COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analytical document Accompanying the documents Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment between persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin, equal treatment in the field of employment and occupation between persons irrespective of their religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, equal treatment between women and men in matters of social security and in the access to and supply of goods and services, and deleting Article 13 of Directive 2000/43/EC and Article 12 of Directive 2004/113/EC and Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in matters of employment and occupation, and deleting Article 20 of Directive 2006/54/EC and Article 11 of Directive 2010/41/EU
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, application of EU law, employment policy, equal treatment, fundamental rights, gender equality, goods and services, job access, public institution, social security

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.12.2022  SWD(2022) 386 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analytical document Accompanying the documents Proposal for a  COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment between persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin, equal treatment in the field of employment and occupation between persons irrespective of their religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, equal treatment between women and men in matters of social security and in the access to and supply of goods and services, and deleting Article 13 of Directive 2000/43/EC and Article 12 of Directive 2004/113/EC               and              Proposal for a      DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL              on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in matters of employment and occupation, and deleting Article 20 of Directive 2006/54/EC and Article 11 of Directive 2010/41/EU {COM(2022) 689 final} - {SWD(2022) 387 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 

1.1.  Political and legal context ................................................................................. 3 

1.2.  Analysis in preparation of this initiative ........................................................... 7 

2.  Problem definition ..................................................................................................... 10 

2.1.  What are the problems? ................................................................................... 10 

2.2.  What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................ 13 

3.  Why should the EU act? ............................................................................................ 14 

3.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 14 

3.2.  Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action................................................................ 15 

3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of the EU intervention .......................................... 16 

4.  Objectives: what is to be achieved? .......................................................................... 18 

4.1.  Objectives ........................................................................................................ 18 

4.2.  Operational objectives ..................................................................................... 19 

5.  What are the policy options? ..................................................................................... 21 

Description of possible measures .............................................................................. 21 

6.  Assessment of the possible measures ........................................................................ 30 

7.  Preferred combination of measures ........................................................................... 46 

8.  How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? ............................................. 53 

Annex 1: List of equality bodies in the EU Member States .............................................. 54 

Annex 2: Procedural information ...................................................................................... 56 

Annex 3: Stakeholder consultation (synopsis report) ........................................................ 57 

Annex  4:    Overview  of  the  structure  and  functioning  of  equality  bodies  in 

Member States ........................................................................................................... 71 

Annex 5: Retrospective analysis report ........................................................................... 127 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 128 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ........................... 129 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives .................................... 129 

2.2.  Point(s) of comparison ................................................................................ 134 

3.  HOW  HAS  THE  SITUATION  EVOLVED  OVER  THE  PERIOD  EXAMINED  BY  THE 

RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS? ................................................................................... 136 

 
 
4.  ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 148 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ...................... 148 

4.1.1.  Effectiveness .................................................................................... 148 

4.1.2.  Efficiency ......................................................................................... 151 

4.1.3.  Coherence ........................................................................................ 156 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? .................................... 158 

4.3.  Is the intervention still relevant?................................................................ 159 

5.  CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 162 

ANNEX A: RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS MATRIX AND QUESTIONS .................................. 166 

ANNEX B: OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS............................................................. 194 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

1.1. 

Political and legal context 

This  analytical  document  accompanies  two  proposals  of  directives  on  standards  for 
equality  bodies.  It  includes  a  retrospective  analysis  of  the  EU  framework  applicable  to 
equality  bodies,  identifying  current  challenges,  as  well  as  an  assessment  of  the  policy 
options considered in preparation of these proposals to address them. This initiative was 
exempted from the obligation to conduct a fully-fledged impact assessment.  

Equality  is  a  fundamental  value  of  the  European  Union,  laid  down  in  Article  2  of  the 
Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with Article 19(1) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Council can take appropriate action to 
combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, 
age  or  sexual  orientation.  In  addition,  Article  157  TFEU  provides  for  the  principle  of 
equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value. Equality 
bodies  established  under  EU  equality  legislation  have  a  key  role  to  play  in  ensuring 
implementation  of  these  principles.  This  has  also  been  acknowledged  by  the  European 
Parliament, which adopted several resolutions in this regard1. The current list of equality 
bodies in EU Member States is annexed (see Annex 1).  

the  European  Network  of  Equality  Bodies  (Equinet).  In 

In  2016,  the  Council  adopted  conclusions2  calling  on  the  European  Commission  and 
Member  States  to  reinforce  and  continue  to  support  the  activities  of  national  equality 
bodies  and  of 
its 
Recommendation of 12 March 2021 on Roma equality, inclusion and participation3, the 
Council  also  stressed  the  importance  of  supporting  equality  bodies  so  that  they  can, 
within the scope of their mandates, function effectively and independently and cooperate 
with  all  relevant  actors.  In  2022,  the  Council  also  adopted  conclusions  on  combating 
racism  and  antisemitism4  inviting  Member  States  to  support  robust  equality  bodies  and 
adopt  a  legislative  framework  enabling  them  to  carry  out  their  role  independently,  and 
provide them with the necessary resources to carry out their tasks effectively. 

1 

For  example,  European  Parliament  resolution  of  15  September  2016  on  the  application  of  Council 
Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in 
employment  and  occupation  (‘Employment  Equality  Directive’)  (2015/2116(INI)),  in  which  the 
Parliament  noted  the  important  role  of  the  national  equality  bodies  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Employment  Equality  Directive;  or  European  Parliament  resolution  of  14  March  2017  on  the 
application of Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between 
men  and  women  in  the  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  (2016/2012(INI)),  in  which  the 
Parliament  acknowledged  that  equality  bodies  played  a  crucial  role  in  monitoring  and  ensuring  the 
implementation  of  Council  directive  2004/113/EC.  In  this  resolution,  Parliament  also  called  on 
Member  States  to  guarantee  sufficient  competence  and  independence  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions of the Directive and national law as well as sufficient resources for national equality bodies 
so they can fulfil their principal tasks in an effective way.  

2  Council  conclusions  of  16 June  2016  on  LGBTI  equality.  Council  conclusions  on  LGBTI  equality  - 

Consilium (europa.eu) 

3  Council  Recommendation  of  12  March  2021  on  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation 

(2021/C93/01).  

4  Council Conclusions of 2 March 2022 on combating racism and antisemitism, 6406/1/22 REV 1.  

3 

 
                                                 
In  2021,  the  European  Parliament  called  on  the  Commission  to  propose  legislation  on 
equality bodies, with the aim of ‘providing them with a stronger mandate and adequate 
resources  to  safeguard  the  equal  treatment  of  persons  with  disabilities,  and  to  ensure 
accessible information dissemination for all5’. 

In  the  EU  anti-racism  action  plan6,  the  EU  Roma  strategic  framework  for  equality, 
inclusion and participation7, the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy8, the Strategy for the Rights 
of  Persons  with  Disabilities9  and  the  EU  Strategy  on  Combating  Antisemitism  and 
Fostering  Jewish  Life10  as  well  as  in  its  application  report  on  the  ‘Racial  Equality 
Directive’  and  on  the  ‘Employment  Equality  Directive’11,  the  Commission  announced 
that it intended to propose measures to strengthen the role and independence of equality 
bodies. This commitment was confirmed in the Commission work programme 202212.  

Equality  bodies  were  first  established  by  Directive  2000/43/EC  (‘Racial13  Equality 
Directive’)14.  They  were  entrusted  with  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  through  the 
following  tasks:  assisting  victims  of  discrimination;  conducting  independent  surveys; 
publishing independent reports and making recommendations on discrimination matters. 

As  regards  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  based  on  sex,  equality  bodies  were  first 
introduced  through  a  2002  amendment  of  Council  Directive  76/207/EEC  on  the 
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access 

5  European  Parliament  resolution  of  10  March  2021  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive 
2000/78/EC  establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal  treatment  in  employment  and  occupation  in 
light of the UNCRPD (2020/2086(INI)).  

6  A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025, COM(2020) 565 final, 18.9.2020.  

7  EU  Roma  strategic  framework  for  equality,  inclusion  and  participation  for  2020-2030,  COM(2020) 

620 final, 7.10.2020.  

8  Union of equality: LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, COM(2020) 698 final, 12.11.2020. 

9  Union  of  equality:  Strategy  for  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  2021-2030,  COM(2021)  101 

final, 3.3.2021. 

10  EU  Strategy  on  Combating  Antisemitism  and  Fostering  Jewish  Life  (2021-2030),  COM(2021)  615 

final, 5.10.2021.  

11  Commission Report on the application of Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of 
equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  (‘the  Racial  Equality 
Directive’)  and  of  Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal 
treatment in employment and occupation (‘the Employment Equality Directive’) COM(2021)139 of 19 
March 2021. 

12  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Commission  work  programme 
2022, Making Europe stronger together, COM(2021) 645 final, 19.10.2021.  

13  The use of the term ‘racial origin’ in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Council 
Directive 2000/43/EC does not imply any acceptance by the EU of theories that attempt to determine 
the existence of separate human races. 

14  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between 
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic  origin, available at EUR-Lex  - 32000L0043 - EN - EUR-Lex 
(europa.eu). 

4 

 
                                                 
to  employment, vocational  training  and promotion, and working  conditions15. Directive 
76/207/EEC  was  later  repealed  and  replaced  by  Directive  2006/54/EC  on  the 
implementation  of  the  principle  of  equal  opportunities  and  equal  treatment  of  men  and 
women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (‘Gender Equality Directive in 
the field of employment’)16. Two additional equality directives entrusted equality bodies 
with the same responsibilities in their respective field: Directive 2004/113/EC (‘Gender 
Equality  Directive  in  the  field  of  goods  and  services’)17,  and  Directive  2010/41/EU 
(‘Gender  Equality  Directive  in  the  field  of  self-employment’)18.  Directives  2006/54/EC 
and 2010/41/EU have added the additional responsibility for equality bodies to exchange 
information  with  corresponding  European  bodies,  such  as  the  European  Institute  for 
Gender Equality (‘EIGE’). Finally, Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2019/1158 on work-life 
balance for parents and carers provides that Equality bodies under Directive 2006/54/EC 
have competence for issues relating to discrimination falling under its scope. 

The rationale behind the establishment of equality bodies and the tasks assigned to them 
was  to  (i)  ensure  that  (potential)  victims  are  aware  of  their  rights  and  the  existence  of 
equality  bodies;  (ii)  ensure  assistance  and  redress  for  victims;  (iii)  improve  factual 
knowledge  about  the  state  of  discrimination;  (iv)  better  inform  policymaking;  and  (v) 
improve the behaviour and awareness of companies and the general public about matters 
of discrimination. 

There  are also  two more Equality  Directives that do not  contain provisions on equality 
bodies: Directive 79/7/EEC (‘Gender Equality Directive in the field of social security’)19 
and Directive 2000/78/EC (‘Employment Equality Directive’)20.  

Two  further  proposals  put  forward  by  the  Commission  recently  contain  references  to 
equality bodies, namely the proposal for a Pay Transparency Directive21 and the proposal 
for a Directive on combatting violence against women and domestic violence22. 

15  Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending 
Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and 
women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions 
(Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 269, 5.10.2002, p. 15–20. 

16  Directive  2006/54/EC  on  the  implementation  of  the  principle  of  equal  opportunities  and  equal 
treatment  of  men  and  women  in  matters  of  employment  and  occupation  (recast),  available  at 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32006L0054. 

17  Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the 
to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services,  available  at  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

access 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32004L0113. 

18  Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application 
of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed 
capacity  and  repealing  Council  Directive  86/613/EEC,  available  at  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32010L0041. 

19  Council Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for 
in  matters  of  social  security,  available  at  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

men  and  women 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31979L0007. 

20   Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  of  27  November  2000  establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal 
treatment  in  employment  and  occupation,  available  at  EUR-Lex  -  32000L0078  -  EN  -  EUR-Lex 
(europa.eu) 

5 

 
                                                 
The  proposed  Equal  Treatment  Directive23,  being  negotiated  since  2008,  also  includes 
provisions  on  equality  bodies.  The  proposal  intends  to  cover  discrimination  based  on 
religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation  in  the  fields  of  social  protection, 
including social security and healthcare, social advantages, education and access to and 
supply of goods and other services that are available to the public, including housing.  

In  2018,  the  Commission  issued  a  Recommendation  on  standards  for  equality  bodies 
(‘2018 Recommendation’)24. This non-binding instrument contains suggestions regarding 
the  mandate  and  independence  of  equality  bodies  and  cooperation  and  coordination 
between them and with other relevant authorities.  

In 2021, the Commission examined the implementation of the 2018 Recommendation in 
its  report  on  the  application  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  the  Employment 
Equality  Directive  (‘2021  application  report’)25  and  the  accompanying  dedicated  staff 
working document (‘2021 Staff Working Document’)26.  

The 2021 application report indicated that, in most cases, equality bodies have proved to 
be  key  to  promoting  and  enforcing  equal  treatment  legislation.  Equality  bodies  are 
essential  for  ensuring  that  individuals  and  groups  facing  discrimination  can  enjoy  their 
right in full. They have emerged as necessary and valuable institutions for change at the 
level  of  individuals,  institutions  and  society  at  large.  They  should  therefore  be  able  to 
effectively  perform  the  tasks  assigned  to  them  under  EU  law.  However,  challenges 
remain.  Divergences 
leadership, 
independence,  resources  and  effectiveness  have  led  to  an  unequal  enforcement  of  the 
Directive  across  Member  States,  as  regards  the  level  and  nature  of  protection  and  the 
promotion  of  equality  and  awareness-raising  among  the  general  public  and  national 

their  mandate,  powers,  structure, 

terms  of 

in 

21 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to strengthen the application of 
the principal of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay 
transparency and enforcement mechanisms, COM(2021) 93 final. 

22  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combatting violence against 

women and domestic violence, COM(2022) 105 final.  

23  Proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  on  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons 

irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM(2008) 426 final.  

24  Commission Recommendation 2018/951 of 22 June 2018 on standards for equality bodies, available at 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32018H0951.  

25  Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament and Council  on the application of 
Council  Directive  2000/43/EC  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons 
irrespective  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  (‘the  Racial  Equality  Directive’)  and  of  Council  Directive 
2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the 
Employment  Equality  Directive’),  COM(2021)  139  final,  available  at  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52014DC0002.  

26  Staff  Working  Document 

the 

‘Equality  bodies  and 

the  Commission 
Recommendation  on  standards  for  equality  bodies’,  accompanying  the  Report  from  the  European 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  on  the  application  of  Council  Directive 
2000/43/EC  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of  racial  or 
ethnic  origin  (‘the  Racial  Equality  Directive’)  and  of  Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  establishing  a 
general  framework  for  equal  treatment  in  employment  and  occupation  (‘the  Employment  Equality 
Directive’), 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
final, 
SWD(2021) 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0063. 

implementation  of 

available 

63 

at 

6 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
institutions. While many Member States pointed to the important work of equality bodies 
at  national  and  local  level  to  tackle  discrimination  and  address  underreporting,  few 
people would, according to surveys, report an incident of discrimination to such bodies. 
Reasons  for  not  reporting  cases  of  discrimination  may  include  doubt  about  chances  of 
success, unawareness of rights and/or of the existence of equality bodies, difficulties to 
provide  evidence;  and/or  fear  of  retaliation.  Other  concrete  problems  that  may  hamper 
access  to  justice (which  particularly affect  the most  vulnerable or marginalised groups) 
include  the  costs,  complexity  and  length  of  proceedings,  and  uncertainty  as  to  the 
outcome of the case.  

The  2021  Staff  Working  Document  concluded  that  a  limited  and  unequal  level  of 
implementation of the 2018 Recommendation continues to hinder some equality bodies 
in  effectively  exercising  their  role,  leading  to  different  levels  of  protection  against 
discrimination  across  the  EU.  A  key  cross-cutting  issue  negatively  affecting  the 
execution  of  the  responsibilities  and  activities  of  equality  bodies  is  the  inadequacy  of 
their  resources  in  terms  of  funding  and  staff.  Other  major  challenges  include  a  limited 
awareness  of  the  equality  bodies’  existence,  limited  independence  (or  insufficient  legal 
safeguards  to  independence)  and  limited  legal  standing.  In  addition,  not  all  equality 
bodies are competent for all the fields and grounds put forward by the Recommendation. 

1.2. 

1.2. 

Analysis in preparation of this initiative  

To  further  substantiate  the  findings  of  the  2021  Staff  Working  Document  and  get  a 
complete  picture  of  the  current  state  of  play  as  regards  equality  bodies,  a  retrospective 
analysis  has  been  conducted  to  inform  this  analytical  document.  The  retrospective 
analysis focuses on all 27 Member States and covers the period from 29 June 2000, the 
adoption  date  of  the  first  Directive  that  introduced  equality  bodies,  namely  the  Racial 
Equality Directive. However, it is worth noting that some Member States joined the EU 
after  this  date;  for  these  Member  States,  the  period  examined  by  the  retrospective 
analysis  starts  from  the  date  of  their  accession  (1  May  200427,  1  January  200728  and 1 
July  201329).  For  the  retrospective  study  and  this  analytical  document,  the  term  ‘EU 
framework’ is used to refer to the provisions concerning equality bodies in the  equality 
directives as well as the 2018 Recommendation on standards for equality bodies. 

The  analysis  is  built  on  findings  and  conclusions  of  research  conducted  by  an  external 
contractor (‘VVA’). Its results, and the retrospective analysis it contains, are summarised 
below. A full analysis is included in Annex 5. The research was conducted before Spain 

27  CZ, EE, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, PL, SI, SK. 

28  BG, RO.  

29  HR.  

7 

 
                                                 
reformed its anti-discrimination legislation in July 202230. The information presented in 
this analytical document presents the situation in Spain before the reform31. 

Overall assessment  Detailed assessment 

Evaluation 
criterion 
EFFECTIVENESS  Limited regarding 

fight against and 
prevention of 
discrimination 

EFFICIENCY 

Limited/Inconclusive 

COHERENCE  

Overall positive at 
all levels33 

Progress in countries where equality 
bodies did not yet exist. 
Some Member States have established 
well-functioning equality bodies 
Ongoing high levels of discrimination32 
Victims remain mostly unaware about 
their rights. 
Underreporting remains a considerable 
problem. 
Current EU framework is too general and 
narrow in scope to establish effective 
equality bodies. 
The overall capacity of the EU framework 
to contribute to the set up equality bodies 
that are fully enabled to fight and prevent 
discrimination has been assessed as 
limited: 
-public awareness about and knowledge of 
discrimination remains limited. 
-many equality bodies are not properly 
equipped to assist victims effectively. 
Many equality bodies are not properly 
resourced. 
Inconclusive on costs and benefits due to 
lack of available data. 
Coherence with the EU Treaties and the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU 
(‘the Charter’) is high. 

30  Ley 15/2022, de 12 de julio, integral para la igualdad de trato y la no discriminación: BOE.es - BOE-
A-2022-11589 Ley 15/2022, de 12 de julio, integral para la igualdad de trato y la no discriminación. 

31 

In its title III, the law creates a new equality body,  “la  Autoridad Independiente para  la Igualdad de 
Trato  y  la  No  Discriminación”.  While  the  decree  for  this  creation  has  not  yet  been  adopted,  the 
caracteristics of this new equality body appear to be aligned with the 2018 Recommendation and the 
Commission’s proposals. 

32  The  root  causes  of  discrimination  are  many  and  complex,  including  persisting  stereotypes.  Political 
and socio-economic factors  may also come  into play. The limited effectiveness of equality bodies is 
only one contributing factor, among others, to the ongoing high level of discrimination.  

33  The  survey  conducted  by  VVA  to  assess  coherence  with  national  law  was  however  not  fully 

conclusive in all cases.  

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
EU ADDED 
VALUE 

Positive with 
limitations 

RELEVANCE 

Positive with 
limitations 

Assessment categories: 
inconclusive 

very positive 

EU Directives and international 
instruments34 are consistent with each 
other, the latter only being more detailed 
due to their different nature. 
EU framework led to the set-up of equality 
bodies in about half of the then EU-15 
Member States which did not yet have 
such bodies in place. 
EU intervention provides added value, but 
would need to be more detailed and 
concrete. 
EU framework`s original objectives still 
meet current needs. 
Original legal framework for equality 
bodies was too narrow and vague. 
  positive       limited       negative       

The  EU  framework’s  effectiveness  has  been  assessed  as  limited  regarding  progress  on 
the  fight  against,  and  prevention  of,  discrimination.  Some  progress  has  been  made, 
especially  in  countries  where  equality  bodies  did  not  exist  before  the  EU  intervention; 
however,  the  desired  effects  were  not  fully  achieved.  The  retrospective  analysis  has 
shown that levels of discrimination remained high35, while victims’ awareness about their 
rights  remained  low36.  Underreporting  is  still  a  considerable  problem  and  public 
awareness  about  and  knowledge  of  discrimination  remains  limited37.  Even  if  some 
Member States have established  well-functioning equality bodies, the EU framework is 
too  general  and  narrow  in  scope  to  establish  effective  equality  bodies  generally.  Many 
equality bodies are not properly equipped to assist victims effectively.  

Efficiency has been assessed as inconclusive on costs and benefits, mainly due to limited 
data  availability.  This  situation  has  not  been  mitigated  by  the  more  detailed  2018 

34  Such  as  the  General  Policy  Recommendation  No2  on  equality  bodies  adopted  by  the  European 
(https://rm.coe.int/ecri-general-policy-
Commission  against  Racism  and 
/16808b5a23) and the Paris Principles adopted by the United Nations and applicable to national human 
rights institution (https://ganhri.org/paris-principles/ ) 

Intolerance 

(ECRI) 

35  For example, a Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2019 showed that 59% of Europeans believed that 
discrimination based on ethnic origin was widespread in their country (compared with 64% in 2015). 
For other grounds, such as sexual orientation, religion, disability and age, the rates  were 53%, 47%, 
44% and 40% respectively.  

36  The EU-MIDIS II survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 
2015-2016  found  that  71%  of  respondents  could  not  think  of  a  single  organisation  that  could  offer 
support to victims of discrimination, be it government-based, an independent institution or authority, 
such as an equality body, or an NGO. When given the name of an equality body, 62% of respondents 
indicated that they had never heard of them. 

37  The EU-MIDIS I and II surveys conducted by FRA in 2009 and 2015-2016 found that the number of 
people  who complained after having been subject to racial or ethnic discrimination  was 18% in EU-
MIDIS  I  and  12%  in  EU-MIDIS  II.  Only  13.6%  of  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation 
conducted  to  inform  this  analysis  reported  incidents  of  discrimination  they  have  experienced  to  an 
equality body. Among those who did not report an instance of discrimination, 18.8% were not aware 
of the existence of the equality body, 18.8% replied that reporting  would not  make a difference and 
15.6% were not sure of the competence of the equality body. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Recommendation given its non-binding nature. The retrospective analysis has shown that 
equality bodies’ resources are a considerable problem in this context, as they vary greatly 
between Member States and, for a majority of equality bodies, are insufficient to fulfil all 
their tasks. 

Coherence has been  assessed as generally positive at  EU level  and overall  positive38 at 
other  levels.  The  retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that  coherence  with  the  EU  Treaties 
and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU are high, as the EU framework intends 
to enhance equality and non-discrimination, which are among the founding values of the 
EU.  Non-discrimination  is  also  a  fundamental  right  protected  by  the  Charter.  While 
international instruments, such as the Paris Principles and Recommendation No 2, of the 
European  Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance,  are  more  detailed  due  to  their 
different legal nature, there is no inconsistency on substance between them and the EU 
Directives in force. They are also consistent with the 2018 Recommendation. 

EU added value has been assessed as positive. The retrospective analysis has shown that 
before  the  EU  framework  was  put  in  place,  only  about  half  of  the  (EU-15)  Member 
States  had  an  equality  body,  and  with  a  limited  mandate.  Stakeholders  also  confirmed 
that  equality  bodies  would  not  have  been  set  up  in  all  Member  States  without  the  EU 
taking  action.  The  consistently  high  levels  of  discrimination  throughout  the  Member 
States show that there is still added value from having EU action on equality bodies, but 
also that it would benefit from being more detailed and concrete.  

Relevance  of  the  EU  framework’s  original  objectives  in  view  of  the  initial  and  current 
needs  has  been  assessed  as  positive.  However,  the  original  approach  (the  legal 
framework for equality bodies) has been considered as too narrow and vague. This view 
is generally shared by all stakeholders. The retrospective analysis has shown that there is 
broad support for taking further action to tackle the issues identified above39 and to make 
sure that equality bodies have the resources to address new issues, such as those related 
to automated systems. 

Overall, the retrospective analysis concluded that the framework’s ambition of ensuring 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  law  on  combating  unequal  treatment  and 
discrimination and increasing prevention had not been fully achieved. 

2.  2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

2.1. 

What are the problems? 

Despite  the  EU  rules  in  force  to  fight  discrimination  and  increase  prevention, 
discrimination  persists  and  remains  a  considerable  problem  still  today.  Equality  bodies 

38  The  survey  conducted  by  VVA  to  assess  coherence  with  national  law  was  however  not  fully 

conclusive in all cases. 

39  The  overwhelming  majority  (97.2%)  of  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  consider  that 
establishing  strong  and  effective  equality  bodies  is  important.  81.3%  consider  that  adopting  new 
binding minimum standards for equality bodies would have a positive impact for them. 

10 

 
                                                 
were  set  up  to  help  ensure  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  law  on  combating 
discrimination  and  to  increase  prevention.  However,  as  the  retrospective  analysis 
demonstrated, they were only partially successful in doing so.  

The retrospective analysis has shown that there are a range of underlying problems that 
led to this situation. In the equality directives in force, the provisions referring to equality 
bodies  are  very  vague  and  broad,  the  directives  do  not  include  provisions  on  the 
functioning  of  equality  bodies,  and  they  fail  to  address  more  specific  issues.  Notably, 
while  the  EU  provisions  on  equality  bodies  mandate  them  to  assist  victims  of 
discrimination,  they  do  not  specify  what  this  entails.  As  a  result,  the  scope  of  services 
that equality bodies provide to victims of discrimination may not match their needs and 
not  be  equivalent  in  all  Member  States.  For  example,  some  equality  bodies  do  not 
provide  legal  advice40  and  others  do  not  provide  it  for  free41.  Some  do  not  engage  in 
mediation and/or conciliation activities42. Equality bodies from less than half of Member 
States  can  represent  victims43,  intervene  in  support  of  them44  in  court  or  engage  in 
strategic litigation45. In a third of Member States, they can launch collective complaints46 
or  bring  proceedings  to  a  court  without  an  identifiable  victim47.  Half  of  the  Member 
States48  allow  equality  bodies  to  act  as  amicus  curiae49.  The  retrospective  analysis  has 
shown that the grounds and fields covered by the Employment Equality Directive and the 
Gender Equality Directive in the field of social security are highly relevant since many of 
the  cases  of  discrimination  that  occur  fall  under  the  scope  of  those  Directives50. 

40  CZ, NL and one out of two equality bodies in MT.  

41  One out of two equality bodies in MT.  

42  CZ, EE, LT, NL and PL. One out of two in ES and one out of three in HR and PT. This reflects the 

situation before Spain amended its legislation in July 2022.  

43  BE, DK, IE, IT, LV, SI, SK, FI and SE. MT and AT have two equality bodies and only one of them 

has this power.    

44  BE, DK, IT, HU, PL and SK. MT, AT and FI have two equality bodies and only one of them has this 

power. HR has three equality bodes; two of them have this power.  

45  BE, DK, IE, FR, LV, PL, SI, SK and SE.  AT and FI have two equality bodies and only one of them 

has this power. HR has three equality bodes; one of them have this power. 

46  BE, LV, SI, SK and SE. ES and AT have two equality bodies and only one of them has this power. HR 
has  three  equality  bodes;  one  of  them  have  this  power.  N.B.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  reflects  the 
situation before Spain amended its legislation in July 2022. 

47  BE, DK, IE, IT, LV, LT and SI. MT and AT have two equality bodies and only one of them has this 

power. 

48  BE, BG, IE, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PT, RO and SK. PL and FI have two equality bodies and only 

one of them has this power.  

49 

i.e. they can submit observations to the courts without being a party to the proceedings 

50  This  is  corroborated  by  the  2019  Eurobarometer  survey,  where  many  respondents  felt  that 
discrimination persisted in recruitment  – as a result of being considered too young or too old (47%), 
disability  (41%),  being  Roma  (38%),  ethnic  origin  in  general  (32%),  expressing  a  religious  belief 
(28%)  or  their  sexual  orientation  (22%).  About  one  in  five  respondents  (21%)  who  had  felt 
discriminated against on one or more grounds in the previous 12 months said that this had happened at 
work and 13% when looking for work.  

11 

 
                                                 
However,  in  the  absence  of  an  obligation  in  these  directives,  the  mandate  of  some 
equality bodies does not cover those grounds and fields51.  

The retrospective analysis has also shown that many victims still do not know to whom 
they  can  turn  if  they  have  been  discriminated  against52.  Some  do  not  come  forward 
because they fear negative consequences for themselves. The same may be true not only 
for victims, but also for witnesses and whistle-blowers. Others do not seek assistance or 
redress because they are unaware of the existence of equality bodies and laws that protect 
them  against  discrimination  in  the  first  place.  Lack  of  accessibility  may  also  be  a 
problem for some victims, due to factors such as remoteness (e.g. if the victim lives in a 
rural area and the equality body has only one office in the capital)53. The same may be 
true for victims who are computer-illiterate or those who have a disability. Fees charged 
by the equality body for providing assistance may pose an obstacle as well.  

When  providing  assistance  to  victims,  some  equality  bodies  do  not  take  aspects  of 
prevention  into  account,  which  would  add  a  more  macro-level  dimension  beyond  the 
individual case at hand. The use of strategic litigation would serve similar ends. This is in 
line with some of the objectives of the original intervention, namely (i) improved factual 
knowledge about the state of discrimination, (ii)  better informed policymaking and (iii) 
improved  behaviour  and  awareness  of  companies  and  the  general  public.  However,  the 
retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that  fostering  such  public  knowledge  and  awareness 
was not fully successful. Many equality bodies do not (or do not have the competencies 
to)  engage  in  equality  mainstreaming  and/or  the  promotion  of  equality  and  non-
discrimination.  Their  level  of  activity  in  conducting  surveys,  pursuing  research  and 
publishing reports also varies54; this would however be key in order to address the still 
continuing  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  state  of  equality  and  discrimination.  To  that  end, 
equality bodies also need to collect and/or have access to primary and secondary data55. 
Taking into account equality bodies’ knowledge and insights is also important to increase 

51  For  example,  in  Portugal,  the  grounds  of  disability  and  age  are  not  covered  in  any  fields  (including 
employment). In Spain, only Race and Gender are covered; however this will change once the recent 
law,  adopted  in  July  2022,  is  implemented.  In  other  Member  States,  the  territorial  sharing  of 
competences lead to the absence of coverage of these grounds and fields in some parts of the territory. 

52  The EU-MIDIS II survey found that 71% of respondents could not think of a single organisation that 
could offer support to victims of discrimination, be it government-based, an independent institution or 
authority, such as an equality body, or an NGO. When given the  name of an equality body, 62% of 
respondents indicated that they had  never  heard of them.  Among the respondents to the  open public 
consultation who did not report an incident of discrimination they experienced, 18.8% were not aware 
of the existence of the equality body, 18.8% replied that reporting would not make a difference, 15.6% 
were not sure of the competence of the equality body, 15.6% stated that the administrative process was 
too complex, 9.4% reported it to another instance and 3.1% considered the fees too high. 

53  The retrospective analysis has shown that equality bodies from 15 Member States do not have local or 
regional  presences.  (This  includes  some  Member  States  that  have  two  or  three  equality  bodies  were 
this is only true for some of them.) 

54  Currently,  the  EU  Equality  Directives  empower  equality  bodies  to  conduct  surveys  and  publish 
reports; the frequency of these activities however varies greatly from monthly, through quarterly, bi-
annually, annually, and biennially to never. 

55  Equality bodies collect primary and secondary data in three quarters of Member States. 

12 

 
                                                 
the  quality  of  policymaking  in  the  area  of  equality  and  non-discrimination  and 
compliance by duty bearers. 

The current provisions on cooperation between stakeholders in the relevant EU equality 
directives  are  very  narrow56.  To  better  foster  public  knowledge  and  awareness  about 
equality and non-discrimination, efficient cooperation and knowledge exchange between 
relevant  stakeholders,  such  as  other  equality  bodies  and  civil  society,  would  be 
important. The same is true for exchanges at national, European and international level. 
Currently, this is not always the case57.  

Equality  bodies  currently  often  lack  a  long-term  perspective  in  the  planning  of  their 
activities.  Another  issue  concerns  the  follow-up  of  recommendations  issued  and 
decisions  taken  by  equality  bodies,  which  are  at  the  moment  not  always  implemented. 
Generally, the rules provided for by the existing EU framework are not always properly 
enforced. This is due either to their broad and vague nature (those in the directives) or to 
the  fact  that  they  are  non-binding  and  therefore  not  enforceable  (those  provided  in  the 
2018 Recommendation).  

2.2. 

2.2. 

What are the problem drivers? 

Even  though  most  problems  have  specific  underlying  drivers  that  will  be  discussed 
below,  the  retrospective  analysis58  has  shown  that  there  are  also  some  drivers  that  are 
common  to  the  majority  of  problems  addressed  above.  These  are  the  lack  of 
independence,  lack  of  resources  and  inability  to  focus  sufficiently  on  the  equality 
mandate that some equality bodies face.  

Overall, it can be said that many of the drivers are the lack or ambiguity of existing rules 
on  various  aspects  of  equality  bodies’  tasks.  More  specifically,  the  fact  that  not  all 
existing  EU  equality  directives59  contain  provisions  on  equality  bodies  means  that  in 
some Member States, equality bodies do not cover all the grounds and fields addressed 
by those directives  and  consequently do not offer assistance to victims on the grounds 
and in the fields concerned. The vagueness of existing provisions and the fact that they 
do not  cover the full scope of assistance to  victims results in the divergences and wide 
diversity of powers attributed to equality bodies in different Member States, as addressed 
above.  While  some  level  of  divergence  between  Member  States  can  be  explained  by 
different  legal  systems  and  traditions,  the  retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that 
differences  in  levels  of  protection  go  beyond  that  and  result  in  differing  levels  of 

56  Only  the  Gender  Equality  Directives  in  employment  and  self-employment  contain  provisions  on 

cooperation and coordination and those are very limited.  

57  Equality bodies in all but one Member States are enabled to cooperate with European and international 
organisations  and  bodies.  All  equality  bodies  cooperate  with  national  authorities,  although  the 
frequency  varies,  but  three  quarters  are  in  monthly  contact  with  them.  Most  equality  bodies  also 
engage in regular exchanges with civil society. In those eight Member States with two or three equality 
bodies, some form of cooperation exists between them, although the concrete framework varies. 

58  Please refer to Annex 5 for more details 

59  For example the Employment Equality Directive and Gender Equality Directive in the field of  social 

security.  

13 

 
                                                 
protection  of  the  fundamental  right  to  non-discrimination.  The  lack  of  awareness  of 
equality  bodies  and  equality  law  among  certain  groups  in  some  Member  States  is  also 
due to the fact that Member States do not fully ensure that people are informed about the 
existence and tasks of equality bodies.  

The  reason  why  some  equality  bodies  do  not  engage  in  equality  mainstreaming  and/or 
the  promotion  of  equality  and  non-discrimination  is  also  because  the  role  attributed  to 
them in this field is not explicit. In many Member States, there is  a lack of data on the 
activities  of  equality  bodies  and  a  lack  of  access  by  equality  bodies  to  equality  data. 
Since  the  rules  on  surveys  and  reports  are  very  unclear,  they  are  interpreted  very 
differently. The existing rules on cooperation are either non-existent or very narrow. In 
addition,  there  is  also  no  official  consultation  requirement  of  equality  bodies  in  the 
policy-making process.  

Finally, the absence of a requirement for strategic planning often results in the lack of a 
long-term  perspective  of  equality  bodies  activities.  Recommendations  and  decisions  of 
equality  bodies  are  not  always  implemented,  in  part  because  there  is  no  obligation  for 
decisions to be enforceable and for recipients of recommendations to provide feedback to 
the  equality  body.  Also,  the  ambiguity  of  the  current  provisions  on  equality  bodies 
significantly  limits  their  enforceability.  The  basic  monitoring  system  in  the  current 
directives consists of general reporting by Member States on the implementation of the 
equality directives as a whole every five years. This does not offer sufficient insight into 
how equality bodies perform their tasks. 

3.  3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1. 

3.1. 

Legal basis 

The  initiative  covers  six  equality  directives,  four  of  which  currently  contain  provisions 
on  equality  bodies  (the  Racial  Equality  Directive  (2000/43/EC),  the  Gender  Equality 
Directive  in  the  field  of  goods  and  services  (2004/113/EC),  the  Gender  Equality 
Directive in the field of employment (2006/54/EC) and the Gender Equality Directive in 
the field of self-employment (2010/41/EU)), and  two of which do not currently include 
provisions  on  equality  bodies  to  cover  their  grounds/fields  (the  Employment  Equality 
Directive (2000/78/EC) and the Gender Equality Directive in the field of social security 
(79/7/EEC)). 

The initiative consists of two proposals identical in substance, one based on Article 19(1) 
TFEU and one based on Article 157(3) TFEU to match the legal bases for the above acts. 

Article 19(1) TFEU provides the legal basis for secondary legislation, such as directives, 
to take action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or 
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Article 157(3) TFEU provides the legal basis 
for measures to ensure the application of the principle of equal opportunities and equal 

14 

 
 
treatment  of  men  and  women  in  matters  of  employment  and  occupation,  including  the 
principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. 

The proposal based on Article 19(1) TFEU will cover the following four directives: the 
Racial  Equality  Directive  (2000/43/EC),  the  Gender  Equality  Directive  in  the  field  of 
goods  and  services  (2004/113/EC),  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  (2000/78/EC) 
and the Gender Equality Directive in the field of social security (79/7/EEC). 

The  second  proposal,  based  on  Article  157(3)  TFEU,  will  cover  the  following  two 
directives:  the Gender Equality Directive in  the field of  employment  (2006/54/EC) and 
the Gender Equality Directive in the field of self-employment (2010/41/EU).  

3.2. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action 

The  present  initiative  does  not  introduce  legislation  in  a  new  area,  but  only  revises  or 
complements already existing legislation in order to increase its effectiveness. The aim of 
this intervention is to set common minimum standards for equality bodies across the EU, 
taking  into  account  the  diversity  of  legal  traditions  in  the  Member  States  and  fully 
respecting  their  institutional  autonomy.  Since  the  co-legislators  already  passed  EU 
legislation  on  equality  bodies,  the  assumption  is  that  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  is 
respected if the EU takes action in this area.  

In  the  explanatory  memorandum  to  the  Racial  Equality  Directive,  the  Commission 
underlined  the  importance  of  providing  access  to  redress  in  order  to  reinforce  the 
fundamental  values  on  which  the  EU  is  founded,  such  as  equality,  non-discrimination, 
fundamental rights and tolerance, and to contribute to the development of the EU as an 
area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice.  It  also  stressed  the  goal  to  help  strengthen 
economic and social cohesion by ensuring that people in all Member States enjoy a basic 
level of protection against discrimination, with comparable rights to redress, while taking 
account of the cultural diversity of Member States. The same reasoning is also valid for 
the  grounds  and  fields  covered  by  the  other  directives.  The  same  is  also  true  in  cross-
border situations if citizens who reside in one Member State experience discrimination in 
another Member State. 

Under  Article  3  TEU,  the  fight  against  social  exclusion  and  discrimination,  and  the 
promotion of social justice and protection, and of equality between women and men are 
amongst the EU’s objectives. Non-discrimination is also a fundamental right  laid down 
by  Article  21(1)  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (‘the 
Charter’). Article 23 of the Charter stipulates that equality between women and men must 
be  ensured  in  all  areas,  including  employment,  work  and  pay.  In  order  to  safeguard 
citizens’  and  workers’  rights  to  freedom  of  movement,  access  to  both  protection  from 
discrimination  and  redress  mechanisms  has  to  be  ensured  throughout  the  EU.  The 
strengthening  of  equality  bodies  serves  as  a  means  to  this  end.  This  is  in  line  with 
strengthening economic and social cohesion, as outlined above.  

15 

 
 
In this regard, the present initiative pursues the same goals as the original provisions on 
equality  bodies  in  the  equality  directives.  As  the  retrospective  analysis  annexed  to  this 
analytical  document  shows,  existing  provisions  on  equality  bodies  have,  due  to  their 
vagueness,  proven  not  to  be  successful  enough  in  reaching  their  objectives60  or  in 
contributing  towards  the  EU’s  common  goals  of  the  listed  in  the  Treaties,  as  outlined 
above.  While  all  Member  States  struggle  with  continuing  discrimination,  the  specific 
levels vary from Member State to Member State61. Currently, great discrepancies exist in 
the structure, tasks, powers and mandate of equality bodies in the Member States62. This 
also hinders the effective implementation and enforcement of existing EU equality law. 
The conclusion, therefore, is that EU action is warranted to remedy the situation.  

In  preparing  this  initiative,  the  Commission  conducted  extensive  consultations.  A  great 
majority (more than 80%) of stakeholders at national, regional and local level supported 
the  introduction  of  minimum  binding  standards  for  equality  bodies63.  Member  States 
have particularly stressed the importance of respecting diverse legal traditions.  

