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)
Date: 2026-07-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: access to the courts, age discrimination, application of EU law, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, gender mainstreaming, intersectional discrimination, racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.7.2026  COM(2026) 364 final  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)   
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  (‘the 
Directives’) (1) are the cornerstones of the EU’s efforts to build a Union of Equality. 
The Racial Equality Directive requires people to be treated equally in the fields of 
employment  and  vocational  training,  education,  social  protection  (including  social 
security and healthcare), and access to and supply of goods and services (including 
housing),  regardless  of  their  racial  or  ethnic  origin.  The  Employment  Equality 
Directive requires people to be treated equally in employment and vocational training, 
regardless of their religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. 

The Directives implement the fundamental values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty 
on  European  Union.  Since  2000,  they  have  played  a  key  role  in  ensuring  that  all 
individuals  can  participate  fully  in  economic,  cultural  and  social  life,  free  from 
discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, 
age or sexual orientation. 

A  significant  development  over  this  period  has  been  the  role  of  the  Court  of 
Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case-law in clarifying the fundamental 
concepts  of  non-discrimination  law.  In  particular,  through  the  many  preliminary 
rulings  it  has  issued  at  the  request  of  national  courts,  the  CJEU  has  significantly 
enhanced  anti-discrimination  protection  across  the  EU.  The  minimal  challenges 
reported  by  Member  States  in  implementing  the  core  principles  of  EU  non-
discrimination law confirm the enhanced clarity achieved through CJEU rulings. 

Nevertheless, more than 25 years after the adoption of the Directives, ensuring that 
individuals have effective recourse to the right to non-discrimination and equal 
treatment remains a considerable challenge. 

Every five years, the Commission must provide information on the application of the 
Directives  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council (2).  This  report  fulfils  that 
obligation, while also illustrating the progress made and the ongoing challenges faced 
in applying and enforcing non-discrimination law. It covers the period from 2021 to 
2025  and  outlines  the  developments  since  the  last  report,  which  was  published  in 
March 2021 (3). 

This report follows up on the EU’s equality action plans and strategies, in particular, 
the EU anti-racism strategy 2026-2030 (4) and the LGBTIQ+ equality strategy 2026-
2030 (5).  These  strategies  stress  that  ensuring  effective  application  of  the EU  anti-

(1)  OJ  L 180,  19.7.2000, p. 22,  ELI:  http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/43/oj;  OJ  L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16, 

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/78/oj. 

(2)  See  Article 17(1)  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  Article 19(1)  of  the  Employment  Equality 

Directive. 

(3)  COM(2021) 139 final and SWD(2021) 63 final of 19 March 2021, EUR-Lex - 52021DC0139 - EN - 

EUR-Lex and EUR-Lex - 52021SC0063 - EN - EUR-Lex. 

(4)  COM(2026) 12 final of 20 January 2026, EUR-Lex - 52026DC0012 - EN - EUR-Lex. 

(5)  COM(2025) 725 final of 8 October 2025, EUR-Lex - 52025DC0725 - EN - EUR-Lex. See also other 
relevant strategies: COM(2020) 620 final of 7 October 2020, EUR-Lex - 52020DC0620 - EN - EUR-
Lex; COM(2021) 101 final of 3 March 2021, EUR-Lex - 52021DC0101 - EN - EUR-Lex, COM(2026) 
113 final of 5 March 2026, EUR-Lex - 52026DC0113 - EN - EUR-Lex, COM(2026) 541 final of 6 May 
2026, EUR-Lex - 52026DC0541 - EN - EUR-Lex. 

 
 
 
discrimination  law  is  a  Commission  priority  and  emphasise  the  importance  of 
effective sanctions against discrimination. The report is a key action for delivering on 
the anti-racism strategy’s commitment to  ensuring the effective implementation  of 
the  Racial  Equality  Directive,  in  particular  by  focusing  on  its  enforcement  and 
application  in  cases  of  algorithmic  discrimination.  The  report  also  discusses  the 
application of the Directives to address structural discrimination. 

Victims rarely report discrimination to institutions. According to various surveys (6) 
conducted by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the reporting rate ranges 
from 5% to 11%. This under-reporting results mostly from the belief among victims 
that reporting discrimination will not lead to any action or change (7). 

The lack of trust in the existing processes and systems for reporting discrimination is 
paralleled  by  the  perceived  limited  progress  made  on  combating  discrimination (8) 
since the last report on the Directives. 

The general population continues to view discrimination as widespread in the EU (9). 
50%  of  respondents  to  the  2022  EU  Minorities  and  Discrimination  Survey  (EU-
MIDIS III) reported feeling discriminated against on any ground (10) in the five years 
preceding the survey. Experiences of racial discrimination (11) alone have increased 
between 2016 and 2023 (12). 

The last report on the application of the Directives already highlighted several 
key  issues.  These  included  victims’  fear  of  reprisals,  inadequate  levels  of 
compensation, difficulty  gathering evidence and a lack of awareness  by victims of 
their rights and the support services available to them, e.g. through equality bodies. It 
also  pointed  to  the  uneven  promotion  of  equality  among  the  general  public  and 
national institutions, which varied depending on the Member State. 

(6)  FRA, Being Black in the EU  – Experiences of people of African descent, Being Muslim in the EU – 
Experiences of Muslims, Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism – EU survey of 
Jewish people, LGBTIQ Equality at a Crossroads – Progress and challenges, Roma in 10 European 
Countries – Main results – Roma survey 2021, Rights of Roma and Travellers in 13 European Countries 
– Perspectives from the Roma survey 2024, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
2021-2025. 

(7)  38%  of  respondents  to  the  EU-MIDIS  III  survey;  39%  of respondents  to  the  Jewish  survey;  49%  of 

respondents to the LGBTQI III survey; 30% of respondents to the 2021 Roma survey. 

(8)  FRA (see note 6). 

(9)  See: European Commission, ‘2023 Eurobarometer on discrimination in the EU’. 

(10)  Discrimination on the basis of at least one of the following grounds: skin colour, ethnic or immigrant 
background,  religion  or  religious  beliefs,  age,  sex/gender,  disability,  sexual  orientation  and  gender 
identity or gender expression. 

(11)  For the purpose of the survey, racial discrimination was understood as discrimination on the basis of at 
least one of the following three grounds: skin colour, ethnic or immigrant background and religion or 
religious belief. 

(12)  FRA, Being Black in the EU  – Experiences of people of African descent, Being Muslim in the EU – 
Experiences  of  Muslims,  p.  44,  Experiences  and  perceptions  of  antisemitism  –  Second  survey  on 
discrimination  and  hate  crime  against  Jews  in  the  EU,  p.  59,  Jewish  People’s  Experiences  and 
Perceptions of Antisemitism – EU survey of Jewish people, p. 77. 

2 

 
 
Building on the previous report, this new report provides an overview of the persisting 
and  new  challenges  faced,  the  progress  made  and  the  good  practices  adopted  in 
applying the Directives since 2021. 

During  the  reporting  period,  the  EU  has  taken  concrete  steps  to  improve  the 
application  and  enforcement  of  the  Directives.  Most  importantly,  since  the  last 
report,  the  EU  has  adopted  the  Equality  Bodies  Directives (13)  to  strengthen  the 
national  bodies  responsible  for  promoting  equality  and  preventing  and  combating 
discrimination, including by better supporting individuals and groups discriminated 
against in accessing justice.  

The  Directives  require  Member  States  to  establish  effective,  dissuasive  and 
proportionate  sanctions  for  discrimination.  To  support  Member  States,  the 
Commission commissioned a study on the legislation and application of sanctions 
for  racial,  ethnic  and  religious  discrimination.  The  study  revealed  that  legal 
protection  and  long-term  prevention  of  discrimination  are  undermined  by  low  and 
symbolic  sanctions.  It  highlighted  the  need  for  more  effective  sanctions  that  fully 
compensate victims and promote lasting solutions, along with stronger enforcement 
and capacity-building for legal practitioners and civil society. 

In view of recent technological developments, including the rise of automated and 
artificial intelligence (AI) systems, the report also analyses the application of non-
discrimination  law  in  Member  States  in  cases  of  algorithmic  discrimination.  It 
demonstrates the need to build capacities and to establish mechanisms for effective 
cooperation between different enforcement bodies. 

This report draws on the results of targeted consultations (14). In response to tailored 
questionnaires, the Commission received contributions from all Member States and 
various  stakeholders  and  institutions,  including  the  EU  Agency  for  Fundamental 
Rights,  the  European  Institute  for  Gender  Equality  (EIGE),  11  equality  bodies,  2 
social partners, 17 civil society organisations and the European Network of Equality 
Bodies (Equinet). The statistics cited in this report are based on those responses. 

This  report  focuses  on  the  effective  application  and  enforcement  of  EU  non-
discrimination law by highlighting the importance of: 

–  equality bodies; 

–  effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions; 

–  improving access to justice and evidence for victims; 

–  empowerment and cooperation of stakeholders; and 

(13)  OJ  L,  2024/1499,  29.5.2024,  ELI:  http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1499/oj,  OJ  L,  2024/1500, 

29.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1500/oj. 

(14)  Between  May  and  July  2025,  the  Commission  conducted  targeted  consultations  using  an  online 
questionnaire that included both tailored questions about the implementation of the Directives and open-
ended  questions  to  enable  respondents  to  raise  any  additional  concerns.  The  questionnaires  were 
distributed to all Member States, the equality bodies in each Member State, European social partners 
consulted under Article 154 TFEU, and 57 civil society organisations. Stakeholders were encouraged to 
share the questionnaire with relevant parties at local, regional and national level. 

3 

 
 
–  the case-law of the CJEU. 

The ‘key takeaways’ set out at the beginning of each section summarise the report’s 
main findings. Additional text boxes provide examples of promising practices. 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE KEY ACTIONS SET OUT IN THE PREVIOUS REPORT 

The previous report highlighted that it is essential to enhance the visibility, role and 
independent functioning of equality bodies in order to address challenges in applying 
and  enforcing  the  Directives.  This  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  Equality  Bodies 
Directives following the Commission’s proposal. The Commission also identified a 
need for closer monitoring of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, while 
providing support in this area. The following chapter examines the implementation of 
these key measures. 

Key takeaways 
–  The Equality Bodies Directives aim to strengthen the mandate, independence, 
resources and powers of equality bodies. This includes by extending their remit 
to include the grounds and fields covered by the Employment Equality Directive. 

–  Equality  bodies  must  have  tools  and  resources  to  prevent  and  respond  to 

discrimination, including structural discrimination. 

–  Equality bodies must have powers to act in court proceedings in support or on 

behalf of victims or in their own name to defend the public interest. 

–  Low sanctions and ineffective application of sanctions are the key bottlenecks in 

the sanction systems. 

–  Consolidating  legislation  and  introducing  forward-looking  sanctions  would 

improve the sanction systems. 

2.1. 

Stronger  equality  bodies  –  a  new  impetus  for  enforcement  of  EU  non-
discrimination law 

Equality bodies are essential for enforcing EU non-discrimination law. Until 2024, 
the  Racial  Equality  Directive  merely  empowered  equality  bodies  to  provide 
independent assistance to victims of discrimination and to conduct and publish their 
own surveys, reports and recommendations (15). 

In the staff working document accompanying the last report on the application of the 
Directives (16),  the  Commission  pointed  to  different  levels  of  ambition  and 
achievement in the Member States. Key cross-cutting issues included the inadequacy 
of the equality bodies’ resources, in terms of funding and staff, limited awareness of 
the equality bodies’ existence, and their limited independence and legal standing. 

(15)  See e.g. Article 13(2) of the Racial Equality Directive. 

(16)  SWD(2021) 63 final, 19.3.2021, EUR-Lex - 52021SC0063 - EN - EUR-Lex. 

4 

 
 
For this reason, the EU adopted the Equality Bodies Directives to ensure that, by June 
2026,  all  equality  bodies  are  better  equipped  to  combat  discrimination,  support 
victims and promote equality. 

The  Equality  Bodies  Directives  extend  the  remit  of  the  equality  bodies  to  include 
discrimination on the grounds of age, religion or belief, disability or sexual orientation 
in the field of employment. Prior to this, equality bodies were mandated by EU law 
to promote, analyse, monitor and support the equal treatment of all persons on the 
grounds of racial or ethnic origin and sex only. 

Furthermore,  the  Equality  Bodies  Directives  require  Member  States  to  ensure  that 
equality  bodies  are  independent  and  to  provide  them  with  the  necessary  human, 
technical and financial resources. Those resources must enable the equality bodies to 
perform all their tasks and exercise all their powers effectively across all grounds and 
fields of discrimination. 

Finally, the scope of the tasks and powers of equality bodies has been strengthened 
substantially.  Their  mandate  can  no  longer  be  restricted  to  responding  to 
discrimination.  They  will  also  need  to  have  the  power  to  take  preventive  action, 
including in relation to discrimination on the basis of age, religion or belief, disability 
or sexual orientation in the field of employment and vocational training. 

To  address  the  structural  aspects  of  discrimination  and  to  contribute  to  social 
change (17),  equality  bodies  will  carry  out  awareness-raising,  prevention  and 
promotional activities (18). Such activities can include sharing good practices, taking 
positive action, reporting on structural issues, equality mainstreaming among public 
and private entities, and providing such entities with relevant training, information, 
advice, guidance and support. 

