Articles

Introduction

Despite the European commitment to develop projects that celebrate the crucial importance of fundamental rights, following the publication of a new report by the European Union Funds for Fundamental Rights (FURI) with the financial support of the Citizens, Equality, Rights, Values (CERV), spotlights the detected use of millions of euros in European funds for projects that violate the rights of marginalised communities and in particular of ethnic minorities such as the Roma, individuals of migrant origin, and individuals with disabilities.

The report, created in collaboration with eight non-governmental organisations (NGOs), collected data on six countries, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, identifying 63 projects financed by the European Union (EU) in which fundamental rights were violated (Kassam, 2025; De La Feld, 2025; European Network on Independent Living, 2025; Validity Foundation, 2025). The findings reveal the segregation of Roma communities and disabled children in education and housing; lack of access to quality public services; deprivation of the freedoms of people with migrant backgrounds; and various cases of pushbacks together with the violation of rights related to the protection of personal data, targeting the above-mentioned minorities (Bridge EU, 2025; European Network on Independent Living, 2025; Validity Foundation, 2025).

For this reason, this article turns its interest to observing the gaps in monitoring mechanisms and the findings brought to light by the report “Billion euros, 63 projects, six countries, one pattern: How EU funds violate fundamental rights”. This article seeks to streamline these issues for both expert and generalist audiences, expose systematic violations, highlight institutional responsibilities, and raise greater awareness of the need to enforce existing mechanisms, particularly with regard to monitoring and implementing fundamental rights, thereby reducing the discrimination to which many communities and minorities are subjected.

In summary, through an overview of the gaps present in the phases of design, programming, implementation, and monitoring, the findings and recommendations proposed will subsequently be analysed to open a dialogue on the repercussions on specific marginalised minorities in such a way as to carry out applied research that does not limit itself to informing but aims to influence hypothetical public policies for the improvement of the current situation and the strengthening of the protection of fundamental rights through the use of European resources. 

1. What is the FURI project? 

The FURI project aims to offer an intersectional approach in exploring violations of fundamental rights facilitated by EU-funded projects through the collection of quantitative and qualitative research and evidence on six countries—Poland, Romania, Czech, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece—for the periods 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 (Bridge EU, 2025; Kassam, 2025; De La Feld, 2025; European Network on Independent Living, 2025; Validity Foundation, 2025). The primary aim is to raise awareness regarding violations of the Charter for Fundamental Rights linked to the development of EU-funded projects that have furthered the marginalisation of specific groups, including Roma communities, people with a migrant background, and persons with disabilities (Bridge EU, 2025; Kassam, 2025; De La Feld, 2025; Validity Foundation, 2025; European Network on Independent Living, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023; European Ombudsman, 2020).

Particular attention was given to the experiences of these groups in specific contexts, including “housing and educational segregation; reception conditions for asylum seekers; institutionalisation of persons with disabilities and children; urban regeneration initiatives” (Bridge EU, 2025, p. 9). The FURI project was able to map the unlawful projects, paying particular attention to the presence of serious systemic gaps. Despite the reception of European funds being limited to specific conditionalities, preconditions, and alignment with fundamental rights, the project’s research found a widespread lack of alignment across the various phases.

The methodology adopted was characterised by the necessary engagement of all actors at both national and European level, and is based on desk research and literature review regarding evaluation reports on the implementation of fundamental rights in EU-funded projects, which led to strong collaboration with as many as 301 stakeholders and the organisation of numerous focus groups at the European level (Bridge EU, 2025). Through the research, it was possible to identify areas where violations of fundamental rights occurred among the target groups, revealing that approximately 1.1 billion EUR was allocated to support projects that violated the requirements related to fundamental rights (Bridge EU, 2025; Kassam, 2025; De La Feld, 2025; Validity Foundation, 2025; European Network on Independent Living, 2025). According to the report, the minorities involved experienced intersectional discrimination based on age, disability, political opinion, race, resident status, religion, sex, and sexual orientation (Bridge EU, 2025). 