3.3. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of the EU intervention 

The  analysis  of  the  situation  before  the  establishment  of  equality  bodies  clearly 
demonstrated the added value of the EU intervention. Prior to it, equality bodies existed 
in  only  a  few  Member  States  and  their  setup  varied  –  and  continues  to  vary  -  greatly. 
Indeed  the  framework  left  considerable  leeway  to  Member  States,  which  prevented 
reaching  the  objectives  to  a  satisfactory  extent.  This  is  why  further  EU  action  is 
warranted and expected to bring a clear added value64.  

Strengthened  standards  for  equality  bodies  will  ensure  that  all  Member  States  provide 
sufficient  powers  and  resources  to  their  equality  bodies  for  effectively  fighting  and 
preventing discrimination,  and for  ensuring assistance and access  to  redress  for victims 
of discrimination. The rules will be enforceable at EU level. They are expected to lead to 
a reduction in the prevalence of discrimination. In turn, this will lead to a reduction of the 
costs associated with discrimination. 

EU-level  action  in  this  context  is  also  relevant  to  the  functioning  of  the  single  market. 
The single market is built on fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of movement 

60  Please  consult  the  evaluation  annexed  to  this  analytical  document  for  a  detailed  description  of  the 
objectives of the initial intervention and an analysis of the extent to which they have been reached.  

61  For example, a Eurobarometer survey from 2019 found wide diversity in attitudes towards minorities 
across Member States. For example, on average, 79% of respondents said they would feel comfortable 
having daily contact with a colleague who is a person of colour.  However, the rate varies greatly by 
Member State, from 96% of respondents in the Netherlands and 95% in Sweden to 46% in Hungary, 
48%  in  Bulgaria  and  57%  in  Austria.  Similarly,  two  thirds  of  respondents  in  the  EU  said  that  they 
would  feel  comfortable  if  one  of  their  children  was  in  a  love  relationship  with  a  person  of  colour. 
However,  by  Member  State,  this  varies  from  89%  in  the  Netherlands,  88%  in  Sweden,  86%  in  the 
United Kingdom (UK  was still a Member  State at the  time) and 80% in France to 33% in Slovakia, 
26% in Hungary and 15% in Bulgaria. 

62  For further details, please consult the evaluation annexed to this analytical document.  

63  Please consult Annex 3 for further details.  

64  Please consult Annex 5 for further details.  

16 

 
                                                 
for  workers.  To  safeguard  this  principle,  it  is  important  to  guarantee  the  fundamental 
right of non-discrimination as laid down by the Charter and to ensure access to protection 
from discrimination and to redress mechanisms in all Member States and for all grounds 
and  fields  covered  by  the  equality  directives.  As  outlined  above,  equality  bodies  are  a 
means to contribute to this goal.   

17 

 
 
4.  4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

Taking into account all of the above, the Commission identified the following objectives 
for this initiative on equality bodies.  

4.1. 

4.1. 

Objectives 

This  initiative  has  21  objectives  to  tackle  the  problems  and  drivers  identified  above. 
Those can be grouped under three main thematic areas.  

Minimum standards to deal with cases of discrimination/provide assistance to victims – 
mandate, powers, accessibility 

•  O1: Assist those victims who are currently outside the scope of protection on the 
grounds  and  fields  that  are  covered  by  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  and 
Gender Equality Directive in social security. 

•  O2:  Ensure  victims  have  access  to  information  and  advice  targeted  to  their 

situation. 

•  O3: Ensure that victims have access to amicable settlement mechanisms. 

•  O4:  Ensure  that  victims  can  make  their  case  in  court  proceedings  and  receive 

appropriate assistance to have a fair chance of winning. 

•  O5: Offer assistance to more victims, also to those who may be unaware that they 
are discriminated against65. Address cases of discrimination that would otherwise 
not be tackled. 

•  O6: Improve the knowledge of the general population, with particular attention to 
individuals and groups at risk of discrimination, on the rights under the Equality 
Directives and where they can get assistance in cases of discrimination. 

•  O7: Ensure confidentiality for witnesses, whistle-blowers and complainants. 

•  O8: Ensure that victims, including those in particularly vulnerable situations and 

those with disabilities, can submit claims and receive proper support. 

•  O9: Ensure that victims of discrimination can access assistance regardless of their 

financial means. 

•  O10: Support victims in remote areas and those who are not IT literate. 

•  O11:  Ensure  that  all  equality  bodies  may  suggest  measures  to  prevent  the  same 

situation from arising again in the future when assisting victims.  

65  This refers to cases where equality bodies act in their own name, in the absence of an identified victim 

and/or in the framework of an actio popularis. 

18 

 
                                                 
•  O12: Elicit social, legal and policy changes via strategic litigation. 

Minimum  standards  to  foster  public  knowledge  and  awareness  about  equality  and  non-
discrimination 

•  O13:  Improve  the  knowledge  base  about  equality  and  discrimination  as  well  as 

mutual learning between equality bodies and with other stakeholders.  

•  O14: Promote equality and non-discrimination. 

•  O15: Improve the knowledge on the concrete activities of equality bodies and on 

the state of discrimination in general. 

•  O16:  Improve  statistical  evidence  on  equality  and  proper  analysis  of  relevant 

data. 

•  O17: Ensure that equality bodies can provide their insights on equality and non-
discrimination  policies  and  practices  to  policymakers  and  public  and  private 
entities. 

Minimum standards on monitoring and enforcement 

•  O18: Ensure coherent actions of equality bodies on a long-term perspective. 

•  O19:  Ensure  that,  if  equality  bodies  issue  opinions  there  is  an  incentive  for 

recipients to give appropriate feedback.  

•  O20: Ensure that, if equality bodies have binding decision-making powers, their 

decisions are enforced and subject to judicial review. 

•  O21:  Ensure  that  the  provisions  on  equality  bodies  are  clear  enough  to  be 
enforceable  and  that  there  are  clear  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations 
regarding their implementation. 

4.2. 

4.2. 

Operational objectives  

As  shown  by  the  retrospective  analysis  and  already  discussed  above,  three  underlying 
drivers  seem  to  cause  most  problems,  which  is  why  addressing  them  would  contribute 
greatly to reaching the objectives set out above.  

•  OO1: Ensure that equality bodies are free from external influence so that they can 

exercise all their tasks independently. 

•  OO2: Ensure that all equality bodies have the necessary resources to perform all 

their tasks. 

•  OO3: Ensure that, if an equality body is part of multi-mandate body, there is an 
internal structure that guarantees sufficient independence, focus and resources for 
the equality mandate. 

19 

 
Intervention logic (colour codes are to be used horizontally. They show links between drivers/problems/objectives/outputs)

 
 
5.  5. WHAT ARE THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The  initiative  was  exempted  from  the  obligation  to  conduct  an  impact  assessment, 
building  on  the  2018  Commission  Recommendation  on  standards  for  equality  bodies. 
This is explained by the absence of simplification potential and the fact that the impacts 
of  the  provisions  envisaged  are  expected  to  be  only  partially  identifiable  and  very 
difficult to measure.   

Non-legislative options have already been tested without producing the desired result to 
address all the issues identified. These options were (i) the set-up of an active network of 
equality  bodies  financed  by  the  Commission  (Equinet);  (ii)  the  non-binding  2018 
Recommendation;  (iii)  exchanges  of  best  practices;  and  (iv)  direct  funding  through  the 
Commission’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (‘REC’).  

Those  measures  would  also  remain  in  place  if  no  specific  further  action  in  the  area  of 
equality  bodies  were  to  be  taken  (i.e.  status  quo).  Furthermore,  negotiations  on  three 
proposals66 that also contain provisions on equality bodies are currently ongoing and may 
be finalised, which would extend the mandate of equality bodies. 

For the reasons outlined above and addressed in the evaluation67, new binding legislation 
remains the only option. The question that remains therefore is which measures should be 
implemented through such legislation; this is what is examined in this section.  

Description of possible measures  

Of the various identified measures that could be included in a legislative act to help reach 
the 21 objectives presented above, 4868 were selected for further analysis, falling under 
11  thematic  areas:  mandate,  powers,  access,  cooperation,  surveys,  data  collection, 
monitoring, enforcement, independence, resources and structure.  

Dealing  with  cases  of  discrimination  and  providing  assistance 
discrimination 

to  victims  of 

As  regards  the  mandate,  there  are  two  possible  measures  that  could  be  taken.  These 
would  be  to  extend  the  scope  to  the  two  directives  that  currently  do  not  contain 
provisions  on  equality  bodies.  These  are  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  and  the 
Gender Equality Directive in the field of social security.  

66  Proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  on  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons 
irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM(2008) 426 final;  Proposal 
for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  to  strengthen  the  application  of  the 
principal of equal pay for equal  work or  work of equal value  between  men and  women through pay 
transparency  and  enforcement  mechanisms,  COM(2021)  93  final;  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  combatting  violence  against  women  and  domestic 
violence, COM(2022) 105 final. 

67 

e.g. the rules provided for by the existing EU framework are often not properly enforced; either due to 
their broad and vague nature (those in the Directives) or due to the fact that they are non-binding and 
therefore not enforceable (those provided in the 2018 Recommendation). 

68 

Including two identical measures. 

21 

 
                                                 
A. Possible measures addressing mandate 

1  Entrust equality bodies with the grounds covered by the Employment Equality 
Directive: religion or belief, sexual orientation, age and disability in the field of 
employment and occupation. 

2  Entrust equality bodies with the ground and field covered by the Gender Equality 

Directive in the field of social security. 

Both measures A.1 and A.2 address objective 1, which is to assist those victims who 
are currently outside the scope of protection in the grounds and fields that are addressed 
by the Employment Equality Directive and the Gender Equality Directive in the field of 
social security. The retrospective analysis has shown that levels of discrimination in the 
fields and on the grounds concerned remain high throughout the EU. Therefore, it would 
be important to ensure that all equality bodies in all Member States cover them.  

For powers, the picture is more diversified; also, a broader variety of measures could be 
implemented. 

B. Possible measures addressing powers 

1  Ensure that equality bodies can receive individual and collective complaints and 
provide relevant information and advice as part of their assistance to victims. 

2  Ensure that equality bodies have the possibility to provide or recommend amicable 

settlement mechanisms. 

3  Ensure that equality bodies can submit oral or written statements (i.e. amicus curiae) 

to the courts in individual and collective discrimination cases. 

4  Allow equality bodies to litigate (in their own name, on behalf or in support of one 

or several victim(s), with their approval, even in the absence of identified victim(s)). 

5  Ensure that equality bodies have effective rights to access information which is 

necessary to establish whether discrimination has occurred (investigation powers).  

6  Require that Member States adopt a strategy to raise awareness of the general 
population, with particular attention to individuals and groups at risk of 
discrimination, on the rights under the Equality Directives and the existence of 
equality bodies. 

7  Ensure that, when equality bodies issue decisions or opinions on a case, they include 
measures to prevent (re)occurrences of discrimination as part of the outcome, where 
relevant. 

8  Ensure that equality bodies publish a summary of their opinions/decisions without 

disclosing personal data. 

The  retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that,  while  all  equality  bodies  can  receive 
individual  complaints,  not  all  of  them  currently  provide  legal  advice69  to  victims  of 
discrimination.  Measure  B.1  aims  to  address  this  issue  in  order  to  fulfil  objective  2, 
which  is  to  ensure  that  victims  have  access  to  information  and  advice  targeted  to  their 
situation.  The  same  is  true  for  providing  or  recommending  amicable  settlement 

69  CZ, NL and one out of two equality bodies in MT do not provide legal advice. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
mechanisms70,  which  is  to  be  addressed  by  measure  B.2.  The  aim  is  to  implement 
objective  3,  which  is  to  ensure  that  victims  of  discrimination  have  access  to  amicable 
settlement mechanisms.  

There  are  several  possible  measures  that  could  be  implemented  in  order  to  achieve 
objective  4,  which  is  to  ensure  that  victims  can  make  their  case  in  court  and  receive 
appropriate  assistance  to  have  a  fair  chance  of  winning.  One  aspect  is  covered  by 
measure  B.3,  which  is  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  can  submit  oral  or  written 
statements  (i.e. amicus curiae)  to  the courts on individual  and collective discrimination 
cases.  As  the  retrospective  analysis  has  shown,  half  of  the  Member  States71  currently 
allow equality bodies to act as amicus curiae. Another possible aspect in this context is 
covered by measure B.4 and involves allowing equality bodies to litigate (in their own 
name, on behalf or in support of one or several victim(s), with their approval, even in the 
absence of identified victim(s)). Currently, equality bodies in around half of the Member 
States  can  represent  victims72,  intervene  in  support  of  them73  in  court  or  engage  in 
strategic litigation74.  In a third of Member States,  equality bodies  can launch collective 
complaints75  or  bring  proceedings  in  front  of  a  court  without  an  identifiable  victim76. 
This measure would also serve to achieve further objectives, namely objective 5, which 
is  to  assist  more  victims,  also  those  who  may  be  unaware  that  they  are  discriminated 
against  and  objective  12,  which  is  to  elicit  social,  legal  and  policy  change  through 
strategic  litigation.  Measure  B.5,  ensuring  that  equality  bodies  have  effective  rights  to 
access  information  that  is  necessary  to  establish  whether  discrimination  has  occurred, 
would also serve to fulfil objective 4 to ensure that victims can make their case in court 
and receive appropriate assistance to have a fair chance of winning. 

Measure  B.6  aims  to  address  the  continuing  lack  of  awareness  of  equality  bodies  and 
equality  law  in  some  Member  States  and  among  some  groups(especially  minorities). 
Adopting a strategy to raise awareness of the general population, with particular attention 
to  individuals  and  groups  at  risk  of  discrimination,  on  the  rights  under  the  equality 
directives and the existence of equality bodies should help improve the knowledge of the 

70  CZ, EE, LT, NL, PL, one out of two equality bodies in ES and one out of three in HR and PT are not 
involved  in  such  activities.  This  reflects  the  situation  before  Spain  amended  its  legislation  in  July 
2022. 

71  BE, BG, IE, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PT and SK. PL and FI have two equality bodies and only 

one of them has this power. 

72  BE, DK, IE, IT, LV, SI, SK, FI and SE. MT and AT have two equality bodies and only one of them 

has this power.    

73  BE, DK, IT, HU, PL and SK. MT, AT and FI have two equality bodies and only one of them has this 

power. HR has three equality bodes; two of them have this power.  

74  BE, DK, IE, FR, LV, PL, SI, SK and SE.  AT and FI have two equality bodies and only one of them 

has this power. HR has three equality bodes; one of them has this power. 

75  BE, LV, SI, SK and SE. ES and AT have two equality bodies and only one of them has this power. HR 
has three equality bodes; one of them has this power. This reflects the situation before Spain amended 
its legislation in July 2022. 

76  BE, DK, IE, IT, LV, LT and SI. MT and AT have two equality bodies and only one of them has this 

power. 

23 

 
                                                 
general  population,  and  in  particular  of  potential  victims,  about  where  they  can  get 
assistance in cases of discrimination, which is objective 6.  

The focus of the current directives that contain provisions on equality bodies is mainly on 
damage  control,  once  discrimination  has  occurred,  but  they  do  not  sufficiently  address 
the prevention of discrimination. Measures B.7 and B.8 are possible options in order to 
tackle  this  issue.  This  is  in  line  with  objective  11,  which  is  to  ensure  that  all  equality 
bodies take aspects into account that could prevent the same situation from arising again 
in the future when assisting victims.  

The decision whether to entrust equality bodies with binding decision-making powers is 
left to the discretion of Member States.  Implementing this measure at EU level has not 
been  considered  as  an  option  because  it  would  not  be  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
procedural  autonomy.  Besides,  the  majority  of  stakeholders  were  against  this  measure, 
which  would  imply  significant  changes  in  most  Member  States,  some  of  which  have  a 
well-functioning equality body. 

For access and accessibility, several possible measures were considered.  

C. Possible measures addressing access and accessibility  

1  Ensure that there are no barriers to complaint submission to an equality body 

(providing different means of submission), that there is access to equality bodies 
outputs, procedures, and services on equal basis for all and accessibility for persons 
with disabilities. 

2  Ensure that equality bodies provide their services to complainants free of charge. 

3  Ensure that equality bodies create a solidarity fund for access to justice by victims of 
discrimination in case it is not envisaged in another national mechanism. Fines and 
sanctions collected in cases of discrimination could feed this fund. 

4  Guarantee that equality bodies ensure, where needed, confidentiality of witnesses and 

whistle-blowers, and as far as possible, of complainants. 

5  Ensure that equality bodies are physically represented throughout the territory. 

6  Ensure that equality bodies’ services are available to all potential victims throughout 

the territory of their Member States 

The  retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that  not  all  equality  bodies  currently  take  all 
aspects  of  accessibility  into  account  that  could  be  relevant  for  all  groups  of  victims. 
Measures  C.1  and  C.2 aim  to  tackle  this  issue by  ensuring  that  there  are  no  barriers, 
physical  or  digital,  to  complaint  submission  to  an  equality  body  (providing  different 
means  of  submission),  that  there  is  access  to  equality  bodies  outputs,  procedures,  and 
services  on  an  equal  basis  for  all,  including  for  persons  with  disabilities,  and  that  the 
services of equality bodies are free of charge. This corresponds to objective 8, which is 
to ensure that victims, including those in particularly vulnerable situations and those with 
disabilities,  can  submit  claims  and  receive  proper  support;  and  objective  9  that  is  to 
ensure that victims of discrimination can access assistance regardless of financial means. 
Measure C.3 also addresses objectives 8 and 9; however, it would go one step further 
and aim to provide financial assistance to victims of discrimination to litigate.  

24 

 
 
Another  aspect  of  the  problem  regarding  access  and  accessibility  might  be  the  fear  of 
negative  consequences  if  one  comes  forward  to  report  discrimination,  be  it  as  victim, 
whistle-blower or witness. Measure C.4 aims to address this matter to fulfil objective 
7, which is to ensure confidentiality for witnesses, whistle-blowers and complainants.   

Finally,  measures  C.5  and  C.6  aim  to  ensure  that  also  victims  in  remote  areas  have 
access  to  the  services  offered  by  equality  bodies,  which  would  contribute  to  the 
implementation of objective 10.  

Fostering public knowledge and awareness about equality and non-discrimination 

As  regards  cooperation  and  coordination, 
implemented.  

the  following  measures  could  be 

D. Possible measures addressing cooperation and coordination 

1  Ensure that equality bodies cooperate and coordinate their actions with other equality 

bodies within the same Member State. 

2  Ensure that equality bodies engage in dialogue exchange and cooperate with relevant 

public and private entities (including NGOs and trade unions). 

3  Ensure that equality bodies engage with international and supranational institutions 

and equality bodies from other countries. 

4  Ensure that equality bodies promote equality duties and mainstreaming among public 

and private entities/sectors.  

5  Ensure that equality bodies are consulted by the government, through timely and 

transparent procedures, on draft legislation related to equality and non-discrimination. 

6  In addition to legislation as referred to above, ensure that equality bodies are 

consulted by the government and other institutions, through timely and transparent 
procedures, on policy, procedure, programmes, and practices related to equality and 
non-discrimination. Ensure that equality bodies have the right to make 
recommendations on those matters, to publish them and to require feedback. 
7  Establish a mandatory frequency of consultations between equality bodies and the 

government and other institutions.  

Provisions on cooperation in the directives currently in force are either non-existent77 or 
very narrow78. Several measures could be implemented to improve cooperation between 
equality bodies and other stakeholders. Measure D.1 aims to ensure that equality bodies 
cooperate  and  coordinate  their  actions  with  other  equality  bodies  within  the  same 
Member  State.  The  goal  of  measure  D.2  is  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  engage  in 
dialogue  exchange  and  cooperate  with  relevant  public  and  private  entities  (including 
NGOs and trade unions). Measure D.3 has a similar aim, which is to ensure that equality 
bodies engage with international and supranational institutions and equality bodies from 

77  Racial Equality Directive and Gender Equality Directive in the field of access to and supply of goods 

and services.  

78  Gender Equality Directives in the field of employment and self-employment.  

25 

 
 
                                                 
other  countries.  All  three  measures  would  contribute  to  objective  13  to  improve  the 
knowledge base about equality and discrimination, as well as mutual learning.  

The lack of focus on prevention in the current legislative framework is  also relevant to 
this point.  It means that equality bodies currently  have no duty to engage with relevant 
to  foster  public  knowledge  and  awareness  of  equality  and  non-
stakeholders 
discrimination.  Likewise,  stakeholders  have  no  obligation  to  consult  equality  bodies 
when drafting and/or implementing policies or legislation.  Measures D.4, D.5 and D.6 
are  possibilities  to  tackle  these  issues  in  order  to  implement  objective  14  to  promote 
equality and non-discrimination. There is also a strong link between these measures and 
measures B.7 and B.8 that address the prevention of discrimination. Measures D.5, D.6 
and D.7 also aim to implement objective 17 to ensure that equality bodies can provide 
their insights on equality and non-discrimination  policies and practices to policymakers 
and public and private entities. The area of surveys and reports is related. Even though 
it is  addressed by provisions in  the  current EU  legislation, those  are so  broad that they 
have  been  interpreted  very  differently  in  Member  States  in  practice.  Concretising  them 
may  therefore  help  to  better  achieve  objective  15  to  improve  the  knowledge  on  the 
concrete  activities  of  equality  bodies  and  on  the  state  of  discrimination  in  general.  
Measure  E.1  would  contribute  to  implementing  the  first  aspect  of  objective  15,  while 
measure E.2 is focused on the second.  

E. Possible measures addressing surveys and reports 

1  Ensure that equality bodies produce and make available to the public their annual 

activity reports.  

2  Require equality bodies to publish a report, with recommendations, at least every four 
years, on the state of discrimination in their Member State, including on structural 
discrimination. This report shall be communicated to the Commission. 

Another  aspect  of  high  relevance  for  fostering  public  knowledge  and  awareness  about 
equality  and  non-discrimination  is  data  collection.  The  approaches  taken  by  Member 
States in this regard currently vary greatly. The measures listed in the box below would 
aim to address this matter.  

F. Possible measures addressing data collection  

1  Ensure equality bodies collect data on their activities, disaggregated by grounds and 
fields covered by the directives, and in accordance with the indicators developed to 
monitor the implementation of the Directive. 

2  Ensure equality bodies can access statistics necessary to fulfil their mandate and tasks, 
from and/or collected by, public authorities, trade unions, companies, and civil society 
organisations. 

26 

 
 
 
F. Possible measures addressing data collection  

3  Provide for an obligation for equality bodies to publish a report, with 

recommendations, at least every four years, on the state of discrimination in their 
Member State in all the fields and grounds, including potential structural issues. This 
report shall be communicated to the Commission. 

4  Ensure that equality bodies can make recommendations, in accordance with their 

mandate, to public authorities, trade unions, companies and civil society organisations 
on their data collection activities. 

Measure  F.1  intends  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  collect  data  on  their  activities, 
disaggregated  by  grounds  and  fields  covered  by  the  directives,  and  in  accordance  with 
the  indicators  developed  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  directive.  The  goal  of 
measure  F.2  is  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  can  access  data  necessary  to  fulfil  their 
mandate and tasks, from and/or collected by, public authorities, trade unions, companies, 
and civil society organisations. Measure F.4 is to ensure that equality bodies can make 
recommendations, in accordance with their mandate, to public authorities, trade unions, 
companies  and  civil  society  organisations  on  their  data  collection  activities.  All  three 
measures  aim  to  fulfil  the  first  aspect  addressed  by  objective  16,  which  is  to  improve 
statistical evidence on equality. Measure F.3, which is identical to measure E.2 above, 
provides for an obligation for equality bodies to publish a report, with recommendations, 
at least every four years, on the state of discrimination in their Member State, including 
on structural discrimination. This addresses the second aspect mentioned in objective 16, 
which is to improve the proper analysis of relevant data.  

Expanding  the  scope  of  primary  data  collection  for  equality  bodies  beyond  collecting 
data on their own activities was considered at an early stage, but discarded, as the main 
responsibility in this regard should remain with the relevant statistical offices. This view 
was widely supported by stakeholders79. 

Monitoring and enforcement  

In the area of monitoring, the following measures could be envisaged.  

G. Possible measures addressing monitoring  

1  Ensure that equality bodies adopt a multiannual programme setting out their priorities 

and prospective activities.  

2  Establish a list of common indicators to assess the practical effects and 

implementation of the equality bodies Directives and draw up a Commission 
monitoring report every 5 years, on the basis of the information provided by the 
Member States in accordance with the indicators and additional relevant data 
collected at national and Union level, in particular from stakeholders, by the 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Institute for 
Gender Equality. 

79  Stakeholders primarily expressed this view during a workshop on data collection.  

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
G. Possible measures addressing monitoring  

3  Put in place a system of accreditation through peer review, according to procedures 
and criteria agreed upon by the Member States, within 5 years of the adoption of the 
Directive. 

To ensure consistent actions on a long-term perspective, which is objective 18, measure 
G.1 would ensure that equality bodies adopt a programme setting out their priorities and 
prospective activities. 

There  are  two  options  for  the  monitoring  of  the  new  Directives  and  implementation  of 
the  framework  for  equality  bodies.  In  the  first  option,  measure  G.2,  the  Commission 
would monitor the implementation of the equality bodies directives by establishing a list 
of common indicators to assess their practical effects and implementation and drawing up 
a  monitoring  report  every  5  years.  The  report  would  be  based  on  the  information 
provided by Member States in accordance with the indicators and additional relevant data 
collected  at  national  and  EU  level,  in  particular  from  stakeholders,  by  the  European 
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights  and the European  Institute for Gender Equality. 
The list of indicators would cover the resources,  independent functioning, activities and 
effectiveness  of  equality  bodies,  as  well  as  evolutions  in  their  mandate,  powers  or 
structure.  The  second  option,  measure  G.3,  would  be  to  put  in  place  a  system  of 
accreditation through peer review,  based on procedures and criteria agreed upon by the 
Member States, within 5 years of the adoption of the directive. Both would aim to fulfil 
objective 21 to ensure that the provisions in the future directives are clear enough to be 
enforceable  (which  is  also  a  general  overarching  objective  applicable  to  all  provisions) 
and  to  ensure  that  there  are  clear  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations  regarding  their 
implementation.  

For the area of  enforcement, the measures considered mainly concern the enforcement 
of  actions  taken  by  equality  bodies;  the  enforcement  of  the  directives  in  general  is  a 
matter closely linked to monitoring which is covered by objective 21.  

H. Possible measures addressing enforcement  

1  Ensure that when equality bodies issue opinions, they can request a mandatory 

feedback from the recipients.  

2  Member States shall introduce effective measures applicable in case a natural or legal 

person does not comply with the mandatory feedback obligation. 

3  Ensure, when equality bodies are entrusted with binding decision-making powers, 

that their decisions are enforced and subject to judicial review.  

4  Ensure that the rights of defence of natural and legal persons involved in any 

procedure in front of an equality body are duly protected. 

28 

 
 
 
H. Possible measures addressing enforcement  

5  If equality bodies have various powers that could interfere with each other (e.g. 
support to victims and quasi-judicial powers), ensure that they adopt an internal 
structure that guarantees the independent exercise of their powers.  

To  ensure  that  if  equality  bodies  issue  recommendations,  there  is  an  incentive  for 
recipients to give them appropriate feedback (objective 19), measure H.1 would ensure 
that when equality bodies issue opinions, they can request mandatory feedback from the 
recipients.  Measure  H.2  would  go  a  step  further  and  ensure  that  measures  are  put  in 
place in case of non-compliance with the mandatory feedback requirement.  

Measure H.3  addresses  objective  20 to  ensure that when  equality bodies are  entrusted 
with  binding  decision-making  powers,  their  decisions  are  enforced,  subject  to  judicial 
review80, and that the right of appeal must be guaranteed. Measure H.4 ensures that the 
rights  of  defence  of  natural  and  legal  persons  involved  in  any  procedure  in  front  of  an 
equality  body  are  duly  protected.  Another  aspect  that  could  be  related  to  situations  in 
which equality bodies have binding decision-making powers is to put in place a ‘firewall’ 
to  ensure  that  the  conditions  to  exercise  that  power  do  not  conflict  with  other  powers 
equality bodies have, such as assistance to victims. This aspect is addressed by measure 
H.5,  where  if  equality  bodies  have  various  powers  that  could  interfere  with  each  other 
(e.g. support to victims and quasi-judicial powers), one has to ensure that they adopt an 
internal structure that guarantees the independent exercise of their powers. 

Independence, resources and structure 

As  the  retrospective  analysis  has  shown,  issues  with  independence,  resources  and 
structure are underlying challenges that in many cases lead to problems addressed by the 
objectives. Therefore, improvements in this area would contribute to the fulfilment of the 
objectives.  

Several  aspects  could  be  taken  into  account  to  ensure  equality  bodies’  independence, 
which is operational objective 1.  

I. Possible measures addressing independence 

1  Ensure budgetary independence from the government. 

2  Establish transparent rules and safeguards on the selection, appointment and dismissal 

of the staff of equality bodies to guarantee their competence and independence. 

3  Ensure that equality bodies can manage their resources, including their staff, 

independently. 

4  Ensure that equality bodies are a legal entity separate from the government.  

80  However, as outlined above, it will be left to Member States to decide whether equality bodies are to 

be assigned with binding decision-making powers. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
I. Possible measures addressing independence 

5  Ensure that rules are in place that limit the ability of the leadership to engage in other 

professional and/or political activities.  

6  Ensure that rules are in place that limit the possibility to revoke the leadership of 

equality bodies.  

7  Ensure that rules on equality bodies’ accountability do not jeopardise their 

independence. 

As  regards  resources,  the  following  aspects  are  of  relevance  to  achieve  operational 
objective 2 to ensure that all equality bodies have the necessary resources to perform all 
their tasks. 

J. Possible measures addressing resources 

1  Ensure that each equality body is provided with the human, technical and financial 

resources, necessary to perform all its tasks and exercise its powers effectively in all 
the grounds and fields they are entrusted with.  

2  Ensure that equality bodies are provided with the resources to enable them to use 
automated systems to detect discrimination cases and enforce non-discrimination 
rules.  

In the area of structure, operational objective 3 is to ensure that, if equality bodies are 
part  of  multi-mandate  bodies,  there  is  an  internal  structure  that  guarantees  sufficient 
independence, focus and resources for the equality mandate.  

K. Possible measures addressing structure  

1  Ensure that, when equality bodies are part of a multi-mandate body, the latter adopts 
an internal structure that guarantees sufficient independence, focus and resources on 
the equality mandate. 

2  Ensure that equality bodies adopt an internal structure that guarantees the independent 
exercise of their various powers (e.g., support to victims and quasi-judicial powers 
should be exercised independently). 

6.  6. ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBLE MEASURES 

This section aims to look further at the proposed measures and assess them along the five 
criteria  of  effectiveness81,  efficiency82,  coherence83,  EU  added  value84  and  relevance85. 

81  The  analysis  of  effectiveness  considers  the  extent  to  which  the  proposed  measure  is  expected  to 

contribute to progress towards the objectives defined in the intervention logic.  

82  The analysis of efficiency assesses the relationship between the resources used by a proposed measure 

and the changes it is expected to generate.  

83  The  analysis  of  coherence  focuses  on  how  well  the  proposed  measure  is  expected  to  work  together 

with other EU, international and national instruments. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
While  the  assessment  of  EU  added  value,  relevance  and  coherence  looks  more  at  a 
macro-level  and is  therefore done  for the proposed legislative initiative as a whole, the 
assessment  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency  will  be  done  per  thematic  area,  examining 
individual proposed measures. However, for some measures, a full assessment may not 
be possible due to limited availability of data or methodological constraints, above all the 
difficulties  of  quantifying  equality  and  non-discrimination,  in  particular  in  monetary 
terms, as outlined above. This is especially true for assessing efficiency.  

The assessment of policy options takes into account some data on the benefits of fighting 
discrimination. As highlighted in the retrospective analysis, a 2018 report issued by the 
European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) on the cost of non-Europe showed that 
reducing levels of discrimination by 5% through EU action could lead  to an increase in 
GDP of between EUR 247 million and EUR 703 million86. The report also illustrates the 
considerable impacts that racial and ethnic discrimination have on individuals, societies 
and  economies.  In  financial  terms,  these  translate  into  lost  earnings  ranging  from  EUR 
1.8 billion to EUR 8 billion annually for individuals, and losses ranging from EUR 2.4 
billion to EUR 10.7 billion annually for society87. 

Also,  there  has  been  strong  support  from  stakeholders  for  further  action  in  relation  to 
equality  bodies.  An  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  (97.2%)  to  the  open  public 
consultation considered that setting up strong and effective equality bodies is important. 
81.3% replied that adopting new binding minimum standards for equality bodies would 
have  a  positive  impact  for  the  respondents.  Stakeholders  also  expressed  strong  support 
for taking ambitious action, during other consultation activities, such as workshops and a 
conference88. 

Global assessment of possible measures – EU added value, relevance and coherence 

As the retrospective analysis has shown89, Member States’ action alone is not sufficient 
to achieve a satisfactorily high level of protection against discrimination throughout the 
EU. This is however essential to guarantee citizens’ and residents’ rights in line with the 
founding values and objectives of the Treaties.  The initial intervention clearly provided 
EU  added  value,  leading  to  the  set-up  of  equality  bodies  in  about  half  of  the  EU-15 
Member States that did not have such bodies in place when it was adopted. However, the 
retrospective  analysis  has  demonstrated  that  it  left  too  much  leeway  to  Member  States, 
which resulted in not fulfilling the objectives to a satisfactory level.  

84  The  analysis of EU added value looks at changes to be triggered by the  proposed measure over and 

above what could reasonably been expected from stakeholders alone or from no action at all. 

85  The  analysis  of  relevance  looks  at  whether  the  proposed  measure  is  an  appropriate  response  to  the 

needs. 

86  Van  Ballegooij,  W.  and  Moxom,  J.,  ‘Equality  and  the  Fight  against  Racism  and  Xenophobia:  Cost  of 

Non-Europe Report’, 2018, Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, p. 41. 

87  Van Ballegooij, W. and Moxom, J., ‘Equality and the Fight against Racism and  Xenophobia: Cost of 

Non-Europe Report’, 2018, Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, p. 27-28.  

88  Please consult Annex 3 for more detailed information on the outcome of the consultation activities.  

89  Please consult Annex 5. 

31 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
The  retrospective  analysis  also  demonstrated  that  the  2018  Recommendation  could  not 
mitigate this situation due to its non-binding nature. Since the proposed directives will be 
binding  and  will  be  more  detailed,  they  are  expected  to  tackle  the  problems  that  the 
existing  instruments  could  not  address  and  to  close  the  gaps  in  the  EU  added  value 
identified  by  the  retrospective  analysis.  Similarly,  the  retrospective  analysis  has  also 
shown  that  the  proposed  intervention  remains  highly  relevant,  since  levels  of 
discrimination are consistently high throughout Member States and the objectives of the 
initial  intervention  have  not  been  achieved  satisfactorily  due  to  the  vagueness  of  the 
existing provisions.  

Several  levels  have  to  be  examined  when  assessing  coherence.  The  coherence  with  the 
Treaties  and  the  Charter  of  all  the  measures  being  examined  is  high,  as  the  proposal 
intends  to  increase  equality  and  non-discrimination,  which  are  among  the  founding 
values  of  the  EU.  Article  2  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  states  that  the  EU  is 
founded, on the respect for human dignity and equality, and that the values common to 
all  Member  States  include  non-discrimination,  tolerance  and  equality  between  women 
and men. One of the reasons for setting up the EU is to promote its values. The creation 
of the single market has as one of its objectives combating discrimination and promoting 
equality between women and men (Article 3(3) TEU). 

Article  8  TFEU  states  that  the  EU  must  aim  to  eliminate  inequalities  and  promote 
equality,  including  between  women  and  men,  in  all  its  activities.  Article  10  TFEU 
requires the EU to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or 
belief, age or sexual orientation, in defining and implementing its policies and activities. 

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which applies when Member States implement 
EU  law,  contains  provisions  on  equality  under  Title  III  (Articles  20-26).  Of  particular 
relevance is Article 21 of the Charter, which prohibits any discrimination based on any 
ground  such  as  sex,  race,  colour,  ethnic  or  social  origin,  genetic  features,  language, 
religion,  or  belief,  political  or  any  other  opinion,  membership  of  a  national  minority, 
property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation. This is a wide-reaching prohibition 
(‘any discrimination’ based on ‘any  ground’) that  goes beyond the  grounds  covered  by 
the  existing  directives  and  this  initiative.  However,  since  this  difference  is  due  to  the 
scope  provided  for  by  the  Treaties90  for  adopting  secondary  legislation  in  the  area  of 
equality, this cannot be regarded as inconsistent with the proposal. 

Article  19(1)  TFEU  provides  for  the  possibility  of  adopting  secondary  legislation  to 
combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, 
age  or  sexual  orientation.  However,  currently,  the  full  scope  of  Article  19(1)  is  not 
covered by secondary legislation. As outlined above, the proposal for an Equal Treatment 

90  As previously outlined above, Article 19(1) TFEU provides for the possibility  of adopting secondary 
legislation to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, 
age  or  sexual  orientation.  Article  157  (3)  provides  for  the  possibility  of  adopting  legal  measures  to 
ensure equal pay for men and women. 

32 

 
                                                 
Directive91  is  still  being  negotiated.  As  a  consequence,  pending  its  adoption  by  the 
legislator, this initiative will not cover the scope addressed by the proposal for an Equal 
Treatment Directive.  

As  regards  existing  EU  secondary  legislation,  not  all  EU  Equality  Directives  currently 
contain  provisions  on  equality  bodies.  The  fact  that  the  Gender  Equality  Directive  in 
Social  Security  and  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  do  not  contain  provisions  on 
equality  bodies, although they pursue very similar objectives,  has been identified as an 
incoherence  in  the  retrospective  analysis.  This  could  be  mitigated  by  implementing  the 
proposed measures addressing the equality bodies’ mandate (measures A.1 and A.2, see 
below.)  

There are two important international instruments which are relevant for equality bodies, 
the Paris Principles and the General Observations (addressed to National Human Rights 
Institutions),  and  the  European  Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance  (‘ECRI’) 
Recommendation  No  2.  The  proposed  measures  are  in  line  with  those  instruments, 
despite variations in the level of detail that can be explained through the different legal 
nature of the instruments.  

Detailed assessment of possible measures – Effectiveness and efficiency (92)  

Providing assistance to victims of discrimination 

The common goal of all possible measures in this area is to improve different aspects of 
assistance to (potential) victims of discrimination.  

As regards the mandate of equality bodies, there are two possible measures that could 
be  taken;  those  are  extending  the  scope  of  equality  bodies’  actions  to  the  Employment 
Equality Directive Directives, and extending the scope of equality bodies’ actions to the 
Gender Equality Directive in the field of social security, both directives that currently do 
not  contain provisions on equality bodies.  As the table below illustrates, most Member 
States have already done this. Therefore, the overall impact in terms of costs for Member 
States and national equality bodies is expected to be low. In addition, discrimination has 
a cost, which will be mitigated if the mandate of equality bodies is extended.  However, 
since the retrospective analysis has shown that levels of discrimination in the fields and 
on  the  grounds  concerned  remain  high  throughout  the  EU,  the  effectiveness  of  this 
measure is still expected to be considerable. 

91 

If  adopted,  the  Equal  Treatment  Directive  would  cover  discrimination  based  on  religion  or  belief, 
disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation  in  the  fields  of  social  protection,  including  social  security  and 
healthcare, social advantages, education and access to and supply of goods and other services which 
are available to the public, including housing. 

(92)  N.B. the tables below present the situation before Spain amended its legislation in July 2022. The fact 
that the information below was gathered through online surveys explains possible differences between 
those tables and the tables in Annex 4 

33 

 
                                                 
The 
measures 
are already 
partly in 
place 

The 
measures 
are not yet 
in place 

PT. 

ES.93 

Measures 

The measures are 
already fully in place 

A.1  Entrust equality bodies with 
the grounds covered by the 
Employment Equality 
Directive: religion or belief, 
sexual orientation, age and 
disability in the field of 
employment and occupation. 
A.2  Entrust equality bodies with 
the ground and field covered 
by the Gender Equality 
Directive in the field of social 
security. 

Mandate 
BE*, BG, CZ, DK, 
DE, EE, IE, EL, FR, 
HR*, IT*, CY, LV, 
LT, LU, HU*, MT, 
NL, AT*, PL, RO, 
SI, SK, FI*, SE. 

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

Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  or  three94  equality  bodies.  Source:  online 
survey conducted by VVA. 

For  powers,  the  picture  is  more  varied;  some  measures  have  however  already  been 
implemented by some Member States, as illustrated in the table below.  

Measures95 

The measures 
are already fully 
in place 

The measures 
are already 
partly in place 

The 
measures 
are not yet 
in place 

B.1  Ensure that equality bodies can 

receive individual and collective 
complaints and provide relevant 
information and advice as part 
of their assistance to victims. 

B.2  Ensure that equality bodies have 
the possibility to provide or 
recommend amicable settlement 
mechanisms. 

Powers  
BE, BG, DE, 
EE, EL, ES*, 
FR, HR*, IT, 
CY, LT, LU, 
HU, MT*, PT, 
RO, SI, SK, FI. 
BE, BG, DK, 
DE, EL, ES*, 
FR, HR*, IT, 
CY, LV, LU, 
HU, MT, AT, 

CZ, DK, IE, 
ES*, HR* LV, 
MT*, NL, AT, 
PL, SE.  

