Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013SC0172

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2012 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2012 Report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights /\* SWD/2013/0172 final \*/**

  

Introduction

After the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights[1], in December 2009, the
Commission adopted a Strategy on the effective
implementation of the Charter[2] setting as an objective that the
EU is beyond reproach as regards the respect of fundamental rights, in
particular when it legislates. The Commission is further committed to preparing
annual reports to better inform citizens on the application of the Charter and
to measure progress in its implementation. This Annual Report meets the
longstanding and legitimate expectation of placing fundamental rights at the
heart of EU policies. It is intended to act as the basis of an informed
dialogue between all EU institutions and Member States.

This Report covers the
year 2012 and informs the public of 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 Report aims 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, on the analysis of letters and
petitions from the general public and questions from the European Parliament.
In addition, the report covers key developments as regards the jurisprudence of
the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and for the first time
information of the case law of national Courts on the Charter, based on the
contributions received from Member States and further analysis done by the EU
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

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 CJEU.
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 CJEU. 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 CJEU, which, subject to certain conditions, has the power to annul
such an 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),
independent 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 (ECtHR) 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
2012, 58% 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 ECtHR. 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 75% 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 on-going
initiatives.

[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/

3. Equality

The year
2012 witnessed a number of serious incidents of racism and xenophobia in
the EU, including racist and xenophobic hate speech and violence against Roma
and immigrants. Data collected by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency indicated that
on average, minorities are victims of assault or threat more often than the
majority population.

The Commission assessed Member States' National
Roma Integration Strategies and evaluated, in particular, the key areas of
education, employment, healthcare and housing, and how specific requirements
(cooperation with civil society, with regional and local authorities,
monitoring, antidiscrimination and establishment of a national contact point)
as well as funding for Roma integration are addressed.

The Commission launched infringement
proceedings against Malta on the grounds of its failure to correctly implement
into its national law the EU free movement rules and, more particularly, the
right of same-sex spouses or registered partners to join EU citizens in Malta.

The Commission took steps
for the implementation in Member States of the 116 000 hotline (www.hotline116000.eu) which offers
help and support for missing children and their families. At the
end of the year, the hotline was available in 22 Member States.

In the European
Strategy Better Internet for Children, the Commission has set out a plan to
give children the digital skills and tools they need to use the Internet to
their advantage, safely and responsibly.

The Council adopted
the EU framework to promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

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 continued on the Commission
proposal for new rules on Equal Treatment[63]. During 2012, the
Danish and Cypriot Presidency focused, inter alia, on the material scope of the
Directive and the rules on age and financial services. The aim was to improve
the text on a  technical level, to clear the way for a future political
compromise.

Manifestations of intolerance to
pluralism in the EU

The year 2012 witnessed a number
of serious incidents of racism and xenophobia in the EU, including
racist and xenophobic hate speech and violence against Roma and immigrants.
Data collected by the FRA Indicates that on average, minorities are victims of
assault or threat more often than the majority population. FRA' survey finds
that "Nearly every fifth Roma and every fifth Sub-Sahara African
interviewed considered that they had been a victim of racially motivated
in-person crime of assault or threat and serious harassment at least once in
the last 12 months"[64]. Still,
victims of crime are often unable or unwilling to seek redress against
perpetrators. For this reason many crimes remain unreported and unprosecuted.
This illustrates the need to build confidence among victims and witnesses of
hate crime in the criminal justice system and law enforcement[65].
FRA further points out that only four Member States (Finland, the Netherlands,
Sweden and UK) collect comprehensive data on hate crime, including a range of
bias motivations, types of crimes and characteristics of incidents, whereas in
14 Member States the data collection is limited and the data are not usually
made publicly available.[66]

The Special Eurobarometer (393)
on Discrimination in the EU in 2012[67], undertaken
at the request of the Commission, shows that discrimination on the grounds of
ethnic origin continues to be regarded as the most widespread form of discrimination
in the EU.  It is notable that 56% of respondents reported it as ‘widespread’.
39% reported that discrimination on the basis of religion or beliefs is
widespread and 46% of respondents regard discrimination on grounds of sexual
orientation to be widespread.

The Commission received many letters
and parliamentary questions on racism, xenophobia and antisemitism, which
underlined the need for the Member States to step up their efforts to tackle
these problems. The issues brought to the attention of the Commission included,
in particular, xenophobic violence against ethnic minorities and immigrants,
racism and xenophobia against Roma and Jews, and citizens of certain Member
States.

In response to these concerns, the Commission
reaffirmed its commitment to fight against racism and xenophobia by all means
available under the Treaties and recalled the responsibility of the Member
States' authorities to effectively implement the EU legislation prohibiting
racist or xenophobic hate speech and hate crime based on a racist or xenophobic
motivation. This legislation obliges Member States to penalise racist or
xenophobic hate speech and to ensure that racist or xenophobic motivation behind
other offences is taken into account in the determination of applicable sentences.
By the end of the year, all but two Member States had communicated to the
Commission their national laws transposing this Framework Decision. The
Commission will assess the compliance of those national laws in a report to be
presented by the end of 2013.

The 6th seminar between
the European Commission and the State of Israel on the Fight against Racism,
Xenophobia and Antisemitism was held in June 2012 to exchange information and
experiences on data and trends of racism and antisemitism in the EU, combating
hate speech, access to justice as an effective redress against discrimination
and hate crimes, as well as on the prevention of racism, xenophobia and
antisemitism through education, training and Holocaust remembrance.

Websites targeted against citizens
from Central and Eastern European Member States

Xenophobic and intolerant
attitudes can target all citizens. In the Netherlands, the PVV Party created a
website directed against citizens from certain Central and Eastern European Member States. In Belgium the Vlaams Belang party took a similar initiative.
In reaction to these developments, the Commission stressed that it is
unacceptable that EU citizens exercising their right to move should become
victims of hate speech[68]. The EP
warned against destroying the very basis of the Union, namely pluralism,
non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and freedom of movement[69].

                        EU
Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies

Action to support Roma lies
first and foremost in the hands of Member States that have the primary
responsibility and the competences to change the situation of a marginalised
population. The Commission's assessment of the National Roma Integration
Strategies submitted by the Member States[70] evaluated, in particular, the Member
States’ approaches to the four key areas of education, employment, healthcare
and housing, and on how structural requirements (cooperation with civil
society, with regional and local authorities, monitoring, antidiscrimination
and establishment of a national contact point) as well as funding are
addressed.  The Commission concluded that Member States need stronger efforts to live
up to their responsibilities, by adopting more concrete measures, explicit
targets for measurable deliverables, clearly earmarked funding at national
level and a sound national monitoring and evaluation system. In addition,
attention should be devoted to anti-discrimination and segregation measures and
to a close dialogue with (Roma) civil society (alongside regional and local authorities)
in the implementation and monitoring of national strategies.

Following the assessment of the National Roma
Integration Strategies the Commission organised the first meeting of National
Roma Contact Points on 2 -3 October 2012 in Brussels. This network is designed
as a forum where Member States are enabled to exchange their good practices and
adopt common approaches where appropriate. National Contact Points from all Member States and National Contact point from Croatia participated in the pilot session
reflecting the importance of the topic.

Many Members of the European
Parliament are also involved in the process. The European Commission received
several written questions concerning Roma. The questions were mainly focused on
policies of particular Member States pointing on possible discrepancies with
the EU framework and some of them addressed particular aspects of Roma
discrimination (e.g. dismantling of Roma camps in some member States).

In regard to the Roma and in the
context of its multi-annual programming the FRA completed in 2011 and published
in 2012 results of a major pilot household survey of Roma in 11 EU Member
States working in parallel with a UNDP/World Bank survey commissioned by DG
Regional Policy. In addition, the FRA conducted interviews with several local
authorities in the Member States covered by the FRA’s research. In 2012 the FRA
expanded its research to cover the remaining EU Member States, as part of its
multi-annual Roma Programme

Fight against
homophobia

The European Parliament raised
concerns on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the internal
market and called for the adoption of a Roadmap for equality without
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, in its
resolution on the fight against homophobia adopted in May 2012[71].

The Commission launched, in
2012, infringement proceedings against Malta on the grounds of its failure
to correctly implement in its national law the EU free movement rules and more
particularly the right of same-sex spouses or registered partners to join EU
citizens in Malta and reside there with them. As a result of the Commission's
action, the Maltese legislation was modified and is now compatible with EU
rules on the rights of EU citizens to free movement and non-discrimination.

The Commission intervened in the
context of the negotiations of a Council of Europe recommendation on
risk behaviours having an impact on blood donor management. The
Commission's intervention aimed at ensuring that the draft text would not
discriminate donors based on sexual orientation. As a result, the Council of
Europe committed to a project for further data collection which should allow
for the eventual definition of donor deferral criteria that are based on
objective recognised risks and their relevance to blood safety, irrespective of
the sexual orientation of the potential donor.

Lithuania: amendment of the Law
on the protection of minors

The new Lithuanian Law on the
protection of minors is linked to the implementation of EU rules on Audiovisual
Media Services and on E-commerce. The Commission explained in 2010 that some
provisions included in the first draft of this law could violate the
prohibition of discrimination and the freedom of expression enshrined in the
Charter, because they restricted broadcasts on homosexuality. These provisions
have been removed from the law that was adopted by the Parliament.

Rights of persons
belonging to minorities

Safeguarding the rights of persons
belonging to minorities is one of the founding values of the European Union.
The respect of those rights is explicitly mentioned in article 2 of the Treaty
on the European Union. In addition, any discrimination on the basis of
membership of a national minority is explicitly prohibited in the Charter.
However as the Commission has no general powers as regards minorities, in
particular, over matters concerning the definition of what is a national
minority, the recognition of the status of minorities, their self-determination
and autonomy or the regime governing the use of regional or minority languages,
it is up to the Member States to take decisions about minorities and the use of
language on their respective territories.

A number of EU legislation and
programmes contribute to addressing certain difficulties which are likely to
affect persons belonging to minorities, such as discrimination and
incitement to violence or hatred based on race or national or ethnic origin.
The Commission also supports projects related to regional and minority
languages through a variety of programmes, including in areas such as education
and training, culture and youth support. In particular, the Lifelong Learning
Programme finances projects to promote language learning and linguistic
diversity, either through the different sub-programmes (Comenius, Erasmus,
Leonardo da Vinci or Grundtvig) or through its transversal programme (key
activity 2 ‘Languages’). The Youth in Action programme promotes mobility within
and beyond the EU borders, non-formal learning and intercultural dialogue, and
encourages the inclusion of all young people, regardless of their educational,
social and cultural background. One of the permanent priorities of the
programme is the inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities, notably
migrants and Roma youth.

