Abstract
This chapter examines how data on Roma, needed for policymaking, can be collected in full respect of this ethnic minority’s human rights and interests. It expands on the large data gaps about Roma across Europe and considers multiple reasons why available data are often incomplete, unreliable or overlook vulnerable sub-groups. It reviews the advantages and disadvantages of various data sources on Roma, including (1) the limitations of official statistics, (2) the added value of research data, (3) the unreliability of complaints data and overrepresentation in crime data, and (4) the significance of international and European monitoring and litigation. This chapter also addresses methodological challenges. On the one hand, the complex and fluid nature of Roma identities complicates the construction of ethnic categories for Roma. On the other hand, the appropriateness of the various ethnical identification approaches depends on the context and purpose of data collection. Furthermore, the chapter examines methodological issues involved in interviewing Roma that affect the quality of the data collected, including sampling, type of interview(ers) and questions asked, and time and budget restrictions. It identifies four factors that must be considered when analysing and reporting on data on Roma, namely (1) biases, (2) terminological and methodological choices, (3) Roma diversity, and (4) transparency of data dissemination. This chapter also considers the impact of privacy and data protection rules on data collection efforts on Roma. Lastly, it highlights three principles—awareness-raising, active participation and genuine political will—that should be fulfilled when collecting data on Roma.
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.
- 3.
Council of Europe (CoE), Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), paras. 9 and 19. Messing (2014), pp. 811, 821 and 822. ERRC (2013b), pp. 7 and 55. FRA (2012a), p. 175. Guy et al. (2010), pp. 5 and 10 and 11. McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 10. Hollo (2006), p. 4. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 187. Petrova (2004), p. 6. Landman and Carvalho (2010), p. 116. Limitations to data comparability will be considered in Sect. 5.6.2. See also Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.4) on implementing, monitoring and evaluating policies as one of the benefits of ethnic data collection.
- 4.
Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (9 December 2013), art. 3.4. CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 12. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), paras. 26 and 27. Resolution 1740 of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe (22 June 2010), art. 11. ERRC (2013b), p. 37. Guy et al. (2010), pp. 10 and 11. McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 10. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 175, 187 and 188. Krizsán (2001), p. 179. See Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.2.1) for a discussion on the exposure of bad government policies and insufficient measures as a fear or risk surrounding ethnic data collection.
- 5.
- 6.
CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), paras. 14, 26 and 27. Hollo (2006), p. 11. Krizsán (2001), pp. 178 and 179. See Chap. 4 on the uncovering of indirect discrimination (Sect. 4.1.2) and on the use of ethnic data to support discrimination claims in legal proceedings (Sect. 4.1.5) as benefits of ethnic data collection.
- 7.
For instance, to confront governments about the lack of progress made. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 25. Gray (2009), p. 55. FRA (2008), p. 111. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. xxiv, xxv, 166 and 172. Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) (2000), p. 10. Section 5.8.1 will zoom in on awareness-raising as a key principle of ethnic data collection on Roma. Awareness-raising was identified as the third benefit of ethnic data collection in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.3).
- 8.
In addition to the international and European bodies mentioned in this section, it also concerns non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including the European Network Against Racism, Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC). The role of NGOs will be discussed further in Sect. 5.2.2 on the added value of research data on Roma. Resolution 1740 of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe (22 June 2010), art. 15.7. Farkas (2017), p. 32. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2011), p. 22. UNICEF (2011), pp. 39–41. OSF (2010), pp. 29, 30 and 40. Halász (2008), p. 26. Open Society Institute (OSI) (2006), p. 2. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 187 and 188. European Commission (2004), p. 47.
- 9.
For instance, the 1999 meeting on the Roma and crime data was co-organised by the PER. There was also a 2-day round table on the issue of Roma and statistics in 2000. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 18. PER (2000), pp. 34 and 35.
- 10.
CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000), para. 46. CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 13. ERRC (2013b), p. 37.
- 11.
See, for example: CESCR Committee, Concluding observations on Greece (27 October 2015), paras. 9, 10, 28, 34 and 40. CESCR Committee, Concluding observations on Ireland (5 June 2002), para. 33.
- 12.
Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues on the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council” (2 February 2007), para. 91.
- 13.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), para. 12. ECRI, Fifth Report on Hungary (19 March 2015), paras. 106–108.
- 14.
ACFC, Fourth Opinion on Slovakia (3 December 2014), para. 26. ACFC, Second Opinion on the Czech Republic (24 February 2005), paras. 10, 34, 37, 51 and 191. ACFC, Third Opinion on Hungary (18 March 2010), paras. 56, 60–62, 127, 134 and 135.
- 15.
- 16.
Brüggemann and Bloem (2013), p. 535.
- 17.
The 12 participating States were Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Spain. Moldova, Norway, Slovenia, and the United States of America had observer status. FRA and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2012), p. 8. In Chap. 4, the acquiring of information on social and economic integration levels (Sect. 4.1.1) and the uncovering of discrimination and the identification of good practices (Sect. 4.1.2) were cited as two of the five main benefits of ethnic data collection.
- 18.
For instance, data on school enrolment, attendance rates and completion rates facilitate the monitoring of primary school completion rates among Roma. Brüggemann and Bloem (2013), pp. 521 and 535. Waldron (2011), p. 47. McDonald and Negrin (2010), pp. 19 and 20. Gray (2009), p. 61. See Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.4) for a discussion on the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies as a benefit of ethnic data collection.
- 19.
This includes both new and already existing data. The Decade Indicator Working Group proposed a unified methodology to track and report on progress made in the inclusion of Roma. The Experts Group on Data and Measurement identified gaps in existing data and suggests improvements. See, for instance: Decade of Roma Inclusion Steering Committee (2004), pp. 5–7.
- 20.
A 2008 a results-based monitoring workshop supported by UNDP helped the Macedonian government to reformulate the monitoring of their action plan. The Serbian Presidency to the Decade organised a similar workshop in 2009 and the Slovakian Presidency in 2010. The World Bank, the UNDP, the CoE and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights supported the Decade, as did so non-governmental organisations such as the ERRC and OSF. The European Union Platform for Roma Inclusion coordinated. McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 22. OSF (2010), p. 49.
- 21.
- 22.
In addition to experts from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK), the ad hoc working group includes experts from the European Commission, Eurofund and UNDP. Commission Communication, Steps forward in implementing National Roma Integration Strategies (26 June 2013), p. 3. FRA (2013a), p. 191.
- 23.
The LERI programme (2013-ongoing) is carried out in 22 localities in 11 Member States (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom). FRA (2014), p. 171.
- 24.
Section 5.8.2 points to active participation of Roma in ethnic data collection as a prerequisite to render such practices effective and successful. See also Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.4) on the key role of cultural identity in Roma inclusion, Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.3.2) on the notion social inclusion, Chap. 9 (Sect. 9.2.4) on the need for consultation and participation of local communities in positive action for Roma, and Chap. 10 (Sect. 10.1) on the importance of a bottom-up approach to positive action.
- 25.
See Sect. 5.1.1 on international and European calls for data on Roma.
- 26.
- 27.
This is, for instance, the case in Serbia, Slovakia and Romania. ERRC (2013b), pp. 50, 67, 75 and 76.
- 28.
For example, official population figures on Roma are available in Bulgaria and the Netherlands, but unavailable in Albania, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Spain and Sweden. FRA (2013b), p. 7. OSF (2010), p. 28. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. xviii and 28. The limitations of official statistics on Roma will be considered in Sect. 5.2.1. For a general consideration of official statistics as a source of ethnic data, see Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.3.1).
- 29.
For instance, the Greek government has data on Roma in primary education while there is no official data collection and local Bulgarian administrations have informal data on the geographic location of Roma communities. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 21. O’Reilly (2014). OSF (2010), pp. 20 and 21. PER (2000), pp. 5, 10 and 11.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Examples include Albania, Romania and Slovakia. Because of the divergent estimates, the CoE uses minimum, maximum and average estimates when dealing with data on Roma population across Europe. CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 12. Messing (2014), p. 822. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 49. Ivanov (2012), p. 80. OSF (2010), pp. 7, 10, 11, 20, 21, 64, 65 and 78. Rughiniș (2010), p. 342. Gray (2009), p. 61. Covrig (2004), p. 90.
- 33.
This is even the case for countries where research on Roma is done regularly. For example, a 2011 regional Roma survey from UNDP, World Bank and the European Commission indicates the employment rate of Roma in Hungary stands at 23%, compared to 36% in a 2011 survey from FRA on the situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States (FRA and UNDP 2012) and 20% in national surveys. Messing (2014), pp. 822 and 823. Clark (1998). Druker (1997), pp. 22 and 23. Research data will be considered as an important data source on Roma in Sect. 5.2.2. Chapter 4 (Sect. 4.3.2) includes a general overview of the advantages and disadvantages of research data.
- 34.
- 35.
For instance, the divergence between official and estimated data on the Roma population in the Decade of Roma Inclusion countries ranges from 45% to 99%. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 15. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 104 and 105. OSF (2010), pp. 10, 11, 23 and 53. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. xiii, xiv and 28. Babusik (2004), pp. 17 and 18. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 9 and 10. Clark (1998). Druker (1997), pp. 22 and 23. The four complementary data sources of ethnic data collection were analysed in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.3).
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 21.
- 39.
- 40.
For instance, UNDP provided “guidelines and set clear indicators for monitoring the effects and impact of the Decade action plans and planning policies”. McDonald and Negrin (2010), pp. 33 and 36.
- 41.
McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 21.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
Exceptions include Austria (studies as baseline), Bulgaria (two nationally representative surveys), Croatia (special steering group), Estonia (informal working group; survey mapping situation Roma), France (set of indicators), Finland (steering group), Hungary (set of indicators; regular reporting; research; data collection) and the Netherlands (baseline qualitative study). Other factors include lack of budget setting and/or the absence of the assignment of responsible authorities/contacts. Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (9 December 2013), para. 3.4. Commission Communication, National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework (21 May 2012), pp. 12 and 13. Commission Communication, Steps forward in implementing National Roma Integration Strategies (26 June 2013), pp. 8 and 15. FRA (2014), p. 172. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 43.
- 47.
Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 11.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
The data can be manipulated by different actors, depending on the political context in which they are used. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 9. UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 27. European Roma Information Office (ERIO) (2009), p. 31. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), p. 8. Clark (1998).
- 51.
The Irish government did not adopt a Traveller health action plan following the Traveller Health Study. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 27. This problem also arises with regard to other types of equality data. For instance, Farkas (2017, pp. 5 and 6) refers to Denmark, where the thorough collection of data on gender does not automatically mean that this information is used to promote equality for women. The notion equality data collection was defined in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.3.1) when introducing ethnic data collection as one of the main topics of this book.
- 52.
- 53.
CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 12. ECRI, Fifth Report on Hungary (19 March 2015), paras. 25, 53–56 and 106–108. Brüggemann and Bloem (2013), p. 520. ERRC (2013b), p. 55. UNICEF (2011), pp. 39–41. Halász (2008), p. 26. Hollo (2006), p. 39. OSI (2006), p. 2. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 187–189. European Commission (2004), p. 47. Acquiring of information on social and economic integration levels and uncovering of discrimination were cited as two of the main benefits of ethnic data collection in Chap. 4 (Sects. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2).
- 54.
- 55.
For instance, the rise in Roma self-identification in the 2011 Montenegrin Census resulted into higher spending of public funds to improve the situation of Roma. CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 12. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 28. ERRC (2013a). Jovanovic and Haliti (2012). Kate (2010), p. 11. Hollo (2006), p. 29. Clark (1998).
- 56.
- 57.
CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 12.
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (9 December 2013), recital 8. ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), para. 15(d) and (e). Farkas (2014), pp. 5 and 15. Jovanovic and Haliti (2012). Rorke (2011). Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 101–103. FRA (2008), p. 86. Kurtic (2006). Ringold et al. (2005), pp. xv, xvi and 84. Covrig (2004), p. 92.
- 63.
Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (9 December 2013), recital 19. Messing (2014), pp. 821–823. Kate (2010), p. 11. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 25. Farkas (2004), p. 22. Petrova (2004), p. 6. Krizsán (2001), p. 192. See Sect. 5.3 on challenges to the construction of ethnic categories for Roma, Sect. 5.4 on the appropriateness different of ethnical identification approaches for Roma, Sect. 5.5 on methodological challenges to conducting surveys on Roma populations, and Sect. 5.6 on four factors impacting the analysis of data sets on Roma populations.
- 64.
- 65.
Section 5.8.3 will further consider the need for genuine political will. See also Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.3.3) on the need for political will and funding to implement effective positive action schemes and Chap. 9 (Sect. 9.2.2) on how the lack of political will limits the use of positive action for Roma. The other two elements are awareness-raising and active participation. See Chap. 12 (Sect. 12.2.3).
- 66.
The survey was conducted via e-mail, phone and face-to-face. Roma from most European countries were reached for the survey, while special consideration was given to a proportional number of answers from Western and Eastern-European countries. The results are based on 102 received answers from Roma represented in (inter)governmental organisations, NGOs, and other sectors such as freelancers. The survey contained three questions: (1) Do you support data collection on ethnic grounds? (2) Do you think ethnic data would be a good instrument to fight discrimination against Roma? (3) Would you agree to disclose your ethnicity for statistics and surveys in your country in relation to education, employment, health care, housing and social services? ERIO (2009), pp. 17–31.
- 67.
The survey shows that Roma at grassroot level and those working outside the NGO sector tend to be more reluctant and negative towards ethnic data collection than Roma working at national or European level and inside the NGO sector. The Roma living in Western Europe also appear to be more negative towards ethnic data collection practices compared to Roma living in Central and Eastern European countries. The behaviour of the majority population towards data collection on Roma is also very mixed, with larger NGOs generally being more open to the idea than smaller NGOs, statistical and data protection institutes, political leaders. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 3. ERIO (2009), pp. 17, 18, 27–29 and 31. PER (2000), p. 4.
- 68.
- 69.
