Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................9

Note on Terminology ...............................................................................................11

1. Executive Summary...........................................................................................13

2. Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies .................31

3. Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and

Repression .........................................................................................................47

4. Second Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of

Basic Civil and Political Rights .........................................................................61

4.1 Discriminatory Control over the Movement of Travellers and Gypsies:

Circulation Documents ................................................................................63

4.2 Discrimination in Access to an Identity Card ..............................................67

4.3 Obstacles to the Political Participation of Gypsies and Travellers ..............69

4.3.1 Infringement of Travellers’ and Gypsies’ Right to Vote .....................70

4.3.2 Obstacles to the Participation of Gypsies and Travellers in

Decision-Making ................................................................................73

4.3.3 The Absence of the Voices of Gypsies and Travellers in the

Application of the Besson Law............................................................ 77

5. Assault on a Way of Life: Laws, Policies and Practices Related to Travelling,

Halting and Living Conditions of Gypsies and Travellers ................................83

5.1 Excluding Travellers and Gypsies from Most of French Territory..............84

5.1.1 Territory Legally Off-limits to Gypsies and Travellers ......................88

5.1.2 Territory Factually Off-limits to Gypsies and Travellers..................101

5.2 The Failure of French Courts to Consistently Uphold the Rights of

Travellers and Gypsies...............................................................................116

5.3 Discrimination and Eviction of Travellers and Gypsies who Buy Land ...121

5.3.1 Obstacles to the Purchase of Private Property..................................123

5.3.2 Forced Evictions from Property Belonging to Travellers

and Gypsies ......................................................................................124

6. Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing .......................................131

6.1 Substandard Conditions and Segregation on Official Halting Areas.........132

6.2 Continuing the Trend of Substandard Halting Areas: Proposals

for New Sites .............................................................................................142

6.3 Denial of Water, Electricity, Sewage and Solid Waste Removal, and

Other Basic Facilities to Travellers and Gypsies Who Buy Land .............149

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Acknowledgements

6.4 Substandard Living Conditions in Areas of Permanent Settlement...........159

6.5 Discrimination against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to

Social Housing...........................................................................................169

6.6 Harassment of Travellers Who Buy Constructible Land ...........................176

6.7 Deleterious Health Effects of Inadequate Housing....................................177

7. Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by

Criminal Justice Officials.................................................................................181

7.1 Ill-treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies during Forced

Evictions ....................................................................................................181

7.2 Abusive Raids of Gypsy and Traveller Places of Residence during

Searches, Checks or Arrests.......................................................................195

7.3 Racial Profiling of Travellers and Gypsies ................................................200

7.4 Discrimination by Judicial Authorities ......................................................202

8. Discrimination in Access to Social and Public Services..................................205

8.1 Discriminatory Treatment of Travellers and Gypsies in the Provision of

Social Assistance .......................................................................................205

8.1.1 Discrimination in Access to Housing Assistance .............................206

8.1.2 Segregated Social Services ...............................................................209

8.2 Discriminatory Treatment of Travellers and Gypsies in the Provision

of Public Services ......................................................................................212

8.2.1 Discrimination in Access to Insurance..............................................213

8.2.2 Discrimination by Public Service Establishments............................214

9. Discrimination Against Gypsies and Travellers in Access to Employment.....217

9.1 Restrictions on Halting – Obstructing Travellers’ and Gypsies’

Ability to Work ..........................................................................................219

9.2 Regulations that Hinder Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Opportunities for

Self-Employment.......................................................................................220

9.3 Discrimination in Access to Salaried Employment ...................................223

9.4 A Favoured Workforce for Work Presenting Health and Safety

Hazards ......................................................................................................225

9.5 Racism a Constant Backdrop to the Economic Possibilities of

Gypsies and Travellers ..............................................................................227

10. Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children...........229

10.1 Dramatically Low School Participation Rates.........................................230

10.2 Obstacles to School Enrolment of Children Who Travel.........................234

10.3 Obstruction by Local Officials to School Enrolment of Traveller

and Gypsy Children ..................................................................................239

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Acknowledgements

10.4 Discrimination by an Examination Committee .......................................242

10.5 Inferior Education ....................................................................................244

10.6 Segregated Schooling of Gypsy and Traveller Children .........................245

10.7 Gypsy and Traveller Children in “Special Schools”................................251

10.8 Applying Circular No. 2002-101 of 25 April 2002 on the

“Schooling of Traveller Children and Non-Sedentary Families” .............254

11. Anti-Discrimination Legislation ......................................................................257

12. Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment ..............265

12.1 Introduction..............................................................................................265

12.2 Substandard Living Conditions: French Slums .......................................267

12.3 Pattern and Repeated Forced Evictions ...................................................274

12.4 Abusive Police Conduct During Evictions ..............................................276

12.5 Indirect and Abusive Methods of Evicting Romani Migrants .................280

12.6 Denying Romani Migrants Means of Survival ........................................284

12.7 Penal Sanctions against Roma Who Beg.................................................289

12.8 Denying Romani Migrants the Right to Health .......................................290

12.9 Denying Romani Migrants the Right to Education .................................291

12.10 Romani Migrants Targeted for Deportation...........................................292

12.11 Discrimination Against Romani Political Asylum Seekers ...................297

12.12 Conclusion: The Urgent Need to Provide Protection to Romani

Asylum Seekers......................................................................................300

13. Conclusion: Failed Equality.............................................................................303

14. Recommendations............................................................................................309

15. Bibliography ....................................................................................................317

16. Summary in Romani ........................................................................................327

Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was produced by staff, interns, consultants and volunteers to the

ERRC. The research team that carried out field research for this report over a period

of a year and a half was lead by Lanna Yael Hollo, who wrote the report. Savelina

Danova/Russinova edited drafts of the report. Jose Brun and Danielle Mercier

read parts of the report and provided comments. Corina Savu interpreted between

Romani/Romanian and French during research with migrant Roma. Gil Hyde and

Kelly Johnson proofread drafts of the report. Claude Cahn copy-edited drafts of the

report and authorised its publication.

The ERRC is grateful to the many Travellers and Gypsies who were willing to de-

scribe their personal experiences and who provided invaluable encouragement in the

research and writing of the report. It is also thankful to the many other individuals and

organisations who were willing to share their expertise with the ERRC and to the state of-

ficials who agreed to be interviewed. Gyula Vamosi provided the summary in Romani.

The ERRC is additionally grateful to the following individuals who provided

invaluable support and assistance during the course of preparing this report:

Frédéric Bone, José Brun, Joseph Charpentier, Pierre Delsuc, James Dubois,

Céline Larivière, Frédéric Lievy, Dani Peto Manso, Danielle Mercier, Karine Moreau,

Nara Ritz, Maurice Ruiz, and Franck Sinclair, who generously shared their knowledge

and networks with the ERRC.

Anne-Marie Auger, Lydie Barenton, Alain Fourest, Bertrand Favarel Garrigues,

Jean-Claude Giraud, Jean Arroucau, Michèle Mézard, Nicolas Mole, Christophe

Monteiro, Flore Naudin, and Laurence Pinochet, who provided various forms of

technical assistance during ERRC field missions and shared information.

Note on Terminology

NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

Identity issues among the many communities regarded as “Gypsies” and “Travelers”

in France are complex and have long been externally perceived through stereotypical

notions and categories.

For the purposes of this report, the ERRC uses the terms “Gypsies” and “Travel-

lers” to refer to individuals and groups who are French citizens, who are descended

from groups that have long been citizens of France, and who have for many genera-

tions played a key role in French society and history. The category “Gypsies and

Travellers” includes persons of diverse culture, frequently self-identifying as “Sinti”,

“Manouche”, “Kale”, “Gitan”, “Roma”, “Yenish”, “Traveller” or other.

The ERRC uses the term “Romani migrants” to refer to non-citizens who have

recently arrived in France from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and who

are generally regarded as “Gypsies”.

Such persons share the stigma of the long-standing racist stereotypes associ-

ated with “Gypsies” and “Gens du Voyage” (Travellers) in France, and therefore

are frequently subjected to hostility and to racially discriminatory harms. Many of

these persons (Sinti, Manouche, Kale, Gitan, Roma) share an Indic origin, being

descended from persons who left India around one thousand years ago. However,

some do not. The common elements binding all persons subjected to the treatment

described in this document are anti-Gypsy/anti-Traveller racist discourse and related

widespread discrimination.

The ERRC uses the word “Gypsies” with some hesitation, given the derogatory

connotations of this word in a number of countries in Europe. However, in the French

context, this term is not generally considered to have the same pejorative connota-

tions as elsewhere, is commonly used to refer to the persons concerned in this report

who share common experiences of racism and discrimination, and, in particular, is

the word used for self-designation by various Gypsy associations.

Executive Summary

First we should say that they are cornered in a Kafkaesque ab-

surd situation of the type the French administration is so good at cre-

ating. Here is the summary. There is a law – the Besson law – which

requires each municipality of 5000 residents to create a stopping

area for Gypsies and Travellers. But only one municipality out of

four has done so, which basically means that 80% of Gypsies or four

Gypsies out of five find themselves without a place to stop. Into this

situation is added a second law, which is repressive in nature, which

is the Sarkozy Law, and it criminalises them – it sends them to prison

if they are not on a legal halting area. So, it is as if you have a game

of musical chairs with one chair for five persons and the four who

remain standing risk six months in prison.

Documentary “Gens du voyage: la répression et l’absurde”,

aired on May 10, 2004, by Canal Plus.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 2003, the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) has been engaged in intensive

monitoring of the situation of Gypsies, Travellers and Romani migrants in France. This

research indicates that the situation of Gypsies, Travellers and Romani migrants in France

reached crisis proportions in recent years. As France does not recognise minorities, Gypsy

and Traveller communities are denied recognition of their identity and possibilities to

promote and preserve their culture, traditions, way-of-life and other fundamental aspects

of their identity. Hundreds of thousands of Gypsies and Travellers, who have been French

citizens for generations, are denied the very basic right of equal treatment and experience

regular denial and interference with fundamental civil, political, social, economic and cul-

tural rights. They have long been subjected to laws, policies and practices aimed at their

control, repression, exclusion and assimilation. These laws, policies and practices affect

almost all aspects of their daily life. Recently, a number of new laws have severely con-

stricted possibilities for the expression of key elements of Gypsy and Traveller identity,

while simultaneously providing racist local officials with legal justification for repressive

and draconian measures aimed at – and succeeding in – the exclusion of Gypsies and

Travellers from nearly all elements of French public life and services.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

Many Gypsies and Travellers are driven from municipality to municipality, un-

able to halt for more than very short periods at a time, before being subjected to

the next forced eviction. Most of French territory seems, in fact, to be off-limits for

Gypsies and Travellers, except unhealthy, polluted and segregated areas well-hidden

from the view of other residents. The present situation has become so acute that a

great number of Gypsies and Travellers believe the full apparatus of the state is being

brought against them, possibly to end key elements of their culture, or more likely for

no reason other than to try to force them away from French society altogether.

Likewise, the few thousand Romani migrants on French territory are subjected to

inhuman policies with the basic aim of making them leave France. They live in indecent

slum conditions and find themselves repeatedly evicted from their precarious camps and

squats, chased to the next municipality – from which they are in turn evicted. In addition,

they are subjected to various forms of violence, abuse, harassment and neglect that result

in extreme violations of their rights in almost all fields of life.

At the same time, no serious public discussion involving Gypsies and Travellers

or Romani migrants has taken place. The impact of these various administratively-

led efforts has been to inflame racial hatred against Gypsies, Travellers and Romani

migrants in France, while simultaneously seriously damaging possibilities for their

integration with full dignity, in accordance with international human rights laws

which bind France. Anti-Gypsy racism has never been addressed well in France, and

its public expression has become a daily and commonplace occurrence escaping any

form of sanction. There is currently an alarming climate of anti-Gypsy and Traveller

discourse in which free rein is given to stereotypes about their supposed delinquency,

illicit means of acquiring revenue, foreign origin, lack of hygiene, and non-respect

of society. Such racist speech is promoted by political actors at all levels, and is

particularly commonplace at the local level during discussions over the creation of

halting areas for Travellers. Instead of informing the population about the legiti-

mate rights of Travellers and Gypsies – secured under French law

– to stop in their

town, mayors garner political capital by inciting the population against “invasions”

of Travellers and Gypsies into their towns and the risks to security, public order and

health that they pose.

In particular Law no. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 relating to the Welcome and Housing of Travellers

(“Besson Law”), as amended by subsequent legislation.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

A summary of issues arising in France as identified in the course of ERRC re-

search, follows:

1.1 Second Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of

Basic Civil and Political Rights

France is renowned as the source and guardian of modern democracy and of

individual rights and freedoms; yet, hundreds of thousands of French citizens are

subject to severe violations of the most basic civil and political rights without this

seeming to cause even a ripple of protest, let alone public outcry, at the challenge

posed to the very foundations of the French Republic. A large part of those affected

by these violations are Gypsies and Travellers, indicating that these violations are in

fact racist in character. Those persons without a fixed domicile or residence who live

in vehicles, trailers, or other mobile shelters (in large part Gypsies and Travellers) are

obliged to have in their possession special circulation documents. There are various

categories of circulation documents, each implying different levels of police control.

Persons unable to provide proof of their professional activities and regular revenue

are required to present their circulation documents (circulation cards) at the police

station or gendarmery for validation every three months. Persons caught without cir-

culation documents or who fail to present them for validation may be subject to penal

sanctions, including fines and imprisonment.

Those persons with circulation documents may only exercise their right to vote

after a three-year period of “attachment” to a selected municipality. Other French

citizens are able to vote after a six-month period of residence in a given municipality.

Special arrangements are made for homeless persons who do not live in “vehicles,

trailers or other mobile shelters” allowing them to vote after a six month period of

links with a given municipality as well.

The number of persons with circulation documents “attached” to a municipal-

ity cannot exceed (except in certain non-standard situations) 3% of the town’s

population. Since they are required to vote in their municipality of attachment, the

many Travellers and Gypsies who hold circulation documents may have consider-

able difficulty electing a representative to defend their interests, as they can never

constitute more than 3% of enfranchised persons. Furthermore, Gypsies and Travel-

lers are excluded from other forms of political participation. Public officials often

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

do not consult them directly, even when the issues at the forefront of public debate

concern Travellers and Gypsies directly. Instead, they generally turn to “intermedi-

aries” whom they believe know and understand “the Gypsies”. When consultative

institutions are established in order to present a facade of consultation (such as the

Departmental Consultative Commissions for Travellers established in each French

Department), Travellers and Gypsies are in all or nearly all cases a small minority on

these Commissions and their voices generally carry little weight.

1.2 Assault on a Way of Life: Laws, Policies and Practices Related to Travelling,

Halting and Living Conditions of Travellers and Gypsies

Much of French territory is legally off-limits to Gypsies and Travellers. Provi-

sions in a number of recently adopted laws effectively outlaw Gypsies residing in

caravans from stopping on most of French territory. Especially at issue are Article 9

of Law no. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 relating to the Welcome and Housing of Trav-

ellers (“Besson Law”); the Law of 18 March 2003 for Interior Security (“Security

Law”); and Law no. 2003-210 of 1 August 2003 on the Orientation and Planning of

Municipalities and Urban Renovation (“Borloo Law”).

Article 9 of the Besson Law institutes a far-reaching ban, whereby Gypsies and

Travellers cannot stop outside of designated areas, except in certain very specific

situations. Simultaneously, regardless of the obligation imposed by the Law on mu-

nicipalities with more than 5000 inhabitants to establish a “halting area” for Travel-

lers to temporarily reside, on the whole, municipalities have not created such halting

areas. Current estimates put the number of existing halting areas at around 6000, de-

spite calculations that 35,000 are the minimum believed to be required. Of the 6000

existing places, less than half meet the legal requirements pertaining to infrastructure

provision and environmental adequacy.

The Security Law, adopted by France in March of 2003, includes a provision – in

Article 53 – penalising Gypsies and Travellers who exercise a fundamental aspect of

their culture: travel. This Article makes it a criminal act to park in a group with the

aim of constituting a residence, even temporarily:

• On land owned by a municipality that has conformed to its obligations under

the Departmental Plan developed in accordance with the Besson Law;

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

Article 53(1) and Article 53(2), Security Law.

• On land owned by a municipality that is not included in the Departmental

Plan (thus the majority of towns with less than 5000 residents and those with

more than 5000 that are not included in the Plan);

• Or on any other land (private, State, Regional, Departmental) without being

able to produce proof of permission to do so, or of the permission granted to

the person holding the right for use of the land.

Penalties for the above infractions are severe: six months imprisonment, a fine

of 3,750 Euros and the suspension of a person’s drivers license for a period up to

three years.

In addition, any vehicles used to carry out the act of illegal stopping (as

is generally the case for Gypsies who tow their mobile homes with vehicles) can be

seized and confiscated, unless the vehicles themselves constitute the person’s home.

The Borloo Law makes a list of twenty-eight French cities with less than 20,000

inhabitants that are completely off-limits for Gypsies and Travellers to halt. Many of

these large French cities are, evidently, cities in which many generations of Gypsies

and Travellers have always resided and where they have family, social and profes-

sional ties.

In fact, the available spaces for Travellers and Gypsies to stop their mobile homes

for shorter or longer periods are considerably fewer than even these legal restrictions

would indicate. In reality, it is not just parts of the territory that seem to be off-limits

for Travellers and Gypsies to reside, but almost all of the territory, except areas that

are particularly unhealthy or out of sight. Families find themselves constantly evicted

from places where they halt, sometimes forced to drive for days before they are able

to stop somewhere, and then these sites are often far from the place they need to be.

The vulnerability of Travellers and Gypsies to illegal evictions is exacerbated by

the inconsistent track record of French Courts in ensuring that Travellers’ and Gyp-

sies’ basic rights are respected. Empirical data gathered by the ERRC in the course of

research toward this Country Report indicates that French Courts rule inconsistently

in cases where municipalities carry out evictions despite their own failure to fulfil

their legal obligations to provide places for Travellers and Gypsies to halt. Further-

more, Travellers’ and Gypsies’ basic right to a fair hearing, including an adversarial

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

procedure, is frequently infringed by the so-called “request procedure”, allowing a

judge to issue a decision without hearing the other party.

Those Travellers and Gypsies who seek to buy property encounter consider-

able difficulties, particularly due to “pre-emptions” of their purchase by local of-

ficials – interventions which block the purchase transaction. They also continue to

live with the threat of eviction due to the considerable number of French laws and

regulations that severely limit the territory on which caravans can legally remain,

even on private land, and that often impose highly restrictive conditions on the few

existing possibilities.

1.3 Denying Travellers and Gypsies Adequate Housing

Gypsies and Travellers experience severe violations of their right to adequate

housing regardless of their mode of life – on the continuum from nomadic to settled;

regardless of whether they reside on official halting sites or on their own land; re-

gardless of whether they are well-off and can afford decent housing or are very poor

and seek social support from French authorities. Belonging to a particular ethnicity

often seems to be the sole reason for the authorities’ denial of adequate housing to

Travellers and Gypsies.

Those few sites where families are able to halt are generally far below standards

of decency. Halting areas are consistently segregated from the rest of the local popu-

lation. They are generally situated as far away as possible from residential areas and

at the very limit of municipalities. On some sites, the physical segregation of Travel-

lers and Gypsies is concretised through a ring of mudhills encircling the halting area,

thus physically cutting them off from the surroundings. Halting sites are system-

atically located near garbage dumps, waste treatment plants, high-risk or polluting

factories, freeways, or railroad tracks with high tension wires frequently running

overhead. All too often halting areas are more reminiscent of places of detention than

places of residence. This effect is created through the physical appearance of the sites

as well as through the checks and control of residents.

Furthermore, Gypsies and Travellers throughout the country who live on their

own property are often denied water, electricity and sewage, even when there are

critically ill individuals and children living on the site.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

Some of the poorest and most marginalised Gypsies and Travellers have lived for

decades in slum-like conditions in areas where they are “tolerated” by officials. Hid-

den from the rest of the population and totally lacking in basic infrastructure (such

as water, electricity and sewage removal), Gypsies and Travellers are frequently

exposed to severe environmental hazards as a result of proximity to garbage dumps,

waste treatment plants, and high-risk polluting factories. Entering these neighbour-

hoods, one has the impression of passing from a first world neighborhood to a third

world slum in the space of a few minutes.

Patterns of discrimination and segregation of Gypsies and Travellers are also wide-

spread when it comes to the rental of social housing intended for those with low income

(so-called “HLM”), despite national legislation explicitly forbidding such discrimination.

1.4 Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal

Judicial Officials

Abusive police raids are a regular feature of life for French Travellers and Gyp-

sies. Police characteristically arrive in large numbers, wearing combat gear and

brandishing weapons. Forced evictions occur systematically and regularly take the

form of abusive raids. In addition, when police carry out searches, checks or arrests

involving a Gypsy or Traveller, they often systematically target all of the occupants

of a given site rather than just the individual suspect. Police abuse during these raids

frequently features insults (including racist remarks), degrading treatment and dam-

age to property. It sometimes also includes the use of weapons in a threatening man-

ner and physical ill-treatment of individuals.

Travellers and Gypsies experience discriminatory treatment by judicial authori-

ties. They are regularly kept in pre-trial detention during the investigation and trial

and are reportedly remanded into pre-trial custody more often than non-Gypsies.

Furthermore, there are widespread allegations that criminal sentencing results in dis-

proportionately longer sentences for Gypsies than non-Gypsies.

1.5 Discrimination in Access to Social and Public Services

Due to the non-recognition of caravans as a form of housing, hundreds of thou-

sands of Gypsies and Travellers are excluded from a range of social assistance avail-

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

able to French citizens for renting or acquiring housing. In order to benefit from

social assistance Travellers and Gypsies are also sometimes obliged to turn to a net-

work of parallel institutions catering only to them, since State agencies are unable or

unwilling to serve them.

Travellers and Gypsies are frequently refused entry to public places, such as

nightclubs, bars, stores and restaurants. They are also regularly denied service by

insurance companies. Despite existing legislation penalising discrimination in the

provision of goods and services, the ERRC is unaware of cases where those refusing

services to Travellers and Gypsies have been sanctioned.

1.6 Discrimination in Access to Employment

Many Gypsies and Travellers earn their livelihood through forms of work connected

with travel. The laws, policies and actions of local officials that make it increasingly diffi-

cult for Gypsies and Travellers to stop their caravans, even temporarily, in many munici-

palities in France, have a detrimental impact upon their ability to work. Furthermore, over

the last decades, the discriminatory effect of regulations concerning various occupations

they commonly exercise have made it increasingly difficult for Gypsies and Travellers to

earn their living in the manner that they choose. Travellers and Gypsies also experience

discrimination in obtaining salaried employment and constitute a particularly favoured

workforce for jobs that involve health hazards.

1.7 Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

Participation levels of Traveller and Gypsy children are very low, with many

children not attending school at all and others dropping out at an early age. A shock-

ingly small number of Gypsy and Traveller children above the age of twelve attend

schools and only a very small minority complete secondary education. Furthermore,

even when they attend school, Gypsies and Travellers often receive a very substand-

ard education, often not even equipping them with basic literacy skills. Regular

evictions make it extremely difficult for many Traveller and Gypsy families to send

their children to school. Traveller and Gypsy children are also refused admission

to schools by mayors or school directors, despite their legal right and obligation to

attend school. Various forms of segregated schooling such as segregated schools,

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

segregated classes, and mobile schooling units, also remain a reality for many Trav-

eller and Gypsy children. This situation often results from a lack of flexibility and of

“bridge” programs in the mainstream school system and from an inadequate adapta-

tion to certain special needs of Travellers (such as putting in place an effective system

of recording and evaluating the schooling of children who travel so that they may

continue their schooling from place to place). Traveller and Gyspy children are also

disproportionately placed in so-called “Applied General and Vocational Education”

(“SEGPA”) secondary classes providing specialised education designed for children

experiencing learning difficulties due to social, cultural or intellectual reasons.

The clear guidelines set out in Circular No. 2002-101 of 25 April 2002 on the

“Schooling of Traveller Children and Non-Sedentary Families” aim to increase

the participation of Gypsy and Traveller children in the French education sys-

tem. However, these guidelines thus far, have remained more of a symbolic step

forward than an actual one. Innovative initiatives remain highly localised and

centralised co-ordination is sorely lacking.

1.8 Anti-Discrimination Legislation

In recent years, in part in response to European developments, steps have been

taken to introduce new anti-discrimination legislation and to improve the applica-

tion of existing legislation. However, convictions nonetheless remain few compared

to the scope of the problem of discrimination. The ERRC is not aware of a single

case in which a legal person was convicted for discrimination against a Traveller or

Gypsy based on existing penal law provisions.

Legislative changes have meant that the civil and administrative law framework

for combating racial discrimination has been significantly reinforced. Nevertheless,

French anti-discrimination law still does not cover all of the fields of life required by

France’s international law commitments, including those under ICERD. The frame-

work needs to be extended further to cover various rights including: the administra-

tion of justice, including protection of security of the person; political participation,

including the right to vote, stand for election, take part in Government and in the con-

duct of public affairs at any level, as well as to have equal access to public service; the

right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State; the right

to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

1.9 Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

France has adopted draconian and legally questionable policies towards the sev-

eral thousand Romani migrants on its territory. Its principle aim has been to encour-

age the Romani migrants to leave the country. Thus Romani migrants experience se-

rious violations of their rights in almost all fields of life, with a cumulative effect that

is serious enough as to amount in many cases to inhuman and degrading treatment.

Foreign Roma for the most part live in deplorable conditions in makeshift camps

and are continuously forcibly evicted, either through police raids, often particularly

violent, or through a pattern of constant threats, searches, destruction of property and

other forms of harassment. When they exercise various activities in order to survive

(such as selling flowers or newspapers, washing car windows, playing music or beg-

ging), they face constant harassment by police. Those who beg may be subject to

severe penal sanctions, including forced expulsion from the country. Many children

are denied access to education. Since the summer of 2002, there has also been a

drastic increase in forced expulsions from France, even of Romani migrants living

legally on French territory. Collective expulsions have also been carried out in viola-

tion of a number of provisions of law, notably Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the European

Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, Romani asylum seekers experience dis-

crimination with respect to their possibilities for housing and social assistance with

many obliged to live in slums and informal housing.

The ERRC report ends with recommendations to the French government calling on

the authorities to respect their obligations under national and international human rights

law as well as to undertake immediate measures to cease and prevent human rights viola-

tions and to ensure effective redress for the victims. Based on the findings of this report,

the ERRC urges French authorities to act on the following recommendations:

1. Sign and ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Mi-

norities, expressly recognising Gypsies and Travellers as a national minority, and

withdraw the reservation to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights.

2. Take immediate steps to end the current climate of impunity for racist speech

relating to Gypsies, Travellers, and Romani migrants and to ensure that all ex-

pressions of anti-Gypsyism are promptly and effectively punished. Make clear to

the French public that such expression will not be tolerated.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

3. Publicly recognise and apologise for the internment of Gypsies and Travellers

during WWII. Establish memorials on the sites of former internment camps

and undertake measures to commemorate the Gypsy and Traveller victims of

France’s WWII policies. Support research aimed at bringing to light the WWII

treatment of Travellers and Gypsies.

4. Ensure that the history of Gypsies and Travellers on French territory, including

information about anthropometric booklets and their WWII internment, are in-

cluded as a core component of the educational curricula.

5. Make available, in forms readily understandable to the lay public, data disaggre-

gated by ethnicity, in order to make possible effective monitoring of the situation

of Gypsies, Travellers and other minority groups in key areas of life, such as po-

litical participation, housing, education, social services, health care, justice, rela-

tions with police, etc. Such monitoring is essential in order to identify problems

faced by minority groups and to develop appropriate solutions. The monitoring

should be carried out in accordance with the principles of data protection and

confidentiality, on the basis of a system of voluntary self-identification, clearly

explaining the reasons why the information is collected.

6. Undertake specific research to assess the number and frequency of acts of racial

discrimination occurring against Gypsies, Travellers and Romani migrants in

sectoral fields such as education, employment, housing (including social hous-

ing), health care and the provision of social assistance and services. Such research

should also provide information as to the number of persons sanctioned for acts

of racial discrimination against Gypsies, Travellers and Romani migrants.

7. Immediately repeal all racially discriminatory aspects of “Law no. 69-3 of 3

January 1969 relating to the exercise of ambulant activities and the regime ap-

plicable to persons circulating in France without a fixed domicile or residence.”

8. Identify and repeal all discriminatory regulations and administrative obstacles

that hinder Gypsies and Travellers in obtaining national identity cards.

9. Eliminate discriminatory conditions relating to the right of Gypsies and Travel-

lers to vote, arising from the Law of 3 January 1969, including those aspects

relating to the 3-year period of attachment and the 3% quota of persons with

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

circulation documents allowed to vote in a given municipality. Take positive

steps to ensure that the voices of Gypsies and Travellers are duly represented at

all levels of French political life.

10. Take immediate steps to ensure that Gypsies and Travellers are able to exercise

their right to participation in public affairs at local and national level, in conform-

ity with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and

UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “General recom-

mendation XXVII on discrimination against Roma”.

11. Take positive steps to create conditions that ensure that Travellers and Gypsies

may pursue their way of life, whether sedentary or nomadic lifestyles, according

to their free choice, in conformity with the principles of equality and non-dis-

crimination.

12. Ensure that Travellers and Gypsies who travel are able to fully exercise their

right to freedom of movement and right to adequate housing, including protec-

tion against forced evictions. In this regard:

• Repeal, without delay, Articles 53 and 58 of the “Law of 18 March 2003 for

Interior Security” as well as Article 15 of Law no. 2003-710 of 1 August 2003

on the “Orientation and Planning of Municipalities and Urban Renovation”.

• Ensure that halting areas are established in municipalities across the coun-

try as required by the “Law no. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 concerning the

Welcome and Housing of Travellers” (hereinafter “Besson Law”). Also

ensure that these halting areas conform to norms of decency, notably re-

quirements concerning the availability of services, facilities and infrastruc-

ture; location and habitability.

• Take positive steps to ensure that Gypsies and Travellers have a sufficient

number of places to halt that conform to basic standards of decency.

• Ensure that Travellers and Gypsies are not relegated to parts of the territory

in which they are exposed to severe health and environmental hazards as

well as the severe harm of racial segregation.

• Cease all practices of forced evictions of Gypsy and Traveller families halted

in municipalities carried out in violation of the right to adequate housing.

• Ensure that campsites that implement discriminatory regulations and policies

with respect to the access of Travellers and Gypsies are duly sanctioned.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

• Immediately undertake genuine and widespread grassroots consultations

with Gypsies and Travellers so that appropriate responses might be devel-

oped to their housing needs, both on halting areas and through other neces-

sary responses.

• Urgently develop alternative responses to short-term halting areas in order to

meet Travellers and Gypsies housing needs, such as establishing family sites.

13. Ensure that the right to adequate housing, including protection against forced evic-

tions is fully guaranteed to Travellers and Gypsies who buy land. In this regard:

• Ensure that the many laws and policies regulating land use, urban planning,

and access to the public infrastructure make appropriate provision for the

way of life and particular needs of Gypsies and Travellers, including liv-

ing on their land in a caravan, and that they do not result in discrimination

against members of these communities.

• Ensure that municipalities do not make illegal use of their powers of ‘pre-emp-

tion’ to prevent the sale of property to Travellers and Gypsies.

• Ensure that the security of tenure is guaranteed to Gypsies and Travellers

and that in the application of urban regulations due consideration is given to

fundamental human rights such as the right to adequate housing, the right to

the schooling of children, the right to health and the right to non-interference

in private and family life.

• Recognise caravans as a form of housing.

• Order local authorities to provide without delay water, electricity, sewage and

solid waste removal services and other basic facilities to the families who are

being so denied on grounds of being in violation of urban regulations.

14. Take immediate steps to bring conditions in Traveller and Gypsy settlements up

to basic standards of decency and to regularise the housing situation of those who

have been long-term residents of unauthorised settlements. Or, provide alternate

housing possibilities that respect standards of decency. All measures and their

implementation should be developed and implemented with the consultation and

participation of those Gypsy and Traveller families concerned.

15. Ensure that Romani migrants are fully guaranteed all aspects of the right to

housing, including basic facilities, a healthy environment and security of ten-

ure. Develop coherent policies at Departmental, Regional or State level aimed

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

at providing decent housing solutions for Romani migrants currently living in

unauthorised camps or squats. Immediately cease practices of forced evictions

that send Romani migrants from one municipality to the next.

16. Undertake measures to put an end to practices of discrimination and segregation

of Gypsies and Travellers in their access to HLM (social housing) and ensure the

effective application of anti-discrimination legislation against those who perpe-

trate such discrimination.

17. Carry out thorough and timely investigations into all alleged instances of abu-

sive police behaviour towards Gypsies, Travellers, and Romani migrants, and

promptly bring to justice perpetrators and provide due compensation to victims.

Put an end to practices of collectively targeting groups of Gypsies, Travellers

or Romani migrants during searches, checks or arrests as well as practices of

racial profiling.

18. Ensure that reports of police harassment of Romani migrants are fully investigated

and that police officers who abuse their authority are appropriately punished.

19. Take appropriate measures to ensure that persons who may have been victims

of ill treatment by law enforcement officials are not intimidated or otherwise

dissuaded from lodging a formal complaint, such as by practices of bringing

retaliatory charges against those who complain.

20. Carry out detailed research into judicial treatment of Gypsies, Travellers and

Romani migrants in order to identify discriminatory practices and develop ap-

propriate measures to end such practices.

21. Ensure that Gypsies and Travellers have equal access to social assistance. In-

clude caravans and mobile homes as forms of housing for purposes of housing

assistance, so that persons living in them may qualify for all types of housing

assistance available to individuals living in other forms of housing. As an al-

ternative, develop special assistance to ensure that Gypsies and Travellers are

able to receive the same level of housing assistance as other French citizens.

22. Develop special loan programs in order to assist Gypsies and Travellers, who

may be otherwise unable to procure a loan, in buying property.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

23. Carry out thorough-going measures to ensure that Gypsies and Travellers may

have full and equal access to social services within public offices, and are not, in

fact, channeled into a segregated system of social services. Ensure that all officials

in social service offices receive adequate training to meet the particular needs of

Travellers and Gypsies and that these officials see it as their responsibility to pro-

vide any assistance and support that Travellers and Gypsies require in order to gain

equal access to social services. Investigate allegations that the files of Travellers

and Gypsies have been systematically transferred away from the state institutions

in some Departments and take appropriate measures to remedy this problem.

24. Ensure that the right to health of Romani migrants is fully guaranteed, including their

possibilities for accessing health care and living in a healthy environment.

25. Ensure that all allegations of discrimination against Travellers and Gypsies in

their access to public services, including insurance and public service establish-

ments, are fully investigated and are appropriately sanctioned and that victims

compensated. Existing anti-discrimination legislation covering this area should

be fully applied making clear to all public service providers that discrimination

against Gypsies and Travellers will not be tolerated.

26. Take proactive steps to ensure that Travellers and Gypsies are able to benefit

equally from the right to work. Ensure that Travellers and Gypsies are able to

halt in municipalities across the country. Undertake measures to remedy the dis-

criminatory impact that numerous regulations relating to a range of occupations

have upon Travellers’ and Gypsies’ work possibilities, such as Law no. 96-603

“Relating to the Development and Promotion of Commerce and Trades”. Ensure

that all allegations of discrimination in access to salaried employment are fully

investigated and all instances of discrimination are appropriately punished and

that victims compensated. Existing anti-discrimination legislation covering this

area should be fully applied, making clear to all employers that discrimination

against Gypsies and Travellers will not be tolerated.

27. Ensure that Gypsy, Traveller and Romani migrant school children have equal

access to education in a desegregated school environment. In this regard:

• Ensure that a child’s right and obligation to attend schools is duly considered

in all forced evictions of Travellers, Gypsies and Romani migrants.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

• Undertake a range of positive actions across the country in a coordinated

manner in order to ensure that when they travel, Traveller and Gypsy chil-

dren’s participation in school is facilitated and that the continuity of this

schooling may be ensured.

• Ensure that local officials systematically enrol Traveller, Gypsy and Romani

migrant children in local schools regardless of the regularity of their resi-

dence on municipal territory and regardless of whether parents are immedi-

ately able to produce all necessary documents.

• Thoroughly investigate all complaints of discrimination against Traveller,

Gypsy and Romani migrant children within the school system and ensure

that disciplinary measures and anti-discrimination legislation are fully ap-

plied in such instances.

• Provide anti-discrimination training and information about relevant anti-dis-

crimination legislation to teachers and school officials across the country.

• Include materials on the history and situation of Gypsies and Travellers in

France in the school curriculum as a central component of different subject

matter. Involve Gypsies and Travellers themselves in the preparation of such

materials and ensure that they are free from racist stereotypes.

• Without delay, take steps to end different forms of segregated schooling and

instead integrate school Traveller and Gypsy children within the mainstream

school system with other children. Where bridge programs and special sup-

port is necessary, ensure that schools have sufficient resources for such pro-

grams and that these do not themselves become forms of segregation.

• Provide the necessary resources to ensure that Traveller and Gypsy children

who reach college age and are behind in their schooling may receive the

needed support within mainstream schools, instead of simply being chan-

nelled into Segpa classes.

28. Without delay, implement Circular No. 2002-101 of 25 April 2002 on the

“Schooling of Traveller Children and Non-sedentary Families” in a coordinated

manner across the country.

29. Without delay, adopt further anti-discrimination legislation in conformity with cur-

rent European and international standards, in particular, covering the following areas:

the administration of justice, including protection of security of the person; political

participation, including the right to vote, stand for election, take part in government

and in the conduct of public affairs at any level, as well as to have equal access to

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Executive Summary

public service; the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of

the State; the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

30. Ensure that existing anti-discrimination legislation is effectively implemented.

Raise the awareness of judges and prosecutors about problems of racial discrimi-

nation and difficulties of proof. Provide thorough information to magistrates

and law enforcement officials across the country about new anti-discrimination

provisions and the importance of their thorough application. Carry out an infor-

mation campaign directed at the general public in order to raise awareness about

France’s anti-discrimination legislation.

31. Ensure that the “High Authority for the fight against discrimination and for

equality” will have adequate resources, independence and competency in order

to fulfil its mandate.

32. Without delay, ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human

Rights.

33. Cease discriminatory expulsions of Romani migrants and collective expulsions

targeting Romani migrants.

