1

Harvesting letter

Read more on the FRP website and see our photo gallery online

OPEN DAY AT THE FRA (24 April)

Opening and introductory session

Conversations in small groups on the different areas of FRA work

Networking and dialogue at the evening reception

This year for the first time FRA invited civil society organisations to visit the agency and meet FRA

experts face-to-face en masse. This follows a request from civil society organisations. After a

short introductory presentation of FRA and its work with the FRP, the floor was open for

questions. You can find the presentation online.

Afterwards, around 70 FRP participants and 35 FRA staff members met in smaller groups to

discuss thematic issues and possible cooperation in the following areas:

Multiple discrimination FRA Roma programme:

participatory action research with local authorities

Access to justice Severe forms of labour

exploitation Meeting with FRA front-line

communicators and cooperators

Rights of irregular migrants Collecting ethnic data - FRA

Roma survey Access to justice Victims of hate crime FRA gender-based violence

against women survey

Third country nationals at the EU land and sea borders

Child participation in FRA research

FRA LGBT survey and other projects

Rights of people with disabilities

Data protection and privacy

2

Concrete follow up proposals from these sessions include:

FRA to convene a meeting with key donors with FRP participants How to promote the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Croatia – FRA to supply document

in Croatian language See if on FRA website contacts of MB, NLOs, NHRBs, FRP members can be displayed not

only by group, but also by country Think of how FRP participants can use FRA research results for human rights education

products FRP participants to facilitate contact with people with visual impairments for FRA

website testing Need to focus attention on social rights in Europe under economic austerity; one entry

point for FRA could be to look into this from the perspective of access to justice FRP participants could create awareness at the local level on the FRA document

providing practical guidance on apprehension practices of irregular migrants FRP participants are invited to forward statistics to FRA on the use of alternatives to the

detention of irregular migrants and asylum seekers FRP participants are invited to inform FRA on issues of concern by emailing

migration@fra.europa.eu, by including FRA in the mailing lists of their regular newsletters and by sharing promising practices in the areas of migration, asylum,

borders and visa. FRA would particularly welcome promising practices on how to deal with cases of “forced marriages” and how to assist victims of “forced marriages”

FRA shall produce a reader–friendly document of 15 pages of the report on Fundamental Rights at Europe’s Southern Sea Borders which can be of particular usefulness for dissemination by NGOs

FRA is invited to do the social fieldwork done in the framework of the redress mechanism project for those Member States not covered yet in case an update of the project is considered

In the context of the data protection reform package, FRP participants are invited to work on the balancing between the right of access to official documents and the protection of personal data

Proposal from FRP to NHRIs to organise national meetings with FRP organisations to get to know each other to facilitate working together

Harvesting Report of 6th FRP Meeting to be sent to NHRIs/EG of NHRIs NHRIs to be invited to next FRP meeting

3

OPENING KEYNOTES / ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PANEL/

SOCIAL RIGHTS / “FLOOR IS YOURS” (25 April)

Over 200 participants gathered at the Messe Wien for the 6th Annual Meeting of FRA’s

Fundamental Rights Platform – FRA’s structure for cooperation and dialogue with civil society.

Main purpose of the meeting: To encourage a European debate on fundamental rights among different civil society

organisations To facilitate knowledge and exchange of good practices among FRP participants To provide information on the work of FRA about challenges and promising initiatives on the

ground To create opportunities for networking and further cooperation between civil society, FRA

and others

Maija Sakslin, Chairperson of the FRA Management Board: “Welcome! You represent real concerns and different interests, you have direct links to the people in Europe, so you can give us valuable input for our work at FRA.”

“Today and tomorrow we will continue to engage in fruitful dialogue, as we are working together to promote fundamental rights across Europe.”

“FRA always and only acts on the basis of its evidence.”

“The FRA Management Board, as part of its strategic discussions, sees how we can reach out

better and more targeted. We see the need for FRA to increase its visibility and relevance at the national level. This is also where many of you work and are active, and where we can best support you and help you with your fundament rights work.”

