Abstract
This chapter takes a closer look at the concepts that hold the key to researching human rights and the Roma. It concerns: (1) the closely connected and inter-related concepts equality and anti-discrimination, the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, and the need to complement a formal and a substantive approach to equality; (2) the controversial notions race and ethnicity and the interpretation given to and difference between these overlapping social constructs; (3) the multi-dimensional concept social inclusion, and pluralism as an alternative approach to integration in order to promote diversity and counter assimilation; (4) minority rights protection and its two-pillar structure, the right to identity and the prohibition of assimilation as interrelated building blocks of minority rights protection, and minorities’ right to the effective participation in public life; (5) privacy as a relative, dynamic, and multi-dimensional concept that holds personal autonomy at its core and entails positive and negative obligations for State authorities; (6) personal data protection, the key difference between various types of data, the applicable legal frameworks, and the role of supervisory committees and data protection authorities; (7) socio-economic rights, including: (a) the right to education and its dual role in minorities’ protection and promotion; (b) the right to housing and the protection of traveling as an important element of Roma culture and identity; (c) the right to work as a broad right that fulfils economic, social, and developmental needs; (d) the right to health, of which States must realise the bare essentials immediately.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 2.
- 3.
Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 8.
- 4.
- 5.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (20 August 2015), par. 8.
- 6.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948) (UDHR).
- 7.
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (21 December 1965) (ICERD), arts. 1, 2 and 5.
- 8.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966) (ICCPR), arts. 2 and 26.
- 9.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (16 December 1966) (ICESCR), arts. 2 and 3.
- 10.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (18 December 1979) (CEDAW), arts. 1 and 2.
- 11.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (31 December 2006), arts. 2 and 3.
- 12.
Schiek (2009), p. 10.
- 13.
Nikolaidis (2015), p. 30.
- 14.
Lauterpacht (1945), p. 115.
- 15.
Shelton (2014), p. 12.
- 16.
Fredman (2011), p. 4.
- 17.
Id. at p. 5.
- 18.
Id. at p. 6.
- 19.
Farkas (2011), p. 32.
- 20.
Makkonen (2010), p. 27.
- 21.
- 22.
Farkas (2011), p. 32.
- 23.
ICERD, art. 1.1.
- 24.
- 25.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950) (ECHR). An in-depth discussion of the notion proportionality can be found in Part II on positive action. EctHR, Case “Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium” v. Belgium (Belgian Linguistics case), Judgment (23 July 1968), para. 10.
- 26.
- 27.
EctHR, Thlimmenos v. Greece, Judgment (6 April 2000, GC), para. 44.
- 28.
Id. at para. 46.
- 29.
EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), para. 196.
- 30.
Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (29 June 2000) (RED), art. 2.1.
- 31.
RED, art. 2.1(a). Suggested further reading: FRA and CoE (2018b), pp. 43–52.
- 32.
Fredman (2011), p. 166.
- 33.
RED, art. 2.1(b). Suggested further reading: FRA and CoE (2018b), pp. 53–59.
- 34.
- 35.
Fredman (2011), p. 177.
- 36.
- 37.
The CERD Committee uses the term unjustifiable disparate impact upon a group distinguished by race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 14: Definition of Discrimination (Art. 1 para. 1) (22 March 1993), paras. 1 and 2.
- 38.
- 39.
It is argued that the EctHR implicitly recognized or at least took steps towards the concept of indirect discrimination in a number of cases. See, for instance: EctHR, Belgian Linguistics case, Judgment (23 July 1968), para. 13 (focus on effects of measures). EctHR, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (4 May 2001), para. 154 (disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group irrespective of the intent). EctHR, Nachova v. Bulgaria, Judgment (6 July 2005, GC), para. 157 (shifting the burden of proof to the respondent). Howard (2010), pp. 53 and 54.
- 40.
Henrard (2008), p. 110.
- 41.
Thlimmenos concerned the refusal to appoint a Jehovah’s Witness as chartered accountant due to his past felony conviction for refusing to enlist in the army. Marko (2013, pp. 114 and 115) disagrees and states that the structure of the Thlimmenos case does not compare to the definition of indirect discrimination, because of the focus on the single case rather than the factual impact of allegedly neutral provisions on a group. EctHR, Thlimmenos v. Greece, Judgment (6 April 2000, GC), para. 44; Nikolaidis (2015), p. 75; Howard (2010), p. 54; Henrard (2008), p. 109; Loenen and Hendriks (2000), p. 1102.
- 42.
Henrard (2008, p. 111) warns that by putting so much emphasis on the importance of intent, the EctHR seems to be questioning the concept of indirect discrimination. EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), paras. 184, 195 and 217; Nikolaidis (2015), p. 75; Spiliopoulou Åkermark (2013), p. 40; Howard (2010), p. 57.
- 43.
RED, recital 15.
- 44.
See Sect. 2.2 for a discussion on the notions race and ethnicity. Other sensitive discrimination grounds on which statistical information is often lacking include religion or belief, sexual orientation and disability. Data gaps on Roma communities in Europe are considered in Chap. 5 (Sect. 5.1). Bell (2007), p. 255; Schiek (2007), pp. 398 and 399.
- 45.
- 46.
Resolution of the European Parliament on Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities for All – A Framework Strategy (14 June 2006), para. 18.
- 47.
EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), para. 188. This case will be discussed further in Sect. 2.7.2 on the role of education in minority protection and empowerment. See also Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.5) where supporting indirect discrimination claims in legal proceedings is put forward as one of the benefits of ethnic data collection, and Chap. 5 (Sect. 5.2.4) on the significance of international and European monitoring and litigation.
- 48.
At European level, statistical evidence must show a substantial figure or a particularly high proportion in order to shift the burden of proof. FRA and CoE (2018b), pp. 242–247; Nikolaidis (2015), p. 77; Bell (2007), p. 253; Schiek (2007), pp. 397 and 398. Statistical data can also be relevant with regards to the establishment of direct discrimination. See: De Schutter (2008), p. 238; Bell (2007), p. 255.
- 49.
EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), para. 195.
- 50.
Statistics were available in this case, but they were not considered sufficient by themselves to give rise to a presumption of (indirect) discrimination as they did not prove the existence of a general policy in which Roma were automatically placed in separate classes. On the other hand, the fact that insufficient command of Croatian was only applied to Roma pupils as a criterion to be placed in separate classes, was found to give rise to such a presumption. EctHR, Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, Judgment (16 March 2010, GC), paras. 152 and 153. This case will be discussed further in Sect. 2.7.2.3 on the role of education in minority protection and empowerment. See also Chap. 5 (Sect. 5.2.4) on the significance of international and European monitoring and litigation in the framework of ethnic data collection on the Roma minority.
- 51.
FRA and CoE (2018b), p. 247.
- 52.
Nikolaidis (2015), p. 77.
- 53.
Id.
- 54.
- 55.
Schiek (2002), p. 303.
- 56.
Fredman (2011), pp. 8–14.
- 57.
For further discussion on these points of criticism of the formal equality concept, see: Howard (2010), pp. 111–114.
- 58.
See UDHR, art. 7. ECHR, art. 14. RED, art. 2.2(a). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (7 December 2000) (CFEU), art. 20.
- 59.
Howard (2010), p. 114.
- 60.
- 61.
Fredman (2011), pp. 2 and 14.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
EctHR, Loizidou v. Turkey, Judgment (23 March 1995, GC), para. 33.
- 65.
The right to formal and to substantive equality co-exist in the case law of the EctHR. The EctHR does not draw a distinction between both approaches, which complicates analysis of the theory of interpretation of article 14 ECHR. Reasonable accommodation and how it compares to positive action will be discussed in Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.1.3.2). Nikolaidis (2015), pp. 75–82 and 85. For further reading, see: Nikolaidis (2015), pp. 50–85.
- 66.
- 67.
This was briefly addressed in Chap. 1 on the importance of respecting Roma identity (Sect. 1.2.4) and when introducing the main topics of the book (Sect. 1.3). Commission Green Paper, Equality and non-discrimination in an enlarged European Union (28 May 2004), pp. 7–10; Koldinská (2011), pp. 245 and 257; Howard (2010), pp. 136 and 137; Niessen (2001), p. 15; MacEwen (1995), pp. 22 and 25.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), recital 4. European Network Against Racism (ENAR) (2012), p. 2; Lador-Lederer (1968), p. 15. The present-day situation of Roma in Europe, including the discrimination this minority faces, was discussed in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.1).
- 74.
- 75.
Id.
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
Hermanin et al. (2013), p. 5.
- 79.
ICERD, preamble. RED, recital 6. Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (8 September 2001), paras. 6 and 7. UNESCO Statement on race and racial prejudice (September 1967). UNESCO Proposal on the biological aspects of race (August 1964). UNESCO Statement on the nature of race and race differences (June 1951). UNESCO Statement on race (July 1950). ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 7: National legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination (13 December 2002), ref. 1.
- 80.
- 81.
France, Proposition of law to delete the word “race” from our legislation (Proposition de loi tendant à suppression du mot “race” de notre legislation) (13 May 2013). Adopted by the General Assembly at the first reading.
- 82.
Finland, Non-Discrimination Act 1325/2014 (Yhdenvertaisuuslaki 1325/2014) (30 December 2014), section 6.1.
- 83.
Austria, Federal Act Governing Equal Treatment (Gleichbehandlungsgesetz).
- 84.
Sweden, Act 307/2003 Prohibiting Discrimination (Lag 2003:307 om förud mot diskriminering) (5 June 2003).
- 85.
German Basic Law currently still contains the word race in art. 3.3. Baer (2010), p. 86.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on Sweden (23 September 2003), para. 6.
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
James (2008), p. 32.
- 93.
- 94.
Such ambiguity is reflected in the RED, which lacks a definition of racial origin because it rejects theories claiming the existence of separate races, yet stipulates that people can be subjected to discrimination on this ground. Makkonen (2006), pp. 73 and 74.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.
Fredman (2011), pp. 50 and 51.
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
- 104.
Haug (2001), p. 307.
- 105.
- 106.
- 107.
Baumann (1999), p. 21.
- 108.
Rughiniș (2010), pp. 348 and 349.
- 109.
- 110.
- 111.
Gerards (2007), pp. 47–50. This will be discussed further in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.2) on defining racial and ethnic origin for data collection purposes, Chap. 4 on choosing ethnic categories for ethnical classification purposes (Sect. 4.4) and on ethnically identifying people with different categories (Sect. 4.5), and Chap. 5 on challenges to the construction of ethnic categories for Roma (Sect. 5.3) and on the appropriateness of the different ethnical identification approaches when collecting data on Roma (Sect. 5.4).
- 112.
- 113.
- 114.
ICERD, art. 1.
- 115.
EctHR, Timishev v. Russia, Judgment (13 December 2005), para. 56. The EctHR confirmed this in EctHR, Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment (22 December 2009, GC), para. 43. Farkas (2017, p. 9) points out that the EctHR broadened its interpretation of ethnic discrimination by taking social marginalisation into consideration in various Roma cases, including D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic (2007) and Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria (2012).
- 116.
Bell (2008), p. 16.
- 117.
See Sect. 2.1 on equality and anti-discrimination.
- 118.
Ignăţoiu-Sora (2011), p. 1698.
- 119.
Goodwin (2009b), pp. 150 and 151.
- 120.
- 121.
Socio-cultural exclusion is exclusion on the basis of language, religion or ethnic origin. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 12.
- 122.
Goodwin (2009b), p. 156.
- 123.
Xanthaki (2005), p. 521.
- 124.
- 125.
Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 4. See also: Commission Staff Working Document, Roma in Europe: The Implementation of European Union Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion – Progress Report 2008–2010 (7 April 2010), pp. 18, 22, 23 and 35. Various authors also address the importance of positive action and data collection to enhance the social inclusion of Roma, including: Guy et al. (2010), p. 5; Collins (2003), p. 37; Lipott (2012), p. 85.
- 126.
- 127.
Decision No. 1098/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) (22 October 2008). Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers for Social Affairs meeting within the Council on combating social exclusion (29 September 1989). Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011). Commission Communication, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (3 March 2010). ENAR (2012), pp. 1 and 2; Marlier et al. (2007), pp. 3–5.
- 128.
Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version) (TEU).
- 129.
TEU, art. 3.3.
- 130.
Mera and Iov (2013), p. 118.
- 131.
ENAR (2012), pp. 1 and 2.
- 132.
Hollo (2006), pp. 4 and 5.
- 133.
Ivanov (2012), pp. 80 and 90. See Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.4) on the key role of cultural identity in Roma inclusion, Chap. 5 (Sects. 5.5.4 and 5.8.2) on the importance of actively including Roma in ethnic data collection practices, and Chap. 10 (Sect. 10.1) on the importance of a bottom-up approach to positive action.
- 134.
Ivanov (2012), p. 90.
- 135.
- 136.
Liégeois (1994), p. 293.
- 137.
Ivanov (2012), p. 90.
- 138.
- 139.
- 140.
- 141.
The CFEU states in art. 22 that “the Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity”. The word shall implies that it is more than a recommendation, but it falls short of constituting an individual right.
- 142.
FRA and CoE (2011), p. 9.
- 143.
- 144.
O’Nions (2007), p. 41.
- 145.
- 146.
Nikolaidis (2015), p. 79.
- 147.
- 148.
- 149.
The Permanent Court of International Justice ruled that States have a positive obligation to adopt special measures in relation to minorities. Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Minority Schools in Albania, Opinion (6 April 1935), paras. 88 and 95. See also: Memorandum of the United Nations Secretary-General on The Main Types and Causes of Discrimination (1953), para. 6; Ahmed (2011), pp. 26 and 27; Pentassuglia (2002), pp. 90–93; Henrard (2000), pp. 8–10; Benoît-Rohmer (1996), p. 16; Thornberry (1991), p. 10. Some authors argue that the protection of minorities does not require special measures because the prohibition of discrimination contained in general human rights instruments suffices. See, for instance: Räikkä (1996), pp. 13–16; O’Brien (1984), p. 21. For further discussion on the FCNM not adding anything, see: Henrard (2008), pp. 93–95.
- 150.
See Sect. 2.1 on equality and anti-discrimination.
- 151.
- 152.
FCNM, art. 1. Explanatory Report to the FCNM (1 February 1995), para. 30.
- 153.
Ahmed (2011), p. 27.
- 154.
- 155.
Dediu (2007), p. 115.
- 156.
It was the first UN document to deal exclusively with minorities. The Declaration is inspired on but not limited by art. 27 ICCPR. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (3 February 1992) (UNMD), recital 4; Verstichel (2009), pp. 248 and 249; Hernard (2000), p. 186.
- 157.
Regional and minority languages refer to factual criteria are not legal notions. The Charter includes examples nor a list of languages. Ratification is slow, with 25 signatures and ratifications and eight signatures without ratifications as of 9 May 2019. For an up-to-date overview of ratifications and signatures, see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/148/signatures (Accessed 9 May 2019). European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (4 November 1992) (ECRML); Explanatory Report to the ECRML (5 November 1992), para. 21; Thornberry and Martín Estebanez (2004), pp. 139 and 140.
- 158.
As of 9 May 2019, 39 States have signed and ratified the FCNM, while four others have signed but not yet ratified. For an up-to-date overview of ratifications and signatures, see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/157/signatures (Accessed 9 May 2019).