34. Facilitate the return of persons illegally expelled from France and provide com-

pensation for material and emotional or other damage caused by illegal forcible

removal from France.

35. Cease discriminatory treatment of Romani migrant and asylum seekers.

36. Ensure the full applications of the standards of protection set out in the Geneva

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as concerns all Romani asylum seek-

ers, keeping in mind that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees (UNHCR) has made clear that refugees are not only those persons fleeing

torture or other serious harm on racial, ethnic or religious grounds, but that non-

violent discriminatory measures may also rise to the level of persecution.

37. At the highest levels, speak out against racial discrimination against Gypsies,

Travellers, Romani migrants and others and make clear that racism will not be

tolerated.

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

2. INTRODUCTION: A CLIMATE OF RACISM AGAINST TRAVELLERS AND GYPSIES

France prides itself in being the guardian and indeed the birthplace of human

rights – home to the French Revolution, proclaimed the freedom and equality of all

men, and considered the common good as the only acceptable basis for social dis-

tinctions. “Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood” – these revolutionary declarations

remain at the heart of the French Republic. Each successive Republican Constitution

has reiterated France’s commitment to human rights and equality. And these values

have a primary place in national self-consciousness.

The Preamble of the most recent Constitution proclaims the solemn attachment

of the French people to human rights. Its Article 1 declares:

France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It en-

sures equality before the law for all citizens without distinctions based

on origin, race or religion...

Unfortunately, when viewed from the perspective of Gypsies and Travellers in

France, the reality is a far cry from these egalitarian declarations. Instead, they experi-

ence a reality driven by racism that has resulted in Gypsies and Travellers being treated

as sub-citizens, subject to racial discrimination, rejection, repression and assimilation.

While many of the discriminatory laws, policies and practices remain disguised, the anti-

Gypsyism at their root is often openly expressed.

On 31 July 2002, during discussions in the French Senate of the text of the Law

of 18 March 2003 for Interior Security (Security Law), including criminalisation and

penalties for Travellers who park their caravans outside of designated areas, Mr Do-

minique Leclerc, Senator from the Department

of Indre-et-Loire,

declared:

French Constitution of 1958. Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

Departments are an administrative territorial division in France. France is divided into ninety-five

Departments.

According to France’s political system in which local government is represented within the Senate,

many Senators are also local level elected officials, such as mayors.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

We also spoke of the Travellers. They are the plague of tomorrow... but

for God’s sake, we need to become conscious of the fact that the halting

areas are only a first step and that they cater to persons who, tomorrow,

will cause us enormous problems. They are anti-social people who have

no respect for private property, no references, and for whom the words

we use have no meaning. For instance, we ask a rural municipality to

receive their children in its schools. This isn’t possible. Instead we need

to offer them assistance where they are, in the halting areas, in order

for them to practice the ABCs in scholastic terms, but also in social and

medical terms, because we are faced with extraordinary pathologies.

We, the mayors, who carry out patrols, we see that every evening three,

four, or five trucks of Travellers come “fuck” – I have no other words

– young girls of twelve or thirteen years almost right in front of their

parents’ eyes, and this doesn’t interest anyone!

This comment was met by applause from parties of the centre and right.

The statement was not particularly noted or commented upon by other Senators

or the French media. No major voice condemned the statement. The Senator himself

benefited from immunity from all forms of disciplinary action.

Only two and a half months later, Mr Paul Girot de Langlade, the Prefect

of Vauc-

luse, this time at a public meeting with other elected officials in his Department, stated:

You can ask my former colleagues... I have no particular tenderness for

those people. They live at our expense; from pillage too, everyone knows

it. When they invade a piece of land, believe me, I am always ready to use

all means to expel them. But there is a law that imposes a halting area in

each commune of more than 5000 residents, and it is necessary to respect

Complete record of Senate Debates 31 July 2002, on Internet at:

http://www.senat.fr/seances/

s200207/s20020731/st20020731000.html

In France, a Prefect is named in each Department by the Government through a decree of the Presi-

dent, based on propositions from the Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior. The Prefect is the
representative of the Prime Minister and all of the Ministers in the Department and thus acts as a link
between the State, the Government and the Department.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

it.... Don’t worry, I know how to behave with respect to this subject. We

already found people with 8 bank accounts in Luxembourg. Some drive

in Mercedes that I myself couldn’t afford. I know what you are thinking

– it irritates me as well.

The Prefect was not subject to any disciplinary sanctions. He was reportedly casti-

gated for his statement by Mr Sarkozy, the French Minister of the Interior, but despite

appeals by Gypsy and human rights associations, Mr Girot de Langlade remained in his

official position until July 2004, when he was named Prefect of Guadeloupe.

A complaint was lodged against the Prefect for “public defamation directed against

an individual” by Mr Michel Débart a Traveller.

On February 10, 2004, the First In-

stance Court of Paris’s 17

Chamber found the Prefect not guilty of the charges against

him ruling that the words in question did not directly target Mr Débart as an individual,

but Travellers as a whole, thus not constituting the act alleged by the complainant.

An-

other complaint accused the Prefect of “public defamation against a group of persons on

the grounds of their origin or their belonging or non-belonging to an ethnicity, nation or

race”.

On January 21, 2005, this complaint was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Paris

on procedural grounds, due to the supposedly imprecise nature of the complaint.

These instances of racist speech by high-profile political personalities are by no means

exceptions. On the contrary, they are illustrative of the current climate of anti-Gypsyism,

in which open expressions of racial hatred by prominent political personalities, the me-

dia, as well as by ordinary citizens, are commonplace throughout the country.

See the official Internet site of the Ministry of Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms at:

http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/rubriques/c/c4_les_prefectures/c43_organisation/Les_Prefets_-

_Presentation

The charges were based on Articles 23, 29(1), and 32(1) of the Law of 29 July 2881on the Freedom

of the Press. The non-governmental organisations League for Human Rights (LDH) and Movement
Against Racism and For Friendship Between Peoples were also civil parties to this complaint.

Girot de Langlade v. Debart, First Instance Court of Paris (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris), 17

Chamber, Judgement of February 10, 2004.

The non-governmental organisation S.O.S. Racism was a civil party to this complaint.

Agence France Presse, “Confirmation en appel d’un non-lieu pour l’ex-préfet du Vaucluse”,

January 21, 2005.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

In municipalities of all sizes throughout France, expressions of anti-Gypsyism

have become such regular occurrences as to make it difficult if not impossible to

monitor them with any degree of accuracy. In fact, anti-Gypsyism has become so

acceptable that often the local press does not even report that such racist incitement

has taken place. In general, few persons interviewed in the course of research toward

this report recognised such speech as the racist speech that it is.

Mayors and local officials regularly propagate longstanding popular prejudices

against Gypsies, clearly believing that it is politically expedient to be seen by the

public as defenders of the town against “Gypsy invasions” – in other words having

groups of French citizens who are Travellers and Gypsies stop in the town.

Most of this hate speech occurs in the context of local level discussions about

the creation of “halting areas” (aires d’acceuil) for Travellers, an obligation imposed

on municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants under Law no. 2000-614 of 5 July

2000 concerning the welcome and housing (habitat) of Travellers (Besson Law).

Such speech is also frequent when a group of Travellers stop their mobile homes

in a given municipality. Rather than explain to their communities the importance

of providing somewhere for Travellers to reside in decent conditions, local mayors

and officials instead take it upon themselves to encourage the racist stereotypes and

prejudices of the local inhabitants and to lead the resistance to establishing decent

places for Travellers to halt.

Many local officials do not hesitate to express their anti-Gypsy opinions openly

– at public meetings, through distributing information in citizens’ mailboxes, or by

posting public notices.

For example, local mayors in Essonne, South of Paris, organised a protest on April

3, 2004 against the creation of a “site for large passage” (aire de grand passage) in the

area. This site would host approximately 100 or 200 caravans once or twice a year for

religious gatherings of Travellers and Gypsies.

The mayors placed public posters and

See detailed discussion of this law under Chapter 5 of this report.

Catholic and Evangelical Christian Travellers and Gypsies hold religious assemblies in different

parts of the country in order to perform religious rituals. On such occasions hundreds or even thou-
sands of persons gather for a few days and halting areas of sufficient size are therefore necessary.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

notices across the region encouraging citizens to come out and protest. In the municipal-

ity of Echarcon, a town of approximately 700 residents, a large banner stated in small let-

ters “No to the Site for Large Passage”, and in bigger letters “No to Travellers”. A group

of Travellers followed by a hidden camera from the TV station Canal Plus brought the

banner to Mr Robert Coquide, the town’s mayor. With the banner placed in front of him,

he tried to deny its contents. He then told them if they wanted they should lodge a com-

plaint. Another municipal official told the Travellers: “What do you want from us? It’s

what people from here desire.” He went on to tell them that what bothers local residents

is insecurity. When the Travellers asked him if the municipality of Echarcon had ever

had problems because of Travellers, he answered “No, not yet... it’s better to anticipate

problems.” At the protest, attended by various mayors and other officials, racist signs and

slogans portraying Travellers as thieves and delinquents were openly expressed.

A municipal counsellor from the town of Chalifert, Department of Seine-et-

Marne, Ms Lydie Barenton, told the ERRC that:

At local Council meetings, you have people who think they are in the town

pub and spew out racist speech. It is like this in all of the local villages in

the Department.

Here, it is the Travellers who are the scapegoats. I could

not have imagined the base level of many local officials before becoming

a municipal counsellor. For instance, in an informal meeting at the town

hall in August of 2003, the mayor of the town of Gressy proposed hold-

ing a meeting to prepare a political force uniting 52 mayors against the

Departmental Plan. Speaking of the halting areas he said ‘It is not halting

areas that we need, it is prisons that need to be built.’ He also noted that

he systematically refused Traveller children in the town schools and that

he rented fallow land to private individuals in order to be able to expel

Travellers who halted in the municipality more easily.

Other officials act in a more covert fashion by working behind the scenes for

the creation of local citizens’ associations that then carry out a variety of actions

Documentary “Gens du voyage: la répression et l’absurde, une enquête de Pascal Catuogno avec

Jérome Pin et Steeve Bauman”, aired by the TV Channel Canal Plus on 10 May 2004.

She is refering to the Department of Seine-et-Marne, east of Paris.

ERRC interview with Ms Lydie Barenton, January 20, 2004, Chalifert.

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

to protest against the creation of halting areas and the presence of Travellers and

Gypsies in their town. These associations, many the initiative of citizens them-

selves, have been created throughout France. They generally have names such as

“the association for the protection of the security and environment of the town”, or

“association for the preservation of the residents’ well-being”, or similar. Besides

perpetuating hostility and negative stereotypes about Travellers and Gypsies, these

associations organise a variety of actions, generally ranging from petitions to dem-

onstrations against the presence of Gypsies and Travellers in the municipality, and

particularly, against the creation of halting areas.

Popular prejudice against Gypsies and Travellers has a long tradition in France.

However, many Gypsies the ERRC encountered expressed a great deal of anxiety and

fear that today this hostility is reaching proportions reminiscent of pre-World War II.

Citizens’ demonstrations of anti-Gypsy hostility are not only increasingly fre-

quent but also seem to be increasingly violent. A tract distributed in the spring of

2004 in mailboxes in the Southern French region of “Provence Alpes-Côte d’Azur”

by a group calling itself the “Front for the Liberation of Provence” is illustrative of

this worrisome development. In the tract, illustrated by a hooded resident holding a

gun, are the words:

Sick of the Gypsies, who steal our cars, rob our houses and destroy our

environment? And our politicians, what are they doing? They couldn’t

give a damn about all of this – all that interests them is to win the next

regional elections. So, let’s solve the problem ourselves, since they are

not able to. Take up arms and exterminate this vermin up to the last of

them – no pity – men, women, children and babies.

The media, for its part, is currently playing an important role in exacerbating and

perpetuating the widespread racism against Gypsies and Travellers. All too often,

when reference is made to this population, it is in the context of crime and delinquen-

cy, where the Gypsy ethnicity of perpetrators, supposed perpetrators – or sometimes

simply acquaintances of perpetrators – is noted.

The Phare les Oliviers Chapter of the League for Human Rights lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor
about this tract, but by the time of writing he had received no response. The complaint seems to have
been filed without further action.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

A recent case of the disappearance and murder of a number of local girls in Al-

sace has been an occasion for the press to revive the old stereotype of Gypsies as

“child thieves”. In countless articles, the press has mentioned the Yenish ethnicity

of a family accused of being involved in one of the killings and of having collabo-

rated with the killer by not reporting the death of one of the girls to the police. In an

illustrative article, the widely read left-leaning newspaper

Liberation

took the oppor-

tunity, on the same page as the main article explaining the death and the investiga-

tion, to provide the public with information about the Yenish.

In another typical example, a leading right-leaning newspaper

Le Figaro

, provided

several pages of information in a sensationalist manner linking Travellers to all sorts of

delinquent activities, going so far as to provide a chart of crimes committed. The intro-

duction to the first article, entitled “Travellers under the Eye of Sarkozy”, reads:

More numerous, more efficient, more impulsive: itinerant delinquents,

crooks of a particular sort, recruiting from amongst the Travellers, every

day further devastate France through their sensational predation. This is

often to the prejudice of banks whose branches are attacked, of transport-

ers whose trucks are robbed of their contents, of the elderly whose every

belonging is taken, or also of supermarkets methodically pillaged. As the

Figaro

is able to reveal, some 8900 serious crimes were last year attrib-

uted to these very mobile bands, capable of covering several thousand

kilometres before taking action. This means 25 criminal acts each day.

The article proceeds to provide details of crimes, including torture of an elderly

couple, that cannot but have the effect of encouraging in the readers’ mind a false and

racist association between all Travellers and criminality.

With the arrival of new Romani migrants from eastern Europe since the early

1990s, the press has produced countless articles linking Romani migrants, as well

as French Gypsies and Travellers, to a range of violent and sensational crimes, in-

The Yenish are held by many to be Travellers of Germanic origin.

Calinon, Thomas et Blandine Grosjean. “Des familles manouches maudites de tous”.

Liberation

, July

30, 2004.

Cornevin, Christophe. “Les gens du voyage dans le collimateur de Sarkozy”.

Le Figaro

, April 18, 2003.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

cluding trafficking in women, children, and handicapped individuals. In much of

the coverage the “foreign origin” of the Roma is also emphasised and extended to

all Gypsies, thereby reinforcing an existing stereotype that Gypsies are not French,

despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Gypsies on French soil are French,

and many have lived in the country for generations, if not centuries.

That this open anti-Gypsy racism by local officials, local populations and the

media can be so widespread as to be almost banal in a country that prides itself on its

record of respecting human rights and equality is a telling sign of the place of Gyp-

sies and Travellers within French society.

Officially, France refuses to recognise the existence of minority groups on

its territory. French authorities base this refusal on the guarantee of Republican

equality at the root of French society, interpreting this guarantee to mean that

in the public domain, citizens should only be considered as “individuals”, ab-

stracted of all their specific characteristics such as ethnicity, religion and culture.

According to this view, laws and policies are to be “universal” and not take into

account particularities of minority groups. Likewise, any measures or policies

aimed at preserving or promoting cultural, linguistic, ethnic or other groups are

seen to be incompatible with the French Republican model of equality. This in-

terpretation of the equality principle is not in accord with the principle of equal-

ity in international law that requires similar situations to be treated similarly and

dissimilar situations differently.

While affirming that “Non-discrimination, together with equality before the law and equal protection of

the law without any discrimination, constitute a basic and general principle relating to the protection of hu-
man rights ”, the United Nations Human Rights Committee also noted that “The enjoyment of rights and
freedoms on an equal footing, however, does not mean identical treatment in every instance. ” See United
Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment 18, “Non-Discrimination”, 10/11/1989, paragraphs
1 and 8, available at:

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/3888b0541f8501c9c12563ed004b8

d0e?Opendocument

. Furthermore, the Explanatory Report of Protocol 12 to the European Convention

for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states that: “[I]t should be noted that the
non-discrimination and equality principles are closely intertwined. For example the principle of equality
requires that equal situations are treated equally and unequal situations differently. Failure to do so will
amount to discrimination unless an objective and reasonable justification exists.” See Explanatory Report
available at:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/177.htm

. This notion is also reflected

in the prohibition in international law of acts and actions which have the purpose or effect of undermining
equality. (See detailed description of the respective legal provisions further in this chapter.)

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

The French authorities recently explained their position in a response to a report

of the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which had

raised this issue as something leading to the restriction of rights of members of mi-

nority groups.

The French authorities wrote:

...the authors appear to question the French republican model based on

the principles of the indivisibility of the nation and the equality of all

citizens before the law, which stem from a legal tradition dating back

two hundred years. In this respect, attention should be drawn to Article

1 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 26 August

1789, which has served as a reference for many peoples fighting for

their freedom throughout the 19

century and was the primary source of

inspiration for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinc-

tions may be founded only upon the general good.”

This concept is also to be found in Article 1 of the French Constitu-

tion, which provides that: “France shall be an indivisible, secular,

democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citi-

zens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It

shall respect all beliefs.”

In the case of Thlimmenos v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights opined that: “The Court

has so far considered that the right under Article 14 not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment
of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is violated when States treat differently persons in
analogous situations without providing an objective and reasonable justification (see the Inze judge-
ment cited above, p. 18, § 41). However, the Court considers that this is not the only facet of the
prohibition of discrimination in Article 14. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment
of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States without an objective and
reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.”
Thlimmenos v. Greece, ECHR, Application no. 34369/97, 6 April 2000.

In its Second Report on France, adopted 10 December 1999, made public on June 27, 2000, ECRI

commented that: “France approaches cultural diversity from within the Republican model, which
rejects distinctions on the basis of ethnicity, class and religion and considers the common will to live
together as the only foundation of society. This approach results in policies which aim at integration
into the host society recognising the existence of cultural differences, but not wishing to promote
them. France therefore considers the cultural integration of all individuals based upon a singular

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

The French Republican structure is therefore founded on a social pact which

transcends all differences and to which every individual can willingly ad-

here, whatever his or her biological characteristics or personal convictions.

It follows that the legal concept of “minority” does not exist in French

law, which does not mean that the specific characteristics of people’s

identities are not recognised. But they lie within the realm of individual,

private choice governed by freedom of thought and conscience and are

not based on objective criteria...

The French government is obviously not unaware of the limits of the

French model for integration, but it considers that the fight against rac-

ism and intolerance must continue to be waged according to this model.

This is why any approach that attempts to introduce quotas or recognise

communities within society in defiance of the principle that all persons

are equal before the law is unambiguously rejected...

The ERRC’s research on the situation of Gypsies and Travellers in France re-

veals that their non-recognition has in no way resulted in them being treated equally

with other citizens. Instead, they are citizens apart. They fall outside of and below

the Republican guarantee of equality that is the cornerstone of the French state. They

experience severe violations of a wide range of basic political, civil, economic, so-

cial and cultural rights. They experience discrimination in fields as diverse as voting,

political participation, access to personal identity documents, access to justice, hous-

ing, employment, education, public places, services, and social insurance. And they

notion of citizenship as the ultimate goal. This has resulted in a reluctance to use the categories of

‘minority group’ and ‘community’ as concerns French citizens. However, ECRI considers that, de
facto, such groups exist and that […] the rights of individuals connected with the identity of these
groups of the population of France are limited.” CRI (2000)31, (paragraph 25).

Observations provided by the French authorities concerning ECRI’S report on France, in CRI (2000)

31. France has also articulated this position in its reservation to Article 27 of the International Cov-
enant on Civil and Political Rights, guaranteeing rights of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities.
The French Reservation States: “Article 2 of the Constitution of 4 October 1958 declares that France
shall be a Republic, indivisible, secular, democratic and social. It shall ensure the equality of all citi-
zens before the law, without distinction as to origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. Since
the basic principles of public law prohibit distinctions between citizens on grounds of origin, race or
religion, France is a country in which there are no minorities and, as stated in the declaration made
by France, article 27 is not applicable as far as the Republic is concerned.”

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

are also singled out for negative treatment by a range of racist laws and policies. The

combined effect of the various laws, policies, rules and regulations that negatively

affect Travellers and Gypsies leads to an extreme degree of marginalisation and ex-

clusion. Furthermore the ERRC’s research indicates that a variety of actions of the

French State over recent years amount to an assault on the culture of many Gypsies

and Travellers.

Racist and discriminatory laws and policies cannot be too openly directed at an

ethnic or cultural group as they would then manifestly contradict the French Con-

stitution. Thus they are generally disguised – albeit thinly. Discriminatory laws and

policies on their face often appear to be “the same for all”. However, in fact, as the

specific situation and way of life of Gypsies and Travellers are completely invisible

to policy-makers, Gypsies and Travellers in practice often find themselves excluded

or particularly harmed by what are said to be “neutral” laws.

In addition, discrimi-

nation and racism are frequently concealed within a cloud of hypocrisy. French poli-

cymakers have been particularly creative in finding ways to single out Gypsies for

negative treatment without doing so explicitly. Thus racist laws and policies are not

openly aimed at an ethnic or cultural group, but instead at a “way of life.”

French laws and policies are therefore often typical examples of “indirect discrimination” which is

prohibited by European and international law. Directive 2000/43/EC adopted June 2000 by the Coun-
cil of the European Union bans indirect discrimination which is defined to occur “where an apparent-
ly neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of a racial or ethnic origin at a particular
disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively
justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.” See
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 on “implementing the principle of equal treatment
between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin”, Official Journal of the European Communi-
ties, July 19, 2000, available at:

http://www.era.int/www/gen/f_13049_file_en.pdf

. The prohibi-

tion of discrimination in Article 1(1) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD) also extends to “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference
based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose

or effect

[emphasis

added] of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of hu-
man rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of
public life.” This definition encompasses both direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, in
that it looks to the “purpose or effect” of the actions in question. In its General Recommendation XIV
on the Definition of Racial Discrimination, (Forty-second Session, 1993), the UN Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) – the body which supervises the observation of States
Parties obligations under ICERD – specified: “In seeking to determine whether an action has an ef-
fect contrary to the Convention, it will look to see whether that action has an unjustifiable disparate

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

Earlier examples of this approach singled out “nomads”, evolving to “those exercis-

ing ambulant activities” or “those circulating in France without a fixed domicile or resi-

dence”, to the most recent terminology of “Travellers” (Gens du voyage).

According to

legal historian Jacqueline Charlemagne, the term “Travellers” initially appeared in 1978

in a Circular on conditions for halting in municipalities.

Although including primarily

Gypsies, each of these various categories also includes some other segments of the popu-

lation. For instance, the most recent term, “Travellers”, was defined in the Delamon re-

port as those “who live and travel in mobile homes or are likely to do so, during all or part

of the year, that is to say those who are nomadic and sedentary who identify themselves

as Travellers.”

The recent Besson Law defines as Travellers whose traditional habitat

is constituted by mobile homes. Those persons who fit this definition on French territory

are, in their majority, Gypsies. Certain other segments of the French population, such

as persons who have adopted a travelling lifestyle, also fit within this category. The fact

however remains that a number of laws and policies single out a part of the population

– disproportionately persons of Gypsy origin – for specific negative treatment.

No information exists that makes it possible to estimate the number of Gypsies

and Travellers in France with any degree of accuracy. As it is generally considered

to be illegal to collect statistics on ethnicity in France, there have been no recent

censuses or scientific studies to provide such data. The most relevant data from the

last national census in 1999 provides information as to the number of persons living

in mobile homes, putting this number at 140,949.

The Ministry of Defense also

impact upon a group distinguished by race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.” (See CERD

General Recommendation No. 14: Definition of discrimination (Art. 1, par.1), 22/03/93, at:

http:

//www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/d7bd5d2bf71258aac12563ee004b639e?Opendocument

Following WWII, the word ‘nomad’ had to be replaced by another term as it had become too politi-

cally charged after the persecutions during (and after) the Vichy period. See Courthiade, Marcel. Les
Rroms dans le contexte des peuples européens sans territoire compact. (INALCO – Univ. de Paris &
IRU – Commissariat à la langue et aux droits linguistiques).

Charlemagne, Jacqueline. “Tsiganes et gens du voyage.” Regards sur l’actualité. No. 255, November

1999.

Delamon, Arsène. “La situation des ‘Gens du Voyage’ et les mesures proposees pour l’ameliorer”.

Rapport de Mission de Monsieur Arsène Delamon à Monsieur le Premier Ministre. 13 Juillet 1990.
(Unofficial translation by the ERRC.)

Census March 1999, INSEE. This census found the total population of Metropolitan France to be

58,518, 395.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

maintains records as to the number of persons with circulation documents, a number

totalling 156,282 on 19 March 2002.

In a report presented in January 2000, Senator

Delavoye cited the figure of 140,000 persons that then possessed circulation docu-

ments and noted that it is necessary to add the number of Travellers who are less than

16 years-old to this figure, noting that they constitute 45% of the nomadic population.

He therefore estimated the total number of Travellers at more than 300,000 persons.

None of these figures can be taken to provide an accurate estimate of Gypsies and

Travellers in France, as many Gypsies and Travellers neither live in mobile homes

nor possess circulation documents. Given the mobility of those in mobile homes, and

marginal locations to which they are often relegated, it is also likely that a certain

number are not counted in such records. Furthermore both figures include a certain

number of persons who are not Gypsies and Travellers.

According to the publication Le Courrier des maires et des élus locaux: “As-

sociations close to Gypsies estimate that the settled population in France is around

400,000 to 500,000 persons. Those who still travel are approximately 300,000.” This

would mean a total of between 700,000 and 800,000 persons (around 1.2-1.36% of

France’s population).

The publication notes though, that in the absence of a specific

census, these figures are uncertain.

Mr Nara Ritz, representative of the Gypsy association Regards, told the ERRC

that the number of Gypsies and Travellers far exceeds official estimates and is likely

much closer to 1,200,000 or 1,300,000. He said, “The number of persons with circu-

Ministère de la Défense – Direction générale de la gendarmerie nationale. “Nombre de titres de cir-

culation detenus par les personnes circulant en France sans domicile ni residence fixe (SDRF), au 19
Mars 2002”. It should be highlighted that those under 16 do not possess circulation documents. Given
that the average family size amongst Travellers is widely estimated to number at least five persons,
including three children per family, numbers of persons belonging to families with circulation docu-
ments are considerably higher than these figures indicate.

Senator Delevoye, Jean-Pierre, Report No. 188, presented at ordinary session of French Senate 1999-

2000, session of January 26, 2000, available at:

http://www.senat.fr/rap/l99-188/l99-1881.html

An article recently published in the French Magazine Géo by Dany Péto-Manso, President of the

non-governmental Gypsy association Regards cites the figure 800 000. Péto-Manso, Dany. “Droit de
réponse.”

Géo

, No. 313, March 2005.

Kis, Martine. “Qui sont réellement les “gens du voyage”?”

Le Courrier des maires et des élus locaux

No. 152, November 2002.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Introduction: A Climate of Racism Against Travellers and Gypsies

lation documents needs to be multiplied by at least three, using a very conservative

estimate of average number of children per family. This amounts to approximately

600,000. Then you have to add those persons who travel without circulation docu-

ments as they have an identity card and those persons with a Gypsy origin who do

not have a nomadic lifestyle. These groups are at least equal in number to those with

circulation documents bringing the total to at least 1,200,000 or 1,300,000.”

In ad-

dition to French Gypsies and Travellers, a few thousand Romani migrants (approxi-

mately 5,000) without French citizenship are currently in France.

It is widely accepted that the vast majority of Gypsies and Travellers in France are

French nationals.

Despite this fact, the false perception lingers on that they are for-

eigners. This notion has been given new life in recent years with the arrival, beginning

in the early 1990s, of several thousand Romani migrants from the former Yugoslavia

and other parts of eastern Europe. The media as well as officials have capitalised on

their presence in order to extend and reinforce old stereotypes about Gypsies and

Travellers more generally, including their supposed foreign-ness to France.

This report is structured as follows: The next chapter provides a brief history of

Gypsies and Travellers in France, bringing to light the pattern of their rejection, re-

pression and control evidenced throughout this history. Chapter 4 details violations

of basic civil and political rights, including the right to vote and to participate in pub-

lic affairs. Chapter 5 describes the considerable difficulties Travellers and Gypsies

face finding places to halt when they travel, the repeated forced evictions they expe-

rience, and the indecent and segregated locations to which they are relegated. And,

on the other hand, it also describes the continuing difficulties Travellers and Gypsies

face when they try to buy land and their continued harassment and expulsion when

they are landowners. The Chapter reveals the considerable obstacles interfering with

Travellers’ and Gypsies’ ability to preserve their way of life. Chapter 6 brings to

light the indecent living conditions of many Travellers and Gypsies on halting areas,

private land that they own and areas where they have permanently settled. It also ad-

dresses the discrimination that Travellers and Gypsies experience in the social hous-

ERRC interview with Mr Nara Ritz, March 22, 2005, Paris.

The Delamon Report of July 1990, for instance, states that “The quasi totality of Travellers have

French nationality.” Delamon, Arsène. “La situation des ‘Gens du Voyage’ et les mesures proposées
pour l’améliorer”. Rapport de Mission de Monsieur Arsène Delamon à Monsieur le Premier Ministre.
13 Juillet 1990.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

ing sector. Chapter 7 describes abusive police treatment of Travellers and Gypsies,

including collective raids, racial profiling and ill-treatment of Traveller and Gypsy

individuals and their property. Chapter 8 provides an overview of discrimination

Travellers and Gypsies face in their access to social assistance and a range of public

services. Chapter 9 focuses on discrimination against Travellers and Gypsies in em-

ployment. Chapter 10 discusses problems Traveller and Gypsy children encounter

in the French education system. Chapter 11 assesses France’s legal framework in

the area of anti-discrimination. Chapter 12 turns its attention to Romani migrants in

France and sets out the multiple human rights violations that they face. The report

concludes with recommendations to the French government aimed at improving its

human rights record with respect to Travellers, Gypsies and Romani migrants.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

3. GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS IN FRANCE: A HISTORY OF REJECTION,

CONTROL AND REPRESSION

The history of Gypsies in France, as elsewhere, relies to a significant extent on re-

ports made by persons who were not part of Gypsy communities. This history is there-

fore coloured by myths and stereotypes, reflecting external perceptions of these com-

munities.

Today, however, scholars have reached a broad consensus as to the Indian

origins of Gypsy populations, in particular through tracing the Indic roots of the Romani

language, which is closely related to other major Indic languages, such as Hindi.

The first record of Gypsies in France dates back to the early 1400s with the arrival

in 1419 of a group of Gypsies in Macon, France. Chroniclers of the day lost no time in

promoting a fearful image of the newcomers as: “people of a great size as to person,

hair and otherwise, that lie in the fields like beasts.”

They were reportedly lead by

Liégois, Jean-Pierre.

Gypsies and Travellers

. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1987, p. 13. Liégois,

Jean-Pierre.

Tsiganes

. Paris: La Décourverte/Maspero, 1983, p. 9, pp. 17-19.

Fraser, Angus.

The Gypsies

, Oxford: Blackwell, 1995, pp. 21-28. The various groups that can be

categorised broadly as Kale, Sinti and Roma share this Indian origin. However, in France, Yenish - a
group that does not share this Indian origin – are generally also included under the term “Gypsies”, by
academics, media as well as some members of Gypsy communities. The Yenish are Travellers of a
Germanic origin. For instance, ethnologist Alain Reyniers states that: “Two other Gypsy groups moved
to France from the beginning of the XIX century, from the borders of the North-East. This concerns
the Sinti or Manus and the Yenish. The former, often named “Zwarte Zigeuners” [Black Gypsies] by
germanophone populations, speak a Romanes dialect (of Indian origin) strongly influenced by German
and, to a lesser extent, Alsacian. The latter, generally viewed as “White Zigeuners” [White Gypsies]
adopted rotwelš – a slang of ambulant Germans – interspersed with Manus terms (especially for things
concerning family life) and Yiddish (for business relations).” Reyniers, Alain. “Les populations tsi-
ganes en France.”

Passarelles

, no. 6 Printemps 1993, p. 15. Jean-Pierre Liégois comments that: “The

first influx of Gypsies eventually spread over the whole of western Europe, with some becoming settled
or moving about on a smaller scale. Travellers of Indian origin also encountered native travellers, on
occasion.... Cultural exchanges sometimes resulted from encounters with travellers from India, so that
from the sixteenth century on “mixed” groups formed in the British Isles and other parts of Europe, with
characteristics of Indian origin being absorbed and reinterpreted by native nomads or with nomads from
India absorbing and reinterpreting native characteristics. All north-western European Gypsy groups are
of this nature.” Liégois,

Gypsies and Travellers

, pp. 17-18.

Reyniers.

Les populations tsiganes en France

, p. 11; Liégois.

Gypsies and Travellers

, p. 90.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

a man named Andre who said that he was a duke from Little Egypt.

According to

ethnologist Alain Reyniers, the relatives of these Gypsies passed through Bulgaria and

Moldavia and Wallachia around the years 1386-1387, then into Serbia around 1399

before arriving in Bohemia in the early 1400s.

Over the next years, chroniclers report the arrival of other Gypsies in other

towns. In historical documents of this early period, they are commonly referred to

either as Egyptians, due to their stories related to Little Egypt,

or as “Bohemians”,

due to the documents of safe passage they carried, delivered by Emperor Sigismund

of Bohemia-Moravia.

While they were reportedly well-received at first, their itinerant lifestyle was

quickly viewed with suspicion by the local populations and officials. The ongoing

legacy of policies aimed at their expulsion and control soon began.

For instance,

a royal ordinance issued on the 15

of July 1504 by Louis XII ordered viscounts to

“chase out all of those who called themselves or were named Egyptians.” An edict of

1529 ordered the banishment of “Bohemians”, and in 1682 Louis XIV issued a “Dec-

laration against the Bohemians” threatening to punish lords who welcomed them.

Aubin, Emmanuel. “La Commune et les Gens du Voyage”. Berger-Levrault, 2003, p. 11.

Gypsies were often designated as “Egyptians” in the early period of their arrival in Western Europe, due

to mistaken beliefs of their origin in “Little Egypt”. This notion seems to have arisen from a story spread
by some groups of Gypsies arriving in Western Europe in the early 1400s, in order to account for their ap-
pearance. According to accounts, they “presented themselves as pilgrims from “Little Egypt”, sentenced
by the pope to seven years of wandering as punishment for betraying the Christian faith following alleged
Muslim conquest.” Petrova, Dimitrina. “The Roma: Between a Myth and the Future”.

Social Research

Vol. 70, No. 1 Spring 2003, p. 120. See also Reyniers, Alain, and Patrick Williams. “Permanence tsigane
et politique de sédentarisation dans la France de l’après-guerre”. L’habitat saisi par le droit. Les virtualités
de la loi Besson du 5 juillet 2000.

Etudes tsiganes

, Volume 15, Deuxième semestre 2001, pp. 10-11.

Aubin, p. 11.

See Aubin, Emmanuel. “L’évolution du droit français applicable aux Tsiganes. Les quatre logiques
du législateur républicain”. L’habitat saisi par le droit. Les virtualités de la loi Besson du 5 juillet
2000.

Etudes tsiganes

, Volume 15, Deuxième semestre 2001, p. 26. For further examples of meas-

ures taken against Bohemians from the 16

to the19

century, see Liégois,

Tsiganes

, pp. 156-158.

Aubin, “L’évolution du droit français applicable aux Tsiganes”, p. 26. For further examples of

measures taken against Bohemians from the 16

to the19

century, see also Liégois, Tsiganes,

pp. 156 – 158. “The preoccupation of the authorities was alway to make them disappear: from the

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

The French Revolution, bringing with it the Declaration of Human Rights and

Citizens of 26 August 1789, seemed to auger the beginning of an era of better treat-

ment for Gypsies in France. Its 1

article, still at the root of the French Constitutional

order, declared boldly:

Men are born free and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinc-

tions can only be based on the common good.

Such hopes proved short-lived. Republican laws and policies, while reportedly in the

early period less repressive than monarchic laws, soon sought to control and restrict the

movements of Gypsies, along with vagabonds and beggars – groups perceived as dan-

gerous and threatening, particularly for bourgeois society.

By the end of the 1800s, the

French Republic began to put in place policies aimed at expelling Gypsies from French

territory by making it illegal for them to stop anywhere. For instance, a circular issued in

June 1889 encouraged prefects to expel nomads from their department:

As far as the nomads are concerned, generally foreigners... whose pro-

fessional activity prevents them from being classified in the category of

vagabonds, it would be appropriate to extend measures already used in

some departments and which involve expelling them, purely and sim-

ply, to the border of the department. The prefect of the neighbouring

department, immediately informed of this measure, will then proceed in

the same manner so that nomadic bands will be successively led to the

border of our territory.

The Gypsies targeted by these measures were in large majority not foreigners but

French nationals.

geographical horizon (by expelling or detaining them), from the social horizon (by assimilating or

exterminating them).” Reyniers and Williams, “Permanence tsigane et politique de sédentarisation
dans la France de l’après-guerre”, p. 11.

Rothéa, Xavier.

France pays des droits des Roms? Gitans, “Bohémiens”, “Gens du voyage“, Tsiganes...face

aux pouvoirs publics depuis le 19e siècle

. Lyon : Carobella ex-natura, February 2003, pp. 47-53.

Rothéa.

France pays des droits des Roms

, p. 51.

The general census of “Nomads and Bohemians” carried out in 1895 demonstrated the French nation-
ality of most “Bohemians and Nomads” on French territory. Rothéa. Ibid., p. 52.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

Such measures failed to deter new groups of Gypsies and other Travellers from

coming to France. For instance, ethnologist Alain Reyniers notes that from the be-

ginning of the 19th century, Sintes and Yenish began arriving in France. Likewise,

from the early 19

century, Kale began to arrive in Southern France from the Iberi-

an Peninsula. In 1866, a group of Roma with German passports reportedly arrived

in France. They are believed to have left the Romanian principalities of Moldavia

and Wallachia after having been released from slavery in 1856. These Roma were

followed by others from Transylvania, and from the Balkans.

Gypsies in France

crossed paths and sometimes mixed with Travellers of European origin.

Anthropometric booklets

On July 16, 1912, a law was passed that for the next fifty-seven years institute

strict surveillance and restrictions of the movements of Gypsies and Travellers

in France. The then-Minister of Interior summarised the law shortly after it was

passed as follows: “It is necessary to identify, track and drive out the nomads cov-

ered by the law of 16 July 1912 and whose presence in France threatens the peace

of our countryside.”