Speech by Maija Sakslin

Morten Kjaerum, FRA Director: “I cannot think of any other place where all these different parts of the human rights structure meet – in numbers, and also in depth and quality.”

“What you bring to us is an unfiltered voice from the edges of society.”

“We deal with issues that are not in the mainstream, and bring these up

with EU bodies, Member States and stakeholders. Recent examples include fundamental rights of irregular migrants, and persons with mental health problems.”

4

“We address the issue of how we reach out, so that the right issues reach the right table. We have built up credibility over 5 years now, so that our interlocutors now use and rely on our research.”

“Although economic and social rights are not part of the MAF explicitly, the FRA does cover these across our different projects.”

Speech by Morten Kjaerum

A lot of the debate and questions following these two speeches was on the political role of FRA, and its work in relation to its Multi-Annual Framework. Civil society organisations generally wanted FRA to be more visible and more active. How can it be ensured that FRA evidence is really taken on board in the policy-making process? How can FRA help shape the debate on human rights at the European level?

“We use FRA reports and they are useful. What we are missing is more visibility of FRA and its

position on fundamental rights in Europe.”

“We need FRA to expose the inconsistency of the EU – on the one hand asking Member States to do more, but on the other, cutting budgets for social issues.”

“FRA has to take care of issues that otherwise fall through the cracks.”

“We regret that the agency’s Multi-annual Framework is limited.”

“We must not forget real people. How can we convey to the people that someone in the EU is looking after their rights?”

“FRA should issue stronger recommendations.”

5

Kinga Göncz, Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur on the

Rights and Citizenship Programme (2014-2020)

European Rights and Citizenship Programme: opportunities for civil society

The programme covers €400m for 7 years, which will be broken down annually. The programme will cover everyone residing in the EU, not just EU citizens. The following areas will be covered: The exercise of rights deriving from Union citizenship; the principles of non discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial

or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, including equality between women and men and the rights of people with disabilities and of elderly people;

protection of personal data; rights of the child; consumer rights.

PROPOSAL for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing

for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Citizenship Programme

“FRA has to operate on the basis of a mandate which was not developed by FRA but by politicians. There is a clear division of labour between different EU institutions. You have to find politicians in your country to monitor fundamental rights in the EU.” “There is more and more awareness on EU level that the European inclusion strategy for Roma is not enough. There is often not enough political will at local level. Political will comes from pressure – and this pressure should come from you who are working on these issues. There won’t be any change without civil society organisations.”

Fostering anti-discrimination policies in the EU – tools and measures available to

civil society (Panel debate)

Raül Romeva i Rueda, Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur on the Horizontal Anti-Discrimination Directive “Human rights are indivisible, our identities are plural – we cannot split rights, we cannot split ourselves.”

“Anti-discrimination is at the core of EU principles. We have thousands of examples of how we can tackle the problems, and FRA is crucial in that role. The political problem is that we are not linking this Directive with public debate. We need to show that there is a

public demand. We need to convince civil society to push their governments to agree to this Directive. If civil society is not voicing a real need, politics will not move.”

6

“There is a question of political will, but there is also a legal question: the European Parliament should start thinking of bringing the Council to the Court under Art. 265.”

“There is a lack of transparency and a lack of knowledge on who is opposing – no open debate possible on this. Let’s make the debate open, let’s find solutions to concrete cases. But let’s not block the process anymore.” Deaglán O’Briain, Chair of the Social Questions Working Party for the Article 19 Directive, Council of the European Union “The only way to bring equality and European values is to step back from the detail and promote the rule of law and fundamental rights.”

“We can be too ambitious and not achieve what we want to do. Remember the mythical directive on the shape of bananas. We must be careful not to ridicule the issue.”

“It isn’t sufficient to be at conferences where everyone agrees. You need to convince those who are not convinced – both in public opinion and national decision makers.”

“Those countries who block are not a coalition of the dubious, but rather a coalition of the committed – it is often countries who already have far reaching laws in their own Member State and who know which checks and balances are needed to complement such legislation. So we still need to work on the concrete text.”

