Over a million people sought refuge in EU Member States in 2015, confronting the EU with an unprecedented challenge. Although this represents only about 0.2 % of the overall population, the number was far larger than in previous years. Moreover, with about 60 million people in the world forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, generalised violence or human rights violations, the scale of these movements is likely to continue for some time.
FRA looks at the effectiveness of measures taken or proposed by the EU and its Member States to manage this situation, with particular reference to their fundamental rights compliance.
In this chapter:
Download: Focus - Asylum and migration into the European Union in 2015 (pdf, 1,024KB)
In 2015, over one million refugees and migrants – compared with about 200,000 in 2014 – arrived in Europe by sea, mainly in Greece and Italy. Although rescue elements were strengthened in the management of maritime borders, the number of fatalities in the Mediterranean Sea increased further in 2015. According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), some 3,771 people died when crossing the Mediterranean Sea on unseaworthy and often overcrowded boats provided by smugglers.
The EU continues to offer only limited avenues to enter its territory legally for persons in need of protection. This implies that their journey to Europe will be unauthorised and therefore unnecessarily risky, which applies especially to women, children and vulnerable people who should be protected. There is clear evidence of exploitation and mistreatment of these groups by smugglers.
While effective action is required to fight people smuggling, there is a danger of putting at risk of criminal prosecution well-meaning individuals who help migrants. Where citizens seek to help refugees to reach a shelter or to move on to their place of destination, for example by buying train tickets or transporting them in their cars, they are to be considered part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Measures resulting in the punishment of refugees themselves may raise issues under the non-penalisation provision in Article 31 of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Increased migratory pressure on the EU led to new measures, including the building of fences at land borders, summary rejections, accelerated procedures or profiling by nationality. There is a general understanding in the EU that we should respect the prohibition of refoulement, but law evolving in this field causes legal uncertainties, as pointed out at the 2014 FRA Fundamental Rights Conference in Rome. Any form of group removal or interception activity at sea could effectively add up to collective expulsion, if the removal or interception is not based on an individual assessment and if effective remedies against the decision are unavailable. Both Article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibit such proceedings, with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) upholding that such prohibition also applies on the high seas.
A comprehensive fundamental rights assessment at the hotspots in Greece and Italy, covering all phases from disembarkation, initial reception, screening, relocation to asylum and return, would contribute in closing protection gaps that particularly affect the most vulnerable.
Evidence shows that national child protection systems are not always integrated in asylum and migration processes and procedures involving children. More needs to be done to bridge resulting protection gaps and encourage all relevant actors to work together to protect refugee children and, in particular, address the phenomenon of unaccompanied children going missing.
On various occasions and across many Member States, refugees have been recorded as being in desperate and deteriorating conditions in 2015. According to Article 18 of the Reception Conditions Directive, asylum seekers must be provided with an adequate standard of living during the time required for the examination of their application for international protection. Although the directive formally applies only from the moment an individual has made an application for international protection, many of its provisions reflect international human rights and refugee law standards that are effectively binding on EU Member States from the moment a refugee is in a state’s jurisdiction.
Article 18 (4) of the directive requires Member States to “take appropriate measures to prevent assault and gender-based violence, including sexual assault and harassment” in the facilities used to host asylum seekers. 2015 witnessed many well documented reports about women who felt under threat in transit zones and camps. In the case of unaccompanied children, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that children receive the protection and care necessary for their well-being. Nonetheless, many thousands of unaccompanied children went missing from accommodation facilities in EU Member States, others were kept in detention and again others were separated from their families during chaotic transit or border crossings. Shortcomings like these are due to the high numbers of refugees and the current patchwork of inadequate asylum reception systems. It is not always clear which institutions within the EU and Member States share responsibility for this – a shortcoming the European Commission planned to address in early 2016 through a Communication on the state of play of implementation of the priority actions under the European Agenda on migration.
To prevent ill treatment of forcibly removed people, it is FRA’s opinion that EU Member States should consider establishing effective monitoring mechanisms for the return of irregular migrants. Fundamental rights safeguards in return procedures contribute to their effectiveness and make them more humane, by favouring less intrusive alternatives to detention and by supporting more sustainable voluntary returns as opposed to forced returns. By addressing the issue of non-removable persons, fundamental rights can also make return procedures more predictable. For migrants in an irregular situation living in the EU, FRA in its past reports has called on Member States to respect fully the rights migrants are entitled to under international and European human rights law, be it the right to healthcare or other legal entitlements.