This law required all nomads to carry an anthropometric identity booklet with

them at all times. In addition, the head of each family or group had to have a collec-

tive booklet including all persons travelling with the head of the family. This booklet

had to be stamped by the police chief, commander of the gendarmery, or mayor in

each town in which the group stopped, upon its arrival and departure.

Adopting a

method created by Mr Alphonse Bertillon during the 1880s in order to track crimi-

nals,

each anthropometric booklet included personal information about the holder,

Reyniers. “Les populations tsiganes en France”, pp. 15-19.

Liégois,

Gypsies

, p. 6.

Cited in Aubin, “L’évolution du droit français applicable aux Tsiganes”, p. 29.

Some municipalities refused permission for groups to stop, thus not delivering the required stamp.

In this way, these documents served not only to control movement, but also to make it increasingly
difficult for Gypsies to work, as their economic activities depended on stopping. Carrere, Violaine.
“Des papiers pour stationner, des papiers pour circuler”.

Plein Droit

, No. 35, Septembre 1997.

Filhol, Emmanuel. “La mémoire et l’oubli: L’internement des tsiganes en France. 1940-1946”. Paris:

Conference presentation, 2 June 2004. Available at:

http://aphgcaen.free.fr/cercle/tsiganes.htm#filhol

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

such as his or her full name, nicknames, place of birth, and other information relevant

to establishing his or her identity. It also included physical details such as the height

of the waist and the chest; the length and width of the head; the length of the right

ear, the left elbow and the left foot; and eye colour. In addition, the booklet included

spaces for the holder’s fingerprints and two photographs (profile and portrait).

Along with these booklets, cars belonging to nomads were to bear special license

plates, with a number 10 centimetres in height, the inscription “Law of 16 of July

1912” and the stamp of the Ministry of Interior.

It is true that on its face this law does not directly single out “Gypsies”. Instead it

targets all individuals “... whatever their nationality, circulating in France without a

fixed domicile, and who are not ambulant salesmen or fairground stallholders, even

if they have resources and claim to exercise a profession.”

In drafting this law, as

with various laws and policies to follow, French policymakers concealed the racist

nature of the law through supposedly simply regulating “a way of life” as opposed

to addressing a specific group of persons based on their culture, ethnicity or origin

– which would be contrary to the French Constitution.

However, despite the cloak covering the racist nature of the law legislators

were fully aware that it targeted Gypsies.

For instance, during discussions in

the French Senate concerning this law, Senator Etienne flandin stated that the

nomads are:

Article 8, Law of 16 July 1912. Bulletin officiel du ministère de l’intérieur. February 1913, pp. 79

– 82, available at:

http://barthes.ens.fr/clio/revues/AHI/articles/preprints/asseo.html

Article 3, Law of 16 July 1912, cited in: Senator Delevoye, Jean-Pierre. Report 188 (1999-2000) on
the draft law adopted by the National Assembly concerning the welcome and housing of Travellers,
and on the legal proposition of Mr Nicolas About aimed at strengthening the prefect’s and mayor’s
means of eviction in cases of illegal occupation by Travellers of industrial, commercial, or profes-
sional sites. Ordinary Session of the French Senate (1999-2000), available at:

http://www.senat.fr/

rap/l99-188/l99-1881.html

The public law jurist, Marcel Waline commented with respect to this law that “it was based upon racist

considerations, instituting a derogatory regime against a whole race, a regime which could apply to others,
but which is principally directed against this race... despite its title, despite the two first articles relating to
ambulant salespeople and fairground stallholders, it is nonetheless a law of protection against the public
danger presented by Bohemians, Romanichels or Gypsies”. Aubin, “L’évolution du droit français applica-
ble aux Tsiganes”, p. 28.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

vagabonds with an ethnic character [who] live on our territory as in a

conquered country, not wanting to follow either the rules of hygiene

or the edicts of our civil laws, demonstrating an equal disdain for our

criminal laws and our fiscal laws (...) the Bohemians are the terror of our

countrysides where they exercise their depredation with impunity.

Several parlamentarians reportedly spoke out against the fact that a Republican

government could pass such legislation. For instance, one Deputy stated that “a po-

litical system arising out of a revolution of natural rights that does not allow for any

sort of discrimination, particularly ethnic, should only recognise individuals as sub-

jects of rights and only sanction transgressions.”

The thinly-veiled hypocrisy of this law is a key feature of the subsequent treatment

of Gypsies and Travellers by the French Republic – an intricate construction of laws and

policies aimed at controlling, tracking, driving out and assimilating Gypsies and Travel-

lers, all the while formally denying the discriminatory character of such regulations.

World War II

The history of Gypsies, French and foreign, on French territory during World War

II, is a chapter which France seems determined to keep hidden from public knowledge.

Important archival information remains closed to public scrutiny; most places in which

Gypsies were interned are not indicated or commemorated; and official public recogni-

tion and apology for the events of this period has not been forthcoming.

Aubin, “L’évolution” p. 27. The words ‘nomads’ and ‘Bohemians’ were at that time frequently

used as synonyms.

Deputy Jourde, cited in Aubin, “L’évolution” p. 27.

Commenting on the absence of information on this period of French history, historian Emmanuel

Filhol states: “But what did I know about the internment inflicted in France on Manus, Gitan and
Roma communities during the Second World War? Absolutely nothing, because nobody ever spoke
to me about it, not those close to me, not my professors... One would expect that historians preserve
the memory of the Gypsies as a category of interned persons a majority of whom were French. But
this is not the case. Forgetting has here imposed itself with as much success, even more successfully.
The historical discourse in France has until the present ignored the internment of Gypsies. Besides
the rare studies previously cited, history books on the Vichy regime directed at specialists or schools
are silent about its existence...” Filhol, Emmanuel.

La memore et l’oubli l’internement des Tsiganes

en France, 1940 – 1946

. Paris: Centre de recherches tsiganes, l’Harmattan, 2001, pp. 12 and 16.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

On 6 April 1940, two and a half months before France surrendered to Ger-

many, a decree was issued by the President of the French Republic forbidding

the circulation of “nomads” and ordering their residency in designated locations

under police supervision.

In a circular issued to Prefects on 29 April 1940, the Minister of the Interior clari-

fied that those falling under the scope of this decree included nomads as defined by

the Law of 16 July 1912. This meant those persons who “are or should be holders

of an anthropometric booklet”. Furthermore, those persons who did not have such a

booklet but were suspected of being nomads could also be assigned to residence. In

this way, the decree also covered nomads who had managed to register themselves

as fairground stallholders or ambulant salesmen.

The circular also described the

reasons behind this measure:

Their continual movements, during which the nomads can gather con-

siderable and important information, can be a very serious danger for

national security... It wouldn’t be the smallest benefit of this decree if it

were to allow for the stabilising of the errant bands which, from a social

perspective, constitute a clear danger, and to create in some of them, if

not the taste at least the habit of regular work.

Gypsies in France were placed in internment camps following an ordinance of

the German occupying power in France of 4 October 1940 ordering the internment

of Gypsies. The French authorities were charged with arresting and interning the

Gypsies, as well as managing the internment camps. As the term “Gypsies” did not

Article 2 of the Decree of 6 April 1940 provides: “Nomads, that is all persons so-reputed under the

conditions provided in Article 3 of the Law of 16 July 1912, are ordered to present themselves to the
gendarmery or police station closest to the location where they find themselves in the fifteen days fol-
lowing the publication of the present decree. They will be obliged to go to a locality where they will
be required to reside under police surveillance. This location will be designated for each department
by ruling of the prefect.” In Hubert, Marie-Christine. “Les réglementations anti-tsiganes en France
et en Allemagne, avant et pendant l’occupation”. Histoire de La Shoah. Les Tsiganes Dans l’Europe
Allemande, No. 167, Sept-Dec 1999, Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine, p. 43.

Hubert, Ibid., p. 43.

Auzias, Claire. “Samudaripen, le génocide des Tsiganes”.

l’Esprit frappeur

, 2000, p. 184, cited in

Rothéa,

France pays des droits des Roms

, pp. 65-66.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

exist in French legislation, the German ordinance made reference to the terms of the

French law of 16 July 1912.

Various researchers who studying this period point out that the anti-Gypsy policy

of the Vichy regime was internal to its own ideology, not imposed by the Nazis,

even though it was in line with Nazi doctrine. Gypsies were interned in camps on

both sides of the demarcation line – of the 30 internment camps established, 5 were

located in unoccupied France.

Historians estimate the number of French Gypsies

interned at over 6000.

Many of those interned died due to the extreme conditions

and in particular a lack of sanitary facilities, as well as due to starvation.

Those Gypsies interned were not all released from the camps at the end of the

war. According to available records, the last Gypsies were only released from the in-

ternment camps in May 1946, once again due to the racist belief that they represented

a danger to national and public security.

Many Gypsies whom the ERRC interviewed during research towards this report

expressed their anger and frustration that these events are not appropriately recog-

nised. Mr Jose Brun, a young Gypsy activist, told the ERRC:

For me, WWII was yesterday. One of my uncles was interned in the Mon-

treuil-Bellay camp. Today this site belongs to a pharmacist from the vil-

Hubert, “Les réglementations anti-tsiganes en France et en Allemagne, avant et pendant l’occupation”,

pp. 49-50.

Filhol, Emmanuel.

La memoire et l’oubli l’internement des Tsiganes en France, 1940 – 1946

. Paris :

Centre de recherches tsiganes, l’Harmattan, 2001, p. 12.

See for instance, Hubert, “Les réglementations anti-tsiganes en France et en Allemagne, avant et

pendant l’occupation”, p. 39.

See Hubert, Marie-Christine. “1940-1946 ‘l’Internement des Tsiganes en France”.

Hommes et Mi-

grations, Tsiganes et Voyageurs

, No. 1188-1189, Juin-Juillet, 1995.

See Rothéa,

France, pays des droits des Roms

, pp. 68-69. A circular issued by the Minister of the

Interior on 27 March 1945 noted: “internment is not a punishment aimed at sanctioning, in the same
manner as legal penalties, activities of collaboration or other anti-national activities. It is a derogatory
police measure of a preventive nature aimed at putting out of a state to harm those individuals who
you believe to be dangerous for national defence and public security.”

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

lage, who rents it to a farmer, whose sheep graze there. Things have also

gone so far that there are now advertisements for supermarkets located on

the site. Today, there are discussions about a proposal to use part of the

former camp (where a prison remains) in order to build a traffic circle.

In the local collective consciousness, the camp is a taboo. Quite a few

locals are descendants of camp guards. If you ask in the village where

the camp is, everyone pretends not to know. People used to go to look at

the ‘people in the camp’. It was the Sunday outing...

The French State hasn’t been honest concerning this camp – the archives

are closed for fallacious reasons. A researcher, Jacques Sigot, managed

to undertake research in a furtive manner. The treatment of this camp is

not an isolated case. The French State is obviously aware of its respon-

sibility and it doesn’t want to assume it.

In March 2005, there was still no memorial but a large billboard advertisement

for the “Zoo de Doué-la-Fontaine” on the site of this former internment camp.

Post-World War II

Policies of tracking and controlling Gypsies in France continued after WWII

through what has been labelled by many commentators as a more “liberal” or “hu-

mane” regime regulating personal status than the law of 16 July 1912. In 1969, a

new law, still in effect today, eliminated the need for nomads to carry anthropo-

metric booklets (Law of 3 January 1969). However, it replaced these booklets with

different types of circulation documents for persons “without a fixed domicile or

residence who live in vehicles, trailers, or other mobile shelters”. This new lan-

guage to describe Gypsies and Travellers served to replace the word “nomads”

which had fallen into disrepute after World War II, while once again hiding the

ethnic nature of those primarily affected by its provisions. Different degrees of

administrative control and surveillance apply to holders of circulation documents

ERRC interview with Mr Jose Brun, February 23, 2004, Tours.

E-mail and photo from Mr Jose Brun, March 18, 2004.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

depending on the type of document that they possess. The strictest controls are ap-

plied to those most marginalised.

Policies of consecutive expulsions also continued following WWII, with mayors

using their police powers to issue decrees banning the stopping of nomads on their

territory. However, in 1963, the Courts intervened. The Prefect of the Department of

Alpes-Maritimes had issued a circular forbidding the stopping of nomads who pos-

sessed anthropometric booklets in more than 79 municipalities in his department.

The Administrative Court of Nice annulled this decree. The Council of State (Conseil

d’Etat) upheld this judgement, ruling that such a permanent and absolute ban on stop-

ping on all or part of the territory of a department infringed upon individual liberties.

In the period following this judgement, a change came about in France’s ap-

proach to Gypsies and Travellers. It sought not only to keep Gypsies and Travellers

out and to control them, but also to encourage their “integration”. An interministerial

Circular of 20 February 1968 is illustrative of this shift in policy that continues to

the present day. It states that municipalities should establish designated halting areas

of two types: areas for short-term stay (terrains de passage) and areas for long-term

stay (terrains de séjour). The first type seeks to provide a place for Gypsies to halt for

short periods, while ensuring public peace and order through limiting their halts to

designated and controlled areas. The second type aim at the assimilation of Gypsies

through their sedentarisation. It was hoped that remaining in a given halting area

for longer periods of time would serve as a sort of apprenticeship for sedentary life.

During their stay, Gypsies could “become accustomed to remaining several months

in the same place and also to carrying out regular work”. Furthermore “socio-educa-

tive” teams were to play an important role on the halting areas for long-term stay by

“educating” Gypsies in the ways of society.

This goal of sedentarisation was further

reinforced by the Law of 3 January 1969 that required those persons with circulation

Law n° 69-3 of 3 January 1969. This law and its effects are described in detail in Chapter 4 of this report.

CE, arrêt du 20 janvier 1965, Min. de l’Intérieur c/dame Vve Vicini, Rec. Lebon 41. See Charle-

magne, Jacqueline. “Le droit au logement des gens du voyage: Un droit en trompe l’œil ? L’habitat
saisi par le droit. Les virtualités de la loi Besson du 5 juillet 2000”.

Etudes tsiganes

, Volume 15,

Deuxième semestre 2001, p. 63.

See Reyniers and Williams,

Permanence tsigane et politique de sédentarisation dans la France de

l’après-guerre

, p. 14.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

documents to select a “municipality of attachment” to which they were to return for

various administrative acts. It was hoped that this would lead to their progressive

sedentarisation, and thus “normalisation”, in a non-coercive manner.

Municipalities were not, however, eager to develop halting areas. Therefore,

only a few were developed in the twenty years following the passage of the Circular

of 20 February 1968, mostly in the departments of Western France.

In 1990, the

obligation upon municipalities to create halting areas was reinforced, this time as a

final article (Article 28) inserted into the Law of 31 May 1990 relating to the imple-

mentation of the right to housing.

This article required each department to develop

a detailed plan setting out the conditions in which Travellers were to be hosted in

the department, including short-term stay, long-term stay, the schooling of children,

and the exercise of economic activities. It also required each municipality with more

than 5,000 residents to provide facilities for short and long-term stay on its territory,

through establishing areas reserved to this effect. As soon as municipalities did this,

they were permitted to forbid the halting of Travellers on the rest of the territory of

their municipality.

The Law of 31 May 1990 already contains the basic elements later developed in

greater detail in Law no. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 concerning the welcome and hous-

ing (habitat) of Travellers (Besson Law), currently at the forefront of French public

debate.

And, like the Besson Law, it represents a positive development in that it

seeks to oblige municipalities to consider the housing needs of Travellers. However,

it also leads to violations of the freedom of movement and the right to adequate hous-

ing, by effectively forbidding Gypsies and Travellers from halting outside of “des-

ignated areas”. In fact, Article 28 was a response to requests by mayors to be able to

expel Travellers more easily. A 1985 judgement of the Council of State recalled that

the police powers of mayors could not be used to completely forbid the stopping of

Travellers in a given municipality and that they were to be permitted to stop for the

See Aubin, “L’évolution du droit français applicable aux Tsiganes”, pp. 32-33.

See Reyniers and Williams, “Permanence tsigane et politique de sédentarisation dans la France de

l’après-guerre”, pp. 19-20.

Loi no. 90-449 du 31 mai 1990 visant à mettre en oeuvre le droit au logement, JO 2 juin 1990.

This law is discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of this report.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Gypsies and Travellers in France: A History of Rejection, Control and Repression

minimum time that they required.

Thus, Article 28 sets out conditions by which

mayors could meet their legal obligations through relegating Travellers to a control-

led and limited area, and then be allowed to expel them from everywhere else. Once

again, even with this incentive, municipalities were not eager to develop halting ar-

eas, and by 2000 only one quarter had done so – and these generally in locations unfit

for living and segregated from the rest of the population.

Ville de Lille c/Ackermann, 2 decembre 1983, D.S. 1985. J.388, note R. Romi., cited by Charle-

magne, in

Etudes

Tsiganes

, Volume 15, Deuxième semestre 2001, pp. 63-64.

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

4. SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS: INEQUALITY OF TRAVELLERS AND GYPSIES IN THE

EXERCISE OF BASIC CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

France is renowned as the source and guardian of modern democracy and innova-

tor of the very notion of individual rights and freedoms. It is therefore surprising that in

today’s France, hundreds of thousands of French citizens are subject to severe violations

of the most basic civil and political rights causing even a ripple of protest, let alone public

outcry at the challenge posed to the very foundations of the French Republic. A large

part of those affected by these violations are Gypsies and Travellers, indicating that these

violations are in fact racist in character.

Furthermore, these violations are not simply the spontaneous or unplanned acts

of unscrupulous individuals, but to a large extent actually stem from legal regulations

debated and adopted by French policymakers. At the core of these violations is Law no.

69-3 of 3 January 1969 relating to the exercise of ambulant activities and the regime

applicable to persons circulating in France without a fixed domicile or residence.

Certain aspects of this Law have led to a regime of surveillance and police con-

trol of those who “live in a permanent manner in a vehicle, a trailer or any other

mobile shelter,” a large percentage of whom are Travellers and Gypsies. The persons

falling under the scope of this law are obliged to carry special circulation documents,

with criminal sanctions applying in cases of non-compliance. Those most margin-

alised or otherwise arousing the suspicions of the authorities must also present their

documents for regular police control or be subject to fines and imprisonment. These

regulations bring about severe violations of the freedom of movement and right to

respect for private and family life of those persons subject to their provisions.

These basic rights are guaranteed in numerous international human rights instruments to which France

is a party. For instance, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
provides that: 1) “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the
right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.[...] 3) The above-mentioned rights
shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect
national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of
others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.” France ratified the
ICCPR on 4 February 1981.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

Furthermore, special conditions imposed by this Law infringe upon the right

to vote of many Travellers and Gypsies, thus interfering with one of their most

General Comment N

27 by the UN Human Rights Committee on Article 12 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has clarified the contents of the right to freedom of movement
as well as legitimate restrictions upon this right. Paragraph 5 of the Comment states that “The right
to move freely relates to the whole territory of a State, including all parts of federal States. Accord-
ing to article 12, paragraph 1, persons are entitled to move from one place to another and to establish
themselves in a place of their choice. The enjoyment of this right must not be made dependent on
any particular purpose or reason for the person wanting to move or to stay in a place. Any restrictions
must be in conformity with paragraph 3.” Paragraph 7 states that “Subject to the provisions of article
12, paragraph 3, the right to reside in a place of one’s choice within the territory includes protection
against all forms of forced internal displacement. It also precludes preventing the entry or stay of
persons in a defined part of the territory.”

As far as restrictions, the General Comment states in paragraph 11 that “Article 12, paragraph 3,

provides for exceptional circumstances in which rights under paragraphs 1 and 2 may be restrict-
ed. This provision authorizes the State to restrict these rights only to protect national security,
public order (ordre public), public health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others. To be
permissible, restrictions must be provided by law, must be necessary in a democratic society for
the protection of these purposes and must be consistent with all other rights recognized in the
Covenant...” Furthermore, “it is not sufficient that the restrictions serve the permissible purpos-
es; they must also be necessary to protect them. Restrictive measures must conform to the prin-
ciple of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must
be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result; and they
must be proportionate to the interest to be protected. (para 14) The principle of proportionality
has to be respected not only in the law that frames the restrictions, but also by the administrative
and judicial authorities in applying the law. States should ensure that any proceedings relating
to the exercise or restriction of these rights are expeditious and that reasons for the application
of restrictive measures are provided.” Human Rights Committee, General Comment 27, Free-
dom of movement (Art.12), U.N. Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999), on the internet at:

http:

//www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/hrcom27.htm

The right to freedom of movement is also guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the ECHR guarantees
the right to freedom of movement. Limitations placed on this right must be in accordance with law and
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the main-
tenance of public ordre for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The ECHR is in force in France since 3 May 1974.

Article 17 of the ICCPR guarantees that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful inter-

ference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour
and reputation.”

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

basic rights as citizens of a democratic society. This injustice is further aggra-

vated through the more general exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers in France

from other avenues of representation and participation in public affairs, even

when they are directly concerned by the topics at the forefront of public and

political debate.

4.1 Discriminatory Control Over the Movement of Travellers and Gypsies:

Circulation Documents

Many French Gypsies and Travellers, unlike other citizens, are obliged to obtain

special circulation documents, which they must carry with them at all times. This

situation is created by Law number 69-3 of 3 January 1969, relating to the exercise of

ambulant activities and the regime applicable to persons circulating in France with-

out a fixed domicile or residence (Law of 3 January 1969).

While its title may seem

to imply that this Law is simply about regulating economic activities, it in fact also

establishes specific police controls for persons without a fixed domicile or residence

who live in vehicles, trailers, or other mobile shelters (for the most part Gypsies and

Travellers). The Law of 3 January 1969 is an example of blatant racial discrimina-

tion, hidden by a thinly veiled pretence of simply regulating a “mode of life” and “the

Article 8 of the ECHR guarantees respect for private and family life. It provides that: 2) “There shall

be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance
with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety
or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The ICCPR provides in its Article 25 that “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity,

without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a)
To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal
suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the
electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. Article
2 imposes on States an obligation to ensure that the rights recognised in the Covenant are guar-
anteed to all individuals without distinctions based on grounds such as “race, colour...national
or social origin...”.

Law number 69-3 of 3 January 1969 relating to the exercise of ambulant activities and to the regime

applicable to persons circulating in France without a fixed domicile or residence, J.O. 5 janvier 1969.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

exercise of specific types of economic activities”.

The majority of those negatively

affected by it are Gypsies and Travellers.

The Law of 3 January 1969 in fact eliminated and replaced the anthropometric

cards for nomads established by the Law of 16 July 1912. However, like the Law of

1912 that it replaced, the Law of 3 January 1969 also instituted a special regime of

control and surveillance of Gypsies based on the same underlying stereotypes relat-

ing to the supposed criminality and delinquency of this population.

Although circulation documents no longer include all of the physical data for-

merly on anthropometric cards, physical signs still appear on these cards. The most

recent version of these documents includes near the photo a space for height as well

as “particular signs” in which information about skin colour, eye colour, body type,

hair colour and other particular physical traits are included.

There are different categories of “circulation documents”, each implying different

levels of administrative control and surveillance. The strictest controls apply to those

persons most marginalised or otherwise arousing the suspicions of the authorities.

Thus those persons unable to provide proof of their professional activities and regular

revenue must present their circulation documents (circulation cards) to the police sta-

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), to

which France is Party, binds State Parties to guarantee civil rights, including the freedom of move-
ment and residence within the border of the State, without distinction as to race, colour, or national
or ethnic origin. (Article 5(d), (i)). France ratified the ICERD on 27 August 1971.

As with official statistics on Travellers and Gypsies generally, there are no official statistics that indi-

cate how many amongst those with circulation documents are Travellers and Gypsies. However, the
‘Delamon Report’ of 13 July 1990 provided data on the number of persons holding different types of
circulation documents at that time: a total of 83,050 persons, with 53,677 holding special booklets,
4,348 holding circulation booklets, and 25,025 circulation cards. The report commented that “...the
persons surveyed as holding one of these administrative documents are not all Gypsies and Travel-
lers, and it is not, in the end, possible to survey the Travellers with precision on this basis. However,
we are able to affirm that Gypsies and Travellers figure primarily amongst those holders of special
booklets and circulation cards where they constitute the large majority.” Delamon, Arsène, “La situ-
ation des ‘Gens du Voyage’”, p. 12.

“Order of 18 January 2001 modifying the Order of 21 August 1970 establishing the modalities for
applying the legislative and regulatory dispositions relative to the exercise of ambulant activities and
the regime applicable to persons circulating in France without a fixed domicile or residence.”

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

tion or gendarmery

for validation every three months. Those who are able to provide

proof of regular revenue, but are not enrolled on the Repertory of Trades or Registry

of Commerce must present their circulation documents (circulation booklets) for

validation every year. Those who are enrolled on the Repertory of Trades or Regis-

try of Commerce do not need to present their document (special booklet) for regular

“validation”; they need to renew it after five years as do the holders of other types of

circulation documents. According to the most recent publicly available data, in March

of 2002, a total of 156,282 persons had circulation documents.

Of these, 70,484 had

circulation cards, 9,689 had circulation booklets, and 76,109 had special booklets.

A journalist recently wrote in the

Monde Diplomatique

On a fundamental level, it remains true that, contrary to the Republican

concept of citizenship, the nomads continue to be approached as a mi-

nority within the State. And that France is one of the only Western coun-

tries to impose on itinerants administrative documents such as a circula-

tion booklet and card. A discrimination within a discrimination which,

as the sociologist Jacqueline Charlemagne explains, ‘creates differences

within this population: those that are in an extreme state of marginalisa-

tion (seasonal workers, door-to-door sellers) have the circulation card;

the others, less marginalised (enrolled on the Registry of Commerce,

salaried workers) benefit from the special booklet.’

Failure to fulfil the obligations set out in the Law of 3 January 1969 falls within

the domain of criminal law. Thus, persons who circulate in the country without the

The French police forces include different units. Gendarmerie is a military force under the authority of the
Ministry of Defense. They operate primarily in rural towns and towns with a population of less than 10
000 and have some responsibilities at border areas. Their principal duty is the maintenance of order.

It should be noted that only those over 16 have circulation documents. The total number of persons,

including children, belonging to families with circulation documents is thus significantly higher than
these figures indicate.

Ministère de la Défense – Direction générale de la gendarmerie nationale. “Nombre de titres de cir-

culation détenus par les personnes circulant en France sans domicile ni résidence fixe (SDRF), au 19
Mars 2002.”

Aubry, Chantal. “Fragile statut pour les Tziganes français”.

Le Monde Diplomatique

, May 2003.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

appropriate circulation document in their possession may find themselves subject

to a prison sentence of between three months and one year. Those who neglect to

present their document for validation within the appropriate time period may be fined

(a maximum of 1,500 Euros) and imprisoned for between 10 days and a month.

Many Gypsies and Travellers told the ERRC that when they take their circulation

documents for “validation”, they are sometimes insulted and treated as criminals by

the officials. Sometimes the validation process can take hours. While they wait, their

“file” is pulled up. If they owe any fines or tickets, they have to pay them on the spot.

Sometimes people are immediately arrested. In the town of Merignac,

Mr Pierre

Delsuc, a local pastor who acts as a mediator for local Travellers, told the ERRC: “I

just met with a person who had come to see someone in hospital. He stopped by the

police station to have his circulation card validated. The file said “arrest warrant”

The need for Gypsies and Travellers to possess special circulations documents in order to circu-

late within France and to present these documents at regular intervals to the police or gendarmery
interferes with both their freedom of movement and right to respect for private and family life. In
its General Comment No. 27 on Article 12 of the ICCPR relating to the freedom of movement, the
UN Human Rights Committee comments that: “States have often failed to show that the applica-
tion of their laws restricting the rights enshrined in article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, are in conform-
ity with all requirements referred to in article 12, paragraph 3. The application of restrictions in
any individual case must be based on clear legal grounds and meet the test of necessity and the
requirements of proportionality. These conditions would not be met, for example, if an individual
were prevented from leaving a country merely on the ground that he or she is the holder of ‘State
secrets’, or if an individual were prevented from travelling internally without a specific permit.”
See Human Rights Committee. General Comment No 27: Freedom of Movement (article 12): 2/11/
1999, available at:

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6c76e1b8ee1710e38025682400

5a10a9?Opendocument

These requirements with respect to circulation documents also violate Article 2(1) of Protocol 4 to

the ECHR, which stipulates: “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that terri-
tory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.” Although they are
provided by law, the serious interference they entail with the freedom of movement of many Gypsies
and Travellers cannot arguably be held to be necessary in a democratic society for the fulfilment of
any of the broader interests listed in paragraph (3) of this Article (national security, public safety, the
maintenance of the ordre public, prevention of crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protec-
tion of the rights and freedoms of others). Parallel reasoning would surely apply to the interference
these requirements entail with respect to the right to private and family life protected under Article 8
of the ECHR, placing them in violation of this article as well.

A town near Bordeaux in the Department of Gironde.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

(‘mandat d’arret’). He was immediately put in prison. He asked to at least know what

for, of what he was accused. They didn’t tell him. He is in prison and will be trans-

ferred to Lyon.”

Amongst a group of women stopped in the official halting area in

Aix les Milles,

one woman, Ms T.D., had forgotten to take her document for visa.

She said: “I am afraid to go now. I forgot to have it stamped. If you forget, they yell

at you like you’re a dog. They can put you in prison.”

4.2 Discrimination in Access to Identity Card

Obtaining a national identity card is a legal right for all French citizens, including

those with circulation documents. However many Gypsies the ERRC encountered

during its research lacked national identity cards. This was the case for the over-

whelming majority of those who have circulation documents. This situation results

in large part from discriminatory regulations and administrative obstacles.

In one case, the ERRC met Ms Ginette Mencarelli, a young Gypsy, at her home

in an empty lot in Picarel in an industrial neighbourhood of Toulouse that is inhab-

ited by twenty families (approximately one hundred people). She lives along with her

husband and 2 children in the back of a heavy-duty truck that no longer has wheels.

Before living here she lived in the Ginestous camp,

also in Toulouse. Her experi-

ence is typical of many the ERRC heard:

It is extremely difficult to get an identity document. I don’t have the

right to an identity card. I would like an identity card for my two chil-

dren. The officials want to give me a circulation document, but I don’t

want it. I do not want a special card and, in addition, you have to get it

ERRC interview with Mr Pierre Delsuc, March 3, 2004, Merignac.

A neighbourhood of Aix-en-Provence, in the Department of Bouches-du-Rhône.

ERRC interview with Ms T.D., May 4, 2004, Aix les Milles. Full name on file at the ERRC. In some

instances throughout this report the ERRC has withheld the names of victims and/or witnesses. The
ERRC is prepared to release names if the interests of justice so require and if it is satisfied that the
safety and privacy of persons concerned would be respected.

Many Gypsies previously lived in this camp in Toulouse that existed from 1951 until 2000 when it

was shut down due to a flood.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

stamped every three months at the gendarmery. I refuse to accept a circu-

lation card and they will not give me an identity card. With the circulation

card they survey you. Depending where you go, they can keep you three

or four hours in the police station... I was born in Toulouse. My birth cer-

tificate says Toulouse. I have an address of domicile with an association.

But for an identity card, I need to prove that I have a fixed residence...

nobody who lives on this lot has the right to have an identity card.

The ERRC met Ms Jeanne M. on the same lot. She commented, “I have been

fighting for an identity card for my children for six years. But the authorities say they

cannot give it to me as I have no address. I am domiciled at 44 chemin des Izards. So,

for now, I only have a birth certificate for my children.”

The need to provide proof of residence is a significant hurdle preventing many

Gypsies and Travellers from obtaining an identity card. As indicated on the website

of the French public service, in presenting a request for an identity card it is neces-

sary to provide at least one document providing proof of domicile, such as a certifi-

cate of taxation or non-taxation; proof of rent payment; an electricity, gas or fixed

telephone bill; a property title; or a certificate of home insurance. An exception is

made for those without a fixed residence – they are able to use the address of an ac-

credited association.

However, those falling under the law of 3 January 1969, are

formally precluded from benefiting from this procedure.

Even those able to provide the required proof of residence sometimes run into

difficulties obtaining an identity card when officials recognise that they are Gypsies.

ERRC interview with Ms Ginette Mencarelli, March 9, 2004, Toulouse.

ERRC interview with Ms Jeanne M., March 9, 2004, Toulouse. This is the address of a local non-

governmental organisation.In some instances in this report, the ERRC used initials in the place of full
names. The ERRC is prepared to release full names if the interests of justice so require.

Service-public.fr le portail de l’administration francaise. On the internet at:

http://vosdroits.service-

public.fr/particuliers/N358.html?n=Papiers&l=N21

Circular No. NOR INT/D/02/00062/C of 14 March 2002, Minister of Interior. Letter of 3 August

1999 from Minister of Interior to Prefects. Both the Circular and letter make clear that Travellers
can only make use of special procedures of domiciliation at an accredited association for purposes of
social assistance benefits and that otherwise they fall under the Law of 3 January 1969, including for
delivery of administrative documents.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

For example, Mrs B.B. told the ERRC that when she married in September 2003 she

went to the city hall of the town of Venissieux to ask for a new identity card with her

married name. She was informed that she needed to provide proof of residence. She

provided a photo, her previous identity card and an electricity bill with her address on

“Chemin de la Glanière” – the long-term halting area, owned by the city, where she

lives in a caravan with her husband. She was asked to bring her circulation booklet and

that of her mother. After responding that she had never had such a booklet, the local of-

ficials answered that they would carry out an investigation. She told them to go ahead.

As of March 24, 2004, when the ERRC met her, she still had not received an identity

card and did not believe that she would receive one. “We have to live in an apartment

or house to be like them in order to get an identity card,” she told the ERRC.

Although not legally obligatory for French nationals, a lack of an identity docu-

ment immediately stigmatises Gypsies and Travellers who are obliged to present

other personal documents, such as circulation documents.

4.3 Obstacles to the Political Participation of Gypsies and Travellers

The right of a citizen to participate in the public life of his or her country is one of

the most fundamental individual rights in a democratic society. However, in France,

Gypsies and Travellers face violations of this most basic human right, finding them-

selves sidelined from effective participation in the country’s political life.

Many Gypsies and Travellers are unable to vote in elections under the same

conditions as other French citizens, due to discriminatory conditions stemming from

the Law of 3 January 1969. Furthermore, quotas as to the number of persons with

circulation documents that can vote in each municipality ensure that many Gypsies

and Travellers will never make up more than a minority voice in any elections.

Gypsies and Travellers also find themselves unable to access other avenues of

participation in public affairs. National or local level officials consistently neglect to

consult Gypsies and Travellers, even with respect to matters that directly and spe-

cifically concern them, such as the Besson Law and its application. Officials tend to

prefer turning to intermediaries whom they consider to have expertise about Gypsies

ERRC interview with Ms B.B., March 24, 2004, Vénissieux.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

and Travellers, rather than to solicit the individual opinions of Gypsies and Travellers

themselves. Furthermore, institutional forums for consultation, such as the Departmen-

tal Consultative Commissions of Travellers established under the Besson Law, consist-

ently present only an appearance of consultation, while in practice giving Gypsies and

Travellers no more than a limited role and influence in their discussions.

4.3.1 Infringement of Travellers’ and Gypsies’ Right to Vote

Article 3 of the French Constitution provides that:

National sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through

their representatives and through the method of referendum... Voting

can be direct or indirect under conditions foreseen by the Constitution.

It is always universal, equal and secret...

Despite this specific Constitutional guarantee, Gypsies and Travellers face dis-

crimination with respect to their ability to exercise the right to vote on the same terms

as other French citizens.

This discrimination arises from the Law of 3 January 1969, which stipulates

that those with circulation documents may only exercise their right to vote after a

3-year period of attachment to a given municipality.

This is considerably longer

than that applied to all other French citizens who are able to vote after 6 months of

residence in a given municipality. Those citizens without a fixed residence who do

not live in vehicles, trailers or mobile shelters (homeless individuals) are able to

vote after 6 months of links with a given municipality.

Once again, despite on its

face applying to all of those with “circulation documents” as opposed to Gypsies

Article 3, Constitution of 4 October, 1958. Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

Article 10, law of January 1969.

Article L15-1 of the Electoral Code stipulates that those who cannot provide proof of a fixed domicile

or residence, and who are not subject to rules concerning a “municipality of attachment”, may be
enrolled on the electoral list in the municipality of a host organisation if such an organisation appears
on their identity cards for at least six months or provides them with a declaration indicating links with
the town for six months. Article L 15 of the Law establishes special conditions for voting without any
time limitations for persons living on boats (bateliers) without a fixed residence or domicile.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

and Travellers, this rule in fact has a disproportionate impact upon Gypsies and

Travellers and as such results in racial discrimination.

100

Another aspect of the Law of 3 January 1969 makes it impossible for the many

Gypsies and Travellers who fall under its scope to elect officials that represent their

interests at any level of government. According to this Law, those with circulation

documents may vote in the municipality that they select as their “municipality of

attachment”.

101

However, the number of persons who may be “attached” to a given

municipality may not exceed 3% of any town’s population. If a town has already

fulfilled its quota of persons with circulation documents attached to it, others can be

refused (unless the Prefect makes an exception).

102

Evidently, this means that those

Gypsies and Travellers without a fixed domicile or residence can never elect a repre-

sentative, as they can never constitute more than 3% of the vote in a given location.

No alternative arrangements exist in order to provide this population with the pos-

sibility of electing representatives.

In its annual report of 2000-2001, the former National Consultative Commission

of Travellers

103

commented that the 3% quota was of a discriminatory character and

re-commended that it be eliminated. It stated that “This legal threshold is rarely at-

tained. Its elimination would not likely cause major changes in the distribution of this

100

Article 5(c) of the ICERD stipulates that State Parties to the Convention are to ensure that there be

no racial discrimination in the enjoyment of “Political rights, in particular the right to participate in
elections – to vote and to stand for election – on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part
in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to
public service.”

101

Their municipality of attachment is designated as the location where those with circulation docu-

ments are able to exercise a variety of rights and obligations: performance of marriages; enrolment
on the electoral list; carrying out of fiscal obligations; and obligation of national military service.

102

The Prefect may make an exception to the 3% quota, after receiving the opinion of the mayor, for

family or economic reasons. Article 25, Décret no. 70-708 du 31 juillet 1970. Article 8, Law of 3
January 1969.

