19
décembre
2023

EU funds: Ensuring compliance with fundamental rights

All EU funds must be spent in a way that respect fundamental rights. The EU spends billions of euros on creating jobs, economic growth, sustainable development and improving people’s lives. To prevent funds from being spent in ways that directly violate people’s fundamental rights, the EU strengthened the conditions how funds can be spent in 2021. This report looks at how the newly introduced conditions related to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can be upheld in practice. It analyses the potential role of national human rights institutions, ombudsperson institutions and equality bodies. These safeguards can advance compliance with fundamental rights.

Fundamental rights actors often do not have the financial capacity or technical expertise to get involved and efficiently monitor the programming period. Officials involved in the fund administration (i.e. the managing authorities and intermediate bodies) and the recipients (those receiving the funds to actually carry out operations) often lack fundamental rights expertise.

The representatives of independent fundamental rights bodies, CSOs and managing authorities consulted for this report emphasise the need for all the stakeholders involved in programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of funds governed by the CPR to undergo continuous training on fundamental rights but also, where needed, on the technicalities of EU funding [111]
 Franet country report – Croatia, 2023, p. 14; interview with a representative from a Finnish independent fundamental rights body, 2022, p. 8); interview with Bulgarian national fund manager representative, 29 April 2022; Franet country report – France, 2023, p. 17; Franet country report – Finland, 2023, p. 20.
. This would enhance capacity and be in line with the European Commission’s strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter [112] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU, COM(2020) 711 final.
.

Given that a lack of expertise in the area has emerged as a challenge, one would expect high levels of cooperation and coordination among all relevant actors, including between Member States. However, there seems not to have been much transnational exchange so far. There is not much evidence that Member States have cooperated with one another in developing training materials or guidance on fundamental rights issues or indeed on the functioning of mechanisms to uphold fundamental rights.

In Finland, interviewees representing both independent fundamental rights bodies and managing authorities express the need for more information directly from the Commission on enabling conditions-related expectations in fundamental rights. They also suggest that explicit common fundamental rights guidance and/or training be issued for each of the programmes [113]
 Franet country report – Finland, 2023, p. 21.
.

At the same time, however, it is crucial that such guidance is adapted to the national context to ensure its relevance to the user.

The European Commission’s Charter strategy and funds governed by the CPR

In 2020, the Commission adopted a strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter, known as the Charter strategy. To ensure that the Charter becomes a reality for all, the strategy sets out the direction of the Charter’s implementation for the next 10 years.

In the area of the funds governed by the CPR, the Charter strategy recommends that monitoring committees could include NHRIs, as “with their independent status and expertise in monitoring and advising authorities, NHRIs could play a role in ensuring that EU funded programmes are designed and implemented in compliance with the Charter”.

In the Charter strategy, the Commission presents a series of actions it is going to carry out in order to promote respect for the Charter in the area of funds governed by the CPR. These include:

  • developing a training module and providing technical assistance to ensure effective implementation of the CPR 21–27 “enabling condition” on the Charter;
  • assessing the fulfilment of the “enabling condition” on the Charter;
  • ensuring that funds governed by the CPR 21–27 are used in compliance with the Charter and take appropriate measures, such as interruption or suspension of funding, when irregular expenditure has not been corrected.
  • Moreover, the Commission invited Member States to:
  • ensure that funds governed by the CPR 21–27 are used in compliance with the Charter and establish the arrangements provided in the CPR 21–27;
  • support national and local staff in designing and implementing programmes that comply with the Charter, in cooperation with the Commission;
  • facilitate coordination and a coherent implementation of the “Charter enabling condition” and make the best use of available technical assistance;
  • include fundamental rights bodies in the monitoring committees.

Source: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU, COM(2020) 711 final.

This section will discuss the capacity issues faced by some of the key actors in the programming period (Sections 2.1–2.4) and will then discuss potential solutions to these issues (Sections 2.5–2.7).

