Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52012SC0084

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2011 /\* SWD/2012/0084 \*/**

  

Introduction

After the entry into
force of the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights[1], the Commission adopted a Strategy
on the effective implementation of the Charter[2] setting as an
objective that the EU is exemplary as regard the respect of fundamental rights,
in particular when it legislates. The Commission further committed to preparing
annual reports to better inform citizens on the application of the Charter and
to measure progress in its implementation. This Report covers the year 2011 and
informs the public on the situations in which they can rely on the Charter and
on the role of the European Union in the field of fundamental rights. In
covering the full range of Charter provisions on an annual basis, the annual reports
aim to track where progress is being made, and where new concerns are arising.

The Annual Report is based
on the actions taken by the EU institutions as well as on the analysis of
letters from the general public and questions and petitions from the European
Parliament. The Member States are bound by the Charter when they implement EU
law. However, there is not yet enough information on the efforts made to ensure
the effective implementation of the Charter. The Commission will seek in its
forthcoming Annual Reports on the Application of the Charter to document
progress in that respect.

Protection of Fundamental
Rights in the EU

In the European Union, the protection
of fundamental rights is guaranteed both at national level by Member States'
constitutional systems and at EU level by the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union.

The Charter applies to all actions
taken by the EU institutions. The role of the Commission is to ensure that all its acts
respect the Charter. All EU institutions (including the European Parliament and
the Council) must respect the Charter, in particular throughout the legislative
process.

The Charter applies to Member
States when they implement EU law. The factor connecting an alleged violation of the
Charter with EU law will depend on the situation in question. For example, a
connecting factor exists: when national legislation transposes an EU Directive
in a way contrary to fundamental rights, when a public authority applies EU law
in a manner contrary to fundamental rights, or when a final decision of a
national court applies or interprets EU law in a way contrary to fundamental
rights.

If a national authority
(administration or court) violates fundamental rights set out in the Charter
when implementing EU law, the Commission can take the matter to the Court of
Justice of the European Union. The Commission is not a judicial
body or a court of appeal against the decisions of national or international
courts. Nor does it, as a matter of principle, examine the merits
of an individual case, except if this is relevant to carry out its task of
ensuring that the Member States apply EU law correctly. In particular, if it
detects a wider problem, the Commission can contact the national authorities to
have it fixed, and ultimately it can take a Member State to the Court of
Justice. The objective of these proceedings is to ensure that
the national law in question - or a practice by national administrations or
courts - is aligned with the requirements of EU law.

When individuals or businesses
consider that an act of the EU institutions directly affecting them violates
their fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, they can bring their case
before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which, subject to certain
conditions, has the power to annul such act.

The Commission cannot examine
complaints which concern matters outside the scope of EU Law. This does not
necessarily mean that there has not been a violation of fundamental rights. If
a situation does not relate to EU law, it is for the Member States alone to
ensure that their obligations regarding fundamental rights are respected.
Member States have extensive national rules on fundamental rights, which are
guaranteed by national judges and constitutional courts. Accordingly,
complaints need to be directed to the national level in the first instance.

In addition, all EU countries have
made commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),
independently of their obligations under EU law. Therefore, as a last resort
and after having exhausted all legal remedies available at national level,
individuals may bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for a violation by a Member State of a right guaranteed by the ECHR. The
European Court of Human Rights has designed an admissibility checklist in order
to help potential applicants work out for themselves whether there may be
obstacles to their complaints being examined by the Court[3].

Overview
of the letters and questions to the Commission on fundamental rights

Among the letters from the
general public on fundamental rights issues received by the Commission in
2011, 45% concerned situations where the Charter could apply. In a number of cases,
the Commission requested information from the Member States concerned or
explained to the complainant the applicable EU rules. In other cases, the
complaints should in fact have been addressed to the national authorities or to
the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Where possible, complainants
were redirected to other bodies for more information (such as national data
protection authorities).

Among the questions and
petitions from the European Parliament approximately 70% concerned issues
within EU competence. In a number of cases, the Commission contacted the Member
States to obtain clarifications on alleged violations. The replies given by the
Commission explained or clarified the relevant policies and ongoing
initiatives.

Overview of the decisions of the Court of Justice of the
European Union referring to Charter

The Court of Justice of the
European Union has increasingly referred to the Charter in its decisions
(see Annex I for an overview of all relevant rulings): the number of decisions
quoting the Charter in its reasoning rose by more than 50% as compared to 2010,
from 27 to 42.

National courts when addressing
questions to the Court of Justice (preliminary rulings) have also increasingly
referred to the Charter: in 2011, such references rose by 50% as compared to 2010,
from 18 to 27.

Overview
of enquiries with the Europe Direct Contact Centres

The figures collected by the Europe
Direct Contact Centres (EDCC) confirm that there is a high degree of
interest among citizens on justice, citizenship and fundamental rights. For the
last 6 months of 2011, the EDCC replied to 3107 enquiries from citizens on
topics such as free movement of persons and judicial cooperation.

Enquiries received by
the Europe Direct Contact Centres
 on justice, fundamental rights and citizenship July – December 2011)

The structure of the Report

The structure of the Report
follows the six titles of the Charter itself: Dignity, Freedoms, Equality,
Solidarity, Citizens’ rights and Justice. Each of the six chapters of the
Report contains the following information on the application of the Charter:

·
Examples
of how the EU institutions and, where relevant, the Member States have applied
the Charter in 2011;

·
Questions
and petitions from the European Parliament, and letters from the general public
received in 2011 focusing on fundamental rights issues;

·
Relevant
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

·
Data
gathered by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights throughout 2011.

1. Dignity

§
Member
States wishing to deploy security scanners must comply with minimum
conditions set by the new EU rules to safeguard fundamental rights. Most
importantly, passengers are entitled to opt out from the security scanner
procedure and to be checked by alternative screening methods. Passengers must
be informed of the possibility to opt out of the scanner technology used and of
the conditions associated with its use.

§
The Commission proposed to strengthen the protection of fundamental
rights in the EU rules on border control, which provide common
standards and procedures on controls and surveillance at the external borders
of the Schengen area.

§
The EU adopted new rules on preventing and combating trafficking
in human beings and protecting its victims. These rules seek to achieve
more effective prosecution by national authorities of human traffickers across
borders.

§
The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling on the application
of EU rules on patents in the area of biomedicine. The Court
considered that researchers cannot declare patents on inventions
which imply the destruction of any human cell having the potential of
developing into human being, including in the case when human
cells are created via therapeutic cloning.

§
The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the conditions
for the transfer of asylum seekers in the application of the EU Dublin
Regulation.  The Court forbid the transfer of asylum seekers to Member
States where there are systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and
in the reception conditions of asylum seekers which would amount to a real risk
of the asylum seeker being subject to inhuman or degrading treatment as
enshrined in Article 4 of the Charter

Human
dignity

Human dignity is the basis of all
fundamental rights. It guarantees the protection of human persons from being
treated as a mere object by the State or by his/her fellow citizens. The rights
and freedoms under the title Dignity, such as the right to life, and the
prohibition of torture and slavery, must be respected so we can exercise other
rights and freedoms in the Charter, for example freedom of expression and
freedom of association. None of the rights laid down in the Charter may be used
to harm the dignity of another person.

The European Union strongly
opposes the death penalty and has consistently backed its universal abolition,
and continues to work towards this goal. In 2011, the Commission amended[4] existing EU rules on trade in certain
goods which could be used for capital punishment or torture by
imposing export control on certain chemicals which could be used for capital
punishment (e.g. sodium thiopental, and other short and intermediate
acting barbiturates), by broadening the ban on trade in electric-shock
devices (such as electric shock sleeves and cuffs) which have the same impact
as electric-shock belts  and by imposing an export ban on spiked batons. The Commission has also
provided guidance[5] on the application of EU
rules regarding the control of exports to all third countries of chemicals of
listed barbiturates (or medicinal products).

Guaranteeing the security of
travellers in the field of aviation security includes the use of new
technologies that can detect unsafe objects at airports, such as security
scanners. Some technologies of security scanners can reveal a detailed display
of the human body, including possible medical conditions, and could violate the
right to the respect of human dignity which requires that people are treated as
subjects and not as objects. The EU adopted new rules on the use
of security scanners[6]
providing an optional use at EU airports of security scanners
that do not use X-ray radiation for screening passengers. The different
preparation phases in the adoption of the legislation took into account the
impact of different policy options on fundamental rights, in particular on
human dignity, private and family life, data protection, the rights of the
child, freedom of religion and the prohibition of discrimination. Adopted EU
rules reflect this preparatory work and contain safeguards that ensure the
legislation is in compliance with the Charter. For example, passengers are
entitled to opt out from a security scanner procedure and to be checked by
alternative screening methods. In addition, detailed conditions are laid down
to ensure that the right to the protection of personal data and private life is
respected, for instance, the obligation that security scanners shall not store,
retain, copy, print or retrieve images. As far as health considerations are
concerned, only scanners that do not use ionising radiation are allowed as a
method for screening persons.

The entitlement of
passengers to opt out from a security scanner procedure

Member States and airports wishing to deploy
security scanners must comply with minimum conditions set by the EU's new rules
to safeguard fundamental rights. Most importantly, passengers are entitled to
opt out from the security scanner procedure and to be checked by alternative
screening methods. Passengers must be informed of the possibility to opt out of
the scanner technology used and of the conditions associated with its use.

The Court of Justice of the
European Union referred to human dignity in a case concerning the patentability
of human embryos created through therapeutic cloning.[7] The Court has pointed
out that relevant EU rules emphasise that patent law must be applied so as to
respect the fundamental principles safeguarding the dignity and integrity of
the person and established EU legislation intended to exclude any possibility
of patentability where respect for human dignity could thereby be affected. The
Court considered that researchers cannot declare patents on
inventions which imply the destruction of any human cell having the
potential of developing into human being, including in the
case when human cells are created via therapeutic cloning. The Court
further specified that researchers cannot declare patents on the use of human embryos
for research purposes. This means the researcher cannot ask for a patent on a
research method which requires the use of embryos.

The Commission proposed a legal
framework for the research funding programme Horizon 2020. When preparing
its proposal, the Commission paid particular attention to the aspects relating
to biomedical research with the use of embryonic stem cells in order to ensure the
compliance of the funding programme with the Charter. The Commission submitted
it legislative proposal only after making sure that it did not raise concerns
from the perspective of the principle of the respect of human dignity (Article
1 of the Charter) and the right to integrity of the person (Article 3 of the
Charter). The proposed programme will not finance any research intended to
create embryos for the purpose of embryonic stem cell procurement. The proposed
programme allows the financing of embryonic stem cells research on the condition
of an ethical review and checks and only in Member states, where such research is
allowed by law and where the legislation establishes appropriate mechanisms of
evaluation, control and licensing.

Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment

The Charter provides that no one
shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.

This provision is particularly
relevant in the context of implementing EU rules on border control,
which provide common standards and procedures for controls and surveillance at
the external borders of the Schengen area[8]. These rules guarantee respect
for the fundamental rights of all travellers. In particular, the Schengen
Borders Code[9],
which lays down Member States' obligations concerning external border
management, provides that border guards must fully respect human dignity,
should act in a proportionate manner and should not discriminate against
travellers on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation. The Schengen Border Code also specifies
that border guards should be properly trained professionals. In 2011, the
Commission proposed amendments[10]
that further strengthen the protection of fundamental rights by requiring
training on the protection of unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking. The
proposal provides third country nationals with full access to international
protection in accordance with EU law at joint border crossing points between Member States and neighbouring third countries, operated through bilateral agreements.

The EU borders agency (FRONTEX)
plays a key role in coordinating the actions of Member States. In 2011, the EU amended
the rules governing FRONTEX. The amendments require that all persons
participating in border control activities undertake training in fundamental
rights, that any incidents during operations, including in relation to
fundamental rights, must be reported to the national authorities and followed
up, and that FRONTEX develop detailed guidelines on how to treat third-country
nationals who are being returned to their home country (building on the best
practice guidelines already in place). The tasks of FRONTEX have also been
revised, and now include possible assistance to Member States in situations
that may involve humanitarian emergencies and rescue at sea. The office of a
Fundamental Rights Officer will be created in the Agency to assist in matters
having implications for fundamental rights. A code of conduct will set out the
fundamental rights standards to be respected during FRONTEX operations, and a
Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights will be created involving relevant
international organisations and non-governmental organisations. The amendments
provide that the Member State hosting a FRONTEX-coordinated operation must
provide for appropriate disciplinary or other measures in a case of fundamental
rights violations during the course of a joint operation. FRONTEX operations
must be suspended or terminated if such violations are of a serious nature or
are likely to persist.

The Commission proposed setting up
a European border surveillance system (EUROSUR).[11] The aim of EUROSUR is
to reinforce control of Schengen external borders, particularly at the southern
maritime and eastern land borders, in order to bring down the number of
irregular migrants entering the EU undetected, reduce the loss of lives of
migrants at sea and prevent cross-border crime. It aims to do so by allowing national
authorities in charge of border surveillance (border guards, coast guards,
police, customs and navies) to share and exchange operational information and
cooperate with each other, with Frontex and with neighbouring third countries.
The proposal guarantees that whenever data sharing includes personal data, the
data protection rules apply and must be fully respected. The proposal also
explicitly prohibits any exchange of data with a third country who could use
this information to identify persons or groups of persons who are under a
serious risk of being subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment or any other violation of their fundamental rights.

The Court of Justice of the
European Union clarified the conditions for the transfer of asylum seekers in
application of the EU Dublin Regulation. In the ruling N.S. and others[12]
the Court of Justice considered that Member States, including the national
courts, must not transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State indicated as
responsible where it is such that they cannot be unaware of systemic
deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum
seekers amounting to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker
would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.
When a transfer to the Member State responsible is impossible, the Member State where the applicant is present must examine whether another Member State can be identified as responsible for the examination of the asylum application or if
necessary, examine the application itself.