ERIO (2009), pp. 23, 30 and 31. See, similarly: UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 41. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. xxv, xxvi and 116–118. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 28. Jovanovic and Haliti (2012). Waldron (2011). ERIO (2009), pp. 23, 24 and 26. Simon (2007), p. 57. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), p. 8. Krizsán (2001), p. 157. PER (2000), pp. 4, 5, 11, 17 and 29. See Chap. 4 (Sects. 4.2.3 and 4.2.4) for a discussion on the misuse of the data and discriminatory ethnic profiling by public bodies as possible risks of ethnic data collection.
- 70.
ERIO (2009), p. 22.
- 71.
During the 2000 Roma and Statistics Roundtable it was reported that Roma are more reluctant towards the collection of administrative data by the police than towards data collection in population Censuses. This will be discussed further in Sect. 5.5.4 on the appropriateness of the different ethnical identification approaches for Roma and in Sect. 5.8.2 on the need for active participation of all relevant stakeholders in data collection practices. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), paras. 12 and 16. ERIO (2009), pp. 21, 23, 25 and 26.
- 72.
ERIO (2009), p. 22.
- 73.
National differences were registered. Roma respondents were interviewed in seven Member States (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia) in 2008. FRA (2009c), p. 158. The second survey (EU-MIDIS II) was conducted in 2015–2016 and asked more general questions regarding Roma’s everyday life.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
There are a limited numbers of exceptions. For instance, a system of compensation for Roma Holocaust survivors is in place in the Czech Republic, Germany and Hungary. In several other countries, including Croatia, (2014), Hungary (2005), Poland (2011) and Ukraine (2004), national parliaments have officially acknowledged the Roma genocide and declared 2 August as national Roma Holocaust Memorial Day. CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 30. Resolution of the European Parliament on the occasion of International Roma Day—anti-Gypsyism in Europe and EU recognition of the memorial day of the Roma genocide during World War II (15 April 2015). Prague Daily Monitor (2016). Velinger (2016). Uzunova (2010), p. 299. Krizsán (2001), p. 170. While the Roma Holocaust was not included in the 2009 Holocaust commemoration ceremony on the International Day in the Memory of the Holocaust, some reference was made to WWII. ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 3: Combating Racism and Intolerance against Roma/Gypsies (6 March 1998), preamble (“(p)aying homage to the memory of all the victims of policies of racist persecution and extermination during the Second World War and remembering that a considerable number of Roma/Gypsies perished as a result of such policies”).
- 79.
The data collection did not lead to the adoption of positive action but to the forced eviction of Roma from informal settlements in three regions in (Lombardia, Lazio and Campania) where a decree of May 2008 declared a state of emergency. The Italian government implemented guidelines to soften the initial measures, thereby avoiding an infringement procedure by the European Commission. The highest Italian administrative court struck down the measures in 2011, though not on the basis of its discriminatory character. Hermanin (2013), pp. 97 and 98. European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field (2009), p. 53. ERRC et al. (2009).
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
The law also foresaw harsh punishments in case the rules were not followed. France, Law on the exercise of itinerant professions and the regulation of the movement of nomads (Loi du sur l’exercice des professions ambulantes et la réglementation de la circulation des nomades) (16 July 1912). Simoni (2011), p. 13.
- 87.
ECRI urged France to review its provisions requiring Travellers with an itinerant lifestyle to present a travel permit (carnet or livret de circulation) to the police of places where they temporarily settle. This practice is considered to be disproportionate and discriminatory. The administrative regime was abolished in November 2016. ECRI, Fourth Report on France (29 April 2010), paras. 98 and 103. Cosse (2016).
- 88.
Fraser (2010).
- 89.
The European Commission started an infringement procedure against France for violating EU rules.
- 90.
Abdikeeva (2014), p. 28.
- 91.
- 92.
Section 5.8.1 will focus on the importance of awareness-raising in relation to ethnic data collection. Awareness-raising was also considered in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.7.5) as the fifth operational and organisation principle to render personal data processing success and in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.3) as the third benefit of ethnic data collection.
- 93.
- 94.
This is the second Common Basic Principle on Roma Inclusion discussed at the first meeting of the integrated European platform for Roma inclusion in April 2009. Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (9 December 2013), art. 1.1. Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion, as annexed to the Council Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma (8 June 2009), principles 1 and 4. Part II of the book will focus on positive action.
- 95.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 14. European Roma and Travellers Forum (2015), p. 6. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 10 and 122. Surdu and Surdu (2006), pp. 73 and 74. Intersectional discrimination faced by Roma was introduced in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.3).
- 96.
For instance, Roma women mainly take care of the family and their access to day-care is limited. Resolution 1740 of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe (22 June 2010), art. 16.4. Lamberts et al. (2014), pp. 16 and 17. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 10, 122 and 105. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 65.
- 97.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), paras. 12 and 18. Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013). European Roma and Travellers Forum (2015), p. 6. Tremlett (2014), pp. 832 and 833. FRA and UNDP (2012), p. 17. O’Higgins (2012), pp. 6, 16, 17, 22, 26, 27 and 30. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 10, 105, 106, 114 and 139. Farkas (2007), 13. European Parliament (2006). Ringold et al. (2005), p. 169. The particular situation of Roma women was briefly introduced in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.3.2) when discussing intersectionality.
- 98.
- 99.
Census data in the Czech Republic and in Hungary are disaggregated by ethnicity and by gender. Regarding research, one notable exception is a number of national reports from the Network of Experts in Gender Equality, Social Inclusion, Health and Long-term Care on Roma women. Where available, data on Roma women is often not comparable. UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 40. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 103, 104 and 139. OSF (2010), p. 43.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 1.
- 103.
- 104.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 14.
- 105.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 10: Combating racism and racial discrimination in and through school education (15 December 2006) para. 5. CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000), paras. 6 and 46. UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), paras. 17, 23, 24 and 45. Resolution 1740 of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe (22 June 2010), arts. 12 and 16.1.
- 106.
- 107.
The EU Framework for NRIS mentions gender three times and women four times in relation to disparate statistics on Roma employment and health. Most Member States disregard the gender dimension in their NRIS. Exceptions include Croatia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, which all integrated—to varying degrees—a gender dimensions in their NRIS. Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), H and p. 28. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), pp. 3, 10 and 11. Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 8. European Roma and Travellers Forum (2015), pp. 7–9 and 11–22.
- 108.
European Roma and Travellers Forum (2015), pp. 10, 13, 14, 20, 21 and 24. Government of the Republic of Croatia, National Roma Inclusion Strategy from 2013 to 2020 (2012), pp. 8, 37, 44, 56–58, 76, 91, 102, 110, 111, 118–123 and 142. Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Government for Roma Communities, Strategy for the Integration of Roma up to 2020 (2012), pp. 8 and 12. Swedish Government, A coordinated long-term strategy for Roma inclusion 2012–2032 (2012), pp. 49 and 64. Hungarian Ministry of Public Administration and Justice, National Social Inclusion Strategy—Extreme Poverty, Child poverty, the Roma 2011–2020 (2011), pp. 26–29 and 128.
- 109.
At average and per yearly assessment, the European Commission mentions the words gender, women and girls only three times. European Roma and Travellers Forum (2015), p. 7.
- 110.
Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), pp. 12 and 15.
- 111.
CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 14. PER (2000), p. 10.
- 112.
- 113.
- 114.
- 115.
- 116.
This is the case in several Member States, including Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Makkonen (2006), p. 108.
- 117.
This is, for instance, the case in Austria (6000 people ticked the box Romani language in the 2001 Census), Bosnia (8964 people identified as Roma in the 1991 Census), Bulgaria (312,000 Roma self-identified in the 1992 Census), Croatia (463 people identified as Roma in the 2001 Census), the Czech Republic (the 2011 Census counted 12,444 Roma), Greece (7429 Roma in the 1951 Census), Hungary (205,720 Roma in the 2001 Census), Ireland (29,573 people self-identified as Irish Traveller in the 2011 Census), Latvia (8205 self-identified as Roma in the 2000 Census), Montenegro (the 2011 Census counted 6251 Roma), Poland (2001 Census counted 12,900 Roma), Romania (619,007 Roma in 2011), Serbia (the 2002 Census counted 147,604 Roma), Scotland (category Gypsy/Traveller included since the 2011 Census), Slovakia (the 2008 Census counted 104,034 Roma), Slovenia (3246 Roma in 2002) and the UK (58,000 Roma self-identified in the 2011 Census). Abdikeeva (2014), pp. 14 and 25. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 75. ERRC (2013b), p. 14. Jovanovic and Haliti (2012). United Kingdom Office for National Statistics (2012), pp. 1–15. Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre (2011), pp. 10, 25, 28 and 35. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 104 and 105. OSF (2010), pp. 31, 36, 43 and 78. Jacobs et al. (2009), p. 82.
- 118.
For instance, this is the case for the Bosnian Census that counted 8864 Roma in 1991, while research from 2007 estimates that the Roma population in Bosnia stands around 76,000. OSF (2010), pp. 17 and 53.
- 119.
Abdikeeva (2014), p. 25. FRA (2013b), p. 6. McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 28. OSF (2010), p. 31. Gray (2009), p. 60. UNDP (2005), p. 7. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 60 and 61. Covrig (2004), p. 92. Krizsán (2001), p. 192. Section 5.1.3 briefly discussed Roma reluctance towards ethnic data collection practices. Problems with the self-identification approach in the context of the Roma minority will be covered in Sect. 5.4.1. Under- and over-reporting issues in relation to official statistics were addressed in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.3.1).
- 120.
- 121.
- 122.
- 123.
- 124.
- 125.
Csepeli and Simon (2004), p. 137.
- 126.
Id.
- 127.
These estimates vary greatly from the 12,444 Roma counted in the 2001 Czech Census. OSF (2010), p. 36.
- 128.
Surdu (2019), p. 12.
- 129.
Id.
- 130.
Messing argues that “Roma living in a segregated, marginalized settlement may be less reluctant to express ethnic belonging because they are considered as Roma by the rest of the society anyway”. Messing (2014), p. 818.
- 131.
This is the case in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania. FRA (2013b), pp. 6 and 7.
- 132.
- 133.
UK Office for National Statistics (2012), p. 10.
- 134.
Abdikeeva (2014), p. 30.
- 135.
For instance, the 2001 Czech Census indicated that the unemployment rate of Roma stood at 57.3%, compared to 7.9% following a survey of the workforce by the Czech Statistical Office in 2005. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 49. OSF (2010), pp. 36 and 37. PER (2000), p. 27. See also Sect. 5.4.2 on how proxies for ethnicity produce insufficient data on Roma. Indicators will be considered in Sect. 5.6.2.
- 136.
OSF (2010), p. 28.
- 137.
- 138.
75% (Roma) compared to 25% (national average). Abdikeeva (2014), p. 12.
- 139.
Ringelheim (2013), pp. 53 and 54.
- 140.
Clark (1998).
- 141.
- 142.
FRA (2014), p. 172.
- 143.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 39. Messing (2014), pp. 818 and 820. Bond et al. (2010), p. 9. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), p. 8. This will be discussed further in Sect. 5.5.1 on sampling frames and the risk of under- or over-representing Roma.
- 144.
- 145.
- 146.
- 147.
- 148.
For example, the Ministry of Health collected data on the socio-economic, education, and health of approximately 102,000 Roma in 50 municipalities in Serbia. OSF (2010), pp. 67–69.
- 149.
- 150.
- 151.
The Commissioner is an independent, ombudsman-like institution. Krizsán (2001), pp. 168, 170 and 171.
- 152.
The author identifies active participation as a key element of ethnic data collection on Roma. See Sect. 5.8.2.
- 153.
Babusik (2004), p. 15.
- 154.
Id.
- 155.
See Sect. 5.8.2 on the active participation of Roma in ethnic data collection as a key principle to ethnic data collection on this ethnic minority.
- 156.
- 157.
See, for example: ACFC, Second Opinion on the Czech Republic (24 February 2005), paras. 10 and 37. ACFC, Second Opinion on Slovenia (26 May 2005), para. 46. ACFC, Second Opinion on Hungary (9 December 2004), paras. 31, 35 and 53. Outline for reports to be submitted pursuant to Article 25 paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (30 September 1998), para. 4.5. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 49. McDonald and Negrin (2010), pp. 29 and 30. FRA (2007), p. 78. Ramsay (2006), p. 5. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 44. The need to combine different data sources was previously stressed in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.3.1.3).
- 158.
- 159.
This is not always the case. For instance, an Irish self-report survey on discrimination could not be adequate analysed because of the low number of respondents self-identifying as Travellers. Additionally, other elements such as language barriers, cultural barriers and health problems might also limit the participation of Roma in research and surveys. Bond et al. (2010), p. 9. Russell et al. (2010), p. 29.
- 160.
CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 49. The risk of overlooking certain groups in data collection efforts was previously mentioned in Sect. 5.1.3 when considering the different reasons for the widespread lack of (reliable) data on Roma in Europe.
- 161.
- 162.
PER (2000), p. 27.
- 163.
- 164.
- 165.
- 166.
- 167.
Unofficial and independent research and surveys is sometimes supported by the government or conducted in partnership with the government, as is done in Spain. In Slovenia, data generated through a 2008–2009 study on health care services among Roma women and children were used to create adequate programmes. European Roma and Travellers Forum (2015), p. 21. Rughiniș (2010), p. 338. OSF (2010), pp. 33, 39 and 40. FRA (2009a), p. 4. FRA (2009c), p. 19. Krizsán (2001), pp. 192 and 193.
- 168.
- 169.
Such a Romanian survey from 2010 “showed that only 54% of the respondents agreed with the idea of having a Roma as co-worker”, which is considerably lower than their perception of other minorities. FRA (2011), p. 17.
- 170.
- 171.
- 172.
- 173.
- 174.
- 175.
- 176.
- 177.
FRA (2009c).
- 178.
Within the framework of the World Bank/UNDP/European Commission regional survey, 22,203 Roma and non-Roma were interviewed in Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Montenegro, Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia. The FRA pilot survey was conducted in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Data on these countries was previously collected through the EU-MIDIS survey in 2008. FRA and UNDP (2012), p. 10.
