BY Jesse Gutman
FILED UNDER
Human Rights
Immigration and Refugee Law
TAGS
Borders, Council of Europe, deportation, Eastern Europe, European Union, france, Free Movement DIrective, Freedom of Movement, Gypsy, Roma, romani, Sarkozy, Tsigane, Tziganes
The Romani People and the Free Movement Directive
On July 28, 2010, Nicolas Sarkozy announced the deportation of Romani people of Romanian and Bulgarian citizenship. More than 8, 300 Roma have been deported from France so far in 2010, up from 7, 875 in 2009. Other European states have also instituted similar policies regarding the Roma. Italy has been publicly attacking the Roma since 2007, when President Silvio Berlusconi demanded the fingerprinting and deportation of Roma communities. Since the summer, Denmark has sent back 23 Roma and Sweden expelled 50. Last year, Germany sent more than 100 Roma back to Romania.
These deportations occur in the face of progressive protections of movement and residence for citizens of EU member states. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty established a concept of citizenship which challenged traditional borders by conferring the right of member states citizens to move and reside freely within the EU. The Free Movement Directive (2004/38/EC) of 2004 allowed for further integration of European citizens.
How does the deportation of the Roma figure within the Free Movement Directive (FMD)? The statute’s preamble explains that, “the free movement of persons constitutes one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market, which comprises an area without internal frontiers [...]”. Residence is to be exercised, “under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, [and] also granted to their family members, irrespective of nationality”.
The FMD grants a Right of entry (art. 5) and a Right of residence for up to three months (art. 6). After three months, the EU citizen may stay, but must demonstrate they (art. 7 (1)):
(a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or
(b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or
(c) —are enrolled at a private or public establishment, accredited or financed by the host Member State on the basis of its legislation or administrative practice, for the principal purpose of following a course of study, including vocational training; and
—have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State and assure the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such equivalent means as they may choose, that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence; or
(d) are family members accompanying or joining a Union citizen who satisfies the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) or (c).
Article 7 has been given a selective interpretation with respect to the Roma. Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni has called for mandatory deportation of Roma violating basic requirements of the Free Movement Directive. Italy also called for the additional requirement of demonstrating adequate housing – a direct challenge to the Roma’s nomadic lifestyle.
The real problem with the deportations lies with art. 27 (2) which protects individuals from unjustified measures taken on the grounds of public security. In explicit defiance of this provision, states have focused on the Roma as a specific ethnic group for deportation, not the conduct of individuals concerned.
The European community has been quick to respond in its condemnation of France’s latest round of deportations, with EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding likening the expulsions of the Roma to WW2. The Council of Europe and the EU have called for a high level joint session on October 20, 2010 to discuss the Roma in Europe. Despite this, it remains unclear that states will take effective steps to protect the mobility and equality rights of a minority group that regularly faces physical attacks, segregated schools, and, in some cases, forced sterilization. As seen elsewhere in this blog, insensitivity to Roma identity is rampant – from glib titles referencing negative cultural stereotypes to targeted Canadian policies to limit Roma immigration. It remains to be seen whether the EU will take the upcoming session as an opportunity to expand the Free Movement Directive in encompassing a model of inter-state citizenship or indulge in the ongoing stigmatization of Europe’s most notorious ethnic minority.
Jesse Gutman is a third year law student at McGill University and holds a B.A. (McGill) in history and philosophy. He also co-hosts LegalEase on CKUT 90.3 FM, a monthly radio show about law and society: http://legaleaseckut.wordpress.com / JESSE GUTMAN est un étudiant de droit à l'Université McGill dans son 3ieme année.
4 Responses to “The Romani People and the Free Movement Directive”
I want to draw links here between the FMD and Article 5 of the Southern African Development Community Treaty which was referenced in the previous article I wrote. It seems to me that this is a prime example of the Labour vs. Capital paradigm. We, the citizens, give special legal status to corporations (Capital) to cross borders and initiate business activities under the banner of free trade. Let’s face it, these corporations drive trade liberalization and the creation of economic zones such as the SADC and the EU. In the rare instances where special permissions are given to Labour to cross borders and initiate business activities (i.e. work) it can cause social calamity. I have not lived in Europe in years but I have heard many, many people complain about immigration from A8 countries. In South Africa, tensions became so high against guest workers that a virtual race war broke out in 2008. Don’t even get me started on the draconian laws enacted in Arizona this past year. Politicians are so quick to slander ‘the Other’ so as to win votes and scaremonger their constituents, when in reality corporations enjoy far greater legal luxuries during these pressing economic times. A socialist rant? Hardly, I just think that all legal persons should be given commensurate rights and responsibilities, during boom times and bust times.
“a direct challenge to the Roma’s nomadic lifestyle.”
Only a small percentage of the Roma are still nomadic. In the case of Romanian Roma they were first sedentarised as slaves over a few hundred years, and for those that remained nomadic, they were sedenterised in Communist assimilationist policies in the 50s and 60s.
In Italy the only nomads are the Sinti.
However, due to extreme racism in the housing market many new arrivals of Romanian Roma live in unauthorised encampments (only 1/3 of Italian Roma live in camps). They are forced to be nomadic by policies that continually demolish their camps.
The perception of Roma ‘nomadism’ is one that is erroneously propagated through legislations such as the Italian Nomad Emergency Decree.
http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=3681
Good point, Katie. That clause should be taken from the piece. It was put in during the editing process and as you point out, propagates harmful myths about the Roma. As a blanket statement, especially out of context, the sentence is very problematic.
However, just to clarify, you state: “In Italy the only nomads are the Sinti.” Though the Sinti are a distinct group in Italy, they have ties with the Roma. Indeed, they are represented within the International Romani Union. Therefore, in my above use of the highlighted phrase – “a direct challenge to the Roma’s nomadic lifestyle.” – I am not wholly inaccurate, especially since I am making direct reference to Italy.
That is simply to clarify the genesis of the clause in question; I agree with your analysis.
Did France have ratified the FMD? because i read Viviane Reding’s statement:
“that is the directive of 2004 – has not yet been introduced into French law, and that is exactly the part of the directive which gives some rights to the individuals, who are caught because they are illegal or because they have committed a crime. And they can be caught and they can be expelled but the guarantees for the citizens have not been taken over into French law”
thanks.. looking forward to know more about this issue