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.
The common provisions regulation (2021/1060) on EU funds has opened the possibility for NHRIs (along with equality bodies and ombuds institutions) to play a role in fundamental-rights-related monitoring in the use of eight major EU funds at the national level. The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions issued a statement on the potential role of NHRIs in the context of the EU funds in 2022, and in December 2023 FRA released a report titled EU Funds: Ensuring compliance with fundamental rights. The report includes recommendations for EU and national policymakers on how they could benefit from the expertise of NHRIs when implementing EU funds in a way that is compliant with the Charter and the provisions of the UN CRPD, as required for the funds governed by the common provisions regulation for the 2021–2027 programming period.
Table 5 presents the NHRIs that participate in the monitoring of EU funds, and the challenges faced in performing their roles. Table 6 lists the NHRIs that are not involved in the monitoring of EU funds and the reasons behind their non-involvement. When NHRIs did not provide responses concerning challenges or did not provide any reason to explain their non-involvement, the table only provides the name of the NHRI followed by a blank line.
For a 2020 report, FRA collected information from NHRIs asking whether they were engaged in the monitoring of the implementation of EU funds. Back then, only three NHRIs reported such an involvement. In 2024, as seen in Table 5, 13 out of the 34 responding NHRIs indicated they were engaged in monitoring fundamental rights compliance in the use of EU funds at the national level. In comparison with 2023, the number of NHRIs involved has remained the same, but some changes have occurred in terms of which NHRIs participate in the monitoring of EU funds.
Regarding challenges presented in Table 5, five NHRIs cited a lack of capacity and resources, while two NHRIs highlighted a lack of impact. Three NHRIs cited a lack of knowledge as a key challenge in performing their role, while two others mentioned challenges related to interference with the independence of their institutions.
When providing the reasons behind the non-involvement of various NHRIs (Table 6), seven reported that the main reason was a lack of human and financial resources. Although this was the most common reason cited by NHRIs, other important reasons for not engaging in monitoring the fundamental rights compliance of EU structural funds include: not being invited, concerns about independence and the perception that the monitoring of EU funds is not relevant to their work. Only two NHRIs cited a lack of knowledge as the reason for their non-involvement in monitoring EU funds.
Table 5 – NHRIs that are engaged in monitoring fundamental rights compliance in the use of EU funds: challenges in performing their role in 2024
NHRI (or nearest equivalent) |
Lack of capacity and resources |
Lack of impact |
Lack of knowledge |
Interference with the independence or mandate of the institution |
Other |
Interfederal Equal Opportunities Centre Unia (Belgium) |
|
|
|
Yes |
|
Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights (Cyprus) |
|
|
|
|
|
Finnish Human Rights Centre |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Parliamentary Ombudsman of Finland |
|
|
|
|
|
Greek National Commission for Human Rights |
Yes |
|
Yes |
|
|
Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission |
|
|
|
|
|
Netherlands Institute for Human Rights |
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner for Human Rights (Poland) |
|
|
|
Yes |
|
People’s Advocate (Romania) |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Romanian Institute for Human Rights |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
People’s Advocate of the Republic of Albania |
|
|
|
Yes |
|
Source: FRA, December 2024.
NB: For more information see FRA’s Supporting national human rights institutions in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law (fra.europa.eu).
Table 6 – Reasons for NHRIs not to engage in monitoring fundamental rights compliance in the use of EU funds in 2024
NHRI (or nearest equivalent) |
Not invited by the responsible authorities |
Lack of human/financial resources |
Lack of knowledge |
Concerns regarding the independence or mandate of the institution |
Not relevant for the institution |
Other |
Austrian Ombudsman Board |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
FIRM (Belgium) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
Commission for Protection against Discrimination (Bulgaria) |
|
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Public Defender of Rights (Czechia) |
Yes |
|
|
|
Yes |
|
Danish Institute for Human Rights |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
Chancellor of Justice (Estonia) |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (France) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
German Institute for Human Rights |
|
Yes |
|
Yes |
|
|
Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (Hungary) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty (Italy) |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
Ombudsman’s Office of the Republic of Latvia |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
The Seimas Ombudsperson’s Office (Lithuania) |
|
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
Consultative Human Rights Commission of Luxembourg |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
|
Parliamentary Ombudsman (Malta) |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
Portuguese Ombudsman |
|
|
|
Yes |
|
Yes |
Slovak National Centre for Human Rights |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia |
|
Yes |
|
|
|
Engaged in providing training and advice to relevant ministries |
Ombuds institution of Spain/Defensor del Pueblo |
|
|
|
Yes |
|
|
Institute for Human Rights (Sweden) |
|
|
|
|
|
The institute has not been able to consider this issue among other priorities during its initial years |
Equality Ombudsman (Sweden) |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
Source: FRA, December 2024.