Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds : final report.
Date: 2025-03-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: EU law - national law, European social policy, application of EU law, ethnic discrimination, ethnic group, human rights, national law, racial discrimination, religious discrimination, religious group, report, sanction (EU)

Study on sanctions for 
discrimination on 
racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Final Report 

Written by Milieu Consulting 
Authors: Katalin Adamis-Császár, Sophie Vancauwenbergh, Flore Gustave, 
Pietro Freguglia, Filipa Homem, Ágnes Csonta 
January 2025 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Equality and Non-Discrimination 
Unit D.2 — Non-Discrimination: Anti-Racism and Roma Coordination 

E-mail: 

JUST-D2@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the 
European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-23914-8 

doi: 10.2838/7531428 

DS-01-25-006-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025 
© European Union, 2025  

The Commission’s reuse policy is implemented under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse 
of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/ dec/2011/833/oj). 

Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 
(CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed, provided appropriate 
credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Table of Contents 

List of abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 1 

List of abbreviations for EU Member States ................................................................... 2 

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 4 

Résumé............................................................................................................................... 5 

Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 6 

Résumé analytique .......................................................................................................... 13 

1. 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 21 

1.1. Objectives and scope ............................................................................................... 21 

1.1.1. Objectives .................................................................................................................... 21 
1.1.2. Scope .......................................................................................................................... 22 

1.2. Methodological considerations ................................................................................ 22 

1.2.1. Methodological considerations for Tasks 1 and 2 ......................................................... 23 
1.2.2. Methodological limitations ............................................................................................ 23 

2.  Legal analysis ........................................................................................................... 27 

2.1. Overview of the legal framework applicable to sanctions ........................................ 27 

2.1.1. Comparative overview of the legal framework .............................................................. 27 
2.1.2. Legislative amendments .............................................................................................. 33 

2.2. Overview of judicial/adjudicating bodies competent to issue sanctions .................. 39 

2.2.1. Overview of competent courts ...................................................................................... 39 
2.2.2. Overview of other adjudicating bodies ......................................................................... 46 

2.3. Overview of the applicable sanctions ...................................................................... 50 

2.3.1. Overview of applicable sanctions per type ................................................................... 51 
2.3.2. Overview of applicable sanctions per grounds/areas of discrimination ......................... 66 
2.3.3. Overview of applicable sanctions per nature and objective .......................................... 69 
2.3.4. Overview of applicable sanctions per amount/range .................................................... 72 

2.4. Determination of the applicable sanctions ............................................................. 108 

2.4.1. Circumstances considered in the application of sanctions.......................................... 108 
2.4.2. Combination of sanctions ........................................................................................... 117 
2.4.3. Multiple/intersectional discrimination .......................................................................... 118 
2.4.4. Methods for the calculation of pecuniary sanctions .................................................... 119 

2.5. Procedural aspects ............................................................................................... 120 

2.5.1. Legal standing ........................................................................................................... 120 
2.5.2. Collective cases ......................................................................................................... 124 
2.5.3. Enforcement .............................................................................................................. 126 

2.6. Legal framework on data collection and awareness raising .................................. 139 

1 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

2.6.1. Data collection ........................................................................................................... 139 
2.6.2. Awareness raising ..................................................................................................... 143 

3.  Practical application............................................................................................... 144 

3.1. Imposition of sanctions per type, nature and objective .......................................... 144 

3.1.1. Patterns of sanction use ............................................................................................ 144 
3.1.2. Sanctions imposed as per their objective and nature ................................................. 150 
3.1.3. Injunctive relief usage ................................................................................................ 151 

3.2. Imposition of sanctions per judicial/adjudicating body(ies) .................................... 153 

3.2.1. Organisations that typically impose sanctions ............................................................ 153 
3.2.2. Sanction variability across different bodies ................................................................ 154 
3.2.3. Consistency of sanctions among similar bodies ......................................................... 155 

3.3. Circumstances considered in determining sanctions ............................................ 156 

3.4. Amounts/ranges applied in practice ...................................................................... 161 

3.4.1. Application of minimum or maximum sanctions .......................................................... 162 
3.4.2. The use of calculation methods ................................................................................. 164 

3.5. Use of alternative dispute resolution ..................................................................... 165 

3.6. Legal standing ....................................................................................................... 166 

3.7. Collective cases/redress ....................................................................................... 168 

3.8. Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 171 

3.9. Data collection ...................................................................................................... 172 

3.10. Awareness raising ............................................................................................... 175 

3.11. Other aspects ....................................................................................................... 178 

4.  Challenges .............................................................................................................. 186 

4.1. Challenges linked to the legal framework .............................................................. 186 

4.2. Challenges linked to practical application ............................................................. 190 

4.3. Challenges linked to data collection and awareness ............................................. 195 

5.  Good practices ....................................................................................................... 198 

5.1. Good practices linked to the legal framework ........................................................ 198 

5.2. Good practices linked to practical application ....................................................... 202 

5.3. Good practices linked to data collection and awareness....................................... 205 

5.4. Good practices linked to other aspects ................................................................. 207 

6.  Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 208 

ANNEX I – Accessory sanctions .................................................................................. 210 

ANNEX II – Overview of sanctions per grounds of discrimination ........................... 216 

2 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

ANNEX III – Overview of sanctions per areas of discrimination ............................... 221 

ANNEX IV – Overview of sanctions per nature ........................................................... 228 

ANNEX V – Awareness activities ................................................................................. 233 

ANNEX VI – Overview of examined cases in EU Member States .............................. 235 

ANNEX VII – Consultation activities ............................................................................ 251 

ANNEX VIII – Country legislation ................................................................................. 256 

ANNEX IX – Tables of figures ....................................................................................... 273 

3 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ADR 

AI 

BGN 

CJEU 

CoE 

ECSR 

EED 

ERA 

ERRC 

EU 

EUR 

HUF 

ILO 

NGO 

OSAP 

PLI 

PPP 

RED 

RON 

SEK 

UN 

Alternative dispute resolution 

Artificial Intelligence 

Bulgarian Lev 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

Council of Europe 

European Committee of Social Rights 

Employment Equality Directive 

Academy of European Law and the European Judicial Training Network 

European Roma Rights Centre 

European Union 

Euro 

Hungarian Forint 

International Labour Organisation 

Non-governmental organisation 

Hungary’s National Statistical Data Collection Programme 

Price Level Index 

Purchasing Power Parities 

Racial Equality Directive 

Romanian Leu 

Swedish Krona 

United Nations 

1 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FOR EU MEMBER STATES 

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 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

the Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

2 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

SI 

SK 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

3 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Abstract 
This  Study,  based  on  national  desk  research,  stakeholder  interviews,  and  a  participatory  event, 
assesses the regulation and application of sanctions under the Racial Equality Directive (RED) and 
Employment Equality Directive (EED). The Study examines sanctions for discrimination on ethnic, 
racial, and religious grounds across all areas covered by the RED and EED. It focuses on sanctions 
broadly, encompassing penalties, remedies, and other forms of redress.  

It  highlights  the  diversity  of  legal  frameworks  across  Member  States,  where  sanctions  span  civil, 
criminal,  administrative,  and  labour  law.  Punitive  and  compensatory  sanctions  dominate,  while 
preventive  or  socio-preventive  sanctions  are  less  commonly  prescribed  and  applied.  Courts  are 
primarily  competent  to  impose  sanctions,  though  some  cases,  particularly  administrative  or 
employment-related ones, could be handled by other adjudicating bodies in some jurisdictions. 

Key challenges include outdated legal frameworks, low sanction amounts prescribed and applied, 
insufficient  consideration  of  some  factors  in  the  law  and  in  practice,  and  procedural  barriers. 
Enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are non-existent or ineffective in some Member States. 
Data collection and awareness-raising efforts on sanctions remain inadequate. 

Good  practices  demonstrate  the  value  of  flexible  legislation  allowing  for  varied  and  tailored 
sanctions, the prescription and application of severe sanctions and forward-looking measures, and 
consistent  sanctioning  to  ensure  fairness  and  deterrence.  Reinforced  sanction  enforcement 
mechanisms  and  procedures  and  sanction monitoring;  as  well  as  the  adoption  of  comprehensive 
data  collection  and  awareness-raising  strategies,  could  further  enhance  the  effectiveness  of 
sanctions. 

4 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Résumé 
Cette  étude,  basée  sur  une  recherche  documentaire  nationale,  des  entretiens  avec  les  parties 
prenantes et un événement participatif, évalue la réglementation et l'application des sanctions en 
vertu de la directive relative à l'égalité raciale (RED) et de la directive relative à l'égalité de traitement 
en matière d'emploi (EED). L'étude examine les sanctions pour discrimination fondée sur des motifs 
ethniques,  raciaux  et  religieux  dans  tous  les  domaines  couverts  par  la  RED  et  la  EED.  Elle  se 
concentre  sur  les  sanctions  au  sens  large,  englobant  les  pénalités,  les  réparations  et  les  autres 
formes de recours. 

Cette étude met en évidence la diversité des cadres juridiques des États membres, où les sanctions 
relèvent  du  droit  civil,  du  droit  pénal,  du  droit  administratif  et  du  droit  du  travail.  Les  sanctions 
punitives et compensatoires dominent, tandis  que les  sanctions  préventives ou  socio-préventives 
sont  moins  couramment  prescrites  et  appliquées.  Les  tribunaux  sont  principalement  compétents 
pour  imposer  des  sanctions,  bien  que  certains  cas,  en  particulier  les  cas  administratifs  ou  liés  à 
l'emploi, puissent être traités par d'autres organes décisionnels dans certaines juridictions. 

Les principaux défis à relever comprennent des cadres juridiques obsolètes, de faibles montants de 
sanctions prescrits et appliqués, une prise en compte insuffisante de certains facteurs dans la loi et 
dans la pratique,  ainsi  que  des  obstacles  procéduraux.  Les  mécanismes d'application et  de  suivi 
sont inexistants ou inefficaces dans certains États membres. La collecte de données et les efforts 
de sensibilisation aux sanctions restent insuffisants. 

Les bonnes pratiques démontrent la valeur d'une législation souple permettant des sanctions variées 
et adaptées, la possibilité de prescrire et d'appliquer des sanctions sévères et des mesures tournées 
vers l'avenir, et la cohérence des sanctions afin de garantir l'équité et la dissuasion. Le renforcement 
des mécanismes et procédures d'application des sanctions et de leur suivi, ainsi que l'adoption de 
stratégies  globales  de  collecte  de  données  et  de  sensibilisation,  pourraient  encore  améliorer 
l'efficacité des sanctions. 

5 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Executive summary  

1.  Legal framework 

Introduction to the legal framework 

National rules on sanctions implementing the Racial Equality Directive (RED) and the Employment 
Equality  Directive  (EED)  are  often  set  forth  under  multiple  areas  of  law,  including  civil  law  (in  26 
Member  States),  criminal  law  (in  21  Member  States),  administrative  law  (in  22  Member  States), 
and/or labour law (in four Member States). Moreover, in four Member States, sanctions are also set 
forth in legislation for minor (quasi-criminal) offences. In some Member States, specific equality or 
non-discrimination legislation provides for these sanctions, while in others, general legislation (e.g., 
civil or criminal codes) regulates discrimination and the respective sanctions. 

In  most  Member  States,  the  legal  framework  for  sanctions  has  remained  unchanged  since  the 
transposition of the RED/EED, with amendments identified in eight Member States only.  

Introduction to the institutional framework (courts and/or other adjudicating bodies) 

Discrimination cases are generally heard by courts in the Member States. In eight, general courts 
(often with specialised divisions) are competent, while 19 have specialised courts (typically labour 
or administrative courts) for certain areas. Two Member States also allow quasi-judicial bodies to 
hear  such  cases.  Additionally,  19  Member  States  have  other  adjudicating  bodies,  which typically 
handle  administrative  (e.g.,  education)  or  labour  law  disputes.  Civil  and  criminal  cases  remain 
exclusively within the jurisdiction of courts. In five Member States, the national equality body(ies) is 
vested with sanctioning powers.  

Overview of sanctions per type 

In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  national  legislation  provides  for  a  variety  of  sanction  types.  In 
some, however, the types of sanctions are more limited (three or four in some Member States).  

Sanction  types  other  than  injunctive  relief  are:  financial  compensation  for  material/immaterial 
damage (in all Member States); fine (in 26 Member States); imprisonment (in 20 Member States); 
declaring an act, provision, or agreement null or void existing (in 12 Member States); certain sanction 
types exist in one or a limited number of Member States (e.g., community service – three Member 
States; disqualification from profession – two Member States; establishment/declaration of violation 
–  three  Member  States;  temporary/permanent  closure  or  suspension  of  activity  –  three  Member 
States; exclusion from public procurement processes or economic benefits – two Member States; 
disciplinary sanctions – two Member States; warning – three Member States).  

Sanction types classified as a form of injunctive relief are: termination of violation (in 16 Member 
States); obligations to perform a specific action (in 16 Member States); reinstatement or restoration 
sanctions (in eight Member States); the publication of sanction decisions (in eight Member States). 
Certain sanction types exist in one or a limited number of Member States (ban from future violation 
– in five Member States; measures to prevent the repetition of a discriminatory act – in five Member 
States; payment of an appropriate sum of money to a designated social purpose – in one Member 
State; any suitable sanction or measure – in three Member States). Some of these sanctions can be 
imposed as structural injunctions in certain Member States.  

It is notable that in 11 Member States accessory sanctions are also set out by law. 

6 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Overview of sanctions per grounds/areas of discrimination 

Sanction  types set forth in  national  legislation  typically  cover  all  discrimination  grounds.  Sanction 
types specific to certain grounds have been identified in four Member States.  

Sanction area(s) covered by the different sanction types vary. In one Member State, sanctions apply 
uniformly  across  all  areas.  In  five  Member  States,  sanctions  are  specific  to  particular  areas. 
Meanwhile,  in  21  Member  States,  a  mixed  approach  is  adopted,  with  some  sanctions  applying 
universally and others tailored to specific areas. 

Overview of sanctions per nature/objective(s) 

Financial  compensation  for  material/immaterial  damages  and  fine  are  pecuniary  sanctions.  The 
obligation  to  perform  certain  actions  in  one  Member  State  and  a  disciplinary  sanction  in  another 
Member  State  have  also  been  classified  as  pecuniary  sanctions.  All  other  sanctions  are  non-
pecuniary in nature.  

Existing sanction types primarily serve punitive (e.g., fine) or compensatory (e.g., compensation for 
material/immaterial damages) objectives. Forms of injunctive relief, that are classified as sanctions 
serving preventive (one-off injunctions) or socio-preventive (structural injunctions) objectives are not 
prevalent forms of sanctions in most Member States. Moreover, in four Member States injunctive 
relief is not set forth as a sanction. 

Overview of sanctions per amount/ranges  

In  most  jurisdictions,  fines  are  defined  as  statutory  minimums  and/or  maximums.  In  11  Member 
States, fine amounts vary based on offence-specific aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Fine 
amounts  and  ranges  differ  widely  across  Member  States  and  legal  areas.  For  pecuniary 
compensation, national rules vary: some specify amounts or ranges, while others give courts broad 
discretion within set limits. 

Among  non-pecuniary  sanctions,  imprisonment  is  the  most  common  type  of  sanction.  Minimum 
sentences, typically less than a year, are specified in 10 jurisdictions, while maximum sentences are 
set in 20 Member States and are expressed in months or years. Other duration-based sanctions are 
unique to specific Member States, showing no clear trends. 

Circumstances considered in the application of sanctions 

Courts and other adjudicating bodies are generally expected to consider a range of factors when 
determining  sanctions,  including  the  nature,  extent,  and  severity  of  the  discriminatory  act;  the 
motives and intent of the perpetrator; the characteristics of both the perpetrator and the victim; and 
the nature and impact of the harm caused.  

Repeated offences (recidivism) are treated as a specific aggravating circumstance in eight Member 
States. In 16 Member States, discriminatory acts by public officials are not specifically sanctioned 
nor systematically treated as aggravating circumstances. Where addressed, they may be classified 
as separate offences (three Member States) or explicitly recognised as aggravating circumstances 
(three Member States). 

When determining sanctions, it is uncommon for national laws to impose a statutory obligation on 
courts  or  adjudicating  bodies  to  consider  broader  public  interests,  the  prevention  of  future 
discrimination  (four  Member  States),  or  issues  related  to  systemic  or  automated  discrimination, 
including those involving AI (one Member State). 

7 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Combination of sanctions 

Sanctions within the same legal area can be combined in a single proceeding (e.g., injunctions with 
compensation,  or  criminal  fines  with  accessory  penalties).  Sanctions  from  different  legal  areas, 
however,  typically  follow  separate  procedures  and  are  imposed  by  distinct  bodies  with  specific 
competences.  While  sanctions  from  different  areas  (e.g.,  civil  and  administrative)  may  apply 
concurrently due to separate proceedings, safeguards limit the overlaps of certain sanction types. In 
particular, the ne bis in idem principle prohibits combining criminal sanctions with quasi-criminal or 
administrative sanctions. 

Multiple/intersectional discrimination 

Specific sanctions for multiple or intersectional discrimination are generally not provided for in the 
Member States. However, some consider it an aggravating factor or a relevant element in applying 
sanctions (seven Member States).  

Methods for the calculation of pecuniary sanctions 

Specific methods for calculating sanctions, that could aid courts/adjudicating bodies appear to be 
uncommon in the EU and exist in three Member States.   

Legal standing 

Victims of discrimination generally have legal standing to initiate proceedings and seek sanctions in 
administrative  and  civil  cases.  In  criminal  proceedings,  direct  victim  involvement  is  not  always 
permitted. In this case, the prosecution service (or the equality body in one Member State) would 
typically  take  over  the  proceedings.  Legal  standing  also  extends  to  representatives  (e.g.,  NGOs, 
trade unions) acting on behalf or in support of victims in all Member States.However, the eligibility of 
these  organisations  varies  from  one  Member  State  to  another  depending  on  their    respective 
requirements.   

Collective redress 

Class actions - situations where the claimants act on behalf of an undefined group of claimants or 
on behalf of several identified claimants with claims in discrimination cases - were identified in 13 
Member States. Actio popularis, which refers to situations where an organisation acts in the public 
interest on its own behalf without a specific victim to assist or represent, is a mechanism available 
in  14  Member  States.  Twenty-five  Member  States  lack  specific  collective  sanctions  designed  to 
benefit groups of victims or society as a whole in collective redress cases. 

Enforcement 

Member States typically have general procedural rules that define courts’ means of enforcing the 
sanctions that they impose. Enforcement mechanisms by courts or in collaboration with courts were 
identified  in  all  Member  States.  These may  take  different  forms  depending  on  the  Member  State 
concerned. As regards other adjudicating bodies, not all their decisions are enforceable and, of those 
that are, not all are enforced by the adjudicating bodies themselves. In some cases, enforcement 
may require the involvement of courts or other enforcement authorities. Sanction monitoring rules 
are not common in the Member States.   

Data collection and awareness raising 

Most  Member  States  lack  comprehensive  national  rules  for  collecting  equality  data,  including  on 
sanctions.  Where  such  rules  exist,  legal  provisions  on  data  collection  frequency,  publication 

8 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

obligations, and access rights are rare. Data on discrimination cases and sanctions, where collected, 
are  often  published  in  annual  reports  or  other  materials  by  relevant  organisations,  though  these 
publications often only include partial datasets or limited to selected cases. 

Specific rules on awareness raising on sanctions on discrimination were not identified in any of the 
Member States. Nonetheless, in 12 Member States, more general rules on awareness raising or on 
the  relevant  national  authorities’  duties  to  provide  information  to  victims  of  discrimination  were 
considered relevant and were therefore analysed. 

2.  Practical application of the legal framework 

Imposition of sanctions per type, nature and objective 

Across many jurisdictions, there is limited (statistical) data on imposed sanctions. Stakeholder input 
and literature indicate that discrimination cases or those resulting in sanctions are uncommon in at 
least  six  Member  States  and  nearly  absent  in  four.  Where  sanctions  are  imposed,  monetary 
compensation  for  damages  is  the  primary  type  (in  16  Member  States).  Imposition  of  fines  was 
reported in only six Member States, while other sanctions, often country-specific ones, were imposed 
in seven. Injunctive relief is rarely applied in the Member States, with evidence of its practical use 
found  in  only  seven  countries.  This  highlights  the  predominance  of  pecuniary  sanctions,  serving 
either compensatory or punitive objectives.  

Imposition of sanctions per amount/ranges 

Official  data  or  statistics  are  generally  unavailable.  Consulted  sources  suggest  that  courts  and 
adjudicating bodies typically impose sanctions at or near legal minimums (a trend observed in eight 
Member States). No evidence indicates that sanctions reach legal maximums in any Member State. 
Finally, the use of specific methods to calculate sanctions in the discrimination cases examined is 
rare. 

Imposition of sanctions per judicial/adjudicating bodies 

Discrimination cases are typically heard by courts (in 13 Member States) or other adjudicating bodies 
(in 11 Member States). In three Member States discrimination cases seem to be heard equally often 
by both.  

Circumstances considered in determining sanctions 

Courts and adjudicating bodies generally consider all relevant facts and circumstances of each case. 
The  specific  factors  considered  vary  by  Member  State  and  the  legal  area  concerned  —  e.g.,  the 
number  of  workers  in  employment  cases  or  the  scope  of  the  perpetrator’s  economic  activity  in 
administrative  sanctions.  Cases  involving  multiple  or  intersectional  discrimination  have  been 
identified in seven Member States. Very few cases of discrimination resulting from the use of AI or 
automated systems were identified.  

Legal standing in practice 

In 14 Member States, the type and amount of sanctions imposed do not differ between cases brought 
by  victims  and  those  initiated  by  third  parties.  In  two  Member  States,  specific  conditions  or 
differences in sanctions (e.g., third parties cannot receive compensation for damages) have been 
identified.  In  the  remaining  Member  States,  limited  data or  instances of third-party  cases  make  it 
difficult to assess any differences in sanctions. 

9 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Collective redress in practice 

In nine Member States, collective redress mechanisms exist but are rarely or never used. In several 
others,  no  data  on  their  use  are  available.  Where  data  are  accessible,  evidence  suggests  that 
sanctions in class actions may differ from those in individual cases—for instance, injunctive relief is 
more common in individual cases, while courts may avoid it in class actions. In actio popularis cases, 
data are lacking in 8 out of the 14 Member States that allow them. Where data are available, the 
sanctions imposed vary, typically being declaratory or symbolic, with the imposition of injunctive relief 
in a few cases. Financial sanctions appear to be rarely imposed.  

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

The compulsory use of ADR exists in two Member States, but non-compulsory forms of this process 
exist  in  all  other  Member  States  as  well.  In  10  Member  States,  outcomes  are  set  out  in  binding 
agreements.  In  13  Member  States,  ADR  results  in  non-binding  decisions.  ADR  usage  in  certain 
Member  States  is  reportedly  low.  In  some  others  limited  data  and  the  confidentiality  of  the 
agreements hinder transparency. 

Enforcement in practice 

In many Member States data on sanction enforcement and monitoring are lacking. In a few Member 
States  enforcement  seems  to  be  well-functioning,  but  in  others  significant  challenges  persist, 
including  delayed  enforcement  procedures  or  burdensome  proceedings  for  victims.  Sanction 
monitoring is reportedly done in a few Member States only. 

Data collection and awareness raising in practice 

Overall, no significant discrepancies have been identified between the data collection rules and their 
practical application, entailing that data collection on sanctions is very limited in the Member States.  

The gap of setting forth specific sanction-related awareness raising requirements in the law is also 
reflected in practice, with only a few targeted initiatives identified (in at least four Member States). In 
at least 13 Member States, public authorities, including equality bodies, human rights’ institutions, 
and Ministries, lead broader anti-discrimination awareness-raising efforts. Some initiatives target the 
general public (in at least five Member States), while some others focus on decision-makers. Data 
on societal awareness is largely lacking in the EU (this is the case in 14 Member States); however, 
in at least six Member States societal awareness is lacking or low.  

3.  Challenges linked to the legal framework and its application 

Challenges linked to the legal framework 

Sanction provisions are often scattered across various laws, complicating navigation for authorities, 
practitioners, and victims. In many cases, sanctions are punitive or compensatory in nature, lacking 
preventive effects deterring individual perpetrators from future infringements and socio-preventive 
effects addressing systemic discrimination effectively.  

Sanction types, amounts, and ranges set forth in national legislation are often outdated or symbolic. 
Many frameworks also inadequately address repeated offences, allowing lenient penalties for serial 
violators. 

Access to justice is hindered by procedural barriers, including the absence of collective redress in 
some Member States, short limitation periods, and restrictions on third-party legal standing for NGOs 
or equality bodies. High litigation costs and burdensome reversal of proof requirements, further deter 
victims from seeking justice. 

10 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Enforcement  is  another  challenge,  with  inadequate  rules  leading  to  delays  or  poorly  managed 
procedures.  Many  Member  States  also  lack  effective  mechanisms  to monitor  the  enforcement  of 
sanctions. 

Challenges linked to the practical application 

The key challenge is the symbolic and inconsistent use of sanctions, where courts or adjudicating 
bodies  impose  minimal  penalties  or  fail  to  apply  the  legal  framework  uniformly.  In  some  Member 
States, there is also reluctance to impose structural injunctions or harsher penalties.  

Another issue is the inadequate enforcement of court decisions and poor monitoring of compliance 
which undermine the impact of imposed sanctions. 

Broader  challenges,  such  as  lengthy  proceedings,  limited  access  to  legal  aid,  and  difficulties  in 
evidence gathering further impede the application of sanctions. 

Emerging challenges involve proving discrimination in cases involving AI or automated systems. The 
complexity  and  lack  of  transparency  of  these  technologies  make  it  harder  to  gather  evidence, 
establish discrimination, and assess its severity, thus complicating the imposition and enforcement 
of sanctions. 

Challenges linked to data collection and awareness raising  

Challenges linked to data collection include the absence of obligations to publish all court decisions, 
limited  information  availability  on  cases  resolved  through  alternative  dispute  resolution,  and 
restricted public access to equality body decisions. Many Member States lack legal requirements or 
mechanisms for collecting and analysing discrimination-related data, and national rules often limit 
data collection on racial or ethnic discrimination. Comprehensive and systematic data on sanctions 
and their enforcement is often unavailable. There are also differences in data collection by various 
organisations, which hinders national-level analysis. Resource constraints further complicate data 
collection efforts. Lastly, institutional changes, such as the dissolution of specialised bodies or shifts 
in practices, have also disrupted data collection and analysis in certain jurisdictions. 

A significant challenge linked to awareness raising is the lack of adequate training on sanctions for 
professionals,  such  as  judges,  which  can  hinder  the  effective  application  of  the  legal  framework. 
Efforts to raise general public awareness about sanctions are complicated by the use of outdated or 
inadequate materials,  as  well  as  limited  budgets that  further  constrain societal  awareness-raising 
activities.  Reaching  vulnerable  and  marginalised  groups  remains  a  challenge  due  to  inadequate 
outreach strategies, language barriers, and a lack of tailored materials. Awareness-raising efforts 
are  also hindered  by gaps  in  expertise  among responsible bodies (e.g., those subject to equality 
duties)  and  limited  knowledge  of  legal  obligations  among  key  stakeholders  (e.g.,  among  HR 
managers). 

4.  Good practices linked to the legal framework and its application  

Good practices linked to the legal framework 

National good practice examples illustrate that flexibility in national legislation allows for sanctions to 
be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case; while clear, regularly updated rules ensure 
sanctions remain relevant and impactful. 

Permitting a broad spectrum of sanctions would better reflect the nature and severity of offences. 
Innovative mechanisms like injunctive relief can lead to lasting changes.  

Adequate sanction amounts and clear calculation rules provide courts and other adjudicating bodies 
with  the  tools  to  impose  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  sanctions.  Moreover,  developing 
guidance  on  the  imposition  of  sanctions  could  lead  to  a  more  consistent  legal  practice.  Explicitly 

11 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

addressing  aggravating  factors,  such  as  recidivism,  the  involvement  of  public  officials,  or 
discriminatory practices resulting from automated and/or AI systems, helps to ensure that sanctions 
are adjusted to case specifics. 

Effective access to justice measures, including clear rules on legal representation, collective redress, 
and  fee  exemptions,  could  facilitate  access  to  justice  and  hence  are  essential  along  with  robust 
enforcement  mechanisms  and  effective  sanction  monitoring  to  ensure  the  timely  and  adequate 
enforcement of the initial sanctions imposed. 

Good practices linked to the practical application 

The  imposition  of  sanctions  that  enhance  deterrence,  such  as  media  exposure,  publicising 
judgments, or ordering higher sanctions to address discrimination effectively, is a good practice. The 
imposition of forward-looking sanctions, such as structural injunctions, demonstrates how tailored 
sanctions can address systemic forms of discrimination.  

In certain Member States, the application of appropriate sanctions proved to be essential to promote 
fairness,  prevent  bias,  and  build  trust  in  the  justice  system.  Knowing  the  consequences  of 
discriminatory actions deters potential offenders and encourages victims to seek justice. Consistent 
practices provide valuable guidance for legal professionals. 

Additionally, examples show that empowering specialised organisations (e.g. NGOs, trade unions) 
to  bring  cases  to  court  or  propose  sanctions  can  strengthen  the  effectiveness  of  sanction 
mechanisms. 

Good practices linked to data collection and awareness raising 

Establishing rules for collecting and publishing comprehensive data on complaints, case outcomes, 
and sanctions—alongside disaggregated data on discrimination grounds—was identified as a good 
practice. 

Publicising decisions in discrimination cases is a key practice that raises awareness and encourages 
reporting.  Regular  training  tailored  to  different  stakeholders,  including  public  servants,  legal 
professionals, vulnerable groups, and specific sectors such as education, also supports awareness. 
Wider  dissemination  of  reports  containing  information  on  discrimination,  how  to  report  it  and  the 
associated sanctions, through official websites and targeted media campaigns, has proven effective 
in  raising  public  awareness.  Additionally,  the  mandatory  appointment  of  discrimination  officers  in 
large  companies  represents  an  effective  practice  for  institutionalising  anti-discrimination  efforts 
within companies. 

12 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Résumé analytique 

1.  Le cadre juridique 

Introduction au cadre juridique 

Les règles nationales sur les sanctions mettant en œuvre la directive sur l'égalité raciale (RED) et la 
directive sur l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi (EED) sont souvent définies dans plusieurs 
domaines du droit, y compris le droit civil (dans 26 États membres), le droit pénal (dans 21 États 
membres), le droit administratif (dans 22 États membres) et/ou le droit du travail (dans quatre États 
membres). En outre, dans quatre États membres, des sanctions sont également prévues dans la 
législation  pour  des  infractions  mineures  (quasi-criminelles).  Dans  certains  États  membres,  la 
législation spécifique  sur  l'égalité ou  la  non-discrimination  prévoit  ces  sanctions, tandis  que  dans 
d'autres, la législation générale (par exemple, les codes civil ou pénal) régit la discrimination et les 
sanctions correspondantes. 

Dans la plupart des États membres, le cadre juridique des sanctions est resté inchangé depuis la 
transposition de la RED/EED, des modifications n'ayant été identifiées que dans huit États membres. 

Introduction au cadre institutionnel (tribunaux et/ou autres organes décisionnels) 

Les affaires de discrimination sont généralement entendues par les tribunaux des États membres. 
Dans huit d'entre eux, ce sont des tribunaux généraux (souvent dotés de divisions spécialisées) qui 
sont compétents, tandis que 19 disposent de tribunaux spécialisés (généralement des tribunaux du 
travail  ou  des  tribunaux  administratifs)  pour  certains  domaines.  Deux  États  membres  autorisent 
également  des  organes quasi-judiciaires  à connaître de ces  affaires.  De  plus,  19  États membres 
disposent d'autres organes juridictionnels, qui traitent généralement des litiges administratifs (par 
exemple, dans le domaine de l'éducation) ou des litiges relatifs au droit du travail. Les affaires civiles 
et pénales relèvent exclusivement de la compétence des tribunaux. Dans cinq États membres, les 
organismes pour l’égalité de traitement sont investis de pouvoirs de sanction.  

Sanctions par type 

Dans la majorité des États membres, la législation nationale prévoit des types de sanctions variés. 
Dans  certains,  cependant,  les  types  de  sanctions  sont  plus limités (trois  ou  quatre dans certains 
États membres).  

Les types de sanctions autres que les injonctions1 sont les suivants : compensation financière 
pour les dommages matériels/immatériels (dans tous les États membres) ; amende (dans 26 États 
membres)  ;  emprisonnement  (dans  20  États  membres)  ;  déclaration  de  nullité  d'un  acte,  d'une 
disposition  ou  d'un  accord (dans  12  États  membres)  ;  certains  types  de  sanctions  n'existent  que 
dans  un  seul  État  membre  ou  dans  un  nombre  limité  d'États  membres  (par  exemple  :  travaux 
d'intérêt  général  -  trois  États  membres  ;  déchéance  de  la  profession  -  deux  États  membres  ; 
établissement/déclaration  de  violation  -  trois  États  membres  ;  fermeture  ou  suspension 
temporaire/permanente de l'activité - trois États membres ; exclusion des procédures de marchés 
publics ou des avantages économiques - deux États membres ; sanctions disciplinaires - deux États 
membres ; avertissement - trois États membres).  

1 Les injonctions sont des décisions rendues par des tribunaux ou des autorités similaires qui interdisent ou imposent certaines actions. 
Elles sont classées en injonctions ponctuelles ou structurelles. Une injonction ponctuelle est une décision ordonnant à l'auteur d'une 
infraction de prendre ou de cesser une action spécifique. Les injonctions structurelles, quant à elles, imposent des changements 
significatifs dans l'organisation interne, les procédures ou les règles d'une institution afin de remédier à une discrimination généralisée 
ou systémique. Contrairement aux injonctions ponctuelles, qui n'offrent généralement qu'une réparation aux parties concernées, les 
injonctions structurelles visent à remédier aux schémas discriminatoires sous-jacents de la partie incriminée.  

13 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Les types de sanctions classés comme une forme d’injonction sont : la cessation de la violation 
(dans 16 États membres) ; l'obligation d'accomplir une action spécifique (dans 16 États membres) ; 
les sanctions de rétablissement ou de restauration (dans huit États membres) ; la publication des 
décisions de sanction (dans huit États membres). Certains types de sanctions existent dans un seul 
ou dans un nombre limité d'États membres (interdiction de toute violation future - dans cinq États 
membres  ;  mesures  visant  à  empêcher  la  répétition  d'un  acte  discriminatoire  -  dans  cinq  États 
membres ; versement d'une somme d'argent appropriée à une fin sociale désignée - dans un État 
membre  ;  toute  sanction  ou  mesure  appropriée  -  dans  trois  États  membres).  Certaines  de  ces 
sanctions  peuvent  être  imposées  sous  forme  d'injonctions  structurelles  dans  certains  États 
membres.  

Il convient de noter que dans 11 États membres, les sanctions accessoires2 sont également prévues 
par la loi. 

Synthèse des sanctions par motifs/domaines de discrimination 

Les types de sanctions prévus par la législation nationale couvrent généralement tous les motifs de 
discrimination.  Des  types  de  sanctions  spécifiques,  pour  certains  motifs,  ont  été  identifiés  dans 
quatre États membres.  

Les  domaines  couverts  par  les  différents  types  de  sanctions  varient.  Dans  un  État  membre,  les 
sanctions s'appliquent uniformément à tous les domaines. Dans cinq États membres, les sanctions 
sont spécifiques à des domaines particuliers. Enfin, dans 21 États membres, une approche mixte 
est adoptée, certaines sanctions s'appliquant de manière universelle et d'autres étant prévues pour 
des domaines spécifiques. 

Synthèse des sanctions par nature/objectif(s) 

La  compensation  financière  pour  les  dommages  matériels/immatériels  et  l'amende  sont  des 
sanctions  pécuniaires.  L'obligation  d'accomplir  certaines  actions  dans  un  État  membre  et  une 
sanction  disciplinaire  dans  un  autre  État  membre  ont  également  été  classées  comme  sanctions 
pécuniaires. Toutes les autres sanctions sont de nature non pécuniaire.  

Les  types  de  sanctions  existants  servent  principalement  des  objectifs  punitifs  (par  exemple, 
l'amende) ou compensatoires (par exemple, l'indemnisation des dommages matériels/immatériels). 
Les  formes  d'injonction,  qui  sont  classées  comme  des  sanctions  servant  des  objectifs  préventifs 
(injonctions ponctuelles) ou socio-préventifs (injonctions structurelles), ne sont pas des formes de 
sanctions  courantes  dans  la  plupart  des  États  membres.  En  outre,  dans  quatre  États  membres, 
l'injonction n'est pas considérée comme une sanction. 

Synthèse des sanctions par montant/fourchette  

Dans la plupart des juridictions, les amendes sont définies comme des montants minimums et/ou 
maximums  légaux.  Dans  11  États  membres,  le  montant  des  amendes  varie  en  fonction  des 
circonstances  aggravantes  ou  atténuantes  propres  à  l'infraction.  Les  montants  et  les  fourchettes 
d'amendes varient considérablement d'un État membre à l'autre et d'un domaine juridique à l'autre. 
En ce qui concerne la compensation pécuniaire, les règles nationales varient : certaines spécifient 
des  montants  ou  des  fourchettes,  tandis  que  d'autres  laissent  aux  tribunaux  un  large  pouvoir 
d'appréciation dans des limites déterminées. 

Parmi les sanctions non pécuniaires, l'emprisonnement est le type de sanction le plus courant. Les 
peines planchers, généralement inférieures à un an, sont spécifiées dans 10 juridictions, tandis que 

2 Les sanctions supplémentaires ou complémentaires qui peuvent être imposées à l'auteur de l'infraction en fonction des circonstances 
de l'affaire.  

14 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

les peines maximales sont fixées dans 20 États membres et sont exprimées en mois ou en années. 
Les autres sanctions basées sur la durée sont propres à certains États membres et ne présentent 
pas de tendances claires. 

Circonstances prises en compte dans l'application des sanctions 

Les tribunaux et autres organes juridictionnels sont généralement censés prendre en compte une 
série de facteurs lorsqu'ils déterminent les sanctions, notamment la nature, l'étendue et la gravité 
de l'acte discriminatoire, les motifs et l'intention de l'auteur, les caractéristiques de l'auteur et de la 
victime, ainsi que la nature et l'impact du préjudice causé.  

La  récidive est traitée  comme  une circonstance  aggravante  spécifique dans huit  États membres. 
Dans  16  États  membres,  les  actes  discriminatoires  commis  par  des  agents  publics  ne  sont  pas 
spécifiquement  sanctionnés  ni  systématiquement  traités  comme  des  circonstances  aggravantes. 
Lorsqu'ils  sont  abordés,  ils  peuvent  être  classés  comme  des  infractions  distinctes  (trois  États 
membres) ou explicitement reconnus comme des circonstances aggravantes (trois États membres). 

Lorsqu'ils déterminent les sanctions à appliquer, il est rare que les législations nationales imposent 
aux  tribunaux  ou  aux  organes  décisionnels  l'obligation  légale  de  prendre  en  considération  des 
intérêts publics plus larges, la prévention de futures discriminations (quatre États membres) ou des 
questions  liées  à  la  discrimination  systémique  ou  résultant  de  l’automatisation  ,  y  compris  celles 
impliquant une intelligence artificielle (un État membre),. 

Combinaison de sanctions 

Les sanctions relevant d'un même domaine juridique peuvent être combinées dans le cadre d'une 
procédure  unique  (par  exemple,  des  injonctions  assorties  d'une  indemnisation,  ou  des  amendes 
pénales  assorties  de  peines  accessoires).  En  revanche,  les  sanctions  relevant  de  domaines 
juridiques  différents  suivent  généralement  des  procédures  distinctes  et  sont  imposées  par  des 
organes  distincts  dotés  de  compétences  spécifiques.  Si  les  sanctions  relevant  de  différents 
domaines (par exemple, les sanctions civiles et administratives) peuvent s'appliquer simultanément 
en raison de procédures distinctes, des garde-fous limitent le chevauchement de certains types de 
sanctions. En particulier, le principe ne bis in idem interdit de combiner des sanctions pénales avec 
des sanctions quasi-criminelles ou administratives. 

Discrimination multiple/intersectionnelle 

Les États membres ne prévoient généralement pas de sanctions spécifiques pour la discrimination 
multiple ou  intersectionnelle.  Toutefois,  certains considèrent  qu'il  s'agit  d'un  facteur  aggravant  ou 
d'un élément pertinent dans l'application des sanctions (sept États membres).  

Méthodes de calcul des sanctions pécuniaires 

Les méthodes spécifiques de calcul des sanctions, qui pourraient aider les tribunaux et les organes 
décisionnels, semblent peu répandues dans l'UE et n'existent que dans trois États membres.   

Intérêt à agir 

Les victimes de discrimination ont généralement la capacité juridique d'engager des procédures et 
de demander des sanctions dans les affaires administratives et civiles. Dans les procédures pénales, 
la  participation  directe  de  la  victime  n'est  pas  toujours  autorisée.  Dans  ce  cas,  le  parquet  (ou 
l'organisme  pour  l'égalité  de  traitement  dans  un  État  membre)  prend  généralement  en  charge  la 
procédure.  L'intérêt  à  agir  s'étend  également  aux  représentants  (par  exemple,  les  ONG,  les 
syndicats) qui agissent au nom ou en soutien des victimes dans tous les États membres. Cependant, 
l'éligibilité de ces organisations varient d'un État membre à l'autre selon leurs exigences respectives.   

15 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Recours collectif 

Les recours collectifs - situations dans lesquelles les demandeurs agissent au nom d'un groupe non 
défini de demandeurs ou au nom de plusieurs demandeurs identifiés ayant des revendications dans 
des affaires de discrimination - ont été identifiés dans 13 États membres. L'actio popularis, qui se 
réfère à des situations où une organisation agit dans l'intérêt public en son propre nom sans victime 
spécifique à assister ou à représenter, est un mécanisme disponible dans 14 États membres. Vingt-
cinq États membres ne disposent pas de sanctions collectives spécifiques conçues pour bénéficier 
à des groupes de victimes ou à la société dans son ensemble dans les affaires de recours collectif. 

Exécution 

Les États membres disposent généralement de règles de procédure générales qui définissent les 
moyens  dont  disposent  les  tribunaux  pour  exécuter  les  sanctions  imposées.  Des  mécanismes 
d'exécution par les tribunaux ou en collaboration avec les tribunaux ont été identifiés dans tous les 
États membres. Ils peuvent prendre différentes formes en fonction de l'État membre concerné. En 
ce qui concerne les autres organes juridictionnels, toutes leurs décisions ne sont pas exécutoires 
et, parmi celles qui le sont, toutes ne sont pas exécutées par les organes juridictionnels eux-mêmes. 
Dans  certains  cas,  l'exécution  peut  nécessiter  l'intervention  de  tribunaux  ou  d'autres  autorités 
chargées de l'exécution. Les règles de contrôle des sanctions ne sont pas courantes dans les États 
membres.   

Collecte de données et sensibilisation 

La plupart des États membres ne disposent pas de règles nationales complètes pour la collecte de 
données sur l'égalité, y compris sur les sanctions. Lorsque de telles règles existent, les dispositions 
légales relatives à la fréquence de collecte des données, aux obligations de publication et aux droits 
d'accès  sont  rares.  Les  données  sur  les  cas  de  discrimination  et  les  sanctions,  lorsqu'elles  sont 
collectées,  sont  souvent  publiées  dans  des  rapports  annuels  ou  d'autres  documents  par  les 
organisations concernées, bien que ces publications n'incluent souvent que des données partielles 
ou limitées à des cas sélectionnés. 

Aucune règle spécifique concernant la sensibilisation aux sanctions en cas de discrimination n'a été 
identifiée dans les États membres. Néanmoins, dans 12 États membres, des règles plus générales 
sur  la  sensibilisation  ou  sur  les  obligations  des  autorités  nationales  compétentes  de  fournir  des 
informations aux victimes de discrimination ont été jugées pertinentes et ont donc été analysées. 

2.  Application pratique du cadre juridique 

Imposition de sanctions par type, nature et objectif 

Dans  de  nombreuses  juridictions,  les  données  (statistiques)  sur  les  sanctions  imposées  sont 
limitées.  Les  contributions  des  parties  prenantes  et  la  littérature  indiquent  que  les  affaires  de 
discrimination ou celles qui aboutissent à des sanctions sont rares dans au moins six États membres 
et presque inexistantes dans quatre. Lorsque des sanctions sont imposées, la réparation pécuniaire 
des dommages est le principal type de sanction (dans 16 États membres). L'imposition d'amendes 
n'a été relevée que dans six États membres, tandis que d'autres sanctions, souvent spécifiques à 
un pays, ont été imposées dans sept États membres. Les injonctions sont rarement appliquées dans 
les  États  membres,  leur  utilisation  pratique  n'étant  attestée  que  dans  sept  pays.  Cela  met  en 
évidence la prédominance des sanctions pécuniaires, qui servent soit des objectifs compensatoires, 
soit des objectifs punitifs.  

16 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Imposition de sanctions par montant/ fourchette 

Les  données  ou  statistiques  officielles  ne  sont  généralement  pas  disponibles.  Les  sources 
consultées  suggèrent  que  les  tribunaux  et  les  organes  décisionnels  imposent  généralement  des 
sanctions qui se situent au niveau des minimums légaux ou qui s'en approchent (tendance observée 
dans huit  Etats membres).  Rien  ne  permet  d'affirmer  que  les sanctions atteignent  les maximums 
légaux dans tous les États membres. Enfin, l'utilisation de méthodes spécifiques pour calculer les 
sanctions dans les cas de discrimination examinés est rare. 

Imposition de sanctions par les organes judiciaires/décisionnels 

Les  affaires  de  discrimination  sont  généralement  entendues  par  des  tribunaux  (dans  13  États 
membres) ou d'autres organes décisionnels (dans 11 États membres). Dans trois États membres, 
les affaires de discrimination semblent être entendues aussi souvent par les deux.  

Circonstances prises en compte dans la détermination des sanctions 

Les tribunaux et les organes décisionnels prennent généralement en considération tous les faits et 
circonstances pertinents de chaque affaire. Les facteurs spécifiques pris en compte varient selon 
l'État membre et le domaine juridique concerné - par exemple, le nombre de travailleurs dans les 
affaires d'emploi ou l'étendue de l'activité économique de l'auteur dans les sanctions administratives. 
Des cas de discrimination multiple ou intersectionnelle ont été identifiés dans sept États membres. 
Très  peu  de  cas  où  les  discriminations  résultent  de  l'utilisation  de  I'intelligence  artificielle  ou  de 
systèmes automatisés ont été identifiés.  

L'intérêt à agir dans la pratique 

Dans 14 États membres, le type et le montant des sanctions imposées ne diffèrent pas entre les 
affaires  portées  par  les  victimes  et  celles  initiées  par  des  tiers.  Dans  deux  États  membres,  des 
conditions spécifiques ou des différences dans les sanctions (par exemple, les tiers ne peuvent pas 
recevoir d'indemnisation pour les dommages) ont été identifiées. Dans les autres États membres, il 
est  difficile  d'évaluer  les  différences  de  sanctions  en  raison  du  nombre  limité  de  données  ou 
d'affaires impliquant des tiers. 

Les recours collectifs en pratique 

Dans  neuf  États  membres,  des  mécanismes  de  recours  collectif  existent  mais  sont  rarement  ou 
jamais utilisés. Dans plusieurs autres, aucune donnée sur leur utilisation n'est disponible. Lorsque 
les  données  sont  accessibles,  il  apparaît  que  les  sanctions  prévues  dans  les  recours  collectifs 
peuvent différer de celles prévues dans les affaires individuelles - par exemple, les injonctions sont 
plus fréquentes dans les affaires individuelles, alors que les tribunaux tendent à les éviter dans les 
recours collectifs. Dans les affaires d'actio popularis, les données manquent dans 8 des 14 États 
membres qui les autorisent. Lorsque les données sont disponibles, les sanctions imposées varient, 
étant généralement déclaratoires ou symboliques, avec l'imposition d'une injonction seulement dans 
quelques cas. Les sanctions financières semblent être rarement imposées.  

Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges 

Le  recours  obligatoire  au  règlement  extrajudiciaire  des  litiges  existe  dans  deux  États  membres, 
tandis que des formes non obligatoires  de ce processus existent également dans tous les autres 
États membres. Dans 10 États membres, les résultats sont fixés dans des accords contraignants. 
Dans  13  États  membres,  le  règlement  extrajudiciaire  des  litiges  aboutit  à  des  décisions  non 
contraignantes.  Dans  certains  États  membres,  l'utilisation  de  cette  procédure  est  apparemment 

17 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

faible.  Dans  d'autres,  le  manque  de  données  et  la  confidentialité  des  accords  nuisent  à  la 
transparence. 

Exécution dans la pratique 

Dans de nombreux États membres, les données relatives à l'exécution et au suivi des sanctions font 
défaut. Dans quelques États membres, l'exécution semble bien fonctionner mais dans d’autres des 
problèmes  importants  persistent,  notamment  des  procédures  d'exécution  tardives  ou  des 
procédures lourdes pour les victimes. Le suivi des sanctions ne serait effectué que dans quelques 
États membres. 

Collecte de données et sensibilisation dans la pratique 

Dans l'ensemble, aucune divergence significative n'a été identifiée entre les règles de collecte de 
données et leur application pratique, ce qui signifie que la collecte de données sur les sanctions est 
très limitée dans les États membres.  

L'absence d'exigences spécifiques en matière de sensibilisation aux sanctions dans la loi se reflète 
également dans la pratique, seules quelques initiatives ayant été identifiées (dans au moins quatre 
États  membres).  Dans  au  moins  13  États  membres,  les  autorités  publiques,  y  compris  les 
organismes  pour  l'égalité  de  traitement,  les  institutions  de  défense  des  droits  de  l'homme  et  les 
ministères,  mènent  des  efforts  plus  larges  de  sensibilisation  à  l'antidiscrimination.  Certaines 
initiatives  ciblent  le  grand  public  (dans  au  moins  cinq  États  membres),  tandis  que  d'autres  se 
concentrent sur les acteurs de la prise de décision. Les données sur la sensibilisation de la société 
font largement défaut dans l'UE (c'est le cas dans 14 États membres) ; cependant, dans au moins 
six États membres, la sensibilisation de la société est inexistante ou faible.  

3.  Défis liés au cadre juridique et à son application 

Défis liés au cadre juridique 

Les  dispositions  relatives  aux  sanctions  sont  souvent  dispersées  dans  différentes  lois,  ce  qui 
complique les démarches des autorités, des praticiens et des victimes. Dans de nombreux cas, les 
sanctions sont de nature punitive ou compensatoire, sans effets préventifs dissuadant les auteurs 
d'infractions  de  commettre  de  nouvelles  infractions  et  sans  effets  socio-préventifs  s'attaquant 
efficacement à la discrimination systémique.  

Les types, les montants et les fourchettes de sanctions prévus par les législations nationales sont 
souvent  obsolètes  ou  symboliques.  De  nombreux  cadres  législatifs  ne  traitent  pas  de  manière 
adéquate les infractions répétées, autorisant des sanctions indulgentes pour les récidivistes. 

L'accès  à  la justice est entravé  par  des  obstacles  procéduraux,  notamment  l'absence de recours 
collectif  dans  certains  États  membres,  la  brièveté  des  délais  de  prescription  et  les  restrictions 
imposées aux ONG ou aux organismes pour l'égalité de traitement en ce qui concerne la possibilité 
pour un tiers d'agir en justice. Les coûts élevés des litiges et les les lourdes exigences en matière 
de renversement de la charge de la preuve, dissuadent encore davantage les victimes de demander 
justice. 

L'exécution  est  un  autre  défi,  avec  des  règles  inadéquates  qui  entraînent  des  retards  ou  des 
procédures mal gérées. De nombreux États membres ne disposent pas non plus de mécanismes 
efficaces pour contrôler l'application des sanctions. 

Défis liés à l'application pratique 

Le principal défi est l'utilisation symbolique et incohérente des sanctions, lorsque les tribunaux ou 
les organes décisionnels imposent des peines minimales ou n'appliquent pas le cadre juridique de 

18 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

manière uniforme. Dans certains États membres, on observe également une réticence à imposer 
des injonctions structurelles ou des sanctions plus sévères.  

Un autre problème est l'exécution inadéquate des décisions de justice et le contrôle insuffisant du 
respect des décisions, qui compromettent l'impact des sanctions imposées. 

Des problèmes plus généraux, tels que la longueur des procédures, l'accès limité à l'aide juridique 
et les difficultés liées à la collecte de preuves, entravent encore l'application de sanctions. 

Les  nouveaux  défis  concernent  la  preuve  de  la  discrimination  dans  les  affaires  impliquant 
l'intelligence artificielle ou des systèmes automatisés. La complexité et le manque de transparence 
de ces technologies rendent plus difficile la collecte de preuves, la détermination de la discrimination 
et l'évaluation de sa gravité, ce qui complique l'imposition et l'exécution des sanctions. 

Défis liés à la collecte de données et à la sensibilisation  

Les  défis  liés  à  la  collecte  de  données  comprennent  l'absence  d'obligation  de  publier  toutes  les 
décisions de justice, la disponibilité limitée d'informations sur les affaires résolues par des modes 
alternatifs de règlement des litiges et l'accès restreint du public aux décisions des organismes pour 
l'égalité de traitement. De nombreux États membres ne disposent pas d'obligations légales ou de 
mécanismes  de  collecte  et  d'analyse  des  données  relatives  à  la  discrimination,  et  les  règles 
nationales  limitent  souvent  la  collecte  de  données  sur  la  discrimination  raciale  ou  ethnique.  Des 
données complètes et systématiques sur les sanctions et leur exécution sont souvent indisponibles. 
On  note  également  des  différences  dans  les  modalités  de  collecte  des  données  par  diverses 
organisations  qui  entravent  une  analyse  au  niveau  national.  Les  contraintes  en  matière  de 
ressources  compliquent  encore  les  efforts  de  collecte  de  données.  Enfin,  les  changements 
institutionnels,  tels  que  la  dissolution  d'organismes  spécialisés  ou  l'évolution  des  pratiques,  ont 
également perturbé la collecte et l'analyse des données dans certaines juridictions. 

Un défi important lié à la sensibilisation est le manque de formation adéquate sur les sanctions pour 
les professionnels, tels que les juges, ce qui peut entraver l'application efficace du cadre juridique. 
Les  efforts  de  sensibilisation  du  grand  public  aux  sanctions  sont  compliqués  par  l’utilisation 
d’informations  obsolètes  ou  inadaptés,  ainsi  que  par  des  budgets  limités  qui  restreignent  encore 
davantage  les  activités  de  sensibilisation  de  la  société.  Atteindre  les  groupes  vulnérables  et 
marginalisés  reste  un  défi  en  raison  de  stratégies  de  sensibilisation  inadéquates,  de  barrières 
linguistiques  et  d'un  manque  de  matériel  adapté.  Les  efforts  de  sensibilisation  sont  également 
entravés  par  le  manque  d'expertise  des  organismes  responsables  (par  exemple,  ceux  qui  sont 
soumis à des obligations en matière d'égalité3) et par la connaissance limitée des obligations légales 
des principales parties prenantes (par exemple, les responsables des ressources humaines). 

4.  Bonnes pratiques liées au cadre juridique et à son application  

Bonnes pratiques liées au cadre juridique 

Les exemples de bonnes pratiques nationales montrent que la souplesse de la législation nationale 
permet d'adapter les sanctions aux circonstances spécifiques de chaque cas, tandis que des règles 
claires et régulièrement mises à jour garantissent que les sanctions restent pertinentes et efficaces. 

L'autorisation d'un large éventail de sanctions permettrait de mieux refléter la nature et la gravité des 
infractions. Des mécanismes innovants tels que les injonctions peuvent conduire à des changements 
durables.  

3 Il s'agit d'obligations légales imposées aux autorités publiques et, dans certains cas, aux entités privées, qui les obligent à promouvoir 
activement l'égalité, à prévenir la discrimination et à prendre en considération l'impact potentiel de leurs politiques et pratiques sur les 
groupes protégés.  

19 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Des  montants  de  sanction  adéquats  et  des  règles  de  calcul  claires  fournissent  aux  tribunaux  et 
autres  organes  décisionnels  les  outils  nécessaires  pour  imposer  des  sanctions  efficaces, 
proportionnées et dissuasives. En outre, développer des lignes directrices relatives à l'imposition de 
sanctions pourrait conduire à une pratique juridique plus cohérente. La prise en compte explicite des 
facteurs  aggravants,  tels  que  la  récidive,  l'implication  d'agents  publics  ou  les  pratiques 
discriminatoires  résultant  de  systèmes  automatisés  et/ou  d'intelligence  artificielle,  contribue  à 
garantir l'adaptation des sanctions aux spécificités de l'affaire. 

Des  mesures  efficaces  d'accès  à  la  justice,  y  compris  des  règles  claires  sur  la  représentation 
juridique, les recours collectifs et les exemptions de frais, pourraient faciliter l'accès à la justice et 
sont donc essentielles de même que des mécanismes d'exécution solides et un suivi efficace des 
sanctions pour que les sanctions initiales imposées soient appliquées de manière adéquate et en 
temps voulu. 

Bonnes pratiques liées à l'application pratique 

L'imposition  de  sanctions  qui  renforcent  la  dissuasion,  telles  que  l'exposition  aux  médias,  la 
publication  des  jugements  ou  des  peines  plus  lourdes  pour  lutter  efficacement  contre  la 
discrimination, est une bonne pratique. L'imposition de sanctions tournées vers l'avenir, telles que 
les injonctions structurelles, montre comment des sanctions sur mesure peuvent s'attaquer à des 
formes systémiques de discrimination.  

Dans  certains  États  membres,  l'application  de  sanctions  adéquates  s’est  avérée  essentielle  pour 
promouvoir  l'équité,  prévenir  les  préjugés  et  renforcer  la  confiance  dans  le  système  judiciaire. 
Connaître  les  conséquences  d’actes  discriminatoires  dissuade  les  délinquants  potentiels  et 
encourage les victimes à faire appel à la justice. Des sanctions adaptées fournissent des orientations 
précieuses aux professionnels du droit. 

En outre, des exemples montrent que l'habilitation d'organisations spécialisées (par exemple, des 
ONG, des syndicats) à porter des affaires devant les tribunaux ou à proposer des sanctions peut 
renforcer l'efficacité des mécanismes de sanction. 

Bonnes pratiques liées à la collecte de données et à la sensibilisation 

La mise en place de règles pour la collecte et la publication de données complètes sur les plaintes, 
les  résultats  des  affaires  et  les  sanctions,  ainsi  que  de  données  désagrégées  sur  les  motifs  de 
discrimination, a été identifiée comme une bonne pratique. 

La  publication des  décisions  rendues  dans  les affaires de  discrimination est  une pratique clé qui 
sensibilise et encourage le signalement des cas. Des formations régulières adaptées aux différentes 
parties prenantes, y compris les fonctionnaires, les professionnels du droit, les groupes vulnérables 
et les secteurs spécifiques tels que l'éducation, favorisent également la sensibilisation. Une diffusion 
plus large de rapports contenant des informations sur les discriminations, la manière de les signaler 
et  les  sanctions  associées,  par  le  biais  de  sites  internet  officiels  et  de  campagnes  médiatiques 
ciblées  s'est  avérée  efficace  pour  sensibiliser  le  public.  De  plus,  la  nomination  obligatoire  de 
responsables  de  la  discrimination  dans  les  grandes  entreprises  représente  une  pratique  efficace 
pour institutionnaliser les efforts de lutte contre la discrimination au sein des entreprises. 

20 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

1. Introduction 

This Final Report is prepared under Specific Contract No. JUST/2022/PR/CNDI/EQUA/0184. 

The Final Report is structured as follows: 

•  Section  1:  recalls  the  scope  and  objectives  of  the  Study  (Section  1.1)  and  some 

methodological considerations (Section 1.2);  

•  Section 2: provides a comparative overview of the applicable legal framework;  

•  Section  3:  provides  a  comparative  overview  of  the  practical  application  of  the  legal 

framework; 

•  Section 4: outlines the main challenges encountered in relation to the legal framework and/or 

its application in practice; 

•  Section 5: outlines the good practices identified in relation to the legal framework and/or its 

application in practice.  

•  Section 6: provides some concluding remarks.  

1.1. Objectives and scope 

This sub-section outlines the objectives and scope of the Study.  

1.1.1. Objectives 

The  Study  covers  two  legal  instruments,  notably  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  (RED)4;  and  the 
Employment Equality Directive (EED)5.  

The  Study’s  overall  objective  is  to  enhance  protection  against  discrimination  and  improve  the 
application  of  sanctions  in  discrimination  cases.  In  particular,  the  Study  has  the  following  four 
specific objectives, each corresponding to a specific task:  

•  To establish an overview of domestic laws in the EU Member States on the sanctions and 
sanction systems applicable in discrimination cases on the grounds of ethnic origin, racial 
origin and/or religion (Taks 1 – Legal analysis); 

•  To research the application of these domestic law provisions in practice in each of the EU 
Member States, including through an analysis of case-law from courts and other adjudicating 
bodies (Task 2 - Application of the law in practice);  

•  To  develop  guidance  on  how  to  ensure  that  sanctions  are  effective,  proportionate  and 

dissuasive (Task 3 – Developing guidelines); and  

•  To  ensure  an  exchange  of  views  and  further  fine-tuning  of  such  guidance  through  the 
organisation  of  a  participatory  event  for  EU  stakeholders,  and  ultimately,  the  issuance  of 

4 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or 
ethnic origin (OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22–26, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/43/oj), hereinafter referred to as Council Directive 
2000/43/EC or RED. 
5 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and 
occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16–22, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/78/oj), hereinafter to as Council Directive 2000/78/EC 
or EED. 

21 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

recommendations 
observations/recommendations).  

(Task 

4 

– 

Participatory 

event 

& 

concluding 

Sections 2-6 of the Final Report constitute the horizontal assessment of Tasks 1 (Legal analysis) 
and 2 (Application of the law in practice) of the Study. A Good Practice Guide, corresponding to Task 
3 of the Study is a separate document. The participatory event under Task 4 was held on 4 November 
2024. A summary of the key points discussed is annexed to this Final Report. Where relevant, these 
findings have been integrated into the final version of the Good Practice Guide. 

1.1.2. Scope 

The project’s geographical scope extends to all 27 EU Member States.   

The project’s material scope covers the following: 

•  Areas: all areas covered by the RED (i.e., employment, education, social protection, social 
advantages  and  access to  and  supply  of  goods and services,  including housing);  and  the 
EED (i.e., employment and occupation); 

•  Grounds:  

-  With respect to the RED: ethnic and racial grounds; 

-  With respect to the EED: religious grounds.  

Sanctions related to other protected grounds under EU equality legislation, like gender, disability, 
age, and sexual orientation are generally outside the scope of this Study. However, information on 
these  grounds  is  included  when  highlighting  good  practices  or  challenges  relevant  to the  Study's 
focus.  

Sanctions  imposed  in  hate  crime  and  hate  speech  cases,  as  envisaged  by  Council  Framework 
Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism 
and xenophobia by means of criminal law6, are not covered.  

For  the  purposes  of  this  Study,  the  term  ‘sanction’  is  interpreted  broadly  to  include  penalties 
(sanctions with a punitive aim), remedies (sanctions with a compensatory aim), and other forms of 
redress  (e.g.,  sanctions  with  a  social-preventive  function  or  those  aimed  at  preventing  individual 
perpetrators  from  committing  discrimination)  7.  Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  term  ‘sanction’  as 
used in this Final Report is intended to cover all types of legal consequences established by national 
legislation for discrimination cases, which may be imposed by courts or other adjudicating bodies 
(including by an equality body in cases where such competence is assigned to them).  

1.2. Methodological considerations 

It is recalled that this Final Report focuses on the analysis of Tasks 1 and 2. Given this specific focus, 
this  sub-section  outlines  the  method  applied  in  completing  the  said  tasks.  It  also  outlines  some 
methodological limitations, particularly those related to the case-law review and the completion of 
the interviews.  

6 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and 
xenophobia by means of criminal law (OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55–58, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2008/913/oj). 
7 Characterisation deriving from the specific Tender Specifications, as well as previous studies on the topic, including Equinet, 
Wladasch. K., ‘The sanctions regime in discrimination cases and its effects’, 2015 ; Equinet, Tudisco, V., and Lantschner, E., 
‘Preventing and reacting to discrimination through sanctions and remedies’, 2022. 

22 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

1.2.1. Methodological considerations for Tasks 1 and 2 

Task 1, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview of the legal framework in place for sanctioning 
discrimination on the grounds and areas covered by the RED and EED, was completed by a team 
of country experts. It entailed the systematic review of the applicable legislation, and other sources 
of legal information, including soft law measures, legal literature, studies and case-law.  

Task  2,  aiming  to  provide  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the  application  of  these  domestic  law 
provisions in practice, was completed by the team of country experts based on interviews and case-
law review, complemented by desk research, as necessary. These sources also provided insights 
into the challenges and good practices linked to the legal framework and its application in practice.  

The  national-level  findings,  serving  as  the  main  source  of  information  for  this  Final  Report,  are 
documented in the respective Country Research Templates. 

1.2.2. Methodological limitations   

The  main  methodological  limitations  are  linked  to  the  case-law  review  and  the  completion  of  the 
interviews, both serving as important sources especially for the completion of Task 2.  

Stakeholder  interviews:  each  country  expert  was  tasked  to  complete  at  least  five  national-level 
interviews, covering the following types of stakeholders: 

•  Judicial authority/court; 

•  Non-judicial authority, competent to issue binding sanctions in the field of discrimination; 

•  Civil society organisation; 

•  Social partner; 

•  Other (lawyer/law firm, ministry, academic expert, equality body – if not competent to issue 

sanctions).  

The country experts were asked to identify relevant contacts representing each of the stakeholder 
types above. Their selection was discussed with the European Commission services. Upon approval 
of the  national  selection,  the  country  experts  arranged the  interviews.  They  were  provided with a 
supporting letter and a questionnaire (in English).  

The  country  experts  were  in  charge  of  sending  reminders  to  the  stakeholders  and  to  report  any 
issues encountered to the Study team.  

As shown in the table below, deviations in the number or types of stakeholders occurred in certain 
Member States due to a lack of responses or refusals to participate in the Study. 

Table 1: Overview of completed stakeholder interviews 

Judicial 
authority 

Other 
adjudicating 
body 

Civil 
society 

Social 
partner 

Other 

Lawyer 

Equality 
body 

Academic 
expert 

Other 

X 

X/X 

X/X 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

X 

X 

X8 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X 

X/X/X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X 

X9 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X10 

X 

X 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

MT 

X 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Legend: in the table above, X represents the number of interviews held.  

Where the evidence-base gathered via the interviews was not considered sufficient to write up the 
national-level analysis, the country experts carried out additional desk review.  

Case-law  review:  Each  country  expert  was  tasked  to  identify  relevant  case-law  that  illustrates 
particular challenges, good practices, trends, or aspects of practical application. The review was to 
cover at least 12 court cases and up to 12 decisions from each adjudicating body in the Member 

8 Ministry of Justice and Public Order. 
9 The social partner is mentioned as a civil society organisation in several instances of the FI country report. 
10 Representative of academia and law firm. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

States. The selected cases were to represent a mix of grounds and areas of discrimination, ensuring 
a balanced representation across the following categories: 

•  Cases imposing sanctions for racial/ethnic discrimination in employment; 

•  Cases imposing sanctions for racial/ethnic discrimination in education; 

•  Cases imposing sanctions for racial/ethnic discrimination in social protection; 

•  Cases imposing sanctions for racial/ethnic discrimination in access to or supply of publicly 

available goods; 

•  Cases imposing sanctions for racial/ethnic discrimination in access to or supply of publicly 

available services; 

•  Cases imposing sanctions for discrimination based on religion in employment11. 

Additional  considerations included  ensuring  that  at  least  one-third  of the  cases  were  collective  in 
nature (actio popularis or class action) and selecting the most recent cases possible. 

The  proposed  method  for  case-law  identification  was  stakeholder  interviews,  complemented  by 
desk-research, as necessary.  

In all Member States, deviations from the selection criteria above were necessary. The box below 
outlines some recurring reasons for the deviations, with a note that detailed explanations, specific to 
each Member State, are provided in the respective Country Research Templates. It is also noted 
that often multiple reasons combined have led to deviations from the selection criteria. 

Box 1: Reasons for deviations from the selection criteria and/or number of cases 

Deviations from the selection criteria applicable to court cases: 

•  Methodological constraints:  

- 

Interview and desk research limitations: interviews and complementary desk research did not 
lead to the identification of cases that are fully compliant with the selection criteria (observed 
in e.g., AT, DK, EL, HU, LT, NL, PL, RO). Often, interviewees reported on cases that they were 
aware  of  or  that  existed  in  the  country;  those  cases,  however,  might  not  always  be  in  full 
alignment  with  the  selection  criteria.  Similarly,  the  complementary  desk  research  did  not 
always lead to the identification of cases that fully meet the selection criteria. 

- 

Limited  database  capabilities:  case  law  search  engines  not  allowing  for  filtering  by 
discrimination ground and/or type of sanction (observed in e.g., AT and HU). 

-  Non-publication of decisions: not all court decisions being published (observed in e.g., HR, IE 

and PT).  

•  Scarcity or the lack of case law meeting the selection criteria:  

-  Discrimination cases specific to the grounds or areas covered by the Study seem to be rare or 

lacking (observed in e.g., HR, LT, LV, LU, MT, SI). 

-  A number of discrimination cases concern discrimination grounds (e.g., grounds of disability 

or gender) that are not covered by the RED/EED (observed in e.g., EE, EL, IT, SI). 

11 "Employment" under the EED is to be interpreted broadly. See e.g., Judgment of 12 January 2023, J.K. v TP S.A, C-356/21, 
EU:C:2023:9, paragraph 43 and 54: ‘Directive 2000/78/EC […] which seek to protect only workers as the weaker party in an 
employment relationship, but seeks to eliminate, on grounds relating to social and public interest, all discriminatory obstacles to access 
to livelihoods and to the capacity to contribute to society through work, irrespective of the legal form in which it is provided’. 

25 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

-  A  number  of  discrimination  cases  concern  certain  areas  covered  by  the  RED/EED,  but  not 
others  (e.g.,  cases  concern  the  sector  of  education,  but  not  the  sector  of  employment) 
(observed in e.g., BE, DE, FR, HU). 

Deviations from the selection criteria applicable to cases of other adjudicating bodies:  

•  Methodological constraints:  

- 

Interview and desk research limitations: interviews and complementary desk research did not 
allow for full compliance with the selection criteria (observed in e.g., EL, LU, LV, RO). Often, 
interviewees reported on cases that they were aware of or that existed in the country; those 
cases, however, might not always be in full alignment with the selection criteria. Similarly, the 
complementary desk research did not always lead to the identification of cases that fully meet 
the selection criteria.  

-  Non-publication of decisions: not all relevant decisions being published (observed in e.g., BG, 

EL, HU, SK, PL, PT).   

•  Scarcity or the lack of case law meeting the selection criteria: 

-  Discrimination cases specific to the grounds or areas covered by the Study seem to be rare or 

lacking (observed in e.g., EE, LT, MT). 

-  A number of discrimination cases concern discrimination grounds or areas that are not covered 

by the Study (observed in e.g., BG, EE, HU). 

•  Lack of competence to issue binding sanctions: authorities other than courts are not vested with the 

competence to impose binding sanctions (observed in e.g., AT, BE, DE, ES, HR, IT, SI).  

Deriving from the above, the cases identified differ considerably across the various jurisdictions in 
terms of their numbers and coverage. As a result, a comprehensive comparison of the applicable 
case law was not feasible within the scope of this Study. Instead, this Final Report presents national 
jurisprudence where relevant, to highlight specific trends related to practices, challenges, and good 
practices that are common to several Member States or are otherwise considered as illustrative. 

An  additional  limitation  arises  from  the  methodology  used  for  obtaining  information  to  describe 
practices, challenges, and good practices (Task 2). The relevant sections of this report (Sections 3-
5)  were  developed  based  on  stakeholder  interviews  and  complementary  desk  research.  These 
processes involve a certain level of subjectivity and dependence on the opinions of stakeholders and 
information  from  publicly  available  sources.  As  a  result,  the  analysis  may  not  always  be  fully 
exhaustive. Consequently, it is possible that similar practices, good practices, and challenges exist 
in other Member States as well; but without these being specifically mentioned in this Report.  

Additionally,  it  is  noted  that  in  the  case  of  Austria  and  Belgium,  only  federal  level  legislation  is 
covered. 

As  a  final  point,  it  is  noted  that  the  information  contained  in  this  Final  Report  is  based  on  the 
information provided by the country experts. Most of the research activities were completed between 
January and June 2024, entailing the developments beyond June 2024 are not considered.  

26 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

2. Legal analysis 

Section 2 of this Final Report is dedicated to the horizontal analysis of Task 1 – Legal analysis. It is 
structured as follows: 

•  Section 2.1: Overview of the legal framework applicable to sanctions; 

•  Section 2.2: Overview of judicial/adjudicating bodies competent to issue sanctions; 

•  Section 2.3: Overview of the applicable sanctions; 

•  Section 2.4: Determination of the applicable sanctions; 

•  Section 2.5: Procedural aspects; 

•  Section 2.6: Other aspects of the legal framework (data collection and awareness raising). 

2.1. Overview of the legal framework applicable to sanctions 

2.1.1. Comparative overview of the legal framework 

Pursuant to Article 15 of the RED and Article 17 of the EED, which are quoted in the box below, 
Member States are obliged to lay down rules on sanctions for cases of discrimination. The sanctions, 
which may comprise the payment of compensation to the victim, must be effective, proportionate 
and dissuasive.  

Box 2: Article 15 RED, Article 17 EED 

Member States shall lay down the rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of the national provisions 
adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are applied. 
The  sanctions,  which  may  comprise  the  payment  of  compensation  to  the  victim,  must  be  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive. […] 

As further illustrated in the table below, national rules on sanctions implementing the Directives’ 
provisions  could  fall  under  different  legal  areas,  including  inter  alia  civil  law,  criminal  law, 
administrative law and labour law. 

In some jurisdictions, sanctions for discrimination are established in specific national equality or 
non-discrimination legislation (i.e., specific legislation enacted to promote non-discrimination on 
certain grounds and in certain areas, often including provisions on sanctions to address instances of 
discrimination). Such legislation is sometimes the only legal framework that sets out such sanctions. 
In other jurisdictions, legislation other than specific equality or non-discrimination legislation (e.g., 
Civil Codes, Criminal Codes) regulates discrimination and provides for corresponding sanctions.  

27 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Table 2: Sanctions for discrimination as per area of law 

Civil law 

Criminal law 

Administrative 
law 

Labour law12 

Other 

(specified) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

X* 

X* 

X 

X* 

X* 

X/X* 

X* 

X* 

X/X* 

X 

X* 

X 

X 

X/X* 

X/X* 

X/X* 

X 

X/X* 

X/X* 

X/X* 

X/X* 

X/X* 

X* 

X 

X 

X* 

X* 

X 

X* 

X 

X 

X 

X* 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X* 

X 

X* 

X* 

X* 

X 

X* 

X/X* 

X* 

X/X* 

X/X* 

X 

X/X* 

X 

X/X* 

X 

X 

X* 

X* 

X 

X/X* 

X – administrative 
criminal 

X* - 
misdemeanours 

X 

X 

X 

X – quasi-criminal 

X 

X – minor offences 

12 Although labour law can be regarded as a separate area of law, distinct from civil and administrative law, most country experts 
classified sanctions imposed under labour law within these other categories of law. This column highlights instances where the country 
experts have specifically marked labour law sanctions as separate from sanctions imposed under other areas of law. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Civil law 

Criminal law 

Administrative 
law 

Labour law12 

Other 

(specified) 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

X/X* 

X* 

X/X* 

X/X* 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X* 

X* 

X 

Legend: X* - Specific equality/non-discrimination legislation is highlighted with an asterisk (*) in the table above;  
X  –  Refers  to  legislation  other  than  specific  equality/non-discrimination  legislation;  X/X*  -  Refers  to  instances  where  both  specific 
equality/non-discrimination legislation and other legislation exist 

As illustrated in the table above, criminal law sanctions are envisaged in 21 Member States (all 
Member States, but AT, CZ, DE, HU, PL and PT). In 15 Member States (BG, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, 
IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, RO13, SE, SI and SK), criminal law sanctions are specified in general criminal 
legislation, such as the Criminal Code or its equivalent in the national language. In six Member States 
(BE, CY, DK, EL, IE and MT), however, specific non-discrimination/equality legislation provides for 
criminal sanctions. These are further described in the box below. 

Box 3: Regulation of criminal law sanctions in specific equality/non-discrimination 
legislation  

Belgium: The Federal Anti-Discrimination Act14 (in relation to the EED) and the Federal Anti-Racism Act15 
(in relation to the RED) set forth criminal sanctions for specific infringements.  

Cyprus: Both the Equal Treatment (Racial or Ethnic Origin) Law of 200416 (RED Law, transposing the RED) 
and the Equal Treatment in Employment Law of 200417 (EED Law, transposing the EED) provide for criminal 
law sanctions.  

Denmark: Law 399/2024 on the Prohibition against Discrimination on the Labour Market18 (in relation to the 
EED), provides for criminal penalties in cases of severe violations.  

Greece: Law 4443/201619 provides for criminal sanctions for the violation of the anti-discrimination principle 
when supplying goods or services to the public (in relation to the RED). 

13 In Romania, most discriminatory behaviours penalised under criminal law are classified as hate crimes or hate speech, which fall 
outside the scope of this Study. The only relevant criminal offence for this Study is the hindrance of religious freedom. Jurisprudence 
indicates however that violations of the right to freedom of expression are rarely sanctioned criminally, but are instead addressed 
through tort liability. 
14 Act of 10 May 2007 combating certain forms of discrimination (Wet van 10 mei 2007 ter bestrijding van bepaalde vormen van 
discriminatie), Federal Anti-Discrimination Act, B.S., 30 May 2007, p. 29016.  
15 Act of 30 July 1981 sanctioning certain acts motivated by racism or xenophonia (Wet van 30 juli 1981 tot bestraffing van bepaalde 
door racism of xenophobie ingegeven daden), Federal Anti-Racism Act, B.S., 8 August 1981, p. 9928.  
16 Law No 59(I)/2004 Equal treatment (Racial or Ethnic Origin) Law of 2004 as amended in 2006 with Law 147(I)/2006 to include the 
provisions on burden of proof which were not initially transposed (Ο Περί Ίσης Μεταχείρισης (Φυλετική ή Εθνοτική Καταγωγή) Νόμος του 
2004 ως τροποποιήθηκε το 2006), Official Gazette, Part I(I), No 3828 of 31/3/2004 and Official Gazette Part Ι(I), No 4098 of  
24/11/2006.  
17 Law 58(I)/2004 Equal Treatment in Employment Law of 2004 as amended in 2007 and 2009 (Ο Περί Ίσης Μεταχείρισης στην 
Απασχόληση και την Εργασία Νόμος του 2004 ως τροποποιήθηκε το 2007 και 2009) Official Gazette, Part Ι(I), No 3828 of 31/3/2004, 
Official Gazette, Part Ι(I), No 4122 of 18/5/2007 and Official Gazette, Part I(I), No 4214 of 24/7/2009. 
18 Law 399/2024 of 5 April 2024 on Prohibition against Discrimination on the Labour Market (Lov om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på 
arbejdsmarkedet), Law 399/2024.  
19 Law 4443/2016 of 9 December .2016 ‘On the transposition of Directive 43/2000/EC on the application of the principle of equal 
treatment irrespective of race and ethnic origin, and the transposition of Directive 78/2000/EC on the configuration of the general 
framework of equal treatment in employment and work, (Νόμος 4443/2016 κατά των διακρίσεων στην εργασία και στην απασχόληση) 
Official Gazette no. Α΄ 232/9.12.2016.   

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Ireland: The Employment Equality Acts 1998-202120 and the Equal Status Acts 2000-201821 both penalise 
discriminatory or victimising behaviour in the employment context (in relation to both the RED and the EED).  

Malta: The Equal Treatment in Employment Regulations, 200422 (in relation to the RED and the EED) and 
the Equal Treatment of Persons Order, 200723  (in relation to the RED) both envisage criminal sanctions for 
contraventions.  

Civil  law  sanctions  are  envisaged  in  the  national  legislation  of  26  Member  States  (all  Member 
States except ES). In eight Member States (AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, FI, HR, and SE), civil law sanctions 
are  regulated  exclusively  in  specific  equality/non-discrimination  legislation.  In  13  Member  States 
(CZ, EE, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, and SK), civil law sanctions are provided in both 
specific equality/non-discrimination laws and other legislation, such as the Civil Code and the Labour 
Code, or their national equivalents. In the remaining five Member States (BG, EL, FR, HU, and LU), 
civil law sanctions are only envisaged under laws that are not specific to equality/non-discrimination. 
The box below illustrates these approaches by country-specific examples. 

Box 4: Regulation of civil law sanctions  

Civil law sanctions in specific equality/non-discrimination legislation: 

•  Austria: The Federal Law on Equal Treatment24 provides for civil law compensation scheme. 

•  Cyprus: The Equal Treatment (Racial or Ethnic Origin) Law of 200425 (RED Law) and the Equal 

Treatment in Employment Law of 200426 (EED Law) provide for civil law sanctions.  

•  Denmark:  Law  399/2024  on  the  Prohibition  against  Discrimination  on  the  Labour  Market27 

envisages civil law compensation.  

Civil law sanctions in other legislation: 

•  Hungary: The Civil Code28 provides for protection against the violation of personality rights, which 

encompass protection against discrimination.  

•  France: The Civil Code29 and the Labour Code30 provide for compensation schemes to victims of 
discrimination. Under the French approach, employment related sanctions are classified as civil law 
sanctions. 

20 Employment Equality Act 1998, Number 21 of 1998 (consolidated version, as amended). 
21 Equal Status Act 2000, Number 8 of 2000 (consolidated version, as amended). 
22 Subsidiary Legislation 452.95, Equal Treatment in Employment Regulations (Regolamenti dwar Trattamenti Ugwali fl-Impiegi), ETER, 
Legal Notice 461 of 2004 of 5 November 2004, last amended by Legal Notice 274 of 2014. 
23 Subsidiary Legislation 460.15, Equal Treatment of Persons Order, (Ordni dwar Trattament Indaqs ta’ Persuni), ETPO, Legal Notice 85 
of 2007 of 3 April 2007, last amended by Legal Notice 427 of 2007.  
24 Federal law on equal treatment (Bundesgesetz über die Gleichbehandlung), BGBl. Nr. 66/2004, GlBG.  
25 Law No 59(I)/2004 Equal treatment (Racial or Ethnic Origin) Law of 2004 as amended in 2006 with Law 147(I)/2006 to include the 
provisions on burden of proof which were not initially transposed (Ο Περί Ίσης Μεταχείρισης (Φυλετική ή Εθνοτική Καταγωγή) Νόμος 
του 2004 ως τροποποιήθηκε το 2006), Official Gazette, Part I(I), No 3828 of 31 March 2004 and Official Gazette Part Ι(I), No 4098 of  24 
November 2006. 
26 Law 58(I)/2004 Equal Treatment in Employment Law of 2004 as amended in 2007 and 2009 (Ο Περί Ίσης Μεταχείρισης στην 
Απασχόληση και την Εργασία Νόμος του 2004 ως τροποποιήθηκε το 2007 και 2009 (Official Gazette, Part Ι(I), No 3828 of 31 March 
2004, Official Gazette, Part Ι(I), No 4122 of 18 May 2007 and Official Gazette, Part I(I), No 4214 of 24 July 2009. 
27 Law 399/2024 of 5 April 2024 on Prohibition against Discrimination on the Labour Market (Lov om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på 
arbejdsmarkedet).  
28 Act V of 2013 Civil Code (2013. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről), Civil Code, Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 
02382-02663.  
29 Article 1240, Civil Code (Code civil), Order no. 2016-131 of 10 February 2016 reforming the law of contracts, the general system and 
proof of obligations (Ordonnance n° 2016-131 du 10 février 2016 portant réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la 
preuve des obligations), JUSC1522466R. 
30 Articles L1132-1 and following, Labour Code, modified by Law no. 2022-401 of 21 March 2022 aimed at improving the protection of 
whistleblowers (LOI n° 2022-401 du 21 mars 2022 visant à améliorer la protection des lanceurs d'alerte), Official Gazette no. 0068 of 22 
March 2022. 

30 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Bulgaria: The Law on obligations and contracts31 provides for a civil compensation scheme, which 

under the Bulgarian legal order, however. is not considered as a sanction per se.  

Civil law sanctions in both specific equality/non-discrimination and other legislation:  

•  Estonia: The Penal Code32 sets forth civil law sanctions for civil offences (misdemeanours). The 
Equal Treatment Act33 allows for compensatory damages for harm caused due to discrimination, 
which includes both pecuniary and non-pecuniary (moral) damages. 

•  Poland: The Act on the Implementation of Certain Provisions of the European Union in the Field of 
Equal Treatment34 (ETA) and the Civil Code35 (on matters not covered by the ETA) provide for civil 
law sanctions. 

•  Slovakia: Multiple laws provide for civil sanctions, including the Antidiscrimination Act36, the Labour 
Code37  and  the  Act  on  voluntary  military  preparation  and  amending  and  supplementing  certain 
acts38. It is notable that employment related sanctions are classified as civil sanctions. 

Administrative  law  sanctions  are  set  forth  in  the  national  legislation  of  22  Member  States  (all 
Member States, except BE, DE, HR, IE and SE). In eight Member States (AT, BG, CY, DK, EL, MT, 
NL  and  SI),  administrative  law  sanctions  are  regulated  exclusively  in  specific  equality/non-
discrimination legislation. In seven Member States (EE, ES, FI, HU, LT, PT and RO), administrative 
law sanctions are provided in both specific equality/non-discrimination laws and other legislation. In 
the remaining seven Member States (CZ, FR, IT, LU, LV, PL and SK), administrative law sanctions 
are only envisaged under laws that are not specific to equality/non-discrimination. The box below 
illustrates these approaches by country-specific examples. 

Box 5: Regulation of administrative law sanctions 

Administrative law sanctions in specific equality/non-discrimination legislation: 

•  Cyprus: The Combating of Racial and Certain Other Discrimination (Commissioner) Law of 2004 

(Law 42(I)/2004)39 provides for extrajudicial/administrative sanctions that may be imposed.  

•  Netherlands: The General Equal Treatment Act40 provides for administrative sanctions, which are 
typically  imposed  against  unlawful  administrative  decisions  or  other  unlawful  conduct  by 
administrative bodies. 

31 Law on obligations and contracts (ЗАКОН ЗА ЗАДЪЛЖЕНИЯТА И ДОГОВОРИТЕ.). 
32 Estonian Penal Code (Eesti Karistusseadustik), Riigi Teataja, RT I, 06 July 2023, 40.   
33 Equal Treatment Act (Võrdse kohtlemise seadus), Riigi Teataja, entry into force on 01 January 2009, revised on 07 March 2022. 
34 Act on the Implementation of Certain Provisions of the European Union in the Field of Equal Treatment of 3 December 2010, (referred 
to as the Equal Treatment Act – ETA) (Ustawa z dnia 3 grudnia 2010 r. o wdrożeniu niektórych przepisów Unii Europejskiej w zakresie 
równego traktowania), Official Law Journal 2010 no. 254 item. 1700. 
35 Act on the Civil Code of 23 April 1964, (Ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. Kodeks cywilny, Dz.U. 1964 nr 16 poz. 93), Official Law 
Journal 1964 no 16 item 93 (referred to as Civil Code). 
36 Act No 365/2004 Coll. of 20 May 2004 on equal treatment in certain areas and on protection from discrimination and amending and 
supplementing certain acts (the Antidiscrimination Act) (Zákon č. 365/2004 Z. z. o rovnakom zaobchádzaní v niektorých oblastiach a o 
ochrane pred diskrimináciou a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (antidiskriminačný zákon)), Legal Gazette no. 153/2004, of 24 
June 2004.  
37 Act No 311/2001 Coll. of 2 July 2001 the Labour Code (Zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce), Legal Gazette no. 130/2001, of 6 
April 2001.  
38 Act No 378/2015 Coll. of 12 November 2015 on voluntary military preparation and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon 
č. 378/2015 Z. z. o dobrovoľnej vojenskej príprave a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov), Legal Gazette No. 103/2015, of 15 
December 2015.  
39 Law 42(I)/2004 The Combating of Racial and Certain Other Discrimination (Commissioner) Law (Ο Περί Καταπολέμησης των 
Φυλετικών και Ορισμένων Άλλων Διακρίσεων (Επίτροπος) Νόμος του 2004), Official Gazette, Part I(I), No 3822 of 19 March 2004. 
40 Act of 2 March 1994, on general rules for the protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, belief, political preference, race, 
gender, nationality, hetero- or homosexual orientation or civil status (General Equal Treatment Act), (Wet van 2 maart 1994, houdende 
algemene regels ter bescherming tegen discriminatie op grond van godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, 

31 

 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Slovenia: The Protection Against Discrimination Act41 provides for administrative fines for exposing 

a person to discrimination. 

Administrative law sanctions in other legislation: 

•  France:  The  General  Code  of  Public  Service42  provides  for  administrative  compensation  and 

disciplinary sanctions.  

•  Luxembourg: Law of 29 November 200643 as an amending law and Law of 16 April 197944 sets 

out disciplinary sanctions applicable to public servants. 

•  Latvia:  The  Administrative  Procedure  Law45  provides  for  administrative  compensation  for 

administrative violations. 

Administrative law sanctions in both specific equality/non-discrimination and other legislation:  

•  Spain: Administrative law sanctions are provided for in a number of laws, including the General Law 
for the Defence of Consumers and Users46, providing sanctions for discrimination actions against 
consumers; Law no. 15/202247 laying down the regime for administrative infractions and sanctions 
related to equal treatment and non-discrimination.  

•  Hungary: Administrative law sanctions are set forth in multiple laws, including the National Public 
Education Act48, in relation to discrimination in the sector of education; the Consumer Protection 
Act49, in relation to discrimination in the context of access to and supply of goods and services; and 
two  specific  equality/non-discrimination  legislation,  notably  the  Ombudsman  Act50  and  the  Equal 
Treatment Act51, both applying to discrimination on all grounds, regardless of the area. 

•  Portugal: The Labour Code52 lays out administrative sanctions for discrimination in the employment 
context; whereas  Law 93/201753, constituting  a specific equality/non-discrimination law, provides 
for  administrative  sanctions  for  discriminatory  practices  in  the  areas  of  social  protection,  social 

nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling) Awgb, Stb. 1994-230 of 31 
March 1994. 
41 Protection Against Discrimination Act (Zakon o varstvu pred diskriminacijo), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia no. 33/16, 
21/18 – ZNOrg, PADA.  
42 Article L131-1 et seq., General Code of Public Service (Code général de la fonction publique), Order no. 2021-1574 of 24 November 
2021 on the legislative part of the General Civil Service Code (Ordonnance n° 2021-1574 du 24 novembre 2021 portant partie 
législative du code général de la fonction publique). 
43 Law of 29 November 2006 amending 1. the amended law of 16 April 1979 laying down the general status of State civil servants 2. the 
amended law of 24 December 1985 laying down the general status of municipal civil servants (Loi du 29 novembre 2006 modifiant 1. La 
loi modifiée du 16 avril 1979 fixant le statut général des fonctionnaires de l’Etat 2. la loi modifiée du 24 décembre 1985 fixant le statut 
général des fonctionnaires communaux), Official Journal of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg of 6 December 2006, Memorial A207. 
44 Law of 16 April 1979 establishing the general status of State civil servants (Loi du 16 avril 1979 fixant le statut général des 
fonctionnaires de l'Etat), Official Journal of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg of 17 April 1979, Memorial A31. 
45 Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums), Official Journal: Latvijas Vēstnesis, no. 164, 14 November 2001, 
Latvijas Republikas Saeimas un Ministru Kabineta Ziņotājs, no. 23, 13 December 2001. 
46 Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007 of 16 November, approving the revised text of the General Law for the Defence of Consumers and 
Users and other complementary laws (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007, de 16 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido 
de la Ley General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios y otras leyes complementarias), Official Bulletin no. 287 of 30 
November 2007, BOE-A-2007-20555. 
47 Law No 15/2022 of 12 July, for the equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 15/2022, 12 de Julio, integral para la igualdad de trato 
y la no discriminación), Official Bulletin no. 167, 13 July 2022, BOE-A-2022-11589. 
48 Act CXC of 2011 on National Public Education (2011. évi CXC. Törvény a nemzeti köznevelésről), National Public Education Act, 
Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, 01 September 2012, pp. 39622-39695. 
49 Act CLV of 1997 on consumer protection (1997. évi CLV. Törvény a fogyasztóvédelemről), Consumer Protection Act, Official 
publication: Magyar Közlöny, no. 1997/119, pp. 09558-09569. 
50 Act CXI of 2011 on the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (2011. évi CXI. Törvény az alapvető jogok biztosáról), Ombudsman 
Act, Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 25435-25449. 
51 Act CXXV of 2003 on equal treatment and the promotion of equal opportunities (2003. évi CXXV. Törvény az egyenlő bánásmódról és 
az esélyegyenlőség előmozdításáról) Equal Treatment Act, Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, no. 2003/157; 28 December 2003, pp. 
13044-13055. 
52 Law no. 7/2009, of 12 February, which approves the Labour Code (Lei n.º 7/2009, de 12 de Fevereiro, que aprova o Código do 
Trabalho), Official Gazette no. 30/2009, Series I of 12 February 2009. 
53 Law No 93/2017 of 23 August 2017, establishing the legal framework for preventing, prohibiting and combating discrimination based 
on racial and ethnic origin, colour, nationality, descent and territory of origin (Lei n. 93/2017, de 23 de agosto, que estabelece o regime 
jurídico da prevenção, da proibição e do combate à discriminação, em razão da origem racial e étnica, cor, nacionalidade, ascendência 
e território de origem), Official Gazette no. 162/2017, Series I of 23 August 2017. 

