1. The rapporteur wishes first to congratulate Mrs Brasseur,
the rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, who has prepared
a report based on sound facts.
2. Although it may appear that this issue, on which the Committee
on Migration, Refugees and Population is issuing this opinion, may
seem new, the Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly given significant
attention to the problems associated with Roma migrants across Europe.
3. Political discourse is therefore not new. Indeed, for several
years Roma migrants have frequently been targeted by security policies
and discourse in Europe. Such discourse sometimes results in pure
and simple expulsion of Roma settled in member states (most frequently
in member states of the European Union). This opinion will focus
on the question of expulsions and returns (voluntary to a greater
or lesser degree), which comes within our committee’s remit. The
rapporteur also refers to the report by Mr Pupovac on Roma asylum seekers
in Europe.
The
conclusions of that report, which are particularly relevant to this
opinion, are not repeated here, although they deserve to be taken
into account.
4. A few statistics will give some idea of the problem.
5. It is reported that 1 625 Romanians were expelled from 18
European countries to Romania in the first half of 2010. During
this period, 581 Romanians are said to have been expelled from France,
350 from Italy, 260 from Belgium, 121 from Denmark, 72 from the
United Kingdom, and 62 from Germany.
We do
not have accurate figures on the number of Roma among these persons,
but they are highly likely to be very much in the majority. More
specifically, according to the French Ministry of Foreign and European
Affairs, those leaving France between 28 July and 27 August 2010
included 881 Romanians (83% described as leaving voluntarily) and
98 Bulgarians (100% described as leaving voluntarily). The total
figures since the beginning of the year are 7 377 Romanians (85%
described as leaving voluntarily) and 951 Bulgarians (82% described
as leaving voluntarily).
The report of the Political Affairs
Committee also notes cases of expulsions of Roma from Denmark, Italy
and Sweden. In those countries too, a rise in security discourse
has recently been observed, equating Roma migrants with criminals.
6. Our committee is very keen to give regular reminders that
migrants have rights which must be guaranteed, but that they also
have responsibilities which they must fulfil. In this context, the
rapporteur wishes to emphasise that certain Roma undeniably engage
in criminal activities, in a proportion probably comparable to that
generally observed in the rest of the population in disadvantaged
environments. This is a problem which governments should solve by
punishing criminals. Nevertheless, the criminal activity of certain
members of a community cannot be used as a pretext for heaping opprobrium
on the whole of the community concerned.
7. Where recent developments in France are concerned,
the French Government
has alleged that the expulsions were merely a public order measure
intended to prevent illegal immigration. On several occasions assurances
have been given that they were not being applied to any ethnic group
in particular.
8. Despite these assurances a circular from the French Interior
Ministry dated 5 August 2010 stated that “the President of the Republic
gave specific instructions on 28 July last to dismantle 300 camps
or illegal settlements within three months, prioritising those of
Roma”. This statement is unambiguous. As soon as it had been published,
however, France cancelled the circular and issued a new one in its
place, dated 13 September and containing no discriminatory element.
9. It is important to emphasise that the move by Roma from eastern
to western Europe is a result of the particularly uncertain, and
sometimes quite simply scandalous, living conditions that Roma face
in their countries of origin.
The
rapporteur welcomes the fact that France (like some other European
countries) aims to work with the states concerned and with the European
institutions on the social integration of Roma in the countries
of which they are citizens. States should, moreover, make more extensive
and effective use of the European Social Fund for the integration
of Roma, and of the project loans granted by the Council of Europe Development
Bank.
Shocked by what it described as a shamefully
poor record “considering the amount of paper – and money – dedicated
to improving the situation of Roma at all levels”, the Assembly
adopted
Resolution 1740
(2010) containing firm recommendations to its member
states with a view to improving the situation of Roma in Europe.
10. However, in the opinion of the rapporteur it is oversimplistic
to portray the “Roma question” as an issue of immigration and, what
is more, one of public security.
11. The reality of the Roma question is clear from the population
figures.
Of an
estimated Roma population of 400 000 in France, only 10 000 to 12 000
are migrants (80% of whom are originally from Romania). Migrants thus
represent a tiny proportion – not even 1% – of France’s Roma population.
In Greece and Spain, the proportions are similar to those found
in France, with approximately 10 000 migrants among the former’s estimated
Roma population of between 250 000 and 300 000, and 30 000 migrants
in the latter’s estimated Roma population of between 650 000 and
800 000. In Italy, the estimates are more balanced, with a Roma population
of between 120 000 and 170 000, of whom 70 000 are migrants (or
children of migrants).
