Fundamental Rights Platform’s
Advisory Panel meeting report
19 - 20 November 2012
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Vienna
Participants Advisory Panel:
FRA:

Jamie Bolling
Morten Kjaerum

Dominika Bychawska-Siniarska
Massimo Toschi

Roger Kiska
Gabriel Toggenburg

Allan Leas
Monika Laurinaviciute-

Evelyne Paradis

Catherine Lynch

Elisabeta Kitanovic

Maria Amor Estebanez

Klaus Lörcher

Ene Palmiste

Sara Giménez

Pia Tirronen

Valerio De Divittis
Kocmann
Saverio Liguori
Inês Albergaria
19 November 2012
Working dinner with the FRA Director
1. The FRA Director briefed the Advisory Panel (AP) on recent developments at the
agency, namely the new FRA Management Board, the state-of-play regarding new
Multiannual Framework (MAF) and the external evaluation.
2. The agency’s work and its cooperation with civil society were discussed. Special
reference was made to the current economic crisis in the EU, austerity measures and
its impact on Fundamental Rights (FR).
3. A meeting between the Director and Brussels-based FRP civil society organisations
(CSOSs) working at both the European and international level was proposed, as the
Director always meets civil society organisations during country visits. The same
opportunity should be given to European and international level organisations as
well as FRP organisations based in Belgium. In this context, the FRA, in consultation
with Evelyne and Elizabeta will explore the best way to organise such a meeting,
including the possibility for the FRA Director to be invited to one of the next ‘Human
Rights and Democracy Network’ meetings.
20 November 2012
Review – recent developments
4. An informative session about recent activities of the FRP opened the day. An
update was given on the state-of-play of the 3rd call for participating in the FRP,
which was launched online last July. The applications are currently being assessed
and by the end of November the first applicants will be informed of the Director’s
decision.
5. The role of the AP in the assessment of applications was clarified, as defined in
the Director’s decision on “Internal procedures for assessing applications”. When the
Director’s decision is of rejecting the application, the Advisory Panel of the FRP will
be consulted on the draft letter of rejection. On the basis of this consultation the
Director will take its final autonomous decision.
6. In the context of the discussion about FRP participation, it was mentioned that
Trade Unions have a special role as ‘social partner’ recognised by the EU Institutions.
7. AP members were also briefed about a draft paper on methods of cooperation
between FRA and civil society organisations. The need to enhance this cooperation
was stressed with special regard to facilitate a better and meaningful contact between
FRA project managers and FRP participants. The FRP project team emphasised the
role civil society plays in ensuring frontline knowledge, adding value to FRA’s work.
The objective is to elaborate a living document concerning FRA cooperation with civil
society organisations which would help to enhance cooperation and at the same time
clarify expectations of CSOs.
Where do you want the FRP to be in 2015?
8. Some initial ideas to kick off the discussion related to further developments of the
FRP were provided by two members of the AP, Allan and Jamie.
9. In order to prioritise issues, all participants were requested to present suggestions
for discussion related to each of the following dimensions of the FRP: a) cooperation
FRA ↔ FRP, b) FRP ↔ FRP and c) FRP → national level. Working groups then
exchanged views on the suggestions given to each dimension. The results of the
discussions are summarised below:
a) Cooperation FRA ↔FRP
10. Discussions focused on the project planning phase and follow-up actions of FRA
outputs:
11. Regarding project planning, there is the need for the FRP to be engaged from the
early stages of the process, in order to ensure that the FRP can provide good follow-up
to the FRA’s findings;
12. The FRP can help FRA play a stronger role with EU Institutions. Opinions/reports
issued by FRA can be a tool for civil society advocacy actions, at both EU and
member state level.
13. As for the follow-up of FRA projects/activities with EU Institutions:
14. in order to ensure good impact of FRA opinions on FR policies, the FRP can
support the monitoring of effective implementation of EU Directives and infringement
procedures when needed – LITIGATION (also feeding FRA data findings);
15. FRP organisations could take action towards further Legal Opinions requests to
the FRA, and related follow-up by EU Institutions. The FRA can highlight
LEGISLATIVE problems and this can be followed-up by FRP.
16. POLICIES: FRA findings can assist the FRP to lobby the EC regarding the
introduction of a FR dimension into policy. The Commission could be encouraged by
the FRP to provide FRA with mandates regarding the implementation of its policy
plans.
17. The FRP to facilitate the creation of civil society coalitions for campaigning
towards litigation cases. In this sense a better use of FRA products for lobbying and
advocacy is recommended. This could lead to a FRA- FRP ‘marketing’ dimension that
