Together Against Trafficking in Human Beings

EU Legislation

EU Legislation

EU legislation provides for various instruments on addressing trafficking in human beings.

In June 2017, Frontex released a video presenting its Vega project and the role of border guards at airports in detecting children at risk of trafficking in human beings. 
 
The video highlights some of the challenges for officials to identify trafficked children, as well as some of the best practices recommended in the VEGA handbook: Children at airports (Frontex, 2015).
 
 
 

"This is not a European Commission publication. The European Commission is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission, the European Union or its Member States".

On 26th June 2017, the Commission adopted the Guidelines on non-financial reporting, to enhance business transparency on social and environmental matters. The new guidelines will support companies in fulfilling their reporting obligations under current non-financial disclosure requirements and will promote smart company reporting. Companies falling within the scope of Directive 2014/95/EU have to disclose relevant information on policies, risks, and results as regards environmental matters, social and employee-related aspects, as well as respect for human rights, anti-corruption, and bribery issues, and diversity on the boards of directors.


In the Guidelines, trafficking in human beings is highlighted amongst the possible objectives of the due diligence processes to be reported. In particular, companies may consider disclosing material information and key performance indicators on processes and measures for preventing trafficking in human beings in the context of corporate respect for human rights, as well as on trafficking in human beings in relation to the monitoring of supply chains.In the Guidelines, trafficking in human beings is highlighted amongst the possible objectives of the due diligence processes to be reported. In particular, companies may consider disclosing material information and key performance indicators on processes and measures for preventing trafficking in human beings in the context of corporate respect for human rights, as well as on trafficking in human beings in relation to the monitoring of supply chains.​

Eurojust's 15th Annual Report provides insights into the EU Agency's support to the Member States in the fight against serious cross-border crime. Amongst other things, the report includes a section on trafficking in human beings (THB), with information in relation to: Eurojust’s support to national investigations and prosecutions of trafficking cases; an increase in the use of Joint Investigation Teams; Eurojust's operational support coupled with strategic activities, to enhance the effectiveness of international judicial cooperation, and to bolster its partnership with other EU institutions and agencies, for the purpose of streamlining actions and optimising resources in the fight against THB.

 

 

"This is not a European Commission publication. The European Commission is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission, the European Union or its Member States".

The Global Action to Prevent and Address Trafficking in Persons and the Smuggling of Migrants is a four-year (2015-2019) joint initiative by the European Union (EU) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) being implemented in partnership with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

The programme forms part of a joint response to trafficking in persons and the smuggling of migrants and it is expected to be delivered in up to 15 strategically selected countries across Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. A focus will be placed on assistance to governmental authorities, civil society organizations, victims of trafficking and smuggled migrants. 

Aims and Objectives: The programme aims to assist the selected countries in developing and implementing comprehensive national counter-trafficking and counter-smuggling responses. A dual prevention and protection approach has been adopted and includes six key responses linked to the following objectives:

  • Strategy and policy development
  • Legislative assistance
  • Capacity building
  • Regional and trans-regional cooperation
  • Protection and assistance to victims of trafficking and smuggled migrants
  • Assistance and support to children among victims of trafficking and smuggled migrants.

 

  •  Check the in-country activities that have recently taken place: Glo.Act

 

Please find below the link to the Special Edition newsletter by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to introduce the Global Action to Prevent and Address Trafficking in Persons and the Smuggling of Migrants (GLO.ACT.)

GLO.ACT  is a four-year (2015-2019) €11 million joint initiative by the European Union (EU) and (UNODC) implemented in partnership with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

 

 

14 June 2011 (strike-out decision)
 
The applicant claimed that she had been trafficked to the United Kingdom from Italy by an Albanian man who forced her into prostitution in a night club collecting all the money which that brought. She escaped and started living in an undisclosed shelter. She claimed that removing her from the United Kingdom to Albania would expose her to a risk of being treated in breach of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.
 
The Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 (striking out applications) of the Convention, as it found that the applicant and her daughter had been granted refugee status in the United Kingdom and that there was no longer any risk that they would be removed to Albania. The Government had also undertaken to pay to the applicant a sum for the legal costs incurred by her.
 