CZ, EE, IE, 
LT, NL, 
PL. 

93  Once the new law is implemented, the proposed measures will also be fully in place in Spain. 

94  Only HR and PT have three equality bodies; all others marked with a star have two.  

95  There  is  no  data  available  for  measures  B.8,  as  the  survey  only  enquired  equality  bodies  equality 
bodies would be competent for promotion of equality and prevention of discrimination in general, but 
not about this very specific measures.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Measures95 

The measures 
are already fully 
in place 

The measures 
are already 
partly in place 

The 
measures 
are not yet 
in place 

PT*, RO, SI, 
SK, FI, SE. 

B.3  Ensure that equality bodies can 

BE, LV. 

submit oral or written statements 
(i.e. amicus curiae) to the courts 
in individual and collective 
discrimination cases.96 

B.4  Allow equality bodies to litigate 
(in their own name, on behalf or 
in support of one or several 
victim(s), with their approval, 
even in the absence of identified 
victim(s)).97 

B.5  Ensure that equality bodies have 
effective rights to access 
information which is necessary 
to establish whether 
discrimination has occurred 
(investigation powers). 

B.6  Adopt a strategy to raise 
awareness of the general 
population, with particular 
attention to individuals and 
groups at risk of discrimination, 
on the rights under the Equality 
Directives and on the existence 
of equality bodies.98  

FR*, LT, FI, 
SE. 

BE, EE, ES*, 
FR, HR*, IT, 
CY, LV, LT, 
HU, MT, NL, 
AT*, PT, RO, 
SI, FI. 

BG, DK, ES*, 
FR, HR*, IT,  
HU, MT*, NL, 
AT*, PL, PT*, 
RO, SI, SK, 
FI*, SE. 
 BE, BG, DK, 
IE, FR, HR*, 
IT*, LV, LU, 
HU, MT*, 
AT*, PL, SI, 
SK, FI*, SE. 
BG, DK, EL, 
IT, CY, LV, 
LU, HU, MT, 
NL, AT*, PL, 
PT, RO, SI, 
FI*. 

CZ, DE, 
EE, EL, 
CY, LU 

CZ, EE, 
EL, ES, 
CY, LT, 
PL, RO, 
SE. 

BE, CZ, 
DE, EE, 
IE, ES, SK. 

BG, CZ, 
DE, EL, 
LU, AT*, 
SK, SE.   

Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  or  three99  equality  bodies.  Source:  online 
survey conducted by VVA. 

Expanding equality bodies’ powers is expected to increase costs due to increased activity 
and  workload  for  equality  bodies.  However,  it  is  also  expected  to  be  very  effective  in 
protecting  victims  of  discrimination,  which  will  support  the  implementation  of  the 

96   The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 
document  was  ‘The  equality  body  has  legal  standing  to:  act  as  amicus  curiae  or  expert;  bring 
proceedings before courts (individual complaint & class actions/collective complaints).’ 

97   The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 

document was ‘Which functions are accorded to the equality body? Litigation?’ 

98  The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 

document was ‘Does the equality body have a communication strategy in place for this role?’ 

99  HR and PT have three equality bodies; all others marked with a star have two.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
objectives  of  this  intervention,  of  the  equality  directives  and  the  founding  principles  of 
the  EU  Treaties.  Among  the  proposed  measures,  litigation  may  be  especially  costly, 
though the exact costs will vary significantly between Member States. Litigation may be 
a  particular  powerful  tool,  also  expected  to  be  effective  at  macro-level,  beyond  the 
resolution  of  individual  cases,  especially  if  used  strategically,  to  elicit  social,  legal  or 
policy change. 59% of respondents to the open public consultation considered litigation 
powers for equality bodies very necessary and 22% stated they are necessary.  

Strategic litigation is also expected to help increase public awareness, which is a goal of 
the  initiative  also  addressed  under  the  objective  of  developing  public  knowledge  and 
awareness  about  equality  and  non-discrimination.  A  related  matter  with  strong  links  to 
prevention  and  awareness-raising  is  the  systemic  inclusion  of  aspects  addressing 
prevention  when  assisting  victims.  54%  of  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation 
replied that additional measures to promote equality and prevent discrimination are very 
necessary;  28%  considered  them  necessary.  Though  some  additional  resources  will  be 
needed  (which  will  generate  additional  costs),  such  measures  are,  on  the  long  run, 
expected  to  help  reduce  the  number  of  instances  of  discrimination.  As  a  result,  the 
equality body would need to assist fewer victims, which would save costs in the long run.   

Litigation  costs  may  however  pose  significant  obstacles  for  individual  victims  of 
discrimination  who  come  disproportionally  often  from  lower  income  backgrounds100. 
That is why providing amicable settlements mechanisms is also expected to be effective 
in  encouraging  a  higher  proportion  of  victims  to  take  action  against  the  discrimination 
they have experienced.  

Stepping  up  possibilities  for  victims  to  access  legal  redress  after  experiencing 
discrimination  may  also  mean  that  potential  perpetrators  are  more  likely  to  be  caught, 
convicted and/or sanctioned. This could result in a deterrent effect that may, in the long 
run, contribute to social, legal and policy changes and reduced levels of discrimination.  

Allowing equality bodies to litigate in support of several victims would be new for those 
Member States that have no tradition of collective redress mechanisms. Collective action 
is  currently  only  possible,  in  discrimination  cases,  in  seven  Member  States101.  This 
measure  is  also  included  in  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Pay  Transparency 
Directive102.  Such  a  measure  would  be  essential  to  assist  groups  of  victims,  and  in 
particular  all  victims  who  would  not  go  to  court  on  their  own,  due  to  the  cost,  length 
and/or complexity of the procedure.  

Letting equality bodies act in their own name where there is no identified victim  would 
also  be  in  line  with  the  jurisprudence  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union 

100   Equinet, Addressing poverty and discrimination: two sides of the one coin, 2010, p. 5.  

101  DK, ES, FR, IT, LV, NL, SI.  This reflects the situation before Spain  amended its legislation in July 

2022. 

102  Article 13 of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to strengthen 
the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and 
women through pay transparency and enforcement, COM(2021) 93 final.  

36 

 
                                                 
which recognises that EU law prohibits discrimination even where there is no identifiable 
individual victim103. 

Similarly,  some  Member  States  do  not  have  a  strong  tradition  of  amicable  settlement 
mechanisms.  However,  Member  States  are  obliged  by  the  Directive  on  alternative 
dispute  resolution  for  consumer  disputes104  to  provide  such  mechanisms  to  consumers, 
meaning that they now exist in some form in all Member States. As outlined above, two 
thirds of Member States already have such measures in place for discrimination cases.  

Awareness of the equality bodies’ existence is also an important factor in encouraging a 
higher proportion of victims to come forward and in deterring potential perpetrators. 54% 
of respondents to the open public consultation stated that such awareness by the general 
population  was  very  necessary,  31%  said  it  was  necessary,  while  69%  and  21% 
respectively  said  such  awareness  was  very  necessary  or  necessary  for  groups  at  risk  of 
discrimination.  

For  access  and  accessibility  (105),  many  measures  have  already  been  at  least  partially 
implemented in some Member States, as outlined in the table below.  

Measures 

The measures 
are already fully 
in place 

The measures 
are already 
partly in place 

The 
measures 
are not yet 
in place 

C.1  Ensure that there are no barriers 

to complaint submission to an 
equality body (providing different 
means of submission), that there 
is access to equality bodies 
outputs, procedures, and services 
on equal basis for all, and 
accessibility for persons with 
disabilities106. 

Access and accessibility  
BE*, CZ, DE, 
EE, ES*, IT*, 
LU, MT*, AT, 
RO, SI, FI*. 

BE*, BG, DK, 
IE, EL, ES*, 
FR, HR, IT*, 
CY, LV, LT, 
HU, MT*, NL, 
PL, PT, SK, 
FI*, SE. 

103  For example in the case of an employer’s public statement of an intent to discriminate (see judgment 

of 10 July 2008 in Feryn (C-54/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397), paragraph 15). 

104  Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative 
dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 
2009/22/EC, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0011&from=EN.  

available 

at 

105  Other  pieces  of  EU  legislation  already  apply  in  this  field  such  as  the  Commission  Implementing 
Decision  (EU)  2021/1339  of  11 August  2021  for  the  Web  Accessibility  Directive  (Directive  (EU) 
2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of 
the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies, OJ L 327, 2.12.2016, p. 1). 

106   The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 
document  were  ‘What  are  the  means  of  submission  of  complaints?’  and  ‘In  what  languages  can 
complaints be submitted?’. 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Measures 

The measures 
are already fully 
in place 

The measures 
are already 
partly in place 

C.2  Ensure that equality bodies 

provide their services to 
complainants free of charge107. 

C.4  Guarantee that equality bodies 
ensure, where needed, 
confidentiality of witnesses and 
whistle-blowers, and as far as 
possible, of complainants108. 

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

The 
measures 
are not yet 
in place 

MT*. 

BG, RO, 
SI, FI*. 

Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  or  three109  equality  bodies.  Source:  online 
survey conducted by VVA. 

Putting  appropriate  measures  in  place  to  ensure  all  victims  have  access  to  assistance 
provided  by  equality  bodies  is  essential  in  order  to  fulfil  the  objectives  of  this 
intervention and also to guarantee the universal fundamental rights  to which all victims 
are entitled to. In this respect, the measures listed are expected to address specific aspects 
of  accessibility  effectively.  69%  of  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation 
considered it very necessary to be able to submit easily; 22% considered this necessary. 
Compliance  with  accessibility  requirements  was  considered  very  necessary  by  62%  of 
respondents;  25%  rated  it  necessary.  When  asked  about  concrete  measures  to  improve 
accessibility, respondents mentioned the following. 

In  your  opinion,  what  would  make  the  services  of  an  equality  body  accessible  to  all 
(including persons with disabilities)? 

107   The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 

document was ‘What is the cost of submission of and dealing with complaints?’.  

108   The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 

document was ‘Is confidentiality afforded to witnesses and whistle-blowers of complaints?’. 

109  Only HR and PT have three equality bodies; all others marked with a star have two.  

38 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Complaint submission via a free and simple procedure

15

1

Services available online

12

1

Services available by phone

14

Services available in person

11

53

55

39

45

3

30

12

32

4

3

27

12

32

2

2

24

11

29

2

2

29

11

26

1

Services available in writing

Services accessible in a language of the complainant's
choosing which is common in the Member State…

9

7

36

1

18

10

22

1

43

3

27

10

22

2

Outreach activities to disadvantaged groups

14

39

3

29

12

30

4

Local representation

9

1

36

2

26

13

29

1

Premises open to the public

9

32

2

22

12

22

Premises compliant with the accessibility
requirements

10

33

2

23

11

27

3

Online services accessible for people with disabilities

14

44

3

26

12

30

4

Other (please specify below)

5
2

8

2
2

Academic/research institution

Business association

Company/business organisation

EU citizen

Non-EU citizen

Other

Trade Union

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Public authority

Source: Open Public Consultation, N=178 (multiple replies allowed) 

Although  not  possible  to  quantify  in  exact  terms,  the  expected  costs  for  this  area  of 
possible  measures  vary  significantly.  While  ensuring  that  equality  bodies  guarantee, 
where needed, confidentiality of witnesses and whistle-blowers, and as far as possible, of 
complainants,  does  not  imply  significant  costs,  mandatory  physical  representation 
throughout the territory may, depending on the structure and size of the Member State, be 
very  costly.  Under  some  circumstances,  alternative  measures  to  reach  out  to  certain 
groups  in  certain  areas  may  be  more  cost  efficient,  such  as  using  already  existing 
structures, for example local NGOs or mobile offices in buses. This view has been shared 
by stakeholders during consultation activities110. 

Fostering public knowledge and awareness about equality and non-discrimination 

110  Primarily, stakeholders expressed this view during a workshop on the powers of equality bodies.  

39 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  possible  measures  listed  in  this  section  entail  cooperation  between  relevant 
stakeholders,  conducting  analyses  of  the  current  state  of  play  in  terms  of  levels  of 
discrimination  in  Member  States  based  on  reliable  statistical  data  and  providing  advice 
based on this information.  

As  regards  cooperation  and  coordination,  the  current  state  of  implementation  of 
possible measures in the Member States is as follows.   

Measures 

The measures 
are already 
fully in place 

The 
measures 
are already 
partly in 
place 

The 
measures 
are not 
yet in 
place 

Cooperation and coordination 

D.1  Ensure  that  equality  bodies  cooperate 
and coordinate their actions with other 
equality  bodies  within 
the  same 
Member State. 

D.2  Ensure that equality bodies engage in 
dialogue exchange and cooperate with 
relevant  public  and  private  entities 
(including NGOs and trade unions).111 

D.3  Ensure that equality bodies engage 
with international and supranational 
institutions and equality bodies from 
other countries.112 

D.5  Ensure that equality bodies are 

consulted by the government, through 
timely and transparent procedures, on 
draft legislation related to 
equality/discrimination.113 

All MS with several EBs 
(BE, ES, HR, IT, MT, AT, 
PT, FI) have some 
mechanisms in place, but the 
framework varies greatly.  
BE, BG, DK, 
DE, IE, EL, 
ES, FR, HR,  
IT, CY, LV, 
LT, MT*, NL, 
AT*, PL, PT, 
RO, SI, SK, 
FI*, SE. 
BE, BG, CZ, 
DK, DE, EE, 
IE, EL, ES, 
FR, HR, IT, 
CY, LV, LT, 
HU, MT, NL, 
AT, PL, PT, 
RO, SI, SK, 
FI, SE. 
BE, CZ, DK, 
DE, EL, ES*, 
FR, HR, IT, 
CY, LV, LT, 
HU, MT*, 
NL, PL, PT, 

CZ, EE, 
LU, MT*, 
AT*, FI*. 

LU. 

BG, EE, 
IE, LU, 
AT, SK. 

111  The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 
document  was  ‘Are  there  structures  to  engage  in  dialogue  and  exchange  with  civil  society 
organisations representative of the grounds covered in the mandate of the equality body?’ 

112  The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 
document  was  ‘Is  there  a  mandate  that  allows  cooperation  with  supranational  institutions  or  foreign 
equality bodies?’ 

113  The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 

document was ‘The government consults with the equality body on legislation.’ 

40 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
                                                 
Measures 

D.6  Ensure that equality bodies are 

consulted by the government and 
other institutions, through timely and 
transparent procedures, on legislation, 
policy, procedure, programmes, and 
practices related to 
equality/discrimination. 
Recommendations of equality bodies 
may be published114 

The 
measures 
are already 
partly in 
place 

The 
measures 
are not 
yet in 
place 

The measures 
are already 
fully in place 

RO, SI. FI*, 
SE. 

BE, DK, HR*, 
IT, CY, LT, 
MT*, NL, PL, 
SE. 

BG, CZ, 
DE, EL, 
ES*, FR, 
LV, HU, 
PT, RO, 
FI*, SE. 

EE, IE, 
LU, MT*, 
AT, SK. 

Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  or  three115  equality  bodies.  Source:  online 
survey conducted by VVA. 

Ensuring  cooperation  and  knowledge  exchanges  between  equality  bodies  and  other 
relevant  stakeholders  at  national,  EU  and  international  level  is  expected  to  improve 
current practices in equality bodies and draw their attention to matters that may otherwise 
go unnoticed. It is also expected to increase the level of awareness about the existence of 
equality bodies due to engagement with a wider audience. As a result, more people will 
be reached, including both (potential) victims, duty bearers and (potential) perpetrators of 
discrimination.  43%,  55%  and  42%  of  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation 
considered  cooperation  with  national  public  authorities,  national  stakeholders  and 
EU/international  stakeholders  very  necessary;  38%,  29%  and  38%  respectively  stated 
that it was necessary.  

Ensuring  that  equality  bodies  are  consulted  by  governments  and  other  institutions  on  a 
variety  of  matters  related  to  discrimination  would  improve  relevant  public  policy  and 
legislation.  This  would  help  to  create  targeted,  appropriate  instruments  that  decrease 
levels  of  discrimination  and  increase  public  awareness  of  the  problem.  Due  to  their 
experience  and  insights,  equality  bodies  are  likely  to  have  very  valuable  input  in  that 
regard.  

Increased  cooperation  may  lead  to  increased  costs  through  additional  work;  however, 
new  synergies  are  also  expected  to  lead  to  cost  savings.  Similarly,  increased 
consultations of equality bodies create additional work, thus additional costs, but should 

114 The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 
document  was  ‘The  government  consults  with  the  equality  body  on  legislation,  policy,  procedure, 
programmes, practices.’ 

115  HR and PT have three equality bodies; all others marked with a star have two.  

41 

 
 
                                                 
lead  to  better  law  and  policy  making,  which  is  expected  to  reduce  levels  of 
discrimination in the long run.   

The majority of equality bodies already publish an annual activity report, as outlined in 
the table below.  

Measures116 

The measures are 
already fully in place 

E.1  Ensure that equality 
bodies produce and 
make available to the 
public their annual 
activity reports.  

Surveys and reports  

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

The 
measures are 
already 
partly in 
place 

The 
measures 
are not yet 
in place 

ES*.  

Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  or  three117  equality  bodies.  Source:  online 
survey conducted by VVA. 

Conducting surveys and publishing reports on a regular basis is expected to help prevent 
discrimination  by  increasing  public  knowledge.  Even  though  this  increases  costs  in  the 
short  term,  it  is  expected  to  lead  to  fewer  cases  of  discrimination  in  the  future,  which 
means savings for equality bodies in the long term, and benefits for society more broadly.  

Some of the measures proposed for the area of data collection are quite specific and are 
therefore not  yet in place in any Member State; however, many  Member States already 
ensure  that  equality  bodies  collect  data  on  their  activities,  as  illustrated  in  the  table 
below.  

Measures118 

The measures 
are already 
fully in place 

The 
measures 
are already 
partly in 
place 

The 
measures 
are not yet 
in place 

Data collection 

F.1  Ensure equality bodies collect data 
on their activities, disaggregated by 
grounds and fields covered by the 
directives, and in accordance with 
the indicators developed to monitor 
the implementation of the Directive. 

BE*, DE, EL, 
ES, HR, IT, 
CY, LV, LU, 
MT, NL, AT*, 
PT, RO, SI, 
SK, FI. 

BG, FR, 
LT, HU. 

EE, IE. 

116  There is no data available for measure E.2 because it is too specific to already be implemented.  

117  Only HR and PT have three equality bodies; all others marked with a star have two.  

118  There  is  no  data  available  for  measures  F.2-F.4,  also  because  they  are  too  specific  to  already  be 

implemented.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  or  three119  equality  bodies.  Source:  online 
survey conducted by VVA. 

Common  rules  on  data  collection  and  access  to  statistical  data  for  equality  bodies  for 
analytical  purposes  are  key  to  improving  statistical  evidence  on  equality  and  non-
discrimination and ensuring a proper analysis of relevant data. This is crucial in enabling 
policymakers  to  take  well-founded,  informed  decisions;  furthermore,  it  is  essential  for 
the  public  discourse  and  awareness  to  have  reliable  information  on  current  levels  of 
discrimination in Member States. Since equality bodies are experts in the field of equality 
and non-discrimination, they are expected to be able to conduct sound in-depth analyses 
if provided with the necessary data. Respondents to the open public consultation largely 
shared this view, 54% rated it very necessary and 27% considered it necessary.  

Increased data collection activities will require more resources and will therefore increase 
costs;  however,  they  will  also  significantly  contribute  to  increased  knowledge  about 
equality  and non-discrimination,  which is  crucial in  order to  fulfil the objectives of the 
intervention.  

Monitoring and enforcement  

Since the possible measures for monitoring the implementation of the future directives 
are specifically connected to these directives, they cannot yet be in place in any Member 
State.  However,  equality  bodies  in  many  Member  States  have  already  implemented  a 
related  measure,  namely  strategic  planning,  as  outlined  in  the  table  below.  Strategic 
planning  requires  some  resources,  which  means  it  will  create  costs;  however,  it  should 
also lead to savings through better planning of activities. Furthermore, it is expected to 
result in  more coherent  action and  enable  a better policy steering through  developing  a 
long-term vision.  

Measures120 

The measures are 
already fully in place 

Monitoring  

G.1  Ensure that equality 
bodies adopt a 
programme setting out 
their priorities and 
prospective activities121.  

BE*, BG, CZ, DE, EE, 
IE, EL, ES, FR, HR, 
IT*, CY, LV, LT, HU, 
MT, NL, AT*, PT, SI, 
SK, FI, SE. 

The 
measures are 
already 
partly in 
place 

The 
measures 
are not yet 
in place 

LU. 

AT*, RO. 

119  Only HR and PT have three equality bodies; all others marked with a star have two.  

120  There  is  no  data  available  for  measures  G.2  and  G.3  because  they  are  too  specific  to  already  be 

implemented.  

121  The question corresponding to this measure in the survey conducted by VVA to inform this analytical 
document  were  ‘Is  there  a  programme  setting  out  priorities?  Is  there  a  programme  setting  out 
prospective activities?’ 

43 

 
 
 
                                                 
Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  or  three122  equality  bodies.  Source:  online 
survey conducted by VVA. 

The  retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that  the  basic  monitoring  system  in  the  current 
Directives  (e.g.  an  application  report  by  the  Commission  based  on  the  information 
provided  by  Member  States)  is  not  sufficient  to  ensure  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
implementation of the provisions related to equality bodies. This is also an impediment to 
enforcing  these  provisions.  Proper  enforcement  is,  however,  crucial  in  order  for  the 
proposed directives to achieve the desired results. A better monitoring system is expected 
to  mitigate  this  situation.  A  large  proportion  of  respondents  to  the  open  public 
consultation agree: 52% consider monitoring of the functioning of equality bodies across 
the EU very necessary; 27% stated it was necessary.  

There  are  several  options  for  what  such  a  monitoring  system  could  look  like.  The  first 
option would be that the Commission will monitor the implementation of the  directives 
by  publishing  a  report  every  five  years,  based  on  data  from  Member  States  (including 
equality  bodies)  collected  in  accordance  with  harmonised  indicators  drawn  up  after 
consulting all relevant stakeholders.  

The  second  option  would  be  to  put  in  place  a  system  of  accreditation  through  peer 
review, based on procedures and criteria agreed upon by Member States, within 5 years 
of the adoption of the Directive.  

The first option would create costs for equality bodies and Member States in collecting 
data  according  to  a  predefined  list  of  indicators.  It  is  however  expected  to  also  create 
synergies  with  other  data  collection  activities  and  improve  knowledge  of  the 
implementation of the Directives.  

For  the  second  option,  operational  costs  would  depend  on  who  carries  out  the 
accreditation  procedure.  For  peer  accreditation,  significant  additional  costs  for  equality 
bodies can be expected.  

The  measures  envisaged  in  the  area  of  enforcement  -  beyond  the  enforcement  of  the 
future Directives themselves (which is addressed under monitoring) - aim to ensure that 
actions  taken  by  equality  bodies  within  the  limits  of  the  powers  attributed  to  them  are 
enforceable and may be followed up on.  One example is that, while this initiative does 
not  intend to  prescribe binding decision-making  powers for equality bodies, in  order to 
respect the principle of procedural autonomy, if Member States decide to attribute such 
powers  to  equality  bodies123,  these  should  be  enforceable.  Similarly,  equality  bodies 
should be able to request feedback from the recipients on their opinions. Measures should 
be  put  in  place  to  tackle  non-compliance  with  the  mandatory  feedback  requirement. 
While there are no direct costs associated to these measures, ensuring proper enforcement 

122  Only HR and PT have three equality bodies; all others marked with a star have two.  

123  This is currently the case in BG, CY, HU, RO.  

44 

 
                                                 
is generally regarded as a highly effective tool in ensuring that rules are complied with. 
Respondents to the open public consultation agreed with this view: 59% considered the 
enforcement  of  appropriate  sanction  very  necessary,  22%  stated  it  was  necessary. 
However,  this  is  a  procedural  area,  where  the  autonomy  of  Member  States  has  to  be 
taken  into  account:  the  provisions  should  therefore  leave  Member  States  in  charge  of 
taking appropriate measures to that effect. 

Equality  bodies  should  adopt  an  internal  structure  that  guarantees  the  independent 
exercise of their powers, if they have various powers that could interfere with each other 
(e.g.  powers  to  support  victims  and  quasi-judicial  powers).  While  this  may  lead  to 
additional one-off and recurrent costs to put in place and keep an appropriate structure, it 
is  needed  to  ensure  equality  bodies’  impartiality  when  taking  binding-decisions  and 
safeguard the procedural rights of those that are subject to such decisions. 

Independence, resources and structure 

This thematic area corresponds to the needs identified in operational objectives 1-3.  

The  potential  impacts  generated  by  the  possible  measures  under  independence  vary 
depending  on  the  measure  and  on  the  structure(s)  in  place  in  each  Member  State.  As 
outlined above, ensuring that equality bodies can carry out their tasks independently is a 
crucial prerequisite for their effectiveness. This has also been confirmed by stakeholders 
in consultation activities such as the open public consultation, the stakeholder survey and 
the participatory workshop124. 73% of respondents to the open public consultation rated 
general  independence  of  equality  as  very  necessary,  16%  considered  it  necessary. 
Measures  to  ensure  equality  bodies'  independence,  notably  as  regards  their  legal 
structure, accountability, budget, staffing and organisational matters, may lead to one-off 
costs for Member States depending on the current situation.  

There  are  several  possible  approaches  to  ensuring  that  equality  bodies  can  act 
independently. The suitability and the impact of such measures may vary greatly between 
Member States,  depending on their respective situation and system.  Respondents  to  the 
open  public  consultation  shared  this  view  and  expressed  support  for  a  variety  of 
measures, as shown in the box below. Future provisions should nevertheless not be too 
prescriptive in order to respect the principle of procedural autonomy.  

In your opinion, what are essential criteria to guarantee the independence of an equality 
body? Source: Open public Consultation, N=176 

124  Please consult Annex 2 for an overview of the results of all consultation activities.  

45 

 
                                                 
A transparent selection procedure of its leadership

A competence-based selection procedure of its…
Limited possibilities to remove its leadership
The ability to manage its own budget
The ability to recruit and manage its own staff
Sufficient resources
An independent legal entity
Other (please specify below)

1

13
14
6
12
13
15
1
10
1
10
2

18

7

3

4

0

20

40

50

60

2

80

28

100

120

140

11

27

4

1

12
1
2

43
6

10
35
35

45

45

3

21

12

30

4

32
23
3

8
30

10

26

4

26

4

13

35

2

30

8

15

4

Academic/research institution
Company/business organisation
Non-EU citizen
Other
Trade Union

Business association
EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority

This  is  in  principle  also  true  for  measures  relating  to  resources.  Ensuring  that  each 
equality body is provided with the human, technical and financial resources necessary to 
carry  out  all  its  tasks  and  exercise  its  powers  effectively,  in  all  the  grounds  and  fields 
they cover is a crucial prerequisite for the effectiveness of equality bodies. At the same 
time, this entails  increased costs, varying  between Member States. These findings have 
been  confirmed  by  stakeholders  during  consultation  activities.  71%  rated  sufficient 
resources as very necessary, 19% considered it necessary.  

Similar  points  can  be  made  about  structure.  If  the  equality  body  is  part  of  a  multi-
mandate  body,  an  internal  structure  to  guarantee  sufficient  focus,  independence  and 
resources for the equality mandate is crucial so that it can exercise its tasks effectively. 
This may lead to one-off costs for putting a new structure in place in countries where this 
is  currently  not  the  case.  Increased  costs  may  also  occur  if  increased  resources  are 
needed. As outlined above, this is however a crucial prerequisite for the effectiveness of 
equality bodies. The expansion of the equality mandate in multi-mandate bodies should 
not be done at the expense of the other mandates.  

7.  7. PREFERRED COMBINATION OF MEASURES 

This  section  presents  the  possible  measures  taken  on  board  in  the  final  Commission’s 
proposal  and  discuss  the  rationale  behind  this  choice.  The  proportionality  of  the 
envisaged measures is described as well.  

The  majority  of  measures  presented  in  the  previous  section  have  been  taken  up  in  the 
final  proposal.  Stakeholders  have  expressed  very  strong  and  consensual  support  for  an 
ambitious  package  of  measures  that  will  be  fit  to  properly  tackle  all  the  objectives 
identified for this intervention. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
Overview of the preferred combination of measures 

A. Measures addressing mandate  

1  Entrust equality bodies with the grounds covered by the Employment Equality 
Directive: religion or belief, sexual orientation, age and disability in the field of 
employment and occupation.  

2  Entrust equality bodies with the field covered by the Gender Equality Directive in the 

field of social security.  

B. Measures addressing powers  

1  Ensure that equality bodies can receive individual and collective complaints and 
provide relevant information and advice as part of their assistance to victims.  

2  Ensure that equality bodies have the possibility to provide or recommend amicable 

settlement mechanisms. 

3  Ensure that equality bodies can submit oral or written statements (i.e. amicus curiae) to 

the courts in individual and collective discrimination cases.  

4  Allow equality bodies to litigate, in their own name, on behalf or in support of one or 
several victim(s), with their approval, even in the absence of identified victim(s).  

5  Ensure that equality bodies have effective rights to access information which is 

necessary to establish whether discrimination has occurred (investigation powers).  

6  Require that Member States adopt a strategy to raise awareness of the general 

population, with particular attention to individuals and groups at risk of discrimination, 
on the rights under the Equality Directives and the existence of equality bodies.  
7  Ensure that, when equality bodies issue decisions or opinions on a case, they include 
measures to prevent (re)occurrences of discrimination as part of the outcome, where 
relevant. 

8  Ensure that equality bodies publish a summary of their opinions/decisions without 

disclosing personal data.  

C. Measures addressing access and accessibility 

1  Ensure that there are no barriers to complaint submission to an equality body (providing 

different means of submission), that there is access to equality bodies outputs, 
procedures, and services on equal basis for all, including for persons with disabilities. 

2  Ensure that equality bodies provide their services to complainants free of charge. 

4  Guarantee that equality bodies ensure, where needed, confidentiality of witnesses and 

whistle-blowers, and as far as possible, of complainants. 

6  Ensure that equality bodies’ services are available to all potential victims throughout the 

territory of their Member States. 

D. Measures addressing cooperation and coordination 

1  Ensure  that  equality  bodies  cooperate  and  coordinate  their  actions  with  other  equality 

bodies within the same Member State. 

2  Ensure  that  equality  bodies  engage  in  dialogue  exchange  and  cooperate  with  relevant 

public and private entities (including NGOs and trade unions).  

3  Ensure that equality bodies engage with international and supranational institutions and 

equality bodies from other countries.  

47 

 
  
 
 
  
4  Ensure that equality bodies to promote equality duties and mainstreaming among public 

and private entities/sectors.   

5  Ensure that equality bodies are consulted by the government, through timely and 

transparent procedures, on draft legislation related to equality and non-discrimination.  

6  In addition to legislation as referred to above, ensure that equality bodies are consulted 
by the government and other institutions, through timely and transparent procedures, on 
policy, procedure, programmes, and practices related to equality and non-
discrimination. Recommendations of equality bodies may be published. Ensure that 
equality bodies have the right to make recommendations on those matters, to publish 
them and to require feedback. 

E. Measures addressing surveys and reports  

1  Ensure that equality bodies produce and make available to the public their annual 

activity reports.   

2  Require equality bodies to publish a report, with recommendations, at least every four 
years, on the state of discrimination in their Member State, including on structural 
discrimination. This report shall be communicated to the Commission [N.B. measure 
identical to measure F3].  

F. Measures addressing data collection   

1 Ensure equality bodies collect data on their activities, disaggregated by grounds and 
fields covered by the directives, and in accordance with the indicators developed to 
monitor the implementation of the Directive.  

2 Ensure equality bodies can access statistics necessary to fulfil their mandate and tasks, 
from and/or collected by, public authorities, trade unions, companies, and civil society 
organisations. 

3  Provide for an obligation for equality bodies to publish a report, with recommendations, 
at least every four years, on the state of discrimination in their Member State in all the 
fields and grounds, including on potential structural issues. This report shall be 
communicated to the Commission. [N.B. measure identical to measure E2] 

4 Ensure that equality bodies can make recommendations, in accordance with their 

mandate, to public authorities, trade unions, companies and civil society organisations 
on their data collection activities.  

G. Measures addressing monitoring   

1  Ensure that equality bodies adopt a multiannual programme setting out their priorities 

and prospective activities.   

2  Establish a list of common indicators to assess the practical effects and implementation 
of the equality bodies Directives and draw up a Commission monitoring report every 5 
years, on the basis of the information provided by the Member States in accordance 
with the indicators and additional relevant data collected at national and Union level, in 
particular from stakeholders, by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 
and the European Institute for Gender Equality 

H. Measures addressing enforcement   

48 

 
  
  
  
  
1  Ensure that when equality bodies issue opinions, they can request mandatory feedback 

from the recipients. 

2   Member States shall introduce effective measures applicable in case a natural or legal 

person does not comply with the mandatory feedback obligation. 

3  Ensure, when equality bodies are entrusted with binding decision-making powers, that 

their decisions are enforced and subject to judicial review.  

4  Ensure that the rights of defense of natural and legal persons involved in any procedure 

in front of an equality body are duly protected. 

5  If equality bodies have various powers that could interfere with each other (e.g. support 
to victims and quasi-judicial powers), ensure that they adopt an internal structure that 
guarantees the independent exercise of their powers.   

I. Measures addressing independence  

1  Ensure budgetary independence 
2  Establish transparent rules and safeguards on the selection, appointment and dismissal 

of the staff of equality bodies to guarantee their competence and independence. 

3  Ensure that equality bodies can manage their resources, including their staff, 

independently.  

4  Ensure that equality bodies are a legal entity separate from the government.   

5  Ensure that rules are in place that limit the ability of the leadership to engage in other 

professional and/or political activities.   

6  Ensure that rules are in place that limit the possibility to revoke the leadership of 

equality bodies.   

7  Ensure that rules on equality bodies’ accountability do not jeopardize their 

independence  

J. Measures addressing resources  

1  Ensure that each equality body is provided with the human, technical and financial 

resources necessary to perform all its tasks and exercise its powers effectively in all the 
grounds and fields they are entrusted with. 

2  Ensure that equality bodies are provided with the resources to enable them to use 

automated systems to detect discrimination cases and enforce non-discrimination rules. 
K. Measures addressing structure   

1  Ensure that, when equality bodies are part of a multi-mandate body, the latter adopts an 
internal structure that guarantees sufficient independence, focus and resources on the 
equality mandate.  

2  Ensure that equality bodies adopt an internal structure that guarantees the independent 
exercise of their various powers (e.g., support to victims and quasi-judicial powers 
should be exercised independently).  

49 

 
  
  
  
 
 
 
Description of preferred combination of measures per thematic area 

Out of the 48 identified measures that could be included in legislation, 44 were retained 
in substance125.  

Dealing with cases of discrimination/providing assistance to victims 

In the area of mandate, both measures A.1 and A.2 are included in the final proposal, 
as these are necessary to achieve objective 1 and extend the scope of protection to cover 
all grounds and fields covered by the existing EU Equality Directives. 

In the area of powers, measures B.1-B.5 are included in the proposal, in order to take a 
holistic  approach  to  providing  access  to  legal  advice  and  redress,  both  via  amicable 
settlement  mechanisms  and  recourse  to  the  courts,  and  to  encourage  a  higher  share  of 
victims  to  come  forward.  These  are  all  needed  to  achieve  the  proposal's  general 
objectives and ensure its effectiveness. For the same reasons, measures B.6-B.8 are also 
retained,  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  take  aspects  of  prevention  into  account  when 
assisting victims. 

A  safeguard  is  introduced  in  relation  to  measure  B.4  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies’ 
rights to act in court respect the principles of fair trial and equality of arms. The equality 
body will not be allowed to submit in proceedings evidence which the alleged perpetrator 
or  any  third  party  was  legally  bound  to  provide  in  previous  investigations  on  the  same 
case. This will not apply where the equality body acts  as a party in proceedings on the 
enforcement or judicial review of an own decision or acts as amicus curiae. 

On  access  and  accessibility,  measures  C.1,  C.2  and  C.4  are  retained,  since  they  all 
cover  aspects  that  are  relevant  for  removing  obstacles  to  access  to  justice  for  victims. 
Measure  C.3126  was  discarded  because  it  would  be  difficult  to  implement  in  practice; 
and  there  are  other  national  mechanisms  to  ensure  access  to  litigation  regardless  of 
financial situation. In particular, legal aid is available in all EU Member States for people 
who do not have sufficient financial resources to bring a case to  court127. Measure C.5 
was discarded as well, as mandating  a physical  presence throughout the territory  of the 
Member  States  has  not  been  assessed  as  the  most  efficient  measure;  instead,  more 
flexibility will be given to Member States who nevertheless need to ensure that equality 
bodies’ services are available to all potential victims throughout their territory, as set out 
in measure C.6, which is included in the proposal.  

Fostering public knowledge and awareness about equality and non-discrimination 

125  Measures C.3, C.5, D.7 and G.3 were not retained for the reasons explained below. Measures E2 and 

F3 are identical. 

126  Ensure that equality bodies create a solidarity fund for access to justice by victims of discrimination in 
case  it  is  not  foreseen  in  another  national  mechanism.  Fines  and  sanctions  collected  in  cases  of 
discrimination could feed this fund. 

127  https://e-justice.europa.eu/37129/EN/legal_aid 

50 

 
                                                 
In  the  area  of  cooperation  and  coordination,  measures  D.1-D.3  are  taken  up  in  the 
final proposal, to ensure that knowledge exchange, mutual learning and cooperation take 
place  between  all  relevant  entities  at  all  levels.  In  order  to  promote  equality  and  non-
discrimination,  measures  D.5-D.6  are  included  in  the  final  proposal  to  tackle  the  issue 
from different angles and focus on different groups of stakeholders, including businesses, 
policymakers  and  public  and  private  entities  in  general.  Taking  a  broad  approach  is 
important to ensure that promotion activities reach a  wide audience, which is crucial to 
ensuring  their  effectiveness.  Measure  D.7  has  not  been  taken  up  because  setting  a 
mandatory  frequency  for  consultation  does  not  seem  to  be  the  most  effective  way  to 
ensure  good  cooperation.  Individual  situations  in  Member  States  may  require  more 
flexibility than a strict, uniform timeframe for such consultations.  

The  related  area  of  surveys  and  reports  is  equally  important  to  improve  knowledge 
regarding concrete activities by equality bodies and regarding the state of discrimination 
in general, which is why measures E.1 and E.2 are taken up. The same is true for data 
collection, therefore, measures F.1, F.2 and F.4 are included in the proposal. The same 
applies to measure F.3, which is identical to measure E.2.  

Monitoring and enforcement 

In  the  area  of  monitoring,  measure  G.1  is  included  in  the  proposal,  since  long-term 
planning is important to ensure coherent and effective action. Measure G.2 is also taken 
up,  which  means  that  the  initiative  proposes  a  system  where  the  Commission  monitors 
the  situation,  rather  than  an  accreditation  system  (measure  G.3).  There  are  several 
reasons for this decision. Firstly, accreditation would require significant resources from 
equality bodies, especially in case of a peer accreditation system as for National Human 
Rights Institutions128. Secondly, putting in place such an accreditation system may prove 
a  very  long  and  complicated  process,  in  addition  to  the  need  to  agree  on  common 
indicators.  Thirdly,  stakeholders  were  against  setting-up  an  accreditation  system. 
Equality bodies particularly emphasised that they would not like to assess each other as 
would  be  mandated  under  a  system  of  peer  accreditation.  The  proposed  monitoring 
system  is  a  simpler  and  less  costly  way  to  assess  whether  the  standards  set  by  EU 
legislation are applied in the Member States and whether equality bodies have the means 
to appropriately carry out their tasks.  

Enforcement  is  crucial  to  ensuring  the  effectiveness  of  the  directives  and  the  duties 
carried out by equality bodies, which is why measures H.1-H.3 are taken up. However, 
measures H.1 and H.2 have been redrafted in a more general way,  binding Member 
States to these obligation while respecting their procedural autonomy. It is also important 
to ensure that, if equality bodies have various powers that could potentially interfere with 
each other (e.g. providing support to victims and quasi-judicial powers), an appropriate 
structure must be put in place to prevent such interferences, which is why measure H.4 
is also taken up in the final proposal.  

128  https://ennhri.org/our-work/nhri-accreditation/  

51 

 
                                                 
Independence, resources and structure 

The  proposed  initiatives  include  a  list  of  requirements  that  are  essential  to  ensure 
equality bodies’ independence. They encompass the possible measures initially presented 
(measures I.1  to I.7) , namely  independence as regards  (i) their  budget  (measure I.1), 
(ii) the selection, appointment, revocation and potential conflict of interest of the staff of 
equality  bodies,  in  particular  persons  holding  a  managerial  position  (measures  I.2,  I.5 
and  I.6),  (iii)  their  staffing  and  organisational  matters  (measure  I.3),  (iv)  their  legal 
structure (measure I.4),(v) and their accountability (measure I.7). However, the text of 
this provision is drafted in more general terms than the initial measures envisaged, so as 
to respect the institutional autonomy of Member States.  