would strengthen FR defense and visibility.
18.
Having
a
structured
dialogue
and
joint
action
with
the
Conference
of
international NGOs at the Council of Europe (CoE) to endorse international
recognition of the FRP.
19. The FRA to disseminate its newsletters to FRP all.
b) FRP ↔ FRP
20. It was emphasized that the FRP shall facilitate ‘connection’ among organisations
where networking opportunities do not yet exist. FRA/FRP shall create the ‘spaces’ to
facilitate such connection, for instance with the e-FRP. A concrete example was the
promotion of non-classical ‘thematic’ connections, beyond ‘traditional’ clusters
shaped around cross-cutting issues with focus on priorities and emerging challenges.
A second example was mentioned about countries with significant FR challenges
caused by the economic crisis (like the ‘PIIGS’ (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain):
where the communality of issues goes beyond belonging to the same geographical
region.
21. It was proposed to create the opportunity for FRP organisations to present key
Fundamental Rights priorities to EU Presidencies in the beginning of each mandate.
In order to guarantee continuity, the entire Troika could be addressed. This will
constitute a channel to address social rights as well.
22. National-level groups of FRP participants could also be a mean for raising FR
voice in the agendas of Member States, especially EU Presidency
23. It was mentioned that the e-FRP could provide an important tool for FRP
participants. In particular, the e-FRP Forums section could be used for the mentioned
‘cross-cutting’ emerging issues, for instance on hate crime.
24. With regard to the FRP meeting, it was suggested that non-classical thematic
working groups, including cross-cutting issues could improve the debates.
25. It was reiterated the importance to bring together FRP organisations in FRP
National Groups, including a group of Brussels-based organisations, welcoming the
idea of having the Director meeting with them. In this connection, it was proposed to
facilitate a meeting of ‘FRA associates’ at the National level (MB member, NLO, FRP,
NHRBs, FRANET etc.).
26. It was mentioned the possibility to conduct an on-line survey with FRP
participants asking them what they would like the FRP to provide to them. It was
suggested that such consultation must be very well targeted. It was decided to further
reflect on this proposal in the coming year.
27. It was discuss the possibility to produce an Annual Report on the FR situation in
the EU drafted by FRP Participants. It was decided to further reflect on this proposal
in the short future.
28. It was decided not to pursue for the time being the creation of FRP Geographical
Groups.
c) FRA → national level
29. To present the “Vienna Principles on the establishment of National Fundamental
Rights Platforms” in 2013 – 20 years after the adoption of the “Paris Principles on
the establishment of the National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights”. Such platforms could link the 28 civil societies to the EU level and,
most importantly, create links to the national governmental structures, especially
national parliaments (which, in turn, might be beneficial for the latter to exploit
their “Lisbon potential” in the area of FR).
30. A first draft should be prepared by the FRA (by January 2013) and be sent to the
AP for comments (by mid-February). Then it should be sent to all FRP organisations
for comment (by mid-March) and afterwards, revised by FRA. The final version to be
sent to FRP participants in advance and finally be adopted at the 6th FRP meeting.
31. FRP national groups could assist to better engage national stakeholders and to
facilitate national legislation synchronisation in the field of FR. Addressing National
Parliaments would increase the chance of cross-national legislation.
32. Facilitating an ‘early warning’ mechanism to assist crime victims can become a
crucial activity for the FRP to be closer to EU citizens. This shall require an
assessment through constant mapping at country level.
33. There is the need of enhancing FRP-FRP Communication through the e-FRP.
34. The values civil society organisations promote can increase FRA project quality.
FRP Participants’ frontline knowledge and expertise needed to provide input into the
design of FRA projects.
Conceptualisation of the 6th Annual FRP meeting
35. The AP members were invited to provide suggestions on how to improve the 6th
FRP meeting, particularly focusing on three questions below. Some initial ideas were
provided by two members of the AP who volunteered to prepare some suggestions to
kick of discussion (Dominika and Roger), followed by a tour de table to allow each
participants to express a key suggestion for each of the three dimensions.
a) How can we ensure that annual FRP meetings are useful and relevant for
FRP participants as well as the FRA?
36.
Less time for speeches, more time for discussions in panel debates, interaction
with the audience;
37. Set some rules of engagement at the beginning of the meeting (e.g. questions and
comments brief, respectful etc.);
38. Give the floor to civil society in the planning phase;
