HHr Health and Human Rights Journal

Human Subject Research: International and RegionalHHR_final_logo_alone.indd 1 10/19/15 10:53 AM Human Rights Standards andrés constantin

Abstract

This article will place the discussion of human subject research within the larger context of human rights law, both at the international and regional level, and examine existing normative human rights frameworks that can be used to protect research subjects. The traditional approach has commonly focused on the ethical aspects of human subject research and little has been said about the implications of human experimentation on the enjoyment of basic rights. The difference between ethical principles and human rights is clearly determined by the non-enforceability of ethical norms and the legally binding nature of human rights obligations. A human rights approach to bioethics, and particularly to human subject research, can bring about a defined system and universally accepted set of rules in a field where sociocultural and religious diversity come into play.

Andrés Constantin, LLM, is an institute associate at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, USA. Please address correspondence to Andrés Constantin. Email: [email protected]. Competing interests: None declared. Copyright © 2018 Constantin. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal 137 a. constantin / papers, 137-148

Introduction as CRISPR-Cas9, pose serious risks and challeng- es to the protection of peoples’ human rights and During the Second World War and the Holocaust, basic ethical principles in terms of, for instance, Nazi researchers committed mass-scale atrocities human dignity, informed consent, and the rights of against Jews and other prisoners under the name of future generations.7 Some companies have already medical research. The largest German Nazi concen- sought permission from European regulators and tration camp, Auschwitz, witnessed Josef Mengele’s are planning to seek approval from the US Food egregious experiments performed on Gypsy chil- and Drug Administration to begin CRISPR clinical dren, twins, dwarfs, and people with abnormalities. trials in humans for metabolic, autoimmune, and When the research came to an end, they were killed neurogenerative diseases, among others.8 and their organs autopsied and analyzed.1 This article will place the discussion of hu- It took two years after the end of the war for 16 man subject research within the larger context of German physicians to be found guilty of nefarious human rights law, at both the international and crimes against humanity. The Nazi doctors’ trial regional level, and examine existing normative exposed torture, deliberate mutilation, sterilization, human rights frameworks that can be used to pro- and murder.2 Their trial led to the 1947 drafting of tect research subjects. The traditional approach has the Nuremberg Code, a set of guidelines governing commonly focused on the ethical aspects of human research on humans, which included 10 principles subject research and little has been said about the focused on patient consent and autonomy. The implications of human experimentation on the Nuremberg Code, the first of its kind, was created to prevent a recurrence of the horrors committed enjoyment of basic rights. With the Nuremberg in Nazi Germany, and it paved the way for the de- Code, the Helsinki Declaration, the Belmont Re- velopment of medical ethics and greatly influenced port, and the International Ethical Guidelines for the evolution of human rights law.3 The later Dec- Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects as laration of Helsinki, adopted in 1964, reaffirmed the instruments to be followed, there is a notice- the need for informed consent in all research and able need for legally enforceable norms to protect warned that the “interest of science and society the rights of research participants. The difference should never take precedence over considerations between ethical principles and human rights is related to the wellbeing of the subject.”4 In 1978, the clearly determined by the non-enforceability of Belmont Report framed these issues into “broad- ethical norms and the legally binding nature of hu- er ethical principles [to] provide a basis on which man rights obligations. A human rights approach specific rules may be formulated, criticized, and to bioethics, and particularly to human subject interpreted,” and focused on three main principles: research, can bring about a defined system and respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.5 universally accepted set of rules in a field where so- 9 While experimentation with human subjects ciocultural and religious diversity come into play. is widely practiced, it is often done without due In the era of the Sustainable Development Goals regard to the human rights of participants. For (SDGs), health research is a primary and vital goal. example, recent cases include oxygen experiments Target 3.b supports “the research and development conducted on premature babies without the parents’ of vaccines and medicines for the communicable knowledge, and studies on whether cooling kidneys and non-communicable diseases that primarily af- before a transplant would result in fewer complica- fect developing countries.”10 In this context, human tions, conducted without adequate assessment of subject research is necessary and even desirable to the risks to transplant recipients.6 With the advent achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and the of new technologies, the links between ethical full realization of the right to health.11 The enjoy- principles and human rights in research involving ment of the right to health is recognized in core human participants become particularly relevant. human rights treaties as a fundamental human For instance, new gene editing technologies, such right.12

138 DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal a. constantin / papers, 137-148

Nonetheless, human research is not exempt a response to the atrocities committed in concen- from restrictions necessary to guarantee respect tration camps during the Second World War.16 The for human rights. States must protect people from UN Human Rights Committee later interpreted potential harms arising from and during scientif- Article 7 as requiring “special protections” and ic research. States have the obligation to protect provided that the prohibition in article 7 relates people from being used or exploited in harmful not only to acts that cause physical pain but also scientific experiments, as well as the obligation to to acts that cause mental suffering to the victim. set safeguards to prevent harm caused by research Moreover, the prohibition extends to corporal pun- or experimentation. ishment, including excessive chastisement ordered This article proceeds as follows. First, I de- as punishment for a crime or as an educative or scribe the international standards for human disciplinary measure.17 subject research in the light of norms enshrined in On the other hand, Article 12 of the ICESCR human rights treaties. Next, I briefly examine the calls states to prevent, treat, and control epidemic, regional standards in the Inter-American System endemic, occupational, and other diseases to achieve of Human Rights, the European System of Human the full realization of the highest attainable stan- Rights, and the African System of Human Rights, dard of physical and mental health.18 This, in turn, with particular references to cases and relevant requires “the promotion of medical research and normative frameworks. Then, I present core issues health education” and “fostering recognition of fac- regarding human subject research and delve into tors favoring positive health results, e.g., research.”19 the crucial question of derogations of human rights However, this obligation is not limitless. The right to obligations in the context of public health emer- health is intimately related to and dependent upon gencies, and the implications for human subject the realization of other human rights, such as the experimentation. I conclude with a brief reflection “right to be free from torture, non-consensual medi- on the potential of using international human cal treatment and experimentation.”20 rights law to protect human research subjects. As will be examined later, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires States par- International standards for human subject ties to ensure that the views of the child are given research “due weight… in all matters affecting the child” and that parents and guardians act in the “best The Universal Declaration of Human Rights interests of the child.”21 Moreover, particularly rel- (UDHR) was adopted in 1948, proclaiming that “All evant when it comes to the selection of vulnerable human beings are born free and equal in dignity groups as research participants, the Convention and rights…endowed with reason and conscience” on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination and recognizing that “No one shall be subjected to Against Women (CEDAW) establishes the obliga- torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treat- tion of States parties to “establish legal protection of ment.”13 While not legally binding, the UDHR set the rights of women…and to ensure…the effective the ground for the adoption of the International protection of women against any act of discrimi- Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) nation.”22 The Committee on the Elimination of and the International Covenant of Economic, So- Discrimination Against Women recognized that cial and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).14 women “have the right to be fully informed, by The ICCPR provides that “no one shall be properly trained personnel, of their options in subjected without his free consent to medical or agreeing to treatment or research, including likely scientific experimentation.”15 When analyzing benefits and potential adverse effects of proposed its drafting history, one can clearly identify that procedures and available alternatives.”23 Article 7 was the result of the broad consensus of The Convention Against Torture and Other participants to explicitly include the prohibition as Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Pun-

DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal 139 a. constantin / papers, 137-148 ishment (CAT) defines “torture” as “any act by Regional standards for human subject which severe pain or suffering, whether physical research or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third Inter-American system of human rights person information or a confession.”24 Certainly the While there is no specific Inter-American in- phrase “for such purposes as obtaining from him strument devoted to human subject research, or a third person information” may be considered the protection of research participants is ensured as including human subject research and likewise, through other norms. Under the Inter-American as will be shown later, the lack of informed consent system of human rights, the American Declara- for research participation may be seen as a form tion of the Rights and Duties of Man (ADHR) of coercing the participant, in the terms outlined and the American Convention on Human Rights in Article 1.1. Moreover, Article 16 sets the state’s (ACHR) are the two most relevant instruments. obligation to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading Although not a legally binding instrument, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held in its treatment which do not amount to torture as de- Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of 1989 that recogniz- fined in Article 1, under its jurisdiction. ing the ADHR not being a treaty “does not, then, It is true, however, that to be considered a vio- lead to the conclusion that it does not have legal ef- lation of Article 1.1 or Article 16, the research must fect” on members of the Organization of American be conducted “by or at the instigation of or with the States (OAS).27 consent or acquiescence of a public official or other The ADHR recognizes the right to the pres- person acting in an official capacity,” which is often ervation of health and to well-being, as well as not the case. Still, even in cases where government the equality of all persons before the law “without officials are not involved, an argument could be distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any made that a state has a due diligence duty to prevent other factor.”28 For its part, the ACHR establishes torture or other ill-treatment that occurs within its the right of every person “to have his physical, territory or under its jurisdiction, even when it is mental and moral integrity respected.” It also es- not conducted by persons under its direct control tablishes that no one shall be subjected to torture 25 or public authorities. or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or With regards to persons with disabilities, the treatment.”29 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabil- The ACHR, while raising most of the prin- ities (CRPD) recognizes that States must provide ciples contained in the ADHR to a treaty-level them with equal recognition of legal capacity and protection, reduced the ESC rights to a single pro- protection against non-consensual experimenta- vision recognizing that tion, as well as prohibit exploitation and respect physical and mental integrity.26 States Parties undertake to adopt measures… with Lastly, in the field of humanitarian law, the a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or legal framework includes the Geneva Conventions other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, that specify the prohibition of biological experi- scientific and cultural standards set forth in the ments on wounded or sick members of armed forces Charter of the Organization of American States.30 and the ban on medical or scientific experiments on prisoners of war not justified by the prisoner’s The ESC rights were later captured in the Addition- need. Moreover, its Additional Protocols applicable al Protocol to the American Convention on Human to victims of armed conflict forbid experiments on Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cul- wounded, sick, or shipwrecked persons even with tural Rights, which provides that everyone “shall their consent, and on persons who are interned, have the right to health, understood to mean the detained, or held. enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental

140 DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal a. constantin / papers, 137-148 and social well-being.”31 sent, and the autonomy and self-determination of However, according to Article 19(6) of the Pro- the individual, as part of the respect and guarantee tocol, only violations of the right to unionization of the dignity of every human being. Moreover, the and the right to education may give rise to individ- court considered obtaining informed consent as a ual petitions before the Inter-American Court of fundamental mechanism to achieve respect and to Human Rights, meaning that other rights, such as guarantee different human rights recognized by the the right to health, were practically excluded from ACHR, which may have relevant implications for the scope of protection of the Inter-American hu- human subject research.35 man rights system. For years, the justiciability of ESC rights within the Inter-American system was Box 1. Example 1 of human rights violations in human the subject of scholarly debate regarding whether subject research: US syphilis experiment in Guatemala Article 26 of the ACHR allows for circumvention of Article 19(6) and opens up the door for the direct Between 1946 and 1953, researchers from the United States justiciability of ESC rights.32 and Guatemala conducted, with the support of public Until 2017, the Inter-American Court had ex- institutions, non-consensual medical experiments on some of the most vulnerable populations in Guatemala under the amined the indirect violation of ESC rights under excuse of contributing to the advancement of science. provisions of the ACHR that enshrine civil and People from Guatemalan marginalized populations political rights. One clear example of this “indirect were subjected to non-consensual experiments, including intentional exposure to syphilis, gonorrhea, and chancroid, violation analysis” relevant to the ambit of human which caused them permanent damage. The experiments subject research concerns a 2016 decision from the specifically targeted prisoners, soldiers, patients in a state- Inter-American Court, wherein it addressed the run psychiatric hospital, children in orphanages, and sex workers, among others. With the exception of sex workers, question of informed consent in relation to forced who were included in the experiments to have intercourse sterilization as a violation of the right to humane with prisoners and soldiers, the groups of individuals that treatment (Article 5), right to personal liberty were targeted lacked mobility and could be kept in an area that would facilitate observation for the duration of the (Article 7), right to privacy (Article 11), and right experiments.36 to freedom of expression (Article 13) and estab- The experiments, funded by a grant from the US lished that obtaining consent must derive from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau, involved multiple Guatemalan government communication process, through which qualified ministries and a total of about 1,500 study subjects. The personnel present clear information without tech- findings were never published. During the experiments, nicalities, impartial, accurate, truthful, timely, sex workers were infected with venereal diseases and then 33 provided for sex to subjects for intentional transmission complete, adequate, reliable and informal. of the disease; subjects were deliberately inoculated by In August 2017, the court declared the direct injection of syphilis into the spinal fluid that bathes the brain violation of Article 26 for the first time.34 And and spinal cord, under the skin, and on mucous membranes; an emulsion containing syphilis or gonorrhea was spread almost seven months after Lagos del Campo, the under the foreskin of the penis in male subjects; the penis court clarified and expanded its interpretation of of male subjects was scraped and scarified and then coated Article 26 in the context of the right to health. with the emulsion containing syphilis or gonorrhea; a In Poblete Vilches v. Chile, the Inter-American woman from the psychiatric hospital was injected with syphilis, developed skin lesions and wasting, and then had Court unanimously declared the international re- gonorrheal pus from a male subject injected into both of her sponsibility of Chile for not guaranteeing Poblete eyes and; children were subjected to blood studies to check 37 Vilches’ right to health. The court ruled for the first for the presence of venereal disease. Susan Mokotoff Reverby, a professor at Wellesley time on the right to health as an autonomous right, College, discovered information about these experiments in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention. in 2005 while researching the Tuskegee syphilis study In turn, although in the context of the provision of and shared her findings with United States government officials.38 In October 2010, the US government apologized health services, the court recalled its previous deci- formally, observing that the violation of human rights in that sion in I.V. v. Bolivia and recognized the relationship medical research was to be condemned, regardless of how 39 between obtaining free and prior informed con- much time had passed.

DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal 141 a. constantin / papers, 137-148

European system of human rights of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Europe has pioneered human subject research recognizes the inviolability of human dignity and and clinical trials. In 1997, the Council of Europe the right of everyone to have his/her physical and adopted the Convention for the Protection of Hu- mental integrity respected. In particular, the Char- man Rights and Dignity of the Human Beings with ter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine acknowledges that in the fields of medicine and (“Oviedo Convention”) in Oviedo, Spain, which biology the free and informed consent of the person 49 brought together the bioethics and the legal realms concerned must be respected. for the first time on a single legally binding instru- African system of human rights ment.40 The Oviedo Convention lays out minimum Under the African System, the African Charter on basic norms governing biomedical activities and Human and Peoples’ Rights recognizes that “hu- does not exclude the possibility of granting wider man beings are inviolable [and] every human being protections.41 shall be entitled to respect for his life and integrity The notion of dignity is the cornerstone of the of his person.” In 1996, the Organization of African Oviedo Convention and, as such, primacy is afford- Unity adopted a Resolution of Bioethics in which it ed to the interests and welfare of the human being pledged to promote within the continent “the obli- over the interests of society or science.42 Moreover, gation to obtain the free and enlightened consent as a general rule, any intervention in the health of any one to submit himself/herself to bio-medical field “may only be carried out after the person con- research.”50 cerned has given free and informed consent to it.”43 Vulnerable populations that may become In relation to scientific research, Chapter 5 of the research subjects are afforded special protection Convention delineates the standards that must be in Africa. For instance, the Protocol to the African followed to ensure protection of persons undergo- Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the 44 ing research. Rights of Women in Africa (“Maputo Protocol”) The Additional Protocol to the Convention recognizes the right to dignity of every woman on Human Rights and Biomedicine concerning and, particularly relevant to the context of human Biomedical Research, adopted in 2005, further ex- subject research, prohibits “all medical or scientific pands the protection of human beings involved in experiments on women without their informed research activities. It reaffirms the primacy of the consent.”51 With regards to children, the African human being over societal or scientific interests, Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child pro- and outlines the need for having an independent tects children’s right to survival and development, ethics committee in place “to protect the dignity, their right to health, and their right to protection rights, safety and well-being of research partici- against abuse and torture.52 pants.”45 Moreover, it describes the information that must be provided to the research participants, and the obligation to secure prior, free, and informed Core issues regarding human subject research consent from each participant.46 Other instruments may also be invoked to Basic ethical principles such as respect for persons, protect the rights of research participants. The beneficence, and justice are common to most ethi- European Convention on Human Rights prohibits cal codes in the world, and in turn inform and are torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment.47 The linked to (1) the notion of informed consent, (2) the European Social Charter recognizes the right to assessment of risks and benefits, and (3) the selec- protection of health, and the right to special protec- tion of human subjects and discrimination. I will tion of children and young persons.48 The Charter examine these three core issues in the next section.

142 DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal a. constantin / papers, 137-148

Respect for persons: Informed consent Beneficence: Maximizing benefit and The ethical principle of respect for persons demands minimizing harm—the case of public health that subjects enter into the research voluntarily emergencies and with adequate information.53 To be operative, The principle of beneficence requires the best interests this ethical principle has often been articulated of the research subject to be front and center in order under the notion of “informed consent,” usually to do no harm, or at least to minimize the possibility formulated in terms of rights.54 The requirement of harm while maximizing benefits.59 Emergency of informed consent is critical to protecting people response is the most challenging and sensitive area unfamiliar with medicine or research protocols in the beneficence debate: where the need for im- from manipulation and exploitation.55 mediate governmental action against an imminent In the context of human subject research, con- health threat must be balanced against possible risks sent is considered to be free and informed when it is and harms to research participants.60 Human rights given on the basis of objective information from the law offers a solution in these cases under the notion researcher and includes not only the nature of the of “derogation under state emergency.” research, but also its potential consequences and Oftentimes, disease outbreaks can pose major risks involved, as well as its alternatives. Free and risks to countries, which in turn may lead gov- informed consent is also given in the absence of any ernments to declare a public health emergency. A type of pressure or coercion from anyone who may public emergency has been defined as one that is influence the participants’ independent decision.56 imminent or already occurring, whose effects in- In order to enable potential subjects to make rea- volve the entire nation and threaten the continued soned decisions on matters that will greatly affect organized life of the community, and where normal them, informed consent must be obtained prior to measures or restrictions for the maintenance of any experimentation. In addition, the information public safety or health are inadequate.61 must be sufficiently clear and suitably worded for Several human rights treaties, as well as general the proposed subject.57 This requirement is crucial principles of law, recognize the right of States to der- and may be difficult to satisfy when seeking to ob- ogate from human rights norms during a national tain consent from persons with limited education emergency.62 Non-compliance with certain human or those unfamiliar with science.58 rights obligations is permitted during a grave emer- From a human rights standpoint, informed gency under the principle of exceptional threat.63 consent is a fundamental aspect of the respect for However, a series of limitations must be observed in autonomy and human dignity of the person and order to prevent abuse when declaring an emergen- is the very first criterion by which to assess the cy, in particular when such emergency may require lawfulness of any experimentation. As such, the human subject research to be conducted. principle of autonomy is crucial as it represents the A derogation is only acceptable if necessary decision-making power of the research participant and proportional to the emergency at hand. There- and the recognition of her/him as an autonomous fore, the first limitation to the derogation from moral subject. human rights is the necessity of said measure.64 By formulating the notion of respect for per- Moreover, the derogations must be proportional to sons—as well as other ethical principles—using the the factual circumstances. In other words, the dura- terminology of rights recognized in legally binding tion, severity, and geographic scope of derogations human rights instruments, rights holders and is limited to measures strictly required by the situa- duty-bearers benefit from clarity on the legal re- tion.65 States shall demonstrate the proportionality sponsibility and the scope and content of the right by linking the emergency and the derogations and to informed consent. proving that no less restrictive measure is available.

DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal 143 a. constantin / papers, 137-148

However, certain rights are non-derogable. the first to receive protection and relief” and “be For instance, the principle of non-discrimination protected against all forms of exploitation.”72 Also, is considered “functionally non-derogable in the medical experimentation on mothers is subject to sense that it is never strictly necessary to violate the special care and assistance, since it can endanger ban on arbitrary discrimination in order to meet their health and that of their child.73 an actual threat.”66 In that sense, the Human Rights The recognition of the principle of non-dis- Committee has considered that even in situations of crimination as a cornerstone in human subject public emergency such as those referred to in article research is grounded on the notion of the unequal 4 of the [ICCPR], no derogation from the provision power dynamic between the researcher and the in- of article 7 [prohibiting medical or scientific exper- dividual subject, which may be exacerbated in cases imentation without free consent, as well as torture of structural inequality that are the “consequence or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment] is of a situation of social exclusion or “subjugation” of allowed and its provisions must remain in force.67 [vulnerable groups] by others, in a systematic way and due to a complex set of social practices, prej- Justice: Selection of human subjects and non- udices and beliefs.”74 In this line, both the Special discrimination Rapporteur on the right to health and the Special Justice requires that vulnerable people should Rapporteur on torture have recognized that struc- not be inappropriately targeted as experimental tural inequalities may be exacerbated by social subjects and “gives rise to moral requirements and economic factors, stigma, and discrimination, that there be fair procedures and outcomes in the which could impair the informed consent of vul- selection of research subjects.”68 In practice, this nerable groups.75 In cases involving vulnerable principle relates to the fundamental principle of populations, careful scrutiny is necessary to ensure non-discrimination, since “all human beings are that they are not involved in the research merely born free and equal in dignity and rights.”69 because their vulnerability makes them easier to In selecting human participants for research, manipulate. respect is necessary for people who may not be able The principle of non-discrimination is violated to choose freely or who have diminished capacity. when differential treatment lacks an objective and Some people may have diminished autonomy due reasonable justification. In the context of human to mental illness or age. Others may find it diffi- subject research, the selection of groups of people cult to voluntarily and freely consent because they according to their level of exposure to certain dis- are subject to authority (for example, prisoners, ease vectors—as may be bodily fluids—would be members of the military), or because their condi- considered “objective and reasonable justification.” tion may place them at increased risk (for example, Restricting the experiments to vulnerable popula- pregnant women).70 Vulnerable populations might tions—prisoners, women, children, people living in also include marginalized populations, such as in- poverty—without a rational link between them and digenous peoples, people living in extreme poverty, the factors contributing to the spread of a disease racial minorities, or people living with HIV/AIDS. may violate the principle of non-discrimination, In the case of prisoners, for instance, given their as these populations are often powerless, impover- imprisonment, they are usually subject to human ished, or politically underrepresented, leaving them rights abuses and are unable to refuse experimen- unable to question the methods or procedures or tation. In light of this situation, protections against challenge the project. the use of prisoners for medical experimentation Framing the selection of research participants have been widely established under international as a human rights issue protects vulnerable popula- law.71 Children are also protected as a vulnerable tions as it clarifies freedoms, entitlements, and duties group for cases of research and experimentation. in this realm, provides a normative foundation for Children “shall in all circumstances be among claims, and facilitates the accountability process.76

144 DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal a. constantin / papers, 137-148

Box 2. Example 2 of human rights violations in human of human experimentation. Bringing ethical prin- subject research: Postobon lab testing on Colombian ciples and human rights standards together can children help bring compensation and relief to surviving participants or family members. Such standards On February 13, 2018, the Liga contra el Silencio—an alliance of journalists and media that fights censorship can also serve to advance a reconciliation process in Colombia—reported that Colombia’s largest beverage at the national and international levels in cases of company, Postobon, distributed drinks containing abominable experiments on humans, such as those uncertified chemical supplements to more than 3,000 children from La Guajira, one of the poorest departments of that occurred in Nazi Germany, and to prevent fu- Colombia, and conducted lab tests on some of the children ture misconduct. to evaluate the effects of their products.77 This article demonstrates the different ways According to sources from the company, the objective in which the current state of international human was “to determine the physical changes of the development and the biochemical changes derived from the consumption rights law affords protection to research participants of this drink fortified with vitamins and minerals, in a both at the international and regional level and re- representative sample of children who receive the drink.” inforces principles and guidelines long enshrined in Postobon said its intention was “to evaluate the acceptance, use and consumption of the drink in its two presentations, documents delineating ethical principles. as well as training in nutrition to parents of the 220 children of educational institutions.”78 Colombia’s Ministry of Health requested information References from Postobon about the authorization protocol for the research, but it has not been provided. It is unclear whether 1. See L. M. Lagnado and S. Cohn Dekel, Children of the the company requested parental/guardian consent for flames: Dr. Josef Mengele and the untold story of the twins of conducting this research. It is also unclear whether the Auschwitz (New York, NY: Penguin, 1992). company took steps to minimize harms and maximize 2. J. Katz, “United States v. Karl Brandt,” in J. Katz, benefits to the participating children, and whether Experimentation with human beings: The authority of the the company had obtained consent for the scientific investigator, subject, professions, and state in the human experimentation. experimentation process (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972), pp. 292-306. 3. The Nuremberg Code (1947), reprinted in G. J. Conclusion Annas and M. A. Grodin, The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code: human rights in human experimenta- International and regional human rights law offers tion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 2. many normative foundations for the protection of 4. World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki: human subject research. International and regional Ethical principles for medical research involving human sub- jects (Helsinki: WMA, 1964). human rights treaties explicitly provide for rights— 5. National Commission for the Protection of Human such as the right not to be subjected to torture or Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treat- Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the ment—that may be used to better protect the rights Protection of Human Subjects of Research (Washington, DC: of research participants. US Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 1. Human rights law promotes states’ account- 6. See M. Carome, “Outrage of the month: A steady stream of unethical human experiments,” Public Citizen ability on the adoption of positive measures (May 2016). Available at https://www.citizen.org/our-work/ ensuring the protection of research participants. health-and-safety/outrage-month-steady-stream-unethi- Moreover, it obliges states to adopt legislative and cal-human-experiments. administrative measures and, in cases of violations, 7. M. F. Riley, “CRISPR creations and human rights,” it gives the research participant the ability to claim Law & Ethics of Human Rights 11 (2017), pp. 225-252. See the enforcement and protection of those rights also, B. E. Hrouda, “‘Playing God?’: An examination of the legality of CRISPR Germline Editing Technology under the through judicial recourse. current international regulatory scheme and the Universal Moreover, human rights standards provide a Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights,” perfect avenue to address structural injustice and Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 45 institutional and national responsibility in cases (2017), pp. 221-241.

DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal 145 a. constantin / papers, 137-148

8. See E. Mullin, “CRISPR in 2018: Coming to a human 19. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights near you,” MIT Technology Review (December 18, 2017). (CESCR), General Comment No. 14, The Right to the Highest Available at https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609722/ Attainable Standard of Health, UN Doc. No. E/C.12/2000/4 crispr-in-2018-coming-to-a-human-near-you/. (2000). 9. See R. Andorno, “Human dignity and human rights 20. Ibid, para. 8. as a common ground for a global bioethics,” Journal of 21. CRC (see note 12). Medicine and Philosophy 34 (2009), pp. 223-240; G. J. Annas, 22. International Convention on the Elimination of All “American bioethics and human rights: The end of all our Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), G.A. exploring,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32/4 (2004), Res. 34/180 (1979), art. 2.c, 5.a. pp. 658-663; R. Baker, “Bioethics and human rights: A 23. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination historical perspective,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Against Women (CEDAW Committee), General Recom- Ethics 10 (2001), pp. 241-252; T. Faunce, “Will international mendation No. 24, Women and Health, UN Doc. No. human rights subsume medical ethics? Intersections in the CEDAW/C/1999/I/WG.II/WP.2/Rev.1 (1999), para. 20. UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration,” Journal of Med- 24. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhu- ical Ethics 31 (2005), pp. 173-178. man or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), G.A. 10. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sus- Res. 39/45 (1984), art. 1.1. tainable Development, G.A. Res. 70/1 (2016), para. 16 (Target 25. Committee Against Torture, General Comment No. 2, 3.8). Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, UN Doc. No. 11. World Health Organization, Research for universal CAT/C/GC/2 (2008), para 20; see also, L. McGregor, “Apply- health coverage (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013). ing the definition of torture to the acts of non-state actors: 12. Constitution of the World Health Organization, WHA The case of trafficking in human beings,” Human Rights 26.37, WHA 29.38, WHA 39.6 and WHA 51.23 (2006), pream- Quarterly 36/1 (2014), pp. 210-241. ble, art. 1; Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 26. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, G.A. Res. 217A (III) (1948), Art. 25.; International Covenant G.A. Res, 61/106 (2006), arts. 12, 15, 16, 17 and 25. on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), G.A. 27. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 (Inter-American Court of Res. 2200A (XXI) (1966) Art.12.1; Convention on the Rights Human Rights, July 14, 1989). of the Child (CRC), G.A. Res. 44/25 (1989), art 24.1; African 28. ADHR (see note 12), art. II and XI. Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, OAU Doc. No. 29. American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5 (1981), reprinted in International Legal O.A.S. Treaty Series No. 36 (1969), art. 1 and 5. Materials 21 (1982), art. 16; American Declaration of the 30. Ibid, art. 26. Rights and Duties of Man (ADHR). OAS Res. XXX (1948), 31. Additional Protocol to the American Convention on art. XI. Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural 13. UDHR (see note 12), arts. 1, 5. See also, J. Morsink, The Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) (1988), art. 10. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: origins, drafting, 32. See e.g., J. Cavallaro and E. Schaffer, “Less as More: Re- and intent (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania thinking Supranational Litigation of Economic and Social Press, 1999). Rights in the Americas,” Hastings Law Journal 56 (2004); T. 14. It must be noted that some provisions of the UDHR Melish, “Rethinking the Less as More Thesis: Supranational are often regarded to be binding as customary international Litigation of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in the law. See J. Dugard, et al., International law: A South African Americas,” New York University Journal of International Law Perspective (Lansdowne, South Africa: Juta, 2005). See gener- and Politics 39 (2007), pp. 171-343; J. Cavallaro and E. Schaf- ally, H. Hannun, “The UDHR in National and International fer, “Rejoinder: Justice before Justiciability: Inter-American Law,” Health & Human Rights Journal 3/2 (1998), pp. 145-158. Litigation and Social Change,” New York University Journal 15. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of International Law and Politics 39 (2007), pp. 345-383; (ICCPR), G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), Art. 7. T. Melish, “Counter-Rejoinder: Justice vs. Justiciability: 16. M. Bossuyt, Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the Normative Neutrality and Technical Precision, the Role of International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights (Dor- the Lawyer in Supranational Social Rights Litigation,” New drecht: Martinus Nijhoof Publishers, 1987), pp. 151-58. See York University Journal of lnternational Law and Politics, 39 also, M. Nowak UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (2007), pp. 385-415. CCPR Commentary (Arlington, VA: N.P. Engel, 2005), pp. 190. 33. I.V. v. Bolivia (Inter-American Court of Human 17. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Com- Rights, November 30, 2016), para. 191. ment No. 20, Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other 34. See Lagos del Campo v. Peru (Inter-American Court of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Human Rights, August 31, 2017). UN Doc. No. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 151 (1992), para 5, 7. 35. Poblete Vilches v. Chile (Inter-American Court of Hu- 18. ICESCR (see note 12), art. 12. man Rights, March 8, 2018), para 170.

146 DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal a. constantin / papers, 137-148

36. See D. G. McNeil Jr., “U.S. apologizes for syphilis 57. I.V. v. Bolivia (see note 33), para. 192. tests in Guatemala,” New York Times (October 1, 2010). 58. F.C. Robbins, “Criteria of Informed Consent in Vac- Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/ cine Trials,” in N. Howard-Jones and Z. Bankowski (eds), research/02infect.html?_r=1. Medical experimentation and the protection of human rights 37. See Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioeth- (Geneva: CIOMS, 1979). ical Issues, Ethically impossible: STD research in Guatemala 59. Belmont Report (see note 5), p. 6. from 1946 to 1948, (Washington, DC: US Government Print- 60. S.S. Coughlin, “Ethical issues in epidemiologic re- ing Office, 2011). search and public health practice,” Emerging Themes in 38. See S. M. Reverby, “Normal exposure and inoculation Epidemiology 3/16 (2006). syphilis: a PHS ‘Tuskegee’ doctor in Guatemala, 1946-1948,” 61. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands v. Journal of Policy History 23/1 (2011), pp. 6-28. See also S. M. Greece (European Commission of Human Rights, Case Nos. Reverby, “Ethical failures and history lessons: the U.S. Public 3321/67, 3322/67, 3323/67 and 3344/67, 1968), para. 152-153. Health Service Research Studies in Tuskegee and Guatema- 62. See J. Oraa, Human rights in states of emergency in la,” Public Health Reviews 34/1 (2013), pp. 1-18. international law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 7. 39. J. H. Tanne, “President Obama apologises to Guate- 63. Ibid. mala over 1940s Syphilis Study,” BMJ 341 (2010). 64. CRC (see note 12), art.15; ICCPR (see note 15), art. 4. 40. H. R. Abbing, “The Convention on Human Rights and 65. UN Economic and Social Council, Siracusa Principles Biomedicine. An appraisal of the Council of Europe Con- on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the IC- vention,” European Journal of Health Law 5 (1998), p. 379. CPR, UN Doc. No. E/CN.4/1984/4 (1984). 41. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 66. J. Fitzpatrick, “Protection Against Abuse of the Con- Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application cept of Emergency,” in L. Henkin and J.L. Hargrove (eds), of Biology and Medicine (Oviedo Convention), European Human rights: an agenda for the next century (Washington, Treaty Series No. 164 (1997), art. 27. DC: ASIL, 1994). 42. Ibid, art. 1 and 2. 67. HRC (see note 17), para. 3. 43. Ibid, art 5. 68. Belmont Report (see note 5), p. 18. 44. Ibid, Art. 16 and 17. 69. UDHR (see note 12), art. 1; CRC (see note 12), art. 19; 45. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human CEDAW (see note 22), art. 12; ICCPR (see note 15), art. 26. Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Biomedical Research 70. See generally, L. O. Gostin, “Ethical principles for the (2005), art. 3, 9.2. conduct of human subject research: population-based re- 46. Ibid, art. 13, 14. search and ethics,” Law, Medicine and Health Care 19 (1991), 47. European Convention on Human Rights, European pp. 191-201. Treaty Series No. 5 (1953), art. 3. 71. See supra Part II. See also, Basic Principles for the 48. European Social Charter (revised), European Treaty Treatment of Prisoners, G.A. Res. 45/111 (1990), principle 1; Series No. 163 (1996), art. 11 and 17. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under 49. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, G.A. Res. 43/173 Union, C 364/01 (2000), art. 3. (1988), principle 22; HRC (see note 17). 50. Organization of African Unity, Resolution of Bioeth- 72. See CRC (see note 12); Declaration of the Rights of the ics, AHG/Res.254 (XXXII), para 2, 3.e. Child, G.A. res. 1386 (XIV) (1959), principles 2,4, 8 and 9. 51. Protocol to the African Charter on Human and 73. UDHR (see note 12), art. 25(2); African Charter (see People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo note 12), art. 18(3). Protocol) (2003), art. 3.1, 4.2.h. 74. M. Alegre and R. Gargarella, El derecho a la igualdad. 52. African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Aportes para un constitucionalismo igualitario (Buenos Ai- Child (1990), art. 5, 14, 15. res, Argentina: Lexis Nexis, 2007), pp. 166-167. 53. Belmont Report (see note 5), p. 6. 75. Anand Grover, UN Special Rapporteur on the right of 54. R. Andorno, Principles of International Biomedical everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard Law (Brussels: Bruylant, 2013), p. 17. of physical and mental health, UN Doc. No. A/64/272 (2009), 55. See B. M. Dickens, “Criteria of adequately informed para. 17; Juan E. Méndez, Special Rapporteur on torture and consent,” in N. Howard-Jones and Z. Bankowski (eds), other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punish- Medical experimentation and the protection of human rights ment, UN Doc. No. A/HRC/22/53 (2013), para. 29. (Geneva: CIOMS, 1979), pp.200-201. 76. See generally, R. Dworkin, Taking rights seriously 56. See J. S. Neki, “Selection and Recruitment of Institu- (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977). tionalized Subjects,” in N. Howard-Jones and Z. Bankowski 77. See La Liga contra el Silencio, “Postobón hace pruebas (eds), Medical experimentation and the protection of human de laboratorio con niños en la Guajira,” VICE (February rights (Geneva: CIOMS, 1979). 13, 2018). Available at https://www.vice.com/es_co/article/

DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal 147 a. constantin / papers, 137-148 vbpb8m/postobon-pruebas-laboratorio-ninos-guajira-nu- tricion-bebidas-liga-contra-silencio. 78. See Postobón, “Aclaración sobre información errónea acerca de KUFU” (February 14, 2018). Available at http:// www.postobon.com/sala-prensa/noticias/aclaracion-so- bre-informacion-erronea-acerca-kufu.

148 DECEMBER 2018 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2 Health and Human Rights Journal JANUARY 2019 COUNTRY SUMMARY European Union

Despite falling numbers of migrants arriving at the borders of the European Union, populist leaders in EU states sought to use the issue of migration to stoke fear and increase their support at the polls. Their positions on migration frequently undermined the EU’s moral standing and often had little to do with effective policy. However, EU institutions acted to address the Hungarian government’s attacks on the country’s democratic institutions and the Polish government’s attacks on the rule of law.

Migration and Asylum Despite arrivals of migrants and asylum seekers decreasing to pre-2015 levels, the often- opportunistic hardline approach of anti-immigrant European Union governments, including those of Italy, Hungary, and Austria, dominated the migration debate throughout the year.

With disagreements blocking agreements on reforms of EU asylum laws and fair distribution of responsibility for processing migrants and asylum seekers entering and already present in EU territory, the focus remained on keeping migrants and asylum seekers away from the EU, including through problematic proposals for offshore processing and migration cooperation with non-EU countries with fewer resources, uneven human rights records, and less capacity to process asylum claims.

By mid-November, 107,900 arrivals were registered by sea (the vast majority) and over land, compared to 172,300 in 2017. A combination of factors, including the EU’s problematic migration cooperation with Libya and curbs on nongovernmental rescue efforts in the central Mediterranean, led to a marked decrease in arrivals to Italy, while crossings from Turkey to Greek islands and from Morocco to Spain increased.

The EU consolidated its partnership on migration control with Libya despite overwhelming evidence of brutality against migrants and asylum seekers there. Support to the Libyan Coast Guard, combined with the International Maritime Organization’s recognition, in June,

of a Libyan search-and-rescue zone, meant that increased numbers of people were intercepted at sea and subsequently detained in abusive conditions in Libya.

A United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) program to evacuate vulnerable asylum seekers from Libya to Niger did not receive sufficient resettlement offers from EU countries. In September, UNHCR updated its non-return advisory for Libya, emphasizing that Libya is not a safe place to disembark rescued persons.

EU member states’ efforts to obstruct rescue efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the increasing reliance on Libyan coast guard forces coincided with a skyrocketing death rate. By mid-November, the death toll had reached 2,043, a decrease compared to 2017. But the death rate per crossing increased from 1 in 42 in 2017 in the first eight months to 1 in 18 in the same period in 2018, according to UNHCR.

In early June, Italy began refusing or delaying disembarkation of rescued persons from NGO, commercial, and military ships. With Malta following suit, there were numerous incidents when hundreds of people had to remain aboard rescue ships until ad hoc disembarkation agreements could be reached. There were concerns that the actions could deter merchant vessels from carrying out rescues.

Instead of seeking a regional disembarkation agreement to ensure a fair and predictable system for sharing responsibility among EU countries, European leaders focused on creating so-called disembarkation platforms outside the EU where all rescued persons would be taken for processing of asylum claims. Egypt, Tunisia, and other North Africa states, and Albania were proposed as possible partners despite concerns about conditions, treatment, and meaningful access to asylum.

Proposed reforms to EU asylum laws, put forward in May 2016, remained largely blocked. Changes to the EU Dublin regulation needed to ensure a more equitable distribution of responsibility for asylum processing remained the most contested.

Belgium moved forward with plans to resume family immigration detention, completing the construction of new detention units for migrant families with children in mid-2018. It had abandoned immigration detention of children, whether unaccompanied or with families, in early 2016. EU countries do not systematically report data on immigration detention of children, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights observed in a 2017 study. Elsewhere in the EU, 16 of the 28 member states held children in immigration detention in 2016, the last year for which complete data are available.

Discrimination and Intolerance Populist extremist parties and ideas again exercised an outsize influence over European politics during the year. Parties aligned with radical right populism won re-election in Hungary, joined ruling coalitions in Italy and Austria, and gained ground in elections in Sweden and Slovenia, and in state elections in Germany. Poland’s populist government remained in power, but lost momentum in local elections in 2018. Elements of the populists’ anti-immigration, anti-refugee and anti-Muslim policy agenda continued to be embraced by some mainstream political parties in several EU countries, including in Germany.

Danish authorities introduced a series of measures during the year to enforce “Danish values,” designating certain areas as “ghettos” based on a high proportion of residents with ethnic minority or immigrant backgrounds, and low social status. Children in those areas would be subject to mandatory daycare in the name of integration. In August, a ban on wearing face veils in public came into effect.

There were instances of racist intolerance or violent hate crimes in many EU states including Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Anti-Semitism remained a concern in EU member states.

An April report by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency noted that Roma across the EU commonly faced harassment and experienced discrimination in accessing education, employment, and healthcare.

The European Commission launched a consultation to develop standards on disability inclusion in EU-funded humanitarian operations.

Discrimination on the grounds of gender and sex remained widespread. At time of writing, eight member states and the EU had yet to ratify the Istanbul Convention, a Council of Europe treaty on combatting and preventing violence against women. In July, Bulgaria’s constitutional court found the treaty incompatible with its constitution.

In Ireland, a referendum in May overturned a near-total abortion ban, and in December parliament finalized approval of legislation legalizing access to abortion was pending before parliament. In Poland, a bill introduced in January to “stop abortion” was still pending at time of writing. The initiative aimed to restrict legal abortions carried out in situations of severe fetal anomaly, the grounds for over 95 percent of legal abortions performed in Poland.

In June, the EU Court of Justice ruled that the same-sex spouses of EU citizens are entitled to free movement to any member state in the EU, even if the member state’s marriage laws (in this case Romania) did not authorize same-sex marriages.

Rule of Law EU institutions stepped up their responses to conduct by EU governments that threatens the rule of law and other EU founding values. Poland and Hungary were subject to the political mechanism contained in article 7 of the EU treaty for posing such threats.

In December 2017, the European Commission activated article 7 over the rule of law crisis in Poland, following the adoption of 13 laws that undermined the country’s entire judiciary. At time of writing, EU European affairs ministers had convened two hearings in June and September with the government of Poland to discuss the issues. In parallel, the commission pursued enforcement action against Poland over the Law on Ordinary Courts and the Law on the Supreme Court, referring the cases to the EU Court of Justice in December 2017 and September 2018. In October, the EU Court of Justice ordered Poland to suspend application of the Law on the Supreme Court that would remove sitting judges from their posts until a final decision on the case. At time of writing, the EU Court of Justice had yet to hear the merits of either case.

In July, the EU Court of Justice ruled that national courts can block otherwise automatic extradition requests made by Poland on a case by case basis if it is determined that the defendant would not receive fair trial guarantees.

In September, the European Parliament decided by a two-thirds majority to activate article 7 over the situation in Hungary. The parliament expressed concerns on a wide range of issues, including judicial independence, freedom of expression, freedom of association, academic freedom, and the rights of migrants and asylum seekers.

In December 2017, the European Commission referred Hungary’s 2017 Higher Education Law and law on foreign-funded NGOs to the EU Court of Justice. In July 2018, the commission referred Hungary’s 2017 asylum law to the court. It also began enforcement action over the anti-NGO law that Hungary adopted in May.

In November, the European Parliament adopted a resolution expressing concern over legislative reforms in Romania that undermine the independence of the judiciary and threaten the ability of NGOs to operate.

In May, the European Commission proposed that the next EU budget starting in 2021 should link distribution of EU funds to member states to their respect for rule of law.

The killing of three journalists in member states raised troubling questions about protection of media freedom in the EU. Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed in a car bomb in October 2017; Slovak investigative journalist Ján Kuciak was shot dead in February 2017; and Bulgarian TV journalist Viktoria Marinov was raped and killed in October 2018. All three were working on exposing corruption or fraud allegations. None of the cases had been resolved at time of writing.

Terrorism and Counterterrorism In March, the European Commission announced a series of non-binding “operational measures” for states and internet companies to remove online content deemed terrorism- related or otherwise illegal, raising concerns about privacy and freedom of expression. In September, the commission published a draft regulation that, if passed, would turn these

measures into law, including large fines for internet companies that failed promptly to remove content deemed illegal.

Two key judgments issued together in May by the European Court of Human Rights condemned Lithuania and Romania for their complicity in the CIA’s torture and secret detention program in the 2000s. The court also determined that national investigations in both countries were ineffective, calling for a renewal of the investigations to identify and punish responsible officials.

In March, the European Court of Human Rights rejected a request by the Irish government to reconsider the landmark 1978 case Ireland v UK on prohibited interrogation techniques used by British security forces in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Ireland had sought to reopen the case in light of evidence that the UK withheld information which could have altered the finding that the methods were ill-treatment rather than torture.

By September, at least 12 member states had reported transposing into domestic law the 2017 EU directive to combat terrorism. The directive contains provisions that undermine free expression and freedom of movement.

Croatia According to the minister of interior, 3,200 migrants and asylum seekers crossed into Croatia between January and August, with 852 claiming asylum. Authorities granted 140 people asylum and 21 subsidiary protection during the same period.

In August, UNHCR reported allegations that since January around 2,500 asylum seekers and migrants had been pushed back by Croatian police to Bosnia and Herzegovina, hundreds of cases of denied access to asylum procedures, and over 700 allegations of police violence and theft. The same month, a group of members of the European Parliament from 11 EU states jointly requested the European Commission to urgently investigate the allegations, with the Council of Europe human rights commissioner echoing that call in October.

A decade after Croatia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), thousands of adults and children with disabilities remain trapped in segregated institutions. A draft law on foster care tabled by the government in May would prioritize placement of adults with disabilities in foster care, including without their consent, in contradiction to the CRPD. It remained pending at time of writing.

A government funded study published in July found that almost all Roma in the country live in poverty and less than a third finish primary school.

A campaign starting in May for a public referendum to reduce the number of seats for ethnic Serbs in the Croatian parliament and limit them from voting on the budget and government formation raised alarm among Serb community leaders and NGOs. Authorities were reviewing the proposal at time of writing.

Between January and September 2018, there were 14 war crimes cases before courts in Croatia. In the same period, courts convicted only four people for war-related crimes and the prosecution of other cases moved slowly.

France In August, France adopted a flawed asylum and immigration law. The French Ombudsman, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and NGOs criticized the law for undermining access to asylum, including by weakening appeal rights and safeguards for those subject to accelerated asylum procedures. The law failed to ban detention of migrant children, despite six European Court of Human Rights rulings that such detention by France violated their rights.

In April and May, the French ombudsman warned of the dire living conditions of migrants and asylum seekers in the camp of La Villette, in Paris, and in Grande-Synthe in northern France, and called for the camps’ dismantlement only if sustainable solutions respectful of fundamental rights are implemented. Authorities cleared the camps in late May and early September respectively. Living conditions for migrants and asylum seekers in the Calais area remain squalid and harassment of aid workers there by police continued.

Child protection authorities in Paris continued to use flawed age assessment procedures for unaccompanied migrant children, excluding many from care they need and are entitled to, leaving hundreds homeless.

In July, the Constitutional Council ruled that solidarity was among the highest values of the French republic and that assisting undocumented migrants should not therefore be criminalized “when these acts are carried out for humanitarian purposes.” This ruling was enshrined in the August immigration and asylum law. NGOs remain concerned that judges could narrowly interpret the humanitarian exception in a way that permits prosecutions.

Since late 2017, France’s asylum office selected 458 refugees currently in camps in Niger and Chad for resettlement. France pledged to resettle 3,000 refugees from that region before October 2019.

In May, the NGO SOS Homophobie said it received 15 percent more reports of physical attacks on LBGT people for 2017 compared to 2016. In November, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe announced a 69 percent increase in antisemitic attacks in the first nine months of 2018 compared to 2017. The National Commission on Human Rights reported in March that violent anti-Muslim acts had increased in 2017 by 8 percent compared to 2016.

The welcome decision to include access to inclusive education in the national strategy for autism launched in April stood in contrast to a housing law adopted in October that would reduce the obligation to ensure that new housing is wheelchair accessible.

In August, France adopted a new sexual violence law aimed at tackling sexual harassment and sexual violence against children. The law makes street harassment an offense, raises the statute of limitation on sex crimes against children from 20 to 30 years, and gives judges the power to rule on a case by case basis that sex by an adult with a child under 15 is rape but falls short of criminalizing all such sex with a child under 15 as rape. In September, a man was convicted of street harassment (“outrage sexiste”) for the first time under the new law and fined 300 euros (approximately $340).

France’s Universal Periodic Review took place in January and the report was adopted in June. France accepted recommendations to stop ethnic profiling in identity checks but failed to take legislative steps to end such practices.

On a visit to France in May, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism expressed concerns about the 2017 counterterrorism law, which incorporates state of emergency powers into ordinary law and includes insufficient safeguards in the use of non-criminal measures against terrorism suspects.

Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel announced in October she would not seek a fifth term after a poor showing in several state elections by her Christian Democratic Union party and its sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU). Efforts by the CSU in the Bavarian elections to emulate the rhetoric and agenda of the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany backfired as the CSU lost voters to AfD and the Greens, with the latter becoming that state’s second largest party.

Arrivals of asylum-seekers and migrants fell for the third year in a row, and federal authorities made significant progress clearing a backlog of asylum claims during the year. By the end of July, 96,644 new asylum-seekers had been registered, decreasing by a sixth from the previous year.

Despite disagreements within the newly formed federal coalition government over Germany’s approach to EU asylum and migration policy, Germany continued to play a leadership role in refugee resettlement. In April, the government announced that Germany would accept 4,600 resettled refugees in 2018 and 5,600 in 2019 as a contribution towards an EU program. In July, the government granted admission to up to 300 refugees evacuated to Niger from Libya.

NGOs criticized aspects of Germany’s deportation system after reports of a series of cases in which asylum seekers were returned to their home countries while their cases were still pending, including a Tunisian deported despite a court order blocking the transfer on the grounds of risk of torture.

Although fewer than in previous years, attacks on refugees and asylum seekers remained a matter of concern. In the first half of 2018, police recorded 627 attacks on refugees and asylum seekers outside their home, and 77 attacks on refugee shelters.

Xenophobic demonstrations in the city of Chemnitz triggered by the killing of a German man, allegedly by two foreign nationals, in August and the exploitation of the killing by the far-right, saw violent scenes, including attacks on people perceived as “non-German.”

In March, a Dresden judge found eight people from a far-right group guilty of terrorism offences and attempted murder for attacks in 2015 on refugee shelters and a local politician supporting newly arrived migrants. In July, a Munich judge found a man guilty of murder, terror offenses, and arson in a case relating to a series of murders carried out by a neo-Nazi group between 2000 and 2006. Four accomplices were found guilty of lesser charges.

The controversial Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), came into effect on January 1. It compels social media companies to take down hate speech and other illegal content or face large fines. The act came under criticism after several high-profile social media users had their content or accounts blocked, either as a result of NetzDG or the companies’ terms of use.

A group of foreign correspondents—with support from German journalists’ unions and other press freedom groups—launched a challenge in January before the Federal Constitutional Court to the German domestic intelligence agency’s power to surveil the communications of foreign nationals, arguing it infringes their right to free expression and privacy.

German judicial authorities continued their work investigating serious international crimes committed abroad, including in Syria.

Greece Although Greece continued to host large number of asylum seekers, it failed to protect their rights. Overall numbers of arrivals increased compared to the same period in 2017. Deficiencies in the reception and asylum system escalated with severe overcrowding, unsanitary, unhygienic conditions, and lack of sufficient specialized care, including medical care, trauma counseling, and psychosocial support. Physical and gender-based violence were common in asylum camps, and NGOs reported deteriorating mental health conditions among asylum seekers. Most unaccompanied children continued to be placed in camps with adults, in so-called protective police custody or detention or risked homelessness, with authorities failing to resolve a shortage of juvenile shelters or foster care.

Greece’s EU-backed policy of confining asylum seekers who arrived by sea to the Aegean islands trapped thousands in these conditions.

While the government transferred 18,000 asylum seekers from islands to mainland Greece following a concerted NGO campaign in November, it refused to implement a binding high court ruling to end the confinement policy for new arrivals, and instead adopted a new law in May to continue it. On Lesbos, a regional authority inspection in September concluded that the Moria camp, the largest of its kind, presented a danger to public health and the environment, and called on the government to address acute shortcomings or close the camp.

Some migrants and asylum seekers trying to cross the land border from Turkey into northeastern Evros region reported being summarily returned to Turkey during the year, sometimes violently. Greece did not address reception needs of newly arriving asylum seekers in the region, despite an increase in arrivals starting in April. As a result, women and girls were housed with unrelated men in sites for reception or detention of asylum seekers and lacked access to essential services.

Less than 15 percent of asylum-seeking children had access to education on the islands, and only one in two on the mainland were enrolled in public schools.

Far-right groups continued to campaign against asylum seekers on the islands, and there were media reports of attacks across the country on persons perceived to be migrants or

Muslims. Police statistics for hate crimes for 2017 released in March showed a marked increase compared to the previous year.

The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture visited Greece in April, and issued a preliminary report expressing concerns about inhuman and degrading treatment in psychiatric establishments and migrant detention centers.

Hungary Hungary’s ruling party Fidesz and its Prime Minister Viktor Orban won a third consecutive term with a two-thirds majority in elections in April.

Ahead of the April elections, the government ran a smear campaign on TV, radio, and country-wide billboards targeting civil society organizations working on asylum and migration, and Hungarian-born philanthropist George Soros, a key funder.

During the election campaigning period, government officials, including Prime Minister Orban, referred to civil society organizations, political opposition, and critical journalists as “agents of Soros.”

In addition to the smear campaign, which continued after the elections in pro-government media, civil society organizations, particularly those working on asylum and migration, came under increasing government pressure in 2018.

In June, parliament approved government-proposed amendments to the constitution and other legislation, criminalizing services, advice, and support to migrants and asylum seekers, punishable by up to one-year imprisonment. The measures came into force in July. At time of writing, no prosecutions had taken place. The measures were adopted despite criticism from the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights in February, the UN Human Rights Committee in April, UNHCR in May, and the Council of Europe’s constitutional advisory body in June.

EU institutions took various enforcement actions against Hungary during the year (see Rule of Law section). In August, a special 25 percent tax on funding to organizations “supporting immigration” was introduced, exempting only political parties and international organizations with immunity.

No agreement was reached between Central European University and the Hungarian government to secure the university’s operations in Hungary, prompting the university in December to announce that it is moving to Vienna, Austria.

An October law on public assembly gives police more discretion to ban or disband demonstrations.

The country saw a significant decline in asylum applications in 2018 in large part because it became almost impossible for asylum seekers to enter the country to seek protection.

By August, authorities had limited daily entry of asylum seekers to 1-2 asylum seekers per day, leaving thousands stranded in poor conditions in Serbia. In early August, Hungarian authorities denied rejected asylum seekers in the transit zones food. Following an emergency intervention by the European Court of Human Rights, authorities resumed food distribution.

In July, a constitutional amendment entered into force further restricting access to asylum by explicitly banning the “settlement of foreign populations” in Hungary and refusing protection to any asylum seekers arriving in Hungary via any transit country that Hungarian authorities deem safe for asylum seekers. By August, a total of 3,119 people filed for asylum, and authorities granted international protection to a total of 320 people, of whom 54 received refugee status and 266 received subsidiary protection.

Roma continued to face discrimination in housing, education, and public health care. The July constitutional amendment criminalized homelessness, ignoring criticism in June by the UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing that the plan was cruel and incompatible with human rights law. Homeless people were prosecuted after the law entered into force in October.

Italy A coalition government between the anti-immigrant League and the populist Five Star Movement was inaugurated in June. In March, the UN high commissioner for human rights deplored the racism and xenophobia that characterized the election campaign.

By mid-November, only 22,435 migrants and asylum seekers had reached Italy by sea according to UNHCR, in large part because of measures to prevent arrivals already put in place by the outgoing government. In contrast, during the whole of 2017, 119,369 people arrived.

Almost immediately upon taking power, the new government began blocking disembarkation of rescued persons in Italian ports. In November, a Sicilian prosecutor filed to close an investigation, launched in August, into Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini for unlawful detention and kidnapping, among other charges, for refusing to allow 177 asylum seekers from an Italian Coast Guard ship disembark, some for as long as 5 days.

In June, Italy began systematically handing over coordination of rescues in the Mediterranean to the Libyan Coast Guard, despite concerns over their capacity and the fate of individuals returned to Libya. In August, parliament approved the supply of 12 boats and training programs for Libyan crews.

In November, parliament approved a government decree limiting humanitarian visas and restricting access to specialized reception centers. One-quarter of asylum seekers in 2017 was granted permission to stay for humanitarian reasons, and up to 28 percent of decisions taken in January-February of 2018 granted humanitarian visas. In October, prosecutors charged the mayor of Riace, in southern Italy, with irregularities in what was widely held as a model integration project for asylum seekers and refugees.

Episodes of racist violence marked the year. In February, one month before the national elections, a former League candidate in local elections shot and wounded six immigrants in Macerata, central Italy. An anti-racism group recorded a sharp increase in attacks in the two months after the new government took power compared to the same period in 2017.

In July, authorities evicted several hundred Roma people from a settlement in Rome, despite an order from the European Court of Human Rights to delay the move. Minister Salvini called in June for a census of all Roma in Italy in order to deport those without Italian citizenship. There was no visible progress in a European Commission investigation, ongoing since 2012, into discrimination against Roma in access to housing and forced evictions.

In December 2017, the UN Committee against Torture urged Italy to ensure that the definition of the crime of torture in domestic law, introduced last year, conforms with international law.

Netherlands The government moved to limit accommodation for newly arrived asylum seekers in the country, arguing that local authorities were increasingly meeting demand, and during the year closed multiple shelters, with the aim of reducing capacity from 31,000 to 27,000. The reduction in reception capacity for the second year in a row gave rise to concerns about the adequacy of provision for arriving asylum seekers.

In July, the government announced that it planned to improve procedures to assess asylum claims based on fear of persecution on grounds of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identity or religious conversion, by treating cases in a more individualized manner, following criticism by NGOs and parliamentarians.

Notwithstanding the results of a non-binding public referendum in March rejecting a sweeping new surveillance law passed the previous year by parliament, the law entered force in May. Domestic rights groups remained critical of the new bulk interception powers, the level of oversight of those powers to intercept bulk data, and controls over sharing material derived from the interception with other countries’ intelligence agencies.

In June, the Minister of Justice and Security confirmed to parliament that the government continued to exercise powers to deprive terror suspects abroad of their Dutch citizenship, although he refused to confirm how many individuals had citizenship removed. The same

month a Dutch court expressed concerns about whether the limited safeguards in the process are consistent with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

A May ruling by Limburg district court found the Dutch law requiring people to identify as either male or female on official documents, including birth certificates, to be too restrictive and urged legislators to make statutory provision for a gender-neutral option.

Poland The government’s efforts to undermine the rule of law and human rights protections continued during the year.

Curbing judicial independence remained a focus, despite growing international criticism. In July, a law entered into effect which reduces the retirement age for Supreme Court judges, forcing 27 judges to retire–well over a third of all Supreme Court judges. The first president of the Supreme Court refused to step down and was, at time of writing, continuing her work. In August, the Supreme Court suspended the application of the law, requesting that the Court of Justice of the EU rule on whether it violates EU law, followed by similar requests in August and September in two cases by common courts. In October, the EU Court of Justice ordered Poland to suspend application of the Law on Supreme Court, following a request by the European Commission for interim measures.

The government’s attack on the rule of law began to impact Poland’s judicial cooperation with other EU states. In July, the EU Court of Justice ruled that Irish courts were entitled to refuse the extradition of a Polish national to Poland if they concluded there is a real risk of an unfair trial to that individual, citing the article 7 proceedings. In September, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary suspended Poland over concerns about independence of its judicial appointments body.

In addition to the referrals to and rulings of the EU Court of Justice, other EU institutions took various actions against Poland during the year (see Rule of Law section).

In June, the government pushed through a law which makes it a crime to ascribe any responsibility or co-responsibility to Poland for Nazi-era atrocity crimes committed on Polish soil.

Following international condemnation, authorities removed the crime’s three-year maximum sentence but maintained fines.

In mid-January, the Polish parliament enacted government legislation hampering the rights of environmental activists to protest at United Nations climate talks in December 2018 and allowing authorities to subject them to government surveillance.

NGOs working on issues related to asylum and migration, women’s rights, or LGBT rights reported ongoing difficulties accessing previously available public funding and some were subject to smears in pro-government media.

Summary returns of asylum seekers to Belarus continued, the majority from the Russian republic of Chechnya and Central Asia. In May, the top administrative court found that border guards had failed to conduct a proper assessment of an asylum seeker’s intent to seek asylum.

Spain The Spanish Socialist Party assumed power in June after a no-confidence vote in parliament against the then-ruling Popular Party. The new government pledged to adopt more humane immigration policies; at time of writing, parliament was debating reforms to the controversial 2015 public security law, including to provisions allowing summary returns and limits on freedom of association and expression.

Over 49,300 people arrived by sea by mid-November. Almost 6,000 crossed land borders into the country’s North African enclaves in Ceuta and Melilla from Morocco, many by scaling fences. Migrants faced substandard conditions in arrival facilities and obstacles to applying for asylum.

Summary returns from the enclaves continued, and the new government pursued an appeal initiated by the previous government against a European Court of Human Rights 2017 ruling that Spain violated the rights of two sub-Saharan African migrants when border guards summarily returned them to Morocco from Melilla in 2013. The Council of Europe called on Spain in September to improve conditions and protection measures for migrants and asylum seekers, particularly unaccompanied children, in Ceuta and Melilla.

In January, a Ceuta judge closed the investigation into the February 2014 deaths of 15 migrants after Guardia Civil officers fired rubber bullets and tear gas into the water off the enclave’s coast.

Protests erupted across Spain in April after a court acquitted five men of gang rape and convicted them on the lesser charge of sexual assault because the prosecution did not establish the use of violence or intimidation, prompting the government to examine possible changes to the criminal code. In July, a Supreme Court ruling enforced compliance with a 2014 decision by the UN committee on discrimination against women ordering the government to compensate a woman for gender-based discrimination.

At time of writing, no police officer had been convicted for excessive use of violence during the crack-down on the October 1, 2017, independence referendum in Catalunya. In March, 25 independence leaders were indicted on various charges ranging from rebellion to misuse of public funds.

In February, the Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance called on Spain urgently to create an equality body to tackle racism, and recommended measures to integrate migrants and end school segregation for Roma children. Draft legislation to ensure the right to vote for persons with intellectual disabilities has remained under examination in the Spanish parliament since September 2017.

In February, the Supreme Court upheld a prison sentence for a rapper convicted of glorifying terrorism and slander against the Crown. The highest criminal court sentenced a different rapper in March to jail time on similar charges. In March, the Supreme Court overturned the 2017 conviction of a young woman for joking on Twitter about an assassination by the Basque separatist group ETA in 1973.

United Kingdom The UK’s planned exit from the EU (Brexit) in March 2019 continued to dominate public life and overshadow other pressing human rights concerns. The EU and UK government reached provisional agreement in November on a treaty covering the transition period following the UK’s departure from the EU in 2019. They also agreed a draft political declaration on future relations that included a commitment to human rights. But at time of writing it was not clear if the treaty would be approved by the UK parliament, leaving open the possibility the UK would leave in 2019 without an agreement, which would carry risks for human rights, including uncertainty regarding the future residence rights of EU citizens living in the UK and of UK citizens living in EU countries post-Brexit.

A June 2018 law to incorporate EU law into domestic law when the UK leaves the EU was criticized for omitting the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, leaving it open to a future UK government to weaken employment and other rights protections derived from EU law.

There were significant developments regarding UK complicity in the CIA-led torture and secret detention. In May, the prime minister apologized unreservedly to a Libyan couple for the UK’s role in their 2004 rendition to Libya. In June, a parliamentary committee published two reports containing its findings into allegations of UK complicity more widely. The committee found actions the UK took and tolerated between 2001 and 2010 to have been “inexcusable.” There were fresh calls from NGOs and some politicians for a full judicial inquiry into the issue. At time of writing, no one in the UK had been charged with a crime in connection with the abuses.

The UK persisted in not imposing a maximum time limit for immigration detention, and continued to detain asylum-seeking and migrant children. Data published in November showed the government had relocated only 220 unaccompanied children from other EU countries out of a target 480. The UK had resettled only 417 refugee children under a 2016 pledge to accept 3,000 such children from conflict zones in the Middle East and Africa.

The UK Supreme Court ruled that Northern Ireland’s strict abortion law violates the right to personal integrity protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, though the

court dismissed the case in question on technical grounds. A private members bill introduced in the House of Commons in October called for decriminalization of abortion throughout England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The public inquiry into a 2017 fire that destroyed a London apartment block, killing 71 and leaving hundreds homeless, continued its work, amid concerns about whether victims can participate fully in the process. A criminal investigation into the fire was ongoing at time of writing.

