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

Sebra / Adobe Stock

Better legislation – Human rights impact assessments in lawmaking

This report examines how human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) are built into lawmaking across the EU and its Member States. It highlights that, although progress has been made, the use of HRIAs remains uneven and often superficial. In many EU countries, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is frequently overlooked. The report identifies insufficient consultation with external experts, limited stakeholder participation and a lack of evaluation once laws are in force. To address these gaps, it offers practical recommendations for more systematic, inclusive and evidence-based HRIAs that strengthen human rights protection and ensure better, more accountable legislation throughout the EU.

This section presents findings on how, during the HRIA process, lawmakers gather the relevant expert advice, evidence and experiences from the ground from stakeholders including human rights expert bodies, equality bodies, ombuds institutions and CSOs and groups/people affected by the legislative proposal. The analysis is divided into two subsections considering the different roles played by NHRIs and CSOs in the process. It aims at showcasing the practical value of obtaining independent human rights expertise and having a participatory process in lawmaking. This section only covers consultations with expert human rights bodies (NHRIs, ombuds institutions and equality bodies), and not with other specialised oversight bodies, such as data protection authorities which may also contribute to the legislative process with their expert advice.

Expert human rights and equality bodies’ involvement in the legislative process can substantially contribute to better lawmaking and have a real impact on the protection, respect and promotion of human rights.

… since the ratification of the CRPD, we influenced almost every equality law that was passed afterwards. Because the human rights concern in the area of equality laws is very obvious and that way we are necessarily asked …

Expert from the NHRI in Germany.

Experts in some countries stressed that, when NHRIs are consulted or when they react to a legislative proposal, their opinions tend to be taken seriously (e.g. Denmark, Finland, France) [176] Interviews with experts from the government of Denmark, from the Constitutional Law Committee of the parliament of Finland, and from the NHRI in France.
. A positive example from France shows how the government followed the advice of the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights to repeal a national provision according to which a guardianship judge could suspend the voting rights of a protected adult. As a result, 3000 citizens could vote in the 2024 European elections [177]
 Interview with an expert from the NHRI in France. Ministry of the Interior of France, ‘Le vote des personnes handicapées’, Ministry of the Interior of France website; Loi no°2019–222 du 23 mars 2019 de programmation 2018–2022 et de réforme pour la justice. FRA, Political participation of people with disabilities – New developments, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 29 May 2024.
.

Although NHRIs from almost all states are involved in the legislative process [178]
 FRA, ‘NHRI Accreditation Status and Mandates – 2025 update’, FRA website.
, this involvement presents several practical challenges. The ENNHRI reports the lack of adequate time for providing input during legislative procedures as a major problem (Germany, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia) [179]
 ENNHRI, The state of the rule of law in the European Union – Reports from national human rights institutions – 2024, Brussels, April 2024, pp. 5, 37 and 38. ENNHRI, The state of the rule of law in the European Union – Reports from national human rights institutions – 2025, Brussels, 2025, pp. 403–404. Information also provided by the NLO in Latvia. Interviews with experts from the NHRIs in Greece, France and Slovenia.
. Early involvement is key. For instance, the Ombudsperson of Slovenia noted with concern that they had not been consulted at the earlier stages of the policy and lawmaking process, especially in the case of the proposal of the Public Media Act which provided for an additional mandate to the Ombudsperson [180]
 ENNHRI, The state of the rule of law in the European Union – Reports from national human rights institutions – 2025, Brussels, 2025, p. 723.
.

The ENNHRI noted that the EU institutions should inform and consult NHRIs (including through the ENNHRI) early enough on EU legislative initiatives that could have major impacts on fundamental rights to facilitate meaningful engagement and fundamental rights impact assessments [181]
 ENNHRI, ‘Submission on Mid-Term Review of the EU Charter Strategy’, 10 June 2025, p. 5.
.