To facilitate the swift integration of migrants and refugees in host societies, it is FRA’s opinion that the EU Member States should consider reviewing their integration strategies and measures based on the EU’s Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU. They should provide effective and tangible solutions, particularly at local level, to promote equal treatment and living together with respect for fundamental rights.
Since the end of 2009, the EU has its own legally binding bill of rights: the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which complements national human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Whereas national human rights and the obligations under the ECHR are binding on EU Member States in whatever they do, the Charter is binding on them only when they are acting within the scope of EU law. While the EU stresses the crucial role of national actors in implementing the Charter, it also underlines the need to increase awareness among legal practitioners and policymakers to fully unfold the Charter potential. FRA therefore examines the Charter’s use at national level.
Download: 1. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its use by Member States chapter (pdf, 546KB)
According to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is binding on EU Member States when acting within the scope of EU law. National courts continued in 2015 to refer to the Charter without a reasoned argument about why it applies in the specific circumstances of the case; this tendency confirms FRA findings of previous years. Sometimes, courts invoked the Charter in cases falling outside the scope of EU law. There are nonetheless also rare cases where courts analysed the Charter’s added value in detail.
According to Article 51 (field of application) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, any national legislation implementing EU law has to conform to the Charter. The Charter’s role remained, however, limited in the legislative processes at national level: it is not an explicit and regular element in the procedures applied for scrutinising the legality or assessing the impact of upcoming legislation, whereas national human rights instruments are systematically included in such procedures.
Under Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, EU Member States are under the obligation to respect and observe the principles and rights laid down in the Charter, while they are also obliged to actively “promote” the application of these principles and rights. In light of this, one would expect more policies promoting the Charter and its rights at national level. Such policies as well as Charter-related training activities are limited in quantity and scope, as 2015 FRA findings show. Since less than half of the trainings address legal practitioners, there is a need to better acquaint them with the Charter.
The EU’s commitment to countering discrimination, promoting equal treatment and fostering social inclusion is evidenced in legal developments, policy measures and actions taken by its institutions and Member States in 2015. The proposed Equal Treatment Directive, however, had still not been adopted by the year’s end. As a result, the protection offered by EU legislation remained disparate depending on the area of life and the protected characteristic, perpetuating a hierarchy of grounds of protection against discrimination.
Download: 2. Equality and non-discrimination chapter (pdf, 352KB)
While benefiting from a solid legal basis from which to counter discrimination, the EU effectively still operates a hierarchy of grounds of protection from discrimination. The gender and racial equality directives offer comprehensive protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex and racial or ethnic origin in the EU. Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, in contrast, is prohibited only in the areas of employment, occupation and vocational training under the Employment Equality Directive. Negotiations on the proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation – the Equal Treatment Directive – entered their seventh year in 2015. By the year’s end, the ongoing negotiations had not reached the unanimity required in the Council for the directive to be adopted.
The year saw a range of developments relevant to protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex, including gender reassignment, religion or belief, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity. These are all protected characteristics under the Gender Equality Directives and the Employment Equality Directive, with the exception of gender identity and gender reassignment. Although gender identity is not explicitly a protected characteristic under EU law, discrimination arising from the gender reassignment of a person is prohibited under Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast). Civil unions for same-sex couples in two Member States became largely equivalent to marriage, except as regards adoption, with marriage for same-sex couples legalised in its own right in one Member State. Discrimination on the ground of gender identity was the subject of reforms in other Member States. Some Member States took steps to address the gender pay gap. Preliminary questions relating to discrimination on the ground of religion and belief were referred to the CJEU for the first time. Some Member States introduced quota for the employment of persons with disabilities.
In continuing to implement measures that address the social consequences of an ageing population, EU Member States contributed to making people’s right to equal treatment under EU law effective. The European Commission’s country-specific recommendations to Member States by the European Semester in 2015 reflect the concern of EU institutions for the social consequences of an ageing population. Relevant country-specific recommendations addressed youth unemployment, the participation of older people in the labour market and vulnerability to discrimination on several grounds, which relates to Article 23 on the right of elderly persons to social protection under the European Social Charter (Revised), as well as to a number of provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including Article 15 on the right to engage in work; Article 21 on non-discrimination; Article 29 on access to placement services; Article 31 on fair and just working conditions; Article 32 on the protection of young people at work; and Article 34 on social security and social assistance.