 
10 September 2013 (decision on the admissibility)
 

The applicant, a Ghanaian national, alleged that she had been trafficked to the United Kingdom and forced into prostitution. She complained in particular that her removal to Ghana would put her at risk of falling into the hands of her former traffickers or into the hands of new traffickers. She further alleged that, as she had contracted HIV in the United Kingdom as a direct result of trafficking and sexual exploitation, the State was under a positive obligation to allow her to remain in the United Kingdom to access the necessary medical treatment.

The Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) inadmissible. It noted in particular that the applicant could have raised all of her Convention complaints in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. By not applying for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, she had failed to meet the requirements of Article 35 § 1 (admissibility criteria) of the Convention.

Full Case Law: F.A. v. the United Kingdom​

 
 
 
 
28 June 2011 (strike-out decision)
 
The applicant, a Somali national born in 1992, arrived by boat in Italy in November 2007. He was running away from Mogadishu where he claimed he had been forced to join the army after the collapse of the country’s administrative structures and where he risked his life at the hand of the Ethiopian troops who aimed at capturing and killing young Somali soldiers. The Italian authorities left him in the streets of Rome in the winter of 2007, without any help or resources. He was constantly hungry and cold, physically and verbally abused in the streets, and by the police in Milan where he looked for help. Eventually, he was trafficked to Finland, where he applied for asylum which was refused in February 2010. The applicant complained that if returned back to Italy, he would risk inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, particularly as he was an unaccompanied minor.
 
The Court struck the application out of its list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 (striking out applications) of the Convention, as it noted that the applicant had been granted a continuous residence permit in Finland and that he was no longer subject to an expulsion order. The Court thus considered that the matter giving rise to the complaints in the case had been resolved.
 
Read the Full Case Law: D.H. v. Finland (no. 30815/09)
17 January 2017
 
This case concerned the Austrian authorities’ investigation into an allegation of human trafficking. The applicants, two Filipino nationals, who had gone to work as maids or au pairs the United Arab Emirates, alleged that their employers had taken their passports away from them and exploited them. They claimed that this treatment had continued during a short stay in Vienna where their employers had taken them and where they had eventually managed to escape. Following a criminal complaint filed by the applicants against their employers in Austria, the authorities found that they did not have jurisdiction over the alleged offences committed abroad and decided to discontinue the investigation into the applicants’ case concerning the events in Austria. The applicants maintained that they had been subjected to forced labour and human trafficking, and at the Austrian authorities had failed to carry out an effective and exhaustive investigation into their allegations. They argued in particular that what had happened to them in Austria could not be viewed in isolation, and at the Austrian authorities had a duty under international law to investigate also those events which had occurred abroad.
 
The Court, finding that the Austrian authorities had complied with their duty to protect the applicants as (potential) victims of human trafficking, held that there had been no violation of Article 4 (prohibition of forced labour) and no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. It notably noted that there had been no obligation under the Convention to investigate the applicants’ recruitment in the Philippines or their alleged exploitation in the United Arab Emirates, as States are not required under Article 4 of the Convention to provide for universal jurisdiction over trafficking offences committed abroad. Turning to the events in Austria, the Court concluded that the authorities had taken all steps which could have reasonably been expected in the situation. The applicants, supported by a government-funded NGO, had been interviewed by specially trained police officers, had been granted residence and work permits in order to regularise their stay in Austria, and a personal data disclosure ban had been imposed for their protection. Moreover, the investigation into the applicants’ allegations about their stay in Vienna had been sufficient and the authorities’ resulting assessment, given the facts of the case and the evidence available, had been reasonable. Any further steps in the case – such as confronting the applicants’ employers – would not have had any reasonable prospect of success, as no mutual legal assistance agreement existed between Austria and the United Arab Emirates, and as the applicants had only turned to the police approximately one year after the events in question, when their employers had long left the country.
 
