No 2017/08, 2017

Combating Institutional Anti-Gypsyism Responses and promising practices in the EU and selected Member States Sergio Carrera, Iulius Rostas & Lina Vosyliūtė

Abstract The notion of ‘anti-Gypsyism’ aims to refocus public policies addressing Roma in order to place responsibility for combating structural, historically-embedded and systemic forms of , discrimination and exclusion towards Roma squarely on state institutions and actors. This report examines the ways in which policies and funding combat ‘anti-Gypsyism’ in the and selected Member States and assesses the added value of the ‘anti-Gypsyism’ concept, with particular reference to its institutional forms. It explores ways in which these institutional forms could be combated by identifying some ‘promising practices or experiences’ found in five selected EU Member States (, , , and the UK). These ‘promising practices’ include reactive and proactive measures organised around four main themes: i) national, regional and local institutional responses; ii) training and education activities; iii) access to justice and effective remedies; and iv) media, public attitudes and political discourse. The report further draws conclusions and provides a set of policy recommendations for EU and national policy-makers to effectively combat anti-Gypsyism. The authors highlight that discussions on anti- Gypsyism should focus not only on its definition, but on the actual outputs of current national and EU policies and a more robust application of EU rule of law and fundamental rights monitoring and reporting mechanisms. A key proposal put forward is to expand the scope of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies to become the EU Framework for National Roma Inclusion and Combating Anti-Gypsyism and to equip it with the necessary authority and means to tackle systematic and institutional manifestations of anti-Gypsyism.

Dr. Sergio Carrera is Senior Research Fellow and Head of Justice and Home Affairs Programme at CEPS; Visiting Professor at the School of International Affairs (PSIA) at Sciences Po; Associate Professor/Senior Research Fellow at the Faculty of Law in Maastricht University; and Honorary Industry Professor/Senior Research Fellow at the School of Law in Queen Mary University of ; Dr. Iulius Rostas is the Chair of Romani Studies/Assistant Professor at Central European University in . He was an Affiliated Fellow with the Institute for Advanced Studies at CEU, Senior Fellow with the Open Society Foundations Roma Initiatives Office and Visiting Lecturer of at Corvinus University of Budapest; and Lina Vosyliūtė is Researcher at Justice and Home Affairs Programme at CEPS. CEPS Research Reports provide in-depth analyses of a wide range of key policy questions facing , drawing on state-of-the-art research methodologies and the latest literature. As an institution, CEPS takes no position on questions of European policy. The views expressed in this Report are attributable only to the authors and not to any institution with which they are associated or to Open Society Foundations. 978-94-6138-604-5 Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (www.ceps.eu)  © CEPS 2017

CEPS ▪ Place du Congrès 1 ▪ B-1000 ▪ Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11 ▪ www.ceps.eu Contents

List of Abbreviations ...... i Acknowledgments ...... ii Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 6 Methodology ...... 7 1. The notion of anti-Gypsyism and its added value in the EU ...... 9 1.1. What is anti-Gypsyism? ...... 9 1.2. What are the manifestations of anti-Gypsyism? ...... 10 1.2.1. common manifestations...... 10 1.2.2. The most serious manifestation of anti-Gypsyism: and discrimination ...... 10 1.2.3. Framing Roma as ‘non-integrated foreigners’ ...... 11 1.3. What is the added-value of the anti-Gypsyism concept? ...... 13 1.3.1. A democratic rule of law and fundamental rights angle ...... 14 1.3.2. The role of regional and local authorities ...... 16 1.4. Differences with applicability of the anti-Gypsyism concept...... 18 1.4.1. The concept is accepted and used...... 18 1.4.2. The Use of the concept by national and EU policy-makers ...... 18 1.4.3. Concept used by and relevance for actors ...... 20 2. How EU policies combat anti-Gypsyism? ...... 22 2.1. Who is doing what at the ? ...... 22 2.2. EU Approaches and Policies ...... 24 2.2.1. Integration and Inclusion approaches ...... 25 2.2.2. Fundamental rights approach ...... 29 2.2.3. Rule of Law ...... 31 3. How EU funds are combating anti-Gypsyism? ...... 33 3.1. Who is funding what?...... 33 3.1.1. European Regional Development Fund ...... 35 3.1.2. European Social Fund ...... 36 3.1.3. Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme ...... 36 3.1.4. DG HOME – Europe For Citizens, Remembrance Strand ...... 37 3.2. Monitoring and accountability of EU funds ...... 37 3.2.1. European Ombudsman ...... 37 3.2.2. European Court of Auditors ...... 39 3.2.3. EU Fundamental Rights Agency ...... 39 3.3. Potentials and challenges of EU funding ...... 40 4. Promising practices to combat anti-Gypsyism: Proactive and reactive actions and experiences .. 43 4.1. Institutional responses ...... 44 4.2. Training and educational initiatives ...... 48 4.3. Access to justice and effective remedies ...... 51 4.4. Political discourse ...... 55 4.5. Media monitoring and combating ...... 57 5. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 59 5.1. Conclusions ...... 59 5.2. Recommendations ...... 62 Bibliography ...... 66 Annex 1. What is anti-gypsyism? ...... 70 A1.1 Terminology...... 70 A1.2 Definitions ...... 70 A1.3 Features of anti-Gypsyism ...... 72 Annex 2. Country background notes ...... 74 A2.1. Germany ...... 74 A2.2. Romania ...... 76 A2.3. Spain ...... 78 A2.4. Sweden ...... 81 A2.5. The ...... 83 Annex 3. Minutes of the High Level Discussion on Anti-Gypsyism ...... 87

List of Figures Figure 1. Ranking manifestations of anti-Gypsyism from the most common (top) to the least common (bottom) ...... 10 Figure 2. Ranking of policy areas with the most significant anti-Gypsyism ...... 11 Figure 3. CSOs targeting Roma with different legal status ...... 12 Figure 4. Added value of anti-Gypsyism concept ...... 14 Figure 5. Who should lead the fight against anti-Gypsyism? ...... 16 Figure 6. Obstacles to applying national anti-Gypsyism policies at local level ...... 17 Figure 7. Use of anti-Gypsyism concept by countries ...... 19 Figure 8. Relevance of anti-Gypsyism in the work of CSOs ...... 20 Figure 9. The most influential institutions at international level ...... 21 Figure 10. Mapping EU policy approaches ...... 23 Figure 11. Civil society approaches to address anti-Gypsyism ...... 24 Figure 12. Most-often used directives/strategies by civil society ...... 25 Figure 13. Does NRIS address anti-Gypsyism? ...... 28 Figure 14. Mapping EU funding schemes relevant to combating anti-Gypsyism ...... 34 Figure 15. Financial allocations from Cohesion Funds by country ...... 35 Figure 16. CSO awareness of Roma organisations in Monitoring Committees* ...... 42 Figure 17. Proactive and reactive me