Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
LIBE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsEvin Incir
And this was the way, the only way that I could see to address the issue of drones. Although I support it fully, I have tweaked some words in the offenses of dissemination of blueprints to align them with other legislations and notably the DSA.
Indeed I want to I want this directive to allow for removal order of online content so we needed to make sure of that. I will keep serious negligence as I have been convinced by the stakeholders I met it could help to open investigations that would not have been opened without a legal basis. I have strengthened the aggravated circumstances to reflect the reality. These now include recruiting children possessing multiple firearms trafficking firearms into a criminal environment stealing or diverting weapons from military or public stocks and carrying firearms into public areas. On penalties I remain close to the Commission's proposals and it looks very different I need to say among the member states right now.
Prison sentences and sanctions for legal persons should remain proportional to the seriousness of offenses that enable other crimes. At the same time judges should continue to assess individual cases involving coercion such as minor or victims of human rights.
I have added provisions about prevention policies, as I believe they increase the efficiency and could complement our criminal instruments. For this, I have introduced in the report the possibility for Member States to use frozen assets to finance awareness-raising campaigns, voluntary surrender campaigns which have proven efficient, and the effective destruction of all weapons seized or surrendered to the States. Another article on resources is a way for me to ensure that this legislation will translate into and be upheld by well-trained and sufficiently financed and staffed police services. I also want us to be more ambitious regarding national firearms focal points. To address the external dimension of firearms trafficking, I strengthened the role of Europol, Eurojust and CEPOL and reinforced information sharing obligations for Member States.
I have kept the Commission's data set to avoid unnecessary burdens but maintained a 48-hours deadline for sharing information. Illegal firearms move quickly across Europe, so timely and reliable information is essential. Europol's new IT system will also help Member States track seized firearms across the Union. And lastly, I introduced the possibility for the Commission to establish a database of tested blueprints through an implementing act. This will facilitate joint testing by Member States and avoid duplication of work and support investigations and court proceedings.
I will stop here. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Incir. And now I will open the floor for the shadow rapporteurs, starting with Mrs. Berina Mertens from EPP. Floor is yours.
Verena Mertens
Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to proceed in German. Zunächst möchte ich unserer Berichterstatterin Evin Incir ganz herzlich für ihren engagierten und ausgewogenen Bericht danken. Er bietet eine sehr gute Grundlage für unsere weiteren Beratungen. Unser gemeinsames Ziel ist klar.
Wir müssen den illegalen Waffenhandel in Europa wirksamer bekämpfen, organisierte Kriminalität und Terrorismus entschlossener zurückdrängen und unseren Strafverfolgungsbehörden die Instrumente geben, die sie dafür benötigen. Gleichzeitig dürfen wir aber niemals legale Waffenbesitzer oder rechtstreue Unternehmen mit unnötiger Bürokratie belasten. Ich glaube, das versteht sich von selbst. Gerade aus meiner langjährigen Erfahrung bei der Polizei weiß ich, dass nicht entscheidend ist, dass wir möglichst viele Straftatbestände haben, sondern entscheidend ist, klare, praxistaugliche Regeln zu schaffen, eine funktionierende grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit und natürlich ausreichend Ressourcen für Ermittlungsbehörden, um das Entdeckungsrisiko zu erhöhen.
Der Bericht enthält bereits schon ganz viele wichtige Verbesserungen. Gleichzeitig sehe ich noch an einigen Punkten kleine Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten, zum einen erstens bei den Regeln für digitale Baupläne, zweitens bei der Rechtssicherheit für Forschung, Industrie und Handwerk und auch bei einzelnen Fragen zur Verhältnismäßigkeit und zur praktischen Umsetzung. Unser Fokus muss konsequent darauf sein, kriminelle Netzwerke zu bekämpfen und nicht natürlich nicht auf denjenigen, die sich rechtmäßig verhalten. Genau darauf weisen auch Praktiker hin aus Strafverfolgungsbehörden und auch aus dem legalen Waffenhandel. Zurecht.
Deshalb werden wir als EVP eigene Änderungsanträge einbringen, um diesen Bericht an den einzelnen Stellen noch ein bisschen zu stärken und noch praxistauglicher zu machen an den Stellen, wo er das nicht ohnehin schon ist. Ich freue mich auf eine ganz konstruktive Zusammenarbeit aller Fraktionen. Gemeinsam wollen wir eine Richtlinie schaffen, die Kriminelle wirksam trifft und gleichzeitig Rechtssicherheit für die vielen rechtstreuen Bürgerinnen und Bürger gewährleistet. Vielen Dank.
Fabrice Leggeri
Merci Monsieur le Président. Notre shadow rapporteur Matthieu Valet n'est pas présent aujourd'hui mais il m'a laissé son son texte et donc je vais lire son intervention. Je remercie notre rapporteur Madame Incir pour son travail sur un texte qui est très important. Les gangs prospèrent en Europe, alimentés par les réseaux de trafic transnationaux qui profitent des zones de conflit actifs ou passés pour s'approvisionner en armes de guerre. Ces mêmes armes, nous les retrouvons ensuite dans nos quartiers ou sur les lieux des attentats.
Cette proposition de la Commission, inédite, arrive donc à point nommé. Je salue des ajouts qui auront un impact réel dans le démantèlement des réseaux, notamment la mention des circonstances aggravantes lorsque l'infraction implique au moins dix armes, des armes de catégorie A, le terrorisme, une organisation criminelle, des blessures graves, un décès, la corruption de fonctionnaires, la récidive ou un trafic vers ou depuis une zone de conflit. Tous ces points doivent être maintenus. Mais justement, si elle est mentionnée dans le texte, la perméabilité des frontières extérieures de l'Union européenne n'est pas traitée à la hauteur du problème.
Les frontières sont pourtant la raison première et fondamentale de la présence de nombreuses armes de guerre sur nos territoires, en particulier aux mains de gangs ultra-violents et transnationaux. Nos services de sécurité, en particulier en France, alertent sur cela depuis longtemps. Sans prise en main à la hauteur des événements, nos frontières resteront des passoires qui laisseront transiter des armes de toute catégorie, exposant toujours plus nos citoyens, nos familles et nos forces de l'ordre. Je souhaite continuer dans un esprit constructif le travail avec notre rapporteur et les autres shadow rapporteurs. Merci Monsieur le Président.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to Mrs. Jadwiga Wiśniewska from ECR. Floor is yours.
Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Dziękuję bardzo, panie przewodniczący. Szanowni państwo, bardzo dziękuję pani sprawozdawczyni za przygotowany projekt sprawozdania. Zgadzam się, że konieczne są działania zmierzające do zwalczania nielegalnego handlu bronią palną.
Rzeczywiście jest to realne zagrożenie, w obecnym kształcie geopolitycznym aż nader widoczne. Zgadzam się również z tym, że ryzyko przemytu broni do Unii Europejskiej wzrośnie zdecydowanie po zakończeniu działań wojennych na Ukrainie i będziemy w tym kontekście zgłaszać poprawkę. Pozytywnie oceniamy zaproponowane przez panią sprawozdawczynię wzmocnienie współpracy między organami krajowymi i Europolem i Eurojustem, tak by zwrócić większą uwagę na wykorzystanie krajowych punktów kontaktowych oraz uwzględnienie służb celnych. Musimy zapewnić jasne zdefiniowanie nowych pojęć oraz precyzyjnie określić katalog kryminalizowanych zachowań w artykule trzecim. Przepisy dyrektywy nie mogą mieć wpływu na legalnych posiadaczy broni, takich jak kolekcjonerzy, myśliwi czy strzelcy sportowi.
W projekcie sprawozdania moje zastrzeżenia budzi propozycja, aby już więcej niż jedna sztuka broni stanowiła automatycznie okoliczność obciążającą. Taki próg uważam za zbyt niski.
Powinniśmy z ostrożnością podejść do nakłaniania państw członkowskich, do nakładania na państwa członkowskie obowiązków w zakresie tworzenia nowych baz danych, obowiązku raportowania i bardzo sztywnych terminów administracyjnych. Muszą one mieć wyraźną wartość operacyjną i nie mogą prowadzić do dodatkowej biurokracji. Jeszcze raz bardzo serdecznie pani dziękuję za przygotowany raport. Uważam, że jest to ważny instrument mający na celu wzmocnienie skuteczności działań organów państw członkowskich w zwalczaniu nielegalnego przemytu i handlu bronią. Jesteśmy gotowi konstruktywnie pracować nad poprawkami.
Dziękuję bardzo.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Wiśniewska. Now I have for Renew the shadow rapporteur is Mr. Azmani. I don't see him in the room. If that is the case, we move on to the group of the Greens, Mrs. Neumann.
Hannah Neumann
Thank you, Chair, and I think my colleague have colleagues have already made a lot of crucial points. Illegal firearms trafficking fuels organized crime and it contributes to violence across Europe. The victims are our citizens, our people living in Europe, they are police officers, they are our communities.
Therefore, it is crucial that we find the best possible ways and means to cut off the supply of illegal weapons and to protect our collective security. We also have to recognize that this is a cross-border problem, so it's nothing that one member state alone can solve with very good rules and regulations. We need effective cooperation between member states, we need better information sharing, we need stronger tracing of firearms. And on top, it is crucial that we address the new phenomenon of 3D printed firearms that is especially difficult to tackle. At the same time, and here I agree with the other shadows and the rapporteur, it has to be our goal to ensure that this directive focuses on disrupting the criminal markets, the illegal firearms trafficking, and does not create unnecessary burden for those who are abiding to the laws and are legitimate owners.
In this regard, I would like to first of all thank rapporteur Evin Incir for the effort she put into that draft, pointing exactly as I think into the direction that we have laid out here.
