapest 
University of Technology and 
Economics, ‘Ethics of artificial 
intelligence’ (‘Szabvál ajánló – 
A mesterséges intelligencia etikája’).

198

199

FRA opinions

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted people to use digital 
data and new technologies to curb the spread of the 
virus  and  alleviate  its  negative  impacts  on  society. 
From  contact-tracing  and  proximity  applications,  to 
teleconferencing software or the use of algorithms in 
education, the intensive collection and treatment of 
personal data brought risks to the fundamental rights 
to data protection and respect for private life.

The year’s developments underscored that, in times of 
crisis, it is crucial to conduct effective and appropriate 
balancing exercises to ensure that health-protecting 
measures do not unnecessarily or disproportionately 
affect fundamental rights.

FRA OPINION 7�1

EU Member States should make sure 
that any measures, policies or legal 
initiatives taken in a time of crisis, 
such as a pandemic, do not interfere 
disproportionately with the rights to 
data protection and respect for private 
life� Specifically, EU Member States 
should ensure that Article 8 of the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as 
well as the principles of fairness, data 
minimisation, and purpose limitation, 
which Article 5 of the GDPR highlights, 
are applied�

198

199199

FRA OPINION 7�2

EU Member States should ensure that 
national data protection supervisory 
authorities  have  sufficient  human, 
technical and financial resources to 
allow them to carry out their mandates 
effectively� To assess the adequacy 
of resources, Member States should 
support independent and objective 
reviews of the national data protection 
supervisory authorities’ workload�

Continuing  the  trend  that  FRA  identified  in  its 
Fundamental Rights Report 2020, the workload of data 
protection supervisory authorities remained extremely 
demanding. The large numbers of investigations and 
complaints persisted in most Member States. In parallel, 
the incomplete harmonisation of procedures and key 
concepts, on which the cooperation procedure on cross-
border disputes rests, prevented swift resolution of these 
disputes.

There were signs of progress in 2020 at both national 
level (with regard to the increase of financial and human 
resources) and international level (with regard to the 
harmonisation of gaps). However, there is still room for 
improvement. The EU’s strong legal framework for data 
protection will work effectively only when all actors are 
sufficiently equipped to respond promptly and effectively 
to all requests.

200

With terrorist threats and criminal activities persisting 
throughout 2020, EU institutions and Member States 
called for the prompt adoption of measures allowing the 
use of available data and technologies to fight crime. The 
use of data-mining technologies was variously invoked 
to fight against online child sexual abuse material, to 
support criminal investigations, to increase surveillance, 
and to fight against illegal online content.

However, institutional bodies and civil society often 
questioned the necessity and proportionality of such 
measures  at  both  national  and  EU  levels.  Although 
security  measures  have  legitimate  objectives,  they 
should not be used as a pretext to lower fundamental 
rights standards.

The pandemic did not stop work on strategies, legal 
initiatives and policies aimed at fostering or regulating 
the  use  of  AI.  To  the  contrary  –  the  crisis  pushed 
bodies to adopt swift measures that support the use 
of AI, which was also promoted as a tool for fighting 
the pandemic. Both the EU and Member States very 
actively developed various AI strategies and new legal 
instruments throughout 2020.

However, as FRA already flagged in its Fundamental 
Rights Report 2019 and Fundamental Rights Report 2020, 
many AI strategies favour a reference to ‘ethics’, and 
only mention the need to protect fundamental rights, 
without outlining a detailed rights-based approach. Yet, 
as FRA’s report on AI and fundamental rights highlighted, 
the use of AI can have a far-reaching effect on people’s 
fundamental rights. Therefore, fundamental rights must 
be firmly embedded in any future legislation.

FRA OPINION 7�3

EU institutions and EU Member States 
should ensure that all regulatory efforts 
to  fight  against  criminal  activities 
contain  the  necessary  safeguards 
to  guarantee  compliance  with  the 
principles of legality, necessity and 
proportionality�  They  should  also 
provide for effective oversight and 
access to remedial mechanisms� In 
this context, EU institutions and EU 
Member States should fully take into 
account the relevant case law of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union�

FRA OPINION 7�4

EU institutions and EU Member States 
should ensure that any future EU or 
national AI-related legal and political 
instruments are grounded in respect 
for fundamental rights� To achieve 
this, they should include strong legal 
safeguards,  promote  fundamental 
rights impact assessments, and ensure 
independent oversight and access to 
effective remedies�

EU Member States should make sure 
that extraordinary circumstances, such 
as the pandemic, do not lower the 
level of fundamental rights protection 
in the use of AI-related technologies�

201

Endnotes

1 

2 

3 

FRA, Bulletin #2 Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications: with a focus on contact-tracing apps, April 2020, pp. 52-56.

FRA, Bulletin #2 Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications: with a focus on contact-tracing apps, April 2020.

European Digital Rights (EDRi) (2020), ‘COVID-19 & digital rights: Document 
pool’, accessed on 6 January 2021.

Index of country 
references
AT  193, 196, 197, 198

4  The Global Privacy Assembly (GPA) collected DPAs’ statements and guidance. 

They are available on the GPA website.

BE  187, 197

5  Bulgaria, Electronic Communications Act (ЗАКОН ЗА ЕЛЕКТРОННИТЕ 

BG  186, 187, 189, 195, 196, 197

CY  187, 197

CZ  196

DA  192, 193

DE  186, 187, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197

EE  195, 196

ES  187, 189, 193, 196, 197

FI 

195, 196, 197

FR  189, 193, 196, 197, 198

GR  197, 198

HR  186, 196, 197, 198

HU  187, 196

IE 

187, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195, 197

IT 

192, 197

LT  192, 195, 197

LU  187, 192, 198

LV  195, 197

NL  187, 189, 193, 196, 197

PL  196

PT  196, 197

RO  196

RS  195

SE  189, 193, 195

SI 

195

SK  195

СЪОБЩЕНИЯ), 22 May 2007, Art. 251b, para. 2.

6  Bulgaria, Constitutional Court (Конституционен съд на Република България), 

Decision No� 15 of 17 November 2020 on Constitutional case No� 4/2020, 
17 November 2020.

7  Zagreb Pride web portal, ‘Announcement: Coronavirus surveillance – Human 

rights as another victim of the pandemic’, 31 March 2020.

8  Croatia, Government (2020), Proposed Amendments to the Electronic 

Communications Act, 18 March 2020.

9  Telegram (2020), ‘Media unofficially find out that Government gives up on 

tracking citizens through their mobile phones’ (‘Mediji neslužbeno doznaju da 
Vlada odustaje od praćenja građana putem njihovih mobitela’), 20 April 2020.

10  Germany, Constitutional Court of Saarland (Verfassungsgerichtshof des 

Saarlandes), Lv 15/20, 28 August 2020.

11  Netherlands, Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) 
(2020), ‘Letter to the State Secretary of Economic Affairs and Climate’ (‘Brief 
aan de Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken en Klimaat’), 19 May 2020.

12  Trimikliniotis, N. and Demetriou, C. (2020), Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak in 

the EU: Fundamental rights implications, Cyprus country report 3, Vienna, FRA, 
May 2020.

13  Cyprus, Commissioner for the Protection of Personal Data (Γραφείο Επιτρόπου 
Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα) (2020), ‘Γνώμη 1/2020 
Επιτρόπου Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα, Επιτήρηση 
των εξ αποστάσεως/ διαδικτυακών εξετάσεων από ιδρύματα ανώτερης 
εκπαίδευσης’, 21 August 2020.

14  Germany, State Commissioner for Data Protection of Lower Saxony 

(Landesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz Niedersachsen) (2020), ‘Einsatz von 
Messengern an der Schule’, press release, 20 April 2020.

15 

Ireland, Department of Education and Skills (2020), Overview of data protection 
matters in the calculated grades process, 7 August 2020.

16  Ireland, O’Brien, C. (2020), ‘Almost 8,000 higher Leaving Cert grades issued in 
error’, Irish Times, 5 October 2020; Department of Education and Skills (2020), 
‘FAQ document to support NPC(PP) Leaving Certificate Calculated Grades 
Helpline’, 5 October 2020.

17  Luxembourg, University of Luxembourg (2020), ‘Information on possible use of 

proctoring during remote exams’, 5 June 2020.

18  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1, Bulletin #2 and Bulletin #4.

19  Belgium, Coronavirus COVID-19.

20  Belgium, Sciensano, ‘Belgium COVID-19 epidemiological situation’.

21  Bulgaria, Bulgarian Parliament, Bill amending and supplementing the Radio and 

Television Act, 17 December 2020.

22  Spain, National Congress (Congreso Nacional), Advisory resolution on the 
prevention of spreading hate speech in the digital space� (161/001536) 
(Proposición no de Ley sobre la prevención de la propagación de discursos de 
odio en el espacio digital (161/001536)).

23  Hungary, Act XII of 2020 on the containment of coronavirus (2020. évi XII. 
törvény a koronavírus elleni védekezésről), 31 March 2020, Section 10(2).

24  Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary (Magyarország Alkotmánybírósága), 

Decision No� 15/2020� (VII� 8�), 17 June 2020.

25  Bulgaria, Commission for Personal Data Protection (Комисия за защита на 

личните данни) (2020), Annual report on the activity of the Commission for 
Personal Data Protection in 2019 (Годишен отчет на Комисията за защита 
на личните данни за 2019 г), 11 June 2020.

26  France, Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), Rapport 

d’activité 2019, June 2020, p. 2.

202

203

27  Netherlands, Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) (2020), ‘Complaints report: Facts & figures – Overview 2019’ 

(‘Klachtenrapportage: Facts & figures – Overzicht 2019’), 14 February 2020.

28  Spain, Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (2020), Memoria 2019, 6 December 2020, p. 9.

29  Sweden, Data Protection Authority (Datainspektionen) (2020), Reported personal data breaches 2019 – Data Protection Authority report 

2020:2 (Anmälda personuppgiftsincidenter 2019 – Datainspektionens rapport 2020:2).

30  Finbold (n.d.), ‘GDPR fines 2020’.

31  CMS.Law, GDPR Enforcement Tracker, Statistics: Fines Imposed over Time.

32  Finances in bold (n.d.), ‘GDPR fines 2020’.

33  European Commission (2020), Data protection as a pillar of citizens’ empowerment and the EU’s approach to the digital transition – Two 

years of application of the General Data Protection Regulation, COM(2020) 264 final, 24 June 2020, p. 6.

34  European Commission (2020), Data protection as a pillar of citizens’ empowerment and the EU’s approach to the digital transition – Two 

years of application of the General Data Protection Regulation, COM(2020) 264 final, 24 June 2020.

35  Ireland, Data Protection Commission (DPC) (2019), ‘Data Protection Commission statement on increased funding of € 1�6 million in 2020 

Budget’, 9 October 2019.

36  Ireland, DPC (2019), Data Protection Commission statement on funding in 2021 Budget, 13 October 2020.

37  Netherlands, Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) (2020), ‘Complaints report: Facts & figures – Overview 2019’ 

(‘Klachtenrapportage: Facts & figures – Overzicht 2019’), 14 February 2020, p. 6.

38  European Commission (2020), Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Communication Data protection as a pillar 

of citizens’ empowerment and the EU’s approach to the digital transition - two years of application of the General Data Protection 
Regulation, 24 June 2020, p. 7.

39  European Parliament, Draft resolution on the Commission evaluation report on the implementation of the General Data Protection 

Regulation two years after its application, 2020/2717(RSP).

40  European Data Protection Board (EDPB) (2020), EDPB strategy 2021–2023, 15 December 2020.

41  Resolutions and working group reports are accessible on the GPA’s website.

42  GPA (2020), Policy Strategy Working Group 1: Global frameworks and standards, October 2020.

43  EDPB (2020), ‘Decision 01/2020 on the dispute arisen on the draft decision of the Irish Supervisory Authority regarding Twitter 

International Company under Article 65 (1) (a) GDPR’, 9 November 2020.

44  Ireland, DPC (2020), ‘Data Protection Commission announces decision in Twitter inquiry’, 15 December 2020.

45  Council of the European Union (2020), Council conclusions on internal security and European police partnership, 13083/1/20, 

24 November 2020.

46  European Commission (2020), EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse, COM(2020) 607 final, 24 July 2020.

47  European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a temporary derogation from 
certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of technologies by 
number-independent interpersonal communications service providers for the processing of personal and other data for the purpose of 
combatting child sexual abuse online, 10 September 2020.

48  EDRi (2020), ‘Is surveilling children really protecting them? Our concerns on the interim CSAM regulation’, 24 September 2020.

49  See European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (2020), ‘Opinion 7/2020 on the Proposal for temporary derogations from Directive 

2002/58/EC for the purpose of combatting child sexual abuse online’, 10 November 2020; European Parliament, ‘Detecting online child 
sexual abuse requires strong safeguards’, 7 December 2020.

50  European Commission, Directive (EU) 2018/1972 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, 11 December 2018.

51  EDPS (2020), Opinion 7/2020 on the Proposal for temporary derogations from Directive 2002/58/EC for the purpose of combatting child 

sexual abuse online, 10 November 2020, p. 9.

52  Court of Justice of the European Union, ‘Judgments in C-623/17, Privacy International, and in Joined cases C-511/18, La Quadrature du Net 
and Others, C-512/18, French Data Network and Others, and C-520/18, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others’, 
press release, 6 October 2020.

53  European Commission (2020), Study on the retention of electronic communications non-content data for law enforcement purposes – 

Final report, Luxembourg, Publications Office, September 2020.

54  Germany, Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) (2020), 1 BvR 2835/17, 19 May 2020.

55  Denmark, Ministry of the State of Denmark (Statsministeriet), Scheme for proposed bills for the parliamentary year 2020–2021 

(Lovprogram for Folketingsåret 2020–2021), p. 28.

56  Germany, Research Service of the German Bundestag (Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages) (2020), Auswirkungen der 

neuen EuGH-Rechtsprechung zurVorratsdatenspeicherungauf die Tätigkeit der Geheimdienste, Berlin, 6 November 2020, p. 10.

57  Lithuania, Law on Electronic Communications (Elektroninių ryšių įstatymas), 15 April 2004 (with later amendments), Art. 65 (2), Art. 77 (1).

58  Denmark, Ministry of Justice (Justitsministeriet), Draft bill on amending the law on CCTV surveillance (Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om 

tv-ovrvågning), and Act No. 802 of 9 June 2020 on amending the law on CCTV surveillance (Lov om ændring af tv-overvågning).

59  Ireland, DPC (2020), Regulatory Activity under GDPR, Dublin, pp. 63–72.

60  Italy, Decreto-legge 30 dicembre 2019, No. 161, ‘Modifiche urgenti alla disciplina delle intercettazioni di conversazioni o comunicazioni’. 
See the interview with the President Emeritus of the Italian Constitutional Court in Il Dubbio (2020), ‘Trojan, Costituzione a rischio’, 
8 September 2020.

61  Luxembourg, Parliament, Bill No. 7498 on amending the amended law of 18 July 2018 on the Grand Ducal Police (Projet de loi no. 7498 

portant modification de la loi modifiée du 18 juillet 2018 sur la Police grand-ducale). See the opinion of the Commission consultative des 
Droits de l’Homme du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2020), Avis sur le projet de loi 7498 portant modification de la loi modifiée du 18 
juillet 2018 sur la Police grand-ducale, 17 March 2020.

62  France, Assemblée Nationale, Proposition de loi n. 3452 relative à la sécurité globale, 20 October 2020.

202

203

63  France, Défenseur des Droits (2020), ‘Avis du Défenseur des droits n°20-05’, 3 November 2020.

64  European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act), COM/2020/825 final, 

15 December 2020.

65  European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act), 

COM(2020) 842 final, 15 December 2020.

66  See, among others, Access Now (2020), ‘DSA: European Commission delivers on the first step toward systemic rules for online 

platforms’; Next INpact (2021), ‘Le Digital Services Act expliqué ligne par ligne (articles 1 à 24)’.

67  Germany, Parliament, Gesetz gegen Rechtsextremismus und Hasskriminalität beschlossen, 19 June 2020.

68  France, Constitutional Council, Décision n° 2020-801 DC du 18 juin 2020.

69  Austria, Federal Act on measures to protect users on communication platforms (Communication Platforms Act), Federal Law Gazette 

I No. 151/2020.

70  Austria, Federal Act implementing measures taken to combat hate on the Internet (Hate on the Internet Combating Act) Federal Law 

Gazette I No. 148/2020.

71  Denmark, B 116 Motion for a resolution on clarification of the responsibility of social media to remove illegal content online (B 116 

Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om tydeliggørelse af sociale mediers ansvar i forhold til at fjerne ulovligt indhold).

72  Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media (2020), ‘Online safety’, 16 October 2020.

73  Netherlands, Minister of Justice and Security (Minister van Justitie en Veiligheid) (2020), ‘Autoriteit kinderpornografische en terroristische 

content’, Letter to House of Representatives, 20 November 2020.

74  Spain, National Congress (Congreso Nacional), Advisory resolution on the prevention of spreading hate speech in the digital space� 

(161/001536) (Proposición no de Ley sobre la prevención de la propagación de discursos de odio en el espacio digital (161/001536)).

75  Sweden, Swedish Radio (Sveriges radio) (2020), ‘The government wants to legislate against harmful content on social media’ 

(‘Regeringen vill lagstifta mot skadligt innehåll på sociala medier’), 18 February 2020.

76  Denmark (2020), ‘Terms of reference for working group 1’ (‘Bilag 1: Kommissorium for arbejdsgruppe 1’), 31 January 2020.

77  Denmark, Ministry of Justice (Justitsministeriet) (2020), ‘Ytringsfrihedskommissionen afleverer betænkning’, press release, 30 April 2020.

78  Council of Europe (2019), Committee of Experts on Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies (MSI-DIG), (CM(2019)131).

79  UN (2020), ‘United Nations guidance note on addressing and countering COVID-19 related hate speech’, 11 May 2020.

80  Politico (2020), ‘What happened when humans stopped managing social media content’, 21 October 2020.

81  See FRA (2020), ‘AI policy initiatives (updated December 2020)’.

82  European Commission (2020), A European strategy for data, COM(2020) 66 final, Brussels, 19 February 2020.

83  Council of the European Union (2020), Presidency conclusions – The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the context of artificial intelligence 

and digital change, FREMP 87 JAI 776.

84  European Commission (2020), White Paper on artificial intelligence – A European approach to excellence and trust, COM(2020) 65 final, 

Brussels, 19 February 2020.

85  Ibid.

86  Ibid, p. 5.

87  Ibid, p. 9.

88  Ibid, p. 12.

89  European Commission (2020), Public consultation on the AI White Paper – final report, November 2020.

90  Finland, Ministry of Transport and Communication (Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö) (2020), Memorandum on the Commission 
communication on the digital future of Europe, the data strategy and the White Paper on AI, LVM2020-00037, Helsinki.

91  Germany, Federal Government (2020), Stellungnahme der Bundesregierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zum Weißbuch zur 

Künstlichen Intelligenz – ein europäisches Konzept für Exzellenz und Vertrauen COM (2020) 65 final, Berlin, 29 June 2020.

92  Ireland, Government of Ireland (Rjaltas na hEireann) (2020), Ireland’s National Submission to the Public Consultation on the EU White 

Paper on Artificial Intelligence, June 2020.

93  Lithuania (2020), Position by the Ministry of Economy and Innovation concerning EC White Paper ‘Artificial Intelligence. A European 

approach to excellence and trust’, 3 April 2020.

94  Slovakia, Ministry of Investments, Regional Development and Informatisation of the Slovak Republic (2020), Position paper LPEU/2020/48 
COM(2020)65 White Paper on artificial intelligence (LPEU/2020/48 COM(2020)65 BIELA KNIHA o umelej inteligencii – európsky prístup 
k excelentnosti a dôvere), 7 July 2020.

95  Slovenia (2020), Position paper of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia regarding the White Paper on artificial intelligence – 
A European approach to excellence and trust (Stališče Republike Slovenije do Bele knjige o umetni inteligenci – evropski pristop 
k odličnosti in zaupanju), 18 June 2020.

96  Sweden, Government Offices (Regeringskansliet) (2020), Digital strategy, AI White Paper and data strategy (Digital strategi, AI-vitbok och 

datastrategi), Fact Memorandum (Faktapromemoria 2019/20:FPM23), 19 March 2020.

97  Estonia (2020), Estonia’s view on the European Commission’s digital package – COM(2020) 65, COM(2020) 66, COM(2020) 67 (Eesti 

seisukohad Euroopa Komisjoni digipaketi kohta – COM(2020) 65; COM(2020) 66; COM(2020) 67).

98  Ireland, Government of Ireland (2020), Ireland’s national submission to the public consultation on the EU White Paper on artificial 

intelligence, Dublin.

99  Bulgaria, Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications (2020), ‘Draft concept for the development of artificial 
intelligence in Bulgaria until 2030’ (‘Проект на Концепция за развитието на изкуствения интелект в България до 2030 г.’), 
18 August 2020.

204

205

100 Germany, Federal Council (Bundesrat) (2020), Resolution of the Federal Council: Strengthening digital sovereignty through algorithms in 

Europe – Introduce market location principle (Entschließung des Bundesrates: Digitale Souveränität bei Algorithmen in Europa stärken – 
Marktortprinzip einführen), 15 May 2020.

101 Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers (2020), Information report ‘On the development of artificial intelligence solutions’, 4 February 2020.

102 Serbia, Government (2020), Strategy for the development of artificial intelligence in the Republic of Serbia for the period 2020–2025.

103 European Parliament, committee web page.

104 European Parliament, Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, 

robotics and related technologies (2020/2012(INL), 20 October 2020.

105 European Parliament, Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on a civil liability regime for artificial intelligence 

(2020/2014(INL)), 20 October 2020.

106 European Parliament, Resolution on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies 

(2020/2015(INI)), 20 October 2020.

107 Council of Europe (CoE), Committee of Ministers (CM) (2020), Recommendation 1 (2020) to member states on the human rights impacts 

of algorithmic systems, 8 April 2020.

108 CoE, Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) (2020), ‘Progress report’, CM(2020) 90 final, Strasbourg, 23 September 2020.

109 CAHAI (2020), Feasibility study, CAHAI(2020) 23, Strasbourg, 17 December 2020.

110 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (2020), ‘Establishing a “legally binding instrument” for democratic governance of AI’, 

22 October 2020.

111  See FRA (2020), ‘AI policy initiatives (updated December 2020)’.

112  Austria, Austrian Parliament, Elaborations on the governmental bill regarding the Federal law amending the Health Telematics Act 2012 

232 d.B.

113  Czechia, Zdravotnický deník (2020), ‘Personalised medicine could significantly change the effectiveness of medicine if data can be 

managed properly’ (‘Personalizovaná medicína může zásadně změnit efektivitu léčby, nejdřív se ale musíme naučit zacházet s daty’), 
13 August 2020.

114 Spain, Spanish Data Protection Agency (Agencia Española Protecció Datos) (2020), Report on the data treatment in relation to COVID-19, 

N/REF: 0017/2020.

115  Croatia, Three lectures: Vrcek, N. (2020), ‘Use of AI in public administration’ (‘Primjena umjetne inteligencije u javnoj upravi’); Gros, 

S. (n.d.),‘Application of artificial intelligence in cybernetic security, statuses, misconceptions and challenges’ (‘Primjena umjetne 
inteligencije u kibernetickoj sigurnosti, statusi, zablude i izazovi’); and Sisul, G. (2020), ‘Can the 5th generation (5G) mobile network be 
successfully implemented without significant use of artificial intelligence?’ (‘Okrugli stol: Umjetna inteligencija – percepcija i stvarnost’).

116 Boksa, M. (ed.), Boksova, J., Horak, J., Pavlica, K., Strouhal, J., Saroch, S. (2019), Digital Czechia in digital Europe (Digitální Česko v digitální 

Evropě).

117  Romania, Emergency Ordinance No� 119 of 22 July 2020 for the amendment and completion of Law No� 362/2018 on ensuring a high 

common level of security of computer networks and systems (ORDONANȚĂ DE URGENȚĂ nr. 119 din 22 iulie 2020 pentru modificarea și 
completarea Legii nr. 362/2018 privind asigurarea unui nivel comun ridicat de securitate a rețelelor și sistemelor informatice).

118 Poland, Polish Government (2020), ‘Development of AI in Poland – an important decision’ (‘Rozwój sztucznej inteligencji w Polsce – 

ważna decyzja’), 14 September 2020.

119 Portugal, Resolution of the Council of Ministers 55-A/2020, 31 July 2020.

120 Spain, Ministry of Science and Innovation (2020), Spanish strategy for science, technology and innovation 2021–2027 (Estrategia española 

de ciencia, tecnología e innovación 2021–2027).

121  Austria, Federal Ministry of Justice, Response to parliamentary enquiry 1095/J on planned measures for the judiciary to speed up 

procedures, 27 April 2020.

122 France, Decree 2020-365 creating an automated personal data processing called ‘DataJust’ (Décret n° 2020-356 du 27 mars 2020 portant 

création d’un traitement automatisé de données à caractère personnel dénommé « DataJust »), 27 March 2020.

123 Poland, Rojek-Socha, P. (2019), ‘Artificial intelligence in the service of e-court’ (‘Sztuczna inteligencja w służbie e-sądu’).

124 CoE, ‘AI initiatives’, updated 19 January 2021; OECD.AI (2020), ‘Countries & initiatives overview’, updated 20 January 2021.

125 FRA (2020), Fundamental rights report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 148.

126 Bulgaria, Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications, ‘Concept for the development of artificial intelligence in 

Bulgaria until 2030’ (‘Концепция за развитето на изкуствения интелект в Българиядо 2030 г.’), 16 December 2020.

127 Hungary Ministry for Innovation and Technology (‘Innovációs és technológiai minisztérium’), Hungary’s artificial intelligence strategy 

2020–2030.

128 See FRA (2020), ‘AI policy initiatives (updated December 2020)’.

129 Hungary, Ződi, Z. (2020), ‘The law and the code’, in Polyák, G. (ed.), Algorithms, social media and the law – Regulating traffic controlling 

services, HVG-Orac, Budapest, pp. 15–35.

130 Estonia, Eelnõude infosüsteem (EIS), Legislative intent to regulate the impacts of algorithmic systems.

131  Ministry of Justice (Oikeusministerio Justitieministeriet) (2020), Preparation of general legislation on automated decision-making within 
public administration (‘Automaattista päätöksentekoa koskevan hallinnon yleislainsäädännön valmistelu’), OM021:00/2020, Helsinki.

132 France, Défenseur des Droits (DDD) and Commission Nationale Informatique & Libertés (CNIL) (2020), Algorithms: Preventing automation 

of discrimination (Algorithmes: prévenir l’automatisation des discriminations).

133  Germany, Federal Council (2020), Resolution of the Federal Council: Strengthen digital sovereignty for algorithms in Europe – introduce 

market location principle, 15 May 2020; Data Ethics Commission, Opinion, 22 January 2020.

134 Netherlands, Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) (2020), Supervision on AI and algorithms (Toezicht op AI & 

algoritmes).

135 FRA (2020), Fundamental Rights report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 148.

204

205

136 Germany, Federal Council (Bundesrat) (2020), Resolution of the Federal Council: Strengthening digital sovereignty through algorithms in 

Europe – Introduce market location principle (Entschließung des Bundesrates: Digitale Souveränität bei Algorithmen in Europa stärken – 
Marktortprinzip einführen), 15 May 2020.

137 The Netherlands, Ministry of Economic Affair and Climate Policy (Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat) (2020), Dutch 

digitalisation strategy 2020 [Nederlandse Digitaliseringsstrategie 2020].

138 Germany, Federal Council (Bundesrat) (2020), Resolution of the Federal Council: Strengthening digital sovereignty through algorithms in 

Europe – Introduce market location principle (Entschließung des Bundesrates: Digitale Souveränität bei Algorithmen in Europa stärken – 
Marktortprinzip einführen), 15 May 2020.

139 Serbia, Government (n.d.), Strategy for the development of artificial intelligence in the Republic of Serbia for the period 2020–2025.

140 Slovenia (2020), Draft national programme for promoting the development and use of artificial intelligence in the Republic of Slovenia  

by 2025 (Nacionalni program spodbujanja razvoja in uporabe umetne inteligence v Republiki Sloveniji do leta 2025 (NpUI)), 
20 August 2020.

141 Cyprus, University of Central Lancashire Cyprus, Sherpa project of Smart Information Systems, Horizon 2020.

142 Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers (2020), Information report ‘On the development of artificial intelligence solutions’ (Informatīvais ziņojums 

“Par mākslīgā intelekta risinājumu attīstību”), 4 February 2020.

143 Malta, Malta Digital Innovation Authority (2020), MDIA Technology Driven ITA Sandbox, consultation paper.

144 Bulgaria, Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications (2020), ‘Draft concept for the development of artificial 
intelligence in Bulgaria until 2030’ (‘Проект на Концепция за развитието на изкуствения интелект в България до 2030 г.’), 
18 August 2020.

145 Slovenia (2020), Draft national programme for promoting the development and use of artificial intelligence in the Republic of Slovenia  

by 2025 (Nacionalni program spodbujanja razvoja in uporabe umetne inteligence v Republiki Sloveniji do leta 2025 (NpUI)), 
20 August 2020.

146 Sweden, Ministry of Infrastructure (2019), Better conditions for access to and reuse of open data and public digital information, directive  

for a public inquiry (Bättre förutsättningar för tillgång till och vidareutnyttjande av öppna data och offentlig digital information), 
dir. 2019:20, 2 May 2019.

147 Netherlands, Minister for Legal Protection and Minister of Interior and Kingdom Relations (Ministerie van Justitie and Veiligheid 
en Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken) (2020), Draft bill for Data Protection Collective Act (Wijziging van de Uitvoeringswet 
Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming en enkele andere wetten in verband met het stroomlijnen en actualiseren van het 
gegevensbeschermingsrecht (Verzamelwet gegevensbescherming)).

148 Ireland, Government (2020), Ireland’s national submission to the public consultation on the EU White Paper on artificial intelligence, 

Dublin.

149 Netherlands, Minister for Legal Protection (Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid) (2020), ‘Letter to the House of Representatives’ (‘Brief 

aan de Voorzitter van de Staten-Generaal’).

150 Finland, Preparation of general legislation on automated decision-making within public administration (‘Automaattista päätöksentekoa 

koskevan hallinnon yleislainsäädännön valmistelu’), OM021:00/2020, Helsinki, Ministry of Justice.

151  France, DDD and CNIL (2020), Algorithms: Preventing automation of discrimination (Algorithmes: prévenir l’automatisation des 

discriminations).

152 Netherlands, Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) (2020), Supervision on AI and algorithms (Toezicht op AI & 

algoritmes).

153 Access Now (2018), Human rights in the age of artificial intelligence, November 2018; Access Now (2018), Mapping regulatory proposals 

for artificial intelligence in Europe, November 2018.

154 See EDRi (2020), ‘Attention EU regulators: we need more than AI “ethics” to keep us safe’ and ‘Can the EU make AI “trustworthy”? No – 

but they can make it just’.

155 Italy, Authority for Competition and Market, the Authority for the guarantee in communications and the Authority for the protection of 

personal data (Autorita garente della concorrenza e del mercato, Autorita per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni, garante per la protezione 
dei dati personali) (2020), Survey on big data (Indagine conoscitiva sui big data), February 2020.

