• States of emergency – or their equivalent – remained in place in a small number of Member States.
• Others extended the emergency measures that had earlier replaced states of emergency, or introduced such measures as states of emergency ended. Some such developments prompted concerns about changes to the law-making process, the legal basis for measures and on-going limitations on fundamental rights.
• Courts, national human rights bodies and civil society organisations continued to scrutinise – within their respective areas of competence – limitations on fundamental rights linked to states of emergency. In several cases, this prompted authorities to change their approach.
• Member States adopted a variety of approaches ahead of, during and after the antiracism demonstrations that took place across the EU in June. Some granted permission for such protests, while others banned them.
• In a number of countries, actors took steps to ensure physical distancing and other hygiene measures at demonstrations.

• The removal of constraints in public life came on the condition that health and safety instructions – including on numbers entering a service or facility, special spacing arrangements or wearing of facemasks – are strictly followed.
• Specific stay-at-home orders remained in place in many countries for persons infected with the Coronavirus or persons living with them. Some Member States ordered lockdown measures for specific regions experiencing rising infection rates.
• Police continued to monitor and record violations of health and safety rules, in some cases imposing fines for violations.

The approach to reopening educational institutions varied across Member States in June. While some completely reopened their educational systems, others kept schools shut. Most alternated between face-to-face and remote teaching. This had consequences for the right to education of all children in the EU, without discrimination (Articles 14 and 21 of the Charter).

• Hygiene and safety rules remained in place for educational facilities across the EU.
• A number of Member States initiated summer school programmes to make up for lost teaching time and prepare pupils, particularly those with socially disadvantaged backgrounds or special needs, for the new school year.
• Many countries began preparations for a return to school in the autumn, reflecting the potential need for continued COVID-19-related measures, including prolonged distance learning.
• Assessments of the impact of remote learning revealed challenges of access to equipment and support for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

By late June, most economic sectors were operating again across the EU, but under health and hygiene protocols. Ongoing economic pressures and preventative measures against the virus can affect fundamental rights including: workers’ rights to information and consultation (Article 27), protection in the event of unjustified dismissal (Article 30), the right to fair and just working conditions (Article 31), social security and social assistance (Article 34), the right to health (Article 35), but also the freedom to choose an occupation, the right to engage in work (Article 15), and the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16).

• Some Member States extended measures to support the labour market and cushion the negative economic impact of the lockdown. Several focused on sectors that could still not reopen, or those particularly affected by the pandemic, such as the self-employed.
• Data from a number of countries indicated that the pandemic has disproportionately affected women, particularly when it comes to work-life balance and caring responsibilities.

Disruption to judicial proceedings affects people’s right to access justice, in particular the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47). It also has possible implications for the right to equality before the law (Article 20) and the right to good administration (Article 41). Judicial systems continued to resume normal operations across the EU, while implementing new health and safety guidelines to contain the spread of COVID-19 and working to address the backlog in cases resulting from earlier restrictions.

• Many Member States continued to conduct certain proceedings via written procedure or remotely, to extend deadlines for lodging petitions, and to use electronic communication.
• Some countries reported a backlog of cases and sought to ease these in a variety of ways, including by extending opening hours, hiring additional staff or creating temporary courts.
• Many Member States announced the continuation of video-hearings, although countries and courts differed with regard to which proceedings would continue to take place remotely.

Most Member States acted in line with the European Commission’s recommendation to extend the restrictions on travel to the EU to the end of June. At the same time, Member States continued to ease temporary controls at their internal borders.

• Some Member States announced that – in line with the Council recommendation on the gradual lifting of temporary restrictions on non-essential travel into the EU – that they would begin to re-open their Schengen external borders from 1 July to residents of certain third countries.
• Member States adopted three main approaches to travel within the EU. Half of them generally no longer imposed controls on entry for people resident in most EU or Schengen states; eight operated a ‘traffic light system’, with travel allowed from EU Member States on ‘safe’ or ‘green’ lists, while certain conditions remained in place for travel from other Member States; the remainder imposed other conditions.

The situation of older persons and persons with disabilities living in institutions gave particular cause for concern, given the high rates of infections and deaths in these settings and the impact of visiting bans on residents’ wellbeing.

• In June, about half of EU Member States further eased restrictions on visits to these settings. Criticisms emerged in some countries that guidelines on visits were too complex, that there was a lack of information about changes, and that restrictions were over-implemented or disproportionate.
• Governments and organisations in some Member States assessed the response to COVID-19 in institutions and considered how to deal with a potential ‘second wave’.