I would especially like to welcome the additional emphasis put on the aspects of prevention, demand reduction actions, as well as the specifications on national focal points and changes made already in the area of the blueprint, where I think the Commission draft was not yet adequate. Maybe just some tiny constructive feedback from our side, and expect us to make amendments in this regard, but maybe also some additional aspects. In Article 8, the criminal offense caused serious physical injury to a person, I think on this one we still need to be a bit more precise in what actually this means. Then with regards the firearms trafficked to or from conflict or post-conflict area, here I also think maybe we need to invest a bit more thought into defining what conflict and post-conflict area is, especially how long do we go back in time, these kind of issues, to make it more handleable, workable for those working on it. Aside of that, it seems to me that we are quite aligned on the goal of this directive across political groups, and I am looking forward to constructive negotiations with all of you, dear colleagues.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Neumann. Now for the group of the Left, the shadow rapporteur was Mr. Antoci, but I don't see him in the room either. And ESN no, didn't appoint any shadow rapporteur.
So I would like to invite now the Commission representative to take the floor, Mrs. Heike Buss, Deputy Head of Unit for Counter-Terrorism, representing the Commission today, and you have the floor for two minutes.
Heike BUSS
Thank you, Mr. Chair, honorable members, dear Ms. Incir. First of all, our thanks to rapporteur Incir for her draft report and, as we have also heard from her but from all other interventions, the overall support for the initiative and agreement on the objectives that we seek to achieve with our proposal. Many thanks for the suggestions to help further clarify and strengthen those objectives and allow me to mention a few things that were mentioned also today, so notably that we indeed also in our proposal did not want to negatively affect all legal owners and legitimate owners of firearms, so further clarifications in that regard are very welcome.
We are also very interested in your suggestions with regard to a more granular approach with regard to the penalties. We also are very happy to see that there is now a new empowerment for the Commission for an implementing act for data bytes on recognized and tested blueprints. We are also very interested in your suggestions with regard to new provisions on prevention with a notable focus on the online dimension, also the issue of training being worked out more specifically and that you added language with regard to sufficient resources being available for those authorities in charge of then implementing this legislation. So all these suggestions are very welcome from our side. With regard to what we heard from other MEPs today, indeed we would also underline that legal clarity is a very important issue and a few comments were already made that certain concepts may need more specification and more explanation.
Let me mention also criminal environment, which is also a concept that we have not seen until now, so it will be very important to make this very clear what is meant with this in order for it to fit into a criminal law piece of legislation. Also with regard to the definitions of the offenses, we agree that legal clarity is very important and we need offenses that are clear and very distinct from each other and that there are no overlaps. With regard to the suggestion to not burden member states, of course, this is also something very much on our mind, and we note with some concern additional requirements for member states to report and also to report more frequently than what the Commission has suggested, plus that the Commission in a two-yearly basis provides reports on the statistical data shared by the member states. So we are a little bit concerned about the administrative burden that will come from this. So we would be glad if this could be taken into account as you take work forward, and I excuse myself for speaking longer than two minutes.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you. And now the floor goes back to Mrs. Incir for her concluding remarks. Mrs. Incir, floor is yours for two minutes.
Evin Incir
Thank you very much. And first and foremost, thank you to all my colleagues for the inputs, and I look very much forward to the amendments that will be presented also by the colleagues. And I also believe that we will have a very continued, efficient, and good cooperation as we have had until now. And as been said, it is about combating criminal networks. It is not about addressing the... it's more focused on illicit firearms.
So, and that's also why I mentioned in my introduction speech that I try to clarify it even further in the recital. And it's not about the legal use of firearms. For example, hunters and others do not... should not be afraid that this will affect them, because it shouldn't.
And it is indeed important due to cross-border elements, which is of course very strong cross-border internally in among our member states and cross-border beyond the EU border. I want to just be very clear on one thing, and that is the issue of of course we shouldn't burden our member states, but I do think that databases could sometimes be important, especially in this cases. When I talk when I talk to different actors, especially our own agencies, this was quite important element, not because of putting burden just to put burden, but rather that criminal gangs operate in several countries at the same time. And we know that over 70% of organized crimes operates in at least three countries at the same time. So and to ensure to share live data and information is essential to both prevent and combat this kind of crimes that includes firearms.
So sometimes things might look like a burden, but in a long term actually is very, very helpful. And yeah, with this said, I look forward to the continued cooperation and the deadline for the amendment is set to 8th of September.
The shadow meetings and technical meetings will take place in October and hopefully we will be able to vote on the text in beginning of November in the committee and then end of November in plenary. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Ms. Incir, for your information and providing us with the timeline of the working of the shadows and the trilogue. As you said, the deadline for amendments is set on Tuesday, the 8th of September at noon 30. So now we move to item 17, which is about closing the implementation gaps in EU equality directives and reviving the horizontal equal treatment directive proposal. Well, I speak, we will set the podium for panelists. Okay, is that already there?
It's fully decorated. Yes, I will start. So equality and equal treatment, non-discrimination are the heart of the EU values.
They are central to the work of our committee, which has consistently promoted a strong and comprehensive framework for the protection of fundamental rights and equal treatment across the Union. As you know, the Parliament and LIBE in particular has long supported the adoption of the horizontal equal treatment directive, recognizing its importance in closing the remaining gaps in EU anti-discrimination legislation and ensuring equal protection beyond the field of employment. Today's hearing provides an opportunity to assess the remaining challenges in the implementation of the existing EU equality directives and reflect on how equal treatment and protection against discrimination can be further strengthened. I would like to warmly welcome Commissioner Lahbib. Commissioner, thank you for joining us today and for delivering the introductory remarks to this hearing.
Your presence reflects the Commission's continued commitment to advancing equality and combating discrimination across the European Union. I think we have Mrs. Kuhnke remotely connected and I would like to give her the floor. Ah, Mrs. Kuhnke will step in later. So, Mr. Kuhnke, I would also like to thank you for your dedication to this important file and your work as the Parliament's rapporteur on the horizontal equal treatment directive.
We are very pleased that you will also share your introductory remarks with us today. I welcome representatives from the Irish presidency of the Council, from the Commission, national equality bodies, civil society, and academia. And now I'm glad to give the floor to Commissioner Labib for her initial presentation up to five minutes. Commissioner.
Hadja Lahbib
Thank you. Thank you, Chair Zazarejos. Honorable members, it's a real pleasure to be back with you, and allow me to start by expressing my profound gratitude to the European Parliament and to the strong powers within this committee in particular for your unwavering support for the proposal for an equal treatment directive. As you know, last year the Commission decided to maintain the proposal. Your support was really important for this decision, and so was the large majority of member states in the Council alongside with several important stakeholders and civil society organizations.
As you know, the proposal for an Equal Treatment Directive was made 18 years ago, but has still not been adopted. This shows that it is complex, it is sensitive, just as the broader fight against discrimination in Europe and beyond. The numbers reveal a bleak reality. Discrimination remains far too widespread across our Union. In a recent Eurobarometer survey, more than half of respondents, 54%, who self-identify as part of a minority based on their sexual orientation, reported having felt personally discriminated against in a public space.
And a quarter, 24%, of respondents belonging to religious minorities reported experiencing discrimination at a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, or a nightclub. This is unacceptable. So closing the remaining gaps in the EU anti-discrimination framework is not just necessary, it is long overdue. We must equally protect all grounds of discrimination listed in the Treaty.
Only then will our union be a true union of equality. The equal treatment directive would fill a major legal gap by expanding protection against discrimination on the ground of religious belief, disability, age, and sexual orientation in social protection, education, and access to goods and services available to the public. A large majority of member states support the quick adoption of the latest compromise text. And I am pleased that the Irish presidency will continue supporting the negotiations on the directive in the next six months. Honorable members, we also need to ensure that our equality laws, those which are already in force, are properly implemented.
We have a robust legislation on equal treatment between men and women, and we have the racial equality and employment equality directives adopted more than 25 years ago. But all these laws face persistent challenges.
There are gaps in their implementation, enforcement is inefficient, and there is sometimes also a lack of awareness for people who have these rights. These directives yet hold huge potential. Each time rights are not enforced and discrimination happens, this has real consequence on people's lives. That is why implementation is so important. As you know, the employment equality directive prohibits direct or indirect discrimination in the field of employment and occupation, including vocational training, whether based on religious or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation.
The racial equality directive requires equal treatment in the field of employment, education, social protection, access to and supply of goods and services regardless of one's racial or ethnic origin. Yesterday, the Commission adopted a report on the application of these two directives, identifying further areas where action is still needed.
We need to improve access to justice by increasing victims' awareness of rights, facilitating their access to evidence of discrimination, and ensuring that burden of proof rules work for them in practice. To further strengthen the implementation of these and many other equality directives, we have adopted the equality bodies directives. The transposition deadline was on 19 June this year, and we will make sure to follow up with Member States so that they swiftly put in place the measures needed to strengthen their national equality bodies. Member States will have to ensure that equality bodies are able to assist all victims of discrimination, offer alternative dispute resolution, conduct inquiries, issue opinions or decisions, support victims in court proceedings, and have the resources and independence needed to promote equal treatment and prevent discrimination effectively. It's going to be a tough battle, but with allies in this house and beyond, we are going to make it.
Let's get the equal treatment directive past the finishing line.
Let's make sure that the equality laws we already put in place are working for victims, and let's push member states to fully empower equality bodies to fight injustice so that all citizens can truly enjoy their rights. Let's build a true union of equality together. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you very much, Commissioner, and I understand that you can stay with us for a few minutes. Okay. Then I'm now glad to give the floor to Mrs. Alice Kuhnke, the rapporteur of the horizontal equal treatment directive. She is connected remotely. Welcome, Mrs. Kuhnke, and the floor is yours for five minutes.
Thank you.
Alice Kuhnke
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues. Thank you for participating in this exchange, and dear Helena, thank you for being here and for your introductory words. At this moment, the EU is at a crossroads. We need now more than ever to send a clear message that we stand firm in our values and that we will continue to promote democracy, freedom, and equality. At the same time, the equal treatment directive remains blocked in the Council.