- 159.
Riddell (2002), pp. 6 and 7.
- 160.
Thornberry and Martín Estebanez (2004), p. 89.
- 161.
- 162.
Henrard (2008), p. 96.
- 163.
Only a limited number of States Parties to the FCNM explicitly cite the Roma as a minority group enjoying protection of the FCNM: Germany (only Sinti and Roma of German citizenship), the Republic of North Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia until February 2019; Roma people living within Macedonian borders), Slovenia (Roma community living in Slovenia) and Sweden (Roma). O’Nions (2007), p. 70. See Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.1.3) for more on the lack of uniform status of Roma across Europe.
- 164.
ECHR, art. 14. Protocol 12 to the ECHR (4 November 2000), art. 1.
- 165.
CFEU, art. 21.1.
- 166.
- 167.
Tavani (2012), p. 7.
- 168.
Id. at pp. 9–15.
- 169.
Id. at pp. 14, 15, 174 and 177.
- 170.
Ahmed (2011), pp. 178 and 179.
- 171.
See Sect. 2.1.3 on formal and substantive equality.
- 172.
- 173.
- 174.
- 175.
- 176.
- 177.
- 178.
- 179.
- 180.
Arts. 2 and 3 UNMD include a formal approach to equality, whereas art. 4.1 requires the adoption of special measures, which art. 8.3 defines as not prima facie violating the principle of equality. Art. 7.2 ECRML requires States to eliminate unjustified distinctions, exclusion, restrictions or preferences on the basis of the use of regional or minority language as well as the adoption of special measures to promote equality of regional and minority language users. Commentary of the Working Group on Minorities to the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (4 April 2005), paras. 82 and 83.
- 181.
- 182.
See, for example: ACFC, Fourth Opinion on Spain (3 December 2014), paras. 14, 25 to 30. ACFC, Third Opinion on Germany (27 May 2010), paras. 18, 48, 53 to 58 and 210. ACFC, Second Opinion on Ireland (6 October 2006), paras. 33 to 36 and 51. ACFC, Second Opinion on the Czech Republic (24 February 2005), paras. 10, 32 to 37, 47, 51, 99, 114, 116, 191 and 195. The link between ethnic data and positive action makes up the focus of Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.4) on the benefits of ethnic data collection and of Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.3.4) on the prerequisites for effective positive action schemes.
- 183.
Henrard (2000), pp. 11–13.
- 184.
Id. at pp. 12 and 13.
- 185.
Medda-Windischer (2009), p. 172.
- 186.
Tavani (2012), pp. 172 and 173.
- 187.
- 188.
- 189.
Medda-Windischer (2009), p. 173.
- 190.
For instance: ECHR, art. 8 (respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) and Protocol 1 to the ECHR (20 March 1952), art. 2 (right to education). This was addressed in Sect. 2.4.2 on the shift towards substantive equality in the case law of the EctHR. See Sect. 2.5.2 on the right to privacy and Sect. 2.7.2 on the right to education. Medda-Windischer (2009), p. 175.
- 191.
UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (27 November 1978).
- 192.
Lerner (2003), p. 176.
- 193.
- 194.
Explanatory Report on the Draft Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (25 September 1978).
- 195.
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, New York (3 February 1992), art. 1.
- 196.
The FCNM was adopted on 10 November 1994 and entered into force on 1 February 1998. Section 2.4.5 focuses on cultural diversity and the importance of awareness-raising and inter-cultural dialogue.
- 197.
Other provisions promoting and protecting minority identity in the FCMN include art. 6 (promotion of mutual respect and understanding and co-operation and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of identity), arts. 7 to 9 (freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion), arts. 10 to 11 (linguistic rights), arts. 12 to 14 (education rights).
- 198.
See, for example: ACFC, Third Opinion on Estonia (1 April 2011), para. 60. ACFC, Third Opinion on Germany (27 May 2010), para. 74. ACFC, Second Opinion on Austria (8 June 2007), para. 62. The importance of close co-operation with Roma during legal and policy processes was first underlined in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.4). See also Sect. 2.4.4 of this chapter on effective participation of minorities in public life.
- 199.
- 200.
Eide (2008), p. 10.
- 201.
UNMD, arts. 1, 2.1 and 4.2. ECRML, arts. 7 and 12. Like the FCNM, these articles refer to important aspects of one’s identity such as religion, language, and culture.
- 202.
ICCPR stipulates in art. 27 that “(i)n those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language”. HR Committee, General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Art. 27) (8 April 1994), paras. 1, 6.1 and 6.2. Hernard (2000), pp. 165 and 166.
- 203.
- 204.
- 205.
Eide (2008, p. 11) points out that art. 15 FCNM could be interpreted as including a degree of autonomy regarding to matters specific to minorities. Arts. 3 to 7 and art. 16 FCNM also relate to aspects of effective participation of minorities in public affairs. For an in-depth discussion on effective participation, see: ACFC, Commentary on Effective Participation of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in Cultural, Social and Economic Life and in Public Affairs (27 February 2008); Medda-Windischer (2009), pp. 211–229; Verstichel (2009), pp. 285–327.
- 206.
Verstichel (2009), p. 66.
- 207.
Hofmann (2008), p. 178.
- 208.
Ahmed (2011), pp. 38 and 39. Part II of the book focuses on positive action.
- 209.
The Explanatory Report to the FCNM also includes a non-exhaustive list of measures States can take to promote effective participation of minorities, such as consultation with, involvement of, undertaking studies with, effective participation of minorities and the establishment of a local or decentralised form of governments. Explanatory Report to the FCNM (1 February 1995), para. 80.
- 210.
- 211.
ACFC, Commentary on Effective Participation of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in Cultural, Social and Economic Life and in Public Affairs (27 February 2008), para. 30.
- 212.
- 213.
- 214.
Public life is defined more broadly than political participation. UNMD, arts. 2.2 and 4.5. Verstichel (2009), p. 251.
- 215.
UNMD, arts. 2.3 and 5.
- 216.
ECRML, art. 13.
- 217.
FCNM, recital 7.
- 218.
FCNM, art. 6.2.
- 219.
ACFC, Third Opinion on Norway (30 June 2011), para. 72.
- 220.
Id. at paras. 72 and 74.
- 221.
- 222.
- 223.
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version) (TFEU). Treaty Establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) (21 February 2001), former art. 151.4. Ahmed (2011), p. 185. See also Sect. 2.7.2.3 for a consideration of the role of education in minority protection and empowerment.
- 224.
- 225.
See Sect. 2.1 on equality and anti-discrimination.
- 226.
See Sect. 2.6 on personal data protection.
- 227.
- 228.
Gellert et al. (2013), p. 82.
- 229.
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (28 January 1981) (Convention 108), art. 1. The Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (10 October 2018), which modernises Convention 108 (Convention 108+), also highlights the close connection between privacy and data protection. Personal data protection and the data protection reform at CoE level will be considered in Sect. 2.6. The personal data protection rules and principles included in Convention 108(+) will be analysed in Chap. 3 (Sects. 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7).
- 230.
Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (27 April 2016) (GDPR), preamble 4. The GDPR’s predecessor, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (24 October 1995) (Directive 95), also stressed the interrelatedness of privacy and personal data protection in its preamble. Personal data protection and the data protection reform at EU level will be further discussed in Sect. 2.6. The personal data protection rules and principles included in the GDPR will be analysed in Chap. 3 (Sects. 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7).
- 231.
Recommendation CM/Rec(97)18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning the Protection of Personal Data Collected and Processed for Statistical Purposes (30 September 1997), appendix art. 3.1 Explanatory Memorandum of Recommendation No.R(97)18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning the Protection of Personal Data Collected and Processed for Statistical Purposes (30 September 1997), para. 65.
- 232.
For references to the ECHR, see, for instance: GDPR, preamble 73. Explanatory Report to Convention 108 (28 January 1981), paras. 19 and 55. The notion personal data protection will be introduced in Sect. 2.6. The data protection rules and principles included in the GDPR and Convention 108(+) will be discussed in Chap. 3 (Sects. 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7). Chap. 3 also includes the analysis of personal data protection through the right to private life (Sect. 3.6).
- 233.
The ICCPR prohibits arbitrary and unlawful interferences with privacy by States authorities or natural or legal persons. See Sect. 2.5.4 on the conditions to which interferences with the right to privacy must adhere to. HR Committee, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (The Right to Privacy) (8 April 1988), para. 1.
- 234.
- 235.
Notwithstanding the absence of a similar second paragraph in art. 7 CFEU, art. 52 CFEU contains relatively similar requirements for limitations to the right to respect for private in art. 7 CFEU as those included in art. 8.2 ECHR. Moreover, art. 57 CFEU determines that the meaning and scope of the right to respect for private life will be the same as the corresponding right in the ECHR. Note from the Praesidium on the Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Text of the explanations relating to the complete text of the Charter as set out in CHARTE 4487/00 CONVENT 50 (11 October 2000); González Fuster (2014), pp. 200 and 201. Privacy interferences are considered in Sect. 2.5.4.
- 236.
- 237.
Gutwirth (2002), pp. 29 and 30.
- 238.
Id. at p. 31.
- 239.
- 240.
Gutwirth (2002), pp. 30 and 83.
- 241.
Joseph and Castan (2013), pp. 534.
- 242.
- 243.
Laferty (2014), pp. 522 and 523.
- 244.
EctHR, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (4 December 2008, GC), para. 66. EctHR, Peck v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (28 January 2003), para. 57. EctHR, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 September 2001), para. 57. EctHR, Niemietz v. Germany, Judgment (16 December 1992), para. 29.
- 245.
- 246.
Private life can include activities of a professional or business nature because it is not always possible to clearly distinguish between private and professional or business life. EctHR, Niemietz v. Germany, Judgment (16 December 1992), para. 29. Prior the this judgment, the EcmHR already decided this in the case X v. Iceland from 1975 concerning a prohibition of keeping dogs in Reykjavik. EcmHR, X v. Iceland, Decision (18 May 1975); Rainey et al. (2014), pp. 361 and 362.
- 247.
Peck concerned the disclosure of closed circuit television footage to the media by the local authority operating the system, resulting in the publishing and broadcasting of the applicant’s image in the media. P.G. and J.H. concerned the placement of a listening device in the applicants’ flat and at the police station and the applicants’ conviction and imprisonment based on the recordings thereof. EctHR, Peck v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (28 January 2003), para. 57. EctHR, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 September 2001), para. 57. The EctHR confirmed this in Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (11 July 2002, GC), para. 90. Laferty (2014), p. 526.
- 248.
- 249.
EctHR, Chapman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (18 January 2001, GC), para. 96. Chapman was previously discussed in Sect. 2.4.2 on the achievement of full and effective equality for minorities through the implementation of special measures. It will also be cited in Sect. 2.7.3.3 when analysing the case law of the EctHR on housing.
- 250.
The right to private life thus includes the right to self-determination. Pretty concerned the wish of a paralysed and dying women to commit suicide with the assistance of her husband, without him risking prosecution for helping her. EctHR, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 April 2002), para. 61. Later confirmed in, among others: EctHR, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (11 July 2002, GC), para. 90; Nikolaidis (2015), p. 58; Laferty (2014), p. 526. Suggested further reading: Marshall (2008), pp. 336–355.
- 251.
Baghai (2012), p. 952.
- 252.
- 253.
The rights and freedoms in the ECHR must be interpreted alongside social, technological and scientific changes. EctHR, Soering v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (7 July 1989), para. 102. EctHR, Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment (13 June 1979), para. 41. EctHR, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 April 1978), para. 31.
- 254.
- 255.
- 256.
De Hert (2012), p. 39.
- 257.
- 258.
- 259.
The scope of art. 17 ICCPR has also become more clear and very wide as a result of the work of the HR Committee. It mainly concerns HR Committee, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (The Right to Privacy) (8 April 1988). See also HR Committee, General Comment No. 28: Article 3 (The equality of rights between men and women) (29 March 2000), which determines in para. 20 that women and men have an equal right to enjoy privacy. Laferty (2014), pp. 522 and 523. Suggested further reading: Rainey et al. (2014), pp. 366–410; Joseph and Castan (2013), pp. 554–558; Nowak (2005), pp. 386–391 and 403.
- 260.
Finn et al. (2013), pp. 6, 26, 28 and 29.
- 261.
Privacy of personal communication and privacy of personal data are jointly referred to as information privacy. In 2013, Finn et al. proposed an alteration and expansion of Clarke’s categories to seven categories of privacy by replacing privacy of personal data with privacy of data and image, privacy of thoughts and feelings, privacy of location and space and privacy of association. Clarke (2013); Finn et al. (2013), pp. 6 and 7.
- 262.
See Sect. 2.5.3 on the inclusion of personal data protection in the right to privacy and Sect. 2.6 on the notion of personal data protection. See also Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.6) on the protection of personal data through the right to private life when discussing the key rules governing ethnic data collection.
- 263.
- 264.
Gutwirth (2002), p. 85.
- 265.
- 266.
See, for instance: Bezanson (1992, p. 1135): “a concept of privacy based on the individual’s control of information rather than on generalized social controls on information”. Miller (1971, p. 25): “Of late, however, lawyers and social scientists have been reaching the conclusion that the basic attribute of an effective right of privacy is the individual’s ability to control the circulation of information relating to him”. Breckenridge (1970, p. 1): “Privacy (…) is also the individual’s right to control dissemination of information about himself”. Westin (1967, p. 5): “Privacy is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others”.
- 267.
HR Committee, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (The Right to Privacy) (8 April 1988), para. 10.
- 268.
The EctHR ruled for the first time in Malone v. the United Kingdom (1984) that the monitoring and storing of information through telephone communication violate art. 8 ECHR because it was done without the consent of the data subject. In Leander v. Sweden (1987), the EctHR confirmed that the mere storage of personal information by the police interferes with the right to respect for private life in art. 8 ECHR. See: EctHR, Malone v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (2 August 1984), para. 84. EctHR, Leander v. Sweden, Judgment (26 March 1987), para. 48.
- 269.
EctHR, Z v. Finland, Judgment (25 February 1997), para. 71.
- 270.
EctHR, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (4 December 2008, GC), para. 66.
- 271.
- 272.
EcmHR, Yvonne Chave née Julien v. France, Decision (9 July 1991).
- 273.
Telephone calls, emails, and Internet usage at work also fall under private life, as does the monitoring thereof when no warning of liability to monitoring was made because failure to do so creates reasonable expectation that such communication qualify under the protection of private life. EctHR, Copland v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (3 April 2007), paras. 41 and 42.
- 274.
Even though the GPS receiver in the case was attached to a car, the authorities demonstrated a clear intent to systematically collect and store data on the applicant by surveilling Uzun for several months. EctHR, Uzun v. Germany, Judgment (2 September 2010), paras. 49 to 53. For a discussion of the case, see: De Hert and Van Caeneghem (2010), pp. 1448–1460.
- 275.
- 276.
- 277.
HR Committee, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (The Right to Privacy) (8 April 1988), paras. 4 and 8.
- 278.
HR Committee, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (The Right to Privacy) (8 April 1988), paras. 7 and 8. The importance of a case-to-case approach to exceptions to the prohibition of interferences with personal data protection within the framework of the EctHR case law will be considered in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.6.1).