Resources  are  key  to  enabling  equality  bodies  to  function  properly,  which  is  why 
measures J.1 and J.2 are included in the proposal. In addition to the use of automated 
systems,  three  other  situations  have  been  highlighted  where  sufficient  resources  are 
crucial:  increases  of  competences,  increases  in  complaints,  and  litigation  costs.  Since 
appropriate focus, attention and resources for the equality mandate are essential in multi-
mandate  bodies,  measure  K.1  is  included  in  the  final  proposal,  as  it  is  important  to 
ensure  an  appropriate  structure  to  achieve  this.  Measure  K.2  is  also  taken  up  and  is 
identical to measure H.4.  

Proportionality 

The  initiative  to  adopt  binding  legislation  is  a  proportionate  response  to  the  needs,  as 
demonstrated by the persistently high prevalence of discrimination throughout  Member 
States.  Softer  measures  to  mitigate  the  situation,  above  all  the  2018  Recommendation, 
have  previously  been  put  in  place,  but  these  have  not  achieved  the  desired  result.  The 
retrospective  analysis  has  demonstrated  that  soft  measures  have  not  been  effective 
enough in safeguarding people’s fundamental right to non-discrimination, and so binding 
legislation  is  necessary  to  achieve  this  goal.  The  proposed  initiative  sets  minimum 
standards  that  are  expected  to  improve  the  level  of  protection  against  discrimination 
significantly,  which  will  have  a  considerable  positive  impact  on  the  social  situation  of 
(potential) victims of discrimination.  

It  has  been  demonstrated  above  and  in  the  retrospective  analysis  that  Member  States 
acting on their own was not sufficient to achieve the objectives of the initial intervention 
and to protect citizens’ and residents’ fundamental right to non-discrimination, for which 
equality bodies are a tool. For this reason, EU action is required. The legal bases chosen 
for  this  initiative  allow  for  the  adoption  of  secondary  legislation.  The  choice  of 
instrument  –  Directives  –  and  the  approach  taken  –  common  minimum  standards  –  are 
proportional  to  the  needs  described  in  the  intervention  logic  and  leave  flexibility  to 
Member  States  to  implement  the  measures  in  accordance  with  their  legal  systems  and 
traditions.  

The scope of the proposal does not go beyond those aspects that Member States cannot 
achieve satisfactorily on their own. The minimum standards are designed in such a way 
that they fill the gaps identified by the retrospective analysis,  while respecting Member 

52 

 
States’ procedural autonomy and leaving them flexibility regarding their implementation 
within a common EU framework.  

The initiative does not create substantial  additional costs for the European Commission 
and its Agencies. To support the monitoring of the implementation of this Directive, the 
Commission  plans to task  the European Union Fundamental  Rights  Agency (FRA) and 
the  European  Institute  for  Gender  Equality  (EIGE)  to  collect  and  analyse  the  relevant 
data  every  5  years.  This  type  of  task  is  already  covered  in  the  existing  mandates  of 
FRA129 and EIGE130 and will be carried out without additional resources. 

8.  8. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The proposal includes a monitoring system by the Commission (see measure G.2 above). 
The  Commission  will  establish  a  list  of  common  indicators  to  measure  the  practical 
effects of these Directives, by means of an implementing act. The proposal specifies that 
the  list  of  indicators  will  cover  the  resources,  independent  functioning,  activities  and 
effectiveness  of  equality  bodies,  as  well  as  evolutions  in  their  mandate,  powers  or 
structure. For the establishment  of the list of indicators, the Commission will set  up an 
expert group and various stakeholders, including Member States, the FRA and the EIGE, 
will be consulted. Equinet has already developed and piloted some indicators on equality 
bodies’ mandate and independence131; those will be taken into consideration as well. 

On the basis of information collected in accordance with these indicators, and provided 
by  the  Member  States  every  five  years,  the  Commission  will  draw  up  a  monitoring 
report.  This  report  will  also  include  additional  data  and  statistics  collected  by  the  FRA 
and the EIGE among various relevant stakeholders (e.g. social partners and civil society).  

129  Article  4  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  168/2007  of  15  February  2007  establishing  a  European 

Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, OJ L 53, p. 1. 

130  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1922/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 

December 2006 on establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality, OJ L 403 p. 9. 

131  Available at https://equineteurope.org/what-are-equality-bodies/standards-for-equality-bodies/.  

53 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: LIST OF EQUALITY BODIES IN THE EU MEMBER STATES 

Country  Name 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

1.  Unia - Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities 
2.  Institute for Equality between Women and Men 

Commission for Protection against Discrimination 

Public Defender of Rights 

Danish Institute for Human Rights 

Federal Antidiscrimination Agency FADA 

Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Commissioner 

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission 

Office of the Greek Ombudsman 

1.  Institute for Women and Equal Opportunities 
2.  Council for the Elimination of Ethnic or Racial Discrimination 

Defender of Rights 

1.  Office of the Ombudsman 
2.  Gender Equality Ombudsperson 
3.  Ombudswoman for Persons with Disabilities 
1.  National Office Against Racial Discrimination 
2.  Equal Opportunities National Committee  

Office of the Commissioner for Administration and Human Rights 

Ombudsman's Office of the Republic of Latvia 

Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson of the Republic of Lithuania 

Centre for Equal Treatment 

Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights 

1.  National Commission for the Promotion of Equality 
2.  Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

Netherlands Institute for Human Rights 

1.  Ombud for Equal Treatment 
2.  Austrian Disability Ombudsman 

Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Poland 

1.  High Commission for Migration 
2.  Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment 
3.  Commission for Citizenship and Gender Equality 

National Council for Combating Discrimination 

Advocate of the Principle of Equality 

Slovak National Centre for Human Rights 

54 

 
FI 

SE 

1.  Non-Discrimination Ombudsman 
2.  Ombudsman for Equality 

The Equality Ombudsman 

Source:  Equinet,  European  directory  of  equality  bodies  (European  Directory  of  Equality 
Bodies – Equinet (equineteurope.org)) 

55 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

  Lead DG: DG JUST in cooperation with DG EMPL 
  Decide reference: PLAN/2021/11134 
  Roadmap Feedback period 23 July 2021 - 20 August 2021 Equality bodies – binding 

standards (europa.eu) 

  Open  Public  Consultation  10  December  2021  -  18  March  2022  Equality  bodies  – 

binding standards (europa.eu) 

  Work Programme reference: Point 32 under “A New Push for European Democracy” 
of  Annex  I  “New  initiatives”  to  the  Communication  on  the  Commission  work 
programme  2022  Making  Europe  stronger  together,  COM(2021)645  of  19  October 
2021 announced for Q3 2022 resource.html (europa.eu) 

  The main reasons to derogate from Better Regulation rules were the following: 

 The absence of simplification potential   

1.  Proportionality - the limited set of EU intervention 
The proposals are solely focused on equality bodies that are covered by one Article in 
four  Equality  Directives  (and  “missing”  from  2  other  Equality  directives).  The  said 
Article is almost identical in the 4 Directives. The proposals do not amend the wider 
intervention  (the  other  provisions  of  the  existing  Directives).  The  proposals  are  also 
based  on  the  existing  2018  Commission  Recommendation  on  standards  for  equality 
bodies. Therefore, a fully-fledged evaluation of the relevant Directives in their entirety 
was neither proportionate nor necessary. 
2. 
One of the issues revealed by the retrospective analysis was the fact that the provisions 
on  equality  bodies  in  the  Equality  Directives  are  too  narrow  and  vague.  There  is 
therefore no simplification potential in these provisions that a fully-fledged evaluation 
could have revealed. The feedback on the 2018 Recommendation never pointed at any 
need for simplification or any administrative burden. 
3. The difficulty to assess impacts 
A  detailed  assessment  of  economic,  social  and  environment  impacts  could  not  be 
carried out because the impacts of the proposed measures are not clearly identifiable. 
For  example  the  social  impact  of  the  activities  of  equality  bodies,  such  as  assisting 
victims  of  discrimination  and  preventing  or  promoting  equal  treatment  in  general, 
cannot be measured in the absence of comprehensive equality data.  

  External  expertise  was  used  under  a  contract  with  VVA,  for  a  study  to  support  the 
preparation  of  a  retrospective  and  prospective  analytical  document,  in  view  of  a 
legislative proposal on binding standards for equality bodies. Extensive stakeholders’ 
consultations provided valuable input. 

56 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT)  

Information in this Annex is largely based on the research by VVA. Since the situation of 
equality bodies across the Member States is very diverse, and no common indicators have 
been defined and used yet, the accuracy and comparability  of data is not always perfect. 
The present legislative initiative aims to address this issue in the future. 

Introduction and consultation strategy 

Objective of the consultation 

The aim of the consultation was to obtain qualitative and quantitative information from a 
wide  range  of  stakeholders,  including  representatives  of  equality  bodies  (EBs),  NHRIs, 
NGOs, public authorities, academics and EU citizens.  

For  the  retrospective  analysis,  the  stakeholder  consultation  collected  information  and 
feedback  from  various  key  stakeholders  to  assess  EBs  and  their  functioning,  and  to 
evaluate  the  EU  legal  framework  on  EBs.  This  part  of  the  stakeholder  consultation 
included semi-structured interviews, an online survey, the analysis of the responses to the 
Commission  Public  Consultation,  and  three  participatory  workshops  covering  the 
following  three  topics:  (i)  accreditation  monitoring  process  for  EBs;  (ii)  data  collection 
requirements; and (iii) powers. 

For the analytical document, the stakeholder consultation aimed at assessing the problems 
identified  by  the  retrospective  analysis,  setting  objectives  of  the  new  initiative,  and 
comparing possible measures for a potential new legislative proposal on binding standards 
for EBs. This part of the stakeholder consultation included semi-structured interviews, an 
online survey and a validation conference. 

Consultation activities and tools 

The  consultation  strategy  was  underpinned  by  a  number  of  key  activities  using  multiple 
tools to target a wide range of stakeholders through different channels and gather insights 
from as many relevant stakeholders as possible.  

Three  types  of  interviews  took  place  in  the  context  of  this  project.  Scoping  interviews 
were conducted in order to gather initial insights into the topic of equality bodies. In total, 
six  scoping  interviews  were  conducted  with  various  EU-level  and  international 
stakeholders. In addition, stakeholder interviews aimed at gathering views from various 
key  stakeholders  (representatives  of  EBs,  relevant  public  bodies,  NHRIs,  NGOs  and 
academics) in the 27 EU Member States (MS). Overall, 101 interviews were performed as 
part of the national data collection. To gather additional information relating to costs, five 
interviews with selected equality bodies took place focusing on costs and resources. 

An  online  survey  focusing  on  gathering  additional  data  directly  from  national  EBs  was 
also  conducted  as  part  of  Phase  1.  Through  this  questionnaire,  the  national  EBs  were 

57 

 
asked to assess their functioning. Overall, 32 equality bodies have completed the survey. 
Furthermore, four written contributions were collected from EU stakeholders. 

An  Open  Public  Consultation  (‘OPC)  was  launched  by  DG  JUST  to  which  182 
stakeholders  replied.  Overall,  16  academic  research 
three  business 
associations, 66 EU citizens, three non-EU citizens, 38 NGOs, 38 public authorities132 and 
four  trade  unions  contributed  to  the  consultation,  with  14  other  types  of  stakeholders 
contributing as well.  

institutions, 

Three workshops were organised to inform the retrospective analysis and assessment of 
possible  measures  with  national  and  EU  level  stakeholders.  One  workshop  (44 
participants) focused on gathering feedback on  collecting and/or obtaining equality data. 
The second one (39 participants) focused on  possibilities to ensure proper monitoring of 
the activities of EBs and ensure their effective functioning, namely different monitoring or 
accreditation  systems.  The  third  workshop  focused  on  discussing  the  powers  that  EBs 
should have in order to adequately perform their role (60 participants).  

In addition, as part of the prospective analysis, an online survey was carried out with EBs, 
to assess the possible measures (53 respondents). To complement this survey, interviews 
were carried out with selected EBs to collect the cost information needed for the analysis 
of  the  adequacy  of  resources  and  to  understand  further  the  cost  impacts  of  the  different 
policy  options.  Two  costs  interviews  were  carried  out  while  three  written  responses  to 
the interview questionnaire were received.  

A  final  conference  took  place  on  4 April  2022  to  present  the  preliminary  results  of  the 
study and the main measures considered for future EU legislation on the topic of binding 
minimum  standards  for  EBs,  and  to  gather  participants’  feedback  in  relation  to  these.  In 
total,  88  representatives  from  national  administrations,  EBs,  EU  and  international 
institutions and bodies, academia, and civil society participated in the conference. 

Finally,  a  Youth  Policy  Dialogue  entitled  “Equality  bodies  that  work  for  all  of  us”  was 
organised  by  Commissioner  Dalli  on  24  May  2022  with  young  activists  in  the  field  of 
equality133.  

The table below provides an overview of the different stakeholder consultations. 

Overview of stakeholder consultation 

132  This figure includes replies from 4 equality bodies. All equality bodies were interviewed and consulted 

by targeted surveys in parallel to the public consultation. 

133  EUROPEAN YEAR FOR YOUTH: EQUALITY BODIES THAT WORK FOR ALL OF US - Streaming Service 

of the European Commission (europa.eu) 

58 

 
                                                 
Consultation activity 

Replies received/participants 

Scoping interviews 

Interviews  conducted  as  part  of  national  data 
collection 

Written  responses  by  EU  and 
stakeholders 

international 

Online survey  

Open Public Consultation 

Workshop participants 

Final conference 

6 

93 

4 

31 

182 

44 (workshop 1) 
39 (workshop 2) 
60 (workshop 3) 
88 

Youth policy Dialogue 

n.a. Webstream, link on Europa 

Main stakeholder feedback per consultation activity 

Interviews  

Stakeholders  from  26  MS  have  participated  in  the  interviews.  No  stakeholder  from  LV 
was  available  for  an  interview,  therefore,  additional  desk  research  was  conducted. 
Stakeholders from AT, EE, EL, ES and HR were particularly well represented with at least 
six stakeholders consulted in each of these countries.  

Stakeholders interviewed and Member States representation 

10

8

6

4

2

0

6

8

6

6

7

4

4

4

4

2

2

1

1

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

4

3

3

5

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE

EL

ES

FI

FR HR HU IE

IT

LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE

SI

SK

Interviews  were  mostly  conducted  with  equality  bodies  (39),  NGOs  (27)  and  academics 
(11), and to a smaller extent with NHRIs, public authorities and practitioners. 

59 

 
 
Type of stakeholders interviewed 

29%

2%

12%

5%

10%

Equality body

National HR Institution

42%

Public authority

Academic

Practioner

NGO

Although  the  online  survey  conducted  for  the  retrospective  analysis  was  the  main  basis 
used  to  analyse  the  current  state  of  play,  interviewees  were  asked  complementary 
independence,  resources,  stakeholder 
questions  on 
engagement, data collection and accreditation. These responses were analysed along with 
the result of the online survey and the desk research to draw a comprehensive state of play 
regarding the functioning of EBs. 

the  EBs’  mandate,  powers, 

Open public consultation  

See the overall summary results published on Have your Say at Equality bodies – binding 
standards (europa.eu) 

Potential future changes for equality bodies 

The overwhelming majority of respondents (97.2%) consider that establishing strong and 
effective  equality  bodies  is  (very)  important.  81.3%  consider  that  adopting  new  binding 
minimum standards for equality bodies would have a positive impact for them. 

60 

 
 
 
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Very important

Important

Moderately important

Not very important

Not at all important

I don't know

Academic/research institution

Business association

Company/business organisation

EU citizen

Non-EU citizen

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Other

Public authority

Trade Union

Stakeholders’ assessment of importance of establishing strong and effective EBs (total 177 
responses) 

Stakeholders rated as follows the current functioning of equality bodies. Only 34.7 % of 
respondents consider the current resources of their national equality bodies as sufficient. 

Fair/Good/Excellent  Poor/Very poor 

Criteria 

Sufficient Resources 
General independence 

Transparent 
selection of leadership 

and 

34.7% 
58.8% 

competence-based 

47.9% 

Budgetary independence 

Awareness  of 
equality body by the general population 

the  existence  of 

the 

Awareness  of 
the 
equality  body  by  the  groups  at  risks  of 
discrimination 

the  existence  of 

Easy complaint submission 

Accessibility  to  all  services  for  persons 
with disabilities 

43.2% 

51.4% 

59.2% 

68.5% 

51.7% 

Availability  of 
service on the whole national territory 

the  equality  body’s 

62.2% 

50% 
32.4% 

39% 

39% 

42.6% 

33.3% 

17.1% 

21.7% 

24.3% 

More  than  79%  of  respondents  consider  that  each  of  the  following  additional  rules  are 
(very) necessary:  

  Coverage of all grounds and fields of discrimination foreseen in EU law: gender, 
racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and 

61 

 
 
employment, education, social protection, goods and services 

  Additional missions to ensure the promotion of equality and prevention of 

discrimination  

  Litigation powers for equality bodies on behalf or in support of victims of 

discrimination in court  

  Powers to issue adequate sanctions and enforce them  

  General independence  

  Sufficient resources  

  Awareness of the existence of the equality body in the general population and 
awareness of the existence of the equality body by the groups at risks of 
discrimination  

  Easy complaint submission  

  Cooperation and coordination with national public authorities national 

stakeholders, international/EU bodies  

  Monitoring of the functioning of equality bodies across the EU  

Online surveys  

Respondents’ profiles 

Altogether 32 equality bodies from 26 Member States provided their answers in the first 
survey  (retrospective  analysis).  No  response  was  received  from  the  Equality  body  in 
Denmark.  In  the  Member  States  where  there  is  more  than  one  equality  body  not  all 
equality  bodies  submitted  their  responses,  and  some  equality  bodies  did  not  provide 
responses to all questions (e.g. EL, HU, IE, RO, SE). 

Altogether  53  equality  bodies  from  25  Member  States  provided  their  answers  to  the 
second  survey  (prospective  analysis).  Not  all  equality  bodies  submitted  their  responses, 
and some equality bodies did not provide responses to all questions. 

Mandate 

The  retrospective  online  survey  looked  at  three  aspects  related  to  the  mandate  of  EBs: 
grounds  of  discrimination  and  fields  covered  by  EBs,  and  functions  of  EBs.  With  the 
exception  of  ES  and  PT,  the  EBs  of  all  27  MS  cover  all  grounds  of  discrimination. 
Additionally,  EBs  in  10  MS134  do  not  cover  nationality  as  a  ground  of  discrimination. 
Equality bodies in all MS cover all fields with the exception of Ireland, where the equality 

134   DK,  DE,  ES,  HR,  LT,  LU,  MT,  AT,  SK,  SE.  This  reflects  the  situation  before  Spain  amended  its 

legislation in July 2022. 

62 

 
 
                                                 
body does not cover social advantages for any grounds of discrimination. EBs from 13 MS 
have a single equality mandate, while the rest are multi-mandate bodies135.  

Powers 

The retrospective online survey looked at six aspects related to the powers of EBs:  

  Independent  assistance:  EBs  in  all  Member  States,  except  for  Ireland136,  receive 
individual  complaints,  while  in  the  large  majority  of  MS  (20+),  they  also  receive 
to  victims  of 
legal  advice  and 
collective  complaints,  provide 
discrimination, and are involved in mediation or conciliation activities. 

legal  assistance 

  Decision-making  function:  EBs  rarely  have  legally-binding  decision-making  functions 

(only in 6 MS137: BG, CY, LT, HU, PT and SI).  

  Policy  advisory  role:  In  almost  all  MS  (24),  EBs  are  consulted  by  the  government  on 
legislation, while  in  approximately half of the MS,  EBs are  consulted on other elements 
such as policy (17), procedures  (13), programmes  (18), practices  (13). EBs from  25 MS 
can issue recommendations to governments.  

  Independent surveys and reports: EBs from all MS have the power to conduct surveys 
and pursue research activities. The frequency of the surveys and research activities depend 
on the Member State. In around half of the MS (14), EBs can request follow-ups on their 
recommendations, while the other half does not have such power.  

  Support  and  good  practice:  EBs  from  all  MS  can  provide  training,  while  in  the  large 
majority of MS, EBs can also provide guidance and support to stakeholders (25) and set 
standards for good equality practice to relevant stakeholders (21).  

  Communication  role:  EBs  from  all  MS  have  capacity  to  provide  information  on  rights 
under equal treatment legislation and how to exercise these rights. Except in Hungary, EBs 
from almost all MS also have capacity to engage in public and political debate to promote 
equality and non-discrimination. 

Independence 

The online survey looked into four aspects related to the independence of EBs:  

  Legal  status  and  place  in  the  administrative  structure:  In  a  large  majority  of  MS 
(20)138, EBs are situated separately from governmental structures, and in all MS, EBs have 

135  Multi-mandate  bodies  have  several  mandates,  in  addition  to  the  ‘equality  mandate’,  they  can  for 

instance be a National Human Rights Institution (‘NHRI’) or an Ombudsperson. 

136  Two other bodies, not currently identified as equality bodies, hold complaint-handling competences in 

IE. 

137   Other Member States, such as DK for example, have  another dedicated structure (board, commission, 
tribunal),  not  currently  identified  as  an  equality  body,  that  have  legally-binding  decision-making 
functions in matters of discrimination. 

138  BE, BG, CZ, DK, IE, EL, FR, HR, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK, FI and SE. In MT, one 

equality body is not part of the governmental structure, the other is. 

63 

 
                                                 
a  mandate  provided  by  law.  In  addition,  EBs  from  24  MS  are  able  to  reject  direct  or 
indirect  external  influences  and  undue  interference,  while  EBs  from  three  MS  (EE,  MT, 
and SI) stated that they are unable to do so. 

  Budgetary independence: EBs from 25 MS have specific budgets (although in majority 
these are not multiannual budgets). Mechanism to prevent disproportionate budget cuts to 
EBs’ budgets are rare in the EU.  

  Appointment process  for leadership:  EBs from  22 MS have an individual  as a leader, 
while in eight MS EBs  have a leadership in the form of a board. In 19 MS national law 
ensures that there is a public/open call for leadership position, with public and transparent 
position requirements and transparent procedures to select and appoint their leadership. 
  Accountability requirements:  In all MS, EBs are subject to public service laws, and to 
the financial accountability and expenditure rules that apply to public authorities. In some 
of  the  MS,  EBs  are  scrutinised  by  the  government  or  a  governmental  department  or 
ministry (9) and/or scrutinised by the parliament (12). EBs from all MS produce and make 
annual activity reports available to the public, although one of the two ES EBs does not. 

Management of Resources 

The  online  survey  looked  into  three  criteria  related  to  the  management  of  resources  of 
EBs:  

  Appropriateness of human resources: EBs from six MS have taken a balanced approach 
regarding  their  personnel’s  expertise  between  legal,  communication,  and  research  while 
EBs from 11 MS did not. In addition, EBs in eight MS have a gender balance among their 
employees, whereas EBs from 14 MS do not. Regarding the representation of other groups 
experiencing discrimination in the personnel of EBs, EBs in nine Member have employed 
people from such groups, while EBs from five Member do not collect such information. 

  Adequacy  of  financial  resources:  Stakeholders  from  most  MS  (20)  stated  that  their 
corresponding  EBs  do  not  have  the  necessary  resources  to  operate  and  conduct  the 
activities  provided  by  EU  and  national  legislation,  while  few  (5  MS)  reported  that  the 
resources are adequate. 

  The scope, detail, and cost of the activities of EBs is consistent with their objectives: 
EBs from 18 MS devote proportional budget to all grounds of discrimination, while EBs 
from  eight  MS  do  not.  In  terms  of  programming  of  the  activities  and  functions  of  EBs, 
EBs from 24 MS indicated that they do adopt a programme on their priorities. 

Accessibility for victims of discrimination 

The  online  survey  looked  into  three  aspects  related  to  the  accessibility  for  victims  of 
discrimination:  

64 

 
 
 
  Complaint  submission:  The  means  of  submission  of  complaints  are  diverse:  online 
option (in 24 MS), paper submission of complaints  (in 26 MS),  complaints submitted in 
person (in 23 MS), submission  procedures accessible for persons with  disabilities (in 20 
MS). All equality bodies in almost all or all MS allow for the submission of complaints in 
both the official languages of the state and in languages beyond the official ones (26) and 
provide the complaint submission without cost (27). EBs in 21 MS provide confidentiality 
to witnesses and whistle-blowers of complaints, while EBs in four MS do not. 

  Physical presence across the territory: In all MS, EBs’ facilities are visible and open to 
the  public,  except  for  one  equality  body.  EBs  in  19  MS  have  local  and  regional  levels 
through cooperating with civil society organisations or other type of organisations. 

  Accommodation  and  reflection  of  diversity:  EBs  in  24  MS  ensure  accessibility  for 
persons with disabilities, while EBs from two MS do not. With regard to processes for the 
accommodation  of  other  circumstances  such  as  literacy  issues,  scheduling  issues, 
transportation  issues,  translation  needs,  EBs  in  13  MS  provide  such  accommodations, 
while EBs in ten MS do not. 

Stakeholder engagement 

The  online  survey  also  looked  at  the  aspect  ‘Engagement  and  cooperation  with  relevant 
stakeholders’.  In  terms  of  the  existence  of  mechanisms  for  engagement  of  EBs  with 
national  authorities,  EBs  from  21  MS  stated  that  there  is  such  a  mechanism,  while  EBs 
from four MS stated there is not such mechanism available (CY, EE, PT, and NL). 

Data collection 

The online survey looked at five aspects related to the data collection frameworks of EBs:  

  Regulation of equality data: In 16 MS, national law requires EBs to collect data, while in 
3  MS  there  is  only  a  non-binding  guideline  regarding  this  issue.  The  data  collected  can 
include data on the EBs’ own activities (in all MS), on current situation regarding equality 
(in 11 MS) and on narrow subjects regarding specific grounds of discrimination in specific 
circumstances (in 8 MS). EBs in 16 MS collect both primary and secondary data, in AT 
and EL EBs collect only primary data, while in five MS EBs collect secondary data. 

  Validity  of  equality  data:  EBs  from  14  MS  conduct  consultations  with  the  groups 
concerned  to  agree  on  definitions  used  for  a  study,  while  EBs  from  six  MS  do  not.  In 
addition,  EBs  from  16  MS  provide  self-definition  as  an  option  in  the  collection  of  data, 
while EBs from two MS do not. 

  Reliability of equality data: Regarding the issue of common definitions in equality data 
collection,  the  picture  is  mixed.  EBs  in  ten  MS  stated  that  they  collect  data  nationwide 

65 

 
following common definitions,  while in  eight  MS they do not. The regularity of  general 
data collection and data collection on activities varies among EBs.   

  Comprehensiveness of equality data: The data collected can be in fields covered by the 
EU  Equality  Directives  (in  between  18  and  21  MS,  EBs  collect  data  in  each  relevant 
fields),  fields  beyond  the  ones  entailed  in  the  directive  (in  12  MS),  data  on  the  EBs’ 
activities  (in  more  than  20  MS  data  is  collected  on  discrimination  complaints, 
discrimination cases decided by EBs and outcomes of these discrimination cases). Lastly, 
EBs from 20 MS collect data on all grounds of discrimination of Articles 18 and 19 TFEU. 

  Publication and dissemination of equality data gathered: The dissemination of data by 
the EBs is  conducted through various ways:  through the  equality  bodies  websites (in 21 
MS), through networks of relevant stakeholders (in 15 MS), through ministerial websites 
(in  4  MS)  and  through  other  means  such  as  annual  reports,  social  media  accounts, 
websites of the department of statistics, press conferences, press releases, TV interviews, 
seminars, and other types of educational events. 

Workshops  

The three workshops organised aimed at gathering the views of stakeholders with regards 
to  data  collection,  monitoring/accreditation  and  powers  of  equality  bodies.  All 
workshops  included breakout  room sessions during which the stakeholders brainstormed 
in  small  groups  the  topics  of  the  workshops.  A  wide  range  of  stakeholders,  including 
European  and  national  public  body  representatives,  EBs,  NGOs,  academics  and  national 
human rights institutions, participated in these workshops.  

Regarding data collection, the majority of stakeholders highlighted the need to introduce 
provisions in the new legislation on that topic. They took the view that EBs should collect 
data on their own activities and be able to access equality data collected by others. They 
should  also  provide  some  advice  to  public  and  private  entities  on  their  data  collection 
activities.  

Regarding the monitoring/accreditation mechanism, all the stakeholders agreed that the 
preliminary list of possible indicators presented in the workshop was comprehensive and 
useful.  They  however  argued  that  some  indicators  could  be  refined.  Equality  bodies 
stressed  that  they  should  not  be  made  responsible  for  Member  States’  failure  to  provide 
them with the necessary independence and resources to accomplish their tasks.  

When  it  comes  to  the  setting-up  of  an  accreditation  system,  overall,  opinions  among 
stakeholders  were  negative  with  significant  questions  about  the  value  added  of  such  a 
system, the burden it would  impose on EBs  and the way it would work in practice (e.g. 
what would happen if an EB fails?). They were also against a system that would generate 
competition  between  EBs  while  they  currently  cooperate  well  with  one  another.  Such  a 

66 

 
 
 
system would also need to work alongside other accreditation systems e.g. for EBs that are 
multi-mandated (e.g., the ones that are also NHRIs). 

The  majority  of  stakeholders  took  the  view  that  a  monitoring  system  under  the 
responsibility  of  the  Commission  would  be  the best  option.  All  stakeholders  agreed  that 
the monitoring results should be made public.   

Regarding  the  powers  of  EBs,  on  the  minimum  combination  of  powers  needed  to 
effectively support victims of discrimination, conditions/challenges and possible national 
legal  barriers,  litigation  powers  and  legal  standing  for  EBs  were  prominently  mentioned 
by participants as necessary powers. Aspects like collective action, being able to represent 
victims of discrimination in court and being able to litigate even if there is no identifiable 
victim of discrimination were mentioned frequently. Investigative powers, such as access 
to information, documents and the right to launch ex-officio investigations, appeared very 
prominently  as  well.  Most  participants  were  also  in  favour  of  amicable  settlements 
mechanisms, even if one stressed that they worked better for unintentional discrimination. 
There  was  some  ambivalence  regarding  the  power  to  issue  binding  decisions;  many 
arguing it would go against the structure of their judicial and administrative systems and 
that  no  single-model  approach  should  be  imposed.  The  follow-up  of  decisions  and 
recommendations, and the power to give opinions, including to courts, were considered an 
important issue. Participants stressed the need for independence and appropriate resources 
and  mentioned  some  current  limitations  in  national  law.  Examples  of  other  possible 
obstacles  were  the  current  organisational  structure  in  some  MS  that  may  pose  an 
impediment  to  legal  standing.  In  addition,  participants  stressed  that  overlap  of  powers 
between State bodies should be avoided (e.g. between EBs and labour inspectorates). On 
the powers needed to prevent discrimination, stakeholders argued that EBs should engage 
in awareness raising and training activities and should play a promoting and supervisory 
role in equality mainstreaming and equality duties, including equality planning. The need 
for complete and accurate equality data was also stressed as well as being able to access 
data  from  public  authorities.  Other  important  points  in  this  context  were  conducting 
studies and cooperation with academia and other EBs. Participants also stressed that EBs 
should  be  involved  and  consulted  in  the  law-  and  policy-making  process.  Strategic 
litigation was also mentioned in this context. 

Conference  

The participants were asked to discuss the possible measures for a legislative initiative on 
binding standards for equality bodies. The policy  options were divided into four  areas  – 
powers,  independence,  promotion  and  prevention,  and  resources.  The  overwhelming 
majority of participants expressed preference for more ambitious combination of measures 
in all areas. In fact, participants stressed that raising the minimum standards should be the 
objective of any future legislation. Nevertheless, throughout the discussion it was pointed 

67 

 
out  that  the  different  types  of  equality  bodies  need  to  be  recognised  and  the  diversity 
among them needs to be taken into account when drafting future legislation. 

With  regard  to  the  powers,  participants  preferred  the  more  ambitious  combination  of 
measures  presented139  (52  participants)  rather  than  the  less  ambitious  option140  (17 
participants). One of the biggest challenges repeated throughout the conference regarding 
powers is a lack of resources, both human and financial, as well as the way the proposed 
combination  of  measures  would  fit  into  existing  legislation  and  the  legal  system  in  the 
different Member States. 

In  the  independence  area,  50  participants  chose  the  more  ambitious  combination  of 
measures141,  and  seven  participants  opted  for  the  alternative142.  While  stakeholders 
welcomed the proposed options, they were also sceptical about its realisation, citing a lack 
of political  will and a lack of resources  as challenges.  In particular, regarding budgetary 
independence, a participant mentioned that budgetary independence is difficult to define. 
Participants also expressed that it might be problematic to have non-renewable, one-term 

139  Ensure that equality bodies (i) can receive individual and collective complaints and provide legal advice 
as part of their assistance to victims; (ii) can submit oral or written statements (e.g. amicus curiae) to the 
courts on individual and collective discrimination cases; (iii) if they are entrusted with binding decision-
making powers, that their decisions are enforceable and accompanied by sanctions; the right of defence 
and appeal must be guaranteed; (iv) adopt an internal structure that guarantees the independent exercise 
of various powers (firewall); (v) if they issue opinions or take decisions, they can request a mandatory 
feedback  from  the  recipients  and  its  publication;  in  case  of  non-compliance,  measures  shall  be  put  in 
place; (vi) have the possibility to conduct  mediation and/or conciliation activities; (vii)  are allowed to 
litigate (in their own name, on behalf or in support of one or several victim(s), with their approval, even 
in absence of identified victim(s); (viii) have investigative powers.  

140  Ensure that equality bodies (i) can receive individual and collective complaints and provide legal advice 
as part of their assistance to victims; (ii) can submit oral or written statements (e.g. amicus curiae) to the 
courts on individual and collective discrimination cases; (iii) if they are entrusted with binding decision-
making powers, that their decisions are enforceable and accompanied by sanctions; the right of defence 
and appeal must be guaranteed; (iv) adopt an internal structure that guarantees the independent exercise 
of various powers (firewall); (v) if they issue opinions or take decisions, they can request a mandatory 
feedback from the recipients and its publication. 

141  Member  States  are  required  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  are  independent.  In  particular,  they  are 
required to (i) ensure that each equality body is or forms part of a legal entity separate and independent 
from  the  government;  (ii)  ensure  budgetary  independence  from  the  government  and  stability 
(proportionally to the evolution of their tasks) of their budgetary allocation; (iii) establish objective and 
transparent rules on competence-based selection appointment and dismissal procedure of the leadership 
of  equality  bodies  to  guarantee  their  competence  and  political  independence;  (iv)  ensure  that  equality 
bodies can manage their resources, including their staff, independently.  

142  Member States are required to ensure that equality bodies are independent, in doing so, they shall take 
into  account  the  following  elements:  (i)  a  legal  entity  separate  from  the  government,  (ii)  budgetary 
independence from the government and stability (proportionally to the evolution of their tasks) of their 
budgetary allocation; (iii) objective and transparent rules on competence-based selection, appointment 
and dismissal procedure of the leadership of equality bodies to guarantee their competence and political 
independence; (iv) independent management of their resources (including their staff) by equality bodies; 
(v) rules limiting the ability of the leadership to engage in other professional and/or political activities; 
(vi) rules limiting the possibility to revoke the leadership of equality bodies. 

68 

 
                                                 
leadership, especially in small countries where there may not be enough candidates, as it 
might disrupt continuity. 

Regarding  promotion  and  prevention,  the  participants  were  divided  as  regards  their 
preference:  15  stakeholders  chose  the  less143  and  27  chose  the  more144  ambitious 
combination of measures. In general, the stakeholders welcomed the possible measures in 
the area of promotion and prevention; in fact a participant even noted that the reason the 
more  ambitious  package  of  measures  was  better  was  because  it  deepens  preventive 
measures. However, they also mentioned that a lack of resources could hinder promotion 
and prevention activities. 

In  the  resources  area,  participants  were  also  more  divided  regarding  the  two  options 
proposed - out of 35 respondents, 10 participants opted for the less145, and 25 for the more 
ambitious146  combination  of  measures.  Although  the  stakeholders  agreed  on  the 
importance of ensuring adequate resources, they also shared some concerns. Regarding the 
point  about  using  artificial  intelligence  to  detect  discrimination  cases  and  enforce  non-
discrimination, many participants stressed the need for sufficient expertise on the AI tools, 
while  others  also  pointed  out  that  using  artificial  intelligence  does  not  seem  feasible  in 
general.  Additionally,  participants  expressed  their  doubts  over  AI  being  used  to  fight 
discrimination,  when  it  has  been  known  to  sustain  discriminatory  behaviour  (e.g.,  with 
face recognition). Participants noted that the ensuring territorial representation – as listed 
in Option 2 – could include online presence as opposed to on-the-ground presence, which 
would require more resources that could be better used elsewhere. Stakeholders suggested 

143  Member  States  are  required  to  (i)  adopt  a  strategy  to  raise  awareness  about  the  existence  of  equality 
bodies and their activities; (ii) entrust equality bodies with the promotion of equal treatment and non-
discrimination in all fields and grounds covered by the Directives; (iii) ensure that EBs adopt a strategy 
to  promote  equality  duties  and  mainstreaming,  among  public  and  private  entities/sectors  and  deliver 
advice to prevent (re)occurrences of discrimination. 

144  Member  States  are  required  to  (i)  adopt  a  strategy  to  raise  awareness  about  the  existence  of  equality 
bodies and their activities; (ii) entrust equality bodies with the promotion of equal treatment and non-
discrimination in all fields and grounds covered by the Directives; (iii) ensure that EBs adopt a strategy 
to  promote  equality  duties  and  mainstreaming,  among  public  and  private  entities/sectors  and  deliver 
advice to prevent (re)occurrences of discrimination; (iv) ensure, when EBs engage in decision-making, 
they include preventive measures as part of the outcome, where relevant. 

145  Member States are required to ensure that each equality body is provided with the human, technical and 
financial  resources  necessary  to  perform  all  its  tasks  and  exercise  its  powers  effectively,  in  all  the 
grounds  and  fields  they  are  entrusted  with.  In  doing  so,  they  shall  ensure  that  equality  bodies  are 
provided with the resources to enable them to use artificial intelligence systems to detect discrimination 
cases and enforce non-discrimination rules. 

146  Member States are required to ensure that each equality body is provided with the human, technical and 
financial  resources  necessary  to  perform  all  its  tasks  and  exercise  its  powers  effectively,  in  all  the 
grounds  and  fields  they  are  entrusted  with.  In  doing  so,  they  shall  ensure  that  equality  bodies  are 
provided with the resources to enable them to use artificial intelligence systems to detect discrimination 
cases  and  enforce  non-discrimination  rules.  Member  States  also  have  to  ensure  that  the  resources 
allocated to the equality bodies are sufficient to ensure a representation throughout the whole territory of 
the Member States. 

69 

 
                                                 
that  territorial  representation  could  also  be  ensured  via  regular  contact  with  local 
authorities. 

70 

 
 
 
ANNEX  4:    OVERVIEW  OF  THE  STRUCTURE  AND  FUNCTIONING  OF  EQUALITY  BODIES  IN 
MEMBER STATES   

Information in this Annex is largely based on the study by VVA.  Since the situations of 
equality  bodies  across  the  Member  States  are  very  diverse,  and  no  common  indicators 
have  been  defined  and  used  yet,  the  accuracy  and  comparability  of  data  is  not  always 
perfect. The present legislative initiative aims to address this issue in the future. 

This  overview  was  put  together  before  Spain  adapted  its  legislation  in  July  2022.  The 
changes brought about by the new legislation are not reflected in the tables below. 

When  interpreting  the  results  of  the  tables  below,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the 
information displayed in the tables in this Annex has been obtained through a stakeholder 
survey among equality bodies. 

71 

 
 
Resources 

Adequacy of financial resources 

B
E 

B
G 

C
A
T 
Y 
  X  X  X 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

X
* 

  X  X 

  X  X 

E
E
L 
S 
  X
* 
  X 

H
F
F
I 
R 
R 
  X  X
* 
  X
* 

L
L
U 
V 
  X 

I
I
H
U 
T 
E 
  X  X
* 
  X 

X 

M
L
T 
T 
  X
* 
  X  X
* 

S
I 

S
K 

N
L 
X 

S
R
O 
E 
  X 

P
P
L 
T 
  X
* 
  X 

  X 

  X  X 

Yes 

No 

X 

No 

Yes  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 
  X 

Yes 

No 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 

X 

X
* 

  X 

  X
* 
  X 

  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X
* 
  X 

X
* 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

  X 

  X 

  X 

X 

X
* 

X
* 

  X  X 

  X 

72 

  X 

  X 

X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X 

  X  X 

X 

X 

X 

  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 

  X
* 
  X
* 

  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 

  X
* 
  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X 

X  X 

X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X 

X  X 

  X 

  X  X
* 

  X
* 
  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

X  X 

  X  X  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X  X
* 

  X 

Litigat
ion 

Is there provision 
of additional 
adequate 
resources when 
the equality body 
is mandated with 
an additional 
responsibility by 
the state? 
Is the 
budget 
adequate 
for 
impleme
ntation 
of all its 
function
s 
(litigatio
n, 
decision
-
making, 
promoti
on good 
practice, 

Decisi
on-
makin
g 
Promo
tion of 
good 
practic
es 
Comm
unicati
on 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
commun
ication, 
and 
policy 
advice)? 

