B Explanatory memorandum
by Ms Tuula Haatainen, rapporteurNote
1 Introduction
1. Equality is a cornerstone of
democracy and one of its most sensitive barometers. Gender equality exemplifies
this. When women's rights are eroded, it should serve as a clear
warning. The achievement of equality is a powerful indicator of
societal well-being and, perhaps, the strongest measure of a healthy
society and the genuine implementation of the rule of law.
2. National equality bodies play a central role in promoting
and safeguarding equality and non-discrimination across Europe and
beyond. Their structure, mandate, and relationship with parliaments
vary significantly from country to country.
3. The aim of this report is to analyse the functioning of equality
bodies in Council of Europe member States and the way in which they
co-operate with national parliaments, with a view to identifying
best practices and ways to enhance such co-operation across Europe.
4. The preparation of this report has entailed several activities.
A questionnaire was circulated through the European Centre for Parliamentary
Research and Documentation (ECPRD), and hearings were held with
the participation of experts, including a representative of the
Norwegian equality body. I carried out a fact-finding visit to Hungary,
for which I am grateful to the Hungarian delegation and to my colleague
Ms Zita Gurmai also a member of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.
I also met bilaterally with a civil servant from the Dutch equality
body. Furthermore, I will share the findings of conversations that
took place with the Finnish Ombudsman and members of his staff.
5. In addition, I had the opportunity to participate in two of
the seminars with equality bodies that the European Commission against
Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) organises annually in Strasbourg.
6. This report covers equality across the board and protection
from discrimination based on any prohibited ground. I will focus
particularly on gender equality, a principle that should consistently
be among the highest priorities of legislators and policymakers,
and a good indicator of the proper functioning of equality systems, and
of society as a whole.
2 Information collected thanks to the
ECPRD questionnaire
7. The questionnaire distributed
to national parliaments via the ECPRD sought to map the regulatory frameworks
and practical arrangements governing the co-operation between equality
bodies and national parliaments across Europe, inviting the latter
to share information on their respective legal provisions, institutional
mechanisms, and day-to-day practices in this area.
8. The primary objective of this exercise was to collect comprehensive
and comparable data from a wide range of European countries, thereby
facilitating a cross-national analysis of the way parliaments engage
with equality bodies and how their engagement is structured, or
not, by law and tradition.
9. The questionnaire addressed several key aspects of parliamentary-equality
body co-operation. Firstly, it inquired about the existence and
nature of national equality bodies within each country’s legal system,
as well as formal mechanisms or legal frameworks governing the co-operation
between these bodies and parliament. Where such frameworks exist,
respondents were asked to describe them and, where applicable, to
provide references to relevant legislation. In cases where co-operation
occurs on an informal basis, the questionnaire requested details
on the nature of this co-operation, including which body typically
takes the initiative and whether parliament retains the discretion
to decline requests for collaboration from equality bodies. The questionnaire
also sought to clarify the channels and frequency of interaction,
and whether equality bodies are routinely consulted or have opportunities
to contribute to parliamentary proceedings. Finally, parliaments participating
in the research were asked to indicate the main challenges hindering
co-operation with equality bodies, and to share recommendations
on ways to improve it.
10. The ultimate aim was not merely to catalogue existing arrangements,
but also to identify and highlight good practices. In this context,
good practices are understood as examples of regulations, procedures,
or other measures that enable equality bodies to play a significant
and meaningful role in promoting equality and non-discrimination,
particularly within the legislative process. This may include mechanisms
for keeping equality bodies informed about new legislative initiatives
– such as draft bills – so that they can provide timely and relevant
input. It may also encompass procedures that allow equality bodies
to be proactive, drawing legislators’ attention to topical equality
issues that require intervention or specific consideration. By documenting
and disseminating these good practices, this report seeks to support
parliaments and equality bodies across Europe in strengthening their
collaboration and, ultimately, in advancing the cause of equality and
non-discrimination for all citizens.
3 National
equality bodies: overview
11. The landscape of national equality
bodies across Europe is diverse. While some countries have opted for
a single, centralised body, others have developed dual or multiple
institutions to address the complexity of equality and anti-discrimination
issues. The choice of model often reflects historical, legal and
political contexts, as well as the range of equality challenges
faced by each country.
12. In countries that have established a single, central equality
body, this body has a broad mandate covering multiple grounds of
discrimination. These bodies are typically independent and serve
as the main point of contact for both citizens and parliament on
equality issues.