The  Equality  Bodies  Directives  require  Member  States  to  give  equality  bodies 
litigation  powers (19).  Previously, 
those  bodies  varied 
significantly  across  the  EU.  With  the  new  standards  in  place,  all  groups  protected 
under EU law will be able to seek support from equality bodies in the fields covered 
by the Racial Equality Directive and Employment Equality Directive. 

litigation  powers  of 

In  particular,  the  Equality  Bodies  Directives  allow  Member  States  to  empower 
equality bodies to support both individual and collective redress (20) efforts. Member 
States may designate equality bodies to act in support or on behalf of several victims 
or in  their own name to  combat discrimination  in  the public interest.  This  may be 
necessary, for example, because of the abundance or seriousness of the cases or the 

(17)  See recital 23 of Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. 

(18)  See Article 5 and Article 17(c) of Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. 

(19)  See Article 10 of Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. In particular, Member States must ensure that the 
equality body has at least one of the following rights to act in court proceedings: (a) the right to initiate 
court proceedings on behalf of one or several victims; (b) the right to participate in court proceedings in 
support of one or several victims; or (c) the right to initiate court proceedings in its own name, in order 
to defend the public interest. 

(20)  Collective redress is a legal mechanism that allows one or more (natural or legal) persons to initiate a 

collective claim that may lead to the application of collective sanctions. 

5 

 
 
need  for  legal  clarification.  Each  one  of  those  factors  could  imply  that  the 
discrimination is structural or systematic in nature (21). 

Equality  bodies  will  continue  to  fulfil  their  central  task  of  providing  assistance  to 
victims of racial or ethnic discrimination, including by replying to all complaints of 
discrimination (22).  This  task  will  now  extend  to  victims  of  discrimination  in 
employment on the basis of age, religion or belief, disability or sexual orientation. In 
addition, under the new Equality Bodies Directives, equality bodies also have to be 
empowered to offer alternative dispute resolution, to conduct inquiries into breaches 
of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  and  to  issue  non-binding  opinions  or  binding 
decisions (23).  Their  opinions  or  decisions  must  include  appropriate  remedial, 
monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. 

The  Commission  adopted  the  implementing  act  establishing  a  list  of  common 
indicators  on  the  functioning  of  equality  bodies (24).  This  will  make  it  easier  to 
monitor how the new standards are being applied in Member States and what impact 
they are having on the enforcement of EU non-discrimination law. 

Conclusions 
Member States must: 

–  fully and correctly transpose the Equality Bodies Directives. 

The Commission will: 

–  continue to provide support to Member States through dedicated expert group 
meetings and an online IT platform. It will monitor the Member States’ correct 
transposition  of  the  Equality  Bodies  Directives  into  their  national  legislation 
using  all  the  tools  at  its  disposal,  including  informal  dialogues  and  formal 
infringement procedures. 

2.2. 

Sanctions and remedies – the need for stronger safeguards 

Effective sanctions ensure that victims of discrimination receive full redress for the 
harm they have experienced. Furthermore, sanctions and remedies can also be part of 
the  toolkit  for  preventing  discrimination.  The  Directives  require  Member  States  to 
provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for discrimination and to 
the  payment  of 
ensure 
that 
compensation (25). 

they  are  enforced.  Sanctions  may 

include 

(21)  See recital 35 of Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. 

(22)  See Article 6 of Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. 

(23)  Member  States  must  decide  whether  to  empower  an  equality  body  to  issue  non-binding  opinions  or 

binding decisions. 

(24)  OJ L, 2026/1196, 11.6.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1196/oj. 

(25)  See Article 15 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 17 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

6 

 
 
The  last  report  concluded  that  some  national  courts  had  established  relatively  low 
levels of damages, which discouraged victims from taking legal action or asking for 
pecuniary compensation in court. 

Since the last report, the CJEU has issued further clarification  on sanctions. In the 
Braathens  Regional  Aviation  case,  the  CJEU  explained  that  EU  law  precludes 
domestic legislation that would allow discrimination to go unrecognised by the courts 
if the defendant agrees to pay the compensation requested by the claimant (26). Such 
rules  would  fail,  in  particular,  to  meet  the  requirements  for  compensatory  and 
dissuasive  sanctions,  as  they  would  allow  perpetrators  to  avoid  acknowledging 
wrongdoing in order to protect their reputation. 

Findings  of  the  study  on  sanctions  for  discrimination  on  racial,  ethnic  and 
religious grounds 

The  last  report  highlighted  the  challenge  posed  by  the  inadequate  application  of 
sanctions. The Commission therefore decided to help Member States to implement 
the provisions on sanctions effectively and commissioned a study on the legislation 
and application of sanctions for racial, ethnic and religious discrimination (27). 

The  findings  revealed  that  sanctions  frameworks  are  fragmented.  The  relevant 
provisions are scattered across many different laws. This makes it difficult for victims 
to determine their rights and the remedies available to them.  

In several jurisdictions, the amounts/ranges of sanctions provided for in legislation 
are  low  and  not  severe  enough  to  deter  potential  perpetrators.  The  list  of  possible 
sanctions is often limited, making it more difficult to tailor them to the specifics and 
gravity of the offence. In addition, the sanctions imposed are often symbolic and close 
to the legal minimum, while the cost of litigation is high, which might undermine the 
system’s  effectiveness  and  disincentivise  victims  from  reporting  discrimination. 
Furthermore,  sanctions  are  rarely  amended,  and  many  jurisdictions  have  outdated 
sanctions which do not take economic changes into account, such as inflation or the 
cost of living. 

Finally, sanctions generally focus only on past wrongdoing. They serve to punish the 
perpetrator  or  compensate  the  victim,  without  leveraging  their  potential  for 
prevention.  Measures (28)  with  a  preventive  or  socio-preventive  purpose,  such  as 

(26)  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  15 April  2021,  Diskrimineringsombudsmannen  v  Braathens 

Regional Aviation AB, C-30/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:269, paragraph 49. 

(27)  European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and  Consumers,  Milieu  Consulting,  Adamis-
Császár,  K.,  Vancauwenbergh,  S.,  Gustave,  F.  et  al.,  Study  on  sanctions  for  discrimination  on 
racial/ethnic/religious  grounds  –  Final  report,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/7531428. 

(28)  Such measures can take the form of an injunction, i.e. an order prohibiting certain actions or ordering 
certain actions. A basic injunction would order a perpetrator to take, or stop, a specific action or type of 
action. Structural injunctions seek to tackle pervasive organisational and even systemically embedded 
discrimination for which a basic injunction would not lead to satisfactory reform (e.g. amending internal 
regulations). See also: Halberstam, D., Van den Bogaert, S., ‘A Fresh Look at Judicial Remedies in EU 
Equality Law and Beyond – The Untapped Possibility of Structural Injunctions’, Common Market Law 
Review, Vol. 60, Issue 5, 2023, pp. 1269-1312, https://doi.org/10.54648/cola2023093. 

7 

 
 
structural injunctions requiring, e.g. desegregation plans or compulsory training for 
perpetrators, are usually lacking (29). 

The  study  also  highlighted  the  lack  of  sanctions  for  discrimination  cases  affecting 
large groups of non-identifiable victims (30), including cases stemming from the use 
of AI or automated systems. 

Further  challenges  include  insufficient  consideration  of  certain  characteristics  or 
circumstances  when  deciding  on  a  sanction  or  the  amount  of  the  sanction.  This  is 
particularly  the  case  with  regard to  elements that  are  not  required  to  be taken into 
account  by  national  law,  such  as  cases  involving  multiple,  intersectional  or 
algorithmic discrimination. 

In addition, inadequate enforcement and monitoring rules often lead to delays or non-
execution  of  sanctions.  Only  a  few  jurisdictions  provide  for  effective  enforcement 
measures,  such  as  penalty  payments (31)  or  conditional  fines (32).  Similarly, 
monitoring measures, in the form of follow-up reporting by perpetrators, follow-up 
hearings, interviews or inspections, are largely absent. 

Both Member States and stakeholders noted that awareness of the rights established 
by the Directives is low (see 3.2). Awareness of the available remedies is also limited 
or even non-existent. 

Research has not  identified any specific national  rules  for raising awareness  about 
sanctions for discrimination. Most awareness campaigns focus broadly on combating 
discrimination, without explaining what victims can expect from the justice system 
when their rights are violated. Furthermore, there is a shortage of targeted training on 
these sanctions for professionals, including judges, which may affect the application 
of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. 

The good practice guide on sanctions for discrimination, which is part of the study, 
highlights a number of promising practices that have been implemented in Member 
States (33). 

(29)  See note 27. 

(30)  For instance, statements concerning a discriminatory recruitment policy even though there was no open 
recruitment procedure and there was no identifiable complainant who claimed to have been the victim 
of discrimination. For similar facts, see judgment of the  Court of Justice of 10 July 2008,  Feryn, C-
54/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397 or judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 April, Asociaţia Accept, C-81/12, 
ECLI:EU:C:2013:275. 

(31)  Payment, typically imposed by a court at the request of the victim, to compel the perpetrator to comply 

with a judgment on merits. 

(32)  A penalty imposed by a court or adjudicating body that becomes payable only if certain conditions are 
not  met  by  the  perpetrator.  It  is  used  as  a  deterrent  to  ensure  compliance  with  a  specific  order  or 
requirement. 

(33)  European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and  Consumers,  Milieu  Consulting  SRL, 
Adamis-Császár, K., Vancauwenbergh, S., Gustave, F. et al., How can sanctions effectively prevent and 
combat discrimination?  – Good practice guide on sanctions for  discrimination on racial, ethnic and 
religious 
p. 32, 
of 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/0513884. 

Publications  Office 

European  Union, 

grounds, 

2025, 

the 

8 

 
 
Evaluation of sanction systems by Member States, equality bodies and civil 
society 

Different  stakeholders  perceived  the  effectiveness  of  the  sanction  systems  rather 
differently.  While  12  of  the  17  civil  society  organisations  that  participated  in  the 
targeted consultation prior to the report considered sanctions for discrimination to be 
not very effective or not effective at all, respondents from equality bodies were evenly 
divided  in  their  assessment  of  the  sanctions,  and  Member  States  were  largely 
convinced  of  the  effectiveness  (five  Member  States)  or  relative  effectiveness  (16 
Member States) of their sanction systems. 

The reasons given for considering the sanction systems to be effective were usually 
the  mere  existence  of  sanctions,  the  availability  of  monitoring  and  enforcement 
mechanisms,  or  the  alleged  lack  of  any  indication  that  the  sanction  system  is 
functioning  unsatisfactorily.  However,  where  difficulties  were  experienced,  all 
stakeholders clearly identified the failure to apply the prescribed sanctions in practice 
as the key bottleneck in the sanction systems. 

The Member States, equality bodies and civil society organisations surveyed agreed 
that consolidating  the legislation and introducing  forward-looking sanctions would 
improve  the  sanction  systems.  Furthermore,  civil  society  organisations  called  on 
Member  States  to  recognise  and  take  account  of  multiple  and  intersectional 
discrimination in their sanction systems. In their view, such reforms would facilitate 
the  enforcement  of  sanctions  for  discrimination,  anchor  a  victim-centred  approach 
and enable prevention of discriminatory behaviours and not just punishment. 

In their replies to the consultation, only Latvia, Portugal and Spain, saw a need to 
adapt their sanction systems to the growing use of algorithmic decision-making tools. 

Conclusions 
Member States must: 

–  ensure  that  sanctions  are  applied  effectively  in  practice.  The  amounts  of 
monetary sanctions should reflect the long-term harm caused by discrimination, 
provide redress for victims and drive profound change. 

Member States should:  

–  establish effective sanctions for discrimination involving large groups of non-
identifiable  victims,  including  in  cases  stemming  from  the  use  of  AI  or 
automated systems. 

The Commission will:  

–  support the Member States by holding meetings to discuss sanctions within the 

expert group on the implementation of EU equality law. 

9 

 
 
3.  DEVELOPMENTS COMMON TO BOTH DIRECTIVES 

Since  2021,  there  have  been  developments  in  terms  of  legislation,  implementation 
and application for both Directives, while external research has been carried out on 
the existing framework, specific provisions and the application of the Directives. The 
topics  discussed  below  are  based  on  the  issues  identified  in  the  previous  report, 
subsequent developments and the feedback received during targeted consultations. 

Key takeaways 
–  Member  States  provide  protection  against  harassment, 

to 
discriminate and victimisation. This protection varies widely across the Member 
States and is sometimes limited in practice. 

instructions 

–  Awareness of support services among ethnic groups and people with a migrant 
background has increased slightly since the last report. Most Member States have 
implemented, or are continuing to implement, practices that facilitate access to 
justice. However, low awareness of rights remains a significant challenge. 

–  Courts and legal practitioners often lack understanding of the Directives’ rules 

relating to the burden of proof. 

–  Most  Member  States  have  measures  in  place  to  promote  dialogue  with  social 
partners and civil society. However, this is not systematically the case across all 
Member  States  or  for  all  grounds  of  discrimination.  In  addition,  most  civil 
society organisations say that they face persistent challenges. 

–  Nearly  all  Member  States  allow  or  encourage  positive  action  and  very  few 

implementation challenges were reported. 

3.1.  The concept of ‘discrimination’ 

As highlighted in the previous report, a number of issues arise around the concept of 
discrimination.  Besides  defining  ‘direct’  and  ‘indirect’  discrimination (34),  the 
Directives also prohibit ‘instruction to discriminate’ and ‘harassment’. There are also 
further  forms  of  discrimination,  such  as  discrimination  ‘by  association’  and  ‘by 
assumption’. 

Instruction to discriminate 

The  Directives  state  that  ‘an  instruction  to  discriminate  against  persons’  on  the 
grounds specified in the Directives is to be deemed to constitute discrimination (35). 