156 Cyprus, University of Central Lancashire Cyprus, Sherpa project of Smart Information Systems, Horizon 2020.

157 Germany, Ebert, I., Busch, T. and Wettstein, F. (2020), Business and human rights in the data economy – A mapping and research study, 

German Institute for Human Rights, Berlin.

158 Netherlands, Kulk, S. and Van Deursen, S. (2020), Legal aspects of algorithmic decision-making. An exploratory study, Utrecht, 

Universiteit Utrecht – Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtsstaat en Rechtspleging.

159 Rodriges, R., Panagiotopoulos, A., Lundgren, B., Laulhé Shaelou, S. and Grant, A. (2020), Regulatory options for AI and big data.

160 Bulgaria, Virusafe, virusafe�info.

161 Croatia, INDEX.HR (2020), ‘Is Andrija another government’s attempt to start tracing citizens’ mobile phones?’ (‘Je li Andrija još jedan 

pokušaj vlade da počne pratiti mobitele građana?’), 15 April 2020.

162 Finland, Act No� 582/2020 on temporary amendment of the Communicable Diseases Act (Laki tartuntatautilain väliaikaisesta 

muuttamisesta), 9 July 2020.

163 Lithuania, Order of the Minister of Health No. V-1067, 5 May 2020 (with later amendments) ‘On establishing an Information System to 
monitor and control infectious diseases which may spread and constitute a threat, approving its regulation and regulation on data 
security’ (Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija Įsakymas Dėl Užkrečiamųjų ligų, galinčių išplisti ir kelti grėsmę, stebėsenos 
ir kontrolės informacinės sistemos steigimo ir jos nuostatų bei duomenų saugos nuostatų patvirtinimo), 2020.

164 Latvia, https://www�apturicovid�lv/#en.

165 Portugal, Decree-Law 52/2020, 11 August 2020.

206

207

166 Spain, Presidency of the Government (2020), ‘The official COVID-19 self-diagnosis app, now available in five new autonomous 

communities’ (‘La aplicación oficial de autodiagnóstico AsistenciaCOVID-19, disponible ya en cinco nuevas comunidades autónomas’), 
press release, 6 April 2020.

167 Austria, Austrian Medical Chamber, ‘Coronavirus: “Big Data” only within bounds’ (‘Coronavirus: „Big Data“ nur mit Maß und Ziel’), press 

release, 27 March 2020.

168 Innovative Medicines Initiative (2020), ‘IMI announces COVID projects, boosts funding pot to EUR 72 million’.

169 Croatia, INDEX.HR (2020), ‘Is Andrija another government’s attempt to start tracing citizens’ mobile phones?’ (‘Je li Andrija još jedan 

pokušaj vlade da počne pratiti mobitele građana?’), 15 April 2020.

170 Belgium, Infrabel (n.d.), ‘Artificial intelligence against coronavirus’ (‘L’intelligence artificielle contre le coronavirus’).

171  Bulgaria, Ministry of Education and Science (Министерство на образованието и науката) (2020), Artificial intelligence in education and 
science: Ideas for the development and use of AI in education and science in Bulgaria, (Идеи за развитието и използването на ИИ в 
образованието и науката в Република България) 25 September 2020.

172 Spain, Spanish Data Protection Agency (Agencia Española Protecció Datos) (2020), Report on the data treatment in relation to COVID-19, 

Madrid, Legal Department, N/REF: 0036/2020.

173 Croatia, N1 (2020), ‘Ivan Anušić: We will implement stricter measures to those gathering in groups’ (‘Ivan Anušić: Postrožit ćemo mjere 
za one koji se okupljaju u grupama’), 4 April 2020; 24 sata (2020), ‘Lega in the air: Drones record and measure the temperature of Osijek 
citizens’ (‘Lega u zraku: Osječane dronovi snimaju i mjere temperaturu’), 8 April 2020.

174 Austria, Federal Council of Austria (2020), Federal Council Resolution on respect for fundamental rights (Entschließung des Bundesrates 

betreffend Wahrung der Grundrechte), 283/E-BR/2020.

175 Croatia, Croatian Office of the Ombudsman (Republika Hrvatska pučki pravobranitelj) (2020), ‘How to protect human rights while 

using artificial intelligence in combatting the pandemic’ (‘Kako zaštititi ljudska prava pri korištenju umjetne inteligencije u suzbijanju 
pandemije’), 8 June 2020.

176 Vlachopoulos, S., ‘Constitutional Mithridatism’, New World (νέος κόσμος), 2020.

177 France, National Steering Committee for Digital Ethics (Comité national pilote d’éthique du numérique) (2020), Reflections and warning 

points on the ethical issues of digital technology in acute health crisis situation (Réflexions et points d’alerte sur les enjeux d’éthique du 
numérique en situation de crise sanitaire aiguë), Newsletter No. 1, 7 April 2020.

178 Luxembourg, National Ethics Commission, Position paper of the National Ethics Commission (CNE) on computer aids in the fight against 

the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic (Prise de position de la Commission Nationale d’Éthique (C.N.E.) sur les aides informatiques dans la 
lutte contre la pandémie du Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2).

206

207

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

8

8�1� 

 COVID-19 EXACERBATES ALREADY POOR LIVING CONDITIONS 

8�1�1� 

 PROTECTING THE MOST VULNERABLE: SOCIAL PROTECTION 
MEASURES IN EU MEMBER STATES 

8�1�2�  ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION DURING THE PANDEMIC 

8�1�3�  PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM ABUSE DURING THE PANDEMIC 

8�2� 

 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS IN ASYLUM AND MIGRATION 

8�2�1�  RELOCATING UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN: EU INITIATIVES 

8�2�2�  RECEPTION CONDITIONS REMAIN A CHALLENGE 

8�3� 

 CHILDREN IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS: INCORPORATING THE 
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS DIRECTIVE INTO NATIONAL LAW 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

214

214

217

220

221

222

224

227

229

231

208

209

UN & CoE

22

30 

January

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CoE) 
adopts the strategic action plan for Roma and Traveller 
inclusion (2020–2025), aiming to combat antigypsyism 
and discrimination, and supporting access to inclusive 
quality education�

Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE (PACE) adopts a 
resolution and a recommendation on the international 
obligations concerning the repatriation of children 
from war and conflict zones� 

7

February

In A.B. v. Spain, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child establishes that the state 
had violated the best interests of a child under Article 3 of the Convention on the 
Rights of the Child (CRC), the right of freedom of opinion and expression (Article 13 of 
the CRC), and the right to identity (Article 8 of the CRC), and had failed to implement 
intermediary measures (Article 6 of the Third Optional Protocol to the CRC) during 
the age assessment of an unaccompanied child�

3

6 

11 

26 

March

UN Committee on 
the Rights of the 
Child publishes 
its concluding 
observations on 
Hungary�

UN Committee on 
the Rights of the 
Child publishes 
its concluding 
observations on 
Austria�

Committee of Ministers 
of the CoE adopts 
a declaration on 
strengthening the rights 
of the child as the key to 
a “future-proof” Europe�

In Bilalova and Others v. Poland (No� 23685/14), the 
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finds a violation 
of the applicant children’s rights under Article 5 (1) (f) 
(right to liberty and security) of the European Convention 
on Human Rights (ECHR)� The court finds that there was 
insufficient evidence that domestic authorities properly 
assessed the applicants’ detention with their mother, and 
that no steps were taken to limit its duration�

3 

April

Lanzarote Committee Chair and Vice-Chairperson make 
a statement on stepping up protection of children 
against sexual exploitation and abuse during the 
COVID-19 pandemic�

26

30

June

PACE adopts a resolution and a recommendation 
on ‘Addressing sexual violence against children: 
stepping up action and co-operation in Europe’�

CoE’s Committee of Ministers publishes a 
recommendation on the inclusion of the history of 
Roma and/or Travellers in school curricula and teaching 
materials�

208

209

UN & CoE

July

20 

UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants 
publishes a report on ending immigration detention of 
children and seeking adequate care and reception for 
them�

September

25

28

In Moustahi v. France (No� 9347/14), the ECtHR finds 
that the detention of two Comorian children in Mayotte, 
their incorrect association with an unknown adult, and 
their immediate removal violated Article 3 (prohibition 
of torture), Article 5�1 and 5�4� (right to liberty and 
security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and 
family life), Article 4 of Protocol No� 4 (prohibition of 
collective expulsions of aliens), and Article 13 (right to 
an effective remedy) of the ECHR�

—  In three separate complaints (S.M.A., L.D., M.B. v. Spain), 
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child establishes that 
the state violated the best interests of the child (Article 
3 of the CRC), the right to life (Article 6), and the right 
to identity (Article 8) during the age assessment of an 
unaccompanied child�

—  In W.M.C. v. Denmark, UN Committee on the Rights of the 
Child establishes that the state violated the best interests 
of a child (Article 3 of the CRC), the right to life (Article 6 
of the CRC), and the right to identity (Article 8 of the CRC) 
in deporting three children and their mother to China�

October

13

19

 PACE adopts Resolution 2340 (2020) on 
‘Humanitarian consequences of the Covid-19 
pandemic for migrants and refugees’�

UN Human Rights Committee publishes its views in an 
individual communication� It finds that the Netherlands 
violated a child’s right to acquire a nationality due to 
the lack of a status-determination procedure�

November

19

20

CoE’s European Committee for the Prevention of 
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment calls on Greece to put an end to the 
detention of unaccompanied children and the 
detention in police establishments of children 
with parents�

The CoE’s Consultative Committee of the Convention 
for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to 
Automatic Processing of Personal Data (T-PD) 
adopts Guidelines on children’s data protection in an 
education setting�

December

21

Ireland ratifies the CoE Convention on the protection 
of children against sexual exploitation and abuse 
(Lanzarote Convention), which completes its 
ratification by all CoE member states�

210

211

EU

14 

January

European Commission adopts the 
communication ‘On a strong social Europe 
for just transitions’, which puts forward 
several initiatives, including the Child 
Guarantee set up for the Commission to 
adopt in 2021�

5 

March

European Commission adopts the gender 
equality strategy 2020–2025, which also 
addresses violence against girls and challenges 
gender stereotypes of girls and boys�

12 

European Commission adopts the EU strategy on 
victims’ rights (2020–2025), which also addresses 
vulnerable groups, such as children�

12 
12 

12 

June

July

In B.M.M. and Others v. Belgium (No� 95/20), Joined cases C-133/19, C-136/19 and 
C-137/19, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) finds a violation of Directive 2003/86/
EC on the right to family reunification and Article 4 (prohibition of torture and 
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and Article 47 (right to an effective 
remedy and to a fair trial) of the Charter� The case involved an application for family 
reunification of a ‘minor child’� The court holds that the relevant date for determining 
if a ‘minor child’ is concerned is that of the submission of the application for asylum 
for the purposes of family reunification, and not the date on which the authorities 
make a decision on that application�

European Commission 
adopts the EU strategy 
for a more effective 
fight against child sexual 
abuse, presenting a 
framework for EU action 
in 2020–2025�

30 

September

European Commission 
adopts the digital 
education action plan 
2021–2027�

1 

18 

23 

29 

13th European Forum on 
the rights of the child 
takes place online� The 
theme is ‘Delivering for 
children: towards the 
European strategy on 
the rights of the child’�

European Commission 
opens a public 
consultation to gather 
stakeholders’ views 
on the upcoming EU 
strategy on the rights 
of the child�

European Commission 
proposes a new Pact on 
Migration and Asylum� 
The legislative proposals 
accompanying the pact 
contain several proposals 
aiming to strengthen the 
protection for migrant 
children, particularly 
unaccompanied children, 
and  ensure that the 
principle of the best 
interests of the child is 
upheld�

—  European Commission 

adopts the EU 
anti-racism action 
plan 2020–2025 
addressing age-based 
discrimination and 
social inclusion through 
the Child Guarantee, 
education and 
digitalisation�

—  European Economic 

and Social Committee 
publishes an opinion 
on ‘The protection of 
unaccompanied minors 
in Europe’, calling on 
the EU to develop a 
coherent and uniform 
approach to protecting 
unaccompanied foreign 
children in Europe�

210

211

EU

October

7

12

22

European Commission adopts new EU Roma 
strategic framework on equality, inclusion and 
participation until 2030 addressing child poverty, 
eliminating school segregation, and increasing 
rates of completing early childhood education and 
secondary school�

European Council 
adopts conclusions on 
‘Strengthening minimum 
income protection in the 
COVID-19 pandemic and 
beyond’� It also focuses on 
children at risk of poverty 
and social exclusion�

European Parliament 
adopts a resolution on 
closing the digital gap, as 
the COVID-19 pandemic 
has exposed severe 
inequalities in access to 
education�

November

24

European Commission presents its action plan on 
integration and inclusion 2021–2027, recommending 
specific actions on access to education and facilitating 
transition to adulthood for unaccompanied children 
turning 18, and highlighting the best interests of the 
child as a guiding principle� 

December

8

14

—  European Commission adopts the EU Strategy 

for implementing the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights, highlighting the importance of raising 
children’s awareness of their rights�

—  European Commission adopts the European judicial 
training strategy for 2021–224, requiring focused 
training on the rights of specific groups, such as 
children�

Council of the EU adopts 
conclusions on internal security 
and European police partnership, 
underlining the increased online 
dimension of criminality and 
welcoming all efforts to fight 
against online and offline sexual 
abuse of children�

212

213

The COVID-19 pandemic put unprecedented strain on children 

and families across the EU in 2020, especially those who were 

already economically or socially disadvantaged� Despite Member 

States’ efforts, distance education was a challenge for children 

who lack computers or internet access, or live in overcrowded 

households� The threat of abuse at home also loomed large� 

Children continued to submit fewer asylum applications, but their 

reception conditions remained inadequate in several Member 

States� Ten Member States welcomed 573 unaccompanied 

children and 771 children in families who were relocated from 

the Greek ‘hotspots’� Most Member States incorporated into 

national law the Procedural Safeguards Directive for children 

who are suspects or accused persons in criminal procedures� 

However, infringement procedures against seven Member States 

remain open� The European Commission undertook extensive 

consultations on the EU strategy on the rights of the child, which 

it plans to adopt in 2021�

212

213

8�1� 

 COVID-19 EXACERBATES ALREADY POOR 
LIVING CONDITIONS

Poverty has long been a reality for many children in Europe, but the trend 
was decreasing – at least until the COVID-19 pandemic hit. The pandemic 
jeopardised a number of fundamental rights of children that the EU Charter 
of Fundamental Rights lays down, notably the rights to education (Article 14) 
and to the protection and care necessary for their well-being (Article 24).

Despite the decreasing trend in child poverty, in 2019, before the pandemic, 
22.2 % of children in the EU-27 were still living at risk of poverty or social 
exclusion.1 The actual impact of the pandemic on child poverty rates is not 
yet known. But it has exacerbated existing challenges and severely hit 
households with children already in poverty and social exclusion, evidence 
collected by FRA shows.2

FRA has conducted many surveys that provide data about minority ethnic 
groups. The latest survey, from 2019, looked at the situation of Roma and 
Travellers in five EU Member States and the United Kingdom. It shows that 
these children face higher rates of poverty than the general population, no 
matter the country they live in. For example, high percentages of Roma 
children faced hunger at least once in the month before the survey: 7 % 
in Ireland, 9 % in France, 14 % in Belgium and 20 % in Sweden.3 For more 
information on Roma, see Chapter 5.

During 2020, the European Commission continued 
preparations for the Child Guarantee, as the European 
Parliament requested. The Child Guarantee aims to 
ensure that “every child in poverty can have access 
to free healthcare, free education, free childcare, 
decent housing and adequate nutrition”.4 It is part 
of the broader vision on child rights that the EU 
strategy on the rights of the child, to be adopted 
in 2021, will reflect.

The  European  Commission  produced  the  first 
feasibility study report for the Child Guarantee. 
It  focused  on  four  target  groups:  children  in 
precarious family situations, children in institutions, 
recent migrants and refugees, and children with 
disabilities.5  The  Commission  also  published 
a roadmap6 including the feedback on a consultation 
in which almost 100 organisations and individuals 
participated.7

Meanwhile, the Child Guarantee received the support of 24 Member States 
in a joint declaration under the German EU Presidency.8 It is expected to be 
adopted in the first quarter of 2021.

8�1�1�   Protecting the most vulnerable: social protection measures in 

EU Member States

The COVID-19 pandemic had an enormous impact on the economic, health, 
and social situation of families in 2020. The wide-ranging measures that 
Member States put in place affected families and children in social life, 
education, and other areas.

214

215

Some measures shut down sectors of the economy, with a great impact on 
working parents. By July 2020, 8 % of respondents to a Eurofound survey in 
the EU had become unemployed during the pandemic; 44 % said that their 
households had difficulties making ends meet.9

The closing down of schools affected the physical and mental health of 
children, and further exacerbated differences in access to education.

The pandemic put a disproportionate strain on children living in poverty, 
homeless children, refugee and migrant children, stateless and undocumented 
children, children in care, and children with disabilities and/or chronic 
illnesses, among others.10 For more information on the impact of COVID-19 
on fundamental rights, see Chapter 1.

EU Member States took a wide range of measures to compensate for 
the negative impact on families’ economic situations. These ranged from 
supplementing wages and financial support to special paid leave for people 
with caring responsibilities, such as parents, or sick leave for persons in 
quarantine.

PROMISING PRACTICE

Asking children 
about the impact  
of COVID-19
In Finland, the Ministry of Education 
and Culture conducted a broad online 
hearing on distance education among 
children. This was implemented in 
preparation for an amendment to 
the Basic Education Act to allow 
distance education. It used separate 
questionnaires for years 1–3 and 
years 4–9. It received a total of 58,000 
responses.

The majority (80 %) of children 
said that they felt that everyday life 
was safe in schools when returning 
in autumn 2020. Two thirds of the 
children said that they were satisfied 
with the distance learning organised in 
spring 2020.

For more information, see Finland, 
Ministry of Education and Culture 
(Opetus- ja kulttuuri-ministeriö) (2020), 
‘Consultation with children in preparation 
of amendment of the Basic Education Act 
and the Helsinki European School Act’ 

(‘Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö järjestää 
valtakunnallisen lasten kuulemisen osana 
perusopetuslain lainvalmistelua’).

In Belgium, the Flemish Office of the 
Children’s Rights Commissioner, the 
Children’s Rights Knowledge Centre 
(KeKi), and the Flemish Child Rights 
Coalition joined forces to conduct 
a large-scale survey among children. 
More than 44,000 children and young 
people completed the online survey 
on the situation at home, schoolwork, 
contact with friends, what they are 
worried about, and what helps during 
the pandemic.

The survey shows that most children 
find this a strange, boring and lonely 
period in their lives. Children who say 
it has been more difficult financially 

feel even more lonely, sad, angry, 
stressed, and anxious. More than one 
in three children are afraid of becoming 
ill themselves. Meanwhile, some 
93 % of the children said they have 
a good understanding of the COVID-19 
measures.

For more information, see Belgium, KeKi, 
‘Children and Covid19’.

In Slovenia, more than 5,000 children 
from the age of 10 were asked about 
the impact of COVID-19 on their lives.

The findings show that, during the first 
wave of the epidemic, the well-being 
and mental health of some children 
deteriorated, often in connection with 
a negative use of information and 
communication technology, increasing 
addiction or isolation.

One of the key findings is that 
vulnerability increased the most in 
groups of children who were vulnerable 
before the epidemic, widening the gap 
between different groups of children 
and the level of their vulnerability.

For more information, see Slovenia, Social 
Protection Institute of the Republic of 
Slovenia.

215

214

A  large  majority  of  Member  States  introduced 
measures to compensate for loss of income. About 
half linked this support to the number and age of 
children in a household. As Table 8�1 shows, some of 
the monetary allowances were linked to the parents’ 
employment status. While some Member States 
opted for additional supplements for all children, 
others focused only on those who were already 
receiving social benefits.

For example, in Austria, among several measures, 
the Family Crisis Fund allocated € 50 per child per 
month for two months for parents who became 
unemployed and for parents who receive social 
assistance or guaranteed minimum benefits.11

In France, an estimated 4 million low-income families 
(who were already receiving social benefits) received 
a one-off payment of € 150 and an additional € 100 
per child.12

In Lithuania, the authorities paid € 120 for each child who was already 
receiving regular child benefits. Children from low-income families raising 
one or two children, large families, and families with children with disabilities 
were granted € 80 additionally (total sum € 200).13 Some of these one-off 
payments were increased or repeated in subsequent emergency decrees as 
the pandemic continued.

TABLE 8�1: SELECTED EXAMPLES OF MONETARY SUPPORT TO FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN DURING THE PANDEMIC

Member State

Payment details

Eligibility

Austria

€ 50 per child for two months (€ 100 per child in total)

Finland

€ 75 per person in the family per month

Financial support to unemployed parents who receive 
family allowance, and parents who receive social 
assistance or guaranteed minimum benefits

Low-income families for maximum four months 
(September – December 2020)

France

Greece

A one-off payment of € 150 per family and an 
additional € 100 per child (May and November 2020)

Low-income families who were already receiving social 
benefits

A one-off payment of € 100 for the first child and 
€ 50 for each subsequent one. The maximum amount 
cannot exceed € 300.

Low-income families who were already receiving social 
benefits

Latvia

€ 50 per child during crisis period

Children who receive municipal crisis support benefits

Lithuania

A one-off payment of € 120 per child

Children who were entitled to regular child benefits

A one-off payment of € 200 per child

Children from low-income families already receiving 
social benefits, large families, and families with children 
with disabilities

Slovenia

A one-off payment of € 30 per child (April 2020)

Children who were entitled to regular child benefits

A one-off payment per child of € 150 (April 2020)

Families already receiving social assistance, or parents 
entitled to parental allowance, childcare allowance, and 
maternity or parental benefit

A one-off payment of € 50 per child (December 2020)

All children with permanent or temporary residence in 
Slovenia

Source: FRA, 2020 [based on information collected by FRANET]

216

217

Civil society raised concerns about the effectiveness of monetary support 
during the pandemic.14

The United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) also noted that, although social 
support will undoubtedly bring benefits, it will be inadequate to meet the 
needs of the entire population, if it is not combined with other measures 
or undertaken for long enough at a high enough level.15 The Unicef report 
argues that, at present, benefits are allocated based on existing definitions 
and conditions related to poverty or vulnerability. This means that people 
who are ‘near-poor’, i.e. people whom the pandemic is likely to push into 
poverty, may not receive support and are likely to miss out on COVID-19-
related support.

As FRA noted in its bulletins on the pandemic, certain groups, such as Roma 
and Travellers, might face additional difficulties in claiming the benefits.16

Some Member States also amended their regular family benefits to cover 
those who had been recently pushed into poverty. For example, in Lithuania, 
the period of the family’s income used to evaluate if a family is entitled to 
child benefits was shortened from 12 to three months.17

In Germany, between 1 April and 30 September, the procedure for claiming 
family benefits became easier by not requiring parents to detail their assets. 
In addition, to calculate the amount of family benefits, the authorities would 
consider the family income of only the last month, instead of the average 
income of the last six months as was usually the case.18

The Council of the European Union adopted conclusions on strengthening 
minimum income protection in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. These 
underlined the importance of minimum income protection for families and 
children at risk of poverty and social exclusion.19 The Council asked Member 
States to examine, as part of their regular evaluations, the functioning and 
adequacy of minimum income protection schemes for mitigating the negative 
socio-economic consequences of the COVID-19 crisis as well as for supporting 
social and labour market inclusion and, where necessary, to define and 
implement measures to improve their effectiveness.

8�1�2�  Ensuring equal access to education during the pandemic
Almost all EU Member States closed down schools and switched to distance 
learning during 2020 because of COVID-19. The level of success in switching 
from regular to home schooling depended on a variety of factors, notably 
the socio-economic background of children’s families.

Children living in poor or overcrowded housing, with no access to the internet 
or to tablets or computers, were in practice limited in enjoying their right to 
education. This was often the case for Roma or migrant children. According 
to the ‘best interests of the child’ principle enshrined in Article 24 of the 
Charter, and the right to education (Article 14), every child has the right to 
education, which must be provided without discrimination (Article 21).20

Member States closed schools for different periods, with disparities within 
regions or towns, and sometimes only for certain school years. During the 
first wave, at least a third of Member States kept a number of schools 
open for children of parents in ‘essential’ professions.21 Acknowledging the 
difficulties of distance learning for younger children and their families, most 
Member States tried to leave pre-primary and primary schools open during 
the subsequent waves.

PROMISING PRACTICE

Supporting remote 
learning
The United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization 
(Unesco) published a toolkit to help 
education authorities adapt to remote 
learning. It includes an overview 
with a link to online resources that 
education authorities around the 
world have developed, including in EU 
Member States.

For more information, see Unesco, 
‘COVID-19 response toolkit’; ‘National 
learning platforms and tools’.

216

217

School closures posed an additional difficulty for children who received free 
lunches at school. Some EU Member States tried to continue providing free 
meals despite school closures, mainly through local authorities.

For example, in Finland, schools have provided a daily free meal for all children 
since 1948. In March 2020, only around 44 % of municipalities managed 
to offer meals to students in distance learning.22 Therefore, the parliament 
amended the Basic Education Act, explicitly stipulating that, during the 
pandemic, schools remain obliged to provide free school meals.23

In Lithuania, the government provided guidelines to ensure that schools 
and other organisations providing free lunches continue doing so.24 The 
Children’s Rights Alliance in Ireland launched a scheme providing food to 
children under the age of six.25

The suspension of school lunches has a particularly great impact on children 
in Roma communities and families in precarious situations. In Slovakia, more 
than 110,000 children, many of Roma origin, depend on free school meals, 
but it took no special measures.26

On the other hand, Spain allocated € 25 million to cover school lunches for 
children who were already entitled to them.27 Nevertheless, civil society 
organisations argued that this amount could cover only half of those entitled to 
free lunches.28 The Ombudsperson had to intervene, given the low nutritional 
quality of food provided.29

An additional challenge for students from low-income families was the lack 
of internet access or electronic devices in the household to allow them to 
follow the online lessons and communicate with their teachers. Children in 
vulnerable situations, such as Roma or migrant children, were particularly 
affected.

In the Netherlands, the ‘Working Group on Children in Reception Centre’ 
informed the State Secretary for Justice and Security that a lot of children in the 
reception centres for asylum applicants have no access to distance learning. An 
inventory among employees from reception centres and schools attended by 
children in reception centres showed that 24 out of 46 respondents indicated 
that the quality of the WiFi was not good enough for distance learning.30

218

219

In Spain, only one third of Roma children have access to a computer at home, 
a survey showed.31 For more information on Roma children, see Chapter 5.

Initiatives in a number of Member States focused on ensuring that children 
and teachers have access to computers or tablets. Sometimes the EU co-
funded them.

In Bulgaria, around 70,000 children in low-income families did not have 
computer and internet access, the Ombudsperson calculated.32 Authorities 
have now allocated funds to purchase 80,000 laptops for 60,000 students 
and 20,000 teachers, using the financial instrument Recovery Assistance for 
Cohesion and the Territories of Europe.33 In addition, funds from the Ministry 
of Labour and Social Policy were provided for the purchase of computer 
devices and internet access for nearly 1,800 children in residential care.34

In Germany, the federal government allocated € 500 million to provide 
laptops and tablets to students.35

The private sector played an important role in several Member States, donating 
electronic devices or lowering internet fees. In Slovenia, the Ministry of 
Education, Science and Sport established the project DIGI School, inviting 
donations of funds or technical equipment.36

In Greece, students are entitled to receive digital devices for distance learning.37 
Schools received more than 18,000 devices. The private sector provided half. 
Priority went to families with low incomes, single-headed families, children 
with special needs, and students with excellent performance records.38

Other measures in Member States aimed to facilitate access to the internet 
or to mobile data. In Hungary, the government ordered internet service 
providers to provide access to the internet free of charge to families with 
children in secondary education.39

In Slovakia, the Ministry of Education, in cooperation with all mobile operators, 
increased the data usage free of charge for all teachers.40 In Greece, the 
Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs secured a zero-rating agreement 
with telecom companies for data used to connect to the ministry’s educational 
platforms.41

In Bulgaria, the Ministry of Education and Science created 11 Wi-Fi zones in 
nine towns. It adjusted legislation so that schools can fund internet connectivity 
for students’ homes during online learning.42

The European Commission adopted the digital education action plan (2021–
2027), which proposes a set of initiatives for high-quality, inclusive, and 
accessible digital education.43 The plan acknowledges the need to improve 
digital education, as the pandemic highlighted.

The European Parliament has pointed out the inequalities in accessing 
education during the pandemic, and called on the European Commission 
and Member States to strengthen efforts to guarantee access to quality 
education for all.44

The Council of Europe adopted Guidelines to address the risks that children 
face regarding the protection of their privacy and data in the digital education 
setting.45

PROMISING PRACTICE

Private sector 
helps support the 
most vulnerable
The ‘flying classroom’ is an initiative 
of the private sector together with 
the Vienna Education Directorate 
in Austria. It aims to make use of 
facilities in hotels, apartments, and 
cafés that are left empty during 
quarantine periods.

It allows children, families, and 
teachers to book a space, free of 
charge, to learn or prepare classes. It 
helps children living in overcrowded 
homes or without internet access. 
The online platform allows people 
to book a whole room for a family 
(‘flying work room’), a cafe space 
for a student (‘flying learning café’), 
or a conference room for teachers 
(‘flying classroom’).

For more information, see ‘Book your 
room’.

218

219

8�1�3�  Protecting children from abuse during the pandemic
Several international46 and European47 bodies reported an increase in children’s 
exposure to violence during the pandemic. Lockdown and quarantine measures 
resulted in families staying at home together for long periods, leaving children 
without physical access to schools or other social spaces where they could 
interact with their peers or with support adults. More children experienced 
violence or witnessed violence between their parents or caregivers, and the 
number of calls to helplines increased.48

In Austria, the national helpline for children reported that phone 
calls increased by a third, and the number of chats asking for 
advice rose by 82 %.49 In Spain, a national phone line and chat 
line for children reported that requests for help doubled in 2020 
in comparison with 2019.50 For more information on domestic 
violence, see Chapter 9 on access to justice.

School closures and switching to home schooling meant children 
and young people spent more time at home – and more time 
online. Child sexual abuse online increased during the COVID-19 
crisis, Europol reported.51 It also noted that, since March 2020, 
countries had reported growing attempts to access illegal 
websites featuring child sexual exploitation material and, in 
some countries, an increase in adult offenders attempting to 
initiate contact with children via social media.52

In its strategy to combat sexual abuse, the Commission announced new 
legislation that would allow independent interpersonal communication services 
to detect child sexual abuse online.53 Meanwhile, it proposed a regulation to 
temporarily derogate from Directive 2002/58/EC, known as the e-Privacy 
Directive.54 Temporary derogation from the e-Privacy Directive would allow 
communication services to continue with the existing voluntary practices of 
detecting child sexual abuse online.

The infringement procedures against 23 Member States initiated in 2019 for 
non-compliance with Directive 2011/93 on combating child sexual abuse55 
are still open.56

EU Member States introduced new measures or enhanced old initiatives 
to address violence against children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most 
increased resources for social services or telephone services to deal with 
violence.57

For example, in Ireland, the Courts Service prioritised domestic violence and 
childcare cases. The Legal Aid Board provided additional support for such 
cases and established a helpline to assist victims of domestic violence.58

In Romania, most childcare services adapted their activities so that they could 
continue to provide support to victims of domestic violence, by keeping social 
distance and using alternative means of communication such as telephones, 
WhatsApp and Skype.59

In Denmark, the parliament granted DKK 131 million (almost € 18 million) to 
fund different initiatives, including for the support for children in households 
with alcohol or drug abuse.60

In about half of the Member States, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 
or governmental bodies initiated public campaigns to prevent family violence 
during the pandemic.