A draft counterterrorism law approved by the parliament’s lower house (the House of Commons) contained problematic measures that could harm people’s human rights, including criminalizing the viewing of extremist material and proposing an offence of travel to a “designated area.” The draft law remained pending before the unelected upper house (the House of Lords) at time of writing.

In September, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the lack of safeguards in the now-lapsed surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 had violated the right to privacy, in a case brought by over a dozen NGOs, privacy organizations, and journalists. The court did not, however, find bulk interception necessarily unlawful. Privacy rights campaigners remained critical of the replacement powers.

The body established in 2017 to complete investigations into allegations of abuse by British forces in Iraq between 2003 and 2008, continued its work. At time of writing, no prosecutions had arisen from its work or that of its predecessor.

After a visit in November, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty concluded that changes to the welfare system and reductions in public services had entrenched negative outcomes for the rights of people living in poverty.

Foreign Policy Despite shortcomings, the European Union remained a leading actor in promoting human rights globally.

In July, EU foreign ministers reaffirmed their continued strong support of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a rules-based international order.

The EU and its member states remained strong supporters of international efforts to ensure accountability for atrocity crimes committed in Syria. Together they are the largest donors to the United Nations’ International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM), which has a mandate to collect and analyze information and evidence of international crimes committed in Syria to assist criminal proceedings before national or international courts.

The EU sought to mitigate the impact of decisions by the US to withdraw support for international agreements, human rights bodies and mechanisms: the EU’s External Action Service (EEAS) fought to ensure the survival the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, but the EU focused far less on the worrying human rights situation in the country and was unable to secure the release of jailed activists and journalists, including EU citizens. The EU and its member states significantly increased their financial contributions to the UN agency providing assistance to Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) following the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw all US funding. The EU continued to press Israel to stop its illegal settlement policy.

The United States’ decision to leave the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) pushed the EU to search for new allies at the UN’s prime human rights body. In September, the EU stepped up its efforts to advance criminal justice for Myanmar armed forces’ ruthless campaign of ethnic cleansing of more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims and other serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law elsewhere in the country.

Together with the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the EU pushed for a UNHRC resolution which established an accountability mechanism similar to the Syria IIIM. In June, the EU adopted targeted sanctions against seven individuals considered responsible for atrocities and serious human rights violations committed against the Rohingya population. In September, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström warned Myanmar that the army and government’s responsibility for serious human rights violations and continued impunity for human rights crimes could lead to the suspension of trade preferences conditioned on respect for human rights.

Similarly, and after repeated warnings, the EU initiated procedures to suspend trade preferences with Cambodia conditioned on respect for human rights, citing Cambodia’s fraudulent elections and Prime Minister Hun Sen’s and his government’s failure to comply with international human rights norms.

The EU persistently called for the release of peaceful activists, lawyers, and dissenters detained in China and, together with Germany, played an important role in securing the freedom of Liu Xia, an artist and the widow of the late Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo. Yet at a summit in June, the EU Council and Commission presidents failed to use the momentum generated by Liu Xia’s release and relocation to Germany to publicly voice concerns over China’s abysmal human rights record and press for further releases.

The EU took a firm stance against the continued crackdown on basic freedoms and dissent in Russia. The EU publicly pressed for the release of several human rights defenders and government critics and opponents detained for their peaceful activities. While the EU addressed rights violations in areas of Ukraine under the control of Russian backed rebels and in Russia-occupied Crimea, it has been more cautious when Ukraine’s government curbed free speech in the rest of the country.

The EU and its member states largely failed to adequately respond to the brutal crackdown on dissent and the shrinking space for freedoms of expression, assembly, and association in the Arab states of the Gulf. For the most part, the EU failed to publicly press for the release of women rights activists, journalists, human rights defenders and government critics in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, including Sakharov Prize laureate, Raif Badawi. However, in response to the disappearance and killing of Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, in Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consulate, Germany placed 18 Saudi officials allegedly connected to the killing on an entry ban list to the Schengen Zone of 26 states, a unilateral move that subsequently was expressly supported by several other states.

The EU continued to largely mute its position on human rights violations in Turkey, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan because of its cooperation with those countries on preventing migration to Europe.

As a direct reaction to Venezuela’s rigged May elections and continuing human rights violations, in June the EU added 11 individuals responsible for human rights violations and for undermining democracy and the rule of law in the country to its list of sanctions, bringing the total number of officials sanctioned by the EU to 18.

In October, the EU renewed its targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for serious human rights violations and acts to undermine democracy in Burundi.

United Nations CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6

Convention against Torture Distr.: General 18 December 2017 and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Original: English or Punishment

Committee against Torture

Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Italy*

1. The Committee against Torture considered the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Italy (CAT/C/ITA/5-6) at its 1582nd and 1585th meetings (see CAT/C/SR.1582 and 1585), held on 14 and 15 November 2017, and adopted the present concluding observations at its 1605th and 1606th meetings, held on 29 and 30 November 2017.

A. Introduction

2. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the State party for accepting the optional reporting procedure, as this allows for a more focused dialogue between the State party and the Committee. 3. The Committee appreciates having had the opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue with the State party’s delegation, and the responses provided to the questions and concerns raised during the consideration of the report.

B. Positive aspects

4. The Committee welcomes the ratification of or accession to the following international instruments by the State party: (a) The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, on 8 October 2015; (b) The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, on 3 April 2013; (c) The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, on 3 January 2013; (d) The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, on 15 May 2009. 5. The Committee also welcomes the following legislative measures taken by the State party in areas of relevance to the Convention: (a) The adoption, on 21 February 2014, of Law No. 10/2014, providing for the establishment of the National Authority (Garante nazionale) for the Rights of Persons Detained or Deprived of Personal Liberty, which constitutes the national preventive mechanism for the prevention of torture together with the existing preventive mechanisms at the regional and city levels;

* Adopted by the Committee at its sixty-second session (6 November–6 December 2017).

GE.17-22713(E)  CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6

(b) The adoption, on 15 October 2013, of Law No. 119 on urgent safety provisions and on combating gender-based violence. 6. The Committee commends the State party’s initiatives to amend its policies and procedures in order to afford greater protection of human rights and to apply the Convention, in particular: (a) The adoption of the national action plan against the trafficking and severe exploitation of human beings (2016–2018), in February 2016; (b) The adoption of the national action plan to combat violence against women (2017–2020), in 2017; (c) The establishment of the Directorate General of Training at the Department of Penitentiary Administration, Ministry of Justice, in 2015. 7. The Committee values the significant efforts made by the State party to respond to the large influx of asylum seekers, persons in need of international protection and irregular migrants arriving in its territory. 8. The Committee appreciates the fact that the State party maintains a standing invitation to the special procedure mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, which has allowed a number of independent experts with mandates relevant to the Convention to carry out visits to the country during the reporting period.

C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations

Pending follow-up issues from the previous reporting cycle 9. While noting with appreciation the information provided by the State party on 9 May 2008 under the follow-up procedure (CAT/C/ITA/CO/4/Add.1) and with reference to the letter dated 17 November 2009 from the Committee’s Rapporteur for Follow-up on Concluding Observations, the Committee still considers that the recommendations included in paragraphs 7 (fundamental safeguards), 12 (non-refoulement: expulsions on the grounds of national security), 16 (conditions of detention) and 20 (compensation and rehabilitation) of the previous concluding observations (CAT/C/ITA/CO/4) have not yet been implemented (see paragraphs 18, 20, 32 and 42, respectively, of the present document).

Definition and criminalization of torture 10. While noting the adoption of Law No. 110 of 14 July 2017 introducing the crime of torture as a specific offence, the Committee considers that the definition set forth in the new article 613 bis of the Criminal Code is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to mention the purpose of the act in question, contrary to what is prescribed in the Convention. Moreover, the basic offence does not include specifications relating to the perpetrator — namely, reference to the act being committed by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Despite the explanations given by the delegation as to the non-cumulative nature of the elements mentioned in article 613 bis, the Committee considers that this definition is significantly narrower than the definition contained in the Convention, and establishes a higher threshold for the crime of torture by adding elements beyond those mentioned in article 1 of the Convention (art. 1). 11. The State party should bring the content of article 613 bis of the Criminal Code into line with article 1 of the Convention by eliminating all superfluous elements and identifying the perpetrator and the motivating factors or reasons for the use of torture (i.e. to obtain information or a confession, to punish the victim, to intimidate or coerce the victim or a third person, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind). The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, in which it states that serious discrepancies between the Convention’s definition and that incorporated into domestic law create actual or potential loopholes for impunity (para. 9).

2 CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6

Statute of limitations 12. The Committee is concerned that the crime of torture is subject to a statute of limitations of 18 years. 13. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that the offence of torture is not subject to any statute of limitations, in order to preclude any risk of impunity in relation to the investigation of acts of torture and the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators.

National and regional mechanisms for the prevention of torture 14. The Committee welcomes the establishment of the National Authority for the Rights of Persons Detained or Deprived of Personal Liberty as the national preventive mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and commends the creation of local preventive mechanisms in some regions and cities, although their independence has sometimes been questioned. It regrets, however, the lack of information provided about the action taken by the State party in response to the recommendations issued by the National Authority since it became operational in March 2016 (art. 2). 15. The State party should: (a) Ensure the functional, structural and financial independence of the existing regional and municipal preventive mechanisms for the prevention of torture; (b) Ensure effective follow-up to, and implementation of, recommendations of the National Authority for the Rights of Persons Detained or Deprived of Personal Liberty, generated by its monitoring activities, in accordance with the guidelines on national preventive mechanisms, of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (see CAT/OP/12/5, paras. 13 and 38).

National human rights institution 16. While acknowledging the existence of institutional structures that monitor the implementation of human rights, the Committee is concerned that the State party has not yet established a consolidated national human rights institution (art. 2). 17. The Committee reiterates the recommendation contained in its previous concluding observations (see CAT/C/ITA/CO/4, para. 8) that the State party should proceed with the establishment of an independent national human rights institution, in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles).

Fundamental legal safeguards 18. The Committee takes note of the procedural safeguards set out in articles 143, 386 and 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mainly the right of detainees to notify a relative of their detention, to access a lawyer of their own choosing and to receive the assistance of an interpreter. However, it is concerned about consistent reports indicating that detainees are often not informed about their rights or authorized to communicate with their relatives. The Committee is also concerned at the limited access to legal aid, owing to restrictive qualifying criteria, especially for non-citizens, and that not all detentions are recorded promptly. Lastly, the Committee regrets the maintenance of a maximum detention period of five days for certain crimes before a person held in custody following arrest is brought before a judicial authority (art. 2).

3 CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6

19. The State party should: (a) Take effective measures to ensure that all detainees are afforded, in practice, all fundamental safeguards from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty, in conformity with international standards, including the right to access to a lawyer, particularly during the investigation and interrogation stages, the right to have the assistance of an interpreter if necessary, and the right to promptly inform a relative or any other person of their choice of their arrest; (b) Expand the criteria for access to legal aid, especially in the case of foreigners; (c) Reduce the maximum period during which a person may be held in custody following arrest on a criminal charge, before being brought before a judicial authority, even in exceptional circumstances, to less than the present five days; (d) Ensure officials’ compliance with registration requirements.

Non-refoulement 20. The Committee notes the efforts made by the State party to respond to the large influx of asylum seekers and irregular migrants, including high numbers of unaccompanied minors, arriving in its territory. It is, however, concerned at reports alleging that the State party may have acted in breach of the principle of non-refoulement and carried out collective returns during the period under review. Of particular concern are the forcible returns of irregular migrants in application of readmission agreements providing for accelerated identification procedures, such as the agreement signed by the Italian and Sudanese police authorities on 3 August 2016, which led to the repatriation on 24 August 2016 of dozens of Sudanese nationals, who allegedly belonged to a persecuted minority. The Committee also notes with concern that the procedure of expulsion on grounds of national security continues not to provide for sufficient and effective safeguards against the risk of refoulement, which is in addition to the lack of suspensive effect of the appeals against expulsion decisions. In this connection, the Committee notes that the European Court of Human Rights has found in several cases that the expulsion of foreign nationals under article 3.1 of Law No. 144/2005 violated the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment under article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights) (O. v. Italy, Saadi v. Italy, CBZ v. Italy and Trabelsi v. Italy). Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that Decree Law No. 13 of 17 February 2017 (subsequently Law No. 46 of 13 April 2017, i.e. the Minniti- Orlando decree) has introduced measures to accelerate asylum procedures, reducing the number of possible appeals and thereby limiting the protection afforded to asylum seekers, and speeding up deportations of rejected asylum seekers. Finally, in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy (art. 3), in which, inter alia, two violations of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights were found because the applicants had been exposed to the risk of ill-treatment in Libya and of repatriation to Somalia and Eritrea, the Committee takes note of the State party’s statement that there will no longer be “pushback” to Libya of migrants and asylum seekers intercepted on boats in the Mediterranean Sea by the Italian maritime forces (art. 3). 21. Recalling the Committee’s previous recommendations (see CAT/C/ITA/CO/4, paras. 10–12), the State party should: (a) Ensure that in practice no one may be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would run a personal, foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture; (b) Ensure that all asylum seekers have the opportunity for an individual review and are protected from refoulement and collective return; (c) Amend its legislation in order to provide rejected asylum seekers with an effective judicial remedy with automatic suspensive effect against expulsion decisions;

4 CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6

(d) Ensure that the accelerated procedures under readmission agreements and Law No. 46/2017 are subject to a thorough assessment on a case-by-case basis of the risks of violations of the principle of non-refoulement.

Memorandum of Understanding of 2 February 2017 between Italy and Libya 22. The Committee takes note of the explanations offered by the State party’s delegation regarding the content and initial results of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Italy and the Government of National Accord, of Libya, on 2 February 2017, on development, on countering illegal immigration, human trafficking and smuggling and on strengthening border security. Nonetheless, the agreement, which was welcomed by the members of the European Council in the Malta Declaration of 3 February 2017 and affirms that the European Union will support Italy in implementing it, does not contain any particular provision that may render cooperation and support conditional on the respect of human rights, including the absolute prohibition of torture. Furthermore, the Committee is deeply concerned at the lack of assurances that cooperation for the purpose of enhancing the operational capabilities of the Libyan Coast Guard or other Libyan security actors would be reviewed in light of possible serious human rights violations. In this connection, the Committee draws the State party’s attention to the numerous reports of dangerous, life- threatening interceptions by armed men believed to be from the Libyan Coast Guard, as stated in the latest report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (see S/2017/726, para. 36), and the horrific conditions in detention facilities under the control of Libya’s Department for Combating Illegal Migration, recently documented by United Nations human rights monitors (see S/2017/726, para. 35, and the press release from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, of 14 November 2017, entitled “Suffering of migrants in Libya outrage to conscience of humanity”).1 23. The State party should take all necessary legal, political and diplomatic measures to ensure that any cooperation and/or support that it may provide under bilateral or regional migration management agreements is consistent with the purposes of the Convention and with its obligations under international human rights law and international refugee law. In this context, the State party is requested to provide the Committee with information regarding the follow-up to the implementation of the Italy-Libya agreement. As a first layer of control in guaranteeing the correct use of European Union funds, the State party should also consider, as a matter of urgency, establishing an effective mechanism for monitoring the conditions on the ground in Libya for the implementation of the cooperation projects.

Allegations of ill-treatment in “crisis centres” and other reception facilities 24. While taking note of the information provided by the State party on the implementation of the “hotspot approach” agreed upon by the European Union in 2015 to achieve swift identification and screening of migrants and asylum seekers at points of arrival, the Committee remains concerned at reports of ill-treatment and excessive use of force by the police when taking the fingerprints of newly arrived asylum seekers and migrants. The Committee notes the delegation’s affirmation that, under Italian law, the police are allowed to use force to arrest individuals and obtain identification as a measure of last resort, despite reports to the contrary. Also of concern are the reportedly substandard living conditions in several reception centres for asylum seekers and irregular migrants, including “crisis centres” and centres for unaccompanied children, and the fact that women and minors are not always provided with separate accommodation, due to limited facilities. There is also a lack of clear guidelines, clear procedures and a clear division of responsibilities as regards the identification of vulnerable people and of individuals in need of international protection. In this regard, the Committee regrets that the State party has provided no complete information on the procedures in place for timely identification of victims of torture and trafficking among asylum seekers and migrants (arts. 11 and 16).

1 Available at www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22393&LangID=E.

5 CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6

25. The State party should: (a) Clarify the legal basis for deprivation of liberty and the use of force to obtain fingerprints from uncooperative asylum seekers and migrants; (b) Ensure that all allegations of excessive use of force in order to fingerprint migrants and asylum seekers who resist the identification process are investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially, and that perpetrators are prosecuted and punished; (c) Ensure that law enforcement officials receive appropriate professional training, including on how to avoid excessive use of force and how to handle the fingerprinting of uncooperative migrants and asylum seekers, and that authorities develop explanatory materials for the persons being fingerprinted to minimize trauma; (d) Take the measures necessary to ensure appropriate reception conditions for asylum seekers and irregular migrants; (e) Formulate clear guidelines and related training on the identification of individuals in need of international protection, including torture and trafficking victims, from among asylum seekers and migrants.

Monitoring of immigration detention facilities 26. The Committee notes with concern that there have been instances where the regional and local preventive mechanisms’ right of access to places of detention has been questioned by the authorities, especially in relation to certain immigration centres and “crisis centres”. Civil society organizations and municipal authorities also reported difficulties in accessing reception centres for asylum seekers and migrants, be they publicly or privately managed. 27. The State party should: (a) Guarantee that the National Authority for the Rights of Persons Detained or Deprived of Personal Liberty and its regional counterparts are allowed to visit all — and any suspected — places of deprivation of liberty, as set out in articles 4 and 29 of the Optional Protocol, that are within its jurisdiction. For these purposes, the jurisdiction of the State extends to all those places over which it exercises effective control (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 24); (b) Authorize non-governmental human rights organizations and other civil society actors to undertake monitoring activities at reception centres for asylum seekers and migrants, including at “crisis centres” and centres for unaccompanied children.

Detention pending deportation 28. While noting the reduction in the maximum length of detention in immigration detention centres (identification and expulsion centres) from 18 months to a strict limit of 90 days, in application of Law No. 161/2014, the Committee considers that detention pending deportation should be further reduced and only applied as an exceptional measure (arts. 11 and 16). 29. The State party should ensure that rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants are held in detention only as a last resort and, if such detention becomes necessary, that they are held for as short a time as possible and that use is made of alternatives to detention whenever feasible.

Training 30. The Committee acknowledges the efforts made by the State party to develop and implement training programmes in human rights for members of the security forces, prison staff, immigration personnel and judicial officers. However, it is concerned at the lack of information on evaluation of the impact of those programmes. The Committee also regrets the scant information provided on training programmes for professionals directly involved in the investigation and documentation of torture, as well as for medical and other

6 CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6 personnel dealing with detainees on how to detect and document physical and psychological sequelae of torture and ill-treatment (art. 10). 31. The State party should: (a) Further develop mandatory in-service training programmes to ensure that all public officials, in particular law enforcement officials, prison staff and medical personnel employed in prisons, are well acquainted with the provisions of the Convention and are fully aware that violations will not be tolerated and will be investigated, and that those responsible will be prosecuted and, upon conviction, be appropriately sanctioned; (b) Ensure that all relevant staff, including medical personnel, are specifically trained to identify cases of torture and ill-treatment, in accordance with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol); (c) Develop and apply a methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of educational and training programmes relating to the Convention and the Istanbul Protocol.

Conditions of detention 32. The Committee appreciates the measures adopted by the State party to reduce prison overcrowding and to limit the use of remand in custody. Nevertheless, according to the information supplied by the delegation, in September/October 2017 the prison population stood at 57,551 against a total capacity of 50,920, with a number of prisons well over the maximum capacity, and 35 per cent of detainees in pretrial detention, including convicts with an appeal pending. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the delegation on the progress made following the judgment of 8 January 2013 of the European Court of Human Rights in Torreggiani and others v. Italy, but remains concerned at the conditions of detention in some detention facilities, such as the Florence State Police Headquarters (Questura). It is also concerned at reported arbitrary practices, in particular abusive strip searches. The Committee also notes the existence of special units reserved for female detainees with children, and the establishment of specialized health-care units within existing penitentiary institutions. Furthermore, it notes that prison medical personnel have an obligation to document and report any evidence of maltreatment observed during the initial medical examination of detainees. It regrets, however, that the State party did not indicate the number of cases reported by prison medical personnel as potential cases of torture or ill-treatment, during the period under review. 33. The State party should: (a) Continue its efforts to improve conditions of detention and alleviate the overcrowding of penitentiary institutions and other detention facilities, including through the application of non-custodial measures. In that connection, the Committee draws the State party’s attention to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules); (b) Urgently adopt measures to remedy any deficiency related to general living conditions in police detention facilities, including deficiencies related to light, sanitation, and access to the open air and physical exercise; (c) Ensure, in law and practice, that pretrial detention is not excessively prolonged; (d) Ensure that prison search procedures are not degrading to inmates or visitors; (e) Provide information on the number of cases reported by prison medical personnel as possible instances of torture or ill-treatment.

7 CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6

Special detention regime 34. While taking note of the Constitutional Court’s decision No. 143 of 17 June 2013 on access to defence counsel, the Committee considers that the high-security regime under article 41 bis of the Law on the Penitentiary System continues to impose severe restrictions in terms of socialization with other inmates and contact with the outside world, in particular with relatives. The placement of these prisoners under constant video surveillance in their cells is another matter of concern (arts. 11 and 16). 35. The State party should review the special detention regime and bring it into line with international human rights standards, such as the Nelson Mandela Rules. Video surveillance in custody facilities should not intrude on the privacy of detainees or violate their right to confidential communication with their lawyer or doctor. The State party should also strengthen and expedite the judicial review of orders imposing or extending that form of detention.

Deaths in custody 36. While noting the adoption in 2017 of plans to prevent suicide in prisons and juvenile detention facilities, the Committee regrets the lack of complete information on suicides and other sudden deaths in detention facilities during the period under review (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 37. The State party should provide the Committee with detailed information on cases of death in custody and the causes of those deaths. It should also take measures to ensure that all instances of death in custody are promptly and impartially investigated by an independent entity.

Excessive use of force 38. The Committee is concerned at the number of persons who have been injured during confrontations between demonstrators and security forces in the course of social protests, since the consideration of the previous periodic report. It also regrets the scant information provided by the State party regarding the number of prosecutions and convictions on charges of excessive use of force during the period under review. The lack of clarity of the applicable regulation on the use of force is also a cause of concern (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 39. The State party should: (a) Ensure that prompt, impartial and effective investigations are undertaken into all allegations relating to the excessive use of force by police and other law enforcement officers and ensure that the perpetrators are prosecuted and the victims are adequately compensated; (b) Increase the efforts to systematically provide training to all law enforcement officers on the use of force, especially in the context of demonstrations, taking into account the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials; (c) Clarify the regulation on the use of force by the police and other law enforcement agencies, and ensure that members of the police and other law enforcement officers can be effectively identified at all times when carrying out their functions; (d) Provide the Committee with detailed information on the number of complaints, investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences handed down in cases of police brutality and excessive use of force.

Prompt, thorough and impartial investigations 40. The Committee is concerned at the fact that the State party has not furnished specific information on the number of complaints of torture or ill-treatment or on the corresponding investigations and prosecutions during the reporting period. The Committee has not received comprehensive information about the sentences and criminal or disciplinary sanctions imposed on offenders, or an indication of whether the alleged perpetrators of

8 CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6 those acts have been removed from public service pending the outcome of the investigation of the complaint (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 41. The Committee urges the State party to: (a) Ensure that all complaints of torture and ill-treatment are promptly investigated in an impartial manner by an independent body, that there is no institutional or hierarchical relationship between that body’s investigators and the suspected perpetrators of such acts, and that the suspected perpetrators are duly tried and, if found guilty, punished in a manner that is commensurate with the gravity of their acts; (b) Ensure that the authorities launch investigations whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture or ill-treatment has been committed; (c) Ensure that, in cases of alleged torture and/or ill-treatment, suspected perpetrators are suspended from duty immediately for the duration of the investigation, particularly when there is a risk that they might otherwise be in a position to repeat the alleged act, commit reprisals against the alleged victim or obstruct the investigation; (d) Compile disaggregated statistical information relevant to the monitoring of the Convention, including data on complaints, investigations, prosecutions and convictions in cases of torture and ill-treatment.

Redress, including rehabilitation 42. The Committee regrets that the delegation did not provide information on redress, including compensation measures ordered by the courts or other State bodies and actually provided to victims of torture or their families, since the consideration of the previous periodic report. It also regrets that the State party has presented no information on reparation programmes or on measures taken to support and facilitate the work of non- governmental organizations that seek to provide rehabilitation to victims of torture and ill- treatment (art. 14). 43. The State party should ensure that all victims of torture and ill-treatment obtain redress, including an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible. The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, in which it elaborates on the nature and scope of the obligations of States parties under article 14 of the Convention to provide full redress to victims of torture. The State party should also provide the Committee with information on redress and on compensation measures, including means of rehabilitation, ordered by the courts or other State bodies and actually provided to victims of torture or ill- treatment.

Gender-based violence 44. The Committee notes with concern the high prevalence of gender-based violence against women and girls in the State party. It is also concerned at the low prosecution and conviction rates for femicide, sexual violence and other forms of violence against women, including female genital mutilation, during the period under review (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 45. The Committee encourages the State party to redouble its efforts to combat all forms of gender-based violence, and to ensure that all complaints are thoroughly investigated and that suspected offenders are prosecuted and, if convicted, punished appropriately. The State party should also ensure that victims receive full redress for the harm suffered, including fair and adequate compensation and the fullest rehabilitation possible. It should also provide mandatory training on prosecution for gender-based violence to all enforcement and justice officials and continue awareness- raising campaigns on all forms of violence against women.

9 CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6

Human trafficking 46. While taking note of the information provided by the delegation on the State party’s efforts to combat trafficking in persons, the Committee is concerned at reports of a sharp rise in trafficking of Nigerian women and girls, some as young as 11 years old, particularly in the context of mixed migration flows. It also welcomes the explanation provided by the delegation concerning the provision of residence permits to victims of trafficking. However, the Committee remains concerned at the lack of sufficient shelters for victims of trafficking, who end up staying at migrant reception centres for a longer period than is appropriate (arts. 2, 12 and 16). 47. The State party should: (a) Intensify its efforts to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings, including by implementing effectively the 2016 national action plan against trafficking and by providing protection for victims, including shelters and psychosocial assistance; (b) Ensure that cases of human trafficking are thoroughly investigated, that perpetrators are prosecuted and, if convicted, punished with appropriate sanctions, and that victims are adequately compensated. It should also ensure that victims have access to effective protection.

Follow-up procedure 48. The Committee requests the State party to provide, by 6 December 2018, information on follow-up to the Committee’s recommendations on the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding of 2 February 2017 between Italy and Libya, on the monitoring of immigration detention facilities and on the investigation and prosecution of instances of police brutality or excessive use of force (see paragraphs 23, 27 and 39 above). In that context, the State party is invited to inform the Committee about its plans for implementing, within the coming reporting period, some or all of the remaining recommendations in the concluding observations.

Other issues 49. The State party is requested to disseminate widely the report submitted to the Committee and the present concluding observations, in appropriate languages, through official websites, the media and non-governmental organizations. 50. The Committee requests the State party to submit its next periodic report, which will be its seventh, by 6 December 2021. For that purpose, and in view of the fact that the State party has agreed to report to the Committee under the optional reporting procedure, the Committee will, in due course, transmit to the State party a list of issues prior to reporting.

10 HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018 Pareri della FRA

Il 2017 è stato caratterizzato sia da progressi che da battute d’arresto in termini di tutela dei diritti fondamentali. La Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018 della FRA fa il punto della situazione sui principali sviluppi in materia, individuando i risultati ottenuti e i settori che destano ancora preoccupazione. Questa pubblicazione presenta i pareri della FRA sui principali sviluppi nelle aree tematiche contemplate nonché una sintesi delle informazioni su cui si fondano tali pareri, tracciando un quadro sintetico ma informativo delle principali sfide con cui si confrontano l’UE e gli Stati membri nell’ambito dei diritti fondamentali.

Indice

FOCUS 1. Cambiamento delle percezioni: verso un approccio all’invecchiamento basato sui diritti ����������������������� 2 2. Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE e relativo uso da parte degli Stati membri ������������������������������������� 4 3. Uguaglianza e non discriminazione ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 4. Razzismo, xenofobia e intolleranza ad essi associata ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 5. Integrazione dei rom ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11 6. Asilo, visti, migrazione, frontiere e integrazione ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14 7. Società dell’informazione, privacy e protezione dei dati ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 8. Diritti del bambino ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 9. Accesso alla giustizia compresi i diritti delle vittime di reato ������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 10. Sviluppi nell’attuazione della Convenzione sui diritti delle persone con disabilità ��������������������������������� 24

1 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

FOCUS 1. Cambiamento delle percezioni: verso un approccio all’invecchiamento basato sui diritti

Il presente capitolo prende in esame il lento ma inevitabile cambio di prospettiva sulla terza età: se prima questa fase della vita era infatti associata a termini quali «carenze» che creano «necessità», l’attuale approccio più globale guarda all’invecchiamento dal punto di vista dei «diritti». Il graduale spostamento di paradigma in questa direzione si adopera per il rispetto del diritto fondamentale alla parità di trattamento di tutti gli individui, indipendentemente dall’età, senza trascurare la tutela e il sostegno da garantire a coloro che ne hanno bisogno. Un approccio in termini di diritti umani non è in contraddizione con la realtà dei bisogni specifici dell’età; al contrario, consente di rispondere meglio a tali esigenze inquadrandole, al contempo, in un discorso fondato sui diritti umani.

I mercati del lavoro e i regimi di protezione sociale in larga parte in che misura gli anziani godono dei nazionali hanno già subito profondi cambiamenti per propri diritti. rispondere alla longevità e alle sfide poste dall’invec- chiamento demografico ai sistemi economici e sociali I diritti civili, politici, economici, sociali e culturali nazionali. Questo processo è iniziato con una serie di sanciti dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE iniziative nell’Unione europea (UE) e nel mondo. Tali si applicano a tutti, a prescindere dall’età. Nondi- iniziative comprendono la lotta alla discriminazione meno, l’età è menzionata specificamente all’articolo fondata sull’età avanzata nell’ambito dell’occupa- 21 come elemento da proteggere dalla discrimina- zione, la promozione di un invecchiamento attivo zione e all’articolo 25, che riconosce agli anziani il e l’incentivazione di una vita lavorativa più lunga, diritto «di condurre una vita dignitosa e indipen- oltre all’introduzione di riforme nei regimi di prote- dente e di partecipare alla vita sociale e culturale». zione sociale destinate agli anziani, in particolare in termini di pensioni, servizi sanitari ed erogazione di La non discriminazione e le pari opportunità per assistenza a lungo termine. Le riforme cominciano gli anziani in vari ambiti della vita, oltre alla vita anche a discostarsi da approcci basati sui bisogni atti dignitosa, sono inoltre incorporate nel pilastro a rispondere a «deficit» legati all’età, mettendo al europeo dei diritti sociali, proclamato di recente. centro l’individuo, un essere umano con diritti fon- Secondo la Commissione europea, il pilastro euro- damentali e un’intrinseca dignità umana. Secondo peo dei diritti sociali «va parzialmente oltre l’at- l’articolo 1 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE, tuale acquis». L’obiettivo è riflettere sulle modalità la dignità umana è inviolabile e deve essere rispet- per estendere la tutela contro la discriminazione tata e tutelata a prescindere dall’età. fondata sull’età all’ambito della protezione sociale, compresa la sicurezza sociale, l’assistenza sanita- Questa transizione non dovrebbe tuttavia trascu- ria, l’istruzione e l’accesso a beni e servizi a dispo- rare le esigenze degli anziani specificamente legate sizione del pubblico. all’età né sminuire l’importanza delle responsabilità dello Stato nei confronti degli individui – inclusi gli Sebbene il pilastro dei diritti sociali costituisca un anziani – che possono avere bisogno di sostegno. insieme di principi e diritti giuridicamente non vin- Gli anziani costituiscono inoltre un gruppo etero- colanti, la sua proclamazione evidenzia la forza geneo, con necessità e preferenze assai variegate. della volontà e dell’impegno politici delle istitu- Molte preferenze ed esperienze nel corso della vita zioni dell’UE e degli Stati membri verso un’Europa si ripercuotono sulla vecchiaia. Il genere, lo stato di più sociale e inclusiva, un’Europa che faccia un uso immigrante, l’appartenenza a una minoranza etnica, migliore e più rispettoso di tutto il proprio capitale la disabilità, come pure le condizioni socio-econo- umano, senza escludere nessuno. Si tratta di un’op- miche, geografiche o altri aspetti possono avere un portunità per l’UE e per gli Stati membri di ottenere impatto negativo sugli anziani. Tutto ciò determina risultati concreti nella promozione e nell’attuazione

2 Pareri della FRA

dei diritti degli anziani, che costituiscono una parte Parere della FRA 1.3 importante del capitale umano e possono contribu- ire in modo sostanziale a tutti gli aspetti della vita. Le istituzioni e gli Stati membri dell’UE do- vrebbero valutare l’utilizzo dei Fondi struttu- Stabilire norme e standard minimi tuttavia non è che rali e d’investimento europei, oltre che di altri il primo passo di tale processo. Le iniziative di sen- strumenti finanziari dell’UE, per promuovere un sibilizzazione e l’utilizzo di meccanismi di coordi- approccio all’invecchiamento basato sui diritti. namento e monitoraggio sono altrettanto essen- Al fine di rafforzare le riforme che promuovono ziali ai fini del rispetto dei diritti fondamentali di una vita dignitosa e autonoma, come anche le tutti, inclusi gli anziani, come previsto dalla Carta. opportunità di partecipazione per gli anziani, le In questo contesto, è più che necessario l’impegno istituzioni e gli Stati membri dell’UE, nel prossi- sia delle istituzioni dell’UE che degli Stati membri. mo periodo di programmazione (dopo il 2020), dovrebbero riaffermare e consolidare condizio- A tale proposito, i pareri della FRA esposti di seguito nalità ex ante e disposizioni per il controllo della dovrebbero essere considerati come elementi costi- relativa attuazione. Tali misure dovrebbero ga- tutivi a sostegno della transizione verso un approccio rantire che i finanziamenti dell’UE siano utiliz- globale all’invecchiamento basato sui diritti umani. zati nel rispetto degli obblighi relativi ai diritti fondamentali. Parere della FRA 1.1 Le istituzioni e gli Stati membri dell’UE dovreb- Il legislatore UE dovrebbe portare avanti i pro- bero inoltre far fronte sistematicamente alle pri sforzi volti all’adozione della direttiva sulla sfide affrontate dagli anziani all’interno dei parità di trattamento. La direttiva estenderà meccanismi di coordinamento delle politiche orizzontalmente la tutela contro la discrimina- centrali, come il semestre europeo. zione fondata su vari motivi, inclusa l’età, ad aree particolarmente importanti per gli anziani, compresi l’accesso a beni e servizi, la protezione sociale, l’assistenza sanitaria e l’alloggio.

Parere della FRA 1.2

Al fine di garantire una maggiore tutela dei di- ritti sociali, il legislatore UE dovrebbe intrapren- dere iniziative legislative concrete, sviluppando l’attuazione dei principi e dei diritti sanciti dal pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali. A tale propo- sito, dovrebbero garantire la rapida adozione della proposta di direttiva relativa all’equilibrio tra attività professionale e vita familiare e ac- celerare le procedure per l’adozione di un atto europeo globale sull’accessibilità. Al fine di garantire la coerenza con il più ampio corpus normativo UE, l’atto sull’accessibilità dovrebbe includere disposizioni che lo colleghino ad altri atti pertinenti, come i regolamenti in materia di Fondi strutturali e d’investimento europei.

3 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

2. Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE e relativo uso da parte degli Stati membri

Nel 2017, la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea ha compiuto otto anni dalla sua entrata in vigore come dichiarazione dei diritti dell’UE giuridicamente vincolante. Essa integra i documenti nazionali sui diritti umani e la Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo (CEDU). Come negli anni precedenti, il ruolo e l’utilizzo della Carta a livello nazionale sono stati eterogenei: non sembrano emergere miglioramenti significativi nel suo uso da parte degli organi giudiziari o nei processi legislativi; si è inoltre rivelato difficile individuare politiche pubbliche volte a promuovere la Carta. Al contrario, ancora una volta il suo potenziale non è stato pienamente valorizzato, tant’è vero che i riferimenti alla Carta nei tribunali, nei parlamenti e nei governi nazionali sono esigui e spesso superficiali.

In forza della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero utilizzare al dell’Unione europea (CGUE), la Carta dei diritti fon- meglio le opportunità di finanziamento esisten- damentali dell’UE è vincolante per gli Stati mem- ti, ad esempio quelle nell’ambito del program- bri dell’UE quando agiscono nel campo di appli- ma Giustizia. cazione del diritto UE. L’attività del legislatore UE si ripercuote, direttamente o indirettamente, sulle Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero promuove- vite delle persone che vivono nell’UE, nell’ambito re la conoscenza dei diritti della Carta e garan- di quasi tutte le aree politiche. Su queste premesse, tire l’offerta di moduli formativi mirati ai giudici la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE dovrebbe nazionali e ad altri operatori della giustizia. costituire una norma pertinente nello svolgimento dei compiti quotidiani di giudici o funzionari pubblici negli Stati membri. Negli ultimi anni (2012–2016), le rilevazioni della FRA suggeriscono tuttavia che le A norma dell’articolo 51 (ambito di applicazione) magistrature e le amministrazioni fanno un uso piut- della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE, tutte le tosto limitato della Carta a livello nazionale. Sem- normative nazionali che danno attuazione al diritto brano quasi totalmente assenti politiche atte a pro- dell’UE devono conformarsi alla Carta. Come negli muovere la Carta, sebbene gli Stati membri siano anni precedenti, nel 2017 il ruolo della Carta nei pro- obbligati non solo a rispettare i diritti contemplati cessi legislativi a livello nazionale è rimasto limitato: nella Carta, ma anche a promuoverne «l’applica- la Carta non è una norma applicata in modo esplicito zione secondo le rispettive competenze» (articolo e regolare nelle procedure per verificare la legalità 51 della Carta). Dove presenti, i riferimenti alla Carta o valutare l’impatto delle norme di prossima ema- nei processi legislativi o da parte della magistratura nazione, contrariamente a quanto avviene per gli ne fanno spesso un uso superficiale. strumenti nazionali in materia di diritti umani, siste- maticamente inclusi in tali procedure. Inoltre, proprio Parere della FRA 2.1 come negli anni precedenti, i tribunali nazionali che hanno fatto ricorso alla Carta per molte delle loro L’UE e gli Stati membri dovrebbero incoraggia- decisioni, lo hanno fatto senza fornire indicazioni re un maggiore scambio di informazioni sulle argomentate sui motivi alla base dell’applicabilità esperienze e sugli approcci nel far riferimento della Carta nelle circostanze specifiche. e nell’utilizzare la Carta, tra giudici, ordini na- zionali degli avvocati e amministrazioni all’in- terno degli Stati membri, ma anche tra i diversi Stati. Nel favorire tale scambio di informazioni,

4 Pareri della FRA

Parere della FRA 2.2

I tribunali nazionali e i governi e/o i parlamen- ti nazionali potrebbero valutare la possibilità di effettuare un monitoraggio più costante, alla luce dell’articolo 51 (ambito di applicazione) del- la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE, al fine di valutare l’eventualità che una causa giudiziaria o un fascicolo legislativo sollevi questioni ai sen- si della Carta. L’elaborazione di manuali standar- dizzati sulle procedure concrete da seguire per verificare l’applicabilità della Carta – procedure che per il momento sono applicate solo in un numero molto limitato di Stati membri dell’UE – potrebbe fornire agli operatori della giustizia uno strumento per valutare la pertinenza della Carta in una particolare causa o proposta legi- slativa. Il Manuale sull’applicabilità della Carta della FRA potrebbe servire da riferimento a tal proposito.

5 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

3. Uguaglianza e non discriminazione

Il 2017 è stato foriero di progressi non sempre omogenei nella promozione della parità e della non discriminazione nell’Unione europea. Mentre la direttiva sulla parità di trattamento – proposta nel 2008 – non era ancora stata adottata alla fine dell’anno, l’UE ha proclamato il pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali, che affonda le sue radici nel principio di non discriminazione. Le restrizioni sull’abbigliamento e sui simboli religiosi sul luogo di lavoro o negli spazi pubblici sono rimaste al centro dell’attenzione, soprattutto a discapito delle donne musulmane. Sono stati compiuti progressi in materia di uguaglianza per lesbiche, gay, bisessuali, transessuali e transgender (LGBTI), in particolare per quanto riguarda lo stato civile delle coppie dello stesso sesso. Nel frattempo, le conclusioni tratte a partire da una vasta gamma di dati disponibili sul tema dell’uguaglianza - compresi i dati ottenuti tramite test di discriminazione - mostrano come la disparità di trattamento e le discriminazioni siano ancora delle realtà nelle società europee.

I risultati della seconda indagine dell’Unione euro- la religione o le convinzioni personali, la disabilità, pea sulle minoranze e la discriminazione (EU‑ l’età o l’orientamento sessuale. MIDIS II) condotta dalla FRA e varie ricerche nazionali pubblicate nel 2017 confermano che la discrimina- Parere della FRA 3.1 zione e la disparità di trattamento fondate su diversi motivi rimangono una realtà in aree fondamentali Il legislatore dell’UE dovrebbe portare avanti della vita in tutta l’UE. L’UE e i suoi Stati membri i propri sforzi mirati all’adozione della direttiva possono tuttavia attingere a strumenti strategici per sulla parità di trattamento per garantire l’offer- promuovere la parità, grazie anche al pilastro euro- ta, da parte dell’UE, di una tutela generale con- peo dei diritti sociali che promuove la tutela con- tro la discriminazione in aree chiave della vita, tro la discriminazione oltre l’attuale acquis nell’area a prescindere dal sesso, dalla razza o dall’ori- della parità. Tuttavia, considerando che la proposta gine etnica, dalla religione o dalle convinzioni di direttiva sulla parità di trattamento non è stata personali, dalla disabilità, dall’età o dall’orienta- ancora adottata, l’UE opera sulla base di una gerar- mento sessuale di un individuo. chia di motivi. I negoziati sulla proposta di direttiva presso il Consiglio dell’UE sono entrati nel loro nono anno nel 2017 e non sono stati completati entro la fine di tale anno. Parere della FRA 3.2

L’articolo 21 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali Il legislatore UE dovrebbe intraprendere inizia- dell’UE vieta la discriminazione fondata, in parti- tive legislative concrete al fine di garantire una colare, sul sesso, la razza, il colore della pelle, l’o- maggiore tutela dei diritti sociali e di sviluppare rigine etnica o sociale, le caratteristiche genetiche, l’attuazione dei principi e dei diritti sanciti dal la lingua, la religione o le convinzioni personali, le pilastro dei diritti sociali. opinioni politiche o di qualsiasi altra natura, l’ap- partenenza ad una minoranza nazionale, il patrimo- nio, la nascita, la disabilità, l’età o le tendenze ses- suali. L’articolo 19 del trattato sul funzionamento Le restrizioni sui capi di abbigliamento e sui sim- dell’Unione europea (TFUE) afferma che il Consi- boli religiosi al lavoro e negli spazi pubblici ha con- glio, deliberando all’unanimità secondo una pro- tinuato a caratterizzare i dibattiti sulla religione cedura legislativa speciale e previa approvazione nell’UE durante il 2017. Tali restrizioni interessano del Parlamento europeo, può adottare i provve- in modo particolare le donne musulmane che indos- dimenti opportuni per combattere le discrimina- sano diversi tipi di indumenti che coprono il capo zioni fondate sul sesso, la razza o l’origine etnica, o il volto. La CGUE e la Corte europea dei diritti

6 Pareri della FRA

dell’uomo hanno offerto ulteriori orientamenti in tale L’articolo 21 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’U- ambito, in merito ai requisiti essenziali per lo svolgi- nione europea proibisce la discriminazione fondata mento dell’attività lavorativa, al divieto di esporre sul sesso e sull’orientamento sessuale. Nel dicem- simboli religiosi e all’uso di indumenti religiosi che bre 2015 la Commissione europea ha pubblicato un coprano completamente il volto in pubblico. Alcuni elenco di azioni volte a favorire la parità delle per- Stati membri dell’UE hanno imposto restrizioni agli sone LGBTI, che comprende iniziative tese a miglio- indumenti che coprono il volto nei luoghi pubblici, rare i diritti e ad assicurare la tutela giuridica delle per promuovere il proprio ideale di società inclusive persone LGBTI e delle loro famiglie, oltre al controllo o per preservare la neutralità dei funzionari pub- e all’applicazione dei diritti esistenti. L’elenco di blici, dei giudici e dei pubblici ministeri. azioni copre il periodo 2016–2019. Sebbene non sia giuridicamente vincolante, l’elenco fornisce orien- L’articolo 10 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali tamenti in merito a come e in che ambito gli Stati dell’UE garantisce a ogni persona il diritto alla libertà membri dell’UE possono attivarsi per garantire che di pensiero, di coscienza e di religione. Tale diritto le persone LGBTI possano avvalersi dei propri diritti include la libertà di cambiare religione o convin- di uguaglianza e di non discriminazione. L’UE e i suoi zione, così come la libertà di manifestare la pro- Stati membri si sono impegnati a raggiungere gli pria religione o la propria convinzione, mediante il obiettivi dell’Agenda 2030 per lo sviluppo sosteni- culto, l’insegnamento, le pratiche e l’osservanza dei bile. L’obiettivo di sviluppo sostenibile numero 10, riti, sia individualmente che collettivamente. L’ar- riguardante la riduzione della disuguaglianza all’in- ticolo 21 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE terno dei paesi e tra un paese e l’altro, stabilisce, tra proibisce qualsiasi forma di discriminazione fondata le proprie finalità, quella di assicurare pari oppor- sulla religione o sulle convinzioni personali. Come tunità e ridurre le disuguaglianze nei risultati. Ciò inoltre previsto all’articolo 22 della Carta dei diritti comprende l’eliminazione di leggi, politiche e pra- fondamentali dell’UE, l’Unione rispetta la diversità tiche discriminatorie e la promozione di normative, culturale, religiosa e linguistica. politiche e azioni appropriate.

Parere della FRA 3.3 Parere della FRA 3.4

Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero garantire la Gli Stati membri dell’UE sono incoraggiati a con- salvaguardia dei diritti e delle libertà fondamen- tinuare ad adottare e ad attuare misure speci- tali al momento di valutare qualsiasi restrizione fiche atte a garantire che le persone lesbiche, riguardante simboli e indumenti associati alla gay, bisessuali, transgender e intersessuali religione. Qualsiasi proposta legislativa o am- possano avvalersi appieno dei propri diritti ministrativa che comporti il rischio di limitare fondamentali. Nel far questo, gli Stati membri la libertà di manifestare la propria religione o le sono incoraggiati a utilizzare l’elenco di azioni proprie convinzioni personali dovrebbe include- mirate a far progredire la parità delle persone re una riflessione in merito ai diritti fondamen- LGBTI pubblicata dalla Commissione europea tali e il rispetto dei principi di legalità, necessità per orientare i loro sforzi. e proporzionalità.

I dati sulla parità offrono ottimi strumenti per svelare Gli Stati membri dell’UE hanno continuato ad attuare forme di disuguaglianza negli Stati membri dell’UE, misure volte a favorire la parità delle persone lesbi- oltre a costituire un fondamento solido per l’elabo- che, gay, bisessuali, transgender e intersessuali. razione di politiche basate su dati comprovati. I risul- Numerosi Stati membri dell’UE hanno allineato lo tati dell’EU-MIDIS II e delle ricerche pubblicate dagli stato civile delle coppie dello stesso sesso a quello organismi per la parità e dalle autorità pubbliche delle coppie sposate, anche se talvolta con restri- nazionali nel 2017 dimostrano ampiamente che la zioni in merito all’adozione o alla riproduzione assi- discriminazione e la disparità di trattamento hanno stita. Altri hanno intrapreso misure al fine di de-me- un profondo impatto sulle società europee. I risul- dicalizzare il processo di riassegnazione del genere tati delle ricerche basate sul metodo di prova per la e uno Stato membro ha adottato procedure sem- discriminazione forniscono ulteriori prove empiriche plificate che permettono alle persone transgender di discriminazione nell’ambito dell’accesso all’oc- di modificare il loro sesso registrato. La questione cupazione e all’alloggio per una serie di motivi in degli indicatori binari di genere è stata oggetto di diversi Stati membri dell’UE. Mediante la raccolta dibattito in alcuni Stati membri dell’UE, uno dei quali sistematica di dati sulle forme di disuguaglianza, ha reso possibile l’uso dell’indicatore «x» nei docu- l’UE e i suoi Stati membri possono monitorare l’im- menti ufficiali come alternativa ai generi femmi- patto di politiche e misure adottate al fine di favo- nile e maschile. rire l’uguaglianza e promuovere la non discrimina- zione e adattarle per migliorarne l’efficacia. L’UE

7 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

e i suoi Stati membri si sono impegnati a raggiun- gere gli obiettivi dell’Agenda 2030 per lo sviluppo sostenibile. La disponibilità di dati solidi e affidabili in materia di parità permetterebbe all’UE e ai suoi Stati membri di misurare i progressi in merito al raggiungimento degli obiettivi 10.2 e 10.3 nell’am- bito dell’obiettivo di sviluppo sostenibile numero 10 riguardante la riduzione della disuguaglianza all’in- terno dei paesi e tra un paese e l’altro.

Diversi tipi di dati, quali dati statistici e amministra- tivi, oltre a prove scientifiche, possono essere usati per sostenere l’elaborazione di politiche atte a pro- muovere la parità di trattamento e a combattere la discriminazione. Tali dati possono anche essere usati per valutare l’attuazione della direttiva sull’u- guaglianza razziale (2000/43/CE) o la direttiva sulla parità di trattamento in materia di occupazione e di condizioni di lavoro (2000/78/CE). La commissione europea contro il razzismo e l’intolleranza (ECRI), nelle sue raccomandazioni politiche generali, evi- denzia la necessità di dati di buona qualità a soste- gno della lotta contro la discriminazione. In aggiunta, la Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone con disabilità offre orientamenti in merito alla raccolta di dati relativi alla parità.

Parere della FRA 3.5

Le istituzioni dell’UE e gli Stati membri dell’UE sono incoraggiati a continuare a sostenere e finanziare la raccolta di dati solidi e affidabili relativi alla parità da parte di agenzie e organi- smi UE, autorità statistiche nazionali, organismi nazionali per la parità e altre autorità pubbli- che e istituzioni accademiche. Gli Stati membri dell’UE sono inoltre incoraggiati a fornire dati solidi e affidabili relativi alla parità all’ufficio statistico dell’Unione europea (Eurostat), in modo da permettere all’UE di elaborare misu- re e programmi mirati per promuovere la parità di trattamento e la non discriminazione. Se del caso e nei limiti del possibile, i dati raccolti do- vrebbero essere disaggregati non solo per ses- so ed età, ma anche per origine etnica, disabilità e religione.

8 Pareri della FRA

4. Razzismo, xenofobia e intolleranza ad essi associata

Diciassette anni dopo l’adozione della direttiva sull’uguaglianza razziale e nove anni dopo l’adozione della decisione quadro sul razzismo e la xenofobia, migranti e minoranze etniche continuano a confrontarsi con diffusi fenomeni di discriminazione, molestie e definizione discriminatoria di profili etnici in tutta l’UE, come emerso dalle conclusioni della seconda indagine sulle minoranze e le discriminazioni nell’Unione europea (EU-MIDIS II) della FRA. La Commissione europea ha sostenuto gli sforzi degli Stati membri dell’UE per contrastare il razzismo e i crimini generati dall’odio attraverso l’istituzione del gruppo ad alto livello dell’UE sulla lotta contro il razzismo, la xenofobia e altre forme di intolleranza. Ha altresì continuato a monitorare da vicino l’attuazione della direttiva sull’uguaglianza razziale e della decisione quadro. Sebbene diversi Stati membri dell’UE abbiano rivisto la loro normativa contro il razzismo, nel 2017 solo 14 di loro avevano posto in essere piani d’azione e strategie volti a combattere il razzismo e la discriminazione etnica.

Malgrado le iniziative politiche intraprese nel qua- Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero adoperarsi dro del gruppo ad alto livello dell’UE sulla lotta con- ulteriormente per registrare, raccogliere e pub- tro il razzismo, la xenofobia e altre forme di intol- blicare sistematicamente ogni anno dati com- leranza, i crimini generati dall’odio e l’incitamento parabili sui reati generati dall’odio e utilizzarli all’odio a stampo razzista e xenofobo continuano per predisporre risposte politiche e giuridiche a incidere profondamente sulla vita di milioni di per- efficaci, basate su dati oggettivi. Tutti i dati do- sone nell’UE. Ciò è illustrato dai risultati dell’EU-MI- vrebbero essere raccolti in conformità ai quadri DIS II ed evidenziato dalle sintesi periodiche della giuridici nazionali e alla normativa dell’UE in FRA su questioni relative ai diritti fondamentali con- materia di protezione dei dati. nessi alla migrazione.

L’articolo 1 della decisione quadro sul razzismo e la xenofobia definisce misure che gli Stati membri sono Malgrado il solido quadro giuridico stabilito dalla tenuti ad adottare per punire i comportamenti inten- direttiva sull’uguaglianza razziale (2000/43/CE), zionali a stampo razzista e xenofobo. L’articolo 4, i risultati dell’EU-MIDIS II e altre prove mostrano lettera a), della Convenzione internazionale sull’eli- che una quota considerevole di immigranti e di minazione di ogni forma di discriminazione razziale gruppi di minoranze etniche è confrontata ad alti (ICERD), obbliga inoltre gli Stati parte a considerare livelli di discriminazione a motivo della provenienza come reato punibile per legge ogni incitamento alla etnica o immigratoria, oltre che per caratteristiche discriminazione razziale, nonché ogni atto di violenza potenzialmente associate, quali il colore della pelle rivolto contro qualsiasi razza o gruppo di individui. e la religione. I risultati evidenziano scarsi progressi rispetto a otto anni fa, quando è stata svolta la Parere della FRA 4.1 prima indagine EU-MIDIS; la quota di persone che fanno esperienza di discriminazione rimane a livelli Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero garantire assai preoccupanti. Tali risultati indicano inoltre che che qualsiasi presunto reato generato dall’odio, la maggior parte dei partecipanti all’indagine non incluso l’incitamento all’odio, sia segnalato, in- conosce alcuna organizzazione che offra sostegno dagato, perseguito e soggetto a processo. Ciò o consiglio alle vittime di discriminazione né è al cor- deve essere fatto in conformità alle normative rente dell’esistenza di alcun organismo per la parità. nazionali, europee e internazionali applicabili.

9 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

Parere della FRA 4.2 Come indicato nelle precedenti Relazioni sui diritti fondamentali, i risultati dell’EU-MIDIS II mostrano che Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero garantire i membri di gruppi di minoranze etniche continuano una migliore attuazione e applicazione pratiche a essere oggetto di profilazione discriminatoria da della direttiva sull’uguaglianza razziale. Dovreb- parte della polizia. Tale profilazione può minare la bero inoltre far conoscere la normativa contro la fiducia nell’applicazione della legge tra le persone discriminazione e i meccanismi di ricorso perti- appartenenti a minoranze etniche, che spesso pos- nenti, in particolare tra le persone che possono sono ritrovarsi a essere fermate e perquisite senza essere maggiormente soggette a discriminazio- un valido motivo, solo sulla base del loro aspetto. ne, quali i membri di minoranze etniche. Nello Tale pratica contraddice i principi dell’ICERD e altre specifico, gli Stati membri dovrebbero assicura- norme internazionali, inclusi quelli contenuti nella re che le sanzioni siano sufficientemente effica- Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e nella ci, proporzionate e dissuasive, come stabilisce la relativa giurisprudenza della CEDU, oltre alla Carta direttiva sull’uguaglianza razziale. dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE e alla direttiva sull’u- guaglianza razziale.

Parere della FRA 4.4 Nel 2017 soltanto 14 Stati membri dell’UE avevano adottato piani d’azione nazionali mirati a contrastare Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero porre fine la discriminazione razziale, il razzismo e la xenofobia. alle forme discriminatorie di profilazione. Tale La dichiarazione e il programma d’azione di Durban obiettivo potrebbe essere raggiunto attraverso dell’ONU, successivo alla Conferenza mondiale con- l’erogazione di una formazione sistematica in tro il razzismo, la discriminazione razziale, la xeno- materia di legislazione contro la discriminazione fobia e l’intolleranza, conferisce agli Stati parte la ai funzionari delle autorità di contrasto, nonché responsabilità primaria di combattere il razzismo, la consentendo loro di comprendere meglio i pre- discriminazione razziale, la xenofobia e l’intolleranza giudizi inconsci e sfidare stereotipi e pregiudi- a essi associata. Il gruppo di alto livello dell’UE sulla zi. Questo tipo di formazione potrebbe altresì lotta a razzismo, xenofobia e altre forme di intol- favorire la sensibilizzazione in merito alle con- leranza fornisce agli Stati membri dell’UE un forum seguenze della discriminazione e alle modalità per lo scambio di pratiche al fine di garantire un’ef- per aumentare la fiducia dei membri di mino- ficace attuazione di tali piani d’azione. ranze nella polizia. Per controllare le pratiche di profilazione discriminatoria, gli Stati membri Parere della FRA 4.3 potrebbero inoltre considerare la possibilità di registrare l’uso dei poteri di fermo e perquisizio- Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero elaborare ne. Nello specifico, potrebbero registrare l’etnia piani d’azione nazionali mirati per combattere il delle persone soggette a fermo – come avvie- razzismo, la discriminazione razziale, la xenofo- ne attualmente in uno degli Stati membri – in bia e l’intolleranza a essi associata. In tal sen- conformità al quadro giuridico nazionale e alla so, gli Stati membri potrebbero attingere agli normativa UE in materia di protezione dei dati. orientamenti pratici offerti dall’Alto Commissa- rio delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti dell’uomo su come elaborare questi piani. Conformemente a tali orientamenti, i piani d’azione definirebbe- ro obiettivi e azioni, designerebbero organismi statali responsabili, definirebbero scadenze, inserirebbero indicatori di prestazione e for- nirebbero meccanismi di controllo e verifica. L’attuazione di tali piani fornirebbe agli Stati membri dell’UE un mezzo efficace per garantire il rispetto degli obblighi ai sensi della direttiva sull’uguaglianza razziale e della decisione qua- dro sulla lotta contro il razzismo e la xenofobia.

10 Pareri della FRA

5. Integrazione dei rom

Il quadro dell’UE per le strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom non ha ancora sortito «progressi significativi e tangibili», nonostante prosegua l’attuazione di misure volte a migliorare l’inclusione dei Rom negli Stati membri. È aumentata la partecipazione dei Rom all’istruzione, ma permangono i problemi dell’abbandono scolastico e della segregazione nell’istruzione. Sono esigui i miglioramenti della situazione dei Rom per quanto riguarda occupazione, alloggio e salute, mentre il persistente antinomadismo, che si manifesta in atti di discriminazione, molestie e crimini generati dall’odio, rappresenta ancora un notevole ostacolo all’inclusione di questo gruppo etnico. L’esigenza di combattere l’antinomadismo è diventata una questione politica maggiormente prioritaria nel 2017 ed è stata ripresa nella risoluzione del Parlamento europeo sugli aspetti relativi ai diritti fondamentali nell’integrazione dei Rom nell’UE. Occorre intensificare gli sforzi per monitorare l’attuazione e l’efficacia delle misure di integrazione prestando, al contempo, particolare attenzione ai giovani e alle donne Rom emarginati e socialmente esclusi.

I risultati delle indagini della FRA sui rom mostrano Dovrebbero inoltre includere misure di sensibi- che l’antiziganismo rimane una forte barriera all’in- lizzazione in merito ai vantaggi dell’integrazio- clusione dei rom. I rom continuano a essere oggetto ne dei rom, rivolte alla popolazione in generale, di discriminazione a motivo della loro etnia in ter- ai fornitori di servizi, al personale dell’istruzione mini di accesso a istruzione, occupazione, alloggio pubblica e alla polizia. Tali misure potrebbero e assistenza sanitaria. La discriminazione e l’anti- comprendere indagini o ricerche qualitative con- ziganismo violano il diritto alla non discriminazione dotte a livello nazionale o locale al fine di com- previsto ai sensi dell’articolo 21 della Carta dei diritti prendere l’impatto sociale dell’antiziganismo. fondamentali dell’Unione europea, la direttiva sull’u- guaglianza razziale (2000/43/CE) e altri strumenti europei e internazionali in materia di diritti umani. Inoltre, la raccomandazione del Consiglio del 2013 Investimenti e misure da parte dei governi a favore su misure efficaci per l’integrazione dei rom rac- dell’educazione della prima infanzia hanno segnato comanda che gli Stati membri adottino le misure un aumento nei tassi di iscrizione di bambini rom necessarie al fine di garantire l’applicazione efficace all’educazione della prima infanzia. Malgrado un calo sul terreno della direttiva sull’uguaglianza razziale. nel tasso di abbandono precoce degli studi da parte Relazioni precedenti della FRA, comprese la rela- di giovani rom, circa sette su 10 rom di età com- zione EU-MIDIS II Rom: una selezione dei risultati presa tra i 18 e i 24 anni abbandonano precocemente e la Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2017, hanno gli studi. La segregazione nell’istruzione è inoltre evidenziato la necessità di contrastare la discrimina- aumentata in numerosi Stati membri e la discrimi- zione contro i rom mediante l’attuazione della diret- nazione nell’ambito dell’istruzione non è migliorata tiva sull’uguaglianza razziale e della decisione qua- in maniera significativa. L’articolo 3, paragrafo 3, del dro sulla lotta contro il razzismo e la xenofobia, con trattato sull’Unione europea (TUE), delinea l’impor- particolare attenzione agli aspetti relativi al genere. tanza della lotta all’esclusione sociale e alla discri- minazione e della tutela dei diritti del bambino, che Parere della FRA 5.1 comprende il diritto all’istruzione. L’articolo 21 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE proibisce espli- Gli Stati membri dovrebbero garantire che la lot- citamente qualsiasi forma di discriminazione fon- ta all’antiziganismo sia inserita fra le principali data sulla razza o sull’origine etnica. La raccoman- politiche e combinata con le politiche per l’in- dazione del Consiglio del 2013 su misure efficaci clusione attiva che affrontano la disuguaglian- per l’integrazione dei rom prevede l’eliminazione di za e la povertà etnica, in linea con la direttiva qualsiasi forma di segregazione scolastica al fine di sull’uguaglianza razziale e con la decisione qua- garantire la sostenibilità e l’impatto a lungo termine dro sulla lotta contro il razzismo e la xenofobia. per l’eliminazione della segregazione. La direttiva

11 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

sull’uguaglianza razziale si applica anche all’ambito Parere della FRA 5.3 dell’istruzione. Le procedure di infrazione presen- tate contro tre Stati membri riguardanti la segrega- Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero rafforzare zione nell’ambito dell’istruzione nel contesto della le misure volte a sostenere l’accesso dei rom violazione della direttiva sull’uguaglianza razziale al mercato del lavoro. Le politiche in materia di evidenziano al gravità della questione. occupazione, gli uffici nazionali dell’occupazio- ne e le imprese, in particolare a livello locale, Parere della FRA 5.2 dovrebbero fornire sostegno per agevolare il lavoro autonomo e le attività imprenditoriali. Le autorità nazionali preposte all’istruzione Dovrebbero inoltre attuare iniziative di comu- dovrebbero fornire il sostegno e le risorse ne- nicazione con i rom per sostenere la loro piena cessari agli istituti scolastici con studenti rom integrazione nel mercato del lavoro, con una per far fronte a tutti gli aspetti dell’inclusione particolare attenzione alle donne e ai giovani. scolastica al fine di aumentare la partecipazio- ne all’istruzione e ridurre il tasso di abbandono scolastico. Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero mettere in atto ulteriori sforzi per far fronte alla Affinché le misure di integrazione abbiano successo, segregazione scolastica, incentrati sulla soste- è essenziale che i rom partecipino in modo signi- nibilità più a lungo termine e, parallelamente, ficativo ai progetti e alla creazione e attuazione di sulla lotta contro la discriminazione e l’antiziga- politiche e strategie locali. La partecipazione dei rom nismo. Le misure di desegregazione dovrebbero a livello nazionale è importante per la creazione essere accompagnate da sforzi sul fronte della e il monitoraggio di strategie di integrazione dei sensibilizzazione e della promozione della di- rom o insiemi integrati di misure politiche nazionali versità nelle scuole rivolti a insegnanti, studenti e dovrebbe essere sostenuta mediante il dialogo e genitori. a livello nazionale e piattaforme di partecipazione. Soprattutto a livello locale, i meccanismi per la coo- perazione con le autorità locali e le organizzazioni della società civile possono facilitare il coinvolgi- Una migliore partecipazione dei rom all’istruzione mento delle popolazioni locali, compresi i rom. La non sempre si traduce in un maggiore tasso di occu- raccomandazione del Consiglio del 2013 su misure pazione o di partecipazione al mercato del lavoro. efficaci per l’integrazione dei rom invita al coinvol- La disoccupazione a lungo termine rimane una sfida, gimento e alla partecipazione attiva dei rom e pre- mentre l’integrazione nel mercato del lavoro è sem- vede approcci locali adeguati ai fini dell’integra- pre più difficile per i giovani e le donne rom. Seb- zione. L’esperienza della FRA tramite la sua ricerca bene siano stati elaborati alcuni progetti specifici sul coinvolgimento locale per l’inclusione dei rom e misure strategiche per affrontare le esigenze dei (Local Engagement for Roma Inclusion, LERI) mostra giovani e delle donne rom nell’ambito dell’occupa- come le comunità locali possano essere coinvolte zione, è stata rivolta scarsa attenzione sistematica attivamente nella partecipazione a progetti e nell’e- a tali gruppi particolari. La raccomandazione del laborazione di strategie. Consiglio del 2013 su misure efficaci per l’integra- zione dei rom invita gli Stati membri ad adottare Parere della FRA 5.4 misure efficaci al fine di garantire parità di tratta- mento dei rom nell’accesso al mercato del lavoro, Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero esaminare ad esempio mediante misure per sostenere la prima le proprie strategie di integrazione dei rom o gli esperienza di lavoro e la formazione professionale, insiemi integrati di misure politiche a livello na- il lavoro autonomo e l’imprenditoria, l’accesso ai zionale per progredire nella promozione di ap- servizi pubblici per l’impiego generali e l’elimina- procci partecipativi all’elaborazione di politiche zione di barriere quali la discriminazione. Il pilastro e nei progetti d’integrazione, prestando parti- europeo dei diritti sociali, proclamato nel 2017, fa colare attenzione al livello locale e sostenendo riferimento all’istruzione, alla formazione e all’ap- gli sforzi guidati dalla comunità. I Fondi strut- prendimento permanente per agevolare un passag- turali e d’investimento europei e altre fonti di gio efficace al mercato del lavoro, oltre alla parità finanziamento dovrebbero essere utilizzati per di genere, alle pari opportunità e a un sostegno agevolare la partecipazione dei rom e la crea- attivo all’occupazione, in particolare per i giovani zione di progetti di integrazione guidati dalla e i disoccupati. comunità.