Nobody really knows. We have countries in the Council maintaining general reservations, but it does not seem clear to anyone what those entail. What we do know is that discussions in the Council have repeatedly focused on implementation costs and the potential burden that the directive's measures could impose on businesses and public institutions. These are fair and valid concerns, and concerns that are naturally top of mind in our current political reality, where we place big emphasis on competitiveness and cutting red tape.
Why?
While these concerns may be valid, I stand firm in my belief that they are unjustified and that further delays of the directive's adoption have severe consequences, not only for individuals targeted by discrimination. Consequences, not only for the individuals that are targeted, but also I do want to emphasize that the reality of these Europeans should remain our key concern in our discussions on this proposal, but also for European prosperity. It is my firm belief that the social and economic benefits of closing the remaining gaps in protection against discrimination, just as the Commissioner said, would significantly outweigh the associated costs. It is also my firm belief that regardless of costs, we have a responsibility to act. Because to be frank, to not pursue equality is to support injustice.
And speaking of injustice, the EU has been subject to criticism from many directions over the past two years for our failure to adopt this directive.
For example, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities last year issued a recommendation to the EU which called for the swift adoption of this directive for the EU to deliver on its commitment under the UNCRPD. At the same time, the United Nations Human Rights Council initiated the process of drafting an international human rights treaty on the rights of the elderly, supported by EU member states. Yet we continue to fail to regulate age discrimination. I want to conclude by mentioning that while we are constantly told Europe must invest more, grow faster, and get more people into employment, we are overlooking the potential of a proposal that has been ready for adoption for soon 18 years. The truth is, failing to harmonize equal treatment legislation means maintaining 27 layers of unnecessary red tape.
Adopting this directive would constitute an important step towards a more equal and competitive Europe. It would simplify cross-border operations for companies, improve the efficiency of the internal market, and help ensure that all member states bring their legislation fully into line with our international obligations, including the UNCRPD. With these words, I would like to invite colleagues to take the floor to discuss the future of our European equality framework. We need to strengthen it, and the time is now. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thanks so much, Mrs. Kuhnke. And now I'd like to welcome the speakers of the first panel of this hearing, which is about EU regulation framework for equality and anti-discrimination, the state of play and challenges of rules implementation. So I would ask them to come up to the podium.
Then our next speakers in this panel, the first panel, are Mrs. Ana Carla Pereira, Director for Equality and Non-Discrimination, DG JUST of the European Commission, Mr. Richard Killiam, Equality Attaché from the Permanent Representation of Ireland and representing the Council Presidency, Mrs. Els Keytsman-Deron, Co-Director of UNIA, Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities in Belgium, representing Equinet, and Katalin Adamis-Császár, Associate Senior Manager, Milieu Consulting. Each speaker will have five minutes for their initial presentation, and then I will open the floor to members. So, Mrs. Pereira, welcome, thanks for coming, the floor is yours.
Ana Carla PEREIRA
Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, honorable members. I would start by reiterating what the Commissioner just said of our unwavering support to the Equal Treatment Directive and recall that for us, addressing the remaining gaps that such directive would address remains urgent and it's necessary.
And we do believe that the directive would fill major gaps when it comes to ensuring protection against discrimination on four grounds, so in the areas of social protection, education, access to goods and services available to the public. We welcome the new data that is brought forward by the European Parliamentary Research Service, which I understand will be presented today, and we believe that this fresh data supports the idea of the added value of the text that we have on the table. The data, as we understand it, confirms the significant social benefits of the directive and highlights the positive effect on social cohesion and dignity of millions of EU citizens. We had conducted our own study together with the OECD, and our study estimates GDP losses in the EU associated with discrimination of important magnitudes.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation up to 89 million euros, on religion and belief up to 234 million euros, on disability up to 1.4 billion euros, and on age around 364 billion euros. So these figures we believe speak for themselves and are a reflection that we cannot miss the opportunity, also the economic opportunity that that directive would bring. Now, I think we also need to be aware that closing the legal gap is just part of the job. As Commissioner said, we have some directives that fight discrimination for the last 25 years. And what we do see through the implementation of those directives is that without effective implementation, rights may remain theoretical and victims are left without redress and discrimination goes unchallenged.
And so yesterday we have published a report on the application of the racial and employment equality directives, and I would like to mention three implementation problems that this report brings. The first relates to sanctions. The report clearly states how sanctions for discrimination are often too weak. The Commission study shows that in many Member States, the consequences of discrimination are so limited that it doesn't stop people from being discriminated.
They are not sufficiently dissuasive, they're not sufficiently deterrent for the perpetrator to discriminate. For a victim, going to court can be lengthy, expensive, and a difficult process, and for the perpetrator, the price can still be low, so as I mentioned. The second point coming from this report is the lack of awareness of rights and cooperation between equality stakeholders. This has been already mentioned by the Commissioner. Awareness raising for us goes beyond generic messaging.
It means that protected groups need to know their concrete rights under the directives, and we need to be able to point people towards accessible complaint mechanisms. Furthermore, Member States that collaborate with civil society and social partners to promote equality, sometimes this cooperation stops at defining priorities than really extending joint implementation and monitoring. The third point that the report brings is about new challenges.
And here I would like to point to the issue of algorithmic management, algorithmic discrimination and the role of artificial intelligence when it comes to discriminatory practices. We do see that decisions about jobs, housing and access to services are increasingly being shaped by AI and automated systems. And in fact, the algorithmic discrimination stems very often from historical structural inequalities that are entrenched in society. We believe that there is a broad agreement among Member States that the existing legal framework contains solid set of instruments to address structural discrimination, in particular in prohibition of indirect discrimination and the possibility of using the current legal framework to address the issues that bring that are brought by artificial intelligence. One final point is on the equality body directives.
They are central to the answer when it comes to implementation. And obviously the equality equality bodies directives really push for strong bodies. What does this mean, strong bodies?
It means that equality bodies should have powers and resources necessary to act effectively, be able to initiate inquiries, access relevant evidence, support or act in judicial proceedings, and where provided for under national law, adopt binding or otherwise authoritative authoritative outcomes. So these these directives are extremely important in the implementation of the equality acquis. And thus the transposition deadline that the commissioner mentioned, the 19th of June, is a very important one because now the commission will be assessing transposition. Voilà. So these were the points I wanted to raise, Chair, and ready for questions.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mrs. Pereira. And now I'll give the floor also for five minutes to Mr. Killiam.
Richard KILLIAM
Chair, thank you for the floor. Good afternoon to the members and to colleagues. It's a pleasure to be to be here with you and to represent the Irish presidency of the Council of the EU on this panel. So as an initial opening comment, I would say that the Irish presidency has put values as one of its core overarching policy priorities. And as part of that program, actions in the area of equality and non-discrimination will be a very important part of our plans.
I am the equality attaché in the permanent representation and will be chairing a number of meetings on the working party on social questions, which is a preparatory body of the Council that is responsible for equality issues discussed within the remit of the EPSCO Council. So our Minister for Children, Equality and Disability, Norma Foley, is nearby with officials following her presentation of priorities to the FEMM Committee. So I've been asked to join you today. And for my intervention on this panel, I would concentrate more narrowly on sharing with you a bit about the Presidency plans with regard to the Equal Treatment Directive. But before I do that, I would just say that more generally, as a member state, Ireland fully and strongly supports the equality legislation that we have in place at EU level.
And while implementation can sometimes be challenging, we are very committed and we support the work of the Commission and look forward to working in the future and welcome the words of the Commissioner that we've just heard as well. But returning to the Equal Treatment Directive, I suspect you are all aware of the history of the file and know that it is a challenging one. Certainly, Chair, thank you. Yeah.
And that regrettably unanimity has remained out of reach. The Irish Presidency does not have a magic solution that will unlock agreement, but we have a commitment to work on the file. We are and we will continue to gauge with our fellow member states and the Commission at technical and a political level to explore any opportunities to progress that might exist. We have a strong basis to work with, given the excellent work of previous presidencies, and the vast majority of member states can now support the text as we've heard. The Commissioner mentioned getting over the finishing line, and that is our aim.
However, as the old saying goes, the last 100 yards are the hardest. And as this file falls under the special legislative procedure, every single member state needs to support the text before it can be adopted, following of course the consent from the European Parliament. Therefore, as Presidency, we are ultimately in the hands of the member states. I cannot tell you how our efforts will go, only that we will be diligent and committed in our work and guided by what we believe is at the heart of this directive: the need to close a large gap in our EU equality and non-discrimination legislation. So if I may, I will also share with you today a few words on the Irish Presidency's wider plans on equality because they may be of interest.
I opened this intervention by mentioning the focus that the Irish Presidency will place on equality and non-discrimination, and I'll just conclude by telling you what that will look like in practice, as I believe it will be of interest. I would also say that there will be further work of interest that is outside of my area of direct responsibility, including on anti-racism, on online safety, on housing exclusion, but what I will focus on is areas under the remit of our equality ministry.
So along with our work on the directive in EPSCO, we will work towards two sets of Council conclusions. One of these will be focused on a theme that we will push throughout our equality program, and it speaks to some of the comments that have already been made today. And that theme is equality as a driver of European competitiveness. These conclusions and a high-level conference in September in Dublin will make the case that by addressing discrimination and promoting equality, we can make huge economic gains, engage fully the talent in the Union, and have happier, more productive people doing jobs that they want to do. We hope to see the conclusions approved at the EPSCO Council in October, thus sending a political signal affirming our commitment to equality.
So as my minister will have been presenting to the FEMM Committee, we will also host a dedicated informal meeting of equality ministers in Ireland in November, where we will discuss gender equality and disability issues. And we will also organize high-level conferences on disability, on LGBTQI+ rights, on child participation, the Child Guarantee, and will work closely with the Commission on hosting the Roma Platform in Dublin, as well as an equality data roundtable here in Brussels.
