European Commission and Roma

According to the article 29 of the Treaty, the Union ’s objective is to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice by developing common action among the Member States in the fields of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and by preventing and combating racism and xenophobia.

Article 3(2) of the Treaty requires the Community to aim to eliminate inequalities and actively to promote equality between men and women in all its activities and thus ensure the integration of the dimension of equality between men and women in all Community policies.

The Communication on the Year of Equal Opportunities emphasizes the fact that Roma are the “most disadvantaged ethnic minority group in Europe ” and writes about the “significant barriers in employment and education” they face.

The Communication writes “disadvantages experienced by some communities e.g the Roma are so wide-scale and embedded in the structure of society that positive action may be necessary to remedy the nature of their exclusion.”

In summary we have arguably a legal background for prevention, active measures and positive actions tackling anti-Gypsyism which together with the incentive measures of the Race Directive (43/2000/EC) and a very well developed European Employment strategy (see article here) would seem enough to facilitate a good development of Roma communities in the EU.

In charge with the implementation of the EU Treaties, Strategies and documents is the European Commission which up to now tried some things but done not much besides words in improving the situation of Roma. There is a clear discrepancy between the nice rhetoric of high level EU officials and what happens in the Roma ghettos and communities and the measures taken has failed to produce the results expected.

The Commission does try to address the issues but still sticks to a service provider approach which arguably does increase dependency and doesn't help the real empowering of Roma and development in their communities.

The EC is the executive branch of the EU. The Commission may initiate draft legislation and present proposals to the Council and the Parliament. It is responsible for implementing resolutions and decisions (there are nine Resolutions of the European Parliament-see section on the EP and European Council see section on the Council dealing with Roma). The Commission also monitors applications of treaties within the European Union and supervises decisions regarding EU institutions. The Commission makes sure that EU law is represented within all treaties. The Commission deploys the most professional monitoring mechanism of all existing Intergovernmental Institutions.

DG Employment and Social Affairs has showed the most interest in Roma related initiatives. Within DG Employment and Social Affair (DGESA) the Anti-Discrimination Unit is of utmost relevance as it monitors the “Race” Directive (2000/43/EC). DG Employment and Social Affairs is in charge of social inclusion in Europe and its Commissioner was named as to be responsible for Roma related issues. It also chairs the Inter-Service group focused on Roma and has in its diagram the Anti-Discrimination unit and the only two “horizontal units” in the Commission focused on gender and disabilities. The cabinet of the Commissioner includes the ex-Human Rights Commissioner of the Czech Republic who is very open and familiar with Roma related issues.

Other very important DG’s for Roma issues are: Enlargement (up to the end of 2007 for Bulgaria Romania and then for accession countries Croatia, Turkey and for countries in the preliminary phases of access Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Moldova and Ukraine), RELEX (Western Balkans), REGIO (deals with Structural Funds ), DG Education and Culture, DG Justice, Freedom and Security.

There are a series of reports and studies published by the European Commission which deal more or less exclusively with Roma. The most relevant are the: EU Support for Roma Communities (2002) DG Enlargement; Situation of Roma in an enlarged Europe (2004) DG Employment and Social Affairs; Review of the European Union PHARE assistance to Roma minorities (2004) DG Employment and Social Affairs ;Thematic Comment No 3: ‘The Protection of Minorities in the EU’ by the EU Network of Independent Experts in Fundamental Rights(2004) ;Equality and non-discrimination – Annual report 2005 (special section on ‘Improving the situation of Roma in the EU') DG Employment and Social Affairs; Key Voices 2005: Access to Justice, DG Employment and Social Affairs. In December 2007, DG Employment and Social Affairs launched a draft report of the High Level Advisory Group of Experts on the Social Integration of Ethnic Minorities and their Full Participation in the Labour Market which is/was to be updated for September 2008. On July 2, 2008 the European Commission published a staff working document called Community Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion. This paper was a direct follow up to the conclusion of the European Council[1] adopted on December 14, 2008.

The Lisbon Strategy is the main strategy whose implementation the European Commission supervises and monitors. The Lisbon Strategy has a mechanism of indicators[2] meant to precisely monitor and asses the progress within the European Union.

