Member States should consult independent fundamental rights bodies and specialised CSOs upfront in the process of implementing the funds covered by the Common Provisions Regulation, including on calls for proposals and selection criteria. To ensure that the relevant bodies and their expertise are included, Member States should invite independent fundamental rights bodies to participate in monitoring committees as a matter of routine and in a manner that fully respects their mandate and independence. Member States should ensure effective coordination, cooperation and communication at national level between the managing authorities, CSOs and independent fundamental rights bodies.

_________________________________________________________________

According to Article 44 of the CPR 21–27, Member States or the managing authority are to carry out evaluations of the programmes. It lays down that, as well as effectiveness, efficiency, relevance or consistency, these evaluations may cover “other relevant criteria, such as inclusiveness, non-discrimination and visibility”. Member States or the managing authority must ensure that the necessary procedures “to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations” are set up.

Without fundamental rights evaluations, it is difficult to follow up on and to further develop the implementation of the fundamental rights requirements set out in the CPR 21–27 and the fundamental rights-relevant targets set out in the programmes.

Member States should conduct periodic evaluations of fundamental rights issues upfront in the process of implementing EU Funds covered by the Common Provisions Regulation to ensure fundamental rights-relevant thematic targets are met and obligations under the horizontal enabling conditions on the Charter and the CRPD are respected. They should set up indicator frameworks in the programming phase and ensure that relevant fundamental rights data are gathered so that the fundamental rights impact of funded operations can be measured. Member States should consult independent fundamental rights bodies and specialised CSOs on such indicator frameworks.

_______________________________________________________________________

Often, insufficient attention is given to setting up clear indicator frameworks to evaluate fundamental rights issues in the programming phase, the research found. That results in a lack of specific criteria in the evaluation phase of the operations. This then makes evaluation less effective, as data on fundamental rights impacts may not have been gathered.

There is often a lack of communication and cooperation on fundamental rights between the various relevant actors involved in the EU programming period, namely managing authorities, CSOs and independent fundamental rights bodies.

The European Commission should actively promote the use of its Code of Conduct on Partnership, a delegated regulation from 2013 instructing Member States how to implement the CPR 14–20 partnership principle by promoting the inclusion of the expertise of independent fundamental rights bodies and specialised CSOs throughout programming period.

_______________________________________________________________________

Member States should ensure that the officials dealing with programming and implementation of the funds governed by the CPR 21–27, as well as fund beneficiaries, have sufficient expertise, tools and expert advice at their disposal to fulfil the Member States’ obligation to apply the Charter and the CRPD correctly, including by ensuring dedicated and focused training.

_______________________________________________________________________

Similarly, those in receipt of EU funds, i.e. beneficiaries responsible for implementing operations supported by the funds, need sufficient training and guidance on how to plan and implement operations in a fundamental rights-compliant manner. Without training and guidance, the horizontal enabling condition in the CPR 21–27 may unintentionally be disregarded given that that the reference to fundamental rights in calls for applications is often not specific enough to be useful to beneficiaries. Both officials and beneficiaries often do not turn to independent fundamental rights bodies for advice on or to ask questions about fundamental rights issues as it may not be customary to do so. Furthermore, there seems to be a need to improve managing authorities’ level of scrutiny of the implementation of fundamental rights requirements in programmes and funded operations, the research indicates. Compliance concerns have been raised, especially with regard to the funding of settings that are prolonging or enhancing segregation in the areas of education and care in institutions.

Member States should provide for avenues that allow officials to easily access specialised fundamental rights expertise, for instance by appointing a fundamental rights focal point or allowing officials to consult independent fundamental rights bodies on specific questions that may arise throughout the programming period or on developing fundamental rights guidance and training. Officials and beneficiaries should have access to practical guidance on fundamental rights issues relevant to them, such as checklists based on the Commission’s 2016 ‘Guidance on ensuring the respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when implementing the European Structural and Investment Funds’.

_______________________________________________________________________

Civil servants, beneficiaries, CSOs and other actors often lack knowledge of the roles, responsibilities and competences of other actors and institutions involved, interviews and roundtable discussions reveal. There is a call from stakeholders for more cooperation and coordination regarding correctly applying the Charter and the CRPD in the context of funds governed by the CPR.