Expressions of racism and xenophobia, related intolerance, and hate crime all violate fundamental rights. In 2015, xenophobic sentiments came to the fore in several EU Member States, fuelled largely by the arrival of asylum seekers and immigrants in large numbers, as well as the terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen and foiled plots in a number of Member States. Whereas many greeted the arrival of refugees with demonstrations of solidarity, there were also public protests and violent attacks. Overall, EU Member States and institutions maintained their efforts to counter hate crime, racism and ethnic discrimination, and also paid attention to preventing the expression of such phenomena, including through awareness raising activities.
Download: 3. Racism, xenophobia and related intolerance (pdf, 422KB)
Looking at manifestations of racism and xenophobia, 2015 was marked by the aftermath of terrorist attacks attributed to the Islamic State, as well as by the arrival in greater numbers of asylum seekers and migrants from Muslim countries. Available evidence suggests that Member States that have seen the highest numbers of arrivals are the most likely to be faced with spikes in racist and xenophobic incidents, which will call for the attention of law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems and policymakers. This is particularly relevant for the implementation of Article 1 of the EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia on measures Member States shall take to make intentional racist and xenophobic conduct punishable. Article 4 (a) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination also lays down this obligation, providing for the convention’s State parties to declare an offence punishable by law for incitement to racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence against any race or group of persons.
Systematically collected and disaggregated data on incidents of ethnic discrimination, and hate crime and hate speech can contribute to better implementing the Racial Equality Directive and the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia. Such data also allow the development of targeted policy responses to counter ethnic discrimination and hate crime. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and national courts from 2015 further demonstrates that such data can serve as evidence to prove ethnic discrimination and racist motivation, and hold perpetrators to account. Under Article 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, EU Member States have accepted the obligation to ensure effective protection of and remedy for victims. Persistent gaps, nevertheless, remain in how EU Member States record incidents of ethnic discrimination and racist crime.
Although the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia and the Racial Equality Directive are in force in all EU Member States, members of minority groups as well as migrants and refugees faced racism and ethnic discrimination in 2015, namely in education, employment and access to services, including housing. Members of ethnic minority groups also faced discriminatory ethnic profiling in 2015, despite this practice running counter to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and being unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 14), and the general principle of non-discrimination as interpreted in the ECtHR case law. Article 7 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination also obliges EU Member States to ensure effective education to fight prejudices that lead to racial discrimination.
Equality bodies in several EU Member States developed information and guidance documents in 2015 to raise awareness of legislation relevant to countering ethnic discrimination. Evidence shows that, despite the legal obligation to disseminate information under Article 10 of the Racial Equality Directive, public awareness remains too low for legislation addressing ethnic discrimination to be invoked often enough.
Evidence from 2015 shows that remedies are insufficiently available in practice and that sanctions in cases of discrimination and hate crime are often too weak to be effective and dissuasive. They thus fall short of the requirements of both the Racial Equality Directive and the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, as underpinned by Article 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Furthermore, in only a few Member States are equality bodies competent to issue sanctions and recommendations in cases of ethnic discrimination. How far complaint procedures fulfil their role of repairing damage done and acting as a deterrent for perpetrators depends on whether dispute settlement bodies are able to issue effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
Discrimination and anti-Gypsyism continue to affect the lives of many of the EU’s estimated six million Roma. Fundamental rights violations hampering Roma integration made headlines in 2015. Several EU Member States thus strengthened the implementation of their national Roma integration strategies (NRISs) by focusing on local-level actions and developing monitoring mechanisms. Member States also increasingly acknowledged the distinct challenges Roma women face. Roma from central and eastern European countries residing in western EU Member States also received attention in 2015, as practices to improve local-level integration of different Roma groups were discussed regarding the right to freedom of movement and the transnational cooperation on integration measures.