13. Examples include Czechia, where the Public Defender of Rights
(Ombudsman) is the national equality body, responsible for equal
treatment and anti-discrimination, France (Defender of Rights),
Ireland with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, and
a number of other countries including Hungary, Norway, Poland and
Slovenia.
14. Some countries have two main equality bodies, often with distinct
but complementary mandates. For example, in Austria the Ombud for
Equal Treatment covers general discrimination, and the Austrian
Disability Ombudsperson focuses on disability. In Belgium, the Institute
for Equality between Women and Men addresses gender equality, while
Unia (Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities) covers broader
anti-discrimination grounds.
15. Several countries have established multiple equality bodies,
each with a specific focus or covering different aspects of equality
and anti-discrimination. Notable examples include Georgia, where
the Public Defender (Ombudsman) is the main equality body, but where
there are also parliamentary councils, government commissions and
municipal bodies with equality mandates, Iceland and Spain with
multiple bodies at both national and regional levels (each Spanish
Autonomous Community has its own equality body).
4 Co-operation
between national equality bodies and parliaments
4.1 Formal
mechanisms or legal frameworks
16. Some Council of Europe member
States have formal legal frameworks or mechanisms regulating co-operation
between national equality bodies and their parliaments. In Albania,
for instance, Article 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly
allows parliamentary committees and sub-committees to hold hearings with
executive institutions – including equality bodies – on specific
issues. Hearings can be initiated by committee members, interest
groups, or citizens. If one third of committee members request a
hearing, it must be held. This is a clear example of a formal, regulated
mechanism for co-operation. In the Slovak Republic, the National
Centre for Human Rights is established by law and submits an annual
report to parliament. The National Council’s Committee on Human
Rights and National Minorities regularly co-operates with this equality body.
While day-to-day co-operation is rather informal, there is a formal
mechanism for reporting to parliament.
17. In other countries, co-operation is more informal and not
regulated by a specific legal framework. In France there is no formal
mechanism or legal framework regulating co-operation between the
parliament and national equality bodies. Co-operation is informal
and can be initiated either by the parliament or by the equality body,
depending on the issue at hand. There is no obligation for parliament
to consult equality bodies or accept their requests for co-operation.
The Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits) regularly submits
annual reports to parliament, and these are discussed in relevant
parliamentary committees, but this process is not mandated by a
specific legal provision. Engagement depends on the initiative of
either party.
18. Iceland also has no explicit formal mechanism for co-operation
between the parliament (Althingi) and equality bodies. However,
the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour (which oversees equality
bodies) is accountable to parliament, and there is a legally mandated
four-year gender equality action plan. The action plan, submitted
to parliament, is developed in consultation with the Directorate
of Equality and with input from the Gender Equality Forum, which
includes members of parliament. While not a direct legal framework
for co-operation, this creates a structured, recurring form of engagement.
In Liechtenstein, parliamentary committees or members may consult
the Equal Opportunities Department as needed. In Luxembourg, co-operation
occurs through specialised parliamentary committees, but this is
not regulated by law.
4.2 Good
Practices in co-operation between parliaments and equality bodies
19. Several examples of good practices
in the area of co-operation between parliaments and equality bodies emerge
from the information submitted by national parliaments. Establishing
clear legal frameworks, creating dedicated parliamentary committees,
mandating regular reporting, ensuring diverse representation and maintaining
open channels for both formal and informal co-operation are all
recognised as good practices. These measures collectively enable
equality bodies to play a proactive and influential role in promoting
equality and non-discrimination, especially within the legislative
process. Having a robust legal basis for equality bodies is the
starting point and is essential for effective co-operation and credibility.
It should include provisions for independence, funding and a clear
mandate.
4.2.1 Parliamentary
committees dedicated to equality
20. Creating dedicated parliamentary
committees or working groups ensures sustained attention to equality issues
and facilitates regular interaction with equality bodies. Examples
include Slovak Republic, where the Committee on Human Rights and
National Minorities co-operates directly with the equality body,
or Luxembourg, where the parliament has a Commission on Family,
Solidarity, Living Together and Reception, which focuses on gender
equality.
4.2.2 Regular
reporting and accountability mechanisms
21. Mandating regular reports and
action plans involving both equality bodies and parliament fosters transparency,
accountability and ongoing dialogue. This practice is common (see
paragraphs 16 and 18, the case of the Republic of Slovaquia and
Iceland).
