On 11 March 2026, Equinet and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission organised the webinar “Using EU Infringement Complaints as a Tool for Equality”, bringing together Equinet members who are legal experts or responsible for monitoring the implementation of EU Directives at the national level – including the Standards for Equality Bodies Directives and the Pay Transparency Directive – to discuss how infringement procedures can be used strategically to strengthen equality enforcement across Europe.

The webinar explored what an infringement complaint is and how the procedure works in practice. Participants discussed how complaints can draw the attention of the European Commission to violations of EU law by Member States and potentially lead to infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

The webinar featured contributions from Thomas Verellen,  Assistant Professor of EU and International Law at Utrecht University, Clíona Kimber, Senior Counsel, Barrister and Litigator and a CEDR accredited Mediator, and Samuel Engblom, Deputy Equality Ombudsman at the Swedish Equality Ombudsman, who shared practical experiences and legal expertise on the role of infringement complaints in addressing structural discrimination and promoting compliance with EU law.  

Using infringement complaints strategically: Key takeaways from the webinar  

An infringement complaint is a strategic public advocacy tool designed to draw the European Commission’s attention to an apparent breach of EU law and encourage Member States to comply with EU equality law. If the Commission considers that a violation exists, it may initiate an infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU, which can ultimately lead to proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The process is controlled entirely by the Commission, which retains full discretion over whether to pursue the case. The primary objective is therefore to secure compliance with EU law rather than to obtain compensation or resolve an individual dispute. 

The role of Equality Bodies 

The webinar highlighted why strengthening the capacity of Equality Bodies to use EU enforcement mechanisms strategically is both timely and important. In a context where structural discrimination continues to affect many people across Europe, infringement complaints can help reinforce accountability, strengthen fundamental rights protections, and support systemic change. 

The webinar highlighted several key lessons for Equality Bodies considering the use of infringement complaints as a strategic tool for advancing compliance with EU equality law: 

Approach complaints strategically and rigorously 

Prepare infringement complaints with the same level of detail and legal substantiation as formal litigation. 

Emphasise systemic and structural issues 

Complaints are more impactful when they demonstrate broader patterns of non-compliance rather than isolated individual cases. 

Develop a strong comparative legal analysis 

Clearly explain the relationship between EU law obligations and the relevant national legal framework, identifying precisely where gaps or inconsistencies arise. 

Remain actively engaged throughout the process 

Submitting a complaint is only the beginning. Continued follow-up and the provision of additional evidence or clarification can strengthen the case significantly. 

Use infringement complaints as a broader advocacy tool

Even where the European Commission does not proceed to litigation, the process itself can: 

• encourage changes in government behaviour, 

• increase political and public pressure, and 

• support progress towards compliance with EU law. 

Deputy-Ombudsman Susanna Lindroos-Hovinheimo has issued a reprimand to the City of Helsinki for the processing times of information requests, which were too long.

The Deputy-Ombudsman has issued a reprimand to the Social Services, Health Care and Rescue Services Division of the City of Helsinki for excessive processing times of information requests and urged the city to bring the processing times of information requests into compliance with the law. The complainant’s information request had taken almost five months to process, which exceeded the maximum processing time laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation.

According to the Deputy-Ombudsman, the city’s conduct was particularly reprehensible because the processing times of information requests have been exceeding the maximum processing times laid down in the Act at least since 2024, and the Ombudsman has stated their unlawfulness several times.

The Deputy-Ombudsman has asked the Social Services, Health Care and Rescue Services Division of the City of Helsinki to report by 30 November 2026 what measures it has taken to make the processing times of information requests lawful and to report the average processing times of information requests.

The processing times of information requests have been unlawful for a long time

The processing of information requests in the Social Services, Health Care and Rescue Services Division of the City of Helsinki has been severely congested since at least 2024. The processing times have been found illegal in several decisions made by the Ombudsman during 2025.

The complaints assessed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman have concerned information requests under both the Act on the Openness of Government Activities and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

According to the report received by the Deputy-Ombudsman from the City of Helsinki in autumn 2025, the processing times of information requests were mainly between two weeks and three months and, in individual cases, even longer.

The Deputy-Ombudsman stated that although the City of Helsinki has been able to shorten the processing times, the processing times were still mainly too long and, in some matters, considerably longer than the maximum processing time laid down in legislation.

The Deputy-Ombudsman’s decision EOAK/4105/2025 has been published (in Finnish) on the website www.oikeusasiamies.fi.

For further information, please contact Senior Legal Adviser Anne Ilkka, tel. +358 9 432 3346.

On May 25, 2026, the Public Defender of Georgia, Levan Ioseliani, participated in the International Scientific Conference on Law and Humanism: Modern Boundaries of Human Rights Protection in Ustka (Poland).

The Public Defender spoke about the role of human rights in strengthening public institutions and emphasized the importance of integrating human rights standards into the development of the state’s economic, political, legal and administrative directions, which results in social stability.

The Public Defender also spoke about the work of his institution and noted that a human rights-based approach in public administration requires transparency and public participation to ensure that institutions focus on the needs of the most vulnerable. “We carry out strict monitoring of state administrative bodies to ensure that their internal procedures respect the European Convention on Human Rights and the principle of subsidiarity,” the Public Defender stated in his speech.

The conference was organized by the Pomeranian University of Slupsk, the University of Cologne and Tbilisi State University.

South Gloucestershire Council turned away a domestic abuse survivor and her young children when they urgently needed help, after fundamentally misapplying the law designed to protect victims, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.

The mother fled domestic abuse in 2023 and moved with her child to a refuge. When told she would need to leave the refuge, she approached South Gloucestershire Council for homelessness help. Despite a formal risk assessment showing she faced severe and escalating danger, the council refused to help because she did not have a local connection to the area.

The council considered whether the mother could live in a different area near her family. This was despite being told the mother had applied for a non-molestation order against her former partner who had travelled there to try to find her.

South Gloucestershire then referred the mother back to the area she had fled, telling her she would be safe if housed "three miles" from unsafe addresses, without any basis in law or guidance for this approach.

When the mother's support worker repeatedly challenged the council's decisions, citing the relevant law and the Government's own Homelessness Code of Guidance, the council dismissed the challenges and insisted the guidance did not apply.

The council then closed the mother's case without resolving her housing situation, leaving her with no accommodation and no clear way of getting help.

Amerdeep Clarke, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

"This vulnerable family sought help from South Gloucestershire Council and the risks she faced were clearly documented. Yet the council turned her away, sent her back towards danger, and then simply closed her file.

“What concerns me most is that these decisions were not made in error by a single officer acting alone. They were made and maintained with managerial awareness, in the face of accurate challenge. That suggests this is not about one bad decision, it may reflect a wider misapplication of the law that could be affecting other domestic abuse survivors right now, in South Gloucestershire and potentially elsewhere.

"No victim of domestic abuse should face the prospect of being referred back to the area they fled. The law is clear on this and councils must understand and follow it.

"I am pleased that South Gloucestershire Council has accepted our recommendations and taken steps to put things right for this family. Its commitment to train housing staff should hopefully ensure that no other family is let down in this way.

"This case should serve as a wake-up call for every council in the country. Getting this wrong does not just cause distress. It puts lives at risk."

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman remedies injustice and shares learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise to the mother and pay her £1,000 in recognition of the significant distress caused.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to provide training or guidance to housing staff to ensure they understand their duties to people at risk of domestic abuse.