CSOs at both national [114]
 Interview with an Estonian CSO representative, 2022; interview with a Bulgarian CSO representative, 19 April 2022; interview with a German CSO representative, 6 August 2022.
and EU level [115]
 Interview with (EU-level) representative of a CSO, 1 June 2022.
raise capacity and resource concerns in relation to being able to engage in monitoring fundamental rights in the EU programming period. Some express doubt that they have the requisite expertise to deal with major budgetary decisions or strategic issues [116]
 Interview with an Estonian CSO representative, 2022.
. There is also sometimes a hesitancy to comment on strategic issues rather than concrete operations because the former are too abstract to comment on in a meaningful way. Others highlight a broader difficulty derived from their lack of expertise, noting a shortage or absence of trained professionals among their teams to deal with EU funds and fundamental rights [117]
 Interviews with Estonian CSO representatives, 12 May 2022, 22 June 2022.
. For example, one civil society representative summarised, “I have had the same issue as the rest of the civil society, we have not had enough capacity to participate properly in discussions. Hundreds and thousands of pages to work through and only me doing that” [118] Interview with an Estonian CSO representative, 2022.
.

The research identifies proposals to deal with CSOs’ lack of capacity to participate in monitoring committees. For example, an Estonian CSO suggests more remuneration or a reimbursement of costs for participating in meetings and giving feedback to documents [119]
 Interview with an Estonian CSO representative, 3 June 2022.
. In March 2023, the CSOs Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) and European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) issued a policy note that refers to the European Commission’s Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme, Horizon Europe and the Erasmus+ programme, which could be used to strengthen the role of CSOs in monitoring fundamental rights compliance in funds governed by the CPR [120]
 PICUM and ECRE (2023), Fundamental rights compliance of funding supporting migrants, asylum applicants and refugees inside the European Union, policy note, Brussels, p. 11.
. Training on the Charter for CSOs, NHRIs, equality bodies, ombudsperson institutions, other rights defenders and Member State authorities, including train-the-trainer activities, are foreseen in the Commission Implementing Decision on CERV [121]
 European Commission (2022), Commission Implementing Decision on the financing of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme and the adoption of the work programme for 2023–2024, Brussels.
.

Participants in the FRA workshop for CSOs on EU funds noted that managing authorities should provide technical assistance to CSOs and that CSOs should participate in training programmes set up for them. Indeed, the regulations on EU funds require resources in EU-funded programmes to be allocated to capacity building, including of CSOs, for training or networking.

Legal Corner

The CPR 21–27 states that part of the funds can, when relevant, be used to support capacity building of the partners referred to in Article 8, including both CSOs and independent fundamental rights bodies.

Article 36 of the CPR 21–27: Technical assistance provided by Member States

“1. At the initiative of a Member State, the Funds may support actions, which may concern previous and subsequent programming periods, necessary for the effective administration and use of those Funds, including for the capacity building of the partners referred to in Article 8(1), as well as to provide financing for carrying out, inter alia, functions such as preparation, training, management, monitoring, evaluation, visibility and communication.”

Article 37 of the CPR 21–27: Financing not linked to costs for technical assistance provided by Member States

“In addition to Article 36, the Member State may propose to undertake additional technical assistance actions to reinforce the capacity and efficiency of public authorities and bodies, beneficiaries and relevant partners necessary for the effective administration and use of the Funds.”

Partnership and ESF+

The ESF+ Regulation provides more specific provisions than the CPR 21–27 on supporting the capacity building of partners, namely their capacity to participate in the programming period.

As discussed previously, only the NHRIs of Croatia and Cyprus, which are also equality bodies, and the equality body of Sweden, were involved in monitoring funds governed by the CPR under the previous EU programming period (2014–2020) [122]
 FRA (2020), Strong and effective national human rights institutions – Challenges, promising practices and opportunities, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p. 82.
. Independent fundamental rights bodies and other experts interviewed by FRA note that one of the reasons for their lack of involvement in the issuing of EU funds is that they lack the time, staff, expertise on EU funds and funding required for this additional area of activity [123]
 Interviews with representatives from Portuguese and French independent fundamental rights bodies 23 May 2022 and 18 May 2022, a representative from an intergovernmental organisation, 29 June 2022 and a Portuguese CSO representative , 9 May 2022; Franet country report – Croatia, 2023, p. 15.
.