32 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

benefits, education, access to and supply of goods and services, culture. Law 3/2011 54 envisages 
administrative sanctions for discriminating against the self-employed. It is notable that labour law 
sanctions are considered as administrative sanctions. 

Only in the case of Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Spain did the country experts classify labour law 
sanctions  as a  specific category  of  sanction. In other jurisdictions  labour  related  sanctions  were 
classified as either civil or administrative sanctions. This different categorisation is likely to stem from 
the varying interpretations of the concept of labour law by the experts. 

Sanctions for minor (non-criminalised) offences exist in four jurisdictions (BG, HR, HU and PL). 
In Bulgaria, the Criminal Code55 provides for administrative-criminal fines, which is to be imposed for 
certain minor discrimination related crimes. In Hungary, the Petty Offences Act56, regulating quasi-
criminal  offences  and  sanctions,  provides  legal  protection  against  discrimination  in  the  education 
sector,  regardless  of  the  protected  ground.  In  Croatia,  the  Anti-Discrimination  Act57  sets  forth 
sanctions for misdemeanours. In Poland, the Code of Petty Crimes (minor offences)58 sanctions the 
discriminatory refusal to sell goods. 

2.1.2. Legislative amendments 

This  sub-section  provides  an  overview  of  the  legislative  amendments  introduced,  since  the 
transposition of the RED and the EED, in the Member States to the rules applicable to sanctions 
and/or their enforcement. Legislative amendments that concern other aspects of the legal framework 
are  not  covered  under  this  sub-section.  The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  relevant 
amendments, per country. Wherever the reasons for the relevant amendments could be identified 
from official sources, they are included in the table below. 

Table 3: Relevant legislative amendments introduced since the transposition of the RED 
and EED 

Member 
State 

AT 

Relevant legislative amendments 

(1) Amendment introduced to the Federal Law on Equal Treatment by the Federal Law Gazette 
(Bundesgesetzblatt) BGBl. I Nr. 98/200859: 

• 

Increase  in  compensation  amount:  for  discrimination  when  establishing  employment  from  one 
month’s worth of pay to two months’ worth of pay; for harassment from EUR 400 to EUR 720; 

•  Calculation  of  compensation:  introducing  the  obligation  to  consider  discrimination  on  multiple 

grounds when calculating compensation for discrimination; 

54 Law 3/2011 of 15 February 2011, prohibiting any discrimination in access to and exercise of self-employment and transposing Council 
Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 5 July (Proíbe qualquer discriminação no acesso e no exercício do trabalho independente e transpõe a Directiva 
n.º 2000/43/CE, do Conselho, de 29 de Junho, a Directiva n.º 2000/78/CE, do Conselho, de 27 de Novembro, e a Directiva n.º 
2006/54/CE, do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 5 de Julho), Official Gazette no.32/2011, Series I of 15 February 2011. 
55 Criminal Code (Наказателен кодекс), SG No. 26/1968, last amended SG No. 84/2023. 
56 Act II of 2012 on infractions, infraction procedure and the infraction records system (2012. évi II. Törvény a szabálysértésekről, a 
szabálysértési eljárásról és a szabálysértési nyilvántartási rendszerről), Petty Offences Act, Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 
00317-00378. 
57 Anti-discrimination Act (Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije), Official Gazette No. 85/2008, 112/2012. 
58 Act on Petty Crimes of 20 May 1971 (Ustawa z dnia 20 maja 1971 r. Kodeks wykroczeń, Dz.U.1971.12.115), Official Law Journal 
1971 no. 12 item 115. 
59 Federal Law amending the Equal Treatment Law and the Federal Law on the Equal Treatment Commission and the Ombud for Equal 
Treatment, BGBl. I No. 98/2008. 

33 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Compensation  options: introducing  the  right  to  choose  between  the  reinstatement  of  the  lawful 

situation or compensation in the event of discriminatory termination of employment. 

(2) Amendment introduced to the Federal Law on Equal Treatment by BGBl. I  Nr. 7/201160: 

• 

Increase in compensation amount: for harassment from EUR 720 to EUR 1 000. 

(3) Amendment introduced to the Federal Law on Equal Treatment by BGBl. I Nr. 107/201361: 

•  Calculation  of  compensation:  introducing  the  rule  that  compensation  should  be  calculated  to 
actually and effectively compensate for the loss suffered and to prevent further discrimination.  

BE 

Amendment introduced to the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Federal Anti-Racism Act by Law of 28 June 
202362: 

• 

Increase  in  compensation  amount:  tripling  of  lump  sums  for  victims  of  discrimination.  From 
January  2024,  these  amounts  will  be  indexed  yearly  based  on  changes  in  the  customer  price 
index.  

•  New  sanction:  courts  adjudicating  discrimination  cases  are  given  the  power  to  order  positive 

measures to prevent the recurrence of similar discriminatory acts. 

•  Calculation of compensation: judges have the option to combine lump-sum compensations in the 

cases of multiple or intersectional discrimination, resulting in higher sanctions.  

The aforementioned amendments were introduced due to an evaluation envisaged by Art. 52 of the Anti-
Discrimination Act63, which provides that the Legislative Chamber should assess the effectiveness of the 
federal  legislation.  The  Evaluation  Committee  following  the  said  assessment  suggested  the  changes 
introduced.  

BG 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

Law no. 15/202264 repealed the previously applicable law, and was recently adopted in Spain to enhance 
the transposition of the RED and the EED. Law no. 15/2022 introduced a new regime for administrative 
infractions and corresponding sanctions.   

60 Federal Law amending the Equal Treatment Law, the Law on the Equal Treatment Commission and the Equal Treatment 
Ombudsperson's Office, the Disability Employment Law and the Federal Disability Equality Law, BGBl. I  No. 7/2011. 
61 Federal Law amending the Equal Treatment Law, the Law on the Equal Treatment Commission and the Equal Treatment 
Ombudsperson, the Disability Employment Law, the Federal Disability Equality Law and the Labour Contract Law Adjustment Law, 
BGBl. I No. 107/2013. 
62 Act of 28 June 2023 amending the Act of 30 July 1981 on punishment of certain acts motivated by racism or xenophobia, the Act of 
10 May 2007 on combating certain forms of discrimination and the Act of 10 May 2007 on combating discrimination between women 
and men (Wet houdende wijziging van de wet van 30 juli 1981 tot bestraffing van bepaalde door racisme of xenofobie ingegeven daden, 
van de wet van 10 mei 2007 ter bestrijding van bepaalde vormen van discriminatie en van de wet van 10 mei 2007 ter bestrijding van 
discriminatie tussen vrouwen en mannen), B.S., 20 July 2023. 
63 Act of 10 May 2007 combating certain forms of discrimination (Wet van 10 mei 2007 ter bestrijding van bepaalde vormen van 
discriminatie), B.S., 30 May 2007, p. 29016. 
64 Law no 15/2022, 12 of July for the equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 15/2022, 12 de Julio, integral para la igualdad de trato 
y la no discriminación), Official Bulletin no. 167, 13 July 2022, BOE-A-2022-11589. 

34 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment.  

(1) Amendment of Article 59 of the National Public Education Act by Act LXXXVII of 202065 on the rules 
applicable to compensation for moral damages: 

•  Change of compensation method: moral compensation can no longer take the form of a financial 
compensation,  instead  claimants  can  seek  compensation  for  moral  damages  in  the  form  of 
educational services.  

The amendment was introduced following the Gyongyospata case66. This was the last landmark case where 
financial compensation was awarded for moral damages. 

(2) Amendment of the Consumer Protection Act by Act XCVI67 of 2013: 

•  New sanction: introducing the sanction of temporary closure.  

• 

Increase in sanction amount: amendment of the amount of consumer protection fine, which is a 
sanction that could be imposed when consumer protection rules are violated. This encompasses 
cases when the requirement of equal treatment is violated during the distribution of products and 
services. 

(3) Amendment of the Labour Code by Act CCLII of 201368:  

•  Establishment of sanctions: amendment establishing the currently applicable list of sanctions. 

It is also noted that Hungary, since the transposition of the RED and the EED, has adopted a new Civil 
Code and a new Labour Code, which repealed the 'old' Civil Code and Labour Code, respectively. These 
new laws have removed some existing sanctions and reconsidered others. The new Civil Code abolished 
the public interest fine that could be imposed in discrimination cases. Additionally, under the new Labour 
Code69, when a victim claims compensation for loss of income, there is now a legal maximum of 12 months' 
worth of absence fee, whereas the previous Labour Code had no such cap. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No relevant amendment. 

No  relevant  amendment.  It  is  noted  though  that  a  proposal  to  amend  the  Criminal  Code70  is  tabled 
envisaging higher sentences in cases where a common offence is committed with a discriminatory motive 
(i.e., imprisonment raised by one third). The amendment was encouraged by the European Commission 
against Racism and Intolerance.  

65 Act LXXXVII of 2020 amending Act CXC of 2011 on National Public Education (2020. évi LXXXVII. Törvény a nemzeti köznevelésről 
szóló 2011. évi CXC. törvény módosításáról), Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 09792-09792. 
66 Curia (Kúria), Decision Pfv.IV.21.556/2019. 
67 Act XCVI of 2023 amending laws in the field of justice (2023. évi XCVI. Törvény igazságügyi tárgyú törvények módosításáról), 
publication number not available. 
68 Act CCLII of 2013 amending certain laws in connection with the entry into force of the new Civil Code (2013. évi CCLII. Törvény egyes 
törvényeknek az új Polgári Törvénykönyv hatálybalépésével összefüggő módosításáról), no information on publication in official journal. 
69 Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code (2012. évi I. törvény a munka törvénykönyvéről), Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 00257-
00317. 
70 Proposal for a law by members Timmermans and Bikker (originally Buitenweg and Segers) to amend the Criminal Code in connection 
with the introduction of the discriminatory intent as a ground for aggravating penalties (Voorstel van wet van de leden Timmermands en 
Bikker (oorspronkelijk Buitenweg en Segers) tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht in verband met de invoering van het 
discriminatoir oogmerk als strafverzwaringsgrond), TK 2020-2021, 35 709, no. 2. 

35 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

PL 

Amendment introduced to the Labour Code by Act on the amendment of the Act on the Labour Code71: 

•  New sanction: the amendment introduced the right to compensation for violating the principle of 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

equal treatment. 

No relevant amendment. 

(1) Amendment of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of 
discrimination by Law No. 324 of July 14, 200672: 

•  New sanctions: civil sanctions were added to the already prescribed administrative and criminal 

sanctions; 

•  Adjustment of sanction amount: amount of fine adjusted to the value of the national currency. 

(2) Amendment of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of 
discrimination by Law No. 189 of June 25, 201373: 

•  New sanction: introducing the sanction of mass-media publication of judicial decisions. 

(3) Amendment of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of 
discrimination by Law No. 167 of August 7, 202074: 

•  New sanctions: introducing sanctions for moral harassment at work.  

The Discrimination Act75, adopted in 2009, repealed the previously existing legal framework, i.e., the Act 
(2003:307)76  on  the  prohibition  against  discrimination  and  the  Act  (1999:130)  on  measures  against 
discrimination in working life based on ethnicity, religion or other belief still in place. The Discrimination Act 
introduced a new type of damage compensation, called discrimination compensation.  

No relevant amendment. 

(1) Amendment of the Rules of Civil Procedure by Act No 384/2008 Coll. of 23 September 200877 and Act 
No. 388/2011 Coll. of 19 October 201178, respectively: 

•  Adjustment  of  sanction  system:  entails  a  change  of  approach  towards  remedies  that  could  be 
claimed  through  collective  actions  and  actio  popularis  in  discrimination  cases.  The  system  is 
modified  from  an  exhaustive  list  to  an  open-ended  list.  This  adjustment  also includes  the  legal 

71 Amendment of the Labour Code, Act on the amendment of the Act on the Labour Code (Ustawa z dnia 14 listopada 2003 r. o zmianie 
ustawy – Kodeks pracy oraz o zmianie niektórych innych ustaw), Official Law Journal 2003, no 213 item 2081, 14 November 2003. 
72 Law No. 324 of July 14, 2006, amending and supplementing Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning 
of all forms of discrimination (Lege nr. 324 din 14 iulie 2006 pentru modificarea şi completarea Ordonanţei Guvernului nr. 137/2000 
privind prevenirea şi sancţionarea tuturor formelor de discriminare), Official Gazette no. 626 of 20 July 2006. 
73 Law No. 189 of 25 June 2013, approving Emergency Government Ordinance No. 19/2013 for amending and supplementing 
Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination (Legea Nr.189 din 25.06.2013 
privind aprobarea Ordonanţei de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 19/2013 pentru modificarea şi completarea Ordonanţei Guvernului nr. 
137/2000 privind prevenirea şi sancţionarea tuturor formelor de discriminare), Official Gazette no. 380 of 27 June 2013. 
74 Law No. 167 of 7 August 2020, amending and supplementing Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on the prevention and 
sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, as well as supplementing Article 6 of Law No. 202/2002 on gender equality and treatment 
equality between women and men (Lege nr. 167 din 7 august 2020 pentru modificarea și completarea Ordonanței Guvernului nr. 
137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de discriminare, precum și pentru completarea art. 6 din Legea nr. 
202/2002 privind egalitatea de șanse și de tratament între femei și bărbați), Official Gazette no. 713 of 07 August 2020. 
75 The Discrimination Act (Diskrimineringslagen (2008:567)), SFS 2008:567. An unofficial English translation of the 2009 Discrimination 
Act is available at the website of the Swedish Equality Ombudsman at https://www.do.se/choose-language/english/discrimination-act-
2008567. 
76 Act (2003:307) on the prohibition against discrimination (Lag (2003:307) om förbud mot diskriminering), SFS 2003:307.  
77 Act No 384/2008 Coll. of 23 September 2008 amending and supplementing Act No. 99/1963 Coll. Rules of Civil Procedure as 
amended and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 384/2008 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 99/1963 Zb. 
Občiansky súdny poriadok v znení neskorších predpisov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov), Legal Gazette No. 143/2008, of 15 
October 2008. 
78 Act No 388/2011 Coll. of 19 October 2011 amending and supplementing Act No. 99/1963 Coll. Rules of Civil Procedure as amended 
and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 388/2011 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 99/1963 Zb. Občiansky 
súdny poriadok v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony), Legal Gazette No. 123/2011, of 12 
November 2011. 

36 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

possibility of obtaining a ruling that confirms there has been a violation of the principle of equal 
treatment. 

(2) Amendment of the Labour Code by Act No 210/2003 Coll. of 21 May 200379: 

•  Change in calculation: a modification has been introduced in the calculation of sanctions for wage 
loss in cases of illegal termination of employment. Previously, compensation for wage loss could 
be calculated for up to 12 months; this period has now been  reduced to 9 months. Additionally, 
the regulation governing the sanction for compensation of wage loss has been made more precise. 

(3) Amendment of the Labour Code by Act No 348/2007 Coll. of 28 June 200780: 

•  Change in calculation: a modification has been introduced in the calculation of sanctions for wage 
loss in cases of illegal termination of employment. Specifically, if the employment lasted longer 
than 12 months, the court now has the discretion to reduce or waive the compensation for wage 
loss beyond the initial 12-month period, provided the employer requests it. 

(4) Amendment of the Labour Code by Act No 257/2011 Coll. of 13 July 201181:  

•  Change in calculation: introducing a reduction in the calculation of the sanction for wage loss in 
cases  of  illegal  termination  of  employment.  Specifically,  if  the  employment  lasted  more  than  9 
months, the compensation is now capped at an amount equivalent to 9 months of salary.  

(5) Amendment of the Labour Code by Act No 361/2012 Coll. of 25 October 201282: 

•  Change in calculation: introducing a modification in the calculation of compensation for wage loss 
in cases of illegal termination of employment. Specifically, if the employment lasted longer than 12 
months, the compensation can be reduced for the period exceeding 12 months, with the maximum 
compensation capped at 36 months of salary. 

The aforementioned amendment was introduced to implement Article 10 of ILO Convention No. 15883. 

(6) Amendment of the Employment Services Act by Act No 223/2011 Coll. of 29 June 201184: 

•  Change in sanction amount: setting the maximum amount of fine for publishing discriminatory job 

advertisement at a maximum of EUR 33 193.91.  

(7) Amendment of the Employment Services Act by Act No 112/2022 of 16 March 202285:  

•  Elements considered: introduction of the obligation for the Central Office of Labour and the Labour 
Offices to consider the severity of violations found, severity of their consequences and repeated 
conduct in determining sanctions for discriminatory job advertisements. 

79 Act No 210/2003 Coll. of 21 May 2003 amending and supplementing Act No 311/2001 Coll. of 2 July 2001 the Labour Code as 
amended (Zákon č. 210/2003 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce v znení neskorších predpisov), 
Legal Gazette No. 102/2003, of 21 June 2003. 
80 Act No 348/2007 Coll. of 28 June 2007 amending and supplementing Act No 311/2001 Coll. of 2 July 2001 the Labour Code as 
amended and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 348/2007 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. 
Zákonník práce v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony), Legal Gazette No. 151/2007, of 27 July 
2007. 
81 Act No 257/2011 Coll. of 13 July 2011 amending and supplementing Act No 311/2001 Coll. of 2 July 2001 the Labour Code as 
amended and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 257/2011 ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník 
práce v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony), Legal Gazette No.82/2011, of 2 August 2011.  
82 Act No 361/2012 Coll. of 25 October 2012 amending and supplementing Act No 311/2001 Coll. of 2 July 2001 the Labour Code as 
amended and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 361/2012 Z. z. o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 311/2001 Z. z. 
Zákonník práce v znení neskorších predpisov ktorým s amenia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony), Legal Gazette No. 90/2012, of 27 
November 2012. 
83 Convention concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer, No. 158, 1982. 
84 Act No 223/2011 Coll. of 29 June 2011 amending and supplementing Act No 82/2005 Coll. on illegal work and illegal employment and 
amending and supplementing certain acts as amended and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 223/2011 Z. z. ktorým 
sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 82/2005 Z. z. o nelegálnej práci a nelegálnom zamestnávaní a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v 
znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony), Legal Gazette No. 71/2011, of 20 July 2011. 
85 Act No 112/2022 of 16 March 2022 amending and supplementing Act No 82/2005 Coll. on illegal work and illegal employment and 
amending and supplementing certain acts as amended and amending and supplementing Act No 5/2004 Coll. on employment services 
and amending and supplementing certain acts as amended (Zákon č. 112/2022 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 82/2005 Z. z. o 
nelegálnej práci a nelegálnom zamestnávaní a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa mení 
a dopĺňa zákon č. 5/2004 Z. z. o službách zamestnanosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov). 

37 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

(8)  Amendment of  the  Act  on  Labour  Inspection by  Act  No  309/2007  Coll.  of  2 July  200786  and  Act  No 
469/2011 of 29 November 201187, respectively: 

•  Change in sanction amount: the first law increased, whereas the second law decreased the fine 

amount to be imposed against members of management and statutory bodies. 

(9) Amendment of the Consumer Protection Act by Act No 198/2020 Coll. of 9 July 202088, Act No 199/2014 
Coll.89, Act No 106/2014 Coll. of 1 April 201490, and Act No 151/2014 Coll. of 14 May 201491 respectively: 

•  New sanction: introducing the possibility of a sanction preceding fines, requesting the perpetrator 
to  refrain  from  unlawful  actions  and  to  set  a  time  limit  to  adopt  measures  to  remedy  the 
consequences of his/her actions. If fulfilled, no fine is imposed. 

•  Change in definition of sanction amount: the maximum amount of fine and maximum amount of 

fine in case of repeated conduct have been specified in legislation.  

•  New sanction: a new sanction was introduced, imposing a prohibition on business activities for up 
to  five  years  in  cases  of  discriminatory  conduct.  This  measure  specifically  targeted  repeated 
discriminatory  actions  for  which  the  perpetrator  had  already  been  sanctioned.  However,  this 
sanction was subsequently repealed by Act No. 151/2014 Coll. on 14 May 201492. 

As illustrated in the table above, a total of 19 Member States (BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, 
EL,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LU,  LV,  MT,  NL,  PT  and  SI)  have  not  introduced  amendments  to  the  national 
legislation applicable to sanctions since the transposition of the RED/EED. In the remaining eight 
Member States (AT, BE, ES, HU, PL, RO, SE and SK) relevant legislative amendments have been 
identified.  

This  might,  amongst  other  reasons,  indicate  that  sanctions  are  deemed  adequate;  and  that  the 
regime is considered not to require any updates or changes. It is more likely though that the lack of 
amendments is a sign of potentially overlooked reviews.    

Building on the legislative amendments identified, the following observations could be made in some 
Member States: 

86 Act No 309/2007 Coll. of 2 July 2007 amending and supplementing Act No 124/2006 on safety and health protection at work and 
amending and supplementing certain acts and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 309/2007 ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa 
zákon č. 124/2006 Z. z. o bezpečnosti a ochrane zdravia pri práci a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov a ktorým sa menia a 
dopĺňajú niektoré zákony), Legal Gazette No. 140/2007, of 12 July 2007. 
87 Act No 469/2011 of 29 November 2011 amending and supplementing Act No 125/2006 Coll. on labour inspection and amending and 
supplementing Act No 82/2005 Coll. on illegal work and illegal employment and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 
469/2011 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 125/2006 Z. z. o inšpekcii práce a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 82/2005 Z. z. o 
nelegálnej práci a nelegálnom zamestnávaní a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov), Legal Gazette 
No. 142/2011, of 15 December 2011. 
88 Act No 198/2020 Coll. of 9 July 2020 amending and supplementing certain acts in relation to improvement of business environment 
impacted by measures to prevent the spread of dangerous contagious human disease COVID-19 (Zákon č. 198/2020 Z. z. ktorým sa 
menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony v súvislosti so zlepšovaním podnikateľského prostredia zasiahnutým opatreniami na zamedzenie 
šírenia nebezpečnej nákazlivej ľudskej choroby COVID-19). 
89 Act No 199/2014 Coll. amending and supplementing Act No 250/2007 Coll. of 9 May 2007 on consumer protection and amending Act 
of Slovak National Council No 372/1990 Coll. on offences as amended and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon 
č.199/2014 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 250/2007 Z. z. o ochrane spotrebiteľa a o zmene zákona Slovenskej národnej rady 
č. 372/1990 Zb. o priestupkoch v znení neskorších predpisov v znení neskorších predpisov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov), 
Legal Gazette No. 67/2014, of 17 July 2014. 
90 Act No 106/2014 Coll. of 1 April 2014 amending and supplementing Act No. 40/1964 Coll. Civil Code as amended and amending and 
supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 106/2004 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 40/1964 Zb. Občiansky zákonník v znení 
neskorších predpisov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov), Legal Gazette No. 39/2014, of 29 April 2014. 
91 Act No 151/2014 Coll. of 14 May 2014 amending and supplementing Act No 136/2001 Coll. on protection of competition and 
amending and supplementing Act of the Slovak National Council No 347/1990 Coll. on organisation of ministries and other central 
bodies of state administration of the Slovak Republic as amended and amending and supplementing certain acts (Zákon č. 151/2014 Z. 
z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 136/2001 Z. z. o ochrane hospodárskej súťaže a o zmene a doplnení zákona Slovenskej národnej 
rady č. 347/1990 Zb. o organizácii ministerstiev a ostatných ústredných orgánov štátnej správy Slovenskej republiky v znení neskorších 
predpisov v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony), Legal Gazette No. 56/2014, of 7 June 2014. 
92 Ibid. 

38 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Sanction amounts have increased: three Member States (AT, BE and RO) have amended 
their legislation to increase the compensation amounts in discrimination cases. In Hungary, 
the increase concerns the amount of the consumer protection fine. 

•  New  sanctions  have  been introduced:  four  Member  States  (BE,  HU,  PL  and  RO)  have 
introduced new types of sanctions, such as the power for courts to order positive measures 
to prevent recurring discrimination, and the requirement for mass-media publication of judicial 
decisions. 

•  Calculation methods have evolved: amendments in three Member States (AT, BE and SK) 
include  more  detailed  rules  for  calculating  compensation,  such  as  by  introducing  the 
requirement  to  consider  discrimination  on  multiple  grounds,  to  ensure  that  compensation 
effectively addresses the loss suffered, and capping compensation for wage loss in cases of 
illegal termination of employment. 

•  A new compliance mechanism has been introduced: in one Member State (SK) a new 
conditional fine mechanism was introduced. This new sanction precedes the imposition of 
fines. With the sanction, perpetrators are requested to refrain from unlawful actions and to 
remedy the consequences of such action within a certain amount of time. If fulfilled, no fine 
is imposed.  

• 

Introduction of a mechanism for the systemic evaluation and adjustment of applicable 
rules: Belgium has established a mechanism for the regular evaluation and adjustment of 
sanctions, resulting in the indexation of compensation amounts to the customer price index. 
This approach, resulting in evidence-based changes to the legislation, based on a systematic 
evaluation of the framework, ensures that sanctions remain relevant and effective over time. 

2.2. Overview  of  judicial/adjudicating  bodies  competent  to  issue 

sanctions 

This  sub-section  provides  an  overview  of  the  courts  (Section  2.2.1)  and/or  other  adjudicating 
bodies (Section 2.2.2) competent to issue sanctions.  

2.2.1. Overview of competent courts 

This sub-section offers a comparative overview of courts in the Member States that are mandated 
to impose sanctions. The table below details the competent judicial bodies, including a reference to 
the judicial bodies at each instance (i.e., specific level or state within the judicial hierarchy where a 
case is heard or decided). 

39 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Table 4: Overview of competent courts 

Civil law cases 

Criminal law cases 

Administrative law cases  Labour law cases93 

Other 

(specified) 

AT 

BE 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts, 
regional 
courts, 
higher 
courts, 
instance 
Supreme Court) 

courts 

(instances: 
Civil 
courts  of 
instance; 
first 
courts  of  appeal;  Court  of 
Cassation) 

Criminal courts (instances: courts 
of first instance; courts of appeal; 
Court of Cassation) 

Administrative 
Federal 
Court94 
(instances: 
complaints to Constitutional 
Court and/or High Court for 
Administrative Matters) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
civil courts and Labour and 
Civil  Court  of  Vienna; 
courts; 
regional 
higher 
Supreme Court) 

Labour  courts  (instances: 
labour 
labour 
tribunals; 
courts; Court of Cassation) 

in 
- 
Commercial  courts 
cases 
involving 
discriminatory  commercial 
practices 
(instances: 
commercial  courts;  courts 
of 
of 
appeal;  Court 
Cassation) 

BG 

Regional civil courts95 

Criminal courts (instances: district 
courts; provincial courts) 

HR 

Courts 
(instances: 
municipal  courts;  country 
courts; Supreme Court) 

Courts 
(instances:  municipal 
courts;  country  courts;  Supreme 
Court) 

Criminal  courts  or  criminal 
courts 
in  administrative-
criminal  cases  (instances: 
district  courts;  provincial 
courts)  or 
regional  civil 
courts96 

Courts 
(instances: 
municipal  courts;  country 
courts; Supreme Court) 

Criminal  courts  – 
administrative-criminal 
cases  (instances:  district 
courts; provincial courts) 

in 

Specialised  courts  –  in 
cases 
misdemeanour 
(instances: 
courts; 
misdemeanour 
High 
Misdemeanour 
Court  of  the  Republic  of 
Croatia; Supreme Court) 

93 It is recalled that under Section 2.1.1 labour law sanctions have been classified in several instances as civil or administrative sanctions. This section provides an overview of courts 
pronouncing sanctions in labour law cases, irrespective of the categorisation provided under Section 2.1.1. 
94 The Federal Administrative Court is the central point of contact throughout Austria for complaints against official decisions in matters of direct federal administration, these include decisions on 
personal rights, such as service and disciplinary law for public servants. 
95 They establish violation, the imposition of a sanction may be requested from the Commission for Protection against Discrimination based on the judicial decision. 
96 They establish violation, the imposition of a sanction may be requested from the Commission for Protection against Discrimination based on the judicial decision. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; Appeal Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district  courts; 
Appeal Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
regional 
courts; 
Supreme Court) 

Civil  courts  (instances:  at 
the first instance depending 
on  the value  of  the  claim98 
regional 
either 
local  or 
courts;  second 
instance: 
either  regional  courts  or 
higher regional courts; final 
instance:  Federal  Court  of 
Justice) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
high 
courts; 
Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district  courts; 
high courts; Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  county 
courts; 
courts; 
circuit 
Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  county  courts; 
circuit courts; Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  at  first 
instance  depending  on  the 

Courts 
Single 
(instances: 
Member District  Misdemeanours 
Court;  Three  Member District 

(instances: 
Courts 
administrative 
courts; 
circuit  courts;  Supreme 
Court) 

Courts101 (instances: three-
administrative 
member 
courts; 
three-member 
administrative  courts  of 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; Appeal Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
regional 
courts; 
Supreme Court)97 

Labour  courts  –  when  the 
dispute 
concerns 
employees;  Administrative 
courts  -  when  the  dispute 
servants 
civil 
concerns 
instance: 
first 
(instances: 
or 
local 
labour 
courts; 
administrative 
second 
instance:  higher 
labour  or  administrative 
courts; 
instance: 
final 
Federal  Labour  Court  or 
Administrative 
Federal 
Court) 

Board of Equal Treatment99 
-  discrimination  mainly  in 
employment 
(instances: 
district  courts,  high  courts 
and the Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  county 
courts; 
courts; 
circuit 
Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  at  first 
instance  depending  on  the 
type  of  the  case:  locally 
competent 
magistrate 
courts  or  single-member 

97 Sanctions in labour law cases could also be imposed by other adjudicating bodies (the State Office of Labour Inspection or regional labour inspectorates).  
98 The threshold is EUR 5 000.  
99 Quasi-judicial body, with a nation-wide competence to issue legally binding sanctions. It handles complaints related to discrimination on various grounds, including race, ethnicity and religion.  
101 When the discrimination was committed by the state. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Misdemeanours  Court;  High 
Criminal Court) 

appeal; High Administrative 
Court Council of State) 

the 

courts  of  first  instances;  at 
second instance depending 
single-
on 
case: 
first 
member  courts  of 
instance  or 
courts  of 
appeal; High Court) 

courts; 

case100: 
first 
of 
type 
instance 
(single-
court 
member  or  multi-member), 
competent 
or 
locally 
magistrates' 
at 
second instance depending 
single-
on 
member  court  of 
first 
instance or courts of appeal 
three-
(single-member  or 
instance: 
final 
member); 
Civil  Department  of  High 
Court) 

case: 

the 

ES 

FI 

FR 

Courts (instances: municipal level 
level  courts; 
courts;  provincial 
Superior  Courts  of  Justice  of  the 
Criminal Branch) 

Courts 
(instances: 
contentious  administrative 
courts; 
administrative 
branches  of  the  superior 
the  provincial 
courts,  of 
the  Supreme 
courts,  of 
Court)   

Courts 
(instances: 
specialised  single-instance 
social  and  labour  courts; 
appeal 
chambers 
specialising  in  social  and 
labour  law;  regional  high 
courts;  National  Court; 
Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
appeal 
courts; 
Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district  courts; 
appeal courts; Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
appeal 
courts; 
Supreme Court) 

Labour  Courts  (instances: 
no appeal) 

Non-
National 
and 
Discrimination 
Equality  Tribunal102  –  not 
area 
(appeal 
before 
the  competent 
administrative court) 

specific 

courts 

Civil 
(instances: 
judicial  courts,  courts  of 
appeal, Court of Cassation) 

courts 

Criminal 
(instances: 
criminal  courts,  courts  of  appeal, 
Court of Cassation) 

Administrative 
courts 
(instances:  administrative 
courts; 
administrative 
courts of appeal; Council of 
State) 

Labour  courts  (instances: 
labour  courts;  courts  of 
appeal; Court of Cassation) 

100 In Greece at first and second instances, different courts have jurisdiction over civil claims, depending on the specificities of the case. For example, at the first instance the following rules apply: 
First Instance Multi-Member Court has jurisdiction over civil actions that are not of a pecuniary nature, such as removal of infringement and prevention of future infringements; the Magistrates' 
Courts and Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction over e.g., actions for damages and compensation for moral damage. At the level of appeals the Single-Member Courts of First Instance hear 
appeals against decisions of the Magistrates' Courts; the Single-Member Courts of Appeal hear appeals against decisions of the Single-Member Courts of First Instance; and the Three-Member 
Courts of Appeal hear appeals against decisions of the Multi-Member Courts of First Instance.  
102 Classified as an independent judicial body, See National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal of Finland (Yhdenvertaisuus- ja tasa-arvolautakunta), Entry page, ‘National Non-
Discrimination and Equality Tribunal’, accessed 18 May 2024. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

Courts  –  civil  college 
(instances: regional courts; 
regional  courts  of  appeal; 
Curia) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts;  Circuit  Court;  High 
Court;  Court  of  Appeal 
and/or Supreme Court) 

Courts  –  civil  division 
(instances: tribunals, courts 
of appeal; Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district  courts; 
Circuit Court; High Court; Court of 
Appeal and/or Supreme Court) 

criminal 

Courts 
– 
(instances: 
appeal; Supreme Court) 

division 
tribunals,  courts  of 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
courts; 
regional 
courts  of  appeal;  Supreme 
Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district  courts; 
regional  courts;  courts  of  appeal; 
Supreme Court) 

labour  college 
Courts  – 
(instances: regional courts; 
regional  courts  of  appeal; 
Curia) 

Courts103 
(instances: 
district courts; Circuit Court; 
High Court; Court of Appeal 
and/or Supreme Court) 

Courts  – 
labour  division 
(instances: tribunals, courts 
of appeal; Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
courts; 
regional 
courts  of  appeal;  Supreme 
Court)104 

Courts – limited cases (e.g., 
employment  of  judges  or 
public 
officials 
(Administrative 
Tribunal 
and the State Council) 

Administrative 
(instances: 
Administrative 
Supreme 
Court) 

courts 
Regional 
Court; 
Administrative 

Courts 
district 
(instances: 
tribunals; Court of Appeal; Court of 
Cassation) 

Administrative 
courts 
(instances:  administrative 
tribunals; 
Administrative 
Court) 

Labour  courts  (instances: 
tribunals;  district 
labour 
tribunals / Court of Appeal; 
Court of Cassation) 

case 

Courts  (instances:  at  the 
first instance depending on 
the 
concerned 
Magistrate’s Court  / district 
tribunals;    at  the  second 
instance  depending  on  the 
case  concerned:  district 
tribunals / Court of Appeal; 
Court of Cassation 

Courts  (instances:  district 
city courts; regional courts; 
Supreme Court) 

(instances:  district  city 
Courts 
courts;  regional  courts;  Supreme 
Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
city courts; regional courts; 
Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
city courts; regional courts; 
Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  at  the 
first instance depending on 

Court 
Magistrates105; superior courts) 

(instances:  Court 

of 

Industrial 
information on appeal) 

tribunal 

(no 

103 It is notable that in Ireland labour law cases are also heard by the Workplace Relations Commission, which is classified as an ‘other adjudicating body’.  
104 It is notable that in Lithuania labour law cases are also heard by the State Labour Inspectorate, which is classified as an ‘other adjudicating body’. 
105 Either composed as a Court of Criminal Judicature, or, where the indictment includes a graver offence, the Court of Magistrates composed as a Court of Criminal Inquiry.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

the case either the Court of 
Magistrates 
Civil 
Jurisdiction or the First Hall 
Civil Court; superior courts) 

of 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts/subdistrict 
judges; 
courts  of  appeal;  Supreme 
Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
courts; 
regional 
Supreme Court) 

courts 

Civil 
(instances: 
district  courts;  courts  of 
appeal;  Supreme  Court  of 
Justice107) 

courts 

Civil 
(instances: 
district  courts;  courts  of 
appeal;  High  Court  of 
Cassation) 

(instances: 

Courts 
trial 
courts;  courts  of  appeal; 
Supreme Court) 

(instances: 
Courts 
depending  on 
the  case 
concerned  local  or  district 
courts, 
courts; 
higher 
Supreme Court) 

district 
(instances: 
Courts 
courts/subdistrict judges; courts of 
appeal; Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts/subdistrict 
judges; 
courts  of  appeal;  Supreme 
Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts/subdistrict 
judges; 
courts  of  appeal;  Supreme 
Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
courts; 
regional 
Supreme Court)106 

Administrative 
courts 
(instances:  district  courts; 
courts  of  appeal;  Supreme 
Court of Justice) 

Labour  courts  (instances: 
district  courts;  courts  of 
appeal;  Supreme  Court  of 
Justice) 

Courts  (instances:  district  courts; 
courts  of  appeal;  High  Court  of 
Cassation) 

Civil courts – administrative 
section  (instances:  district 
courts;  courts  of  appeal; 
High Court of Cassation) 

Civil  courts-  labour  panel 
(instances:  district  courts; 
courts  of  appeal;  High 
Court of Cassation) 

Courts  (instances: 
trial  courts; 
courts of appeal; Supreme Court) 

Administrative 
courts 
(instances:  administrative 
trial  courts;  administrative 
courts  of  appeal;  Supreme 
Administrative Court) 

Labour  Court  (no  appeal 
possible, 
for 
extraordinary reasons) 

unless 

Courts  (instances:  depending  on 
the case concerned local or district 
courts,  higher  courts;  Supreme 
Court) 

Administrative 
courts 
(instances:  administrative 
court; Supreme Court) 

Labour  courts  (instances: 
labour  and  social  court; 
higher  labour  and  social 
court; Supreme Court) 

106 It is notable that in Poland labour law cases are also heard by the State Labour Inspection, which is classified as an ‘other adjudicating body’. 
107 In civil matters, judicial decisions by the Courts of Appeal are appealable to the Supreme Court provided their value is over EUR 30 000. 

44 

– 

petty 

Courts 
offences/quasi-criminal 
cases  (instances:  district 
courts; regional courts) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

SK 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
courts; 
regional 
Supreme Court) 

Criminal Court (instances: Special 
Criminal Court; Supreme Court) 

Courts  (instances:  district 
courts; 
courts; 
regional 
Supreme Court) 

45 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

The table above illustrates that Member States organise their court system very differently. In 
eight  Member  States  (CZ,  CY,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LV,  NL  and  PL)  general  courts,  potentially  with 
specialised  divisions,  hear  discrimination  cases.  In  the  remaining  19  Member  States,  courts 
specialised  in  certain  areas  exist  typically  alongside  general  courts.  These  courts  are  often 
specialised labour or administrative courts.  

In  two  Member  States,  judicial/quasi-judicial  bodies  other  than  courts,  may  hear  discrimination 
cases. In Denmark, the Board of Equal Treatment handles complaints related to discrimination in 
employment  and  other  areas  falling  under  the  scope  of  equality  legislation,  issuing  decisions  on 
compensation and cessation of discriminatory practices. In Finland, the National Non-Discrimination 
and Equality Tribunal supervises compliance with the Non-Discrimination Act in private, commercial, 
and public administration activities. 

2.2.2. Overview of other adjudicating bodies 

This  sub-section provides  an  overview  of  other  adjudicating  bodies  competent  in  the Member 
States to pronounce sanctions.  

In the context of this Study, the term ‘other adjudicating bodies’ encompasses organisations other 
than  courts  (e.g.,  equality  bodies  with  relevant  competences,  administrative  authorities)  with  the 
authority  to  resolve  discrimination  related  disputes  and  to  issue  legally  binding  decisions  and 
pronounce  sanctions.  These  authorities  or  bodies  may be  specialised  in  a particular  area  of  law, 
such  as  employment  or  consumer  protection  and  provide  an  alternative  to  the  traditional  court 
system for resolving specific types of disputes or a path for pre-judicial dispute resolution. The table 
below provides a visual overview of the existing other adjudicating bodies, per area of law. 

Table 5: Overview of other adjudicating bodies 

Civil law 

Criminal law 

Administrative law 

Labour law108 

Other 

(specified) 

AT 

BE 

No such bodies 

BG 

HR 

No such bodies 

CY 

authority 

district 
Respective 
administrative 
– 
competence is not specific  to  a 
given area of administrative law 
(instances: 
before 
Federal Administrative Court) 

appeal 

Commission 
for  Protection 
against  Discrimination  (national 
equality  body)  – competence is 
not  specific  to  a  given  area  of 
law  (instances: 
administrative 
appeal  before 
the  Supreme 
Administrative Court) 

Commissioner 
Administration 

and 

for 
the 

108 It is recalled that under Section 2.1.1 labour law sanctions have been classified in several instances as civil or administrative 
sanctions. This section provides an overview of adjudicating bodies pronouncing sanctions in labour law cases, irrespective of the 
categorisation provided under Section 2.1.1. It is notable that some of the adjudicating bodies under this column could be classified as 
administrative authorities. Given their specialised competence over labour law disputes, however, they are mentioned under this column 
of the table.  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Protection  of  Human  Rights 
(national  equality  body)  – 
competence is not specific  to  a 
given area of administrative law 

(no information on appeal) 

CZ 

DE 

No such bodies 

DK 

No such bodies 

EE 

EL 

ES 

No such bodies 

FI 

FR 

HU 

Labour 
Inspectorates and 
the  Czech  Trade 
Inspection 
Authority 

(no information on 
appeal) 

Labour  Dispute 
Committee 
(appeal 
court) 

before 

Labour 
Inspectorate 

Minister 
Labour, 
Security 
Social Solidarity 

of 
Social 
and 

(no information on 
appeal) 

Occupational 
safety  and  health 
authorities109  

(no information on 
appeal) 

Any public authority responsible 
for public procurement contracts 
– competence is not specific to a 
given area of administrative law 

Administrative  authorities 
– 
disciplinary  sanctions  against 
civil servants  

(no information on appeal) 

Ombudsman  – competence not 
specific 
to  a  given  area  of 
administrative law 

Equal  Treatment  Directorate 
(national  equality  body) 
  – 
competence is not specific  to  a 
given area of administrative law 
(appeal before court) 

Government 
discrimination 

offices 

in 

relation 

– 
to 

Police  –  quasi-
criminal 
(appeal 
before court) 

109 Could issue written advice and improvement notice. Only improvement notices are legally binding.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

education  and  access to  goods 
and  services 
(administrative 
judicial review before court) 

IE 

Workplace 
Relations 
Commission110  – 
discrimination 
in 
employment  and 
access  to  goods 
and services 

(appeal before the 
Labour Court  – in 
employment 
the 
context,  or 
Circuit  Court 
in 
cases  related  to 
access  to  goods 
and services) 

IT 

No such bodies  

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

Administrative 
Dispute 
individual 
Commission 
administrative  acts  or  actions 
adopted by public administration 
entities regardless of the area 

– 

Labour  disputes 
commissions 

(appeal 
courts) 

before 

(appeal before courts) 

Office of the Equal Opportunities 
Ombudsperson 
(national 
equality  body)  – competence is 
not  specific  to  a  given  area  of 
administrative law 

(appeal before courts) 

- 
Administrative 
disciplinary  sanctions  against 
civil servants 

authorities 

(no information on appeal) 

Committee 

Disciplinary 
- 
disciplinary  sanctions  against 
civil  servants 
(more  severe 
cases) 

(appeal  before  Administrative 
Tribunal) 

Consumer  Rights  Protection 
Centre – access to and supply of 
goods and services  

(no information on appeal) 

State 
Inspectorate  

Labour 

(no information on 
appeal) 

Department 
Industrial 

of 
and 

110 The Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court are both described as a ‘quasi-judicial’ bodies and not courts.  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

NL 

No such bodies111 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

No such bodies 

SI 

SK 

Employment 
Relations 

(no information on 
appeal) 

State 
Inspection 

Labour 

before 

(appeal 
administrative 
courts) 

for 

Authority 
Working 
Conditions  

before 

(appeal 
administrative 
courts) 

Commission  for  Equality  and 
against  Racial  Discrimination  - 
areas of social protection, social 
benefits,  education,  access  to 
and  supply  of  goods  and 
services and culture 

(appeal  before  administrative 
courts) 

National  Council  for  Combating 
Discrimination (national equality 
body)  –  competence 
is  not 
specific 
to  a  given  area  of 
administrative law 

Labour 
inspectorates 

(no information on 
appeal) 

(appeal  before 
Appeal) 

the  Court  of 

Inspection bodies – competence 
is not specific to a given area of 
administrative law 

(no information on appeal) 

Slovak  Trade  Inspection  and 
trade inspectorates  – access to 
and  supply  of  goods  and 
services 

Central  Office  of 
Labour, 
Social 
Affairs and Family 
and labour offices 

(judicial 
before 
review 
administrative  courts  and  the 
Supreme Administrative Court) 

State  School 
education  

Inspection  – 

(judicial 
before 
review 
administrative  courts  and  the 
Supreme Administrative Court) 

review 

the 

(judicial 
before 
administrative 
courts  and 
Supreme 
Administrative 
Court) 

As illustrated in the table above, other adjudicating bodies exist in 19 Member States (AT, BG, CY, 
CZ,  EE,  EL,  FI,  FR,  HU,  IE,  LT,  LU,  LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  and  SK).  None  of  these  other 

111 The Data Protection Authority and the Complaints Department of the Dutch Review Committee on the Intelligence and Security 
Services have each dealt with one discrimination case to date. They are not mandated to deal with discrimination cases per se, hence 
are not covered in this table.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

adjudicating  bodies  are  specialised  in  civil  law/criminal  law  related  matters.  In  the  majority  of  the 
cases  (in  13  Member  States  –  AT,  BG,  CY,  EL,  FR,  HU,  LT,  LU,  LV,  PT,  RO,  SI  and  SK),  the 
adjudicating  bodies  handle  administrative  law  matters.  Typically,  these  bodies  are  administrative 
authorities.  In  two  Member  States  (HU  and  LT),  in  addition  to  the  administrative  authorities,  the 
national equality body also has sanctioning powers. Additionally, in three Member States (BG, CY 
and RO) only the equality body is vested with the competence of imposing administrative sanctions.  

Generally, these bodies have competencies to address sanctions across all areas of discrimination. 
However, in four Member States (HU, LV, PT, and SK), some adjudicating bodies have competences 
limited to specific aspects or areas of administrative law, such as education or consumer protection. 

In 12 Member States (CZ, EE, EL, FI, IE, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, and SK), adjudicating bodies are 
competent to hear disputes over employment related matters.  

Adjudicating  bodies  competent  to  issue  sanctions  in  other  areas  of  law  (not  civil,  criminal, 
administrative or labour law) exist in Hungary only, where the police can impose sanctions in quasi-
criminal cases.  

Besides the above, this study acknowledges that national equality bodies without sanctioning powers 
also play a key role in non-discrimination cases, albeit with varying levels of competences112. The 
Study’s focus is not on the powers and competences of the equality bodies, hence this aspect is not 
developed further in this Report. The box below provides examples of other types of bodies (hence 
beyond  the  national  equality  bodies)  that  play  some  role  in  non-discrimination  cases,  typically 
through advisory, investigative or mediation capacities. These examples remain brief given the lack 
of competence of these bodies to impose legally binding sanctions.  

Box 6: Examples of other relevant bodies 

•  Estonia: The Chancellor of Justice can issue findings and recommendations, which are not legally 

binding but influential. 

•  France: Labour inspectorates record offences and provide evidence without imposing fines or direct 

sanctions. 

•  Luxembourg:  Labour  inspectorates  report  infringements  to  the  Public  Prosecutor  and  offer 
mediation services. The Chamber of  Employees offers information and  guidance on  labour  laws 
and issues opinions on legislative proposals. The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg Mediator handles 
complaints against public administration and issues recommendations without the power to impose 
sanctions. 

•  Netherlands: Municipal Anti-Discrimination Services assist individuals in initiating proceedings.  

•  Slovenia:  The  Human  Rights  Ombudsman  addresses  discrimination  by  public  authorities  and 

issues non-binding proposals, opinions, and recommendations. 

2.3. Overview of the applicable sanctions 

This  section  provides  an  overview  of  sanctions  that  could  be  imposed  by  courts  and/or  other 
adjudicating bodies in discrimination cases.  

112 For an overview of functions and competences see for example: Equinet, ‘Comparing equality bodies’ operations: Powers, 
independence, mandates, and functions’, Equinet website, accessed 1 June 2024. 

50 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

It  is  recalled  that  for  the  purpose  of  this  Study,  the  term  sanction  is  to  be  understood  broadly, 
encompassing all sorts of legal consequences that the courts or adjudicating bodies could impose 
in discrimination cases.  

2.3.1. Overview of applicable sanctions per type 

This  sub-section  details  the  types  of  sanctions  established  in  applicable  national  laws.  It  is 
important to note that the terminology used to describe these sanctions might vary slightly in different 
national  languages.  However,  for  the  sake  of  consistency  and  comparability,  such  linguistic 
differences  have  been  disregarded.  Instead,  the  sanctions  have  been  grouped  and  categorised 
under titles that are most commonly used and recognised across Member States. 

In addition to categorising the sanctions by type, the following characteristics are also analysed: 

• 

Injunctive nature: whether the sanction could be classified as an injunction. 

•  Area of law: the legal area to which the sanction pertains. 

•  Subject: whether the sanction can be imposed on natural or legal persons, or both.  

The tables below visually summarise all these elements. One table is dedicated to sanctions that do 
not qualify as injunctions. This, typically more conventional category encompasses sanctions that 
aim  to  punish  the  perpetrator  (punitive  sanctions)  or  remedy  of  the  victim  (compensatory 
sanctions). Examples of such sanctions include fines, monetary compensation awarded to victims, 
etc.  

The second table is dedicated to sanctions classified as injunctive relief under the Study. These 
sanctions  (see  also  definition  above)  are  non-monetary  remedies  ordered  to  prevent  further 
discrimination or to rectify on-going discriminatory practices.  

Injunctions are orders issued by courts or similar authorities that either prohibit or mandate certain 
actions. They are classified as one-off or structural injunctions. A one-off injunction is an order for 
the  perpetrator  to  take  or  cease  a  specific  action.  Structural  injunctions,  on  the  other  hand, 
mandate significant changes to an institution's internal organisation, processes, or rules to address 
pervasive  or  systemically  embedded  discrimination.  Unlike  one-off  injunctions,  typically  providing 
redress  only  to  the  involved  parties,  structural  injunctions  aim  to  remedy  the  underlying 
discriminatory patterns of the offending party113. 

113 Halberstam, D., and Van den Bogaert, S., ‘A Fresh Look at Judicial Remedies in EU Equality Law and Beyond: The Untapped 
Possibility of Structural Injunctions’, U of Michigan Public Law, Research Paper No. 23-012, 6 March 2023. 

51 

 
 
 
Table 6: Overview of applicable sanctions per type (sanctions other than injunctive relief) 

Fine 

Imprisonment  Community 

Disqualification  Compensation  

service 

(material 
damages 

Compensation  
(immaterial 
damages) 

Declaring an 
act/agreement, 
contract, 
provision, etc. 
null and void, 
or amending 
agreement 

Establishment/declaration 
of violation 

Temporary or 
permanent 
closure/suspension 
of activities 

Exclusion 
from public 
procurement 
processes 
or economic 
benefits 

Disciplinary 
sanctions 
against civil 
servants 
(various) 

Warning 

Other 
(country 
specific) 

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

AT 

A (multiple) - 
N&L 

BE 

CR - N&L 

BG 

CR - N 
A (multiple) - 
N&L 
ACR- N 

HR 

QCR - N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N&L 
A - N&L 

L (multiple) - 
N&L 
A - N&L 

CR - N&L 
A - N&L 

CR - N&L 
C - N&L 

CR - N 
A - N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N 
A (multiple) - 
N&L 
L (multiple) - 
N&L 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

CR - N 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

CR (multiple)- 
N 

CR - N 

CR - N 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 
A (multiple) - L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 
A (multiple) - L 

A - L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 
A - L 

C - N&L 

A - L 

A (multiple) - L 

A (multiple) - 
L 

CR (multiple) -
N 

CR (multiple) - N  A - N&L 
L - N&L 

A - N&L 
L - N&L 

L - N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

CR (multiple) - 
N&L 
C - N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

QCR -N 
A (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 
A (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 
L (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

A (multiple) - 
N 

C - N&L 
A - L 

L - N&L 

C - N&L 

A - N&L 

52 

C - N  
Detention 

A - N&L  
Impose 
conditions until 
the lawful 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

IE 

CR (multiple) - 
N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

IT 

CR - N 

CR - N 

CR (multiple) - 
N&L 
A (multiple) - 
N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

CR - N 

CR (multiple) - 
N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

CR - N&L 
A (multiple) - L 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

CR - N 

CR (multiple) - 
N&L 

CR (multiple) - 
N 

CR - L 

CR - N 

CR - N 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

CR - N&L 
A - N&L 

QRC (multiple) 
- N 

A (multiple) - 
N&L 

CR - N&L 
A (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

CR - N&L 
C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 
A - L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 
A - L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L  
A - L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 
A - N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

A - N&L 

status is 
restored 

A - N&L 

CR - N  
Arrest 

A (multiple) - 
N 

A - L 

CR - N&L  
Probatory 
supervision 

A - L 
Administrative 
retrial 

A - N&L 

CR - N 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

SE 

CR - N 

CR - N 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

SI 

CR (multiple) - 
N&L 
C - N&L 
A - N&L 

CR - N 

SK 

A (multiple) - 
N&L 

CR - N 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C (multiple) - 
N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

Legend: Areas of law: Criminal (CR); Civil (C); Administrative (A), Quasi-criminal (QCR); Administrative criminal (ACR), Labour (L); Subjects: Natural person (N); Legal person (L); The entry ‘multiple’ indicates the existence of multiple sanction schemes per sanction type. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: Overview of applicable sanctions per type (injunctive relief) 

Termination of violation 

Measures to prevent the 
repetition of 
discriminatory acts 

Banning from future 
violation 

Reinstatement/restoration 
of previous situation (not 
including reinstatement to 
work - covered under 
obligation to perform 
certain actions), removal 
of the outcome of 
discrimination 

Publication of decision 

Obligation to perform 
certain actions as 
specified in law (beyond 
the ones covered by other 
categories) 

Any suitable 
sanction/measure (defined 
in general terms in the 
law) 

Payment of an appropriate 
sum of money to a 
designated social purpose 

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

A - N&L 

C - N&L 

A - N&L 

A - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

A - N&L 
L - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

A - N&L 

A - L (multiple) 

A - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

A (multiple) - N  

A (multiple) - N&L 
(improvement notice) 

CR - N  

C (multiple) - N&L 
A (multiple) - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 
A (multiple) - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 
L - N&L 

C - N&L 
A - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C - N&L 

A - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

A - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

L - N&L 

C - N&L 
A - N&L 

C - N&L 
A (multiple) - N&L 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

A (multiple) - N 

C - N&L 

MT 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C - N&L 

NL 

PL 

PT 

A (multiple) - N&L 

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L  

C - N&L 

A (multiple) - N&L  

C - N&L 

C - N&L 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

C - N&L 
A (multiple) - N&L 

A - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 
A (multiple) - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 
A - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 

C (multiple) - N&L 
A (multiple) - N&L 

Legend: Areas of law: Criminal (CR); Civil (C); Administrative (A), Quasi-criminal (QCR); Administrative criminal (ACR), Labour (L); Subjects: Natural person (N); Legal person (L); Injunctions: One off injunctions (light blue); Structural injunction (dark blue). The entry ‘multiple’ indicates the 
existence of multiple sanction schemes.

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

As illustrated by the tables above, national legislation typically encompasses a range of sanctions. 
In some Member States, national legislation provides for a wide variety of sanction types (e.g., 12 
types in Hungary, 10 in Greece, and 10 in Italy), whereas in others, the number of sanction types is 
more limited (e.g., three in Denmark and four in Germany). It is important to note that these numbers 
may include variations where multiple sanction schemes are classified under the same category (for 
example,  in  Denmark,  fines  are  covered  by  both  criminal  and  administrative  law).  The  original 
statement on numbers does not account for these variations. Nonetheless, these numbers suggest 
that  the  national  legislation  of  some  Member  States  offers  a  larger  variety  of  sanction  types 
compared to the national legislation of others.   

In four Member States (DK, EE, PT and SE), no sanctions that could be classified as injunctive relief 
could be identified. 

2.3.1.1.  Sanctions other than injunctive relief 

2.3.1.1.1. 

Fine 

Fines  (i.e.,  monetary  penalty  imposed  on  the  perpetrator)  and  monetary  compensation  schemes 
(i.e., schemes aiming to compensate the victim for the material or immaterial damages suffered by 
monetary  means)  seem  to  be  the  most  common  types  of  sanctions,  both  being  available  in  all 
Member States. They may be prescribed by criminal law and/or by administrative law. In few Member 
States, they are also prescribed by civil law, labour law or other areas of law (e.g., quasi-criminal 
legislation).  

Criminal fines are envisaged in the national laws of 19 Member States (BE, BG, CY, DK, EE, EL, 
ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, RO, SE and SI), and are generally regulated by national 
criminal codes (or their equivalents). Criminal fines are typically imposed on both natural and legal 
persons. However, five Member States (BG, EL, ES, IT and SE) deviate from this rule, with fines 
applicable only to natural persons.  

The types of discriminatory behaviours that could trigger the imposition of criminal fines vary across 
Member States. This variation is illustrated by the examples provided in the box below. 

Box 7: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘criminal fines’  

•  Belgium: Criminal fines can be imposed on anyone who discriminates against a person in the fields 
of  goods,  services,  or  employment  based  on  nationality,  alleged  race,  skin  colour,  ancestry,  or 
national or ethnic origin. 

•  Cyprus:  Cypriot  legislation  envisages  criminal  fines  for  instances  of  direct  and  indirect 

discrimination and harassment in all sectors.  

•  Denmark: Criminal fines are applicable to anyone who specifies a preference or requirement for a 
person of a particular race, skin colour, religion or belief, political view, sexual orientation, gender 
identity, gender expression, gender characteristics, national, social or ethnic origin, specific age, or 
disability in a job advertisement. Fines also apply if such characteristics are stated as undesirable. 

•  Finland: Criminal fines can be imposed on individuals who discriminate in trade, profession, public 

service, or any other public function on grounds covered by the RED/EED. 

• 

Italy: Criminal fines are  imposed  for discrimination, regardless of  the area concerned, based on 
racial, ethnic, national, or religious grounds.  

•  Netherlands: Criminal fines are envisaged for several discriminatory behaviours, regardless of the 
area concerned, including deliberate discrimination based on race, religion, or belief; discrimination 
in  the  exercise  of  office,  profession,  or  business;  and  participation  in  or  provision  of  financial  or 
material support for activities aimed at racial discrimination.  

56 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

In three jurisdictions (AT, PT and SK) fines are only prescribed by administrative law, whereas in 
12 jurisdictions (BG, CY, CZ, DK, EL, ES, HU, LT, LV, NL, RO and SI), administrative law fines co-
exist with fines envisaged by other areas of law (typically criminal law). 

In  Latvia,  administrative  fines  are  prescribed  only  against  legal  persons.  In  all  other  jurisdictions, 
administrative fine schemes target both natural and legal persons; though it should be noted that in 
jurisdictions with multiple forms of administrative fines (AT, BG, ES, HU, LT, PT, RO, and SK), some 
fines may specifically target either natural or legal persons only.   

Administrative sanctions, particularly when available in multiple forms, can address various types of 
discriminatory behaviours across different areas and grounds. The box below provides illustrative 
examples of these differences. 

Box 8: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘administrative fines’ 

•  Austria: Administrative fines can be imposed for discriminatory employment advertisements based 
on all grounds covered by the RED/EED. This includes fines for excluding certain information from 
job ads on the same grounds. Additionally, fines are applicable for discriminatory advertising in the 
housing sector (on grounds of racial or ethnic origin) and the agricultural sector (on all RED/EED 
grounds). 

•  Bulgaria: Administrative fines are imposed for discriminatory behaviour falling under the Protection 
Against Discrimination Act114 or for failing to fulfil related obligations, covering all grounds specified 
by the RED and EED. 

•  Czechia: The violation of the prohibition of non-discrimination in relation to the sale of goods and 

the provision of services could lead to the imposition of an administrative fine.  

•  Greece:  Any  form  of  discrimination  during  employment,  based  on  all  grounds  covered  by  the 

RED/EED, can result in administrative fines. 

•  Hungary:  Several  pieces  of  sectorial  legislation  impose  administrative  fines.  In  the  sector  of 
education, for example, violations  of equal treatment  on all RED grounds can  lead to sanctions. 
Fines also apply for any breach of equal treatment requirements, regardless of the area or ground. 
In  consumer  protection,  fines  are  imposed  for  violating  equal  treatment  rules  during  product 
distribution or service provision, covering all RED grounds. 

•  Portugal: Discriminatory behaviours based on race or ethnic origin can lead to administrative fines 
in various areas such as social protection, social benefits, education, access to and supply of goods 
and services, and culture. Discrimination in employment or self-employment on all grounds of the 
RED/EED can also result in administrative fines.  

2.3.1.1.2.  Monetary compensation 

Monetary  compensation  for  material  (i.e.,  quantifiable  damage,  namely  financial  damage  or 
damage to property115) and immaterial damages (i.e., losses which do not relate to a person’s assets, 
wealth or income and, as such, cannot be quantified in an objective manner by reference to a market 
price or value116)  is typically regulated under national civil law (civil code or its equivalent) in the 
Member States. In eight Member States (AT, EL, ES, FR, HU, LT, LV and NL), monetary schemes 
for  compensating  material  damages  are  also  set  out  in legislation other  than civil  law.  These  are 
typically administrative schemes (the exceptions being HU – labour law scheme, and LT – criminal 

114 Protection Against Discrimination Act (Закон за защита от дискриминация), State Gazette No. 86/2003, last amended SG No. 
84/2023. 
115 Opinion of Advocate General Wahl delivered on 9 October 2013, Enrico Petillo and Carlo Petillo v Unipol Assicurazioni SpA, request 
for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy), Case C-371/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:652, contrary interpretation of point 38. 
116 Ibid, point 38. 

57 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

law  scheme).  In  three  Member  States  (AT,  ES  and  LV)  monetary  compensation  for  immaterial 
damages is available under multiple legal areas.  

Generally, monetary compensation schemes can be imposed on both natural and legal persons. 
However, there are some deviations in the case of administrative monetary compensation schemes. 
In  four  Member  States  (AT,  EL,  LV  and  NL),  administrative  monetary  compensation  for  material 
damages is only applicable to legal persons, whereas in two Member States (AT and LV) the rule of 
restricting  liability  to  legal  persons  also  applies  in  the  case  of  administrative  compensation  for 
immaterial damages.  

Examples illustrating  approaches  towards  the  regulation of monetary  compensation  schemes  are 
provided in the box below. 

Box 9: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘monetary compensation 
schemes (for material and immaterial damages)’ 

•  Austria:  Discrimination  in  employment  triggers  civil  law  compensation  for  both  material  and 
immaterial  damages.  Separate  civil  compensation  schemes  also  address  discrimination  in 
education, public services, social protection. Administrative compensation, covering both material 
and immaterial damages, is limited to state liability cases involving employment discrimination in 
public administration. 

•  Croatia: Under Croatian legislation a person who claims to be a victim of discrimination can demand 
financial compensation for the material and immaterial damages suffered. This sanction is not area 
or ground specific. 

•  Greece:  Civil  law  sanctions  for  material  and  immaterial  damages  apply  broadly  across  all 
discrimination  cases,  regardless  of  the  sector  or  ground  of  discrimination.  Administrative 
compensation for material damages extends to state and public legal entity liabilities, encompassing 
all discrimination grounds and sectors. 

•  Germany: Two separate civil schemes for the compensation of material and immaterial damages 
exist  in  Germany,  one  covering  compensation  for  discrimination  in  the  employment  sector  and 
another  offering  compensation  in  the  remaining  sectors  (education,  social  protection,  access  to 
goods and services).  

•  Hungary:  Civil  compensation  for  material  and  immaterial  damages  is  applicable  for  personality 

rights’ violations, including discrimination across all areas and grounds.  

•  Latvia:  The  civil  law  sanction  of  compensation  for  both  material  and  immaterial  damages  is 
available for discrimination cases in employment, consumer protection, and education sectors. A 
broader  compensation  scheme  covers  all  discrimination  grounds  and  areas.  Additionally, 
administrative  schemes  address  discrimination  by  administrative  authorities,  compensating  both 
material and immaterial damages.  

2.3.1.1.3. 

Imprisonment 

Imprisonment is a sanction prescribed in the laws of 20 Member States (BE, BG, CY, EE, EL, ES, 
FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, RO, SE, SI and SK).  

Criminal  imprisonment  is  a  sanction  that  exclusively  targets  natural  person  perpetrators.  In 
certain jurisdictions  this  can  also  include  representatives  of  legal  entities,  such  as members  of  a 
statutory board. Generally, the discriminatory behaviours that could lead to criminal imprisonment 
are the same as those that could result in criminal fines.  

Examples of behaviours that could be penalised by imprisonment are provided in the box below. 

58 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Box 10: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘imprisonment sentence’ 

•  Bulgaria:  Criminal  imprisonment  could  be  imposed  against  a  person  who  for  reasons  of 
discrimination prevents someone from taking a job, or forces someone to leave a job; or against an 
official who fails to enforce an order or a final decision ordering the restoration of employment of a 
person whose employment was unlawfully terminated.  

•  Spain: Criminal imprisonment can be imposed against public officials who, due to discriminatory 
reasons, deny public benefits to individuals. Imprisonment can also be imposed against those who 
fail to reinstate/repair a situation that had existed prior to the discrimination.  

•  France: A criminal imprisonment sentence is prescribed by French law as a punishment for certain 
discriminatory behaviours, including the discriminatory refusal of the supply of goods and services, 
discriminatory obstruction of the normal exercise of an economic activity, the discriminatory refusal 
of employment or the discriminatory punishing or dismissal of an employee, making access to and 
supply of goods and services subject to discriminatory conditions, discriminatory refusal to access 
a person for training periods, etc. Criminal imprisonment is also envisaged for the discriminatory 
practices of public authorities, including the discriminatory refusal of the exercise of an economic 
activity.  

•  Malta: Under Maltese law, criminal imprisonment is envisaged for cases where a person conducts 
discriminatory  treatment,  which  means  any  distinction,  exclusion,  restriction  or  difference  in 
treatment, whether direct or indirect, on any of the grounds. 

2.3.1.1.4. 

Declaring a decision, an act, provision, or agreement null or void 

The sanction of declaring an act, provision, or agreement null or void exists in 12 jurisdictions 
(AT, BE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, LU, MT, NL, PT and SE). This sanction is governed by civil law in eight 
Member  States  (BE,  FI,  FR,  LU,  MT,  NL,  PT  and  SE),  whereas  in  two  jurisdictions  (AT  and  EL) 
administrative law prescribes this sanction, and in two Member States (HU and ES), it is governed 
by labour law. In the Netherlands, this sanction type is regulated by both civil and administrative law.  

Generally, this sanction can be applied against both natural and legal persons. However, in Austria 
and Greece, the sanction is applicable only to legal persons. As with other sanctions, the applicability 
of  the  sanction to areas/grounds  and  behaviours  shows  national  characteristics.  Some  examples 
are illustrated in the box below.  

Box 11: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘declaring a decision, an 
act, provision, or agreement null or void’ 

•  Greece:  The  administrative  sanction  involves  revoking,  amending,  or  annulling  discriminatory 

administrative decisions, regardless of the area or ground concerned. 

•  Luxembourg: The civil sanction nullifies discriminatory employment-related contractual provisions. 
This  includes  contracts,  individual  or  collective  agreements,  internal  company  rules,  and  rules 
governing associations and professional organisations, ensuring adherence to the principle of equal 
treatment across all RED/EED discrimination grounds. 

•  Malta: The civil  law sanction cancels discriminatory  contracts or clauses related to  employment, 
addressing  any  distinction,  exclusion,  restriction,  or  difference  in  treatment  based  on  religion, 
religious belief, or racial or ethnic origin. 

•  Netherlands: The civil law sanction could make an unlawful decision to terminate a contract void. 
Under administrative law, discriminatory administrative decisions could be subject to annulment.  

•  Portugal: Under Portuguese law, contracts containing discriminatory clauses could be considered 

null and void. 

59 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Spain: Under Spanish law, discriminatory actions in employment relationships could be declared 

null and void.  

•  Sweden: The civil law sanction allows for voiding discriminatory employment decisions, applicable 

irrespective of the protected ground. 

2.3.1.1.5.  Other forms of sanctions 

The following forms of sanctions, which are not classified as injunctions, can be pronounced in cases 
of discrimination falling within the scope of this Study in one or a limited number of Member States:  

•  Community  service:  criminal  sanction  existing  in  a  few  jurisdictions  (i.e.,  LT,  LV  and  the 

NL), applicable against natural persons only. 

•  Disqualification from profession: criminal sanction existing in a few jurisdictions (i.e., ES 

and NL), applicable against natural persons only.  

•  Establishment/declaration  of  violation:  civil  sanction  existing  in  a  few  jurisdictions  (i.e., 

HR, HU and SK) applicable against both natural and legal persons.  

•  Temporary/permanent closure or suspension of activity: administrative sanction in a few 
Member States (i.e., HU and EL) and civil in an even more limited number of Member States 
(i.e.,  IE).  Focusing  on  the  examples  cited,  in  Greece,  the  sanction  can  only  be  imposed 
against legal persons, whereas in the remaining two Member States both natural and legal 
persons could be subject to the sanction. 

•  Exclusion  from  public  procurement  processes  or  economic  benefits:  administrative 
sanction  existing  in  a  limited  number  of  jurisdictions  (i.e.,  EL  and  IT).  Focusing  on  the 
examples cited, in Greece the sanction applies against legal persons only, whereas in Italy 
both natural and legal persons could be subject to the sanction.  

•  Disciplinary sanctions (i.e., sanctions imposed in response to violations of rules, policies, 
professional standards by public officials, in cases of discrimination): administrative sanctions 
against natural person civil servants exist in a few jurisdictions (i.e., FR and LU).  

•  Warning: administrative warning exists in a limited number of jurisdictions (e.g., LT, LV and 
PT). From among the Member States cited,  in Latvia only legal persons could be subject to 
the sanction.  

•  Other  sanctions:  Examples  include,  civil  detention  against  natural  persons  in  Estonia; 
administrative  law  sanction  applicable  to  natural  and  legal  persons  alike  imposing  some 
conditions until the lawful status is restored in Hungary; administrative retrial in Poland.  

2.3.1.2.  Sanctions classifying as injunction 

In several Member States sanctions meeting the working definition of injunction could be identified. 
In two Member States (AT and RO), these sanctions (see table above) while meeting the definition 
of  injunctions,  are not  classified  as  such  by  legal  literature and the stakeholders  consulted  in  the 
context of the Study. Nonetheless, given the main features of those sanctions, they are categorised 
as injunctions in this Report.  

Structural forms of injunction seem to be more rare than one-off injunctions and they are rarely 
categorised as such in the applicable legislation. For the purpose of this Report, such categorisation 
has  been  retrieved  from  either  the  wording  of  the  legislation  (as  the  wording  of  the  legislation 
suggests that these aim to address more structural/systemic issues), or from relevant jurisprudence 
(as the corresponding sanction provisions were invoked in cases entailing more structural/systemic 
forms of discrimination). Sometimes, the country experts argued that in the absence of restrictions 

60 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

in national legislation and given the vague wording of the applicable provisions, injunctions could in 
practice be applied to address both individual and structural forms of discrimination. 

The sub-sections below present several forms of injunctive relief in the order of their prevalence, 
starting with those that are the most commonly present in the Member States and finishing with those 
that exist in a more limited number of Member States.  

2.3.1.2.1. 

Terminating the violation 

The sanction  of terminating  a  violation117  (i.e.,  sanction requiring the  immediate  cessation  of  or 
abstention  from  the  discriminatory  behaviour  or  practice),  is  one  of  the  most  common  forms  of 
injunctive relief, observed in 16 Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU, HR, IT, LT, LV, 
MT, PL, SI and SK).  

In four Member States (BG, HU, IT and SI), this sanction could be considered as a form of structural 
injunction, aimed at achieving long-term changes. Conversely, in the remaining 12 Member States, 
it is typically seen as a one-off injunction, addressing specific instances of violation.  

Civil law legislation outlines these sanctions in 11 Member States (BE, CZ, DE, EL, ES, HR, IT, 
LV, MT,  PL  and  SI),  whereas  in three Member States  (FR,  HU  and  SK),  injunctive  sanctions  are 
prescribed  both  under  civil  and  administrative  law,  demonstrating  a  dual  approach  to  sanction 
regulation. Additionally, three Member States (BG, ES and LT) utilise other legal frameworks (only 
administrative law or labour law) to define these sanctions. 

Except  for  Lithuania,  where  the  sanctions  apply  only  to  natural  persons,  these measures  can  be 
enforced  against  both  natural  and  legal  persons  across  the  other  jurisdictions.  For  a  deeper 
understanding of how these rules are regulated, examples from various Member States are included 
in the box below. 

Box 12: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of the sanction ‘terminating 
the violation’ 

•  Bulgaria:  Injunctions  are  considered  administrative  preventive  measures  under  the  Protection 
Against  Discrimination  Act118.  These  measures  can  include  ordering  the  cessation  of  ongoing 
discriminatory actions by either natural or legal persons. 

•  Czechia: Under the Czech legal order, the person affected by discrimination may demand the court 

to require the perpetrator to terminate the discriminatory conduct.  

•  Germany: Under German civil law, where a breach of the prohibition of discrimination occurs, the 
disadvantaged person may, regardless of further claims being asserted, demand the termination of 
the discriminatory conduct.  

•  Hungary:  Under  Hungarian  law,  both  civil  and  administrative  law  allow  for  the  imposition  of  a 
sanction  entailing  the  termination  of  harmful  situations.  Although  not  specifically  categorised  as 
structural  injunctions  within  the  Civil  Code,  landmark  cases,  such  as  the  Kaposvar  case119, 
demonstrate their use as such. In the said case, the  Supreme Court ruled (the first time) that  ‘a 
court can in principle oblige a defendant to terminate an unlawful situation in a way that it prescribes 
concrete’.  

117 The terminology used in national legislation might vary depending on the jurisdiction concerned.  
118 Protection Against Discrimination Act (Закон за защита от дискриминация), State Gazette No. 86/2003, last amended SG No. 
84/2023. 
119 Curia (Kúria), Decision no. Pfv.IV.20.085/2017/9, available at: https://birosag.hu/birosagi-hatarozatok-gyujtemenye (through search 
function). 

61 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Additionally, a similar administrative sanction under the Equal Treatment Act120 addresses violations 
of equal treatment irrespective of the ground and area concerned. The Consumer Protection Act121 
also envisages similar sanctions in relation to the violation of consumer protection rules, including 
the requirement of equal treatment during the distribution of products and the provision of services.  

•  Lithuania:  Lithuania's  administrative  sanctions  include  measures  such  as  obliging  advertising 
entities to cease discriminatory advertising and requiring public administration institutions to rectify 
violations they have committed in addition to ceasing discrimination.  

• 

Italy: A civil sanction ordering the cessation of discriminatory behaviour is applicable across various 
grounds and areas, addressing discrimination comprehensively. 

•  Poland: Under the Polish Civil Code122, an individual whose personality rights are threatened by 
another's action has the right to demand that this action be stopped. Sanctions for the violation of 
personality rights apply to discrimination cases. 

•  Slovenia: National civil  law includes  multiple orders to end discrimination, which are considered 

forms of structural injunctions. 

2.3.1.2.2.  Obligation to perform specific actions 

This category encompasses sanctions, whereby courts order the perpetrator to perform a specific 
action. The obligations outlined in national legislation are rather country-specific and do not fit within 
other types of injunctive relief categories discussed in Section 2.3.1.2.  

Obligations to perform a specific action have been identified in 16 Member States (AT, CZ, CY, EL, 
ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, RO and SK).  

In five of these Member States (CZ, HU, LT, LU, and SK) this sanction could be classified as a form 
of structural relief. In eight jurisdictions (AT, CY, EL, FI, FR, IT, LV and RO), this form of sanction 
could be classified as a one-off injunction. In some Member States (ES, IE and MT), the sanctions 
prescribed by legislation could be classified both as one-off and structural injunctions. 

The sanction is typically regulated by civil law (six Member States – CZ, EL, IE, IT, LU and LV) or 
administrative law (four Member States AT, CY, FI and LT). In five Member States (ES, HU, MT, 
RO and SK) obligations are set forth in  multiple areas of law. In France, this type of sanction is 
regulated by criminal law. 

Generally,  these  sanctions  apply  to  both  natural  and  legal  persons,  though  there  are  notable 
exceptions.  In  Austria,  only  legal  persons  face  administrative  sanctions,  while  in  Spain,  the 
applicable administrative  sanctions target  natural  persons  exclusively.  In France,  an  obligation  to 
undertake a citizenship training course can only be imposed against natural persons.    

Examples illustrating the applicable rules are provided in the box below. 

Box 13: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of the sanction ‘obligation 
to perform certain actions’ 

Examples of specific obligations set out in administrative law:  

120 Act CXXV of 2003 on equal treatment and the promotion of equal opportunities (2003. évi CXXV. Törvény az egyenlő bánásmódról 
és az esélyegyenlőség előmozdításáról) Equal Treatment Act, Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, no. 2003/157; 28 December 2003, 
pp. 13044-13055. 
121 Act CLV of 1997 on consumer protection (1997. évi CLV. Törvény a fogyasztóvédelemről), Consumer Protection Act, Official 
publication: Magyar Közlöny, no. 1997/119, pp. 09558-09569. 
122 Act on the Civil Code of 23 April 1964, (Ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. Kodeks cywilny, Dz.U. 1964 nr 16 poz. 93), Official Law 
Journal 1964 no. 16 item 93 (referred to as Civil Code). 

62 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Austria:  National  law  targets  legal  entities  with  multiple  administrative  sanctions  designed  to 
enforce  equal  treatment  in  the  workplace.  These  measures  include  mandating  equal  labour 
conditions  and  converting  fixed-term  contracts  into  permanent  positions  in  cases  where 
discriminatory  practices  have  been  identified  in  the  termination  of  employment  or  training 
relationships. 

•  Lithuania: As an alternative to the administrative sanction of obliging a public authority to terminate 
a committed violation, the Law on the Procedure for Pre-Trial Administrative Disputes123 prescribes 
the  fulfilment  of  any  other  order.  In  relation  to  discriminatory  advertising,  the  Law  on  Equal 
Treatment124  provides  that  any  term  and  condition  could  be  prescribed  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
obligation of equal treatment in addition to the termination of the violation.  

•  Spain:  Under  administrative  law,  the  perpetrator  could  be  obliged  to  contribute  to  activities  that 
serve public or educational purposes or social interests. With a separate sanction, administrative 
courts may oblige the perpetrator to undertake work to repair the damages caused or to support or 
assist the victims of the acts of discrimination. An example of the application of this sanction as a 
one-off administrative injunctive relief could be the ordering of the perpetrator to attend a training 
course.  

Examples of specific obligations set out in civil law:  

•  Czechia: Under Czech law, in the event of a violation of the right to equal treatment or the right to 
non-discrimination,  the  person  affected  by  the  violation  may  demand  the  court  to  oblige  the 
perpetrator to provide appropriate (non-monetary) compensation. The form of compensation is not 
specified in the legislation.  

• 

Ireland:  Civil  law  sanctions  are  envisaged  in  employment  contexts,  such  as  orders  for  equal 
remuneration,  equal  treatment,  and  specific  courses  of  action,  including  reinstatement  or  re-
engagement,  with  or  without  compensation.  These  are  generally  considered  one-off  injunctions. 
Additionally,  Irish  law  permits  mandatory  orders  beyond  employment  settings,  which  could 
potentially include both one-off actions and structural injunctions. 

Examples of specific obligations set out in multiple areas of law:  

•  Romania:  Both  administrative  and  civil  law  provide  for  obligations  that  could  qualify  as  one-off 
injunctions. Under both  areas of law, the perpetrator of moral harassment (i.e.,  employer) at the 
workplace, could be ordered to modify the employee’s disciplinary records.  

Example of the specific obligation set out in criminal law:  

•  France: Under French criminal law, when an offence is punishable by imprisonment, the court may, 
instead of or at the same time as imprisonment, prescribe that the convicted person must complete, 
for a period not exceeding one month, a citizenship training course. The nature, concept and the 
terms of the training course are to be adjusted to the nature of the offence. Generally, the training 
course should aim to instil the values of France and the responsibilities of its citizens. 

Examples of structural injunctions:  

•  Hungary: A sanction that requires the perpetrator to surrender financial assets gained through the 
violation can be seen as a one-off injunction. In contrast, a general obligation to provide suitable 
compensation to the victim could be viewed as a potential form of structural injunction. However, it 
is noteworthy that the case-law research did not reveal any instances where this type of sanction 
was applied in cases involving structural discrimination.   

• 

Ireland:  Civil  law  sanctions  are  envisaged  in  employment  contexts,  such  as  orders  for  equal 
remuneration and equal treatment. These are generally considered one-off injunctions. Additionally, 
Irish law permits mandatory orders (i.e., order to take a course of action as specified by the court or 

123 Law on the Procedure for Pre-Trial Administrative Disputes (Administracinių ginčų komisijos sprendimų rūšys. Sprendimo turinys, 
bylos nutraukimas, skundo (prašymo) palikimas nenagrinėto), Law No. 20 of 20 December 2022. XIV-1724.  
124 Law on Equal Treatment (Lietuvos Respublikos lygių galimybių įstatymas), Law No IX-1826, Official Gazette No. 114-5115 of 05 
December 2003. 

63 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

the Workplace Relations Commission) beyond employment settings, which could potentially include 
both one-off actions and structural injunctions. 

•  Malta: The Industrial Tribunal has the authority to impose any measures it considers appropriate to 
compensate the victim. In theory, this vague wording allows the sanction to be applied either as a 
one-off or structural injunction. It is noteworthy though that no cases in Malta were found to illustrate 
the application of this type of sanction.   

•  Slovakia:  Several  administrative  sanctions  are  viewed  as  structural  remedies,  especially  in  the 
education sector. These include complying with recommendations from the State School Inspection, 
implementing specific measures mandated by the same authority or adopting certain measures to 
correct violations of equal treatment principles. 

2.3.1.2.3. 

Reinstatement or restoration sanctions 

Reinstatement  or  restoration  sanctions  entail  actions  whereby  the  perpetrator  is  ordered  to 
reinstate  or  restore  a  situation  that  had  existed  prior  to  the  discrimination  (excluding  job 
reinstatement, which is categorised under the sanction ‘obligation to perform certain action’) or to 
remove or rectify the consequences or outcomes of a discrimination. These sanctions are recognised 
by the legislation of eight Member States (BG, CZ, ES, HR, HU, IE, RO, and SK).  

In two Member States (BG and SK), these sanctions could be classified as both structural forms 
of  injunction,  intended for  structural  rectifications,  or  as  forms  of  one-off  injunction,  tailored to 
address specific instances of discrimination. In all other Member States, the sanctions could be seen 
as forms of one-off injunction.  

In five Member States (BG, CZ, HR, IE and SK), these sanctions are specified within a single area 
of law, primarily civil law, except in Bulgaria where it falls under administrative law. Meanwhile, in 
three Member States (ES, HU and RO), the regulations span more than one legal area.  

In all jurisdictions, these sanctions apply to both natural and legal persons. Examples illustrating 
the applicable rules are provided in the box below. 

Box  14:  Examples  of  approaches  towards  the  regulation  of  the  sanction 
‘reinstatement/restoration of discrimination’ 

•  Bulgaria:  Under  the  Protection  Against  Discrimination  Act125,  proactive  administrative  measures 
are  classified  as  forms  of  injunctive  relief.  These  can  mandate  the  restoration  of  the  pre-
discrimination  status  quo,  affecting  both  natural  and  legal  persons.  Depending  on  the  method 
employed  for  restoration,  these  injunctions  may  be  classified  either  as  one-off  or  structural 
injunctions. 

•  Czechia: Under Czech civil law, the perpetrator violating someone’s right to equal treatment could 

be ordered to rectify the consequences or outcomes of discrimination. 

•  Croatia: Under Croatian civil law, the perpetrator of any form of discrimination may be ordered to 

eliminate the consequences of discrimination.  

2.3.1.2.4. 

Publishing the decisions 

In  eight  Member  States  (BE,  CY,  EL,  HR,  HU,  IT,  RO  and  SI),  the  sanction  of  publishing  the 
decisions is envisaged. In all jurisdictions the publication sanction is viewed as a one-off sanction, 
where the respondent is ordered to publish the decision at his/her own expense. The sanction is 

125 Protection Against Discrimination Act (Закон за защита от дискриминация), State Gazette No. 86/2003, last amended SG No. 
84/2023. 

64 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

regulated under civil law in five jurisdictions (BE, EL, HR, IT and SI). However, Hungary recognises 
this sanction both under civil and administrative law, whereas Romania and Cyprus only envisage 
such sanctions under administrative law. The applicability of this sanction extends to both natural 
and legal persons in all jurisdictions. Examples illustrating the national approaches are provided in 
the box below. 

Box  15:  Examples  of  approaches  towards  the  regulation  of  the  sanction  of 
‘publishing decisions’ 

•  Belgium: A victim of discrimination or certain third parties, may bring proceedings for cessation of 
the discrimination, in emergency proceedings before the civil court. In such cases, the judge might 
decide  to  have  the  decision  published  (e.g.,  in  newspapers)  and/or  have  the  decision  physically 
displayed (e.g., around the offender’s establishments). In these instances, the offender bears the 
cost of publicising and displaying the information. 

•  Greece:  By  means  of  a  civil  law  sanction,  and  as  a  form  of  non-pecuniary  compensation,  the 

offenders might be requested by the courts to publish the court’s decision.  

•  Hungary:  The  sanction  is  regulated  by  administrative  and  civil  law  alike.  The  administrative  law 
sanction that could be imposed by the Equal Treatment Directorate could be applied in all cases of 
discrimination  irrespective  of  the  ground  or  area  of  discrimination  concerned.  Under  the  Civil 
Code126, the courts may order the offender to provide appropriate redress for the claimant, including 
its publicity at his/her own expense.  

• 

Italy: When granting the claim, the judge may order the publication of the decision, once and at the 
expense of the defendant, in a national newspaper.  

•  Slovenia: A request for publication of the judgment in the media is granted if the court considers, 
in the light of the circumstances of the case, that publication of the judgment is necessary to remedy 
the consequences of the discrimination or to prevent discrimination in other similar cases.  

2.3.1.2.5.  Other injunction schemes 

The remaining injunction schemes do not seem to be wide-spread and exist only in a limited number 
of Member States. In the order of their prevalence, these are: 

•  Ban from future violation (beyond termination, an obligation for the perpetrator to refrain 
from further violation in the future): Existing in five jurisdictions (BG, FI, HR, HU and SI). In 
two of these jurisdictions (BG and SI), the sanction could be classified as a form of structural 
injunction,  whereas  in  the remaining jurisdictions  the  sanction  could be  seen as  a form  of 
one-off injunction. In five jurisdictions, the sanction is regulated by a single area of law (by 
administrative law in BG and FI and by civil law in HR, and SI). In Hungary, one-off injunction 
schemes exist under both civil and administrative law. In all jurisdictions the sanction can be 
imposed  against  both  natural  and  legal  persons.  To  illustrate  this  type  of  sanction,  an 
example  from  Bulgaria  is  provided,  whereby  the  Commission  for  Protection  against 
Discrimination, may order the perpetrator to refrain from further violations in the future.  

•  Measures to prevent the repetition of discriminatory acts: This sanction encompasses a 
broader set of actions than the one above and entails the completion of preventive actions. 
It exists in five Member States (BE, BG, DE, IT and SI) typically as a civil sanction, applicable 
to natural and legal persons alike. In all jurisdictions concerned the sanction is considered as 
a form of structural injunction. To illustrate this type of sanction an example from Belgium is 

126 Act V of 2013 Civil Code (2013. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről), Civil Code, Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 
02382-02663. 

65 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

provided, whereby Belgian courts may order the perpetrator to undertake positive measures 
to prevent the repetition of similar acts constituting a breach of law.  

•  Any suitable action (action not specified in legislation): Existing in three jurisdictions (IT, 
MT and NL), potentially serving as forms of structural injunctions, regulated by civil law and 
applying against both natural and legal persons.  

•  Payment of an appropriate sum of money to a designated social purpose: this civil law 
sanction exists in Poland and is applicable to natural and legal persons alike. It applies in 
cases  of  personality  rights’  violations,  the  category  of  which  encompasses  discrimination 
cases. The sanction is not area or ground specific and is classified as a form of structural 
injunction. 

As  highlighted  above,  sanctions  are  set  forth  in  various  areas  of  law  in  the  Member  States.  For 
information on which body is competent to impose sanction per the area of law concerned, Section 
2.2 and Section 3.2 provide more information.  

2.3.1.3.  Accessory sanctions 

This  section  of  the  report  also  briefly  refers  to  accessory  sanctions,  which  are  additional  or 
supplementary sanctions that may be imposed on the perpetrator depending on the circumstances 
of  the  case.  These  sanctions  are  considered  accessory,  because  they  cannot  be  applied 
independently, but are contingent on the imposition of a primary sanction. 

In 11 Member States (BE, ES, FR, HU, LT, LU, LV, NL, PT, RO and SK) accessory sanctions in 
cases of discrimination on the grounds and areas covered by the Study are set out by law. Such 
accessory sanctions are not applicable in 10 Member States (AT, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, HR, MT 
and PL). No information was retrieved concerning the remaining Member States. 

Most accessory sanctions apply in addition to criminal or administrative sanctions. They range 
from sanctions affecting the rights of the perpetrators, such as the imposition of a temporary ban on 
exercising certain professions or activities or the loss of civil and political rights, sanctions affecting 
the possibility of applying or receiving state aid or other benefits or participating in public tenders, 
sanctions restricting the activity of legal persons, sanctions promoting the publication of the decision, 
prohibitive or mandatory injunctions, confiscation or temporary forfeiture of objects belonging to the 
perpetrator, closure of establishment or suspension of licences and permits, among others. Many 
accessory sanctions are of temporary application. In some Member States (e.g., ES, PT), there are 
also accessory sanctions applying in specific areas of law, such as consumer law (e.g., confiscation 
of goods; publicising of penalties; temporary closure of establishments) and labour law (e.g., loss of 
subsidies,  bonuses and benefits;  temporary  barring  from  accessing  benefits).  An overview  of the 
accessory sanctions is provided in Annex I. 

2.3.2. Overview  of  applicable  sanctions  per  grounds/areas  of 

discrimination 

This  sub-section  provides  an  overview  of  the  sanctions  identified  as  per  the  discrimination 
grounds/areas covered.  

2.3.2.1.  Sanctions per ground of discrimination 

In a  large  majority  of the Member  States, most sanction  types  provided for  in national  legislation 
cover all discrimination grounds. This is further illustrated in a table provided under Annex II to 
this Report.  

66 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Sanctions  with  more  restricted  scope  (i.e.,  sanctions  specific  to  certain  grounds)  have  been 
identified in four Member States (AT, BE, NL and PT). These instances are further described in the 
box below.  

Box  16:  Country-specific  explanation  on  the  restriction  of  sanctions  to  certain 
protected grounds 

•  Austria:  National  legislation  sets  forth  five  different  administrative  fine  schemes.  One  of  these, 
applicable to cases of discriminatory advertising in the housing sector, could be imposed when the 
discrimination concerns the protected grounds of ethnicity or race. 

•  Belgium: Belgium imposes criminal fines and  imprisonment for discrimination  on the  grounds of 
ethnicity and race in accessing goods and services. If the discrimination involves civil servants, the 
scope  of  the  sanction  of  imprisonment  broadens,  encompassing  all  other  protected  grounds, 
including religion.  

