1. Introduction

Commission Communication, Midterm review of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies (30 August 2017); Commission Communication, Assessing the implementation of the EU Framework for national Roma Integration Strategies and the Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States – 2016 (27 June 2016); Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 3; Surdu (2019), p. 12; Mirga-Kruszelnicka (2017), pp. 19–21; Ahmed (2011), pp. 176 and 177.

Hollo (2006), p. 6.

See also Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​1.​3) on substantive equality. Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), pp. 3, 8 and 14. Makkonen (2010), p. 11.

Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), pp. 15–18.

Kovats (2001), p. 7.

Matras (2011), p. 212. The key role of cultural identity in the promotion of Roma inclusion is highlighted in Sect. 1.2.4.

The term Gypsy sometimes also applies to Western European groups who do not and have not ever spoken Romani; also, the so-called Gypsy languages of India are Indic and not Romani languages, but the people speaking it have similar socio-economic occupations as some Gypsies in Europe. Brüggemann and Bloem (2013), p. 520; Friedman (2003), p. 163.

Matras (2011), p. 212.

European Roma and Travellers Forum, Charter on the Rights of the Roma (2009), art. 1.

Streck (2008), pp. 21–47; Matras (2011), p. 216.

Lucassen (1996).

Ries (2008), pp. 267–291.

Liégeois (1994), pp. 36 and 38.

Matras (2011), p. 216.

Liégeois and Gheorge (1995), p. 6.

CoE (2012a), pp. 3 and 4.

Secretariat of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (1993), p. 3.

Commission Staff Working Document, Roma in Europe: The Implementation of European Union Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion – Progress Report 2008–2010 (7 April 2010), p. 3.

Ivanov (2012), pp. 89, 90 and 94.

See Sect. 1.1.1 on the manifold definitions of Roma.

Messing (2014), pp. 812 and 813.

Tremlett (2014), p. 833.

CoE (2012b), p. 32.

Matras (2011), pp. 243 and 244.

Messing (2014), p. 813.

Ivanov (2012), p. 94.

Austrian Federal Chancellery, An EU Framework for the National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 – Political and Legal Measures (2011), p. 5.

In March 2017, Ireland formally recognised Travellers as an ethnic minority. Irish Department of Justice and Equality, National Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy 2017–2021 (2017), p. 15; O’Halloran and O’Regan (2017).

Legros (2011), p. 1.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and United Nations Development Programme (2012), p. 29.

OSCE (2010), p. 7.

CoE (2012b), p. 3; Liégeois (2012), p. 11. As will be discussed in Chap. 5 (Sect. 5.​3), the wide variation in terms used has implications for the construction of ethnic categories for Roma in ethnic data collection practices.

Gheorghe (1991), p. 834.

Secretariat of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (1993), p. 3.

In Spain, for instance, many Roma call themselves Gypsies. Liégeois (2012), p. 15; Vermeersch and Ram (2009), p. 61.

Sigona (2005), pp. 745 and 752.

Kassa (2014).

See Chap. 5 on challenges to collecting ethnic data on the Roma minority.

Recommendation 1203 of the Parliamentary Assembly on Gypsies in Europe (2 February 1993), arts. 2 and 3.

Id.

See Sect. 1.2.4 on the key role of cultural identity. Minority rights protection is further discussed in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4).

The FCNM (1 February 1995) leaves it up to States Parties to determine the groups to which the FCNM shall apply after ratification.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966) (ICCPR).

Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (3 February 1992).

Ahmed (2011), pp. 20 and 180; Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 5 and 48.

From 1999 until its end in 2006, this think tank of the former UN Commission on Human Rights was called the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Study by Francesco Capotorti on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1979), para. 568.

Proposal by Jules Deschênes concerning a Definition of the Term ‘Minority’ (14 May 1985), para. 30.

Report by Asbjørn Eide on Possible ways and means of facilitating the peaceful and constructive solution of problems involving minorities (10 August 1993), para. 29.