The report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2006 emphasized that “member states need to develop […] responses to multiple disadvantages and the needs of groups at particular risk such as […] ethnic minorities (including the Roma)…There needs to be both improved access to mainstream provision and, where necessary, targeted measures”[3]. There are already some National Action Plans (NAP) on Social Inclusion of which identified Roma as a priority group.[4] The European Employment Strategy -the driving force of the Lisbon Strategy is a very important document which lately mentions Roma.

The Commission has encouraged the new Member States with substantial Romani communities to include Roma in their National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)[5].Those strategies set the most important development policy objectives and priorities to be supported under the Structural Funds.

In January 2006 the European Commission established a High Level Group on Social and Labour Market Integration of Ethnic Minorities to identify practical ways of using EU policies and programmes to promote the integration of disadvantaged ethnic minorities, including the Roma, into the labour market. The Commission singled out two focus groups of particular concern - the immigrant communities and the Roma[6].

Also there is a Roma Interservice Group which was establish in 2004 chaired by the Director General of the DG Employment and Social Affairs meant to ensure steerage within the Commission regarding Roma issues.

IN preparation for the Staff Working Paper and the EU Roma Summit from September 2008 a new structure was created called the Roma Task Force which has an unknown status.

a. Participate in the communications/consultations of the European Commission DGESA

The Commission usually receives inputs through its questionnaires and green papers (as can be seen at http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/consultation_en.html ). A list of results of such communications can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/docs_en.htm . Due to the fact that the commission produces the document for discussion, that there is a relatively large number of organizations using this mechanism and due to the sometimes very technical documents put in discussion the impact one organization can have is limited.

The Commission usually includes in the steering committees only representatives of NGOs involved for a relatively long time in the issues addressed by the steering committees. The steering committees are far from being known or transparent therefore just a few people have access to their activity. Despite the above, the Commission acknowledged it needs to include Roma therefore technocrats in Brussels are open to Roma input and participation. In order to take part in the steering committees the Roma NGOs need to contact different relevant units (anti-discrimination, civil society, gender, disabilities…) and ask about the existing steering committees. Letters requesting the participation to relevant steering committee should follow, clearly explaining why the participation of the requesting NGO is needed.

This unit includes the Roma responsible officer of the European Commission. At this moment this the job of Joachim Ott who is leading a newly created[7] Roma Task Force which also includes Virag Sandor the previous Roma responsible officer. Both of the above are dedicated, helpful and well informed. As any other official in the European Commission, the Roma officer needs concrete things rather than lists of complains. Briefings on the specific issues (mainly related to anti-Gypsyism and social inclusion) are usually needed and therefore welcomed. Positive and negative practices related to the implementation of EU projects are also something the DGESA is in need of. There is also an acknowledged need on behalf of the EC for guiding when it comes to funding for Roma NGOs and related documents could be welcomed.

Normally closed to the outsiders the Inter-service group gathers together representatives of 13 other DGs.

The Roma Inter-service Group is, on paper, chaired by the DGESA and was created to ensure steerage within the Commission regarding Roma issues. Its meetings are far from transparent and despite some obvious benefits including the exchange of information within the European Commission, there are practically no known significant initiatives of the Interservice Group during the last three years.

As in the case of the Informal Group of the Intergovernmental Organisations (see The European Council Initiatives part for reference), according to participants, meetings are attended mainly by low level bureaucrats with practically very limited or no decision-making power.

During its first meetings[8], the Director General was practically not present[9] and the attendance from the Commission was mainly low level (13 units represented and only two heads of unit).

Despite the above the Inter-service group has gain in relevance in the last year as there is an increased awareness on the importance Roma issues related to the social inclusion agenda of the EU. The only direct way to input the Group can be done through getting an invitation to present something related to the interest of the participants. Reports, analyses related to their main preoccupation have high chances to get NGOs invited. In general Commission avoided inviting people they regarded as being critical towards the European Commission. In the last year the situation changed to the better.

There are a number of Inter-service groups that should also be a target for Roma activists interested in the mainstreaming of Roma issues. Those need also to be carefully considered and targeted. All the relevant DGs should be asked about the inter-Service groups they chair.