Issues around access to treatment and testing, access to services and the impact of isolation affect older people’s right to lead a life in dignity and independence, as enshrined in Article 25 of the Charter, alongside many other fundamental rights.

• Member States continued to lift general restrictions and special measures, such as stricter physical distancing recommendations, targeting older persons in June.
• Evidence in some Member States pointed to increased loneliness and psychological distress linked to the pandemic. Some Member States allocated additional resources to facilitate social contact through digital means.

Persons with disabilities continued to face challenges in everyday life because of the pandemic.

• Actors called for greater efforts to ensure that support measures in fields such as employment, education, contact tracing and physical distancing include persons with disabilities and take account of their specific needs.
• Evidence from studies in several Member States indicated that the pandemic is negatively affecting the wellbeing of persons with disabilities and their families, including by increasing stress and loneliness.

Access to clean water and sanitation, loss of jobs and employment opportunities, and the continued vulnerable situation of children remained pressing concerns for many Roma and Travellers in June.

• Some Member States announced or implemented educational programmes to support Roma children and children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
• In some countries, Roma organisations partnered with authorities and launched initiatives to address the negative effect of COVID-19 on Roma communities. Roma health and education mediators played a critical role in facilitating Roma people’s access to information and basic services.

Detention conditions and measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic continued to affect detainees’ rights across the EU. Several Member States reported new COVID-19 infections among prisoners and prison staff.

• Member States continued to gradually restore normal services in prisons throughout June, primarily by easing visiting bans and resuming activities such as education programmes.
• Some countries considered whether to extend initiatives introduced during the pandemic, such as greater access to video calls.

Evidence from some Member States indicated that domestic violence increased during confinement.

• Some Member States reported increases of between 20 % and 73 % in calls to domestic violence national hotlines. Others reported increases in crimes of domestic violence. In contrast, evidence from several countries indicated that reporting to police did not increase. This, as evidenced by FRA’s survey on Violence against Women, is likely to reflect the long-standing challenge of underreporting by victims of domestic violence.
• Some Member States continued to make efforts to support victims, for example by opening new accommodation places, developing a network of places where victims can seek help, and increasing funding to better protect victims.

• The pandemic increasingly became a pretext to attack minorities already subject to racial discrimination, hate speech and hate crime, such as migrants, people with an immigrant background and Roma, particularly on social media.
• Incidents targeting people of assumed Asian origin continued or even increased.
• Reports emerged in several Member States of politicians using racist and xenophobic language.
• Some countries reported racial profiling and disproportionate enforcement of COVID-19 related restrictions with respect to people with North African background, Black people and other ethnic minority groups.
• Issues highlighted in previous bulletins concerning the registration and processing of asylum applications remained in some Member States.
• The number of asylum applications in the EU-27 increased in May compared to April 2020, although overall levels remained low. This could reflect a gradual return to normal trends.
• Most Member States that had imposed temporary restrictions on the processing of asylum applications earlier in the pandemic had gradually resumed asylum procedures by June, partly through remote interviewing.

Disinformation related to COVID-19 continued to circulate, particularly on social media, as reported in Bulletin #1. The European Commission issued a Joint Communication in June 2020 recalling the crucial role played by freedom of expression and a pluralistic democratic debate when fighting disinformation.

• Evidence from some Member States indicates that actions taken at the start of the pandemic successfully reduced the impact of disinformation.
• Several Member States initiated criminal investigations into the spread of disinformation.
• The topics and conspiracy theories spread through disinformation were similar through the EU. Evidence from several Member States indicated that a majority of people believed they had encountered disinformation about the pandemic.
• Efforts to fight disinformation at national level included: promoting enhanced transparency when publishing statistics related to the virus; creating platforms to rebut disinformation and allocating funds to the media to counter disinformation.

By the end of June, contact-tracing apps and other technological tools to combat the pandemic were available or well underway in several Member States, raising a number of data protection and privacy concerns, as highlighted in Bulletin #1 and Bulletin #2.

• Data Protection Authorities in several Member States called for legislation that would provide legal clarity, ensure the voluntary nature and purpose limitation of contact tracing apps, restore public trust and increase public acceptance. Some Member State governments made efforts in this regard.
• Data protection bodies, civil society organisations and the media continued to pay close attention to the deployment of other technological tools to respond to the pandemic, including use of drones and other forms of surveillance of physical distancing measures, passenger locator forms and temperature screening. Some bodies highlighted data processing concerns and a lack of clarity about the legal basis for such tools.