103

This Commission, which functioned from June 2000 to the end of 2002, was composed of: elected

officials (10); representatives of different Ministries (10); representatives of Travellers named by the
Minister responsible for social affairs (10); and qualified persons named by the Minister in charge of
social affairs (10). A new decree was passed on 24 November 2003 re-establishing this Commission,
however at the time of writing its members had not yet been selected.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

population on the national territory. On the other hand, it would have a strong symbolic

impact in the aim of a better integration of Travellers.”

104

This recommendation was opposed by the Directorate of Territorial Admin-

istration and Political Affairs (DATAP) of the Ministry of Interior due to risks of

“electoral manipulation”. The Directorate General of the National Gendarmery also

opposed its elimination.

105

In addition to these interferences in their right to vote based in law, Gypsies and

Travellers also sometimes face obstruction in their ability to exercise their right to vote

by mayors or other local officials who refuse to enrol them on voting lists. According to

Mrs Danielle Mercier, Secretary General of the non-governmental Association Social-

Educative Union of Gypsies of Aquitaine (USETA),

106

“the majority of Travellers are

not enrolled on voting lists because mayors refuse or place administrative obstacles in

their path. They say things like ‘but you aren’t here the whole year and you won’t be

here for the elections anyway.’ They discourage them. They also ask for administrative

documents such as an electricity bill and tax form, proof that they pay the ‘housing

tax’.

107

Or they say ‘but you don’t have an identity card.’ It is like this everywhere.”

108

Problems arise both in the case of people who are “attached” to a given municipality

and with respect to families that have lived in a municipality for years but in areas that

are not zoned for habitation (as is the case of a great many Travellers).

In order to exercise their right to vote, Gypsies and Travellers often have to be will-

ing to bring significant levels of pressure on officials and to undertake measures which

non-Gypsies generally do not. For instance in the town of Isle-St.-Georges, a town of

approximately 530 residents in the Department of Gironde, the municipality refused to

enrol the Winterstein family on the electoral list despite the many years that they have

lived in the town. They are now enrolled after turning up on election day in June of

104

Saint-Julien, Sylvette, Rapporteur. Rapport annuel Commission national consultative des gens du

voyage, June 2000 – June 2001. Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Octobre 2001, p. 26.

105

Saint-Julien, Ibid., p.26.

106

Union Socio-Educative Tzigane d’Aquitaine.

107

The housing tax (tax d’habitation) is an annual tax imposed on anyone who occupies housing on the

of January of each year.

108

ERRC interview with Ms Danielle Mercier, March 1, 2004, Pessac.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

2002 with Ms Isabelle Courbin, a representative of the non-governmental organisation

Doctors of the World (MDM).

109

Ms Courbin asked how it was possible that the family

did not have the right to vote given that they had lived in the town for fifteen years. The

mayor reportedly told them to “go upstairs and register.” Ms J. Winterstein had also

taken the “circulation cards” of five youth attached to the commune so that they could

also be registered. The mayor refused this request.

110

Another Traveller, Ms Sandra Bayer ended up going to Court in order to exercise her

right to vote. In January of 2003, the municipality of Gouvernes refused to enrol her on the

electoral lists despite the fact that she lived in Gouvernes with her husband and children

on property they owned since October of 2000. She took the case to the First Instance

Court of Lagny, which ordered the municipality to enrol her on the electoral lists. They

did so fifteen days later.

111

However, most Travellers and Gypsies are not able or willing

to go to the Courts. Local officials are aware of this and so act illegally on occasion.

4.3.2 Obstacles to the Participation of Gypsies and Travellers in Decision-Making

Travellers and Gypsies in France are to a great extent excluded from public af-

fairs, even when the issues debated, such as the Besson Law, directly and specifically

concern them. Adding to the discrimination that they already experience with respect

to the right to vote, Gypsies and Travellers also find themselves cut off from other

avenues of participation in public affairs.

112

109

Médecins du Monde.

110

ERRC interview with Ms J. Winterstein, March 4, 2004, Isle-St.-Georges.

111

ERRC interview with Ms Sandra Bayer, February 10, 2004, Gouvernes. Letter RG No. 15-03-

000001 from the First Instance Court of Lagny to Ms Sandra Bayer.

112

Under international law France is obliged to ensure that its citizens, including Gypsies and Travellers,

are able to participate on an equal footing in the conduct of public affairs. In its General comment
No. 25 on Article 25 (Participation in public affairs and the right to vote) ICCPR, the Human Rights
Committee noted that: “Citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence
through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize
themselves. This participation is supported by ensuring freedom of expression, assembly and as-
sociation.” See General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights
and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25): 12/07/96. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7,at:

http:

//www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/d0b7f023e8d6d9898025651e004bc0eb?Opendocument

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

Numerous Gypsy and Traveller Associations told the ERRC of their deep frustra-

tion over the fact that they are unable to express their opinions directly to national

and local officials and civil servants. Furthermore they frequently find their legiti-

macy as “representatives” of Travellers and Gypsies called into question.

A significant obstacle comes from the fact that instead of listening to them, public

authorities to a significant extent turn to the large number of non-Gypsy Associations

that “specialise” in the Gypsy and Traveller population, either by conducting “social and

educative” activities or studying this population. It is these associations and specialists

that are deemed by authorities to be able to “speak for” Gypsies and Travellers.

113

Furthermore, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its “General recom-

mendation XXVII on discrimination against Roma”, set out measures to be taken by States concern-
ing the participation of Roma in public life. These include:

• Taking the necessary steps, including special measures, to secure equal opportunities for the

participation of Roma minorities or groups in all central and local governmental bodies.

• Developing modalities and structures of consultation with Roma political parties, associations

and representatives, both at central and local levels, when considering issues and adopting deci-
sions on matters of concern to Roma communities.

• Involving Roma communities and associations and their representatives at the earliest stages in

the development and implementation of policies and programmes affecting them and to ensure
sufficient transparency about such policies and programmes.

• Promoting more awareness among members of Roma communities of the need for their more

active participation in public and social life and in promoting their own interests, for instance the
education of their children and their participation in professional training.

• Organising training programmes for Roma public officials and representatives, as well as for

prospective candidates to such responsibilities, aimed at improving their political, policy-mak-
ing and public administration skills.

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation 27, “Dicrimina-

tion against Roma”, (Fifty-seventh session, 2000), U.N. Doc. A/55/18, annex V at 154 (2000), avail-
able at:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/genrexxvii.htm

113

In his book

Tsiganes

, Professor Jean-Pierre Liégois evaluates the situation as follows: “The Gypsy

and nomad associations and committees are regularly criticised. In a political context where cul-
tural particularities are negated, it is looked upon negatively to organise in order to defend a culture
that others consider as non-existant or at the least disturbing. ‘They aren’t able to organise them-
selves’ has become a commonplace expression, based once again on a lack of knowledge about the
internal dynamics of another society, coupled with an ethnocentric attitude that consists in wishing
the Gypsy to organise in the same way as the non-Gypsy...” Liégois,

Tsiganes

, p. 269. (Unofficial

translation by the ERRC).

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

Illustrative of this attitude is the response of Mr Bernard Garandeau, Adjunct to

the Mayor of Mérignac and Vice-President of the General Council of Gironde, when

the ERRC asked him about the consultation of Travellers and Gypsies in the imple-

mentation of the Besson Law. He responded that:

To find an ‘official’ representative of the Travellers is extremely diffi-

cult. They aren’t necessarily ready to designate one representative. This

means that their representation is ensured by a pastor for instance... or

Travellers brought by Catholic priests. These are the persons that act

as representatives of those people. We, on the other hand, vote for one

mayor...As far as I am concerned the only place I turn for advice with

respect to Travellers is the Association of Friends of Travellers – Mrs

Beaupère.

114

She has really absorbed the culture of Travellers. She can

speak with them, for them. And they accept. We find few interlocutors

who know the Travellers sufficiently well to speak.

115

Another local official, Ms M.M. commented: “They do not have the same mode

of representation as us. They are not ‘representative’ like us. For instance, on a par-

ent-teacher Commission, parents do not just represent themselves, but also speak for

others, whereas they do not have this concept. They do not have spokespersons.”

116

This sort of reflection is often used to dismiss Gypsy and Traveller actors that legiti-

mately represent the interests of their communities when they seek to participate in

decision-making processes concerning them.

Countless reasons are found by French authorities to discredit those from Gypsy

and Traveller communities who seek to express the concerns of their communi-

ties, ranging from their lack of “real” representativity to not promoting a dangerous

“move toward communitarianism.” And instead, with an attitude underpinned by

racist stereotypes and imbued with paternalism, various “experts”, “social work-

ers”, “researchers” or other individuals who are not from Gypsy and Traveller com-

munities are consulted as if they legitimately “represent” Gypsies and Travellers.

114

Ms Beaupere is the Director of the non-governmental organisation Friends of Travellers Association

of Gironde (AAVG).

115

ERRC interview with Mr Bernard Garandeau, March 3, 2004, Mérignac.

116

ERRC interview with Ms M.M., March 3, 2004, Pessac.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

Such consultations, where others speak in the place of Gypsies and Travellers, are

also presented as consultations with Gypsies and Travellers themselves.

Dany Peto-Manso, President of the non-governmental Gypsy association Regards,

told the ERRC that with respect to participation, “the current situation is disastrous...

they think that we cannot be part of the life of a country; that we are asocial....”

117

In a

letter addressed to the National Union of Social Action Institutions for Gypsies (UNI-

SAT), Regards stated: “The question of representation has barely evolved while in

parallel our conditions of existence have never been so threatened since WWII.”

118

A press conference on December 9, 2004 attended by the ERRC was revealing of

the barriers to the participation of Travellers and Gypsies in French public life, and the

importance of this problem in a climate where Gypsies and Travellers feel that their

very existence is increasingly threatened by the policies and actions of the French state.

The press conference was called to announce the creation of a new federation (FNA-

SAT)

119

composed of two existing federations of associations engaged in activities “for

the benefit or study of Gypsies and Travellers”,

120

together with the Roma research or-

ganisation Etudes Tsiganes. Representatives of Gypsy and Traveller Associations from

across the country came to the press conference to denounce FNASAT. They in their

turn announced the creation on November 20, 2004 of a new group aimed at fighting for

democracy, and in particular fighting a “system that uses associations and federations

to supposedly work for Travellers”.

121

The 20 November group qualified the FNASAT

as the wall preventing their effective participation and integration in French society.

122

The impression given by the reactions of the majority of non-Gypsies at the table was

that they did not take the statements of the Travellers and Gypsies as more than angry

117

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Dany Peto-Manso, November 22, 2004, Paris.

118

Peto-Manso, Dany, Letter to President of UNISAT, March 23, 2003.

119

National Federation of Associations of Action Solidarity wtih the Gypsies and Travellers.

120

National Union of Social Action Institutions for Gypsies (UNISAT) and National Union for Social
Actions aimed at Travellers (UNAGEV).

121

“Brief concerning the Creation of the FNASAT-Travellers”, Press Brief, Travellers Collective of
20 November.

122

Mr Nara Ritz, Meeting on December 9, 2004, Paris. See also “Brief concerning the Creation of the
FNASAT-Travellers”, Press Brief, Travellers Collective of 20 November.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

talk, emitted by a handful of extremists. A great number of the existing Traveller and

Gypsy Associations across the country joined the 20 November group.

123

4.3.3 The Absence of the Voices of Gypsies and Travellers in the Application

of the Besson Law

Although their living conditions, way of life and daily existence will be directly and

significantly affected by “Law no. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 concerning the welcome and

housing of Travellers” (Besson Law),

124

the voices of Travellers and Gypsies are at best

marginal in discussions surrounding the implementation of this Law.

125

They have been

largely excluded from the procedures for developing the Departmental Plans that set out

key decisions such as where “halting areas” for Travellers are needed, how many places

are to be created in each, the infrastructure and type (duration of stay permitted).

126

While these Departmental Plans are supposed to reflect the needs of Travellers

based on a “needs assessment”, these assessments have for the most part been developed

123

Press Conference. December 9, 2004.

124

Loi no 2000-614 du 5 juillet 2000 relative à l’accueil et à l’habitat des gens du voyage.

125

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made clear in its General
Comment No. 4 on the right to adequate housing that extensive genuine consultation of those affected
is an important component of the right to adequate housing. See The Right to Adequate Housing
(Article 11(1)): 13/12/1991. CESCR GeneralComment 4, available at:

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/

doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument

In a recent recommendation on “improving the housing conditions of Roma and Travellers in Eu-

rope”, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has specified that: “Roma should be
involved as early as possible in the process of planning and setting up of their future settlement areas
or permanent housing units, so as to assess as precisely as possible what their particular needs are, or
will be, in the future. Member states should also ensure that Roma residing on their territory – wheth-
er sedentary, nomadic or semi-nomadic – are given an appropriate assistance to define their specific
needs in terms of housing, as well as access to appropriate welfare and social services (health, educa-
tion, employment, culture, and so on).” The recommendation makes clear that the term “Roma” as
used “refers to Roma/Gypsies and Traveller communities and must be interpreted as covering the
wide diversity of groups concerned.” Committee of Ministers.

Recommendation to Member States on

Improving the Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers in Europe

, Rec (2005) 4, Paragraph 30.

126

Law of 5 July, 2000, Article 1, II.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

without significant consultation or involvement of the Travellers and Gypsies them-

selves. None of the Travellers whom the ERRC met on existing stopping areas or halted

in unauthorised locations had been consulted in the development of any Departmental

Plans. It seems that in a large number of cases the persons or institutions responsible for

carrying out the assessment have relied on their own expertise and consulted other ex-

perts, such as associations offering various forms of assistance (social and educational)

to Travellers, but they have not carried out direct grassroots consultations with Travel-

lers and Gypsies themselves.

For instance, the Regional Association for Study and Actions Concerning

Gypsies (AREAT)

127

has carried out the needs assessment and developed at least

30 Departmental Plans (of a total of 95 Departments in Metropolitan France). The

ERRC asked Mr Denis Klump, director of AREAT, whether Gypsies and Travellers

were directly consulted during the development of these Plans. He responded that

it wasn’t necessary to carry out a specific consultation as AREAT has been manag-

ing halting areas and working with Travellers for ten years. He commented: “We

have known them for 10 years... we are well-placed as technicians.”According to

Mr Klump AREAT does not have Gypsies within its Administrative Board (Conseil

d’Administration) or as managers of halting areas.

128

Regardless of how much expertise associations such as AREAT possess, this

cannot in a democratic society replace grassroots consultation and the partici-

pation of those actually concerned. It is unimaginable that if specific forms of

housing were to be created for another ethnic or cultural group within the French

population that this could occur without extensive meetings directly with those

concerned and their representative associations. The fact that in the case of the

Gypsies and Travellers it is believed to be sufficient to involve experts and inter-

mediaries reflects the extent of paternalism towards and exclusion of this popula-

tion in French society.

Ms Karine Moreau, Director of the National International Gypsy Social Associa-

tion (ASNIT),

129

in the Department of Bouches-du-Rhône commented to the ERRC,

127

Association Régionale d’Etudes et d’Actions auprès de Tsiganes.

128

ERRC interview with Mr Denis Klump, May 3, 2004, Marseille.

129

Association sociale nationale internationale tzigane.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

“Normally according to the Besson law there should be an evaluation of needs in

developing the Departmental Plan ... A priori the Travellers were not consulted here.

We find it interesting to what extent the Departmental Plan does not take into ac-

count the Travellers. Everything is about ‘halting areas’. We know that this is one

response, but not the only one...”.

130

According to the Besson Law, the participation of Travellers is to be ensured

through the establishment in each Department of a Consultative Commission of

Travellers “including notably representatives of the municipalities concerned,

representatives of Travellers, and associations providing services to Travellers.”

These “Departmental Consultative Commissions of Travellers”(CDCGV) in

each Department are to be “involved in the elaboration and implementation of

the Plan.”

131

A Decree lists twenty-two persons (according to their function) to

be represented on the Commission in each Department. For the most part, these

persons are to be elected municipal officials or representatives of different State

services. Five places are reserved for “personalities designated by the Prefect of

the Department based on the propositions of Associations representing Travel-

lers, and Associations providing services to Travellers present in the Depart-

ment, or, where this is not possible, amongst persons qualified as a result of their

knowledge of Travellers.”

132

The result in practice is that in the majority of Commissions across the country

at most two or three persons out of the twenty-two on the Commission actually come

from Traveller or Gypsy Associations. And their minority voice tends not to carry

much weight on the Commissions.

130

ERRC interview with Ms Karine Moreau, May 4, 2004, Marseille.

131

“In each Department, a Consultative Commission, comprised notably of representatives of munici-

palities concerned, representatives of Travellers and associations that work with Travellers, is associ-
ated with the elaboration and implementation of the Plan. It is presided jointly by the representative
of the State in the Department and by the President of the General Council or by their representatives.
Each year the Consultataive Commission carries out an assessment of the application of the Plan. It
can designate a mediator responsible for examining any difficulties encountered in the implementa-
tion o f the Plan and develop recommendations for resolving such difficulties.” Article 1, IV, of Law
of 5 July 2000. Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

132

Decree no. 2001-540 of 25 June 2001 relating to the composition and functioning of the Departmen-

tal Consultative Commission of Travellers.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Second-Class Citizens: Inequality of Travellers and Gypsies in the Exercise of Basic Civil and Political Rights

Mr Dany Peto-Manso, President of Regards, told the ERRC: “Many Departmen-

tal Commissions have one single and unique Gypsy as a member. But whether there

are five representatives of Travellers or one it amounts to the same thing – if we say

something the majority decides anyway. The representatives of various institutions

are, like us, on the Commission – what do you want our voice to mean amongst those

people – we merely serve as tokens.”

133

In the Bouches-du-Rhône, for example, two representatives of Travellers have

seats on the Consultative Commission. A meeting had been held a few days prior to

the vote on the Departmental Plan in which two of the Traveller representatives had

brought other Travellers in order to express to the sub-Prefect their concerns over the

proposed Departmental Plan. The impression was given to the Travellers that their

comments would be taken into consideration. However, the proposed Departmental

Plan was put to vote without modification.

134

In the Consultative Commission in the Department of Gironde, there are three Travel-

lers. Ms Rosie Winterstein, one of the Travellers on the Commission, told the ERRC: “We

said ‘no’ to the current Departmental Plan. We speak but we are not listened to... we were

on the Consultative Commission, but our words are not taken into account...What we say

is not reflected in the report of the working group. We, we do not exist for them.”

135

In an example in the Department of l’Hérault, the ERRC was informed that

well-known local Gypsy Mr Maurice Ruiz was refused a seat on the Commission as

his degree of “representativity” was questioned. Mr Ruiz, who is vice-president of

the National Catholic Association of Travellers (ANGVC) as well as vice-President

of Regards, both important national associations whose membership is composed

of Gypsies and Travellers, received the following response from the Prefect to his

request to participate on the Commission: “...This candidacy has been studied, but

not retained, the degree of representativity of the person concerned does not seem

evident. In addition, some partners have been brought to officiously express their

hesitations with respect to the presence of Mr Ruiz... These are the reasons that it was

133

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Dany Peto-Manso, November 22, 2004, Paris.

134

ERRC interview with Mr Alain Fourest, President non-governmental association Rencontres Tsi-

ganes, May 3, 2004, Marseille.

135

ERRC interview with Ms Rosie Winterstein, March 2, 2004, Pessac.

Assault on a Way of Life

137

Bauman, Zygmunt. “Le Cout human de la mondialisation”, Hachette, coll. “Pluriel”, 1999.

138

Connors v. The United Kingdom, Judgement by the European Court of Human Rights of May 27,

2004, application number 66746/01, para 84.

139

Committee of Ministers.

Recommendation to Member States on Improving the Housing Conditions

of Roma and Travellers in Europe

, Rec (2005) 4, paragraph 3. The paragraph provides that: “Member

states should affirm the right of people to pursue sedentary or nomadic lifestyles, according to their own
free choice. All conditions necessary to pursue these lifestyles should be made available to them by the
national, regional and local authorities in accordance with the resources available and to the rights of
others and within the legal framework relating to building, planning and access to private land.”

5. ASSAULT ON A WAY OF LIFE: LAWS, POLICIES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO

TRAVELLING, HALTING AND LIVING CONDITIONS OF GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS

“A world without vagabonds – that’s the utopia

of the tourist society.”

137

Zygmunt Bauman

Human rights obligations upon States with respect to minorities go beyond simply

a negative right not to interfere with a minority’s way of life. In fact, States have a posi-

tive obligation to facilitate this way of life. Recently, the European Court of Human

Rights clearly stated this responsibility in a decision on May 27, 2004, relating to the

eviction of a Gypsy family from a local authority Gypsy site in the United Kingdom:

The vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority means that some special

consideration should be given to their needs and their different lifestyle both

in the relevant regulatory framework and in reaching decisions in particular

cases (Buckley judgement cited above, pp. 1292-95, §§ 76, 80 and 84). To

this extent, there is thus a positive obligation imposed on the Contracting

States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the gypsy way of life […].

138

The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, in a recommendation of Feb-

ruary 23, 2005 on “Improving the Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers in

Europe”, emphasised the obligation upon Council of Europe Member States to cre-

ate conditions so that Roma and Travellers are able to “pursue sedentary or nomadic

lifestyles, according to their own free choice.”

139

The recommendation also states that

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

“national housing

140

policies should seek to address their specific problems as a mat-

ter of emergency, and in a non-discriminatory way.”

141

French laws, policies and practices related to travelling, stopping and urban plan-

ning and regulation not only do not facilitate the Gypsy and Traveller way of life but

in fact directly infringe upon it.

The ERRC’s research indicates that the situation in France has currently reached

crisis levels in which Gypsies and Travellers feel that their culture is under direct

attack by the French state. As a result of various regulations, Travellers and Gypsies

are in many cases in fact trapped in the dilemma of being neither able to travel nor

allowed to stop travelling.

On the one hand, they find it increasingly difficult to lead a travelling lifestyle,

as halting anywhere has become a near impossibility. On the other hand, they also

encounter considerable difficulties residing long-term in any one place, due to the

combined impact of racism and various laws, policies and practices relating to urban

planning and regulation. Even in the cases when Travellers and Gypsies want to buy

land and settle in a community, regulations and actions by local authorities often

thwart such efforts, while those Travellers and Gypsies who manage to buy land

continue to be exposed to forced evictions and harassment by local authorities.

This situation leads to the violation of a large number of rights of hundreds of thou-

sands of Gypsies and Travellers, such as their right to freedom of movement; the right to

access adequate housing; the right to an adequate standard of living; the right to health;

the right to non-interference in home, private and family life; and the right to education.

5.1 Excluding Travellers and Gypsies from Most of French Territory

Commenting on the situation of Gypsies and Travellers, Mr Frédéric Lievy of the

Gypsy Association Goutte d’Eau, told the ERRC: “In France we have always had the

right to travel and never to stop.”

140

The recommendation stipulates that the term “housing” includes different modes of accommodation,

such as houses, caravans, mobile homes or halting sites.

141

Committee of Ministers.

Recommendation to Member States on Improving the Housing Conditions

of Roma and Travellers in Europe

, Rec (2005) 4, paragraph 2.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

In researching the situation of Gypsies and Travellers across France, the

ERRC began to realise that according to the logic of the French authorities and

much of French society, Gypsies and Travellers should travel – constantly. Un-

derlying French laws, policies and treatment of Gypsies is a stark phantasmatic

division of the world into two categories – “nomadic” and “sedentary”. And, ac-

cording to this division, nomadic means a state of constant motion. It is a way of

life that is perceived as at best “incompatible” with and at worst “a grave danger”

to “sedentary” life and communities.

In practice such an understanding has meant that when French Gypsies stop,

they generally find themselves breaking the law and living in precarious, unhealthy

and segregated conditions. Furthermore, they are constantly subjected to forced

evictions even from such unwelcoming areas. Despite existing legislation, very

few sites are actually “designated” for Gypsies and Travellers to stop. Those sites

that are “designated” are generally located near garbage dumps, water treatment

plants, polluting factories, freeways, or railroad tracks. They are also systemati-

cally hidden and removed from local communities, and in an environment where

those who stop are well surveyed and “assisted” in learning the ways of “normal”

citizens. To make the situation worse, large portions of the territory have become

legally or factually off-limits for Gypsies to halt or reside, with risks of severe

criminal sanctions if they do so. Thus when Gypsies and Travellers wish to live a

lifestyle that preserves their culture and identity, they may find themselves pros-

ecuted or threatened with prosecution for criminal acts.

Journalists introducing a documentary on Travellers in France commented:

First we should say that they are cornered in a Kafkaesque absurd

situation of the type the French administration is so good at creating.

Here is the summary. There is a law – the Besson law – which re-

quires each municipality of 5,000 residents to create a stopping area

for gitans, the Travellers. But only one municipality out of four has

done so, which basically means that 80% of Gypsies or four Gypsies

out of five find themselves without a place to stop. Into this situa-

tion is added a second law, which is repressive in nature, which is

the Sarkozi Law, and it criminalises them – it sends them to prison

if they are not on a legal halting area. So, it is as if you have a game

Assault on a Way of Life

of musical chairs with one chair for five persons and the four that

remain standing risk of six months of prison.

142

In addition, as policies continue to be based on stereotypical notions of Gypsies

and Travellers, rather than upon real consultation and involvement of the commu-

nities concerned, even “progressive” policies remain out-of-step with individuals’

needs. Viewing Gypsies and Travellers primarily through the “nomadic-sedentary”

prism, along with the various stereotypes of their delinquency and non-respect of

society, French policymakers ignore the reality, needs, desires and individual and

minority rights of many French Gypsies.

In many cases France’s regulations, policies and practices with respect to travel-

ling and stopping have the effect of an assault on the dignity as well as the physical

and mental well-being of Travellers and Gypsies, implicating a violation of the pro-

hibition of inhuman and degrading treatment.

143

142

Catuogno, Pascal , Jérome Pin, and Steve Bauman. “Gens du voyage: la répression et l’absurde”.
Aired on May 10, 2004 by the French television channel Canal Plus.

143

The prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a non-deroga-
ble norm of international human rights law. In addition to the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the prohibition is also con-
tained in Articles 4 and 7 of the ICCPR, and in Articles 3 and 15 of the ECHR. In the jurisprudence
it has developed with respect to Article 3, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that
ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3. The
assessment of this minimum is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as
the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age
and state of health of the victim. (See for example Soering v. the United Kingdom, Judgement by
the European Court of Human Rights of July, 7 1989, application no. 1/1989/161/217, para 100).
Furthermore the Court has made clear that notions of ill treatment evolve with time. (See Selmouni
v. France, Judgement of July 28, 1999, application no. 25803/94, para 101). Although not yet hav-
ing occasion to rule on severe difficulties for Travellers to stop and their continual eviction, the
Court has ruled that the destruction of houses and the eviction of those living in them constitutes
a form of ill-treatment in violation of Article 3. See Seçuk and Asker v. Turkey, Judgement by the
European Court of Human Rights of April 24, 1998, application numbers 00023 184/94 and 00023
185/94; See also Bilgin v. Turkey, Judgement by the European Court of Human Rights of April 24,
1998, application numbers 00023 184/94 and 00023 185/94.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

5.1.1 Territory Legally Off-limits to Gypsies and Travellers

Previously, municipalities that did not want Gypsies to stop on their territory did not

hesitate to put up a sign “Nomads forbidden”. These signs have now been removed from

all but a few municipalities.

144

However, provisions in a number of national laws effective-

ly outlaw Gypsies residing in caravans from stopping on most of French territory: Article

9 of Law no. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 relating to the welcome and housing of Travellers

(Loi no 2000-614 du 5 juillet 2000 relative à l’accueil et à l’habitat des gens du voyage);

the Law of 18 March 2003 for Interior Security (Security Law); and Law no. 2003-210 of

1 August 2003 on the Orientation and Planning of Municipalities and Urban Renovation

(Loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la ville et la rénovation urbaine)

Besson Law

Current national discussions about the living situation of Gypsies and Travellers

in France are predominately focused on the implementation of Law no. 2000-614 of

5 July 2000 concerning the welcome and housing of Travellers (hereinafter “Besson

Law”). This Law obliges all municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants to establish

a “halting area” (aire d’acceuil) for Travellers to temporarily reside. It sets out a com-

plex procedure in which each French department is obliged to develop a Departmental

Plan setting out the number of places to be created, the type,

145

and in which towns.

146

144

In the town of Saint Priest on March 24, 2004, the ERRC saw a sign indicating “no nomads outside

of the designated area”. There is not, however, a designated area for Travellers to halt temporarily.
There is an old run-down, polluted and dangerous ‘halting area’ where the current residents have
lived for decades.

According to the non-governmental association Regards, in the city of Saint-Pierre-des-Corps, a sign

at the marketplace where Gypsies sometimes go to sell their goods indicates “forbidden for nomads”.
Ironically, the sign is right next to another sign indicating the street name “Street of the Deported”
(Rue des Déportés). Regards sent a letter in February 2003 requesting the removal of the sign banning
nomads to the mayor of the city, Ms Marie-France Beaufils, who is also a Senator for the Department
of Indre-et-Loire belonging to the Communist Republican Citizen group. As of March 15, 2005, Re-
gards had received no response to its letter and the sign remained at the marketplace. ERRC interview
with Mr José Brun, February 23, 2004, Tours. E-mail from Jose Brun March 15, 2005.

145

In addition to “halting areas” (aires d’acceuil), the Besson Law provides for the designation of

grounds available for large gatherings (Article 1 (II)).

146

Article 1(1) provides that: “Municipalities are to participate in hosting persons considered as Travel-

lers and whose traditional housing is constituted by mobile homes.” According to Article 1(2) “In

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

These Plans were to have been completed within a period of 18 months from the

official publication of the Besson Law

147

(by January 5, 2002) and each town involved

was then to have equipped and made available one or more halting areas on its own or

in cooperation with other municipalities within a period of two years (by January 5,

2004).

148

However, in a circular dated 11 March 2003,

149

each Department was given

a further delay of one year to approve the Departmental Plan. And, on 30 July 2004,

while much of France was already on summer vacation, the Senate inserted an article

towards the end of a Law on Local Freedoms and Responsibilities granting municipali-

ties an additional two years to fulfil their obligations (thus where both delays apply, the

deadline for completion of halting areas is January 5, 2007).

150

After this time period, and a warning by the Prefect not given effect within a

three-month period, the State may take possession of municipal land in order to cre-

ate a “halting area” at the municipality’s expense. The municipality then loses out on

the State financing for which it would otherwise have been eligible.

151

each Department, based on a preliminary evaluation of needs and the existing offer, especially with re-

spect to the frequency and length of stay of Travellers, possibilities for schooling their children, access
to health care and the exercise of economic activities, a Departmental Plan will set out the geographical
sectors in which permanent halting areas are to be established and the municipalities in which these
are to be created. Municipalities with more than 5000 residents must be included in the Departmental
Plan. It specifies the type of permanent halting areas and their capacity. It defines the nature of social
measures to be aimed at Travellers who frequent them.” Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

147

The Besson Law was officially published on 6 July 2000.

148

Article 1(3), Law of 5 July 2000.

149

Minister of the Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms, Minister of Social Affairs, Work and

Solidarity, and Minister of Equipment, Transportation, Housing, Tourism and the Sea, “Circular let-
ter relating to departmental measures for the hosting of Travellers”, March 11, 2003.

150

Municipalities may benefit from this delay as long as they have demonstrated the willingness to meet
their obligations. This willingness can be demonstrated either by: transmitting to the representative
of the State a copy of the deliberation or a letter of intention including the location of the site to be
developed or rehabilitated into a welcome stopping area for Travellers; acquiring the necessary land
or beginning a procedure for acquiring the land on which the site is to be located; carrying out a pre-
liminary study. Law no. 2004-809 of 13 August 2004 Relating to Local Freedoms and Responsibili-
ties (Loi n° 2004-809 du 13 août 2004 relative aux libertés et responsabilités locales), Article 201,
J.O n° 190 du 17 août 2004. Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

151

If a municipality meets the deadlines specified, the State will cover 70% of the expenses for develop-

ing or rehabilitating the halting area. Article 4, Besson Law.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

According to Article 9 of the Besson Law, once a municipality has fulfilled its obli-

gations as set out in the Departmental Plan, it may then forbid Travellers from stopping

their mobile homes anywhere on its territory outside of the designated halting areas.

If Travellers nonetheless stop elsewhere, on either private or public land, they may be

forcibly evicted by Court order, unless they are stopped on land which they own or are

stopped on a piece of land for which special permission has been granted for the stay

of mobile homes, either for camping (Article L433-1 of the Urbanism Code) or as the

permanent housing of their users (Article L 433-3 of the Urbanism Code).

152

If Travel-

lers are stopped on public land owned by the municipality, the mayor can act to evict

those stopped if they interfere with public health, security, or peace.

The Besson Law is a very positive development to the extent that it imposes an obli-

gation on some municipalities with over 5,000 inhabitants to create sites for Travellers to

reside temporarily in their municipalities. Although not presented as such in France, this

law can be viewed as a necessary measure that makes special provision for a minority’s

way of life in order to actually treat them equally with others, in line with the equality

principle. It is evident that in order for Gypsies and Travellers who lead a travelling life-

style to enjoy the same right to adequate housing and freedom of movement as others,

they need places to halt for shorter or longer periods in various municipalities throughout

France. The provisions of this law – if adequately implemented – aim to ensure that such

sites exist throughout the country.

Another positive aspect of the Besson Law is the fact that its title mentions

“housing”, indicating an important shift from treating temporary stays of Gypsies

and Travellers as simply akin to “parking”, and instead recognising that this is about

a fundamental human right, at the core of human dignity. Unfortunately, the law

remains tenuous, if not contradictory, in this regard by reverting to the language of

parking and stopping in the text itself.

However, Article 9 of this law considerably changes the law’s nature from a

facilitative measure to a restrictive one by forbidding Gypsies and Travellers from

halting outside of “designated areas”. It thus leads to severe violations of the free-

dom of movement and the right to housing.

153

Article 9 reflects the restrictive spirit

152

Article 9 (II and III), Besson Law.

153

For Gypsies and Travellers whose home is their caravan, the policies and regulations that restrict

freedom of movement also bring about severe violations of their housing rights.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

that has predominated throughout French history in local policies aimed at Gypsies

and Travellers – in particular the desire of mayors to keep them out of their munici-

palities. This law, like the previous Article 28 of the Law of 31 May 1990,

154

in fact

responded to the wish expressed repeatedly by many mayors to be able to expel cara-

vans from their municipality more easily. Court jurisprudence had made it illegal for

mayors to use their administrative police powers to prohibit in a general and absolute

manner the stopping of Gypsies on municipal territory.

155

Article 9 provides mayors

with the possibility of limiting the halting of caravans to a controlled area – and ban-

ning it from almost everywhere else in their municipality.

156

Article 9 is often presented by officials as a legitimate restriction of freedom

of movement in order to protect public order, public health and safety. Many of

the arguments put forward to substantiate its legitimacy, however, rely on purely

racist stereotypes about Gypsies and Travellers being dirty, delinquent and trou-

blemakers. Such racist stereotypes are not valid reasons for restricting rights in a

democratic society.

A more nuanced form of argumentation, itself not devoid of racist stereotypes,

blames Gypsies and Travellers for the consequences of the actions, or lack thereof,

of public officials. For instance, concerns over health are said to arise from the

piles of garbage that they leave at the sites on which they stop. Many Travellers

and Gypsies pointed out to the ERRC that they are frequently blamed for leav-

ing garbage, but that municipal officials in fact often refuse to provide them with

154

Law No 90- 449 of 31 May 1990 aiming to implement the right to housing, JO, 2 June 1990.

155

In the case of Ville de Lille v. Ackerman, the Council of State ruled that mayors cannot use their po-

licing powers in such manner as to “imply a complete ban on stopping and stay nor in practice make
it impossible for nomads to stop during the minimum time that is necessary for them.”Ville de Lille
c/Ackermann, 2 decembre 1983, unofficial translation by the ERRC.

156

“...we should not forget that the Besson Law was primary drafted in order to give to municipalities

strengthened police means against the Gypsies. The primary fear expressed by Travellers concerning
this Law is sure enough the end of travel: ‘Will they forbid us from going to all of the small towns?’ is
one of their recurrent questions along with those about the qualitative control that will be carried out
on future halting areas, or again the legal obligation for sites to have guards.” Monnin, Luc. “Enfin
réaliser l’habiter? Quelles solutions pour loger les gens du voyage après les lois Besson et SRU de
2000?” L’habitat saisi par le droit. Les virtualités de la loi Besson du 5 juillet 2000.

Etudes tsiganes

Volume 15, Deuxième semestre 2001, p. 135.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

garbage bins, even when they offer to pay, and when they are provided with such

bins, the garbage trucks do not empty them. This evidently leads to garbage bags

overflowing from the bin, a pungent odour and even rats and other health hazards.

Likewise, concerns over public order are said to arise from the noise of the electri-

cal generators that Travellers use in order to obtain electricity or problems caused

when they “steal” electricity from existing wires. Once again, many Travellers and

Gypsies pointed out to the ERRC that they only use electrical generators or hook

up to the electricity supply illegally as local officials refuse to install temporary

electrical boxes allowing them to obtain electricity in a legal manner without cre-

ating noise or other hazards. A further example of such argumentation highlights

public order and security concerns raised by “conflictual relations” with residents.

Such conflicts are themselves often the result of anti-Gypsy racism or factors such

as piles of garbage and noise that themselves result from the de facto situation in

which Travellers and Gypsies are placed by local officials.

The Besson Law as a whole is presented as striking an equitable balance be-

tween the rights and freedoms of Gypsies and Travellers and those of other citi-

zens, for instance to peaceful enjoyment of their property.

157

Officials often stress

that if halting areas are created for Gypsies and Travellers, the fair counterpart is

that they not park elsewhere. The far-reaching provisions of Article 9, later rein-

forced by the Law of 18 March 2003 for Interior Security (Security Law), how-

ever, go well beyond a proportionate ‘balancing’ of interests. A fairer balance

could, for instance, be achieved by allowing halting elsewhere, except in certain

areas defined by law and as long as those who halt respect certain conditions.

However, Article 9 instead uses the opposite logic instituting a far-reaching ban,

whereby Gypsies and Travellers cannot stop outside of designated areas, except

in certain very specific situations (land owned by those stopped; a site on which

special permission has been granted for the stopping of mobile homes).