Policy 
advice 

Yes 

No 

  X 

  X
* 
  X 

  X 

  X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X  X 

  X
* 
  X
* 

  X
* 
  X
* 

X  X 

X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

X 

  X  X 

* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

Scope, detail, and cost of the activities of equality bodies are consistent with their objectives 

the 

Does 
budget 
devote 
proportion
ate 
attention 
all 
to 
grounds  of 
discrimina
tion? 
Does 
budget 
devote 
proportion
ate 
attention 
all 
to 
of 
fields 
the  scope 
the 
of 

the 

A
T 
X
* 

B
E 

X
* 

Yes 

No 

C
Y 

D
B
E 
G 
X  X  X  X 

C
Z 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 
X 

X 

E
S 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

Yes 

No 

X 

X  X  X 

X 

X 

X
* 

H
U 

I
I
T 
E 
  X
* 

L
L
L
T 
V 
U 
X  X  X 

M
T 

X 

P
L 

N
L 
X 

P
T 
X
* 

S
S
R
I 
E 
O 
X  X  X 

S
K 

  X 

  X
* 

X  X  X  X
* 

X 

X
* 

X  X  X 

X
* 

  X 

F
I 
X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

H
F
R 
R 
X  X
* 
X
* 

X  X
* 

X
* 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

equality 
body? 
Is  there  a 
programm
e 
out 
priorities? 

setting 

setting 
the 

Is  there  a 
programm
e 
out 
prospectiv
e 
activities? 

Yes, 
yearl
y 
Yes, 
multi
-
annua
lly 
No 

Yes, 
quart
erly 
Yes, 
bi-
annua
lly 
Yes, 
annua
lly 
No 

X
* 

X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

X  X  X  X 

X
* 

X  X
* 

X 

X
* 

X 

X
* 

X 

X  X 

X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X  X
* 

X 

  X
* 

X  X  X 

X
* 

X 

X 

X
* 

X
* 

X 

  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X
* 

X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X 

X 

X  X  X 

* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What is 
the 
position 
of the 
legal 
structure 
of the 
equality 
body? 
Are the 
mandate
s of the 
equality 
body 
provided 
by law 
(or 
Constitut
ion, 
administ
rative 
act, or 
guideline
s)? 

Part of 
governm
ental 
structure 
Separate 
from 
governm
ental 
structure 
by 
constituti
on and 
national 
legislatio
n 
by 
national 
legislatio
n 
by 
Administ
rative 
Act 

Independence 

Legal status and place in the administrative structure 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

A
T 
X 

D
C
Z 
E 
  X 

E
D
K 
E 
  X 

E
E
L 
S 
  X 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

L
U 

L
V 

I
I
E 
T 
  X
* 

M
L
T 
T 
  X
* 

N
L 

P
P
L 
T 
  X 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

x  X  X  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X  X  X 

  X 

X
* 

  X  X
* 

  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X
* 

X  X 

X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X 

  X
* 

  X  X  X  X 

  X
* 

X 

  X  X  X  X  X 

  X 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
X  X  X  X  X 

  X 

  X 

No 

Yes 

  X 

X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X
* 

Does the 
equality 
body 
have the 
ability to 
reject, 
any 
direct or 
indirect 
external 
pressure 
and 
undue 
interfere
nce 
(qualitati
ve)? 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

  X
* 

C
Y 

B
G 

E
C
B
E 
E 
Z 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

D
E 

I
E 

I
T 

S
H
U 
K 
  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

M
T 

R
O 

L
V 

L
U 

N
L 

P
T 

S
E 

P
L 

L
T 

S
I 

Is there an 
equality body-
specific budget? 

Is there a 
multiannual 
equality body 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

A
T 
X
* 
X
* 
  X
* 

  X 

X   X  X  X 

Budgetary independence 
H
E
D
E
F
F
I 
L 
R 
S 
K 
R 
X  X  X
  X
* 
* 
  X
  X  X
* 
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X X  X 

  X  X 

X 

76 

  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X 

  X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
budget? 
Is the budget 
defined and 
approved by 
governmental 
institution, or by 
parliament? 
Is there a 
mechanism to 
forbid 
disproportionate 
budget cuts to 
the budget of 
equality bodies? 
The leadership 
has provided the 
power to… 

Does the 
equality body 
have capacity to 
diversify 
sources of 
budgetary 

B
E 

C
Z 

D
E 

C
Y 

D
K 

B
G 

A
T 
* 
  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

I
E 

F
R 

H
U 

H
R 
* 
X  X  X  X  X 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X 

X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

X
* 

X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X 

X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X
* 

  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

hire/fire 
personnel. 
assign tasks 
within the 
framework. 
and assign 
the 
available 
resources. 
Yes 

No 

X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

77 

  X 

  X 

  X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

resources from 
national or 
international 
sources? 

* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

What is the type of 
leadership structure? 

Are there public/open 
call for leadership 
position, with public 
and transparent 
position requirements 
and transparent 
procedures to select 
and appoint 
leadership? 
Is the procedure of 
hiring the leadership 
of the equality body 
competence based? 

Appointment process for leadership 
I
H
U 
E 
  X 

D
K 

H
R 

F
R 

D
E 

F
I 

L
I
T 
U 
  X 

Board 

Individ
ual 
Yes 

B
B
A
T 
G 
E 
  X  X 

X 

X  X
* 

E
E 

C
Z 

C
Y 

E
E
L 
S 
  X
* 
  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X 

X  X 

L
V 

N
L 
X 

P
P
M
L
L 
T 
T 
T 
  X
  X
* 
* 
  X  X
  X  X  X
* 
* 
  X  X  X
* 

X  X 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

R
O 
X 

  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X 

X 

  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

No 

  X
* 

  X  X 

  X  X
* 

  X 

  X  X
* 

Yes 

X  X  X  X  X 

  X 

X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

No 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Is the equality body 
leadership appointed 
by government, or by 
parliament or by an 
independent entity? 

Are there rules 
limiting the 
possibility to revoke 
the leadership 
(particular due to 
change of parties in 
power)? 
Is the equality body 
by law from criminal 
and civil liability for 
official actions 
undertaken in good 
faith? 
Are there any rules to 
avoid extended 
vacancies between 
two leadership 
mandates? 

Parlia
ment 

Gover
nment 
Other 
entity 
or 
mecha
nism, 
please 
specify 
Yes 

B
G 

B
A
T 
E 
  X 

C
C
Y 
Z 
  X 

D
D
E 
K 
  X 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

H
F
R 
R 
  X
* 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
L
L
U 
T 
V 
  X  X 

M
T 

P
N
L 
L 
  X 

R
P
T 
O 
  X 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X  X 

X
* 
X
* 

X 

  X  X 

  X  X
* 

X
* 

X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

No 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X  X  X  X
* 

Yes 

  X 

X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

X  X
* 

X  X 

  X 

  X 

No 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 

X
* 

  X 

  X  X
* 

  X  X  X  X  X 

Yes 

No 

X
* 

X
* 

X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 

X
* 

X 

X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 
X
* 

B
B
E 
G 
X  X 

C
C
Y 
Z 
  X 

E
D
D
E 
E 
K 
  X  X 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

I
I
H
U 
T 
E 
X  X  X 

L
L
L
U 
T 
V 
  X  X 

P
L 

N
L 

P
M
T 
T 
  X  X  X 

S
I 

S
K 

S
R
O 
E 
  X 

H
F
R 
R 
  X
* 

Yes 

Are there any 
provisions ensuring 
the regular 
functioning, 
independence, and 
effectiveness of the 
equality body 
between two 
leadership mandates? 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

X  X  X
* 

  X  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

X
* 

No 

  X 

  X 

  X  X 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Y
es 
N
o 

Y
es 
N
o 

Y
es 

N
o 

Is there 
scrutiny by 
the 
government 
or a 
government 
department/m
inistry? 
Is there 
scrutiny by 
Parliament or 
parliamentary 
committee? 
Is the equality 
body subject 
to public 
service laws, 
and to the 
financial 
accountability 
and 
expenditure 
rules that 
apply to 
public 
authorities? 

Accountability requirements 

  A
T 
X 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

D
C
Z 
E 
  X 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X
* 

F
E
S 
I 
  X
* 
X
* 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
I
E 
T 
  X 

L
L
U 
V 
  X 

M
L
T 
T 
  X 

N
L 

P
P
L 
T 
  X 

S
R
O 
E 
  X 

S
I 

S
K 

X  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X  X 

X  X 

X
* 

  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X
* 

X 

X
* 
X
* 

X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X  X
* 
  X
* 

X 

X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Y
es 
N
o 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 

Is the equality 
body 
producing and 
making 
annual 
activity 
reports 
available to 
the public? 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistance to victims 

Structure of the mandate of the equality body 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

X 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

X  X  X  X  X 

F
R 

X 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X 

X 

X  X 

X 

X 

X 

X  X
* 

X 

X  X
* 

X
* 

  X  X 

X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X  X 

X
* 

X
* 

X  X
* 

X  X 

X  X 

X  X 

  X 

One 
body 

Sever
al 
bodie
s 

Singl
e-
mand
ate 
body 

Multi
-
mand
ate 
body 

Are 
there 
one or 
severa
l 
equalit
y 
bodies
? 

Is the 
equalit
y body 
a 
multi-
manda
te 
body 
or a 
single 
manda
te 
body 
(equali

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ty-
specifi
c 
body)? 

Is the 
equalit
y body 
a 
multi-
groun
d or a 
single 
groun
d 
body? 

Singl
e-
groun
d 
body 

Multi
-
groun
d 
body 

X
* 

X
* 

X 

X  X
* 

X
* 

  X
* 

X 

X
* 

X
* 

X 

X  X  X  X  X 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X
* 

X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 
X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

X
* 
X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

B
E 
X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

X
* 
X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

X
* 
X
* 
X
* 

What 
grounds 
of 
discrimin
ation, 
included 
in 
Articles 
18 and 19 
of the 
Treaty on 
the 
Functioni
ng of the 
EU, are 
covered 
by the 
equality 
body? 
What 
other 
grounds 
of 
discrimin
ation are 
covered 
by the 
equality 

Sex 

Racial 
or 
ethnic 
origin 
Religio
n or 
belief 
Disabili
ty 
Age 

Sexual 
orientati
on 
Nationa
lity 

Health 
status 
Gender 
identity 
Socio-
econom
ic status 
Other 

Grounds and fields covered by the equality bodies 

E
L 

E
E 

D
E 

C
Z 

C
Y 

D
K 

E
B
G 
S 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X 

X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X 

X 

X  X 

X  X  X 

F
I 
X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

X
* 
X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

X
* 
X
* 
X
* 

H
F
R 
R 
X  X
* 
X  X
* 

I
I
H
U 
T 
E 
X  X  X
* 
X  X  X
* 

L
T 

L
V 

M
L
U 
T 
X  X  X  X
* 
X  X  X  X
* 

P
P
N
L 
T 
L 
X  X  X
* 
X  X  X
* 

S
E 

S
R
O 
K 
X  X  X  X 

S
I 

X  X  X  X 

X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

X  X
* 
X  X
* 
X  X
* 

X 

X  X
* 
X  X
* 
X  X
* 

X 

X 

X 

X  X  X
* 
X  X  X
* 
X  X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X
* 
X  X  X  X
* 
X  X  X  X
* 

X 

X 

X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

  X
* 

X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

X  X 

X 

X 

X  X 

X 

X 

X  X  X  X X 

X 

X 

X  X  X  X  X 

X 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
body? 
Which of 
the 
following 
areas 
within 
the scope 
of EU 
Directive
s are 
covered 
by the 
equality 
body? 

grounds 
Employ
ment 
and 
occupati
on 
(Vocatio
nal) 
training 
Access 
to and 
supply 
of 
goods 
and 
services 
availabl
e to the 
public 
(includi
ng 
housing
) 
Educati
on 
Social 
protecti
on 
(includi

A
T 

B
E 

X  X
* 

E
E 

D
E 

C
Z 

C
Y 

B
G 

D
K 

F
I 
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

E
L 

E
S 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

X  X
* 
X
* 

X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

86 

 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

ng 
healthca
re) 
Social 
advanta
ges 
Both the 
public 
and 
private 
sectors 
Only 
the 
public 
sector 
Member 
State 
territory 
covered 
in part 
Member 
State 
territory 
covered 
in full 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X 

X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

Yes 

X  

X 

X  

  X  

X 

87 

What 
sectors 
does the 
mandate 
cover? 

Does the 
territorial 
scope of 
the 
national 
equality 
body 
cover the 
Member 
State's 
territory 
in part or 
in full? 
Do 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

X  X 

A
T 
* 
X
* 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 
* 

X  X 

E
S 
* 
X
* 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

X  X 

X  X 

X 

X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X 

X  X  X 

regional 
equality 
bodies 
exist in 
all the 
regions 
of the 
Member 
State? 

No 

There 
are no 
regional 
equality 
bodies 
in the 
Member 
State 

* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Powers 

Independent assistance 

receive 
individual 
complaints 
receive 
collective 
complaints 
provide 
(legal) 
advice 
provide 
assistance 
to victims 
of 
discriminat
ion 
be 
involved in 
mediation 
and/or 
conciliatio
n activities 
Yes 

The 
equalit
y body 
has the 
power 
to… 

Does 
nationa
l 
legislati

B
E 

S
H
A
T 
K 
U 
   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

M
T 

B
G 

R
O 

D
K 

H
R 

C
Y 

F
R 

L
U 

L
V 

D
E 

C
Z 

N
L 

I
E 

S
E 

I
T 

E
L 

E
E 

L
T 

P
L 

P
T 

E
S 

F
I 

S
I 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X 

  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X
* 

X 

X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X
* 

  X 

89 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
on 
allow 
for 
nationa
l 
authorit
ies to 
bring 
cases to 
court 
without 
represe
nting a 
specific 
victim? 
The 
equalit
y body 
has 
legal 
standin
g by: 

No 

A
T 
X
* 

B
G 

D
C
B
E 
E 
Y 
  X  X  X  X 

C
Z 

E
E
D
K 
L 
E 
  X  X 

F
I 

F
R 

H
E
S 
R 
  X  X  X
* 

H
U 
X 

I
I
E 
T 
  X 

L
U 

L
V 

N
M
L
T 
L 
T 
  X  X 

P
P
L 
T 
  X
* 

S
R
O 
E 
X  X 

S
S
I 
K 
  X 

X 

X
* 

  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X  X  X 

X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X
* 

  X  X  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X  X  X 

representin
g 
complaina
nts 
acting as 
amicus 
curiae or 
expert 
bring 
proceeding
s before 
courts 
(individual 
complaints

90 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

) 

bring 
proceeding
s before 
court 
(class 
actions/col
lective 
complaints
) 
bring 
proceeding
s before 
court 
without 
identifiabl
e victim 
intervene 
in support 
of a party 
engage or 
assist in 
strategic 
litigation 
(decide 
themselves 

X 

X
* 

X 

X
* 

X 

X 

X
* 

X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X  X  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

X  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

91 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

The 
equalit
y body 
has the 
power 
to 
secure 
evidenc
e for 
these 
proced
ures 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

the criteria 
for such 
litigation) 

require the 
production 
of files, 
documents 
and other 
material 
for 
inspection, 
examinatio
n and 
making 
copies 
thereof 
conduct 
on-site 
inspections 
question 
persons 
apply for 
an 
enforceabl
e court 
order or 
impose 
administrat

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X 

X 

  X
* 
  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X 

92 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ive fines if 
an 
individual 
or 
institution 
does not 
comply 
with the 
above 
Yes 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

No 

  X 

  X
* 

Yes 

No 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

93 

Does 
the 
equalit
y body 
provide 
legal 
advice 
and 
support 
at no 
cost? 
Does 
the 
equalit
y body 
provide 
legal 
advice 
and 
support 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

for a 
fee? 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

94 

 
  
  
Does 
the 
law 
provid
e the 
right 
to 
appeal 
agains
t 
equalit
y body 
decisio
ns? 
The 
equalit
y body 
is 
empo
wered 
to… 

Decision-making function 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

A
T 

B
E 

C
B
G 
Y 
X  X 

H
U 
X 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

M
T 

N
L 

L
L
V 
T 
  X 

R
O 
X 

S
S
E 
I 
  X 

S
K 

P
P
L 
T 
  X
*  

  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X 

  X 

Yes 

No 

issue legally 
binding 
decisions 
impose 
sanctions in the 
context of 
decisions on 
complaints 
issue non-
legally binding 
decisions/recom
mendations 
suspend the 

X  X 

X  X 

X 

X 

  X 

X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  

X  X 

X 

  X 

  X  

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 

* 

time limits of 
their own 
proceedings in 
case of initiation 
of court 
proceedings for 
the same 
complaint 
Yes 

No 

X  X 

Are 
equalit
y body 
decisio
ns 
monit
ored?   
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

X
* 
  X  X
* 

  X  X
* 
  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X 

X  X 

X
* 

X 

  X
* 
X  X  X
* 

  X 

X  X 

  X 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The 
government 
consults 
with the 
equality 
body on...    

How often 
does the 
government 
consult 
with 
Equality 
Bodies?   

Legislatio
n 
Policy 

Procedure
s 
Programm
es  
Practices 

Biennially 
(or less 
often) 
Annually 

Bi-
annually 
Quarterly 

Monthly 

Does the 
equality 
body issue 
recommend
ations to 
public 

Yes 

No 

Policy advisory role 

B
A
T 
E 
  X 

C
Y 

D
C
B
G 
K 
Z 
  X  X  X  X 

D
E 

  X 

  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

F
R 

H
R 

H
F
I 
U 
X  X  X  X 

E
E
E
E 
S 
L 
  X  X
* 
  X
* 

X  X 

X
* 
  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X
* 

  X  X  X 

  X  X
* 

I
I
E 
T 
  X 

  X 

X 

  X 

  X 

X 

  X 

L
T 

L
V 

M
L
U 
T 
  X  X  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 
  X  X
* 

P
T 

P
L 

S
N
L 
I 
X  X  X  X  X  X 

R
O 

S
E 

S
K 

X  X  X 

  X  X 

X 

  X 

X 

  X 

  X  X 

X 

  X 

  X  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

X  X 

  X
* 
X  X  X  X  X 

X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

  X  X  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

97 

X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X  X  X
* 
  X 

  X
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X
* 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
authorities 
on 
legislation, 
policy, 
procedure, 
programme
s, and 
practices?   
How often 
does the 
equality 
body issue 
recommend
ations?   

The 
equality 
body has 
capacity to:  

Biennially 
(or less 
often) 
Annually 

Bi-
annually 
Quarterly 

Monthly 

request 
updates 
from 
public 
bodies on 
recommen
dations 
provided 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X 

  X  X  X
* 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 
  X  X
* 
X  X
* 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X 

X 

  X 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

X 

  X
* 

98 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
S
I 

S
E 

S
R
O 
K 
X  X  X  X 

B
E 

C
B
A
T 
Z 
G 
  X  X  X  X 

C
Y 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

F
R 
X 

F
E
S 
I 
  X
* 

H
U 

L
I
H
R 
U 
E 
  X  X  X  X 

I
T 

M
L
L
V 
T 
T 
  X  X
* 

P
P
N
L 
T 
L 
X  X  X
* 

name and 
shame 
public and 
private 
bodies if 
they 
violate 
equality 
law 

* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

99 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
Support and good practice role 

A
T 
X
* 
X
* 
X
* 

The 
equalit
y body 
has the 
capacit
y to... 

How 
often 
does 
the 
equalit
y body 
provid
e 
trainin
gs?   

provide 
training 
provide 
support 
set 
standard
s for 
good 
equality 
practice
147 to 
relevant 
stakehol
ders 
Biennial
ly (or 
less 
often) 
Annuall
y 
Bi-
annuall
y 
Quarterl

B
G 

S
B
E 
K 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

M
T 

D
K 

R
O 

H
R 

H
U 

L
U 

L
V 

F
R 

C
Y 

N
L 

C
Z 

D
E 

L
T 

E
E 

E
L 

P
L 

P
T 

S
E 

I
E 

I
T 

E
S 

F
I 

S
I 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X
* 

X
* 

X  X
* 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

147  Good  practices  are  those  complying  with  the  2018  Recommendation  on  standards  for  equality  bodies.  Examples  of  good  equality  practices  can  be  found  in  the  Staff  Working 
Document,  for  example  for  multi-mandate  bodies  they  include:  a  dedicated  leadership  for  the  equality  mandate,    balanced  resources  allocated  to  each  mandate,  a  separate  and 
specialised department dedicated to the equality mandate and/or a specific annual report focusing only on the equality mandate. 

100 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
y 
Monthl
y 

  X  X  X
* 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

X
* 

X
* 

X 

  X
* 

  X 

* 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Does the 
equality 
body have 
capacity to 
provide 
informatio
n on rights 
under 
equal 
treatment 
legislation 
and how to 
exercise 
these 
rights? 
How 
frequently 
does the 
equality 
body 
provide 
informatio
n on its 
role, on 
the rights 
under 
equal 

Yes 

No 

Bienni
ally 
(or 
less 
often) 
Annua
lly 
Bi-
annual
ly 
Quarte
rly 

Communication role 

B
E 

S
H
A
T 
K 
U 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

M
T 

R
O 

D
K 

B
G 

H
R 

L
V 

L
U 

C
Y 

F
R 

N
L 

C
Z 

D
E 

L
T 

P
T 

E
E 

I
T 

P
L 

S
E 

I
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

S
I 

  X 

  X 

X  X 

  X
* 

  X  X
* 

  X 

102 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
treatment 
legislation 
and on 
how to 
exercise 
these 
rights?   
Does the 
equality 
body have 
capacity to 
engage in 
public and 
political 
debate to 
promote 
equality 
and non-
discrimina
tion?   
How 
regularly 
does the 
equality 
body 
engage in 
public and 
political 
debate?   

A
T 
X
* 

B
E 
X
* 

Month
ly 

C
B
G 
Y 
  X 

D
C
Z 
E 
  X 

E
D
K 
E 
  X 

E
E
L 
S 
  X
* 

F
I 
X
* 

H
F
R 
R 
X  X
* 

I
H
U 
E 
  X 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

N
M
L
T 
L 
T 
  X  X 

P
P
L 
T 
  X
* 

S
E 

S
R
O 
K 
X  X  X  X 

S
I 

Yes 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

No 

  X 

Bienni
ally 
(or 
less 
often) 
Annua
lly 
Bi-
annual

  X 

  X 

103 

X  X 

  X
* 

  X 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

ly 
Quarte
rly 
Month
ly 
Yes 

X
* 
  X
* 
X
* 
X
* 

X
* 
X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X
X
* 
* 
  X  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 

  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X 

X 

  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X 

X 

X 

No 

X  X 

  X  X 

X  X  X 

  X
* 
  X
* 

Does the 
equality 
body have 
capacity to 
have a 
local/regio
nal 
presence?   
Does the 
equality 
body have 
a 
communic
ation 
strategy in 
place for 
this role?   
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

  X
* 
  X 

X  X  X
* 

  X
* 

  X  X 

X
* 
X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

Yes 

No 

X 

X 

  X  X  X  X 

  X
* 
  X  X
* 

  X  X  X 

X 

  X  X 

  X 

X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

104 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
E 
Online  X  X  X  X  X  X 

B
G 

C
Y 

B
E 

A
T 

C
Z 

D
K 

E
L 

H
F
E
E 
U 
I 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

F
R 

H
R 

E
S 

I
E 

Complaint submission 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

P
T 

P
L 

L
T 

N
L 

M
T 

L
V 

R
L
U 
O 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

I
T 
X
* 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
X  X
* 

S
E 

S
S
I 
K 
X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X  X 

X 

X  X 

X
* 

X
* 

X 

X  X
* 

X  X 

X  X  X 

X
* 

X
* 

X  X  X 

X 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X 

X 

X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X 

X
* 

X  X  X  X
* 

X 

X 

X  X 

105 

X  X 

X  X
* 

What are 
the 
means of 
submissi
on of 
complain
ts? 

In what 
language
s can 
complain
ts be 
submitte
d? 

On 
paper 
Orally, 
in 
person 
In 
disabili
ty 
accessi
ble 
format 
All of 
the 
official 
langua
ges of 
the 
state 
Additi
onal 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
langua
ges 
beyond 
the 
official 
ones 
Zero 

Minim
um 
Substa
ntial 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

Yes 

X 

No 

X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

What is 
the cost 
of 
submissi
on of and 
dealing 
with 
complain
ts? 
Is there a 
mechanis
m that 
provides 
financial 
support 
to 
victims 
of 
discrimin
ation that 
want to 
submit a 
complain
t to an 
equality 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X 

No 

Yes 

X  X 

X
* 
X
* 

X  X  X 

X  X  X 

X  X  X
* 

body? 
Is 
confident
iality 
afforded 
to 
witnesses 
and 
whistle-
blowers 
of 
complain
ts? 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

X 

  X 

X 

X 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
S
F
R 
K 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

R
O 

M
T 

L
T 

I
T 

P
L 

I
E 

N
L 

P
T 

S
E 

S
I 

X  X  X  X  X  X 

X 

Physical presence across the territory 

X 

E
S 

C
Z 

B
E 

E
L 

E
E 

L
V 

L
U 

H
U 

C
Y 

H
R 

B
G 

D
K 

Y
es 

X  X 

X  X 

Y
es 
N
o 

X  X
* 

F
D
A
T 
I 
E 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
X
* 

Are the 
equality 
body 
facilities 
visible 
and open 
to the 
public? 
Is the 
equality 
body 
present at 
local and 
regional 
levels 
through 
cooperati
ng with 
civil 
society 
organisati
ons or 
other type 
of 
organisati
ons? 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

X  X  X 

X  X 

X  X 

  X 

  X 

N
o 

X 

X 

X 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accommodation and reflection of diversity 

E
E 

E
L 

B
E 

D
E 

C
Z 

C
Y 

B
G 

H
D
  A
T 
R 
K 
X  X  X  X  X  X    X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 

Have you adopted measures to ensure disability 
accessibility of physical premises, information and 
communication including information 
technologies, and services and products, meetings, 
and events? 
Ye
Do you have processes for the accommodation of 
s 
other circumstances (literacy issues, scheduling 
issues, transportation issues, translation needs or 
N
other across the grounds covered)? 
o 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

  X
* 
  X  X
* 

I
I
H
U 
T 
E 
X  X  X
* 

X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X  X    X   

Ye
s 
N
o 

  X  X   

X  X   

F
R 

E
S 

F
I 

L
T 

P
L 

N
L 

L
V 

P
M
L
U 
T 
T 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 

S
E 

S
S
R
O 
K 
I 
  X  X  X 

X   

  X   

X    X    X  X  X  X  X   

  X   

X   

  X 

  X
* 

Knowledge of discrimination 

Independent surveys and reports 

B
E 

S
H
A
T 
K 
U 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

M
T 

B
G 

R
O 

D
K 

H
R 

C
Y 

F
R 

L
U 

L
V 

N
L 

D
E 

C
Z 

L
T 

I
E 

E
L 

E
E 

I
T 

P
L 

P
T 

S
E 

E
S 

F
I 

S
I 

Yes 

No 

   X 

Yes, 
bienni
ally 

   X  X  X
* 

X
* 

   X
* 

   X  X 

   X
* 

X  X 

   X
* 

109 

Does the 
equality 
body have 
the power 
to conduct 
surveys 
and pursue 
research 
activities?   
Does the 
equality 
body 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   X 

   X
* 

   X 

   X
* 

   X  X
* 

   X
* 

   X 

   X 

   X  X
* 

   X 

   X 

   X 

Yes 

   X 

   X 

   X 

No 

X
* 

   X 

   X  X 

   X 

X  X
* 

X 

   X  X  X  X
* 

   X  X 

X  X  X
* 
   X
* 

   X 

X  X 

   X 

(or 
less 
often) 
Yes, 
annua
lly 
Yes, 
bi-
annua
lly 
Yes, 
quarte
rly 
Yes, 
month
ly 
No 

   X
* 

   X 

X 

regularly 
conduct 
surveys 
and pursue 
research 
activities?   

Does the 
equality 
body have 
capacity to 
request 
follow-ups 
on 
recommen
dations of 
these 
reports 
from 
governmen

   X
* 
   X
* 
   X  X
* 

110 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
t or 
parliament
?   
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

111 

 
Are there 
any data 
protectio
n 
exemptio
ns? 
Is data 
collectio
n by 
equality 
bodies 
provided 
by 
national 
law or 
administr
ative act 
or 
national 
guideline
? 
What 
type of 
data 
collectio

Regulation of equality data 

Yes 
No 

A
T 

X
* 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

X 

  X  X 

  X  X 

  X
* 

Law 

  X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X  X
* 

X  X  X 

  X  X 

Administra
tive Act 

Guidelines  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

X 

X
* 

Data 
collection 
on 
activities 

  X  X  X  X
* 

X
* 

X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X  X 

  X 

  X  X 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n is 
required? 

Data 
collection 
on current 
situation 
regarding 
equality/ge
neral data 
collection 
Data 
collection 
on narrow 
subjects 
regarding 
specific 
grounds of 
discriminat
ion in 
specific 
circumstan
ces (for 
example 
conditions 
of 
institutiona
lisation of 
persons 
with 
disabilities
) 

B
B
A
T 
G 
E 
  X  X 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
D
E 
K 
  X 

E
E 

F
I 

E
E
L 
S 
  X 

H
F
R 
R 
  X
* 

H
U 

I
I
E 
T 
  X 

L
U 

L
V 

M
L
T 
T 
  X
* 

P
T 

P
L 

R
N
L 
O 
X  X  X  X 

S
K 

S
S
E 
I 
  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B
G 

D
B
E 
K 
X  X  X  X  X  X 

C
Y 

D
E 

C
Z 

A
T 
X
* 

E
S 

E
L 

F
E
E 
I 
  X  X  X
* 

H
F
R 
R 
X  X 

H
U 

I
I
E 
T 
  X
* 

L
U 

L
V 

M
L
T 
T 
  X
* 

P
T 

P
L 

R
N
L 
O 
X  X  X  X 

S
S
S
E 
K 
I 
  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X
* 

In its 
research 
activities 
the 
equality 
body 
collects
… 

primary 
data (first-
hand data 
gathered 
by 
researchers
) 
secondary 
data 
(analyses 
data 
already 
collected 
by national 
authorities 
or other 
sources) 

* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Validity of equality data 

E
E
L 
S 
  X
* 

H
F
F
I 
R 
R 
  X  X
* 

H
U 

I
I
E 
T 
  X
* 

L
V 

N
L
L
U 
L 
T 
X  X  X  X  X 

M
T 

P
P
L 
T 
  X
* 

R
O 

S
K 

S
S
E 
I 
  X 

   A
T 

B
G 

D
C
B
E 
E 
Y 
  X  X  X  X 

C
Z 

D
K 

E
E 

N
o 

Y
es 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

Is there 
any 
consulta
tion of 
the 
group 
concern
ed in the 
design 
of the 
definitio
ns 
used?   
Is self-
definitio
n 
provided 
as an 
option 
in 
collectio
n of 
equality 
data?   
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

  X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 

X  X
* 

  X
* 

Y
es 
N
o 

  X  X 

  X 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X 

  X  X
* 

  X 

X 

  X  X 

  X  X
* 

Reliability of equality data 

115 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are 
commo
n 
definiti
ons 
collect
ed for 
equalit
y data 
at 
nationa
l level? 
What 
is the 
regular
ity of 
general 
data 
collecti
on? 

Yes 

No 

B
B
E 
G 
  X 

A
T 
X
* 
  X
* 

C
C
Y 
Z 
  X 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

X
* 

H
F
R 
R 
  X
* 
  X
* 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
T 

N
L
V 
L 
  X  X  X 

M
T 

P
P
L 
T 
  X
* 

R
O 

S
S
S
E 
K 
I 
  X  X 

  X  X 

  X 

Annual
ly 
Bi-
annuall
y 
Quarte
rly 
Monthl
y 
Ad-
hoc 
Irregul
arly 
Only 
once, 
not 
repeate

  X  X 

X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X  X  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X 

116 

  X
* 

X 

  X 

  X
* 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What 
is the 
regular
ity of 
data 
collecti
on on 
activiti
es? 

d again 

Annual
ly 
Bi-
annuall
y 
Quarte
rly 
Monthl
y 
Ad-
hoc 
Irregul
arly 
Only 
once, 
not 
repeate
d again 

X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X  X  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X
* 

  X  X 

  X
* 
  X  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 
  X 

  X
* 

* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Is data 
collect
ed in 
the 
fields 
covere
d by 
the EU 
Directi
ves? 

Employ
ment and 
occupati
on 
Vocation
al 
training 

Social 
security 

Healthca
re 

Social 
advantag
es 

Educatio
n 

Access 
to and 
supply 

Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

   A
T 
X
* 

Comprehensiveness of equality data 

C
B
G 
Y 
X  X 

D
C
Z 
E 
  X 

D
K 

B
E 
X
* 

E
S 

E
L 

F
E
E 
I 
  X  X  X
* 

H
H
F
R 
U 
R 
X  X  X 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

P
L
I
E 
T 
T 
  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

R
O 
X 

S
S
S
E 
K 
I 
  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 
  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X 

  X  X 

X
* 
  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X 

X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X 

  X 

X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X  X 

X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 
X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
X  X  X  X
* 

X 

X 

X 

X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
X  X  X
* 
  X  

X 

X 

  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X 

  X  X 

X  X 

  X 

  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X 

X  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X   X 

  X
* 
  X

118 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
S 
* 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 
* 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 
* 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

   A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

o 

of goods 
and 
services 
available 
to the 
public 
(includin
g 
housing) 

  X  X 

X
* 
  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

Is data collected 
beyond the fields 
covered by the EU 
Directives? 
Is data 
collect
ed on 
the 
followi
ng? 

Social 
exclusio
n 

Y
es 
N
o 
Poverty  Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 

Victimis
ation 

Crime 

  X 

  X
* 
  X  X  X 

X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X  X 

  X
* 
  X  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 
  X  X  X  X 

X
* 
  X  X  X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 
  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 
  X 

  X  X 

  X
* 

119 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X 

X 

  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 
  X
* 
  X  X
* 

  X 

X 

X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X 

  X
* 

X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

X 

X 

  X
* 
  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X
* 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   A
T 
X
* 

B
E 
X
* 

C
Y 

H
E
B
G 
R 
E 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

D
K 

F
R 

D
E 

C
Z 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

H
U 

L
V 

R
L
U 
O 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

M
T 

N
L 

P
T 

P
L 

L
T 

I
I
E 
T 
  X
* 

S
S
S
E 
K 
I 
  X  X 

  X  X 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

X
* 

  X 

X  X 

  X
* 

X  X  X 

  X
* 

  X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

Y
es 
N
o 
Y
es 
N
o 

Is data 
collect
ed on 
the 
followi
ng?   

Discrimi
nation 
complain
ts 
Discrimi
nation 
cases 
(decided 
by 
Equality 
bodies) 
Outcome
s of 
discrimi
nation 
cases 
(decided 
by 
equality 
bodies) 
Is data collected 
on specific 
grounds of 
discrimination 
(provided by EU 
law and articles 18 
and 19 TFEU)? 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies.

  X  X  X  X
* 

  X
* 
  X
* 

X  X
* 

Y
es 
N
o 

Y
es 
N
o 

  X
* 

  X
* 

X  X  X 

X  X  X 

  X  X 

X  X 

X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

X  X  X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X
* 

X  X  X
* 

X 

  X  X 

X  X  X  X 

  X  X 

120 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Publication and dissemination of equality data gathered 

B
A
T 
E 
X  X 

C
Y 

D
B
G 
E 
  X  X  X 

C
Z 

E
E 

H
E
D
K 
R 
S 
  X  X  X  X  X  X 

F
R 

E
L 

F
I 

H
U 

I
T 

L
V 

L
U 

P
L
I
E 
T 
T 
  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
* 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

R
O 
X 

S
S
S
E 
K 
I 
  X  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X
* 

  X  X
* 

  X  X 

  X  X 

X 

  X  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

  X  X
* 

  X  X 

  X 

  X  X 

  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X 

X
* 

Is data 
publishe
d and 
dissemi
nated in 
the 
followin
g 
ways?   

Equality 
body 
website 
Network 
of 
relevant 
stakehol
ders 
Ministeri
al 
website 
Other, 
please 
briefly 
provide 
other 
methods 
of 
dissemin
ation 
used by 
the 
equality 
body 

* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies.

121 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cooperation and coordination 

Engagement and cooperation with national authorities 

Yes 

No 

A
T 
X
* 

X
* 

C
B
B
E 
Y 
G 
X  X  X 

D
D
C
Z 
K 
E 
  X  X 

E
S 

E
L 

F
E
E 
I 
  X  X  X
* 

H
F
R 
R 
X  X 

I
I
H
U 
T 
E 
  X  X 

L
T 

L
V 

M
L
U 
T 
  X  X  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

P
T 

P
L 

S
R
N
L 
K 
O 
X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

S
E 

S
I 

Bienniall
y (or less 
often) 
Annually 

Bi-
annually 
Quarterly 

  X
* 

Monthly  X   X  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

  X  X 

  X 

  X  X
* 

  X  

  X X  X  X X 

  X 

  X
  X
* 
* 
  X   X  X

122 

Are there 
structures to 
engage in 
dialogue and 
exchange 
with civil 
society 
organisations 
representativ
e of the 
grounds 
covered in 
the mandate 
of the 
equality 
body? 
How 
regularly 
does the 
equality 
body 
cooperate 
with civil 
society 
organisations
' 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
representativ
es? 
Are there 
mechanisms 
(protocols/m
emoranda of 
understandin
g) for 
engagement 
with national 
authorities: 
formal or 
informal 
consultation 
mechanism 
for 
legislation or 
policy 
development
? 
How 
regularly 
does the 
equality 
body 
cooperate 
with national 
authorities? 

A
T 
* 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 
* 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 
* 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 
* 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 
* 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 
* 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Never 
Yes 

X  X  X 

  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X 

No 

  X 

  X 

  X  X  X
* 

Bienniall
y (or less 
often) 
Annually 
Bi-
annually 
Quarterly 

X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X 

Monthly 

  X X  X 

  X 

  X X  X  X 

  X   X 

  X  X 

123 

  X 

  X
* 
  X X 

  X  X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Is there a 
mandate that 
allows 
cooperation 
with 
supranational 
institutions 
or foreign 
equality 
bodies? 
How 
regularly 
does the 
equality 
body 
cooperate 
with 
supranational 
authorities? 

A
T 

B
E 
* 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 
* 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 
* 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

P
T 
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

Never 
Yes 

No 

Bienniall
y (or less 
often) 
Annually 

Bi-
annually 
Quarterly  X
* 
  X  X  X 

Monthly 

  X 

  X 

  X  X
* 

X
* 

X  X
* 

  X  X
* 
  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 
  X 

  X 

X 

  X 

  X
* 
  X
* 

Which of the 
following 
structures 
and 
processes for 

Never 
The 
preparati
on of 
partnersh
ip 

  X  X 

  X
* 

  X  X
* 

X 

  X 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X
* 

X
* 

  X
* 

  X  X
* 

X 

  X
* 

  X
* 

  X 

  X
* 

  X  X
* 

  X  X
* 

X 

equality-
related 
aspects of 
EU cohesion 
policy is the 
equality 
body 
involved in? 

agreemen
ts 

The 
preparati
on, 
impleme
ntation, 
and 
evaluatio
n of 
program
mes 
The 
process 
for 
applying 
the 
enabling 
condition
s and 
correspo
nding 
criteria to 
approve 
cohesion 
fund 
program
mes and 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

D
K 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
U 

L
V 

L
T 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

projects 

  X
* 

  X 

  X 

  X 

  X  X
* 

  X
* 

  X  X  X
* 

X 

X 

  X
* 

The 
impleme
ntation of 
the 
horizonta
l equality 
and 
human 
rights 
principle 
Yes 

No 

  X 

X  X
* 

  X
* 
  X
* 

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

Does the 
equality 
body engage 
in joint 
ventures and 
cooperative 
agreements 
with relevant 
civil society 
organisations
? 
* This response was indicated by only some of the equality bodies in a country with multiple equality bodies.

X
* 
X
* 

  X 

  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

  X 

  X 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS REPORT 

CONTENTS 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 128 

2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ............................................. 129 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ......................................... 129 

2.2.  Point(s) of comparison .................................................................................. 134 

3.  How has the situation evolved over the period examined by the retrospective 

analysis? .................................................................................................................. 136 

4.  Analysis of findings ................................................................................................. 148 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ............................ 148 

4.1.1.  Effectiveness .................................................................................... 148 

4.1.2.  Efficiency ......................................................................................... 151 

4.1.3.  Coherence ........................................................................................ 156 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? ......................................... 158 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? ................................................................... 159 

5.  Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 162 

Annex A: Retrospective analysis matrix and questions .................................................. 166 

Annex B: Overview of benefits and costs ....................................................................... 194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
9.  1. INTRODUCTION 

Equality  bodies  were  first  introduced  into  the  EU  legal  framework  by  Directive 
2000/43/EC  (‘Racial148  Equality  Directive’)149,  which  required  that  each  Member  State 
designates such a body at latest by 19 July 2003. Equality bodies are expected to promote 
equal  treatment  through  the  following  missions:  assisting  victims  of  discrimination, 
conducting 
reports  and  making 
recommendations on discrimination matters. 

independent  surveys,  publishing 

independent 

As  regards  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  based  on  sex,  equality  bodies  were  first 
introduced  with  a  2002 amendment  of  Directive  76/207/EEC  on  the  implementation  of 
the  principle  of  equal  treatment  for  men  and  women  as  regards  access  to  employment, 
vocational  training  and  promotion,  and  working  conditions.  Directive  76/207/EEC  was 
later repealed and replaced by Directive 2006/54/EC (‘Gender Equality Directive in the 
field of employment’). Two additional Equality Directives entrusted equality bodies with 
the  same  missions  in  their  respective  field:  Directive  2004/113/EC  (‘Gender  Equality 
Directive  in  the  field  of  goods  and  services’)  and  Directive  2010/41/EU  (‘Gender 
Equality  Directive  in  the  field  of  self-employment’).  Directives  2006/54/EC  and 
2010/41/EU  have  added  the  mission  of  exchanging  information  with  corresponding 
European bodies, such as the European Institute for Gender Equality (‘EIGE’).  

