Are Women’s Rights And Gender Equality A Reality In The EU?

Are you one of those who still think that in European and other developed countries, women’s human rights are not ­­violated? And, according to the higher values of the European Union and the legal systems of its Member States, do you think it is unlikely that women are not enjoying the full extent of their rights on an equal basis with men?­ Let me tell you that, in that case, you are wrong.

All women in the world live in a patriarchal society. The social organisation system is governed by hierarchical relationships where men have more privileges and, therefore, a superior social, economic and leadership position than women.

Therefore, patriarchy is a characteristic common to all societies, regardless of which one it is, and implies that senior positions in the political, economic, religious and military spheres are occupied exclusively or mostly by men and that women are exposed to situations of domination and even exploitation more frequently.

Many think that the level of violations of women’s rights is different in developed countries than in developing countries. While it is true that the effects and evidence of a patriarchal society may vary, especially from one culture to another, in European countries, patriarchy remains implicit in subtle ways. It interferes in all areas of our life, from education, economy, culture, politics and in our social life.

In the European Union countries, women still face numerous obstacles, from difficulties accessing economic and social resources on equal terms with men to damage their physical and mental integrity. We list below some of the problems frequently faced by women in European and other developed countries:

Gender roles and stereotypes 

Gender roles play an essential role in a patriarchal society, where women are assigned different tasks than men. Women are assigned roles related to caring for the home and family, while men are expected to find paid employment and participate in decision-making bodies easily. Thus, women are subject to stereotypes that condition their behaviour and vital decisions according to how society reacts to them.

The stereotypical image of women in the media

The media influence, more than we think, the way we perceive certain things. The high presence of women’s stereotypical image and gender roles contributes to increasing discrimination against women since these stereotypes tend to be perpetuated rather than modernised in many cases. We observe a clear example in many advertisements, where we will see men sponsoring products related to strength and success, such as cars and sports products. In most cases, it is women who sponsor household cleaning products, furniture, or products to care for the body and the family. Not forgetting the rest of television programs, films or ads in which women are used as mere sexual objects.

Even though currently the media do not use techniques as obviously sexist as they used to, they continue to use subtle techniques that, at first glance, might be difficult to perceive, which hinders criticism from the public and again tends to normalise these stereotypes.

Barriers to access and thrive in the labour market

High unemployment rate

Women are the group most affected by the unemployment rate. The difference between the employment rate of women and men in the European Union is 11.6%, as stated in the Strategy for Gender Equality 2020-2025 in the European Commission’s Communication [1]. The percentage difference is more significant between men and women who lack education, but it is striking that more qualified women are unemployed than men.

Difficulty getting a promotion at work and accessing positions of power

Despite having the necessary aptitudes and attitude to have higher positions, women face more obstacles to get a promotion at work, often due to the difficulty of reconciling personal life with their work. This is partly due to the perpetuation of gender roles (holding women primarily responsible for raising children) and sexual harassment or harassment based on sex in the workplace.

There are very few positions of power held by women, which not only highlights this inequality but also reminds us that we live in a society dominated by patriarchy, where the lesser presence of women in managerial and power positions in the political and economic field makes it more difficult to defend women’s rights and end these injustices.

According to the European Commission Report on the situation of women and men in the European Union as a whole (2019), women constitute around a quarter of non-executive directorships (26.4%), 7.5% of the presidencies of the boards and 7.7% of the executive directorates[2]. We cannot deny that there is still a highly masculinised corporate culture. Only through the greater participation of women in these positions can we fight against these discriminations.

Horizontal and vertical segregation

Traditionally and due to gender, as mentioned above, roles and stereotypes, women have focused on education, health, social services, hospitality, and domestic services (horizontal segregation). This can harm women since they are lower paid sectors than others such as science, engineering, technology, research, or artificial intelligence, with a clear superior male presence, better paid, which prospered more during the pandemic. Likewise, we find a precise concentration of women in specific professional categories (vertical segregation).