Discrimination on the
ground of age

The CJEU ruled on a case where the compliance of a
Swedish provision with the age discrimination rules contained in Directive
2000/78/EC establishing equal treatment in employment[72] was called into
question.[73] The provision allows
employers to terminate employment contracts on the sole ground that the
employee has reached the age of 67, without taking into account the amount of
the retirement pension which the person concerned may ultimately receive. The
Court stated that such a rule does not constitute discrimination on grounds of
age if the use of a certain age as applicable criterion for the termination of
contracts is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim,
including objectives of employment and labour-market policies, and if the means
of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. In this context, the Court
pointed out that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age set out in
the Directive must be read in the light of the right to engage in work
recognised in Article 15 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union. The Court took the view that the Swedish provision fulfils the
requirement of necessity, highlighting that the provision does not force the
persons concerned to withdraw definitely from the labour market. After the
termination of the employment contract due to the provision, the employer and
former employee can freely agree on a fixed-term contract. Furthermore, persons
who receive only a low earnings-related pension are entitled to a retirement
pension in the form of basic coverage. Therefore the Court found that the
Swedish provision does not constitute discrimination on grounds of age.

Another interesting case[74] involved a clause of
the collective agreement applicable to cabin crew members of Tyrolean Airways,
according to which the professional experience with another airline belonging
to the same group of companies (Austrian Airlines) was not taken into account
in determining pay grades. The compatibility of this provision with Directive
2000/78 and Article 21 of the Charter was challenged in so far as in the
applicants' allegations, it constituted (indirect) discrimination on grounds of
age. The Court, observing that the provision in question was based on a
criterion which was neither inextricably nor indirectly linked to the age of
employees, rejected a similar reasoning and concluded there was no
discrimination on grounds of age.

The Court confirmed the Commission's assessment
that the lowering of the mandatory retirement age for judges, prosecutors and
notaries in Hungary[75], introduced with a very
short transitional period was incompatible with EU equal treatment law. Hungary will have to change these rules to comply 70with EU law (see Chapter 6. Justice).

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 the child'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[76] , adopted in 2011, aims
to put in practice the rights of the child enshrined in the Charter and in the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child through a comprehensive programme
of actions for the years 2011-2014. The 7th Forum on the Rights of the
Child focused on supporting child protection systems through the
implementation of the EU Agenda. National authorities responsible for
protecting and promoting the rights of the child, NGO's active in the field,
experts and professionals working with children and the EU exchanged best
practices. The Forum highlighted the need to empower children and provide
opportunities for their participation, to gather better data for informed
policy-making, to foster better inter-agency co-operation and to increase
efforts in training of professionals.

7th European Forum on the Rights
of the Child

In the context of the 7th European
Forum on the Rights of the Child held on 13-14 November 2012 , the Commission
organised a workshop on the involvement of child welfare authorities in cases
relating to child custody with a cross-border dimension.

The discussion covered a wide
range of Member States, and the discussion focused on the organisation of the supervision
of custody rights. Participants noted that child welfare authorities  have
different powers depending on the Member State and all Member States strive to
give primary consideration to the child's best interests whilst fostering,
insofar as possible, arrival at amicable solutions to parental conflict. 
Participants discussed the structure and roles and responsibilities, capacity
of the child welfare authority, and cooperation including cross-border
cooperation. It emerged that Member States have very different systems in this
area. Most of the interventions stressed that it is crucial to better inform
children and parents coming from different Member States and to ensure
appropriate training of social workers involved in cross-border situations.
Participants also looked at how to foster better cooperation between local and
central child welfare authorities, as well as cross-border cooperation.

The new Directive establishing minimum standards
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime[77] clearly states that the
child's best interests should be a primary consideration in criminal
proceedings. A child will benefit from this Directive whether he or she has
directly suffered from a crime or suffered indirectly as the victim's child or
sibling. The Directive requires all national actors to adopt a child-sensitive
approach and to ensure that children can understand and be understood when they
participate in police investigations and judicial proceedings. Special
protection measures for children have been included in the Directive to protect
children throughout criminal investigations and court proceedings. Child
victims can suffer terrible psychological and physical harm. The Directive
requires that child victims must have access to victim support, including
specialised support targeted to their needs.

The Internet offers children new opportunities to
be creative, to learn and to express themselves. In the European Strategy
Better Internet for Children[78], the Commission set
out a plan to give children the digital skills and tools they need to use the
Internet to their advantage, safely and responsibly. Today, 75% of children use
the Internet, and 4 out of every 10 children report having encountered risks
online such as cyber-bullying, exposure to user-generated content promoting
anorexia or self-harm or misuse of their personal data. The Commission outlined
a range of measures, which will be implemented by different means including
industry self-regulation. Cooperation through the Coalition to make the
Internet a better place for kids, set up in December 2011, will be vital to
this process. The measures aim to:

o
Stimulate
the production of creative and educational online content for children and
develop platforms which give access to age-appropriate content

o
Scale
up awareness raising and teaching of online safety in all EU schools to develop
children's digital and media literacy and self-responsibility online

o
Create
a safe environment for children where parents and children are given the tools
necessary for ensuring their protection online – such as easy-to-use mechanisms
to report harmful content and conduct online, transparent default
age-appropriate privacy settings or user-friendly parental controls;

o
Combat
child sexual abuse material online by promoting innovative technical solutions
by police investigations.

The Commission took
steps towards the implementation in Member States of the 116 000 hotline[79] (www.hotline116000.eu), which offers help
and support for missing children and their families[80]. EU law requires that
Member States make every effort[81] to have the
hotline operational and this is mandatory since 25 May 2011. To improve the
quality of existing hotlines and encourage the setting up of new ones, the
Commission made funding available (€3 Mio), through the DAPHNE III Programme.
As the implementation process of the 116 000 hotline was lagging, the
Commission reminded the Member States of their obligations in a joint letter
sent on the occasion of the International Missing Children's Day. At the end of
the year, the hotline was available in 22 Member States. To boost awareness and
promote the use of the 116 000 hotline and helpline numbers a dedicated website[82]
was launched by the Commission providing information and links to the number
operators in all Member States.

The standards of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights are at the heart of all EU action concerning
unaccompanied migrant children. The Commission actions are based on three
main strands of action: preventing unsafe migration and trafficking of children,
while increasing protection capacities in non-EU countries; applying reception
measures and providing procedural guarantees until a durable solution is found.
Furthermore, these actions aim to ensure durable solutions by individually
assessing on a case by case basis the return of children to their country of
origin, granting them international protection or resettling them in an EU
country. The Commission’s assessment found that Member States still have to
increase efforts as regards data gathering and funding or improving reception
facilities.

Children are placed at the heart of the EU's
efforts to address trafficking in human beings. The Trafficking Strategy
2012-2016, adopted in June 2012, puts a special emphasis on the support of
child victims of trafficking to strengthen their identification, protection and
assistance. The Strategy prioritises the prevention of crime, prosecution of
traffickers, protection of the victims, cooperation and coordination and thus
complements the Trafficking Directive (2011/36/EU). The Strategy stresses the
importance of comprehensive and child-sensitive protection systems where the
needs of diverse groups of children, including boys and girls who are victims
of trafficking, can be met through interagency and multidisciplinary
coordination. The Strategy calls on Member States to strengthen child
protection systems for trafficking situations and ensure, where return
is deemed to be the child’s best interest, the safe and sustainable return of
children to the country of origin, in and outside the EU, and prevent them from
being re-trafficked.

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 (UNCRPD) 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 its
policy-making, to the extent of its competences. In addition to the EU, all
member states have signed the Convention and 24 among them have ratified it.

After extensive discussion, the Council
adopted the Commission's proposal for an EU framework to promote, protect and
monitor the implementation of the Convention as foreseen in Article 33 (2).
In preparing its proposal the Commission has taken into account the
requirements in terms of tasks to be performed and the independence in
executing those tasks as well as the possible role of all relevant Union
institutions, bodies, offices or agencies. It also consulted with persons with
disabilities and their representative organisations through the European
Disability Forum.

As a result of this analysis, the
Commission has identified the following EU institutions and bodies to form
together "the EU framework":

·
the
European Parliament (represented by the Petitions Committee);

·
the
European Ombudsman;

·
the
European Commission;

·
the
EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA);

·
the
European Disability Forum (EDF), the main EU-level umbrella organisation of
people with disabilities.

The EU framework's mandate covers
areas of EU competence, and it is a complement to the national frameworks and
independent mechanisms which bear the main responsibility for the promotion,
protection and monitoring of the UNCRPD in the Member States. It also addresses
the implementation of the UNCRPD by the EU institutions acting as Public
Administration, for example, in relation to staff matters and interaction with
citizens.

The Commission also organised the third
Work Forum on the implementation of the UN Convention in the EU. This Forum
provided a platform for mutual learning and exchange of good practice between
the governance mechanisms set up by the Member States under Article 33 of the UNCRPD.

With the support of the
Commission, the Academic Network of European Disability Experts,
launched a comprehensive online database (DOTCOM[83]) about laws,
policies, strategies and initiatives put in place at EU-level and in the Member
States to implement the UN Convention.

Progress was made
in disability mainstreaming to ensure that disability rights are reflected
in legislative acts. For example, 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 entering into
force on 18 December 2012) and bus & coach transport (applying from 1 March
2013). The Commission published guidelines clarifying the rights of disabled
passengers and people with reduced mobility when they travel by air to ensure
the correct implementation of Regulation 1107/2006.

Constitutional Court of Romania[84]

The constitutionality of a
Romanian law obliging both public and private sectors' employers to recruit a
certain number of persons with disabilities, or pay a special tax instead was
challenged by a company providing security services. Even though the national
legislation at stake was not adopted to implement any specific EU legal
instrument the Court pinpointed the reasons justifying such positive obligation
on employers by referring to Article 26 of the Charter, in addition to the
corresponding provision of the Romanian Constitution, therefore concluding for
the constitutionality of such legislation.

[63] 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

[64] FRA, EU-MIDIS Data in
Focus Report 06 - Minorities as Victims of Crime, November 2012. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2012-eu-midis-dif6\_0.pdf

[65] FRA, Making Hate Crimes
Visible in the European Union: Acknowledging Victim's Rights, November 2012.
Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/making-hate-crime-visible-european-union-acknowledging-victims-rights.