39. Information session on the role of the FRA and cooperation possibilities;
40. More opportunities to meet FRA staff in a less formal environment;
41. Very welcome that discussion on social rights is included in the agenda;
42. Presence of FRA staff in all the workshops;
43. Importance to have some key policy makers attending (i.e. Commissioner Reding)
providing opportunities to CSOs to be heard;
44. Have small videos to launch the discussion for more lively debates;
45. FRP Youtube channel;
46. Video recording instead of live streaming;
47. Space for FRP organisations to publish show-case their posters;
48. Random reference groups – informal networking before the start of the meeting.
b) How can we ensure variety and quality of workshops at the ‘Floor is yours’?
49.
More guidelines (e.g. how long an introduction should take; best practices can
also be helpful for the presenter);
50. Request presenters to submit one page description of their session;
51. The presenter to make self-evaluation (check list);
52. Five or six questions for debate already indicated by FRA. Priority should be to
workshops on cross-cutting issues, include an innovative elements and/or are hosted
in cooperation with other participants (not necessarily in their own ‘comfort zone’);
53. Priority given also to new organisations that have never taken the opportunity to
host a session;
54. Produce a “small report” of the results of each session for concrete impact;
55. Award for the ‘best’ workshop.
c) How can we extract concrete results from the meeting which could be
presented to the FRA Management Board?
56. FRA to provide a template for the report with concrete questions;
57.
AP members to use the time with the MB for bringing other issues, instead of
Annual report and Annual Work Programme reports, which the MB already receives
in writing: for instance providing a mid-term assessment of the AP highlighting
needs of the FRP;
58. It was agreed to share summary of the AP meeting with MB.
59. Additionally, it was decided that at the 6th FRP meeting a speaking slot shall be
included in the agenda for the AP to deliver a presentation on their activities ( nota
bene it was not decided who of the AP will deliver the presentation).
Revisiting FRP consultations: how, when and to what extent?
60. Some initial ideas were provided by two members of the AP who volunteered to
prepare some suggestions to kick off the discussion (Evelyne and Elizabeta), followed
by a tour de table to allow each participant to express a key suggestion for each of the
following questions:
a) How can we make the consultation process more effective and useful, both
for FRA and FRP organisations?
b) What are the best ways and channels for civil society organisations to
provide input to FRA’s work?
c) How can we further improve regular consultations on the FRA Annual
Report and Annual Work Programme?
61. Evelyne and Elizabeta, rapporteurs of this session, suggested that an assessment on
the FRP consultations should be made in order to clarify what needs to be evaluated
– which challenges and open questions need to be addressed.
62. It was agreed that they will carry out a consultation with FRA staff and FRP
organisations and by the beginning of 2013 concrete suggestions will be made in this
regard.
63. The discussion that followed brought the following suggestions:
As a way to increase the number of responses in the FRP consultations, participation
in the consultations (Annual report and Annual Work Programme) could become
mandatory for FRP organisations to put forward a candidate for the election of the
AP. It was pointed out that it would be a problem for organisations like trade unions,
whose mandate is not included in the MAF of the agency and therefore are more
likely to respond less to consultations. It was mentioned that this would be more of a
punitive measure than an incentive to participation. Further discussion is needed
before making a final decision.
64.
An
important
incentive,
already
happening,
is
the
feedback
given
to
organisations after the consultation. It is important for the respondents to know how
their input is used. The fact that there are many and varied answers, with different
kinds of input, do not facilitate this purpose. There must be limitations to this
exercise. In some cases it is possible to return feedback individually, in others not.
Further brainstorming on how this should be done is needed.
65. Proper planning of consultation periods and timely ‘save the date’ for FRP
participants would help to reserve time for feedback;
66. Official letters sent to organisations requesting their input for a consultation are
often taken more seriously than email invitations;
67. Commitment to publish their input online could be another incentive to take
part in a consultation.
AP Modus Operandi
a) Preparation of the AP activity report and self-evaluation:
68. Following previous agreement within the AP, Catherine with the support of
Jamie will draft the AP activity report. It was suggested that it is important to keep
regularly preparing it, avoiding waiting for the end of the term.
69. It was suggested that it would be useful to have a mid-term evaluation which
could be shared with:

