The report can be opened below. It's basically research to understand men and their relationship to gender equality. They did a database of 'actors'.
In some paragraphs it has sentences saying it is important to listen to men and their perspective, see what they need and what they think of it etc. But throughout they say that for the research (a database of actors)

actors were mostly excluded if they clearly subscribed to a ‘men’s rights’/‘fathers’ rights’ approach, particularly if there was evidence of hostility to women or women’s organisations.

And they keep repeating stuff like that.

So the research had 4 types of "actors": Gender-transformative (or redistributive), Gender-aware or gender-sensitive, Gender-blind and last but not least

Gender-conservative / men’s rights: those that aim to maintain or restore gender relations based on gender inequalities.

Only the first 2 categories were included in the research. For example, the researcher from the Netherlands stated:

Most actors in the list are definitely “gender-transformative”, some are “gender-aware”. Actors who are explicitly reactionary, “gender-conservative” or aimed at “men’s rights” were not included in the selection.

They use the term "gender-conservative" to describe men's rights throughout.

Page 22 has an interesting paragraphs about what types of men's rights organisations they encountered (and which to exclude). Also should be noted that they sometimes judged a group by using Google Translate "to gain further insight". But overall it just seems ridiculous, that a somewhat important database in EU on organisations, who deal with men's issues, helping men, was compiled completely excluding ALL men's rights groups.

I don't read these types of things very often, but some of this stuff is just plain ridiculous. Take the Beijing Platform for Action: Women and men in the EU - facts and figures for example. You will notice something if you look at their "twelve critical areas of concern".