For instance, according to research led by Adina Sterling, professor at Standford University[3], there are lower levels of confidence among female engineering students and recent graduates due to gender stereotypes, since they end up perceiving lower salaries for the same work that other male colleagues do, which contributes to the gender pay gap.

Digital and gender pay gap

Even though in recent years, positive actions and measures have been taken to eliminate the gender pay gap -defined by the European Commission as the relative difference that exists in the average gross hourly earnings of men and women in all sectors of the economy-, this discrimination continues to exist in the European Union. Women in the EU earn on average almost 15% less per hour than men[4].

Usually, women have more financial difficulties than men. In some cases, they are not in the labour market and, in some others, they work, but their salary, both direct and indirect, is lower than their male colleagues’ who hold the same position and have the same qualifications. Another factor that affects women significantly is the lower level of training since many of them depend economically on their male relatives or carry out low-skilled “feminised” and part-time jobs, with poor working conditions. This affects their contribution, and in the end, women’s pensions end up being lower than men’s are.

Furthermore, many women continue to suffer inequality in accessing ICTs. Artificial Intelligence has become one of the basic pillars of the economy, so women need to access positions related to this field on equal terms with men.

Double burden and difficulty in reconciling personal, family and work-life

Another obstacle that many women face is taking care of their sons and daughters, the elderly members of the family and housework while they work. This constitutes a barrier to paid employment, carrying out social activities, and correct personal and professional development.

The pandemic caused by Covid-19 has aggravated this situation and has exacerbated the difficulties for women to reconcile family and professional life. It is undeniable that working from home has been an extra effort for those who have to take care of their children and housework simultaneously as they carry out their paid work. Therefore, the pandemic is assuming a setback in the achievements made in terms of equality between women and men.

Gender-based violence (GBV)

Due to our societies’ patriarchal structure, whereby the power relationship between men and women disproportionately favours men, millions of women are victims of sexual harassment, abuse, and assault around the world. It happens at work, on the street, in sports, in nightclubs and almost anywhere. According to UN Women[5], an estimated 736 million women, almost one in three, have been subjected to intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both at least once in their life (30 per cent of women aged 15 and older). In the case of Europe, where many people have been confined at home with their abusers during the pandemic, the number of women suffering domestic violence has increased significantly[6].

Likewise, women’s sexual and reproductive health -which is tied to multiple human rights such as the right to life, the right to be free from torture, the right to health, the right to privacy, the right to education, and the prohibition of discrimination[7]- is also at risk in our region. There are still six European countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, which do not permit abortion on request or broad social grounds: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Poland and San Marino[8]. These restrictive laws force women to seek clandestine forms of abortion that seriously harm their physical and mental health. Also, many other women suffer obstetrical and gynaecological violence before and during childbirth, which is often ignored. This violence consists of inappropriate or non-consensual acts carried out by different health professionals, such as episiotomies and vaginal palpation performed without consent, fundal pressure or painful interventions without anaesthetic or sexist behaviours.

Intersectional discrimination

We cannot understand the obstacles women face as uniform and universal; the obstacles that we mentioned above will depend on each woman’s situation. Thus, a woman will be more or less vulnerable than another one according to what privileges she has and in what context she lives. The intersectionality theory explains this, a term coined in 1989 by the academic and professor Kimberlé Crenshaw. The dynamics between coexisting identities (e.g., being a woman, black or trans *) and the systems of oppression (e.g., patriarchy, white supremacy or cisnormativity).

While it is true that the legislation and principles of the European Union are focused on achieving de facto equality between men and women, we cannot affirm or assume that all European women are free from discrimination just for living here. Each woman’s reality is unique and depends on her entire context, which goes far beyond being a woman. Consequently, migrant women, black women, women with functional diversity, LGBT+ women (especially trans* women), poor or elderly women are much more likely to have greater and more numerous obstacles than other women who live in a more advantageous social context. It is essential to strive to understand the reality of each woman.