Among the most serious violations are those in the educational and schooling sphere. The report speaks of educational segregation, as many European States, including those examined in the report, continue to fail to provide a public-school service capable of guaranteeing inclusivity and quality, disproportionately and more severely affecting children belonging to specific categories and minorities (Bridge EU, 2025). Closely linked is the issue of institutionalisation, defined as “the placement or detention of people in residential facilities, large or small, as their primary place of residence, and when based solely on the ground of disability, or in combination with other grounds” (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022; UNICEF & Eurochild, 2023; Šiška & Beadle-Brown, 2020; Bridge EU, p. 28).

Regarding discrimination and the marginalised groups indicated, it is important to underline how these groups continuously suffer. In different contexts, serious incidents of sexual violence and gender-based violence are closely connected to the institutionalisation, segregated service provisions, and geographical isolations, which make access to the crucial phases of “reporting crimes, accessing justice, obtaining protection and support services, and overcoming legal and institutional discrimination” even more complicated (Bridge EU, 2025, p.28; European Commission, 2020).

2. Theory versus practice: gaps in the practical application of the EU’s funding mechanism for fundamental rights

    

As reported, what in theory and legally reflects specific principles and values for the respect of fundamental rights in all phases of EU funding is not always respected and implemented in practice (Bridge EU, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023). The aspect of cohesion between objectives and budget, therefore, becomes fundamental to ensure an effective reduction of inequalities and a constant reference to the respect for fundamental rights, which entail essential legal obligations (Bridge EU, 2025; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023).

The violations identified highlight several critical issues linked to the problems inherent in the system of design, management and monitoring of EU funds, not only from the point of view of the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) but above all due to the difficulty in applying the shared responsibility between the European Commission and the Member States of the Union (Bridge EU, 2025; De La Feld, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023). The report under examination focuses on the shared funds managed between the European Commission and the EU Member States in two programming periods: 2014-2020 and 2021-2027, regulated by the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) (Bridge EU, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023). 

This element allows for a shared programming framework that should be able to manage monitoring and financing. For this reason, following a specific and linear funding cycle becomes essential to share complementary responsibilities and, consequently, accountability (Bridge EU, 2025). In fact, according to the report, several commissions have ruled on the matter, defining the programming phase and the monitoring and evaluation phase as shared responsibilities between the EU Commission and national authorities, while at the same time identifying only the member states as responsible for the implementation phase (Bridge EU, 2025). This division, however, risks serious gaps in accountability, creating inconsistency between objectives and safeguarding measures (Bridge EU, 2025; De La Feld, 2025). 

The most relevant provisions span different fields, including horizontal principles of gender equality and non-discrimination, with the recent addition in the period 2021-2027 of the further principle of respect for fundamental rights (Bridge EU, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023; CPR, 2021; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023; EURoma Network, 2024). Before receiving financial funds, requesting states must comply with specific strategies and policy arrangements to benefit from EU funding. These ex-ante conditions concern specific requirements based on the horizontal principles previously described with reference to anti-discrimination, gender equality, and disability (Bridge EU, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023; CPR, 2021; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023). In addition to these conditionalities, more general areas are considered, such as “administrative capacity for the implementation and application of EU law and policy in these areas” and “mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with the Charter” (Bridge EU, 2025, p.15; Wladasch et al., 2023).

Finally, among the preconditions for the receipt of funds appears the necessary and particularly relevant issue of “reporting arrangement to the Monitoring Committee on cases of noncompliance of EU-funded operations with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)” (Bridge EU, 2025, p. 15; EURoma Network, 2024). Among the conditionalities, specific so-called “thematic” conditionalities are essential requiring that states requesting EU funds for fundamental rights provide the submission of documents during the preparation period of the programmes demonstrating respect and implementation at local level of the preconditions, which following the approval phase by the European Commission can be subject to suspension of payments for project funding if not fulfilled (Bridge EU, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023; CPR, 2021). 

