1. Introduction
1. Roma
migrants face
difficult times: the discrimination and racism that they have always
had to cope with continues and even increases. The report of the
Eminent Persons
rightly claims that one of the main
threats to social cohesion in Europe is the rising intolerance against
migrants and others perceived as outsiders. Roma are mentioned as
a salient example.
2. On the one hand, Roma are notoriously discriminated against,
persecuted and victims of violence in Council of Europe member States.
On
the other, migrants receive a great deal of negative publicity from politicians,
decision makers and the media. As a consequence, Roma migrants are
doubly stigmatised. As such, they deserve our specific attention.
3. Public debates and media reports on Roma are regularly based
on a misconception of Roma migration, where all Roma are frequently
depicted as illegal migrants and criminals; they are also often
depicted as travellers, whereas the majority are sedentary. Roma
migrants, who are often the target of public mistrust, have recently
been forcibly expelled from several member States.
2. Exploding the myths and prejudices
4. An important obstacle in the
struggle to improve the situation of Roma migrants in Europe is
what seems to be deep-rooted and widespread prejudice among the
European population vis-à-vis Roma.
2.1. Prejudice
No. 1: Roma are all nomads
5. When people think or speak
about Roma, a perceived non-sedentary lifestyle is probably the
first thing that springs to mind. It is true that this image might
not always necessarily be negative, but it is certainly one which
may be incorrect.
6. Only between 5% and 20% of Roma are nomads. According to available
statistics, partly due to the disappearance of traditional trade
and as a result of past programmes, carried out by the authorities
in particular in eastern Europe to make Roma sedentary, today only
an estimated 20% of the 10-12 million Roma in Europe lead an itinerant
or semi-itinerant life
(for
example, during the summer). Other sources claim that a mere 5%
of Roma are non-sedentary.
Roma
communities with nomadic traditions are still present in some member
States, particularly in France, in the Benelux countries, and to
a lesser extent in Greece, Italy, Norway and Romania. Specific nomadic
communities who often share the same living conditions and discrimination patterns,
such as Yenish in Switzerland and Travellers in Ireland and the
United Kingdom, are also in the process of sedentarisation (up to
80% of Irish Travellers and Swiss Yenish are sedentarised). It is
also important to add that not all nomads are Roma, as is for instance
the case of the French “
Gens du voyage”, which
is an administrative term used since the 1970s to refer both to
Roma and other non-Roma groups with a nomadic way of life.
Some of these people or groups cross
borders during seasonal travel, but also travel within their respective
countries.
7. The figures speak for themselves; the vast majority of Roma
are not nomads. The travelling lifestyle of those who still are
merits protection as a human right, as clearly stated by the European
Court of Human Rights.
Why
do a minority of Roma still travel? The Roma who still
travel, be it within the borders of their country or across borders,
do so for at least one or several of the following four reasons:
(1) to seek new life possibilities due to direct or indirect exclusion
from the labour market, (2) to escape violence or the threat of
violence, (3) to follow markets, agricultural seasons or to trade
their merchandise, and (4) in order to keep contact with family
that may, for the reasons given earlier, be spread out across Europe.
Some
of these reasons are down to lifestyle choices, but others, in particular
when talking about the migration of otherwise sedentary Roma, are
caused by both “pull factors” similar to those affecting all migrants
(job opportunities, perceived higher standard of living, etc.) but
also “push factors” which are particular to the Roma. Recent, but
in no way new, examples are the eviction of the Dale Farm inhabitants
in the United Kingdom in 2011, the expulsion of Roma and Gens du voyage in France in the
summer of 2010, the burning of Roma camps in Italy in Ponticelli, Naples,
the violence against Roma in central Europe, in particular during
late 2011 in Bulgaria, as reported, inter
alia, by the European Roma Rights Centre, as well as
the desolate economic situation for certain Roma in Romania, Bulgaria
and Kosovo, paired with general discrimination and threats of violence.
|
2.2. Prejudice
No. 2: All Roma are from abroad
8. We need to be clear: Roma have
been part of European society for about seven hundred years. An overwhelming
majority of Roma are citizens of the country in which they live.