Read the full test case: J. and Others v. Austria (no. 58216/12)
18 February 2014 (strike-out decision)
 
The applicant, a Nigerian national, who claimed to be a victim of human trafficking, complained that her expulsion to Nigeria would expose her to a real risk of re-trafficking.
 
The Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 (striking out applications) of the Convention, noting that the applicant was no longer at risk of being removed as she had been granted refugee status and an indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the United Kingdom authorities had accepted that she had been a victim of trafficking.
 
30 March 2017
 
The applicants – 42 Bangladeshi nationals – were recruited in Athens and other parts of Greece between the end of 2012 and early 2013, without a Greek work permit, to work at the main strawberry farm in Manolada. Their employers failed to pay the applicants’ wages and obliged them to work in difficult physical conditions under the supervision of armed guards. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to forced or compulsory labour. They further submitted that the State was under an obligation to prevent their being subjected to human trafficking, to adopt preventive measures for that purpose and to punish the employers.
 
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 4 § 2 (prohibition of forced labour) of the Convention, finding that the applicants had not received effective protection from the Greek State. The Court noted, in particular, that the applicants’ situation was one of human trafficking and forced labour, and specified that exploitation through labour was one aspect of trafficking in human beings. The Court also found that the State had failed in its obligations to prevent the situation of human trafficking, to protect the victims, to conduct an effective investigation into the offences committed and to punish those responsible for the trafficking.
 
Read Full Case Law: Chowdury and Others v. Greece
28 June 2007 (decision on the admissibility)
 
The applicant, a Turkish national who had lived in Germany for some 30 years, was convicted in 1999 for, among other things, attempted aggravated trafficking in human beings and aggravated battery. He was expelled in 2001 from Germany to Turkey after he had served two two-thirds prison sentence, as the courts found that there was a high risk that he could continue to pose a serious threat to the public. The applicant complained that his deportation from Germany had breached his private and family life.
 
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. It found that the applicant’s expulsion had been in accordance with the Convention, particularly given that he had been sentenced for rather serious offences in Germany, and had been eventually able to return to Germany.
 
REad the full Case Law: Kaya v. Germany
Application communicated to the Greek Government on 6 September 2016
 
Recognised as victims of human trafficking, the applicants, three Russian nationals, complain in particular of the Greek State’s failure to discharge its obligations to penalise and prosecute acts relating to human trafficking in their cases.
The Court gave notice of the application to the Greek Government and put questions to the parties under Articles 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
 
12 May 2009 (decision on the admissibility)
 
This case concerned the confiscation of premises used in connection with offence linked to human trafficking and exploiting vulnerable aliens. The applicant relied in particular on Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
 
The Court declared the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. Taking into account the margin of appreciation afforded to States in controlling “the use of property in accordance with the general interest”, in particular in the context of a policy aimed at combating criminal activities, it found that the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, i.e., in accordance with the general interest, to combat human trafficking and the exploitation of foreigners in a precarious situation.
 
Read the full Case Law: Tas v. Belgium

European Commission, 2017, 11 pages

"EU anti-trafficking action 2012-2016 at a glance" provides an overview of the work carried out in the past five years on the basis of the EU comprehensive legal and policy framework to address trafficking in human beings, that is, the Anti-trafficking Directive and the EU Strategy towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings 2012-2016.

This framework is focused on victims and is human rights based, gender specific and child sensitive. In addition, the EU Anti-trafficking Coordinator has the overall responsibility of improving coordination and coherence among EU institutions, EU agencies, Member States and international actors, and for developing existing and new EU policies to address THB. In this context, extensive work both at the political as well as the operational level is conducted in the external and external dimension of EU policies, in areas ranging from security to migration, justice, equality, anti-discrimination, fundamental rights, employment, development, research, humanitarian aid, and fisheries, amongst others.

Although non-exhaustive, "EU anti-trafficking action 2012-2016 at a glance" aims at highlighting the key instruments and tools delivered during this period in order to support and raise awareness for our joint efforts against trafficking in human beings, encourage the widest possible use in order to ensure full impact and implementation of commitments, as well minimise duplication of efforts. Please note that, to this end, each section includes a link to the relevant source.