12 Pareri della FRA

La raccomandazione del Consiglio del 2013 su misure efficaci per l’integrazione dei rom invita gli Stati membri a monitorare e valutare in modo adeguato l’efficacia delle proprie strategie nazionali e politiche di inclusione sociale. Tali meccanismi di monitorag- gio devono includere dati qualitativi e quantitativi pertinenti, se del caso, assicurando che la raccolta di dati sia in linea con le normative nazionali ed euro- pee applicabili, in particolare per quanto riguarda la protezione dei dati personali. Sebbene diversi Stati membri abbiano incluso indicatori quantitativi e qualitativi al fine di misurare i progressi a livello dell’integrazione dei rom, alcuni non hanno ancora adottato alcun meccanismo di monitoraggio. Pochi meccanismi di monitoraggio includono informazioni sull’uso efficace dei fondi UE.

Parere della FRA 5.5

Gli Stati membri dovrebbero migliorare o istitui- re meccanismi di monitoraggio dell’integrazione dei rom, in conformità alla raccomandazione del Consiglio del 2013 su misure efficaci per l’inte- grazione dei rom negli Stati membri. I meccani- smi di monitoraggio dovrebbero includere un’ul- teriore raccolta di dati disaggregati per etnia e genere, in linea con la normativa UE in materia di protezione dei dati, e includere quesiti nelle indagini pertinenti su larga scala, ad esempio l’indagine sulle forze di lavoro e le statistiche UE sul reddito e sulle condizioni di vita. I meccani- smi di monitoraggio dovrebbero coinvolgere la società civile e le comunità rom locali. Anche le valutazioni indipendenti che interessano i rom dovrebbero esaminare l’uso e l’efficacia dei fi- nanziamenti dell’UE e contribuire a migliorare le misure politiche.

13 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

6. Asilo, visti, migrazione, frontiere e integrazione

Nel 2017, gli arrivi irregolari via mare sono stati in totale circa 187 000, la metà rispetto a quelli del 2016. Tuttavia, più di 3 100 persone hanno perso la vita attraversando il mare per raggiungere l’Europa. Lungo la rotta dei Balcani occidentali, le accuse di maltrattamento di migranti ad opera della polizia sono aumentate. Alcuni Stati membri dell’UE stentano ancora ad accogliere i richiedenti asilo. Il nesso fra migrazione e sicurezza si è fatto sempre più stretto, tanto che i sistemi di informazione a livello dell’UE vengono impiegati sia per gestire i flussi migratori sia per rafforzare la sicurezza. Nel frattempo, gli sforzi profusi per affrontare in modo più efficace il problema dell’immigrazione illegale ha aggravato i preesistenti rischi di violazione dei diritti fondamentali.

Sebbene il numero di persone che arrivano alle Nel 2017 l’UE ha conferito alta priorità alla riforma frontiere esterne dell’UE in modo non autorizzato dei sistemi di tecnologia dell’informazione (IT) su sia calato nel 2017, permangono sfide significative larga scala nel campo della migrazione e dell’a- nell’ambito dei diritti fondamentali. Alcune delle silo. Mediante l’«interoperabilità», i diversi sistemi violazioni più gravi consistono nel maltrattamento saranno connessi tra loro in modo migliore. Un regi- dei migranti che varcano i confini aggirando i con- stro centrale ricostruirà l’identità di tutte le persone trolli alle frontiere. Le segnalazioni di comporta- inserite nei vari sistemi e un meccanismo rileverà se menti abusivi sono aumentate notevolmente nel dati relativi alla stessa persona sono contenuti nei 2017, in particolare lungo la rotta dei Balcani occi- sistemi IT sotto nomi e identità differenti. Non tutti dentali. I partecipanti all’indagine EU-MIDIS II della gli aspetti delle proposte di regolamento sull’inte- FRA, che ha intervistato più di 12 000 immigrati di roperabilità sono stati soggetti a un attento scruti- prima generazione nell’UE, hanno inoltre segna- nio alla luce dei diritti fondamentali. lato esperienze di violenza da parte della polizia o delle guardie di frontiera. Malgrado il numero Le riforme dei sistemi IT hanno un impatto su diversi significativo di accuse, raramente vengono avviati diritti tutelati dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali procedimenti penali, in parte a motivo della rilut- dell’UE, incluso il diritto alla protezione dei dati di tanza delle vittime a sporgere denuncia, ma anche carattere personale (articolo 8), i diritti del bam- a causa di prove insufficienti. Difficilmente si emet- bino (articolo 24), il diritto di asilo (articolo 18), il tono condanne. diritto a un ricorso effettivo (articolo 47) e il diritto alla libertà e alla sicurezza (articolo 6). L’articolo 4 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE proibisce la tortura e i trattamenti inumani o degra- Parere della FRA 6.2 danti. La proibizione è assoluta, nel senso che non è permessa alcuna eccezione o deroga. L’UE dovrebbe garantire che il legislatore dell’UE o organismi di esperti indipendenti valutino ap- Parere della FRA 6.1 profonditamente tutte le ripercussioni sui diritti fondamentali delle diverse proposte sull’intero- Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero rafforzare perabilità prima della loro adozione e attuazio- le misure preventive al fine di ridurre il rischio ne, prestando particolare attenzione alla diver- che singoli funzionari di polizia e delle guardie sità delle esperienze di uomini e donne. di frontiera attuino comportamenti abusivi alle frontiere. Ogni qualvolta emergono segnalazio- ni di maltrattamento, queste dovrebbero essere soggette a un’indagine efficace e l’autore del reato dovrebbe essere assicurato alla giustizia.

14 Pareri della FRA

L’Unione europea e i suoi Stati membri hanno com- Parere della FRA 6.3 piuto notevoli sforzi al fine di incrementare il rimpa- trio dei migranti in situazione irregolare. Le autorità Quando gli Stati membri dell’UE privano gli in- competenti per l’immigrazione e le altre autorità dividui della loro libertà per ragioni relative pertinenti considerano la privazione della libertà un all’immigrazione, essi devono rispettare tutte componente importante per un rimpatrio efficace. Il le misure di salvaguardia imposte dalla Carta manuale riveduto sul rimpatrio, adottato nel 2017, oltre a quelle derivanti dalla Convenzione eu- contiene un elenco di situazioni che gli Stati mem- ropea dei diritti dell’uomo. In particolare, il trat- bri dell’UE dovrebbero considerare come indicatori tenimento deve risultare necessario nel singolo di un «rischio di fuga», in pratica il motivo più fre- caso. quente per una misura di trattenimento. Definisce inoltre le circostanze in cui si dovrebbe presumere un rischio di fuga, spostando sull’individuo l’onere di confutare la presunzione. La mancanza di stati- La FRA ha evidenziato costantemente l’importanza stiche comparabili sul trattenimento degli immi- di un controllo dei rimpatri forzati a norma dell’ar- grati nell’UE rende difficile valutare in che misura ticolo 8, paragrafo 6, della direttiva rimpatri come i maggiori sforzi tesi a rendere i rimpatri più efficaci strumento per promuovere rimpatri effettuati nel abbiano portato a un aumento del ricorso ai prov- rispetto dei diritti fondamentali. Non tutti gli Stati vedimenti di trattenimento di immigrati. Tuttavia, membri dell’UE hanno istituito sistemi di controllo alcune segnalazioni hanno evidenziato l’emergere operativi dei rimpatri forzati. di forme di trattenimento arbitrario in diversi Stati membri dell’UE. L’attuazione dei rimpatri comporta rischi significativi in relazione ai principali diritti fondamentali sanciti Il trattenimento costituisce una grande interferenza dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE, incluso il con il diritto alla libertà tutelato dall’articolo 6 della diritto alla vita (articolo 2), la proibizione della tor- Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE. Qualsiasi pri- tura e delle pene o trattamenti inumani o degra- vazione della libertà deve pertanto rispettare le danti (articolo 4), il diritto alla libertà (articolo 6) e il misure di salvaguardia stabilite per prevenire il trat- diritto alla protezione in caso di allontanamento, di tenimento illegittimo e arbitrario. espulsione e di estradizione (articolo 19).

Parere della FRA 6.4

Tutti gli Stati membri dell’UE vincolati dalla di- rettiva rimpatri dovrebbero istituire efficaci si- stemi di controllo dei rimpatri.

15 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

7. Società dell’informazione, privacy e protezione dei dati

Il 2017 ha rappresentato un anno importante sia per l’innovazione tecnologica sia per la tutela della privacy e dei dati personali. Il rapido sviluppo delle nuove tecnologie ha aperto le porte a molte opportunità ma anche a numerose sfide. Mentre gli Stati membri e le istituzioni dell’UE terminavano le attività preliminari per l’applicazione del pacchetto sulla protezione dei dati dell’Unione europea, nuovi problemi emergevano all’orizzonte. Il progresso esponenziale della ricerca collegata ai «Big Data» e all’intelligenza artificiale – e le loro promesse in campi così diversi come la salute, la sicurezza e i mercati delle imprese – hanno spinto le autorità pubbliche e la società civile a mettere in discussione l’impatto reale che possono avere sui cittadini – e soprattutto sui loro diritti fondamentali. Nel frattempo, due attacchi di malware su larga scala hanno scosso la sicurezza digitale. Le recenti riforme dell’Unione europea in materia di protezione e sicurezza informatica dei dati, così come gli sforzi attuali in relazione alla protezione della vita privata nell’ambiente digitale, si sono rivelati tempestivi e pertinenti alla luce di tali sviluppi.

L’articolo 8, paragrafo 3, della Carta dei diritti fon- comprensione dei diritti e dei rischi collegati all’ela- damentali dell’UE e l’articolo 16, paragrafo 2, TFUE borazione dei dati personali. La maggior parte delle riconoscono la protezione dei dati di carattere per- linee guida e delle campagne di sensibilizzazione sonale come diritto fondamentale e affermano che sono tuttavia disponibili solo on-line, pertanto l’ac- il rispetto delle norme in materia di protezione dei cesso a Internet è essenziale per la conoscenza dei dati deve essere soggetto al controllo di un’au- diritti. Nella maggioranza degli Stati membri persi- torità indipendente. Il controllo e l’esecuzione dei ste un divario digitale notevole tra le generazioni diritti sulla protezione dei dati possono diventare in termini di uso di Internet. una realtà se tali autorità hanno a disposizione le risorse umane, tecniche e finanziarie, inclusi i locali Parere della FRA 7.2 e le infrastrutture, che sono necessarie per garan- tire l’efficace svolgimento dei loro compiti e l’eser- Le autorità competenti per la protezione dei cizio dei loro poteri. Tale requisito si basa sull’ar- dati dovrebbero garantire che tutti i titolari del ticolo 52, paragrafo 2, del regolamento generale trattamento prestino particolare attenzione ai sulla protezione dei dati (RGPD). bambini e ai cittadini anziani dell’UE per assicu- rare pari opportunità in merito alla conoscenza Parere della FRA 7.1 dei diritti sulla privacy e sulla protezione dei dati e per ridurre la vulnerabilità causata dall’analfa- Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero valutare in betismo digitale. modo approfondito le risorse umane e finanzia- rie, incluse le capacità tecniche, necessarie per le operazioni delle autorità competenti per la protezione dei dati personali in vista delle loro Considerando l’analisi della CGUE, la portata della nuove responsabilità derivanti dal rafforzamen- conservazione dei dati effettuata a norma dell’ac- to dei poteri e delle competenze stabilito dal cordo sul codice di prenotazione (PNR) e della diret- regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati. tiva PNR dovrebbe limitarsi allo stretto necessario. Ciò significa escludere la conservazione dei dati di passeggeri già partiti e che non presentano, in linea di principio, un rischio di terrorismo o di gravi reati IL RGPD prevede che le autorità competenti per la transnazionali, almeno nei casi in cui né i controlli, protezione dei dati assicurino la conoscenza e la

16 Pareri della FRA

né le verifiche, né alcuna altra circostanza hanno efficace in tutti questi settori vitali. Nello specifico, rivelato prove oggettive di tale rischio. l’articolo 8 della direttiva obbliga gli Stati membri a designare una o più autorità nazionali competenti, Parere della FRA 7.3 oltre a un punto di contatto unico in materia di sicu- rezza delle reti e dei sistemi informativi, che, «ove Al momento di riesaminare la direttiva PNR opportuno e conformemente al diritto nazionale, a norma dell’articolo 19, il legislatore UE dovreb- [...] consultano le autorità di contrasto e le auto- be pagare particolare attenzione all’analisi della rità per la protezione dei dati nazionali competenti Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea. In parti- e collaborano con esse». Le iniziative di attuazione colare, dovrebbe vagliare l’opportunità di rive- in diversi Stati membri hanno evidenziato la neces- dere le disposizioni della direttiva PNR al fine di sità di garantire che i principi sulla protezione dei limitare la portata della conservazione dei dati, dati sanciti dal RGPD siano adeguatamente accolti dopo la partenza dei passeggeri di voli aerei, e rispecchiati nella normativa nazionale che rece- a quei passeggeri che possano rappresentare pisce la direttiva NIS. un rischio oggettivo in termini di terrorismo e/o di gravi reati transnazionali. Parere della FRA 7.5

Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero garantire che le disposizioni nazionali di recepimento del- Le autorità competenti per la protezione dei dati la direttiva NIS nella normativa nazionale ade- hanno il compito di monitorare e assicurare l’ap- riscano ai principi sulla protezione sanciti dal plicazione del RGPD e di promuovere la compren- regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati. sione dei rischi, delle norme, delle misure di sal- Nello specifico, le disposizioni nazionali devono vaguardia e dei diritti in materia di elaborazione di aderire ai principi di limitazione della finalità, dati personali. Tale ruolo diventa ancora più impor- minimizzazione dei dati, sicurezza dei dati, li- tante nell’ambito dell’analisi dei «Big Data», che mitazione della conservazione e responsabiliz- permette una disponibilità, una condivisione e un zazione, in particolare per quanto riguarda l’ob- uso automatizzato dei dati di carattere personale bligo, previsto dalla direttiva NIS, da parte delle senza precedenti. Come evidenziano il Parlamento autorità nazionali di cooperare con le autorità di europeo e il Consiglio d’Europa, tale elaborazione – contrasto e le autorità per la protezione dei dati operata da persone fisiche, imprese private e auto- nazionali. rità pubbliche – potrebbe comportare una serie di problemi in termini di diritti fondamentali degli indi- vidui, nello specifico per il loro diritto alla privacy, alla protezione dei dati personali e alla non discri- minazione. Sono ancora necessarie ulteriori ricerche per individuare chiaramente tali questioni e affron- tarle tempestivamente.

Parere della FRA 7.4

Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero valutare l’impatto dell’analisi dei Big Data e riflettere su come affrontare i rischi che ne derivano per i diritti fondamentali mediante meccanismi di sorveglianza forti, indipendenti ed efficaci. Data la loro esperienza, le autorità competenti per la protezione dei dati personali dovrebbero rive- stire un ruolo attivo in tale processo.

La direttiva sulla sicurezza delle reti e dei sistemi informativi (direttiva NIS) potenzia il livello gene- rale di sicurezza delle reti e dei sistemi informa- tivi mediante, tra le altre strategie, l’imposizione di una varietà di obblighi per gli «operatori di ser- vizi essenziali», quali energia elettrica, trasporti, acqua, energia, settore sanitario e infrastrutture digi- tali, al fine di garantire l’attuazione di una strategia

17 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

8. Diritti del bambino

Nel complesso i tassi di povertà infantile nell’UE sono leggermente calati, pur rimanendo alti. Quasi 25 milioni di bambini e adolescenti sono a rischio di povertà o di esclusione sociale. Il 7 % delle famiglie con figli nell’UE soffre di un grave disagio abitativo. Il pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali sottolinea il diritto dei bambini e degli adolescenti alla protezione dalla povertà e all’uguaglianza e si concentra in particolare su un’educazione e cura della prima infanzia a costi sostenibili e di buona qualità. I bambini e gli adolescenti migranti e rifugiati hanno continuato ad approdare in Europa in cerca di protezione, sebbene le cifre siano inferiori rispetto al 2015 e al 2016. Mentre la Commissione europea ha fornito orientamenti politici mediante una comunicazione sulla protezione dei bambini e degli adolescenti migranti, gli Stati membri hanno continuato ad adoperarsi per garantire una sistemazione, un’istruzione, un sostegno psicologico e misure d’integrazione generali idonei a bambini e adolescenti. L’applicazione del principio dell’interesse superiore del minore costituisce ancora una sfida concreta nel contesto migratorio. Per quanto riguarda la riduzione della detenzione di bambini e adolescenti immigrati, i progressi registrati sono molto limitati. Nel frattempo, varie iniziative europee e nazionali si sono concentrate sui rischi di radicalizzazione ed estremismo violento fra i giovani.

In linea con la tendenza degli ultimi due anni, nell’UE Parere della FRA 8.1 il numero dei bambini che vivono a rischio di povertà o di esclusione sociale ha continuato a diminuire. L’Unione europea e i suoi Stati membri dovreb- Quasi 25 milioni di bambini sono tuttavia a rischio bero assicurare l’adempimento degli impegni di povertà o di esclusione sociale, situazione che inclusi nel pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali, vol- richiede l’attenzione urgente dell’UE e dei suoi Stati ti a proteggere i bambini dalla povertà, a fornire membri. A norma dell’articolo 24 della Carta dei diritti e a rendere economicamente accessibile l’edu- fondamentali dell’UE, «[i] bambini hanno diritto alla cazione per la prima infanzia e un’assistenza di protezione e alle cure necessarie per il loro benes- buona qualità priva di discriminazione. Dovreb- sere». Il semestre europeo del 2017 ha incluso un bero inoltre garantire, per le ragazze e i ragazzi numero crescente di raccomandazioni specifiche provenienti da contesti difficili, il diritto a misure per paese in merito ai bambini, ma, per la prima specifiche volte a migliorare le pari opportuni- volta, nessuna riguardante la povertà infantile. Gli tà. L’attuazione del pilastro richiede proposte Stati membri dell’UE fanno un uso molto limitato legislative concrete, piani d’azione, dotazioni della raccomandazione della Commissione europea di bilancio e sistemi di controllo in tutte le aree del 2013 «Investire nell’infanzia per spezzare il cir- che hanno un impatto sui bambini e sulle loro colo vizioso dello svantaggio sociale» nei loro pro- famiglie, quali l’occupazione, la parità di genere, grammi nazionali di riforma per il semestre euro- l’accesso ai servizi sanitari, l’istruzione e l’allog- peo. Sebbene sia stato criticato da soggetti della gio a costi accessibili. società civile, il pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali può rappresentare un’opportunità per modificare i tassi Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero fare uso di povertà infantile e per rafforzare la raccoman- della raccomandazione della Commissione eu- dazione della Commissione del 2013, la cui attua- ropea del 2013 «Investire nell’infanzia per spez- zione è stata valutata dalla Commissione nel 2017. zare il circolo vizioso dello svantaggio sociale» nei loro programmi nazionali di riforma da pre- sentare per il semestre europeo.

18 Pareri della FRA

Il 7 % delle famiglie con bambini nell’UE si trova in migranti ha rappresentato un valido passo avanti. una situazione di grave disagio abitativo. Tali famiglie L’interesse superiore del bambino è un principio di vivono in case sovraffollate con almeno una delle legge relativo ai diritti umani riconosciuto a livello seguenti problematiche: perdite dal tetto, nessuna internazionale e sancito dalla Convenzione sui diritti vasca da bagno/doccia e nessun bagno interno o illu- del fanciullo (articolo 3), dalla Carta dei diritti fon- minazione insufficiente. Malgrado la carenza di dati damentali dell’UE (articolo 24) e dal diritto deri- a livello UE in materia di sgomberi o di mancanza di vato dell’UE, oltre che dalla maggior parte delle una fissa dimora, le segnalazioni degli istituti nazio- normative nazionali in merito ai bambini. I dati rac- nali di statistica e delle ONG indicano la presenza di colti per la Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018 un numero maggiore di bambini in centri di acco- della FRA mostrano tuttavia una carenza di orien- glienza per i senzatetto. L’articolo 34, paragrafo 3, tamenti; solo alcuni Stati membri hanno elaborato della Carta dei diritti fondamentali, riconosce «il processi e metodi strutturati per l’attuazione con- diritto all’assistenza sociale e all’assistenza abita- creta dell’interesse superiore del bambino. tiva volte a garantire un’esistenza dignitosa a tutti coloro che non dispongano di risorse sufficienti, Parere della FRA 8.3 secondo le modalità stabilite dal diritto comunita- rio e le legislazioni e prassi nazionali». I principi del Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero formalizza- pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali includono inoltre re procedure adeguate per i rispettivi contesti l’accesso ad alloggi sociali, la protezione contro lo nazionali al fine di valutare l’interesse supe- sgombero forzato e l’assistenza ai senzatetto; tutta- riore del bambino nell’ambito dell’asilo e della via, diversamente dalla Carta sociale europea rive- migrazione. Tali procedure dovrebbero definire duta, il pilastro non stabilisce alcuna misura vinco- chiaramente le situazioni in cui è necessario lante. Nondimeno, al momento della ratifica della determinare formalmente l’interesse superiore Carta europea sociale riveduta, solo sette Stati mem- del bambino, chi ne è responsabile, come viene bri hanno accettato come vincolante la disposizione registrato e qual è la metodologia da seguire, relativa al diritto all’alloggio. sulla base del genere e della cultura.

Parere della FRA 8.2 L’UE potrebbe agevolare tale processo coordi- nandolo, mappando le pratiche attuali e gui- Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero considera- dando il processo, mediante le reti esistenti tra re la lotta contro il grave disagio abitativo una gli Stati membri in materia di diritti del bambino priorità politica e garantire che le famiglie con e di protezione dei bambini migranti, che sono bambini, soprattutto quelle che vivono a rischio coordinate dalla Commissione europea. di povertà, abbiano accesso prioritario ad al- loggi sociali o ricevano un’adeguata assistenza in termini di alloggio. Le autorità competenti dovrebbero affrontare la questione della man- I bambini continuano a essere trattenuti a motivo canza di una fissa dimora e attuare misure che dell’immigrazione. Alcuni Stati membri hanno tut- comprendano la prevenzione o la proroga degli tavia fatto passi avanti nello sviluppo di alternative sgomberi di famiglie con bambini, in particolare al trattenimento. In base all’acquis dell’UE i bam- in inverno. Gli Stati membri dovrebbero al con- bini possono essere trattenuti solo in ultima istanza tempo fare uso di diversi programmi di finanzia- e solo nei casi in cui non sia possibile adottare effica- mento dell’edilizia abitativa offerti dall’UE. cemente misure meno coercitive. Tali trattenimenti devono durare il minor tempo possibile. A livello L’UE dovrebbe promuovere lo scambio regio- delle Nazioni Unite, il Comitato sui diritti del fan- nale e transnazionale di pratiche riguardanti ciullo e il Comitato per la protezione dei diritti dei misure concrete volte a prevenire gli sgomberi lavoratori migranti e dei membri delle loro fami- di famiglie con bambini. Dovrebbe inoltre pro- glie hanno rilasciato due osservazioni generali con- muovere sforzi a livello UE finalizzati alla raccol- giunte in cui considerano il trattenimento di bam- ta di dati sugli sgomberi di famiglie con bambini bini una violazione dei diritti dell’infanzia. In esse si e sulla mancanza di una fissa dimora. afferma che i bambini non dovrebbero mai essere trattenuti per ragioni collegate allo stato di migrante dei loro genitori. I rigorosi requisiti che derivano dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE e dagli Il numero di richiedenti asilo e di rifugiati giunti in articoli 3 (proibizione della tortura) e 5 (diritto alla Europa è calato nel 2017. Meno di 200 000 bam- libertà e alla sicurezza) della Convenzione europea bini hanno presentato domanda di asilo nell’UE, dei diritti dell’uomo significano che la privazione una riduzione di quasi il 50 % rispetto al 2016. La della libertà è in linea con la normativa UE solo in comunicazione della Commissione europea del 2017 casi eccezionali. che definisce azioni volte a proteggere i bambini

19 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

Parere della FRA 8.4 Parere della FRA 8.5

Al fine di promuovere il diritto dei bambini alla Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero far fronte protezione e all’assistenza, l’UE e i suoi Stati al complesso fenomeno della radicalizzazione membri dovrebbero elaborare alternative non mediante un approccio olistico e multidimen- detentive credibili ed efficaci che rendano non sionale che vada oltre le misure di sicurezza e di necessario il trattenimento di bambini durante contrasto. A tale scopo, gli Stati membri dovreb- le procedure di asilo o a fini di rimpatrio, siano bero istituire programmi di promozione della essi sul territorio dell’UE da soli o con le loro fa- cittadinanza e dei valori comuni quali la libertà, miglie, sulla base ad esempio della gestione dei la tolleranza e la non discriminazione, in partico- casi, dell’assistenza alternativa, del counselling lare nell’ambito dell’istruzione. Gli Stati membri e del coaching. dovrebbero incoraggiare il coordinamento effi- cace dei soggetti che operano nell’ambito della La Commissione europea dovrebbe valutare tutela dei bambini, della giustizia, dell’assisten- l’opportunità di controllare sistematicamente za sociale e giovanile, dei sistemi di sanità e di l’utilizzo del trattenimento di bambini immigrati istruzione, al fine di agevolare un intervento e di altre persone in situazione di vulnerabilità. globale integrato.

La radicalizzazione e l’estremismo violento, radi- cati in diverse ideologie, sono una realtà in Europa. L’istituzione di un gruppo di esperti ad alto livello della Commissione in materia di radicalizzazione (HLCEG-R) rappresenta uno sviluppo promettente verso una risposta globale. Nell’ambito della radi- calizzazione e dell’attuazione della strategia per la sicurezza interna dell’UE ci sono diverse problemati- che connesse ai diritti fondamentali. Gli Stati mem- bri hanno attuato un insieme di misure di contra- sto, ma hanno anche istituito programmi educativi o centri di sostegno per i bambini a rischio di radi- calizzazione e per le loro famiglie, o promosso nar- rative alternative sulle piattaforme online.

20 Pareri della FRA

9. Accesso alla giustizia compresi i diritti delle vittime di reato

Nonostante i vari sforzi compiuti dall’UE e da altri soggetti internazionali, le sfide in materia di Stato di diritto e giustizia hanno suscitato crescenti preoccupazioni nell’Unione europea nel 2017, inducendo la Commissione a presentare al Consiglio – per la prima volta in assoluto – la proposta di adottare una decisione ai sensi dell’articolo 7, paragrafo 1, del trattato sull’Unione europea. Diversi Stati membri dell’UE hanno intanto provveduto a rafforzare i propri meccanismi di ricorso collettivo, coerentemente con la raccomandazione della Commissione 2013/396/UE, che migliora potenzialmente l’accesso alla giustizia. Anche sui diritti delle vittime sono stati registrati dei progressi. Circa un terzo degli Stati membri dell’UE ha adottato una normativa per recepire la direttiva sui diritti delle vittime; molti hanno attuato nuove misure nel 2017 al fine di garantire che le vittime di reati ricevano informazioni tempestive e complete sui loro diritti dal primo punto di contatto, spesso rappresentato dalla polizia. L’UE ha sottoscritto la convenzione di Istanbul come primo passo verso la sua ratifica. Altri tre Stati membri dell’UE hanno ratificato la convenzione nel 2017, a dimostrazione del fatto che gli Stati membri dell’Unione riconoscono nella convenzione uno strumento per definire norme europee di tutela dei diritti umani in materia di violenza contro le donne e di violenza domestica. Il documento contempla anche le molestie sessuali, un problema che è stato oggetto di grande attenzione grazie al movimento #metoo.

Nel corso del 2017, l’UE e altri soggetti internazio- è l’allontanamento dall’approccio attuale usa- nali hanno continuato a far fronte a sfide crescenti to per far fronte alle emergenze dello Stato di nell’ambito della giustizia a livello nazionale e, in diritto nei singoli paesi secondo modalità ad particolare, per quanto riguarda la questione dell’in- hoc. Gli sforzi esistenti dovrebbero invece es- dipendenza della magistratura. Una magistratura sere rafforzati al fine di elaborare criteri e va- indipendente rappresenta il cardine dello Stato di lutazioni contestuali volti a guidare gli Stati diritto e dell’accesso alla giustizia (articolo 19 del membri dell’UE nel riconoscere e nell’affrontare TUE, articolo 67, paragrafo 4, del TFUE e articolo 47 eventuali problematiche associate allo Stato di della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE). Malgrado diritto in modo periodico e comparativo. L’attua- i reiterati sforzi dell’UE e di altri attori internazionali, le consulenza mirata da parte dei meccanismi la situazione dello Stato di diritto in uno degli Stati europei e internazionali di controllo sui diritti membri ha causato preoccupazioni crescenti, spe- umani, incluse le misure correttive previste nel- cialmente in termini di indipendenza della magistra- le raccomandazioni della Commissione europea tura. Ciò ha indotto la Commissione europea a pre- rilasciate nell’ambito della procedura del quadro sentare, per la prima volta nella storia dell’UE, una per lo Stato di diritto, dovrebbe inoltre essere proposta al Consiglio per l’adozione di una deci- presa concretamente in considerazione al fine sione a norma dell’articolo 7, paragrafo 1, del TUE. di garantire la conformità allo Stato di diritto. Tutti gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero essere Parere della FRA 9.1 sempre pronti a difendere lo Stato di diritto e a intraprendere le azioni necessarie per contra- L’UE e i suoi Stati membri sono invitati a raf- stare qualsiasi tentativo di minare l’indipenden- forzare ulteriormente gli sforzi e la collabora- za della propria magistratura. zione al fine di potenziare l’indipendenza delle magistrature, elemento essenziale dello Sta- to di diritto. Un passo avanti in tale contesto

21 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

I meccanismi di ricorso collettivi accrescono l’ac- sulla possibilità delle vittime di avere accesso ai loro cesso alla giustizia, elemento essenziale per assi- diritti nella pratica. curare l’efficacia del diritto dell’Unione e per garan- tire il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali, come stabilito Parere della FRA 9.3 dall’articolo 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE. A tale scopo, la raccomandazione 2013/396/ A seguito degli sviluppi giuridici positivi in UE della Commissione europea relativa a principi materia di recepimento della direttiva sui di- comuni per i meccanismi di ricorso collettivo di ritti delle vittime fino al 2017, gli Stati membri natura inibitoria e risarcitoria negli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero concentrarsi sull’attuazione che riguardano violazioni di diritti conferiti dalle efficace della direttiva. Ciò dovrebbe includere norme dell’Unione ha cercato di agevolare l’ac- la raccolta di dati disaggregati per genere sulle cesso alla giustizia e, a tale fine, ha raccomandato modalità di accesso delle vittime di reato ai pro- un meccanismo generale di ricorso collettivo basato pri diritti; tali dati dovrebbero essere usati per sugli stessi principi in tutti gli Stati membri dell’UE. far fronte alle lacune nei quadri istituzionali al Nel 2017 la Commissione ha avviato la valutazione fine di conferire alle vittime la possibilità e il po- dell’attuazione della raccomandazione 2013/396/ tere di esercitare i propri diritti. Ulteriori raccolte UE e diversi Stati membri hanno preso misure per di dati a livello nazionale e UE faranno luce sulla attuarla in modo diretto. Tuttavia, la legislazione questione ed evidenzieranno le lacune da col- a livello nazionale presenta ancora nette divergenze mare per garantire alle vittime di reato l’accesso tra gli Stati membri, creando diverse forme e livelli ai diritti e al sostegno sul territorio. di azione collettiva.

Parere della FRA 9.2 Nel 2017 altri tre Stati membri dell’UE hanno ratifi- Gli Stati membri dell’UE – lavorando a stretto cato la Convenzione del Consiglio d’Europa sulla pre- contatto con la Commissione europea e con altri venzione e la lotta contro la violenza nei confronti organismi dell’UE – dovrebbero portare avanti delle donne e la violenza domestica (Convenzione i loro sforzi al fine di garantire che la raccoman- di Istanbul), portando a 17 il numero totale di Stati dazione 2013/396/UE della Commissione euro- membri dell’UE che hanno ratificato la Convenzione pea relativa ai meccanismi di ricorso collettivo entro la fine dell’anno. Quando si tratta di deter- sia pienamente attuata per permettere un’azio- minare le norme europee per la protezione delle ne collettiva efficace e l’accesso alla giustizia. donne contro la violenza, la Convenzione di Istanbul I meccanismi di ricorso collettivo dovrebbero rappresenta il più importante punto di riferimento. essere di ambia portata e non dovrebbero li- Nello specifico, l’articolo 36 obbliga gli Stati parte mitarsi alle questioni relative ai consumato- a perseguire penalmente tutti gli atti sessuali non ri. La Commissione europea dovrebbe inoltre consensuali e ad adottare un approccio che evi- approfittare della valutazione dell’attuazione denzi e rafforzi l’autonomia sessuale incondizionata della raccomandazione 2013/396/UE della Com- dell’individuo. Nel 2017 le relazioni di valutazione missione, avviata nel 2017, per fornire agli Stati del gruppo di esperti sulla lotta contro la violenza membri il sostegno necessario per presentare nei confronti delle donne e la violenza domestica o riformare i loro meccanismi nazionali per il (GREVIO) hanno tuttavia rivelato lacune nella nor- ricorso collettivo in linea con lo Stato di diritto mativa nazionale in merito alla persecuzione penale e con i diritti fondamentali in tutte le aree in cui di atti sessuali non consensuali; ciò non è in linea vi siano richieste collettive pertinenti di provve- con quanto stabilito dalla Convenzione. dimenti di ingiunzione o di risarcimento danni con riferimento alle violazioni dei diritti sanciti dalla normativa dell’Unione.

Durante il 2017 ci sono stati sviluppi positivi: più Stati membri dell’UE hanno adottato normative di recepimento della direttiva sui diritti delle vittime, inclusi sforzi volti a garantire che le vittime siano informate dei diritti di cui godono conformemente alla nuova normativa. I risultati a livello nazionale in alcuni Stati membri dimostrano che le vittime incon- trano ancora ostacoli nel denunciare i reati e non sempre ricevono informazioni complete in merito ai loro diritti. Questo può avere un impatto negativo

22 Pareri della FRA

Parere della FRA 9.4

Tutti gli Stati membri dell’UE e l’UE stessa do- vrebbero prendere in considerazione l’even- tualità di ratificare la Convenzione del Consiglio d’Europa sulla prevenzione e la lotta contro la violenza nei confronti delle donne e la violenza domestica (Convenzione di Istanbul). Gli Stati membri dell’UE sono incoraggiati a far fronte alle lacune nella normativa nazionale in relazio- ne alla persecuzione penale di tutti gli atti ses- suali non consensuali. Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero – in conformità all’articolo 36 della Convenzione di Istanbul – perseguire penalmen- te, inequivocabilmente e incondizionatamente, tali atti.

Le dure realtà portate alla luce dal movimento #metoo sottolineano i risultati della FRA derivanti dall’indagine sulla violenza nei confronti delle donne del 2012, secondo i quali la violenza nei confronti delle donne – comprese le molestie sessuali – rimane molto diffusa. È pertanto evidente la necessità di rinnovare l’enfasi in tale ambito sia a livello UE che degli Stati membri.

Parere della FRA 9.5

Gli Stati membri dell’UE dovrebbero rafforza- re i loro sforzi e adottare ulteriori misure volte a prevenire e a combattere le molestie sessuali. Ciò dovrebbe includere l’adozione delle misure necessarie al fine di un’efficace messa al bando delle molestie sessuali nell’ambito dell’accesso all’occupazione e delle condizioni di lavoro, con- formemente alla direttiva 2006/54/CE riguar- dante l’attuazione del principio delle pari oppor- tunità e della parità di trattamento fra uomini e donne in materia di occupazione e impiego (rifusione).

23 Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018

10. Sviluppi nell’attuazione della Convenzione sui diritti delle persone con disabilità

La relazione della Commissione europea sui progressi ottenuti nell’attuazione della strategia europea sulla disabilità 2010-2020 ha fornito l’occasione per fare il punto della situazione sugli sforzi compiuti dall’UE intesi a tradurre nella pratica i diritti enunciati nella Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone con disabilità (CRPD). L’intenzione di adottare l’atto europeo sull’accessibilità è un segnale che l’UE è prossima a una svolta legislativa di importanza cruciale. Malgrado i significativi risultati raggiunti a livello sia dell’UE sia nazionale, persistono lacune attuative in ambiti chiave quali l’accessibilità e la vita indipendente. Strumenti quali indicatori e le sentenze dei tribunali nazionali sulla rivendicabilità della CRPD dinanzi a un organo giurisdizionale, possono contribuire a garantire che alla promessa degli obblighi di legge seguirà l’applicazione pratica. Possono svolgere inoltre un ruolo cruciale anche i sistemi di monitoraggio istituiti ai sensi dell’articolo 33, paragrafo 2, della Convenzione, sebbene la scarsità di risorse, mandati limitati e una mancanza di indipendenza ne compromettano l’efficacia.

La relazione sullo stato di avanzamento dell’attua- Stati membri dovrebbero inoltre prendere in zione della strategia europea sulla disabilità dimo- considerazione l’elaborazione di indicatori volti stra come le azioni intraprese per attuare la Con- a verificare i progressi ed evidenziare le lacune venzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone nell’attuazione. con disabilità stiano contribuendo a dare impulso a riforme politiche e giuridiche su scala mondiale, dall’accessibilità alla vita indipendente. Tuttavia, alcune iniziative a livello di UE e di Stati membri Nel 2017, dopo intensi negoziati, il Consiglio dell’UE non incorporano pienamente gli approcci alla disa- e il Parlamento europeo hanno adottato le rispet- bilità basati sui diritti umani previsti dalla CRPD, tive posizioni sul proposto atto europeo sull’acces- o soffrono della mancanza di obiettivi chiari, bilanci sibilità, dimostrando l’impegno dell’UE ai fini dell’at- adeguati e orientamenti operativi per un’attuazione tuazione della CRPD mediante tale normativa faro. e una valutazione efficaci dei progressi compiuti. Rimangono tuttavia differenze sostanziali in merito a questioni importanti, quali la portata dell’appli- Parere della FRA 10.1 cabilità dell’atto ai mezzi audiovisivi e ai servizi di trasporto, oltre all’interrelazione con altre fonti di L’UE e gli Stati membri dovrebbero intensificare diritto UE pertinenti, compresi i Fondi strutturali gli sforzi per incorporare le norme della CRPD e d’investimento europei (fondi SIE) e la direttiva nei loro quadri giuridici e politici al fine di ga- sugli appalti pubblici. Questo potrebbe indebolire rantire che l’approccio alla disabilità basato la proposta in aree cruciali durante i negoziati legi- sui diritti umani entri a pieno titolo nelle leggi slativi, comportando il rischio di minare la capacità e nell’elaborazione delle politiche. Ciò dovreb- dell’atto di migliorare l’accessibilità di beni e ser- be comprendere una revisione completa della vizi per le persone con disabilità nell’UE. legislazione per l’ottemperanza alla CRPD. Gli orientamenti relativi all’attuazione dovrebbero includere tempistiche e obiettivi chiari e indi- viduare gli attori responsabili delle riforme. Gli

24 Pareri della FRA

Parere della FRA 10.2 Parere della FRA 10.4

L’UE dovrebbe garantire la rapida adozione di Gli Stati membri dell’UE che non hanno ancora un atto europeo globale sull’accessibilità, che aderito al protocollo aggiuntivo del CRPD do- comprenda solide misure esecutive e che san- vrebbero considerare l’opportunità di comple- cisca norme in materia di accessibilità dell’am- tare le misure necessarie per garantire la rati- biente costruito e dei servizi di trasporto. Al fine fica il più rapidamente possibile con l’obiettivo di garantire la coerenza con il più ampio corpus di ottenere la piena ratifica del suo protocollo normativo UE, l’atto dovrebbe includere dispo- aggiuntivo in tutta l’UE. L’UE dovrebbe anche sizioni che lo colleghino ad altri atti pertinenti, pensare ad agire rapidamente per accettare il come i regolamenti in materia di Fondi struttu- protocollo aggiuntivo. rali e d’investimento europei e la direttiva sugli appalti pubblici.

Alla fine del 2017, due dei 27 Stati membri dell’UE che hanno ratificato la CRPD non avevano istituito dei I Fondi strutturali e d’investimento europei svolgono quadri per promuoverne, proteggerne e controllarne un ruolo importante nel sostenere gli sforzi nazionali l’attuazione, come previsto dall’articolo 33, para- per il raggiungimento di una vita indipendente. La grafo 2. Inoltre, l’efficace funzionamento di taluni società civile, incluse le organizzazioni dei disabili, dei quadri esistenti è messo a repentaglio dall’in- può svolgere un ruolo importante per la raccolta sufficienza di risorse, dalle restrizioni alle deleghe delle informazioni necessarie all’efficace monito- e dal fallimento nel garantire la partecipazione siste- raggio dell’utilizzo di tali finanziamenti. matica delle persone con disabilità, nonché da una mancanza di indipendenza in conformità ai principi Parere della FRA 10.3 di Parigi relativi al funzionamento delle istituzioni nazionali per i diritti umani. L’UE e i suoi Stati membri dovrebbero garantire che i diritti delle persone con disabilità sanciti Parere della FRA 10.5 dalla CRPD e dalla Carta dei diritti fondamenta- li dell’UE siano pienamente rispettati al fine di L’UE e i suoi Stati membri dovrebbero conside- massimizzare il potenziale dei Fondi strutturali rare l’opportunità di destinare risorse umane d’investimento europei a sostegno di una vita e finanziarie sufficienti e stabili al fine di moni- indipendente. Per consentire un controllo effi- torare i quadri previsti a norma dell’articolo 33, cace dei fondi e dei loro risultati, l’UE e i suoi paragrafo 2, della CRPD. Come stabilito nel pa- Stati membri dovrebbero inoltre agire per inclu- rere giuridico della FRA del 2016 riguardante dere le organizzazioni dei disabili nei comitati di i requisiti di cui all’articolo 33 , paragrafo 2, della controllo dei fondi SIE e per garantire una rac- CRPD in ambito UE, dovrebbero inoltre valutare colta di dati appropriata e adeguata in merito la possibilità di garantire la sostenibilità e l’indi- all’utilizzo dei fondi SIE. pendenza delle strutture di monitoraggio, ado- perandosi affinché beneficino di una solida base giuridica per il loro lavoro e affinché la relativa composizione e il relativo funzionamento ten- Alla fine del 2017, l’Irlanda era l’unico Stato mem- gano conto dei principi di Parigi relativi al fun- bro dell’UE a non aver ratificato la CRPD, sebbene zionamento delle istituzioni nazionali per i diritti le principali riforme che pongono le basi per la rati- umani. fica siano ora in vigore. Inoltre, cinque Stati membri e l’UE non hanno ratificato il protocollo opzionale della CRPD, che consente alle singole persone di presentare reclami al comitato CRPD e al comitato di avviare indagini riservate qualora «riceva infor- mazioni attendibili indicanti violazioni gravi o siste- matiche» della convenzione (articolo 6).

25 TK-AM-18-001-IT-C (print); TK-AM-18-001-IT-N (PDF)

- - - , Lussemburgo, Fundamental della FRA fa il punto della della FRA fa il punto , Lussemburgo, Ufficio delle OSCE (Milan Obradovic); iStockphoto (6-10) PDF: ISBN 978-92-9491-946-5, doi:10.2811/4586 Print: ISBN 978-92-9491-951-9, doi:10.2811/41982 iStockphoto; Commissione europea; iStockphoto (3 & 4) http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and- © Agenzia dell’Unione europea per i diritti fondamentali, 2018 © Diritti delle immagini usate (dall'alto a sinistra verso il basso a destra): http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/ (disponibile in inglese, francese e tedesco). Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018 Relazione sui diritti http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/frr-2018-focus-rights-based- ) è consultabile all’indirizzo http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/fundamental-rights-report-2018-fra- Shifting perceptions: towards a rights-based approach to ageing Shifting perceptions: towards a rights-based Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018. Pareri della FRA Relazione sui diritti fondamentali 2018. Pareri (disponibile nelle 24 lingue ufficiali dell’UE) (disponibile in inglese e francese)

espone i pareri della FRA in proposito. Ponendo in evidenza sia i risultati ottenuti sia le aree in evidenza sia i risultati della FRA in proposito. Ponendo espone i pareri i principali preoccupazione, la relazione approfondisce che destano ancora temi al centro fondamentali nell’UE. del dibattito sui diritti verso un approccio all’in di quest’anno esamina la transizione Il capitolo di approfondimento capitoli riguardano la Carta dei diritti fondamentali sui diritti. I restanti vecchiamento basato non discriminazione; il l’uguaglianza e la suo utilizzo da parte degli Stati membri; dell’UE e il dei rom; l’asilo e l’im ad essi associata; l’integrazione e l’intolleranza razzismo, la xenofobia dei bam dei dati; i diritti protezione dell’informazione, la privacy e la migrazione; la società e glibini; l’accesso alla giustizia sui diritti delle sviluppi nell’attuazione della Convenzione persone con disabilità. Il 2017 è stato di tutela d’arresto in termini che da battute sia da progressi caratterizzato La dei diritti fondamentali. al dicembre del sviluppi intervenuti nell’UE dal gennaio situazione sui principali 2017 ed FRA (2018), Ufficio delle pubblicazioni, aging FRA (2018), pubblicazioni, opinions • • • progressi nel campo dei diritti fondamentali sulle criticità e sui Le relazioni annuali precedenti della FRA nell’UE di un anno specifico sono consultabili all’indirizzo resources/publications/annual-reports Ulteriori informazioni Ulteriori fondamentali 2018 della FRA ( La versione integrale della Relazione sui diritti Rights Report 2018 fundamental-rights-report-2018 Altre pubblicazioni della FRA in questo ambito: • Report 2018 Report [email protected] – Fundamental Rights Rights Fundamental facebook.com/fundamentalrights linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency twitter.com/EURightsAgency Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria Tel. +43 158030-0 – Fax. +43 158030-699 fra.europa.eu FRA – AGENZIA DELL’UNIONE EUROPEA PER I DIRITTI FONDAMENTALI FRA Fundamental Rights Report 2018

Italy

2018 Including summaries in English, French and German

1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers Directorate D — Equality and Union citizenship Unit D.1 Non-discrimination and Roma coordination

European Commission B-1049 Brussels EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Country report Non-discrimination Italy Chiara Favilli

Reporting period 1 January 2017 – 31 December 2017

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 2018

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-85020-2 doi: 10.2838/244158 DS-04-18-391-3A-N

© European Union, 2018

Country report - Non-discrimination – Italy– 2018

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 RÉSUMÉ ...... 9 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ...... 17 INTRODUCTION ...... 25 1 GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...... 27 2 THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION ...... 28 2.1 Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ...... 28 2.1.1 Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives ...... 28 2.1.2 Multiple discrimination ...... 30 2.1.3 Assumed and associated discrimination ...... 31 2.2 Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...... 31 2.2.1 Situation testing ...... 32 2.3 Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ...... 32 2.3.1 Statistical evidence ...... 33 2.4 Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...... 34 2.5 Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ...... 35 2.6 Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 2000/78) ...... 36 3 PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ...... 42 3.1 Personal scope ...... 42 3.1.1 EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ...... 42 3.1.2 Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ...... 42 3.1.3 Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ...... 42 3.2 Material scope ...... 43 3.2.1 Employment, self-employment and occupation ...... 43 3.2.2 Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ...... 43 3.2.3 Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals (Article 3(1)(c)) ...... 43 3.2.4 Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ...... 44 3.2.5 Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations (Article 3(1)(d)) ...... 44 3.2.6 Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ...... 44 3.2.7 Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) ...... 45 3.2.8 Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ...... 45 3.2.9 Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ...... 48 3.2.10 Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ...... 48 4 EXCEPTIONS ...... 51 4.1 Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) ...... 51 4.2 Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 2000/78) ...... 51 4.3 Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 Directive 2000/78) ...... 53 4.4 Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ...... 54 4.5 Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) ...... 55

0

4.6 Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) ...... 57 4.7 Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 2000/78) ...... 57 4.7.1 Direct discrimination ...... 57 4.7.2 Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities ...... 58 4.7.3 Minimum and maximum age requirements ...... 59 4.7.4 Retirement ...... 60 4.7.5 Redundancy ...... 62 4.8 Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ...... 62 4.9 Any other exceptions ...... 62 5 POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) ...... 64 6 REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ...... 67 6.1 Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 9 Directive 2000/78) ...... 67 6.2 Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) Directive 2000/78) ...... 68 6.3 Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78).. 72 6.4 Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 72 6.5 Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 2000/78) ...... 73 7 BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 2000/43) ...... 76 8 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES...... 84 8.1 Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners84 8.2 Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78)...... 84 9 COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ...... 86 10 CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ...... 87 11 SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ...... 88 11.1 Potential breaches of the directives (if any) ...... 88 11.2 Other issues of concern ...... 89 12 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2017 ...... 90 12.1 Legislative amendments ...... 90 12.2 Case law ...... 90 ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION ..... 94 ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ...... 98

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

Italy is a country made up of 20 regions, each with its own traditions and history. The main differences, in terms of working conditions, job opportunities and the quality of public services (education, healthcare and transport) are between the northern and southern regions. The family is at the centre of the structure of society and of social welfare, with extended families still living together, in particular in the South. Organised crime, corruption, the black economy and tax evasion are structural scourges that still hinder the full development of the country, with the complicity of a political class that has never been able to tackle them adequately.

Some relevant data on the Italian population are provided by ISTAT, the Italian National Institute for Statistics. According to the most recent surveys, out of the population of 60 665 551,1 there are about 2 600 000 people with disabilities, which represents 4.3 % of the total population.2 Pupils with disability number 156 000, or 3 % of total students. One million people identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.3 There are 5 026 153 foreign nationals, but no data are available on the racial or ethnic origin of the population. With regard to religion, 76.5 % of the total population have been baptised into the Catholic Church, although only around 25 % declare themselves to be practising Catholics. Muslims represent around 2 % of the population, the same percentage as Orthodox Christians. The Jewish community has a historical presence in Italy and has about 35 000 members.

No relevant changes to national law were enacted in 2017, following the historic recognition of the rights of same-sex couples in 2016.4

The majority of judgments in the field of discrimination law are still on the ground of nationality. However, discrimination law is still not perceived as a specific sector of the law, and is ignored even in databases commonly used by judges and lawyers. Moreover, following a conviction for discrimination, politicians and opinion-makers tend to make critical comments against the judgment, arguing for freedom of speech or economic choice.5 Both on political platforms and in the social sciences, discrimination is still a low- priority issue. The marginalisation of the activity of UNAR, an office of the Government that is supposed to be the equality body, is both a cause and an effect of this lack of awareness, at least among politicians.

Surveys about perceptions of discrimination are very rare, so it is difficult to provide accurate estimates of the frequency and magnitude of discrimination in all fields – and media reports are often very inaccurate.6 Certainly, hostile attitudes can be observed towards different groups of people, mostly in relation to the recent waves of immigration and asylum seekers. Moreover, hostility against Roma is becoming an increasingly heated issue, with several politicians openly supporting policies of segregation in housing and education. School drop-out rates among Roma pupils is an issue of serious concern.

1 Istat (2016), https://www.istat.it/it/files/2016/12/Sintesi_ASI-_2016.pdf. Hyperlink accessed 27 March 2017. 2 Istat (2010), La disabilità in Italia (The Disability in Italy), http://www3.istat.it/dati/catalogo/20100513_00/arg_09_37_la_disabilita_in_Italia.pdf. 3 Istat (2012), La popolazione omosessuale nella società italiana – 2011 (Homosexual population in Italian society – 2011), http://www.istat.it/it/files/2012/05/report-omofobia_6giugno.pdf. 4 Italy: Law of 20 May 2016, No. 76, Rules on civil unions between same-sex partners and of de facto relationships (Regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze), available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2016-05-20;76!vig. 5 This was even the case regarding UNAR sending a letter to an MP following her hate speech against Muslim migrants; http://www.giorgiameloni.it/2015/09/02/lettera-a-renzi-dopo-nota-formale-ricevuta-dall-unar/. 6 Survey on discrimination by gender, sexual orientation and ethnic origin (IST-02258 Indagine sulle discriminazioni in base al genere, all'orientamento sessuale, alla appartenenza etnica), http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/30726. Hyperlink last accessed 29 March 2016.

2

This may be a direct consequence of housing segregation, with camps based far from schools and sudden transfers of people from one camp to another.7

Racial and ethnic discrimination often overlaps with discrimination on the ground of religion and belief, mostly in the case of ethnoreligious groups such as ‘Arabs’ and ‘Muslims’, which occurs without any distinction being made between the two terms.8 Terrorism and the refugee crisis have worsened the general picture still further. With regard to religious minorities not linked to immigration (Jews, Waldensians and others), there are no reports of serious cases of discrimination or of a general climate of hostility.

Problems concerning age and disability, quite often discussed in the media but only occasionally brought to court, are more linked to the structure of the labour market, where difficulties exist in enforcing the directives, especially with regard to age. This has been particularly true since the beginning of the economic crisis and with the lowering of mandatory retirement ages and the intensive use by employers of short-term contracts, which are linked to tax benefits and are limited to younger workers.

2. Main legislation

Article 3 of the Italian Constitution contains a general clause on equality and banning discrimination. While clearly prohibiting any discriminatory legislation, it is a matter of legal debate whether the constitutional principle has a direct effect, i.e. if it is sufficient ground for action by an individual who has faced discrimination. This has never been properly tested in court. In addition, Act 300/1970, the Workers’ Act, has a provision banning discriminatory acts against workers and a specific legal tool was provided for by criminal legislation on ‘hate speech’ which included references to discriminatory acts of a different nature.

The first enactment of advanced anti-discrimination regulations took place with the 1998 Immigration Decree. This Decree prohibits direct and indirect discrimination by individuals and public authorities, with definitions roughly corresponding to those of the directives but with an open-ended list of fields of application. Protection extends to discrimination on the ground of national origin, understood as nationality as in citizenship.

Implementation of the EU anti-discrimination directives has triggered a new era of anti- discrimination law in Italy. In order to transpose Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC into Italian law, the Government approved two decrees in July 2003, Legislative Decree 215/2003 (transposing Directive 2000/43) and Legislative Decree 216/2003 (transposing Directive 2000/78).

Legislative Decree 215/2003 is thus applicable to discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin in all the fields mentioned in Directive 2000/43/EC, while Decree 216/2003 applies within the field of employment to discrimination based on religion and belief, sexual orientation, disability and age. Both Decrees basically aim to transpose the directives into the legal system as they are, without attempting to coordinate between them or with other existing Italian laws. Some drafting mistakes were corrected by a later decree, and legislation passed in early 2008 amended some of the major discrepancies with the directives.

7 In addition to the case of La Barbuta, decided in 2015, see: www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2015/06/Ordinanza-La-Barbuta.pdf. In 2016 the ECtHR ordered Italy, as an interim measure, to stop the forced eviction of a mother with disability and her daughter. See the press releases available at: http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/la-corte-europea-ferma-litalia/; http://www.hlrn.org/news.php?id=pm9rZA==#.WNfFg4VOJjo. 8 See the extensive and up-to-date press record on hate speeches edited by http://www.cartadiroma.org/.

3

A further act was passed in 2006 which extends the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination on the ground of disability beyond the field of employment, with remedies similar to those foreseen by the Decrees transposing the directives.

One criticism addressed at this sort of law-making concerns the fact that, since it does not abolish pre-existing anti-discrimination laws nor attempt consolidation, it adds further legal regimes, creating a complex legal framework. A step towards coordination was taken in 2011, with the general fast-track procedure applying expressly to all the grounds covered by the directives, plus national origin, language and colour.

It should be recalled that Italy is party to the major international treaties and conventions against discrimination, for example the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ILO Convention No. 111 on Discrimination and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which have all been transposed into domestic law. However, Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights has not yet been ratified by Italy, thus limiting the potential of the Convention as a tool for anti-discrimination litigation.

3. Main principles and definitions

The 2003 Decrees forbid direct as well as indirect discrimination, with a wording that is based on that of the directives, for all the grounds concerned. Harassment is also defined and prohibited. Instructions to discriminate are explicitly considered as a form of discrimination. Victimisation is provided with the same level of judicial protection as other forms of discrimination, and is an element to be taken into consideration in the assessment of the amount of damages to be awarded. Discrimination by association (on presumed grounds or characteristics) is not explicitly covered, but the Decrees can probably be interpreted as covering such discrimination, which could also be considered as an infringement of freedom of expression and of association.

For all grounds of discrimination, occupational requirements can justify an exception to the prohibition of discrimination within the limits of ‘proportionality and reasonableness’ along the lines of the relevant provisions of the directives. However, this unfortunately cannot be said of the scope of application of the Decree provisions on ‘work suitability’ tests.

Italy chose to use the possibility of maintaining ad hoc rules for organisations with a special ethos. A partial exemption from the non-discrimination obligation for organisations with a specific ethos was developed by judges before the transposition of the directive, while in terms of legislation the only provision on this point was a very limited one enacted in 1990 on organisations characterised by a certain ‘ideology’ in a broad sense, such as churches, political parties and trade unions. In cases of unfair dismissal, employees of these organisations are granted only the remedy of damages and not the right to reinstatement otherwise available. However, according to many scholars, Legislative Decree 216/2003 gives employers with an ethos based on religion and belief a power they did not have before the transposition of the directive.

With regard to religion, a problem exists for faiths (such as Islam) that have not signed an agreement with the State and thus do not enjoy automatic legal recognition of their specific needs (such as holidays and ritual obligations). However, they enjoy freedom of religion and the right to equality of churches under the Italian Constitution. The Court of Appeal of Milan decided an interesting case in 2016, regarding discrimination against a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf.9 The Court qualified this as direct discrimination and

9 Court of Appeal of Milan, Mahmoud Sara v. Evolution Events Srl, 20 May 2016, available at: http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2016/06/01/discriminazione-motivi-razziali-corte- dappello-milano-sentenza-del-4-maggio-2016-riforma-della-sentenza-del-tribunale-lodi-del-3-luglio-2014/.

4

ruled out the application of the ‘genuine and determining requirement’ exception, ordering the company to pay non-pecuniary damages. Neither the Decree transposing Directive 2000/78/EC nor the 2006 Disability Act mention reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. For this reason, the CJEU ruled that Italy had failed to fulfil its duty to implement Directive 2000/78/EC correctly.10 In order to execute this judgment a new paragraph was added to Article 3 of Legislative Decree 216/2003.11

The new provision does not give a definition of reasonable accommodation nor any sort of guidance to employers on how to respect this duty, but simply compels employers to make provision for reasonable accommodation. It should be noted that public bodies must respect this duty even without any additional financial or human resources. This may be highly problematic, and could result in a breach of Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC, according to which employers must bear a burden if necessary, unless it is disproportionate. Courts have applied Article 3 of Legislative Decree 216/2003, in line with Directive 2000/78/EC and the UNCRPD, finding that the failure to meet reasonable accommodation counted as discrimination.12

Multiple discrimination is not dealt with as such in Italian anti-discrimination legislation, but a reference to this distinctive feature of discrimination phenomena was made in the 2014 activity report of UNAR, the National Equality Body, (Office for the promotion of equal treatment and prevention of discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin).13

4. Material scope

The scope of application includes the same fields as listed in the directives, and the provisions apply to both the private and public sectors. Unlike the 1998 Decree, discrimination on the ground of nationality is explicitly excluded from the scope of application of Legislative Decree 215/2003, as are all legal provisions concerning the status of third-country nationals and stateless persons. In this regard, both decrees mention not only rules on entry and residence but also on access to employment, assistance and welfare. A 2006 act extends, as mentioned above, protection for discrimination on the ground of disability beyond the field of employment.

The exclusion of discrimination on the ground of nationality has been overcome by judges who apply the same legal framework, consisting of the 1998 Immigration Decree and Legislative Decree 215/2003, to every case of racial or nationality discrimination. This allows judges to handle cases of discrimination on the ground of nationality as direct discrimination and not as indirect racial discrimination.

Along these lines, the hostility of certain political actors towards ethnic and racial groups perceived as ‘different’ and, for one reason or another, ‘strange’ or ‘dangerous’ is increasingly reflected in formally ‘ethnically blind’ legislation (in particular introduced by

10 See CJEU, Commission v. Italy, C-312/11, 4 July 2013. 11 Italy, Law decree converted into Law regarding preliminary urgent measures for the promotion of employment, in particular of young people, of social cohesion and on other urgent financial measures (Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 28 giugno 2013, n. 76, recante primi interventi urgenti per la promozione dell'occupazione, in particolare giovanile, della coesione sociale, nonchè in materia di Imposta sul valore aggiunto (IVA) e altre misure finanziarie urgenti), 9 August 2013 no. 99, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2013-08-09;99!vig. 12 Tribunal of Bologna, Judgment of 17 June 2013, http://adapt.it/adapt-indice-a-z/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/trib_bg_18_6_13.pdf; Tribunal of Ivrea, 24 February 2016, TG v. OMP s.r.l., http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2016/04/20/licenziamento-giustificato-motivo- oggettivo-consistente-nella-sopravvenuta-inidoneita-fisica-psichica-del-lavoratore-lobbligo-datoriale-dei- ragionevoli-adattamenti-tribunale-ivrea-ordina/. 13 Available at: http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?p=1735.

5

municipalities) which uses various pretexts (requirements on residence, nationality, etc.) to exclude members of these groups from becoming full members of society.

5. Enforcing the law

Action against discrimination is based on a claim being filed with the courts by the victim. In 2011 a procedural change was made, enhancing coordination between the various laws enacted over recent years. Article 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011 revoked the special procedure for anti-discrimination cases provided by Legislative Decree 286/1998 on Immigration, which was replaced by the general fast-track procedure provided by Article 702-bis of the Civil Procedural Code. In especially urgent cases, the judge can issue an interim order, the violation of which (as well as that of the order issued in the final decision) is a criminal offence. The judge can order a plan to be produced for the rectification of discrimination. Moreover, the general law on pre-trial mediation now applies to all anti-discrimination claims, thus extending the possibility that Decree 216/2003 previously provided solely for employment and occupation-related claims.

Concerning standing to litigate, both Decrees contain special rules. With regard to race and ethnic origin, the Department for Equal Opportunities of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers keeps a list, approved by the Ministries of Labour and Welfare and Equal Opportunities, of associations and bodies selected on the basis of ‘their purpose and the degree of continuity in their action’ which have standing to litigate in support of or on behalf of victims of discrimination. They can also act through actio popularis against discrimination when the victim is not identified. In cases concerning the other grounds of discrimination, the Decree transposing Directive 2000/78/EC now grants similar legal standing to relevant organisations without introducing a special register. For discrimination on the ground of disability outside employment, the 2006 Disability Discrimination Act introduced a system similar to that in force according to the decrees, with a special register held by the Ministry of Labour. Associations are more aware of their key role in strategic litigations, in particular as regards migration, Roma and sexual orientation.14

Class action in discrimination cases is not expressly allowed in the discrimination field and no such case has been brought, but it is likely that collective actions could be admitted thanks to a broad interpretation of the same rules on actio popularis and actions in support of or on behalf of victims of discrimination, or of the rules on class action in the consumer protection field included in the Finance Act of 2007.