Recommendation 1201 of the Parliamentary Assembly on an Additional Protocol on the Rights of National Minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights (1 February 1993), art. 1. The key role of Roma identity will be discussed in Sect. 1.2.4.

UN (2010), pp. 2 and 3; Riddell (2002), p. 7.

Malta is the only EU Member State without Roma. Ahmed (2011), pp. 173, 174 and 179.

For example: Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR Committee), Concluding Observations on Romania (30 May 1994), paras. 12 and 15. Advisory Committee on the FCNM (ACFC), Third Opinion on Spain (22 March 2012), paras. 11 and 28. Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 2; OSCE (1994), p. 9 (paras. 5 and 7). Liégeois and Gheorge (1995), p. 5.

For example: Resolution of the Committee of Ministers on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Italy (14 June 2006), para. 2. Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights on his visit to the Netherlands 21–25 September 2008 (11 March 2009), p. 4. ACFC, Third Opinion on Spain (22 March 2012), para. 28. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Third Report on Italy (16 December 2005) paras. 94 and 99.

Ahmed (2011), pp. 173 and 174.

Capotorti argues that non-nationals are protected by customary international law, which is a non-convincing argument according to Nowak because art. 27 ICCPR uses the term persons and not nationals or citizens. See also: Human Rights Committee (HR Committee), General Comment No. 15: The Position of Aliens under the Covenant (11 April 1986) para. 7. HR Committee, General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Art. 27) (8 April 1994) para. 5.2. Nowak (1993), p. 645.

Hammarberg (2010) and Dedić (2007).

Corsi et al. (2010), p. 48.

Estonia uses the term national minority. Latvia also uses the term national minority and includes stateless persons in the definition while excluding non-citizens and those permanently and legally residing in Latvia. In Poland, only Polish citizens can be a national minority or an ethnic minority. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 48 and 49.

Corsi et al. (2010), p. 48.

Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Malta, Slovakia and Spain. In Sweden, the notion ethnic minority is used in public policy, mostly to define immigrants. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 49 and 50.

France does not recognise the notion minority. Italy recognises linguistic minorities and Greece religious minorities.

Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 48, 49, 127, 128 and 141. Minority rights protection makes up the focus of Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4). See also Chap. 4 on the ethnic data collection sources (Sect. 4.​3) and methods (Sects. 4.​4 and 4.​5), and Chap. 5 on challenges to collecting ethnic data on Roma.

The Roma Civil Society Monitor uncovers that even in countries where Roma are recognised as a minority, their rights are not respected. The shadow reports on the NRIS can be found on the website of the Central European University’s Center for Policy Studies: https://​cps.​ceu.​edu/​roma-civil-monitor-reports (Accessed 17 December 2018). Minority rights protection will be considered in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4).

Corsi et al. (2010), p. 5.

Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 10 and 100; Guglielmo and Walters (2005), p. 765.

Access to EU law depends on the status of persons in EU law (citizen; EU national with residency status; third State national with residency status; asylum seeker; refugee; stateless) and not on their minority status. Ahmed (2011), p. 181; Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 5 and 100–103. As will be considered in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.​5.​4), such a difference in status also has consequences for data collection efforts on Roma.

In Denmark, Roma are a recognised minority despite their marginal demographic weight. Hungary, Minority Act LXXVII on the rights of national and ethnic minorities (7 July 1993), art. 42 (repealed by Act CLXXIX of 2011 on the Rights of Minorities). German Declarations to the FCNM (11 May 1995). Austrian Federal Chancellery, An EU Framework for the National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 – Political and Legal Measures (2011), p. 5; Czech Minister for Human Rights, Roma Integration Concept for 2010–2013 (2009), p. 3; Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 48, 100, 101, 103, 126 and 127; Simon (2007), p. 53; Farkas (2004), pp. 20 and 21.

In Austria, this includes Roma survivors and descendants of Holocaust victims. In Ireland, the status of ethnic minority was given to Travellers. O’Halloran and O’Regan. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 48, 100 to 103 and 125–127.