The Latvian NHRI also points to the significant volume of documents to be processed that use complex language, and the lack of human resources to participate in work on funds or in subcommittees of the monitoring committee [124]
 Ombudsman’s Office of the Republic of Latvia, (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available), pp. 11–12.
. In France, similarly, although the independent fundamental rights bodies have the expertise required on the Charter and on the CRPD, they also need to have significant technical expertise on the running of EU funds to be able to interact usefully with the other actors in the process [125]
 Franet country report – France, 2023, p. 15.
. Even when there is participation, a lack of resources is an issue. Reflecting on the participation of the Croatian ombudsperson in two monitoring committees, the Croatian NHRI report points out that “it has been challenging because the institution does not have sufficient knowledge of the implementation of EU-funded programmes and cannot devote a staff member solely to focus on this issue” [126]
 Ombudsperson of the Republic of Croatia (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available).
.

The CSOs interviewed point out some possible reasons for the lack of funding for independent fundamental rights bodies to monitor EU funds. These include Member States not being interested in increasing the capacity of national human rights bodies and NGOs to monitor EU funds, given the sensitivity of the topic in some Member States [127]
 Interview with a representative of a CSO, 1 June 2022.
. Some equality bodies in large EU countries lack both financial resources and sufficiently skilled human resources, partially as a result of political decisions; therefore, they cannot have as significant an impact as they should [128]
 Interview with representatives of a CSO, 29 June 2022.
.

This situation is not in line with international standards. The Paris Principles require NHRIs to have adequate funding to have their own staff and premises so that they can be independent from their government and not be subject to financial control [129]
 Paris Principles, Composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism, para. 2.
. The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions Sub-Committee on Accreditation has emphasised that “[w]here an NHRI has been mandated with additional responsibilities by the State, it must be provided with additional financial resources to enable it to assume the responsibilities of discharging these functions” [130]
 GANHRI (Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions) (2022), Report and recommendations of the virtual session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), p. 10.
. This is also highlighted in a recommendation issued by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers in 2021 [131]
 Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2021), Recommendation CM/Rec (2021)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the development and strengthening of effective, pluralist and independent national human rights institutions, 31 March 2021, Appendix Section II, paras. 6, 10.
. A cross-regional assessment of the implementation of that recommendation by ENNHRI showed that some of the main challenges relate to the lack of adequate resources to carry out the full breadth of NHRI mandates and the lack of additional resources for additional mandates [132]
 ENNHRI (2023), Implementing the Council of Europe recommendation on national human rights institutions: The state of play, Saint-Gilles, Belgium.
. Furthermore, ENNHRI reiterated this in a 2021 report on human rights scrutiny of public funds for migration and asylum [133]
 ENNHRI (2021), Human rights scrutiny of public funds for migration and asylum: Role, opportunities and challenges for NHRIs, Brussels, p. 5.
and in its common statement on the CPR 21–27 in May 2022 [134]
 ENNHRI (2022), Monitoring Fundamental Rights Compliance of EU Funds – Potential role, opportunities and limits for NHRIs.
.

Similarly, the need for additional resources for additional mandates applies to ombudsperson institutions. This is noted in the Council of Europe’s Venice Principles which set out that “[s]ufficient and independent budgetary resources shall be secured to the Ombudsman institution” [135]
 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) (2019), Principles on the protection and promotion of the ombudsman institution (‘the Venice Principles’), Opinion No 897/2017, para. 21.
and that “The Ombudsman Institution shall have sufficient staff”.

In relation to equality bodies, the European Commission has criticised the fact that in “some Member States existing equality bodies have seen their mandate extended to the most diverse fields without an appropriate increase in resources” [136]
 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/951 of 22 June 2018 on standards for equality bodies (OJ L 167, 4.7.2018, p. 28), consideration No 20.
. Equinet’s position paper on strengthening equality bodies and the proposal for an EU directive on standards for equality bodies also highlight the need for adequate funding to support equality bodies’ functioning and independence [137]
 Equinet (2021), Moving forward the European Commission’s proposals for directives strengthening equality bodies, position paper, Brussels, p. 10; Proposal for a Council directive on standards for equality bodies, 10027/23 and 10038/23, Art. 4.
.