This case clarifies certain issues within the
framework of EU legislation that were raised by the European Court of Human
Rights in the case M.S.S. v Greece and Belgium[13]. The applicant, an
Afghan national, entered the European Union through Greece. The application for
asylum lodged by the applicant in Belgium was not examined and the applicant
was transferred to Greece pursuant to the Dublin Regulation. The Court found
violations of Article 3 of the ECHR (prohibition of inhuman and degrading
treatments) and Article 13 of the ECHR (effective remedy) both by Belgium and
Greece, due to the structural failures of the asylum system in Greece
(reception conditions, detention conditions, access to the asylum procedure)
and the lack of access to effective remedy.

Fundamental rights
situation of persons irregularly entering the EU's external border between
Greece and Turkey

The
EU Agency for Fundamental Rights reported on the fundamental rights
situation of persons irregularly entering the EU's external border between Greece and Turkey, based on findings of a field study carried out January 2011[14].
The Agency's report stressed that conditions in detention centres raise serious
concerns for the enjoyment of fundamental rights, including basic problems of
over-crowding, and inadequate heating and sanitation facilities. The Agency
further identified factors contributing to the current crisis, in particular,
the practice of systematically detaining all those found crossing the border
irregularly (including children), a lack of coordination in the Evros region,
and the inadequate response to the humanitarian crisis, which would warrant the
declaration of the state of emergency.

The findings of the
Agency confirmed the serious concerns expressed by the Commission on
conditions in which irregular migrants and asylum seekers are being detained in
Greece, in particular in the Evros region, and the humanitarian situation
in these places of detention. The Commission reiterated that third-country
nationals held in detention for whatever reason should always be treated in a
humane and dignified manner and in full respect of fundamental rights. The
Commission already took a number of actions in that respect and intervened, by
launching an infringement procedure against Greece in 2010, on the
inappropriate reception conditions for asylum seekers detained in the Evros
region.

The Commission is engaged in substantial efforts towards
assisting Greece, together with the Member States, FRONTEX, EASO, UNHCR and
other partners. This support combines significant financial and practical
assistance for the reform of the national asylum system, border and return
management, a more efficient use of the relevant EU funds for migration
management and better cooperation with neighbouring countries, in particular Turkey.

Prohibition of trafficking in human beings

Trafficking in human beings is a
form of slavery that violates human dignity. The Charter explicitly prohibits
trafficking in human beings. Preventing and combating trafficking in human
beings is a priority for the Union and the Member States.

The EU Directive on prevention
and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims entered
into force in 2011[15]. The Directive takes a
human rights and gender-specific approach.  It seeks to achieve more effective
prosecution by national authorities of human traffickers across borders. It
establishes uniform definitions and common standards on sanctions, liability
and jurisdiction. The definition of trafficking for the first time explicitly
includes forms of exploitation like begging, criminal activities or removal of
organs. The Member States must put in place mechanisms for the early
identification of victims, as well as for the early provision of support to
victims. Victims would also receive free legal counselling and legal
representation. Special protection measures are envisaged for child victims,
e.g. to protect them from the negative effects of court procedures by defining
how to conduct interviews with child victims, or by setting out the rules for extended
support to unaccompanied children (see also the section on Rights of the child
and the section on newly proposed rules on victims rights). When adopting laws
on this issue, Member States must take into account the rights of defence of
those accused in criminal procedures.

To further streamline EU actions
in the field of trafficking in human beings, the Commission appointed an EU
Anti-trafficking Coordinator. The Commission also launched a new EU
anti-trafficking website[16], which includes information on EU
and national policy and legislation, Commission funded projects and
publications.

2. Freedoms

§
The
Commission prepared a reform of the EU legal framework on data protection.
Individuals continue to be concerned about keeping control of their personal
data, not only in social networks but in many different areas of their daily
life. Negotiations started with the United States on an agreement to protect
personal data exchanged in the context of fighting crime and terrorism. The
Commission applied the requirement to protect personal across a range of
policies in the preparation of new legislative proposals.

§
The Common European Sales Law proposed by the Commission would
facilitate the exercise of the freedom to conduct a business by removing
obstacles resulting from divergences between national contract laws.

§
Citizens and Members of the European Parliament voiced concern
over the respect of freedom of expression and media freedom and pluralism.
The High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism created by the Commission
will draw recommendations for the respect, protection, support and promotion of
pluralism and freedom of the media in Europe.

Respect
for private and family life

The Charter guarantees
the right of everyone to the respect of their private and family life. EU free
movement rules recognise the right to family life for all EU citizens who move
and reside in another Member State as well as for third-country nationals who
are member of the family of an EU citizen.

The Commission launched
a public debate on the right to family reunification of third-country
nationals living in the EU[17]. The outcome
of this consultation will shape whether any concrete policy follow up is
necessary (e.g. modification of the rules, interpretative guidelines or status
quo).

The Commission proposed
new regulations on matrimonial property regimes and on property regimes for
registered partnerships[18].
The regulations take into account the right to respect for private and family
life and the right to marry and to found a family according to national laws . There
is no differentiation introduced in the legislation on the basis of sexual
orientation.

German
Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt)

In November
2011, the European Parliament's Petitions Committee carried out its second
fact-finding visit to Germany to enquire about the functioning of the
German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt). According to the complainants
and petitioners the Welfare Office's decisions and interventions allegedly
discriminate against non-German parents, for example, by obliging
non-German parents to communicate with their children only in German during
visits supervised by the Welfare Office. The findings of the fact-finding
mission have not yet been made public.

Data protection

The Charter
guarantees the protection of personal information. Everyone has the right
to the protection of their personal data. Such data must be processed fairly
for specified purposes and on a legitimate basis laid down by law. In the
European Union, compliance with these rules is subject to control by
independent authorities in Member States.

The
Commission took concrete steps to update EU rules on data protection in
2012, based on the numerous replies it received during the consultation process
carried out in 2011.

The Court of Justice
of the European Union declared in its landmark Scarlet ruling[19] that obliging an
internet service provider to install a filtering system such as the one at
stake in order to prevent an infringement of intellectual property rights would
infringe the freedom of the provider to conduct its business, as well as its
customers' rights to the protection of their personal data and to receive or
impart information. The  contested filtering system would not respect the requirement that a
fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one
hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal
data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other. In particular, concerning the protection of personal
data such filtering system may infringe that right
as it would
involve a systematic analysis of all content and the collection and
identification of users’ IP addresses from which unlawful content on the
network is sent;
those addresses are protected personal data because they allow those users to
be precisely identified. This ruling underlines the importance of taking into
account all the fundamental rights involved by a given measure and to
ensure its compliance with all these rights.

The Court
of Justice of the European Union provided guidance on the interpretation
of the provision in EU law on the processing of data[20].
The Court confirmed that the provision on the criteria which make data
processing legitimate has direct effect before national courts. The Court
further ruled that this provision provides an exhaustive list of legitimate legal
basis for a processing activity upon which Member States cannot impose
additional requirements.

Several
data protection supervisory authorities in Member States concluded the
investigations launched in 2010 into social networking sites. Many
investigations had been triggered by complaints launched after the change of
the privacy policies by social network providers. With these changes the social
networking sites took the liberty of making broader use of the personal data it
had collected under more restrictive policies. The social networking sites had
not given users full information about the change, and had not obtained their
consent. Furthermore, new features introduced in the meantime on one particular
site caused new complaints and further investigations. This concerns a new
function allowing the automatic identification of persons in photos uploaded to
the site (facial recognition) and the use of cookies and web scripts to collect
data about user behaviour, e.g. with the help of the so-called 'Like-Button',
without the user's knowledge and control.

The Irish
Data Protection Commissioner, who is the competent supervisory authority to
monitor the application of EU data protection rules, received a complaint
against a social network from an Austrian non-governmental organisation which
had prepared 22 elaborate charges on privacy violations. The investigation also
included on-site audits at the premises of the social network site in Ireland, the headquarters of the company managing the site. The Irish Data Protection
Commissioner published its audit report on 22 December 2011. The report
contains a number of observations and corresponding recommendations for improvements
of the privacy policies and functions of the social network site in question.
They concern for instance issues such as privacy related information which is
not complete, not clear and difficult to understand, excessive retention of
data and the lack of effective possibilities for the users to delete their data
from the site. The social networking site agreed to implement some of the
recommendations.  The Irish Data Protection Commissioner will review progress
in July 2012.

Geo-location
service providers were also subject to investigations. A notable
example is the agreement reached by the Dutch data protection authority with a
provider, by which a technical solution was established which allows citizens
and organisations that operate wireless LAN access points to ensure that these
access points will not be used for location service. The solution is expected
to be scrutinized by other service providers and privacy authorities' world
wide.

The Commission
continues to monitor the situation in the Member States, where doubts exist
about the compliance of national rules with EU rules on data protection. In
2011, the Commission dealt with thirteen infringement cases for alleged
violation of EU laws on data protection. Four infringement cases concerned Finland and were closed after Finland notified the Commission that it had repealed the offending
legislative provision which had been restricting the scope of its national data
protection legislation. One infringement case was closed
against the United Kingdom, further to the clarifications made on the
compliance of it national legislation with EU rules on data protection.

The
European Commission evaluated the implementation and application of EU rules
on Data Retention and outlined its impact on economic operators and
consumers as well as its implications on the protection of fundamental rights
and freedoms vis-à-vis the protection of personal data. The report concluded
that, on the one hand, data retention is a valuable tool for law enforcement
purposes. On the other hand, the report identified areas that need to be
improved following the uneven transposition of the rules by Member States. In
particular, the Commission should ensure more harmonisation in
specific areas, such as: the measures ensuring the respect for fundamental
rights and freedoms, including the data retention periods, the purpose
limitations, as well as the necessary safeguards to access retained data and
protect personal data.

The
European Commission opened negotiations with the United States on an
agreement to protect personal data exchanged in the context of fighting crime
and terrorism, on 28 March 2011. The European Commission aims to ensure a
high level of protection of personal data exchanged between the EU and the US. The Council gave its green light for the conclusion of the new EU-Australia Passenger
Name Record agreement which will replace the agreement in place since July
2008.  The Council also gave its green light for the signature of the new EU-US
Passenger Name Record agreement which will replace the existing one -
provisionally applied since 2007 - improving data protection whilst providing
an efficient tool to fight serious transnational crime and terrorism. The
European Parliament has been asked to give its consent to the US agreement, which is necessary before the Council can adopt its decision on the conclusion of the
agreement.

The European
Commission presented a proposal for an EU Passenger Name Record Directive[21] to fight serious
crime and terrorism, in February. The proposal obliges air carriers to provide
EU Member States with data on passengers entering or departing from the EU. In
this proposal, the Commission lays down common rules for EU Member States to
set up national PNR systems. The proposal aims to create a coherent EU wide
system which ensures close cooperation between law enforcement authorities
within the EU. It contains rules on the protection of personal data involving a
number of safeguards for the protection of personal data.

Upon
request of the European Parliament, which is discussing the Commission's
proposal and preparing a report on it, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights
presented an expert opinion on the proposal[22].

The
Commission adopted a Communication on a European terrorist finance tracking
system[23] ("European
TFTS") presenting the different options on the possible
introduction of such a system  as a follow-up to the agreement signed between
the EU and the US on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data
for the purpose of the Terrorist Financing Tracking Programme on 28 June 2010.
The Commission specified in its analysis that the European TFTS should have two
main objectives. First, the system should contribute to limiting the amount of
personal data transferred to the US. Second, it should contribute
significantly to efforts to cut off terrorists' access to funding and materials
and follow their transactions. The Commission further indicated that the key
issues which need to be decided upon before such a system can be established.
This includes the need to fully respect the fundamental rights of individuals,
in particular data protection (Article 8 of the EU Charter) and judicial
redress (Article 47 of the Charter), data security issues, the operational
scope of the system, as well as costs. To that end, the Commission has
indicated that it will follow the guidance provided in the strategy for the effective
implementation of the Charter of Fundamental rights for the evaluation of the
different options considered.

The Commission
applied the requirement to protect personal data across a range of policies. In
this regard, the Commission proposal for a regulation on insider dealing and
market manipulation (market abuse)[24] makes it clear
that any processing of personal data carried out by financial supervisory
authorities will have to comply with EU rules on data protection. Similar
provisions are also included in the proposals for a regulation on statutory
audit of public-interest entities, and markets in financial instruments.

In the
area of recognition of professional qualifications in medical and health
professions[25], the
Commission proposed to introduce an alert mechanism on professionals who have
been prohibited by national authorities or courts from pursuing their
profession, even temporarily, on the territory of that Member State. The proposal requires specific conditions to be fulfilled for issuing alerts, including
the obligation to inform the individual concerned at the time of issuing the
alert so as to enable him to make an appeal to national courts against the
decision or apply for rectification of such decisions and to have access to
remedies in respect of any damage caused by false alerts to other Member
States.

The
Commission adopted a communication on smart grids which sets policy directions
to drive forward the deployment of future European electricity networks[26]. Smart
meters, which are an inherent part of a smart grid, and which record the consumption
of electric energy and communicate that information to the consumer, to the
grid operator and energy supplier will be installed in each household following
a positive cost benefit analysis in all EU Member States. The communication
recognizes that consumer privacy and the protection of personal data need to be
addressed to gain the consumer's trust and make the rolling out of smart grids
a success for all stakeholders.

In the
area of consumer protection enforcement cooperation, the Commission
adopted guidelines[27] for the
implementation of data protection rules in the Consumer Protection Cooperation
System (CPCS)[28] in order
to ensure that these rules are respected when personal data is processed
through the CPCS.

The Visa
Information System (VIS) started operations in Schengen States' consulates in North Africa on 11 October 2011. With this system, Schengen State's visa authorities
will be able to register data on short-stay visa applicants, including their
digital photograph and fingerprints, and on the decisions taken on the
applications or subsequently. The duly authorised staff of the border, asylum,
and immigration authorities will also have access to the VIS for the
performance of their task. At a later stage, Europol and Schengen States'
authorities responsible for the prevention, detection and investigation of
terrorist or other serious criminal offences will be able to request access to
data registered in the VIS under restrictive conditions. Data processing
in the VIS is subject to specific data protection rules. Any person has the
right to receive the data related to him/her registered in the system, to
request the correction of inaccurate data, and to request the deletion of data
recorded unlawfully as well as to lodge a complaint with the national data
protection authorities in order to ensure the respect of his/ her rights. The European
Data Protection Supervisor and Member States data protection authorities are
competent to supervise the compliance with data protection rules applicable.