12. The criminal dimension of the question is also frequently
overstated. No one denies that some Roma are criminals. As is already
mentioned,
some
Roma, like some members of the rest of the population, do engage in
criminal activities, which should be dealt with and punished. But,
as in the rest of the migrant population, the vast majority of Roma
migration involves families and does not involve criminal activity.
It is legitimate to wonder about the justification for the action
taken by the French government, which has reacted to disturbances
to public order caused by Roma of French nationality by expelling
foreign Roma. It is a well-known fact that migrants – especially
Roma – often, to their cost, find themselves cast in the role of
scapegoats.
13. The rapporteur does not intend to cast doubt on a state’s
right to expel from their territory any foreigners who are unlawfully
present. However, it is important to remind member states of their
obligations in this respect (although without going into detail
about the relevant European Union provisions on freedom of movement, which
further complicate the issue).
14. Several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights
(“the Convention”) are relevant in this context. According to Article
5 of the Convention, any expulsion measure must be in conformity
with the general principles of the Convention and must therefore
not be in any way arbitrary. Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 prohibits collective
expulsions of aliens.
15. As pointed out by Viviane Reding, European Commissioner responsible
for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, it was shocking
to observe a situation in France which gives the impression that
some persons are being expelled from a (European Union member) state
simply because they belong to a certain ethnic minority.
This
is also, in particular, contrary to the provisions of the Convention
which – it should not be forgotten – has binding force for member
states. Taking account in addition of Article 14 (and of Article
1 of Protocol No. 12), collective expulsion of a group of aliens
on the basis of its membership of a minority is tantamount to discrimination
and is therefore in violation of the Convention in this respect
as well.
16. Several international observers have referred to the possibility
that France has effectively carried out collective expulsions. The
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Office of
the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights) has noted that
“there is some information stating that some Roma have been collectively
sent back to their countries of origin, without the free, full and
informed consent of all the individuals concerned having been obtained”.
In this context it is
noted that the European Committee on Social Rights of the Council
of Europe has already expressed a view on this subject and found
– in a case not concerning France – a violation of Article 19 of
the revised European Social Charter (STE no 163) in that migrants belonging
to the Roma and Traveller communities had de facto been collectively
expelled.
The
possibility that a complaint of this kind might be lodged against
France in the near future is very real.
17. Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention
provides that procedural safeguards must be respected if aliens
are expelled. The need to expel a person for reasons of public order
or national security must be established case by case, and the expulsion
decision must be in accordance with the law.
18. The decision taken by a Lille administrative court on 27 August
2010 deserves to be mentioned here. The court in fact overturned
four deportation orders issued by the Prefecture against Roma who
had been removed from a site in that region a few days previously.
The court took the view that illegal occupation of a municipal or
private site “is not sufficient to establish the existence of a
threat to public order” (a ground which could have provided legal
justification for deportation).
19. Lastly, it should be emphasised that expulsions of migrant
Roma prove to have little effect, since it is reported that two
thirds of those expelled have already returned to the country from
which they were expelled. In his report on Roma asylum seekers in
Europe, Mr Pupovac also notes that between 70% and 75% of the Roma
repatriated to Kosovo
leave
again after being returned.
It has to be said that public funds
are thus being used to encourage a return which proves rather temporary.
The implications go well beyond the mere question of the management
of migratory movements.
20. We should remember in this context that the Assembly recently
adopted some recommendations presented by our committee in respect
of voluntary return programmes for irregular migrants.
Resolution 1742 (2010) particularly
emphasises the need to ensure that such returns are effectively
voluntary and that they are accompanied by reintegration assistance.
This resolution is also pertinent where the return of Roma is concerned.
21. In conclusion, the rapporteur fully supports the position
adopted by Viviane Reding when she says that there is no doubt that
people who break the law should suffer the consequences, but that
it is equally clear that no individual should be expelled purely
for belonging to the Roma.
22. This opinion – in the framework of a debate under urgent procedure
– was not intended to be comprehensive, but the small number of
fundamental elements emphasised by the rapporteur here demonstrate
the need to consider the issue in greater detail. The rapporteur
would like the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population to
be asked to prepare a report in due form on the situation of Roma migrants
in Europe and on the large numbers of expulsions recently observed
in member states. Such a report would take up the issue of Roma
movement and migration in Europe, together with Roma return policies
and practice.