Equality between men and women is one of the European Union’s primary tasks, and, therefore, it has a legal framework with which all Member States have committed and which they have to respect. This is set out in Article 2 and 3(3) TEU, since the principle of non-discrimination and equality between men and women are fundamental rights set out in Articles 21 and 23, respectively, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

For its part, as a way of harmonising State measures to combat discrimination against women and being one of the significant advances in inequality in the European Union, the European Institute for Gender Equality was created as a result of Regulation (EC) No. 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 20, 2006. This represented a significant advance towards gender equality since we need measures that promote harmonious coexistence and balanced participation in men and women’s society, which cannot be achieved only through an anti-discrimination policy.

In recent years, due to the Regulation as mentioned above and numerous directives, we have certainly made great strides in terms of equal treatment and opportunities between men and women in the European Union. Other legal instruments have also been helpful, such as Council Directive 79/7/EEC, of December 19, 1978, Council Directive 2010/18/EU, of March 8, 2010, or Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of July 5, 2006, regarding the application of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation, among others; without forgetting the fundamental Council of Europe’s Convention of May 11, 2011, on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (commonly known as the Istanbul Convention). Despite these advances in the Union’s legal framework, there is still a long way to go.

To fight against this inequality, in addition to promoting education based on values of equality in the family sphere, we need more positive actions on the part of the States. We need changes in the educational system to achieve a non-sexist education based on equality and the inclusion of a non-sexist language and more control over women’s image in the media. Also, it is necessary to adopt measures to guarantee the application of the principle of equality and to help improve the reconciliation between personal and family life, as well as to create more effective laws on equality, which defend and guarantee the human rights of all women.

Cross Border Data Processing

Cross border data processing is a big problem nowadays, the scale of the collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly due to technological developments, globalisation and the high number of companies and public bodies which operate in different countries and the personal data they collect has a connection to more than one Member State of the European Union, which have entailed to new challenges for the protection of personal data, the thing that makes us doubt about the protection of our privacy and request a real, effective and more consistent data protection measures in the European Union.

The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 16(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide that “everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her”.

However, it is true that this right is not absolute. In case of conflicts among rights, we need to prioritize one over the other one, and for that, we need to use the principle of proportionality, a principle that sometimes discriminates the right to personal data protection, even though that this fundamental right is closely connected with the right to respect for private and family life enshrined in the Article 7 of the Charter and also the article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that: “Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.” But, who determines this proportionality and based on what criteria? What should we understand by general interest?

To protect our personal data, the European Union must provide detailed regulation of the rights of data subjects and the obligations of those who process and determine the processing of this data to control and ensure compliance with the rules in all Member States and sanction the infractions committed by them. The Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), from now on GDRP, it is the one that takes charge of this, in order to strengthen that fundamental right and to harmonize an equal regulation in all the Member States for efficient protection and to facilitate the work of companies and public bodies, especially during this digital boom.

The personal data processed should be, as provided in article 5(1) of GDRP:

• processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject;

• collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes shall, in accordance with Article 89(1), not be considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes; (here also, I should question the same thing, like what we should understand for the public interest?)

• adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for relation to the purposes for which they are processed; (Sometimes the personal data they collect can be considered that exceeds the minimum necessary).

• accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay;

• kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; personal data may be stored for longer periods insofar as the personal data will be processed solely for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) subject to the implementation of the appropriate technical and organisational measures required by this Regulation in order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the data subject, and;

• processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures.

Moreover, article 7(1) list a number of cases where the data processing can be considered lawful:

• the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;

• processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;

• processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;

• processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;

• processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;

• processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

We should not forget that even though, the health crisis we are living now during this pandemic, it is prohibited to process data concerning health, unfortunately, we find one more time that this does not apply if the processing “is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of Union or Member State law which shall be proportionate to the aim pursued, respect the essence of the right to data protection and provide for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject”.

The GDPR recognizes that in exceptional situations such as the current one, “the legal basis for processing can be multiple, based on both the public interest and the vital interest of the interested party and another natural person.”