(34)  See Article 2(2) of the Directives. Direct discrimination refers to situations where a person is treated less 
favourably than another in a comparable situation on grounds of their racial or ethnic origin, religion or 
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Indirect discrimination covers apparently neutral provisions 
(or practices) which would put persons of racial or ethnic origin or persons having a particular religion 
or  belief,  a  particular  disability,  a  particular  age  or  a  particular  sexual  orientation  at  a  particular 
disadvantage compared with other persons unless those provisions (or practices) are objectively justified 
by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim is appropriate and necessary. 

(35)  See Article 2(4) of the Directives. 

10 

 
 
 
Following the adoption of the Directives, the concept of ‘instruction to discriminate’ 
was  introduced  into  the  legal  systems  of  all  Member  States.  However,  due  to  the 
general nature of the prohibition, the regulatory framework in the Member States is 
diverse and domestic case-law is scarce. 

In addition to the prohibition of explicit instructions to discriminate, 22 Member States 
consider  that  their  domestic  legislation  also  prohibits  implicit  instructions,  such  as 
expressions of preference or encouragement to discriminate on one or more protected 
grounds. In seven Member States, there must be a hierarchical relationship between 
the person giving the instruction and the person receiving the instruction to trigger 
protection against instructions to discriminate. Finally, in 20 Member States, both the 
person giving the instruction and the person receiving the instruction can be held liable 
(36). 

In  a  recent  report  on  instructions  to  discriminate (37),  experts  identified  23  cases 
between 2002 and 2025. Of those cases, 14 concerned access to and supply of goods 
and services, including housing, and 17 were lodged on the grounds of racial or ethnic 
origin.  In  12  Member  States,  there  was  no  relevant  case-law.  The  report’s  authors 
suggest that this lack of case-law stems partly from a lack of understanding of what 
constitutes  an  instruction  to  discriminate.  Claimants  are  more  likely  to  pursue  an 
action  for  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  once  an  instruction  has  caused 
discrimination, rather than challenging the instruction itself. 

Harassment 

The Directives provide a definition of harassment. However, they also emphasise that 
the concept of harassment may be defined in accordance with the national laws and 
practices of the Member States (38). The regulatory landscape in the Member States 
remains diverse and case-law is scarce. 

Member States prohibit harassment under either non-discrimination law or criminal 
law or both. The choice of legislative means usually depends on one of the following 
factors:  the  nature  of  the  offence (39),  the  severity  of  the  act (40)  or  the  intent (41). 
Member States also provided a long and diverse list of examples of behaviour that can 
fall  under  the  definition  of  harassment.  Their  scope  and  type  depend  on  the 
jurisdiction (42). 

(36)  The  relevant  literature  may  present  different  figures  to  those  provided  by  the  Member  States.  See 
Dewhurst, E., Buendia, R., Instructions to discriminate under EU and national law, Publication Office 
of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/6242130. 

(37)  See note 36, p. 10. 

(38)  See Article 2(3) of the Directives. 

(39)  ‘Discriminatory’  harassment  focuses  on  the  impact  on  the  victim’s  dignity  and  behaviour,  whereas 

criminal harassment concentrates on punishing the perpetrator for criminal offences. 

(40)  Criminal law addresses the most severe forms of harassment, such as incitement to hatred, defamation, 

stalking or threats. 

(41)  Criminal harassment typically requires intent, persistence and harm. These are not necessary under non-

discrimination law. 

(42)  They  include:  inappropriate  or  offensive  language;  production,  display  or  circulation  of  pictures  or 
videos  or  written  words;  physical  contact  or  violence;  bullying;  exclusion;  unjustifiable/persistent 

11 

 
 
 
Within the employment sector, three main liability models have emerged. Liability 
may lie with the harasser, the employer or both. Many Member States were unable to 
specify  forms  of  protection  against  harassment  outside  the  field  of  employment. 
Where  information  was  available,  Member  States  typically  elaborated  on  the 
regulatory  framework  for  combating  harassment  in  educational  establishments, 
healthcare and public administration. 

In this regard, a number of Member States indicated that not only the harasser but also 
the relevant body or institution might be held liable for harassment due to negligence 
in fulfilling its obligation to prevent harassment (43). 

Ten  Member  States  highlighted  difficulties  in  applying  the  concept  of  harassment 
under domestic law. Most notably, Member States indicated challenges in obtaining 
evidence to prove harassment. Furthermore, some of the issues have been attributed 
to a national implementation of the law, in which repeated behaviour, intent (rather 
than  effects),  identification  of  individuals  or  groups  in  similar  situations  and  a 
hierarchical relationship are required for behaviour to constitute harassment. None of 
those are explicitly required under EU law. 

In  a  few  Member  States,  interesting  case-law  has  emerged  regarding  the  use  of 
protection  from  harassment  to  address  online  discrimination  affecting  unspecified 
numbers of people and to protect groups of individuals from discrimination. 

Box 1. Examples of harassment cases in Member States (44) 
–  In Bulgaria, there was a case where the Supreme Administrative Court classified 
offensive social media posts from a political party as harassment on the ground 
of sexual orientation (45). In another decision, the Court found that stigmatising 
online articles targeting people of Roma ethnicity constituted harassment on the 
ground of ethnicity (46). 

–  In  Belgium  (in  the  field  of  employment) (47)  and  Italy  (48),  courts  have 
recognised harassment in cases where offensive opinions have been expressed 
on social networks or communication platforms, even if they have been shared 
with only a limited number of people. 

criticism  or  control;  undermining  professional  performance  or  spreading  rumours;  deliberate 
overloading with work or setting impossible deadlines; humiliation; verbal or non-verbal intimidation 
or threats; verbal abuse or insults;  inappropriate jokes; psychological pressure or violence; unwanted 
acts  or  requests;  gestures;  stalking;  name-calling;  hate  speech  or  hate  symbols;  online  harassment; 
graffiti; and refusal to acknowledge preferred pronouns. 

(43)  Malta highlighted that such a framework creates a positive duty of care for employers, educators and 
service providers to actively prevent harassment – not only between staff but also between staff and third 
parties. 

(44)  The  examples  from  Bulgaria  and  Italy  fall  outside  the  material  scope  of  both  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive  and  the  Employment  Equality  Directive.  Nevertheless,  they  are  relevant  to  the  concept  of 
'harassment' as defined in these Directives and as implemented in national legislation. 

(45)  Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria, Decision No 9763 of 16 September 2024. 

(46)  Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria, Decision No 5014 of 14 May 2025. 

(47)  Antwerp Court of Appeal, Judgment No 2023/CO/654 of 27 June 2024. 

(48)  Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Order No 14836 of 26 May 2023. 

12 

 
 
Discrimination by association or assumption 

Discrimination by association occurs when a victim is discriminated against because 
of their association with a protected individual, group or characteristic. The CJEU has 
consistently recognised this form of discrimination in its case-law, most recently in 
relation  to  indirect  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  disability  (see  5.3.) (49).  In 
addition, 19 Member States now explicitly prohibit discrimination by association in 
their national legislation or case-law (50). 

The CJEU has not yet explicitly addressed the issue of ‘discrimination by assumption’. 
This occurs when a person is discriminated against on the basis of an incorrect belief 
or perception that they have one of the protected characteristics.  It should be noted 
that  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  has  ruled,  in  a  series  of  cases,  that 
discrimination  under  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  encompasses 
discrimination  by  assumption (51).  Furthermore,  it  appears  that  19  Member  States 
already prohibit it in either domestic legislation or case-law (52). 

In some Member States, discrimination by association or assumption may also apply 
in  cases  of  harassment,  victimisation  or  denial  of  reasonable  accommodation (53). 
Such understandings rarely come from legislation. Instead, they often originate from 
case-law  or  represent  the  interpretation  of  the  authorities  surveyed.  Other  Member 
States were mostly unsure about the applicability of their domestic legislation to such 
cases. 

Despite the Court’s ruling in the CHEZ case (54), which found that discrimination by 
association does not depend on an intimate or close relationship between the alleged 
victim and the associated group, a few Member States may continue to demand it. 

Multiple discrimination 

Both  Directives (55)  recognise  that  certain  groups  of  people  may  experience 
discrimination  on  multiple  grounds.  To  date,  14  Member  States  have  adopted 
legislation that explicitly recognises multiple discrimination. 

Within  those  14  Member  States,  the  practical  and  legal  consequences  of  the 
recognition of multiple discrimination vary significantly. In some Member States, it 
affects the type and severity of sanctions for discrimination. In others, it is considered 
one  of  the  more  severe  forms  of  discrimination.  In  two  Member  States,  multiple 

(49)  See judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 September 2025, Bervidi, C-38/24, ECLI:EU:C:2025:690, 

paragraphs 55 to 56. 

(50)  Walsh, J., Discrimination by association and discrimination by assumption under directives 2000/43 
2024, p. 12-13, 
of 

European 

2000/78, 

Union, 

the 

and 
Office 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/4086758. 

Publications 

(51)  See e.g. Timishev v Russia, Nos 55762/00 and 55974/00, 13 December 2005. 

(52)  See note 50. 

(53)  In the Bervidi case (see note 49), the CJEU ruled that workers without disabilities may also benefit from 

reasonable accommodations in certain circumstances. 

(54)  Judgment of  the  Court  of  Justice  of 16 July  2015,  CHEZ  Razpredelenie  Bulgaria’  AD  v  Komisia  za 

zashtita ot diskriminatsia, C-83/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:480, paragraphs 49 and 56. 

(55)  See recital 14 of the Racial Equality Directive and recital 3 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

13 

 
 
discrimination can set a higher evidentiary threshold for defendants, as separate proof 
of non-discrimination is required for each ground. 

Half  of  the  Member  States  that  explicitly  recognise  multiple  discrimination  have 
signalled significant difficulties in applying the concept. In six Member States, there 
is  a lack of awareness  of multiple discrimination. In  five Member States,  there  are 
insufficient  statistics  for  all  the  relevant  grounds  of  discrimination.  Five  Member 
States also found it difficult to identify an appropriate comparison group in a more 
favourable position in cases involving multiple discrimination. Equality bodies raised 
similar  concerns.  However,  in  contrast  to  the  Member  States,  almost  all  equality 
bodies reported difficulties in recognising instances of multiple discrimination. 

There is no legal basis for recognising intersectional discrimination in either Directive 
covered by this report (56). While the CJEU acknowledged that discrimination may be 
based on  several  of the  grounds protected under EU law, it also  held  that  ‘no new 
category of discrimination resulting from the combination of more than one of those 
grounds … may be found to exist where discrimination on the basis of those grounds 
taken in isolation has not been established’ (57).  

The civil society organisations and equality bodies surveyed raised the need to anchor 
intersectional discrimination in the legal framework and provide guidance on how to 
frame, assess and adjudicate such claims. 

Since  2021,  the  EU  has  begun  to  address  intersectional  discrimination  to  a  certain 
extent  in  EU  law.  The  Pay  Transparency  Directive (58)  defines  intersectional 
discrimination for the first time in EU law (59). The Equality Bodies Directives require 
equality bodies to be empowered to take intersectional discrimination into account in 
treatment (60). 
to  prevent  discrimination  and  promote  equal 
their  activities 
Furthermore, the Commission continues to recognise the importance of intersectional 
discrimination in equality strategies (61). 

3.2.  Access to justice – bridging the gap for victims 

Member States must ensure that the people concerned are made aware of the national 
laws  transposing  the  Directives  by  all  appropriate  means  throughout  their 

(56)  Discrimination  that  takes  place  on  the  basis  of  several  personal  grounds  or  characteristics/identities, 

which operate and interact with each other at the same time in such a way as to be inseparable. 

(57)  See judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 November 2016, David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin 

and Others, C-443/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:897, paragraph 80. 

(58)  OJ L 132, 17.5.2023, p. 21, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/970/oj. 

(59)  In  Article 3(2)(e),  the  Pay  Transparency  Directive  explicitly  prohibits  intersectional  discrimination, 
which  is  listed  as  a  distinct  form  of  discrimination.  It  defines  intersectional  discrimination  as 
‘discrimination  based  on  a  combination  of  sex  and  any  other  ground  or  grounds  of  discrimination 
protected under Directive 2000/43/EC or 2000/78/EC’. 

(60)  See Article 5(2) of Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499 and Article 5(2) of Directive (EU) 2024/1500. 

(61)  See e.g. COM(2025) 725 final of 8 October 2025; COM(2026) 12 final of 20 January 2026. 

14 

 
 
territory (62). Ensuring that people are aware of their rights remains a major challenge. 
However, the situation is improving in some respects (63). 

Half of the Member States (14) acknowledged that people’s lack of awareness of the 
rights and obligations deriving from the Directives was an issue. Similarly, almost all 
civil society organisations, 8 of the 11 equality bodies and Equinet argued that there 
was insufficient awareness of rights and obligations. 

Despite the relative consensus that lack of awareness is a root cause of the inadequate 
enforcement of EU  non-discrimination  law in  the Member States, neither Member 
States nor equality bodies nor civil society organisations seem to hold data on specific 
levels  of  awareness.  Furthermore,  only  one  equality  body  had  information  on  the 
general population’s awareness of their activities. 

Box 2. A survey on awareness of the work of an equality body 

In Malta, the Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) carried 
out  a  representative  telephone  survey  in  2024.  It  found  that  59%  of  the  general 
population had heard of the CRPD and its activities. 