So in addition to trying to drive the legislative agenda that we're discussing today, we will put equality on the agenda in many other ways that will help improve the state of play on equality and non-discrimination in our Union. So I'd like to end by thanking the Parliament for keeping equal treatment and the fight against discrimination high in the European agenda, and many thanks, and I hope this has been of some use, and like Anne-Carla said, welcome to the discussion to follow. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Killian, for letting us know about the working program of the Irish presidency on this so important matter. And now I will give the floor also for five minutes to Mrs. Els Keytsman-Daron, who is co-director of UNIA, Interfederal Center for Equal Opportunities in Belgium, representing Equinet. The floor is yours.
Els Keytsman De Ronne
Thank you, Chair. First of all, Tamás Kádár and Anne Gaspard, who are the direction of Equinet, are excused, but I'm very honored to speak on behalf of Equinet. Equinet is the European network bringing together 48 equality bodies in 39 countries across Europe. I've left a leaflet with an overview of all the members, all the equality bodies in Europe, at the entrance of the meeting room.
Equality bodies are independent public institutions established under EU equality law to assist victims of discrimination, monitor compliance, raise awareness, conduct investigations, support litigation, and advise governments. Because equality bodies work directly with individuals, employers, public authorities, and civil society, they have a unique perspective on how EU equality legislation works in practice and where it does not. The Race Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive have fundamentally changed the legal landscape across Europe. They have provided millions of people with enforceable rights and created a legal basis for equality bodies across the Union. However, from the perspective of equality bodies, implementation remains uneven, not only between Member States but also between discrimination grounds.
One of the most significant shortcomings is that the EU protection still depends on the discrimination ground and field of life involved. Outside employment, racial and ethnic origin enjoy broad protection; disability, religion or belief, age, sexual orientation do not receive the same level of protection. And equality bodies regularly see the practical consequences.
Victims have different rights depending on why they were discriminated against. Equality bodies often have different mandates and powers depending on the ground concerned. The result is unnecessary complexity for victims and inconsistent protection across Europe. From the perspective of equality bodies, the current legal framework also creates unnecessary complexity. Staff must first determine not only whether discrimination occurred, but whether the relevant discrimination ground and the area of life fall within the scope of the national law that transposed EU law.
Victims should not need to navigate such legal distinctions simply to understand whether they are protected. Equality bodies regularly have to explain to victims that two people facing exactly the same discriminatory treatment may enjoy different legal protection simply because the discrimination is based on different protected grounds or because it occurred outside employment. From the victim's perspective, this distinction is very difficult to understand. And from the perspective of equality bodies, it illustrates why completing the EU equality framework remains so important.
The EU has made equality a fundamental value through the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislative framework should reflect that commitment by ensuring equal protection against discrimination across all protected grounds. The prolonged stalemate on the horizontal equal treatment directive has unintentionally maintained this hierarchy. Experience has shown that relying on Member States to close these gaps voluntarily has not produced consistent protection across the Union. Even where legislation exists, effective implementation cannot be taken for granted.
Equality bodies continue to identify challenges, such as insufficient awareness of rights among victims, under-reporting of discrimination, difficulties in accessing justice, inconsistent application of anti-discrimination rules by courts and public authorities, inadequate collection of equality data, and a lack of effective sanctions and remedies.
In addition, many equality bodies still operate with limited resources or insufficient powers, making enforcement more difficult. This is precisely why the recently adopted directives on standards for equality bodies are so important, and monitoring their implementation at the national level remains now paramount. Strong, independent, and well-resourced equality bodies as main rule of law actors that provide access to justice for victims of discrimination are essential if EU equality law is to have practical effect. Completing the EU equality framework and ensuring effective implementation should go hand in hand, and three priorities stand out. First, fully implement the standards directives so equality bodies across Europe have the independence, the powers, and the resources necessary to enforce rights effectively.
Second, strengthen the practical implementation of existing equality legislation through better enforcement, greater awareness, and improved access to justice. And third, complete the EU anti-discrimination framework by extending equal protection beyond employment to all protected grounds. I'm ending.
Javier Zarzalejos
You should be concluding. Then thank you, thank you for your intervention. And now I give the floor to our last speaker in this first panel, Mrs. Katalin Adamis-Császár, who is associate senior manager at Milieu Consulting. Mrs. Adamis-Császár, floor is yours.
Katalin Adamis-Császár
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this house and for this committee for inviting us. I'm pleased to present the key findings of the study that Mrs. Pereira referred to. It is the complementary impact assessment on the proposal for the horizontal equal treatment directive that Milieu has drafted at the request of this committee. Okay, I see that you have slides.
Okay, so what I'm going to start with is a brief introduction to the context of the study, followed by the presentation of each assessment criteria used for completing the study. You can move the slide. Yeah. About the context, it was very well explained by the previous speakers, so I'm not going to repeat it in details. As you have heard it from Mrs. Commissioner, the Commission proposed the directive to address the existing gaps back in 2008.
However, the legislative process hasn't been completed to date.
In June 2024, the Belgian presidency proposed a compromise text to address concerns raised by certain EU member states and also ultimately to achieve unanimity. The Parliament's LIBE Committee asked the EPRS to assess this revised text to support the European Parliament in its considerations and as part of the decision-making process. You can turn the slides. About the methodology very briefly, so what I'm going to present are the findings based on desk research, interviews carried out at the EU and at the national level, as well as the questionnaire that was circulated amongst the equality bodies. You can move.
The first assessment criterion was the European added value. What we assessed, whether action is required at the EU level rather than at the national level. Under this criterion, we assessed the subsidiarity of the initiative first.
So whether the objectives of the directive could be achieved by the member states acting alone. The answer or the finding of the study was that the objectives that the directive aims to achieve cannot be sufficiently addressed by the member states acting alone. Primarily, A, because of the cross-border nature of discrimination, B, because of the divergent national rules that exist at the national level. We also assessed whether the proposed directive would be necessary. The key finding was that action at the EU level is confirmed, in particular because of the varied levels of protection that currently exist at the national level.
Just to give you a few examples of our findings. One of the main provisions that the directive would introduce is provisions in relation to reasonable accommodation. Only nine member states have legislation that defines reasonable accommodation in a way that matches the directive's definition. When it comes to the denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination, currently 10 EU member states do not acknowledge the denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination.
Moving forward from disability-related discrimination, multiple and intersectional discriminations are types of discrimination that are acknowledged as specific grounds only in two EU member states. Which means that the current regulatory framework that exists in the member state and member states might undermine the objectives of the treaties and international obligations. The study also found that EU action would lead to greater harmonization, increased legal certainty, and more comprehensive protection within the EU. You can move. And the last sub-criterion under the EU added value was proportionality, meaning whether EU action is also confirmed to ensure that the directive doesn't go beyond what is necessary.
We concluded that proportionality could be achieved because of the choice of the instrument and because of the flexibilities that are already built in the proposed measure. You can turn. The second criterion assessed was the coherence, so whether the proposed directive is coherent with international and EU legal frameworks.
We found that coherence is ensured with international legal instruments, such as the ones mentioned by the rapporteur of the Parliament, so the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability and the upcoming UN Convention on the Rights of Older Persons. And at the EU level, coherence is also ensured with the Charter as well as existing secondary legislation. And the final criterion that I wanted to present is effectiveness. The study also assessed whether the proposed directive would achieve its objectives. We found that yes, it would close the protection gaps.
It would send a strong signal that discrimination in everyday life is unacceptable and it would significantly strengthen protection of fundamental rights. Our study, however, also acknowledged that all Member States would have to make some legislative changes, although the extent of the changes would... Just half a minute. Yeah. Okay.
...would depend on the level of protection already provided by the current systems. And finally, the study also identified some limitations. Because of the flexibilities that the proposed directive would introduce, there could be multiple layers of exemptions introduced by the Member States eventually.
However, we also found that these obstacles could be overcome by enablers. Some of the enablers are mentioned on the slides. So implementation could be reinforced by transposition guidance, well-resourced equality bodies, and the sharing of good practices between member states. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. And now I open the floor for the political groups' speakers, starting with EPP. Mrs. Walsh, are you taking the floor?
Javier Zarzalejos
There will be two minutes for your intervention and two minutes for the reply, and please indicate to whom of our speakers you address your questions.
Maria Walsh
Perfect. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. I want to thank all the contributions that came in a little bit late, so apologies to the earlier half that I had missed.
But we spoke briefly earlier on the equal treatment directive in the FEMM committee just now with Minister Foley, and this specific committee of LIBE has spent a great deal of time on this directive. My fellow shadow rapporteurs and I have been on quite a journey, I must say, from securing an EPRS impact assessment to engaging directly with the President of the Commission to ensure this proposal was not withdrawn. Oh, apologies. I get an extra minute because I'm in the Irish presidency and I got very excited for my own broke, apologies, Chair. But while that is all worthwhile, it also leaves me growing with a sense of frustration.
And I don't know if panelists also agree, I'm sure some shadow rapporteurs in this room and fellow colleagues also agree with me. 17 years, but yet we're still holding hearings on how to pass the Equal Treatment Directive. And outside this room, I suspect very few people, even in this institution, know what this legislation is and ultimately the impact it will have. Every time we have these discussions, I leave encouraged by the strength of legal, economic, and moral case for this directive, yet once the hearing ends, the momentum seems to dissipate. That's not on you, that's on us not to deliver on it faster.
As an Irish MEP, I'm particularly conscious that the Irish presidency presents a genuine opportunity to break this deadlock. And we know the argument most often put forward by the remaining blocking member states is cost. But the evidence tells us that there could be a total additional benefit of around 1.23 billion in the first five years of implementation across member states.