220

221

For example, in Croatia, the Ministry of the Interior issued a public warning 
about increased risks of domestic and online violence, published instructions 
for recognising domestic violence, and launched the campaign ‘Behind 
closed doors’.61

In Latvia, the State Children’s Rights Inspectorate implemented an awareness 
campaign on electronic mass media about internet grooming. The campaign 
included social media ads, and three short films for teachers, parents and 
professionals on how to talk with children about grooming.62

In Slovenia, on 1 January 2021, a 24-hour, free and anonymous SOS phone-
line for victims of violence was provided by the NGO SOS Phone and further 
promoted  by  the  Human  Rights  Ombudsperson.63  The  Ombudsperson 
launched his own campaign on children’s rights – “If You See Injustice, Use 
Justice” – through public and social media, as well as through schools and 
other institutions. The Ombudsperson also launched a specific free telephone 
line for children, as well as an e-mail address and a renewed webpage.64

8�2� 

 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS IN ASYLUM AND 
MIGRATION

Asylum-seeking and migrant children, particularly if unaccompanied, are 
entitled to special care and protection under EU law. The number of children – 
both unaccompanied and arriving with families –  applying for asylum in EU 
Member States continued to decrease in 2020.

The number of children with families applying for asylum in the EU-27 
decreased compared with previous years, with just under 130,000 applications 
in 2020.65 Germany, France and Spain (in that order) received the highest 
numbers of applications from children.

Meanwhile, 13,550 unaccompanied children applied for asylum in the EU-
27 in 2020. By comparison, 14,115 did so in 2019. As Figure 8.1 shows, this 
was a continuation of the downward trend since 2015.66 In 2020, most 
unaccompanied children applied for asylum in Greece, Germany and Austria, 
in that order.

220

221

Figure 8�1: Asylum applications by unaccompanied children in the EU-27, 
since 2015

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source:  FRA, 2020 [based on Eurostat, Asylum applicants considered to be 
unaccompanied minors – annual data [TPS00194], last accessed on 
22 April 2021]

8�2�1�  Relocating unaccompanied children: EU initiatives
The new Pact on Migration and Asylum underlines that the protection of 
children in migration is a priority for the EU. (For more on the pact, see 
Chapter 6 on asylum.) It also recalls the primacy of the best interests of 
the child and the role of child-protection authorities in providing adequate 
guardianship and support to unaccompanied children.

Civil society organisations have criticised certain aspects of the proposals 
accompanying the pact, including the possible increase in detention in the 
context of border procedures and return of children. One of the main criticisms 
has been that families with children over the age of 12 are not exempted 
from border procedures, which entail accelerated processes.67

The pact introduces different solidarity mechanisms at times of migratory 
pressure, including the relocation of applicants between Member States. 
It does not specify a quota for the relocation of unaccompanied children, 
but proposes a financial incentive for national authorities to accept them.68

The  voluntary  or  mandatory  relocation  of  unaccompanied  children,  if 
properly implemented, can provide positive long-term solutions for many 
unaccompanied children, FRA research shows.69 However, Member States 
have often shown limited political willingness or have imposed stringent 
conditions for relocation. As a result, only 1,400 unaccompanied children 
were relocated between 2015 and 2019.

The Greek government called for EU solidarity in late 2019. In 2020, the 
European Commission launched a voluntary initiative, aiming to relocate 
1,600 unaccompanied children from Greece.70 By the end of the year, only 
573 unaccompanied children were relocated (Table 8.2). This was partly due 
to only 12 Member States volunteering to participate, as well as to logistical 
difficulties created by COVID-19-related restrictions.

222

223

FIGURE 8�2: NUMBER OF UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN RELOCATED FROM GREECE DURING 2020

Total received

8

211

29

12

131

20

72

72

1

17

573

Source:  FRA, 2020 [based on International Organization for Migration, Voluntary relocation scheme from Greece to other European 

countries – Factsheet, 23 December 2020]

 
Note:

In addition, at least 771 children suffering 
from severe or chronical illnesses were 
relocated together with their families.

In addition to voluntary relocations of unaccompanied children shown in 
Figure 8.2, France and Germany decided to also relocate asylum-seeking 
families with children, particularly children with medical conditions. Accordingly, 
521 adults and 771 children were relocated. Germany (291 persons), the 
Netherlands (49 persons), and Luxembourg (4 persons) also relocated families 
with children who had been granted international protection.71

The European Economic and Social Committee in 2020 adopted its own-
initiative opinion on unaccompanied children. It highlights some of the key 
challenges in protecting children, and calls on Member States to continue 
relocating unaccompanied children as a matter of urgency.72 The opinion 
urges the European Commission to draw up a directive on the protection of 
unaccompanied children. It also recommends that national authorities stop 
using bone tests to assess the age of children, because they are unreliable.

222

223

Violations of the best interests of the child, the right to life, and the right to 
identity during the age assessment procedure of specific unaccompanied 
children were again the focus of several decisions against Spain by the 
Committee on the Rights of the Child.73

8�2�2�  Reception conditions remain a challenge
In Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and Spain, limited 
capacity and reception conditions for, in particular, unaccompanied children 
remained a concern. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the situation, 
making access to accommodation, education, and health services even 
more challenging.74

In Spain, irregular land and sea arrivals increased by 29 % compared with 
2019.75 This was because of increased sea arrivals in the Canary Islands – 
more than 23,000, compared with fewer than 3,000 in 2019. Despite the 
creation of new centres76 and additional central government funding,77 the 
reception capacities for unaccompanied children in the Canary Islands remained 
insufficient78 in 2020 for around 2,000 unaccompanied children there.79

In the Spanish enclave in Melilla, 1,400 persons, including 150 children, were 
living in the Migrant Temporary Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic. It 
has a capacity of 750 persons. Several institutions raised concerns.80 The 
Ombudsperson asked the Ministry of the Interior to relocate vulnerable 
asylum applicants to the Spanish mainland, such as groups at particular risk 
of COVID-19, single women, and families with children.81

The Ombudsperson in France visited Calais in September 2020 and noted 
the “shameful living conditions” of about 1,200 to 1,500 persons still living 
there.82 She raised special concerns about the situation of women and 
children, including unaccompanied children as young as 12. She made several 
recommendations for the protection of unaccompanied children and called 
for an effective family reunification procedure for children with relatives in 
the United Kingdom.

In Cyprus, the conditions in the Pournara centre improved with the creation 
of a safe zone for unaccompanied children. However, the COVID-19 isolation 
areas had no separate zones for unaccompanied children and lacked sufficient 
sanitary facilities and electricity.83 The Commissioner for the rights of the child 
expressed concern about the transformation of both Pournara and Kofinou 
camps into closed centres.84 The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human 
Rights85 requested the immediate release of children.

FRA ACTIVITY
Relocating 
unaccompanied 
children: lessons 
learnt from 
previous efforts
Following the 2019 request by 
Greek authorities for the relocation 
of unaccompanied children from 
Greece, FRA published a compilation 
of lessons learnt from previous 
relocation exercises.

The report also includes 
promising practices and provides 
practical guidance for relocating 
unaccompanied children in 
accordance with fundamental rights. 
It can support national authorities of 
sending and receiving Member States 
when relocating unaccompanied 
children under current or future 
relocation schemes.

For more information, see FRA (2020), 
Relocating unaccompanied children: 
Applying good practices to future 
schemes, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office.

“You can see yourselves the 
situation here, how it is� It is 
better that I don’t stay here, 
I want to leave��� there is no 
school, I cannot work either, it is 
far from everything� We just eat, 
drink and sleep�”

Refugee from Eritrea, male, France, 
interview conducted for FRA’s report 
Integration of young refugees in the 
EU: Good practices and challenges

224

225

In Greece,86 reception conditions remain very poor, especially in the reception 
and identification centres (‘hotspots’) on the Greek islands. The fire in the 
Moria refugee camp in Lesbos and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the 
difficulties.87 Conditions in the hotspots and the lack of prospects take an 
inmense toll on the mental health of residents, including children in families 
and unaccompanied children.88

However, thanks to the joint efforts of the Special Secretariat for the Protection 
of Unaccompanied Minors of the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum, 
Member States relocating unaccompanied children, and UN and EU agencies, 
the number of unaccompanied children accommodated in the Greek hotspots 
was drastically reduced, as Figure 8�3 shows. There were still around 1,000 
children in insecure accomodation in Greece. 89 Thanks to ongoing efforts, 
and according to Greek authorites, 279 children previously registered as 
homeless had been traced by early September 2020.90

Poor reception conditions have been linked to children going missing and to 
an increased risk of their becoming victims of trafficking in human beings.91 
In a recent report, the European Migration Network points to the lack of 
data on the number of children going missing throughout the EU. Almost all 
Member States reported on their elaborate procedures to deal with cases of 
children going missing, often similar to the procedures for national children. 
NGOs, however, contend that these procedures are not followed and that 
missing unaccompanied children are not always reported to the police.92

Detention continues to be a reality for some migrant children

EU law does not prohibit immigration detention of children, but the Charter, 
the Reception Conditions Directive, and case law of the ECtHR lay down strict 
conditions. They make detention an exceptional measure of last resort. In 
reality, detention also happens in cases that are not exceptional, as FRA has 
previously reported.93

A positive development in Greece was the adoption of Law 4760/2020. It 
should bring an end to the ‘protective detention’ of unaccompanied children.94 
The law provides that unaccompanied children should not be placed in 
protective custody simply because they do not have a safe or known place 
of residence. The Council of Europe’s Anti-torture Committee had criticised 
migration detention of families with children and unaccompanied children, 
after a visit to Greece.95 At the end of 2020, 19 children were still in protective 
custody (see Figure 8�3).96

FIGURE 8�3: UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN ACCOMMODATED IN HOTSPOTS AND IN PROTECTIVE CUSTODY

236

2,050

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

178

1,002

19

123

15 December 2019

15 July 2020

15 December 2020

In ‘hotspots’

In protective custody

Source:  FRA, 2020 [based on EKKA situation update: Unaccompanied children (UAC) in Greece]

250

200

150

100

50

0

225

224

In 2020, 610 people who claimed to be children – including some 40 girls – 
arrived in Malta irregularly by sea. Most of them – 537 – arrived unaccompanied. 
Based on information available to UNHCR, all individuals who stated that they 
are children were detained upon arrival for an average period of six months, 
often alongside adult detainees. 97

In Slovenia, children continued to be detained in the Postojna Centre for 
Foreigners, in similar numbers to previous years. In 2020, 304 unaccompanied 
children (average stay 3.7 days) and 97 children with their families (average 
stay 1.3 days) were detained.98 In Croatia, a total of 48 children with their 
families were placed in immigration detention during 2020, in facilities at 
Tovarnik, Ježevo and Trilj.99

Meanwhile, in Poland, the number of children in detention slightly decreased 
in 2020, when 22 unaccompanied children and 79 children with their families 
were detained.100

In a report on the immigration detention of children, the UN Special Rapporteur 
on the human rights of migrants points to the worrying impact of detention 
on children, whether alone or with their families.101 The report considers 
detention an expensive, administratively burdensome, and ineffective 
migration management tool. It calls on Member States to end child immigration 
detention and provide alternative care and reception arrangements that 
promote children’s rights and well-being.

Guardianship for unaccompanied children

A  key  element  of  a  well-functioning  system  for  the  reception  of 
unaccompanied children is a fuctioning guardianship system. Such systems 
assign unaccompanied children a person to support them to ensure their well-
being, safeguard the child’s best interests, and exercise legal representation 
on their behalf.

In Greece, Law 4554/2018 on guardianship of unaccompanied children is 
still pending implementation.102 A temporary guardianship scheme set up 
in 2018 came to an end, leaving many unaccompanied children without 
support.103  A new temporary system supported by UNHCR covered only 
children participating in relocation.104 The Public Prosecutor for Minors or, 
in the event there isn’t one, the Public Prosecutor of First Instance by law 
remains the temporary guardian of the unaccompanied minors in her/his 
area of authority.

Malta adopted the Minor Protection (Alternative Care) Act, which introduced 
changes to the guardianship system. These require a court to provide tutors 
for unaccompanied children.105

In Bulgaria, an amendment to the Asylum and Refugees Act entrusts to 
certain lawyers the representation, in international protection proceedings, 
of unaccompanied children who are seeking or have received international 
protection. These lawyers are all included in the legal aid register of the 
National Legal Aid Bureau.106

In Cyprus, the Social Welfare Service increased the number of guardians from 
six at the end of 2019 to 19 at the end of 2020.107

226

227

8�3� 

 CHILDREN IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS: 
INCORPORATING THE PROCEDURAL 
SAFEGUARDS DIRECTIVE INTO NATIONAL 
LAW

The Procedural Safeguards Directive (2016/800) aims to enhance the right 
to a fair trial. It lays down minimum rules to ensure respect of procedural 
safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal 
proceedings,  in  accordance  with  existing  international  standards  and 
guarantees.

Member States had to incorporate the directive 
into national law by 11 June 2019.108 However, 
around half missed the deadline. Infringement 
procedures began in 2019 (with formal notice 
under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union). At the end of 2020, they 
were still open against Bulgaria,109 Croatia,110 
Cyprus,111 Czechia,112 Germany,113 Greece,114 and 
Malta.115

In  May  2020,  the  Commission  sent  reasoned 
opinions  to  Cyprus  and  Greece  for  failing  to 
communicate on the measures taken to implement 
the  Procedural  Safeguards  Directive.116  Both 
countries had four months to respond and take 
the relevant action, before the Commission could 
refer the case to the Court of Justice of the EU.

Cyprus has not yet incorporated the directive into national law, but a bill 
is now under final discussions before the Cyprus Parliament.117 In Greece, 
Law 4689/2020118 introduced provisions incorporating a number of aspects of 
the Procedural Safeguards Directive.119 Only remedial or therapeutic measures 
can be imposed in the age group 12 to 15, but older children can also be 
deprived of liberty, if this is deemed necessary and under certain conditions, 
as provided in Article 127 the directive. Children have the right to assistance 
by both a lawyer and their guardian in all stages of a criminal prosecution.

A few Member States changed their national laws in 2020 to incorporate 
the directive. Slovenia did so in December through the Act amending the 
Criminal Procedure Act.120 Malta reformed its Criminal Code in 2020, including 
new provisions on the right of the child to information, to access a lawyer, 
and to a medical examination.121

Latvia had already amended its Criminal Procedure Law in 2018. It amended 
the Criminal Law in relation to juveniles in December 2020.122 Chapter VII of 
the criminal law underlines that the resocialisation of a child offender is the 
primary aim.

Several Member States are still working on incorporating the directive into 
national law. In July 2020, Bulgaria invited public discussion on proposals 
to amend the Criminal Procedure Code, including the right of the child to 
information and to medical examination.123 It then sent a revised draft for 
parliamentary discussion.124

226

227

In Poland, the Ministry of Justice is developing a draft Act on Juveniles, which 
will regulate the status of children in conflict with the law, guarantees during 
judicial proceedings, and the rights and duties of children in detention.125

Luxembourg126 is developing a new bill on juvenile justice after several 
stakeholders heavily criticised the previous one.127

During 2020, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, some Member States provided 
capacity-building activities for law enforcement practitioners, as Article 20 
of the directive requires. In the mandatory initial training of magistrates and 
law students, Bulgaria128 and Poland129 introduced a number of courses on 
child-friendly justice.

Croatia130 and Lithuania131 focused on police training to deal with child 
participants in criminal procedures. In 2020, the Lithuanian Police School 
updated its curriculum to include the topic of child rights during criminal 
proceedings.132

228

229

FRA opinions

The COVID-19 pandemic had a strong impact on the 
well-being of children in Europe. Loss of family income, 
closure of schools, and increased violence at home and 
online raised concerns about rights under Article 3, 
14 and 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
Member States have provided families with a number 
of economic support packages to compensate for the 
loss of income. However, the limited amount and length 
of the support raise questions about the long-term 
usefulness and sustainability of such financial packages.

The transition to home schooling was not the same 
for all families. Some children were not fully able to 
participate in school routines, as they lacked access to 
an internet device or to a quiet space to learn. Others 
lost the entitlement to free school lunches. During 
school closure and quarantines, the longer periods spent 
at home resulted in an increase in reported cases of 
violence against children, and of cases of children being 
sexually exploited via the internet.

Preparations for an EU Child Guarantee continued. 
A scheme requested by the European Parliament, it 
aims to provide all children with equal access to basic 
services,  focusing  on  healthcare,  education,  early 
childhood education and care, decent housing and 
adequate nutrition. The EU Child Guarantee is expected 
to be adopted in 2021.

FRA OPINION 8�1

The  European  Commission  should 
consider the impact of COVID-19 when 
preparing to launch initiatives under 
the EU Child Guarantee� The guarantee 
should  define  targeted  initiatives 
and  allocate  sufficient  funding  to 
protect the most vulnerable children, 
especially in the areas of education, 
housing, health and social welfare�

EU Member States should continue 
their efforts to ensure that all children, 
especially the most vulnerable, have 
access to school on equal terms, and 
to  protect  children  from  violence� 
Member States should make sure that 
economic measures to support families 
with children produce a sustainable 
benefit and are accessible to the most 
vulnerable  families,  such  as  Roma 
and migrant families� For example, 
Member States could assess the need 
to review the threshold for accessing 
regular  social  payments  for  low-
income families�

To develop evidence-based policies, 
Member  States  and  the  European 
Commission  should  collect  data 
assessing children’s own experiences 
of, and views on, the impact of the 
pandemic on their physical and mental 
well-being�

228

229229

FRA OPINION 8�2

The  European  Commission  and  EU 
Member  States  should  strengthen 
efforts  to  relocate  unaccompanied 
and other vulnerable children currently 
living in Member States where they 
encounter  inadequate  reception 
conditions�  Member  States  should 
consider existing good practice in the 
relocation of children to ensure the 
best interests of the child throughout 
the procedure�

Member States should make every 
effort  to  ensure  the  protection  of 
children,  making  sure  reception 
conditions respect minimum standards 
for a dignified standard of living and 
child-appropriate facilities, which the 
Reception Conditions Directive sets 
out�

Member  States  should  develop 
credible and effective systems that 
will make it unnecessary to detain 
children for asylum or return purposes�

Children arriving in Europe are entitled to protection 
under Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 
and to adequate reception conditions in accordance with 
the Reception Conditions Directive. The directive requires 
Member States to assess the reception needs of children 
and provide access to education and to an adequate 
standard of living, among others. However, in daily 
practice, reception conditions raise serious concerns 
in some Member States, with overcrowded centres, 
inadequate hygiene, or a lack of child-appropriate 
reception centres.

Children with families and unaccompanied children 
continue to face detention. Although EU law does not 
prohibit  the  administrative  detention  of  children  in 
a migration context, undocumented children, and children 
applying for asylum or in a return procedure, should 
not be deprived of liberty. Detention of children is to be 
understood only as an exceptional measure of last resort.

The  European  Commission  launched  the  Pact  on 
Migration  and  Asylum,  which  proposes  a  set  of 
solidarity  mechanisms  for  moments  of  pressure, 
including relocation. The joint efforts of the European 
Commisssion, Greek authorities and 10 Member States 
allowed the relocation of 573 unaccompanied children, 
and 771 children in families, from the Greek hotspots.
Meanwhile, there are still around 1,000 children in 
insecure accomodation in Greece. Around 100 of them 
live in hotspots.

Article  49  of  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights guarantees important safeguards for the 
presumption of innocence and right of defence. 
Article 24 makes the best interests of the child 
a primary consideration. The Procedural Safeguards 
Directive for children who are suspects or accused 
persons in criminal proceedings (2016/800/EU) 
defines and expands on those points. It requires 
Member States to promptly inform children and their 
parents of their rights when children are suspects or 
accused persons, ensure a lawyer assists the child, 
and assess the individual situation of each child.

FRA OPINION 8�3

EU Member States should strengthen 
efforts to implement the Procedural 
Safeguards Directive (2016/800/EU) 
in the daily practice of professionals� 
They could do so by providing training 
and  professional  guidance  to  all 
practitioners, including police officers, 
judges, lawyers and prosecutors�

By  the  end  of  2020,  most  Member  States  had 
amended their national laws to incorporate the 
directive. The deadline to do so was 11 June 2019. However, the infringement 
procedures that began against seven Member States in 2019 remained open 
at the end of 2020.

230
230

231

Index of country 
references
AT  216, 220, 221

BE  214

BG  219, 226, 227, 228

CY  224, 226, 227

CZ  227

DA  220

DE  214, 217, 219, 221, 223, 227

ES  218, 219, 220, 221, 224

FI  218

FR  214, 216, 221, 223, 224

GR  219, 221, 222, 224, 

HR  221, 224, 226, 227, 228

HU  219, 224

IE  214, 218, 220

IT  224

LT  216, 217, 218, 228

LU  223, 228

LV  221, 227

MT  224, 226, 227

NL  218, 223

PL  226, 228

RO  220

SE  214

SI  219, 221, 226, 227

SK  218, 219

UK  214, 224

Endnotes

1 

2 

3 

Eurostat, ‘People at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age and sex’ 
[ilc_peps01], data last updated on 6 January 2021.

FRA (2020), Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 
implications – Bulletins, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

FRA (2020), Roma and Travellers in six countries, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office.

4  European Parliament, ‘Texts adopted – Reducing inequalities with a special 

focus on child poverty’, November 2015.

5  European Commission (2020), Feasibility study for a child guarantee, 

Luxembourg, Publications Office, March 2020.

6  European Commission (2020), ‘Child Guarantee Commission roadmap’, 

August 2020.

7  European Commission (2020), ‘Feedback received on: Basic services for 

children in need – European Child Guarantee’, October 2020.

8  Germany, Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and 

Youth (2020), ‘Joint declaration for strong families and against child poverty’ 
(‘Gemeinsame Erklärung für starke Familien und gegen Kinderarmut’), 
December 2020.

9  Eurofound (2020), ‘Living, working and COVID-19’, 28 September 2020.

10  Vote for children, ‘European Parliament Intergroup on Children’s Rights 

statement on the impact of COVID-19 on children’.

11  Austria, Federal Ministry of Work, Family and Youth (2020), Directives 

for the Family Crisis Fund (Richtlinien für den Familienkrisenfonds) and 
Directives for the granting of financial support to recipients of social 
assistance or guaranteed minimum benefits (Richtlinien für die Gewährung 
von Zuwendungen aus dem Familienhärteausgleich an Sozialhilfe bzw. 
Mindestsicherungsbezieher/innen infolge der COVID-19-Krisensituation), 2020.

12  France, Ministry of Solidarity and Health (Ministère des Solidarités et de la 

Santé) (2020), ‘Lockdown: Violence against children in the home’ (‘Période de 
confinement: Violences faites aux enfants à leur domicile’), 18 March 2020.

13  Lithuania, Law on one-time child payment aimed at mitigating the 

consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic No� XIII-3030 (Lietuvos Respublikos 
vienkartinės išmokos vaikams, skirtos COVID-19 (koronaviruso infekcijos) 
pandemijos padariniams mažinti įstatymas Nr. XIII-3030), 9 June 2020.

14  See for example Eurochild (2020), ‘Growing up in lockdown: Europe’s children 

in the age of COVID-19’, February 2020; Plataforma de infancia (2020), Medidas 
prioritarias para la infancia en la crisis del COVID-19.

15  United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) (2020), Supporting families and 

children beyond COVID-19: Social protection in southern and eastern Europe 
and Central Asia, August 2020.

16  FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma 

and Travellers, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

17  Lithuania, Law on the Amendment of Arts. 17 and 18 of the Law on Child 

Benefits No. I-621 No. XIII-2884 (Lietuvos Respublikos Išmokų vaikams įstatymo 
Nr. I-621 17 ir 18 straipsnių pakeitimo įstatymas Nr. XIII-2884), 7 May 2020.

18  Germany, Federal Ministry of Family Affairs (2020), ‘Emergency KiZ helps 

families with low incomes in the Corona period’ (‘Notfall-KiZ hilft Familien mit 
kleinen Einkommen in der Corona-Zeit’), 1 April 2020.

19  Council of the European Union (2020), ‘Strengthening minimum income 

protection to combat poverty and social exclusion in the COVID-19 pandemic 
and beyond’, 9 October 2020.

20  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 26 October 2012.

21  FRA (2020), Bulletin #1 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental rights 

implications, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

22  Finland, Finland, Ministry of Education and Culture (Opetus- ja 

kulttuuriministeriö/Undervisnings- och kulturministeriet), Government Decree 
on temporary restrictions on the obligation to organise early childhood 
education and care, education and training (Valtioneuvoston asetus 
varhaiskasvatuksen sekä opetuksen ja koulutuksen järjestämisvelvollisuutta 
koskevista väliaikaisista rajoituksista), 6 April 2020.

23  Finland, Act No� 521/2020 (Laki perusopetuslain väliaikaisesta muuttamisesta/

Lag om temporär ändring av lagen om grundläggande utbildning), Section 20a, 
26 June 2020.

230

231

24  Lithuania, Ministry of Social Security and Labour and Ministry of Education, Science, and Sport, Methodological recommendations for 

organizing free meals for pupils during emergency state and (or) quarantine, 19 August 2020.

25  Ireland, Children’s Right Alliance (2020), ‘Food provision scheme’, June 2020.

26  Slovakia, Inštitút vzdelávacej politiky (2020), ‘How to ensure access to education for all children in times of crisis’ (‘Ako v čase krízy 

zabezpečiť vzdelávanie pre všetky deti’), April 2020.

27  Spain, Ministry of the Presidency, Relations with the Cortes and Democratic Memory (Ministerio de la Presidencia, Relaciones con las 

Cortes y Memoria Democrática), Royal Decree-Law 7/2020 of 12 March adopting urgent measures to respond to the economic impact 
of COVID-19 (Real Decreto-ley 7/2020, de 12 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes para responder al impacto económico del 
COVID-19), 12 March 2020.

28  Spain, Plataforma de infancia (2020), ‘100 measures to protect children during the COVID-19 crisis’ (‘100 medidas para proteger a la 

infancia en la crisis del COVID-19’).

29  Spain, Ombudsperson (Defensor del Pueblo) (2020), Actuaciones del Defensor en la pandemia del coronavirus, 10 December 2020.

30  FRA (2020), Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Bulletin 3, page 14, Luxembourg, Publications Office

31  FRA (2020), Bulletin #5 – Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

32  Bulgaria, Ombudsperson of the Republic of Bulgaria (Омбудсман на Република България) (2020), ‘The Ombudsperson Diana Kovacheva 

is asking the Ministry of Education and Science about 70,000 children without tablets or internet access’ (‘Омбудсманът Диана 
Ковачева пита МОН за 70 000 деца без таблети и достъп до интернет’), 9 September 2020.

33  Bulgaria, Ministry of Education and Science (Министерство на образованието и науката) (2020), ‘BGN 14 million are given for the 
purchase of laptops for 12,000 students and 4,000 teachers’ (‘14 млн лв. се предоставят за закупуване на преносими компютри 
за 12 хиляди ученици и 4 хиляди учители’), 14 October 2020.

34  Bulgaria, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Министерство на Труда и Социалната Политика), Nearly 1,800 children and young 

people from social services will receive computer equipment with funds from the Ministry of health (БЛИЗО 1800 ДЕЦА И МЛАДЕЖИ 
ОТ СОЦИАЛНИ УСЛУГИ ЩЕ ПОЛУЧАТ КОМПЮТЪРНА ТЕХНИКА СЪС СРЕДСТВА ОТ МТСП), 17 August 202.

35  Germany, Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) (2020), ‘Karliczek: 500 Millionen 

für Schülerlaptops können fließen’, 3 July 2020.

36  Slovenia, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (Ministrstvo za izobraževanje, znanost in šport) (2020), ‘Report of Ministry’s measures 
in the field of education during the COVID-19 epidemic for the period of distance education’ (‘Poročilo o izvedbi ukrepov na področju 
vzgoje in izobraževanja v času epidemije Covid-19’), 5 June 2020.

37  Greece, Act of Legislative Content O.G A’84/13-4-2020, Measures to tackle the continuing impact of the Coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic 
and other urgent provisions (Μέτρα για την αντιμετώπιση των συνεχιζόμενων συνεπειών της πανδημίας του κορωνοϊού COVID-19 και 
άλλες κατεπείγουσες διατάξεις), 13 April 2020.

38  Greece, Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs, ‘We continue to technologically equip our schools’ (‘Συνεχίζουμε να 

εξοπλίζουμε τεχνολογικά τα σχολεία μας’), 23 April 2020.

39  Hungary, Governmental Decree no� 501/2020 on measures that provide for help to families affected by digital education for the period 

of the state of danger (501/2020� (XI� 14�)) (501/2020. (XI. 14.) Korm. rendelet a veszélyhelyzet ideje alatt a digitális oktatással érintett 
családokat segítő intézkedésekről), 15 November 2020.

40  Slovakia, Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport (Ministerstva školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu) (2020), ‘Teachers in distance 

learning will receive extra mobile data’ (‘Učitelia v dištančnom vzdelávaní dostanú mobilné dáta navyše’), 24 October 2020.

41  Greece, Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs, From today toll-free access from mobile networks to digital platforms 

for distance learning (Από σήμερα η χωρίς χρέωση πρόσβαση από κινητά δίκτυα σε ψηφιακές πλατφόρμες για την εξ αποστάσεως 
εκπαίδευση), 8 April 2020.

42  Bulgaria, Ministry of Education and Science (Министерство на образованието и науката) (2020), Parliamentary control: Response of 
the Minister for Education and Science to a question about the measures and decisions taken by the Ministry of Education and Science 
to keep students and children in the education system, in the event of the introduction of distance learning in the context of COVID-19 
(Парламентарен контрол: отговор на министъра на образованието и науката на въпрос относно мерките и решенията, 
които предприема МОН, за да не останат учениците и децата извън системата на образованието, при евентуално 
въвеждане на дистанционно обучение в контекста на COVID-19), 16 September 2020.

43  European Commission (2020), ‘Digital education action plan (2021–2027)’, 30 September 2020.

44  European Parliament (2020), ‘COVID-19: MEPs call for measures to close the digital gap in education’, press release, 22 October 2020.

45  CoE (2020), ‘, Guidelines for Member States on Children’s Data Protection in an Education setting’, 20 November 2020.

46  World Health Organization (WHO) (2020), ‘The rise and rise of interpersonal violence – An unintended impact of the COVID-19 response 
on families’, June 2020; WHO (2020), ‘Countries failing to prevent violence against children, agencies warn’, June 2020; Unicef (2020), 
Protecting children from violence in the time of COVID-19, August 2020.

47  CoE (2020), ‘COVID-19 confinement: States must step up protection of children against sexual exploitation and abuse says Lanzarote 
committee’, April 2020; CoE (2020), ‘Statement by the Lanzarote Committee Chair and Vice-Chairperson on stepping up protection of 
children against sexual exploitation and abuse in times of the COVID-19 pandemic’, April 2020.

48  WHO (2020), Global status report on preventing violence against children 2020, June 2020.

49  Austria, Rat auf Draht (2020), ‘Child Helpline Day: Gerade jetzt ist es wichtig, fuer Kinder und Jugendliche da zu sein’, May 2020.