During the consultation, most Member States (20) said that they had run awareness-
raising campaigns on non-discrimination since 2021. However, only a few Member 
States  had  run  campaigns  that  focused  on  the  grounds  of  discrimination  protected 
under the Directives. Most other campaigns focused on the ground of sex. Of the few 
campaigns relating to grounds covered by the Directives, even fewer addressed rights 
and obligations under non-discrimination law. Similarly, the campaigns run by civil 
society  organisations  also  only  occasionally  addressed  legal  rights  and  obligations 
under non-discrimination law. 

Examples  of  relevant  campaigns  include  those  combating  anti-gypsyism  (in  four 
Member States), LGBTIQ+ discrimination (in five Member States) and racism (in five 
Member  States).  Some  targeted  campaigns  also  focused  on  age  discrimination, 
accessibility and housing. 

Furthermore, the campaigns reported by all types of stakeholders usually target the 
general public  and  are  rarely  evaluated  for  their  impact,  apart  from  tracking  social 
media  traffic  or  counting  complaint  numbers.  Finally,  civil  society  organisations 
highlighted that some Member States’ campaigns are not sustained over time. 

(62)  See Article 10 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 12 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(63)  For example, only 39% of respondents to the EU-MIDIS III survey of ethnic or immigrant groups had 
heard of at least one equality body in their country of residence. At the time of the previous report, only 
29% of this group were  aware of any organisation providing support or advice  to those subjected to 
discrimination. Nevertheless, the FRA notes that, even though awareness of specific equality bodies is 
higher, this does not correlate with a substantial increase in reporting of discrimination. 

15 

 
 
Box 3. Anti-discrimination platform of the French equality body (64) 
In  2021,  the  French  equality  body  Défenseur  des  droits  [Defender  of  Rights] 
launched  an  anti-discrimination  platform.  The  platform  mobilised  social  media 
content creators to promote its anti-discrimination activities. The equality body also 
ran a keyword purchasing campaign to redirect visitors to the platform. By 2024, it 
had 2 109 000 views. The top keywords searched for online were ‘harassment at 
work’, ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘psychological harassment at work’. 

Besides  lack  of  awareness,  the  equality  bodies  and  civil  society  organisations 
identified  fear  of  victimisation  and  ‘inequality  of  arms’ (65)  as  key  obstacles  to 
accessing justice. They also considered access to justice to be hindered by insufficient 
legal  advice  and  assistance,  the  complexity  of  legal  proceedings  and  procedural 
obstacles, including the absence of collective redress in some Member States. 

The previous report on the application of the two Directives identified a range of good 
practices  intended  to  make  it  easier  to  defend  the  rights  of  victims  of 
discrimination (66).  A  total  of  21  Member  States  have  implemented  or  are 
implementing  some  of  those  practices,  the  most  common  ones  being  legal  aid  (12 
Member  States),  online  reporting  and  improved  access  to  local  services  (eight 
Member States). 

Other  than  that,  Member  States  rarely  take  measures  to  address  the  procedural 
bottlenecks  to  effective  access  to  justice.  For  example,  only  two  Member  States 
waived  court  fees  for  discrimination  cases  or  set  up  accessible  dispute  resolution 
bodies  and  just  one  Member  State  set  up  funds  to  provide  victims  with  advance 
coverage of legal costs. Although it was identified as a good practice in the past report, 
no Member State reduced court fees for discrimination cases. 

The new Equality Bodies Directives will help address some of the issues identified, 
notably  by  giving  equality  bodies  greater  powers  to  provide  free  assistance  and 
alternative dispute resolution services and by giving them litigation powers. 

Another way of improving victims’ access to justice is for equality bodies and civil 
society organisations to collaborate on strategic litigation cases. 

3.3. 

Proving a discrimination case 

The last report highlighted difficulties in proving discrimination as a key challenge 
for enforcement. This report shows that stakeholders still have concerns about proving 
discrimination  in  relation  to  indirect  discrimination,  harassment,  instructions  to 
discriminate, multiple discrimination and victimisation. 

(64)  Défenseur des droits, Plateforme AntiDiscriminations.fr - Agir contre les discriminations. 

(65)  The principle of equality of arms is one aspect of the wider concept of a fair trial. Each party must be 
afforded  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  present  their  case  under  conditions  that  do  not  place  them  at  a 
disadvantage vis-à-vis  their opponent.  See e.g.  judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 
22 February  1996,  Bulut  v  Austria,  17358/90,  ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0222JUD001735890, 
paragraph 47. 

(66)  See COM(2024) 419 final of 25 September 2024, EUR-Lex - 52024DC0419 - EN - EUR-Lex, p. 6. 

16 

 
 
Burden of proof 

Under the Directives, complainants benefit from the shift of the burden of proof (67). 
The  Directives  require  that,  where  the  complainant  presents  facts  from  which 
discrimination can be presumed, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. However, 
the practical implementation of this principle faces multiple challenges. 

Three quarters of the equality bodies surveyed and 14 Member States encountered 
significant obstacles in applying the shifted burden of proof. Specifically, they mainly 
pointed to a general lack of awareness or understanding of the burden of proof rules 
among courts and legal practitioners. 

Despite the challenges faced, only two Member States have implemented measures 
to  address  the  difficulties  in  applying  the  burden  of  proof  rules.  Conversely,  most 
equality bodies did take some measures, including proposals for legislative changes 
to  lower  the  threshold  of  the  burden  of  proof (68),  recommendations  to  public 
authorities, training for the judiciary, training for the public service and employers 
and  consistently  applying  the  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof  in  their  non-binding 
opinions, evidence-gathering and guidance materials. 

Evidence 

Both the Member States and the equality bodies surveyed highlighted difficulties in 
accessing evidence to meet the initial burden of proof. As in the previous report, most 
of  them  continue  to  face  difficulties  in  collecting  and  publishing  data  on 
discrimination.  Furthermore,  evidence-gathering  and  system  testing  are  rare  in  the 
digital  realm  (see  7.2).  However,  some  alternative  methods,  such  as  situation 
testing (69) and mystery shopping (70), are used in some Member States. 

A total of 16 Member States allow situation testing to prove discrimination. Half of 
the equality bodies reported using mystery shopping and situation testing to identify 
patterns of discrimination. According to Equinet, these methods have proven effective 
in detecting discrimination, particularly in the employment and housing sectors. 

3.4.  Victimisation 

Member  States  must  protect  individuals  from  victimisation,  meaning  any  adverse 
treatment  or  consequences  resulting  from  a  complaint  or  from  discrimination 

(67)  See Article 8 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 10 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(68)  For example, the equality body in Germany proposed lowering the requirement to prove disadvantage, 
provided  indications  for  establishing  prima  facie  evidence  and  recommended  setting  out  a  right  to 
information against the defendant. 

(69)  Situation testing is a method according to which pairs of testers (applicants for accommodation or a job 
vacancy or clients of a restaurant, a nightclub, etc.) are selected in such a way that they differ solely on 
the  basis  of  a  single  characteristic  which  reflects  the  discriminatory  ground  (gender,  ethnicity,  age, 
disability, religion or belief, or sexual orientation) under scrutiny. If one of the members of the pair faces 
different  treatment,  the  distinction  points  to  discriminatory  behaviour.  See  Rorive,  I.,  Proving 
Discrimination Cases – The role of situation testing, Migration Policy Group, Centre for Equal Rights, 
2009, Proving Discrimination Cases – The role of situation testing | Migration Policy Group. 

(70)  Mystery  shopping  is  a  technique  used  to  check  whether individuals  or  entities  accept  discriminatory 
requests. Investigators make discriminatory requests to temporary employment agencies or real estate 
agencies, for example. See Tests de situation et mystery shopping en cas de discrimination | Unia. 

17 

 
 
proceedings (71). The  CJEU interprets  this concept broadly,  extending it to  anyone 
who  could  suffer  adverse  consequences  for  making  a  complaint  or  initiating 
proceedings (72).  However,  in  practice,  implementation  of  this  protection  in  the 
Member States continues to be uneven and limited, as outlined in the previous report. 

All Member States explicitly provide protection against victimisation on all grounds 
in the field of employment. Some Member States do not explicitly provide protection 
against victimisation on the ground of racial or ethnic origin in the fields of education, 
social protection, and access to goods and services. 

The  reported  personal  scope  of  protection  against  victimisation  varies  across  the 
Member States. In addition to victims and complainants, 17 Member States reported 
that  their  domestic  legislation  or  case-law  protects  witnesses  and  individuals 
supporting  a  victim.  Furthermore,  13  Member  States  said  that  they  extend  this 
protection to legal and other representatives, 14 Member States said that they protect 
individuals victimised by presumption or association and 10 Member States said that 
they  offer  protection  to  individuals  treated  less  favourably  for  refusing  to 
discriminate. 

Only seven Member States reported limitations or difficulties in ensuring effective 
protection against victimisation in practice. Such limitations or difficulties included 
formal  reporting  procedures,  a  high  evidentiary  threshold  and  the  limited  personal 
scope  of  protection.  There  are  almost  no  good  practices  or  case-law  relating  to 
protection against victimisation in the Member States. 

3.5.  Cooperation on applying the Directives 

The Directives provide for their enforcement to go hand in hand with dialogue with 
partners representing the collective interests of  groups at  risk of discrimination. In 
fact,  they  require  Member  States  to  take  appropriate  measures  to  promote  social 
dialogue  between  the  two  sides  of  industry  with  a  view  to  fostering  equal 
treatment (73) and encouraging dialogue with non-governmental organisations (74). 

Most  Member  States  reported  that  they  had  measures  in  place  to  promote  social 
dialogue between the two sides of the industry in order to foster equal treatment. The 
most prevalent way of doing this is through tripartite bodies (75), which are present in 
at least 10 Member States. 

Similarly, a few Member States have set up governing forums on non-discrimination, 
the rights of Roma people, persons with disabilities or older people. These involve 
government  bodies,  civil  society  and  other  key  stakeholders.  However,  this  is  not 
done systematically across all Member States or for all grounds of discrimination.  

(71)  See Article 9 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 11 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(72)  See  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  20 June  2019,  Hakelbracht  and  Others,  C-404/18, 

ECLI:EU:C:2019:523, paragraphs 26-30. 

(73)  See Article 11 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 13 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(74)  See Article 12 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 14 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(75)  Tripartite  dialogue  involves  discussions  between  public  authorities  and  social  partners  on  issues  of 

common interest. 

18 

 
 
According  to  civil  society  organisations,  engaging  in  practical  dialogue  about 
combating discrimination remains challenging. Almost three quarters of civil society 
respondents to the survey (12 out of 17) reported that they were having difficulties. 
The key issues have remained largely unchanged since the last report (76). 

Member States engage with civil society less frequently during the implementation 
stage of policies than during the design phase. This finding on the basis of the Member 
States’ replies is also echoed by the civil society organisations surveyed. For example, 
two  thirds  of  the  Member  States  involved  civil  society  in  legislative  or  policy 
consultations. However, slightly less than half of the Member States collaborated with 
civil society organisations on implementing anti-discrimination measures, and even 
fewer  involved  them  in  reporting  and  monitoring  discrimination  issues  (10  and  8 
Member States, respectively). 

3.6.  Gender mainstreaming 

The Directives require (77) the Commission to report on the impact of the measures 
on women and men, in accordance with the principle of gender mainstreaming. 

Member  States  appear  to  have  conducted  limited  assessments  of  the  Directives’ 
specific  impact  on  men  and  women.  While  some  Member  States  reported  that 
implementation  produced  particular  effects  on  certain  groups  of  men  and  women, 
these claims were generally not explained or supported with data. One Member State 
noted  an  increase  in  lawsuits  involving  the  combination  of  gender  and  age 
discrimination. 

In general, Member States’ policies concerning the protected grounds covered by the 
Directives rarely specifically distinguish between the needs of men and women. Some 
Member  States  mentioned  adopting  an  intersectional  approach  in  their  policy 
documents, while others identified specific challenges faced by particular groups of 
women. There were individual examples of targeted measures for Roma women and 
women with disabilities. 

Meanwhile, respondents from civil society organisations actively mainstream gender 
in  their  activities  and  specifically  target  women  from  disadvantaged  groups  and 
communities. 

Both  the  EIGE  and  civil  society  organisations  emphasised  that  implementation  of 
gender  mainstreaming  varies  greatly  between  Member  States  and  frequently  falls 
short  of  addressing  specific  challenges.  The  EIGE  noted  that  some  countries  have 
established comprehensive frameworks and dedicated resources, while others have 
lagged behind (78). 

(76)  See COM(2021) 139 final of 19 March 2021, EUR-Lex - 52021DC0139 - EN - EUR-Lex, p. 12. 

(77)  See  Article 17(2)  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  Article 19(2)  of  the  Employment  Equality 

Directive. 

(78)  For instance, results for the EIGE’s gender mainstreaming indicator ranged from 71% in Spain to zero 
in Hungary, with 21 Member States scoring less than 50%. This suggests that many countries could do 
more to effectively mainstream gender equality concerns in policy processes. See: EIGE, Institutional 
mechanisms  that  deliver  on  gender  equality  and  gender  mainstreaming,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, p. 14. 

19 

 
 
3.7. 

Positive action 

In  order  to  ensure  full  equality  in  practice,  Member  States  may  adopt  or  maintain 
specific  measures  aimed  at  preventing  discrimination  or  compensating  for 
disadvantages  related  to  protected  characteristics (79).  The  CJEU  has  provided 
guidance  on  the  interpretation  of  positive  action (80).  Positive  action  must  be 
proportionate  and,  in  principle,  should  not  result  in  an  automatic  or  unconditional 
preference for underrepresented groups. Bodies  adopting  positive  measures should 
monitor and evaluate them, and publish information about them, to ensure that they 
continue to be necessary and effective (81). 