- 179.
- 180.
14,925 Roma and 7278 non-Roma were interviewed. For instance, big differences were recorded in employment in France, Italy and Portugal. Higher pre-school and kindergarten attendance rates are reported for Roma pupils in Hungary and Spain compared to Greece and Slovakia. FRA (2012a), p. 168. FRA and UNDP (2012), pp. 10, 13, 16 and 26. The present-day situation of Roma in Europe was briefly introduced in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.1).
- 181.
O’Higgins (2012), pp. 49 and 50.
- 182.
Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 4.
- 183.
- 184.
FRA (2013a), p. 193.
- 185.
- 186.
Krizsán (2001), p. 180.
- 187.
- 188.
Examples of this practice are found in the Czech Republic and Hungary. FRA (2007), pp. 9, 150 and 151.
- 189.
- 190.
Goodwin (2004), pp. 1439 and 1440.
- 191.
Id.
- 192.
See Sect. 5.8.1 on awareness-raising among Roma and non-Roma communities.
- 193.
- 194.
The other categories are Central American and the Caribbean, East European and Russia, Spanish, Maghreb, Sub-Saharan, Andean South American, South American, and Others. Farkas (2017), p. 24.
- 195.
The Hungarian Equal Treatment Authority independently monitors the implementation of minority rights and investigates complaints. In 2009, 54 of the complaints brought by Roma resulted in a decision on the merits. In Romania, the National Council for Combating Discrimination yearly records five to ten cases of discrimination of Roma by local authorities, public figures, newspapers or companies. In Slovakia, out of 1571 cases received by the National Center for Human Rights in 2009, 15 were brought by Roma. From 2004 to 2010, the Swedish Equality Ombudsman received 230 complaints from Roma. FRA (2014), p. 177. FRA (2012a), p. 173. OSF (2010), pp. 12, 45, 66 and 80. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 131 and 132.
- 196.
The National Council for Combating Discrimination is a governmental agency in charge of the National Antidiscrimination Plan. OSF (2010), p. 66.
- 197.
OSF (2010), p. 12.
- 198.
Farkas (2017), p. 24.
- 199.
Id.
- 200.
In Poland, data on hate crime is collected by the office of the Prosecutor General since 2012. For the Czech Republic and Sweden, data on anti-Roma crime is collected by Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). FRA (2014), p. 158. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 75. ODIHR (2013), pp. 55–60. FRA (2012b), p. 9.
- 201.
McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 32.
- 202.
In 2010, Montenegro lacked anti-discrimination legislation and Bosnia, Macedonia and Serbia still had to establish an equality body, while equality bodies in Croatia and Spain had yet to publish their first report. McDonald and Negrin (2010).
- 203.
- 204.
The Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Discrimination reports on the numbers of complaints on ethnic grounds in its annual report, but not on cases brought solely by Roma. OSF (2010), p. 25.
- 205.
- 206.
- 207.
In 2008, national numbers published by the Dutch police show the registration of four complaints on Roma. From 2006 to 2008, the notification points registered one to four complaints of Roma discrimination per year. In 2005, the Public Prosecutor’s Office reported that discrimination of Roma concerned 1% of its caseload. FRA (2009b), p. 9. Davidović and Rodrigues (2010), pp. 155 and 171.
- 208.
FRA (2014), p. 172.
- 209.
- 210.
Reporting rates vary according to incident and across Member States. 34% of Roma in the Czech Republic report incidents of discrimination, compared to medium-level rates in Hungary (34%), Poland (33%) and Slovakia (28%) and lower rates in Bulgaria (8%) and Greece (10%). Reporting rates of crimes against Roma also varies considerably across Member States, with higher numbers in Slovakia (31%), Poland (28%), Romania (25%) and the Czech Republic (24%) and considerably lower numbers in Greece (11%), Bulgaria (12%) and Hungary (15%). Discrimination in education is most likely to be reported upon. FRA (2009b), pp. 8 and 15. FRA (2009c), pp. 14, 155 and 163.
- 211.
The results are based on the question “(l)ast time you felt discriminated against because of your Roma background when [domain], did you report or make a complaint about the incident?”, which was asked to each of the Roma respondents who stated that the last incident of discrimination based on skin colour or ethnic origin took place in the past 12 months. As was the case in EU-MIDIS I, national differences were also identified in EU-MIDIS II. FRA (2016), p. 40.
- 212.
- 213.
- 214.
ODIHR (2014).
- 215.
Only the non-profit foundation Triana in Utrecht responded by establishing a hotline and involving volunteers, but failed to secure regional funding. Davidović and Rodrigues (2010), p. 156.
- 216.
See Sect. 5.8.2 on the importance of raising awareness among Roma and non-Roma communities on ethnic data collection for equality and anti-discrimination purposes.
- 217.
Simon (2007), p. 15.
- 218.
- 219.
Simon (2007), p. 15.
- 220.
Simon (2007), p. 15. As will be discussed in Sect. 5.6.4, such over-representation must also be correctly reported on when disseminating data sets in order to avoid that the data promote anti-Gypsyism. Discriminatory ethnic profiling was cited as a risk of ethnic data collection in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.2.4). It was also explained in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.5) how ethnic data can help prove indirect discrimination claims in the context of ethnic profiling.
- 221.
Simon (2007), p. 15.
- 222.
These include reports from States, statistical evidence, testimonies and information on trends and patterns from domestic stakeholders, NGOs and civil society as well as comparative data from international organisations. The other sources include Sect. 5.2.1 on the limitations of official statistics, Sect. 5.2.2 on the added value of surveys, research and discrimination testing, and Sect. 5.2.3 on the unreliability of complaints data and the over-representation of Roma in crime data. The four complementary data sources of ethnic data collection were first introduced and analysed in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.3). The role of international and European monitoring bodies in ethnic data collection was previously highlighted in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.1.2) on international and European calls for ethnic data and in Chap. 4 on the benefits of ethnic data collection (Sect. 4.1.4) and when considering research as a data source (Sect. 4.3.2).
- 223.
CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 11. Farkas (2014), p. 40.
- 224.
Goodwin (2004), pp. 1440 and 1441.
- 225.
See, for instance: CAT Committee, Concluding Observations on Hungary (6 February 2007), para. 19 (discrimination by law enforcement officials). CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on Italy (4 April 2012), para. 15 (housing discrimination, targeted, forced evictions and spatial segregation). CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on Austria (31 August 2012), para. 17 (high dropout rates and over-representation in special schools). CERD Committee, Concluding Observations on Finland (23 October 2012), para. 15 (high dropout rates and over-representation in special schools; discrimination in access to employment). CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Slovakia (8 June 2012), paras. 9, 13 and 26 (persistent discrimination in employment and education). CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Greece (7 June 2004), paras. 11, 15, 28, 32, 43–46 and 50 (discrimination in housing, health and education and police violence). HR Committee, Concluding observations on Lithuania (31 August 2012), para. 7. (Roma poverty, discrimination and lower education and employment levels).
- 226.
See, for instance: ACFC, Third Opinion on Romania (21 March 2012), para. 27 (segregation in education). ECRI, Fourth Report on Finland (21 March 2013), paras. 65, 107–115 and 175 (insults and acts in schools and employment and relationship with the police). ECRI, Fourth Report on Latvia (9 December 2011), paras. 104–109 (over-representation in special needs schools). ECRI, Fourth Report on Portugal (21 March 2013), paras. 88–99 and 122–127 (housing and anti-Gypsyism by police). ECRI, Fourth Report on Sweden (19 June 2012), paras. 97 and 110–116 (access to employment). Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights following his visit to Portugal from 7 to 9 May 2012 (10 July 2012), paras. 37, 43, 44 and 47–63 (discrimination in housing and education and hate speech by the police).
- 227.
See, for instance: CAT Committee, Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (3 June 2004), para. 5(a) en (k) (absence of adequate investigations into these incidents). Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights following his visit to Greece from 28 January to 1 February 2013 (16 April 2013), paras. 103, 106, 109 and 133.
- 228.
Goodwin (2004), pp. 1440 and 1441.
- 229.
Farkas (2014), p. 41. Makkonen (2006), p. 30. This was previously mentioned in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.1.2) on the difference between direct and indirect discrimination and the link with statistics and in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.5) on supporting indirect discrimination claims in legal proceedings as one of the benefits of ethnic data collection.
- 230.
- 231.
- 232.
In 1999, Romani NGOs sent questionnaires to the head teachers of the eight special schools and 69 primary schools in the town of Ostrava. EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), paras. 134 and 191. Ignăţoiu-Sora (2011), pp. 69 and 70. ERIO (2009), p. 32. Goodwin (2004), p. 1437.
- 233.
- 234.
Ignăţoiu-Sora (2011), p. 70.
- 235.
EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), para. 188. Farkas (2014), p. 40. Ignăţoiu-Sora (2011), pp. 67 and 71. ERIO (2009), pp. 32 and 33. The notion indirect discrimination and the role of statistics in proving indirect discrimination claims was described in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.1.2). See also Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.5) on the support of indirect discrimination claims in legal proceedings as one of the benefits of ethnic data collection.
- 236.
The EctHR ruled by 13–4 votes that the Czech Republic violated art. 14 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950) (ECHR) read in conjunction with art. 2 Protocol 1 to the ECHR (20 March 1952). EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), para. 103. ERIO (2009), pp. 32 and 33.
- 237.
Some measures were taken, such as the employment of teaching assistants and preparatory classes. It was also acknowledged that better information on Roma in schooling collected through statistical surveys could be helpful to implement better and more effective measures. The role of teaching assistants will be addressed in Chap. 11 (Sect. 11.7.1) on inter-cultural mediation to enhance Roma inclusion. Romea (2015). FRA (2014), p. 175. Ignăţoiu-Sora (2011), pp. 73 and 74. ERRC (2013c), pp. 8, 9, 11 and 12.
- 238.
Anagnostou (2010) underlines the importance of European human rights case law, the implementation of which can—under certain conditions—result in legal and policy change at the national level. Relevant factors in this regard are repeated litigation and legal mobilisation by interested actors that are in a position to exert pressure and link the EctHR’s judgments to policy problems as well as support from political and other influential actors. Suggested further reading on the factors that impact on the domestic implementation of human rights judgments in Europe, see: Schneider (2015), pp. 155–196 and 232–241. Anagnostou and Mungiu-Pippidi (2014), pp. 205–227.
- 239.
OSF (2016).
- 240.
Id.
- 241.
Id. at p. 80.
- 242.
Ivanov (2017).
- 243.
The EctHR confirmed later that a claim of indirect discrimination can be formulated without relying on statistical data but that such data help to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See: EctHR, Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, Judgment (16 March 2010, GC), paras. 152 and 153. This was previously discussed in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.1.2) on the use of statistical data to prove indirect discrimination claims.
- 244.
- 245.
- 246.
European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), ERRC v. Greece, Decision (8 December 2004), paras. 27, 28 and 40. Later confirmed in: ECSR, ERRC v. Italy, Decision (7 December 2005), paras. 22 and 23 (2005).
- 247.
ECSR, ERRC v. Greece, Decision (8 December 2004), paras. 27, 28, 40 and 41. Ringelheim (2006/7), pp. 60 and 61.
- 248.
ECSR, ERRC v. Greece, Decision (8 December 2004), para. 27.
- 249.
- 250.
FRA (2008), p. 16. EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), paras. 83 and 88–90. The use of gender statistics in the case law of the CJEU was mentioned in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.1.5) when discussing the support of indirect discrimination claims in legal proceedings as the fifth benefit of ethnic data collection.
- 251.
While not about statistics, the CJEU delivered a Roma-specific ruling in the case CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia on 16 July 2015. The case concerned the systematic placement of electricity meters out of reach of households in a predominantly Roma neighbourhood in Bulgaria. While the applicant was not a Roma herself, the CJEU ruled that she was a victim of discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin as she was wronged by the electricity provider’s discriminatory practice. CJEU, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, Judgment (16 July 2013). For an analysis of this case, see: Nyitray and Cox (2015). Another prior case on Roma discrimination was declared inadmissible in 2013 because the referring body, the Bulgarian Equality Body, was not considered to be a court or tribunal within the meaning of the Treaty. See: CJEU, Valeri Hariev Belov v. CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD and others, Judgment (31 January 2013).
- 252.
- 253.
Krizsán (2001), p. 179.
- 254.
Id. at p. 178.
- 255.
- 256.
If definitions and methodologies are outdated or inconsistent, the data resulting from it will be outdated. Difference in definitions and methodology also hinders comparisons between the data. Messing (2014), pp. 811, 812, 821, 822, 824 and 825. Rughiniș (2010), pp. 337 and 339. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 25. Challenges to data comparability will be considered in Sect. 5.6.2. Chapter 4 (Sect. 4.4) analysed issues relating to ethnical categorisation on a general level.
- 257.
Section 5.3.1 looks at how the complex and fluid nature of Roma identities influences ethnical classification. Section 5.3.2 puts forward open-ended categories, multiple affiliations and re-classifications as possible solutions to facilitate the ethnical classification process. The discussion focuses on the construction of ethnic categories, because most Member States collect data on Roma as an ethnic group. This is, however, not the case in Cyprus, Greece and Luxembourg, with the former two including Roma in the religious category Turkish Muslim. Farkas (2017), p. 38.
- 258.
- 259.
- 260.
- 261.
Messing (2014), p. 816. Ivanov (2012), p. 79. Csepeli and Simon (2004), p. 131. Chapter 1 (Sect. 1.2) reflected on the situation of Roma in Europe, including the discrimination this minority faces. Assimilation and other policies targeting Roma were also considered in Sect. 5.1.3 when considering the multiple reasons for the widespread lack of (reliable) data on Roma. The notion assimilation was discussed in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.3.3).
- 262.
Messing (2014), pp. 816 and 824 and 825.
- 263.
- 264.
Surdu (2019), p. 1.
- 265.
- 266.