50  Spain, ANAR Foundation (2020), ‘More than 11,600 children at risk of abuse have asked for help through the ANAR chat’ (‘Más de 11.600 

menores en riesgo de maltrato han pedido ayuda a través del Chat ANAR’).

51  Europol (2020), ‘Exploiting isolation: Offenders and victims of online child sexual abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic’, June 2020.

52  Europol (2020), ‘Catching the virus cybercrime, disinformation and the COVID-19 pandemic’, April 2020.

53  European Commission (2020), EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse, COM(2020) 607 final, Brussels, 24 July 

2020

232

233

54  European Commission (2020), Proposal for a regulation on a temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC as 

regards the use of technologies by number independent interpersonal communications service providers for the processing of personal 
and other data for the purpose of combatting child sexual abuse online, COM(2020) 568 final, 10 September 2020.

55  Directive 2011/93/EU of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, 

and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA, 13 December 2011.

56  European Commission, ‘Infringement decisions’, July 2019.

57  Council of Europe (2020, Keeping children safe from child sexual abuse in times of Covid-19 pandemic, 2020.

58  Ireland, Legal Aid Board (2020), ‘Legal Aid Board launches legal and mediation information helpline’, 1 April 2020.

59  Romania, National Agency for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (Agenția Națională pentru Egalitatea de Șanse între Femei și 

Bărbați) (2020), ‘Action Plan on preventing and combating domestic violence, in the light of the measures imposed at national level 
to combat the spread of COVID-19’ (‘Plan de măsuri privind prevenirea și combaterea violenței domestice, pe fondul măsurilor impuse la 
nivel național pentru combaterea răspândirii COVID-19’).

60  Denmark, Ministry of Social Affairs and the Interior (Social- og Indenrigsministeriet), Political agreement on initiatives on vulnerable 

groups in relation to COVID-19 (Aftale om initiativer for sårbare og udsatte grupper i forbindelse med COVID-19), 17 April 2020.

61  Croatia, Ministry of the Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova) (n.d.), ‘Safety of children and families in the age of coronavirus’ 

(‘Sigurnost djece i obitelji u doba koronavirusa’).

62  Latvia, Ministry of Welfare, Information materials on the risks of grooming have been created (Izveidoti informatīvie materiāli par 

grūminga riskiem), September 2020.

63  Slovenia, Human Rights Ombudsperson (Varuh človekovih pravic), ‘Za žrtve nasilja od začetka januarja tudi brezplačna in anonimna 

številka SOS telefona’, 12 January 2021.

64  Slovenia, Human Rights Ombudsperson (Varuh človekovih pravic), ‘If You See Injustice, Use Justice!’, 18 November 2020.

65  Eurostat, ‘Asylum and first time asylum applicants by citizenship, age and sex – annual aggregated data’ [MIGR_ASYAPPCTZA$DV_618], 

last accessed on 22 April 2021.

66  Eurostat, ‘Asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors – annual data’ [TPS00194], last accessed on 22 April 2021.

67  Human Rights Watch (2020), ‘The Pact on Migration and Asylum’, 8 October 2020; Platform for International Cooperation on 

Undocumented Migrants (2020), ‘More detention, fewer safeguards: How the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum creates new 
loopholes to ignore human rights obligations’, 14 October 2020; Caritas Europa (2020), ‘Analysis of the EU Pact on Migration and 
Asylum’, 9 December 2020.

68  European Commission (2020), Proposal for a regulation on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC) 

2003/109 and the proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund], COM(2020) 610 final.

69  FRA (2020), Relocating unaccompanied children: Applying good practices to future schemes, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

70  European Commission (2020), ‘Relocation of unaccompanied children from Greece’, 8 July 2020.

71 

International Organization for Migration (IOM( (2020), Voluntary relocation scheme from Greece to other European Countries – Factsheet, 
23 December 2020.

72  European Economic and Social Committee (2020), ‘The protection of unaccompanied migrant minors in Europe (own-initiative opinion)’, 

18 September 2020.

73  UN (2020), A.B. v. Spain, 7 February 2020; UN (2020), S.M.A. v. Spain, 28 September 2020; UN (2020), L.D. v. Spain, 28 September 2020; 

UN (2020), M.B. v. Spain, 28 September 2020.

74  FRA (2020), Migration: Key fundamental rights concerns – Quarterly bulletin 2- 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office; Council of Europe 
(2020) Comprehensive report on the Review of the implementation of Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)9 of the Committee of Ministers 
to member states on life projects for unaccompanied migrant minors, 7 January 2021.

75  Spain, Ministry of the Interior (Ministerio del Interior) (2020), ‘Balance sheets and reports 2020’ (‘Balances e informes 2020’).

76  Spain, Government of the Canary Islands (Gobierno de Canarias) (2020), ‘Gran Canaria will have two new resources for the care 

and reception of unaccompanied minors’ (‘Gran Canaria contará con dos nuevos recursos para la atención y acogida de menores no 
acompañados’), 6 February 2020.

77  Spain, Ministry of the Interior (Ministerio del Interior) (2020), ‘Balance sheets and reports 2020’ (‘Balances e informes 2020’).

78  Spain, Save the Children (2020), ‘Canary islands: Save the Children calls on the government for a coordinated plan to welcome and 

protect migrant and refugee children to prevent violations of children’s rights’ (‘Canarias: Save the Children pide al gobierno un plan 
coordinado de acogida y protección de la infancia migrante y refugiada para evitar las vulneraciones de derechos de los niños y niñas’), 
4 December 2020.

79  Spain, Government of the Canary Islands (Gobierno de Canarias) (2020), ‘Canary Islands to submit to the State a report with proposals 
for the care of unaccompanied foreign minors’ (‘Canarias elevará al Estado un informe con propuestas para la atención de los menores 
extranjeros no acompañados’), 20 November 2020.

80  Spain, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2020), ‘UNHCR and IOM call for an urgent and coordinated response to 
the alarming conditions of reception of refugees and migrants in Melilla’ (‘ACNUR y OIM piden una respuesta urgente y coordinada ante 
las alarmantes condiciones de recepción de refugiados y migrantes en Melilla’), 29 August 2020.

81  Spain, Ombudsperson (Defensor del Pueblo) (2020), ‘Traslado del CETI de Melilla a la península, de los residentes solicitantes de asilo en 
situación de especial vulnerabilidad, como personas de riesgo frente a la COVID-19, familias con menores y mujeres solas’, 29 July 2020.

82  France, Ombudsperson (Défenseur des Droits) (2020), ‘Visit of the defender of rights on Tuesday 22 and Wednesday 23 September in 

Calais’ (‘Visite de la Défenseure des droits mardi 22 et mercredi 23 septembre à Calais’), 24 September 2020.

83  Cyprus, Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights (Επίτροπος Διοικήσεως και Προστασίας Ανθρωπίνων 

Δικαιωμάτων) (2020), Εκθέσεις, 9 December 2020.

84  Cyprus, Commissioner for Children’s Rights (Επίτροπος Προστασίας των Δικαιωμάτων του Παιδιού), ‘Παρέμβαση Επιτρόπου για 

συνθήκες διαβιωσης σε κεντρα φιλοξενίας αιτητών ασύλου’, 18 January 2021.

232

233

85  CoE, (2021), ‘Cypriot authorities should investigate allegations of pushbacks and ill-treatment of migrants’,18 March 2021

86  UNHCR (2020), ‘Mediterranean situation’, 31 December 2020.

87  UNHCR (2020), ‘A month after Moria fires, UNHCR warns of worsening conditions ahead of winter’, 9 October 2020.

88  International Rescue Committee (2020), ‘Cruelty of containment’, 17 December 2020.

89  Greece, National Centre for Social Solidarity (2020), ‘Situation update: Unaccompanied children (UAC) in Greece’ (‘Επικαιροποιημένα 

στατιστικά στοιχεία για την κατάσταση των ασυνόδευτων ανηλίκων στη χώρα’), 15 December 2020.

90  Greece, information submitted by FRA National Liaison Officer to FRA, March 2021.

91  Lumos (2020), Cracks in the system, 23 June 2020.

92  European Commission (2020), ‘EMN Inform: Missing unaccompanied minors in the EU, Norway and the UK’, 2020.

93  FRA (2020), Fundamental rights report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

94  Greece, Provisions of penitentiary legislation, provisions on the Welfare Fund for Security Forces employees and other provisions of 

Ministry of Citizen’s Protection and Ministry of Migration and Asylum competence (Ρυθμίσεις σωφρονιστικής νομοθεσίας, διατάξεις 
για το Ταμείο Προνοίας Απασχολουμένων στα Σώματα Ασφαλείας και λοιπές διατάξεις αρμοδιότητας Υπουργείου Προστασίας του 
Πολίτη και Υπουργείου Μετανάστευσης και Ασύλου), 11 December 2020.

95  CoE (2020), ‘Anti-torture Committee calls on Greece to reform its immigration detention system and stop pushbacks’, 

19 November 2020.

96  Greece, National Centre for Social Solidarity (2020), ‘Situation update: Unaccompanied children (UAC) in Greece’ (‘Επικαιροποιημένα 
στατιστικά στοιχεία για την κατάσταση των ασυνόδευτων ανηλίκων στη χώρα’), 15 December 2020. See also, Greek National 
Commission for Human Rights, Reference Report on the Refugee and Migrant Issue (Part B), September 2020.

97  Malta, information provided to FRA by UNHCR Malta, February 2021.

98  Slovenia, information provided to FRA by Slovenian Police, February 2021.

99  Data provided to FRA by the Office of the Ombudsperson for children, Croatia, March 2021.

100 Poland, information provided to FRA by the Polish Border Guard, February 2021.

101 UN (2020), Report on ending immigration detention of children and seeking adequate reception and care for them, 20 July 2020.

102 Greece, Law 4554/2018 on guardianship of unaccompanied minors (ΕφημεριΔα τησ κυβερνησεωσ τησ ελληνικησ Δημοκρατιασ), 

18 July 2018.

103 UNHCR (2020), Greece Factsheet, 1-29 February 2020; METAdrasi (2020), ‘Announcement of METAdrasi on the Committee of 
Unaccompanied Minors.’ (Ανακοίνωση της ΜΕΤΑδρασης για την Επιτροπεία Ασυνόδευτων Ανηλίκων), 27 February 2020.

104 UNHCR (2020), ‘Relocation of UASC from Greece explainer’, 31 August 2020.

105 Malta, Minor Protection (Alternative Care) Act, 1 July2020.

106 Bulgaria, Asylum and Refugees Act (Закон за убежището и бежанците), 1 December 2002.

107 Information provided to FRA by the Cypriot Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance, February 2021.

108 Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are 

suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings, 21 May 2016.

109 Bulgaria, ‘Infringement Decisions’ (INFR(2019)0164), 23 July 2019.

110 Croatia, ‘Infringement Decisions’ (INFR(2019)0203), 23 July 2019.

111  Cyprus, ‘Infringement Decisions’ (INFR(2019)0175), 23 July 2019.

112  Czechia, ‘Infringement Decisions’ (INFR(2019)0180), 23 July 2019.

113  Germany, ‘Infringement Decisions’ (INFR(2019)0183),23 July 2019.

114 Greece, ‘Infringement Decisions’ (INFR(2019)0191), 23 July 2019.

115  Malta, ‘Infringement Decisions’ (INFR(2019)0227),23 July 2019

116 European Commission (2020), ‘Infringement decisions’,14 May 2020.

117  Cyprus, Office of the Law Commissioner, Draft law entitled ‘Law on children in conflict with the law of 2020’ (Νομοσχέδιο με τίτλο ‘Ο 

Περί Παιδιών σε Σύγκρουση με το Νόμο Νόμος του 2020), 2020.

118 Greece, Law 4689/2020 – GG 103/A/27-5-2020 (Codified) (Νόμος 4689/2020 – ΦΕΚ 103/Α/27-5-2020 (Κωδικοποιημένος)), May 2020.

119 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 

(2002/584/JHA), 13 June 2002.

120 Slovenia, Act amending the Criminal Procedure Act (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o kazenskem postopku), 

17 December 2020.

121  Malta, Act XVIII of 2020, Criminal Code (Amendment No� 2) Act, 7 April 2020.

122 Latvia, Amendments to the Criminal Law (Grozījumi Krimināllikumā) (Nr� 357/Lp13), December 2020.

123 Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice (Министерство на правосъдието) (2020), Draft amendments and supplements to the Criminal Procedure 

Code (Закон за изменение и допълнение на Наказателно-процесуалния кодекс), 31 July 2020.

124 Bulgaria (2020), Amendments and supplements to the Criminal Procedure Code (Законопроект за изменение и допълнение на 

Наказателно-процесуалния кодекс), 10 November 2020.

125 Poland, Ministry of Justice (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości), Draft Act on Juveniles (Projekt ustawy o nieletnich), March 2019.

126 Luxembourg, Ministry of Education, Children and Youth (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse), Answer to 
parliamentary question No� 1482 concerning Security Unit for Juvenile Offenders in Dreiborn (Réponse à la question parlementaire 
no. 1482 concernant l’Unité de sécurité pour mineurs délinquants à Dreiborn), 13 January 2020.

127 Luxembourg, Parliament, State Council opinion 7276/03 (Avis du Conseil d’État sur le projet de loi 7276); Consultative Commission 

234

235

on Human Rights opinion on bill No� 7276 (Avis de la Commission Consultative des Droits de l’Homme sur le projet de loi 7276); 
Ombudscommittee for the Children Rights opinion on bill No� 7276, (Avis 7276/05 de l’Ombuds Comité fir d’Rechter vum Kand).

128 Bulgaria, National Institute of Justice (Национален институт на правосъдието) (2020), The mandatory initial training curricula for 

judges (Програми за начално обучение), 14 September 2020.

129 Poland, Włodarczyk-Madejska, J. (2020), ‘Effectiveness of detention measures in juvenile proceedings’ (‘Efektywność środków 

izolacyjnych orzekanych wobec nieletnich’), Prawo w Działaniu, Vol. 43, pp. 172–210.

130 Croatia, Police Academy (Policijska akademija) (2020), Specialist training course on juvenile delinquency and crime against youth and 

family (‘Nastavljen specijalizirani tečaj za maloljetničku delinkvenciju’), 25 May 2020.

131  Lithuania, Police department under the Ministry of the Interior (Policijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vidaus reikalų 

ministerijos), written communication with the FRANET contractor Lithuanian Social Research Centre, 17 September 2020.

132 Ibid.

234

235

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

9

9�1� 

EU AND MEMBER STATES STRIVE TO IMPROVE VICTIMS’ 
RIGHTS PROTECTION 

9�1�1�  EU MEASURES SET NEW INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 

9�1�2�  SUPPORT FOR VICTIMS IN PROCEEDINGS GROWS, BUT 

CHALLENGES REMAIN 

9�1�3�  VICTIM COMPENSATION 

9�2� 

VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

9�2�1�  EU POLICIES COUNTERING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 

9�2�2�  ISTANBUL CONVENTION GUIDES NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 

242

242

244

245

246

246

247

9�2�3�  IMPORTANT PROGRESS IN COUNTERING INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE  249

9�2�4�  PANDEMIC SPARKS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONCERNS 

9�3� 

CHALLENGES TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE PERSIST 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

250

251

256

259

236

237

UN & CoE

13 

16 

20 

28 

January

The Group of Experts on 
Action Against Violence 
Against Women and 
Domestic Violence 
(GREVIO) publishes its 
first (baseline) evaluation 
report on Italy�

GREVIO publishes 
its first (baseline) 
evaluation report on 
the Netherlands�

In an urgent opinion, the 
Council of Europe’s (CoE’s) 
Venice Commission, jointly 
with its Directorate General 
of Human Rights and Rule 
of Law, concludes that the 
amendments to the laws on 
the judiciary passed by the 
Polish Sejm (lower house of 
parliament) on 20 December 
2019 and at that time under 
deliberation in the Senate may 
further undermine judicial 
independence�

By adopting Resolution 2316 
(2020) on the functioning 
of democratic institutions in 
Poland, the Parliamentary 
Assembly of the CoE (PACE) 
votes to open a monitoring 
procedure for Poland, 
declaring that recent 
reforms “severely damage 
the independence of the 
judiciary and the rule of 
law”�

6

31 

March

UN Statistical Commission adopts a new Sustainable 
Development Goal indicator to measure “proportion 
of the population who have experienced a dispute 
in the past two years and who accessed a formal or 
informal dispute resolution mechanism”, capturing 
the justice problems people face and how they try to 
resolve them�

CoE publishes 2019 report on judicial 
independence and impartiality in the 
member states� It expresses concerns 
about the developments and situations 
in certain member states, which 
have the potential to jeopardise the 
independence of the judiciary�

6 

April

GREVIO publishes its first General Activity Report, accounting for its first four years of monitoring work (2015-
2019)� This report is the first to offer insights into the trends and challenges in the implementation of the Istanbul 
Convention� Explaining its mandate, composition and working methods, the report demonstrates how, as an 
independent monitoring body, GREVIO has joined the ranks of other global and regional women’s rights monitoring 
bodies and mandates�

5 

May

In Kövesi v. Romania (No� 3594/19), European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) holds, among others, that the right 
of the anticorruption chief prosecutor to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on 
Human Rights (ECHR) was violated when she was dismissed for expressing her critical opinion on legislative 
reforms that could have an impact on the judiciary and its independence, and on the fight against corruption�

10

9-11

24

June

The Council of Europe’s 
European Commission for the 
Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) 
adopts a ‘Declaration on 
lessons learnt and challenges 
faced by the judiciary during 
and after the COVID19 
pandemic’�

CoE’s Group of Experts on Action 
against Trafficking in Human Beings 
(GRETA) publishes its third reports on 
Austria, Slovakia and Cyprus, focusing 
on victims’ access to justice and 
effective remedies and examining 
progress in the implementation of 
previous GRETA recommendations�

GRETA publishes new 
guidance for states on the 
entitlement of victims of 
trafficking, and persons at 
risk of being trafficked, to 
international protection�

236

237

UN & CoE

July

17 

UN Human Rights Council adopts a resolution (A/HRC/44/L�7) on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, 
jurors and assessors, and the independence of lawyers� It calls upon all states to guarantee the independence of 
judges and lawyers and the objectivity and impartiality of prosecutors, and their ability to perform their functions 
accordingly�

September

21 

GREVIO publishes its first (baseline) evaluation report on Belgium�

October

9 

22 

CoE’s Venice Commission adopts its interim 
report on the impact of measures taken 
as a result of the COVID-19 crisis in the EU 
Member States� It highlights that exceptional 
circumstances must not necessarily entail 
a conflict between effective action to 
deal with the emergency and democratic 
constitutionalism, or between protecting public 
health and the rule of law�

CEPEJ publishes its eighth report, containing 
figures on the efficiency of the functioning of 
judicial systems in Europe�

November

6 

19 

23 

25 

GREVIO publishes 
its first (baseline) 
evaluation report on 
Malta�

GREVIO publishes 
its first (baseline) 
evaluation report 
on Spain�

In its opinion on ‘The 
role of associations of 
judges in supporting 
judicial independence’, the 
CoE’s Consultative Council 
of European Judges (CCJE) 
calls upon member states to 
provide a framework within 
which judges can effectively 
exercise their right to 
associate, and to refrain from 
any interventions that might 
infringe the independence of 
the associations of judges�

In its opinion on ‘The role of 
prosecutors in emergency 
situations, in particular 
when facing a pandemic’, 
the CoE’s Consultative 
Council of European 
Prosecutors (CCPE) calls 
upon member states to 
assume the corresponding 
responsibility of not 
unduly interfering with 
prosecutorial activity�

December

3 

GRETA publishes its third report on Croatia, focusing on victims’ access to justice and effective remedies 
and examining progress in the implementation of previous GRETA recommendations�

238

239

EU

14 

16 

January

European Commission asks the Court of Justice 
of the European Union (CJEU) for interim 
measures regarding the Disciplinary Chamber 
of the Supreme Court in Poland�

In its Resolution 2020/2513 on ongoing hearings 
under Article 7 (1) of the TEU regarding Poland and 
Hungary, European Parliament calls on the Council of 
the European Union to also address new developments 
and assess risks of breaches of the independence of 
the judiciary and freedom of expression; and calls on 
the European Commission to make full use of the tools 
available to address a clear risk of serious breaches by 
Poland and Hungary of the values on which the Union 
is founded�

5 

26

March

The European Commission publishes the Gender 
Equality Strategy 2020-2025� It sets out key actions 
for the next five years and commits the Commission 
to including an equality perspective in all EU policy 
areas, including by supporting and protecting victims 
of gender-based violence�

In Miasto Łowicz v. Skarb Państwa – Wojewoda 
Łódzki (C-559/18 and C-563/18), CJEU holds that 
provisions of national law exposing national 
judges to disciplinary proceedings for submitting 
a reference to the court for a preliminary 
ruling cannot be permitted, as they are likely 
to undermine the effective exercise by the 
national judges concerned of the discretion that 
Article 267 TFEU allows�

8 

April

In Commission v. Poland (C-791/19), CJEU orders that Poland must immediately suspend 
the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary Chamber of 
the Supreme Court with regard to disciplinary cases concerning judges�

11 

—  Commission submits to the European Parliament and the Council its report on the 
implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive, assessing how far Member States 
have taken the necessary measures to comply with the directive (in accordance with 
its Article 29)�

—  Commission submits to the European Parliament and the Council its report on the 

implementation of Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order, assessing 
the application of the directive (in accordance with its Article 23)�

24 

Commission presents its first ever EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020–2025)�

May

June

239

238

UN & CoE

July

10

16 

20 

European Commission publishes 
the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard, 
a comparative overview of 
the efficiency, quality, and 
independence of justice systems 
in all EU Member States�

Grand Chamber of the CJEU passes 
its judgment in Case C-129/19 
concerning the interpretation 
of the Compensation 
Directive (2004/80/EC)� It clarifies 
that under Article 12 (2) of the 
directive, a Member State has to 
provide compensation to victims 
of violent intentional crime 
resident in that Member State�

Council of the EU adopts the 2020 
country-specific recommendations 
of the 2020 European Semester� 
Recommendations to several 
Member States (Croatia, Cyprus, 
Italy, Malta, and Slovakia) relate to 
their justice systems�

September

30 

European Commission publishes the 2020 Rule of Law Report, which emphasises the persisting lack of 
judicial independence in certain countries�

October

2 

7 

In its Resolution 2020/2793, the European 
Parliament calls on the Bulgarian government 
to address its concerns on the rule of law and 
fundamental rights�

European Parliament adopts 
Resolution 2020/2072 on establishing an EU 
Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and 
Fundamental Rights�

November

26

European Parliament adopts its annual report on the situation of fundamental rights in the 
EU between 2018 and 2019� It condemns the efforts in some Member States to weaken the 
separation of powers, and reiterates the need for an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law 
and fundamental rights�

December

17 

In its judgement in joined cases C-352/20 and C-412/20 PPU, CJEU (Grand Chamber) considers that 
evidence of deficiencies in judicial independence in Poland does not in itself justify the judicial authorities 
of other Member States refusing to execute any European arrest warrant that a Polish judicial authority 
issues under the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States�

240

241

At EU level, 2020 brought significant innovations in the political 

and institutional framework on victims’ rights� The European 

Commission established a victims’ rights coordinator, adopted its 

first victims’ rights strategy, for 2020–2025, and set up a victims’ 

rights platform� At national level, the COVID-19 pandemic 

largely dictated developments� It drew attention to domestic 

violence and to difficulties in ensuring access to justice during 

times of severely restricted mobility and public life� Meanwhile, 

challenges to judicial independence persisted in several Member 

States� The Commission published its first ever rule of law report 

in 2020, and the European Council adopted the Regulation on 

a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union 

budget�

240

241

9�1� 
EU AND MEMBER STATES STRIVE TO IMPROVE 
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS PROTECTION

9�1�1�  EU measures set new institutional and policy framework
In 2020, the European Commission took measures that together amount to 
a major overhaul of the institutional and policy framework on victims’ rights 
in the EU. These include:

 ― adopting the first EU strategy 
on  victims’  rights  (2020–
2025);1

 ― establishing the new Victims’ 
Rights  Platform,  bringing 
together  EU-level  actors 
relevant to victims’ rights;2
 ― appointing the Commission’s 
first Coordinator for Victims’ 
Rights.3

The strategy and the platform 
offer an extended framework for 
upholding the rights of victims 
of  crimes  against  the  person 
and  their  access  to  justice  in 
line  with  Article  47  of  the  EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
The strategy also draws on FRA’s 
research.

It focuses on five key priorities: effective communication with victims and 
a safe environment for victims to report crime; improving support and 
protection to the most vulnerable victims; facilitating victims’ access to 
compensation; strengthening cooperation and coordination among all relevant 
actors; and strengthening the international dimension of victims’ rights. 
The success of the new strategy will largely depend on Member States’ 
commitment to putting it into practice.

On 11 May 2020, the Commission submitted its report assessing how far 
the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with the 
Victims’ Rights Directive.4 The report concludes that the implementation of 
the directive is not satisfactory because Member States have incompletely 
or incorrectly incorporated it into national law.

242

243

 
At international level, in 2020 the United Nations (UN), supported by the UN 
Victims’ Rights Advocate and Field Victims’ Rights Advocates, enhanced the 
implementation of its Protocol on Provision of Assistance to Victims of Sexual 
Exploitation and Abuse. The protocol establishes a common set of norms 
and standards to strengthen a coordinated approach to providing assistance 
and support. It prioritises the rights and dignity of victims, regardless of the 
affiliation of the alleged perpetrator.5

FRA ACTIVITY
Fundamental Rights Survey: crime, safety and victims’ rights
FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey collected data in 2019 
from 35,000 interviewees in all EU Member States about 
their experiences, perceptions, and opinions on a range of 
issues that involve human rights.

A special report on crime victimisation and safety, published 
in February 2021, drew on these data. The key findings 
include:

•  Nearly one in 10 people (9 %) in the EU experienced 

physical violence in the five years before the survey, and 
two in five people (41 %) experienced harassment.

•  Some of the groups that experience physical violence 
and harassment at higher rates than average include 
young people, those who consider themselves to be 
part of an ethnic minority, people who self-identify as 
lesbian, gay, bisexual or ‘other’, and persons with health 
problems or a disability.

•  The context and consequences of physical violence 
are different for women and men. Physical violence 
against men often occurs in public places, while women 
more often than men experience violence at home, by 
perpetrators who are family members or relatives. More 
women than men indicate that the violence has had 
various negative psychological consequences.

•  The survey asked about three property crimes. In the 

five years before the survey, 8 % experienced a burglary 
of their home or other property, 8 % experienced online 
banking or payment card fraud, and 26 % experienced 
consumer fraud.

•  Property crimes are reported more often. For example, 

73 % of burglaries were reported to the police, 
compared with only 30 % of incidents of physical 
violence and 11 % of incidents of harassment.

•  While many people would be willing to intervene, call 

the police or give evidence in court as a result of seeing 
a crime take place, 17 % say they are ‘not at all willing’ 
to give evidence in court when witnessing a person 
hit their partner on the street, and 25 % in the case of 
a parent slapping their child. However, these results vary 
considerably between EU Member States.

• 

In the EU, 64 % of women and 36 % of men at least 
sometimes avoid going to places where there are no 
other people around, out of concern that they could 
be physically or sexually assaulted or harassed. Rates 
of various risk avoidance measures are higher still for 
young people.

See FRA (2021), Crime, safety and victims’ rights – 
Fundamental Rights Survey, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office.

242

243

9�1�2�  Support for victims in proceedings grows, but challenges 
remain
Empowering victims is a crucial first step towards granting them effective 
access to justice. A number of Member States took steps to improve the 
provision of victim support services, including the accompaniment of victims 
in criminal proceedings by a person they trust.

In a legislative package amending the Criminal Procedure Code and the Victim 
Support and Financial Compensation Act, the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice 
invited public discussion on proposals to further incorporate the Victims’ Rights 
Directive into Bulgarian legislation.6 They would expand the range of persons 
who would benefit from support services, to include the victim’s relatives; 
reinforce the obligation to inform victims of their rights; and strengthen 
provisions aimed at protecting victims from secondary victimisation.

In Estonia, the Ministry of Social Affairs presented an initiative to develop 
a draft law to amend the Victim Support Act, with a view to improving the 
accessibility of support services and making it easier to receive compensation.7

In Lithuania, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour drafted a Law on 
Support to Victims of Crimes, considering the reasoned opinion that the 
European Commission issued in infringement proceedings.8 The draft provides 
for the establishment of a comprehensive network of accredited generic 
victim support organisations that will perform the various tasks specified 
in Articles 8 and 9 of the Victims’ Rights Directive. They include extensively 
informing victims of their rights and accompanying victims to the institutions 
involved in the investigation or court trial phase of the proceedings.

In Germany the Federal Ministry of Justice and for Consumer Protection 
presented a draft bill, containing a definition for ‘victims of crime’ in criminal 
proceedings to meet the requirements of Article 2 of the Victims’ Rights 
Directive.9

The Serbian government adopted a victims’ rights strategy for 2020–2025, 
which provides for the establishment of a National Service for Assisting 
and Supporting Victims of Crime within all higher courts in Serbia, and for 
a National Network of Victim and Witness Support Services.10

In Luxembourg, legislation was adopted which, in line with Article 13 of the 
Victims’ Rights Directive, entitles victims to legal aid if they are third-country 
nationals or not resident in Luxembourg.11

Still, implementing the Victims’ Rights Directive remains challenging. In 
Slovenia, the legislature entrusted social work centres with the new task of 
victim support in 2019. It is not yet working adequately for victims in practice, 
according to information collected by the ministry in charge. Social work 
centres provide support mainly when victims turn to them for other services.12

In Ireland, the Department of Justice and Equality updated the Victims Charter13 
in February.14 Section 16 informs victims about non-governmental victim 
support services and the Garda Victim Service Offices. However, whereas 
Article 8 of the Victims’ Rights Directive grants victims a right to access 
appropriate support services, this charter has no statutory force and does 
not provide any rights.

“The victims-rights approach 
means encouraging people to 
report allegations, investigating 
these claims with compassion, 
and holding perpetrators 
accountable�”

In the Netherlands, the House of Representatives was reviewing a bill that 
would extend victims’ rights during the trial phase.15

Jane Connors, UN Victims’ Rights 
Advocate, Annual report 2019, p. 6

244

245

Pandemic boosts 
use of technology 
in reporting and 
proceedings

Victims have the rights to initiate an 
investigation and to be heard during 
proceedings, under Article 47 of the Charter 
and Articles 10 and 11 of the Victims’ 
Rights Directive� Despite restrictions on 
freedom of movement due to the COVID-19 
pandemic, several administrations took 
steps to enforce these rights�

Specifically, they extended the application 
of telecommunication technologies in 
various ways to facilitate communication 
between victims and authorities involved 
in proceedings� This occurred, for example, 
in Belgium,* Estonia,** Luxembourg,*** 
Malta**** and Sweden�*****

In Poland, recent COVID-related legislation 
allowed remote interviews with victims� 
Under a new provision of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, questioning of victims 
may take place using simultaneous direct 
transmission of image and sound�******

* Belgium, Law of 31 July 2020, Article 109.

** Estonia, Ministry of Justice 
( Justiitsministeerium) (2020), Response to 
request for information, 24 September 2020.