The Head of DGESA, Commissioner Vladimir Spidla, shows a great deal of interest in Roma related initiatives and he is unofficially in charge of Roma issues within the European Commission. The presence in its cabinet of one of the best Czech experts in Roma related issues, Jan Jarab, is seen by many as the most significant step taken by the European Commission in better dealing with issues related to Roma.

Despite clear interest and good will on the part of Commissioner Spidla and his cabinet to improve the impact of Commission programs and policies on the lives of Roma, the results are far from good

The following factors may explain why Commissioner Spidla’s position has not impacted more strongly the overall social inclusion of European Roma.

Officially, Commissioner Spidla is in charge of 9 directorates, each with 4 units – in total, 36 units dealing, for the most part, with issues unrelated to Roma. Only one Unit has, among other assignments, a direct responsibility to deal with Roma issues (8 million Roma within the EU): the Anti-discrimination Unit.

Changes in 2005 and 2006 within the Anti-Discrimination Unit, including the coming to an end of the contract of the main and only one expert on Roma issues, the replacement of the Unit’s director Barbara Nolan (following a long interim period), and finally, the replacement of the Director General of DG Employment and Social Affairs, Odile Quintin, led to a significant slow-down in Roma-related initiatives of the DG. The Roma Interservice Group, an informal group which is the only structure of the European Commission focused on Roma, is lead by this DG and was created and stimulated by Barbara Nolan and Odile Quintin. Needless to say, with their departures, it’s activities were for a good period significantly reduced.

The cabinet is open to be contacted and suggestions if well argued can have an impact. Open letters to the Commissioners including suggestions for different events and actions are usually welcomed if they have a relatively mainstream approach. Invitations to Roma related events in case are done well in advance have good chances to be approved and bring a good opportunity of direct lobbying the Commissioner.

The very influential Director General Nikolaus van der Pas is relatively aware of the issues as well as directors Jerome Vignion and Armindo Silva.

This is a probably the most efficient and powerful DG as it is in charge of monitoring the compliance with the Copenhagen criteria of possible future members of the EU. It has been at the forefront of many innovative approaches of the European Commission and has had a significant impact in raising awareness on Roma and significant improvement in many aspects of the joining EU member states. Due to its significant leverage (in fact the Copenhagen criteria are a much stronger tool when it comes to inclusion and respect of minorities than the available tools within the EU area) DG enlargement should be a major target of lobbying and advocacy especially for the ex-Yugoslav countries ( except Slovenia , already a EU member state), Moldova, Albania, Turkey and Ukraine.

Probably the most direct mechanism to be used is the regular monitoring reports as DG Enlargement often bases its reports on papers, position and discussions with NGOs. Detlev Boeing is the officer in charge of Roma related issues of the DG Enlargement and has the responsibility to deal with Roma related issues. Info sheets should be sent to him but also to the desk officer of the country. Request to participate in the hearings the DG enlargement organizes with the NGOs before publishing the country reports could lead to an invitation and direct input in the report.

Desk officers and Roma responsible officers can be invited and would usually respond positively to requests to participate in Roma related events, a good opportunity for exchange of information and direct input. These officers have a significant impact in the activity of the national delegation and advocacy activities should take that in consideration.

Unfortunately DGE (and EC in general) has been reluctant to coordinate and cooperate with other Institutions and existing frameworks. Especially relevant is the limited cooperation with the Decade of Roma Inclusion. Since Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union, DGE seems to play a very limited role which is rather unjustified as Turkey and Western Balkans have an important number of Roma which face strong social exclusion.

DGJFS is among others in charge of Fundamental Rights and the new Fundamental Rights Agency – the monitoring body of the European Commission that published practically the strongest EU reports on anti-Gypsyism. Its Commissioner up to May 2008, Fratini who was also the vice-president of the European Commission had responsibilities related to migration and was very interested in the children rights. His French replacement Jacques Barrot needs to follow the agenda set up by Fratini for the remaining mandate. Both issues mentioned above are of great interest for him and if used in relationship to Roma can have an impact in getting the attention of DGJFS.

The diagram of DGJFS is available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/justice_home/organigramme_en.pdf and shows at least three other important things. The Director General Jonathan Faull is open and aware of the issues related to Roma. Directorate D, Mr Almeida can always be a target of lobbying related to trafficking and Directorate C, Mr Bianchi should be responsive in relation to Fundamental Rights. Directorate B has a focus on immigration therefore should be targeted whenever action related to this aspect are envisioned.