Nearly  all  Member  States  allow  for  or  promote  positive  action,  the  most  common 
measures  being  quota  systems  and  campaigns  to  raise  awareness  and  promote 
diversity  (17  Member  States).  A  total  of  14  Member  States  offer  training  and 
mentoring programmes for underrepresented groups, 13 Member States have adopted 
special measures, such as improving access to education or vocational training, and 
13 Member States carry out targeted recruitment and hiring initiatives (82). 

Where used, quota systems mostly apply in employment and vocational training (12 
Member States). In particular, a few Member States have specific employment quotas 
for persons with disabilities. In four Member States, they also apply to education (e.g. 
university  admissions  and  scholarships).  Quotas  seem  to  almost  exclusively  target 
gender equality or persons with disabilities. 

Less  than half of the Member States reported difficulties in  implementing positive 
action. A third of them raised insufficient enforcement and lack of domestic legal and 
policy  guidance.  Where  difficulties  were  encountered,  Member  States  most  often 
cited  insufficient  resources  and  funding  and  limited  understanding  among  key 
stakeholders.  Five  Member  States  highlighted  negative  public  perception  and 
overreliance on voluntary initiatives. 

Meanwhile, civil society and equality bodies worked to raise awareness of positive 
action  among  key  stakeholders.  They  also  implemented  their  own  positive  action 
measures, both internally and externally. 

(79)  See Article 5 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 7 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(80)  See, notably, the judgments in Cases C-450/93, Eckhard Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen; C-409/95, 
Hellmut  Marschall  v  Land  Nordrhein-Westfalen;  C-158/97,  Georg  Badeck  and  Others;  C-407/98, 
Katarina Abrahamsson and Leif Anderson v Elisabet Fogelqvist; C-476/99, H. Lommers v Minister van 
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij; C-559/07, Commission v Greece, among others. 

(81)  See also Giteva, D., ‘Positive action on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin within the EU with a focus 
on Bulgaria, Greece and Hungary’, in: European equality law review 2024, Publications Office of the 
European Union, 2024, pp. 26-42. 

(82)  Some countries offer further measures, such as financial incentives for companies promoting diversity 
and  inclusion  (nine  Member  States)  and  programmes  to  support  business  development  among 
disadvantaged groups (six Member States). 

20 

 
 
Box 4. ‘Angajez 45+’ (‘I hire 45+’) platform in Romania (83) 
In  Romania,  the  ‘Angajez  45+’  (‘I  hire  45+’)  platform  mobilises  employers  and 
jobseekers  to  challenge  ageist  hiring  practices.  This  civil  society-led  initiative 
promotes  the  employment  of  people  aged  45  and  over  by  encouraging  inclusive 
recruitment and showcasing the value of experience in the workplace. 

Conclusions 
Member States and their equality bodies must: 

–  raise  awareness  of  the  rights  and  obligations  set  out  in  the  Directives.  In 
particular, they should focus on protected groups, making use of the expertise 
and outreach of civil society and social partners. 

–  give  victims  of  discrimination  and  their  representatives  easy  access  to  the 
to  demonstrate 

relevant  evidence, 
discrimination and shift the burden of proof onto the defendants. 

including  statistical  data,  needed 

Member States and their equality bodies should: 

–  provide  judges,  law  practitioners  and  claimants  with  further  guidance  and 
support to help them effectively implement the shift of the burden of proof rules 
in discrimination cases. 

The Commission will: 

–  supports Member States in improving their collection and use of equality data. 
It will work on a recommendation on equality data, in line with national legal 
frameworks. 

–  support further research to facilitate the application of the Directives’ provisions 
on  harassment  and  victimisation  and  to  enable  victims  to  fully  enjoy  the 
protection they offer. 

4.  ASPECTS SPECIFIC TO THE RACIAL EQUALITY DIRECTIVE 

In the previous report, the Commission provided an extensive overview of the scope 
of the Directive and how the notion of ‘racial or ethnic origin’ is to be understood, on 
the basis of the available case-law of the CJEU. The following sections update that 
information with relevant developments since 2021. 

(83)  Angajez 45+ | D&I România | Discriminarea de vârstă. 

21 

 
 
 
Key takeaways 
–  Access to and supply of social housing may be covered by the Racial Equality 

Directive. 

–  A  person’s  nationality  or  country  of  birth  may  be  considered  alongside  other 
factors when determining whether discrimination on the basis of ‘ethnic origin’ 
has occurred. 

–  The Racial Equality Directive prohibits discrimination against both one ethnic 

group and multiple ethnic groups. 

4.1.  Material scope 

Housing 

One of the fields in which the Racial Equality Directive applies is access to and supply 
of goods and services available to the public, including housing (84). The CJEU has 
recently provided important clarifications on whether the provision of social housing 
falls within this scope in the context of alleged discrimination on the grounds of ethnic 
origin in a Member State’s public family housing system (85). 

When  considering  whether  the  case  falls  within  the  scope  of  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive, the Court first recalled that the provision of housing in exchange for rent, 
under  a  scheme  such  as  the  one  at  issue  in  the  case  at  hand,  must  be  regarded  as 
constituting a supply of ‘services’, within the meaning of Article 57 TFEU and, by 
extension, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC (86), since it 
is a service provided for remuneration (87).  

Further, the CJEU emphasised that an activity must have an economic character to be 
considered a  ‘service’.  In this context, it is irrelevant that the public lessors which 
manage the system are non-profit organisations and that the amount of the rent paid 
by the tenants is lower than the market price. For an activity to be ‘economic’, it is 
sufficient that it is not provided for free (88).  

The  CJEU  has  not  yet  provided  guidance  on  the  recurring  question  of  whether 
evictions from unlawfully built or unlawfully occupied housing could fall under the 
scope of the Racial Equality Directive. Without prejudice to the CJEU’s competence 
for interpreting EU law and any future clarifications on  the matter by the Court, it 
should be pointed out that the Directive only covers access to and supply of goods 
and  services  which  are  available  to  the  public;  in  many  cases  of  evictions  from 
unlawfully occupied housing, this criterion is unlikely to be met.  

(84)  See Article 3(1)(h) of the Racial Equality Directive. 

(85)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2025, Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab, Afdeling 

Schackenborgvænge, C-417/23, ECLI:EU:C:2025:1017. 

(86)  OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/123/oj. 

(87)  See note 85, paragraph 56. 

(88)  See note 85, paragraphs 60-61. 

22 

 
 
Education 

In December 2023, the Commission referred  the Slovak Republic to the CJEU for 
structural  discrimination  (see  6.1).  The  Commission  argued  that  by  placing,  in  an 
excessive manner, Roma children in special schools or special classes for children 
with  intellectual  or  other  disabilities,  who  follow  a  restricted  curriculum,  and  by 
segregating  Roma  children,  either  in  separate  classes  in  mainstream  schools  or  in 
separate schools, the Slovak Republic has failed, systematically and persistently, to 
fulfil  its  obligations  under  the  Racial  Equality  Directive (89).  The  Court  ruling  is 
expected to clarify Member States’ obligations regarding combating discrimination 
in this field. 

4.2.  The notion of ‘racial or ethnic origin’ 

Racism is a belief that a ground such as ‘race’ (90) or ethnic origin justifies contempt 
for a person or a group of persons, or the notion of superiority of a person or a group 
of persons (91). It may lead to discrimination based on ‘racial or ethnic origin’ in the 
meaning of the Racial Equality Directive.  

Academic  experts  have  published  reports  that  examine  the  larger  EU  and  national 
legal frameworks for combating anti-Muslim hatred and antisemitism (92).  

The Racial Equality Directive does not define the notion of ‘racial or ethnic origin’. 
Building on its previous jurisprudence, the Court provided new clarifications in the 
Slagelse case (93). 

The  CJEU  recalled  that  the  concept  of  ‘ethnic  origin’,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Racial  Equality  Directive,  has  its  origin  in  the  idea  of  societal  groups  marked  in 
particular by common nationality, religious faith, language, cultural and traditional 
origins  and  backgrounds (94).  The  Court  emphasised  that  ‘ethnic  origin’  must  be 
determined on the basis of a variety of objective and subjective factors, and not just 
nationality  or  country  of  birth (95).  However,  the  Court  considered  that,  when 
combined with other factors, a person’s nationality or country of birth may be taken 
into account to determine whether discrimination on the basis of ‘ethnic origin’ has 
occurred (96). 

(89)  Case C-799/23: Action brought on 22 December 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic, OJ 

C, C/2024/1402, 19.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1402/oj. 

(90)  The  Commission  emphasises  the  common  understanding  that  ‘races’  are  purely  based  on  socially 

constructed ideas and it rejects the notion of biological ‘races’. 

(91)  See COM(2026) 12 final of 20 January 2026, p.3. 

(92)  See Kádár, A., The legal framework to combat anti-Muslim hate in the European Union, Publications 
Office of the European Union, 2024, p. 11, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/0978883; Kadar. A, The 
legal framework to combat antisemitism in the EU, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, p. 
31, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/273421. 

(93)  See note 85. 

(94)  See note 85, paragraph 72. 

(95)  See note 85, paragraphs 72-74 and 82-85. 

(96)  See note 85, paragraph 86. 

23 

 
 
Significantly,  the  Court  also  clarified  that  the  fact  that  a  general  criterion  such  as 
‘immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants’ (97), referred to in the 
Danish  public  family  housing  legislation  at  stake  in  that  case,  may  encompass 
multiple ethnic origins does not automatically exclude it from being based on ‘ethnic 
origin’.  Interpreting  the  notion  of  ‘ethnic  origin’  in  a  way  that  would  require 
discrimination  to target  a single specific ethnic group would undermine the Racial 
Equality Directive’s effectiveness. This is because the Directive’s non-discrimination 
objective  would  fail  to  apply  when  multiple  ethnic  groups  experience  the  same 
discriminatory treatment (98). 

5.  ASPECTS SPECIFIC TO THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY DIRECTIVE 

Since  the  2021  report,  the  CJEU  has  issued  a  significant  number  of  judgments  in 
preliminary  cases  submitted  by  the  national  courts  of  several  Member  States 
regarding discrimination in employment and occupation on the four grounds covered 
by the Directive (religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation). 

Key takeaways 
–  The protection of the Directive applies irrespective of the legal form in which 

work is provided. 

–  The  scope  of  the  Directive  covers  staff  members  who  are  not  recruited  on  a 

permanent basis, such as trainees. 

–  The Directive prohibits indirect discrimination by association on the grounds of 

disability. 

5.1.  Material and personal scope of the Directive 

Several rulings clarified the scope of the Directive. 

The CJEU confirmed (99) in the Zetschek case that the grounds listed in the Directive 
are exhaustive, and that the Directive does not cover cases of alleged discrimination 
between professional categories (100). 

In the TP (Audiovisual editor for public television) case, the Court concluded that the 
protection of the Directive applies irrespective of the legal form in which work is 
provided (101). The case concerned  refusal  to  conclude or renew a contract  for the 

(97)  ‘Immigrants  from  non-Western  countries  and  their  descendants’  were  defined  on  the  basis  of  a 
combination of nationality, country of birth and parental nationality / country of birth, distinguishing 
between  ‘Western’  and  ‘non-Western’  origins.  The  Danish  Statistics  agency  (Danmarks  Statistik) 
defined ‘Western’ countries as: EU Member States, Andorra, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Liechtenstein, 
Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, the UK, the United States and the Vatican 
City State. All other countries were referred to as ‘non-Western countries’. 

(98)  See note 85, paragraphs 100-104. 

(99)  In line with previous CJEU case-law, e.g. judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 May 2015, SCMD, C-

262/14, EU:C:2015:336. 

(100) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 October 2024, Case C-349/23, Zetschek, ECLI:EU:C:2024:889. 

(101) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 January 2023, Case C-356/21, TP (Audiovisual editor for public 

television), ECLI:EU:C:2023:9. 

24 

 
 
performance of specific work on the basis of the sexual orientation of the provider. 
The  question  to  be  assessed  was  whether  the  situation  fell  under  the  protection 
afforded by the Directive or whether the activity should be considered mere provision 
of  goods  or  services.  It  follows  from  the  ruling that  the  concept  of  ‘conditions  for 
access  to  employment,  to  self-employment  or to occupation’ (102) and the notion of 
‘employment  and  working  conditions,  including  dismissals  and  pay’ (103)  must  be 
broadly  interpreted,  covering  (access  to)  any  form  of  employment  or  self-
employment, whatever the legal form in which it is pursued.  In addition, the Court 
concluded that ‘an involuntary termination of activity of a self-employed person (…) 
may be assimilated to dismissal of an employee’. 

In the HK v Danmark and HK/Privat case, the Court had already clarified the broad 
material  scope  of  the  Directive,  which  extends  to  the  statute  of  an  organisation  of 
workers where that statute sets an age limit for the position of ‘sector convenor’, an 
elected position in that organisation (104). 

The ruling in the Ca Na Negreta case (105) shed light on the notion of dismissal. The 
case concerned national legislation that allowed a worker to be dismissed as soon as 
they had been formally recognised as unfit to occupy their post because of the onset 
of  a  disability,  without  requiring  the  employer  first  to  take  appropriate  reasonable 
accomodation measures or to maintain the appropriate measures already taken. The 
Court held that the fact that the worker concerned had sought recognition of that total 
permanent incapacity did not mean that that worker consented to the termination of 
their  contract,  even  though  the  worker  had  been  aware  that  national  legislation 
allowed  the  employer  to  terminate  the  contract  of  employment  following  such 
recognition. Accordingly, such termination is to be considered a ‘dismissal’ under 
the Employment Equality Directive. 