•  Netherlands:  In  the  Netherlands,  criminal  sanctions  such  as  fines,  imprisonment,  community 
service, and disqualification from professional activities exclusively address discrimination based 
on race and religion. When it comes to fines, an administrative law scheme is also envisaged, which 
covers a more extensive range of grounds, expressly covering ethnicity. 

•  Portugal:  Portugal's legal  measures  include  administrative fines targeting specific discriminatory 
practices in social protection, education, and access to goods and services, with these penalties 
specifically focusing on ethnicity and race. Notably, under Portuguese law, two other administrative 
law schemes exist that are not restricted to any specific grounds of discrimination. Additionally, civil 
compensation schemes for damages in the sectors of social protection, education, and access to 
goods and services are also limited to cases of discrimination based on ethnicity and race. In other 
sectors, civil compensation schemes are available and are not restricted to any specific grounds of 
discrimination.  

2.3.2.2.  Sanctions per area of discrimination  

In terms of the areas covered, national provisions show a large variety. A detailed breakdown of 
the areas covered by each sanction scheme identified is provided under Annex III. Under this section 
only overarching conclusions are described, outlining some general trends observed:  

•  Member  States with area-specific sanctions only  (sanctions  that  apply  to one or more 
specific areas, but no sanctions that cover all areas): in five Member States (AT, DE, MT, PT 
and  SE),  only  area-specific  sanctions  could  be  identified.  This  means  that  the  applicable 
sanction provisions designed to address discrimination are not applied across all areas but 
are targeted at particular sector or sectors such as social protection, education, and access 
to goods and services. 

•  Member States with cross-sectorial sanctions only (sanctions apply to all areas): in one 
Member State (EE), all the sanction schemes envisaged by national legislation are cross-
cutting, applying to all areas covered by the RED/EED.  

•  Member  States  with  a  mixed  system  (some  sanctions  are  area-specific  and  some 
sanctions apply to all areas): in the large majority (21) of the Member States (BE, BG, CY, 
CZ, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, RO, SI and SK), a mixed system 
applies,  whereby  some  sanctions  are  restricted  to  specific  area(s)  and  some  apply  to  all 
areas.  

With  a  specific  focus  on  Member  States  with  area-specific  sanctions  only,  some  particular 
observations could be made, which are summarised in the box below: 

67 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Box 17: Member States with area-specific sanctions only 

•  Austria:  Under  Austrian  law  only  sanctions  that  are  specific  to  certain  sectors/areas  have  been 
identified.  To  illustrate  this  approach,  the  regulation  of  administrative  fines  could  be  mentioned. 
Austrian legislation sets forth five different types of administrative fines’ schemes. Out of these, four 
types of fines could be applied in the area of employment and there is one envisaged for cases in 
relation to access to and supply of goods and services. When it comes to compensation, the same 
pattern is followed with a note that a separate compensation scheme is also envisaged for cases of 
discrimination in the education sector. Conversely, certain sanctions, like declaring contracts null 
and void or mandating specific actions, are exclusively regulated within the employment sector. 

•  Germany:  Under  German  law,  separate  civil  law  compensation  schemes  are  envisaged  for  the 
sector  of  employment  on  the  one  hand,  and  all  other  sectors  (education,  access  to  goods  and 
services and social protection) on the other. It is notable, that certain sanctions, such as the sanction 
of  terminating  a  violation  and  the  sanction  of  taking  measures  to  prevent  future  violation,  are 
restricted  to  the  areas  of  education,  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  and  social 
protection.   

•  Malta:  Malta  displays  a  nearly  perfect  duality  of  rules  with  separate  sanctions  that  address 
employment relationships on the one hand and other sectors including social protection, goods and 
services, and education, on the other hand. It is notable that monetary compensation for damages 
seems to be restricted to employment related discrimination cases.  

•  Portugal: In Portugal, there is a clear duality of rules between those applying in the employment 
sector and others covering discrimination in the sectors of social protection, education, and access 
to  goods  and  services.  Conversely,  some  sanctions,  like  warnings  and  the  nullification  of 
agreements  or  acts,  are  envisaged  for  cases  in  the  sectors  of  social  protection,  education  and 
access to/supply of good and services.  

•  Sweden:  According  to  the  research  carried  out  by  the  expert,  most  types  of  Swedish  sanctions 

predominantly cover the employment sector and access to goods and services. 

In Member States with a mixed system (i.e., some sanctions are area-specific and some sanctions 
apply to all areas), there are various country-specific rules in place. In eight Member States (BG, 
DK, IT, LT, LU, NL, RO and SI), the mix of rules includes those that apply across all areas as well 
as rules specifically addressing employment-related issues.  

In other Member States, in addition to the sanctions that apply to all areas, sanctions addressing 
discrimination in areas other than employment exist as well:  

•  Access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services:  For  example,  in  Belgium  and  Greece, 
criminal sanctions specifically address discrimination in this area. In Poland, a specific quasi-
criminal sanction fine scheme exists for cases in relation to access to and supply of goods 
and  services,  whereas  in  Czechia  a  specific  administrative  fine  scheme  addressing 
discrimination cases in relation to access to goods and services exists.  

•  Employment, access to goods and services, and social protection: France and Cyprus 

are examples where area-specific sanctions span these areas as well. 

•  Education:  French  legislation  provides  for  civil  fines  specifically  within  the  educational 
fines  and 

in  Hungary  national 

forth  administrative 

legislation  sets 

sector,  while 
compensations for immaterial damages in this area. 

•  Education,  access  to  goods  and  services,  social  protection:  Both  Spain  and  Finland 

envisage specific sanctions when a discrimination occurs in these areas. 

68 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

2.3.3. Overview of applicable sanctions per nature and objective 

This sub-section provides an overview of the sanctions identified as per their nature/objective.  

2.3.3.1.  Sanctions per nature 

As  per  their  nature,  this  report  distinguishes  between  two  main  categories  of  sanctions,  i.e., 
pecuniary sanctions and non-pecuniary sanctions.  

Pecuniary sanctions cover: 

•  Fine; 

•  Monetary compensation for material/immaterial damages; 

•  Obligation to perform certain actions (in IE only); 

•  One form of disciplinary sanction against civil servants (in LU only). 

A  detailed  analysis  is  provided  under  Section  2.3.4  –  Overview  of  applicable  sanctions  per 
amount/range.  

All remaining types of sanctions, as listed under Section 2.3.1 – Overview of applicable sanctions 
per type, are classified as non-pecuniary sanctions. 

A detailed overview of the classification of sanctions as per their nature is provided in Annex IV.  

2.3.3.2.  Sanctions per objective 

The  Study  classifies  sanctions  as  per  their  objectives,  under  four  categories.  The  categorisation 
below  follows  the  scheme  established  by  a  previous  study,  completed  by  Equinet127.  As  per  this 
scheme, sanctions can be classified as:  

•  Compensatory sanctions: sanctions with a predominantly compensatory character, aiming 

to provide remedy to victims of discrimination; 

•  Punitive sanctions: sanctions with a predominantly punitive character, aiming to constitute 

a punishment for the perpetrator; 

•  Preventive  sanctions:  sanctions  with  a  predominantly  preventive  character,  aiming  to 

prevent individual perpetrators from further discrimination; 

•  Socio-preventive  sanctions:  sanctions  with  a  predominant  socio-preventive  character, 

aiming to fight discrimination and foster equality on a societal level.  

As  highlighted  by  the  aforementioned  source,  and  as  could  be  observed  as  part  of  the  research 
carried  out  for  the  current  Study,  classifying  sanctions  by  their  objectives  poses  significant 
challenges due to the multifaceted roles the sanctions can play. Moreover, the precise categorisation 
of sanctions depends heavily on the specificities of each case. The actual sanction imposed in a 
given  case  also  introduces  an  additional  layer  of  difficulty  to  potential  categorisation.  While  a 
compensation scheme might in theory be classified as compensatory, low sanction levels imposed 
might pre-empt the objective of the scheme. Conversely, excessively high fines for example, serving 
primary punitive purposes, might also serve preventive purposes due to their high deterrent effect 
on the offender’s future behaviour. Additionally, perceptions of sanctions' objectives can vary among 
different stakeholders. Legal practitioners, victims, and offenders may each have different views on 

127 Equinet, Wladasch. K., ‘The sanctions regime in discrimination cases and its effects’, 2015. 

69 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

whether  a  sanction  is  punitive,  compensative,  preventive  or  socio-preventive.  These  subjective 
interpretations can influence how sanctions are viewed and classified within the legal system. 

The analysis below primarily relies on the classification made by the country experts and the Study 
Team, hence carries an element of subjectivity. The table below provides an overview of how each 
type of sanction identified and described under Section 2.3.1 – Overview of applicable sanctions per 
type is classified. It also recalls the number of Member States where each type of sanction could be 
observed, with a note that detailed descriptions of these sanction types and corresponding national 
rules are provided under Section 2.3.1 – Overview of applicable sanctions per type.  

It is important to note that structural injunctions are marked as fulfilling multiple objectives. They are 
systematically recognised as socio-preventive measures with a note that they might also serve other 
purposes (e.g., they might also serve to compensate the specific victims). This dual role highlights 
the broader impact these sanctions are intended to have beyond offering immediate legal remedies. 

Table 8: Overview of sanctions per objective 

Type of sanction 

Objective(s) 

Member States 

Fine 

Imprisonment 

Punitive 

Punitive 

26 Member States (all but Germany) 

20  Member  States  (BE,  BG,  CY,  EE,  EL,  ES, 
FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, RO, SE, 
SI and SK) 

Community service 

Punitive 

Three Member States (LT, LV and NL) 

Disqualification  

Punitive 

Two Member States (ES and NL) 

Compensation 
damage) 

(material 

Compensatory 

All Member States 

Compensatory & Socio-preventive 

In Luxembourg one form of civil compensatory 
scheme is classified as structural injunction. 

Compensation 
(immaterial damage) 

Compensatory 

All Member States 

Compensatory & Socio-preventive 

Declaring 
agreement/act/contract 
null and void 

Compensatory 

Establishment/declaration 
of violation 

Compensatory 

Termination of violation 

Compensatory 

Compensatory & Socio-preventive 

In  Hungary,  administrative  law  compensation 
for  immaterial  damages;  and  in  Luxembourg 
one  civil  compensatory  scheme  are  classified 
as structural injunction 

In 12 Member States (AT, BE, EL, ES, FI, FR, 
HU, LU, MT, NL, PT and SE) 

In three Member States (HR, HU and SK) 

In 12 Member States (BE, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, 
HR, LT, LV, MT, PL and SK) 

In  four  Member  States  (BG,  HU,  IT  and  SI) 
where  the  sanction  is  classified  as  structural 
injunction 

Measures  to  prevent  the 
repetition 
of 
discrimination 

Preventive 

In one Member State (DE) 

Preventive & Socio-preventive 

In  four  Member  States  (BE,  BG,  IT  and  SI), 
where  the  sanction  is  classified  as  structural 

70 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

injunction 

Banning 
violation 

from 

future 

Preventive 

In three Member States (FI, HR and HU) 

Preventive & Socio-preventive 

In  two  Member  States  (BG and  SI)  where  the 
sanction is classified as structural injunction 

previous 

Reinstatement/restoration 
of 
situation, 
removal of the outcome of 
discrimination 

Compensatory 

In six Member States (CZ, ES, HR, HU, IE and 
RO) 

Compensatory & Socio-preventive 

In one Member State (SK) 

Preventive & Socio-preventive 

In one Member State (BG) 

Obligation 
certain 
specified in law 

to  perform 
as 

actions 

Compensatory 

Compensatory & Socio-preventive 

Preventive 

Preventive & Socio-preventive 

In 12 Member States (AT, CZ, EL, ES (specific 
form),  FI,  HU  (specific  forms128),  IE  (specific 
forms)  IT,  MT  (specific  forms),  LV,  RO,  SK 
(specific forms))  

In  seven  Member  States  (CY,  HU  (specific 
forms),  IE  (specific  forms),  LU,  MT  (specific 
forms), PL and SK (specific forms)) 

In  France, 
preventive purposes 

the  sanction 

identified  serves 

In  Spain,  one  of  the  administrative  sanctions 
socio-preventive 
serves 
purposes 

preventive 

and 

Punitive / Punitive & Socio-preventive 

In Lithuania, one type of administrative sanction 
is classified as structural injunction 

Publication of decision 

Punitive 

Temporary/permanent 
closure/suspension 
activities 

of 

Punitive 

Exclusion 
from  public 
procurement  processes 
or economic benefits 

Punitive 

Disciplinary sanctions 

Punitive 

Preventive 

In eight Member States (BE, CY, EL, HR, HU, 
IT, RO and SI) 

In three Member States (EL, HU and IE) 

In two Member States (EL and IT) 

In  two  Member  States  (FR  and  LU),  with  the 
below exceptions 

Two types of disciplinary sanctions, one in each 
Member State (FR and LU) is preventive 

Warning 

Preventive 

In three Member States (LT, LV and PT) 

Any 
sanctions 

other 

suitable 

Compensatory & Socio-preventive 

In three Member States (IT, MT and NL) 

Other 

country-specific  Punitive 

Detention (EE) 

128 This refers to cases where multiple forms of sanctions could fall under the sanction category ‘obligation to perform certain actions’. 
Some forms of this sanction type could serve compensatory or preventive purposes, whereas some other forms could be classified as 
forms of structural injunction and could also serve socio-preventive purposes.  

71 

 
 
sanctions  that  do  not  fall 
under 
the 
categories above 

any 

of 

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Arrest (LT) 

Probatory supervision (LV) 

Preventive 

Imposing  conditions  or  prohibiting  an  activity 
until the lawful status is restored (HU) 

Compensatory 

Administrative retrial (PL) 

Compensatory & Socio-preventive 

Payment of an appropriate sum of money to a 
designated social purpose (PL)  

The information provided in the table above indicates that the sanctions identified in the Member 
States primarily serve punitive or compensatory objectives. Monetary compensation for material 
and immaterial damages, serving compensatory purposes, is the most prevalent type of sanction 
and exists in all jurisdictions. Fines, serving punitive purposes, are also present in the majority of 
Member  States.  Overall,  backward-looking  sanctions,  which  focus  on  redressing  harm  to  the 
victim (through compensation schemes) or punishing the perpetrator (through punitive sanctions), 
dominate  the  national  legal  frameworks.  In  contrast,  more  forward-looking  sanction  types  that 
serve  preventive  or  socio-preventive  purposes  are  considerably  less  common  in  the  Member 
States.  

2.3.4. Overview of applicable sanctions per amount/range 

This  sub-section  provides  an  overview  of  sanctions that  are  quantified either  as  amounts or 
within defined ranges (e.g., duration) in the national laws.  

In  particular,  this  section  focuses  on  three  types  of  quantifiable  sanctions:  fines;  financial 
compensation for material/immaterial damages; and imprisonment. Notable that other quantifiable 
sanctions  exist  in  one  or  a  few  Member  States.  Consequently,  no  clear  trends  regarding  the 
regulation of these other sanction types could be drawn.  

2.3.4.1.  Fines 

Fines are one of the sanction types which are typically monetised in the national laws.   

72 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Amount/ranges of fine 

Table 9: Overview of the amounts/ranges of fines 

AT 

Administrative fines for discriminatory job advertisement, non-inclusion of certain information in job advertisement, discriminatory advertisement of housing: min. 
not specified, max. up to EUR 360. 

BE 

Criminal fine for any discriminatory act in the domain of goods and services or employment: min. EUR 500, max. EUR 1 000. 

BG 

Criminal fine for discrimination in relation to employment: min. EUR 50, max. EUR 2 500. 

Administrative fines for:  

•  Any discrimination: (i) natural person offender: min. EUR 125, max. EUR 1 000; (ii) when committed by the head of a legal person: min. EUR 125, max. 

EUR 1 250; (iii) specific aggravating circumstance of repeated violation: double the amounts envisaged for the basic case.  

•  Any discrimination: (i) when committed by legal persons: min. EUR 125, max. EUR 1 250; (ii) specific aggravating circumstance of repeated violation: 

double the amounts envisaged for the basic case. 

Administrative-criminal fine for discrimination in the employment sector: min. EUR 500, max. EUR 2 500. 

HR 

Misdemeanour fine for:  

•  Harassment: (i) individual offender: min. EUR 650, max. EUR 3 900; (ii) person responsible in a legal entity, state body, etc.: min.  EUR 650, max. EUR 3 

900; (iii) craftsman or independent professional: min. EUR 1 300 max. EUR 26 000; (iv) legal entity: min.  EUR 3 900 max. EUR 39 000.  

•  Sexual harassment: (i) individual offender: min.  EUR 650, max. EUR 5 200; (ii) person responsible in a legal entity, state body, etc.: min. EUR 650, max. 

EUR 5 200; (iii) craftsman or independent professional: min. EUR 1 300, max. EUR 32 500; (iv) legal entity: min. EUR 3 900 max. EUR 45 500.  

•  Failure to submit evidence in discrimination cases: (i) responsible person in state body/local or regional government: max. EUR 130 to EUR 650.  

•  Retaliation against individuals reporting or participating in discrimination proceedings: (i) individual offender: min. EUR 130, max. EUR 2 600; (ii) person 
responsible in a legal entity, state body, etc.: min. EUR 130, max. EUR 2 600; (iii) craftsman or independent professional: min. EUR 650 max. EUR 19 
500; (iv) legal entity: min. EUR 2 600 max. EUR 26 000.  

CY 

Criminal fine for:  

•  Discrimination in employment: (i) natural persons: max. EUR 6 800;  (ii) legal persons: max. EUR 12 000; (iii) amount/ranges  in aggravating/alleviating 

circumstances, i.e., if the offence is committed with gross negligence: natural persons: max. EUR 3 400, legal persons max. EUR 6 940.  

•  Discrimination  in  areas  other  than  employment:  (i)  natural  persons:  max.  EUR  6  800;  (ii)  legal  persons:  max.  EUR  12  000;  (iii)  amount/ranges  in 
aggravating/alleviating circumstances, i.e., if the offence is committed with gross negligence: natural persons: max. EUR 3 400, legal persons max. EUR 
6 940. 

73 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Administrative fine for:  

•  Max. EUR 600 if the relevant treatment or conduct or the provision, term, criterion or practice applied constitutes discrimination prohibited by law.  

•  Max.  EUR  430  if  the  relevant  treatment  or  conduct,  or  the  provision,  term,  criterion  or  practice  applied,  constitutes  direct  racial  or  indirect  racial 

discrimination in the enjoyment of a protected right or freedom.  

CZ 

Labour fine for:  

•  Violating the prohibition of discrimination or not ensuring equal treatment in an employment context: max. EUR 40 130. 

•  Misdemeanours in the field of equal treatment: max. EUR 40 130. 

Administrative fine for: 

•  Violating the prohibition of discrimination when selling goods or providing services: max. EUR 120 390 or max. EUR 4 013, depending on the circumstances 

of the case. 

DE 

N/A 

DK 

Not quantified in legislation 

EE 

Criminal fine: Not quantified in legislation, with the exception of fine applicable to legal persons: max. EUR 2 000. 

Civil fine for violation of equality: (i) natural persons: min. not specified, max. up to three hundred fine units (natural persons), (ii) legal persons: max. EUR 2 000.  

EL 

Criminal fine for discrimination in the provision of goods and services: min. EUR 1 000, max. EUR 5 000. 

Administrative fine for discrimination during employment: min. 300 EUR, max. EUR 50 000. 

ES 

Criminal fine for: 

•  Denial of a public service benefit: min. 12 months’ worth of daily amount, max. 24 months’ worth of daily amount129. 

•  Failure to reestablish the situation of equality: min. 12 months’ worth of daily amount, max. 24 months’ worth of daily amount.  

Administrative fine for: 

•  Discriminatory acts or omissions: (i) mild infraction: min. EUR 300, max. EUR 1 000; (ii) serious infraction: min. EUR 10 001, max. EUR 40 000; (iii) very 

serious infraction min. EUR 40 001, max. EUR 500 000.  

129 Daily amount of the fines shall have a minimum of EUR 2 and a maximum of EUR 400, except in the case of fines imposed on legal persons, where the daily amount shall have a minimum of 
EUR 30 and a maximum of EUR 5000.  

74 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Discriminatory actions against customers: (i) minor infractions: between EUR 150 and EUR 10 000, with the possibility of exceeding these amounts to 
between two and four times the unlawful profit obtained; (ii) serious infractions: between EUR 10 001 and 100 000, with the possibility of exceeding these 
amounts up to between four and six times the illicit profit obtained; (iii) very serious infractions: between EUR 100 001 and 1 000 000, with the possibility 
of exceeding these amounts by up to six to eight times the illicit benefit obtained. 

Labour fine for: 

•  Discriminatory decision or harassment in the context of employment: (i) minor ones, min. EUR 70, max. EUR 750 euros; (ii) serious offences min. EUR 

751, max. EUR 7 500; (iii) very serious offences, min. EUR 7 501, max. EUR 225 018. 

•  Requesting  personal  data  or  setting  discriminatory  conditions  for  employment  and  discriminatory  decisions  about  information  rights:  for  very  serious 

infractions: min. EUR 7 501, max. EUR 225 018. 

FI 

NOTA BENE: Amount/range not specified for all forms of criminal fines.  

Criminal fine for: 

•  Corporate criminal fine for discrimination in the context of trade or profession, public service or any other public function: min. EUR 850, max. EUR 850 

000.  

•  Corporate criminal fine for discrimination at work: min. EUR 850. max. EUR 850 000;  

•  Corporate criminal fine for extortionate work discrimination: min. EUR 850, max. EUR 850 000.  

FR 

Criminal fine for: 

•  Discrimination in employment, access to and supply of goods and services available to the public and social protection: (i) max. EUR 45 000; (ii) aggravating 
circumstance (where the discrimination consisted of refusing to supply a good or a service in a place open to the public or for the purpose of prohibiting 
access thereto): max. EUR 75 000;  

•  Discrimination by public authority: max. EUR 75 000.  

Administrative fine for discriminatory pressure on pupils' beliefs: (i) max. EUR 1 500; (ii) in aggravating circumstance (repeated violation): max. EUR 3 000. 

HU 

Quasi-criminal fine for intentional discrimination in education: min. EUR 16, max. EUR 507. 

Administrative fine for: 

•  Discrimination in education: min. not specified, max. EUR 25 365. 

•  Violation of the principle of equal treatment regardless of the ground/area concerned: min. EUR 126, max. EUR 15 219. 

•  Violation of consumer protection rules, in particular the requirement of equal treatment: (i) min.: EUR 39; max. for an enterprise falling under the scope of 
certain criteria (with an annual net turnover exceeding EUR 263 415 and not covered by the Act on Small and Medium Enterprises and their Development 
Support): up to 5 % of the enterprise's annual net turnover, but not more than EUR 1 304; max. for an enterprise not covered  by the criteria mentioned 
above: EUR 1 304; (ii) in aggravating circumstances: max. fine for an enterprise falling under the scope of certain criteria (with an annual net turnover 

75 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

exceeding EUR 263 415 and not covered by the Act on Small and Medium Enterprises and their Development Support130), in cases of violation resulting 
in significant financial disadvantage to a wide range of consumers, max. EUR 5 219 847; maximum fine for a business not covered by the criteria mentioned 
above,  in  cases  of  violation  resulting  in  significant  financial  disadvantage  to  a  wide  range  of  consumers:  the  maximum  fine  can  be  up  to  5  %  of  the 
company's annual net sales, but not exceeding  EUR 13 048 for businesses not covered by the Act. In these cases, min. fine is not defined.  

IE 

Criminal  fine  for  discrimination  or  attempted  discrimination  in  procurement  (multiple  forms):  (i)  in  summary  conviction:  max.  EUR  2  500;  (ii)  in  conviction  on 
indictment: max. EUR 31 743. 

IT 

Criminal fine for committing crimes for reasons of racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination: max. EUR 6 000. 

LT 

Criminal fine for discrimination in the context of political, economic, social, cultural, labour or other activities or restricting the rights and freedoms of a group of 
persons or of the person belonging thereto; organising a group of accomplices or group of organisation aiming at discriminating a group of persons, or participating 
in or financing such activities: (i) natural persons: min. EUR 2 750, max. EUR 110 000; (ii) legal persons : min. EUR 11 000, max. EUR 5 500 000. 

Administrative fine for: 

•  Discrimination  regardless  of  the  area/ground  concerned:  (i)  natural  person:  min.  EUR  80,  max.  EUR  780;  (ii)  for  managers  of  legal  entities  or  other 

responsible persons: min. EUR 390, max. EUR 6 000.  

•  Discrimination in employment relationships: (i) min. EUR 240, max. EUR 880; (ii) in aggravating circumstances: min. EUR 1 000, max.  EUR 2 000 (if it 

could have caused an accident at work, an accident or other serious consequences); min. EUR 900, max. EUR 1 400 (repeated commission). 

LU 

Criminal fine for: 

•  Discrimination linked to multiple areas: (i) natural person: min. EUR 251, max. EUR 25 000; (ii) legal person: min. EUR 500, max. EUR 50 000.  

•  Discrimination entailing refusal to benefit from a right granted by law, or hindering the normal exercise of economic activity, as committed by public servants 

and other keepers of public authority: (i) natural person: min. EUR 251, max. EUR 37 500; (ii) legal person: min. EUR 500, max. EUR 75 000. 

LV 

Criminal fine for committing discrimination or violating the prohibition of discrimination: one month worth of salary, max. 1 000 months’ worth of salary. 

Administrative fine for violation of prohibition of differential treatment in the field of employment relationship: (i) natural person: min. EUR 150, max. EUR 350 ; (ii) 
legal person : min. EUR 300, max. EUR 700. 

MT 

Criminal fine for: 

•  Harassment or discrimination in the areas of access to and supply of goods and services and education: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 2 329. 

•  Discrimination in employment relationships: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 2 329. 

130 Act XXXIV of 2004 law about small and medium-sized enterprises, supporting their development (2004. évi XXXIV. törvény a kis- és középvállalkozásokról, fejlődésük támogatásáról), Official 
publication: Magyar Közlöny, 25 November 2014. 

76 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

NL 

Criminal fine for: 

•  Participating or providing financial or other material support in discrimination: (i) natural person: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 5 150; (ii) legal 

person: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 10 300.  

•  Deliberately discriminating: min. not specified in legislation: (i) natural person: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 10 300 or EUR 25 750 (in the 
case of aggravating circumstances); (ii) legal person: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR  25 750 or EUR 103 000 (in the case of aggravating 
circumstances).  

•  Discriminating against persons in the exercise of an office, profession or business: (i) natural person:  min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 10 300; 

(ii) legal person: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 25 750.  

Administrative fine for any discriminatory behaviour irrespective of the ground/area: min. various specified, depending on the precise conduct, e.g., discrimination 
in relation work environment, EUR 340; max. various specified, depending on precise conduct, e.g., discrimination in relation to work environment, EUR 103 000. 

PL 

Petty crimes fine:  

•  Providing specific employment related services in violation of the principle of prohibition of discrimination: min. EUR 750, max. EUR 1 200.  

•  Discriminatory refusal to hire a candidate for a vacant place of employment or place of vocational training: min. EUR 750, max. EUR 1 200.  

•  Hiding goods meant for sale or deliberately refusing to sell them without just cause (e.g., for discriminatory reasons): max. EUR 1 200. 

PT 

Administrative fines for: 

•  Discriminatory practices in the areas of social protection, social benefits, education, access to and supply of goods and services, culture: (i) natural person: 
one and ten times the value of the social support index, meaning, for 2024, between EUR 509 and EUR 5 092; (ii) legal person: four and twenty times the 
value of the social support index, meaning, for 2024, between EUR 2 037 and EUR 10 185. 

•  Discrimination in employment: 

- 

(i) Legal person: a) If committed by a company with a turnover of less than EUR 500 000, from 20 UC131 to 40 UC (EUR 2 040 to EUR 4 080 in 
2024) in the case of negligence and from 45 UC to 95 UC (EUR 4 590 to EUR 9 690 in 2024) in the case of wilful misconduct; b) If committed by 
an undertaking with a turnover equal to or greater than EUR 500 000 and less than EUR 2 500 000, from 32 UC to 80 UC (EUR 3 264 to EUR 8 
160 in 2024) in the case of negligence and from 85 UC to 190 UC (EUR 8 670 to EUR 19 380 in 2024) in the case of wilful misconduct; c) If 
committed by an undertaking with a turnover equal to or greater than EUR 2 500 000 and less than EUR 5 000 000, from 42 UC to 120 UC (EUR 
4 284 to EUR 12 240 in 2024) in the case of negligence and from 120 UC to 280 UC (EUR 12 240 to EUR 28 560 in 2024) in the case of wilful 
misconduct; d) If committed by an undertaking with a turnover equal to or greater than EUR 5 000 000 and less than EUR 10 000 000, from 55 
UC to 140 UC (EUR 5 610 to EUR 14 280 in 2024) in the case of negligence and from 145 UC to 400 UC (EUR 14 790 to EUR 40 800 in 2024) 
in the case of wilful misconduct; e) If committed by an undertaking with a turnover of EUR 10 000 000 or more, from 90 UC to 300 UC (EUR 9 
180 to EUR 30 600 in 2024) in the case of negligence and from 300 UC to 600 UC (EUR 30 600 to EUR 61 200 in 2024) in the case of wilful 
misconduct; (f) aggravating circumstance (repeated infringement): the minimum and maximum limits of the fine shall be raised by one third of the 

131 The UC corresponds to ‘procedural unit of account’.  

77 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

respective amount, which may not be less than the amount of the fine imposed for the previous administrative offence, provided that the minimum 
and maximum limits of the latter are not higher than those of the former.  

- 

(ii) Natural person: (a) 10 UC (EUR 1 020 in 2024) to 25 UC (EUR 2 550 in 2024) in the case of negligence or 25 UC (EUR 2 550 in 2024) to 50 
UC (EUR 5 100 in 2024) in the case of wilful misconduct; (b) aggravating circumstance (repeated violation): the minimum and maximum limits of 
the  fine  shall  be  raised  by  one  third  of  the  respective  amount,  which  may  not  be  less  than  the  amount  of  the  fine  imposed  for  the  previous 
administrative offence, provided that the minimum and maximum limits of the latter are not higher than those of the former.  

•  Harming a person applying for or exercising self-employment by a discriminatory act:  

- 

- 

(i) Natural person: (a) Fine of between 1 and 5 times the value of the guaranteed minimum monthly wage, meaning, for 2024, EUR 820 to EUR 
4 100; (b) aggravating circumstance (repeated violation): the minimum and maximum limits of the fine shall be raised to the double.  

(ii) Legal person: (a) fine of between 2 and 10 times the value of the guaranteed minimum monthly wage, meaning, for 2024, EUR 1 640 to EUR 
8 200; (b) aggravating circumstance (repeated violation): the minimum and maximum limits of the fine shall be raised to the double.  

RO 

Criminal fine for hindering or disturbing the free exercise of the ritual of a religious cult: (i) natural person: min. EUR 241, max. EUR 24 122; (b) legal person: min. 
EUR 603, max. EUR 241 225. 

Administrative fine for: 

•  Ordering  discrimination  or  committing  indirect  discrimination:  (i)  if  the  discrimination  targets  an  individual:  min.  EUR  200,  max.  EUR  6  030;  (ii)  if  the 

discrimination targets a group of people or a community: min. EUR 400, max. 20 100.  

•  Moral harassment at workplace: (i) if committed by an employee, by infringing upon the rights or dignity of another employee: min. EUR 2 010, max. EUR 
3 015; (ii) , for employers who fail to take all necessary measures to prevent and combat acts of moral harassment in the workplace, including by providing 
in the internal rules of the establishment for disciplinary sanctions for employees who commit acts or facts of moral harassment in the workplace: min. 
EUR 6 030, max. 10 050; (iii) if the employer establishes, in any form, internal rules or measures that compel, cause or incite employees to commit acts 
or facts of moral harassment at the workplace: min. EUR 10 050, max. EUR 40 195; (i) for any failure of the employer to observe orders issued by the 
National Council for Combating Discrimination upon a finding of moral harassment: min. EUR 20 100, max. EUR 40 195.  

•  Discrimination in employment: min. EUR 800, max. EUR 1 600. 

SE 

Not quantified in legislation 

SI 

Criminal fine for: 

•  Depriving or restricting basic human rights on different grounds: min. one daily rate the amount of which cannot exceed EUR 1000, max. EUR 150 000.  

•  Failure to protect from discrimination: min. EUR 10 000, max. EUR 100 000. 

Civil fine for inequal treatment, sexual and other harassment at workplace: min. EUR 3 000, max. EUR 20 000. 

Administrative fine for: (i) exposing a person to discrimination: min. EUR 3 000, max. EUR 20 000; (ii) aggravating circumstances (not specified): min. EUR 3 000, 
max. EUR 30 000. 

SK 

Administrative fines for: 

78 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Discriminatory job advertising: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 33 193.  

•  Requesting prohibited information during recruitment: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 33 193;  

•  Violation  of  labour  law  legislation:  (i)  min.  not  specified  in  legislation,  max.  EUR  100  000,  in  certain  cases  (such  as  severe  violation  of  employment 

regulations concerning civil servants) up to EUR 200 000; (ii) in aggravating circumstances:  

- 

- 

(a) statutory maximum not defined for the cases of accidents causing severe health harm or death; (b) statutory maximum is defined if fines are 
imposed against statutory bodies of territorial self-government or their employees: four times the average monthly incomes;  

(a) statutory minimum is defined for: accident causing severe health harm: minimum EUR 20 000; accident causing death: minimum EUR 33 000; 
(b) statutory minimum is not defined for cases when the violation is committed by employees or statutory bodies of territorial self-government. 

•  Consumer protection fine: (i) min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 66 400; (ii) in specific aggravating case: statutory maximum in the case of repeated 
violation within 12 months: up to EUR 166 000, statutory minimum in the case of repeated violation within 12 months: not defined in national legislation;  

•  Non-compliance with findings of school inspection: min. not specified in legislation, max. EUR 331.   

79 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Regarding  fines  it  is  notable  that  in  most  jurisdictions,  fines  are  quantified  as  specific  sums, 
expressed as statutory minimums and/or statutory maximums. In two Member States (DK, SE) the 
amounts are not specifically defined in the corresponding national provisions. In these cases, it is up 
to  the  courts  and/or  other  adjudicating  bodies  to  quantify  the  amount  of  fine  in  their  decision.  In 
Estonia, whilst fines are set forth in both criminal and administrative rules, provisions outlining the 
amount of sanction are mainly outlined in administrative laws. The Criminal Code only provides a 
statutory maximum of fine, when applied against legal persons. Also notable, that in three Member 
States (ES, LV, PT) fines are not defined as specific sums, but are quantified as follows: 

•  Spain: criminal fines can be calculated on the basis of daily amounts. A daily amount of fine 
is at least EUR 2 and max. EUR 400 with respect to natural person perpetrators and min. 
EUR  30  and  max.  EUR  5  000  in  the  case  of  legal  person  perpetrators.  The  legislation 
provides that a criminal fine equals at least to 12 months’ worth of daily amounts and at most 
to  24  months’  worth  of  daily  amounts.  It  is  up  to  the  court  to  decide  on  the  specific  daily 
amount and the duration during which it is applied.  

•  Latvia: the calculation of criminal fines is linked to the perpetrator’s salary, with a min. defined 
as one month worth of salary and the max. defined as 1 000 months’ worth of salary.   

•  Portugal: the calculation of administrative sanctions is either linked to the value of the social 
support  index132  (in  the  case  of  discriminatory  practices  in  the  areas  of  social  protection, 
social advantages, education, access to and supply of goods and services), to the procedural 
unit account133 (in the case of discrimination in the employment sector), or to the minimum 
monthly  wage.  These  reference  points  vary  depending  on  the  specific  calendar  year 
concerned. 

Amounts/ranges applicable to fine are higher or lower in cases where offence-specific aggravating 
and/or mitigating circumstances are set forth in national laws. This is the case in 11 Member 
States (BE, BG, CY, ES, FR, HU, LT, NL, PT, SI and SK) with respect to specific forms of fines. In 
Cyprus, for example, the basic form of discrimination is punishable by a fine of up to EUR 6 800 in 
the  case of  natural  persons and  up  to  EUR  12 000  in the case  of  legal persons.  Commission  by 
gross negligence constitutes an offence-specific mitigating circumstance. In these cases, the fine 
amount could decrease to a maximum of EUR 3 400 in the case of natural persons and EUR 6 940 
in the case of legal persons. Under Bulgarian law, repeated violation is considered as an offence-
specific  aggravating  circumstance.  In  this  case,  the  amount  of  the  sanction  can  be  doubled 
compared to the standard amount for a first-time violation. For a basic, first-time violation, Bulgarian 
legislation allows for the imposition of an administrative fine ranging from EUR 125 to EUR 1 250.  

Amounts/ranges are adjusted to the type of perpetrator (natural person vs. legal person) in 10 
Member States (BG, CY, EE, HR, LT, LU, LV, NL, PT, RO).  

Additional factors impacting the ranges provided for in applicable rules vary across the Member 
States. Examples of these are provided in the box below.  

Box 18: Examples of additional factors determining the amounts/ranges of factors 

•  Croatia: Depending on the particular discriminatory behaviour, the sanction amounts/ranges differ. 
In  particular,  different  amount/ranges  are  specified  for  the  following  discriminatory  behaviours: 
harassment,  failure  to  comply  with  Ombudsman’s  requests  related  to  discrimination,  retaliation 
against individuals reporting or participating in discrimination proceedings.  

132 Social support index is a value that changes on an annual basis. In 2024, the value of the social support index was EUR 509.26.  
133 The UC corresponds to ‘procedural unit of account’ which is used as a parameter to determine the value of legal costs and others. In 
2024, the value of one UC is EUR 102,00.  

80 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Hungary:  The  annual  turnover  of  the  legal  person  perpetrator  is  considered  in  the  range  of 

sanctions for violating consumer protection rules. 

•  Portugal:  Like  in  the  case  of  Hungary,  the  turnover  of  the  company  is  considered  for  the 

administrative fine applicable to discrimination in the employment sector. 

•  Romania:  Depending  on  the  particular  behaviour  qualified  as  moral  harassment,  the  sanction 

amounts/ranges differ. 

The analysis below aims to compare fine amounts as comprehensively as possible. To facilitate 
this comparison, the fine amounts in Table 10 were simplified. Fines are compared within the same 
legal categories: criminal fines with criminal fines, administrative fines with administrative fines, and 
civil fines with civil fines, etc.  

The comparison focuses on the ultimate minimums and maximums of each type of sanction 
per area, omitting further variations to avoid excessive complexity. To enable a closer comparison, 
the Study Team applied a cost-of-living index to the extracted amounts. This adjustment allows for 
a  more  accurate  comparison  by  reflecting  the  economic  realities  of  each  Member  State.  This  is 
crucial, as the impact of a fine can vary greatly between Member States with high and low costs of 
living.  

Box 19: Cost-of-living index 

Before delving into the cost-of-living index definition and the methodology applied for the comparison of fines 
and  compensations,  it  is  worth  noting  that  in  economic  studies,  the  comparison  of  monetary  amounts 
between  different  countries  is  usually  based  on  the  purchasing  power  parities  (PPPs)134  conversion 
factors. These factors are calculated as the ratio between the prices of a same good in the two countries, 
expressed in the respective national currency. Since in this Study all the monetary amounts are expressed 
in EUR, we have simplified the calculations using the cost-of-living index instead. 

The cost-of-living index, also called by the Eurostat “price level index” (PLI), is a theoretical price index that 
allows to measure the relative cost of living between different countries135. In terms of calculation methods, 
the PLI is obtained by multiplying by 100 the PPP and dividing the result by the current nominal exchange 
rate136. Given that all the amounts for both fines and compensations are defined in EUR, the exchange rate 
in our context is 1, leading to a direct correlation between the countries’ PPPs and the PLIs.137  

In practical terms, the PLI reflects the amount of money needed to cover the basic expenses required for 
maintaining an average level of consumption of a given country relative to another, or relative to a group of 
countries. In our context, the analysis has been carried out by comparing the monetary amounts from each 
country, adjusted for the national PLI, to the average PLI across the 27 EU Member States. In other words, 
it ‘normalises’ the amounts across the countries, making them directly comparable even if the wages vary 
considerably. 

If the PLI of a country is higher than 100, the country is relatively expensive compared to the average of the 
27 EU Member States. On the other hand, if a country has a PLI lower than 100, the country is inexpensive. 
Figure 1 below shows the PLI for consumer goods and services (also defined as household final consumption 

134 Eurostat, ‘Glossary: Purchasing power parities (PPPs)’, Eurostat website, accessed on 07 June 2024: ‘PPPs are defined as 
indicators of price level differences across countries. PPPs tell us how many currency units a given quantity of goods and services costs 
in different countries’. 
135 Eurostat, ‘Glossary: Price level index (PLI)’, Eurostat website, accessed on 07 June 2024. 
136 Eurostat, ‘Glossary: Exchange rate’, Eurostat website, accessed on 07 June 2024: ‘the price of one country’s currency in relation to 
another’. 
137 For non-Euro area countries, currency conversion has been applied. The country experts for these countries have converted the 
sanction amounts from their national currencies into EUR. As a result, the Country Research Templates already reflect the sanction 
amounts or ranges in EUR. 

81 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

expenditure138) across Europe in 2022, which is the most comprehensive index available on Eurostat. The 
highest  price  level  among  the  countries  in  scope  is  in  Denmark,  48%  above  the  EU  27  average,  while 
Bulgaria is 41% below the EU 27 average. 

Figure 1: PLI for household final consumption expenditure, 2022 

Source: Eurostat,  ‘Purchasing  power  parities  (PPPs),  price  level  indices  and  real  expenditures  for ESA  2010  aggregates’, Eurostat 
website, accessed on 07 June 2024. 

The  table  below  presents  the  ranges  of  fines  for  each  Member  States  divided  by  legal 
categories not yet adjusted for the PLIs. For each country, fines that are applicable to natural (N) 
and legal (L) persons are reported. In most of the cases, the same fine is applicable to both. For the 
sake of simplicity, we have not considered all the variety of infringements that have been identified 
as part of this Study. This comparison focuses only on the lowest and highest monetary amounts 
identified, without taking into account the specific cases to which every fine refers to. For this reason, 
the ranges reported are exceptionally large in some countries and vary considerably across Member 
States. Some countries do not have a minimum threshold for the monetary amount of the fines but 
have  the  maximum  amount  sanctionable.  We  have  kept  only  the  maximum  for  these  countries, 
disregarding the  hypothetical  minimum  of  EUR 0. It  is  also  worth noting  that the  largest  variation 
within  a  country  can  be  found  when  looking  at  the  fines  that  can  be  imposed  to  natural  or  legal 
persons when such distinction is provisioned for by the law. Usually, the fines that can be imposed 
to natural persons are lower than the fines that can be imposed to legal persons.  

Looking at administrative fines, the amounts range from EUR 39 to EUR 5 219 847. Notable that 
both extremes are envisaged under Hungarian law. Fines in the criminal area range from EUR 50 
(BG) to EUR 5 500 000 (LT), while fines imposed in the civil area range from EUR 3 000 to EUR 20 
000. Both extremes are imposed by Slovenian law. Quasi-criminal fines range from EUR 16 (HU) 

138 Eurostat, ‘Glossary: Household final consumption expenditure (HFCE)’, Eurostat website, accessed on 07 June 2024. Household 
final consumption expenditure (HFCE) is defined by Eurostat as ‘the total outlay on individual goods and services by resident 
households, including those sold at below-market prices’. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

to EUR 45 500 (HR), while labour fines range from EUR 70 to 225 018, both extremes to be found 
in Spanish legislation. For the sake of completeness, we have also reported administrative-criminal 
fines, but it is not worth discussing its range in such contexts since they have been reported by only 
a few Member States. It is also worth noting that whilst the same types of fines (e.g., administrative 
fine) might exist in several Member States, the applicable fines do not necessarily address the same 
discriminatory behaviour. There are some countries where the administrative fines do not have a 
specified minimum, i.e., AT, CY, CZ, FR, and SK. Similarly, some countries do not have a minimum 
for criminal fines (CY, FR, IE, IT, MT, and NL). Only EE does not have a minimum amount for civil 
fines.  

83 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Table 10: Unadjusted fines by legal area, country and N/L persons 

Country 

Persons  Fine 

Administrative 

Criminal 

Quasi-criminal 

Administrative 
Criminal 

Civil 

Labour 

Range 

Range 

Range 

Range 

Range 

Range 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

 N 

L 

N  

L 

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

360  

 360  

500  

1 000  

500  

1 000  

125  

2 000  

125  

2 500  

50  

50  

2 500  

2 500  

500  

2 500  

500  

2 500  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 600  

 600  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 6 800  

 12 000  

130 

32 500 

 2 600  

 45 500  

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES140 

FI 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 120 390  

 120 390  

not 
specified 

not 
specified 

not 
specified  

not 
specified 

not 
specified 

not 
specified 

not 
specified  

not 
specified 

2 000 

300 

50 000  

1 000  

5 000  

300 

50 000  

730  

292 000  

150  

1 000 
000  

10 950  

3 650 
000  

850  

850 000  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 40 130  

 40 130  

 not 
specified  

300 fine 
units139  

 not 
specified  

2 000  

70  

225 018  

139 No information on what that means could be obtained.  
140 The amounts for the criminal fines for both natural and legal persons are based on the following simplified calculations: the minimum is obtained by multiplying the minimum daily amount by 365 (i.e., 12 
months), while the maximum is obtained by multiplying the maximum daily amount by 730 (i.e., 24 months). 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

39  

39  

3 000  

3 000  

25 
365.13  

5 219 
847  

850  

850 000  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

75 000  

75 000  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

31 743  

31 743  

6 000  

6 000  

80  

2 000  

2 750  

110 000  

390.  

6 000  

11 000  

5 500 
000  

251  

37 500  

 500  

75 000  

16  

507  

86 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

150  

350  

1 689141 

300  

700  

 1 689  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

103 000  

103 000  

1 689 
000142 

 1 689 
000  

2 329  

2 329  

25 750  

103 000  

509.26  

8 200  

1 640  

61 200  

200   

40 195   

241   

24 122   

200   

40 195   

603   

241 225  

not 
specified 

not 
specified  

 750  

 1 200  

141 The minimum criminal fine for both natural and legal persons is 1 month worth of salary. In order to have a rough estimation for this, we have taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Latvia 
reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte (Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) and divided it by 12. 
142 The maximum criminal fine for both natural and legal persons is 1000 months’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough estimation for this, we have taken the statistics of the average annual salary for 
Latvia reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte (Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024), divided it by 12 and then multiplied by 1000. 

87 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

SI 

SK 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

3 000   

30 000   

1 000   

150 000   

3 000   

30 000   

1 000   

150 000   

3 000   

20 000  

3 000   

20 000  

not 
specified  

200 000    

20 000  

200 000  

Legend:  Empty cells: no relevant sanction scheme, hence no amount; Specific sum: indicating legal minimums/legal maximums, where applicable; Not specified: whilst the sanction scheme exists, the legal 
minimum and/or legal maximum is not specified.

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Report of the study supporting a joint evaluation and impact assessment for the revision of the textile 
labelling regulation  

The  table  below  presents  the  monetary  amount  adjusted  for  the  PLIs  of  each  country.  The 
adjustment applied consists in the multiplication of the fine of a country from Table 11 by 100 and 
then divided by the corresponding PLI. The idea behind this adjustment is that, when a country has 
a PLI below 100, the corresponding adjusted fine will be above the initial level. Although this may 
seem contradictory, it is correct. Indeed, considering a country with a lower PLI like Romania (78.8), 
having an unadjusted fine of EUR 200 means that, when considering it in comparable terms at the 
EU level, the fine will be higher in real economic terms. This is because overall the prices in Romania 
are lower, and therefore a sum of EUR 200 will have more purchasing power than the same amount 
in a country like Belgium, where the PLI is 115.4. 

Looking at each area, there have been no changes on what countries impose the smallest and the 
largest  fine.  The  administrative  fines  now  range  from  EUR  57.61  to  EUR  7  710  261.45,  both 
reported in the Hungarian law as seen above. Criminal law fines instead range from EUR 85.47 
(BG)  to  EUR  6  979  695.43  (LT),  and  civil  fines from  EUR  3  370.79 to EUR  22  471.91 from the 
Slovenian law as seen above. Quasi-criminal fines range from EUR 23.63 (HU) to 61 904.76 (HR), 
while labour fines range from EUR 72.69 to 233 663.55, both from Spanish legislation. 

Due  to the  adjustments,  the  largest fine  expressed  in real  economic  terms  is  provided for  by the 
Hungarian  administrative  law  to  legal  persons  and  it  amounts  to  more  than  EUR  7.7  million, 
surpassing the Lithuanian fine reported above. This is due to the fact that the Hungarian PLI, 67.7, 
is lower than the Lithuanian one, 78.8. As such, the maximum fine imposed in Hungary has a larger 
monetary  impact  in  real  economic  terms  than  the  impact  in  real  economic  terms  of  the  largest 
Lithuanian fine. 

89 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Country 

Persons 

Fine 

Table 11: Adjusted fines by legal area, country and N/L persons 

Administrative 

Criminal 

Quasi-criminal 

Administrative 
Criminal 

Civil 

Labour 

Range 

Range 

Range 

Range 

Range 

Range 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

 328.47  

 328.47  

 433.28  

 866.55  

 433.28  

 866.55  

 213.68  

 3 418.80  

 85.47  

 4 273.50  

 213.68  

 4 273.50  

 85.47  

 4 273.50  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

652.17 

652.17 

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

7 391.30 

13 043.48 

90 

854.70 

854.70 

4 
273.50 

4 
273.50 

176.87 

3,537.41 

44 
217.69 

61 
904.76 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

142 811.39 

142 811.39 

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

not specified  

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

not specified  

 2 049.18  

 340.14  

 56 689.34  

1 133.79 

 5 668.93  

 340.14  

 56 689.34  

758.05 

303 219.11 

155.76 

1 038 
421.60 

11 370.72 

3 790 238.84 

 674.07  

674 068.20 

 674.07  

674 068.20 

91 

   47 
603.80  

47 
603.80 

 not 
specified  

300 
fine 
units 

 not 
specified  

2 
049.18 

72.69 

233 
663.55 

 
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

not 
specified   

not 
specified   

 2 714.93  

 2 714.93  

not 
specified   

not 
specified   

 67 873.30  

 67 873.30  

 57.61  

 37 466.96  

 23.63  

748.89  

 57.61  

7 710 
261.45  

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

 22 307.10  

 22 307.10  

 5 964.21  

 5 964.21  

 101.52  

 2 538.07  

3 489.85 

139 593.91 

 494.92  

 7 614.21  

13 959.39 

6 979 695.43 

 183.21  

 27 372.26  

 364.96  

 54 744.53  

 176.26  

 411.28  

1 984.72 

1 984 723.85 

 352.53  

 822.56  

1 984.72 

1 984 723.85 

not 
specified  

 2 590.66  

92 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  1 
235.58  

 1 
976.94  

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

 88 412.02  

 88 412.02  

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

not 
specified  

 2 590.66  

 22 103.00  

 88 412.02  

 578.05  

 9 307.60  

1 861.52 

 69 466.52  

 337.27  

 67 782.46  

 406.41  

 40 677.91  

 337.27  

 67 782.46  

1 016.86 

406 787.52 

not 
specified  

not specified  

3 370.79 

33 707.87 

1 123.60 

168 539.33 

3 370.79 

33 707.87 

1 123.60 

168 539.33 

not 
specified 

231 481.48 

23 148.15 

231 481.48 

93 

3 370.79 

3 370.79 

22 
471.91  

22 
471.91  

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Legend: Light blue cells: the adjusted fine is lower than the corresponding unadjusted value reported in Table 10. Dark blue cells: the adjusted fine is higher than the corresponding unadjusted value 
reported in Table 10; Empty cells: no relevant sanction scheme, hence no amount; Specific sum: indicating adjusted legal minimums/legal maximums, where applicable; Not specified: whilst the sanction 
scheme exists, the legal minimum and/or legal maximum is not specified.

94 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

2.3.4.2.  Monetary compensation for material/immaterial damages 

In the case of pecuniary compensation for material or immaterial damages, the national rules vary 
with some outlining specific amounts/ranges and some providing the adjudicating bodies/courts 
with a wide discretion to define the applicable amounts within certain limits.  

In Hungary for example, the Civil Code143 provides that compensation for immaterial damages is a 
pecuniary sanction to be defined as a single sum, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, 
with  special  regard  to  the  severity  and  regularity  of  the  violation,  the  degree  of  liability  and  the 
violations’ impact on the claimant and his/her environment. In Bulgaria for example, compensations 
for material damages are equal to the damage while compensations for immaterial (moral) damages 
are calculated based on the notion of fairness and fall within the judicial discretion. 

The  box  below  only  outlines  national  rules  that  specifically  quantify  the  amount/range  of 
compensation. 

Box 20: Overview of amounts/ranges of compensations 

AT 

NOTA BENE: Amount/range not specified for all forms of compensation  

Amount/ranges of compensation 

Civil compensation for material/immaterial damages (employment):  

•  Discriminatory job application: min. two months of salary, max. not  specified (as a general 

rule144); 

•  Lower  pay  for  equal  work/voluntary  social  benefits  not  constituting  remuneration:  no 

min./max. but a fixed amount equalling to difference with higher salary; 

•  Non-promotion: min. three months of salary, max. not specified (as a general rule145); 

•  Harassment: min. at least EUR 1 000, max. not specified; 

Civil compensation for material/immaterial damages (education): 

•  Harassment: min. at least EUR 1 000, max. not specified 

Civil compensation for material/immaterial damages (employment - agriculture): 

•  Non-establishment  of  working  relationship:  min.  not  specified,  max.  not  specified  (as  a 

general rule146). 

•  Lower  pay  for  equal  work/voluntary  social  benefits  not  constituting  remuneration:  no 

min./max. but a fixed amount equalling to difference with higher salary. 

•  Non-promotion: min. three months of salary, max. not specified (as a general rule147). 

143 Act V of 2013 Civil Code (2013. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről), Civil Code, Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 
02382-02663. 
144 In relation to Austria, reference is provided to the existence of specific rules. These are exceptions, which might be applied under 
specific circumstances. For example, in the context of discrimination in relation to job applications, the fine amount could be up to EUR 
500, if the employer could prove that the damage suffered by the applicant only results from the fact that his/her application was not 
considered. It is notable that in all other cases, even the sanction minimum seems higher, i.e., two months of salary.   
145 Nota bene that specific rules (which are explained above) also exist.  
146 Nota bene that specific rules (which are explained above) also exist. 
147 Nota bene that specific rules (which are explained above) also exist. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Harassment: min. EUR 1 000, max. not specified. 

Administrative compensation for material/immaterial damages (employment):  

•  Non-establishment of an employment or training relationship in the public sector: if the person 
would have received the position: min. at least three times the salary, max. not specified; if 
the person would not have received the position: min. not specified, max. up to three times of 
salary. 

•  Non-promotion:  min.  two  months’  worth  of  difference  of  pay,  max.  three  months’  worth  of 

difference of pay. 

•  Non-entrustment with a function of a civil servant: when promotion would have happened in 
the event of a non-discriminatory selection: min. at least three months of difference of salary, 
max.  not  defined;  when  promotion  would  not  have  happened  in  the  event  of  non-
discriminatory selection: min. not specified, max. up to three months of difference of salary. 

•  Harassment in relation to an employment or training relationship: min. EUR 1 000, max. not 

defined. 

BE 

Civil compensation for material/immaterial damages: 

•  Any  discriminatory  act:  no  min/max;  compensation  could  be  claimed  for  the  effective  loss 
suffered, or lump sums could be claimed: EUR 1 950 or EUR 3 900 if it cannot be proven by 
the defendant that the disputed unfavourable or disadvantageous treatment would also have 
been adopted in the absence of discrimination, or because of other circumstances, such as 
the seriousness of the immaterial damage suffered; specific aggravating circumstance also 
exists: when faced with a cumulative or intersectional discrimination, the judge might decide 
to combine the lump sums. 

•  Discrimination  in  the  areas  of  employment  or  social  security:  no.  min/max;  compensation 
could be claimed for the effective loss suffered, or lump sums could be claimed: six months 
of  gross  salary,  unless  the  defendant  can  demonstrate  that  the  damaging  act  would  have 
been  adopted  even  in  the  absence  of  a  discrimination,  in  which  case  it  is  equivalent  to  3 
months  of  gross  pay;  specific  aggravating  circumstance  also  exists:  when  faced  with  a 
cumulative or intersectional discrimination, the judge might decide to combine the lump sums. 

•  Damages  for  discrimination  after  whistleblowing  (outside  the  area  of  employment):  no. 
min./max; compensation could be claimed for the effective loss suffered, or lump sum could 
be claimed: either EUR 1 950 or EUR 3 900 if it cannot be proven by the defendant that the 
disputed unfavourable or disadvantageous treatment would also have been adopted in the 
absence of discrimination, or because of other circumstances, such as the seriousness of the 
immaterial damage suffered. 

•  Damages for discrimination after whistleblowing (in the area of employment): no. min./max; 
the victim is entitled to choose between a lump sum corresponding to six months' gross pay, 
or damages corresponding to the damage ‘actually suffered’. 

CY 

Civil compensation for material/immaterial damages: 

•  Discrimination in employment: min./max. not specified as a sum. It cannot be more than two 

years’ worth of salary. 

•  Discrimination in areas other than employment: min. EUR 2 000, max. EUR 2 000 000.   

DE 

NOTA BENE: Amount/range not specified for all forms of compensation: 

Only specified for compensation for immaterial damages in the context of discriminatory recruitment. 
This compensation may not exceed three months of salary.  

96 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

HU 

NOTA BENE: Amount/range not specified for all forms of compensation for material damages 

Labour law compensation for material damages: min. not specified in legislation; max. up to 12 
months of absence pay (not possible to indicate precise amount) 

IE 

Civil compensation for material and immaterial damages:  

•  Discrimination in employment: min. not specified, max. two years’ worth of pay in the case of 
employees,  up  to  EUR  13  000  in  the  case  of  non-employees  (e.g.,  discriminatory  job 
interview). 

•  Discrimination in relation to the provision of services and goods: min. not specified, max. EUR 

15 000. 

•  Discriminatory  dismissal:  min.  not  specified;  max.  two  years’  worth  of  pay  (if  the  victim 

incurred financial loss/material damage). 

IT 

NOTA BENE: Amount/range not specified for all forms of compensation for material damages 

Civil compensation for material damages: discriminatory dismissal: min. five months’ worth of salary, 
max. salary corresponding to the period from the day of dismissal until the actual reinstatement, 
minus what was earned during the period of exclusion for the performance of other work activities 

PL 

NOTA BENE: amount/ranges are not quantified for all forms of compensation 

•  Employment relationships: cannot be less than the legal minimum monthly wage.  

•  Other areas: not specified 

SI 

SK 

Civil compensation for material/immaterial damages: min. EUR 500, max. EUR 5 000. 

NOTA BENE: amount/ranges are not quantified for all forms of compensation 

Civil compensation for material/immaterial damages: 

•  Wage loss compensation rate is determined by the average income/earning of the employee. 
Wage compensation can be awarded for a maximum period of 36 months (i.e., up to 36 times 
the average monthly income/earning of the employee). If the compensation period exceeds 
12 months: 

-  Employer can request a court for a reduction in compensation obligation for the period 

exceeding 12 months. 

-  Alternatively, the court may decide  not to award compensation beyond the  12-month 

period. 

-  The statutory minimum is not specified. 

The  following  analysis  compares  applicable  compensation  amounts,  with  a  focus  on  those 
expressed as specific sums. In some cases, as with fines, the amounts are indexed to the cost of 
living to facilitate better cross-jurisdictional comparison. 

Important to recall, prior to the analysis that compensation for discrimination can be granted under 
administrative, criminal, and  civil  law.  It  is  also  important  to  note  that  compensation  amounts  are 
rarely expressed as specific legal minimums and/or maximums in national legislation. Only Slovenia 
and, to some extent, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, and Ireland include such monetary limits. Instead, 
compensation amounts are often linked to other reference points, typically the claimant’s monthly 

97 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

wage  (e.g.,  AT,  BE,  CY,  DE,  HU148,  IE,  IT,  PL  and  SK).  Whilst  these  reference  points  may  vary 
depending on the Member State concerned, these compensation schemes are also considered, as 
these  could,  following  some  calculations,  can  be  expressed  as  specific  sums.  To  facilitate  and 
simplify the comparison across Member States, the Study Team has gathered data on the average 
full time adjusted salary per employee149 at the national level and used it as the starting point for the 
calculation of the compensations. The calculations are based on 2022 figures, as these are the most 
recent available at the time of writing.   

Table  12  provides the  unadjusted (i.e.,  not  indexed)  monetary  amounts of  compensations  across 
Member States. For administrative compensations, the minimum amount is specified in one Member 
State,  i.e.,  AT  and  is  set  at  EUR  1  000,  while  the  maximum  expressed  by  reference  to  average 
monthly  salary  is  identified  in  the  Slovakian  law  and  correspond  to  36  months’  worth  of  average 
salary, ca., EUR 52 077150. In the criminal area, compensations range from EUR 500 specified by 
Slovenian legislation to 2 years’ worth of salary, as specified by Irish legislation, ca., EUR 103 738151. 
Other variable compensations based on monthly wages in this area can be found in the case for 
Austria and Italy.  

In the civil area, the monetary compensations range from EUR 2 000 to EUR 2 000 000 reported by 
Cyprus, which is the only Member States having fixed monetary compensation in such area. Other 
Member States, such as Germany and Hungary, express quantifiable compensation in the civil area 
based on monthly wages and months’ absence pay, respectively152. 

The minimum or the maximum are not specified in the national legislation in most of the cases. In 
the administrative area and for both natural and legal persons, Austrian legislation does not specify 
the maximum compensation, while Slovenian legislation does not specify the minimum one.  

In the criminal area, both Austrian and Italian legislation do not specify the maximum compensation 
for both natural and legal persons, while Irish legislation does not specify the minimum compensation 
for both natural and legal persons. 

In the civil area, Hungarian legislation does not specify the minimum compensation for natural and 
legal  persons,  while  Poland  legislation  does  not  specify  the  minimum  compensation  for  natural 
persons. 

148 In the case of Hungary, the compensation amount is linked to a different reference point, called absence pay. This type of income is 
calculated taking into account the following parameters: a) the basic salary (§ 136) and the supplementary allowance (§ 145) in force at 
the time when the payment is due, b) the remuneration paid for the last six months before the due date (reference period), (ba) wages 
for performance (§ 150), (bb) wage supplement (§ 151).  
149 Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024. 
150 Monetary amount based on Milieu’s calculation. 
151 Monetary amount based on Milieu’s calculation. 
152 It is not clear what is the corresponding monetary amount of a month’s absence pay presented in the Hungarian legislation. For this 
reason, we were not able to provide an estimated amount as done for the other countries. 

98 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Table 12: Unadjusted compensations by legal area, country and N/L persons 

Country 

Persons 

Compensation 

Administrative 

Criminal 

Range 

Range 

Civil 

Range 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

1 000  

1 000  

 not 
specified  

 8 474.83 
153 

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 8 474.83 

 not 
specified  

1 950  

3 900  

1 950  

3 900  

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

 2 000  

2 000 000  

 2 000  

2 000 000  

 not specified  

11 567.75 
154 

 not specified  

11 567.75  

153 The minimum criminal compensation for both natural and legal persons is two months’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, the Study Team has taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Austria reported in the Eurostat dataset 
nama_10_fte (Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024), divided by 12 and 
multiplied by two. 
154 The maximum civil compensation for natural persons in relation to discriminatory recruitment cannot be more than a three months’ 
worth of salary. In another context, there is no legal maximum. In order to have a rough estimation for this, the Study Team has taken 
the statistics of the average annual salary for Germany reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte (Eurostat, ‘Average full time 
adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) divided by 12 and multiplied by three.  

99 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Country 

Persons 

Compensation 

Administrative 

Criminal 

Range 

Range 

Civil 

Range 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

 not specified  

 not specified  

 12 months' 
absence 
pay  

 12 months' 
absence 
pay  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

 103 738155  

 103 738  

157 295156 

 variable  

 157 295 

 variable  

155 The maximum criminal compensation for both natural and legal persons is two years’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, the Study Team has taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Ireland reported in the Eurostat dataset 
nama_10_fte (Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) multiplied by two. 
156 The minimum criminal compensation for both natural and legal persons is five years’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, the Study Team has the statistics of the average annual salary for Italy reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte 
(Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) multiplied by five. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Country 

Persons 

Compensation 

Administrative 

Criminal 

Range 

Range 

Civil 

Range 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

1 347.42157  

not 
specified 

500  

5 000  

500  

5 000  

157 The minimum civil compensation for natural persons cannot be less than a minimum monthly wage. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, we have taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Poland reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte 
(Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) divided by 12. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Country 

Persons 

Compensation 

Administrative 

Criminal 

Range 

Range 

Civil 

Range 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

SK 

N 

L 

 not 
specified 

 not 
specified 

52 077158 

 52 077 

Finally, Table 13 presents the adjusted compensations using the PLIs. Due to the limited number of 
data points, the adjusted minimum and maximum values for each area largely reflect the amounts 
reported in Table 13. After adjustments with the PLIs, the minimum administrative compensation is 
set at EUR 912.41 (AT) and the maximum is set at EUR  60  274.31 (SK)159. In the criminal area, 
compensations  range  from  EUR  561.80  (SI)  to  more  than  EUR  156  356  (IT)160.  In  the  civil  area, 
compensations range from EUR 2 173.91 to EUR 2 173 913.04 (CY). 

Table 13: Adjusted compensations by legal area, country and N/L persons161 

Country 

Persons 

Compensation 

Administrative 

Criminal 

Range 

Range 

Civil 

Range 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

AT 

BE 

BG 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

912.41  

912.41  

not 
specified 

not 
specified   

  7 732.51 162 

 7 732.51 

not 
specified   

not 
specified   

1 689.77  

3 379.55  

1 689.77  

3 379.55  

158 The maximum administrative compensation for both natural and legal persons is 36 months’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, we have taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Slovakia reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte 
(Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) multiplied by three. 
159 It is worth noting that, as stated in footnote 158 the amount is based on Milieu’s own estimation. 
160 Italian legislation marks the amount reported here as minimum. However, there is no clear maximum compensation in Italian 
legislation in the criminal area. 
161 A colour code has been used to enhance clarity when reading the table. Light blue cells: the adjusted compensation amount is lower 
than the corresponding unadjusted value reported in Table 12. Dark blue cells: the adjusted fine is higher than the corresponding 
unadjusted value reported in Table 12. 
162 The minimum criminal compensation for both natural and legal persons is two months’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, the Study Team has taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Austria reported in the Eurostat dataset 
nama_10_fte (Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024), divided by 12 and 
multiplied by two and then adjusted by the PLI. 

102 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

 2 173.91  

 2 173 913.04  

 2 173.91  

 2 173 913.04  

 not 
specified  

 not 
specified  

10 602.89 163 

10 602.89  

not 
specified   

 12 months' 
absence pay  

not 
specified   

 12 months' 
absence pay  

163 The maximum civil compensation for natural persons in relation to discriminatory recruitment cannot be more than a three months’ 
worth of salary. In another context, there is no legal maximum. In order to have a rough estimation for this, the Study Team has taken 
the statistics of the average annual salary for Germany reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte (Eurostat, ‘Average full time 
adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) divided by 12 and multiplied by three and then adjusted by 
the PLI.  

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

not specified    72 900.91164 

not specified   

 72 900.91  

 156 356.86 
165 

 variable  

 156 356.86  

 variable  

2 219.80 
166 

not specified 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

164 The maximum criminal compensation for both natural and legal persons is two years’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, the Study Team has taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Ireland reported in the Eurostat dataset 
nama_10_fte (Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) multiplied by two, 
and then adjusted by the PLI. 
165 The minimum criminal compensation for both natural and legal persons is five years’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, the Study Team has the statistics of the average annual salary for Italy reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte 
(Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) multiplied by five and then 
adjusted by the PLI. 
166 The minimum civil compensation for natural persons cannot be less than a minimum monthly wage. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, we have taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Poland reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte 
(Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) divided by 12 and then adjusted 
by the PLI. 

104 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

 561.80  

 5 617.98  

 561.80  

 5 617.98  

SI 

SK 

N 

L 

N 

L 

not 
specified   

not 
specified   

60 274.31167 

60 274.31 

2.3.4.3.  Imprisonment 

In addition to sanctions that could be monetised, there are sanctions that are expressed in duration. 
These  are:  imprisonment;  community  service;  disqualification  from  profession;  temporary  or 
permanent  closure/suspension  of  activities;  exclusion  from  public  procurement  processes  or 
economic  benefits;  certain  disciplinary  sanctions;  sanctions  categorised  as  country-specific 
sanctions.  This  Report  mainly  focuses  on  imprisonment  ,  given  that  the  remaining  quantifiable 
sanctions  exist  in  one  or  a  few  Member  States.  These  other  quantifiable  sanctions  are  briefly 
described, with reference to the Member States where they exist. 

As further described under Section 2.3.1, criminal imprisonment is set forth in the laws of 20 Member 
States (BE, BG, CY, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, RO, SE, SI, and SK). In 
the national legislation of these Member States, provisions defining the min. and/or max. duration of 
the imprisonment sentence exist. These are described in the table below.  

Table 14: Duration of imprisonment 

Duration of imprisonment 

AT 

N/A 

BE 

BG 

HR 

•  Any discriminatory act in the domain of goods and services or employment: min. one month, max. 

one year. 

•  Discrimination committed by a civil servant: min. one month, max. one year. 

•  Discrimination in relation to employment: min. three months, max. three years. 

•  Causing severe physical or mental pain or suffering for reasons of discrimination: min. one year, max. 

up to 10 years 

•  Discrimination in relation to access to and supply of goods and services: min. not specified, max. up 

to three years. 

•  Harassment at work: min. not specified, max. up to two years. 

CY 

•  Discrimination in employment: min. not specified; max. up to six months. 

•  Discrimination in areas other than employment: min. not specified; max. up to six months. 

CZ 

N/A 

167 The maximum administrative compensation for both natural and legal persons is 36 months’ worth of salary. In order to have a rough 
estimation for this, we have taken the statistics of the average annual salary for Slovakia reported in the Eurostat dataset nama_10_fte 
(Eurostat, ‘Average full time adjusted salary per employee’, Eurostat website, accessed 07 June 2024) multiplied by three and then 
adjusted by the PLI. 

105 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

DE 

N/A 

DK 

N/A 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

•  Any discrimination and violation of freedom of religion: min. not specified, max. up to a year. 

•  Discrimination in the provision of goods and services: min. six months, max. three years. 

•  Denial of public service benefit: min. six months, max. two years. 

•  Failure to reestablish the situation of equality: min. six months, max. two years. 

•  Discrimination in trade or profession, public service or any other public function: min. not specified, 

max. six months 

•  Discrimination at work: min. not specified, max. six months. 

•  Extortionate work discrimination: min. not specified, max. two years. 

•  Discrimination in employment, access to and supply of goods and services available to the public and 
social protection: min. not specified, max. up to three years; in aggravating circumstance (where the 
discrimination consisted in refusing to supply a good or a service in a place open to the public or for 
the purpose of prohibiting access thereto): min. not specified, max. up to five years. 

•  Discrimination by public authority: min. not specified, max. up to five years. 

HU 

 N/A 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

•  Discrimination  or  attempted  discrimination  in  procurement  (multiple  forms):  min.  not  specified  in 
legislation; max. in summary conviction: max.one year; in conviction on indictment max. two years. 

•  Committing acts of discrimination based on racial, ethnic or religious discrimination grounds: min. not 

specified, max. one year and six months. 

•  Discrimination  in  the  context  of  political,  economic,  social,  cultural,  labour  or  other  activities  or 
restricting the rights and freedoms of a group of persons or of the person belonging thereto; organising 
a  group  of  accomplices  or  group  of  organisations  aiming  at  discriminating  a  group  of  persons,  or 
participating in or financing such activities: min. three months, max. two years (restriction of liberty); 
min. three months, max. three years (custodial sentence/imprisonment). 

•  Discrimination in all areas: min. eight days, max. two years. 

•  Discrimination entailing refusal to benefit from a right granted by law, or hindering the normal exercise 
of economic activity, as committed by public servants and other keepers of public authority: min. one 
year, max. three years. 

•  Committing discrimination or violating the prohibition of discrimination: min. 15 days, max. one year. 

•  Temporary  deprivation  of  liberty  for  committing  discrimination  or  violating  the  prohibition  of 

discrimination: min. 15 days, max. three months. 

•  Harassment  or  discrimination  in  the  areas  of  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  and 

education: min. not specified in legislation, max. six months. 

•  Discrimination in employment relationships: min. not specified in legislation, max. six months. 

•  Participating  or  providing  financial  or  other  material  support  in  discrimination,  deliberately 
discriminating, discriminating against persons in the exercise of an office, profession or business: min. 

106 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

not specified in legislation, max. three months, six months and two months (for each criminal conduct, 
respectively); aggravating circumstance (if committed by a person who makes a habit of it or by two 
or more associated persons): min. not specified in legislation, max. one year. 

PL 

N/A 

PT 

N/A 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

•  Hindering or disturbing the free exercise of the ritual of a religious cult: min. three months, max. two 

years. 

•  Discrimination in the context of business activities and organisation of public events or gatherings: 

min. not specified in legislation, max. one year. 

•  Sexual harassment, psychical violence, mobbing, inequal treatment: min. not specified in legislation, 

max. two years. 

•  Committing  racial,  ethnic,  national  or  religious  segregation  or  other  large  scale  or  systematic 
discrimination of a group of persons: min. four years, max. 10 years; aggravating circumstances (e.g., 
in time of crisis, member of an extremist group): min. eight years, max. 15 years. 

Based on the table above it is noticeable that statutory legal minimums are not provided in the 
legislation of all Member States (notably in 10 Member States: CY, EE, FI, FR, IE, IT, MT, NL, SE 
and SI). Where statutory minimums exist, these are typically expressed in months, equalling to less 
than a year in all cases. Remarkable exceptions could be identified in the legislation of Luxembourg, 
Latvia and Slovakia, where statutory minimums are expressed in days or years. In Luxembourg, the 
legal minimum of the imprisonment sentence for discrimination is lowest compared to other countries 
providing  for  a  specific  minimum  duration  i.e.,  eight  days.  In  Slovakia,  the  statutory  minimum  for 
committing  racial,  ethnic,  national  or  religious  segregation  or  other  large  scale  or  systematic 
discrimination of a group of persons is high compared to other countries (i.e., four years in the basic 
case and eight years in the aggravated case). It is important to recognise, however, that the severity 
of  the  crime  in  Slovakia  may  account  for  the  higher  imprisonment  sentence  prescribed  by  law. 
Notable that under Croatian legislation, the statutory minimum is not defined as a general rule. The 
discriminatory  behaviour  of  causing  severe  physical  or  mental  pain  or  suffering  for  reasons  of 
discrimination constitutes an exception in this respect. In this case the statutory minimum is defined 
in legislation and is set at a minimum of one year.  

Statutory  maximums  are  provided  for  in  the  laws  of  the  20  Member  States  that  envisage 
imprisonment sanction for discrimination. These are typically expressed in months (hence less than 
a year; this is the case in nine Member States – BE, CY, EE, FI – with some exceptions, IE – with 
some exceptions, LV, MT, NL, SE), or in years (this is the case in 13 Member States - BG, EL, ES, 
FI – with some exceptions, FR, HR, IE - with some exceptions, IT, LT, LU, RO, SI and SK)168. In 
these Member States more than one year of imprisonment is envisaged, ranging between two to five 
years, depending on the jurisdiction concerned. Slovakian law sets forth the highest imprisonment 
sentence  with  10  years  for  the  basic  case  of  committing  racial,  ethnic,  national  or  religious 
segregation or other large scale or systematic discrimination of a group of persons and 15 years for 
the aggravated case of the same crime. Similarly to Slovakian law, Croatian law also envisages 10 
years of imprisonment sentence for cases where the discrimination causes severe physical or mental 
pain or suffering. It is also noted that in three Member States (FR, NL and SK), there are provisions 
for offence-specific aggravating circumstances that result in more severe sanctions.  

168 In the Member States, where reference is made to exceptions, multiple discriminatory behaviours could lead to the imposition of 
imprisonment sentence. Depending on the specific discriminatory behaviour, the imprisonment sentence could be expressed differently. 

107 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

The  aforementioned  differences  should  be  interpreted  with  the  caveat  that  criminal  behaviours 
triggering  the  application  of  sanctions  might  be  very  different.    This  variety/severity  of  the 
discriminatory behaviours might lead to varying levels of sanctions.   

2.3.4.4.  Other sanctions that could be expressed in duration 

The remaining sanction types that could be expressed in duration are specific to one, or a limited 
number  of  Member  States.  Considering  the  country-specific  nature  of  these  sanctions,  no  clear 
trends could be identified. This section provides a brief summary of the different sanction schemes.  

In Greece, administrative sanctions in the employment sector include temporary (max. three days) 
and long-term or permanent suspension (min. five days, max. permanent) of operations. Spanish 
law prescribes criminal disqualification from public employment for one to three years. French and 
Luxembourgish  legislation  outlines  various  administrative  disciplinary  sanctions  with  different 
durations based on the severity of the offence. Hungarian law imposes temporary business closures 
for  discriminatory  practices  in  goods  and  services  (min.  not  specified,  max.  either  until  the  lawful 
situation  is  restored,  or  up  to  30  days).  Italian  law  provides  for  administrative  sanctions,  such  as 
withdrawal of economic benefits in employment for a maximum duration of two years. Lithuanian law 
provides for criminal community service (from 10 to 40 hours per month during the time period set 
by  the  court)  and  arrest  for  discrimination  (min.  10  days,  max.  45  days).  Latvian  law  mandates 
community  service  (min.  40  hours,  max.  280  hours)  and  probatory  supervision  for  discrimination 
violations (min.  one  year, max.  five  years).  The Netherlands prescribes community  service (max. 
240 hours) and disqualification from profession for engaging in or supporting discriminatory activities 
(min. two years, max. five years). 

2.4. Determination of the applicable sanctions 

Section  2.4  examines  some  key  factors  influencing  the  sanctions  imposed  by  courts  or  other 
adjudicating bodies. It begins with an overview of the circumstances outlined in legislation that must 
be  considered  when  applying  sanctions  (Section  2.4.1),  followed  by  a  discussion  of  the  legal 
possibility (or impossibility) of combining sanctions within the same or separate proceedings (Section 
2.4.2). It also addresses rules that apply in cases of multiple or intersectional discrimination (Section 
2.4.3). The section concludes with a description of specific sanction calculation methods (Section 
2.4.4). 

2.4.1. Circumstances considered in the application of sanctions 

Section  2.4.1  outlines  the  circumstances  that  could  be  taken  into  account  by  courts  or  other 
adjudicating bodies when imposing sanctions for discrimination.  

The table below outlines the various circumstances to be considered according to the area of law 
governing  the  sanction  scheme.  It  covers  both  the  circumstances  set  out  specifically  in  anti-
discrimination laws or guidelines, as well as the circumstances established in more general 
legislation  not  specific  to  discrimination  (e.g.,  in  provisions  on  determining  the  amount  of  the 
applicable criminal or administrative fine in criminal codes or laws on minor offences’ proceedings). 
The  table  provides  examples  of  Member  States  where  national  legal  provisions  require  the 
consideration of these circumstances.  

The  following  aspects  and  circumstances  are  analysed  separately,  hence  are  not  specifically 
mentioned in the table below: the role of recidivism; intersectional discrimination and discrimination 
on  multiple  grounds;  instances  of  discrimination  committed  by  public  officials;  discrimination 
stemming from or embedded in automated systems; the consideration of public interests and the 

108 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

prevention  of  future  discrimination;  circumstances  to  consider  in  the  calculation  of  pecuniary 
sanctions.   

Table 15: Circumstances to consider per area 

Area of law 

Circumstances to consider per type of sanction (where relevant) 

Across all relevant areas 

•  General  reference  to  consider  the  specific  circumstances  of  the  case  (e.g., 

DK);  

•  General reference to consider the complexity of the case (e.g., DK) 

•  Discriminatory act: Context (e.g., DK, EE); nature (e.g., DK, EE), extent (e.g., 
DK,  EE),  severity/seriousness  (e.g.,  CY,  DK,  EE)  and  duration  of 
discrimination (e.g., DK, EE); specific protected grounds (e.g., EE); systemic 
conduct (e.g., CY) 

•  Perpetrator:  Status  and  role  of  perpetrator  (e.g.,  DK,  EE);  vulnerability  of 

perpetrator (e.g., EE) 

•  Victim: Vulnerability of the victim (e.g., CY, DK, EE); impact on victim (e.g., 

CY, DK)  

•  Relation between perpetrator and victim: Power dynamics (e.g., DK) 

•  Sanction: Deterrence (e.g., CY) 

Criminal 

•  General  reference  to  consider  the  specific  circumstances  of  the  case  (e.g., 

HR, SI) 

•  Discriminatory act: Degree of social danger of the (discriminatory) act (e.g., 
BG,  LT);  gravity/seriousness  of  the  (discriminatory)  act  (e.g.,  EL,  IE); 
proportionality (e.g., IE); degree of threat to or violation of the protected legal 
value  (e.g.,  SI); nature,  extent,  severity  and  duration  of  discrimination  (e.g., 
LV); commission of the act in public (e.g., SK) 

• 

Intent and participation: Motives/degree of intent (e.g., BG, EL, LT, SI, SK); 
objective  (e.g.,  LT); 
form  of  participation  (e.g.,  LT,  SK);  mitigating 
circumstances relating to the commission of the act, namely state of justified 
emotional distress or duress (e.g., SK); abuse of position (e.g., SK) 

•  Perpetrator:  Absence  of  criminal  record  (e.g.,  BG,  SK);  circumstances  of 
perpetrator (broadly) (e.g., IE); personal and family situation (e.g., BG, FR, SI, 
SK); material/financial situation (e.g., FR, SI); social situation (e.g., BE, FR); 
personal  characteristics  (incl.  personality,  age)  (e.g.,  BG,  FR,  LT,  SI); 
confession / guilty plea and cooperation (e.g., BG, IE, SK); behaviour after the 
offence (e.g., SI); notable efforts to repair damage (e.g., BG, SI, SK); ability to 
pay the fine (e.g., NL); previous history (e.g., SI, SK); expected effect of the 
sentence (e.g., SI) 

•  Other aggravating or mitigating circumstances: (e.g., LT, LV) 

In  general:  In  the  case  of  employment  related  sanctions,  several  elements  are 
considered:  negligence  and  intentionality  of the offending  party; fraud  or connivance: 
non-compliance with prior warnings and requirements of the Inspectorate; the turnover 
of the company; the number of workers or beneficiaries affected, where applicable; the 
damage  caused  and  the  amount  defrauded;  circumstances  that  may  aggravate  or 
attenuate the graduation to be applied to the offence committed (e.g., ES) 

For compensation/damages: (see Section 2.4.4 below – circumstances to consider in 
calculating pecuniary sanctions)  

Civil 

Administrative 

•  General reference to consider the specific circumstances of the case (e.g., CZ, 

RO) 

•  Discriminatory act: Gravity/seriousness of the violation (e.g., BG, ES, FR, PT, 
SI,  SK),  nature  (e.g.,  FR,  LT,  SK);  duration  (e.g.,  SI);  degree  of  threat  or 

109 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

infringement of the protected good (e.g., RO); multiple discrimination (e.g., ES, 
SI) 

• 

Intent and participation: Motives (e.g., BG, SK), intent/guilt (e.g., ES, LT, LU, 
PT, SI), means of committing the offence (e.g., SK), degree of responsibility 
(e.g., RO) 

•  Perpetrator: Financial and material situation of the perpetrator (e.g., BG, PT); 
financial  benefit  taken  out  of  the  infraction  (e.g.,  ES,  PT);  circumstance  of 
holding public office or being a civil servant and their rank (e.g., ES, FR, LU); 
personal situation (e.g., FR); personality (e.g., LT); prior history (e.g., LU, RO); 
natural person / legal person (e.g., PT); behaviour after the offence (e.g., RO) 

•  Victim: Number of persons concerned (e.g., ES, SI); victim being a minor or 
belonging to other vulnerable group (e.g., SI); mass discrimination (e.g., SI) 

Labour law169  

•  Discriminatory act: Seriousness of the infringement (e.g., EL, SK) 

• 

Intent and participation: Intent/guilt (e.g., EL, ES, PT), means through which 
the  offence  was  committed  (e.g.,  fraud,  coercion)  (e.g.,  ES,  PT),  degree  of 
participation (e.g., ES) 

•  Perpetrator: Natural/legal person (e.g., PT); dissuasive intention of the sanction 

(e.g., SK) 

•  Victim:  Employment status  (e.g.,  EL), number of  persons affected  (e.g.,  CZ, 

EL) 

•  Other: Non-compliance with the instructions of the competent bodies (e.g., EL, 
ES, PT); number of employees (e.g., EL, SK), type and size of company (e.g., 
EL); turnover of the company (e.g., ES, PT) 

In  the  Hungarian  Petty  Offences  Act,  the  following  elements  are  to  be  considered: 
severity of the offence, personal circumstances of the offender, past offences committed 
within  the  past  two  years.  Two  mitigating  circumstances  are  specifically  spelled  out: 
cooperation with authorities, reimbursement of damages caused by the offence prior to 
the decision taken by the authorities (Article 21 of the Petty Offences Act). It also results 
in a more severe penalty, when the person subject to proceedings is prosecuted in the 
same proceedings for more than one offence. 

Quasi-criminal law 

As shown in the table above, some Member States, such as Cyprus, Denmark and Estonia, have 
cross-cutting rules that apply across different areas of law. In these jurisdictions, when applying 
sanctions, courts or other adjudicating bodies must take into account circumstances, such as the 
characteristics of both the perpetrator and the victim, the context of the discriminatory act, its nature, 
seriousness, extent or severity. 

In most  Member  States,  however, the  circumstances to  be  considered vary  depending  on the 
area of law:  specific circumstances are set out in criminal law (e.g., BE, BG, EL, HR, FR, IE, LT, LV, 
NL,  SI  and  SK),  in  civil  law  (e.g.,  AT,  BE,  ES,  FI,  HR,  HU,  PL,  PT,  SE,  SI  and  SK),  and  in 
administrative law (e.g., BG, CZ, EL, ES, FR, LT, LU, NL, PT, SI, SK and RO). The application of 
quasi-criminal sanctions in Hungary also entails the consideration of specific elements.  

Regardless  of  the  area  of  law  governing  the  sanction  schemes,  it  seems  to  be  a  general 
requirement  towards  courts  or  other  adjudicating  bodies  to  consider  a  variety  of  factors  while 
deciding on the sanction to be imposed, e.g., nature, extent and severity of the discriminatory act; 
motives and degree of intent of the perpetrator; the characteristics of both the perpetrator and the 
victim; and the nature and impact of the damage caused. Specific criteria are considered in the 

169 Labour law may be included within civil or administrative law, depending on the legal systems of the Member States. 

110 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

context of employment, such as non-compliance with prior instructions or warnings from competent 
bodies, type and size of the company, turnover and number of workers affected.  

Besides some provisions available in the law, the application of the sanctions may also be influenced 
by circumstances/criteria put forward, in particular, in certain types of instruments, such as internal 
guidelines, that are applied concerning grounds/areas other than those covered by the Study. An 
example is the guidelines issued by the college of public prosecutors for the Public Prosecution in 
the Netherlands and guidance created by the Swedish Supreme Court, both described in the box 
below. 

Box  21:  The  role  of  guidelines  in  the  Netherlands  and  higher  courts’  case-law  in 
Sweden 

Dutch Instructions (in Dutch Aanwijzingen170) and Guidelines (in Dutch Richtlijnen171) for the Public 
Prosecutor for various offences and crimes related to discrimination 

The internal document presented in this box concerns crimes that are not specifically covered by this Study 
(as they concern grounds/areas that are not covered by the scope of the Study). By analogy, however, the 
prosecution service might recall these principles also in cases that are covered by the Study. 

The ‘Guideline for prosecution of discrimination’172 from 1 March 2015 sets out fines and/or prison sentences 
to be proposed for natural or legal persons that discriminated others as first offender, as first-time repeat 
offender or as various times repeat offender.  

According to the Guidelines, the prosecutor must call for stricter sanctions in cases of recidivism or in cases 
when certain aggravating circumstances occur:  

•  Several persons cooperating or profession or custom; 

•  Severity and/or extent of the discriminatory expressions 

•  Towards an official or authority officer (+200 %) 

•  Organised or propagandistic action 

•  Event (+75 %) or football related (+50 %). 

Higher courts’ case law 

The  Swedish  Supreme  Court  civil  case  of  NJA  2014173  provides  guidelines  for  determining  civil 
discrimination  compensation,  which  includes  two  elements:  compensation  for  the  discrimination  and  a 
deterring  amount.  The  guidelines  consider  various  factors,  such  as  the  seriousness  of  the  violation,  any 
aggravating circumstances (such as if the violation was disgraceful or occurred in public), the intent of the 
discriminator,  whether  there  was  a  sincere  and  serious  attempt  to  rectify  the  situation  and  reasonable 
compensation for the victim, among other considerations. 

Repeated infringement as aggravating circumstance/specific factor 

Repeated infringement (recidivism) is generally considered as an aggravating circumstance or 
a specific factor in the majority of Member States that influences the application of the sanction(s), 

170 Instructions have legal force and bind the Public Prosecution Service on the basis of principles of due process insofar as they 
concern regulations that, by their content and scope, can be applied as legal rules to those involved. These are regulations and rules 
that generally apply and (must) be applied. Citizens can therefore derive rights from it. With this in mind, instructions are published in the 
Government Gazette and on the website of the Public Prosecutor’s Office www.om.nl. 
171 Guidelines for criminal procedure are instructions (within the meaning of Article 130, paragraph 6, RO Act) regarding the application 
of sanctions and the transaction and recovery policy. Criminal procedure guidelines apply generally and must be applied. Citizens can 
derive rights from them. They are published in the Government Gazette and on the website of the Public Prosecutor’s Office www.om.nl. 
172 College of Attorneys General, ‘Criminal Procedure Directive for Discrimination’ (Richtlijn voor strafvordering discriminatie), 
2015R001, Government Gazette 2015, 4225, 1 March 2015. 
173 Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen), Judgment of 26 June 2014, NJA 2014 s. 499, T 3592-13. 

111 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

although  not  in  a  consistent  manner.  Repeated  infringement  is  expressly  provided  for  as  an 
aggravating circumstance or specific factor in discrimination offences in Estonia, Greece, Finland, 
Croatia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Repeated infringement is considered in 
the context of criminal sanctions in Estonia, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Romania; in the context 
of misdemeanours in Croatia; in the context of administrative sanctions in Greece (specifically for 
the administrative sanction of the exclusion of an operator from the public procurement contracts 
procedure), the Netherlands, Slovakia and Portugal; and for the determination of compensation in 
Croatia and in Finland. 

Notwithstanding, recidivism is taken into consideration under the more generally applicable rules 
in some Member States (BE, BG, CY, CZ, ES, FR, HU, IT, LU, MT, and SI). These concern criminal 
sanctions  in  Cyprus,  France,  Italy,  Malta,  Romania  and  Slovenia;  administrative  sanctions  in 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, France, Hungary and civil sanctions in France. 

Discrimination by public authorities  

The commission of discriminatory acts by public officials is a standalone offence subject to 
specific  sanctions  in  Belgium,  Denmark  and  the  Netherlands.  In  Belgium,  the  Federal  Acts174 
specifically  sanction  public  officials  who,  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions,  discriminate  against  a 
person by reason of one or more of the protected criteria. If the accused person proves that they 
acted on the orders of their superiors in matters for which they were responsible and over which they 
were owed hierarchical obedience, the penalties shall be applied only to the superiors who gave the 
order.  In  the  Netherlands,  the  Criminal  Code  punishes  anyone  who,  in  the  exercise  of  an  office, 
profession or business, discriminates against persons on account of their race, religion or belief175.  

In France, Luxembourg and Latvia, the commission of the crime of discrimination by a public 
authority is a specific aggravating circumstance. Pursuant to Article 432-7 of the French Criminal 
Code176, the crime of discrimination is aggravated when committed by public services (by a person 
acting in a position of public authority or entrusted with a public service mission), in the exercise or 
on the occasion of the exercise of his functions or mission. The same is provided for in Article 455 
of the Luxembourgish Criminal Code177. Under Article 149.1(2) of the Latvian Criminal Law178, the 
crime  of  violation  of  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  is  also  aggravated  if  committed  by  a  public 
official.  

In Bulgaria and Slovenia, the rules envisaging harsher penalties in cases where an act is committed 
by public authorities is set out in general provisions (i.e., provisions not specific to discrimination 
per  se).  In  Bulgaria,  the  commission  of  an  act  by  a  public  official  is  always  an  aggravating 
circumstance.  In  Slovenia,  discrimination  by  public  authorities  is  considered  an  aggravating 
circumstance as a rule in the application of criminal sanctions. 