Download: 4. Roma integration (pdf, 619KB)
Ethnic origin is considered the most prevalent ground of discrimination according to 2015 data. Non-discrimination is one of the rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as of several general and specific European and international human rights instruments. Notably, Article 2 (1) (e) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which all 28 EU Member States are party, emphasises the commitment to “pursue by all appropriate means and without delay” to “eliminat[e] barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division”. In 2015, European institutions, including the European Parliament, called attention to the problems of intersectional discrimination and encouraged EU Member States to implement further measures to tackle anti-Gypsyism and intersectional discrimination, also addressing the particular situation of Roma women and girls.
Member States of origin and destination could consider developing specific integration measures for Roma EU citizens moving to and residing in another Member State in their national Roma integration strategies (NRISs) or policy measures. Such measures should include cooperation and coordination between local administrations in the Member States of residence and the Member States of origin.
Living conditions of Roma EU citizens living in another Member State, and progress in their integration, further posed a challenge in 2015. FRA evidence shows that the respective NRISs or broader policy measures do not explicitly target these populations. As a result, few local strategies or action plans cater to the specific needs of these EU citizens.
Participation is one of the key principles of the Human Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies, as outlined by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and enshrined in the 10 Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion. FRA research shows that in 2015 efforts were made to actively engage local residents, Roma and non-Roma, in joint local-level activities together with local and regional authorities. There is, however, no systematic approach towards engaging with Roma across Member States; structures of cooperation vary greatly, particularly in monitoring NRISs and the use of EU funds.
Practices regarding the monitoring of the local action plans or local policy measures vary within EU Member States, as well as across the EU. In some Member States, the responsibility for monitoring the implementation of these local policies is at the central level, whereas in others it is with the local level actors who often face a lack of human capacity and financial resources. The extent to which Roma themselves and civil society organisations participate in monitoring processes also varies, as does the quality of the indicators developed.
The terrorist attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine, a Thalys train and various locations throughout Paris in November 2015 intensified calls to better equip security authorities. This included proposals to enhance intelligence services’ technological capacities, triggering discussions on safeguarding privacy and personal data while meeting security demands. EU Member States confronted this challenge in debates on legislative reforms, particularly regarding data retention. The EU legislature made important progress on the EU data protection package, but also agreed to adopt the EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) Directive, with clear implications for privacy and personal data protection. Meanwhile, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reaffirmed the importance of data protection in the EU in a landmark decision on data transfers to third countries.
Download: 5. Information society, privacy and data protection (pdf, 412KB)
A number of EU Member States are in the process of reforming their legal framework for intelligence, as FRA research shows, which is based on a European Parliament request to undertake a fundamental rights analysis in this field. Security and intelligence services receiving enhanced powers and technological capacities often trigger such reforms. These, in turn, might increase the intrusive powers of the services, in particular as concerns the fundamental rights on privacy and protection of personal data, guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as access to an effective remedy, enshrined in Article 47 of the EU Charter and Article 13 of the ECHR.
The CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) require essential legal safeguards when intelligence services process personal data for an objective of public interest, such as the protection of national security. These safeguards include: substantive and procedural guarantees of the necessity and proportionality of a measure; an independent oversight and the guarantee of effective redress mechanisms; and the rules about providing evidence of whether an individual is being subject to surveillance.
Since January 2012, EU institutions and Member States have been negotiating the EU data protection package. The political agreement reached in December 2015 will improve the safeguards of the fundamental right to the protection of personal data enshrined in Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The data protection package should enter into force in 2018. Data protection authorities will then play an even more significant role in safeguarding the right of data protection. Potential victims of data protection violations often lack awareness of their rights and of existing remedies, as FRA research shows.
Whereas developments in 2014 focused on the question of whether or not to retain data, the prevalent voice among EU Member States in 2015 is that data retention is the most efficient measure to ensure protection of national security, public safety and fighting serious crime. Based on recent CJEU case law, discussions have started anew on the importance of data retention for law enforcement authorities.
The European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee rejected the proposal for an EU PNR Directive in April 2013 in response to questions about proportionality and necessity, lack of data protection safeguards and transparency towards passengers. In fighting terrorism and serious crime, the EU legislature nonetheless reached an agreement on adopting an EU PNR Directive in 2015. The compromise text includes enhanced safeguards, as FRA also suggested in its 2011 opinion on the EU PNR data collection system. These include enhanced requirements for foreseeability, accessibility and proportionality, as well as introducing further data protection safeguards. Once it enters into force, the directive will have to be transposed into national law within two years.