Finally, regarding the CRPD monitoring bodies set out in Article 33 (2) of the CRPD, FRA has repeatedly highlighted overall capacity issues of the national monitoring bodies [138]
 See, for example, FRA (2021), Fundamental Rights Report – 2021, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Chapter 10, p. 281.
. In the context of this research, a representative of the German CRPD monitoring body confirmed that the body lacked sufficient staff to deal with EU funds issues [139]
 Franet country report – Germany, 2023, pp. 18, 22.
.

Legal Corner

UN: Principles relating to the status of national institutions (the Paris Principles), Composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism

“2. The national institution shall have an infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particular adequate funding.”

Council of Europe: Principles on the protection and promotion of the ombudsman institution (‘the Venice Principles’)

“21. Sufficient and independent budgetary resources shall be secured to the Ombudsman institution. The law shall provide that the budgetary allocation of funds to the Ombudsman institution must be adequate to the need to ensure full, independent and effective discharge of its responsibilities and functions. The Ombudsman shall be consulted and shall be asked to present a draft budget for the coming financial year. The adopted budget for the institution shall not be reduced during the financial year, unless the reduction generally applies to other State institutions. The independent financial audit of the Ombudsman’s budget shall take into account only the legality of financial proceedings and not the choice of priorities in the execution of the mandate.”

In addition, Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the development and strengthening of effective, pluralist and independent national human rights institutions, in point 6, calls on the states to “provide NHRIs with adequate, sufficient and sustainable resources to allow them to carry out their mandate, including to engage with all relevant stakeholders in a fully independent manner and freely determine their priorities and activities”.

European Union: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/951 of 22 June 2018 on standards for equality bodies

“1.2.2. Resources

(1) The Member States should ensure that each equality body is provided with the human, technical and financial resources, premises and infrastructure necessary to perform its tasks and exercise its powers effectively. The resources allocated to equality bodies should take into account the competences and tasks allocated. Resources can only be considered adequate if they allow equality bodies to carry out each of their equality functions effectively, within reasonable time and within the deadlines established by national law.

(2) Member States should ensure that the equality bodies’ staff is sufficiently numerous and adequately qualified in terms of skills, knowledge and experience, to fulfil adequately and effectively each of the equality bodies’ functions.

(3) Member States should enable equality bodies to monitor effectively the execution of their own decisions as well as decisions by institutions, adjudicatory bodies and courts in relation to discrimination cases. To that effect, they should be promptly informed of such decisions and the measures taken to implement them.”

Proposal for a Council directive on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment, Article 4 (Resources)

“1. Member States shall ensure that each equality body is provided with the human, technical and financial resources necessary to perform all its tasks and to exercise all its competences effectively […] including in the event of increases in competences, increases in complaints, litigation costs and the use of automated systems.”

Article 4 of the AMIF Regulation invites to engage in the partnerships set out in Article 8 of the CPR 21–27 for the AMIF at national level. A 2021 study financed by ENNHRI pointed out that NHRIs cannot simply “expand on new areas of work” because they have “limited staff and not enough financial resources” [140]
 ENNHRI (2021), Human rights scrutiny of public funds for migration and asylum: Role, opportunities and challenges for NHRIs, Brussels, p. 11.
.

Interviewees participating in the research for this report highlighted that NHRIs need more human resources to participate in making sure that fundamental rights are respected during the programming period. The German NHRI suggests, for example, that a new position should be created to deal with this matter only [141]
 Franet country report – Germany, 2023, p. 18.
. The Cypriot NHRI also points out that “[t]he involvement in the monitoring of EU funds’ compliance to EU Charter comes to be added to the other tasks the Office of the Commissioner has in ensuring the safeguarding of human rights in Cyprus, combating discrimination, and ensuring equality, and helping individuals who suffer infringements on their fundamental rights find redress. The additional role it plays when it comes to EU funds […] only adds to an already heavy workload. Successfully carrying out its tasks, requires reinforcement of the Office of the Commissioner with additional human resources, especially of staff at senior level” [142]
 Ombudsman of Cyprus (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available), pp. 21–22.
. The National Liaison Officer of Cyprus noted that although seven staff members have been recently added, there is still need for recruitment of staff at senior level. In addition, some NHRIs, such as the French NHRI, have an employment ceiling, precluding the hiring of additional staff for tasks related to the EU programming period [143]
 Franet country report – France, 2023, pp. 11, 22.
.