*** Luxembourg, Act of 20 June 2020 
on the temporary adaptation of certain 
procedural modalities in criminal matters 
(Loi du 20 juin 2020 portant adaptation 
temporaire de certaines modalités 
procédurales en matière pénale).

**** European Network on Victims’ Rights 
(2020), ‘Malta – Specific measures during 
COVID-19 crisis’.

***** Sweden, email correspondence with 
Swedish National Courts Administration 
(Domstolsverket), 30 June 2020.

****** Poland, Act on interest-rate 
subsidies for investment loans offered to 
entrepreneurs affected as a consequence 
of COVID-19 and on simplified procedure 
for the approval of the agreement, 23 June 
2020; Criminal Procedure Code (Ustawa 
z dnia 19 czerwca 2020 r. o dopłatach do 
oprocentowania kredytów bankowych 
udzielanych przedsiębiorcom dotkniętym 
skutkami COVID 19 oraz o uproszczonym 
postępowaniu o zatwierdzenie układu 
w związku z wystąpieniem COVID 19) 
Article 177 (1a)-(1b).

9�1�3�  Victim compensation
In Sweden, the government assigned a special inquirer to investigate 
possibilities of improving and extending state compensation to crime victims.16 
In March 2020, the Swedish Crime Victim Authority (Brottsoffermyndigheten) 
stated that it had recovered SEK 37 million (€ 3.6 million) from perpetrators. 
That is a record amount, marking an increase of just over SEK 2 million 
(€ 192,180) from the previous year.17

In Slovenia, the Human Rights Ombudsperson warned again18 that the right to 
state compensation of victims of criminal offences is limited only to Slovenian 
citizens and citizens of the European Union.

On 16 July 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v. BV.19 
It concerns the interpretation of Article 12 (2) of Directive 2004/80/EC.20

The directive requires all Member States to “ensure that their national rules 
provide for the existence of a scheme on compensation to victims of violent 
intentional crimes committed in their respective territories, which guarantees 
fair and appropriate compensation to victims”.

The CJEU clarified that Article 12 (2) confers the right to obtain compensation 
not only on victims of violent crime who find themselves in a cross-border 
situation, but also on victims who reside in the territory of the Member 
State where the crime was committed. Consequently, if a Member State has 
failed to establish a compensation scheme that meets the requirements of 
Article 12, it is liable to compensate a victim for damages, whether the victim 
is a resident of that Member State or not.

244

245

In Serbia, the Novi Sad Higher Court in April issued a landmark decision21 in 
a case concerning trafficking in human beings. The defendant was sentenced 
to five years and three months in prison and ordered to pay material and 
non-material damages amounting to RSD 1,117,000 (approximately € 10,000). 
Before this judgment, victims could claim damages only through long and 
expensive civil proceedings with uncertain outcomes. In addition, this case 
marked the first time a Serbian court ordered a provisional measure during 
the proceedings – the freezing of the defendant’s bank account – to secure 
a victim’s claim.

9�2� 
VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED AND DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE

9�2�1�  EU policies countering gender-based violence
On 5 March, the European Commission presented its gender equality strategy.22 
It emphasises the objective of ending gender-based violence. To this end, 
the Commission continues to pursue, as a key priority, the EU’s accession 
to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence 
against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention).

Upon the request of the European Parliament,23 the CJEU is currently assessing 
the compatibility, with the EU Treaties, of the modalities of the EU’s accession 
to the Istanbul Convention. On 11 March 2021, Advocate General Hogan 
delivered his Opinion, proposing that the court hold that the Council is entitled 
to wait, without however being forced to do so, for the common agreement 
of all Member States to be bound by the Convention before deciding whether 
and to what extent the EU will accede to it.24 The court’s opinion is expected 
in the second quarter of 2021.

As stated in President von der Leyen’s letter of intent and the Commission 
Work Programme 2021, the Commission intends to also issue a legislative 
proposal to prevent and combat gender-based violence. This legislative 
initiative shares the same objectives as the Istanbul Convention. Depending 
on the outcome of the negotiations on the EU’s accession to the Convention, 
the legislative initiative will either implement the Convention under EU 
competence or implement the rights and obligations under the Convention 
in an alternative way.

The Commission’s determination to improve the protection of women against 
gender-based violence is echoed in the Victims’ Rights Strategy, which 
envisages measures aimed to reinforce protection measures at the level 
of Member States. While the Victims’ Rights Directive grants victims of 
gender-based violence several rights as a group of vulnerable victims, the 
Commission’s recent monitoring report shows that implementation of these 
obligations in the Member States has been uneven.25

As concerns evidence that can serve as a basis for drafting and implementing 
EU policies on gender-based violence, the findings from FRA’s Violence 
against Women survey (published in 201426) remain the primary source for 
comparative data at EU level. These are complemented by FRA’s Fundamental 
Rights Survey report on crime, safety and victims’ rights, published in February 
2021 and introduced above.

As the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) has repeatedly pointed 
out, the availability of comparable data for populating the indicators defined 
by EIGE – e.g. on intimate partner violence – is only slowly improving and 

246

247

 
overall still far from satisfactory.27 In this regard, the EU survey on gender-
based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence 
(EU-GBV survey), coordinated by Eurostat, began fieldwork data collection 
in 2020 on women and men’s experiences of violent crime. However, ten 
EU Member States opted not to participate in this survey, which will be 
completed in 2023.

9�2�2�  Istanbul Convention guides national developments
The Istanbul Convention and the monitoring work of the Group of Experts 
on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) 
together form the main European mechanism for setting and assessing 
standards for measures aimed at preventing gender-based violence and 
providing access to justice to women who are victims of such crimes.

By the end of 2020, all Member States except Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary, 
Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia had ratified the Convention.28 In Czechia, the 
government had planned to formally propose the Convention’s ratification 
to parliament in July 2020, but postponed this.29

The impact of GREVIO’s monitoring reports on Member States’ policies 
continues to be significant. For example, in Finland, the Ministry of Justice 
published an action plan for combating violence against women for 2020–
2023.30 It seeks to respond to GREVIO’s recommendations for Finland.31

Similarly, Portugal incorporated GREVIO’s recommendations in its strategic 
major  planning  options  for  2020–2023.32  In  Belgium,  the  House  of 
Representatives released a ‘Note on political orientation’ on 6 November. 
It refers to the Istanbul Convention and GREVIO’s recommendations as the 
compass guiding political initiatives addressing violence against women.33

247

246

Spain has laid out a five-year road map, in the form of the State Pact on 
Gender-based Violence, towards greater implementation of the Istanbul 
Convention. It identifies a total of 481 individual measures.34 In addition, the 
Spanish government committed to implementing the Istanbul Convention. 
It also expressed its appreciation of the proposals and suggestions made by 
GREVIO, and provided examples of resulting efforts made, notably to offer 
more comprehensive protection to victims of sexual violence.35

In Sweden, the Swedish Gender Equality Agency is actively raising awareness 
among municipalities, regions, and relevant government agencies about the 
findings made by GREVIO in its baseline evaluation report on the country. With 
the help of a website and an explanatory video, it is calling on all relevant 
stakeholders to take an active role in implementing GREVIO’s 41 findings.36

In Cyprus, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation in December on 
a bill on domestic violence and other forms of gender-based violence. It 
aspires to bring national legislation in line with the Istanbul Convention.37

In Slovenia, a discussion emerged concerning the redefinition of the criminal 
offence of rape in accordance with Article 36 of the Istanbul Convention. The 
Human Rights Ombudsperson also observed in its submission to GREVIO that 
there is no special crisis referral centre for victims of rape or sexual violence, 
which would perform a medical and forensic investigation and provide trauma 
assistance and counselling to victims.38

Resistance to the Istanbul Convention continued in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, 
Lithuania,39 Poland, and Slovakia.40

In Hungary, the Ministry of Justice published an overview table on its website, 
indicating which Hungarian legislative measures correlate, in its view, with the 
provisions of the Istanbul Convention. It maintains that Hungary has already 
duly implemented the Convention without ratifying it.41

The Minister for Justice stated that, although the Hungarian legal system 
already grants women a higher level of protection than the Convention, 
Hungary would still not ratify the Convention because it “supports migration 
and maintains that people are not born as men or women, as there are 
also social genders”.42 The provisions of the Istanbul Convention, however, 
seek to ensure that women in migration, just like all other women and girls 
irrespective of their status and irrespective of their gender identity and sexual 
orientation, receive the necessary protection and support for experiences 
of gender-based violence.

In March, the Polish government submitted a state report pursuant to 
Article 68 of the Istanbul Convention. A GREVIO delegation subsequently 
visited Poland from 28 September to 2 October. Yet some high-ranking 
politicians continued to challenge the Convention as “gender gibberish” and 
“neo-Marxist propaganda”,43 and as being “a Convention that makes a number 
of extreme leftist assumptions”,44 according to media reports.

9�2�3�  Important progress in countering intimate partner violence
Several Member States strengthened the legal basis for police measures 
intended to protect women against partner violence, in accordance with 
Articles 50 and 52 of the Istanbul Convention.

A very significant development concerns the anti-violence package that 
the Polish parliament passed in April. The amendments came into force on 
30 November.45 They provide police officers with new powers to immediately 
distance the perpetrator from the victim of violence.

248

249

The act obliges the police to verify at least three times that the perpetrator 
of domestic violence is not violating an order to leave the premises that 
the victim occupies.46 The police must provide victims of domestic violence 
with sufficient information on how to obtain lasting restraining orders and 
about available support services. The responsibility for contacting a support 
organisation remains, however, with the victim.

Estonia introduced emergency barring orders as part of legislation reacting 
to the COVID-19 pandemic. It entered into force on 7 May 2020. According 
to the new provisions, in urgent cases the prosecutor’s office may issue 
a temporary restraining order, and within two working days must inform 
a court so that it can review the admissibility of the order.

Before these amendments, the police were already 
able to ban the offender from the victim’s vicinity 
for up to 12 hours, or longer with the authorisation 
of a prefect.47 However, an evaluation in 2018 
assessed different approaches to the protection 
of victims of partner violence. It advised that 
the prosecutor should gain additional powers to 
impose a temporary restraining order in urgent 
cases, which a court would approve afterwards.48

In Austria, a third Protection from Violence Act 
entered into force on 1 January 2020.49 It provides 
for a ‘prohibition of approach’ to complement 
any police barring order, preventing the alleged 
offender from coming within 100 metres of the 
victim.

Where  legislation  meets  a  Member  State’s 
obligations  to  immediately  protect  a  woman 
against repeat partner violence, the question of 
consistent implementation still arises. For example, 
civil society representatives in Hungary maintained 
that police protection measures are ineffective if 

they depend on the victim’s consent.50

Belgium’s prosecution services have, since 2012, powers to temporarily 
remove an offender who lives under the same roof as the victim. However, 
the legislation in question is used very little, if at all, in some judicial districts, 
according to the GREVIO baseline report.51

9�2�4� Pandemic sparks domestic violence concerns
Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in calls to 
domestic partner violence support services and helplines in many countries, 
overwhelming evidence suggests. These include Belgium,52 Bulgaria,53 
Cyprus,54 Czechia,55 France,56 Germany,57 Greece,58 Ireland,59 Lithuania,60 
Malta,61 Romania,62 Slovakia,63 and Serbia.64

Noteworthy exceptions are Estonia65 and Finland.66 In the Netherlands, on 
9 April, the Sexual Assault Centre informed the public that the number of 
applications for support had declined dramatically after the outbreak of 
the coronavirus.67 In June, the ‘Safe at Home’ organisations (Veilig Thuis 
organisaties) observed that, contrary to what had been expected, the number 
of reports of domestic violence had not increased during the lockdown.68

Overall, however, more victims needed protection, as the increased numbers 
of calls to helplines and domestic violence civil society organisations in many 

249

248

Member States show. Nonetheless, state authorities did not impose protective 
measures against further violence, such as protection orders or arrests, more 
often during this time period, or at least did not do so significantly more 
often. This is the case, for example, in Czechia,69 Ireland,70 and Lithuania.71

Similarly, in May, the Italian National Institute for Statistics (Istituto Nazionale 
di Statistica – ISTAT) issued a report72 based on an analysis of requests for 
support that the national phone helpline received from victims of domestic 
violence from 1 March to 16 April 2020. The helpline registered 5,031 calls 
during this period, a 73 % increase on the same period in 2019. At the same 
time, the cases of domestic abuse that the police registered decreased by 
43.6 %.

In Luxembourg, the number of police interventions and emergency barring 
orders issued during the acute phase of the COVID-19 crisis (March, April and 
May 2020) did not increase substantially compared with the same months 
in previous years.73

More research is clearly required to better understand the pandemic’s impact 
on partner violence and on the reactions of victims and organisations contacted 
by victims, alongside the reasons for non-reporting by victims.

Meanwhile, in Serbia, the Autonomous Women’s Centre reported that several 
women who were victims of violence were fined for breaching the curfew 
while attempting to report their abusers,74 although the police had committed 
to not punishing them.75 The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality 
suggested to the government that women who are victims of violence should 
be exempt from obligatory curfews.76 However, no formal instructions to 
that effect were issued.

FRA ACTIVITY
Highlighting the 
heightened risk of 
domestic violence

In 2020, FRA regularly reported on 
the fundamental rights implications 
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Bulletin 
no. 4 highlighted the impact on 
particular groups, including women 
as victims of domestic violence.

It noted that confinement measures 
exacerbated the risk of domestic 
violence, especially for women and 
children.

See FRA (2020), Coronavirus 
pandemic in the EU – fundamental 
rights implications, Bulletin 4, 
Publications Office, July 2020.

250

251

9�3� 
CHALLENGES TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE 
PERSIST

“Judicial independence is not 
a prerogative or privilege 
in the interests of judges 
and prosecutors� Rather, it is 
a crucial requirement in the 
separation of powers� It is 
needed to ensure impartial 
justice, to prevent corruption, 
and to hold governments and 
others to account� It is, in short, 
a precondition of the rule of law 
in a healthy democracy�”

Marija Pejčinović Burić, Secretary 
General of the Council of Europe, 
Conference of Ministers of Justice of 
the Council of Europe, 9 November 
2020

An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and access 
to justice. Article 19 (1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in connection 
with Article 47 of the Charter, establishes a right to an effective remedy and 
to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court.

The Council of Europe, particularly through European Court of Human Rights 
rulings relating to Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human 
Rights, also plays an important role in ensuring the respect of these principles.77 
The UN, in its 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (Target 16.3), similarly 
expects Member States to promote the rule of law at national and international 
levels and to ensure equal access to justice for all.78

In 2020, judicial independence was also highlighted as one of the crucial 
prerequisites for effective oversight of the proportionality and legality of 
Member States’ emergency measures adopted to combat COVID-19. The 
Venice Commission, for example, highlighted that all Member States’ actions 
to address the COVID-19 crisis must be subject to meaningful judicial review 
by independent courts at national and European levels.79 The President of the 
Council of Europe’s Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) equally 
underlined that the principle of judicial independence should not be called 
into question during the pandemic or any other emergency situation.80 For 
more information, see Chapter 1.

Yet FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey suggests that there is considerable 
scepticism among the general public regarding judicial independence. In 2019, 
some one in four people in the EU (27 %) believed that, in their country, 
judges are never able to do their job free from government influence or that 
they can do so only rarely. 81

251

250

 
FIGURE 9�1: PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES’ ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOB FREE FROM GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE IN THE EU

4

13

28

27

29

Never or rarely

Some of the time

Most of the time

Always

Don't know or prefer not to say

Source: FRA, Fundamental Rights Survey 2019

In September, the European Commission published its first Rule of Law Report, 
providing an overview of significant developments related to the rule of law 
in all 27 EU Member States.82 The issue of justice systems was one of four 
pillars the report focuses on; it also reflects on issues in overcoming the 
COVID-19 pandemic. Judicial independence remains an issue of concern in 
some Member States. Infringement proceedings and Article 7 (1) proceedings 
have been initiated against Poland (initiated by the Commission) and Hungary 
(initiated by the European Parliament). The report also refers to Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Romania, and Slovakia.

Poland’s justice reforms since 2015 have raised serious and persisting concerns, 
the Rule of Law report notes. The reforms affect the Constitutional Tribunal, 
the Supreme Court, ordinary courts, the National Council for the Judiciary, and 
the prosecution service. They have increased the influence of the executive 
and legislative powers over the justice system and therefore weakened 
judicial independence, according to the report.83

Regarding Hungary, the Rule of Law report raises concerns about the 
independence of the Supreme Court (Kuria) in the context of the rules 
on judicial appointments. In late 2019 and early 2020, rules on judicial 
appointment to the Kuria increased the role of parliament in this process, it 
notes. Accordingly, members of the Constitutional Court, who are elected 
by the Parliament, can request an appointment as a judge and then be 
appointed at the Kuria on the termination of their mandate, without going 
through normal procedures.

The Commission also observes that it is difficult for the National Judicial Council 
to counterbalance the powers of the president of the National Office for the 
Judiciary, over whom there is no effective judicial control. While election of 
a new President of the National Office for the Judiciary may open the way 
for reinforced cooperation, no legislative steps have been taken to address 
these structural issues so far, the report notes.84

The Rule of Law report also refers to issues in the composition and functioning 
of the Supreme Judicial Council in Bulgaria.85 The Council of Europe’s Group 
of States against Corruption (GRECO) as well as Venice Commission have 
also identified this as a concern.86 In particular, the overall number of judges 
elected by their peers did not form a majority of the Supreme Judicial Council, 
which is responsible for managing the judiciary and ensuring its independence. 

252

253

Concerns have been raised due to the combination of the powers of the 
Prosecutor General with his position in the Supreme Judicial Council.87

In Croatia, the State Judicial Council lacks sufficient resources to adequately 
fulfil its mandate, and its role in selecting judges has been reduced, the 
Commission notes.88

In Romania, reforms enacted in 2017–2019 have a negative impact on judicial 
independence and continue to apply. In 2020, the Romanian government 
expressed its commitment to restoring the path of judicial reform after the 
backtracking of previous years, leading to a significant decrease in tensions 
with the judiciary, the Commission added.89

Finally, regarding Slovakia, the Commission expressed concern over long-
standing issues regarding the independence and integrity of the justice 
system.90 In April 2020, the Slovakian government announced important 
reform plans to strengthen judicial independence and integrity, and the 
appointment process for the Constitutional Court, the report noted.

In October 2019, the Commission referred Poland to the CJEU on the grounds 
that the disciplinary regime undermines the judicial independence of Polish 
judges and does not ensure the necessary guarantees to protect judges from 
political control.91 In January 2020, the Commission asked the CJEU to impose 
interim measures on Poland, ordering it to suspend the functioning of the 
Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.92

On 8 April 2020, the CJEU ruled that Poland must immediately suspend 
the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary 
Chamber of the Supreme Court with regard to disciplinary cases concerning 
judges. The CJEU confirmed in full the position of the Commission.93 This order 
applies until the CJEU renders its final judgment in the infringement procedure.

On 5 June 2020, the ECtHR gave notification to Poland concerning cases 
of alleged lack of independence of the Supreme Court.94 The applications 
concerned complaints that the two chambers of the Supreme Court were 
constituted on the recommendations of the National Council of the Judiciary, 
whose independence has been repeatedly challenged.

The law governing the functioning of the justice system in Poland entered 
into force on 14 February 2020. It prompted another Commission infringement 
procedure against Poland. In its letter of formal notice of 29 April 2020, the 
Commission states that the law undermines judicial independence and is 
incompatible with the primacy of EU law. Moreover, the new law prevents 
Polish courts from directly applying certain provisions of EU law protecting 
judicial independence, and from sending requests for preliminary rulings on 
such questions to the CJEU.95

Article 7 (1) procedures against Poland continued in 2020. In September, 
the Commission provided the Council of the EU with an update on rule of 
law developments in Poland.96 The Commission particularly focused on 
disciplinary sanctions for judges and the implementation of the CJEU’s order 
of 8 April 2020 on the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court. 
The loss of trust affecting judicial cooperation between the Member States 
was also discussed.

Regarding Article 7 (1) procedures against Hungary, in September the 
Commission provided the Council of the EU with an update on rule of 
law developments since the end of 2019. In November, GRECO issued 
recommendations  on  the  situation  in  Hungary.97  It  concluded  that  its 

252

253

previous three remaining recommendations regarding judges had not been 
implemented.98 In particular, its findings on the powers of the President 
of the National Judicial Office, regarding both the process of appointing or 
promoting candidates for judicial positions and the process of reassigning 
judges, remain of special significance.99

In addition to these developments, the Council of the EU adopted country-
specific recommendations of the 2020 European Semester on 20 July 2020. 
They included specific reference to the justice systems of several EU Member 
States (Croatia, Cyprus, Italy, Malta, and Slovakia).100

Further actions of EU institutions to strengthen rule of law

In July, the European Commission published the eighth edition of its Justice 
Scoreboard. This is an annual comparative overview of the efficiency, quality, 
and independence of justice systems in all EU Member States. In relation to 
judicial independence, the Scoreboard contains data on:

 ― perceived independence of courts and judges (among general public 

and companies);

 ― disciplinary proceedings regarding judges;
 ― authority that can instruct prosecutors in individual cases, and safeguards;
 ― the appointment of members of the Councils for the Judiciary; and
 ― disciplinary proceedings regarding prosecutors.

The 2020 Scoreboard draws on the results of the Eurobarometer survey. 
It shows that, while the effectiveness of justice systems has improved in 
a large majority of Member States, the perception of judicial independence 
has decreased since 2019.101 Interference or pressure from governments and 
politicians often explains the poor perception of independence.

The findings of the Scoreboard are key references for country assessments 
in the European Semester. They also feed into the Commission’s Rule of Law 
report, on the basis of which the Council of the EU launched the annual Rule 
of Law Dialogue at its meeting on 13 October.102

It followed an approach that the German Council Presidency introduced. The 
dialogue is organised into a horizontal (i.e. not a country specific) discussion on 
general rule of law developments in the EU, and country-specific discussions 
addressing key developments one by one in each Member State. At the 
meeting on 13 October, ministers held their first horizontal discussions. The 
Council meeting on 17 November discussed country-specific aspects.103

At this second meeting, the discussion focused on key developments in 
five EU Member States, following the EU protocol order for addressing each 
Member State in turn. In this instance they covered Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, 
Denmark, and Estonia� Subsequent meetings will cover other Member States, 
following protocol order.

254

255

In a resolution that preceded this discussion in the Council, the European 
Parliament proposed an EU mechanism to protect and strengthen democracy, 
the rule of law, and fundamental rights.104 The Parliament reiterated the 
need to protect the independence of the judiciary. It urged the Commission 
to use all instruments to prevent Member States from exposing courts and 
judges to undue pressure.

In December, the Regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the 
protection of the Union’s budget was adopted.105 It aims to protect the financial 
interests of the EU against breaches of the rule of law. It explicitly mentions 
corruption and compromising the independence of the judiciary among the 
indicators of such a breach.

Before the regulation, the European Council adopted formally non-binding 
conclusions on how to apply rule of law conditions to the EU budget.106 The 
regulation applies from 1 January 2021 onwards107 and the Commission will 
adopt guidelines for its application.

254

255

FRA opinions

FRA OPINION 9�1

EU Member States need to follow up 
on their commitment to ensuring full 
and correct implementation of the 
Victims’ Rights Directive� They should 
also further develop the rights of crime 
victims  in  line  with  the  European 
Commission’s victims’ rights strategy�

Member States should take effective 
measures to help implement the right 
of all victims to comprehensive support 
services, including information, advice 
and support relevant to the rights of 
victims and to their appropriate role 
in criminal proceedings�

Victims of crimes against the person have rights to 
recognition and justice as provided for in Article 47 
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In 2020, the 
European Commission created a framework to further 
develop these rights and draw closer to the objective 
of fully acknowledging them and giving them effect. 
Building on the Victims’ Rights Directive, it appointed 
a Victims’ Rights Coordinator, adopted the first EU 
victims’ rights strategy, and established the Victims’ 
Rights Platform. However, to a considerable extent, 
the strategy’s success will depend on Member States’ 
commitment to implementing it.

The strategy identifies key priorities, including supporting 
victims in reporting crimes, improving support and 
protection of vulnerable victims, facilitating victims’ 
access to compensation, and strengthening cooperation 
and coordination among all relevant stakeholders. In all 
these respects, victim support organisations perform 
a crucial role. Therefore, to make the strategy work, 
Member  States’  readiness  to  assess  and,  where 
necessary, improve and strengthen existing support 
structures is essential.

In 2020, several EU Member States (including Bulgaria, Estonia and Lithuania), 
as well as Serbia, established or reinforced the structures of victim support 
organisations. However, challenges remain. These include, for example, 
challenges to providing victims information about their rights; to providing 
practical advice and support to victims in making use of their rights; and 
to victim support services informing victims about their role in criminal 
proceedings and providing relevant support, in accordance with Article 9 (1) (a) 
of the Victims’ Rights Directive.

256

The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention not only 
defines standards but, through the work of its monitoring 
body (GREVIO), also drives and guides the development 
of women’s rights to protection against gender-based 
violence and to recognition and justice if they become 
victims. However, by the end of 2020, Bulgaria, Czechia, 
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia had still not 
ratified the Convention.

In addition, the EU’s accession to the Convention is still 
pending. At the request of the European Parliament, 
the CJEU worked on an opinion assessing if signing 
and adopting the Convention is compatible with the EU 
treaties. Its opinion is expected in the second quarter 
of 2021.

FRA OPINION 9�2

The EU Member States that have not 
yet  ratified  the  Council  of  Europe 
Convention  on  preventing  and 
combating violence against women 
and  domestic  violence  (Istanbul 
Convention) are encouraged to do so�

FRA encourages Member States to 
address gaps in national legislation 
concerning the protection of women 
who are victims of violence, including 
by guiding the police on their task 
of  intervening  in  cases  of  partner 
violence, and to adopt measures that 
ensure  the  immediate  and  robust 
protection of women against repeat 
victimisation and retaliation�

257

An  independent  judiciary  is  the  cornerstone  of  the 
rule of law and of access to justice (Article 19 of the 
TEU, Article 67 (4) of the TFEU, and Article 47 of the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). Challenges in the 
area of justice persisted in several EU Member States, 
particularly regarding judicial independence. The European 
Commission issued its first annual Rule of Law Report in 
2020. The issue of justice systems and their independence 
was one of the four focus areas covered by the report.

The year also saw the adoption of the Regulation on 
a general regime of conditionality for the protection of 
the Union budget. It explicitly mentions corruption and 
compromising the independence of the judiciary among 
the indicators of a breach of the rule of law.

FRA OPINION 9�3

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  are 
encouraged to further strengthen their 
efforts and collaboration to maintain 
and reinforce the independence of the 
judiciary as an essential component of 
the rule of law�

In  addition,  the  Member  States 
concerned should take prompt action 
to  fully  comply  with  the  relevant 
judgments of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (CJEU)� Member States 
are also encouraged to act promptly 
on recommendations, such as those 
the European Commission issues in 
its rule of law procedure�

258
258

259

Index of country 
references
AT  249

BE  248, 249, 250, 254

BG  244, 247, 248, 250, 252, 254

CY  248, 250, 254

CZ  247, 250, 254

DA  254

DE  244, 250, 254

EE  244, 249, 250, 254

ES  248

FI  248, 250

FR  250

GR  250

HR  252, 253, 254

HU  247, 248, 249, 252, 253

IE  244, 250

IT  250, 254

LT  244, 247, 248, 250

LU  244, 250

LV  247, 248

MT  250, 254

NL  244, 250

PL  248, 249, 252, 253

PT  248

RO  250, 252, 253

RS  244, 246, 250

SE  245, 248

SI  244, 245, 248

SK  247, 248, 250, 252, 253, 254

Endnotes

1 

European Commission (2020), EU strategy on victims’ rights (2020–2025), 
COM(2020) 258 final, Brussels, 24 June 2020.

2  European Commission (n.d.), ‘Victims’ rights platform – The victims’ rights 

platform ensures a horizontal approach to victims’ rights’.

3  European Commission (n.d.), ‘EC Coordinator for victims’ rights’.

4  European Commission (2020), Report from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directive 2012/29/
EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 
establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of 
victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision (2001/220/
JHA), COM(2020) 188 final, Brussels, 11 May 2020.

5  United Nations (UN), United Nations Protocol on the Provision of 

Assistance to Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, 12 December 2019, 
p. 1.

6  Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice (Министерство на правосъдието) (2020), 

Draft amendments and supplements to the Criminal Procedure Code (Закон 
за изменение и допълнение на Наказателно-процесуалния кодекс), 
31 July 2020.

7  Luht, K. (2020), ‘Towards a New Victim Support Act’ (‘Uue ohvriabi seaduse 

poole’) Sotsiaaltöö, March 2020.

8  Lithuania, Ministry of Social Security and Labour (Socialinės apsaugos 
ir darbo ministerija), Explanatory note relating to draft laws (Įstatymų 
projektų aiškinamasis raštas), 14 February 2020.

9  New section 373b of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), see Germany, 
Ministry of Justice and Consumer protection (Bundesministerium der Justiz 
und für Verbrauchscutz), Draft bill on the further development of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure and on the amendment of other provisions (Entwurf 
eines Gesetzes zur Fortentwicklung der Strafprozessordnung und zur 
Änderung weiterer Vorschriften), 20 January 2021.

10  Serbia, Government (2020), 2020–2025 National strategy for the exercise 
of the rights of victims and witnesses of crime (Nacionalna strategija za 
ostvarivanje prava žrtava i svedoka krivičnih dela za period 2020–2025. 
godine), 19 August 2020.

11  Luxembourg, Law of 15 December 2020 amending the Law of 10 August 

1991 on the profession of lawyers and on the transposition of Directive (EU) 
2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 
2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings 
and for persons whose surrender is requested in the context of the 
European arrest warrant proceedings; transposition of certain provisions 
of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 October 2012 laying down minimum standards on the rights, support and 
protection of crime victims and replacing Framework Decision 2001/220/
JHA (Loi du 15 décembre 2020 portant modification de la loi modifiée du 
10 août 1991 sur la profession d’avocat aux fins de transposition de: 1° 
la directive (UE) 2016/1919 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 26 
octobre 2016 concernant l’aide juridictionnelle pour les suspects et les 
personnes poursuivies dans le cadre des procédures pénales et pour les 
personnes dont la remise est demandée dans le cadre des procédures 
relatives au mandat d’arrêt européen; 2° certaines dispositions de la 
directive 2012/29/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 25 octobre 
2012 établissant des normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et 
la protection des victimes de la criminalité et remplaçant la décision-cadre 
2001/220/JAI du Conseil), 17 December 2020.

12  Information provided by the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs 

and Equal Opportunities of the Republic of Slovenia (Ministrstvo za delo, 
družino, socialne zadeve in enake možnosti), email of 2 October 2020.

13  Ireland, Government (n.d.), Victims Charter.

14  Ireland, Government (2020), ‘Minister Flanagan publishes New Victims 
Charter offering vital information to victims of crime’, press release, 
21 February 2020.

15  Netherlands, Minister for Legal Protection (Minister voor 

Rechtsbescherming) (2020), Amendment of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with further 
strengthening of the position of the victim in the criminal process (Victims’ 
Right Extension Act) (Wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering en 

258

259

het Wetboek van Strafrecht in verband met de nadere versterking van de positie van het slachtoffer in het strafproces (Wet 
uitbreiding slachtofferrechten)).