Freedom
of expression

The Charter guarantees the right to freedom of expression
for everyone. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers.

Members of the European Parliament addressed the issue of media
freedom, pluralism and independent governance in several questions to the
Commission.  The Commission replied that media pluralism is an essential
condition for preserving the right to information and freedom of expression
that underpins the democratic process. In this respect, the Commission created
a High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism. The objective of this
independent group, chaired by the former President of Latvia (Professor Vaira
Vīķe-Freiberga), is to draw up a public report with recommendations for the
respect, protection, support and promotion of pluralism and freedom of the
media in Europe. The Commission has also initiated a Centre for Media Pluralism
and Media Freedom within the Robert Schuman School of the European University
Institute to reflect and advise on the underlying issues.

Revision of the
Hungarian Media Law

Following the Commission's
intervention, using the full extent of its legal powers, the Hungarian
government agreed to amend its national media law so that it complies with
the concerns raised by the Commission on four points that concern EU law,
namely: the obligation of balanced coverage, ii) country of origin principle,
iii) registration requirements and iv) offensive content. In taking this action
the Commission acted in line with the Treaty by focusing its intervention on areas
subject to EU law. National courts and, if necessary, the European Court of
Human Rights, could review issues of national competence.

A further examination
of the Law by the Hungarian Constitutional Court introduced further amendments
as regards the provisions which unconstitutionally limited freedom of
expression of the written press. This concerned inter alia limitations
to the protection of sources, restrictions on content for the written press and
the provisions on the Media Ombudsman. The Commission urged the Hungarian
authorities to respect this court ruling, and to implement it with the same
speed and efficiency they applied to the Commission’s assessment on the EU law
aspects of this media law[29].

The Commission received parliamentary questions and
letters from citizens in relation to an Italian draft law on the use of
wiretapping, which allegedly contained sanctions in the event of publication in
the media of information obtained through taps. There is no EU legislation
harmonising the use of wiretapping in the framework of investigations and
criminal proceedings. The data protection directive provides for a derogation
for the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic
purposes only if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the
rules governing freedom of expression[30]. The
compatibility of the draft law with these provisions would have to be ensured,
if the draft law would come before the Italian parliament for adoption.

In its landmark Scarlet ruling (see
section on data protection), the Court of Justice of the European Union found
that obliging an internet service provider (ISP) to install the
contested filtering system could potentially undermine freedom of
information since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful
content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to
the blocking of lawful communications. The reply to the question whether a
transmission is lawful also depends on the application of statutory exceptions
to copyright which vary from one Member State to another. Moreover, in some
Member States certain works fall within the public domain or can be posted
online free of charge by the authors concerned.

Freedom
to conduct a business

The Charter recognises the freedom to conduct a
business in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices. The
freedom to conduct a business was taken into account in different areas of EU
policy, including: new legislation on market in financial instruments,
insurance mediation, credit ratings Agency[31] and on recording equipment for road
transport (tachographs)[32].

The freedom to conduct a business was also a key
consideration in the preparation of the Common European Sales Law[33] proposal aimed at removing
obstacles resulting from divergences between national contract laws. This Commission
proposal offers a single set of contract law rules which businesses can choose
to apply to any of their cross-borders transactions throughout the EU. For
example, the Common European Sales Law could be used when companies feel that
differences in contract laws, such as remedies for faulty products, create
considerable costs and are an important barrier to their sales to another
country.

The negotiations in the European
Parliament and in the Council on the proposed amendments to EU rules on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters continue[34]. If
these amendments are adopted judgements issued in another Member State in civil and
commercial matters will be treated like domestic judgements. This would in
effect make cross-border litigation much less cumbersome, time-consuming and
costly then it is today. Under the current EU rules, a judgment given in one Member State does not automatically take effect in another Member State. In order to be
enforced in another country, a court in that country first has to validate the
decision and declare it enforceable. This is done in a special procedure
("exequatur") that takes place after the judgment has been obtained
and before concrete measures of enforcement can be taken.

Negotiations in the European Parliament and in
the Council on
the amendments to EU rules for protecting information systems against
attacks continue. The Council adopted a general approach on the proposal in
2011 and the European Parliament is expected to vote on it in early 2012. The
amendments propose making the use of tools for committing offences and the
illegal interception of information systems a crime and improving European
criminal justice and police cooperation. They also contain measures on the storage
of data and the exchange of data between law enforcement agencies, which are in
compliance with EU data protection rules. The strengthening of the penalisation
of the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise
making tools for cyber attacks available was worded carefully in order not to
criminalise lawful behaviour, such as the use of these tools by ICT security
companies to test the effectiveness of their products or by organisations and
competent authorities to test and ensure the security of networks and
information systems under their responsibility. Criminalisation of such acts
would violate the freedom to conduct a business, enshrined in the Charter.

In its landmark Scarlet ruling (see section
on data protection), the Court of Justice of the European
Union found that obliging an internet service provider (ISP) to install a
filtering system such as the one at stake would result in a serious
infringement of the freedom of the ISP concerned to conduct its business since
it would require that ISP to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer
system at its own expense. The Court noted in particular the characteristics of the contested filtering
system involved monitoring all the
electronic communications made through the network of the ISP concerned in the
interests of those right holders, it had no limitation in time, was directed at all future infringements
and was intended to protect
not only existing works, but also future works that had not yet been created at the time
when the system was
introduced.

Right to property

The Charter protects the right of everyone to
property, which includes the right to own, use, and dispose of lawfully
acquired possessions. The Charter also guarantees the protection of
intellectual property.

Cross-border debt
recovery in civil and commercial matters

The Commission proposed
legislation to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial
matters[35]. The proposal will
establish a new uniform European procedure which will enable a creditor to
prevent the withdrawal or transfer of funds standing to the credit of his
debtor in any bank account located in the EU. The order will be of a protective
nature i.e. it will only block the debtor's account. The procedure ensures both
the right of a creditor to secure effective enforcement of its claim and the
protection of the defendant's rights, particularly the right to redress,
privacy and to data protection.

The Commission adopted
a comprehensive strategy to review the legal framework in which Intellectual
Property Rights operate[36]. The Commission
announced that such review will require assessing the impact, not only on the
right to property, but also on the rights to private life, protection of
personal data, freedom of expression and information and to an effective remedy
and it underlined that it will ensure that its proposal complies with all
the fundamental rights involved.

In
its landmark Scarlet ruling (see section on data protection)
relating to the injunction for an internet service provider to install a
filtering system, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared
that the protection of the right to intellectual property is enshrined in
Article 17(2) of the Charter but there is, however, nothing in the wording of
that provision or in the Court’s case-law to suggest that that right is
inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected. The Court added that in the context of measures adopted to
protect copyright holders, national authorities and courts must strike a fair
balance between the protection of copyright and the protection of the
fundamental rights of individuals who are affected by such measures.

The European Commission presented a proposal for a unitary
patent protection. This proposal, which was introduced through the special
voluntary procedure (so-called "enhanced cooperation") would ensure
that holders of European patents can apply for one single patent protection at
the European Patent Office (EPO) for the entire territory of the 25 participating
Member States.

The Commission has been in contact with the Spanish
authorities in view of the number of complaints received from non-Spanish citizens
on the Spanish coastal law. This legislation aims to protect the coast
from abusive constructions. It applies to private projects which run the risk
of being demolished as they are located in areas regulated by the coastal law. It
resulted from the Commission's assessment that the enforcement of the Spanish
coastal law affects both Spanish nationals and nationals from other Member
States.

The
European Parliament continued to pay attention to the application of the
Spanish coastal law. In particular the Petition's Committee dealt with a number
of petitions filed by affected proprietors. In addition, a seminar on property
rights in the EU was organized in the European Parliament[37].

The
Spanish coastal law does not provide for a financial compensation for
the property loss resulting from the demarcation of the maritime-terrestrial
public domain. It provides instead for a special form of compensation
consisting of the granting of an administrative concession. The Commission has
no power to address the adequacy of this compensation mechanism as a sufficient
connection with EU law has not been identified. The question of whether this
special form of compensation is in line with the case law of the European Court
of Human Rights should be examined by national courts and, after having
exhausted domestic legal remedies, by the Strasbourg Court itself.

The
provision of appropriate information to all interested parties
throughout the chain of parties involved (cadastre, notaries, real estate
services, etc.) is crucial, in particular for EU citizens having exercised the
right to free movement across the EU and having transferred funds to acquire
property potentially affected by the coastal law. The interconnection of land
registers across the EU, such as through the European Land Information Service
(EULIS), can contribute to improving the situation in that respect. The
Commission will intensify its efforts in the Council working party on e-Law
(e-Justice) so that the European e-Justice portal provides access to land
information stored in land registers of the different Member States of the EU.

Right
to asylum

The right to asylum is guaranteed by the Charter.

New rules were adopted on standards for the
qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as
beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection
granted. The new provisions of the Qualification directive need to be
transposed into national law within two years[38]. The amendments set
standards for the identification of people in need of international protection
in the EU either as refugees or as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The text
also ensures a minimum level of benefits and rights for both categories of
beneficiaries of international protection throughout the EU. Member states that
wish to do so can provide for more favourable rules for beneficiaries of
international protection.

Negotiations continued in the European Parliament
and the Council to amend some of the existing rules of the Common European
Asylum System, with the aim of ensuring higher standards of protection and
a more uniform treatment of asylum seekers in Member States. The Commission
presented modified proposals on reception conditions for asylum seekers[39] as well as on asylum
procedures[40]. The proposals aim to
reduce room for administrative error in asylum procedures, thus ensuring a better
respect for the principle of non-refoulement. If adopted, the new rules will
contribute to enhancing gender equality and promoting the best interests of the
child principle in the asylum procedures and, in addition, to reinforcing the
principle of non-discrimination. The right to liberty will also be enhanced in
particular by underlining that a person shall not be detained for the sole
reason that he/she has registered an application for international protection;
similarly, it is foreseen that detention should only be allowed in exceptional
cases and only if it is in line with the principles of necessity and
proportionality with regard both to the manner and to the purpose of such
detention. Access to an effective remedy is also ensured.

The European Asylum Support Office (EASO)
became fully operational. Its legal basis foresees that the EASO must respect
fundamental rights and observe the principles recognised by the EU Charter. In
particular, EASO's missions must be carried out in accordance with the right to
asylum. The first EASO asylum support teams were deployed in Greece in May 2011. The support teams will provide expertise relating to interpreting services,
information on countries of origin and knowledge of the handling and management
of asylum cases. The aim is to support the establishment of a functioning
asylum system in Greece and to ensure full compliance with fundamental rights
in the implementation of EU asylum legislation.

Protection in the event of removal,
expulsion or extradition

The Charter prohibits the removal, expulsion or
extradition to a State where there is a serious risk that a person would be
subjected to the death penalty, torture, or other inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

The Commission published a large scale
evaluation of the negotiation and conclusion of readmission agreements by the Union[41]. These are treaties which
establish obligations, criteria and procedures for third countries to readmit
their own nationals, found to reside irregularly in a Member State, as well as stateless persons and nationals of other third countries, who have transited
through their territory on the way to the European Union. A considerable number
of recommendations came out of the Commission's evaluation, including with
regard to the further strengthening of fundamental rights protection and the
international protection of refugees during readmission procedures.  Amongst
other measures, the Commission argued the necessity of introducing provisions
that commit to respecting fundamental rights, especially in consideration of
third countries which are not party to the relevant international conventions.
In case of persistent human rights violations in a third country in general,
the Commission would be in favour of a possibility of suspending the agreement.
Also, the Commission announced its intention of launching a pilot project,
aimed at monitoring the wellbeing of persons after they have been readmitted to
a third country, with a view to establishing a so called "post-return
monitoring mechanism".

The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered
two rulings on the compatibility of criminalising irregular stays under
national law with the EU rules on return of irregular migrants[42]. The Court found that
these rules preclude national law from imposing a prison term on an irregularly
staying third-country national who does not comply with an order to leave the
national territory.  In a further case, the Court found that EU rules preclude
national legislation imposing a prison sentence on an irregularly staying
third-country national during the return procedure. However, the Court
specified that such prison sentences could be applied to third-country
nationals to whom the return procedure has been applied and staying irregularly
with no justified grounds for non-return.

The EU Agency for Fundamental
Rights issued a report on the detention of third-country
nationals in return procedures[43]. This report examined law and
practice on the deprivation of liberty of irregular migrants pending their
removal against the applicable international human rights law framework in all
EU Member States.

      3. Equality

§
Major progress has been achieved on the
development of a common EU approach in tackling the exclusion of Roma. Member
States supported the Commission's proposal for an EU Framework for national
Roma integration strategies up to 2020. Four priority fields of integration
have been identified: education, employment, health and housing.

§
The Commission adopted an EU Agenda on the Rights of the Child,
which sets out priorities and key actions to make these rights effective in
practice. New EU rules on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of
children and child abuse material have been adopted that will make it easier to
fight crimes against children.

§
The EU is bound by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities since 22 January 2011. This implies that the rights
enshrined therein need to be implemented and respected by the EU in its
legislative actions as well as in its policy-making, to the extent of its
competence.

§
Citizens, members of the European Parliament and civil society
representatives expressed concern about various forms and manifestations of xenophobia.
Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance are contrary to EU principles of
human dignity, equality and respect for fundamental rights, including the
rights of persons belonging to minorities.

Non-discrimination

The Charter prohibits any discrimination
based on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin,
genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion,
membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual
orientation. The Charter also prohibits discrimination on grounds of
nationality, within the scope of application of the Treaties and without
prejudice to any of their specific provisions. Discrimination based on racial
or ethnic origin is a violation of the principle of equal treatment and is
prohibited in the workplace and outside the workplace. In the area of
employment and occupation, EU legislation prohibits discrimination on grounds
of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Discussions in the Council have
continued on the Commission's proposal for new rules on Equal Treatment[44]. The discussions in
the Council focussed on provisions on the duty to provide reasonable
accommodation for people with disabilities[45] and the issue of age.
In accordance with the EU Treaty, unanimity is required in the Council to adopt
the new rules on Equal Treatment. While many Member States generally support
the draft Directive, a few other Member States continue to voice more fundamental
objections.