In a few countries, NHRIs report that they are not consulted regularly on HRIA (Cyprus, Slovenia) [182] Interview with an expert from the NHRI in Slovenia, and from the parliament of Cyprus.
. A further barrier to effective participation of NHRIs is the use of accelerated procedures (France, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden) [183]
 ENNHRI, The state of the rule of law in the European Union – Reports from national human rights institutions – 2024, Brussels, April 2024, p. 38.
or the lack of capacity on the side of the NHRIs to be involved in all consultations [184]
 FRA, minutes of the expert meeting of 20 June 2025. ENNHRI, ‘Submission on mid-term review of the EU Charter Strategy’, 2025, p. 8.
.

… to give an opinion, it is necessary that we carry out hearings, a legal analysis, a multidisciplinary analysis and therefore it needs time and so it is. The sooner one is grasped, the more useful work one can produce.

Expert from the NHRI in France.

We often observe that these deadlines are very short or take place during … holidays, which we also consider critical, because we cannot avoid the feeling that the intention is to give as little time as possible for public consultation … We also draw attention to the problem that too many regulations are adopted in a fast-track procedure later in the legislative procedure, which also prevents a proper debate.

Expert from the NHRI in Slovenia.

This section shows how consulting CSOs, the groups affected, and other stakeholders can contribute to a more informed and evidence-based lawmaking process, including ex post and ex ante HRIAs. Although limited data is available on their participation during HRIAs, some evidence indicates barriers to their participation in the legislative process in general. These barriers relate to effective and meaningful engagement, timing and accessibility.

Many marginalized groups do not have a clear advocacy organization or do not have a person who can submit such a consultation response … you really always must think for yourself, when you are reviewing such a proposal, to look at what this proposal does and could it indeed constitute indirect discrimination against certain groups, perhaps vulnerable groups that are affected by this, who actually do not have a lot of voice/influence in/on the whole process.

Expert from the Council of State of the Netherlands.

Generally, public participation and consultation of citizens and CSOs by the Commission during the EU-level lawmaking process appears to be satisfactory and improving. According to the agency’s own findings, out of 408 surveyed CSOs who are part of the agency’s Fundamental Rights Platform [185]
 FRA, ‘Civil society and the Fundamental Rights Platform’, FRA website.
, 37 % of respondents considered that the level of consultation at EU level in 2024 had been very high, high or acceptable (), and only a small number considered it to be poor or very poor (6 % of respondents) [186]
 FRA, Report on key findings from FRA’s civic space consultation covering 2024, forthcoming. See also FRA, ‘Report on key findings from FRA’s civic space consultation covering 2023’, 2024, p. 25, and Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A thriving civic space for upholding fundamental rights in the EU 2022 Annual Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, COM(2022) 716 final of 6 December 2022.
. In 2019, the European Court of Auditors found the European Commission’s public consultations framework to be of high standard and noted the participants’ overall satisfaction [187]
 ECA, ‘Have your say!’: Commission’s public consultations engage citizens, but fall short of outreach activities – Special Report 14/2019, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, p. 4. See also OECD, Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, 29 September 2025.
. However, the Court of Auditors found gaps in language access to key consultation documents, a lack of tailored questionnaires for different audiences, data protection issues and a lack of feedback on the consultations’ outcome [188] See endnote 187, pp. 4–5.
.

When the Member States prepare negotiating positions regarding directives and regulations, they do not systematically engage with national stakeholders. If they do consult national stakeholders, they only engage with a few selected stakeholders [189]
 OECD, Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, 29 September 2025, p. 77.
. However, once an EU directive is adopted and needs to be transposed, most Member States require an impact assessment and stakeholder engagement [190] See endnote 189, p. 34.
.

