National data on antisemitism

• Pages: 20-86



In this section, each country is considered separately, given that national-level

data are not comparable. After presenting off‌icial data on antisemitism, the

country sections include available information on the types of incidents and

the characteristics of the victims and perpetrators of antisemitic incidents.

Off‌icial data on antisemitism are followed by unoff‌icial data published by

relevant civil society organisations. At the time of writing, six Member

States (Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Hungary and the Netherlands)

and the United Kingdom had established cooperation mechanisms with civil

society organisations. These cooperation mechanisms include signing an

agreement on data sharing and establishing aregular contact framework

and communication channels with the authorities.

National data on antisemitism

For each country, the available data are presented based on the national def‌initions and

classif‌ications. Differences in the statistics from one year to the next indicate that the

number of recorded antisemitic incidents has changed, but does not necessarily mean

that there has been an increase or decrease in the number of such incidents.

The number of recorded antisemitic incidents does not necessarily ref‌lect accurately

the prevalence or nature of antisemitism in any given country. For example, the higher

numbers of antisemitic incidents recorded can demonstrate considerable efforts by

astate to make antisemitic incidents visible in their recording and reporting of crime

data. High numbers can also ref‌lect improvement and eff‌iciency of the recording system

set in place, increased willingness and ability of victims and witnesses to report such

incidents, or improved capacity of different organisations or authorities to deal with such

incidents accordingly. Specif‌ic discrepancies in the annual data (e.g. summing to different

totals if data are disaggregated by type of incident) can be due to the complexity of the

recorded incidents or frequency of updating the statistics.

Off‌icial data collection mechanisms alone do not capture the situation on the ground. The

antisemitic incidents recorded by the civil society organisations contribute signif‌icantly

to the full picture. People may choose various channels to report antisemitic incidents,

depending on victims’ awareness of various organisations to which incidents can be

reported, or the degree of trust victims feel in the authorities or organisations to deal

with such incidents appropriately.

Even in countries with relatively high numbers of police recorded antisemitic incidents,

there is signif‌icant under-reporting by victims. The evidence from FRA’s second survey

on discrimination and hate crime against Jews shows that the majority of experienced

antisemitic incidents remain unreported, either to the police or to any other institution or

organisation.

How to read

the national

data



Measuring trends in recorded incidents of antisemitism

It is not possible to compare the number of recorded incidents of antisemitism

between countries examined in this report, as the off‌icial statistics collected

in each country are based on different criteria and methodologies. Instead,

the reader should consider the national trends and assess the increase or

decrease in recorded antisemitic incidents from one year to the next, and

over anumber of years, on the basis of percentage changes in collected data.

In addition to tables containing the off‌icial data pertaining to antisemitism,

trend data are presented in this report in the form of line graphs if both of

the following two conditions were fulf‌illed:

―

the data were collected using the same methodology for at least three

years in arow during the period 2009–2019;

―

the mid-point of the trend line for the series was not below 20cases.

The assessed time period depends on the number of years for which data

were collected without major changes to the recording system or def‌initions

used– this varies from 10 years to three years, the latter being the minimum

needed for trend analysis.

EU Member States with few recorded incidents of antisemitism were excluded

from the graphical trend analysis, but these data are presented in the text

and tables in the relevant sections of this report. The number of recorded

incidents is considered to be low if there were under 20 cases per year in all

or most of the years between 2009 and 2019, resulting in amid-point of the

trend line falling under 20 cases. If the number of recorded incidents is low,

the direction and magnitude of the trend is likely to be highly susceptible to

changes from one year to the next, making reliable trend analysis diff‌icult.

To identify trends that underlie annual changes in the number of recorded

incidents, linear regression lines (trend lines) were f‌itted to the data. The

slopes of the linear regression lines were used to determine the direction

and magnitude of the trends. For some countries this methodology produced

trend lines that are very close to the actual data, as in the case of Germany

(Figure13). However, for other countries, such as France (Figure11), the data

show ahigh degree of variability (f‌luctuations) between consecutive years.

This may limit the explanatory value of alinear regression line.

It should also be emphasised that ascending or descending trend lines should

not be interpreted as actual growing or declining antisemitism. The increase

or decrease in recorded incidents might mean, for example, that more people

are reporting incidents or that police are becoming more eff‌icient at recording

incidents.



AUSTRIA

Off‌icial data

The main source of off‌icial data on antisemitic offences in Austria is the

Federal Agency for State Protection and Counter-Terrorism (Bundesamt

für Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung, BVT). The BVT collects

data submitted to it on amonthly basis by the Regional Agencies for

State Protection (Landesämter für Verfassungsschutz, LVT). These data

are published annually in areport on the protection of the constitution

(Verfassungsschutzbericht), which pertains to right-wing extremism, left-

wing extremism, Islamist extremism and terrorism, espionage and weapons

proliferation.

37

Data on antisemitism (Table3) are subsumed under the

category of right-wing extremism.

TABLE : RECORDED ANTISEMITIC OFFENCES MOTIVATED BY RIGHTWING

EXTREMISM IN AUSTRIA, 

Recorded antisemitic offences

2009 12

2010 27

2011 16

2012 27

2013 37

2014 58

2015 41

2016 41

2017 39

2018 49

2019 30

Source: Federal Ministry of the Interior, BVT, 2009–2019

As Figure3 shows, the 2009–2019 overall trend for recorded antisemitic

offences motivated by right-wing extremism in Austria is increasing, despite

the decrease in the number of offences from 49 in 2018 to 30 in 2019. In the

period 2009–2019, recorded antisemitic offences reached apeak in 2014,

with 58 cases recorded.

The Federal Ministry of the Interior (Bundesministerium für Inneres) provided

FRA with data on the nature of these recorded offences, covering the period

2009–2019 (Table4). These data show that recorded antisemitic offences

generally consist of verbal expressions or damage to property and tend not

to target individual persons or organisations.

37 For the latest available report, see Federal Ministry of the Interior

(Bundesministerium für Inneres) (2018), Verfassungsschutzbericht.