The Court of Justice of the
European Union declared invalid as from 21 December 2012 a derogation
contained in EU gender equality legislation[46] that enables insurers under certain
conditions to differentiate between men and women in individuals' premiums and
benefits[47].
The derogation was found incompatible with the objective of that piece of
legislation in the insurance field which concerns unisex pricing, and therefore
with Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter. On 22 December 2011, the Commission
issued guidelines[48]
aimed at facilitating the implementation of the ruling at national level.

The EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights reported on the exclusion and discrimination of migrants, minorities in employment[49]. The Agency reported
that the total number of complaints of discrimination has increased as a direct
consequence of the implementation of the Equality Directives in the EU Member
States. However, according to the Agency's findings there are still barriers
for victims that need to be overcome.

In another report, the EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights examined the legal
protection of persons with mental health problems under non-discrimination law[50]. According
to the report's
findings almost all EU Member States provide for the protection of persons with
mental health problems in non‐discrimination legislation. In most cases persons
with mental health problems also benefit from reasonable accommodation
measures, or other protection measures, in the employment context. The report
concludes by presenting examples where legislation extends the duty to provide
reasonable accommodation to other areas.

European Agenda for the
Integration of Third-Country Nationals

Strong guarantees
for the fundamental rights of migrants as well as the need for a
positive attitude to diversity and equal treatment are promoted in the
"European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals",
which the Commission presented on 20 July 2011.[51]
Efforts to fight against discrimination and to give migrants instruments to
become acquainted with the fundamental values of the EU and its Member States need to be strengthened.

Common EU framework for tackling
the exclusion of Roma

The EU made a major step forward
in promoting the social and economic integration of Roma with the
Commission's communication on the "EU framework for national
Roma integration strategies up to 2020[52]". This EU
Framework calls upon Member States to prepare or revise their national Roma
integration strategies in the light of the EU goals defined in the framework,
and to present them to the Commission by the end of December 2011. The EU
Framework was also endorsed by the European Council[53] and
welcomed by the European Parliament.

Commitment to apply the prohibition
of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in practice

Homophobia is an
unacceptable violation of human dignity that is
incompatible with the founding values of the EU[54]. The
Commission is using all the powers at its disposal to fight against such
phenomena. In particular, the Commission followed-up petitions and parliamentary
questions on
discriminatory practices on grounds of sexual orientation, when they concerned
matters falling within EU competence. One case concerned the refusal of Polish
authorities to issue certificates on civil status to citizens who wish to marry
or conclude a registered partnership with a person of the same sex in a Member State where this is possible.

The Commission intervened with the
Polish authorities on the basis that this practice is incompatible with the
respect of private and family life (Art. 7 of the Charter), the prohibition of
non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Art. 21 of the Charter)
and EU rules guaranteeing free movement and residence. Further to the
Commission's intervention, the Polish authorities informed that steps would be
undertaken to abolish the practice of asking the sex of the future spouse or
partner.

Medical test to assess
asylum applications based on allegations of persecution on grounds of sexual
orientation

A report from the EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights revealed the use by the Czech authorities of a
specific medical test in order to assess asylum applications based on
allegations of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation in the country of
origin[55].

The Commission intervened
against the practice of “phallometric testing[56]” on the basis of its incompatibility
with EU
instruments regarding the grant of international protection and notably the
Charter,
in particular Articles 4 and 7, concerning the prohibition of torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment and respect for private and family life. The
test constitutes a strong interference with the person’s private sphere and
dignity, in particular for asylum seekers who have been persecuted due to their
sexual orientation.

Further to the Commission's
intervention, the Czech authorities confirmed that the contested practice would
no longer be used in the assessment of asylum applications.

New EU rules on asylum qualification (see Protection in the
event of removal, expulsion or extradition) strengthen the reasons of
protection when granting the refugee status to Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender
(LGBT) persons and introduce an explicit reference to gender identity as a
protected ground for the first time.

The Court of Justice of the
European Union confirmed in a ruling on equal treatment for married couples
and registered partners that a registered partner in a same sex German life partnership
was entitled to receive a supplementary retirement pension under an
occupational pension scheme in the same way a married partner is. The Court
stated that this applied if the life partner is in a situation that is legally
and factually comparable to that of a married person as regards pensions[57].

The Commission asked the EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights to conduct a specific survey on hate crimes and
discrimination against LGBT persons in all Member States and Croatia. The survey will complement existing studies published by the Agency[58] and ask in particular
LGBT persons a series of questions about whether they have experienced
discrimination, violence, verbal abuse or hate speech on the grounds of their
sexual orientation or gender identity. It will also ask participants to
identify the context in which such incidents took place, and their nature.

In addition, the Strategy on equality between women
and men 2010-2015 foresees a study on specific issues pertaining to sex
discrimination in relation to gender identity. The work for launching this
study has been completed. When the results of this study are available, the
Commission will look at the appropriate follow-up.

How are the rights of persons
belonging to minorities safeguarded in the EU?

The respect for the rights of
persons belonging to minorities is one of the founding values of the
European Union, and is explicitly mentioned following the entry into force of
the Lisbon Treaty.  The Charter explicitly prohibits discrimination on the
basis of membership of a national minority. However, Member States maintain
general powers to take decisions about minorities and the use of languages on
their respective territories.

In 2011, the Commission received
several parliamentary questions and letters concerning the amendments to the Lithuanian
Law on Education, alleging that they considerably reduce the scope of
teaching in national minority languages in primary and secondary schools in Lithuania. The Polish pupils should be the most affected by these legislative changes. The
Commission explained that there is no Union law on the regime governing the use
of regional or minority languages or the rules on languages of instruction in
schools and these matters remain the sole responsibility of the Member States
which must ensure the protection of rights of minorities living in their
territory.

A number of EU legislation and programmes contributed to
improving the situation of persons belonging to minorities. These
instruments address certain difficulties which are likely to affect them. In particular, in
application of the powers that it has under the Treaties, the EU has put in
place a legal framework to fight discrimination and hate speech against the
persons belonging to minorities.

In 2011, a report of the EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights examined in a report[59] what the Treaty of
Lisbon means for the protection of minorities and the policies the EU has
recently adopted in this field. The report further provides evidence of the
persistent phenomenon of discrimination found in many areas of life, including
employment, housing, healthcare and education.

What does the EU do to fight
against racism, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance?

The Commission pursued its efforts to ensure the
conformity of national laws with EU legislation against racism and
xenophobia. These rules have to be introduced by Member States into their
penal legislation in order to allow citizens to benefit from them, and courts
to apply them. By the end of the year, twenty-two Member States had
communicated to the Commission the national laws intended to penalise racist
and xenophobic hate speech and to provide for an aggravating circumstance for
crimes having a racist or xenophobic motivation.

The Commission received an important number of
letters and parliamentary questions concerning various forms and manifestations
of racism and xenophobia, targeted against different groups or individuals
belonging to these groups, in particular against Roma. Racist and xenophobic
attitudes expressed by opinion leaders were of particular concern as they
contribute to a social climate that condones racism and xenophobia and may
therefore propagate more serious forms of racist conduct, such as racist
violence. Reluctance to react to any incidents of racism or xenophobia
contributes to understating the seriousness of these phenomena.

The Fifth Annual Seminar between the European
Commission and the State of Israel on the Fight against Racism, Xenophobia
and anti-Semitism enabled effective sharing of experiences, practices and
methodologies relating to racist data and trends; access to justice and
effective redress against racist discrimination; fight against racist hate
speech; and the prevention of racism through education, training and
remembrance activities.

Data collected by the EU Agency
for Fundamental Rights[60]
shows that few Member States have official data and statistics on anti-Semitic
incidents. Even where data exist, they are not comparable, since they are
collected using different definitions and methodologies. Furthermore, in many
EU Member States Jewish organisations or other civil society organisations do
not collect data on anti-Semitic incidents in a systematic way, as there is no
complaints mechanism in place to receive and investigate allegations. Where
such data exists, usually as lists of cases, they are collected ad hoc by civil
society organisations or are based on media reports with varying degrees of
validity and reliability.

Rights of the child

The Charter guarantees the right
to such protection and care as is necessary for the well-being of children
(Article 24 of the Charter). This Article is based on the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by all 27 Member States. The
Charter recognises children as bearers of autonomous rights, not just as subjects in
need of protection. It recognises the need to protect children from abuse,
neglect, violations of their rights and situations which endanger their
well-being.

The Charter further provides that the best
interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all actions relating
to children. This principle applies to all actions concerning children. It
includes children's right to maintain contact with both parents in case of a
divorce, the right to express their views freely and for their views to be
taken into consideration on matters which concern them. An important principle
of the Charter is that when decisions are being made on what is in the best
interests of children, children should have the opportunity to express their
views and these views should be taken into account.

The EU Agenda for the Rights of
the Child[61] adopted
by the Commission aims to put in practice the rights of the child enshrined in
the Charter and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child through a
comprehensive programme of actions for the years 2011-2014. The EU Agenda
identified 11 concrete actions which will contribute to the effectiveness of
the rights of the child. This aim is an integral part of the
Charter Strategy and, for this reason the impact of EU legislative initiatives
on these rights is thoroughly assessed.

The public consultation on the right of family
reunification, launched by the Commission in November 2011 tries to explore how
the best interests of the child can be facilitated and ensured in practice[62].

To raise awareness among children about their rights and
facilitate their participation in matters that concern them, a new website
for children and teenagers specifically dedicated to children's rights was
launched in all EU languages. It contains child-friendly texts, games and
quizzes informing children about their rights[63]. The Commission is
also preparing a strategy for a Better Internet for Children, to empower and
protect them, so that they can fully enjoy the Internet and benefit from it.

New rules on combating the sexual
abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child abuse material[64] adopted by the EU will
make it easier to fight crimes against children by acting on different fronts. A
wide range of situations of sexual abuse and exploitation will be criminalised,
covering new phenomena helped by the Internet, such as child grooming, webcam
abuse or web viewing of child abuse material. More detailed provisions on
levels of penalties will ensure greater consistency with the severity of the
offence and among Member State laws. It will also be possible to prosecute
offences after child victims have reached the age of majority; confidentiality
rules will not prevent professionals working with children from reporting
offences; and special police units to identify child victims (especially of
child abuse material) will be set up and provided with effective investigative
tools.  The new legal framework includes also measures to combat "child
sex tourism" and child abuse material on the Internet. Member States will be
obliged to ensure prompt removal of child abuse material pages and take action
to have them removed if hosted outside the European Union. In addition, Member States
may block access to such web pages following transparent procedures and providing
safeguards. The
new rules reinforce the protection of child victims, provide for preventive
measures with regard to convicted offenders and facilitate background checks
prior to employment involving contact with children.

In the area of
justice, newly proposed rules on victim rights[65] guarantee that
children's special needs for protection and support are met throughout the
proceedings to ensure their active participation and avoid of additional
trauma. Children should be presumed to be vulnerable victims and authorities
would have to determine which special measures should be provided to them.
These measures could encompass adaptation of the interview rooms to children's
needs, use of communication technologies and video to avoid contact between the
child and the offender. Children will also be entitled to receive information
in a way they can understand. As regards procedural rights, a
new set of rules foresees that in case a child is arrested, the child’s legal
representative or another adult, depending on the interest of the child, is
informed about it. As regards the rights of
juvenile prisoners, the Commission carried out a public consultation to find
more information on detention issues, including on the situation of children in
pre-trial detention.

Case law on custody rights and the
return of abducted children

The Court of Justice of the
European Union confirmed that a child should have an opportunity to be
heard in custody proceedings in a case concerning the custody rights and the
return of an abducted child[66]. This is however not
an absolute obligation for the court, as the court must first determine whether
it is in line with the best interests of the child in each individual case. The
Court of Justice further confirmed that it is up to the national courts of the Member State where the child used to live to assess whether the child had an opportunity to
be heard. Courts of other Member States must respect the results of this
assessment when deciding on the return of the child.

The European Court of Human
Rights clarified that when issuing an order to return an abducted child,
the courts must duly assess whether the return of the child would not cause
psychological trauma to the child[67]. Finally, the courts
must consider whether there are any alternative solutions to ensure contact
between the child and the parent requesting the return. The European Court of
Human Rights confirmed the obligation of the state authorities to facilitate
the reunion of the parent with the child in one other case[68].

The Commission has also continued to promote
cross-border cooperation between Member States in cases of criminal
abductions of children through child alert systems. They are
designed to provide a quick response in cases of a criminal abduction of a
child by disseminating relevant information to the public within hours of the
disappearance of a child. The Commission's objective is that such a system be put
in place in all EU Member States. At the end of 2011, such systems were operational
in 10 EU Member States. There are some differences in the functioning of the
systems, but in most cases they are run through NGO co-operation with public
authorities and law enforcement.[69]
The Commission's objective is that such a system is put in place in all EU
Member States.

The Commission also continued discussions with
Member States to ensure that the 116 000 hotline for missing children
becomes operational in all Member States. This hotline, which offers help,
support and a potential lifeline for missing children and their parents, is
currently operational in only 17 Member States.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction entered into force in Russia on 1st October. In addition, Japan took steps in view of its accession to the same
Convention. These developments contribute to the protection of children in the
EU in case of abductions. The Commission submitted proposals to ensure consistency
in the application of the Convention between the EU and the third States which
have acceded to it in recent years[70].

The Commission prepared a report to better assess
what has already been done to protect children in the digital world and
identify what further steps might be necessary[71]. The report found that Member States and industry are increasingly making efforts to respond to these challenges,
but that the measures taken are not sufficient and not applied in a consistent
way throughout the EU.

The EU Youth Strategy[72] points out how the
prospects of young people are determined by the opportunities which they were -
or were not - offered in their childhood. The Council expressed its support for
encouraging new and effective forms of participation of all young people in
democratic life in Europe[73]

The Commission took a number of measures to promote
a high quality of social protection provided to children in child care
institutions. This included amongst other things the promotion of mutual
knowledge between the Member States on this issue as well as funding several
initiatives to promote the de-institutionalisation process. This does not,
however, replace the responsibility of Member States, which have sole
responsibility for the administration of child-care institutions.