Another important ruling, the HR Rail case, concerned the dismissal of a trainee who, 
because of a disability, was unable to perform their duties. The CJEU clarified that 
the scope of the Directive covers staff members not recruited on a permanent 
basis, such as workers doing a traineeship as part of their recruitment (106). 

In the Bervidi case, the Court addressed the situation of a worker who asked their 
employer  to  modify  their  working  time  so  that  they  could  care  for  a  child  with 
severe disabilities. The employer only agreed to grant a provisional accommodation, 
noting that it was not the worker who had a disability (107). While it had already been 
established by previous case-law that the Directive prohibits direct discrimination by 
association (108),  the  Court  specified  in  the  Bervidi  case  that  the  prohibition  of 
indirect  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  disability  also  applies  to  a  worker  who 
should benefit from reasonable accommodation. 

(102) Article 3(1)(a) of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(103) Article 3(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(104) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  2 June  2022,  Case  C-587/20,  HK  v  Danmark  and  HK/Privat, 

ECLI:EU:C:2022:419. 

(105) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18 January  2024,  Case  C-631/22,  Ca  Na  Negreta, 

ECLI:EU:C:2024:53. 

(106) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 February 2022, Case C-485/20, HR Rail, ECLI:EU:C:2022:85. 

(107) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 September 2025, Case C‑38/24, Bervidi, ECLI:EU:C:2025:690. 

(108) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 2008, Case C-303/06, Coleman, ECLI:EU:C:2008:415. 

25 

 
 
5.2.  Religion and belief – manifestation of political, philosophical or religious 

beliefs at work 

With the release of the rulings in the Achbita (109) and Bougnaoui and ADDH (110) 
cases,  concerning  wearing  of  headscarves  at  work,  the  CJEU  further  expanded  its 
case-law on the wearing of political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace. 
It continues to recognise the right of employers to have neutrality rules prohibiting the 
wearing of all signs of religious, philosophical and political beliefs in the workplace, 
as long as certain conditions are met. 

The rulings set out below clarified that the ground of ‘religion or belief’ is strictly 
limited to religious, philosophical or spiritual beliefs, thus distinguishing it from the 
notion of political or any other opinion (WABE case (111)). They also clarified that it 
does not include political or trade union beliefs, nor does it include artistic, sporting, 
aesthetic or other beliefs or preferences (S.C.R.L case (112)). 

In the WABE case, the Court clarified that a prohibition on wearing any visible form 
of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace may be 
justified  by  the  genuine  need  of  the  employer  to  present  a  neutral  image  towards 
customers or to prevent social disputes. It must, however, be applied in a general and 
undifferentiated way and be limited to what is strictly necessary. The Court recalled 
that the specific context of each Member State is important, as they have ‘a margin of 
discretion in achieving the necessary reconciliation of the different rights and interests 
at issue, in order to ensure a fair balance’. 

The same line was followed in the S.C.R.L case, where the CJEU also held that an 
undertaking’s  internal  rule  prohibiting  the  wearing  of  any  visible  sign  of political, 
philosophical  or  religious  belief  in  the  workplace  does  not  constitute  direct 
discrimination  ‘on  the  [ground]  of  religion  or  belief’  provided  that  it  covers  any 
manifestation  of  such  beliefs  without  distinction  and  treats  all  workers  of  the 
undertaking in the same way by requiring them, in a general and undifferentiated way, 
for  example,  to  dress  neutrally,  which  precludes  the  wearing  of  such  signs.  A 
difference  in  treatment  would  not  constitute  indirect  discrimination  if  it  were 
objectively justified by a legitimate aim and if the means of achieving that aim were 
appropriate and necessary. However, the mere desire of an employer to pursue a 
policy of neutrality – while in itself a legitimate aim – is not sufficient, as such, to 
justify objectively a difference in treatment indirectly based on religion or belief, 
since such a justification can be  regarded  as being objective only  where there is  a 
genuine  need  on  the  part  of  that  employer,  which  it  is  for  that  employer  to 
demonstrate. 

(109) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 March 2017, Case C-157/15, Achbita, ECLI:EU:C:2017:203. 

(110) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  14 March  2017,  Case  C-188/15,  Bougnaoui  and  ADDH  , 

ECLI:EU:C:2017:204. 

(111) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  15 July  2021,  Joined  Cases  C-804/18  and  C-341/19,  WABE, 

ECLI:EU:C:2021:594. 

(112) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 October 2022, Case C-344/20, S.C.R.L, ECLI:EU:C:2022:774. 

26 

 
 
 
The case Commune d’Ans, was the first to address the question of religious neutrality 
in the public sector in relation to a back-office job (113). The Court held that a policy 
of strict neutrality imposed by a public administration on its employees may indeed 
be  regarded  as  being  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim.  Such  a  rule  is  not 
discriminatory if it is applied in a general and indiscriminate manner to all the staff of 
that administration and is limited to what is strictly necessary, taking into account the 
various rights and interests at stake. The fact that the rule mostly affected women 
was not examined, as the Court declared the question inadmissible. 

In  the  case  Katholische  Schwangerschaftsberatung  (114),  the  CJEU  held  that  a  fair 
balance  should  be  ensured  between,  on  the  one  hand,  the  interests  of  an  employer 
whose ethos is based on religion in not having its ethos and right of autonomy called 
into  question  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  interests  of  employees  in  not  being 
discriminated against depending on their religion. EU law affords each Member State 
discretion in ensuring that balance. 

In the most recent case, Ministero della Difesa (115), the Court held that, by refusing 
to comply with the vaccination requirement for military personnel of the Ministry of 
Defence, an officer sought to challenge the choices made by the Italian authorities in 
the  field  of  public  health  rather  than  asserting  his  own  beliefs.  Accordingly,  the 
reasons for that refusal do not come within the concept of ‘belief’, but rather constitute 
opinions, which are not taken into account by the Employment Equality Directive. 

5.3.  Disability and the notion of reasonable accommodation 

During  the  consultations  for  the  report,  Equinet  and  civil  society  organisations 
highlighted  difficulties 
reasonable 
accommodation  in  employment.  In  this  regard,  the  Court  provided  useful 
clarifications. 

implementing 

to  provide 

the  duty 

in 

In the Komisia za zashtita ot  diskriminatsia (116) case, the Court concluded  that an 
individual  evaluation  should  take  place  to  determine  whether  a  blind  juror  could 
carry out their work after reasonable accommodation measures have been taken. 

In the HR Rail case (117), the Court concluded that a trainee should have been offered 
reasonable accommodation, for example by being assigned to another position for 
which they had the necessary competence, capability and availability, unless that 
measure would have imposed a disproportionate burden on the employer. This was 
confirmed in the Ca Na Negreta case (118). 

(113) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  28 November  2023,  Case  C-148/22,  OP  v  Commune  d’Ans, 

ECLI:EU:C:2023:924. 

(114) Judgment  of 

the  Court  of  Justice  of  17  March  2026,  Case  C-258/24,  Katholische 

Schwangerschaftsberatung, ECLI:EU:C:2026:211. 

(115) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  June  2026,  Case  C-522/24,  Ministero  della  Difesa, 

ECLI:EU:C:2026:498. 

(116) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  21 October  2021,  Case  C-824/19,  Komisia  za  zashtita  ot 

diskriminatsia, ECLI:EU:C:2021:862. 

(117) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 February 2022, Case C-485/20, HR Rail, ECLI:EU:C:2022:85. 

(118) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18 January  2024,  Case  C-631/22,  Ca  Na  Negreta, 

ECLI:EU:C:2024:53. 

27 

 
 
The Court gave more examples in the Tartu Vangla case, where a prison officer with 
hearing impairment was dismissed on the basis of a national regulation that prohibited 
the  employment  of  persons  whose  hearing  acuity  does  not  meet  minimum  sound 
perception thresholds. In this case, the Court stressed that measures such as the use of 
a hearing aid, exemption from some tasks or assignment to a post which would 
not require hearing acuity would have to be explored. 

Significantly,  these  CJEU  judgments  are  increasingly  referring  to  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities (119).  This  confirms  that  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  must,  as  far  as 
possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with that convention (120). 

5.4.  Age 

Age-related  differences  in  treatment  remain  the  source  of  the  highest  number  of 
rulings issued by the CJEU on the Directive. A number of national laws set age limits 
for access to specific professions. In these cases, the key question is whether the age 
limit can be justified under Article 6 of the Directive (justification of differences of 
treatment on grounds of age) as a proportionate measure for achieving a legitimate 
employment or labour market objective (121). 

In  the  Ministero  della  Giustizia  case,  the  Court  examined  a  national  law  setting 
50 years  of  age  as  the  limit  to  access  the  profession  of  notary (122),  closely 
analysing the coherence of the national legislation in question.  

Another example in the Ministero dell’Interno case concerned a national law setting 
a  maximum  age 
limit  of  30  for  persons  to  be  recruited  as  police 
commissioners (123). The Court stressed that such a rule would not comply with the 
Directive  if  the  duties  actually  performed  by  those  police  commissioners  did  not 
require particular physical capacities. If particular physical capacities are required, the 
age limit would have to be checked as to its possibly disproportionate nature; in the 
case at hand carrying out a physical fitness test as part of the recruitment competition 
could possibly be an appropriate and less onerous measure. 

On a different age-related issue, the CJEU examined a national rule placing public-
sector workers who qualified for a full pension in a ‘labour reserve’ system until the 
termination  of  their  contract.  This  had  negative  economic  consequences  (e.g. 
reduction in pay, loss of possible advancement, cancellation of severance pay) for the 

(119) Approved  on  behalf  of  the  European  Community  by  Council  Decision  2010/48/EC  of 26 November 

2009. 

(120) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18 January  2024,  Case  C-631/22,  Ca  Na  Negreta, 

ECLI:EU:C:2024:53, paragraph 41. 

(121) Judgment  of 

the  Court  of  Justice  of  17 October  2024,  Case  C‑408/23,  Anwaltsnotarin, 
ECLI:EU:C:2024:901, concerning an upper age limit of 60 for the initial appointment to a position of 
lawyer commissioned as notary. 

(122) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  3 June  2021,  Case  C-914/19,  Ministero  della  Giustizia, 

ECLI:EU:C:2021:430. 

(123) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  17 November  2022,  Case  C‑304/21,  Ministero  dell’Interno, 

ECLI:EU:C:2022:897. 

28 

 
 
workers concerned (124). The Court held that the Directive does not preclude such a 
national  law  if  the  conditions  of  Article 6  are  met.  It  cited  the  context  of  acute 
economic crisis and the objectives of maintaining employment and balancing the 
age structure of the workforce. 

Finally, in the AP Assistenzprofis case, the CJEU had to balance opposing interests 
on the grounds of age and disability (125). A 28-year-old person with disabilities, who 
was  looking  for  a  personal  assistant  to  help  them  in  all  areas  of  everyday  life, 
restricted the selection to candidates of between 18 and 30 years of age. The Court 
held  that national  law could  take account  of the individual wishes of persons  with 
disabilities  if  such  a  measure  was  necessary  for  the  protection  of  their  rights  and 
freedoms. It pointed out that the age-range requirement was likely to promote respect 
for the right to self-determination by the person with disabilities and that it appears 
reasonable to expect a personal assistant within the same age range as the person with 
disabilities to fit into that person’s personal and social circle more easily. 

5.5. 

Sexual orientation 

In the above-mentioned TP (Audiovisual editor for public television) case (see 5.1), 
the Court held that the freedom of contract in a democratic society is not absolute but 
is to be viewed in relation to its social function (126). In this context, accepting that 
freedom of contract allows a party to refuse to enter into a contract with a person on 
the basis of their sexual orientation would deprive the Directive of its practical effect. 

6.  APPLYING THE DIRECTIVES IN RESPONSE TO STRUCTURAL DISCRIMINATION 

Inequalities are not simply the sum of individual experiences of contempt or barriers, 
such  as  those  encountered  when  searching  for  housing,  looking  for  a  job,  in  the 
workplace or in access to education. 

For example, the anti-racism strategy 2026-2030 notes that lifetime experiences of 
racism accumulate and pose structural barriers (‘structural racism’). They can lead to 
structural discrimination. The impact of structural barriers can be more harmful than 
isolated instances of discrimination, as it denies access to equal opportunities and can 
persist through generations (127). 

In their replies to the Commission, almost all of the equality bodies surveyed and all 
of the civil society organisations believed that structural discrimination was not yet 
appropriately understood and  addressed by public authorities, the private sector or 
wider society. 

(124) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 April 2021, Case C-511/19, Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon, 

ECLI:EU:C:2021:274. 

(125) Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  7 December  2023,  Case  C-518/22,  AP  Assistenzprofis, 

ECLI:EU:C:2023:956. 

(126) Also  in  line  with  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  22 January  2013,  Sky  Österreich,  C-283/11, 

ECLI:EU:C:2013:28, among others. 

(127) The structural inequalities in education illustrate the problem well. For instance, people with a minority 
racial or ethnic background are noticeably more likely to be segregated at school or to leave school early. 
Only  32%  of  Roma  or  Travellers  responding  to  the  FRA  survey  attained  at  least  upper-secondary 
education, compared with 84% of the general population in the EU in 2024. See FRA, Rights of Roma 
and Travellers in 13 European countries – Perspectives from the Roma survey 2024, p. 42. 

29 

 
 
Equality bodies and civil society organisations reported that structural discrimination 
mostly affects people with a minority racial or ethnic background and persons with 
disabilities. It manifests most clearly in employment, education, healthcare and access 
to goods and services. As demonstrated below, some of the Directives’ legal tools 
allow to address structural discrimination. 