In  2018,  the  Commission  issued  Commission  Recommendation  2018/951  on  standards 
for  equality  bodies  (‘2018  Recommendation’)150.  This  non-binding  legal  act  contains 
suggestions  regarding  the  mandate,  independence  of,  and  cooperation  and  coordination 
between equality bodies, as well as with other relevant authorities.  

The aim of this retrospective analysis is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  provisions  on  equality  bodies  in 
the 
abovementioned  Directives.  It  furthermore  examines  the  2018  Recommendation,  using 
the same criteria.  

Where  available  and  relevant,  the  retrospective  analysis  draws  on  previous  analytical 
documents assessing those instruments, such as the Commission report on the application 
of Council Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC (‘2021 application report’)151 and the 

148  The use of the term ‘racial origin’ in the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU and Council Directive 
2000/43/EC  does  not  imply  any  acceptance  by  the  European  Union  of  theories  that  attempt  to 
determine the existence of separate human races. 

149 

 Council  Directive  2000/43/EC  of  29  June  2000  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment 
between  persons  irrespective  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  available  at  EUR-Lex  -  32000L0043  -  EN  - 
EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

150  Commission Recommendation 2018/951 of 22 June 2018 on standards for equality bodies, available at 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32018H0951.  

151  Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament and Council  on the application of 
Council  Directive  2000/43/EC  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons 
irrespective  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  (‘the  Racial  Equality  Directive’)  and  of  Council  Directive 
2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the 
Employment  Equality  Directive’),  COM(2021)  139  final,  available  at  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52014DC0002.  

128 

 
                                                 
Staff Working Document on the implementation of the Commission Recommendation on 
standards  for  equality  bodies  (‘2021  Staff  Working  Document’)152,  accompanying  the 
2021 report.  

The retrospective analysis focuses on all 27 EU Member States and looks at the period as 
of  29  June  2000,  which  is  the  date  when  the  first  Directive  that  introduced  equality 
bodies,  namely  the  Racial  Equality  Directive153,  was  adopted.  However,  for  those 
Member  States  that  joined  the  EU  after  that  date,  the  period  examined  by  the 
retrospective analysis starts from  the date of their accession (1 May 2004154, 1 January 
2007155 and 1 July 2013156).  

This retrospective analysis builds on findings and conclusions of a study prepared by an 
external consultancy (VVA). The methodological approach157 ensured the gathering and 
triangulation of a substantial amount of qualitative data, in particular through a survey of 
equality  bodies,  interviews  with  national,  EU-level  and  international  stakeholders, 
country analyses, literature review and workshops.  

However, some limitations exist, such as the reduced availability of data on quantifiable 
costs and benefits  and of reliable and  comparable quantitative equality data.  Mitigation 
measures were taken and the retrospective analysis was underpinned by a large body of 
qualitative evidence to provide a reliable basis for drawing conclusions. The research was 
conducted  before  Spain  adapted  its  anti-discrimination  legislation  in  July  2022.  The 
information below presents the situation before the reform. 

10.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

10.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Wider policy context at the time of adoption of the first Directive containing provisions 
on Equality Bodies 

152  Staff  Working  Document 

the 

‘Equality  bodies  and 

the  Commission 
Recommendation  on  standards  for  equality  bodies’,  accompanying  the  Report  from  the  European 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  on  the  application  of  Council  Directive 
2000/43/EC  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of  racial  or 
ethnic  origin  (‘the  Racial  Equality  Directive’)  and  of  Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  establishing  a 
general  framework  for  equal  treatment  in  employment  and  occupation  (‘the  Employment  Equality 
Directive’), 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
final, 
SWD(2021) 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0063.  

implementation  of 

available 

63 

at 

153  Article 16 of Directive 2000/43/EC.  

154  CZ, EE, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, PL, SI, SK. 

155  BG, RO.  

156  HR.  

157  For  further  information  on  the  methodological  approach  followed  by  the  external  study  and  this 

retrospective analysis, please consult Annex 2.  

129 

 
 
                                                 
The  importance  of  the  right  to  equality  before  the  law  and  protection  against 
discrimination for all persons is a universal right recognised at international level, by the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Covenants on Civil and 
Political  Rights  and  on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights  and,  at  EU  level,  by  the 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to 
which all Member States at the time (EU-15) were signatories in the early 2000s. The EU 
framework  on  equality  was  made  possible  by  the  Amsterdam  Treaty  (1997)  that 
empowered the EU to take measures to combat discrimination on certain grounds.   

Acknowledging  the  importance  of  the  abovementioned  standards  on  equality,  the 
European Parliament adopted a number of Resolutions on the fight against racism158 in 
the  EU.  Continuing  its  efforts  to  fight  racism  and  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  and 
following the Commission Communication of 13 December 1995159, the Council and the 
representatives  of  the  governments  of  the  Member  States  adopted  on  23  July  1996  a 
resolution proclaiming 1997 European Year against Racism160. In this context, European 
institutions and civil society consistently called for legislative action. 

This  was  followed  by  the  European  Council  in  Tampere,  on  15  and  16  October  1999, 
during  which  the  Commission  was  invited  to  come  forward  as  soon  as  possible  with 
proposals implementing Article 13 of the EC Treaty161 as regards the fight against racism 
and  xenophobia.  Subsequently,  the  Employment  Guidelines  2000  agreed  by  the 
European Council in Helsinki, on 10 and 11 December 1999, stressed the need to foster 
conditions for a socially inclusive labour market by formulating a coherent set of policies 
aimed at combating discrimination against groups such as ethnic minorities. 

The  above  steps,  among  others,  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  first  Directive  containing 
provisions  on  equality  bodies,  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  It  prohibits  discrimination 
on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin in a broad range of areas: employment (access to 
and  working  conditions),  vocational  training,  membership  of  and  involvement  in  an 
organisation  of  workers  or  employers,  access  to  social  protection  and  healthcare, 
education,  social  advantages,  and  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  that  are 
available to  the public,  as well as  access  to  housing.  As mentioned in  the introduction, 
another  three  Directives162  covering  various  aspects  of  gender  equality  with  almost 
identical provisions on equality bodies followed in 2002, 2004 and 2010.   

Pursuant to the abovementioned Directives, Member States are required to designate one 
or several equality bodies which may form part of agencies charged with the defence of 

158  Resolution of the European Parliament on racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism, 27 October 1994, OJ 
C  323/154,  20.11.1994;  Resolution  of  the  European  Parliament  on  racism,  xenophobia  and 
antisemitism, 26 October 1995, OJ C 308/140, 20.11.1995.  

159  COM(95) 653 final of 13 December 1995. 

160  OJ C 237, 15.8.1996, p. 1. 

161  Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) as of 1 December 2009.  

162  The Gender Equality Directives in the field of goods and services, employment and self-employment.  

130 

 
                                                 
human  rights  or  the  safeguard  of  individuals'  rights.163  Equality  bodies  are  supposed to 
perform three main tasks:164 

 

to  provide  independent  assistance  to  victims  of  discrimination  in  pursuing  their 
complaints about discrimination; 

 

to conduct independent surveys concerning discrimination; and 

 

to publish independent reports and make Recommendations on any issues related 
to such discrimination. 

The  Gender  Equality  Directives  in  the  fields  of  employment  and  self-employment 
contain  an  additional  task  to  exchange  available  information  with  corresponding 
European bodies.  

It  is  worth  noting  that  there  are  also  two  more  Equality  Directives  that  do  not  contain 
provisions  on  equality  bodies:  Directive  79/7/EEC  (‘Gender  Equality  Directive  in  the 
field  of  social  security’)165  and  Directive  2000/78/EC  (‘Employment  Equality 
Directive’)166.  

Intervention logic 

The rationale behind the adoption of the EU Equality Directives as of 2000 was the need 
of secondary legislation to implement the then newly created Article 13 of the EC Treaty 
(currently Art.19 (1) TFEU), after the Treaty of Amsterdam extended the competences of 
the EU and allowed for secondary legislation to combat discrimination on the grounds of 
sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age,  or  sexual  orientation,  and 
enforce the newly created legislation (objective 1).  

The  first  piece  of  such  secondary  legislation  (also  referred  to  as  ‘second-generation 
Directives because they provided for more comprehensive and structured protection from 
discrimination  than  the Directives  adopted  before  the  Treaty  of  Amsterdam167)  was  the 
Racial Equality Directive; it was also the Directive that first  established equality bodies 

163   See Art.  13 (1) of the Racial Equality Directive;  Art.  20 (1) of the  Gender Equality Directive in the 
field of employment; Art. 11 (1) of the Gender Equality Directive in the field of self-employment; Art. 
12 (1) of the Gender Equality Directive in the field of goods and services. 

164   See  Art.  13 (2) of the Racial Equality Directive;  Art.  20 (2) of the Gender Equality Directive in the 
field of employment; Art. 11 (2) of the Gender Equality Directive in the field of self-employment; Art. 
12 (2) of the Gender Equality Directive in the field of goods and services. 

165  Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

available 

security, 

social 

of 

at 

women 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31979L0007. 

in  matters 

166  Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  of  27  November  2000  establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

employment 

occupation, 

available 

in 

at 

treatment 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078 

and 

167  Favilli,  C.,  ’Article  19  [Combatting  Discrimination  Based  on  Other  Grounds]’,  in:  Blanke,  HJ., 
Mangiameli,  S.  (eds),  Treaty on  the  Functioning  of  the European  Union  -  A  Commentary,  Springer, 
Cham, 2021, pp. 469-488.  

131 

 
                                                 
in  EU  legislation.  Therefore,  the  intervention  logic  addressed  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive;  however,  it  is  in  principle  also  applicable  to  the  three  subsequent  Gender 
Equality Directives that contain provisions on equality bodies168. Other than combatting 
racial and ethnic discrimination, the Racial Equality Directives also aimed at increasing 
prevention  (objective  2).  More  specifically,  the  rationale  behind  the  establishment  of 
equality bodies and the roles they were assigned was to (i) ensure that (potential) victims 
are aware of their rights and the existence of equality bodies, (ii) ensure assistance and 
redress for victims, (iii) improve factual knowledge about the state of discrimination, (iv) 
better inform policy-making, and (v) improve the behaviour and awareness of companies 
and the general public about matters of discrimination (operational objectives).  

When  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  was  adopted,  no  intervention  logic  had  been 
prepared.  It  has  therefore  been  developed  for  this  retrospective  analysis  (see  table  1 
below).  It  highlights  that  the  key  expected  outcomes  are  (i)  that  victims  of 
discrimination  come  forward  with  complaints  and  get  redress,  (ii)  victims  are  assisted, 
(iii)  increased  information  and  knowledge  about  the  state  of  discrimination,  (iv)  better 
informed policy-making at national level on matters of equality and discrimination, and 
(v)  improved  behaviour  and  awareness  of  companies  and  the  general  public.  The 
expected key impacts are (i) an effective implementation and enforcement of EU equal 
treatment  and  non-discrimination  legislation,  (ii)  a  decrease  in  levels  of  discrimination 
and unequal treatment and (iii) increased prevention and higher awareness.  

168  For those Directives, the relevant ground is however sex/gender rather than racial or ethnic origin.  

132 

 
                                                 
Figure 1: Intervention logic  

 
 
 
 
10.2.  Point(s) of comparison  

Information  about  the  baseline  situation  as  regards  racial  and  ethnic  discrimination  is 
scarce due to lack of data. This is still true today; but even more at the time of adoption 
of the Racial Equality Directive in 2000. As noted by the European Monitoring Centre on 
Racism and Xenophobia (‘EUMC’), the predecessor of the European Union Agency for 
Fundamental  Rights  (‘FRA’),  in  its  1999  Annual  Report169,  factors  such  as  inadequate 
reporting systems at national level, lack of common definitions across the Member States 
and  lack  of  uniformity  in  data  gathered  and  method  used  hindered  the  effective 
monitoring of levels of racism and racial or ethnic discrimination. The fact that no impact 
assessment  was  carried  out  when  the  first  three  Directives  containing  provisions  on 
equality bodies170 were adopted also affects this retrospective analysis, as it cannot refer 
to evidence gathered for the purpose of such an assessment.  

Despite  the  abovementioned  limitations,  EUMC  still  identified  evidence  pointing  to 
incidents of racial discrimination in all EU Member States at that time171 in fields such as 
employment,  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services,  education,  housing  and  the 
criminal  justice  system.  The  findings  were  underlined  by  the  subsequent  report172 
published in 2002 that found that up to 40% of migrants have experienced discrimination 
based  on  their  ethnic  origin  in  some  Member  States173.  A  report  published  by  the 
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (‘ECRI’) in 1999 came to similar 
conclusions,  stating  that  there  was  persistent  general  racial  and  ethnic  discrimination 
across the EU,  especially  in  the field  of employment. ECRI identified lack of  effective 
non-discrimination legislation as one of the drivers of this problem.174 This is in line with 
the first objective of the intervention, which was to implement such legislation.  

In order to  accomplish  this and the other objectives identified in  the intervention logic, 
Member  States  were  required  to  designate  one  or  several  equality  bodies  with  specific 
competences, as described above. Prior to the adoption of the Racial Equality Directive, 
such  bodies  only  existed  in  seven  Member  States  (EU-15)175.  They  were  mostly 
responsible  for  discrimination  based  on  gender176;  some  Member  States  also  had 
established such bodies to fight against racial or ethnic discrimination177. There was quite 

169  European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, ‘Annual Report 1999’, Vienna, 2000, 

p. 17.  

170  The  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  Gender  Equality  Directives  in  the  field  of  access  to  goods  and 

services and employment.  

171  European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Annual Report 1999, Vienna, 2000, 

p. 17, 31 and 84.  

172  European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, ‘Racism and xenophobia in the EU 
Member  States:  trends,  developments  and  good  practices  in  2002,  Annual  Report  Part  II’,  Vienna, 
2002, p.39.  

173  BE, IT, NL, AT, UK (about 40%), ES, SE (about 30%).  

174  European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, ‘Annual Report 1999’, Strasbourg, 2000, p. 7.  

175  BE, IE, NL, AT, PT, FI, SE.  

176  IE, NL, AT, PT, FI, SE.  

177  BE, IE, PT, SE.  

 
 
                                                 
some  variety  in  terms  of  functions,  structure,  power  and  independence  between  these 
bodies.  

Overview of existing equality bodies at the time of adoption of the RED 

Country 

Belgium 

Ireland 

Grounds covered 

Establishment   

Racial or ethnic origin 

UNIA established in 1993. 

Gender,  racial  or  ethnic 
origin 

First  equality  body  established  in 
1999. 

Netherlands 

Gender 

Austria 

Gender  

Portugal 

Gender,  racial  or  ethnic 
origin 

First  equality  body  established  in 
1994.  

for  equal 

Commission 
treatment 
(mediation  body  for  matters  related 
to  equal  pay  for  men  and  women) 
established in 1979.  

First 
for 
ombudsperson 
treatment appointed in 1991.  

equal 

Commission  for  Equality  in  Labour 
and Employment  (CITE) established 
in 1979. 

Commission 
Gender Equality (CIG) 1977. 

for  Citizenship  and 

for  Equality 

Commission 
Against 
(CEARD) established in 1999. 

and 
Racial  Discrimination 

Finland 

Gender 

Sweden 

Gender,  racial  or  ethnic 
origin,  disability,  sexual 
orientation  

Equality  Ombudsman  established  in 
1987. 

Four  separate  ombudsman  offices 
established  from  1991  on  different 
equality  grounds  (gender,  ethnicity, 
disability, and sexual orientation).  

135 

 
 
 
 
11.  HOW  HAS  THE  SITUATION  EVOLVED  OVER  THE  PERIOD  EXAMINED  BY  THE 

RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS? 

Broadening of equality bodies’ mandate to gender equality in certain fields  

The  first  Directive  containing  provisions  on  equality  bodies,  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive,  was  adopted  in  2000.  The  three  subsequent  Gender  Equality  Directives 
containing  provisions  on  equality  bodies  extended  the  grounds  of  discrimination  for 
which  equality  bodies  are  competent  to  gender  in  the  fields  of  access  to  and  supply  of 
goods and services, employment and self-employment. They did not significantly change 
the mandate of equality bodies, with the exception of the introduction of the mission of 
exchanging information with corresponding European bodies, such as EIGE, in the latest 
two Gender Equality Directives178. Therefore, the intervention logic presented above also 
explains the rationale behind the adoption of the three Gender Equality Directives179. 

As the table above demonstrates, before the adoption of the first Equality Directive that 
contains  provisions  on  equality  bodies,  only  few  Member  States  (EU-15)180  had  such 
bodies competent for the ground sex/gender in place. Before the adoption of the Gender 
Equality  Directive  in  the  fields  of  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  in  2004, 
discrimination based on sex/gender when accessing insurances and other related financial 
services  was  widespread181.  According  to  the  European  Community  Household  Panel 
(ECHP),  national  Structure  of  Earnings  Surveys  (SES)  and  other  national  earnings 
surveys, the gender pay gap – difference in average gross hourly earnings as a percentage 
of  men’s  average  gross  hourly  earnings  –  varied  between  6  and  26%  in  EU  Member 
States in 2001182. Although the net additional jobs created over ten years till 2004 have 
mainly gone to women, in the EU-25, long-term unemployment was also more prevalent 
(respectively  4.6%  and  3.5%)183.  Women  were 
among 
overrepresented  in  part-time  work184  and  underrepresented  in  self-employment185.  The 
Gender  Equality  Directives  in  employment  and  self-employment  adopted  in  2006  and 
2010 aimed to tackle those issues.  

than  males 

females 

The rationale behind the extension of the competence of equality bodies to gender in the 
abovementioned  fields  was  similar  to  the  one  behind  the  initial  intervention.  Equality 

178  The Gender Equality Directives in the fields of employment and self-employment.  

179  However, the ground addressed by those Directives is sex/gender rather than ethnic or racial origin.  

180  IE, NL, AT, PT, FI, SE.  

181  Werner,  H.,  Caracciolo  di  Torella,  E.,  ‘Gender  Equal  Access  to  Goods  and  Services,  Directive 
2004/113/EC,  European  Implementation  Assesment’,  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service, 
Brussels, 2017, p.7.  

182 

 European Commission, The social situation in the European Union, 2004, p. 80.  

183  European Commission, The social situation in the European Union, 2004, p. 55.  

184  European Commission, The social situation in the European Union, 2004, p. 51. This report found that 
in the EU-25 at the time, 30% of women in employment were working part-time against only 6.5% of 
men.  

185  European  Commission,  European  Employment  Observatory  Review,  Self-employment  in  Europe 

2010, p. 7. In 2009, 69.9% of self-employed were male.  

136 

 
                                                 
bodies  were  regarded  as  a  tool  to  help  fighting  against  and  preventing  discrimination 
based on gender in the relevant fields covered by the Directives.  

All  EU Member States  notified transposition measures of all four Directives, and there 
have not been any problems in the transposition of the Directives into national legislation 
that concerned the correct implementation of the provisions on equality bodies. There are 
no open infringements regarding those provisions in any of the Directives.  

Evolvement  of  the  general  situation  regarding  discrimination  based  on  racial  or  ethnic 
origin and gender 

In 2007, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (‘ECRI’) welcomed 
the setting-up of  equality  bodies  competent  for racial and ethnic discrimination,  stating 
that  they  have  facilitated  access  to  justice  for  victims  of  racial  discrimination186.  ECRI 
also reported that these bodies have helped to improve legislation and change attitudes by 
providing advice to public authorities and promoting equal opportunities187.  

In 2009, FRA conducted the first European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey 
(EU-MIDIS I), which provided more robust data on the actual state of ethnic and racial 
discrimination.  A  second  survey  of  such  nature,  EU-MIDIS  II,  was  conducted  in 
2015/16188.  The  results  of  these  surveys  point  to  persisting  levels  of  racial  and  ethnic 
discrimination throughout the European Union. EU-MIDIS II found that ‘four out of 10 
respondents (38%) felt discriminated against in the five years before the survey because 
of  their  ethnic  or  immigrant  background  in  one  or  more  areas  of  daily  life,  and  one  in 
four (24 %) experienced this in the 12 months preceding the survey189’. 

On the awareness of rights and access to assistance and redress, a Eurobarometer survey 
conducted in 2003 found that 7 out of 10 respondents indicated that they would complain 
if they were discriminated against190. The European Union Minorities and Discrimination 
Surveys  (EU-MIDIS  I  and  II)  conducted  by  FRA  in  2009  and  2015/16  however  found 
that the number of people that actually complained after having been subject to racial or 
ethnic discrimination was much lower, with 18% in EU-MIDIS I and 12% in EU-MIDIS 
II191.  

186  European  Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance,  ‘Annual  Report  2007’,  Strasbourg,  2008,  p. 

11-12.  

187  European  Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance,  ‘Annual  Report  2007’,  Strasbourg,  2008,  p. 

12. 

188  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights,  ‘EU-MIDIS,  European  Union  Minorities  and 
Discrimination  Survey,  Main  Results  Report’,  Luxembourg,  2010;  European  Union  Agency  for 
Fundamental  Rights,  ‘EU-MIDIS II, Second  European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey, 
Main Results’, Luxembourg, 2017.  

189  European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘EU-MIDIS II, Second European Union Minorities 

and Discrimination Survey, Main Results’, Luxembourg, 2017, p.13.  

190  Eurobarometer, ‘Discrimination in Europe’, 2003, p. 14.  

191  European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘EU-MIDIS II, Second European Union Minorities 

and Discrimination Survey, Main Results’, Luxembourg, 2017, p. 21.  

137 

 
                                                 
The  EU-MIDIS  II  survey  further  found  that  71%  of  respondents  could  not  think  of  a 
single  organisation  that  could  offer  support  to  victims  of  discrimination,  be  it 
government-based, an independent institution or authority, such as an equality body, or 
an NGO192. When given the name of an equality body, 62% of respondents indicated that 
they had never heard of them193. 

Even though the gender pay gap reduced significantly between 2006 and 2011, women 
on average still earned 16.2% less per hour than men in 2011194. Between 2011 and 2015 
this  number  did  however  not  decrease  further.  Contrarily,  it  slightly  increased  again, 
resulting in an average gender pay gap of 16.3% in 2015195. Similar developments could 
be  observed  for  the  gender  employment  gap.  In  2012,  almost  three  quarters  of  men 
(74.6%)  were  employed  as  opposed  to  62.4%  of  women,  which  results  in  a  gap  of 
12.2%196. It slightly decreased to 11.6% in 2016197. 

In  2013,  EIGE  first  published  the  Gender  Equality  Index  that  measures  the  progress 
Member States made towards gender equality. On EU level, the index was 63.1 in 2013 
and  65.7  in  2017,  showing  that,  although  some  progress  was  made,  it  remained  very 
slow198. 

The 2018 Recommendation 

To  mitigate  this  unsatisfactory  situation  regarding  the  persistent  discrimination  despite 
the explicit legal protection, the Commission decided to take further steps to strengthen 
equality  bodies  by  adopting  the  2018  Recommendation  on  common  standards  for 
equality bodies.  

The  2018  Recommendation  was  the  first  legal  -  although  non-binding  -  act  that  went 
beyond  the  initial  framework  for  equality  bodies  on  substance.  This  was  because  the 
minimum requirements set out by the Directives have left a wide margin of discretion for 
Member States to decide on the functioning and structure of their equality bodies, which 
has  led  to  major  differences  in  those  areas  as  well  as  the  independence  and  resources 
allocated to equality bodies across the EU. While these differences may appear to be the 
natural  expression  of  Member  States’  differences  in  legal  culture  and  administrative 

192  European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘EU-MIDIS II, Second European Union Minorities 

and Discrimination Survey, Main Results’, Luxembourg, 2017, p.50.  

193  European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘EU-MIDIS II, Second European Union Minorities 

and Discrimination Survey, Main Results’, Luxembourg, 2017, p.15. 

194  Eurostat,  ‘Sustainable  development  in  the  European  Union,  2013  monitoring  report  of  the  EU 

sustainable development strategy’, Luxembourg, 2013, p. 11.  

195  Eurostat, ‘Sustainable Development in the European Union, Overview of progress towards the SDGs 

in an EU context, 2017 edition’, Luxembourg, 2017, p. 110. 

196  Eurostat,  ‘Sustainable  development  in  the  European  Union,  2013  monitoring  report  of  the  EU 

sustainable development strategy’, Luxembourg, 2013, p. 100.  

197  Eurostat, ‘Sustainable Development in the European Union, Overview of progress towards the SDGs 

in an EU context, 2017 edition’, Luxembourg, 2017, p. 111. 

198  For  further  information  on  EIGE’s  gender  equality  index  and  the  methodology  used,  please  consult 

https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/about.  

138 

 
                                                 
structures,  they  have  also  resulted  in  very  different  levels  of  protection  against 
discrimination among Member States.  

The  2018  Recommendation  lists  measures  to  achieve  an  optimal  enforcement  of  the 
Directives’  provisions  to  ensure  that  equality  bodies  can  effectively  perform  their 
functions.  It  focuses  on  (i)  the  mandate  of  equality  bodies,  (ii)  their  independence, 
effectiveness  and  accessibility,  and  (iii)  the  coordination  and  cooperation  between 
equality bodies (and other entities) across the EU. 

The  2021  Staff  Working  Document  examined  the  state  of  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation  and  found  that  it  remained  limited  and  unequal,  continuing  to  hinder 
some  equality  bodies  in  effectively  exercising  their  role.  In  practice,  this  leads  to 
different levels of protection against discrimination across the EU.  

Current state of play as regards equality bodies 

To underpin the findings of the 2021 Staff Working Document and to obtain a thorough 
and complete picture of  the structure and  functioning of equality bodies in all Member 
States,  VVA  conducted  a  survey  among  equality  bodies  as  part  of  the  external  study 
prepared  to  inform  this  retrospective  analysis.  The  main  findings  are  summarised  and 
outlined below. For more detailed information on the current structure and functioning of 
equality bodies in each Member State, please consult Annex 4.  

Resources and independence 

The  Directives  do  not  explicitly  mention  resources,  while  the  2018  Recommendation 
suggests Member States to ensure that each equality body is provided with the human199, 
technical  and  financial  resources,  premises  and  infrastructure  necessary  to  perform  its 
tasks and exercise its powers effectively200.  

There is significant variation in the number and expertise of staff and the level of budget 
among  equality  bodies.  A  comparison  between  Member  States  on  these  issues  is  very 
precarious as the issue of resources is dependent on a variety of factors connected to the 
national economy, the levels and types of discrimination, the cohesion of societies, and 
the existence of other national authorities or systems that share the same goals as equality 
bodies. Nevertheless, there are stark differences in budgets and human resources among 
equality bodies201. 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  about  how  equality  bodies  assess  the  adequacy  of 
resources at their disposal for specific activities.  

199  A sufficient number of staff members  with adequate qualifications in terms of skills, knowledge and 

experience to fulfil adequately and effectively each of the equality bodies’ functions.  

200  Within reasonable time and within the deadlines established by national law.  

201  Crowley N.,  ‘Equality Bodies Making a Difference’, European Network of Legal Experts in Gender 

Equality and Non-Discrimination and European Commission, Brussels, 2018, p. 103.  

139 

 
                                                 
Function  Yes, adequate 

No, not adequate 

Litigation  LV,  HU,  MT*,  NL, AT*,  PT*, 

BE*, BG, HR*, IT*, LU, PL, FI. 

RO, SI, SK. 

Decision-
making 

BE*,  ES*,  HR*,  IT*,  CY,  LV, 
LU,  HU,  MT*,  NL,  PT*,  RO, 
SI, FI*. 

BG, EE, HR*, LT.  

Promotion 
good 
of 
practices 

Policy 
advice 

BE*,  CZ,  DE,  ES*,  HR*,  IT*, 
CY, LV, LU, HU, NL, PT*, SI. 

BG,  EE,  EL,  HR*,  IT*,  LT,  MT*, AT*, 
PL, RO, SK, FI. 

BE*,  DE,  ES,  HR*,  IT*,  CY, 
LV,  LU,  MT*,  NL,  PT*,  RO, 
SI, SK, FI*. 

BG, EE, EL, HR*, IT*, LT, PL, FI*. 

Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  or  three202  equality  bodies.  Source:  Online 
survey conducted by VVA. 

The overview above is not entirely reflected by experiences of other stakeholders; from 
three quarters of Member States203 stakeholders stated that their corresponding equality 
bodies did not have the necessary resources to operate and conduct the activities provided 
by  EU  and  national  legislation;  Similarly,  only  34.7%  of  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation  considered  the  current  resources  of  their  national  equality  bodies  as 
sufficient. 

On independence, the Directives state that equality bodies should perform independent 
surveys,  publish  independent  reports  and  provide  independent  assistance  to  victims  of 
discrimination,  but  do  not  include  provisions  on  the  set-up  of  equality  bodies  as  such. 
The  2018  Recommendation  invited  Member  States  to  consider  such  elements  as  the 
organisations  of  equality  bodies,  their  place  in  the  overall  administrative  structure,  the 
allocation of their budget and their procedures for handling resources204.   

Several  studies  conducted  as  of  the  transposition  of  the  Directives  dedicated  some 
attention  to  the  matter  of  independence  of  equality  bodies.  A  study  conducted  in  2007 
found that a significant number of equality bodies faced issues in that regards, as they: (i) 
were not established on the basis of constitutional or legislative provisions; (ii) officials 
of  government  were  on  their  board  or  had  some  influence  over  their  decisions;  and/or 
(iii) they did not have adequate premises outside of government buildings205.   

202  Only HR and PT have three equality bodies; all others marked with a star have two.  

203  BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, HR, IT, CY, LT, LU, HU, MT, AT, RO, PL, PT, SK, FI.  

204  In  this  context,  it  was  recommended  to  put  particular  focus  on  the  procedures  for  appointing  and 
dismissing  staff,  including  persons  holding  leadership  positions.  Member  States  should  also  ensure 
that  the  equality  bodies’  staff  and  leadership  did  not  engage  in  any  action  incompatible  with  their 
duties.  

205  Holtmaat,  R.,  ‘Catalysts  for Change? Equality bodies according to Directive  2000/43/EC’, European 
Network  of  Legal  Experts  in  the  Field  of  Non-Discrimination  and  European  Commission,  Brussels, 
2007, p.5.  

140 

 
 
                                                 
Another  study  conducted  in  2010  pointed  out  that  twelve  equality  bodes  did  not  have 
their own legal personality, fifteen equality bodies lacked financial independence, three 
equality  bodies  lacked  independence  in  personnel  management,  and  the  majority  had  a 
leadership  appointed  by  the  government.  However,  this  study  also  found  that  the  vast 
majority  of  equality  bodies  enjoy  full  independence  to  exercise  their  powers,  and  in 
taking decisions on the allocation of resources over their various tasks206. 

A study conducted in 2018 highlighted that ten equality bodies were part of Government 
ministries  and  twenty  had  their  leadership  appointed  by  the  government,  which  is  a 
decrease  in  comparison  to  2010.  Eighteen  equality  bodies  were  accountable  to  the 
government,  but  an  increasing  trend  of  accountability  to  the  parliament  has  been 
observed  as  well,  which  can  be  seen  more  favourable  in  terms  of  independence207.    In 
2022,  equality  bodies  in  seven  Member  States208  are  still  part  of  the  governmental 
structure.  In  two-thirds  of  the  Member  States209,  they  are  no  longer  accountable  to  the 
government, but to the parliament. 

Most  equality  bodies  have  a  specific  budget  for  their  work.  The  ones  that  do  not  are 
either  equality  bodies  that  are  part  of  the  governmental  structure  and  share  their 
Ministerial  budget210,  or  equality  bodies  that  are  part  of  multi-mandate  bodies  that  are 
operating with a central budget.  

The leadership of the majority of equality bodies consists of individuals, only some are 
led  by  a  board211.  The  box  below  provides  an  overview  of  appointment  procedures  in 
different Member States. 

Are 
for 
there  public/open  call 
leadership  position,  with  public  and 
transparent  position 
requirements 
and  transparent  procedures  to  select 
and appoint leadership? 

Yes 

No 

BE*,  BG,  EE,  ES*,  HR*,  IE, 
IT*, CY, LV, LU, HU, NL, AT, 
PL, PT*, RO, SI, SK , FI, SE. 

BE*,  CZ,  DE, 
EL,  ES*,  FR, 
LT, MT*. 

206  Ammer  A.,  Crowley  N.,  Liegl  B.,  Holzleithner  E.,  Wladasch  K.,  Yesilkagit  K.,  ‘Study  on  Equality 
Bodies set up under Directives 2000/43/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC: Synthesis Report’, Human 
European  Consultancy  in  partnership  with  the  Ludwig  Boltzmann  Institute  of  Human  Rights,  2010, 
p.8, 111-113.  

207  Crowley N.,  ‘Equality Bodies Making a Difference’, European Network of Legal Experts in Gender 

Equality and Non-Discrimination & European Commission, 2018, p. 90-93.  

208  DE, EE, ES, PT. One out of two equality bodies in IT, MT, AT.  

209  BE, BG, DK, DE, EE, EL, IT, LT, HU, PL, RO, SI. ES, MT, AT, FI have two equality bodies and only 
one of them is accountable to the parliament. HR and PT have three equality bodies; not all of them 
are accountable to the parliament.  

210  It should be noted that those equality bodies usually also have no control over the allocation of their 

human resources, assignment of tasks or the hiring of new colleagues.   

211  BE, BG, IE, LU, NL, RO. One out of two equality bodies in ES, MT. Two out of three equality bodies 

in PT.  

141 

 
 
 
                                                 
the  procedure  of  hiring 

the 
the  equality  body 

Is 
leadership  of 
competence based? 

Yes 

BE,  BG,  CZ,  DK,  IE,  ES*, 
HR*, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, 
MT, NL, AT, PL, PT*, RO, SI, 
SK, FI, SE. 

No 

DE,  EE,  EL, 
FR. 

Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  equality  bodies.  Source:  Online  survey 
conducted by VVA 

Assistance to victims 

In relation to the equality bodies’ mandate, the 2018 Recommendation suggested to go 
beyond the current limited scope of the Directives212 and to entrust equality bodies with 
all the grounds listed in Article 19 TFEU (sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, 
disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation)  the  fields  of  (self-)  employment  and  occupation, 
education, social protection and social advantages including healthcare, and access to and 
supply of goods and services. 

In all but two Member States213, the equality bodies are competent in relation to all the 
grounds  covered  by  the  Employment  Equality  Directive214.  In  around  two  thirds  of 
Member States,  equality bodies are  competent  in relation  to  all the  grounds  and all the 
fields mentioned in the Recommendation.  

Almost  all215  Member  States  have  at  least  one  multi-ground  body216.  Many  Member 
States have also  made use of the possibility provided for  in  Article 13(1) of the Racial 
Equality  Directive  and  created  multi-mandate  bodies217. 
the 
Recommendation stresses the importance of appropriate resources and attention for each 
ground and mandate.  

In  both  cases, 

The  Directives  require  the  provision  of  independent  assistance  to  victims  of 
discrimination.  In  practice,  Member  States  took  very  different  approaches.  The  2018 
Recommendation  invited  them  to  consider  the  following  aspects:  (i)  receiving  and 
handling  individual  or  collective  complaints;  (ii)  providing  legal  advice  to  victims, 

212  The current scope of the Directives that contain provisions on equality bodies covers protection from 
racial and ethnic discrimination in employment and occupation, vocational training, education, social 
protection  including  healthcare,  social  advantage,  and  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services 
available to the public, including housing and discrimination based on gender in access to and supply 
of goods and services as well as (self-) employment.  

213  ES,  PT.  Spain  has  meanwhile  profoundly  reformed  its  legislation  (see  Ley  15/2022,  de  12  de  julio, 

integral para la igualdad de trato y la no discriminación) 

214  Religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.  

215  24, namely: BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, FR, HR, IT, LV,  LT, LU, HU, MT, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, 

SK, FI, SE.  

216  Multi-ground bodies cover more than one ground of discrimination.  

217  Multi-mandate  bodies  have  several  mandates,  in  addition  to  the  ‘equality  mandate’,  they  can  for 

instance be a National Human Rights Institution (‘NHRI’) or an Ombudsperson.  

142 

 
 
 
                                                 
including  in  pursuing  their  complaints;  (iii)  engaging  in  activities  of  mediation  and 
conciliation; (iv) representing complainants in court; (v) acting as amicus curiae or expert 
where  required;  (vi)  the  possibility  to  engage  in  strategic  litigation;  (vii)  issuing 
Recommendations or, where so authorised under national law, legally binding decisions 
in individual or collective cases; and (viii) gather relevant evidence and information, in 
accordance  with  national  law.  Where  equality  bodies  have  the  legal  capacity  to  take 
binding  decisions,  under  national  law,  the  Member  State  should  also  grant  them  the 
capacity to issue adequate, effective and proportionate sanctions.  

The attribution of the abovementioned powers to  equality bodies varies significantly 
between  Member  States218.  While  all  equality  bodies  but  one  (IE219)  can  receive 
individual complaints, the majority provides legal advice220 for free221 and two-thirds are 
involved in mediation or conciliation activities222, equality bodies from less than half of 
the  Member  States  can  represent  victims223,  intervene  in  support  of  them224  in  court or 
engage in strategic litigation225. In a third of Member States, they can launch collective 
complaints226  or  bring  proceedings  in  front  of  a  court  without  an  identifiable  victim227. 
Half of the Member States228 allow equality bodies to act as amicus curiae.  

Equality  bodies  in  seven229  Member  States  have  the  competence  to  issue  binding 
sanctions; in five230 Member States, they may impose sanctions. In more than two-thirds 
of the Member States, equality bodies can require the production of files, documents and 

218  Please consult Annex 4 for detailed information.  

219  Complaints are received by two other bodies 

220  Except for CZ, NL and one out of two equality bodies in MT.  

221  Except for one out of two equality bodies in MT.  

222  Except  for  CZ,  EE,  IE,  LT, NL  and  PL.  ES  hast  two  equality  bodies  and  only  one  of  them  has  this 

power. HR and PT have three equality bodies and not all of them have this power.  

223  BE, DK, IE, IT, LV, SI, SK, FI, SE. MT and AT have two equality bodies and only one of them has 

this power.    

224  BE,  DK,  IT,  HU,  PL,  SK.  MT,  AT  and  FI  have  two  equality  bodies  and  only  one  of  them  has  this 

power. HR has three equality bodes; two of them have this power.  

225  BE, DK, IE, FR, LV, PL, SI, SK, SE.  AT and FI have two equality bodies and only one of them has 

this power. HR has three equality bodes; one of them have this power. 

226  BE, LV, SI, SK, SE. ES and AT have two equality bodies and only one of them has this power.  HR 

has three equality bodes; one of them have this power. 

227  BE,  DK,  IE,  IT,  LV,  LT,  SI.  MT  and  AT  have  two  equality  bodies  and  only  one  of  them  has  this 

power. 

228  BE, BG, IE, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PT, RO, SK. PL and FI have two equality bodies and only one 

of them has this power.  

229  BG, CY, LT, HU, RO, SI. PT has three equality bodies and not all of them have this power.  

230  BG, CY, HU, LT, RO.  

143 

 
                                                 
other material  for inspection231 and conduct  on-site inspections232. Equality bodies may 
question persons in more than half233 of the Member States. 

the  submission  of  complaints  while 

The  Directives  are  silent  regarding 
the 
Recommendation invited Member States to ensure that this could be done orally, written 
and  online  in  the  language  of  the  complainants  choosing  (that  is  common  the  Member 
State). They should furthermore ensure a simple and free procedure;  also, geographical 
accessibility  and  reasonable  accommodation  and  accessibility  for  persons  with 
disabilities should be provided for.  

The table below shows possible manners to submit a complaint in Member States.  

Online 

On paper 

Orally, in person 

Accessible 
for 
people  with  a 
disability 

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

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

BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, 
EL,  ES,  HR,  IE,  IT, 
CY,  LV,  LT,  LU, HU, 
MT,  AT,  PL,  PT*, 
RO, SI, SK, FI*, SE. 

BE*, CZ, DE, EE, 
IE*,  ES*,  FR,  LT, 
LU, MT*, NL, AT, 
PL,  RO,  SI,  FI, 
SE. 

Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  equality  bodies.  Source:  Online  survey 
conducted by VVA 

In  all  but  three  Member  States234,  equality  bodies  have  taken  measures  to  ensure  that 
their premises are accessible for persons with disabilities. The extent to which the aspect 
of  geographical  accessibility,  which  may  be  especially  important  in  bigger  Member 
States, has been addressed is quite mixed, as illustrated by the table below.  

The equality body has the capacity to have 
local and/or regional presence(s). 