Spain is a Member State with a unique system, combining all three of the above approaches: 

174 Article 23, Act of 30 July 1981 sanctioning certain acts motivated by racism or xenophonia (Wet van 30 juli 1981 tot bestraffing van 
bepaalde door racism of xenophobie ingegeven daden), Federal Anti-Racism Act, B.S., 8 August 1981, p. 9928 ; Article 23, Act of 10 
May 2007 combating certain forms of discrimination (Wet van 10 mei 2007 ter bestrijding van bepaalde vormen van discriminatie), B.S., 
30 May 2007, p. 29016. 
175 Article 429quater (1) Dutch Criminal Code. 
176 Article 432-7, Criminal Code (Code pénal), Law no. 2012-954 of 6 August 2012 on sexual harassment (Loi n° 2012-954 du 6 août 
2012 relative au harcèlement sexuel), Official Journal no.0182, 7 August 2012. 
177 Article 455, Criminal Code (Code pénal), Act of 19 July 1997 supplementing the Criminal Code by amending the criminalisation of 
racism and criminalising revisionism and other acts based on illegal discrimination (Loi du 19 juillet 1997 complétant le code pénal en 
modifiant l'incrimination du racisme et en portant incrimination du révisionnisme et d'autres agissements fondés sur des discriminations 
illégales), Official Journal 07 August 1997. 
178 Article 149.1(2), Criminal Law, (Krimināllikums), Official Journal: Latvijas Vēstnesis, 199/200, 08 July 1998, Latvijas Republikas 
Saeimas un Ministru Kabineta Ziņotājs, 15, 04 August 1998. 

112 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Commission  by  public  officials  is  a  stand-alone  offence:  the  Criminal  Code  punishes 
criminally  anyone  in  charge  of  a  public  service  who  denies  a  person  a  benefit  based  on 
discriminatory grounds179. 

•  Commission  by  public  officials  is  a  specific  aggravating  circumstance:  Article 511(3)  of 
the  Spanish  Criminal  Code  expressly  provides  that  public  officials  who  commit  the 
discriminatory acts prohibited by that provision are subject to higher penalties and special 
disqualification from public employment or public office for a period of two to four years. 

•  Commission  by  public  officials  results  in  higher  penalties,  as  set  forth  in  general 
provisions: in addition to the above, in the case of administrative sanctions, the status of 
authority, official or public servant of the person who has committed the infringement is also 
an aggravating factor. 

Besides in 16 Member States (AT, CY, CZ, DE, EL, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, SE and SK), 
discrimination by public authorities is not specifically sanctioned nor provided for as an aggravating 
circumstance.  Interestingly,  in  Hungary,  according  to  Article  2:51(2)  of  the  Civil  Code180,  when 
employees of a public authority commit violations of inherent rights (which extends to discrimination), 
the authority itself remains liable, excluding personal liability for employees. 

Discrimination caused by or embedded in automated systems, including AI, 

as aggravating circumstance / specific factor 

Discrimination caused by or embedded in automated systems, including AI, is only considered an 
aggravating circumstance in Latvia where the crime of violation of the prohibition of discrimination 
is aggravated if it is committed through the use of an automated data processing system.  

Circumstances considered in imposing pecuniary sanctions 

In  19  Member  States  (see  the  table  below),  courts  or  other  adjudicating  bodies  may  consider 
circumstances specific to pecuniary sanctions when imposing them. In addition to these specific 
factors, courts / other adjudicating bodies may consider the general circumstances presented at the 
beginning of Section 2.4.1.  

The table below lists the elements specific to pecuniary sanctions, distinguishing between different 
types of sanctions where applicable.  

Table 16: Specific circumstances considered in imposing pecuniary sanctions 

MS  Specific circumstances considered in imposing pecuniary sanctions 

AT  Monetary compensation for material damages: Ensure the restoration of the situation ex ante. 

Monetary compensation for immaterial damages: Ensure the restoration of the situation ex ante, actually and 
effectively remedy the damage. 

BE 

Criminal fine: Number of victims, timing of the event. 

Monetary  civil compensation  for  material/immaterial  damages:  Actual  loss/damage, as calculated  by  the 
victim  (the  method  of  calculation  might  be  discarded  by  the  courts);  cumulative/intersectional  nature  of 
discrimination.  

BG 

Fines in general: The financial/material situation of the perpetrator. 

179 Article 511, Spanish criminal code. 
180 Article 2:51(2), Act V of 2013 Civil Code (2013. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről), Civil Code, Official publication: Magyar 
Közlöny, pp.02382-02663. 

113 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

MS  Specific circumstances considered in imposing pecuniary sanctions 

Administrative fine: The gravity of the violation, the motives for its perpetration and alleviating and aggravating 
circumstances. 

Fines against legal persons: The gravity of the violation and alleviating and aggravating circumstances. 

Monetary civil compensation for material damages: Actual loss/damage to be covered. 

Monetary civil compensation for immaterial damages: Fair compensation for the incurred damages. 

CZ  Monetary  civil  compensation  for  material/immaterial  damages:  Severity  of  the  damage  and  the 

circumstances under which the right to non-discrimination was violated. 

Administrative fine (access to goods and services): All circumstances revealed during the inspection, including 
the nature and scope of the perpetrator’s economic activities. 

DE  Monetary  civil  compensation  for  material/immaterial  damages:  Whether  damage  to  life,  body,  health, 
freedom,  property  or  another  right  occurred;  whether  the  injury  was  caused  by  the  defendant;  whether  the 
commission was deliberate or negligent; whether the act has caused any damage (material or immaterial). 

DK 

Fines: Gravity and impact of the discriminatory act. 

Monetary civil compensation for material damages: Gravity and impact of the discriminatory act. 

Monetary  civil  compensation  for  immaterial  damages:  Gravity  and  impact  of  the  discriminatory  act;  fair 
compensation for the incurred damages by considering the individual circumstances of the victim and the intent 
behind the discriminatory act. 

EE 

Fines: The financial/material situation of the perpetrator, other circumstances of their case. 

Monetary  civil  compensation  for  material/immaterial  damages:  The  scope,  duration  and  nature  of 
discrimination. 

EL 

Criminal fines: The gravity of the act and the perpetrator’s intent to commit it, the financial/material situation of 
the perpetrator, personal situation of the perpetrator. 

Labour fines: The infringement’s severity, the number of workers at the place of work subject to inspection, 
repeated imposition of sanctions for similar infringements in the same controlled workplace before the date of 
the inspection, the size of the enterprise, the employment status and intent.  

Monetary civil compensation for material damages: The nature and consequences of the infringement, the 
extent of the damage, the circumstances of causing the damage, the gravity of the fault of the perpetrator, the 
concomitant fault of the victim, the property and social situation of the parties, the personal relationship between 
the parties, the behaviour of the person responsible after the tort, the pain and suffering suffered by the victim, 
etc. 

Monetary  administrative  compensation  for 
fair/reasonable 
compensation (proportionate to the circumstances of the particular case and that is likely to bring relief to the 
victim). 

immaterial  damages:  As  above  and 

ES  Monetary labour compensation for immaterial damages: The duration of employment, the worker's salary 

and the nature of the damage. 

Monetary administrative compensation for immaterial damages: Circumstances of the case, the existence 
or interaction of several grounds of discrimination provided for by law and the seriousness of the injury actually 
caused, taking into account, where appropriate, the dissemination or hearing of the medium through which it 
occurred. 

FR  Monetary civil, labour and administrative compensation for material damages:  Full victim compensation 

based on quantifiable elements that the victim had to face or did not receive. 

HU  Administrative  fines:  The  seriousness  of  the  infringement;  the  impact  on  the  operation  of  the  educational 
establishment; harm to the interests of children, pupils and parents, as well as the number of affected individuals; 
and whether or not the educational institution had concealed/intended to conceal data, facts or information on 
which the decision would be based. 

Fines  imposed  by  the  Equal  Treatment  Directorate:  The  persons  harmed,  the  irreversibility  of  the  harm 

114 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

MS  Specific circumstances considered in imposing pecuniary sanctions 

caused by the infringement, the duration of the infringement, the repetition and frequency of the infringement, 
the  economic  gravity  of  the  infringement  and  the  cooperative  conduct  of  the  infringer  in  facilitating  the 
proceedings. 

Monetary civil, labour and administrative compensation for material damages: The actual amount of the 
damage, the circumstances of the case. 

Monetary civil, labour and administrative compensation for immaterial damages: The circumstances of the 
case, in particular the gravity of the infringement, its repetitive nature, the degree of imputability, the impact of 
the infringement on the victim and his or her environment. 

LT 

Administrative fines: Nature of the committed administrative offence, the form and type of guilt of the offender, 
personality, mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 

Monetary  criminal  compensation  for  material  damages:  The  actual  amount  of  the  damage,  minus  the 
amounts received by the victim from insurance or other institutions to cover the damage. 

Monetary  civil  compensation  for  material  damages:  The  actual  amount  of  the  damage.  However,  if 
compensating  the  full  amount  would  lead  to  unacceptable  or  severe  consequences  for  the  perpetrator,  the 
compensation can be reduced. Nonetheless, the reduced amount must not be lower than the amount covered 
by  the  civil  liability  insurance  of  the  debtor,  the  amount  that  would  have  been  covered  if  he/she  had  such 
insurance.  

Monetary civil compensation for immaterial damages: Fair compensation for the incurred damages, taking 
into account the consequences of the damage, the fault of the person who caused this damage, his/her financial 
situation, the amount of the material damage caused and other circumstances relevant to the case. 

LU 

Disciplinary sanctions: The gravity of the fault, the nature and rank of the public servant’s functions, the public 
servant’s history. 

LV  Monetary  criminal  compensation  for  immaterial  damages:  The  severity  and  consequences  of  the  moral 

harm. 

NL 

Fines:  The  defendant's  ability  to  pay  to  the  extent  necessary  in  order  to  punish  the  defendant  appropriately 
without disproportionately affecting his income and assets. 

PL  Monetary civil and labour compensation for material/immaterial damages: Effective compensation for the 

damages suffered. 

PT 

Fines: Seriousness of the offence, the culpability, the economic situation of the perpetrator and the economic 
benefit that he has derived from the commission of the offence. 

Labour fines: Intent, company’s turnover, the extent of non-compliance with the recommendations contained in 
the warning notice, coercion, forgery, simulation or other fraudulent means used by the agent. 

Monetary civil compensation for material damages: Equity of the situation (fair and just consideration of all 
circumstances). 

Monetary civil compensation for immaterial damages: The degree of violation of the interests in question, 
the economic power of the offender and the conditions of the injured party. 

SI 

SK 

Monetary civil compensation for material damages: Duration of the discrimination, exposure to aggravated 
forms of discrimination and other circumstances of the case. 

Labour law monetary compensation for material damages: Duration of the violation, the average income of 
the employee. 

Monetary civil compensation for immaterial damages: Gravity of the damage caused, the circumstances of 
the case. 

Whilst the specific factors considered are notably different across jurisdictions, some general trends 
can be observed. For fines, the gravity of the violation and the financial/material situation of 

115 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

the perpetrator are typically considered. In the case of financial  compensation for material and 
immaterial  damages,  typically  different  considerations  apply:  for  material  damages,  the  aim  is 
usually actual and full compensation, whereas for immaterial damages, due to their less tangible 
nature, the goal is typically to award fair compensation based on the circumstances. 

The rules described above are primarily established in national legislation. However, some rules 
might also stem from jurisprudence, or soft-law measures, such as guidelines. Examples of such 
rules include a decision by the Minister of Labour, Social Security, and Social Solidarity in Greece, 
outlining relevant factors to consider when imposing labour fines. In the Netherlands, no specific 
guidelines have been developed for the criminal offences covered by the Study. However, for other 
crimes,  such  as  insulting  a  group  of  people,  incitement  to  hatred  or  violence,  the  publication, 
transmission  and  dissemination  of  statements,  occupational  discrimination,  participation  in  or 
support for discriminatory activities, the Public Prosecution Service is required to follow certain 
guidelines when requesting sanctions181. These by analogy could be used in the cases covered by 
the Study. 

Consideration of public interest and prevention of future discrimination  

It is rarely a statutory legal obligation for courts or other adjudicating bodies to consider public 
interests or the prevention of future discrimination while imposing sanctions. Whilst it might not 
be  set  out  in  applicable legislation,  courts  and  other  adjudicating  bodies are  generally  obliged  to 
consider all circumstances of the case, which despite the absence of a specific legal obligation to do 
so, might entail the consideration of public interest or the prevention of future discrimination.  

There are only a few Member States where specific rules could be identified.   

Box 22: Examples of Member States with specific requirements to consider public 
interest of the prevention of future discrimination 

•  Austria: In imposing monetary compensation for immaterial damages, one element considered by 

the courts should be the prevention of future discrimination;  

•  Bulgaria: The prevention of future discrimination – both discouraging the recidivism of the same 
perpetrator  and  notifying  (warning,  educating)  the  general  public  to  abstain  (deter)  from  similar 
offences - is always considered; 

•  Lithuania: The public interest is taken into account when calculating sanctions. For instance, under 
the Criminal Code182 (Article 43), sanctions may include a fine, along with penal measures such as 
contributions to the fund for victims of crimes. According to Article 71 of the Criminal Code, courts 
may order contributions ranging from 5 to 125 minimum standard of living183 (approximately EUR 
275  to  EUR  6  875)  to  the  fund  of  crime  victims,  to  be  paid  within  a  specified  timeframe,  not 
exceeding three years; 

•  Netherlands:  It  is  a  statutory  obligation  for  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office,  set  out  in  applicable 
instructions, to consider public interest and/or prevention of future discrimination when calculating 
sanctions.  

181 See in particular College of Attorneys General, ‘Instruction discrimination (2018A009)’ (Aanwijzing discriminatie), Publication in the 
Government Gazette 2018, 68988 ; College of Attorneys General, ‘Directive on criminal procedure for discrimination (2015R001)’ 
(Richtlijn voor strafvordering discriminatie), Publication in the Government Gazette 2015, 4225. 
182 Law on the Approval and Entry into Force of the Criminal Code, Criminal Code (Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 
patvirtinimo ir įsigaliojimo įstatymas. Baudžiamasis kodeksas), Law No VIII-1968, Official Gazette No. 89-2741 of 25 October 2000. 
183 The fine is calculated on the basis of the minimum standard of living, which is EUR 55 from 1 January 2024. 

116 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

2.4.2. Combination of sanctions 

Section  2.4.2  presents  the  different  configurations  of  the  combination  of  sanctions  in 
discrimination  cases  that  emerge  from  the  analysis  of  the  Member  States’  legal  frameworks. 
Situations where the combination of sanctions is within the same proceedings are distinguished from 
those where the combination occurs in different proceedings. 

Combination of sanctions within the same proceedings 

Sanctions of the same legal area are often possibly combined within the course of the  same 
proceedings (e.g., injunction and compensation; criminal fine and accessory penalties). Relevant 
examples include the cumulative award of compensation for both material and immaterial damages 
(Germany), the cumulative award of compensation with an order to stop a discriminatory conduct 
and/or obtain permanent preventive injunctions for future violations (also Germany), the cumulative 
award of compensation with a declaration of nullity of discriminatory contract terms (Finland), with a 
structural  injunction  (Ireland),  with  an  order  to  the  perpetrator  to  refrain  from  the  discriminatory 
conduct (Slovakia), the cumulation of fines and imprisonment (Malta) or of imprisonment and criminal 
fines or citizenship training (France). 

Of particular interest is the possibility to  combine in the same legal proceedings sanctions of 
different  areas  of  law  (in  particular  civil  and  administrative  or  criminal)  for  example,  awarding 
compensation in the context of criminal or administrative proceedings. This is the case, for instance, 
in Italy, Lithuania and in the Netherlands, where victims can claim compensation in the context of 
criminal proceedings. 

Combination of sanctions in different proceedings 

Sanctions  of  different  legal  areas  normally  follow  different  procedures  and  are  applied  by 
different  bodies  with  specific  competences.  Naturally,  these  bodies  generally  have  little  or  no 
possibility of imposing sanctions outside their remit of competence. For illustration, considering the 
Greek  example,  administrative  sanctions  that  do  not  relate  to  discrimination  at  work  cannot  be 
imposed by the Labour Inspectorate; or a civil servant cannot seek compensation against the State 
before the civil courts, but only before the administrative courts. 

In  several  Member  States,  there  are  no  specific  rules  governing  the  combination  of  the 
sanctions for discrimination possibly applied in the context of the different procedures (e.g., 
AT, BG, CZ, FI, HR, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK). In practice, this means that the procedures 
are opened, run in parallel and may lead to different outcomes. The sanctions from different areas 
of law are, thus, not cumulatively applied by the same bodies, but apply concurrently as a result of 
different  proceedings.  For  example,  in  Czechia,  the  Labour  Inspectorate  can  impose  fines  on 
employers or organisations found guilty of discrimination and victims can file a lawsuit before civil 
courts  seeking  compensation  for  both  pecuniary  (financial)  and  non-pecuniary  (emotional  or 
psychological) damages. Similarly, in Denmark, a company might be fined by a regulatory body for 
failing to adhere to equal employment laws (administrative sanctions) and also be required to pay 
compensation to affected individuals through a civil court ruling. In Cyprus, France and Luxembourg, 
a person convicted of criminal discrimination may also be sued for damages by the victim in a civil 
court. Also in France, a civil servant found guilty of discrimination may be dismissed (administrative 
sanction)  and  sentenced  to  imprisonment  (criminal  sanction).  In  Slovakia,  if  a  certain  conduct  is 
inspected by the Labour Inspectorate that would impose a fine on an employer for discrimination 
constituting a violation of labour law legislation, there is no provision that prevents the victim from 

117 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

claiming a civil sanction under the Anti-discrimination Act184 through civil litigation. The same would 
apply  to  the  area  of  goods  and  services  and  to  fines  imposed  by  the  trade  inspectorates  for 
discrimination  in  the  area  of  consumers  constituting  a  form  of  violation  of  consumer  protection 
legislation  and  a  consequent  or  parallel  civil  litigation  initiated  by  the  victim  under  the  Anti-
discrimination Act. Finally, where a school inspectorate finds discriminatory practices in education, 
such as segregation, and imposes measures to remedy the situation, victims are not precluded from 
seeking remedies under the Anti-discrimination Act in civil litigation. 

Notwithstanding the above, important procedural guarantees limit the concurrent application of 
sanctions provided for in different legal areas. Importantly, the application of the principle of ne 
bis  in  idem,  does  not  allow  for  criminal  and  quasi-criminal  (in  the  case  of  HU)  or  administrative 
sanctions to be combined (e.g., BG, NL). This may entail relevant procedural consequences. For 
example,  in  Bulgaria,  criminal  sanctions  and  administrative-criminal  sanctions  (fines)  cannot  be 
combined as they belong to alternative types of liability but are both considered by the same criminal 
court.  In  Hungary,  if  a  party  who  has  suffered  a  violation  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  or  a 
person entitled to assert a claim in the public interest has initiated proceedings before a court, the 
Ombudsman or other administrative body should suspend the proceedings before them until the final 
decision  on  the  matter  as  well  as  notify  the  court  of  the  order  issued.  In  the  Netherlands, 
administrative and criminal sanctions cannot be combined, with the consequence that administrative 
sanctions  become void when  the  responsible  Appeal  Court  orders the  criminal  prosecution  of  an 
offence. 

Procedural rules on admissibility also ensure that the same case is not heard by multiple bodies. 
For example, in Cyprus, a complaint before the equality body cannot run parallel to a court case, 
and the equality body will suspend the procedure if an investigation has been launched and then 
judicial  procedures  are  initiated.  In  Ireland,  victims  of  discriminatory  unfair  dismissal  can  seek 
redress under two pieces of legislation with different potential remedies, but they cannot proceed 
with both. The competence of the adjudicating bodies, as mentioned above, also does not allow for 
the application of sanctions from areas of law outside of their remit, which may have a significant 
procedural effect. For example, in France, civil courts suspend the proceedings pending the verdict 
of criminal courts on discrimination claims.  

2.4.3. Multiple/intersectional discrimination 

Section 2.4.3 analyses the approaches used by Member States in dealing with sanctions for multiple 
and/or intersectional discrimination. 

Specific sanctions in cases of multiple/intersectional discrimination are not provided for in 
any  of  the  Member  States.  However,  some  Member  States  consider  multiple/intersectional 
discrimination as an aggravating factor or a specific element to consider in the application of 
sanctions. For example, in Austria, multiple discrimination is considered when calculating the amount 
of  compensation  for  the  personal  detriment  suffered.  In  Belgium,  both multiple  and  intersectional 
discrimination  are  considered  when  determining  compensation.  Specifically,  in  cases  of  multiple 
discrimination, the lump-sum payments provided for by the law can be cumulated for each identified 
criterion, subject to the applicable minimum limits. In Spain, the existence or interaction of various 
grounds  of  discrimination  provided  for  by  law  should  be  considered  in  the  application  of 
administrative  sanctions.  In  Croatia,  multiple  discrimination  is  recognised  as  a  severe  form  of 
discrimination to be taken into account by the court when determining the amount of compensation 
for  non-property  damage  and  when  determining  the  penalty  for  misdemeanours.  In  Latvia, 
multiple/intersectional  discrimination  is  taken  into  consideration  in  the  application  of  criminal 

184 Act No 365/2004 Coll. of 20 May 2004 on equal treatment in certain areas and on protection from discrimination and amending and 
supplementing certain acts (the Antidiscrimination Act) (Zákon č. 365/2004 Z. z. o rovnakom zaobchádzaní v niektorých oblastiach a o 
ochrane pred diskrimináciou a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (antidiskriminačný zákon)), Legal Gazette no. 153/2004, of 24 
June 2004. 

118 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

sanctions. In Slovenia, multiple discrimination is relevant in the application of civil and administrative 
sanctions. In Romania, multiple discrimination is relevant in the context of administrative liability. 

This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  multiple  and/or  intersectional  discrimination  is  not 
prohibited  and/or  sanctioned  as  a  type  of  discrimination,  either  expressly  or  as  a  result  of  the 
applicable framework. This is the case, for instance, in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Denmark, the 
Netherlands and Portugal for both multiple and intersectional discrimination, and in Czechia, Greece 
and Finland for multiple discrimination. 

2.4.4. Methods for the calculation of pecuniary sanctions 

This sub-section details the methods prescribed in national laws for calculating pecuniary sanctions.  

Specific  methods  for  calculating sanctions  appear to  be  uncommon  in the  EU.  Based  on  publicly 
available  sources  and  the  information  obtained  from  stakeholders,  the  research  identified  such 
methods in only three Member States. It is possible that similar calculation methods exist in other 
Member States, but these may be detailed in sources that are not publicly accessible or that have 
not been consulted. 

Box 23: Method for calculating sanctions 

In the Netherlands, a so-called Subdistrict Court Judge’s formula is applied in cases where an employment 
agreement is terminated prematurely. This formula consists of three elements, which are to be multiplied. 
The first element represents the number of years of employment whereas the second, the employee’s latest 
salary.  The  third  element  represents  a  correction  factor  which  can  range  between  0.1  and  2,  with  1 
representing neutrality, i.e., neither party having any culpability for the termination of the labour agreement. 
If there is culpability on the side of the employee, it will range between 0.1-0.9 and if there is culpability on 
the side of the employer it will range between 1.1-2. The formula is not applied when temporary contracts 
expire  or  if  there  are  legal  grounds  for  immediate  termination  resulting  from  serious  unlawful  acts  by  an 
employee (criminal acts, serious breach of contract). 

In Belgium, when imposing criminal fines, the amount may be multiplied by the number of victims. However, 
the total of these multiplied fines cannot exceed 100 times the statutory maximum. Additionally, the timing 
of the event corresponds to a coefficient that should also be applied to the sanction amount. This coefficient 
varies depending on when the discriminatory act occurred. For instance, the coefficient is six for offences 
committed  between  01/01/2012  and  31/12/2016,  and  eight  for  offences  committed  from  01/01/2017 
onwards. 

In France, a specific method, called the Clerc-method exists. This is a mechanism used for determining 
compensation  in  labour  law  cases,  by  comparing  the  financial  and  professional  trajectories  of  a 
discriminated employee with a panel of non-discriminated employees to quantify the financial damage. The 
calculation considers additional compensation for future pension entitlements and non-pecuniary damages.  

In Greece, a decision of the Minister of Labour, Social Security and Social Solidarity185 categorises 
the infringements and determines some rules regarding the calculation of the amount of the fine and 
provides  for  cases  in  which  the  amount  of  the  fine  may  be  adjusted.  Since  these  rules  do  not 
constitute a specific calculation method, they are not detailed here. 

Croatia is one of the Member States where legislation does not specify the amounts or ranges of 
monetary compensation for material or immaterial damages. However, the Supreme Court of Croatia 
has developed guidelines186 to assist courts in determining appropriate compensation amounts for 
immaterial damages. These guidelines do not constitute specific calculation methods, but offer clear 

185 Minister of Labour, Social Security and Social Solidarity, Decisions No 60201/D7.1422, Classification of infringements and 
determination of the amount of fines imposed by the Labour Relations Inspectors of the Labour Inspectorate of the Labour Inspectorate 
(SEPE) (Κατηγοριοποίηση παραβάσεων και καθορισμός ύψους προστίμων που επιβάλλονται από τους Επιθεωρητές Εργασιακών 
Σχέσεων του Σώματος Επιθεώρησης Εργασίας (ΣΕΠΕ)) No. Bulletin 4997, second issue, 31 December 2019.  
186 Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, decision of the second session of the civil department, No. Su-IV47/2020-5. 

119 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

directions  on  the  compensation  amounts  that  can  be  awarded  to  victims.  The  guidelines  outline 
various  compensation  levels,  with  the  maximum  amount  set  at  EUR  29  000  for  the  most  severe 
cases, such as those resulting in death. Originally established in 2002, these guidelines were revised 
in June 2020, resulting in a 50 % increase in the compensation amounts. It is important to note that 
these guidelines are not specific to damages resulting from discrimination, but apply to all types of 
immaterial damages.   

It  is  also recalled  that  in  three  Member  States  (ES,  LV  and  PT)  fines  are  not  defined  as  specific 
sums,  but  are  quantified  differently,  which  entails  a  certain  level  of  calculation,  typically  by 
adjusting the amount of the sanction to a certain reference value (e.g., salary, social support index, 
etc.). In Spain, the precise sanction amount is determined by multiplying the daily amount of the fine 
with  the  duration  of  the  sanction.  The  rules  applicable  to  these  three  Member  States  are  further 
detailed under Section 2.3.4 – Overview of sanctions per amounts and ranges. A similar observation 
could  be  made  regarding  the  calculation  of  compensation  in  some  Member  States  as  further 
described under Section 2.3.4.  

Moreover, as described under Section 2.4.1 in Sweden, case-law provides some guidance regarding 
the calculation of some types of pecuniary sanctions. 

2.5. Procedural aspects 

Section  2.5  sets  out  some  of  the  procedural  rules  applicable  to  sanctions  for  discrimination.  It 
provides an overview of the legal standing rules to request sanctions available in Member States 
in cases of discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic origin and religion (Section 2.5.1), followed 
by an overview of the collective redress mechanisms available in such cases (Section 2.5.2) and 
a comparative overview of existing enforcement mechanisms (Section 2.5.3). 

2.5.1. Legal standing 

This  sub-section  provides  a  comparative  overview  of  national  rules  that  define  who  is  legally 
allowed to request the imposition of sanctions for racial, ethnic and religious discrimination (e.g., 
the  victim  or  a  third  party  representing  the  victim)  and  details  the  rules  concerning  the  legal 
representation of victims. This Study covers legal standing rules, given the pivotal role these rules 
might play in triggering the application of potential sanctions. It is noted though that legal standing 
rules are often embedded in legislation, which is not specific to discrimination. 

Victims of discrimination typically have legal standing to initiate proceedings and request the 
imposition of sanctions in both administrative and civil contexts. In criminal proceedings, victims 
are not necessarily allowed to act directly in all Member States (e.g., BE, BG, CY, FR, IT, LT or MT). 
In this case, the prosecution service (or the equality body in the case of MT) would take over the 
proceedings.  

The consent of the victim of discrimination is not required in most Member States. On the contrary, 
the consent of the victim is mentioned as a necessary element for third party representation in five 
Member  States  (BE  for  all  types  of  proceedings,  SE  for  civil  proceedings,  FI  for  civil  and 
administrative  proceedings,  LV  for  criminal  proceedings,  RO  for  civil  and  administrative 
proceedings). In Slovenia, the equality body can initiate a discrimination case on its own initiative 
but  must  have  the  consent  of  the  person  discriminated  against,  unless  that  person  cannot  be 
identified, a (larger) group of persons is discriminated against, or the case is of general importance 
for the protection against discrimination. 

In  all  Member  States,  legal  standing  extends  to  various  representatives  acting  on  behalf  of 
victims.  Table  1Table  17  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  various  possible  representatives 
identified. The information in the table may not be exhaustive, as some information could only be 

120 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

found if it was specifically highlighted by the country experts. However, some practices may not be 
regulated  by  law,  or  may  have  been  highlighted  as  relevant  by  some  country  experts  but  not  by 
others, although they may still exist.  

Table 17: Overview of third-party representation possibilities 

Member 
State 

NGOs 

Trade 
unions 

Equality body  Other 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

x187 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x191 

x192 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x190 

x 

x193 

x188 

x 

x 

x189 

x 

x 

•  Prosecutor (for criminal proceedings) 

•  Prosecutor 

•  Person  who 

is 

in  an  employment 

relationship with the plaintiff 

•  Direct blood relative or spouse 

•  Attorney  General 
proceedings) 

(for 

criminal 

•  Family members on the victims’ behalf 

•  Labour Inspectorate may have recourse 
to  the  courts  for  the  imposition  of 
criminal penalties 

•  Prosecutor (for criminal proceedings) 

•  Prosecutor (for civil proceedings) 

•  Prosecutor (for criminal proceedings) 

187 For civil proceedings. 
188 For labour proceedings. 
189 For administrative proceedings. 
190 Interest representation organisations. 
191 Other organisations may assist in both the employment and non-employment context with at the Workplace Relations Commission’s 
discretion. 
192 For civil proceedings. 
193 For civil proceedings. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

LT 

LU 

LV 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x194 

x195 

MT 

x 

NL 

x196 

x197 

x 

x 

x 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

•  Prosecutor (for criminal proceedings) 

•  Competent 

state 

institutions 

(administrational offences) 

•  Prosecutor (for criminal proceedings) 

•  Prosecution office 

•  Social workers 

•  Relatives 

•  Any  person  (natural  or  legal)  who  can 
demonstrate  a  legal  interest  in  a  civil 
action for redress 

•  Public law organisations, e.g., the state 

or local councils 

•  Prosecutor (for criminal proceedings) 

•  Labour inspector 

•  Another employee of the company 

•  Labour inspector 

Based on the information obtained it seems that all Member States except Croatia and Germany 
allow certain NGOs to represent victims, although the conditions for an organisation to play this role 
vary  from  one  country  to  another.  For  example,  associations,  institutions  or  other  organisations 
whose  activities  include  the  protection  of  the  right  to  equal  treatment  may  not  be  authorised  to 
represent  victims  of  discrimination  in  a  dispute, but they may bring a joint  action  (e.g.,  in  HR). In 
Germany, anti-discrimination organisations are entitled, in accordance with their statutes, to provide 
legal counsel for a disadvantaged person in court proceedings and may be entrusted with the legal 
affairs  of  disadvantaged  persons,  although they cannot  represent  them.  In Belgium,  only  specific 
organisations can act on behalf of victims of discrimination. These include public-interest bodies and 
legal entities that have a clear mandate to defend human rights or combat discrimination. In Poland, 
it  is  up  to  the  sanctioning  body  to  decide  whether  to  admit  the  NGO,  but  this  decision  can  be 
appealed.  

194 For civil and administrative cases, cannot represent victims at the cassation instance. 
195 For civil and administrative cases, cannot represent victims at the cassation instance. 
196 In civil cases only. 
197 In civil cases only. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Trade unions were identified as being able to legally represent the victims in discrimination cases 
in 20 out of the 27 Member States. Similarly to NGOs, the conditions for trade unions to be able to 
have legal standing vary across Member States. In Luxembourg, accredited trade unions are granted 
a  legal  standing  to  exercise  the  victims’  rights  in  court.  The  victim  would  need  to  be  bound  by  a 
collective bargaining agreement or a professional agreement. In Sweden, while it is the victim (or an 
NGO)  who  has  locus  standi  in  the  district  court,  it  is  the  trade  union  that  has  locus  standi  in the 
Labour Court as the first (and last) instance. In Portugal, trade unions representing the workers who 
are  the  subject  of  an  administrative  offence  can  act  as  assistants  in  these  administrative 
proceedings. 

Equality bodies play a crucial role in supporting victims, albeit to varying degrees:  

• 

In most of the Member States where the equality body has a role, it tends to play a rather 
important role in the litigation of discrimination cases. In Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, 
Malta,  Slovakia,  Slovenia  and  Sweden,  the  equality  body  can  represent  victims  in 
discrimination cases. Intervening in support of a party is also possible in 10 Member States 
(BE, DK, HR, IE, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK and SI), while amicus curiae is available in 12 Member 
States (BE, CY, CZ, FI, FR, HU, IE, LT, NL, PL, RO and SK), both helping to facilitate victims' 
legal access to possible sanctions for discrimination. 

•  Nine Equality bodies do not seem to have legal standing before the courts (AT, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, IT, LU, MT and PT), thus limiting the options available to victims seeking sanctions 
for discrimination. 

In addition, it is worth noting that the powers of some equality bodies should evolve following the 
adoption of in May 2024 of Directive 2024/1499198 on standards for equality bodies, Article 10 of 
which provides that Member States shall ensure that equality bodies have the right to act in court 
proceedings in civil and administrative law matters relating to the implementation of the principle of 
equal  treatment  laid  down  in  Directives  including  the  RED  and  the  EED.  This  right  includes 
submitting observations to the court in accordance with national law and practice and, depending on 
the  choice  of  Member  States,  at  least  one  of  the  three  following  powers:  (i)  initiating  court 
proceedings on behalf of one or several victims, (ii) participating in support of one or several victims, 
or (iii) initiating proceedings in the equality body's own name to defend the public interest.  

Other actors have been identified as having the legal capacity to exercise victims' rights before the 
courts. The overview presented highlights key national rules, although it may not cover all possible 
variations, as it focuses on mechanisms that were considered by the country experts to be the most 
relevant examples in the context of sanctions for discrimination. 

In some Member States (e.g., BE, BG, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV and NL), the public prosecutor 
can initiate proceedings, and this may mean that only the public prosecutor can initiate proceedings, 
for example in French and Italian criminal law. In Bulgaria, the Public Prosecutor’s Office may act on 
its  own  initiative  if  they  receive  information  about  a  violation  in  respect  of  which  they  are  legally 
competent to act. In the Netherlands, victims may intervene in the prosecutor's criminal proceedings 
as  injured  parties  in  order  to  seek  compensation  for  the  harm  caused  by  the  acts  for  which  the 
suspect is being prosecuted, and if the public prosecutor decides not to prosecute, a victim and/or 
public  interest  group  can  ask  a  judge  to  rule  on  this  decision  and  ask  the  court  to  decide  that  a 
prosecution should take place. 

In some countries, such as Greece, Poland or Portugal, the labour inspector may intervene. Greek 
law  provides  that  the  Labour  Inspectorate  may  have  recourse  to  the  courts  for  the  imposition  of 

198 Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499 of 7 May 2024 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment between persons 
irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin, equal treatment in matters 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 amending Directives 2000/43/EC and 2004/113/EC, (OJ L, 2024/1499, 29.5.2024, 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1499/oj), hereinafter referred to as Directive 2024/1499 or the Equality Bodies Directive. 

123 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

criminal sanctions. In Portugal, the administrative procedure is initiated by the labour inspector who 
verifies  any  violation of the  rules subject to  the Authority for Working  Conditions  supervision  and 
punishable by a fine. 

In some countries such as Denmark, family members also play a crucial role, especially in cases 
where the victim may be incapacitated or is a minor. They can act on behalf of the victim to ensure 
that his or her rights are upheld, even if the victim is unable to represent himself or herself. Relatives 
of a victim are also able to represent the victim in Latvia. In Hungary, the victim's legal representative 
(if the victim is a minor or an adult with limited capacity) or a relative/guardian (if the victim is absent 
and whereabouts unknown) can also initiate proceedings. 

Lastly,  rules  on  representation  by  a  lawyer  in  discrimination  proceedings  were  identified.  For 
example, in Austria, lawyer representation is required in criminal cases exceeding EUR 5 000 and 
in higher courts. In Hungary, representation by a lawyer is mandatory only for civil sanctions, while 
in Italy and the Netherlands, it is required in civil and criminal courts. The victim can decide whether 
to be represented by a lawyer in Denmark and Romania and in Maltese labour courts. 

2.5.2. Collective cases 

This section provides a comparative overview of the availability of collective redress mechanisms in 
the  EU  Member  States,  referring  to  different  forms  of  such  mechanisms  and  detailing  sanctions 
specific to these collective cases. The table below provides an overview of the different mechanisms 
identified in relation to collective cases.

124 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

AT  BE199 

BG 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR200 

HU201 

IE 

IT 

LT202 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO203 

SE204 

SI 

SK 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

Table 18: Overview of collective redress 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

☑ 

Class 
action 

Actio 
popularis 

For the purposes of this section and the remainder of this report,  collective redress refers to a legal mechanism that allows two or more persons, 
whether natural or legal, or an organisation with the capacity to bring representative actions, including actions in the public interest, to bring a collective 
claim that may lead to the application of a collective sanction.The most important aspect in relation to collective cases identified during the country 
research is that no specific collective sanctions that can be applied in collective redress cases for the benefit of a group of victims and/or society 
as a whole were identified in 25 Member States (all, but SK and HR). In some countries, such as Denmark or Luxembourg, the country research showed 
that  sanctions  that  can be  provided  in  collective  cases  are  limited  to  offering individual  remedies,  i.e. the  focus remains  on  rectifying  the  individual 
discriminatory practice or compensating the individual, but does not provide for a different type of sanction than those available in individual cases. In 
some countries, such as Italy, although there are no specific sanctions for cases of collective discrimination, the very wide powers and discretion granted 
to judges and courts in selecting the most appropriate remedies for discrimination allow for tailored solutions in actio popularis. As mentioned above, 
Slovakia and Croatia seem to be the only Member States which envisage specific sanctions for collective redress cases. In Slovakia, these sanctions 
include the declaration of violation of the principle of equal treatment, and the order to refrain from discriminatory conduct, or the order to rectify the 
situation. In Croatia, these sanctions include a determination that the defendant's actions violated the right to equal treatment in relation to members of 
the group, a prohibition on taking actions that violate or may violate the right to equal treatment, or the publication in the media, at the defendant's 
expense, of the verdict finding a violation of the right to equal treatment.

199 Belgium is sometimes considered not to have an actio popularis system per se, as it involves a representative claimant – such as certain organisations or public interest bodies – brining a case to court on 
behalf of a collective interest, rather than a common interest that would be independent of the existence of specific victims. However, considering that there are provisions allowing certain organisations or 
public interest bodies to bring an action in the public interest or on their own behalf without a specific victim to support or represent, it is considered to exist in the country, albeit to a limited extent. 
200 Class action is not possible in the field of criminal law. 
201 Actio popularis is available only in civil proceedings for the violation of inherent rights, labour law proceedings and civil service proceedings. 
202 Associations or trade unions may act on behalf of multiple victims if the claims align with their statutory objectives and at least ten parties to the class action are members of these associations or trade 
unions. 
203 Class actions are not available to associations, organisations and trade unions, but the aggregate claims of more than one victim arising from the same event could be submitted as a single file both to 
the Romanian equality body and to the courts. 
204 Class action is not possible in the field of labour law. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Class actions - situations where the claimants act on behalf of an undefined group of claimants or 
on  behalf  of  several  identified  claimants  with  several  claims  in  discrimination  cases  (also  called 
collective actions) - were identified in 13 Member States (BG, DE, EE, DK, FI, FR, LT, MT, NL, PT, 
SE,  SI  and  SK).  Although  some  of these Member  States  provide  the possibility  for class  actions, 
their  application  is  sometimes  restricted,  as  in  Sweden  for  instance,  where  the  legislation 
provides for the possibility of class actions, but not in the field of labour law. In Lithuania, associations 
or trade unions may act on behalf of more than one victim for claims that are directly related to their 
objectives and scope of activities, provided that at least 10 parties to the class action are members 
of the association or trade union. Under for example Romanian law, class actions are not available 
to associations, organisations and trade unions. However, although not defined as a class action, 
the aggregate claims of more than one victim (who may request or object to such aggregation) arising 
from the same event could be submitted as a single file both to the Romanian equality body and to 
the  courts.  In  this  context,  where  NGOs  represent  more  than  one  victim,  the  statements  of  each 
individual victim must be included. 

Actio popularis, which refers to situations where an organisation acts in the public interest on its 
own behalf without a specific victim to assist or represent, is a mechanism available in 14 Member 
States (BE, BG, DE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO and SK) in relation to sanctions for 
discrimination. Belgium is sometimes considered not to have an actio popularis system per se, as it 
involves a representative claimant – such as certain organisations or public interest bodies – going 
to court on behalf of a collective interest, rather than a common interest that would be independent 
of the existence of specific victims. However, considering that there are provisions allowing certain 
organisations or public interest bodies to bring an action in the public interest or on their own behalf 
without a specific victim to support or represent, it is considered to exist in the country, albeit to a 
limited extent. 

This  type  of  collective redress may be subject to  certain conditions  for  its  application,  such  as in 
Hungary, where public authorities, civil and representative organisations and the public prosecutor 
are allowed to bring actio popularis actions, but only in civil proceedings for the violation of inherent 
rights, labour law proceedings and civil service proceedings. 

2.5.3. Enforcement 

This sub-section offers a comparative overview of the mechanisms existing in the Member States 
for the enforcement of sanctions and their monitoring. For the purposes of this section and the 
remainder of this report, the terms enforcement and monitoring are understood as follows: 

•  Enforcement refers to the implementation and execution of sanctions or remedies imposed 
by  judicial  or  other  adjudicating  bodies  following  a  decision  in  discrimination  cases.  This 
process ensures that sanctions are actually applied and that perpetrators comply with them. 
Enforcement activities may include legal action, the imposition of fines or other measures to 
compel compliance. 

•  Monitoring  sanctions  involves  observing  and  evaluating  how  sanctions  are  applied,  what 
impact they have and whether they achieve their intended results. It may include activities 
such  as follow-up  interviews  and  periodic  reviews to  ensure  compliance and measure the 
impact of sanctions. 

Both  enforcement  and  monitoring  aim  at  ensuring  compliance  with  sanctions  and  are 
complementary.  Enforcement  and  monitoring  can  be  carried  out  by  courts  or  other  adjudicating 
bodies in relation to the sanctions they have imposed. Courts typically have general procedural rules 
that would define their means of enforcing or monitoring the implementation of sanctions (e.g., fines 
or imprisonment). Other adjudicating bodies, such as equality bodies or administrative authorities, 
based  on  the  legislation  establishing  them,  may  have  the  ability  to  act  if  their  sanctions  are  not 
respected (e.g., impose administrative sanctions such as fines, warnings or public apologies). 

126 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

The table below (Table 19) shows the courts and other adjudicating bodies that have mechanisms 
or measures in place to monitor or enforce their decisions. The table contains information on Member 
States whose legislation allows courts and adjudicating bodies to retain jurisdiction after sanctions 
have  been  imposed.  Such  retained  jurisdiction  relates  to  the  continuing  power  of  a  court  or 
adjudicating  body  to  supervise  and  ensure  the  enforcement  of  its  own  orders,  after  the  original 
decision or sanction has been imposed. This means that the court or adjudicating body continues to 
monitor compliance and may take further action if sanctions are not complied with. For example, a 
court  may  review  periodically  whether  its  orders  to  stop  discriminatory  practices  are  being 
implemented and, if not, issue further orders, fines or other enforcement measures. 

This section also considers the legal possibility of imposing conditional or recurring fines in case of 
non-respect of sanctions. A conditional fine is a penalty imposed by a court or adjudicating body 
that becomes payable only if certain conditions are not met by the offender. It is used as a deterrent 
to  ensure  compliance  with  a  specific  order  or  requirement.  For  example,  a  court  may  impose  a 
conditional fine on an employer to stop discriminatory practices within a certain period of time, and 
if the employer fails to comply, the fine becomes payable. A recurring fine (or penalty payment) is 
a fine that is imposed repeatedly at regular intervals until the offender complies with the court's or 
adjudicating body's order. This type of fine is designed to pressure the offender into compliance by 
increasing the financial burden for each period of non-compliance. For example, a business could 
be fined every day until it removes discriminatory barriers. 

Therefore,  this  sub-section  will  present  examples  of  enforcement  and  monitoring  mechanisms  in 
place by courts and by other adjudicating bodies, including conditional or recurring fines, as well as 
other mechanisms that were identified during the country research. The table below captures the 
existing mechanisms identified to enforce and monitor sanctions. 

127 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Member State  Enforcement 

by courts 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Enforcement 
by other 
adjudicating 
bodies 

x205 

x 

x 

Table 19: Overview of enforcement mechanisms 

Conditional 
fines or 
recurring fines 

Retained 
jurisdiction for 
monitoring 

Possible measures for non-respect of sanction 

x 

•  Enforcement order206, precautionary seizure207, seizure and execution208, 

summon to pay or seizing of assets209  

• 

Failure to comply with a court sanction is a criminal offence 

•  Recurring fine 

x210 

•  Coercive collection of pecuniary sanctions 

•  Appointment of a private bailiff by the equality body to collect pecuniary 

sanctions 

• 

Failure to comply with a court sanction is a criminal offence 

•  Writ of movable property211 

•  Memo to immovable property212 

205 As a tool to support enforcement of administrative authorities, execution titles are issued. They refer to official documents that confirm the enforceability of a decision, allowing for the initiation of 
enforcement proceedings. These documents serve as proof that the obligation is legally binding and that the enforcement authorities are authorised to take action to compel compliance. 
206 In the case of damages, the plaintiff can request that the decision be enforced by the judge of seizures by means of an enforcement order; this is known as 'forced execution'. 
207 A precautionary seizure is used to place assets under the protection of the courts, which means that the offender can no longer use or dispose of them. 
208 The precautionary seizure can then be converted into a seizure and execution, in which case the seized assets are sold and the sum obtained is awarded to the creditor. 
209 A bailiff can issue a summons to pay to the offender. If the judge's decision is not complied with, the bailiff will seize the assets. 
210 By the equality body. 
211 A legal order that allows the seizure and sale of a debtor's movable assets (e.g., vehicles or furniture) to satisfy a judgment. They are usually delayed and very difficult to achieve the final result. 
212 A legal notice placed on the debtor's immovable property (e.g., buildings), which restricts the owner from selling or transferring the property until the debt is paid. They are usually delayed and very difficult 
to achieve the final result. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EL 

x219 

x213 

•  Attachment of goods and garnishment of claims or other property rights214 

•  Seizure and disposal of real estate215 

•  Coercive penalty payment216 

•  Coercive fine217 

x218 

•  Periodic reviews or follow-up hearings by the courts 

• 

Follow-up  reports  or  submissions  by  the  offender  showing  evidence  of 
compliance of sanctions of the equality body 

•  A new fine may be imposed if the obligation is still not performed after the 

imposition of the fine 

•  Bailiff may initiate enforcement proceedings 

•  Number  of  fines  taken  into  account  in  the  imposition  of  new  fines  and 

possible increase of the fine 

•  Ombudsman may check whether the principle of equal treatment is applied 
following an administrative appeal or judicial claim, and submit questions, 
observations, recommendations to the offending body 

ES 

x 

x 

• 

Levy on the assets 

•  Subsidiary enforcement220 

213 By the Labour Inspectorate. 
214 The execution against movable property is concretised via the mechanism of attachment of goods and to the garnishment of claims or other property rights. 
215 Enforcement of pecuniary claims against the debtor's immovable property is concretised by the mechanism of seizure and sale of immovable property. 
216 One form of compulsory enforcement is to order the debtor to perform an act that only him or herself can perform by imposing a coercive penalty payment (Zwangsgeld) 
217 Order the debtor to pay a coercive fine (Ordnungsgeld) if they fail to comply with the obligation to refrain from an act or to tolerate the performance of an act. 
218 Both by the courts and by the equality body (incl. follow-up reports, or submission by the offender of evidence of compliance). 
219 In the case of criminal and administrative sanctions, the services responsible for collecting fines and administrative penalties are the Police, the Labour Inspectorate, and the Financial Services. 
220 If an obligation is not fulfilled by the responsible party, the Public Administration can carry out the required act on behalf of the obligated party, with the costs being charged to them. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

FI 

FR 

HU 

x 

x 

x 

•  Recurring fine: Coercive fine221  

•  Compulsion on persons222 

• 

Failure  to  restore  the  situation  of  equality  may  be  punished  by 
imprisonment or a fine 

x 

x 

•  Withholding part of the offender's wages 

•  Written advice223 

• 

Improvement notice224 

•  Conditional fine 

•  Additional charges/penalties 

•  Seizures 

•  Regular checks by the Prison Integration and Probation Service 

•  Supervision by the sentence enforcement judge 

•  Recurring fine  

x225 

•  State coercion may restrict the property rights226 

•  Conversion of a fine into a prison sentence 

•  Restriction of property rights 

• 

Impairment of personal rights227 

221 A coercive fine may be imposed by public administrations to compel compliance with specific obligations. These fines are repeated over time until the obligated party fulfils the required act, particularly in 
situations where direct enforcement on the person is not feasible or advisable. 
222 Direct enforcement of an obligation on an individual, particularly in cases where the obligation is personal and non-transferable, as authorised by law. 
223 Soft measure issued by an occupational safety and health inspector to guide or recommend changes to the perpetrator's behaviour, particularly in cases where the discriminatory behaviour has already 
stopped or the perpetrator has admitted the discrimination and complied with the advice. 
224 In cases where the discrimination appears to be persistent or otherwise more serious, an improvement notice will be issued, sometimes with a conditional fine. An improvement notice is a formal order 
issued by an occupational safety and health inspector when an employer fails to comply with legal obligations related to workplace safety, health, or non-discrimination. The notice requires the employer to 
eliminate or remedy the non-complying conditions within a specified time frame. 
225 Only in education law. 
226 State coercion may primarily restrict the debtor's property rights, but may exceptionally also affect the debtor's personal rights. 
227 Following state coercion. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

x228 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x229 

x 

x 

•  Deduction  from  bank  accounts  with  payment  service  providers  or 

wage/salary 

•  Seizure of property 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Fines 

Fines (eventually recurring, or daily fines) 

Failure to comply with a court order is an offence 

Failure to comply with a court sanction is a criminal offence 

Fines 

•  Recurring fine 

x230 

X 

•  Bailiff can auction the sanctioned person's property 

•  Recurring fine: Fine for each day of delay (up to 6 months) 

•  Prohibition to perform certain acts 

• 

Temporary suspension of the validity of the contested individual act 

•  Other measures applied by the court or judge231 

X232 

• 

Forced execution of judgments 

•  Recovery of civil damages and procedural costs 

•  Supervisor of a sanctioned civil servant may be held personally liable for 

any failure to comply with the obligation to enforce sanctions 

x233 

•  Seizure of assets 

228 When requested by the claimant. 
229 By the equality body. 
230 In employment matters. 
231 The law leaves the possibility to the judge to decide on other measures that would help securing the enforcement. 
232 In criminal matters. 
233 Follow up interviews, reports from social services, engagement with relevant authorities to assess whether the sanctioned party is complying with the sanctions, and possible submission of periodic 
reports or updates. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x237 

•  Wage garnishment 

•  Any other measures to enforce financial obligations234 

•  Possible conversion of a criminal fine into imprisonment for default 

•  Enforcement against movable and immovable property of the debtor 

x 

x235 

•  Assistance of bailiff 

•  Conditional penalty payment 

•  Recurring fine 

•  Possible conversion of a criminal fine into imprisonment 

x236 

• 

Fines 

•  Assistance of bailiff 

•  Possible conversion of a criminal fine into arrest 

•  Deadline of 10 days before automatic launch of enforcement procedure 

•  Enforcement through a bailiff 

• 

Fines 

•  Writ of execution238 

•  Non-compliance may be treated as criminal offences 

234 The law leaves the possibility to the judge to decide on other measures that would help securing the enforcement. 
235 A judge can (but does not have to) order the probation service to monitor compliance with the conditions imposed and to guide the offender to that end. 
236 The State Labour Inspection monitors the implementation of decisions issued by the Inspection (including financial penalties). 
237 Not necessarily enforced, see section 3.8 on enforcement and monitoring practices. 
238 Formal order directing the enforcement of a court decision and ensuring that the judgment creditor can collect the amount awarded by the court from the judgment debtor, usually by authorising a bailiff or 
other enforcement officer to take certain actions, such as seizing the debtor's assets or property. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

SI 

SK 

x 

x 

x239 

•  Warning (labour inspectorate) 

• 

Fine (labour inspectorate) 

•  Possible conversion of a labour fine into imprisonment  

x 

x240 

•  Enforcement against the defendant’s assets 

239 Partial monitoring of equality body’s recommendations. 
240 For other adjudicating bodies. Monitoring of compliance is the responsibility of the authority concerned (i.e. the public administration body that imposed the sanction). 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Enforcement of court decisions 

As  explained  above,  when  it  comes  to  enforcing  their  decisions,  courts  typically  have  general 
procedural rules that define their means of enforcing the implementation of sanctions. As shown in 
Table 19 above, some enforcement mechanisms by courts or in collaboration with courts were 
identified in all Member States. These may take different forms depending on countries. 

Enforcement  authorities  (designated  bodies  or  agencies  responsible  for  ensuring  that  court 
decisions  including  sanctions,  are  implemented  and  complied  with),  often  in  collaboration  with 
courts and the police, may manage the enforcement of court decisions. This was highlighted in nine 
countries  (BG,  EL,  FI,  HU,  IT,  LV,  NL,  SE  and  SK).  For  example,  in  Finland,  the  National 
Enforcement Authority, which works with the courts and the police, enforces all cases where court 
decisions need to be implemented. In Hungary, in the context of quasi-criminal law, if the offender 
does not pay the fine within 30 days, the enforcement authority immediately sends the case file to 
the competent district court if it is necessary to convert the unpaid fine into a prison sentence. In 
Italy, sanctions imposed as a result of criminal proceedings are directly enforced by the competent 
law enforcement authorities (the Public Prosecutor's Office in cooperation with the police or the local 
branches of the State Revenue Agency). In Sweden, in cases of discrimination in employment, the 
sanction may be the nullity of the discriminatory decision or damages. If the sanction is damages, it 
can be enforced by the Swedish Enforcement Authority. In Slovakia, non-pecuniary sanctions would 
be  enforced  either  by  the  enforcement  authority  taking  enforcement  measures  or  by  the  court 
requesting enforcement measures.  

The enforcement of fines and other sanctions for discrimination often involves public prosecutors, 
administrative or judicial authorities. This was reported on in countries such as Belgium, France, 
Greece,  Italy  and  Portugal.  For  example,  in  Belgium,  as  in  several  other  Member  States,  the 
enforcement  of  most  other  sanctions,  in  particular  custodial  sanctions,  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
Public Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Ministry of Justice. In Italy, sanctions issued as the result 
of criminal law proceedings are executed directly by the Public Prosecutor Office in cooperation with 
police  or  state  local  branches  of  the  Revenue  Agency.  In  Greece,  in  the  case  of  criminal  and 
administrative  sanctions,  the  services  responsible  for  the  collection  of  fines  and  administrative 
penalties are the police, the labour inspectorate and the financial services. Furthermore, in France, 
a sentence enforcement judge can intervene to supervise the enforcement of sentences. 

The enforcement of court decisions can be facilitated by mechanisms such as the expiry of specific 
time  limits  for  payment  and  compliance,  which  trigger  the  application  of  enforcement 
procedures. This means that if the party required to comply with a court’s decision does not do so 
within  a  set  period,  enforcement  actions  will  automatically  be  initiated.  This  was  for  instance 
emphasised during the country research in several countries, such as Hungary, Malta or Portugal, 
but it cannot be excluded that it exists in other Member States as well. For instance, in Portugal, in 
the case of fines for discriminatory practices, the decision imposing the fine and/or ancillary sanctions 
includes an order to pay the fine within a maximum of ten days from the date on which the decision 
becomes final or res judicata. Failure to pay within ten days gives rise to enforcement. 

Enforcement of decisions of other adjudicating bodies  

Not all decisions of adjudicating bodies are enforceable and, of those that are, not all are enforced 
by the adjudicating bodies themselves. In some cases, enforcement may require the involvement of 
courts or other enforcement authorities. It is also worth noting that equality bodies shall have the 
right  to  act  as  a  party  in  proceedings  on  the  enforcement  or  judicial  review  of  binding  decisions, 
where they are empowered to do so under national law. 

Several Member States (e.g., AT, BG, CY, RO and SK) have established enforcement mechanisms 
that allow adjudicating bodies, such as equality bodies or labour dispute committees, to enforce their 
own  decisions  without  immediate  court  involvement.  Enforcement  mechanisms  by  other 

134 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

adjudicating bodies themselves were reported on in three Member States (BG, CY and LT). In 
Cyprus, in the event of non-compliance with a recommendation or order of the equality body, a fine 
of up to EUR 600 may be imposed for non-compliance and the fact of non-compliance may be made 
public.  In  Lithuania,  if  the  employer  does  not  comply  with  the  decision  of  the  Labour  Disputes 
Commission,  the  Labour  Disputes  Commission  shall,  at  the  request  of  the  employee,  decide  to 
impose a fine of up to EUR 500 on the employer for each week of delay from the date of the decision 
until the decision is complied with, but not for more than six months. The fine shall be awarded in 
favour of the injured employee. 

The enforcement of sanctions imposed by other adjudicating bodies may sometimes still require the 
involvement of the courts or other actors if the party does not comply voluntarily, as it is the case 
for the Estonian enforcement of sanctions imposed by the Labour Dispute Committee. This means 
that the Committee's decision becomes a court order for enforcement purposes. In Lithuania, the 
implementation of the administrative penalty decision is decided by the adjudicating body that issued 
the decision and the related decision to impose a fine is then executed by the State Tax Inspectorate 
and bailiffs. In Bulgaria, when a sanction is imposed by the Bulgarian equality body, it retains some 
monitoring  powers  (including  overseeing  the  voluntary  payment  of  pecuniary  sanctions)  over  its 
enforcement.  However, the  equality  body  has no  mechanisms  of  its  own to collect  coercively the 
fines and pecuniary sanctions it imposed, but in the absence of voluntary payment, it informs the 
National Revenue Agency which initiates coercive collection. This coercive procedure is identical for 
all financial obligations owed to the State, regardless of their origin, including sanctions imposed on 
the debtor for a criminal offence or for any other type of violation of the law, and irrespective of the 
authority that imposed them. In addition, the equality body may also appoint a private bailiff to collect 
the pecuniary sanctions imposed by the equality body that have not been voluntarily paid, although, 
as  will  be  explained  in  Section  3.8,  this  is  not  used  in  practice.  In  Ireland,  if  the  decision  of  the 
Workplace Relations Commission has not been implemented within 56 days, the complainant or a 
body representing them can apply to the District Court for enforcement. This process applies to both 
Workplace  Relations  Commission  decisions  and  Workplace  Relations  Commission-sponsored 
mediated settlements. In Slovenia, if the equality body’s decision is not complied with, the equality 
body must initiate a minor offence procedure with the competent inspectorate. In addition, if a fine 
imposed by the inspectorate is not paid, the inspectorate may initiate court proceedings to replace 
the fine with a prison sentence.  

Monitoring by courts 

Some  monitoring  mechanisms  by  courts  were  reported  for  instance  in  Denmark,  Hungary, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia and the Netherlands. For example, in Denmark, the courts may retain 
jurisdiction to monitor compliance with their orders, including periodic reviews or follow-up hearings 
to ensure that the perpetrator has ceased the discriminatory practices and has complied with any 
orders, such as to pay compensation or make institutional changes. In Lithuania, after the sanction 
has  been  imposed,  the  court  retains  jurisdiction  to  monitor  the  offender's  compliance  with  the 
sanction. Similarly, in Latvia, courts may retain jurisdiction to monitor compliance with sanctions, in 
particular when imposing a conditional sentence or when issuing an order requiring a party to take 
specific actions. Monitoring activities may include follow-up interviews, reports from social services 
or cooperation with relevant authorities to assess whether the sanctioned person is complying with 
the sanctions imposed. Sanctioned parties may be required to submit periodic reports or updates to 
the courts to demonstrate compliance with the sanctions. 

However, the conditions for this monitoring by courts vary. For example, in France, the courts 
only retain very limited jurisdiction once they have imposed a fine. They may intervene in the event 
of  an  appeal  and  sometimes  to  monitor  compliance  with  periodic  penalty  payments.  In  other 
countries,  courts  may  have  limited  or  no  jurisdiction  in  some  areas  of  law.  For  instance,  in 
Luxembourg, the Public Prosecutor is the only body competent to monitor the correct execution of 
criminal sanctions.  

135 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

The research suggests that there is no monitoring mechanism in place by the courts in Austria, 
Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Italy, Malta, Sweden or Slovakia. For instance, in Finland, there is no legal 
obligation to monitor compliance with court decisions.  

Monitoring of sanctions imposed by other adjudicating bodies 

The  monitoring  of  sanctions imposed  by  other  adjudicating  bodies  has  been reported  on  in 
seven Member States (BG, CY, CZ, DK, LV, SK and PL). For instance, compliance with sanctions 
imposed by the Danish equality body (usually administrative fines) is generally monitored through 
follow-up reports or submissions by the offender showing evidence of compliance. In Czechia, the 
Labour Inspectorate and the Trade Inspection Authority retain jurisdiction to monitor compliance after 
sanctions have been imposed, using measures such as follow-up inspections. In Latvia, similar to 
the monitoring of court decisions, other adjudicating bodies that impose sanctions retain jurisdiction 
to monitor compliance with sanctions, which may, for example, include follow-up interviews, and the 
sanctioned party may be required to submit regular reports or updates to demonstrate compliance. 

Some restricted monitoring practices were also identified for instance in Estonia, where there is 
no systematic mechanism for monitoring compliance by the adjudicating bodies themselves, but a 
follow-up  of  enforcement  and  compliance  is  generally  done  by  the  bailiff  during  enforcement 
proceedings.  In  cases  where  ongoing  compliance  is  required  (e.g.,  non-discrimination  in  the 
workplace),  it  may  be  the  responsibility  of  regulatory  bodies  or  inspectors,  such  as  the  Labour 
Inspectorate, to ensure compliance with the conditions set by the adjudicating bodies or courts. 

The use of conditional or recurring fines 

Conditional  fines,  payable  if  an  offender  fails  to  comply  with  certain  conditions,  and  recurring 
fines, imposed at regular intervals until the offender complies, are key enforcement tools. They both 
support sanction enforcement by providing financial incentives for compliance, with conditional fines 
activated  upon  non-compliance  and  recurring  fines  applying  continuous  financial  pressure  until 
compliance is achieved. Both types of mechanisms were identified during the country research and 
are presented below. 

First, conditional fines were identified in relation to the enforcement of sanctions for discrimination in 
the Netherlands where it is possible for a civil court to impose a conditional penalty payment at 
the request of an interested party. This conditional penalty payment is without prejudice to the right 
to compensation if there are grounds for this. A conditional penalty payment cannot be imposed in 
the event of a conviction to pay a fine.  

Second,  systems  of  recurring  fines  were  identified  in  several  instances.  Countries  such  as 
Belgium,  France  and Italy  use the  system  of  astreintes  (daily  or  periodic  fines  imposed  until  the 
injunction is complied with) to put pressure on the convicted person to comply with the sentence. In 
France, in the event of non-compliance, astreintes can accumulate and seizure of the defendant's 
assets can be ordered. In Ireland, where a defendant fails to comply with a court order requiring him 
or her to give effect to a decision, he/she is in contempt of court and may be subject to fines, which 
may be imposed on a recurring basis as a matter of judicial discretion at common law. In addition, 
where the discriminatory conduct is a criminal offence, daily fines may be imposed if the relevant 
criminal conduct continues after the date of conviction. In Lithuania, there is a special procedure for 
the employer's failure to comply with a sanction. At the request of the employee, the Labour Disputes 
Commission  decides  to  impose  a  fine  of  up  to  EUR  500  on  the  employer  to  the  benefit  of  the 
employee, for each week of delay from the date of the decision/order/rule to the date of its execution, 
but not exceeding six months. In the Netherlands, the courts can impose a penalty on public bodies 
for non-compliance with their judgments. The amount of the penalty can be either a single immediate 
penalty or a continuing penalty for the duration of the non-compliance. In contested cases concerning 
omissions by public bodies, the court can also issue an injunction imposing a daily penalty for the 
period during which a public body fails to comply with its decision. 

136 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Other enforcement mechanisms 

The  use  of  bailiffs  to  conduct  enforcement  proceedings  by  executing  the  sanctions  was 
identified in several countries (BE241, BG242, EE243, LT244, NL245, RO246 and PL247). In these systems, 
once a sanction is imposed and not voluntarily complied with, bailiffs are empowered to take action 
to recover the amounts owed. In Belgium, it is sufficient to notify the bailiff of the judgment. A bailiff 
can issue a summons to the offender to pay. If the judge's order is not complied with, the bailiff will 
seize the assets. Similarly, in Lithuania, if the sanctioned person fails to execute the decision of the 
competent authority within the prescribed period, the decision is enforced by a bailiff. The bailiff can 
auction off the property of the sanctioned person in order to recover the sanction. In the Netherlands, 
the court bailiffs are the main agents for the enforcement of judgments, including the enforcement of 
confiscations  in  cases  of  non-compliance  with  the  sanctions  imposed,  and  also  supervise  court 
auctions. 

Precautionary  and  coercive  measures  are  commonly  available  in  Member  States’  legal 
frameworks. Precautionary measures refer to measures taken before a final judgment is enforced to 
secure assets or property (e.g., freezing of assets). Coercive measures refer to measures used after 
a judgment has been made, to force the perpetrator to comply with the court's order if they do not 
do so voluntarily. The following examples were identified: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In Austria, the enforcement of fines is handled by the competent court, via execution titles, 
which are notices or arrears’ certificates confirming the enforceability. First, the liable party 
is threatened with the enforcement measure and if it does not comply, the next step is the 
use of coercive measures, and if this still does not lead to compliance, even harsher coercive 
measures are envisaged. 

In Belgium, a precautionary seizure is used to place assets under the protection of the court, 
which  means  that  the  offender  can  no  longer  use  or  dispose  of  them.  The  precautionary 
seizure can then be converted into a seizure and execution, in which case the seized assets 
are sold and the proceeds awarded to the creditor. 

In  Spain,  the  enforcement  of  sanctions  by  administrative  courts  may  take  the  form  of  a 
surcharge on assets, subsidiary enforcement, a coercive fine or the coercion of persons, as 
long as the principle of proportionality is respected.  

In Latvia, when a court imposes sanctions, it issues specific orders detailing the actions to 
be taken or restrictions to be observed by the sanctioned party. Courts may use enforcement 
procedures to ensure that the sanctioned party complies with the court's orders. This may 
include  seizure  of  assets,  garnishment  of  wages  or  other  measures  to  enforce  financial 
obligations (although it is not clear what this may entail as no cases of non-compliance with 
sanctions have been identified).  

In Malta, civil and labour sanctions are considered 'executive titles' and are enforceable after 
two days from the delivery by the same court that delivered the judgment. Executive titles 
can be enforced against the debtor's movable and immovable property.  

•  Under Hungarian civil, labour, education and administrative law, State coercion may restrict 
the property rights of the obliged person or, exceptionally, affect his or her personal rights. 
Failure to comply with a financial penalty could be enforced primarily by means of deductions 

241 In civil and administrative proceedings. 
242 All types of proceedings. 
243 All types of proceedings. 
244 All types of proceedings. 
245 In civil proceedings. 
246 All types of proceedings. 
247 In civil proceedings. 

137 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

from  his/her  accounts  with  payment  service  providers  or  from  his/her  wages/salary. If  it  is 
foreseeable  that  the  claim  cannot  be  recovered  within  a  relatively  short  period  of  time  by 
enforcing the amount of the wages or the amount held by the payment service provider, any 
seizable property of the debtor may be subject to enforcement. The enforcement court may 
impose a fine  of  up  to  HUF 500  000  (approx.  EUR  1 266)  on  the  debtor  or  the  person  or 
organisation  obliged  to  cooperate  in  the  enforcement  procedure  if  the  debtor  fails  to  fulfil 
his/her  legal  obligations  arising  from  the  enforcement  or  if  he/she  acts  in  a  manner  that 
impedes the effectiveness of the enforcement authority's measures. 

The  transformation  of  the  sanction  initially  imposed  into  a  more  severe  sanction,  such  as 
imprisonment,  or  requalification  of  a  civil  or  labour  law  sanction  into  a  criminal  offence  is  a 
mechanism  to  ensure  enforcement  that  has  been  identified  in  several  Member  States,  including 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain. For instance, 
in Bulgaria, the Criminal Code248 provides for criminal liability for anyone who in any way obstructs 
or  prevents  the  enforcement  of  a  judgment,  including  the  situation  where  a  convicted  person 
deliberately  avoids  paying  fines  and  obstructs  the  State's  efforts  to  collect  them.  The  penalty  is 
imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to BGN 5 000 (approx. 2 500 EUR). If the offence 
is repeated, the penalty is imprisonment for up to five years. In Spain, under labour and criminal law, 
anyone who causes serious discrimination in public or private employment and who does not restore 
the situation of equality before the law following a summons or administrative sanction and repair 
the economic damage caused, may be punished by imprisonment for between six months and two 
years or a fine of between 12 and 24 months249. In Ireland, in relation to labour law, a complainant 
can apply to the District Court for an order requiring the respondent body to implement the decision, 
and failure to comply with an order is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to six months 
and/or a Class A fine (EUR 5 000). In the Netherlands, failure to pay a fine imposed by a criminal 
court can lead to imprisonment for a period ranging from a minimum of one day to a maximum of 
one year. A maximum of one day will be imposed for each full EUR 25 of the fine. 

Lastly,  other  relevant  systems  of  pecuniary  sanctions  have  also  been  identified  creating 
ongoing  financial  consequences  for  non-compliance  with  sanctions  and  thus  encouraging 
compliance with legal obligations and remedial action. For instance, such a mechanism was found 
in Finland, where the National Enforcement Authority first sends a notice to the offender, and if the 
fine is not paid on time, a procedure is initiated whereby part of the offender's wages or salary is 
withheld  each  month  until  the  fine  is  paid,  or  some  of  the  offender's  property  is  sold  (e.g.,  at  an 
officially organised auction) in order to raise funds for the fine. Furthermore, if reasoned opinions 
and written advice250 are not complied with, the case can be moved to the National Equality and Non-
discrimination Tribunal, which can use a conditional fine as a form of enforcement. In Estonia, the 
Code of Criminal Procedure251 provides that if someone is fined for not fulfilling an obligation, they 
are still required to fulfil that obligation. If the obligation is not complied with after the imposition of 
the fine, a new fine may be imposed.  

The  fact  that  the  repeated  nature  of  the  discriminatory  behaviour  may  constitute  an  aggravating 
circumstance to the sanction imposed, as described above in Section 2.4.1, may also be a way to 
ensure the enforcement of sanctions. An example of this is Greece, where the system of recurring 
fines  does  not  exist  per  se,  but  the  Labour  Inspectorate  takes  into  account  the  number  of  fines 
imposed on the same company over a certain period of time in order to increase the severity of the 
sanctions, which can lead to the temporary or permanent closure of part or all of the company. In 
this sense, it is a check on the effective compliance of the company with the reason for the imposition 

248 Criminal Code (Наказателен кодекс), SG No. 26/1968, last amended SG No. 84/2023. 
249 In Spain the precise sanction amount is determined by multiplying the daily amount of fine with the duration of the sanction. The rules 
applicable to these three Member States are detailed under Section 2.3.4 – Overview of sanctions per amounts and ranges. 
250 Reasoned opinions and written notices are soft measures whereby the administrative authorities put pressure on the offender to 
change his or her behaviour and, in the case of reasoned opinions, to pay compensation. 
251 Code of Criminal Procedure (Kriminaalmenetluse seadustik), RT I, 06 May 2020, 14, available at: 
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/518052020007/consolide (in English) and https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/106052020014 (in Estonian). 

138 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

of the fine, even if the fine is paid. One way of checking compliance with the fine imposed by the 
Labour  Inspectorate  is  the  provision  for  a  30  %  reduction  in  the  fine  in  the  event  of  immediate 
payment. 

2.6. Legal framework on data collection and awareness raising  

Section 2.6 outlines some aspects of the legal framework governing data collection (Section 2.6.1) 
in  relation  to  sanctions  in  discrimination  cases  and  relevant  awareness raising  activities  (Section 
2.6.2).  

2.6.1. Data collection 

This section provides an overview of existing international, European and national level rules on the 
collection  of  data  in  cases  of  ethnic/racial  discrimination.  At  national  level,  the  analysis 
discusses  in  particular  the  rules  applicable  to  organisation(s)  in  charge  of  collecting  data  on 
discrimination cases and/or preparing related statistics as well as the type of data collected, with a 
specific focus on sanctions applied in discrimination cases. Rules on frequency of data collection, 
obligation to publish the data collected and rules on access rights are also examined.  

International and European level rules  

The main international human rights instruments at the United Nations (UN) and Council of Europe 
(CoE) levels do not explicitly refer to data collection as a means of realising human rights on equal 
terms for all. However, according to the 2015 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary 
forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance252, signatory States have 
‘a duty to ensure equality and that should be interpreted to include the duty to collect and analyse 
data  disaggregated  by  ethnicity  in  order  to  identify  inequality  and  monitor  the  effectiveness  of 
measures implemented to remedy imbalances’.  

While in the CoE 1961 European Social Charter the principle of non-discrimination is set out only in 
the  Preamble, the  European Committee  of  Social  Rights  (‘ECSR’  or  ‘Committee’)  has  repeatedly 
held that issues of discrimination may be examined in light of considering the Preamble Charter in 
conjunction with substantive rights of the Charter253. In light of a recent landmark case (European 
Roma Rights Centre v. Czechia254), the Committee interpreted the non-discrimination clause in the 
Preamble in conjunction with Article 16 (the right of the family to social, legal and economic protection 
and Article 17 (the right of mothers and children to social and economic protection), finding that these 
provisions entail a legal obligation for signatories to the Charter to collect ethnically disaggregated 
data in cases of structural discrimination; otherwise policies to tackle structural discrimination will not 
be successful. The case is summarised in the box below: 

252 United Nations, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related 
intolerance’, A/70/335, 20 August 2015.  
253 European Committee of Social Rights, decision on the merits of 17 May 2016, European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) v. 
Czech Republic, Complaint No. 104/2014, paragraph 112 ; European Committee of Social Rights, decision on the merits of 23 March 
2017, Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) v. Greece, Complaint No. 111/2014, paragraphs 194-197 ; European Committee 
of Social Rights, decision on the merits of 23 May 2012, GENOP-DEI and ADEDY v. Greece, Complaint No. 66/2011, paragraphs 66-
69. 
254 European Committee of Social Rights, decision on the merits of 18 October 2023, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Czech 
Republic, Complaint No. 190/2020. 

139 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Box 24: ECSR ruling of 18 October 2023 in case European Roma Rights Centre v. 
Czechia 

The case was  brought  to  the  ECSR  by the  European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) in 2020. The  ERRC 
claimed that Czechia had failed in its duty to collect and analyse data on the ethnicity of children in public 
care,  hindering  the  implementation  of  effective  policies  to  reduce  the  disproportionately  high  number  of 
Roma  children  (including  infants)  being  institutionalised.  In  ERRC’s  view,  this  situation  amounts  to 
discrimination in violation of Articles 16 and 17 of the 1961 Charter read in the light of the non-discrimination 
clause laid down in the Preamble to the 1961 Charter. 

Article 17 of the Charter requires State Parties to take all appropriate and necessary measures, including 
the establishment or maintenance of appropriate institutions or services, to ensure the effective exercise of 
the right of mothers and children to social and economic protection. The Committee considered that  ‘the 
requirement of collection and analysis of statistical data definitely falls within the scope of Article 
17 as this measure aims at monitoring and assessing the laws, policies and practice aimed at giving the 
authorities and the civil society the possibility to discern any discrimination with regard to institutionalised 
children belonging to vulnerable groups, including Roma children’255. 

Czechia claimed that the current legislation governing the protection of personal data and the rights of ethnic 
minorities prohibits the collection of data based on ethnicity. In such situations, the Committee already held 
in previous rulings that it is the authorities’ responsibility to find alternative means of assessing the scale of 
the problem and progress towards a solution. In light of this, the Committee found in the present case that 
the State has failed to take effective alternative measures  to map the extent of the discrimination risk of 
over-representation of Roma children under public care, which, together with the lack of data and statistics 
on  ethnicity,  disproportionately  affects  specifically  Roma  children  and  therefore  amounts  to  indirect 
discrimination. The same reasoning was applied in relation to Article 16 of the Charter, providing for 
the  right  to  necessary  conditions  for  the  full  development  of  families,  though  economic,  legal  and  social 
protection. 

At EU level, there are no binding rules regarding the collection of data in cases of discrimination. 
Article  13  of  the  RED  only  requires  Member  States  to  put  in  place  equality  bodies  that  conduct 
independent  surveys  concerning  discrimination  and  publish  independent  reports  on  any  issue 
relating to discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin.  

The Subgroup on Equality Data set up by the EU High Level Group on Non-discrimination, Equality 
and Diversity  elaborated  a  non-binding Guidance  Note  on  the  collection  and  use  of  equality  data 
based  on  racial  or  ethnic  origin256.  Emphasising  the  importance  of  equality  data  collection,  the 
guidance  states  that  equality  statistics  can  be  compiled  from  multiple  data  sources,  such  as 
population  censuses,  administrative  registers,  different  surveys,  complaints  data,  criminal  justice 
data, as well as compensation offered / sanctions applied. 

In line with Article 16 of Directive 2024/1499257, when transposed into national law, which must take 
place by June 2026, equality bodies will collect data on their activities, disaggregated by the grounds 
and fields of  the  EU  anti-discrimination  directives,  using  anonymised  or  pseudonymised  personal 
data. They will also be able to contribute to the collection of equality data in general by conducting 
independent surveys on discrimination, accessing relevant statistics needed to assess discrimination 
and produce reports, and making recommendations on data collection to public and private entities, 
including public authorities and civil society. 

255 Ibid, paragraph 96. 
256 European Commission, ‘Guidance Note on the collection and use of equality data based on racial or ethnic origin’, High Level Group 
on non-discrimination, equality and diversity, subgroup on equality data, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 
September 2021. 
257 Article 16, Directive (EU) 2024/1499 on standards for equality bodies, op.cit. 

140 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

National level rules  

Most  Member  States  have  not  established  comprehensive  nation-wide  rules  for  collecting 
equality  data,  including  on  the  type  and  sources  of  data  collected.  The  data  collection  appears 
fragmented and is usually carried out by specific organisations dealing with certain aspects or type 
of proceedings and are not centralised. For instance, in Spain it was pointed out that it is very difficult 
to collect data at national level, as the data is too diverse and comes from many different sources. 

National  legal  obligations  to  conduct  studies  and  research  or  publish  annual  reports,  in 
implementation of Article 13 of the RED mentioned above, have been indicated in the country reports 
only for a few equality bodies; however, this does not mean that no such obligations are set out in 
other  Member  States’s  legislation  or  that  the  equality  bodies  do  not  carry  out  such  activities  in 
practice. Such studies or reports may entail collection of data and/or preparing statistics on different 
aspects of discrimination cases. A few examples are described in the box below: 

Box  25:  Examples  of  equality  bodies  whose  competencies  to  conduct  research 
and/or publish reports is set out in law 

In France, Article 34 of the Organic law on the Defender of Rights258 includes conducting and coordinating 
studies and research among the equality body’s competences. No further details are set out in law regarding 
this  power.  In  practice,  the  Defender  of  Rights  collects  data  on  complaints  and  decisions  relating  to 
discrimination and publishes it in its annual reports.  

In  Malta,  Article  15(1)-(2)  of  the  Equality  for  Men  and  Women  Act,  2003259  requires  the  equality  body 
(National Commission for the Promotion of Equality for Men and Women) to annually publish and submit to 
the Minister responsible for equality a report of its activities during the year. This report includes statistical 
information regarding investigations carried out by the national equality body, whether the complaint was 
lodged  by  a  private  person  or  if  the  investigation  was  initiated  ex  officio.  The  statistical  information  is 
categorised according to the grounds of the RED/EED. The reports also make reference to sample cases 
from the investigations of the equality body, including what action was taken by the equality body according 
to its competences (i.e., forwarding the complaints to the Police for prosecution or mediating in the case). 
The national equality body cannot issue binding decisions and thus impose sanctions. 

In Slovenia, Article 21 of the Protection against Discrimination Act260 assigns the equality body (Advocate 
of the Principle of Equality) with the task and power to conduct independent research on the situation of 
persons discriminated on certain grounds. Any type of analytical or research work on discrimination results 
in  equality  data.  Furthermore,  according  to  Article  16  of  the  Act,  the  Advocate  is  obliged  to  collect 
anonymised data on the number of discrimination cases that it dealt with, broken down per ground, form 
and  area  of  discrimination.  However,  this  does  not  include  data  on  sanctions  or  enforcement  of  the 
sanctions. The Advocate’s decisions are binding, but it cannot impose fines – this can only be done by the 
inspectorates which are authorised to carry out misdemeanour procedures. The Advocate collects data from 
the inspectorates, but also from the Police, the Office of the State Prosecutor-General and all courts. The 
data received is presented in the Advocate’s annual reports. 

None of the equality bodies seem to collect data specifically on sanctions, although some have the 
power to make binding decisions and impose sanctions. Similarly, in the Member States where the 
national  research  indicated  the  existence  of  legal  obligations  of  certain  organisations  (not  only 
equality  bodies)  to  gather  data  related  to  discrimination  cases,  data  on  compensation 

258 Organic law no. 2011-333 of 29 March 2011 on the Defender of Rights (Loi organique n° 2011-333 du 29 mars 2011 relative au 
Défenseur des droits), Official Journal no.0075 of 30 March 2011.  
259 Chapter 456 of the Laws of Malta, Equality for Men and Women Act (Att dwar l-Ugwaljanza għall-Irġiel u n-Nisa), EMWA, as 
established by Act I of 2003 of 9 December 2003 and last amended by Act XI of 2015. 
260 Protection Against Discrimination Act (Zakon o varstvu pred diskriminacijo), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia no. 33/16, 
21/18 – ZNOrg, PADA.  

141 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

offered/sanctions  applied  in  discrimination  cases  appear  to  be  rarely  collected261.  The 
information  identified  is  described  in  the  box  below,  with  the  caveat  that  the  list  is  potentially  not 
exhaustive. It is also noted that while the law sometimes provides only for collection of decisions or 
court  judgments,  this  is  still  relevant  for  data  on  sanctions  as  information  can  be  extracted  from 
these. 

Box 26: Examples of national organisations with legal mandate to collect data on 
sanctions applied in discrimination cases 

In Bulgaria,  detailed data  differentiated  according  to  grounds of discrimination are collected  only by the 
Prosecution based on the internal Rules for Gathering and Analysing Data and Statistical Processing of 
Data.  These  data  include  the  final  outcome  of  the  case  and  sanctions  imposed  for  all  cases,  including 
discrimination-related ones. 

In Spain, according to Article 36 of Law 15/2022262, public authorities (i.e., law enforcement agencies, the 
General  State  Prosecutor's  Office  and  the  General  Council  of  the  Judiciary,  as  well  as  public 
administrations) shall draw up studies, reports or statistics on aspects related to equal treatment. The law 
provides for different information to be collected, including data on complaints and administrative decisions 
and court judgments; however, data on penalties and measures imposed is specifically indicated only in 
relation to criminal cases. 

In Hungary, the National Office for the Judiciary and administrative authorities (Government Offices) 
carry out data collection activities in accordance with different legal acts regulating such aspects. The data 
collected vary and the materials produced/datasets published based on these do not provide enough details 
(as  it  is  not  sufficiently  disaggregated)  to  understand  the  number  of  discrimination  cases  or  sanctions 
imposed.  The  equality  body  (the  Ombudsman/Equal  Treatment  Directorate)  is  required  by  law  to 
register certain information, including penalties that it imposed and their extent, with reference to the legal 
basis, date and number of the final and enforceable court decisions in cases of administrative action, along 
with the outcome of the court's decision regarding the challenged administrative action. Data on decisions 
of the equality body, grounds/areas concerned, and type of sanction imposed can be extracted from the 
publicly available Statistical Data Collection Programme (OSAP). 

In  Portugal,  the  equality  body  (Commission  for  Equality  and  against  Racial  Discrimination)  is 
mandated to collect information on discriminatory practices covered by Law 93/2017263 and the application 
of  sanctions,  and  prepare  periodic  statistical  information  in  conjunction  with  other  public  bodies 264. 
Furthermore,  courts  and  other  competent  public  bodies  must  communicate  to  the  equality  body  their 
decisions  on  discriminatory  practices  on  the  grounds  of  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  colour,  nationality,  etc. 
Annual  reports  including  information  gathered  on  discriminatory  practices  and  sanctions  applied  are 
published on its website. In addition, the Authority for Working Conditions competent in employment 
matters collects data on the fines and ancillary sanctions imposed for labour offences, but these are not 
published. 

261 BE - Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities; BG – Prosecution; CY – Ombudsman and Ministry of Justice; ES - Law 
Enforcement agencies, General State Prosecutor's Office, General Council of the Judiciary, and Public Administrations; FR - Defender 
of Rights, HU - National Office for the Judiciary, Administrative authorities (Government Offices) and Ombudsman; HR - judicial bodies, 
Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsperson; IE - Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission; MT - National Commission for the 
Promotion of Equality for Men and Women; PL – courts; PT - Commission for Equality and against Racial Discrimination and Authority 
for Working Conditions; SI - The Advocate of the Principle of Equality. 
262 Law no 15/2022, 12 of July for the equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 15/2022, 12 de Julio, integral para la igualdad de 
trato y la no discriminación), Official Bulletin no. 167, 13 July 2022, BOE-A-2022-11589. 
263 Law No 93/2017 of 23 August 2017, establishing the legal framework for preventing, prohibiting and combating discrimination based 
on racial and ethnic origin, colour, nationality, descent and territory of origin (Lei n. 93/2017, de 23 de agosto, que estabelece o regime 
jurídico da prevenção, da proibição e do combate à discriminação, em razão da origem racial e étnica, cor, nacionalidade, ascendência 
e território de origem), Official Gazette no. 162/2017, Series I of 23 August 2017. 
264 Art. 4(2)(b) and (m), Law 3/2024 of 15 January, which creates the Commission for Equality and against Racial Discrimination (Lei n.º 
3/2024 de 15 de janeiro, Cria a Comissão para a Igualdade e contra a Discriminação Racial), Official Gazette 10/2024, Serie I of 15 
January 2024.  

142 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Detailed rules on the frequency of data collection, the obligation to publish the data collected 
and access rights are rarely set out in law, but data related to discrimination cases, including on 
sanctions (where collected), or statistics prepared based on these, are often published in the annual 
reports or other publications of the organisations collecting them. These publications, however, might 
not  always  provide  complete  datasets,  instead  might  cover  selected  cases/data  only.  Access  to 
internal  registries  of  the  organisations  is  usually  not  provided,  but  information  can  be  obtained 
through  public  information  requests  (e.g.,  from  the  BG  prosecution,  HU  Government  Offices). 
Hungary  has  a  National  Statistical  Data  Collection  Programme  (OSAP)  with  different  datasets 
published; however, as mentioned above, the data are not always sufficiently disaggregated to get 
a picture about discrimination cases or sanctions imposed. 

2.6.2. Awareness raising  

This  section  deals  with  the  national  legal  frameworks  on  awareness  raising  on  the  issue  of 
sanctions.  

Specific rules on awareness raising on sanctions on discrimination were not identified in any 
of the Member States. Notwithstanding, in 12 Member States (BE, EE, EL, FI, FR, IE, LU, MT, PT, 
RO, SE and SI), more general rules on awareness raising or on the relevant national authorities’ 
duties to provide information to victims of discrimination (specifically, MT and PT) were considered 
relevant. In 11 Member States (AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, HR, HU, IT, LT and PL), no relevant rules 
have been identified. In four Member States (DK, LV, NL and SK), the legal framework on this is 
unclear. 

Article 5 of Directive 2024/1499265 on standards for equality bodies, which will have to be transposed 
by June 2026 in national law, requires Member States to take measures to raise awareness about 
rights under EU anti-discrimination directives and the existence of equality bodies. Member States 
must  ensure  that  equality  bodies  are  empowered  to  prevent  discrimination  and  promote  equality 
through  activities  such  as  promoting  positive  action,  providing  training  and  engaging  with 
stakeholders. Furthermore, awareness-raising activities must use accessible communication tools 
tailored to each target group, focusing on those who may face barriers to information, such as those 
with limited access to digital tools or those in vulnerable situations. Article 17 of the same Directive 
provides that Member States must ensure that equality bodies adopt a work programme outlining 
their priorities and planned activities; produce an annual activity report that includes details on their 
budget, staff and finances, and make it available to the public; publish a report with recommendations 
on  the  state  of  equal  treatment  and  discrimination  in  their  country  at  least  every  four  years, 
addressing  any  structural  issues.  Although  the  Directive  does  not  explicitly  refer  to  sanction 
awareness,  Member  States  have  flexibility  in  designing  awareness-raising  activities  under  the 
Directive. They could consider using this discretion to include information about sanctions, thereby 
reinforcing public understanding of their application and role in addressing discrimination. 

Information on awareness-raising activities which are carried out in the Member States is provided 
under Section 3.10. 

265 Article 5, Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499 on standards for equality bodies, op.cit. 

143 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

3. Practical application  

Section 3 of this Final Report is dedicated to the horizontal analysis of Task 2 - Application of the 
law in practice. It is structured as follows:  

•  Section 3.1: Imposition of sanctions per type, nature and objective  

•  Section 3.2: Imposition of sanctions per judicial/adjudicating bodies  

•  Section 3.3: Circumstances considered in determining sanctions  

•  Section 3.4: Amounts/ranges applied in practice  

•  Section 3.5: Use of alternative dispute resolution  

•  Section 3.6: Legal standing  

•  Section 3.7: Collective cases/redress  

•  Section 3.8: Enforcement  

•  Section 3.9: Data collection  

•  Section 3.10: Awareness raising  

•  Section 3.11: Other aspects  (e.g., encompassing the influence of national-case law, soft-
law  measures  and  the  claims  themselves  on  the  application  of  sanctions,  as  well  the 
differences of sanction applications under the RED/EED when compared to practices in other 
areas of law, or in relation to other discrimination grounds). 

This section of the Final Report does not provide an exhaustive overview of all practices in every 
Member  State.  This  stems  from  a  methodological  limitation,  entailing  that  practices  have  been 
identified based on publicly available sources consulted by the country experts and the information 
obtained from stakeholders. Consequently, some practices mentioned under this section may also 
exist in other Member States, even if not explicitly noted in the Report. 

3.1. Imposition of sanctions per type, nature and objective 

Section 3.1. provides an overview of the following aspects:  

•  Patterns  of  sanction  use:  description  of  the  types  of  sanctions  that  are  more  frequently 

used/not used, together with an explanation on underlying reasons;  

•  Nature and objectives of sanctions: description of the nature and objective(s) that the most 

frequently imposed sanctions fulfil;  

• 

Injunctive relief usage: description of whether or not injunctive relief/injunction (be it one-
off or structural) is used in the Member States. 

3.1.1. Patterns of sanction use 

Across many jurisdictions, there is a notable lack of (statistical) data on the types of sanctions 
imposed. In the absence of precise data, the following analysis relies on information obtained from 
consulted stakeholders, as supplemented by relevant desk research. These sources indicate that in 
some Member  States  discrimination  cases  and/or  cases in which  sanctions  are imposed  by 
courts  or  other  adjudicating  bodies  are  not  common (like in AT,  EL,  FI,  HR,  NL  or  SE),  or  even 

144 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

almost non-existent (like in CY, LV, MT or SI). The analysis below should be read with these caveats 
in mind.   

The  table  below  outlines  the  typical  sanctions  imposed  in  each  jurisdiction,  with  the  last  column 
providing country-specific details to add context to the information. 

145 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Member State  Monetary comp. 