Key takeaways 
–  The most important legal tools to tackle structural discrimination (e.g. positive 
action and the prohibition of indirect discrimination) are available to Member 
States in existing legislation. 

–  Most  Member  States  provide  for  at  least  one  form  of  collective  redress. 
However,  it  is  one  of  the  least  implemented  measures  for  enforcing  EU  non-
discrimination law. 

6.1.  Role of the prohibition of ‘indirect discrimination’ in tackling structural 

discrimination 

The  existing  EU  legal  framework  provides  legal  tools  that  can  address  structural 
discrimination, even though the Directives do not explicitly use the term. In particular, 
both Directives prohibit indirect discrimination. 

Indirect  discrimination  occurs  where  an  apparently  neutral  provision,  criterion  or 
practice would put certain protected persons at a particular disadvantage compared 
with other persons (128).  

Currently, legislation of Member States does not explicitly use the term ‘structural 
discrimination’.  It  is  important  to  note  that  more  than  one  third  of  Member  States 
identify  this  as  being  one  of  the  main  difficulties  in  addressing  the  issue.  This  is 
echoed by respondents from equality bodies and civil society organisations. 

At  the  same  time,  most  of  the  Member  States  recognise  that  prohibiting  indirect 
discrimination  and  taking  positive  action  (see  3.7)  can  help  tackle  structural 
discrimination. 

(128) See e.g. Article 2(2)(b) of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 2(2)(b) of the Employment Equality 

Directive. 

30 

 
 
Box 5. Examples of cases of structural discrimination in Member States 
–  In 2023, a ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic addressed the 
issue  of  the  systemic  segregation  of  Roma  children  in  the  education  system. 
Although  it  did  not  explicitly  mention  structural  discrimination,  the  court 
recognised the cumulative disadvantages faced by Roma children and endorsed 
the need for proactive measures (129). 

–  In 2022, the Czech Supreme Court issued a ruling on the issue of segregation. It 
condemned segregation as a practice that cannot be justified, as it is inherently 
against human dignity (130).  

6.2. 

Further legal tools to address structural barriers 

Apart  from  positive  action  and  the  prohibition  of  indirect  discrimination,  equality 
bodies and Member States identified actio popularis (131) and equality duties (132) as 
effective legal tools for tackling structural discrimination. 

Actio  popularis  and  class  actions (133)  are  two  forms  of  collective  redress.  They 
reduce reliance on individual forms  of redress and address the structural  nature of 
discrimination (134). 

The Directives do not oblige Member States to provide collective redress for victims 
of discrimination (135). Currently, 20 Member States provide for one of the two forms 
of collective redress in discrimination cases in their legislation. 

Nonetheless,  class  actions  are  sometimes  restricted  to  certain  fields  of  law,  may 
require affiliation to a specific organisation or may exclude actions by associations or 
trade unions (136). Similarly, while actio popularis is provided for in the legal systems 
of 14 Member States, at least five either do not use the framework or use it very rarely 

(129) Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, 6Cdo/14/2023. 

(130) Supreme  Court  of 

the  Czech  Republic,  Judgment  of  5 May  2022,  25  Cdo  473/2021, 

ECLI:CZ:NS:2022:25.CDO.473.2021.1. 

(131) When an organisation acts in the public interest on their own behalf without a specific victim to support 

or represent. See note 27, p. 126. 

(132) Equality duties include measures to prevent discrimination, institutional obligations to promote equality 
and mainstreaming requirements for public and/or private authorities. See Equinet, Crowley, N. (2016), 
‘Making Europe more equal: A legal duty?’, p. 9, Making Europe more Equal: A Legal Duty?. 

(133) When claimants act on behalf of an undefined group of claimants or on behalf of multiple  identified 

claimants submitting multiple claims. See note 27, p. 126. 

(134) Equinet, Tudisco, V. and Lantschner, E. (2022), ‘Preventing and Reacting to Discrimination through 
Sanctions  and  Remedies’,  p. 24,  Preventing  and  Reacting  to  Discrimination  through  Sanctions  and 
Remedies – Equinet. 

(135) See Article 7 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 9 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(136) For instance, in Sweden, the legislation does not allow for class actions in the field of labour law. In 
Romania,  class  actions  are  not  available  to  associations,  organisations  or  trade  unions.  See  note  27, 
p. 126. 

31 

 
 
in practice (137). Consequently, collective redress measures have not yet realised their 
full potential for combating discrimination. 

Against this background, the new standards for equality bodies require Member States 
to give equality bodies the right to act in court proceedings (138). One of the ways in 
which Member States can fulfil this obligation is by enabling equality bodies to act 
in support or on behalf of several victims or to initiate court proceedings in their own 
name to defend the public interest. 

Besides collective action, the equality bodies surveyed also mentioned public-sector 
equality duties as another tool. Equality duties are available in 23 Member States but 
often lack meaningful implementation mechanisms, accountability and  avenues for 
enforcement and are frequently unknown to administrations. The 13 Member States 
that reported encountering challenges in implementing equality duties largely agreed 
with those conclusions. 

Conclusions 
Member States must: 

–  continue strengthening their enforcement of the Directives, including in cases of 

structural discrimination. 

Member States should: 

–  make it easier to use collective redress in discrimination cases. 

7.  APPLYING THE DIRECTIVES IN RESPONSE TO ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION 

Digitalisation adds another layer of complexity to the situation faced by communities 
exposed to structural inequalities.  

Humans determine the objectives of automated systems, including algorithms and AI 
systems,  according  to  which  these  systems  utilise  data  collected  from  human  or 
machine  sources  during  operation.  As  a  result,  algorithms  and  AI  systems  may 
incorporate  human  biases,  stereotypes,  norms,  and  practices  during  programming, 
data processing, and when humans interact with the applications (139). This has been 
shown to sometimes result in issues that negatively affect people on the grounds and 
in the fields protected by non-discrimination law.  

For instance, under-representation of people with a particular minority racial or ethnic 
background  led  to  situations  in  which  photo  booths  did  not  recognise  people  with 
darker skin tones when taking biometric pictures (140). Elsewhere, AI or automated 
systems  recommended  actions  that  disproportionately  affected  certain  groups  of 

(137) See note 33, p. 32. 

(138) See Article 10(3) of Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. 

(139) Bartoletti,  I.,  Xenidis,  R.,  Study  on  the  impact  of  artificial  intelligence  systems,  their  potential  for 
promoting  equality,  including  gender  equality,  and  the  risks  they  may  cause  in  relation  to  non-
discrimination, Council of Europe, 2023, p. 15. 

(140) See  Wulf  J.,  Automated  Decision-Making  Systems  and  Discrimination  –  Understanding  causes, 

recognizing cases, supporting those affected, AlgorithmWatch, 2022, p. 8. 

32 

 
 
people  on  the  basis  of  proxies (141)  for  protected  characteristics.  For  example, 
postcodes could be used as a proxy for racial or ethnic origin or sexual orientation, 
and first names might be used as a proxy for age (142). 

The Racial Equality Directive and Employment Equality Directive establish a general 
framework for tackling discrimination. This is true regardless of the means by which 
it  is  perpetrated.  As  demonstrated  below,  the  Directives  apply  to  situations  where 
discrimination  arises  from  the  use  of  automated  and  AI  systems  (algorithmic 
discrimination). 

Algorithm  and  AI-supported  decisions  are  made  at  large  scale  and  speed,  while 
potential biases and sources of unfavourable outcomes for protected groups may be 
difficult  to  identify.  In  their  replies  to  the  Commission,  almost  all  of  the  equality 
bodies surveyed and all of the civil society organisations believed that algorithmic 
discrimination  was  not  yet  appropriately  understood  and  addressed  by  public 
authorities, the private sector or wider society. 

Equality bodies and civil society organisations reported that people with a minority 
racial or ethnic background and persons with disabilities are the primary victims of 
algorithmic discrimination, which manifests most clearly in employment, education, 
healthcare and access to goods and services. 

The  following  sections  outline  key  concepts  and  protections  under  EU  non-
discrimination  law  that  are  relevant  to  addressing  algorithmic  discrimination. 
Additionally, the report examines other instruments designed to prevent and mitigate 
potentially discriminatory effects of algorithms and AI systems. It also presents the 
applicable  legal  framework  and  practices  in  Member  States,  along  with  identified 
good practices. 

Key takeaways 
–  Most  Member  States  have  minimal  practical  experience  of  applying  non-

discrimination law to cases of algorithmic discrimination. 

–  Under  the  Equality  Bodies  Directives,  equality  bodies  must  have  appropriate 
human and technical resources to use AI and automated systems and to ensure 
that they comply with non-discrimination rules. 

7.1.  Legal framework 

The  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  Employment  Equality  Directive  both  apply  to 
discrimination  resulting  from  the  use  of  AI  within  their  respective  personal  and 
material scopes. 

The prohibition of direct discrimination prevents protected characteristics from being 
utilised  by  algorithms  to  treat  individuals  in  ways  that  produces  less  favourable 
outcomes  in  comparable  situations.  The  prohibition  of  indirect  discrimination 

(141) ‘Proxy’ refers to a feature correlated with a protected characteristic whose use in a decision procedure 
can result in indirect discrimination. See Datta, A., Fredrikson, M., Ko, G., Mardziel, P. and Sen, S., 
‘Proxy Non-Discrimination in Data-Driven Systems’, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.08120. 

(142) See note 139. 

33 

 
 
addresses the disadvantageous effects of practices that might seem neutral, such as 
using proxies for protected characteristics. 

Furthermore,  Member  States  are  required 
to  establish  appropriate  redress 
mechanisms (143). They are obliged to ensure that associations and organisations can 
provide support to victims of discrimination or act on their behalf. This specialised 
support  can  be  vital  when  seeking  remedies  in  a  highly  complex,  technical, 
algorithmic  environment.  In  addition,  the  principle  of  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof 
makes it easier to overcome challenges in obtaining evidence. 

By ensuring that potential violations can be addressed, EU non-discrimination law 
contributes to the development of trustworthy AI systems. 

AI ecosystems must also ensure that they have high-quality datasets and that systems 
have sufficient transparency, accessibility and explainability for everybody, including 
persons with disabilities, and that there is clear accountability for how they function. 
This  is  important  throughout  the  lifecycle  of  AI  or  automated  systems,  from 
development to deployment. 

In order to achieve this, the EU adopted Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the Artificial 
Intelligence Act) (144) in July 2024. The Artificial Intelligence Act will apply as of 2 
August  2026 (145).  However,  some  provisions  have  already  been  applied  since  2 
February 2025 or 2 August 2025. Furthermore, following the amendments from the 
Digital Omnibus on AI, certain chapters will only apply later. This is the case of rules 
related  to  high-risk  AI  systems  (146).  The  Artificial  Intelligence  Act  applies  in 
conjunction with non-discrimination legislation.  

The Artificial Intelligence Act aims to promote innovation and trustworthy AI in the 
EU, while addressing the risks stemming from the placing on the market, putting into 
service and use of AI systems to health, safety and fundamental rights, including the 
right to non-discrimination, democracy and the rule of law.  It follows a risk-based 
approach, where AI systems are classified according to the level of risk they pose to 
health,  safety  and  fundamental  rights.  It  imposes  proportionate  obligations  and 
requirements depending on the classification of the AI system. 

The Artificial Intelligence Act identifies systems as posing minimal, limited, high or 
unacceptable risks. 

Certain  AI  practices,  such  as  harmful  manipulation,  social  scoring  and  real-time 
remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law 
enforcement are prohibited, because they are inconsistent with EU values (147). 

High-risk AI systems need to comply with strict obligations before they are placed on 
the market or put into service. Such high-risk systems include systems intended to be 
used, for example, as safety components in critical infrastructure, for biometrics or 

(143) See Article 7 of the Racial Equality Directive and Article 9 of the Employment Equality Directive. 

(144) OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj. 

(145) For systems integrated into products such as lifts or toys, the rules will apply from 2 August 2028. 

(146)  From 2 December 2027 for the rules falling under Annex III of the AI Act and 2 August 2028 for AI 

systems falling under Annex I of the AI Act. 

(147) See Article 5 of the Artificial Intelligence Act. 

34 

 
 
for determining admission to educational institutions (148). Such systems must comply 
with obligations on, among other things, robust risk management, high-quality data, 
bias examination and mitigation, transparency and human oversight (149). 

Systems with limited risk that require transparency around the use of AI and must 
comply with certain transparency obligations (150). Such systems include chatbots or 
deepfakes. The Artificial Intelligence Act does not introduce rules for minimal or no-
risk systems, such as spam filters. 

The  Commission  supports  and  facilitates  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
Artificial  Intelligence  Act,  including  through  the  adoption  of  guidelines  and  other 
supporting tools, and coordination within the AI Board with national authorities. 

7.2.  Challenges 

in  applying 

the  Directives 

in  cases  of  algorithmic 

discrimination 

There  are  some  challenges  to  applying  the  Directives  in  cases  of  algorithmic 
discrimination. 

Firstly,  applying  the  provisions  of  the  Directives  in  cases  of  algorithmic 
discrimination is complex. In virtual environments, individuals may sometimes not 
even consider exercising their rights and reporting discrimination. This is because, in 
a  heavily  targeted  and  personalised  algorithmic  environment,  individuals  may  not 
realise that they are being discriminated against (151). 

Secondly,  it  may  be  challenging  to  determine  whether  algorithmic  discrimination 
constitutes direct or indirect discrimination (152). 