Messing (2014), pp. 812, 813, 832 and 833. Tremlett (2014), p. 832. FRA and UNDP (2012), pp. 10, 29 and 30. Ivanov (2012), pp. 80 and 94. Rughiniș (2010), p. 346. FRA (2009b), p. 14. Sigona (2005), pp. 744 and 745. See Chap. 1 for reflections on the manifold definitions used that reflect the diversity among Roma (Sect. 1.1.1) and on the ambiguous and changing denomination of this ethnic minority (Sect. 1.1.2).
- 267.
- 268.
Messing (2014), p. 813.
- 269.
Hungarian Roma self-identify as Hungarian and/or Musician Roma and speak exclusively Hungarian; Vlach Roma speak Romani/Lovari self-identify as Hungarian and Rom or Vlah Gypsies; Boyash (Bea’s) people, who speak Boyash (based on archaic Romanian dialect) and identify as Boyash Gypsies. Messing (2014), p. 813.
- 270.
- 271.
In Hungary, the term Roma is used politically. Minority self-governments, government documents and the Minorities Act use the term Gypsy (cigány). The Romungro or Magyar Cigányok (Hungarian Gypsies) or the Beás often do not call themselves Roma. Rughiniș (2010), pp. 344, 365 and 366. Babusik (2004), p. 16. Covrig (2004), p. 95. PER (2000), p. 26.
- 272.
- 273.
- 274.
Sigona (2005), pp. 744 and 745.
- 275.
- 276.
CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000), para. 3. ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 3: Combating Racism and Intolerance against Roma/Gypsies (6 March 1998). The importance of active participation of Roma in ethnic data collection practices will be discussed in Sect. 5.8.2.
- 277.
This helps to builds trust. Farkas (2017), p. 45. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 47. This was explained in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.4.3) when considering the wide variety in terminology, categories and answer formats used to collect ethnic data. Active participation as a key principle of ethnic data collection on Roma will be highlighted in Sect. 5.8.2.
- 278.
Abdikeeva (2014), pp. 28 and 29.
- 279.
- 280.
Chopin et al. (2014), p. 47. Corsi et al. (2010), p. 141. Haug (2001), p. 305. The lack of uniform status of Roma communities across Europe was discussed in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.1.3). This risk was previously highlighted in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.4.3) on the wide variety in terminology, categories and answer formats used.
- 281.
- 282.
- 283.
Travellers were formally recognised as an ethnic minority in Ireland in March 2017. The Irish Census does not include a Roma category. Abdikeeva (2014), pp. 25 and 26.
- 284.
The Constitutional Court ruled that, because existing statistics legislation could not provide sufficient guarantees regarding the secrecy of the data, citizens could not be obliged to fill in detailed census questionnaires. German Constitutional Court, BverfGE 65, 1ff (1983). Negrin (2003). OSI (2002), pp. 158 and 159.
- 285.
Messing (2014), pp. 811, 814, 824 and 825.
- 286.
- 287.
- 288.
- 289.
- 290.
Ivanov (2012), p. 82. Csepeli and Simon (2004), pp. 129 and 148. See Sect. 5.4.1 on the limitations of the self-identification approach and Sect. 5.5.4 on how the type of interview, the interviewer and the questions asked affect the quality of the data collected. For a general consideration of the context-dependency and variability of ethnicity, see Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.2.2).
- 291.
Historically T(s)igan was used as an umbrella term, but Roma was promoted and widely used after 1990 by Roma NGOs and the CoE because the former notion acquired pejorative connotations. In Hungary, however, the term Roma is highly controversial. Messing (2014), pp. 812 and 813. Rughiniș (2010), p. 344. Csepeli and Simon (2004), p. 148. Suggested further reading: Woodcock (2007), pp. 493–515.
- 292.
- 293.
- 294.
The importance of close co-operation between experts will be considered in Sect. 5.7.3.
- 295.
See Sect. 5.3 on challenges to the construction of ethnic categories for Roma.
- 296.
- 297.
Id.
- 298.
Challenges to ethnical classification of Roma were addressed in Sect. 5.3.
- 299.
Messing (2014), pp. 815 and 816.
- 300.
- 301.
- 302.
CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000), para. 3. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 25 and 26.
- 303.
- 304.
Babusik (2004, p. 14) points out that this “fundamentally changed the system of data gathering, and consequently any research concerning Roma”. The Central Statistical Office performed its first data gathering directly focusing on Roma in 2005–2006.
- 305.
Covrig (2004), p. 95.
- 306.
Abdikeeva (2014), p. 28. Messing (2014), pp. 814 and 816. FRA (2013b), p. 6. Ringelheim (2013), p. 54. Makkonen (2010), pp. 236 and 237. OSF (2010), p. 21. Rughiniș (2010), pp. 339 and 366. See Sect. 5.1.3 on the multiple reasons for the widespread lack of (reliable) ethnic data on Roma and Sects. 5.2.1–5.2.3 on the multifarious data sources on Roma.
- 307.
- 308.
- 309.
This is based both on former and current negative experiences as well as with a lack of confidence to self-identify. This is, for instance, the case for Travellers in Ireland. UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 7. Abdikeeva (2014), pp. 25 and 28. Brüggemann and Bloem (2013), p. 520. FRA and UNDP (2012), p. 29. ERIO (2009), pp. 22, 26, 30 and 31. Hollo (2006), p. 29. Covrig (2004), p. 99. Clark (1998). Waldron (2011). OSF (2010), p. 76.
- 310.
For instance, many of the approximately 300,000 Roma from Eastern European countries in the UK self-identify by nationality rather than ethnicity, resulting in uncertain statistics. Farkas (2014), p. 22. OSF (2010), p. 76. The different meanings terms may have in different contexts were considered in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.4.3).
- 311.
Beis (2012).
- 312.
- 313.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 7. Krizsán (2001), p. 192.
- 314.
“Being rid of the Roma identity might also means being rid of the bad resonance it has.” For example many Roma in Hungary are not proud of being Roma because of the bad resonance it has and therefore they sometimes ignore their roots in order to assimilate into the majority population. Rughiniș (2010), p. 350. Babusik (2004), p. 18. Covrig (2004), p. 95. Csepeli and Simon (2004), p. 135. Anti-Gypsyism was defined and described in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.1).
- 315.
Csepeli and Simon (2004), p. 135.
- 316.
The importance of open-ended categories, multiple affiliations and re-classifications was stressed in Sect. 5.3.2.
- 317.
Messing (2014), pp. 814, 817, 818, 824 and 825. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 47. McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 36. Rughiniș (2010), p. 352. Csepeli and Simon (2004), pp. 135 and 136. For more on the importance of awareness-raising and active participation when collecting ethnic data on Roma, see Sect. 5.8.
- 318.
Makkonen (2010), pp. 236 and 237.
- 319.
Ringold et al. (2005), pp. xviii and 28.
- 320.
Russell et al. (2010), p. 29.
- 321.
- 322.
- 323.
- 324.
- 325.
The latter refers to the question whether they might benefit or suffer from self-identifying. Covrig (2004), pp. 92, 96, 97 and 99. Csepeli and Simon (2004), p. 148. The impact of the choice of interviewers and questions will be considered in Sect. 5.5.4 and the active participation of Roma as a key principle of ethnic data collection will be addressed in Sect. 5.8.2.
- 326.
This can be explained by cultural and social-psychological factors. Research in Bulgaria and Hungary demonstrates that more respondents identify their parents as parents than the number of respondents who self-identify as Roma, which could suggest possible weakening of ethnic identity over time. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 28. Csepeli and Simon (2004), pp. 143 and 144.
- 327.
- 328.
Changes in socio-economic status appear to be a powerful predictor for changes in reported ethnicity across surveys. Research conducted in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania shows that the stigma of poverty often relates to those willing to self-identify. Those who want to do improve their socio-economic status are more likely not to self-identify to overcome negative associations. Messing (2014), p. 818. Simonovits and Kézdi (2014), pp. 2–5. Covrig (2004), p. 95. Csepeli and Simon (2004), pp. 148 and 149. This will be discussed further on in Sect. 5.4.5 on the context-dependency of the appropriateness of different ethnical identification approaches and in Sect. 5.5.4 when considering how the type of interviews, the interviewers and the questions asked affect the quality of the data.
- 329.
- 330.
- 331.
McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 36.
- 332.
Participation in Roma minority education is used a proxy for Roma ethnicity in Hungary and Romania, Some Censuses in Central and Eastern Europe do not only inquire about respondents’ national or ethnic minority, but also about mother tongue as a proxy for ethnicity. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 18. Chopin et al. (2014), pp. 13, 49, 54, 55, 58 and 76. FRA (2013b), p. 6. McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 36. Farkas (2007), p. 36. Krizsán (2001), p. 192.
- 333.
Krizsán (2001), p. 192.
- 334.
- 335.
Several countries expanded their ethnic questions to enhance their system and to achieve better results. For example, up to 1941 Hungary collected ethnic data on the basis of language. In 2001, an ethnicity question inquiring about nationality was introduced and changed against afterwards to enhance the system. The Czechoslovak and Romanian Censuses of 1970 and 1980 assessed the Roma ethnic affiliation in several ways, such as language, housing, way of life and anthropological features. In the 1990s, surveys in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania identified Roma on the basis of an electoral list in combination with objective criteria such as the traditional way of life. Corsi et al. (2010), p. 103. Simon (2007), p. 54. PER (2000), pp. 14 and 16.
- 336.
- 337.
Messing (2014), p. 816.
- 338.
Brüggemann and Bloem (2013, pp. 535 and 536) explain that experience with data disaggregation for Romani-speaking students in Slovakia in the framework of PISA 2009 shows that only 1.2% of 4555 participating students say they speak Romani as the first language at home. Underlying reasons for this low percentage are multiple, such as low school attendance rate among Roma or placement in special schools not included in the research. Moreover, respondents may not speak Romani at home and if they do, be reluctant to say so out of fear for discrimination or because they do not consider it to be a formal language. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 25 and 26. Krizsán (2001), p. 190.
- 339.
Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 104 and 105.
- 340.
- 341.
- 342.
The police terminated the practice after investigation by the Hungarian Minority Commission. Krizsán (2001), p. 189. Data misuse was previously addressed in Sect. 5.1.3 on the multiple reasons for the widespread lack of reliable data on Roma. See also Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.2.4) where discriminatory ethnic profiling by public bodies was identified as a risk of ethnic data collection.
- 343.
- 344.
Farkas (2017), p. 6.
- 345.
- 346.
- 347.
Babusik (2004), p. 14.
- 348.
For example, the educational development of Roma children in Hungary was tracked on the basis of statistics gathered via the perception of teachers. Babusik (2004), pp. 14, 17 and 18. Chopin et al. (2014), pp. 54 and 63. Rughiniș (2010), p. 356. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 25 and 26. Csepeli and Simon (2004), p. 145. Krizsán (2001), pp. 170, 171, 192, 193 and 197.
- 349.
- 350.
Rughiniș (2010), pp. 356 and 366.
- 351.
Id. at pp. 356 and 357.
- 352.
Id.
- 353.
Csepeli and Simon (2004, pp. 148 and 49) add that it is difficult to compare interviewers’ image of Roma with the image held by the general population of this minority, because the socio-demographic background of former differs from the latter: generally speaking, interviewers are younger, more educated and mainly female. Additionally, age, education and religiousness have an impact on anti-Gypsy prejudice levels.
- 354.
- 355.
- 356.
- 357.
- 358.
Poverty is interpreted as a sign of ethnicity. Messing (2014), p. 815.
- 359.
Milcher and Ivanov (2004, p. 10) explain that this is because the worst-off are recognisably Romani and most unlikely to be integrated in majority communities. Messing (2014), pp. 816, 817, 822 and 823. Simonovits and Kézdi (2014), p. 8. Rughiniș (2010), pp. 359 and 360. Simon (2007), pp. 54 and 55. UNDP (2005), p. 10. Babusik (2004), p. 16. Farkas (2004), p. 21.
- 360.
- 361.
- 362.
In case of disagreement, the ethnicity of a child was determined to be majority population. OSF is of the opinion that this methodology can only be replicated in Bulgaria. The Roma minority self-government is elected by local Roma. It represents the interests of Roma as a national minority in various fields such as education and culture. Chopin et al. (2014), pp. 31–33, 62 and 63. Krizsán (2001), p. 197.
- 363.
- 364.
- 365.
The scholarship covers full tuition and a living stipend. Eligibility is limited based on citizenship. Central European University explains the rules on its website: https://www.ceu.edu/admissions/funding-fees/ref (Accessed 12 May 2019).
- 366.
The letter must briefly describe the organisation and expand on the connection with the applicant (how long the organisation has known the applicant and in what capacity) and his/her involvement in Roma related activities. In addition to the letter of recommendation, Roma students must also submit an essay in which they address, among others, how their personal and professional goals will contribute to the collective advancement of the Roma community, whether they consider themselves to bea role model for younger Roma, what defines them as Roma and what makes them feel a part of the Roma community. For more information, see the webpage of the scholarship on the website of the Central European University: https://www.ceu.edu/admissions/funding-fees/ref (Accessed 12 May 2019).
- 367.
- 368.
- 369.
- 370.
- 371.
Hungary, Act No. 4 (IV) on the Criminal Code, 1978, art. 174/B (Any person who assaults another person for being part, whether in fact or under presumption, of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or of a certain societal group, or compels him by applying coercion or duress to do, not to do, or to endure something, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years). Farkas (2004), p. 21.
- 372.
Farkas (2004), p. 22.
- 373.
- 374.
Data were collected based on observation by a third party, which was informed by indirect criteria provided by class teachers. Farkas (2017), p. 34.
- 375.
- 376.
- 377.
Id.
- 378.
- 379.
- 380.
Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 9 and 10.
- 381.
Their responses do, however, implicitly suggest they are Roma but that they prefer not to reveal their ethnic background. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 9 and 10.
- 382.
Farkas (2017), p. 25.
- 383.
Id.
- 384.
- 385.
- 386.
Simon (2007), pp. 54 and 55.
- 387.
Waldron (2011).
- 388.