The fact that Roma may be perceived as foreigners is indicative
of the widespread misunderstanding and prejudice that they are confronted
with.
9. Every year, at least one country or another seems to be in
the spotlight with regard to reactions against Roma migrants, whether
this is by State authorities, individual politicians, the population
as a whole or a combination of the above. The media is quick to
sell the stories and it is not surprising that Roma are often perceived
as foreigners by people who rarely come across them other than in
migration-related headlines.
10. It is nearly impossible to obtain reliable statistical data
on Roma migration, although some countries do provide estimates.
In Austria, it is estimated that five sixths of the estimated 20 000
to 30 000 Roma are migrants, in Germany and Italy, up to 50% of
the estimated 120 000 to 160 000 Roma are thought to be migrants.
These countries are, however, the countries with the largest foreign-born
or foreign-descendent Roma communities, percentage wise. But these
are exceptions. Furthermore, one has to bear in mind that the representation
of Roma in the population of these countries as a whole is small
(0.3% in Austria, 0.12% in Germany and 0.23% in Italy).
In some countries, and in
particular those where they represent a high percentage of the population,
such as Bulgaria (over 10%) or Romania (over 8%), the large majority
of Roma are citizens of their country of residence.
Recent
Roma migration: A large number fled the wars in former
Yugoslavia in the 90s, Kosovo in 1999 and 2004, and then in 2004,
when 10 countries in central and eastern Europe became members of
the European Union, many Roma moved west in search of a better life.
They did this in the same way as many non-Roma from eastern Europe moved
west in search of new opportunities. With the accession in 2007
of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union, many Roma left these
two countries. They went predominantly to countries where Roman
languages are spoken, notably France, Italy and Spain. Russia is
also a country of destination for Roma migration. Some countries are
countries of departure, as well as arrival, for example the Czech
Republic, from where many Roma migrate to the United Kingdom at
the same time as being a country of destination for Roma from the
neighbouring Slovak Republic and from Romania.
|
Asylum:
The UNHCR reports that for the first half of 2011, Serbia was the
third largest source of asylum seekers, with 10 300 applications
lodged by Serbs during the first half of 2011. France, Germany and
Belgium together accounted for two thirds of all asylum applications
received from citizens of Serbia. Most of these asylum seekers are
likely to be Roma. In 2008-10, numerous Roma left the Slovak Republic,
the Czech Republic and Hungary as a result of violence against the
Roma population. Due to the design of EU rules relating to asylum,
Roma fleeing violence in an EU member State have not been granted
refugee status in other EU member States and have therefore opted
to go further, to Canada, where they have been granted asylum in
large numbers.
|
2.3. Prejudice
No. 3: All Roma migration is illegal
11. Public discourse and media
reporting tend to make a generalised link between Roma and criminality, similar
to the link often made between migrants and criminality. Most of
the Roma migrants migrate in the framework of their right to free
movement under EU law. Some of them are undocumented because they
are stateless (see below).
12. Criminalisation of migration: there is no such thing as a
legal or illegal migrant. Non-authorised residence, even when the
person concerned refuses to abide by an expulsion order, should
not in itself be considered a criminal act.
13. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has drawn
attention to the tendency in Europe of criminalising irregular migration.
In his 2008 viewpoint on criminalisation of migration, the Commissioner stated
that “such a method of controlling international movement corrodes
established international law principles; it also causes many human
tragedies without achieving its purpose of genuine control”. For
Roma migrants there is a stacking of criminal stereotypes: the first
because they are migrants and the second because they are Roma.
14. In a 2010 issue paper on the criminalisation of migration
in Europe,
the Commissioner
points to a number of negative consequences, not only for the individuals
concerned, but for groups of immigrants as a whole. As the Commissioner
said, “[a]ll immigrants become tainted by suspicion” and likewise
all Roma whether migrants or not become tainted in this way.
Begging:
the general public have a tendency to link Roma migrants to begging.
The issue of begging in general is highly sensitive and raises social,
political and moral issues.