FRP participant organisations (by email)

The Management Board (May 2013)

Presented at the 6th FRP meeting and a speaking slot shall be included in the
agenda (nota bene it was not decided whom of the AP will deliver the
presentation)
b) Preparation of the AP presentation to the Management Board:
70. It was agreed that Catherine will give the presentation on behalf of the FRP
Advisory Panel to the Management Board in May 2013.
71. This report will have a focus on:
a) the results and suggestions from the 6th FRP meeting;
b) a mid-term assessment by the AP (including perception on the FRP and needs
of FRP organisations);
c) the summary of the FRP input on the consultation on the Annual Work
Programme 2015 (tbc).
72. In order to provide an opportunity to all members of the AP to discuss the key
results and suggestions generated from the 6th FRP meeting to be presented at the MB,
it was decided to have a meeting of the AP right after the ending of the 6 th FPR
meeting on 26 April 2013.
c) How shall we organise the next AP elections?
73. Discussions were held on the possibility of having online voting for the next AP
elections. There was no agreement on this proposal. On one hand it would allow for
more participants to vote, namely those who have no means to be present at the
annual meeting. On the other hand there are security concerns on the technical
aspects. Furthermore, the annual meeting is the only time in the year FRP
organisations come together and those participating demonstrate commitment towards
the FRP, and it would lose the momentum if participants don’t need to be present to
vote.
74. The possibility of allowing delegation of votes was also discussed and concerns
were raised about the risk of this system, bringing difficulties in organising the
elections.
75. Another question that did not generate consensus was the one of allowing
organisations to put forward a candidate, after having put forward a candidate who
became an AP member that reached the term of two mandates. The regulation does
not prohibit that possibility. Further discussion is needed.
76. As mentioned during the session on the FRP Consultations, the proposal for
making the responses to consultations mandatory for FRP organisations to a) put
forward a candidate for the election of the AP and b) receive funding for the flight to
participate in the FRP annual meeting; did not reach consensus and it was decided
to further discuss it before making a final decision.
d) Submission to the FRA Management Board of the summary of comments
and suggestions by FRP consultation on FRA Annual Report
77. It was agreed that the summary of this AP meeting shall be sent to the
Management Board as background documentation for their meeting in December
2012.
78. It was also discussed how to best organise the submission to the Management
Board of the summary of the results on the Annual Report consultation: it was agreed
that the summary prepared by the FRA will be shared with the AP for comments and
suggestions and then submitted to the MB.
Conclusions and follow-up actions
79. In the presence of the Director of the FRA a tour de table gave an opportunity to
all participants to express their impressions on the meeting. It was emphasised the
collaborative spirit of this Advisory Panel in cooperating with the agency in bringing
the FRP to a new phase was recognised. Appreciation was expressed for the engaging
preparation and methodologies used throughout the meeting that allowed for a lot of
input on the various topics discussed; and the specific issues covered were considered
to have been well chosen.
80. The meeting terminated with final remarks by the FRA Director, who will
consider the suggestions put forward. He highlighted the importance of cooperation
with civil society for the work of the agency and expressed appreciation for the
valuable input given by all members during the discussions and the engagement of
all participants in the meeting.
81. Follow-up actions:
Advisory Panel:

Preparation of a mid-term activity report and self-assessment;

Presentation to the MB;

Consultation with FRA staff and FRP organisations (by the beginning of 2013
concrete suggestions will be made) for the assessment on the FRP consultations.
FRA:

Draft AP meeting report in consultation with AP to be submitted to MB and
circulated to FRP;

Briefing to the Director on key results and suggestions of the FRP AP meeting;

“Vienna Principles” first draft to be prepared by the FRA (by January 2013)
and be sent to the AP for comments (by mid-February). Then, sent to all FRP
organisations for comment (by mid-March) and afterwards, revised by FRA.
The final version to be sent to FRP participants in advance and finally be
adopted at the 6th FRP meeting;

Dissemination of the weekly InFRA to all FRP participant organisations.
FRA and AP

Submission to MB summary of input by FRP on Annual Report;

Organisation
participants.
of
meeting
with
FRA
Director
and
Brussels-based
FRP