Integration of persons with disabilities

The Charter provides that the Union recognises and
respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures
designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and
participation in the life of the community.

The EU is bound by the UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities since 22 January 2011. This is the
first time that the EU has become party to an international human rights
treaty. This implies that the rights enshrined therein need to be implemented
and respected by the EU in its legislative actions as well as its
policy-making, to the extent of its competences.

The Commission continued the preparation of the
setting up of the EU framework for promoting, protecting and monitoring the
rights in the Convention by consulting relevant stakeholders and organised a
Work Forum on the implementation of the UN Convention in the EU, providing for
exchanges of good practices between the Member States.

The European Parliament[74]
and the Council[75] endorsed the
European Disability Strategy[76],
which empowers women and men with disabilities so they can enjoy their full rights
and benefit fully from their participation in society. The Strategy sets out
the framework of action for the Commission in the field of disability and also
represents the framework to implement the UNCPRD at EU level.

Progress was made in ensuring that disability
rights are reflected in legislative acts. Measures in favour of persons
with disabilities and with reduced mobility are included in the new Regulations
on passenger rights covering maritime and inland waterways transport and bus
& coach transport. Moreover, disability issues are also present in some of
the most important legislative proposals of the Multi Annual Financial
Framework for 2014-2020 such as the new Rights and Citizenship Program[77]
and the new Programme for future Structural Funds[78].
The Charter provides that the Union recognises and respects the right of
persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their
independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life
of the community.

Access City Award

The Austrian city of Salzburg won the European prize for making cities more accessible to people with
disabilities. The annual honour recognises efforts to improve accessibility in
the urban environment and to foster equal participation of people with
disabilities. The European Commission commended Salzburg's long-standing
commitment, coherent approach and excellent results in improving accessibility,
achieved with the direct participation of people with disabilities.

4. Solidarity

§
New rules on European Works Councils increased the effectiveness of
employees’ transnational information and consultation rights.

§
New legislation was adopted on the application of patients’ rights
in cross-border healthcare. This clarifies the rights of the patients to
reimbursement of healthcare received in another Member State.

§
Citizens, Members of the European Parliament and representatives of
trade unions expressed concern over the relocation or restructuring of
companies. Such decisions fall primarily within the managerial prerogative,
which should fully respect the requirements provided for by EU law to inform and
consult employees' representatives in good time and in any case before the
employer takes a decision to close the undertaking or to effect collective
dismissals.

§
The protection of consumers was strengthened through the adoption
of new rules on online purchases. The Commission pursues a rigorous enforcement
policy to make sure that the protection granted by different EU rules on consumer
protection is effectively guaranteed in national laws.

Workers'
right to information and consultation

The Charter provides that workers
or their representatives must, at the appropriate levels, be guaranteed
information and consultation, in good time, in the cases and under the
conditions provided for by EU law and national laws and practices.

The new legal framework for European
Works Councils entered into force for Member States[79]. The changes aim to
ensure increased effectiveness of employees’ transnational information and
consultation rights. After having assisted Member States in the implementation
process, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against the Member
States which did not adopt the required transposing measures within the
determined deadline. The Commission also issued information material to promote
awareness about the rights and opportunities created by the new framework.

The Commission set up an ad-hoc
working group which brings together representatives of governments and social partners
and commissioned a study to assess, in both quantitative and qualitative way,
the social and economic benefits and costs related to EU rules on employees'
information and consultation at national company level.

Seagoing workers are excluded or may be
excluded, if Member States so decide, from the EU provisions that grant workers
the right to information and consultation. Following the consultation of the
European social partners on this matter, the Commission is now assessing the
economic and social impacts of different policy options, including the
suppression of the exclusions.

Relocation or restructuring of a
company

The Commission received several
parliamentary questions and inquiries from MEPs, citizens and trade unions on
the relocation or restructuring of a company. The decision to relocate or
restructure a company falls primarily within the managerial prerogative.
However, employers have to respect the requirements provided for by EU law that
provides in particular for employees' representatives to be informed and
consulted in good time and in any case before the employer takes a decision to
close the undertaking or to effect collective dismissals. It is for the
competent national authorities and in particular the courts to ensure the correct
and effective application of these provisions and to guarantee that employers
fulfil their duties in each particular case.

Right of collective
bargaining and action

The Charter provides that workers
and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with EU
law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude
collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of
interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike
action. There is no specific EU law regulating the conditions and consequences
of the exercise of these rights at national level[80]. Member States
remain, of course, bound by the provisions of the Charter, including the right
to strike, in instances where they implement EU law.

The Commission is currently
preparing the revision of the legislative framework on the posting of
workers in the context of the provision of services. In line with the
Single Market Act[81],
the Commission will present two legislative proposals: a Directive aimed at
improving and reinforcing the transposition, implementation and enforcement in
practice of the Posting of Workers Directive, which will include measures to
prevent and sanction any abuse and circumvention of the applicable rules,
together with a Regulation aimed at clarifying the exercise of freedom of
establishment and the freedom to provide services alongside fundamental social
rights.

The Commission launched a
searchable database on transnational company agreements and worked with Member States and social partners to secure a more frequent use of such types of
agreements. These agreements are the fruit of transnational negotiations at
corporate level and cover situations located in the different countries where
the European/multinational companies operate or which are affected by corporate
decisions. So far, the Commission’s services have recorded some 215
transnational company agreements and joint texts in 138 companies employing
together over 10 million employees.

Competences of
the Commission as regards strike actions

The Commission received several
complaints alleging that the measures taken by the Spanish government with
regard to air traffic controllers flagrantly violated their right to collective
bargaining and action. In particular, following unsuccessful negotiations
between the competent social partners in view of the renewal of a collective
agreement, Spain adopted a law regulating the working conditions of the Spanish
air traffic controllers. Confronted with a strike, it declared a state of emergency to
break it.

The Commission
replied that there
is no EU law which prohibits Member States from introducing, through national
laws, changes to practices previously applied under collective agreements. Nor
is there any specific EU law regulating the right of association or the right
to strike. In these circumstances, there did not seem to be any link with any
EU legislation in that case. It is therefore for the competent authorities,
including the courts, to assess the legality of the eventual restrictions on
the exercise of these rights, and to enforce the relevant national legislation
with due respect to the applicable international obligations of the Member
States.

Fair
and just working conditions

The Charter guarantees that every
worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health,
safety and dignity. Every worker has the right to a limitation of maximum
working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid
leave

There is a substantial body of EU
law in this area concerning in particular health and safety at work[82]. This framework was
further enhanced with the Commission's proposal for new EU rules on the minimum
health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks
arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields)[83].

The Commission published a Report
on the implementation of the Working time Directive[84] and reviewed in a
separate document implementing legislation taking into account the social
partners rules and rulings of the Court of Justice regarding organisation of
Working Time[85]. On 15 November 2011,
the social partners at European level decided to negotiate amongst themselves
with the aim of reviewing the aforementioned Directive, in accordance with
Article 155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union[86].

Case law on working time

The European Court of Justice
explicitly referred to the EU Charter, which states that every worker is
entitled to an annual period of paid leave, in deciding that airline pilots are
entitled to be paid at their normal rate of remuneration during the 4 weeks'
minimum paid annual leave required by EU rules[87]. The case focused on
whether airplane pilots are entitled, during their annual leave, only to the
maintenance of their basic salary or also to other components, such as the
supplementary payment for the time spent away from base.

Citizen enquiries on maximum
working time

Citizens submitted complaints to
the Commission alleging that national laws or practices excluded certain
workers from the protection of the limits to maximum working time, minimum
daily and weekly rests, or minimum periods of paid annual leave. In some cases,
the Commission asked Member States to explain how their laws or practices complied
with EU law. Several Member States informed the Commission that they were
changing their national law so as to comply with EU law; in other cases the
Commission warned that it would refer a case to the Court of Justice if the Member State did not do so.

The EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights examined the legal and practical
challenges facing EU Member States as they strive to guarantee migrants’
fundamental rights and proposes ways to incorporate those rights into the
policies, laws and administrative practices that affect migrants in irregular
situations[88]. The
Agency reported that an estimated 1.9 to 3.8 million irregular migrants were
staying in the EU in 2008, according to the European Commission-funded Clandestino
project. Because of their irregular migration status they are vulnerable to
exploitation and abuse in the workplace. They also often face legal and
practical barriers in getting access to basic services, such as healthcare,
education and access to justice.

Social security and social assistance

The Charter recognises citizens' entitlement
to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases
of maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the
case of loss of employment. Everyone residing and moving legally within the
European Union is entitled to social security benefits and social advantages in
accordance with Union law and national laws and practices. Member States are
free to determine the details of their social security systems, including which
benefits shall be provided, the conditions of eligibility, how these benefits
are calculated, as well as how much contribution should be paid.  European
rules ensure that the application of the different national legislations
respects the basic principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination.
They guarantee that migrant EU workers are treated alike with the national
workers and that the application of the different national legislations does
not adversely affect them.

The Commission continued to
monitor the application of EU rules on social security coordination to
ensure that people moving across borders within the EU do not lose their
entitlements to benefits. For instance when dealing with a claim for
unemployment benefits, institutions must take into account periods of insurance
completed in other Member States if this is necessary for the entitlement to
the benefit. For people working and residing in different Member States, EU law
determines where they have to pay their social security contributions and which
country is responsible to provide them healthcare or pay family benefits.

Further discussion in the context
of the negotiations on the proposals for Directives on third-country
seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees took place in the
Council and in the European Parliament. The Commission continues to defend the
right of third-national seasonal workers to equal treatment with nationals of
the admitting Member State in respect of social security rights. as well as
fair treatment of intra-corporate transferees and their family members. In
particular, the Commission made the point that Member States cannot restrict
third country nationals' right to receive social security benefits that are
based on contributions made as this would be contrary to the right to property.

A new Directive was adopted on
migrant workers granting equal treatment to legally residing third-country
workers in a number of fields in particular working conditions, social
security, recognition of diplomas, tax benefits, education but also freedom of
association[89].

The European Court of Human
Rights delivered its ruling in a case that concerned the refusal of Austria to grant an old-age pension from the pension fund for lawyers[90].
The Court stated that, even though the right to a pension is not, as such,
guaranteed by the Convention, the right to a pension which is based on
employment can in certain circumstances be assimilated to a property right. The
Court held that entitlement to a social benefit is linked to the payment of
contributions, and, when such contributions have been made, an award cannot be
denied to the person concerned.

Health care

The Charter recognises that
everyone has the right to access preventive health care and the right to
benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national law
and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the
definition and implementation of the Union's policies and activities.

New legislation was adopted on the
application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. The new
rules clarify the rights of patients to reimbursement of healthcare received in
another Member State[91].

The EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights Report  documented the legal, economic and practical obstacles
that migrants in an irregular situation face in accessing healthcare in 10 EU
Member States and proposes a number of ways to improve this access[92]. The Agency found in
particular that the risk of detection and deportation prevents migrants in an
irregular situation from seeking healthcare, even in those countries where it
is legally available, and suggests disconnecting healthcare from immigration
control policies.

Consumer protection

The Charter provides that Union
policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection, giving guidance to
the EU institutions when drafting and applying EU legislation.

The protection of consumers was
strengthened through the adoption of new EU rules on online purchases[93], which require that consumers
must be given essential information before they order goods or services in
particular during a visit of a sales representative at their home or place of
work or by a means of distance communication, such as online purchases. In
addition, consumers have the right to withdraw from such contracts within 14
days. The new EU rules on consumer rights furthermore ban pre-ticked boxes,
internet cost traps and charges of which the consumer are not informed in
advance.

The Common
European Sales Law, proposed by the Commission in October 2011, sets out an
optional sales law regime based on a high level of consumer protection when
purchasing goods, digital content and related services across borders on the
basis of this optional law regime. For example, the
Commission proposal would afford consumers a free
choice of remedies in case they buy a defective product – even several months
after a purchase. Thus, consumers would be able to request the repair
or replacement of the product, to withhold payment, to reduce the price, to
terminate the contract and/or to claim damages.

The Commission pursued a rigorous enforcement
policy to make sure that the protection granted by different consumer
protection directives is effectively guaranteed in national laws. Several
Member States improved their rules on the sale of consumer goods following
intervention by the Commission. The Commission opened infringement proceedings
against Member States which were late in transposing EU legislation on
timeshares. Further to this, the large majority of Member States adopted the
necessary implementing measures.

Specific complaints in the area of
consumer protection

The Commission received numerous letters
from the general public regarding for example faulty products, timeshare,
package travel, insurance, online marketing of products and services as well as
unfair commercial practices in a number of sectors. As the Commission cannot
intervene in disputes between consumers and operators, it informed citizens on
the applicable EU rules and referred them to the relevant national authorities,
European Consumer Centres or consumer protection organizations. Where there
were doubts about the compliance of national law with EU legislation on consumer
protection or the adequacy of its enforcement, the Commission contacted the
relevant Member States.

5. Citizens' rights

§
The Commission
initiated action such that EU citizens can become members of or found a
political party in whichever Member State they reside.

§
 This
is an important dimension for the effective application of the right to
stand as a candidate in elections for the European Parliament and at
municipal level.

§
The
rigorous enforcement policy pursued by the Commission to achieve the
full and correct transposition and application of the EU free movement rules
across the European Union produced substantial results. The majority of Member
States amended their legislation or announced amendments aimed at ensuring full
compliance with these rules. The Commission continued working with the
remaining countries to tackle outstanding issues, launching infringement
proceedings where needed.

§
Concrete step were made to ensure that
EU citizens can benefit from diplomatic and consular protection
when they travel abroad. The Commission proposed new EU rules and launched a
dedicated website on consular protection.

Right to vote and
stand as a candidate at elections

The Charter guarantees the right
of every EU citizen to vote in the European elections in whatever Member State they reside. The Charter also provides for the right of EU citizens to vote
and to stand as candidates at municipal elections in the Member State in which they reside.