If begging is sanctioned,
the enforcement of the rules must be in accordance with the rule
of law and international human rights obligations. It is important
to have legal safeguards, and these safeguards need to be appropriate
for people who have few means for defending their rights. There
are examples of problems with the implementation of anti-begging
legislation and the way it has allegedly been applied to Roma in
certain countries, including for instance in Switzerland, Luxembourg
and Austria.
The European Parliament and European
Union Council Directive 2004/38/EC on freedom of movement, as interpreted
by the Court of Justice of the European Union, does not consider
begging as a sufficient ground for expelling an individual. However,
when exceeding the three-months period during which an EU citizen
has the right to remain in another EU member State, the person in
question must show that he or she has sufficient resources not to
become dependent on the social safety net of the host country. So
begging might be seen as proof of a lack of sufficient resources,
thereby justifying expulsion.
(Sources: Le Matin, 6 November 2008, and TSR Info, 21 May 2008; Chachipe, www.woxx.lu/id_article/5039 and Der Standard,
18 October 2011.)
|
Trafficking:
A 2011 report of the European Roma Rights Centre and the NGO People
in Need, “Breaking the silence”, claims that expulsion policies
with regard to Roma migrants are contrary to the goal of preventing
and reducing trafficking and instead increase the vulnerability
of Roma to such practices. Trafficking in human beings does not
explain Roma migration, which is due largely to structural poverty,
marginalisation and discrimination. The report reveals that trafficking
of Roma is indeed a concern, but that there is a near total absence
of data and effective policy to prevent trafficking in Roma communities.
Due
to their exposed situation in terms of exclusion, discrimination
and poverty, Roma are disproportionally affected by trafficking.
Research in 2010 indicated that Roma represent 50%-80% of trafficked
persons in Bulgaria, up to 70% in parts of the Czech Republic, at
least 40% in Hungary, around 50% in Romania and at least 60% in
the Slovak Republic. Some 68% of the Roma trafficked persons interviewed
in the research had been trafficked to another EU country, while
32% had been trafficked to another location within their own country.
Some 20% of the trafficked persons interviewed were minors at the
time they were trafficked.
Roma are trafficked for
various purposes, including sexual exploitation, labour exploitation,
domestic servitude, organ trafficking, illegal adoption and begging.
Roma women and children were the most represented regardless of the
purpose of trafficking. The vulnerability factors identified in
the study are closely linked to those commonly associated with non-Roma
trafficked persons, which, according to the report, shows that there
is no unique “Roma vulnerability factor”, and no indication that
trafficking is a “cultural practice” among Roma.
The
Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings (GRETA) is looking at the extent to which Roma communities
are affected by trafficking in human beings in the course of its
evaluations on a country-by-country basis (see for instance GRETA’s
report on Bulgaria (GRETA(2011)19).
|
3. Politicians,
media and “security discourse”
15. When speaking about prejudices,
let me stress that the role of politicians and of the media
is
decisive when it comes to improving the public perception of Roma
and Roma migrants. A correct knowledge and understanding of the
facts are crucial to combat prejudice against Roma in general and
Roma migrants in particular. Too often in Council of Europe member
States, public statements or media reporting use a dangerous rhetoric
and make a generalising link between Roma, migrants and criminality,
thereby deepening already existing misconceptions, stereotypes and
prejudice about Roma migrants.
16. In 2010, the Assembly adopted
Resolution 1760 (2010) on the recent rise in national security discourse in
Europe: the case of Roma.
The report stresses the importance
of making clear distinctions in the political discourse between
individuals who have committed crimes and entire groups of people,
such as Roma or any other minority or migrant group. The report
cites examples of statements made by political figures in Denmark, Italy
and Sweden with regard to migrant Roma as a security threat. The
place of Roma in the security discourse is also clearly illustrated
by statements made by French politicians in connection with the
2010 expulsions from France and a number of statements by Italian
officials over recent years.
17. The European Committee against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
is particularly concerned about the issue, and in its General Policy
Recommendation No. 13 on combating anti-Gypsyism and discrimination against
Roma has recommended that the governments of member States combat,
inter alia, anti-Gypsyism expressed
in the media. The Committee of Ministers’ 2012 Declaration on the
Rise of Anti-Gypsyism and Racist Violence against Roma in Europe
expresses “deep concern about the rise of anti-Gypsyism, anti-Roma rhetoric
and violent attacks against Roma”.