[66] Making hate crimes
visible in the European Union:  acknowledging victims' rights, November 2012;
EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 6: Minorities as Victims of Crime, November 2012.

[67] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public\_opinion/archives/eb\_special\_399\_380\_en.htm.

[68] Vice President Reding's
statement in the European Parliament on 13 March 2012, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20120313&secondRef=ITEM-012&language=EN.

[69]Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0087+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.

[70] Communication on
National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the
EU framework, COM(2012)
226 final.
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0226:FIN:EN:HTML

[71] European Parliament
resolution of 24 May 2012 on the fight against homophobia in Europe. Available
at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2012-0222&language=EN

[72] Council
Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for
equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303 , 02.12.2000, p. 16 - 22

[73] CJEU, Case C-141/11, Hörnfeldt
v. Posten Meddelande AB, 05.07.2012

[74] CJEU, Case C-132/11, Tyrolean
Airways, 07.06.2012

[75] CJEU,
Case C‑286/12, European Commission v. Hungary 06.11.2012

[76] 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

[77] Directive 2012/29/EU
establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims
of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315,
14.11.2012.

[78] Communication on a
European Strategy Better Internet for Children, COM(2012) 196 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0196:FIN:EN:PDF

[79] Commission Decision (2007/116/EC)
on reserving the national numbering range beginning with ‘116’ for harmonised
numbers for harmonised services of social value, OJ L 49, 17.2.2007, p. 30 – 33.

[80] Commission Decision
(2007/116/EC) on reserving the national numbering range beginning with ‘116’
for harmonised numbers for harmonised services of social value, OJ L 49, 17.2.2007, p. 30 –
33.

[81] Article 27a of the
Universal Service Directive (Directive 2009/136/EC amending Directive
2002/22/EC)

[82] http://www.hotline116000.eu/

[83] http://www.disability-europe.net/dotcom

[84] Constitutional Court of
Romania (Curtea Constituţională a României), S.C. "Elbama
Star" S.R.L., decision no. 615 of 12.05.2011

4. Solidarity

The Commission's European
Consumer Agenda - Boosting confidence and growth set outs the principles
for consumer policy in the years to come and identifies specific initiatives
which aim at empowering consumers, boosting their trust and putting consumers
at the heart of all EU policies.

In line with the
Single Market Act, the Commission presented two legislative proposals, one the
enforcement of the Posting of Workers Directive , and one on the exercise
of the right to take collective action  within the context of the freedom of
establishment and the freedom to provide services (the so-called Monti II
proposal). Twelve national Parliaments adopted reasoned opinions expressing
concerns related, among others, to the added value of the draft Monti II
Regulation, the choice of its legal basis and EU competence to regulate this
matter. Although the Commission was of the opinion that the principle of
subsidiarity has not been breached, it recognised that its proposals were
unlikely to gather the necessary political support within the European
Parliament and Council to enable its adoption. Consequently, it withdrew this
proposal on 26 September 2012 hoping that this would facilitate a rapid
negotiation of the other part of the package, namely the proposal for an
Enforcement Directive.

CJEU ruled on the compatibility of EU rules
on nutrition and health claims made on foods (Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006)
with the freedom to choose an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business
(Articles 15(1) and 16 of the Charter).

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 Commission is finalising a
legislative proposal to lift the exclusion of seafaring workers from the
personal scope of application of a number of EU labour law directives following
consultation of the European social partners. The Commission’s proposal would
extend the scope of application of the Insolvency Directive[85], the Works Council
Directive[86],
the Information and Consultation Directive[87] and the Transfer of undertakings
Directive[88]
to seafaring workers.

The Commission monitors the
implementation of the legal framework on European Works Council that helps
to guarantee the effectiveness of employees’ transnational information and
consultation right and launched infringement procedures against Member States
that did not adopt the required transposing measures within the determined
deadline.

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[89]. Member States
remain, of course, bound by the provisions of the Charter, including the right
to strike, in instances where they implement EU law.

In line with the Single Market Act[90],
the Commission presented on 21 March 2012 two legislative proposals; one on the
enforcement of the Posting of Workers Directive[91], and one on the exercise of
the right to take collective action[92]
within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
services (the so-called Monti II proposal). Both proposals were transmitted to
the other EU institutions as well as to the national Parliaments of the Member
States. The Council started discussions on them and the European Parliament
organised a hearing on 18 September 2012. However, twelve national Parliaments
adopted reasoned opinions[93] expressing
concerns related, among others, to the added value of the draft Monti II
Regulation, the choice of its legal basis and the EU competence to regulate
this matter.

Although the Commission was of the
view that the principle of subsidiarity has not been breached, it nevertheless
recognised that its proposal for the Regulation was unlikely to gather the
necessary political support within the European Parliament and Council to enable
its adoption. Consequently, it withdrew this proposal on 26 September 2012
hoping that this would facilitate a rapid negotiation of the other part of the
package, namely the proposal for an Enforcement Directive.

Fair
and just working conditions

The Charter guarantees that every
worker has the right to working conditions which respect their 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[94].

The social partners at European
level pursued their negotiations on the Working time Directive[95], with the aim of
conducting a review[96]. On 16 August 2012,
the Commission agreed to extend time for their negotiations until 31 December
2012, following a joint request of the social partners indicating that their
negotiations were making progress. The Commission has stated that, respectful
of the social partners' autonomy, it will not put forward a legislative
proposal of its own during the period foreseen under the Treaty for their
negotiations. In December, the social partners informed the Commission about
the failure of the negotiations.

Blacklisting of workers who are
active in raising awareness of the health and safety risk

MEPs have raised
concerns on the practice of some employers to blacklist workers who are active
in raising awareness on health and safety risks. This practice is contrary to
EU law, which provides that workers or workers' representatives with special
responsibility for health and safety may not be placed at a disadvantage
because they consult or raise issues with the employer regarding measures to
mitigate hazards or to remove sources of danger[97].
It is, in first instance, for Member States to ensure that this provision is
fully effective and to ensure that violations are followed-up as appropriate by
the competent authorities. The Commission may intervene, in its role as
Guardian of the Treaty, when there is a breach in the transposition or in the
implementation of EU Law by Member States.

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 as
are national workers and that the application of the different national
legislations does not adversely affect them.

The EU Directive on the status
of third-country nationals guarantees that long-term residents shall enjoy
equal treatment with citizens of the Member State as regards social security,
social assistance and social protection as defined by national law. Under
Article 11 (4) of that Directive, "Member states may limit equal treatment
in respect of social assistance and social protection to core benefits".
In a case that concerned housing benefits for a third-country national who was
a long-term resident[98], the CJEU
observed that according to Article 34 of the Charter, the Union recognises and
respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent
existence for all those who lack sufficient resources. The Court concluded that
in so far as the housing benefit for low income tenants at issue fulfils the
purpose set out in that provision of the Charter, it has to be considered as a
"core benefit" within the meaning of Article 11(4) of the Directive
and therefore it has to be granted also to third-country nationals who are
long-term residents in a Member State. In carrying out such assessment,
national courts should take into account the objective of that benefit, its
amount, the conditions subject to which it is awarded and its place in the
national system of social assistance.

The Commission defended the right
of third-country 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 during negotiations on
the reform of applicable EU rules. The Commission made the point that Member
States cannot restrict third country nationals' entitlements to receiving
social security benefits that are based on their own financial contributions as
this would constitute a disproportionate limitation to the right to property,
contrary to the Charter and the case-law of the European Court of Human rights[99].
Further to this the amendments to the Commission proposals have been withdrawn.

The Commission published a policy
paper that triggered a discussion on measures to prevent poverty and social
exclusion in the old age, taking into account the need for gender sensitive
solutions[100]. In this
context, the Commission also stressed the need to make occupational pensions
transferable as not to punish those who are moving countries for professional
reasons.

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.

The CJEU ruled on the
compatibility of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims
made on foods with the freedom to choose an occupation and the freedom to
conduct a business (Articles 15(1) and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights)[101]. The case
concerned the ban placed by the German authorities on a wine that carried a
health claim. The Court considered that the prohibition of such claims is
warranted in the light of the requirement to ensure a high level of health
protection in the definition and implementation of all the Union’s policies and
activities (Article 35 of the Charter). The CJEU considered that by
highlighting only the easy digestion of the wine concerned, the claim at issue
is likely to encourage its consumption and, ultimately, to increase the risks
for consumers’ health inherent in the immoderate consumption of any alcoholic
beverage.

Environmental
protection

The
Charter provides for a high level of environmental protection. In line
with this requirement the Commission in 2012 adopted a proposal for a new
General EU Environmental Action Programme to 2020, "Living well, within
the limits of our planet"[1]. The proposed programme builds on the
significant achievements of 40 years of EU environment policy, and draws on a
number of recent strategic initiatives in the field of environment, including
the Resource Efficiency Roadmap, the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the Low
Carbon Economy Roadmap. It should secure the commitment of EU institutions,
Member States, regional and local administrations and other stakeholders to a
common agenda for environment policy action up to 2020.

While
many EU Member States are struggling to cope with the economic crisis, the
attendant need for structural reforms offers new opportunities for the EU to
move rapidly onto a more sustainable path, while involving citizens more
directly in environmental policy-making. The overall aim of the proposal
is to ensure a high level of protection for the environment, notably by
protecting and enhancing natural capital, encouraging more resource efficiency
and accelerating the transition to the low-carbon economy, and safeguarding EU
citizens from environmental causes of disease –all of which have a direct link
to the way citizens interact with the environment in their everyday life. The
aims of the Programme can be achieved by better implementation
of existing environment legislation through efforts to ensure better provision
of information on environment, improved inspections and access to justice. Full
integration of environment into other policies in line with the
objective of the Charter should also be achieved.

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 Commission’s "European
Consumer Agenda - Boosting confidence and growth"[102],
adopted on 22 May 2012 contains both principles for consumer policy in the
years to come and a list of specific initiatives which aim at empowering
consumers, boosting their trust and putting consumers at the heart of all EU
policies in line with Article 38 of the Charter. The Consumer Agenda has four
key objectives with an overall objective of creating a borderless Single Market
for consumers and businesses:

-         reinforcing consumer
safety for goods, services and food, strengthening the regulatory framework and
making market surveillance more efficient,

-         enhancing
knowledge through targeted consumer information and education as well as
effective support to consumer organisations,

-         improving enforcement
and securing redress, by strengthening the role of consumer enforcement
networks, and

-         aligning rights and key
policies to economic and societal change, inter alia by adapting consumer law
to the digital age.