Nevertheless, the gaps between programming documents and implementation result in a serious lack of understanding of the requirements necessary to fulfil fundamental rights in practice, as confirmed by the qualitative and quantitative research produced by the report (Bridge EU, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023). For these reasons, the different phases of design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of EU-funded programmes offer important possibilities for collaboration among different stakeholders, such as public authorities at national, regional, and local levels; economic and social partners; civil society organisations and bodies responsible for promoting social inclusion, fundamental rights, gender equality, and non-discrimination but at the same time are largely underutilised (Bridge EU, 2025; Wladasch et al., 2023; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023; EURoma Network, 2024).

Conditionalities and horizontal principles are supported by horizontal and sectoral EU policies that guide the promotion and protection of fundamental rights in the use of EU funds and are fundamental to maintaining high attention on possible violations that threaten marginalised communities but are “poorly understood” lacking effectiveness in their operationalisation in practice (Bridge EU, 2025, p. 29; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023). Moreover, sectoral policies and legislations concerning the specific minorities that these projects should preserve and protect often fail to be respected when implemented, due to  a lack of actual guidelines for the implementation of intersectional approaches (Bridge EU, 2025).

Therefore, the legislative framework that should regulate and monitor violations proves to be inconsistent, also due to the lack of data and indicators capable of detecting them, resulting in a lack of mechanisms for their implementation (Bridge EU, 2025; De La Feld, 2025; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023).

3. Analysis of Recommendations

The report under examination leads to the drafting of specific recommendations that should be widely disseminated in order to spread greater awareness and knowledge about the possible solutions to be implemented, but above all greater consistency in view of the preparation of the regulatory framework for the post-2027 period by the European Commission (Bridge EU, 2025).

Among the necessary recommendations both at the EU and national level, it is important that the alignment of legal definitions to ensure greater coherence in the defence of human rights is applied based on the authoritative interpretations of international bodies such as United Nations’ agencies and EU institutions (Bridge EU, 2025). As highlighted by the overview relating to the funding process of the projects, it is clear how the prohibition of funding towards projects in which a violation has been recognised must be essential and strictly forbidden in all situations, where the renewal or construction of structures is detected, that risk aggravating the problem of institutionalisation through segregated education and housing services or that may “restrict access to mainstream services and/or deprive liberty of residing people constitute fundamental rights violations” together with any type of “pushbacks, illegal detention of people with a migrant background” (Bridge EU, 2025, p. 38).

At national level it is necessary to carry out an effective translation of the requirements of fundamental rights into practical and easily applicable measures in addition to a necessary and substantial work on local authorities to facilitate the recognition of any violations both at legal and definitional level and in terms of practical assistance to increase support for marginalised minorities (Bridge EU, 2025). Nevertheless, recommendations are also necessary with regard to the European level and direct the European Commission, which is highly recommended in the report, to apply the legal definitions published by the EU and international bodies, and most importantly to take responsibility to assess fundamental rights “violations and complaints at the level of implementation” for greater consistency and the introduction of necessary sanctions (Bridge EU, 2025, p. 39).

Moreover, the report sets out a series of preparatory recommendations for the drafting of the regulatory framework 2021-2027 Cohesion Policy with various provisions regarding the practical implementation of fundamental rights protection focusing on conditionalities, non-eligible investments and horizontal principles, complaints mechanism, partnership principle together with key strategies for enhancing “legal accountability through complaints and strategic litigation” (Bridge EU, 2025, p. 42).

Conclusion 

Ultimately, following the findings highlighted by the FURI report, the situation is to be considered rather alarming: 1.1 billion EUR from EU funding used to finance projects that do not respect conditionalities, horizontal principles, and bypass all control mechanisms without European institutions being able to exercise oversight, justifying these shortcomings through shared responsibility with Member States and forgetting the key value of accountability. But far more serious is the worsening of discriminatory practices and systemic violations, which further deteriorate the conditions of marginalisation for vulnerable communities such as Roma, people with a migrant background, and persons with disabilities. Following the observation of the six countries, it is essential to underline that these violations are not local anomalies but reflect a system that fails to address critical structural issues in the programming, monitoring, and implementation mechanisms of projects financed by EU funds.