As regards penalties, general legislation provides labour law sanctions such as the invalidity of any discriminatory act as well as measures against unlawful dismissal (including compulsory reinstatement in the workplace). Judges are allowed to order compensation for non-pecuniary damages as well, and they usually do, sometimes taking into account the dissuasive effect, in accordance with Directive 2000/78/EC.

Article 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011 provides a rule on the burden of proof, which is applicable to all grounds of discrimination. This rule introduces a reversal of the burden once the claimant produces evidence (which may include statistical data) that can precisely and consistently establish a presumption of the existence of discriminatory acts, agreements or behaviours.

14 Supreme Court, 8 May 2017, ASGI v. INPS, available at: https://www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/Corte_di_Cassazione__sez_lavoro__sentenza__n_11166_del__8517__pres_D%E 2%80%99Antonio__est_Riverso__INPS_avv_Coretti_Stumpo_e_Triolo_c_ASGI__APN_.pdf; Tribunal of Rovereto, 21 June 2016, X and Associazione radicale certi diritti, CGIL v. Istituto delle figlie del Sacro Cuore di Gesù, http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2017/03/01/tribunale-di-rovereto- ordinanza-ex-art-702-ter-cpc.

6

Situation testing can be used as evidence in civil proceedings. However, while there are no legal obstacles to its use, there is also no express provision allowing it, and evidence gathered through situation testing has not as yet been presented as such to a court.

6. Equality bodies

The equality body was originally created only to deal with race and ethnic origin and is named the National Office Against Racial Discrimination (UNAR). In 2010 a Governmental directive extended UNAR’s remit to cover nationality, sex, religion or personal belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. It is not an independent body, since it was established as a section of the Department for Equal Opportunities of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which previously dealt exclusively with gender discrimination. UNAR can use staff from other Government departments, including judges and state attorneys, as well as external experts and advisers.

According to its founding legislation, UNAR’s competences include providing independent assistance to victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints, carrying out independent surveys on discrimination, promoting the adoption of specific measures aimed at eliminating or compensating for disadvantages incurred by people who have been victims of discrimination, issuing opinions and proposing legislative reforms concerning racial and ethnic discrimination, issuing recommendations on matters relating to racial and ethnic discrimination and disseminating information on the rules on equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.

UNAR has two different units, one primarily focused on legal assistance and dispute resolution and the other on study and research. It reports every year to Parliament and the executive. It has been operational since November 2004 and, according to its annual reports to the Government, it offers significant assistance to victims of discrimination through the free telephone number that can be called by those who feel they are victims of discrimination. In addition to legal assistance, UNAR has cooperated with external lawyers to issue a number of opinions on the status of undocumented immigrants. UNAR has run seminars and workshops to disseminate information and provide training to lawyers and NGOs. Its website provides some legal information, although in recent years there has been a decline in the amount of information included, probably reflecting a decrease in activity. Its latest report to the Government dates back to 2014, while the latest issued opinion dates back to 2012. The turnover of directors is one of the main reasons for this, but the drop-in activity reflects a lack of vision on the matter by the Governments of the last 10 years.

In 2012, UNAR was appointed the National Contact Point, in accordance with European Commission Communication COM (2011)173, and was charged with the task of coordinating Italy’s National Roma Strategy. UNAR was also appointed as National Contact Point for the implementation of Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)5 on discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, despite the fact that its original remit did not extend beyond discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin. However, the practical implementation of such strategies is extremely limited, and the recent change of director general and of the majority of external experts – without new contracts – risks compromising the execution of what has already been planned.

In addition, a special body called the Osservatorio per la sicurezza contro gli atti discriminatori, OSCAD (Observatory for Security against Discrimination) was set up in 2010 as part of the Department of Public Security within the Central Directorate of the Criminal Police. It is not a designated body according to the transposition process. OSCAD is a special body, operated by the Police and the Carabinieri (military police). Its members belong to the Ministry of the Interior (Police) and to the Ministry of Defence (Carabinieri). Therefore, it is not an independent body but a governmental one. It has a mandate to act in all fields of discrimination and has the following tasks: it receives

7

reports of discriminatory acts relating to the security sector, from institutions, professional or trade associations and private individuals, in order to monitor discrimination based on race or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, gender, age, language, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation and gender identity. Based on the reports it receives, OSCAD initiates targeted interventions at local level to be carried out by the police or Carabinieri; it follows up the outcome of discrimination complaints lodged with police agencies; it maintains contact with organisations and institutions, both public and private, dedicated to combating discrimination; it prepares modules to train police officers in anti-discrimination activity and participates in training programmes with public and private institutions; and it also puts forward appropriate measures to prevent and fight discrimination.

7. Key issues

Anti-discrimination seems to have a very marginal role in Government policies and this is illustrated by several facts, including the lack of a Ministry for Integration and the limited powers granted to UNAR. With regard to the National Roma Strategy, for instance, there has still been a lack of effective implementation following its adoption. Moreover, UNAR’s lack of independence means it is merely an office operating within the Department for Equal Opportunities, without any significant autonomy. UNAR is clearly and completely linked to the executive and cannot perform any independent activity whatsoever, despite the fact that it has in several cases adopted a critical position in relation to the Government. However, it must be noted that the majority of these cases were initially highlighted by the media or individual lawyers and UNAR was involved only later after significant pressure from different organisations. Evidence of its close connection with the political majority can be seen in the ‘spoils system’, as applied to the director and experts. The renewal of their tenure is completely at the discretion of the Head of the Department and the Minister; in fact, in 2015 they removed the director from his post after he sent a letter to a member of Parliament exhorting her to use non-discriminatory language.

In 2015, UNAR renewed its contract for the management of the contact centre. It is still in operation, but has not undertaken any public reporting activity. The centre covers all the different grounds of discrimination included in the 2000 directives, with the addition of nationality – as in citizenship. Although it is provided for only by ministerial instructions and not by law, the extension of the scope of application has so far been confirmed.

The lack of a clear policy against discrimination is also reflected in the lack of positive actions in favour of vulnerable groups, apart from traditional social inclusion measures for people with disabilities and the linguistic minorities. With regard to anti-discrimination laws, several changes should be made in order to ensure greater effectiveness. First, in relation to the duty of reasonable accommodation, a definition and guidelines on how to respect the duty are needed.

With respect to differences in treatment by organisations with a special ethos, the exception as formulated in Legislative Decree no. 216/2003 also applies to organisations without an ethos actually based on religion or belief, and is likely to go beyond what was admitted in pre-existing national rules in the field.

There has been an interesting development in case law related to sanctions. While compensation for non-pecuniary damages is ensured in every judgment, the amount is calculated also taking into account its dissuasive nature, in accordance with Article 17 of Directive 2000/78/EC.

Finally, the coexistence of different legal texts which are very similar is unnecessary and could create legal uncertainty, but no consolidation is planned.

8

RÉSUMÉ

1. Introduction

L’Italie est un pays formé de vingt régions ayant chacune ses propres traditions et sa propre histoire. C’est entre les régions du nord et celles du sud que les différences sont les plus marquées en termes de conditions de travail, de possibilités d’emploi et de qualité des services publics (enseignement, soins de santé et transports). La famille est au centre de la structure de la société et du système de protection sociale, et des familles élargies continuent de vivre sous le même toit, dans le sud en particulier. Le crime organisé, la corruption, l’économie souterraine et l’évasion fiscale sont autant de fléaux structurels qui entravent encore le plein développement du pays avec la complicité d’une classe politique qui n’est jamais parvenue à y remédier efficacement.

Des données pertinentes concernant la population italienne sont fournies par l’Institut national de statistique (ISTAT). Selon les enquêtes les plus récentes, le pays compte environ 2 600 000 personnes handicapées parmi ses 60 665 551 habitants15, soit 4,3 % de l’ensemble de la population,16 et 156 000 élèves handicapés, soit 3 % de sa population scolaire. Un million de personnes se déclarent homosexuelles ou bisexuelles.17 Les ressortissants étrangers vivant sur le territoire sont au nombre de 5 026 153, mais on ne dispose d’aucune donnée quant à l’origine raciale ou ethnique de la population. En ce qui concerne la religion, 76,5 % de l’ensemble des citoyens ont été baptisés dans l’Église catholique, même si seuls 25 % environ se déclarent pratiquants. Les Musulmans représentent 2 % environ de la population, soit un pourcentage égal à celui des Chrétiens Orthodoxes. La communauté juive a une présence historique en Italie et comprend 35 000 membres environ.

Aucun changement majeur n’a été apporté à la législation nationale en 2017 après la reconnaissance historique des droits des couples de même sexe en 2016.18

La majorité des jugements prononcés dans le cadre du droit relatif à la discrimination portent encore sur le motif de la nationalité. Le droit relatif à la discrimination n’est cependant pas encore perçu pour autant comme un domaine législatif spécifique, qui continue même d’être ignoré dans les bases de données couramment utilisées par les magistrats et les avocats. Il n’est pas rare en outre qu’à la suite d’une condamnation pour discrimination, des politiciens et des faiseurs d’opinion formulent des critiques à l’égard de l’arrêt rendu en argumentant en faveur de la liberté de parole ou du choix économique.19 La problématique de la discrimination reste loin d’être une priorité, que ce soit dans les programmes politiques ou en sciences sociales. La marginalisation de l’activité de l’UNAR, organe du gouvernement censé être l’organisme pour la promotion de l’égalité, est à la fois une cause et une conséquence de ce manque de sensibilisation, parmi les politiciens du moins.

Très peu d’études ont été consacrées à la perception de la discrimination, de sorte qu’il est difficile de fournir des estimations précises quant à la fréquence et à l’ampleur du phénomène, quel que soit le domaine considéré, d’autant plus que les informations

15 Istat (2016), https://www.istat.it/it/files/2016/12/Sintesi_ASI-_2016.pdf, consulté le 27 mars 2017. 16 Istat (2010), La disabilità in Italia (Le handicap en Italie), http://www3.istat.it/dati/catalogo/20100513_00/arg_09_37_la_disabilita_in_Italia.pdf. 17 Istat (2012), La popolazione omosessuale nella società italiana – 2011 (La population homosexuelle dans la société italienne – 2011), http://www.istat.it/it/files/2012/05/report-omofobia_6giugno.pdf. 18 Italie: Loi n° 76 du 20 mai 2016, Règles relatives aux unions civiles entre partenaires de même sexe et aux relations de fait (Regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze), disponible sur: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2016-05-20;76!vig. 19 Tel a même été le cas lorsque l’UNAR (Bureau national pour la lutte contre la discrimination raciale) a adressé une lettre à une députée suite au discours haineux prononcé par celle-ci à l’encontre des migrants musulmans; http://www.giorgiameloni.it/2015/09/02/lettera-a-renzi-dopo-nota-formale-ricevuta-dall- unar/.

9

rapportées dans les médias sont souvent très imprécises.20 Une attitude hostile peut assurément être observée vis-à-vis de différentes catégories de personnes, issues pour la plupart des vagues récentes d’immigration et demandeurs d’asile. L’hostilité envers les Roms devient par ailleurs un sujet brûlant à l’heure où plusieurs politiciens soutiennent ouvertement des politiques ségrégationnistes en matière de logement et d’enseignement. Le taux de décrochage scolaire parmi les élèves roms est une source de vive préoccupation. Il se pourrait que cette situation soit une conséquence directe de la ségrégation au niveau du logement du fait que les camps sont situés loin des écoles et que des personnes sont soudainement transférées d’un camp à l’autre.21

La discrimination raciale et ethnique et la discrimination fondée sur la religion et les convictions se chevauchent souvent, surtout dans le cas de groupes ethno-religieux tels que «les Arabes» et «les Musulmans» sans aucune distinction entre les deux termes.22 Le terrorisme et la crise des réfugiés ont aggravé encore cette situation générale. En ce qui concerne les minorités religieuses sans lien avec l’immigration (Juifs, Vaudois et autres), aucun cas de discrimination grave ni climat général d’hostilité n’a été signalé.

Les problèmes relatifs à l’âge et au handicap, fréquemment évoqués dans les médias mais occasionnellement seulement portés devant les tribunaux, sont davantage liés à la structure du marché de l’emploi, où s’observent certaines difficultés de mise en application des directives, en particulier pour ce qui concerne l’âge. Cet état de fait s’est accentué depuis le début de la crise économique ainsi que par suite de l’abaissement de l’âge de la retraite obligatoire et du recours intensif par les employeurs à des contrats de courte durée assortis d’avantages fiscaux mais limités aux jeunes travailleurs.

2. Législation principale

L’article 3 de la Constitution italienne contient une clause générale d’égalité et d’interdiction de discrimination. Un débat juridique porte sur le point de savoir si ce principe constitutionnel, qui interdit manifestement toute législation discriminatoire, a un effet direct – autrement dit, s’il constitue un fondement suffisant pour qu’une personne victime de discrimination puisse intenter une action en justice. Son invocation dans ce contexte n’a jamais été mise à l’épreuve devant un tribunal. Par ailleurs, la loi n° 300/1970 sur le statut des travailleurs comporte une disposition interdisant les actes discriminatoires contre ceux-ci, et un instrument juridique spécifique prévu par la législation pénale en matière de «discours haineux» fait référence à des actes discriminatoires d’autre nature.

Des règles antidiscrimination avancées ont été promulguées pour la première fois avec le décret-loi sur l’immigration adopté en 1998, qui interdit la discrimination indirecte et directe de la part de particuliers ou d’autorités publiques; les définitions qu’il contient correspondent globalement à celles des directives, mais avec une liste ouverte de domaines d’application. La protection s’étend à la discrimination fondée sur l’origine nationale, entendue comme la nationalité au sens de citoyenneté.

La transposition des directives européennes antidiscrimination a ouvert une ère nouvelle pour la législation italienne en la matière. Le gouvernement a approuvé deux décrets en juillet 2003 en vue de transposer les directives 2000/43/CE et 2000/78/CE en droit

20 Enquête sur les discriminations fondées sur le genre, l’orientation sexuelle et l’origine ethnique (IST-02258 Indagine sulle discriminazioni in base al genere, all'orientamento sessuale, alla appartenenza etnica), http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/30726, consulté en dernier lieu le 29 mars 2016. 21 En plus de l’arrêt rendu en 2015 dans l’affaire concernant le camp de La Barbuta (voir www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2015/06/Ordinanza-La-Barbuta.pdf). En 2016 la CouEDH a ordonné à l’Italie de mettre fin, au titre de mesure provisoire, à l’expulsion forcée d’une mère handicapée et de sa fille. Voir les communiqués de presse disponibles sur: http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/la-corte-europea-ferma-litalia/; http://www.hlrn.org/news.php?id=pm9rZA==#.WNfFg4VOJjo. 22 Voir le rapport de presse exhaustif et actualisé concernant les discours haineux édité par http://www.cartadiroma.org/.

10

italien, à savoir le décret-loi 215/2003 (transposant la directive 2000/43) et le décret-loi 216/2003 (transposant la directive 2000/78).

Le décret-loi 215/2003 s’applique donc à la discrimination fondée sur la race et l’origine ethnique dans tous les domaines visés par la directive 2000/43/CE, tandis que le décret- loi 216/2003 s’applique à la discrimination fondée sur la religion et les convictions, l’orientation sexuelle, le handicap et l’âge dans le domaine de l’emploi. L’un et l’autre visent essentiellement à transposer telles quelles les directives dans l’ordre juridique national, sans tenter de les coordonner entre elles ou avec d’autres règles juridiques italiennes existantes. Un décret ultérieur a corrigé certaines erreurs formelles survenues lors du travail rédactionnel, et la législation adoptée début 2008 est venue corriger certaines disparités majeures par rapport aux directives.

Une loi supplémentaire votée en 2006 étend l’interdiction de la discrimination directe et indirecte fondée sur le handicap au-delà du domaine de l’emploi et prévoit des voies de recours similaires à celles fixées par les décrets transposant les directives.

L’une des critiques exprimées à l’encontre de ce mode d’élaboration de la législation porte sur le fait qu’étant donné qu’il n’abolit pas les règles antidiscrimination préexistantes et ne tente pas de consolidation, il instaure des régimes juridiques supplémentaires et crée partant un cadre légal particulièrement complexe. Une avancée vers davantage de coordination a été accomplie en 2011 avec l’application explicite de la procédure accélérée à tous les motifs protégés par les directives, plus l’origine nationale, la langue et la couleur de peau.

Il convient de rappeler que l’Italie est un État partie aux principaux traités et conventions pour la lutte contre la discrimination; on peut citer à titre d’exemples la Convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale, la Convention n° 111 de l’OIT concernant la discrimination et la Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées, qu’elle a transposées en droit interne. Elle n’a cependant pas encore ratifié le protocole 12 à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, ce qui limite l’utilité de la Convention en tant qu’outil lors de litiges pour fait de discrimination.

3. Principes généraux et définitions

Les décrets de 2003 interdisent la discrimination directe aussi bien qu’indirecte avec un libellé basé sur celui des directives, pour tous les motifs concernés. Le harcèlement y est également défini et interdit, et l’injonction de discriminer explicitement considérée comme une forme de discrimination. Les rétorsions bénéficient du même degré de protection judiciaire que les autres formes de discrimination et constituent un élément à prendre en compte dans l’évaluation du montant des dommages-intérêts à octroyer. Bien qu’ils ne couvrent pas explicitement la discrimination par association (fondée sur des motifs ou caractéristiques présumés), sans doute les décrets peuvent-ils être interprétés comme couvrant ce type de discrimination, laquelle pourrait également être considérée comme une violation des libertés d’expression et d’association.

Des exigences professionnelles peuvent justifier une dérogation à l’interdiction de discrimination, quel que soit le motif de discrimination considéré, à condition de respecter le «caractère proportionné et raisonnable» requis par les dispositions pertinentes des directives. Tel n’est cependant pas le cas, hélas, du champ d’application des dispositions des décrets relatives aux «tests d’aptitude au travail».

L’Italie a opté pour la possibilité de maintenir des règles ad hoc pour les organisations à vocation éthique particulière. Une exemption partielle de l’interdiction de discrimination pour les organisations de ce type a été développée par les juges avant la transposition de la directive alors qu’en termes législatifs, la seule disposition portant sur ce point était

11

une disposition à la portée très limitée qui, adoptée en 1990, concernait les organisations caractérisées par une certaine «idéologie» au sens large du terme, telles que les églises, les partis politiques et les syndicats. En cas de licenciement abusif, les travailleurs de ces organisations ne se voient octroyer que le recours en dommages-intérêts et non le droit d’être rétablis dans leur fonction, disponible par ailleurs. Selon de nombreux spécialistes, toutefois, le décret-loi 216/2003 donne aux employeurs ayant une éthique fondée sur la religion ou les convictions un pouvoir qu’ils ne possédaient pas avant la transposition de la directive.

En ce qui concerne la religion, un problème se pose en ce qui concerne les confessions (telle l’Islam) qui n’ont pas signé d’accord avec l’État et ne bénéficient donc pas d’une reconnaissance juridique automatique de leurs besoins spécifiques (jours fériés et obligations rituelles notamment). Elles jouissent toutefois de la liberté de religion et du droit à l’égalité des églises en vertu de la Constitution italienne. La Cour d’appel de Milan s’est prononcée en 2016 dans un cas intéressant relatif à une discrimination envers une femme musulmane portant le foulard.23 Établissant en l’espèce l’existence d’une discrimination directe et excluant l’application de l’exception pour «exigence véritable et déterminante», la Cour a condamné l’entreprise à une indemnisation pour préjudice moral.

Ni le décret-loi transposant la directive 2000/78/CE ni la loi de 2006 relative à la protection des personnes handicapées contre les discriminations ne mentionne l’aménagement raisonnable à l’intention de ces personnes. Aussi la CJUE a-t-elle déclaré et arrêté que l’Italie manquait à son obligation de transposer correctement la directive 2000/78.24 Pour exécuter cet arrêt, un nouveau paragraphe a été ajouté à l’article 3 du décret-loi 216/2003.25

La nouvelle disposition ne contient ni définition de l’aménagement raisonnable ni orientation quelconque à l’intention des employeurs quant à la manière de respecter l’obligation en la matière: elle leur impose simplement de prévoir cet aménagement raisonnable. Il convient de préciser que les organismes publics doivent se conformer à cette obligation sans qu’elle entraîne la moindre ressource financière ou humaine supplémentaire – ce qui peut s’avérer extrêmement problématique et donner lieu à un non-respect de l’article 5 de la directive 2000/78/CE en vertu duquel les employeurs doivent si nécessaire assumer une charge, sauf si celle-ci est disproportionnée. Des juridictions ont appliqué l’article 3 du décret-loi 216/2003 en conformité avec la directive 2000/78/CE et la Convention des Nations unies relative aux droits des personnes handicapées, considérant que le non-respect de l’obligation de fournir un aménagement raisonnable constitue une discrimination.26

La législation italienne n’aborde pas la discrimination multiple en tant que telle, mais une référence à cet aspect particulier du phénomène discriminatoire est faite dans le rapport

23 Cour d’appel de Milan, Mahmoud Sara c. Evolution Events Srl, 20 mai 2016, disponible sur: http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2016/06/01/discriminazione-motivi-razziali-corte- dappello-milano-sentenza-del-4-maggio-2016-riforma-della-sentenza-del-tribunale-lodi-del-3-luglio-2014/. 24 Voir CJUE, Commission c. Italie, C-312/11, 4 juillet 2013 25 Italie, Décret-loi converti en loi relative aux mesures préliminaires urgentes pour la promotion de l’emploi, et de l’emploi des jeunes en particulier, et de la cohésion sociale, et à d’autres mesures financières urgentes (Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 28 giugno 2013, n. 76, recante primi interventi urgenti per la promozione dell'occupazione, in particolare giovanile, della coesione sociale, nonchè in materia di Imposta sul valore aggiunto (IVA) e altre misure finanziarie urgenti), loi n° 99 du 9 août 2013, disponible sur: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2013-08-09;99!vig. 26 Tribunal de Bologne, arrêt du 17 juin 2013, http://adapt.it/adapt-indice-a-z/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/trib_bg_18_6_13.pdf; Tribunal d’Ivrea, 24 février 2016, TG c. OMP s.r.l., http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2016/04/20/licenziamento-giustificato-motivo- oggettivo-consistente-nella-sopravvenuta-inidoneita-fisica-psichica-del-lavoratore-lobbligo-datoriale-dei- ragionevoli-adattamenti-tribunale-ivrea-ordina/.

12

d’activité 2014 de l’organisme pour la promotion de l’égalité, à savoir l’UNAR (Bureau national pour la lutte contre la discrimination raciale).27

4. Champ d’application matériel

Le champ d’application des décrets couvre les mêmes domaines que ceux répertoriés dans les directives, et les dispositions s’appliquent à la fois au secteur public et au secteur privé. Contrairement au décret de 1998, la discrimination fondée sur la nationalité est explicitement exclue du champ d’application du décret-loi 215/2003, tout comme l’ensemble des règles juridiques qui concernent le statut des ressortissants de pays tiers et des apatrides. Les deux décrets contiennent à cet égard non seulement des règles applicables à l’admission dans le pays et au séjour, mais également des règles en matière d’accès à l’emploi, d’assistance et de protection sociale. Comme indiqué plus haut, une loi adoptée en 2006 étend la protection contre la discrimination fondée sur le handicap au-delà du domaine de l’emploi.

Le problème posé par l’exclusion de la discrimination fondée sur la nationalité a été résolu par les juges, qui appliquent le même cadre juridique – à savoir le décret de 1998 sur l’immigration et le décret-loi 215/2003 – à tous les cas de discrimination raciale ou nationale, ce qui leur permet de traiter les affaires de discrimination fondée sur la nationalité comme une discrimination directe et non comme une discrimination indirecte fondée sur la race.

Dans le même ordre d’idée, l’hostilité de certains acteurs politiques à l’égard de groupes ethniques et raciaux perçus comme «différents», voire «étranges» ou «dangereux» pour l’une ou l’autre raison, se traduit de plus en plus par des actes législatifs (adoptés par les municipalités en particulier) qui, tout en étant officiellement «neutres en termes ethniques», recourent à des prétextes divers (exigences en matière de résidence, de nationalité, etc.) pour empêcher les personnes de ces groupes de devenir membres à part entière de la société.

5. Mise en application de la loi

Les poursuites pour discrimination s’appuient sur une plainte déposée en justice par la victime. Un changement de procédures a été effectué en 2011 en vue de mieux coordonner les différents actes législatifs adoptés au fil des dernières années. L’article 28 du décret-loi 150/2011 a ainsi abrogé la procédure spéciale applicable aux recours pour discrimination que prévoyait le décret-loi 286/1996 sur l’immigration, et l’a remplacée par la procédure accélérée générale visée à l’article 702-bis du Code de procédure civile. Dans les cas particulièrement urgents, le juge peut prononcer une ordonnance provisoire, dont la violation (comme celle de l’ordonnance prononcée dans la décision finale) constitue une infraction pénale. Le juge peut ordonner la production d’un plan destiné à éliminer la discrimination. De surcroît, la loi générale sur la médiation avant procès s’applique désormais à tous les recours pour discrimination et étend ainsi cette possibilité que le décret 216/2003 réservait antérieurement aux seuls recours liés à l’emploi et au travail.

Les deux décrets contiennent des règles spéciales concernant la capacité d’ester en justice. Pour ce qui est de l’origine ethnique et raciale, le département pour l’égalité des chances de la présidence du Conseil des ministres tient une liste, approuvée par les ministères du Travail/de la Protection sociale et de l’Égalité des chances, des associations et organismes qui, sélectionnés sur la base de «leurs objectifs et du degré de continuité de leur action», sont habilités à ester en justice en soutien ou au nom de victimes de discrimination. Ils peuvent également entamer une actio popularis en cas de discrimination collective, autrement dit lorsqu’il n’y a pas de victime identifiée. Pour ce

27 Disponible sur: http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?p=1735.

13

qui est des affaires relatives à d’autres motifs de discrimination, le décret transposant la directive 2000/78/CE octroie dorénavant une habilitation juridique analogue aux organisations pertinentes sans qu’il soit nécessaire d’établir un registre spécial. Pour ce qui est de la discrimination fondée sur un handicap en dehors du domaine de l’emploi, la loi de 2006 sur la protection des personnes handicapées contre les discriminations a introduit un système analogue à celui en vigueur en vertu de ces décrets avec un registre spécial tenu par le ministère du Travail. Les associations prennent davantage conscience de leur rôle clé dans les actions à visée stratégique, en particulier lorsque celles-ci concernent la migration, les Roms et l’orientation sexuelle.28

L’action collective n’est pas explicitement autorisée en matière de discrimination et aucun recours de ce type n’a été intenté, mais il est probable qu’une telle action serait admise grâce à la large interprétation des dites règles relatives aux actions collectives et aux actions en soutien ou au nom des victimes de discrimination, ou des règles relatives aux actions collectives dans le domaine de la protection des consommateurs figurant dans la loi de finances de 2007.

En ce qui concerne les pénalités, la législation générale prévoit des sanctions relevant du droit du travail telles que la nullité de tout acte discriminatoire et des mesures à l’encontre d’un licenciement injustifié (y compris la réintégration obligatoire sur le lieu de travail). Les juges sont habilités à ordonner également une réparation pour préjudice moral, et ils le font habituellement – prenant parfois en compte l’effet dissuasif de la sanction, conformément à la directive 2000/78/CE.

L’article 28 du décret-loi 150/2011 contient une nouvelle règle en matière de charge de la preuve, qui s’applique à tous les motifs de discrimination. Cette règle instaure un renversement de la charge lorsque la partie plaignante apporte des éléments de preuve (y compris éventuellement des données statistiques) susceptibles d’établir de manière précise et constante la présomption de l’existence d’actes, d’ententes ou de comportements discriminatoires.

Le test de situation peut être utilisé comme moyen de preuve dans les procédures civiles. Toutefois, s’il n’existe aucun obstacle légal à son usage, il n’existe pas davantage de disposition explicite l’autorisant, et aucune preuve recueillie au moyen d’un test de situation n’a encore été présentée en tant que telle devant un tribunal.

6. Organismes de promotion de l’égalité de traitement

L’organisme de promotion de l’égalité de traitement a été initialement créé pour traiter des motifs de la race et de l’origine ethnique – dénommé Bureau national pour la lutte contre la discrimination raciale (Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscrimination Razziali - UNAR). En 2010, une directive gouvernementale a élargi le mandat de l’UNAR qui couvre aussi désormais la nationalité, le sexe, la religion ou les convictions personnelles, l’âge et l’orientation sexuelle. Il ne s’agit pas d’un organisme indépendant puisqu’il a été institué en tant que section du Département de l’égalité des chances de la Présidence du Conseil des ministres, lequel traitait exclusivement auparavant de la discrimination liée au genre. L’UNAR peut faire appel à du personnel appartenant à d’autres services de l’administration publique, y compris des juges et procureurs, ainsi qu’à des experts et conseillers externes.

28 Cour suprême, 8 mai 2017, ASGI c. INPS, disponible sur: https://www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/Corte_di_Cassazione__sez_lavoro__sentenza__n_11166_del__8517__pres_D%E 2%80%99Antonio__est_Riverso__INPS_avv_Coretti_Stumpo_e_Triolo_c_ASGI__APN_.pdf; Tribunal de Rovereto, 21 juin 2016, X et Associazione radicale certi diritti, CGIL c. Istituto delle figlie del Sacro Cuore di Gesù, http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2017/03/01/tribunale-di-rovereto-ordinanza- ex-art-702-ter-cpc.

14

En vertu de législation qui l’institue, l’UNAR a pour compétence d’offrir une assistance indépendante aux victimes de discrimination qui intentent une action en justice; de réaliser des études indépendantes sur les discriminations; de promouvoir l’adoption de mesures spécifiques visant à l’élimination ou l’indemnisation des désavantages subis par les personnes victimes de discrimination; d’émettre des avis et de proposer des réformes législatives en matière de discrimination ethnique et raciale; de formuler des recommandations sur les questions liées à la discrimination ethnique et raciale; et de diffuser des informations concernant les règles relatives à l’égalité de traitement indépendamment de la race ou de l’origine ethnique.

L’UNAR comprend deux unités distinctes, l’une étant principalement axée sur l’assistance juridique et la résolution des litiges et l’autre sur les travaux d’analyse et de recherche. Il fait rapport chaque année au Parlement et au gouvernement. L’UNAR est opérationnel depuis novembre 2004 et, selon ses rapports annuels, il offre un service particulièrement utile en mettant un numéro d’appel gratuit à la disposition de personnes s’estimant victimes de discrimination. Outre son apport d’assistance juridique, l’UNAR a collaboré avec des juristes externes en vue de la formulation de toute une série d’avis sur le statut des migrants sans papiers. L’UNAR a organisé des séminaires et des ateliers dans le but d’informer et de former des juristes et des ONG. Son site Internet propose un certain nombre d’informations juridiques, dont le volume tend cependant à diminuer ces dernières années – ce qui traduit sans doute une baisse d’activité. Le dernier rapport de l’UNAR au gouvernement remonte à 2014, et il a formulé un avis pour la dernière fois en 2012. Cette situation peut être largement attribuée à la rotation des directeurs, mais la baisse d’activité reflète un manque de vision en la matière de la part des gouvernements depuis dix ans.

L’UNAR a été désigné en 2012 comme point de contact national, conformément à la communication COM(2011)173 de la Commission européenne, et chargé d’assurer la coordination de la Stratégie nationale pour l’intégration des Roms. L’UNAR a également été désigné comme point de contact national pour l’application de la recommandation CM/Rec(2010)5 du Conseil de l’Europe relative à la discrimination fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle, bien que son mandat initial n’allait pas au-delà de la discrimination fondée sur la race et l’origine ethnique. La mise en œuvre concrète de ces stratégies s’avère extrêmement limitée, et le récent changement de directeur général et de la majorité des experts externes – sans nouveaux contrats – risque bien de compromettre l’exécution de ce qui a déjà été programmé.

Un organe spécial appelé Osservatorio per la sicurezza contro gli atti discriminatori – OSCAD (Observatoire pour la sécurité contre les actes discriminatoires) a en outre été institué en 2010 au sein du Département de la sécurité publique, qui fait partie de la Direction centrale de la police criminelle. Il ne s’agit pas d’un organe désigné dans le cadre du processus de transposition. L’OSCAD est un organe spécial géré par la police et la police militaire (Carabinieri). Ses membres appartiennent au ministère de l’Intérieur (police) et au ministère de la Défense (Carabinieri). Il ne s’agit donc pas d’un organe indépendant, mais d’un organe gouvernemental. Son mandat couvre tous les domaines de discrimination et comprend les tâches suivantes: recueillir des rapports concernant des actes discriminatoires touchant au domaine de la sécurité et émanant d’institutions, d’associations professionnelles ou de particuliers, afin de surveiller la discrimination fondée sur la race ou l’origine ethnique, la nationalité, la religion, le genre, l’âge, la langue, un handicap physique ou mental, l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre – l’OSCAD initiant, sur la base des rapports qu’il reçoit, des interventions ciblées à l’échelon local, dont l’exécution est confiée à la police ou aux Carabinieri; assurer le suivi du bon aboutissement de plaintes pour discrimination déposées auprès de services de police; maintenir le contact avec des organisations et institutions, tant publiques que privées, qui se consacrent à la lutte contre les discriminations; préparer à l’intention des policiers des modules de formation à l’action antidiscrimination; participer à des programmes de

15

formation auprès d’institutions publiques et privées; et proposer des mesures adéquates de prévention et de lutte contre les discriminations.

7. Points essentiels

La non-discrimination ne semble occuper qu’une place extrêmement marginale dans les politiques gouvernementales, comme en attestent divers éléments parmi lesquels l’absence de ministère en charge de l’immigration et les compétences limitées conférées à l’UNAR. C’est ainsi par exemple que l’on n’assiste encore à aucune mise en œuvre réellement effective de la Stratégie nationale pour l’intégration des Roms depuis son adoption. Son manque d’indépendance fait en outre que l’UNAR est uniquement un bureau fonctionnant au sein du Département de l’égalité des chances, sans réelle autonomie. L’UNAR est clairement et totalement lié à l’exécutif et ne peut mener la moindre activité indépendante, même s’il a adopté dans plusieurs cas une position critique vis-à-vis du gouvernement. Il convient toutefois de faire remarquer que les cas en question avaient été soulevés pour la plupart dans les médias ou par des juristes individuels, et que l’UNAR n’a été impliqué qu’ultérieurement sous la forte pression de différentes organisations. Sa relation étroite avec la majorité politique ressort de manière probante du système des dépouilles tel qu’il est appliqué au directeur et aux experts, dont le renouvellement des mandats est laissé à la totale discrétion du chef de département et du ministre; de fait, ceux-ci ont démis le directeur de son poste en 2015 après qu’il ait adressé une lettre à une députée en l’exhortant à faire usage d’un langage non discriminatoire.

L’UNAR a renouvelé en 2015 son contrat de gestion du centre de contact. Il reste opérationnel mais n’a entrepris aucune activité de production de rapports publics. Ce centre couvre l’ensemble des motifs de discrimination visés par les directives 2000 en y ajoutant la nationalité – au sens de citoyenneté. Bien qu’il soit uniquement prévu par des instructions ministérielles, et non par la loi, cet élargissement du champ d’application a été confirmé jusqu’ici.

L’absence de politique bien définie en matière de lutte contre la discrimination se traduit également par une absence d’actions positives en faveur de groupes vulnérables, en dehors des mesures classiques d’inclusion sociale axées sur les personnes handicapées et les minorités linguistiques. Plusieurs modifications devraient être apportées aux lois antidiscrimination en vue d’en accroître l’efficacité. Premièrement, une définition de l’obligation d’aménagement raisonnable et des orientations quant à la manière de s’y conformer s’avèrent impératives.

En ce qui concerne les différences de traitement pratiquées par des organisations ayant une éthique particulière, l’exemption telle que formulée dans le décret-loi 216/2003 s’applique également à des organisations n’ayant pas une éthique effectivement basée sur la religion ou les convictions: elle est dès lors susceptible d’aller au-delà de ce qu’admettaient les règles nationales préexistantes en la matière.

On observe une évolution intéressante de la jurisprudence en matière de sanctions. Si la réparation pour préjudice moral est assurée dans chaque arrêt, le montant en est calculé en tenant compte également de son caractère dissuasif, conformément à l’article 17 de la directive 2000/78/CE.

Enfin, la coexistence de divers textes légaux très similaires est inutile et risque de créer une incertitude juridique, mais aucune consolidation n’est prévue.

16

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

1. Einleitung

Italien besteht aus 20 Regionen mit jeweils eigener Tradition und Geschichte. Bei Arbeitsbedingungen, Arbeitsmarktsituation und Qualität der öffentlichen Dienstleistungen (Bildung, Gesundheit und Verkehr) gibt es vor allem zwischen den nördlichen und den südlichen Regionen große Unterschiede. Die Familie bildet das Zentrum der sozialen Ordnung und der sozialen Fürsorge und insbesondere im Süden leben Großfamilien häufig unter einem Dach. Organisierte Kriminalität, Korruption, Schattenwirtschaft und Steuerbetrug sind strukturelle Probleme, die immer noch die volle Entwicklung des Landes verhindern und von einer politischen Klasse geduldet werden, die diese Probleme nie angemessen bekämpfen konnte.

Das Italienische Nationale Statistikinstitut (ISTAT) liefert einige wichtige Daten zur italienischen Bevölkerung. Nach jüngsten Befragungen gibt es unter den 60 665 551 Einwohnern29 rund 2 600 000 Menschen mit Behinderungen, was 4,3 % der Gesamtbevölkerung entspricht.30 156 000 Schüler und Studierende, also rund 3 % dieser Personen, haben eine Behinderung. Eine Million Menschen bezeichnen sich selbst als homo- oder bisexuell.31 Es gibt 5 026 153 ausländische Staatsbürger, zur rassischen oder ethnischen Zugehörigkeit der Bevölkerung liegen jedoch keine Daten vor. Was die Religion angeht, sind 76,5 % der Bevölkerung römisch-katholisch getauft, wobei nur rund 25 % angeben, dass sie ihren Glauben auch praktizieren. Muslime stellen rund 2 % der Bevölkerung, ungefähr den gleichen Anteil wie orthodoxe Christen. Die jüdische Gemeinde in Italien hat eine lange Geschichte und zählt rund 35 000 Mitglieder.

Nach der historischen Anerkennung der Rechte gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare im Jahr 201632 wurden 2017 keine relevanten Änderungen des nationalen Rechts beschlossen.

Die Mehrzahl der Urteile auf dem Gebiet des Diskriminierungsrechts betrifft nach wie vor das Merkmal Staatsangehörigkeit. Das Diskriminierungsrecht wird jedoch noch immer nicht als spezifischer Teilbereich des Rechts wahrgenommen und sogar in Datenbanken, die üblicherweise von Richtern und Anwälten verwendet werden, außer Acht gelassen. Kommt es zu einer Verurteilung wegen Diskriminierung, so neigen Politiker und Meinungsmacher außerdem dazu, das Urteil unter Hinweis auf Redefreiheit oder wirtschaftliche Entscheidungsfreiheit kritisch zu kommentieren.33 Sowohl auf politischen Plattformen als auch in den Sozialwissenschaften ist Diskriminierung nach wie vor ein Randthema. Die Marginalisierung der Tätigkeit des UNAR – einer Regierungsbehörde, die die Gleichbehandlungsstelle sein soll – ist sowohl Ursache als auch Folge dieses Mangels an Bewusstsein, zumindest unter Politikern.

Es gibt nur sehr wenige Befragungen zu Wahrnehmungen der Diskriminierung und die Berichterstattung in den Medien ist häufig sehr ungenau;34 aus diesem Grund lassen sich

29 Istat (2016), https://www.istat.it/it/files/2016/12/Sintesi_ASI-_2016.pdf (letzter Zugriff am 27. März 2017). 30 Istat (2010), La disabilità in Italia (Behinderung in Italien), http://www3.istat.it/dati/catalogo/20100513_00/arg_09_37_la_disabilita_in_Italia.pdf. 31 Istat (2012), La popolazione omosessuale nella società italiana – 2011 (Die homosexuelle Bevölkerung in der italienischen Gesellschaft – 2011), http://www.istat.it/it/files/2012/05/report-omofobia_6giugno.pdf. 32 Italien: Gesetz vom 20. Mai 2016, Nr. 76, Vorschriften über eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaften zwischen gleichgeschlechtlichen Partnern und De-facto-Partnerschaften (Regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze), abrufbar unter: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2016-05-20;76!vig. 33 Dies war sogar beim UNAR der Fall, als dieses ein Schreiben an eine Abgeordnete richtete, die gegen muslimische Einwanderer gehetzt hatte; http://www.giorgiameloni.it/2015/09/02/lettera-a-renzi-dopo- nota-formale-ricevuta-dall-unar/. 34 Umfrage zur Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts, der sexuellen Orientierung und der ethnischen Herkunft (IST-02258 Indagine sulle discriminazioni in base al genere, all'orientamento sessuale, alla appartenenza etnica), http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/30726 (letzter Zugriff am 29. März 2016).

17

Häufigkeit und Schwere von Diskriminierung in allen Bereichen nur schwer abschätzen. Allerdings sind feindselige Einstellungen gegenüber einzelnen sozialen Gruppen zu beobachten, vor allem im Zusammenhang mit den jüngsten Wellen von Zuwanderern und Asylsuchenden. Auch die Ablehnung von Roma ist ein heiß diskutiertes Thema, bei dem mehrere Politiker bereits offen für ein segregierte Unterbringung und Bildung geworben haben. Die hohe Schulabbrecherquote bei jungen Roma ist ein ernstes Problem. Dies ist möglicherweise eine direkte Folge der Wohnsegregation, weil viele Roma-Lager weit von der nächsten Schule entfernt liegen und Roma oft ohne Vorwarnung in andere Lager umziehen.35

Diskriminierung aufgrund der „Rasse“ und ethnischen Herkunft überschneidet sich häufig mit Diskriminierung aufgrund von Religion und Weltanschauung, insbesondere im Fall von ethnoreligiösen Gruppen wie z. B. „Arabern“ und „Muslimen“, was eintritt, wenn zwischen beiden Begriffen nicht unterschieden wird.36 Der Terrorismus und die Flüchtlingskrise haben das Gesamtbild noch verschlimmert. Was religiöse Minderheiten ohne Migrationsbezug (Juden, Waldenser und andere) betrifft, so liegen keine Berichte über schwere Fälle von Diskriminierung oder ein generelles Klima von Feindseligkeit vor.

Probleme im Zusammenhang mit Alter und Behinderung werden in den Medien zwar viel diskutiert, aber nur selten vor Gericht gebracht. Sie hängen eher mit der Struktur des Arbeitsmarkts zusammen, auf dem sich die Richtlinien und vor allem das Verbot von Altersdiskriminierung nur schwer durchsetzen lassen. Dies gilt insbesondere seit Beginn der Wirtschaftskrise, die einherging mit der Herabsetzung der gesetzlichen Rentenaltersgrenzen und dem intensiven Einsatz kurzfristiger Verträge, die steuerlich begünstigt und auf junge Arbeitnehmer beschränkt sind, seitens der Arbeitgeber.

2. Wichtigste Rechtsvorschriften

Artikel 3 der italienischen Verfassung enthält ein allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgebot und verbietet Diskriminierung. Obwohl die Verfassung diskriminierende Gesetze eindeutig verbietet, wird in Rechtskreisen debattiert, ob dieses Verfassungsprinzip direkt angewendet werden kann, d. h. ob es einer Person, die diskriminiert wurde, eine ausreichende Rechtsgrundlage bietet. Diese Frage wurde noch nie vor Gericht geprüft. Außerdem gibt es im Gesetz 300/1970, dem Arbeitnehmergesetz, eine Bestimmung, die die Diskriminierung von Arbeitnehmern verbietet, und im Strafrecht wurde ein spezielles Rechtsinstrument gegen „Hassrede“ eingeführt, das auch auf bestimmte diskriminierende Handlungen Bezug nimmt.

Die erste weiterführende Antidiskriminierungsgesetzgebung war die Einwanderungsverordnung von 1998. Diese Verordnung verbietet unmittelbare und mittelbare Diskriminierung durch Personen und öffentliche Stellen, wobei die Definition dieser Begriffe im Wesentlichen den Richtlinien entspricht, jedoch mit einer offenen Liste von Anwendungsbereichen. Verboten wird auch Diskriminierung aufgrund der nationalen Herkunft, im Sinne von Nationalität oder Staatsbürgerschaft.

Die Umsetzung der Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien der EU hat eine neue Ära der Antidiskriminierungsgesetzgebung in Italien ausgelöst. Zur Umsetzung der Richtlinien 2000/43/EG und 2000/78/EG in italienisches Recht erließ die Regierung im Juli 2003 die Gesetzesverordnung 215/2003 (setzt die Richtlinie 2000/43/EG um) und Gesetzesverordnung 216/2003 (setzt die Richtlinie 2000/78/EG um).

35 Zu dem 2015 entschiedenen Rechtsstreit La Barbuta siehe ergänzend: www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2015/06/Ordinanza-La-Barbuta.pdf. 2016 wies der EGMR Italien an, als einstweilige Maßnahme die Zwangsräumung einer behinderten Mutter und ihrer Tochter zu stoppen; siehe Pressemitteilungen unter http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/la-corte-europea-ferma-litalia/ und http://www.hlrn.org/news.php?id=pm9rZA==#.WNfFg4VOJjo. 36 Siehe den ausführlichen und aktuellen Pressebericht zum Thema Hasssprache, herausgegeben von http://www.cartadiroma.org.

18

Unter die Gesetzesverordnung 215/2003 fällt Diskriminierung aufgrund der „Rasse“ oder ethnischen Herkunft in allen in der Richtlinie 2000/43/EG genannten Bereichen, die Verordnung 216/2003 dagegen gilt für den Bereich Beschäftigung und verbietet Diskriminierung aufgrund von Religion und Weltanschauung, sexueller Orientierung, Behinderung und Alter. Beide Verordnungen dienen vorwiegend der Umsetzung der Richtlinien in italienisches Recht und streben keine Koordination zwischen den Richtlinien oder mit anderen italienischen Gesetzen an. Einige technische Fehler wurden durch eine spätere Verordnung korrigiert und Anfang 2008 wurde eine Gesetzesreform verabschiedet, die größere Abweichungen von den Richtlinien beseitigte.

2006 wurde ein weiteres Gesetz erlassen, das das Verbot von unmittelbarer und mittelbarer Diskriminierung aufgrund von Behinderung auf andere Bereiche außerhalb des Arbeitslebens ausweitet und ähnliche Rechtsmittel bietet wie die Verordnungen zur Umsetzung der Richtlinien.

Ein Kritikpunkt an dieser Art der Gesetzgebung ist, dass sie ältere Antidiskriminierungsgesetze nicht abschafft oder in die neuen Gesetze integriert, sodass die Rechtsordnung nur erweitert und verkompliziert wird. Ein Schritt zu mehr Koordination war die Einführung eines allgemeinen Schnellverfahrens im Jahr 2011, unter das alle in den Richtlinien genannten Diskriminierungsgründe sowie nationale Herkunft, Sprache und Hautfarbe fallen.

Es muss betont werden, dass Italien die wichtigen internationalen Verträge und Übereinkommen gegen Diskriminierung ratifiziert hat, zum Beispiel das Internationale Übereinkommen zur Beseitigung jeder Form von Rassendiskriminierung, das ILO- Übereinkommen Nr. 111 über die Diskriminierung und das Übereinkommen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen, die alle in italienisches Recht überführt wurden. Allerdings hat das Land das 12. Protokoll der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention noch nicht ratifiziert, wodurch sich Klagen wegen Diskriminierung nicht auf diese Konvention gründen können.

3. Wichtigste Grundsätze und Begriffe

Die Verordnungen von 2003 verbieten bei allen betroffenen Diskriminierungsgründen sowohl unmittelbare als auch mittelbare Diskriminierung mit einem Wortlaut, der demjenigen der Richtlinien entspricht. Auch Belästigung wird definiert und verboten. Anweisung zur Diskriminierung wird ausdrücklich als eine Form der Diskriminierung aufgezählt. Bei Viktimisierung gilt derselbe Rechtsschutz wie bei anderen Formen der Diskriminierung und sie muss bei der Feststellung von Entschädigungssummen gesondert berücksichtigt werden. Diskriminierung aufgrund von Assoziierung (aufgrund mutmaßlicher Gründe oder Eigenschaften) wird nicht ausdrücklich erwähnt, allerdings lässt sich aus den Verordnungen ein Verbot dieser Form der Diskriminierung ableiten, die auch als Verletzung der Meinungs- und Vereinigungsfreiheit aufgefasst werden kann.

Bei allen Diskriminierungsgründen können berufliche Anforderungen eine Ausnahme vom Gleichbehandlungsgebot begründen, solange sie entsprechend der Vorgaben der Richtlinien „verhältnismäßig und angemessen“ sind. Leider gilt dies nicht für den Geltungsbereich der Bestimmungen über „Arbeitseignungstests“ in der Verordnung.

Italien hat von der Möglichkeit Gebrauch gemacht, für Organisationen mit einem bestimmten Ethos Ad-Hoc-Regeln festzulegen. Schon vor Umsetzung der Richtlinien hatte sich in der Rechtsprechung eine teilweise Ausnahme vom Diskriminierungsverbot für Organisationen mit einem bestimmten Ethos herausgebildet. Gesetzlich gab es hierzu nur eine äußerst begrenzte Bestimmung aus dem Jahr 1990 für Organisationen, die durch eine bestimmte „Ideologie“ im weitesten Sinne gekennzeichnet sind, z. B. Kirchen, politische Parteien und Gewerkschaften. Bei einer ungerechtfertigten Kündigung haben Angestellte dieser Organisationen nur einen Anspruch auf Schadensersatz und nicht auf

19

eine Weiterbeschäftigung, wie dies bei anderen Arbeitgebern der Fall ist. Nach Ansicht vieler Juristen gibt die Gesetzesverordnung 216/2003 Arbeitgebern mit einem auf Religion oder einer Weltanschauung basierenden Ethos jedoch Rechte, die sie vor Umsetzung der Richtlinie nicht hatten.

Ein Problem haben Glaubensrichtungen (wie der Islam), die keine Vereinbarung mit dem Staat unterzeichnet haben und deren spezielle Bedürfnisse (Feiertage, rituelle Pflichten usw.) nicht automatisch rechtlich anerkannt werden. Sie genießen jedoch Religionsfreiheit und das Recht auf Gleichstellung aller Kirchen im Rahmen der italienischen Verfassung. 2016 entschied das Berufungsgericht Mailand über einen interessanten Fall, in dem es um die Diskriminierung einer Kopftuch tragenden Muslimin ging.37 Das Gericht kam zu dem Ergebnis, dass eine unmittelbare Diskriminierung vorlag, schloss die Anwendung der Ausnahmeregelung „wesentliche und entscheidende Anforderung“ aus und verurteilte das Unternehmen zur Zahlung von Schadenersatz.

Weder die Verordnung zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG, noch das Behindertengesetz von 2006 schreiben angemessene Vorkehrungen für Menschen mit Behinderungen vor. Aus diesem Grund kam der EuGH zu dem Ergebnis, dass Italien seine Pflicht zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG nicht angemessen erfüllt hat.38 Als Reaktion auf dieses Urteil wurde in Artikel 3 der Gesetzesverordnung 216/2003 ein neuer Paragraph eingefügt.39

Die neue Bestimmung definiert nicht, was angemessene Vorkehrungen sind und bietet Arbeitgebern keine Richtlinien für die Erfüllung dieser Pflicht, sondern schreibt ihnen einfach vor, dass sie angemessene Vorkehrungen treffen müssen. Dabei ist zu beachten, dass öffentliche Stellen diese Pflicht auch ohne zusätzliche finanzielle oder personelle Mittel erfüllen müssen. Dies könnte höchst problematisch sein und zu einem Verstoß gegen Artikel 5 der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG führen, dem zufolge der Arbeitgeber gegebenenfalls eine Belastung auf sich nehmen muss, sofern diese nicht unverhältnismäßig ist. Die Gerichte haben, in Übereinstimmung mit der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG und der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention, Artikel 3 der Gesetzesverordnung 216/2003 angewandt und kamen zu dem Ergebnis, dass das Nichttreffen angemessener Vorkehrungen als Diskriminierung zu werten sei.40

Mehrfachdiskriminierung an sich wird in den italienischen Antidiskriminierungsvorschriften nicht behandelt; der Tätigkeitsbericht 2014 des UNAR (Amt zur Förderung der Gleichbehandlung und zur Bekämpfung von Diskriminierung aufgrund der „Rasse“ oder ethnischen Herkunft), der nationalen Gleichbehandlungsstelle, enthielt jedoch einen Verweis auf diese spezielle Art von Diskriminierung.41

4. Sachlicher Geltungsbereich

37 Berufungsgericht Mailand, Mahmoud Sara / Evolution Events Srl, 20. Mai 2016, abrufbar unter: http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2016/06/01/discriminazione-motivi-razziali-corte- dappello-milano-sentenza-del-4-maggio-2016-riforma-della-sentenza-del-tribunale-lodi-del-3-luglio-2014/. 38 EuGH, C-312/11, Kommission / Italien, 4. Juli 2013. 39 Italien, Umwandlung in Gesetz des Gesetzesdekrets über befristete Sofortmaßnahmen zur Förderung der Beschäftigung, insbesondere junger Menschen, des sozialen Zusammenhalts und über dringende finanzielle Maßnahmen (Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 28 giugno 2013, n. 76, recante primi interventi urgenti per la promozione dell'occupazione, in particolare giovanile, della coesione sociale, nonchè in materia di Imposta sul valore aggiunto (IVA) e altre misure finanziarie urgenti), 9. August 2013 Nr. 99, abrufbar unter: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2013-08-09;99!vig. 40 Landgericht Bologna, Urteil vom 17. Juni 2013, http://adapt.it/adapt-indice-a-z/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/trib_bg_18_6_13.pdf; Landgericht Ivrea, 24. Februar 2016, TG / OMP s.r.l., http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2016/04/20/licenziamento-giustificato-motivo- oggettivo-consistente-nella-sopravvenuta-inidoneita-fisica-psichica-del-lavoratore-lobbligo-datoriale-dei- ragionevoli-adattamenti-tribunale-ivrea-ordina/. 41 Abrufbar unter: http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?p=1735.

20

Der Anwendungsbereich entspricht den in den Richtlinien genannten Bereichen und die Bestimmungen gelten sowohl für den öffentlichen als auch für den privaten Sektor. Anders als die Verordnung von 1998 gilt die Gesetzesverordnung 215/2003 ausdrücklich nicht für eine Diskriminierung aufgrund der Nationalität und auch nicht für Rechtsvorschriften, die den Status von fremden Staatsangehörigen und staatenlosen Personen betreffen. In dieser Beziehung erwähnen beide Verordnungen nicht nur Regelungen zu Einreise und Aufenthalt, sondern auch für den Zugang zum Arbeitsmarkt, Sozialsystem und Wohlfahrt. Ein Gesetz von 2006 weitet, wie oben erwähnt, den Schutz vor Diskriminierung aufgrund einer Behinderung auf weitere Bereiche außerhalb des Arbeitslebens aus.

Der Ausschluss von Diskriminierung aufgrund der Nationalität wurde von Richtern ausgehebelt, die auf alle Fälle von Diskriminierung aufgrund der „Rasse“ oder Nationalität einen einheitlichen Rechtsrahmen, also die Einwanderungsverordnung von 1998 und die Gesetzesverordnung 215/2003, anwenden. Dies bietet den Richtern die Möglichkeit, Diskriminierung aufgrund der Nationalität als unmittelbare Diskriminierung zu behandeln und nicht nur als mittelbare Rassendiskriminierung.

Entsprechend spiegelt sich die Feindseligkeit bestimmter politischer Akteure gegenüber ethnischen Gruppen oder „Rassen“, die als „anders“ und aus irgendwelchen Gründe „fremd“ oder „gefährlich“ wahrgenommen werden, in formal „ethnisch blinden“ Rechtsvorschriften wider (insbesondere auf kommunaler Ebene), die unterschiedliche Vorwände nutzen (Aufenthaltsdauer, Nationalität usw.), um Mitglieder dieser Gruppen von der gesellschaftlichen Teilhabe auszuschließen.

5. Rechtsdurchsetzung

Um sich gegen Diskriminierung zu wehren, muss das Opfer bei Gericht eine Klage einreichen. Im Jahr 2011 wurden Verfahrensänderungen eingeführt, um die verschiedenen Gesetzen zu koordinieren, die in den vergangenen Jahren verabschiedet wurden. Artikel 28 der Gesetzesverordnung 150/2011 schaffte das Sonderverfahren für Antidiskriminierungsfälle wieder ab, das durch die Gesetzesverordnung 286/1998 über Einwanderung eingeführt worden war, und ersetzte es durch ein allgemeines Schnellverfahren nach Artikel 702 Absatz 2 der Zivilprozessordnung. In besonders dringenden Fällen kann der Richter eine einstweilige Verfügung erlassen, wobei ein Verstoß gegen diese Verfügung (und die im Urteil getroffene endgültige Anordnung) eine Straftat darstellt. Der Richter kann auch verfügen, dass ein Plan erarbeitet werden muss, wie die Diskriminierung aufgehoben werden kann. Außerdem gilt das allgemeine Gesetz über außergerichtliche Mediationsverfahren nun für alle Antidiskriminierungsklagen, eine Möglichkeit, die in Verordnung 216/2003 nur für arbeitsrechtliche Klagen vorgesehen war.

Beide Verordnungen enthalten spezielle Regeln für die Beteiligung an Gerichtsverfahren. Im Hinblick auf „Rasse“ und ethnische Herkunft führt die Abteilung für Chancengleichheit des Präsidiums des Ministerrats führt eine Liste, die vom Arbeitsministerium und vom Ministerium für Soziales und Chancengleichheit genehmigt wird und Vereinigungen und Stellen aufführt, die sich aufgrund ihres „Zwecks und der Dauer ihrer Tätigkeit“ zur Unterstützung oder im Namen von Diskriminierungsopfern an Verfahren beteiligen dürfen. Wenn das Opfer kann nicht identifiziert wird, dürfen diese Stellen auch eine Popularklage wegen Diskriminierung einreichen. Bei Diskriminierung aus anderen Gründen räumt die Verordnung zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG relevanten Organisationen inzwischen eine ähnliche Rechtsstellung ein, jedoch ohne Einführung eines speziellen Registers. Für Diskriminierungsfälle aufgrund von Behinderung außerhalb des Arbeitslebens hat das Gesetz gegen die Diskriminierung von Behinderten von 2006 ein ähnliches System eingeführt, dabei wird ein Verzeichnis der berechtigten Organisationen vom Arbeitsministerium geführt. Verbände sind sich ihrer Schlüsselrolle in

21

strategischen Klagen, vor allem was Migration, Roma und sexuelle Orientierung betrifft, bewusst.42

Verbandsklagen sind bei Diskriminierungsfällen nicht ausdrücklich erlaubt und wurden bisher auch noch nicht eingereicht. Allerdings sind derartige Klagerechte vermutlich zulässig, wenn man die Regeln zur Popularklage und zur Verfahrensbeteiligung zur Unterstützung oder im Namen von Diskriminierungsopfern oder die Regeln zur Verbandsklage im Bereich Verbraucherschutz gemäß dem Finanzgesetz von 2007 großzügig auslegt.

Was die Sanktionen angeht, sieht die allgemeine Gesetzgebung im Arbeitsrecht die Aufhebung der diskriminierenden Handlung sowie Maßnahmen gegen unrechtmäßige Kündigungen (einschließlich der Pflicht zur Wiedereinstellung) vor. Richter können Opfern auch für immaterielle Schäden eine Entschädigung zusprechen und tun dies in der Regel auch, manchmal unter Berücksichtigung der abschreckenden Wirkung im Sinne der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG.

Artikel 28 der Gesetzesverordnung 150/2011 enthält eine Vorschrift zur Beweislast, die für alle Diskriminierungsgründe gilt. Nach dieser Vorschrift wird die Beweislast umgekehrt, sobald der Kläger Beweise vorlegt (zu denen auch statistische Daten gehören können), die präzise und folgerichtig die Annahme belegen, dass diskriminierende Handlungen, Vereinbarungen oder Verhaltensweisen vorliegen.

Testing-Verfahren sind als Beweise in Zivilprozessen zulässig. Obwohl es für ihre Verwendung keine rechtlichen Hindernisse gibt, werden sie auch nicht ausdrücklich zugelassen und bisher wurden einem Gericht noch nie Beweise vorgelegt, die durch Testing-Verfahren ermittelt wurden.

6. Gleichbehandlungsstellen

Die italienische Gleichbehandlungsstelle wurde ursprünglich geschaffen, um Diskriminierung aufgrund der „Rasse“ und ethnischen Herkunft zu bekämpfen, und trägt den Titel Nationales Amt gegen Rassendiskriminierung (UNAR). Im Jahr 2010 weitete eine Regierungsverordnung den Auftrag des UNAR auf die Diskriminierungsgründe Nationalität, Geschlecht, Religion oder Weltanschauung, Behinderung, Alter und sexuelle Orientierung aus. Das Amt ist keine unabhängige Stelle, weil sie als Dienststelle der Abteilung für Chancengleichheit des Präsidiums des Ministerrats gegründet wurde, die sich ursprünglich ausschließlich mit Geschlechterdiskriminierung befasste. Das UNAR kann Mitarbeiter anderer Abteilungen, sogar Richter und Staatsanwälte, sowie externe Experten und Berater hinzuziehen.

Nach seiner Gründungsordnung ist das UNAR unter anderem dafür zuständig, Opfer von Diskriminierung bei ihrer Klage zu unterstützen, unabhängige Befragungen zum Thema Diskriminierung durchzuführen, Maßnahmen zu fördern, mit denen die Nachteile von Diskriminierungsopfern aufgehoben oder kompensiert werden, Stellungnahmen und Vorschläge zu Gesetzesreformen im Bereich der Diskriminierung aufgrund der „Rasse“ und ethnischen Zugehörigkeit zu machen, Empfehlungen auszusprechen und die Öffentlichkeit über das Prinzip der Gleichbehandlung unabhängig von „Rasse“ oder ethnischer Zugehörigkeit zu informieren.

42 Oberster Gerichtshof, 8. Mai 2017, ASGI gg. INPS, abrufbar unter: https://www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/Corte_di_Cassazione__sez_lavoro__sentenza__n_11166_del__8517__pres_D%E 2%80%99Antonio__est_Riverso__INPS_avv_Coretti_Stumpo_e_Triolo_c_ASGI__APN_.pdf; Gericht Rovereto, 21. Juni 2016, X und Associazione radicale certi diritti, CGIL gg. Istituto delle figlie del Sacro Cuore di Gesù, http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2017/03/01/tribunale-di-rovereto- ordinanza-ex-art-702-ter-cpc.

22

Das UNAR hat zwei Abteilungen, von denen sich die eine auf Rechtshilfe und Streitschlichtung konzentriert und die andere auf Umfragen und Forschung. Das Amt legt dem Parlament und der Regierung einmal jährlich einen Bericht vor. Es ist seit November 2004 tätig und bietet, nach Angaben seines Jahresberichts an die Regierung, Opfern von Diskriminierung wichtige Hilfsangebote über kostenlose Telefonnummern, die jeder anrufen kann, der sich diskriminiert fühlt. Neben der Rechtsberatung hat das UNAR auch mit externen Anwälten zusammengearbeitet, um Stellungnahmen zum Status von Immigranten ohne Papiere abzugeben. Das UNAR veranstaltet Seminare und Workshops, in denen Anwälte und NROs informiert und geschult werden. Auf seiner Website bietet das Amt rechtliche Informationen, obwohl diese in den letzten Jahren weniger geworden sind – vermutlich Ausdruck einer rückläufigen Aktivität. Der letzte Bericht des UNAR an die Regierung stammt aus dem Jahr 2014, das letzte Gutachten wurde 2012 abgegeben. Die Fluktuation des Leitungspersonals ist einer der Hauptgründe dafür, aber der Rückgang der Aktivitäten ist Ausdruck des mangelnden Weitblicks, den die Regierungen der letzten zehn Jahre in dieser Sache hatten.

2012 wurde das UNAR zur nationalen Kontaktstelle im Sinne der Mitteilung der Kommission KOM(2011) 173 ernannt und erhielt den Auftrag, die nationale Strategie Italiens zur Integration der Roma zu koordinieren. Das UNAR ist außerdem nationale Kontaktstelle für die Umsetzung der Empfehlung CM/Rec(2010)5 des Europarats zur Bekämpfung von Diskriminierung aufgrund der sexuellen Orientierung, obwohl seine Zuständigkeit ursprünglich nicht über die Diskriminierungsgründe „Rasse“ und ethnische Zugehörigkeit hinausging. Die praktische Implementierung dieser Strategien ist allerdings äußerst begrenzt, und der kürzliche Austausch des Generaldirektors sowie der meisten externen Expertinnen und Experten – ohne Neuverträge – droht, die Umsetzung der bereits geplanten Maßnahmen zu beeinträchtigen.