16  Sweden, Ministry of Justice (Justitiedepartementet) (2019), strengthening right to compensation for crime victims (Stärkt rätt till 

skadestånd för brottsoffer), committee directive, 20 December 2019.

17  Sweden, Swedish Crime Victim Authority (Brottsoffermyndigheten) (2020), ‘Record in payments from perpetrators’ (‘Rekord 

i inbetalningar från gärningspersoner’), 31 March 2020.

18  Slovenia, Human Rights Ombudsperson (Varuh človekovih pravic), ‘Written contribution by the Human Rights Ombudsman of the 
Republic of Slovenia on the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against 
Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention)’, October 2020, pp. 6-7.

19  CJEU, C-129/19, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV, 16 July 2020.

20  Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, OJ L 261, pp. 15-18.

21  Serbia, Novi Sad Higher Court, K 152/018, 28 April 2020.

22  European Commission (2020), A Union of equality: Gender equality strategy 2020–2025, COM(2020) 152 final, Brussels, 

5 March 2020.

23  Request for an opinion submitted by the European Parliament pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU (Opinion 1/19), OJ C 413, 

9 December 2019.

24  CJEU, ‘Advocate General’s Opinion in Avis 1/19’, press release no. 37/21, 11 March 2021.

25  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the 

European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection 
of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, COM(2020) 188 final, Brussels, 11 May 2020.

26  FRA (2014), Violence against women: an EU-wide survey. Main results report, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

27  European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2020), ‘The EU is inching towards comparable data on intimate partner violence’, 

Gender Statistics Database/Data Talks, 23 June 2020.

28  Council of Europe, Treaty Office (2020), Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 210, status as of 22 March 2021.

29  Česká justice (2020), ‘The government has postponed dealing with the Istanbul Convention’ (‘Vláda odložila jednání o Istanbulské 

úmluvě’), 27 July 2020.

30  Finland, Ruuskanen, E. (2020), Action plan for combating violence against women for 2020–2023 (Naisiin kohdistuvan väkivallan 

torjuntaohjelma vuosille 2020–2023), Publications of the Ministry of Justice, memorandums and statements 2020:15, 
22 October 2020.

31  Council of Europe, Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) (2019), GREVIO’s 

(baseline) evaluation report on legislative and other measures giving effect to the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention 
on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) – Finland, Strasbourg, Council 
of Europe, 2 September 2019.

32  Portugal, Law 3/2020 approving the major planning options for 2020–2023 (Lei No. 3/2020 que aprova as Grandes Opções de Plano 

para 2020–2023), 31 March 2020.

33  Belgium, House of Representatives (Chambre des Représentants de Belgique) (2020), Note on political orientation on gender 

equality, equal opportunities and diversity (Exposé d’orientation politique Égalité des genres, Égalité des chances et Diversité), 
Doc. 55 1610/022, 6 November 2020, pp. 4–9.

34  Spain, Ministry of Equality (Ministerio de Igualidad) (2018) State Pact against Gender-based Violence (Pacto de Estado contra la 

Violencia de Género).

35  Council of Europe, GREVIO (2020), Comments submitted by Spain on GREVIO’s final report on the implementation of the Council 
of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and Domestic violence (Baseline Report). GREVIO/
Inf(2020)21, 19 November 2020.

36  Swedish Gender Equality Agency (2020), Istanbul Convention – European Agreement on Violence Against Women 

(Istanbulkonventionen – Europeiskt avtal om våld mot kvinnor), last updated 19 October 2020.

37  Cyprus, Ministry of Justice and Public Order (Υπουργείο Δικαιοσύνσης και Δημοσίας Τάξεως) (2020), ‘Δημόσια διαβούλευση 

Νομοσχεδίου με τίτλο: “O περί καταπολέμησης της βίας κατά των γυναικών και της ενδοοικογενειακής βίας νόμος του 2020”’, 
press release, 1 December 2020.

38  Slovenia, Human Rights Ombudsperson (Varuh človekovih pravic) (2020), ‘Written contribution by the Human Rights Ombudsman 
of the Republic of Slovenia on the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence 
against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention)’, October 2020’, pp. 4-6.

39  Andrukaitytė, M. (2019), ”Despite the criticism by the Church, a group of parlamentarians will try to reinstate the Istambul 

Convention into the parliament‘s agenda” (Nepaisant Bažnyčios kritikos, grupė parlamentarių į Seimo darbotvarkę sieks grąžinti 
Stambulo konvenciją), Lrt.lt news portal, 29 December 2019.

40  Slovakia, President of the Slovak Republic (2020), ‘Istanbulský dohovor neplatí, nie je dôvod riešiť ho krátko pred voľ bamiʼ, 10 

February 2020.

41  Hungary, Ministry of Justice (2020), Legal measures ensuring the protection of women and the fight against partner violence (A 

nők védelmét és a kapcsolati erőszak elleni küzdelmet szolgáló jogi eszközök), 23 January 2020; Overview table on the basis of 
Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) 
(Áttekintő táblázat az Európa Tanács nőkkel szembeni erőszak és a kapcsolati erőszak elleni küzdelemről és azok megelőzéséről 
szóló, Strasbourgban, 2011� május 11-én keltEgyezménye (Isztambuli Egyezmény) alapján), 11 May 2011.

42  Kiss, S. Á. (2020), ‘Judit Varga takes a step towards handling the effects, but she ought to do something with the causes as well’ 
(‘Varga Judit tesz egy lépést a hatások kezelése felé, de foglalkozhatna az okokkal is’), 6 January 2020. The statement made by 
the Minister of Justice on 6 January 2020 is available on facebook.

43  Visegrád Post (2020), ‘Polen könnte bald die Istanbul-Konvention aufkündigen, die die Europäische Union aufzwingen will’, 

20 May 2020.

260

261

44  Euractiv (2020), ‘Polish official: Istanbul Convention could impose “leftist ideology”’, 5 August 2020.

45  Poland, Act of 30 April 2020 amending the Act – Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts (Ustawa z dnia 30 kwietnia 2020 r. 

o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego oraz niektórych innych ustaw), 29 May 2020.

46  Poland, Code of Petty Offences, (Kodeks wykroczeń), 20 May 1971, Art. 66b.

47  Estonia, Law Enforcement Act (Korrakaitseseadus),,23 February 2011, para. 44.

48  Estonia, Ministry of the Interior (Siseministeerium) (2018), Memorandum valitsuskabineti nõupidamisele teemal 

‘Lähisuhtevägivalla all kannatanute kaitse Pärnu projekti tulemused’, 13 September 2018.

49  Austria, Protection from Violence Act 2019 (‘Gewaltschutzgesetz 2019’), Law Gazette I, No. 105/2019, 29 October 2019.

50  For Women Association (2020), ‘Statement of the For Women Association on the announcements of Judit Varga’ (‘A Nőkért 

Egyesület állásfoglalása Varga Judit bejelentéseirő’), 8 January 2020.

51  CoE, GREVIO (2020), GREVIO’s (Baseline Evaluation Report on legislative and other measures giving effect to the provisions 
of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul 
Convention) – Belgium, 21 September 2020, paras. 197–199.

52  RTBF (2020), ‘Coronavirus en Belgique: les lignes d’écoute pour les victimes de violences conjugales sont saturées’, 7 April 2020.

53  Bulgaria, Alliance for Protection against Gender-Based Violence (Алианс за защита от насилие, основано на пола) (2020), 

‘United to support the victims of domestic violence’ (‘Обединени в подкрепа на жертвите на домашно насилие’), 5 May 2020.

54  Association for Prevention and Handling of Violence in the Family (Σύνδεσμος για την Πρόληψη και Αντιμετώπιση της Βίας στην 

Οικογένεια) (2020), ‘Home isolation due to COVID-19 creates fertile ground for deterioration of domestic violence’ (‘Ο περιορισμός 
λόγω covid-19 δημιουργεί έφορο έδαφος για επιδείνωση της ενδοοικογενειακής βίας’), press release, 19 March 2020.

55  Czechia (2020), Committee on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Violence against Women (‘Výbor pro prevenci domácího 

násilí a násilí na ženách’) (2020), ‘Protection of victims of domestic violence during a state of emergency’ (‘Ochrana obětí 
domácího násilí v době nouzového stavu’), press release, 18 June 2020.

56  France, Interministerial Mission for the Protection of Women (Mission interministérielle pour la protection des femmes) (2020), 

‘Domestic violence : The revealing effect of confinement’ (‘Violences conjugales: l’effet ‘révélateur’ du confinement’), 
12 August 2020; High Council for Gender Equality (Haut Conseil à l’Égalité entre les femmes et les hommes) (2020), 
‘Domestic violence - Ensuring the protection of women victims of violence and their children  throughout their journey’ 
(‘Violences conjugales – Garantir la protection des femmes victimes et de leurs enfants tout au long de leur parcours’), 
Report No. 2020-09-22 VIO-43, 9 October 2020.

57  Germany (2020), Violence against women have no place in our society (‘Gewalt gegen Frauen darf in unserer Gesellschaft keinen 

Platz haben’), press release, 24 November 2020

58  Greece, GSFPGE (2020), ‘First annual report on violence against women’ (‘1η Ετήσια Έκθεση για τη Βία κατά Γυναικών’), 

November 2020.

59  Ireland, Women’s Aid (2020), ‘When home is not safe: Domestic abuse during the Covid-19 emergency’, August 2020, p. 2.

60  Lithuania (2020), Analysis of statistical indicators relating to violent criminal offences committed in close relationships (Statistinių 
rodiklių analizė apie užregistruotų smurtinių nusikalstamų veikų, padarytų artimoje aplinkoje, skaičių), Portal of official statistics.

61  Lovin Malta (2020), ‘Over 130 domestic violence victims called Malta’s new support helpline In 2020’, 7 October 2020.

62  Romania, National Agency for Equality between Men and Women (Agentia Nationala Pentru Egalitate de Sanse intre Femei si 

Barbati), press release.

63  Slovakia, Ministry of the Interior (Ministerstvo vnútra SR) (2020), ‘Information offices for victims of crime saw an increase in the 

number of clients in the summer ‘ (‘Informačné kancelárie pre obete trestných činov zaznamenali v lete nárast počtu klientov’), 
press release, 10 September 2020.

64  Serbia, Autonomous Women’s Center (Autonomni ženski centar) (2020), ‘Press release: Protection and support for women victims 

of violence during the first month of the state of emergency’, 17 April 2020.

65  Estonia, Ministry of Justice (Justiitsministeerium), Response to request for information, 24 September 2020.

66  Rissanen, P., Parhiala, K., Kestilä, L., Härmä, V., Honkatukia, J. and Jormanainen, V. (2020), ‘Effects of COVID-19 epidemic on the 

population’s service needs, the service system and the economy – Rapid impact assessment’ (‘COVID-19-epidemian vaikutukset 
väestön palvelutarpeisiin ja palvelujärjestelmään – nopea vaikutusarvio‘), Report 8/2020, Helsinki, 2020.

67  Netherlands, Sexual Assault Centre (Centrum Seksueel Geweld) (2020), ‘Less date rape, possibly more abuse at home and online 

due to COVID-19’ (‘Minder date-rape, mogelijk meer misbruik thuis en online door COVID-19’), press release, 9 April 2020. See 
also Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (Ministerie van Volksgezondheit, Welzeijn en Sport) (2020), Chamber letter: 4th progress 
report – Violence has no place anywhere (‘Kamerbrief 4e voortgangsrapportage Geweld hoort nergens thuis’), 18 June 2020.

68  NOS (2020), Number of reports of domestic violence not increased since corona (‘Aantal meldingen huiselijk geweld niet 

toegenomen sinds corona’), 23 June 2020.

69  Czechia (2020), Committee on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Violence against Women (‘Výbor pro prevenci domácího 

násilí a násilí na ženách’) (2020), ‘Protection of victims of domestic violence during a state of emergency’ (‘Ochrana obětí 
domácího násilí v době nouzového stavu’), press release, 18 June 2020.

70  Phelan, S. (2020), ‘Domestic violence court cases fall despite spike in reported incidents’, Irish Independent, 15 July 2020.

71  Lithuania (2020), Analysis of statistical indicators relating to violent criminal offences committed in close relationships (Statistinių 
rodiklių analizė apie užregistruotų smurtinių nusikalstamų veikų, padarytų artimoje aplinkoje, skaičių), Portal of official statistics.

72  Italy, National Statistical Institute (‘Instituto Nazionale di Statistica’) (2020), ‘Gender-based violence at the time of COVID-19: Calls 

to the public utility number 1522 (‘Violenza di genere al tempo del Covid-19: le chiamate al numero verde 1522’), press release, 
13 May 2020.

73  Luxembourg, Ministry of Gender Equality (Ministière de l’Ėgalité entre les femmes et les hommes) (2020), ‘Domestic violence: 

Taina Bofferding updates on recent developments and aid measures’ (‘Violence domestique: Taina Bofferding fait le point sur les 
récentes évolutions et les mesures d’aide’), press release, 11 June 2020.

260

261

74  Serbia, Autonomous Women’s Centre (2020), ‘Increase in violence during the state of emergency, punished for leaving home to 

report her abuser’ (‘Porast nasilja u vanrednom stanju, kažnjena jer je izašla da prijavi nasilnika’), 29 April 2020.

75  Ibid.

76  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti) (2020), ‘Initiative to amend the Decree 
on measures for victims of domestic and intimate partner violence during the state of emergency’ (Inicijativa za izmenu Uredbe 
o merama za vreme vanrednog stanja za žrtve porodičnog i partnerskog nasilja), 24 April 2020.

77  See also specific guidance on the practical application of the principles on judicial and prosecutorial independence and impartiality 
provided by the Council of Europe’s Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) and the Consultative Council of European 
Prosecutors (CCPE).

78  UN General Assembly, Resolution on transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, 

25 September 2015.

79  Council of Europe, European Commission for Democracy through Law (‘Venice Commission’) (2020), ‘Interim report on the 

measures taken in the EU Member States as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and their impact on democracy, the rule of law and 
fundamental rights‘, CDL-AD(2020)018, 8 October 2020. See also Council of the European Union (2020), ‘European Semester 2020: 
Country-specific recommendations adopted’, press release, 20 July 2020.

80  See Council of Europe, Consultative Council of European Judges, ‘Statement by the President of the CCJE on the role of judges 
during and in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons and challenges’, CCJE(2020)2, Strasbourg, 24 June 2020, para 7.

81  FRA (2020), ‘What do fundamental rights mean for people in the EU? Fundamental Rights Survey’, Luxembourg, Publications 

Office, 16 December 2020.

82  European Commission (2020), ‘Rule of law: First annual report on the rule of law situation across the European Union’, press 

release, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

83  European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Poland, SWD(2020) 320 

final, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

84  European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Hungary, SWD(2020) 316 

final, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

85  European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, SWD(2020) 301 

final, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

86  Council of Europe, European Commission for Democracy through Law (‘Venice Commission’) (2020), Bulgaria Urgent Interim 

Opinion on the draft new Constitution, Opinion no. 1002/2020, CDL-AD(2020)035, 11 December 2020; GRECO (2020), Fourth 
evaluation round – Corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors - Second compliance 
report – Bulgaria, GrecoRC4(2019)24, Strasbourg, 17 January 2020, paras. 13-15.

87  Ibid.

88  European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, 

SWD(2020) 310 final, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

89  European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, 

SWD(2020) 322 final, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

90  European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, 

SWD(2020) 342 final, Brussels, 30 September 2020.

91  See FRA (2020), Fundamental rights report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 11 June 2020.

92  CJEU (2020), ‘Poland must immediately suspend the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary 
Chamber of the Supreme Court with regard to disciplinary cases concerning judges’, press release No. 47/20, 8 April 2020.

93  CJEU, C-791/19 R, European Commission v� Republic of Poland, Order of the Court, 8 April 2020.

94  ECtHR, Reczkowicz and two Others v. Poland, Nos. 43447/19, 49868/19 and 57511/19, 5 June 2020. See also previous notifications 
regarding applications related to the judiciary in Poland in the cases Grzęda v. Poland, No. 43572/18; Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. 
v. Poland, No. 4907/18; Broda v. Poland and Bojara v. Poland, Nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18; Żurek v. Poland, No. 39650/18; and 
Sobczyńska and Others v. Poland, Nos. 62765/14, 62769/14, 62772/14 and 11708/18.

95  See European Commission (2020), ‘Rule of Law: European Commission launches infringement procedure to safeguard the 

independence of judges in Poland’, press release, 29 April 2020. In this context, see also CJEU (Grand Chamber), Joined cases 
C558/18 and C563/18, Miasto Łowicz v. Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Łódzki, 26 March 2020, in which the court confirmed that 
provisions of national law exposing national judges to disciplinary proceedings for submitting a reference for a preliminary ruling to 
the CJEU could not be permitted.

96  Council of the European Union (2020), Outcome of the Council meeting, 11024/20, Brussels, 22 September 2020.

97  Council of Europe, GRECO (2020), Fourth evaluation round - Fourth evaluation round – Corruption prevention in respect of 

members of parliament, judges and prosecutors – Second interim compliance report – Hungary, paras. 57–58.

98  See FRA (2020), Fundamental rights report 2020, Luxembourg, Publications Office, 11 June 2020.

99  Council of Europe, GRECO (2020), Fourth evaluation round - Fourth evaluation round – Corruption prevention in respect of 

members of parliament, judges and prosecutors – Second interim compliance report – Hungary, paras. 57–58.

100 Council of the European Union (2020), ‘European Semester 2020: Country-specific recommendations adopted’, press release, 

20 July 2020.

101 European Commission (2020), Flash Eurobarometer FL483: Perceived independence of the national justice systems in the EU 

among the general public, July 2020.

102 Council of the European Union (2020), ‘Outcome of the Council meeting’, 11734/20, Brussels, 13 October 2020.

103 European Council and Council of the European Union (2020), ‘Video conference of European affairs ministers, 17 November 2020’, 

press release, 17 November 2020.

262

263

104 European Parliament (2020), The establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, P9_

TA(2020)0251, Brussels, 7 October 2020.

105 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of 

conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I,22.12.2020, p. 1–10. 

106 European Council (2020), ‘European Council meeting, 10 and 11 December 2020� – Conclusions’, press release, 14 December 2020.

107 European Commission (2020), ‘Speech by President von der Leyen at the European Parliament Plenary on the conclusions of 

the European Council meeting of 10–11 December 2020’, Speech, Brussels, 16 December 2020. In this context, see also European 
Parliament (2020), Resolution of 17 December 2020 on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021–2027, the Interinstitutional 
Agreement, the EU Recovery Instrument and the Rule of Law Regulation, 2020/2923(RSP), Brussels, 17 December 2020.

262

263

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF 
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

10

10�1�  THE CRPD AND THE EU: NEW STRATEGY AND PANDEMIC 

TAKE CENTRE STAGE 

10�1�1�  CONSULTATION ON NEW DISABILITY STRATEGY KICKS OFF 

10�1�2�  PANDEMIC TRIGGERS EU SUPPORT FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

10�1�3�  ESIF NEGOTIATIONS AND USE OF EU FUNDS FOR DE-

INSTITUTIONALISATION 

10�2�  CRPD IN EU MEMBER STATES: PANDEMIC HIGHLIGHTS NEED 

FOR APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH 
DISABILITIES 

268

268

268

269

270

10�2�1�  PANDEMIC RAISES RISK OF DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTHCARE ACCESS 

271

10�2�2� ANTI-COVID-19 MEASURES AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS 

WITH DISABILITIES 

10�2�3� PANDEMIC INCREASES ECONOMIC CHALLENGES AND 

PROMPTS GOVERNMENT SUPPORT 

10�2�4� COMMUNICATING ON THE VIRUS AND ON RISKS: A STEEP 

LEARNING CURVE 

10�3�  CRPD MONITORING FRAMEWORKS: KEY CHALLENGES 

FRA OPINIONS 

ENDNOTES 

264

272

278

278

281

282

284

265

UN & CoE

23 

January

In L.R. v. North Macedonia (No� 38067/15), European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rules that 
North Macedonia violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment) of 
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because a deaf child had been mistreated in an 
institution, including being tied to a bed�

3 

14 

25 

Committee on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities 
publishes the list of issues 
before reporting on Croatia�

Belgium submits its 
combined second and third 
periodic reports under 
Article 35 of the Convention 
on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities (CRPD)�

Denmark submits its 
combined second and third 
periodic reports under 
Article 35 of the CRPD�

20 

April

July

UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities publishes a report on 
disability-inclusive international cooperation, and later presents it to the 75th session 
of the General Assembly�

6 

October

Human Rights Council appoints Gerard Quinn as Special 
Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities�

264

265

EU

February

20 

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) of the European Parliament adopts the text of the 
motion for the Resolution on the EU disability strategy post 2020�

March

2

EMPL tables a motion for a resolution urging the Commission to deepen its 
commitment to the rights of persons with disabilities�

April

8

17

48 Members of the European Parliament across 
all political groups address an open letter to the 
President of the European Council and the European 
Commission highlighting the “threat to the human 
rights of persons with disabilities and other persons 
with support needs due to COVID-19, in particular due 
to difficulties in accessing care and support services”�

European Parliament adopts a resolution on 
EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 
pandemic and its consequences, calling for “the 
measures adopted by the EU and by Member 
States to respect the rights of persons with 
disabilities in line with the UN Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities”�

June

3

18

European Ombudsman launches a strategic initiative 
(SI/2/2020/MMO) on “how the European Commission 
accommodates the special needs of staff members with 
disabilities in the context of the COVID-19 emergency”�

European Parliament adopts the Resolution 
on the European disability strategy post 2020 
based on an EMPL motion for resolutions in 
March�

July

8

30

European Parliament approves a motion 
for a resolution on the rights of persons 
with intellectual disabilities in the 
COVID-19 crisis�

European Ombudsman publishes her decision in case 1233/2019/
MMO on how the European Commission ensures that Member 
States spend European structural and investment funds in line 
with the obligations stemming from the CRPD�

September

2

Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rejects a case by non-governmental 
organisations claiming that Bulgarian funding of institutions using EU funds violates EU law� The court finds that 
the organisations have no legal standing to bring the case�

October

8

15

European Parliament holds a plenary debate on 
the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on long-
term care facilities�

European Commission publishes a roadmap for the 
European disability rights strategy 2021–2030�

November

27

266

European Commission publishes an independent evaluation of the European disability strategy 2010–2020�

267

The European Commission started to develop a new disability 

strategy in 2020, initiating a consultation process that continued 

throughout the year� It will launch a new strategy in the first 

quarter of 2021� The European Parliament and Council reached 

a political agreement on a new Common Provisions Regulation 

governing EU funds, which covers the rights of persons with 

disabilities� Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic put to the test 

the duty of the EU and its Member States to comply with the 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)� 

Member States introduced a wide range of measures that 

significantly affected the rights of persons with disabilities� 

Persons with disabilities and their representative organisations, 

as well as the structures set up under the CRPD to protect them, 

took action to ensure that these measures comply with the 

Convention� Overall, the pandemic underlined the importance 

of involving persons with disabilities and their representative 

organisations in situations of risk, and the value of strong 

national CRPD structures�

266

267

10�1�   
THE CRPD AND THE EU: NEW STRATEGY AND 
PANDEMIC TAKE CENTRE STAGE

At the EU level, 2020 was the key year for developing the new disability 
strategy. The European Commission published a review of the existing strategy, 
and consulted a wide range of stakeholders on the new strategy throughout 
the year. Meanwhile, the EU responded to the pandemic by taking a range of 
measures relevant to persons with disabilities. Negotiations on the Common 
Provisions Regulation, which governs the use of EU funds and includes enabling 
conditions1 concerning the CRPD, resulted in political agreement in November.

10�1�1� Consultation on new disability strategy kicks off
The European Commission began developing a new EU disability strategy in 
2020. It organised exploratory consultations with civil society organisations 
(CSOs) and the EU CRPD Framework, in which FRA participates, in July, and 
published a roadmap for the new strategy in October. A second round of 
consultations took place online in October–November.

The Commission published an independent evaluation of the 2010–2020 
strategy in November. It concludes that the strategy made a significant 
contribution to the implementation of the CRPD at EU level, and to the 
implementation of several important legislative and policy instruments in 
the field of disability. However, not all the actions of the strategy were fully 
implemented, and its objectives were only partly achieved. The evaluation 
concludes that the new strategy would need realistic objectives supported 
by appropriate actions, measurable policy indicators, statistics and data 
collection. It should involve persons with disabilities fully. It would require 
a comprehensive overview and monitoring of national-level progress in the 
situation of persons with disabilities.2

On 11 November, Helena Dalli, the EU Commissioner for Equality, outlined key 
priorities for the upcoming strategy. These included political participation, 
inclusive education, accessibility of new technology, de-institutionalisation, 
accessible  transport  and  built  environment,  boosting  participation  in 
employment, and digital upscaling. The strategy will ensure systematic 
data collection and will also address the pandemic.

10�1�2� Pandemic triggers EU support for persons with disabilities
The Commission’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic included a range of 
actions related to CRPD implementation. They included more flexible use of 
EU funds, coordinated action on healthcare, and the purchase of protective 
equipment and of vaccines.

The EU legislator adopted a regulation making spending on various EU funds 
more flexible. It allows the funds to be used to support the income of groups 
requiring assistance, such as persons with disabilities.3

Meanwhile, the Commission continued to monitor the implementation of 
the Web Accessibility Directive.4 It required all public sector websites to 
be accessible by 23 September 2020, and public sector mobile apps to 
be accessible by 23 June 2021. These online resources contain important 
information on COVID-19 and related measures.

268

269

The revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive5 
requires Member States to ensure that information 
on emergencies is available in an accessible manner 
to the public through audiovisual media services. 
The European Regulators Group for Audiovisual 
Media Services accelerated its implementation.6

In addition, the Commission gave guidance to 
organisations involved in mass transport to remind 
them of their passenger and mobility obligations 
under EU law.7

Forty-eight Members of the European Parliament 
from all across the political spectrum sent an open 
letter to the Presidents of the European Council 
and  the  European  Commission.  It  highlighted 
the “threat to the human rights of persons with 
disabilities and other persons with support needs 
due to COVID-19, in particular due to difficulties in 
accessing care and support services”.8

In  April,  the  European  Parliament  adopted 
a resolution on EU coordinated action to combat 
the COVID-19 pandemic. It called for particular 
attention to equal access to healthcare, proper 
staffing and equipment of community-based care 
and support services, accessible public information 
on the pandemic and inclusive income protection 
measures.9

Following a petition,10 the European Parliament 
adopted a motion drawing attention to the denial 
of medical treatment to persons with intellectual disabilities, and the exclusion 
and social isolation they faced in the course of the pandemic.11

On 3 June 2020, the European Ombudsman launched a strategic initiative12 
setting out a series of questions “on issues such as the measures in place 
for remote working and health insurance, as well on lessons that could be 
learned for the Commission’s wider interaction with members of the public 
with disabilities”.

10�1�3� ESIF negotiations and use of EU funds for de-institutionalisation
The proposed new Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)13 will govern the 
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for 2021–2027. Negotiations 
on it continued throughout 2020, with Parliament and Council reaching political 
agreement at the end of 2020.14

Implementing the CRPD is among the proposed horizontal enabling conditions 
that Member States have to comply with to access ESIF. This means that 
Member States will have to set up national frameworks with objectives 
that serve the implementation of the CPR. It also requires them to make 
arrangements to ensure that the preparation and implementation of EU-funded 
programmes properly reflect accessibility policy, legislation and standards.

In addition, the proposed CPR allows bodies promoting the rights of persons 
with disabilities to participate in the monitoring committees of the programmes. 
It also requires that Member States include in their programmes measures 
that promote community-based services, including prevention and primary 
care, as well as home care.15

269

268

During 2020, a decision by the European Ombudsman addressed compliance 
with the CRPD when using EU finds. Past FRA research on independent 
living also raised this issue.16 The complainant maintained that the European 
Commission should have taken action on projects involving the construction 
of institutional care facilities in Hungary and Portugal, as it believed them 
to contravene the EU’s de-institutionalisation obligations.

The Ombudsman found that, in the first phase of the de-institutionalisation 
process in Hungary, the Commission had not acted in a sufficiently timely 
manner. Thanks to the lessons learnt in that phase, however, the Ombudsman 
stated that “the Commission has shown greater caution as regards the use of 
ESI funds to continue the deinstitutionalisation process in that Member State”. 
In the case of Portugal, the Ombudsperson concluded that she trusts that 
the Commission will act effectively upon the findings and recommendations 
of the UN and an upcoming expert report.17

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) brought a case to the Court of Justice 
of the European Union challenging similar EU funding in Bulgaria. In September, 
the court deemed it inadmissible. This holding is currently under appeal.18

10�2�   
CRPD IN EU MEMBER STATES: PANDEMIC 
HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR APPROPRIATE 
RESPONSES TO NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH 
DISABILITIES

EU Member States responded to the pandemic by taking a range of measures, 
not all of them sensitive to the rights of persons with disabilities. This led 
to reactions by organisations and individuals in the disability community.

In 2020, the pandemic delayed the CRPD Committee’s work. It did not publish 
concluding observations on any of the Member States. It did publish a list 
of issues concerning Croatia during its thirteenth pre-sessional working 
group (30 March to 3 April 2020). Belgium and Denmark submitted their 
state reports.

270

271

10�2�1� Pandemic raises risk of discrimination in healthcare access
Article 25 (f) of the CRPD requires States Parties to “prevent discriminatory 
denial of health care or health services”. The Special Rapporteur on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities presented a report to the February–March 
session of the UN Human Rights Council. It noted on this issue that “[t]here 
is a deep-rooted belief, carved with fear, stigma and ignorance, that persons 
with disabilities cannot enjoy a fulfilling life, that their lives are incomplete 
and unfortunate, and that they cannot attain a good quality of life.”19

These considerations raised concerns during the pandemic. Advocates for 
persons with disabilities in Germany argued that the Clinical Frailty Scale based 
triage guidelines on outdated views on impairment and disability, and could 
lead to denials of life-saving intensive care even without lower chances of 
survival.20 However, the Federal Consitutional Court rejected a complaint by 
nine persons with disabilities based on the guidelines. It noted that choosing 
who gets intensive care treatment was not likely to arise considering the 
resources of the German healthcare system.21

The Belgian National High Council for Persons with Disabilities also maintained 
that existing ethical guidelines on triage were not clearly formulated and 
could also lead to persons with disabilities being denied intensive care.22

After a similar debate in Spain, the national Bioethics Committee recalled 
that discrimination on the basis of disability in health care is prohibited.23 
The Spanish Ombudsperson also pointed out that “it is not acceptable” for 
scientific bodies to recommend the sacrifice of persons with disabilities 
because of lack of means.24 The Ministry of Health responded that the state 
guarantees healthcare for those affected by COVID-19 on an equal basis.

270

271

Feeling 
overlooked

10�2�2�  Anti-COVID-19 
measures affect the rights of 
persons with disabilities
Governments took a wide range of 
measures to address the pandemic. 
These included lockdowns, social 
distancing, school closures, and 
mask mandates. Each of these led 
to significant challenges to the 
rights of persons with disabilities, 
which were not always taken into 
account.