4.2.3 Inclusive
and participatory structures
22. Ensuring diverse representation
in equality bodies and advisory councils strengthens legitimacy,
brings varied perspectives, and enhances the quality of input into
the legislative process. In Albania, the National Council for Gender
Equality includes representatives from government ministries and
civil society, selected through open competition. In Georgia, the
legislative framework ensures minority and civil society participation in
equality policy, as enshrined in the Constitution and supporting
laws. In Iceland, the Gender Equality Council and Forum includes
representatives from parliament, government, academia and non-governmental organisations
(NGOs). In Spain, the Women’s Participation Council is a collegiate,
participatory, consultative and advisory body, ensuring that diverse
voices, including those from civil society, are heard in policy development.
4.2.4 Flexible,
informal co-operation
23. Even in the absence of formal
rules, fostering a culture of open communication and willingness
to consult equality bodies can lead to meaningful co-operation.
As previously mentioned, a number of countries lack formal frameworks
with precise procedures, but parliaments maintain regular informal
contacts, hold committee hearings, or consultations as needed.
4.3 Challenges
in co-operation between parliaments and equality bodies
24. Information on challenges in
co-operation between parliaments and equality bodies also emerges
from the replies to the ECPRD questionnaire. The most common challenges
identified across member States include the lack of formal frameworks,
resource constraints, informal or inconsistent co-operation and
the limited influence of equality bodies on parliamentary decision
making. Addressing these challenges would likely require clearer
legal obligations, increased resources and more structured, transparent
processes for consultation and follow-up.
4.3.1 Limited
or informal co-operation
25. One of the most frequently
reported challenges is that co-operation between parliaments and
equality bodies is often informal, ad hoc, or not regulated by law.
In countries such as Luxembourg, Spain and Liechtenstein, this lack
of formalisation can result in inconsistent engagement and missed
opportunities for expert input. For example, in Spain, there is
no formal mechanism in the Senate for co-operation with the Ministry
for Equality or other equality bodies; engagement depends largely
on the initiative of individual committees or members of parliament.
Similarly, in Luxembourg, while parliamentary committees address equality
issues and may consult with the Centre for Equal Treatment, there
is no codified process, which leads to a lack of systematic dialogue.
Liechtenstein also relies on informal consultations, which, while
sometimes effective, do not guarantee regular or structured input
from equality bodies.
4.3.2 Lack
of legal frameworks
26. Several respondents, including
France, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, highlight the absence of a formal
legal mechanism for co-operation between parliament and equality
bodies. In France, for instance, co-operation is not mandated by
law and is instead based on informal arrangements; the parliament
may even deny requests for engagement from equality bodies. This
situation means there is no obligation for parliaments to consult
equality bodies, and co-operation is left to political will or individual
initiative. As a result, equality bodies in these countries may
struggle to have their voices heard in legislative processes, and
their input can be overlooked or inconsistently sought.
4.3.3 Limited
resources and capacity
27. Resource constraints are a
significant barrier for many equality bodies, as seen in Slovenia
and Georgia. These bodies often operate with insufficient funding
or staff, which hampers their ability to engage proactively with
parliament. In Slovenia, for example, the Advocate of the Principle
of Equality has highlighted the need for more systematic co-operation
mechanisms but faces challenges in preparing timely and comprehensive opinions
or reports due to limited resources. Georgia’s equality bodies also
experience similar difficulties, their limited capacity making it
challenging to follow-up on parliamentary initiatives or legislative
changes, and to provide consistent, high-quality input.
4.3.4 Political
and institutional barriers
28. Political and institutional
barriers can also impede effective co-operation. In some cases,
parliaments or their committees may be reluctant to engage with
equality bodies, particularly on politically sensitive issues. There
can also be limited awareness or understanding among members of
parliament about the role and expertise of equality bodies. For
example, in Albania, even though formal mechanisms for co-operation
exist, practical challenges remain in ensuring regular and meaningful
engagement, especially when political priorities shift or when there
is insufficient buy-in from parliamentary actors.
4.3.5 Fragmentation
and overlap
29. In countries with multiple
equality bodies, such as Spain and Georgia, fragmentation and overlapping mandates
can create confusion about which body should be consulted on particular
issues. In Spain, there are several national and regional bodies
responsible for promoting equality and combating discrimination,
including the Ministry of Equality, the Women’s Institute and various
regional agencies. This multiplicity can lead to fragmented communication
channels with parliament and uncertainty about roles and responsibilities.
Georgia faces similar challenges, with a complex landscape of equality
bodies that sometimes results in overlapping efforts and a lack
of co-ordinated engagement with the legislature.