Zusätzlich wurde 2010 eine Stelle mit der Bezeichnung „Osservatorio per la sicurezza contro gli atti discriminatori, OSCAD“ (Beobachtungsstelle zum Schutz vor Diskriminierung) als Teil der Abteilung für öffentliche Sicherheit in der Zentraldirektion der Kriminalpolizei eingerichtet. Dies ist allerdings keine designierte Stelle im Umsetzungsverfahren. Die OSCAD ist eine Sonderstelle der Polizei und der Carabinieri (Militärpolizei). Ihre Mitglieder unterstehen dem Innenministerium (Polizei) und dem Verteidigungsministerium (Carabinieri). Daher ist sie keine unabhängige Stelle, sondern eine Regierungsstelle. Sie hat ein Mandat für alle Arten von Diskriminierung und die folgenden Aufgaben: sie erhält von Institutionen, Berufs- oder Branchenverbänden Berichte über sicherheitsrelevante Diskriminierungsfälle und soll die Lage in Bezug auf Diskriminierung aufgrund von „Rasse“ oder ethnischer Zugehörigkeit, Nationalität, Religion, Geschlecht, Alter, Sprache, körperlicher oder geistiger Behinderung, sexueller Orientierung und sexueller Identität überwachen. Auf Grundlage der eingehenden Berichte plant die OSCAD zielgerichtete Maßnahmen auf lokaler Ebene, die von der Polizei oder den Carabinieri umgesetzt werden, sie überwacht das Ergebnis von Diskriminierungsbeschwerden, die bei der Polizei angezeigt werden, sie arbeitet mit anderen öffentlichen oder privaten Stellen und Organisationen zusammen, die sich gegen Diskriminierung engagieren, sie erarbeitet Schulungen für Polizisten im Antidiskriminierungsrecht und nimmt an Schulungen öffentlicher und privater Institutionen bei, außerdem schlägt sie Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung und Bekämpfung von Diskriminierung vor.

7. Zentrale Punkte

Antidiskriminierung spielt in der Regierungspolitik eine sehr untergeordnete Rolle, was sich unter anderem darin zeigt, dass Italien kein Ministerium für Integration hat und das UNAR mit äußert begrenzten Befugnissen ausgestattet ist. In Bezug auf die nationale Roma-Strategie bedeutet dies zum Beispiel, dass diese, nachdem sie beschlossen wurde, nicht wirksam umgesetzt wurde. Außerdem ist das UNAR nur ein Büro innerhalb der Abteilung für Chancengleichheit, ohne wirkliche Autonomie und damit auch nicht völlig

23

unabhängig. Das UNAR ist klar und vollständig mit der Exekutive verbunden und kann keinerlei unabhängige Tätigkeit ausüben, obwohl es die Regierung in mehreren Fällen kritisiert hat. Allerdings ist zu beachten, dass die Mehrzahl dieser Fälle zuerst von den Medien oder einzelnen Anwälten aufgegriffen wurden und das UNAR sich erst spät und nach starkem Druck von Interessenverbänden dieser Fälle angenommen hat. Die enge Verbindung zur politischen Mehrheit zeigt sich in der Stellung des Direktors und der Experten als „politische Beamte“. Über die Verlängerung ihrer Verträge entscheiden der Abteilungsleiter und der Minister oder die Ministerin nach freiem Ermessen; tatsächlich wurde der Direktor 2015 seines Amts enthoben, nachdem er ein Schreiben an eine Abgeordnete gerichtet und sie aufgefordert hatte, eine diskriminierungsfreie Sprache zu verwenden.

2015 verlängerte das UNAR seinen Vertrag für die Leitung der Kontaktstelle. Sie ist nach wie vor in Betrieb, hat aber keinerlei öffentliche Berichtstätigkeit durchgeführt. Die Kontaktstelle deckt alle in den 2000er-Richtlinien enthaltenen Diskriminierungsgründe und außerdem Nationalität – im Sinne von Staatsangehörigkeit – ab. Die Erweiterung des Geltungsbereichs ist zwar nur durch ministerielle Anweisungen und nicht gesetzlich geregelt, wurde bislang jedoch bestätigt.

Das Fehlen einer klaren Antidiskriminierungspolitik zeigt sich auch daran, dass Italien kaum positive Maßnahmen zugunsten benachteiligter Gruppen kennt, mit Ausnahme traditioneller Maßnahmen zur Eingliederung von Menschen mit Behinderungen und von sprachlichen Minderheiten. Um die Effizienz der Antidiskriminierungsgesetze zu verbessern, wären zahlreiche Reformen erforderlich. Erstens müssen der Begriff der angemessenen Vorkehrungen definiert und Richtlinien eingeführt werden, wie die Pflicht zu angemessenen Vorkehrungen genau aussieht.

Was die unterschiedliche Behandlung von Organisationen mit besonderem Ethos angeht, so gilt die Ausnahme, die in der Gesetzesverordnung Nr. 216/2003 formuliert ist, auch für Organisationen, deren Ethos nicht auf Religion oder Weltanschauung gründet, und geht damit vermutlich über die frühere italienische Regelung hinaus.

In der Rechtsprechung hat es in Bezug auf Sanktionen eine interessante Entwicklung gegeben. Alle Urteile gewähren Schadenersatz für immaterielle Schäden, und bei der Festsetzung des entsprechenden Betrags wird – in Einklang mit Art. 17 Richtlinie 2000/78/EG – auch dessen abschreckende Wirkung berücksichtigt.

Schließlich ist das Nebeneinander unterschiedlicher Gesetzestexte mit ähnlichem Inhalt unnötig und kann zu Rechtsunsicherheit führen; eine Konsolidierung ist jedoch nicht geplant.

24

INTRODUCTION

The national legal system

The Italian legal system is based on a written Constitution which entered into force on 1 January 1948 and is guaranteed by a relatively centralised judicial review of enacted laws adopted by either the national Parliament or regional legislative bodies.

The Italian regions have increasingly important law-making powers within the limits of the state’s exclusive competences, in accordance with Article 117 of the Italian Constitution. Measures for social integration and the practical organisation of public services (social and health services, for instance) fall within the competence of the regions; however, it is the role of central Government to determine ‘the basic level of benefits relating to civil and social entitlements to be guaranteed throughout the national territory’ (Article 117(2)(m)). Moreover, according to Article 177(7) of the Italian Constitution, ‘regional laws shall remove all obstacles which prevent the full equality of men and women in social, cultural and economic life, and shall promote equal access of men and women to elected office.’

The regions and the autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano participate in the EU legislative process and apply and implement international agreements and European Union legal acts. The regions with special constitutional status (Friuli Venezia Giulia, Sardinia, Sicily, Trentino Alto-Adige and Valle d’Aosta) have particularly extensive legislative powers.

The municipalities, provinces and metropolitan cities have regulatory powers in accordance with the system of organisation and mode of operation that has been granted to them.

This division of competences is far from clear and has generated considerable case law from the Constitutional Court. As far as discrimination laws are concerned, in a judgment of 2006 the Constitutional Court quashed the section of a law enacted by the region of Tuscany, which imposed (subject to an administrative sanction) an obligation of non- discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in commercial activities, since the imposition of such an obligation falls under the exclusive competence of the state at national rather than regional level, being an infringement of the individual’s freedom of contract.43

Any laws, regulations, administrative acts or municipal acts must comply with the Constitution. In addition, provisions derived from international human rights instruments (and the related jurisprudence from international courts) are also employed by Italian courts, either in order to interpret Italian enacted law or to directly decide cases.

The equality principle and anti-discrimination laws can be applied by either ordinary or administrative courts; case law is therefore generated by decisions of the Constitutional Court, ordinary judges and administrative judges, depending on whether the case concerns a constitutional review, a dispute among private individuals, a dispute with public entities or a specific action against discrimination.

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives

- Legislative Decree 215/2003 implementing Directive 2000/43/EC on equality of treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin

43 Constitutional Court, Judgment no. 253, 4 July 2006. Other measures contained in the same law introducing actions to combat discrimination in employment were not ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution.

25

Abbreviation: Legislative Decree 215/200344 Date of adoption: 9 July 2003. Entry into force: 27 August 2003 Latest amendments: Article 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011 Grounds covered: Race and ethnic origin Material scope: Public employment, private employment, access to goods or services (including housing), social protection, social advantages, education

- Legislative Decree 216/2003 on the implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC for equal treatment in employment and occupation Abbreviation: Legislative Decree 216/200345 Date of adoption: 9 July 2003. Entry into force: 28 August 2003 Latest amendments: Article 9, paragraph 4-ter, Law decree no. 76/2013, converted into law no. 99/2013 Grounds covered: Religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation Material scope: Private and public employment

44 Italy, Legislative Decree 215/2003 implementing Directive 2000/43/EC on equality of treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (Decreto Legislativo 9 luglio 2003, n. 215, Attuazione della direttiva 2000/43/CE per la parità di trattamento tra le persone indipendentemente dalla razza e dall'origine etnica), available at: www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2003-07-09;215, accessed 4 September 2015. 45 Italy, Legislative Decree 216/2003 on the implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Decreto Legislativo 9 luglio 2003, n. 216 Attuazione della direttiva 2000/78/CE per la parità di trattamento in materia di occupazione e di condizioni di lavoro), available at: www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2003-07-09;216!vig=.

26

1 GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion of equality

The Constitution of Italy includes the following articles dealing with non-discrimination.

Article 3: provides a general clause. It recognises equal dignity and equality under the law without distinction on the grounds of sex, race, language, religion (belief is not mentioned per se), political opinion and personal or social conditions. The grounds of discrimination listed in Article 3 are more restricted than those mentioned in Article 19 TFEU; however, the list has been interpreted as non-exhaustive.46 This article also includes the principle of substantive equality and calls on the state to remove the social and economic obstacles which limit the freedom and equality of citizens and prevent the full development of the human being.

Article 8(1): contains a specific clause regarding freedom and equality of religions. Article 37(1): contains a specific clause regarding sex discrimination in labour law. Article 37(3): contains a specific clause providing for equal pay for equal work of minors. Article 51: contains a specific clause regarding equal access of women and men to elected office.

These provisions apply to all areas covered by the directives and there is no restriction to their material scope. Their material scope is broader than those of the directives.

These provisions are directly applicable in theory and can be enforced against private actors (in addition to against the state). However, there are not many cases of this type, while the majority of the judgments applying constitutional provisions are issued by the Constitutional Court with regard to the validity of laws.

46 Several judgments have been issued by the Constitutional Court applying Article 3 of the Italian Constitution. One of the most relevant ones in the field of sexual orientation is no. 10 of 21 April 2010, http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2010&numero=138. One of the few judgments in the field of disability is no. 80 of 22 February 2010, http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2010&numero=80.

27

2 THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION

2.1 Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered

The following grounds of discrimination are explicitly prohibited in national law: race and ethnic origin; religion and personal belief; age; disability; sexual orientation; sex; nationality; language; political opinion; personal and social condition.

The protection against discrimination on those grounds is provided for in different pieces of law:

• Italian Constitution, Article 3: sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions; • Legislative Decree 215/2003: race and ethnic origin; • Legislative Decree 216/2003: age, disability, religion and belief, sexual orientation; • Legislative Decree 286/1998, Article 43(1): race, colour, ancestry, national or ethnic origin, religion or personal belief; • Act 300/1970, Article 15: political opinion, race, religion, language, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or personal belief.

2.1.1 Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives

The two legislative decrees transposing the directives do not contain any definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination.

Disability: regarding disability, a definition is given by Article 3, paragraph 2, of Act 104/1992 (Framework Law on care, social integration and rights of disabled people),47 according to which, ‘A disabled person is anyone who has a physical, mental or sensory impairment, of a stable or progressive nature, that causes difficulty in learning, establishing relationships or obtaining employment and is such as to place the person in a situation of social disadvantage or exclusion’.

Moreover, the guidance on the concept of ‘persons with disabilities’ provided by Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), ratified by Italy through Act 18/2009, is now part of the Italian legal order.48 Owing to this Convention and in particular to the concept of ‘interaction with various barriers’, a social model of disability has been formally introduced into national law. This definition is in line with the CJEU judgment in the case of HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge)49 but with a wider material scope: in HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge), as well in the previous Chacón Navas case,50 the definition of disability concerns ‘professional life’, while both the definitions provided by the UNCRPD and Act 104/1992 apply to any kind of ‘participation in society’.

Racial and ethnic origin: no definition is provided elsewhere in national law for either of the two elements of this ground. It is worth mentioning that, according to Article 43 of the 1998 Immigration Decree, mainly inspired by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), discrimination on the ground of national origin is prohibited and interpreted as covering nationality (as in citizenship). In fact, discrimination against migrants is one of the most common grounds of claims of

47 Italy, Framework Law on the care, social integration and rights of disabled persons (Legge-quadro per l'assistenza, l'integrazione sociale e i diritti delle persone handicappate), 5 February 1992 no. 104, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1992-02-05;104!vig. 48 No judgment has been delivered concerning the so-called social model of disability according to Art. 1 of the UNCRPD. 49 Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, HK Danmark, 11 April 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:222, point 54. 50 Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU, C-13/05, Chacón Navas, 11 July 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:456.

28

discrimination, in particular when it comes to legal distinctions on the access of third- country nationals to social protection measures and social advantages.51

No definition is given even in the field of equality data collection. For instance, within the framework of the first survey on discrimination, carried out in 2011-12 by the National Office of Statistics,52 ethnic origin was one of the grounds taken into consideration but without giving any definitions and taking migrants as a proxy.

Religion: criteria for identifying the religious character of social groups have been developed in the case law of the Constitutional Court. The main set of standards were set by the Court in a 1995 case53 where the Court stated that, in the absence of agreements with the State, the ‘religious denomination’ of a social group can be established on the basis of ‘public recognition’ or on the basis of its charter (not alone but examined against the backdrop of the organisation’s actual activity) or on the basis of ‘common opinion’. These criteria have been applied and further detailed, especially with regard to Scientology, which, according to the case law of the Supreme Court, meets the criteria for inclusion as a ‘religious denomination’ protected under the Constitution. However, such criteria have never been tested in the context of anti-discrimination cases.

Belief: according to the Court of Rome, and as later confirmed by the Court of Appeal, the notion of belief laid down by Directive 2000/78/EC has been interpreted to include trade union membership.54 Therefore, discrimination suffered by members of a left-wing union was dealt with according to that directive and its implementing legislation, i.e. Legislative Decree 216/2003, while the traditional case law on similar cases usually applies the Workers Act 1970 (Act no. 30).55 In a judgment issued in 2016, the Constitutional Court clarified that, under Article 8 of the Italian Constitution, the Government does not have a duty to open negotiations in order to sign an agreement with churches. Moreover, the refusal by the Government to open or to sign an agreement as requested by the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics does not entail a denial of the rights granted by the Constitution to churches or other religious groups.56

Age: age is taken into account in several pieces of legislation, in particular with regard to labour policy, social issues and social security. Despite the fact that the Italian Constitution only provides express protection to young people, (Article 37(2)), scholars believe that there is a general prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age deriving from Article 3 of the Italian Constitution (‘personal conditions’) and from the interpretation of Article 37(3) afforded by the Constitutional Court, which has also applied the same Article to workers aged between 18 and 21.57

Sexual orientation: no definition is given either of this term or of others used in the same context, such as ‘gender identity’, or ‘transsexual and transgender’ (see for instance

51 A large number of judgments dealing with discrimination on grounds of nationality have been delivered thanks to the active role played by members of an association of lawyers specialising in migration – ASGI – who in some cases take part in proceedings. See the specialised database available at: http://www.asgi.it/tematica/discriminazioni/. 52 The survey was promoted and funded by the Government’s Department for Equal Opportunities, within which the National Equality Body, UNAR, is based. ‘Survey on discriminations on grounds of gender, sexual orientation and ethnic origin’ (IST-02258 Indagine sulle discriminazioni in base al genere, all'orientamento sessuale, alla appartenenza etnica), in National Statistical Programme 2011-2013, at 90-91, http://www.sistan.it/index.php?id=52. 53 Constitutional Court, no. 195 of 27 April 1993, available at: http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=1993&numero=195. 54 Court of Rome, 19 June 2012, www.dplmodena.it/Fiat-Fiom%20-%20Corte%20Appello%20Roma%209-10- 12.pdf. 55 Italy, Workers Act, Law no. 30 of 20 May 1970, www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1970- 05-20;300!vig=. 56 Constitutional Court, no. 52 of 10 March 2016, http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2016&numero=52. 57 Supreme Court, no. 7493 of 19 December 1983, in Foro italiano 1984, I, p. 2567.

29

Tuscan Region Act 63/2004).58 Furthermore, the Italian courts do not provide their own definition of ‘sexual orientation’.

A definition of sexual orientation is provided by the Italian strategy to prevent and combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, enacted to implement Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)5, which was approved in 2013. The strategy has no timeframe and has not thus far been replaced with another one. It is a non-binding document, the implementation of which depends on the Government. Although it could potentially have been referred to by national courts or other bodies dealing with equality and non-discrimination issues, it is not perceived as a key document, and no reference to it has yet been made in judgments. The strategy includes a glossary where several definitions are given. In particular, sexual orientation is defined as: ‘the direction of affective and sexual attraction towards other people: it can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual’.59 Moreover, in recent years, case law has started to extend rights expressly afforded to heterosexual couples to same-sex ones, taking into account, despite not defining sexual orientation.60

2.1.2 Multiple discrimination

In Italy, prohibition of multiple discrimination is not included in the law. A very limited exception is the opening provision (Article 1) of Legislative Decree 216/2003 transposing Directive 2000/78/EC, which says that the decree has been adopted ‘in a perspective that takes into account the different impact that the same forms of discrimination can have on men and women respectively’. Likewise, Article 1 of Legislative Decree 215/2003 transposing Directive 2000/43/EC contains the same statement but with the addition of the ‘existence of forms of racism of a cultural and religious character’. The same wording is repeated at Article 2 of the Prime Minister’s Decree of 11 December 2003, designating UNAR as the equality body according to Article 7 of Directive 2000/43/EC.61

An explicit reference to multiple discrimination is provided for in the Programme of action for the integration of people with disabilities, approved in 2013.62 On page 7 of the Programme, multiple discrimination is taken into account in order to define new criteria to collect data on the integration of people with disabilities so that it will be possible to verify their effective integration and the other factors which ease or hinder integration. The same explicit reference is not made in the proposal of the third Programme of action approved during 2016, where there is only a generic reference to the several diversities existing in modern societies.63

58 Tuscan Region, Provisions against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation or gender identity, (Norme contro le discriminazioni determinate dall'orientamento sessuale o dall'identità di genere), 15 November 2004 no. 63, available at http://raccoltanormativa.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/articolo?urndoc=urn:nir:regione.toscana:legge:2004- 11-15;63. 59 Italy, National strategy to prevent and combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (Strategia nazionale per la prevenzione e il contrasto delle discriminazioni basate sull’orientamento sessuale e sull’identità di genere 2013–2015) http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?p=1921. 60 Constitutional Court 14 April 2010, n° 138, http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2010&numero=138; Supreme Court, 9 February 2015, http://dirittocivilecontemporaneo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Cass.-matrimonio- omosessuale.pdf. 61 Italy, Designation and Organisation of the Office promoting Equality of Treatment and fighting against Discrimination (Costituzione e organizzazione internad dell’Ufficio per la promozione della parità di trattamento e la rimozione delle discriminazioni, di cui all’art. 29 della legge comunitaria 1° marzo 2022, n. 39), available at: http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Decreto-del-Presidente-del- Consiglio-dei-Ministri-11-dicembre-20031.pdf. 62 Italy, Biannual programme of action for the integration of people with disabilities (Adozione del programma di azione biennale per la promozione dei diritti e l'integrazione delle persone con disabilita), 4 October 2013, available at: www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2013/12/28/13A10469/sg, page 37. 63 Italy, Biannual programme of action for the integration of people with disabilities (Adozione del programma di azione biennale per la promozione dei diritti e l'integrazione delle persone con disabilita), July 2016, available at: http://www.osservatoriodisabilita.it/images/PDA_Disabilita_2016_DEF_-dopo-DG_dic2016.pdf.

30

In the 2013 report by the Ufficio per la promozione della parità di trattamento e la rimozione delle discriminazioni fondate sulla razza o sull’origine etnica, UNAR (Office for the promotion of equal treatment and prevention of discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin), the extension of the grounds of discrimination covered by UNAR is seen as a way to address multiple discrimination.64

In Italy, there is no significant case law on this point. In a judgment of the Court of Padua of 17 February 2012, for instance, where the victims had been insulted because they were black and trade union activists, the case was handled as one of racial discrimination, without reference to the multiple discrimination at issue.65

2.1.3 Assumed and associated discrimination a) Discrimination by assumption

In Italy, the following national law (including case law) does not prohibit discrimination based on perception or the assumption of a person’s characteristics:

Legislative Decree 215/2003 and Legislative Decree 216/003.

The issue of assumed discrimination has not yet led to any relevant legal debate. However, the wording of the decrees and of other existing anti-discrimination rules allows a wide interpretation, including this among the kinds of discrimination prohibited.

An interesting judgment in this regard was issued in 2015 regarding a person who was found to be a victim of discrimination because of negative stereotypes about Roma written in a legal handbook.66 This legal handbook included discriminatory examples about criminal behaviours attributed to Roma. The action against the publisher was brought to court by a woman of Roma origin, with the support of two NGOs, the Associazione 21 luglio and ASGI. One of the most interesting points about this judgment is the recognition of the woman’s legal standing: the act of discrimination was not addressed to her specifically, but she qualified as a victim because she was a person belonging to the Roma Community.67 b) Discrimination by association

In Italy, the following national law (including case law) does not prohibit discrimination based on perception or assumption of a person’s characteristics:

Legislative Decree 215/2003 and Legislative Decree 216/003.

The issue of associated discrimination has not yet led to any relevant legal debate. However, the wording of the decrees and of other existing anti-discrimination rules allows a wide interpretation, including this, among the kinds of discrimination prohibited.

2.2 Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) a) Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination

64 From now on the office will be referred to as UNAR and with the short denomination National Office Against Discrimination. See UNAR (2013), Relazione al presidente del consiglio dei ministri – Anno 2013 (Report to the President of the Council of Ministers – Year 2013), available at: www.unar.it/unar/portal/wp- content/uploads/2014/01/RELAZIONE-PCM-2013.pdf, see in particular pp. 9 and 48. 65 http://www.meltingpot.org/IMG/pdf/trib_pd_sent_206_2012_17022012.pdf. 66 Tribunal of Rome, ASGI and Associazione 21 luglio v. Gruppo editoriale Simone, 16 February 2015, available at: http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Tribunale-di-Roma-I-sez.-Civile-1622015-est.-Pratesi- XXX-ASGI-Associazione-21-luglio-avv.-Fachile-C.-Gruppo-Editoriale-Simone-….pdf. 67 Court of Rome, ASGI and Associzione 21 luglio v. Rome Capital and Italian Government, 4 June 2016, http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ordinanza-La-Barbuta.pdf.

31

In Italy, direct discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined in Article 2 of both legislative decrees implementing the two directives, with a faithful transposition of the directives’ definition: direct discrimination occurs when ‘one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation’. An identical definition is provided for by Article 2 of Act 67/2006 on Measures for the judicial protection of persons with disabilities who are victims of discrimination in fields outside employment.68

In a case decided in 2016, the qualification of the challenged adverse treatment as direct or indirect discrimination was a key issue. The case involved a Muslim woman who claimed that a company had not selected her for employment because she wore a headscarf and did not agree to take it off. According to the Tribunal of Milan, at first instance, this was a case of indirect discrimination, and the adverse treatment did not amount to discrimination because it was justified by a legitimate aim and the means employed were proportional. However, at second instance, the Court of Appeal of Milan found that this was a case of direct discrimination on grounds of religion, and that the only applicable exception was that of ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’. The Court of Appeal found that the exception was not satisfied, since the advertisement was for a post of hostess, and ‘flowing hair’ was not required as a genuine and determining characteristic, but as a secondary requirement. Indirectly, the court stated that, if the advertisement had been drafted differently, this factor could have been accepted as a genuine and determining occupational requirement, leaving the employer with wide discretion to define those characteristics that were essential to perform the job. The Court of Appeal ordered the company to pay EUR 500 in non-pecuniary damages. 69 b) Justification of direct discrimination

Justification of direct discrimination is not generally admitted.

2.2.1 Situation testing a) Legal framework

In Italy, the law is silent about the admissibility of situation testing, so it is not clearly permitted, and no specific statutory reference is possible.

The general rules on evidence (Articles 2697-2739 of the Italian Civil Code) may be interpreted in such a way that they allow the use of situation testing, but no cases have arisen so far, and even Italian NGOs do not practise it. b) Practice

In Italy, situation testing is not used in practice. It is not practised even by equality or human rights NGOs.

2.3 Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) a) Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination

68 Italy, Measures for the judicial protection of persons with disabilities who are victims of discrimination (Misure per la tutela giudiziaria delle persone con disabilità vittime di discriminazioni), 1 March 2006 no. 67, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2006-03-01;67!vig. Case law in general shows a broad interpretation of this definition that applies to other forms of discrimination where definitions use the same term. 69 Court of Appeal of Milan, 20 May 2016, Mahmoud Sara v. Evolution Events Srl, available at: http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Corte-d%E2%80%99Appello-di-Milano-sentenza-del-20- maggio-2016-pres.-Vitali-rel.-Casella-XXX-avv.ti-Guariso-e-Neri-c.-Evolution-Events-srl-avv.to-Bertozzi.pdf.

32

In Italy, indirect discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined in Article 2 of both legislative decrees as a situation, ‘where an apparently neutral provision, criterion, practice, act, pact or behaviour would put persons [followed by reference to the specific grounds] at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons’.

An analogous definition is given in Article 2, paragraph 3, of Act 67/2006 on discrimination on ground of disability. b) Justification test for indirect discrimination

Articles 3(4) (race) and 3(6) (other grounds) of the legislative decrees establish that ‘differences in treatment that, even if indirectly discriminatory, are objectively justified by legitimate aims carried out through appropriate and necessary means are not discriminatory acts (…).’

The justification test is in line with the directives and it has not raised any particular issues in its application by the courts.

It is interesting to note that Article 3(6) goes on to say that ‘in particular, acts aiming to exclude from an occupation involving the care, assistance or education of minor’s persons who have been convicted of offences related to sexual freedom of minors or child pornography are legitimate’. This provision has quite limited practical implications, since dismissal on the ground of criminal conviction is always lawful if the crime is related to an occupational activity. Legislators may have wished to prevent the misuse of the ground of ‘sexual orientation’, but making an indirect allusion to a link between paedophilia and sexual orientation is hazardous.

No express reference to justification is made by Act 67/2006 on discrimination on the ground of disability. c) Comparison in relation to age discrimination

No indication is provided of how to make a comparison in relation to age discrimination.

2.3.1 Statistical evidence a) Legal framework

In Italy, there are national rules permitting data collection within the limit set by the Data Protection Act70 and the Workers Act, Act 300/1970.71 According to the former, in particular Article 4 (d), sensitive data are those which may reveal racial and ethnic origin, religious, philosophical or other belief, political opinions, membership of a political party, trade union or religious association or organisation and data concerning health status and sexual identity. These data may be handled within the particular limits set out in general terms in Article 22 of the same act. The collection of sensitive data for statistical purposes is an exception to this regime, in accordance with Article 107, which permits wider parameters for collection, but in compliance with the ethical codes of conduct already in force.

70 Italy: Personal Data Protection Code (Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali), 30 June 2003 no. 196, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2003-06- 30;196!vig. 71 Italy: Provisions on the protection of the freedom and dignity of workers, on freedom of trade unions and their activity in the work place, and on employment – Workers Act of 20 May 1970 (Act no. 300) (Norme sulla tutela della liberta' e dignita' dei lavoratori, della liberta' sindacale e dell'attivita' sindacale, nei luoghi di lavoro e norme sul collocamento), www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1970-05- 20;300!vig=.

33

Access to these data is therefore extremely restricted and they can only be stored and processed with the authorisation of the individuals concerned and of the State Agency for the Protection of Privacy (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali). According to the latter, employers are prohibited from collecting information on their employees concerning ‘their political, religious, or trade-unionist ideas, or facts which are not relevant to the appraisal of the professional skills of the worker’. Such data can be held on file by the employer for various purposes in the interests of the employee (for instance, special benefits for people with a disability or special menus for religious purposes).

In Italy, statistical evidence is permitted by national law in order to establish indirect discrimination. According to Article 28(4) of Legislative Decree 150/2011,72 when a claimant establishes ‘facts, including facts of a statistical character, on which a presumption of discrimination can be based, it is up to the defendant to prove that there has been no discrimination’. b) Practice

In Italy, the collection and use of statistical evidence in order to establish indirect discrimination has very limited practical application.

The first statistical research into gender, sexual orientation and ethnic origin was conducted by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istituto nazionale di statistica, ISTAT) during 2011 and was funded by the Government in order to collect data regarding actual discrimination experienced by people on the grounds ground of sexual orientation and homophobia.73 The national strategies adopted by UNAR have taken this research as a basis for developing a number of activities to be promoted. However, none of these activities has been carried out effectively and no more recent research has been promoted.74 An important piece of case law on this issue is the judgment in the case of FIOM CGIL v. Fiat Fabbrica Italia, issued on 19 June 2012 by the Court of Rome.75 In fact, this was the only case to be decided mainly on the basis of statistics. In this case, statistics were employed as proof of discrimination against workers on the ground of belief. In particular, the defendant held that workers were recruited in an impartial way and through objective criteria, without any discriminatory intent. However, no worker who was a member of the trade union FIOM was employed by Fiat Fabbrica Italia. Statistics showed that the chances were only one in ten million that this had happened by coincidence and not as a consequence of a deliberate intention to discriminate against the workers who had most strongly contested Fiat’s new industrial strategy.

2.4 Harassment (Article 2(3)) a) Prohibition and definition of harassment

72 Italy: Additional Measures to the Civil Procedural Code in order to reduce and simplify civil proceedings, according to Article 54 of Law no. 69 of 19 June 2009, (Decreto legislativo 1 settembre 2011, n. 150 Disposizioni complementari al codice di procedura civile in materia di riduzione e semplificazione dei procedimenti civili di cognizione, ai sensi dell'articolo 54 della legge 18 giugno 2009, n. 69), 1 September 2011 no. 150, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2011- 09-01;150!vig. 73 Istat, The Homosexual Population in Italian Society (La popolazione omosessuale nella società italiana), available at: http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/62168. 74 Italy, National strategy to prevent and combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (Strategia nazionale per la prevenzione e il contrasto delle discriminazioni basate sull’orientamento sessuale e sull’identità di genere 2013–2015) http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?p=1921; ‘National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Caminanti Communities’, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_italy_strategy_en.pdf, in particular at 33-34. Hyperlink last accessed 25 March 2016. 75 Court of Rome, 19 June 2012, http://www.dplmodena.it/21-06-12TribRomaSentFiatDiscrimin.pdf.

34

In Italy, harassment is prohibited in national law. It is defined in Article 2(3) of both legislative decrees implementing the directives, using the same wording taken from the directives, saying that the unwanted conduct must have the effect of ‘creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.

In Italy, harassment explicitly constitutes a form of discrimination. b) Scope of liability for harassment

Where harassment is perpetrated by an employee, in Italy the employer and the employee are liable. Since the legislative decrees are silent on the scope of liability for discrimination, the liability of those other than the individual discriminator must be established on the basis of the general principles of liability in contract and tort.

In the case of a contractual relationship, such as that between employer and employee, the former is liable for the action of the latter, because there is a duty to ensure protection in the working environment.

In the absence of a contractual relationship with the victim of discrimination (even in the form of harassment), the employer will be held liable in tort on the basis of the general principle of liability of the master for the acts of his servant (acts committed while performing their duties).

With regard to trade unions and professional associations, there is no ground for holding them liable for the actions of their members, if they did not contribute actively to the discrimination (for instance, in the case of instructions to discriminate).

In a case in 2012, the Court of Milan convicted a legal person, a bank, of harassment perpetrated by its managers. According to the judge, the bank was to be held liable because the harassment was perpetrated by managers in top positions in the bank who were thus able to influence the majority of employees; the latter were not individually convicted, but in theory it is possible that both the legal person and the individual harasser or discriminator could be held liable for the same acts of discrimination, since Legislative Decree no. 215/2003 expressly applies to both physical and legal persons.

2.5 Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) a) Prohibition of instructions to discriminate

In Italy, instructions to discriminate are prohibited in national law, Article 2(4) of both legislative decrees implementing the two directives. Instructions are not defined.

In Italy, instructions do explicitly constitute a form of discrimination. b) Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate

In Italy, the instructor and the discriminator are liable. Since the decrees are silent on the scope of liability for discrimination, the sanctions provided for persons other than the individual discriminator must be established on the basis of the general principles of liability in contract and tort.

Liability for acts of third parties is more limited and must be linked to a direct act or omission by the defendant. The individual harasser or other discriminator is jointly liable with their employer. If the employer or other principal defendant is liable without personal fault, or on the basis of a slighter degree of fault, they can bring an action against the discriminator to obtain complete or partial compensation of the amount paid as damages.

35

With regard to instruction to discriminate, a case from 2013 is relevant. The Court of Catanzaro dismissed an appeal from the parents of a disabled student against an order to discriminate given by the local administrative director to teachers and schoolmates. According to the court, the order to discriminate could not be condemned per se since it did not produce any discriminatory effects and the administrative director was sanctioned by the Regional Department of Education.

2.6 Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 2000/78) a) Implementation of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities in the area of employment

In Italy, the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is included in law. It is not defined.

The relevant provision is Article 3(3-bis) of Legislative Decree 216/2003, which was inserted in order to comply with an infringement judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).76 According to the Article: ‘in order to apply the principle of equal treatment of persons with disabilities, private and public employers shall provide for reasonable accommodation according to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by Act 18/2009, in workplaces, to guarantee persons with disabilities full equality with other workers. Public employers shall apply this provision without any additional burden and with the human, financial and technical resources already available’. This is a standard formula included in various laws in Italy in order to limit public spending; however, it is likely to breach the duty to provide reasonable accommodation in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC, which excludes ‘disproportionate’ burdens, thus entailing that a sort of ‘soft’ burden may be necessary and may have to be borne by employers. b) Practice

With regard to the practical implementation, problems are associated with the requirement at the end of the provision, addressed to public employers who are bound to respect the duty to provide for reasonable accommodation ‘without any additional burden and with the human, financial and technical resources already available’. This is a sort of ritual clause in Italian laws in an era of economic crisis and financial constrictions, but it is hardly likely that an employer, either public or private, will be able to afford to provide reasonable accommodation without any additional financial or human resources. In general there is no practical guidance on how to implement the provision and a there could be some difficulty around the interpretation of the exact duty on employers.

In this regard, a new law was introduced in 2015, aiming to simplify the employment of persons with disability by amending Law 1999 no. 68.77 According to new Article 14, the Regional Fund for the Employment of Persons with Disability shall fund regional programmes for the inclusion of workers with disability. This includes the reimbursement

76 Italy, Law Decree converted into law regarding preliminary urgent measures for the promotion of employment, in particular of young people, of social cohesion and on other urgent financial measures (Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 28 giugno 2013, n. 76, recante primi interventi urgenti per la promozione dell'occupazione, in particolare giovanile, della coesione sociale, nonchè in materia di Imposta sul valore aggiunto (IVA) e altre misure finanziarie urgenti), 9 August 2013 no. 99, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2013-08-09;99!vig. 77 Italy: Legislative Decree of 14 September 2015, no. 151, Simplification of procedures and duties upon citizens and companies (Disposizioni di razionalizzazione e semplificazione delle procedure e degli adempimenti a carico di cittadini e imprese e altre disposizioni in materia di rapporto di lavoro e pari opportunità, in attuazione della legge 10 dicembre 2014, n. 183), http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2015-09-14;151!vig.

36

of costs incurred by employers to provide for reasonable accommodation for persons with limited working capacity (below 50%).

Case law on reasonable accommodation shows that employers are not willing to change their organisation or to bear the burden of additional costs in order to provide the necessary accommodation for persons with disability. A relevant decision was issued by the Court of Bologna in 2013,78 anticipating the CJEU judgment against Italy and applying both Directive 2000/78/EC and the UNCRPD. The court held that the local health service was liable for the failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee on a fixed-term contract and required it to pay compensation of damages equivalent to the six months’ salary the claimant would have earned had he been hired.79 c) Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection

There is no specific definition of disability for the purposes of claiming reasonable accommodation. The issue of definition has been dealt with in a judgment made by the Court of Pisa on 16 April 2015: the court held that an employer should provide reasonable accommodation in order to allow the employee, who was no longer able to perform her tasks on account of her status of person with a disability, to continue working in the same company, and it therefore annulled her dismissal.80 The employee was declared disabled after starting to suffer from an incurable illness, which resulted in a physical impairment; in particular, she was unable to perform the activities that she was employed for and, for this reason, she was dismissed. The court quoted the CJEU case law and held that the notion of disability includes the state of health of a person who suffers from an illness ‘which, in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers, and the limitation is a long-term one […]’.81 The court found the dismissal discriminatory on grounds of disability, because the employer had a duty to provide reasonable accommodation and a duty to explore the feasibility of accommodations that could allow the employee to continue working in the same company. According to the court, the employer had made no effort to find alternative arrangements and share the burden between the workers, and it therefore annulled the employee’s dismissal. The employer was ordered to reinstate the worker in her job, to pay her the salary not earned and to pay EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non- material damage. d) Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in areas other than employment for people with disabilities

In Italy, there is no duty to provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities outside the employment field.

Italian law regarding people with disabilities is not based on the general concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ outside the field of employment. This was clarified by the CJEU in its judgment against Italy of 4 July 2013. Indeed the Court rejected the basic argument raised by the Italian Government, according to which Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC was implemented not in Legislative Decree no. 216/2003 but in other laws already in force even before the transposition of the anti-discrimination directives. In this regard, the Government referred to Act 104/1992, the Framework Law on the care, social integration and rights of disabled persons; Act 68/1999 on the Right of disabled

78 Court of Bologna, Judgment of 17 June 2013, http://adapt.it/adapt-indice-a-z/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/trib_bg_18_6_13.pdf. 79 Ibidem. 80 Court of Pisa, 16 April 2015, http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2015/10/19/tribunale- pisa-ordinanza-del-16-aprile-2015/. 81 Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU, C-335/11, HK Danmark, 11 April 2013, point 41.

37

people to work;82 Act 381/1991 on Social co-operatives; and Legislative Decree no. 81/2008 on work health and safety. According to the CJEU, while all these laws provide for measures of aid and support, social integration and protection of people with disabilities, none of them provide for a general duty to provide reasonable accommodation, that is to offer effective solutions to eliminate ‘the various barriers that hinder the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in professional life […]’.83

A positive development in this regard has been triggered by the UNCRPD, which was ratified in Italy by Act 18/2009. According to the Convention, the denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination and specific duties are placed upon Governments in the field of education and in cases of deprivation of personal freedom. e) Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities

In Italy, failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation does count as discrimination.

Provisions of Article 3(3-bis) of Legislative Decree 216/2003 on reasonable accommodation are included not in Article 2, regarding definition of discrimination, but in Article 3, on the scope of application. According to Article 3(3-bis), the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is a means to respect the principle of equality of treatment of people with disabilities. There is no other specific link to the prohibition of discrimination nor any specific sanction, other than the general ones provided for discrimination in general. Reference to the UNCRPD (thanks to its ratification by Act 18/2009), leads to the same conclusion.

This is what is stated in a judgment from the Court of Bologna of 18 June 2013: the court held that the local health service was liable for failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a disabled fixed-term employee and required it to pay compensation of damages amounting to the equivalent of the six months’ salary the claimant would have earned had he been hired. The same stance was taken by the Court of Pisa in its judgment of 16 April 2015: the court held that an employer should provide reasonable accommodation in order to allow the employee, who was no longer able to perform her tasks on account of her status of person with a disability, to continue working in the same company, and it therefore annulled her dismissal.84 Similarly, in 2016, the Court of Ivrea found that the dismissal of an employee with disability was discriminatory, in particular because the employer had violated his duty to provide for reasonable accommodation for persons with disability according to Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC and its implementing legislation, Article 3, paragraph 3-bis, of Legislative Decree no. 216/2003. The tribunal annulled the dismissal and ordered the employer to let the worker return to her previous post, as well as ordering it to pay her EUR 1 824.92 for 12 months (net) and EUR 7 500 for legal fees.85 f) Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds

In Italy, there is no general duty to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds in the public and/or the private sector.

82 Italy: Law no. 68 of 12 March 1999, Provisions on the right to work of persons with disability (Norme per il diritto al lavoro dei disabili), http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1999-03-12;68!vig. 83 Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU, C-335/11, HK Danmark, 11 April 2013, point 54. 84 Court of Pisa, 16 April 2015, http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2015/10/19/tribunale- pisa-ordinanza-del-16-aprile-2015/. 85 Court of Ivrea, 24 February 2016 no. 8248, TG v. OMP S.r.l., available at: http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2016/04/20/licenziamento-giustificato-motivo- oggettivo-consistente-nella-sopravvenuta-inidoneita-fisica-psichica-del-lavoratore-lobbligo-datoriale-dei- ragionevoli-adattamenti-tribunale-ivrea-ordina/.

38

It is worth mentioning a form of reasonable accommodation measures that are provided for in the field of religion. Forms of favourable differential treatment exist with regard to religion for religious organisations which have signed agreements with the state. Such positive action mostly relates to holidays for Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists.86 The statute transposing the agreement with the Adventists, for instance, establishes the right of those employed by either private or public employers to refrain from working on Saturdays, with the limitation that this should not affect ‘essential public services’ and that the right is enjoyed ‘within the framework of the organisation of work’; incompatibility with the organisation of work must be proved by the employer. With regard to Adventists, these legislative rules have usually been interpreted by courts in favour of employees through a narrow interpretation of the limitations. Dismissals based on a refusal to work on Saturdays have normally been considered illegal, and the court has ordered the reinstatement of the worker and payment of damages.87 With regard to Jewish people, the relevant act also establishes an obligation to take into consideration the obligation to rest on Saturdays when setting dates of tests for public sector employment.

In the absence of an agreement with the State, Muslims do not enjoy a legal right to special measures. Proposals for such an agreement drafted by various Italian Islamic associations include a range of measures, such as the adaptation of working time in order to respect Friday rest, daily prayers, Ramadan and so on. g) Accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure

In Italy, national law requires services available to the public, buildings and infrastructure to be designed and built in a disability-accessible way.88 Violation of the mandatory requirements contained in these rules could certainly be considered as a form of discrimination, according to Act 18/2009 implementing the UNCRPD. The level of compliance is high with regard to public buildings, while for private premises it is affected by the general problem of enforcing construction standards (the situation can vary greatly from place to place).

In Italy, national law contains a general duty to provide accessibility by anticipation for people with disabilities, in accordance with the UNCRPD – to which the law of ratification and execution refers directly.89 In particular, the principle of accessibility is referred to in the ‘Programme of action on disability’ and linked to the principle of non-discrimination.90

86 See Italy, Agreement with the Adventists faith (Norme per la regolazione dei rapporti tra lo Stato e l'Unione italiana delle Chiese cristiane avventiste del 7° giorno), 22 November 1998 no. 516, Article 17; Agreement with the Jewish faith (Norme per la regolazione dei rapporti tra lo Stato e l'Unione delle Comunità ebraiche italiane), 8 March 1989 no. 101. Both acts are available at: http://www.governo.it/Presidenza/USRI/confessioni/intese_indice.html. 87 See, for instance, the judgment of the Court of Rome of 6 November 1998, in Il diritto ecclesiastico, Il, 2000, p. 95 ff. 88 Italy, Measures to overcome architectural barriers and to remove architectural barriers in private buildings (Disposizioni per favorire il superamento e l’eliminazione delle barriere architettoniche negli edifici privati), 9 January 1989, no. 13, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1989-01-09;13!vig; Italy, Regulation regarding measures to overcome architectural barriers in public buildings, areas and services (Regolamento recante norme per l'eliminazione delle barriere architettoniche negli edifici, spazi e servizi pubblici), available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.del.presidente.della.repubblica:1996-07- 24;503!vig. 89 A general duty comes from the UNCRPD, as ratified and executed under Act 18/2009, which refers directly to the text of the Convention (Ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone con disabilità, con Protocollo opzionale, fatta a New York il 13 dicembre 2006 e istituzione dell'Osservatorio nazionale sulla condizione delle persone con disabilità) available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2009-03-03;18!vig. Relevant provisions are provided for by the Framework Law on the care, social integration and rights of disabled persons (Legge- quadro per l'assistenza, l'integrazione sociale e i diritti delle persone handicappate), 5 February 1992 no. 104, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1992-02-05;104!vig. 90 Italy, Presidential Decree on the Adoption of the biannual programme of action on the rights and integration of persons with disabilities (Decreto del presidente della repubblica, 4 ottobre 2013, Adozione del

39

In this context accessibility is defined in accordance with the Convention as a prerequisite to allow people with disabilities to fully enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms in every field. This applies not only to the physical built environment but also to goods, services, communication and the media. In the same Programme several measures are proposed, both reforming the legal order with the formal introduction of the principle and giving practical guidelines to implement it in the following sectors: environment, internal and external infrastructure, mobility and access to information technology, communication and the media.

A specific provision is that of Law 9 January 2004 no. 4 on Measures to promote access by persons with disabilities to information technology.91 Several provisions apply to the public administration and to the accessibility via the internet of their resources. Article 4, paragraph 4, of the same law provides for a specific duty upon employers to give employees with disabilities appropriate hardware and software and the necessary technology related to the activities to be performed. h) Accessibility of public documents

In Italy, there is no general requirement for public services to translate their documents into Braille. Specific provisions apply, in particular there is a duty to provide expiry dates of medication in Braille.92

Law 9 January 2004 no. 4 on Measures to promote access by persons with disabilities to information technology,93 provides a duty to guarantee that all digital content of the public administration is accessible by people with disabilities. The duty also applies to all schools; in particular, framework contracts between schools and publishers must include the duty to provide school libraries with digital versions of educational materials which are accessible by students with disabilities and support teachers. In the Programme of action on disability, translation into Braille and sign language is taken into account as one of the skills to be acquired by teachers and support staff.94

With regard to sign language, a debate has arisen about the implementation of the UNCRPD in relation to the recognition of sign language and the identity of deaf culture. Many experts and two organisations have contested the approach behind the official recognition of sign language as an essential element of the identity of deaf culture, because they consider that there is a risk of lowering the level of integration and support afforded to deaf people, in particular children.95 The issue is twofold. First of all there is the scientific question of the preferred approach in relation to deaf people (preserving and promoting deaf culture and sign language or promoting early diagnosis and the most appropriate remedy, such as prostheses). If the latter approach is chosen, it is then necessary to resolve a legal question. This is because Act 104/1992 is inspired by the idea of integrating people with disabilities into society, as well as providing all the

programma di azione biennale per la promozione dei diritti e l'integrazione delle persone con disabilita), available at www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2013/12/28/13A10469/sg, p. 28. 91 Italy, Law no. 4 of 9 January 2004, Measures to promote access by persons with disabilities to information technology (Disposizioni per favorire l'accesso dei soggetti disabili agli strumenti informatici), http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2004-01-09;4!vig. 92 Italy, Ministerial Decree of 13 April 2007 regarding the publication of expiry dates of medication in Braille (Modalità di indicazione della data di scadenza in caratteri Braille sulle confezioni dei medicinali. Termine di decorrenza dell'obbligo di riportare ad inchiostro la data di scadenza sulle confezioni di medicinali), http://gazzette.comune.jesi.an.it/2007/96/4.htm. 93 Italy, Law no. 4 of 9 January 2004, Measures to promote access by persons with disabilities to information technology (Disposizioni per favorire l'accesso dei soggetti disabili agli strumenti informatici), http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2004-01-09;4!vig. 94 Italy, Presidential Decree on the Adoption of the biannual programme of action on the rights and integration of persons with disabilities (Decreto del presidente della repubblica, 4 ottobre 2013, Adozione del programma di azione biennale per la promozione dei diritti e l'integrazione delle persone con disabilita), available at www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2013/12/28/13A10469/sg, Chapter 5, line 5.h. 95 See the documents available at: https://comitatonazionalegenitorifamiliaridisabiliuditivi.wordpress.com/.

40

available therapies to lower the individual’s impairment. This approach could clash with a strong affirmation of sign language as an essential element of ‘deaf culture’, which in certain cases could contribute to supporting policies which aim to underline differences instead of reducing them. The question then arises of whether the approach, rights and principle enshrined in a national law (such as Act 104/1992) can be changed to implement a human rights convention, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, if this convention lowers the level of protection already granted by a state. The answer should be in the negative but it could be very useful to have a pragmatic guideline based on scientific grounds issued by the European Union, as the EU is also a party to the UNCRPD.

41

3 PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE

3.1 Personal scope

3.1.1 EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78)

In Italy, there are no residence or citizenship/nationality requirements for protection under the relevant national laws transposing the directives.

3.1.2 Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) a) Protection against discrimination

In Italy, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons for the purpose of protection against discrimination. This comes from Article 3(1) of both decrees implementing the two directives which provides for the application of the principle of equal treatment to all persons either in both the public and private sectors. b) Liability for discrimination

In Italy, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons for the purpose of liability for discrimination. This is derived from the general provision in Article 3(1) of both decrees implementing the two directives and from the provision in Article 1 of Act 67/2006 on Discrimination against persons with disability in fields outside employment.96 Moreover, two liability provisions are mentioned in Legislative Decree 286/1998 (the Immigration Decree).97 Article 43(2)(e), according to which there is discrimination in the case of an act or treatment promoted by an employer which places workers in a situation of particular disadvantage on grounds of their race, ethnic or linguistic origin, religion or citizenship. No specific provision covers other grounds of discrimination. Article 44(10), specifically addresses the liability of employers by giving trade unions the right to legal standing in cases of collective discrimination. Finally, the following paragraph of the same Article concerns sanctions against legal persons, such as the suspension of entitlement to any sort of public financial assistance and, in the most serious cases, disqualification from entitlement to any public financial assistance or tenders for up to two years.

3.1.3 Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) a) Protection against discrimination

In Italy, the personal scope of national law covers the private and public sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of protection against discrimination. This is derived from Article 3(1) of both decrees implementing the two directives, and provides for the application of the principle of equal treatment to all persons in both the public and private sectors.

The same wide scope of application is found in Article 1 of Act 67/2006 on disability discrimination and in Articles 43(2)(e) and 44(10) of Legislative Decree 286/1998 (the Immigration Decree).

96 Italy, Measures for the judicial protection of persons with disabilities who are victims of discrimination (Misure per la tutela giudiziaria delle persone con disabilità vittime di discriminazioni), 1 March 2006 no. 67, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2006-03-01;67!vig. 97 Italy, Legislative Decree on immigration and the treatment of foreign citizens – Immigration Decree (Testo Unico delle disposizioni concerneneti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero), 25 July 1998, no. 286.

42

b) Liability for discrimination

In Italy, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers the private and public sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of liability for discrimination. This is derived from Article 3(1) of both the decrees implementing the two directives, and provides for the application of the principle of equal treatment to all persons in both the public and private sectors, without any further specification or exception regarding liability.

The same wide scope of application is found in Article 1 of Act 67/2006 on disability discrimination and in Articles 43(2)(e) and 44(10) of Legislative Decree 286/1998 (the Immigration Decree).

3.2 Material scope

3.2.1 Employment, self-employment and occupation

In Italy, national legislation applies to all areas of private and public sector employment, self-employment and occupation, including contract work, self-employment, military service and holding statutory office, for the five grounds. This is derived from the combination of the provisions on the personal scope of application – Article 3(1) of both decrees implementing the two directives (215/2003 and 216/2003) – with the provision on the material scope of application, in particular Article 3(1) (a-d).

3.2.2 Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))

In Italy, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, for the five grounds, in both private and public sectors, as described in the directives.

The key provision – Article 3(1)(a) – on the material scope of the legislative decrees transposing the directives (215/2003 and 216/2003) expressly establishes that the prohibition of discrimination and the related judicial remedies apply to all persons in the public and private sectors with reference to ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions’.

A similar provision is contained in Articles 43(2)(e) 44(10) of the Immigration Decree.

No distinctions apply between branches of activity or levels of professional hierarchy

3.2.3 Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals (Article 3(1)(c))

In Italy, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: working conditions including pay and dismissals, for all five grounds and for both private and public employment.

The key provision – Article 3(1)(b) – on the material scope of the legislative decrees transposing the directives (215/2003 and 216/2003) expressly establishes that the prohibition of discrimination and the related judicial remedies apply to all persons in the public and private sectors with reference to ‘employment and working conditions, including promotions, dismissals and pay’.

43

Similarly, Article 43(2) of the Immigration Decree provides for general protection of workers from discrimination.

Occupational pensions constituting part of pay

This area is fully and expressly covered by the decrees for all the grounds of the two directives, plus nationality, on the basis of the 1998 Immigration Decree. Italian law can thus be considered to be in line with Maruko standards.98 Contractual and non- contractual conditions of employment are both covered by the general principles of labour law.

Occupational pensions are regulated in a highly formalised manner that does not allow factors other than age, gender and type of profession to be taken into account. Indirect discrimination on one of the grounds covered by Directive 2000/78/EC could be challenged on the basis of general constitutional equal treatment principles

3.2.4 Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b))

In Italy, national legislation applies to vocational training outside the employment relationship, such as that provided by technical schools or universities, or such as adult lifelong learning courses.

The key provision – Article 3(1)(c) – on the material scope of the legislative decrees transposing the directives (215/2003 and 216/2003) expressly establishes that the prohibition of discrimination and related judicial remedies apply to all persons in the public and private sectors with reference to ‘access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including practical work experience’.

3.2.5 Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations (Article 3(1)(d))

In Italy, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: membership of, and involvement in workers’ or employers’ organisations as formulated in the directives for all five grounds and for both private and public employment.

The key provision – Article 3(1)(d) – on the material scope of the legislative decrees transposing the directives (215/2003 and 216/2003) expressly establishes that the prohibition of discrimination and the related judicial remedies apply to all persons in the public and private sectors with reference to ‘membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations’.

3.2.6 Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43)

In Italy, national legislation prohibits discrimination in social protection, including social security and healthcare, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. The key provision is Article 3(1) (e-f) of Decree 215/2003.

98 The CJEU confirmed that occupational pensions constitute part of an employee’s pay under Directive 2000/78/EC. CJEU, Judgment of 1 April 2008, Tadao Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, C-267/06, points 59-61.

44

Protection against discrimination on grounds of ancestry, religion, national or ethnic origin, religious beliefs and practices in the field of social protection, including social security and healthcare is also found in Article 43 of the Immigration Decree.

With regard to disability, according to Article 1 of Act 67/2006, this law has a general application and therefore also covers social protection, including social security and healthcare.

In these fields, national anti-discrimination laws do not cover discrimination on grounds of age and sexual orientation.

As far as third-country nationals are concerned, the Constitutional Court has clarified the limits that national Government, regions and municipalities face when they make a differentiation on the ground of nationality. According to the Court, no limit may be applied to access to social protection measures relating to the basic needs of persons, which are protected as fundamental rights by the Italian Constitution.99

Article 3.3 exception (Directive 2000/78)

National law relies on the exception in Article 3.3, but this point has not yet caused any difficulties.

3.2.7 Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43)

In Italy, national legislation prohibits discrimination with regard to social advantages, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive.

The national provision contains the same wording as the directive (‘prestazioni sociali’ in Italian) and is included in the provisions of Decree 215/2003 concerning the scope of application, that is Article 3(1)(g). The inclusion of social advantages is also derived from Article 43 of Legislative Decree 286/1998 (the Immigration Decree) and Article 1 of the Disability act 67/2006, stating that both are acts with general application.

As far as migrants are concerned, the enjoyment of social advantages may be limited for third-country nationals. However, different treatments grounded only on nationality are not admissible. On the contrary, a distinction based on the length of residency in the municipality or in the region is acceptable, whether or not it is proportional and only in cases where the benefit granted goes beyond the basic needs of persons.100 In a case decided on 21 June 2017, the Court of Justice gave its interpretation of the limits to access to social benefit for migrants holding a single permit in line with Directive 2011/98/EC.101 The Court of Appeal of Genoa referred the case to the CJEU, asking for an interpretation of Directive 2011/98/EU, according to which migrants holding a single residence permit enjoy a right to equal treatment, with limited exceptions, that Member States may provide for in their implementing laws. According to the CJEU, Member States are not allowed to deny a social benefit to a third-country citizen holding a single permit of stay, since Article 12 of Directive 2011/98/EC grants them the right to equality of treatment with nationals of the Member States.

3.2.8 Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43)

In Italy, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the education, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. The relevant provision is Article 3(1)(h) of Legislative Decree 215/2003. Religion and nationality are covered by Article 43 of Legislative Decree

99 Constitutional Court judgments no. 187/2010; no. 40/2013; no. 22/2015 and no. 230/2015. Available at: www.cortecostituzionale.it. 100 Italian Constitutional Court no. 141/2014, available at www.cortecostituzionale.it. 101 CJEU, Martinez Silva, C-449/16, 21 June 2017.

45

286/1998 (the Immigration Decree), while disability is covered by the law against disability discrimination (Art. 1 of Act 67/2006).

With regard to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, national provisions do not apply to sectors outside of employment, but Italy has introduced several initiatives to promote equal treatment and prevent discrimination and homophobia in several fields, including education. In particular, education is one of the four pillars of the Italian strategy to prevent and fight discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, developed by UNAR to implement the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)5. However, the first educational activities in this field, such as the publication of educational materials, elicited severe disapproval from Catholic and centre-right members of Parliament together with Catholic associations, eventually inducing UNAR to cease its activities in this area. This example shows that it is very difficult in Italy to deal with discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation notwithstanding evidence of the existence of discrimination on this ground.

In the field of education, national laws against discrimination do not cover discrimination on grounds of age nor sexual orientation.

Migrants and Italian nationals benefit equally from anti-discrimination law enforcement and implementation in the field of education. The Government issued guidelines for the reception and integration of migrant pupils based on the principle of including all students, even those belonging to families who are not staying regularly in Italy.102 Moreover, a committee has been set up in order to monitor and promote actions relating to the integration of migrant pupils.103 a) Pupils with disabilities

In Italy, there are no problems with the general approach to education for pupils with disabilities. Problems are raised by the lack of funding that forces local administrators to reduce or only allow minimum hours of input from support teachers in schools.

The Italian approach in this regard is definitely to include children with disabilities in mainstream education, with individualised special support. Children therefore attend the same schools they would attend according to the ordinary admission rules and are assisted in by support teachers, in addition to their ordinary teachers, depending on the nature of their disability.

It should be noted that in 2010 the Italian Constitutional Court found illegal legislative provisions which set limits on the number of teachers employed to support disabled students and which revoked the previous option of employing new, specialist teachers for students with particularly severe disabilities on fixed-term contracts.104 The Court declared that it was constitutionally illegal to set limits to the provision of specialist support that failed to take the situation of the individual into account. The Court’s starting point was that ‘disabled people do not constitute a homogenous group’ and that for each form of disability, ‘it is, therefore, necessary to identify mechanisms to remove obstacles that take into account the type of [disability] affecting the individual’. Against this background, removing the possibility of employing support teachers for students with significant additional support needs was, in the Court’s view, ‘unreasonable’. According to the Court, disabled people have a ‘fundamental right’ to education and, although it recognised that the state had a ‘discretionary power to identify measures for the protection of disabled persons’, it also reaffirmed (as already stated in its previous case

102 Italy: Linee guida per l’accoglienza e l’integrazione degli alunni stranieri in Italia, available at: http://www.istruzione.it/allegati/2014/linee_guida_integrazione_alunni_stranieri.pdf. 103 Italy: Osservatorio nazionale per l'Integrazione degli alunni stranieri, http://www.indire.it/2017/02/28/lintegrazione-degli-alunni-immigrati-in-italia-e-in-altri-paesi-a-confronto/ 104 Constitutional Court, Judgment no. 80 of 22 February 2010, available at: www.cortecostituzionale.it.

46

law) that ‘such discretion is not absolute and is limited by the respect of a minimum core of guarantees’. An individualised approach to the needs of disabled people was, according to the Court, constitutionally imposed by Article 24(2)(c) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and by the fact that the legislation on educational support for disabled children aims to pursue an ‘evident national interest’ implementing Article 38(3) of the Italian Constitution (right to education of disabled people).

The same principles have been restated by several judgments, the most relevant of which is that issued by the Supreme Court on 5 December 2014, which is still the leading case.105 In this case the parents of a disabled child had challenged the decision of the school to reduce the employment of a support teacher from 25 hours a week to 12, purely on the grounds of cost. Following the judgment, the school was required to grant the total amount of hours and to pay EUR 5 000 in non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court notes that the right to education is one of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities. The Court refers to the relevant international sources, such as the UNCRPD, ratified in Italy and transposed by Act 18/2009, and the provisions on equality and non-discrimination in the EU Treaties and in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to the Supreme Court, the reduction to the support teacher’s hours made by the school is indirect discrimination on the ground of disability.

A relevant provision is that of the law of 9 January 2004 no. 4 on Measures to promote access by persons with disabilities to information technology.106 This duty applies to every school; in particular, framework contracts between schools and publishers must include the duty to provide school libraries with digital versions of educational materials which are accessible for students with disabilities and support teachers. b) Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils

In Italy, there are no specific patterns, such as segregation, existing in education regarding Roma pupils. Inclusion of Roma children in classes has sometimes caused an overreaction by majority-population parents and the current anti-Roma hostility can entail further problems. However, there is as yet no basis for saying that structural discriminatory patterns exist within the education system. The limited schooling of Roma derives from factors other than obstacles to their admission to schools. One very dramatic problem is the impact of the housing system on children’s school attendance. In particular, Roma segregation in camps, often established far from public services, including schools, has an adverse impact on school attendance by Roma pupils. Moreover, the frequent evictions of illegal settlements are devastating. Since some of the children living in these settlements attend school, the eviction of their camp without attention to their situation can disrupt an otherwise relatively successful educational path. No significant improvement was recorded in this regard during 2017, and it appears that forced evictions have actually increased.107

The number of Roma pupils within the education system is around 13 000. The school drop-out rate is much higher than the average, with 50 % of Roma children dropping-out between the primary and elementary school levels and 95 % dropping out between the elementary and higher levels.108 2016 data for the city of Rome, where the majority of

105 Supreme Court, Judgment no. 25011 of 25 November 2014, available at: http://dirittocivilecontemporaneo.com/2014/11/per-le-sezioni-unite-la-mancata-attuazione-del-piano- educativo-individualizzato-elaborato-per-il-sostegno-scolastico-dellalunno-in-situazione-di-handicap- costituisce-una-discriminazione-indiretta/. 106 Italy, Law no. 4 of 9 January 2004, Measures to promote access by persons with disabilities to information technology, (Disposizioni per favorire l'accesso dei soggetti disabili agli strumenti informatici), http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2004-01-09;4!vig. 107 Associazione 21 luglio, Activity Report 2017: http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/Rapporto_Annuale-2017_web.pdf. 108 Associazione 21 Lluglio, Activity Report 2014, pp. 30-32, available at: http://www.21luglio.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/Rapporto-annuale-Associazione-21-luglio.pdf.

47

Roma people live, shows that the drop-out rate is even higher there, with only 10 % of Roma pupils attending school on a daily basis.109

The national Roma strategy focuses on school drop-out rates and promotes actions to prevent it, including specific training for teachers within the framework agreement of cooperation agreed with the most representative associations.110 Since the main reason for dropping out of school by Roma pupils is their living conditions, these measures are likely to produce minimal results.111

3.2.9 Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43)

In Italy, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: access to and supply of goods and services as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. The relevant provision is Article 3(1)(i) of Legislative Decree 215/2003 on racial discrimination. In this field protection against discrimination on grounds of ancestry, religion, national or ethnic origin, religious beliefs and practices is also included in Article 43 of the Immigration Decree.

Disability is covered by Act 67/2006 on Measures for the judicial protection of persons with disabilities who are victims of discrimination. The relevant provision is Article 1, which provides for a general scope of application, so that the act may apply to discrimination in access to and the supply of goods and services. This law is directly connected to Framework Law 102/1994 on the rights and social integration of persons with disability. Both these provisions are of a general character, and they do not provide for specific duties such as good manufacture or design in order to make goods more suitable for persons with disability.

In these fields, national laws against discrimination do not cover discrimination on grounds of age and sexual orientation.

Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately

In Italy, national law does not distinguish between goods and services available to the public (e.g. in shops, restaurants or banks) and those only available privately (e.g. limited to members of a private organisation).

3.2.10 Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43)

In Italy, national legislation prohibits discrimination in housing, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. The relevant provision is Article 3(1)(i) of Legislative Decree 215/2003 on race. Protection against discrimination on grounds of ancestry, religion, national or ethnic origin, religious beliefs and practices in the field of housing is also included in Article 43 of the Immigration Decree.