- 279.
- 280.
Joseph and Castan (2013), pp. 536.
- 281.
HR Committee, Rafael Armando Rojas García v. Colombia, Views (3 April 2001), para. 10.3.
- 282.
- 283.
Limitations to the right to respect for private life in art. 7 CFEU must adhere to the same requirements as the ones described in art. 8.2 ECHR.
- 284.
- 285.
See, in particular, Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.6.1) on the legality, necessity and legitimacy of personal data protection interferences. Proportionality will also be considered in Chap. 6 as a normative element of positive action (Sect. 6.1.2.2), in Chaps. 7 and 8 when reviewing the international and the European framework on positive action, in Chap. 9 on soft and strong positive action measures for Roma (Sect. 9.1.3), and in Chap. 10 (Sect. 10.1) on positive action for Roma in four key areas.
- 286.
The case concerned the freedom of expression, more specifically the freedom of the press to inform the public and the right of the public to be properly informed about matters of undisputed public concern, following an injunction prohibiting The Sunday Times from publishing an article on the out-of-court settlement negotiations for children born with severe deformities following pregnant women’s use of the drug thalidomide. EctHR, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (26 April 1979), para. 49. This was confirmed in EctHR, Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 March 1996, GC), para. 31.
- 287.
- 288.
Nardell (2010), p. 46.
- 289.
- 290.
EctHR, Connors v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 May 2004), para. 50. EctHR, Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 September 1999), para. 88. EctHR, Gillow v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (24 November 1986), para. 55. EctHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (22 October 1981), para. 54. EctHR, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (7 December 1976), paras. 50 to 59.
- 291.
- 292.
- 293.
EctHR, Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (8 July 2003, GC), paras. 103 and 123.
- 294.
States’ margin of appreciation is narrower when it concerns an interference with a right that is crucial for individuals to effectively enjoy their key rights, and wider when it concerns the application of social or economic policies. EctHR, Connors v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 May 2004), para. 82. See also: EctHR, Gillow v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (24 November 1986), para. 55. EctHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (22 October 1981), para. 52.
- 295.
De Hert (2012), p. 40 (ref. 14).
- 296.
- 297.
- 298.
Joseph and Castan (2013), p. 541.
- 299.
HR Committee, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (The Right to Privacy) (8 April 1988), para. 1.
- 300.
- 301.
See, for example: EctHR, I v. Finland, Judgment (17 July 2008), para. 36. EctHR, K.U. v. Finland, Judgment (2 December 2008), para. 42. EctHR, X and Y v. the Netherlands, Judgment (26 March 1985), para. 23. EctHR, Airey v. Ireland, Judgment (9 October 1979), para. 32. EctHR, Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment (13 June 1979), para. 31.
- 302.
The case concerned the inability of a father to lodge a criminal complaint on behalf of his 16 year old daughter with mental disabilities who was raped, due to a procedural gap in Dutch law. The latter left the daughter without practical and effective protection, thereby violating art. 8 ECHR. EctHR, X and Y v. the Netherlands, Judgment (26 March 1985), para. 23. This was confirmed in EctHR, I v. Finland, Judgment (17 July 2008), para. 36.
- 303.
- 304.
Nowak (2005), p. 380. Part II of the book focuses on positive action.
- 305.
EctHR, Airey v. Ireland, Judgment (9 October 1979), para. 32.
- 306.
Especially with regards to positive obligations, such a wide margin of appreciation follows from the vagueness of the notion respect. This resulted into diverse practices and thus considerable differences in requirements to ensure effective respect for private life from case to case. The case concerned the application of stricter immigration rules to husbands compared to wives wanting to join or remain with their lawfully and permanently settled spouses in the UK. The distinction between non-nationals based on sex was put in place to protect the British labour market. The EctHR found the different rules to be in violation of art. 14 ECHR in conjunction with art. 8 ECHR. EctHR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (28 May 1985), para. 67. This was confirmed in later cases, such as: EctHR, A, B and C v. Ireland, Judgment (16 December 2010, GC), para. 248. EctHR, Johnston and Others v. Ireland, Judgment (18 December 1986), para. 55(c).
- 307.
See Sect. 2.5.4 on the conditions that interferences with privacy must fulfil.
- 308.
- 309.
The EctHR added that the legitimate aims mentioned in art. 8.2 ECHR could be relevant in striking the balance, while recalling that this paragraph actually refers to interferences and thus to negative obligations. EctHR, Rees v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 September 1986), para. 37. The EctHR repeated this in: EctHR, Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (8 July 2003, GC), paras. 70 and 98.
- 310.
The EctHR found that “(t)he mere refusal to alter the register of births or to issue birth certificates whose contents and nature differ from those of the birth register cannot be considered as interferences”. EctHR, Rees v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 September 1986), paras. 35 and 42.
- 311.
The EctHR took into consideration the fact that the UK government had payed for the Rees’ medical treatment. It also underlined that is was aware “of the seriousness of the problems affecting transsexuals and of their distress” and advised the UK government to keep “the need for appropriate measures under review, having regard particularly to scientific and societal developments”. EctHR, Rees v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 September 1986), paras. 45 to 47.
- 312.
Laferty (2014), p. 590.
- 313.
EctHR, Evans v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (10 April 2007, GC), para. 75. EctHR, Dickson v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (4 December 2007, GC), paras. 70 and 71. EctHR, Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (8 July 2003, GC), paras. 70 and 98. EctHR, Odièvre v. France, Judgment (13 February 2003), para. 40.
- 314.
See Sect. 2.5.1 on the interrelatedness of privacy and personal data protection.
- 315.
- 316.
Negrin (2003).
- 317.
Gellert et al. (2013), p. 75.
- 318.
Resolution (73)22 of the Committee of Ministers on data protection of the privacy of individuals vis-à-vis electronic data banks in the private sector (26 September 1973). Resolution (74)29 of the Committee of Ministers on data protection of the privacy of individuals vis-à-vis electronic data banks in the public sector (20 September 1974).
- 319.
OECD, Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flow of Personal Data (23 September 1980) as revised on 11 July 2013.
- 320.
Kirby (2011), pp. 10–12.
- 321.
- 322.
Gutwirth (2002), p. 87.
- 323.
- 324.
See Sect. 2.5.1 on the interrelatedness and complementarity of privacy and personal data protection.
- 325.
Free flow of information is enshrined in various instruments, including: ICCPR, art. 19.2. ECHR, art. 10. GDPR, art. 1. Convention 108, arts. 1 and 12. Explanatory Report to the Convention 108 (28 January 1981), para. 19. OECD, Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flow of Personal Data (23 September 1980) as revised on 11 July 2013. González Fuster (2014), p. 130.
- 326.
As of 9 May 2019, Convention 108 is in force in 54 countries. For an up-to-date overview of ratifications and signatures, see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/108/signatures (Accessed 9 May 2019).
- 327.
Explanatory Report to Convention 108 (28 January 1981), paras. 2 and 3.
- 328.
- 329.
States must also adopt appropriate sanctions and remedies for violations of these national measures. Convention 108, arts. 4.1 and 10. Explanatory Report to Convention 108 (28 January 1981), paras. 39 and 60.
- 330.
Meija (2011), p. 14.
- 331.
Convention 108, art. 3.1.
- 332.
Polakiewicz (2011), pp. 42 and 43.
- 333.
- 334.
As of 1 June 2019, Convention 108 applies in seven non-Members of the Council of Europe. It concerns Argentina, Cabo Verde, Mauritius, Mexico, Senegal, Tunisia and Uruguay. For an up-to-date overview of ratifications and signatures, see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/108/signatures (Accessed 9 May 2019). FRA and CoE (2014), p. 17.
- 335.
- 336.
Recommendation CM/Rec(97)5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of medical data (13 February 1997).
- 337.
Recommendation CM/Rec(87)15 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Regulating the Use of Personal Data in the Police Sector (17 September 1987).
- 338.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data in the context of profiling (23 November 2010), preamble.
- 339.
Recommendation CM/Rec(97)5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of medical data (13 February 1997).
- 340.
Recommendation CM/Rec(89)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of personal data used for employment purposes (19 January 1989).
- 341.
Recommendation CM/Rec(83)10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of personal data used for scientific research and statistics (23 September 1983).
- 342.
- 343.
Explanatory Memorandum of Recommendation No.R(97)18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning the Protection of Personal Data Collected and Processed for Statistical Purposes (30 September 1997), para. 3.
- 344.
Section 2.6.2.1 briefly discussed recommendations and their role in the CoE data protection framework.
- 345.
- 346.
- 347.
- 348.
Kierkegaard et al. (2011), p. 224.
- 349.
- 350.
Propositions of Modernisation by the Consultative Committee of the Convention for Convention 108 (18 December 2012).
- 351.
Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (10 October 2018).
- 352.
As of 9 May 2019, 27 States had signed but not yet ratified the Protocol amending Convention 108. For an up-to-date overview of ratifications and signatures, see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/223/signatures (Accessed 9 May 2019).
- 353.
Council of Europe (2018).
- 354.
- 355.
Explanatory Report to Convention 108 (28 January 1981), para. 1.
- 356.
Modernisation of Convention 108: new proposals by the Consultative Committee of Convention 108 (27 April 2012), p. 3. See Sect. 2.6.6 on the inclusion of an autonomous right to personal data protection in EU law. See also Sects. 2.5.2 and 2.5.3, which expanded on the inclusion of personal data protection in the right to privacy through the case of law of the EctHR.
- 357.
Final document on the modernisation of Convention 108 by the Consultative Committee of Convention 108 (15 June 2012), p. 86.
- 358.
The proposed modernised Convention 108 stipulated that the purpose of the Convention “is to secure for every individual (…) the protection of their personal data”. The proposed explanatory report stated that the right to such protection has acquired a specific meaning in the case law of the EctHR on the right to respect for private and family life in art. 8 ECHR and that it is enshrined as a fundamental right in art. 8 CFEU, while at the same time emphasising that “the right to the protection of personal data is not an isolated right but an enabling one without which other rights and fundamental freedoms – such as the right to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of movement and the right to a fair trial – could not be exercised and enjoyed in the same manner”. See: Propositions of Modernisation by the Consultative Committee of the Convention for Convention 108 (18 December 2012), art. 1. Draft Explanatory Report of the Modernised Version of Convention 108 by the Consultative Committee of Convention 108 (25 June 2015), para. 12.
- 359.
The introduction of a separate right to data protection in EU law by the Treaty of Lisbon will be addressed in Sect. 2.6.6.
- 360.
Protocol amending Convention 108, art. 2. Convention 108+, art. 1.
- 361.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (24 October 1995) (Directive 95). Later Directives provide more detailed provisions on data protection in areas that were also covered by Directive 95 to balance other legitimate interests. See, for example: Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communication services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (15 March 2006). Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (12 July 2002).
- 362.
Directive 95, recitals 2 and 4 and art. 1.
- 363.
Directive 95, recitals 7 to 9.
- 364.
Directive 95, recitals 10 and 23 and arts. 4.1 and 22 to 24. See also: Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) and Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) v. Administración del Estado, Judgment (24 November 2011), para. 35; Reding (2012), pp. 120 and 121.
- 365.
Directive 95, recital 5.
- 366.
Directive 95, recital 23.
- 367.
- 368.
Directive 95, recital 11.
- 369.
Directive 95, recital 27 and art. 3.1. De Schutter (2007), p. 858. Contrary to Convention 108, Convention 108+ covers both automated and non-automated processing of personal data. Protocol amending Convention 108. See Convention 108+, arts. 2(b) and art. 2(c).
- 370.
Convention 108, art. 2(c). Explanatory Report to Convention 108 (28 January 1981), para. 31. During the reform process of Convention 108, the Committee of Ministers not only added the collection, but also the preservation, disclosure, making available and destruction of personal data to the definition of data processing in Convention 108+. Protocol amending Convention 108, art. 3(2). Convention 108+, art. 2(b). Kierkegaard et al. (2011), p. 225.
- 371.
Furthermore, art. 2(b) Directive 95 also covered the “organisation, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction” of personal data. In the GDPR’s definition of ‘processing’ in art. 4(2), the recording and restructuring of personal data were added to that list, while blocking was replaced by restriction.
- 372.
Convention 108 leaves the option open for application to bodies with legal personality in art. 3.2(b). González Fuster (2014), p. 136.
- 373.
Directive 95, recital 16 and art. 3.2.
- 374.
Council Framework Decision 2008/877/JHA on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (27 November 2008).
- 375.
Directive 95, art. 3.2.
- 376.
Convention 108+, art. 3(2).
- 377.
One way of doing so is by strengthening the powers and independency of DPAs. See arts. 51 to 59 GDPR, which replaced art. 28 Directive 95. Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012), p. 8.
- 378.
National data protection legislation included significantly different substantive and procedural rules across Member States. Commission Communication, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (3 March 2010), pp. 3 and 4; Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012), p. 8; Alidadi (2017), p. 21.
- 379.
Council Conclusions on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union (Council Conclusions) (24–25 February 2011), recital 10–11; Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012), pp. 3 and 4; Commission Communication, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (3 March 2010), pp. 3 and 4; De Hert and Papakonstantinou (2012b), p. 132; Hustinx (2011), p. 17; Reding (2012), p. 121.
- 380.
- 381.
Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012), p. 4.
- 382.
Art. 16 TFEU replaced art. 286 Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice Consolidated version) (21 February 2001) (TEC). Art. 16.2 TFEU does not mention a specific type of legal instrument, so it may be a Regulation, Directive or Decision (art. 289.1 TFEU). Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (25 January 2012), p. 5. Council Conclusions (24–25 February 2011), art. 3. Reding (2012), p. 120.
- 383.
- 384.
Prior to Lisbon, there were three different legal bases for personal data processing: former art. 286 TEC (European Community institutions and bodies), former art. 95 TEC (former first pillar) and former arts. 30.1(b) and 34.2(b) TEC (former third pillar). As a result, three different instruments were adopted: Regulation 45/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (18 December 2000), Directive 95 and Council Framework Decision 2008/877/JHA on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (27 November 2008). Reding (2012), p. 120.
- 385.
Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (25 January 2012). Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012), p. 4.
- 386.
Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data (25 January 2012). Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012), p. 4.
- 387.
FRA and CoE (2014), pp. 21 and 22.
- 388.
Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012), p. 8.
- 389.
Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (25 January 2012), pp. 5 and 6. Reding points out that the Regulation would still leave some room for Member States to adopt national legislation. This could, for example, be the case to specify the application of certain Regulation elements or to enact supplementary legislation or specific rules. Reding (2012), pp. 121 and 122.
- 390.
Reding (2012), p. 122. See also the Declaration on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation (13 December 2007) that acknowledges that specific nature of the fields judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation.
- 391.
For instance, hearsay and profiling may play a role in police investigations, personal data may need to be stored long-term, different rights to information and right to access to police files containing personal information. De Hert and Papakonstantinou (2012a), p. 2.
- 392.
De Hert and Papakonstantinou (2012a), p. 2.
- 393.
De Hert and Papakonstantinou (2012b), p. 132.
- 394.
- 395.
The GDPR entered into force on 24 May 2016 and has applied directly in all Member States since 25 May 2018.
- 396.
The Police and Criminal Justice Authorities Directive entered into force on 6 May 2016 and the Member States had until 6 May 2018 to transpose it into national legislation. Directive 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences of the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (27 April 2016).