4.3.6 Lack
of transparency and public awareness
30. Another challenge identified
by some respondents is that the opinions or recommendations of equality bodies
are not always made public or systematically discussed in parliament.
This lack of transparency can reduce accountability and limit the
impact of equality bodies’ work. For instance, in some countries,
reports or recommendations may be submitted to parliament but not
debated or published, making it difficult for the public to assess
the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight or the responsiveness
of legislators to equality concerns.
4.3.7 Limited
impact
31. Finally, even when equality
bodies are able to provide input, their recommendations are not
always taken into account in the legislative process, which limits
their impact on the ground. For example, in Finland, while committees
often consult equality bodies in practice, there is no legal obligation
to do so, and the influence of these bodies on final legislative
outcomes can be uncertain. In Slovenia, despite the existence of
an independent equality body, the lack of systematic mechanisms
for co-operation means that its recommendations may not always be
fully integrated into parliamentary decision making.
5 Equality
policies in Finland
32. As a member of the Finnish
parliament, and a former member of government, I would like to share
some information about equality policies in my own country. While
no system is perfect, the Finnish equality framework is often cited
as a positive example, and it certainly benefits from the considerable
importance that public authorities attach to pursuing equality and
social cohesion.
33. The Finnish model places particular emphasis on mainstreaming
equality across different levels of government and public administration.
Rather than relying on a single institution, the system combines legislation,
administrative bodies, structural tools in workplaces and education
and mechanisms for supervision and legal protection.
5.1 Legislation
and policy guidance
34. The legal foundation of the
Finnish system is the Act on Equality between Women and Men (Equality Act).
This legislation obliges public authorities, education providers
and employers to actively promote equality and prevent discrimination
based on gender, gender identity or gender expression.
35. In addition to the legal framework, the government regularly
adopts an equality programme for each governmental term (for instance,
the current programme covers 2024 to 2027). This programme sets
out the main objectives and concrete measures through which the
government intends to advance gender equality.
36. A central principle guiding these efforts is gender mainstreaming.
In practice, this means that equality considerations are systematically
integrated into decision making and into the everyday activities
of public institutions across society.
5.2 Administrative
bodies and actors
37. Several public bodies play
a role in implementing and co-ordinating equality policy in Finland.
The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is responsible for preparing
legislation such as the Equality Act and for co-ordinating the overall
equality policy of the government.
38. The Equality Ombudsman is an independent and autonomous authority
tasked with monitoring compliance with the Equality Act. In addition
to supervising the application of the law, the Ombudsman promotes
equality more broadly and provides assistance to individuals who
have experienced discrimination.
39. The Finnish National Advisory Council for Gender Equality,
appointed by the government, serves as an important forum for discussion
and co-operation. Its role is to promote gender equality and stimulate
public debate on equality-related issues.
5.3 Structural
tools in workplaces and schools
40. The promotion of equality is
also embedded in the everyday functioning of workplaces and educational institutions.
Workplaces with more than 30 employees are required to prepare an
equality plan. These plans must include an assessment of pay equality
as well as a broader review of equality-related issues within the organisation.
41. Educational institutions are subject to similar requirements.
Schools and universities must develop operational equality plans
in co-operation with both staff and students, ensuring that equality
considerations are integrated into the educational environment.
5.4 Supervision
and legal protection
42. Compliance with equality legislation
is monitored primarily by the Equality Ombudsman, who can provide guidance,
advice and recommendations to authorities, employers and educational
institutions.
43. In more serious cases, matters can be referred to the Non-Discrimination
and Equality Board. This body can examine discrimination cases and,
where necessary, issue binding decisions prohibiting discriminatory practices,
including under the threat of a fine.
44. Individuals who experience discrimination may also bring cases
before the ordinary courts, which provide an additional avenue for
legal protection.
5.5 International
co-operation
45. Finally, Finland’s equality
policy is closely connected with international co-operation. Finland
actively participates in the development of European Union equality
policies and contributes to the work of the European Institute for
Gender Equality (EIGE).
6 Fact-finding
visit to Hungary
46. On 20 and 21 October 2025,
in Budapest, I held a series of meetings with a broad range of stakeholders. I
began with a discussion with journalists, who shared their perspectives
on the situation in the country. They highlighted the challenges
faced by independent media, particularly the difficulty of accessing
people in positions of power – who, on the other hand, are easily
available to mainstream media outlets.
47. I also met with fellow parliamentarians, both from the majority
and the opposition, as well as with members of the government. I
met with the Secretary General of the national equality body, the
Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, whose office also serves as
the national human rights institution. I exchanged views with representatives
of several civil society organisations working in the fields of
human rights and equality, including gender equality and the rights
of LGBTI people.