The European Commission should support the Member States in implementing their fundamental rights obligations under the CPR 21–27 by coordinating and/or providing training and developing further guidance for officials and beneficiaries at EU level. Such guidance could then serve as a basis for national training material being developed.

_______________________________________________________________________

Working with EU funds is a complex task. The funds governed by the CPR provide resources worth many billions of euros to tens of thousands of projects in each programming period. Each Member State receives funding from multiple different funds and through a wide variety of different programmes.

International documents such as the UN Paris Principles on the status of NHRIs, the Council of Europe principles on the protection and promotion of ombudsman institutions and the European Commission’s recommendation on standards for equality bodies underline that independent fundamental rights bodies need to be provided with the human, technical and financial resources necessary to perform their tasks and exercise their powers effectively. FRA’s 2020 report Strong and effective national human rights institutions challenges. Promising practices and opportunities also highlighted this. It calls on the EU to consider “more funding opportunities to help NHRIs develop expertise on the Charter’s application at national level. This could facilitate their role in assisting Member States apply the Charter, including in law and policy making and when using European structural and investment funds” (p. 14).

The resources allocated to such bodies need to take into account their competences and tasks. FRA’s research and capacity-building work with NHRIs, funded by beneficiary states of the European Economic Area (EEA) and Norway Grants, reveals that, so far, relatively few NHRIs have been involved in monitoring funds governed by the CPR at national level. While such bodies’ advisory role could be very useful at the preparation, implementation and monitoring stages, a lack of resources and expertise on EU funds-related procedures tends to prevent such involvement, FRA research reveals.

Member States should, in accordance with international standards, make sure that, when independent fundamental rights bodies are engaged in the preparation, implementation or monitoring and evaluation of EU-funded programmes and operations, including through participation in monitoring committees, they are provided with sufficient and where required additional human, technical and financial resources so that they are able to perform their core tasks and exercise their powers effectively, including at the local or regional level.

_______________________________________________________________________

Effectively involving both independent fundamental rights bodies and specialised CSOs throughout the programming period requires enhancing their financial, technical and human resources capacity. It is key that Articles 36 and 37 of the CPR 21–27 provide for the opportunity for the relevant funds to support capacity building and undertake additional technical assistance actions. Doing so will reinforce the capacity and efficiency of partner bodies such as independent fundamental rights bodies. Providing these resources is also possible under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) (ESF+ Regulation). This appears to be a key opportunity that has so far not been sufficiently utilised.

Member States and their managing authorities should fully use the potential granted by Articles 36 and 37 of the CPR 21–27 to fund capacity building and additional technical assistance for independent fundamental rights bodies that are included in a partnership in the meaning of Article 8 of the CPR 21–27. Member States should also fully use similar fund-specific technical assistance, such as the assistance on the delivery of employment, education and social inclusion policies provided in Article 9 of the ESF+ Regulation. Such capacity building should include training on the functioning of EU funds and their related procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________

Member States should ensure the possibility of an independent review of decisions by fund managers on fundamental rights grounds through transparent and effective complaint mechanisms. Such mechanisms need to be equipped with sufficient expertise and capacity to handle complaints based on fundamental rights. Member States should ensure that prospective complainants are pointed to the right body or bodies to file complaints, including by making relevant information on both complaint bodies and Charter arrangements available on dedicated Fund websites and clearly designating entry points for complaints. They should consult independent fundamental rights bodies when setting up complaint mechanisms. Whenever the Commission is alerted about fundamental rights concerns in the implementation of the funds, it should examine whether the issues are properly resolved at national level. If this is not the case, or if repeated violations occur, the Commission should refuse reimbursement in line with Article 15 CPR.

_______________________________________________________________________

Research indicates that complaints mechanisms are often insufficiently advertised to relevant stakeholders and the wider public. Moreover, there is often a lack of coordination between the various bodies involved. Therefore, individuals and organisations may not always be aware of the possibility to file complaints on fundamental rights grounds regarding the funds governed by the CPR 21–27.