4. The
particular situation of Roma migrants in Europe
18. I have decided to focus on
four issues of particular concern: specific discrimination towards
Roma migrants, the disproportionate number of stateless Roma, the
recent expulsion policies of Roma migrants in certain Council of
Europe member States and Roma migration from the Western Balkans
into the European Union following visa liberalisations.
19. For the sake of keeping this memorandum concise, I have chosen
not to describe the international legal framework for Roma migration;
this was already done extensively in the aforementioned study on
“Recent migration of Roma in Europe” published by the Council of
Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE High Commissioner
on National Minorities.
4.1. Discrimination
issues
20. Roma in general and Roma migrants
in particular are victims of direct and indirect racial discrimination in
all social dimensions, including access to education, health care,
employment and housing. To begin with, there are examples of disguised
discrimination against Roma who were in the process of migrating
and were prevented from entering a European country.
Furthermore,
Roma from a certain country may be given protection as a national
minority, whereas Roma who live in the same country as migrants
or as stateless persons might not profit from the same protection.
21. Education: as emphasised in many studies, not least in the
recent report of the Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe,
Roma are outrageously discriminated against when it comes to access
to school. In several Council of Europe member States, Roma children
are “either segregated into Roma-only classes, unjustly considered
unfit for normal classes (and shunted into schools for disabled
children) or – even worse – they cannot attend school at all”.
This quote from the Assembly report
shows the gravity of the problem.
22. However, many Roma migrate with the hope of better access
to education for their children. However, their hopes are not always
fulfilled. Even if instruction is free and compulsory at least for
children up to 16 years of age in most of the countries of destination,
Roma children’s school attendance remains low. According to information
obtained from Médecins du Monde, many Roma drop out of school quickly,
either because of expulsion or because of instability of housing
and the need to keep moving. Other problems hindering access to
education include the number of documents required to enrol a child
at school, costs of schooling (canteen, transport, supplies) and
the language barrier. In the case of France, Médecins du Monde underlines
that the number of Roma migrants enrolled in primary schools is
increasing, but that the situation remains problematic with regard
to secondary school and even more problematic in general for Roma
girls.
23. The situation of Roma who have emigrated to another country
and consequently return to their country of origin, for example
after having been expelled, deserves specific consideration. Access
to education seems to be even more difficult than prior to departure
with problems in providing documentation proving school attendance.
24. Health care: the situation differs depending on the status
of the Roma migrant. If he or she is an irregular migrant or without
papers, in general emergency health care will be available. Some
countries go further in providing forms of secondary health care,
but even in these countries the practical barriers of claiming the health
care are often so great that the right is largely illusory. These
barriers include lack of familiarity with the health care system,
discrimination by private doctors, lack of documentation, fear of
being brought to the attention of the authorities, including the
police, location of hospitals and health clinics, etc.
25. The vaccination coverage of Roma migrants also raises concern,
both for Roma and for society at large. Often, immunisation records
are poor, if they exist at all, and efforts should be undertaken
to ensure that information on past vaccinations is available. Finally,
it should be mentioned that while EU Roma migrants migrating to
another EU country should be covered by the European Health Insurance
Card, many are not, due to their lack of health insurance in their
country of origin.
26. Employment: the study on migration of Roma in Europe notes
that “many Roma who have moved from one EU Member State to another
and successfully established themselves have done so through self-employment
or service provision or in places where there is a higher degree
of general tolerance for employment in the grey economy”. However,
in some countries, such as France, transitional measures restrict access
to the labour market for nationals from Romania or Bulgaria. In
many countries, Roma migrants end up working illegally in such areas
as recycling, garbage collection, construction, metal collection,
seasonal jobs (mainly in agriculture), cleaning and as street musicians,
or begging.
27. Housing: the poor housing conditions of Roma and Roma migrants
have been widely described, both in the media and in institutional
reports. In Italy, France, Greece and elsewhere, Roma migrants mainly
live in camps, sometimes authorised, mostly tolerated or illegal.