Greece recognises religious but not ethnic minorities. In Ireland, Irish Travellers are Irish nationals and have a distinct legal status, but as a cultural group they nevertheless receive explicit protection under Irish equality and anti-discrimination law. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 48, 100–103 and 125–127.

Simon (2007), p. 53; Farkas (2004), pp. 20 and 21. See Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​1) on the notions equality and anti-discrimination. See also Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4) on minority rights protection.

Draft Agenda of the European Parliament Mini-hearing Minimum standards for minorities in the EU (3 September 2018).

Sudbrock (2018).

The European Parliament formulates several suggestions as to how this could be done, including through the adoption of of a legislative proposal on minimum standards of protection of minorities in the EU and the establishment of an EU level organ for the recognition and protection of minorities in the EU. Resolution of the European Parliament on minimum standards for minorities in the EU (13 November 2018). Minority-specific instruments at CoE and UN level are considered in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4).

The notion Roma was discussed and defined in Sect. 1.1.1.

Marsh (2013).

Vermeersch and Ram (2009), p. 62.

Rorke (2007), p. 97.

Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), pp. 2 and 3. FRA (2009), pp. 2–14.

Commission Communication, Towards social and economic integration of the Roma in Europe (7 April 2010), p. 2; FRA (2016).

This judgment will be discussed in Chap. 2. EctHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, Judgment (13 November 2007), para. 182.

FRA (2016, 2018a).

Hollo (2006), pp. 7 and 8.

An overwhelming majority of the 240 respondents to the Open Public Consultation that took place within the framework of the mid-term evaluation of the EU Framework for NRIS found the situation of Roma to be worse now compared to 2011 in these four fields. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 1. For a more nuanced overview of progress made in these four key areas, including differences between Member States, see: Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), pp. 17–21. Fore more information on the notion socio-economic rights and a discussion on the right to education, the right to housing, the right to work and the right to health, see Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​7).

Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), pp. 1 and 4.

Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 4; Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 17; Commission Communication, Midterm review of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies (30 August 2017), p. 8; Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 5; FRA (2016), pp. 23–28; Brüggeman (2012), pp. 18–81.

Segregation and other problems in education will be considered in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​7.​2) on the right to education. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 4; Commission Communication, Midterm review of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies (30 August 2017), p. 8; FRA (2016), pp. 27 and 28.

In some countries, discrimination in access to housing has even considerably increased since 2011. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 4; Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 17.

Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 7; FRA (2016), pp. 33–35.

Perić (2012), pp. 42, 46.

See, for instance: Bulman (2018); Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 7. For more on housing issues, see Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​7.​3) on the right to housing.

Commission Communication, Midterm review of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies (30 August 2017), p. 11.

Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 4; Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 17. The right to work makes up the focus of Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​7.​4).

Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 9; Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), pp. 6 and 7; FRA (2016), pp. 17–22. See Sect. 1.2.2 for some historical reflections on the situation of Roma on the margins of society.

Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 4. Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 17. Suggested reading on the transition from education to employment of young Roma: FRA (2018b).

The average self-perceived health status of Roma has improved since 2011. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), pp. 1 and 4; Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 18.

Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 17; FRA (2016), pp. 29 and 30; Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 7. Chapter 2 (Sect. 2.​7.​5) zooms in on the right to health.

Significant differences between countries have been reported on this matter. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 4; Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 18. Commission Communication, Midterm review of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies (30 August 2017), p. 10.

Equinet (2010b), pp. 2 and 6.

Most of the elements of this definition were already included in Nicolae’s attempts to define anti-Gypsyism in 2006. ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), recitals 3 and 4.

Nicolae (2007), pp. 21, 22 and 26.

Id. at pp. 26 and 27.

Id.