DGJFS also chairs an Inter-service group on Racism which up to this moment had no Roma focused input.

This DG is probably the most important in view of the funds, efficiency and results. The overwhelming majority of the Structural Funds to address Roma specific or related issues were used through DGREGIO. The Commissioner Danuta Hubner has met a number of times George Soros and stated publicly her support for Roma related initiatives focused on social inclusion.

The Austrian-Slovak unit of the Directorate E has been at the forefront of Roma related ground-breaking initiatives within the European Commission. It initiated a group on Roma and structural funds and has pushed within the Commission the need of horizontal approaches towards Roma (unexpectedly achieved in

Slovakia

). Its The new created units in charge of Romania , and Bulgaria as well as units dealing with Hungary and Spain should also have a significant Roma related portfolio.

DGEC used to have a relatively low profile in the European Commission. The change of the director general which brought Odile Quintan in the position has changed to the better the leverage DGEC has within the EC. The addition of the Romanian Commissioner on Multilingualism within the same structure which is lead by the Slovak Figel makes, at least on paper, DGEC one of the most Roma “sensitive” structure of the European Commission.

Unfortunately despite the fact that DGEC deals with training and education, youth, culture and citizenship all of most relevance to Roma there was practically no significant Roma initiative of the DGEC. The sports unit has been the only one involved in actions promoting actions against anti-Gypsyism on the stadiums but unfortunately due to the failure of the Constitutional treaty the unit has very limited budget and leverage within the DGEC.

There are other units within other DGs which can be relevant to Roma but due to the editorial limitation those are not examined here.

The independent expert networks are informal EC sponsored bodies that research and draft reports in areas of concerns where the EC has limited experience and often limited interest. Such bodies are hardly known despite the fact that sometimes they are responsible for most of the input on certain issues to the EC. On Roma there are two cases.

The European Commission's Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights(CNIEFR) has issued in 2004 a report on Fundamental rights in the European Union which was also targeted by some lobby and advocacy actions of Roma organisations . The report highlighted the specific discrimination Roma are victim of in the EU and recommends the adoption of a "Roma directive" as a remedy to it[10]. The European Commission was quite openly unhappy with the recommendations and chose to ignore them. Remarkably is the fact that there were no Roma involved in the activities of the CNIEFR.

In January 2006 the European Commission established the High Level Group on Social and Labour Market Integration of Ethnic Minorities, to identify practical ways of using EU policies and programmes to promote the integration of disadvantaged ethnic minorities, including the Roma, into the labour market. The Commission singled out two focus groups of particular concern: the immigrant communities and the Roma. Barbara Nolan played a significant role in the establishment of the Group but unfortunately she had left the Anti-Discrimination Unit before the Group started working.

The group included two Roma experts, but so far, their related activities are completely unknown to Roma activists and Roma organisations. According to sources within the European Commission, the recruitment process of the Roma experts was based entirely on personal preferences and non-critical views towards the European Commission activities. The group is supposed to update its report which was heavily criticized during its launch in December 2007 for the autumn of 2008; until now , there were limited (in fact we are not aware of any) consultations with Roma activists or Roma organisations.

Pressuring the Commission for inclusion of Roma in the informal structures preparing reports is of course something of utmost importance but as long as those bodies will remain informal there are limited chances for relevant changes. It is the opinion of the authors that only Roma specific bodies of the EC could solve the issues and that the main priority should be focused on a Roma Unit of the European Commission.

The rights of other vulnerable groups in Europe are defended by both their countries of origin (in the case of religious and race discrimination, by a number of countries) and by European NGOs[11] dealing with the issues. Despite the fact that Roma are the largest and most discriminated ethnic minority in Europe, according to the European Commission, which provides core funding for most of the European Network NGOs dealing with vulnerable groups, up to end of 2006 not a single Roma NGO in Europe was financed by and welcomed under the umbrella of the Commission. Under pressure the European Commission has launched a call for proposals for supporting one European Roma Network[12].Not only that there was no consultation with Roma organisations about the Terms of Reference which lead to no organisation being selected for the first calls but also the funds available are five times less than for similar network organisations.