These camps do not always have the necessary infrastructure both
in terms of hygiene and security. Some Roma are able to live in
rented accommodation, this is particularly the case in the United
Kingdom.
28. According to information provided to me by Médecins du Monde,
in France there is no national policy concerning housing for Roma
migrants. Roma migrants can, in principle, reside in the specific
areas designed to welcome Roma and
Gens
du voyage. However, a strong competition between national
Roma and Roma migrants is reported, and the migrants generally lose
out. Instead, they stay at places often without access to water
and electricity in deplorable hygiene conditions.
Some good practices are developed
at local level (for example in Nantes where non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) are working with institutions to help families find apartments).
In the Netherlands, where the majority of Roma are reported to live
in houses, there is a specific problem concerning stateless Roma.
Since they are not entitled to social services, they cannot obtain housing
and most of them stay with relatives or friends. The result is overcrowding
and complaints by neighbours. The housing conditions of Roma migrants
in Italy have been repeatedly denounced by the Commissioner for
Human Rights as being of “unacceptably low standards” as well as
“completely inadequate and a serious health hazard”.
29. The European Committee of Social Rights has found,
inter alia, violations of Article
19 of the revised European Social Charter (the right of migrant
workers and their families to protection and assistance) on the ground
of segregation and poor living conditions in camps and stopping
places.
In this context, Committee of Ministers
Recommendation Rec(2005)4 on improving the housing conditions of
Roma and Travellers in Europe is highly relevant.
4.2. Statelessness
30. Not being recognised by any
State as a citizen brings problems of discrimination, access to
housing, education, medical care and employment. It exacerbates
the problems faced by persons who are already likely to be socially
vulnerable. It is of great concern to me that stateless Roma are
often not officially recognised as such by the authorities of their
country of residence (who rather claim that they are of “unknown
nationality”) and are therefore deprived of the protection and rights
of stateless people.
31. In Europe, there are an estimated 680 000 stateless people
of whom an unknown number are Roma. For different reasons, Roma
have sometimes inherited their statelessness down through the generations
due to lack of birth registration. This might be a result of a lack
of awareness of the importance of civil registration, combined with
practical obstacles for registering births and the fact that Roma
women might opt to give birth at home.
32. The break-up of the Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia
also caused a number of people to become stateless. Civil society
reports that, in Russia, which is home to between 450 000 and over 1
million Roma, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Roma were
denied the possibility to exchange their Soviet passports for Russian
passports.
Roma
in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and “the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia” became stateless due to the introduction of new rules
concerning naturalisation, although new legislation has improved
the situation. Statelessness for Roma in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro
or Kosovo is due more to displacement and destruction or disappearance
of registers than the effects of new legislation.
33. There are also many stateless Roma in western Europe. Many
Roma who came to Italy from the former Yugoslavia still live in
Italy today without Italian or any other citizenship. Their descendants,
who have lived in Italy all their lives, number around 15 000, and
are
de facto stateless.
Furthermore, Médecins du Monde estimates
that there are over a thousand stateless Roma in the Netherlands,
whose children born in the Netherlands inherit their statelessness.
34. Several international texts aim to reduce and prevent statelessness,
including the Council of Europe Conventions on Nationality and on
the Avoidance of Statelessness in relation to State Succession (ETS
No. 200), as well as the United Nations 1954 Convention relating
to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness.
35. The Zagreb Declaration of 27 October 2011, adopted by the
Conference on the Provision of Civil Status Documentation and Registration
in South Eastern Europe, pointed to a few tangible actions that
could be taken to tackle statelessness, including co-ordinated activities
between authorities and civil society, use of mobile teams for outreach
and registration, awareness campaigns on the need for registration
at birth, and explanation of procedures for those most concerned.
At the end of the day, solving the issue of statelessness will be
largely down to political will with the decision to facilitate the
naturalisation of stateless persons.
4.3. Examination
of recent expulsion policies in member States
36. Roma have always been moved
on or pushed away over the centuries, but in recent years mobility
has increased and the implementation of forced returns has been
tightened. The following list of situations is not exhaustive but
provides some examples of expulsion policies vis-à-vis Roma migrants
in a few Council of Europe member States. The European Committee
of Social Rights has on several occasions found a violation of the
provisions of the revised European Social Charter on the grounds
of de facto collective expulsions
of Roma and Traveller migrants.