157

According Deputy Louis Besson’s presentation to the National Assembly on the purpose of the Law

of 5 July 2000, it aims at: “defining a satisfactory equilibrium between, on the one hand, the constitu-
tional freedom to come and go and the legitimate aspiration of Travellers to be able to park in decent
conditions, and, on the other hand, the equally legitimate concern of local elected officials to avoid
illegal stopping which causes difficulties of cohabitation with their constituency.” Louis Besson, ex-
posé des motifs, Doc. AN no 1598 (1999) cited in Zentner, Franck. “Les communes et l’accueil des
gens du voyage: la loi no 2000-614 du 5 juillet 2000.” L’habitat saisi par le droit. Les virtualités de
la loi Besson du 5 juillet 2000.

Etudes tsiganes

, Volume 15, Deuxième semestre 2001, p. 75.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

At the very root of Article 9 is the racist conception that Gypsies are not persons

like any others (who are not subject to such far-reaching restrictions as to where they

may or may not reside), but rather delinquents who are dirty and a threat to public

health, order and safety. Creating halting areas is not seen for what it is: simply allow-

ing Gypsies and Travellers to begin to enjoy the same right to housing and freedom of

movement as others. Instead it is presented as a particular favour to Gypsies and Trav-

ellers, for which they should be grateful and as a result of which they should not seek to

reside elsewhere. The ERRC finds such discriminatory logic particularly disturbing.

Where local authorities have not refused to implement the Besson Law or led

opposition to it, they have generally relied on Article 9 to convince local residents

of the benefits of creating a halting area. Thus, their main argument runs along the

following lines: “if we designate an official halting area, we can then prevent Travel-

lers from halting anywhere else.” This type of argument is generally accompanied

by reasoning to the effect that security and order can be better guaranteed this way as

these areas can be easily controlled.

The comments of the mayor of Gisors at a recent public town hall meeting

are illustrative of such reasoning. Discussions concerned the creation of a halting

area 1.5 km from the municipality. In response to concerns raised by residents

over the “security threats” this would pose, the mayor responded that grouping

them together in a guarded and equipped area allows for better management of

the Travellers.

158

Such arguments clearly reinforce public fears and rejection of

Gypsies and Travellers.

The majority of Gypsies that the ERRC encountered in France view the Besson

Law with an anxious eye. The comments of Mr Robert Zigler, President of the Gypsy

Association Goutte d’Eau (Goutte d’Eau), illustrate these fears:

The Besson Law is a law that we didn’t approve of. The mayor or Pre-

fect base themselves on this law, and when we express our feelings,

they don’t listen. It goes in one ear and out the other... Our culture will

start evaporating. Our children will become settled by force. Even

with the halting areas the State gives us, travel will disappear. In 10-

158

“Mauvais accueil aux gens du voyage”,

Paris Normandie

newspaper, June 1, 2004.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

15 years when there will be halting areas across the country, you will

have to find out in advance if there is space to halt – otherwise you

will be punished.”

159

The restrictive aspects of this law, reinforced by subsequent legislation, trans-

formed it from something which could ensure that Gypsies and Travellers are able

to continue to lead a travelling lifestyle into something perceived as a significant

threat to this lifestyle.

Security Law

The restrictive aspects of the Besson Law were considerably reinforced and

extended by the Law of 18 March 2003 for Interior Security (hereinafter “Security

Law”). The prospect of the passing of this law brought thousands of French Gyp-

sies and Travellers into the streets of Paris to protest in January 2003. Many of the

slogans that were displayed made an appeal for a respect for basic rights: “the right

to travel;” “respect for our culture;” “the right to difference;” “justice equal for all.”

They also made reference to Vichy, expressing what many elderly Gypsies who lived

through World War II told the ERRC – the repressive actions and climate against

Gypsies today remind them of the Vichy period.

Frédéric Bone, President of the non-governmental organisation National

Catholic Association of Travellers stressed this feeling amongst younger Trav-

ellers he knows as well. “It reminds them of what their grandparents knew. It’s

more underhanded than at that time. They aren’t put in the oven, but their life is

made terrible.”

160

As its title indicates, the Security Law is aimed at increasing security in France

and covers a wide range of areas from police powers with respect to investigations

to anti-terrorism measures. Included in its Chapter 10 relating to “public peace and

security” are a number of racist articles specifically aimed at Gypsies and Travellers

that in essence mean that it is a criminal act for them to stop on most of French terri-

tory outside of designated halting areas.

159

ERRC interview with Mr Robert Zigler, March 6, 2004, Toulouse.

160

ERRC interview with Frédéric Bone, September 27, 2004, Saint-Denis.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

Article 53 penalises Gypsies and Travellers who exercise a fundamental aspect

of their culture: travel. This article makes it a criminal act to park in a group with the

aim of constituting a residence, even temporarily:

• On land owned by a municipality that has conformed to its obligations under

the Departmental Plan developed in accord with the Besson Law;

• On land owned by a municipality that is not included in the Departmental

Plan (thus the majority of towns with less than 5,000 residents and those

with more than 5,000 that are not included in the Plan);

• Or on any other land (private, State, Regional, Departmental) without being

able to produce proof of permission to do so, or of the permission granted to

the person holding the right for use of the land.

In addition, Article 58 of the Security Law provides that in those municipalities

that are not included in the Departmental Plan, the mayor can also apply to the courts

for an order of forced eviction of mobile homes halted on private land when this halt-

ing is deemed to threaten public health, security or peace.

161

The latter means that in

such municipalities even the owner of private land, living in a mobile home, can be

forcibly evicted from his or her own land on the grounds of threatening public health,

security or peace.

Penalties for the above “crimes” are severe: six months imprisonment, a fine of

3,750 Euros and the suspension of a person’s driving license for a period up to three

years.

162

In addition, any vehicles used to carry out the act of illegal halting (as is gen-

erally the case for Gypsies who tow their mobile homes with vehicles) can be seized

and confiscated, unless the vehicles themselves constitute the person’s home.

163

161

Article 58 of the Security Law provides that after Article 9 of Law No. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000, an

additional Article 9-1 will be inserted providing as follows: “In the municipalities that are not in-
cluded in the Departmental Plan, the mayor can, by subpoena delivered to the occupants and, where
appropriate, to the owner of the property or the holder of the real right to use of the land, sieze the
President of the Appeal Court to order the forced eviction of the mobile homes parked on a private
property not belonging to the municipality, when the parking is of such nature as to infringe upon
public health, safety or peace.” Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

162

Article 53(1) and Article 53(2), Security Law.

163

It would be illegal under French law to confiscate a mobile home that serves as a residence, thus the

Deputies were obliged to limit seizures to the vehicles used for towing.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

The President of the non-governmental organisation League for Human Rights

(LDH), Mr Michel Tubiana, commented that: “It is the first time since the reestab-

lishment of the Republic, that a law singles out not only a social group, but a cultural

group, that it penalises for the very fact of its origins or mode of life.”

164

Similarly a

journalist wrote in the

Monde Diplomatique

newspaper that this law creates “a crime

of existence” for Travellers.

165

There can be little doubt that this is a racist law that specifically targets a part of

the population based on their ethnic and social origin. That this law is aimed specifi-

cally at Travellers and Gypsies is obvious to the public at large and was also obvious

in the public and official discussions leading up to its adoption.

In a report presented to the National Assembly on behalf of the Commission on

Constitutional Laws, Legislation and General Administration of the Republic, the

Deputy rapporteur Mr Christian Estrosi, in introducing these provisions, presented

a brief sociological overview of Travellers in France. He briefly presented their ori-

gins, a breakdown of the major groups in France (Manouches, Gitans, Roma), and

discussed their degree of “sedentarisation”. He then explained that in addition to the

Gypsies another group are the Yenish who are of Germanic origin but adopted the

way of life and customs of the Gypsies.

166

Comments made by French Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, during

the regional election campaign of 2004 are particularly revealing of the climate that

characterised discussions about this law:

... the law creating the misdemeanour of illegal occupation of public

and private land by Travellers…from now on the rule will be the same

for all. When your vehicle remains beyond its time on the parking me-

tre you get a fine. Well, for my part, I do not accept that one can install

164

Cited in “Mobilisation contre le durcissement des lois Sarkozy-Perben”.

Le Monde

, January 10, 2003.

165

Aubry, Chantal. “Fragile statut pour les Tziganes français”.

Monde Diplomatique

, May 2003.

166

Estrosi, Christian. “Rapport fait au nom de la Commission des Lois Constitutionelles, de la Législa-
tion et de l’Administration Générale de la République sur le projet de loi, adopté par le Sénat après
déclaration d’urgence (No. 381), pour la sécurité intérieure”. National Assembly, Document No. 508,
distributed December 26, 2002.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

oneself in one’s caravan on public or private land without the owner be-

ing able to do anything. The Republic means the respect of the right to

property and, in permitting such stopping, we created the conditions for

stereotyping and confrontation. But what does the word Republic mean

if we are afraid to go home, if our land is illegally occupied, when one

can earn more without working?

167

The insinuations about Travellers being delinquents were not lost on the audi-

ence. It broke into applause.

Surprisingly, despite the thinly veiled racist nature of this law and blatant viola-

tion of human rights it implies, France’s Constitutional Council (Conseil Constition-

nel) ruled that these provisions of the Security Law do not violate the French Con-

stitution. It found that the legislator did not commit a manifest error in balancing the

interest of preventing interference with private property and public order against the

exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms. It also found there to be no obvious

lack of proportion between the offences stipulated in the law and the sanctions estab-

lished. The Constitutional Council therefore decided that it should not substitute its

judgement for that of the legislator.

168

According to Patrick Devedjian, Minister Delegated to Local Freedoms, as of De-

cember 3, 2003, 428 persons had appeared before the Courts due to the provisions of

this Law, and more than 45 persons were placed in detention, one of whom was found

guilty. Furthermore more than 10 vehicles were seized in three Departments.

169

167

Speech aired in a television documentary presented on French TV station Canal Plus. Catuogno, Pas-

cal , Jérome Pin, and Steve Bauman. “Gens du voyage: la répression et l’absurde”. Canal Plus, aired
on May 10, 2004.

168

See particularly paragraphs 70-72 of Décision no. 2003-467 DC-13 mars 2003 – Loi pour la sécu-

rité intérieure.

169

Minister Devedjian provided these figures in response to a comment by the Deputy mayor

of Merignac, Michel Sainte-Marie, noting that the law was being applied in too restric-
tive a manner. Reported on Maire Info website at:

http://www.maire-info.com/fonction/

envoyer.asp?param=37163

, December 2003.

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

Assault on a Way of Life

Borloo Law

Passing almost unnoticed in the press, another law adopted on 1 August 2003, makes

a list of twenty-eight

170

French cities with less than 20,000 inhabitants completely off-

limits for Gypsies and Travellers to halt. These are cities in which at least half of the

population lives in areas qualified as “sensitive urban zones” (ZUS).

171

Article 15 of Law

no. 2003-710 of 1 August 2003 on the “Orientation and Planning of Municipalities and

Urban Renovation” (hereinafter “Borloo Law”) frees these cities from their obligations

under the Besson Law.

172

This means that they will not have to create a halting area for

caravans to reside in the municipality, regardless of whether these are municipalities

where Gypsies and Travellers generally stay for professional, family, medical or any

other reasons. In addition, this means that these municipalities will immediately be able

to apply all of the penal provisions of the Security Law. Many of these large French cit-

ies are, in fact, cities in which many generations of Gypsies and Travellers have always

resided, and where they have family, social and professional ties.

The urban zones covered by this law are in essence urban ghettoes, seen as

particularly volatile, problematic and burdensome. Excluding these cities from any

responsibilities to host Travellers is thus justified as a means of keeping out a popu-

lation that will exacerbate tensions in an already delicate situation. This reasoning

reveals in a stark manner the perception that where there are Travellers, there are

problems and tensions with residents. And even more it reveals the proposed solution

– keep out and exclude Travellers and Gypsies.

The overall tone of the Senate discussions over this law is captured by these com-

ments by Senator Braye:

170

This figure was provided by Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, ‘Minister delegated to the City’ during the

Senate debate on the Law, July 23, 2003.

171

ZUS are defined in the law as zones characterised by the presence of significant groupings or neigh-

bourhoods with low-quality housing and a marked imbalance between housing and employment.

172

“Municipalities with a population of less than 20 000, half of which live in a sensitive urban area as

defined by paragraph 3 of article 42 of law no. 95-115 of 4 February 1995 on the Direction for the
Planning and Development of the Territory, are excluded at their request from the scope of applica-
tion of the provisions of law no. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 relating to the welcome and housing of
Travellers and particularly the obligation set out under Article 2 of this law.” Article 15, Borloo Law.
Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

100

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

101

Assault on a Way of Life

…in small cities, confrontations between Travellers and difficult

populations are much more direct (Protests on the benches of the

C.R.C.

173

group ), ... in small cities we can no longer contain these

excesses of violence. The population in difficult neighbourhoods

suffers from it... The Travellers, it needs to be acknowledged, exer-

cise the practice of ‘the fait accompli’, without any respect for the

law. Our communist colleagues say that this is about difficult human

problems. We would do better to make those people submit to more

frequent fiscal controls and to teach them to respect the law. Because

this situation creates tensions within our populations, who do not

understand that the same law can be applied in two different ways.

These people own cars, caravans equipped with dishwashers, wash-

ing machines and many other things. So, obviously we have to avoid

bringing these populations into contact with each other. This is what

explains why we want to exempt cities with less than 20 000 inhabit-

ants from the scope of application of the law of 2000.

174

It is ironic and particularly revealing that this serious violation of the housing

rights and freedom of movement of French Travellers and Gypsies occurs in the

context of a law that is aimed at addressing social inequalities by renovating and

improving the housing situation of those whose living conditions are particularly

poor, and who find themselves marginalised and excluded from French society.

Not only are Travellers and Gypsies invisible in urban planning, but they are in fact

singled out for negative treatment.

This paradox was pointed out in the Senate debates with respect to this Article

of the Law, by Mr Jean-Yves Mano, one of five members of the socialist group that

presented an amendment for its deletion:

… What does it involve? Certainly, we are addressing a subject that is

without a doubt sensitive: the place of Travellers in our country. If we

start, through the policy of urban renovation, to accept the disappearance

173

Republican Communist and Citizens Group (Groupe Communiste Républicain et Citoyen).

174

Session of French Senate, July 23, 2003,discussion on Article 12 bis, on the internet at:

http://

www.senat.fr/seances/s200307/s20030723/s20030723004.html

100

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

101

Assault on a Way of Life

of spaces made available to Travellers, we turn them into the excluded

amongst the excluded. Where then is their place in our society?

175

The non-governmental association Regards issued a press release with respect to

this law commenting that: “The gap opened up by this targeted law is unqualifiable and

will once again impact negatively on the collective imaginary that is already hostile to

us... We are witnessing the legalisation, an updating to the tastes of the day, of the no-

tion of persona non grata, which itself only applies to common delinquents.”

176

5.1.2 Territory Factually Off-Limits for Gypsies

In fact, the available spaces for Gypsies to stop their mobile homes for shorter or

longer periods are considerably fewer than even these legal restrictions would indicate.

In reality, it is not just parts of the territory that seem to be off-limits for Gypsies to

reside, but almost all of the territory, except areas that are particularly unhealthy or out

of sight. Families find themselves constantly evicted from places they halt, sometimes

forced to drive for days before they are able to stop somewhere, and then these sites are

often far from the place they need to be. Furthermore, those few sites where families

are able to halt are generally far below standards of decency and often expose Gypsies

and Travellers to severe environmental health hazards due to their close proximity to

dumpsites, hazardous waste areas or areas in use by heavy industry.

In addition to violating their right to adequate housing and freedom of movement,

this situation brings about severe interference with the right to respect for private and

family life and home guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human

Rights. For instance, being unable to halt somewhere may mean being unable to visit

friends and family, being unable to be near someone who is ill, or being unable to attend

a wedding. Adding to the health risks posed by environmental hazards, this situation

causes considerable emotional and psychological stress also harming individuals’ health.

The inability to stop in a given municipality or area also interferes with work possibilities

where such a stay is necessary for economic activities. And evidently it interferes with

children’s education as well.

175

Ibid.

176

Regards, Press Release, 1 August 2003.

102

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

103

Assault on a Way of Life

The Cycle of Forced Evictions

Travelling throughout France, the ERRC was alarmed at the number of Gyp-

sies and Travellers living in a state of considerable instability – constantly evicted

from place to place.

177

The ERRC visited a number of large cities, including Paris,

Bordeaux, Lyon, Toulouse, and Marseille. In all of the cities the situation was the

177

While Gypsies and Travellers might only occupy land for temporary periods, this land constitutes an

essential element of their residence during these periods. Each eviction, while not removing families’
shelter, removes the necessary environmental conditions and utilities for them to utilise their cara-
vans as a home. The eviction of mobile homes from a site thus constitutes a forced eviction interfer-
ing with the right to adequate housing.

The most authoritative statement on the issue of forced evictions is to be found in United Nations

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) General Comment No. 7 “The right
to adequate housing (Art.11.1): forced evictions. 20/05/97.”

According to paragraph 3 of the General Comment, “the term ‘forced evictions’... is defined as the

permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from
their homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate
forms of legal or other protection.”

In its paragraph 4 the Comment recognises the interrelationship and interdependency which exist

among all human rights, and that forced evictions therefore frequently violate other human rights. It
states that: “...while manifestly breaching the rights enshrined in the Covenant, the practice of forced
evictions may also result in violations of civil and political rights, such as the right to life, the right
to security of the person, the right to non-interference with privacy, family and home and the right to
the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.”

Paragraph 10 of the Comment notes that: “Women, children, youth, older persons, indigenous peo-

ple, ethnic and other minorities, and other vulnerable individuals and groups all suffer disproportion-
ately from the practice of forced eviction. ... The non-discrimination provisions of articles 2.2 and 3
of the Covenant impose an additional obligation upon Governments to ensure that, where evictions
do occur, appropriate measures are taken to ensure that no form of discrimination is involved.”

Furthermore paragraph 13 provides that: “States parties shall ensure, prior to carrying out any evictions,

and particularly those involving large groups, that all feasible alternatives are explored in consultation
with the affected persons, with a view to avoiding, or at least minimizing, the need to use force. Legal
remedies or procedures should be provided to those who are affected by eviction orders...”

Paragraph 14 adds that: “In cases where an eviction is considered to be justified, it should be carried

out in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of international human rights law and in accord-
ance with general principles of reasonableness and proportionality...”

102

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

103

Assault on a Way of Life

same: hundreds of families “travel” around the outskirts of the city and nearby towns

searching for some place to stop.

On the whole, municipalities have not applied the provisions of the Besson law

that require them to create halting areas. It is generally agreed that there has been no

noticeable increase in places since the Besson Law was adopted in July 2000. Of-

ficial estimates from March 2005 put the number of existing places at around 20% of

the required number, that is approximately 7000, of the 35,000 that are the minimum

believed to be required.

178

According to Joseph Charpentier, President of the non-

governmental organisation S.O.S. Gens du Voyage, of these places 3,000 are in in-

appropriate locations (such as near garbage dumps). He told the ERRC that he is not

sure that there are even 2,000 places that meet the norms.

179

Ms Sylvette Saint-Julien,

Secretary of the National Consultative Commission of Travellers (not functioning

at present) told the ERRC in July of 2004 that there were only around 3,500 of the

35,000 places necessary that could in fact be considered as appropriate for halting;

the rest did not meet standards.

180

In fact, most municipalities seem to have read the Besson Law in a highly selective

manner, noticing primarily Article 9, along with the restrictions in the Security Law. Mu-

nicipal officials therefore believe that they are entitled to invest considerable efforts into

preventing Gypsies and Travellers from halting in their municipalities, while not estab-

lishing any halting areas. Thus, despite their own non-compliance with their obligations

Finally, paragraph 16 adds that “Evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vul-

nerable to the violation of other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves,
the State party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that
adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available.”

The approach set out in the Comment is “reinforced by article 17.1 of the ICCPR, which comple-

ments the right not to be forcefully evicted without adequate protection. That provision recognizes,
inter alia, the right to be protected against “arbitrary or unlawful interference” with one’s home. It
is to be noted that the State’s obligation to ensure respect for this right is not qualified by considera-
tions relating to its available resources.” (paragraph 8, General Comment). CESCR, “General Com-
ment 7 on the Right to Housing (Art 11(1) of the Covenant): forced evictions”, available at:

http:

//www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+Comment+7.En?OpenDocument

178

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Sylvette Saint-Julien, March 15, 2005, Paris.

179

ERRC interview with Mr Joseph Charpentier, October 19, 2004, Drancy.

180

ERRC interview with Ms Sylvette Saint-Julien, July 20, 2004, Paris.

104

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

105

Assault on a Way of Life

to develop an area for Gypsies and Travellers to stop, they nonetheless forcibly evict

Gypsies and Travellers who halt in their municipalities, sometimes violently. The State

representatives are also generally willing to lend their support to these efforts, by author-

ising the police to carry out the evictions. The police sometimes also undertake to keep

out Gypsies and Travellers through engaging in “preventive actions” such as blocking

the path of caravans, or by escorting them to the limit of the municipality and effectively

expelling them to the next town.

Despite this situation, the press and local officials continue to present Gypsies

and Travellers as guilty of illegal stopping, “invading” municipalities, and disturb-

ing the peace and well-being of residents. Thus, anti-Gypsyism is commonplace in

the public sphere and sometimes municipal residents take it upon themselves to take

action to kick out Gypsy families that have managed to stop in their towns.

The case of Ms M.D. is typical. She lives together with approximately 15 fam-

ily members in four caravans. Among her family members are her 85-year old father

Mi.D., who has a very serious illness for which he needs to take regular medication and

follow ongoing treatment;

181

her 33 year-old handicapped nephew, who is deaf and in a

wheelchair subsequent to being burnt; and her 5-year old niece, who had a heart opera-

tion and is waiting for a transplant. The group “travels” around Lyon, where the family

has lived for many generations in three mobile homes.

182

Ms M.D. herself has lived in

a truck since 2003. She explained to the ERRC that her mobile home was destroyed in

a fire, and the insurance company refused to reimburse her as she did not have a fixed

address (she is domiciled at a non-governmental organisation).

183

181

At Ms M.D’s request, the ERRC cannot specify the name of the illness.

182

According to the assessment carried out between October 2000 and June 2001 that formed the basis

of the Rhône Departmental Plan, between 830 and 990 mobile homes regularly halt in the Greater
Lyon area, and between 1,800 and 1,900 in the Department. This does not include families that are
classified as ‘sedentary’. Based on an average of 5 persons per mobile home (widely agreed to be a
realistic estimate) this means that there are 4,150 and 4,950 persons that ‘travel’ around the Greater
Lyon area looking for places to reside, and between 9,000 and 9,500 that do so in the Department.
Préfecture du Rhône. Schéma Departemental d’Accueil des Gens du Voyage du Rhône, p. 9. April
2003; Préfecture du Rhône. Schéma Departemental d’Accueil des Gens du Voyage du Rhône An-
nexes, pp.13-19. April 2003.

183

At the time of writing M.D. had an ongoing court case against the insurance company to attempt to

be reimbursed for the loss of her caravan. She had paid fees to the insurance company for 15 years,
and believed her coverage to include precisely such circumstances.

104

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

105

Assault on a Way of Life

Throughout 2003 and 2004, the group did not manage to stay more than 3 or 4 days

in one spot before being forcibly evicted. Sometimes they had to try 3 or 4 spots a day

before being able to halt somewhere. Ms M.D. told the ERRC that apart from the dif-

ficulty in living without even basic amenities (such as water and electricity), the need

to always look for a new place to halt makes it nearly impossible to work. And then the

stress has a serious impact on their health. She described a day in March 2004:

We were parked in the municipality of Bron. It was on a Sunday, in

the middle of the afternoon. We were chased out of the municipality

by ten gendarmes’ cars. We were three mobile homes at the time. We

were parked behind the auction ground next to a wall. No water. No

electricity. It was a place where there was garbage – even dirty nee-

dles lying around and beer cans. They came in the afternoon to chase

us away. They made us hook up our mobile homes immediately. We

said that we had someone handicapped with us, sick, etc. – they said,

‘The law is the law’. They told us to ‘Go home to your country.’ I

said, ‘This is our country; we are French’. They said ‘Shut up’. They

even said that Hitler did not finish his work. They were about a dozen

gendarmes. They had truncheons.

The gendarmes’ cars chased us to the limit of Bron. We found a spot

to stop on a parking lot in Décines, a neighbouring municipality in

the evening. It was 7.00 PM. There was nowhere else to stop. My

father and niece were exhausted. Then three truckloads of police

arrived. They forbid us to get out of our vehicles. They said, ‘You

have to leave, you have to leave’. I said that my father needed to

take his medication and that my niece had a sick heart and needed to

rest. They said ‘No. Do not get out of your vehicle – go away’. We

pleaded with them. We said, ‘Sir, be kind. Give us one hour.’ They

said ‘No, we are sending other police.’ Twelve more truckloads ar-

rived. They encircled us holding their truncheons. By 7.20 we had

left. We took another direction – still in Décines, but we did not

realise that we were still in Décines. They blocked the road in front

of us, told us to go somewhere else. Then they said ‘Get out, get out,

get out’. We tried to talk with them, to ask them to understand that

we just need to give medication to a sick man. They simply said ‘Go

away’. You know where we slept? At Saint-Fons on the edge of the

106

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

107

Assault on a Way of Life

road. Without electricity or anything else. It was a spot hidden from

view. We left in the morning.

184

None of these municipalities had a halting area at the time of these events. This

means that the forced evictions besides being in violation of fundamental human

rights, were, in fact, illegal, under domestic French law.

Ms M.D. also described to the ERRC the difficulties that her family had in the

summer of 2003, when a heatwave struck France, with the hottest period the country

had experienced in 50 years. They were obliged to find a new place to reside approxi-

mately once every two days, and sometimes as often as four times a day. The family

also suffered from a violent attack one night:

There were three mobile homes. Again my niece, nephew and sick fa-

ther were with us. At 1:00 AM, a group of locals came. They hit our

mobile homes with truncheons and electric lamps, and said ‘We will

destroy your mobile homes if you do not leave’. My niece was terrified.

My nephew on his wheelchair had a panic attack ... They were five.

They said that they were above the police. At the time we were parked

near the stadium of Chassieux. The events lasted three quarters of an

hour. We had to pack up our caravans immediately, otherwise we would

have been beaten. They said to us ‘do not take an hour to pack up’.

Other members of Ms M.D.’s family were similarly attacked in Chassieux at

the end of August 2004. The group was composed of two men, a woman and three

children (aged 7, 12 and 14). The 7-year old was seriously ill with a blood prob-

lem. They had come to visit from Nice but were not able to find the spot where

M.D. was stopped. According to Ms M.D., the family stopped on the parking lot

facing the post office. The gendarmes soon arrived and gave them permission to

stay there for one night, until 7:00 AM. However, at 3:00 AM, four men came

and told them to get out threatening that if they did not go immediately persons

in another four cars parked nearby would come and assist in attacking them. The

children were terrified. Ms M.D. thinks they were the same men involved in the

attack the previous year.

184

ERRC telephone interview with Ms M.D., September 1, 2004, Paris.

106

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

107

Assault on a Way of Life

The ERRC asked Ms M.D. if the families had complained to the police about the at-

tacks. She responded: “Do you think that they would believe us if we complained?”

185

More frequently than violence, residents write petitions and organise protests

against groups of mobile homes stopped in their municipalities. For instance, one

Traveller Mr M.R. told the ERRC in May 2004 that he had recently halted with a

small group of caravans in front of the college of the town of Chantilly. He said

that “about 100 women came and protested and brought tractors to block us. They

shouted ‘Get out’, etc.” Chantilly is a city with about 2,500 residents that does not

have an obligation to create a halting area.

186

The women reportedly included teach-

ers from the school.

187

Relegated to Segregated, Dangerous and Unhealthy Sites

The ERRC quickly realised during its research that if it wanted to find French

Gypsies, it needed to follow the signs to the local city garbage dump or sewage

treatment plant. In approximately one out of every two instances, the ERRC found

a group of Gypsy or Traveller families temporarily residing just next door. The only

parts of French territory, outside of the very few designated halting areas where Gyp-

sies and Travellers seem able to stop for short periods, are places others would not

live, such as near the garbage dump or sewage treatment plant; in an industrial zone,

especially near high risk and polluting factories; in the woods; or right beside (or at

the edge of) busy freeways. Additionally, the spots are often beneath high tension

wires and beside the train tracks. Mobile homes also sometimes stop for the night on

the parking lots of shopping centres; however, when they do so they are generally

immediately evicted in the morning. Sports stadiums are another option of last resort.

Predictably, this causes furor amongst local officials and residents.

The case of Mr Daniel Winterstein is typical. Like many Gypsies and Travel-

lers the ERRC encountered, he travels primarily around a very limited geographi-

185

ERRC interview with Ms M.D., September 1, 2004.

186

Municipalities not falling under the Besson Law cannot, however, completely forbid caravans from

stopping. They are subject to jurisprudence according to which they have to permit stays of not less
than 48 hours.

187

ERRC interview with Mr M.R., May 6, 2004, Pertuis.

108

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

109

cal area – the Southern part of Bordeaux – with a small group of others. He con-

siders himself a local and wishes to be able to reside with his family on a piece

of land. When the ERRC met him on March 2, 2004, it asked him to describe the

recent places the group had resided and the circumstances that made them leave.

They were parked in an empty lot behind the now defunct Orléans train station

in Bordeaux for one week before being forced to leave by the police. This is one

of the few spots in Bordeaux that mobile homes manage to halt, next to a rusted,

rotting old train. Then they looked for a place to halt in Bègles. The city has an of-

ficial halting area, located between a river, a chocolate factory, freeway and train

tracks. Residents report that the location attracts rats. A number of families remain

permanently on this halting area, thus it is unavailable for short-term halts. The

only place the group was able to stop in Bègles was next to a chimney that burns

waste, between the highway and river. They left after 15-20 days due to health

concerns as “people started scratching.” Next, they went to Canéjean for 4-5 days.

The police came to expel the group, but a local Traveller, Ms R.W., had a copy

of the Departmental Plan (the requirements of which the municipality had not ful-

filled) and managed to contact the lieutenant. She also phoned the local Prosecu-

tor. Meanwhile the group left as they did not want to be involved in a conflict. The

group then spent the day moving from one place to another (3 places), evicted from

each place they halted. In the end they spent the night in Cadaujac, in the woods on

a dead end road. The police came to evict them in the morning.

Daniel Winterstein commented: “Police don’t bother to try to become familiar

with the Departmental Plan. They know Article 9. They come in police (CRS)

188

trucks. Sometimes they come dressed as ‘robocop’ with their helmets and trun-

cheons.”

189

However, not wanting to make waves as they are always at the mercy of

the local police, and also lacking resources and time to constantly fight every illegal

eviction, this group, like most others, simply leaves whenever the police arrive.

On May 5, 2004, the ERRC met a group of families stopped on the official

halting area “Saint Menet” in Marseille that, in theory, has 45 places. However,

188

The CRS (Compagnies républicaine de sécurité) are mobile police units that constitute the reserve of

the national police. They are under the authority of the Minister of Interior. They have a wide number
of responsibilities including: reestablishing and maintaining order; fighting small and medium scale
delinquency; surveying ports, airports, borders and other links with foreign territories.

189

ERRC interview with Mr Daniel Winterstein, March 2, 2004, Pessac.

110

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

111

Assault on a Way of Life

the site had been closed due to disrepair for many months. The halting area is in

a flood zone and a zone registered as high-risk SEVESO.

190

It is located between

two chemical factories, traintracks and a freeway. There were heaps of garbage

around the entrance to the sanitary block with showers and toilets at the time of

the ERRC visit in May. The showers were all closed, and there were swastikas

on the building. Of the five toilets, two did not work and in one a strong stream

of water sprayed out at whomever had the misfortune of flushing. The non-gov-

ernmental organisation ASNIT Bouche du Rhône

191

told the ERRC that it had

received anonymous phone calls from various Travellers complaining of the dirt

at the halting area, and especially of rats and worms. Families pay 35 Euros a

week per mobile home to halt at the site. The halting area appears somewhat

reminiscent of a detention camp, with a two-storey concrete building with bars

on the windows and cameras on the roof. Several Travellers told the ERRC that

the former manager used to patrol the site with big dogs.

192

Mr V.C. told the ERRC that they were there because there was nowhere else

to go. “All winter we were harassed wherever we stopped,” he said. The ERRC

asked the places the families had been over the last few weeks. “First we were

in Cannes. We found an empty field and first went in with only our cars. We had

barely arrived and the police were already on top of us. It was like this for two

days continually in Cannes. We continued on to Antibes. We had permission to

halt on a piece of land from the owner himself. The police came every day to

tell us “we will chase you out.” Eventually they did, at 6.00 AM one morning

the police came and we had to leave within the hour, despite the owner’s permis-

sion. So we went to Palmosa – it’s the designated halting area, but it is closed for

repairs that are not being done. We called the League for Human Rights. They

came and we managed to arrange to stay for one month. Then we came here. In

190

SEVESO are zones in which there are industrial installations that are high-risk according to the stand-

ards of European Council Directive 82/501/EEC on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial
activities, O.J. No. L 230 of 5 August 1982 – so-called Seveso Directive. These high-risk industries
include chemical plants, refineries, storage of toxic products or liquid gas, liable to cause fires, explo-
sions or the release of toxic gas.

191

Association Sociale Nationale Internationale Tzigane, this association is linked with the Gypsy Evan-

gelist movement Vie et Lumière.

192

ERRC interview with Ms Karine Moreau, May 4, 2004, Marseille.

110

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

111

Assault on a Way of Life

a few days we will go to Paris. We will face the same problem again. We cannot

stay even on a campsite. They do not accept us.”

193

In order to illustrate the degree of difficulties Travellers and Gypsies face in halt-

ing anywhere, Mr Robert Zigler, President of Goutte d’Eau told the ERRC: “Even

when I parked on a ‘garbage dump’, the police came and gave me a fine for illegal

parking... I said the garbage is accepted, but not me...”

194

According to Goutte d’Eau, there are approximately 500-600 mobile homes (be-

tween 2,500-3,000 persons) that travel around Toulouse in need of places to reside.

195

The Departmental Plan sets out a lower estimate and indicates that 260 places are

required in Toulouse. At the time of an ERRC visit to Toulouse in March 2004, there

was a severe shortage of available places with only 60 designated spots available

for temporary halts.

196

The only other place in the city that mobile homes were able

to stay without being immediately evicted was on an empty lot that used to be the

site of the previous AZF factory. This factory was the scene of a nitrate ammonium

explosion on September 21, 2001, killing 30 persons, injuring 2,500 and destroying

neighbouring buildings within a radius of 700 metres. The site remains polluted and

presents serious health risks. Driving along one of the freeways that surround this

disaffected site, one could see hundreds of caravans parked between the holes in the

surface and piles of garbage, with the industrial chimneys of the remaining high risk

factories looming just behind them. When the ERRC visited the site on March 9,

2004, a number of children on the site had colds as well as small red spots on their

skin that had apparently only appeared since they had been on this site.

The following day, March 10, 2004, when the ERRC visited a neighbouring

parking lot where approximately 20 caravans were parked just under a bridge from

the AZF site, at a distance of about 40 metres away, four police motorcycles fol-

lowed immediately behind. The police wandered around the site, saying nothing to

any of the residents, simply noting down the license plate number of every vehicle

193

ERRC interview with Mr V.C., May 5, 2004, Marseille.

194

ERRC interview with Mr Robert Zigler, March 6, Toulouse.

195

ERRC interview with Mr Frédéric Lievy, March 5, 2004, Toulouse.

196

ERRC interview with Mr Frédéric Lievy, March 5, 2004, Toulouse.

112

113

Assault on a Way of Life

stopped there. The residents informed the ERRC that this meant that they would soon

be evicted. The ERRC asked a police officer the reason that they were writing down

the license plate numbers. He responded that he did not know, that these were the

orders. He then said that the caravans were on private property.

Preventive Action: Anti-caravan Landscaping

Many municipalities avoid the need to evict Travellers and Gypsies by prevent-

ing them from halting in the first place. In order to do so, municipalities across the

country have developed a new form of urban architecture designed to make it im-

possible for caravans to enter sites on which they have previously halted or seem

likely to halt, such as barren fields or empty industrial lots. Municipalities block or

surround such sites with various obstacles including boulders, cement posts, mounds

of mud, trenches, and metal gates. Sometimes they plough entire fields. The ERRC

noticed such obstacles in every part of the country that it visited.

The area surrounding EuroDisney is a particularly barricaded location. There

are quite a few empty fields in the neighbouring area. All of them have been sur-

rounded by rows of boulders or trenches that run the entire length of the field. Like

the moats and castle walls used in former times to keep out enemies, these obsta-

cles are designed to keep out “invading” caravans. EuroDisney is located in the

Department of Seine-et-Marne, an area in which Gypsies have traditionally resided

for longer and shorter periods.

197

According to Mr Francois Lacroix, Director of the non-governmental organisa-

tion, Departmental Association of Travellers of Essonne

198

(ADGV), in Essonne,

large cement hedgehogs and ladybirds sometimes serve as anti-caravan obstacles.

199

In a documentary aired on the program “90 minutes”, the TV station Canal

Plus filmed some sites in Mandelieu-la-Napoule landscaped with mounds of

earth, cement blocks and trenches in order to prevent the entry of Travellers. One

image showed an empty field in an industrial zone where Travellers had previ-

197

The Departmental Plan for Seine et Marne estimates that 988 places are needed.

198

Association Départementale Gens du Voyage de l’Essonne.

199

ERRC interview with Mr Francois Lacroix, February 6, 2004, Evry.

114

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

115

Assault on a Way of Life

ously halted. A trench dug by a bulldozer ran along the length of the field block-

ing access from the street and a surveillance camera watched over the site.

200

Municipalities spend considerable resources on these barriers. For instance, in a

letter to the residents of the municipality of Berre-l’Etang entitled “The Parking of

Travellers: an Embarrassment and a Scandal for the Republic”, dated February 2004,

the mayor informed residents that:

... in order to avoid any further and unacceptable annoyances to the

whole of our population, each time these people left, I proceeded to

protect the access to municipal land, especially in the zone of ‘Flo-

ry’, but also around the SNCF train station and the former air and

naval base. These protective works cost the municipality more than

40 000 Euros. They involved the installation of boulders, mounds of

earth, barriers placed at a certain height, furrowing or even plowing

the land at sites.