Fine 

Other 

Comments 

Table 20: Overview of typically applied sanctions 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

for damages 

X (civil law) 

X 

X (civil law) 

Pecuniary compensation is the most common type of sanction. In administrative cases, 
fines could be imposed. When imposed, however, sanction values remain low.  

In civil law cases, monetary compensation is the most common type of sanction. Criminal 
law cases are rare. 

(all 

X 
areas) 

X – preventive 
measures/injunction (admin. law) 

Criminal law cases are extremely rare. Cases are mainly heard by the Commission for 
Protection  against  Discrimination.  In  these  cases,  a  fine  is  the  most  typically  applied 
sanction.  Preventive  measures  qualifying  as  one-off  or  structural  injunctions  are  also 
commonly used.  

X (civil law) 

X (admin. 
law) 

X (civil law) 

X (labour law) 

X  (labour 
law) 

X (labour law) 

X (labour law) 

X  –  annulment  of  dismission 
law);  
(labour 

admin. 

law, 

Criminal cases are extremely rare. Civil cases are common, however these as a general 
rule relate to other discrimination grounds. Consequently, no real conclusions regarding 
the imposition of sanctions in cases of relevance for this Study could be reached. 

Almost  a  complete  lack  of  discrimination  cases.  In  the  one  case  identified,  the  court 
awarded compensation for the material damages suffered.  

Discrimination cases are extremely rare. In the limited number of cases identified, fines 
were typically imposed by the competent administrative authorities, or the courts ordered 
the perpetrator to pay monetary compensation for material/immaterial damages. 

The civil law sanction of monetary compensation for immaterial damages seems to be 
the most frequently used type of sanction. 

Monetary compensation, especially in labour law cases seems to be common. 

Labour law cases before the Labour Dispute Commission seem to be common, leading 
typically to the imposition of monetary compensation. 

Though cases are very rare, the most common sanctions imposed are, in the context of 
employment disputes, annulment of dismissal or award of compensation; in the context 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

law); 
imprisonment 
obligation  to  take  certain  action 
(civil law) 

(criminal 

of criminal cases, imposition of a prison sentence and; in the context of administrative 
disputes, annulment of an administrative act or compensation; in civil cases, monetary 
compensation or the one-off injunction of obliging the perpetrator to take certain action. 

ES 

FI 

FR 

X (labour law) 

X 
(criminal 
law) 

X  (civil  and  admin. 
law) 

HU 

X (civil law) 

X (labour law) 

IE 

IT 

LT 

The  legal  framework  under  Law  15/2022  is  new,  hence  no  relevant  cases  have  been 
identified. Under the pre-existing legal framework (e.g., RD 5/2000 applicable to labour 
law cases), monetary compensation seems to be a common sanction.  

The typically applied sanctions are not legally binding (i.e., reasoned opinion and written 
advice  as  could be  imposed by  the  Non-Discrimination  Ombudsman  and  occupational 
safety and health authorities). In the rare cases, when discrimination cases are handled 
by courts, fines are typically applied.  

Monetary compensation for damages is the type of sanction that is typically applied for 
civil and administrative cases. Criminal cases are rare. When they occur, courts impose 
fines, rather than imprisonment. Administrative disciplinary sanctions are rare. When they 
occur, there may be temporary suspensions, reprimands, warnings.  

Civil law sanctions are the most frequently used types of sanctions. The claims determine 
the type of sanctions imposed. There are no data on the matter. The interviewees, based 
on  their  own  experience,  suggested  that  the  most  frequently  imposed  sanctions  are 
monetary  compensation,  establishment  of  violation  by  court  or  obligation 
to 
terminate/discontinue a violation (which could be imposed as a structural injunction). 

Administrative law cases are rare and decreasing in numbers. Fines are rarely imposed.  
Establishment  of  violation  seems  to  be  the  most  commonly  applied  by  the  Equal 
Treatment Directorate. 

Very few discrimination cases before courts. Cases are mainly heard by the Workplace 
Relations Commission. In these cases, compensation (not a high amount) is imposed. 
The  Workplace  Relations  Commission  is  the  main  competent  authority  adjudicating 
discrimination in employment and in regard to access to goods and services. 

X  –  establishment  of  violation  by 
admin. 
court 
law);   termination/discontinuation 
of violation (civil law) 

(civil 

and 

X- reinstatement in the workplace 
(labour  law);   structural  injunctive 
reliefs (civil law) 

The most frequently imposed sanctions are i) reinstatement in the workplace (which is a 
one-off injunction) and ii) structural injunctive relief in case of institutional discrimination 
which has a non-pecuniary nature. 

In the absolute majority of the cases the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman proceeds; they 
issue opinions/recommendations. These are not legally binding sanctions.  

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

X (labour law) 

LU 

LV 

MT 

Information  could  be  obtained  in  relation  to  employment  matters,  where  monetary 
compensation  mainly  for  material  damages  seems  to  be  the  most  common  form  of 
sanction.  

Lack of discrimination cases, not possible to provide details. 

According to the expert completing the research this might be due to various factors:  

(i) Very low number of discrimination cases of relevance for the Study could be identified. 
According to the expert completing the research this might be due to various factors:  

(ii)  In  a  small  country  like  Latvia,  people  often  know  each  other,  and  many  fear  the 
repercussions of filing a court application. In a 2006 Administrative case for example, a 
Roma  woman  was denied  compensation  due  to  the  company’s  insolvency.  She  faced 
employment challenges afterwards because her involvement in the case became widely 
known.  Such  publicised  cases  discourage  others  from  seeking  legal  action  due  to 
potential difficulties in securing employment and other social repercussions. 

(iii) There is generally low awareness of discrimination issues and the available methods 
to defend one's rights, contributing to the low number of cases. 

Lack of discrimination cases, not possible to provide details.  

According to the expert completing the research this might be due to various factors:  

(i) The time limit for the delivery of judgments by the civil courts is not regulated in Malta. 
Litigious civil cases at first instance typically last one and a half year, therefore the length 
of proceedings may be a deterrent for pursuing a case before the courts.  

(ii) With regard to areas relative to employment, it is noted that in the last decade, Malta’s 
labour market experienced significant growth, leading to a shortage of available workers. 
Non-Maltese nationals are drawn to this market, and it might be that if they encounter any 
form of discrimination, they might often opt to switch jobs rather than endure the time and 
energy-consuming process of pursuing a court case.  

(iii) The relevant legal provisions are ‘outdated’, in that the laws were enacted in view of 
Malta’s  accession  and  since  then  were  never  again  revisited.  It  is  believed  that 
practitioners  do  not  have  a  good  level  of  awareness  of  the  sanctions  and  procedures 
available. 

(iii) It is also considered that the criminal sanctions set out in relevant legislation were first 
set almost 20 years ago, during Malta’s previous currency era. The fines amounts were 
then simply converted to Euro without consideration of the current economic scenario. 
This fact could also be considered a disincentive to pursue criminal action. 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

X (civil law) 

X (civil law) 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

X  (civil  and  admin 
law) 

X - annulment of decision (admin. 
law) 

X (civil law) 

The use of sanctions in discrimination cases is not common. This is partly due to the fact 
that  discrimination  cases  are  often  referred  to  before  the  Netherlands  Human  Rights 
Institute, which often issues recommendations. Criminal cases are very rare, but  when 
such cases occur, fines and community service are imposed. In administrative law cases, 
sanctions focus on the legality of the decision, hence the most common sanctions are 
annulment  of  decisions  or  compensation  for  material  damages.  In  civil  law  cases, 
compensation is the most common form.  

Monetary  compensation  for damages seems  to be  the  most  common type  of sanction 
applied.  

X  –  fines 
(admin. 
law) 

X (admin. 
law) 

X – warnings (admin. law)  

In view of the lack of identification of relevant judicial decisions, the analysis of the types 
of sanctions applied are restricted to those applied by administrative bodies. Fines and 
warnings seem to be commonly applied.  

The sanctions applied by the National Council for Combating Discrimination are the most 
common  ones.  The  sanctions  are  administrative  in  nature.  In  addition  to  fines, 
administrative recommendations/warnings (not sanctions per se) are common. In civil law 
cases, compensation can be awarded.  

Very low number of discrimination cases. Based on the information available, it seems 
that compensation seems to be the most commonly applied sanction.  

Lack of discrimination cases, not possible to provide details. 

No real explanation to this phenomenon could be provided. 

X  –  rectifying  the  situation  (civil 
law);  establishment  of  violation 
(civil law) 

In administrative law cases, the inspection bodies prefer sanctions other than fines. In 
civil law cases, sanctions rectifying the situation (which could be structural injunction) or 
establishing the violation are imposed. Only if just satisfaction in the  form of apology is 
not  sufficient,  courts  impose  monetary  compensation  of  non-pecuniary  damage.  No 
criminal cases could be identified.  

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

There  is  some  indication  that,  in  discrimination  cases  where  sanctions  are  imposed,  monetary 
compensation for damages tends to be the primary type of sanction. This trend could be observed 
in 16 Member States (AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE, LU, NL, PL, RO and SE), though 
relevant  compensation  schemes  may  pertain  to  different  areas  of  law  (as  illustrated  in  the  table 
above). Fines, as a sanction were observed in a significantly smaller number of Member States (AT, 
BG, DK, FI, PT and RO). Other types of sanctions appear to be country-specific and were observed 
in seven Member States (BG, EL, HU, IT, NL, PT and SK).  

It is not possible to conclude whether the aforementioned sanction types are consistently applied 
in comparable discrimination cases (i.e., in cases on the same or similar discrimination grounds, in 
the same areas or in cases with the same or similar facts).  

The Study also attempted to determine the reasons for  not applying or rarely applying certain 
types of sanctions, in Member States where that is the case. However, the lack of relevant data 
and the scarcity of cases in many Member States make it difficult to draw general conclusions on 
this  matter.  Limited  data  available  from  specific  Member  States  suggest  that  the  reasons  for  not 
applying or rarely applying certain sanctions are often specific to each country. Examples of these 
country-specific reasons are provided in the box below.  

Box 27: Examples of reasons for not applying certain sanction types 

• 

• 

• 

In Hungary, fines as a potential sanction by the Equal Treatment Directorate are rarely used. In 
2021, fines were imposed  in only five out of 26 discrimination cases. In 2022, this sanction  was 
used in four out of 23 cases where the Equal Treatment Directorate established discrimination. The 
trend seems to be that the Equal Treatment Directorate tends to favour less substantive sanctions, 
such  as  'establishing  the  violation.'  According  to  the  2022  Annual  Report,  out  of  16  cases,  the 
sanction of 'establishing the violation' was imposed in 10 cases. 

In  Luxembourg,  compensation  for  moral  damages  is  not  frequently  used  due  to  the 
underdeveloped concept of moral damages. 

In Germany, compensation for material damages is rarely awarded. This is due to the requirement 
that the claimant would have to prove that damage has occurred. The burden to demonstrate that 
specific  damages  have  occurred  often  makes  it  difficult  for  victims  to  successfully  claim 
compensation. 

3.1.2. Sanctions imposed as per their objective and nature 

When analysing the approaches of Member States towards sanction regulation, the main conclusion 
reached  was  that  the  sanctions  set  forth  by  national  legislation  are  mainly  backward  looking, 
serving  primarily  punitive  or  compensatory  purposes  (see  analysis  provided  under  Section 
2.3.3). Whilst there could be a correlation between the types of sanctions prescribed by legislation 
and the types of sanctions that are actually imposed (as both victims and courts/adjudicating bodies 
are bound by the framework provided by the law), the prevalence of applying backward looking 
sanctions  in  practice  is  remarkable.  Monetary  compensation  for  material/immaterial  damages, 
serving compensatory purposes and fine serving punitive purposes remain the two most prevalent 
types of sanctions imposed in practice.  

Although (statistical) data on the number of cases in which preventive or socio-preventive sanctions 
are  imposed  is  not  available,  the  evidence  gathered  via  the  current  Study  suggests  that  these 
sanctions are rarely used. Bulgaria and Italy appear to be exceptions, where such sanctions are 
more commonly applied. In other countries, such as Hungary, there is evidence suggesting the use 
of these sanctions, but the extent of their application remains unclear.    

Fines and monetary compensation for material or immaterial damages which are the most commonly 
applied  sanctions  are  classified  as  pecuniary  sanctions  as  per their  nature (see  Section  2.3.3). 

150 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Heavy reliance on pecuniary sanctions could present a potential pressure point for the sanction 
systems of Member States in terms of their effectiveness, as the amounts and ranges of monetary 
sanctions imposed are reportedly low (see Section 3.4.1).  

3.1.3. Injunctive relief usage 

The table below provides a visual overview in relation to the use of injunctive relief in practice. It also 
recalls Member States with national legislation that does not set forth injunctive relief mechanisms.  

Table 21: Injunctive relief usage 

Use of injunctive relief 

Injunctive relief is not regulated (hence it is not used) 

DK, EE, PT, SE 

Injunctive  relief  is  regulated,  but  no  cases  demonstrating  its 
use could be identified  

AT266, BE267, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HR, LT, LU, LV, MT, 
NL, PL, RO268, SI  

Injunctive relief is regulated, and it is used in practice 

BG, DE, FI, HU, IE, IT, SK 

As illustrated in the table above, injunctive relief is a sanction that is not commonly applied in the 
Member States. Among those with national legislation providing for injunctive relief, evidence of its 
practical application was found in only seven Member States.  

While cases resulting in the imposition of injunctive relief are not widespread across the Member 
States, there are jurisdictions showcasing how this sanction can provide remedies in discrimination 
cases. Hungary is often cited in literature269 as a Member State with extensive jurisprudence on this 
matter.  Therefore,  the  box  below  mainly  highlights  Hungary's  jurisprudence  and  includes  some 
notable examples from other jurisdictions. Some of the Hungarian examples also illustrate potential 
challenges for the imposition of structural injunctions.  

Box 28: Relevant case-law examples (injunctive relief)  

Following some cases entailing strategic litigations (actio popularis cases mainly), Hungary has become a 
Member State with significant case-law involving structural injunctions. The description below outlines some 
landmark  cases,  which  also  illustrate  how  the  approach  towards  structural  injunctions  has  evolved  over 
time.  

•  Kaposvar cases:  

-  Kaposvar 1 case270: school segregation case in which the Supreme Court (currently Curia) 
first  recognised  that  a  court  can,  in  principle,  oblige  a  defendant  to  terminate  an  unlawful 
situation in a way that it prescribes concrete steps. In the given case, however, no specific 
injunction was imposed, as the applicant’s claim in this respect was deemed unsatisfactory.  

266 In Romania and Austria sanctions meeting the working definition of an injunctive relief have been identified. It is noted however that 
legal literature and the stakeholders consulted do not classify these sanctions as forms of injunctive relief.   
267 Forms of one-off injunctive relief seem to be used. The possibility of imposing structural injunction was recently introduced to the 
Belgian legal order. No evidence showing the use of this sanction could be identified.  
268 In Romania and Austria sanctions meeting the working definition of an injunctive relief have been identified. It is noted however that 
legal literature and the stakeholders consulted do not classify these sanctions as forms of injunctive relief.   
269 See among others Halberstam, D., and Van den Bogaert, S., ‘A Fresh Look at Judicial Remedies in EU Equality Law and Beyond: 
The Untapped Possibility of Structural Injunctions’, U of Michigan Public Law, Research Paper No. 23-012, 6 March 2023, p.23.  
270 Supreme Court (Legfelsőbb Bíróság), Decision no. Pfv.IV.21.568/2010/5, available at: https://birosag.hu/birosagi-hatarozatok-
gyujtemenye (through search function). 

151 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

-  Kaposvar 2 case271: first case entailing the imposition of structural injunction. In the given 
case, the second instance court mandated the closure of the school in a phased manner. 
Additionally, it required the defendants to formulate a comprehensive desegregation plan for 
first-grade pupils residing within its jurisdiction. The details of the desegregation plan were 
not  specified.  The  Curia  in  this  decision  emphasised  that  courts  are  not  limited  to  issuing 
general directions, but could also define the specific implementation methods.  

•  Metropolitan school segregation case272: school segregation case, which amongst other shows 
that higher instance courts in structural injunction cases might impose less effective sanctions than 
lower instance courts. It also shows that enforcement in these cases might be inefficient.  

In the case the second instance court affirmed the existence of an unlawful situation, supporting the 
plaintiff's argument for terminating it within the context of a lawsuit for breach of personality rights. 
However,  it  emphasised  that  a  court  decision  must  not  only  be  based  on  specific  claims  and 
evidence,  but  must  also  be  executable.  The  first  instance  judgment,  according  to  the  second 
instance court, discarded existing laws and regulations governing the area in question, rendering it 
unimplementable  and  inadequate  for  remedying  school  segregation.  Consequently,  the  second 
instance court partially overturned the first instance court's ruling. While it affirmed the Ministry's 
responsibility, it revoked most of the penalties imposed by the first instance court, retaining only two 
(i.e., fine and the requirement for public administration authorities overseeing the primary schools 
in question to draft desegregation action plans and subsequently make them public). 

The  respondent  complied  with  the  court  decision.  Following  the  decision  the  fine  was  paid  and 
desegregation plans were  prepared. These, however, have not  been effective  in ceasing school 
segregation. The main issue was that the decision did not provide any specific criteria regarding the 
content of the plans, leaving this aspect to the discretion of the schools’ maintainers.  

•  Numbered street case273: a case in which the Equal Treatment Authority (predecessor of the Equal 
Treatment  Directorate)  imposed  structural  injunction,  which  however  was  not  enforced  properly. 
The case concerned discrimination in relation to access to housing. The Equal Treatment Authority 
ruled that the municipality's actions discriminated against residents based on social status, financial 
situation, and Roma origin. They ordered the municipality to cease the discriminatory practice and 
develop  action  plans for providing adequate housing to affected residents. While developing the 
action plans, the municipality was ordered to halt the on-going discriminatory practice. The action 
plans  were  supposed  to  solve  the  situation  of  75-80  families.  In  implementing  the  action  plans, 
remedy could be provided to 30 families only.  

•  Disability case274: most recent case, whereby the Curia ruled that ‘the state cannot be held liable 
for its activities under public law by invoking to the general protection of personality [rights], and in 
the  absence  of  a  civil  law  relationship,  a  civil  court  may  not  oblige  the  […]  respondents  to  take 
measures that belong to the sphere of public law’. The Curia further concluded that in the absence 
of a civil law relationship between the claimants and the respondents, a civil lawsuit aimed at the 
protection of the complainants’ inherent personality rights is not a suitable legal tool for achieving 
the  complainants’  aims.  Should  this  interpretation  become  prevalent,  it  would  render  lawsuits 
targeting  systemic  issues  arising  from  authorities'  inaction  against  inequalities  unfeasible,  thus 
making state obligations in this domain unenforceable.  

271 Curia (Kúria), Decision no. Pfv.IV.20.085/2017/9, available at: https://birosag.hu/birosagi-hatarozatok-gyujtemenye (through search 
function). 
272 Metropolitan Appeal Court, Decision No. 2.Pf. 21.145/2018/6/I, 14 February 2019, available on database of judicial decisions 
(through search function). 
273 Metropolitan Administrative and Labour Court (Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság), Decision no. 6.K.33.048/2015/17. 
274 Curia (Kúria), Decision no. Pfv.IV.21.186/2022/10. 

152 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Slovakia is also a Member State with recent cases in which structural injunction was imposed. In a recent 
case (Terňa case275), the first instance court found discrimination of Roma children in education and obliged 
the  Regional  Office  of  School  Self-Administration  in  Prešov  and  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Science, 
Research and Sports of the Slovak Republic to prepare a desegregation plan within six months  from the 
validity  of  the  ruling.  In  order  to  ensure  enforceability,  the  ruling  includes  particular  aspects  that  the 
desegregation  plan  should  cover,  including  capacity  analysis  of  all  elementary  schools  in  the  city  and 
municipalities within its district taking into account ethnic and social composition of the pupils and effective 
measures to eliminate discrimination of Roma children in the particular school together with timeframe for 
their realisation and preventive measures. The ruling at the time of drafting this Report was under appeal.  

In Italy, several cases entailing the use of injunctive relief have been identified. A notable example of this 
practice is a decision of the Tribunal of Milan276 from 2020. In the given case two employees were regularly 
harassed  at  work  due  to  their  ethnic  origin  The  Tribunal  issued  sanctions  against  the  employee  who 
harassed  the  victims  and  the  employer/organisation  itself.  It  ordered  the  payment  of  compensation  for 
immaterial damages and obliged the employer/organisation to organise training on non-discrimination for 
all staff members.  

3.2. Imposition of sanctions per judicial/adjudicating body(ies) 

This section provides an overview of the following aspects of practice:  

•  Organisations that typically impose sanctions: description of sanctioning body(ies) that 
typically deal with discrimination cases and impose sanctions together with explanation (if 
available) on why cases/sanctions before certain bodies are more frequent. 

•  Sanction  variability across different  bodies:  description  of  key  differences  in  sanctions 

applied to similar cases, based on the type of sanctioning body involved. 

•  Consistency of sanctions among similar bodies: description of the variations in sanctions 
imposed by similar types of sanctioning bodies (organisations that handle comparable cases 
and have similar competences) in comparable cases. 

3.2.1. Organisations that typically impose sanctions 

The table below provides a visual overview of the organisations that in practice typically impose 
sanctions in discrimination cases. This table was compiled based on the sources consulted by the 
country  experts  and  the  information  obtained  from  stakeholders.  Due  to  the  lack  of  comparable 
(statistical) data identified on the matter, it is not possible to quantify the number of cases in which 
each of the organisations listed in the table below has issued sanctions.  

Table 22: Overview of organisations that typically issue sanctions 

Organisations 
that 
typically 
issue sanctions 

Courts 

Member States 

AT (civil cases); BE (labour cases – specialised court); CZ (civil cases); DE (civil, labour cases); 
EL (labour, civil and criminal cases); ES (labour cases – specialised court); FR (labour cases – 
specialised court); HU (civil cases); IT (civil and labour cases); LU (labour cases  – specialised 
court); PL (civil cases); SE (labour cases – specialised court); SK (civil and labour cases – court 
and specialised court, respectively) 

275 Judgement of the District Court in Prešov No 29C/34/2023-42 of 6 November 2023.  
276 Tribunal of Milan, labour division, 24 January2020. 

153 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Other  adjudicating 
bodies 

BG - Commission for Protection against Discrimination; CZ – Czech Trade Inspection Authority, 
Labour Inspectorate; DK – Danish Equal Treatment Board; EE – Labour Dispute Commission; 
EL  –  Labour  Inspectorates;  FI  -  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  authorities;  IE  -  Workplace 
Relations Commission; LT - Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson; PT – Commission 
for  Equality  and  against  Racial  Discrimination  and  Authority  for  Working  Conditions277;  RO  - 
National Council for Combating Discrimination; SK - Central Office of Labour, Social Affairs and 
Family and labour offices 

Not  relevant  –  no 
discrimination 
cases 

CY, HR, LV, MT, SI 

As illustrated in the table above, discrimination cases covered by the Study are typically heard by 
courts (this was reported on in relation to 13 Member States) or other  adjudicating bodies (this 
was reported on in relation to 11 Member States). In three Member States (CZ, EL and SK) evidence 
suggests that discrimination cases covered by the Study are heard by both types of organisations 
(i.e., courts, other adjudicating bodies).  

A commonly reported factor determining which organisation imposes a sanction is the type of the 
discrimination  case.  As  employment  related  disputes seem  to  be fairly  common  in  the  Member 
States,  organisations  responsible  for  handling  these  cases  are  typically  the  ones  that  impose 
sanctions. These, depending on the jurisdiction concerned could be courts (as in for example ES or 
LU) or other adjudicating bodies (as in for example IE or SK). 

Factors such as the efficiency of proceedings, the speed at which cases are handled, and the level 
of formality and accessibility of the organisation also influence where victims turn with their cases. 
This  choice  would  ultimately  determine  which  authority  is  the  one  that  more  frequently  imposes 
sanctions. In Denmark, for example the Danish Board of Equal Treatment frequently handles cases, 
as compared to courts, as it provides a less formal, yet legally binding dispute resolution pathway. 
In Estonia and Ireland, the Labour Dispute Commission and the Workplace Relations Commission, 
respectively, are reported to handle proceedings faster than courts and are the preferred pathways 
for victims of discrimination cases.  

3.2.2. Sanction variability across different bodies 

This  sub-section  aims  to  explore  whether  there  is  any  variability  in  the  sanctions  imposed  by 
different  bodies  (such  as  courts  versus  other  adjudicating  bodies)  for  similar  cases  (those 
involving similar grounds or occurring in similar areas). It also seeks to identify the reasons for such 
variations,  beyond those  dictated  by  legislation specifying the  types  and ranges  of  sanctions  that 
different authorities may impose.  

Some variations have been reported on in two Member States only (i.e., HU and NL). This small 
sample does not allow for a cross-country comparison.   

Box 29: Sanction variability across different bodies for similar cases  

•  Hungary: there are two main differences between the sanctions imposed by civil courts and the 
Ombudsman and its Equal Treatment Directorate. One stands from the fact that in civil law cases 
the  claimant  requests  the  sanctions  to  be  imposed.  In  proceedings  before  the  Ombudsman,  the 
choice of the types of sanctions to be imposed depends on the Ombudsman. Another difference is 
the  fact  that  sanctions  imposed  by  civil  courts  are  typically  tangible/substantial.  The  Equal 

277 In Portugal, no relevant court cases could be identified.  

154 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Treatment  Directorate  either  does  not  impose  sanctions  or  when  it  does  the  sanctions  are  not 
tangible (rather symbolic) and mainly establish the fact that a violation has taken place. 

•  Netherlands:  in  the  Netherlands,  distinct  differences  can  be  observed  between  the  practices  of 
adjudicating  bodies  and  other  entities  addressing  similar  cases.  Notably,  sources  suggest  that 
judges and the Netherlands Human Rights Institute often arrive at different conclusions even when 
applying  the  same  rules  to  similar  cases.  This  divergence  may  stem  from  the  fact  that  the 
Netherlands  Human  Rights  Institute  primarily  conducts  a  binary  assessment  (distinguishing 
between  non-prohibited  and  prohibited  actions),  whereas  judges  undertake  more  complex 
evaluations involving additional rules, rights, and obligations. It is important to note that while the 
Netherlands Human Rights Institute issues authoritative judgments, these are non-binding.  

3.2.3. Consistency of sanctions among similar bodies 

This sub-section aims to explore whether there is any variability in the sanctions imposed by similar 
types of bodies (hence it examines practices of courts and other adjudicating bodies separately) for 
similar cases (those involving similar grounds or occurring in similar areas). It also seeks to identify 
the reasons for such variations. 

The sources consulted for the Study led to the identification of some trends in relation to the practices 
of  similar  bodies,  which  are  outlined  in  the  box  below.  These  are  examples  focusing  on  specific 
Member  States  only.  Similar  trends  might  also  exist  in  other  Member  States,  which  are  not 
specifically covered by the box.  

Box 30: Consistency of sanctions among similar bodies 

•  Austria: a trend in relation to compensation for moral damages could be observed, whereby higher 
courts tend to further reduce the amounts imposed at lower levels. This was marked as problematic 
as amounts imposed at lower levels are already low.  

•  Hungary: especially in relation to injunctions, higher instance courts tend to amend or overrule the 
sanctions  imposed  by  lower  instance  courts.  This  trend  could  be  observed  in  the  ‘Metropolitan 
school segregation case’ whereby the second instance court repealed most sanctions imposed by 
the first instance court. Likewise, the case on the ‘Right to bring actio popularis cases before the 
Constitutional  Court’278  demonstrates  that  higher  instance  courts  might  impose  less  severe 
sanctions  than  lower  instance  courts.  The  same  trend  could  be  observed  in  the  ‘Child  removal 
case’279, whereby the second instance court dismissed some of the sanctions imposed at the first 
instance.  

Another example from Hungary illustrates how the approach towards similar cases evolved over 
time.  The  practice  of  the  current  Equal  Treatment  Directorate  compares  to  the  practice  of  its 
predecessor, the Equal Treatment Authority. Their different approaches could be observed, via two 
similar  cases:    the  Numbered  Street  case  and  the  Heroes  Street  case.  In  the  former,  the  Equal 
Treatment Authority imposed a fine, while in the latter, the Equal Treatment Directorate dismissed 
the  case.  Remarkably,  despite  having  comparable  facts,  the  outcomes  are  different. These  two 
cases could be summed up as follows: 

-  Numbered street case The case involved the municipality of Miskolc in North-East Hungary 
systematically terminating social housing tenancies in a highly segregated area known as 
the "Numbered Streets." Without providing alternative housing, this action exposed tenants 
to  the  risk  of  homelessness.  The  Equal  Treatment  Authority  heard  the  case  at  the  first 
instance and ruled that the municipality's actions discriminated against residents based on 
social status, financial situation, and Roma origin. They ordered the municipality to cease 
the  discriminatory  practice  and  develop  action  plans  for  providing  adequate  housing  to 

278 Constitutional Court, Decision no. 3133/2013. (VII. 2.). 
279 Curia (Kúria), Decision no. Pfv.IV.20.857/2022/10, (through search function). 

155 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

affected residents. Additionally, they imposed a fine of HUF 500 000 (cca. EUR 1 670) on 
the municipality. 

-  Heroes Street Case280: In the Heroes Street case, hundreds of families were evicted by the 
municipality  of  Kőbánya  without  a  comprehensive  plan  or  professional  oversight.  This 
situation  mirrored  the  Numbered  Streets  case,  but  with  a  difference  that  some  of  the 
properties  in  Heroes  Street  were  privately  owned,  whereas  the  Numbered  Streets  case 
involved state-owned houses. Over 300 homes were affected in Heroes Street. The Equal 
Treatment Directorate dismissed the case, citing a lack of competence due to the private 
ownership of the homes. 

•  Netherlands: the practices of some of the Subdistrict Court judges hearing cases in single-judge 
chambers  demonstrate  a  higher  level  of  autonomy  from  the  national  jurisprudence  and  less 
consistency in their judgments and the sanctions imposed.  

•  Slovakia: the amount of sanctions imposed in discrimination cases, as well as the overall outcome 
of  litigation,  can  vary  significantly  depending  on  the  court  or  senate  presiding  over  the  case. 
Moreover, some courts are recognised for being more prompt to consider the case-law from the 
Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (CJEU),  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  or  other 
foreign  courts  handling  similar  issues,  whereas  some  others  do  not  seem  to  give  much 
consideration to international developments or CJEU/European jurisprudence. The positive impact 
of considering European jurisprudence on the imposition of sanctions is evident in the ‘Hermanovce 
case’281,  where  the  court  determined  the  amount  of  financial  compensation  for  non-pecuniary 
damage by referencing the damages awarded by the European Court of Human Rights in a similar 
case of school segregation of Roma students.  

The  box  above  suggests  that  the  approaches  of  similar  bodies  towards  sanction  imposition  are  not 
necessarily consistent. This might question the fairness of the sanction systems in the Member States. For 
example, victims involved in comparable cases (similar grounds or in relation to similar areas) may be awarded 
very  different  sanctions,  depending  on  the  body  that  hears  their  case.  This  could  discourage  victims  from 
pursuing  their  discrimination  claims  before  certain  authorities.  Inconsistent  practice  may  also  impact  the 
lawyers’  work,  who  in  the  absence  of  consistent  legal  precedents  might  not  be  able  to  advise  their  clients 
effectively.  

3.3. Circumstances considered in determining sanctions 

Section  3.3  analyses  the  practices  of  courts  and  other  adjudicating  bodies  regarding  the 
circumstances considered when determining sanctions. It also addresses two specific areas: cases 
of discrimination involving the use of AI and automated systems, and the awarding of compensation. 

For methodological purposes, it is important to note that experts in 10 countries (AT, BE, CY, EL, 
HR, HU, IE, LT, LU, and LV) highlighted that the absence of relevant case law, decisions, or, more 
broadly, information on this issue limited their findings and hindered their ability to draw conclusions. 

Consequently, compared to the information provided under Section 2.4. on the legal framework, it is 
notable that the information provided through the country research on the practical application does 
not reach the same level of disaggregation and detail. Instead, the practical information collected by 
the  experts  on  the  elements  concretely  used  for  determining  the  sanctions  shows  a  mosaic  of 

280 The case number could not be located, information on the case is available here: Society for Civil Rights, ‘The Court ruled in favour 
of the EBH: It made an unfair decision in the Hös Utca Case’ (Igazat adott a bíróság: az EBH méltatlan döntést hozott a Hős utca 
ügyében), 13 January 2022. 
281 Judgement of the District Court in Prešov, No 15C/14/2016-557 of 24 November 2021. 

156 

 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

experiences. Notably, the research revealed specificities depending on the type of sanction, the 
area of law, the adjudicating bodies, and others, as shown below.  

In general, it can be concluded that, in line with general principles of adjudication and sentencing, 
the  adjudicating  bodies  tend  to  consider  all  the  facts  and  the  elements  that  allow  them  to 
understand the particular circumstances of the case and of the parties involved, namely: 

•  Discriminatory act: Severity of the facts/discriminatory act (e.g., BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, 
IT, LU, PL and RO), duration (e.g., BG, CZ, DE, FI, IT, PL and RO), nature (e.g., DE, DK, 
EE, IT, LU and RO), extent (e.g., EE, FI, FR, IT, LU and RO); relation between perpetrator 
and victim (e.g., BG), discriminatory ground (especially, if race – EL – or ethnic origin – CZ); 
number of grounds on which discrimination was based (e.g., BG), public nature (e.g., BG), 
systemic factors highlighted by the case (e.g., DK, FR and RO), repetitive nature (e.g., CZ, 
DK,  EE  and  IE),  seriousness  or  egregiousness  of  the  discrimination  (e.g.,  IE  and  IT), 
prolonged  or  ongoing  discrimination  (e.g.,  IE),  visibility  (e.g.,  IT  and  RO),  area/field  of 
discrimination (e.g., RO); 

• 

Intent and participation: Motives (e.g., BG, FI, LU, LV and RO), intent, including negligence 
(e.g., PT); 

•  Perpetrator:  Perpetrator’s  profile  (e.g.,  age,  education,  family  status,  health,  professional 
occupation and other relevant personal circumstances depending on the case) (e.g., BG and 
RO), personality of the perpetrator (e.g., BE), perpetrator’s behaviour (e.g., BE and IE), prior 
history, notably of discrimination (e.g., BE and BG), recidivism (e.g., BG, CZ, DE and LU), 
perpetrator’s acknowledgement of the discriminatory bias (e.g., IE and NL), attempt to repair 
harm done (e.g., DE, IE and LU), remorse (e.g., LU), economic situation of the perpetrator, 
notably, capacity to pay the fine/compensation (e.g., CZ, DE and SK); 

•  Victim: Victim’s profile (e.g., age, education, family status, health, professional occupation 
and other relevant personal circumstances depending on the case) (e.g., BG, EE and RO), 
impact on the victim (e.g., DK, EE, LU, LV and RO), particular psychological effect (e.g., EE 
and LU) and other (psychological, physical, financial damage) (e.g., LU and RO), vulnerability 
(e.g., EE, FI, IE and RO), including if they are children (e.g., FI), number of victims (e.g., CZ, 
FR and RO), particularly in employment matters (e.g., PT); 

•  Damage: Damage caused to the victim and third parties (e.g., BG, CZ, DE and PL), extent 
(e.g., LU), tangible harm (loss of employment, denial of services, or physical violence) (e.g., 
RO), collective and public interests affected (e.g., RO). 

In several Member States (e.g., EE, HU, IE and SK), the discretion of courts, which should decide 
based on the interpretation of the law and personal conviction, has been highlighted. Adjudicating 
bodies imposing sanctions may give weight to some particular circumstances. This is the case, for 
instance, in Bulgaria, where the Commission for Protection against Discrimination reportedly gives 
most weight to the gravity of the offence and the type of the offender. This is further illustrated in 
the box below.  

Box 31: Example of circumstances considered by an adjudicating body 

The Commission for Protection against Discrimination of Bulgaria regularly assesses ‘gravity’ based on the 
number of grounds of discrimination, number of victims, intensity and repetitiveness of the act, number of 
acts,  level  of  integration  of  the  violation  in  the  perpetrator’s  policies  and  practices,  scale  and  nature  of 
damages, etc.  

The  Commission  for  Protection  against  Discrimination  considers  the  following  as  serious  aggravating 
circumstances:  multiple  discrimination,  intersectional  discrimination,  discrimination  in  the  public  sphere, 
multiple acts which constitute the alleged violation, presence of accomplices, intensity of the act, duration 
of  the  act,  persistence  of  the  perpetrator,  presence  of  additional  reproachable  motives  apart  from  the 
discriminatory motive, additional vulnerability of the victim apart from their association with the discriminatory 

157 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ground  (especially,  if  the  victim  is  a  child,  even  if  the  discrimination  is  not  based  on  age),  multiple 
victimisation of the victim, combination of the act with other types of offences (insult, physical abuse, abuse 
of labour or social or other rights, etc., white-collar offence, abuse of office, etc.), presence of humiliation in 
the  modus  operandi,  publicity  of  the  act,  public  reaction  to  the  act,  social  standing  of  the  perpetrator 
(especially grave if it is a state official or a politician), the scale of the offence, the size and market standing 
of the legal person-offender.  

Concerning  the  motivation  of  the  perpetrator  and,  in  particular,  the  acknowledgement  of  the 
discriminatory bias, two cases are worth noting (see box below).   

Box  32:  Cases  illustrating  the  approach  towards  the  consideration  of  motive  and 
discriminatory bias 

• 

Ireland 

In Suchavadee Foley v. Atercin Liffey Unlimited T/A Starbucks Tallaght282 a near maximum award was made 
for a racist incident in a coffee shop. The non-acceptance by the respondent at the hearing that the incident 
was racist was itself an aggravating factor. 

•  The Netherlands 

In a case decided by the District Court of Rotterdam, on 15 July 2022283, a fine of EUR 175 was imposed 
on  a  dentist  refusing  to  hire  a  new  assistant  because  she  wore  a  headscarf.  Under  the  section  of  the 
judgment on ‘reasons for punishment’, the court noted that the dentist did not feel that refusing a woman 
with  a  headscarf  to  work  for  him  was  reprehensible  and  that  the  dentist  was  a  first  offender.  The  court 
decided that: ‘Taking into account the seriousness of the offence and penalties generally imposed for such 
offences, a fine of EUR 175.00 is appropriate’. 

Still  within  this  general  panorama,  some  particularities  in  certain  contexts,  particularly 
employment settings, are worth noting. For example, in Estonia, in employment cases particular 
weight  is  given  to  the  repeated  nature  of  violations  and  to  the  extent  of  discrimination  and  the 
vulnerability of the victim, especially in rural areas. In Portugal, in labour matters, most offences are 
committed  negligently  and  then  the  range  of  applicable  penalties  is  lower.  In  labour  cases,  one 
important element considered is the number of workers affected by the discriminatory practice.  

The  relevance  of  certain  characteristics  and/or  circumstances  may  vary  across  areas  of  law 
governing the application of sanctions. For instance, concerning administrative sanctions and, 
particularly,  the  fine,  in  Czechia,  the  nature  and  scope  of  the  perpetrator’s  economic  activities  is 
taken into consideration to ensure that the sanction is proportionate and achieves the desired impact. 
In  Finland,  adjudicating  bodies  especially  consider  the  characteristics  of  the  perpetrator  –  in 
particular economic strength, as measured, for example, by turnover – and not those of the victim. 
In  Slovakia,  adjudicating  bodies  consider  whether  the  pecuniary  amount  may  have  a  liquidation 
effect  on  the  perpetrator  and  may  accordingly  apply  lower  fines,  without  this  meaning  a  lower 
threshold of gravity of the action and the corresponding sanction. Injunctions are particularly at the 
discretion of the adjudicating body depending on the circumstances of the case (IE). The relevance 
of certain characteristics and/or circumstances in the determination of compensation is dealt with in 
a specific title later in this section. 

282 Decision of the Workplace Relations Commission of 20 January 2021, Suchavadee Foley v. Atercin Liffey Unlimited T/A Starbucks 
Tallaght, ADJ- 00028487.  
283 Judgment of the District Court Rotterdam of 15 July 2022, 10/279076-21, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:6178, point 7. The dentist also had 
to pay EUR 300 compensation for immaterial damages. 

158 

 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Specifically  in  respect  of  multiple/intersectional  discrimination,  it  was  confirmed  that  multiple 
discrimination is considered in practice in the application of sanctions in seven Member States (AT, 
BG,  DE,  DK,  HU,  RO  and  SI).  The  same  applies  to  intersectional  discrimination,  also  in  seven 
Member States (BG, DE, DK, FI, HU, RO and SI). For example, in Denmark, Danish courts and the 
Board of Equal Treatment assess how the various forms of discrimination interact and impact on the 
victim,  which  can  lead  to  the  application  of  more  severe  sanctions,  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
proportionality.  In  Finland,  intersectional  discrimination  is  considered  in  the  assessment  of  the 
victim’s vulnerability.  

Impact of the use of automated systems on sanctions 

This  description  outlines  how  the  involvement  of  automated  systems,  including  AI,  causing 
and/or aggravating the discrimination is taken into account in the determination of sanctions 
in discrimination cases. 

It results from the research conducted that the impact of automated systems on sanctions is a novel 
issue  with  very  little  practical  treatment.  In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  the  experts  could  not 
identify any concrete experience concerning cases of discrimination through the use of AI.  

Box 33: Cases illustrating approaches towards cases entailing the use of automated 
systems or AI 

• 

Ireland 

The case James McCarthy v. Cork City Council284, dealt with by the Irish labour inspectorate, involved an 
automated  system  for  the  allocation  of  public  housing.  Discrimination  was  found  on  the  ground  of  the 
complainant’s membership of the travelling community. The sanctions applied were compensation and an 
order  to  review  the  equality  proofing  of  the  automated  system.  However,  the  role  of  the  AI  in  the 
discriminatory  act  was  not  mentioned  expressly  as  an  aggravating  factor  or  as  a  critical  part  of  the 
substantive reasoning. 

•  The Netherlands 

In the Netherlands, case-law on discriminatory behaviour by public bodies involving AI has been identified. 
However, the involvement of the use of AI specifically did not seem to affect the sanctions applied.  

In the ‘Day Care Benefits Affair’, the National Institute for Human Rights investigated the reported structural 
discrimination in the control and supervisory system. It concluded that the Dutch Tax authorities’ decisions 
in individual cases did not encompass information about whether or not the non-Dutch origins of the persons 
in question played a role in them. It issued three (non-binding) judgments in which it concluded that the tax 
authorities had discriminated when  using selection criteria in  their systems that  singled  out  persons with 
dual nationality to be investigated and/or labelled as frauds. While the National Institute for Human Rights 
is not authorised to impose sanctions on its judgment or to award compensation285, regular judicial bodies 
(i.e. Dutch courts) may not ignore their judgments. 

In the case against the Royal Dutch Marechaussee, the checks of the Royal Dutch Marechausee at various 
Dutch airports were analysed to see if they were based on racial profiling through the Mobile Surveillance 
Security.  The  case  concluded  with  a  decision  by  the  Appeal  Court  in  which  it  prohibited  the  State  from 
making selection decisions that are (partly) based on race when carrying out Mobile Surveillance Security 
checks286. 

284 Decision of the Workplace Relations Commission of 20 July 2020, James McCarthy v. Cork City Council, ADJ-00018849. 
285 See College voor de Rechten van de Mens, NIHR, ‘Three convictions in cases of benefits parents: no direct but indirect 
discrimination by the Tax Office/Benefits’ (Drie oordelen in zaken van toeslagenouders: geen directe maar wel indirecte discriminatie 
door Belastingdienst/Toeslagen), 2 October 2023. 
286 Judgment of the District Court Den Haag of 10 October 2023, Plaintiff v Commander of the Royal Dutch Marechaussee, 
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:16228. 

159 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

A  future  court  case  could  arise  from  the  alleged  discriminatory  effect  of  the  software  used  by  the  Dutch 
ministry of Foreign Affairs to select persons who applied for a Dutch visa to be checked more thoroughly 287.   

The only relevant cases dealing with discrimination covered by the Directives involving the use of AI 
identified were found in Ireland and in the Netherlands and are described in the box above. However, 
the involvement of the use of AI specifically did not seem to affect the sanctions applied.   

Although cases are lacking, on a prospective note, stakeholders interviewed in France noted that 
the  circumstance  of  the  discriminatory  act  having  been  committed  through  AI  would  probably  be 
considered by the adjudicating authorities in the application of the sanction. Moreover, as such cases 
probably involve mass data processing and, thus, multiple victims, this will also likely be considered. 
In Ireland, one stakeholder noted that the adjudicating body would be likely to consider the use of AI 
as part of the facts of the case, especially when it equates to a particularly serious means used for 
the  discrimination.  Notwithstanding,  in  France  and  Portugal,  concerns  were  raised  in the  national 
research about the national systems’ capacity to deal with such cases effectively. Notably, in France, 
the lack of effective group action and the limited use of existing structural sanctions may be important 
limitations in dealing with this type of case. In Portugal, an important challenge mentioned concerning 
labour matters consists of the low level of the applicable fines which might not serve as a deterrent 
in cases entailing the use of AI. 

Factors influencing victim compensation 

The  paragraphs  below  describe  elements  the  courts  consider  when  determining  victim 
compensation, especially how they assess the ‘loss of the victim’. 

On the awarding of compensation, in line with general principles, the principle of full compensation 
(e.g., FR and LU), the victim’s claim (e.g., FI) and the situation before the discriminatory act (e.g., 
MT)  are  crucial  elements.  Other  elements  expressly  mentioned  by  experts  as  considered  when 
awarding compensation in discrimination cases include: the nature and type (e.g., FI and LU), extent 
(e.g., FI), severity/seriousness (e.g., EL and LU), and duration (e.g., CZ, EE, EL, FI and LU) of the 
discriminatory act, its impact (e.g., CZ and EE), the number of victims (e.g., CZ) and their vulnerability 
(e.g., FI), harm suffered by the victim (material, moral, financial, psychologic, and social) (e.g., CZ, 
LU, MT and SI), the case’s outreach in society (e.g., RO) and the circumstances of the perpetrator 
and recidivism (e.g., CZ). 

In awarding material or immaterial compensation, courts or adjudicating bodies in some Member 
States  may  consider  additional  factors.  In  certain  Member  States  it  was  reported  that  material 
damage includes costs incurred, lost income and other opportunities (e.g., BG, EL and SI). In some 
Member States, immaterial damages are compensated based on fairness and have no established 
limits (e.g., in BG). In Estonia, the victim’s emotional distress (or lack thereof) also plays a role in the 
determination of immaterial damages. In Greece, the decision on moral damages is based on the 
‘infringement  of  personality’  which  is  the  legal  basis  for  compensation.  The  victim’s  "harm"  or 
"damage" are determined on the basis of the same criteria that apply in all cases of compensatory 
liability.   

On the different elements to consider when determining compensation for non-pecuniary damages, 
noteworthy cases from Slovakia are presented in the box below. 

287 NRC, ‘WATCH OUT, says the computer of Foreign Affairs with tens of thousands of visa applications. Is that discrimination?’ (LET 
OP, zegt de computer van Buitenlandse Zaken bij tienduizenden visumaanvragen. Is dat discriminatie?), NRC Handelsblad website, 2 
May 2024. 

160 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Box 34: Cases illustrating approach towards compensation for immaterial damages 

In  the  Nižné  Kapustníky  case288,  the  court  also  considered,  for  the  determination  of  the  amount  of 
compensation for  immaterial damage, the fact that evictions of Roma (housing discrimination case) took 
place close to the winter period, also caused interference with the right to privacy and the right to inviolability 
of one’s home.  

In  the  Digital  gap  case289,  the  court  took  into  account  while  calculating  the  compensation  of  immaterial 
damages, the irreversibility of the harm caused, the fact that it happened during the COVID-19 pandemic 
and the overall effect of the violation on the right to education, right to work and further life of the victim. 

In the Discrimination of Roma in access to job case290, the circumstances taken into account when imposing 
financial compensation of EUR 2 500 for immaterial harm imposed by the court included the presence of 
another  person  during  violation  (public  nature  of  violation),  impact  on  personal  integrity,  gravity  of  the 
violation and impact on economic/labour life of the victim. 

Among the specific circumstances taken into account for reducing or not awarding compensation 
are: the short duration of the discriminatory act (e.g., EE), the minimal consequences (e.g., EE), the 
perpetrator’s behaviour and any attempt to repair the damage (e.g., FI) and the perpetrator’s financial 
situation (e.g., FI). 

Particular  circumstances  are  relevant  to  the  awarding  of  compensation  in  the  context  of 
employment  discrimination.  In  Bulgaria,  decisions  on  the  matter  have  valued  the  loss  of 
employees prevented from going to work291. In Denmark, the victim’s loss is particularly considered 
and is related to their salary and duration of employment. In Spain, relevant case law has considered 
the duration of employment, salary and the nature of the damage. In Ireland, in cases of unequal 
renumeration or discriminatory unfair dismissal, the victim's loss of earnings is taken into account 
when awarding compensation. In Portugal, the amount of future damages is also considered, that 
is, the possible impact of the discriminatory practice in the worker’s professional path. In Romania, 
if an employee is fired on discriminatory grounds, the courts consider the amount they would have 
earned if they had remained employed with the company for the entire duration of the dispute. In 
Sweden, compensation is also usually referring to income loss. 

The  above  considers  first  and  foremost  scenarios  of  individual  compensation.  As  such,  in  actio 
popularis cases where there is often no identifiable victim, the determination of the victims’ loss is 
difficult to quantify. 

3.4. Amounts/ranges applied in practice 

This sub-section describes the trends in imposing minimum/maximum sanctions by judges or other 
adjudicating bodies. It also outlines calculation methods that are used in cases related to different 

288 Judgement of the Regional Court of Košice No 9Co/21/2022 of 28 June 2023 (Rozsudok Krajského súdu Košice sp. Zn. 
9Co/21/2022 zo dňa 28.6.2023), not available online. See European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, 
‘Flash report, The appeal court confirmed discrimination of Roma, who were forcibly evicted from their homes by municipal authorities’. 
289 Judgement of the District Court in Prešov of 6 November 2023, No. 18C/96/2022-254 (Rozsudok Okresného súdu v Prešove sp. Zn. 

18C/96/2022-254 zo dňa 6.11.2023). 

290 Judgement of the Regional Court of Košice of 7 February 2018, No 9Co/259/2017, (Rozsudok Krajského súdu v Košiciach sp. Zn. 
9Co/259/2017 zo dňa 7.2.2018). 
291 See, for example, Bulgaria, Decision No. 97/23.03.2022 of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (Комисия за 
защита от дискриминация), Case No. 557/2020. 

161 

 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

legal areas or discrimination grounds, which could be applied in the cases of discrimination covered 
by the Study.  

3.4.1. Application of minimum or maximum sanctions 

While official statistics on this matter are generally unavailable, consulted sources indicate a trend 
in eight Member States (AT, BG, FI, IT, LU, PT, RO and SK) where courts and other adjudicating 
bodies  tend  to  impose  sanctions  equalling  to  or  close  to  the  legal  minimums.  The  sanctions 
imposed do not reach the legal maximums in any Member State.  

It is recalled (see Section 2.3.4 for more information) that certain sanction types that could otherwise 
be expressed in amounts/ranges are not necessarily quantified as such in national legislation. For 
example, monetary compensation for material damages, which is a type of sanction, existing in all 
jurisdictions is not quantified in terms of legal minimum/maximum in 23 jurisdictions (AT292, BG, HR, 
CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU293, IT294, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL295, PT, RO, SE and SK296). 
Evidence  regarding  the  specific  amounts  typically  imposed  for  sanctions  not  defined  by  legal 
minimums or maximums in national legislation is available for six Member States (CZ, EE, FR, HU, 
RO, and SE).  

For the remaining Member States, no clear trends could be identified regarding the application of 
minimum or maximum sanctions.  

The  box  below  further  illustrates  the  national  approaches,  by  providing  some  country-specific 
examples. 

Box 35: Application of minimum/maximum sanctions – country-specific examples 

Examples of Member States, where mainly legal minimum sanctions are imposed:  

•  Austria:  For  harassment,  including  racist  or  religious  harassment,  there  is  a  legal  minimum 
compensation of EUR 1 000. This amount in practice often sets a de facto maximum limit, as victims 
must prove their burden exceeds this amount.  

•  Bulgaria:  The  most  frequently  used  amount  of  both  fines  and  pecuniary  sanctions  for  a  non-
repetitive breach of equality rights by the Commission for Protection against Discrimination is the 
minimum of 250 BGN (EUR 125). The statutory maximum (2 000/2 500 BGN, app. EUR 1 000/1 
250) is hardly ever reached. 

• 

Italy:  Judges  tend  to  impose  legal  minimum  sanctions  in  the  case  of  compensation  for  material 
damages.   

•  Slovakia: there is an indication that sanctions tend to be closer to the legal minimums. This pattern 
is evident in, for example, the 'Roma discrimination access to services case297', where the Slovak 
Trade Inspection explicitly imposed a sanction near the legal minimum.  

•  Portugal: From the overview of fines imposed by the Commission for Equality and against Racial 
Discrimination between 2018 and 2022, it is evident that the majority of fines are less than 500 EUR. 
According to Article 16(1) of Law 93/2017, fines applicable to natural persons range between one 
and ten times the value of the social support index. Considering that the value of the social support 
index was EUR 443.00  in  2022, EUR 438.81 in 2021 and 2020, EUR 435.76 in 2019, and EUR 

292 Statement valid in relation to certain forms of compensation schemes only. 
293 Statement valid in relation to certain forms of compensation schemes only. 
294 Statement valid in relation to certain forms of compensation schemes only. 
295 Statement valid in relation to certain forms of compensation schemes only. 
296 Statement valid in relation to certain forms of compensation schemes only. 
297 Judgement of the District Court of Spišská Nová Ves of 24 April 2014, No 1C/118/2010.  

162 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

428.90 in 2018, it can be concluded that most decisions of the Commission for Equality and against 
Racial Discrimination opted to apply the minimum penalty possible. 

•  Romania: The National Council for Combating Discrimination generally imposes fines that are lower 
than the legal medium (the potential fines ranging from approximately EUR 200 to EUR 6 000) for 
cases involving individual victims. According to the organisation’s 2023 Activity Report, out of the 
69 cases in which fines were imposed:  

- 

- 

- 

17 fines were around RON 2 000 (approximately EUR 400). 

17 fines were around RON 5 000 (approximately EUR 1 000). 

19 fines were around RON 10 000 (approximately EUR 2 000). 

A similar trend could be observed in relation to cases targeting a group of victims or communities 
(e.g., Roma or Jewish people). In these cases, the National Council for Combating Discrimination 
typically imposes a fine of approximately EUR 400, which is the legal minimum (the potential fines 
prescribed in law range between approximately EUR 400 and EUR 20 000).  

Examples  of  Member  States,  where  no  legal  minimums/maximums  are  defined  in  legislation,  but  where 
information on the amount/ranges of typically applied sanctions is available:  

•  Czechia: Compensation amounts granted by courts in civil law cases differ in terms of value and 
range  between  EUR  200  and  EUR  10  000  depending  on  the  case  concerned.  Compensation 
amounts imposed on the ground of ethnicity tend to be higher than compensation amounts granted 
on other discrimination grounds.  

•  Estonia: In civil proceedings, there are no predefined minimum or maximum compensation ranges. 
According  to  one  source,  compensation  in  discrimination  cases  typically  averages  around  three 
months of salary. However, this estimate requires validation against official statistics, which are not 
readily available to the public. 

•  France:  Some  estimates  could  be  provided  with  respect  to  one  type  of  sanction  applying  to 
discriminatory  dismissal.  In  these  cases,  a  minimum  compensation  of  six  months  of  salary  is 
payable.  

•  Germany:  The  cases  identified  suggest  that  courts  tend  to  order  a  few  thousand  euro  as 
compensation  for  both  material  and  immaterial  damages.  In  all  cases  identified  by  the  country 
expert, the compensation awarded was around EUR 5 000. In the  LAG case298, for example, an 
employee was subject to discriminatory dismissal. The employer dismissed the employee due to 
her  Russian  accent  while  speaking  German.  The  competent  court  awarded  EUR  5  400  to  the 
claimant as monetary compensation for immaterial damages. In another case299 concerning access 
to  and  the  provision  of  goods  and  services,  the  court  awarded  the  claimants  EUR  5  000  as 
compensation for material damages. In this instance, the two claimants, who had travelled to view 
a rental apartment, were discriminated against by the landlord and consequently were not offered 
the apartment.  

•  Hungary:  Some  information  could  be  obtained  with  respect  to  compensation  for  immaterial 
damages. According to a source300, in the past, Hungarian courts typically awarded compensation 
around EUR 280 (HUF 100 000), especially in cases involving discrimination in access to services, 
such  as  denial  of  entry  to  discos  or  bars  for  Roma  guests.  However,  there  has  been  a  recent 
increase in average compensation amounts. 

• 

In the Gyöngyöspata case301 (school segregation case), for instance, the appellate court awarded 
EUR  1  400  (HUF  500  000)  per  school  year  for  instances  of  segregation  resulting  in  inferior 

298 LAG Bremen, Urteil vom 29.06.2010 – 1 Sa 29/10.  
299 LG Mönchengladbach, Urteil vom 27.05.2016 – 11 O 99/15. 
300 European Network of Legal Experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, Kádár, A., Country Report non-discrimination, 
Hungary,  Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, p. 84. 
301 Curia (Kúria), Decision Pfv.IV.21.556/2019. 

163 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

education. Additionally, EUR 833 (HUF 300 000) per year was granted for cases where segregation 
occurred, but the lower quality of education could not be proven. 

•  Regarding  fines  imposed  by  the  Equal  Treatment  Directorate  or  its  predecessor,  the  Equal 
Treatment Authority, the following information could be obtained: The highest sum ever applied by 
the  Ombudsman/Equal  Treatment  Directorate  was  EUR  1  293  (imposed  in  the  Postal  services 
case302).  This  fine  was  imposed  against  a  public  service  provider  for  inaccessible  premises  to 
wheelchair users. For comparison, the highest sanction imposed by the Equal Treatment Authority 
(the predecessor of the Equal Treatment Directorate) was EUR 13 889. This illustrates a significant 
decrease in the value of currently applicable fines compared to those in the past. 

•  Romania: In the past, courts were reluctant to grant compensation for moral damages. A notable 
trend  of  awarding  higher  moral  damages  in  discrimination  cases  emerged  in  2010.  This  shift 
appeared when the Craiova Court of Appeal increased the damages awarded in a case involving 
discrimination  against  a  Roma  pupil  in  education  to  EUR  10  000303.  Subsequent  cases  have 
reinforced EUR 10 000 as an informal ceiling for such awards304. An exceptional case, however, 
could be observed when the Court of Appeal Cluj awarded EUR 100 000 in damages for prolonged 
ethnic discrimination against an employee in the field of employment305. 

•  Sweden: Compensation for damages awarded by the Labour Court in labour law cases are typically 
modest. Discrimination damages (not specified in terms of legal minimums/maximums), introduced 
by the 2009 Discrimination Act306 to deter  employers from discrimination,  have been awarded  in 
only 15 cases so far307, with an average award of approximately EUR 5 500. To assess whether 
there  is  indeed  an  enhanced  award  of  damages,  a  comparison  was  made  to  nominal  damages 
awarded in discrimination cases since the 1979 Act. Nominal damages averaged EUR 1 600 in the 
1980s,  equivalent  to  about  EUR  5  150  today,  and  increased  to  EUR  5  300  in  the  2010s.  This 
suggests a material increase of approximately 3 % since the 1979 Act, which is marginal.  

Although the evidence base is somewhat limited, the table above suggests that in some countries 
the  amount  of  compensation  varies,  depending  on  the  ground  of  discrimination.  For  example,  in 
Czechia,  compensation  for  discrimination  based  on  ethnicity  tends  to  be  higher  than  for  other 
grounds.  Moreover,  while  low  sanctions  seem  to  be  commonly  imposed  across  many  Member 
States, in some (e.g., Romania), there seems to be a trend towards imposing higher penalties. This 
increase, however, does not seem to be uniform and in several instances, courts seem to continue 
awarding relatively modest amounts, especially in cases of immaterial damages.  

3.4.2. The use of calculation methods 

As  highlighted  in  Section  2.4.4,  the  use  of  specific  methods  for  calculating  sanctions  in 
discrimination  cases  covered  by  this  Study  is  quite  rare.  The  research  indicates  that  such 
calculation methods are equally uncommon in other areas of law. Notably, Belgium, the Netherlands 
and France stand out in this respect. These calculation methods are described in detail in Section 
2.4.4. No data on the frequency of use of these calculation methods could be identified.  

302 Equal Treatment Directorate (Egyenlő Bánásmódért Felelős Főigazgatóság), Decision No. EBF-AJBH-251/2021.  
303 Judgement of Craiova Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel Craiova) of 19 May 2010, case No. 8011/101/2009.   
304 European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, Iordache, R. E., ‘Country report, Non-discrimination, 
Romania’, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, p.70-71.  
305 Judgement of the Court of Appel Cluj, Civil decision nr. 2658/A/2016. 
306 The Discrimination Act (Diskrimineringslagen (2008:567)), SFS 2008:567. An unofficial English translation of the 2009 Discrimination 
Act is available at the website of the Swedish Equality Ombudsman at https://www.do.se/choose-language/english/discrimination-act-
2008567. 
307 AD 2018 No. 51, AD 2018 No. 42, AD 2016 no. 38, AD 2015 no. 72, AD 2015 no. 51, AD 2015 no. 44, AD 2015 no. 12, AD 2014 no. 
19, AD 2013 no. 71, AD 2013 no. 29, AD 2013 no. 18, AD 2011 no. 37, AD 2011 no. 23, AD 2011 no. 02 and AD 2010 no. 91. 

164 

 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

3.5. Use of alternative dispute resolution 

Section  3.5  provides  an  overview  of  the  different  alternative  dispute  resolution  (ADR) 
mechanisms available in the Member States, as well as an overview of their use in practice, which 
varies significantly from one country to another. 

It  resulted  from  the  research  that  there  are  compulsory  ADR  mechanisms  concerning 
discrimination in Germany and Hungary. In Germany, in four regions, out-of-court dispute resolution 
is a prerequisite for a lawsuit relating to discrimination under civil law relations. In Hungary, Article 
75  of  Act  CL  of  2016308  obliges  public  authorities  (which  encompasses  the  Ombudsman  /  Equal 
Treatment Directorate) to attempt to resolve the conflict by negotiating an agreement between the 
involved parties. Moreover, although not specific to discrimination cases, it should be noted that in 
Croatia,  amicable  settlement  procedures  are  mandatory  in  cases  against  the  State.  Also,  under 
French labour law there is generally a mandatory conciliation phase.  

Specific ADR mechanisms for discrimination cases exist in some Member States, for example, 
the conciliation mechanism before the Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities (Unia) in Belgium, 
mediation before the Commission for Protection against Discrimination in Bulgaria, the procedure 
before the Non-discrimination Ombudsman in Finland, mediation before the Commission for Equality 
and against Racial Discrimination in Portugal, the amicable resolution negotiation before the National 
Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  in  Romania,  the  settlement  negotiation  before  the  Equality 
Ombudsman in Sweden, the amicable resolution negotiation before the Advocate for the Principle 
of  Equality  in  Slovenia  or  the  out-of-court  settlement  in  the  form  of  mediation  under  the  anti-
discrimination act in Slovakia.  

ADR mechanisms may lead to binding or non-binding outcomes. Ten Member States have binding 
ADR  mechanisms  (BE,  BG,  EE,  IE,  HU,  PT,  RO,  SE,  SI  and  SK),  while  13  have  non-binding 
mechanisms (AT, CY, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, LU, LT, LV, NL and PL). The binding nature of the 
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms available in the other Member States is not clear from the 
information provided by country experts. 

The  regulation  of  the  use  of  ADR  mechanisms  may  be  limited,  resulting  in  such  mechanisms 
being more informal and unregulated, which may have an impact on the outcome of the decision. 
For example, in Belgium, the conciliation mechanism of the equality body is not formally regulated 
by law and operates according to internal guidelines that are not publicly available. 

The outcome of the binding mechanisms is usually a settlement agreement (e.g., BE, BG and 
PT) or an amicable resolution between the parties (e.g., RO). Interestingly, although non-binding, 
the complaint procedure before the Dutch equality body carries practical influence, to the extent that 
judges  are  expected  to provide  a motivation  if  they  deviate  from  the  reasoning  of  a  case-related 
equality body decision309. In Finland and in Slovakia, the equality body usually proposes a solution 
that includes recognition of the discrimination, an apology and financial compensation. In Sweden, 
in cases that are settled out-of-court, the remedies are similar to those that apply in the case law of 
the  Labour  Court.  Sometimes,  however,  a  settlement  can  lead  to  more  favourable  results  -  for 
instance, a settlement may include compensation linked to employment, which a court is not able to 
order. 

In what concerns the consequences of the use of such mechanisms on other proceedings and 
sanctions, in Bulgaria, where an agreement is reached through mediation before the equality body, 
sanctions are very rarely applied, as the offender usually agrees that a violation of equality rights 
has occurred, agrees to stop the violation and restore the status quo ante. This agreement may later 

308 Act CL of 2016 on the general administrative procedure (2016. évi CL. Törvény az általános közigazgatási rendtartásról), Official 
publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 81898-81930. 
309 Judgement of the Supreme Court of 13 November 1987, NJ 1989/698 (St. Bavo/Gielen), point 3.4.  

165 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

be used in the civil courts as evidence of the offence in claims for damages if the agreement does 
not also settle that matter. In Ireland, where a mediated settlement is reached, awards are likely to 
be lower than if the case had gone to trial. 

The consequences of these mechanisms may be limited, due to the confidentiality of settlements, 
making  data  collection  and  public  scrutiny  of  such  cases  difficult  and  preventing  the  naming  and 
shaming  of the  parties. For  instance,  the  outcome of  the  mediation  carried  out  by  the Workplace 
Relations Commission in Ireland is not published and may be subject to non-disclosure agreements. 

Concerning the use of these mechanisms, in 12 Member States (CY, CZ, DE, EL, FR, HU, IT, LU, 
MT,  PL,  PT  and  SK)  the  country  experts  explicitly  mentioned  the  lack  of  information.  The  use  of 
these mechanisms was found to be low or absent in certain countries, such as in Latvia, where they 
are reportedly not used, while in Belgium (in respect of criminal mediation), Denmark and Estonia, 
they are reportedly not used frequently. Similarly, in Romania, no cases of mediation were reported 
in the last activity report of the equality body in 2023, and in Slovenia, the equality body did not report 
any individual cases resolved by its contribution to an amicable settlement in 2022. In the case of 
criminal mediation in Belgium, this is due to the fact that the mechanism depends on the initiative of 
the  public  prosecutor  and  is  limited  to  offences  punishable  by  a  maximum  of  two  years' 
imprisonment. In Denmark, a strong preference for judicial proceedings, which are seen as more 
formal and binding, was cited as the reason for the lack of frequent use mentioned. In Luxembourg, 
in  relation  to  education  matters,  victims  seem  to  prefer  mediation  to  legal  actions  to  address 
discrimination at school. It should be borne in mind that the use of ADR mechanisms may be the 
result of coercion on the part of the victim to agree to an amicable solution rather than pursue a claim 
in court. 

Interestingly,  Article  7  of  Directive  2024/1499310,  which  will  apply  from  June  2026,  provides  that 
equality bodies must be able to offer parties the option of pursuing alternative dispute resolution, 
such as mediation or conciliation, either led by the equality body itself or another competent entity. 
Member States are required to guarantee that there is a sufficiently long limitation period to ensure 
that the parties to a dispute have access to court, for example by suspending the limitation period 
while the parties engage in an alternative dispute resolution process. 

3.6. Legal standing 

Section 3.6 provides an overview of the application of legal standing, and in particular whether 
there  are  any  differences  in  the  sanctions  applied  in  cases  brought  by  victims  themselves 
compared to cases brought by third parties. 

While some courts apply comparable sanctions regardless of whether the case is initiated by the 
victim or a third party, others show potential differences, particularly where third-party actions are 
rare or have specific legal constraints. Limited data in several countries, however, complicates the 
ability to determine consistent patterns in the application of sanctions. 

In 14 Member States (BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FR, IT, LT, LU, PT, RO, SE and SI), there  is no 
difference in the type and amount of sanctions applied between cases brought by the victims 
themselves and those brought by third parties. In Bulgaria, for example, this was confirmed by both 
the literature reviewed and the stakeholders interviewed. The rules for imposing sanctions and the 
individualisation of sanctions are independent of the criterion of who brought the case. Similarly, in 
Denmark this uniformity was considered to ensure that the direct or indirect representation of the 
victim did not influence the outcome in terms of sanctions. In Estonia, it is stressed that the critical 
aspect in such cases is the proof brought to confirm the existence of discrimination, rather than who 

310 Article 7, Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499 on standards for equality bodies, op.cit. 

166 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

initiates  the  case.  In  France,  the  principle  of  full  compensation  of  the  victim  remains  the  same, 
regardless of who brought the claim. In Greece, third parties, such as trade unions, associations and 
organisations, can intervene in existing proceedings, but they cannot initiate a discrimination case 
themselves. The only possibility is for an organisation to represent a particular victim, who remains 
a party to the case. Therefore, there is no difference in sanctions between the two types of cases. 

The box below gives an example of a case in Sweden where a sanction similar to that in a case 
brought by a victim was imposed in a case brought by a third party. 

Box  36:  Case  illustrating  the  approach  where  sanctions  are  similar  regardless  of 
who initiates the claim 

•  Sweden 

In  a  case  of  the  Swedish  Labour  Court  of  15  August  2018311,  a  woman  applied  for  a  job  as  a  phone 
interpreter and, due to religious reasons, refrained from shaking the male representative's hand, placing her 
hand over her heart instead. The company terminated the recruitment process, citing a neutrality policy. The 
court ruled this as indirect discrimination, noting the policy would allow not shaking hands for reasons like 
fear of germs, and that the woman avoided shaking hands with both men and women in mixed company. 
This case was brought to court by the Swedish Equality Ombudsman and the sanction imposed is close to 
the average sanction awarded by the Labour Court. In this case, the court awarded SEK 40 000 (EUR 3 
750) in compensation for discrimination and ordered the defendants to pay the trial costs of the Swedish 
Equality Ombudsman in the amount of SEK 36 741 (EUR 3 445). 

For nine Member States (BE, ES, FI, HR, LT, LV, MT, NL and PL), data or instances of third party 
cases are limited, making  it  challenging  to  determine  any  differences  in  sanctions.  In  Latvia,  for 
example, respondents confirmed that overall, only two cases had been brought to court, one by the 
Ombudsman and the other where legal assistance was provided by a lawyer from an NGO. In Malta, 
the  law  allows  the  Director  of  the  Department  of  Industrial  and  Employment  Relations  to  bring 
charges  before the criminal  court  and  the  Commissioner  for the  Promotion of  Equality to  take  ex 
officio action, including judicial action, before the Labour Court or civil courts. However, stakeholders 
noted that this has never happened, and it is therefore unclear whether the sanctions applied differ 
depending on who brought the case. In the Netherlands, the pool of relevant court cases is too small 
to identify such differences. In Finland, there were no cases to cover this aspect, as third party cases 
were  not  possible  before  summer  2023.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  in  France,  although 
associations and trade unions are entitled to act on behalf of victims of discrimination, they are not 
obliged  to  do  so  and  trade  unions  rarely  act  on  behalf  of  victims  in  anti-discrimination  cases.  In 
Luxembourg, the interviews revealed that third party legal actions on behalf of victims are not very 
often used in practice. In Poland, although no data was found to support this claim, one stakeholder 
noted that the participation of an NGO, based on its experience, can influence the court to consider 
the case more carefully. 

Some differences or specific conditions that would lead to a difference between sanctions applied 
in cases brought by victims and those brought by third parties have been identified in two Member 
States  (IE  and  SK).  In  Ireland,  the  equality  body  can  bring  cases  as  if  it  had  experienced  the 
discrimination,  but  cannot  receive  damages  or  costs  from  the  Workplace  Relations  Commission 
(main competent authority adjudicating discrimination in employment), unlike individual victims who 
can obtain compensation. Although the national legislation provides for it, in practice in Slovakia, no 
financial compensation is awarded in actio popularis cases. One interviewee considered that this is 
due to the fact that decisions in public actions are usually declaratory - confirming the discrimination 

311 Judgment AD 2018 no 52. of 15 August 2018, Equality Ombudsman v Almega/Semantix Interpreters, Labour Court Case 51/2018. 

167 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

- whereas decisions in individual cases include sanctions requiring the fulfilment of specific claims 
(apology, financial compensation). 

Other interesting practices were identified in relation to legal standing. The case presented in the 
box  below  provides  an  example  of  the  possible  difference  in  practice  between  the  rules  on  legal 
standing,  and  their  application  in  practice.  It  shows  how  the  interpretation  of  the  Dutch  Anti-
Discrimination Act312 in practice can create a gap in the protection intended by the law for the victim 
and limit access to justice. 

Box  37:  Example  from  the  Netherlands  illustrating  legal  standing  limitations  in 
practice 

•  The Netherlands 

In a case of the District Court of The Hague of 15 October 2014313, the parents of the victim of discrimination 
took  their  case  to  court,  but  the  judge  denied  any  compensation  on  the  technical  grounds  that  the  Anti-
Discrimination Act was intended to give rights only  to  the victim, and therefore, according to the judge's 
reasoning, not to the victim's parents (despite the fact that the victim was under the age of majority). 

Furthermore, in Belgium, the sources consulted suggest that in practice, the equality body might be 
more inclined to go to court ‘if the case is highly relevant from a social point of view (to establish a 
legal precedent (…) or clarify a point of law)’. Thus, it could be said that remedies sought by third 
parties in Belgium tend to have a broader socio-preventive impact, reflecting the dual objectives of 
addressing  individual  cases  of  discrimination  and  achieving  changes  to  prevent  systemic 
discrimination.  

3.7. Collective cases/redress 

Drawing on Section 2.5.2, which provided an overview of the different collective redress mechanisms 
available  in  the  Member  States'  legal  frameworks,  this  Section  compares  this  with  the  actual 
application of such collective redress mechanisms. More specifically, it looks at the different 
types of sanctions applied in practice in collective redress cases, the practical added value of 
such cases and the sanctions applied in collective redress cases without identifiable victims. 

Limited use of collective redress mechanisms 

Lithuania,  Portugal  and  Sweden  provide  for  the  possibility  of  class  action,  but  no  data  on  their 
practical  application  could  be  identified,  which  prevents  an  assessment  of  whether  it  is  used  in 
practice or not. Additionally, a trend has been observed in nine Member States (AT, BE, BG, DE, 
EE,  ES,  FI,  FR  and  SI)  where,  although  their  legal  system  provides  for  some  form  of  collective 
redress,  it  is  either  not  used  or  very  infrequently  used  in  practice.  For  instance,  in  Bulgaria, 
Estonia, Finland and Slovenia, no class action cases were identified, although their legal framework 
enables it. In Austria, two stakeholders interviewed mentioned that in practice there are no collective 
cases in anti-discrimination law, contrary to the area of consumer protection, where such cases are 

312 Act of 2 March 1994, on general rules for the protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, belief, political preference, 
race, gender, nationality, hetero- or homosexual orientation or civil status (General Equal Treatment Act), (Wet van 2 maart 1994, 
houdende algemene regels ter bescherming tegen discriminatie op grond van godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, 
geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling) Awgb, Stb. 1994-
230 of 31 March 1994. 
313 Judgment of the District Court The Hague of 15 October 2014, plaintiffs A and B v Stichting Lucas Onderwijs, 
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:12959. 

168 

 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

used and are very effective. The absence of collective actions in Bulgaria, despite the existence of 
a legal framework for them, is explained by stakeholders as resulting from several factors. Firstly, 
there is a scarcity of direct discrimination cases, which often arise from legal acts of state bodies and 
could  potentially  lead  to  collective  complaints.  Secondly,  NGOs  involved  in  the  protection  and 
promotion of equality rights lack sufficient financial and social support, preventing them from initiating 
collective  actions.  Finally,  the  legal  tradition  of  collective  actions  is  underdeveloped  in  Bulgarian 
society, as the regimes for such actions are relatively new.  

In Belgium, the Court has recognised the power of the equality body to initiate proceedings without 
identifying a specific victim, thus allowing a form of collective action. However, the scope of such 
collective actions is limited to the discriminating parties or bodies and to the practices or measures 
found to be contrary to the principle of equal treatment in the particular case. The public prosecutor's 
power of actio popularis is available in Belgium but is rarely used. In Luxembourg, the legal standing 
granted  to  accredited  NGOs  and  trade  unions  to  launch  actio  popularis  lawsuits  is  not  used 
proactively. It is mostly relied upon when those NGOs/trade unions or their leaders are, themselves, 
targeted by discriminatory remarks and hate speech. 

Collective cases are possible in Spain, but are very difficult to handle according to stakeholders, 
and in practice are not applied. Similarly, although Maltese legislation provides for the possibility of 
class  actions,  it  is  difficult  to  implement  in  practice  as  the  courts  set  a  very  high  standard  for 
establishing  legal  interest,  which may  explain  why it  has  never  been  used in practice. In France, 
stakeholders  considered  that,  given  the  ineffectiveness  of  class  actions  as  currently  provided  for 
under French law, the rarity of litigation and the fact that it has never led to a sanction, it was not 
possible to have sufficient overview to assess whether sanctions in class actions take a particular 
form and whether courts are more inclined to grant injunctions as a sanction in such cases. 

In those Member States where some types of collective redress are applied in practice, the types of 
sanctions  typically  applied  in  such  cases  and  the  added  value  of  these  sanctions  are  presented 
below. 

Types of sanctions in class actions 

The sanctions applied in practice in collective actions exhibit differing tendencies in comparison to 
individual cases, which are described in the box below.  

Box 38: Examples of types of sanctions in class actions 

• 

• 

In Slovakia, a stakeholder mentioned that collective cases usually result in a decision on merits 
establishing  or  not  establishing  discrimination,  with  no  further  sanction  but  a  declaratory  ruling. 
Interviewees considered that, while the list of applicable sanctions available in the legislation is quite 
open, the courts are less creative and do not use this as opportunity to impose sanctions in the form 
of structural injunctions. 

In  Denmark  there  are  collective  redress  mechanisms,  but  they  rarely  lead  to  different  types  of 
sanctions than in individual cases and mainly consist of compensation. Structural or injunctive relief, 
even in collective cases, remains rare, reflecting a systemic preference for monetary compensation 
over structural changes within organisations or industries. 

These examples provide an insight into the practical side of injunctive relief and its use in collective 
cases.  While  in  some  Member  States,  such  as  Italy,  injunctive  relief  is  sought  and  granted  in 
collective  cases,  in  other  countries  there  is  no  established  practice  for  injunctive  relief  in  similar 
contexts.  Furthermore,  despite  the  availability  of  various  sanctions  under  the  legal  framework  of 
countries such as Slovakia, there may be a certain reluctance on the part of courts to issue structural 
injunctions  in  collective  cases,  opting  instead  for  declaratory  judgments.  This  highlights  a  gap 

169 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

between the potential for robust legal remedies and their actual application. Even where collective 
redress  mechanisms  exist,  courts  may  tend  to  favour  monetary  compensation  over  structural  or 
injunctive relief in collective cases, as in individual cases. 

Types of sanction for cases without victims 

Of the 14 Member States that provide for actio popularis in their legal system (BE, BG, DE, ES, FR, 
HR, HU, IT, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO and SK), eight Member States (BE, DE, ES, FR, HR, HU, MT and 
PT) could not identify any data on the type of sanctions specifically applied in cases without victims. 
For the other Member States, the following types of sanctions were identified as being typically 
applied in collective cases without identifiable victims: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In Austria, collective cases without identified victims were only identified in relation to racism 
in the case of administrative sanctions, while one stakeholder believed that such sanctions 
were mainly applied in relation to access to goods and services. In these cases, there is no 
possibility of penalties per se, but only a recognition of discrimination and a suggestion as to 
how  to  proceed  and  resolve  the  issue.  Similarly,  the  only  sanction  applicable  to  actio 
popularis cases in practice in Slovakia is a declaratory ruling. 

In Italy, the request for an injunctive relief is often at the heart of the requests made by NGOs 
or associations acting in cases of collective discrimination. Judicial bodies are more inclined 
to grant injunctive relief in cases of collective action, although the law does not limit such a 
remedy  to  collective  cases.  In  cases  where  the  victim  is  not  identified,  the  sanctions  are 
therefore  of  an  injunctive  nature  (e.g.,  an  order  to  amend  a  regulation  to  remove  a 
discriminatory  requirement),  an  order  to  publish  the  judgment  in  a  newspaper  or  on  the 
website of the offender if it is a public administration or a legal person. 

In  actio  popularis  cases  in  Luxembourg,  the  most  common  sanction  is  a  symbolic  euro 
awarded to compensate for the moral damage caused to the collective interest which was 
the basis of the action. 

In Hungary, actio popularis cases often lead to the imposition of structural injunctions. For 
example, in the ‘Metropolitan school segregation case’314 the Ministry of Education was found 
to  have  allowed  the  segregation  of  Roma  children  in  several  primary  schools,  and  the 
sanction  imposed  by  the  court  was,  among  other,  an  obligation  to  draw  up  and  publish 
desegregation plans. However, financial compensation cannot be imposed in these cases, 
which limits its usefulness. 

Added value of collective proceedings 

In  Belgium,  stakeholders  considered  that  collective  cases  offer  little  added  value  because  the 
procedure focuses only on the specific person responsible for the discrimination in a particular case 
and the specific act that the judge considers to be in breach of the principle of equal treatment, i.e. 
collective  actions  cannot  lead  to  mass  compensation.  Furthermore,  in  Estonia,  collective 
discrimination  cases  are  very  rare,  and  the  actual  practice  of  such  cases  focuses  more  towards 
addressing individual complaints, which also limits the scope for collective benefits. In Germany, 
according  to  one  stakeholder  interviewed,  there  is  a  lack  of  statistics  and  access  to  court  cases 
brought by trade unions under the provision allowing for collective action, which makes it difficult to 
assess the "added value" in relation to sanctions. Nevertheless, this person stressed that the mere 
existence of such a possibility was "highly relevant and valuable". Although Romania provides for 
the  possibility  of  actio  popularis,  the  remedies  available  in  such  cases  are  limited  because, 

314 Metropolitan Appeal Court, Decision No. 2.Pf. 21.145/2018/6/I, 14 February 2019, available on database of judicial decisions 
(through search function). 

170 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

irrespective  of  the  legal  standing  recognised,  a  direct,  personal  and  actual  interest  and  actual 
damage (harm suffered, material damage) must be proven before the civil courts, which limits the 
added value of such cases. As NGOs find it difficult to provide the courts with evidence of quantifiable 
damages, the equality body remains the main available forum for such cases.  

No information could be obtained on the added value of collective proceedings in five Member States 
(DK, ES, LT, MT and SE). For other Member States, country research has identified the following 
elements that were regarded by stakeholders interviewed as being an added value of collective 
proceedings. 

Box 39: Added value of collective proceedings 

•  The added value of collective cases, as identified by stakeholders in Austria, could be the possibility 
to address structural discrimination affecting many people through structural sanctions, without 
the  need  for  individuals  to  be  involved  (thus  avoiding  energy-  and  time-consuming  procedures, 
personal exposure and costs). 

• 

In Italy, the added value is the possibility of eliminating the effects of discriminatory behaviour 
through injunctive relief. However, even if the injunction is structural, it cannot cover newly adopted 
regulations/orders (e.g., a local public administration may adopt a new regulation for the allocation 
of social assistance each year, which still contains discriminatory requirements).  

•  Although  only  one  case  was  identified  in  the  Netherlands315,  an  interviewee  considered  that  in 
general, the  added value of collective  proceedings would be  to  stretch the interest threshold, 
beyond individual cases. 

• 

In  Slovakia, the identified  added value of collective cases was that they may  help to formulate 
jurisprudence and practice in this area, if structural injunctions are used as sanctions. 

Although no cases were identified in three countries (BG, FR and PT), stakeholders still shared what 
they  saw  as  the  added  value  of  such  cases.  For  example,  Bulgarian  stakeholders  felt  that  the 
added value of collective actions in practice, as provided for in the law, would be the strong deterrent 
effect on discriminatory practices. French stakeholders also considered that if collective actions were 
implemented in practice, it would be easier to initiate proceedings and easier to gather evidence to 
support a claim. A Portuguese stakeholder saw the added value of collective cases in the possibility 
of overcoming the difficulties of access to justice for people who have been discriminated against.  

3.8. Enforcement 

Section 3.8 provides an overview of the application of the enforcement mechanisms available for 
discrimination cases. In particular, it describes the extent to which sanctions are enforced in practice, 
the extent to which the systems available for sanctions non-compliance are used, and the extent to 
which monitoring systems are also used to ensure compliance with sanctions imposed by courts or 
other adjudicating bodies. As mentioned in Section 2.5.3, enforcement refers to the implementation 
and execution of sanctions or remedies imposed by judicial or other adjudicating bodies following a 
decision in discrimination cases, and monitoring sanctions involves observing and evaluating how 
sanctions are applied and whether they are achieving their intended results. 

315 Judgment of the Gerechtshof Den Haag of 14 February 2023, Appellant 1, Appellant 2, Stichting Radar, Nederlands Juristen Comité 
voor de Mensenrechten (NJCM), Amnesty International (afdeling Nederland) v State of The Netherlands (ministry of Defence and 
ministry of Justice and Security), ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2023:173. 

171 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Practices in the enforcement of sanctions 

No data could be obtained for Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 
Slovenia and Italy. In Latvia, only two discrimination cases have ever been brought to court, making 
it difficult to assess enforcement practices, while in Greece, there is no data on the enforcement of 
fines imposed by the Labour Inspectorate. Also in Greece, the Ombudsman can act in cases of non-
compliance  with  court  decisions  by  public  bodies,  but  there  have  been  no  discrimination-related 
cases of this kind. 

For  other  Member  States,  several  trends  were  identified.  A  high  level  of  compliance  with 
sanctions imposed was observed in several Member States, such as Greece (although there is no 
specific or systematic monitoring system for the enforcement of sanctions), Finland or Denmark. In 
the  case  of  Denmark,  this  is  said  to  be  due  to  the  clear  legal  mandates  and  the  possible 
consequences  of  non-compliance,  which  include  increased  fines  or  legal  action.  Some  Member 
States, like Portugal (for the Authority for Working Conditions) and Sweden, were identified as having 
well-functioning enforcement systems where authorities ensure compliance with decisions.  

Several issues identified in relation to enforcement are described in detail under Section 4.2. 

Practices in the monitoring of sanctions 

As mentioned in Sub-section 2.5.3, only a limited number of monitoring mechanisms were identified. 
In  addition,  for  some  Member  States  no  practical  information  on  existing  mechanisms  could  be 
found. The information on sanction monitoring practices that could be identified during the country 
research is presented below. 

Some  countries,  such  as  France  in  relation  to  its  equality  body,  have  effective  monitoring 
mechanisms. Indeed, the French equality body monitors compliance with its recommendations by 
setting deadlines. If they are not met, they can issue a special report publicly naming the offending 
party,  which  was  done  in  practice.  Furthermore,  court  cases  involving  judicial  supervision  or 
imprisonment are less complicated due to existing monitoring systems, such as probation services. 

In  some  other  Member  States,  challenges  linked  to  monitoring  have  been  identified.  These  are 
described under Section 4.2. 

3.9. Data collection 

This Section provides a comparative overview of the application of the following aspects in practice:  

•  Compliance with rules on national data collection and publication by organisations in charge; 

•  Data  analysis  practices  of  organisations  that  in  practice  collect  and  analyse  data,  with  a 

specific focus on data related to sanctions/compensations; 

•  Practicalities  of  access  rights,  notably  the  extent  to  which  access  rights  are  effectively 

granted in practice; 

•  Utilisation and impact of the data collected, in particular in terms of enhancing understanding 
of  the  sanctions  applied  and  of  information  sharing  practices  with  judges  or  other 
stakeholders  to  encourage  uniform  sanctioning  practices  or  the  development  of  shared 
guidelines. 

172 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Compliance with rules on data collection and its publication 

In  general,  no  major  discrepancies  have  been  pointed  out  by  the  country  experts  or  the 
stakeholders  consulted  between  rules  set  out  for  the  data  collection  activities  of  organisations 
identified as legally obliged to collect data related to discrimination cases (see Section 2.6.1 above) 
and practical  application.  Sometimes  the  specific  data  collected  or  their  breakdown is  even more 
detailed in the annual reports or other publications of the organisations than in the rules.  

In Portugal, courts and other competent public bodies are obliged to communicate to the equality 
body  all  decisions  on  discriminatory  practices  on  the  grounds  of  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  colour, 
nationality, ancestry and territory of origin issued within  10 days. Sentences handed down in civil 
liability cases should also be sent to the equality body once they have become final to be published 
online for a period of five years, including at least the identification of the legal persons sentenced, 
information on the type and nature of the discriminatory practice and the compensation awarded. 
However,  due  to  a  lack  of  relevant  court  decisions  and  challenges  in  consulting  relevant 
stakeholders, it was not possible to determine whether this is done in practice. 

In Bulgaria, while data on criminal cases committed with a discriminatory motive are collected and 
processed  according  to  the  internal  rules  of  the  Prosecution,  statistics  on  such  cases  are  not 
included in the public annual reports of the Prosecution because of the small numbers of such 
cases. 

Certain datasets might not also be published due to non-compliance by authorities. For instance, 
in Croatia, judicial bodies are obliged to collect and send discrimination case statistics to the Ministry 
of Justice, which must then forward them to the Ombudsperson by 1 February of the following year. 
These statistics are typically included in the Ombudsperson's annual report. However, in 2022, the 
Ministry  did not fulfil this  obligation  on  time,  resulting  in the  exclusion  of discrimination  case data 
from the report. In Cyprus, the Equality Body (Ombudsman) is supposed to carry out research and 
collect data and statistics on discrimination including on sanctions and publish its research reports 
and data in the Official Gazette. It should also communicate the data to the President of the Republic, 
the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  Attorney  General.  However,  no  such  data  has  ever  been 
published in the Official Gazette. The Ombudsman may include in its annual reports general data on 
the  complaints  examined,  and  not  specifically  on  discrimination.  Similarly,  data  should  also  be 
collected and analysed by the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, responsible and competent to 
design  anti-discrimination  policies,  but  no  such  data  was  ever  published  and  no  information  is 
provided  in  relation  to  sanctions  related  to  discrimination.  In  Poland,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  is 
supposed to collect statistical data on: 1) violations of the principle of equal treatment in civil cases; 
2) compensation for violations of the principle of equal treatment (based on Article 13 of the Equal 
Treatment Act – ETA316 which provides that natural and legal persons who suffer an infringement of 
the principle of equal treatment are entitled to compensation); and 3) discrimination in employment 
in  labour  law  and  social  security  cases.  Data  are  not  disaggregated  by  grounds  or  forms  of 
discrimination. However, research shows that data collection concerning ETA is not being conducted 
(or at least such data have not been published). The Ministry is also responsible for analysing the 
data collected; nevertheless, for the last ca. five to seven years, analysis on discrimination-related 
cases has been only conducted by the civil society and the Ombudsman on the basis of information 
available to them. 

316 Act on the Implementation of Certain Provisions of the European Union in the Field of Equal Treatment of 3 December 2010 (Ustawa 
z dnia 3 grudnia 2010 r. o wdrożeniu niektórych przepisów Unii Europejskiej w zakresie równego traktowania), Official Law Journal 2010 
no 254, item. 1700. 

173 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Data analysis practices  

The comparative analysis shows that the data gathered by organisations legally obliged to collect 
data related to discrimination cases are typically analysed by the organisations themselves. This 
is  also true  for  organisations  that  are  not  obliged  to  collect  data  or  do  not  have  internal  rules  for 
gathering  and  processing  data  on  discrimination  cases.  Exceptions  can  be,  for  instance,  data 
analysed by the Ministries of Justice in certain countries (e.g., Finland and France) on decisions and 
sanctions applied by the judiciary. Data collected by certain organisations in the Netherlands (reports 
of  discrimination  received  by  the  police,  the  local  anti-discrimination  services,  the  Netherlands 
Institute for Human Rights, the Reporting Point for Internet Discrimination, the National Ombudsman 
and the Children’s Ombudsman) are also analysed by the Government and published annually in its 
‘Discrimination reports’317. Otherwise, data collected by different organisations in the Member States 
are usually analysed for the purpose of drafting their own annual reports or other thematic reports. 
In such cases, data collection and publication is annual.  