And it is precisely by recognizing the protection of that “other natural person” that the processing of personal data of the individual is being legitimized in order to protect against contagion from third parties. Consequently, the clash of collective and individual rights is resolved in favour of the protection of public health. The GDPR allows the information of an infected person to be known for the sake of the health and safety of the group, so we can see perfectly that, the health authorities of the different Member States cross the information of personal data, as they can communicate to friends, family or co-workers that someone is infected by Covid-19.

Now, almost all the Member States requires as a requirement to enter their country, for the ravelers to fill a form with their personal data, such as, all your personal information, contact method, number of flight, seat number, place of stay during the trip, the reason why you are travelling, as well as questions related to the possible risk: if you have been in contact in the last 14 days with someone who has had Covid-19; if you have a cough, …; if you have been to a hospital in the previous two weeks or in which countries and cities you have been before.

This form is also a sworn declaration, which sometimes oblígate you to quarantine and notify the health authorities if you present any symptoms after. Undoubtedly, this is generating fear in travellers regarding the treatment of their personal data, about the risk of security and the possibility that their data may be known by other country´s Public authorities. It also, makes them wonder if all this personal data is limited to the purpose for which it is collected.

I believe that a detailed study of those forms is needed to ensure that they do not include additional questions, beyond those strictly necessary and related to the symptoms, the thing that makes me think if those measures to protect personal data were reviewed, as paragraph 1 and 2 of the Article 24 of the GDPR, provides that:

“1. Taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation. Those measures shall be reviewed and updated where necessary.

2. Where proportionate in relation to processing activities, the measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the implementation of appropriate data protection policies by the controller.”

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) is an independent European body that shall ensure the consistent application of data protection rules throughout the European Union, and now more than ever, It needs to ensure that such data is protected and that is only used for the purpose for which it was collected.

It is true that the GDRP comes to help further ensure data protection, and help the users to be more aware of the rights they have in terms of defending them.

Notwithstanding the above, there are still many aspects of pending developments and concretion. The Member States, control authorities, the European Data Protection Committee and the Commission must specify a multitude of elements that appear in the GDPR that are too ambiguous or incorrect, and moreover, taking into account, the legal complexity, Member States, companies and Public bodies are still struggling to meet the legal requirements, so at the end, the injured party are the users whose data is processed and even transferred to the other Member States, the thing that makes us doubt if that host country or public body are complying with the necessary measures to protect our personal data since with the exception of the principle of the general interest or public health, we can find some ambiguities.

Refugees Rights in the European Union

Do we know who the refugees are? For some, it will be an obvious answer, but for many others a difficult one.

The definition of refugees does not even appear in the Treaty on European Union (ETE) or in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is the Genova Convention the one which defines the refugee as:

“any person who […] owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term ‘the country of his nationality shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.”

Almost all people have a wrong idea about refugees, for them, “they are just people who are searching for the best and fancy life in Europe, and they decided voluntarily to abandon their county”.

The reality is entirely different. Refugees are forced to leave their country, leaving everything behind, their family, work, studies, heritage, and so many other things. They even put their lives at risk to enter another country where they can be safe.

Still, they sufferers a lot of Human Rights violations in Europe, from discrimination to the complex process to prove the risk of persecution they go through. Sometimes those prove to make them open and recreate again bad memories and traumas, being re-victimised. It is not easy to establish some persecutions and the host country do not cooperate, so they run the risk of having their asylum application rejected, a violation of Article 4 (1) of Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country Nationals or stateless as Refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted:

“although it is generally for the applicant to submit all elements needed to substantiate the application, the fact remains that the Member State must cooperate with the applicant at the stage of determining the relevant elements of that application.” But sadly, a Directive that is not in force, so we can see how refugee rights are declining. 

They run away from Human Rights violations in their country to be sometimes treated the same way or even worst in Europe, where they are illegally pushed back at European Union borders, placed in overcrowded camps in appalling conditions, treated without dignity, being the object of abuse, injury, hunger, cold, fear and insecurity.

The number of refugees in Europe has increased a lot in the last years due to conflicts and violence. The thing that makes the European Union realise that it was not prepared to deal with this issue and face it needs a standard European Asylum System.