201

Camping Sites Off-limits to Gypsies

Gypsies and Travellers also find themselves forbidden entry to the majority of

the nearly 11,000 camping sites in France.

202

Most sites no longer openly say that

they are off-limits to Gypsies. Instead, their rules indicate that they do not permit

“double axel” caravans. These are the larger caravans generally used by Gypsies

and Travellers. This rule is clearly indicated in the rules of many camping sites

across the country.

The ERRC encountered many Gypsies who had been refused entry to camping sites.

For instance, Mr Bosson, a Traveller whom the ERRC encountered at the official stop-

ping area of Meaux in the Department of Seine-et-Marne, told the ERRC: “They do not

200

Catuogno, Pascal, Jérome Pin, and Steve Bauman. “Gens du voyage: la répression et l’absurde”.
Canal Plus, aired on May 10, 2004.

201

Andreoni, Serge. “Le stationnement des gens du voyage: une honte et un scandale pour la Répub-
lique”, La Lettre de l’hôtel de ville, February 2004 in Dossier Presse, Association Rencontres Tsi-
ganes, March 16, 2004.

202

According to the website of the French Federation of Camping and Caravaning (Fédération francaise

de camping et de caravaning), in 2002 there were 10,916 camping sites.

114

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

115

Assault on a Way of Life

accept us anywhere in the camping sites. They say that they do not accept caravans with

two axels. But these rules are made to keep away Gypsies. When it is someone else,

even a caravan with two axels is accepted. At the camping site of Trilport they told me

‘we don’t want Gypsies, it will bother the other campers.”

203

Another group the ERRC

encountered in Pomponne said that in 2003 they had taken one month’s vacation and not

a single camping site would accept them. This was in the Bordeaux area. At the end of

the season, they managed to enter a camping site near the city of Rouen as a relative of

theirs knew the owner. The group stressed that they travel all over France and in nearly

all localities they have been forbidden access to campsites.

204

At a camping site in the town of Pertuis, Department of Vaucluse, the ERRC

inquired about reserving a place in the camping site with a double axel caravan. The

ERRC’s conversation with the woman at the reception desk was as follows:

ERRC: “Do you rent spaces to all types of caravans?”

Reception: “No, not to those that are double axel or very large.”

ERRC: “So, if I rent a double axel caravan, I cannot come here?”

Reception: “No.” She explained the rule showing a paper with the official regu-

lations and highlighting the part indicating that rental is forbidden for double

axel caravans. She then continued looking uncomfortable: “It is delicate to ex-

plain. Maybe if you rent, yes.”

ERRC: “Why?”

Reception : “It is delicate to explain – normally it is the Travellers who have

those caravans. If you rent that kind of caravan, you won’t enter into any camping

sites... you will even have problems parking at the side of the road.”

ERRC: “Why not the Travellers?”

Reception: “They are many in one caravan; they make a lot of noise. The other

families would not want them here. It is true, it is very delicate. One would say

a crime of physical appearance … and, I am saying this, with my appearance.

205

I just discussed this issue with my director this morning. But, we do not have a

203

ERRC interview with Mr Bosson, February 10, 2004, Meaux.

204

ERRC interview with L.W., 13 April 2004, Pomponne.

205

She was referring to her North African appearance.

116

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

117

Assault on a Way of Life

choice. If we take them, the others will not want them. It is racism. I heard that

they were before the Courts with this issue. I think it is a good thing. If they win,

we could admit them. I think we would have to reserve a part of the camping

site for them.”

ERRC: “And if I rent a double axel caravan I could not rent a place here?”

Reception: “But there are always exceptions to the rules, you know that... Maybe

I am naive to speak with you. You could be the wife of a Traveller...”

ERRC: “Does it make you uncomfortable?”

Reception: “Yes, of course. It is me that has to say ‘no’ – and with my appearance.

Normally I would have simply said to you – ‘no, Madam, those are the rules,’

without any explanation.”

206

5.2 The Failure of French Courts to Consistently Uphold the Rights of Travellers

and Gypsies

The vulnerability of Travellers and Gypsies to illegal evictions is exacerbated by

the inconsistent track record of French Courts in ensuring that Travellers’ and Gyp-

sies’ basic rights are respected.

Although no comprehensive study has been carried out into this matter, em-

pirical data gathered by the ERRC in the course of research toward this Country

Report indicates that French Courts rule inconsistently in cases where municipali-

ties carry out evictions despite their own failure to fulfil their legal obligations to

provide places for Travellers and Gypsies to halt. Many Courts uphold the rights

of Gypsies and Travellers to halt at unauthorised locations when the municipalities

are not themselves in compliance with the Besson Law. However, other Courts

rule in favour of municipalities even when they carry out evictions that seem to be

in direct violation of the provisions of the Besson Law and the basic human rights

of Travellers and Gypsies.

The contradictory decisions of the First Instance Court of Marseille (Tribunal

de Grande Instance de Marseille) and of the First Instance Court of Aix-en-Pro-

206

ERRC visit to campsite, 6 May 2004, Pertuis.

116

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

117

Assault on a Way of Life

vence (Tribunal de Grande Instance d’Aix-en-Provence) in two such cases are

illustrative. Both cases concerned groups of families that had been evicted from

unauthorised sites where they had halted their caravans in cities that had not ful-

filled their obligations under the Besson Law (Marseille and Vitrolles). In the case

before the First Instance Court of Aix-en-Provence the eviction was also carried

out in an abusive manner.

207

The First Instance Court of Marseille found in favour of the Travellers, judging

that “the illicit occupation came about as a result of the failure of the city of Marseille

to conform to the law relating to the halting of Travellers combined with its incom-

petence in managing the consequences of this deficiency.”

208

The First Instance Court of Aix-en-Provence, on the other hand, found in fa-

vour of the city of Vitrolles. It reasoned that as almost all of the municipalities in

the Department of Bouches-du-Rhône had failed to fulfil their legal obligations

to create halting areas, the burden of hosting Travellers on its property should

not be shouldered only by the municipality of Vitrolles. The Court stated: “if

this shortage [of halting areas] interferes with the right of Travellers to come and

go and to reside under normal conditions, this does not mean that the munici-

pality of Vitrolles should alone bear an ongoing violation of its property rights

due to prolonged parking.”

209

This reasoning fails to take into account the fact

that Travellers and Gypsies attempt to halt throughout the Department, and not

only on the property of the municipality of Vitrolles. In effect, this judgement

implies that since the majority of municipalities have failed to meet their legal

obligations under the Besson Law, none should be obliged to permit Travellers

to halt on their territory. The Court also ordered the Travellers involved to pay

the expenses of both parties.

207

At around 6.00 AM on February 12, 2004, police raided the site where families were halted near

Vitrolles, waking Travellers by hitting their caravans with truncheons. All residents - women, children
and men - were ordered out of their caravans and into the cold, foggy morning without being allowed
to dress themselves. Police verbally insulted residents during the eviction and damaged their property.

208

Judgement of the First Instance Court of Marseille, June 24, 2002. Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

209

Judgement of the First Instance Court of Aix-en-Provence, April 13, 2004. Unofficial translation by

the ERRC.

118

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

119

Assault on a Way of Life

Judgements such as the ruling cited above by the First Instance Court of Aix-en-Pro-

vence call into question the value placed by Courts upon the basic dignity and rights of

Travellers and Gypsies. The failure of Courts to consistently uphold the rights of Travel-

lers and Gypsies when municipalities act in an illegal manner also plays a role in perpetu-

ating illegal evictions. News of judgements such as this ruling of the First Instance Court

of Aix-en-Provence discourages Travellers and Gypsies from turning to the Courts. They

cannot be sure that a costly and time-consuming judicial procedure will be resolved in

their favour, even when municipalities and the police seem to have acted in clear viola-

tion of the law. Municipalities and the police are evidently aware that the chances are

slight that Travellers and Gypsies will go to the Courts. They are also aware that the

Courts may rule in their favour even when they act in an illegal and abusive manner. Thus

Travellers and Gypsies continue to experience eviction after eviction, and most simply

move on, even when they believe that municipalities and the police acted illegally.

Furthermore, Travellers’ and Gypsies’ basic right to a fair hearing, including an

adversarial procedure, is frequently infringed by the “request procedure” utilised to

order their eviction.

210

The request procedure is a non-adversarial procedure whereby

a judge may issue a decision without hearing the other party, and may order all ur-

gent measures necessary.

211

When this procedure is used to order an eviction, Trav-

ellers and Gypsies have no opportunity to be heard by a Court, are not informed of

the decision, and are therefore not even informed of the upcoming eviction until the

police turn up to carry it out.

212

210

Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms provides that: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal
charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by
an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” This right includes the right to have an
adversarial trial. In the case of evictions of Travellers by public authorities, although the actions of
public officials are at issue, civil rights are clearly at stake as the action of public officials effects a
range of basic civil rights of a personal and economic nature. An eviction order that is based upon a
non-adversarial procedure therefore violates Travellers and Gypsies right to a fair trial.

211

The Court of First Instance of Aix-en-Provence stated that: “According to the terms of Articles 493

and 812 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, a judicial request order is a decision rendered in a non-
adversarial manner in situations in which the complainant is justified in not calling before the Courts
the other party.” Judegment of First Instance Court of Aix-en-Provence, April 13, 2004.

212

A number of international law provisions require that governments ensure procedural protection for

victims of forced evictions as well as access to legal remedy and compensation and/or alternative
accommodation for those with respect to whom forced evictions have been applied.

118

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

119

Assault on a Way of Life

The issue of whether a request procedure was justified as a basis for ordering

the eviction of Travellers who had halted at an unauthorised site was raised before

the First Instance Courts of Marseille and of Aix-en-Provence in the cases discussed

above. The eviction orders in both cases had been based upon a request procedure

in which those concerned were not individually named and had no opportunity to be

heard. The First Instance Court of Aix-en-Provence ruled that the request procedure

was in fact justified due to urgency, stating that “... this occupation of private prop-

erty constitutes, in the meaning of article 809 of the New Code of Civil Procedure,

a manifestly illicit nuisance thus allowing the municipality to invoke urgency and,

given the number of occupants and the material difficulties in identifying each, to

sollicit their eviction without their prior judicial summons.”

213

General Comment No. 7 of the CESCR specifies the minimum procedural guarantees in cases of

forced evictions, including inter alia, “(b) adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons
prior to the scheduled date of eviction; (c) information on the proposed evictions, and, where appli-
cable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, to be made available in
reasonable time to all those affected; [...] (g) provision of legal remedies.” Paragraph 16 states that,
“Evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of
other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State party must
take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate
alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available.” (para-
graph 17) (CESCR. “General Comment 7, Sixteenth Session, 1997, “The right to adequate housing
(Art.11.1): forced evictions: 20/05/97”)

In General Comment No. 4 of the CESCR, the Committee on Economic and Social Rights Social

expresses its view that “many component elements of the right to adequate housing [are] at least
consistent with the provision of domestic legal remedies. Depending on the legal system, such areas
might include, but are not limited to: (a) legal appeals aimed at preventing planned evictions or demo-
litions through the issuance of court-ordered injunctions; (b) legal procedures seeking compensation
following an illegal eviction; (c) complaints against illegal actions carried out or supported by
landlords (whether public or private) in relation to rent levels, dwelling maintenance, and racial
or other forms of discrimination; (d) allegations of any form of discrimination in the allocation and
availability of access to housing; and (e) complaints against landlords concerning unhealthy or
inadequate housing conditions. In some legal systems it would also be appropriate to explore the
possibility of facilitating class action suits in situations involving significantly increased levels of
homelessness.”(CESCR. “General Comment No. 4 (1991), The Right to Adequate Housing (Art
11(1) of the Covenant), available at :

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+Gener

al+comment+4.En?OpenDocument

213

Judgement of First Instance Court of Aix-en-Provence, April 13, 2004.

120

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

121

Assault on a Way of Life

The First Instance Court of Marseille on the other hand found the eviction order

in question to violate the basic Constitutional principle of the separation of powers

and also the respect for the adversarial nature of French procedure. The Court fur-

thermore ruled that urgency is not one of the conditions that justifies a request proce-

dure, as an hour-by-hour referee procedure (which is adversarial in nature) exists for

such cases. In its ruling, the First Instance Court of Marseille also remarked that an

“immediate eviction with the co-operation of the forces of public order is traumatic

and likely to generate incomprehension, resentment, a feeling of revolt, even of vio-

lence, which are all disorders far greater and far more pernicious than the occupation,

certainly illegitimate, of the property of another when it is vacant.”

214

Once again, the differences between these Courts are reflective of the different

positions that Courts in different departments continue to adopt. Thus, while certain

Courts recognise that a procedure where the families are not named and have no

chance to be heard before being evicted violates their basic right to a fair trial, other

Courts appear to find this procedure to be justified in the case of Travellers halted at

unauthorised sites.

Travellers and Gypsies right to a fair hearing is also violated by practices of certain

bailiffs who fail to deliver to them their summons to attend a hearing. The non-govern-

mental associations Rencontres and the League for Human Rights in the Bouches-du-

Rhône, informed the ERRC that they have documented at least twenty five cases over

a two-year period (2002-2003) where bailiffs did not inform Travellers and Gypsies

that they had been summoned to appear before the Court. Evidently, when they do not

receive their Court summons, Travellers and Gypsies do not present themselves at the

Court on the day of their hearing. Judges believe that they were notified, but simply did

not come. The President of the First Instance Court of Aix en Provence informed the

League for Human Rights that in a case concerning the municipality of Marignane, he

had refused a request procedure and instead proceeded using a referee procedure as he

had wanted to hear the Travellers. They were apparently summoned but did not turn

up. However, representatives of Rencontres and the League for Human Rights who

were in contact with the persons concerned do not believe that they were informed.

215

214

Judgement of First Instance Court of Marseille, June 24, 2004.

215

ERRC participation in meeting of Recontres, May 7, 2004, Marseille. Information provided at meet-

ing by Mr Marc Durand and Mr Alain Fourest.

120

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

121

Assault on a Way of Life

Mr Alain Fourest, President of Rencontres, told the ERRC: “The bailiff simply says

he went and no one was there, or that he could not find where they were halted. The

bailiff’s obligation is then to deposit a notice at the city hall that should then find those

concerned and deliver the notice. There is an obvious problem of a conflict-of-interest

when the municipality is the other party in the case.”

216

5.3 Discrimination and Eviction of Travellers and Gypsies Who Buy Land

The vast majority of Gypsies and Travellers that the ERRC met on official

halting areas, or residing temporarily wherever they were able to find space,

expressed the desire to buy a piece of land of their own where they can live

peacefully in their mobile homes. Many said they wanted a place that is theirs,

where they can reside for periods and to which they can return when they travel,

without worrying about the next dawn forced eviction. However, to the great

frustration of a large number of families, they find that they encounter consid-

erable difficulties in buying a piece of land, and, when they manage, they still

frequently do not live in peace. They continue to suffer from forced evictions and

harassment by local officials or residents. They also frequently continue to live

in substandard conditions – often without water and electricity. Municipalities

no more want Gypsies who are property owners on their territory, than they want

Gypsies who pass through.

When they wish to become property owners, Gypsies and Travellers suffer from

a hypocritical paradox created by the inconsistent and racist approach to equality of

the French State. While on the one hand laws and policies make it increasingly dif-

ficult for Gypsies to continue travelling, on the other hand, when they wish to settle

in a community, regulations and municipal actions are designed so as to make this

nearly impossible as well.

The specific housing needs of Gypsies are completely ignored by the many laws

and policies regulating land use, urban planning, and access to the public infrastruc-

ture (sewage, water, electricity, etc.). These laws are presented as “the same for all”.

However due to the fact that the way of life and particular needs of Gypsies and

216

ERRC interview with Mr Alain Fourest, May 7, 2004, Marseille.

122

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

123

Assault on a Way of Life

Travellers are not taken into consideration, these laws have a disproportionately

negative impact upon them.

217

The result is that there is no place for Travellers and

Gypsies within municipalities. This problem is aggravated by the fact that caravans

are generally not treated as a form of permanent housing, but instead as a form of

transport. Thus, even when they manage to buy land, almost as a rule, Gypsies and

Travellers continue to find themselves in violation of French laws.

And, once again, their situation is exacerbated by the fact that when it is to their

disadvantage, the Gypsies continue to be singled out for unequal and negative treat-

ment. Thus, various local laws and policies actually designate large amounts of ter-

ritory as off-limits to caravans, even on private property, and place highly restrictive

conditions on the possibilities for Gypsies to use their land.

The combined effect of various rules and regulations affecting the possibili-

ties for Gypsies and Travellers to live on private land in decent conditions results

in violations of their right to housing as well as their right to non-interference

in their private life, family life, and home often amount to severe violations of

Article 8 of the ECHR.

218

217

Such laws that discriminate against Travellers and Gypsies violate France’s obligations to guarantee

non-discrimination and equality provided in a multitude of international instruments.

218

For any interference under Article 8 to be permissible it must be in accordance with the law and neces-

sary in a democratic society, which includes proportionality between the goals sought to be realised on
the one hand and the means employed on the other. It must also be undertaken in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Although they are provided for by law, the serious interference the range of regulations entail with

respect to Gypsies’ and Travellers’ private and family life and home often cannot be held to be neces-
sary in a democratic society for the fulfilment of any legitimate broader interests.

In particular, the combined effect of the many rules and regulations affecting Gypsies and Travellers

both when they travel and when they attempt to settle on private land significantly disrupts the pri-
vate, family life and home of Gypsies and Travellers as well as their ability to maintain a travelling
lifestyle. Furthermore, the Court has ruled that the traditional Gypsy caravan is an integral part of
the Gypsy ethnic identity, “reflecting the long tradition of that minority of following a travelling life-
style.” Chapman v. United Kingdom, Judgement by the European Court of Human Rights of January
18, 2001, application number 27238/95, para. 73, It has also acknowledged that this requires special
consideration in planning matters. Buckley v. The United Kingdom, Judgement by the European
Court of Human Rights of August 26, 1996, application number 23/1995/529/615, para 71.

122

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

123

Assault on a Way of Life

5.3.1 Obstacles to the Purchase of Private Property

When Gypsies and Travellers attempt to buy land, they are often unable to do so

as the sale is “preempted” by the municipality. According to French law, in numer-

ous sales of property, municipalities are given a period of two months in which they

may “preempt” the sale. Municipalities are only allowed do to do so for reasons of

general interest (for instance creating public facilities) and in instances where the

municipality has developed a specific project involving the land. However, in prac-

tice, when municipalities realise that it is a Gypsy or Traveller who wishes to buy,

authorities systematically exercise their right of pre-emption. Often this is illegal, as

the pre-emption is not based on a specific project of public utility, but on racism. If

families are willing to take the case to the courts, they might win, but most families

are unable or unwilling to constantly appeal to the courts.

The ERRC encountered dozens of individuals in this situation – trying to buy

land but constantly faced with the pre-emptions of mayors. Others told the ERRC

that they do not even try to buy land, as they know that the sale will be pre-empted.

Many therefore acquire land through methods, such as donations, where the mayors

are not given an opportunity to pre-empt their acquisition of the land.

Unlike other citizens, it is a near impossibility for Gypsies and Travellers to obtain

loans for the purchase of private property. In order to receive loans individuals gener-

ally need a fixed residence and permanent salaried work. The vast majority of those

Although the situation of Gypsies and Travellers in France differs in many respects from that in

the United Kingdom, the reasoning presented in judge Pettiti’s dissenting judegment in the case
of Buckley v. United Kingdom would seem particularly appropriate to the French situation. He
opined that:

... the deliberate superimposition and accumulation of administrative rules (each of

which would be acceptable taken singly) result, firstly, in its being totally impossible for
a Gypsy family to make suitable arrangements for its accommodation, social life and the
integration of its children at school and,secondly, in different government departments
combining measures relating to town planning, nature conservation, the viability of ac-
cess roads, planning permission requirements, road safety and public health that, in the
instant case, mean the Buckley family are caught in a “vicious circle”...

Buckley v. The United Kingdom, Judgement by the European Court of Human Rights of August 26,

1996, application number 23/1995/529/615.

124

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

125

Assault on a Way of Life

Travellers and Gypsies who are looking to buy property do not meet these conditions.

As a result, they need to find a way to pay for the full amount of the purchase.

5.3.2 Forced Evictions from Property Owned by Travellers and Gypsies

Those Gypsies that do manage to acquire private property sometimes find that they

continue to be threatened with forced eviction, only now from their own property.

These problems stem from the fact that almost as a rule Gypsies continue to find

themselves in violation of the considerable number of French laws and regulations

that severely limit the territory on which caravans can legally remain, even on private

land, and that often impose highly restrictive conditions on the few existing possi-

bilities. On the one hand, there are a wide range of general prohibitions forbidding

the halting of caravans in given areas, such as near historical sites, protected wooded

areas and monuments. In addition, further restrictions and conditions are established

by local regulations relating to urban planning, such as zoning regulations or munici-

pal decrees specifically regulating the presence of caravans.

219

Furthermore, munici-

palities may also make use of their police powers relating to public order and health

to forcibly evict persons living in caravans.

220

219

Article 443-4 of the Urbanism Code provides that in the case of caravans that serve as the permanent

home of the users, an authorisation is required in order to park in a continuous manner for more than
three months. Non-respect of this procedure constitutes a violation of the Urbanism Code and is subject
to penal pursuit. The required authorisation is not granted if the caravans are on land on which the stop-
ping of caravans is forbidden, or is found to be in violation of the conditions for such stopping. Article
443-9 of the Urban Code lists areas on which caravans cannot stop. These include: sea banks; near
protected historical monuments; in zones for the protection of architectural or urban heritage or natural
monuments or sites; within 200 metres of drinking water collecting sites; in woods, forests and parks
classified as protected wooded areas. According to article R443-3 and R 443-10 of the Urbanism Code,
the required authorisation can also be denied in zones where the parking of caravans might disturb:
public health, security or peace ; natural or urban landscapes; the conservation of the view of monu-
ments; the exercise of agricultural or forestry activities; or the conservation of natural areas, of flora and
fauna...” (Unofficial translation by the ERRC). In addition to these articles, municipalities enact specific
decrees relating to the conditions for the stopping of caravans in their municipality.

220

See articles L.2213-1 and following, General Code of territorial collectivities. These powers relate to

private and public land. Non-observance of police decrees can result in fines, and, with Article 58 of
the Security Law, forced eviction.

124

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

125

Assault on a Way of Life

According to French law, violations of urban regulations constitute penal infractions

that can be punished with fines of up to a sum 300,000 Euros and, in the case of repeated

offences, imprisonment of up to six months.

221

Thus in numerous municipalities, Gyp-

sies and Travellers who believed that they would finally be able to reside in dignity on

their own land, find themselves subject to penal proceedings that result in fines that they

cannot pay and sometimes the loss of their land and eviction. During its research, the

ERRC encountered dozens of families threatened with expulsion from their homes. This

is almost certainly only a small fraction of the total number of families in this situation as

associations report such cases in municipalities throughout the country.

The case of Ms C.L. is illustrative. She owns a parcel of land that is approximate-

ly 300 square metres in a residential area on Avenue des Acacias in Montfermeil, a

town in the Department of Seine-Saint-Denis outside of Paris. She lives on her land

along with her handicapped mother and their families. Two of her sisters regularly

visit. Each of the women lives in her own caravan along with her family, and their

children attend the local school. When she first purchased the land, she did not think

she would have problems with the city as she believed that as the owner of land in a

residential area, she could live on it with her family.

However, in the late 1970s, the town enacted a local decree “regulating the stop-

ping of caravans serving as homes on private land.”

222

This decree stipulates that

there can be no parking of caravans for a period of more than three months; there

can only be one caravan parked per 250 square metres of land; there can only be a

maximum of five caravans on any given piece of land; any owners hosting one or

more caravans on their land need to make a declaration informing city officials of

this fact within 30 days of the arrival of the caravans; land needs to look clean and

well-maintained; residents have an obligation to construct toilets in accordance with

certain norms.

On December 21, 1992, C.L. received a letter from the mayor, Mr Pierre Bernard,

claiming that the municipality had received complaints concerning the manner which

she was using her land. The letter charged her with “illegal occupation of the land

221

Article L480-4, Urbanism Code.

222

“Arrêté portant reglémentation du stationnement de caravanes habitées sur terrains privées”, October

4, 1979.

126

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

127

Assault on a Way of Life

contrary to the city’s urban regulations,” and informed her that as no form of regulari-

sation could be envisioned, the mayor found himself obliged to ask her to put the land

back to its original state and see to the departure of the caravans serving as homes that

she permitted to stay on her land. The letter concluded by threatening her that if she

did not comply within 48 hours, the city would seize the competent court.

223

The municipality followed through on its threat. The First Instance Court of Bo-

bigny (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny) on October 17, 1995 ruled in the

municipality’s favour and ordered C.L. to conform with the municipal regulations

within 60 days, after which she would be fined 1000 Francs (approximately 152 Eu-

ros) per day. As C.L. and her family had nowhere else to go given that this land was

their home, they remained. She was notified of the judgement on October 31,1995,

and the period she was granted in which to conform expired on 1 January 1996. By

March 15, 1996, she already owed a sum of 80,262 Francs (approximately 12,236

Euros). The fines continued to add up. The city again went to the Court, which issued

a judgement for the seizure of C.L’s land by the municipality in January of 2003.

224

As of March 2005, C.L. remained on the land, waiting to be forcibly evicted.

It seems that in the eyes of the current mayor of Montfermeil, Mr Xavier Lem-

oine, Travellers as a group are a threat to public order, a nuisance and delinquents. In

March 2004, Mr Lemoine circulated a letter via an association that provides literacy

courses to Traveller children, inviting Travellers residing in Montfermeil to attend a

meeting on March 16, 2004, concerning the problems they cause. In the “invitation

letter” and during the meeting, the mayor and other city councillors accused the Trav-

ellers collectively of causing a wide range of nuisances and infractions of city rules

due to their way of life, including: anarchic blocking of the public view (this entailed

parking cars in the street in front of their property); causing nuisance to neighbours

(noise, parking of caravans); serious and repeat violations of the driving code (stop-

ping, one way streets, rodeos, and speeding); urban and environmental infractions

(non-respect of the municipal decree and national regulations); non-respect of the

Urbanism Code; pollution (stocking diverse materials under the open sky); storing

diverse odds and ends; questions with respect to the discrepancy between the percep-

223

Bernard, Pierre. “Letter to Mrs L.”, December 21, 1992, Montfermeil.

224

ERRC interview with Ms Céline Larivière, President of the non-governmental association Les

Français du Voyage, January 30, 2004, Montfermeil.

126

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

127

Assault on a Way of Life

tion of their social resources and their standard of living; irregular schooling of chil-

dren and adolescents; the phenomenon of youth gangs with delinquent behaviour.

According to a local non-governmental association French Travellers (les Francais

du Voyage), the meeting constituted a public trial of all of the city’s Travellers.

225

The situation of several families in the town of Ozouër-le-Voulgis in the neigh-

bouring Department of Seine-et-Marne is also illustrative. Like Ms C.L., the Welter

and Colle families fear imminent forcible eviction from the property on which they

live together. These families moved to the town in the late nineties buying land with

money that they had received in compensation for their eviction from their residence

of 29 years in the town of Bonneuil. Twelve children between the ages of nine months

and fourteen years live on the property, which is not connected to the local electricity

or water network nor sewage system due to the city’s refusal. Those of school age at-

tend the local school, except for two who were refused registration in the fall of 2004

on the grounds that there were no more available spaces in the school. The families

were taken to Court by the city of Ozouër-le-Voulgis for non-compliance with urban

regulations due to the fact that they had lived in their caravans for a period exceeding

three months on land not zoned for urban construction. The Paris Court of Appeal

ruled in the city’s favour, issuing an order for the four families to leave the land by

the August 24, 2004. As this is their home, as of March 16, 2005, the families had

not left, and therefore continued to be fined 50 Euros per day per family (200 Euros

total per day), fines they know they will not be able to pay.

226

Solange and Marceau Dipein, 55 and 62 years old, likewise residing in Ozouër-

le-Voulgis, were also taken to Court by the city for violation of urban regulations. In

1994, they bought land in an area not zoned for construction with a surface area of

over 6000 square metres. They built a small bungalow in which they lived, and also

parked their caravan on their land. The city charged them with building in violation

of the zoning regulations as well as parking a caravan for longer than three months.

Having lost the case in the fall of 2003, the couple was given until April of 2004 to

225

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Céline Larivière, September 21, 2004, Paris.

226

ERRC telephone interviews with Ms Francoise Josse, September 22, 2004, and March 16, 2005, Paris.

ERRC telephone interview with journalist Sébastien Morelli, September 22, 2004, Paris. See also

Morelli, Sébastien. “Gitans et indésirables aux yeux du maire”.

Le Parisien

, March 24, 2003; More-

lli, Sébastien. “Les nomades propriétaires seront expulsés”. Le

Parisien

, March 26, 2004.

128

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

129

Assault on a Way of Life

destroy the bungalow and remove their caravan from the land. Having nowhere to

live, they did not comply and began receiving fines of 30 Euros per day. By mid-

September 2004, the fines had grown to nearly 10,000 Euros and the couple decided

to destroy the bungalow and leave the land. On the evening of September 16, 2004,

they parked their caravan in front of the city hall and spent the night. They received

the attention of the media and with the help of a local non-governmental association,

the next day they negotiated a temporary solution with the mayor. He agreed to allow

them to remain provisionally on the land in their caravan and to acknowledge that

they had conformed with the judgement, thus putting an end to the daily fines. As of

March 16, 2005, they remained on their land living in their caravan, uncertain as to

how long they will be allowed to remain.

227

In another case in the town of Mérignac, in the Department of Gironde, approxi-

mately 60 families are threatened with forced eviction “for their own good.” About

15 years ago these families each bought land in this rural area near the airport of

Bordeaux Merignac, where they have lived since. A few families built small houses

and others small cabins. The children attend the nearby school of Beutre. When it

visited the area in March 2004, the ERRC noted that these families were not the only

residents of the area. Other houses are built on neighbouring land. The Prefecture

recently dug up the file, noting that the families are at risk of exposure to the noises

of the airport, and the families therefore risk eviction.

In an interview with the ERRC, Mr Bernard Garandeau, Adjunct to the Mayor

of Mérignac and Vice-President of the General Council of Gironde informed the

ERRC that the Courts had “ruled on the necessity of destroying their houses.” He

explained that in some periods of the year, if a plane were to miss the landing, this

would mean a lot of deaths. He also noted that the families had built their houses

without a construction permit in an area where it is formally forbidden. He told the

ERRC that he believes that the families should not be left where they are as “it is

dangerous and perfectly illegal”. He emphasised, however, that he would support an

approach according to which the families would be offered alternative accomodation

227

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Francoise Josse, cousin of Ms Solange Dipein, September 22, 2004

and March 16, 2005, Paris. ERRC telephone interview with journalist Sebastien Morelli, September
22, 2004, Paris. See also the following articles: Morelli, Sébastien. “Les nomades propriétaires seront
expulsés”.

Le Parisien

, March 26, 2004; Morelli, Sébastien. “Une famille de nomades squattent devant

la mairie”.

Le Parisien

, September 17, 2004.

128

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

129

Assault on a Way of Life

that respects their way of life and also permits their integration. . The ERRC asked

about the other non-Gypsies that are in the area, whether they would also be moved,

as they are exposed to the same risks. Mr Garandeau responded that the other people

are there already, and they cannot be expelled as they are “at home”. He said that in

their case the city does not allow them to enlarge their property.

228

ERRC interview with Mr Bernard Garandeau, March 3, 2004, Mérignac. In French law, there is normally

a prescription period of 3 years in which a city can undertake penal procedures for a construction built
without a permit. Following this period, a municipality can no longer require the demolition of the con-
struction, except through using its police powers, and doing so for reasons of public health or safety.

131

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

6. DENYING GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS ADEQUATE HOUSING

Gypsies and Travellers experience severe violations of their right to adequate

housing regardless of their mode of life – on the continuum from nomadic to set-

tled; regardless of whether they reside on official halting sites or on their own land;

regardless of whether they are well-off and can afford decent housing or very poor

and seek social support from French authorities.

229

The fact of their belonging to a

particular ethnicity often seems to be the sole reason for the authorities’ denial to

provide Travellers and Gypsies with adequate housing.

229

Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to

which France is party, provides that: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right
of everyone to an adequate standard of living.., including adequate food, clothing and housing, and
to the continuous improvement of living conditions.” This Article read together with Article 2(2) of
ICESCR guarantees the exercise of the right to housing “without discrimination of any kind as to
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status.” France ratified the ICESCR on 4 February 1981.

General Comment No. 4 on the right to adequate housing under Article 11(1) of the ICESCR, issued

by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that: “The right to adequate
housing applies to everyone” and the “...enjoyment of this right must, in accordance with Article 2(2)
of the Covenant, not be subject to any form of discrimination.” The Committee further states that the
right to housing “should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity.” It is
not just the right to housing, but to adequate housing. The elements of adequacy were defined by the
Committee as follows:

a) Legal security of tenure. Tenure takes a variety of forms, including ... emergency housing

and informal settlements, including occupation of land or property. Notwithstanding the
type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees
legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. States parties should
consequently take immediate measures aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon
those persons and households currently lacking such protection, in genuine consultation
with affected persons and groups;

b) Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure... All beneficiaries of the right

to adequate housing should have sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe
drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities,
means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services;

c)  Affordability [...];
d)  Habitability [...];
e)  Accessibility [...]

132

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

133

Halting sites and settlements are often characterised by severe environmental

hazards such as garbage dumps, waste treatment plants, proximity to polluting facto-

ries and sewage polluted rivers. Rats proliferate on some sites presenting additional

health risks. The sites often lack any basic infrastructure, such as electricity, clean

water for washing or drinking and sewage, or available infrastructure is inadequate

in quantity and quality. In addition, these sites and settlements are distinguished

by their segregated location – physically marginalising Travellers and Gypsies. On

some settlements, where the poorest and most marginalised Gypsies and Travellers

have lived for long periods of time, residents live in precarious accommodation, such

as broken down caravans or makeshift bungalows made of scrap, that provide little

protection from natural elements.

Many Travellers and Gypsies who buy land in the hope of being able to station

their mobile homes and avoid being forcibly driven from place to place, often find

themselves intentionally precluded from accessing such basics as drinking water and

electricity. Furthermore, when Gypsies and Travellers try to access public apart-

ments or build houses, they are frequently subjected to racial discrimination.

6.1 Substandard Conditions and Segregation on Official Halting Areas

A circular issued on 5 July 2001 relating to the application of the Besson Law

(hereinafter Circular of 5 July 2001) stipulates that the location of the halting areas:

f) Location. Adequate housing must be in a location which allows access to employment op-

tions, health-care services, schools, childcare centres and other social facilities. This is true
both in large cities and in rural areas where the temporal and financial costs of getting to and
from the place of work can place excessive demands upon the budgets of poor households.
Similarly, housing should not be built on polluted sites nor in immediate proximity to pollu-
tion sources that threaten the right to health of the inhabitants;

g) Cultural adequacy. The way housing is constructed, the building materials used and the

policies supporting these must appropriately enable the expression of cultural identity and
diversity of housing. Activities geared towards development or modernization in the housing
sphere should ensure that the cultural dimensions of housing are not sacrificed, and that, inter
alia, modern technological facilities, as appropriate are also ensured.

See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 4, The right to adequate
housing, (Sixth session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III at 114 (1991), available at:

http:

//www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/epcomm4.htm

134

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

135

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

Should respect rules of hygiene and security and avoid the effects of ex-

clusion. Designed to serve as housing, the halting areas are to be located

in areas that are adapted to this purpose, in other words in urban areas

or near these, in order to permit easy access to different urban services

(schooling, educational, health, social, cultural, as well as different spe-

cialised services)... Thus all sites judged to be incompatible with the

purpose of housing are to be forbidden.

230

The existing “halting areas” that the ERRC visited in nearly all cases do not meet

basic standards of decency. They violate various central components of the right to

adequate housing, notably requirements concerning the availability of services, fa-

cilities and infrastructure; location and habitability.

231

While water and electricity are generally available on official sites, hot showers

and toilets are consistently too few for the number of residents. On some sites toilet and

shower facilities are extremely dirty and in a state of disrepair. Furthermore many sites

are simply flat concrete surfaces, resembling parking lots, in which adequate provision

for drainage has not been made. The problem is worsened on some sites due to holes or

bumps causing an uneven surface allowing for the accumulation of rainwater.

Despite the Circular of 5 July 2001, and existing French national legislation

concerning adequate housing standards, most designated halting areas are located

in places that are totally unsuitable for human residence. Many are situated in areas

presenting significant environmental hazards that pose serious risks to the health of

230

Circular no. 2001-49/UHC/IUH1/12 of 5 July 2001 relating to the Application of Law no. 2000-614

of 5 July 2000 relating to the Welcome and Housing of Travellers, Title IV.1. Unofficial translation
by the ERRC.

231

In addition to obligations flowing from a number of UN Treaties binding the French state to ensure access

to adequate housing without discrimination, a recent Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers recom-
mendation on “improving the housing conditions of Roma and Travellers in Europe” has emphasised the
obligation upon all member States to: prevent, prohibit and, when needed, revert any nationwide, regional,
or local policies or initiatives aimed at ensuring that Roma settle or resettle in inappropriate sites and
hazardous area, or aimed at relegating them to such areas on account of their ethnicity. Furthermore the
recommendation provides that: “Member states should ensure that an adequate number of transit/halting
sites are provided to nomadic and semi-nomadic Roma. These transit/halting sites should be adequately
equipped with necessary facilities including water, electricity, sanitation and refuse collection. The physi-
cal borders or fences should not harm the dignity of the persons and their freedom of movement.”

134

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

135

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

Travellers and Gypsies. They are systematically located near garbage dumps; waste

treatment plants; high-risk or polluting factories; freeways or railroad tracks, with

high tension wires frequently directly overhead. Furthermore they are generally situ-

ated as far away as possible from residential areas, at the very limit of municipali-

ties. This means that halting areas also tend to be located as far away as possible

from different urban services, which are situated in city centers and residential areas.

Many Travellers and Gypsies highlighted this problem to the ERRC, especially with

respect to the schooling of children.