Following the adoption of
Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights on 25 October 2011[103]
which Member States have to transpose by 13 December 2013 and apply from 13
June 2014, the Commission, in 2012, started an active dialogue with Member
States to help them in the transposition process. This new Directive will, in
particular, strengthen consumers' rights when buying on the Internet. Consumers
will have to be provided with essential information before they order goods or
services online, including about the functionality and interoperability of
digital content. The new Directive furthermore bans pre-ticked boxes when
offering additional services, internet cost traps and charges of which the
consumer was not informed in advance.

In particular in view of the
forthcoming entry into force of the Consumer Rights Directive, one of the concrete
tasks foreseen by the Consumer Agenda is the provision of guidelines regarding
the application of consumer information requirements in the digital area.
The purpose of guidelines will be to make the information obligations, which
traders have vis-à-vis consumers, work effectively in practice and easily
enforceable. In addition, this activity aims at achieving a better presentation
of the key information on digital products, thus facilitating comparability of
different offers.

Indeed, as shown by the available
studies, the lack of, or the complexity and unclear/hidden character of
information is a major source of problems for consumers when buying digital
products. The 2012 "sweep" of websites selling digital products
(games, music, video and e-books), which the national enforcement authorities
conducted in coordination with the Commission also showed significant problems
in this area - 76% of the tested websites showed infringements of consumer
legislation. These infringements will be followed up by enforcement activities
through the existing channels, such as the Consumer Protection Co-operation
(CPC) network of the national consumer enforcement authorities. The ways to
improve enforcement, both in cross border cases and in cases affecting a number
of Member States and therefore of strong EU relevance will be the subject of
the next Consumer Summit organised by the Commission on 18-19 March 2013

In parallel, the Commission
worked actively to ensure the full and correct implementation of other existing
consumer protection directives.

In relation to the
Directive on timeshare[104], which was
to be transposed by 23 February 2011, the Commission closed the last open
infringement proceedings after all Member States notified full transposition.
This new Directive, which replaced the previous Directive 94/47/EC, has
considerably enhanced consumer protection in this area, particularly through
more stringent rules related to the information the trader has to provide to
the consumer both in the pre-contractual stages and in the contract and
regarding the consumer's right of withdrawal.

In addition to two open infringement cases, a
pre-infringement dialogue via EU Pilot was initiated with 24 Member States
regarding the correctness of the transposition of Directive 2005/29/EC on
unfair commercial practices. This Directive provides a high level of consumer
protection and allows to curb a broad range of unfair business practices, such
as providing untruthful information to consumers or using aggressive techniques
to influence their choices. In March 2013, the European Commission published a
Communication[105] and a Report on the
application of the Directive[106], which outlined a
series of actions to tackle misleading and aggressive commercial practices
across the EU, such as fake ‘free’ offers, ‘bait’ advertising for products
which cannot be supplied, and direct targeting of children.

Problems with faulty goods
remained one of important concerns for consumers in 2012. This was reflected in
a number of questions posed to the Commission on consumer rights under the
Directive on consumer sales and associated guarantees 1999/44/EC. EU law
provides that the seller is liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity
which exists at the time the goods were delivered to the consumer (known as a
'legal guarantee').  A consumer who has bought a faulty product has the right
to have it repaired or replaced free of charge within two years from the time
of delivery. Any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of
delivery of the goods is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. In
their correspondence, consumers in particular asked for clarifications about
the burden of proof, guarantees for durable goods and after-sales services
exceeding the duration of the legal guarantee.

An issue that received a particular attention in the
context of the two above-mentioned Directives related to the practices of
marketing by traders of paid-for warranties, which mislead the consumers as to
their legal guarantee entitlement under the EU law. In light of a decision
taken by a consumer enforcement authority in one Member State concerning the
misleading practices of a major supplier of consumer electronics, the
Commission urged the enforcers in other countries to also investigate the possible
similar breaches on their territories. The Commission will continue to urge
Member States to react strongly with regard to misleading practices in this
area.

In 2012, several
infringement proceedings were opened or continued by the Commission regarding
the inadequate transposition and application of the directives on package
travel, doorstep selling and unfair terms in consumer contracts. Directive 93/13/EEC on
unfair terms in consumer contracts ensures that standard terms that cause a
significant imbalance in terms of rights and obligations to the detriment of
the consumer, are not binding on the latter. The Directive applies to all
business-to-consumer contracts and was the subject of several preliminary
rulings by the CJEU on the basis of requests from national courts. In particular, in
a judgment of 15 March 2012 in Case C-453/10 the Court ruled that Directive
93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts does not preclude a Member
State from providing that a contract concluded with a consumer by a trader,
which contains one or more unfair terms, is to be void as a whole where that
will ensure better protection of the consumer. The Court also stated that
indicating in a credit agreement an annual percentage rate of charge lower than
the real rate must be regarded as ‘misleading’ within the meaning of Directive
2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in so far as it causes or
is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that
he would not have taken otherwise. A number of other CJEU judgments dealt with the
interpretation of Directive 97/7/EC on distance contracts, Directive 90/314/EEC
on package travel and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices.

Supreme Administrative Court of
Czech Republic[107]

The Czech Supreme Administrative
Court made reference to Article 38 of the Charter when interpreting EU
legislation on television broadcasting activities, including the 2010
Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The case concerned the violation, by a
Czech television broadcaster of the prohibition to broadcast TV commercials
which are not clearly separate and therefore recognisable from any other parts
of the programme, in order to avoid any confusion on the part of the viewer,
and the alleged failure of the competent supervisory authority to notify the
broadcaster of such breaches. In applying EU rules on television broadcasting
activities, the Czech Court considered it essential to refer to Article 38 of
the Charter, therefore affirming that the obligation to make TV commercial
clearly distinguishable from other parts of the programme aims at ensuring a
high level of consumer protection.

[85] Directive 2008/94/EC,
on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
employer, OJ L 283, 28.10.2008, p. 36 – 42.

[86] Directive 2009/38/EC 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.

[87] Directive 2002/14/EC on
the establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in
the European Communit, OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29 – 33.

[88] Directive 2001/23/EC on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding
of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or
parts of undertakings or businesses of 12 March 2001, OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16
- 20

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

[90] 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

[91] Proposal for a Directive
on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in
the framework of the provision of services, COM(2012) 131 final.
Available at:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0131:FIN:EN:PDF

[92] Proposal for a Council
Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the
context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, COM(2012) 130 final.
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0130:FIN:EN:PDF

[93] On the basis of
Protocol N° 2 to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality.

[94] 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.

[95] 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

[96] The social partners
enjoy autonomy in these negotiations. The duration of this process shall not
exceed 9 months, but in accordance with Article 154 (4) TFEU, the period for
these negotiations has been recently extended by the Commission until the end
of 2012.

[97] Council Directive
89/391/EEC 89/391 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.

[98] CJEU, Case C-571/10, Kamberaj,
24.04.2012

[99] In its judgment of 16
September 1996 on the case 39/1995/545/631 (Gaygusuz), the European Court of
Human Rights ruled that social security rights were property rights and that,
accordingly, equality of treatment in social security is guaranteed by the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

[100] White paper: an agenda for adequate,
safe and sustainable pensions, COM(2012) 55 final.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7341&langId=en

[101] CJEU, Case C-544/10, Deutsches
Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, 6.9.2012.

[1] COM(2012)
710 final

[102] Communication on a
European Consumer Agenda - Boosting confidence and growth, COM(2012) 225 final.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/consumer\_agenda\_2012\_en.pdf

[103] Directive 2011/83/EU on
consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC, Directive 1999/44/EC
85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p.64 – 88.

[104] Directive 2008/122/EC
on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare,
long-term holiday

product, resale and exchang, OJ L 33, 3.2.2009, p. 10 - 21,

[105] Communication on the
application of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices,
COM(2013)138 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/ucpd\_communication\_en.pdf

[106] Report on the
application of Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair
business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, COM(2013) 139
final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/ucpd\_report\_en.pdf

[107] Supreme Administrative
Court of the Czech Republic (Nejvyšší správní soud České republiky), case
6 As 26/2010 – 66, FTV Prima v. Czech Council for Radio and TV Broadcasting,
17.03.2011

5. Citizens'
rights

The Commission conducted a wide reaching
public consultation to gain a broader insight into the main obstacles
citizens encounter when they move within the EU. More than 11.500 citizens
contributed to this consultation. These results will feed into the debates
during the European Year of Citizens and inform the 2013 European Citizenship
Report.

The EU adopted new rules to make it
easier for EU citizens to stand as candidates in the 2014 European Parliament
elections.

The Commission
assessed how EU citizens' electoral rights are implemented at local level
and suggested that the Member States adopt targeted measures to stimulate
citizens' participation and increase overall turnout.

The
Commission followed a rigorous enforcement policy with a view to achieving the full
and correct transposition and application of the EU free movement rules
across the EU. As a result of this policy, a number of Member States amended
their legislation or committed to adopt, within a set deadline, amendments
aimed at ensuring full compliance with these rules. The Commission has pursued
the infringement proceedings with Member States that have not yet complied with
the above rules.

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.

On 20 December 2012, the EU
adopted new rules to make it easier for EU citizens to stand as candidates
in the 2014 European Parliament elections[106]. EU citizens who wish
to stand as candidates in the Member State where they reside without having the
nationality of that Member State will only need to produce an identity document
and a declaration stating that they fulfil the eligibility conditions. They
will no longer need to travel back to their country of origin to obtain
additional documents from their national administration.

In the 2012 Report on municipal
elections[107] the Commission
assessed how EU citizens' electoral rights are implemented at local level and
suggested that the Member States adopt targeted measures to stimulate citizens'
participation and increase overall turnout. The Commission also used this
opportunity to support non-national EU citizens' involvement in the political
life of the municipality in which they reside. The new rule introduced in the
Hungarian electoral system which gives non-national EU citizens the possibility
to become mayor, and not only a local councillor, is a good example of how
non-national EU citizens can become fully integrated in their new community and
play an active part in its future.

Reform of the Lithuanian electoral
legislation

The Lithuanian electoral
legislation in force since 2006 required non-national EU citizens to have
resided for at least five years in Lithuania in order to be entitled to vote
and to stand as candidates in local elections. The Commission engaged in
dialogue with the Lithuanian authorities on this issue, pointing out that under
EU rules, EU citizens residing in Lithuania should have the right to vote and
to stand as candidates in local elections under the same conditions as
nationals. Further to this dialogue, the Lithuanian authorities repealed this
legal requirement.