4.3.1. France
37. In summer 2010, events took
place in France that drew international attention to the expulsion
policies affecting Roma migrants.
French
authorities had, however, already begun to repatriate Romanians
and Bulgarians who were widely assumed to be Roma. In 2008, 9 178
Romanians (around 90%) and Bulgarians were expelled from France.
Some 11 000 Romanians and Bulgarians were removed from France in
2009 (while in the same period a total of 580 citizens were removed
from all the other EU countries combined). In 2010, 13 241 Romanians
or Bulgarians were expelled from France. There are no official statistics
but evidence suggests that the vast majority of Romanians and Bulgarians
removed from France were Roma.
38. In April 2011, the French Council of State ruled that an August
2010 circular had unlawfully discriminated against Roma, because
“the objective … of protecting the right to property and preventing
threats to public health, security and tranquillity did not authorise
[the interior minister] to implement … a policy of evictions of illegal
camps designating especially some of their occupants by virtue of
their ethnic origins”.
39. In July 2011, Human Rights Watch concluded that the French
expulsion programme had continued without interruption since autumn
2010, with a further 4 700 expulsions in the first three months
of 2011.
In June
2011, new legislation was adopted to facilitate expulsions, including
for repeated short-term stays in France, and with regard to begging
and land occupation.
40. When proceeding to return migrants from Romania and Bulgaria,
French authorities have also been applying a policy referred to
as “humanitarian returns”, which aim to speed up expulsions. Under
these returns, a person agrees to leave the country in return for
compensation of €300 for an adult and €100 for a child. A great
majority of the Bulgarian and Romanian Roma – 84% of those returned
during 2010 – opted for this solution which has been criticised
as a means of circumventing legal protection mechanisms. In 2008,
10 191 EU citizens left France under this regime, 9 178 of whom
were Romanians (around 90%) and Bulgarians (around 10%). The downside
of “humanitarian returns” for the French authorities is that, relying
on EU law, the deportees can come back, theoretically the very same
day that they are deported.
41. According to the Commissioner for Human Rights, repatriation
operations have sometimes included intimidation, improper police
operations, forced evictions and confiscation of identity papers
until returnees have reached their country of origin.
42. French courts have overruled several cases of expulsion. For
example, on 27 August 2010, the Administrative Court of Lille quashed
a decision concerning the expulsion of a Romanian.
The practice has, however, varied considerably
between different courts in France,
and
it should be said that the vulnerability of those concerned and
the lack of safeguards mean that few case are likely to reach the
courts.
4.3.2. Italy
43. There are approximately 150 000
Roma and Sinti living in Italy, half of whom are Italian citizens.
It is estimated that 20%-25% are from other EU States (primarily
Romania), with the rest being from non-EU States, or persons who
are stateless (mostly from the former Yugoslavia).
44. As of the end of December 2007, it had been reported that
more than 1 000 people had been expelled from Italy and at least
1 000 Roma homes in Rome alone had been destroyed and the inhabitants
evicted. A number of legislative acts have since been adopted to
facilitate expulsions, including of EU nationals, and appear to
be aimed particularly at Roma from Romania.
45. The European Committee of Social Rights has expressed particular
concerns about these expulsions finding that “the contested ‘security
measures’ are evidenced by the fact that the so-called ‘emergenza
rom’ offers a collective basis to proceed in identical abstract
terms to these collective expulsions”.
The committee held
that the situation of expulsion of Roma was in breach of the revised
European Social Charter. On 16 November 2011, the Council of State
annulled the 2008 Decree “emergenza rom” and all acts and decisions done
in virtue of that decree.
4.3.3. Germany
46. In its report on Roma asylum
seekers in Europe, the Assembly drew attention to the plight of
Roma asylum seekers from Kosovo, many of whom have been living in
Germany since 1999 or 2004 with children born and raised in Germany.
There are three main concerns regarding their forced repatriation
to Kosovo: the uprooting of the children, the lack of prospects
for returning Roma to Kosovo and the risk of being exposed to discrimination
and violence by the majority population.