Negotiations were resumed at the
request of the Commission with a view to amending EU legislation on the
participation of EU citizens in European elections. The objective is to
make it less burdensome for EU citizens to stand as candidates in the next
European Parliament elections.

The Commission initiated action with
a view to ensuring that EU citizens can become members of or found a
political party in whichever Member State they reside. An EU citizen who is
limited as regards the possibility to get fully involved in activities of
political parties suffers a disadvantage when standing in elections, compared
to national citizens who enjoy that right.

Reform of the Finnish electoral
legislation

The Commission engaged a dialogue
with the Finnish authorities concerning the implementation of the right of EU
citizens to vote and stand in municipal and in European elections in whichever Member State they reside, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

Further to this dialogue, the Finnish
authorities announced that they would annul the legal requirement to collect
the signed support from at least 5 000 Finnish nationals to found a political
party.

Right to good administration

Every person has
the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a
reasonable time by the Institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union. It also includes the right to be heard and to receive a reply.

A huge number of enquiries are
addressed by citizens to the Commission, whether by phone, e-mail or
correspondence. The Commission commits itself to answering them in the most
appropriate manner and as quickly as possible. The general rule applied in the
Commission is that every letter is registered and, with the exception of those
that are unreasonable, repetitive or abusive, should receive a reply within 15
working days from the date of receipt of the letter. The Commission also takes
care that replies are sent in the language of the author of the correspondence,
provided that it was written in one of the official language of the Union. For complaints and enquiries by citizens on the application of EU law, the Commission
uses (“Complaint Handling”), an IT tool for registering and managing this
specific kind of correspondence.

25 Member States are now using the
operational EU Pilot application, which was put in place by the
Commission in 2008 to provide quicker and better answers to questions raised by
citizens or businesses and solutions to those problems arising in the
application of EU law.

The right to good administration
is relevant in different areas of EU law. One of them is competition,
where the Commission is entrusted with making sure markets function properly. The European Commission
adopted a package of measures aimed at increasing interaction with parties in
antitrust proceedings and strengthening the mechanisms for safeguarding
parties' procedural rights[94]. They give
parties a clear picture of what to expect at different stages of an antitrust
investigation and increase their ability to interact with the Commission
services. If parties have a dispute about their procedural rights they can
refer the matter to the competition Hearing Officer, who will have an enhanced
role throughout the entirety of antitrust proceedings. Parties will also be
able to call upon the Hearing Officer in the investigative phase of antitrust
investigations if they feel that they should not be compelled to reply to
questions that might force them to admit to an infringement.

Right of access to documents

Article 42 of the Charter
guarantees that any EU citizen and any natural or legal person residing or
having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to
documents of the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. This right is
also guaranteed in the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and has
been implemented through Regulation 1049/2001, which defines the principles and
limits governing the right of access to documents.

In 2011, the Commission received almost
6500 requests for access to documents, compared to about 6000 in 2010.
As in the past, 4 out of 5 requests were granted at the initial stage. In 2011,
the Commission received 162 confirmatory applications, leading to a new
assessment and a final decision of the Commission. Such applications are
reassessed by case handlers acting independently from the ones that handled the
initial application. This review has led to wider access being granted in
around half the cases.

In 2011, the European Ombudsman
closed 17 complaints concerning the right of access to Commission documents,
making a critical or a further remark in eight cases.

In the past year, the Court of
Justice of the European Union delivered an important judgment on access to
internal documents, including legal opinions. The ruling concerned a
non-legislative matter, where the relevant procedure had already been closed[95].

The General Court handed down six
judgments, three of which are worth mentioning: the Batchelor[96] and IFAW[97] cases concerning access
to documents originating from Member States and the LPN[98]  regarding access to
documents in ongoing infringement proceedings.

Right to refer to the European Ombudsman

The Charter provides that any EU
citizen and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered
office in a Member State, has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman
cases of maladministration in the activities of the EU institutions, bodies,
offices and agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice acting in its
judicial role.

Over 22 000 individuals were
helped directly by the European Ombudsman in 2011. More then 80% of the
enquiries could be handled through an interactive guide available on the website
of the European Ombudsman. As regards the other enquiries, some were handled by
a member of the European Network of Ombudsmen[99] (about 1300 cases) or
by the European Ombudsman (about 700 cases), when the complaints concerned maladministration
in the institutions and bodies of the European Union.

Freedom of movement and residence

The Charter guarantees the right
of every EU citizen to move and reside freely, in the respect of certain
conditions, within the territory of the Member States. This fundamental right
is also included in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

The rigorous enforcement policy
pursued by the Commission with a view to achieving the full and correct
transposition and application of the EU free movement rules across the European
Union produced substantial results. The majority of Member States amended their
legislation or announced amendments aimed at ensuring full compliance with
these rules. The Commission continued working with the remaining countries to
tackle outstanding issues, launching infringement proceedings where needed to
ensure that all European citizens and their family members can make full use of
their right to free movement in all 27 Member States.

The main issues raised in those 12
infringement proceedings included the incorrect or incomplete transposition
and implementation of provisions in EU law regarding the rights of entry and
residence for family members of Union citizens, including same-sex partners,
the conditions for issuance of visas and residence cards for third-country
national family members and the safeguards against expulsions.

The Commission further pursued
an intensive dialogue with the Dutch authorities regarding the plans
announced by the latter in April 2011 on labour migration. In a letter of 18
May 2011 to the Dutch authorities, the Commission raised a number of concerns
as to the compatibility of some of the planned measures with EU law on the free
movement of EU citizens and workers in combination with the non-discrimination
principle. Several bilateral exchanges and the reply of the Dutch authorities
of 14 November 2011 allowed for the clarification of a significant number of
issues. The Commission is pursuing its dialogue with the Dutch authorities on
the outstanding issues with a view to ensuring that any planned measures will
be fully compatible with EU law.

The Commission engaged in a
dialogue with the Danish authorities regarding their plans to strengthen
customs controls at the Danish borders with a view to fighting cross-border
crime. The intention of the Danish government was to set up permanent customs
presence at the borders, build new facilities and use comprehensive video
surveillance and police assistance. The Commission made it clear that Member
States may not carry out systematic controls of goods and persons at their
internal borders. The Commission was particularly concerned that these
strengthened border controls may result in obstacles to the free movement of EU
citizens within the European Union. These plans were eventually withdrawn by
the new government that took office in Denmark in October 2011.

The Commission also contacted the
Danish authorities regarding amendments to the Danish Aliens' Act that entered
into force in July 2011. These aim to introduce stricter rules on the expulsion
of aliens, including EU citizens, and raise serious concerns of compatibility
with the Free Movement Directive.  The Commission will not hesitate to make use
of the powers conferred to it by the Treaty should the Danish reply be deemed
unsatisfactory.

Conditions of
entry and residence of third-country national family members of EU citizens
having exercised their right to free movement

The Commission
received several complaints on this issue. In some cases, which appeared to be
isolated instances of incorrect application of the EU rules, the Commission
suggested that the individuals address themselves to the SOLVIT network, which
is designed to provide quick and efficient assistance in such cases. Other
cases were solved following the Commission's bilateral contacts with Member
States on the transposition of the EU rules on free movement, whilst a number
of them were raised in the context of the global infringement procedures
launched by the Commission in the course of the year.

Principle of
non-discrimination

The Commission
dealt with a number of complaints from EU citizens residing in Malta who alleged that they could not benefit from reduced water and electricity tariffs
available to Maltese citizens, in violation of the non-discrimination principle
on grounds of nationality. The Commission has contacted the Maltese authorities
with a view to resolving this issue.

The Commission
launched a discussion to identify political options which would prevent EU
citizens from losing their political rights as a consequence of exercising
their right to free movement[100].
According to the legislation of several Member States, their nationals are
disenfranchised if they live in another Member State for a certain period of
time, with the consequence that they are not able to participate in any
national elections, neither in the Member State of origin nor in the Member
State of residence, and are not represented in national parliaments or in the
Council of the European Union. This puts citizens who have exercised their
right to free movement in a less favourable position than those staying in
their home countries.

In June 2011, the
Commission wrote letters to the Member States concerned and invited them to contribute
to a common reflection. On the basis of the replies received, the Commission
intends to promote a broad debate on how to strengthen the rights to democratic
participation of EU citizens exercising their right to free movement within the
EU.

Diplomatic and consular
protection

The Charter guarantees the right
of unrepresented EU citizens to seek diplomatic or consular protection from
embassies or consulates of other Member States in third countries under the
same conditions as nationals. EU citizens must be able to rely effectively on
this right when travelling abroad.

The Commission proposed new EU
rules on consular protection[101] for citizens of the Union abroad, further
to previous analysis of the state of play in this area[102]. The Commission
proposal includes measures to give concrete meaning to this right by clarifying
its scope of application, easing cooperation between consular authorities,
including on financial matters, and also providing for cost-effectiveness by
exploiting synergies with existing EU tools and resources. The proposal
enhances the fundamental right to consular protection under the same conditions
as for nationals, by clarifying the content of this right, by facilitating the
necessary cooperation and coordination procedures and by ensuring effective
implementation and compliance. The inclusion of non-EU family members in its
scope of application strengthens the right to family life as well as the rights
of the child. Clearer responsibilities and improved burden-sharing in crisis situations
would ensure non-discrimination also in times of crisis when fundamental rights
are at stake. Furthermore, the principles of non-discrimination, life and
integrity of the person and the right of defence and to a fair trial are being
reinforced.

One of the ways of making the
right to consular protection effective is through providing information. The
Commission launched a dedicated website on consular protection[103]
– the one-stop shop, in the 23 official EU languages, on the basic information
for the citizens of the Union on consular protection in third countries. The
website provides the addresses of the consular or diplomatic missions in non-EU
countries to which citizens may turn to for protection, access to the travel
advice services of the EU Member States and to EU legal background information
on the matter.

Union
citizenship

According to EU law, every person
holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union.
Citizenship of the Union is additional to national citizenship and does not
replace it.

The Commission proposed to
designate 2013 as the European Year of Citizens[104]. The objective of
the year will be to raise Union citizens' awareness about the rights granted to
them by the treaty, including their right to participate in the democratic life
of the Union. In addition, it will raise Union citizens' awareness on how they
can benefit from EU rights and policies, including by stimulating their
participation in civic fora on Union policies and issues. The European
Year will also seek to launch a debate about the impact and potential of the
right to free movement, as an inalienable aspect of Union citizenship, in
particular in terms of strengthening societal cohesion and mutual understanding
between Union citizens and the bond between citizens and the Union.

 The Court of Justice of
the EU
ruled that Member States are not allowed to take measures depriving Union
citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of their rights as Union
citizens. The Court held that an irregular migrant in a Member State whose minor dependent children are nationals of that country must be allowed
to reside and work there[105].
In its reasoning the Court explained that a refusal to do so would deprive
children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of their rights as Union
citizens, because it would force them to leave the territory of the European
Union. The Court further explained that this even applies when the children
have never exercised their right to free movement within the territory of the
Member States.

In another case[106], the Court
highlighted the specific and exceptional nature of the situations in which this
rule can apply. The Court clarified that it applies only where the EU citizen
is forced to leave the territory of the Union as a whole (and not only the
territory of the Member State of which he/she is a national).  Moreover, merely
the fact that the EU citizen wishes to reside together with a third-country
national family member is not sufficient to accept that he/she will be forced
to leave the Union territory if the family member is not granted a residence
right. The national authorities or courts should assess in every case whether a
refusal to grant a residence right would undermine the right to protection of
family life - in light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental rights, in
situations covered by Union law, and in light of Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, where Union law is not applicable.

6. Justice

§
The
Commission proposed new laws establishing minimum standards on the rights,
support and protection of victims of crime. This proposal would
guarantee that victims are treated with respect, for example during the
investigation phase and that police, prosecutors and judges are trained in how
to properly deal with them.

§
The Commission set clear and ambitious targets for expanding training
for legal practitioners in Europe on how to apply European law, including
fundamental rights.  An independent, well-trained and efficient judiciary is
essential for a functioning justice area and single market in Europe.

§
The procedural rights of suspects have been strengthened. New EU rules
ensure that suspects of a criminal offence are informed about their rights in a
language that they understand. The Commission also proposed to strengthen the
procedural safeguard on access to lawyer, as of the first stage of police
questioning and throughout criminal proceedings.

§
The Commission started work to put in place a coherent and
consistent EU Criminal Policy by setting out how the EU should use
criminal law to ensure the effective implementation of EU policies.

Right
to an effective remedy and right to a fair trial

The Charter provides that when EU
rules give a right to a person, he or she can go before a court in case this
right is violated. This protection is called a right to an effective remedy,
because it provides to individuals a legal solution decided by a tribunal when
an authority used EU law in a wrong way. The right to effective remedy
guarantees judicial protection against violations of any EU rule which grants
rights to people. It plays therefore a key role for ensuring the effectiveness
of all EU law, ranging from social policy, to asylum legislation, competition,
agriculture, etc.

The right to an effective remedy
was the most quoted rights in the decisions of the Court of Justice referring
to the Charter. It has been mentioned in a third of these decisions and
different fields of EU law, such as: competition, freedom of establishment,
agriculture and fisheries, asylum.

The Commission paid particular
attention to the developments related to the new Hungarian Constitution and
its implementation. In the June plenary session of the European Parliament,
the Commission underlined that the constitution of every Member State should
reflect and comply with the European values of freedom, democracy, equality,
rule of law, human dignity and respect of human rights, including the rights of
persons belonging to minorities, without discrimination, as laid down in Article
2 of the Treaty.

On 12 December, the
Commission[107] expressed its
concerns to the Hungarian Minister of Justice regarding certain provisions of
the draft legislation implementing the new Constitution which could affect the
independence of the judiciary. The letter also explained that the principle of
judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the EU guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a ‘court’
or a ‘tribunal’ as defined in Union law. The Court of Justice stressed in
this context that independence and impartiality are amongst key criteria which
must be satisfied by the body concerned in order to be considered as
'tribunal'.