So I asked all speakers, in particular Mr. Quilliam, who represents our Irish presidency, who I know quite well and I know works on this very closely. I'd love to understand the opinion, if the evidence increasingly undermines the cost argument, what do you believe is the real obstacle here? And what is the one practical step that could finally unlock consensus in the Council? And if the greater public awareness is needed, where should we as MEPs be focusing on these on these efforts? Thank you very much.
Thanks, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Walsh. Mr. Killian, I think that goes to you.
Richard KILLIAM
Thank you, MEP Walsh, for the question. Many presidencies have worked on this file, and there has been progress over the years, and there's been even more discussions trying to make that final breakthrough. And we are in that line of presidencies. I think what we have is is the experience that other presidencies have have had in trying to make progress, and we will use that, and we will build on that. I don't think it's for me to to to query other member states' rationale for their positions.
Our job will be to engage with them, to listen to them, to work on any concerns that they have, any practical options that we have to make that breakthrough, and that's what we'll do as an honest broker, reaching out to everybody, listening to everybody, and really hoping that and working towards and presenting possibilities. And that's what we'll do. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Killian. Now for S&D group, who will be taking the floor? Mr. San.
Marco Tarquinio
Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank all the speakers for the important contribution to a topic that is the core of our democracies. There's been a good advancement of the anti-discrimination agenda, such as the approval of the new safeguards for victims of discrimination-based crimes in a victims' rights directive, but there are still many challenges to face. And I guess we really want, if we really want to advance the EU framework for anti-discrimination, we should not forget the parenthood regulation. As Ursula von der Leyen said, a parent in a member state is a parent in every member state.
But so far, this is still not true. And therefore, I would like to ask to the Irish presidency if they are willing to bring this dossier back at the negotiation table in the Council, where it's stuck, unfortunately, it's still pending in front of the Council since last mandate, and truly maintain a promise of equality for all the families, including the LGBTQI+ ones. And to the Commission, given the oral question that the plenary presented in March 2025, given the Commission answer at the time, and given the lack of unanimity of this dossier, exactly as the anti-discrimination directive, are you ready to pursue the objectives of the parenthood regulation with different legislative instrument or under different mechanism that are foreseen by the treaties? Because we are very confident of this kind of, for example, parenthood regulation as a possibilities to have an exit strategy, you know, because it's still pending since last mandate in front of the Council. Thank you very much.
Richard KILLIAM
Yes, thank you for the question and for the floor. I'm limited in what I can say on this.
This is not a file that that rests with my ministry in Ireland. But I mean I think the council can only act in a legislative capacity based on a proposal from the commission. I'm not sure I can say too much more than that at this point. But thank you for the question and yes.
Ana Carla PEREIRA
Well, I think I'm in the same condition as as Richard. But I can only say that the commission certainly supports any endeavor to have the parenthood proposal adopted. And if there is any willingness from the member states to look for alternative suggestions methods of course we will study them and and bring them forward. But of course there are there are mechanisms like enhanced cooperation that require the member states to bring forward their willingness and trigger a discussion on on those points. Thank you.
Fabrice Leggeri
Merci Monsieur le Président et merci aux orateurs pour leur présentation.
Alors, dans son propos d'ouverture, la commissaire européenne Larbi a remercié le Parlement d'avoir soutenu, je dirais, le réveil de ce projet de directive après 17 ou 18 ans. Je tiens à être clair, le groupe des Patriotes n'a pas soutenu cette idée et nous estimons bien au contraire que l'arsenal juridique est largement suffisant au niveau national des États membres, mais aussi au niveau de l'Union européenne pour garantir la dignité et les droits de toutes les personnes. Mais ce que j'ai entendu cet après-midi m'amène à poser plusieurs questions. Ces questions s'adressent à la Commission européenne puisque finalement c'est elle qui a le monopole de l'initiative législative. Vous avez cité au nom de la Commission européenne des chiffres sur ce que vous pensez être des pertes économiques dans l'hypothèse où la directive ne serait pas adoptée.
Et donc il y a des chiffres très importants, on parle de millions, de milliards d'euros. Je voudrais savoir quelle est cette méthode et quelles sont les sources qui vous permettent d'affirmer qu'il y aurait de telles pertes économiques si on n'adopte pas la directive horizontale sur la non-discrimination.
Deuxièmement, est-ce que la Commission européenne peut nous garantir que ce texte ne va pas être une fois de plus le cheval de Troie de certaines idéologies ? Je pense bien évidemment à l'idéologie wokiste, on le reconnaît d'ailleurs dans le vocabulaire de certains intervenants qui parlent de lutte intersectionnelle ou de discrimination intersectionnelle, c'est un quand même un langage bien typé. Mais je pense aussi à quelque chose de plus grave qui s'est produit la semaine dernière avec la présence d'une organisation proche des Frères musulmans et considérée comme islamiste par le gouvernement français et qui a eu droit de cité dans ce Parlement et qui est visiblement bien introduite à la Commission européenne. Et ma troisième et dernière question, est-ce que ce texte ne sera pas le cheval de Troie pour des ONG qui trouveront bien des justifications afin de se voir confier un rôle de conseil, de consultant ou de militant grassement payé par les fonds publics et par les contribuables européens ? Merci beaucoup.
Ana Carla PEREIRA
Thank you, honorable member. On the study, the study I've mentioned is an OECD study.
I will not be able here to give you the details of the methodology, but just one precision, the figures I mentioned are related to the acts of discrimination and the losses we have in relation to the economic losses we have due to discrimination and not strictly linked with the directive as such. The second point I would like to mention that discrimination is a value that is enshrined in our treaties. We are all part of the Union. These are the values that we all abide to through the treaties. Calling it a idéologie wokiste, it's a matter of interpretation.
For us, the treaties hold significant major value. And finally on the NGO, on the civil society, let me remind that the transposition of a directive is then the responsibility of the member states when a directive becomes EU acquis. And the construct of the implementation of the legal acquis through a directive is then of course decided by the member states. And the directive as such does not foresee a specific role to NGOs in its implementation. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Madame Pereira. Now for the group of the Greens, Mrs. Langensiepen. Floor is yours.
Katrin Langensiepen
Yeah, thank you, I will speak in German. Herzlichen Dank an alle, die vorgetragen haben und sich auch weiterhin so stark machen für Menschenrechte. Und ich sage mal, Menschenrechte sind nicht irgendein woke Blödsinn, wie es immer uns vermittelt wird, sondern Menschen mit unterschiedlichen Hintergründen und Biografien sind Wählerinnen und Wähler, Steuerzahlerinnen, Kundinnen, Verbraucherinnen und machen einen relevanten Teil aus. Wenn wir allein auf die Gruppe von Menschen mit Behinderung schauen, reden wir über zwischen 90 bis 100 Millionen Menschen mit Behinderung, und die sollte man nicht einfach so über die Wupper gehen lassen aus Grund von ideologischen Gründen. Herzlichen Dank für Ihre Vorträge.
Wichtige Fragen und Statements wurden schon gebracht. Wie viel kostet uns eigentlich der Spaß, wenn wir weiterhin an diskriminierenden Strukturen festhalten? Und hier komme ich konkret zur Frage an die Kommission und den Rat. Was werden Sie tun, dass eben keine EU-Mittel mehr — wir befinden uns jetzt in den Verhandlungen oder kommenden Verhandlungen zum MFF, also der siebenjährige Haushalt, der verhandelt wird — wie gehen wir da mit dem Thema Teilhabe und Inklusion um, dass eben nicht mehr EU-Mittel in Einrichtungen fließen, in Segregation fließen, in den Bau von Barrieren?
Dass es selbstverständlich ist, und da brauchen wir hier nur in Brüssel vor die Parlamentstür zu gehen und zu schauen, dass die Bars und Restaurants eben für viele, aber nicht für alle zugänglich ist. Was werden Kommission und Rat tun bzw. sich einsetzen, um zu schauen, wohin die Gelder fließen und dass wir klar, was das Parlament gesagt hat und gefordert hat und auch Menschenrechtsorganisationen wie EDF da sehr klar ist, Stop Funding Segregation und Barrieren. Gibt es hier einen klaren Fahrplan, weil machen wir uns nichts vor, die fünfte Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinie ist im Programm der Kommission. Welcome back, aber so schnell wird sich ja in der Sache nichts ändern, weil da auch die Bundesrepublik Deutschland nicht der Frontrunner sein wird. Daher, wenn wir um Gelder und Haushalt sprechen, wie sieht da der Fahrplan aus?
Herzlichen Dank.
Ana Carla PEREIRA
Yes, thank you, honorable member. Well, as you are very well aware, the Commission proposal to the next multiannual financial framework is on the table of the co-legislators, including the Parliament. So this is a triangular discussion that needs to take place.
In the Commission proposal, I would like to refer to a couple of elements that I believe reply or address some of your concerns. The first one is related to the conditionality that the Commission proposes in relation to rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights that is would be embedded in the way the national and regional partnership plans would be established. And let us remind that one of the principles of the Charter is that the international conventions to which all member states are party to would need to be respected. And that would include the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The second point is that in our proposal, there is a clear reference to the principle of non-discrimination and the importance of of abiding to that principle as we as the member states use use the fund and the funds.
And finally I would like to mention accessibility because accessibility is referred not only in the financial regulation but also in the performance the proposal of the commission for the performance regulation and in the proposal of the for the national and regional partnership plans as a condition across across cutting element for all investments to be done. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you Mrs. Perina. I think we don't have any speaker left. If there is any member wishing to take the floor? Yes Madame Sorel.
Malika Sorel
Merci Monsieur le Président. J'ai une question de de fond en particulier à la Commission mais ça peut concerner également nos nos amis irlandais. Pourquoi est-ce qu'on mélange tout dans le l'approche ? Par exemple Madame Langensiepen vient de parler du handicap. Pour moi ça devrait être traité différemment.