- 397.
- 398.
- 399.
Convention 108, art. 2(a). Convention 108+, art. 2(a). This legal instrument primarily protects natural persons, but allows States to extend protection to legal persons in their domestic legislation.
- 400.
GDPR, art. 4.1. Legal persons are not protected by the GDPR.
- 401.
- 402.
This must be “assessed on a case-by-case basis” and “technological and other developments may change what constitutes ‘unreasonable’ time, effort or other means”. Explanatory Report to the Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (10 October 2018) (Explanatory Report Protocol amending Convention 108), para. 17.
- 403.
Explanatory Report Protocol amending Convention 108 (10 October 2018), para. 17. GDPR, art. 4.1. Recital 26 GDPR indicates that “account should be taken of all the means likely reasonably likely to be used”, including costs and time, available technology and technological development, to determine whether or not a person is (in)directly identifiable.
- 404.
This includes most forms of discrimination testing and anonymous workplace monitoring. These practices will be considered when reviewing the data sources of ethnic data collection in Chap. 4 (Sects. 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). The anonymisation of personal data will be discussed in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.4.7) on the storage limitation rule in the European data protection framework. See: Convention 108(+), arts. 1 and 2(a). Explanatory Report Protocol amending Convention 108 (10 October 2018), paras. 17 to 19. GDPR, recital 26. Opinion 4/2007 of Article 29 Data Protection Working Party on the Concept of Personal Data (20 June 2007), p. 21.
- 405.
- 406.
Explanatory Report Protocol amending Convention 108 (10 October 2018), para. 18. GDPR, art. 4.1. Recital 30 GDPR explains that the latter may refer to “internet protocol addresses, cookie identifiers and other identifiers such as radio frequency identification tags”. The reform process of the EU data protection framework was considered in Sect. 2.6.3.2.
- 407.
- 408.
Id.
- 409.
During the negotiations process to review Directive 95, De Hert and Papakonstantinou (2012b, p. 133) pointed out that the retention of the distinction between personal and sensitive data is a cause of concern, because it overlooks the fact that sensitive data may also be inferred from normal personal data processing by using new, intensive data-processing techniques. Nevertheless, the newly adopted GDPR maintains the distinction, as does Convention 108+. See: GDPR, section 3. Convention 108 (+), art. 6. The core data protection rules will be discussed in Chap. 3 (Sects. 3.3– 3.5).
- 410.
Convention 108(+), art. 6. GDPR, art. 9.1. Suggested further reading on the notions personal and sensitive data as included in European data protection law, see: FRA and CoE (2018a), pp. 83–97.
- 411.
CFEU, art. 8.3. TFEU, art. 16.2.
- 412.
Polakiewicz (2011), pp. 42 and 43.
- 413.
- 414.
Convention 108+, art. 23.
- 415.
Article 29 Working Party included representatives of the data protection authorities (DPAs) of the Member States and the Community institutions as well as a representative of the European Commission. Directive 95, art. 29.
- 416.
The European Commission’s proposal to replace the Article 29 Working Party with an independent European Data Protection Board in order “to improve its contribution to consistent application of data protection law and to provide a strong basis for cooperation among data protection authorities, including the European Data Protection Supervisor; and to enhance synergies and effectiveness by foreseeing that the secretariat of the European Data Protection Board will be provided by the European Data Protection Supervisor” was included in the arts. 69 to 76 GDPR (see art. 70 for the tasks of this independent Board). Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012), pp. 8 and 9; De Hert and Papakonstantinou (2012b), p. 141.
- 417.
De Hert and Papakonstantinou (2012b), p. 141.
- 418.
GDPR, art. 68. In May 2018, the EDPB endorsed the GDPR-related guidelines of Article 29 Working Party.
- 419.
This includes objections by supervisory authorities in ‘one-stop-shop’ cross-border cases (see Sect. 2.6.5.2 for more on this), conflicting views on the ‘lead’ between different supervisory authorities, and failure of a supervisory authorities to request or follow the EDPB’s opinion. GDPR, arts. 65, 68, 69 and 70.
- 420.
GDPR, art. 70.
- 421.
These bodies may also send their respective respresentatives. The European Commission may participate in the EDPB’s activities and meetings, but does not have voting rights. GDPR, arts. 68.3 and 68.5.
- 422.
See Sect. 2.6.5.1 on the role of supervisory bodies at CoE and EU level.
- 423.
- 424.
Directive 95, recital 62.
- 425.
Directive 95, art. 28. Similarly, art. 7.3 CFEU determines that independent authorities are responsible to ensure compliance with the key data protection principles enumerated in art. 7.2 CFEU.
- 426.
Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows (8 November 2001), which entered into force in 2004. Convention 108 does not contain an explicit provision on independent supervisory authorities. It does, however, stipulate in art. 11 that State Parties have the possibility of granting “data subjects a wider measure of protection than that stipulated in this Convention”. Kierkegaard et al. (2011), p. 229.
- 427.
Gellert et al. (2013), pp. 72 and 73.
- 428.
Directive 95, art. 28. Gellert et al. (2013), pp. 72 and 73.
- 429.
Directive 95, art. 28.6.
- 430.
Convention 108+ adds the need for complete impartiality, while the GDPR states that the DPAs must remain free from external influence. Complete independence can be safeguarded by means of various elements, including by ensuring that DPAs can choose their own staff and use separate annual budgets. Convention 108+, arts. 15.5 and 15.6. Explanatory Report Protocol amending Convention 108 (10 October 2018), para. 129. GDPR, art. 52.1. Suggested further reading on the notion complete independence: FRA and CoE (2018a, b), pp. 191–194.
- 431.
- 432.
Convention 108+, art. 15. Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows (8 November 2001), art. 1. GDPR, art. 58.
- 433.
This is called the ‘one-stop-shop’ mechanism. It requires the establishment of a lead supervisory authority as well as the exchange of information, mutual assistance, joint investigations and the adoption of binding decisions in order to ensure consistency. GDPR, arts. 56.1 and 60 to 62. Suggested further reading: FRA and CoE (2018a, b), pp. 195–199.
- 434.
FRA and CoE (2018a), p. 198.
- 435.
Convention 108+, arts. 16 and 17. GDPR, arts. 60.1 to 60.3.
- 436.
Convention 108+, art. 17.3.
- 437.
See Sect. 2.6.3.2 on the review of the European data protection framework.
- 438.
The CFEU became legally binding on 1 December 2009 with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
- 439.
- 440.
See Sect. 2.5.3 for a review of the case law of the EctHR on the inclusion of data protection in the right to privacy life in art. 8 ECHR. See also Sect. 2.6.2.2 on the wording used in art. 1 Convention 108+ on the aim of the instrument. Note that the GDPR explicitly refers to natural person’s right to the protection of personal data as a fundamental right and to art. 16.1 TFEU. GDPR, recital 1 and art. 1.2.
- 441.
Some national constitutions recognise the right to personal data protection per se, whereas others conceive it as derivate of the right to privacy. See, for instance, Sect. 2.6.2.2 in which the German government’s point of view regarding the proposed inclusion of an explicit reference to the right to personal data protection in Convention 108+ was addressed. González Fuster (2014), p. 199.
- 442.
FRA, Opinion 2/2012 on the proposed data protection reform package, 1 October 2012, para. 25. Article 7 CFEU was previously mentioned in Sect. 2.5.2 on privacy as a relative and contextual notion that focuses on individual self-determination.
- 443.
Some consider the right to data protection in art. 8 CFEU as a human right separate and complementary to privacy in art. 7 CFEU. See: Büllesbach et al. (2010), p. 2. Others argue that art. 8 CFEU merely develops art. 7 CFEU regarding the field of personal data processing. See: European Union Network of Independent Experts in Fundamental Rights (2006), p. 90. Suggested further reading: González Fuster (2014), pp. 198–205.
- 444.
CFEU, art. 51. FRA and CoE (2014), p. 21.
- 445.
Gellert et al. (2013), pp. 63 and 64.
- 446.
See, for example: CJEU, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen, Judgment (9 November 2010, GC), para. 48. CJEU, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik Osterreich, Judgment (12 June 2003), para. 80. The conditions that interferences with the right to private life in art. 8 ECHR must fulfil, were analysed in Sect. 2.5.4.
- 447.
- 448.
Art. 52.3 CFEU stipulates that in so far CFEU rights correspond with ECHR rights, their meaning and scope “shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention”, but that this shall not prevent EU law to provide more extensive protection. This article does apply to art. 8 CFEU, because the ECHR does not contain a corresponding article stipulating the right to the protection of personal data. The requirements that limitations to the right to personal data protection must adhere to, correspond to the legality, necessity and legitimacy principles that apply to interferences with privacy, as discussed in Sect. 2.5.4. González Fuster (2014), p. 203.
- 449.
- 450.
- 451.
Id.
- 452.
- 453.
- 454.
- 455.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on policies for Roma and/or Travellers in Europe (20 February 2008); Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the International Commission of Jurists (Maastricht Guidelines) (26 January 1997), paras. 1 to 3; O’Connell (2012), pp. 5, 6, 31 and 32; Van Bueren (2002), p. 457; Eide and Rosas (2001), p. 5.
- 456.
Scott (1999), pp. 633 and 634.
- 457.
Not all human rights instruments make such a textual division. Later documents, such as the CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (20 November 1989) (CRC) include both categories of rights.
- 458.
Set within the framework of the Cold War, West-Europe and North-America focused on civil and political rights, whereas Soviet and developing countries emphasised on socio-economic rights. The distinction between different types of rights is sometimes done by way of generations of human rights, with civil and political rights as the first generation, economic, social and cultural rights as the second generation, and solidary rights such as the right to development and to self-determination as the third generation. Like Eide and Rosas, the author rejects the notion of generations because such a strict division is not supported by the national evolution of human rights. Jaroń (2012), p. 29; O’Connell (2012), p. 30; Whelan and Donnelly (2007), pp. 908–911; Eide and Rosas (2001), p. 4.
- 459.
The most important are: Maastricht Guidelines (26 January 1997), para. 4. Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Limburg Principles) (8 January 1987), para. 3. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (25 June 1993), para. I.5.
- 460.
- 461.
- 462.
- 463.
The right to education is a mixed right that contains elements of both categories of rights. Eide and Eide and Rosas (2001), pp. 4 and 5. The European Social Charter only applies to nationals of other Contracting Parties who are lawfully resident or working regularly within the territory of the Contracting Party concerned. The Revised European Charter entered into force on 1 July 1999 and will progressively replace the European Social Charter. European Social Charter (18 October 1961) (ESC). Revised European Social Charter (3 May 1996) (Revised ESC).
- 464.
O’Connell (2012, pp. 22 and 46) explains that the HR Committee uses the freestanding anti-discrimination provision in art. 26 ICCPR to extend access to socio-economic where there is no legal protection for such rights. Examples include, for example, discrimination in pension benefits between married men and married women (F. H. Zwaan-de Vries v. The Netherlands, Views (9 April 1987), paras. 12.3 to 15) and discrimination in different pension levels for retired soldiers depending on their citizenship (Ibrahima Gueye et al. v. France, Views (6 April 1989), paras. 5.2, 9.4 and 9.5). Moreover, the HR Committee considers that certain substantive rights in the ICCPR necessarily imply protection of socio-economic rights. For instance, provision of medical treatment might be needed in pre-trial detention in order to prevent a violation of the right to life under art. 6.1 ICCPR (Yekaterina Pavlovna Lantsova v. the Russian Federation, Views (26 March 2002), para. 9.2). Shelton (2014), pp. 170 and 171; Meyerson (2008), pp. 36 and 37; Henrard (2013, p. 41) states that the EctHR could do the same in the framework of the free-standing prohibition of discrimination in Protocol 12 to the ECHR.
- 465.
The EctHR ruled that the claimant has a right to legal assistance if this is indispensable for ensuring effective access to the court. Airey, EctHR Application No. 6289/73 at para. 26. Shelton (2014, pp. 173 and 174) refers to case law where the EctHR rules that art. 8 ECHR applies when serious environmental pollution adversely affects the private and family life of a person, even if it does not necessarily endanger their health. See, among others: EctHR, Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (8 July 2003, GC), para. 96. EctHR, Anna Maria Guerra and Others v. Italy, Judgment (19 February 1998, GC), paras. 57 and 60.
- 466.
Shelton (2014), p. 179.
- 467.
- 468.
- 469.
- 470.
See, for example: CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2 para. 1) (14 December 1990). CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Art. 13) (8 December 1999). CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing (Art. 11 para. 1) (13 December 1991). Report on the fiftieth and fifty-first sessions of the CESCR Committee (2014), para. 59.
- 471.
Individuals as well as groups of individuals may submit a communication to the CESCR Committee (art. 2). Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (10 December 2008).
- 472.
The Commission on Human Rights and its successor, the Human Rights Council, appointed several special rapporteurs over the years, such as on Education or on Adequate Housing. It concerns independent, honorary experts who undertake country visits, respond to individual complaints of alleged violations, and develop constructive dialogues with relevant actors, including States and civil society, to facilitate the implementation of the rights included in their mandate. They are part of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council.
- 473.
- 474.
- 475.
- 476.
- 477.
States must ensure a minimum of essential levels of each right, promptly remove barriers inhibiting full enjoyment and may not deliberately take retrogressive steps without justifying them fully within the framework of the totality of CESCR rights and the maximum available resources. Scarce resources does not relieve States of these minimum obligations. CESCR Committee, CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2 para. 1) (14 December 1990), paras. 9 and 10; Limburg Principles (8 January 1987), paras. 8, 12, 16 to 34 and 70 to 73; Maastricht Guidelines (26 January 1997), paras. 691 to 701; Shelton (2014), pp. 171 and 172.
- 478.
- 479.
- 480.
Socio-economic rights may also imply negative obligations, such as the prohibition of unlawful evictions to realize the right to housing. Fredman (2008), p. 68.
- 481.
- 482.
- 483.
Jaroń (2012), p. 29.
- 484.
- 485.
- 486.
- 487.
See Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.1) on the particular vulnerability of Roma. EctHR, Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, Judgment (16 March 2010, GC). EctHR, Sampanis and Others v. Greece, Judgment (5 June 2008). EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007). HR Committee, Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (22 August 2013), para. 10. CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (14 September 2011a), para. 12. Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee), Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (17 June 2011b), paras. 30, 61 and 65. CRC Committee, Concluding Observations on Bulgaria (23 June 2008), para. 56. CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000), para. 18.
- 488.
- 489.
See: UDHR, art. 26. ICESCR, arts. 13 and 14. CRC, arts. 28 and 29. Protocol 1 to the ECHR. CFEU, art. 14. RED, arts. 1 and 3. Resolution of the Council and Ministers of Education on School Provision for Gypsy and Traveller children (22 May 1989). Declaration of the European Parliament on Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (6 May 1989), art. 16.
- 490.
Coomans calls it an empowerment right that enables individuals to claim their rights against the State and to enjoy the benefit of other rights. CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Art. 13) (8 December 1999), para. 1; Jaroń (2012), pp. 119–121; Koch (2009), pp. 149 and 150; Coomans (2002), pp. 219 and 220; Nowak (2001), pp. 245.
- 491.
- 492.