The Hungarian authorities adopted
the legislation on the judiciary without taking into account the Commission's
legal concerns. The Commission decided, as guardian of the Treaties, to take
action against a number of new provisions in Hungarian legislation, namely on
the independence of the data protection authority and on the discriminatory
impact of the mandatory retirement age for judges, prosecutors and notaries.
The Commission also sent an administrative letter requesting further
information on certain aspects of the new legislation which could affect the
independence of the judiciary[108].

The Commission
proposed new laws establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection
of victims of crime[109]. This
proposal would guarantee that victims are treated with respect, for example
during the investigation phase and that police, prosecutors and judges are
trained in how to properly deal with them. Victims would be entitled to get
information on their rights and their case in a way that they understand and
Member States would have an obligation to set-up victim support services. The
proposal pays special attention to vulnerable victims, such as children or
victims of rape. To help protect victims of violence from any further harm by
their attacker, the Commission is also proposing rules to ensure that victim
who is guaranteed protection from the attacker can rely on this protection if
he or she travels or moves to another EU country.

Member States that take part in the Rome III Regulation on cross-border divorces adopted in 2010 have pursued
their preparations in view of its entry into force on 21 June 2012. The
new legislation will give a choice as to which country's rules apply in case of
divorce for couples with different nationalities, those living apart in
different countries or those living together in a country other than their home
country. Although this regulation does not directly concern access to justice,
it can contribute to facilitating access to justice by improving legal
certainty through defining which rules apply in such cases.

The Commission set clear and ambitious targets for
expanding training for legal practitioners in Europe on how to apply
European law, including fundamental rights[110].  An independent,
well-trained and efficient judiciary is essential for a functioning justice
area and single market in Europe. It caters for good and prompt judicial
decisions strengthening predictability and legal certainty. As European law is
part of everyday life, citizens and businesses want to know that they can count
on a knowledgeable and well-trained judiciary across the Union enabling them to
exercise their rights and get justice in a coherent manner, ensuring respect of
their fundamental rights across the Union. Judges, lawyers and other legal
practitioners need to know the rules to be able to apply EU law effectively.

The obligation laid down in the Visa Code[111] to motivate the
refusal of a visa by a Member State and the right of appeal directly relate
to the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. The Commission closely
monitors the correct implementation by Member States of these provisions, which
became applicable as from 5 April 2011, in particular by collecting and
analysing information on the Member States' procedures put in place for appeal
of decisions on refusal/revocation/annulment of a visa.

Detention conditions

The Commission received a number
of letters from the general public on poor detention conditions due to prison
overcrowding in national prisons or the placement of pre-trial detainees
together with convicted prisoners.

While national governments are
solely responsible for detention issues and prison management, it is the
Commission's role to make sure judicial cooperation in the EU works and
fundamental rights are respected when EU mutual recognition instruments – such
as the European Arrest Warrant – are implemented.

With regard to detention,
Europeans must have confidence that they will be treated to similar standards
of protection no matter where they are in the European Union. For this reason,
the Commission presented a Green Paper asking 10 questions on how to strengthen
mutual trust in the field of detention[112]. Detention conditions
and periods vary widely between EU countries.

Presumption of innocence and right of defence

The Charter
provides that everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until
proven guilty according to the law. It further specifies that respect for the
rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.

Procedural rights
of suspects have been strengthened, in particular as regards the
right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the rights of defence. More
particularly, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a new set of
rules ensuring that the suspects of a criminal offence are informed about their
rights in a language that they understand[113].
Anyone arrested will have to be informed about their rights by a document
called a Letter of Rights.

The Commission
submitted a proposal securing access to a lawyer from the first stage of
police questioning and throughout criminal proceedings. The proposal also grants
the accused or suspected the right to contact their embassy or consulate as
well as their family or employer[114].
While the responsibility for conducting the investigation and any questioning
will of course remain with the police, the lawyer ought to be able to attend
any questioning by the police or other authorities and to ask questions or
request clarification whenever needed. Authorities would have to guarantee the
confidentiality of meetings between the lawyer and the suspect.

Upon request of the
European Parliament, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights addressed
the issue of fundamental rights standards for an instrument involving mutual
recognition of investigation orders[115].
It provides an overview of existing European standards, with particular
emphasis on elements of fair trial, based on the Court of Justice of the
European Union and the European Court of Human Rights case law.

Principles
of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties

Criminal law
measures are fundamental rights-sensitive. They unavoidably interfere with
individual rights, be it those of the suspect, of the victim or of witnesses.
Ultimately, they can result in deprivation of liberty and therefore require
particular attention by the legislator. This is why the Charter of Fundamental
Rights provides important limits for EU action in this field.

The Commission
set out the legal framework under the Lisbon Treaty for the adoption of EU
criminal law measures[116]. This
is a first step in the efforts to put in place a coherent and consistent EU
Criminal Policy by setting out how the EU should use criminal law to ensure the
effective implementation of EU policies. In this respect, the Commission issued
a first proposal on EU rules on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and
market abuse[117].
Furthermore, preparations in view of new EU legislation on EU financial
interests by criminal law are ongoing.

The Commission pursued
a rigorous enforcement policy in respect of the transposition by Member States
of EU rules on criminal sanctions for environmental offences and the
legislation on criminal sanctions for pollution from ships. Infringement
procedures were initiated against Member States who had not transposed this
legislation on time. Failure by Member States to implement these EU wide rules
into their national law makes it impossible to have common minimum criminal law
rules for serious breaches of EU legislation on the protection of the
environment and against ship-source pollution. Such EUwide rules are essential
to prevent loopholes which could otherwise be exploited by perpetrators of
environmental crimes.

Appendix

 Overview of 2011 ECJ
case law which directly quotes
 the Charter or mentions it in its reasoning:

Name of the parties || Case || Date || Subject matter || Charter Title || Charter right || Grand Chamber?

Skareby v Commission || F-95/09 || 08/02/2011 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats and Others || C-236/09 || 01/03/2011 || Discrimination - services || Equality || Equality between men and women || Y

Areva and Others v Commission || T-117/07 || 03/03/2011 || Competition || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

Peñarroja Fa || C-372/09 || 17/03/2011 || Freedom of establishment || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

AJD Tuna || C-221/09 || 17/03/2011 || Agriculture and fisheries || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

ThyssenKrupp Nirosta v Commission || C-352/09 P || 29/03/2011 || Competition || Justice || Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties || Y

Italy v EESC || T-117/08 || 31/03/2011 || Discrimination - employment || Equality || Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity || N

Visa Europe and Visa International Service v Commission || T-461/07 || 14/04/2011 || Competition || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

Deutsche Telekom || C-543/09 || 05/05/2011 || Communications || Freedoms || Protection of personal data || N

McCarthy || C-434/09 || 05/05/2011 || Freedom of movement || Citizens' rights || Freedom of movement and of residence || N

Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn || C-391/09 || 12/05/2011 || Freedom of movement || Equality || Non-discrimination || N

Arkema France v Commission || T-343/08 || 17/05/2011 || Competition || Justice || Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence || N

Elf Aquitaine v Commission || T-299/08 || 17/05/2011 || Competition || Justice || Presumption of innocence and right of defence || N

Name of the parties || Case || Date || Subject matter || Charter Title || Charter right || Grand Chamber?

Fuji Electric v Commission || T-132/07 || 12/07/2011 || Competition || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

General Technic-Otis v Commission || T-141/07 || 13/07/2011 || Competition || Justice || Presumption of innocence and right of defence || N

Fuchs || C-159/10 || 21/07/2011 || Discrimination - employment || Freedoms || Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work || N

Beneo-Orafti || C-150/10 || 21/07/2011 || Agriculture and fisheries || Justice || Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence || N

Kelly || C-104/10 || 21/07/2011 || Discrimination - employment || Freedoms || Protection of personal data || N

Nagy || C-21/10 || 21/07/2011 || Agriculture and fisheries || Equality || Equality before the law || N

Kingdom of Sweden v European Commission and MyTravel Group || C-506/08 || 21/07/2011 || Competition || Citizens' rights || Right of access to documents || N

Samba Diouf || C-69/10 || 28/07/2011 || Social policy - asylum || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

Patriciello || C-163/10 || 06/09/2011 || Criminal law - EU immunity || Freedoms || Freedom of expression and information || Y

Hennings || C-297/10 || 08/09/2011 || Discrimination - employment || Equality || Non-discrimination || N

Prigge and Others || C-447/09 || 13/09/2011 || Discrimination - employment || Equality || Non-discrimination || Y

Williams and Others || C-155/10 || 15/09/2011 || Employment || Solidarity || Fair and just working conditions || N

Gueye || C-483/09 || 15/09/2011 || Criminal law - victims || Freedoms || Respect for private and family life || N

Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB || T-461/08 || 20/09/2011 || Communications || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

De Nicola v EIB || F-55/08 DEP || 27/09/2011 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

Name of the parties || Case || Date || Subject matter || Charter Title || Charter right || Grand Chamber?

Association belge des consommateurs test-achats Commission || T-224/10 || 12/10/2011 || Competition || Solidarity || Consumer protection || N

Solvay v Commission || C-109/10 P || 25/10/2011 || Competition || Citizens' rights || Right of access to documents || Y

Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission || T-348/08 || 25/10/2011 || Competition || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

Garenfeld || C-405/10 || 10/11/2011 || Environment || Justice || Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties || N

Dereci and Others || C-256/11 || 15/11/2011 || Freedom of movement || Freedoms || Respect for private and family life || Y

Lindner || C-327/10 || 17/11/2011 || Civil law || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

KHS || C-214/10 || 22/11/2011 || Employment || Solidarity || Fair and just working conditions || Y

Sison v Council || T-341/07 || 23/11/2011 || Common foreign and security policy - terrorism || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito || C-468/10 || 24/11/2011 || Data protection || Freedoms || Protection of personal data || N

Scarlet Extended || C-70/10 || 24/11/2011 || Communications || Freedoms || Right to property || N

Painer || C-145/10 || 01/12/2011 || Civil law || Freedoms || Freedom of expression and information || N

KME Germany and Others v Commission || C-389/10 P || 08/12/2011 || Competition || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

Chalkor v Commission || C-386/10 P || 08/12/2011 || Competition || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

KME and Others v Commission || C-272/09 P || 08/12/2011 || Competition || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and fair trial || N

Nycomed Danmark v EMA || T-52/09 || 14/12/2011 || Regulatory powers || Freedoms || Freedom to conduct a business || N

Cicolav Regione Siciliana || C-482/10 || 21/12/2011 || National administrative law || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

X || C-507/10 || 21/12/2011 || Criminal justice || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || N

N.S. and others || C-411/10 & C-493/10 || 21/12/2011 || Asylum || Dignity || Prohibition of torture || Y

European Commission v. Austria || C-28/09 || 21/12/2011 || Environment || Freedoms || Respect for private and family life || Y

[1] Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0389:0403:en:PDF

[2] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/intro/doc/com\_2010\_573\_en.pdf

[3] Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Applicants/Apply+to+the+Court/Checklist/

[4] Commission implementing
regulation (EU) No 1352/2011 of 20 December 2011 amending Council Regulation
(EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for
capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, OJ L 338, 21.12.2011, p. 31-34.

[5] Staff Working Paper,
SEC(2011)1624

[6] Commission Regulation
1141/2011 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security
as regards the use of security scanners at EU airports, OJ L 293, 11.11.2011,
p. 22-23; and Commission Implementing Regulation N 1147/2011 implementing the
common basic standards on civil aviation security as regards the use of
security scanners at EU airports, OJ L 294, 12.11.2011, p. 7-11.

[7] ECJ, C-34/10, Brüstle
v. Greenpeace, 18.10.2011.

[8] The Schengen area is an
area within the EU without border controls. It includes the territories of the
Member States that have decided to abolish border controls between them.
External borders are borders between the Member States that have joined the
Schengen area and non-Schengen Member States or third countries.

[9] Regulation (EC) No 562/2006
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006
establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons
across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 105,
13.4.2006.

[10] Proposal for a
Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and
of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement
of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) and the Convention
implementing the Schengen Agreement, 10.03.2011, COM 2011(118) final, available
at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0118:FIN:en:PDF

[11] Proposal for a
Regulation establishing the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR),
12.12.2011, COM(2011) 873 final, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0873:FIN:EN:PDF

[12] ECJ joined cases
C-411/10 and C-493/10, N.S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department and
M.E. e.a. v Refugee Applications Commissioner, 21.12.2011.

[13] ECtHR, MSS v Belgium and Greece, application no. 30696/09, 21.01.2011.

[14] EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights Report, "Detention of third-country nationals in
return procedures", November 2011, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/pub\_detention\_en.htm

[15] Directive 2011/36/EU on
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its
victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA, OJ L 101,
15.04.2011, p. 1-11.

[16] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking

[17] Public consultation by
the Commission on the right to family reunification, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/consulting\_public/consulting\_0023\_en.htm

[18] Proposal for a Council
Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement
of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships, COM(2011)
127/2, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/civil/docs/com\_2011\_127\_en.pdf

[19] ECJ, Case C-70/10, Scarlet
v SABAM, 24.11.2011.

[20] ECJ, Joined Cases C-468/10
and 469/10, Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito
(ASNEF) et Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) v.
Administración del Estado, 24.11.2011.

[21] Proposal for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name
Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of
terrorist offences and serious crime, COM(2011) 32 final,  2.2.2011. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/com\_2011\_32\_en.pdf

[22] Opinion of the EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights on the Proposal for a Directive on the use of
Passenger Name Record (PNR) data Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/opinions/op-passenger-name-record\_en.htm.

[23] Communication from the
Commission on a European terrorist finance tracking system, COM(2011)
429 final.

[24] Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and
market manipulation (market abuse) criminal sanctions for insider dealing and
market abuse, COM (2011) 654 final, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/securities/docs/abuse/COM\_2011\_651\_en.pdf

[25] Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation on
administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System,
COM(2011) 883 final, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/qualifications/docs/policy\_developments/modernising/COM2011\_883\_en.pdf

[26] Commission
Communication: Smart Grids: from innovation to deployment, COM (2011) 202
final, available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0202:EN:HTML:NOT

[27] Commission
Recommendation  2011/136/EU on guidelines for the implementation of data
protection rules in the Consumer Protection Cooperation System (CPCS), OJ L 57,
2.3.2011, p.44 – 53..

