Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Monitoring and recording antisemitism in the EU – state of play and ways forward

The information presented in this publication draws on evidence the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and its predecessor (the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) have been collecting on the recording of antisemitic incidents since 2004. The publication first draws attention to commitments the EU and its Member States have made in this respect and then briefly describes the state of play of recording in EU Member States and countries that participate in the work of FRA as observers (Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia).

The evidence presented in this publication points to gaps that exist in recording practice with respect to antisemitic incidents in EU Member States and in countries that participate in the work of FRA as observers. This section provides and overview of existing guidance tools and practices that national authorities could draw on to help them improve or establish recording systems, and thereby ensure that victims of antisemitism can seek redress.

Addressing antisemitism effectively – including online – is predicated on the availability of robust data on the phenomenon and therefore also on the proper recording of antisemitic incidents, not least by law enforcement authorities. In this respect, it should be noted that the European Commission, EU agencies (esp., CEPOL and FRA), national authorities, international organisations, civil society organisations and Jewish community organisations have been working and continue to work closely together in different fora to develop practical tools that relevant authorities and other stakeholders can use to improve the recording of antisemitic incidents.

While several of these guidance tools were developed (and endorsed by Member States) in the context of improving the recording of hate crime, their underlying principles can be transferred to the specific context of antisemitism, including as regards online content.

Enabling the proper recording of antisemitic incidents entails setting up efficient data collection systems. In doing so, relevant authorities can draw on existing guidance tools that have been endorsed by Member States and countries that participate in the work of FRA as observers. For example, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) developed a guide on Hate Crime Data Collection and Monitoring. This guide includes 10 practical steps that national authorities can take to set up efficient hate crime data recording and collection mechanisms. Among others, the guide highlights “the importance of adopting a common, simple and comprehensive definition of hate crime for monitoring purposes and sets out the types of data that should be captured by police recording mechanisms.” The guide recommends for data collection systems to be as specific as possible, which would entail having a category that would specifically capture the antisemitic bias motivation, rather than a generic bias motivation that targets religious groups (see p. 41).

Related to this, the Subgroup on methodologies for recording and collecting data on hate crime under the former EU High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance developed key guiding principles on improving the recording of hate crime by law enforcement authorities. Building on exchanges with practitioners in the field, this guidance stresses “that any mechanism with which to record hate crime must be grounded in the reality of the work of law enforcement officers and not put significant additional burden on them.” The EU High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance has been superseded by the High Level Group on combating hate speech and hate crime.

Police officers need to be able to identify the antisemitic bias motivation of incidents when they record incidents that are reported to them. In this respect, ODIHR developed a practical tool to enable law enforcement authorities to use and recognise bias indicators. The aim of this tool is to “guide investigators in deciding whether a particular bias indicator type is present in the case before them.” Related to this, the European Commission developed a guidance note on the practical application of Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. This note also covers the gathering of evidence that can prove “the offender's alleged bias motives”, including online.

Furthermore, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the European Commission jointly published an EU handbook for the practical use of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which draws on evidence collected by FRA on the situation of data collection on antisemitism.

Experience has shown the usefulness of exchanges between countries to learn from good practices to improve the recording of hate crime, and by extension the recording of antisemitic incidents. Both the EU High Level Group on combating hate speech and hate crime and the European Commission’s Working Group on the implementation of the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life offer ready-made fora to facilitate such exchanges and peer learning.

These groups bring together representatives of the European Commission, EU agencies, international organisations, national authorities, civil society organisations and Jewish community organisations and can therefore benefit from multiple perspectives. In this respect, statutory bodies such as national human rights institutions and equality bodies could also be invited to participate in these groups, as relevant.

Related to this, FRA has developed a Compendium of practices on hate crime “to help policymakers and practitioners such as law enforcement officers understand what is being done elsewhere in the EU to combat hate crime, and which elements could be adapted for use in their own national contexts.”

Under the terms of the Victims Rights Directive, Member States should facilitate the reporting of crimes through third-party reporting, thereby providing victims and witnesses with an additional or alternative channel through which to report incidents. Involving civil society organisations in this process can help lower the threshold for victims and witnesses to report incidents, as many are reluctant to file a complaint to the police, due to the (perceived) associated burdens.

In this respect, it can be noted that FRA’s surveys consistently show that the main reasons for which people – of any population group – do not report incidents are the perception that nothing would change as a result of reporting; that incidents are too minor or happen all the time; that reporting procedures are too time consuming, bureaucratic or inconvenient; that victims and witnesses do not trust the police; or that they do not know who to turn to, to report incidents (See FRA (2022), Encouraging hate crime reporting - The role of law enforcement and other authorities, pp. 30-35.)

Involving civil society organisations and Jewish community organisations in the process also requires building trust between these organisations and law enforcement authorities, as well as ensuring that adequate resources are made available for both. This is where the key guiding principles on cooperation between law enforcement authorities and civil society organisations developed by the EU High Level Group on combating hate speech and hate crime become relevant.

With respect to improving the recording of antisemitic incidents, the following principles are particularly relevant: “Enhance comparability and compatibility of recording methodologies through systematic use of bias indicators;” and, “Share data collection methodologies and set up a system for regular information exchange.” At the time of writing, Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain had established cooperation mechanisms with civil society organisations or Jewish community organisations in the specific context of recording antisemitic incidents.

Improving the recording and encouraging the reporting of antisemitic incidents involves a variety of stakeholders that need to be brought together in a structured and systematic way. This includes representatives of law enforcement authorities, criminal justice systems, civil society organisations and Jewish community organisations.

In this respect, it can be noted that FRA has cooperated with ODIHR to support countries in strengthening their hate crime recording and data collection capabilities by organising needs-based national-level workshops. Bringing together law enforcement and criminal justice practitioners, these workshops serve “to identify and address gaps in existing hate crime recording and data collection practices and discuss ways to improve these practices through practical steps and specific operational measures.”

Drawing on this methodology, relevant national authorities could host such workshops, with a specific focus on how antisemitic incidents are recorded in their countries, with a view to develop concrete actions that will help them improve data collection on antisemitism. Such workshops could be organised in close cooperation with civil society organisations and Jewish community organisations.

The EU and its Member States need to take the lived experience of antisemitism among Jews into consideration. Whereas FRA has conducted three large-scale surveys of people’s experiences of antisemitism to date (in 2013, 2018 and 2023), the Council of the European Union acknowledged in 2024 that national surveys are also needed: “The Council of the European Union, bearing in mind the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, invites the Member States to improve the recording of antisemitic incidents and, as appropriate, conduct periodic, national or regional surveys on antisemitism, drawing on robust and reliable survey methodologies concerning hard-to-reach population groups, such as those methodologies developed by FRA, while respecting Member States’ autonomy in determining the specific modalities for data collection.”