The  equality  body  does  not  have  such 
capacity. 

BE*,  BG,  ES*,  FR,  HR*,  IT*,  CY,  HU, 
MT, AT*, PL, PT*, RO, SI, SK.   

BE*, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES*, IT*, LV, LT, 
LU, NL, AT*, PT*, FI, SE.   

231  BG, DK, EL, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, HU, NL, PL, RO, SI, FI, SE.  MT, AT and PL have two equality 
bodies and only one of them has this power. HR has three equality bodies and not all of them have this 
power.  

232  BG, DK, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, RO, SI, FI, SE.  MT, AT and PL have two equality 
bodies and only one of them has this power. HR has three equality bodies and not all of them have this 
power.  

233  BG, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SE. AT and FI have two equality bodies and 

only one of them has this power.  

234  RO. HR and PT have three equality bodies and this does not apply to all of them.  

144 

 
 
                                                 
Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  equality  bodies.  Source:  Online  survey 
conducted by VVA 

Knowledge of discrimination 

The Directives require equality bodies to conduct surveys and produce reports. The 2018 
Recommendation invites Member States to enable equality bodies to carry out regular 
surveys  to  ensure  gathering  of  adequate  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  to  draw 
evidence-based  conclusions  on  challenges  to  equality  and  how  to  address  them.  They 
should  also  publish  regular 
the  situation  regarding 
discrimination in the Member State. To ensure high quality, equality bodies should also 
be able to conduct their own independent research.  

independent  reports  on 

All  equality  bodies  have  the  possibility  to  conduct  surveys  and  pursue  research 
activities;  the  frequency  however  varies  greatly,  from  monthly235  over  quarterly236,  bi-
annually237,  annually238,  and  biennially239  to  never240.  In  three  quarters  of  Member 
States241, equality bodies collect primary242 and secondary243 data.  

The table below gives an overview of the type of data collected.  

Data  collection  on  narrow 
subjects 
specific 
regarding 
grounds  of  discrimination  in 
specific circumstances 

BE,  BG,  DK,  ES*,  HR,  IT*, 
NL, SK.  

Data  collection  on  own 
activities 

on 
situation 

collection 

Data 
current 
regarding 
equality/general 
collection 

data 

BE,  DK,  EE,  EL,  ES*, 
FR,  HR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  LU, 
MT*,  NL, AT*,  PL,  RO, 
SI, SK, FI*. 

BE,  BG,  DK,  ES,  HR*, 
IT,  MT*,  NL,  PL,  PT, 
RO, SI.  

235  CY, NL.  

236  DE, FR, LV, SK. One out of three equality bodies in HR.  

237  SI. One out of two equality bodies in BE and IT.  

238  CZ, HU, PL. One out of two equality bodies in ES and MT. One out of three equality bodies in PT.  

239  BG, EE, EL, LV, LU, RO, SE. One out of two equality bodies in ES, MT, FI. One out of three in HR, 

PT.  

240  AT. One out of two equality bodies in FI.  

241  BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, ES, FR, HR, CY, NL, PL, PT, SI, SK. IT, MT and FI have two equality bodies 

and only one of them collects (primary) data.  

242  Primary  data  is  a  type  of  data  collected  by  researchers  directly  from  main  sources  through  different 
data collection tools, such as interviews, surveys, experiments, among others. It should be noted that 
data  on the activities of equality bodies are primary data. However, they are not considered equality 
data, as they are data on activities of equality bodies and not on the status of equality. 

243  Secondary data is a type of data collected by researchers through already existing sources. Examples 
of  sources  of  secondary  data  include  censuses,  information  collected  by  government  departments, 
organisational records and data that was originally collected for other research purposes. 

145 

 
 
                                                 
Note: Entries marked with ‘*’ mean that this response was provided by only one of the 
equality  bodies  in  countries  that  have  two  equality  bodies.  Source:  Online  survey 
conducted by VVA. 

Cooperation and coordination 

Only  the  Gender  Equality  Directives  in  employment  and  self-employment  contain 
limited244.  The  2018 
provisions  on  cooperation  and  coordination,  albeit  very 
Recommendation invited Member States in which several equality bodies exist to ensure 
cooperation  between  them.  They  should  also  be  able  to  engage  in  a  dialogue  and 
cooperate effectively  with  national  authorities and other bodies, including consultations 
on  policy  and  legislative  proposals.  Cooperation  with  relevant  bodies  at  European  and 
international level should be ensured as well.  

Equality bodies in all but one245 Member States are enabled to cooperate with European 
and  international  organisations  and  bodies.  All  equality  bodies  cooperate  with  national 
authorities,  although  the  frequency  varies,  but  three  quarters246  are  in  monthly  contact 
with them. Most equality bodies247 also engage in regular exchanges with civil society. In 
those  eight  Member  States248  with  two  or  three  equality  bodies,  some  form  of 
cooperation exists between them, although the concrete framework varies. 

Current state of play/perceptions as regards levels of discrimination 

A Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2019 showed that 59% of Europeans believed that 
discrimination based on ethnic origin was widespread in their country (compared to 64% 
in  2015)249.  For  other  grounds,  such  as  sexual  orientation,  religion,  disability  and  age, 
those number were 53%, 47%, 44% and 40% respectively250. 

In  2020,  still  only  34.4%  of  self-employed  and  start-up  entrepreneurs  in  the  EU  were 
women251.  Women  are  disproportionately  affected  by  work-related  harassment  and 
under-reporting  of  sex-based  work  harassment  remains  a  problem  throughout  the 
Union252.  Even  though  the  gender  pay  gap  further  decreased,  the  EU  average  still  was 

244  The  Directives  require  equality  bodies  to  exchange  information  with  relevant  European  bodies,  like 

EIGE.  

245  LU.  

246  BG, DE, FR, HR, CY, LV, MT, NL, RO, SI, SK FI. One out of two equality bodies in BE, ES, IT, PL.  

247  All but CZ, EE, LU and one out of two in MT, AT, FI.  

248  BE, ES, HR, IT, MT, AT, PT, FI.  

249  Special  Eurobarometer  493  on  Discrimination  in  the  European  Union,  2019,  available  at 

https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2251.  

250  Special  Eurobarometer  493  on  Discrimination  in  the  European  Union,  2019,  available  at 

https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2251.  

251  WEgate,  Women 

and 
https://wegate.eu/womenentrepreneurship-facts-and-figures.  

entrepreneurship: 

facts 

figures, 

2020, 

available 

at 

252  European Commission, ‘2021 report on gender equality in the EU’, Luxembourg, 2021, p. 10.  

146 

 
 
                                                 
13%  in  2020253.  Compared  to  2016,  a  slight  increase  was  recorded  for  the  gender 
employment gap which stood at 11.7% in 2019254. The fact that women are traditionally 
overrepresented in lower paid sectors such as hospitality, retail or personal services also 
made them particularly  vulnerable to the impacts  that the COVID-19 pandemic had on 
the labour market255. 

The  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  (‘OPC’)256  conducted  to  inform  this 
retrospective  analysis  that  have  experienced  discrimination  in  the  past  24  months 
indicated that the most common grounds were gender (53.6%), age (30.4%) and sexual 
orientation  (24.6%),  followed  by  religion  or  belief  (18.8%),  racial  or  ethnic  origin 
(17.4%)  and  disability  (14.5%).  The  most  common  field  was  (self-)employment, 
occupation,  (vocational)  training  (42.5%),  followed  by  social  protection  and  social 
advantages  (13.8%),  healthcare  services  (12.5%),  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and 
services (13.8%) and other (17.5%). 

The  finding  that  (self-)employment,  occupation  and  (vocational)  training  is  a  very 
relevant field is in line with the results of the 2019 Eurobarometer survey. Respondents 
felt  that  discrimination  persisted  in  recruitment  –  as  a  result  of  being  considered  too 
young  or  too  old  (47%),  disability  (41%),  being  Roma  (38%),  ethnic  origin  in  general 
(32%), expressing a religious belief (28%) or because of their sexual orientation (22%). 
About one in five respondents (21%) who had felt discriminated against on one or more 
grounds in  the previous  12 months said  that this had happened at  work  and 13% when 
looking for work257. 

When  it  comes  to  the  reporting  of  incidents,  the  majority  of  38  respondents  to  the 
abovementioned  OPC  (63.2%)  stated  that  they  reported  the  incident  to  family  or 
friend(s),  only  13.6%  to  an  equality  body.  13  respondents  having  reported  an  incident 
formally  were  not  satisfied  with  the  follow-up.  Among  those  who  did  not  report  an 
instance of discrimination, 18.8% were not aware of the existence of the equality body, 
18.8%  replied  that  reporting  would  not  make  a  difference,  15.6%  were  not  sure  of  the 
competence  of  the  equality  body,  15.6%  stated  that  the  administrative  process  was  too 
complex, 9.4% reported it to another instance and 3.1% considered the fees too high. 

253  Eurostat, 

‘Gender  pay  gap 

statistics’,  available  at  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Gender_pay_gap_statistics.  

254  European  Commission, 

available 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/equal-pay/gender-
pay-gap-situation-eu_en.  

‘The  gender  pay  gap 

the  EU’, 

situation 

in 

at 

255  European Commission, ‘2021 report on gender equality in the EU’, Luxembourg, 2021, p. 21.  

256 For a more detailed summary report, please consult https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-

your-say/initiatives/13098-Equality-bodies-binding-standards/public-consultation_en . 

257  Special  Eurobarometer  493  on  Discrimination  in  the  European  Union,  2019,  available  at 

https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2251.  

147 

 
 
 
                                                 
12.  ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS  

12.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

For the purpose of this retrospective analysis, success  is  defined as the extent to  which 
the intervention has achieved its objectives effectively, efficiently and coherently.  

12.1.1. Effectiveness 

The analysis of effectiveness considers the extent to which the EU framework has made 
progress  towards  its  objectives,  as  defined  in  the  intervention  logic  (see  Section  2). 
Overall, the effectiveness of the EU framework has been assessed as rather limited. 
Levels of discrimination have remained high, underreporting is  still a considerable 
problem and the vagueness of the framework provided by the Equality Directives as 
well as the non-binding nature of the Recommendation resulted in equality bodies 
that  are  not  well  enough  equipped  to  make  a  meaningful  contribution  to  the fight 
against and prevention of discrimination.  

The assessment has been informed by the four questions below. 

1.  To  what  extent  have,  the  relevant  provisions  on  equality  bodies  of  the  EU 
framework, been effective when evaluated against their objectives of ensuring the 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  law  on  discrimination  and  increasing 
prevention?  

2.  Which  main  factors  have  contributed  to  or  stood  in  the  way  of  achieving  these 

objectives? 

3.  Can significant differences in effectiveness be identified between Member States? 

If yes, what are they due to? 

to  victims,  surveys, 

4.  To what extent have the tasks entrusted to equality bodies by the EU framework– 
recommendations,  exchange  of 
reports, 
assistance 
information  –  allowed  these  bodies  to  deliver  on  the  objectives  of  ensuring  the 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  law  on  discrimination  and  increasing 
prevention? 

As  a  general  remark,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  attributing  progress  towards  the 
decrease  and  prevention  of  discrimination  directly  to  the  Equality  Directives  and  the 
2018  Recommendation  is  difficult  in  light  of  numerous  external  factors,  such  as  the 
general  political  discourse  and  views  that  are  shaped  by  a  variety  of  factors,  including 
global  economic  and  geopolitical  developments  and  emerging  crises.  Levels  of 
discrimination  cannot  be  examined  isolated  from  those  general  societal  developments 
and  realities,  which  is  a  factor  that  should  be  considered  when  reading  the  following 
analysis and conclusions drawn from it.    

Evidence shows that levels of discrimination remain high in Member States, which 
means that the objective of increasing prevention has not been fulfilled to a satisfactory 

148 

 
extent.  As  a  result,  the  fulfilment  of  the  operational  objectives  better  informed  policy-
making and improved behaviour and awareness of companies and the general public has 
been limited as well.  

Regarding  the  other  general  and  the  operational  objectives,  the  picture  is  a  bit  more 
diversified.  Generally,  the  EU  framework  led  to  more  substantial  changes  in  those 
countries  where  equality  bodies  had  been  non-existent  until  the  transposition  of  the 
EU  Equality  Directives.  As  a  result  of  the  EU  legislative  framework,  equality  bodies 
were either set-up or their mandate was extended in all EU Member States. The concrete 
result of these changes is however very diverse. 

As  shown  in  Section  3,  the  extent  to  which  equality  bodies  provide  assistance  and 
access to redress for victims varies greatly between Member States. This can be seen 
as  a  direct  result  of  the  large  margin  for  manoeuvre  left  to  the  Member  States  by  the 
current provisions and the non-binding nature of the 2018 Recommendation, which was 
only partially implemented, as demonstrated above.  

Furthermore,  in  a  study  conducted  in  2018,  evidence  was  found  that,  even  if  equality 
bodies are attributed certain functions or powers by law, they may not use all of them to 
their full extent258. The main reason identified for this is lack of resources, which seems 
to  be  a  significant  obstacle  to  the  provision  of  assistance  and  access  to  redress  in  a 
significant  number  of  Member  States.  More  precisely,  lack  of  resources  may  result  in 
general  problems,  such  as  not  being  able  to  offer  adequate  assistance  to  all  victims  of 
discrimination,  but  also  more  specific  ones,  such  as  equality  bodies  not  using  their 
litigation functions due to high and often unpredictable costs.  

Countries  that  are  facing  such  problems  are  for  example  Germany  and  Estonia,  where 
there is lack of staff working for equality bodies in general, or Greece and Croatia, where 
there  is  not  enough  staff  or  funding  available  to  allow  for  in-depth  research  and  wider 
scientific output on issues of non-discrimination 259.  

Equality bodies’  independence is another decisive factor impacting  their effectiveness. 
Equality bodies at particular of risk of interference with their independence are those that 
are part of governmental structures; in fact, most equality bodies that reported about such 
incidents were part of such structures. Political pressure may hinder equality bodies from 
exercising  their  duties  effectively.  Other  forms  of  such  pressure  that  have  occurred  in 
some  Member  States260  include  limiting  financial  resources  or  applying  stringent 
conditions for existing funding.  

In most Member States, national provisions have given a mandate to equality bodies that 
goes  beyond  the  strict  requirements  of  the  Directives,  even  before  the  adoption  of  the 

258  Crowley N., ‘Equality Bodies Making a Difference’, European Network of Legal Experts in Gender 

Equality and Non-Discrimination & European Commission, 2018, p. 107. 

259   According to data collected via surveys and interviews in the framework of the study  

260  CZ, DK, LT, NL, PL, RO, SI (according to data collected via surveys and interviews in the framework 

of the study) 

149 

 
                                                 
2018  Recommendation.  Following  its  adoption,  two  Member  States261  reformed  their 
legal framework to align it with its provisions. 

As  demonstrated  in  Section  3,  equality  bodies’  competences  as  regards  litigation 
generally  vary  greatly  between  Member  States.  Especially  cases  in  which  equality 
bodes  have  neither  decision-making  nor  litigation  functions  may  result  in 
insufficient access to redress for victims of discrimination. The table below provides an 
overview about the situation in Member States in this regard.  

Litigation 
powers 

Limited 
litigation 
powers262 

Binding 
decision-
making 
powers 

Imposition 
of sanctions 

Neither 
litigation nor 
decision-making 
powers  

DK, IE, HR, IT, 
LV, PL, SI, SK, 
FI, SE.  

BG, ES, FR, LT, 
HU, MT, NL, 
AT, PT, RO.  

BG, CY, HU, 
LT, PT, RO, 
SI.  

BG, CY, HU, 
LT, RO.  

CZ, DE, EE, EL, 
LU.  

Source: Online survey conducted by VVA. 

The  imposition  of  sanctions  and  an  effective  follow-up  of  recommendations  and 
decisions is also a relevant factor in order to provide effective assistance to victims; the 
study  conducted  to  inform  this  retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that  equality  bodies 
often do not have this power. The respondents to the OPC share this view, only 10.4% 
answered  that  their  national  equality  body  issued  sanctions  that  are  both  adequate  and 
enforced. 

As  already  outlined  in  Section  3,  further  aspects  are  of  relevance  when  it  comes  to 
providing  assistance  and  redress  to  victims.  Lack  of  accessibility  has  also  been 
identified  as  an  obstacle  for  victims  of  discrimination,  especially  for  those  who  live  in 
more  remote  areas  in  countries  where  equality  bodies  do  not  have  regional  or  local 
presence263.  A  related  problem  is  the  lack  of  awareness  of  victims  about  their  own 
rights  and  possibilities  to  get  assistance.  As  outlined  above,  in  EU  MIDIS-II,  when 
given  the  name  of  an  equality  body,  60%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  had  never 
heard of them.  

But it is not just the lack of awareness of (potential) victims, but the lack of awareness 
and factual knowledge about the state of discrimination in general that still seems to 
be  problematic.  The  regularity  and  completeness  of  data  collected  by  equality  bodies 
remains low. While they are empowered to pursue research activities, many of them do it 
only rarely; the same applies to independent surveys. The lack of resources is one of the 
reasons for those shortcomings. Likewise, lack of independence or accountability may 

261  ES, EE. The process has been finished in EE. Spain has adopted its new legislation in July 2022.  

262  For example only as amicus curiae, only in specific circumstances (e.g. actio popularis) or in front of 

specific courts (e.g. constitutional court)  

263  Crowley N., ‘Equality Bodies Making a  Difference’, European Network of Legal Experts in Gender 

Equality and Non-Discrimination & European Commission, 2018, p. 118. 

150 

 
                                                 
hinder equality bodies to conduct of surveys, make recommendations or issue decisions 
related to sensitive matters.  

Lack of cooperation between equality bodies and other relevant national, European 
and international bodies and organisations also hampers increasing factual knowledge 
due to lack of synergies and information sharing. Even though all equality bodies engage 
in  some  kind  of  cooperation  and  information  sharing,  the  concrete  framework  and 
frequency varies greatly. Especially in countries where equality bodies never engage with 
national  authorities264  or  rarely  to  never  (once  a  year  or  less)  with  European  and 
international  authorities265,  the  framework  would  benefit  from  improvements.  Another 
important  source  of  knowledge  and  expertise  for  equality  bodies  is  engaging  in  a 
dialogue with stakeholders to share good practices and mutual knowledge. However, at 
present, not all equality bodies266 engage in this kind of activity.  

To  conclude,  the  study  found  that  the  relevant  provisions  are  not  being  too 
prescriptive,  but  rather  the  opposite.  They  are  too  general  and  narrow  in  scope  to 
provide for the set-up of equality bodies that is needed to enable them to effectively fight 
and prevent discrimination. They should be resourced and enabled appropriately to work 
towards  a  culture  of  compliance  with  the  relevant  EU  Equality  Directives.  This  is 
currently not the case, as the existing provisions do not regulate certain aspects (e.g. the 
internal  functioning  of  equality  bodies)  and  do  not  mention  certain  matters  (e.g. 
independence, resources). Due to the non-binding nature of the 2018 Recommendation, 
those  shortcomings  could  not  be  properly  mitigated  through  its  adoption.  This  limited 
scope and the vagueness of the provisions of the EU framework has a big impact on the 
divergence  between  different  equality  bodies  in  terms  of  areas  such  as  their  mandate, 
powers and structure and subsequently effectiveness.  

To  sum  up,  the  objectives  of  the  original  intervention  have  only  been  partially 
reached.  Although  some  positive  changes  towards  the  envisaged  objectives  could  be 
observed, levels  of discrimination  remained high throughout  the EU Member States, as 
elaborated on in Section 3.  

12.1.2. Efficiency 

The  analysis  of  efficiency  assesses  the  relationship  between  the  resources  used  by  an 
intervention and the changes generated by it. The efficiency of the EU framework has 
been assessed as limited with regard to the set-up of equality bodies that are enabled 
to  fight  and  prevent  discrimination,  mostly  due  to  the  lack  of  adequate  resources. 
Due  to  the  nature  of  the  subject,  costs  and  benefits  could  not  be  conclusively 
evaluated.  

264  EE, CY, NL, PT.  

265  LU (never); NL, one out of two (FI) or three equality bodies (HR) (annually). No data  available for 

CZ, DK, IE, HU, PL, SE.  

266  LU and SI as well as one out of two equality bodies from ES and FI do not. No data available from, 

EL, IE, HU.  

151 

 
                                                 
Efficiency was analysed through the following four questions. 

1.  What have the costs and benefits (monetary but also non-monetary) associated 

with compliance with the EU framework in the Member States been - as regards 
setting up equality bodies and enabling them to support the implementation and 
enforcement of EU law on equality and discrimination and prevent 
discrimination? 

2.  How are the costs and benefits distributed among the different stakeholders at the 
national level? Which compliance costs (adjustment and administrative ones) are 
incurred by citizens/residents and businesses, including SMEs? 

3.  Have the Member States provided sufficient funding (including staffing) for 

equality bodies to deliver on their missions and objectives? 

4.  To what extent can the relevant provisions of the EU framework be identified as 

being too prescriptive or too general taking into account their operational 
implementation? 

Resources of equality bodies 

Equality bodies were set up in all EU Member States, but with very different powers and 
resources.  As  already  outlined  above,  the  lack  of  resources  has  been  identified  as 
negatively  impacting  the  effectiveness  of  equality  bodies;  the  same  is  true  for  their 
efficiency.  

In  2015,  equality  bodies'  annual  operating  budgets  varied  considerably,  from  EUR  87 
000  to  EUR  23.3  million267.  This  variation  has  remained  significant  until  today.  While 
the  median  level  of  budget  is  EUR  0.38  per  capita  in  the  Member  State  (adjusted  per 
comparative price levels268), the average level of budget is EUR 0.60 per capita, and this 
highlights  the  significant  differences  between  the  levels  of  funding  of  national  equality 
bodies in the EU. Funding for national equality bodies varies from EUR 0.01 per capita 
in Austria to a slightly more than 3 EUR per capita in Malta. It is important to note that 
these figures are based on self-reporting by equality bodies, complemented by different 
data  sources  and  stakeholder  reports  which  may  not  be  directly  comparable.  While  the 
figures  must  therefore  be  interpreted  with  caution,  the  difficulties  in  obtaining  reliable 
budget data are illustrative of a need for better information on the activities and funding 
of equality bodies at national level.  

267  Van Ballegooij, W. and Moxom, J., ‘Equality and the Fight against Racism and Xenophobia: Cost of 

Non-Europe Report’, 2018, Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, p. 41. 

268  Comparative price levels are the ratio between Purchasing power parities (PPPs) and market exchange 
rate for each country. PPPs are currency conversion rates that convert economic indicators expressed 
in  national  currencies  to  a  common  currency,  called  Purchasing  Power  Standard  (PPS),  which 
equalises  the  purchasing  power  of  different  national  currencies  and  thus  allows  meaningful 
comparison. Source: Eurostat. 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  8:  Estimated  budget  of  national  equality  bodies  per  capita  (adjusted  to  the 
comparative prove index) 

Source:  Online  survey,  Equinet  Equality  Bodies  country  reports,  Eurostat,  calculations 
by VVA. Notes: (a) Equinet Equality Bodies country reports were used to establish the 
annual budgets for Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, and Poland. For 
the  remaining  Member  States  the  information  was  extracted  from  the  study’s  online 
survey with the exception of Denmark for which no budgetary information was obtained 
and, therefore, the MS is not included in the graph. (b) Eurostat data were used to obtain 
the  number  of  population  per  Member  State  and  the  MS’  comparative  price  index.  (c) 
Calculation  method:  Amount  of  funding  received  divided  by  country’s  population, 
adjusted  by  the  country’s  comparative  price  level.  (d)  Given  different  data  sources  and 
potential differences in the scope of the data reported by stakeholders, these figures must 
be interpreted with caution. 

The number of equality bodies’ employees per Member State also varies significantly, as 
illustrated below. Those differences can partially explained by the fact that some equality 
bodies are multi-mandate and, thus, not all human resources work in the equality area as 
is  the  case  for  e.g.  France.  Besides,  differences  in  population  sizes  between  countries 
should  be  considered;  however,  this  is  not  always  coherent  with  the  number  of 
employees (e.g. Ireland and Sweden have more than Germany or Italy).  

Figure 9: Total number of people employed by equality bodies per Member State 

153 

 
 
250

200

150

100

50

0

7

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

250

190

100 104

72 78

12 16 18 20 20 22 28 33 34 36 38 39 41 48 56 60 60

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

n
a
p
S

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

y
l
a
t
I

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
t
l
a
M

e
c
e
e
r
G

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

e
c
n
a
r
F

Source:  Online  survey  conducted  by  VVA.  Note:  No  information  was  obtained  for  the 
number of staff of equality bodies in Bulgaria, Denmark and Poland. The differences in 
the  number  of  staff  may  reflect  the  different  mandates  of  the  equality  bodies  in  each 
Member State. 

Costs and benefits generated by the EU framework 

As  mentioned  above,  it  was  not  possible  to  conclusively  evaluate  costs  and  benefits, 
mostly because known or potential costs and benefits cannot exclusively be attributed to 
the EU framework or are not quantifiable.  

The main type of costs associated with the set-up and functioning of equality bodies for 
public authorities are (i) initial set-up costs, (ii) recurring costs for staff and equipment, 
and  (iii)  operational  costs  associated  with  the  activities  of  equality  bodies,  such  as 
research,  litigation,  liaison  with  other  authorities  and  businesses,  communication 
activities (such as awareness-raising campaigns) etc.  

The key benefits include (i) decreasing levels of discrimination throughout society, (ii) 
increased  awareness  and  knowledge  on  equality  and  non-discrimination,  (iii)  improved 
quality of equality policies, and (iv) protection from and access to assistance and redress 
for (potential) victims of discrimination.  

However,  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  those  benefits  (and,  as  outlined  above,  it  is  also 
difficult  to  attribute some of them, such as decreasing levels  of discrimination,  directly 
and  exclusively  to  the  EU  legislative  framework).  A  2018  cost  of  non-Europe  report 
issued  by  the  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  (EPRS)  showed  though  that 
reducing levels of discrimination by 5% through EU action could lead to a GDP gain of 
EUR 247 million up to EUR 703 million269. The report also illustrates the considerable 
impacts  that  racial  and  ethnic  discrimination  are  having  on  individuals,  societies  and 
economies.  In  financial  terms,  these  translate  into  lost  earnings  ranging  from  EUR 

269 Van Ballegooij, W. and Moxom, J., ‘Equality and the Fight against Racism and Xenophobia: Cost of 

Non-Europe Report’, 2018, Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, p. 41. 

154 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.8billion  to  EUR  8  billion  annually  for  individuals  and  losses  ranging  from  EUR 
2.4billion to EUR 10.7 billion annually for societies270. 

For  businesses,  compliance  with  non-discrimination  legislation  and  the  promotion  of 
equality may bring benefits such as employee and customer loyalty, as well as positive 
attitudes  towards  these  businesses.  This  in  turn  positively  impacts  factors  such  as 
financial  performance,  sales  or  customer  base.  However,  they  are  also  those  most 
affected by compliance costs, as ensuring that the workplace is free from discrimination 
requires certain resources (in particular, time and money for the introduction of equality 
policies,  training,  education,  etc.).  In  case  of  proceedings  before  court  and/or  national 
equality  bodies,  they  have  to  bear  the  internal  costs  and,  if  found  guilty,  pay 
compensation to victims. This is however justified because the aim of this framework is 
the protection of the fundamental right to non-discrimination.  

For  individuals,  especially  those  at  risk  of  discrimination,  equality  bodies  bring  great 
benefits,  since  they  protect  their  fundamental  rights  and  offer  assistance  in  cases  of 
discrimination.  In  most  cases,  equality  bodies’  assistance  is  free  of  charge,  which 
facilitates access to justice for many victims of discrimination. Furthermore, it increases 
the likelihood of winning a case in court and receiving financial compensation. In many 
cases,  proceedings  before  equality  bodies  also  seem  to  be  considerably  shorter  than 
proceedings before court.  

Figure 10: Average duration of proceedings (in months) 

Source: National reports, online survey and calculations by VVA 

National  authorities  bear  the  cost  of  establishment  and  operation,  but  gain  from 
knowledge base development and policy advice provided, which leads to better informed 
policy making and improved knowledge of discrimination in general.  

270  Van Ballegooij, W. and Moxom, J., ‘Equality and the Fight against Racism and Xenophobia: Cost of 

Non-Europe Report’, 2018, Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, p. 27-28.  

155 

 
 
 
                                                 
Further  costs  and  benefits  could  not  be  measured  as  they  are  not  directly  or 
exclusively attributable to the EU framework.  

12.1.3. Coherence 

The analysis of coherence focuses on how well the EU framework works together with 
other EU, international and national instruments. The coherence of the EU framework 
has been assessed as overall positive at all levels271.   

The assessment has been informed by the four questions below.  

1.  To what extent is the EU framework coherent with the objectives of the Treaties, 
including the Charter of  Fundamental  Rights of the  European Union,  as  regards 
the achievement of the overall objectives? 

2.  To what extent is the EU framework coherent with national law?  

3.  To  what  extent  is  the  EU  framework  coherent  with  the  Paris  Principles  and 

General Observations applied to National Human Rights Institutions? 

4.  To  what  extent  is  the  EU  framework  coherent  with  the  European  Commission 

against Racism and Intolerance Recommendation N°2? 

Equality  and  non-discrimination  are  among  the  foundational  values  as  well  as 
objectives  of  the  EU.  Art.  2  TEU  states  that  the  EU  is  founded,  among  others,  on  the 
respect for human dignity and equality, and that the values common to all Member States 
include non-discrimination, tolerance and equality between women and men. One of the 
objectives of the establishment of the Union is to promote its values. The establishment 
of  the  internal  market  is  flanked  by  the  objective  to  combat  discrimination  and  to 
promote equality between women and men (Art. 3 (3) TEU). 

Art.  8  TFEU  states  that  the  EU  shall  aim  to  eliminate  inequalities  and  to  promote 
equality, including between women and men, in all its activities. Art. 10 prescribes that, 
in  defining  and  implementing  its  policies  and  activities,  the  EU  shall  combat 
discrimination  based  on  sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  age  or  sexual 
orientation. 

As  already  outlined  above,  Article  19(1)  TFEU  provides  for  the  possibility  to  adopt 
secondary  legislation  to  combat  discrimination  based  on  sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin, 
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Article 157 (3) TFEU provides for 
the possibility to adopt legal measures to ensure equal pay for men and women.  

The  four  Directives  that  contain  provisions  on  equality  bodies  are  based  on  those 
Articles. However, those are not the only EU Equality Directives that contain provisions 
on  equality  bodies,  as  already  outlined  above.  The  fact  that  the  Gender  Equality 
Directive in Social Security and the Employment Equality Directive do not contain 

271  The  survey  conducted  by  VVA  to  assess  coherence  with  national  law  was  however  not  fully 

conclusive in all cases. 

156 

 
                                                 
provisions on equality bodies, although they pursue very similar objectives results is 
an incoherence at EU level. The Directive on Pay Transparency272 recently proposed in 
the field of EU equality law, does contain provisions on equality bodies. The same is true 
for  the  proposal  for  the  Equal  Treatment  Directive273,  which  is  being  negotiated  since 
2008.  Finally,  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  combatting  violence  against  women  and 
domestic violence also contain provisions envisaging a role for equality bodies (274) 

The  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  EU,  which  applies  when  Member  States 
implement  EU law, contains  provisions on equality under Title  III  (Articles 20-26). Of 
particular relevance is Article 21 Charter that prohibits any discrimination based on 
any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, 
religion,  or  belief,  political  or  any  other  opinion,  membership  of  a  national  minority, 
property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation. This is a wide-reaching prohibition 
(i.e., ‘any discrimination’ based on ‘any ground’) that goes beyond the grounds addressed 
by  the  existing  Directives.  However,  since  this  difference  is  due  to  the  scope  for  the 
adoption of secondary legislation in the area of equality provided for by the Treaties, this 
cannot be regarded as an incoherence.  

In relation to national legislation, no significant incoherence with the objectives of the 
EU framework were discovered.  

One  instrument  at  international  level  in  a  related  field  are  the  Paris  Principles  and 
General  Observations275  of  the  United  Nations.  They  address  national  human  rights 
institutions (‘NHRIs’). Many national equality bodies276 have several mandates, such as 
an  equality  and  a  human  rights  mandate,  which  is  why  the  Paris  Principles  may  be  of 
indirect  relevance  for  some  equality  bodies  as  well.  The  requirements  set  out  by  the 
Paris Principles for NHRIs are more detailed than the provisions in the four Equality 
Directives  that  currently  refer  to  equality  bodies.  This  does  however  not  imply 
incoherence,  since  this  is  also  due  to  the  different  nature  and  context  of  those 
instruments. On substance, they do not contradict each other.  

Another relevant instrument at international level is the European Commission against 
Racism and Intolerance (‘ECRI’) Recommendation N°2. This instrument is addressed 
to national equality bodies competent for discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin. 
Similarly  to  the  Paris  Principles,  this  instrument  is  more  detailed  due  to  its  different 
nature, which does however not imply incoherence. On substance, the provisions in the 

272  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to strengthen the application of 
the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay 
transparency and enforcement mechanisms, COM(2021) 93 final.  

273  Proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  on  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons 

irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM(2008) 426 final.  

274  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against 

women and domestic violence, COM/2022/105 final. 

275  The  General  Observations  are  a  tool  to  help  clarifying  and  interpreting  the  scope  and  content  of  the 

Paris Principles; they are regularly updated to reflect current developments and established practices.  

276  BG, CZ, IE, CY, LV, HU, NL, PL, SK, SE. One out of two in BE; one out of three in HR.   

157 

 
                                                 
four Equality Directives that refer to equality bodies do not contradict Recommendation 
N°2 either.  

12.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

The  analysis  of  EU  added  value  looks  at  changes  triggered  by  the  EU  framework  over 
and  above  what  could  reasonably  been  expected  from  stakeholders  alone  or  from  no 
action at all. The retrospective analysis highlights the positive EU added value of the 
framework.  

The retrospective analysis looked at the following four questions.  

1.  What has been the EU added value of the EU framework on Equality Bodies as 
regards the aims of supporting the implementation and enforcement of EU law on 
inequalities and discrimination and increasing prevention?  

2.  What would the situation have been in the Member States if there had been no EU 
framework  (compared  to  what  could  have  been  achieved  by  the  Member  States 
alone  at  national  and/or  regional  levels,  as  well  as  through  international 
agreements and cooperation)? 

3.  Do  the  aims  of  supporting  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  law  on 
equality  and  non-discrimination  and  increasing  prevention  continue  to  require 
action at EU level? 

4.  What would have been the added value of extending the mandate of the Equality 
Bodies to  the  grounds and fields  of the  Employment Equality  Directive  and the 
Gender Equality Directive in the field of social security? 

This retrospective analysis found that EU action is necessary and has provided added 
value to national frameworks for equality bodies and non-discrimination in general.  

As outlined above, only about half of the Member States at the time (EU-15) had an 
equality  body  at  the  time  of  adoption  of  the first  Directive  containing  provisions  of 
equality bodies. Those equality bodies were competent either for discrimination based on 
gender or racial or ethnic origin277. Due to the EU intervention, equality bodies were 
set  up  in  all  Member  States  and  their  mandate  was  gradually  extended  beyond  their 
initial limited scope. Interviews with stakeholders confirmed that this would not have 
happened without the EU taking action. Stakeholders also highlighted the added value 
of a common catalogue of tasks and competences for equality bodies that was provided 
by the EU framework, even though they also mentioned it could have been more concrete 
and  better  elaborated.  According  to  them,  this  has  nevertheless  helped  to  increase 
awareness and visibility of matters related to equality and non-discrimination.  

277  With  the  exception  of  Sweden  were  equality  bodies  already  had  a  broader  mandate  also  covering 

disability and sexual orientation.  

158 

 
                                                 
There is also evidence that those legislative developments at European level increased 
the public awareness about equality law and inspired national legislators to further 
implement changes to national legislation that support reaching the objectives of the EU 
intervention278279.   

The consistently high levels of discrimination throughout the EU show that the EU 
intervention  in  the  field  of  equality  and  non-discrimination  still  provides  added 
value  also  today.  As  it  has  been  demonstrated  above,  leaving  too  much  leeway  for 
Member  States  in  this  field  seems  to  result  in  not  fulfilling  the  objectives  of  the 
intervention  to  a  satisfactory  level.  This  is  however  crucial in  order to  protect  citizens’ 
and residents’ fundamental rights in line with the founding values and objectives of the 
Treaties.  

12.3.  Is the intervention still relevant? 

The  analysis  of  relevance  looks  at  whether  the  EU  framework’s  objectives  set  in  2000 
were appropriate to the needs at the time and whether they continue to be relevant today. 
Relevance of the EU framework has been assessed as positive overall.  

The analysis has been informed by the five questions below.  

1.  How relevant is today the EU framework with regard to the original objectives of 
supporting the implementation and enforcement of EU law on equality and  non-
discrimination and increasing prevention? 

2.  Is the scope of the EU framework’s provisions sufficient? 

3.  To  what  extent  are  the  original  objectives  still  relevant  today  with  regard  to 

societal needs? 

4.  What  are  citizens’  expectations  for  the  role  of  equality  bodies  in  their  Member 

State? 

5.  What  are  other  actors’  expectations  (e.g.  Member  State  authorities,  non-

governmental organisations etc.) for the role of equality bodies? 

The  retrospective  analysis  finds  that  the  original  objectives  set  in  2000  were 
appropriate  in  view  of  the  needs  to  take  action  to  fight  against  and  prevent 
discrimination at the time. Overall, taking into account the baseline situation described 

278  De Witte, B., ‘New Institutions for Promoting Equality in Europe: Legal Transfers, National Bricolage 
and European Governance’, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 60(1), 2012, pp. 60-61. 

279  In Finland, the EU Equality Directives gave impetus to extend the mandate of their equality body to 
prohibit  all  grounds  for  discrimination  addressed  by  the  national  constitution.  In  Ireland,  the  EU 
legislation  was  inspirational  for  the  thinking  on  equality  in  employment  because  the  national 
constitution  was  weaker on this point.  In Poland, the  existing  human rights institution experienced a 
partial  reorientation  of  its  priorities  (and  subsequent  changes  in  the  internal  structure)  to  bring  the 
equality  issues  to  the  limelight.  Besides,  stakeholders  from  many  countries  underscored  that  the  EU 
equality framework strengthened the anti-discrimination and equality discourse (e.g., led to a strategy 
on equality) and enriched national equality law or accelerated its development. 

159 

 
                                                 
above,  the  objectives  of  taking  action  to  implement  and  enforce  EU  law  in  order  to 
combat  unequal  treatment  and  discrimination  and  to  increase  prevention  have  been 
confirmed as relevant.  The same is  true for the  operational  objectives  (i)  to  ensure that 
victims are aware of their rights and report discrimination, (ii) to provide assistance and 
redress to victims, (iii) improved factual knowledge about the state of discrimination, (iv) 
better informed policy-making, and (v) improved behaviour and awareness of companies 
and of the general public.  

This view was shared by many stakeholders280 during interviews conducted to inform 
this study. Some281 however also underlined that the provisions in the Directives are too 
vague  and  narrow.  Due  to  this,  others282  stated  that,  from  today’s  perspective,  it  is 
outdated and not properly fit to fulfil the objectives of the intervention adequately. Some 
stakeholders  also  stressed  that  some  aspects  that  were  missing  in  particular.  Equality 
bodies’  independence  was  mentioned  very  prominently283,  some284  also  referred  to 
litigation  powers  and  quasi-judicial  roles.  More  generally,  many285  stakeholders 
expressed  support  for  turning  the  common  standards  introduced  by  the  2018 
Recommendation into a binding legal instrument. This need is underlined by the levels of 
discrimination in society that have remained consistently high until today.  

The  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  to  the  OPC  (97.2%)  consider  that 
establishing  strong  and  effective  equality  bodies  is  important.  81.3%  consider  that 
adopting  new  binding  minimum  standards  for  equality  bodies  would  have  a  positive 
impact  for  them.  More  than  79%  of  respondents  consider  that  such  additional  rules 
should cover the following areas: (i) coverage of all grounds and fields of discrimination 
foreseen  in  EU  law:  gender,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age, 
sexual orientation and employment, education, social protection, goods and services; (ii) 
additional missions to ensure the promotion of equality and prevention of discrimination; 
(iii)  litigation  powers  for  equality  bodies  on  behalf  or  in  support  of  victims  of 
discrimination  in  court;  (iv)  powers  to  issue  adequate  sanctions  and  enforce  them;  (v) 
general  independence;  (vi)  sufficient  resources;  (vii)  awareness  of  the  existence  of  the 
equality  body  in  the  general  population  and  awareness  of  the  existence  of  the  equality 
body  by  the  groups  at  risks  of  discrimination;  (viii)  easy  complaint  submission;  (ix) 
coordination  and  cooperation  with  national  public  authorities  national  stakeholders, 
international/EU bodies; and (x) monitoring of the functioning of equality bodies across 
the EU.  