Through this article, therefore, the overview of the report becomes fundamental in spreading greater awareness of these issues and in making a wider public recognise the urgency and necessity of significant reform of the regulatory framework and control mechanisms for the next post-2027 programming cycle. The recommendations outlined in the report are crucial for the timely detection of violations, as they comprehensively address the necessary changes, including legal definitions aligned with international standards, effective guidelines for intersectional approaches, and improvements to monitoring systems.

In conclusion, the challenge put forward by the authors of the report is not only practical and technical but also political and moral: to ensure that European resources do not finance segregation and discrimination but, on the contrary, guarantee the building of more equitable and inclusive societies whose fundamental rights are not just black and white on paper but respected and promoted in practice from design to implementation.

Bibliography

Bridge EU. ( May, 2025). FURI – EU Funds for Fundamental Rights. Bridge EU. https://www.bridge-eu.org/furi enil.eu+3bridge-eu.org+3bridge-eu.org+3  (Accessed: June 15, 2025)

Bridge EU. (2025, May 26). Press release – 1.1 billion EUR, 63 projects, six countries, one pattern: How EU funds violate fundamental rights [Press release]. Bridge EU. theworld.org+14bridge-eu.org+14bridge-eu.org+14ilfattoquotidiano.it   (Accessed: June 20, 2025)

CPR (Commons Provisions Regulation). (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy. See online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj 

De La Feld, S. (2025, May 27). Over €1 billion of EU funds go to projects violating fundamental rights – Bridge EU report. Euractiv/EU News. https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/05/27/1-billion-eu-funds-violation-rights/

EURoma Network. (2024, March 18). FRA report on compliance of EU funds with fundamental rights. EURoma. https://www.euromanet.eu/news/fra-report-on-compliance-of-eu-funds-with-fundamental-rights/

European Commission. (2020). EU strategy on victims’ rights (2020–2025).  (Accessed: June 24, 2025)

European Network on Independent Living. (2025, May 26). EU funds support fundamental rights violations of marginalised groups in several countries, new report reveals. ENIL. https://enil.eu/eu-funds-support-fundamental-rights-violations-of-marginalised-groups-in-several-countries-new-report-reveals/

European Ombudsman. (2020). Decision in case 1233/2019/MMO on how the European Commission ensures that Member State governments spend European Structural and Investment Funds in line with the obligations stemming from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2023). EU funds: Ensuring compliance with fundamental rights. Publications Office of the European Union.

Kassam, A. (2025, May 31). More than €1bn in EU funds used in discriminatory projects, report says. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/31/more-than-1bn-in-eu-funds-used-in-discriminatory-projects-report-says  (Accessed: June 15, 2025)

Šiška, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. (2020). Report on the transition from institutional care to community-based care services in 27 EU member states.  (Accessed: June 24, 2025)

UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2022). Guidelines on deinstitutionalization, including in emergencies (CRPD/C/5). United Nations.  (Accessed: June 24, 2025)

UNICEF & Eurochild. (2023). Children in alternative care: Comparable statistics to monitor progress on deinstitutionalisation across the European Union.  (Accessed: June 24, 2025)

Validity Foundation. (2025, May 26). EU funds support fundamental rights violations of marginalised groups in several countries, new report reveals. Validity. https://validity.ngo/eu-funds-support-fundamental-rights-violations-of-marginalised-groups-in-several-countries-new-report-reveals/

Wladasch, K., Allram-Naaijer, K., & Birtha, M. (2023). The role of national human rights bodies in monitoring fundamental rights in EU funded programmes (Policy Brief 2023/2). European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.