to German nationals living in Ukraine.[42]
However, on November 23, 2015, the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers adopted a Decree № 1393-p which approved the Action Plan on the Implementation of the National Human Rights Strategy for the period up to 2020.[43] Among other important provisions, the Action Plan proposes to remove a paragraph from Article 161 of the Criminal Code, which provides criminal responsibility for discrimination. Instead, it proposes administrative and civic responsibility in the form of fines for damages.[44] This measure is indicative of the shortcomings in the country’s policy towards prevention and counteraction of ethnic discrimination. It is worth noting that in May 2015, the Ukrainian Cabinet adopted a Decree № 333, which dissolved the National Expert Commission on the Public Morality Affairs.[45] The Commission was the last remaining body that had the right to monitor media and public events to identify incitement to hate crime, in accordance with the law “On the Protection of Public Morality” (20/11/2013).[46] In other words, the aforementioned commission was equipped to provide legal assessment of a public action, which had to be considered by court during trials. This included incitement to ethnic and religious hostilities, blasphemy, and desecration of places of national and religious importance. Since its dissolution, Ukraine does not have a state body capable of assessing actions in this field.
On May 14, 2015, the government of Ukraine reduced state funding for cultural publications in minority languages.
The law “On Local Elections” (14/07/2015) has deprived the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from the Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea regions of the right to vote in elections of the regions they are registered in. There are certain exceptions in special constituencies. Some publications, citing the Central Election Commission of Ukraine, reported that IDPs will be able to participate in local elections in their regions only after the conclusion of the armed conflict.[47] Critics noted that the law is in conflict with the law “On the Provision of Rights and Freedoms of Internally Displaced Persons”, according to which IDPs can participate in local elections by changing the constituency they vote in.
Shortly thereafter, the Ukrainian Cabinet adopted the Decree № 736 (24/09/2015) relating to the “questions regarding the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”.[48] The Decree specified the steps to ensure the rights and freedoms in a territory no longer under Kiev’s control. It also stressed the need to create conditions for the “free development of the Crimean Tatar language, languages of other indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities residing on the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”, as well as to “facilitate the satisfaction of cultural and educational needs, development of ethnic identity” of national minorities in the region. Interestingly, such measures have not been brought up until after the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.
Lack of a cohesive anti-discrimination legislation remains a problem for Russia. “Discrimination” as a term is only contained in the Russian Criminal Code and is poorly defined as the violation of citizens’ rights, freedoms, and legal interests. However, according to international law, violation of rights and freedoms can be one of the goals or consequences of discrimination, but not its form. In addition, Russian legislation does not specify what constitutes as a “violation of rights”, does not identify forms of discrimination, differences between direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation, and does not prohibit discrimination by officials, or discrimination based on nationality. A whole range of important legislative documents did not contain the prohibition of discrimination at all. Normative acts that prevent informal discrimination in employment, housing, education, healthcare, etc. are virtually non-existent.
To summarise, we have observed the following legislative trends relating to combating hate crime across Europe in 2015:
• Tougher counter terrorism legislation, sometimes to the point of violation of civil rights.
• Tougher criminal legislation with the aim to protect minority rights and establish hate motives as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime.
• Tougher immigration legislation with the aim to reduce illegal immigration.
• Easing of the naturalisation process for legal immigrants, under certain conditions – their knowledge of state language, respect for local traditions, and familiarity with the labour market.
• Tougher anti-racism and anti-discrimination legislation.
These factors certainly demonstrate a shifting situation, comparing to previous years, when hate crime and related offenses were handled solely through police measures and occasional declarations. In this regard, the situation in Ukraine is particularly alarming, after the country removed criminal responsibility for discrimination and dissolved the last body responsible for assessing the public sphere and identifying incitements to violence. Ukraine’s treatment of IDPs in terms of the right to vote in local elections is also concerning. Another worrying fact was the Polish President’s veto on the Law on National, Ethnic Minorities, and Regional Languages, which would have introduced the term “supported languages” to the legal vocabulary of the country. Anti-discrimination legislation in Russia leaves a lot to be desired and has a negative impact on a whole range of vulnerable groups.
Certain legislative measures taken in 2015 have worried human rights observers, who regard them as a direct threat to civil rights. The new British Immigration Act has been widely criticised as discriminatory, along with the proposed measures to deal with unemployment among young adults, 50 % of whom are national minorities. Counter terrorism laws in several countries have been criticised for excessive surveillance and encroaching on the private life of citizens. Amendments to the Integration Act in the Netherlands have introduced compulsory exams for immigrants that can be regarded as insulting to religious feelings and secular traditions of some countries.
Several legislative measures in 2015 have been aimed at liberalising LGBT relations as part of the general EU policy protecting LGBT rights. On December 22, 2015, Greece finally recognised civil partnerships among same-sex couples. The new law, supported by the SYRIZA party, allows same-sex couples to enjoy some of the same rights as traditional married couples, such as medical proxy and the right to inheritance. On the other hand, transgender people are still excluded from these rights. Greece had also abolished the obsolete provision that prohibited “unnatural indecency” in public (Art. 347 of the Criminal Code). On the same day, Greek parliament started working on a law that would recognise gender self-identification.
The Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been legal for several years, adopted two new legislative acts in 2015, which provided certain rights to the transgender people and provided the right to adoption for lesbian couples.[49]
Meanwhile, Poland rejected a bill on civil partnerships (May 26, 2015). 215 out of 385 members of parliament have voted against the proposition, 146 voted in favour and 24 abstained from voting.[50]
LGBT rights is still an issue in countries like Northern Ireland, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine. Therefore, it can be concluded that countries with more widespread Christian traditions are more socially conservative and are not yet prepared to accept new western trends.
2. law enforcement practice
Law enforcement practice is influenced not only by the legislative norms concerning minorities, but also by the level of professionalism and personal views among law enforcement officers. In 2015, law enforcement practices aimed at combating hate crime, discrimination, and radicalism revolved around the following priorities:
– Prevention of extremist activity.
– Combating illegal immigration and establishment of infrastructure for refugees.
– Combating xenophobia and racism, ensuring peaceful inter-ethnic relations.
– Integration