In addition, the staff handling complaints mechanisms sometimes also lack the required fundamental rights expertise and are more experienced in dealing with complaints related to misuse of financial resources. The European Ombudsman has made relevant recommendations in this regard, including on enhancing the powers of complaint-handling bodies. In relation to the CRPD, it is currently not possible for individuals to complain to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities about EU acts or omissions, as the EU has not yet ratified the Optional Protocol to the CRPD.

In more general terms, it appears that information about the governance of the funds, especially the national Charter “arrangements” in the context of fundamental rights, is not easily accessible.

The EU should consider ratification of the Optional Protocol to the CRPD to allow the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals who claim to be victims of a violation of the CRPD by the European Union.

_______________________________________________________________________

The European Commission is invited to assign special importance to further improving the effectiveness of the Charter enabling condition when evaluating and when reviewing the CPR 21–27 and the fund-specific regulations. When reviewing the CPR 21–27 in 2027, it will be useful to consider whether the partnership principle could be further strengthened and whether the new legal environment of the EU needs to be reflected in the text. With the pending accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights and the already approved accession to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, the EU legislator could consider including these two prominent frameworks in the enabling conditions in the next programming period (2028–2034). This would further strengthen the role of fundamental rights in the context of EU funds.

_______________________________________________________________________

Independent fundamental rights bodies could:

• share their expertise, recent findings, data and relevant reports in the programming phase to ensure EU funds are used to efficiently implement fundamental rights, as well as provide the authorities with fundamental rights expertise in a needs-based manner throughout the programming period;
• assist Member States in mainstreaming fundamental rights into the selection criteria for EU-funded projects to help ensure fundamental rights compliance, without having to be involved in the selection process;
• participate in relevant monitoring committees in a capacity that does not compromise their independence (for instance by participating as observers), providing relevant fundamental rights data and expertise to the committees;
• assist Member States in setting up indicator frameworks and identifying what constitutes fundamental rights-relevant data and share good practices in the area of fundamental rights data collection;
• provide relevant data, studies and other materials to those charged with conducting reviews and evaluations explaining how such data could populate the existing indicator framework, thereby contributing to a more developed assessment and evaluation frameworks;
• monitor whether performance reviews carried out annually take fundamental rights issues into account and check the quality and focus of the reviews to make recommendations for potential improvements, as well as consider contributing to and commenting on the evaluation of programmes;
• as part of the process of the evaluation of programmes conducted by the Member States, carry out specific studies, for example through focus group discussions or surveys, to assess the impacts of EU funding on fundamental rights and, based on this evidence, provide recommendations for improvement of programme delivery.

Independent fundamental rights bodies could:

• assist with training of officials and beneficiaries of funds governed by the CPR by conducting training themselves, by assisting governments in preparing training or by offering ‘train-the-trainer’ modules that familiarise the authorities with existing fundamental rights data, findings and tools;
• develop or review guiding material on fundamental rights such as checklists, handbooks or factsheets for officials and beneficiaries, and remain available to provide guidance and advice in this regard to officials within the administration of support provided by the funds governed by the CPR who are responsible for fundamental rights issues/horizontal enabling conditions;
• when agreeing to take on roles in the context of the funds governed by the CPR, remind the authorities of hard and soft law standards requiring that any additional tasks for independent fundamental rights bodies come with additional resources so as not to compromise the existing responsibilities of such bodies;
• remind Member States that they can fund technical assistance to reinforce the capacity of independent fundamental rights bodies under Articles 36 and 37 of the CPR 21–27, and that support to such partner organisations may also take the form of a specific programme under the CPR 21–27.

Independent fundamental rights bodies could:

• train staff in managing authorities to deal with complaints in line with fundamental rights principles;
• act as reference points for CSOs to analyse their experience, concerns and complaints, and distribute relevant recommendations to policymakers and/or monitoring committees;
• monitor the effectiveness, accessibility and independence of complaints mechanisms designated by the authorities;
• when complaints and violations are discussed, for example in monitoring committees, recommend and follow up on corrective action that may be needed to ensure compliance with the Charter and the CRPD;
• where the mandate allows, serve as complaints mechanisms for Charter- or CRPD-related complaints in the context of funds governed by the CPR; when , provided the bodies have sufficient resources.