The data  collected  and analysed  do  not  consistently  include  detailed  information  on  sanctions, 
even in the case of organisations that are competent to impose sanctions. On the other hand, some 
organisations that are not legally obliged to collect data on sanctions do so. The box below describes 
the data collection and analysis practices of some organisations identified in the national research 
as  not  having  a  legal  obligation  to collect  or  analyse data relating to discrimination  cases,  with a 
specific focus on data relating to sanctions/compensations. As a methodological limitation, it is also 
noted 
information  on 
sanctions/compensations is collected. 

is  not  always  clear 

reports  whether 

the  country 

that 

in 

it 

Box 40: Data collection and analysis practices of organisations not legally obliged 
to carry out such activities 

In  Czechia,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  maintains  the  records  of  anti-discrimination  litigation,  statistically 
classified  based  on  the  subject,  the  court  that  handled  the  matter  and  the  file  number.  It  does  not  keep 
anonymised  decisions,  but  these  should  be  obtainable  directly  from  the  courts.  According  to  the 
Ombudsman, the records of anti-discrimination litigation maintained by the Ministry of Justice are not precise 
and complete. Still, this evidence could be a valuable source of information regarding both the number of 
anti-discrimination lawsuits and the outcomes of individual disputes. The Ombudsman conducts research 
focused  on  court  decision-making  in  discrimination  disputes  every  five  years.  Based  on  its  findings,  the 
number of discrimination lawsuits and decisions in which compensation is awarded is very low. For instance, 
in its 2020 study analysing the case law of Czech courts from 2015 to 2019, the Ombudsman found that out 
of 21 court proceedings regarding discrimination on grounds of Roma origin, with claims for compensation 
of non-pecuniary damage in monetary terms, only in 5 (24 %) such damages were awarded318. The Czech 
Trade Inspectorate and the Czech Labour Inspection Office are competent to impose fines in cases of 
discrimination  identified  during  inspections,  and  they  publish  information  on  inspections  in  their  annual 
reports, but it is not clear whether data/statistics are available on fines imposed. 

In Denmark, the Board of Equal Treatment (non-judicial authority competent to issue sanctions) collects 
data on the cases that it handles, which can include detailed information about the nature of the complaints, 
the decisions made and the sanctions imposed. However, the granularity and frequency of data collection 
can be inconsistent. Generally, data on sanctions are not analysed by any organisation. 

In Estonia, the Labour Dispute Committee (extrajudicial body competent to issue sanctions) gathers data 
on the result of the disputes dealt with and on the sanctions enacted/compensation awarded. The data are 
analysed by the Committee for its own internal reports, with the aim to standardise and inform practices 
about similar disputes, but data are not published. 

317 See for instance Art.1, Fiere, B., Verwonderzoek, Walz, G., ‘Discrimination report 2022’ (Discriminatiecijfers in 2022), Rotterdam/The 
Hague, April 2023. 
318 Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman), ‘Decisions of Czech courts in discrimination cases 2015 – 2019 – Research by the Public 
Defender of Rights’ (Rozhodování českých soudů o diskriminačních sporech 2015–2019 – Výzkum veřejného ochránce práv), 
61/2019/DIS/JF, 2020. 

174 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

In  Finland,  Statistics  Finland  (the  national  statistical  institution)  collects  yearly  legal  statistics  on 
prosecutions,  judgments  and  sanctions.  However,  statistics  on  the  sanctions  are  not  disaggregated  per 
discrimination ground and area. The statistics are mainly analysed by the Ministry of Justice for follow-up 
and developing non-discrimination policy. However, there has been no analysis focusing on sanctions for 
discrimination in particular. 

In  France,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  collects  data  relating  to  judicial  decisions  and  sanctions  imposed. 
Relevant for the Study are sanctions for criminally punishable discriminatory acts (e.g., refusing to supply 
goods  or  services).  The  only  statistics  available  in  this  regard  refer  to  final  convictions  entered  in  the 
individual's criminal record. The data is analysed and published by the Ministry once per year. 

In Romania, the National  Council for Combating  Discrimination (equality body competent to  impose 
sanctions)  collects  information  on  the  number  of  complaints  and  decisions  (by  ground,  field,  type  of 
discrimination, etc.) and data on sanctions per type of sanctions and discrimination criterion and field, total 
administrative fines issued and administrative fines imposed per discrimination criterion and field. The data 
are collected and analysed by the organisation and are published yearly in its activity reports. 

In some Member States it was pointed out that judicial decisions are included in searchable databases (e.g., 
database of the Federal Chancellery in Austria for decisions of higher instance courts), or that decisions of 
organisations  competent  to  issue  sanctions  are  published  (e.g.,  the  Workplace  Relations  Commission  in 
Ireland).  Thus,  relevant  data  on  sanctions  could  be  extracted  from  such  decisions.  Nevertheless,  no 
organisation is tasked with extracting and analysing such data. 

Practicalities of access rights 

Access  rights  are  effectively  granted  in  practice  usually  through  reports  of  the  organisations 
collecting and analysing the data, published on their websites, or through open Internet databases. 
Access to information included in internal reports or databases may be available to the public through 
information requests or applications to access documents. Access to data is usually free; payment 
requirements were only noted to Statistics Finland, for data covering a wider scope. In Poland it was 
also  noted  that,  in  some  cases,  the  demonstration  of  a  particularly  important  public  interest  was 
required by courts in order to obtain information on compensations in discrimination-related cases. 
The courts argued that they do not keep records of such cases, and that they need to process data 
in order to prepare a response to the information request, while they are obliged to annually keep 
such statistics. 

Utilisation and impact of the data collected 

Data  collected  in  relation  to  discrimination  cases  and  sanctions  are  usually  analysed  for  the 
purposes of publication of annual or other thematic reports of the organisations. While these 
reports are publicly available and could inform judges and other stakeholders, their primary purpose 
is  not  encouraging  the  exchange  of  sanctioning  practices  or  the  adoption  of  common 
understandings/guidelines for determining sanctions. They are mainly published for informative and 
accountability  purposes.  They  may  also  aim  to  shed  light  on  the  situation  of  racial/ethnic 
discrimination and its sanctioning in a given country.  

3.10. Awareness raising 

Section  3.10  provides  an  overview  of  the  awareness-raising  efforts  put  in  place  by  Member 
States.  It  first  and  foremost  presents  the  relevant  awareness-raising  efforts  specifically  covering 
sanctions identified. In view of the limited number of initiatives specifically on sanctions, the table 
summarises  awareness-raising  initiatives  dealing  more  broadly  with  discrimination,  namely, 

175 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

analysing the competent authorities conducting awareness-raising activities, the topics addressed, 
and  the  targeted  groups  as  presented  in  Annex  V.  Finally,  this  section  concludes  with  a  few 
observations on the level of awareness in society regarding discrimination and the sanctions that 
can be applied.  

As mentioned in Section 2.6.2 above, specific rules on awareness-raising on sanctions applicable 
to discrimination on the grounds and areas covered by the Study are lacking in the Member States. 
This is reflected in practice as, although there is a wide awareness-raising effort covering more 
broadly the combat to discrimination, only a few initiatives specifically on the topic of sanctions 
were identified. The table below describes the awareness-raising activities specifically on sanctions 
or related to sanctions identified in six Member States (CZ, DK, FR, IE, PL and PT). 

Table 23: Examples of awareness-raising activities on sanctions for discrimination 

MS 

CZ 

DK 

FR 

Description of activities 

The Public Defender of Rights reportedly conducts specialised training for attorneys who offer pro bono 
legal  services  through  a  partnership  with  the  Pro  Bono  Alliance.  This  training  encompasses  a 
comprehensive overview of sanctions, detailing the criteria set forth by European legislation to ensure their 
ultimate effectiveness, proportionality and deterrent effect. This critical information is also integrated into 
the  curriculum  of  training  programmes  executed  in  conjunction  with  the  Judicial  Academy,  which  is 
dedicated to the professional development of judges. 

The Public Defender of Rights actively disseminates research findings on case law, particularly in the realm 
of  discrimination  disputes.  Their  reports319  also  touch  upon  the  issue  of  sanctions  and  put  forward 
recommendations for the legislative and the judiciary.  

Marking  the  10th  anniversary  of  the  Anti-Discrimination  Law,  the  Public  Defender  of  Rights  published 
a comprehensive  collection  of  opinions in  2019320.  This anthology  explains  discrimination-related  terms, 
legal  definitions  and  court  interpretations,  enriched  by  concrete  examples  from  a  decade  of  the 
ombudsman’s experiences. 

Awareness-raising  activities  regarding  discrimination  and  the  sanctions  applicable  in  such  cases  are 
reportedly frequently organised by various bodies, namely the Board of Equal Treatment, the Ministry of 
Employment, and other government ministries, as well as employers’ organisations and private law firms. 
These  activities  include  training  to  improve  understanding  of  discrimination  laws  and  sanctions  among 
different  stakeholders.  The  Board  of  Equal  Treatment  actively  disseminates  information  about 
discrimination cases and sanctions through their website, offering detailed annual reports and decisions321. 

The Defender of Rights meets twice a year with networks of civil society partners in the "committees of 
understanding" to discuss  current affairs  (including  legislation), difficulties and  training/education  needs. 
This may include discussions on the sanctions applicable in cases of discrimination.  

Also in France, the Ministry of Labour, Health and Solidarity has published and regularly updates the public 
website  on  discrimination,  summarising  the  existing  legislation  and  the  steps  to  be  taken,  including 
information on sanctions322. 

IE 

The  Workplace  Relations  Commission operates  a  website where  its  decisions are  published  as  well  as 
other guidance documents. In regard to sanctions specifically, it has a remedies table, although it does not 

319 See Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman), ‘Fulfilment of the Right to Equal Treatment and Protection Against Discrimination - 
Monitoring Report 2022’ (Naplňování práva na rovné zacházení a ochrany před diskriminací - Monitorovací zpráva 2022), 
16/2023/DIS/JKV, 2022 ; Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman), ‘Decisions of Czech courts in discrimination cases 2015 – 2019 – 
Research by the Public Defender of Rights’ (Rozhodování českých soudů o diskriminačních sporech 2015–2019 – Výzkum veřejného 
ochránce práv), 61/2019/DIS/JF, 2020.  
320 Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman), ‘The Collection of Opinions of the Public Defender of Rights’ (Sborník stanovisek veřejného 
ochránce práv), 2019. 
321 See Ankestyrelsen, ‘The Equal Treatment Board’ (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), Ankestyrelsen website, accessed on 10 May 2024. 
322 Ministère du travail, de la santé, des solidarités et des familles, ‘Protection against discrimination’ (La protection contre les 
discriminations), Ministère du travail, de la santé, des solidarités et des familles website, last updated 22 April 2024, accessed 07 June 
2024. 

176 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

provide information other than what results from the law323.  

The  Irish  Human  Rights  and  Equality  Commission  has  published  a  collection  of  equality-guidance 
documents  and  tools  for  employers,  public  agencies  and  service  providers,  which  cover  sanctions  as 
relevant324. 

In 2017, the Ombudsman Office launched and conducted an information campaign on discrimination and 
sanctions for discrimination in employment and access to services. It included the establishment of a special 
information  telephone  line  and  a  series  of  promotional  materials325.  In  2020,  in  the  context  of  the  10th 
anniversary of the Act on the Implementation of Certain Provisions of the European Union in the Field of 
Equal Treatment,  the  Ombudsman  Office  organised  a series  of  awareness-raising initiatives  which also 
covered the issue of sanctions. 

Awareness-raising activities covering the issue of sanctions have reportedly been organised by the National 
School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. 

The Commission for Equality and against Racial Discrimination has provided several training sessions in 
the past years on the Legal  Framework for Preventing, Prohibiting and Combating Discrimination which 
presumably include the sanctions326. 

PL 

PT 

Awareness-raising  initiatives  dealing  more  broadly  with  discrimination  are  described  in  Error!  R
eference source not found.Annex V. The following paragraphs summarise the analysis of these 
initiatives. 

In  several  Member  States  (e.g.,  BE,  DE,  EL,  ES,  FI,  FR,  HR,  HU,  LU,  MT,  PL,  PT  and  RO), 
awareness-raising activities are primarily conducted by public authorities. These cover a wide 
range  of  authorities,  including  equality  or  other  anti-discrimination  bodies,  national  human 
rights’ institutions and other public authorities, such as Ministries and departments or services 
within Ministries.  

Entities in charge of training magistrates (such as the National School of Magistrates in France) 
and other bodies and social partners (e.g., the Economic and Social Committee in Greece and the 
Chamber  of  Employees in  Luxembourg)  were  also  found to conduct  awareness-raising  activities. 
Other entities, such as civil society organisations, play a significant role in promoting awareness-
raising activities. This was for instance, specifically highlighted in Member States like Spain, Finland, 
France, Malta and Romania for civil society organisations, employers’ organisations in Denmark or 
legal firms and other private sector actors in Denmark or in France. 

In what concerns the topics addressed by awareness-raising activities more broadly (see Annex 
V), the information collected showed that, within the remit of combating discrimination, awareness-
raising covers the legal framework, including the sanctions (e.g., CZ, DK, PL and PT), the various 
grounds of discrimination (e.g., BE, CZ and EL), how to report (e.g., FR and PT), procedural issues 
(e.g., EL and IE), decisions adopted (e.g., DK, IE, PL and PT), case law of international courts (e.g., 
PL), how to address discrimination, notably in the workplace (e.g., BE, CZ and EE), lived experiences 
of the affected groups (e.g., BE) and the situations of specific groups, for example, the Roma, the 
Sami and persons of the Muslim and Jewish faiths (SI). 

Awareness-raising activities are directed at the public in general in some Member States (e.g., ES, 
FI, LU, MT and NL). However, awareness-raising initiatives also target decision makers (e.g., CZ, 
EL, LU and PL), lawyers (e.g., CZ, EL and PL), public officials (e.g., EL, NL and PT) and the police 
(e.g., EL). In some Member States (e.g., BE, ES, LU, PT and SE), this type of activity targets potential 

323 Workplace Relations Commission, ‘WRC Remedies Table’, Workplace Relations Commission website, last update on 31 July 2024. 
324 Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Coimisiún na hÉireann um Chearta an Duine agus Comhionannas), ‘Training, tools 
and resources’, Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission website, accessed on 10 May 2024. 
325 An example of a promotional material is available at: Ombudsman office, ‘You have been discriminated against - report it!’ (Spotkała 
cię dyskryminacja – zgłoś sprawę!), Warsaw, no date identified. 
326 See Commission for Equality and against Racial Discrimination, ‘Annual reports on the situation of equality and non-discrimination 
(2018 to 2022)’, currently not available online. 

177 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

victims or vulnerable groups. In Finland, these activities are also focused on employers with staff of 
30 or more which are legally bound to make a non-discrimination and equality plan. 

As  regards  the  training  of  judges,  although  not  promoted  by  the  Member  States,  judges  and 
inspectors attend or have attended the training provided by ERA – Academy of European Law and 
the European Judicial Training Network in, for instance, Greece, Poland and Portugal. 

In 14 Member States (BE, BG, CY, DK, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, MT, PT, RO, SE and SK), the lack of 
data on the level of awareness in society on the possible applicable sanctions in discrimination 
cases has been noted. Notwithstanding, the research revealed that the awareness level in society 
is  not  considered  high  in  any  of  the  Member  States.  To  the  contrary,  it  is  considered  as  low  or 
lacking in six Member States (CZ, EE, HR, HU, LU and SK). In the Netherlands, the low level of 
awareness concerns more specifically the remedies available. Further to this, in Austria and Estonia, 
the lack of awareness particularly relates to what qualifies as a discriminatory behaviour; in Cyprus, 
in general on ethnic, racial and religious discrimination; in Croatia and in Spain, the lack of awareness 
affects legal professionals and decision makers who struggle to understand how to apply the relevant 
legal framework. 

The research also revealed that the level of awareness is considered to be decreasing in Bulgaria 
and Hungary, while in Denmark and in Poland it is improving. In Poland, a poll from 2018 showed 
that respondents noticed discriminatory treatment more often than in the previous year327. Similarly, 
in  Portugal,  awareness  of  the  mission  of  the  Commission  for  Equality  and  against  Racial 
Discrimination particularly seems to be improving, and with it, there has been a notable increase in 
the proportion of complaints brought forward by the victims. 

3.11. Other aspects 

This Section provides an overview of the application of the various aspects in practice. First, it 
examines the  influence of the  sanctions  requested  by  the  parties on the  sanction  decided  by the 
adjudicating body. Second, it looks at the possible use of soft measures or documents in determining 
sanctions  in  practice.  Thirdly,  it  looks  at  the  influence  of  national  case  law.  Finally,  the  practical 
comparison with sanctions applied in other areas of law is made, before drawing a comparison with 
sanctions imposed on other grounds of discrimination. 

Influence of requested sanction types and amounts 

The country research looked at whether the type or amount of sanctions requested by the claimants 
influenced the final sanctions imposed by the adjudicating bodies. No information could be obtained 
on this aspect in 14 Member States (AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, LT, LV, MT, NL, RO and SI). 

The applicant's request for a sanction does not seem to be a particularly important criterion 
in some Member States (e.g., IE and FR). No influence was identified either in Ireland, although for 
example, in a case of equal pay, the claim may specify the amount and period for which equal pay 
is sought, but this is due to the nature of that particular claim rather than a feature of the system. In 
France,  one  stakeholder  did  not  have  the  impression  that  the  determination  of  sanctions  was 
influenced by the specific type/amount of sanction requested by the claimant either. In France, the 
calculations for material compensation are set, so the courts would follow the calculations proposed 
by  the  claimant  if  they  followed  the  set  calculations  (for  example,  reconstructing  the  career  the 

327 Kantar Public, ‘Legal awareness in the context of equal treatment’ (Świadomość prawna w kontekście równego traktowania), Report 
for the Office of the Ombudsman, 2018. 

178 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

person would have had if there had been no career delay due to discrimination); if the calculation 
proposed by the claimant is more generous than the mere calculation, the courts would not follow it.  

The claimants request influences the sanction taken by the court in the way that what they do 
not ask for will not be examined by the court, following the general principle of “ne eat iudex ultra 
petita partium”.  

•  Courts sometimes have the tendency to award a lower sanction than the one requested 
by  the  claimant.  For  instance,  in  some  Hungarian  civil  cases,  the  type  or  amount  of  the 
sanction  requested  by  the  parties  may  influence  the  decision  on  the  sanction,  as  the  civil 
courts would accept some but not all of the points raised in the claims. Likewise, the Swedish 
courts will not award more than what a plaintiff has requested, but can and often do award 
less;  and in Croatia,  as a  general  rule,  the  actual  compensation granted  is  typically  lower 
than what is requested by the claimants.  

•  On  the  contrary,  courts  may  sometimes  award  slightly  higher  sanctions  than  those 
requested by the claimant. In Poland, on the basis of the case law analysed, it appears that 
if the amount of compensation requested is not significantly higher than the amount usually 
awarded by the courts in such cases, the courts tend to award it in accordance with the claim 
formulated by the plaintiff. 

• 

In Slovakia, for civil cases, the sanctions also depend on the claims made in the petition of 
the  lawsuit  filed.  While  the  amount  of  sanctions  is  determined  by  the  courts,  the  type  of 
sanction is influenced by the type of sanction requested by the claimants. One interviewee 
mentioned that although the list of remedies under the Anti-Discrimination Act is open, victims 
and  their  representatives  tend  to  request  those  that  are  explicitly  listed  in  the  Anti-
Discrimination Act and do not propose more creative sanctions that could further shape the 
jurisprudence  and  practice  in  this  area.  When  it  comes  to  non-judicial  authorities  and 
administrative  sanctions,  they  are  not  bound  by  any  proposals  as  they  either  carry  out 
inspections or impose sanctions on their own initiative or, even if they act on complaints, they 
are not bound by their content. 

The  claimant's  request  for  a  sanction  is  a  criterion  that  can  influence  the  decision  of  the 
adjudicating body when determining the sanction in three countries (CY, LU and PT). Indeed, in 
Portugal, one stakeholder mentioned that in individual compensation claims, the victim's request is 
a parameter that influences judges in their decision. In Luxembourg, sanctions are determined, inter 
alia, by the amount/type of sanctions requested by the claimants in compensation actions. In Cyprus, 
the determination of the sanction is also influenced by the sanction requested by the plaintiffs, who, 
in civil cases, have to specify the amount of compensation they are claiming and declare which part 
of the compensation relates to positive damages (i.e. salaries, leave, etc.) and which part relates to 
general and moral damages. 

Influence of instruments or measures other than national law 

The possibility for courts and other adjudicating bodies to rely in practice on soft documents, such 
as  instructions,  guidelines,  circulars  or  similar  documents  and  the  main  provisions  of  these 
documents when determining sanctions was examined. No information could be obtained on the use 
of soft documents in seven countries (AT, CY, DE, DK, ES, LT or PL). As described below, while 
many  countries  do  not  provide  for  the  use  of  such  documents,  some  countries  do  provide  some 
examples of soft measures that are used in practice. 

•  No  soft  document  identified:  Additionally,  no  soft  document  could  be  identified  in  several 

countries (BE, CZ, HU, IT, LV and SI). 

179 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  No use of soft documents: In several countries observed, courts in practice do not appear to 
rely  on  instructions,  guidelines,  circulars  or  other  soft  measures  while  determining  the 
sanctions (IE, LU, PT and SE).  

•  No  soft  document  identified:  Additionally,  no  soft  document  could  be  identified  in  several 

countries (BE, CZ, HU, IT, LV and SI).  

•  Some  evidence  of  the  use  of  soft  documents:  Evidence  of  some  kind  of  use  of  soft 
documents, although not on a large scale, was identified in four countries (BG, EE, EL and 
FI). The Finnish Occupational Safety and Health authorities have a short guideline for their 
work on discrimination, with the aim of facilitating their work, as the legislation is extensive 
and complex. With regard to courts and prosecutors, they have general working instructions, 
which are not exclusively related to discrimination cases, but may also have an impact on 
discrimination  cases.  In  Greece,  courts  and  other  adjudicating  bodies  tend  not  to  rely  on 
these  soft  measures  when  determining  sanctions.  An  interviewee  mentioned  that  courts 
generally never refer to guidelines, nor were they aware of the existence of such documents. 
However, in some decisions of both the administration and the judiciary, relevant circulars, 
interpretative guidelines of national and international organisations, mainly on racist crimes, 
are apparently used.  

With regard to documents issued by other adjudicating bodies, in Greece, the non-binding findings 
of  the  Ombudsman  and  the  circulars  issued  by  the  Labour  Inspectorate  appear  to  have  an 
influence on judges and judicial bodies, although not particularly on the determination of sanctions. 
In France, there are guides published by the Equality Body and the Interministerial Delegation for 
Combating  Racism,  Anti-Semitism  and  Anti-LGBT  Hatred  (Délégation  interministérielle  à  la  lutte 
contre  le  racisme,  l'antisémitisme  et  la  haine  anti-LGBT),  which  are  very  specific,  and  practical 
sheets that can be cited in court. The practical sheets cover topics such as wearing the veil at work, 
internal rules in schools, serving pork in canteens, etc. and bring together legislation, practical cases 
and the decisions of the equality body on the subject. However, no information was found on the 
extent to which such documents are used by judicial bodies in determining sanctions. In Slovakia, 
there are internal guidelines for State School Inspectors on how to deal with violations of the law, 
including discrimination. The State School Inspectorate in Bratislava provides additional guidance 
for specific cases and generally recommends taking into account the particular circumstances of the 
inspected school or institution. 

More specifically linked to the calculation of pecuniary sanctions, in the Netherlands, judges are 
invited to use so-called guideline values when deciding on the amount of a criminal fine in a specific 
case. Judges retain the discretion to impose higher or lower fines because of their independence. 
One  interviewee  noted  that  in  practice  judges  often  follow  the  guidelines.  In  civil  law,  and  as 
mentioned  in  Section  2.4.4  of  this  report,  judges  apply  the  Subdistrict  Court  Judge's  formula  to 
calculate the fine. In Croatia, the Supreme Court has issued some guidelines regarding the amount 
of  immaterial  compensation  to  be  imposed.  These  provide  guidance  for  courts  in  relation  to  the 
imposition of compensation in discrimination cases. In Malta, one interviewee mentioned that, when 
determining compensation values, adjudicating bodies check the employment contract to see how 
the employer has implemented the measures described therein and where they have failed. No other 
document was identified. In Slovakia, one interviewee mentioned that non-binding internal guidelines 
regulate the calculation of the amount of maintenance, but that there is no specific regulation for the 
calculation of sanctions in discrimination cases in particular. 

Influence of national case law 

National case law plays a key role in shaping the outcome of new discrimination cases that would 
lead to sanctions. Previous rulings often serve as a critical reference point for adjudicating bodies in 
determining  appropriate  sanctions,  to  ensure  consistency  and  fairness  in  decisions,  but  also  for 

180 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

victims' representatives to map and ultimately be more creative in requesting different types or forms 
of sanctions.  

When issuing a decision on discrimination, it was noted for several countries (e.g., BE, HU, IT, LV 
and SI) that in addition to the judge's discretion, only  previous case law was used to determine 
sanctions.  Previous  case  law,  especially  the  precedents  set  by  higher  courts,  is  an  important 
element for consideration (e.g., EE, HU, SE and SK). In the same vein, it is worth noting that the 
Romanian  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  takes  into  account  European  Court  of 
Human Rights case law328. Furthermore, in Romania, the courts take into account the practice and 
sanctions of the equality body and other courts. In Slovakia, one interviewee mentioned that judges 
are  guided  by  case  law  in  particular  when  calculating  financial  compensation  for  non-pecuniary 
damage in general in civil cases. Cypriot Courts follow judicial precedence in particular in relation to 
the criteria taken into account when imposing any type of sanctions. In Italy, case law in the field of 
discrimination has provided for some standards that have become commonly applied in relation to 
sanctions, as illustrated in the box below. 

Box 41: Italian example of the potential influence of case law in the development of 
sanctions for discrimination 

• 

Italy 

In 2020, the Tribunal of Milan329 had to rule on the case of two employees who were repeatedly harassed 
by their manager because of their ethnic origin. Not only the manager was sanctioned but also the company 
because of the duty to protect employees from discrimination. 

The judge applied the so-called "equitable criterion" for moral damages, which in this case, according to the 
judge, was "a percentage of the monthly salary for the period between the recruitment (of the employees) 
and the last reported incident". 

This calculation method can then be used by other judges in cases of similar nature, thus contributing to the 
development of the field. 

Differences with sanctions in other areas of law 

Any differences, both in law and in practice, with sanctions provided for in other areas of law were 
considered  as  part  of  the  country  research,  in  particular  where  structural  injunctions  would  be  a 
possible  sanction  and  whether  it  would  be  desirable  to  apply  these  other  sanctions  to  cases  of 
discrimination  on  racial,  ethnic  and  religious  grounds.  No  information  could  be  obtained  on  this 
aspect in 12 Member States (AT, CZ, DE, EE, ES, HR, HU, IE, LV, MT, NL and SI).  

It should be noted that comparisons with other areas of law are not necessarily straightforward, as 
pecuniary sanctions under different sectoral laws may be very different in amount, the sanctioning 
authorities may be different, the offences, offenders and victims may be different, and the damage 
caused  may  be  different.  The  country  experts  were  therefore  asked  to  focus  mainly  on  data 
protection and consumer protection, although they were free to make comparisons with other areas 
if relevant in their national context.  

With  this  in  mind,  no  relevant  and  comparable  differences  were  identified  for  Denmark  and 
Romania, and for Bulgaria, only the general rules of individualisation of sanctions are the same, but 
the policies depend mostly on the initiative and competence of the sanctioning authority. A Lithuanian 
stakeholder mentioned that in Lithuania the same sanctions could be applied as for data protection 
violations. 

328 Decision of the College of the Council No. 20 of May 2010. 
329 Judgment of the tribunal of Milan, labour division, of 24 January2020, no hyperlink available. 

181 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Procedural  and  framework  differences  were  identified  with  sanctions  in  other  areas  of  law  in 
several countries (e.g., BE and IE). In Belgium, the differences with sanctions applied in other areas 
of law lie rather in the type of procedure (civil or criminal) that is initiated and the seriousness of the 
discriminatory act that has been prosecuted. In Ireland, the fact that licensed premises cases must 
be taken to the traditional court (District Court) rather than to the Workplace Relations Commission 
(quasi-judicial body) is particularly relevant in practice to discrimination on the grounds of race and 
ethnic origin, as discrimination against members of the travelling community has been a problem in 
pubs and hotels both historically and in the present day. The particular challenge of access to justice 
in  a  traditional  court  is  not  experienced  in  some  other  areas  of  law,  such  as  data  protection  or 
consumer  protection,  where  specific  redress  systems  similar  to  the  Workplace  Relations 
Commission have been set up and which do not require access to a traditional court. 

Further  differences  were  identified  in  relation  to  the  operational  patterns  of  the  supervisory 
bodies.  For  example,  in  Portugal,  according to one  stakeholder,  the  Portuguese Data Protection 
Agency  has  a  dedicated  page  on  its  website  for  its  decisions,  opinions,  instructions  and  other 
relevant documents, and therefore provides broader information in comparison to the Commission 
for Equality and against Racial Discrimination.  

Whilst  it  is more  relevant for  the  legal framework,  it  is  noted  here that  differences in  available 
sanction  regimes  and  types  were  observed,  for  instance  in  Austria,  where  the  only  difference 
identified is that the Disability Equality Act330 only provides for the possibility of a class action in cases 
of discrimination on the grounds of disability outside the employment relationship, while class action 
is not available for cases of discrimination on racial, ethnic or religious grounds. In Italy, there are 
differences in legal standards and practice with other areas of law such as data protection, consumer 
protection law, environmental law and corruption law, for which the law provides for a comprehensive 
set  of  administrative  sanctions,  including  disqualification  sanctions,  and  their  public  enforcement, 
which  respondents  identified  as  important  to  extend  to  discrimination  sanctions.  A  French 
interviewee noted that in the fields of financial or environmental offences, there are alternatives to 
judgments  for  legal  persons  called  “public  interest  judicial  agreements”  (convention  judiciaire 
d’intérêt public), which could perhaps be applied in the context of discrimination. If the legal entity 
fulfils  the  obligations  (sanctions)  to  which  it  has  committed  itself  in  the  agreement,  the  public 
prosecution will cease. The obligations may consist of the payment to the State of a fine in the public 
interest,  the  amount  of  which  may  not  exceed  30  %  of  the  average  annual  turnover;  the 
implementation,  under  supervision,  of  a  programme,  for  example,  to  bring  its  anti-corruption  and 
prevention procedures into line, for a maximum period of three years; compensation for the damage 
suffered by the victim. A fine is paid, a sanction is published and there is a monitoring body to check 
that remedial measures have been taken. 

The amount of the sanction was found to sometimes differ, for instance in relation to the area of 
data  protection  in  Sweden  and  Finland.  In  Sweden,  a  judicial  stakeholder  considered  that  data 
protection violations are sanctioned at a much higher level than either discrimination or consumer 
claims.  Similarly,  in  Finland,  negligence  payment  (administrative  fine)  which  is  available  in  data 
protection legislation and can be quite high, could also be applied in discrimination legislation, but is 
currently not. A Greek interviewee also felt that in the area of personal data protection, there seemed 
to  be  a  more  coherent  framework  for  protection  and  sanctions.  In  addition,  with  regard  to 
administrative sanctions, the Consumer Protection Law331 adds a list of indicative criteria to be taken 
into account for the imposition of sanctions in relation to each infringement of the provisions for which 
a  sanction  is  imposed.  This  provision  of  criteria  specific  to  this  area  of  law  could  be  used  for 
discrimination  issues.  In  Slovakia,  one  stakeholder  mentioned  that  the  amount  of  sanctions  in 

330 Federal Act on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Federal Disability Equality Act) (Bundesgesetz über die 
Gleichstellung von Menschen mit Behinderungen (Bundes-Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz – BGStG)), BGBl. I Nr. 82/2005, NR: GP 
XXII RV 836 AB 1028 S. 115. BR: AB 7341 S. 724. 
331 Act No 2251 FEK 191/16.11.1994, Protection of consumers (ΝΟΜΟΣ ΥΠ' ΑΡΙΘ. 2251 ΦΕΚ 191/16.11.1994 Προστασία των 
καταναλωτών). 

182 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

personal integrity cases332 is much higher than financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage in 
discrimination cases, due to established case law and the fact that these cases are usually litigated 
by prominent law firms with good knowledge of similar cases at national and international level. 

With regard to both the legal framework and practice, the type of sanctions was found to be different 
in  some  areas  of  law  in  countries  such  as  Cyprus,  Luxembourg,  Slovakia,  France,  Poland  or 
Portugal. First, in terms of the legal framework, in Cyprus, a difference was noted with the area of 
consumer protection, where there is the possibility to seek temporary and structural injunctions, and 
where consumer organisations can file complaints and have locus standi to bring a case to court. In 
Luxembourg,  injunctive  reliefs  are provided for  in  different  areas  of  law,  including  data protection 
law. In Portugal, in the area of consumer protection, national legislation provides for the right to seek 
an injunction to prevent, correct or put an end to practices that jeopardise consumers' rights under 
this law, while in the area of non-discrimination, injunctive relief is not specifically applicable, other 
than that  victims  may  ask  the  court  to  order  the  offender  to  perform  or  refrain  from  performing  a 
specific act under the general provisions of civil law. Regarding the difference with other areas of 
law  in  practice,  in  Slovakia,  an  interviewee  suggested  that  structural  injunctions  would  be  more 
effectively  applied  through  administrative  court  proceedings  against  public  bodies  rather  than 
through civil litigation. In Poland, two stakeholders interviewed considered that injunctions are much 
more often used in other areas of law, in particular in property and financial rights’ cases. 

Differences with sanctions for other grounds of discrimination 

The country research considered whether there were differences in the provision or application of 
sanctions for other grounds of discrimination and whether there was any added value in applying 
these other sanctions to cases of discrimination on racial, ethnic and religious grounds.  

No information could be obtained on this aspect in twelve Member States (BE, DE, EE, HR, HU, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, SI and PL). In Bulgaria, no differences in the sanctioning policy of the equality 
body in relation to other grounds or areas of discrimination were identified. A Romanian stakeholder 
considered that there were no differences between the different grounds of discrimination and that 
the differences in sanctions were due to other aspects, such as whether a group was targeted or the 
outreach in society (for instance through social media). In Cyprus, the types and level of damages 
are also considered similar for all grounds for discrimination. 

Moreover, in some countries (e.g., EL, FR and SE) all grounds of discrimination are covered by the 
same  law  or  Article,  which  may  reduce  differences  in  treatment  in  terms  of  sanctions.  For 
instance,  Greek  stakeholders  considered  that  there  are  no  significant  differences  between  the 
various grounds of discrimination, as the law itself does not provide for any differentiation according 
to the ground of discrimination. In Sweden, there are also no main differences with regard to the 
sanctions provided for or applied for other grounds of discrimination not covered by this Study, as 
they are all covered by the same act, the 2009 Discrimination Act.  

In France, the sanctions provided by law are also the same for all grounds of discrimination, as they 
are comprised in the same Article of the Criminal Code. However, stakeholders noted an unofficial 
hierarchy of grounds for discrimination. The grounds of race, ethnic origin and religion can also be 
legally covered by the ground of “physical appearance”. If a dispute is framed in terms of physical 
appearance,  there  is  a  lower  likelihood  of  sanctions  for  immaterial  damage  because  physical 
appearance is often considered a "lighter" issue compared to race. Nonetheless, it is more common 
for instances of racial discrimination to be addressed as physical appearance discrimination rather 
than explicitly  as racial discrimination. One  difference between the  grounds  of  discrimination  that 
was mentioned as being more likely to lead to sanctions is when the ground is 'visible' (e.g., being 
black, wearing a veil, rather than discrimination based on sexual orientation). Furthermore, French 

332 Cases concerning the protection of an individual's personal rights, such as the right to privacy, dignity, and protection from 
defamation. 

183 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

stakeholders mentioned that the fight against discrimination on the grounds of origin is not a priority 
for companies, less so than the fight against discrimination on the grounds of gender or disability, 
for  which  there  are  directly  related  obligations333  and  proof  is  easier  to  provide.  In  addition,  one 
interviewee felt that the psychological impact of discrimination is not considered as much in cases 
of  discrimination  (other  than harassment  cases),  as it  is  in harassment  cases. It  is  assumed that 
harassment  can  have  consequences,  such  as  people  taking  sick  leave,  and  in  comparison,  this 
aspect is not used a lot or taken into account in cases of discrimination other than harassment on 
the  grounds  considered  in  this  Study,  even  though  harassment  is  often  based  on  discriminatory 
motives. This may partly explain the much higher fines in harassment cases, as evidence in a case 
presented in the box below. 

Box 42: French example of sanctions imposed in harassment cases 

•  France 

In 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal334 had to rule on the case of a plaintiff of North African origin who was 
hired by a company in January 2000 and assigned to a thermal production centre in 2008. He complained 
that he had been subjected to racist and Islamophobic behaviour for several years. When he returned from 
leave, he found his locker covered in smoke and his booklet of suras from the Koran partially burned with 
the words "FN 2017" written on it. He exercised his right to resign and was subsequently placed on sick 
leave. 

This  case  illustrates  the  handling  of  multiple  grounds  of  discrimination  (racial/ethnic  and  religious)  and 
combines allegations of  discrimination (other than harassment) and harassment. The Court  in this case, 
made a clear distinction between the sanction for discrimination other than harassment and the sanction for 
harassment. The sanction for discrimination represents only 25 % of the sanction for harassment. 

Further differences with sanctions for other grounds for discrimination were identified. For instance, 
an Austrian expert considered that the award of immaterial damages is very much orientated towards 
the  minimum  amount,  perhaps  even  more  than  in  cases  of  gender  discrimination  or  sexual 
harassment. In Denmark, sanctions for discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity or religion 
may differ from those for discrimination on the grounds of sex, age or disability, in particular when it 
comes to the severity or the aim of sanctions335, reflecting the different historical contexts and legal 
developments associated with each type of discrimination. In Czechia, one interviewee mentioned 
that sanctions for discrimination are generally low, although they may be higher in cases of ethnic 
discrimination and courts are more likely to award them in full. 

Another  difference  was  identified  in  Spain,  as  a  Spanish  interviewee  felt  that  the  differences  (in 
particular in terms of severity of sanctions) did not depend on the area of discrimination, but on the 
greater or lesser success with which these sanctions have been established in the different 
regulations. For instance, with regard to the ground of disability, two stakeholders mentioned that 
the  Royal  Decree  covering  this  specific  ground  is  more  advanced336  than  the  general  law  (Law 

333 For instance, in relation to gender, Law of 24 December 2021 imposes quotas for senior management positions in large companies: 
40% of women managers by 2030, subject to a financial penalty for companies (maximum 1% of payroll). Law no. 2021-1774 of 24 
December 2021 aimed at accelerating economic and professional equality (Loi n° 2021-1774 du 24 décembre 2021 visant à accélérer 
l'égalité économique et professionnelle), Official Journal no.0300 of 26 December 2021, MTRX2110876L. 
334 Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 6 - Chamber 5 of 05 December 2019, no. RG 17/10760, no. Portalis 35L7-V-B7B-
B37G2. 
335 The disability cases identified in the country report tend to show a higher level of compensation awarded than in the cases identified 
for the grounds examined in this report, and the disability cases identified tended to focus on the victim, whereas in cases of racial, 
ethnic and religious discrimination the sanctions tended to be aimed at punishing the discriminatory behaviour. This may be nuanced by 
the fact that a limited number of cases relating to other grounds were discussed in the report, therefore perceived trends may be 
different if a larger number of cases were examined. 
336 Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013, of 29 November, approving the Consolidated Text of the General Law on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2013, de 29 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el Texto 

184 

 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

15/2022337), which covers both racial, ethnic and religious discrimination, and discrimination on the 
ground  of  disability.  Indeed,  the  Royal  Decree  provides  for  harsher  sanctions  and  is  much  more 
detailed  on  the  criteria  to  be  taken  into  account  when  sanctioning  the  discriminatory  behaviour, 
additional  sanctions,  and  provides  for  guarantees  of  the  sanctioning  regime.  Law  15/2022 
establishes a broader and more harmonised legal regime for equal treatment and non-discrimination, 
and  lays  down  the  regime  for  administrative  infractions  and  sanctions  for  the  infraction  of  equal 
treatment and non-discrimination measures in its Title IV. The law covers sex, racial or ethnic origin, 
disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation. The interplay between these laws suggests 
that while the Royal Decree acts as a lex specialis for disability discrimination, Law 15/2022 ensures 
consistency  across  different  grounds  of  discrimination  and  includes  new elements that reflect the 
evolution of anti-discrimination legislation since 2013. The most common criticism of Law 15/2022 is 
that its section on sanctions lacks legislative quality and that the law outlines very general offences 
rather than providing detailed descriptions. This contrasts with, for example, the Catalan law, which 
was considered by the interviewee to be more detailed and comprehensive. 

The  ground  of  gender  discrimination  appears  to  trigger  different  sanctions  in  Ireland  and 
Portugal. Sanctions are of the same kind across the grounds for discrimination in Ireland, but claims 
under the gender ground are treated exceptionally, as they can be taken directly to the Circuit Court 
and  can  attract  higher  compensation  awards,  since  no  monetary  limit  is  applicable  (up  to  the 
jurisdictional limit of the Circuit Court which is EUR 75 000). In Portugal, there is a specialised body 
for  gender  equality  in  employment,  which  deals  with  complaints,  issues  opinions  and  provides 
assistance  in  cases  of  gender  discrimination,  and  due  to  its  narrower  scope  of  activity,  such  a 
specialised  body  is  more  likely  to  lead  to  sanctions  that  are  more  focused  and  potentially  more 
severe. In addition, the Labour Code contains specific measures for gender discrimination, although 
they are rarely used. 

Finally,  the  ground  of  disability  also  revealed  some  differences  in  treatment  compared  to  race, 
ethnicity and religion in some countries (e.g., FI, NL, PT). In the Netherlands, stakeholders noted 
that other grounds of discrimination have lower thresholds because of the greater reliance on factual 
assessment. In Portugal, when comparing fines for discrimination on the grounds of disability and 
the existence of an aggravated health risk, the latter has higher ranges: EUR 4 100 to EUR 8 200 
for natural persons and EUR 16 400 to EUR 24 600 for legal persons, compared to EUR 509.26 to 
EUR 5 092.6 and EUR 2 037.04 to EUR 10 185.2 respectively. In Finland, the main difference is that 
cases are numerous and relate to accessibility issues or the lack of reasonable accommodation, for 
example, the sanction of an Improvement Notice338 is quite common in these cases. 

Refundido de la Ley General de derechos de las personas con discapacidad y de su inclusión social), Official Bulletin no. 289, 03 
December 2013, BOE-A-2013-12632. 
337 Law no 15/2022, of 12 July for the equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 15/2022, 12 de Julio, integral para la igualdad de 
trato y la no discriminación), Official Bulletin no. 167, 13 July 2022, BOE-A-2022-11589.  
338 An improvement notice is a formal order issued by an occupational safety and health inspector when an employer fails to comply with 
legal obligations related to workplace safety, health, or non-discrimination. The notice requires the employer to eliminate or remedy the 
non-complying conditions within a specified time frame. It is issued when the risk posed by the non-compliance is more than minimal, or 
when an employer has not followed previous written advice. The improvement notice specifies the relevant legal provisions and the 
observed defects, and the inspector monitors compliance with the notice. If the employer fails to take the necessary actions within the 
given time, the matter is escalated to occupational safety and health authorities. 

185 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

4. Challenges  

Section 4 of this Final Report is primarily linked to the horizontal analysis of Task 2 - Application of 
the  law  in  practice  and  touches  upon  the  challenges  linked  to  both  the  legal  framework  and  its 
application in practice. It is structured as follows:  

•  Section 4.1: Challenges linked to the legal framework 

•  Section 4.2: Challenges linked to practical application 

•  Section 4.3: Challenges linked to data collection and awareness raising 

This section of the Final Report does not provide an exhaustive list of challenges. Instead, it includes 
challenges highlighted by the stakeholders interviewed and the literature reviewed by the country 
experts. Therefore, some challenges mentioned here may also be present in other Member States, 
even if not explicitly noted in the Report. 

4.1. Challenges linked to the legal framework 

This sub-section provides examples of challenges that stem from the current legal framework that 
could  hinder  the  imposition  of  effective,  proportionate,  and  dissuasive  sanctions.  The  box  below 
provides  an  overview  of  the  challenges  identified,  along  with  examples  of  Member  States  where 
these challenges have been reported on. This section does not exhaustively cover challenges linked 
to access to justice in non-discrimination cases, as information on such hurdles is generally known 
to the European Commission339.   

Box 43: Examples of legal challenges identified 

Challenges linked to general approach towards sanction regulations 

•  Sanction provisions are scattered across numerous laws: This seems to be the case in several 
Member States (e.g., AT, BE, EL, FR and LV). In Austria, for example, the sanction framework is 
scattered  across  over  10  different  pieces  of  legislation340.  This  complexity  has  an  impact  on  the 
surrounding institutional framework as well, resulting in a situation where several courts and public 
offices are in charge of hearing discrimination cases. This is reportedly confusing for victims, who 
do not know which law to consult and which authority to contact. Similarly to Austria, in Belgium, 
the sanction provisions are outlined in legislation at various administrative levels (i.e., legislation at 
federal, regional and community levels).   

•  Sanction provisions are backward looking: Many Member States (e.g., FR, DK, EE, PT and SE) 
rely  heavily  on  punitive  (e.g.,  fines)  or  compensatory  (e.g.,  compensation  to  victims)  sanctions, 
which  often  focus  on  past  wrongs  without  addressing  structural  or  systemic  discrimination,  nor 
preventing future discrimination or promoting long-term change. 

Insufficient, unclear or complex regulation of competences and mandate of sanctioning bodies:  

339 See for example challenges outlined in European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European parliament and the 
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, Brussels, 19 March 2021, 
hereinafter referred to as ‘Report from the Commission on the application of the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality 
Directive’. 
340 European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, Schindlauer, D., ‘Country report Non-discrimination – 
Transposition and implementation at national level of Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78’, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2024, p.10. According to this report, discrimination provisions are scattered in more than 40 acts. 

186 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

• 

In several Member States, challenges linked to the competences of sanctioning bodies have been 
identified.    In  certain  Member  States  (e.g.,  EL  and,  MT),  the  equality  body  is  not  competent  to 
impose legally binding sanctions. In Ireland, the Workplace Relations Commission is designed to 
facilitate  access  to  justice  for  discrimination.  It  is  inexpensive  and  informal  and  inquisitorial 
compared to traditional courts. Yet for discrimination at licenced premises point of entry (pubs and 
hotels, a culturally significant social space in Ireland) a case must be taken to the traditional court 
(District  Court).  In  Spain  the  new  Comprehensive  Law  for  Equal  Treatment  and  Non-
Discrimination341,  approved  in  2022,  has  introduced  several  novelties,  which  are  outlined  under 
Section  5.1  of  this  report.  Among  others,  the  Law  has  led  to  the  extension  of  protection  against 
discrimination,  covering  an  extensive  list  of  grounds  and  a  wide  range  of  areas.  According  to  a 
consulted  stakeholder,  the  latter  results  in  the  extension  of  competences  to  several  authorities. 
However, the specific competences of the authorities in charge of imposing sanctions are not clearly 
defined. This might undermine the application of the progressive rules introduced by the new law 
as the authorities in charge might not be fully aware of their competences. In Austria, the institutional 
framework is  highly complex, with courts  and some  public  authorities both  being responsible for 
discrimination cases. This reportedly causes confusion among victims. 

Challenges linked to the regulation of the type, amount/range of sanctions: 

•  Sanction amounts are too low: Sanction amounts set forth in national legislation are not severe 
enough to deter a potential perpetrator from discriminating. This is reportedly an issue in several 
Member States (e.g., BG, DK, FI, FR, IE, LT, MT, PT, SI and SK). Notable, that for example in the 
Asociaţia Accept case342, the Court emphasised that purely symbolic sanctions are ineffective.  

•  Sanction amounts are outdated: Maltese legislation is an example of a legal framework which 
has not been subject to regulatory revisions for over 20 years. This results in outdated sanctions. 
Austria, Ireland and Sweden reported that the minimum and maximum amounts set by law have not 
changed in years, meaning that they are effectively worth much less today because of inflation.  

•  Sanctions prescribed by law may not fully comply with EU law requirements: In some Member 
States  (e.g.,  HU  –  compensation  for  material  damages  in  the  case  of  unlawfully  terminated 
employment, CY – compensation for material/immaterial damages for discrimination in areas other 
than employment, IE – material/immaterial compensation for e.g., discriminatory job interviews, SI 
– civil law compensation for material/immaterial damages regardless of the discrimination ground 
or area concerned) compensation amounts are subject to predetermined caps. According to CJEU 
case law, compensation should not be subject to a pre-determined upper limit343. 

•  Unclear regulation of sanction types: This issue has been reported on in some Member States 
(e.g., SI and PL). In Slovenia, whilst several compensation schemes exist, the relationship between 
them  is  not  clear.  In  Poland,  the  national  legislation  does  not  clearly  differentiate  between 
compensation (compensation for material damages) and reparation (compensation for immaterial 
damages). The current wording of the applicable legislation suggests that only compensation for 
the material loss suffered is legally possible.  

•  Limited variety of sanction types:  In some Member States (e.g., DE and DK), national legislation 
sets forth only a limited number of sanction types (e.g., four in DE and three in DK) that could be 
imposed in discrimination cases. National legal frameworks with a limited number of sanction types 
may  lack  the  necessary  flexibility,  which  can  result  in  less  effective,  proportionate  or  dissuasive 
sanctions. The issue could be further aggravated by the challenge of allowing for backward-looking 
sanctions mainly (see above). 

341 Law no 15/2022, 12 of July for the equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 15/2022, 12 de Julio, integral para la igualdad de 
trato y la no discriminación), Official Bulletin no. 167, 13 July 2022, BOE-A-2022-11589. 
342 Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013, Asociaţia Accept v. Consiliul Naţional pentru 
Combaterea Discriminării, Case C-81/12, EU:C:2013:275. 
343 Judgment of the Court of 2 August 1993, M. Helen Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority, Case 
C-271/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:335, paragraphs 30-32 ; Judgment of 22 April 1997, Nils Draehmpaehl v. Urania Immobilienservice OHG, 
Case C-180/95, EU:C:1997:208, paragraph 43.   

187 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Sanctions for failures to fulfil equality duties are absent: In some Member States (e.g., HU and 
EE), sanctions for failures to fulfil equality duties are missing. In Hungary, for example, the Equal 
Treatment  Act344  obliges  employers  to  adopt  equal  treatment  plans.  The  Equal  Treatment 
Directorate,  in  charge  of  the  implementation  of  the  Equal  Treatment  Act,  has  no  competence  to 
check the content of equal treatment plans and hence has no power to impose sanctions when an 
employer does not comply with its own obligations set out in the plan. In Croatia, the situation is 
similar. Whilst the national Labour Act345 requires employers employing a minimum of 20 employees 
to  include  anti-discrimination  measures  in  the  internal  working  regulations,  no  sanctions  are 
envisaged for non-compliance346. 

Challenges linked to regulation of characteristics/circumstances to be considered: 

•  Lack or insufficient consideration of certain characteristics/circumstances: In some Member 
States (e.g.,  BE) the  lack  of consideration  in  the  law of repeated commission as an aggravating 
circumstance  is  reportedly  a  challenge.  An  additional  challenge  is  that  no  offence-specific 
aggravating circumstances are set out in the legislation of some Member States (e.g., LU).  

More general challenges linked to bringing cases before courts: 

•  Lack or insufficient regulation of collective cases: In several Member States (e.g., AT, CZ, EL, 
DE, FR, SE, HU and SK) legal issues in relation to collective cases have been identified. In some 
Member States (e.g., AT, DE, EL and SE), collective redress in discrimination cases falling under 
the scope of the RED/EED is not legally allowed. In Hungary, actio popularis is legally possible, but 
in these cases financial compensation for damages cannot be claimed. Moreover, Constitutional 
Court  review  is  not  legally  allowed  in  these  cases.  In  some  other  Member  States,  whilst  actio 
popularis is legally possible, the applicable procedural rules have not been developed (e.g., in SK), 
or  are  not  effective  (e.g.,  in  FR).  In  Czechia,  NGOs  and  similar  bodies  cannot  challenge 
discrimination before Czech courts through actio popularis or class actions. 

•  Too short limitation periods: in several Member States (e.g., DE, IE, LV, NL and SE) claims are 

often time-barred due to short limitation periods prescribed by law.  

•  Lack of legal standing for certain bodies:  In some Member States (e.g., EL, LV, LT) third parties, 
such as NGOs (e.g., in LT before highest courts) or equality bodies (e.g., in LU) lack legal standing. 

•  Regulation of cost of proceedings hindering legal action: in several countries (e.g., AT, CY, 
HR, EL, HU, SK and SE), the rules developed for bearing the costs of proceedings are inadequate 
and might deter victims from bringing their cases before courts. In some Member States (e.g., AT, 
CY, EL, HR, HU and SE), in case of an unsuccessful claim, the victim will also have to cover also 
the  costs  of  the  other  party  to  the  procedure.  In  Sweden,  the  financial  burden  of  litigation  has 
significantly escalated. Since the 1980s, trial costs and fees in labour law cases have surged by 
170 %. In stark contrast, the damages typically awarded in these cases have only seen a modest 
increase  of  3  %.  This  widening  disparity  makes  pursuing  litigation  prohibitively  expensive, 
particularly for plaintiffs who are already at a disadvantage. Moreover, in Sweden, the parties could 
be exempted from paying the costs of proceedings. This, however, is decided on a case-by-case 
basis by the judge hearing the specific case. In Slovakia, the costs of court procedures in civil law 
cases, including those involving discrimination, are generally influenced by the amount of financial 
compensation for non-pecuniary damage being claimed. Higher claims result in higher costs, which 
often  leads  victims  to  seek  lower  amounts.  This  approach,  however,  tends  to  be  less  effective, 
proportionate, and dissuasive. 

•  High threshold for the reversal of the burden of proof: In some countries (e.g., AT, and IT) the 
threshold for the reversal of the burden of proof is high. In Italy, in accordance with the principle of 
in re ipsa, compensation for damages is not assumed automatically. Instead, the victim must provide 
evidence of the actual occurrence and severity of the damages.  

344 Act CXXV of 2003 on equal treatment and the promotion of equal opportunities (2003. évi CXXV. Törvény az egyenlő bánásmódról és az esélyegyenlőség előmozdításáról) Equal Treatment Act, Official 
publication: Magyar Közlöny, no. 2003/157; 28 December 2003, pp. 13044-13055. 
345 Croatia, Labour Act (Zakon o radu), Official Gazette No. 93/2014, 127/2017, 98/2019, 151/2022, 46/2023, 64/2023. 
346 Crowley, N., Making Europe More Equal: A Legal Duty?, Equinet, Brussels, 2016, p. 17.  

188 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Lack of legal aid in discrimination cases: In some Member States (e.g., CY) the law does not 
allow legal aid in discrimination cases. As a result, victims, who are most of the time very vulnerable, 
cannot have financial support to pursue their cases. 

Challenges linked to enforcement:  

•  Limited or inefficient enforcement measures: National legislation of some Member States does 
(e.g., CY and SK) not allow for a wide range of sanction enforcement measures. To the contrary, 
enforcement  measures  are  often  limited  in  numbers  or  are  otherwise  inefficient  in  ensuring 
perpetrators’  compliance  with  the  sanctions  imposed.  In  Cyprus,  for  example  enforcement 
measures of sanctions imposed by courts are limited to the issuance of a writ on moveable property 
or a memo on immoveable property. These measures do not usually lead to better compliance with 
the initial sanctions imposed. The procedures triggered by these measures are neither efficient nor 
effective, as they are usually delayed and the final result is very difficult to achieve if the defendant 
does not pay the award. 

•  Poorly  managed,  long  or  burdensome  enforcement  procedures:  Enforcement  procedures 
envisaged in the law might not always be adequately managed by the authorities involved. This is 
reportedly  the  case  in  Bulgaria  for  example.  Moreover,  rules  could  result  in  delayed  sanction 
enforcement. In France, for example, in cases where perpetrators fail to pay a fine, they could be 
allowed as part of the enforcement proceedings to pay it in instalments. The prolonged payment 
period pre-empts the main objective of the sanction, which in the case of the sanction of fine is to 
punish and deter the perpetrator. Another challenge stems from sanction regulations that put too 
much burden on the victims, placing them in a position of leading the enforcement procedures. This 
is the case in some Member States (e.g., FR and PL). 

•  Lack of enforcement monitoring: In most Member States (e.g., AT, ES, PT, SI and SE), there are 

no clear legal provisions for sanction monitoring. 

Other, country-specific challenges linked to the legal framework: 

•  Greece: Existence of a procedural rule prescribing the mandatory presence of victims at trial. 

•  Netherlands: Civil servants cannot be held liable individually for potential discrimination. This issue 
was raised  in the context  of the  Day Care  Benefits  Affair. In this case, the Dutch tax  authorities 
wrongly accused thousands of parents of fraud related to childcare benefits. Investigations revealed 
that  there  was  a  discriminatory  element  in  the  profiling  of  individuals  suspected  of  fraud,  with  a 
disproportionate number of ethnic minorities being targeted. Those accused were forced to repay 
large sums of money, often amounting to tens of thousands of euros. This led to severe financial 
hardship for many families, causing some to lose their homes, jobs, and face significant emotional 
distress. No criminal proceedings were initiated in the case, given the statute of limitation outlined 
in  the  Criminal  Code.  The  liability  of  individual  case  handlers  could  not  be  fully  ruled  out.  Civil 
servants, however, are exempted from applicable liability rules. 

•  Sweden: As to remedies, equity is not an institution in Swedish law, consequently the courts have 
no  equitable  powers,  and  cannot  order  as  a  sanction  for  example,  the  hiring  of  an  individual.  A 
decision made by an employer with respect to existing employment can be voided, but the employer 
ultimately cannot be forced to obey the decision, such as by taking back a former employee. Punitive 
damages are not awarded, only economic, nominal or discrimination damages. Economic damages 
are only awarded where the plaintiff already is an employee. 

As  illustrated  by  the  box  above,  the  legal  framework  governing  sanction  regulations  across  the 
Member  States  presents  a  complex  set  of  challenges,  potentially  impacting  the  effectiveness, 
dissuasiveness and proportionality of sanctions.  

One  difficulty  arises  from  the  general  approach  towards  sanction  regulations,  with  some 
countries  having  scattered  sanction  provisions  across  numerous  laws.  This  dispersion  makes  it 
harder for authorities, legal practitioners and victims alike to navigate the legal landscape. Moreover, 
in some Member States, the existing sanctions tend to be primarily punitive or compensatory, lacking 

189 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

a  forward-looking,  preventive  approach  that  could  more  effectively  deter  future  discrimination.  In 
particular,  the  absence  of  sanctions  like  structural  injunctions,  could  potentially  limit  the  legal 
framework's capacity to respond to systemic discrimination. 

Another significant challenge lies in the regulation of competences for imposing sanctions. In 
several  Member  States,  for  example,  equality  bodies  lack  the  authority  to  impose  legally  binding 
sanctions347. Notable that in the countries concerned, the stakeholders reporting on the issues felt 
that their national equality bodies should be vested with such competences. Another challenge is 
linked to the lack of oversight by equality bodies, or similar, over compliance with equality duties. 
This gap could make equality duties meaningless, as there is no mechanism to ensure that those 
subject to such duties adhere to their obligations. 

The regulation of sanctions also poses challenges, particularly in terms of the type, amount, and 
range of sanctions set forth in national legislation. In several countries, sanctions are often too low 
or outdated to serve as effective deterrents. This is an issue, already highlighted by the CJEU, which 
among  others  in  the  Asociaţia  Accept  case348,  noted  that  purely  symbolic  sanctions  cannot  be 
considered sufficient.  

Moreover, in some Member States, the legal frameworks do not adequately account for repeated 
offences or offence-specific aggravating circumstances, potentially leading to lenient sanctions for 
e.g., serial violators of anti-discrimination laws. 

Challenges  linked  to  bringing  cases  before  courts  further  complicate  the  legal  landscape. 
Collective redress in discrimination cases is not legally allowed in several countries, while in others, 
the procedural rules are either underdeveloped or ineffective. In some Member States, claims could 
be  time-barred  due  to  short  limitation  periods,  depriving  victims  of  their  right  to  seek  justice. 
Additionally,  in  some  countries,  third  parties  (i.e.,  parties  other  than  victims)  such  as  NGOs  or 
equality  bodies  lack  legal  standing,  further  restricting  access  to  justice.  The  financial  burden  of 
litigation, including rules obliging victims to cover the costs of proceedings, also poses a significant 
deterrent to victims of discrimination. Specific legal issues, such as the high threshold for the reversal 
of the burden of proof, further weaken the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws.  

Enforcement challenges include the lack of or inadequate enforcement measures. Additionally, the 
inadequate regulations may result in poorly managed enforcement procedures, causing delays or 
placing undue burden on victims. In some cases, prolonged payment options, such as instalments, 
undermine  the  deterrent  effect  of  sanctions.  Additionally,  many  Member  States  lack  clear  legal 
provisions for monitoring the enforcement of sanctions. 

Lastly, country-specific challenges highlight further limitations within the legal frameworks.  

4.2. Challenges linked to practical application 

This  sub-section  provides  examples  of  challenges  concerning  the  application  of  the  legislative 
framework  in  practice  that  may  directly  affect  the  application  of  effective,  proportionate,  and 
dissuasive  sanctions.  The  box  below  outlines  country  specific  examples  to  illustrate  the  different 
types of challenges identified. This section does not exhaustively cover challenges linked to access 

347 It is acknowledged that the new Directive (EU) 2024/1499 on standards for equality bodies does not make it mandatory for the 
Member States to empower the equality bodies with the competence of issuing binding decisions. In accordance with Art. 9. ‘Member 
States shall ensure that equality bodies are empowered to provide and document their assessment of the case, including establishing 
the facts and a reasoned conclusion on the existence of discrimination. Member States shall determine whether this is to be done by 
means of non-binding opinions or binding decisions’. Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499, op.cit. 
348 Asociaţia Accept, C-81/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:275, op.cit.  

190 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

to  justice  in  non-discrimination  cases,  as  information  on  such  hurdles  is  generally  known  to  the 
European Commission349.  

Moreover, in some Member States, such as Malta, Latvia, and Slovenia, the absence of or extremely 
limited  number  of  discrimination  cases  where  sanctions  are  imposed  means  that  no  practical 
challenges have been identified.  

Box 44: Examples of practical challenges 

Certain sanction schemes not applied: 

• 

In Austria, compensation for immaterial damages is not widely awarded due to the country's legal 
tradition,  which  generally  does  not  anchor  compensation  for  violations  of  personal  rights.  As  in 
Austria, compensation for immaterial damages is not typically awarded in Italy. In Denmark, financial 
compensation is typically imposed in discrimination cases, suggesting that punitive sanctions, such 
as fines are not imposed. 

Sanctions imposed are not deterrent enough: 

• 

In certain Member States (e.g., AT, BG, FI, HU, IT, LU, PT, RO and SK), symbolic, non-monetary 
sanctions are typically imposed, which is contrary to the standards  developed by the CJEU350. In 
Hungary,  for  example,  the  Equal  Treatment  Directorate  rarely  imposes  fines  as  a  sanction.  It 
systematically refrains from imposing monetary sanctions and rather imposes the symbolic sanction 
of establishing violations. In Romania, the National Council for Combating Discrimination tends to 
issue warnings and recommendations rather than fines, particularly when the offender is a public 
authority, demonstrating a reluctance to apply stricter sanctions. In Slovenia warnings are favoured 
over more severe sanctions, such as fines.   

Inconsistent or poor practice of courts/adjudicating bodies: 

• 

Inconsistent application of the legal framework: Inconsistent application of the legal framework 
seems to be a challenge in several Member States (e.g., AT, BE, DK, IT, NL and PL). Courts in 
Belgium, for example, do not consistently apply the principle of the reversed burden of proof in line 
with EU law. This stems from a Constitutional Court judgment351, which grants judges discretionary 
power to decide whether to allow the reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases. The 
reversal  can  only  be  applied  if  the  facts  specifically  pertain  to  the  individual  author  of  the 
discrimination, rather than being of a general nature. Moreover, the court practice in relation to the 
ban on wearing religious symbols is inconsistent. For instance, on 3 May 2021, the Brussels Labour 
Tribunal352  awarded  compensation  to  a  victim  and  issued  an  injunctive  relief  order  to  cease  the 
discriminatory practice. However, following the 2022 CJEU ruling (C-148/22 – Commune d’Ans,), 
courts have granted public authorities a broad discretion to adopt such policies (see e.g., Brussels 
Labour Court (French-speaking), 15 February 2024353), provided they are applied consistently and 
systematically. In Italy, some courts are reluctant to tailor the sanctions to the specificities of each 
case.  

•  Higher  instance  courts  overturning  sanctions  imposed  by  lower  instance  courts:  In  some 
Member States, inconsistent practices can be observed in the decisions of courts at different levels. 
In Bulgaria, administrative courts, acting as second and third instances, often overturn the sanctions 
imposed by the Commission for Protection against Discrimination’s. For instance, Commission for 
Protection against Discrimination Decision No: 97/23.03.2022354, regarding ethnic discrimination in 
social protection and employment, highlights this issue. Similarly, Decision No: 883/09.02.2024 of 

349 See for example challenges outlined in European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission on the application of the Racial Equality 
Directive and the Employment Equality Directive’, op.cit. 
350 Asociaţia Accept, C-81/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:275, op.cit., paragraph 64.  
351 Judgment of 12 February 2009, no. 17/2009.  
352 Judgment of the Labour court of Brussels, 03 May 2021. 
353 Judgment of the Labour court of Brussels (French-speaking), 15 February 2024. 
354 Bulgaria, Decision No. 97/23.03.2022 of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (Комисия за защита от 
дискриминация), Case No. 557/2020. 

191 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

the Sofia City Administrative Court355, addressing gender discrimination in employment, illustrates 
the dismissive judicial stance towards discrimination claims. Similarly to the Bulgarian example, in 
Hungary, the Curia and higher courts tend to overturn the decisions of lower instance courts. This 
leads  to  the  imposition  of  less  severe  sanctions  compared  to  those  originally  imposed  by  lower 
instance courts. This could be observed in several cases outlined under Section 3.1.3. In a recent 
disability  case,  the  Curia  ruled  that  the  ministry/state  cannot  be  held  liable  for  certain  violations, 
overturning  previous  court  decisions  and  legal  precedents.  This  shift  could  render  lawsuits 
addressing systemic discrimination due to state inaction ineffective, making state obligations in this 
area unenforceable. 

Sanctions addressing structural issues not being used:  

•  Whilst legally allowed, in some Member States (e.g., BE, CZ, EE and SK) structural injunction is not 
being imposed by courts or other adjudicating bodies. In Belgium, for example, the competence to 
issue positive structural injunctions was granted to judges in 2023, but has not been utilised yet. 
Also in Belgium, there seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the time-frame available for seeking 
injunctions.  The  debate  focuses  on  whether  legal  action  can  be  initiated  in  instances  where  the 
discriminatory act already occurred and its effects have concluded (for example, if the discriminator 
has  already  rented  out  property  after  initially  refusing  it  to  a  discrimination  victim).    In  Slovakia, 
courts tend to avoid imposing structural injunctions due to concerns about enforceability, especially 
when  the  defendants  are  entities  like  ministries  or  other  state  bodies.  Vagueness  in  structural 
injunctions makes them unenforceable, while specificity leads courts to hesitate in imposing them. 
Enforcement  becomes  even  more  challenging  when  multiple  entities  are  responsible,  such  as 
ministries, schools, or municipalities, and court rulings do not clearly allocate responsibilities. This 
challenge has been highlighted by the Supreme Court of Slovakia in cases like  Stará Ľubovňa356 
and Muránska Dlhá Lúka357. 

Inadequate enforcement: 

•  Lack of steps taken to ensure compliance with the sanctions imposed: This is reportedly an 
issue in several Member States (e.g., BG, HU,  PL  and SK). In Hungary, court decisions are  not 
adequately  enforced.  An  example  of  inadequate  enforcement  could  be  the  Kaposvar  I  case358. 
Whilst the courts declared that school segregation took place and ordered the defendant to end the 
discriminatory practice, in the absence of actual steps envisaged in this direction, the enforcement 
failed. Following the Supreme Court’s (currently called as Curia) ruling, the defendant did not take 
any measures to end the segregation. This led to the Kaposvar II case359 (first case which structural 
injunction was granted).   

In Bulgaria, the issue is linked to the inadequate practices of the enforcement bodies. In particular, 
the  issue  is  linked  to  the  collection  of  fines  by  the  equality  body,  the  Commission  for  Protection 
against  Discrimination.  The  latter  appears  to  be  passive  in  the  collection  of  fines,  relying  on 
voluntary payments from sanctioned individuals. If no voluntary payment is made, the equality body 
notifies the National Revenue Agency for compulsory collection. However, the Agency often does 
not pursue fines below BGN 1 000 (about EUR 500), which means that many fines remain unpaid 
until the statute of limitations expires. The equality body does not request data on fines collected 
from  the  National  Revenue  Agency  and  does  not  use  private  bailiffs,  who  are  more  effective  in 
collecting debts. Despite legal obligations, the equality body does not actively monitor enforcement.  

•  Placing  the  burden  of  enforcement  on  victims:  In  France,  in  the  case  of  compensation,  the 
responsibility  for  enforcement  rests  with  the  victim,  who  must  get  a  bailiff  to  collect  the  money, 
placing the burden on the person who initiated the proceedings. 

355 Bulgaria, Sofia City Administrative Court (Административен съд – София град), Decision No. 883/09.02.2024. 
356 Judgement of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic No 5Cdo/102/2020 of 15 December 2022.  
357 Judgement of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic No 5Cdo/220/2022 of 12 July 2023.  
358 Supreme Court (Legfelsőbb Bíróság), Decision no. Pfv.IV.21.568/2010/5, available at: https://birosag.hu/birosagi-hatarozatok-
gyujtemenye (through search function). 
359 Curia (Kúria), Decision no. Pfv.IV.20.085/2017/9. Available at: https://birosag.hu/birosagi-hatarozatok-gyujtemenye (search function). 

192 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Lengthy  and  complex  enforcement  proceedings:  In  Romania,  although  victims  or  interested 
parties can lodge complaints with the equality body or civil courts, the enforcement of judgments 
can be lengthy if the perpetrators do not comply voluntarily. 

•  Bypassing sanction enforcement: Sanction enforcement can be particularly challenging in actio 
popularis cases. The issues can be illustrated by specific cases from Slovakia for example. In the 
Šarišské Michaľany case360, a court ordered the desegregation of Roma children, but enforcement 
through  executory  procedures  proved  ineffective.  The  school  technically  complied  by  relocating 
children  to  a  new  school,  which,  however,  created  new  segregation.  Enforcement  is  particularly 
challenging when multiple entities, including public bodies, are involved, as they often ignore rulings 
or contribute to further segregation. Similarly, in the Sačurov case361, sanctions imposed by the State 
School Inspection to address segregation failed due to local support for the school director. Despite 
recommendations to dismiss her, the municipality exploited a legal loophole, and reappointed the 
same director, thereby undermining the sanctions. 

•  Sanction monitoring not carried out: In Hungary, for example, the Numbered Street case362 could 
illustrate  the  issue.  In  the  case,  the  court  ordered  the  municipality  to  cease  the  discriminatory 
practice and develop action plans for providing adequate housing to affected residents. The action 
plans  were  supposed  to  solve  the  situation  of  75-80  families.  In  implementing  the  action  plans, 
remedy could be  provided  to 30 families only. There was no formal monitoring  done to evaluate 
compliance with the initial sanction imposed. 

•  Practice of placing the burden of enforcement monitoring on victims:  Inadequate or lack of 
sanction monitoring by courts or other bodies often lead to a situation, whereby victims are forced 
to monitor the perpetrator’s compliance with the sanctions themselves. In several countries, this is 
reportedly  the  case.  In  Ireland,  for  example,  the  enforcement  of  the  Workplace  Relations 
Commission’s orders can be challenging if the respondent does not want to pay. Compliance is not 
actively monitored, so it is up to the victim to realise that the respondent has failed to comply with 
an  order  to  pay  damages  and  then  bring  the  case  to  the  District  Court  to  execute  the  order.  In 
Poland, the courts’ role is generally limited to issuing an enforceability clause after a ruling. In the 
case of non-compliance, it is up to the victim of discrimination to request the bailiff to enforce the 
decision  if  they  wish.  In  Estonia,  because  the  Labour  Dispute  Committee  does  not  monitor 
enforcement, it is left to the workers to ask a bailiff to enforce the decision.  

•  Sanction  monitoring  does  not  allow  for  evaluating  if  the  sanctions  achieve  the  intended 
results: While the enforcement of sanctions in Finland seems to function effectively, the monitoring 
system  is  relatively  weak  in  terms  of  quantitative  data  collection  and  its  analysis.  Monitoring  is 
conducted  as  part  of  the  routine  duties  of  occupational  health  and  safety  inspectors,  who  track 
compliance  with  improvement  notices.  The  anti-discrimination  ombudsman  also  monitors  case 
developments  following  recommendations,  but  these  are  not  legally  binding,  and  the  monitoring 
lacks the systematic analysis of enforcement. 

General issues with an impact on sanction application: 

•  Challenges in evidence gathering/proving discrimination: The covert nature of discrimination 
often makes it difficult to gather evidence, which may impede the effective examination of cases 
and the application of sanctions. For example, in Czechia, Estonia and Greece, this challenge was 
specifically pronounced. In Belgium, claimants seeking compensation beyond a standard lump sum 
must  prove  the  actual  damage  they  suffered,  a  task  complicated  by  the  immaterial  nature  of 
discrimination. This difficulty often leads claimants to opt for lump sum compensation, which judges 
are  more  likely  to  award,  even  if  it  may  not  adequately  address  the  discriminatory  behaviour. 
Additionally, claimants frequently struggle to demonstrate that the discrimination directly caused the 

360 Judgment of the District Court in Prešov of 05 December 2011, Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva v. Základná škola s 
materskou školou Šarišské Michaľany, 25C 133/10-229. 
361 State School Inspection, School Inspection Centre Prešov, ‘Report from the results of school inspection of 13 June 2022’ (Štátna 
školská inšpekcia, Školské inšpekčné centrum Prešov, Správa o výsledkoch školskej inšpekcie zo dňa 13.6.2022), The « Sačurov case 
», No 77006/2021-2022. 
362 Hungary, Metropolitan Administrative and Labour Court (Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság), Decision no. 
6.K.33.048/2015/17. 

193 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

unfavourable treatment. For instance, a Labour Court ruling on 28 February 2024363, highlights that 
Belgian courts often require evidence showing that a protected characteristic was the primary factor 
behind  the  unfavourable  treatment,  rather  than  just  proving  the  existence  of  discrimination.  In 
France, evidence of discrimination based on origin may rely on comparison panels, which compare 
treatment between individuals based on their surnames. However, this method depends on having 
enough employees and candidates to form such panels. In cases of racial and ethnic discrimination 
in  employment  access,  panels  are  rarely  available.  Consequently,  due  to  the  scarcity  of  panels, 
legal  proceedings  are  not  an  effective  way  to  combat  racial  discrimination  in  the  workplace  in 
France. Moreover, in some countries, such as Hungary, victims who could potentially serve as the 
main  source  of  evidence  in  discrimination  cases,  are  not  being  heard  in  proceedings  before  the 
Equal Treatment Directorate. Similarly, in Ireland, following a legal challenge to the requirement of 
public  hearings  (brought  by  the  Zalewski  case364),  it  has  become  more  common  for  cases, 
especially sensitive ones, to be settled without a hearing rather than proceeding to a full hearing. 

•  Legal  standing  and  NGO  involvement:  While  some  countries  legally  allow  NGOs  and 
associations  to  bring  forward  discrimination  cases,  this  right  is  seldom  exercised  in  practice.  In 
Bulgaria  and  Lithuania,  despite  the  legal  framework  supporting  NGO  involvement,  there  is  little 
incentive or practice of pursuing such cases, leading to under-enforcement of anti-discrimination 
laws. 

•  Operational challenges in courts and adjudicating bodies: Understaffing and inefficiencies in 
courts  or  related  bodies  undermine  the  application  of  effective  sanctions.  Greece's  Labour 
Inspectorate, for instance, is claimed to be understaffed. Similarly, in Portugal, the Commission for 
Equality  and  against  Racial  Discrimination  remains  largely  inoperative  despite  recent  efforts  to 
enhance its autonomy. In Hungary, the case processing, effectiveness and presence in rural areas 
of 
local 
representations  no  longer  exist).  The  Directorate  is  understaffed  and  lacks  a  dedicated,  easily 
navigable website. Fines are rarely imposed and, when they are, they remain insignificant. 

the  Ombudsman/Equal  Treatment  Directorate  have  decreased  significantly  (as 

•  Lengthy and complex legal procedures: The complexity and duration of legal proceedings can 
deter victims from pursuing discrimination cases. This issue is prevalent in countries like Cyprus, 
Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Romania, and Slovakia, where the procedural 
burden often discourages victims from seeking justice. Another example was identified in France in 
the  recent  Adecco  case365  involving  racial  discrimination  and  data  collection  based  on  people's 
origins (between  1997  and 2001).  In  this case, the decision was made in 2024. As  a result, the 
penalties, such as a EUR 50 000 fine and compensation for victims, come too late to assess their 
dissuasive effect or influence on changing discriminatory practices. 

•  Reversed burden of proof rule not applied, or incorrectly applied in practice: In Portugal, the 
reversed burden of proof does not seem to be applied in administrative procedures. In Croatia, the 
rule  is  applied  in  a  way  that  somewhat  prevents  plaintiffs  from  proving  the  plausibility  of  the 
discrimination. In practice the plaintiffs are not provided with the possibility of supplying evidence in 
relation to the discrimination. Hence, courts only consider the evidence supplied by the respondent 
aiming  to  prove  that  no  discrimination  has  happened.  This  creates  a  certain  imbalance  for  the 
parties. This is even more apparent in employment cases, where the victim/plaintiff is in practical 
terms not in a position to prove possible discrimination, given that information on the ‘comparable’, 
e.g., salaries of other employees, is simply not accessible/available for him/her. 

•  Difficult access to legal aid: Whilst the legal possibility is there, access to legal aid is difficult in 
several countries, such as in Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden. For example, in Hungary, 
legal aid services are understaffed which hampers the provision of assistance to those in need. In 
Croatia, the process to obtain legal aid is overly complicated, the state-paid lawyer fees are minimal 
hence there is no incentive for lawyers to provide legal aid services, and the administrative process 
to receive aid can take 45 to 90 days (which is much too long considering the time-frame available 

363 Judgment of the Labour Court of Brussels (French-speaking), 28 February 2024.  
364 Judgment, Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and Ors, 2021, IESC 24. 
365 Criminal court of Paris (Tribunal de correctionnel de Paris), 13 March 2024.  

194 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

to  file  complaints).  Additionally,  the  offices  handling  these  requests  are  understaffed,  public 
awareness of the aid is low, and denied requests incur an administrative fee. 

•  Cases litigated by non-specialised lawyers: compared to lawyers engaged in cases under other 
areas of law, in Slovakia, lawyers pleading in discrimination cases are often not specialised in such 
cases.   

Challenges related to sanctions for discrimination cases involving the use of AI systems 

Some  challenges  have  been  identified,  although  there  is  not  a  clear  trend  yet,  possibly  because  of  the 
novelty of these cases. 

•  Greece: Proving that discrimination is related to the use of automated systems or AI is a challenge. 
This can hinder the identification of discriminatory practices and, consequently, the imposition of 
effective  sanctions.  Whilst  this  challenge  was  reported  in  connection  with  Greece,  it  is  likely  to 
constitute a challenge in other Member States as well.  

• 

Italy: Successful litigation on algorithmic discrimination has occurred (Tribunal of Bologna, labour 
division, 31.12.202024). However, the sanctions imposed in relevant cases have been restricted to 
requiring  disclosure  of  the  algorithm's  functioning.  In  this  case  no  other  sanctions  have  been 
imposed. 

As illustrated in the box above, the challenges in applying effective, dissuasive and proportionate 
sanctions for discrimination cases arise from several key issues.  

First, there is the inconsistent or symbolic application of sanctions, where courts or adjudicating 
bodies  either  impose  minimal  or  non-deterrent  sanctions,  or  fail  to  apply  the  legal  framework 
consistently.  Additionally,  in  some  Member  States,  there  is  a  noticeable  reluctance  to  impose 
structural injunctions or more severe penalties. 

Another challenge is the practice of overturning of sanctions by higher courts, which often leads 
to the imposition of less severe sanctions than those decided by lower courts or other adjudicating 
bodies. This trend reduces the deterrent effect of sanctions and weakens the overall enforcement of 
anti-discrimination  laws.  Furthermore,  inadequate  enforcement  of  court  decisions  or  the 
inadequate  monitoring  of  compliance  with  the  sanctions  imposed  hinders  the  practical  impact  of 
sanctions. 

Some  general  challenges,  linked  to  the  length  of  proceedings,  access  to  legal  aid,  evidence 
gathering, etc. may also ultimately hinder the application of effective, dissuasive and proportionate 
sanctions.  

Lastly,  emerging  challenges  are  related  to  proving  discrimination  in  cases  involving  AI  or 
automated systems. The complexity and opacity of these technologies make it difficult to establish 
clear evidence of discrimination, complicating the imposition of effective sanctions. 

4.3. Challenges linked to data collection and awareness 

This sub-section provides an overview of obstacles related to data collection and the efforts to raise awareness 
about sanctions and discrimination.  

Data collection 

The  following  challenges  have been  pointed  out  in relation  to  data  collection on  discrimination-
related  cases,  including  sanctions,  by  the  stakeholders  consulted  or  in  the  secondary  sources 
identified.  Examples  of  Member  States  where  the  challenges  reportedly  exist  are  provided  in 
brackets: 

195 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Lack of obligation to publish all court decisions on discrimination cases which makes 
it  difficult  to  follow  up  on  trends  in  jurisprudence  and  to  analyse  and  enforce  sanctions 
effectively (e.g., AT, CZ, DK, EL, HR, FR, IT, PL and PT);  

•  Lack of information on cases settled through alternative dispute resolution (e.g., AT); 

•  Absence of public access to equality body cases/decisions (e.g., BG);  

•  Lack  of  legal  obligation  for  public  administration,  equality  bodies  or  other 
stakeholders  to  collect,  analyse  and  publish  data  related  to  discrimination  cases  and 
sanctions, as well as no internal mechanisms for collecting and analysing it (e.g., BG and 
IE); 

•  Legal  or  perceived  restrictions  on  data  collection  related  to  discrimination  on  grounds  of 
racial or ethnic origin, as these are considered sensitive personal data (e.g., BE, EL, FR, PT, 
RO and SI);   

•  Lack of publicly available comprehensive and systematically collected information and/or 
statistical data on sanctions and their enforcement (e.g., BE, BG, ES, FI, HU, LU, LV, PL, 
SE, SI and SK); 

•  Lack or difficulties in systematic analysis of data on sanctions at national level due to 

different data collected by different organisations (e.g., DK, ES, MT and NL);   

•  Lack of resources to collect and analyse data (e.g., FI, IE and SK); 

•  Limited number of racial/ethnic discrimination cases (e.g., MT, LT, LV and SI);   

•  Changes  in  institutional  framework  and  competencies  (e.g.,  dissolution  of  the 
Documentation  and  Advising  Centre  against  Racial  Discrimination  in  Denmark,  with 
competencies on documentation and advising on racial discrimination; or change of practices 
of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination in Bulgaria which used to regularly 
deliver extensive statistical data and provide direct access to its decisions). 

Awareness raising 

Several challenges concerning awareness-raising about sanctions and discrimination came out of 
the research conducted. 

The first challenge identified consists of insufficient training on discrimination sanctions and the 
applicable sanctions (e.g., DK, FR, IT, PL and SK), specifically for the police and magistrates (e.g., 
BE, HR, ES, PL and SK). In Belgium, the lack of training for the police and magistrates is pointed 
out  as  particularly  relevant  as  potential  biases  by  police  officers  or  those  responsible  for  issuing 
sanctions can hinder the effective application and enforcement of penalties. The fact that the training 
of judges dealing with discrimination issues is not compulsory in France is criticised by the National 
Consultative  Commission  on  Human  Rights.  This  is  further  compounded  by  the  fact  that  initial 
training remains underdeveloped, as judicial auditors are only made aware of issues of racism, anti-
Semitism and xenophobia in the context of cross-cutting conferences that only incidentally touch on 
these themes. In addition, lack of time, rather than lack of will to participate in training, seems to 
hinder judges from participating. It should be noted that in Slovakia, there is a recognised need for 
sensitisation activities for judges and other non-judicial authorities, as the practical implementation 
of legislation has been described as potentially influenced by biases, particularly in cases involving 
the  Roma  population.  As  also  mentioned  above,  in  Croatia  and  in  Spain,  the  lack  of  awareness 
affects legal professionals and decision makers who struggle to understand how to apply the relevant 
legal framework. 

196 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

In relation to the above, lack of recent awareness-raising activities on sanctions or discrimination 
more broadly and the circumstance of material offered to the public being outdated was also noted 
(e.g., in CY, EL, HU, PL and SI). 

The lack of training is directly related to a lack of budget for awareness-raising activities (as noted 
in DK, LV, MT and PL). 

Another  important  challenge  relates  to  difficulties  in  reaching  some  groups.  For  example,  in 
Belgium,  individuals  from  lower  socio-economic  backgrounds  or  the  Roma  population  in  Croatia, 
who  are  often  the  most  vulnerable  to  discrimination.  In  this  context,  it  was  noted  that  in  Greece 
awareness raising activities are usually attended by a specific audience already interested in these 
matters  and  it  is  not  easy  to  disseminate the  information  to  a  broader  audience.  In  Portugal,  the 
communities  most  affected  by  racial  and  ethnic  discrimination  are  mostly  unaware  of  the  legal 
framework and existing complaint mechanisms and the materials disseminated by the Commission 
for Equality and against Racial Discrimination do not seem to reach the relevant communities nor 
the NGOs supporting them. The problem is reportedly worse outside of the greater area of Lisbon. 
In this connection, language barriers are also noteworthy, as is pointed out in the case of Sweden.  

Another  obstacle  to  awareness-raising  is  the  (lack  of)  expertise  of  the  competent  bodies  or 
awareness  of  the  obligated  entities.  For  example,  in  Denmark,  the  dissolution  of  the 
Documentation and Advising Centre against Racial Discrimination led to a gap in systematic efforts 
towards  awareness-raising. In France,  a  study  has  shown that  in  2023366, 40  %  of  recruiters  and 
human  resources  managers  questioned  said  they  were  not  aware  of  their  obligation  to  organise 
training against discrimination for companies of more than 300 employees. 

The  reported  challenges  are  all  the  more  relevant  as  they  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  level  of 
awareness of society on discrimination and the applicable sanctions which is generally low as noted 
in Section 3.10 above. This correlation has been specifically noted in the case of Bulgaria, Denmark 
and in Croatia (in respect of the Roma minority), although it may be relevant for all Member States. 

366 The Adecco Group, Communiqué, ‘Study on discrimination in recruitment’ (Etude sur la discrimination à l’embauche), 2023. 

197 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

5. Good practices  

Section 5 of this Final Report is primarily linked to the horizontal analysis of Task 2 - Application of 
the law in practice and touches upon the good practices linked to both the legal framework and its 
application in practice. It is structured as follows: :  

•  Section 5.1: Good practices linked to the legal framework; 

•  Section 5.2: Good practices linked to practical application; 

•  Section 5.3: Good practices linked to data collection and awareness raising; 

•  Section 5.4: Good practices linked to other aspects.  

This  section  of  the  Final  Report  does  not  provide  an  exhaustive  list  of  good practices.  Instead,  it 
includes good practices highlighted by the stakeholders interviewed and the literature reviewed by 
the country experts. Therefore, some good practices mentioned here may also be present in other 
Member States, even if not explicitly noted in the Report.  

5.1. Good practices linked to the legal framework 

This  section  provides  examples  of  good  practices  that  stem  from  the  current  legal  framework  of 
Member States that are supportive of imposing effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. 
The box below provides an overview of the good practices identified, along with examples of Member 
States where these good practices have been reported on.  

Box 45: Good practices linked to the legal framework 

Good practices linked to sanction regulations:  

•  Legislation  allowing  for  forward  looking  sanctions  (preventive,  socio-preventive):  Under 
Polish law, the court can order the perpetrator to pay a sum of money for a specified social purpose. 
This measure aims to address the wider societal impact of discrimination while ensuring that the 
perpetrator  contributes  to  the  prevention  of  future  violations.  This  measure  can  be  seen  as  an 
example of an effective tool to promote systemic change and equality beyond the individual case. 
A similar scheme exists in Lithuania, where in addition to imposing a criminal fine, the criminal court 
may order the perpetrator to contribute to a fund for victims of crime. The value of the contribution 
could range between EUR 275 to EUR 6 875. Injunctions offer a valuable tool for judges to instigate 
lasting changes in practices, making them a key component in combating discrimination. In Ireland, 
the statutory language of the legislation empowers adjudicators to issue injunctions that require "a 
specified  course  of  action."  This  flexibility  allows  the  adjudicator  to  tailor  their  instructions  to  the 
specific  circumstances  of  each  case,  providing  concrete  and  actionable  directives  to  the 
respondent. French legislation allows for a specific type of sanction (i.e., citizenship training course), 
which was systematically referred to as an effective sanction.  

•  Legislation  being  clear  and  structured:  Spain's  new  anti-discrimination  law367  is  considered  a 
good  example  of  establishing  a  clear  and  structured  framework  for  sanctions  across  different 
sectors.  For  example,  the  law  has  introduced  the  presumption  of  moral  damages,  entailing  that 
moral damages are presumed when discrimination can be proven. In addition, it introduces a novel 
approach  towards  sanction  proportionality  thereby  classifying  infringements  into  three  main 
categories,  i.e.,  mild  infringements,  severe  infringements,  very  severe  infringements.  Sanction 
amounts in the case of penalty fees and applicable limitation periods are adjusted to the severity of 

367 Law no 15/2022, 12 of July for the equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 15/2022, 12 de Julio, integral para la igualdad de 
trato y la no discriminación), Official Bulletin no. 167, 13 July 2022, BOE-A-2022-11589. 

198 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

the infringement (increased). The amounts obtained via these fees are ordered to be invested in 
the promotion of equality, non-discrimination, etc. Moreover, it introduced a specific provision aimed 
at deterrence. According to Article 49 of the law, penalty fees should be set at amounts that make 
it less advantageous for the offender to pay the fine than to comply with the law. Moreover, in cases 
of  severe  violations,  the  legislation  specifically  sets  forth  the  possibility  of  imposing  accessory 
sanctions,  such  as  closure  of  the  establishment,  or  the  cessation  of  the  offender’s  professional 
activities. Conversely, in cases of negligible violations, the penalty fee could be substituted by an 
order to attend sensibilisation courses or training courses or the provision of unpaid cooperation in 
public interests or the assistance of victims of discrimination368. 

Good practices linked to the types, amounts/ranges of sanctions prescribed by law:  

•  Legislation setting forth a wide range of sanctions: In certain Member States (e.g., BE, FR, HU, 
IT, LT and PL), national legislation provides for a wide range of sanction types that could be imposed 
in discrimination cases. In Belgium, it was specifically referred to as a good practice that Belgian 
legislation provides for a wide range of sanctions. 

•  Legislation setting forth sanctions for non-compliance with equality duties: In Slovakia, for 
example, Act on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and Prohibition of Discrimination sets forth the 
obligation  for  employers  and  service  providers  to  adopt  anti-discrimination  measures.  Failure  to 
adopt such measures is subject to general discrimination sanctions369.   

•  Legislation  prescribing  adequate  sanction  amounts/ranges:  In  some  jurisdictions  sanction 
amounts are notably higher than in some others. This could be observed, for example by comparing 
legal minimum fine  amounts across jurisdictions: criminal  law:  highest  legal  minimum  is EUR  11 
000 (LT) (compares to the lowest legal minimum of EUR 50 (BG)); quasi-criminal law: highest legal 
minimum is EUR 750 (PL) (compares to the lowest legal minimum of EUR 16 (HU)); labour law: 
highest  legal  minimum  is  EUR  7  501  (ES)  (compares  to  the  lowest  legal  minimum  of  EUR  70 
(ES)370); administrative fine: highest legal minimum is EUR 100 001 (ES) (compares to the lowest 
legal minimum of EUR 39 (HR)).  