- 493.
Jaroń (2012), p. 121.
- 494.
Nowak (2001), p. 251.
- 495.
See also: UDHR, art. 26.2. CRC, art. 29.1(a), (b) and (d). UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (14 December 1960), art. 5.1(a). FCNM, art. 6.1 (promotion of mutual respect and understanding and co-operation). Revised ESC, art. 17 (full development of the personality, physical and mental capacities). Nowak (2001), p. 245.
- 496.
CRC, art. 29.1.
- 497.
Nowak (2001), p. 246.
- 498.
UDHR, art. 26. ICESCR, arts. 13 and 14. CRC, arts. 28 and 29. Nowak (2001), p. 255.
- 499.
See Sect. 2.7.1 on the essential role of socio-economic rights in international human rights law.
- 500.
FCNM, art. 12.3. UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 1.1(a). CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Art. 13) (8 December 1999), para. 6.
- 501.
Art. 14 ICESCR requires States that have not yet secured compulsory and free primary education to work out a detailed plan for its progressive implementation within a reasonable number of years. Economic, financial or other difficulties do not relieve States of this obligation. See: CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education (Art. 14) (10 May 1999), para. 3. See also: UDHR, art. 26.1. ICESCR, art. 13.2(a). CRC, art. 28. UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 4. Revised ESC, art. 17.2 (free primary and secondary education).
- 502.
EctHR, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, Judgment (7 December 1976), para. 50.
- 503.
UDHR, art. 26.3 (prior right of the parents to choose the kind of education their children shall receive). ICESCR, art. 13.3. UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 5.1(b) and (c). Declaration of the European Parliament on Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (6 May 1989).
- 504.
ICESCR, art. 13.4. CRC, art. 29.2. UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 5.1(c). FCNM, art. 13.1.
- 505.
FCNM, art. 13.2. The EctHR stated in the Belgian Linguistics Case (Judgment (23 July 1968), para. 3) that art. 2 Protocol 1 to the ECHR does not oblige States to establish or subsidise any type or level of education. Such restrictive interpretation renders the right to education illusionary for groups without sufficient means establish their own educational facilities. See: van Dijk et al. (2006), p. 899.
- 506.
Minority rights protection was discussed in Sect. 2.4.
- 507.
- 508.
See Sect. 2.3.3 on promoting diversity and countering assimilation through pluralism.
- 509.
CESCR Committee General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Art. 13) (8 December 1999), para. 50.
- 510.
FCNM, arts. 12.2 and 14. UNMD, arts. 4.2 and 4.3. ECRML, art. 8. CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000), paras. 23 and 26. CRC Committee, Concluding Observations on Panama (6 October 2011), paras. 63(d) and (e). CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Hungary (16 January 2008), paras. 28 and 51. HR Committee, Concluding Observations on Austria (15 November 2007), para. 21. ACFC, Third Opinion on Estonia (1 April 2011), paras. 132 and 135. ACFC, Third Opinion on Finland (14 October 2010), para. 126. Henrard (2000), p. 191.
- 511.
On the contrary, the EctHR ruled in the Belgian Linguistics Case that art. 2 Protocol 1 to the ECHR does not include the right to be educated in the language preferred by the parents because linguistic preferences are not included in the notion religious and philosophical convictions. EctHR, Belgian Linguistics case, Judgment (23 July 1968), para. 6. Such restrictive interpretation disregarding the cultural or linguistics preferences of minorities in education is criticised. See: Cullen (1993), pp. 171 and 172.
- 512.
- 513.
FCNM, art. 12.1. UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 5.1(c). UNMD, art. 4.4.
- 514.
- 515.
- 516.
UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 1.1(b) and (c).
- 517.
- 518.
- 519.
UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 5.1. (c). FCNM, art. 14. UNMD, arts. 4.2 and 4.3. ECRML, art. 8. The ACFC supports multilingual education. See, for example: ACFC, Third Opinion on Lithuania (28 November 2013), paras. 80, 82 and 90. ACFC, Second Opinion on Estonia (24 February 2005), paras. 117, 118 and 122. Hofmann (2008), p. 176.
- 520.
ICERD, arts. 1.4 and 5(e)(v).
- 521.
HR Committee, Concluding Observations on Slovakia (22 August 2003), para. 18. CRC Committee, Concluding Observations on Bulgaria (23 June 2008), para. 58(c). CRC Committee, Concluding Observations on Slovakia (10 July 2007), para. 58(c). ACFC, Third Opinion on Poland (28 November 2013), paras. 141 to 151. ACFC, Third Opinion on the Czech Republic (1 July 2011), paras. 110 to 118. ACFC, Commentary on Education under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2 March 2006), pp. 16, 17 and 21. Henrard (2013), p. 59.
- 522.
Multi-cultural education involves respect for the different educational needs of different cultural groups. Inter-cultural education concerns constructive interaction between different cultural groups. Commentary of the Working Group on Minorities to the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (4 April 2005), para. 66. Ringelheim (2013a), pp. 95–102.
- 523.
The cases are based on art. 14 ECHR in conjunction with art. 2 Protocol 1 to the ECHR. Goodwin criticises the EctHR for not using the term segregation in D.H. and Others, because it denies itself the opportunity to state “that segregation per se is indiviously evil”. The EctHR mentions segregation once in Sampanis and Others v. Greece, Judgment (5 June 2008), para. 77. Goodwin (2009a), pp. 122 and 123.
- 524.
EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), paras. 184, 193 and 199 to 201 and 207.
- 525.
Sampanis concerned Roma-only classes. The separate classes in Oršuš also had some non-Roma children.
- 526.
EctHR, Sampanis and Others v. Greece, Judgment (5 June 2008), paras. 96 and 97.
- 527.
The temporary placement of children in separate classes is not automatically contrary to art. 14 ECHR when effective safeguards are put in place at each stage of the implementation of the measure in order to protect members of a specific ethnic group who are disproportionately or exclusively affected by the measure. In casu, however, there was no objective test examining linguistic skills, no effectively adapted curriculum and no monitoring procedure following progress and ensuring transfer to mainstream, mixed classes. There was no automatic placement of Roma in separate classes in this case. EctHR, Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, Judgment (16 March 2010, GC), paras. 152, 155, 157, 158 to 162, 164, 165, 172 to 175, 184 and 185.
- 528.
- 529.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2014).
- 530.
Holt (2008), p. 203.
- 531.
See, for instance: ICERD, art. 5(e)(iii). Revised ESC, art. 31. Housing is included in the right to an adequate standard of living in the following instruments: UDHR, art. 25.1. ICESCR, art. 11.1. CEDAW, art. 14.2(h). CRC, art. 27.
- 532.
Leckie (2001), p. 149.
- 533.
- 534.
See, for example: ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre v. Italy, Decision (7 December 2005), para. 46. ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, Decision (8 December 2004), paras. 46 and 47. CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom (1 September 2011), para. 28. CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on Slovenia (27 August 2010), para. 10. CRC Committee, Concluding Observations on Bulgaria (23 June 2008), paras. 53 and 54. CRC Committee, Concluding Observations on Slovakia (10 July 2007), para. 55. EctHR, Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria, Judgment (24 April 2012), paras. 129 to 133. ACFC, Fourth Opinion on Slovakia (3 December 2014), para. 87. ACFC, Third Opinion on the Czech Republic (1 July 2011), paras. 12, 19, 50, 53, 141 and 143. ACFC, Third Opinion on the United Kingdom (30 June 2011), paras. 92 to 94, 97 and 98.
- 535.
See Sect. 2.7.1 on the essential role of socio-economic rights in international human rights law.
- 536.
OHCHR (2014).
- 537.
Final report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on housing rights on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, Mr. Rajindar Sachar, on the right to adequate housing (12 July 1995), para. 12.
- 538.
Leckie (2001), pp. 150, 152 and 153.
- 539.
The notion progressive realisation was discussed in Sect. 2.7.1.
- 540.
OHCHR (2014).
- 541.
- 542.
Leckie (2001), p. 152.
- 543.
The ESC did not contain such a right to housing, but included separate provisions on housing rights of families, migrant workers and the elderly. See: ESC, arts. 16 and 19.4. Additional Protocol to the ESC (5 May 1988), art. 4.
- 544.
- 545.
The State must provide adequate housing within a reasonable period of time. Temporary shelter is inadequate housing. ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre v. Italy, Decision (7 December 2005), para. 35.
- 546.
- 547.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2005)04 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on improving the housing conditions of Roma and Travellers in Europe (23 February 2005), para. 3.
- 548.
See, for example: ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre v. France, Decision (19 October 2009), paras. 40 and 41. ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, Decision (8 December 2004), paras. 46 and 47. CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom (22 May 2009), para. 30. Ringelheim (2013b), pp. 436 and 437.
- 549.
- 550.
ACFC, Third Opinion on the United Kingdom (30 June 2011), para. 96.
- 551.
Art. 8 ECHR, including the right to respect for one’s home, was first introduced in Sect. 2.5.2 on the right to privacy.
- 552.
See, for example: EctHR, J Giacomelli v Italy, Judgment (2 November 2006), para. 76.
- 553.
- 554.
EctHR, Niemietz v. Germany, Judgment (16 December 1992), paras. 30 and 31.
- 555.
EctHR, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 September 1996), para. 54.
- 556.
Buckley was the first Roma case ruled upon by the EctHR. A home within the framework of art. 8 ECHR does not have to be established legally. EctHR, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 September 1996), paras. 54 and 55.
- 557.
EctHR, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 September 1996), paras. 54, 55, 60, 63, 74–77 and 80–85.
- 558.
The general interests at play were planning objections and the reaching of the desired maximum number of Roma sites in the area. EctHR, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 September 1996), paras. 60, 63, 74–77 and 80–85. The EcmHR stated that art. 8 ECHR forms “an intrinsic part of her personal security and well-being”, that special consideration must be paid to the Roma in planning and that the interference by the State was excessive and disproportionate, thereby violating art. 8 ECHR. EcmHR, June Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Report (11 January 1995), paras. 76, 83–86.
- 559.
- 560.
EctHR, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 September 1996), Dissention Opinion of Judge Pettiti.
- 561.
EctHR, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 September 1996), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Lohmus. See Sect. 2.1.3 on formal and substantive equality. See also Chap. 6 on complementing the traditional approach to equality (Sect. 6.1.4) and on the enhancement of culture through the promotion of diversity as the second aim of positive action (Sect. 6.4.2).
- 562.
- 563.
- 564.
O’Nions (2007), p. 82.
- 565.
- 566.
EctHR, Chapman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (18 January 2001, GC).
- 567.
Id. at para. 73.
- 568.
Id.
- 569.
Id. at para. 93.
- 570.
Id. at para. 96.
- 571.
- 572.
Henrard (2008), pp. 114 and 115.
- 573.
EctHR, Chapman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (18 January 2001, GC), para. 98.
- 574.
- 575.
EctHR, Chapman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (18 January 2001, GC), para. 116.
- 576.
Ringelheim (2013b), pp. 427 and 431–434.
- 577.
EctHR, Connors v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 May 2004).
- 578.
- 579.
EctHR, Connors v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 May 2004), para. 94.
- 580.
- 581.
O’Nions (2007), p. 83.
- 582.
EctHR, Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria, Judgment (24 April 2012), paras. 102 and 103.
- 583.
EctHR, Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria, Judgment (24 April 2012), para. 130. Similarly, the CERD Committee stipulates that States must “provide alternative, culturally appropriate accommodation” for Roma before evictions are carried out. See: CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom (1 September 2011), para. 28.
- 584.
- 585.
Henrard (2013), pp. 60 and 61.
- 586.
Henrard (2000), p. 109.
- 587.
Id.
- 588.
Ahmed (2011), pp. 186 and 187.
- 589.
See, for example: High Level Advisory Group of Experts on the Social Integration of Ethnic Minorities and their Full Participation in the Labour Market (2007), pp. 3, 4, 7, 19, 30, 31, 39, 40 and 45. The essential role of socio-economic rights in international human rights law was discussed in Sect. 2.7.1. See also Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.1) on the particular vulnerability of Roma in Europe today.
- 590.
- 591.
Drzewicki (2001), p. 223.
- 592.
Id. at p. 223.
- 593.
Id. at p. 223.
- 594.
Id. at pp. 226 and 227.
- 595.
UDHR, art. 23.1. ICESCR, art. 6.1. CEDAW, art. 11.1(a). (Revised) ESC, art. 1. CFEU, art. 15.1.
- 596.
ICCPR, art. 8. ECHR, art. 4. CFEU, arts. 5.1 and 5.2.
- 597.
Drzewicki (2001), p. 234.
- 598.
Sanz Caballero (2008), p. 166.
- 599.
Ashiagbor (2005), pp. 244 and 246.
- 600.
UDHR, art. 23.1. CFEU, art. 30 (unjustified dismissal).
- 601.
Revised ESC, art. 1.3.
- 602.
CFEU, art. 29.
- 603.
See: UDHR, arts. 23.1, 23.3 and 24. CEDAW, art. 11.1(c)-(f). Revised ESC, arts. 2 to 4. CFEU, art. 31.
- 604.
CRC, art. 32. Revised ESC, arts. 7 and 8. CFEU, arts. 32 and 33.
- 605.
Birth and adoption get equal protection under the CFEU. Art. 11.2 CEDAW also covers protection of women in case of marriage or maternity.
- 606.
See also: Revised ESC, arts. 1.4, 9 and 10. CFEU, art. 14.1.
- 607.
UDHR, art. 23.4. ICESCR, art. 8.1. Revised ESC, art. 24.3. CFEU, art. 12.1.
- 608.
Revised ESC, arts. 6, 21 and 22. CFEU, arts. 27 and 28.
- 609.
ICESCR, art. 7. CEDAW, art. 11.1(b)-(f).
- 610.
- 611.
Racial discrimination is prohibited with regard to “(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration; (ii) The right to form and join trade unions”.
- 612.
UDHR, art. 23.2. ICESCR, art. 7. TFEU, art. 157 (former art. 141 TEC).
- 613.
RED, art. 3.1(a) to (f).
- 614.
- 615.
CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Costa Rica (4 January 2008), para. 39. The international framework on positive action and the possible compulsory nature of such measures under certain circumstances will be analysed in Chap. 7 (Sect. 7.2). Furthermore, Chap. 8 (Sect. 8.1.2) will zoom in on the CoE framework on positive action and explain that the ECSR and the ACFC require the adoption of positive action measures under certain circumstances.
- 616.
CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Hungary (16 January 2008), para. 34. CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Ukraine (4 January 2008), para. 37. ACFC, First Opinion on Ireland (22 May 2003), paras. 36 and 37. This will be further addressed in Chap. 10 (Sect. 10.4) when providing examples of positive action for Roma in employment.
- 617.
For instance: CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Ukraine (4 January 2008), para. 8. CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Hungary (16 January 2008), para. 34. ACFC, First Opinion on Ireland (22 May 2003), para. 36. See Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1) for a discussion on the five main benefits of ethnic data collection, Chap. 5 (Sect. 5.1.1) on the need for reliable data on Roma, and Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.3.4) on the link between ethnic data and positive action.
- 618.
- 619.
Toebes (2012), p. 86.
- 620.
Id.
- 621.
Constitution of the WHO (22 July 1946).
- 622.