C'est inacceptable que dans nos pays il y ait encore des problèmes d'accès que ça devrait être logique. Quelqu'un qui a un handicap physique ne l'a pas choisi. Donc on doit tout faire pour qu'il y ait une mise en œuvre de tout ce qu'on peut mettre en place pour éviter que le handicap les affecte dans leur vie courante. Par contre il y a d'autres dimensions que je vais aborder. La religion.
Donc ils ont le droit de choisir, mais je n'ai pas moi à subir les conséquences. Par exemple, je donne un exemple, le grand philosophe John Locke, l'Anglais, disait que il disait que pour permettre la fraternité et le fait que les personnes vivent ensemble, il fallait tout faire pour éviter que les religions s'affichent dans l'espace public parce qu'il disait ça créait des difficultés et même des personnes qui essaieraient de s'identifier au travers de signes religieux auraient tendance à traiter différemment ceux qui n'ont pas la même religion. Et je rappelle que John Locke a produit ses études suite aux guerres de religion entre protestants et catholiques en Europe. Et il voulait justement que les catholiques et les protestants puissent vivre ensemble. Donc je répète ma question : pourquoi est-ce que dans la directive on mélange tout ?
La religion les gens choisissent la religion.
D'un côté on a des difficultés, les gens ne choisissent pas d'être handicapés physiques. Par contre les religions ils choisissent. Les autres, au nom de la liberté des uns qui doit s'arrêter là où commence celle des autres, ne doivent pas subir les conséquences dans les manières de s'habiller ou toutes les pratiques religieuses. Je vous remercie.
Javier Zarzalejos
Merci Madame Sorrel. I understand that you address your comments to the Commission again. Ms. Beira.
Ana Carla PEREIRA
Yes, thank you Chair and thank you honorable member.
Of course, the grounds of discrimination are very well listed in the in our treaties, and they are all there explicit and treated in the same manner. So the we should not also start to make an a hierarchy of what what is relevant or not relevant. I should say that the acquis on equality is not something that has been is is just related to the equal treatment directive and the proposal. We have a history. There are, as I mentioned earlier, two directives that have 25 years.
We have the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive. These directives cover already a number of of areas. We have specific acquis, for example, when it comes to accessibility, because we have the European Accessibility Act. We have a whole plethora of directives when it comes to gender, gender equality directives. The proposal for the Equal Treatment Directive is actually to fill the gaps of what the current acquis is not covering.
So that has been the logic, and we believe that all the grounds and all the issues that are covered in the Commission proposal would help indeed provide an overall protection for all the grounds that are listed in the treaty. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Any other member wishing to take the floor? Okay, if that is not the case, I invite our speakers, if they want to do so, to make some brief concluding remarks. Anyone? Well, if that is not the case, then we conclude this first panel. We thank our speakers for their contributions and we welcome the next panel to complete the hearing schedule for today's session.
Thank you, Ms. Pereira.
Thank you.
Well, we proceed on to our next panel, the second panel of this hearing. Some already familiar faces in the LIBE Committee. So I'm pleased to welcome again Dr. Henri Nickels, the Head of Institutional Relations and Policy of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. Also Mrs. Els Keytsman-Deron, but this time in her role as representative co-director of Unia, the Belgium equality body. Mrs. Catherine Naughton, Director of the European Disability Forum.
And also a familiar face, Belinda Dear, Senior Advocacy Officer of ILGA-Europe, who will be participating remotely. This second panel will be held under the title of Shaping the Future of EU Equality and Anti-Discrimination Framework: Further Developments and Renewed Political Commitment. So the format will be the same as we had in the previous panel.
So, each of you will have five minutes for your initial presentations. I would appreciate it very much if you could stick to the time allocated. And first, I give the floor to Dr. Henri Nickels for his presentation. Welcome back, Dr. Nickels, the floor is yours.
Henri Nickels
Thank you, Chair, honorable members, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Since the previous panel focused on implementation and gaps in existing legislation, I would like to take a step back and reflect on what the evidence tells us about equality in practice after more than two decades of EU legislation in this field and where we could go from here. So, one thing stands out, maybe. Across different groups and different areas of life, discrimination remains a reality for many in the European Union. The groups affected, the forms of discrimination, and the areas of life concerned vary from one country to another.
But the overall picture is consistent. Legal protection matters, yet many people still face unequal treatment in their daily lives. A second observation is that people's experiences are often shaped by several factors at the same time.
People do not experience their lives through separate legal categories. Factors such as ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, and migration background often overlap. And evidence collected by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights suggests that people facing several forms of discrimination often face greater barriers to participation and inclusion. A third observation concerns visibility. A large proportion of discrimination never enters official statistics.
Many people who experience discrimination do not report it. Some believe that nothing will change if they report it. Others simply do not know where to turn or lack the confidence in the available mechanisms or find it difficult to prove what happened. As a result, the complaint statistics tell only part of the story. And this shows why good evidence matters.
If we want to understand where inequalities persist, which groups are most affected, and whether policies are making a difference, we need reliable evidence, and even where laws make differences. So we have surveys, administrative records, complaints data, and other forms of equality data all help provide a fuller picture. Without such evidence, it is difficult to see where progress is being made and where problems remain.
Evidence is also important because it helps move discussions beyond individual cases. It allows law and policymakers to identify broader trends, compare experiences across countries and population groups, and better understand where barriers to equal treatment continue to exist. It also helps to assess whether measures introduced at EU or national level are producing the intended results. A fourth observation concerns digitalization. We heard about it already.
Many decisions that affect people's opportunities and access to services now involve digital technologies. Automated systems increasingly play a role in areas such as recruitment, access to public services, online platforms, policing, and social support systems. The basic principles of equal treatment remain the same. However, the evidence shows that automated systems can repeat or strengthen existing inequalities if they are based on biased data or if appropriate safeguards are missing. This makes it increasingly important to understand how these systems work, to monitor their effects, and to identify possible discriminatory outcomes.
Finally, the evidence points to the fact that discrimination is rarely limited to one area of life. The available data consistently show links between experiences of discrimination and outcomes in areas such as employment, education, housing, health, and access to services. Equality is not only about individual complaints or individual sectors. It is also about whether people can participate fully in society, the economy, and public life on equal terms. From this perspective, and to conclude, discussions about the future of the EU equality framework are part of a wider discussion about how equality is experienced in practice.
Questions related to effective protection, equal participation, reliable evidence, digital technologies, and the experiences of people facing multiple disadvantages are likely to remain important in the years ahead. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Dr. Nickels. We have had a couple of speakers in this round. And now I give the floor to Mrs. Els Keytsman-Daron from Unia, Belgium. Welcome back, Mrs.
Els Keytsman De Ronne
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the invitation to the second panel as well.
I speak now on behalf of Unia, which is the Belgian inter-federal equality body. Every year, thousands of people contact us because they experience discrimination in their daily lives. We received more than 8,000 reports last year and we opened more than 2,000 case files. Employment and goods and services remain the domains generating the largest number of discrimination files, and the most frequently reported grounds are the so-called racial criteria and the disability criterion. What we learn from these people who seek help from Unia is very simple.
People do not experience discrimination in legal categories. They experience it in real life, when applying for a job, when renting a home, when applying for a loan, when wanting an insurance, when trying to use a public transport. Yet, across the EU, the protection available to victims still depends on the discrimination ground involved and the area of life concerned, and from the victim's perspective, this is difficult to understand and difficult to justify. We talked about this already in the first panel.
Maybe Belgium can offer an interesting example. Our legislation already goes significantly beyond EU minimum standards, and Unia can work across almost all areas of society and on a much broader range of protected grounds than required by EU law. The Belgian experience shows that broader protection is both feasible and workable. It also demonstrates that stronger equality legislation does not create legal uncertainty, it creates legal clarity. At the same time, a European framework remains necessary.
It would provide more equal protection across the Union and allow individuals, citizens, Unia, and courts to rely more extensively on EU law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. The Belgian experience also shows the importance of strong equality bodies. Unia has a broad mandate, has a long-standing expertise, and Belgium has a solid legal framework. At the same time, our mandate and our resources have come under increasing pressure in the recent decade, and the field of equalities in Belgium is sophisticated. That is why the equality bodies directives adopted in 2024 are so important.
They establish common standards on independence, resources and powers for equality bodies across Europe. The directive also provides for stronger mandates for equality bodies and Unia will also see its mandates become even stronger and some gaps will be filled when the directive will be implemented. Rights are only meaningful when institutions have the capacity to enforce them. Where we always will look first for alternative dispute resolution, one of the ways equality bodies make rights effective is through strategic litigation. In practice, this means taking on carefully chosen cases that can make a difference not only for the people involved, but also for the others facing similar discrimination.
A large-scale study by the Université catholique de Louvain covering 11 years of Belgian case law in anti-discrimination in the field of employment found that victims assisted by Unia were successful in more than 70% of the cases compared with only 36% when victims litigated on their own. This does not make success automatic. It highlights the value of specialized expertise, evidence strategies and legal support.
And strategic litigation is not only about individual cases. It is about removing structural barriers and creating change. Our work on disability discrimination provides concrete examples. In 2023, four wheelchair users supported by Unia obtained a landmark judgment against De Lijn, a public transport bus company. The court found discriminatory treatment linked to accessibility failures and rejected the argument that the required accommodations constituted a disproportionate burden.
And more recently, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that the refusal to provide the assistant needed for a wheelchair user and Paralympic athlete, Francis Rombouts, to board the train constituted discrimination. The judgment confirmed that accessibility and reasonable accommodation are not optional policy objectives, but enforceable rights. But these cases are not really about a bus or the train. They are about access to work, education, healthcare, sport, and independent living. They show why protection outside employment matters in practice.
After many years of discussion, the question is no longer whether gaps exist in the framework. Equal treatment should not depend on who you are, where you live or which ground of discrimination is involved. That is a promise of equality. The task before us is to make that promise a reality. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. And I give the floor to Mrs. Catherine Naughton from the European Disability Forum. Mrs. Naughton, the floor is yours.