The Slovak NHRI summarises the position taken by many independent fundamental rights bodies on their capacity to be involved in EU funds in its report: “[t]he potential role of the [Slovak Human Rights] Centre in the implementation of the EU Funds is defined by the current legal mandate and available budget of the Centre. In the case of any cooperation beyond the legal mandate, which could imply an extension of the competence and tasks already given to the Centre, it is important that these tasks are covered by legislation, adequate human resources and especially by sufficient funding. Consequently, if the scope of the mandate of the Centre is extended, increasing the human resources and budget (compared to the current situation) are necessary prerequisites” [144]
 Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available).


 
.

Member States are responsible for ensuring that the legal obligations under the CPR 21–27 are fulfilled and therefore must ensure that relevant staff are sufficiently knowledgeable of fundamental rights. Sufficient knowledge of fundamental rights is necessary to ensure that officials do not approve operations that are not in line with the Charter and/or the CRPD.

In the previous programming period, there appeared to be a lack of overall awareness on the part of managing authorities of how to take fundamental rights into account [145]
 Interview with a representative from a Croatian independent fundamental rights body, 25 May 2022; interview with a Bulgarian national fund manager representative, 26 May 2022; Franet country report –  France, 2023, p. 8.
. One managing authority official from Bulgaria mentions that they find it challenging to recognise whether a complaint submitted has fundamental rights implications, as they lack the requisite expertise in this area [146]
 Interview with a Bulgarian national fund manager representative, 1 June 2022.
. Civil servants might be well aware of the text of the CRPD and of the Charter but find these instruments “abstract” and would not know how to recognise rights violations in real-life situations [147] Franet country report – Bulgaria, 2023, pp. 18–19.
. Fundamental rights-related horizontal principles are often not scrutinised in any level of detail by the relevant managing authorities, and the observance of these clauses in some cases is dependent solely on the dutifulness of the beneficiaries [148]
 Raised by a national fund manager at a roundtable discussion in Germany (see Franet country report – Germany, 2023, p. 23) and in interviews in Bulgaria with all groups of respondents (see Franet country report – Bulgaria, 2023, p. 11); Franet country report – France, 2023, pp. 13–14.
.

The Croatian NHRI points to the need to ensure training on the Charter “for all those working with EU funds, as the visibility of the Charter at the national level is rather low” [149]
 Ombudsperson of the Republic of Croatia (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available). On the generally low awareness of the Charter, see FRA, ‘Fundamental rights survey’: ‘Rights awareness and responsibilities’ and ‘Awareness of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’.
. The Cypriot NHRI notes in its report that, “there is a need for further guidance and greater support to the authorities involved via building their capacity further, in order to ensure the effective monitoring of the EU funds and the procedures and safeguards discussed” [150]
 Ombudsman of Cyprus (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available).
. It is also noted that there is a lack of expertise on the Charter at local level [151]
 Franet country report – Greece, 2023, p. 42.
even though local and regional authorities are both a key target for EU funds and are also often highly involved in managing funds.

Project implementers are those beneficiaries who receive funds to carry out operations accepted under the fund programmes. These beneficiaries play a central role in ensuring that the fundamental rights requirements under the CPR 21–27 are duly fulfilled. A lack of understanding of the Charter and of the CRPD can lead to unintentional disregard of and non-compliance with these instruments. In some cases, there appears to be a low level of awareness of how to implement fundamental rights on the part of the beneficiaries [152]
 Franet country report – Portugal, 2023, p. 28; interviews with representatives of independent fundamental rights bodies and CSOs (see Franet country report – Finland, 2023 p. 10; Franet country report – France, 2023, p. 11; and Ombudsperson of the Republic of Croatia (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available).


 
.

Interviewees from Greece, for example, report that there is a lack of specific guidelines on operationalising fundamental rights provisions, both during the previous and the current programming period [153]
 Franet country report – Greece, 2023, pp. 6–7.
. For example, guidance is available in some areas, such as disability, but not in others, such as gender (in the previous programming period).