Constitution of the WHO (22 July 1946), recital 2.
- 623.
UDHR, art. 25.
- 624.
- 625.
- 626.
Toebes (2012), p. 87.
- 627.
Hervey (2005), p. 305.
- 628.
- 629.
CFEU arts. 3 and 1 respectively.
- 630.
UDHR, recitals 1 and 5 and arts. 1, 22 and 23.3.
- 631.
- 632.
Kenner connects art. 35 CFEU with the analogous provision in art. 168.1 TFEU (former art. 152.1 TEC). Kenner (2003), p. 544.
- 633.
CEDAW, art. 12. CRC, art. 24. ESC, art. 11.
- 634.
- 635.
Toebes (2012), pp. 89 and 90.
- 636.
- 637.
CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2 para. 1) (14 December 1990), para. 10.
- 638.
- 639.
- 640.
- 641.
CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on Guatemala (19 May 2010), para. 13. CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on Colombia (28 August 2009), para. 22. CESCR Committee General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12) (11 August 2000), para. 12. WHO (1981), pp. 31–38. Henrard (2013), p. 62.
- 642.
- 643.
- 644.
Toebes (2001), pp. 179 and 180.
- 645.
For instance: ACFC, Third Opinion on Portugal (4 December 2014), paras. 90 and 106. ACFC, Fourth Fourth Opinion on Slovakia (3 December 2014), paras. 25, 84, 85 and 88. ACFC, Fourth Opinion on Spain (3 December 2014), paras. 32, 112 and 113. Henrard (2013), p. 61. Intersectional discrimination was first introduced in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.3).
- 646.
- 647.
CRC Committee, Concluding Observations on Slovakia (10 July 2007), para. 49.
- 648.
Hervey (2005), p. 305.
- 649.
ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre v. Bulgaria, Decision (3 December 2008), paras. 49 to 51. In the same line, the CESCR Committee states in its General Comment No. 14 that “indigenous peoples have the right to specific measures to improve their access to health care”. See: CESCR Committee, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12) (11 August 2000), para. 27.
- 650.
- 651.
- 652.
Hervey (2005), pp. 311 and 312.
- 653.
References
Legal Instruments
United Nations
Constitution of the World Health Organization (22 July 1946)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (18 December 1979) UNTS vol. 1249, 13
Convention on the Rights of the Child (20 November 1989) A/RES/44/25
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (31 December 2006) A/RES/61/106
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (21 December 1965) UNTS vol. 660, 195
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966) UNTS vol. 999, 171
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (16 December 1966) UNTS vol. 993, 3
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (10 December 2008) A/RES/63/117
UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (14 December 1960) UNTS vol. 429, 93
Council of Europe
Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows (8 November 2001) ETS 181
Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter (5 May 1988) ETS 127
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (28 January 1981) ETS 108
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950) ETS 5
European Social Charter (18 October 1961) ETS No. 35
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1 February 1995) ETS 157
Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (20 March 1952) ETS 9
Protocol 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 2000) ETS 177
Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (10 October 2018) ETS 223
Revised European Social Charter (3 May 1996) ETS 163
European Union
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (7 December 2000) OJ 2000/C 364/01
Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (29 June 2000) OJ 2000/L 180/22
Council Framework Decision 2008/877/JHA on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (27 November 2008) OJ 2008/L 350/60
Decision No. 1098/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) (22 October 2008) OJ 2008/L 298/20
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (24 October 1995) OJ 1995/L 281/31
Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (12 July 2002) OJ 2002/L 201/37
Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communication services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (15 March 2006) OJ 2006/L 105/54
Directive 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences of the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (27 April 2016) OJ 2016/L 119/89
Regulation 45/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (18 December 2000) OJ 2001/L 8/1
Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (27 April 2016) OJ 2016/L 119/1
Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice Consolidated version) (21 February 2001) OJ 2002/C 325/33
Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version) OJ 2008/C 155/13
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version) OJ 2012/C 326/47
National Level
Austria, Federal Act Governing Equal Treatment (Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) Federal Gazette I No. 66/2004 as amended in Federal Law Gazette I No. 107/2013
Finland, Non-Discrimination Act 1325/2014 (Yhdenvertaisuuslaki 1325/2014) (30 December 2014)
France, Proposition of law to delete the word “race” from our legislation (Proposition de loi tendant à suppression du mot “race” de notre legislation) (13 May 2013)
Sweden, Act 307/2003 Prohibiting Discrimination (Lag 2003:307 om förud mot diskriminering) (5 June 2003) Svensk Författningssamling, 2003-06-16, Vol. 7, No. 307, pp. 1–5
Non-legally Binding Instruments
United Nations
Commentary of the Working Group on Minorities to the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (4 April 2005) E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.5/2005
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (3 February 1992) A/RES/47/136 (1994)
Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (8 September 2001) A/CONF.189/12, endorsed in A/RES/56/266 (2002)
Explanatory Report on the Draft Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (25 September 1978) 20C/18
Final report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on housing rights on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, Mr. Rajindar Sachar, on the right to adequate housing (12 July 1995) E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/12
Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2000 (19 November 1981) A/Res/36/43
Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Limburg Principles) (8 January 1987) E/CN.4/1987/17 Annex
Memorandum of United Nations Secretary-General on The Main Types and Causes of Discrimination (1953) UN Sales No. 49.XIV.3
Report of the Special Rapporteur on combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (20 August 2015) A/70/335
Report on the fiftieth and fifty-first sessions of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2014) E/2014/22 and E/C.12/2013/3
UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (27 November 1978) E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/2/Add.1 annex V
UNESCO Proposal on the biological aspects of race (August 1964)
UNESCO Statement on race (July 1950)
UNESCO Statement on race and racial prejudice (September 1967)
UNESCO Statement on the nature of race and race differences (June 1951)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948) GA Res. 217 A(III)
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (25 June 1993) A/CONF.157/23 (1993)
Working Paper submitted by Asbjørn Eide on the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (13 May 1998) E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC5/1998/WP.1
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flow of Personal Data (23 September 1980) C(80)58/FINAL as revised on 11 July 2013 by C(2013)79
Council of Europe
Draft Explanatory Report of the Modernised Version of Convention 108 by the Consultative Committee of Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing from Personal Data (25 June 2015). Available via Council of Europe. www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/dataprotection/TPD_documents/Draft%20explanatory%20report%20-%20modernised%20Convention%20108%20-%20June26.pdf. Accessed 2 December 2018
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (4 November 1992) ETS 148
Explanatory Memorandum of Recommendation No.R(97)18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning the Protection of Personal Data Collected and Processed for Statistical Purposes (30 September 1997)
Explanatory Report to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (28 January 1981) ETS 108
Explanatory Report to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (5 November 1992) ETS 148
Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1 February 1995) ETS 157
Explanatory Report to the Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (10 October 2018) ETS 223
Final document on the modernisation of Convention 108 by the Consultative Committee of of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (15 June 2012) T-PD (2012)04Mos
Modernisation of Convention 108: new proposals by the Consultative Committee of of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (27 April 2012) T-DP-BUR(2012)01Rev2_en
Propositions of Modernisation by the Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (18 December 2012) T-DP_2012_04_rev4_E
Recommendation CM/Rec(83)10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of personal data used for scientific research and statistics (23 September 1983)
Recommendation CM/Rec(87)15 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Regulating the Use of Personal Data in the Police Sector (17 September 1987)
Recommendation CM/Rec(89)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of personal data used for employment purposes (19 January 1989)
Recommendation CM/Rec(97)5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of medical data (13 February 1997)
Recommendation CM/Rec(97)18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning the Protection of Personal Data Collected and Processed for Statistical Purposes (30 September 1997)
Recommendation CM/Rec(2005)04 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on improving the housing conditions of Roma and Travellers in Europe (23 February 2005)
Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on policies for Roma and/or Travellers in Europe (20 February 2008)
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data in the context of profiling (23 November 2010)
Resolution (73)22 of the Committee of Ministers on data protection of the privacy of individuals vis-à-vis electronic data banks in the private sector (26 September 1973)
Resolution (74)29 of the Committee of Ministers on data protection of the privacy of individuals vis-à-vis electronic data banks in the public sector (20 September 1974)
Resolution 1740 of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe (22 June 2010)
European Union
Commission Communication, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (3 March 2010) COM(2010) 2020 final
Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011) COM(2011) 173 final
Commission Communication, Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World – A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century (25 January 2012) COM(2012) 9 final
Commission Green Paper, Equality and non-discrimination in an enlarged European Union (28 May 2004) COM(2004) 379 final
Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data (25 January 2012) COM(2012) 10 final
Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (25 January 2012) COM(2012) 11 final
Commission Staff Working Document, Roma in Europe: The Implementation of European Union Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion – Progress Report 2008-2010 (7 April 2010) SEC(2010) 400 final
Council Conclusions on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union (24–25 February 2011)
Declaration of the European Parliament on Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (6 May 1989) OJ 1989/C 120/51
Declaration on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation - Annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Lisbon Treaty (13 December 2007) OJ 2007/C 306/0257
Note from the Praesidium on the Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Text of the explanations relating to the complete text of the Charter as set out in CHARTE 4487/00 CONVENT 50 (11 October 2000)
Opinion 4/2007 of Article 29 Data Protection Working Party on the Concept of Personal Data (20 June 2007)
Resolution of the Council and Ministers of Education on School Provision for Gypsy and Traveller children (22 May 1989) OJ 1989/C 153/3-4
Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers for Social Affairs meeting within the Council on combating social exclusion (29 September 1989) OJ 1989/C 277/01
Resolution of the European Parliament on Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities for All – A Framework Strategy (14 June 2006) 2005/2191(INI)
Other
Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the International Commission of Jurists (26 January 1997)
Case Law
Human Rights Committee
Coeriel et al. v. The Netherlands, Views (31 October 1994), Communication No. 453/1991
F. H. Zwaan-de Vries v. The Netherlands, Views (9 April 1987) Communication No. 182/1984
Ibrahima Gueye et al. v. France, Views (6 April 1989) Communication No. 196/1985
Leonid Raihman v. Latvia, Views (28 October 2010) Communication No. 1621/2007
Rafael Armando Rojas García v. Colombia, Views (3 April 2001) Communication No. 687/1996
Toonen v. Australia, Views (31 March 1994) Communication No. 488/1992
Yekaterina Pavlovna Lantsova v. the Russian Federation, Views (26 March 2002) Communication No. 763/1997
European Court of Human Rights
A, B and C v. Ireland, Judgment (16 December 2010, GC) Application No. 25579/05
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (28 May 1985) Application Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81
Airey v. Ireland, Judgment (9 October 1979) Application No. 6289/73
Anna Maria Guerra and Others v. Italy, Judgment (19 February 1998, GC) Application No. 14967/89
Beard v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (18 January 2001, GC) Application No. 24882/94
Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (6 February 2001) Application No. 44599/98
Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 September 1996) Application No. 20348/92
Case “Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium” v. Belgium (Belgian Linguistics case), Judgment (23 July 1968) Application Nos. 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63 and 2126/64
Chapman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (18 January 2001, GC) Application No. 27238/95
Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (11 July 2002, GC) Application No. 28957/95
Connors v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 May 2004) Application No. 66746/01
Copland v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (3 April 2007) Application No. 62617/00
D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007) Application No. 57325/00
Dickson v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (4 December 2007, GC) Application No. 44362/04
Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (22 October 1981) Application No. 7525/76
Evans v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (10 April 2007, GC) Application No. 6339/05
Giacomelli v Italy, Judgment (2 November 2006) Application No. 59909/00
Gillow v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (24 November 1986) Application No. 9063/80
Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 March 1996, GC) Application 17488/90
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (7 December 1976) Application No. 5493/72
Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (8 July 2003, GC) Application No. 36022/97
Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (4 May 2001) Application No. 24746/94
I v. Finland, Judgment (17 July 2008) Application No. 20511/03
Johnston and Others v. Ireland, Judgment (18 December 1986) Application No. 9697/82
Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, Judgment (7 December 1976) Applications Nos. 5095/71, 5920/72 and 5926/72
K.U. v. Finland, Judgment (2 December 2008) Application No. 2872/02
Leander v. Sweden, Judgment (26 March 1987) Application No. 9248/81
Loizidou v. Turkey, Judgment (23 March 1995, GC) Application No. 15318/89
Malone v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (2 August 1984) Application No. 8691/79
Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment (13 June 1979) Application No. 6833/74
Mikulić v. Croatia, Judgment (7 February 2002) Application No. 53176/99
Nachova v. Bulgaria, Judgment (6 July 2005, GC) Application Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98
Niemietz v. Germany, Judgment (16 December 1992) Application No. 13710/88
Norris v. Ireland, Judgment (26 October 1988) Application No. 10581/83
Odièvre v. France, Judgment (13 February 2003) Application No. 42326/98
Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, Judgment (16 March 2010, GC) Application No. 15766/03
Peck v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (28 January 2003) Application No. 44647/98
P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 September 2001) Application No. 44787/98
Pretty v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (29 April 2002) Application No. 2346/02
Rees v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 September 1986) Application No. 9532/81
Sampanis and Others v. Greece, Judgment (5 June 2008) Application No. 32526/05
S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (4 December 2008, GC) Application Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04
Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment (22 December 2009, GC) Application Nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06
Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (27 September 1999) Application Nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96
Soering v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (7 July 1989) Application No. 14038/88
The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (26 April 1979) Application No. 6538/74
Thlimmenos v. Greece, Judgment (6 April 2000, GC) Application No. 34369/97
Timishev v. Russia, Judgment (13 December 2005) Application Nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00
Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Judgment (25 April 1978) Application No. 5856/72
Uzun v. Germany, Judgment (2 September 2010) Application No. 35623/05
V.C. v. Slovakia, Judgment (8 November 2011) Application No. 18968/07
X and Y v. the Netherlands, Judgment (26 March 1985) Application No. 8978/80
Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, Judgment (24 April 2012) Application No. 25446/06
Z v. Finland, Judgment (25 February 1997) Application No. 22009/93
European Commission on Human Rights
June Buckley v. the United Kingdom, Report (11 January 1995)
Niemietz v. Germany, Decision (29 May 1991)
X v. Iceland, Decision (18 May 1975)
Yvonne Chave née Julien v. France, Decision (9 July 1991)
European Committee of Social Rights
European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v. France, Decision (5 December 2007) Collective Complaint No. 39/2006
European Roma Rights Centre v. Bulgaria, Decision (3 December 2008) Collective Complaint No. 47/2007
European Roma Rights Centre v. France, Decision (19 October 2009) Collective Complaint No. 51/2008
European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, Decision (8 December 2004) Collective Complaint No. 15/2003
European Roma Rights Centre v. Italy, Decision (7 December 2005) Collective Complaint No. 27/2004
Court of Justice of the European Union
Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) and Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) v. Administración del Estado, Judgment (24 November 2011) Joined Cases C-468/10 and C-469/10
Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik Osterreich, Judgment (12 June 2003) Case C-112/00
Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen, Judgment (9 November 2010, GC) Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09
Country Monitoring
Permanent Court of International Justice
Advisory Opinion regarding Minority Schools in Albania, Opinion (6 April 1935) PCIJ Reports Series A/B, No 64
Human Rights Committee
Concluding Observations on Austria (15 November 2007) CCPR/C/AUT/CO/4
Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (22 August 2013) CCPR/C/CZE/CO/3
Concluding Observations on Slovakia (22 August 2003) CCPR/CO/78/SVK
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Chile summary record (partial) of the 12th meeting (16 February 1988) E/C.12/1988/SR.13
Concluding Observations on Costa Rica (4 January 2008) E/C.12/CRI/CO/4
Concluding Observations on Hungary (16 January 2008) E/C.12/HUN/CO/3
Concluding Observations on Ukraine (4 January 2008) E/C.12/UKR/CO/5
Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom (22 May 2009) E/C.12/GBR/CO/5
North Korea summary record (partial) of the 22nd meeting (25 March 1987) E/C.12/1987/SR.22
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Concluding Observations on Colombia (28 August 2009) CERD/C/COL/CO/14
Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (14 September 2011a) CERD/C/CZE/CO/8-9
Concluding Observations on Guatemala (19 May 2010) CERD/C/GTM/CO/12-13
Concluding Observations on Italy (7 April 1999) CERD/C/304/Add.68
Concluding Observations on Slovenia (27 August 2010) CERD/C/SVN/CO/6-7
Concluding Observations on Sweden (23 September 2003) CERD/C/SWE/CO/19-21
Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom (1 September 2011) CERD/C/GBR/CO/18-20
Committee on the Rights of the Child
Concluding Observations on Bulgaria (23 June 2008) CRC/C/BGR/CO/2
Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (17 June 2011b) CRC/C/CZE/CO/3-4
Concluding Observations on Finland (3 August 2011) CRC/C/FIN/CO/4
Concluding Observations on Panama (6 October 2011) CRC/C/PAN/CO/3-4
Concluding Observations on Slovakia (10 July 2007) CRC/C/SVK/CO/2
Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
First Opinion on Georgia (19 March 2009) ACFC/OP/I(2009)001
First Opinion on Hungary (22 September 2000) ACFC/INF/OP/I(2001)004
First Opinion on Ireland (22 May 2003) ACFC/INF/OP/I(2004)003
First Opinion on Slovakia (22 September 2000) ACFC/INF/OP/I(2001)001
Second Opinion on Austria (8 June 2007) ACFC/OP/II(2007)005
Second Opinion on the Czech Republic (24 February 2005) ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)002
Second Opinion on Estonia (24 February 2005) ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)001
Second Opinion on Ireland (6 October 2006) ACFC/OP/II/II(2006)007
Second Opinion on Romania (24 November 2005) ACFC/OP/II(2005)007
Third Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina (7 March 2013) ACFC/INF/OP/III(2013)003
Third Opinion on the Czech Republic (1 July 2011) ACFC/OP/III(2011)008
Third Opinion on Estonia (1 April 2011) ACFC/OP/III(2011)004
Third Opinion on Finland (14 October 2010) ACFC/OP/III(2010)007
Third Opinion on Germany (27 May 2010) ACFC/OP/III(2010)003
Third Opinion on Italy (15 October 2010) ACFC/OP/III(2010)008
Third Opinion on Lithuania (28 November 2013) ACFC/OP/III(2013)005
Third Opinion on Norway (30 June 2011) ACFC/OP/III(2011)007
Third Opinion on Poland (28 November 2013) ACFC/OP/III(2013)004
Third Opinion on Portugal (4 December 2014) ACFC/OP/III(2014)002
Third Opinion on the United Kingdom (30 June 2011) ACFC/OP/III(2011)006
Fourth Opinion on Slovakia (3 December 2014) ACFC/OP/IV(2014)004
Fourth Opinion on Spain (3 December 2014) ACFC/OP/IV(2014)003
General Comments and Recommendations
Human Rights Committee
General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (The Right to Privacy) (8 April 1988) HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994)
General Comment No. 18: Non-Discrimination (10 November 1989) HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 (2003)
General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Art. 27) (8 April 1994) HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1
General Comment No. 28: Article 3 (The equality of rights between men and women) (29 March 2000) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2 para. 1) (14 December 1990) E/1991/23
General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing (Art. 11 para. 1) (13 December 1991) E/1992/23
General Comment No. 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education (Art. 14) (10 May 1999) E/C.12/1999/4
General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11) (12 May 1999) E/C.12/1995/5
General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Art. 13) (8 December 1999) E/C.12/1999/10
General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12) (11 August 2000) E/C.12/2000/4
General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art. 2, para. 2) (2 July 2009) E/C.12/GC/20
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
General Recommendation No. 14: Definition of Discrimination (Art. 1 para. 1) (22 March 1993) A/48/18 (1994)
General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000) A/55/18, annex V
European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance
General Policy Recommendation No. 7: National legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination (13 December 2002) CRI(2003)8
General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011) CRI(2011)37
Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
Commentary on Education under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2 March 2006) ACFC/25DOC(2006)002
Commentary on Effective Participation of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in Cultural, Social and Economic Life and in Public Affairs (27 February 2008) ACFC/31DOC(2008)001
Literature
Ahmed T (2011) The impact of EU law on minority rights. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Albert G (2011) Forced sterilization and Romani women’s resistance in Central Europe. Different Takes 71:1–4
Alfredsson G (1999) Minority rights and peace: available standards, procedures and institutions. In: Trifunovska S (ed) Minorities in Europe - Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 3–17
Alidadi K (2017) Gauging process towards equality? Challenges and best practices of equality data collection in the EU. Eur Equality Law Rev 2017(2):15–27
Ashiagbor D (2005) The right to work. In: de Búrca G, de Witte B (eds) Social rights in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 241–259
Baer S (2010) The basic law at 60 – equality and difference: a proposal for the guest list to the birthday party. German Law J 11:67–87
Baghai K (2012) Privacy as a human right: a sociological theory. Sociology 46(5):951–965
Ballard R (2002) Race, ethnicity and culture. In: Holborn M (ed) New directions in sociology. Causeway, Ormskirk, pp 9–124
Banton M (1994) Discrimination. Open University Press, Buckingham
Barnard C, Hepple B (2000) Substantive equality. Camb Law J 59:562–585
Baumann G (1999) The multicultural riddle: rethinking national, ethnic and religious identities. Routledge, New York
Beiter KD (2006) The protection of the right to education by international law. Koninklijke Brill, Leiden
Bell M (2007) Direct discrimination. In: Schiek D, Waddington L, Bell M (eds) Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international non-discrimination law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 185–322
Bell M (2008) Racism and equality in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Benoît-Rohmer F (1996) The minority question in Europe: texts and commentary. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Bezanson RP (1992) The right to privacy revisited: privacy, news, and social change, 1890–1990. Calif Law Rev 80:1133–1175
Blank RM, Dabady M, Citro CF (eds) (2004) Measuring racial discrimination. National Academies Press, Washington
Breckenridge AC (1970) The right to privacy. Univeristy of Nebraska Press, Lincoln
Büllesbach A, Gijrath S, Poullet Y, Prins C (eds) (2010) Concise European IT law, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Bulmer M (1996) The ethnic group question in the 1991 census of population. In: Coleman D, Salt J (eds) Ethnicity in the 1991 census, vol 1. HMSO, London, pp 33–62
Bulmer M, Solomos J (1998) Introduction: re-thinking ethnic and racial studies. Ethnic Racial Stud 21(5):819–837
Cardinale G (2004) The preparation of ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 7. In: Niessen J, Chopin I (eds) The development of legal instruments to combat racism in a diverse Europe. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 81–92
Chalmers D, Hadjiemmanuil C, Monti G, Tomkings A (2006) European Union Law: text and materials. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Chopin I, Do TU (2010) Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 27 EU Member States, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey compared. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Clarke R (2013) Introduction to dataveillance and information privacy, and definitions of term. Available via Roger Clarke’s website. www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Intro.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2018
Collins H (2003) Discrimination, equality and social inclusion. Modern Law Rev 66:16–43
Coomans F (2002) In search of the core content of the right to education. In: Chapman A, Russell S (eds) Core obligations: building a framework for economic and cultural rights. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 217–246
Coomans F (2006) Some introductory remarks on the justiciability of economic and social rights. In: Coomans F (ed) Justiciability of economic and social rights. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 1–15
Council of Europe (2018) Convention 108+: the modernised version of a landmark instrument. Available via the Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/data-protection/-/modernisation-of-convention-108. Accessed 6 Mar 2019
Craven M (1995) The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights: a perspective on its development. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Cullen H (1993) Education rights or minority rights? Int J Law Family 7(2):143–177
Dediu M (2007) The European Union: a promotor of Roma diplomacy. In: Nicolae V, Slavik H (eds) Roma diplomacy. International Debate Education Association, New York, pp 113–130
De Hert P (2012) A human rights perspective on privacy and data protection impact assessments. In: Wright D, De Hert P (eds) Privacy impact assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 33–76
De Hert P, Papakonstantinou V (2012a) The police and criminal justice data protection directive: comment and analysis. The IT Law Community SCL Forum/Computers and Law Magazine of SCL 22(6):1–5
De Hert P, Papakonstantinou V (2012b) The proposed data protection regulation replacing Directive 95/46/EC: a sound system for the protection of individuals. Comp Law Secur Rev 28:130–142
De Hert P, Van Caeneghem J (2010) Noot Uzun t. Duitsland: Rechters mogen GPS-toezicht toevoegen aan het bestaande wetgevende arsenaal. Eur Hum Rights Cases 11(11):1448–1460
De Schutter O (2007) Positive action. In: Schiek D, Waddington L, Bell M (eds) Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international non-discrimination law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 757–869
De Schutter O (2008) The framework convention on the protection of national minorities and the law of the European Union. In: Verstichel A, Alen A, De Witte B, Lemmens P (eds) The framework convention for the protection of national minorities: a useful pan-European Instrument? Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 231–272
Drzewicki K (2001) The right to work and rights in work. In: Eide A, Krause C, Rosas A (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights: a textbook, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 223–243
Eide A (2001a) Cultural rights and minorities: on human rights and group accommodation. In: Hastrup K (ed) Legal cultures and human rights. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 25–42
Eide A (2001b) Economic, social and cultural rights as human rights. In: Eide A, Krause C, Rosas A (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights: a textbook, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 9–28
Eide A (2008) Towards a Pan-European instrument? In: Verstichel A, Alen A, De Witte B, Lemmens P (eds) The framework convention for the protection of national minorities: a useful Pan-European Instrument? Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 5–17
Eide A (2013) Ensuring social and economic rights of national minorities through the work of the advisory committee on the framework convention. In: Malloy TH, Caruso U (eds) Minorities, their rights, and the monitoring of the European Framework Convention for the protection of national minorities. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp 43–61
Eide A, Rosas A (2001) Economic, social and cultural rights: a universal challenge. In: Eide A, Krause C, Rosas A (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights – a textbook, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 3–7
Erasmus G (2004) Socio-economic rights and their implementation: the impact of domestic and international instruments. Int J Legal Inform 32:243–259
European Commission (2010) The 10 common basic principles on Roma inclusion. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
European Court of Human Rights Research Division (2011) Cultural rights in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Available via the European Court of Human Rights. www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_cultural_rights_ENG.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2018
European Network Against Racism (2012) Social inclusion and data collection. Available via the European Network Against Racism. cms.horus.be/files/99935/MediaArchive/Factsheet_Final.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2018
European Network of Equality Bodies (2012) Equality bodies combating discrimination on the ground of racial or ethnic origin. Available via Equinet Europe. http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/Race_Perspective_MERGED_-_EN.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2018
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2012) Opinion 2/2012 on the proposed data protection reform package, 1 October 2012. Available via European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. http://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2012/fra-opinion-proposed-eu-data-protection-reform-package. Accessed 27 Oct 2018
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe (2011) Handbook on European non-discrimination Law. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe (2014) Handbook on European data protection law. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe (2018a) Handbook on European data protection law. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe (2018b) Handbook on European Non-discrimination Law – 2018 edition. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Network of Independent Experts in Fundamental Rights (2006) Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Available via UC Louvain. https://sites.uclouvain.be/cridho/documents/Download.Rep/NetworkCommentaryFinal.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2018
Farkas L (2007) Segregation of Roma children in education – addressing structural discrimination through the race equality directive. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Farkas L (2011) How to present a discrimination claim - handbook on seeking remedies under the EU non-discrimination directives. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Farkas L (2017) Data collection in the field of ethnicity. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Finn RL, Wright D, Friedewald M (2013) Seven types of privacy. In: Gutwirth S, Leenes R, De Hert P (eds) European data protection: coming of age. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–32
Fredman S (2005) Changing the norm: positive duties in equal treatment legislation. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 12:369–398
Fredman S (2008) Human rights transformed: positive rights and positive duties. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fredman S (2011) Discrimination law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fried C (1968) Privacy. Yale Law J 77(3):475–493
Gellert R, de Vries K, De Hert P, Gutwirth S (2013) A comparative analysis of anti-discrimination and data protection legislations. In: Custers B et al (eds) Discrimination and privacy in the information society. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–89
Gerards J (2007) Discrimination grounds. In: Schiek D, Waddington L, Bell B (eds) Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international non-discrimination law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 33–184
González Fuster G (2014) The emergence of personal data protection as a fundamental right in the EU. Springer, Vienna
Goodwin M (2009a) Taking on racial segregation: the European Court of human rights at a Brown v. Board of Education Moment. Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn THEMIS 3:14–126
Goodwin M (2009b) Viewing Romani marginalisation through the nexus of race and poverty. In: Schiek D, Chege V (eds) European Union non-discrimination law – comparative perspectives on multidimensional equality law. Routledge, London, pp 137–161
Gutwirth S (2002) Privacy and the information age. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham
Gutwirth S, Leenes R, De Hert P, Poullet Y (2013) Foreword. In: Gutwirth S, Leenes R, De Hert P, Poullet P (eds) European data protection: coming of age. Springer, Dordrecht, pp v–vii
Guy W, Liebich A, Marushiakova E (2010) Improving the tools for the social inclusion and non-discrimination of Roma in the EU – Report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Hadden T (2004) Integration and separation: legal and political choices in implementing minority rights. In: Ghanea N, Xanthaki A (eds) Minorities, peoples and self-determination. Essays in Honour of Patrick Thornberry. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 173–191
Haug W (2001) Ethnic, religious and language groups: towards a set of rules for data collection and statistical analysis. Int Stat Rev 69(2):303–311
Hendriks A (1998) The right to health in national and international jurisprudence. Eur J Health Law 5:389–408
Henrard K (2000) Devising an adequate system of minority protection – individual human rights, minority rights and the right to self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague
Henrard K (2008) The added value of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities (II) – the two pillars of an adequate system of minority protection revisited. In: Verstichel A, Alen A, De Witte B, Lemmens P (eds) The framework convention for the protection of national minorities: a useful pan-European instrument? Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 91–117
Henrard K (2013) Minorities, identity, socio-economic participation and integration: about interrelations and synergies. In: Henrard K (ed) The interrelation between the right to identity of minorities and their socio-economic participation. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 21–72