Disability is covered by Act 67/2006 on disability discrimination. The relevant provision is Article 1, which provides a general protection against discrimination, therefore covering housing. There is no positive duty in this law regarding adaptations to housing, nor is such a duty provided for elsewhere, except for the building of new blocks of flats.

109 Associazione 21 Lluglio, Activity Report 2016: http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/RAPPORTO-ANNUALE_2016_WEB.pdf, page 58. 110 Italy, National Strategy for the inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers 2012-2020 (Strategia nazionale d’inclusione dei Rom, dei Sinti, e dei Caminanti 2012/2020), pp. 52-65, available at: www.unar.it/unar/portal/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Strategia-Rom-e-Sinti.pdf. 111 See the press release issued by the Associazione 21 luglio on International Children’s Day regarding the direct link between living in camps and the low level of access to school by Roma children, available at: http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/giornata-infanzia-2017/.

48

People with disabilities (and, in some cases, older people) can enjoy a variety of priority rights in the allocation of public housing, since the rankings are based on a complex system of points which takes into account a number of social factors, including disabilities. Rankings are created at regional and municipal levels through regional laws and local regulations, thus making a general description difficult.

In these areas, national laws against discrimination do not cover discrimination on grounds of age or sexual orientation.

The issue of housing is relevant with regard to rules which are beyond the scope of application of the directive, since limitations to access to public housing for ethnic and religious groups can be a practical effect of formal distinctions based on nationality, which could possibly lead in some cases to an interpretation that nationality may amount to discrimination on the basis of racial or ethnic origin.

As far as migrants are concerned, according to the Italian Constitutional Court, an overt distinction on the ground of nationality regarding access to social housing is not in line with Article 3 of the Italian Constitution. The Court of Justice adopted a similar approach in the case of Kamberaj, which was issued on a reference for a preliminary ruling from Bolzano.112 However, the Constitutional Court found the requirement for a certain length of residence to be legal, in order to avoid people who are not really interested in living in the area getting social housing – provided that the stipulated length of time is proportionate for the aim pursued.113

Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma

In Italy, there are patterns of housing segregation and discrimination against Roma. Public administrations spend a huge amount of money on Roma camps without making significant improvements in the living conditions of the Roma community. On the contrary, they contribute to their segregation.114 There is a growing debate on the segregation of Roma people through their placement in ‘camps’, together with the harsh policies that are currently implemented against Roma settlements. However, there has not yet been any attempt to place the existence of the camps themselves within the framework of anti-discrimination law, with the exception of a case brought to the Court of Rome concerning a large settlement on the outskirts of the city. The case was brought by two NGOs, ASGI and the Associazione 21 luglio, which claimed that the discriminatory treatment of Roma has caused social exclusion, resulting in racial discrimination as prohibited by Directive 2000/43/EC. In a judgment issued on 9 June 2015, the Court of Rome convicted the Municipality of Rome of indirect discrimination, in accordance with Article 2 of Legislative Decree 215/2003 implementing Directive 2000/43/EC.115 The Municipality of Rome was ordered to stop allocating housing to anyone else in La Barbuta camp and to remove the effects of the allocations already in force; to publish the judgment in the national newspaper, Corriere della Sera; and to pay half of the legal costs incurred by the two claimants. However, despite this judgment and the universal condemnation both of the ‘camps’ policy and of the directly related forced eviction policy, both practices are continuing and are even increasing, notwithstanding the political changes in Government at both national and local level.116 As far as housing policy regarding Roma is concerned, it is worth mentioning the report published by the

112 CJEU, 24 April 2012, Kamberaj, C-571/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:233. 113 Constitutional Court, judgment no. 222/2013, available at: www.cortecostituzionale.it. 114 Associazione 21 luglio, Activity report 2015, pp. 42-65, available at: http://www.21luglio.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/Rapporto_annuale_2015_def_web.pdf.The trial is still pending and will last for at least two years, given that there are more than 200 defendants involved, see: http://www.iltempo.it/roma- capitale/2016/04/13/mafia-capitale-imputati-tutti-agli-arresti-1.1528927. 115 Court of Rome, ASGI, Associazione 21 luglio v. Rome Capital and Italian Government, 4 June 2016, http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ordinanza-La-Barbuta.pdf. 116 ‘Sgombero forzato per 250 rom. Associazione 21 luglio: «grave violazione dei diritti fondamentali»’, available at http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/sgombero-forzato-rom-violazione-dei-diritti-fondamentali/.

49

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) as part of the fourth round of its monitoring work.117 In setting out its conclusions, ECRI noted that only a few of the recommendations that it issued in 2012 have been followed up. On Roma, ECRI has found that its recommendation on the full application of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement has been only partly implemented, as only small steps have been taken. The process appears very slow and does not ensure that all the Roma who may be evicted enjoy the necessary guarantees. ECRI appreciates the adoption of the National Roma Integration Strategy, but at the same time regrets the lack of concrete implementation and the prosecution of evictions of Roma, Sinti and Travellers.

117 ECRI, Conclusions on the Implementation of the Recommendations in Respect of Italy Subject to Interim Follow-Up, 9 December 2014, https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Italy/ITA- IFU-IV-2015-004-ENG.pdf.

50

4 EXCEPTIONS

4.1 Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4)

In Italy, national legislation provides for an exception for genuine and determining occupational requirements.

The first part of Article 3(3) of both decrees (215/2003 and 216/2003) establishes that ‘in compliance with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness’, within the employment relationship or entrepreneurial activity, differences in treatment due to characteristics related to the grounds foreseen in the directives are not considered as discriminatory acts where, ‘by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activity concerned or of the context in which it is carried out, such characteristics constitute a genuine and determining occupational requirement’. No definition is given of ‘proportionality’ and ‘reasonableness’. The substitution of the requirement for a ‘legitimate objective’ with ‘reasonableness’ has not led to any practical effects.

In the case of Legislative Decree 2016/2003 transposing Directive 2000/78/EC, the same section also establishes that it is not discriminatory to evaluate ‘such characteristics when they are relevant to establish whether a person is suitable to carry out the functions that the armed forces and the police, prison and rescue services can be called on to carry out’, while the following section establishes (without distinguishing between the different grounds of discrimination) that ‘however, the provision remains unaffected that imposes a suitability test for a specific occupation and the provisions allowing different treatment with regard to adolescents and young people linked to the special nature of the occupation and to legitimate objectives of labour policy, the labour market and professional education’. The inclusion of all the grounds under this provision on ‘work suitability tests’ probably provides too much discretion in admitting exceptions to equal treatment going beyond genuine and determining occupational requirements.

A reference to genuine and determining occupational requirement as exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination is provided in Article 43(2)(e) of the Immigration Decree. There are no specifications concerning how to apply this exception.

In a case decided in 2016, a Muslim woman claimed that a company had not selected her because she wore a headscarf and did not agree to take it off. She had applied for a job as a hostess at an exhibition, where she had to hand out leaflets. The job requirements were all related to physical characteristics, including ‘flowing hair’. Only some of them were highlighted as basic requirements: shoe size 37 and dress size 40-42. The Tribunal of Milan, at first instance, rejected the claim of discrimination on grounds of religion on account of the ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’ exception. However, the Court of Appeal of Milan, at second instance, found that this was a case of direct discrimination on grounds of religion and that the ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’ exception was not satisfied, since the advertisement was for a post of hostess, and ‘flowing hair’ was not required as a genuine and determining characteristic, but as a secondary requirement. The Court of Appeal ordered the company to pay EUR 500 in non-pecuniary damages.118

4.2 Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 2000/78)

In Italy, national law provides for an exception for employers with an ethos based on religion or belief, under Article 3(5) of Legislative Decree 216/2003.

118 Court of Appeal of Milan, 20 May 2016, Mahmoud Sara v. Evolution Events Srl, available at: http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Corte-d%E2%80%99Appello-di-Milano-sentenza-del-20- maggio-2016-pres.-Vitali-rel.-Casella-XXX-avv.ti-Guariso-e-Neri-c.-Evolution-Events-srl-avv.to-Bertozzi.pdf.

51

- Conflicts between rights of organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief and other rights to non-discrimination

In Italy, there are specific provisions in this area relating to conflicts between the rights of organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief and other rights to non- discrimination.

Article 3(5) of Legislative Decree 216/2003 transposing Directive 2000/78/EC establishes that ‘Differences in treatment based on religion or belief and enacted within churches and other public or private organisations do not constitute discriminatory acts where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activity carried out by such entities or organisations or of the context in which they are carried out, such religion or belief constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement’. The provision corresponds to Article 4(2) of the directive with the exception that it makes reference to ‘churches and other public or private organisations’ without specifying that the ethos of the latter must also be based on religion or belief. This textual difference raises problems because of the risk of its use in order to admit discrimination by public and private organisations the ethos of which is not actually based on religion or belief.

However, even beyond this textual problem (which may be the result of a further drafting mistake), the choice of the Italian legislator is in the author’s opinion not compatible with the directive,119 since the directive does not allow the Member States to introduce during transposition exceptions to equal treatment for the needs of churches and similar organisations which are broader than those already existing (in legislative or other form) in the legal system when the directive was transposed. In particular, before the transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC the only relevant provision was that of Article 4 of Law 108/1990 ruling out the application of protection against discriminatory dismissal in cases of non-profit employers performing religious, cultural, political or trade-unionist activities.120 Thus, any discretion has been excluded for organisations working on a profit-making basis, and in cases where the duties of the individual worker do not have an actual link with the organisation’s ideology. Moreover, there is no transposition of the last sentence of Article 4(2), which says that this exception cannot lead to discrimination on other grounds. Legislative Decree 216/2003 implementing Directive 2000/78/EC thus grants employers with an ethos based on religion and belief (and potentially all employers, if one makes a literal interpretation) a power they did not enjoy before the adoption of the directive.

In a case decided in 2016, a teacher at a Catholic school claimed that she was being discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation. The school had not renewed her annual contract on account of rumours about her living with another woman, assumed to be her partner. According to the school, the exception provided for under Article 3(5) of Legislative Decree 216/2003 applies, such that this was a case of legitimate different treatment and not of discrimination. However, the tribunal rejected this argument and found that this was a case of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, which was not covered by the exception, since the ‘sexual orientation of a teacher … is surely beyond the religious ethos of the school’.121 This case is similar to others involving Catholic schools and universities. The limits of the discretionary power have been discussed primarily in terms of the tenure of teachers and other staff. In this context, the problem was that of internal control of the respect of moral codes (for

119 For an extensive discussion of this point, see N. Fiorita (2004), ‘Le direttive comunitarie in tema di lotta alla discriminazione, la loro tempestiva attuazione e l’eterogenesi dei fini’, in Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica, p. 361 ff. 120 Italy, Law on Provisions on Individual Dismissal (Disciplina dei licenziamenti individuali), 11 May 1990 no. 108, http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1990-05-11;108!vig. 121 Tribunal of Rovereto, 21 June 2016, X and Associazione radicale certi diritti, CGIL v. Istituto delle figlie del Sacro Cuore di Gesù, available at: http://www.osservatoriodiscriminazioni.org/index.php/2017/03/01/tribunale-di-rovereto-ordinanza-ex-art- 702-ter-cpc.

52

instance, requiring religious marriage instead of civil marriage). It is worth mentioning that Catholic universities enjoy a discretion to hire or dismiss which has been the subject of long and complex litigation in two famous cases (Cordero and Lombardi Vallauri). These cases went before the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, which both decided in favour of the discretionary power of the institutions.122

- Religious institutions affecting employment in state-funded entities

In Italy, religious institutions are permitted to select people (on the basis of their religion). Moreover, they are allowed to hire or to dismiss them from a job if the job is in a state entity or in an entity financed by the state (e.g. the Catholic Church in Italy or Spain can select teachers of religion in state schools).

In the Italian legal system, at legislative (statutory) level, the only explicit exception to equal treatment is represented by a section of Law 108/1990 concerning among other things ideologically orientated organisations, defined as ‘employers of a non- entrepreneurial character which undertake political or trade unionist activities, cultural instruction or religious activities on a non-profit basis’. This act only limits the remedies available in the case of unfair dismissal. A worker unfairly dismissed by an organisation covered by the 1990 act is entitled only to damages and not to reinstatement by order of the judge as in ordinary cases.

With arguments partly based on the existence of this limited legislative provision and partly on constitutional grounds, judges and scholars (in a very intricate debate which cannot be described here in all its nuances) have admitted the discretionary power of the employer to hire or dismiss, or otherwise discriminate. In addition, the exceptions to equal treatment as developed by case law are more limited than those foreseen in the Legislative Decree transposing Directive 2000/78/EC.123

Teachers of religion in state schools must have authorisation from the bishop, which can be denied or withdrawn if the person does not fully comply with the moral standards of a Catholic believer. In a 2003 case124 the Supreme Court recognised the validity of the termination of an employment relationship when an unmarried female teacher became pregnant. The legal ground for such discretionary power lies in the revised Lateran Treaty and its protocols, and now in a law enacted in 2003.125

4.3 Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 Directive 2000/78)

In Italy, national legislation provides for an exception for the armed forces in relation to age or disability discrimination (Article 3(4), Directive 2000/78/EC). Legislative Decree 216/2003 establishes in Article 3(2)(e) that it does not affect the validity of rules presently in force concerning the armed forces in relation to age and disability. This specific provision has been interpreted as endorsing the limits already in force in national law regarding access to the armed forces, and it has not been challenged before a court. More recent judgments question not the age limits themselves, but their concrete

122 Constitutional Court, judgment no. 195 of 29 December 1972, available at: www.cortecostituzionale.it. Council of State no. 1762/2005, www.giustizia-amministrativa.it. The Lombardi Vallauri case was the subject of an ECHR judgment. The Court found violation of Article 10 of the ECHR: ECtHR, 20 October 2009, Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, rec. no. 39128/05. 123 Supreme Court 13 July 1995, no. 7680; Supreme Court 11 April 1994, no. 3353; Supreme Court 12 October 1995, no. 10636. 124 Supreme Court 24 February 2003, no. 2803. 125 Italy, Law on the legal status of teachers of Catholicism in institutes and schools of any category and level (Norme sullo stato giuridico degli insegnanti di religione cattolica degli istituti e delle scuole di ogni ordine e grado), 18 July 2003, no. 186, http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2003-07- 18;186!vig. If the authorisation is withdrawn, however, the act (in Article 4) foresees a system allowing the person to move to another job within the education system under certain conditions.

53

interpretation and application. For instance, in a judgment issued in 2015, the Council of State declared that a provision raising the age limit for accessing public sector competitions by three years when a person has served in the army applies only to civil servants, and not to a person who has already undertaken military service and reapplies to join the armed forces and pursue a military career.126

4.4 Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) a) Discrimination on the ground of nationality

In Italy, national law includes exceptions relating to differences in treatment based on nationality. Nationality (as in citizenship) is explicitly mentioned as a protected ground in the Immigration Decree (Article 43).

Discrimination on the ground of nationality (which also covers statelessness) is explicitly excluded from the scope of application of Legislative Decrees 215 and 216 implementing the directives, but is covered by Legislative Decree 286/1998 (the Immigration Decree).

Since 1998 several actions have been brought before the courts contesting discrimination against third-country nationals on the basis of nationality.127 Most concern discrimination regarding access to social benefits by local authorities (regions or municipalities) and access to public employment. In these cases, the courts have applied the same legal framework, consisting of the 1998 Immigration Decree and Legislative Decree 215/2003, to every case of racial or national discrimination. This allows judges to handle cases of discrimination on the ground of nationality as direct discrimination and not as indirect racial discrimination.

In principle, differences of treatment on grounds of nationality are not allowed, in particular in the enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties. A right to equal treatment comes from Article 3 of the Italian Constitution, as broadly interpreted by the Constitutional Court, and from Article 2 of the 1998 Immigration Decree. A certain degree of differentiation may be allowed, on account of the duty of loyalty to the homeland and the special powers that are typical of some jobs (e.g. the diplomatic service, the armed forces, the police and security forces, the judiciary and tax authorities). In this regard, the same rules apply for EU citizens and third-country citizens.

An interesting case decided in 2016 involved access of third-country nationals to the civil service. Both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on this matter.128 The Government published vacancies in community services, for posts in several public sector and private organisations all over Italy. Access to the Italian civil service was limited to Italian citizens, according to rules similar to those applying to military service on the basis of the required loyalty to the homeland under Article 52 of the Italian Constitution. The Supreme Court found that the exclusion of aliens from the civil service was discriminatory and ordered the Government to open it up to all persons, including migrants legally staying in Italy regardless of their status, i.e. not just long- term residents. The Supreme Court had referred a question to the Constitutional Court, which issued judgment no. 119 in 2015, and the Supreme Court followed this in

126 Council of State, judgment of 12 November 2015, No. 5157, available at: http://www.ildirittomilitare.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Consiglio-di-Stato-sez.-IV- 12.11.2015-n.-5157-Mancata-ammissione-concorso.pdf. 127 A database with the dozens of cases dealing with discrimination on grounds of nationality is available at: http://www.asgi.it/tematica/discriminazioni/. The large majority of these cases are brought to court by members of the previously mentioned association of lawyers specialising in migration – ASGI (the Association of Legal Studies on Migration) – which in some cases takes part in proceeding as a third-party intervener. 128 Supreme Court, 20 April 2016 no. 7951, Italian Presidency of the Council of Ministers v. ASGI, available at: http://www.asgi.it/banca-dati/corte-di-cassazione-sezioni-unite-civili-sentenza-20-aprile-2016/.

54

delivering its judgment. According to the Constitutional Court, the concept of loyalty to the homeland has to be interpreted according to an evolutionary approach and in line with Article 2 on the fundamental rights of persons. Loyalty has to be interpreted together with solidarity, and the civil service shall be viewed as an instrument of integration in society. b) Relationship between nationality and ‘race or ethnic origin’

With few exceptions as yet, when courts make their decisions they tend to mix up provisions regarding discrimination on the ground of nationality (Legislative Decree 286/1998 – the Immigration Decree) and discrimination on the ground of racial and ethnic origin, without expressly exploring the issue of indirect racial discrimination. One relevant point is that of language requirements, which in theory may result in indirect discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin. However, no action in this regard has been brought to court so far.

4.5 Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) a) Benefits for married employees

In Italy, it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer provided benefits only to those employees who are married. This principle is expressly stated by the Civil Unions Act, which was adopted in 2016129 following a harsh debate in Parliament and after the condemnation of Italy by the ECtHR in relation to the Oliari case.130

Besides this very relevant legal development, policies aiming to extend benefits to same- sex cohabitant partners are still rare.131 As far as collective agreements and the law are concerned, marital status has been used to justify differences in treatment (for unmarried different-sex and same-sex partners), even though the current trend is to extend some rights to de facto cohabitants. Indeed, with respect to bereavement and compassionate leave, Act 53/2000132 and the resulting regulation adopted by Prime Minister’s Decree 278/2000133 extend this right in cases of the infirmity or death of a cohabiting partner in a stable relationship.134 These provisions therefore cover same-sex partners. As a consequence of these rules, many collective agreements already extended to cohabitants (without regard to sexual orientation) rights to leave or to take a sabbatical in order to be able to follow their partner.135 According to Article 1, paragraph

129 Italy: Law of 20 May 2016, No. 76, Rules on civil unions between same-sex partners and of de facto relationships (Regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze), available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2016-05-20;76!vig. 130 ECtHR, Oliari and Others v. Italy, Application no. 18766/11 and 36030/11, 21 July 2015, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156265. 131 The health insurance fund for journalists extends its benefits to de facto cohabitants, expressly including same-sex partners (see www.casagit.it). 132 Italy, Provisions to support motherhood and fatherhood, on the right to care and training, on the co- ordination of daily times in cities (Disposizioni per il sostegno della maternità e della paternità, per il diritto alla cura e alla formazione e per il coordinamento dei tempi delle città), 8 March 2000 no. 53, available at http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2000-03-08;53!vig. 133 Italy, Regulation concerning provisions for the implementation of Article 4 of Act no. 53 of 8 March 2000 on leave for particular reasons and events (Regolamento recante disposizioni di attuazione dell'articolo 4 della legge 8 marzo 2000, n. 53, concernente congedi per eventi e cause particolari), 21 July 2000 no. 278, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:presidenza.consiglio.ministri.ministro.solidarieta.sociale:decreto:2000-07- 21;278!vig=2015-09-03. 134 The act makes reference to the registered family as defined by Article 4 of Presidential Decree 223 of 30 May 1989: this registration is conceived for residence purposes, has no legal consequences and, despite the grounds on which leave may be granted, cannot be considered as a form of recognition of de facto couples. The right to leave is also provided for non-cohabiting relatives (e.g. brothers/sisters, grandparents, grandsons/granddaughters). 135 As an example, see the collective agreement for a company working in the field of communication http://www.slc-cgil.it/2013/08/tlc-accordo-congedi-matrimoniali-callcall/. In other cases, collective

55

20 of Law 76/2016 on civil unions, the same rights that are provided for marriages are extended to civil unions, including those set forth in collective agreements. b) Benefits for employees with opposite-sex partners

In Italy, it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer only provided benefits to those employees with opposite-sex partners. Law no. 76/2016 on civil unions represents a very important legal development in this regard, since almost the same rights and duties of marriage are extended to civil unions, which are listed in special registers managed by the municipalities.136 The extension of rights covers all the economic rights, including benefits, pensions and succession law. No exception is established, therefore for same-sex civil unions there will be a recognition of the same rights as apply to marriages. For instance, a partner will be entitled to a deceased partner’s pension, whereas previously only the spouse of a worker (in either the public sector or the private sector) was entitled to benefit from the worker’s pension.137

Considering that Article 3(1)(b) of Legislative Decree no. 216/2003 corresponds to Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC, it is possible to argue that the denial of the benefits granted to opposite-sex cohabitants to persons in civil unions or de facto same-sex partners constitutes direct discrimination.

Article 3(2)(d) of Legislative Decree no. 216/2003 explicitly states that the decree shall be without prejudice to the provisions already in force concerning marital status and the benefits dependent thereon, as provided by recital 22 of the directive. However, it might be possible to challenge different treatment based on marital status as provided by a collective agreement or imposed by employers as a form of indirect sexual orientation discrimination.

Finally, the Italian system does not provide specific protection for people who are not the legal parent of a child. Legislative Decree no. 151/2001138 establishes the position of parents with reference to rights and benefits in the workplace: according to Article 1, only a legal or adoptive parent or a person who has legal custody of a child139 is eligible for the benefits provided by the law. Extra benefits (namely, additional leave of absence) are granted to single parents. Only legal or adoptive children may receive a survivor’s pension. Even Law 76/2016 on civil unions does not extend the right to adopt stepchildren to those in civil partnerships.140

Notwithstanding the divisive debate during the passage of the Civil Unions Bill, the recognition of equal rights for partners in a civil union has been virtually uncontested in practice. The National Institute of Social Security (INPS) published a circular on 5 May

agreements do not yet include rights for cohabitants: for instance, the national collective agreement for workers in the metallurgical and mechanical industry of 8 June 1999 excludes de facto partners from compensation for a worker’s death or from benefits if the worker has to leave their place of residence. 136 This was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 9 February 2015, see: http://dirittocivilecontemporaneo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Cass.-matrimonio-omosessuale.pdf. 137 Italy, Provisions on pensions (Modificazioni delle disposizioni sulle assicurazioni obbligatorie per l'invalidità e la vecchiaia, per la tubercolosi e per la disoccupazione involontaria e sostituzione dell'assicurazione per la maternità con l'assicurazione obbligatoria per la nuzialità e la natalità), 14 April 1939, no. 636 available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto.legge:1939-04-14;636!vig; Constitutional Court, 3 November 2000, no. 461, available at: www.cortecostituzionale.it. 138 Italy, General framework of legislative provisions on the protection of and support for motherhood and fatherhood, in compliance with Article 15 of Act no. 53 of 8 March 2000 (Testo unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di tutela e sostegno della maternità e della paternità, a norma dell'articolo 15 della legge 8 marzo 2000, n. 53), 26 March 2001 no. 151, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2001-03-26;151!vig. 139 In principle, also the same-sex partner of the parent. 140 http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00965974.pdf. The original proposal included the so- called stepchild adoption provisions, which would have allowed a partner to be recognised as a parent of their partner’s child. This section of the draft has been withdrawn, as it lacked the necessary political majority on this point and so would have hindered the adoption of the entire bill.

56

2017 regarding the application of family benefits to those in civil unions.141 The same has occurred regarding benefits connected with accidents at work, with a specific circular published by the National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL).142 The circulars give instructions for implementing the Civil Unions Act, expressly extending the same treatment hitherto reserved to marriages. A list of benefits is also included.

4.6 Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78)

In Italy, there are no exceptions in relation to disability and health and safety as allowed for under Article 7(2) of the Employment Equality Directive.

4.7 Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 2000/78)

4.7.1 Direct discrimination

In Italy, national law provides an exception for direct discrimination on the ground of age. a) Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age

In Italy, it is possible, in specified circumstances, to justify direct discrimination on the ground of age.

This exception is provided for in Article 3(4-bis) and (4-ter) of Legislative Decree 216/2003, which transposes Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC. According to the new text, the prohibition of discrimination does not affect the rules providing for differential treatment of workers based on age in the following fields: access to and treatment in employment and occupational training, including dismissal and payment, by young workers, older workers and those with caring responsibilities, in order to promote their integration into employment or their protection (point a). Exceptions are also made for ‘the determination of minimum age levels, professional experience or seniority in employment for access to employment or to certain benefits linked to employment’ (point b) and ‘the determination of a maximum age for recruitment, based on the training requirements for a specific occupation or on the need for a reasonable period of work before retirement’ (point c).

The new text of the decree can be considered to be generally in line with the standards imposed by Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC. These exceptions are legitimate if they are justified by an objective aim of labour law, the labour market and professional training and are appropriate and necessary.

The new text of the decree can be considered to be generally in line with the standards imposed by Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC. Practical guidelines could be very useful, in particular regarding the ‘objective justification test’. b) Permitted differences of treatment based on age

In Italy, national law permits differences of treatment based on age for any activities within the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC, except for membership of organisations of workers and employers; this is because the fields listed in Article 4(4-

141 Circular no. 84 of 5 May 2017, https://www.inps.it/bussola/VisualizzaDoc.aspx?sVirtualURL=%2fCircolari%2fCircolare%20numero%2084% 20del%2005-05-2017.htm. 142 Circular no. 45 of 13 October 2017, https://www.inail.it/cs/internet/atti-e-documenti/note-e- provvedimenti/circolari/circolare-45-del-13-ott-17.html.

57

bis) (a-c) Decree 216/2003 coincide with the material scope of the directive as set out in Article 3(1)(a-c).

In a case decided by the Court of Appeal of Milan on 15 April 2014 (Bordonaro v. Abercrombie & Fitch Italia S.r.l.) the court found that Article 34 of Legislative Decree 273/2003 on fixed-term contracts was in breach of Legislative Decree 216/2003, to be interpreted in line with CJEU case law on discrimination on the ground of age.143 A worker had been employed at the age of 20, in accordance with a national law which gave benefits to employers taking on workers under the age of 25 and over 45, and was dismissed in 2014 at the age of 25. The Court of Appeal expressly cited CJEU judgments Mangold and Kücükdeveci in order to find the unlawfulness of the dismissal. According to the court, the dismissal of the claimant was based solely on his age and was not proportionate and necessary to pursue a legitimate aim. Moreover, the court ruled that it was irrelevant that the company had acted according to the law because the subjective intent of the perpetrator when discrimination is involved is not relevant. Finally, the law which allows discriminatory measures on the basis ‘only’ of age violates the general principle of non-discrimination on the ground of age to which Directive 2000/78/EC gives specific expression. However, the judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court, which has made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union.144

According to the CJEU, ‘Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(1), Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises an employer to conclude an on-call contract with a worker of under 25 years of age, whatever the nature of the services to be provided, and to dismiss that worker as soon as he reaches the age of 25 years, since that provision pursues a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy and the means laid down for the attainment of that objective are appropriate and necessary.’145 c) Fixing of ages for admission or entitlements to benefits of occupational pension schemes

In Italy, national law allows occupational pension schemes to fix ages for admission to the scheme or entitlement to benefits, taking up the possibility provided for by Article 6(2). However, there is no explicit reference in Legislative Decree 216/2003 to Article 6(2), although occupational social security schemes contain several different ages for admission or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits.

4.7.2 Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities

In Italy, there are special conditions set by law for older and younger workers in order to promote their vocational integration, and for people with caring responsibilities to ensure their protection.

Labour law provides an extensive number of exceptions to ordinary rules in order to promote the employment and vocational integration of young people. It should be noted that not all these rules provide more favourable treatment but instead allow a reduction in salaries or a lower degree of protection as a policy to increase youth employment. A wide reform of labour law was introduced with what is known as the Jobs Act, which was

143 Court of Appeal of Milan, Bordonaro v. Abercrombie & Fitch Italia S.r.l., 15 April 2014, www.europeanrights.eu/public/sentenze/CdA_Milano.pdf. 144 CJEU, Abercrombie & Fitch Italia, C-143/16, 19 July 2017. 145 The Supreme Court delivered the judgment following the CJEU decision, ruling out discrimination on grounds of age in the case at stake. Judgment no. 4223/2018 of 21 February 2018, available at: http://www.diritto-lavoro.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sentenza-4223-del-2018.pdf.

58

enacted during 2014 but implemented by the Government for the first time in January 2015.146

Of particular note is Act 23/2015, which introduces a new kind of contract – the ‘Contract with increasing degree of protection’.147 This new contract may be applied only to new recruitments and also includes financial benefits for employers. A vigorous debate has developed with, on one side, supporters of this reform, seen as a symbol of the modernisation of Italian labour law, and, on the other side, those instead who read it merely as another means of weakening workers’ rights. In fact, the law does not include any provisions on treatment and pay, but concerns only dismissal. In the debate the key issue was the sanctions applying to illegal dismissals: according to the new law employers may only be required to pay compensation, meaning that reintegration into the job is no longer available as a remedy in cases of illegal dismissals. However, no change was made to discriminatory dismissals where both compensation and reinstatement remedies continue to be available.

There are also many rules providing protection for people with caring responsibilities in the form of maternity leave and similar benefits. Rules regarding people who care for persons with a severe disability are provided in Act 104/1992 (the Framework Law on care, social integration and the rights of disabled people).148 According to Article 3, a disability is severe when a person needs permanent and comprehensive assistance. In such cases, ordinary leave of three days a month is granted; additionally, special leave of up to two years may be granted and even split into small periods to be taken throughout the employee’s working life (Art. 33 Act 104/1992). Moreover, in the public sector, a worker caring for persons with a severe disability may be transferred to a different place of work, located nearer to where the person with disability lives. Other fiscal benefits are granted in relation to the costs incurred in taking care of persons with any kind of disability. According to Article 4 of Act 104/1992,149 this must in any case be certified by a special commission.

4.7.3 Minimum and maximum age requirements

In Italy, there are exceptions permitting minimum and maximum age requirements in relation to access to employment (notably in the public sector) and training. The current version of Legislative Decree 216/2003 transposing Directive 2000/78/EC allows exceptions for ‘the determination of minimum age levels, professional experience or seniority in employment for access to employment or to certain benefits linked to employment’ (point b) and ‘the determination of a maximum age for recruitment, based on the training requirements for a specific occupation or on the need for a reasonable period of work before retirement’ (point c).

146 Italy, Jobs Act (Deleghe al Governo in materia di riforma degli ammortizzatori sociali, dei servizi per il lavoro e delle politiche attive, nonché' in materia di riordino della disciplina dei rapporti di lavoro e dell'attività ispettiva e di tutela e conciliazione delle esigenze di cura, di vita e di lavoro), 10 December 2014 no. 183, available at: www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2014-12-10;183!vig. 147 Italy, Contract with increasing degree of protection (Disposizioni in materia di contratto di lavoro a tempo indeterminato a tutele crescenti, in attuazione della legge 10 dicembre 2014, n. 183), 4 March 2015 no. 23, available at: www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2015-03-04;23!vig. 148 Italy, Framework Law on the care, social integration and rights of disabled persons (Legge-quadro per l'assistenza, l'integrazione sociale e i diritti delle persone handicappate), 5 February 1992 no. 104, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1992-02-05;104!vig. 149 Italy, Handbook on Fiscal Benefits for Persons with Disability (Guida alle agevolazioni fiscali alle persone con disabilità), http://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/wps/file/Nsilib/Nsi/Agenzia/Agenzia+comunica/Prodotti+editoriali/Guide+ Fiscali/Agenzia+informa/pdf+guide+agenzia+informa/Guida_Agevolazioni_persone_con_disabilit%C3%A0.p df.

59

As far as the public sector is concerned, employment is in principle free of any age limit, but each public body can provide a specific age limit by issuing a special decree.150 Such decrees must state the reasons for the age limit. It is possible to seek judicial review of these decrees.

4.7.4 Retirement a) State pension age

In Italy, there is a state pension age at which individuals must begin to collect their state pensions.

If an individual wishes to work longer, the pension can be deferred up to the age of 70 provided that the employer agrees – the worker wishing to defer their retirement is not sufficient. Beyond the age of 70, the pension may not be deferred further.

An individual can collect a pension and still work in a self-employed capacity.

The retirement age for men and women in both the public and private sectors will gradually be equalised: in 2018 men and women in both sectors will retire at 66 and 7 months. They will be able to retire before 66 and 7 months only if they have worked for 42 years and three months (for men) or 41 years and three months (for women) but with a 2 % cut in their pension for each year of early retirement, that is before the age of 66 and 7 months. This is the only chance to retire earlier than the age of 66 years and 7 months. A complex system of flexibility will operate between the ages of 62 and 70 years. In all these cases the state pension is granted only with a minimum of 20 years of work. b) Occupational pension schemes

In Italy, there is no normal age when people can begin to receive payments from occupational pension schemes and other employer-funded pension arrangements.

If an individual wish to work longer, payments from such occupational pension schemes cannot be deferred.

An individual can collect a pension and still work.

There are several occupational pension schemes currently in existence, generally based on employer-funded pension arrangements (e.g. for lawyers, notaries and physicians). They each fix minimum and maximum ages for starting to collect pensions, with a mix of age and years of contribution. Pensions can be deferred until the compulsory retirement age is reached, which is around 70 years, but potentially for longer. For notaries, for example, it is 75 years. c) State imposed mandatory retirement ages

In Italy, there are state-imposed mandatory retirement ages. 70 years is the general mandatory retirement age imposed by the state, with adjustment in line with life expectancy. At this age at least five years of contributions are necessary to receive the pension. In 2014 a law was enacted to lower the mandatory retirement age for judges from 75 to 70. This was enshrined in Law Decree 90/2014 of 1 November 2014 (Reform

150 Italy, Measures to simplify administrative activity, procedures to adopt decisions and monitoring activity (Misure urgenti per lo snellimento dell'attività amministrativa e dei procedimenti di decisione e di controllo), 15 May 1997 no. 127, Article 3, paragraph 6, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1997-05-15;127!vig.

60

of the Public Administration), with a gradual application up to 31 December 2015.151 For other civil servants the mandatory retirement age is 65 – including for doctors.

There is no way that the employee may continue to work past the mandatory retirement age with the same role and contract. It is possible, however, to continue to work on a self-employed basis or as a consultant.

In addition, it is possible for the mandatory retirement age in public sector employment to be set below the age of 70 for employees who have worked for at least 40 years. A general rule is now in force, originally introduced as one of the measures inspired by the so called ‘public spending review’.152 In one case decided in 2016, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of discrimination on the ground of age alleged by a teacher who had been forced to end his job since, according to Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, implemented in Italy through Legislative Decree no. 216/2003, a Member State may differentiate between workers on the ground of age if an objective and reasonable justification applies. The Supreme Court found that mandatory retirement ages do not infringe upon Directive 2000/78/EC, since they pursue a legitimate policy aim of ensuring a turnover of staff, and the means employed are appropriate and necessary. d) Retirement ages imposed by employers

In Italy, national law does not permit employers to set retirement ages (or ages at which the termination of an employment contract is possible) by contract and/or collective bargaining and/or unilaterally.

An employment contract cannot be terminated on grounds of age before the employee fulfils the conditions (age included) required to receive a pension. Employers are thus bound by national law on pension ages. e) Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age

The law on protection against dismissal and other laws protecting employment rights apply to all workers, irrespective of age, if they remain in employment on attaining pensionable age or another age. f) Compliance of national law with CJEU case law

In Italy, national legislation is in line with CJEU case law on age regarding compulsory retirement.

Rules providing for difference of treatment on the ground of age, in particular in the field of employment, are generally justified by reference to the need to avoid exclusion of older people from the labour market or, on the contrary, to favour the entry of young people (generally up to 29 years old).

As regards different regimes concerning mandatory retirement ages or early retirements ages (for instance for armed forces, police, airlines’ employees), the legal framework is in line with CJEU case law, but several limits still exist which should be changed or removed, if they cannot be properly justified.

151 Italy, Urgent measures to promote the simplification, transparency and efficiency of jurisdictional offices (Misure urgenti per la semplificazione e la trasparenza amministrativa e per l'efficienza degli uffici giudiziari), 24 June 2014 no. 90, available at http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legge:2014-06-24;90!vig=2015-09-03. 152 Supreme Court, 9 June 2016 no. 11859, B.F., C.F. v. Ufficio scolastico regionale Basilicata (Basilicata Regional School Office) and MIUR (Ministry of Education, Universities and Research), available at http://www.tcnotiziario.it.

61

4.7.5 Redundancy a) Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection

In Italy, national law permits age or seniority to be taken into account in selecting workers for redundancy, within the framework of special arrangements made in the case of financial crisis followed by so-called ‘solidarity contracts’: in this case agreements with trade unions make provision for financial incentives for voluntary retirement, switching to part-time contracts and even the dismissal of only a proportion of the workers, in accordance with Law 223/1991. The selection of workers for the new contracts is based on several criteria, including age. This is clearly discriminatory, and judges have ruled this to be the case in several judgments, but no significant amendment has been enacted.153

The compliance of this situation with the directive has not been the subject of significant discussion. b) Age taken into account for redundancy compensation

In Italy, national law provides provide compensation for redundancy. This is affected by the age of the worker. The system applies to workers who are dismissed after having previously enjoyed the social security benefits granted to workers in enterprises in difficulty (redundancy insurance). The length of the period for which mobility compensation is granted depends on the age of the worker (the older the worker, the longer the period during which they are eligible for compensation).

4.8 Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78)

In Italy, national law includes exceptions that seek to rely on Article 2(5) of the Employment Equality Directive. Article 3(2)(c) establishes that Legislative Decree 216/2003 shall be without prejudice to the provisions already in force concerning public security, maintenance of public order, prevention of criminal offences and protection of health. This provision seems to allow too great a discretion to the legislator, since there is no express limit and there is no means of verifying its compatibility with the needs of a democratic society.

4.9 Any other exceptions

In Italy, other exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination (on any ground) provided in national law are as follows. Article 3(4) of Legislative Decree 216/2003 establishes that its provisions are without prejudice to the ‘provisions that establish work suitability tests with respect to the necessity of suitability for a specific occupation (…)’. This provision is unclear. Considering that the second part of Article 3(4) specifically states that differences of treatment are justified with reference to adolescents, young people, older workers and workers with caring responsibilities if they are required by the specific nature of the occupation and by legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, it seems that the first part makes reference to more general and vague work suitability tests without specifying the nature of the work for which a test is required, a specific ground, or even the purpose or nature of the test. Even assuming that such tests would be lawful only when based on a separate statutory provision and would not justify different treatment, the current version of the decree is

153 The point is clearly explained in UNAR’s report for 2012, pp. 40-43; www.unar.it/unar/portal/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/Relazione-2012.pdf.

62

quite suspect since it allows a general appraisal of the worker’s suitability not provided by the directive itself and not defined in its aims, criteria and limits.

63

5 POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) a) Scope for positive action measures

In Italy, positive action in respect of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation is permitted in national discrimination law through an express implementation of Articles 5 and 7 of both directives. The only exception is that of Article 7(2)(c) of Legislative Decree 215/2003, according to which the tasks of UNAR, the equality body, include promoting the adoption of positive actions by private parties.

Positive action is in principle legitimate under the Italian Constitution in the light of the principle of substantive equality in Article 3(2). Several laws have been enacted giving a special status to linguistic minorities and to certain religions. Moreover, other laws aim to promote the social inclusion of people with disabilities. Finally, several projects have been funded to promote the social integration of Roma.

Relevant provisions related to disability, in particular those concerning employment, have come into force under Act 68/1999, which was most recently amended in 2015.154 b) Main positive action measures in place on national level

Disability

In relation to the grounds covered by the directives, strictly speaking positive action applies in practice only to people with disabilities on the basis of a complex set of rules contained in Act 68/1999. It should be noted that the aim of this act is to amend and partly fill the gaps of Act 104/1992, which provides some measures to support people with disability including those with severe disabilities according to Article 3 of Act 104/1992. In fact, Act 68/1999: 1) provides for some new concrete interventions and services; 2) allows some experimental projects to be implemented; 3) promotes the use of surveys and the collection of statistical data on disability; 4) makes provision for a national conference on disability policy to be held every third year. The act targets local authorities, which have specific competences to promote actions to support disabled people, to draft programmes and to provide services for people with disabilities. During the first phase of its implementation this law was financed directly by the state (Ministry of Labour and Social Policies), which transferred the financial resources to the local authorities (by 2000). Local authorities now provide their own funding.

Interventions include different forms of personal care, personal assistance, emergency short-term accommodation and partial refunds of expenditure on assistance.

In the field of employment, Act 68/1999 establishes a set of policies to be applied only to people with severe disabilities as defined by its opening provisions, which can be summarised as follows:

- The employment of persons with disability in workplaces that have been adapted to suit their abilities through the use of equipment and specific solutions to problems connected with the working environment etc.

154 Italy, Provisions on the right to work of persons with disability, 12 March 1999 no. 69, (Norme per il diritto al lavoro dei disabili), http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1999-03-12;68!vig, amended by Legislative Decree no. 151 of 14 September 2015, Simplification of procedures and duties upon citizens and companies (Disposizioni di razionalizzazione e semplificazione delle procedure e degli adempimenti a carico di cittadini e imprese e altre disposizioni in materia di rapporto di lavoro e pari opportunità, in attuazione della legge 10 dicembre 2014, n. 183), http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2015-09-14;151!vig.

64

- The placement of persons with disability in specific jobs as decided by a medical commission. This commission has the task of: i) carrying out a functional diagnosis in order to determine the total capacity of the disabled individual, specifying the grade and quality of their impairments and ii) proposing how to facilitate their placement in employment. The commission assesses the social environment of persons with disability, their attitudes, and their family relationships, taking into account their educational background and the jobs they have already done. - An obligation on public bodies and private enterprises with more than 50 workers to ensure that persons with disability make up 7 % of the total workforce. For enterprises with more than 15 workers it is sufficient that one worker with disability is employed, while for those with 30 to 50 workers, two persons with disability have to be employed. An exception to this obligation, which had been granted to political parties, trade unions and organisations for social development and support, was lifted in 2015.155 For police and civil protection jobs, people with disabilities are only employed in administrative roles. Other cases of derogation are set out in Articles 3 and 5. These quotas are generally complied with. Statistics on the enforcement of the quotas are available from the Ministry of Labour; 25 000-30 000 people are hired under this system each year. In certain cases, an employer who is not in a position to hire people with disabilities for a stated reason (e.g. the type of activity) must make a financial contribution to the Regional Fund for the Employment of Persons with Disability.

In addition, the act provides: some services in order to facilitate access to work by people with disabilities (Article 7); lists of unemployed people with disabilities (Article 8); labour relations (Article 10); support for enterprises which comply with the law (Article 11); the creation of social cooperatives in order to support access to work (Article 12); benefits for employers who employ people with disability (Article 13); and the institution of a Regional Fund for the Employment of Persons with Disability. Sanctions of different kinds are applied to employers who do not fulfil their obligations (Article 15).

As has already been mentioned, amendments to Law no. 68/1999 were introduced in 2015 by Legislative Decree no. 151, with the aim of simplifying the procedures for placing persons with disability in jobs.156 One controversial issue concerns the extension to all employers of the options for choosing a worker with disability. Before the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 151, this applied only to enterprises with fewer than 15 workers, while larger firms could hire from among people included in the list of unemployed people with disability, but without choosing the individual. A complaint has been submitted to the European Commission, claiming that this provision infringes Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC, because leaving the choice of workers to the employers risks excluding persons with more severe disabilities from the labour market.157 This is particularly true in a context of high unemployment.

155 Italy, Provisions on the right to work of persons with disability, 12 March 1999 no. 69, (Norme per il diritto al lavoro dei disabili), http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1999-03-12;68!vig, amended by Legislative Decree no. 151 of 14 September 2015, Simplification of procedures and duties upon citizens and companies (Disposizioni di razionalizzazione e semplificazione delle procedure e degli adempimenti a carico di cittadini e imprese e altre disposizioni in materia di rapporto di lavoro e pari opportunità, in attuazione della legge 10 dicembre 2014, n. 183), http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2015-09-14;151!vig. 156 Italy, Provisions on the right to work of persons with disability, 12 March 1999 no. 69, (Norme per il diritto al lavoro dei disabili), http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1999-03-12;68!vig, amended by Legislative Decree no. 151 of 14 September 2015, Simplification of procedures and duties upon citizens and companies (Disposizioni di razionalizzazione e semplificazione delle procedure e degli adempimenti a carico di cittadini e imprese e altre disposizioni in materia di rapporto di lavoro e pari opportunità, in attuazione della legge 10 dicembre 2014, n. 183), http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2015-09-14;151!vig. 157 http://www.disabili.com/lavoro/articoli-lavoro/assunzioni-disabili-ricorso-alla-commissione-europea-contro- il-jobs-act.

65

Race and ethnic origin

Specific projects have been funded by UNAR and labelled as positive actions. In particular special events are promoted during the Anti-Racism Week. However, these activities appear to be aimed more at raising awareness rather than the implementation of positive actions. The same applies to projects funded by UNAR to promote the culture of diversity in the workplace.

Disability, national origin, transgender

Since 2013, UNAR has been funding a project entitled Diversity in the Workplace (Diversità al lavoro) to promote the recruitment of potentially disadvantaged people, supporting them in attending job interviews.

Roma, Sinti and Travellers

Positive actions for Roma do not exist at the national level. Specific measures aiming to enhance the integration of Roma groups are promoted, generally through the funding of projects of limited duration. Despite the positive results of some of these projects, they still appear to be very marginal in the overall picture of segregation and racism perpetrated against the Roma population. Moreover, they are addressed to ‘nomad groups’ or people living in the camps, without taking into account the specific characteristics of Roma, Sinti and Traveller minorities who do not live in a camp or who are sedentary.158 An Italian national strategy was adopted on 28 February 2012, implementing European Commission Communication COM(2011)173.159 Unfortunately, the strategy has not brought about any relevant result, in particular on housing. One of the reasons for this is the absence of activity promoted by UNAR, which had been identified as the national focal point. This may be due to the more general inability of UNAR to translate principles into concrete actions. The strategy covers four pillars: housing, healthcare, education and employment. However, the national strategy provides incentives and promotes coordination without setting binding targets to be reached by the regions. At national level the Government could promote a law setting the minimum level of services, including housing, but no such law is on the agenda of any political party.

Linguistic minorities

Some linguistic minorities enjoy special protection in the charters of regions with a special constitutional status. In the case of the German-speaking minority of Trentino Alto Adige (South Tyrol), this entails an extremely complex system of quotas for public employment and for the enjoyment of certain rights such as use of language in court proceedings.

Much weaker protection is granted at the national level to other linguistic minorities160 defined as ‘historic’ by a law of 1999, i.e. the languages ‘of the Albanian, Catalan, Germanic, Greek, Slovenian and Croatian populations and of those speaking French, Franco-Provençal, Friulan, Ladin, Occitan and Sardinian’.

158 See, for instance, the enquiry undertaken by the Italian Senate on the situation of Roma, Sinti and Travellers. The final report stresses the lack of reliable data to understand better the situation of the groups considered and the need to provide for data collection and analysis tools. 159 Italy, National Strategy for the inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers 2012-2020 (Strategia nazionale d’inclusione dei Rom, dei Sinti, e dei Caminanti 2012/2020), available at http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?p=1923. 160 On minority protection in general, see A. Simoni, ‘Minorités-droit public italien’, in Journées mexicaines 2002 de l’Association Henri Capitant des Amis de la Culture Juridique Française, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 2005, pp. 751-758. Law on the national linguistic minorities, Measures on protection of historical and linguistic minorities (Norme in materia di minoranze linguistiche storiche), 15 December 1999, no. 482, http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1999-12-15;482!vig.

66

6 REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT

6.1 Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 9 Directive 2000/78) a) Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment

In Italy, the following procedures exist for enforcing the principle of equal treatment. According to Article 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011,161 the general provisions on fast- track procedures apply to discrimination litigation. The relevant article is Article 702-bis of the Civil Procedural Code.

Under the general fast-track procedure, a victim of discrimination can apply, even in person (whereas in ordinary cases the assistance of a lawyer is compulsory), to the judge (the ordinary civil court) with jurisdiction over their place of residence (an exception to the general principle of suing in the court with jurisdiction over the place of residence of the defendant). The judge can issue a judgment ordering cessation of the discriminatory activity as well as damages (including for non-pecuniary losses, ordinarily excluded in civil cases). The judge can order an anti-discrimination plan to be drafted. In the case of collective discrimination, the judge decides whether an anti-discrimination plan is needed after hearing the opinion of the association which introduced the complaint. The judgment can be appealed before the Court of Appeal (second instance) within 30 days; the decision on appeal can be challenged before the Supreme Court (third instance). The main difference between the ordinary and fast-track procedures is that a final ruling can be given in the former, while the latter may always be followed by a full trial, the only forum in which a final judgment may be given. It must be recalled that pre-trial mediation is now also mandatory in anti-discrimination cases.

The civil action against discrimination prevails over other special procedures applying in the fields of labour law or administrative law. With regard to administrative law, according to a general principle of Italian law, when public bodies are involved ordinary administrative procedure applies. However the Supreme Court has stated that in discrimination cases, the discrimination decrees apply, including the special procedure provided for in Legislative Decree 150/2011.162 Therefore, the civil action against discrimination applies and not the ordinary administrative one with the competence of ordinary civil courts.

With regard to the field of employment, the prevalence of civil action against discrimination over labour law and labour procedural law was expressly confirmed by the Milan Court of Appeal in a case held on 15 April 2014.163 The Court of Appeal held that, when an action of discrimination has been brought before a labour court, it shall apply a civil action against discrimination rather than labour procedural law. b) Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress

According to Article 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011, a civil action against discrimination can be brought before the court with jurisdiction over the victim’s place of residence. The law is silent about jurisdiction in the instances of collective discrimination and a case is pending before the Supreme Court on this point: the question is whether

161 Additional Measures to the Civil Procedural Code in order to reduce and simplify civil proceedings, according to Article 54 of Law no. 69 of 19 June 2009, (Disposizioni complementari al codice di procedura civile in materia di riduzione e semplificazione dei procedimenti civili di cognizione, ai sensi dell'articolo 54 della legge 18 giugno 2009, n. 69), no. 220, http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2011-09-01;150!vig. 162 Supreme Court, no. 25011/2014 of 5.12.2014, http://dirittocivilecontemporaneo.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/11/Cass-sez-un-25011_2014.pdf. See section 12.2. 163 Court of Appeal of Milan, Bordonaro v. Abercrombie & Fitch Italia S.r.l., 15 April 2014, www.europeanrights.eu/public/sentenze/CdA_Milano.pdf.

67

NGOs may bring proceedings only in courts with jurisdiction for the place where they have their registered office or if they can choose another court. This is particularly relevant in cases where both a collective and an individual action are brought. c) Number of discrimination cases brought to justice

In Italy, there are no available statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination brought to justice.

UNAR’s remit includes the drafting of an annual report to the President of the Council of Ministers which includes data on its activity and, in particular, of discrimination complaints made through its contact centre. However, UNAR does not conduct surveys or collect more complex data. The most recent report to be published concerns 2013, but a separate report on complaints was published in 2015. According to this report, a total of 1,627 complaints were lodged in 2014, of which 930 were based on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, 100 on disability, 99 on sexual orientation, 92 on age, 38 on religion and personal belief, and 8 on gender.164 It is not clear how many of these complaints were settled thanks to the intervention of UNAR as mediator, or whether legal action was taken and the cases brought to court. d) Registration of discrimination cases by national courts

In Italy, discrimination cases are not registered as such by national courts. When a case is brought to court lawyers must fill in a form where they have to enter the subject of the case and the relevant code.165 The list of subjects and codes is attached to the form and does not include discrimination. Discrimination cases are in fact classed as ‘Others – Other fast-track procedures’. Cases are registered on the basis of the type of decision (judgment, decree or order) and not on the basis of their subject.

6.2 Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) Directive 2000/78) a) Engaging on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them)

In Italy, associations, organisations and trade unions are entitled to act on behalf of victims of discrimination.

Article 5 of Legislative Decree 215/2003 entitles associations and legal persons to act in support of or on behalf of victims of discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic discrimination. Legal standing is granted to associations and bodies included in a list approved by a joint decree of the Ministries of Labour and Social Policy and that of Equal Opportunities.166 Associations and other bodies must have been officially established for at least one year and continuously operating in the year immediately before registration, as well as having an official charter establishing that they have a democratic structure, do not operate in order to make a profit and that promotion of equal treatment and opposition to discrimination is their only or primary aim. Moreover, they must have a budget and a register of members that fulfils certain legal standards, while their legal representatives must not have been sentenced for crimes related to the activity of the

164 http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/All.-4-dati-Unar-2014.pdf. See also a report from 2012 that classifies cases related to nationality discrimination heard in the last four years in northern Italy: 52 cases were reported, with seven judgments by the Constitutional Court. A. Guariso (ed.), Quattro anni alle discriminazioni istituzionali nel Nord Italia, Milan: Terre di Mezzo, 2012. 165 https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_3_7_9.page;jsessionid=QOjnx2RDGJEF+wgumDjQUO5o?tab=d. 166 Italy, Regulation implementing Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, no. 286 (Regolamento recante norme di attuazione del testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell'immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero, a norma dell'articolo 1, comma 6, del decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, n. 286), 31 August 1999 no. 394, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:presidenza.repubblica:decreto.del.presidente.della.repubblica:1999-08-31;394!vig.

68

association nor act in any form as entrepreneurs or board members of commercial enterprises operating in the same field.

The associations included on the list are drawn partly from those included in the pre- existing register of associations and organisations operating in support of immigrants and partly from the register of associations and organisations specifically active in the anti- discrimination field established under Legislative Decree 215/2003 (all of which applied to obtain standing).167 Thanks to this provision regarding the legal standing of associations, two NGOs were able to bring an action against the municipality of Rome, citing the discriminatory housing policy of the so called ‘nomad camps’.168

Article 5 of Legislative Decree 216/2003 entitles trade unions, associations and legal persons to act in support of or on behalf of victims of discrimination on grounds of religion or personal belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. Standing to litigate – previously limited to trade unions – is now extended to other organisations and associations representing the rights or interests affected, with no special register. Legal standing is accorded on an ad hoc basis where the organisations are regarded as having a ‘legitimate interest’ in the enforcement of the relevant legislation. However, no relevant action has been brought to court by NGOs through this new mandate.

It is worth mentioning that legal standing according to Legislative Decree 216/2003 is much broader than that under Legislative Decree 215/2003.

The Disability Act 67/2006 (Article 4) grants standing to litigate to associations identified by a joint decree of the Ministries of Labour and Social policy and that of Equal Opportunities along the lines applied in the case of race and ethnicity. A decree of 2007 established a register jointly managed by the above-mentioned Ministries, on roughly the same model as established for race and ethnicity under the decree transposing Directive 2000/43/EC.169

In addition, in the field of employment trade unions have the right to legal standing on behalf of or in support of victims of discrimination, in accordance with Article 43(10) of Legislative Decree 286/1998 (the Immigration Decree) and Article 18 of Legislative Decree 1970/300 (on discriminatory dismissal). b) Engaging in support of victims of discrimination

In Italy, associations, organisations and trade unions are entitled to act in support of victims of discrimination. The same is true for NGOs. As the rise in the number of cases concerning alleged discrimination shows, support is increasingly being given to victims by associations and NGOs entering into court proceedings in support of or on behalf of a victim.

Article 5 of Legislative Decree 215/2003 entitles associations and legal persons to act in support of or on behalf of victims of racial and ethnic discrimination. Legal standing is granted to associations and bodies included in a list approved by a joint decree of the Ministries of Labour and Welfare and Equal Opportunities. Associations and other bodies must have been officially established for at least one year and continuously operating in the year immediately before registration, as well as having an official charter establishing that they have a democratic structure, do not operate in order to make a profit and that

167 The list of associations and bodies with standing to litigate, drawn up for the first time in 2005, can be found on the UNAR website at: http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?p=7281. The list was updated in 2013. This was the second update – the provision specifying that the list must be updated on a yearly basis has not been observed. 168 Court of Rome, ASGI and Associzione 21 luglio v. Rome Capital and Italian Government, 4 June 2016, http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ordinanza-La-Barbuta.pdf. 169 http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/11/20/15A08638/sg.

69

promotion of equal treatment and opposition to discrimination is their only or primary aim. Moreover, they must have a budget and a register of members that fulfils certain legal standards, while their legal representatives must not have been sentenced for crimes related to the activity of the association nor act in any form as entrepreneurs or board members of commercial enterprises operating in the same field.

The associations included on the list are drawn partly from those included in the pre- existing register of associations and organisations operating in support of immigrants and partly from the register of associations and organisations specifically active in the anti- discrimination field established under Legislative Decree 215/2003 (all of which applied to obtain standing).170 It was updated in 2013. This was the second update – the provision specifying that the list must be updated on a yearly basis has not been observed. Two associations included in the list are particularly active in promoting legal actions supporting victims of discrimination. A relevant case was settled in 2015 thanks to the active role of ASGI and the Associazione 21 luglio. The judgment was made by the Court of Rome on 6 February 2015, ruling against a publisher for the publication of a legal handbook containing discriminatory examples of criminal conduct perpetrated by Roma people, referred to as ‘Gypsies’.171

The court found that all three claimants (the two associations and a person belonging to the Roma community) had legal standing – the woman because she belonged to the Roma community and therefore was a victim who felt personally injured when reading the challenged opinion. The court noted that, ‘as explained, her legal standing (undisputed by the defendant) comes from her belonging to the discriminated ethnic group, and to the following breach of her human dignity’.172 The legal standing of the woman is allowed as a broad interpretation of the notion of ‘victim’. To put it another way, she has not acted to defend her group, but to defend her human dignity as a person belonging to the Roma minority. The court defines the Roma minority as an ethnic group, but does not explore the link between the woman and her ethnic group, taking for granted her declaration of being Roma. One reason for the lack of reasoning on this point is that the defendants did not contest her legal standing.

As for the two NGOs, their legal standing is a typical example of representative action under Article 5 of Legislative Decree 215/2003, as they have the right to bring a case of collective discrimination to court when the victim is an entire group and not an identified victim. It is worth pointing out that the court could also have granted the right to legal standing to the two NGOs in acting in support of the victim, the woman, but the judgment was very clear in granting the legal standing of the three claimants on a separate basis and in allowing the NGOs to bring a representative action.

Article 5 of Legislative Decree 216/2003 entitles trade unions, associations and legal persons to act in support of or on behalf of victims of discrimination for the grounds covered by Directive 2000/78/EC. Standing to litigate – previously limited to trade unions – is now extended to other organisations and associations representing the rights or interests affected, with no special register. Legal standing is accorded on an ad hoc basis where the organisations are regarded as having a ‘legitimate interest’ in the enforcement of the relevant legislation. It is worth mentioning that legal standing according to Legislative Decree 216/2003 is much broader than that under Legislative Decree 215/2003.

170 The list of associations and bodies with standing to litigate, drawn up for the first time in 2005, can be found on the UNAR website at: http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Elenco-associazioni- UNAR-2016.pdf. 171 Court of Rome, XX., ASGI, Associazione 21 luglio v. YY., http://www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/Tribunale-di-Roma-I-sez.-Civile-1622015-est.-Pratesi-XXX-ASGI-Associazione-21- luglio-avv.-Fachile-C.-Gruppo-Editoriale-Simone-%E2%80%A6.pdf. 172 Court of Rome, XX., ASGI, Associazione 21 luglio v. YY., 6 February 2015, p. 6.

70

The Disability Act 67/2006 (Article 4) grants standing to litigate to associations identified by a joint decree of the Ministries of Labour and Social Policy and that of Equal Opportunities along the lines applied in the case of race and ethnicity. A decree of 2007 established a register jointly managed by the above-mentioned Ministries, on roughly the same model as established for race and ethnicity under the decree transposing Directive 2000/43/EC.173

In addition, in the field of employment trade unions have the right to legal standing on behalf of or in support of victims of discrimination, in accordance with Article 44(10) of the Immigration decree and to Article 18 of Legislative Decree 1970/300 (the latter on discriminatory dismissal). c) Actio popularis

In Italy, there is not a statutory basis for actio popularis in general, although some exceptions exist, e.g. in the field of environmental litigation.

Specific provisions on actio popularis are provided for by discrimination law, whereby associations, organisations and trade unions may act in the public interest on their own behalf, without a specific victim to support or represent. In accordance with both decrees implementing the two directives of 2000, organisations with legal standing can act (obviously without the authorisation of the victim) in cases of collective discrimination when victims cannot be identified in a direct and immediate way (Legislative Decree 215/2003, Art. 5; Legislative Decree 216/2003, Art. 5; Legislative Decree 67/2006, Art. 4). For instance, in the case Associazione avvocatura per i diritti LGBT – Rete Lenford v. C. Taormina the Court of Bergamo accorded legal standing to the claiming association, in accordance with Article 5 of Legislative Decree 216/2003.174 The association contested a discriminatory statement made by a well-known lawyer to a very popular broadcaster that he would scrutinise thoroughly each application he received to avoid any recruitment of gay people. No individual victim was identified but ‘only’ a collective potential discrimination. It is notable that the legal standing of the association was not contested.

A relevant case was decided in 2017 by the Supreme Court regarding the legal standing of associations when there is a case of discrimination on grounds of nationality.175 Nationality is the only ground where legal standing is not expressly mentioned in general terms, but only as far as trade unions are concerned – as in Article 44(10) of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, according to which local sections of the most representative trade unions have legal standing in order to act against collective discrimination when the victims are not identifiable. The Supreme Court held that the two associations concerned had legal standing to act against discrimination on ground of nationality, notwithstanding the lack of express provision in this regard in the laws implementing Directive 2003/109 on long-term residents and on antidiscrimination. The Supreme Court has interpreted the provisions regarding discrimination on the ground of nationality (Art. 44, para. 10, Legislative Decree no. 286/1998) in accordance with those on discrimination on the ground of racial and ethnic origin, conflating the different provisions. Regarding collective discrimination, according to the Supreme Court, collective actions against discrimination may also be brought against an administrative act that has a dissuasive effect on municipalities and on physical persons who are potentially affected by the act, in that they have been persuaded not to apply for the benefit concerned.

173 The list of associations and bodies with standing to litigate can be found at: http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/11/20/15A08638/sg. 174 www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=68849. 175 Supreme Court, 8 May 2017, ASGI v. INPS, available at: https://www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/Corte_di_Cassazione__sez_lavoro__sentenza__n_11166_del__8517__pres_D%E 2%80%99Antonio__est_Riverso__INPS_avv_Coretti_Stumpo_e_Triolo_c_ASGI__APN_.pdf.

71

According to Article 4(2) of Act 67/2006, associations can intervene in civil actions brought by people with disabilities and can institute administrative proceedings to review the legality of the discriminatory acts contested in the civil proceedings while, according to Article 4, paragraph 3, of Act 67/2006, organisations are entitled to act in cases of collective discrimination. d) Class action

In Italy, national law allows associations, organisations and trade unions to act in the interest of more than one individual victim (class action) for claims arising from the same event. After heated scholarly and political debate, in December 2007 the Government included a provision in the Finance Act, introducing a class action for obtaining financial compensation for wrongs perpetrated against groups of consumers or users. After having been frozen for a time, this new piece of legislation entered into force, in a slightly modified form, on 1 January 2010. While its provisions make no mention of anti- discrimination suits as such, it is not inconceivable that actions relating to discrimination against specific groups of consumers on racial or other grounds could be brought under the new law.

Discrimination law does not provide a specific statutory basis for class action. One may argue whether the provisions on actio popularis (Article 44 of the Immigration Decree, Article 5(3) of Legislative Decree 215/2003, Article 5(2) of Legislative Decree 216/2003 and Article 4(3) of Act 67/2006) also allow collective actions, representing groups of victims.

6.3 Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78)

In Italy, national law permits a shift of the burden of proof from the complainant to the respondent.

According to Article 28(4) of Legislative Decree 150/2011, the claimant establishes facts, including facts of a statistical character, on which a presumption of discrimination can be based; it is up to the defendant to prove that there has been no discrimination. Testing is still not part of current practice.