Juan Gonzalez-Mellizo, Team Leader Non-discrimination policies, DG Justice, European Commission “The European’s Commission position is: we will not give up. We really hope there will be progress on the legislative side.”

“The horizontal directive is a victim of the unanimity principle in the Council.”

“The Commission has been asked what are the gaps, what can it do better, what new areas do we need exploring – we need your [civil society’s] help.”

“This meeting is a privileged position to get input from many people in one go. This is the right time to have this discussion.”

Many questions and comments from the floor were raised in the lively debate following the panel discussion. Issues were brought up concerning the lack of political will, and the question of transparency of the negotiation process, especially within the Council. In the year 2000 no major political or legal arguments were raised against the swift adoption of the Employment Directive and the Racial Equality Directive. A decade later this consensus appears to have faded away. Some are referring to the economic crisis as an argument for not adopting the directive. It was pointed out that the reality of discrimination suffered by extremely poor people should be

indeed addressed, rather than used as an argument for not adopting the horizontal directive. A link was also made between having anti-discrimination measures and the impact that this may have on tackling hate crime.

Some participants asked whether a horizontal directive is really needed, and whether it may be

7

counterproductive by resulting in adverse side effects limiting private autonomy and small businesses. Others stated that there are enough technical proposals on the table to avoid such unintended effects. The representative of the Presidency reassured participants that care is being taken in the exact wording of the Directive to ensure there are no unintended consequences, and that this text would not undermine other important rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There was an understanding that in some Member States there is already strong protection, while this is not the case in others. There is a commitment that equality has to be taken seriously and that ending the hierarchy between the different levels of protection across different grounds like ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability should be addressed.

Social Rights - The role of The Council of Europe

Luis Jimena Quesada, Chair of the European Committee of Social Rights, Council of Europe

Presentation on the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) system of collective complaint

NGOs enjoy a key position, also within the Council of Europe,

where they have “participatory status”. 75 NGOs are entitled to lodge complaints with the European Committee of Social Rights, and most of these NGOs also take part in the FRP. NGOs should use this status and should make increasing use of the opportunity to lodge complaints. If complaints are not

brought, the committee cannot do its work and the Member States cannot improve the situation.

“There is a complementarity among European mechanisms. For instance, FRA provides important information to the Committee of Social Rights – in our legal assessment we take the findings by FRA into account.”

“Often the crisis is used as an excuse for remaining passive.”

“We cannot exclusively accuse institutions of democratic deficit and lack of social citizenship, if we are not consistent with our responsibilities. If you don’t submit collective complaints, the European committee of social rights cannot adopt decisions. You are the actors nearest to

citizens.”

Speech by Luis Jimena Quesada A comment from the floor stated that NGOs need to decide which complaint mechanism to use in each situation. The procedure of the social committee was found to be useful and has helped to change things.

8

The Floor is Yours! Contributions can be found as of 3 May at the latest on the FRP website

9

10

HATE CRIME PANEL / THEMATIC WORKSHOPS /

FRP ADVISORY PANEL / CLOSING (26 April)

Victims of hate crime: challenges and promising practices for victim support

(Panel debate)

Joanna Perry, Hate Crime Officer, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), OSCE

“Being a victim of hate crime can be a shared experience for many different groups. We need to look into the connection and underlying patterns for all groups, and how police can better respond.”

“Civil society is key, they change attitudes by advocating for people and raising awareness. Civil society energy has led to new legislation and better support.”

ODIHR organises training against hate crime for law enforcement – 3 days train the trainer, for them to give training for one day to police officers.

ODIHR: Hate crime laws – a practical guide

Harald Kröger, Liaison Officer for LGBT-Issues – Central Office for Crime Prevention – Criminal Investigation Department, Berlin Police Department, Germany

“Crimes that are not reported to the police remain invisible to the authorities. Therefore it is key to make problems visible - and here NGOs play a key role. A good relationship between police and civil society is important to counter hate crime.”