The arrival of thousands of children as refugees in 2015 posed many challenges, including child protection. The European Commission’s efforts to provide guidance on integrated child protection systems was a timely development. With 27.8 % of all children at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2014, reaching the EU 2020 poverty goal remains a daunting task. Children’s use of the internet and social media also featured prominently on the policy agenda, with the associated risks and youth radicalisation being of particular concern. Member States continued to present initiatives against cyber abuse and on education in internet literacy, and the upcoming EU data protection package will promote further safeguards.
Download: 6. Rights of the child (pdf, 636KB)
The EU and its Member States should consider that measures taken under the European Semester contribute to improving the protection and care of children, as is necessary for their well-being, and in line with the European Commission’s recommendation ‘Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage’. These measures could particularly increase the effectiveness, quantity, amount and scope of the social support for children and parents, especially those at risk of poverty and social exclusion.
Five years before the deadline set in the EU 2020 strategy to reduce poverty, child poverty continues to stagnate at around the same high level as in 2010. Children continue to be at higher risk of poverty than adults. Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that “[c]hildren shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being”. The European Semester attracted criticism for not paying enough attention to persisting child poverty. The Commission’s 2015 announcement on the development of a European Pillar of Social Rights, however, gives rise to some expectations as it refers to the possible development of EU legislation on various ‘social rights’, including the right to access provisions on childcare and benefits.
The internet and social media tools are increasingly relevant in children’s lives, as 2015 research shows. This so called digital revolution brings with it a variety of empowering opportunities, such as child participation initiatives, but also risks, such as sexual violence, online hate speech, the proliferation of child sexual abuse images and cyber bullying. The EU data protection regulation, which reached political consensus at the end of 2015, requires that EU Member States and the private sector act to implement the child protection safeguards established in it.
Infringement procedures continued in 2015 against seven EU Member States regarding Directive (2011/93/EU) on combating sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. FRA research issued in 2015 shows that, while some of the procedural guarantees for child victims established in Articles 23 and 24 of the Victims’ Directive were already in place in some Member States, they were not widely applied. A new Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings reached political consensus at the end of 2015 and is likely to be adopted in early 2016.
With developments in some EU Member States causing concern, the United Nations, Council of Europe and the EU continued efforts to reinforce the rule of law, including judicial independence and justice systems’ stability. Several Member States strengthened the rights of accused persons and suspects with a view to transposing relevant EU secondary law. 2015 also marked the deadline for Member States to transpose the Victims’ Rights Directive, but more work is required to achieve effective change for crime victims. In the meantime, Member States introduced important measures to combat violence against women, and the European Commission communicated its plans for the EU’s possible accession to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention).
Download: 7. Access to justice including rights of crime victims (pdf, 447KB)
The rule of law is part of and a prerequisite for the protection of all fundamental values listed in Article 2 TEU, as well as a requirement for upholding fundamental rights deriving from the EU treaties and obligations under international law. The UN, Council of Europe and EU continued their efforts to reinforce the rule of law, including stressing the importance of judicial independence and stability of justice systems in the EU. Developments in some EU Member States in 2015, nevertheless, raised several rule of law concerns, similar to those seen in past years.
In transposing the EU directives on the right to translation and interpretation, and on the right to information in criminal proceedings, most EU Member States decided to propose legislative amendments, as FRA findings in 2015 show. They did this to further clarify certain mechanisms put in place by the original implementing laws; to address omissions or issues that arose from the practical implementation of these laws; or to redefine their scope of application. Evidence shows, however, that gaps remain when it comes to the adoption of policy measures.
In line with the November 2015 transposition deadline for the Victims’ Rights Directive (2012/29/EU), some Member States took important steps to realise the minimum rights and standards of the directive. Evidence from FRA research shows, however, that significant gaps remain, such as the practical application of information provided to victims (Article 4), establishing and providing support services free of charge (Articles 8 and 9) and individual assessment of victims by police (Article 22). Most EU Member States must still adopt relevant measures to transpose the directive into their national law.
Recognition of violence against women as a fundamental rights abuse, which reflects the principle of equality on the ground of sex, through to human dignity and the right to life, gained more ground in 2015 as four EU Member States ratified the Istanbul Convention and the European Commission announced a ‘Roadmap for possible accession of the EU to the convention’. The need for further legal as well as policy measures to prevent violence against women remains nevertheless. The Commission and individual Member States used data from FRA’s EU-wide survey on the prevalence and nature of different forms of violence against women to argue for enhanced legal and policy responses to combat violence against women.