The mid-term evaluation of the EU Framework for NRIS identifies “the lack of a specific non-discrimination goal and targeted strategies and action to fight antigypsyism” as one of the key weaknesses. In a resolution on Roma inclusion in the post-2020 period, the European Parliament calls on the European Commission and on Member States to intensify the fight against anti-Gypsyism. Resolution of the European Parliament on the need for a strenghtened post-2020 Strategic EU Framework for National Roma Inclusion Strategies and stepping up the fight against anti-Gypsyism (12 February 2019) P8_TA-PROV(2019)0075. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 8. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 20. Report of the European Parliament on fundamental rights aspects in Roma integration in the EU: fighting anti-Gypsyism (11 October 2017). 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).

Sudbrock (2018).

Simoni (2011), p. 11.

Id. at pp. 12–14.

Liégeois (2012), pp. 28 and 29.

Simoni (2011), pp. 14 and 15.

Id. at pp. 11, 12, 15, 17 and 18.

Uzunova (2010), p. 303; Hollo (2006), p. 8.

See, for instance: Fundación Secretariado Gitano (2016); Matras (2011), pp. 229 and 233; Clark and Campbell (2000), pp. 23–42.

Thematic Discussion on the Question of Discrimination against Roma by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) (16 August 2000), para. 21. Resolution of the European Parliament on the situation of Roma women in the European Union (1 June 2006), art. 22. FRA (2014b), p. 169. ACFC, Third Opinion on Norway (30 June 2011), paras. 69 and 73. ECRI, Fourth Report on France (29 April 2010), paras. 78, 79 and 112.

See, for example: ACFC, Fourth Opinion on Spain (3 December 2014), paras. 51 to 54. ACFC, Third Opinion on Italy (15 October 2010), paras. 20, 87, 90 and 94. ACFC, Second Opinion on Switzerland (29 February 2008), para. 14.

Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on policies for Roma and/or Travellers in Europe (20 February 2008), preamble.

Hollo (2006), pp. 8 and 25.

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. ECRI, Fourth Report on France (29 April 2010), para. 76. ECRI, Third Report on France (25 June 2004), paras. 121 and 122; FRA (2014b), p. 169; Colacicchi (2008), pp. 35–37.

Barron (2018) and Reynolds (2018).

European Roma Rights Centre (2018) and Romea (2018a, b).

European Interest (2019).

Keen (2014), p. 54; Csepeli and Simon (2004), p. 134.

Farkas (2014), pp. 12 and 13.

ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), paras. 4(b) and (q), 6(g) and 7(d).

Ignăţoiu-Sora (2011), p. 1708.

See Sect. 1.2.1 for a brief introduction to the present-day situation of Roma in Europe.

Ahmed (2011), pp. 176 and 177.

Ivanov (2012), p. 85.

Id. at p. 83.

Id. at pp. 86 and 87. See also Sect. 1.2.4 on the key role of cultural identity in the Roma context.

Ivanov (2012), pp. 85 and 86.

Id.

Id. at pp. 85–87.

Ivanov (2012), p. 86; Uzunova (2010), p. 300. Inclusion vs exclusion and the role of Roma identity were addressed in Sect. 1.2.4. See also Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​3) on the notions social inclusion, diversity and pluralism.

Uzunova (2010), pp. 300 and 301.

Ringold et al. (2005), p. 154.

Ahmed (2011), pp. 176 and 177.

Spidla (2007), p. 252.

Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 2.

See Sect. 1.2.4 on the key role of cultural identity in the promotion of Roma inclusion. Ivanov (2012), pp. 87 and 88.

FRA and CoE (2018), p. 60. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) has officially recognised intersectional discrimination and the EctHR has taken an intersectional approach without explicitly using the notion. At EU level, on the other hand, the Equality Directives only mention multiple discrimination in relation to women, while the Court of Justice of the European Union has rejected the creation of new categories of discrimination based on more than one discrimination ground. See: FRA and CoE (2018), pp. 59–63.

Crenshaw (1989), pp. 139–167.

FRA and CoE (2018), p. 60; Strolovitch (2007), pp. 16 and 17.

The 80% average of Roma at risk of poverty is an improvement compared to the 86% average uncovered within the framework of the 2011 FRA Roma survey. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 19; FRA (2016), p. 9.

Ringold et al. (2005), p. 25.

Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 2; Goodwin (2009), p. 142.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (19 August 2013), paras. 26 to 32, 33 to 38 and 39 to 44. See Sect. 1.2.1 for a short overview of the present-day situation of Roma in Europe today.

Exclusion can be geographical, socio-cultural, economical and/or political. Equinet (2010a), p. 7; Ringold et al. (2005), p. 12.

Report of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (8 September 2001), para. 19.

Equinet (2010a), p. 5; Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (8 September 2001), para. 18; Human Rights Watch (2013).

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (19 August 2013), para. 11; Equinet (2010a), pp. 5, 10 and 11.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (19 August 2013), para. 20.

Not all Roma are socially excluded, but any Roma may face discrimination. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), p. 8; Goodwin (2009), pp. 137 and 138.

Goodwin (2009), pp. 146 and 147.

Equinet (2010a), pp. 7 and 9; Human Rights Watch (2013).

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (19 August 2013), para. 21. Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (8 September 2001), para. 52.

Social benefits include the elimination of discrimination, improved social cohesion and respect for fundamental rights. Economic benefits include increased productivity and tax revenues and reduced government payments for social assistance. Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), pp. 2 and 3. Suggested further reading on how the medium- to long-term economic, budgetary and fiscal benefits of Roma integration policies may significantly outweigh short- to medium-term Roma integration costs: Ciaian et al. (2018).

Koldinská (2011), p. 241; Kóczé (2009), p. 17.

Kóczé (2009), pp. 27, 28 and 34.

Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), recital J. FRA (2018a), pp. 28–30; Cukrowska-Torzewska (2014), p. 68; FRA (2014b), pp. 11–15; Tremlett (2014), p. 832.

The situation differs however between Member States, with the share of Roma women in paid work being equal or higher than that of Roma men in some countries. For a more nuanced picture, see: FRA (2018a), pp. 34–38; FRA (2016), p. 10; FRA (2014a), pp. 17–23. Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), recital G. Corsi et al. (2010), p. 12.

Corsi et al. (2010), p. 12.

Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), recital H. Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 7, 12, 65 and 78.

FRA (2018a), p. 39.

For a more detailed description of the health situation among Roma women, see: FRA (2014a), pp. 25–29.

Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), recitals K, L and N. Tremlett (2014), p. 832; Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 111–115.

Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), recital O. Koldinská (2011), p. 243; Corsi et al. (2010), pp. 8 and 13.

For the CEDAW Committee, see, for example: Concluding Observations on Croatia (28 July 2015), paras. 14, 15, 36 and 37. Concluding Observations on Hungary (1 March 2013), paras. 36 and 37. Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (10 November 2010), paras. 42 and 43. For the CERD Committee, see, for example: General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination against Roma, 16 August 2000), paras. 6, 22 and 34. Concluding Observations on Slovakia (17 April 2013), para. 13. Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic (14 September 2011), paras. 18, 19 and 21.

Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), recitals B and H and art. 24. Resolution of the European Parliament on the situation of Roma women in the European Union (1 June 2006), recitals 5 and E and art. 1.

Koldinská (2011), p. 244.

D’Agostino (2015); Koldinská (2011), p. 244.

In addition to gender, the mid-term evaluation of the EU Framework for NRIS also stresses the importance of paying special attention to other Roma subgroups facing multiple and intersectional discrimination, including children, people with disabilities, LGBTI, the EU-mobile Roma, non-EU Roma and stateless Roma, by including explicit indicators and targets that address their specific needs in different areas. 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 Staff Working Document, Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), pp. 35–37.

Cukrowska-Torzewska (2014), p. 68.

See Sect. 1.2.3.1 on the intersection of discrimination and poverty in the Roma context.

Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), recital D.

Id. at recital F.

D’Agostino (2015); Kóczé (2009), pp. 13 and 25.

Koldinská (2011), p. 244; Kóczé (2009), pp. 23 and 28; Yuval-Davis (2006), p. 200.

Koldinská (2011), p. 250; Kóczé (2009), pp. 23, 26 and 61.