Hermanin C, Möschel M, Grigolo M (2013) Introduction: how does race ‘count’ in fighting racial and ethnic discrimination in Europe? In: Möschel M, Hermanin C, Grigolo M (eds) Fighting discrimination in Europe – the case for a race-conscious approach. Routledge, London, pp 1–12
Hervey TK (2005) We don’t see a connection: the ‘Right to Health’ in the EU charter and European Social Charter. In: de Búrca G, de Witte B (eds) Social rights in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 305–335
High Level Advisory Group of Experts on the Social Integration of Ethnic Minorities and their Full Participation in the Labour Market (2007) Ethnic minorities in the labour market: an urgent call for better social inclusion. Available via Open Society Foundations. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/report_20071201.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2016
Hofmann R (2008) Implementation of the FCNM: substantive challenges. In: Verstichel A, Alen A, De Witte B, Lemmens P (eds) The framework convention for the protection of national minorities: a useful pan-European instrument? Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 159–185
Hollo L (2006) Equality for Roma in Europe – a roadmap for action. Available via Open Society Foundations. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/equality_2006.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2018
Holt S (2008) Family, private life and cultural rights. In: Weller M (ed) Universal minority rights: a commentary on the jurisprudence of international courts and treaty bodies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 203–252
Howard E (2010) The EU race directive – developing the protection against racial discrimination within the EU. Routledge, Abingdon
Human Rights Watch (1992) Struggling for ethnic identity: Czechoslovakia’s Endangered Gypsies. Available via Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/1992/08/01/struggling-ethnic-identity/czechoslovakias-endangered-gypsies. Accessed 26 Oct 2018
Humphrey JP (1986) Preventing discrimination and positive protection for minorities: aspects of international law. Les Cahiers de Droit 27:23–29
Hustinx P (2011) General context – where we are now and where we are heading – current and future dilemma’s of privacy protection. In: Zombor F (ed) International data protection conference 2011. Hungarian Official Journal Publisher, Hungary, pp 16–19
Ignăţoiu-Sora E (2011) The discrimination discourse in relation to the Roma: its limits and benefits. Ethnic Racial Stud 34(10):1697–1714
Ivanov A (2012) Quantifying the unquantifiable: defining Roma populations in quantitative surveys. Population 3(4):79–95
James A (2008) Making sense of race and racial classification. In: Zuberi T, Bonilla-Silva E (eds) White Logic, White Methods: racism and methodology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, pp 31–34
Jaroń A (2012) Socio-economic constitutional rights in democratisation processes: an account of the constitutional dialogues theory. Peter Lang, New York
Joseph S, Castan M (2013) The international covenant on civil and political rights – cases, materials and commentary, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kenner J (2003) EU employment law: from Rome to Amsterdam and beyond. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Kierkegaard S, Waters N, Greenleaf G, Bygrave LA, Lloyd I, Saxby S (2011) 30 years on – the review of the Council of Europe Data Protection Convention 108. Comp Law Secur Rev 27:223–231
Kirby M (2011) The history, achievement and future of the 1980 OECD guidelines on privacy. Int Privacy Law 1(1):6–14
Koch I (2006) Economic, social and cultural rights as components in civil and political rights: a hermeneutic perspective. Int J Hum Rights 10:405–430
Koch I (2009) Human rights as indivisible – the protection of socio-economic demands under the European convention on human rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Koldinská K (2011) EU non-discrimination law and policies in reaction to intersectional discrimination against Roma women in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Schiek D, Lawson A (eds) European Union non-discrimination law and intersectionality. Routledge, London, pp 241–258
Lador-Lederer J (1968) International group protection: aims and methods in human rights. A. W. Sijthoff, Leyden
Laferty M (2014) Article 8: the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. In: Harris D, O’Boyle M, Bates E, Buckley C (eds) Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick Law of the European convention on human rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 522–591
Lauterpacht H (1945) An international bill of the rights of man. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Leary VA (1993) Implications of a right to health. In: Mahoney K, Mahoney P (eds) Human rights in the twenty-first century: a global challenge. Kluwer-Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 481–494
Leckie S (2001) The human right to adequate housing. In: Eide A, Krause C, Rosas A (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights – a textbook, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 149–168
Lerner N (2003) Group rights and discrimination in international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Liégeois J-P (1994) Roma, Gypsies, Travellers. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg
Lipott S (2012) The Roma as a protected minority? Policies and best practices in the EU. Romanian J Eur Aff 12:78–97
Loenen T (1999) Indirect discrimination: oscillating between containment and revolution. In: Loenen T, Rodriguez PR (eds) Non-discrimination law: comparative perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 195–211
Loenen T, Hendriks A (2000) Noot Thlimmenos tegen Griekenland. NJCM Bull 25:1095–1105
MacEwen M (1995) Tackling racism in Europe: an examination of anti-discrimination law in practice. Berg, Oxford
Makkonen T (2006) Measuring discrimination – data collection and EU equality law. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Makkonen T (2010) Equal in law, unequal in fact – racial and ethnic discrimination and the legal response thereto in Europe. Dissertation, University of Helsinki
Mann JM, Gostin L, Gruskin S, Brennan T, Lazzarini Z, Fineberg HV (1994) Health and human rights. Health Hum Rights 1(1):6–23
Marko J (2013) Five years after. Continuing reflections on the thematic commentary on effective participation. The interplay between equality and participation. In: Malloy TH, Caruso U (eds) Minorities, their rights, and the monitoring of the European framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp 97–120
Marlier E, Atkinson AB, Cantillon B, Nolan B (2007) The EU and social inclusion. Policy Press, Briston
Marshall J (2008) A right to personal autonomy at the European Court of human rights. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 3:336–355
Medda-Windischer R (2009) Old and new minorities: reconciling diversity and cohesion. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Meija A (2011) Keynote speech of the Budapest Conference. In: Zombor F (ed) International Data Protection Conference 2011. Hungarian Official Journal Publisher, Hungary, pp 12–15
Mera C, Iov CA (2013) The social policy in the EU – the national action plans for social inclusion in Spain. Res Sci Today 6:116–124
Meyerson D (2008) Equality guarantees and distributive inequity. Public Law Rev 19:32–51
Miller AR (1971) The assault on privacy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Möschel M (2013) Race in mainland European legal analysis: towards a European critical race theory. In: Möschel M, Hermanin C, Grigolo M (eds) Fighting discrimination in Europe – the case for a race-conscious approach. Routledge, London, pp 13–29
Mowbray A (2005) The creativity of the European Court of human rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 5(1):57–79
Nardell GC (2010) Levelling up: data privacy and the European Court of human rights. In: Gutwirth S, Poullet Y, De Hert P (eds) Data protection in a profiled world. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–52
Negrin K (2003) Collecting ethnic data: an old dilemma, the new challenges. Available via Open Society Foundations. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/collecting-ethnic-data-old-dilemma-new-challenges. Accessed 26 Oct 2018
Niessen J (2001) The further development of European anti-discrimination policies. In: Chopin I, Niessen J (eds) The starting line and the incorporation of the racial equality directive into the national laws of the EU member states and accession states. Commission for Racial Equality/Migration Policy Group, Brussels, pp 7–21
Nikolaidis C (2015) The right to equality in European Human Rights Law – the quest for substance in the jurisprudence of the European Courts. Routledge, Abingdon
Nowak M (1991) The right to education – its meaning, significance and limitations. Netherlands Q Hum Rights 9:418–425
Nowak M (2001) The right to education. In: Eide A, Krause C, Rosas A (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights – a textbook, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 245–271
Nowak M (2005) UN covenant on civil and political rights: CCPR commentary. Engel, Kehl am Rhein
O’Brien CC (1984) What rights should minorities have? In: Whitaker B (ed) Minorities: a question of human rights? Pergamon Press, London, pp 11–22
O’Connell P (2012) Vindicating socio-economic rights – international standards and comparative experiences. Routledge, London
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2014) Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context. Available at OHCHR. www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Housing/Pages/HousingIndex.aspx. Accessed 3 Dec 2018
O’Flaherty M (2006) The concluding observations of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies. Hum Rights Law Rev 6(1):27–52
O’Nions H (1995) The marginalisation of gypsies. Web J Curr Leg Iss 3(6):1–18
O’Nions H (2007) Minority rights protection in international law – the Roma of Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot
Pentassuglia G (2002) Minorities in international law. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Polakiewicz J (2011) Convention 108 – still going strong after 30 years? In: Zombor F (ed) International Data Protection Conference 2011. Hungarian Official Journal Publisher, Hungary, pp 42–46
Räikkä J (1996) Is a membership-blind model of justice false by definition? In: Räikkä J (ed) Do we need minority rights? Conceptual issues. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 3–19
Rainey B, Wicks E, Ovey C (2014) The European convention on human rights, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Reding V (2012) The European data protection framework for the twenty-first century. Int Data Privacy Law 2(3):119–129
Riddell R (2002) Minorities, minority rights and development. Minority Rights Group International, London
Ringelheim J (2006/7) Minority protection, data collection and the right to privacy. Eur Yearb Minority Iss 6:51–77
Ringelheim J (2008/9) Collecting racial or ethnic data for anti-discrimination policies: a U.S.-Europe comparison. Rutgers Race Law Rev 10:39–141
Ringelheim J (2013a) Between identity transmission and equal opportunities: the multiple dimensions of minorities’ right to education. In: Henrard K (ed) The interrelation between the right to identity of minorities and their socio-economic participation. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 91–114
Ringelheim J (2013b) Champan redux: the European Court of human rights and Roma traditional lifestyle. In: Brems E (ed) Diversity and European human rights – rewriting judgments of the ECHR. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 426–444
Ringold D, Orenstein MA, Wilkens E (2005) Roma in an expanding Europe: breaking the poverty cycle. The World Bank, Washington
Ritzer G (2015) Introduction to sociology, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Rughiniș C (2010) The forest behind the bar charts: bridging quantitative and qualitative research on Roma/Țigani in contemporary Romania. Patterns Prejudice 44(4):337–367
Ruiz MC (2003) El derecho a la proteccion de los datos personales en la carta de derechos fundamentales de la union europea: analisis critico. Revista de Derecho Communitario Europeo 7(14):7–43
Sanz Caballero S (2008) The European Social charter as an instrument to eradicate poverty: failure or success. Cuadernos Constitucionales de la Cátedra Fadrique Furió Ceriol 64(65):157–170
Scheinin M (2001) Economic and social rights as legal rights. In: Eide A, Krause C, Rosas A (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights – a textbook, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 29–54
Schiek D (2002) A new framework on equal treatment of persons in EC law? Eur Law J 8(2):290–314
Schiek D (2007) Indirect discrimination. In: Schiek D, Waddington L, Bell M (eds) Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international non-discrimination law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 323–475
Schiek D (2009) From European Union non-discrimination law towards multidimensional equality law for Europe. In: Schiek D, Chege V (eds) European Union non-discrimination law – comparative perspectives on multidimensional equality law. Routledge, London, pp 3–27
Scott C (1999) Reaching beyond (without abandoning) the category of “Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”. Hum Rights Q 21:633–660
Shelton DL (2014) Advanced introduction to international human rights law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Shue H (1984) The interdependence of duties. In: Alston P, Tomaševski K (eds) The right to food. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 83–95
Sigona N (2005) Locating ‘The Gypsy Problem’. The Roma in Italy: stereotyping, labelling and ‘Nomad Camps’. J Ethnic Migr Stud 31(4):741–756
Simon P (2004) Comparative study on the collection of data to measure the extent and impact of discrimination within the United States, Canada, Austria, Great-Britain and the Netherlands – Medis Project. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Simon P (2007) “Ethnic” statistics and data protection in the Council of Europe Countries. Available via the Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Themes/Ethnic_statistics_and_data_protection.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2018
Smis S, Janssens C, Mirgaux S, Van Laethem K (2011) Handboek Mensenrechten – De Internationale Bescherming van de Rechten van de Mens. Intersentia, Mortsel
Smith NM (2011) Basic equality and discrimination – reconciling theory and law. Ashgate, Farnham
Solove DJ (2008) Understanding privacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Spiliopoulou Åkermark S (2013) Images of children in education: a critical reading of DH and others v. Czech Republic. In: Brems E (ed) Diversity and European human rights – rewriting judgments of the ECHR. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 40–67
Tavani C (2012) Collective rights and the cultural identity of Roma: a case study of Italy. Brill – Nijhoff, Leiden
Thornberry P (1991) International law and the rights of minorities. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Thornberry P (2005) Article 13. In: Weller M (ed) The rights of minorities. A commentary of the European framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 393–406
Thornberry P, Martín Estebanez MA (2004) Minority rights in Europe – a review of the work and standards of the Council of Europe. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Tobler C (2005) Indirect discrimination: a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law. Intersentia, Antwerp
Toebes B (2001) The right to health. In: Eide A, Krause C, Rosas A (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights – a textbook, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 169–190
Toebes B (2012) The right to health and other health-related rights. In: Toebes B, Hartlev M, Hendriks A, Rothmar Hermann J (eds) Health and human rights in Europe. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 83–110
Tomuschat C (1983) Protection of minorities under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In: Bernhardt R, Geck WK, Jaenicke G, Steinberger H (eds) Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit Menschenrechte, Festshrift für Hermann Mosler. Springer, Berlin, pp 949–979
Tyson A (2004) The negotiation of the EC directive on racial discrimination. In: Niessen J, Chopin I (eds) The development of legal instruments to combat racism in a diverse Europe. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 111–130
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2006) Conference of European Statisticians Recommendations for the 2010 Censuses of Population and Housing. Available via UNECE. www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/CES_2010_Census_Recommendations_English.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2018
United Nations Statistics Division (2008) Principles and recommendations for a population and housing censuses, Rev. 2. United Nations, New York
Van Bueren G (2002) Including the excluded: the case for economic, social and cultural human rights act. Public Law Autumn Nr.:456–472
van Dijk P, van Hoof F, van Rijn A, Zwaak L (eds) (2006) Theory and practice of the European Convention, 4th edn. Intersentia, Antwerp
Verstichel A (2009) Participation, representation and identity – the right of persons belonging to minorities to effective participation in public affairs: content, justification, limits. Intersentia, Antwerp
Vitorino A (2003) La Court de Justice et les droits fondamentaux depuis la proclamation de la charte. In: Colneric N, Edward D, Puissochet J-P, Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer D (eds) Une communauté de droit: Fetschrift für Gil Carlos Rodriguez Iglesias. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 111–126
Waltzer J-P (2011) The Modernization of the Convention of the Council of Europe for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data (ETS No. 108): moving from a European Standard towards a universal standard for data protection? In: Zombor F (ed) International Data Protection Conference 2011. Hungarian Official Journal Publisher, Hungary, pp 81–86
Westin A (1967) Privacy and freedom. Atheneum Press, New York
Whitman JQ (2004) The two Western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. Yale Law J 113:1151–1153-1221
Wilborn E (1998) Revisiting the public/private distinction: employee monitoring in the workplace. Georgia Law Rev 32:825–887
Whelan DJ, Donnelly J (2007) The west, economic and social rights, and the global human rights regime: setting the record straight. Hum Rights Q 29:908–949
World Health Organization (1981) Global strategy for health for all by the year 2000. World Health Organization, Geneva
World Health Organization (2010) How health systems can address health inequities linked to migration and ethnicity. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen
Xanthaki A (2005) Hope dies last: an EU directive on Roma integration. Eur Public Law 11:515–526
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Caeneghem, J. (2019). Human Rights and the Roma: Key Concepts. In: Legal Aspects of Ethnic Data Collection and Positive Action. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23668-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23668-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23667-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23668-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)