Five years on from the EU’s accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), for the first time in 2015 a United Nations (UN) treaty body, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee), reviewed the EU’s fulfilment of its human rights obligations. In its concluding observations, the CRPD Committee created a blueprint for the additional steps required for the EU to meet its obligations under the convention. At national level, the CRPD is driving wide-ranging change processes as Member States seek to harmonise their legal frameworks with the convention’s standards. These processes are likely to continue as monitoring frameworks set up under Article 33 (2) of the convention further scrutinise legislation for CRPD compatibility.
Download: 8. Developments in the implementation of the CRPD (pdf, 404KB)
As for the first time a UN treaty body, the CRPD Committee, reviewed the EU’s fulfilment of its international human rights obligations, the committee’s concluding observations on the EU’s implementation of the CRPD, published in 2015, are an important milestone for the EU’s commitment to equality and respect for human rights. The wide-ranging recommendations offer guidance for legislative and policy actions across the EU’s sphere of competence.
As the 10-year anniversary of the entry into force of the CRPD approaches in 2016, evidence shows that it has served as a powerful driver of legal and policy reforms at European and national levels. Nevertheless, the human rights-based approach to disability demanded by the convention is yet to be fully reflected in either EU or national law- or policymaking.
The CRPD Committee’s reviews of the EU, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Germany in 2015 show that review processes by monitoring bodies offer a valuable opportunity for input from civil society organisations, including organisations for persons with disabilities. Retaining this level of involvement and consultation throughout the follow up of the concluding observations presents a greater challenge, given the wide-ranging scope of the committee’s recommendations.
By the end of 2015, only Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands had not ratified the CRPD, although each took significant steps towards completing the reforms required to pave the way to ratification. A further four Member States, and the EU, are still to ratify the Optional Protocol to the CRPD, allowing individuals to bring complaints to the CRPD Committee, despite each having ratified the main convention by 2012.
At the end of 2015, four of the 25 EU Member States that have ratified the CRPD were yet to establish or designate a body to implement and monitor the convention, as required under Article 33, according to a FRA comparative analysis. Evidence shows that a lack of financial and human resources, as well as the absence of a solid legal basis for the bodies’ designation, impedes the work of those bodies already established, in particular the monitoring frameworks set up under Article 33 (2).
The standards, procedures and institutions that ensure human and fundamental rights in the EUcover local, national and international organisations including the EU itself, the Council of Europe and the United Nations (UN).
The list below describes key developments during 2015 in relation to a number of core international obligations that the EU and its Member States have taken on. Each heading links to a page where full data can be found.
In 2015, 10 EU Member States ratified the 15th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), dealing with procedural aspects aimed at making the system more efficient; these were Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and the United Kingdom.
Lithuania and Slovenia ratified the 16th Protocol to the ECHR, allowing for advisory opinions to be requested from the highest national courts.
Cyprus, Germany, Hungary and Poland all ratified the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (CSEC). The Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) saw four more ratifications, from Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovenia as well as two signatures, from Ireland and Cyprus.
Finland has the highest rate of acceptance of these selected treaties among member states. It has ratified 96.4% of FRA’s list of selected Council of Europe conventions.
In 2015, Belgium accepted more provisions of the revised European Social Charter: article 26 (2) on the right to dignity at work; article 27 on the right of workers with family responsibilities to equal opportunities and equal treatment; and article 28 on the right of workers’ representatives to protection in the undertaking and facilities to be accorded to them.
Latvia issued a clarification that it has only partially accepted Article 18 (the right to engage in gainful occupation in the territory of other parties); a clerical mistake had for some time indicated full acceptance ofthis article. It is bound by Article 18 (1) & (4) of the Charter.
This year has seen a sharp increase in applications from Hungary allocated to a judicial formation from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It surpasses Croatia as the State with the highest proportion of applications per 10,000 inhabitants. Statistics released in the ECtHR Annual Report 2015 show that Hungary’s figure stands at 4.30 per 10,000 inhabitants. Croatia meanwhile has seen a decrease in applications from 2.58 in 2014 to 1.92 in 2015. Ireland is again the country with the lowest amount of applications per 10,000 inhabitants at 0.04.