The Council Decision (EU) 2015/1817 of 6 October 2015 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in the 66th session of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, established that.

“The Union is a key actor in the areas of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) mandate, both through its activities in international protection, including the Union resettlement policy and the establishment of the Common European Asylum System and as a major donor of humanitarian aid and development assistance. However, the arrangements currently in place concerning the Union’s participation in the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme (‘Executive Committee of the UNHCR’) do not correspond to the Union’s significant role in those areas”.

The Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and the content of the protection granted, defines as well, refugees as, “a third-country national who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside the country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, or a stateless person, who, being outside of the country of former habitual residence for the same reasons as mentioned above, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it”. 

Article 22 of this Directive imposes the Member States’ obligation to provide refugees with access to information, in a language that they understand or are reasonably supposed to understand, on the rights and obligations relating to that status. Unfortunately, we still see a lot of different behaviours where the Member States do not provide information and sometimes they do not use an understandable language to communicate with them. In a recent case in Spain, a refugee girl, a victim of sexual abuse, from Cameroon, 16 years old, was subjected to an age determination test with a full nakedness without being informed or attended in her language, a violation that the UN condemned.

Another right for Refugees is family unity, where the Members States should maintain family unity even if they are not individually qualified for such protection. A right that we do not see so frequently.

This Directive also forces the Member States to provide the beneficiaries of refugee status a residence permit which must be valid for at least three years, and the same right should be guaranteed to the family members of the beneficiaries of Refugees. Still, in this case, the residence permit must be valid for at least one year. Something that we can see like contradictions. 

Article 25 lay down that the Member States should assure Refugees the travel documents for travel outside their territory unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.

The host country shall authorise beneficiaries of international protection to engage in employed or self-employed activities subject to rules generally applicable to the profession and the public service immediately after the protection has been granted, under equivalent conditions as nationals. 

In reality, we see the discrimination and how Refugees ends with no opportunities to work, exposed to the risk of exploitation or human trafficking. 

They also have the right to education. The Member States should grant full access to the education system to all minors granted international protection under the same conditions as Nationals. They also shall allow adults granted international protection access to the general education system, further training, or retraining under the same conditions as third-country nationals legally resident. 

On the contrary, there is a lack of access to information, education, and job opportunities. They suffer from substandard living conditions.

The Member States shall also ensure that beneficiaries of international protection receive, in the Member State that has granted such protection, the necessary social assistance as provided to nationals of that Member State.

They also should ensure that beneficiaries of international protection have access to healthcare, including treatment of mental disorders when needed, to beneficiaries of international protection who have special needs, such as pregnant women, disabled people, persons who have undergone torture, rape or other severe forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence or minors who have been victims of any form of abuse, neglect, exploitation, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or who have suffered from armed conflict, under the same eligibility conditions as nationals of the Member State that has granted such protection.

This right is not being respected due to the Covid-19, which further exacerbated refugees’ vulnerability. They do not have the health care they should, and the most crucial question will be, Will the European Countries take charge of vaccinating the refugees against the Covid-19? 

In conclusion, the rights of refugees recognised in the law of the European Union are not observed in practice by the Member States. We see daily an important number of cases where refugees’ rights are being violated, and a lot of atrocities at Europe’s borders, which make us doubt the veracity of the values that “supposedly” represent the European Union.

There is no adequate response to prevent those infringements or sanction to the Member States from the European Union. We need a common and effective European Asylum System.

For refugees, who escape from a harsh reality, entering another country to be safe, with the right to a dignified life, is a matter of life or death, their only concern is to be able to enjoy their basic rights as humans, while the Member States, their only concern is to reduce the number of refugees.

Everyone, regardless of immigration status, origin, nationality, or religion, has the right to be treated with respect and dignity. Refugees’ rights are Human Rights.

---

Article 23 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2001 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for uniforms status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.

Article 24 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2001 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for uniforms status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.

Article 26 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2001 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for uniforms status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.

Article 27 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2001 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for uniforms status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.

Article 29 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2001 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for uniforms status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.

Article 30 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2001 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for uniforms status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.