This  section  outlines  diverse 
challenges  triggered  by  the 
pandemic and responses thereto. 
One way to avoid such problems 
would be to ensure that persons 
with  disabilities,  through  their 
representative  organisations, 
participate in crisis management. 
Article 11 of the CRPD (situations 
of risk) requires this in any case. 
The CRPD Committee Chair and 
the  Special  Envoy  of  the  UN 
Secretary-General on Disability 
and Accessibility have advocated it. In 2020, they called on states to “ensure 
that persons with disabilities, through their representative organisations, are 
closely consulted with and actively involved in the planning, implementation 
and monitoring of COVID-19 prevention and containment measures.”25

Already before the pandemic, FRA’s 
Fundamental Rights Survey, conducted in 
2019, showed that people who experience 
long-standing limitations in their usual 
activities (due to disability or long-term 
health problems) feel overlooked by 
politicians.

For example, 69 % of people with severe 
limitations tended to agree, or strongly 
agreed, that “mainstream parties and 
politicians do not care about people like 
me”. Meanwhile, 63 % of those who are 
limited, but not severely, feel this way. 
By comparison, 58 % of those without 
limitations hold this view.*

*  FRA (2020), What do Fundamental Rights 
mean for people in the EU?, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, Figure 14, p. 39.

In a positive development, Croatia announced that it would set up a working 
group to monitor the impact of measures on persons with disabilities.26

Meanwhile, in Spain, the pandemic showed that there is a low level of 
awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities and of the CRPD, the 
disability organisation Comité Español de Representantes de Personas con 
Discapacidad noted.27

Limitations on visits

Partial or general visit bans affected many institutions where persons with 
disabilities live. For example, Denmark28 and the Netherlands29 allowed visits 
only in exceptional cases, but eased bans in the summer. These visitor bans 
led to a range of problems for persons with disabilities and their families.

The Dutch disability organisation Ieder(in) surveyed persons with disabilities 
and their relatives. Even after the easing of restrictions, 52 % felt that they 
were insufficiently involved in decision-making on the rules. Nevertheless, 
the satisfaction of this group with the visiting regulations (79 %) was higher 
than that of their relatives (66 %).30

Visitor  restrictions  in  supported  housing  had  an  excessive  impact  on 
inhabitants’ rights, including their right to independent living, the Danish 
Institute for Human Rights found.31

The Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsperson decided in June, on the basis of 
several complaints, that restrictions to accessing care homes lacked a precise 
enough legal basis, were not communicated properly, and did not strike 

272

273

a balance between stopping the spread of the virus and the rights of the 
persons in care homes.32 An NGO submitted a complaint on this and other 
issues to the European Committee on Social Rights in November.33

In Sweden, people complained about the legality of general visit bans.34 
The Health and Social Care Inspectorate responded that staff may suggest 
other ways of keeping in contact, and could inform the residents and their 
relatives of the risks of spreading the infection on a visit instead of banning 
them.35 In Estonia, the Chancellor of Justice raised concerns about banning 
visitors to institutions, considering that many of those housed there did not 
belong to a high-risk group.36

The virus did spread fast within institutions. In Romania, 1,796 residents 
in institutions had COVID-19 and 870 out of a total of 55,000 residents in 
institutions had died from it, according to data made available on 30 December 
2020.37 As a countermeasure, governments introduced various policies to 
mitigate the risk, including equipping facilities with protective equipment, 
testing, and banning social events.38

In Cyprus, the Confederation of Organisations for Persons with Disabilities 
pointed to the high number of victims in closed institutions of all kinds as 
a sign that more should be done to guarantee independent living.39

Schooling

Measures to limit the spread of the virus also affected schools.

The Greek NHRI issued a report on the need for protection of human rights with 
regard to the measures taken in response to the pandemic, which included 
the necessity of including the dimension of disability in all measures taken 
in the field of education with special emphasis on the right to education 
of children with disabilities and/or special educational needs and equal 
treatment in practice.40

In Greece, special education schools retained their face-to-face operation 
throughout the school year 2020-2021, even though all other primary and 
secondary schools operated with distance learning for long time periods.

272

273

In Lithuania, following disability NGO advocacy, children with disabilities 
were exempt from distance learning.

In May 2020, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport and Youth of Cyprus put 
in place a specific procedure, in cooperation with the Ministry of Health, for 
students with disabilities less able to follow health protocols or at high risk of 
COVID-19 on the grounds of public health. This procedure was challenged by 
parents, academics, and the Commissioner for Administration and Protection 
of Human Rights (Ombudsperson) by submitting a relevant report. It was 
later dropped in accordance with the Commissioner’s recommendations.41

In Portugal, the public authorities took measures to support the home-
schooling of students with disabilities, which disabled people’s organisations 
considered insufficient.42

The Belgian Task Force for vulnerable groups called for additional and more 
flexible ‘corona parental leave’, which the government adopted.43

Providing support

Lockdown measures affected people with disabilities in other ways. For 
instance, it made distribution of food, medical and cleaning supplies more 
difficult.

In Serbia, for example, families of persons with disabilities reportedly had 
difficulty obtaining curfew passes to provide care and support.44 In response 
to similar concerns, in Bulgaria the government mobilised emergency teams, 
which helped persons with disabilities pay utility bills and delivered food and 
other essential items.45 The Spanish Ministry of Health published a ruling 
providing lockdown exemptions for people on public roads and in public 
spaces when accompanying persons with disabilities.46

The lockdown also affected the mental and physical well-being of persons with 
disabilities. Half (50 %) of the respondents to a survey in the Netherlands47 had 
suffered physical deterioration in recent months, 45 % had been lonely, and 
more than 41 % had suffered from increased stress or psychological complaints. 
They attributed this to lack of contact with close family, fear of contamination, 
and the postponement of medical treatments and appointments.

Lockdowns  had  a  particularly  negative 
effect on certain categories of persons with 
disabilities, including persons with autism 
who are not able to communicate by mobile 
phone  or  other  equipment,  reports  from 
Slovakia indicate.48 The particularly negative 
effect of lockdowns on persons with autism49 
also  prompted  the  Commissioner  for  the 
Protection  of  Equality  in  Serbia  to  issue 
a recommendation on the urgent resolution 
of the various problems they faced.50

274

275

Governments and CSOs took some steps to address the profound need for 
psychological support of people with disabilities in some circumstances. In 
Croatia, CSOs designed measures to reduce social isolation. In cooperation 
with the Croatian Red Cross, the Croatian Association of Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing Persons activated a line to provide psychosocial support for deaf 
and hard of hearing persons in self-isolation. They can send a text message 
or contact the organisations using the Viber application.51

In Cyprus, personal assistants were instructed to call and visit persons with 
disabilities regularly in order to support and accompany them while they 
exercise in the neighbourhood.52

The Austrian Independent Monitoring Committee called for inclusive holiday 
offers for children with disabilities, which would allow children to recover 
after the long lockdown.53

Supporting families and carers

The Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health appointed a working 
group, which found that the coronavirus crisis had considerable and often 
negative impacts on the well-being of families of children with disabilities. 
It recommended a comprehensive plan to ensure their well-being.54

Similarly, a survey in Belgium found that persons with disabilities and those 
close to them felt overlooked and lacked care at home, which increased 
pressure on family members to take over caring roles.55

Home-schooling arrangements, loss of childcare, and loss of support for daily 
issues particularly affected women in families with children with disabilities. 
The Austrian Independent Monitoring Committee, for example, noted this 
and called for additional support, including setting up crisis-proof networks.56

PROMISING PRACTICE
Helplines for persons with disabilities and parents of children 
with disabilities
Helplines took on a new significance during the COVID-19 
pandemic.

The Estonian service ‘The Helper’ started in July. It is 
a confidential free telephone counselling and communication 
service for elderly people and people with disabilities. 
It brings together volunteers and those in need, to give 
people who feel alone the opportunity to communicate and 
be better involved in society. The project is a collaboration 
between local governments and NGOs.*

The Slovak initiative Inklulinka is a helpline for parents of 
children with disabilities or other family members who are 
seeking advice on various areas of the life of a child with 
disability. Experienced parents provide advice on topics such 
as benefits and services to compensate for the disability, 
how to secure the child’s education, and on the powers of 
various public institutions in relation to disability.**

The Greek Centers for Educational and Advisory Support 
(KESY) operated helplines for persons with disabilities and 
parents of children with disabilities and offered remote 
assistance and advisory services to pupils with disabilities 
and their parents. ***

* Surts Koolitus OÜ (2020), Abitaja (The Helper).

** Children of Slovakia Foundation, Platform of families 
of children with disabilities (Nadácia pre deti Slovenska, 
Platforma rodín detí so zdravotným postihnutím) (2020), 
Inklulinka.

*** Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs of the Hellenic 
Republic, Circular 39317/GD4/19-3-2020, Υπουργείο Παιδείας 
και Θρησκευμάτων, Εγκύκλιος 39317/ΓΔ4/19-3-2020 –‘Εξ 
αποστάσεως υποστήριξη μαθητών/τριών με αναπηρία ή/και 
ειδικές εκπαιδευτικές ανάγκες (Distance learning for pupils 
with disability and/or special educational needs).

274

275

Protective equipment and other containment measures

The lack of personal protective equipment for assistants severely hampered 
the right of persons with disabilities to live independently, the Austrian 
Independent Monitoring Committee noted.57 Similar concerns were reported in 
Serbia.58 In Slovenia, there were reports that programmes for social inclusion 
and vocational rehabilitation were not operating because of the measures 
to contain infection.59

The requirement to wear face masks, usually indoors and sometimes also 
outdoors, created challenges for some persons with disabilities.

Cyprus initially announced a requirement for everyone over the age of six 
to wear face masks but later revised it to everyone over the age of 12. The 
Ombudsperson pointed out the need to accommodate children who lip-read, 
and suggested using face shields or partially transparent masks. Following the 
report, the Commissioner’s recommendations were completely implemented.60

In Slovenia, the Human Rights Ombudsperson issued several recommendations 
on mask-wearing exemptions. They prompted the government to issue an 
exception to the obligation to wear masks to facilitate communication with 
deaf and hard-of-hearing persons.61

The Croatian Institute of Public Health noted the difficulties some persons with 
disabilities may have in washing hands or wearing masks. It emphasised the 
wearing of masks and regular health checks for those assisting or interacting 
with them.62 The government of Croatia exempted persons with certain 
physical and mental health impairments, including autism spectrum disorders, 
from the obligation to wear masks. It also exempted those with hearing 
impairments, interpreters for deafblind people and other accompanying 
persons.63

In Austria, persons with hearing impairments and their communication partners 
are exempted from the obligation of wearing masks during communication.64

276

277

Lithuania confirmed that persons with disabilities need not wear masks in 
public places if their state of health means that they cannot wear masks 
or wearing one may endanger their health. It recommended that these 
individuals wear a face shield.65 Italy passed a decree in November with 
similar exemptions. The decree also allowed persons with disabilities to 
keep a reduced physical distance from caregivers and assistance providers.66

Persons with disabilities who use personal assistance cannot follow social 
distancing rules during service provision, the Austrian Monitoring Committee 
noted. They face major problems due to the shortage of protective equipment/
clothing for personal assistants. That has a negative impact on their right to 
live independently.67 To address this matter, the Austrian Minister of Health 
exempted persons with disabilities and their personal assistants from the 
obligation to follow distance rules.68

The Croatian Ombudsperson for Persons with Disabilities also warned of the 
difficulties such rules posed to persons with disabilities.69 Accompanying 
persons cannot keep the requisite physical distance in public, as a report by 
Unia, the Belgian CRPD framework, pointed out.70 Another report by Unia 
called for priority access in shops and in home deliveries for persons with 
disabilities, and for them to be allowed to enter with a person assisting them.71

The Belgian national railway company discontinued support services to 
persons with disabilities because it was impossible to maintain the required 
1.5 metres distance. After Unia raised the issue,72 the Task Force for Vulnerable 
Persons intervened. The service was subsequently reinstated in part,73 but 
not for visually impaired persons.74

276

277

10�2�3�  Pandemic increases economic challenges and prompts 
government support
The pandemic increased unemployment, which also affected persons with 
disabilities. In Germany, for example, unemployment among people with 
relatively serious disabilities reportedly increased by about 13 % between 
October 2019 and October 2020. In one region (Bavaria), it increased by 
19.1 %.75

In Cyprus, on 26 March, all organisations running supported employment 
programmes were instructed to suspend the employment of persons with 
intellectual disabilities in order to protect them. The persons who stopped 
working in these schemes were eligible for a special sickness benefit.76

Governments stepped in to mitigate the financial impact of the pandemic on 
persons with disabilities, for example through forms of one-off payments, 
e.g. in Slovenia77 and Lithuania.78

In Estonia79 and Lithuania,80 decisions on disability status/allowances were 
automatically renewed. In Bulgaria, support provided in accordance with the 
Persons with Disabilities Act was extended only on the basis of documents, 
without an in-person assessment.81

In the long run, only structural measures can provide a durable solution for 
the employment of persons with disabilities in line with Article 27 (1) (e) of 
the CRPD. Such measures can take various forms, as last year’s Fundamental 
Rights Report noted. They include subsidising employers to hire people with 
disabilities, as in France,82 Portugal83 and Bulgaria,84 or increasing the subsidy 
employers can request for measures to provide reasonable accomodation, as 
in Latvia.85 Lithuania introduced a quota system for social enterprises with 
additional incentives to hire more severely disabled workers.86

10�2�4�  Communicating on the virus and on risks: a steep learning 
curve
Information on COVID-19 and measures to contain it must also reach persons 
with disabilities. Article 9 (1) (b) (accessibility) and Article 21 (a) (access 
to information) of the CRPD require that such information be accessible to 
persons with disabilities.

Individuals with severe limitations generally find it harder to access online 
information from their local/public authorities than those without limitations 
do,  FRA’s  Fundamental  Rights  Survey  of  2019  indicates.87  Inadequate 
information can cause stress to persons with disabilities, as an Unia survey 
in Belgium found.88

PROMISING PRACTICE
Start spinning 
the wheels: 
suggestions for 
more growth and 
better welfare
The damaging effects of the 
COVID-19 crisis motivated the 
Disabled People’s Organisations 
in Denmark to develop a plan to 
improve economic growth and give 
more people with disabilities the 
opportunity to participate in and 
contribute to the community, during 
and after the COVID-19 crisis.

The plan contains several 
recommendations aiming to improve 
the accessibility of homes and 
train stations, improving health, 
and increasing access to vocational 
education.

Stakeholders themselves developed 
the plan. It can be useful for other EU 
Member States, as well.

For more information, see Danske 
Handicaporganisationer (Disabled 
People’s Organisations Denmark) 
(2020), ‘Start spinning the wheels’ 
(‘Gang i hjulene’).

278

279

PROMISING PRACTICE
Making 
government 
information more 
accessible
In Austria, the Independent 
Monitoring Authority published 
material developed by the 
association Leicht Lesen (Easy 
Reading) in easy-read format, 
supplemented by explanatory 
pictures. Experts from the monitoring 
committee reviewed it for 
comprehensibility and approved it. 
This text, together with explanatory 
pictures, enables barrier-free 
access to the latest information and 
important measures taken by the 
government.*

The government of Luxembourg 
translated all press briefings into 
German sign language, and Klaro, 
the official centre for plain language, 
translated the safety measures into 
plain language. A short clip explaining 
the rules to follow was published. 
Pictograms made the awareness 
campaign visually comprehensible.**

* Austria, Independent Monitoring 
Authority (2020), Information on 
the coronavirus in easy-read format 
(Informationen zum Corona Virus in 
Leichter Sprache).

** Klaro (2020), Information about 
Corona, (Infos zu Corona).

Many problems regarding appropriate communication with and information 
for persons with disabilities occurred at the beginning of the pandemic. In 
Slovakia, during the first and second waves of the pandemic, politicians and 
moderators on television wore face masks, so those with hearing impairments 
could not read their lips. That prompted the Commissioner responsible to 
propose solutions. 89

In Croatia, the national television broadcaster shut down its sign interpretation 
department in March, so it did not provide sign interpretation during COVID-19 
press conferences.90 After the Croatian Association of Deaf and Hard of Hearing 
intervened, it reintroduced subtitles in most shows. However, the Croatian 
Association of Sign Language Interpreters for the Deaf, in cooperation with 
the Ministry of Science and Education, designed a system to offer support 
to deaf students using Facebook.91

In the Netherlands, there were no sign interpreters at some of the government’s 
first coronavirus press conferences on television. They reappeared after the 
Prime Minister’s press conference on 12 March.92 In Portugal, televised press 
conferences on the COVID-19 situation used sign interpreters.93

Governments  took  various  measures  to  improve  the  accessibility  of 
communications. In Portugal, public bodies and NGOs published information 
sheets, guidelines and directives about COVID-19 in simplified language.94

278

279

In Cyprus, the Department for Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities 
uploaded information to its website that was easily convertible into braille and 
into sound format.95 The Committee on the Protection of Persons with Mental 
Disability took the initiative of monitoring announcements, converting texts 
into easy-read format, and uploading them. The Confederation of Disability 
Organisations circulated a weekly newsletter with information on matters 
pertaining to the pandemic that were of interest to persons with disabilities.96

The Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights 
(Ombudsperson), within the framework of her jurisdiction as an Independent 
Mechanism for the Promotion, Protection and Monitoring of the CRPD, 
submitted an own initiative intervention in April regarding the access of 
persons with disabilities and/or other vulnerable groups, including persons 
who live in psychiatric institutions and social care homes, to information on 
the coronavirus pandemic.97 Following the report, the relevant authorities 
implemented the Commissioner’s suggestions.

In Greece, information on COVID-19 and related measures has been communicated 
as social stories as well as in Greek sign language, in easy-to-read and in braille, 
as well as in magnified print type editions for visually impaired persons.98 All 
TV lessons for elementary schools are interpreted in sign language.99

In Estonia, information on the COVID-19 pandemic was communicated in 
sign language100 and plain language,101 and a remote video sign language 
interpretation service was expanded.102

Apps that track COVID-19 cases need to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 
From March to October 2020, the Spanish ONCE Social Group worked with the 
government on an independent audit of the Radar COVID app’s accessibility.103 
The government took into account concerns raised about the tool’s lack of 
accessibility and possible discrimination against persons with disabilities.

In Sweden, the National Board of Health and Welfare (together with other 
national authorities and intellectual disability organisations)104 developed 
support material for professionals on how to talk about COVID-19 to persons 
with intellectual disabilities and autism.105 Noting a lack of available accessible 
information, the Swedish Agency for Participation, in collaboration with the 
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency and the Swedish National Association for 
Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, created an information film for persons 
with intellectual disabilities, informing them about the coronavirus.106

Other general measures may also help improve responses in future. In Finland, 
the government created a new permanent committee on sign language 
to promote the rights of sign language users and foster dialogue between 
authorities and sign language users.107 In Bulgaria, a draft law on Bulgarian 
Sign Language was tabled in October.108

280

281

The  implementation  of  the  Web  Accessibility  Directive,  the  European 
Accessibility Act and the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive should 
also help ensure improvements in this area. For example, Estonia set up an 
interministerial working group on incorporating the Accessibility Act into 
national law, under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Affairs.109 The 
Swedish government appointed a special inquirer to determine how the 
directive could be implemented.110

Overall, the pandemic appears to have raised awareness of the need to inform 
persons with disabilities in accessible formats. The Dutch Senate passed the Dutch 
Sign Language Act,111 making sign language an official language of the Netherlands, 
alongside Dutch and Frisian. The legislative process began in 2016, but the COVID-19 
pandemic accelerated it by putting sign language in the public spotlight.

10�3�   
CRPD MONITORING FRAMEWORKS:  
KEY CHALLENGES

As outlined above, national monitoring frameworks provided added value 
during the pandemic by raising a wide range of concerns and making important 
recommendations regarding CRPD implementation. Challenges related to the 
functioning of these mechanisms persist, however, and this is of particular 
significance during a crisis.112

These challenges include lack of funding for the Lithuanian113 and Portuguese 
mechanisms; insufficient human resources and working space for the 
Portuguese mechanism; and start-up problems related to the pandemic in 
North Macedonia.

In Romania, the Council for Monitoring the Implementation of the UN CRPD 
appears to have become inactive.114

In 2019, Slovenia’s Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal 
Opportunities proposed a Draft Council for Persons with Disabilities Act, 
regulating its composition, tasks, powers and funding, but it stalled after 
criticism from the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, and is currently 
on hold because of the pandemic.115 In 2020, however, the Human Rights 
Ombudsperson, who is a National Human Rights Institution, proposed in 
its Annual Report for 2019 that the Ombudsperson is prepared to assume 
this responsibility and mission.116 Despite several positive responses in the 
Parliament, no such response has been received by the resource Ministry.117

On the positive side, the government of Sweden has proposed a new Institute 
for Human Rights.118 Its tasks would include the national monitoring of the 
CRPD.119

The EU CRPD Framework sent a joint letter outlining its vision to Commissioner 
Dalli in preparation for the new European disability strategy in January.120 It 
reiterated the points in that letter during an online consultation with the 
Commissioner in July.121

The framework also had a meeting with the Commission and discussed 
activities on COVID-19. It later summarised them in a list.122 Framework 
members agreed that future joint framework activities on the impact of the 
pandemic and the post-COVID world would be important. It also met with the 
European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) Disability 
Working Group to discuss cooperation in the area of indicators, and promising 
practices of monitoring bodies.

FRA ACTIVITY
Supporting 
efforts to develop 
monitoring 
indicators
The Bulgarian and Czech monitoring 
frameworks invited FRA to provide 
an overview of human rights 
indicators to help them develop 
indicators to monitor the situations 
in their Member States. In February, 
a seminar took place in Sofia. In 
November, FRA held an online 
event with the Czech Human Rights 
Defender.

Based on suggestions by members 
of the ENNHRI Disability Working 
Group, FRA used indicators that 
the UN, other national monitoring 
frameworks, and FRA itself had 
developed to inform the participants 
of the available options.

The events were organised 
collaboratively and used an 
interactive approach. Engagement 
on this topic is set to continue in the 
coming years.

FRA (2014) Human rights indicators 
on Article 19 CRPD and the ongoing 
Bridging the Gap project.

280

281

FRA opinions

FRA OPINION 10�1

In  line  with  the  CRPD,  EU  Member 
States should, as part of their checks 
on legislative and executive measures 
dealing with situations of risk (such as 
the COVID-19 pandemic), consider the 
impact of such measures on the rights of 
persons with disabilities and take steps to 
avoid any negative impact� Measures to 
address situations of risk that may directly 
or indirectly affect the rights of persons 
with disabilities should be provided by law, 
non-discriminatory and proportionate to 
the legitimate aim pursued� In line with the 
CRPD and the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights,  Member  States  should  fully 
involve persons with disabilities and their 
representative organisations, as well as 
the national monitoring bodies set up 
under Article 33 of the CRPD, in planning 
and monitoring such measures�

The EU institutions and EU Member 
States could support these checks by 
facilitating the exchange of promising 
practices, particularly between national 
parliaments�

Governments  took  a  broad  range  of  measures  to 
curb the spread of the coronavirus. Some of these 
measures did not fully take into account the rights of 
persons with disabilities under the CRPD, in particular 
Article 4 (duty to ensure and promote the rights of 
persons with disabilities) and Article 11 (situations of 
risk and humanitarian emergencies), or the EU Charter 
of Fundamental Rights, in particular Article 21 (non-
discrimination) and Article 26 (integration of persons 
with disabilities). Some bans on visits were excessive, 
persons with disabilities could not attend schools, or 
they had too few exemptions from rules on wearing 
masks or social distancing.

Lockdown measures also caused problems, including in 
the distribution of food and medical and cleaning supplies 
to persons with disabilities. Triage guidelines did not 
conform to CRPD standards, and could lead to the denial 
of life-saving intensive care to persons with disabilities 
who had similar chances of survival to persons without 
disabilities. In addition, the lockdowns often had a more 
negative impact on the mental and physical well-being 
of persons with disabilities. Their specific needs were 
frequently overlooked.

There was a lack of appropriate communication with 
persons with disabilities and of information for them 
about  measures  taken  to  address  the  pandemic, 
especially in its early stages, and they seldom took part 
in planning such measures. Some EU Member States have 
worked to ensure greater involvement of persons with 
disabilities in planning and monitoring such measures 
in the future. That could help reduce the risk that future 
measures will violate the CRPD.

282

The pandemic has shown that crisis communications 
strategies  of  Member  States  seldom  make  fully 
accessible  all  information  about  emergencies. 
Information  during  the  pandemic  was  not  always 
presented  by  means  and  in  formats  that  allowed 
persons with disabilities to access it, even though this 
is required by EU law, including the revised Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive (2018/1808) and the Web 
Accessibility Directive (2016/2102).

FRA OPINION 10�2

EU Member States should communicate 
their emergency responses in a fully 
accessible  way�  They  should  fully 
implement  relevant  EU  directives, 
such  as  the  revised  Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive and the Web 
Accessibility Directive� Member States 
should  provide  information  using 
appropriate means and formats – for 
example, subtitles, sign interpretation, 
and easy-read language�

The pandemic has underlined the urgent need for de-
institutionalisation. It has shown not only that persons 
with  disabilities  are  at  greater  physical  risk  in  this 
particular pandemic, but also that their mental well-
being is at greater risk when they are in institutionalised 
settings, because of the resultant isolation and lack of 
social contact.

Article 19 of the CRPD requires de-institutionalisation, and 
the new European disability strategy is likely to include 
it. The entry into force of the new Common Provisions 
Regulation and the roll-out of the disability strategy 
will increase the pressure to complete the process of 
de-institutionalisation.

FRA OPINION 10�3

In line with Article 19 of the CRPD and 
as part of the new European disability 
strategy, the EU and its Member States 
should urgently accelerate their efforts 
to  achieve  de-institutionalisation, 
including through the appropriate use 
of EU funds to ensure that persons with 
disabilities can live independently and 
be included in the community�

283

Index of country 
references
AT  275, 276, 277

BE  270, 271, 274, 275, 277, 278

BG  270, 274, 278, 280

CY  273, 274, 275, 276, 278, 

DA  270, 272

DE  271, 278

EE  273, 278, 280, 281

ES  271, 272, 274, 280

FI  272, 275, 280

FR  278

GR  273, 280

HR  270, 272, 275, 276, 277, 279

HU  270

IT  277

LT  274

LV  278

MK  281

NL  272, 274, 279, 281

PT  270, 274, 278, 279

RO  273, 281

RS  274, 276

SE  273, 280, 281

SI  276, 278, 281

SK  274, 279

Endnotes

1 

See European Commission (n.d.), ‘New cohesion policy’.

2  European Commission (2020), Evaluation of the European disability strategy 

2010–2020, SWD(2020) 289 final, 20 November 2020.

3  Regulation (EU) 2020/558 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 
April 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013 and (EU) No 1303/2013 
as regards specific measures to provide exceptional flexibility for the use of 
the European Structural and Investments Funds in response to the COVID-19 
outbreak, OJ L 130.

4  See for example, European Commission (2020), The evaluation of 

implementation costs and future effects of the Web Accessibility Directive, 
Final report.

5  Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and the Council of 

14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of 
certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action 
in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services 
(Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities, 
OJ L 303.

6  European Commission (2020), ‘Commission takes further steps to promote 

European audiovisual works and protect vulnerable viewers’, press release, 
2 July 2020.

7  European Commission (2020), Interpretative guidelines on EU passenger 

rights regulations in the context of the developing situation with Covid-19, 
C(2020) 1830 final, Brussels, 18 March 2020.

8  European Disability Forum (2021), ‘Request to take immediate actions to 
mobilise CRII; EU Funds to guarantee the continuity of care and support 
services in Europe during COVID-19 pandemic’.

9  European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to 
combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences (2020/2616(RSP)).

10  European Parliament (Petitions Committee) ‘Petition No� 0470/2020 by Helen 
Portal (Luxemburgish), on behalf of Inclusion Europe on the rights of persons 
with intellectual disabilities in the COVID-19 crisis’, 19 May 2020.

11  European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2020 on the rights of persons 
with intellectual disabilities and their families in the COVID-19 crisis 
(2020/2680(RSP)).

12  European Ombudsman, Case SI/2/2020/MMO, How the European Commission 
accommodates the needs of staff members with disabilities in the context of 
the COVID-19 crisis, 3 June 2020.

13  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying 
down common provisions on 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, COM/2018/375 final, 2018/0196 (COD), 29 May 2018; cf. the 
Commission’s amended proposal, 14 January 2020.

14  European Commission (2020), ‘Commission welcomes the political agreement 
on the Common Provisions Regulation for shared management funds’; Council 
of the European Union (2020), Common Provisions Regulation – Progress 
report, Brussels, 11 December 2020.

15  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying 
down common provisions on 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, COM/2018/375 final, 2018/0196 (COD), 29 May 2018; European 
Parliament (2020), Legislative train schedule – Common Provisions Regulation 
for ERDF, ESF+, the Cohesion Fund, EMFF, Asylum and Migration Fund, Internal 
Security Fund, Border Management and Visa Instrument.

16  See for example FRA (2017), From institutions to community living – Part II: 

Funding and budgeting, Luxembourg, Publications Office, p. 7.

17  European Ombudsman, Decision in Case 1233/2019/MMO on how the European 

Commission ensures that Member State governments spend European 
Structural and Investment Funds in line with the obligations stemming from 
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 
30 July 2020.

18  CJEU, T-613/19, European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL 

Brussels Office) and Others v. European Commission, 2 September 2020.

284

285

19  United Nations (UN), Human Rights Council, Forty-third session, 24 February–20 March 2020, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the 

rights of persons with disabilities.

20  Netzwerk Artikel 3 and Interessenvertretung Selbstbestimmt Leben in Deutschland (2020), ‘Triage – Behinderung darf kein Kriterium bei 

Priorisierungs-Entscheidungen sein! Kommentar’, 31 March 2020.

21  Germany, Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) (2020), 1 BvR 1541/20, 16 July 2020.

22  Belgium, National High Council for Persons with Disabilities (Nationale Hoge Raad Personen met een Handicap, NHRPH) (2020), ‘Persons 

with a disability who do not have co-morbidity should be treated equal to other patients’ (‘Personen met een handicap die geen 
comorbiditeit hebben, moeten op voet van gelijkheid worden behandeld met andere patiënten’), 28 October 2020; NHRPH (2020), 
‘Access to intensive care: A right to persons with a disability’ (‘Toegang tot intensieve zorg: een recht voor personen met een handicap’), 
3 November 2020.

23  Spain, Comité Español de Representantes de Personas con Discapacidad (CERMI) (2020), Annual CERMI report on human rights and 

disability in Spain for 2019 (Informe anual CERMI sobre derechos humanos y discapacidad en España correspondiente a 2019), Madrid, 
CERMI.

24  Spain, CERMI Navarra (2020), Información de interés para personas con discapacidad sobre el Coronavirus, 30 April 2020.

25  Danlami Basharu, Chair, UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and María Soledad Cisternas Reyes, Special Envoy of 
the UN Secretary-General on Disability and Accessibility (2020), ‘Joint Statement: Persons with Disabilities and COVID-19 by the Chair 
of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, on behalf of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities and the Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Disability and Accessibility’.

26  Croatia, Ministry for Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy (Ministarstvo za demografiju, obitelj, mlade i socijalnu politiku), Session 

of the Government’s Commission for Persons with Disabilities, 10 June 2020.

27  For more information, see Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – fundamental rights implications: Spain, 3 June 2020, p. 9.