The list contains 16 predefined categories; Roma is not a separate category but can be included under the category any other. UK, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Code A (1984), art. 4.3(a) and 4.5. UK, PACE Code A Revised code of practice for the exercise by: police officers of statutory powers of stop and search (2013), 18, 22A and Annex B. Discriminatory ethnic profiling by public bodies was cited as one of the risks of ethnic data collection in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.2.4).
- 389.
Both the answer of the respondent and the answer of the officer must be recorded. Respondents must be explicitly presented with the option not to state their ethnicity and indicate the reason.
- 390.
FRA (2010), p. 53. It was explained in Sect. 5.4.3 that visual observation can be an appropriate approach when gathering data on those perceived to be Roma by others, as is the case when researching ethnic profiling by police officers. The uncovering of discriminatory ethnic profiling was also cited as a benefit of ethnic data collection in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.2.4).
- 391.
- 392.
This was previously highlighted in Sect. 5.4.1 on the factors that influence whether or not Roma self-identify as being Roma. The importance of the context in ethnic data collection will be discussed further in Sect. 5.5.4 on the impact of the type of interview, interviewers and questions asked on data quality, and in Sect. 5.8.2 on active participation as a key principle of ethnic data collection on Roma.
- 393.
- 394.
- 395.
- 396.
- 397.
The use of electoral lists for sampling may create a bias because it is possible that the number of Roma that do not register their residence is possibly proportionally higher compared to other ethnic groups. FRA and UNDP (2012), p. 29. Rughiniș (2010), pp. 353 and 354. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 8 and 13.
- 398.
Respondents for custom-built Roma samples designed to be representative of the Romani population are found by a targeted search of selected settlements. Rughiniș (2010), pp. 340 and 361.
- 399.
Rughiniș (2010), p. 366.
- 400.
Id. at p. 361.
- 401.
- 402.
Rughiniș (2010), p. 359.
- 403.
- 404.
- 405.
It is argued to be representative for roughly about 85% of Roma in each country, thereby providing a good basis for quantitative socio-economic indicators, such as quality of life, life expectancy, income and access to services of Roma. Messing (2014), p. 820. UNDP (2005), p. 9. Limited representativeness of surveys on Roma will be addressed in Sect. 5.6.3. For more on data dissemination, see Sect. 5.6.4.
- 406.
- 407.
Messing (2014), p. 825.
- 408.
- 409.
- 410.
For example, within the framework of the FRA Roma Pilot Survey, associations and NGOs helped to identify a sufficient number of camps for interviews in France. In Italy, the overwhelming majority of local Roma/Sinti associations helped to collect geo-demographic information to identify households in different municipalities. Messing (2014), p. 825. FRA (2013b), pp. 7 and 8. Ivanov (2012), pp. 92 and 93. Rughiniș (2010), pp. 358, 360, 361 and 367. FRA (2008), p. 51. UNDP (2005), pp. 7 and 8. Babusik (2004), pp. 7–18. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 10–13. This was previously highlighted in Sect. 5.2 on the multifarious data sources on Roma.
- 411.
When samples overestimate the size of Roma populations, an insufficient numbers of interviews can be conducted. Also, settlements may disappear or be dismantled before the interviewing process starts, as was the case in France during the FRA Roma Pilot Survey. FRA (2013b), pp. 11 and 15.
- 412.
This was solved by decreasing the Roma sample in Poland and in Italy from 1000 interviews to 600 interviews with Roma and increasing the sample size to 1100 interviews in other countries participating in the survey (except for France). FRA (2013b), p. 10.
- 413.
FRA (2013b), pp. 10 and 11.
- 414.
These include considerable learning disadvantages, disadvantaged socio-economic background, lesser pre-school experience, higher representation in vocational tracks and higher repetition rates. Brüggemann and Bloem (2013), pp. 525, 529, 530, 535 and 536. The different factors that impact on the analysis of data sets on Roma will be reviewed in Sect. 5.6.
- 415.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 39. Financial restrictions will be considered in Sect. 5.5.5.
- 416.
- 417.
- 418.
- 419.
Messing (2014), p. 819.
- 420.
This may be due various factors, such as reluctance among Roma respondents to be interviewed by an unknown interviewer and/or reluctance among interviewers to enter Roma dense residential areas. Messing (2014), p. 819.
- 421.
FRA (2013b), p. 12.
- 422.
Messing (2014), p. 825.
- 423.
Id. at p. 818.
- 424.
FRA (2013b), p. 9.
- 425.
The EU-MIDIS survey adopted four different sample designs but used only one approach per country. The FRA Roma Pilot survey adopted a multi-stage probability sampling design that reflected differences at the Member State level to get “a reasonably good coverage of the target population on the national level given the time and resources available”. FRA (2013b), p. 9. FRA (2009c), pp. 23 and 24.
- 426.
- 427.
For the FRA Roma Pilot Survey, adult meant 16 or older. Respondents were chosen randomly using the last birthday method, or—if not known or celebrated—selection rotated between eldest/youngest and male/female household members on the basis of the last identification number digit of the questionnaire. ERRC (2013b), p. 60. FRA (2013b), pp. 9 and 14.
- 428.
For instance, the ERRC’s Hidden Health Crisis report in Romania (2013b, p. 60) asked “all persons aged 15 and above who are at home at the time of the interview (…) to answer questions pertaining to their persons” and “in each household certain data for each member of the household, including all children, was requested from an adult”. See also: FRA (2013b), p. 9.
- 429.
See Sect. 5.8.3 on the importance of active participation of Roma in ethnic data collection practices.
- 430.
- 431.
- 432.
- 433.
- 434.
In order to facilitate quality control, interviewers had to document their sampling activity on maps and complete matching route administration sheets. FRA (2009c), p. 24.
- 435.
- 436.
Milcher and Ivanov (2004), p. 12.
- 437.
FRA (2013b), pp. 12 and 13.
- 438.
Id.
- 439.
- 440.
FRA (2013b), pp. 12 and 13.
- 441.
- 442.
- 443.
FRA (2009c), p. 24.
- 444.
- 445.
FRA (2009c), pp. 23 and 24.
- 446.
FRA (2009c), p. 28.
- 447.
FRA (2013b), pp. 18 and 19.
- 448.
For the FRA Roma Pilot survey (2013b, pp. 18 and 19), interviewers were selected on the basis of “experience with simple random route sampling; experience in communicating with vulnerable minority groups; being comfortable with/not prejudiced against Roma; overall interviewing experience; communication skills; responsibility and professional ethics; previous experience through EU-MIDIS if possible”. See also: FRA (2009c), p. 29.
- 449.
FRA (2013b), p. 15.
- 450.
For more on the need for active participation of Roma in ethnic data collection, see Sect. 5.8.2.
- 451.
FRA (2013b), p. 16.
- 452.
- 453.
- 454.
These include, among others, lack of trust, awareness and participation of Roma, the too restricted interpretation of data protection legislation and the absence of positive action measures for Roma.
- 455.
- 456.
- 457.
- 458.
- 459.
FRA (2009c), p. 29.
- 460.
UNDP (2005), p. 10.
- 461.
- 462.
- 463.
Goodwin (2004), p. 1439.
- 464.
Messing (2014), p. 820.
- 465.
FRA (2009c), p. 271.
- 466.
Messing (2014), p. 820.
- 467.
For instance, the 11 Member States covered by the FRA Roma pilot survey (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain) (2013b), p. 6) were chosen on the basis of the large size of their Roma populations and the assumption that Roma live in concentrated geographical areas, which was considered necessary for probability sampling “at reasonable cost and within a limited time frame”. Messing (2014), pp. 820 and 821.
- 468.
Surdu (2019), p. 12.
- 469.
- 470.
For example, the All-Ireland Traveller Health Study from 2014 was not used to create a Traveller health action plan in Ireland. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 9. Abdikeeva (2014), pp. 27 and 30. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 62. PER (2000), p. 10. The multiple reasons for the widespread lack of (reliable) ethnic data on Roma were considered in Sect. 5.1.3.
- 471.
- 472.
- 473.
Ringold et al. (2005), p. 57.
- 474.
Id. at pp. xix and 57.
- 475.
- 476.
Ringold et al. (2005), p. 26.
- 477.
PER (2000), p. 16.
- 478.
- 479.
- 480.
- 481.
- 482.
Messing (2014), pp. 811, 821–823 and 825. FRA and UNDP (2012), p. 17. FRA (2011), p. 17. Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 25 and 26. See Sect. 5.3 on the challenges to the construction of ethnic categories for Roma, Sect. 5.4 on the appropriateness of different ethnical identification approaches for Roma, and Sect. 5.5 on the methodological challenges to interviewing Roma populations.
- 483.
Messing (2014), pp. 812 and 824.
- 484.
- 485.
Messing (2014), pp. 821, 822 and 825.
- 486.
Id.
- 487.
- 488.
Guy et al. (2010), pp. 8 and 9.
- 489.
Using the same questionnaires to interview Roma in different countries can improve data comparability. Within the framework of EU-MIDIS, comparability between data on minorities and majority populations was improved by using survey structures and questions from other international surveys such as the Eurobarometer. See: FRA (2013b), p. 17. FRA (2009c), pp. 28, 29, 31 and 255. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 8, 10 and 11. UNDP (2003), pp. 9 and 86.
- 490.
- 491.
- 492.
- 493.
- 494.
The EU-MIDIS surveys use the same standard questionnaire to conduct interviews in all Member States and across all groups selected. Given that Roma were a target group in both EU-MIDIS surveys, trend analysis and results’ comparison is possible between EU-MIDIS I and EU-MIDIS II. FRA (2017), p. 14. FRA (2016). Furthermore, some general level comparisons of results on employment status of Roma from EU-MIDIS I are possible to those of the Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey from 2008. FRA (2012b). FRA (2009a), pp. 14 and 17. FRA (2009b), p. 13. FRA (2009c), pp. 20, 27, 30, 242, 269 and 271.
- 495.
- 496.
- 497.
FRA (2009b), p. 14.
- 498.
- 499.
Ringold et al. (2005), p. 92.
- 500.
On the other hand, for resource allocation purposes that are usually based on headcount, consensus should be found at the national level on the number of Roma. UNDP (2005), p. 9.
- 501.
- 502.
- 503.
- 504.
- 505.
FRA (2013b), p. 9.
- 506.
The same goes for the non-Roma respondents in the survey. FRA (2013b), p. 9. FRA and UNDP (2012), pp. 10 and 29. UNDP (2005), p. 10. FRA (2016, p. 8) uses this reasoning explicitly to describe the representativeness of the EU-MIDIS II survey results on Roma, by stating that “the data are representative for Roma living in the nine EU Member States in geographic or administrative units with density of Roma populations higher than 10%, who self-identify as “Roma” or as members of one of the other groups covered by this umbrella terms. Therefore, the findings presented in this report reflect the living conditions, enjoyment of fundamental rights and experiences with discrimination of up to 80% of Roma living in the nine EU Member States surveyed”.
- 507.
For example, while the FRA survey on the situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States (FRA and UNDP 2012, p. 16) indicates clear differences between the rates of Roma and non-Roma in paid employment, further investigation is needed to explain the low employment rates of Roma compared to non-Roma. This was briefly mentioned in Sect. 5.2. FRA (2009c), p. 271. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 41.
- 508.
See, for example: FRA (2010), p. 31.
- 509.
Id. at p. 28.
- 510.
- 511.
FRA (2009c), p. 161.
- 512.
Id.
- 513.
FRA (2009c), p. 270.
- 514.
Id.
- 515.
- 516.
- 517.
- 518.
Ivanov (2013).
- 519.
The violation of privacy and data protection rules was cited as one of the risks of ethnic data collection in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.2.5). Problems due to misinterpretation or too restrictive interpretation of the applicable European data protection rules were also highlighted in Chap. 3 when introducing the core data protection rules (Sect. 3.3) and when discussing the special rules that apply to sensitive data (Sect. 3.5).
- 520.
- 521.
See: Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (28 January 1981), including changes introduced by the Protocol amending Convention 108 (18 May 2018) (Convention 108+), art. 2(b). 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), art. 4.2. The definitions included in these articles were included in full in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.3).
- 522.
For instance, the Hungarian Census includes a voluntary question on ethnicity since 2001. ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), para. 12. Krizsán (2001), pp. 190 and 192.
- 523.
Hermanin (2013), pp. 105 and 106.
- 524.
For example, Hungarian Labour Law allows employers to collect data on their employees to adopt an equal opportunities plan for a fixed time period, provided they respect arts. 2.2 and 3.2 of Act No. 63 (LXIII) on the Protection of Personal Data and the Publicity of Data Public Interest (1992). Makkonen (2006), p. 100. Farkas (2004), p. 22.
- 525.
Farkas (2004, p. 19) refers to art. 19(1)b of Hungarian Act No. 125 (CXXV) on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities (2003), which requires complainants to establish his racial or ethnic origin or national or ethnic minority characteristic in order for the burden of proof in cases of ethnic or racial discrimination to be reversed. Moreover, when the case concerns indirect discrimination, the plaintiff must also establish the comparator, which becomes very hard or even impossible due to the data protection provisions. Goodwin (2004), p. 1439. See Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.1.1) on the argument made at UN level that the right to be free from discrimination includes the right to access information that could help to prove discrimination.
- 526.
- 527.
- 528.
- 529.
- 530.
- 531.
- 532.
Farkas (2017), p. 45.
- 533.
- 534.
- 535.
- 536.
- 537.
- 538.
- 539.
Hermanin (2013), p. 109. Krizsán (2001), pp. 170 and 171. Integrity and confidentiality through appropriate security measures was mentioned as the eighth general data protection rule in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.4.8). See also the five operational and organisational principles for personal data processing in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.7).
- 540.
- 541.
- 542.
- 543.
Id.
- 544.
The victims each received 5000 Swedish Krona (approximately 512 euro) in damages for privacy invasion. Eleven people, eight adults and three children, sued for further damages and were awarded each 30,000 Swedish Krona (approximately 3074 euro) by the Stockholm district court in June 2016. Albert (2017). The Local (2016).
- 545.
- 546.
- 547.
Krizsán (2001).
- 548.
Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre (2013).
- 549.