[28] The aim of the CPCS is
to enable public enforcement authorities - which are part of the EU-wide
network established by Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national
authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the
Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) – to exchange information on
possible breaches of consumer protection laws within a safe and secure
environment.

[29] Vice-President Kroes
has expressed her concerns both in letters to the Hungarian authorities and in
a bilateral meeting with the responsible Minister of Justice. Ruling of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, 19 December 2011, 1746/B/2010, available at: www.mkab.hu/admin/data/file/1146\_1746\_10.pdf

[30] Article 9 of Directive
95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1996 on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on
the free movement of such data.

[31] Proposal for a Regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC)
n°1060/2009 on credit rating agencies, COM(2011) 747 final, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/securities/docs/agencies/COM\_2011\_747\_en.pdf

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Directive 2009/65/EC on the coordination of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to undertakings of collective investment in
transferable securities (UCITS) and Directive 2011/61/EU on Alternative Investment
Funds Managers in respect of the excessive reliance on credit ratings, COM(2011)
746 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/securities/docs/agencies/COM\_2011\_746\_en.pdf

[32] Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and
amending Regulation (EC) n° 561/2006 of the European Parliament and the
Council, 2011/0196
(COD), available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0451:FIN:EN:PDF

[33] Proposal for a Regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, COM(2011)
635 final, available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0635:FIN:EN:PDF

[34] Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,
COM/2010/748 , available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/civil/docs/com\_2010\_748\_en.pdf

[35] Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Creating a European Account
Preservation Order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and
commercial matters, COM(2011) 445 final, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/comm-2011-445\_en.pdf

[36] Communication from the
Commission: A single market for intellectual property rights boosting
creativity and innovation to provide economic growth, high quality jobs and
first class products and services in Europe, COM(2011) 287 final, available at:

 http://ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/copyright/docs/ipr\_strategy/COM\_2011\_287\_en.pdf

[37] "EU Property
Rights and Wrongs", Seminar organized by ALDE MEPs Diana Wallis and Ramón
Tremosa I Bacells, 14 June 2011.

[38] Directive on standards
for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as
beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or
for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the
protection granted, PE-CONS 50/11, available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/pe00/pe00050.en11.pdf

[39] Amended proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards
for the reception of asylum seekers (Recast), COM(2011) 320 final, available
at:

http://eurlex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=574273:cs&lang=en&list=577916:cs,574273:cs,&pos=2&page=1&nbl=2&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte

[40] Amended proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures
for granting and withdrawing international protection status (Recast),
COM(2011) 319 final, available at:

http://eurlex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=574274:cs&lang=en&list=574274:cs,&pos=1&page=1&nbl=1&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte

[41] Communication from the
Commission: Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements, COM(2011) 76
final, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/COMM\_PDF\_COM\_2011\_0076\_F\_EN\_COMMUNICATION.pdf

[42] ECJ, Case C-61/11, El
Dridi,  28.4.2011 & Case C-329/11, Achughbabian, 6.12.2011.

[43] EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights Report, "Detention of third-country nationals in
return procedures", November 2011, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/pub\_detention\_en.htm

[44] Proposal for a Council
Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation,
COM(2008) 426 final, 2.7.2008, available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0426:EN:NOT

[45] Reasonable
accommodation means ad-hoc measures to accommodate a disabled person's
individual needs (as opposed to accessibility which needs to be provided in an
anticipatory manner).

[46] Article 5(2) of Council
Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal
treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and
services, OJ L 373 of 21.12.2004.

[47] ECJ, Case C-236/09, Test-Achats,
30.4.2011

[48] Communication from the
Commission: Guidelines
on the application of Council Directive 2004/113/EC to insurance, in the light
of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-236/09
(Test-Achats), COM(2011) 9497 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/com\_2011\_9497\_en.pdf

[49] EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights Report – "Migrants, minorities and employment ‐
Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of the European Union
(Update 2003‐2008)", July 2011, available at:

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/2011/pub\_migrants-minorities-employment\_en.htm

[50] EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights Report – "The legal protection of persons with mental
health problems under non-discrimination law", October 2011, available at:

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/2011/pub-legal-protection-persons-mental-health-problems\_en.htm

[51] Communication from the
Commission: European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals,
COM(2011) 455 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1\_EN\_ACT\_part1\_v10.pdf

[52] Communication from the
Commission: An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to
2020, COM(2011) 173 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/discrimination/docs/com\_2011\_173\_en.pdf

[53] European
Council Conclusions, 24 June 2011, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms\_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/123075.pdf.

[54] Statement of
Vice-President Viviane Reding on the International Day Against Homophobia and
Transphobia (IDAHO), available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/303&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

[55] EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights Report, "Homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity 2010 Update", November
2010, available at:

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/pub-lgbt-2010-update\_en.htm

[56] The practice of
'phallometric testing' consists of verifying the physical reaction to
heterosexual pornographic material of gay men who have filed a claim for asylum
on the basis of homosexual orientation.

[57] ECJ, Case C-147/08, Jürgen
Römer v. City of Hamburg, 10.5.2011.

[58] EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights Report, "Homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in the EU Member
States", November 2011, available at:

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/pub-lgbt-2010-update\_en.htm

[59] EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights Report, "Respect for and protection of persons
belonging to minorities 2008-2010", September 2011, available at:

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/2011/pub-respect-protection-minorities\_en.htm
,

[60] EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights Report, "Antisemitism - Overview of the
situation in the European Union 2001-2010", June 2011, available at:  http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/2011/pub-antisemitism-update-2011\_en.htm

[61] Commission
Communication: An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child, COM(2011) 60 final,
available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0060:en:NOT

[62] Commission Green paper
on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the
European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC), COM(2011) 735 final, available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0735:FIN:EN:PDF

[63] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/0-18

[64] Directive on combating
the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and
replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA, available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/pe00/pe00051.en11.pdf

[65] Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and the Council establishing minimum
standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, COM(2011)
275 final, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/criminal/victims/docs/com\_2011\_275\_en.pdf

[66] ECJ, Case C-491/10, Aguirre
Zarraga, 22.12.2010.

[67] ECtHR, Šneersone and
Kampanella v. Italy, Application no. 14737/09)

[68] ECtHR, Shaw v. Hungary, Application no. 6457/09

[69] These Member States
are: Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and the United Kingdom. In addition, there is a type of
child alert system in place in Germany, but it is operated solely by an NGO.

[70] The Commission
submitted a Proposal on the accession of the Russian Federation. See: COM(2011)
911 final, available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V5&T2=2011&T3=911&RechType=RECH\_naturel&Submit=Search.
In addition, the Commission also prepared proposal on the accession of other
countries which joined the Hague Convention in recent years, see: 
COM(2011)916( Morocco) ; COM(2011) 912 final (Albania); COM(2011) 915 final (Singapore); COM(2011) 917 final (Armenia) COM(2011) 909 final (Seychelles); COM(2011) 908 final (Andorra); COM(2011) 904 final.

[71] Report from the
Commission: Application of the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998
concerning the protection of minors and human dignity and of the Recommendation
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the
protection of minors and human dignity and on the right of reply in relation to
the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and online information services
industry - protecting children in the digital world, COM(2011) 556 final,
available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0556:EN:NOT

[72] Communication from the
Commission: An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering: A renewed open
method of coordination to address youth challenges and opportunities, COM(2011)
200 final, available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0200:FIN:EN:PDF

[73] Resolution of the
Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States,
meeting within the Council, on encouraging new and effective forms of
participation of all young people in democratic life in Europe, 2011/C 169/01,
available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:169:0001:0005:EN:PDF

[74] European Parliament
Report: Mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European
Disability Strategy 2010-2020, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2011-0263&language=EN

[75] Council conclusions:
Support of the implementation of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020,
17.6.2011, available at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms\_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/122819.pdf

[76] Communication from the
Commission: European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a
Barrier-Free Europe, COM(2010) 636 final, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:EN:PDF

[77] Proposal for a
Regulation establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Citizenship
Programme, COM (2011) 758 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/1\_en\_act\_part1\_v5\_frc\_en.pdf

[78]
Information is on the EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional\_policy/what/future/proposals\_2014\_2020\_en.cfm

[79] Directive 2009/38/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment
of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and
consulting employees, OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28–44.

[80] Article 153(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the EU (TFEU) stipulates that it does not apply to the right to strike.

[81] Communication from the
Commission: Single Market Act, Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen
confidence, Working together to create new
growth", COM(2011) 206 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/smact/docs/20110413-communication\_en.pdf

[82] The central piece is
the Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work,
OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1-8, which lays down general principles on the
protection of workers' health and safety. Several specific directives cover a
number of specific risks, e.g. exposure of workers to biological and chemical
agents at work, noise, work at the construction sites, manual handling of
loads, etc. Another important piece of legislation covers working time and
regulates issues such as minimum daily and weekly rest periods, breaks, maximum
weekly working time, night work and annual leave.

[83] Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum health
and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising
from physical agents (electromagnetic fields), COM(2011) 0348 final, available
at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga\_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type\_doc=COMfinal&an\_doc=2011&nu\_doc=0348

[84] Report of the
Commission: on
implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC (‘The Working Time
Directive’), COM(2010) 802 final, available at: http://www.ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6420&langId=en

[85] Commission Staff Working
Paper: Detailed report on the implementation by Member States of Directive
2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (‘The
Working Time Directive’), SEC(2010) 1611 final, available at http://www.ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6426&langId=en

[86] They enjoy autonomy in these
negotiations, for which 9 months is allowed by the Treaty, and will inform the
Commission of the results achieved by early September 2012.

[87] ECJ, Case C-155/10, Williams
v British Airways, 15.9.2011.

[88] EU Agency for Fundamental Rights Report – "Fundamental rights of migrants in an irregular
situation in the European Union", November 2011, available at:  http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/2011/pub-migrants-in-an-irregular-situation\_en.htm

[89] Directive2011/98/EU on a
single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to
reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of
rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, available
at:  http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:343:0001:0009:EN:PDF

[90] ECJ, Austria vs.
Klein, application n° 57028/00, 3.3.2011.

[91] Directive 2011/24/EU on
the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0045:0065:EN:PDF

[92] EU Agency for Fundamental Rights Report,  "Migrants
in an irregular situation: access to healthcare in 10 European Union Member
States", October 2010, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications\_per\_year/2011/pub\_irregular-migrants-healthcare\_en.htm

[93] Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer
rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive
85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,
available at:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:304:0064:0088:EN:PDF

[94] Commission Notice on
Best Practices in proceedings concerning articles 101 and 102 TFEU, OJ C 308,
20.10.2011, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:308:0006:0032:EN:PDF
; Terms of Reference of the Hearing Officer, OJ L 275, 21.10.2011, available
at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:275:0029:0037:EN:PDF
; Best Practices on submission of economic evidence; published on the Website
of the European Commission, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/economist/neven\_deconinck\_best\_practices.pdf

[95] ECJ, Case C-506/08, Kingdom
of Sweden v European Commission and MyTravel Group, 21.07.2011.

[96] GC, Case T-250/08, Batchelor
v. Commission, 24.5.2011.

[97] GC, Case T-362/08, IFAW
v. Commission, 13.1.2011.

[98] GC,
Case T-29/08, LPN v. Commission; 9.9.2011.

[99] The European Network of
Ombudsmen consists of over 90 offices in 32 European countries. The Network
includes the national and regional ombudsmen and similar bodies of the Member
States of the European Union, the candidate countries for EU membership, and
certain other European countries, as well as the European Ombudsman and the
Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament. The national ombudsmen and
similar bodies in the Network have each appointed a liaison officer to act as a
point of contact for other members of the Network.

[100] Disenfranchisement was
identified as an obstacle encountered by EU citizens as political actors in the
EU Citizenship report 2010 “Dismantling obstacles to EU citizens’ rights"
of 27 October 2010 (COM/2010/603)-  action 20.

[101] Proposal for a Council
Directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad, COM(2011)
881 final, available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0881:FIN:EN:PDF

[102] Communication from the
Commission: Consular
protection for EU citizens in third countries: State of play and way forward, COM (2011) 149 final,
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/com\_2011\_149\_en.pdf

[103] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consularprotection

[104]
The proposal stems from the 2010 EU Citizenship Report (action 23) which
underlined the importance to strengthen citizens' awareness of their EU
citizenship status, their rights and their meaning in their daily lives.
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
European Year of Citizens (2013), COM(2011) 489 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/1\_en\_act\_part1\_v5.11.08.11.pdf

[105] ECJ, Case C-34/09, Ruiz
Zambrano,  8.3.2011.

[106] ECJ, Case C-256/11, Dereci
and others, 15.11.2011.

[107] Vice-President Reding
sent a letter to the Hungarian Minister of Justice.

[108]  Press release of 17
January 2012 (IP 12/24). Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/24&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr

[109] Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and the Council establishing minimum
standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, COM(2011)
275 final, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/criminal/victims/docs/com\_2011\_275\_en.pdf

[110] Commission
Communication: Building trust in EU-wide justice, a new dimension to European
judicial training, COM(2011) 551 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/files/2011-551-judicial-training\_en.pdf

[111] Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code),  OJ
L 243, 15.9.2009

[112] Commission Green Paper:
Strengthening mutual trust in the European judicial area – A Green Paper on the
application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention, COM(2011) 327, available
at:

 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/criminal/procedural/docs/com\_2011\_327\_en.pdf

[113] Directive on the right
to information in criminal proceedings, [OJ], [date], available at: []

[114] Proposal for a
Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the
right to communicate upon arrest, COM(2011) 326 final, available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0326:FIN:EN:PDF

[115] EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights, "Opinion on the draft Directive regarding the European
Investigation Order (EIO)", available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/opinions/op-eio\_en.htm

[116] Commission
Communication: Towards an EU Criminal Policy - ensuring the effective
implementation of EU policies through criminal law, COM(2011) 573 final,
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/com\_2011\_573\_en.pdf
,

[117] Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and
market manipulation (market abuse) , COM (2011) 654 final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/securities/docs/abuse/COM\_2011\_651\_en.pdf

[Top](#document1)