232

On some sites, the physical segregation of Travellers and Gypsies is concretised

through a ring of mudhills encircling the halting area, thus physically cutting it off

from the surroundings. These mudhills are justified as a means of “protecting Travel-

lers and Gypsies” from noise, however they in fact erect a physical barrier between

Travellers and Gypsies and other residents effectively hiding the caravans and site

residents from their neighbours or passerby.

232

The segregated conditions under which many Travellers and Gypsies are forced to live infringe the

unequivocal ban on racial segregation in international human rights law. Under Article 3 of the IC-
ERD the French state has undertaken to prevent, prohibit and eradicate racial segregation.

The normative content of Article 3 has been further elaborated by the United Nations Committee

on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its General Comment 19 on “Racial segregation and
apartheid (Article 3)”. The Committee noted that under Article 3 states are obliged “to prevent, pro-
hibit and eradicate all practices of racial segregation” (Paragraph 1) and that this obligation includes
“the obligation to eradicate the consequences of such practices undertaken or tolerated by previous
Governments in the State or imposed by forces outside the State” (Paragraph 2). Further the Commit-
tee made it clear that “while conditions of complete or partial racial segregation may in some coun-
tries have been created by governmental policies, a condition of partial segregation may also arise
as an unintended by-product of the actions of private persons” and that in many cases “residential
patterns are influenced by group differences in income, which are sometimes combined with differ-
ences of race, colour, descent and national or ethnic origin, so that inhabitants can be stigmatized and
individuals suffer a form of discrimination in which racial grounds are mixed with other grounds”
(Paragraph 3). The Committee then concluded that “a condition of racial segregation can also arise
without any initiative or direct involvement by the public authorities” and called on the States parties
“to monitor all trends which can give rise to racial segregation, to work for the eradication of any
negative consequences that ensue, and to describe any such action in their periodic reports.” (Para-
graph 4) See Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Racial segregation and apartheid
(Art. 3): 18/08/95. CERD General recom. 19. (General Comments)”, at:

http://193.194.138.190/tbs/

doc.nsf/(symbol)/CERD+General+recom.+19.En?OpenDocument

136

137

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

Ms Josephine Capello, an elderly Traveller whom the ERRC met at the official

halting area “Realtor” in Aix-en-Provence commented: “You should see the places

they make for us. If it is not a former garbage dump, it is next to the place where the

sewage goes. Never next to a school. This halting area is at the limit of Aix. As far

away as possible. So far that it is almost Vitrolles [the neighbouring municipality].

This is our lifestyle. We cannot live in a house. If you put us there, it is like being in

a cage. But we also like trees, streams, etc.”

233

The halting area Realtor, with 40 spots, is not far away from the TGV

234

station of

Aix-en-Provence. In order to gain access to the site, one has to pass through a metal

gate. However, on May 4, 2004, the day the ERRC visited the site, this was open

enough for a car to pass through. It is in essence a parking lot. Residents pointed out

that the ground is not level, making it extremely difficult to keep clean and giving

rise to puddles of water as soon as it rains. Electricity and water are available, but

there are only four showers and four toilets for the entire stopping area (when the site

is full, there are an average of between 160 and 200 residents). It is at the very limit

of Aix-en-Provence, with the neighbouring town of Callas approximately seven kilo-

metres away and Vitrolles six kilometres away. Residents also informed the ERRC

of their difficulties sleeping due to the neighbouring home for abandoned dogs that

reportedly bark through the night, and the heavy duty trucks that begin to circulate on

the neighbouring highway at around 4:00 AM. The garbage dump is only 1 kilometre

away, which in summer also means that Realtor is invaded by thousands of flies.

235

Another typical halting area is the site in Lognes, a town of approximately 15,000

residents in the Department of Seine-et-Marne on the outskirts of Paris. It hosts about

thirty caravans. Like many sites, this halting area is not generally used for short-term

halts, but rather as the long-term home of residents, most of whom have lived here for

years. The site is located directly under the freeway. In addition to the noise this causes,

it also generates the risk that if a car were to fall, it would fall directly onto the caravans,

most likely with fatal consequences. Paradoxically, although the Logne halting area

can be seen from the freeway, it is very difficult to find once in the town. The ERRC

233

ERRC interview with Ms Josephine Capello, May 4, 2004, Aix-en-Provence.

234

The high speed train.

235

ERRC visit to Realtor, 4 May, 2004.

138

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

139

asked a number of locals for directions to the site, and no one seemed to know. In the

end, a taxi driver was able to help. A narrow road running through a sparse wooded

area leads to the camp. The road is lined with piles of garbage. There are approximately

30 caravans parked on the concrete lot (housing between 120-150 people), with dis-

tances of not more than 10 metres between them. Each spot can be rented for 150 Euros

per month. This fee includes water and electricity. There is, however, only 1 shower for

the whole site and the small water tank only holds about 50-100 litres of water, enough

for two or three showers. Residents told the ERRC that once the water runs out, it takes

hours before the water tank fills up again. There are three Turkish-style toilets in the

camp. However, one was not functioning during an ERRC visit on February 15, 2004.

The residents have to clean the site and all of the equipment themselves.

236

The city of Saint-Priest hosts another typical halting area, dating from the 1970s.

Some residents told the ERRC that they had been living there for 30 years. The

ERRC found the halting area by following signs to the industrial zone in the border

area between Saint-Priest and the neighbouring municipality of Chassieu. Caravans

are cramped together between factories – apparently a petrol plant and a chemical

plant figure amongst the immediate neighbours. A train track also runs nearby as

well as a road on which heavy duty trucks circulate. Mr Henri Lacroix, official at

the Urban Community of Greater Lyon, told the ERRC that “this halting area is just

on the border of a Seveso zone.

237

If there is an explosion in one of the factories, the

residents will experience the blast effect (effet de souffle) of the explosion. And it is

much more dangerous to experience this in a caravan, than in ordinary housing.” Mr

Lacroix believes that this site should not be renovated, and instead that those who

live here should be moved. Residents told the ERRC that the site is also on a former

garbage dump, and that rats infest the site. “We sometimes find them in car motors;

they go where it’s hot,” Mr M.B. commented.

238

Residents pay for their use of water

and electricity, but not for the places themselves as the area is too dirty. There are six

toilets, but three were blocked at the time of an ERRC visit on March 24, 2004.

239

236

ERRC visit to Lognes, February 16, 2004.

237

These are zones classified as high-risk for major industrial accident hazards according to European

standards (Seveso Directives).

238

ERRC interview with Mr M.B., March 24, 2004, Saint-Priest.

239

ERRC visit to Saint-Priest, March 24, 2004.

140

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

141

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

Out of the various Departments that the ERRC visited,

240

the best halting areas

it saw were located in the Department of Haute-Garonne.

241

However, despite im-

proved facilities on a number of halting areas, there was nonetheless a disturbing

trend of surrounding halting areas with a ring of mudhills that physically segregated

residents from the rest of the local population.

For instance, the halting area in the city of Saint-Jean is located within the city itself,

in an ordinary residential neighbourhood. There were approximately 16 mobile homes

parked there when the ERRC visited the site on March 7, 2004. The residents with whom

the ERRC spoke had lived at the site for between four and five years. They told the

ERRC that including water and electricity, they end up paying approximately 150 Euros

per month. There is a small hut containing a shower, washing facility and toilet for every

two spots. This site, like others, looks like a parking lot and has no greenery. However,

what is particularly striking about this halting area is that it is completely ringed by mu-

dhills, hiding it from the surrounding neighbourhood and passersby. Mr Frédéric Lievy

of the non-governmental association Goutte d’Eau, who accompanied the ERRC to the

site, commented: “Look they are like moles; it’s against ‘visual pollution’.” A resident,

Ms Reinhardt told the ERRC that the authorities had put the mudhills there to hide the

Travellers from the locals’ view.

242

Another resident, Mr Coussentien, commented that

when the children wake up in the morning all they see are mudhills. “They could at least

put something attractive, like rosebushes,” he said, “but not even that, only mud.”

243

Ac-

cording to Frédéric Lievy, Goutte d’Eau succeeded in preventing what would have been

much worse – the placing of thornbushes on the mudhills.

244

240

Seine-Saint-Denis, Seine-et-Marne, Essonne, Gironde, Dordogne, Bouches-du-Rhône, Vaucluse,

Rhône, Isère.

241

There also remain halting areas in Haute-Garonne that are in very poor condition or located in unac-

ceptable areas. For example: Portet s/Garonne is located approximately 500 metres from the landing
strip of a military airbase and just off a main road near an area that is constantly congested – residents
therefore inhale gas fumes regularly; Beauzelle/Seilh is near a sewage treatment plant and beneath high
tension wires – reportedly, residents are frequently sick and in summer the odours are so strong that it
is difficult to eat outside; Fonsorbes is also near a sewage treatment plant; Saint-Orens is situated in an
environment with considerable greenery, however it is far from the city and basic public services.

242

ERRC interview with Ms Reinhardt, March 7, 2004, Saint-Jean.

243

ERRC interview with Mr Coussentien, March 7, 2004, Saint-Jean.

244

ERRC interview with Mr Frédéric Lievy, March 7, 2004, Saint-Jean.

140

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

141

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

These mudhills, that also exist in other Departments, are not only relics from

older sites, but are also being enacted around new halting areas. For instance,

mudhills have been built around at least four recently created halting areas in

the Department: la Mounède in Toulouse, St. Orens, Balma, and Saint-Alban.

Mr Jean-Marc Huyghe, President of S.I.E.N.A.T.,

245

a syndicate of mayors “for

the welcome of Travellers in the greater Toulouse area”, commented that the

mudhills are in fact contradictory – they can be experienced as confinement or as

protection from the environment. He personally thought that they should remain,

but lower and with greenery.

246

Not one Gypsy or Traveller whom the ERRC

interviewed believed that there were any positive benefits to the mudhills. All

believed they were primarily to hide them from sight. The ERRC also found the

same mudhills, only much higher, surrounding a social housing neighbourhood

with a high percentage of Gypsies in Saint-Martin-du-Touche. Besides already

being located at the furthest extremity of the town of Saint-Martin-du-Touche,

and physically cut off from the rest of the population, the mudhills – which are

higher than the roofs of the houses – ensure that the neighbourhood is completely

hidden from view.

All too often halting areas are more reminiscent of places of detention than places

of residence. This effect is created through the physical appearance of the sites as well

as the checks and control of residents. Barriers surrounding sites, such as rings of mu-

dhills or barbed wire fences, create the feel of a detention area. In sites where there

is regular turnover of residents, there is generally a metal bar or gate blocking access

to the site. In order to enter with their caravans, Travellers have to check in with the

manager and provide proof of their identity. The ERRC visited one site, St. Menet in

Marseille, where the manager’s building was a concrete raised tower overlooking the

site with surveillance cameras on the roof.

247

Many of the older halting areas reportedly

adopted a style of management that closely resembled policing. Ms Claire Auzias,

former director of UNISAT,

248

and herself previously involved in managing halting

245

Syndicat intercommunal d’Etudes pour l’Accueil des nomades dans l’Agglomération Toulousaine.

246

ERRC interview with Mr Jean-Marc Huyghe, March 9, 2004.

247

ERRC visit to St Menet, May 5, 2004, Marseille. It was not clear whether the cameras were opera-

tional or not.

248

National Union of Institutions of Social Action for Gypsies.

142

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

143

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

areas, commented: “in the history of halting areas in France, in large part the only thing

that the municipalities asked was public peace... Many associations that managed halt-

ing areas found themselves in a role of supervision and policing.”

249

On some halting areas, this atmosphere of control and surveillance slides from

the merely unpleasant to severe interference of Travellers and Gypsies private, fam-

ily life and home.

For example, Mr Nounoune A., a young Traveller based in the west of France,

told the ERRC that near Rennes and Nantes are a series of small sites that are man-

aged by the municipal police. Those who stay have to leave their caravan papers and a

deposit with the city hall. “We are not given a key to the site,” he said, “instead police

open it and close us in like pigs.” There is just enough room for a car to get in and out

of the site, but to get their caravan out, resident Travellers need to go to the munici-

pality and pay. Their caravan papers and deposit are returned, and then the municipal

police come to let them out. Travellers cannot enter or leave with their caravans out-

side of the city hall’s business hours. This means that from late Friday afternoon until

Monday morning they cannot arrive or depart, regardless of the reason.

250

6.2 Continuing the Trend of Substandard Halting Areas: Proposals for New Sites

The majority of municipalities are simply not establishing halting areas on their

territory despite their obligations under the Besson Law. The additional two-year

period municipalities were recently granted in order to meet their obligations has

rewarded their inaction.

251

The lack of proposals inevitably reinforces the status quo,

whereby many Gypsies and Travellers are unable to find places to legally stop. Fur-

thermore, their situation promises to be increasingly precarious as tensions with resi-

dents continue and municipalities apply the measures set out in the Security Law.

249

ERRC interview with Ms Claire Auzias, May 7, 2004, Marseille.

250

ERRC interview with Mr Nounoune A., November 6, 2004, Orsay. Such practices interfere in a dis-

proportionate manner with Travellers’ right to non-interference in their private life, family life and
home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR.

251

Law no. 2004-809 of 13 August 2004 Relating to Local Freedoms and Responsibilities, J.O n° 190
du 17 août 2004, Article 201.

142

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

143

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

Those few municipalities that have proposed locations for halting areas have for

the most part demonstrated an intention to perpetuate and reinforce the existing pattern

of relegating Gypsies and Travellers to locations unsuitable for living and segregating

them from the rest of the population. Thus municipalities are proposing sites that are

polluted; on former garbage dumps or with dangerous materials buried beneath; or

beside garbage dumps, sewage treatment plants or high-risk industrial factories. The

sites are also systematically far away from the city centre, sometimes placed so that the

residents will use the services of the neighbouring municipality rather than their own.

For example, in the Department of Bouches-du-Rhône, the Departmental Plan was

signed on 1 March 2002 and from this date the municipalities had 2 years (until 1 March

2004) to establish halting areas. When the ERRC visited the Department in May 2004,

no new halting areas had yet been created. In fact, problems with existing older halting

areas had actually brought about a reduction in the available places.

252

The adjunct Prefect

(sous-Prefet) of the Bouches-du-Rhône Prefecture, Mr Gérard Péhaut told the ERRC:

...there are 150 places that exist in the Department,

253

140 in fact, and

these are occupied 100% of the time by persons who are ‘semi-seden-

tary’... There are no halting areas available. The real subject is the will-

ingness of municipalities to engage themselves in these projects. They

are waiting for us to impose sites upon them. The mayors don’t want to

assume the political responsibility of creating a halting area. There is

also a real problem with real estate. The few sites that are available are

in a flood zone, high risk Seveso zone, or are inaccessible. Most munici-

palities have not made any proposals...

In the Department of Bouches-du-Rhône, I will not easily refuse the pro-

posal of a mayor... The mayor is elected and the Travellers are not voters.

The rest of the population would vote against the mayor. It is difficult to

refuse a proposal here. I have refused many – either in a flood zone, a high-

risk Seveso zone, or between the garbage dump and the train tracks.

254

252

Association Rencontres Tsiganes. Dossier Presse. March 16, 2004.

253

Note that according to the Departmental Plan of Bouches-du-Rhône of 1 March 2002, between 1070

and 1470 places are required in the Department.

254

ERRC interview with Mr Gérard Pehaut, May 7, 2004, Marseille.

144

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

145

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

Mr Péhaut received one proposal from the seaside tourist town of Ciotat that he

accepted and told the ERRC that he wishes to hold up as an example. He explained

that the site has 3 handicaps: it was occupied by a car wreck, and so thousands of car

carcasses litter the site ; the site used to be a quarry and it is polluted; and it is danger-

ously located at a sharp bend in the road. “This is the site that I was proposed,” Mr.

Péhaut commented, “but it is in ‘la Ciotat’ with an enormous real estate pressure...

So, I said okay Mr mayor, you will have to clean the site and carry out large-scale

works in order to improve road access.”

With the additional deadline extension of two years, it is unlikely that any halting

areas will be created in the near future in the Bouches-du-Rhône.

Likewise, in all of the eight Departments of l’Ile-de-France (Paris and surrounding

Departments), the new halting areas that have been created since the passing of the

Besson Law could, as of March 2005, at the time of writing, be counted on one hand

with a total number of new places amounting to 126 (Osny and Jouy-le-Moutier

255

Val d’Oise both with 26 places, Les Ulis and Montgeron in Essonne with 40 and 20

places respectively, and Lieusaint

256

in Seine-et-Marne with 40 places). According

to the various Departmental Plans, 5721 places are required in Ile-de-France. And

some of these Departmental Plans (Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne and Val d’Oise)

already reduced the numbers of places originally projected on the basis of a needs as-

sessment in order to obtain political approval. Thus, from the outset, these Departments

intend to create fewer places than are required, which will leave a certain number of

persons without places to halt.

The halting area created in Les Ulis is located as far as possible from the centre of

the municipality. It is located across the freeway from the rest of the town, alongside

the cemetery and fields. Dust from the crematorium falls onto the caravans when the

255

This halting area was planned for years before the passing of the Besson Law.

256

It has been reserved by the Prefect for Roma migrants from Eastern Europe that have arrived in France
over the last 10-15 years, and require housing as they are living in indecent conditions in makeshift illegal
camps. Such persons, who seek permanent rather than short-term temporary housing, were not included
in the needs assessment upon which the figures in the Departmental Plan are based, and thus 40 more
places remain necessary in order to meet the needs established in the Departmental Plan. This situation
caused friction between newly arrived Roma and other Gypsies and Travellers who are French citizens
and thought that the halting area would be available for them.

144

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

145

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

wind blows in that direction. The halting area looks like a large parking lot without

trees or greenery. There are individualised toilet facilities, but the showers, located

at the entrance to the site are for collective use. Mr Francois Lacroix, Director of

AGDV commented: “How is it possible that we manage to do better for the dead than

for the living?” Comparatively, the cemetery next door that is carefully landscaped

with greenery is much more inviting than the halting area for Travellers. Likewise,

the second halting area created in the Department of Essonne, at Montgeron, is also

at the edge of the municipality. It is located behind a college and sports complex,

isolated from other residents of the municipality. This halting area also resembles a

parking lot, however, both the toilet and shower facilities have been individualised.

Residing on this halting area in October 2004 were a group of families who have

lived for more than thirty years in the area of the municipality.

257

Reportedly Jouy-le-Moutier is located between the Bois du Merisier (the Mer-

isier woods) and the gendarmery brigade. The maximum stay allowed at the halting

area is two months. The site is surrounded by barbed wire and mudhills. Osny is

located between the detention centre and commercial zone.

In another case, the Departmental Plan for the Rhône, approved on April 22,

2003, stipulates that 705 places are to be created on 41 halting areas. Municipalities

were to have created the halting areas by April of 2005. However, with the new ex-

tension granted in the Law of Local Freedoms and Responsibilities, they now have

until April of 2007. Three hundred ninety of these places are to be created in the

Greater Lyon area on 23 halting areas.

258

As of January 2005 only one halting area

had been created: in the town of Givors.

259

A number of old halting areas exist in the

Department (such as St. Priest, Pierre-Bénite, Chassieux, Feyzin/Saint-Fons, Vénis-

sieux, Mezieux, Lyon, Villeurbanne, Saint-Genis-Laval, Brignais and Rillieux-la-

Pape), however those on the site are sedentarised there, and the sites do not meet

basic standards of decency.

257

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Francois Lacroix, October 13, 2004, Paris.

258

Préfecture du Rhône. Schéma Departemental d’Accueil des Gens du Voyage du Rhône. April

2003, p. 10.

259

The municipalities of Rilleux la Pape and Chaponnost made available provisional sites for Travellers

to halt in the interim period.

146

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

147

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

However, according to Mr Henri Lacroix, official at the Urban Community of

Greater Lyon,

260

things have improved dramatically since the spring of 2004, with

municipalities putting forward acceptable proposals for sites.

261

According to another

official source,

262

as of the end of January 2005, 13 municipalities had put forward

proposals deemed acceptable. Nonetheless, all of the proposed sites remained isolat-

ed from other residents of the municipalities. Those few sites close to urban services

are near those of neighbouring municipalities rather than of the municipality creat-

ing the halting area.

263

Mr Lacroix also informed the ERRC that the municipality of

Feyzin negotiated with the neighbouring town of St. Fons in order to actually locate

its 15 place halting area on its neighbour’s territory. St. Fons was itself exonerated

from its obligation to create a 15 place halting area under the Borloo Law.

264

This lack of sufficient or appropriate halting areas is creating an unbearable situ-

ation for Gypsies and Travellers in France today. They find themselves chased from

municipality to municipality, being unable to stop anywhere, let alone in decent con-

ditions. Meanwhile public opinion seems to be becoming increasingly racist, encour-

aged by local officials who do not want Gypsies and Travellers in their municipality

and do not want to create halting areas. Furthermore, the public is generally given

the impression that “places are being created for the Travellers” and that caravans are

therefore “illegally invading” their municipalities.

Even in the unlikely event that a majority of municipalities create halting

areas as required by the Departmental Plans across the country, as things are

currently developing, Travellers and Gypsies will still likely be subject to a wide

range of serious human rights violations connected with their freedom of move-

ment and living conditions.

Besides being forced to reside in designated areas, often in indecent conditions,

Travellers also fear that there will be too few halting areas. These fears are founded

on the very real problem of underestimates in Departmental Plans as to the required

260

Mr Lacroix is attached to the General Delegation of Urban Development.

261

ERRC telephone interview with Henri Lacroix, January 25, 2005, Paris.

262

The identity of this source is not revealed due to the source’s request to remain anonymous.

263

ERRC telephone interview with anonymous source, January 25, 2005, Paris.

264

ERRC interview with Henri Lacroix, March 23, 2004, Lyon.

146

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

147

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

number of places. As a result, at any moment in time, a certain number of Travellers

and Gypsies will be unable to find places to halt legally as all existing halting areas will

be full. The non-governmental association Goutte d’Eau informed the ERRC that vari-

ous associations that have analysed all of the Departmental Plans estimate that the total

number of projected places only amount to between 60-80% of those actually required

by Travellers and Gypsies.

265

This means that between 20 and 40 percent of Travellers

will be unable to find a place in official halting areas at any one time.

The implications of a shortfall in places are dramatic in light of the draconian

provisions set out in the Security Law in case of “illegal stopping”. In addition, to

consecutive forced evictions, those persons unable to find places in official halting

areas will be subject to the Security Law’s penal sanctions: six months imprison-

ment, a fine of 3750 Euros, suspension of their drivers license for a period up to

three years and the seizure and confiscation of any vehicles used to carry out the

act of illegal stopping.

266

Furthermore, the lack of consultation with Gypsies and Travellers themselves as

to their actual needs has meant that most halting areas will not provide an appropriate

response to many families’ rights and housing needs.

267

265

ERRC interview with Mr Frédéric Lievy, March 7, 2004, Toulouse.

266

Article 53(1) and Article 53(2), Security Law.

267

Chapter III of this report provides a detailed discussion of the lack of consultation and participation of

Travellers and Gypsies in the “needs assessments” that formed the basis of Departmental Plans, as well
as their marginal voice on the “Departmental Consultative Commissions of Travellers” established in
each Department and involved in the implementation of the Departmental Plans. Council of Europe
Committee of Ministers Recommendation “on improving the housing conditions of Roma and Travel-
lers in Europe” provides that: “Member states should, as appropriate, provide Roma communities and
organisations with the means to participate in the process of conceiving, designing, implementing and
monitoring policies and programmes aimed at improving their housing situation.” (Paragraph 6) It also
recommends that member states should “encourage and promote empowerment and capacity-building
on a wider basis among Roma communities by fostering partnerships at local, regional and national lev-
els, as appropriate, in their policies aimed at addressing the housing problems facing Roma.” (Paragraph
7). Furthermore the recommendation stipulates that “Member states should ensure that proper coordi-
nation is provided in the field of housing between, on the one hand, the relevant national, regional and
local authorities and, on the other, the Roma populations and organisations who represent the majority
active in this field.” Committee of Ministers.

Recommendation to member states on improving the hous-

ing conditions of Roma and Travellers in Europe, Rec (2005)4.

148

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

149

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

Too often Gypsies and Travellers needs are assessed through stereotypical con-

ceptions of “nomad” and “sedentary”, which do not reflect the reality in which many

families move through nomadic and sedentary periods connected with family, religious

and economic factors. This means that for many, short-term halting areas are not a suf-

ficient or appropriate response and other options, such as possibilities to acquire family

sites (terrains familiaux), are in fact required.

268

This is also true for those Gypsies and

Travellers who spend a considerable amount of time in a specific geographical area and

desire a family site to serve as a base rather than being obliged to move constantly be-

tween designated halting areas. A great many Gypsies and Travellers in fact expressed

to the ERRC their desire for family sites. Like other citizens, they wish a place that is

theirs, and the freedom to come and go as they please without worrying that upon leav-

ing their accommodation there will no longer be a place for them to return to. They also

emphasised that they do not wish to be relegated to designated areas. It is evident that

while important in meeting some of the housing needs of some Gypsies and Travellers,

halting areas are only a partial response.

In addition, the regulations and design of halting areas have for the most part not

taken into adequate account families’ needs.

For instance, families’ requirements vary as to the length of time that they need to

remain at a given location, often linked with the schooling of children, employment

and medical reasons. However, halting areas tend to have fixed unflexible time limits

(shorter or longer depending on the type of halting area) after which families are kicked

out. This means that families may, for instance, find themselves forcibly evicted from a

halting area after two months even when their children are enrolled in the local school

that they wish to continue attending. Or, they may be evicted before they have com-

pleted work they are carrying out in the vicinity of the halting area. Similarly, they may

be kicked out of a site on which they wish to remain because it is located near a hospital

or clinic at which a family member is seeking long-term treatment.

Another example is the inadequate attention paid to the needs of those Travellers

and Gypsies who earn their living through recovering usable metals from scrap. A

268

These are sites on which a family is given possibilities to rent or acquire a plot of land on which to

live with other relatives or persons it chooses for as long as it wishes. This would mean that if all
persons at the family site decide to leave for a period of time others would not come on the site in
their place, as is the case for other persons living in rented or owned apartments.

148

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

149

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

large number of halting areas simply forbid such activities due to health concerns.

Sufficient alternatives, such as suitable storage and working areas near some sites,

have not, however, been established. This situation will place many families before

the choice of either not staying in designated areas (and thus being subject to penal-

ties) or abandoning their means of making a living.

The majority of Gypsies and Travellers the ERRC spoke with fear they will be

forced to completely stop travelling (whether for shorter or longer periods) due to the

lack of places to stop, conditions on the stopping areas and fear of not finding a place

as soon as they travel in their caravans.

Traveller Alexis Mignot summarised the situation as follows: “the lack of places

entails a prohibition of travel. When we are not sure to find a place to park our cara-

van we do not travel anymore.”

269

6.3 Denial of Water, Electricity, Sewage and Solid Waste Removal, and Other Basic

Facilities to Travellers and Gypsies on Their Own Land

During its research, the ERRC encountered families living on their land without

water, electricity or sewage in more than 25 different towns it visited. The ERRC

was also informed about many other similar cases. This is evidently an extremely

widespread problem likely affecting many thousands of Gypsy and Traveller fami-

lies throughout the country.

270

269

ERRC interview with Alexis Mignot, November 6, 2004, Orsay.

270

The intentional denial of access to potable water and electricity represents, inter alia, a breach of the right

to adequate housing and the right to health as defined by Articles 11 and 12 respectively of the ICESCR.
Considering that access to potable water and to electricity (used for such basic needs as heating, lighting,
energy for cooking, means of food storage) is internationally recognized as a necessary component for any
adequate housing, an intentional denial by the state of access to drinkable water and electricity violates
Article 11, and as a result Article 12. See

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General

Comment 4, The right to adequate housing, (Sixth session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III at 114
(1991), on the internet at:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/epcomm4.htm

General comment no. 15 goes further and explicitly defines access to potable water as a human right,

thus obliging signatories to not directly or indirectly block access to potable water. It is clearly
stated that: “Water and water facilities and services must be accessible to all, including the most

150

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

151

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

In the cases the ERRC documented, families were generally refused access to the

local water or electricity network by the town mayor on the grounds that the land on

which they reside is not zoned for construction. It seems that families living in their

caravans on non-constructible land are basically at the whim of local authorities. In

some municipalities, families encounter no difficulties accessing these basic utilities.

However, in others, access is denied even to families with children or individuals

who are critically ill and require electricity and water for medical treatment.

271

vulnerable or marginalized sections of the population, in law and in fact, without discrimination on

any of the prohibited grounds.” With respect to the non-discrimination principle, the Committee states
“Whereas the right to water applies to everyone, States parties should give special attention to those in-
dividuals and groups who have traditionally faced difficulties in exercising this right, including women,
children, minority groups (…).” The Committee finally notes “Water is required for a range of different
purposes, besides personal and domestic uses, to realize many of the Covenant rights. For instance,
water is necessary to produce food (right to adequate food) and ensure environmental hygiene (right to
health). Water is essential for securing livelihoods (right to gain a living by work) and enjoying certain
cultural practices (right to take part in cultural life). Nevertheless, priority in the allocation of water must
be given to the right to water for personal and domestic uses.” See Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, General Comment 15, The Right to Water (Articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant),
(Twenty-ninth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11.

271

Mayors often base their actions on Article L111-6 of the Urbanism Code or on their police powers.

Whether they are actually entitled to do so when families live in caravans on non-constructible land,
seems to be an area of legal confusion at lower Court levels. For example, Mrs Karine Moreau, Direc-
tor of National International Gypsy Social Association (ASNIT), Bouches-du-Rhône, told the ERRC
that in ASNIT’s experience, the Administrative Tribunal of Marseille grants water and electricity
quasi-systematically, however, in the neighbouring Department of l’Hérault, the Adminstrative Tri-
bunal of Montpellier refuses quasi-systematically. However, in a judgement of September 6, 2002,
the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) made clear that mayors did not have the right to deny families
a provisional connection to the electricity network even when they live on non-constructible land.
(Commune de Marignane, No. 243333, September 6, 2002, Conseil d’Etat). In a subsequent decision
on 12 December 2003 the Council of State confirmed this jurisprudence noting that a mayor cannot
deny a provisional connection either on the basis of his general police powers (under Article L. 2212-
2 of the General Code of Territorial Collectivities) or on the basis of article L.111-6 of the Urbanism
Code. (Tino Cancy, No. 257794, Conseil d’Etat, December 12, 2003).

A provisional connection involves what is known in France as a field connection [branchement de

chantier]. It involves temporary electricity installation commonly refered to as fairground meter [un
compteur forain], rather than a more permanent installation, for instance in the wall.

On the other hand, another recent decision of the Council of State has made clear that mayors can

refuse a permanent connection to the electricity network when caravans are parked in an illegal

150

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

151

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

The case of the Bayer family is illustrative. Sandra and Titus Bayer have been

fighting to receive basic utilities – water and electricity – since they moved onto their

property in the municipality of Gouvernes in November 2000.

272

Their land used to serve as a local garbage dump. It took the family four months

to clean the land and get rid of the piles of garbage bags before moving onto it with

their five children in order to establish their home there in two mobile homes.

By a decree of February 2, 2001, the mayor of Gouvernes, Mr Toni Vincent, refused

Ms Sandra Bayer’s request to maintain two caravans on her land for a period longer than

three months. He based this refusal on the fact that the area is a protected area (due to the

presence of a nearby stream) and that the local urban plan does not allow for the parking

of caravans for more than three months. He also made use of his administrative powers

to order the electricity company EDF-GDF Services to cut off the provisional connection

to electricity that had been established, and also to forbid the “French Company for the

Distribution of Water” (SFDE) to connect her land to the water network.

In fact, the Bayers are by no means the only residents in this protected area. Gou-

vernes is a small town and their property is at the edge of the village, not more than a

few minutes walk from the town city hall and school. There are neighbouring houses,

including a house that has recently been built, with the town’s permission, nearer to

the stream than the Bayers.

273

Mr Vincent later authorised a provisional connection to the electricity network

from December 2001 until 31 March 2002, however did not wish to allow the fam-

ily to receive electricity for a longer period. Sandra Bayer lodged a complaint to the

Court of First Instance of Meaux requesting that the provisional connection to the

electricity network be maintained and that the land be hooked up to the water net-

work as well. In a decision of 24 April 2002, the Court ordered EDF to maintain the

provisional connection to the electricity network until July 31, 2002. It also ordered

manner. The reasoning of the decision would also seem to apply to water, gas and telephone connec-

tions. See Legal Opinion of the Council of State, n° 266478, July 7, 2004.

272

They received the land in April 1998 through a donation, thus the municipality did not have the pos-

sibility of using its powers of ‘pre-emption’.

273

ERRC visit, February 10, 2004, Gouvernes.

152

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

153

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

the SFDE (Societe Francaise de Distribution d’Eau) to establish a connection to the

drinking water network, in the 48 hours following publication of the order, and to

supply the family with water until July 31, 2002.

In its ruling the Court stated that:

It is appropriate to honour these requests because they are the expres-

sion of the inalienable right to dignity of the human person who should,

whatever his situation, even illegitimate in the eyes of police laws, ben-

efit in a provisional manner, from the comforts and benefits of the public

services essential to life.

It is appropriate therefore to order EDF to maintain the provisional connec-

tion granted following the authorisation of the mayor of Gouvernes until the

end of the month of July 2002, a date that will allow the children to finish

the school year and the plaintiff to work out other housing solutions...

However Mr Vincent appealed this judgement, even requesting that the Court fine

Ms Bayer 2000 Euros for abusive procedure. The electricity company EDF-GDF and

the General Company of Water and the French Society of Water Distribution also

joined the appeal requesting that the First Instance Court’s judgement be overturned.

The mayor also refused to comply with the Order of the First Instance Court. He

issued a new Decree on 11 June 2002, reiterating his order to the electricity company

to cut off provisional connection and to the water company not to connect.

In June 2002, the Bayer family demonstrated in the public parking lot in front of the

city hall of Gouvernes over the city’s refusal to comply with the court order. Their dem-

onstration was unsuccessful. According to the Bayers, approximately thirty police offic-

ers were sent with a court order to remove them from the public parking lot. The Bayers

then put a sign on their fence stating that the mayor refuses to give five children water and

electricity. The family received a letter from the Departmental Service of Architecture

and the Patrimony of Seine-et-Marne ordering them to take down the sign as it is not in

harmony with the environment and infringes upon the quality of the classified area.

274

Letter 13 November 2001.

152

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

153

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of Paris on October 30, 2002.

The municipality, electrical and water companies won the appeal. The Court rea-

soned that permanent connections to the electricity and water networks fall under

the scope of Article L. 111-6 of the Urbanism Code, which does not allow for such

connections in case constructions or locales are not in a regular administrative situ-

ation. In addition to being denied electricity and water, Ms Bayer was ordered to

pay a sum of 300 Euros to the appealing parties and to pay the First Instance and

Appeal Court expenses.

275

Along with its refusal to grant the Bayers water and electricity, the municipal-

ity of Gouvernes has denied a range of other rights to the Bayers and engaged in

litigation to try to evict them from their land. The Bayers had to fight to enrol their

children in school and go to Court in order to be enrolled on the electoral lists. The

municipality also launched a penal procedure against Sandra Bayer for violation of

urban regulations. She was accused of parking two caravans in an area that is a pro-

tected area as well as of parking two caravans for more than three months out of the

year on her land in violation of the local urban plan. The municipality also launched a

penal procedure against the Bayer’s immediate neighbours – the only other Gypsies

living in caravans in the town – who have been residents since 1945. The Bayers lost

in the First Instance Court, in a judgement issued in July 2003, and were sentenced to

a fine of 1,500 Euros with reprieve; remove their caravans from their land, and return

the land to its initial state (the Bayers had covered part of their land with gravel). The

Court also ruled that after a period of 45 days following publication of the decision, if

the Bayers had not complied with the judgement, they were to pay a fine of 50 Euros

per day to the municipality for every day that they remained on their land. If 30 days

later, they still had not complied, their fine was to increase to 100 Euros per day.

276

The Bayers appealed the decision.

When the ERRC first interviewed the Bayers in February 2004, they were extreme-

ly anxious. They had remained on their land, as it was their home, they had nowhere

else to go, their children attended the local school, and they were waiting for their case

275

Judgement of Court of Appeal of Paris, Municipality of Gouvernes v Bayer, 14

Chamber, section A,

30 October 2002.

276

Judgement by the First Instance Court of Meaux (tribunal de grande instance de Meaux), third cham-
ber, July 11, 2003.

154

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

155

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

to be heard by the Court of Appeal. However, in the meantime each day they remained

on their land meant an additional fine of 100 Euros per day. They told the ERRC that

if they lost in the Court of Appeal, they knew that they would not be able to pay and

did not know what they would do in that case. Titus was unable to sleep or eat. Sandra

had been to the hospital four times with stomach pains, but the doctors couldn’t find

anything precise. Sandra was given medication to calm her nerves.

277

On 26 April 2004, the Court of Appeal of Paris found Sandra Bayer to be guilty

of the charges against her but ruled that the penalty of 1,500 Euros with reprieve con-

stituted sufficient sanction given the personal situation of Sandra Bayer. The Bayers

were thus able to remain on their land.

278

However, this decision did not resolve the long battle that the Bayers have been

waging in order to be hooked up to the local water and electricity network. As this

decision effectively gives the Bayers the right to continue to live on their land, their

lawyer requested the municipality to grant them a connection to the water network.

The city’s lawyer reportedly did not respond to his letter.

The Bayers therefore had to lodge another legal complaint in order to try

once again to obtain water and electricity. In an interview on September 14,

2004, Sandra Bayer told the ERRC: “We have to find 1,500 Euros again to go to

court. I do not know where we will fish it from – the river? We already had to

borrow money from family members in order to pay for the different court cases.

This has lasted for four years. We are not beggars. If we did not have this on our

backs, we could live normally.”

279

In a referee procedure,

280

the Bayers requested that the court order the mayor

of Gouvernes to provide the required authorisation so that they may receive drink-

ing water within a five-day period.

281

The Administrative Tribunal of Melun ruled

277

ERRC interview with Sandra and Titus Bayer, February 10, 2004, Gouvernes.

278

Judgement of Paris Court of Appeal (Cour d’Appel de Paris), 13

chamber, section A, 26 April

2004.

279

ERRC telephone interview with Sandra and Titus Bayer, September 14, 2004, Paris.

280

A fast-track procedure based on the urgency of the matter before the Court.