- 550.
This was discussed in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.4.7) on anonymisation as the seventh general data protection rule. Within the framework of Census, such removal can be done upon completion of reliability checks. In surveys and research, computer programmes could eliminate and eventually also destroy names and addresses contained in the original survey forms. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 43. EURoma (2009), p. 5.
- 551.
- 552.
Oppenheimer (2008), p. 750.
- 553.
Krizsán (2001), pp. 173 and 174.
- 554.
- 555.
- 556.
- 557.
- 558.
- 559.
PER (2000), p. 30. The operational and organisational principles of sensitive data processing, including professional secrecy and confidentiality, political independency, ethical norms and standards, trained staff and management involvement, and active and meaningful involvement of all relevant stakeholders, were discussed in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.7).
- 560.
- 561.
This was previously briefly mentioned in Sect. 5.1.1 on international and European calls for data on Roma. It will be also be stressed in Sect. 5.8.3 on the need for political will to make ethnic data collection for Roma work. See also Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.3.1) on the need for an analytical, legal and regulatory framework on positive action, and Chap. 9 (Sect. 9.2.2) on the need for political will to use positive action to advance the situation of Roma in Europe.
- 562.
- 563.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 45.
- 564.
Such joint supervision is put in place in the UK in relation to the collection of data on ethnicity of pupils for national anti-discrimination policies. Waldron (2011).
- 565.
McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 36. As explained in Sect. 5.3.2, close co-operation with social scientists is useful to determine the feasibility and operationalibility of different methodological options. The importance of active and meaningful involvement of different stakeholders was stressed in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.7.5).
- 566.
- 567.
See Sect. 5.8.2 on active participation of all relevant stakeholders in ethnic data collection.
- 568.
ERIO (2009), p. 21.
- 569.
See Sect. 5.1 on large data gaps on Roma in Europe, Sect. 5.2.2 on the added value of research data, Sect. 5.2.3 on the shortcomings of complaints and crime data, Sect. 5.4.1 on Roma reluctance towards self-identifying as Roma, Sect. 5.4.5 on combining different ethnical identification approaches for more accurate results, Sect. 5.5.4 on the impact of type of interview, interviewers and questions asked on data quality, and Sect. 5.7.3 on the need for close co-operation between experts.
- 570.
- 571.
- 572.
This was addressed in Sect. 5.1.3 on the multiple reasons for the widespread lack of (reliable) data on Roma in Europe, Sect. 5.2.1 on the limitations of official statistics as a data source, Sect. 5.2.3 on the unreliability of complaints data due to under-reporting, and Sect. 5.4.1 on Roma reluctance towards self-identification.
- 573.
See Sect. 5.1.3 on the reasons for the widespread lack of (reliable) data on Roma, Sect. 5.2.3 on the unreliability of complaints data, and Sect. 5.4.1 on the reluctance of many Roma to self-identify as Roma. The EU-MIDIS survey demonstrates that awareness levels vary among Roma and across Member States. Resolution 1740 of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe (22 June 2010), art. 15.2. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 28. FRA and UNDP (2012), pp. 12 and 29. Ivanov (2012), pp. 80 and 81. ERIO (2009), pp. 23, 30 and 31. FRA (2009b), pp. 3, 6–9 and 12. FRA (2009c), pp. 13, 17, 158, 159, 163, 165, 244 and 273. Covrig (2004), p. 94. Petrova (2004), p. 5. Krizsán (2001), pp. 157 and 192. PER (2000), pp. 4, 5 and 29.
- 574.
ERIO (2009), p. 31.
- 575.
See, for example: ACFC, Second Opinion on Slovakia (26 May 2005), para. 27. ACFC, Second Opinion on Hungary (9 December 2004), para. 32. Resolution 1740 of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe (22 June 2010), art. 15.2. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 37. Ringelheim (2013), p. 54. ERIO (2009), p. 3. FRA (2009c), p. 13. Chapter 3 (Sects. 3.3–3.7) analysed the general and special data protection rules and principles at CoE and EU level.
- 576.
- 577.
ACFC, Second Opinion on the Czech Republic (24 February 2005), para. 37. ACFC, Second Opinion on Slovakia (26 May 2005), para. 27. ACFC, Second Opinion on Hungary (9 December 2004), paras. 31 and 32. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 50. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 29. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 75. Krizsán (2001), p. 158. Chapter 11 will focus on inter-cultural mediation to enhance Roma inclusion.
- 578.
- 579.
Ringold et al. (2005), pp. 127 and 128.
- 580.
ERIO (2009), p. 31.
- 581.
Abdikeeva (2014), p. 25.
- 582.
See Sect. 5.8.2 on the importance of active participation of Roma in data collection practices.
- 583.
For instance, the number of Roma doubled in the 2011 Montenegrin Census following a grassroots campaign. In Romania, the number of self-identifications rose from 535,140 in 2002 to 621,573 in 2011. A Serbian grassroots campaign led to a 40% increase in the official number of Roma in the 2011 Census. In Montenegro, the official number rose from 2501 to 6251 Roma in the 2011 Census. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), paras. 46–49. ERRC (2013b), p. 14. Jovanovic and Haliti (2012). Rorke (2011). OSF (2010), pp. 64 and 65. PER (2000), p. 21.
- 584.
The campaign received support from the European Commission, the Dutch Embassy and the OSF Roma Initiatives Office. Abdikeeva (2014), pp. 28 and 29.
- 585.
In total, 83 Roma enumerators were involved in the project. Abdikeeva (2014), pp. 28 and 29. The added value of Roma enumerators will be addressed in Sect. 5.8.2 on the participation of Roma as a key principle to render ethnic data collection truly effective. Chapter 11 will zoom in on the importance of inter-cultural mediation and on the role of Roma mediators.
- 586.
The self-identification rate rose with 56% in targeted communities compared to 16% at the national level. Geographical limitations of the project were due to budgetary constraints. Abdikeeva (2014), pp. 28 and 29.
- 587.
Chopin et al. (2014), p. 75.
- 588.
For instance, Roma self-identification increased by 16% in the 2011 Romanian Census, but still approximately 1.4 million people do not self-identify. Additionally, Roma without identity documents and those without legal residence are not included in Census results. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), paras. 48–49. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 30. Jovanovic and Haliti (2012). PER (2000), p. 27.
- 589.
Abdikeeva (2014), p. 30.
- 590.
- 591.
In Montenegro, the amount of public funds attributed to the Decade of Roma Inclusion was proportional to the official number of Roma. In Serbia, quotas in employment for public administration and the police are determined on the basis of Census data. Positive action will be discussed in Part II of the book. Jovanovic and Haliti (2012).
- 592.
- 593.
- 594.
- 595.
ERRC (2004b), p. 39.
- 596.
CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000), para. 9.
- 597.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), para. 15(b). ECRI, Fourth Report on France (29 April 2010), para. 105. ERIO (2009), p. 31. This will be discussed further in Chap. 11 on inter-cultural mediation to enhance Roma inclusion.
- 598.
- 599.
- 600.
- 601.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 3: Combating Racism and Intolerance against Roma/Gypsies (6 March 1998).
- 602.
Resolution 1740 of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe (22 June 2010), art. 15.8.
- 603.
CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 14. ODIHR (2014). Problems with data collection on complaints of discrimination and hate crimes against Roma were addressed in Sect. 5.2.3.
- 604.
Other groups include migrants, people with intellectual disabilities and LGBT. FRA (2014), p. 135.
- 605.
For instance, reports should avoid blaming Roma communities as a whole when reporting on incidents involving individuals of such communities. ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 3: Combating Racism and Intolerance against Roma/Gypsies (6 March 1998). The role of the media was addressed in Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.1).
- 606.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 3: Combating Racism and Intolerance against Roma/Gypsies (6 March 1998).
- 607.
- 608.
Swedish Ministry of Employment (2014).
- 609.
This is not only the case with Roma, but more broadly with racial and ethnic minority communities in Europe. Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015, Terms of Reference—Decade Declaration (2 February 2005), pp. 3 and 5. CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), para. 26. Farkas (2017), pp. 42 and 43. FRA (2014), p. 171. Messing (2014), pp. 814, 817, 818, 824 and 825. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 47. Ringelheim (2013), p. 54. FRA and UNDP (2012), p. 9. McDonald and Negrin (2010), pp. 19, 20, 33, 34 and 36. Rughiniș (2010), p. 352. Ringelheim (2006/7), p. 69. Hollo (2006), p. 4. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 187. Covrig (2004), p. 100. Csepeli and Simon (2004), pp. 135 and 136. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 12 and 13. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (2000), p. 61. The need for active participation of Roma was stressed repeatedly throughout this chapter (see Sects. 5.1, 5.3, 5.4.1, 5.4.5, 5.5.4 and 5.7.3). Active and meaningful involvement of target groups was cited as the fifth organisational principle of ethnic data collection in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.7.5). Suggested further reading on working with Roma, including on challenges to meaningful participation and on participatory action research: FRA (2018).
- 610.
Ringold et al. (2005), p. 188.
- 611.
- 612.
- 613.
The tenth Common Basic Principle on Roma Inclusion stresses the importance of full participation in public life and active participation of the Roma in the design, implementation and evaluation of policy initiatives to enhance the effectiveness of policies. Milcher and Ivanov (2004, p. 12) promote the mainstreaming of consistent Roma participation in general policies and in Roma policies. This will be discussed further in Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.3.2) on the importance of active participation in positive action. Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion, as annexed to the Council Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma (8 June 2009), principle 10. See also: Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015, Terms of Reference—Decade Declaration (2 February 2005), p. 5. ACFC, Second Opinion on Finland (2 March 2006), para. 18 and 144–146 and 168. Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues on the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council” (2 February 2007), para. 89. CERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma (16 August 2000), para. 43. CERD Committee, Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000), paras. 8 and 34. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), paras. 13, 20, 29 and 44. UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 43. Jovanovic and Haliti (2012). McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 19. Guy et al. (2010), pp. 4 and 11. Davidović and Rodrigues (2010), pp. 172 and 173. Hollo (2006), pp. 5 and 35. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 188. Krizsán (2001), p. 195. PER (2000), pp. 11, 25 and 34.
- 614.
See Sect. 5.8.3 on genuine political will a key principle of ethnic data collection on Roma.
- 615.
- 616.
- 617.
- 618.
See, for example: Ringold et al. (2005), p. 188.
- 619.
- 620.
This was addressed in Sect. 5.1.3 when discussing the multiple reasons for the widespread lack of (reliable) data on Roma, Sect. 5.4.1 on Roma’s reluctance towards self-identification, and Sect. 5.5.4 on the importance to carefully consider the type of interviews, interviewers and questions asked when collecting data on Roma. ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), para. 2. UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 43. Ringold et al. (2005), p. 188. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 12 and 13.
- 621.
In the Czech Republic, Roma helped to collect data on socially excluded Roma. The results generated in a society-wide dialogue on the issues at hand and in recommendations to ameliorate the situation on the basis of European Social Fund funding allocation. Funding of measures promoting Roma inclusion will be addressed in Chap. 9 (Sect. 9.2.5). ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), para. 2. Messing (2014), pp. 814, 817 and 818. Guy et al. (2010), p. 35. Hollo (2006), p. 29. Covrig (2004), p. 100.
- 622.
- 623.
Kurtic (2006).
- 624.
- 625.
Abdikeeva (2014), p. 26. Healy (2013). Roma reluctance to self-identify was previously mentioned in Sect. 5.1.3 as one of the reasons for the lack of (reliable) ethnic data on Roma in Europe, Sect. 5.4.1 on the limitations of the self-identification approach in the Roma context, and Sect. 5.5.4 on the impact of the type of interview, interviewers and questions asked on the quality of the data collected..
- 626.
- 627.
- 628.
For the study, Roma respondents were located in settlements selected with the help from local Romani organisations. It thus combines self-identification with external identification by members of the group. Babusik (2004), p. 18. The appropriateness of the different ethnical identification approaches to collect data on Roma was reviewed in Sect. 5.4.
- 629.
CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 43.
- 630.
Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues on the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council” (2 February 2007), para. 77. CoE, Roma and Statistics (22–23 May 2000), para. 54. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 29. Messing (2014), p. 814. FRA (2013b), p. 19. Guy et al. (2010), pp. 5, 8 and 9. McDonald and Negrin (2010), p. 36. UNDP (2005), p. 10. Hollo (2006), p. 29. Babusik (2004), p. 18. PER (2000), p. 29.
- 631.
Both Member States engaged Roma enumerators in the 2011 Census. In Romania, Roma leaders accompanied censors in some Roma communities. Active participation of Roma and awareness-raising activities led to an official increase of 16—56% in municipalities where active campaigning took place—in self-identifications among Roma in Romania. Farkas (2017), p. 43. Abdikeeva (2014), p. 29. Chopin et al. (2014), p. 75.
- 632.
- 633.
UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 43. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), pp. 11 and 12.
- 634.
- 635.
Milcher and Ivanov (2004), p. 12.
- 636.
Involvement of civil society in the design, development, implementation and evaluation of Roma inclusion policy initiatives is the ninth Common Basic Principle on Roma Inclusion. They can mobilise expertise and disseminate the necessary knowledge to develop public debate and accountability. Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion, as annexed to the Council Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma (8 June 2009), principle 9. Farkas (2017), p. 43. Milcher and Ivanov (2004), p. 12.
- 637.
Farkas (2017), p. 43.
- 638.
As explained in Sect. 5.1.4, insufficient regard for the gender dimension risks overlooking intersectionality. See also Chap. 1 (Sect. 1.2.3.2) for a brief summary of the situation of Roma women in Europe. The importance of not only addressing ethnicity, but also gender, was also stressed in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.1.2).
- 639.
Hollo (2006), p. 35.
- 640.
Kurtic (2006).
- 641.
Roma women are also best interviewed without the presence of a male family member. UNDP, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006), para. 43.
- 642.
Involvement of regional and local authorities in the design, development, implementation and evaluation of Roma inclusion policy initiatives is the eight Common Basic Principle of Roma Inclusion. Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion, as annexed to the Council Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma (8 June 2009), principle 8.