In addition, interviewees note that there could be greater clarity on what constitutes a fundamental rights violation in the context of the funds [154]
 NHRI representative, FRA drafting meeting with NHRIs, 27 March 2023 (Cyprus).
. CSOs and national fund representatives from Finland note that “[t]here is a pressing need […] to get more knowledge and easily understood information on EU Charter rights, and on how to assess compliance with fundamental rights in concrete projects” [155]
 Interviews with CSO and national fund manager representatives; see Franet country report – Finland, 2023, p. 20.
.

Moreover, it is noted that the reference to fundamental rights in the calls for applications is sometimes not concrete and specific enough in order that its implications are understood by applicants for funding [156]
 Interview with an Estonian national fund manager representative, 16 May 2022.
.

Some research participants suggest that parts of the funds themselves should be dedicated to providing support to the monitoring of fundamental rights-related operations [157]
 Interview with a representative from a Bulgarian independent fundamental rights body, 2 June 2022; interview with a representative of the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, 8 June 2022; interview with a representative of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), 14 June 2022.
. The Commission also suggested this in its 2020 Charter strategy, urging Member States to “[f]acilitate coordination and a coherent implementation of the ‘enabling condition’ and make the best use of available technical assistance”.

As is clear from the above, there is a need for training of the key actors in the EU programming period. It is the responsibility of Member States to ensure that officials are competent in ensuring compliance with fundamental rights. This is planned as part of the new requirements for Member States to set up Charter arrangements for the 2021–2027 programming period (see Sections 1.2 and 1.4).

Participants in the research generally feel that training of all relevant actors on the Charter and the CRPD is key to ensuring compliance with the horizontal enabling conditions [158]
 Interview with an Estonian national fund manager representative, 10 May 2022.
. For example, a representative of a German independent fundamental rights body notes that it would be more sensible for NHRIs to build the capacity of the administration, for example through training, than to get involved in the examination of individual operation proposals [159]
 Franet country report – Germany, 2023, p. 19.
.

Several practical examples of training are mentioned by interviewees. In the previous programming period, the Croatian ombudsperson’s office conducted training for EU fund officials on combating discrimination, as did the ombudsperson for persons with disabilities [160]
 Franet country report – Croatia, 2023, p. 11.
and the ombudsperson for gender equality [161]
  Franet country report – Croatia, 2023, p. 12.
. EU-level training may be useful. Nevertheless, the Croatian ombudsperson also points to the need for more training of fundamental rights bodies involved in the operation of funds governed by the CPR adapted to the national context and beyond single-day training events [162]
  Franet country report – Croatia, 2023, p. 14.
. More training for officials is being planned in Croatia, including for those who are supposed to decide on the approval of operations [163]
 Ombudsperson of the Republic of Croatia (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available).


 
.

In Slovakia, the department within the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family that implements the new Charter arrangements for the current funding period, the so-called ‘Gestor of Horizontal Principles’ (see section 2.7), will take over the training of government officials involved in the management, coordination, implementation, evaluation, monitoring and audit of the horizontal principles [164]
 Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available).
.

Participants in the research made several suggestions on how to improve fundamental rights training in EU funds.

First, the capacity of independent fundamental rights bodies to deal with EU funds issues needs to be increased. Although some independent bodies note that they have sufficient expertise, especially if they have had past involvement in running EU operations, others note a need to gain more knowledge. They suggest that the networks of independent fundamental rights bodies (ENNHRI and Equinet) should be involved in capacity building in this regard [165]
 Franet country report – Finland, 2023, p. 18.
.

Second, strengthening the training and awareness-raising work of independent fundamental rights bodies at local and regional levels would be key. This should focus on awareness-raising on key issues and on the ability of local and regional officials involved in decision-making on EU funds to recognise potential fundamental rights problems in operations that are submitted to them [166]
 Franet country report – Greece, 2023, p. 45.
.

Overall, given the limited resources of NHRIs, a ‘training of trainers’ approach by national human rights bodies seems most appropriate. For instance, it has been suggested that training packages be provided to different stakeholders [167]
 Franet country report – Finland, 2023, pp. 20–21.
. Training efforts need to involve tested approaches of fundamental rights teaching and training, including being part of an overall capacity-building strategy, having mechanisms for evaluation and impact assessment, training content relevant to the audience and the use of participatory techniques [168]
 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012), World Programme for Human Rights Education, New York and Geneva, pp. 5–6.
. All training material, both for officials and for beneficiaries, should be practical and accessible, including for persons with disabilities.