48. Part of the discussions with my counterparts focused on rather
technical and legal aspects in particular, the procedures and mechanisms
regulating co-operation between parliament and the national equality
body, which in Hungary is the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental
Rights. Representatives of this Office provided me with very detailed
information on the procedure used to appoint the Commissioner, including
the requirements and criteria for selection. These rules are intended
to safeguard the independence and effectiveness of the institution.
49. Technical and legal questions concerning the functioning of
equality bodies are often intertwined with political ones. For instance,
it is open to discussion whether it is preferable to have a single
equality body with a broad mandate, or several bodies, each focusing
on a specific area. There is no universal or purely technical answer
to this question. It largely depends on how these bodies are organised
and funded, which ultimately reflects political priorities and choices.
50. In Hungary, in 2020, the Equal Treatment Authority was merged
with the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, which
is the national Ombudsman. During exchanges with representatives
of the Hungarian authorities, the merger was presented as a way
to reinforce the institution and increase coherence. Civil society
organisations and individual experts, however, took a more critical
view. They mentioned a decline in the number of cases handled by
the Commissioner and expressed concern that the merger may in fact
have weakened the institution’s capacity to address discrimination
effectively.
51. In an opinion adopted in 2021,
Note the
Council of Europe’s Commission on Democracy through Law (Venice
Commission) expressed criticism of this reform. The Venice Commission
regretted that the relevant legislation was adopted during the state
of emergency, “in a rushed manner without any consultation with
civil society, opposition and other stakeholders.” In addition,
the Venice Commission reiterated that any change related to the
structure of equality bodies and national human rights institutions
should be made with the aim of making the protection and promotion
of rights at stake even more effective and efficient. The opinion
also observes that the overlap between the competences already enjoyed
by the Commissioner under the previous legislation and those acquired
as successor of the Equal Treatment Authority was a risk that may
undermine the effectiveness of the work in the field of promoting
equality and combating discrimination.
52. We cannot ignore that Hungary has been facing certain challenges,
including the shrinking space for civil society and the opposition.
Some of the issues I wished to discuss with the Hungarian authorities
proved to be particularly sensitive. Whenever I tried to discuss
the rights of LGBTI people, the response referred instead to children’s
rights. My interlocutors argued that children’s rights must be prioritised
to avoid possible conflicts between these two categories of rights.
However, legislative and policy developments in most European countries,
as well as the case law interpreting human rights standards, show
that there is no inherent risk of such a conflict. The impression,
therefore, was that in Hungary certain rights were sacrificed on
the altar of political ideology.
7 Artificial
intelligence: friend or foe?
53. Artificial intelligence (AI)
is developing at an unprecedented pace, offering both significant
opportunities and posing serious risks for our societies. In the
current political climate across many European countries, hate speech
is spreading with alarming speed, amplified by digital platforms
and fueled by information illiteracy and the rapid circulation of
disinformation. Addressing these phenomena is no longer optional:
strengthening critical thinking, media literacy and accountability
in the digital space is essential to safeguarding democratic values and
social cohesion.
54. Artificial intelligence – when placed in the wrong hands –
can serve dangerous purposes. Rather than remaining a neutral tool,
AI systems may reinforce existing biases or even introduce new forms
of discrimination, particularly when deployed without sufficient
oversight. This risk is not theoretical. There have already been
troubling cases involving public authorities. To mention an example
dating as far back as 2013, in the Netherlands the algorithms used
by tax authorities to detect fraud in childcare benefits were revealed
to systematically discriminate against individuals with a foreign
or migrant background, wrongly accusing tens of thousands of families
and causing them harm.
55. These developments show the need to anticipate and prevent
such risks and to ensure that AI is used in a way that strengthens
equality rather than undermines it. Public authorities bear a particular
responsibility in this regard: they must guarantee that AI systems
respect fundamental rights, are subject to rigorous evaluation,
and operate in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. Safeguards
must be embedded at every stage, from design to deployment.
56. While AI presents challenges, it also holds considerable positive
potential. When developed and used responsibly, it can become a
powerful tool for progress, by helping to detect discrimination,
improve access to public services, and support more inclusive policy
making. We should therefore not reject AI but rather shape it in
accordance with our shared values.
57. In this context, the Council of Europe has taken a decisive
step by adopting the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence
and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (CETS No. 225),
the first binding international legal instrument in this field.