Right to good administration

Every person has
the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a
reasonable timeframe 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 an IT tool (called CHAP; “Complaint Handling – Accueil des
Plaignants”), for registering and managing correspondence raising potential
problems on the way how Member States implement EU law.

All Member States are now using EU
Pilot. EU Pilot is a Commission initiative aimed at responding to questions
and identifying solutions to problems related to the application of EU law. It
is supported by an on-line data base and communication tool. EU Pilot provides
the opportunity for Member States to resolve problems before the Commission enters
into formal infringement procedures. Cases should, in principle, be dealt with
within 20 weeks; thus EU Pilot dialogue facilitates speedy resolution of problems.[108]

The right to good administration
is relevant in different areas of EU law. One of them is competition. DG
Competition's Manual of Procedures was made publicly available and serves
as an internal working tool intended to give practical guidance to staff on how
to conduct investigations.

Right of access to documents

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.

In 2012, the
Commission registered 6,011 requests for access to documents, which is
slightly less than in 2011. As in the past, 4 out of 5 requests were granted at
the initial stage. In 2012, the Commission received 227 confirmatory
applications, a significant increase compared to 2011. 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 2012, the European Ombudsman closed 20 inquiries into
complaints for a refusal to grant access to documents. The Court of Justice
handed down five judgments on appeals and the General Court adjudicated in 15
cases concerning the fundamental right of access to documents.

The General Court delivered an
important judgment[109] on access to EU
internal documents, including legal opinions. The Court pointed out that that
disclosure of a document under EU rules on the public access to EU
institutions documents would undermine individuals' privacy and integrity. Particular
attention should be paid to Article 8 of Regulation 45/2001on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the EU
institutions and bodies, which requires the recipient of a transfer of personal
data to demonstrate the need for its disclosure and to its Article 18, giving
the person concerned the possibility of objecting at any time, on compelling
legitimate grounds relating to his or her particular situation, to the
processing of data affecting him or her.

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 on 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.

As was the case in 2011, over 22
000 individuals were helped directly by the European Ombudsman in 2012. This
includes individuals who complained directly to the European Ombudsman (2,442
complaints), those who received a reply to their request for information (1,211),
and those who obtained advice through the interactive guide on the European
Ombudsman's website (19,281).

Over 60% of the complaints (1 467)
were within the competence of a member of the European Network of Ombudsmen, of
which just over half (740 or 30% of the total) fell within the European Ombudsman's
mandate.

Freedom of movement and residence

The Charter guarantees the right
of every EU citizen to move and reside freely, whilst respecting 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 Commission followed a rigorous
enforcement policy with a view to achieving the full and correct
transposition and application of the EU free movement rules across the
European Union. As a result of this policy, and in particular of its
infringement proceedings, an additional number of Member States, in contrast to
2011, amended their legislation or committed to adopt, within a set deadline,
amendments aimed at ensuring full compliance with these rules. In 6 out of the
12 infringement proceedings that were launched in 2011, the Commission sent a
reasoned opinion to the Member States concerned, the last step before bringing
the matter before the Court of Justice of the EU.

The main outstanding issues raised
in the abovementioned infringement proceedings included the incorrect or
incomplete transposition of provisions of 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. At
the same time, the Commission pursued action with some Member States to ensure
EU citizens' rights to non-discrimination and to dismantle obstacles to free
movement, such as to allow for the registration of foreign double names or to
ensure compatibility of Member States legislation on labour migration or
expulsion with EU free movement law.

The Commission pursued its
dialogue with the Dutch authorities regarding their plans announced in 2011 on
labour migration. The Commission had raised a number of concerns as to the
compatibility of some of these planned measures with EU law on free movement of
EU citizens and workers. Several exchanges allowed solving a significant number
of issues in 2012. The Commission will pursue this dialogue with a view to
ensuring that any measure put in place is compatible with EU law.

The Commission pursued its
dialogue with the Danish authorities on amendments to the Danish Aliens Act which had entered into
force in July 2011 and which aimed at introducing stricter rules on the
expulsion of aliens, including EU citizens. The Commission was particularly
concerned about the compatibility of the Danish rules on expulsion with the
material and procedural safeguards laid down in the Free Movement Directive.
Further to this dialogue, the Danish authorities committed to initiate
amendments ensuring compatibility with EU law. They delivered, in the course of
2012, on some of these commitments, by means of a Bill amending the Aliens Act
published on 18 June 2012.

Civil
registration in Sweden and Belgium

Sweden
amended its legislation to allow for the registration of foreign double
surnames for Swedish nationals. As a result, Swedish children of double
nationality now enjoy the right to have their full surname (double surname)
registered in Sweden without having to go through a lengthy legal procedure, or
having to pay an additional fee. The Commission also pursued its infringement
proceedings against Belgium to safeguard this same right for children born in Belgium who have one Belgian parent and one parent of another EU Member State.

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 right of unrepresented
Union citizens to enjoy the protection of the diplomatic or consular
authorities of any Member State under the same conditions as for the nationals
of that Member State is enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the
EU (Article 20 (2) c and 23) and in the EU Charter (Article 46). The Commission
proposed on 14 December 2011[110] clear and legally binding set of
rules on cooperation and coordination between the Member States' consular
authorities, with a view to ensuring that Union citizens enjoy effective
consular protection, regardless of their nationality.

This proposal is currently being
discussed in the Council, and on the 25th of October 2012, the European
Parliament adopted its Opinion on the Proposal of the Commission for a Council
directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad (ref.
A7/0288/2012). The European Parliament called for a common approach of the Union and an increased support from the Union delegations.

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. It is for the Member States to decide who their nationals are. They
are solely competent to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of
their nationality.

EU citizens have a number of
rights under EU law but they often do not know about them. Following a proposal
made by the Commission in 2011, the European Parliament and Council decided on
21st December 2012[111],
that 2013 would be the European Year of Citizens. This would be an
occasion to raise citizens' awareness about their EU rights and engage with
them in a debate on the development of EU citizenship.

To have a better knowledge of the
main obstacles citizens encounter when they move within the EU, the Commission
launched a wide reaching public consultation (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/eu-citizen-brochure\_en.pdf) to which over 11,500
citizens contributed. These results will feed the debates during the European
Year of Citizens and inform the 2013 European Citizenship Report, which is to
be adopted together with the Report on progress on implementation of Article 25
around 9 May 2013, which will detail the main developments on EU Citizenship
rights since 2010.

[106] Proposal for a
Directive amending Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 on the right to
participate in European elections for citizens of the Union residing in a
Member State of which they are not nationals.
Available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st17/st17198.en12.pdf

[107] Report on the
application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a
candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the

Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals,
COM(2012) 99 final.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/com\_2012\_99\_municipal\_elections\_en.pdf

[108] More
detailed information on EU Pilot is available in the Commission's most recent
Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law (point 2.1.3 in the
Report, and the sections "Early resolution of infringements" in
Annexes I and II). The Annual Report can be downloaded from the following link:
      http://ec.europa.eu/eu\_law/docs/docs\_infringements/annual\_report\_29/sg\_annual\_report\_monitoring\_eu\_law\_121130.pdf

[109] GC, Case T-300/11, Internationaler
Hilfsfonds eV v. European Commission, 22.05.2012

[110] 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

[111] Decision No
1093/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012
on the European Year of Citizens (2013), OJ L 325, p. 1

6. Justice

The EU
adopted minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of
crime which will ensure that victims are given
non-discriminatory minimum rights across the EU, irrespective of their
nationality or country of residence.

The implementation
of the 2009 EU Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or
accused persons in criminal proceedings is well advanced. The first
Directive adopted in 2011 is the Directive on the right to interpretation and
translation in criminal proceedings. It was followed by the Directive on the
right to information in criminal proceedings adopted in 2012. The next step
will be the adoption of the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in
criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest.

Over the past years,
Hungary has adopted several laws – some of them so-called cardinal
laws adopted directly under its new constitution – which raised important
fundamental rights concerns and also came under the scrutiny of the Council of
Europe. The Commission carried out its legal analysis of those points where
there was a link with EU law, in accordance with the scope of application of
the Charter (Article 51) and the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties.
Following first warning letters at the end of 2011, the Commission acted fast
and decided to bring infringement procedures before the CJEU regarding the
independence of the data protection supervisory authority and the retirement
age of judges, prosecutors and notaries. The CJEU confirmed the Commission's
assessment, according to which the mandatory retirement age for judges,
prosecutors and notaries within a very short transitional period is
incompatible with EU equal treatment law. Hungary will have to change these
rules to comply with EU law.

The CJEU ruled in a
number of important cases which concerned compliance with Article 47 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights on the right to an effective remedy and to a
fair trial.

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 an incorrect way. The right to effective remedy guarantees judicial
protection against violations of any EU rule which grants rights to people. It therefore
plays a key role in ensuring the effectiveness of all EU law, ranging from
social policy, to asylum legislation, competition, agriculture, etc.

The EU legal framework on the rights of victims of crime was
significantly reinforced by the adoption, of the Directive establishing
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime[112].

This new Directive will ensure that victims are given
non-discriminatory minimum rights across the EU, irrespective of their
nationality or country of residence. It will help to ensure that victims are
recognised and treated with respect when they come into contact with the
police, prosecutors and the judiciary. It also gives victims the procedural
rights to be informed, supported and protected and it ensures that they can
actively participate in criminal proceedings. Moreover, there is a requirement
for practitioners to be trained on the needs of victims and for Member States
to facilitate mutual cooperation to improve the access of victims to their
rights both at EU and national level.

In the Directive there is a particular focus on the support
and protection of victims who are vulnerable to secondary or repeat
victimisation or intimidation during criminal proceedings. The Directive sets
up a new mechanism of individual assessments that will be required for each
victim to determine if they have specific protection needs and whether special
measures should be put in place to protect them. These vulnerable groups
include children and typically some categories of victims who often are at risk
such as victims of terrorism, organised crime, human trafficking, gender-based
violence, violence in close-relationship, sexual violence or exploitation, hate
crime and victims with disabilities.

The Commission took action immediately after the entry into
force of the new Hungarian Constitution and the cardinal laws which
implemented it, and did not hesitate to refer Hungary very quickly to the CJEU
regarding the independence of its data protection supervisory authority and
regarding the retirement age of judges, prosecutors and notaries.