- 643.
- 644.
Commission Communication, Steps forward in implementing National Roma Integration Strategies (26 June 2013), p. 14.
- 645.
Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues on the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council” (2 February 2007), para. 91.
- 646.
Id.
- 647.
Chopin et al. (2014), p. 33. This was briefly addressed in Sects. 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 when reviewing the multifarious data sources on Roma. See also Chap. 4 on how ethnic data can help to uncover discrimination and identify good practices (Sect. 4.1.2), on research data (Sect. 4.3.2), and on complaints data (Sect. 4.3.4).
- 648.
See Sect. 5.7.3 on the need for close co-operation between experts. The link between ethnic data and positive action has been highlighted repeatedly. It will also be stressed in Part II on positive action. See: Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.3.4) on the notion positive action, Chap. 9 (Sect. 9.2.2) on positive action for Roma, and Chap. 11 (Sect. 11.5) on inter-cultural mediation in the Roma context.
- 649.
- 650.
- 651.
PER (2000), p. 30.
- 652.
Hollo (2006), pp. 4 and 8.
- 653.
- 654.
PER (2000), p. 12.
- 655.
- 656.
EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007).
- 657.
References
Legal Instruments
Council of Europe
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
Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (20 March 1952) ETS 9
Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (18 May 2018) ETS No. 223
European Union
Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (9 December 2013) OJ 2013/C 378/1
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
National Level
France, Law on the exercise of itinerant professions and the regulation of the movement of nomads (Loi du sur l’exercice des professions ambulantes et la réglementation de la circulation des nomades) (16 July 1912), Journal Official of 19 July 1912
Hungary, Act No. 63 (LXIII) on the Protection of Personal Data and the Publicity of Data Public Interest (1992)
Hungary, Act No. 125 (CXXV) on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities (2003)
United Kingdom, PACE Code A Revised code of practice for the exercise by: police officers of statutory powers of stop and search (2013)
United Kingdom, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Code A (1984)
Non-legally Binding Instruments
United Nations
Outline for reports to be submitted pursuant to Article 25 paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (30 September 1998) ACFC/INF(1998)001
Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues on the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council” (2 February 2007) A/HRC/4/9
Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (16 August 2000) CERD/C/SR.1423
United Nations Development Programme, Gender Aspects and Minority Data: An Illustrative Case of Roma Women in Southeast Europe (12 September 2006) ECE/CES/GE.30/2006/20
Council of Europe
Council of Europe, Roma and Statistics (22-23 May 2000) MG-S-ROM(2000)13
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)
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)
Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights following his visit to Greece from 28 January to 1 February 2013 (16 April 2013) CommDH(2013)6
Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights following his visit to Portugal from 7 to 9 May 2012 (10 July 2012) CommDH(2012)22
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, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011) COM(2011) 173 final
Commission Communication, National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework (21 May 2012) COM(2012) 226 final
Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018) COM(2018) 785 final
Commission Communication, Steps forward in implementing National Roma Integration Strategies (26 June 2013) COM(2013) 454 final
Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion, as annexed to the Council Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma (8 June 2009)
Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013) 2013/2066(INI)
Resolution of the European Parliament on the occasion of International Roma Day – anti-Gypsyism in Europe and EU recognition of the memorial day of the Roma genocide during World War II (15 April 2015) 2015/2615(RSP)
Other
Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015, Terms of Reference – Decade Declaration (2 February 2005).. Available via the Romanian National Agency for Roma. www.anr.gov.ro/docs/deceniul/The_International_Steering_Committee_ToR.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2018
Government of the Republic of Croatia, National Roma Inclusion Strategy from 2013 to 2020 (2012)
Hungarian Ministry of Public Administration and Justice, National Social Inclusion Strategy – Extreme Poverty, Child poverty, the Roma 2011–2020 (2011)
Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Government for Roma Communities, Strategy for the Integration of Roma up to 2020 (2012)
Swedish Government, A coordinated long-term strategy for Roma inclusion 2012–2032 (2012)
Case Law
European Court of Human Rights
D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), Application No. 57325/00
Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, Judgment (16 March 2010, GC), Application No. 15766/03
European Committee of Social Rights
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
CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, Judgment (16 July 2013), case C-83/14
Valeri Hariev Belov v. CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD and others, Judgment (31 January 2013), Case C-394/11
National Level
German Constitutional Court, BverfGE 65, 1ff (1983)
Country Monitoring
Human Rights Committee
Concluding observations on Lithuania (31 August 2012) CCPR/C/LTU/CO/3
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Concluding Observations on Greece (7 June 2004) E/C.12/1/Add.97
Concluding observations on Greece (27 October 2015) E/C.12/GRC/CO/2
Concluding observations on Ireland (5 June 2002) E/C.12/1/Add.77
Concluding Observations on Slovakia (8 June 2012) E/C.12/SVK/CO/2
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Concluding Observations on Austria (31 August 2012) CERD/C/AUT/CO/18-20
Concluding Observations on Finland (23 October 2012) CERD/C/FIN/CO/20-22
Concluding Observations on Italy (4 April 2012) CERD/C/ITA/CO/16-18
Committee Against Torture
Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (3 June 2004) CAT/C/CR/32/2
Concluding Observations on Hungary (6 February 2007) CAT/C/HUN/CO/4
Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
Second Opinion on the Czech Republic (24 February 2005) ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)002
Second Opinion on Finland (2 March 2006) ACFC/OP/II(2006)003
Second Opinion on Hungary (9 December 2004) ACFC/INF/OP/II(2004)003
Second Opinion on Slovakia (26 May 2005) ACFC/OP/II(2005)004
Second Opinion on Slovenia (26 May 2005) ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)005
Third Opinion on Hungary (18 March 2010) ACFC/OP/III(2010)001
Third Opinion on Romania (21 March 2012) ACFC/OP/III(2012)001
Fourth Opinion on Slovakia (3 December 2014) ACFC/OP/IV(2014)004
European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance
Fourth Report on Finland (21 March 2013) CRI(2013)19
Fourth Report on France (29 April 2010) CRI(2010)16
Fourth Report on Latvia (9 December 2011) CRI(2012)3
Fourth Report on Portugal (21 March 2013) CRI(2013)20
Fourth Report on Sweden (19 June 2012) CRI(2012)46
Fifth Report on Hungary (19 March 2015) CRI(2015)19
General Comments and Recommendation
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
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. 3: Combating Racism and Intolerance against Roma/Gypsies (6 March 1998) CRI(98)29 rev
General Policy Recommendation No. 10: Combating racism and racial discrimination in and through school education (15 December 2006) CRI(2007)6
General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011) CRI(2011)37
Literature
Abdikeeva A (2014) Measure, plan, act – how data collection can support racial equality. European Network Against Racism, Brussels
Albert G (2017) Sweden to compensate thousands of Roma after police illegally keep ethnic database on them. Available via Romea. http://www.romea.cz/en/news/world/sweden-to-compensate-thousands-of-roma-after-police-illegally-keep-ethnic-database-on-them#.WTTxeT_Lb5E.twitter. Accessed 16 Dec 2018
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
Amnesty International (2010) Unlock their future – end the segregation of Romani children in education in Slovakia’s schools. Available via Amnesty International Vlaanderen. https://www.amnesty-international.be/sites/default/files/bijlagen/CDSlovakia_Roma.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Anagnostou D (2010) Does European human rights law matter? Implementation and domestic impact of Strasbourg Court judgments on minority-related policies. Int J Hum Rights 14(5):721–743
Anagnostou D, Mungiu-Pippidi A (2014) Domestic implementation of human rights judgments in Europe: legal infrastructure and government effectiveness matter. Eur J Int Law 25(1):205–227
Babusik F (2004) Legitimacy, statistics and research methodology – who is Romani in Hungary Today and what are we (not) allowed to know about Roma. Roma Rights 2:14–18
Banton M (2001) Ethnic monitoring in international law: the world of CERD. In: Krizsán A (ed) Ethnic monitoring and data protection – the European context. Central European University Press, Budapest, pp 62–85
Barton S (2004) Ethnic monitoring, gypsies and travellers. Roma Rights 2:24–29
Beis M (2012) Constraints of ethnic data collection: the case of the Roma and the FRA Research. Presentation at the seminar on Europe and the Roma: where do we stand now? Institute for European Studies and Fundamental Rights and Constitutionalism Research Group, Brussels, 16 March 2012
Bond L, McGinnity F, Russel H (2010) Introduction: making equality count. In: Bond L, McGinnity F, Russell H (eds) Making equality count – Irish and international approaches to measuring equality and discrimination. Liffey Press, Dublin, pp 1–19
Brüggemann C, Bloem S (2013) The potential of international student assessments to measure educational outcomes of Roma students. Sociológica 45(6):519–541
Chopin I, Do TU, Farkas L (2013) Promoting the implementation of European Union equality and non-discrimination standards in the programming and implementation of structural funds with respect to Roma. Available via Migration Policy Group. http://www.migpolgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Promoting-EU-Non-discrimination-and-Equality-standards-in-the-programming-and-implementation-of-Structural-Funds-with-respect-to-Roma_layout-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Chopin I, Farkas L, Germaine C (2014) Ethnic origin and disability data collection in Europe: measuring inequality – combating discrimination. Open Society Foundations, Brussels
Clark C (1998) Counting backwards: the Roma ‘numbers game’ in Central and Eastern Europe. Available via Radstats. www.radstats.org.uk/no069/article4.htm. Accessed 31 Oct 2018
Corsi M, Crepaldi C, Samek Lodovici M, Boccagni P, Vasilescu C (2010) Ethnic minority and Roma women in Europe: a case for gender equality? Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Cosse E (2016) Pour les “Gens du voyage”, la fin d’une discrimination historique. Available via Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/emmanuelle-cosse/gens-du-voyage-logement_a_21616429/. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Council of Europe (2012) Council of Europe descriptive glossary of terms relating to Roma issues. Available via Council of Europe. http://a.cs.coe.int/team20/cahrom/documents/Glossary%20Roma%20EN%20version%2018%20May%202012.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2018
Covrig A (2004) Why Roma do not declare their identity – careful decision or unpremeditated refusal? JSRI 8:90–101
Csepeli G, Simon D (2004) Construction of Roma identity in Eastern and Central Europe: perception and self-identification. J Ethn Migration Stud 30(1):129–150
Damman M (2010) Ede in de fout met Roma. Available via BN DeStem. https://www.bndestem.nl/overig/ede-in-de-fout-met-roma~a62304b7/. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Davidović M, Rodrigues PR (2010) Antiziganisme. In: Rodrigues PR, van Donselaar J (eds) Monitor racisme & extremisme – Achtste rapportage. Anne Frank Stichting/Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 153–179
De Groene Amsterdammer (2010) De Roma-lijsten van Ede. Available via De Groene Amsterdammer. https://www.groene.nl/artikel/de-roma-lijsten-van-ede. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Decade of Roma Inclusion Steering Committee (2004) Second Meeting of the Roma Decade Steering Committee: minutes and summary. Available via Regional Cooperation Council. https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/romadecadefold//documents/2.%20isc%20meetings/02%202nd%20Meeting%20of%20the_April%202004%20(Hungary)/Minutes%20of%20the%202nd%20ISC%20Meeting.pdf
Decade Watch (2007) Roma activists assess the progress of the decade of Roma inclusion 2005–2006. Available via World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PGLP/Resources/NadirRedzepiDecadeWatchBackgroundPaper.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Druker J (1997) Present but unaccounted for. Transitions 4(4):22–23
EURoma (2009) Brief on ethnic data collection. Available via EURoma. www.euromanet.eu/upload/29/80/BRIEF_ON_ETHNIC_DATA_COLLECTION.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
European Commission (2004) The situation of Roma in an enlarged European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field (2009) Compatibility with equal treatment rules of the decree on control of ‘nomadic communities’. Eur Anti-Discrimination Law Rev 8:53
European Parliament (2006) Economic aspects of the condition of Roma Women. Available via European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2006/365970/IPOL-FEMM_ET(2006)365970_EN.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
European Roma Information Office (2009) Survey on ethnic data collection – risk or opportunity. Available via European Roma Information Office. www.erionet.eu/doc-data-collection-survey_2009. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
European Roma Rights Centre (2004a) First five Roma rights victories under new Bulgarian equality law. Available via European Roma Rights Centre. www.errc.org/article/first-five-roma-rights-victories-under-new-bulgarian-equality-law/2022. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
European Roma Rights Centre (2004b) No compromise with the universality of human rights. Roma Rights 2:38–39
European Roma Rights Centre (2007) The Glass Box: exclusion of Roma from employment. European Roma Rights Centre, Budapest
European Roma Rights Centre (2013a) ERRC calls on states to collect and publish data to address Roma Health Gap. Available via European Roma Rights Centre. www.errc.org/article/errc-calls-on-states-to-collect-and-publish-data-to-address-roma-health-gap/4229. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
European Roma Rights Centre (2013b) Hidden health crisis: health inequalities and disaggregated data. European Roma Rights Centre, Budapest
European Roma Rights Centre (2013c) Written comments by the European Roma Rights Centre concerning the Czech Republic for consideration by the European Commission on the transposition and application of the race directive and on the legal issues relevant to Roma Integration. Available via European Roma Rights Centre. www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/czech-republic-red-written-comments-5-april-2013.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
European Roma Rights Centre, OSI and Osservazione (2009) Memorandum to the European Commission: violations of EC Law and the Fundamental Rights of Roma and Sinti by the Italian Government in the Implementation of the Census in “Nomad Camps”. Available via Open Society Foundations. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/memorandum-to-the-european-commission-20090504.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