The most interesting case applying the shift in the burden of proof was that heard by the Court of Rome in 2012 in the case of Fiat Fabbrica Italia.176 The court held that statistical data are sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent. The court clarified that discrimination law establishes a ‘proof by presumption’, according to which it is sufficient for the complainant to provide facts on which the presumption of discrimination is based, in order for the burden of proof to be placed on the employer to demonstrate that no discrimination was involved.

6.4 Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78)

In Italy, there are legal measures for protection against victimisation.

According to a new Article 4-bis in both legislative decrees implementing the two directives, judicial protection is ‘also applied against any prejudicial behaviour towards a person affected by direct or indirect discrimination or towards any other person as a reaction against any activity aimed at obtaining equality of treatment’ (the same standards of evidence apply, including the reversal of the burden of proof).

176 Court of Appeal of Rome, Fabrica Italia Pomigliano SPA v. FIOM-CGIL, 9 October 2012, www.dplmodena.it/Fiat-Fiom%20-%20Corte%20Appello%20Roma%209-10-12.pdf.

72

In an interesting judgment issued on 4 December 2014, the Court of Vercelli clearly stated that the protection against victimisation afforded by Article 4-bis of Legislative Decree 215/2003 covers anyone who acts to obtain equality of treatment, notwithstanding the result of the legal action against discrimination.177 The case concerned four citizens who had brought a case against the mayor of Varallo Municipality, together with his assessor – who is also a Member of the European Parliament – for the dissemination of racist posters around the city. The Court of Turin had dismissed the case, since the municipality had removed the posters before the judgment. However, other posters had subsequently been posted around the city with the names of the citizens who had brought the case to court, ridiculing them for diverting economic resources (to pay legal costs) away from the community.

The Court of Vercelli condemned the Mayor of Varallo (Eraldo Botta), the assessor (Gianluca Buonanno, a former Member of the European Parliament) and the Municipality of Varallo for victimisation, in accordance with Article 4-bis of Legislative Decree 215/2003 implementing Directive 2000/43/EC. The court held that protection against victimisation extends to anyone who acts to combat discrimination notwithstanding the result of the legal action, that is the upholding or rejection of the appeal. Moreover, legal actions against victimisation follow the same pattern of rules as legal action against discrimination, including the shift of the burden of proof. The respondents were ordered to pay EUR 6 000 and EUR 5 500 respectively to the victims, as moral damages, in accordance with Article 15 of the directive which requires that sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In addition, the ruling ordered that the judgment be published in a local newspaper, on the Facebook page of Mr Buonanno and on the website of the Varallo Municipality, and also that the legal fees had to be paid.

6.5 Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 2000/78) a) Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice

According to Article 28(5) of Legislative Decree 150/2011 – which applies to Anti- Discrimination Decrees 215/2003 and 216/2003, the Immigration Decree and disability law – the judge may order the termination of the discriminatory behaviour, conduct or act and the removal of its effects, including by means of a plan aiming to rectify the discrimination identified. The basic idea of this remedy (similar to remedies against gender discrimination) is consistent with Article 15 of the Workers Act, which declares that any discriminatory act or behaviour is unlawful and consequently void. Therefore, the consequences of such acts and behaviour must be rectified and the previous situation restored. According to some authors, even though this sanction may work in cases of dismissal (when reinstatement must be ordered) or other acts, it might not be an effective remedy for omissions (e.g. denial of access to work); in these cases only compensatory damages are available. A victim of discrimination may claim for compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. Under Article 44(8) of the Immigration Decree, criminal sanctions are applied if the decision of the court is not complied with.

Article 28(7) of Legislative Decree 150/2011 establishes that the decision of the judge must be published in a national newspaper if this is explicitly ordered by the judge in the light of the circumstances of the case. Article 44(11) of the Immigration Decree establishes that, if the discriminatory act or behaviour is performed by enterprises to which public bodies have awarded tenders, supply contracts or public financial assistance, such benefits can be withdrawn; in

177 Court of Vercelli, Pantè v. Botta, Buonanno and Municipality of Varallo, 4 December 2014, www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/2014_tribunale_Vercelli_rg-1241-del-2014-ord-04-12-2014_Varallo-BOTTA- BUONANNO-trib-vercelli.pdf.

73

particular cases these enterprises may be excluded for up to two years from tenders/financial assistance.

Discriminatory dismissals are governed by Article 3 of Act 108/1990 on individual dismissals (which is in fact a consolidated version of Article 4 of Act 604/1966 and of the amended version of Article 15 of the Workers Act), according to which they are always considered as void and entail the worker’s reinstatement. This provision is confirmed by what is known as the Jobs Act.178 b) Ceiling and amount of compensation

No ceiling to the amount of compensation applies. c) Assessment of the sanctions

It is difficult to assess the amount of non-pecuniary damages that can be awarded, which largely depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The small number of cases decided to date makes it impossible to calculate an average. The overall effectiveness of these remedies is very high compared with ordinary Italian civil procedure. It remains to be seen, of course, whether this effectiveness will be sufficient to overcome more general cultural obstacles that make anti-discrimination litigation quite rare, but the procedural requirements of the directives are certainly met.

In the case of Associazione avvocatura per i diritti LGBT – Rete Lenford v. Taormina decided by the Court of Bergamo, the defendant was ordered to have the judgment published in a newspaper with nationwide coverage and to the pay EUR 10 000 as a ‘dissuasive sanction’ (in accordance with Article 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011, interpreted in line with Directive 2000/78/EC and with the Accept judgment (C-81/12)), as well as having to pay EUR 5 000 in legal costs.179

This judgment is an example of the perfect transposition of the Feryn – Accept case law: the facts are similar and the arguments of the court identical. Two points are worth mentioning. First, this is a case of collective potential discrimination contested by an organisation whose legal standing, in line with Article 5, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree 216/2003, was not contested. Secondly, the court ordered the defendant to pay EUR 10 000 as a ‘dissuasive sanction’, in accordance with Article 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011, interpreted in line with Directive 2000/78/EC and with the Accept judgment (C-81/12). This is a private sanction, a sort of punitive damages, since no damage had effectively been suffered by one or more identified victims.

This type of sanction is not common in Italy: doctrine and jurisprudence have always asserted that they are contrary to general principles of civil liability. However, an identical provision to that applied in this judgment is laid down in Article 37, paragraph 3, of the Equal Opportunities Code (Legislative Decree198/2006): in case of collective discrimination the sanction may include the payment of non-pecuniary damages. These are not defined as punitive damages but are paid to a collective body that has not, in fact, suffered any damage. The issue of (punitive?) damages in cases of collective discrimination is emerging from the case law as a result of a broad interpretation of the written law. This approach has not been challenged so far but it is likely that the higher courts will be called on to give their interpretation in the near future. In another case, the Court of Vercelli ordered the defendants, who had committed acts of victimisation, to pay

178 Italy, Jobs Act (Deleghe al Governo in materia di riforma degli ammortizzatori sociali, dei servizi per il lavoro e delle politiche attive, nonché' in materia di riordino della disciplina dei rapporti di lavoro e dell'attività ispettiva e di tutela e conciliazione delle esigenze di cura, di vita e di lavoro), 10 December 2014 no. 183, available at: www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2014-12-10;183!vig=. 179 Court of Bergamo, Associazione Avvocatura per i Diritti LGBTI Rete Lenford v. Carlo Taormina, 6 August 2014, http://www.altalex.com/~/media/Altalex/allegati/2014/09/29/68849%20pdf.pdf.

74

EUR 6 000 and EUR 5 500 respectively to the victims as moral damages, in accordance with Article 17 of the directive, which requires that sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.180

A similar approach was taken in 2015 by the Court of Pisa, which ordered an employer to reinstate an employee’s work and to pay their missing salary. In addition, the court ordered the employer to pay EUR 10 000 as moral damages, which was arrived at taking into account the pain suffered by the worker and the dissuasive dimension of the sanctions according to Article 17 of Directive 2000/78/EC. No evidence was required to assess this amount of damages, which the court qualifies as ‘European damages’, as opposed to other dimensions of non-pecuniary damage. In fact, the additional claim for non-material damages made by the worker was not decided in this judgment, but was left for a separate assessment, to be decided in relation to another damages action.181

The approach followed by the Court of Livorno was partially different. It found that a support teacher and the director of the school concerned had perpetrated several acts of direct discrimination and harassment by excluding the claimant, a student with a disability, from the collective activities of the group and by creating a humiliating environment, with public statements about the problems raised by his disability. The court ordered the school and the Education Office to pay EUR 10 000 for the non- pecuniary damages suffered by the student. The amount of the damages was assessed on an equitable basis, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, their number, their duration and the emotional stress produced by those acts for the student, but not the dissuasive aim of the damages as required by the 2000 directives.182

180 Court of Vercelli, Pantè v. Botta, Buonanno and Municipality of Varallo, 4 December 2014, www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/2014_tribunale_Vercelli_rg-1241-del-2014-ord-04-12-2014_Varallo-BOTTA- BUONANNO-trib-vercelli.pdf. 181 Court of Pisa, GC v. LI SRL, 16 April 2015, http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/sentenze/Tribunale_Pisa_ordinanza_16_aprile-2015.pdf. 182 Court of Livorno, P.S., C.F. v. Ministero dell’Istruzione and Scuola Secondaria G. Mazzini, 16 June 2015, https://www.personaedanno.it/dA/ff35a65564/allegato/9003182_livorno.pdf.

75

7 BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 2000/43) a) Body/bodies designated for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective of racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive

The requirement to introduce a body for the promotion of equal treatment is covered in Article 7 of Legislative Decree 215/2003, transposing Directive 2000/43/EC. The decree establishes an ‘Office’ within the Department for Equal Opportunities of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. According to the same Article 7, paragraph 1, the promotion of equal treatment and the elimination of any sort of discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic origin are the general and exclusive tasks of the office. UNAR’s remit has been extended to cover all grounds of discrimination by a ministerial directive (an internal act of the Government assessing the specific tasks of each Government department) issued in 2010 and renewed in 2012. It is not clear if this extension will be confirmed by the next Government.

The director of the office is appointed by the Prime Minister or by a Minister on his behalf (Art. 7, para. 4, Legislative Decree 215/2003). Its internal organisation is set out by a Prime Minister’s Decree adopted on 11 December 2003 (Costituzione e organizzazione interna dell’Ufficio per la promozione della parità di trattamento e la rimozione delle discriminazioni, di cui all’art. 29 della legge comunitaria 1° marzo 2002, n. 39). The office fulfils two services: one devoted to actions against discrimination; the other devoted to research and relations with other institutions.

According to Article 3 of the decree, 21 officials shall be employed; one general executive; one executive for each service and 18 officials. Moreover, other officials may be recruited, seconded either from other Prime Minister’s departments (up to a maximum of five), or from other Government departments. This includes judges, state attorneys, experts and advisers without civil servant status (up to a maximum of five). (Art. 7, para. 5, Legislative Decree no. 215/2003). Currently, none of the three directors is officially in post, and only two external experts are working at UNAR. In January the Government appointed Luigi Manconi, currently an MP and previously a professor of sociology, who has written books on racism, as General Director. He was set to take office on 24 March 2018, after the national election, fulfilling the role without remuneration.

UNAR’s competences include assistance to victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints in judicial or administrative proceedings and surveys on discrimination, but without infringing on the prerogatives of the judicial authorities. b) Political, economic and social context for the designated body

In Italy, there is a general lack of interest regarding the equality body and regarding bodies dealing with human rights in general. No independent body has been designated to deal with discrimination (not even on grounds of gender) or human rights. On the contrary, there appears to be sharp hostility, judging from recurring questions asked by Members of Parliament to the Government, sometimes including requests to close UNAR or to limit its remit to race and ethnic origin, as required by Legislative Decree no. 215/2003.183

There is no evidence of a popular debate on the designated body, which is not even known about by most people, even those who are more supportive of equality and diversity. UNAR has taken centre stage in the national media only recently, when a

183 http://www.camera.it/leg17/410?idSeduta=0748&tipo=stenografico.

76

scandal on the allocation of funding by UNAR was discovered,184 in addition to one previous occasion, when an MP reacted to a letter sent by UNAR’s director asking for more balanced speeches when dealing with migrants. As far as equality and diversity in general are concerned, the popular debate has mostly been influenced by hostility against migrants. In particular, there is an increasing trend to link crimes committed by migrants to the general policy regarding migration and expulsion, and even to integration policies. It appears that there is no place for a popular consensus on equality and diversity.

UNAR’s budget is provided for by law and has been the same since its designation, which dates back to 2003. It is established by Article 8 of Legislative Decree no. 215/2003 and is set at EUR 2 035 357; in addition, UNAR manages funds, including structural funds, linked to special projects. The management of these projects has increased the administrative work of the office; therefore, most of the staff are dealing with administrative issues. Moreover, the extension of UNAR’s remit to other grounds of discrimination has not been reflected through a proportionate extension of the budget. c) Institutional architecture

In Italy, the equality body, UNAR, does not form part of a larger body with a multiple mandate. It was created in implementation of Directive 2000/43/EC. It should be mentioned that, in Italy, there is no national human rights body – not even one in charge of UN reporting. The reporting activity is performed through the Human Rights National Commission, which reports to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is led by a diplomat and is made up of officials and academics. d) Status of the designated body – general independence

i) Status of the body

Italy has chosen to set up an office completely within the structure of the state administration. UNAR is an ‘Office’ of a Ministry of the Government, and fulfils two services: one devoted to actions against discrimination; the other devoted to research and relations with other institutions. It is currently set up within the Department for Equal Opportunities, which previously only dealt with gender discrimination.

UNAR’s budget is part of the budget of the Department for Equal Opportunities. Additional funding can be assigned, depending on the body’s activities and projects, from either another Government department or an international organisation (Article 3, para. 3, Legislative Decree no. 215/2003).

The director is appointed by the Department for Equal Opportunities and the staff reports directly to the director. The office and its staff are together accountable to the Minister for Equal Opportunities and, in the second instance, to the Prime Minister.

ii) Independence of the body

The body is fully answerable to the Department for Equal Opportunities and to the Prime Minister. The General Director has a certain degree of discretion, like any general director in the Government Administration, but has to implement the political will of the Government in office. This is also clear regarding the competences of the Department for Equal Opportunities, which

184 http://www.camera.it/leg17/410?idSeduta=0746&tipo=documenti_seduta.

77

comprise those performed by UNAR according to Article 7 of Legislative Decree no. 215/2003. In practice, the functions of UNAR are listed among the functions of the Department for Equal Opportunities.185

A clear example of this lack of independence occurred in March 2014, after the promotion by UNAR of an educational activity aiming to improve knowledge about sexual orientation and related issues through the publication of leaflets. Catholic associations and members of Parliament complained against the Government, which denied any responsibility regarding the publications, ascribing the initiative to UNAR’s director, who was addressed with a dishonourable mention. Then the Government took the decision to stop the educational campaign.

A similar but more serious event took place in 2015, when UNAR sent a letter, signed by its Director and dated 30 September 2015, to a Member of Parliament, Giorgia Meloni, targeting her exhortations to close the country’s borders to aliens from Muslim countries. According to her comments, people from those countries are more violent and linked to acts of terrorism than others. The letter closed with a very gentle invitation to the MP Giorgia Meloni to consider taking the opportunity in her future speeches to send people different messages, not based on stereotypes.186 Giorgia Meloni reacted very badly to the letter, invoking freedom of speech and the immunity of all Members of Parliament and writing to the Prime Minister and the President of the Chamber of Deputies. A request for clarification was sent by the Prime Minister’s Secretary General to the director of UNAR, Marco De Giorgi, and a vacancy was then published for the role of director, which has now been taken on by another person, an external expert. Marco De Giorgi has been transferred to another service. Moreover, the contracts with 8 of the 10 external experts of the equality body have not been renewed, resulting in a weakening of the body’s capacity to carry on its activities.

The recent appointment of Luigi Manconi as General Director of UNAR may herald a slight change to the way in which the office has been led up to now. An authoritative person who has declared that he will not be paid for this function will be less subject to Government influence.

A lack of independence is underlined in ECRI’s 2015 report regarding Italy. In particular, the report finds that its recommendations have not been fully implemented. This is the case regarding the enhancement of UNAR’s activity by formally extending its powers so that the relevant legislation, and not just internal administrative acts, clearly covers discrimination based not only on ethnic origin but also on colour, language, religion, nationality and national origin; by granting it the right to bring legal proceedings rather than just supporting victims; and by ensuring that its full independence is secured both in law and in fact. This has not been implemented. In particular, ECRI finds that the office is not de jure independent, which is in breach of ECRI’s general policy recommendations 2 and 7, that the office be placed ‘under the Department for Equal Opportunities of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, its Director who is a civil servant appointed by the Government and part of its staff seconded to UNAR from various ministries’. Moreover, despite the widening of the grounds of discrimination covered by UNAR, ECRI

185 http://www.pariopportunita.gov.it/dipartimento/competenze/. 186 http://www.giorgiameloni.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Lettera-UNAR.pdf.

78

underlines that ‘no legislation has yet been enacted to extend formally UNAR’s competence’.187 e) Grounds covered by the designated body

UNAR’s remit has been extended to cover all grounds of discrimination listed in Article 19 TFEU. The proposal to extend UNAR’s powers was put forward by UNAR itself in its first report to Parliament, and this was implemented in a Ministerial directive (an internal act of the Government assessing the specific tasks of each Government department) issued in 2010 and renewed in 2012. The 2014 report to the Parliament relating to 2013 reflects this extension of competences, with different sections for each area of activities as provided for by the Ministerial directive of 2010 (sexual orientation and gender; age; disability; religion; Roma, Sinti and Travellers; nationality; race and ethnic origin).

The equality body also deals with discrimination against migrants, although this is not qualified as a priority issue.

The extension of competence to other grounds has allowed UNAR to act as a point of reference for the management of Governmental projects related to equality and social exclusion, in particular those funded through structural funds. However, this extension has not been reflected by an increase to the staff. Moreover, no additional experts have been recruited, even though this is expressly allowed according to Article 3, paragraph 3 of Legislative Decree no. 215/2003.

These projects deal almost exclusively with discrimination against Roma (with a budget of around EUR 17 million) and sexual orientation (EUR 3 million).188 UNAR also acts as a contact point for the Roma National Strategy and for the LGBT strategy.

Nationality, issues relating to Roma and sexual orientation appear to be the areas where more projects have been promoted and more budget has been allocated. For other grounds, such as racial discrimination in general, nationality, age or religion and belief, no special action has been put in place and no staff have been dedicated. These grounds are dealt with through the activities regarding all grounds, such as the work of the contact centre. On disability, projects and other activities are promoted by the various ministries within the Government. Moreover, a national observatory for persons with disability has been created in implementation of the UNCRPD.189 The observatory is in charge of promoting the effective implementation of the convention, conducting studies and analysis, proposing the adoption of specific measures and reporting yearly on the activities performed.190 f) Competences of the designated body – and their independent and effective exercise

i) Independent assistance to victims

187 ECRI, Conclusions on the Implementation of the Recommendations in Respect of Italy Subject to Interim Follow-Up, 9 December 2014, https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Italy/ITA- IFU-IV-2015-004-ENG.pdf. 188 This information is not supported by any evidence, but it was provided by an official during an informal conversation. 189 Ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone con disabilità, con Protocollo opzionale, fatta a New York il 13 dicembre 2006 e istituzione dell'Osservatorio nazionale sulla condizione delle persone con disabilità, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2009-03-03;18!vig. 190 The website of the Observatory may be found at: http://www.osservatoriodisabilita.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36&Itemid=243&lang =it.

79

In Italy, the designated body has the competence to provide independent assistance to victims.

UNAR’s remit includes assistance to victims of discrimination. This is provided through a contact centre with a freephone number and operators speaking several languages (Italian, English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Romanian and Chinese). The contact centre’s only task is to receive and ‘filter’ requests for help from victims of discrimination, while decisions on action are taken by UNAR staff. Actions may include writing a letter to the relevant authority asking for the removal of the discriminatory measure or behaviour, writing a public opinion and/or, following the case, assuming the role of a sort of mediator between the claimant and the perpetrator of the discrimination.

The contracts to manage the contact centre have been renewed for a three- year period, starting in 2017. The contact centre is one of the most visible activities put in place by UNAR and its mandate has always been renewed, notwithstanding the turnover of UNAR staff and, in particular, the change of general directors. A report on complaints received was published in 2015. According to this report, a total of 1 627 complaints were lodged in 2014, of which 930 were based on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, 100 on disability, 99 on sexual orientation, 92 on age, 38 on religion and personal belief, and 8 on gender.

The follow-up to these cases is not available, so it is very hard to assess the effectiveness of this activity.

It should be mentioned that UNAR has promoted the creation of a solidarity fund for access to justice by victims of discrimination (Fondo di solidarietà per la tutela giurisdizionale delle vittime di discriminazione). The fund was created by UNAR in order to facilitate access to justice by victims of discrimination, anticipating the legal costs of actions brought before the courts (estimated at about EUR 1 000).

On independence, there is no indication of a lack of independence regarding how the contact centre is managed. A lack of independence may be recognised, however, in the choice of the actions to be performed to assist victims, because these must follow ministerial guidelines and approval.

ii) Independent surveys and reports

In Italy, the designated body has the competence to conduct independent surveys and publish independent reports.

However, UNAR does not conduct surveys or collect more complex data than those collected through the contact centre. Only one statistical survey was commissioned by UNAR to the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istituto nazionale di statistica, ISTAT), in 2011-12. The survey was conducted and funded by the Government in order to collect data regarding actual discrimination experienced by people on the grounds of sexual orientation, homophobia and ethnic origin.191 The survey was conducted independently, in accordance with the rules and standards applied by ISTAT.

191 Istat, Discriminations on grounds of gender, sexual orientation and ethnic origin: information on the survey (Discriminazioni in base al genere, all’orientamento sessuale e all’appartenenza etnica: informazioni sulla rilevazione), http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/30726.

80

UNAR publishes an annual report on its activity, as well as reporting on the application of the principle of equal treatment. However, the last report dates back to 2014. The reports that have been published have mainly reflected the activities performed during the previous year, and have provided for a rapid analysis of the data gathered through the contact centre. There is no official reason why no reports have been published since 2014. This appears to be one of several symptoms of a loss of interest in the field of antidiscrimination on the part of the Government, which has affected UNAR activity. The same lack of interest applies to the Parliament, which could have demanded the presentation of annual reports.

Resources dedicated to this activity are too few, in particular regarding surveys, since only one survey has been conducted and there is a general lack of data available in this field. iii) Independent recommendations

In Italy, the designated body has the competence to issue independent recommendations on discrimination issues.

In particular, according to Article 2, paragraph 2, letter (b) of the Prime Minister’s Decree of 11 December 2003, UNAR is in charge of issuing opinions and proposals for reforming the laws on racial and ethnic discrimination and for issuing recommendations on matters related to racial and ethnic discrimination. The latest opinions published on the UNAR website date back to 2013 and are written up in the 2014 reports. There are no resources dedicated specifically to following up on the recommendations that have been formulated within the annual reports. iv) Other competences

In particular, according to Article 2, paragraph 2, letters (a) and (b) of the Prime Minister’s Decree of 11 December 2003, UNAR’s remit includes conducting inquiries to verify the existence of discrimination and promoting the adoption, by private or public entities, of specific measures – including positive action initiatives – aimed at eliminating or compensating for the disadvantages linked to a certain race or ethnic origin. It also includes the dissemination of information concerning the rules on equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.

During its 13 years of activity, UNAR has not performed any inquiries. As for the promotion of positive actions, UNAR has awarded private companies with a prize for the good praxis adopted on antidiscrimination within their businesses.

As regards dissemination of information, UNAR has continually funded several training courses addressed to lawyers, judges and journalists – thanks also to the initiatives of the NGOs responsible for organising the courses. v) Positive duties

N/A. vi) Further competences/activities

According to Article 2, paragraph 2, letter (b) of the Prime Minister’s Decree of 11, UNAR’s remit includes the promotion of training courses in connection with other countries’ national bodies and in cooperation with universities and

81

associations included in the register held by UNAR. UNAR may also promote the adoption of guidelines, in particular in the employment sector and in relation to social benefits. Moreover, UNAR may propose strategies to promote social integration and the civil and political rights of migrants. g) Legal standing of the designated body/bodies

In Italy, the designated body, UNAR, does not have legal standing to:

• bring discrimination complaints (on behalf of identified victims) to court; • bring discrimination complaints (on behalf of non-identified victims) to court; • bring discrimination complaints ex officio to court; • intervene in legal cases concerning discrimination, for example by providing an amicus curiae.

According to Article 7(2) of Legislative Decree no. 215/2003, UNAR can support victims of discrimination during judicial proceedings, even intervening to provide factual information to the judge, in accordance with Article 425 of the Italian Civil Procedural Code. So far, UNAR has never intervened in a judicial proceeding. It has, however, promoted a solidarity fund to assist victims of discrimination, with a financial contribution towards the legal costs. h) Quasi-judicial competences

In Italy, the body is not a quasi-judicial institution. i) Registration by the body/bodies of complaints and decisions

In Italy, the body registers the number of inquiries received through its contact centre. These data are available to the public via the annual reports.192 Since no national report has been published since 2014, there is no public information in this regard, although the body still registers this data. According to the 2014 report,193 the centre has dealt with around 1 142 calls falling within its mandate. All contacts are recorded in a database, which provides information that has been analysed and published by UNAR. j) Planning

No public strategic plan is available. It is not possible to find out whether an annual work plan has been made within the office.

UNAR is required to publish two reports: one on the activities of the previous year, addressed to the Prime Minister, and another on the application of the principle of equal treatment, addressed to the Parliament. The reports have not given rise to any particular debates. Apart from the data on the complaints received through the contact centre, they have not contained any relevant assessment on discrimination and equality measures.

No reports have been published since 2014, and there is no public record of activities related to the implementation of the two strategies for the Roma and LGBT communities. k) Stakeholder engagement

192 The reports are available at http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?p=1735. Hyperlink last accessed on 16 January 2016. 193 UNAR (2014), Monitoring discrimination. UNAR Strategy for Data Collection (Il monitoraggio delle discriminazioni. La strategia di raccolta dati UNAR), http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/wp- content/uploads/2013/11/All.-4-dati-Unar-2014.pdf.

82

UNAR holds a register listing associations and bodies.194 The associations included in the register have the right to legal standing and may apply for funding by UNAR.195

According to Article 2, paragraph 2, letter (a) of the Prime Minister’s Decree of 11 December 2003, UNAR should hold regular hearings with the associations listed in the register. Funding is allocated to the associations through a public tender, and the list of those that are awarded funding is generally published on the UNAR website.

A network of regional and local offices against discrimination was set up in 2011, but it appears from the UNAR website that no activity has been promoted since 2015.196 l) Accessibility

• the designated body does not have an accessible and publicly visible office; • the designated body does not have local or regional offices; • the designated body does not conduct outreach actions to local areas or communities; • the designated body does not have special procedures in place to identify and respond to the access needs of specific complainants (e.g. people with disabilities, people with caring responsibilities, people speaking different languages, people with literacy issues, etc) that are different from those generally applying to public premises; • The designated body does not have special procedures to meet access needs, since the office is not physically accessible to the public, except by invitation from UNAR staff. The service provided by the freephone contact centre is available in multiple languages. m) Roma and Travellers

UNAR considers Roma issues as a priority. It usually gives Roma issues considerable space in its reports to the Parliament and the President of the Council of Ministers. It organises awareness campaigns on prejudice against people from the Roma community and informally monitors critical situations when they occur. Since its appointment as the National Contact Point in accordance with European Commission Communication COM (2011)173, UNAR has increased its activity in support of Roma, involving NGOs and organisations devoted to the protection of Roma, Sinti and Travellers in order to ensure their contribution to the development of Italy’s Roma Strategy. In terms of its approach, UNAR does not have a specific strategy separate from the Government’s: indeed UNAR is the body which has the task of coordinating the implementation of the Italian national strategy on Roma, Sinti and Travellers.197 Some activities, in particular the dissemination of information and awareness-raising, are run directly by UNAR, while the large majority of activities included in the national strategy are intended to be implemented at regional and local level, without any coercive powers given to UNAR to act against omissions.

194 Italy, Regulation implementing Legislative Decree of 25 July 1998, no. 286 (Regolamento recante norme di attuazione del testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell'immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero, a norma dell'articolo 1, comma 6, del decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, n. 286), 31 August 1999, no. 394, available at: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:presidenza.repubblica:decreto.del.presidente.della.repubblica:1999-08-31;394!vig. 195 Court of Rome, ASGI and Associzione 21 luglio v. Rome Capital and Italian Government, 4 June 2016, http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ordinanza-La-Barbuta.pdf. 196 http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ALLEGATO_A_LINEE_GUIDA.pdf ; http://www.unar.it/unar/portal/?page_id=1071. 197 Italy, National Strategy for the inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers 2012-2020 (Strategia nazionale d’inclusione dei Rom, dei Sinti, e dei Caminanti 2012/2020), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_italy_strategy_it.pdf.

83

8 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

8.1 Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners a) Dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination (Article 10 Directive 2000/43 and Article 12 Directive 2000/78)

After its institution, UNAR launched a number of initiatives aimed at raising awareness (seminars and other PR events), some of which have had an impact. According to its annual reports, UNAR has achieved a good degree of visibility, and this has been accompanied by an increase in the attention paid by legal scholars to anti-discrimination issues. Since 2014, there has been a gradual decrease in the intensity of these sorts of activities. There has been less activity every year, with practically no activity in 2016 and no annual report published since 2014.

Beyond UNAR’s activities, there are no specific governmental initiatives to disseminate information about legal protection against discrimination. In fact OSCAD has the task of protecting victims rather than disseminating information on anti-discrimination law. Occasional actions have been promoted by the regions and local authorities. b) Measures to encourage dialogue with NGOs with a view to promoting the principle of equal treatment (Article 12 Directive 2000/43 and Article 14 Directive 2000/78)

Dialogue with NGOs on race and ethnicity should be one of UNAR’s priorities. However, there is no relevant information about such activities during 2016. c) Measures to promote dialogue between social partners to give effect to the principle of equal treatment within workplace practices, codes of practice, workforce monitoring (Article 11 Directive 2000/43 and Article 13 Directive 2000/78)

In Italy, no measure has been taken to promote dialogue between social partners so as to combat discrimination. d) Addressing the situation of Roma and Travellers

As coordinator of Italy’s National Roma Strategy, UNAR continues to promote the application of the strategy at both national and regional levels.198 So far, however, there have been no visible results, nor have any actions been carried out in application of the strategy. At any rate, no public documents, reports or projects have been disseminated to explain how UNAR is implementing the strategy.

8.2 Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) a) Mechanisms

From a theoretical point of view, any contract, collective agreement or internal rules of undertaking contrary to the principle of equal treatment is invalid. The decrees do not contain provisions establishing the invalidity of discriminatory provisions included in contracts, agreements or other rules, but this follows from the application of Article 15 of the Workers Act in the field of labour law and from general principles on the invalidity of contractual clauses contrary to binding statutory rules in other fields.

However, there is no mechanism to ensure the enforcement of the principle except for

198 Italy, National Strategy for the inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers 2012-2020 (Strategia nazionale d’inclusione dei Rom, dei Sinti, e dei Caminanti 2012/2020), pp. 22-32.

84

complaints to the equality body or to the courts. No statutory or administrative provision has been abolished because of conflict with the principle of equal treatment in relation to any of the grounds covered by the directives. b) Rules contrary to the principle of equality

The absence of provisions that expressly directly discriminate on the basis of the grounds covered by the directives does not eliminate the problem of their compatibility with Italian law but instead raises the issue of indirect discrimination. This is especially true in the case of discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin and to some extent in relation to religion. In such cases indirect discrimination can take place through differences of treatment formally based on nationality (such as exclusion of non-EU citizens) or through insufficient attention to the needs of specific groups. This is particularly the case where a community of non-EU citizens is primarily composed of groups that are often subject to discrimination.

One very serious problem has been the adoption of formally ethnically blind rules or policies that in practice mostly affect members of Roma communities, and which have developed from political debates where prejudice against Roma is evident.

With regard to religion, the main issue is primarily the absence of a special regulation for Islam, a gap which could open the way to indirect discrimination relating to the specific needs of Muslims. As yet, no litigation has been brought, but this is increasingly a subject of public debate, which has been fuelled by court cases over crucifixes in schools which have been much inflated by the media.

The main controversial issue in this regard stems from a regional law adopted by the Lombardy Region in January 2015. The law concerns building new places of worship, and makes an express distinction between religions that have entered into agreements with the state and those that have not. Through a number of procedural and administrative obstacles, the regional law makes building new places of worship for those religions that are not linked to the state by a specific agreement difficult if not impossible. It goes without saying that the majority of people affected by this law belong to the Muslim religion, which does not have an agreement with the state. Indeed, the law is commonly referred to as the ‘Anti-Mosques Law’.

This law has been referred by the central Government to the Constitutional Court, claiming an infringement of Article 3 of the Italian Constitution on equality of all persons, of Article 8 on equality of religions, and of Article 19 on freedom of religion. The Constitutional Court issued its judgment on 24 March 2016, quashing the two most controversial provisions of the regional law and preventing them from entering into force.199 According to the Italian Constitutional Court, a place of worship is strictly linked to the freedom of religion as enshrined in Article 19 of the Italian Constitution and does not depend upon the conclusion of an agreement under Articles 7 and 8 of the Constitution.

199 Constitutional Court, Judgment 63/2016, available at www.cortecostituzionale.it.

85

9 COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL

The Ministry of Labour and Social Policies and the Department for Equal Opportunities share responsibility for coordinating equal treatment issues in the fields covered by the directives.

A national anti-racism action plan was presented by the Labour Ministry during the meeting the Government held on 7 August 2015. Several press releases were made available regarding this presentation, but no further information has been given about it subsequently. The official document of the plan remains unavailable on the UNAR website, and it is not on the Labour Ministry website either. It could not even be found on a search of the Official Journal and legal databases. Up to the time of drafting this report, no official document has been available except for the press release of the Government’s meeting at which the strategy was presented.200 Following a request made directly to UNAR, copies of the plan and of the related decree were forwarded to a mailing list of migration lawyers. However, there is no official record of the plan. Even more seriously, there is no record of its effective implementation. The restructuring of UNAR (change of director and of the majority of its staff) may be one of the reasons for the plan not being implemented and/or for information about it not being disseminated. Another reason might be the absence in the Government of any ministerial office with responsibility for integration affairs whereas, thanks to its previous existence, the National Roma Strategy was adopted and drafting of the Anti-Racism Action Plan has begun. It seems that the Government lacks a minister who is willing and able to act in the field of anti-racism, with the paradoxical situation that the only relevant governmental office is UNAR, the equality body, which is supposed to be independent.

There is a certain uneasiness in commenting on a document whose nature and legal effects are so uncertain, especially in the absence of any practical impact. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, the plan has been formally adopted, yet without having any effectiveness. This is equivalent to non-adoption, and during 2017 no significant step has been taken to change this situation of inactivity.

200 http://www.governo.it/articolo/consiglio-dei-ministri-n-77/1182.

86

10 CURRENT BEST PRACTICES

During 2017 no relevant best practice has been promoted. A standstill in the functioning of UNAR and its ability to fund activities to fight discrimination appears to be the reason for this lack of new best practices and for the resumption of practices promoted in the past.

It is worth mentioning that the Interinstitutional Agreement on Access to Justice, which was aimed at strengthening protection for vulnerable victims and was agreed in 2013, is still active.201 Within this framework, a solidarity fund for access to justice by victims of discrimination was set up (Fondo di solidarietà per la tutela giurisdizionale delle vittime di discriminazione). The fund was created by UNAR in order to facilitate access to justice by victims of discrimination, anticipating the legal costs of actions brought before the courts (about EUR 1 000). This amount is not sufficient to cover the overall legal expenses, but it is sufficient to act as an incentive for lawyers engaging in discrimination cases. In the event of a favourable judgment, the legal aid provided must be refunded to UNAR. Applications must be sent to the National Lawyers’ Association by individuals or by collective bodies with the right to legal standing (a maximum of three per year). A steering committee made up of lawyers and public officials from UNAR decide on the allocation of aid, which is an alternative to the legal aid provided by the state for those who are eligible on the basis of their incomes.

However, no report has so far been published about the application of this financial support.

201 See: http://www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/unar1.

87

11 SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives (if any)

The main discrepancies between the decrees and the directives can be considered to be the following:

1. Generally, the key issue is definitely that of the lack of independence of the National Office Against Racial Discrimination (UNAR) operating within the Department for Equal Opportunities of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The office is clearly and completely linked to the executive and cannot perform any independent activity whatsoever, despite the fact that in several cases it has adopted a critical position in relation to the Government. However, it must be noted that the majority of these cases were initially highlighted by the media or individual lawyers and UNAR was involved only later after significant pressure from different organisations. 2. It may appear that Italian law allows organisations that are not based on an ethos to discriminate on the ground of religion. Directive 2000/78/EC permits an exception to differences of treatment for ‘churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief’, while Article 3, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree 216/2003 specifies only ‘churches and other public or private organisations’.202 Pre-existing national rules in this area appear to be more restrictive in admitting exceptions than the decree, which thus goes beyond the discretion granted to Member States, which may implement Article 4, paragraph 2, only in accordance with existing laws or practices. 3. The vast majority of discrimination litigation concerns discrimination on the ground of nationality, against third-country nationals, perpetrated by local and regional authorities. This is a key issue because some public authorities are not supporting the fight against discrimination but, on the contrary, are those perpetrating the discrimination. 4. The provision of Legislative Decree 216/2003 on reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities, introduced in 2013 to implement Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC and the CJEU decision of 4 July 2013, is not perfectly in line with EU law, for two reasons. As regards public bodies, reasonable accommodation is required but without any additional burden, while according to Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC, a certain degree of burden is implicit if it is acceptable. Additionally, the national provision risks being ineffective if it is not supported by specific guidelines addressed in particular at employers, in both the private and public sectors. 5. A further problem is represented by the status of the Muslim community. In the absence of an agreement with the state, and of a general law on freedom of religion, continuous negotiation takes place with national and local authorities on issues such as places of worship and so on. Hostility against Muslims has become even worse, due to the terrorist attacks that have occurred since 2014; moreover, the flow of refugees has been viewed as a means of getting to Europe that terrorists could exploit. 6. There is still a serious problem of discrimination against the Roma community. Anti- Roma hostility is becoming an increasingly significant social and political problem. Roma are given disproportionate visibility in local and national debates on urban crime and suffer a high degree of stigmatisation as a result. Removals of Roma settlements and the promulgation of local regulations targeting the Roma has become a significant part of ongoing policy in many municipalities. The National Roma Strategy, approved during 2012 and still in force, is providing an incentive

202 ‘Differences in treatment based on religion or belief and enacted within churches and other public or private organisations do not constitute discriminatory acts where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activity carried out by such entities or organisations or of the context in which they are carried out, such religion or belief constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement.’

88

and is improving the coordination of regional and local policies, but does not set binding targets to be reached by regions and local authorities. There is a long way to go, however, before it is fully implemented and, year after year, there is a real and increasing risk that the planned activities will not be effectively implemented and that they will remain nothing but words.

11.2 Other issues of concern

With regard to the text of the transposing decrees, the main remaining issues are:

- unnecessary complications due to the coexistence of different legal texts; - the lack of provisions on positive action; - the lack of instructions as regards compensation amounts; - the non-implementation of the adopted national strategies; - insufficient data gathering on equality in order to assess properly the situation of vulnerable groups and to choose the most suitable action to address social exclusion and discrimination.

89

12 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2017

12.1 Legislative amendments

As far as anti-discrimination law is concerned, no amendments have been made to the main legislation implementing the directives.

12.2 Case law

Name of the court: Tribunal of Milan Date of decision: 18 May 2017 Name of the parties: N/A Reference number: N/A Link: https://www.asgi.it/discriminazioni/la-condanna-borghezio-diffamazione-frasi-razziste- nei-confronti-cecile-kyenge/ Brief summary: Cécile Kyenge, currently a Member of the European Parliament, is an Italian citizen of Congolese origin, the first coloured person to be appointed as a Minister of the Government in the history of the Republic. Since the very first days of her mandate, several right-wing politicians have delivered public statements with a clear racist content. Among these was the Lega Nord MEP Mario Borghezio, who, during a public broadcast in April 2013, made highly racist statements targeting Cécile Kyenge. In particular, he claimed that she belonged to a society based on ‘tribal traditions’ and was not suited to perform intellectual jobs.

The public prosecutor had started an investigation into this fact for a charge of defamation aggravated by racial discrimination in accordance with Article 595 paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code and Article 3 paragraph 1 of Law 205/1993. The European Parliament decided not to defend the immunity and privileges of Mario Borghezio on 10 October 2016; Kyenge joined the civil action to the criminal proceeding.

The Tribunal of Milan found that Borghezio had offended Kyenge on the basis of her origin and the colour of her skin. According to the tribunal, Borghezio’s statements showed that he believed in the superiority of the ‘white race’ over the ‘black and African ones’. Moreover, the tribunal found that the exclusion of liability for opinions expressed as a politician did not apply, since the racist attack against Kyenge concerned not just her political convictions but also her physical characteristics and her national origin. The tribunal condemned Borghezio for racist offences, but not for having advocated ideas founded on superiority and racial or ethnic hatred. Borghezio was ordered to pay a fine of EUR 1 000 plus EUR 50 000 in damages in favour of Kyenge. The tribunal took into account not only national legal sources but also Article 10 of the ECHR regarding freedom of expression and the limits to such freedom in political debate.

The judgment takes into account both national and European legal sources, in particular Article 10 of the ECHR and the interpretation given by the ECtHR. In this case, the tribunal found that the MEP had insulted Kyenge in acting beyond the limits of political criticism.

It is worth mentioning that the European Parliament decided not to defend the privileges and immunity of Borghezio but, in the same decision, deplored ‘the fact that the Court of Milan, in spite of the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice, refused to stay the proceedings brought against Mr Borghezio to let the Parliament decide whether to grant immunity’.

Name of the court: Court of Appeal of Milan Date of decision: 23.02.2017 Name of the parties: N/A

90

Reference number: Link: https://www.asgi.it/banca-dati/corte-dappello-milano-sentenza-del-23-febbraio- 2017/ Brief summary: Four private Italian citizens and an NGO, the ASGI (Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione, www.asgi.it) challenged the municipality of Varallo regarding the dissemination of racist posters around the city against foreign hawkers without a licence and women wearing the burqa. The Court of Appeal of Turin had rejected the action, since the municipality had removed the posters prior to the judgment, and had found that the claimants who were Italian citizens did not have the right to legal standing, because they were not victims and did not live in Varallo. However, other posters had later been posted around the city with the names of the claimants, who were ridiculed on the basis that, by bringing their case to court, they had diverted economic resources (those necessary for paying legal costs) away from the community. The four Italian citizens found that this was an act of victimisation and decided to bring their cases to court: two to the Tribunal of Vercelli and two to the Tribunal of Milan, in accordance with their places of their residence. The Tribunal of Vercelli convicted the mayor and the municipality, but the Court of Appeal of Turin quashed the judgment on 23 February 2016. The claimants have since appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, where it is still pending. By contrast, the Tribunal of Milan rejected the claim, but the Court of Appeal of Milan quashed the judgment and found that there had been discrimination.

The Court of Appeal of Milan found that victimisation had taken place, even if the claimants were not victims of discrimination in the case at stake. The court found that the protection against discrimination extends to anyone who has suffered a disadvantage connected to any activity performed to promote equal treatment. The court underlined that the actions of those who act against discrimination, even if they are not victims, should be enhanced and protected. The Court of Appeal ordered the municipality to pay damages of EUR 5 000 to each claimant and towards the publication of the judgment in a local newspaper, Corriere Valsesiano, on the home page of the municipality website and on the Facebook page of the vice-mayor.

Name of the court: Supreme Court Date of decision: 8 May 2017 Name of the parties: N/A Reference numbers: 11165/17 and 11166/17 Link: https://www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/Corte_di_Cassazione__sez_lavoro__sentenza__n_11165_del__ 8517__pres_D%E2%80%99Antonio__est_Riverso__INPS_avv_Coretti_Stumpo_e_Triolo _c_ASGI__APN_.pdf Brief summary: In both cases, the Italian National Social Security Institute – INPS – rejected the application by a third-country national for a benefit for households having at least three minor children (known as ANF). The third-country nationals claimed that the rejection amounted to discrimination, in breach of Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC on the right of equal treatment of long-term residents. The tribunal in first instance, and the Court of Appeal in second instance, upheld the complaints, but the INPS appealed to the Supreme Court. The actions were brought to court by the individual parties and by two associations, ASGI (Associazione Studi Giuridici per l’Immigrazione) and APN (Avvocati per Niente Onlus). INPS contested their legal standing because, while these organisations are allowed to act against discrimination on the ground of race and ethnic origin (Legislative Decree no. 215/2003), there is no express provision allowing them also to act against discrimination on the ground of nationality. Moreover, INPS contested that this was a case of collective discrimination, because the exclusion of third-country nationals was provided for by an administrative act, with only potential discriminatory effects.

91

The Supreme Court found that the two associations did have legal standing to act against discrimination on the ground of nationality, notwithstanding the lack of express provision in this regard in the laws implementing Directive 2003/109 on long-term residents and on antidiscrimination. The Supreme Court has interpreted the provisions regarding discrimination on the ground of nationality (Art. 44, para. 10, Legislative Decree no. 286/1998) in the same way as the provisions on discrimination on the ground of racial and ethnic origin, conflating the different provisions. On collective discrimination, according to the Supreme Court, a collective action against discrimination may also be brought against an administrative act that has a dissuasive effect on municipalities and on physical persons who are potentially affected by the act, in that they are persuaded not to apply for the benefit concerned. The Supreme Court upheld the claim.

Name of the court: Tribunal of Milan Date of decision: 22 February 2017 Name of the parties: ASGI e NAGA c. Davide Borghi e Lega Nord, Lega Lombarda Reference number: N/A Link: https://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ASGI-NAGA-BORGHI-DAVIDE-2- TRIBUNALE-DI-MILANO-ORDINANZA-DEL-22.2.2017.pdf Brief summary: The Lega Nord party and two local branches of it, Lega Lombarda and Lega Nord Saronno, printed several posters against 32 asylum seekers who were to be hosted in a reception centre in the city of Saronno. The posters carried the following statements: ‘Saronno does not want clandestini’ (‘Saronno non vuole clandestini’); ‘Renzi and Alfano want to send 32 clandestini to Saronnno: accommodation and meals paid by ourselves. In the meantime, the Government is cutting the pensions and raising the taxes of people in Saronno’ (‘Renzi e Alfano vogliono mandare a Saronno 32 clandestini: vitto alloggio e vizi pagati da noi. Nel frattempo ai saronnesi tagliano le pensioni ed aumentano le tasse’); and ‘Renzi and Alfano are behind the invasion’ (‘Renzi e Alfano complici dell’invasione’). The two associations claimed that this behaviour amounted to harassment as prohibited by antidiscrimination law, in particular by Article 2 of Legislative Decree no. 215/2003 and Article 43 of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998.

The Tribunal of Milan found that qualifying asylum seekers as ‘clandestine’ amounts to discrimination. According to the tribunal, the term ‘clandestines’ refers to those who enter or stay irregularly in a country, contrary to the applicable laws on the entry and treatment of aliens, whereas asylum seekers enjoy a fundamental right to seek protection because they fear persecution. Describing asylum seekers as ‘clandestines’ is both a mistake and an insult, since the adjective has gained a negative meaning, thus creating an intimidating and hostile environment.

The tribunal ordered the defendants to publish the decision in both the local newspaper il Saronno and the national Corriere della Sera. Moreover, they have been fined with a payment of EUR 5 000 for each association.

The decision is very interesting, since it charges a political party that is usually very hostile against aliens, including asylum seekers, with harassment. According to the court, invoking the freedom of expression as protected by Article 21 of the Italian Constitution does not make the behaviour legitimate in this case, since, in striking the balance between human dignity and equality on one side and freedom of expression on the other, it is the former that prevails as a fundamental principle of Italian law.

The judgment has created a harsh debate, with several newspapers targeting the judge who wrote it. In particular, many journalists as well as Lega Nord politicians have claimed that the judge had a direct relationship with one of the two associations that promoted the action, the ASGI, having attended several meetings and training courses she organised in previous years. The Ministry of Justice opened an inquiry, which finished without any consequences for the judge.

92

Name of the court: Constitutional Court Date of decision: 7 December 2017 Name of the parties: Tribunal of Modena Reference number: 258 Link: https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionPronuncia.do Brief summary: According to Article 10 of Law 1992 no. 91, Article 7, paragraph 1 of the related regulation of execution and Article 25, paragraph 1 of decree 2000 no. 36, a declaration on oath is required in order to acquire Italian citizenship. In the absence of this, the presidential decree conferring Italian citizenship cannot be recorded into the civil status register, thus no legal effects are produced. The Tribunal of Modena, in response to a claim by an individual person, referred the case to the Italian Constitutional Court in order to challenge the violation of Article 3 of the Italian Constitution, together with Article 18 of the UNCRPD and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, because the aforementioned provisions do not allow for an exception to the duty of taking a declaration on oath for a person with disability who is unable to perform such a duty.

The Constitutional Court found that Article 10 of Law 1992 no. 91 discriminates against persons with disability without any reasonable justification, and therefore violates articles 2 and 3 of the Italian Constitution. The Court did not find it necessary also to assess the violation of the UNCRPD and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Trends and patterns in 2017 in cases brought by Roma and Travellers

Despite the traditional reluctance in Italy to engage in ‘civil rights litigation’, NGOs have played a key role in this regard, with support from the Open Society Foundation and the European Roma Rights Centre. In fact, these NGOs have recently started to pursue legal actions, with positive results. After some very interesting cases decided in 2015,203 one new case was lodged before the European Court of Human Rights, which sent an interim measure to Italy in accordance with Article 39 of the Rules of Court, ordering it not to execute the forced eviction of the two women concerned. This is probably the first time that an interim measure has been sent to Italy regarding forced evictions of persons. Since the lack of alternative housing as of 28 March 2016, the Court found that it was necessary to halt the forced evictions, thus avoiding the two women becoming homeless. The Municipality of Rome had ordered the forced eviction of a woman with disability of Roma origin, along with her daughter. The two women, along with 322 other people, were living in a former factory that had been converted into a reception centre. They alleged the violation of Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR. However, the Court declared the action inadmissible because the claimants failed to demonstrate the lack of effective means of redress at national level. In fact, this is one of the admissibility criteria for applications according to Article 35 of the ECHR.204

203 Court of Rome, ASGI and Associzione 21 luglio v. Rome Capital and Italian Government, 4 June 2016, http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ordinanza-La-Barbuta.pdf.Court of Rome, ASGI and Associazione 21 luglio v. Gruppo editorial Simone, 6 February 2015, http://www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/Tribunale-di-Roma-I-sez.-Civile-1622015-est.-Pratesi-XXX-ASGI-Associazione-21- luglio-avv.-Fachile-C.-Gruppo-Editoriale-Simone-%E2%80%A6.pdf. 204 ECtHR, Petrache et Tranca c. Italie, Decision of 4 October 2016, Rec. no. 15920/16, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-168407. The press release issued after the delivery of the interim measure is available at: http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/la-corte-europea-ferma-litalia/; http://www.hlrn.org/news.php?id=pm9rZA==#.WNfFg4VOJjo.

93

ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION

The main transposition and anti-discrimination legislation at both federal and federated/provincial level.

Country: Italy Date: 1 January 2018

Title of Title of the law: Legislative Decree 215/2003 implementing Directive legislation 2000/43/EC on equality of treatment between persons irrespective of (including racial or ethnic origin amending Abbreviation: Legislative Decree 215/2003 legislation) Date of adoption: 9 July 2003 Latest amendments: Art. 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011 Entry into force: 27 August 2003 Web link: www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2003-07-09;215 Grounds covered: Race and ethnic origin Civil law Material scope: Public employment, private employment, access to goods or services (including housing), social protection, social advantages, education Principal content: Prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, instructions to discriminate, remedies and sanctions, creation of a specialised body Title of Title of the Law: Legislative Decree 216/2003 on the implementation of legislation Directive 2000/78/EC for equal treatment in employment and occupation (including Abbreviation: Legislative Decree 216/2003 amending Date of adoption: 09 July 2003 legislation) Latest amendments: Art. 9, para. 4-ter, Law decree no. 76/2013, converted into law no. 99/2013 Entry into force: 28 August 2003 Web link: www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2003-07-09;216!vig Grounds covered: Religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation Civil law Material scope: Public and private employment Principal content: Prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, instructions to discriminate, remedies and sanctions Title of Title of the law: Act 67/2006, Provisions on the judicial protection of legislation persons with disabilities who are victims of discrimination (including Abbreviation: Act on the non-discrimination of disabled people amending Date of adoption: 01 March 2006 legislation) Latest amendments: Art. 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011 Entry into force: 21 March 2006 Web link: www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2006-03- 01;67!vig Grounds covered: disability Civil law Material scope: All fields (there is no limit to the scope of application) Principal content: Implementation of the principle of equal treatment and equal opportunity. Prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination Title of Title of the Law: Legislative Decree 286/1998, Consolidated text of legislation provisions on the regulation of immigration and the status of foreign (including citizens, Articles 43 and 44. amending Abbreviation: Immigration Decree legislation) Date of adoption: 25 July 1998

94

Latest amendments: Art. 28 of Legislative Decree 150/2011 Entry into force: 02 September 1998 Web link: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:1998-07-25;286!vig Grounds covered: Race, colour, ancestry, religion, national or ethnic origin, religious beliefs and practices Civil Law Material scope: Public employment, private employment, access to goods or services (including housing), social protection, social services, education, economic activity. Principal content: Prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination; remedies and sanctions; creation of regional observatories Title of Title of the law: Act 122/1993, Urgent measures on racial, religious and legislation ethnic discrimination (including Abbreviation: Mancino Act amending Date of adoption: 25 June 1993 legislation) Latest amendments: Art. 34 of Legislative Decree 150/2011 Entry into force: 27 June 1993 Web link: www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legge:1993-04-26;122!vig Grounds covered: racial and ethnic origin, religion Criminal law Material scope: All fields (there is no limit to the scope of application) Principal content: Hate speech, discriminatory acts Title of Title of the law: Framework Act 104/1992 on rights and social legislation integration of persons with disability (including Abbreviation: Framework act on social assistance amending Date of adoption: 05 February 1992 legislation) Latest amendments: Legislative Decree 119/2011 Entry into force: 18 February 1992 Web link: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1992-02-05;104!vig Grounds covered: disability Administrative law Material scope: all fields Principal content: Integration of persons with disability Title of Title of the law: Act 68/1999, Provisions on the right to work of disabled legislation people (including Abbreviation: Act on the employment of disabled people amending Date of adoption: 12 March 1999 legislation) Latest amendments: Legislative decree 151/2015 Entry into force: 17 January 2000 Web link: http://www.normattiva.it/uri- res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1999-03-12;68!vig Grounds covered: disability Civil/administrative law Principal content: Integration of people with disability Title of Title of the law: Act 300/1970, Provisions on the protection of the legislation freedom and dignity of workers, on freedom of trade unions and their (including activity in the work place, and on employment amending Abbreviation: Workers’ Act legislation) Date of adoption: 20 May 1970 Latest amendments: Law 92/2012 Entry into force: 11 June 1970 Web link: www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1970-05- 20;300!vig

95

Grounds covered: Race, sexual orientation, disability, age, religion or personal belief Civil law Material scope: employment Principal content: Unfair dismissal and discrimination in the work place Title of Title of the law: Tuscany Regional Act 63/2004, Provisions against legislation discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and gender identity (including Abbreviation: Tuscan Regional Act 63/2004 amending Date of adoption: 15 November 2004 legislation) Latest amendments: N/A Entry into force: 10 December 2004 Web link: http://raccoltanormativa.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/articolo?urndoc=ur n:nir:regione.toscana:legge:2004-11-15;63 Grounds covered: Sexual orientation and gender identity Civil/administrative law Material scope: All field Principal content: Implementation of the principle of equal treatment and equal opportunity. Measures of social inclusion, vocational training, occupation and healthcare Title of Title of the law: Liguria Regional Act 52/2009, Provisions against legislation discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation (including Abbreviation: Liguria Regional Act 52/2009 amending Date of adoption: 10 November 2009 legislation) Latest amendments: N/A Entry into force: 26 November 2009 Web link: http://lrv.regione.liguria.it/liguriass_prod/articolo?urndoc=urn:nir:region e.liguria:legge:2009-11-10;52 Grounds covered: Sexual orientation Civil/administrative law Material scope: All fields Principal content: Implementation of the principle of equal treatment and equal opportunity. Measures of social inclusion, vocational training, occupation and healthcare Title of Title of the law: Emilia Romagna Regional Act 5/2004, Provisions on the legislation social integration of migrants (including Abbreviation: Emilia Romagna Regional Act 5/2004 amending Date of adoption: 24 March 2004 legislation) Latest amendments: N/A Entry into force: 9 April 2004 Web link: http://demetra.regione.emilia- romagna.it/al/articolo?urn=er:assemblealegislativa:legge:2004;5 Grounds covered: Race, ethnicity, nationality and religion Civil/administrative law Material scope: Social integration, healthcare, education, vocational training, occupation and employment, democratic participation Principal content: measures against discrimination, establishment of a regional observatory, measures against social exclusion in the fields of education, healthcare, employment, and occupation. Title of Title of the law: Regional Lazio Act 10/2008 Promotion of full equality legislation and integration of aliens (including Abbreviation: Lazio Regional Act 10/2008 amending Date of adoption: 14 July 2010 legislation) Latest amendments: N/A

96

Entry into force: 5 August 2010 Web link: http://www.socialelazio.it/binary/prtl_socialelazio/tbl_normativa/LR_10_ 2008.pdf Grounds covered: race and ethnic origin, nationality Civil/administrative law Material scope: Social integration, healthcare, education, vocational training, occupation and employment, democratic participation Principal content: measures against discrimination, establishment of a regional observatory, measures against social exclusion in the fields of education, healthcare, employment, and occupation Title of Title of the law: Tuscany Act 29/2009 on the reception, integration and legislation protection of aliens (including Abbreviation: Tuscan Regional Migration Act amending Date of adoption: 9 June 2009 legislation) Latest amendments: N/A Entry into force: 30 June 2009 Web link: http://raccoltanormativa.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/articolo?urndoc=ur n:nir:regione.toscana:legge:2009-06-09;29 Grounds covered: Nationality, race or ethnic origin Civil/administrative law Material scope: Social integration, employment and occupation, vocational training, education Principal content: Several measures aiming to foster the integration of aliens: measures against discrimination, measures against social exclusion in the fields of education, healthcare, employment and occupation

97

ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Country: Italy Date: 1 January 2018

Instrumen Date of Date of Derogations Right of Can this t signature ratificatio / individual instrument (if not n reservations petition be directly signed (if not relevant to accepted? relied upon please ratified equality and in domestic indicate) please non- courts by Dd/mm/ indicate) discriminatio individuals? yyyy Dd/mm/ n yyyy European 04.11.1950 26.10.1955 No Yes Yes Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Protocol 04.11.2000 Not ratified No 12, ECHR

Revised 03.05.1996 05.07.1999 No Ratified Yes European collective Social complaints Charter protocol? Yes. The collective complaints protocol has been ratified Internation 18.01.1967 15.09.1978 No Yes Yes al Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Framework 01.02.1995 03.11.1997 No N/A Yes Convention for the Protection of National Minorities Internation 18.01.1967 15.09.1978 No N/A Yes al Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Convention 13.03.1968 05.01.1976 No Yes Yes on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimina- tion

98

Instrumen Date of Date of Derogations Right of Can this t signature ratificatio / individual instrument (if not n reservations petition be directly signed (if not relevant to accepted? relied upon please ratified equality and in domestic indicate) please non- courts by Dd/mm/ indicate) discriminatio individuals? yyyy Dd/mm/ n yyyy Convention 17.07.1980 05.09.1991 No Yes Yes on the Elimination of Discrimina- tion Against Women ILO 25.06.1958 12.08.1963 No N/A Yes Convention No. 111 on Discriminati on Convention 26.01.1990 05.09.1991 No N/A Yes on the Rights of the Child Convention 30.03.2007 15.05.2009 No N/A Yes on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

99

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

• more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu)

DS-04-18-391-3A-N 10.2838/244158 doi:

2 - 85020 - 79 - 92 - 978

ISBN: PDF Il principio di non discriminazione dalla CEDU alla Carta di Nizza: il caso dell’orientamento sessuale

di Carmelo Danisi *

Il noto principio di non discriminazione, già presente nella Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo (CEDU) all’articolo 14, è stato riaffermato all’articolo 21 della Carta di Nizza. Molti gli aspetti problematici al riguardo. Per quanto riguarda la disposizione della CEDU, centrale è l’affermazione secondo cui il contenuto dell’articolo 14 CEDU non ha carattere sostanziale: esso si applica unicamente in combinato agli altri diritti sanciti nella Convenzione. Ciò è stato ripetuto innumerevoli volte dalla Corte di Strasburgo nelle sue sentenze. Un ambito rispetto al quale l’applicazione del principio di non discriminazione ha presentato grosse difficoltà, e che verrà proposto come esempio, riguarda l’orientamento sessuale. Due sentenze dagli esiti contrapposti possono servire a delineare i limiti ma anche le potenzialità dell’art. 14. La seconda parte sarà dedicata al diritto comunitario. Infine, con la proclamazione di una Carta propria di diritti fondamentali, è possibile definire nell’Unione Europea un quadro più ampio di protezione rispetto a quello previsto dalla CEDU? In attesa che della piena validità giuridica della Carta,1 anche il contenuto dell’art. 21 presenta alcune difficoltà di interpretazione.