“The police should be there for ALL citizens, and it is the task of the police to realise what a hate crime is. It is therefore important for all

police officers to receive training on hate crime. We are very grateful to FRA for providing adequate studies on hate crime.”

Lisbeth Garly Andersen, Project leader, Danish Institute for Human Rights

“When we first started talking about hate crime nobody knew what we were talking about. Capacity building is key – and before our initiative there was nothing. Since then, we have cooperated closely with the police as we see that this achieves results. It has been crucial that the police have taken so much ownership with regards to this issue and to the campaigns.”

“Local research is also important and creates a different ownership. We want a real dialogue with the police, before going to the

media.”

11

Judith Sunderland, Senior Researcher, Human Rights Watch

“It is an outrage that people are targeted with violence for what

they look like, who they love, or who they pray to.”

“There are gaps in the legal framework and poorly crafted laws – this allows for cases to be pursued as ordinary crimes, instead of hate crimes. This denies the victims a clear acknowledgment of the deep wrongs they have suffered.”

“The lack of trust in law enforcement prevents people from seeking redress.”

Joanna Goodey, Head of Department Freedoms and Justice, FRA

“We cannot rely on official criminal justice data, as this only scratches the surface. There is high underreporting. It is therefore important to listen to victims directly, as the FRA does with its surveys.”

“We also need to ask - who are the perpetrators? What we hear from the victims is that perpetrators are not only the extremists – but perpetrators are often teenagers, people from the neighbourhood, but we need to get the full picture.”

“Generic and targeted victim support services have an essential role – but these services are under resource constraints. Civil society is indispensable, but States must also do their duties.”

Some voices from the debate:

“In addition to legal aid, we also need psychological support. Social disabilities are often the consequence of hate crime.”

“Capacity building is key.”

“Many victims are fearful in the aftermath of a crime, in particular after hate crime. If we want to tackle hate crime in the EU, we must make people understand that it’s ok to ask for help, and you shouldn’t feel guilty or embarrassed because someone has done harm to you. And we need to ensure that the services are available. There are few services for victims affected by crime.”

“We need standardised criteria on what hate crime is.”

“When we are talking about victims of hate crime, we are talking about people who live in fear of hate crime, and hide their identities because of hate crime. There is a common experience across groups - but there is not a common level of protection across groups. We do not have the same legislation for the different groups.”

“We see encouraging signs for better cooperation with the police.”

“Hate crime has a deeper impact on the individual than other crimes. And hate crime impacts on the community as well. People live in fear of hate crime, people hide their identities and change their behaviour because of hate crime.”

“NGOs need recognition not only internationally, but also nationally and also financial support.”

“Legislation is important – its existence, its effectiveness, and it has a strong communication potential that hate crime cannot be tolerated”.

12

Thematic workshops with FRA

Short summaries of the outcome can be found from 3 May on the FRP website

13

FRP Advisory Panel – what has been achieved so far and next steps

The Advisory Panel (AP) is the “bridge” between the FRP and the

Director of the FRA. The AP supports the FRA Director in the organisation

and coordination of the FRP. AP works on procedures and methods, it

has a consultative role.

The AP consists of 9 members. Their term lasts 2 years.

3 key documents:

Art. 10 of FRA’s Founding Regulation specifies the FRP

Code of conduct

Terms of reference of the Advisory Panel

AP presentation given at FRP meeting

Webpage of the Advisory Panel

The call for elections for the next AP will be published in November. The

election will take place at the next FRP meeting one year from now.

Closing remarks by FRA Director Morten Kjaerum

“There is hard evidence and facts that in Europe in the 21st century, discrimination and even

violence are a reality for many people in the EU.”

“We must give victims a voice, we must hear directly from the victims. We need first hand

information – because we know that the vast majority of victims, both of hate crime and of non-

discrimination – do not report what has happened to them.”

“Human dignity and profound respect are the starting point for fundamental rights. ... Everyone

has the right to be themselves.“

Closing remarks by Morten Kjaerum

Next Fundamental Rights Platform meeting: 10-11 April 201