According to the 2023 European Commission Recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policymaking processes [191]
 Commission Recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policymaking processes, C/2023/8627 final, 12 December 2023.
, Member States should ‘promote and facilitate a framework allowing citizens and CSOs to participate in public policy-making processes’ [192] See endnote 191, p. 10, paragraph 3. See also FRA’s Civic Space Report, forthcoming.
. ‘The framework for participation should be clear and accessible, including by ensuring the dissemination of timely and adequate information, providing genuine opportunities and appropriate means of participation based on predefined parameters’ (p. 10, paragraph 5). The Commission follows up public consultations on RIA in its rule of law reports. For example, in the 2025 Rule of Law Report, the Commission notes positively that Cyprus has introduced the systematic use of an online platform, significantly contributing to improving stakeholder consultation of legislative proposals from the government. In Denmark, the rules on the legislative process have been amended to give parliament more time to consider legislation [193]
 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – 2025 Rule of Law Report – The rule of law situation in the European Union, COM(2025) 900 final of 8 July 2025, p. 27.
. For Cyprus, the report even notes significant progress on ensuring the effective and timely consultation of stakeholders [194]
 Commission staff working document – 2025 Rule of Law Report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Cyprus – Accompanying the document ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – 2025 Rule of Law Report – The rule of law situation in the European Union’, SWD(2025) 913 final of 8 July 2025, p. 1.
. The Commission acknowledges Greece’s ‘efforts to ensure the effective and timely consultation in practice of stakeholders on draft legislation, including by observing the statutory timeframe for public consultation’ [195]
 Commission staff working document – 2025 Rule of Law Report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Greece – Accompanying the document ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – 2025 Rule of Law Report – The rule of law situation in the European Union’, SWD(2025) 908 final of 8 July 2025, p. 2.
.

At the same time, the Commission noted that in Slovakia, the tendencies to bypass stakeholders’ involvement in lawmaking and to frequently use fast-track procedures continue to raise concerns [196]
 Commission staff working document – 2025 Rule of Law Report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia – Accompanying the document ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – 2025 Rule of Law Report – The rule of law situation in the European Union’, SWD(2025) 925 final of 8 July 2025, p. 28.
. The Commission also commented on the implementation of its country-specific recommendations that focused on the participative process in national lawmaking. In this regard it calls on Bulgaria to ‘strengthen the quality of the legislative process by ensuring the use of public consultations and impact assessments for legislative initiatives by Parliament’ [197]
 Commission staff working document – 2025 Rule of Law Report – Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria – Accompanying the document ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – 2025 Rule of Law Report – The rule of law situation in the European Union’, SWD(2025) 902 final of 8 July 2025, p. 3.
. The report notes some progress in Romania, but it calls for the stepping up of efforts to address the frequent use of government emergency ordinances. Previously, the Commission noted that in Hungary ‘the obligatory public consultation of draft legal acts and their impact assessments [had] been systematically disregarded’ [198]
 Commission staff working document – Analysis of the recovery and resilience plan of Hungary – Accompanying the document ‘Proposal for a Council implementing Decision on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Hungary’, SWD(2022) 686 final of 30 November 2022.
. In October 2022 new rules entered into force which aim to enforce the obligation to consult by allowing the Government Control Office to levy a fine on the ministry responsible for omitting the consultation [199] The amendment of the rules on public consultation in the legislative procedure entered into force on 26 October 2022 (amendment of Act CXXXI of 2010) and January 2023 (Government Decree No. 567/2022 (XII. 23.)).
.

Short deadlines or accelerated procedures in case of complex legislative proposals further hinder CSOs’ participation in many countries (Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, North Macedonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden) [200]
 Interview with an academic from Cyprus, and with experts from a CSO in Denmark and from the Chancellor of Justice of Estonia. FRA, ‘Civic space in the EU: Mapping of national approaches to civic space monitoring, participation and protection, Greece’, forthcoming. Batory Foundation, Polski BezŁad Legislacyjny RAPORT Obywatelskiego Forum Legislacji z prac IX kadencji Sejmu, Warsaw, 2023. Slovakia, Government Council for Non-Governmental Non-Profit Organisations, ‘Minutes of the 38th meeting of the Council of the Government of the Slovak Republic for non-governmental non-profit organizations’ (‘Zápisnica z rokovania dňa 3. decembra 2024’), 10 December 2024. Slovenia, Ministry for Public Administration, ‘Report on the implementation of Resolution on Legislative Regulation in 2017, 2018, 2019’ (‘Poročilo o izvajanju Resolucije o normativni dejavnosti v letih 2017, 2018, 2019’), September 2020, p.1. Sweden, the Swedish Institute for Human Rights, ’Annual report 2024’ (’Årsrapport 2024’), p. 86.Interview with an academic from North Macedonia.
. This is particularly challenging for groups or persons at risk of exclusion [201]
 FRA, Protecting civil society – Update 2023, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 18 October 2023.
and academia providing research input which requires time and resources [202] Interview with an academic from North Macedonia.
.