In line with established case law of the CJEU, the Commission
considered that the Hungarian rules regarding the retirement age of judges,
prosecutors and notaries were in violation of the EU rules on equal
treatment in employment, which prohibit discrimination at the workplace on
grounds of age. These rules also cover changes to the mandatory retirement age
for one profession without an objective justification. In view of the urgency
of the matter and the imminent retirement of 236 judges, the Commission referred
the matter to the Court to deal with this question in an expedited procedure. The
Court reacted promptly and delivered its ruling on 6 November 2012. The Court
confirmed the Commission's assessment according to which the mandatory
retirement age for judges, prosecutors and notaries, in view of the very short
transitional period for its implementation, is incompatible with EU equal
treatment law. Hungary will have to change these rules to comply with EU law[113].

The Commission expressed its concerns about the
independence of the judiciary in Hungary more generally and, in particular,
on two essential aspects: the powers attributed to the President of the
National Judicial Office to designate a court in a given case, and the possibility
of a transfer of judges without their consent. The Commission was concerned
that these measures could affect the effective application of Union law in Hungary and the fundamental rights of citizens and businesses to an effective remedy by an
independent court in Union law cases, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Commission noted that there are on-going discussions
between the Hungarian authorities and the Council of Europe and its Venice
Commission (which issued an opinion on the matter on 19 March 2012). The
Commission will keep the matter under close review to verify compliance with
the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights in Union law cases, and will take into account whether the
amendments will be implemented in line with the Venice Commission's opinions.

The Commission has advanced in negotiations on the
proposal for a regulation on the mutual recognition of protection measures in
civil matters presented in May 2011[114]. This
instrument will ensure that victims, or potential victims, who benefit from a
protection measure in their Member State of residence, do not lose this
protection when crossing borders. In addition, the Commission is currently
preparing further action on compensation to crime victims with the aim to
address problems at national and/or cross-border level and to propose
improvements to ensure victims have proper access to fair and appropriate
compensation.

The CJEU delivered important rulings that concern
EU competition policy. The Court rejected the claims introduced by three
companies[115], who
had been fined for participating in a cartel on the market for copper plumbing
tubes (used for water, gas and oil installations), that their right to an
effective remedy and to a fair trial under Charter (Article 47) had been
violated. In three separate proceedings, the companies claimed that the General
Court infringed their right to an effective judicial remedy by failing to carry
out an adequate review of the Commission’s decision and deferring, to an
excessive and unreasonable extent, to the Commission’s discretion. One company
also specifically, maintained that competition proceedings before the
Commission are criminal proceedings within the meaning of the ECHR, and that,
since the Commission is not an independent and impartial tribunal within the
meaning of the ECHR, the General Court is required to carry out a review as
regards both matters of fact and law.

Referring solely to the Charter, the CJEU observed that the
judicial review of decisions imposing fines in matters of competition law
entails a review of legality and, moreover, unlimited jurisdiction. As regards
the unlimited jurisdiction in relation to the amount of fines, the Court stated
that that jurisdiction empowers the CJEU in addition to carrying out a mere
review of the lawfulness of the penalty, to substitute their own appraisal for
the Commission’s and, consequently, to cancel, reduce or increase the pecuniary
penalty imposed. Finally, the Court held that the CJEU must carry out a review
of both the law and the facts, that they have the power to assess the evidence,
to annul the Commission’s decision and to alter the amount of a fine.
Therefore, the judicial review provided for by EU law is not contrary to the
requirements of the principle of effective judicial protection set out in the
Charter.

In another case that concerns competition policy[116], the
CJEU held that the Commission may legitimately represent the EU before a
national court in a civil action for the compensation of damages in respect of
a loss it sustained as a result of the existence of cartel practices. This
case originated from the Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 ascertaining
the existence of a cartel on the market for the sale, installation and
maintenance of lifts and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In June 2008, for the first time ever, the European Commission
decided to bring proceedings before a Belgian Trade Court seeking compensation
to the financial loss the Union suffered for the above-market rates charged by
these companies, as the Union itself had contracted out to them the
installation, maintenance and renovation of lifts and escalators in different
EU buildings in Belgium and Luxembourg.

The CJEU held that these circumstances do not run counter to
either the judiciary’s independence or the principle of equality of
arms between parties to civil proceedings in so far as EU law provides for
a system of judicial review of Commission decisions in the field of competition
policy which affords all the safeguards required by Article 47 of the Charter.
The Court therefore ruled that the Charter does not preclude the Commission
from bringing an action for compensation for losses sustained by the EU as a
result of an agreement or practice contrary to EU law.

Another case[117],
concerned the recognition and enforcement in Latvia, under Regulation No
44/2001, of a judgment in default delivered by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (United Kingdom). The CJEU stipulated that this Regulation
must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which
enforcement is sought may refuse, only if it appears to the court, that that
judgment is a manifest and disproportionate breach of the defendant’s right to
a fair trial referred to in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 47), on
account of the impossibility of bringing an appropriate and effective appeal
against it.

Enforcement
of the Visa Border Code regarding the right of appeal against a visa refusal

The EU Visa Code[118] requires
Member States to communicate to the applicant for a short stay visa the reasons
on which a decision of refusal is based and to grant the right of appeal against
a visa refusal, annulment, or revocation. This relates directly to the right to
an effective remedy and to a fair trial.  In late 2012, the Commission has
already contacted several Member States' authorities where it had concerns regarding
the right to appeal against a visa refusal, with a view to make use of the
powers conferred to it by the Treaty, should it be confirmed that the right of
appeal is not adequately ensured in some of those Member States.

Supreme
Court of Estonia (Full Court)[119]

The Supreme Court of Estonia made
reference to CJEU case law on Article 47 of the Charter as regards the
restrictions on access to tribunals flowing from the requirements under which
national legislation grants legal aid to legal persons. The applicant, a
company whose action for compensation against the Ministry for Environment had
been dismissed, and refused to pay the required court fee on grounds of its
unconstitutionality; secondarily, it filed a request for legal aid, at the same
time challenging the constitutionality of the law limiting the access to it as
far as legal persons are concerned. In declaring that the exclusion of legal
persons from legal assistance in civil proceedings contravenes the Estonian
Constitution, the Supreme Court recalled the CJEU jurisprudence[120]
according to which "the principle of effective judicial protection, as
enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not impossible for legal
persons to rely on that principle and that aid granted pursuant to that
principle may cover, inter alia, dispensation from advance payment of the costs
of proceedings and/or the assistance of a lawyer."

Dutch Appeal Court[121]

In a case concerning the
application of the EU Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, an
obligation contained in the general conditions obliging the consumer to have
recourse to means of arbitration was considered contrary to the right of
effective remedy as stipulated in Article 47 of the Charter in a judgment by a
Dutch Appeal Court.  The Court argued that with such clause the consumer loses
his right to approach a regular court.

Austrian Administrative Supreme
Court

In a case before the Austrian
Administrative Supreme Court[122],
the assessment by the competent Ministry of the environmental impact of a
decision allowing the double-tracking of a certain section of a railroad was
contested. The law in question transposed a Directive and the decision of the Ministry
on granting or refusing the authorisation falls within the scope of Union law.
Referring to Art 47 of the Charter in order to emphasise the relevance of the principle
of effective judicial control, the Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible
arguing that where Union law provides for a special right to judicial
protection, an instance of judicial control furnished with unlimited
jurisdiction has to decide before a case can be brought before the Supreme
Administrative Court which has to control the impugned decision on the base of
facts of the case as assumed by the authority and which is limited in oral
hearings to questions of law. However, the Constitutional Court lifted that
decision considering that there was no manifest contradiction between Union law
and national law.

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 right to defence of anyone who has been charged
shall be guaranteed.

Safeguarding procedural rights of suspect and accused
persons remains a priority of the Commission. Both the Charter (especially
Articles 47 and 48) and the ECHR (especially Articles 5 and 6) constitute the
common basis for the protection of the rights of suspected or accused persons
in criminal proceedings in the pre-trial and in trial stages.

Mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation
implies the development of equivalent standards of procedural rights in
criminal proceedings. It presupposes that the competent authorities of the
Member States trust the criminal justice systems of the other Member States.
Mutual trust will be greatly enhanced if Member States are confident that their
neighbours have a criminal justice system that guarantees fair trials.

By making progress on these different initiatives, the
Commission is keeping-up with the EU commitment to fundamental rights for all
citizens and to enhance mutual trust. The implementation of the 2009 Roadmap
for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal
proceedings[123] is
now well advanced. The first Directive adopted already in 2011 is the Directive
on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings[124]. It
was followed by the Directive on the right to information in criminal
proceedings of 22 May 2012.[125] The
next step will be the adoption of the Directive on the right of access to a
lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest[126].
Measures such as these, facilitated by the new context for criminal justice
after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, will ensure the balanced
development of criminal justice within the EU area of justice, freedom and
security.

The Commission proposed a new Directive on the confiscation
and recovery of criminal assets in the European Union[127]. This Directive will make it
easier for Member States to confiscate the profits that criminals make from
organised crime. The Directive aims at attacking the financial incentive which
drives most serious and organised crime, at protecting the EU economy against
infiltration by criminal groups, and at returning criminal assets to
governments and citizens. The Directive draws on iInternational Conventions and
best practice recommendations. It will simplify existing rules and fill gaps
which have benefited persons convicted and suspected of crime until now.

The Commission conducted a thorough impact assessment when
preparing its proposal on the confiscation and recovery of criminal assets in
the EU and held extensive internal consultations in order to ensure that all
provisions fully respect fundamental rights. The latter include the right to
property, the presumption of innocence and the right of defence, the right to a
fair trial, the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time,
the right to an effective judicial remedy before a court and the right to be
informed on how to exercise it, the right to respect for private and family
life, the right to protection of personal data, the right not to be tried or
punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence and the
principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences.

The European Parliament requested an opinion from the FRA on
the extent to which confiscation of proceeds of crime could go without
breaching fundamental rights. The FRA examined the substantive provisions of
the proposal, by focusing on the introduction of non-conviction based
confiscations, extended powers of confiscation and confiscation from a third
party[128].

The Commission increased its financial support for the
training of legal practitioners on fundamental rights, following the
ambitious targets set in 2011 for expanding training for legal practitioners in
Europe on how to apply European law[129]. During 2012, the Commission
funded 32 legal training courses on fundamental rights, covering topics such as
gender equality, anti-discrimination, data protection and trafficking in human
beings. Furthermore, the Commission has funded 12 judicial training courses
mainly on the question of victims' rights. This aid in building an independent,
well-trained and efficient judiciary that is essential for a functioning
justice area and single market in Europe.

Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal
offences and penalties

Some fundamental rights are guaranteed in absolute terms and
cannot be subject to any restrictions. Interferences with other rights may be
justified if, subject to the principle of proportionality, they are necessary
and genuinely serve to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union. Such justification is provided for in the proposals of the Commission on the protection
of the Union´s financial interests by means of criminal law[130]. In
particular the right to liberty (Article 6 in the Charter), the freedom to
choose an occupation (Article 15), the right to conduct a business (Article
16), the right to property (Article 17), principles of legality and
proportionality of criminal offences (Article 49), the right not to be tried
and punished twice (Article 50) were assessed by the Commission in relation to
the proposed criminal law measures. It was concluded that the proposed measures
would affect these fundamental rights, but that these interferences with
fundamental rights are justified because they serve to meet objectives of
general interest recognised by the Union; in this case to provide effective and
deterring measures for the protection of Union's financial interests.

Right not to
be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal
offence

The ne bis in idem principle is one of the cornerstones
of criminal law and is based on the principle that no one shall be held liable
to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which
he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted. Article 50 provides
that criminal laws should respect this.

The CJEU clarified the scope of application of the ne
bis in idem in a preliminary ruling that concerned a Polish farmer who
had been excluded from benefiting from agricultural aid on the ground of a
false declaration of the area of his farm[131]. The farmer
contested that the imposition of a criminal penalty for the same act. The Court
examined the case-law of the ECtHR on the concept of ‘criminal proceedings’ and
noted that three criteria are relevant for defining that concept. The first
criterion is the legal classification of the offence under national law, the
second is the very nature of the offence and the third is the nature and degree
of severity of the penalty that the person concerned is liable to incur. As
regards the first criterion, the Court observed that the measures which exclude
a farmer from benefiting from aid are not regarded as criminal in nature by EU
law. As regards the second criterion, the Court considered that those measures
can apply only to economic operators who have recourse to the aid scheme in
question, and that the purpose of those measures is not punitive, but is
essentially to protect the management of EU funds. As regards the third
criterion, the Court found that the sole effect of the penalties provided for
by EU law is to deprive the farmer in question of the prospect of obtaining
aid. On these grounds the Court found that the measures which excluded the
farmer from benefitting from legal laid could not be classified as criminal.
Consequently, there was no violation of the right not to be tried or punished
twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence.

Appendix I

Overview of the 2012 CJEU 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(s) || Grand Chamber

1. Luksan || C-277/10 || 09/02/2012 || Intellectual property || Freedoms || Right to property || N

2. Toshiba Corporation and Others || C-17/10 || 14/02/2012 || Competition || Justice || Principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties || Y

3. Germany v Commission || T-59/09 || 14/02/2012 || Access to documents || Citizens' rights || Right of access to documents || N

4. Grasso v Commission || T-319/08 || 14/02/2012 || Fisheries || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || N

5. SABAM || C-360/10 || 16/02/2012 || Communications || Freedoms || Right to intellectual property / Freedom to conduct a business / Protection of personal data / Freedom of expression and information || N

6. Marcuccio v Commission || F-3/11 || 29/02/2012 || EU Civil Service Tribunal || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration / Right to an effective remedy || N

7. Netherlands v Commission || T-29/10 || 02/03/2012 || Competition - State aid || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

8. B.I. v Cedefop || F-31/11 || 07/03/2012 || EU Civil Service Tribunal || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

9. G || C-292/10 || 15/03/2012 || Civil law || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

10. Fulmen v Council || T-439/10 || 21/03/2012 || Common foreign and security policy - nuclear proliferation || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

11. Slovak Telekom v Commission || T-458/09 || 22/03/2012 || Competition || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

12. Egan and Hackett v Parliament || T-190/10 || 28/03/2012 || Access to documents - data protection || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || N

13. Rapone v Commission || F‑36/10 || 28/03/2012 || EU Civil Service - EPSO concours || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

14. Interseroh Scrap and Metals Trading || C-1/11 || 29/03/2012 || Environment || Freedoms || Freedom to conduct a business / Right to property || N

15. Belvedere Costruzioni || C-500/10 || 29/03/2012 || Taxation || Justice || Right to a fair trial || N

16. Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission || T-336/07 || 29/03/2012 || Competition || Justice || Presumption of innocence and right of defence || N

17. Buxton v Parliament || F‑50/11 || 18/04/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

18. Kamberaj || C-571/10 || 24/04/2012 || Social security - discrimination against third-country nationals || Solidarity || Non-discrimination / Social security and social assistance || Y

19. S.C. and A.C. || C-92/12 PPU || 26/04/2012 || Civil law - Rights of the child || Equality || Rights of the child || N

20. DR and TV2 Danmark || C-510/10 || 26/04/2012 || Intellectual property || Freedoms || Freedom to conduct a business || N

21. Neidel || C-337/10 || 03/05/2012 || Employment || Solidarity || Fair and just working conditions || N

22. In 't Veld v Council || T-529/09 || 04/05/2012 || Access to documents || Freedoms || Protection of personal data || N

23. Nijs v Court of Auditors || T‑184/11 P || 15/05/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service (appeal) || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

24. Skareby v Commission || F-42/10 || 16/05/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

25. P.I. || C-348/09 || 22/05/2012 || Freedom of movement - Criminal law || Equality || Rights of the child || Y

26. Aitic Penteo v OHIM - Atos Worldline (PENTEO) || T-585/10 || 22/05/2012 || Intellectual property || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

27. Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission || T-214/06 || 05/06/2012 || Competition || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration / Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

28. Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft || C-132/11 || 07/06/2012 || Discrimination - employment || Equality || Non-discrimination || N

29. GREP || C-156/12 || 13/06/2012 || Legal aid || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || N

30. XXXLutz Marken v OHIM - Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON) || T‑542/10 || 13/06/2012 || Intellectual property || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

31. Otis Luxembourg (formerly General Technic-Otis)  v Commission || C-494/11 P || 15/06/2012 || Competition || Equality || Non-discrimination || N

32. Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB || T‑234/11 P || 19/06/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service (appeal) || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

33. Susisalo and Others || C-84/11 || 21/06/2012 || Freedom of establishment - public health || Solidarity || Health care || N

34. ANGED || C-78/11 || 21/06/2012 || Employment || Solidarity || Fair and just working conditions || N

35. Bolloré v Commission || T‑372/10 || 27/06/2012 || Competition || Justice || Right to good administration / Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial / Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties || N

36. Erny || C-172/11 || 28/06/2012 || Discrimination - employment || Solidarity || Right of collective bargaining and action || N

37. Caronna || C-7/11 || 28/06/2012 || Wholesale distribution of medicines || Justice || Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties || N

38. Hörnfeldt || C-141/11 || 05/07/2012 || Discrimination - employment || Freedoms || Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work || N

39. AI v Court of Justice || F‑85/10 || 11/07/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

40. Mugraby v Council and Commission || C-581/11 || 12/07/2012 || Fundamental rights || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || N

41. Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB || C-334/12 RX || 12/07/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service (decision to review) || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || N

42. Commission v Nanopoulos || T‑308/10 P || 12/07/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service (appeal) || Justice || Presumption of innocence and right of defence || N

43. BG v Ombudsman || F‑54/11 || 17/07/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Equality || Equality between women and men / Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

44. Dülger || C-451/11 || 19/07/2012 || Legal migration || Freedoms || Respect for private and family life || N

45. Parliament v Council || C-130/10 || 19/07/2012 || Common foreign and security policy - terrorism || VII - General provisions || Field of application || Y

46. Akhras v Council || C-110/12 P (R) || 19/07/2012 || Common foreing and security policy - restrictive measures against individuals || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || N

47. Y and Z || C-71/11 || 05/09/2012 || Refugees - freedom of religion || Freedoms || Freedom of thought, conscience and religion || Y

48. Trade Agency || C-619/10 || 06/09/2012 || Judicial cooperation in civil matters || Justice || Right to a fair trial || N

49. Deutsches Weintor || C-544/10 || 06/09/2012 || Consumer protection - public health || Solidarity || Health care || N

50. Cuallado Martorell v Commission || F-96/09 || 18/09/2012 || EU Civil Service - EPSO concours || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration / Right of access to documents / Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

51. Fraas v OHIM || T-326/10, T-327/10, T-328/10, T-329/11, T-26/11, T-31/11, T-50/11, T-231/11 || 19/09/2012 || Intellectual property || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

52. Poland v Commission || T‑333/09 || 20/09/2012 || Agriculture || Equality || Non-discrimination || N

53. Bermejo Garde v EESC || F‑41/10 || 25/09/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Solidarity || Fair and just working conditions / Right to good administration || N

54. Cimade and GISTI || C-179/11 || 27/09/2012 || Asylum || Dignity || Human dignity || N

55. Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission || T-343/06 || 27/09/2012 || Competition || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration / Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

56. Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission || T-357/06 || 27/09/2012 || Competition || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial / Presumption of innocence and right of defence || N

57. Heijmans v Commission || T‑360/06 || 27/09/2012 || Competition || Justice || Presumption of innocence and right of defence || N

58. Applied Microengineering v Commission || T-387/09 || 27/09/2012 || Relations between EU Institutions and third party contractors || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

59. Technimed v OHMI - Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK) || T-360710 || 03/10/2012 || Intellectual property || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || N

60. Sviluppo Globale v Commission || T-183/10 || 10/10/2012 || Public service procurement - competitive tenders || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration / Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

61. Shanghai Biaowu High-Tensile Fastener and Shanghai Prime Machinery v Council || T-170/09 || 10/10/2012 || Dumping || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

62. Commission v Austria || C-614/10 || 16/10/2012 || Data protection || Freedoms || Protection of personal data || Y

63. Fondation IDIAP v Commission || T‑286/10 || 17/10/2012 || Relations between EU Institutions and third party contractors || Justice || Right to a fair trial || N

64. Strack v Commission || F-44/05 RENV || 23/10/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Justice || Freedom of expression and information / Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

65. Otis and Others || C-199/11 || 06/11/2012 || Competition || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || Y

66. Iida || C-40/11 || 08/11/2012 || Citizenship of the Union - Fundamental rights || VII - General provisions || Field of application || N

67. Heimann || C-229/11 || 08/11/2012 || Employment || Solidarity || Fair and just working conditions || N

68. Commission v Strack || T-268/11 P || 08/11/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service (appeal) || Solidarity || Fair and just working conditions || N