Catherine Naughton
Thank you very much. Thank you very much also for hosting this hearing, also at the beginning of the Irish presidency. The European Disability Forum is an umbrella organisation representing persons with disabilities in Europe. And in 2007, we collected over a million signatures in our campaign for equal treatment legislation. And nearly 20 years later, actually, I remember one of the first things when I joined EDF 11 years ago, I was told this very exciting because the presidency are really ramping up the campaign to get the equal treatment directive adopted.
And that was 11 years ago.
And so when I was preparing today for this speech, I was preparing many of the same speaking points at the time. And I'm not going to repeat them all because we've heard already this incoherence in protection. It makes no sense whatsoever to protect on some grounds and not others. This is it just makes no sense. It's not it's not supportable by logic, by morals, by we've heard all the social arguments, all the economic arguments.
So we've also even better reasons now for implementing the legislation. As we've heard, we have the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratified by the EU and every single member state. So where disability is being used as an excuse here for not implementing, these member states have already fully committed to an extensive human rights convention which guarantees all these rights. So this is also something that cannot really be used as an excuse anymore. Every day, so this was 11 years then we had the the publication of the directive in 2008.
So children denied access to school, to crèches, to other kinds of children's activities only on the basis of disability. We remember during COVID-19 when the pandemic broke out, we had members calling us saying, we don't know what to do because our government is announcing that people with disabilities and health conditions shouldn't be prioritized in treatment in healthcare. My hairs are standing up on end. There's literally directives sent out saying that people with disabilities and health conditions shouldn't be prioritized in access to healthcare during this pandemic. We don't have protection against discrimination in healthcare.
And in the last year, we still have all the complaints from each member state.
This is also something that we can't defend. With a European Union that's now focused on preparedness, for competitiveness we have the same thing. Competitiveness is an even greater reason to remove barriers that people experience in education, in transport, in housing, to enable them to be fully active in the labor market. We have housing that's inaccessible. I had a woman tell me recently that she couldn't put her child on her health insurance because her child was diagnosed.
She said, I should have got my health insurance fully arranged first, now that she has a disability I can't put her on my health insurance. Another man who told me recently that he had to pay extra to sign his will because he had to sign his will with his mouth, he was supposed to sign it with his hand, he had to pay somebody else. So this was also acceptable, this was, these are real people who I've been speaking to.
And then another couple who couldn't book into their hotel because they arrived with an assistance animal. The animal, pets are not allowed. And then the taxi wouldn't take them away because pets were not allowed in the taxi. So I think the evidence that was presented all along the hearing today and what we hear from Europeans, we see that we can't continue this incoherence. But a last thing I wanted to say is that we also have three member states who are objecting, so Czechia, Italy and Germany.
And maybe it would be interesting also if we want to change the dynamics of the discussion to have a debate more publicly with the member states that are, that are blocking or even with industry. Because we're all sitting, we have a hearing today of people who really believe in the directive and see all the reasons for doing it. So maybe it, we can do some more creative things to have the conversation with those who are not, let's say, on the same page. And I look forward to your questions and I really look forward to cooperation with the, with the Parliament and also with the Irish presidency and with the Commission to try to get the directive over the line.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, thank you Mrs. Norton. And now our first speaker is Belinda Dear, ILGA Europe. Belinda Dear, welcome back to the LIBE committee.
Belinda Dear
Yes, I can, thank you. Great. Happy to be back. For those of you who were not there earlier in the day, I work at ILGA-Europe, so we're an LGBTI not-for-profit organization, civil society organization, and we have 700 members across Europe and Central Asia. And we've also been working for a long time, as as Catherine has already mentioned, on promoting the drafting and adoption of this directive.
We are in the supporting camp from the LGBTI perspective because of course it would address an important shortcoming for the EU's equality framework, extending protection beyond employment to cover the grounds of religion, belief, disability, age, and sexual orientation. National legislation still varies a lot, although of course there has been some improvement from member state to another.
It's still a patchwork, and so it's still important to adopt this legislation. For as an example, there's still seven EU countries that don't protect against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the area of goods and services. And there are still four who don't protect in the area of education on the grounds of sexual orientation, and eight in the area of health on the grounds of sexual orientation. So, for example, you can have situations in which a gay couple can be rejected from staying in a hotel or being in a bar as there is no legal protection. And for gender identity, which would not be directly covered by the directive, but rather through the ground of sex and also relying on existing and new CJEU case law, the picture is worse.
So there's even less legislation protecting trans people from discrimination. And as we know, last year the Commission tried to or threatened to withdraw the proposal due to the lack of agreement in the Council. We know that the work needs to be done at high level with the three reluctant member states, but in particular with Germany.
And actually, I think Catherine's ideas for improving the debate and trying to move forward in these fora are really, really good, and I support those ideas. One thing we do want to press is that the Commission needs to, if the Commission at some point would withdraw the directive, they cannot do it without some kind of a plan B, especially in this political context where we know that incitement to hatred and violence and discrimination is on the rise, experiences of discrimination are on the rise, and this is clearly documented. So there should be at least some kind of plan B to have EU action against this phenomena. And then one final thing I'd like to say in terms of evidence of discrimination and the needs for this, I've quoted the lack of protection in legislation and the uneven protection from the perspective of LGBTI people in the EU.
But we've seen also, and this covers all grounds, that in many, many EU surveys, in particular FRA surveys, that reporting rates when it comes to violence and discrimination are extremely low due to distrust in institutions. So that's our role as civil society is to bring the anecdotal evidence as well, the evidence of, okay, the official statistics will be just the surface of what's actually happening out there. And so we can bring this to you to help improve the policy making and hopefully push this directive forward. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you. And now we start the round of political groups. I will start by EPP, Mrs. Walsh again.
Maria Walsh
Thank you, Chair, and thank you all. You know, I'm conscious, as Catherine had shared, it's not this room, well, not all this room, well, I think they're gone actually, the majority of this room is on your side of all experts as you've shared, and ultimately the lived experience that is not currently in this room. It's those that we need to convince outside. And I'll link back to my previous question for the panel.
We both know as a shadow rapporteur and I know Alice Kuhnke is is still online as our as our rapporteur many directives member state national legislation have moved on from this specific horizontal directive. And I'm often at loss as to do we just park this and figure out a way to balance out the legislation that is sadly still missing or do we continue to push on. Now I personally would prefer the latter because 17 years we're not quite there yet but I think giving up on it considering we've met with the President of the Commission in this mandate not last in this mandate and the commitment was given not to take it off the table. And as Catherine pointed out there's three member states that how do we ultimately continue to educate and show the competitiveness advantage continue to push the data and as Belinda shared the anecdotal evidence or as I call it the lived experience. But ultimately to all panelists here no specific question but to all panelists what is it that we that you fundamentally believe we need to do in order to push this on.
Because Alice and many of our rapporteurs are shadow rapporteurs are at wits' end to figure out a way how to educate people both within this institution and others and citizens who this directive won't impact but ultimately impacts their community.
And it's often the ones that we don't see that it impacts even more. So it's more of an open-ended question because I don't want to have another hearing with your expertise online and in person and then turn around to citizens in 2029 and say we still have fallen short. And I say that as an Irish MEP in the Council's presidency and how we can just push this forward. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Well, there's a general question addressed to the panel. Who would like to take it?
Els Keytsman De Ronne
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the question. It's an important question. It's a good question, but I don't really have the answer. I can only speak about my Belgian experience.
And there our experience is that a combination of informing what is discrimination, what is the impact of discrimination, and telling the individual stories, such as Catherine did, real stories of real people who are discriminated against and what it means, and that combined to studies who show indeed the economic cost of discrimination and not striving for equality and not giving equal opportunities to everyone should help. But I think it was a very good proposal to ask the countries in question what is it that you cannot approve this directive, which is so long tabled for many, many years and asked for and yes, proven by a lot of studies and experience and expertise that it's really needed. That's my small suggestion. Thank you.
Belinda Dear
And I'm aware that I'm a newbie in the group who've been working on this on this directive, but from the limited experience I have had, it seems to be very much a German conversation that needs to be had. I'm sure we'd all be happy to present our data and our findings in any kind of event that targets the high-level decision makers in Germany that would be the ones that we would need to to convince. And again, as as mentioned by Catherine, having industry in in that conversation as well.
We know, frankly, that if Germany were to remove its general reservation, there is a high chance unanimity would be reached. So that's my frank answer. Thank you for the question.
Catherine Naughton
Thank you very much, Maria, for the question. I was afraid to answer because I think after so many years, we think that we've tried everything, but probably some creativity is needed when it stays on the table. So the idea of raising the conversation specifically with the countries that have the most reservations on it and have an open debate. I'm not sure that all the citizens in those countries know that their country is blocking the equal treatment legislation. I don't know if that's, you know, public.
I don't know if there's more conversations at the level of the German leadership that would be, you know, possible to advance things, or if more new conversations with the industry that allegedly block. I don't know if that's even completely true, because like people said at the beginning, we're not really sure why it hasn't advanced after all this time. So maybe creative, public, democratic conversations might at least reveal if there is any possibility at all to have it adopted.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for organizing this panel, but I need to tell you that I'm a bit frustrated, because Kathleen, you said about your history with the directive, the proposal of the directive. I was here in 2008, and I really remember the 2nd of July 2008, when the directive was born. I was a young lawyer then who joined Equinet, European Network of Equality Bodies, and I remember this explosion of happiness among civil society when the proposal was presented to the world. And here we are, almost 20 years ago, and we are still discussing this piece of legislation. So that really shows that we need to move forward after 20 years of discussions.
And not having this directive means that millions of Europeans are still not fully protected against discrimination in different spheres: housing, access to goods and services, education, social care, and many other areas. So as S&D shadow rapporteur, a new role in my life, I feel that we need to go away from legislative discussions, because we need to focus on political discussions. I mean, everyone did its job.