Finally, in 2007, funding was made available for the European Roma and Travellers Forum(ERTF), an organisation already financed by the Council of Europe. Many Roma feel that this was not an appropriate choice because the positions of the European Roma and Travellers Forum and its representatives are often autocratic. Given the existing situation of Roma NGOs which are still far from covering properly the main issues affecting Roma communities or from ensuring a normal participation of Roma and the often extremely reduced available human resources from Roma communities, the European Commission needs to do a lot more in supporting the development of a healthy Roma civil society. At the end of 2007 the Commission decided to cease the funding towards the ERTF and gave a three year small grant[13] to European Roma Information Office who was in fact the organization the tender call was tailored for in the first place.

It is important to build coalitions with European Networks in order not just to advance issues related to social inclusion of Roma and mainstreaming but also related to funding and capacity building. Besides ENAR the European Anti-Poverty Network(EAPN), the EU network dealing with the homeless (FEANTSA), the Social Platform( an umbrella of EU NGOs), The European Network working on issues related to age ( AGE) , the European Women Lobby, the Disability Forum and others similar organisation should be always considered when trying to advance issues or pressure the EC.

Relevant is that the Recommendation 23 of the European Parliament Resolution on the Situation of Roma in the European Union of 28^th of April 2005 writes: “Supports the continuing moves within the EU institutions towards incorporating the Roma-to-Roma approach, as developed by the OSCE, in the future hiring of staff for Roma - as well as non-Roma-related vacancies.” This has never been followed up by the European Commission or by anti-discrimination NGOs funded by the European Commission. Up to this point the Commission always refrained from officially commenting it.

The European Court of Justice ensures that EC and EU treaties are respected and that the laws are being followed. The Court of Justice looks to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights for guidance in its decision-making on human rights issues. The Court can address cases of discrimination based on the anti-discrimination framework of the Commission and it already developed a very extensive case law regarding gender discrimination. In accord with the paragraphs 122 and 127 of the Action Plan the ODIHR-CPRSI could develop actions meant to increase the capacity of Roma NGOs to use the ECJ but it never did.

The ECJ can’t be lobbied but it is an extremely important mechanism in the implementation of existing anti-discrimination legislation. The ECJ rulings in cases of gender and disabilities lead to very good results and an important raise in the awareness of national courts. It is important to build up a case-brief related to discrimination of ethnic background therefore to encourage NGOs such as European Roma Rights Center to bring Roma cases to the ECJ. Training Roma NGOs in this direction could be also one of the many targeted trainings of the European Commission.

[1] "The European Council, conscious of the very specific situation faced by the Roma across the Union, invites Member States and the Union to use all means to improve their inclusion. To this end it invites the Commission to examine existing policies and instruments and to report to the Council on progress achieved before the end of June 2008."

[2] See Annex 1

[3] The Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2006

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_inclusion/docs/2006/cs2006_7294_en.pdf

[4] The ten new Member States submitted their first National Action Plans against poverty and social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion) in July 2004 in response to the common objectives that have been agreed by Member States for the Union 's social inclusion process. In these plans each new member state analyses the situation in relation to poverty and social exclusion, presents the strategy, objectives and targets it has established for the two year period from mid-2004 to mid-2006 and identifies the specific actions to be implemented in order to achieve them. Information available at

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_inclusion/naps_en.htm

[5] From interviews with Colin Wolfe of the EC and Maria Ionescu of the ANR

[6] European Commission, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/149&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

[7] Following discussion with the civil society and Commissioner Spidla and the Conclusion of the EU Council of 14^th of December 2007 as results of dramatic incidents in Italy

[8] Up to 2006

[9] The Director General opened the first meeting and left within an hour without ever participating again

[10] http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/cfr_cdf/doc/report_eu_2003_en.pdf

[11] European Anti-Poverty Network, European Disability Forum, FEANTSA (homeless people), ILGA (gay and lesbian people), European Women Lobby, Social Platform, etc.

[12] Available at http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/emplweb/tenders/tenders_en.cfm?id=405

[13] ERIO receives 4 times less than the similar European Networks such as ENAR, EAPN…

	The European Commission	ERGO -being the change we want to see

ERGO home \| policy papers \| networking/links \| European Institutions \| join us \| contact \| info