•  Legislation  being  subject  to  regular  updates  to  ensure  that  sanction  amounts/ranges  are 
adequate: Belgium is a Member  State, where the obligation to regularly evaluate the applicable 
rules stems from national legislation, namely Article 52 of the Anti-Discrimination Act371 provides 
that the Legislative Chamber should assess the effectiveness of the federal legislation. Following 
this evaluation, changes to the national legislation could be suggested. This mechanism, amongst 
others, has led to an amendment introduced on 28 June 2023 to the Anti-Discrimination Act and the 
Federal  Anti-Racism  Act,  tripling  the  amount  of  lump  sum  compensation  envisaged  in  national 
legislation.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  prescribed  that  as  from  January  2024,  these  amounts  will  be 
indexed yearly, based on changes in the customer price index.  

•  Rules  set  forth  for  calculating  sanction  amount/ranges:  Sanction  calculation  methods  could 
offer some guidance for courts or other adjudicating bodies and could ultimately aid these bodies 
with the application of more adequate sanctions that are not too lenient or low. Such calculation 
methods exist in the Netherlands, France, Belgium are outlined in Section 3.4.2. 

•  Legislation allowing for sanction adjustments:  In several Member States, legislation provides 
for  some  flexibility  in  relation  to  the  imposition  of  sanctions.  In  Belgium,  for  example,  the  legal 
possibility of combining sanctions, thereby adjusting sanctions to the severity of the offence, was 
identified as a good practice. In Portugal, labour-related fines are regulated in a way that allows for 
some flexibility, namely for the adjustment of fine amounts to the company's turnover. This ensures 
that the fines are substantial enough to impact larger companies significantly, potentially exceeding 

368 Equinet, ‘New Spanish comprehensive anti-discrimination law’, 2022. 
369 Crowley, N., Making Europe More Equal: A Legal Duty?, Equinet, Brussels, 2016, p. 18.  
370 Spanish legislation establishes varying legal minimum fine amounts based on the nature of the discriminatory behaviour. A minimum 
fine of EUR 70 applies to specific minor infringements, such as minor instances of harassment or discriminatory decisions. In contrast, a 
minimum fine of EUR 7 501 is prescribed for very serious infringements, including discriminatory employment conditions or 
discriminatory decisions regarding the right to information.   
371 Act of 10 May 2007 combating certain forms of discrimination (Wet van 10 mei 2007 ter bestrijding van bepaalde vormen van 
discriminatie), B.S., 30 May 2007, p. 29016. 

199 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

the compensation awarded to the victim. This ensures that they are impactful and serve as a strong 
deterrent against discriminatory practices. Additionally, the  ancillary penalties can be  particularly 
severe, threatening the company's survival.  

•  Legislation  covering  systemic  discrimination  and  discrimination  involving  the  use  of  AI 
and/or  automated  systems:  In  Portugal,  the  Labour  Code  provides  that  the  prohibited 
discriminatory behaviour also applies in the case of decision-making based on algorithms or other 
artificial intelligence systems, although the same sanctions apply. In Ireland, the sufficiently open 
wording of the national legislation allowed for the imposition of sanctions in a case involving artificial 
intelligence in 2020372. This flexibility made it possible to order the defendant to carry out equality 
proofing of its automated systems to ensure that such discrimination does not occur in the future. 

Good practices linked to characteristics/circumstances to consider: 

•  Ordering the consideration of recidivism as an aggravating factor: The systematic recognition 
of recidivism as an aggravating factor is essential for strengthening the dissuasive effect of anti-
discrimination  sanctions.  In  the  Netherlands,  the  “Guideline  for  prosecution  of  discrimination”373 
indicates that stricter sanctions must be applied in cases of aggravating circumstances, including 
recidivism, and sets out fines and/or prison sentences to be proposed for natural or legal persons 
who discriminate against others as first offenders, first-time repeat offenders or multiple offenders. 

•  Ordering the consideration of commission by public officials as an aggravating factor: Public 
authorities  and  officials  have  a  duty  to  promote  and  implement  the  principle  of  equality.  The 
introduction of systematic recognition of the involvement of public officials as an aggravating factor, 
as  provided  for  in  the  legal  framework  in  Belgium  or  France,  strengthens  the  deterrent  effect  of 
sanctions and ensures that public institutions are held to higher standards. 

•  Treating  the  systemic  discrimination  and  discrimination  involving  the  use  of  AI  and/or 
automated  systems  as  aggravating  factors:  Latvia  has  taken  a  step  in  this  direction  by 
considering the use of automated data processing systems as an aggravating factor in the crime of 
violation of the prohibition of discrimination.  

Good practices linked to sanction enforcement:  

•  Legislation  allowing  for  effective  enforcement  measures/procedures:  In  several  Member 
States,  enforcement  measures/procedures  are  reportedly  effective.  In  Belgium,  for  example,  the 
possibility of imposing penalty payments (astreintes) for non-compliance with court decisions was 
referred  to  as  a  good  practice.  Moreover,  under  Belgian  law  courts  may  offer  a  second  chance 
before imposing sanctions, known as a suspension of sentence. During this conditional period, the 
individual's behaviour is monitored to see if they change. If a new offence is committed, a sentence 
can then be imposed, with the public prosecutor overseeing the execution of sentences. In cases 
of  repeated  offences,  aggravating  circumstances  apply,  resulting  in  a  harsher  penalty.  This 
procedural rule might be more effective in achieving systemic change than a straightforward penalty. 
Finally, under Belgian law, non-compliance with a sanction issued by a court (e.g., to discontinue a 
discriminatory practice) is a criminal offence in its own right, with an associated sanction. In Italy, 
the astreinte mechanism serves as an indirect coercion tool, compelling the losing party in a civil 
proceeding to fulfil his/her obligations. It involves a financial penalty, such as EUR 100 for each day 
of delay, imposed if the party refuses to comply with the judge's order. This approach ensures timely 
execution of decisions and effectively encourages adherence to judicial orders. Under Dutch law, a 
conditional penalty payment (dwangsom) can be imposed by a Dutch civil court at the request of an 
interested party in order to compel the opposing party to comply with a judgment on the merits. 

•  Legislation  allowing  for  effective  enforcement  monitoring:  French  law  allows  for  setting 
deadlines for monitoring compliance with sanctions. Mandatory submission of information reporting 
on progress with the implementation of the sanction could be ordered.  

372 Decision of the Workplace Relations Commission of 20 July 2020, James McCarthy v. Cork City Council, ADJ-00018849. 
373 College of Attorneys General, ‘Directive on criminal procedure for discrimination (2015R001)’ (Richtlijn voor strafvordering 
discriminatie), Publication in the Government Gazette 2015, 4225. 

200 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Good practices linked to general aspects of access to justice:  

•  Legal  representation  of  victims  by  specialised  organisations:  In  Germany,  the  practice  of 
allowing NGOs specialised in non-discrimination to act as legal advisors for disadvantaged victims 
in  court  hearings  has  been  identified  as  a  good  practice.  Their  involvement  can  strengthen  the 
victim’s position and help in securing effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. Similarly to 
the practice in Germany, Polish legislation allowing legal representation by NGOs was considered 
as a mechanism that could promote the position of victims in obtaining effective, dissuasive and 
proportionate sanctions. 

•  Legislation allowing for obtaining sanctions via collective redress: In Hungary, for example, 
the legal possibility of initiating actio popularis cases was identified as a good practice. It is recalled 
that several strategic litigation cases leading to the imposition of structural reliefs have been initiated 
as actio popularis cases. 

•  Legislation allowing for specific sanctions in collective cases: In Slovakia, sanctions that can 
be applied in collective cases include the declaration of violation of the principle of equal treatment, 
and the order to refrain from discriminatory conduct, or the order to rectify the situation. In Croatia, 
collective  cases  may  lead  to  the  following  sanctions:  determination  that  the  defendant's  actions 
violated the right to equal treatment in relation to group members; prohibition of taking actions that 
violate  or  may  violate  the  right  to  equal  treatment;  determination  that  the  verdict  establishing  a 
violation of the right to equal treatment be published in the media at the defendant's expense. 

•  Legislation  allowing  for  exemptions  from  court  fees:  Several  Member  States  (e.g.,  BG,  HR, 
MT, PL, PT and RO) have introduced explicit exemptions from court fees, such as court taxes, or 
even waivers  of fees for expert opinions or  interpreters in  discrimination cases 374.  In  Poland, for 
example, employment discrimination cases benefit from an automatic exemption from court fees in 
labour cases375. 

•  Legislation with more favourable burden of proof rules: In Belgium, for example, the approach 
allowing claimants to opt for lump sums instead of proving 'effective damage,' reduces the stringent 
proof requirements typically needed for other forms of compensation. As a result, it has significantly 
increased the proportion of discrimination cases in which courts award remedies.  

Other  country-specific  mechanisms  that  support  the  imposition  of  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive sanctions 

•  France:  The  competence  of  the  Defender  of  Rights  to  investigate  discrimination  cases  and  the 
obligation  for  companies  to  nominate  discrimination  officers  supporting  the  enforcement  of  anti-
discrimination laws. These practices ensure that there are knowledgeable intermediaries and robust 
investigative mechanisms in place, which help identify and address discriminatory behaviours. This, 
in turn, facilitates the imposition of sanctions by ensuring that violations are detected and dealt with 
effectively. 

• 

Ireland: The independence of the Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officers protected 
by statute helps ensure the imposition of fair and impartial sanctions.   

Based on the information provided in the table above, some common practices that could support 
the imposition of effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions could be identified.  

It appears to be beneficial when national legislation allows for flexibility in relation to the imposition 
of sanctions. This flexibility can lead to tailored sanctions that fit each case’s specific circumstances. 
Clear and structured legislation as well as regular updates to sanction regulations could further 

374 European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, Iordache, R., and Ionescu, I., ‘Effectively enforcing the 
right to non-discrimination: Promising practices implementing and going beyond the requirements of the Racial Equality and 
Employment Equality Directives’, 2021, p.57. 
375 Ibid. 

201 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

enhance  that  the  sanctions  set  forth  in  national  rules  are  or  remain  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive. 

Legislation that permits a broad spectrum of sanctions can ensure that penalties are appropriately 
tailored  to  the  nature  and  severity  of  the  offence.  Innovative  sanction  mechanisms,  such  as 
injunctive relief that orders concrete and actionable steps for the offender, can potentially lead to 
lasting  changes  in  practice.  Additionally,  new  approaches  to  compensation  regulations, 
envisaging ‘by default’ monetary compensation for moral damages in all cases when discrimination 
occurred could aid the victims in receiving fair compensation.  

Additionally, legislation setting forth adequate sanction amounts or ranges could serve as a good 
practice. Such rules are important in ensuring that sanctions are dissuasive and proportionate to the 
offence. Clear rules for calculating sanction amounts can provide valuable guidance to courts and 
adjudicating bodies, helping to ensure that the sanctions imposed are effective, proportionate, and 
dissuasive.  

The  explicit  recognition  of  recidivism,  the  involvement  of  public  officials,  the  use  of  automated 
systems in discriminatory practices as aggravating factors in national legislation could also ensure 
that  courts  or  other  adjudicating  bodies  better  adjust  the  sanctions  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
specific cases.  

Effective  access  to  justice rules,  such as  effective rules  on the  legal  representation  of  victims, 
adequate rules applicable to collective cases, or exemptions from court fees, could ultimately lead 
to more discrimination claims and thus, sanctions for discrimination.  

Effective enforcement mechanisms are essential to ensure compliance with court decisions. The 
use  of  penalty  payments  for  non-compliance,  as  well  as  conditional  penalties  for  example,  could 
effectively compel parties to comply with judicial orders. Likewise, effective sanction monitoring 
could aid to ensure that sanctions are enforced adequately and in a timely manner.  

It is also noted that in some Member States, the research identified measures in the law that, while 
not  sanctions  per  se,  could  offer  effective  remedies  to  victims.  For  example,  in  Finland,  national 
legislation allows  for  the  imposition  of  soft/non-binding sanctions. Many respondents  comply  with 
these  soft  measures,  even  though  they  are  not  formal  sanctions.  Similarly,  in  Greece,  the 
Ombudsman can impose non-binding sanctions. In Case 223060/2016, following an intervention by 
the Ombudsman, a bus company issued a severe formal warning to a driver who refused to allow 
two third-country national mothers with strollers to board the bus, and the company also apologised 
for the incident. These actions, a formal warning and an apology, are not explicitly mandated by the 
legal framework as sanctions, but demonstrate examples of effective restorative measures. 

5.2. Good practices linked to practical application 

This sub-section provides an overview of good practices that stem from the practical application of 
the  legislative  framework  that  are  supportive  of  the  delivery  of  effective,  proportionate,  and 
dissuasive  sanctions.  It  is  notable  that  some  practices  mentioned  here  are  rooted  in  legislation, 
however, due to their close connection to practical implementation, these practices are included in 
this sub-section.  

Box 46: Good practices linked to practical application 

Good practices linked to the types or amount/ranges of sanctions imposed:  

•  Applying types of sanctions that are reportedly more deterrent, effective and dissuasive: In 
France, a good practice is leveraging the media impact of a company's conviction for discrimination, 

202 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

which  can  be  more  effective  than  the  sanction  itself.  For  example,  when  Adecco376,  a  leading 
temporary employment agency in France, was condemned for discrimination, the significant media 
coverage  prompted  the  company  to  proactively  implement  measures  like  in-house  training  to 
address the issue and avoid further economic repercussions. A notable good practice in Belgium is 
the "naming and shaming" approach allowed by legislation and used by the courts. For instance, in 
the  2009  Labour  Court  ruling377,  the  court  required  the  judgment  to  be  published  in  national 
newspapers within a month. Additionally, penalty payments were imposed for delays in publication. 
This  practice  enhances  the  deterrent  effect  of  court  decisions  by  ensuring  public  awareness  of 
discriminatory  actions  and  the  consequent  legal  repercussions.  The  Slovak  Trade  Inspection's 
approach could serve as a model for other adjudicating bodies. Instead of relying solely on fines, 
which  are  often  challenged  and  reduced  in  administrative  procedures  by  courts,  they  opt  for 
alternative sanctions such as repeated inspections. This approach has proven to be more effective 
in  resolving  situations  and  eliminating  discrimination.  In  Sweden,  an  employer  found  guilty  of 
discrimination  must  pay  a  specific  discrimination  compensation,  in  addition  to  monetary 
compensation for the actual loss suffered by the employee.  

•  Applying  amount/ranges  of  sanctions  that  are  reportedly  more  deterrent,  effective  and 
dissuasive: The Danish Supreme Court has ruled that compensation principles can be adjusted to 
ensure  a  sufficiently  deterrent  effect,  particularly  when  usual  compensation  amounts  would  be 
insignificantly low due to the nature of the pay involved. This allows for the application of increased 
compensation amounts to better serve their intended purpose of deterrence. In Romania, a notable 
trend  of  awarding  higher  moral  damages  in  discrimination  cases  emerged  in  2010.  This  shift 
appeared  when  the  Craiova  Court  of  Appeal378  increased  the  amount  of  damages  awarded  in  a 
case involving discrimination against a Roma pupil in education to EUR 10 000. Whilst the trend of 
awarding higher compensation amounts is a good practice, it appears to be challenging that this 
EUR  10 000  has  become  an  informal ceiling for such awards379. An exceptional  case, however, 
could be observed when the Court of Appeal Cluj awarded EUR 100 000 in damages for prolonged 
ethnic discrimination against an employee in the field of employment380.  

•  Developing the practice of structural injunctions without changes made to the legislation: 
The  recent  practice  developed  in  Hungary  mainly  via  strategic  litigation  cases,  in  relation  to 
injunctive relief is a good practice. Hungarian courts appear to be departing from the interpretation 
that they can only acknowledge systemic discrimination and issue general decisions ordering the 
termination of discrimination without specifying how respondents should end such an unlawful act. 
In  more  cases,  courts  are  now  prescribing  specific  measures  to  enforce  equal  treatment 
requirements.  Notable  that  in  Hungary  the  use  of  structural  injunction  was  developed  without 
changes  made  to  the  regulatory  framework.  In  other  words,  in  Hungary  the  jurisprudence  has 
nuanced the coverage of an existing sanction (termination of violation).  

•  Consistent  practice  in  imposing  sanctions:  Croatia  is  one  of  the  Member  States  where 
legislation  does  not  specify  the  amounts  or  ranges  of  monetary  compensation  for  material  or 
immaterial damages. However, the Supreme Court of Croatia has developed guidelines to assist 
courts in determining appropriate compensation amounts for immaterial damages. These guidelines 
do  not  constitute  specific  calculation  methods  but  offer  clear  directions  on  the  compensation 
amounts that can be awarded to victims. The guidelines outline various compensation levels, with 
the  maximum  amount  set  at  EUR  29  000  for  the  most  severe  cases,  such  as  those  resulting  in 
death. Originally established in 2002, these guidelines were revised in June 2020, resulting in a 50 
%  increase  in  the  compensation  amounts.  It  is  important  to  note  that  these  guidelines  are  not 
specific  to  damages  resulting  from  discrimination,  but  apply  to  all  types  of  immaterial  damages. 
While the provision of guidance to lower instance courts serves as a good practice, the inclusion of 
a maximum compensation amount in the guidelines raises concerns about their compliance with 

376 Judgment of the Criminal court of Paris (Tribunal de correctionnel de Paris) of 13 March 2024.  
377 Judgment of the Brussels Labour Court of 28 August 2009.  
378 Judgment of the Craiova Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel Craiova) of 19 May 2010, Case No. 8011/101/2009. 
379 European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, Iordache, R. E., ‘Country report, Non-discrimination, 
Romania’, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, p.70-71.  
380 Judgment of the Court of Appel Cluj, Civil decision no. 2658/A/2016. 

203 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

CJEU  case-law.  The  CJEU  has  established  that  capping  compensation  amounts  is  inconsistent 
with EU law. 

•  Applying novel forms of sanctions in cases that concern the use of AI: One case identified381 
in which a sanction was imposed for the discriminatory use of AI is from Ireland. In the case, the 
respondent  was  ordered  to  provide  compensation  and  to  implement  'equality  proofing'  of  their 
automated  system,  ensuring  that  similar  issues  are  addressed  proactively.  Stakeholders  believe 
this approach would be consistently applied in future cases. 

Good practices linked to the consideration of circumstances when imposing sanctions: 

• 

In the Netherlands, the public prosecutor service has issued guidelines and recommendations for 
public prosecutors on discrimination cases, ordering the consideration of factors such as whether 
the offender is a repeat offender or if it involves a common crime with a discriminatory aspect. These 
guidelines are to be followed by public prosecutors, with exceptions made only when justified by the 
circumstances  of  the  case.  Similarly,  judges  in  criminal  law  proceedings  have  orientation  points 
serving a similar purpose. Whilst these are not tailored to the discrimination cases covered by the 
Study,  they  can  provide  some  guiding  principles.  Moreover,  they  can  contribute  to  the  more 
consistent  use  of  rules  in  practice.  In  Poland,  the  courts  have  developed  criteria  that  should 
systematically  be  considered  while  determining  compensation  amounts.  These  criteria  apply  to 
labour  law  cases  (discrimination  in  employment)  and  include  the  frequency  and  duration  of 
discriminatory practices, their potential accumulation,  and  the degree of intensity, whether these 
practices  constitute  direct  or  indirect  discrimination,  employer’s  level  of  culpability,  their  overall 
attitude toward the discriminated individual or employee group, the employer’s position in the job 
market, official declarations regarding their anti-discrimination policy towards employed women, and 
the employer’s financial size and status. Another good practice is illustrated by the Commission for 
Protection against Discrimination case law in Bulgaria, which demonstrates a consistent sensitivity 
while imposing sanctions (which however are reportedly low) to the factual details of each case and 
maintains uniform assessment standards for frequently occurring circumstances. 

Other good practices (country-specific):  

•  Belgium: A notable good practice is Unia's (Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities) ability to 
self-refer  cases  to  the  courts.  This  allows  Unia  to  initiate  legal  proceedings  without  needing  to 
identify a specific victim, resembling a form of collective action even though it does not constitute 
actio  popularis  per  se.  This  is  considered  as  a  novel  path  that  could  prompt  the  imposition  of 
sanctions even in the lack of an identifiable victim. 

•  Greece:  A  good  practice  is  demonstrated  in  Cases  187370/2014  and  241344/2018,  where  the 
Ombudsman, despite not having the power to impose sanctions directly, can suggest sanctions to 
the Labour Inspectorate, which must comply with these suggestions. Additionally, the Ombudsman 
can issue reprimands.  

Some good practices that could contribute to the imposition of effective, proportionate and dissuasive 
sanctions in practice have been identified.  

A  notable  good  practice  is  to  impose  sanction  types,  amount/ranges  that  could  ensure  better 
deterrence, effectiveness and proportionality.   

The  example  from  Hungary  in  relation  to  structural  injunctions  also  shows  the  potential  of 
practice  in  shaping  approaches  towards  the  imposition  of  sanctions.  In  the  country  concerned, 
without  any  amendments  to  the  applicable  legal  framework,  a  practice  allowing  for  the  use  of 
structural  injunctions  was  developed,  which  sanction  could  address  more  structural  forms  of 
discrimination. 

381 Decision of the Workplace Relations Commission of 20 July 2020, James McCarthy v. Cork City Council, ADJ-00018849. 

204 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Consistent practice in imposing sanctions is crucial. Consistency ensures that similar cases are 
followed by similar sanctions, hence promotes fairness and equality. This also prevents arbitrary and 
biased  decisions  and  ultimately  enhances  trust  in  the  judicial  system.  When  (sufficiently  severe) 
sanctions are consistently applied, the consequences of discriminatory actions become predictable, 
which could serve as a strong deterrent. Potential offenders are less likely to engage in discrimination 
if they know the penalties are inevitable and significant. It also has benefits for victims, who might 
more confidently turn to the justice system if they know that their cases will be treated fairly. Likewise, 
a consistent practice can provide lawyers with pointers  that could aid them in providing advice to 
victims. Several approaches typically developed by the judiciary that could aid the development of 
consistent practices have been identified by this Study.  

Finally, a notable approach that could aid the imposition of sanctions, is to give a more prominent 
role to specialised organisations in discrimination proceedings, by for example allowing them to 
bring cases before courts or to propose sanctions for consideration. 

5.3. Good practices linked to data collection and awareness 

This sub-section provides an overview of good practices related to data collection and the efforts to 
raise awareness about sanctions and discrimination.  

Data collection 

Only  a  limited  number  of  good  practices  related  to  data  collection  in  relation  to  discrimination 
cases and sanctions have been identified as part of the national research. The box below provides 
an overview of the good practices identified, together with examples of Member States where such 
good practices have been reported. 

Box 47: Good practices related to data collection 

Publication of (statistical) data, decisions or examples of cases: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In Austria, the Ombudsman for Equal Treatment publishes all its expert opinions as well as a "case 
of the month". The aim of this latter is to record current or newly arising cases. This is considered 
important for the system's effectiveness because when people are aware of the potential outcomes 
and the mechanisms available to achieve justice, they are more inclined to take legal actions, which 
ultimately results in more effective sanctions. 

In  Bulgaria,  before  2012,  the  Commission  for  Protection  against  Discrimination  (equality  body) 
regularly delivered extensive statistical data and provided direct access to its decisions and even 
collections of its case law and relevant court decisions. The subsequent Commission for Protection 
against Discrimination has only published summaries of its decisions and occasionally quantitative 
data  on  overall  number  of  decisions,  sanctions  imposed  and  collected  payments  in  its  annual 
reports.  Stakeholders  interviewed  under  this  Study  –  lawyers,  NGO  representatives,  academia 
researchers, member of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination, prosecutor, judge – 
all criticised the insufficient informativeness and lack of structure of the statistical data provided by 
the  Commission  for  Protection  against  Discrimination  and  recommended  the  restoration  of  the 
previous Commission’s practices. 

In  Denmark,  the  decisions  of  the  Board  on  Equal  Treatment  (quasi-judicial  body)  are  publicly 
available,  which,  in  addition  to  enhancing  transparency  and  raising  awareness  of  discrimination 
cases and the sanctions applied, are also considered to help to educate the public about the rights 
and remedies available in cases of discrimination. 

In  Italy,  databases  collecting  rulings  are  accessible  on  the  website  of  some  specialised 
organisations or associations working in the field of non-discrimination, in particular the Association 

205 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

for Juridical Studies on Immigration and the Italian Equality Network. While this can be considered 
a good practice, it should not replace the obligation for competent authorities to publish all decisions 
relating to discrimination. 

 Data of various bodies addressing discrimination presented in one yearly report: 

• 

In the Netherlands, in the last years, reports of discrimination received by the police, the local anti-
discrimination service, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, the Reporting Point for Internet 
Discrimination,  the  National  Ombudsman  and  the  Children’s  Ombudsman  are  presented  in  one 
yearly report of the Government called ‘Discrimination by numbers’ (Discriminatiecijfers382). In this 
way, a better picture is provided of the occurrence of discrimination in the Netherlands.  

Establishing rules on data collection 

•  Poland, recognising that the data currently aggregated by the public administration are not always 
consistent  and  not  always  covering  all  areas  of  potential  discrimination,  included  in  its  National 
Action  Program  for  Equal  Treatment  for  2022-2030  an  entire  section  dedicated  to  rules  of  data 
collection concerning discrimination that should be established. However, at the time of drafting this 
report,  there  was  no  information  available  on  the  implementation  progress  concerning  these 
planned rules. 

Overall, establishing rules on data collection, publishing (statistical) data and decisions of equality 
bodies, courts or other competent adjudicating bodies, and analysing all the data together (not only 
regarding complaints, but also the outcome of cases and sanctions imposed and enforced) could 
contribute to assessing and monitoring the effectiveness of the national anti-discrimination laws and 
policies as well as the efficiency of the legal remedies available to victims of discriminations in the 
Member States. Though currently not in place/performed, the possibility to collect and analyse data 
disaggregated  per  discrimination  grounds  and  per  racial/ethnic/religious  group  targeted  was  also 
indicated as a potential good practice in Luxembourg and Ireland. This could shed light on the most 
common grounds of discrimination reported and sanctioned in the national jurisdictions. 

Awareness raising 

The main good practice that was evidenced by the research consists of the publicising of decisions 
in  discrimination  cases  (e.g.,  AT,  CZ,  DK,  IE  and  IT).  This  is  considered  important  for  the 
awareness of the public and for the effectiveness of the system, encouraging further reporting. 

The provision of regular training is also a good practice (see also Section 3.10). This includes in-
house  training  in  large  companies  (FR),  training  for  labour  inspectorate’s  officers  (IE),  to  a  wider 
range of stakeholders, including public servants, lawyers and the judiciary (IT), to vulnerable groups, 
such as Roma communities (PT), training for judges provided by international organisations (PL) or 
to  specific  professionals,  such  as  teachers  (RO).  In this  regard,  the  use  of  EU  funding  has  been 
noted in Italy and in Romania. 

Wider dissemination of relevant reports and materials through the competent authorities’ website 
has also been noted in Luxembourg, where the Ministry of Family Affairs published all its campaigns, 
studies, reports and conferences recordings on its website. 

Media campaigns have also been highlighted as good practices in the Netherlands. Notably, at the 
start of 2024, the anti-discrimination offices joined forces and launched a new national hotline (0800–
0880) and the website www.discriminatie.nl. Attention is drawn to this through a campaign with the 
slogan «Report it! Discriminatie.nl». 

382 See for instance Art.1, Fiere, B., Verwonderzoek, Walz, G., ‘Discrimination report 2022’ (Discriminatiecijfers in 2022), Rotterdam/The 
Hague, April 2023.  

206 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

In  France,  the  mandatory  appointment  of  a  discrimination  officer  in  large  companies  is  also 
pointed out as a good practice. 

5.4. Good practices linked to other aspects 

This  sub-section  provides  an  overview  of  good  practices  that  exist  under  other  legal  areas  like 
consumer protection and data protection. 

Many countries identified good practices in relation to data protection law and the powers of their 
data protection authorities. For instance, in Greece, data protection law provides for the possibility 
of collective actions, a minimum amount of compensation for immaterial damage and an explicit and 
strict obligation of accountability of the controller of personal data. In Finland, negligence payments 
(administrative fines), which are possible in data protection legislation, could also be considered by 
the national legislator as administrative sanctions in non-discrimination legislation. Also, with regard 
to data protection, Sweden follows EU law and sanctions as a percentage of the company's turnover, 
which  could  also  be  considered  by  the  legislator  in  cases  of  discrimination.  The  Dutch  and  the 
Belgian  Data  Protection  Authority  were  also  mentioned  for  their  broad  investigative,  sanctioning, 
inspecting, and enforcement powers 

Furthermore, since September 2014, Belgian law has allowed class actions for consumers, which 
were  extended  to  small  and  medium-size  enterprises  in  June  2018.  There  are  two  systems  for 
initiating these actions: opt-in, where consumers must explicitly join, and opt-out, where consumers 
are automatically included, unless they opt out. Once a claim is deemed admissible, the parties must 
negotiate,  and  if  negotiations  fail,  court  proceedings  follow.  These  provisions  could  serve  as 
inspiration also for discrimination cases. 

The  Italian  respondents  emphasised  that  consumer  protection,  data  protection,  environmental 
protection  and  anti-corruption  laws  offer  valuable  lessons  for  sanctioning  infringements  in 
discrimination cases. These areas are characterised by the presence of non-judicial bodies, state 
agencies or independent authorities with significant powers, resources and organisational structures, 
and  by  the  existence  of  high  levels  of  administrative  or  socio-preventive sanctions  prescribed  by 
legislation.  

In Slovakia, two interviewees mentioned as a good practice a new regulation on the calculation 
of  alimony  for  children  by  the  courts,  which  could  be  an  inspiration  for  a  regulation  on  the 
calculation  of  financial  compensation  for  non-pecuniary  damage  caused  by  discrimination. 
Interviewees  also  agreed  that  the  practice  of  awarding  compensation  for  immaterial  damage  in 
personal integrity disputes could serve as a good practice. In general, the level of sanctions in these 
disputes  is  much  higher  than  the  level  of  non-pecuniary  compensation  awarded  in  discrimination 
cases. One interviewee suggested that this is because integrity disputes tend to be higher profile 
cases argued by large law firms and experienced lawyers who know the case law well and are able 
to identify and refer judges to comparable cases and decisions of other courts, both national and 
European. 

207 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

6. Conclusions 

The assessment of national sanction frameworks under the RED and the EED reveals a diverse and 
multifaceted landscape across Member States. While legal provisions for sanctions are widespread 
and often detailed, their practical application, enforcement, and impact vary significantly, reflecting 
both strengths and persistent challenges. 

Sanction regulation, related challenges and good practices 

National legislation on sanctions spans various legal areas, including civil, criminal, administrative, 
and labour law, often creating complex frameworks that could complicate navigation for practitioners 
and victims. Legal amendments to adapt sanction frameworks have been limited, with outdated or 
symbolic sanctions persisting in some jurisdictions. 

Discrimination  cases  are  primarily  heard  by  courts,  though  quasi-judicial  bodies  and  other 
adjudicating bodies also play a role in certain Member States. The involvement of equality bodies 
with sanctioning powers is notable in some Member States, but not uniform.  

While  most  Member  States  provide  for  a  broad  range  of  sanctions,  punitive  and  compensatory 
sanctions dominate, with preventive and socio-preventive sanctions like structural injunctions being 
less prevalent.  

The prescribed amounts or ranges of sanctions vary significantly across Member States. In some, 
the legal minimums and/or maximums are set at relatively low levels (hence by definition allowing 
for the imposition of symbolic sanctions), while in others, they are considerably higher, reflecting a 
wide disparity in legislative approaches.  

Courts and other adjudicating bodies are generally expected to consider a range of factors when 
determining sanctions in all jurisdictions. However, the consideration of some circumstances that are 
of  relevance  in  discrimination  cases  (e.g.,  recidivism,  or  commission  by  public  officials)  are  not 
specifically required in some jurisdictions. 

Access to justice is hindered in some cases by legal barriers, including short limitation periods, high 
litigation costs, and limitations on third-party legal standing. 

Whilst sanction enforcement rules are set forth in the national legislation of most Member States, 
these  are  not  always  effective  and  result  in  e.g.,  delayed  enforcement  proceedings.  Sanction 
monitoring rules are not common in the Member States.  

Most  Member  States  lack  comprehensive  national  rules  for  collecting  equality  data,  including  on 
sanctions. Specific rules on awareness raising on sanctions were not identified in any of the Member 
States. Moreover, existing awareness raising efforts are lagging behind.  

National good practices highlight the value of flexible legislation that allows sanctions to be tailored 
to  case  specifics,  supported  by  clear,  regularly  updated  rules.  A  broad  spectrum  of  sanctions, 
including injunctive relief, enhances the system's ability to address offences effectively. Adequate 
sanction amounts, clear calculation methods, and attention to aggravating factors, such as recidivism 
or discriminatory practices involving AI or automated systems, promote fairness and consistency. 
Ensuring access to justice through measures like enhanced legal aid and third-party representation 
rules and fee exemptions, alongside robust enforcement and monitoring, is crucial for the effective 
application of sanctions. 

208 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Sanction application, related challenges and good practices 

The practical application of sanctions highlights a preference for monetary compensation, while fines 
and injunctive relief are less common. Structural injunctions, despite their potential for addressing 
systemic discrimination, are rarely imposed.  

Sanctions imposed are often symbolic, typically near legal minimums, undermining their deterrent 
effect. Limited data availability on imposed sanctions and enforcement further obscures their impact 
and hinders public oversight of these processes. 

Courts  and  adjudicating  bodies  often  consider  factors  like  the  severity  of  the  act  or  the  parties' 
characteristics, but rarely address systemic or automated discrimination, including cases involving 
AI. 

Collective redress mechanisms, such as class actions and actio popularis, exist in many Member 
States, but are underutilised. Sanctions in collective cases are often declaratory or symbolic, with 
financial penalties rarely imposed.  

Alternative  dispute  resolution  mechanisms,  while  available,  are  used  infrequently,  with  outcomes 
often being non-binding and lacking transparency due to confidentiality clauses. 

Enforcement  challenges  include  delays,  burdensome  procedures,  and  inadequate  monitoring 
mechanisms, with sanction compliance inconsistently tracked across Member States. 

Awareness-raising  initiatives  targeting  sanctions  for  discrimination  remain  limited.  Broader  anti-
discrimination efforts exist and are typically led by equality bodies, human rights’ institutions, and 
public  authorities,  but specific  initiatives focusing  on sanctions are  scarce.  Societal  awareness  of 
discrimination  and  sanctions  is  low  in  several  Member  States.  Data  collection  on  sanctions  is 
fragmented, with inconsistent practices hindering comprehensive analysis and public scrutiny. 

National good practices demonstrate the importance of severe, proportionate sanctions and forward-
looking measures like structural injunctions to address systemic discrimination.  

Consistent  sanctioning  promotes  fairness,  deters  offenders,  and  provides  guidance  for  legal 
professionals.  

Empowering specialised organisations to bring cases or propose sanctions enhances effectiveness. 

Good  practices 
for 
comprehensive  data  collection  on  complaints  and  sanctions,  publicising  case  decisions,  and 
providing tailored training for key stakeholders. 

in  data  collection  and  awareness-raising 

include  establishing  rules 

209 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ANNEX I – Accessory sanctions 

Member State 

Accessory sanction 

Existence of a type of sanction per area of law 

Particular area 

Criminal 

Civil 

Admin. 

Other 

BE 

ES 

Temporary  loss  of  civil  and 
political  rights  for  a  certain 
period for public officials 

x 

Cancellation or suspension of 
official aid 

Closure  of  the  establishment 
where discrimination occurred 

Temporary  cessation  of  the 
infringing  person’s  economic 
or professional activities 

Confiscation  of  goods  related 
to the infraction 

Publicising minor and serious 
penalties 

Temporary 
establishments 

closure 

of 

the  offender 
Requiring 
rectify identified breaches 

to 

Automatic  and  proportional 
loss  of  subsidies,  bonuses 
and benefits from employment 
programmes 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

210 

Defence of consumers 

Defence of consumers 

Defence of consumers 

Defence of consumers 

Labour 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

FR 

Temporary 
accessing benefits 

barring 

from 

Temporary 
disqualification 
from standing for election and 
the right to hold judicial office 
or  to  be  an  expert  before  a 
court, to represent or assist a 
party before the courts 

Display  or  dissemination  of 
the decision handed down 

temporarily 

Closure, 
or 
permanently,  of  one,  several 
or all of the establishments of 
the company belonging to the 
convicted person 

Exclusion 
contracts 
temporarily 

from 

permanently 

public 
or 

Prohibition,  permanently  or 
temporarily,  from  directly  or 
indirectly  engaging  in  one  or 
more  professional  or  social 
activities  in  the  course  or  in 
the 
connection  with  which 
offence  was committed  (legal 
persons) 

Temporary  placement  under 
judicial 
(legal 
supervision 
persons) 

Permanent closure, or closure 
for a maximum of five years, of 
the  establishments  or  one  or 

x 

Labour 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

more of the establishments of 
the  company  used  to  commit 
the offence (legal persons) 

from 

Exclusion 
public 
contracts permanently or for a 
maximum  of  five  years  (legal 
persons) 

Confiscation (legal persons) 

Posting  or  dissemination  of 
the  decision  either 
the 
written press or by any means 
of  electronic  communication 
to the public (legal persons) 

in 

Confiscation 

Admonition 

Prohibitive injunctions383 

Mandatory injunctions384 

HU 

LT 

prohibitive 

Other 
or 
mandatory  injunctions,  at  the 
request  of  a  person  or  other 
criminal 
participants 
proceedings and where, in the 
opinion of the court, this would 

in 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x (quasi-criminal) 

x (quasi-criminal) 

383 To refrain from visiting certain places; to refrain from communicating with certain individuals or groups of individuals; not to own, use, acquire, store on one’s own or transfer for safekeeping to other 
persons certain items.  
384 To stay at home at a certain time; to compensate, fully or in part, for the property damage incurred by a criminal act or to eliminate such damage with his own work; to take up employment or register at a 
labour exchange, to study; to undergo a treatment against alcohol addition, drug addiction, addiction to toxic substances or a sexually transmitted disease, where the convict agrees therefor; to work for no 
remuneration for up to 200 hours within a period laid down by a court, but not exceeding the term of restriction of liberty at health care, social care and guardianship establishments or non-state organisations 
caring for the disabled, the aged or other persons in need of assistance. 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

have  a  positive  effect  on  his 
behaviour 

Contribution  to  the  fund  for 
victims  of 
(legal 
persons) 

crimes 

Confiscation of property (legal 
persons) 

Announcement  of  judgement 
in the media (legal persons) 

Restriction of operation (legal 
persons) 

Liquidation (legal persons) 

Temporary 
rights385  

forfeiture 

of 

Community service 

Disqualification 
profession 

from 

Temporary 
objects  belonging 
offender 

forfeiture 
to 

of 
the 

from  exercising 
Prohibition 
professions 
activities 
whose exercise depends on a 
public title or on authorisation 

or 

LU 

LV 

NL 

PT 

x 

x 

385 1) holding public functions, employment or position; 2) voting, stand for election, be elected; 3) wearing any decoration; 4) serving as an expert, an attesting witness or an certifier of acts; testifying in court 
other than to provide simple information; 5) to be a member of any family council or to perform any function in a system for the protection of legally incapacitated minors or adults, except in respect of their 
children and with the assent of the family affairs judge, if there is one; 6) carrying or possessing weapons; 7) keeping a school or teaching or being employed in an educational establishment.  

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

or  approval 
authority 

from  a  public 

Deprivation  of  the  right  to  a 
subsidy  or  benefit  granted  by 
or 
public 
services 

organisations 

Deprivation  of  the  right  to 
participate in fairs or markets 

Deprivation  of  the  right  to 
participate in public tenders or 
tenders 
for  public  works 
contracts  or  concessions,  the 
supply of goods and services, 
the  concession  of  public 
services  and  the  granting  of 
licences or permits 

Closure  of  an  establishment 
whose operation is subject to 
authorisation  or  licence  from 
an administrative authority 

Suspension of authorisations, 
licences and permits. 

Publication of decision on very 
serious administrative offence 
committed with intent or gross 
negligence 

from  exercising 
Prohibition 
activity  in  the  establishment, 
factory  unit  or  construction 
site  where  the  offence  takes 
place, for a period of up to two 
years 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

214 

Labour 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
x 

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

RO 

SK 

Deprivation  of  the  right  to 
participate  in  public  tenders 
for a period of up to two years 

Withdrawal  or  suspension  of 
the  authorisation  to  operate 
(legal persons) 

Financial sanction 

Confiscation 

Prohibition  of  performing  an 
activity 

Prohibition 
stay  and 
of 
prohibition  to  participate  at 
public events 

Loss  of  honorary  titles  and 
awards 

Loss of army or other titles (in 
case of soldiers) 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ANNEX II – Overview of sanctions per grounds of discrimination 

1. Sanction types other than injunctions 

Fine 

Imprisonment 

Community 
service 

Disqualification  Compensation 

(mat.) 

Compensation 
(immat.) 

AT  General rule 

A (multiple): All 
G 

Exception 
A: Ethn. & Race 

BE  CR: Ethn.&Rac 

CR: Ethn.&Rac 

BG  CR: All G 

CR: All G 
CR: All G 

CR (multiple): All 
G  
CR (multiple): All 
G  

A (multiple): All 
G 

ACR: All G 
HR  QCR: All G 

CY  CR (multiple): All 

G 

A: All G 

CZ  L (multiple): All G 

A: All G 

DE 

DK  CR: All G 

A: All G 

EE  CR: All G 

CR: All G 

C: All G 

EL  CR: All G 

CR: All G 

A: All G 

ES  CR (multiple): All 

G 

CR (multiple): All 
G 

A (multiple): All 
G 

L (multiple): All G 
FI  CR (multiple): All 

G  

FR  CR (multiple): All 

G 

CR (multiple): All 
G 
CR (multiple): All 
G 

Establishment/ 
declaration of 
violation 

Temporary or 
permanent 
closure/suspension 
of activities 

Exclusion from 
public 
procurement 
processes or 
economic 
benefits 

Disciplinary 
sanctions 
against civil 
servants 
(various) 

Warning 

Other 

Declaring an 
act/agreement, 
contract, 
provision, etc. 
null and void, 
or amending 
agreement 

A: All G 

C: All G 

General rule 
C (multiple): All 
G 

General rule 
C (multiple): All 
G 

Exception 
C: Ethn.&Race 

Exception C: 
Ethn.&Race 

A (multiple): All 
G 
C (multiple): All 
G  

A (multiple): All 
G  
C (multiple): All 
G  

C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G  

C (multiple): All 
G  

C: All G 

C: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G  
C: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G 
C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C - All G 

CR (multiple): All 
G  

C: All G 

A: All G 
A: All G 

L: All G 

C: All G 

A: All G 

A (multiple): All G 

A (multiple): All 
G 

A: All G 

L: All G 

L: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G 

C (multiple): All 
G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

A (multiple): All 
G 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

C: All G 

HU  QCR - All G 

A (multiple): All 
G  

IE  CR (multiple): All 

G  
IT  CR: All G 

CR (multiple): All 
G 
CR: All G 

LT  CR (multiple): All 

G 

CR (multiple): All 
G 

CR: All G 

A (multiple): All 
G 

LU  CR (multiple): All 

G  

LV  CR (multiple): All 

G 

CR (multiple): All 
G  
CR (multiple): All 
G 

CR: All G 

A (multiple): All 
G 
C: All G 

A (multiple): All 
G 
C:All G 

L (multiple): All 
G  
C (multiple): All 
G  
C (multiple): All 
G  
CR: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G  
C (multiple): All 
G 
CR: not 
applicable 

C: All G 

A: All G 
C: All G 

C: All G 

A: All G 
C: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G 

C (multiple): All 
G 

CR (multiple): All 
G  
CR: Race&Relig  CR: Race&Relig  CR: Race&Relig  C (multiple): All 

A: All G 
C: All G 

G 

A: All G 
C (multiple): All 
G 
General rule 
C (multiple): All 
G 

A: All G 
C: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G 

A: All G 
C: All G 

General rule 
C (multiple): All 
G 

MT  CR (multiple): All 

G  

NL  CR: Race&Relig 

A: All G 

PL  QCR (multiple): 

All G 
PT  General rule 

A (multiple): All 
G 

Exception 
A: Ethn.&Race 

RO  CR: Relig 

CR: Relig 

A (multiple): All 
G  
SE  CR: All G 
SI  CR (multiple): All 

CR: All G 
CR: All G 

G 

C: All G 

A: All G 
SK  A (multiple): All 

CR: All G 

G  

Exception 
C: Ethn.&Race 
C: All G 

Exception 
C: Ethn.&Race  
C: All G 

C: All G 
C: All G 

C: All G 
C: All G 

C: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G  

C: All G 

C: All G 

L: All G 

C: All G 

A: All G 

A: All G 

C: All G 

A: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

A: All G 

C:  Ethn.&Race 

A: All G 

CR: All G 

A (multiple): All 
G 

A: All G 

CR: All G 

A: All G 

A:  Ethn.&Race 

Legend: Areas of law: Criminal (CR); Civil (C); Administrative (A), Quasi-criminal (QCR); Administrative criminal (ACR), Labour (L); Grounds: All discrimination grounds (All G), Ethnicity and race (Ethn.&Rac), Race and religion (Race&Relig.), Religion (Relig.), Number of sanction schemes: in brackets 
reference is made to instances where multiple sanction schemes exist. General rule vs. exception: This applies to jurisdictions with multiple sanction schemes. The entry ‘general rule’ refers to the majority of schemes that address the same ground(s) of discrimination. The entry ‘exception’ refers to a 
smaller number of scheme(s) that address different ground(s). 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Any suitable 
sanction/measure 
(defined in general 
terms in the law) 

Payment of an 
appropriate 
sum of money 
for social 
purposes 

Obligation to 
perform certain 
actions as 
specified in law 
(beyond the 
ones covered by 
other 
categories)  

A (multiple): All G 

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

2. Injunctions 

Termination 
of violation 

Measures to 
prevent the 
repetition of 
discriminatory 
acts  

Banning 
from 
future 
violation 

Reinstatement/restoration of 
previous situation (not including 
reinstatement to work - covered 
under obligation to perform certain 
actions), removal of the outcome of 
discrimination 

Publication 
of decision 

AT 

BE  C: All G 

C: All G 

BG  A: All G 

A: All G 

A: All G 

A: All G 

HR  C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

CY 

CZ  C: All G 

DE  C: All G 

C: All G 

DK 

EE 

EL  C: All G 

ES 

L: All G 

FI 

A: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

A: All G 

A: All G 

C: All G 

C (multiple): All G 

A: All G 

L: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

A (multiple): All G 

A (multiple): All G 

218 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

C: All G 

A: All G 

C: All G 

A (multiple): All 
G 

FR 

HU 

IE 

C: All G 

C (multiple): All G 

A (multiple): 
All G 

L: All G 

C (multiple): All G 

C: All G 

A: All G 

CR: All G 

C (multiple): All G 

A (multiple): All G 

C (multiple): All G 

IT 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

A (multiple): All 
G 

LT 

LU 

LV  C: All G 

MT 

C (multiple): All 
G 

NL 

PL  C: All G 

A (multiple): All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C (multiple): All G 

A (multiple): All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

C: All G 
A (multiple): All G 

A: All G 

C: All G 
A: All G 

C (multiple): All 
G 

C: All G 

C: All G 

C1: All G 
C2: All G 

SK  C (multiple): All 

G 

C (multiple): All G 

C (multiple): All G 
A (multiple): All G 

219 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

A: All G 

Legend: Areas of law: Criminal (CR); Civil (C); Administrative (A), Quasi-criminal (QCR); Administrative criminal (ACR), Labour (L); Grounds: All discrimination grounds (All G), Ethnicity and race (Ethn.&Rac), 
Race and religion (Race&Relig.), Religion (Relig.), Number of sanction schemes: in brackets reference is made to instances where multiple sanction schemes exist. Colours: Light blue: one-off injunction; 
Dark blue: structural injunction (when one, or multiple sanction schemes mentioned in the cell could be considered as structural injunction).

220 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ANNEX III – Overview of sanctions per areas of discrimination 

1. Sanctions other than injunctions 

Fine 

Imprisonment 

Community 
service 

Disqualification  Compensation 

(mat. damages 

Compensation 
(immat. 
damages) 

Declaring an 
act/agreement, 
contract, 
provision, etc. 
null and void, or 
amending 
agreement 
A: Emp. 

Establishment/d
eclaration of 
violation 

Temporary or 
permanent 
closure/suspen
sion of 
activities 

Exclusion from 
public 
procurement 
processes or 
economic 
benefits 

Disciplinary 
sanctions 
against civil 
servants 
(various) 

Warning 

Other (country 
specific) 

AT  General rule 

A(multiple): Emp. 

Exceptiono A: 
G&S 

BE  CR: G&S 

CR: G&S 
CR: All A 

BG  CR: Emp. 

CR: Emp. 

A (multiple): All A 

ACR: Emp. 
HR  QCR: All A 

CY  CR: Emp. 

CR: All A 

CR: G&S 

CR: Emp. 
CR: Emp. 

CR: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

CR: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

A: All A 
L (multiple): 
Emp. 

A: G&S 

CZ 

DE 

DK  CR: Emp. 

A: Emp. 
EE  CR: All A 

C: All A 

General rule 
C(multiple): Emp. 

General rule 
C(multiple): Emp. 

Exception 
C:  
Edu., G&S, SP 

Exception 
C:  
Edu., G&S, SP 

A (multiple): 
Emp. 
General rule 
C(multiple): Emp. 

A (multiple): 
Emp. 
General rule 
C(multiple): Emp. 

C: All A 

Exception 
C:  
Edu., G&S, SP 
C: All A 

Exception 
C:  
Edu., G&S, SP 
C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: Emp. 

C: Emp. 

C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: Emp. 

C: Emp. 

C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 
C: All A 

C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 
C: All A 

CR: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

EL  CR: G&S 

CR: G&S 

C: All A 

C: All A 

A: All A 

A: Emp. 
ES  CR: All A 
CR: Emp. 

A1 (multiple)  

CR: All A 
CR: Emp. 

CR (multiple): All 
A  

A: All A 
A: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

A: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

L: Emp. 

L: Emp. 

L: Emp. 

A: Emp. 
A: Emp. 

A: Emp. 
A: Emp. 

221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

FI 

L1 (multiple): 
Emp. 
 General rule 
CR (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception CR 
(multiple): All A 

FR  CR: Emp., G&S, 

SP 
CR:All A 

C: Edu. 

General rule 
CR (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception CR: All 
A 
CR: Emp., G&S, 
SP 
CR: All A 

HU  QCR:  Edu. 

A: Edu. 
A: All A 
A: G&S 
CR: Emp. 
CR: All A 

IE 

CR: Emp. 
CR: All A 

IT 

CR: All A 

CR: All A 

CR (multiple): All 
A 

CR: All A 

LT  CR (multiple): All 

A 

A: All A 

A: Emp. 

LU  CR (multiple): All 

A  

LV  CR (multiple): All 

A 

CR (multiple): All 
A  
CR (multiple): All 
A 

CR: All A 

MT  CR: Edu., G&S, 

SP 
CR: Emp. 
NL  CR: All A 

CR: Edu., G&S, 
SP 
CR: Emp. 
CR: All A 

A: All A 
PL  General rule 

QCR (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception 
QCR: G&S 

PT  General rule 
A (multiple): 
Emp. 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

General rule 
C (multiple): 
Emp. 

General rule 
C (multiple): 
Emp. 

C (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception 
C: All A 

Exception 
C: All A 

A (multiple): All A 

A (multiple): 
Emp. 
C: All A 

General rule 
C (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception 
C: G&S 
C: Emp. 
C: All A 

C: 
All A 

A: Empl. 
C: All A 

L: Emp. 

C: All A 

A: G&S 

A: G&S 

C: G&S 

A: Emp. 

A: All A 

CR: All A 

C: Emp. 

A (multiple): All A 

A (multiple): 
Emp. 
C: All A 

L (multiple): 
Emp. 

General rule 
C (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception 
C: G&S 
C: Emp. 
C: All A 
CR: All A 

C: All A 

A: Emp. 
C: All A 

General rule 
C (multiple): 
G&S 

Exception 
C: Emp. 
C: Edu. 

A: All A 
C: Emp. 

A: Emp. 

CR: All A 

A: All A 

A: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

General rule 
C (multiple): G&S 

Exception 
C: Emp. 
C: Edu. 

A: All A 

C: Emp. 

C: Emp. 

CR: All A 

CR: All A 

C (multiple): All A 

C (multiple): All A 

C: Emp. 

A: All A 

A: All A 

General rule 
C (multiple): All A 

C: All A 
C: Emp. 

A: All A 

Exception 
C: Emp. 

General rule 
C (multiple): 
Emp. 

General rule 
C (multiple): 
Emp. 

C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Exception 
A: Edu., G&S, 
SP 
RO  CR: All A 

A: All A 
A: Emp. 

CR: All A 

Exception 
C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 
C: All A 

Exception 
C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 
C: All A 

SE  CR: G&S 

CR: G&S 

C: Emp. 

C: Emp. 

C: Emp. 

CR: Emp. 

C: All A 

C: All A 

CR1: All A 

C: All A 
C: Emp. 

C1 All A 

C: All A 

SI 

CR: All A 
CR: Emp. 

C: Emp. 

A: All A 
SK  General rule 
A (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception 
A: G&S 
A: Edu. 

Legend: Areas of law: Criminal (CR); Civil (C); Administrative (A), Quasi-criminal (QCR); Administrative criminal (ACR), Labour (L); Areas: All areas (All A), Employment (Emp.), Access to and supply of goods and services (G&S), Education (Edu.), Social protection (SP), Number of sanction schemes: 
in brackets reference is made to instances where multiple sanction schemes exist. General rule vs. exception: This applies to jurisdictions with multiple sanction schemes. The entry ‘general rule’ refers to the majority of schemes that cover the same area(s). The entry ‘exception’ refers to a smaller number 
of scheme(s) that address different area(s).

223 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

2. Injunctions 

Termination 
of violation 

Measures to 
prevent the 
repetition of 
discriminatory 
acts  

Banning 
from 
future 
violation 

Reinstatement/restoration of 
previous situation (not including 
reinstatement to work - covered 
under obligation to perform certain 
actions), removal of the outcome of 
discrimination 

Publication 
of decision 

AT 

BE  C: All A 

C: All A 

BG  A: All A 

A: All A 

A: All A 

A: All A 

HR  C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

C: Edu., G&S, SP 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL  C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

224 

Any suitable 
sanction/measure 
(defined in general 
terms in the law) 

Payment of an 
appropriate 
sum of money 
for social 
purposes 

Obligation to 
perform 
certain 
actions as 
specified in 
law 
(beyond the 
ones covered 
by other 
categories)  

A (multiple): 
Emp. 

C: All A 

C: All A 

A: G&S 

A: All A 

C (multiple): All 
A 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

L: Emp. 

ES 

A: Edu., G&S, SP 

L: Emp. 

A: Emp. 

C: Emp. 

A: Emp. 

C: All A 

A: All A 
A: G&S 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

C: All A 

C (multiple): All A 

A: All A 
A: G&S 

L: Emp. 

C: All A 

A: All A 

C (multiple): Emp. 

225 

A (multiple): 
Edu., G&S, SP 

General rule 

A (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception 

A: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

A: All A 

CR: Emp., 
G&S, SP 

C (multiple): All 
A 

General rule 
A (multiple): 
Edu. 

Exception 
A: All A 
A: G&S 

General rule 

C (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception 
C : G&S 

 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

IT  C: All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

C: Emp. 

C: All A 

A: Emp. 
A: All A 

LT 

LU 

LV  C: Edu. 

General rule 

C (multiple): 
Emp. 

MT 

Exception 
C: Edu., G&S, 
SP 

NL 

PL  C: All A 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

C (multiple): 
All A 

C: All A 

C: All A 

A (multiple): All 
A  

C: All A 

C: G&S 

General rule 

C: Emp. 

C (multiple): 
Edu., G&S, SP 

Exception 
C: Emp. 

A: Edu., G&S, 
SP 
A: Emp. 

C - All A 

C - All A 

C: All A 
A (multiple): All A 

A: All A 

C: Emp. 
A: Emp. 

SK 

C (multiple): 
All A 

C (multiple): All A 

C (multiple): Emp. 

C (multiple): 
All A 

General rule 

226 

 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

A: G&S 

A: G&S 

C (multiple): 
Emp. 

Exception 
C: All A 

A (multiple): 
Edu. 

Legend: Areas of law: Criminal (CR); Civil (C); Administrative (A), Quasi-criminal (QCR); Administrative criminal (ACR), Labour (L); Areas: All areas (All A), Employment (Emp.), Access to and supply of 
goods and services (G&S), Education (Edu.), Social protection (SP), Number of sanction schemes: in brackets reference is made to instances where multiple sanction schemes exist; Colours: Light blue: 
one-off injunction; Dark blue: structural injunction (when one, or multiple sanction schemes mentioned in the cell could be considered as structural injunction). General rule vs. exception: This applies to 
jurisdictions with multiple sanction schemes. The entry ‘general rule’ refers to the majority of schemes that cover the same area(s). The entry ‘exception’ refers to a smaller number of scheme(s) that address 
different area(s). 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ANNEX IV – Overview of sanctions per nature 

1. Sanctions other than injunctions 

Fine 

Imprisonment 

Community 
service 

Disqualification  Compensation 

(material 
damages 

Compensation 
(immaterial 
damages) 

AT  A (multiple): 
pec.  

BE  CR: pec. 

BG  CR: pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 
CR: non-pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 
CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 

A (multiple): 
pec. 

ACR: pec. 
HR  QCR: pec. 

CY  CR (multiple): 

pec. 

A: pec. 
CZ  L (multiple): 
pec. 

A: pec. 

DE 

DK  CR: pec. 

A: pec. 

Establishment/declaration 
of violation 

Temporary or 
permanent 
closure/suspension 
of activities 

Exclusion 
from public 
procurement 
processes or 
economic 
benefits 

Disciplinary 
sanctions 
against civil 
servants 
(various) 

Warning 

Other 

Declaring an 
act/agreement, 
contract, 
provision, etc. 
null and void, 
or amending 
agreement 

A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

A (multiple): 
pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec. 

General rule 
A (multiple): 
pec. 

Exception 
A: non-pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec. 

C: pec. 

C: pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

C: pec. 

C: pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec. 

EE  CR: pec. 

CR: non-pec. 

C: pec. 

C: pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: pec. 

EL  CR: pec. 

CR: non-pec. 

A: pec. 
ES  CR (multiple): 

pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 

A (multiple): 
pec. 

L (multiple): 
pec. 
CR (multiple): 
pec. 
FR  CR 

FI 

(mutliple):pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 
 CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 

C: pec. 

A: pec. 
A: pec. 

L: pec. 

C: pec. 

A: non-pec. 

A: pec. 

L: pec. 

L: non-pec. 

A (multiple): non-
pec. 

A (multiple): 
non-pec. 

C: pec. 

C: pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A (multiple) : 
non-pec. 

228 

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

C: pec. 

HU  QCR: pec. 

A (multiple): 
pec. 
CR 
(mutliple):pec. 
CR: pec. 

IE 

IT 

LT  CR 

(mutliple):pec. 

A (multiple): 
pec. 
LU  CR 

(mutliple):pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 
CR: non-pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 

CR: non-pec. 

LV  CR 

(mutliple):pec. 

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 

CR: non-pec. 

MT  CR 

(multiple):pec. 

NL  CR: pec.  

CR (multiple): 
non-pec. 
CR: non-pec.  

CR: non-pec.  

CR: non-pec.  

A: pec. 

PL  QCR 

(mutliple):pec. 

PT  A (multiple): 
pec. 
RO  CR: pec. 

A (multiple): 
pec. 
SE  CR: pec. 
CR 
SI 
(multiple):pec. 

C: pec. 

A: pec. 
SK  A (multiple): 
pec.  

CR: non-pec. 

CR: non-pec. 
CR: non-pec. 

CR: non-pec. 

A (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec. 

L (multiple): 
pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 

A: pec. 

A (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec.  

A: pec. 

C: pec.  

C: pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

A: pec. 
C: pec. 

A: pec. 
C: pec. 

C: non-pec. 
C: pec. 

C: non-pec. 
C: pec. 

A: pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec./non-
pec. 

A: pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 
C (multiple): 
pec. 
C: pec./non-
pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: pec.  
C: pec.  

C: pec.  
C: pec.  

C: non-pec. 

C (multiple): 
pec. 

C: pec. 

C: non-pec. 

L: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

CR: non-pec. 

General rule 
A (multiple) : 
non-pec. 

Exception 
A : pec. 

A: non-pec. 

CR: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

Legend: Areas of law: Criminal (CR); Civil (C); Administrative (A), Quasi-criminal (QCR); Administrative criminal (ACR), Labour (L); Sanctions per nature: Pecuniary (pec.), Non-pecuniary (non-pec.); Number of sanction schemes: in brackets reference is made to instances where multiplesanction 
schemes exist. General rule vs. exception: This applies to jurisdictions with multiple sanction schemes. The entry ‘general rule’ refers to the majority of schemes that are of the same nature. The entry ‘exception’ refers to a smaller number of scheme(s) that are of a different nature.

229 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

2. Injunctions 

Termination 
of violation 

Measures to 
prevent the 
repetition of 
discriminatory 
acts  

Banning 
from 
future 
violation 

Reinstatement/restoration of 
previous situation (not including 
reinstatement to work - covered 
under obligation to perform certain 
actions), removal of the outcome of 
discrimination 

Publication 
of decision 

AT 

BE  C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

Any suitable 
sanction/measure 
(defined in general 
terms in the law) 

Payment of an 
appropriate 
sum of money 
for social 
purposes 

Obligation to 
perform certain 
actions as 
specified in law 
(beyond the ones 
covered by other 
categories)  

A (multiple): non-
pec. 

BG 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

A: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A: non-
pec. 

C: non-
pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C (multiple): non-
pec. 

DE  C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

DK 

EE 

EL  C: non-pec. 

L: non-pec. 

ES 

A: non-pec. 

L: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A (multiple): non-
pec. 

230 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

FI 

FR 

C: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

HU 

A (multiple): 
non-pec. 

IE 

A: non-
pec. 

C: non-
pec. 

A 
(multiple): 
non-pec. 

C (multiple): non-pec. 

L: non-pec.  

C (multiple): non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

A (multiple): non-
pec. 

CR - non-pec. 

C (multiple): non-
pec. 

A (multiple): non-
pec. 

General rule : 

C (multiple): non-
pec. 

Exception : 

C: pec. 

IT  C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A (multiple): 
non-pec. 

LT 

LU 

LV  C: non-pec.  

C (multiple): 
non-pec. 

MT 

A (multiple): non-
pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: non-pec.  

C (multiple): non-
pec. 

C: non-pec. 

A (multiple): non-
pec. 

231 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

NL 

PL  C: non-pec.  

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

C (multiple): 
non-pec. 

C (multiple): 
non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 
A (multiple): non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec. 
A: non-pec. 

C: non-pec.  

C: non-
pec.  

C (multiple): 
non-pec. 

C (multiple): non-pec. 

A: non-pec. 

C (multiple): non-
pec. 

A (multiple): non-
pec. 

C: non-pec. 

C: pec. 

Legend:  Areas  of  law:  Criminal (CR);  Civil  (C);  Administrative  (A),  Quasi-criminal  (QCR); Administrative criminal  (ACR),  Labour  (L);  Sanctions  per  nature: Pecuniary  (pec.),  Non-pecuniary  (non-pec.); 
Number of sanction schemes: in brackets reference is made to instances where multiple sanction schemes exist; Colours: Light blue: one-off injunction; Dark blue: structural injunction (when one, or multiple 
sanction schemes mentioned in the cell could be considered as structural injunction). General rule vs. exception: This applies to jurisdictions with multiple sanction schemes. The entry ‘general rule’ refers 
to the majority of schemes that are of the same nature. The entry ‘exception’ refers to a smaller number of scheme(s) that are of a different nature. 

232 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ANNEX V – Awareness activities 

Awareness-raising activities 

Studies and reports 

Studies are conducted and reports published386 to raise awareness about rights and sanctions. For example, the Danish Institute for Human 
Rights raises awareness about the rights of individuals and the sanctions available under Danish law for breaches of these rights including through 
the studies it conducts and the reports it publishes. 

Annual  reports  are  issued  by  many  equality  bodies  (e.g.,  the  Greek  Ombudsman  publishes  annual  specific  reports  on  discrimination,  and  the 
Hungarian Ombudsman publishes general annual reports). 

Opinions and guidelines 

Opinions and guidelines are provided by equality bodies and other entities to inform the public and promote equal treatment. For example, the 
work of the French Defender of Rights is considered important to spread knowledge, through their opinions and guidelines. Similarly, the Economic 
and Social Council in Greece gives opinions on the safeguard of the principle of equal treatment especially in the field of employment. 

Publishing of decisions 

The publication of decisions is also used by several bodies to raise awareness. For example, the Board of Equal Treatment in Denmark is active 
in disseminating information about its rulings and the principles underlying its decisions. The Board helps clarify the nature of sanctions and the 
behaviour they aim to correct. The decisions of the Irish Workplace Relations Commission’s are published in its website387.  

Online information 

Online platforms and websites are used by different entities such as equality bodies or ministries to provide information and reporting tools for 
discrimination cases. For instance, the French Defender of Rights set up an online platform388 providing information on discriminatory behaviour and 
how to report. The French Ministry of Labour, Health and Solidarity has published and regularly updates public service pages on discrimination, 
summarising  the existing  legislation  and  the steps  to  be  taken,  which include  information  on  sanctions389.  The  Irish  Human  Rights and  Equality 
Commission publishes a  collection of equality-guidance documents and tools for employers, public agencies, and service providers390. The 
website of the Irish Workplace Relations Commission’s makes available numerous public guidance documents391. The Luxembourgish Ministry of 
Family Affairs published on its website a series of awareness raising campaigns against racism which include studies, conferences, exhibitions, 

386 Article 13(2) of the RED explicitly requires Member States to ensure that equality bodies have the competence to issue reports: “Member States shall ensure that the competences of these bodies 
include: […] publishing independent reports and making recommendations on any issue relating to such discrimination”. 
387 Workplace Relations Commission, ‘Information Guides & Booklets’, Workplace Relations Commission website. 
388 Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits), ‘antidiscrimination.fr’, Défenseur des droits website. 
389 Ministère du travail, de la santé, des solidarités et des familles, ‘Protection against discrimination’ (La protection contre les discriminations), Ministère du travail, de la santé, des solidarités et des familles 
website, last updated 22 April 2024, accessed 07 June 2024. 
390 Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Coimisiún na hÉireann um Chearta an Duine agus Comhionannas), ‘Training, tools and resources’, Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission website, 
accessed on 10 May 2024. 
391 Workplace Relations Commission, ‘Information Guides & Booklets’, Workplace Relations Commission website.  

233 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

and  trainings  publicly  available online392.  In  the  Netherlands, the  website  Discriminatie.nl  is  running  a campaign  to stimulate  people  that  are 
discriminated to report393. The Swedish Equality Ombudsman also provides information on its website on prohibition against discrimination, rights of 
the victims, how to report discrimination, among other aspects394. The Commission for Equality and against Racial Discrimination in Portugal has 
conducted social media campaigns presenting its mission and explaining how to report discrimination. 

Newsletters, 
sheets and others 

information 

Information can be distributed to relevant stakeholders through newsletters or posters. For example, Danish employers’ organisations and legal 
firms distribute newsletters and information  sheets to businesses to ensure that employers are aware of their legal obligations and the potential 
sanctions for non-compliance with discrimination laws. The French Defender of Rights display posters in schools, secondary schools, police stations, 
etc. 

Social advertising is also used by some bodies, such as the Lithuanian Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman, which uses social advertising 
as a means of informing the public about equal opportunities and raising awareness of human rights challenges and solutions. 

Training 

Training has been identified as an awareness raising activity in several Member States. For example, in Belgium, Unia provides customised training, 
including  online  training.  The  Danish  Institute  for  Human  Rights  organises  seminars  and  workshops  to  educate  various  sectors  of  society. 
Furthermore, Danish employers’ organisations and legal firms often hold training sessions for businesses. The Greek Ombudsman also provides 
training to public officials (and has published a guide for civil servants395) and conducts training seminars for the Labour Inspectorate, the National 
School of Public Administration, the Greek Police. The National Commission for Human Rights in Greece organises annual training on human rights 
issues, often including discrimination as part of the agenda396. The Latvian Centre for Human Rights offers trainings to civil society organisations. 

Seminars and workshops 

Seminars and workshops are organised to engage stakeholders on discrimination issues. For example, the Greek Ombudsman regularly organises 
events, like seminars and working meetings on various issues including discrimination. 

Others 

Other awareness raising activities were identified, such as the organisation of visits to neighbourhood associations to explain in person how to 
report  discrimination,  conducted  by  the  French  Defender  of  Rights;  consultations  with  individual  employers,  explaining  discrimination  and 
preventive measures, conducted by the labour inspectorate in Slovenia; or the fact that  each court has a discrimination officer responsible for 
discrimination within the organisation, and who works with associations specialising in the fight against discrimination (France). 

392 Ministry for the Family, Solidarity, Living Together and Hospitality (Ministère de la famille, des solidarités, du vivre ensemble et de l'accueil), ‘Anti-racism action lists’ (Listes d'actions anti-racisme), 
Luxembourgish government website.  
393 Discriminatie.nl, ‘National reporting point discrimination’, Discriminatie.nl website. 
394 The Discrimination Ombudsman (Diskriminerings ombudsmannen), ‘English’, last updated on 06 May 2024. 
395 Citizens Ombudsman – Independent Authority, ‘Diversity guide for civil servants to combat discrimination’, Citizens Ombudsman – Independent Authority website. 
396 Hellenic Republic National Commission for Human Rights, ‘Human Rights Education and Training’, National Commission for Human Rights website. 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ANNEX VI – Overview of examined cases in EU Member States 

Austria 

Court decisions 

•  Vienna Regional Court for Civil Law Matters (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien - LGZ 
Wien), 06 March 2023, 34 R 19/23f (decision first instance: BG Innere Stadt 29.11.2022, 35 
C 148/22) 

•  Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), 25 June 2016, OGH  9 ObA 117/15v. 

•  Higher Regional Court Linz (Oberlandesgericht Linz), 21 September 2016, 12 Ra 63/16w. 

•  Vienna Regional Court for Civil Law Matters (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien), 30 

March 2007, 35 R 104/07i. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

No such decisions identified. 

Belgium 

Court decisions 

•  Brussels Labour Court (Cour du travail de Bruxelles), 28 August 2009. 

•  Brussels Labour Tribunal (Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles), 03 May 2021. 

•  Ghent  Labour  Court,  Bruges  Division  (Arbeidshof  Gent,  afdeling  Brugge),  30  June  2023, 

2022/AR/44 and 2022/AR/39. 

•  Labour Court of Brussels (Cour du travail de Bruxelles (francophone), 28 February 2024. 

•  Ghent  Labour  Court  Ghent  Division  (Arbeidshof  Gent  Afdeling  Gent),  12  October  2020, 

2019/AG/55. 

•  Court of First Instance East Flanders Ghent Division (Rechtbank Van Eerste Aanleg Oost-

Vlaanderen  Afdeling Gent), 17 February 2021, Chamber G29. 

•  Liège Labour Tribunal (Tribunal du travail de Liège), 24 February 2022. 

•  Brussels  Labour  Court  (Cour  du  travail  de  Bruxelles  (francophone)),  15  February  2024, 

2023/AB/24. 

•  Antwerp’s Labour Court (Cour du travail d’Anvers), 25 June 2008. 

•  Ghent’s appeal court (Cour d’appel de Gand), 24 June 2021. 

•  Brussels appeal court (Cour d’appel de Bruxelles), 10 February 2015. 

•  Constitutional Court (Cour Constitutionnelle), 11 March 2009, No. 40/2009. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

N/A – no such bodies exist. 

235 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Bulgaria 

Court decisions 

•  Sofia City Administrative Court (Административен съд – София град), 09 February 2024, 
No: 883/09.02.2024 (link not available, case files and decision provided by a stakeholder). 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Commission 

for  Protection  Against  Discrimination 

(Комисия  за  защита  от 
дискриминация), 23 March 2022, Decision No 97/23.03.2022 on Case No 557/2020 (no link 
available). 

•  Commission 

for  Protection  Against  Discrimination 

(Комисия  за  защита  от 

дискриминация), 08 June 2020, Decision No 306/08.06.2020. 

•  Commission 

for  Protection  Against  Discrimination 

(Комисия  за  защита  от 

дискриминация), 23 January 2019, Decision No 51/23.01.2019 (p.17). 

•  Commission 

for  Protection  Against  Discrimination 

(Комисия  за  защита  от 

дискриминация), Decision No 18/2017 in Case No. 53/2016 (p.116). 

Croatia 

Court decisions 

•  Municipal Court in Varaždin (Općinski sud u Varaždinu), P-817/2011, (no link available). 

•  Municipal Court in Rijeka (Općinski sud u Rijeci), 19 August 2022, 65.Pp-849/2022-4. 

•  Municipal misdemeanour court in Zagreb (Općinski prekršajni sud u Zagrebu), 13 September 

2022, 7. Pp-18758/2021. 

•  Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), Gž-25/2011-2. 

•  Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), 14 December 

2021, Gž 10/2021-2. 

•  Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), 29 September 

2022, U-IIIA-2294/2022. 

•  Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu), 03 October 2019, Gž R 647/2019-2. 

•  Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu), 19, August 2021, Gž R 394/2020-3. 

•  County Court in Varaždin (Županijski sud u Varaždinu), Gž-399/2017. 

•  High  Misdemeanor  Court  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia  (Visoki  prekršajni  sud  Republike 

Hrvatske), Jž-423/2015, (no link available). 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

N/A – no such bodies exist. 

236 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Cyprus 

Court decisions 

• 

Industrial  Disputes  Tribunal  (Δικαστήριο  Εργατικών Διαφορών),  30  November  2015,  Case 
No. 962/2012. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

No such decisions identified.   

Czechia 

Court decisions 

•  Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud), 24 February 2023, NSS 2 As 94/2020 

– 23. 

•  Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), 22 September 2015, III. ÚS 1213/13. 

•  Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud), 05 May 2022, NS 25 Cdo 473/2021-337. 

•  Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud), 07 October 2009, 30 Cdo 4431/2007. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Czech  Trade  Inspection  Authority  (Česká  obchodní  inspekce),  7  April  2022,  (no  case 

number, no link available). 

Denmark 

Court decisions 

•  Supreme Court (Højesteret), 7 September 2022, Case No. BS-31220/2021-HJR. 

•  Supreme Court (Højesteret), 11 August 2015, Case No. U.2015.3827H. 

•  Eastern  High  Court  (Østre  Landsret),  5  February  1999,  Case  No.  U.1999.920Ø,  (no  link 

available). 

•  Eastern  High  Court  (Østre  Landsret),  10  August  2000,  Case  No.  FED2000.1793,  (no  link 

available). 

•  Eastern  High  Court  (Østre  Landsret),  29  April  2009,  Case  No.  U.2009.2068Ø,  (no  link 

available). 

•  Eastern  High  Court  (Østre  Landsret),  14 January  2008,  Case  No.  U.2008.1028Ø, (no  link 

available). 

•  Western High Court (Vestre Landsret), 20 August 2003, Case No. U.2003.2438V, (no link 

available). 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 1 June 2023, Case No. KEN nr 9586. 

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 22 March 2023, Case No. KEN nr 9283. 

237 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 7 December 2022, Case No. KEN nr 9026. 

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 28 October 2022, Case No. KEN nr 10220. 

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 16 December 2020, Case No. KEN nr 9060. 

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 22 August 2022, Case No. KEN nr 9950. 

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 13 June 2022, Case No. KEN nr 9835. 

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 15 December 2021, Case No. KEN nr 9031. 

•  Equal Treatment Board (Ligebehandlingsnævnet), 08 February 2012, Case No. KEN nr 10299. 

Estonia 

Court decisions 

•  Tallinn Circuit Court (Tallinna Ringkonnakohus), 23 January 2013, Case No. 2-12-32921. 

•  Tartu Circuit Court (Tartu Ringkonnakohus), 6 May 2013, Case No. 2-10-43528. 

•  Harju County Court (Harju Maakohus), 23 December 2011, Case No. 2-11-15080. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Labour Dispute Committee (Töövaidluskomisjon), 16 February 2023, Case No. 4-1/1866/22, 

see summary here. 

•  Labour Dispute Committee (Töövaidluskomisjon), 19 May 2014, Case No. 4-1/786/5. 

Finland 

Court decisions 

•  Pirkanmaa  District  Court  (Pirkanmaan  käräjäoikeus),  29  March  2023,  Case  Nos.  L 

758/2022/458 and L 758/2022/455. 

•  National  Equality  and  Non-discrimination  Tribunal 

ja 
arvolautakunta), 
337/2018;  
Supreme  Administrative  Court  (Korkein  hallinto-oikeus),  8  September  2022,  Case  No. 
KHO:2022:106. 

(Yhdenvertaisuus- 
Case 

December 

2018, 

tasa-

No. 

19 

•  National  Equality  and  Non-discrimination  Tribunal 

(Yhdenvertaisuus- 

ja 

tasa-

arvolautakunta), 2018. 

•  National  Equality  and  Non-discrimination  Tribunal 

(Yhdenvertaisuus- 

ja 

tasa-

arvolautakunta), 2018, Case No. 216/2017, (no link available). 

•  Appeal Court of East Finland (Itä-Suomen hovioikeus), 30 December 2021, Case No. HO R 

21/97. 
Published by the Regional Administrative Authority (AVI) of South Finland on 6 May 2022 in 
Judgements of Work Crimes 2021, (no link available). 

•  National  Equality  and  Non-discrimination  Tribunal 
arvolautakunta), 26 October 2017, Case No. 254/2017. 

(Yhdenvertaisuus- 

ja 

tasa-

•  Minority 

2008/367. 
Rovaniemi Administrative Appeal Court (Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus), Case No. 10/0324/1. 

(Syrjintälautakunta), 

Board 

Case 

No. 

238 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  National  Equality  and  Non-discrimination  Tribunal 

(Yhdenvertaisuus- 

ja 

tasa-

arvolautakunta), 2017, Case No. 9xx/2016. 

•  National  Equality  and  Non-discrimination  Tribunal 

(Yhdenvertaisuus- 

ja 

tasa-

arvolautakunta), 8 June 2017, Case No. 28/2015. 

•  Helsinki  District  Court  (Helsingin  käräjäoikeus),  31  March  2021,  Case  No.  R20/4135. 
Helsinki  Appeal  Court  (Helsingin  hovioikeus),  3  October  2022,  Case  No.  R21/1175. 
Published by the Regional Administrative Authority (AVI) of South Finland on 6 May 2022 in 
Judgements of Work Crimes 2021. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  authority  under  Regional  State  Administrative  Agency 
(Työsuojeluviranomainen,  aluehallintovirasto),  case  described  in  the  annual  report  on 
supervision  of  equality  and  discrimination  for  2022  of  the  Occupational Safety  and Health 
authorities, p. 14. 

•  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  authority  under  Regional  State  Administrative  Agency 
(Työsuojeluviranomainen,  aluehallintovirasto),  case  described  in  the  annual  report  on 
supervision  of  equality  and  discrimination  for  2022  of  the  Occupational Safety  and Health 
authorities, p. 18. 

•  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  authority  under  Regional  State  Administrative  Agency 
(Työsuojeluviranomainen,  aluehallintovirasto),  case  described  in  the  annual  report  on 
supervision  of  equality  and  discrimination  for  2022  of  the  Occupational Safety  and Health 
authorities, p. 13. 

France 

Court decisions 

•  Criminal Court of Paris (Tribunal correctionnel de Paris), 13 March 2024 (no link available). 

•  Court  of  Cassation,  Civil  Division,  Social  Chamber  (Cour  de  cassation,  civile,  Chambre 

sociale), 15 December 2011, Case No. 10-15.873. 

•  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber (Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale), 23 November 

2022, Appeal No. 21-14.060. 

•  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber (Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale), 14 April 2021, 

Appeal No. 19-24.079. 

•  Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 6 - Chamber 5 (Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 6 - Chambre 5), 5 

December 2019, Case No. 17/10760. 

•  Court of Cassation, Criminal Division (Cour de cassation, Chambre criminelle), 7 June 2005, 

Case No. 04-87.354. 

•  Court  of  Cassation,  Civil  Division,  Social  Chamber  (Cour  de  cassation,  civile,  Chambre 

sociale), 8 July 2020, Case No. 18-23.743. 

•  Paris  Labour  Tribunal  (Conseil  de  prud’hommes  de  Paris),  13  May  2022,  Case  No.  RG  F 

21/06830 - Portalis No. 352I-X-B7F-JNJE7. 

•  Labour  Court  of  Paris,  Industry  Section,  Chamber  1  (Conseil  de  prud’hommes  de  Paris, 
section industrie, chambre 1), 17 December 2019, Case No. RG F 17/10051 - Portalis No. 352I-
X-B7B-JL5SN. 

239 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Special  Report  2023-001  of  23  June  2023  (Rapport  Spécial  2023-001  du  23  juin  2023), 
prepared  in  the  absence  of  any  follow-up  to  the  recommendations  made  in  Decision  No. 
2022-170 regarding alleged discrimination linked to family situation. See press release. 

Germany 

Court decisions 

•  Regional Labour Court of Rhineland-Palatinate (Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz), 16 

January 2018, Case No. 6 Sa 299/17. 

•  Labour Court of Hamburg (Arbeitsgericht Hamburg), 26 January 2010, Case No. 25 Ca 282/09. 

•  Higher Labour Court of Bremen (Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen), 29 June 2010, Case No. 1 

Sa 29/10. 

•  Labour Court of Münster (Arbeitsgericht Münster), 25 March 2021, Case No. 3 Ca 391/20. 

•  Regional Court of Aachen (Landgericht Aachen), 11 May 2017, Case No. 2 S 26/17. 

•  Regional Court of Mönchengladbach (Landgericht Mönchengladbach), 27 May 2016, Case 

No. 11 O 99/15. 

•  Local Court of Bremen (Amtsgericht Bremen), 20 January 2011, Case No. 25 C 0278/10. 

•  Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart), 12 December 2011, Case 

No. 10 U 106/11. 

•  Local  Court  of  Hannover  (Amtsgericht  Hannover),  25  November  2015,  Case  No.  549  C 

12993/14. 

•  Labour Court of Berlin (Arbeitsgericht Berlin), 28 March 2012, Case No. 55 Ca 2426/12. 

•  Higher Labour Court of Lower Saxony (Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen), 14 December 

2016, Case No. 17 Sa 288/16. 

•  Labour Court of Berlin (Arbeitsgericht Berlin), 27 January 2012, Case No. 28 BV 17992/11. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

N/A – no such bodies exist. 

Greece 

Court decisions 

•  Three-Member  Misdemeanour  Court  of  Thessaloniki 
Θεσσαλονίκης), Decision No. 10371/2015, (no link available). 

(Τριμελές  Πλημμελειοδικείο 

•  Single-Member First Instance Court of Athens (Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών),  Decision 

No. 2161/2017. 

•  Athens  Single-Member  Administrative  Court  of  First  Instance  (Μονομελές  Διοικητικό 

Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών), Decision No. Α11919/2019. 

•  Council of State (Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας), 3rd Department, Decision No. 102/2020. 

240 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Single-Member First Instance Court of Piraeus (Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο Πειραιά),  Decision 

No. 1476/2021. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Labour Inspectorate (Σώμα Επιθεώρησης Εργασίας), Case No. 187370/2014. 

•  The Ombudsman (Συνήγορος του Πολίτη), Urban Transport Company - Οδικές Συγκοινωνίες, 

ΟΣΥ, Case No. 223060/2016. 

•  The Ombudsman (Συνήγορος του Πολίτη), Case No. 241344/2018. 

•  The Ombudsman (Συνήγορος του Πολίτη), Case No. 262683/2019. 

•  The Ombudsman (Συνήγορος του Πολίτη), Case No. 272923. 

Hungary 

Court decisions 

•  Curia (Kúria), 12 May 2020, Case No. Pfv.IV.21.556/2019. 

•  Metropolitan  Appeal  Court  (Fővárosi 

Ítélőtábla),  14  February  2019,  Decision  No. 

2.Pf.21.145/2018/6/I (through search function). 

•  Constitutional Court (Alkotmánybíróság), 17 June 2013, Decision No. 3133/2013 (VII. 2). 

•  Supreme Court (Legfelsőbb Bíróság), Decision No. Pfv.IV.21.568/2010/5. 

•  Curia (Kúria), 10 May 2018, Decision No. Pfv.IV.20.085/2017/9. 

•  Metropolitan  Administrative  and  Labour  Court  (Fővárosi  Közigazgatási  és  Munkaügyi 

Bíróság), Decision No. 6.K.33.048/2015/17, (no link available). 

•  Curia (Kúria), Decision no. Pfv.IV.21.186/2022/10 (no link available). 

•  Curia (Kúria), Decision no. Pfv.IV.20.857/2022/10, (through search function). 

•  Appellate Court of Debrecen (jurisdiction determined by the Eger Regional Court), Decision 

No. Pf.I.20.214/2020/10, (through search function). 

•  Metropolitan Regional Court (Fővárosi Törvényszék), case number not available, information 

on the case is available here. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Equal Treatment Authority (Egyenlő Bánásmód Hatóság), Decision No. EBH/467/2016, an 

extract is available here, p.20. 

•  Equal Treatment Authority (Egyenlő Bánásmód Hatóság), Decision No. EBH/130/2017, an 

extract is available here, p.21. 

•  Equal  Treatment  Directorate  (Egyenlő  Bánásmódért  Felelős  Főigazgatóság),  Decision  No. 

EBF-AJBH-251/2021. 

•  Equal Treatment Authority (Egyenlő Bánásmód Hatóság), Decision No. EBH/115/2020. 

•  Equal  Treatment  Directorate  (Egyenlő  Bánásmódért  Felelős  Főigazgatóság),  Decision  No. 

EBF-AJBH-365/2021. 

241 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Equal  Treatment  Directorate  (Egyenlő  Bánásmódért  Felelős  Főigazgatóság),  Decision  No. 

EBF-AJBH-40/2022. 

Ireland 

Court decisions 

•  District Court, Margaret O’Leary v Wetherspoons t/a The Forty Foot, January 2024 (media 

report, no official legal report; decisions of the District Court are not published). 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Workplace  Relations  Commission,  Vanessa  Rodrigues  Linhan  v  Carechoice,  20  February 

2023, Decision No. ADJ-00044371. 

•  Workplace  Relations  Commission,  Suchavadee  Foley  v.  Atercin  Liffey  Unlimited  T/A 

Starbucks Tallaght, 20 January 2021, Decision No. ADJ-00028487. 

•  Workplace  Relations  Commission,  David  McDonagh  v  Harmony  Catering,  25  November 

2021, Decision No. ADJ-00028368. 

•  Workplace Relations Commission, Bridget O’Reilly v Atlantic Troy Ltd T/A Charleville Park 

Hotel, 25 January 2021, Decision No. ADJ-00020724. 

•  Workplace  Relations  Commission,  A  Tenant  with  Refugee  Status  v  A  Small  Landlord 

(Anonymised Parties), 17 December 2021, Decision No. ADJ-00028448. 

•  Workplace Relations Commission, Hamill v Department of Defence, 8 March 2022, Decision 

No. ADJ-00031432. 

•  Workplace Relations Commission, Nkikita v. Fleming, 4 December 2019,  Decision No. ADJ-

00020830. 

•  Workplace  Relations  Commission,  James  McCarthy  v.  Cork  City  Council,  20  July  2020, 

Decision No. ADJ-00018849. 

Italy 

Court decisions 

•  Tribunal of Milan (Tribunale di Milano), 22 March 2012, Decision number not available (no 

link available). 

•  Court of Appeal of Milan, Civil Division (Corte di Appello di Milano, sezione civile), Decision 

No. 2671/2015, (no link available). 

•  Tribunal of Rome, Civil Division (Tribunale di Roma, II sezione civile), 30 May 2015, Decision 

number not available. 

•  Court of Appeal of Milan, Labour Division (Corte di Appello di Milano, sezione lavoro), 4 May 

2016, Decision No. 579. 

•  Court  of  Appeal  of  Milan,  Civil  Division  (Corte  d’Appello  di  Milano,  I  sezione  civile),  23 

February 2017, Decision No. 787. 

•  Tribunal of Milan, Civil Division (Tribunale di Milano, I sezione civile), 13 December 2018, 

Decision No. R.G. 20954/2018. 

242 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Court  of  Appeal  of  Brescia,  Civil  Division  (Corte  di  Appello  di  Brescia,  sezione  civile),  18 

January 2019, Decision No. 96/2019. 

•  Tribunal of Milan, Labour Division (Tribunale di Milano, sezione lavoro), 24 January 2020, 

Decision number not available (no link available). 

•  Ordinary  Tribunal  of  Bologna  (Tribunale  Ordinario  di  Bologna),  Labour  Division,  31 

December 2020, Case No. R.G. 2949/2019. 

•  Tribunal of Milan, Civil Division (Tribunale di Milano, I sezione civile), 27 July 2020, Case No. 

R.G. 2018/23608. 

•  Constitutional Court (Corte Costituzionale), 8 February 2022, Decision No. 67/2022. 

•  Tribunal of Ferrara, Labour Division (Tribunale di Ferrara, sezione lavoro), XX and FP-CGIL 

(represented by Avv. Capponi and Santoni) v. Municipality of Ferrara, 15 April 2022. 

•  Supreme  Court  of  Cassation,  Criminal  Division,  First  Chamber  (Corte  di  Cassazione  –  I 

sezione penale), 4 December 2020, Decision No. 10335/2021. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

N/A – no such bodies exist. 

Latvia 

Court decisions 

•  Court of First Instance (City Court), 25 May 2006, Decision No. 15066406. 

•  Riga City Court (Rīgas pilsētas), 28 November 2023, decision not yet published, see a brief 

description of the case. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

No such decisions identified. 

Lithuania 

Court decisions 

•  Vilnius District Court, Civil Cases Division (Vilniaus apygardos teismo civilinių bylų kolegija), 

Saicha Marcinkevič v. UAB „Disona“, Civil Case No. 2A-1020-464/2008. 

•  Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Lietuvos vyriausias administracinis teismas), N. 
S., S. S. (S. S.), etc. v. Vilnius Municipality Administration, Case No. A444-1003/2010, (no 
link available). 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

No such decisions identified. 

243 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Luxembourg 

Court decisions 

•  Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, 15 December 2011, Case No. 20111215_35832. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

No such decisions identified.   

Malta 

Court decisions 

No such decisions identified.   

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

No such decisions identified.   

Netherlands 

Court decisions 

•  District Court Haarlem (Rechtbank Haarlem, now Rechtbank Noord-Holland), 8 May 2007, 

Plaintiff v. Municipal Executive Board of Haarlem, ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2007:BA5410. 

•  Central  Board  of  Appeal  (Centrale  Raad  van  Beroep,  CRvB),  14  April  2015,  Municipal 
Executive  Board  of  Rotterdam  v.  Person  Concerned  and  Person  Concerned  2, 
ECLI:NL:CRVB:2015:1230. 

•  District Court Arnhem (Rechtbank Arnhem), 27 September 2010, Complainant v. Mayor and 

Municipal Council of the Municipality of Nijmegen, ECLI:NL:RBARN:2010:BO2945. 

•  District  Court  The  Hague  (Rechtbank  Den  Haag),  15  October  2014,  Plaintiffs  A  and  B  v. 

Stichting Lucas Onderwijs, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:12959. 

•  District  Court  The  Hague  (Rechtbank  Den  Haag),  11  October  2010,  Public  Prosecutor  v. 

Suspect, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2010:BN9983. 

•  District  Court  Gelderland,  Criminal  Law,  Multiple  Chamber  (Rechtbank  Gelderland, 
strafrechter,  meervoudige  kamer),  27  August  2014,  Public  Prosecutor  v.  Defendant, 
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2014:5457. 

•  District Court Amsterdam, Subdistrict Judge (Rechtbank Amsterdam, kantonrechter), 25 April 
2016, Plaintiff v. Defendants 1. the VU-VUMC Foundation and 2. the Association for Christian 
Higher Education, Scientific Research and Patient Care, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:2702. 

•  Appeal  Court  's-Hertogenbosch  (Gerechtshof  's-Hertogenbosch),  29  January  2024,  Public 

Prosecutor v. Suspect, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2024:260. 

•  Court  of  Appeal  The  Hague  (Gerechtshof  Den  Haag),  14  February  2023,  Appellant  1, 
Appellant 2, Stichting Radar, Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten (NJCM), 
Amnesty International (Netherlands section) v. State of The Netherlands (Ministry of Defence 
and Ministry of Justice and Security), ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2023:173. 

244 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Court  of  Appeal  Arnhem-Leeuwarden  (Gerechtshof  Arnhem-Leeuwarden),  7  December 

2015, Criminal Case Against X, Case No. 21-006277-14, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:9216. 