69. Nexans v Commission || T‑135/09 || 14/11/2012 || Competition || Freedoms || Respect for private and family life || N

70. Bericap || C‑180/11 || 15/11/2012 || Intellectual property || Freedoms || Right to property || N

71. Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor || C‑369/12 || 15/11/2012 || Employment || VII - General provisions || Field of application || N

72. M.M. || C‑277/11 || 22/11/2012 || Asylum || Justice || Right of defence || N

73. E.ON Energie || C‑89/11 P || 22/11/2012 || Competition || Justice || Presumption of innocence || N

74. Pringle v Ireland || C-370/12 || 27/11/2012 || Economic and monetary policy || Justice || Right to an effective remedy || Full Court

75. Italy v Commission || C‑566/10 P || 27/11/2012 || EU Civil Service - EPSO concours || Equality || Non-discrimination || Y

76. Sipos v OHIM || F-59/11 || 27/11/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Solidarity || Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal || N

77. Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB || T-590/10 || 29/11/2012 || Access to documents || Citizens' rights || Right of access to documents / Freedom of expression and information / Scope and interpretation of rights and principles || N

78. O and S || C‑356/11 and C‑357/11 || 06/12/2012 || Citizenship of the Union - Fundamental rights || Equality || Respect for private and family life / Rights of the child || N

79. Trentea v FRA || F‑112/10 || 11/12/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

80. Almamet v Commission || T‑410/09 || 12/12/2012 || Competition || Justice || Presumption of innoncence and right of defence / Respect for private and family life || N

81. Cerafogli v ECB || F‑43/10 || 12/12/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

82. Commission v Strack || T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P || 13/12/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service (appeal) || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

83. Strack v Commission || T-199/11 P || 13/12/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service (appeal) || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

84. Greece v Commission || T-588/10 || 13/12/2012 || Agriculture || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

85. AX v ECB || F-7/11 || 13/12/2012 || Employment - EU Civil Service Tribunal || Citizens' rights || Right to good administration || N

86. Alder and Alder || C-325/11 || 19/12/2012 || Judicial cooperation in civil matters || Justice || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial || N

87. Abed El Karem El Kott and Others || C-364/11 || 19/12/2012 || Asylum || Freedoms || Right to asylum || Y

Appendix II

Overview of the applications for preliminary rulings submitted
in 2012 which refer to the Charter:

Case || Date || Name of the parties || Charter subject and articles referred to in the application || Relevant title of the Charter || Nationality of the referring court

C-23/12 || 17/01/2012 || Zakaria || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 47) || Justice || LV

C-30/12 || 23/01/2012 || Marcinová || Consumer protection (Art. 38 combined with 17) || Solidarity || SK

C-45/12 || 30/01/2012 || ONAFTS || Non-discrimination (Art. 20 and 21) || Equality || BE

C-87/12 || 20/02/2012 || Ymeraga and Others || Non-discrimination / Rights of the child (Art. 20, 21, 24, 33, 34) || Equality || LU

C-86/12 || 20/02/2012 || Alopka and Others || Non-discrimination / Rights of the child (Art. 20, 21, 24, 33, 34) || Equality || LU

C-93/12 || 21/02/2012 || „Agrokonsulting” || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 47) || Justice || BG

C-128/12 || 08/03/2012 || Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and Others || Fair and just working conditions (Art. 31.1) || Solidarity || PT

C-131/12 || 09/03/2012 || Google Spain and Google || Protection of personal data (Art. 8) || Freedoms || ES

C-134/12 || 12/03/2012 || Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor || Right to property (Art. 17.1, 20, 21) || Freedoms || RO

C-141/12 || 20/03/2012 || Y.S. || Right of access to data (Art. 8.2, 41.2.b) || Freedoms || NL

C-156/12 || 30/03/2012 || GREP || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 47, 51.1) || Justice || AT

C-176/12 || 16/04/2012 || Association de médiation sociale || Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking (Art. 27) || Solidarity || FR

C-180/12 || 16/04/2012 || Stoilov i Ko || Right to good administration (Art. 41.2.a, 47) || Citizens' rights || BG

C-195/12 || 26/04/2012 || I.B.V & Cie || Non-discrimination (Art. 20, 21) || Equality || BE

C-234/12 || 14/05/2012 || Sky Italia || Freedom of expression and information (Art. 11) || Freedoms || IT

C-233/12 || 14/05/2012 || Gardella || Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work (Art. 15) || Freedoms || IT

C-264/12 || 29/05/2012 || Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins || Fair and just working conditions (Art. 31.1) || Solidarity || PT

C-293/12 || 11/06/2012 || Digital Rights Ireland || Protection of personal data / Freedom of expression and information (Art. 7, 8, 11, 41) || Freedoms || IE

C-311/12 || 27/06/2012 || Kassner || Fair and just working conditions (Art. 31) || Solidarity || DE

C-312/12 || 28/06/2012 || Ajdini || Non-discrimination / Integration of persons with disabilities (Art.20, 21, 26) || Equality || BE

C-313/12 || 28/06/2012 || Romeo || Right to good administration (Art. 41.2.c) || Citizens' rights || IT

C-356/12 || 27/07/2012 || Glatzel || Non-discrimination (Art. 20, 21, 26) || Equality || DE

C-363/12 || 30/07/2012 || Z || Non-discrimination / Integration of persons with disabilities / Family and professional life (Art. 21, 23, 33, 34; 21, 26, 34) || Equality || IE

C-361/12 || 31/07/2012 || Carratù || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 46, 47, 52.3) || Justice || IT

C-367/12 || 01/08/2012 || Prinz-Stremitzer and Sokoll-Seebacher || Freedom to conduct a business (Art. 16, 47) || Freedoms || AT

C-369/12 || 02/08/2012 || Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor || Right to property / Non-discrimination (Art. 51.1 combined with 20; 51.1 combined with 21.1; 17.1) || Freedoms || RO

C-372/12 || 03/08/2012 || M. and S. || Right of access to data (Art. 8.2, 41.2.b, 51.1) || Freedoms || NL

C-370/12 || 03/08/2012 || Pringle || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 47) || Justice || IE

C-373/12 || 03/08/2012 || G.I.C. Cash || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 47 combined with 38) || Justice || SK

C-390/12 || 20/08/2012 || Pfleger and Others || Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work / Right to property (Art. 15, 16, 17, 47, 50) || Freedoms || AT

C-413/12 || 11/09/2012 || Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León || Consumer protection (Art. 38) || Solidarity || ES

C-429/12 || 21/09/2012 || Pohl || Non-discrimination (Art. 20) || Equality || AT

C-446/12 || 03/10/2012 || Willems || Protection of personal data / Respect for private and family life (Art. 7, 8) || Freedoms || NL

C-447/12 || 05/10/2012 || Kooistra || Protection of personal data / Respect for private and family life (Art. 7, 8) || Freedoms || NL

C-451/12 || 08/10/2012 || Esteban García || Consumer protection (Art. 38) || Solidarity || ES

C-448/12 || 08/10/2012 || Roest || Protection of personal data / Respect for private and family life (Art. 7, 8) || Freedoms || NL

C-449/12 || 08/10/2012 || van Luijk || Protection of personal data / Respect for private and family life (Art. 7, 8) || Freedoms || NL

C-476/12 || 24/10/2012 || Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund || Right of collective bargaining and action / Non-discrimination (Art. 28) || Solidarity || AT

C-483/12 || 29/10/2012 || Pelckmans Turnhout || Non-discrimination / Right to property / Freedom to conduct a business (Art. 20 and 21 combined with 15 and 16) || Freedoms || BE

C-497/12 || 07/11/2012 || Gullotta and Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. || Right to property (Art. 15) || Freedoms || IT

C-498/12 || 07/11/2012 || Pedone || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Legal aid (Art. 47.3) || Justice || IT

C-499/12 || 07/11/2012 || Gentile || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Legal aid (Art. 47.3) || Justice || IT

C-523/12 || 19/11/2012 || Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl || Freedom of expression and information / Right to education (Art. 11, 14) || Freedoms || IT

C-555/12 || 03/12/2012 || Loreti and Others || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 47, 52.3) || Justice || IT

C-562/12 || 05/12/2012 || Liivimaa Lihaveis || Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Art. 47) || Justice || EE

[112] Directive establishing
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime OJ
315, 14.11.2012, p. 57-73

[113] CJEU,
Case C‑286/12, European Commission v. Hungary, 06.11.2012

[114] Proposal for a
Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters,
COM(2011) 276 final.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/criminal/victims/docs/com\_2011\_276\_en.pdf

[115] CJEU, Case C-272/09, KME
Germany and Others v Commission, 20.1.2012; CJEU, Case C-386/10, Chalkor
v Commission, 20.1.2012; CJEU, Case C-389/10,
KME Germany and others v Commission, 20.1.2012

[116] CJEU, Case Case C‑199/11, Europese Gemeenschap v
Otis NV, General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Kone Belgium NV, Kone Luxembourg Sàrl,
Schindler NV, Schindler Sàrl, ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, ThyssenKrupp
Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl, 6.11.2012

[117] CJEU, Case C-619/10, Trade
Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd, 06.09.2012

[118] Regulation
(EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), OJ L 243,
15.9.2009.

[119]
Supreme Court of Estonia en banc (Riigikohtu üldkogu), case 3-4-1-62-10, AS
WIPESTREX GRUPP v. Republic of Estonia, 12.04.2011

[120] CJEU,
Case C-279/09 DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft v. Federal
Republic of Germany, 22.12.2010.

[121] Appeal Court Leeuwarden
(Gerechtshof Leeuwarden), Case 200.040.671/01; LJN: BR 2500, decision of 5.7.2011

[122] Austrian Administrative
Supreme Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof), case 2010/03/0051, decision of 30.9.2010

[123] Resolution of the
Council on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused
persons in criminal proceedings, OJ C 295, 4.12.2009, p. 1.

[124] Directive 2010/64/EU on
the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, OJ L 280,
26.10.2010, p. 1.

[125] Directive 2012/13EU on
the right to information in criminal proceedings, OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1.

[126] 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.

[127] COM(2012) 85 final

[128] Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2012/fra-opinion-confiscation-proceeds-crime

[129] 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

[130] Proposal for a
Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by
means of criminal law, COM(2012) 363 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0363:FIN:EN:PDF.

[131] CJEU, Case C‑489/10,
Łukasz Marcin Bonda, 5.7.2012

[Top](#document1)