47. By mid-2009, almost 14 400 persons originating from Kosovo
entered the category of those to be returned. Among them, about
9 800 Roma, 1 700 Ashkali and 173 Egyptians. At the end of 2009,
the Commissioner for Human Rights called upon the German Chancellor
to suspend all returns of Roma to Kosovo because of the lack of
capacity for their reintegration in Kosovo and the difficulties
they would face. However, returns, including forced returns, have
been carried out since and continue. At the beginning of 2011, about 10 200
persons due to be returned to Kosovo still lived in Germany, including
7 000 Roma.
48. Experts claim that many of those returned are vulnerable people;
they have lived in Germany for well over ten years, and have little
or no perspective of reintegrating in Kosovo. Among them, many children
were born in Germany and neither speak nor understand the languages
spoken in Kosovo. Support projects (URA projects) have been put
in place to accompany the reintegration of Roma in Kosovo. However,
they are reported to be insufficient, time limited and inadequate,
and do not provide long-term solutions.
49. In Germany, there are possibilities to allow Roma from Kosovo
to legalise their stay under certain conditions under the so-called
long-stayer regulation. These conditions will, however, often be
difficult for many of the Roma from Kosovo to fulfil. Refugee and
migration experts have welcomed the regulation but continue to recommend
a more comprehensive solution for this issue.
4.4. The
European Union and Roma from the western Balkans
50. In December 2009, EU visa requirements
for the entry of third-country nationals were eased with regard to
the western Balkans. The result was an increase in the number of
asylum applications from persons from this region. For example,
in 2010, Sweden received 7 900 applications from persons coming
from Serbia, while Germany and France received 6 500 and 5 800 asylum
applications respectively. In 2011, the numbers were lower, but
almost all decisions were negative.
51. The European Union then introduced a “safeguard” in the visa
liberalisation regime to allow for the reintroduction of visas in
an emergency. Pressure was also exerted by the European Commission
and member States on western Balkan countries to stop asylum seekers
from making use of the visa waiver. This primarily affects persons
of Roma origin, since they are the ones most likely to apply (unsuccessfully)
for asylum in the European Union. In this respect, it should be
noted that the European Union and its member States claim that most
of the asylum seekers – 80% – are Roma.
52. Further consequences have also been noted by the Council of
Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and NGOs. In the first place,
the exit controls of western Balkan countries are being conducted
on the basis of ethnic profiling, primarily targeting persons of
Roma origin. Secondly, western Balkan countries have introduced
penalties on returned failed asylum seekers, including the temporary
confiscation of their passports, and, thirdly, western Balkan countries
have been asked by the European Commission to strengthen exit controls,
including the verification of whether the exiting person complies
with entry conditions under the Schengen Borders Code.
53. These different restrictions all raise human rights concerns,
in particular as regards the right to leave a country and because
of the way the restrictions lead to the profiling and effective
targeting of Roma.
5. Conclusions
54. It is oversimplistic to portray
the “Roma question” as an issue of immigration and public security.
Roma migrants are caught in limbo: they are discriminated against
in their countries of origin and the countries of destination do
what they can to prevent them from arriving. Furthermore, political
leaders in the countries of origin speak of Roma emigration as harmful
to the country, but when Roma do leave, their countries are not necessarily
very keen on them coming back.
55. The challenge is to bring about a change in attitudes in the
sense that Roma migrants should be perceived as what they are: ordinary
people who are trying to get on with their lives, often under difficult conditions,
and to get rid of the deep-rooted prejudice among the general population
about Roma being nomadic, “from abroad” and having an irregular
status.
56. On the whole, States have a justifiable interest in managing
migration, and to see to it that the asylum system is not abused.
“Migration management” must, however, take place in compliance with
the relevant rules, which is currently not always the case.
57. Roma face discrimination across Europe. Sometimes this discrimination
is such that it forces them to move to find a better life. Sometimes
the discrimination and persecution is so great that they have no
other choice than to seek asylum. In dealing with these Roma migrants
and asylum seekers, we need to keep in mind their vulnerability
and not focus on the prejudices and stereotyping that are all too
prevalent.