FRA framework for reinforcing rights locally

It is at local level that human and fundamental rights become a reality in people’s lives. The FRA framework for reinforcing rights locally, published in 2021, and the associated practical guidance aim to showcase what being a human rights city means and to encourage more cities to integrate human rights into their work. The framework also aims to facilitate links between human rights cities and EU instruments. This is done by promoting the importance of linking city work to the Charter and by fostering the use of EU funds, such as the EU CERV programme, to facilitate cross-national practice exchange or pilots of new human rights initiatives and tools in cities [169]
 See also, in this regard, the following short working paper: FRA and the European Committee of the Regions’ Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional & External Affairs (CIVEX) (2019), Putting the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into practice: The local and regional perspective, Brussels.
.

The European Commission develops and provides training and guidance on the implementation of the Charter for European institutions staff and for national and local administrations. In addition, it provides dedicated guidance on applying the Charter in the funding context.

European Commission and FRA general training tools on the Charter

  •  European Training Platform
    The European Training Platform (ETP) is a search tool for legal practitioners and justice professionals who want to train themselves on any practice area of EU law or related matters. On the ETP, justice professionals can find training courses and self-learning materials on a great variety of EU law-related topics. The training providers inform potential trainees about the training activities they organise everywhere in the EU and in different languages.
    The European Commission contributes to the platform with ready-to-use training materials and handbooks produced notably thanks to EU financial support. The training takes place on the platform, and the European Commission endorses these courses.
  • European e-Justice Portal: Fundamental rights interactive tool
    The fundamental rights interactive tool can be used by individuals to find the appropriate organisation to help with a fundamental rights-related problem.
  • European e-Justice Portal: Member States’ best practices on the Charter
    This describes Member States’ initiatives to promote the use and awareness of the Charter in their countries.
  • Charterpedia
    FRA’s online tool provides easy-to-access information about the Charter and its provisions. For each Charter article, it includes official explanations of the articles, related European and national case law, and related provisions in national constitutional law and international law. It also contains references to academic analysis and related FRA publications.
  • FRA handbooks
    FRA has developed practical handbooks on the Charter and secondary EU law (which in many cases specifies different rights and obligations arising from the Charter) in a range of different fundamental rights areas, which guide practitioners on implementation. These handbooks are available on FRA’s website, where one can search according to the rights work area of interest.

 

As noted above, guidance is most useful at national level, as materials can consider the national and local context and be adapted to national or local needs and interests. For example, an official working for a fund dealing with the justice sector may need materials on the right to a fair trial. However, an official working on social policy may need information on disability rights and the CRPD. As a further example, an official working on funds related to migration may need practical guidance on the EU acquis in that area. At the same time, more specific guidance provided at EU level can also be useful, especially regarding questions related to the interpretation of EU law such as the European Commission guidance on the ESIF.

European Commission guidance on the ESIF

In 2016, the European Commission issued guidance on ensuring respect for the Charter when implementing the ESIF. It explains the importance of ensuring respect for the Charter in the context of funding governed by the CPR 14–20. It also includes a fundamental rights checklist to help Member States check operations against the Charter. It explains the content, legal status and applicability of the Charter, enforcement in the context of the programmes provided by those funds and their implementation, and the possible consequences of non-compliance with the Charter. It also contains recommendations on how to check for Charter compliance and provides examples of implementation of EU law in the context of these Funds.

Source: Commission notice – Guidance on ensuring the respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when implementing the European Structural and Investment Funds (‘ESI Funds’) (OJ C 269, 23.7.2016, p. 1).

The Commission has also issued guidance on more specific issues in the context of funds governed by the CPR, including on tackling segregation issues and infrastructure mapping [170]
 European Commission (2020), Note on the use of EU Funds in tackling educational and spatial segregation (2021–2027 programming period); European Commission (2020), Infrastructure mapping in education, health, housing, childcare and social care: Recommendations for desk officers to review infrastructure mapping for the 2021-2027 programming period.
. However, these guidance notes were of an internal nature and primarily addressed the Commission’s own services.