Finally, challenges in applying the Directives in cases of algorithmic discrimination 
are  further  exacerbated  by  minimal  practical  experience  and  limited  legislation  in 
most Member States. In response to the Commission’s questionnaire, Member States 
stated that there is almost no practical experience of organising technical testing of 
algorithmic  systems  for  biases  and/or  discrimination.  Sometimes,  this  is  not  even 
possible. Consequently, there is minimal practical experience of applying the national 
laws transposing the Directives in cases of algorithmic discrimination. 

As outlined above, respondents from equality bodies and civil society organisations 
also  largely  considered  that  algorithmic  discrimination  was  not  yet  sufficiently 
recognised  by  public  administrations,  the  private  sector  or  society.  The  equality 
bodies suggested that this is mostly due to a lack of awareness-raising initiatives, the 

(148) See Article 6 of the Artificial Intelligence Act. 

(149) See Articles 8 to 15 of the Artificial Intelligence Act. 

(150) See Article 50 of the Artificial Intelligence Act. 

(151) In  this  regard,  Article 26(11) of  the  Artificial  Intelligence Act  requires  those  deploying high-risk  AI 
systems which make or assist in making decisions relating to natural persons  to inform those persons 
that they are subject to the use of such a system. Additionally, Article 86 of the Artificial Intelligence 
Act grants individuals the right to obtain clear and meaningful explanations on the AI system’s role in 
the decision-making process and the main elements of the decision taken. 

(152)For  further  details,  see  Hacker,  P.  (2018),  ‘Teaching  fairness  to  artificial  intelligence  –  Existing  and 
novel  strategies  against  algorithmic  decision-making  under  EU  law’  Common  Market  Law  Review, 
Vol. 55, Issue 4, 2018, pp. 1143, 1151. 

35 

 
 
novelty  of  the  phenomenon  itself,  insufficient  knowledge  and  digital  literacy,  and 
limitations in existing enforcement mechanisms. 

At  the  same  time,  civil  society  organisations  highlighted  the  limitations  of  public 
debate  on  this  issue,  which  tends  to  focus  more  on  the  benefits  than  the  risks. 
Furthermore, they expressed concerns about the use of algorithmic systems in fields 
such as migration, law enforcement and welfare (153). 

7.3.  Combating algorithmic discrimination in Member States 

Of  all  the  Member  States,  only  the  Netherlands  referred  to  cases  of  algorithmic 
discrimination that had been addressed by either a court (154) or an equality body (155). 
Only  one  Member  State  (Austria)  has  favourable  rules  for  victims  to  prove 
algorithmic discrimination or to alleviate the technical burdens. 

on 

In  2025,  the  EU  supported  the  adoption  of  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Draft 
(156).  The 
Recommendation 
recommendation (157)  aims  to  ensure  that  AI  systems  promote  equality,  including 
gender equality, and do not reinforce discrimination. It is consistent with the Artificial 
Intelligence Act and will be implemented through measures and safeguards applicable 
to AI systems following the risk-based approach. 

intelligence 

artificial 

equality 

and 

Box 6. Guidelines for ensuring non-discrimination when developing and 
implementing an AI system 

On behalf of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior, experts have drawn up guidelines 
for system builders, data analysts and AI experts for ensuring non-discrimination 
when  developing  and  implementing  an  AI  system.  The  2022  guidelines  explain 
which questions and principles are key when working on and with an AI system, 
with  a  focus  on  the  prohibition  of  discrimination,  from  a  legal,  technical  and 
organisational perspective (158). 

In the  ever-expanding  digital  realm,  cross-authority cooperation and dialogue with 
partners representing the interests of groups at risk of discrimination play an important 

(153) The scope of the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive does not extend to 
the fields of migration and law enforcement, while welfare is also outside the scope of the Employment 
Equality  Directive.  The  Artificial  Intelligence  Act  classifies  certain  AI  systems  intended  for  use  in 
migration, law enforcement, essential private and public services and benefits, and some other sensitive 
areas as high risk. Providers and deployers of these high-risk AI systems must comply with the Artificial 
Intelligence Act's obligations, as described in section 7.1 of this report. 

(154) Rechtbank Overijssel, 29 October 2024, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2024:5627. 

(155) College voor de Rechten van de Mens, Vooronderzoek naar de vermeende discriminerende effecten van 

de werkwijzen van de Belastingdienst/Toeslagen | College voor de Rechten van de Mens. 

(156) Council Decision (EU) 2025/2350 of 13 November 2025 on the position to be taken on behalf of the 
European  Union  within  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  the  Draft 
(OJ  L,  2025/2350,  17.11.2025, 
Recommendation  on  equality  and  artificial 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2025/2350/oj). 

intelligence 

(157) Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on equality and artificial intelligence 
(Adopted  by  the  Committee  of  Ministers  on  4  March  2026  at  the  1552nd  meeting  of  the  Ministers' 
Deputies), CM/Rec(2026)1, 4.3.2026, https://search.coe.int/cm?i=09125948802acd7f. 

(158) Ministry of the Interior of the Netherlands, ‘Guidelines for non-discrimination by design’, Handreiking 

non-discriminatie Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Rapport | Rijksoverheid.nl. 

36 

 
 
role. The Equality Bodies Directives require Member States to ensure that equality 
bodies  have  the  appropriate  mechanisms  in  place  to  cooperate  with  other  equality 
bodies within the Member State, as well as with relevant public and private entities 
within their respective fields of competence, including across borders (159). 

Furthermore,  the  Equality  Bodies  Directives  emphasise  that  equality  bodies  must 
have the necessary human and technical  resources to  use  AI for their work and to 
assess  whether  automated  systems  comply  with  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and 
Employment Equality Directive (160). 

Article 77 of the Artificial Intelligence Act establishes a duty of close cooperation and 
mutual  assistance  between  the  bodies  responsible  for  supervising  or  enforcing 
obligations under EU law that protect fundamental rights and the market surveillance 
authorities. 

Member States must identify those fundamental  rights  bodies  (161) which have the 
power  to  request  and  access,  from  the  relevant  market  surveillance  authority,  any 
information or documentation created or maintained under the Regulation, where this 
is  necessary  to  fulfil  their  mandate.  Where  that  documentation  is  insufficient  to 
ascertain whether an infringement has occurred, they may make a reasoned request to 
the  market  surveillance  authorities  to  organise  testing  of  a  high-risk  AI  system 
through technical means (162).  

The Artificial Intelligence Act also imposes certain cooperation obligations on market 
surveillance  authorities  where  the  use  of  high-risk  AI  systems  poses  risks  to 
fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination. In particular, they must 
inform,  consult  with,  and  fully  cooperate  with  the  relevant  fundamental  rights 
authorities (163). 

Those rules have yet to be implemented. At the time of consultation, almost none of 
the surveyed equality bodies felt equipped to use automated or AI systems in their 
work, or to assess them for compliance with the non-discrimination rules (164). Lack 
of experience, specialised staff and technical resources were cited as the key reasons.  

(159) See Article 14 of Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. 

(160) Recital 22 of the Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. 

(161) So  far,  21  Member  States  have  notified  some  or  all  of  their  equality  bodies  as  fundamental  rights 

protection authorities with special powers under the Artificial Intelligence Act. 

(162) See Article 77(3) of the Artificial Intelligence Act. 

(163) See Article 79(2) and Article 82(1) of the Artificial Intelligence Act. 

(164) The notable exception is Finland. Along with Belgium and Portugal, it is part of a capacity-building 

project under the Technical Support Instrument. 

37 

 
 
Box 7. Equality bodies upholding equality and non-discrimination with 
respect to the use of AI in public administrations (165) 
Under the EU-funded Technical Support Instrument, equality bodies in Belgium, 
Finland and Portugal are seeking to build their administrative capacity. The project 
focuses on the impact of AI on discrimination and equality, with the objective of 
increasing the equality bodies’ capacity to uncover algorithmic discrimination and 
provide legal assistance. 

According  to  the  stakeholders  consulted  for  the  report,  systematically  involving 
equality bodies and designating them as advisory bodies for the relevant competent 
authorities (166)  fosters  an  environment  conducive  to  efficient  collaboration  on  the 
enforcement of the Racial Equality Directive and Employment Equality Directive in 
the context of algorithmic discrimination. 

In  several  Member  States,  equality  bodies  already  have  pre-existing  arrangements 
with regulatory authorities, including data protection authorities. 

Box 8. Cooperation between equality bodies and other authorities 
The Dutch equality body engages proactively with market surveillance authorities. 
The  Finnish  Non-Discrimination  Ombudsman  cooperates  with  the  Finnish 
Transport and Communication Agency, and the Maltese Commission for the Rights 
of  Persons  with  Disabilities  works  with  the  Malta  Competition  and  Consumer 
Affairs Authority. Similarly, in France, the Defender of Rights is a member of the 
French Data Protection Authority’s advisory board, providing therefore a model for 
how to organise regular updates and cooperation. 

(165) Council of Europe, ‘Upholding equality and non-discrimination by Equality bodies regarding the use of 

artificial intelligence (AI) in public administrations – Inclusion and anti-discrimination’. 

(166) E.g. markets surveillance authorities, data protection authorities and consumer bodies. See recital 41 of 

Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499. 

38 

 
 
 
Conclusions 
Member States must: 

–  continue their efforts to strengthen enforcement of the Directives, including in 

cases of algorithmic discrimination. 

Member States should: 

–  ensure  effective  cooperation  between  relevant  equality  bodies  and  market 

surveillance authorities under the Artificial Intelligence Act. 

The Commission is committed to: 

–  facilitating cross-authority exchanges and sharing knowledge on AI systems and 
combating algorithmic discrimination with the relevant institutions, building on 
the  ongoing  TSI  project  to  better  equip  institutions  fighting  new  forms  of 
discrimination. 

8.  CONCLUSIONS 

Since the last report on the application of the Directives, the EU has remained firmly 
committed  to  equality  and  to  implementing  EU  non-discrimination  law.  It  has 
implemented the Union of Equality strategies, adopted new strategies on anti-racism, 
LGBTIQ+ equality and gender equality, adopted enhanced strategy for the rights of 
persons with disabilities, and given the enforcement of non-discrimination rules a new 
impetus  by  adopting  the  Equality  Bodies  Directives.  The  Commission  has  also 
continued to support the practical implementation of non-discrimination law. 

The  report  highlights  some  positive  trends.  For  example,  awareness  of  support 
services  for discrimination victims has grown  slightly among certain groups. Most 
Member States did not report major difficulties in applying key concepts of EU non-
discrimination law and many shared positive and extendable practices. In addition, 
the CJEU has handed down judgments that will provide important clarification of the 
Directives’ concepts. The Directives also appear to provide adaptable and effective 
tools to tackle discrimination in an evolving societal landscape. 

Most Member States have made efforts to improve access to justice for victims of 
discrimination and to cooperate with relevant social and civil society partners. They 
have  also  adopted  positive  measures  to  address  disadvantages  linked  to  protected 
characteristics. 

Nonetheless,  Member  States  must  continue  their  efforts  to  apply  the  Directives  in 
practice.  In  particular,  it  is  vital  that  sanctions are  effective,  with  amounts  that 
reflect the long-term harm caused by discrimination, provide redress for victims 
and drive a profound change. 

Efforts to raise awareness of the rights and obligations set out in the Directives should 
target specific protected groups, while making use of the expertise and outreach of 
civil society and social partners. 

39 

 
Victims  of  discrimination  and  their  representatives  must  have  easy  access  to  the 
relevant evidence, including statistical data, needed to demonstrate discrimination and 
shift the burden of proof onto the defendants. 

In  addition,  Member  States  should  make  it  easier  to  use  collective  redress  in 
discrimination  cases  and  must  encourage  collaboration  between  regulatory 
authorities, civil society and social partners. 

On  the  basis  of  the  report’s  findings,  Member  States  and  their  equality  bodies 
should continue addressing the various challenges arising in their domestic law 
and practice. In particular, they could provide judges, law practitioners and claimants 
with  further  guidance  and  support  to  help  them  effectively  trigger  the  shift  of  the 
burden  of  proof  rules  in  discrimination  cases.  In  parallel,  Member  States  must 
continue their efforts to strengthen enforcement of the Directives, including in cases 
of algorithmic discrimination. This involves ensuring full and correct implementation 
of the Equality Bodies Directives. 

The effective application and enforcement of the Directives requires joint efforts. The 
Commission will continue to work together with Member States, equality bodies, the 
FRA, the EIGE, regulators, civil society organisations and social partners to ensure 
systemic protection for victims of discrimination and to fully realise the potential of 
the Directives. 

In addition, the Commission is committed to two further areas of action. 

•  Facilitating regular discussions among Member States on the above topics. 
These  discussions  will  take  place  through  the  expert  group  on  the 
implementation of EU equality law, which was set up in May 2024. 

•  Using EU funding to support the capacity of Member States and relevant 
actors  to  enforce  fundamental  rights.  For  example,  support  could  be 
provided under the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme 
or the future AgoraEU programme (pending interinstitutional negotiations). 
That support covers developing and improving the skills and abilities of civil 
society organisations, national human rights institutions, equality bodies, legal 
professionals,  practitioners,  ombuds  institutions  and  other  human  rights 
defenders to design and implement litigation strategies and strategic litigation 
approaches. 

The next report on the application of the Directives is due in 2031. It will look, in 
particular,  at  the  progress  made  in  enforcing  the  Directives.  That  same  year,  the 
Commission will receive information from Member States on the application of the 
Equality Bodies Directives. It will then also report on their independent functioning 
and effectiveness. 

40