This landmark convention establishes common standards to ensure that
AI systems are consistent with fundamental rights and democratic
principles.
58. The Parliamentary Assembly, which has been at the forefront
of highlighting both the risks and the potential of AI through a
wide range of texts adopted since 2020, still has a crucial role
to play in this area. It should actively promote the signature and
ratification of this new convention, encouraging member States to commit
to a common legal framework that ensures AI serves equality and
human rights.
8 Current
risks for equality policies and ways forward: indications from the
European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
59. The risk of backsliding in
the area of human rights exists across Europe. It is first and foremost
the duty of legislators and policy makers to counter this negative
trend and to protect, consolidate and further strengthen equality
systems. Equality bodies also have an important role to play. They
provide advice and feedback on how legislation and policies are
implemented and on their impact. They may also be proactive and
indicate the need for intervention in specific areas.
60. To do so, equality bodies need support. Financial and human
resources are, of course, important parts of the equation, but independence
and autonomy are just as important. Co-operation between parliaments
and equality bodies therefore needs to be strengthened.
61. ECRI has been a trailblazer in this area and its General Policy
Recommendation No. 2 “Equality bodies to combat racism and intolerance
at national level” has led
a large number of Council of Europe member States to establish one
or several such institutions.
62. Member States that have not done so already should establish
equality bodies with the aim of promoting equality, preventing and
combating discrimination, and promoting diversity and inclusion.
Discrimination should be interpreted in a wide sense, including
structural discrimination and hate speech.
63. Equality bodies can cover a single ground or multiple grounds
and be stand-alone institutions or part of multi-mandate institutions.
Legislation should set out their mandate clearly and explicitly.
This should cover all grounds of discrimination, ranging from ethnic
origin to language, religion, citizenship, age, gender, disability, sexual
orientation and gender identity, as well as multiple and intersectional
discrimination.
64. Equality bodies should have the functions of preventing discrimination
and promoting equality, supporting people exposed to discrimination
and intolerance and pursuing litigation on their behalf. They may also
have the power to take decisions on complaints.
65. ECRI’s General Policy Recommendation N°2, as revised in 2017,
also states that “authorities and equality bodies should build a
sustained dialogue on progress in the field of equality and non-discrimination”, and
that “Government and other authorities should consult and co-operate
with equality bodies and take their recommendations on legislation,
policy, procedure, programmes and practice into account”. Among
the “other authorities”, parliaments are particularly prominent.
66. As highlighted during ECRI’s 2025 Annual Seminar with Equality
Bodies, pressure on these institutions is growing and becoming systemic,
encompassing political interference, budgetary pressure and legal
erosion, and in some cases delegitimisation campaigns. International
co-operation between equality bodies, networking and co-operation
with monitoring mechanisms should be strengthened to counter these
challenges.
67. At the same annual seminar and more generally in discussions
among European equality bodies, the idea of establishing an “early
alert” or “early warning” mechanism has emerged. Such a mechanism
would make it possible to signal and respond more rapidly to situations
in which the independence, mandate or resources of equality bodies
are threatened.
68. Based, among other things, on exchanges I held with Finnish
experts, I consider that a Europe-wide Alert System for Equality
should be created to detect situations of backsliding in this area.
Measurable indicators should be identified to reveal negative development
in an objective way. These indicators could be developed in co-operation
with national statistical institutes and international agencies.
EIGE, for instance, would be particularly well placed to contribute
to this endeavour, with a focus on the gender perspective. Equality
bodies themselves have often acted as “alert systems”, drawing attention
to increasing inequalities and risks of discrimination.
9 Conclusions
69. The work carried out in preparation
of this report has confirmed the importance of equality bodies,
also in view of their dual function: a specific one (providing support
to individual victims of discrimination) and a general one (assisting
and advising public authorities in matters of legislation and policy
making). At the same time, it has highlighted the challenges that
these institutions face in the current context, with risks of democratic backsliding
in some Council of Europe member States.
70. Close co-operation between equality bodies and national parliaments
is beneficial to both parties, as it provides legislators with an
additional and valuable source of knowledge, while enabling equality
bodies to translate insights gained through their direct experience
of discrimination cases into legislative measures.
71. Political will is a crucial prerequisite for establishing
and strengthening this form of co-operation. The Assembly is best
placed to remind its members, and through them the national parliaments
of member States, of their duty to bring the principle of equality
to the forefront and to support close collaboration with equality bodies
as part of their obligation to uphold democracy, human rights and
the rule of law.