The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) has provided a useful online toolkit available in all EU languages on gender budgeting in EU funds. It includes 11 practical tools related to the EU regulatory framework and information on national/subnational programming and project-level support and on reporting, monitoring and evaluation. Each tool highlights good national practices and includes links to relevant EU fund-specific regulations [171]
 EIGE (European Institute for Gender Equality) (2022), Toolkit for gender budgeting in the EU Funds, Vilnius.
.

The European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care, which focuses on deinstitutionalisation, has also developed a model checklist for EU officials. It is aimed at European Commission desk officers who check if the operations requesting support from funds governed by the CPR 21–27 comply with the Charter and the CRPD. It covers a range of issues, such as the transition from institutional to family-based and community-based services; the development of quality family-based and community-based services; the prevention of separation of children, including with disabilities, from their families; and the prevention of segregation and institutionalisation of children, persons with disabilities, persons with mental health problems, older people and homeless people, regardless of the residence status [172]
 EEG (European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care) and Hope and Homes for Children (2021), EU Funds Checklist to Promote Independent Living and Deinstitutionalisation.
. Considering its scope and level of specificity, it can also be useful to inform guidance for staff working on disability-related issues for managing authorities or intermediate bodies.

At national level, a range of proposals have been identified for tools to support an ex ante fundamental rights assessment. For example, in Finland, representatives of the managing authorities have suggested that a checklist be distributed to the actors operating at each stage of the programming period that is developed in cooperation with national fundamental rights bodies, taking into account the guidance provided at EU level.

Fundamental rights guidance is particularly important when formulating the calls to apply for EU funding. A research participant in Portugal stresses the importance of this for the entire programming period: “I think that if the calls were more specific [about human rights issues], the monitoring and evaluation of the project would also be done differently” [173] Interview with a Portuguese CSO representative, 14 April 2022.
. Setting up fundamental rights-compliant selection processes for operations is an important preventive measure through which independent fundamental rights bodies and CSOs could provide guidance. For example, organisations of persons with disabilities can ensure that accessibility requirements are upheld and representatives of gender equality bodies could formulate gender-specific selection criteria for funding applications.

The research also identified other elements that could improve efficiency and transparency. For example, respondents in Portugal note the need to improve digital platforms for the national funds to obtain information more easily and improve cooperation [174]
 Franet country report – Portugal, 2023, pp. 27–28.
. The Croatian NHRI also points to the need for more tools, suggesting that “to support both evaluators and beneficiaries, manuals on how to integrate the Charter/CRPD into project proposals and how this would be evaluated would be beneficial” [175]
 Ombudsperson of the Republic of Croatia (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available).
.

For the 2021–2027 programming period, each managing authority must appoint a contact person for cooperation with the focal point for the implementation of the CRPD and the Charter horizontal enabling condition. The European Commission considers that creating a ‘fundamental rights officer’ or a similar position at national level in relevant national authorities would be a useful step in improving compliance with fundamental rights [176]
 Interview with representatives of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, 19 July 2022.
. In Finland, sharing experiences and knowledge on assessing fundamental rights in concrete cases between Member State authorities involved in EU funding is also considered valuable [177]
 Interview with a Finnish national fund manager representative, 16 June 2022.
. National focal points could also be established to which questions and complaints on funds governed by the CPR could be directed, as was done in the case of Slovakia as part of its Charter arrangement. In Slovakia, a department under the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, known as the ‘Gestor of the Horizontal Principles’, took on this role when established in 2014 [178]
 Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (2023), ‘The role of national bodies with a human rights remit in ensuring fundamental rights compliance of EU funds’, report written in the framework of the FRA project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law” (not yet publicly available).
.

In addition to experts within the government itself, independent fundamental rights bodies could also be called upon for advice. It would be useful to ensure that procedures invite officials to consult these experts when taking decisions on funding, and that they are encouraged to do so when in doubt about whether to grant funding to a particular operation. Currently, this does not always take place because officials in the state administration are not accustomed to discussing such matters with independent fundamental rights bodies [179]
 Franet country report – France, 2023, p. 13-14.
.