I mean, the European Commission proposed the directive, European Parliament many many years ago presented its report. That was the famous report of Kathalijne Buitenweg from Greens many many years ago. And now we are waiting for the Council. So I would like to ask two questions. One to Belinda from ILGA-Europe: what do you think, what are the real-life consequences of this legislation gap for LGBTI community and what will, sorry, what will it take to finally secure agreement on this directive?
And one question to FRA: based on the agency's evidence and comparative analysis across the Member States, what are the most significant protection gaps that would remain if horizontal equal treatment directive is not adopted and which groups continue to be most affected? Thank you so much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Smiszek. So the first question to Belinda Dear and then Dr. Nickels. Belinda Dear.
Belinda Dear
Hi, thank you for the question.
So in terms of real-life consequences, in the areas, yeah, in the areas outside of work, I would say in particular access to housing, access to healthcare, goods and services. In some countries in the EU, LGBTI people can still be discriminated against without the recourse to the specific aggravated grounds under the legislation. So this is obviously not justice. And the second point is that a lack of legislation also gives the wrong signal, not only to perpetrators of discrimination, but also for people who want to report. So I think in general it just increases the instances of discrimination and injustice.
And then I've already, I think I already in the previous question answered what I think is needed to move forward with this. Thank you.
Henri Nickels
Thank you, honorable member, also for the question. I mean, indeed, the gaps, I mean, very many gaps would remain and are still there. I mean, we heard from the disability aspect, we heard on LGBTI equality, we heard about religion, and also we heard about age. I mean, there is a UN convention on disability, there is no UN convention on the other ones. So the gaps are there and they will continue to be there.
So there is also the idea that there should not be a hierarchy of grounds. So the gaps will be there for all of those who are simply not covered by the legislation, quite simply.
In a way, it's a simple equation in some ways. So, and also I think what is not only are there gaps in protection, but there's also maybe a real gap in knowledge. For example, the examples that Catherine gave with respect to persons with disabilities, how many people are aware of that, really? Many people won't, unless you have friends and family and relatives who are in that situation, it will remain abstract. So I think there's also a gap in knowledge that maybe needs to be addressed, raising more awareness of the lived experience of discrimination, what this actually means for people, and having those examples to make it less abstract.
Because 23% of people experience discrimination is an abstract number, but the concrete example, I was not able to take the bus because of this and the other, is something very concrete that people can relate to. So the legislative gap is quite clear, so for areas that are not covered, and the knowledge gap I think maybe needs to go deeper to give a better sense of what it actually means in reality and in daily life. Thanks.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. And now I'll give the floor to Mr. Marquardt for the Greens. Mr. Marquardt.
Erik Marquardt
Ah yes, thanks a lot. I was not planning for posing questions. I was just listening. But yeah, on the statement or question of Maria Walsh, I wanted to say that maybe after so many years it's also important to think about how to think outside the box because for example in Germany I know that it's stuck also because of the positioning of several German governments. I think to make it a topic in for example the German parliament who is able to influence the positioning of the government in the council, so there are certain routes for like how to change the positioning in the council also with a decision of the German parliament could be also an idea of making new grounds for campaigning for example on a national level in Italy, in Germany.
So I think that's good. And secondly I wanted to thank you for your contributions. It was pretty interesting and keep the fight going.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. I understand there's no specific question. So Madame Sorel.
Malika Sorel
Alors tout le monde dit depuis 20 ans cette directive n'avance pas et je rejoins ce que mon collègue vient de dire, il est temps de changer de manière d'aborder les choses.
Et je vais vous dire ce que disait Albert Einstein, on ne résout pas un problème avec le système de pensée qui l'a engendré. Donc s'il n'y a pas d'interrogation, ça ne fonctionne pas pourquoi ? On nous dit l'Allemagne, la Tchéquie, l'Italie s'opposent. On ne sait pas pourquoi, sur quel point. Comme je l'ai dit précédemment, tout est mélangé.
Et sincèrement, j'étais très étonnée, je me suis dit est-ce que je dois rire ou pleurer quand l'intervenante Belinda Quita à distance, dans la même phrase, elle place religion et LGBT. Non mais la plupart des religions sont opposées aux LGBT. Donc vous comprenez que si vous mélangez tout dans la même approche, vous ne risquez pas d'obtenir des résultats. Autre chose, il faudrait peut-être quand on dit que faire ? Peut-être que si on était franc, qu'on disait les choses aux gens, par exemple dans la discrimination sur le logement.
ose aux gens par exemple dans le discrimination sur le logement de dire aux gens voilà il y a des règles il faut pas faire de bruit à partir d'un certain temps il faut respecter il faut que les voisins il faut se comporter de telle manière parce qu'on n'a pas forcément les mêmes enfin façons de vivre peut-être qu'on permettrait aux gens de prendre conscience et puis d'avoir une meilleure cohabitation et les propriétaires accepteraient ensuite de plus facilement louer donc je le redis tant qu'on ne dira pas les choses qu'on restera dans certaines formes d'hypocrisie on ne va pas avancer merci
Javier Zarzalejos
I've already asked the members of the panel to react if they wish to do so I can't force them to to react yeah Ah yes we have Belinda Dear ready to react Madame Sorel Madame Sorel let's let's let's allow Belinda Dear to react to you Thank you for stepping in
Belinda Dear
Yeah sure I just wanted to make a clarification there for LGBTI people when it comes to discrimination in access to housing it's usually related to our external appearance or our partnerships
So if I'm going with my partner, who is a woman, to rent an apartment or to view an apartment to buy, you can often tell that the attitude or by certain comments, discriminatory comments, you know, and you don't receive a yes. You can never prove it, but it's there. And sometimes you can prove it, and when you can prove it, then it's useful to have legislation that you can resort to, right? Because that is a deterrent factor to discrimination. And it's very well known, it's access to housing.
We're not talking about how people are behaving within a building. It's access, often access to work, access to housing, access to healthcare and so on, and how you are treated in that access. Thank you.
Birgit Sippel
Vielen Dank, ich werde auf Deutsch reden. Nachdem wir seit elf Jahren auf diese Richtlinie warten, ich sollte mich dran gewöhnt haben, was man in diesem Hause zu hören bekommt, aber ich bin dennoch immer wieder schockiert, wie man mit Begriffen von Diskriminierung oder Nichtdiskriminierung umgehen kann. Alle Menschen sind gleich an Rechten. Das ist nicht nur ein europäisches Prinzip, das haben wir auch in vielen nationalen Verfassungen niedergeschrieben.
Und es spielt überhaupt keine Rolle, ob ich diskriminiert werde, weil ich eine Behinderung habe, weil ich einer bestimmten Religion angehöre, eine Brille trage oder nicht, ob ich homo- oder heterosexuell bin, jede Form von Diskriminierung ist verboten, weil alle Menschen gleich an Rechten sind. Und ich finde es fast schon abstoßend, wenn gesagt wird, na ja, Behinderung, die sucht man sich ja nicht aus, da darf man nicht diskriminiert werden, sie werden trotzdem diskriminiert, aber die Religion kann man sich ja aussuchen, das ist was ganz anderes. Sorry, ich habe mir als Kind und Jugendliche meine Religion nicht ausgesucht. Ich bin in Deutschland aufgewachsen, um mich herum waren nur Christen, wir waren alle nicht gläubig, aber die Kinder bekamen Geschenke, also gehörte ich natürlich einer christlichen Kirche an. Wäre ich in Marokko aufgewachsen, wäre ich wahrscheinlich Muslimin.
Wäre ich in irgendeinem anderen Land aufgewachsen, wäre ich womöglich Buddhistin. Und es sollte auch nicht so sein, dass ich überlegen muss, meine Religion zu verändern, nur um nicht diskriminiert zu werden. Was ist das für ein Verständnis von gleichen Rechten für alle? Und ich habe diesen Punkt noch mal aufgegriffen, weil ich glaube, man muss deutlich machen, dass gerade diese Rückwärtsentwicklung oder fürchterliche Entwicklung dazu führt, diese Richtlinie endlich umzusetzen.
Und was die Länder angeht, die gerade heftig dagegen sind, und es tut mir leid, dass mein Land, das ich am besten kenne, auch dazu gehört. Wir haben vorhin Zahlen gehört, was die Wirtschaft angeht, und ich fürchte, dass es in einigen Mitgliedstaaten immer noch einige Akteure gibt, die Diskriminierung ganz toll finden, weil man damit nämlich Menschen ausbeuten kann, gerade auch wirtschaftlich. Wenn ich Menschen Zugang zu Bildung und Ausbildung verweigere, wenn ich ihnen Zugang zu guter Wohnung verweigere, wenn ich ihnen den Zugang zu guten Jobs verweigere, dann kann ich Druck auf sie ausüben, bitte für sehr wenig Geld und für wenig Absicherung zu arbeiten. Ich find's ganz fürchterlich. Ich habe keine direkte Frage, aber ich möchte alle ermutigen, wirklich intensiv daran zu arbeiten, dass wir politisch, aber auch mit der Gesetzgebung ein klares Signal setzen, dass kein Mensch aufgrund welchen Merkmales auch immer diskriminiert werden darf.
Und das ist, glaube ich, alle Anstrengung wert, auch nach elf Jahren darin noch mal Zeit zu investieren. Vielen Dank, dass ich das noch mal sagen durfte.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Sippel, for your intervention. A question and a statement.
I wonder if there will be any follow-up comment from you. Not even Belinda Deheer. Okay, then we really thank our speakers for this, I would say, quite deep and thoughtful and to some extent frustrating, yes, debate, as you said, but necessary debate on the anti-discrimination framework and the ways ahead. Thank you for your contribution. It's great to have you here.
We are running quite ahead of schedule, so we will have Commissioner Brundt at 16:15, so we can take a break until that. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.