The figures for most EU Member States has remained relatively stable, with the EU average falling again from 0.79 in 2014 to 0.75 in 2015.
The number of cases involving EU Member States pending judicial formations at the ECtHR has seen another decrease this year. At year end 2015, 24,417 cases were pending, falling from 26,315in 2014 and 38,303 in 2013.
In 2015, out of the 465 judgments on the 28 EU Member States, the court found rights’ violations in 360 (77%) of cases. This is a proportionate and actual decrease in the number of violations, compared to 2014 where 81% of judgments found at least one violation of the ECHR.
The length of proceedings is still the most commonly judged violation. However, there has been a decrease in the number of violations from 80 cases in 2015 compared with 98 in 2014.
In 2015, there has been an increase in the court finding Article 3 violations in EU Member States because of ‘lack of investigation’. The figure has risen to 28 from 20 violations in 2014, making it the fastest growing category of violation.
Right to an effective remedy is still ranked high among the violations at 65 findings.
Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Romania, Poland and Croatia all had the highest rates of cases taking longer than five years. Bulgaria has the highest rate at 40 cases, although this a decrease from 2014. However, the overall trend in EU Member States has been an increase in the number of pending cases taking longer than five years.
Three States ratified ILO Convention 189 – Domestic Workers Convention: Finland, Belgium and Portugal. The Convention will come into force in 2016 in Belgium and Portugal.
Czech Republic, Denmark and Finland ratified the Third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) accepting its individual complaints procedure.
Greece and Italy ratified the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (CED) in the second half of the year. Malta also ratified, but differently from the other two, without accepting the inquiry procedure under Article 33 of the Convention.
In 2015, the UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies issued 22 rulings on admissibility and adoption of views. This included: 12 decisions by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); five from the Committee Against Torture (CAT); one from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR); one from the Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); and one from the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). These rulings concerned eight different Member States. There were nine findings of violations: six under ICCPR (Denmark), one violation under ICESCR (Spain), and two violations under CAT (Finland and Sweden).
There have been no further signatures or ratifications of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or its optional protocol allowing for individual complaints. Thus all EU Member States except Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands have ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The protocol has 21 parties among EU Member States, with 4 additional signatures (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland and Romania), leaving Ireland, Netherlands and Poland still to take any official action in relation to the CPRD.
In 2015, the European Committee on Social Rights (ECSR) called on Member States to submit information on their law and practices giving effect to provisions in the thematic area “Children, families, migrants”. Conclusions were issued in response to 18 Member States.
The countries who have reported back under the most provisions include the Netherlands (35), Slovenia (34), Sweden (32), Estonia (31), Latvia (32) and Lithuania (31). In total, the Committee examined 434 provisions, between all country reports.
Three Member States conformed to 40% or more of their examined provisions, including Denmark, Hungary and the United Kingdom. 10 Member States conformed to fewer than 25% of their examined provisions: Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden.
It should be noted that for some States, conclusions can be deferred, or the ECSR will find a situation of non-conformity where there was insufficient information submitted. Percentage figures are based on which provisions were accepted by the State in question and reported to the Committee.
France, 27/06/2016 French presentation of Fundamental Rights Report 2016 to French authorities
Italy, 04/07/2016 Italian presentation of Fundamental Rights Report 2016 in Rome at event co-hosted by UNAR and the Italian Government's Inter-Ministerial Committee for Huamn Rights
France, 19/09/2016 French presentation of Fundamental Rights Report 2016 in Paris at Sciences Po University
Denmark, 05/10/2016 Danish presentation of Fundamental Rights Report 2016 in Copenhagen at conference organised by the Danish Institute for Human Rights
Finland, 17/10/2016 Finnish presentation of Fundamental Rights Report 2016 in Helsinki at conference organised by the Finnish Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Center
Romania, 16/11/2016 Romanian presentation of FRA’s Fundamental Rights Report 2016 in Bucharest at the International Conference of the Right to Non-discrimination
Slovenia, 22/11/2016 Slovenian presentation of Fundamental Rights Report 2016
Greece, 02/12/2016 Greek presentation of Fundamental Rights Report 2016 in Athens at a conference organised by the Centre for European Constitutional Law