Discrimination — Data, Law, Reality

Three Levels Where Discrimination Becomes Visible

As a third-country national arriving in the EU, you can experience discrimination on three very different levels — and they are not interconnected:

• Structural — access to housing, jobs, school places is statistically unevenly distributed. You’ll find it harder to get an apartment because your last name “doesn’t sound right.”
• Interpersonal — direct contact in daily life: bus, café, government office counter, colleagues’ WhatsApp. Here, discrimination shows up in looks, remarks, exclusion.
• Institutional — how laws are interpreted and enforced. If you as a Black person or visibly Muslim person are controlled three times as often as a White person, you experience institutional discrimination — even without explicitly hostile individuals.

The data situation has improved on all three levels but remains patchy. What we know comes from three main sources: FRA surveys (e.g., Being Black in the EU, EU-MIDIS II Muslims), Eurobarometer (regular population surveys), and national equality bodies (Equinet network).

What EU Law Protects

Since 2000, the EU has had two key anti-discrimination directives:

• The Race Directive (2000/43/EC) prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnic origin in employment, education, social protection, and access to goods and services — including housing.
• The Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) prohibits discrimination based on religion, belief, disability, age, sexual orientation — but only in the employment sector.

This is supplemented by the Gender Directives (employment and access to goods), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 21 — general prohibition of discrimination with a broad scope), and the ECHR Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination in connection with other Convention rights).

Every EU country has an equality body: in Germany, the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, in France the Défenseur des droits, in Spain the Consejo para la Eliminación de la Discriminación Racial o Étnica, in the Netherlands the College voor de Rechten van de Mens, in Belgium UNIA (French-speaking) and Vlaamse Ombudsdienst (Flemish). They accept complaints, provide advice, and can intervene in court in some cases.

What the FRA Surveys Show

The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights has conducted large surveys since 2008, asking migrants and minority members about concrete experiences. Selected findings from recent waves:

• Black people in the EU: 45% reported discrimination in daily life (housing search, at work, in school) over the past 5 years. The highest values were measured in Germany and Austria, lower ones in Portugal and Sweden — though “lower” is relative. These figures have remained shockingly stable over ten years.
• Muslims in the EU: 39% reported discrimination over the past 5 years. France, Belgium, Netherlands lead with experiences around headscarves and visible religious practice; Italy and Spain show lower values, with a smaller sample size.
• Roma in the EU: consistently the highest discrimination rates — over 50% in several countries, with particularly severe situations in Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia.
• LGBTI+ people: consistently ~40% reported discrimination; see our article on LGBTI+ safety.

An important insight from several FRA waves: The discrimination rate does not clearly correlate with a country’s wealth. Economically strong countries like Germany, Netherlands, Belgium sometimes show higher values than Spain or Portugal. Possible reasons: higher awareness of discrimination leads to higher reporting rates (statistical artifact) — and/or real differences in acceptance culture.

What Eurobarometer Shows

Eurobarometer regularly surveys the majority population on attitudes toward minorities. Current figures (2023):

• “Would a homosexual person be my neighbor”: 72% EU average very/quite relaxed — values between 91% (Netherlands, Sweden) and 41% (Bulgaria, Slovakia)
• “Would a Muslim person be my neighbor”: 64% EU average relaxed — values between 86% (Sweden) and 30% (Czechia)
• “Would a Roma person be my neighbor”: 50% EU average relaxed — lowest values in Czechia, Bulgaria, Italy

These self-reports likely overestimate acceptance (socially desirable response behavior) — but they reliably show the relative differences between countries.

What Can Drive a Wedge Between Law and Perceived Reality

Even in a country with strong anti-discrimination laws and well-equipped equality bodies, migrants experience everyday discrimination. This is not a contradiction but results from three structural reasons:

• Law applies in disputes, not in conversations. If a real estate agent doesn’t even invite you to a viewing because of your non-German last name, you often don’t know — and can’t prove it. Scientific discrimination tests (applications with identical résumés, only the name changed) have shown discrimination effects for 20 years but are not a direct legal path for individuals.
• Burden of proof remains a hurdle. Although the directives provide for reversal of the burden of proof (you must show evidence, the other side must refute it), the practice is difficult. You need proof, preferably witnesses, preferably written evidence. Much happens verbally.
• Social sanctions beyond the law. The law protects against discrimination — it doesn’t change the atmosphere in the daycare center’s waiting room or the remarks at your roommate’s breakfast table.

This results in a dual approach: You use the law where it applies — and in parallel, you seek out communities where you don’t constantly have to explain who you are.

What You Can Do in Case of Conflict

Three pragmatic, everyday steps:

1. Documentation, immediately. After the incident, jot down: date, location, people involved, what was said/done, witnesses. Save emails, SMS, ads (housing search). This is the simplest and most underestimated measure.
2. Seek advice. National equality body (free of charge), civil society advisory centers like anti-discrimination associations, in Germany e.g., the Antidiskriminierungs-Verband Deutschland and the Türkische Gemeinde, in France e.g., SOS Racisme, in Spain the Movimiento contra la Intolerancia. They know the local legal path and advise on prospects of success.
3. Choose the escalation level. Some incidents can be resolved within the organization/school/company (complaint, HR, school management). Others require external pressure (equality body, lawyer, criminal complaint for hate crimes). The advisory center will help you assess the situation.

In criminal cases — hate speech, physical assaults, property damage with a racist background — you should always go to the police. In most EU countries, there are specialized hate crime officers; when filing the report, you should explicitly name the racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, or homophobic background; otherwise, it will not be statistically recorded and may not be pursued accordingly.

Differences Rather Than Hierarchy

No one will honestly claim that daily life in an EU city is “completely discrimination-free.” What differs is:

• Which groups are affected to what extent
• Which spaces are accessible where you don’t constantly stand out
• How accessible legal and advisory paths are in case of conflict
• How honest the country is about its own discrimination history

These four axes form a profile per country that the Rainbow Index or a single Eurobarometer figure cannot capture.

---

vamosa shows you the Eurobarometer and FRA figures on the reality of discrimination per country, where available. We do not provide individual advice — national equality bodies, NGOs, and lawyers are responsible for that. On the country detail pages, you’ll find references to the respective Equinet member and NGO advisory centers.