Equality bodies shared those views. In interviews conducted by VVA, they expressed 
particular support for extending their mandate, detailing their competences and setting up 

280  CZ, DE, EE, IE, EL, HR, CY, LV, LT, NL.  

281  DK, FR, IE, HU, AT, SE.  

282  BG, CZ, DK, IE, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SI, SE.  

283  BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, HR, IT, MT, AT, PL, SK, SE.  

284  BG, CZ, EE, FR, AT, PL.  

285  BE, DE, EE, IE, FR, HR, MT, AT, PL, RO, SI, SE.  

160 

 
                                                 
common binding standards in general. They also particularly underlined the importance 
of sufficient resources and independence for the exercise of their tasks. Civil society and 
Member  States  shared  those  views  as  well.  The  latter  however  also  underlined  the 
importance  of  preserving  their  procedural  autonomy  and  respecting  different  legal 
traditions.  

Overall,  this  retrospective  analysis  finds  that,  even  though  the  initial  intervention 
was  and  remains  relevant,  the  initial  framework  provided  for  equality  bodies  was 
not  very  ambitious  and  could  have  been  stronger  and  more  specific.  The  2018 
Recommendation did not mitigate this situation satisfactorily due to its non-binding 
nature.  

161 

 
 
 
13.  CONCLUSIONS 

The findings of this retrospective analysis are summarised in the table below.  

Overall assessment  Detailed assessment 

Evaluation 
criterion 
EFFECTIVENESS  Limited regarding 

fight against and 
prevention of 
discrimination 

EFFICIENCY 

Limited/Inconclusive 

COHERENCE  

Overall positive at 
all levels287 

EU ADDED 
VALUE 

Positive with 
limitations 

Progress in countries where equality 
bodies did not yet exist. 
Some Member States have established 
well-functioning equality bodies 
Ongoing high levels of discrimination286 
Victims remain mostly unaware about 
their rights. 
Underreporting remains a considerable 
problem. 
Current EU framework is too general and 
narrow in scope to establish effective 
equality bodies. 
The overall capacity of the EU framework 
to contribute to setting up equality bodies 
that are fully enabled to fight and prevent 
discrimination has been assessed as 
limited: 
-public awareness about and knowledge of 
discrimination remains limited. 
-many equality bodies are not properly 
equipped to assist victims effectively. 
Many equality bodies are not properly 
resourced. 
Inconclusive on costs and benefits due to 
lack of available data. 
Coherence with the Treaties and the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU 
is high. 
EU Directives and international 
instruments288 are consistent with each 
other, the latter only being more detailed 
due to their different nature. 
EU framework – when adopted - led to the 
set-up of equality bodies in about half of 

286  The  root  causes  of  discrimination  are  many  and  complex,  including  persisting  stereotypes.  Political 
and socio-economic factors may also come  into play. The limited effectiveness of equality bodies is 
only one contributing factor to the persisting high level of discrimination, among others.  

287  The  survey  conducted  by  VVA  to  assess  coherence  with  national  law  was  however  not  fully 

conclusive in all cases.  

288  Such  as  the  General  Policy  Recommendation  N°2  on  equality  bodies  adopted  by  the  European 
Commission  against  Racism  and 
(https://rm.coe.int/ecri-general-policy-
/16808b5a23) and the Paris Principles adopted by the United Nations and applicable to national human 
rights institution (https://ganhri.org/paris-principles/ ) 

Intolerance 

(ECRI) 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
RELEVANCE 

Positive with 
limitations 

the then EU-15 Member States which did 
not yet have such bodies in place. 
EU intervention provides added value, but 
would need to be more detailed and 
concrete. 
EU framework`s original objectives still 
meet current needs. 
Original legal framework for equality 
bodies was too narrow and vague. 

Assessment categories: 
unsorted 

very positive 

 positive       limited       negative       

Effectiveness of the EU framework has been assessed as limited regarding progress 
towards the fight against and prevention of discrimination.  Some progress has been 
made,  especially  in  countries  were  equality  bodies  did  not  exist  before  the  EU 
intervention;  however,  the  desired  effects  were  not  fully  achieved.  This  retrospective 
analysis has shown that levels of discrimination remained high, while victims’ awareness 
about their rights remained low. Underreporting is still a considerable problem and public 
awareness about and knowledge of discrimination remains limited. 

This  analysis  has  also  shown  that  the  current  EU  Framework  provided  for  by  the 
Directives  is  too  general  and  narrow  in  scope  to  provide  for  the  set-up  of  effective 
equality  bodies.  Many  equality  bodies  are  not  properly  equipped  to  assist  victims 
effectively.  This  situation  has  not  been  mitigated  by  the  more  detailed  2018 
Recommendation due to its non-binding nature. 

Efficiency  has  been  assessed  as  limited  and  inconclusive  on  costs  and  benefits, 
mainly  due  to  limited  data  availability.  This  retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that 
equality bodies’ resources are a considerable problem in this context, as they vary greatly 
between Member States and, for a majority of equality bodies, are insufficient to fulfil all 
their tasks.  

Coherence  has  been  assessed  as  overall  positive  at  all  levels289.  This  retrospective 
analysis has shown that  coherence with  the Treaties and the Charter  is  high, as  the EU 
framework  intends  to  enhance  equality  and  non-discrimination,  which  are  amongst  the 
founding values of the EU. Non-discrimination is also a fundamental right protected by 
the  Charter.  While  international  instruments,  such  as  the  Paris  Principles  and  ECRI 
Recommendation  N°2,  are  more  detailed  due  to  their  different  legal  nature,  there  is  no 
inconsistence between them and the existing EU Directives on substance.  

EU added value has been assessed as positive.  This  retrospective analysis has shown 
that  before  the  EU  Framework,  only  about  half  of  the  EU-15  Member  States  had  an 
equality body with limited mandate and stakeholders confirmed that they would not have 
been  set  up  in  all  Member  States  without  the  EU  taking  action.  The  consistently  high 
levels of discrimination throughout the Member States show that the EU intervention still 

289  The  survey  conducted  by  VVA  to  assess  coherence  with  national  law  was  however  not  fully 

conclusive in all cases. 

163 

 
  
                                                 
provides  added  value  today,  however,  it  would  benefit  from  being  more  detailed  and 
concrete.  

Relevance  of  the  EU  framework’s  original  objectives  in  view  of  the  original  and 
current  needs  has  been  assessed  as  positive.  However,  the  original  inputs  (legal 
framework for equality bodies) have been considered as too narrow and vague. This 
view  is  generally  shared  by  all  stakeholders;  this  retrospective  analysis  has  shown  that 
there is broad support for taking further action to tackle the issues identified above290.  

Taking  into  account  all  of  the  above,  the  following  lessons  learned  could  be 
identified.  

EU legal framework  

Due  to  the  vagueness  of  the  current  provisions,  a  number  of  problems  that  equality 
bodies may face in Member States surfaced.  Even though the 2018 Recommendation 
has addresses these issues, they were not sufficiently mitigated; therefore, one may 
consider a binding legal instrument to tackle them.  

Resources and independence 

Lack  of  resources  is  a  recurrent  problem  that  may  hamper  the  functioning  of 
equality  bodies  significantly.  Similarly,  independence  is  key  for  equality  bodies  to 
exercise their tasks and missions effectively.  

Assistance to victims 

The assistance provided to victims and the powers granted to equality bodies to this 
end vary greatly between Member States. To ensure a minimum level of protection of 
the  fundamental  right  of  non-discrimination,  one  might  consider  introducing  some 
more precise common rules in this area. Litigation and/or decision-making powers may 
be  powers  of  particular  interest  for  such  considerations.  In  order  to  be  able  to  provide 
assistance  to  all  victims  of  discrimination,  it  is  also  important  to  ensure  that  equality 
bodies are accessible to all people without barriers.  

The  Employment  Equality  Directive  and  Gender  Equality  Directive  in  the  field  of 
social  security  currently  do  not  contain  provisions  on  equality  bodies.  Despite  most 
Member  States  covering  these  grounds  in  practice,  this  is  not  the  case  in  all  Member 
States  and  levels  of  discrimination  on  the  grounds  in  fields  covered  by  those 
Directives remain high in Member States.  

Knowledge of discrimination 

The regularity by which equality bodies conduct independent research, surveys and 
publish  reports  varies  greatly.  The  same  is  true  for  the  collection  of  primary  and 
secondary  data  on  equality.  Given  the  fact  that  awareness  about  and  knowledge  of 

290 

164 

 
                                                 
 
discrimination still seems to be insufficient, one might consider introducing clearer rules 
in this area as well.  

Cooperation and coordination 

The  extent  to  which  equality  bodies  cooperate  with  each  other,  and  with  national, 
European and international authorities or bodies as well as  civil society varies between 
Member  States.  Such  information  exchanges  would  however  be  beneficial  to  share 
knowledge and create synergies.  

165 

 
 
 
ANNEX A: RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS MATRIX AND QUESTIONS 

Reproduced from the research by VVA 

166 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Data collection / analysis 
method 

EFFECTIVENESS 

1. To what extent have, 
the relevant provisions on 
equality bodies of the EU 
Framework, been 
effective when evaluated 
against their objectives of 
ensuring the 
implementation and 
enforcement of EU law on 
discrimination and 
increasing prevention? 

To what extent the 
objectives set out in the EU 
Legislative Framework 
have been achieved 
(support to victims of 
discrimination, 
examination of the status of 
discrimination in their 
territory, awareness of 
EBS, monitoring of 
implementation of equality 
legislation?  

What have been the 
changes in discrimination 
patterns as a result of the 
EU Legislative Framework 
on EBS? 

What have been the 
(quantitative and 
qualitative) effects of the 
EU Legislative Framework 

To fulfil their objectives 
EBs should have the 
mandate and powers 
provided for by the EU 
framework, they should be 
independent, and have 
adequate resources 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of how the national 
provisions implementing 
the Equality Directives 
have contributed to the 
achievement of the 
objectives 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Email/online survey 
questionnaire 

EBs should have the power 
to: provide assistance to 
victims, collect data on 
discrimination in their 
territory, and engage with 
stakeholders. 

Promotion of equal 
treatment: 

Number of awareness 
raising events 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including legal review 
and interviews with 
stakeholders) 

Number of training events 

PC 

Promotion of equal 
treatment: 

Quantity of awareness 
raising events  

Analysis of equal 
treatment issues: 

Number of data collection 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
on EBS implemented in 
Member States? 

To what extent can these 
changes be credited to the 
EU Legislative Framework 
on EBS? 

To what extent do the 
effects correspond to the 
objectives? 

What other factors have 
influenced the 
achievements observed? 

To what extent did the EU 
Legislative Framework on 
EBS contribute to the 
exchange of information 
with corresponding 
European bodies (this 
question applies to the 
Gender Equality Directive 

Quantity of training events 
conducted 

Analysis of equal 
treatment issues: 

Quantity of research output 
on equality 

Monitoring of the 
implementation of equal 
treatment: 

Majority of 
recommendations of EBs 
taken on board by the 
authorities or by private 
organisations 

Majority of decisions of 
equality bodies taken on 
board by national 
authorities or private 
organisations 

168 

outputs: on 
activities/complaints 

Number of surveys 
conducted 

Number of research 
activities conducted other 
than surveys 

Number of reports 
produced beyond the 
annual reports 

Monitoring of the 
implementation of equal 
treatment: 

Share of recommendations 
of EB taken on board by 
the authorities or by private 
organisations 

Share of decisions of 
equality bodies taken on 
board by national 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in the field of employment 
(2006/54/EC) and  

Support for victims of 
discrimination 

authorities or private 
organisations 

the Gender Equality 
Directive in the field of 
self-employment 
(2010/41/EU)? 

Majority of victims seeking 
legal support and received 
it  

Support for victims of 
discrimination 

Share of victims who asked 
for advice that received it 

Majority of complaints 
made to equality bodies 
have been investigated  

Majority of complaints 
reviewed by EBs were 
taken to court  

Majority of cases taken to 
court by EBs were decided 
for the victim  

2. Which main factors 
have contributed to or 
stood in the way of 
achieving these 
objectives? 

Have specific actions by 
the stakeholders 
contributed to the 
achievement of the 
objectives? 

Extent to which the 
implementation by 
Member States of the 
Equality Framework on 
EQUALITY BOD has 

169 

Share of complaints made 
the EB that have been 
investigated 

Share of complaints 
reviewed by EBs that were 
taken to court  

Share of cases taken to 
court by EBs that were 
decided for the victim 

Adoption of legislation for 
the transposition of the EU 
Equality Directives on 
EBS. 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

National mapping in 27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Have specific actions or 
lack of action by the 
stakeholders impeded the 
achievement of the 
objectives? 

Have other factors (e.g., 
lack of resources or lack of 
awareness) contributed to 
the non-achievement of the 
objectives? 

Has the quality of 
implementation by the 
Member States contributed 
to the fulfilment of the 
objectives? 

What are the main trends 
on effectiveness across 
Member States?  

In which Member States 
has the EU Legislative 

3. Can significant 
differences in 
effectiveness be identified 
between Member States? 
If yes, what are they due 
to? 

MS (including legal review 
and interviews with 
stakeholders) 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
on challenges regarding the 
implementation of the EU 
Legislative Framework 

contributed to the 
achievement of the 
objectives 

Extent to which 
stakeholders’ actions have 
contributed to the 
achievement of the 
objectives 

Extent to which the EU 
Legislative Framework on 
EBs has been effective in 
achieving the objectives  

Similarities and 
discrepancies among 
Member States on the way 
they ensure an effective 
achievement of objectives 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Comparative analysis as 
part of the retrospective 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
analysis 

Framework on EBS been 
more effective in achieving 
the objectives? 

In which Member States 
has the EU Legislative 
Framework on EBS been 
less effective in achieving 
the objectives? 

What are the main reasons 
behind the differences in 
effectiveness?  

4. To what extent have the 
tasks entrusted to 
equality bodies by the EU 
Framework– assistance to 
victims, surveys, reports, 
recommendations, 
exchange of information 
– allowed these bodies to 
deliver on the objectives 
of ensuring the 
implementation and 
enforcement of EU law on 

Are the fields/grounds of 
these two Directives 
covered by national law? 
How are they covered? By 
which provisions?  

The extent to which 
coverage of the 
grounds/fields of these two 
Directives are covered by 
national law 

What would be the 
additional benefit of 
introducing provisions on 
EBs under the two 
Directives? 

Types of activities 
performed by EB 

171 

Stakeholder’s perceptions 
of likely benefits or costs 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Number of Member States 
covering the grounds/fields 
of the two Directives 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including legal review 
and interviews with 
stakeholders)  

Promotion of equal 
treatment within the 
scope of these two 

Email/online survey 
questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
discrimination and 
increasing prevention? 

Do EB perform the 
following activities: 
assistance to victims, 
surveys, reports, 
recommendation, exchange 
of Information?  

To which degree these 
activities have contributed 
to the achievement of the 
objectives? 

Types of provisions of 
national law covering the 
grounds/fields of these two 
Directives 

instruments: 

Number of awareness 
raising events 

Promotion of equal 
treatment: 

Number of training events 

Share of the budget 
allocated to prevention and 
promotion activities of EBs 

Quantity of awareness 
raising events within the 
scope of these two 
instruments 

Analysis of equal 
treatment issues within 
the scope of these two 
instruments: 

Quantity of training events 
conducted within the scope 
of these two instruments 

Analysis of equal 
treatment issues: 

Quantity of research output 
within the scope of these 
two instruments 

Number of data collection 
outputs: on 
activities/complaints, 

on current situation 
regarding equality/general 
data collection/  

on specific grounds of 
discrimination in specific 
circumstances, for example 
conditions of 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
institutionalisation of 
persons with disabilities 

Number of surveys 
conducted 

Number of research 
activities other than 
surveys 

Number of reports 
produced 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of how each activity 
contributed to the 
achievement of objectives 

Examples of national 
practices showing how 
activities contributed to the 
achievement of objectives 

EFFICIENCY 

5. What have the costs 
and benefits (monetary 

What are the costs 
(monetary and non-

Costs and benefits 
associated with the 

Direct Costs: 

Desk research, literature, 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
but also non-monetary) 
associated with 
compliance with this 
legislative EU framework 
in the Member States 
been - as regards setting 
up equality bodies and 
enabling them to support 
the implementation and 
enforcement of EU law on 
equality and 
discrimination and 
prevent discrimination? 

monetary, including 
number of staff and time 
spent) associated with the 
establishment of EBS? 

compliance of the EU 
Legislative Framework  

What are the benefits 
associated with the 
compliance of the EU 
Legislative Framework? 

Costs of the establishment, 
functioning and output of 
EBs compared to the 
benefits produced by the 
activities of EBs 

Direct costs: 

Costs of the establishment 
of EBs (adjustment costs) 

Costs of the functioning of 
the EBs (annual 
budget/administrative 
costs) 

Costs of the activities of 
EBs (enforcement costs) 

Costs related to regulatory 
charges (fee for submitting 
complaints) 

174 

and data review 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including interviews 
with stakeholders) 

See Table 4 general 
indicators under Resources 

In addition: 

Costs of establishing EBs 

Fees for submitting a 
complaint to EBs 

Costs borne by EBs for 
provision of advice to 
victims 

Costs borne by EBs for 
representing victims in 
court 

Indirect costs: 

Charges by the EB to 
victims for provision of 
advice 

Charges by the EB to 
victims for representing 
them in court 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indirect costs: 

Costs borne by victims for 
receiving advice by EBs 

Direct benefits: 

Share of victims who asked 
for advice that received it 

Costs borne by victims for 
their representation by EBs 
in court 

Share of complaints made 
the EB that have been 
investigated 

Direct benefits: 

Quantity of outputs of 
equality bodies compared 
to their costs 

Share of complaints 
reviewed by EBs that were 
taken to court  

Share of cases taken to 
court by EBs that were 
decided for the victim 

Yearly Number of:  

  advice to victims 
  assistance to 
victims 

  engagements in 
litigation;  
  surveys and 

Non-monetary benefits due 
to the subject matter of the 
study 
(equality/fundamental 
rights).  

Majority of 
recommendations of EBS 
taken on board by the 
authorities or by private 
organisations 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Majority of decisions of 
equality bodies taken on 
board by national 
authorities or private 
organisations 

Majority victims seeking 
legal support received it  

Majority complaints made 
to equality bodies have 
been investigated  

Majority complaints 
reviewed by EBs were 
taken to court  

 

 

research conducted; 
reports published 
reports apart from 
their annual report;  
recommendations 
issued; 

  prevention and 
promotion 
activities; 

  activities engaging 
in meaningful 
cooperation and 
coordination at 
different levels 
(local and regional); 

  activities engaging 
in meaningful 
cooperation and 
coordination with 
civil society 
organisations. 

Majority cases taken to 
court by EBs were decided 
for the victim 

Average cost of: 

  advice to victims 
  assistance to 
victims 

  engagements in 

Indirect benefits: 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Increased access to justice 
through the quasi-judicial 
role of EBs (Court fees and 
litigation costs (baseline) 
compared to EBs fees for 
deciding on a complaint 
and associated litigation 
costs) 

 

litigation;  
  surveys and 
research 
conducted; 
reports 
published 
reports apart 
from their 
annual report;  
recommendatio
ns issued; 
  prevention and 
promotion 
activities; 
local and 
regional 
representatives; 

 

 

  activities 

engaging in 
meaningful 
cooperation and 
coordination at 
different levels 
(local and 
regional); 
  activities 

engaging in 
meaningful 

177 

 
 
cooperation and 
coordination 
with civil 
society 
organisations; 

Share of recommendations 
of EBS taken on board by 
the authorities or by private 
organisations 

Share of decisions of 
equality bodies taken on 
board by national 
authorities or private 
organisations 

Share of victims who asked 
for advice and received it 

Share of complaints made 
the EB that have been 
investigated 

Share of complaints 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
reviewed by EBs that were 
taken to court  

Share of cases taken to 
court by EBs that were 
decided for the victim 

Indirect benefits: 
Court fees related to 
discrimination cases 
Average litigation costs 
related to discrimination 
cases 
Duration of a case decided 
by EBs 
Duration of a case decided 
by court (first instance) on 
discrimination 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of benefits associated with 
the compliance of the EU 
Legislative Framework on 
EBS 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
Costs/benefits differences 
across Member States 

Differences between 
Member States regarding 
the mandate, powers, 
stakeholders’ engagement, 
accessibility for victims, 
data collection 

6. Can significant cost or 
benefit differences be 
identified between the 
Member States as regards 
the achievement of the 
above aims? If so, what 
causes them?  

To what extent does the 
number of equality bodies 
at national level have an 
impact? 

Are costs and benefits 
associated with the 
compliance of the EU 
Legislative Framework on 
EBS different across 
Member States?  

What are the factors behind 
these differences?  

How many EBS exist in 
each Member States? Does 
the number of EBS affect 
the costs/benefits of 
compliance with the EU 
Legislative Framework on 
EBS? 

180 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Comparative analysis as 
part of the retrospective 
analysis 

Stakeholder interviews 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of proportion between costs 
and benefits 

Level of discrepancies/ 
differences in the 
costs/benefits across the 
Member States  

Differences among 
Member States relating to 
Table 4 indicators on 
mandate, powers, 
stakeholders’ engagement, 
accessibility for victims, 
data collection 

Differences among 
Member States regarding 
costs as analysed in 
question 6. 

Perception of stakeholders 
of the main cost drivers and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of the reasons for 
discrepancies   

Number of EBS per 
Member State 

Perception of stakeholders 
on costs/benefits vis-à-vis 
number of EBS  

7. How are the costs and 
benefits distributed 
among the different 
stakeholders at the 
national level? Which 
compliance costs 
(adjustment and 
administrative ones) are 
incurred by 
citizens/residents and 
businesses, including 
SMEs? 

Are all stakeholder 
categories impacted in the 
same way by 
costs/benefits? Which ones 
are mostly affected? Which 
ones are less affected? 

What types of compliance 
costs arise for 
citizens/residents and 
businesses, including 
SMEs? 

Costs/benefits distribution 
across Member States 

Perceptions of stakeholders 
on: 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Stakeholder interviews 

Comparative analysis as 
part of the retrospective 
analysis 

Likely impacts of 
costs/benefits across 
stakeholder categories 

Perceptions of stakeholders 
on the most and least likely 
stakeholder to be affected 
by costs/benefits 

See indicators for question 

See cost analysis in 
question 6: 

Public administration: 

All costs and benefits 
presented are relevant to 
this stakeholder 

Citizens/residents: 

Costs related to regulatory 
charges (fee for submitting 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
complaints) 

Indirect costs 

Indirect benefits 

6 

Businesses, including 
SMEs 

Indirect costs 

Indirect benefits 

8. Have the Member 
States provided sufficient 
funding (including 
staffing) for equality 
bodies to deliver on their 
missions and objectives? 

What is the average state 
funding to the EBs per 
year?  

Which activities are 
covered by the state 
funding?  

What is the percentage of 
state funding devolved to 
staffing? 

Share of state funding 
received by EBs 

State funding per year 
received by EBS 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Extent to which state 
funding enables the EBs to 
achieve the objectives 

See Table 4 under 
Resources  

Email/online survey 
questionnaire 

Stakeholders’ perception of 
adequacy of funding with 
regard to achievement of 
objectives 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including interviews 
with stakeholders) 

PC 

9. Can any costs be 

Are there specific type of 

Extent to which costs are 

Perception of stakeholders  Desk research, literature, 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
identified that are out of 
proportion with the 
benefits achieved? 

costs do not proportionate 
to the benefits achieved? 

proportional to benefits 

regarding the 
proportionality of costs vs 
benefits 

and data review 

10. Can good practices, 
particularly in terms of 
cost-effective 
implementation of the EU 
Framework in the 
Member States, be 
identified as regards 
setting up equality bodies 
and/or in delivering on 
their missions and 
objectives? 

Are there good practices of 
cost-effective 
implementation of the 
directives in the Member 
States (regarding setting up 
equality bodies and/or in 
delivering on their 
missions and objectives)? 

Suitability of the costs to 
their objectives 

Necessity of the extent of 
the costs to achieve these 
objectives 

Good practices for a cost-
effective implementation of 
the EU Legislative 
Framework on equality 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including interviews 
with stakeholders) 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including interviews 
with stakeholders) 

Type of costs identified to 
be the most out of 
proportion with the benefits 
achieved 

Examples of good practices 
showing cost-effective 
implementation of the EU 
Legislative Framework on 
equality 

Examples of good practices 
showing cost-effective 
delivery of missions and 
objectives of the EU 
Legislative Framework on 
equality 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of cost-effective 
implementation of the EU 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11. To what extent can the 
relevant provisions of the 
EU Framework be 
identified as being too 
prescriptive or too 
general taking into 
account their operational 
implementation? 

What types of provisions 
do the Equality Directives 
introduced on EBS?  

Type/scope of provisions 
on EBS of EU Directives 

To what extent can these 
provisions be considered 
too general or too 
prescriptive considering 
their practical 
implementation? 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including legal review 
and interviews with 
stakeholders) 

Legislative Framework on 
equality 

Examples of provisions 
that can be considered too 
general or too prescriptive  

Review of case law 
providing examples of 
provisions that have been 
interpreted as too general 
or too prescriptive  

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of the general or 
prescriptive nature of EBS 
provisions in Equality 
Directives 

RELEVANCE 

12. How relevant is today 
the EU framework with 
regard to the original 
objectives of supporting 
the implementation and 
enforcement of EU law on 

To what extent is the 
(original) EU Legislative 
Framework on EBS 
appropriate to the 
promotion, analysis, 
monitoring, and support of 

Extent to which the current 
EU  

framework is contributing 
to the promotion, analysis, 
monitoring and  

Evolution of EU 
Legislative Framework 
over time and its adaptation  

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including legal review 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
equality and 
discrimination and 
increasing prevention?  

equal treatment of all 
persons without 
discrimination, today? 

support of equal treatment 
of all persons without 
discrimination nowadays 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
on relevance of the EU 
Legislative Framework  

and interviews with 
stakeholders) 

PC 

Whether any shortcoming 
may  

have prevented the current 
EU  

framework from achieving 
its objectives 

Extent to which the 
provisions of the EU 
Legislative Framework 
cover EBS 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
on sufficiency of mandate, 
powers, independence, 
resources, data collection 
requirements, 
monitoring/accreditation 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including legal review 
and interviews with 
stakeholders) 

PC 

13. Is the scope of the EU 
framework’s provisions 
sufficient? 

Do the provisions of the 
EU Legislative Framework 
cover EBS sufficiently to 
fulfil its objectives? Do 
they cover the following 
areas: mandate, powers, 
independence, resources, 
data collection 
requirements, 
monitoring/accreditation 
(Is their scope broad or 
narrow)? 

14. To what extent are the 
original objectives still 

Do the original objectives 
correspond to the current 

Extent to which the current 
EU framework has adapted 

Evolution of EU 
Legislative Framework 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
relevant today with 
regard to societal needs? 

EU wide needs of EBs, 
citizens and residents 
today? 

How have the original 
objectives evolved over 
time with regard to the 
needs of EBs, citizens and 
residents? 

to the  

evolution in this area and 
the  

changing needs of victims, 

citizens, residents and EBs 

over time and adaptation of 
its original objectives to 
changing needs 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
on the needs of EBs, 
citizens and residents  

National mapping in 27 
MS (including legal review 
and interviews with 
stakeholders) 

PC 

15. What are citizens’ 
expectations for the role 
of equality bodies in their 
Member State? 

Are EU citizens/residents 
satisfied with the role of 
EBs? 

Extent to which EU 
citizens/residents are 
satisfied with the role of 
EBs 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
on the relevance of the EU 
Legislative Framework to 
the current needs  

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of the role of EBS and need 
for improvement 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including legal review 
and interviews with 
stakeholders) 

Extent to which EU 
citizens/residents wish for a 
more prominent role of 
EBs 

Share of stakeholders who 
wish for a more prominent 
role of EBs 

PC 

16. What are other actors’ 
expectations (e.g. 

Are state authorities 
satisfied with the role of 

Extent to which state 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of the role of EBs and need 

National mapping in 27 
MS (including legal review 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Member State 
authorities, non-
governmental 
organisations etc.) for the 
role of equality bodies? 

EBs? 

authorities are  

for improvement 

and interviews with 
stakeholders) 

Are other stakeholders 
satisfied with the role of 
EBS? 

Are EBs satisfied with their 
current role? 

Would EBs wish to have a 
more prominent role? 

satisfied with the role of 
EBs 

Extent to which state 
authorities wish for a more 
prominent role of EBs 

Extent to which state other 
stakeholders are  

satisfied with the role of 
EBs 

Share of stakeholders who 
wish for a more prominent 
role of EBs 

PC 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of the role of EBs and need 
for improvement 

Share of stakeholders who 
wish for a more prominent 
role of EBs 

Extent to which other 
stakeholders wish for a 
more prominent role of 
EBs 

EBs’ perceptions of their 
role and need for 
improvement 

Extent to which EBs are  

satisfied with their role  

Number of EBs who wish 
for a more prominent role 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
COHERENCE 

17. To what extent is the 
EU Framework coherent 
with the objectives of the 
Treaties, including the 
Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European 
Union, as regards the 
achievement of the 
overall objectives? 

Are the provisions on EBS 
of the Equality Directives 
in line with the objectives 
of Articles 19 and 157 of 
TEFU? To what extent are 
they coherent with the 
Treaties? Do they pursue 
the same aims?  

Are the provisions on EBS 
of the Equality Directives 
in line with the Charter of 
FR? To what extent are 
they coherent with the 
Charter? Do they pursue 
the same aims?  

Extent to which EBS wish 
for a more prominent role 

Extent to which the 
Directives are coherent 
with the objectives of the 
Treaties and Charter 

Main interactions between 
the Directives and the 
Treaties 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Legal analysis of EU 
Legislative Framework EU 
Legislative Framework  

Main interactions between 
the Directives and the 
Charter 

Number of cases of 
conflicts and/or synergies 

Examples of positive or 
negative interactions  

Examples of cases of 
conflicts  

18. To what extent has the 
EU framework worked 
together with other 

Are there synergies, 
complementarities and 
overlaps between the EU 

Extent to which the EU 
Legislative Framework is 
coherent with other MS’ 

Main interactions between 
the EU Legislative 
Framework and other MS’ 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member  

States’ interventions as 
regards the achievement 
of its objectives? 

Legislative Framework and 
other MS’ initiatives with 
the same objectives?  

Are the inconsistencies and 
conflicts between the EU 
Legislative Framework and 
other MS’ initiatives with 
the same objectives? 

interventions with the same 
objectives 

initiatives with the same 
objectives 

Legal analysis of EU 
Legislative Framework 

Number of cases of 
conflicts and/or synergies 

Examples of positive or 
negative interactions  

Examples of cases of 
conflicts  

19. To what extent is this 
legislative EU framework 
coherent with the Paris 
Principles and  

General Observations 
applied to National 
Human Rights 
Institutions? 

Are the provisions on EBS 
of the EU Legislative 
Framework in line with the 
Paris Principles and the 
General Observations?  

Extent to which the EU 
Legislative Framework is 
coherent with the Paris 
Principles and the General 
Observations 

Main interactions between 
the EU Legislative 
Framework and the Paris 
Principles and the General 
Observations 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Legal analysis of EU 
Legislative Framework 

Are there 
synergies/discrepancies 
between the EU Legislative 
Framework and other MS’ 
initiatives with the same 
objectives?  

Number of cases of 
conflicts and/or synergies 

Examples of positive or 
negative interactions  

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20. To what extent is this 
legislative EU framework 
coherent with the 
European Commission 
against Racism and 
Intolerance 
Recommendation N°2? 

Examples of cases of 
conflicts  

Are the provisions on EBS 
of the EU Legislative 
Framework in line with 
Recommendation N2?  

Extent to which the EU 
Legislative Framework is 
coherent with 
Recommendation N2 

Main interactions between 
the EU Legislative 
Framework and 
Recommendation N2 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

Legal analysis of EU 
Legislative Framework 

Are there 
synergies/discrepancies 
between the EU Legislative 
Framework and 
Recommendation N2?  

Number of cases of 
conflicts and/or synergies 

Examples of positive or 
negative interactions  

Examples of cases of 
conflicts  

EU ADDED VALUE 

21. What has been the EU 
added value of the EU 
Framework on Equality 
Bodies as regards the 
aims of supporting the 
implementation and 

To what extent has the EU 
Legislative Framework 
contributed to the 
objectives of promotion, 
analysis, monitoring, and 
support of equal treatment 

Extent to which the EU 
Legislative Framework has 
successfully contributed to 
the achievement of 
objectives  

Evidence showing the 
added value of the EU 
Legislative Framework on 
achieving the objectives 
over the years 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

National mapping 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence of the causality 
between the results 
achieved and the EU 
Legislative Framework in 
place 

(including interviews with 
stakeholders) 

Legal analysis of EU 
Legislative Framework 

PC 

Stakeholders’ perceptions 
of EU added value of EU 
Legislative Framework on 
EBS compared to what 
could have been achieved 
by MS alone 

enforcement of EU law on 
inequalities and 
discrimination and 
increasing prevention? 

What would the situation 
have been in the Member 
States if there had been 
no EU Framework 
(compared to what could 
have been achieved by the 
Member States alone at 
national and/or regional 
levels, as well as through 
international agreements 
and cooperation)? 

of all persons without 
discrimination? 

Could have the same 
objectives be reached using 
another level of regulation, 
specifically the national 
level? 

What are the advantages 
and disadvantages of 
having the EBS regulated 
at EU level rather than at 
MS level? 

Are there certain aspects or 
instances where MS-level 
regulation would provide 
better results with respect 
to the objectives of 
promotion, analysis, 
monitoring, and support of 
equal treatment of all 
persons without 
discrimination? What are 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
these aspects and 
instances? 

Has the EU Legislative 
Framework contributed to 
the promotion, analysis, 
monitoring, and support of 
equal treatment of all 
persons without 
discrimination? 

Is EU action required to 
achieve the objectives of 
promotion, analysis, 
monitoring, and support of 
equal treatment of all 
persons without 
discrimination? 

22. Do the aims of 
supporting the 
implementation and 
enforcement of EU law on 
inequalities and 
discrimination and 
increasing prevention 
continue to require action 
at EU level? 

Extent to which EU action 
is needed to achieve the 
objectives 

Stakeholder perception on 
the need for continued EU 
action in this field 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

National mapping 
(including interviews with 
stakeholders) 

Legal analysis of EU 
Legislative Framework 

PC 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23. What would have 
been the added value of 
extending the mandate of 
the EBs to the grounds 
and fields of the 
Employment Equality 
Directive and the Gender 
Equality Directive in the 
field of social security? 

Would positive impacts 
derive from the extension 
of the mandate of EBS to 
the grounds and fields of 
the Employment Equality 
Directive and the Gender 
Equality Directive in the 
field of social security? 
What types of positive 
impacts would likely arise? 

Extent to which the 
extension of the mandate of 
EBS to the grounds and 
fields of the Employment 
Equality Directive and the 
Gender Equality  

Directive would have 
added value 

Likely positive impacts 
deriving from the extension 
of the mandate of EBS to 
the grounds and fields of 
the Employment Equality 
Directive and the Gender 
Equality Directive 

Desk research, literature, 
and data review 

National mapping 
(including interviews with 
stakeholders) 

Stakeholder perception on 
the extension of the 
mandate of EBS 

Legal analysis of EU 
Legislative Framework 

PC 

193 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX B: OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

Information in this Annex is extracted from the research by VVA and it only reflects the views of the authors. 

Citizens 

Qualitative  

Businesses 

Administrations  

Quantitative 
/ monetary  

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
/ monetary   

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
monetary   

/ 

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

N/A  

Enforcement costs 

Cost: 
Initial 
setting up costs 

Direct: 

One-off cost  

Findings  from  the 
and 
interviews 
survey: 

to 
According 
national 
German 
equality  body, 
the 
cost  of  setting  up 
their  equality  body 
was  EUR 2,814,000. 
Other 
stakeholders 
have  not  provided 
quantitative 
the 
estimates 

Cost: 
Administrative 
and 

Direct: 

N/A  

N/A  

N/A 

N/A  

costs 
Recurring 
(annual  budget  of  the 

Findings  from  the 
and 
interviews 
survey: 

Findings  from  the 
and 
interviews 
survey: 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens 

Qualitative  

Businesses 

Administrations  

Quantitative 
/ monetary  

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
/ monetary   

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
monetary   

/ 

Enforcement costs 

operational 
costs  

EBs) 

195 

Annual budget of the 
equality body ranged 
EUR 67 
from 
thousand 
12 
to 
million. 

Average 
of 
budget 
equality 
body 
EUR 2,916,919. 

annual 
the 
is 

Findings  from  the 
literature review: 

equality 
In  2015, 
annual 
bodies' 
operating 
budgets 
varied  considerably, 
from  EUR 87,000  to 
EUR 23.3 million. 

Most  equality  bodies 
report  a  significant 
lack of investment in 
human and financial 
for 
resources 
the 
equality 
of 
work 
bodies 
concerning 
enforcing,  promoting 
of, 
awareness 
and 
supporting, 
guiding, 
and 
monitoring 
implementation of the 
statutory 
equality 
duties. 

Findings  from  the 
literature review: 

In  practice,  the  level 
and 
funding 
of 
varies 
staffing 
considerably 
from 
one  Member  State  to 
The 
another. 
differences  are  quite 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens 

Qualitative  

Businesses 

Administrations  

Quantitative 
/ monetary  

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
/ monetary   

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
monetary   

/ 

Enforcement costs 

that 
with 

remarkable with some 
bodies 
equality 
they 
declaring 
function 
a 
budget  below  half  a 
million  euros  and/or 
less 
staff 
than  5 
members while others 
declare  more  than  50 
staff  members  and  a 
budget 
several 
of 
million  euros.  This 
partly 
be 
can 
explained by different 
population  sizes  and 
the  cost  of 
living 
(which affects salaries 
and  other  costs)  but 
not  in  all  cases.  In 
small 
some 
fact, 
Member  States  have 
equality  bodies  with 
high levels of funding 
staff,  while 
and 
bigger Member States 

196 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens 

Qualitative  

Businesses 

Administrations  

Quantitative 
/ monetary  

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
/ monetary   

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
monetary   

/ 

Enforcement costs 

Compliance costs 

Cost: 
Adjustment 
costs 

Direct: 

N/A  

N/A  

One-off and recurring 

One-off  costs  include 
one-time 
activities 
(familiarisation  with 
the 
equality 
regulation, 
introduction 
of 
equality  policies  at 
the  workplace,  one-
off adjustments of the 
workplace and stores) 

costs 
Recurring 
recurring 
include 
(training 
activities 
education 
and 
activities 
conducted 
yearly,  monitoring of 
compliance 
internal 
equality 
with 

the 

do not. 

from 

Findings 
interviews 
survey: 

Unknown  N/A  

the 
and 

N/A  

free 

Adjustment 
on 
businesses  and  SMEs 
to make the workplace 
a 
from 
space 
discrimination 
(familiarisation  with 
regulation, 
equality 
introduction 
of 
policies, 
equality 
training 
organising 
and 
education 
activities). In addition, 
in terms of violation of 
the  principles  of  non-
discrimination, 
businesses  and  SMEs 
can be enforced to pay 
compensation  for  the 

197 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens 

Qualitative  

Businesses 

Administrations  

Quantitative 
/ monetary  

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
/ monetary   

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
monetary   

/ 

Enforcement costs 

in 

in 

the 

regulation 
workplace, 
of 
maintenance 
equipment 
and 
technologies  ensuring 
and 
equality 
accessibility 
the 
workplace and stores, 
annual  costs  related 
to  paying  fines  when 
businesses  do  not 
comply  with 
the 
regulation, 
equality 
legal  costs 
annual 
related 
the 
compliance  with  the 
equality regulation)   

to 

victims  because  of 
their  misbehaviour.  In 
addition,  although  the 
proceedings before the 
Equality 
national 
free  of 
Bodies  are 
businesses 
charge, 
their 
have 
costs 
internal 
themselves (i.e., hiring 
lawyers, 
reimbursements 
traveling, etc.). 

to  bear 

for 

Benefit: 
Decreasing 
of 
level 
discrimination 

Fundamental rights 

Recurring 

Findings  from  the 
interviews: 

For 
individuals, 
especially  the  ones 
who were exposed to 
discrimination, 
efficient  functioning 

Findings 
interviews: 

from 

the 

businesses, 
the 

For 
compliance  with 
anti-discrimination 
and 
regulation 
promotion  of  equality 

198 

Findings  from  the 
interviews: 

Findings  from  the 
literature review: 

National 
authorities 
gain  from  knowledge 
base  developed  and 
advice 
policy 

Benefits  of  better 
implementation 
include 
discrimination 
access 

reduced 
and 
justice, 

to 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Enforcement costs 

Citizens 

Qualitative  

Businesses 

Administrations  

Quantitative 
/ monetary  

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
/ monetary   

Qualitative  

Quantitative 
monetary   

/ 

the 

of 
equality 
bodies 
brings 
multiple 
benefits 
such  as 
increased 
protection 
of 
rights, 
fundamental 
free  procedures  and 
increased  ability  to 
win  cases  and  be 
appropriately 
compensated  for  the 
endured 
discrimination 

values  may 
bring 
significant  benefits  in 
gaining 
terms 
of 
employee 
and 
customer  loyalty  and 
attitude 
positive 
these 
towards 
hence, 
businesses, 
impacting 
positively 
financial 
the 
sales, 
performance, 
increased 
customer 
base  and  other  aspects 
of their business. 

provided. 

on 

much 
although 
the 
depends 
Member  States. 
It 
has  been  calculated 
that 
if  EU  action 
reduces 
discrimination  by  5 
%  this  could  lead  to 
a  gain  in  GDP  of  up 
to €247-703 million.   

199