European Roma, Travellers Forum (2015) National Roma integration strategies – evaluating gender. available via Council of Europe. European Roma and Travellers Forum, Strasbourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2007) Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2008) Annual report 2008. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009a) EU-MIDIS at a glance – introduction to the FRA’s EU-wide discrimination survey. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009b) EU-MIDIS data in focus report – The Roma. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009c) EU-MIDIS European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey – main results report (conference edition). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2010) Towards more effective policing. Understanding and preventing discriminatory ethnic profiling: a guide. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2011) Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2010. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2012a) Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2010. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2012b) Making hate crime visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2013a) Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2012. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2013b) Roma Pilot Survey – technical report: methodology, sampling and fieldwork. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014) Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2016) Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey: Roma – selected findings. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2017) Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey – technical report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2018) Working with Roma: participation and empowerment of local communities. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and United Nations Development Programme (2012) The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States – survey results at a glance. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Farkas L (2004) The monkey that does not see. Roma Rights Q 2:19–23
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 (2014) Report on discrimination of Roma children in education. European Commission, Brussels
Farkas L (2017) Data collection in the field of ethnicity. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Feischmidt M, Messing V, Neményi M (2010) Ethnic differences in education in Hungary: community study. Center for Policy Studies, Budapest
Fraser C (2010) France fingerprints Roma deportees to prevent return. Available via BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11450831. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Fundación Secretariado Gitano (2009) Health and the Roma community, analysis of the situation in Europe – Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain. Available via Fundación Secretariado Gitano. http://www.gitanos.org/upload/78/83/Health_and_the_Roma_Community.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Ghosh P (2013) Swedish police keep secret files on Roma (Gypsy) people: fighting crime or ethnic profiling? Available via International Business Times. www.ibtimes.com/swedish-police-keep-secret-files-roma-gypsy-people-fighting-crime-or-ethnic-profiling-1495498. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Goodwin M (2004) White knights on chargers: using the US approach to promote Roma rights in Europe? German Law J 5:1431–1447
Gray Z (2009) The importance of ethnic data for promoting the right to education. In: Minority Rights Group International (ed) State of the world’s minorities and indigenous peoples. Minority Rights Group International, London, pp 54–63
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
Halász K (2008) The situation of Roma in Europe – ENAR shadow report 2007. European Network Against Racism, Brussels
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
Healy A (2013) Census 2011 – working in partnership with Irish travellers. Presentation at the seminar on ethnicity, human rights and data collection. Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre, Dublin, 13 May 2013
Hepworth K (2012) Abject citizens: Italian ‘Nomad Emergencies’ and the deportability of Romanian Roma. Citizenship Stud 16(3–4):431–449
Hermanin C (2013) ‘Counts’ in the Italian ‘nomad’ camps’: an incautious ethnic census of Roma. In: Möschel M, Hermanin C, Grigolo M (eds) Fighting discrimination in Europe – the case for a race-conscious approach. Routledge, London, pp 95–114
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
Ignăţoiu-Sora E (2011) The discrimination discourse in relation to the Roma: its limits and benefits. Ethn Racial Stud 34(10):1697–1714
Ivanov A (2012) Quantifying the unquantifiable: defining Roma populations in quantitative surveys. Population 3(4):79–95
Ivanov A (2013) Closing of the symposium. Presentation at the symposium on equality data collection, ENAR-OSF, Brussels, 24 October 2013
Ivanov A (2017) Roma school segregation continues today. Available via ERIO. http://cloud2.snappages.com/ecc3fa83da15cf423fe3aaa342f545fa355b24f3/Article%20DH%20v%20Czheh%20Republic_20112017.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2018
Jacobs D, Swyngedouw M, Hanquinet L, Vandezande V, Andersson R, Beja Horta AP, Berger M, Diani M, Gonzalez Ferrer A, Giugni M, Morariu M, Pilati K, Statham P (2009) The challenge of measuring immigrant origin and immigration-related ethnicity in Europe. Int Migration Integr 10:67–88
Jovanovic Z, Haliti M (2012) Roma feel less fear and more hope after census. Available via Open Society Foundations. www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/roma-feel-less-fear-and-more-hope-after-census. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Kate M-A (2010) Target-setting for improving the socio-economic situation of migrants and ethnic minorities in Europe – monitoring the situation of migrants and ethnic minorities – part 2. Available via European Network Against Racism. http://www.enar-eu.org/IMG/pdf/pubtargetsetting_final.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Kenrick D, Puxon G (1995) Gypsies under the Swastika. University of Hertfordshire Press, Hatfield
Krizsán A (2001) Ethnic monitoring and data protection: the Case of Hungary. In: Krizsán A (ed) Ethnic monitoring and data protection. The European context. Central European University Press, Budapest, pp 157–199
Kurtic V (2006) No registration, no rights: helping to break the vicious circle affecting Roma. Available via OSCE. www.osce.org/odihr/57510. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Ladányi J, Szelényi I (2001) The social construction of Roma ethnicity in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary during market transition. Rev Sociol 7(2):79–89
Lamberts M, Ode A, Witkamp B (2014) Racism and discrimination in employment in Europe – shadow report 2012–2013. European Network Against Racism, Brussels
Landman T, Carvalho E (2010) Measuring human rights. Routledge, New York
Lauder S (2014) Czech Roma under the Swastika. Available via Transitions Online. http://www.tol.org/client/article/24492-czech-roma-holocaust.html
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
Mansel T (2013) Roma in Sweden: a national questions itself. Available via BBC. www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25200449. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Matras Y (2005) The role of language in mystifying and demystifying Gypsy identity. In: Saul N, Tebbutt S (eds) The role of the Romanies: images and counter-images of ‘Gypsies’/Romanies in European cultures. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, pp 53–78
McDonald C, Negrin K (2010) No data – no progress: summary and analysis. Open Society Institute, New York
Messing V (2014) Methodological puzzles of surveying Roma/Gypsy populations. Ethnicities 14(6):811–829
Milcher S, Ivanov A (2004) The United Nations Development Programme’s Vulnerability Projects, Roma and ethnic data. Roma Rights 2:7–13
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
Nyitray Z, Cox S (2015) Case Watch: Roma ruling advances antidiscrimination protections in the European Union. Available via Open Society Foundations. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/case-watch-roma-ruling-advances-anti-discrimination-protections-european-union. Accessed 19 Feb 2019
O’Higgins N (2012) Roma and non-Roma in the labour market in Central and South Eastern Europe. United Nations Development Programme, Bratislava
O’Reilly K (2014) Disaggregated data collection and Roma health in Romania: highlighting health inequalities. Presentation at the conference on Roma empowerment in the digital era, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, 24 January 2014
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2013) Hate crimes in the OSCE region: incidents and responses – annual report for 2012. Available via ODIHR. tandis.odihr.pl/hcr2012/pdf/Hate_Crime_Report_full_version.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2014) Using data to shed light: the importance of recording and reporting hate crimes. Available via OSCE ODIHR Hate Crime Reporting. hatecrime.osce.org/infocus/using-data-shed-light-importance-recording-and-reporting-hate-crimes. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Open Society Foundations (2010) No data – no progress country findings. Open Society Foundations, New York
Open Society Foundations (2016) Strategic litigation impacts – Roma school desegregation. Open Society Foundations, New York
Open Society Institute (2002) The situation of Roma in Germany. Available via EURAC. http://miris.eurac.edu/mugs2/do/blob.pdf?type=pdf&serial=1038309633742. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Open Society Institute (2006) Monitoring education for Roma – a statistical baseline for Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe. Open Society Institute, New York
Oppenheimer DB (2008) Why France needs to collect data on racial identity… in a French way. Hastings Int Comp Law Rev 31:735–751
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (2000) Report on the situation of Roma and Sinti in the OSCE area. Available via OSCE. www.osce.org/hcnm/32350?download=true. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre (2011) Shadow report to the UN CERD on the issues facing Irish travellers and Roma. Pavee Point Travellers Centre, Dublin
Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre (2013) Equality and ethnic data. Available via Pavee Point. www.paveepoint.ie/ethnic-data-collection-seminar/. Accessed 27 Oct 2018
Petrova D (2004) Ethnic statistics. Roma Rights 2:5–6
Prague Daily Monitor (2016) Compensation deal agreed for Roma victims of holocaust. Available via Prague Monitor. http://praguemonitor.com/2016/08/05/compensation-deal-agreed-roma-victims-holocaust. Accessed 16 Dec 2018
Project on Ethnic Relations (2000) Roma and statistics. PER, Princeton
Ramsay K (2006) Disaggregated data collection: a precondition for effective protection of minority rights in South East Europe. Available via Minority Rights Group International. minorityrights.org/publications/disaggregated-data-collection-a-precondition-for-effective-protection-of-minority-rights-in-south-east-europe-august-2006/. Accessed 27 Oct 2018
Ringelheim J (2006/2007) Minority protection, data collection and the right to privacy. Eur Yearb Minor Issues 6: 51-77.
Ringelheim J (2013) Ethnic categories and European human rights law. In: Möschel M, Hermanin C, Grigolo G (eds) Fighting discrimination in Europe – the case for a race-conscious approach. Routledge, London, pp 47–60
Ringold D, Orenstein MA, Wilkens E (2005) Roma in an expanding Europe: breaking the poverty cycle. The World Bank, Washington
Rodrigues PR, Matelski M (2004) Monitor Racisme & Extreem Rechts: Roma en Sinti. Anne Frank Stichting/Universiteit Leiden, Amsterdam
Romea (2015) European Commission not satisfied with Czech response to discrimination of Romani children. Available via Romea. www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/european-commission-not-satisfied-with-czech-response-to-discrimination-of-romani-children. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Rona S, Lee LE (2001) School success for Roma children: step-by-step special schools initiative interim report. Open Society Institute, New York
Rorke B (2011) Why mobilization matters for Roma. Available via Open Society Foundations. www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/why-mobilization-matters-roma. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
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
Russell H, McGinnity F, Quinn E, King O’Riain R (2010) The experience of discrimination in Ireland: evidence from self-report data. In: Bond L, McGinnity F, Russel H (eds) Making equality count – Irish and international research measuring equality and discrimination. Liffey Press, Dublin, pp 20–47
Sabatauskaité B, Urbonaité E (2013) ENAR shadow report: racism and related discriminatory practices in employment in Lithuania. Available via European Network Against Racism. www.enar-eu.org/IMG/pdf/lithuania.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Schneider J (2015) Reparation and enforcement of judgments: a comparative analysis of the European and Inter-American human rights systems. Available via the Social Science Open Access Repository. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/45633/ssoar-2015-Schneider-Reparation_and_enforcement_of_judgments.pdf?sequence=3. Accessed 21 Mar 2019
Seltzer W, Anderson M (2001) The dark side of numbers: the role of population data systems in human rights abuses. Soc Res 68(2):481–513
Sigona N (2005) Locating ‘The Gypsy Problem’. The Roma in Italy: Stereotyping, Labelling and ‘Nomad Camps’. J Ethn Migration Stud 31(4):741–756
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
Simoni A (2011) Roma and legal culture: roots and old and new faces of a complex equality issue. Eur Anti-Discrimination Law Rev 13:11–19
Simonovits G, Kézdi G (2014) Poverty and the formation of Roma identity in Hungary: evidence from a representative panel survey of adolescents. Available via SSRN. ssrn.com/abstract=2428607. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Surdu M (2019) Why the “real” numbers on Roma are fictitious: revisiting practices of ethnic quantification. Ethnicities 0(0):1–17
Surdu L, Surdu M (2006) Broadening the agenda: the status of Romani Women in Romania. Open Society Institute, New York
Swedish Ministry of Employment (2014) White Paper on abuses and rights violations of Roma during the 1990s. Available via Government Offices of Sweden. www.government.se/49b72d/contentassets/f3ad3ec663cf49a4abd75eed2a53f560/white-paper-on-abuses-and-rights-violations-of-roma-during-the-1900s-a14.003. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
The Local (2016) Sweden to pay damages over Roma register. Available via The Local Sweden. www.thelocal.se/20160610/ethnic-discrimination-ruling-on-swedish-roma-register-due. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Tremlett A (2014) Making a difference without creating a difference: super-diversity as a new direction for research on Roma minorities. Ethnicities 14:830–848
UNICEF (2011) The Right of Roma Children to Education: position paper. UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Geneva
United Kingdom Office for National Statistics (2012) Ethnicity and national identity in England and Wales. Available via the UK National Archives. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_290558.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2018
United Nations Development Programme (2002) Avoiding the dependency trap: The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. UNDP, Bratislava
United Nations Development Programme (2003) Household Survey of Roma, Ashkaelia and Egyptians, refugees and internally displaced persons in Montenegro. Available via Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognonses. issp.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Household-Survey-ISSP_UNDP_eng.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
United Nations Development Programme (2005) Faces of poverty, faces of hope – vulnerability profiles for decade of Roma inclusion countries. UNDP, Bratislava
Uzunova I (2010) Roma integration in Europe: why minority rights are failing. Arizona J Int Comp Law 27(1):283–323
Velinger J (2016) Germany to pay compensation to remaining victims of Roma Holocaust. Available via Radio Praha. https://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/germany-to-pay-compensation-to-remaining-victims-of-roma-holocaust. Accessed 16 Dec 2018
Vivaldi E (2014) Roma, ethics and data collection. Presentation at conference on Roma empowerment in the digital era, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Institute for European Studies, Brussels, 24 January 2014
Vroon V (2010) Roma etnische registratie in Nederland – 93 Roma-jongeren, waarvan 62 leerplicht. Available via De Groene Amsterdammer. https://www.groene.nl/artikel/93-roma-jongeren-waarvan-62-leerplichtig. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Waldron H (2011) The importance and legal basis for collecting data on ethnicity to improve access to education for Romani children. Roma Rights 1:47–51
Wolff J, De-Shalit A (2013) Disadvantage. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Woodcock S (2007) Romania and Europe: Roma, Rroma and Țigani as sites for the contestation of ethno-national identities. Patterns Prejudice 41(5):493–515
World Bank (2008) Czech Republic: improving employment chances for Roma. Available via World Bank. siteresources.worldbank.org/ECAEXT/Resources/258598-1224622402506/CZ_Roma_Employment_Full_Report.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
Yanow D (2003) Constructing “Race” and “Ethnicity” in America: category-making in public policy and administration. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk
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). Challenges to Collecting Ethnic Data on the Roma Minority in Europe. In: Legal Aspects of Ethnic Data Collection and Positive Action. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23668-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23668-7_5
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)