28  Denmark, Patient Safety Authority (Styrelsen for Patientsikkerhed) (2020), Påbud til kommunalbestyrelsen om at udstede forbud 

mod besøgendes adgang til kommunale og private plejehjem, kommunale og private bosteder mv., 18 March 2020; Patient Safety 
Authority (2020), Påbud til kommunalbestyrelsen om at udstede forbud mod besøgendes adgang til kommunale og private plejehjem, 
plejeboliger og aflastningspladser, 6 April 2020; Ministry of Health (Sundheds- og Ældreministeriet) (2020), Bekendtgørelse om 
afspærring og besøgsrestriktioner på plejehjem og sygehuse i forbindelse med håndtering af Coronavirussygdom 2019 (COVID-19), 
Executive order No. 215 of 17 March 2020; Ministry of Health (2020), Bekendtgørelse om besøgsrestriktioner på plejehjem, plejeboliger 
og aflastningspladser samt sygehuse og klinikker i forbindelse med håndtering af Coronavirussygdom 2019 (COVID-19), Executive order 
No. 371 of 4 April 2020.

29  Netherlands, Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) (2020), ‘New visitors regulations 

for the disability care and psychiatric care sectors’, 23 March 2020; Association for Care of People with a disability (Vereniging 
Gehandicaptenzorg Nederland) (2020), Handreiking bezoek en logeren gehandicaptenzorg: voor verantwoord bezoek en logeren in 
coronatijd.

30  Ieder(in) (2020), ‘Experiences of people with a disability and their relatives with the relaxation of corona measures’ (‘Ervaringen van 

mensen met een beperking en hun naasten met de versoepeling van de coronamaatregelen’), Utrecht, Ieder(in), Section 4.3.

31  Danish Institute for Human Rights (2020), Besøgsrestriktioner på botilbud.

32  Finland, Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsperson (Apulaisoikeusasiamies/Biträdande justitieombudsman) (2020), Decision, EOAK 3232/2020, 

18 June 2020.

33  Council of Europe, European Social Charter, Pending Complaints, Validity v. Finland, No. 197/2020.

34  Sweden, Health and Social Care Inspectorate (Inspektionen för Vård och Omsorg, IVO), 2020, Q and A on the coronavirus, COVID-19 (Frågor 

och svar om Coronaviruset, covid-19).

35  Sweden, National Board on Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen), ‘Can the LSS residential care homes forbid the residents to receive 

visitors?’ (‘Kan LSS-boenden förbjuda boende att ta emot besökare?’), 17 March 2020.

36  Estonia, Chancellor of Justice (Õiguskantsler), Response to request for information, 7 September 2020.

37  Romania, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, National Authority for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Children and Adoptions 

(Ministerul Muncii și Protecției Sociale. Autoritatea Națională pentru Drepturile Persoanelor cu Dizabilități, Copii și Adopții) (2020), ‘The 
situation of the spread of COVID-19 at the level of social services for vulnerable categories’, 30 December 2020.

38  Slovakia, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family (Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny SR) (2020), Before the second wave of 

the pandemic, we help protect the most vulnerable (Pred druhou vlnou pandémie pomáhame chrániť najzraniteľnejších)’.

39  Trimikliniotis, N. and Demetriou, C. (2020), ‘Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, Cyprus country 

report 4’, FRA, July 2020.

40  Greece, National Commission for Human Rights (2020), Report on the need for protection of human rights with regard to the measures 

taken in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and recommendations to the State.

41  Cyprus, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (2020), ‘Ανακοίνωση του Υπουργείου Παιδείας, Πολιτισμού, Αθλητισμού και Νεολαίας 

αναφορικά με τη φοίτηση παιδιών με ειδικές ανάγκες’, press release, 20 May 2020; Omegalive (2020), ‘Έξω από το Υπουργείο Παιδείας 
οι γονείς μαθητών της ειδικής εκπαίδευσης’, 22 May 2020; Dialogos (2020), ‘Ξανά έξω από το Υπ. Παιδείας οι γονείς παιδιών με 
αναπηρίες’, 25 May 2020; Kathimerini (2020), ‘Επίτροπος Διοικήσεως: Παραβίαση των δικαιωμάτων των παιδιών ΑμεΑ’, 21 May 2020; 
Symeonidou S. (2020), ‘Για άλλη μια φορά τα παιδιά με αναπηρία εκτός σχολείου…’, 21 May 2020; Ministry of Education, Culture and 
Sports (2020), Απόφαση της Ειδικής Επιτροπής για άμεση φοίτηση παιδιών στις Ειδικές Μονάδες ή στις γενικές τάξεις, 29 May 2020; 
Trimikliniotis, N. and Demetriou, C. (2020), ‘Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, Cyprus country 
report 4’, FRA, June 2020.

42  Portugal, Decree-law no�20-H/2020 of 14 May 2020 establishing exceptional measures of organization and functioning of educational and 

training activities concerning COVID-19 pandemic (Article 3). Público (2020), ‘There is no “specific plan” for students with special needs, 
but schools are working’ (‘Não há “plano específico” para alunos com necessidades especiais, mas as escolas estão a trabalhar’), 17 April 
2020; JN (2020), ‘COVID 19 – Special education schools ask for more support and guidance’ (‘COVID 19 – Escolas de edudacção especial 
pedem mais apoio e guião orientador’), 11 July 2020.

284

285

43  Belgium, Royal Decree No. 45 of 26 June 2020 executing Article 5 (1) (5) of the Act of 27 March 2020 authorising the King to take 

measures to combat the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19 (II) for the extension of certain measures, clarifying certain modalities of 
the corona parental leave and consumption cheque (Koninklijk besluit nr. 45 van 26 juni 2020 tot uitvoering van artikel 5, § 1, 5° van 
de wet van 27 maart 2020 die machtiging verleent aan de Koning om maatregelen te nemen in de strijd tegen de verspreiding van 
het coronavirus COVID-19 (II) tot verlenging van sommige maatregelen, tot verduidelijking van bepaalde modaliteiten van het corona 
ouderschapsverlof en van de consumptiecheque), 26 June 2020.

44  Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights (Komitet pravnika za ljudska prava, YUCOM) (2020), Human rights and COVID-19 (Ljudska prava 

i COVID-19), Belgrade, September 2020, p. 29.

45  Bulgaria, Patronage care for elderly people and persons with disabilities – Component 3 of the Operational Program “Human Resources 

Development”. ESF website.

46  Spain, Ministry of the Health (Ministerio de Sanidad), Instruction of 19 March 2020, by the Ministry of Health, establishing interpretative 

criteria to manage the health crisis situation caused by COVID-19 (Instrucción de 19 de marzo de 2020, del Ministerio de Sanidad, por la 
que se establecen criterios interpretativos para la gestión de la situación de crisis sanitaria ocasionada por el COVID-19), 19 March 2020.

47  Ieder(in) (2020), How will your life become liveable again? Results of the survey on what people with a disability or chronic illness 

need in order to (also) benefit from relaxation of the coronary measures (Hoe wordt uw leven weer leefbaar? Uitkomsten van de 
enquête over wat mensen met een beperking of chronische ziekte nodig hebben om (ook) profijt te hebben van versoepeling van de 
coronamaatregelen), p. 11, Utrecht, Ieder(in).

48  Slovakia, Deinstitutionalization of social service facilities – Support for transformation teams (Deinštitucionalizácia zariadení sociálnych 
služieb – Podpora transformačných tímov) (2020), ‘Prečo dnes ešte viac ako inokedy, potrebujeme deinštitucionalizáciu a komunitné 
služby?ʼ, 29 April 2020; aktuality.sk (2020), ‘Pre moje autistické dieťa v tomto štáte nie je miestoʼ, 29 September 2020.

49  YUCOM (2020), Human rights and COVID-19 (Ljudska prava i COVID-19), Belgrade, September 2020, p. 47.

50  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti) (2020), Recommendation to the Ministry 
of Labour, Employment and Veteran and Social Affairs on measures concerning position of persons with autism (Препорука мера 
Министарству за рад, запошљавање, борачка и социјална питања поводом положаја особа са аутизмом), 13 April 2020.

51  Croatia, Association of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons (Hrvatski savez gluhih i nagluhih), ‘Line for providing psychosocial support to 

deaf and hard of hearing persons’ (‘Broj za pružanje psihosocijalne podrške za gluhe i nagluhe osobe’).

52  Communication from the Department for Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, 6 October 2020.

53  Austria, Independent Monitoring Committee on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

(2020), ‘Kinder mit Behinderungen haben Recht auf inklusive Ferienangebote’, 8 July 2020.

54  Finland, Working group appointed by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2020), Well-being of children and young people in 

post-crisis measures related to COVID-19 – Report on the realisation of the rights of the child, coronavirus working group linked to 
the National Child Strategy (Lasten ja nuorten hyvinvointi koronakriisin jälkihoidossa – Lapsistrategian koronatyöryhmän raportti lapsen 
oikeuksien toteutumisesta), Helsinki, Publications of the Finnish Government, p. 21.

55  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘COVID-19: An online consultation to learn more about the impact on people with disabilities’ (‘COVID-19: une 

consultation en ligne pour mieux connaître l’impact sur les personnes avec un handicap’), 21 April 2020; Unia (2020), ‘COVID and human 
rights: Impact on disabled people and their loved ones’ (‘Resultaten_van_bevraging_impact_COVID_personen_met_handicap_en_
naasten’), July 2020; Unia (2020), ‘The coronavirus crisis has had a dramatic impact on people with disabilities’ (‘La crise du coronavirus 
a eu un impact dramatique sur les personnes en situation de handicap’), 8 July 2020, p. 18.

56  Austria, Independent Monitoring Committee on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

(2020), Corona-Krise: Situationen von Frauen mit Behinderungen beachten, 28 May 2020.

57  Austria, Independent Monitoring Committee on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
(Unabhängiger Monitoringausschuss zur Umsetzung der UN-Konvention über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen) (2020), 
Aus Krise lernen: UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention konsequent umsetzen, 20 June 2020.

58  YUCOM (2020), Human rights and COVID-19 (Ljudska prava i COVID-19), Belgrade, September 2020, p. 29.

59  Email from the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the Republic of Slovenia (Ministrstvo za delo, družino, 

socialne zadeve in enake možnosti), 2 October 2020.

60  Own Initiative Intervention of Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights (Ombudsman), within the 

framework of her jurisdiction as an Independent Mechanism for the Promotion, Protection and Monitoring of the United Nations 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and as an Equality Body, dated 24 August 2020, regarding the mandatory use of 
protective masks by children with disabilities over the age of six while attending school.

61  Slovenia, Human Rights Ombudsperson (Varuh človekovih pravic) (2020), ‘Pregled aktivnosti Varuha na področju človekovih pravic 

invalidov / julij – september 2020’, public release, 10 November 2020.

62  Croatia, Croatian Institute for Public Health (Hrvatski zavod za javno zdravstvo), Protection measures against COVID-19 for persons with 

disabilities, 28 June 2020.

63  Croatia, Croatian Institute for Public Health (Hrvatski zavod za javno zdravstvo), Who does not have to wear a mask? Exemptions from 

obligation to wear a mask, 13 July 2020.

64  4� COVID-19-Schutzmaßnahmenverordnung of the Austrian Minister of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection, Federal Law 

Gazette II No. 58/2021 as amended by Federal Law Gazette II No. 111/2021 section 17 para. 3 no. 2.

65  Lithuania, Government (2020), Decree on the announcement of quarantine in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania (Lietuvos 
Respublikos Vyriausybės 2020 m. lapkričio 4 d. nutarimas dėl karantino lietuvos respublikos teritorijoje paskelbimo), No. 1226, 
4 November 2020.

66  Italy, Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri 3 novembre 2020, ‘Ulteriori disposizioni attuative del decreto-legge 25 marzo 
2020, n. 19, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 25 maggio 2020, n. 35, recante «Misure urgenti per fronteggiare l’emergenza 
epidemiologica da COVID-19», e del decreto-legge 16 maggio 2020, n. 33, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 14 luglio 2020, n. 74, 
recante «Ulteriori misure urgenti per fronteggiare l’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19»’.

286

287

67  Austria, Independent Monitoring Committee on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
(Unabhängiger Monitoringausschuss zur Umsetzung der UN-Konvention über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen) (2020), 
Aus Krise lernen: UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention consequent umsetzen, 20 June 2020.

68  4� COVID-19-Schutzmaßnahmenverordnung of the Austrian Minister of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection, Federal Law 

Gazette II No. 58/2021 as amended by Federal Law Gazette II No. 111/2021 section 17 para. 9 no. 3.

69  Croatia, Ombudsperson for Persons with Disabilities (Pravobranitelj za osobe s invaliditetom), ‘The right to ensured medical services 

to persons with disabilities in their homes’ (‘Pravo na osiguravanje provođenja medicinskih usluga za osobe s invaliditetom u vlastitim 
domovima’), official letter, 23 March 2020.

70  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘COVID-19: A test for human rights’ (‘COVID-19: Een test voor de mensenrechten’), 12 November 2020.

71  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘Unia is concerned about the accessibility of supermarkets during the lockdown’ (‘Unia s’inquiète au sujet de 

l’accessibilité des supermarchés pendant le confinement’), 1 April 2020..

72  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘Unia appeals to the SNCB following the suspension of its helpdesk service’ (‘Unia interpelle la SNCB suite à la 
suspension de son service d’assistance’), 24 March 2020. For information on access to public transport, see Vrije Universiteit Brussel 
Fundamental Rights Research Centre, Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak in the EU – Fundamental rights implications, 4 May 2020, p. 15.

73  Belgium, National Superior Council of Disabled People (Conseil Supérieur National des Personnes handicapées, CSNPH) (2020), ‘Opinion 
No. 2020/15 of the National Superior Council of Disabled People (CSNPH) on the strategy of deconfinement of the SNCB in stations 
and stops after confinement due to the coronavirus crisis’ (‘Avis n° 2020/15 du Conseil Supérieur National des Personnes handicapées 
(CSNPH) relatif à la stratégie de déconfinement de la SNCB dans les gares et aux arrêts après le confinement en raison de la crise du 
coronavirus’).

74  Belgium, Service Public Federal, Social Integration, Fight against Poverty, Social Economy and Urban Policy Taskforce for Vulnerable Groups 
(SPP Intégration Sociale, Lutte contre la Pauvreté, Economie Sociale et Politique des Grandes Villes Taskforce Groupes Vulnérables) (2020), 
‘Table for monitoring TF measures Vulnerable groups’ (‘Tableau de suivi des mesures de la TF Groupes vulnérables’), 1 July 2020.

75  Germany, Aktion Mensch (2020), Inklusionsbarometer 2020.

76  Communication from the Department for Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, 6 October 2020.

77  Slovenia, Act of intervention measures to contain the COVID-19 epidemic and mitigate its consequences for citizens and the economy 
(Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 in omilitev njenih posledic za državljane in gospodarstvo), 2 April 2020�

78  Lithuania, The Law on single children’s payments to reduce the effects of a COVID-19 (coronavirus infection) pandemic (Lietuvos 
Respublikos Vienkartinės išmokos vaikams, skirtos Covid-19 (koronaviruso infekcijos) pandemijos padariniams mažinti, įstatymas), 
No. XIII-3030, 9 June 2020.

79  Estonia, Ministry of Social Affairs (Sotsiaalministeerium), response to request for information, 24 September 2020.

80  Lithuania, Minister of Health of the Republic of Lithuania – Head of state operations at the state extraordinary situation (Lietuvos 
Respublikos Sveikatos apsaugos ministras – Valstybės lygio ekstremalios situacijos valstybės operacijų vadovas), Decision on the 
organisation of the provision of personal health care services after the publication of quarantine in the territory of the Republic of 
Lithuania, No. V-387, 16 March 2020.

81  Bulgaria, Regulation on the structure and organisation of work of the expert medical examination authorities and of the regional 
databases of medical examinations (Правилник за устройството и организацията на работа на органите на медицинската 
експертиза и на регионалните картотеки на медицинските експертизи), 26 April 2010.

82  France, Decree No� 2020-1223 of 6 October 2020 providing help for the recruitment of people with disabilities (Décret n° 2020-1223 du 

6 octobre 2020 instituant une aide à l’embauche des travailleurs handicapés).

83  Portugal, Ordinance No� 207/2020 that regulates the ‘Incentivo ATIVAR�PT’ measure, which consists in granting, to the employer, 
financial support for the conclusion of a work contract with unemployed persons registered at the Institute of Employment 
and Professional Training (Portaria n.º 207/2020 que regula a medida Incentivo ATIVAR.PT, que consiste na concessão, à entidade 
empregadora, de um apoio financeiro à celebração de contrato de trabalho com desempregado inscrito no Instituto do Emprego e da 
Formação Profissional), 27 August 2020.

84  For more information about the financial support to employers, see Bulgaria, Agency for People with Disabilities (Агенция за Хората 

с Увреждания) (n.d.), ‘Национална програма за заетост на хората с увреждания по чл.44, ал.1 от ЗХУ’.

85  Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No� 262 on Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No� 75 of 25 January 2011 

‘Regulations on organising, financing procedure of active employment measures and preventive measures to reduce unemployment and 
principles of selection of those implementing measures’ (Grozījumi Ministru kabineta 2011. gada 25. janvāra noteikumos Nr. 75 “Noteikumi 
par aktīvo nodarbinātības pasākumu un preventīvo bezdarba samazināšanas pasākumu organizēšanas un finansēšanas kārtību un 
pasākumu īstenotāju izvēles principiem”), 17 May.

86  Lithuania, Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas), Law on Social enterprises (LR Socialinių įmonių 

įstatymas), No. XIII-2427, 19 September 2019.

87  FRA (2020), What do fundamental rights mean for people in the EU?, Luxembourg, Publications Office, Figure 22, p. 51.

88  Belgium, Unia (2020), ‘COVID-19: an online consultation to learn more about the impact on people with disabilities’ (‘COVID-19: une 

consultation en ligne pour mieux connaître l’impact sur les personnes avec un handicap’), 21 April 2020; Unia, COVID and human rights: 
Impact on disabled people and their loved ones (COVID et droits humains : impact sur les personnes handicapées et leurs proches), 
July 2020; Unia, ‘The coronavirus crisis has had a dramatic impact on people with disabilities’ (‘La crise du coronavirus a eu un impact 
dramatique sur les personnes en situation de handicap’), 8 July 2020.

89  Facebook post on the Facebook page of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, 10 November 2020.

90  Croatia, Croatian Association of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons (Hrvatski savez gluhih i nagluhih), ‘As of today subtitles are back on 

HRT shows’ (‘Od danas ponovno titlovi na HRT emisijama’), 25 March 2020.

91  Croatia, Ministry of Science and Education (2020), Action Plan for the Implementation of the Distance Education, p. 15, footnote 2.

92  Netherlands, NOS (2020), ‘Prime Minister Rutte after crisis talks on coronavirus: stop shaking hands’ (‘Premier Rutte na crisisoverleg 

over coronavirus: schud geen handen meer’), 9 March 2020.

93  See for example Portugal, Government (2020), ‘Press conference of the Committee of Ministers’ (‘Conferência de imprensa do Conselho 

de Ministros’), 27 November 2020.

286

287

94  For more information, see the Instituto Nacional para a Reabilitação website with information about COVID-19 in accessible language.

95  Cyprus, New Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) ‘ΛΟΙΜΩΞΗ ΑΠΟ ΝΕΟ ΚΟΡΩΝΟΪΟ (COVID-19)’.

96  Communication from the Department for Social Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, 6 October 2020.

97  Αυτεπάγγελτη Τοποθέτηση Επιτρόπου Διοικήσεως και Προστασίας Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων ως Ανεξάρτητος Μηχανισμός 

Προώθησης, Προστασίας και Παρακολούθησης της Σύμβασης του Οργανισμού Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τα Δικαιώματα των Ατόμων 
με Αναπηρία αναφορικά με την προσβασιμότητα των ατόμων με αναπηρίες στις πληροφορίες που αφορούν στην πανδημία του 
COVID-19.

98  Greece (2020), Project: “Development of Accessible Digital Educational Material” (2020), information on COVID-19 in accessible format.

99  Greece, Ministry of Education (2020), We learn at home.

100 Estonia, Chancellor of Justice (Õiguskantsler), response to request for information, 7 September 2020.

101 Estonia, Ministry of Social Affairs (Sotsiaalministeerium), response to request for information, 24 September 2020.

102 Estonia, Chancellor of Justice (Õiguskantsler), response to request for information, 7 September 2020.

103 Spain, Government (2020), Radar COVID app website.

104 Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) (2020), ‘To talk about the coronavirus and COVID-19 with persons with 
intellectual disabilities or autism’ (‘Att prata om coronaviruset och covid-19 med personer med intellektuell funktionsnedsättning eller 
autism’), 20 May 2020.

105 Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen), Speaking about coronavirus and covid-19 with persons with intellectual 

disabilities or autism (Att prata om coronaviruset och covid-19 med personer med intellektuell funktionsnedsättning eller autism), 
26 May 2020.

106 Sweden, Swedish Agency for Participation (Myndigheten för Delaktighet) (2020), ‘Film for persons with intellectual disabilities about 

reducing spread of infection’ (‘Film för personer med intellektuell funktionsnedsättning om minskad smittspridning’), 17 November 2020.

107 Finland, Government decree on committee on sign language affairs (Valtioneuvoston asetus viittomakieliasioiden neuvottelukunnasta/
Statsrådets förordning om delegationen för teckenspråksärenden, Decree No. 690/2020); see also Ministry of Justice (Oikeusministeriö/
Justitieministeriet) (2020), ‘Viittomakieliasioiden neuvottelukunnasta annettiin asetus’, press release, 9 October 2020.

108 Bulgaria, Council of Ministers (Министерския съвет) (2020), Draft Bulgarian Sign Language Act (Законопроект за българския жестов 

език), 6 August 2020.

109 Estonia, Ministry of Social Affairs (Sotsiaalministeerium), response to request for information, 24 September 2020.

110 Sweden, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (Socialdepartementet) (2020), ‘Implementation of the Accessibility Directive’ 

(‘Genomförandet av tillgänglighetsdirektivet’), committee directive, 16 April 2020.

111  Netherlands, Senate (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal) (2020), ‘Vote on Bill for the recognition of Dutch Sign Language’ (‘Stemming 

Erkenning Nederlandse gebarentaal’).

112  An overview table of all CRPD bodies is available on the website of the EU CRPD Framework.

113  Lithuania, Office of the Equality Ombudsperson (Lygių galimybių kontrolieriaus tarnyba) (2020), ‘Protocol of the meeting of the 

Commission for the Monitoring of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (‘Žmonių su negalia teisių stebėsenos komisijos prie Lygių 
galimybių kontrolieriaus tarnybos 2020 m� vasario 6 d� posėdžio Protokolas’), No. 2020-02-12 NKP-3, 6 February 2020.

114 Newsweek (2020), ‘Assessment: The failures of the Council for Monitoring, which should protect people with disabilities’ (‘Analiză: 

Rateurile Consiliului de Monitorizare, care ar trebui să apere persoanele cu dizabilități’), 25 January 2020.

115  Slovenia, Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (Ministrstvo za delo, družino, socialne zadeve in enake 

možnosti) (2020), email, 2 October 2020.

116 Slovenia, Human Rights Ombudsperson (Varuh človevkoih pravic), Annual Report of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of 

Slovenia for 2019, June 2020, pp. 16 and 104.

117  Information was provided by the Human Rights Ombudsperson of the Republic of Slovenia (email, 15 March 2021).

118 Sweden, Ministry of Employment (Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet) (2020), ‘The establishment of an institute for human rights is 

proposed’ (‘Ett institut för mänskliga rättigheter föreslås inrättas’), press release, 21 September 2020.

119 Sweden, Ministry of Employment (Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet) (2020), ‘Proposal for a national institution for human rights in 

Sweden’ (‘Förslag till en nationell institution för mänskliga rättigheter i Sverige, Ds 2019:4’), 22 February 2019.

120 EU CRPD Framework (2020), ‘European Disability Strategy post-2020: Contribution from the EU CRPD Monitoring Framework’, letter to 

the European Ombudsperson, 20 January 2020.

121  FRA (2020), ‘EU Framework meets Commissioner Dalli to discuss future EU Disability Strategy’, 7 July 2020.

122 EU CRPD Framework (2020), ‘EU CRPD Framework: Activities during the COVID-19 pandemic’. 

288

289

Photo credits:

Cover (top to bottom): © iStock/DNY59 and © Shutter B/Adobe Stock
Page 5: © Victor/Adobe Stock
Page 6: © maticsandra/Adobe Stock
Page 7: © National Network of Roma Health Mediators 
Page 10: © Studio Romantic/Adobe Stock
Page 11: © C5Media/Adobe Stock
Page 16: © MIA Studio/Adobe Stock
Page 17: © Shutter B/Adobe Stock
Page 19: © Fundación Secretariado Gitano (FSG)
Page 20: © RichLegg/iStock
Page 22: © Cedric Blondeel/Adobe Stock
Page 24: © CasarsaGuru/iStock
Page 26: © Leo Patrizi/iStock
Page 27: © freemixer/iStock
Page 29: © Me studio/Adobe Stock
Page 30: © nito/Adobe Stock
Page 31: © NurPhoto/Getty
Page 31: © Günter Schiffmann/EC-Audiovisual Service 
Page 32: © Schwartz/FRA
Page 34: © evergreentree/Adobe Stock
Page 45: © FRA
Page 47: © FRA
Page 49: © Daisy Daisy/Adobe Stock
Page 53: © AdriaVidal/Adobe Stock
Page 57: © blvdone/Adobe Stock
Page 59: © FRA
Page 68: © Cate Gillon/Getty 
Page 70: © 10'000 Hours/Getty
Page 72: © kali9/iStock
Page 72: © LUDOVIC MARIN/BELGA/AFP 
Page 75: © utlaniv/Adobe Stock
Page 83: © RedUmbrella&Donkey/Adobe Stock
Page 85: © NurPhoto/Getty Images
Page 97: © JOHN MACDOUGALL/BELGA/AFP
Page 98: © evergreentree/Adobe Stock
Page 100: © Gwengoat/iStock
Page 101: © PHILIPPE HUGUEN/BELGA/AFP
Page 103: © FatCamera/iStock
Page 105: © David Gannon/BELGA/AFP
Page 107: © Kypros/Alamy Stock Photo
Page 111: © Lidia_Lo/Adobe Stock
Page 122: © Nigel Crump/Alamy
Page 123: © fotofritz16/iStock
Page 124: © FRED DUFOUR/BELGA/AFP 
Page 128: © LSOphoto/iStock
Page 131: © ton koene/Alamy
Page 133: © JOEL SAGET/BELGA/AFP 
Page 134: © NurPhoto/Getty Image
Page 136: © THOMAS COEX/BELGA/AFP 
Page 153: © Angelos Tzortzinis/European Union
Page 156: © Csaba SEGESVARI/BELGA/AFP
Page 158: © Joel Carillet/iStock
Page 159: © Bochenek/FRA
Page 166: © Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Page 168: © David Silverman/Getty Images
Page 185: © bluedesign /Adobe Stock
Page 186: © Praewphan /Adobe Stock
Page 188: © mchlskhrv /Adobe Stock

288

289

Page 191: © Marko/Adobe Stock
Page 192: © zelwanka /Adobe Stock
Page 194: © greenbutterfly /Adobe Stock
Page 196: © Monopoly919/Adobe Stock
Page 198: © Stavros/Adobe Stock
Page 200: © Sikov /Adobe Stock
Page 214: © KENZO TRIBOUILLARD/BELGA/AFP 
Page 215: © Sueddeutsche Zeitung Photo/Alamy
Page 215: © Xesai/iStock
Page 216: © MarianVejcik/iStock 
Page 217: © Mirjana Ristic/iStock
Page 218: © New Africa /Adobe Stock
Page 219: © Jovanmandic/iStock
Page 220: © GeorgiaCourt/iStock
Page 221: © NurPhoto/Getty Images
Page 224: © NIKOLAY DOYCHINOV/BELGA/AFP
Page 227: © Vincent Voegtlin/BELGA/MAXPPP
Page 242: © kumikomini/iStock
Page 243: © kieferpix/iStock
Page 246: © Yuri_Arcurs/iStock
Page 249: © LightFieldStudios/iStock
Page 251: © satori13/iStock
Page 255: © RomanR/Adobe Stock
Page 269: © Thomas Marx/iStock
Page 270: © Peopleimages/iStock
Page 271: © THOMAS SAMSON/BELGA/AFP
Page 273: © H_Ko/Adobe Stock
Page 274: © Ktaylorg/iStock
Page 275: © Johnrob/iStock
Page 276: © Authentic Images/iStock
Page 277: © Peter Devlin/Alamy
Page 279: © MediaNews Group/Reading Eagle via Getty
Page 280: © elypse/Adobe Stock

290

291

290

291

292

PB

FUNDAMENTAL 
RIGHTS REPORT – 
2021

The year 2020 brought both progress and setbacks 

in terms of fundamental rights protection. FRA’s 

Fundamental Rights Report 2021 reviews major 

developments in the field, identifying both 

achievements and remaining areas of concern. This 

publication presents FRA’s opinions on the main 

developments in the thematic areas covered, and 

a synopsis of the evidence supporting these opinions. 

In so doing, it provides a compact but informative 

overview of the main fundamental rights challenges 

confronting the EU and its Member States.

S
N
O

I

N

I

P
O

A
R
F

[FOCUS]

1

The Coronavirus pandemic 
and fundamental rights: 
a year in review

10

Racism, xenophobia and related 
intolerance

19

Information society, privacy 
and data protection

4

Implementation and use 
of the Charter at national level

7

Equality and non‑discrimination

13

Roma equality and inclusion

16

Asylum, visas, migration, borders 
and integration

22

Rights of the Child

25

Access to justice

T
K
-
0
1
-
2
1
-
0
3
0
-
E
N
-
C

THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC 
AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: 
A YEAR IN REVIEW
― 

S
U
C
O
F

27

Developments 
in the implementation 
of the Convention on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities

—  The Fundamental Rights Report 2021 
- FRA Opinions are available in all 
24 EU official languages on the FRA 
website at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/
publication/2021/fundamental-rights-
report-2021-fra-opinions 

—  The Coronavirus pandemic and 

fundamental rights: a year in review is 
available in English and French on the 
FRA website: https://fra.europa.eu/en/
publication/2021/coronavirus-pandemic-
focus 

Getting in touch with the EU

In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:  
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about 
the European Union. You can contact this service: 
—  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11  

(certain operators may charge for these calls),
— at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
— by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU

Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your 
local information centre (see https:// europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR- Lex at:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and 
non-commercial purposes.

 
 

PROMOTING AND PROTECTING 
YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 
ACROSS THE EU ―

FRA’s Fundamental Rights Report 2021 reviews 
major developments in the field in 2020, 
identifying both achievements and areas of 
concern. It also presents FRA’s opinions on 
these developments, including a synopsis of the 
evidence supporting these opinions. 

This year’s focus chapter explores the impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic on fundamental 
rights. The remaining chapters cover: the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights; equality and 
non-discrimination; racism, xenophobia and 
related intolerance; Roma equality and inclusion; 
asylum, borders and migration; information 
society, privacy and data protection; rights of the 
child; access to justice; and the implementation 
of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities.

FRA – EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria

T +43 158030-0 – F +43 158030-699 
fra.europa.eu 

  facebook.com/fundamentalrights
  twitter.com/EURightsAgency
  linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency

1

2

0

2

―

T

R

O

P

E

R

S

T

H

G

I

R

L

A

T

N

E

M

A

D

N

U

F