Liégeois (2012), p. 24; Ringold et al. (2005), p. 3.

Liégeois (2012), pp. 23–27.

Vermeersch and Ram (2009), p. 63; Kenrick (2007), pp. xxi–xxiv.

Only a few countries have formally recognised the Roma persecution—also referred to as (Bora) Porrajmos (Great Devouring), Pharrajimos (destruction), Samudaripen (mass killing) or Kalí Traš (black fear)—during World War II. Keen (2014), pp. 15 and 16; Lauder (2014); Corsi et al. (2010), p. 128; Uzunova (2010), p. 299; Vermeersch and Ram (2009), p. 63; Rorke (2007), p. 87; Ringold et al. (2005), p. 155; Guy (2002), p. 6.

Forced sterilisation of Roma women took place in various European countries—including Norway, Sweden and Switzerland—during the Nazi regime, in Czechoslovakia (1971–1991) during the Communist period, and in post-communist Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Examples of the placement of Roma children in non-Roma families can be found in Germany (1830) and in Switzerland (1926). European Roma Rights Centre (2016); CoE (2012b), pp. 93–104; Uzunova (2010), p. 299.

This took place in the late 1940s to the early 1095s in Eastern Europe, while it was between 1960 and 1980 in Western Europe. See Chap. 2 for a discussion of the notions assimilation and integration (Sect. 2.​3.​3) and of the right to identity and the prohibition as assimilation within the minority rights framework (Sect. 2.​4.​3). Ahmed (2011), p. 177; Uzunova (2010), p. 300; Ringold et al. (2005), p. 155; Liégeois (1994), p. 146.

Denholm (2018).

Ahmed (2011), pp. 184 and 185. See Sects. 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 on the present-day situation of Roma and historical reflections on their position on the margins of society. Minority rights protection and cultural identity will be considered in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4).

Willingness to integrate varies between groups and depending on the conditions, though most Roma communities tend to be sceptical towards surrounding communities and their structures as a result of historical experiences. Ivanov (2012, pp. 83 and 84) uses the term assimilation to refer to inclusion of Roma with total loss of traditional identity; integration refers to the limited involvement of minority representatives in majority structures (with limited elements of diverse identity retained); and inclusion refers to adjustments made by both the minority and the majority to allow the preservation of the core elements of the minority identity. This will be discussed further in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​3) on the notions social inclusion, diversity and pluralism.

Some Roma avoid contact with non-Roma because they consider them to be impure, unclean and/or untrustworthy. Ivanov (2012), pp. 83 and 84; Ahmed (2011), pp. 177 and 178; Huan (2000), p. 157.

Mirga and Gheorghe (1997).

See Sect. 1.2 on the situation of Roma in Europe.

Ahmed (2011), pp. 178 and 179. Minorities’ right to identity will be further discussed in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4.​3) on the right to identity and the prohibition of assimilation as interrelated building blocks of minority rights protection. The complex and fluid nature of Roma identities and the impact this has on ethnic data collection practices on this minority will be addressed in Chap. 5 (Sect. 5.​3).

See also Chap. 2 on substantive equality (Sect. 2.​1.​3) and the importance of combining a legal and a social policy approach for successful integration (Sect. 2.​3.​1). European Commission (2010), pp. 1–8.

See Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​3.​2) on the notion social inclusion, Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.​7.​5) on the active involvement of civil society and ethnic groups in ethnic data collection, and Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.​3.​2) on the active participation of all relevant stakeholders in positive action schemes.

ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011). 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. 15.9; FRA (2018c); Makkonen (2010), p. 202; Hollo (2006), pp. 7 and 8. See Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4.​4) for an introduction to effective participation of minorities in public life within the framework of minority rights protection. The need for active participation of Roma will be stressed in Chap. 5 (Sect. 5.​8.​2) on ethnic data collection and in Chap. 9 (Sect. 9.​2.​4) on positive action.

Jenssen (2005), p. 28; Fossum (2001), p. 185. Minority rights protection and minority identity are discussed in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4).