One of the pressing issues is that politics rarely turn to academic approaches or institutions because these require time and resources to conduct research, which do not align with political demands for immediate results.

Academic from North Macedonia.

Evidence collected in two Member States (Croatia and Slovenia) [203]
 Human Rights House Zagreb (2022), Branitelji ljudskih prava: izazovi i prepreke [Human Rights Defenders: Challenges and Obstacles], Centre for information service, co-operation and development of non-governmental organisations (CNVOS), interview of 11 February 2025).
suggests that CSOs are consulted only at the very end of the policymaking process, which arguably undermines their meaningful participation. Similarly, the OECD notes that the Member States do not often engage with stakeholders before drafting legislative proposals. This systematically happens only once a legislative draft is ready [204] OECD, Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2025’, p. 41.
.

When consultations occur, there is rarely an obligation to consider CSOs’ or affected groups’ input or to provide feedback. In many countries, reports on the feedback of the consultation are often inconsistent or lack substantial explanation on how the comments submitted by CSOs were taken in consideration (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, North Macedonia, Slovakia) [205]
 Център за изследване на демокрацията [Center for the Study of Democracy], ‘Regulation of lobbying activities in the Republic of Bulgaria: Draft concept’, press release, 13 February 2024; interview with an expert from the NHRI in Germany; Slovakia, VIA IURIS, ‘Ako sa zapojiť do tvorby právnych predpisov’ [How to participate in law making], November 2021; Dachkova, D., ‘Съюзът на съдиите съди министерството на правосъдието’, [The judges association is suing the Ministry of Justice] Sega.bg website, 27 January 2025; interview with an expert from a CSO in Denmark; Civil Liberties Union for Europe, Centre for Peace Studies, Liberties Rule of Law Report 2025 – Croatia, Civil Liberties Union for Europe, Berlin, 2025. The Green Tank, ‘12 years of public consultation on the environment through OpenGov: citizen participation and youth opinion’ [12 χρόνια δημόσιων διαβουλεύσεων για το περιβάλλον μέσω OpenGov: Η συμμετοχή των πολιτών και η γνώμη των νέων], The Greem Tank website, 26 April 2024. FRA, Protecting civil society – Update 2024, forthcoming.
. Feedback can be provided in different ways. In the Netherlands and Slovenia, general feedback is provided in the explanatory memorandum, while in Estonia all comments should be addressed specifically [206] Interviews with experts from the governments of Estonia and Netherlands, and the NHRI in Slovenia.
.

We must continue to have a very active civil society. We have a society in France, a civil society which has an extraordinary fabric, which is underfunded but which is absolutely remarkable in these battles, in its expertise.

Expert from the NHRI in France.

Issues with the effective participation of people with disabilities have been reported in four Member States (Czechia, Germany, Ireland, Romania) [207] FRA, Protecting civil society – Update 2024, forthcoming.
. For example, the German Institute for Human Rights criticised that when people with disabilities are consulted in Germany, the consultation does not sufficiently consider accessibility or reasonable accommodation obligations under the CRPD [208]
 ENNHRI, ENNHRI, The state of the rule of law in the European Union – Reports from national human rights institutions – 2024, Brussels, April 2024, p. 38. Interview with an expert from the German Institute for Human Rights.
.

The questionnaires that are offered by the ministries are usually not accessible. Also, the timeframe in which responses are expected are usually too short.

Expert from the NHRI in Germany.

Finally, few Member States systematically engage with stakeholders during the ex post evaluation of adopted legislation [209]
 OECD, Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2025, p. 124.
.