•  District  Court  Amsterdam,  Subdistrict  Court  (Rechtbank  Amsterdam,  kantonrechter),  10 

January 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:575. 

•  District  Court  Rotterdam,  Subdistrict  Court  Judge,  Single-Judge  Panel  (Rechtbank 
[Defendant], 

Rotterdam,  kantonrechter),  24  January  2014,  Stichting 
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2014:2368. 

[Plaintiff]  v. 

•  Central  Board  of  Appeal  (Centrale  Raad  van  Beroep,  CRvB),  9  May  2017,  Appellants  v. 

Mayor and Municipal Executive Board of Utrecht, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2017:1639. 

•  District Court Overijssel (Rechtbank Overijssel), 25 April 2023, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 v. State of 

The Netherlands, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2023:1459. 

•  Supreme Court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden), Civil Chamber, 12 January 2024, Case No. 

22/04380, ECLI:NL:HR:2024:25. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens, NIHR), 22 

November 2018, Applicant v. Axender BV (Defendant), Case No. 2018-123. 

•  Bureau  Discrimination  Affairs  Zaanstreek/Waterland 

(Bureau  Discriminatiezaken 
Zaanstreek/Waterland), no decision number available, short description of the case available 
here. 

•  Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens, NIHR), 24 

November 2023, Applicant v. Kinderopvang Zazou BV, Case No. 2023-125. 

•  Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens, NIHR), 27 

December 2021, Case No. 2021-157. 

•  Complaints  Department  of  the  Dutch  Review  Committee  on  the  Intelligence  and  Security 
Services (Afdeling Klachtbehandeling van de Commissie van Toezicht op de Inlichtingen- en 
Veiligheidsdiensten), 15 June 2022,  Decision regarding the complaint of Bits of Freedom about 
the actions of the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and the Military Intelligence and 
Security Service (MIVD) concerning bulk datasets. 

•  Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens, CvRM), 2 

April 2019, Applicant v. Café XO (Haarlem), Case No. 2019-29. 

Poland 

Court decisions 

•  Judgment of the District Court in Toruń (Wyrok Sądu Rejonowego w Toruniu), 6 August 2019, 

Case No. I C 469/18. 

•  Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw (Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie), 23 

August 2016, Case No. I ACa 1522/15. 

•  Judgment of the Regional Court in Łomża (Wyrok Sądu Okręgowego w Łomży), 22 March 

2017, Case No. I Ca 75/17, (no link available). 

•  Judgment  of  the  Regional  Court  in  Warsaw  (Wyrok  Sądu  Okręgowego  w  Warszawie),  18 

November 2015, Case No. V Ca 3611/14. 

245 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  in  Gdańsk  (Wyrok  Sądu  Apelacyjnego  w  Gdańsku),  14 

December 2017, Case No. I ACa 187/17, (no link available). 

•  Judgment  of  the  District  Court  for  Warsaw-Śródmieście  (Wyrok  Sądu  Rejonowego  dla 
Warszawy-Śródmieścia), 16 November 2010, Case No. VIII P 511/10, (no link available). 

•  Judgment  of  the  Regional  Court  in  Gorzów  Wielkopolski  (Wyrok  Sądu  Okręgowego  w 
Gorzowie Wielkopolskim), 27 November 2012, Case No. VI Pa 56/12, (no link available). 

•  Judgment of the Supreme Court (Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego), 9 May 2019,  Case No. III PK 

50/18. 

•  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  in  Poznań  (Wyrok  Sądu  Apelacyjnego  w  Poznaniu),  29 

February 2012, Case No. I ACa 1162/11, (no link available). 

•  Judgment of the Supreme Court (Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego), 22 November 2012, Case No. I 

PK 100/12. 

•  Judgment of the Supreme Court (Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego), 7 November 2018, Case No. II 

PK 210/17. 

•  Judgment of the Supreme Court (Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego), 7 November 2018, Case No. II 

PK 229/17. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

No such decisions identified. 

Portugal 

Court decisions 

•  Case No. QN87/2016/PCO16/2016/ACM, Information available in the 2018 Commission for 
Equality and against Racial Discrimination annual report on the situation of equality and non-
discrimination397. 

•  Lisbon  Court  of  Appeal,  Social  (Labour)  Section  (Tribunal  da  Relação  de  Lisboa),  17 

December 2014, Case No. 449/10.0TTLRS.L1-4. 

•  Coimbra  Court  of  Appeal,  Social  (Labour)  Section  (Tribunal  da  Relação  de  Coimbra),  12 

January 2024, Case No. 1689/23.8T8LRA.C1. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e 
Contra  a  Discriminação  Racial),  21  October  2022,  Case  Nos.  ACM225FE.2018.LM  and 
ACM226CE.2018.LM  (Information  available  in  2022  Annual  report  on  Equality  and  Non-
Discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  colour,  nationality,  ancestry  and 
territory of origin, currently not available online). 

•  Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e 
Contra  a  Discriminação  Racial),  9  December  2022,  Case  No.  ACM339CP.2019.TF 
(Information  available  in  2022  Annual  report  on  Equality  and  Non-Discrimination  on  the 

397 2018 Annual report on Equality and Non-Discrimination on the grounds of racial and ethnic origin, colour, nationality, ancestry and 
territory of origin, Commission for Equality and against Racial Discrimination, currently not available online. 

246 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

grounds  of  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  colour,  nationality,  ancestry  and  territory  of  origin, 
currently not available online). 

•  Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e 
Contra  a  Discriminação  Racial),  30  December  2022,  Case  No.  ACM213CE.2019.LM 
(Information  available  in  2022  Annual  report  on  Equality  and  Non-Discrimination  on  the 
grounds  of  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  colour,  nationality,  ancestry  and  territory  of  origin, 
currently not available online). 

•  Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e 
Contra  a  Discriminação  Racial),  30  December  2022,  Case  No.  ACM113CP.2019.TF 
(Information  available  in  2022  Annual  report  on  Equality  and  Non-Discrimination  on  the 
grounds  of  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  colour,  nationality,  ancestry  and  territory  of  origin, 
currently not available online). 

•  Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e 
Contra a Discriminação Racial), No. 21/2012 (pp.112-113) (date of the decision unknown). 

•  Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e 
Contra a Discriminação Racial), No. 13/2014 (pp.115-116) (date of the decision unknown). 

•  Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e 
Contra a Discriminação Racial), 25 July 2019, Case No. ACM160FE.2018.TF (Information 
available in 2022 Annual report on Equality and Non-Discrimination on the grounds of racial 
and ethnic origin, colour, nationality, ancestry and territory of origin, currently not available 
online). 

•  Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (Comissão para a Igualdade e 
Contra  a  Discriminação  Racial),  10  December  2020,  Case  No.  ACM153FE.2017.TF 
(Information  available  in  2022  Annual  report  on  Equality  and  Non-Discrimination  on  the 
grounds  of  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  colour,  nationality,  ancestry  and  territory  of  origin, 
currently not available online). 

Romania 

Court decisions 

•  Court of Appeal Cluj (Curtea de Apel Cluj Napoca), Civil Decision No. 2658/A/2016, Case 

No. 6294/117/2014. 

•  Craiova Court of Appeals (Curtea de Apel Craiova), Judicial Decision No. 706, 19 May 2010, 

Case No. 8011/101/2009. 

•  Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureș), Decision No. 30/2017, 17 March 

2017, (no link available). 

•  Bucharest Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel București), Civil Decision No. 1293, 25 November 

2020, Case No. 4/57/2019, (no link available). 

•  High  Court  of  Justice  and  Cassation  (Înalta  Curte  de  Casație  și  Justiție),  Decision  No. 

1015/2020, Case No. 1067/45/2016, (no link available). 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 8 September 2021, Decision No. 648. 

247 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 17 February 2021, Decision No. 239. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 27 November 2019, Decision No. 875. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 17 June 2020, Decision No. 504. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 11 September 2019, Decision No. 536. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 22 March 2017, Decision No. 190. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 13 April 2022, Decision No. 255. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 11 December 2018, Decision No. 489. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 23 August 2023, Decision No. 412. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 22 March 2023, Decision No. 132. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 21 October 2015, Decision No. 478. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 16 November 2022, Decision No. 699. 

•  National  Council  for  Combating  Discrimination  (Consiliul  Național  pentru  Combaterea 

Discriminării), 21 June 2023, Decision No. 298. 

Slovakia 

Court decisions 

•  Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic (Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky), 24 March 2015, 

Resolution No. 5 Cdo/56/2014. 

•  Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic (Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky), 5 December 

2017, Decision No. III. ÚS 288/2017 (through fitler III. ÚS 288/2017). 

•  District Court of Spišská Nová Ves (Okresný súd Spišská Nová Ves), 24 April 2014, Decision 

No. 1C/118/2010. 

•  Regional  Court  of  Košice  (Krajský  súd  v  Košiciach),  7  February  2018,  Decision  No. 

9Co/259/2017. 

•  Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic (Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky), 15 December 

2022, Decision No. 5Cdo/102/2020. 

•  Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic (Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky), 12 July 2023, 

Decision No. 5Cdo/220/2022. 

•  Regional Court of Košice (Krajský súd Košice), 28 June 2023, Decision No. 9Co/21/2022. 

248 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  District Court Bratislava I (Okresný súd Bratislava I), 4 May 2023, Decision No. 11C/48/2017-

132. 

•  District Court of Prešov (Okresný súd Prešov), 6 November 2023, Decision No. 29C/34/2023-

42. 

•  District  Court  of  Prešov  (Okresný  súd  Prešov),  24  November  2021,  Decision  No. 

15C/14/2016-557. 

•  Regional  Court  of  Prešov  (Krajský  súd  v  Prešove),  28  February  2023,  Decision  No. 

20Co/21/2022-680. 

•  District  Court  of  Prešov  (Okresný  súd  v  Prešove),  6  November  2023,  Decision  No. 

18C/96/2022-254. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

•  Slovak Trade Inspection – Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection in Trenčín (Slovenská 
obchodná inšpekcia – Inšpektorát Slovenskej obchodnej inšpekcie so sídlom v Trenčíne pre 
Trenčiansky kraj), 14 August 2023, Decision No. P/0059/03/2023. 

•  Slovak Trade Inspection – Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection in Trnava (Slovenská 
obchodná inšpekcia – Inšpektorát Slovenskej obchodnej inšpekcie so sídlom v Trnave pre 
Trnavský kraj), 24 July 2023, Decision No. P/0032/02/2023. 

•  Slovak Trade Inspection – Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection in Prešov (Slovenská 
obchodná inšpekcia – Inšpektorát Slovenskej obchodnej inšpekcie so sídlom v Prešove pre 
Prešovský kraj), 28 December 2023, Decision No. P/0202/07/23. 

•  Slovak Trade Inspection – Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection in Košice (Slovenská 
obchodná inšpekcia – Inšpektorát Slovenskej obchodnej inšpekcie so sídlom v Košiciach pre 
Košický kraj), 18 August 2023, Decision No. P/0065/08/23. 

•  State  School  Inspection,  School  Inspection  Centre  Prešov  (Štátna  školská  inšpekcia, 
Školské inšpekčné centrum Prešov), Report on the Results of School Inspection, 13 June 
2022, No. 77006/2021-2022. 

•  State School Inspection, School Inspection Centre Nitra (Štátna školská inšpekcia, Školské 
inšpekčné centrum Nitra), Report on the Results of School Inspection, 29 November 2022, 
No. 4020/2022-2023. 

Slovenia 

Court decisions 

•  Higher Court of Ljubljana, Civil Division (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani, civilni oddelek), Case No. 

II Cp 1016/2021. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

No such decisions identified. 

249 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Spain 

Court decisions 

•  High Court of Justice of Galicia, Social Chamber (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia, 

Sala de lo Social), 7 February 2020, Judgment No. 753/2020, Appeal No. 6082/2019. 

•  Social Court No. 3, León (Juzgado de lo Social N. 3, León), Judgment No. 00124/2023. 

•  High Court of Justice of Madrid, Social Chamber (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, 
Sala de lo Social), 14 July 2022, Judgment No. 9319/2022, Appeal No. 306/2022, Decision 
No. 517/2022. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

N/A – no such bodies exist. 

Sweden 

Court decisions 

•  Supreme  Court  of  Sweden  (Högsta  domstolen),  Equality  Ombudsman  (DO)  v.  Braathens 

Regional Aviation, 21 December 2021, Reference No. Ö 2343-18. 

•  Gothenburg District Court (Tingsrätt), Equality Ombudsman (DO) v. Region Västra Götaland 
(settlement reached on 6 April 2022 prior to reaching the Appeal Court), 26 May 2021, Case 
No. T 17336-19. 

•  Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen), Staffanstorp Municipality v. 

Citizen Appeal, 8 December 2022, Case No. 4120-21. 

•  Swedish  Labour  Court  (Arbetsdomstolen),  15  August  2018,  Equality  Ombudsman  v. 

Almega/Semantix Interpreters, Labour Law, Case No. 51/2018, AD 2018 No. 52. 

•  Swedish  Supreme  Court  (Högsta  domstolen),  Cases  T  3592-13  and  T  5507-12,  "Veolia," 

NJA 2014 p. 499 (I and II). 

•  Swedish Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen), 13 December 2023, SS v. Rapid Säkerhet, Labour 

Law, Case No. 71/2023. 

•  Swedish Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen), 20 December 2017, Judgment No. AD 65/2017, 

Case No A 163/16. 

Other sanctioning bodies’ decisions 

N/A – no such bodies exist.   

250 

 
 
 
 
[

l

C
a
t
a
o
g
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r
]

Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ANNEX VII – Consultation activities 
Three key consultation activities were carried out as part of this project. Country experts conducted 
interviews  with  stakeholders  in  their  respective  Member  States  to  gain  practical  insights  into  the 
application  of  national  legal  frameworks.  In  addition,  the  Study  Team  conducted  interviews  at 
national,  EU  and  international  levels  to  validate  the  findings  of  the  national  research,  to  gain  a 
broader understanding of the EU and international dimensions of the matter and to explore specific 
good  practices  in  more  depth.  Finally,  a  participatory  event  was  organised  in  Brussels  where 
stakeholders discussed findings, challenges and good practices and worked to develop practical and 
tailored considerations for different actors involved in tackling discrimination on the grounds of racial 
or ethnic origin and religion. This annex provides a comprehensive overview of these consultation 
activities. 

National interviews 

In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of how each legal system works in practice, and to 
identify  challenges  and  good  practices  in  relation  to  sanctions  for  racial,  ethnic  and  religious 
discrimination,  the  project's  country  experts  conducted  stakeholder  interviews  in  all  27  Member 
States. Each country expert was tasked with identifying relevant contacts representing each of the 
following stakeholder types:  

•  Judicial authority/court; 

•  Non-judicial authority, competent to issue binding sanctions in the field of discrimination; 

•  Civil society organisation; 

•  Social partner; 

•  Other (lawyer/law firm, ministry, academic expert, equality body – if not competent to issue 

sanctions).  

The  selection  of  stakeholders  made  by  the  country  experts  was  discussed  with  the  European 
Commission services and tailored to ensure the most valuable insights. Once the national selection 
was approved, the country experts arranged and conducted the interviews. They were provided with 
an accreditation letter from the European Commission, a questionnaire (in English), a template email 
to contact interviewees and a privacy statement. The country experts were responsible for sending 
reminders to stakeholders and for reporting any problems to the Study Team. There were variations 
in  the  number  and  types  of  stakeholders  interviewed  in  some  Member  States  due  to  a  lack  of 
responses or refusal to participate in the Study. 

A  total  of  108  interviews  were  conducted  by  the  country  experts  in  all  27  Member  States,  which 
corresponds to an average of 4 interviews per Member State. The number of interviews conducted 
per country and per type of stakeholder is detailed in the table below. 

MS  Judicial 

authority 

Other 
adjudicating 
body 

Civil 
society 

Social 
partner 

Other 

Lawyer 

Equality 
body 

Academic 
expert 

Other 

X 

X/X 

X/X 

AT 

BE 

BG 

HR 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

X 

X 

X398 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X 

X/X/X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X 

X399 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X400 

X 

X 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

MT 

X 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

X/X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

The results and findings of the national interviews were incorporated by the country experts into the 
country reports they were asked to complete, together  with the findings of the desk research and 
case-law review, and the results of the following have been incorporated into the present report. 

398 Ministry of Justice and Public Order. 
399 The social partner is mentioned as a civil society organisation in several instances of the FI country report. 
400 Representative of academia and law firm. 

252 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

National, EU and international level interviews 

In addition to the interviews carried out by the country experts in the Member States, the Study Team 
carried out 19 interviews at national, EU and international levels. The purpose of the interviews was 
to validate and enrich the data collected by the country experts through their national research, with 
a focus on identifying trends, challenges and good practices in the implementation of the RED and 
EED and the regulation and application of sanctions in discrimination cases. 

Of  these  19  interviews  conducted  by  the  Study  Team,  10  were  conducted  at  EU  or  international 
levels  to discuss trends,  challenges  and  good  practices  at  a wider  level, and a further  nine  were 
conducted at national level to deepen the understanding of some of the good practices identified and 
to get a very practical view of them. 

The tables below provide a list of the types of stakeholders interviewed for this purpose. 

EU level interviews 

1.  Representatives of equality bodies 

2.  Representative of EU body 

3.  Representative of international organisation 

4.  Representative of international organisation 

5.  Academic 

6.  Representative of NGO 

7.  Academic 

8.  Representative of an organisation specialised in data protection 

9.  Former representative of an equality body 

10.  National Supreme Court Judge 

National level interviews 

1.  Belgium – Representative of equality body 

2.  France – Representatives of NGO 

3.  Hungary – Lawyer 

4.  The Netherlands – Representative of a non-judicial authority 

5.  Spain – Representative of an NGO 

6.  Sweden – Representative of an NGO 

7.  Romania – Representative of equality body 

8.  Slovakia – Representative of an NGO 

9.  Lithuania – Lawyer/NGO 

The results and findings of these interviews were analysed and incorporated into a Good Practice 
Guide, which is published as a separate document from this report. The results of these interviews 
also  helped  to  prepare  and  feed  the  discussions  with  stakeholders  during  the  participatory  event 
organised in Brussels as part of this Study. 

253 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Participatory event 

A participatory event was organised in Brussels to conclude the consultation activities carried out in 
the context of this Study. The aim of this participatory event was to bring together key stakeholders 
to discuss different aspects of sanctions legislation and practice in discrimination cases covered by 
the RED and the EED.  

A  selection  of  EU  and  national  stakeholders  was  made  in  close  cooperation  with  the  European 
Commission. This list covered a wide range of stakeholders, including EU bodies and institutions, 
international  organisations,  representatives  of  public  administrations  and  ministries,  judges,  other 
adjudicating  bodies,  equality  bodies,  legal  practitioners,  social  partners,  academics,  think  tanks, 
trade unions, discrimination experts, civil society organisations and business representatives. 

The event took place on 4 November 2024 in Brussels and lasted all day, from 9:00 to 16:45. It was 
a fully in-person meeting and gathered 42 participants.  

The  following  table  provides  more  information  about  the  types  of  stakeholders  who  attended  the 
event: 

Type of stakeholder 

European Commission 

Study Team 

International organisation 

NGO (EU or national-level) 

Lawyer 

Court judge 

Labour inspectorate 

National equality body 

Academia 

Other 

Total number of participants 

Number of participants 

4 

6 

1 

11 

4 

4 

1 

2 

6 

3 

42 

This  participatory  event  followed  the  mapping  of  the  legal  framework  in  the  Member  States,  the 
analysis  of  the  application  of  national  sanctions  legislation  and  the  drafting  of  a  guide  bringing 
together all the challenges and good practices identified through the research at national and EU 
level. Participants were able to share their insights on what they consider to be the solutions to the 
main  challenges  in  relation  to  sanctions  for  racial,  ethnic  and  religious  discrimination,  as  well  as 
possible good practices that could be applied in more EU Member States. 

Such  good  practices  have  been  drawn  from  existing  practices  in  EU  Member  States,  in  other 
countries  outside  the  EU,  from  practices  in  other  areas  of  law  (e.g.,  data  protection,  consumer 
protection) or from other grounds of discrimination (e.g., age, gender, disability). Similarly, guidance 
has been derived from standards developed by the UN or the Council of Europe. 

The  discussions  focused  on  key  topics  related  to  the  regulation  and  application  of  effective, 
proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. In particular, the following topics were discussed: 

•  Legal framework: How to ensure adequate sanction regulations? 

254 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Bringing a case to court: What to consider when brining cases before courts? 

•  Obtaining redress:  

-  How to ensure that the type and amount/range of sanctions prescribed by law or imposed 

are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive?  

-  What characteristics/circumstances to consider when awarding effective, proportionate, 

and dissuasive sanctions?  

•  Enforcing sanctions: How to ensure adequate sanction enforcement? How can compliance 

with sanctions be monitored?  

•  Data collection and awareness raising: How to improve the collection of sanction data? 

How to enhance sanction awareness?  

Each topic was discussed based on three building blocks: 

•  Challenges for regulating/applying effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions; 

•  Good practices that could help address the identified challenges; 

•  Key considerations/recommendations for various stakeholder groups regarding their roles in 

overcoming the identified challenges401 . 

The results of the discussions fed into the Good Practices Guide published as a separate document 
from the present report. 

401 Under the RED/EED, Member States have a legal obligation to ensure that sanctions are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. 
Therefore, each State must ensure that the sanctions it prescribes and enforces meet these standards. As a result, according to some 
participants, considerations set forth for the national legislator should be given more weight. 

255 

 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

ANNEX VIII – Country legislation 

Austria 

Federal 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000138  

(Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz), 

Constitutional 

BGBl. 

Law 

Nr. 

1/1930, 

Federal  law  on  equal  treatment  (Bundesgesetz  über  die  Gleichbehandlung),  BGBl.  Nr.  66/2004, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/Bundesnormen/10008858/B-
GlBG%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2021.02.2024.pdf 

Federal  Law  on  the  Equal  Treatment  Commission  and  the  Ombud  for  Equal  Treatment 
(Bundesgesetz  über  die Gleichbehandlungskommission  und  die Gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft), 
577/1980, 
Nr. 
BGBl. 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10008466 

Federal Law on Equal Treatment in the Federal Sector (Bundesgesetz über die Gleichbehandlung 
im 
100/1993, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/Bundesnormen/10008858/B-
GlBG%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2021.02.2024.pdf  

Bundes), 

Bereich 

BGBl. 

des 

Nr. 

Overview of the provincial equal treatment and anti-discrimination laws (Ländergesetze) which are 
not covered in this study: 

•  Vienna:  

Law to Combat Discrimination (short: Vienna Anti-Discrimination Law) (Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von 
Diskriminierung, 
35/2004, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrW/20000171/Wiener%20Antidiskriminierungsgesetz%2c%20F
assung%20vom%2021.02.2024.pdf  

Antidiskriminierungsgesetz), 

short:  Wiener 

LGBl. 

Nr. 

Law  on  the  Establishment  of  Administrative  Bodies  in  Matters  of  Labour  Law  in  Agriculture  and 
Forestry in the Province of Vienna (short: Vienna Rural Labour Law Organisation Law) (Gesetz, über 
die Einrichtung von Verwaltungsorganen in den Angelegenheiten des Arbeitsrechts in der Land- und 
Forstwirtschaft  im  Land  Wien,  short:  Wiener  Landarbeitsrecht-Organisationsgesetz,  Wr.  LAOG), 
49/2022, 
Nr. 
LGBl. 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrW/20000667/Wr.%20LAOG%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2022.0
2.2024.pdf  

Law on the Service Regulations for Contract Staff of the Municipality of Vienna (short: Contract Staff 
Regulations  1995)  (Gesetz  über  das  Dienstrecht  der  Vertragsbediensteten  der  Gemeinde  Wien 
(Vertragsbedienstetenordnung 
50/1995, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrW/20000045/VBO%201995%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2022.0
2.2024.pdf  

1995), 

LGBl. 

1995 

VBO 

Nr. 

– 

•  Lower Austria:  

Lower Austrian  Equal Treatment  Law  (NÖ  Gleichbehandlungsgesetz,  short:  NÖ  GBG),  LGBl.  Nr. 
2060-0, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrNO/20000466/N%c3%96%20GBG%2c%20Fassung%20vom%
2021.02.2024.pdf  

Lower Austrian Anti-Discrimination Law 2017 (NÖ Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 2017, short: NÖ ADG 
24/2017, 
2017), 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrNO/20001157/N%c3%96%20ADG%202017%2c%20Fassung
%20vom%2021.02.2024.pdf  

LGBl. 

Nr. 

256 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

•  Burgenland: 

Law of 8 July 2005 on the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, ideology, 
disability, age or sexual orientation (short: Burgenland Anti-Discrimination Law) (Gesetz vom 8. Juli 
2005 über das Verbot der Diskriminierung auf Grund der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit, der Religion, der 
Weltanschauung,  einer  Behinderung,  des  Alters  oder  der  sexuellen  Orientierung,  short: 
Burgenländisches 
84/2005, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrBgld/20000359/Bgld.%20ADG%2c%20Fassung%20vom%202
1.02.2024.pdf  

Antidiskriminierungsgesetz, 

ADG), 

LGBl. 

Bgld. 

Nr. 

•  Upper Austria:  

Provincial  law  on  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  ethnicity,  religion,  ideology, 
disability, age, gender or sexual orientation (Upper Austrian Anti-Discrimination Law) (Landesgesetz 
über  das  Verbot  der  Diskriminierung  auf  Grund  der  ethnischen  Zugehörigkeit,  der  Religion,  der 
Weltanschauung, einer Behinderung, des Alters, des Geschlechts oder der sexuellen Orientierung, 
short: 
50/2005, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrOO/20000360/O%c3%b6.%20ADG%2c%20Fassung%20vom
%2021.02.2024.pdf  

Antidiskriminierungsgesetz, 

ADG), 

LGBl. 

Oö. 

Oö. 

Nr. 

•  Salzburg:  

Law of 1 February 2006 on equal treatment in the area of the province, municipalities and municipal 
associations  (Salzburg  Equal  Treatment  Law)  (Gesetz  vom  1.  Februar  2006  über  die 
Gleichbehandlung  im  Bereich  des  Landes,  der  Gemeinden  und  Gemeindeverbände,  short: 
Salzburger 
31/2006, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrSbg/20000441/S.GBG%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2021.02.20
24.pdf  

Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, 

S-GBG), 

LGBl. 

Nr. 

•  Styria:  

Law  of  16  May  2023  amending  the  Law  on  Equal  Treatment,  Equality  and  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination (Styrian Provincial Equal Treatment Law 2023 - StLGBG 2023) (Gesetz vom 16. Mai 
2023,  mit  dem  das  Gesetz  über  die  Gleichbehandlung,  Gleichstellung  und  das  Verbot  der 
Diskriminierung,  short:  Steiermärkisches  Landes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz  2023,  StLGBG  2023), 
LGBl. 
46/2023, 
Nr. 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrStmk/20001756/StLGBG%202023%2c%20Fassung%20vom%
2022.02.2024.pdf  

•  Carinthia:  

Law  of  23  September  2021  on  the  Equal  Treatment  of  Women  and  Men  and  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination (Carinthian Provincial Equal Treatment Law 2022) (Gesetz vom 23. September 2021 
über  die  Gleichbehandlung  von  Frauen  und  Männern  und  das  Verbot  der  Diskriminierung,  short: 
Kärntner  Landes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz  2022,  K-LGlBG  2022),  LGBl.  Nr.  70/2021, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrK/20000387/K-
LGlBG%202022%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2021.02.2024.pdf  

of 

on 

age, 

disability, 

Prohibition 

the 
belief, 

Discrimination 
sexual 

Ethnic 
Law 
gender, 
religion, 
age,  sexual  orientation  and  gender  (short:  Carinthian  Anti-Discrimination  Law)  (Gesetz  über  das 
ethnischen 
Verbot 
Behinderung, 
Zugehörigkeit, 
short:  Kärntner 
des  Alters,  der 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetz, 
63/2004, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrK/20000175/K-
ADG%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2010.04.2020.pdf?FassungVom=2020-04-10  

sexuellen  Orientierung  und  des  Geschlechtes, 
Nr. 

the 
orientation 

Weltanschauung, 

Diskriminierung 

der 
einer 

Religion, 

K-ADG), 

Grund 

LGBl. 

Basis 

and 

der 

der 

der 

auf 

on 

of 

257 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

•  Tyrol:  

Law  of  17  November  2004  on  Equal  Treatment  in  the  Provincial  Civil  Service  (Provincial  Equal 
Treatment Law 2005) (Gesetz vom 17. November 2004 über die Gleichbehandlung im Landesdienst, 
2005, 
Landes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz 
short: 
1/2005, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrT/10000244/L-
GlBG%202005%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2021.02.2024.pdf  

LGBl.  Nr. 

L-GlBG 

2005), 

Law of 1 February 2005 on the prohibition of discrimination (Tyrolean Anti-Discrimination Law 2005) 
(Gesetz  vom  1.  Februar  2005  über  das  Verbot  von  Diskriminierungen,  short:  Tiroler 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 
25/2005, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrT/20000317/TADG%202005%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2021.
02.2024.pdf  

LGBL. 

2005), 

TADG 

2005, 

Nr. 

17 

of 
the 

November 

2004 
and 

municipalities 

of 
service 
equal 
on 
Law 
of 
(Gemeinde- 
associations 
Equal  Treatment  Law  2005  -  G-GlBG  2005)  (Gesetz  vom  17.  November  2004  über  die 
Gleichbehandlung 
Dienst  
Gemeindeverbände, 
Gemeinde- 
der 
Gleichbehandlungsgesetz 
2/2005, 
2005), 
G-GlBG 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrT/20000001/G-
GlBG%202005%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2021.02.2024.pdf  

the 
in 
municipalities 

Gemeinden 

treatment 

2005, 

short: 

LGBl. 

und 

der 

im 

of 

•  Vorarlberg:  

Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  (Anti-Discrimination  Law)  (Gesetz  über  das  Verbot  der 
Diskriminierung, 
17/2005, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrVbg/20000085/ADG%2c%20Fassung%20vom%2021.02.2024.
pdf  

Antidiskriminierungsgesetz, 

ADG), 

short: 

LGBl. 

Nr. 

the  employment 

Law  on 
Landesbediensteten), 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrVbg/20000124/LBedG%202000%2c%20Fassung%20vom%20
22.02.2024.pdf  

law  of  state  employees  (Gesetz  über  das  Dienstrecht  der 
50/2000, 

LGBl. 

Nr. 

Law  on  the  employment  rights  of  municipal  employees  who  are  not  subject  to  the  Municipal 
Employees Law 2005 (GAG 2005) (Gesetz über das Dienstrecht jener Gemeindebediensteten, für 
die  nicht  das  Gemeindeangestelltengesetz  2005  (GAG  2005)  gilt),  LGBl.  Nr.  49/1988, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung/LrVbg/20000291/GbedG%201988%2c%20Fassung%20vom%20
22.02.2024.pdf 

Belgium 

Act of 10 May 2007 combating certain forms of discrimination (Wet van 10 mei 2007 ter bestrijding 
discriminatie),  B.S. 
van 
29016, 
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/wet/2007/05/10/2007002099/justel 

30  May 

bepaalde 

vormen 

2007, 

van 

p. 

Act  of  25  February  2003  combating  discrimination  and  amending  the  act  of  15  February  1993 
establishing a Centre for equal opportunities and the fight against racism (Wet van 25 februari 2003 
ter bestrijding van discriminatie en tot wijziging van de wet van 15 februari 1993 tot oprichting van 
een Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding), B.S. 17 March 2003, annulled 
by the Law of 10 May 2007, https://etaamb.openjustice.be/nl/wet-van-25-februari-2003_n2003012105.html  

Act  of  30  July  1981 sanctioning  certain  acts motivated  by racism  or  xenophonia (Wet  van  30  juli 
1981 tot bestraffing van bepaalde door racism of xenophobie ingegeven daden), B.S. 8 August 1981, 
www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/wet/1981/07/30/1981001359/justel 

Federal  Act  amending  the  Act  of  30  July  1981  criminalising  certain  acts  inspired  by  racism  or 
xenophobia  (Loi  tendant  à  réprimer  certains  actes  inspirés  par  le  racisme  ou  la  xénophobie), 
Moniteur belge of 30 May 2007, https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/loi-du-10-mai-2007_n2007002097.html 

258 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Ordinance  to  promote  diversity  and  combat  discrimination  in  the  Brussels  regional  civil  service 
(Ordonnance  visant  à  promouvoir  la  diversité  et  à  lutter  contre  la  discrimination  dans  la  fonction 
publique 
2008, 
https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/ordonnance-du-04-septembre-2008_n2008031461.html  

bruxelloise),  Moniteur 

September 

régionale 

belge 

16 

of 

Ordinance relating to the fight against discrimination and equal treatment in the employment field 
(Ordonnance  relative  à  la  lutte  contre  la  discrimination  et  à  l'égalité  de  traitement  en  matière 
d'emploi),  Moniteur  belge  of  16  September  2008,  https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/ordonnance-du-04-
septembre-2008_n2008031460.html  

Decree on the fight against certain forms of discrimination, (Décret de la Région wallonne relatif à la 
lutte  contre  certaines 
formes  de  discrimination),  Moniteur  belge,  6  November  2008, 
https://wallex.wallonie.be/eli/loi-decret/2008/11/06/2008204573 . The original title was ‘Decree on the fight 
against  certain  forms  of  discrimination,  including  discrimination  between  women  and  men  in  the 
fields of economy, employment and vocational training’. 

Framework  Decree  for  the  Flemish  equal  opportunities  and  equal  treatment  policy  (Decreet 
houdende een kader voor het Vlaamse gelijkekansen en gelijkebehandelingsbeleid), Moniteur belge 
of 23 September 2008. 

Decree of the French Community on the fight against certain forms of discrimination (Décret de la 
Communauté française relatif à la lutte contre certaines formes de discrimination), Moniteur belge 
of 13 January 2009. 

Decree on fighting certain forms of discrimination (Dekret zur Bekämpfung bestimmter Formen von 
Diskriminierung), Moniteur belge of 5 June 2012. 

Decree on the fight against certain forms of discrimination and on the implementation of the principle 
of equal treatment (Décret relatif à la lutte contre certaines formes de discrimination et à la mise en 
oeuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement), Moniteur Belge of 3 September 2010. 

Bulgaria 

Protection  Against  Discrimination  Act,  establishing  the  legal  framework for  preventing,  prohibiting 
and  combating  discrimination  based  on  sex,  race,  national  origin,  ethnicity,  human  genome, 
nationality,  origin,  religion  or faith,  education,  beliefs,  political  affiliation,  personal  or  social status, 
disability, age, sexual orientation, family status, property status, or any other ground provided for by 
law or an international treaty to which Bulgaria is a party (Закон за защита от дискриминация), 
State Gazette No: 86/2003, last amended SG No: 84/2023, https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2135472223   

Criminal  Code,  establishing  criminal  liability  for  crimes  based  on  racial,  xenophobic  or  sexual-
orientation-linked motives or because of the race, skin colour, origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion, 
political affiliations or sexual orientation of the victim (Наказателен кодекс), SG No: 26/1968, last 
amended SG No: 84/2023, https://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529   

Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act, establishing some generally relevant provisions (Закон 
за  административните  нарушения  и  наказания),  SG  No:92/1969,  last  mended  SG  No: 
106/2023, https://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2126821377  

Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  establishing  some  generally  relevant  provisions  (Граждански 
процедуален 
102/2023 
https://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135558368 

amended  SG  No: 

кодекс),  SG  No: 

59/2007, 

last 

Croatia 

Anti-discrimination Act (Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije), Official Gazette No. 85/2008, 112/2012. 

Labour Act (Zakon o radu), Official Gazette No. 93/2014, 127/2017, 98/2019, 151/2022, 46/2023, 
64/2023. 

259 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Criminal  Code  (Kazneni  zakon),  Official  Gazette  No.  125/2011,  144/2012,  56/2015,  61/2015, 
101/2017, 118/2018, 126/2019, 84/2021, 114/2022, 114/2023, 36/2024. 

Criminal Procedure Code (Zakon o kaznenom postupku), Official Gazette No. 152/2008, 76/2009, 
80/2011,  121/2011,  91/2012,  143/2012,  56/2013,  145/2013,  152/2014,  70/2017,  126/2019, 
126/2019, 130/2020, 80/2022, 36/2024. 

Act on the Rights of National Minorities (Zakon o pravima nacionalnih manjina), Official Gazette No. 
155/2002, 47/2010, 80/2010, 93/2011. 

Cyprus 

Law No 12/1967 Ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ο 
περί  της  Συμβάσεως  περί  τής  'Εξαλείψεως  Πάσης  Μορφής  Φυλετικής  Διακρίσεως  (Κυρωτικός) 
Νόμος 
1967)  Official  Gazette 
1967, 
https://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/arith/1967_1_012.pdf 

30  March 

566, 

Part 

τοΰ 

1, 

of 

Law  No  13(III)   Ratifying  Protocol  No  12  to  the  European  Convention  of  Human  Rights  which 
prohibits discrimination on any ground in relation to rights provided by law (Ο περί της Ευρωπαϊκής 
Σύμβασης  για  την  Προάσπιση  των  Ανθρωπίνων  Δικαιωμάτων  και  Θεμελιωδών  Ελευθεριών 
(Δωδέκατο  Πρωτόκολλο)  (Κυρωτικός)  Νόμος  του  2002),  Official  Gazette,  Part  1  (I),  No  3595,  of 
19/4/2002, https://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/arith/2002_3_013.pdf 

Law No 59(I)/2004 Equal treatment (Racial or Ethnic Origin) Law of 2004 as amended in 2006 with 
Law 147(I)/2006 to include the provisions on burden of proof which were not initially transposed (Ο 
Περί  Ίσης  Μεταχείρισης  (Φυλετική  ή  Εθνοτική  Καταγωγή)  Νόμος  του  2004  ως  τροποποιήθηκε  το 
2006),  Official  Gazette,  Part  I(I),  No  3828  of  31/3/2004  and  Official  Gazette  Part  Ι(I),  No  4098 
of  24/11/2006, https://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/indexes/2004_1_59.html 

Law 58(I)/2004 Equal Treatment in Employment Law of 2004 as amended in 2007 and 2009 (Ο Περί 
Ίσης Μεταχείρισης στην Απασχόληση και την Εργασία Νόμος του 2004 ως τροποποιήθηκε το 2007 
και  2009), Official Gazette,  Part  Ι(I),  No  3828  of 31/3/2004,  Official Gazette,  Part Ι(I),  No  4122  of 
18/5/2007 
24/7/2009, 
Part 
https://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/indexes/2004_1_58.html 

Gazette, 

Official 

4214 

and 

I(I), 

No 

of 

Law 42(I)/2004 The Combating of Racial and Certain Other Discrimination (Commissioner) Law (Ο 
Περί  Καταπολέμησης  των  Φυλετικών  και  Ορισμένων  Άλλων  Διακρίσεων  (Επίτροπος)  Νόμος  του 
2004), 
19/3/2004, 
https://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/indexes/2004_1_42.html  

Gazette, 

Official 

3822 

Part 

I(I), 

No 

of 

Czechia 

Act No 198/2009 Coll. on equal treatment and legal remedies against discrimination and amendment 
of some laws (Anti-Discrimination Act) (Zákon č. 198/2009 Sb., o rovném zacházení a o právních 
prostředcích  ochrany  před  diskriminací  a  o  změně  některých  zákonů  (antidiskriminační  zákon)), 
Official Gazette no. 58/2009, https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2009-198. 

Act  No  89/2012  Coll.  Civil  Code  (Zákon  č.  89/2012  Sb.  občanský  zákoník),  Official  Gazette  no. 
33/2012, https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2012-89 

Act No. 262/2006 Coll. Labour Code (Zákon č. 262/2006 Sb. Zákoník práce), Official Gazette no. 
84/2006, https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2006-262.  

Act No. 435/2004 Coll., on Employment (Zákon č. 435/2004 Sb. o zaměstnanosti), Official Gazette 
no. 143/2004, https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2004-435.  

Act No. 634/1992 on the protection of consumers (Zákon č. 634/1992 Sb., o ochraně spotřebitele), 
Official Gazette no. 130/1992, https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1992-634.  

260 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Act No. 561/2004 Coll. Act on Pre-school, Basic, Secondary, Higher Vocational and Other Education 
(Education  Act)  (Zákon  č.  561/2004  Sb.,  Zákon  o  předškolním,  základním,  středním,  vyšším 
odborném  a 
zákon)),  Official  Gazette  no.  190/2004, 
jiném 
https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2004-561. 

vzdělávání 

(školský 

Denmark 

Law 399/2024 of 5 April 2024 on Prohibition against Discrimination on the Labour Market (Lov om 
forbud mod forskelsbehandling på arbejdsmarkedet), https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2024/399 

Law  438/2012  of  16  May  2012  on  Ethnic  Equal  Treatment  (Lov  om  etnisk  ligebehandling), 
https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2012/438  

Law 374/2003 of 28 May 2003 on Ethnic Equal Treatment (Lov om etnisk ligebehandling), repealed, 
https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2003/374 

Estonia 

Equal  Treatment  Act  (Võrdse  kohtlemise  seadus),  Riigi  Teataja  of  01  January  2009,  revised  07 
March 2022, https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/122102021011?leiaKehtiv  

Estonian  Penal  Code  (Eesti  Karistusseadustik),  Riigi  Teataja,  RT  I,  06  July  2023,  40, 
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/106072023040?leiaKehtiv  

Labour Dispute Resolution Act (Töövaidluse lahendamise seadus), Riigi Teataja, RT I, 24 November 
2020, 6, https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/124112020006?leiaKehtiv  

The Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus), Riigi Teataja, RT 1992, 26, 
349, https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/115052015002?leiaKehtiv  

Finland 

Finnish 
https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1889/18890039001 

(Rikoslaki), 

Criminal 

Code 

Official 

Gazette 

19.12.1889/39, 

Finnish  Non-discrimination  Act, 
https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2014/20141325#a20.12.2022-1192 

(Yhdenvertaisuuslaki),  Official  Gazette  30.12.2014/1325, 

Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement and Cooperation on Occupational Safety and 
Health  at  Workplaces  (Laki  työsuojelun  valvonnasta  ja  työpaikan  työsuojeluyhteistoiminnasta  3), 
Official Gazette 20.1.2006/44 https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2006/20060044  

Administrative 
https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2003/20030434 

(Hallintolaki), 

Law 

Official 

Gazette 

6.6.2003/434 

France 

Law 2001-1066 of 16 November 2001, on combating discrimination (Loi 2001-1066 du 16 novembre 
2001 relative à la lutte contre les discriminations), Official Journal of the French Republic no.0267 of 
17 November 2001, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000588617 

Law no. 2008-496 of 27 May 2008 containing various provisions for adapting to Community law in 
the  field  of  anti-discrimination  (Loi  n°  2008-496  du  27  mai  2008  portant  diverses  dispositions 
d'adaptation au droit communautaire dans le domaine de la lutte contre les discriminations), Official 
Journal 
2008, 
of 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGIARTI000033975397/2017-01-29/  

Republic 

no.0123 

French 

May 

the 

28 

of 

Law no. 2016-1547 of 18 November 2016 on the modernisation of the justice system for the 21st 
century  (Loi  n°  2016-1547  du  18  novembre 2016 de  modernisation de  la  justice  du  XXIe siècle), 

261 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Official 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000033418805/  

French  Republic 

Journal 

the 

of 

no.0269 

of 

19  November 

2016, 

Law no. 2017-86 of 27 January on equality and citizenship (Loi n° 2017-86 du 27 janvier 2017 relative 
à l'égalité et à la citoyenneté), Official Journal of the French Republic no.0024 of 28 January 2017, 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000033934948 

Criminal 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/  

updated 

pénal), 

(Code 

Code 

last 

civil), 
Civil 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006070721/  

updated 

(Code 

Code 

last 

on 

Labour 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006072050/  

updated 

travail), 

(Code 

Code 

last 

du 

on 

1 

January 

2025, 

14 

September 

2024, 

on 

15 

January 

2025, 

General Code of Public Service (Code general de la function publique), last updated on 1 January 
2025, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000044416551/2022-03-01  

Germany 

Act implementing European Directives bringing into effect the principle of equal treatment (Gesetz 
zur Umsetzung Europäischer Richtlinien zur Verwirklichung des Grundsatzes der Gleichbehandlung 
vom 14. August 2006), Federal Law Gazette, 2006, Part I No. 39, issued on 17 August 2006, p.1897, 
https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav 
- 
__bgbl__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id=%27bgbl106s1897.pdf%27%5D__1711471195144 

General Equal Treatment Act of 14 August 2006 (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz vom 14. 
August 2006), Federal Law Gazette, 2006, Part I No. 39, issued on 17 August 2006, page 1897, last 
amended  by  Article  15  of 
I  No.  414, 
https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav- 
__bgbl__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id=%27bgbl106s1897.pdf%27%5D__1711471195144; 
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/BJNR189710006.html; 

the  Act  of  22  December  2023,  BGBl.  2023 

Criminal Code in the version promulgated on 13 November 1998 as last amended by Article 1 of the 
Act of 26 July 2023, (Strafgesetzbuch in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 13. November 1998 
(BGBl. I S. 3322), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 26. Juli 2023 (BGBl. 2023 I Nr. 203) 
geändert  worden  ist),  Federal  Law  Gazette  I  2023,  No.  203  (StGB),  https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/stgb/BJNR001270871.html  

Civil  Code  in  the  version  published  on  2  January  2002  (BGBl.  I  p.  42,  2909;  2003  I  p.  738),  last 
amended by Article 34 (3) of the Act of 22 December 2023 (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in der Fassung 
der Bekanntmachung vom 2. Januar 2002 das zuletzt durch Artikel 34 Absatz 3 des Gesetzes vom 
22. Dezember 2023 geändert worden ist), Federal Law Gazette 2023 I No. 411, https://www.gesetze-
im-internet.de/bgb/BJNR001950896.html 

Federal Civil Service Act of 5 February 2009 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 160), last amended by Article 
6 of the Act of 20 December 2023 (Bundesbeamtengesetz vom 5. Februar 2009 das zuletzt durch 
Artikel 6 des Gesetzes vom 20. Dezember 2023 geändert worden ist), Federal Law Gazette 2023 I 
No. 389, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/BJNR001270871.html 

Civil Servant Status Act of 17 June 2008, last amended by Article 5 of the Act of 20 December 2023, 
(Beamtenstatusgesetz vom 17. Juni 2008 (BGBl. I S. 1010), das zuletzt durch Artikel 5 des Gesetzes 
vom 20. Dezember 2023 (BGBl. 2023 I Nr. 389) geändert worden ist), Federal Law Gazette 2023 I 
No. 389, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/BJNR001270871.html 

Limited Liability Companies Act (Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung), 
Federal Law Gazette III, Index No. 4123-1, last amended by Article 5 of the Act of 15 July 2022, 
Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1146, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gmbhg/englisch_gmbhg.html 

262 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Courts Constitution Act in the version published on 9 May 1975, BGBl. I p. 1077, last amended by 
Article 14a of the Act of 27 March 2024, BGBl. 2024 I No. 109 (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz in der 
Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 9. Mai 1975 (BGBl. I S. 1077), das zuletzt durch Artikel 14a des 
Gesetzes vom 27. März 2024 (BGBl. 2024 I Nr. 109) geändert worden ist), Federal Law Gazette 
2024 I No. 109, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gvg/BJNR005130950.html 

Code of Civil Procedure in the version published on 5 December 2005, BGBl. I p. 3202; 2006 I p. 
431; 2007 I p. 1781, last amended by Article 3 of the Act of 22 December 2023, BGBl. 2023 I No. 
411, (Zivilprozessordnung in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 5. Dezember 2005 (BGBl. I S. 
3202; 2006 I S. 431; 2007 I S. 1781), die zuletzt durch Artikel 3 des Gesetzes vom 22. Dezember 
2023  (BGBl.  2023  I  Nr.  411)  geändert  worden  ist),  Federal  Law  Gazette  2023  I  No.  411, 
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/BJNR005330950.html 

Greece 

Law 3304/2005 of 27 January 2005 on the Application of the principle for equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (Εφαρμογή της αρχής 
της  ίσης  μεταχείρισης  ανεξαρτήτως  φυλετικής  ή  εθνοτικής  καταγωγής,  θρησκευτικών  ή  άλλων 
πεποιθήσεων,  αναπηρίας,  ηλικίας  ή  γενετήσιου  προσανατολισμού),  Official  Gazette,  no  A 
16/27.01.2005, https://ministryofjustice.gr/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/94Nomos_3304_2005.pdf 

Law 4443/2016 of 09 December 2016 on the transposition of Directive 43/2000/EC on the application 
of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  irrespective  of  race  and  ethnic  origin,  and  the  transposition  of 
Directive  78/2000/EC  on  the  configuration  of  the  general  framework  of  equal  treatment  in 
employment  and  work  ((Ι)  Ενσωμάτωση  της  Οδηγίας  2000/43/ΕΚ  περί  εφαρμογής  της  αρχής  της 
ίσης  μεταχείρισης  προσώπων  ασχέτως  φυλετικής  ή  εθνοτικής  τους  καταγωγής,  της  Οδηγίας 
2000/78/ΕΚ για τη διαμόρφωση γενικού πλαισίου για την ίση μεταχείριση στην απασχόληση και την 
εργασία και της Οδηγίας 2014/54/ ΕΕ περί μέτρων που διευκολύνουν την άσκηση των δικαιωμάτων 
των  εργαζομένων στο πλαίσιο  της  ελεύθερης  κυκλοφορίας  των  εργαζομένων,  II)  λήψη αναγκαίων 
μέτρων συμμόρφωσης με τα άρθρα 22, 23, 30, 31 παρ. 1, 32 και 34 του Κανονισμού 596/2014 για 
την  κατάχρηση  της  αγοράς  και  την  κατάργηση  της  Οδηγίας  2003/6/ΕΚ  του  Ευρωπαϊκού 
Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου και των Οδηγιών της Επιτροπής 2003/124/ΕΚ, 2003/125 ΕΚ και 
2004/72/ΕΚ και ενσωμάτωση της Οδηγίας 2014/57/ΕΕ περί ποινικών κυρώσεων για την κατάχρηση 
αγοράς και της εκτελεστικής Οδηγίας 2015/2392, III) ενσωμάτωση της Οδηγίας 2014/62 σχετικά με 
την προστασία του ευρώ και άλλων νομισμάτων από την παραχάραξη και  την κιβδηλεία μέσω του 
ποινικού δικαίου και για την αντικατάσταση της απόφασης πλαισίου 2000/383/ΔΕΥ του Συμβουλίου 
και  IV)  Σύσταση  Εθνικού  Μηχανισμού  Διερεύνησης  Περιστατικών  Αυθαιρεσίας  στα  σώματα 
ασφαλείας και τους υπαλλήλους των καταστημάτων κράτησης και άλλες διατάξεις.), Official Gazette 
no. Α΄ 232/9.12.2016, https://www.gov.gr/sdg/work-and-retirement/equal-treatment/general/law-4443-2016-
against-discrimination-at-work-and-employment  

Law 3996/2011 of 05 August 2011, Reform of the Labour Inspectorate, regulation of Social Security 
issues and other provisions (Αναμόρφωση του Σώματος Επιθεωρητών Εργασίας, ρυθμίσεις θεμάτων 
Κοινωνικής  Ασφάλισης  και  άλλες  διατάξεις),  Official  Gazette  no  Α  170/5.8.2011, 
https://ypergasias.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/%CE%BD.-3996-2011-%CE%A6%CE%95%CE%9A-
%CE%91-170.pdf 

Law  2639/1998  of  02  September  1998,  Regulation  of  labour  relations,  creation  of  the  Labour 
Inspectorate and other provisions, (Ρύθμιση εργασιακών σχέσεων, σύσταση Σώματος Επιθεώρησης 
Εργασίας  και  άλλες  διατάξεις),  Law  2639/1998,  Official  Gazette  no  205/02.09.1998, 
https://www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/200142/nomos-2639-1998  

Hungary 

Act  II  of  2012  on  infractions,  infraction  procedure and the  infraction  records system  (2012.  évi II. 
Törvény  a  szabálysértésekről,  a  szabálysértési  eljárásról  és  a  szabálysértési  nyilvántartási 

263 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

rendszerről), Petty Offences Act, Official publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 00317-00378, available 
in EN at: https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/en/2012-2-00-00  

Act  V  of  2013  Civil  Code  (2013.  évi  V.  törvény  a  Polgári  Törvénykönyvről),  Civil  Code,  Official 
publication: Magyar Közlöny, pp. 02382-02663, https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1300005.tv    

Act CXC of 2011 on National Public Education (2011. évi CXC. Törvény a nemzeti köznevelésről), 
National  Public  Education  Act,  Official  publication:  Magyar  Közlöny,  pp.  39622-39695, 
https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/2011-190-00-00. 

Act  CXXV  of  2017  on  Sanctions  for  Administrative  Violations  (2017.  évi  CXXV.  Törvény  a 
közigazgatási  szabályszegések  szankcióiról),  Act  CXXV  of  2017,  Official  publication:  Magyar 
Közlöny no. 171, https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/2017-125-00-00   

Magyarország Alaptörvénye (Hungarian Fundamental Law), Fundamental Law, Official publication: 
Magyar Közlöny, pp.10656-10681, https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/2011-4301-02-00  

Act CXI of 2011 on the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (2011. évi CXI. Törvény az alapvető 
jogok  biztosáról),  Ombudsman  Act,  Official  publication:  Magyar  Közlöny,  pp.  25435-25449, 
https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/2011-111-00-00  

Act CXXV of 2003 on equal treatment and the promotion of equal opportunities (2003. évi CXXV. 
Törvény  az  egyenlő bánásmódról  és  az  esélyegyenlőség előmozdításáról),  Equal  Treatment  Act, 
Official  publication:  Magyar  Közlöny  no.  2003/157,  28  December  2003,  pp.13044-13055, 
https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a0300125.tv. 

Act  CLV  of  1997  on  consumer  protection  (1997.  évi  CLV.  Törvény  a  fogyasztóvédelemről), 
Consumer  Protection  Act,  Official  publication:  Magyar  Közlöny  no.  1997/119,  pp.09558-09569, 
https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/1997-155-00-00  

Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code (2012. évi I. törvény a munka törvénykönyvéről), Labour Code, 
Official 
00257-00317, 
https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1200001.tv  

publication: 

Közlöny, 

Magyar 

pp. 

Ireland 

Employment 
https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1998/act/21/revised/en/html (consolidated version, as amended) 

Number 

Equality 

1998, 

Act 

21 

of 

1998, 

Equal Status Act 2000, Number 8 of 2000, https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2000/act/8/revised/en/html 
(consolidated version, as amended) 

Unfair 
1977, 
https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1977/act/10/revised/en/html (consolidate version, as amended) 

Dismissals 

Number 

Act 

10 

of 

1977, 

Employment 
https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1998/act/21/revised/en/html (consolidated version, as amended) 

Number 

Equality 

1998, 

Act 

21 

of 

1998, 

Equal Status Act 2000, Number 8 of 2000, https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2000/act/8/revised/en/html 
(consolidated version, as amended) 

Italy 

Law 205/1993, Urgent measures on racial, ethnic and religious discrimination (Conversione in legge, 
con  modificazioni,  del  decreto-legge  26  aprile  1993,  n.  122,  recante  misure  urgenti  in  materia  di 
discriminazione 
1993, 
https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1993/06/26/148/sg/pdf  

religiosa),  GU 

razziale, 

etnica 

148 

June 

no. 

26 

of 

e 

Law 654/1975, Ratification and implementation of the international convention on the elimination of 
all forms of racial discrimination, opened for signature in New York on  7 March 1966 (Ratifica ed 
esecuzione  della  convenzione  internazionale  sull'eliminazione  di  tutte  le forme  di  discriminazione 

264 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

razziale, aperta alla firma a New York il 7 marzo 1966), GU no. 337 of 23 December 1975 - Suppl. Ordinario, 
https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1975/12/23/337/so/0/sg/pdf  

Legislative Decree 215/2003 on equality of treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic 
origin (Decreto legislativo in attuazione della direttiva 2000/43/CE per la parita' di trattamento tra le 
persone indipendentemente dalla razza e dall'origine etnica), GU Serie Generale no. 186 of 12 August 
2003, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2003/08/12/186/sg/pdf  

Legislative  Decree  216/2003,  Implementation  of  Directive  2000/78/EC  on  equal  treatment  in 
employment  and  working  conditions  (and  of  Directive  No.  2014/54/EU  concerning  measures  to 
facilitate  the  exercise  of  rights  conferred  on  workers  in  the  framework  of  the  free  movement  of 
workers) (Decreto legislativo in attuazione della direttiva 2000/78/CE per la parità di trattamento in 
materia di occupazione e di condizioni di lavoro ((e della direttiva n. 2014/54/UE relativa alle misure 
intese ad agevolare l'esercizio dei diritti conferiti ai lavoratori nel quadro della libera circolazione dei 
lavoratori), GU no. 187 of 13 August 2003, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2003/08/13/187/sg/pdf  

Legislative Decree 286/1998 Consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and regulations 
on the status of foreigners (Testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell'immigrazione 
e norme sulla condizione dello straniero), GU no. 191 of 18 August 1998 - Suppl. Ordinario no. 139, 
https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1998/08/18/191/so/139/sg/pdf  

Legislative  Decree  4.2.2015,  Provisions  regarding  indefinite-term  employment  contracts  with 
increasing protections (Disposizioni in materia di contratto di lavoro a tempo indeterminato a tutele 
crescenti), GU no. 54 of 06 March 2015, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2015/03/06/54/sg/pdf  

Laws  on  the  protection  of  the  freedom  and  dignity  of  workers,  freedom  of  association,  and trade 
union activity in the workplace, as well as laws on employment placement (Norme sulla tutela della 
libertà e dignità dei lavoratori, della libertà sindacale e dell'attività sindacale, nei luoghi di lavoro e 
norme 
1970, 
https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1970/05/27/131/sg/pdf  

collocamento), 

no.131 

GU 

sul 

May 

27 

of 

Legislative decree 150/2011, Supplementary Provisions to the Civil Procedure Code Regarding the 
Reduction and Simplification of Civil Cognition Procedures (Disposizioni complementari al codice di 
procedura  civile  in  materia  di  riduzione  e  semplificazione  dei  procedimenti  civili  di  cognizione,  ai 
sensi dell'articolo 54 della legge 18 giugno 2009, n. 69. (11G0192), GU Serie Generale no. 220 of 21 
September 2011, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2011/09/21/220/sg/pdf  

Latvia 

Criminal  Law,  (Krimināllikums),  Official  Journal  Latvijas  Vēstnesis,  no.  199/200,  08  July  1998, 
Latvijas  Republikas  Saeimas  un  Ministru  Kabineta  Ziņotājs,  15,  04  August  1998, 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/88966-kriminallikums 

Law  on  Administrative  Liability,  (Administratīvās  atbildības  likums),  Official  Journal  Latvijas 
Vēstnesis, 225, 14  November  2018,  OP  no. 2018/225.1,  https://likumi.lv/ta/id/303007-administrativas-
atbildibas-likums  

The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (Latvijas Republikas Satversme), Official Journal Latvijas 
Vēstnesis, 43, 01 July 1993, Latvijas Republikas Saeimas un Ministru Kabineta Ziņotājs, 6, 31 March 
1994,  Valdības  Vēstnesis,  141,  30 
June  1922,  Diena,  81,  29  April  1993, 
https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=57980 

Criminal  Law,  (Krimināllikums),  Official  Journal  Latvijas  Vēstnesis,  no.  199/200,  08  July  1998, 
Latvijas  Republikas  Saeimas  un  Ministru  Kabineta  Ziņotājs,  15,  04  August  1998, 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/88966-kriminallikums 

Labour  Law  (Darba  likums),  Official  Journal  Latvijas  Vēstnesis,  105,  06  July  2001,  Latvijas 
2001, 
Republikas  Saeimas 
https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=26019 

un  Ministru  Kabineta 

09  August 

Ziņotājs, 

15, 

265 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Consumer Rights Protection Law (Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības likums), Official Journal Latvijas 
Vēstnesis, no. 104/105, 01 Avril 1999, Latvijas Republikas Saeimas un Ministru Kabineta Ziņotājs, 
9, 06 May 1999, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/23309-pateretaju-tiesibu-aizsardzibas-likums 

Education  Law  (Izglītības  likums),  Official  Journal  Latvijas  Vēstnesis,  no.  343/344,  17  November 
1998,  Latvijas  Republikas  Saeimas  un  Ministru  Kabineta  Ziņotājs,  24,  24  December  1998, 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/50759-izglitibas-likums 

Medical Treatment Law (Ārstniecības likums), Official Journal Latvijas Vēstnesis,  no. 167/168, 01 
July  1997,  Latvijas  Republikas  Saeimas  un  Ministru  Kabineta  Ziņotājs,  15,  07  August  1997, 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/44108-arstniecibas-likums 

The  Law  Support  for  Unemployed  Persons  and  Persons  Seeking  Employment  (Bezdarbnieku  un 
darba  meklētāju  atbalsta  likums),  Official  Journal  Latvijas  Vēstnesis,  80,  29  May  2002,  Latvijas 
Republikas  Saeimas  un  Ministru  Kabineta  Ziņotājs,  12,  27  June  2002,  https://likumi.lv/ta/id/62539-
bezdarbnieku-un-darba-mekletaju-atbalsta-likums 

Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons  -  Participants  to  a  Legal  Transaction 
(Fizisko  personu  —  tiesiska  darījuma  dalībnieku  —  diskriminācijas  aizlieguma  likums),  Official 
Journal  Latvijas  Vēstnesis,  199,  19  December  2012,  OP  numurs:  2012/199.1, 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/253547-fizisko-personu--tiesiska-darijuma-dalibnieku--diskriminacijas-aizlieguma-likums 

Human Genome Research Law (Cilvēka genoma izpētes likums), Official Journal Latvijas Vēstnesis, 
99, 03 July 2002, Latvijas Republikas Saeimas un Ministru Kabineta Ziņotājs, 15, 08 August 2002, 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/64093-cilveka-genoma-izpetes-likums  Latvijas  Vēstnesis,  199/200,  08  July  1998, 
Latvijas  Republikas  Saeimas  un  Ministru  Kabineta  Ziņotājs,  15,  04  August  1998, 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/49096-bernu-tiesibu-aizsardzibas-likums 

Law on the Protection of the Children's Rights (Bērnu tiesību aizsardzības likums), Official Journal 
Latvijas Vēstnesis, no. 199/200, 08 July 1998, Latvijas Republikas Saeimas un Ministru Kabineta 
Ziņotājs, 15, 04 August 1998, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=49096 

Advertising Law (Reklāmas likums), Official Journal Latvijas Vēstnesis, 7, 10 January 2000, Latvijas 
Republikas  Saeimas  un  Ministru  Kabineta  Ziņotājs,  3,  10  February  2000,  https://likumi.lv/ta/id/163-
reklamas-likums 

Draft Law on Amendments to the Criminal Law – Initial Impact Assessment (Likumprojekta ‘Grozījumi 
ziņojums), 
Krimināllikumā’ 
https://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS13/SaeimaLIVS13.nsf/0/55074885EDD3472FC225878B0043EE41?OpenDocu
ment#B 

novērtējuma 

sākotnējās 

ietekmes 

Lithuania 

Constitution  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  (Lietuvos  Respublikos  Konstitucija),  Referendum  on  25 
October 
https://www.e-
tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.47BB952431DA. 

Valstybės 

33-1014, 

žinios 

1992, 

1992, 

No. 

Law on Equal Treatment (Lietuvos Respublikos lygių galimybių įstatymas), Law No IX-1826, Official 
Gazette 
05 
https://www.e-
tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.0CC6CB2A9E42/asr  

December 

114-5115 

2003, 

No. 

of 

Law  on  the  Approval,  Entry  into  Force  and  Implementation  of  the  Labour  code,  Labour  code 
(Lietuvos Respublikos darbo kodekso patvirtinimo, įsigaliojimo ir įgyvendinimo įstatymas), Law No 
XII-2603,  Register  of 
legal  acts  No.  23709  of  19  September  2016,  https://www.e-
tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/f6d686707e7011e6b969d7ae07280e89/asr 

Law on the Approval and Entry into Force of the Criminal Code, Criminal Code (Lietuvos Respublikos 
baudžiamojo kodekso patvirtinimo ir įsigaliojimo įstatymas. Baudžiamasis kodeksas), Law No VIII-
1968, 
https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.111555/asr  

89-2741 

October 

Gazette 

Official 

2000, 

No. 

25 

of 

266 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Law on the Approval, Entry into Force and Implementation of the Code of Administrative Offences, 
Code  of  Administrative  Offences  (Lietuvos  Respublikos  administracinių  nusižengimų  kodekso 
patvirtinimo,  įsigaliojimo  ir  įgyvendinimo  tvarkos  įstatymas.  Lietuvos  Respublikos  administracinių 
nusižengimų  kodeksas),  Law  No  XII-1869,  Register  of  legal  acts  No.  11216  of  10  July  2015, 
https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/4ebe66c0262311e5bf92d6af3f6a2e8b/asr  

Law on the Approval, Entry into Force and Implementation of the Civil Code, Civil Code (Lietuvos 
Respublikos civilinio kodekso patvirtinimo, įsigaliojimo ir įgyvendinimo įstatymas. Civilinis kodeksas), 
Law  No  VIII-1864,  Official  Gazette  No.  74-2262  of  06  September  2000,  https://www.e-
tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.8A39C83848CB/asr 

Luxembourg 

Law  of  28  November  2006  1.  transposing  Council  Directive  2000/43/EC  of  29  June  2000 
implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin; 
2. transposing Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework 
for equal treatment in employment and occupation ; 3. modifying the Labour Code and introducing, 
in Book II a new title V on equal treatment in employment and occupation ; 4. modifying articles 454 
and 455 of the Criminal Code ; 5. modifying the Law of 12 September 2003 on disabled persons (Loi 
du 28 novembre 2006 portant 1. transposition de la directive 2000/43/CE du Conseil du 29 juin 2000 
relative à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement entre les personnes sans distinction 
de race ou d’origine ethnique; 2. transposition de la directive 2000/78/CE du Conseil du 27 novembre 
2000 portant création d’un cadre général en faveur de l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et 
de travail; 3. modification du Code du travail et portant introduction dans le Livre II d’un nouveau titre 
V relatif à l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de travail; 4. modification des articles 454 et 
455  du  Code  pénal;  5.  modification  de  la  loi  du  12  septembre  2003  relative  aux  personnes 
handicapées), Official Journal of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg of 6 December 2006, Memorial A 
27, https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2006/11/28/n1/jo. 

Law of 29 November 2006 amending 1. the amended law of 16 April 1979 laying down the general 
status  of  State  civil  servants  2.  the  amended  law  of  24  December  1985  laying  down  the  general 
status of municipal civil servants (Loi du 29 novembre 2006 modifiant 1. La loi modifiée du 16 avril 
1979  fixant  le  statut  général  des  fonctionnaires de  l’Etat  2.  la  loi  modifiée  du  24  décembre  1985 
fixant  le  statut  général  des  fonctionnaires  communaux),  Official  Journal  of  the  Grand-Duchy  of 
Luxembourg 
A207, 
https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2006/11/29/n1/jo. 

December 

Memorial 

2006, 

of 

6 

Constitution  of  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Luxembourg  (Constitution  du  Grand-Duché  de  Luxembourg), 
Official  Journal  of  the  Grand-Duchy  of  Luxembourg  of  22  October  1868,  Memorial  A23, 
https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/constitution/1868/10/17/n1/jo  

Law of 19 July 1997 amending the criminalisation of racism and incriminating revisionism and other 
acts  based  on  illegal  discrimination (Loi  du  19  juillet  1997  complétant  le code  pénal  en modifiant 
l'incrimination  du  racisme  et  en  portant  incrimination  du  révisionnisme  et  d'autres  agissements 
fondés sur des discriminations illégales), Official Journal of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg of 07 
August 1997, Memorial A54, https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/1997/07/19/n1/jo  

Malta 

Subsidiary  Legislation  452.95,  Equal  Treatment  in  Employment  Regulations  (Regolamenti  dwar 
Trattamenti Ugwali fl-Impiegi), as established by Legal Notice 461 of 2004 of 5 November 2004 and 
last amended by Legal Notice 274 of 2014, https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/452.95/eng. 

Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta, Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Att dwar l-Impiegi u r-
Relazzjonijiet Industrijali), as established by Act XXII of 2002 of 2 December 2002 and last amended 
by Act XLIII of 2023, https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/452/eng.  

267 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Subsidiary Legislation 460.15, Equal Treatment of Persons Order, (Ordni dwar Trattament Indaqs 
ta’ Persuni), as established by Legal Notice 85 of 2007 of 3 April 2007, and last amended by Legal 
Notice 427 of 2007, https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/460.15/eng.  

Chapter 460 of the Laws of Malta, European Union Act (Att dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea), as established 
last  amended  by  Act  VII  of  2012, 
by  Act  V  of  2003  of  16  July  2003  and 
https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/460/eng.   

Chapter 456 of the Laws of Malta, Equality for Men and Women Act (Att dwar l-Ugwaljanza għall-
Irġiel u n-Nisa), as established by Act I of 2003 of 9 December 2003 and last amended by Act XI of 
2015, https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/456/eng.  

Subsidiary  Legislation  456.02,  Procedure  for  Investigations  Regulations,  (Regolamenti  dwar  il-
Proċedura  ta’  Investigazzjoni),  as  established  by  Legal  Notice  316  of  2011  of  2  August  2011, 
https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/456.02/eng. 

The Netherlands 

Act  on  Working  Conditions 
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0010346/2025-01-01 

(Arbeidsomstandighedenwet),  Stb.2006/673,  BWBR0010346, 

Amendment  of  the  General  Equal  Treatment  Act  and  some  other  laws  implementing  Directive 
2000/43/EC  and  Directive  2000/78/EC  (Wijziging  van  de  Algemene  wet  gelijke  behandeling  en 
enkele  andere  wetten  ter  uitvoering  van  richtlijn  nr.  2000/43/EG  en  richtlijn  nr.  2000/78/EG),  TK 
2002-2003, 28 770, nr. 4, p. 2. 

Act  of  3  March  1881,  Criminal  Code 
https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0001854&z=2024-01-01&g=2024-01-01. 

(Wetboek  van  Strafrecht),  Stb.  1881,  35, 

-

Act of 4 June 1992, on general rules of administrative law (General administrative law act) (Wet van 
4 juni 1992, houdende algemene regels van bestuursrecht (Algemene wet bestuursrecht), Stb. 1992, 
315 of 30 June 1992, https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0005537&z=2024-05-01&g=2024-05-01. 

Act of 2 March 1994, on general rules for the protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, 
belief, political preference, race, gender, nationality, hetero- or homosexual orientation or civil status 
(General Equal Treatment Act), (Wet van 2 maart 1994, houdende algemene regels ter bescherming 
tegen discriminatie op grond van godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, 
nationaliteit,  hetero-  of  homoseksuele  gerichtheid  of  burgerlijke  staat  (Algemene  wet  gelijke 
behandeling) Stb. 1994-230 of 31 March 1994, https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006502/2020-01-01/0.  

Civil  Servants  Act  of  15  March  1930  (Ambtenarenwet),  Stb.  2016-148  of  22  Avril  2016, 
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001947/2022-08-01/0/informatie#tab-wijzigingenoverzicht. 

Act of 4 July 2014 amending the Civil Code and the General Equal Treatment Act with regard to civil 
registrars who discriminate within the meaning of the General Equal Treatment Act (Wet van 4 juli 
2014  tot  tot  wijziging  van  het  Burgerlijk  Wetboek  en  de  Algemene  wet  gelijke  behandeling  met 
betrekking  tot  ambtenaren  van  de  burgerlijke  stand  die  onderscheid  maken  als  bedoeld  in  de 
Algemene 
260, 
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2014-260.html  

behandeling), 

Staatsblad 

gelijke 

2014, 

wet 

nr 

Act of 21 May 2015 amending the General Equal Treatment Act in relation to the cancellation of the 
single-fact construction in the General Equal Treatment Act (Wet van 21 mei 2015 tot wijziging van 
de Algemene wet gelijke behandeling in verband met het annuleren van de enkele-feitconstructie in 
wet 
de 
200, 
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2015-200.html  

behandeling), 

Staatsblad 

Algemene 

gelijke 

2015, 

Act of 14 June 2014 amending various laws in connection with the reform of dismissal law, amending 
the legal position of flex workers and amending various laws in connection with the amendment of 
the Unemployment Act, the extension of the opening of the Income Provision for Older Unemployed 
Persons  Act  and  the  restriction  of  access  to  the  Income  Provision  for  Older  and  Partially 

268 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Incapacitated Unemployed Workers Act (Work and Security Act) (Wet van 14 juni 2014 tot wijziging 
van  verschillende  wetten  in  verband  met  de  hervorming  van  het  ontslagrecht,  wijziging  van  de 
rechtspositie van flexwerkers en wijziging van verschillende wetten in verband met het aanpassen 
van  de  Werkloosheidswet,  het  verruimen  van  de  openstelling  van  de  Wet  inkomensvoorziening 
oudere  werklozen  en  de  beperking  van  de  toegang  tot  de  Wet  inkomensvoorziening  oudere  en 
gedeeltelijk arbeidsongeschikte werkloze werknemers (Wet werk en zekerheid)), Staatsblad 2014, 
216, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2014-216.html 

Poland 

Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997, (Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 
2 kwietnia 1997 r.), https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/polski/kon1.html 

Act  on  the  Implementation  of  Certain  Provisions  of  the  European  Union  in  the  Field  of  Equal 
Treatment of 3 December 2010 (Equal Treatment Act) (Ustawa z dnia 3 grudnia 2010 r. o wdrożeniu 
niektórych przepisów Unii Europejskiej w zakresie równego traktowania), Official Law Journal 2010 
no. 254 item. 1700, https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu20102541700. 

Act on the Labour Code of 26 June 1974 (Labour Code) (Ustawa z dnia 26 czerwca 1974 r. Kodeks 
pracy), 
141, 
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu19740240141   

Journal 

Official 

1974 

item. 

Law 

no. 

24 

Act  on  the  Civil  Code  of  23  April  1964  (Civil  Code)  (Ustawa  z  dnia  23  kwietnia  1964  r.  Kodeks 
cywilny), 
93, 
Law 
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu19640160093. 

Journal 

Official 

1964 

item 

no 

16 

Act  on  Petty  Crimes  of 20 May  1971  (Petty  Crimes  Act)  (Ustawa  z  dnia 20 maja 1971 r.  Kodeks 
wykroczeń), 
115, 
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu19710120114. 

Journal 

Official 

1971 

item 

Law 

no. 

12 

Act  on  the  Administrative  Procedure  Code  of  14  June  1960  (Administrative  Procedure  Code) 
(Ustawa z dnia 14 czerwca 1960 r. Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego), Official Law Journal 
1960 no. 30 item 168, https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu19600300168. 

Portugal 

Law No 93/2017 of 23 August 2017, establishing the legal framework for preventing, prohibiting and 
combating discrimination based on racial and ethnic origin, colour, nationality, descent and territory 
of  origin  (Lei  n.  93/2017,  de  23  de  agosto,  que  estabelece  o  regime  jurídico  da  prevenção,  da 
proibição  e  do  combate à  discriminação,  em  razão  da  origem racial  e  étnica,  cor,  nacionalidade, 
ascendência  e  território  de  origem),  Official  Gazette  no.  162/2017,  Series  I  of  23  August  2017, 
https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/93-2017-108038372. 

Law no. 7/2009 of 12 February, which approves the Labour Code (Lei n.º 7/2009, de 12 de Fevereiro, 
que  aprova  o  Código  do  Trabalho),  Official  Gazette  no.  30/2009,  Series  I  of  12  February  2009, 
https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/legislacao-consolidada/lei/2009-34546475 

Law  no.  35/2014  of  20  June, General  Law  on  Labour  in Public Office  (Lei  n.º  35/2014,  de  20  de 
Junho, Lei Geral do Trabalho em Funções Públicas), Official Gazette no. 117/2014, Series I of 20 
June 2014, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/legislacao-consolidada/lei/2014-57466875  

Law no. 3/2011 of 15 February (Lei n.º 3/2011, de 15 de Fevereiro), Official Gazette 32/2011, Series 
I of 15 February 2011, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/3-2011-279786 

Law no. 18/2004 of 11 May, Principle of Equal Treatment (Lei n.º 18/2004, de 11 de Maio, Princípio 
da  Igualdade  de  Tratamento),  Official  Gazette  14/2004,  Series  I  of  17  January  2004, 
https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/18-2004-604629 

269 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Decree-Law no. 433/82 of 27 October, General Regime for Administrative Offences (Decreto-Lei n.º 
433/82,  de  27  de  Outubro,  Regime Geral  das  Contraordenações),  Official  Gazette  no.  249/1982, 
Series  I  of  27  October  1982,  https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/legislacao-consolidada/decreto-lei/1982-
34484875. 

Law 107/2009 of 14 September, Procedural regime applicable to labour and social security offences 
(Lei n.º 107/2009, de 14 de Setembro, Regime processual aplicável às contra-ordenações laborais 
e  de  segurança  social),  Official  Gazette  no.  178/2009,  Series  I  of  14  September  2009, 
https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/legislacao-consolidada/lei/2009-62059578 

Romania 

Government  Ordinance  137/2000  regarding  the  prevention  and  the  punishment  of  all  forms  of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor 
de 
discriminare),  Official  Gazette 
2007, 
https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/24129 

no.99,  Series 

February 

from 

8 

I 

Law no. 286 of 17 July 2009 on the Criminal Code (Legea nr. 286/2009 privind Codul penal), Official 
Gazette no. 510 from 24 July 2009, https://legislatie.just.ro/public/detaliidocument/109855   

Law 448/2006 on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities (Legea privind 
protecția și promovarea drepturilor persoanelor cu handicap), Official Gazette no. 1 from 3 January 
2008, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/77815  

Law 53 of 24 January 2003 on the Labour Code (Legea nr. 53/2003 privind Codul muncii), Official 
Gazette no. 341 from 18 May 2011, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/128647  

Law 287 of 17 July 2009 on the Civil Code (Legea nr. 287/2009 privind Codul civil), Official Gazette 
no. 511 from 24 July 2009, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/175630 

Slovakia 

Act No 378/2015 Coll. of 12 November 2015 on voluntary military preparation and amending and 
supplementing  certain  acts  (Act  on  voluntary  military  preparation)  (Zákon  č.  378/2015  Z.  z.  o 
dobrovoľnej  vojenskej  príprave  a  o  zmene  a  doplnení  niektorých  zákonov),  Legal  Gazette  No. 
103/2015 of 15 December 2015, https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2015/378/  

Act No 250/2007 Coll. of 9 May 2007 on consumer protection and amending Act of Slovak National 
Council No 372/1990 Coll. on offences as amended (Consumer Protection Act) (Zákon č. 250/2007 
Z.  z.  o  ochrane  spotrebiteľa  a  o  zmene  zákona  Slovenskej  národnej  rady  č.  372/1990  Zb.  o 
priestupkoch  v  znení  neskorších  predpisov),  Legal  Gazette  no.  114/2007  of  6  June  2007, 
https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2007/250/   

Act No 125/2006 Coll. of 2 February 2006 on labour inspection and amending and supplementing 
Act  No  82/2005  Coll.  on  illegal  work  and  illegal  employment  and  amending  and  supplementing 
certain acts (the Act on Labour Inspection) (Zákon č. 125/2006 Z. z. o inšpekcii práce a zmene a 
doplnení  zákona  č.  82/2005  Z.  z.  o  nelegálnej  práci  a  nelegálnom  zamestnávaní  a  o  zmene  a 
doplnení  niektorých  zákonov),  Legal  Gazette  No.  52/2006  of  9  March  2006,  https://www.slov-
lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2006/125/#poznamky.poznamka-2   

Act No 300/2005 Coll. of 20 May 2005 Criminal Code (Zákon č, 300/2005 Z. z, Trestný zákon), Legal 
Gazette 
of 
https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/20240315.html  

129/2005 

2005, 

July 

no. 

2 

Act No 365/2004 Coll. of 20 May 2004 on equal treatment in certain areas and on protection from 
discrimination and amending and supplementing certain acts (the Antidiscrimination Act) (Zákon č. 
365/2004 Z. z. o rovnakom zaobchádzaní v niektorých oblastiach a o ochrane pred diskrimináciou a 
o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (antidiskriminačný zákon)), Legal Gazette no. 153/2004 of 
24 June 2004, https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/365/20160102.html 

270 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Act No 5/004 Coll. of 4 December 2003 on employment services and amending and supplementing 
certain  acts  (the  Employment  Services  Act)  (Zákon  č.  5/2004  Z.  z.  o službách  zamestnanosti 
a o zmene  a doplnení  niektorých  zákonov),  Legal  Gazette  no.  4/2004  of  13  January  2004, 
https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/5/20240101.html  

Act No 311/2001 Coll. of 2 July 2001 the Labour Code (Zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce), 
Legal  Gazette 
130/2001 
https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2001/311/20240301.html  

2001, 

April 

no. 

of 

6 

Slovenia 

Implementation  of  the  Principle  of  Equal  Treatment  Act  (Zakon  o  uresničevanju  načela  enakega 
obravnavanja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia no. 50/04, 61/07, NPB1, 93/07 – UPB1, 
NPB2  in  33/16  –  ZVarD),  http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO3908&d-16544-s=2&d-16544-
o=2&d-16544-p=1&tab=analiticni&scrollTop=267 

Protection Against Discrimination Act (Zakon o varstvu pred diskriminacijo), Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Slovenia no. 33/16, 21/18, http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7273 

Employment  Relationship  Act  (Zakon  o  delovnih  razmerjih),  Official  Gazette  of  the  Republic  of 
Slovenia no.  21/13, 78/13, 52/16, http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5944&d-49685-
p=2 

Criminal  Code  (Kazenski  zakonik),  Official  Gazette  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  no.  50/12,  6/16, 
54/15, 
16/23, 
http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5050 

186/21, 

23/20, 

27/17, 

95/21, 

38/16, 

91/20, 

Protection of Public Order Act (Zakon o varstvu javnega redu in miru), Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Slovenia no. 70/06, 139/20, http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO3891# 

Class Actions act (Zakon o kolektivnih tožbah), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia no.  55/17 
in 133/23, http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7399 

Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences Act (Zakon o kazenski odgovornosti pravnih oseb), 
Official  Gazette  of 
in  57/12, 
http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO1259 

the  Republic  of  Slovenia,  no. 

  98/04,  65/08 

Spain 

Law no 15/2022, of 12 July for the equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 15/2022, 12 de Julio, 
integral para la igualdad de trato y la no discriminación), Official Bulletin no. 167, 13 July 2022, BOE-
A-2022-11589, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2022/07/12/15/con  

Law 19/2020, of 30 December on equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 19/2020, de 30 de 
diciembre, de igualdad de trato y no discriminación), Official Bulletin no 31, 5 February 2021, BOE-
A-2021-1663, https://www.boe.es/eli/es-ct/l/2020/12/30/19 

Law no 40/2015, of 1 October on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector (Ley no 40/2015, de 1 de 
octubre,  Régimen  Juridico  del  Sector  Público),  Official  Bulletin  no  236,  2  October  2015,  BOA-A-
2015-10566, https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2015-10566 

Law no 39/2015, of 1 October on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations 
(Ley 39/2015, de 1 de octubre, del Procedimiento Administrativo Común de las Administraciones 
Públicas),  Official 
BOE-A-2015-10565, 
https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2015/10/01/39/con  

2  October 

Bulletin 

2015, 

236, 

no. 

Royal Decree no 1/2013, of 29 November approving the Consolidated Text of the General Law on 
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2013, 
de 29 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el Texto Refundido de la Ley General de derechos de 

271 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

las personas con discapacidad y de su inclusión social), Official Bulletin no 289, 3 December 2013, 
BOE-A-2013-12632, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rdlg/2013/11/29/1 

Law  no  36/2011,  of  10  October  regulating  social  jurisdiction  (Ley  36/2011,  de  10  de  octubre, 
reguladora de la jurisdicción social), Official Bulletin no. 245, 11 October 2011, BOE-A-2011-15936, 
https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2011/10/10/36/con 

Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007, of 16 November, approving the revised text of the General Law for 
the  Defence  of  Consumers  and  Users  and  other  complementary  laws  (Real  Decreto  Legislativo 
1/2007, de 16 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley General para la 
Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios y otras leyes complementarias), Official Bulletin no 287, 
30  November  2007,  BOE-A-2007-20555, 
https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2007-
20555&p=20230629&tn=1#ci-23 

Law no 62/2003, of 30 December, on fiscal, administrative, and social order measures (Ley 62/2003, 
de 30 de diciembre, de medidas fiscales, administrativas y del orden social), Official Bulletin no. 313, 
31 December 2003, BOE-A-2003-23936, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2003/12/30/62/co 

Royal Decree no 5/2000, of 4 August, approving the Consolidaded Text of the Law on Penalties and 
Sanctions  of  the  Social  Order  (Real  Decreto  Legislativo  5/2000,  de  4  de  Agosto,  por  el  que  se 
aprueba  el  texto  refundido  de  la  Ley  sobre  Infraciones  y  Sanciones  en  el  Orden  Social),  Official 
Bulletin no 189, 8 August 2000, BOE-A-2000-15060, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rdlg/2000/08/04/5/con 

Sweden 

The  Act  (2003:307)  on  the  prohibition  against  discrimination  (Lag  (2003:307)  om  förbud  mot 
diskriminering  SFS  2003:307), Official  Journal  05  June  2003,  https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-
och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2003307-om-forbud-mot-diskriminering_sfs-2003-307/ 

The  Act  (2003:308)  amending  Act  (1999:130)  on  measures  against  discrimination  in  working  life 
based  on  ethnicity,  religion  or  other  belief,  (Lag  (2003:308)  om  ändring  I  lagen  (1999:130)  om 
åtgärder mot etnisk diskriminering i arbetslivet), SFS 2003:308, https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-
och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-1999130-om-atgarder-mot-diskriminering-i_sfs-1999-
130/ 

Act 

Discrimination 

The 
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/diskrimineringslag-
2008567_sfs-2008-567/  ‘The  2009  Discrimination  Act’.  An  unofficial  English  translation  of  the  2009 
Discrimination  Act  is  available  at  the  website  of  the  Swedish  Equality  Ombudsman  at 
https://www.do.se/choose-language/english/discrimination-act-2008567 

(Diskrimineringslagen), 

(2008:567) 

2008:567, 

SFS 

272 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

ANNEX IX – Tables of figures 

List of tables 

Table 1: Overview of completed stakeholder interviews .................................................... 23 

Table 2: Sanctions for discrimination as per area of law ................................................... 28 

Table  3:  Relevant  legislative  amendments  introduced  since  the  transposition  of  the  RED 
and EED ..................................................................................................................... 33 

Table 4: Overview of competent courts ............................................................................. 40 

Table 5: Overview of other adjudicating bodies ................................................................. 46 

Table 6: Overview of applicable sanctions per type (sanctions other than injunctive relief)
 ................................................................................................................................... 52 

Table 7: Overview of applicable sanctions per type (injunctive relief) ................................ 54 

Table 8: Overview of sanctions per objective .................................................................... 70 

Table 9: Overview of the amounts/ranges of fines ............................................................. 73 

Table 10: Unadjusted fines by legal area, country and N/L persons .................................. 84 

Table 11: Adjusted fines by legal area, country and N/L persons ...................................... 90 

Table 12: Unadjusted compensations by legal area, country and N/L persons ................. 99 

Table 13: Adjusted compensations by legal area, country and N/L persons ................... 102 

Table 14: Duration of imprisonment ................................................................................. 105 

Table 15: Circumstances to consider per area ................................................................ 109 

Table 16: Specific circumstances considered in imposing pecuniary sanctions .............. 113 

Table 17: Overview of third-party representation possibilities.......................................... 121 

Table 18: Overview of collective redress ......................................................................... 125 

Table 19: Overview of enforcement mechanisms ............................................................ 128 

Table 20: Overview of typically applied sanctions ........................................................... 146 

Table 21: Injunctive relief usage ...................................................................................... 151 

Table 22: Overview of organisations that typically issue sanctions ................................. 153 

273 

 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Table 23: Examples of awareness-raising activities on sanctions for discrimination ....... 176 

List of figures 

Figure 1: PLI for household final consumption expenditure, 2022 ..................................... 82 

List of boxes 

Box 1: Reasons for deviations from the selection criteria and/or number of cases............ 25 

Box 2: Article 15 RED, Article 17 EED ............................................................................... 27 

Box 3: Regulation of criminal law sanctions in specific equality/non-discrimination legislation
 ................................................................................................................................... 29 

Box 4: Regulation of civil law sanctions ............................................................................. 30 

Box 5: Regulation of administrative law sanctions ............................................................. 31 

Box 6: Examples of other relevant bodies ......................................................................... 50 

Box 7: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘criminal fines’ ........................ 56 

Box 8: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘administrative fines’ ............... 57 

Box 9: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘monetary compensation schemes 
(for material and immaterial damages)’ ...................................................................... 58 

Box 10: Examples of approaches towards the regulation of ‘imprisonment sentence’ ...... 59 

Box  11:  Examples  of approaches  towards  the  regulation  of  ‘declaring  a  decision, an  act, 
provision, or agreement null or void’ ........................................................................... 59 

Box  12:  Examples  of  approaches  towards  the  regulation  of  the  sanction  ‘terminating  the 
violation’ ..................................................................................................................... 61 

Box  13:  Examples  of  approaches  towards  the  regulation  of  the  sanction  ‘obligation  to 
perform certain actions’ .............................................................................................. 62 

Box  14:  Examples  of  approaches 

the  sanction 
towards 
‘reinstatement/restoration of discrimination’ ............................................................... 64 

regulation  of 

the 

Box  15:  Examples  of  approaches  towards  the  regulation  of  the  sanction  of  ‘publishing 
decisions’ .................................................................................................................... 65 

Box  16:  Country-specific  explanation  on  the  restriction  of  sanctions  to  certain  protected 
grounds ...................................................................................................................... 67 

274 

 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

Box 17: Member States with area-specific sanctions only ................................................. 68 

Box 18: Examples of additional factors determining the amounts/ranges of factors .......... 80 

Box 19: Cost-of-living index ............................................................................................... 81 

Box 20: Overview of amounts/ranges of compensations ................................................... 95 

Box 21: The role of guidelines in the Netherlands and higher courts’ case-law in Sweden
 ................................................................................................................................. 111 

Box 22: Examples of Member States with specific requirements to consider public interest 
of the prevention of future discrimination .................................................................. 116 

Box 23: Method for calculating sanctions ........................................................................ 119 

Box 24: ECSR ruling of 18 October 2023 in case European Roma Rights Centre v. Czechia
 ................................................................................................................................. 140 

Box  25:  Examples  of  equality  bodies  whose  competencies  to  conduct  research  and/or 
publish reports is set out in law ................................................................................ 141 

Box 26: Examples of national organisations with legal mandate to collect data on sanctions 
applied in discrimination cases ................................................................................. 142 

Box 27: Examples of reasons for not applying certain sanction types ............................. 150 

Box 28: Relevant case-law examples (injunctive relief) ................................................... 151 

Box 29: Sanction variability across different bodies for similar cases .............................. 154 

Box 30: Consistency of sanctions among similar bodies ................................................. 155 

Box 31: Example of circumstances considered by an adjudicating body ......................... 157 

Box  32:  Cases  illustrating  the  approach  towards  the  consideration  of  motive  and 
discriminatory bias .................................................................................................... 158 

Box  33:  Cases  illustrating  approaches  towards  cases  entailing  the  use  of  automated 
systems or AI ............................................................................................................ 159 

Box 34: Cases illustrating approach towards compensation for immaterial damages ..... 161 

Box 35: Application of minimum/maximum sanctions – country-specific examples ......... 162 

Box  36:  Case  illustrating  the  approach  where  sanctions  are  similar  regardless  of  who 
initiates the claim ...................................................................................................... 167 

Box 37: Example from the Netherlands illustrating legal standing limitations in practice . 168 

Box 38: Examples of types of sanctions in class actions ................................................. 169 

275 

 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds  

Box 39: Added value of collective proceedings ............................................................... 171 

Box 40: Data collection and analysis practices of organisations not legally obliged to carry 
out such activities ..................................................................................................... 174 

Box 41: Italian example of the potential influence of case law in the development of sanctions 
for discrimination ...................................................................................................... 181 

Box 42: French example of sanctions imposed in harassment cases ............................. 184 

Box 43: Examples of legal challenges identified .............................................................. 186 

Box 44: Examples of practical challenges ....................................................................... 191 

Box 45: Good practices linked to the legal framework ..................................................... 198 

Box 46: Good practices linked to practical application ..................................................... 202 

Box 47: Good practices related to data collection ............................................................ 205 

276 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on sanctions for discrimination on racial/ethnic/religious grounds 

277