1. Non discriminazione e CEDU: l’art. 14 e i suoi limiti Il principio di non discriminazione è diffusamente riconosciuto come manifestazione del più generale principio di eguaglianza. Sulla base di quest’ultimo, situazioni simili devono essere trattate in modo uguale mentre situazioni diverse in modo differente. In caso contrario, e in assenza di ragionevoli giustificazioni, il trattamento deve considerarsi discriminatorio. Tali principi rappresentano elementi fondamentali della normativa internazionale relativa ai diritti umani. In particolare, il principio di non discriminazione si ritrova nella Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti dell’Uomo del 1948 all’art. 7 come nel Patto internazionale sui Diritti Civili e Politici all’art. 26, e risulta puntualmente riaffermato in tutti gli strumenti universali e regionali di tutela. In ambito europeo, esso è consacrato nella Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, il cui art. 14 afferma: “Il godimento dei diritti e delle libertà riconosciuti nella presente Convenzione deve essere assicurato senza nessuna discriminazione, in particolare quelle fondate sul sesso, la razza, il colore, la lingua, la religione, le opinioni politiche o quelle di altro genere, l’origine nazionale o sociale, l’appartenenza a una minoranza nazionale, la ricchezza, la nascita o ogni altra condizione”. Oltretutto, come affermano i giudici di Strasburgo in un caso recente, tale principio “è profondamente radicato nella giurisprudenza della Corte”.2 Innanzitutto, è necessario precisare che, nonostante sia presente una lista di ragioni per cui possa verificarsi una violazione del principio di non discriminazione, essa non è stata mai interpretata come esaustiva.3 Infatti, anche se vengono richiamati i fattori più comuni di discriminazione, la Corte di Strasburgo si è avvalsa dell’art. 14 (in relazione ad altri articoli CEDU) per condannare violazioni del principio in esame anche sulla base di motivi non affermati esplicitamente. Si possono ricordare in questa sede, ad esempio, le

1 Per tutti, O. Pollicino e V. Sciarabba, La Carta di Nizza oggi, tra “sdoganamento giurisprudenziale” e Trattato di Lisbona, in Diritto Pubblico Comparato e Europeo, 2008, Pp. 101-120. 2 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, E. B. c. Francia, sentenza del 22 gennaio 2008, par. 48. 3 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Engel e altri c. Paesi Bassi, sentenza dell’8 giugno 1976, in Serie A, n. 22, par. 72. discriminazioni basate sull’orientamento sessuale, fattore preso in esame nel caso Salgueiro da Silva Mouta c. Portogallo,4 giudicando il quale la Corte ritiene violato l’art. 14 da parte dello Stato interessato. Come si vedrà dopo, tuttavia, la Corte nel valutare tale tipo di discriminazione ha dovuto richiamare l’art. 8 CEDU, ampliandone il campo di applicazione e forzandone l’interpretazione.5 Oltretutto, dal momento che la Convenzione europea è stata definita come strumento vivente è probabile che, con il passare del tempo, altri fattori di discriminazione acquistino rilevanza e siano a loro volta ricompresi nella tutela offerta dall’articolo 14 (e, per gli Stati contraenti, dall’art. 1 del Protocollo n. 12). Allo stesso modo, quanto più l’ambito di applicazione di ogni singolo diritto garantito dalla CEDU si espande grazie all’interpretazione della Corte, tanto maggiore sarà la tutela offerta dal principio di non discriminazione. La decisione di formulare in tal modo il contenuto dell’articolo 14 ha limitato la sua portata in quanto lega un principio generalmente riconosciuto al godimento degli altri diritti proclamati nella stessa Convenzione e nei suoi Protocolli addizionali.6 È opportuno precisare, tuttavia, che l’applicazione dell’art. 14 non presuppone la violazione di una disposizione contenuta nella CEDU e in tal senso risulta autonomo. Laddove, però, è stata osservata la violazione di un diritto tutelato nella prima parte della Convenzione, la Corte non procede anche all’esame del caso alla luce dell’art. 14.7 Come si evince, quindi, il divieto di discriminazione della CEDU non è assoluto ma i suoi effetti si manifestano unicamente in combinato alle altre disposizioni contenute nel testo o rispetto ai diritti che, pur non essendo affermati in modo esplicito nella CEDU, trovano in esse la loro base giuridica. In tal senso si è anche espressa la Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo in numerosi casi sottoposti al suo giudizio. Nella sentenza Kosteski c. l’ex-Repubblica Iugoslava di Macedonia del 13 aprile 2006, ad esempio, la Corte ha affermato quanto segue: “Article 14 of the Convention complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It may be applied in an autonomous manner as a breach of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those other provisions although, since it has no independent existence, it can only come into play where the alleged discrimination falls within the scope of the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions”.8

4 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Salgueiro da Silva Mouta c. Portogallo, caso n. 33290/96, sentenza del 21 dicembre 1999, par. 28. 5 Esemplare è il caso Petrovic c. Austria, sentenza del 27 marzo 1998, dove la Corte dalla lettura dell’art. 8, che obbliga gli Stati al rispetto della vita privata e familiare, ne deriva l’esistenza di un dovere per l’Austria di assicurare, senza alcuna discriminazione, permessi di maternità. 6 Tra i contributi che si propongono di analizzare il contenuto e la portata dell’art. 14, si vedano in particolare: S. Bartole, B. Conforti, G. Raimondi, Commentario alla CEDU, Cedam, 2001. Pp. 409-423; R. Wintemute, “Within the Ambit”: How is the Gap in Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights?, in European Human Rights Law Review, 2004, 366-382; J. Schokkenbroek, “The Prohibition of Discrimination in Article 14 of the Convention and the Margin of Appreciation”, in Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 19, 1998; S. Livingstone, “Article 14 and The Prevention of Discrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights”, in European Human Rights Law Review, 1997, pp. 25-34 7 In molti casi, del resto, tale esame non avviene anche perché ricalcherebbe lo stesso ragionamento seguito dalla Corte per valutare la legittimità dell’azione statale e della relativa proporzionalità al fine dell’accertamento della violazione denunciata di un diritto sostanziale. Vedi, Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Lithgow e altri c. Regno Unito, sentenza 8 luglio 1986 in Serie A, n. 102; Rekvenyi c. Ungheria, sentenza del 20 maggio 1999. 8 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Kosteski c. Ex-Repubblica Iugoslava di Macedonia, caso n. 55170/00, sentenza del 13 aprile 2006, par. 44. La stessa interpretazione è stata fornita in altri casi in cui il ricorrente ha lamentato la violazione dell’art. 14, come in Van der Mussele c. Belgio, sentenza del 23 novembre 1983, in Serie A, n. 70, par. 43; Tysiac c. Polonia, caso n. 5410/03, sentenza del 20 marzo 2007; E.B. c. Francia, caso n. 43546/2002, sentenza del 22 gennaio 2008, cfr. infra; Abdulaziz,Cabales e Balkandali c. Regno Unito, sentenza del 28 maggio 1985, in Serie A, n. 94, par. 71; Inze c. Austria, sentenza del 28 ottobre 1987, in Serie A, n. 126, par. 36; Karlheinz Schmidt c .Germania, sentenza del 18 luglio 1994, in Serie A, n. 291-B, par. 22; Petrovic c. Austria, sentenza del 27 marzo 1998, par. 22; Haas c. Paesi Bassi, caso n. 36983/97, sentenza del 13 gennaio 2004, par. 41. Nello stesso caso la Corte ha peraltro affermato quali possono essere i criteri che uno Stato Parte della CEDU deve osservare affinché il principio di non discriminazione non sia violato. In Kosteski c. l’ex-Repubblica Iugoslava di Macedonia si può leggere quanto segue: “different treatment is discriminatory, for the purposes of Article 14, if it “has no objective and reasonable justification”, that is, if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there is not a “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realized”.9 In effetti, da un lato, l’esistenza di particolari gruppi o categorie di persone che possono vivere in condizioni di ineguaglianza o di svantaggio rispetto al resto della popolazione può giustificare l’adozione di azioni positive. A tal fine, ad esempio, rilevano gli impegni richiesti agli Stati da trattati internazionali o regionali per l’eliminazione di forme particolari di discriminazioni, come quelle basate sul sesso, la cui soluzione può passare attraverso l’introduzione delle cosiddette “quote rosa”. Lo scopo, dall’altro lato, deve rimanere quello di promuovere un’uguaglianza di fatto nel rispetto del principio di proporzionalità. Per questo motivo, nel caso in cui un trattamento risultasse comunque sospetto, le ragioni addotte per giustificarlo devono essere ancora più fondate e, soprattutto, necessarie. A tal fine, ad esempio, la Corte di Strasburgo ha affermato che nell’esame di trattamenti dai quali possano derivare discriminazioni basate sull’orientamento sessuale, sul sesso10 o sulla nascita al di fuori di vincoli coniugali11, gli Stati membri nell’attuarli sono tenuti a fornire forti giustificazioni.12 In sintesi, quindi, il ruolo della Corte di Strasburgo nello stabilire se un trattamento discriminatorio ha avuto luogo è fondamentale. Infatti, essa deve innanzitutto capire quali situazioni mettere a confronto. Nel caso in cui una differenza è poi riscontrata, è necessario valutare se l’azione statale persegue un fine legittimo. Come parametro, spesso, sono stati citati i principi che normalmente prevalgono nelle società democratiche,13 nozione che resta ambigua. Infatti, alcuni principi non risultano ampiamente condivisi da tutti gli Stati membri del Consiglio d’Europa. Ad esempio, prendendo in esame l’art. 8, fino a che punto lo Stato può interferire nella vita privata dei cittadini per garantire le esigenze della comunità? Oppure, quale differenziazione di trattamenti può essere giustificata dalla difesa della famiglia fondata sul matrimonio? L’interpretazione della Corte deve quindi tener conto di una serie di fattori, prima di tutto la specificità del contesto in cui il caso si colloca. A tale proposito mi sembra opportuno ricordare la dottrina del margine di apprezzamento, ampiamente richiamata dalla Corte in numerose sentenze che riguardano la disparità di trattamento. Nel caso Kosteski c. l’ex-Repubblica Iugoslava di Macedonia, i giudici hanno affermato che: “the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment”.14 L’ampiezza del margine di apprezzamento può variare in base alle circostanze concrete e alla materia oggetto degli atti statali. Rispetto al principio di

9 Negli stessi termini la Corte si è espressa anche in altri casi. Tra gli altri, Abdulaziz, Cabales e Balkandali c. Regno Unito, sentenza del 28 maggio 1985, in Serie A, n. 94, par. 72; Karlheinz Schmidt c. Germania, sentenza del 18 luglio 1994, in Serie A, n. 291-B, par. 24. 10 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Burghartz c. Svizzera, sentenza del 22 febbraio 1994, in Serie A, n. 280- B, par. 27; Karlheinz Schmidt c. Germania, sentenza del 18 luglio 1994, in Serie A, n. 291-B, par. 24; Petrovic c. Austria, sentenza del 27 marzo 1998 in Raccolta 1998-II, p. 587, par. 37. 11 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Inze c. Austria, sentenza del 28 ottobre 1987, in Serie A, n. 126, par. 4; Mazurek c. Francia, caso n. 34406/97, sentenza dell’1 febbraio 2000, par. 49; Sommerfeld c.Germania, caso n. 31871/96, sentenza dell’8 luglio 2003, par. 93. 12 Lo stesso vale nei casi in cui trattamenti discriminatori si basano sull’orientamento sessuale. Vedi ad esempio, Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, L. and V. c. Austria, sentenza del 9 gennaio 2003, par. 45; S.L. c. Austria, caso n. 45330/99, sentenza del 9 gennaio 2003; Karner c. Austria, caso n. 40016/98, sentenza del 24 luglio 2003, par. 37. 13 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Régime linguistique de l’enseignement en Belgique, sentenza del 23 luglio 1968, in Serie A, n. 6. discriminazione, ad esempio, la Corte ha affermato che nella formulazione e nell’attuazione delle politiche fiscali spetta agli Stati membri un largo margine di apprezzamento.15 Tale margine non risulta, invece, così ampio nel momento in cui entrano in gioco fattori sensibili, quali quelli richiamati nell’art. 14.

1.1 Discriminazioni dirette e indirette: Thlimmenos c. Grecia e D.H. e altri c. Repubblica Ceca Da quanto detto finora, è possibile ritenere che l’art. 14 non comprende solo discriminazioni dirette, bensì tutela anche quelle situazioni in cui l’applicazione di uno stesso trattamento a tutta la popolazione non tiene conto delle specificità delle sue componenti. Proprio rispetto a tali circostanze, la Corte appare sempre più orientata a condannare gli Stati membri laddove non sia possibile giustificare politiche che danno vita a discriminazioni indirette.16 Ne è un esempio il caso Thlimmenos c. Grecia,17 a seguito del quale lo Stato greco è stato condannato per non aver tenuto conto dei bisogni specifici derivanti dalla fede professata dal ricorrente. A quest’ultimo, invece, è stato applicato lo stesso trattamento riservato alla maggioranza dei cittadini, pur non riconoscendosi in essa. Per la Corte, ricalcando il ragionamento precedentemente delineato, non esistevano motivi ragionevoli ed oggettivi per non trattare diversamente il signor Thlimmenos. Altro caso interessante è D.H. e altri c. Repubblica Ceca18, con cui la Corte ha dapprima negato la violazione e. solo in un secondo momento, ha deciso di condannare lo Stato per la violazione dell’articolo 14 letto in combinato con l’art. 2 del primo Protocollo addizionale alla CEDU. Il trattamento contrario al principio di non discriminazione riguardava il collocamento di bambini di etnia rom in istituti destinati, in realtà, a bambini con difficoltà di apprendimento. Il ricorso presentato dall’European Roma Rights Centre, infatti, aveva evidenziato come, nonostante la legge sotto esame fosse stata promulgata per uno scopo legittimo, averne esteso l’applicazione ai Rom comportava loro una lesione del diritto all’istruzione. Relegandoli negli istituti speciali, i bambini Rom non avrebbero avuto accesso ad un’istruzione di qualità né sarebbero potuti venire a contatto con la maggioranza dei bambini cechi con conseguenti problemi di integrazione sociale. La prima sentenza sul caso, emanata da una Camera della Seconda Sezione della Corte il 7 febbraio 2006, non aveva considerato il trattamento riservato ai Rom come un tipo di discriminazione indiretta. Per quanto i giudici ritenessero possibile che “una disposizione generale possa avere effetti sproporzionalmente pregiudizievoli nei confronti di un determinato gruppo di individui, nonostante non rivolto a questi ultimi”,19 la Repubblica Ceca non era condannabile soprattutto perché il trattamento riservato ai Rom mancava di intenzionalità. Tale decisione è stata però totalmente ribaltata dalla Grande Camera con la sentenza del 13 novembre 2007. Per essa, infatti, il mancato intento non era sufficiente a sollevare lo Stato ceco dalle sue responsabilità. Quest’ultimo, piuttosto, non aveva fornito

14 Kosteski v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , supra nota 1; cfr. anche Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, sentenza del 18 luglio 1994, in Serie A, n. 291-B, par. 24. 15 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Fredin c. Svezia, sentenza del 18 febbraio 1991, in Serie A, n. 192, par. 151; Immobiliare Saffi c. Italia, sentenza del 28 luglio 1999, Raccolta 1999-V, par. 49; Chapman c. Regno Unito, sentenza del 18 gennaio 2001. 16 Sulla differenziazione delle discriminazioni, O.De Schutter, The Prohibition of Discrimination under European Human Rights Law, pp. 17-18. 17 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Thlimmenos c. Grecia, caso n. 34369/97, sentenza del 6 aprile 2000, par. 42-47. 18 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, D.H. e altri c. Repubblica Ceca, caso n. 57325/00, sentenze del 7 febbraio 2006 e del 13 novembre 2007. 19 Tramontana Enzamaria, Discriminazione indiretta e nozione di uguaglianza, in Tutela internazionale dei Diritti Umani, n. 2/2008. una motivazione obiettiva e ragionevole per giustificare il collocamento dei bambini Rom in istituti diversi dalle scuole ordinarie. Addirittura, lo stesso permesso ricevuto dai genitori dei bambini non è stato ritenuto valido a tal fine. Per la Grande Camera, del resto, nel momento in cui si voglia far valere una violazione indiretta del principio di discriminazione, l’onere della prova spetta allo Stato membro chiamato in causa. In questo caso, al di là dell’intenzionalità della misura, a contare è la mancata valutazione da parte delle autorità competenti degli effetti che essa può produrre su individui diversi da quelli a cui è principalmente rivolta.

1.2 Il Protocollo n. 12 alla CEDU Nonostante la Corte nell’esame dei casi sottoposti a suo giudizio abbia dato un’interpretazione non restrittiva delle disposizioni convenzionali, resta evidente il limite che caratterizza il principio di non discriminazione nel modo in cui è enunciato nell’art. 14. Del resto, per i diritti non elencati dalla CEDU o dai suoi Protocolli o per le fattispecie che non possono essere ricomprese nelle sue disposizioni, la tutela della CEDU in alcuni ambiti risulta particolarmente carente. Per questo motivo, il Consiglio d’Europa nella convinzione di rafforzare le previsioni della CEDU, ha elaborato il Protocollo n. 12. Esso è stato aperto alla firma degli Stati membri il 4 novembre 2000 ma, nonostante sia entrato in vigore il primo di aprile 2005, ad oggi è stato ratificato ed entrato in vigore solamente in 17 Paesi (su 47!).20 Come afferma l’Explanatory Report21 relativo al Protocollo n. 12, l’idea di adottare un Protocollo per migliorare la tutela dei principi di eguaglianza e di non discriminazione risale agli anni ’60 ma solo negli ultimi anni, grazie agli sforzi compiuti per realizzare condizioni di parità tra uomo e donna e per combattere il fenomeno del razzismo, è divenuto chiaro quanto importante fosse rivedere l’impostazione dell’articolo 14 per ampliarne l’ambito di applicazione. Ciononostante, è stato deciso di non estendere la lista di motivi già presenti nell’articolo originale per evitare che la nuova disposizione possa essere interpretata in modo non corretto. Infatti, l’inserimento di un nuovo discrimination ground avrebbe potuto far pensare che solo rispetto alle ragioni esplicitamente espresse si potesse far valere violazione del principio di discriminazione. L’art. 1 del Protocollo, infatti, si pone piuttosto l’obiettivo di ampliare l’applicazione di tale principio al godimento di qualsiasi diritto riconosciuto per legge negli Stati contraenti la CEDU. Inoltre, nel momento in cui il Protocollo entrasse in vigore, ogni autorità pubblica nazionale avrebbe il dovere di attuare le proprie funzioni senza discriminazione alcuna. Come è stato ben precisato nell’Explenatory Report, le disposizioni contenute nell’art. 1 non intendono in alcun modo far sorgere obblighi positivi in seno agli Stati contraenti ma si limita a ribadire loro un dovere negativo. Laddove, però, esistano delle lacune nella legislazione nazionale che rendano alcuni gruppi o persone maggiormente vulnerabili a trattamenti discriminatori è possibile far valere sugli Stati contraenti l’obbligo di agire per porre in essere adeguati strumenti di tutela.22 Naturalmente, si tratterebbe di uno scopo legittimo e i mezzi utilizzati per perseguirlo non dovrebbero essere né sproporzionati né illimitati nel tempo. Ad

20 Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Bosnia, Croazia, Cipro, Finlandia, Georgia, Lussemburgo, Montenegro, Paesi Bassi, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Spagna, Macedonia e Ucraina. Informazioni consultate on-line il 30 aprile 2009 al link http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=177&CM=8&DF=4/15/2009&CL=ENG . 21 Consiglio d’Europa, Explanatory Report on Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adottato dal Consiglio d’Europa il 26 giugno 2000. Consultato on-line al link http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/177.htm il 14 aprile 2009. Sul Protocollo anche R. Wintemute, Filling the article 14 Gap: Government Ratification and Judicial Control of Protocol N. 12 ECHR, in European Human Rights Law Review, 2004, 484-499. 22 In modo simile si era comunque espressa la Corte nel caso X e Y c. Paesi Bassi, sentenza del 26 marzo 1985, in Serie A, n. 91, parr. 23, 24, 27, 30. esempio, la necessità di combattere forme di razzismo basate sull’idea di razza o di origine etnica è all’origine dell’adozione di politiche statali che possono avvantaggiare soggetti/gruppi oggetto di discriminazioni o che mirano al rafforzamento della democrazia e della tolleranza nelle rispettive società. Un’osservazione che può essere avanzata riguarda il carattere che un diritto deve avere ai sensi dell’art. 1 del Protocollo. Infatti, se esso si applica ad ogni diritto affermato per legge, non è chiaro se rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione anche quei diritti espressi dalla normativa internazionale. Del resto, numerosi trattati internazionali contengono disposizioni dettagliate che riconoscono una serie di diritti ad alcune categorie di persone (ad esempio, migranti, disabili, donne) che non vengono puntualmente trasposti nella legislazione interna agli Stati. Il rapporto del Consiglio europeo risulta ambiguo su tale questione: esso afferma piuttosto che, nel caso in cui nel termine law s’intendesse far rientrare il diritto internazionale, non spetterebbe alla Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo giudicare la conformità della legislazione interna degli Stati contraenti con gli obblighi da loro assunti a livello internazionale al di là di quelli derivanti dall’adesione alla CEDU. In tal caso, però, la giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo risulterebbe notevolmente ampliata. Altra questione è capire cosa succede se manca una legge che riconosca determinati diritti. Nel paragrafo seguente, ad esempio, tratterò la questione dell’orientamento sessuale. Dal momento che in Italia manca una legge che riconosca formalmente qualsiasi tipo di convivenza, posso ipotizzare che le disposizioni del Protocollo 12 non servirebbero a colmare trattamenti senza dubbio discriminatori. Come si dirà, la non scelta italiana nel senso di lacuna legislativa la pone al riparo di qualsiasi tentativo di far valere davanti alla Corte Europea pari diritti a coloro che ritengono di essere discriminati a causa dell’orientamento sessuale. La ratifica del Protocollo n. 12, in tale contesto, non rappresenterebbe quindi una soluzione.

2. Non discriminazione e orientamento sessuale: i casi esaminati dalla Corte di Strasburgo La discriminazione basata sull’orientamento sessuale, sia diretta che indiretta, è sicuramente un esempio di differenziazione di trattamenti che non trova ancora condanna univoca e assoluta, come avviene invece per quelle basate sul sesso o sull’origine etnica. La maggiore difficoltà, probabilmente, consiste nella mancanza di un orientamento comune in materia da parte degli Stati. Del resto, la Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo ha considerato spesso tale fattore per far ricorso alla dottrina del margine di apprezzamento in sentenze che esaminavano casi in cui erano stati denunciati trattamenti discriminatori sulla base delle tendenze sessuali del ricorrente. Tuttavia, come ha notato un giudice nella sua opinione dissenziente nella sentenza sul caso Fretté c. Francia, “è chiaro che un consenso europeo in tale ambito sta emergendo”. Infatti, non solo l’Assemblea Parlamentare del Consiglio d’Europa ha raccomandato al Consiglio di aggiungere l’orientamento sessuale quale fattore di discriminazione nella CEDU ma ha anche chiesto agli Stati di operare allo stesso modo nelle loro legislazioni nazionali. In risposta, il Consiglio ha assicurato di concentrare particolare attenzione sul tema.23 In effetti, l’art. 14 non comprende l’orientamento sessuale tra i grounds di discriminazione e, come già ampiamente ricordato, un trattamento discriminatorio deve ostacolare il godimento di un diritto contenuto nella CEDU per essere esaminato dalla Corte. A tal fine, il diritto più volte evocato dai giudici di Strasburgo è quello al rispetto della vita privata e familiare, contenuto nell’art. 8.24 Tra le sentenze che, a mio avviso, meritano di essere approfondite

23 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Fretté c. Francia, caso n. 36515/97, sentenza del 26 febbraio 2002. Cfr. Opinione dissenziente dei Giudici Bratza, Fuhrmann e Tulkens. 24 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Fretté c. Francia, caso n. 36515/97, sentenza del 26 febbraio 2002, par. 32; Goodwin vs. Regno Unito, caso n. 28957/95, sentenza del 11 luglio 2002; E. B. c. Francia, caso n. 43546/02, in quanto riguardano l’applicazione dell’art. 14 in combinato disposto con l’art. 8 per trattamenti discriminatori a svantaggio di persone omosessuali sono quelle relative ai casi Fretté e E.B., entrambi presentati contro la Francia. Il confronto tra le due sentenze è molto interessante, in quanto la Corte è stata chiamata a valutare due situazioni apparentemente simili giungendo a conclusioni differenti. Iniziando con l’esame di Fretté c. Francia, il ricorrente lamenta la violazione del principio di non discriminazione e del rispetto alla vita privata per essersi visto negare la sua domanda di adozione in quanto omosessuale. Per i servizi sociali incaricati di verificare l’idoneità all’adozione, il signor Fretté sarebbe stato senz’altro capace di crescere un figlio ma le sue circostanze personali ponevano alcuni dubbi. Mentre il giudice amministrativo aveva accolto le contestazioni del signor Fretté, il massimo grado di giudizio francese convalidava la decisione presa dai servizi competenti perché non vi erano sufficienti garanzie per lo sviluppo del bambino. La sentenza della seconda sezione della Corte di Strasburgo, emanata il 26 febbraio 2002, manifesta il disaccordo esistente tra i giudici europei nella valutazione del caso. Infatti, per soli quattro voti contro tre la decisione finale è stata la mancata violazione dell’art. 14 in combinato disposto con l’art. 8. La Corte europea accettava quindi le ragioni del Governo francese che, oltre a sostenere l’inapplicabilità dell’art. 8 rispetto alle pretese di adozione del ricorrente, faceva rientrare la questione nel margine di apprezzamento riconosciuto agli Stati. Non esisteva, del resto, alcun consenso sull’adozione da parte di omosessuali tra gli Stati membri del Consiglio d’Europa e solo alcuni di essi avevano legiferato in tal senso.25 La Corte, in effetti, riconosce la diversità di opinioni tra gli Stati ma anche nella valutazione della conformità della decisione francese rispetto al principio di non discriminazione accetta le giustificazioni del Governo di Parigi. Queste sarebbe rispondenti ad uno scopo legittimo e le misure adottate risultano proporzionali al fine perseguito: nel bilanciamento degli interessi prevalgono quelli del bambino eventualmente adottato. Nelle opinioni dissenzienti è facile notare come, invece, ad avviso dei giudici che non hanno condiviso il ragionamento della maggioranza tale proporzionalità mezzi/fini non sia stata rispettata. Per quanto riguarda E. B. c. Francia, la cui sentenza risale al 22 gennaio del 2008, si tratta del ricorso presentato da una donna francese alla quale, nonostante le qualità personali e professionali, è stata rifiutata l’adozione in ragione della sua omosessualità. Secondo i giudici francesi, sebbene nel loro Paese un soggetto singolo abbia il diritto di ricorrere all’adozione, nel caso della signora B. non sussistevano le condizioni psicologiche per far crescere il bambino adottivo per via della mancanza di una figura paterna. Gli interessi del bambino eventualmente adottato erano stati considerati prioritari dalle Corti francesi rispetto al fatto che il rifiuto della sua domanda di adozione violasse il principio di non discriminazione26. La ricorrente, infatti, non aveva nascosto né le sue tendenze sessuali nel corso della procedura di adozione, né la sua relazione con una psicologa. Anzi, poiché la sua compagna non era stata coinvolta nella procedura di adozione ed entrambe non si definivano “coppia”, per i servizi sociali e la psicologa incaricata di valutare la situazione della signora B. si trattava di una condizione ambigua di cui il bambino avrebbe potuto sentenza del 22 gennaio 2008, par. 35; Dudgeon c. Regno Unito, sentenza del 22 ottobre 1981, in Serie A, n. 45, par. 41; Laskey, Jaggard e Brown c. Regno Unito, sentenza del 19 febbraio 1997, in Raccolta delle sentenze e delle decisioni 1997-I, par. 36. 25 Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, Fretté c. Francia, caso n. 36515/97, sentenza del 26 febbraio 2002, parr. 40-41. 26 Al di là della sentenza del tribunale amministrativo del 24 febbraio 2000 che accoglieva le contestazioni della donna sia sul merito che sul mancato rispetto della procedura, tutti gli altri giudici avevano rigettato il ricorso. Vedi par. 22. Per commenti sulla sentenza, Elena Falletti, La Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo e l’adozione da parte del single omosessuale, in Famiglia e Diritto, n. 3/2008, pp. 224-229; Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale, vol. 2, n. 3/2008, p.653. soffrire27. Nell’ultimo grado di giudizio, del resto, è stato anche chiarito che il rifiuto della domanda di adozione non aveva leso i diritti contenuti negli articoli 8 e 14 della CEDU né le disposizioni interne in materia di discriminazione sessuale.28 Nella sua valutazione del caso, la Corte di Strasburgo chiarisce innanzitutto come non si possa derivare dalla CEDU, e in particolare dall’art. 8, un diritto a costituire una famiglia né all’adozione. Tuttavia, il rispetto della vita privata, tutelato dallo stesso articolo, comprende il diritto a “stringere e sviluppare relazioni con i propri simili (Niemietz c. Germania, sentenza del 16 dicembre 1992, serie A n. 251-B, p. 33, § 29), il diritto allo « sviluppo personale » (Bensaïd c. Regno Unito, n. 44599/98, § 47, CEDU 2001-I) o il diritto all’autodeterminazione in quanto tale (Pretty c. Regno Unito, n. 2346/02, § 61, CEDU 2002-III). Tale nozione comprende degli elementi come il nome (Burghartz c. Svizzera del 22 febbraio 1994, serie A n. 280-B, p. 28, § 24), l'identificazione sessuale, l'orientamento sessuale e la vita sessuale, che rientrano nella sfera personale tutelata dall’articolo 8”. Poiché il caso della signora B. concerne il diritto di un singolo all’adozione previsto per legge dallo Stato francese, esso ricade quindi nell’ambito di applicazione dell’art. 8. A ciò bisogna aggiungere che lo stesso diritto, una volta concesso, non può comportare differenziazioni di trattamento così come espresso dall’art. 14. Ai sensi di quest’ultimo articolo, come ha lamentato la signora B., il trattamento che le è stato riservato in quanto omosessuale non può considerarsi rispondente ad un fine legittimo né risulta giustificato da motivi seri e ragionevoli. Per il Governo francese, invece, non sussistevano i presupposti per mutare l’orientamento delineato con il caso Fretté. Infatti, né era aumentato il consenso tra gli Stati membri del Consiglio d’Europa sull’adozione da parte di omosessuali né la comunità scientifica era giunta ad una posizione comune sugli effetti nello sviluppo personale del bambino se adottato da due persone dello stesso sesso29. La valutazione della Corte si concentra soprattutto sui caratteri distintivi della vicenda della signora B. rispetto a quella del signor Fretté. Infatti, se nel secondo caso esistevano ragioni oggettive che giustificavano un trattamento diverso nei confronti del ricorrente, la domanda di adozione della signora B. è da considerarsi conforme alla legge vigente in quel momento in Francia. Se ad ogni persona non sposata con età superiore ai 28 anni è concesso presentare domanda di adozione non è chiaro perché la domanda della signora B. fosse stata rifiutata. Per i giudici di Strasburgo, del resto, non si può motivare il rifiuto con la mancanza di una figura paterna perché ciò sarebbe in contraddizione con la legge stessa, “rischiando così di svuotare di sostanza il diritto delle persone non sposate di chiedere l’autorizzazione”30. Per quanto le Corti francesi abbiano cercato di non fondare il loro giudizio sulla base delle condizioni di vita della signora B., o almeno non esplicitamente, la Corte di Strasburgo ha ritenuto tale fattore decisivo in ogni grado di giudizio per opporre alla ricorrente un rifiuto all’adozione. La differenza di trattamento, quindi, vi è stata e le ragioni addotte dal Governo francese per giustificarlo non sono state considerate sufficienti. Del resto, se è forte il sospetto che una discriminazione si sia fondata sull’orientamento sessuale della vittima, allora lo Stato deve produrre giustificazioni particolarmente convincenti e ragionevoli. Ciò non è avvenuto nel caso della signora B. in quanto le sue qualità umane ed educative incontestabili sarebbero state conformi all’interesse del bambino adottato.31 Per tali ragioni, la Francia è stata ritenuta responsabile della violazione dell’art. 14 in combinato disposto con l’art. 8. Alla constatazione della discriminazione si aggiunge anche il danno morale certo subito dalla

27 Cfr. sentenza del 22 gennaio 2008, parr. 1-15. 28 Ibid, par. 25. 29 Ibid, parr. 64-67. 30 Ibid, par. 73. 31 Ibid, parr. 95-98. vittima in base al quale la Grande Camera ha ritenuto opportuno accordare una riparazione monetaria.32 Particolarmente interessanti sono le opinioni dissenzienti relative al caso che, anche in questa occasione, dimostrano come il consenso non sia per niente unanime sul tema. I giudici J. P. Costa e Mularoni ritengono che, in realtà, non sia l’orientamento sessuale il motivo per il quale la domanda della signora B. è stata negata. Le circostanze concrete della vicenda non avrebbero dovuto consentire alla Grande Camera di formulare una sentenza che può costituire un precedente importante. A loro avviso, sarebbe stato meglio confermare la sentenza Fretté ritenendo la Francia non responsabile per violazione degli articoli 14 e 8. Allo stesso modo, il giudice Loucaides esprime il suo disappunto affermando la legittimità della decisione delle autorità francesi. Inoltre, il ragionamento della maggioranza si fonderebbe su presupposti sbagliati: mentre il rifiuto opposto alla signora B. si fonda su due motivi distinti e autonomi, la discriminazione fondata sull’orientamento sessuale riguarderebbe solo uno di essi. Appurato questo, la conclusione non può portare a una condanna totale dell’intera procedura seguita dalla Francia (“teoria della contaminazione”).33 Anzi, essa avrebbe dovuto rientrare in quel margine di apprezzamento che la Corte riconosce agli Stati.34 A prima vista, quindi, la Grande Camera ha deciso di mutare il suo orientamento rispetto al caso Fretté. Tuttavia, ritengo che il ragionamento della Corte è più sottile. Dalla sentenza E.B. non ne deriva, infatti, un pacifico consenso sull’adozione da parte di un omosessuale. Si tratta piuttosto della corretta applicazione del principio di non discriminazione contemplato all’art. 14. Del resto, la Grande Camera si sforza per tentare di distinguere i due casi mettendo in luce le difficoltà del signor Fretté constatate dai servizi sociali in termini di organizzazione della propria vita familiare. La signora B., invece, è un’educatrice affermata per le sue qualità. Di conseguenza, la Corte ha constatato una violazione nel caso di specie, perché il rifiuto dell’autorizzazione all’adozione era parzialmente fondato su motivi illegittimi. Non si mette in dubbio il dovere degli Stati di interferire nella vita privata dei potenziali genitori per capire se sussistano le condizioni per un’adozione, come richiedono anche i trattati internazionali richiamati nella sentenza. Ciò che viene contestato è il trattamento discriminatorio nei confronti di un’omosessuale che, ai sensi della legge francese, può ricorrere all’adozione in quanto single. Quindi, laddove uno Stato riconosce alle persone non coniugate la possibilità di adottare un bambino, la legge deve essere applicata senza alcuna discriminazione e, rimanendo ai casi esaminati, senza tener conto delle tendenze sessuali del richiedente.

3. Non discriminazione e Unione Europea Considerate le lacune (per il momento) esistenti nell’ambito del Consiglio d’Europa in materia di non discriminazione, passo ora ad esaminare la tutela offerta dall’Unione Europea tenendo conto delle disposizioni contenute nella Carta di Nizza (artt. 20 e 21). Anche in ambito comunitario, il principio di non discriminazione rappresenta una manifestazione del più generale principio di eguaglianza. Quest’ultimo, riaffermato dalla Carta di Nizza all’art. 20, è stato considerato dalla Corte di Giustizia come uno dei principi fondamentali del diritto dell’’Unione europea in una molteplicità di sentenze.35 La stessa Corte ha chiarito che “il divieto di discriminazione impone che situazioni analoghe non

32 Ibid, par. 100-102. 33 Ibid, par. 80. 34 Ibid, p. 40. 35 Corte Europea di Giustizia, Racke, sentenza del 13 novembre 1984, causa 283/83, in Raccolta 1984, p. 3791; EARL, sentenza del 17 aprile 1997, causa C-15/95, in Raccolta 1997, p. I-1961; Karlsson, sentenza del 13 aprile 2000, causa C-292/97, in Raccolta 2000, p. 2737. siano trattate in maniera diversa e che situazioni diverse non siano trattate in modo uguale, a meno che un tale trattamento non sia obbiettivamente giustificato”.36 Numerosi sono, quindi, i punti di contatto con gli orientamenti della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo. Per iniziare, laddove venga lamentata una violazione del principio in esame, la Corte di Giustizia della Comunità Europea procede a un rigoroso controllo sulla ragionevolezza delle giustificazioni presentate dallo Stato membro rispetto all’adozione di misure potenzialmente discriminatorie (fine legittimo, proporzionalità fini/mezzi, necessità). Tale controllo, anche in ambito comunitario, può variare di intensità a seconda del settore e delle circostanze del caso e copre sia discriminazioni dirette che indirette.37 Tuttavia, la Corte di Giustizia ha da più tempo rintracciato criteri oggettivi per valutare se una discriminazione è stata commessa: infatti, a differenza della Corte di Strasburgo, ha ben presto ritenuto irrilevante l’intenzionalità quale elemento necessario di un trattamento discriminatorio: contano piuttosto gli effetti sfavorevoli che eventuali misure nazionali possono procurare.38 Rispetto ai fattori di discriminazione, senza considerare in questa sede la nazionalità, posso certamente riferirmi al contenuto dell’art. 21 della Carta di Nizza, la cui intenzione è appunto quella di riaffermare diritti già pienamente tutelati a livello comunitario. In tal senso si esprime la spiegazione relativa all’art. 21 elaborata dal Presidium della Convenzione che aveva redatto la Carta.39 In particolare, essa richiama la CEDU chiarendo che nella misura in cui l’articolo 21 coincide con l’art. 14 “si applica in conformità ad esso”. Ne deriva, quindi, una tutela equivalente per quei settori di competenza che si sovrappongono nei due sistemi europei. Tuttavia, la Carta di Nizza nel ribadire il medesimo principio cita molti più fattori di discriminazione rispetto a quelli contenuti nella CEDU. È senz’altro vero che alcuni di questi sono ormai stati interpretati dalla Corte di Strasburgo come manifestazioni o interferenze nell’esercizio di diritti sanciti esplicitamente nella Convenzione. Come abbiamo visto, ad esempio, la tutela dell’orientamento sessuale è ormai ricompresa nell’art. 8 CEDU che contempla il diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare. Acquistano, invece, visibilità altri elementi quali le caratteristiche genetiche, l’appartenenza ad una minoranza nazionale, il patrimonio, gli handicap e l’età. Resta comunque il limite delle competenze attribuite all’Unione Europea. Come è stato puntualmente precisato dal Presidium nelle sue spiegazioni alla Carta, il primo paragrafo dell’articolo 21 “non conferisce alcuna facoltà di emanare norme contro la discriminazione nei settori d’intervento degli Stati membri o nei rapporti fra privati né sancisce alcun divieto assoluto di discriminazione in settori così ampi”40. Quindi, la garanzia di non discriminazione riguarderebbe unicamente l’operato delle istituzioni e degli organi dell’Unione europea nei rispettivi ambiti di competenza e, di conseguenza, l’azione degli Stati membri nel momento in cui attuano il diritto dell’Unione. Nelle spiegazioni del Presidium, peraltro, è stato sottolineato come la disposizione in esame si ispiri all’articolo 19 della versione consolidata del Trattato sul funzionamento dell’Unione Europea e si applichi in conformità ad esso. Ai sensi di tale articolo, il Consiglio, seguendo una particolare procedura, può adottare quei provvedimenti che sono utili per combattere le discriminazioni fondate sul sesso, la razza, la religione, la disabilità, l’età e l’orientamento sessuale. La Carta di Nizza, quindi, non amplierebbe le competenze del Consiglio

36 Corte Europea di Giustizia, Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH c. Ministero delle Finanze, sentenza del 15 marzo 2007, causa n. C-35/05, par. 44. 37 Pasquale Chieco, Le nuove direttive comunitarie sul divieto di discriminazione, RIDL, 2002, I. Pp. 75-117. In particolare, parr. 2.2. e 4. 38 Corte di Giustizia Europea, Dekker, sentenza dell’8 novembre 1990, causa C-177/88. In tal modo, spetta al soggetto che ha posto in essere il comportamento vietato dimostrare che il principio non è stato violato. 39 Spiegazioni relative alla Carta dei Diritti fondamentali, doc. 2007/C 303/02, pubblicato nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea del 14 dicembre 2007. 40 Ibid, pag. 8. acquisite sulla base dell’art. 19 ma, presentando comunque una lista di fattori più ampia, potrebbe ispirare le istituzioni europee ad estendere la lotta alle discriminazioni. Anche in ambito comunitario, quindi, non esiste un divieto di discriminazione su qualunque base, ma la tutela offerta è certamente avanzata nel settore dei diritti sociali, molti dei quali non coperti dalla CEDU e dai suoi Protocolli addizionali e certamente funzionali alle finalità con le quali sono nate le Comunità Europee prima e l’Unione poi. Ad esempio, resta centrale negli obiettivi delle istituzioni europee quello di promuovere una generale eguaglianza tra uomo e donna, a partire dalla garanzia dello stesso trattamento economico per un’uguale tipologia di lavoro41 come nell’accesso a beni e servizi.42 Ad esso si sono aggiunti nel tempo altri fattori da combattere: come non ricordare, ad esempio, la disabilità, alla quale è stata dedicata una dichiarazione speciale ad Amsterdam richiedendo alle istituzioni europee di tener conto dei bisogni di tale categoria di persone ad alto rischio di discriminazione. Gli sforzi europei per combattere i trattamenti discriminatori, del resto, sono stati molteplici. Sulla base dell’articolo 13 del Trattato di Amsterdam (l’attuale art. 19), il Consiglio ha adottato due importanti direttive.43 La prima ha come obiettivo la lotta contro la discriminazione basata sulla razza o sull’origine etnica,44 soprattutto nel campo del lavoro, dell’educazione, della previdenza sociale e nell’accesso a beni e servizi. La seconda si caratterizza per la sua ampia portata: essa vieta qualsiasi trattamento discriminatorio fondato sulla base dei fattori menzionati dall’attuale art. 1945 (religione, disabilità, età, tendenze sessuali). Alle due forme già definite dalla Corte di Strasburgo, diretta ed indiretta, costituiscono discriminazione anche le molestie “se hanno lo scopo di violare la dignità di una persona e di creare un clima intimidatorio, ostile, degradante, umiliante od offensivo” (art. 2.3). Il divieto di discriminazione proclamato dalla direttiva 2000/78 si applica a tutte le persone, sia del settore pubblico che del privato, per quanto attiene all’accesso e alle condizioni di lavoro, alla formazione e all’orientamento professionale e all’attività sindacale.46 Non rientrano, invece, i regimi di previdenza e protezione sociale, ma sulla base di una recente sentenza della Corte Europea di Giustizia – la causa Maruko – tale questione è degna di ulteriore approfondimento.47 Le Direttive sono sostenute anche da un programma d’azione, istituito con decisione del Consiglio, al fine di promuovere misure pratiche per combattere le discriminazioni in esse vietate. Si tratta di strumenti estremamente importanti vista la loro efficacia: tutti coloro che ritengono di essere stati discriminati in conformità alle disposizioni delle due direttive possono farle valere dinanzi le autorità giudiziarie competenti. Inoltre, secondo le disposizioni in esse contenute, non

41 Il principio equal pay for equal work è stato riconosciuto già dal 1957 con il Trattato CEE all’art. 119 mentre il principio generale di uguaglianza è stata inserito nei trattati istitutivi (art. 2) per la prima volta ad Amsterdam. Anche la Corte di Giustizia Europea ha ben presto precisato come l’eguaglianza tra uomo e donna rientri tra i principi fondamentali del diritto europeo e direttamente (sentenze Defrenne II e III, rispettivamente causa n. 43/75 e n. 149/77). Per una disamina completa della discriminazione basata sul sesso, Samantha Besson, Gender discrimination under EU and ECHR law, in Human Rights Law Review n. 8 (2008), pp. 647-682. 42 Si ricorda la Direttiva 2004/113/CE, del 13 dicembre 2004, che attua il principio della parità di trattamento tra uomini e donne per quanto riguarda l'accesso a beni e servizi e la loro fornitura, GU L 373 del 21 dicembre 2004, p. 37. 43 Per un commento, si vedano tra gli altri, Pasquale Chieco, Le nuove direttive comunitarie sul divieto di discriminazione, RIDL, 2002, I. Pp. 75-117; Commissione Europea, Uguaglianza e non discriminazione: rapporto annuale 2004, Bruxelles, 2004. 44 Consiglio dell’Unione Europea, Direttiva 2000/43/CE, 29 giugno 2000, pubblicata nella GU L 180/22 del 19 luglio 2000. Art. 1. 45 Consiglio dell’Unione Europea, Direttiva 2000/78/CE, 27 novembre 2000, pubblicata nella GU L 303/16 del 2 dicembre 2000. Art. 1. 46 Ibid, art. 3. 47 Come nota Pasquale Chirico a p. 102, supra nota 43, tale eccezione risulta essere particolarmente significativa per le differenze di trattamento basate sull’orientamento sessuale. spetta alla vittima provare che una violazione sia avvenuta ma è piuttosto il responsabile a dover dimostrare il contrario48 (come si vedrà, nell’attuazione della direttiva l’Italia è risultata inadempiente anche su tale punto). Per concludere, bisogna comunque puntualizzare che, ai sensi dell’art. 3.2 delle direttive, tali disposizioni non riguardano differenze di trattamento riservate ai cittadini dei Paesi terzi o degli apolidi interessati.49

3.1 La direttiva 2000/78 all’esame della CGCE: la sentenza MARUKO50 Una recente sentenza della Corte di Lussemburgo dà indicazioni importanti sulla corretta interpretazione della direttiva 2000/78 per ciò che riguarda il tipo di discriminazione finora esaminato, ovvero quello fondato sull’orientamento sessuale. L’analisi del caso è peraltro interessante perché potrebbe avere delle implicazioni importanti anche sul diritto di famiglia all’interno degli Stati membri dell’Unione Europea. Infatti, partendo da una fattispecie legata all’occupazione del partner del ricorrente, finisce per interrogarsi sulle forme di riconoscimento delle coppie di fatto lasciando però l’ultima parola agli Stati membri nel decidere se ampliare o meno la loro tutela sulla base delle disposizioni comunitarie. Venendo ora all’esame della fattispecie, si tratta della causa intentata dal Signor Maruko contro l’Ente previdenziale dei lavoratori dei teatri tedeschi (la VddB) per avergli negato la pensione di reversibilità. Egli ritiene che tale beneficio gli sia dovuto in quanto il suo partner era iscritto al regime previdenziale previsto per i lavoratori dei teatri tedeschi e aveva versato regolarmente i contribuiti dovuti. La sua iscrizione risaliva, infatti, al primo settembre 1959 e anche quando non era sottoposto all’obbligo di versare dei contributi previdenziali aveva continuato a effettuare versamenti a titolo volontario. Il signor Maruko e il suo partner erano legati dall’8 novembre 2001 al 12 gennaio 2005, giorno del decesso del secondo, da un’unione solidale, istituto previsto dalla legge tedesca a partire dal 16 febbraio 2001. Essa consente alle persone dello stesso sesso di veder riconosciuta la loro unione, fondata sull’aiuto e sull’assistenza reciproca, in modo formale per tutta la vita. Si tratta quindi di un istituto indubbiamente diverso dal matrimonio e previsto unicamente come alternativa ad esso per le coppie dello stesso sesso. In virtù della modifica apportata a tale istituto dalla legge del 15 dicembre 2004, è stato inserito un paragrafo – il quarto – all’art. 46 del Libro IV del codice di previdenza sociale per equiparare gli effetti dell’unione solidale a quelli del matrimonio per quanto riguarda il diritto ad ottenere la pensione di reversibilità51. Nonostante questi presupposti la domanda di beneficio rivolta alla VddB è stata respinta in data 28 febbraio 2005 in quanto il suo statuto non ne prevedeva la concessione per i partner di unione solidale superstiti. Il Signor Maruko ha quindi deciso di ricorrere al giudice competente per lamentare una violazione del principio di parità di trattamento facendo leva sulle disposizioni introdotte nel 2005 al codice di previdenza sociale. Il Tribunale amministrativo di Monaco di Baviera nell’esaminare il caso del Signor Maruko si è chiesto se il trattamento riservato al ricorrente non violi le disposizioni previste dalla direttiva comunitaria 2000/78 che mira a stabilire un quadro generale per la lotta alle discriminazioni fondate, tra l’altro, sull’orientamento sessuale per quanto concerne l’occupazione e le condizioni di lavoro. Rileva in particolare l’art. 3 della direttiva, ai sensi del quale la normativa comunitaria si applica a tutte le persone, sia del settore pubblico che del settore privato, per quanto attiene all’occupazione e alle condizioni di lavoro

48 Ibid, art 10 e Direttiva 2000/43/CE art. 8 e considerando n. 21 e 22. 49 Si vedano anche il considerando n. 13 della Direttiva 2000/43/CE e il considerando n. 12 della Direttiva 2000/78/CE. 50 Tadao Maruko, Sentenza CGCE C-267/06, 1 aprile 2008. 51 Sentenza Maruko, para. 13 comprese le retribuzioni. Essa, tuttavia, non si applica ai pagamenti di qualsiasi genere effettuati da regimi statali di protezione e sicurezza sociale. Per tali motivi, il giudice ha considerato: a) se la VddB è assimilabile a un regime statale di sicurezza sociale, ai sensi art. 3.3: in tal caso, la direttiva non si potrebbe applicare; b) se la pensione di reversibilità possa essere considerata una retribuzione, ai sensi dell’art. 3.1 c; c) se lo Statuto della VddB che prevede il beneficio richiesto solo per le coppie unite in matrimonio risulti conforme o meno alle disposizioni comunitarie contenute nella direttiva 2000/78, in particolare con il combinato disposto degli artt. 1 e 2.2 a che affermano il principio di parità di trattamento e il divieto di discriminazione diretta e indiretta; d) se la discriminazione fondata sull’orientamento sessuale lamentata dal Signor Maruko sia in realtà conforme alla direttiva alla luce del suo ventiduesimo considerando che afferma quanto segue: “La presente direttiva lascia impregiudicate le legislazioni nazionali in materia di stato civile e le prestazioni che ne derivano”. Il Tribunale ha quindi deciso di sospendere il giudizio e sottoporre le stesse questioni pregiudiziali alla Corte Europea di Giustizia. Quest’ultima è arrivata alle seguenti conclusioni: a) il regime previdenziale della VddB rientra nel campo di applicazione della direttiva in quanto si tratta di un regime di categoria, finanziato totalmente dai lavoratori con l’esclusione di qualsiasi intervento pubblico. Peraltro, lo stesso importo del sussidio non è stabilito dalla legge ma tiene conto degli importi versati dal lavoratore durante tutto il periodo di iscrizione; b) il beneficio chiesto dal Signor Maruko è assimilabile ad una retribuzione ai sensi dell’art. 141 del Trattato sulla Comunità Europea. Infatti, anche se è riscossa dal coniuge superstite, il sussidio erogato dalla VddB è dovuto sulla base dell’attività lavorativa svolta e come conseguenza del rapporto di lavoro, in essere prima del decesso, tra il dipendente e il suo datore di lavoro;52 c) la direttiva 2000/78, in particolare gli art. 1 e 2, osta alla normativa prevista dalla VddB per le coppie che stringono un’unione solidale. Laddove, infatti, a livello nazionale la legislazione equipara il matrimonio all’unione solidale, i regimi come quello amministrato dalla VddB devono uniformare i loro regolamenti interni; d) La funzione del ventiduesimo considerando della direttiva è quella di ribadire le competenze che rientrano esclusivamente nel campo degli Stati membri. In questo caso, la regolamentazione dello stato civile e delle prestazioni che ne derivano. Ciononostante, osserva la Corte, nell’esercizio di dette competenze gli Stati devono rispettare il diritto comunitario e i suoi principi generali, primo tra tutti quello di non discriminazione. Per quanto la Corte riconosca l’applicabilità della direttiva rispetto al caso in esame, essa conclude affermando che il principio di parità di trattamento è leso solo se una decisione come quella presa dalla VddB si colloca in un contesto nel quale l’unione solidale è equiparata per legge al matrimonio. La Corte del resto focalizza la sua attenzione su fattori, come l’emendamento alla legge sull’unione registrata del 2004, che conducono a tale conclusione. Spetta, tuttavia, al giudice nazionale e non alla Corte Europea verificare se il partner superstite di un’unione solidale si colloca nella stessa posizione in cui si trova,

52 Lo stesso principio è stato affermato dalla Corte in altre sentenze. Tra queste, Ten Oever, 6 ottobre 1993, causa C-109/91 in Racc. I-4879, punti 8, 12 e 13; Beune, 28 settembre 1994, causa C-7/93 in Racc. I-4471, punto 21. a livello legale, un coniuge superstite.53 Solo se tale verifica si risolve positivamente, in un caso come quello del Signor Maruko spetterebbe il riconoscimento di una violazione delle disposizioni previste dal diritto comunitario e, in particolare, direttiva 2000/78. In realtà, con tale sentenza la Corte non effettua quel passo deciso in materia di discriminazione per orientamento sessuale che avrebbe potuto compiere. Infatti, ribadendo il principio generale rimanda poi alle corti nazionali la decisione sull’eventuale concessione di diritti sociali a persone dello stesso sesso legate da un’unione solidale. A ben vedere i giudici europei hanno voluto infine rispettare la sfera di competenza statale in materia di stato civile e prestazioni derivanti. In tal modo, tale decisione rileva esclusivamente nei confronti di quei Paesi europei che hanno previsto per legge una forma di riconoscimento per le coppie dello stesso sesso. Al contrario, tale sentenza risulta totalmente inapplicabile a quei Paesi che non prevedono alcuna forma di tutela nei confronti delle coppie dello stesso sesso. Quindi, solo i giudici nazionali del primo insieme di Stati dovranno verificare l’esatto status dell’unione registrata rispetto all’istituto del matrimonio. Per assurdo, più comparabili sono gli status derivanti dai due istituti di comunione maggiore sarà il rischio che la legislazione nazionale di uno Stato membro violi il principio di non discriminazione. Ciò deriva dal fatto che l’intero esame della Corte si è concentrato sulla nozione di discriminazione diretta, per la quale situazioni simili devono essere trattate in modo analogo senza alcuna possibilità di deroga. In realtà, i difensori del signor Maruko avevano puntato piuttosto sul concetto di discriminazione indiretta ipotizzando ciò che poi si è verificato: nei Paesi in cui l’istituto dell’unione registrata non è considerata simile la discriminazione non sussiste. Poco dopo, infatti, Il Bundesverfassungsgericht, la Corte costituzionale tedesca, ha stabilito che l’ordinamento nazionale tedesco non prevede un’equiparazione generalizzata dell’unione registrata rispetto al matrimonio, i cui effetti giuridici restano ben diversi. Per la Corte Costituzionale tedesca, ad esempio, il diritto al godimento di un assegno familiare trova la sua giustificazione intrinseca nel fatto che, all’interno del matrimonio, un coniuge deve ridurre il proprio tempo lavorativo al fine di prendersi cura dei figli. Si tratta di una situazione estranea all’unione registrata, entro la quale non esiste nemmeno l’obbligo giuridico di mantenimento del partner. Ciò giustificherebbe quindi l’esclusione del partner registrato dal godimento dell’assegno.54 Resta comunque che la sentenza sul caso Maruko è la prima che applica il principio della parità di trattamento rispetto all’orientamento sessuale, così come è sancito dalla direttiva 2000/78/CE.55 Oltretutto, l’accento non viene posto sul diverso trattamento riservato a coppie dello stesso sesso rispetto a coppie di sesso diverso – vedi caso E.B. alla Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo – ma tra coppie legate da status diversi: un’ipotesi di discriminazione che si potrebbe definire “diagonale”, ovvero tra tipologie diverse di unione. Infine, come è stato affermato, la nozione giuridica di “orientamento sessuale” acquisisce profondità perché non è più da intendersi solamente come una caratteristica delle persone, ma anche come elemento distintivo delle relazioni tra le persone.56 La base giuridica della direttiva 2000/78 è l’art. 13 del Trattato CE, inserito nel 1997 dal Trattato di Amsterdam. Facendo seguito ad una nutrita serie di atti comunitari non vincolanti, specialmente del Parlamento europeo, l’art. 13 del Trattato CE ha per la prima volta ricompreso tra i fattori di discriminazione espressamente enunciati anche

53 Sentenza Maruko, para. 73. 54 BvefG, 2 BvR 1830/06 del 6/05/2008, parr. 13-18. 55 Matteo Bonini Baraldi, La pensione di reversibilità al convivente registrato dello stesso sesso: prima applicazione positiva della direttiva 2000/78/CE, in Diritto e Famiglia, maggio 2008. 56 Waaldijk, nota a Maruko, European Human Rights Cases, 2008, in corso di pubblicazione. Il concetto era peraltro già stato affermato dalla Corte europea dei diritti umani in Karner c. Austria (24 luglio 2003, n. 40016/98) e dal Comitato dei diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite in Young c. Australia. l’orientamento sessuale, sancendo così una chiara competenza comunitaria nell’ambito della lotta alla discriminazione contro le persone gay e lesbiche. Prima dell’entrata in vigore del trattato di Amsterdam nel 1999, in realtà, si erano già presentate controversie inerenti a fatti simili. La Corte di giustizia aveva stabilito nel 1998, nella causa Grant c. South West Trains,57 che la negazione di vantaggi salariali al convivente dello stesso sesso del lavoratore costituisce una discriminazione basata sull’orientamento sessuale, laddove però il regolamento del personale riconosca gli stessi vantaggi al convivente di sesso diverso. In quell’occasione, però, la Corte rifiutò di considerare la fattispecie come una forma di discriminazione basata sul sesso, unico fattore di discriminazione all’epoca protetto dal diritto comunitario e cui il ricorrente si era appellato. Due anni prima, la Corte aveva invece considerato violate le disposizioni del Trattato che vietano la discriminazione sulla base del sesso nel caso di una lavoratrice transessuale che era stata ingiustamente licenziata. In quell’occasione la Corte aveva fatto appello al predominante rilievo assunto nell’ordinamento comunitario dall’esigenza di rispetto dei diritti fondamentali e della dignità della persona, che la Corte ha il dovere di garantire.58 Dopo la sentenza Grant, invece, la Corte si è trovata a giudicare una fattispecie simile a quella del Signor Maruko nel caso D e Svezia.59 Nel 2001, infatti, un funzionario della Comunità Europea lamentava una discriminazione nel trattamento delle coppie legate da un’unione registrata rispetto a quelle strette dal matrimonio. Queste ultime godevano di un vantaggio derivante dalla concessione dell’assegno familiare, non usufruibile dal partner registrato del ricorrente ai sensi dello Statuto dei funzionari della Comunità. La Corte non solo aveva rifiutato di pervenire ad un’estensione della nozione di “funzionario coniugato” applicandola anche a “persone soggette a un regime di diritto distinto dal matrimonio”,60 ma aveva ribadito che l’esclusione dal beneficio non comportava una violazione delle disposizioni del Trattato che sanciscono il principio della parità di trattamento. Peraltro, la Corte di Lussemburgo constatava “l’estrema eterogeneità normativa” fra gli Stati membri quanto al riconoscimento delle unioni tra persone dello stesso sesso e concludeva che la situazione del dipendente unito da unione registrata non poteva essere considerata analoga a quella del dipendente coniugato. Ciononostante, tale giudizio è oggi da considerarsi superato: in seguito alla riforma del 2004, il Consiglio ha modificato lo Statuto del personale riconoscendo pari diritti ai dipendenti uniti da unione registrata.61 E’ invece con riguardo alle coppie formate da un partner transessuale che la Corte ha mostrato un atteggiamento di più decisa apertura. In K.B.62 la Corte chiamata a giudicare sul mancato riconoscimento della pensione di vedovanza al partner transessuale di una lavoratrice inglese. La coppia non aveva potuto contrarre matrimonio secondo la legislazione allora vigente, criterio indispensabile per la concessione del beneficio richiesto. La Corte aveva concluso che la normativa interna che subordina al matrimonio la possibilità per il partner transessuale di beneficiare di una parte della retribuzione del lavoratore si pone potenzialmente in contrasto con l’art. 141 del Trattato CE sulla parità tra uomo e donna. In tal modo, la Corte ha posto l’importante principio secondo cui l’applicazione della normativa in materia pensionistica che produca effetti discriminatori sul godimento dei diritti previsti dal diritto comunitario, ponendo requisiti che determinati

57 Causa C-249/96, Grant c. South West Trains, 17 febbraio 1998, Racc., 1998, I-621. 58 Causa C-13/94, P c. S e Cornwall County Council, 30 aprile 1996, Racc., 1996, I-02143, parr. 19-22. 59 Cause riunite C-122/99P e C-125/99P, Racc., 2001, I-4319. 60 Ibidem, par. 39. 61 Regolamento (CE, Euratom) n. 723/2004 del Consiglio, del 22 marzo 2004, che modifica lo statuto dei funzionari delle Comunità europee e il regime applicabile agli altri agenti di dette Comunità, in GUCE, 2004, L 124, 1. 62 Causa C-117/01, K.B. c. National Health Service Pensions Agency, 7 gennaio 2004, Racc., 2004, I-541. soggetti non possono soddisfare (quali il matrimonio) può e deve essere sospesa nei confronti di tali soggetti.

3.2 Recenti sviluppi Sul tema della lotta alla discriminazione si continua a lavorare presso le istituzioni europee. Al di là delle innumerevoli risoluzioni del Parlamento europeo che sembrano avere la funzione di ritornare sul tema e ricordare agli Stati gli impegni assunti,63 il 2 aprile 2009, lo stesso Parlamento si è espresso con 363 voti favorevoli contro 226 contrari su una proposta di direttiva che stabilisca un sistema generale di protezione contro discriminazioni fondate su motivi religiosi, disabilità, età e orientamento sessuale. L’aver richiamato nella direttiva tutti i fattori di discriminazione presenti nella direttiva 2000/78 quando si era ipotizzato uno strumento ground-specific64 può costituire un segnale che non tutti i risultati programmati siano stati raggiunti. Con la nuova proposta della Commissione europea Il divieto di discriminazione deve trovare applicazione, soprattutto, negli ambiti relativi alla sicurezza sociale, all’assistenza sanitaria, alle prestazioni sociali, all’istruzione e all’accesso a beni e servizi. Qualora fosse necessario per realizzare pienamente il principio di uguaglianza, è richiesto agli Stati membri di adottare azioni positive. Ciò risulta particolarmente vero per anziani e disabili. La proposta di direttiva fa esplicito riferimento alle tipologie di discriminazione delineate in precedenza. Oltre a quella diretta e indiretta, però, i parlamentari europei hanno ricordato la multidiscriminazione, ovvero quel trattamento discriminatorio basato su due o più fattori tra quelli richiamati nel testo. Spetta agli Stati l’obbligo di garantire a tutti coloro che si ritengano vittime di un trattamento discriminatorio di poter ricorrere a un organo giudiziario e/o amministrativo e di essere risarciti in modo proporzionato. Infine, la proposta di direttiva chiede agli Stati membri di istituire degli “organismi di parità” indipendenti, autonomi e accessibili.65 Naturalmente, il Parlamento è stato solamente consultato in materia. Sarà il Consiglio ad adottare il provvedimento. Per concludere, avendo precedentemente analizzato la discriminazione fondata sull’orientamento sessuale, credo sia importante fare notare che questa proposta di direttiva lascia impregiudicate le normative nazionali in materia di stato coniugale e di famiglia. Ciò significa che gli Stati Europei non saranno obbligati a riconoscere i vantaggi che spettano alle coppie coniugate a coloro che, indipendentemente dal sesso, decidono di non sposarsi. Nel caso di coppie formate da persone dello stesso sesso, del resto, tale scelta è chiaramente una non-scelta.66

63 Vedi ad esempio, la risoluzione sull’omofobia in Europa del 18 gennaio 2006, con la quale condannando ogni forma di omofobia si chiede agli Stati membri di contrastare tali fenomeni e alla Commissione che la discriminazione basata sull’orientamento sessuale sia vietata in tutti i settori. 64 Matteo Bonini Baraldi, supra nota 55. 65 Cfr. comunicati nel sito del Parlamento Europeo, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/019-53201-091-04-14-902-20090401IPR53200-01-04- 2009-2009-false/default_it.htm, e la proposta della Commissione, http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0426:FIN:IT:PDF. 66 Riguardo alle Direttive Europee precedenti, il Prof. De Schutter, supra n. 15, commenta in un modo simile mettendo a confronto anche la giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo sul tema. Ne deriva comunque la compatibilità delle disposizioni indicati con l’art. 14 CEDU. Tuttavia, con la decisione E.B., a mio avviso, l’intero contesto cambia: infatti, seguendo il ragionamento della Grande Camera, qualora uno Stato decida di riconoscere i vantaggi derivanti dal matrimonio ad altre forme di convivenza, tale riconoscimento non potrà non riguardare anche coppie dello stesso sesso. Ciò è particolarmente importante, ad esempio, rispetto ai benefici previdenziali come nel caso Tadao Maruko, C-267/06, sentenza della Corte di Giustizia Europea dell’1 aprile del 2008. Altro caso interessante sul tema, anche se riguardante un transessuale, è K.B. c. National Health Service Pensions, C- 117/2001, sentenza del 7 gennaio 2004. 4. Conclusioni Il principio di non discriminazione, nelle modalità con cui ha finora trovato espressione, presenta aspetti problematici. Come si è visto, l’art. 14 della CEDU non ha portata generale e riguarda esclusivamente i diritti in essa enunciati. Al di là del contributo fornito dalla Corte con la sua giurisprudenza, una soluzione potrebbe venire dall’entrata in vigore del Protocollo n. 12, sebbene gli Stati del Consiglio d’Europa non sembrino disposti a procedere con le necessarie ratifiche. Di conseguenza, nell’ordinamento del Consiglio d’Europa, potrebbe acquistare sempre più importanza la Carta Sociale Europea. Nell’Unione europea, invece, il principio solennemente riaffermato nella Carta di Nizza, rientra tra quei diritti fondamentali che l’ordinamento europeo deve tutelare. Nel momento in cui la Carta acquisirà piena validità giuridica, i principi in essa contenuti saranno ancor più di adesso i parametri di legittimità degli atti dell’Unione e delle normative nazionali che ne danno attuazione.67 In definitiva, nel principio di uguaglianza e non discriminazione si può rintracciare quell’elemento unificante tra Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo e Corte di Giustizia Europea: entrambe si trovano a garantirne l’applicazione in ogni fattispecie che, sulla base delle rispettive competenze, devono giudicare. Per quanto riguarda la discriminazione fondata sull’orientamento sessuale si può affermare che, data la mancanza di consenso politico in Italia per affrontare seriamente il tema, il diritto europeo risulta in questo momento il solo strumento utile per sollecitare il legislatore italiano ad assumere decisioni in un ambito su cui vige il principio di neutralità. La proposta di una nuova direttiva in tema di discriminazione potrebbe avere l’effetto di ricordare alle autorità italiane che bisogna ancora agire per garantire la piena uguaglianza e, a tal fine, sono necessarie azioni positive e riforme in determinati ambiti del diritto interno. Dall’altra parte, mancando una prospettiva comune tra gli Stati europei in materia di famiglia è difficile che le garanzie previste nei rispettivi ordinamenti contro le discriminazioni basate sull’orientamento sessuale possano progressivamente avvicinarsi. Tuttavia, con l’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona e della Carta di Nizza, un rafforzamento del rispetto dei diritti in essa contenuti potrebbe essere possibile, soprattutto in quegli Stati in cui alcune fattispecie non sono nemmeno regolate. A ben vedere, però, la scelta dell’Italia di non predisporre nessun testo che possa migliorare legalmente il trattamento di coloro che risultano di fatto discriminati per il loro orientamento sessuale, al di là della legge di attuazione della direttiva 2000/78 con i problemi connessi, rappresenta uno strumento utile per evitare di avviare ricorsi davanti le Corti sovranazionali.

* Dottorando di ricerca in Democrazia e Diritti Umani presso l'Università di Genova.

67 M. Cartabia, L’ora dei diritti fondamentali nell’Unione europea, in M. Cartabia (a cura di), I diritti in azione, Il Mulino, 2007.