Geurts (2006), pp. 77, 78, 130, 131, 157, 207 and 291. Whereas Geurts uses the notion integration, the author prefers to use the word inclusion for the reasons explained in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​3). See also Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​4) on minority rights protection, including the discussion on the right to identity (Sect. 2.​4.​3) and respect for cultural diversity (Sect. 2.​4.​5). Inter-cultural mediation can play an important role in this regard, as will be considered in Chap. 11.

See, among other: 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. 11 and 15.7. Report of the European Parliament on Gender Aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (10 December 2013), paras. 14, 15 and 28. ECRI, General Policy Recommendation No. 13: Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma (24 June 2011), paras. 12 and 14. CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Ukraine (13 June 2014), para. 8. CESCR Committee, Concluding Observations on Hungary (16 January 2008), para. 34. ACFC, First Opinion on Ireland (22 May 2003), para. 36. Commission Communication, Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (4 December 2018), pp. 7 and 11. Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), pp. 13 and 14. Commission Communication, Non-discrimination and equal opportunities: A renewed commitment (2 July 2008), p. 7; Bond et al. (2010), pp. 1 and 5; Kóczé (2009), pp. 28 and 62; European Commission (2007), pp. 5–7, 47 and 48; Hollo (2006), pp. 5 and 6; European Commission (2004), pp. 3, 4, 9, 17, 23, 27, 33, 35, 37 to 39, 41, 47 and 51.

Bond et al. (2010), p. 8; Cahn (2004), pp. 32 and 33.

On a more basic level, Makkonen (2006, pp. 13 and 14) defines data as “any piece of information, whether in numerical or in some other form” revealing “something about some aspect of reality and can therefore be used for analysis, reasoning or decision-making”. Alidadi (2017), p. 17.

The term ethnic data captures considerations of both race and ethnic origin. See the discussion on the notions race and ethnicity in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.​2). Chopin et al. (2014), p. 15; Cardinale (2007), p. 37; Makkonen (2006), p. 13.

Chopin et al. (2014), p. 15; Cardinale (2007), p. 37.

Alidadi (2017), p. 16; Chopin et al. (2014), p. 59; Wrench (2011), p. 1716.

Waldron (2011), p. 47; Wrench (2011), p. 1716; Makkonen (2006), p. 43.

European Network Against Racism (2012), p. 6.

Commission Communication, Non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all – A framework strategy (1 June 2005), pp. 4 and 8; Ringelheim and De Schutter (2010), pp. 4–6; Makkonen (2006), pp. 18–23; Hollo (2006), p. 4.

Ringelheim and De Schutter (2010), pp. 14–37.

See Sect. 1.3.2 on positive action. See also Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.​1.​4) and Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.​3.​4) on the link between ethnically disaggregated data and positive action schemes.

Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 13; Wrench (2011), p. 1716; Open Society Foundations (2010), pp. 29, 30 and 40; Kóczé (2009), pp. 32, 61 and 62; Hollo (2006), p. 7. See Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.​1) on the five main benefits of ethnic data collection.

Intersectional discrimination was introduced in Sect. 1.2.3.

See Sect. 1.2.3.2 on the situation of Roma women and the intersection of discrimination, poverty and gender that affects their situation and position.

For reflections on the situation of Roma in Europe, see Sect. 1.2.

Resolution of the European Parliament on Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities for All – A Framework Strategy (14 June 2006), para. 21; Makkonen (2010), p. 223; Makkonen (2006), pp. 5, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 59, 84 and 98. For more on the link between ethnic data and positive action, see Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.​1.​4) and Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.​3.​4).

For a discussion on varying understandings of the notion positive action, see Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.​1.​1).

Makkonen (2010), pp. 241 and 243. See Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.​1.​2) for a consideration of the three key elements of positive action measures, including the group-based approach (Sect. 6.​1.​2.​1).

Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (9 December 2013). Commission Communication, An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (5 April 2011), p. 4.

Hollo (2006), p. 7.

Id. at p. 6.