154

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

155

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

against the Bayers, rejecting the request finding that the required condition of ur-

gency for a referee procedure was not met. In its ruling the court reasoned that as the

Court of Appeal decision of 26 April 2004 found Ms Bayer to be guilty of violating

urban regulations, “she is not founded in claiming that the interest connected with

being connected to the drinking water network has priority over the defense of urban

rules and considerations linked to the protection of the environment; that, as a result,

the condition of urgency foreseen in the abovementioned provisions are not met...”

The court also ordered the Bayers to pay a sum of 1000 Euros to the municipality of

Gouvernes to cover its fees engaged in the procedure.

The Administrative Tribunal of Melun continues to have before it a substantive

complaint on the merits which should be examined in mid-2005. However, the Bay-

ers told the ERRC that they are unsure whether they will be able to continue with the

procedure as they can no longer pay the associated legal costs.

282

The Bayers were connected to the electricity network in the beginning of 2003. The

mayor of Gouvernes reportedly agreed to connect them provided that the family stopped

the publication of an article in the local press describing the inhuman conditions in which

the family had to live and the serious effect of these conditions on the health of the Bay-

ers’ daughter. In the meantime, however, the Bayers continued to live without drinking

water. Titus Bayer told the ERRC: “We have to take the truck to get water from the fire

hydrant on the market so that we can have showers, like thieves. Everyday I have to go

get water. And then they say: “You steal water”... We ask for the minimum to live. We

have 10-15 square metres of living space. All we want is to be able to live on our own

land in decent conditions.”

283

281

The Bayers lawyer, Mr Henri Gerphagnon argued that the Council of State in decision No. 257794

of 12 December 2003 found that a mayor of a municipality does not have the power to oppose a
provisional connection to the electricity network, either based on his general police powers or on the
provisions of article L111-6 of the Urbanism Code. He noted that although this judgment concerned
a provisional connection to the electrical network, it can be transposed to litigation with respect to
the drinking water network. He also argued that the opposition of a mayor to connect a family to the
drinking water network violates article 8 of the ECHR, right to non-interference in private, family
life and home. In addition, he argued that the French Code of the Environment sets out in its article
L210-1 that use of water belongs to all.

282

By mid-August 2005, the case has not yet been heard. ERRC telephone interview with Sandra and

Titus Bayer, December 19, 2004, Paris.

283

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Titus Bayer, September 14, 2004, Paris.

156

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

157

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

The ERRC tried repeatedly to obtain an interview with Mr Toni Vincent, mayor

of Gouvernes, to discuss the situation of the Bayers, however received no response.

In another revealing case, Ms J.Winterstein bought land in 1990 in the municipality

of Isle- Saint-George, a small town outside of Bordeaux, on which she lives with her

husband in a caravan. The couple also built a small bungalow that serves as a kitchen

and sitting room. The first year the Wintersteins lived on the land they received elec-

tricity. However, they were then refused on the grounds that they are in a flood zone.

They have lived on their land for 13 years without water or electricity. Today, the situa-

tion has become critical for the family as Mr M. Winterstein is critically ill. He requires

electricity for his chemotherapy treatment. The Wintersteins told the ERRC that they

are trying to set up a meeting with the mayor, but he refuses to receive them.

284

The Wintersteins are not the only family in the town of Isle-Saint-George living

in a flood-risk zone. In fact, according to Mr Jean Andre Lemire, the town mayor, the

whole village is a flood-risk zone, except the tip of the castle. However, other villagers

living in houses have water and electricity. Mr Lemire told the ERRC: “The problem

for me is that from the moment I give electricity, I accept that it is for them to live here.

But since this is a flood zone, we consider that they should not live here.” As to the other

houses in the village, the mayor explained that they can go up a floor if there is a flood.

He added that he “cannot do anything about what already existed before he became

mayor.”

285

Seven new houses were recently built in the village. The mayor explained,

however, that these are the only constructions in eight years and that they are built on

stilts so that water can pass beneath them. Mr M. Winterstein told the ERRC that he

had proposed to the mayor to raise his caravan by 3 metres as well, but his proposal was

not accepted. As to the urgency due to Mr Winterstein’s state of health, Mr Lemire told

the ERRC that: “They have a nice car. There are other areas in the Department where

they could buy land. Anyway, they are connected to the neighbour’s electricity supply.

I am sure. During the last electricity cut, I happened to be in front of the house passing

by on the street. I looked and saw that all of the caravans lit up and then turned off. I

realised that they had managed to hook themselves up. So, from a human perspective I

know they have electricity.”

286

The mayor responded in a similar manner to a letter by

284

ERRC interview with Ms J. Winterstein and Mr M. Winterstein, March 4, 2004.

285

Mr Lemire has been mayor of Isle-Saint-Georges since June 1995.

286

ERRC interview with Mr. Lemire, March 4, 2004, Isle-Saint-George.

156

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

157

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

a collective of local associations working for the improvement of the living conditions

of Gypsies

287

requesting that out of human compassion the Wintersteins be connected

to the local infrastructure.

The ERRC also discussed the case of the Wintersteins in Isle-Saint-George with

Mr Paul Buchou, Director of Development of State Projects at the Prefecture of Gi-

ronde. He commented that: “We cannot grant to Travellers what we do not grant to

normal people. The law has to be the same for all... There are rules. On a piece of

land, when one buys, one cannot do whatever one wants. In the name of what would

we authorise to Travellers what we do not authorise for everyone else? It is equal-

ity before the law. They have a problem of understanding the law. In their culture,

when they buy something, they think that they can park their caravans and do as they

please. But there are zoning rules. They do not recognise this.”

288

This response is

typical of the position of many authorities concerning their refusal to grant access to

basic utilities to Travellers on land not zoned for residential construction.

289

What this response ignores, however, is the fact that the many instances of Trav-

ellers and Gypsies who buy land not zoned for construction are to a large extent a

consequence of the systematic discrimination and racism that they face in France. It

ignores the fact that there is virtually no place on French territory zoned for individu-

als to reside legally in caravans, except the few designated halting areas. It ignores

287

This is a collective of Gypsy organisations or organisations working with Gypsies that aims at con-

tributing to the improvement of the living conditions of Gypsies.

288

ERRC interview with Mr Paul Buchou, March 4, 2004, Bordeaux.

289

In his partly dissenting opinion in the case of Buckley v. United Kingdom, Judge Lohmus directly ad-

dressed such an argument that was presented by the British authorities in this case that also involved
a Gypsy family. He stated that: “Living in a caravan and travelling are vital parts of Gypsies’ cultural
heritage and traditional lifestyle. This fact is important to my mind in deciding whether the correct
balance has been struck between the rights of a Gypsy family and the general interest of the commu-
nity. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Resolution (75) 13 noted the need to safeguard
the cultural heritage and identity of nomads. It has been stated before the Court that the applicant as
a Gypsy has the same rights and duties as all the other members of the community. I think that this is
an oversimplification of the question of minority rights. It may not be enough to prevent discrimina-
tion so that members of minority groups receive equal treatment under the law. In order to establish
equality in fact, different treatment may be necessary to preserve their special cultural heritage.”
Buckley v. The United Kingdom, Judgement by the European Court of Human Rights of August 26,
1996, application number 23/1995/529/615.

158

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

159

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

the very difficulty for Travellers and Gypsies to find any place to buy due to pre-

emptions. It ignores the fact that it is virtually impossible for Travellers to benefit

from loans and that they must therefore pay for their purchases in cash. It ignores the

increasing difficulties for Travellers and Gypsies to work due to difficulties finding

places to stop and regulations placed on the trades that many exercise. It also ignores

the fact that unlike other segments of society, Travellers and Gypsies are systemati-

cally left out of the wide number of governmental measures to assist the poorest and

most marginalised segments of society in acquiring decent housing. In addition, it

ignores the fact that there tend to be no options, such as rental, between travelling and

stopping on designated areas and buying private property.

The ERRC asked families it met, why they bought land that was not zoned for

construction. Ms Sandra Bayer repeated what the ERRC heard from many other indi-

viduals: “We simply do not have the means to buy land that is zoned for construction.

If we had money, we certainly would not buy land at the edge of the village, land

that is on the fringes of society. We do not have property – we have a caravan. And

we are already struggling to pay the credit for the caravan.”

290

The problem of means

is magnified for Travellers as compared to other citizens in a comparable socio-eco-

nomic situation due to Travellers’ difficulties in obtaining loans and their exclusion

from different forms of housing assistance that could facilitate their acquisition of

constructible land.

Another Traveller, Mr Albert Winterstein-Benony, himself unable to receive

drinking water on his land in Hérieux due to the mayor’s refusal, pointed out that:

Although the price is obviously a factor, another difficulty lies in the

fact that on constructible land, you have to build. You have a period of

five years in which to build. We do not know where to go. If we were on

constructible land, we would have to build and we do not want to. But

we do not have the right to be on non-constructible land either. They

want us to live only in ‘designated’ places. But my family cannot live

like that; in community with others and in those conditions. We tried for

a while in Saint Priest. We stayed for three months. It was unlivable, be-

ing on top of others, sharing a toilet, the dirt. The shower did not work...

290

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Sandra Bayer, September 14, 2004, Paris.

158

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

159

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

So, where can we go? We cannot legally live on either constructible or

non-constructible land.

291

6.4 Substandard Living Conditions in Areas of Permanent Settlement

Many of the poorest and most marginalised Gypsies and Travellers, those who

could not afford to buy their own land, settled in the only areas in which they were

able to remain without being chased out by municipal officials. Hidden from the rest

of the population, such persons have lived for decades in slum conditions that the

ERRC was shocked to discover in France. Going into these neighbourhoods, one has

the impression of entering another country altogether, places with a completely dif-

ferent standard of living and development possibilities. It is like going from the first

world to a third world slum in the space of a few minutes.

In the small town of Saint-Médard-d’Eyrans, eighteen kilometres from Bor-

deaux, a group of families lived along the Chemin de Bédard, a small dirt road lead-

ing into the woods for at least forty years. Dr Marion, a local doctor who has treated

the families for twelve or thirteen years, told the ERRC that there were on average 20

caravans parked along the dirt road. They generally stayed the winter and some left

during the summer. The land was sold to an industrialist, who has begun to prepare

the site in order to build a factory and the families have been told to leave.

292

291

ERRC telephone interview with Albert Winterstein-Benony, September 14, 2004, Paris. In March

2003, Mr Winterstein and Ms Benony asked the local water company to supply their residence with
drinkable water. They learned that the water company required written permission from the local
mayor, Mr Gérard Thollot. They offered to pay for the procedure themselves and submitted a written
request to the mayor’s office on March 12

, 2003, asking for his approval. Mr Winterstein and Ms

Benony received a written denial on April 12

, 2003 from the mayor’s office stating that despite the

fact that the local zoning regulations in the non-constructible zone in which they live do not forbid
the parking of caravans, such parking is subject to conditions with respect to public facilities. The
letter further indicated that given the agricultural character of the sector and existing capacity of the
infrastructure, the municipality does not intend to develop the public network of water, sanitation and
electricity. However, when it visited the Winterstein-Benony family on March 25, 2004, the ERRC
noted that homes or farms with access to potable water had been constructed upon the majority of
parcels neighbouring the Benony/Winterstein residence. Thus, their residence appears to be unique
in not having access to drinkable water.

292

ERRC telephone interview with Dr Marion, June 18, 2004, Paris.

160

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

161

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

According to the non-governmental association Doctors of the World (MDM), the

mayor of Saint-Médard-d’Eyrans previously wrote a newspaper article stating that these

families are part of the village. But now the city says there is nothing that they can do for

the families. The municipality claims that the families were previously “tolerated”, but

they are illegally there and the land has been sold, so the families have to leave.

293

The ERRC visited the site on the afternoon of March 4, 2004. There were

only three broken down caravans parked along the path and a bulldozer plow-

ing the land nearby. Garbage was overflowing from an open pit just behind the

caravans, and a few rats ran by. The residents told the ERRC that there used to be

much more garbage – the bulldozer covered some of it up for them. According to

the residents and Dr Marion, quite a few villagers have for years treated the area

as a local garbage dump.

Ms Duprun told the ERRC, “We have lived here for generations. We know eve-

ryone from the village. The nurse who assisted my mother when she gave birth to

me, the teachers. We do our laundry in the river and live amongst the rats. There are

thousands of rats. Rats cover the area like sand and they are all bald...At night it’s

awful if we need to go out to the toilet. We do not know where to step. The doctors

say we are at risk of catching typhus. May and June will be hot months; there will

surely be lots of rats.” For years sewage has run into the nearby river that the families

use to wash themselves and to do laundry.

294

The families get drinking water from

the town cemetery and use candles for light. According to Dr Marion, they evidently

have health problems linked with their living conditions. There are a lot of cases

of gastroenteritis and there have also been cases of tuberculosis. One of the older

women was recently affected by tuberculosis.

295

The many families that used to live along this path have nowhere to go. Some

are living between Saint-Médard-d’Eyrans and neighbouring villages, stopping

briefly in each village until they get evicted. Others are now living deep in the

293

ERRC participation in meeting of Collective of Gypsy Associations and Associations working with

Gypsies, March 1, 2004, Bordeaux.

294

ERRC interview with Ms Duprun, March 4, 2004, Saint-Médard-d’Eyrans. A recently built sewage

treatment plant now treats some of this waste, but some still runs into the river.

295

ERRC telephone interview with Dr Marion, June 18, 2004, Paris.

160

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

161

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

woods. Ms Sorbier-Duprun was returning home to the woods with other family

members when the ERRC met her. She told the ERRC that her family had been in

the woods for 15 days. “At night you cannot even see your hand in front of your

face. We have to go 15 kilometres just to get water. We do not send our children

to school anymore. We are now too far away and our living conditions too poor to

send our children to school.”

296

Ms Duprun told the ERRC that her family has tried to leave, but as soon as they

stop somewhere else, they are chased away. She said that they have not managed to

stay more than one day in any one place. So, they stay where they are. She also em-

phasised that they are prepared to pay to live on a piece of land. The Duprun family

has been requesting social housing for five years. The town built a social housing

complex two years ago. The Duprun family was refused, however, on the grounds

that none of the housing offered was sufficiently large to house the whole family.

297

Another slum settlement, “Clos de la pionne”, in Avignon, can be reached only

by making a dangerous turn of about 230 degrees off a major freeway onto a small

dirt road. Approximately 50 caravans line the road, parked in different lots, with up

to five caravans in each. Based on average numbers of persons per caravan, there are

approximately 200-300 people living at the site.

Clos de la pionne is located between two sewage treatment plants, a freeway and a

railroad track. During an ERRC visit to the site on May 7, 2004, there was an intense,

noxious odour in the air. The odour came from the slow-moving stream that runs just

next to the site, with its steep banks not more than a few metres from the closest cara-

vans. The waste from one of the sewage treatment plants, the “Usine de traitement

des eaux usées la Courtine”, drains into the stream. Some of the families took the

ERRC to their lots (close to the stream) where the odour, resembling toilets that have

not been cleaned for many months, was strong enough to be almost unbearable. The

families told the ERRC that in summer the odour becomes even more intense.

The Vigoureux, Hindercheid and Dubois family members that the ERRC spoke

with at the site have been there for between 15 and 20 years. The sewage treatment

296

ERRC interview with Ms Sorbier-Duprun, March 4, 2004, Saint-Médard-d’Eyrans.

297

ERRC interview with Ms Duprun, March 4, 2004, Saint-Médard-d’Eyrans.

162

163

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

plant was reportedly built in the late eighties, without taking into account the fami-

lies living here. Mr. Antoine Vigoureux told the ERRC: “Things used to be fine

here. This used to be a woods. But they cut everything down and built a sewage

treatment plant.”

298

This site was initially made available to a number of Traveller and Gypsy fami-

lies by the city of Avignon around 1986. According to a reliable anonymous source,

the city was already aware that there would be a sewage treatment plant in the vicin-

ity at the time the families were moved to the site.

299

Residents pay rent to the city of

Avignon in order to remain at this location. Mrs Hindercheid told the ERRC that her

family pays the city 2000 francs (approximately 305 Euros) per year for their lot.

300

On the day of the ERRC’s visit, 7 May 2004, residents were particularly worried

about the state of health of their children. Numerous persons repeated to the ERRC

that their children are always sick. One of the men told the ERRC that his one-month

old baby had just spent five days in hospital with a rash on her face and microbes.

Another woman added that her son had recently spent one month in the hospital for

something similar. And another that her son had just spent 15 days in the hospital as

well. Besides the smell of sewage, the families are also plagued by rats, especially at

night. The families live without hot water. They wash with water from a basin. The

electricity supply is also far below basic needs.

All of the residents that the ERRC spoke with expressed the desire to move to

another site. City officials have apparently been promising to move them for three

years. The city has begun building a four-lane freeway which is to run through their

site. The residents therefore expect to be moved soon.

301

As of March 2005, however,

the families remained at the site with no news of their relocation.

A few kilometres away, another slum neighbourhood, known as “Terminus

Montclar”, is located directly below the freeway (Rocade Charles DeGaulle). The

neighbourhood, populated almost entirely by Gypsies, can be reached by follow-

298

ERRC interview with Mr Antoine Vigoureux, May 7, 2004, Avignon.

299

ERRC telephone interview with a person who wishes to remain anonymous, March 17, 2005.

300

ERRC interview with Ms Hindercheid, May 7, 2004, Avignon.

301

ERRC interview with Dubois, Hindercheid and Vigoureux families.

164

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

165

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

ing the exit sign marked “decheterrie” (garbage dump). Local non-governmental

associations estimate that there are at least 500 people living in this neighbourhood,

including more than 200 young children. The main road is lined with caravans and

small makeshift houses, built of scrap materials with sheet metal roofs. After the last

small house, the road comes to a dead end at the garbage dump.

At the time of an ERRC visit on May 7, 2004, there was no drinking water or

sewage. Only about half the residents had electricity, but it frequently cut out.

302

Con-

ditions are such that a recent newspaper article characterised the area as “Avignon’s

third world”.

303

Residents told the ERRC that they have problems with rats because

of the neighbouring garbage dump. One resident, Ms G. Riviera, said that her moth-

er-in-law had lived at the site for 45 years. Many others had lived there just as long.

She said that they have been requesting water, electricity and toilets for years, but the

municipality had still not provided these basic amenities.

304

In December 2004, the city connected the area to the electricity network and, in

March of 2005, was in the process of providing drinking water to the site. However,

there were still no plans to establish any form of sewage system on the site.

Mr Alain Fourest, President of the non-governmental association Rencontres

Tsiganes

305

and consultant in urban planning, later told the ERRC that “there used

to be a Gitan

306

neighbourhood in the historical center of Avignon, at the foot of

the Popes’ Palace (Palais des Papes). Evidently that was unacceptable. So, they de-

stroyed the neighbourhood and moved the Gitans somewhere else; far away from the

centre of the city. They were moved to Montclar ... where you saw them.”

307

Some

of the Gypsies from the former Pope’s Palace neighbourhood were initially moved

302

ERRC visit to Clos de la Pionne, May 7, 2004.

303

Jaureguy, Tristan. “Les habitants du ‘Terminus’ lancent un appel a l’aide”, La Provence, Monday

April 26, 2004.

304

ERRC interview with Ms Riviera, May 7, 2004, Avignon.

305

Rencontres Tsiganes is a Non-Governmental Association in the Region of Provence Alpes Cote

d’Azur.

306

Gitan/Kale refers to Gypsy populations that came to France from the Iberic Peninsula (from Catalo-

nia to Andalusia).

307

ERRC interview with Mr Alain Fourest, May 7, 2004, Marseille.

164

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

165

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

to another location in the historical centre of Avignon. However, with recent renova-

tions, these families are also being forced to leave the historical centre, and for the

most part going to Terminus Montclar.

308

Another slum camp is located in Picarel, an area in an industrial zone of Tou-

louse. The ERRC had to follow a social worker from a local non-governmental

association

309

in order to find the neighbourhood, inhabited mostly by Gypsy

families, so isolated is it from the rest of the city. In part, the area consists of

small houses, built by the city 18 years ago for persons that lived in the renowned

Ginestous Camp.

310

However, next door to the houses, is a makeshift camp area.

In it approximately 20 families, including at least 55 children, live in rundown

caravans, most of which no longer function, or the back of heavy duty trucks, con-

verted into houses. There is provisional electricity and water faucets, however no

showers, sewage or toilets.

Ms Ginette Mencarelli, one of two women appointed as representatives by the

camp’s residents, lives in the approximately ten square metre space of a former

truck with her husband and two young children. She explained that the residents

of this camp are mostly the youth of the families living in houses, who got mar-

ried. “The city does not want us here”, she said. “If they would build us houses, or

provide us with a ‘designated area’, we would go there. We are forbidden to build

here – that includes things such as showers and toilets. But, it has been years that

we have been living on this parking lot. So, I built myself a shower. The deputy

mayor and municipal official delegated to this neighbourhood told us we did not

have the right to build anything and that they would destroy the shower.”

311

As of

308

ERRC interview with Mr Alain Fourest, October 15, 2004, Paris.

309

Coordination Committee for the Promotion and in Solidarity with Communities in Difficulty: Mi-
grants and Gypsies (C.C.P.S.).

310

In 1951 in order to rid Toulouse of mini slum neighbourhoods, the city created the “provisional”

camp of Ginestous to house Gypsies, immigrant workers and immigrant families evicted from their
housing. In 1964 the municipality built walls around the camp and placed a police station at its en-
trance. Over the years, the camp’s population was in its large majority composed of Gypsies. Located
in a flood zone, it experienced various floods over the years, but a flood in 2000 finally resulted in the
camp’s definitive closure.

311

ERRC interview with Ms Ginette Mencarelli, March 9, 2004, Toulouse.

166

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

167

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

January 2005, the shower had not yet been destroyed, although Ms Mencarelli still

feared its imminent destruction.

312

Ms Michele Benete is the second representative of the residents of the area. She

has lived at the site for around five years. She told the ERRC that the residents are

fighting to get showers and toilets installed. She showed the ERRC letters that they

had written since 2001 to governmental officials at all levels, from the French Presi-

dent to the local mayor, along with the responses that they had received. Each level

delegated the issue to the one below. Ms Benete said that following these letters

representatives of the PMI

313

office came to the camp to propose “hygiene” courses.

“We gave them a little tour of our ‘neighbourhood’ and their mouths fell open. They

did not know what to say. We said ‘first give us showers and toilets and then come

talk to us about hygiene.’”

314

The ERRC found a similar situation in the Ruisseau Mirabeau neighbourhood

of Marseille. In an industrial zone, off the main road running from Marseille to

Estaques, social housing, consisting of small houses, was built 20 years ago for

Gypsy families that had lived in a slum neighbourhood. However, their children

and relatives live further up the hill, with their caravans squeezed next to each other

into a small lot surrounded by high concrete walls. There are no toilets, showers or

sewage on this lot. Families have been living here for at least ten years. Two years

ago, two caravans burned, which caused municipal officials to promise to rehouse

the inhabitants.

315

According to Mr Fourest, however, these promises are not likely

to materialise into a concrete project for at least two or three years.

316

In some areas where Gypsies and Travellers have been tolerated for many dec-

ades, families have managed to create a relatively comfortable living environment.

312

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Ginette Mencarelli, January 12, 2005, Paris.

313

Maternal and Infant Protection (protection maternelle et infantile) offices cater to families, pregnant

women and children under six years of age. They offer preventive medical care, as well as psycho-
logical, social and educational services for future parents and for children.

314

ERRC interview with Ms Michele Benete, March 10, 2004, Toulouse.

315

ERRC visit, 5 May 2005, Marseille.

316

ERRC interview with Mr Alain Fourest, October 15, 2004.

166

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

167

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

However, they continue to be denied basic utilities and live in fear of eviction as they

have no security of tenure.

317

For example, a large group of Gypsies live near Rue de Corse in an agricul-

tural zone in the city of Argenteuil, in Val d’Oise (between 500 and 700 persons,

including at least 300 children). Some are property owners, others rent, and others

are squatters. Many of the adults have lived in the neighbourhood for between 20-

25 years, and the children attend a local school. In addition to approximately 4-5

caravans on each lot, some residents have built bungalows and others houses. The

property owners the ERRC met have water and electricity. However, these basic

amenities are refused by municipal officials to most of those without land title.

There is no sewage in the area, so residents have built their own septic tanks. The

main road is bumpy and built with sand and gravel. A number of property owners

told the ERRC that the city has not paved the main road running through the neigh-

bourhood despite their multiple requests and the fact that they pay their local taxes

like all other residents of the municipality.

When the ERRC visited the neighbourhood on October 13, 2004, those fami-

lies without title were extremely anxious due to the precariousness of their situ-

ation, fearing that they would soon be expelled. Their fears were fueled in May

2003 by a pile of letters given to one of the residents at the entrance to the neigh-

bourhood. Written on letterhead from the municipality of Argenteuil and signed

by the Deputy Mayor Georges Mothron, the letter indicated that the agricultural

sector, in which their neighbourhood is located, is in need of a “cleaning up” in

order to preserve it and return it to its primary vocation as an agricultural zone.

The letter continued that this will make it possible to develop outdoor installations

and projects in this sector of more than 40 hectares. It noted that in the short term

317

The security of tenure is one of the components of adequate housing (See General Comment 4 of

the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at footnote p.229 supra. Failure of the
authorities to ensure security of tenure therefore implicates a violation of the right to adequate hous-
ing provided by Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR). It is also contrary to the recent recommendation by Council of Europe Committee of
Ministers on “improving the liviging conditions of Roma and Travellers in Europe” that states that:
“Member states, bearing in mind that the right to housing is a basic human right, should ensure that
Roma are protected against unlawful eviction, harassment and other threats regardless of where they
are residing.” Committee of Ministers.

Recommendation to member states on improving the housing

conditions of Roma and Travellers in Europe, Rec (2005)4, paragraph 23.

168

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

169

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

there would be a general cleaning of car shards, gravel and other debris, followed

at a later stage by larger works, such as ploughing of lots, in such a manner as to

put an end to illicit occupations. The letter invited the property owners or rights

holders to make themselves known to the municipality.

318

Residents told the ERRC

that they feared that they would be expelled in the spring of 2005, after the winter

freeze on evictions. As of August 2005, they had not yet been evicted, however,

representatives of the city hall reportedly came to the site during the summer to

verbally inform them that they would be evicted in the spring of 2006.

319

While at the site, the ERRC was presented to Ms M. Winterstein, who said that

her family along with eight other families who lived on two lots, were to be evicted

the following day. The group included 14 or 15 children who attend the local school.

The families had been taken to Court in March 2004 by the property owners, who

had sold the land to the municipality but were to receive their money on condition

that they evict the occupants.

320

The residents lost the case, and Ms Winterstein told

the ERRC that the families did not have the means to appeal the decision. The fami-

lies had lived here for at least 20 years. At the end of June 2004, they received a letter

informing them that their eviction was planned and that they should free the location

and remove their furniture. The owner and bailiff came to their property at a later

date to warn the family that the bulldozers and police would come on October 14,

2004 to clear the land and carry out the eviction. In order to at least recuperate some

of the building materials as well as their furniture, the families themselves destroyed

their five chalets (used as a kitchen and living space) just before their October 14,

2004 deadline when the bulldozers were scheduled to arrive.

When the ERRC saw

the site, only the floors of the chalets remained, along with 11 caravans and toilets.

318

Mothron, George. Lettre aux Riverains, May 28, 2003, Argenteuil.

319

ERRC interview with Ms Winterstein, August 15, 2005, Paris.

320

On October 14, the owner told the non-governmental organisation National Catholic Association of

Travellers (ANGVC) that he had wanted to sell his land to the occupants in 1995, but the sale had
been blocked by the municipality using their powers of pre-emption. The same thing had also oc-
curred in 1999. He said that he needed money and the municipality had now proposed a decent price
to buy the land as long as he evicted the occupants. A municipality can only legally pre-empt a sale if
there is a clear project of public utility. In this case, the owner informed the ANGVC that the reason
given had been that this is agricultural land. This would not constitute a legal reason for pre-emp-
tion. It seems that the municipality has not yet developed a clear project of public utility covering the
property. ERRC interview with Ms Anne Marie Auger, ANGVC, October 15, 2004, Paris.

168

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

169

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

On October 14, the bulldozers arrived in the morning; however, the families re-

mained on the land in their caravans. The bulldozers then left and the families were

informed that they would return at 2:00 PM as planned. Slightly before 2:00 PM,

the bulldozers arrived along with the owner, a representative of the municipality and

the police. Only one caravan had moved, and the bulldozer dug trenches around the

location to ensure that it would not be possible for the caravan to return. However,

journalists and a number of other representatives of non-governmental associations

and the Green Party arrived. It became clear that there was no official eviction order

approved by the Prefect as is legally required for an eviction. The bulldozers did not

carry out any further action and the families remained on the land through the win-

ter. The families, however, were evicted in the spring of 2005 when the media was

no longer focused on their situation. As of August 2005, they were living with other

family members on a nearby lot. Ms Winterstein told the ERRC that city officials had

warned them that they would be evicted from this lot in March 2006.

321

6.5 Discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers in Access to Social Housing

Patterns of discrimination and segregation of Gypsies and Travellers are also wide-

spread when it comes to the rental of HLM (social housing meant for those with low

income),

322

despite national legislation explicitly forbidding such discrimination.

323

Gypsies and Travellers often find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to gain

access to an HLM, even when they meet criteria related to financial resources and

321

ERRC interviews with Ms M. Winterstein, October 13, 2004, Argenteuil and August 15, 2005, Paris.

322

It should be noted that other groups, such as recent migrants or persons of “immigrant origin” also experi-

ence discrimination in the social housing sector. See for example S.O.S. Racisme. Bilan et perspectives
des politiques publiques de lutte contre les discriminations raciales et ethniques dans l’accès au logement.
March 21, 2002, available at:

http://www.millenaire3.com/contenus/rapports/sos_racisme.pdf

323

Article 158 of the Law of Social Modernisation of January 17, 2002 provides that: “No one is to be refused

housing on the grounds of origin, name, physical appearance sex, family situation, state of health, handi-
cap, customs, sexual orientation, political opinions, union activities or belonging or non-belonging real or
supposed to an ethnicity, nation, race, or particular religion.” Furthermore it provides for a shifting of the
burden of proof in cases of a refusal to rent housing. The alleged victim is to present initial specific and
consistent facts allowing for a presumption of discrimination to be made. The alleged discriminating party
must then prove that its refusal was justified. (Unofficial translation by the ERRC).

170

171

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

figure amongst those living in particularly poor conditions (a factor which should,

according to existing regulations, give them priority for social housing).

324

For example, Ms Flore Crystal has been applying for an HLM for 10 years. She

told the ERRC that each year she fills in the application, but she never receives a

positive response. The reason she repeatedly receives for the refusal is that there is

nothing available that is big enough.

325

She lives with her husband and five children in a small rundown caravan (ap-

proximately seven square metres) and truck. The ERRC met her on an empty lot in

Pertuis that the city allowed to be provisionally used by Travellers. In the caravan is

a small bed, a bench, narrow couchette and a sink area of less than 1 metre squared.

Mr and Ms Crystal sleep in the caravan along with two children, and the other three

children sleep side-by-side in the truck. The family spent last winter in this empty

lot, without heating.

Ms Crystal emphasised to the ERRC that the family has always lived in the city

of Pertuis and wishes to remain here. Her children attend a local school where she

hopes that they will be able to continue their studies.

326

Ms Karine Moreau, Director of ASNIT,

327

Bouches du Rhône, informed the

ERRC that the normal wait in the region for persons who qualify for social housing

is generally three years.

328

Another seriously ill Traveller that the ERRC met on the official halting area of

Lognes in Seine-et-Marne in February 2004 had not received a response to her request

for social housing initially dating from November of 2002, despite the urgency due to

324

See for instance, Loi n° 90-449 du 31 mai 1990, “Loi visant à la mise en oeuvre du droit au logement”.

325

The French non-governmental association S.O.S. Racisme, in a detailed study on access of persons

of immigrant origin to social housing, noted that the insufficient size of available housing is a fre-
quently used argument provided by rental agencies to justify discriminatory practices. See S.O.S.
Racisme, Bilan, p. 9.

326

ERRC interview with Ms Flore Crystal, May 6, 2004, Pertuis.

327

National International Gypsy Social Association.

328

ERRC interview with Ms Karine Moreau, May 4, 2004, Marseille.

174

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

175

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

her health condition. She had attached a doctor’s letter indicating her state of health

to her request for social housing.

329

Suffering from heart, respiratory and thyroid prob-

lems, Ms L. Falck told the ERRC that she finds it extremely difficult to live in the con-

ditions of the Lognes site and was worried about surviving the following winter.

330

Mr A.B., a social worker who worked with Travellers between 1995 and 2000

in the town of Bègles, just south of Bordeaux, told the ERRC that during this time

period he only managed to get three HLM apartments for Travellers. He tried con-

sistently for at least 15 families. He said that it was known by those involved in the

sector that there was an a quota of no more than 10% of Travellers in any of Bègles’

HLMs.

331

Other non-governmental associations working with Travellers and Gypsies

in other regions of the country also raised this problem.

332

Where they are accepted into HLMs, Gypsies are often ghettoised in the poorest qual-

ity HLMs that fail to meet basic international standards of decency, health and safety.

333

The city of Marseille, with an estimated 3,000-3,200 Gypsy families (approxi-

mately 20,000 persons),

334

in large part living in HLMs, is an instructive example.

Gypsy families are disproportionately represented in a few HLMs that are badly

reputed in terms of living quality and security, such as Les Cèdres, Saint Paul, La

Renaude, Saint-Joseph and Petit Séminaire.

329

ERRC interview with Ms L. Falck, February 16, 2004, Lognes.

330

The site is basically a parking lot, where caravans can hook up to electricity and water through a rub-

ber hose. There is only one shower that is largely insufficient for the approximately 30 caravans on
the site, and 3 Turkish style toilets (one of which was not working at the time of an ERRC visit on
February 16, 2004.)

331

ERRC interview with Mr A.B., March 2, 2004, Gradignan.

332

Dr Jean-Claude Giraud, President of the non-governmental association, Coordination Committee for the
Promotion and in Solidarity with Communities in Difficulty: Migrants and Gypsies (C.C.P.S.), noted
that those persons who are “sedentarised” or in the process of “becoming sedentarised” have difficulty
accessing social housing, in part due to difficulties of proving the amount of their financial resources.

333

This same problem with respect to persons of immigrant origin is described in S.O.S. Racisme, Bilan,

especially pp. 7-9.

334

This figure comes from a study carried out in March of 2001 by the non-governmental Association Ré-

gionale d’Etudes et d’Actions Auprès de Tsiganes (AREAT), which also carried out the evaluation for

174

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

175

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

According to Mr Alain Fourest,

335

who was charged a few years ago with carrying out

a study on the situation in a number of HLMs in Marseille with significant Gypsy popu-

lations, “to procure a place in an HLM if you are a Gypsy is almost impossible, except

where no one else would go because of the rundown state of the buildings or bad location.

For instance, one family I knew wanted to leave Les Cèdres, go to any other social hous-

ing complex. They were systematically refused elsewhere. The reason was the belief that

if the Gypsies come, the others will leave.” He told the ERRC that in those HLMs where

Gypsy families lived, when there were empty apartments, the management would simply

leave them empty; they knew that other Gypsies would come, and they turned a blind

eye. This happened in complexes such as Les Cèdres, Saint Paul, and Petit Séminaire.

336

The ERRC visited Les Cèdres (built in 1965) and Saint Paul (built in 1962) in May

2004. Those buildings with a particularly high percentage of Gypsy families had peel-

ing paint, missing doors in the entrance halls, missing shutters and a large number of

apartments walled up. They looked as if they were completely neglected by the man-

agement or even being prepared for demolition. Inside the buildings the heating sys-

tems did not meet current standards. In Saint Paul, some apartments still had charcoal

heating. In Les Cèdres, the coal heating had been replaced by individual gas heating

but in such a manner as to reportedly constitute security risks. In Les Cèdres there were

also problems with the system for drainage, causing rain and sewage water to overflow

into the basements and interior court yards. Individual apartments were also badly in

need of renovation, with the old equipment in poor condition.

337

the Departmental Plan in the Bouches-du-Rhône. Numbers have likely increased slightly since

this date. According to the study, many of these famillies were repatriated from North Africa, and
have lived for many generations in Marseille. They live mostly in the 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th and
16th neighbourhoods of Marseille. AREAT. Etat quantititaf concernant la population Marseillaise
d’origine Tsigane. Marseille, March 27, 2001. It should be noted that there may be other Gypsy fami-
lies living in the city of Marseille who are not included in these figures as they do not live in social
housing complexes or have contacts with AREAT.

335

Mr Fourest was a former national director of the National Commission on Neighbourhoods.

336

ERRC interview with Mr Alain Fourest, May 5, 2004, Marseille.

337

ERRC visit to Les Cèdres and Saint Paul, May 5, 2004, Marseille. See also Fourest, Alain. Recon-

struction Démolition DDE 13 Habitat-Marseille-Provence: Les Cèdres. September 29, 1998. Fourest,
Alain. Recomstruction Démolition DDE 13 Habitat Marseille Provence: Saint Paul. September 29,
1998. When the ERRC visited Saint Paul, there seemed to be relatively few families left in the build-
ings where there had been large Gypsy populations. It seems that these buildings have been slated

176

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

177

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

6.6 Harassment of Travellers Who Buy Constructible Land

Local officials are well placed to create obstacles for Travellers and Gypsies who

wish to live in their city, regardless of the mode of life that families wish to lead.

Even when they buy constructible land on which they wish to build a house, in full

conformity with urban planning regulations, local officials may make it extremely

difficult for Travellers and Gypsies to realise their plans.

For example, Mr P. D., a Traveller, bought a piece of constructible land of ap-

proximately 5000

square metres

in the municipality of Merignac in 2000, however,

he has been encountering difficulties with the municipality since he settled there with

his family.

338

Mr P.D. intended to build two houses so that the family could live on

the land. However, when he presented his request for a building permit to the mu-

nicipality of Merignac (as is legally required in order to build a house), the mayor

refused, indicating that the land could be reclassified (as non-constructible) due to

a public project.

339

In effect, the municipality indicated that the land fell inside the

perimeter of a recreational “green zone” in which the city intended to develop a horse

ranch, public woods and a public vineyard. Mr P.D.’s land was in fact located next to

other parcels on which there were already houses. Noting this fact, the Administra-

tive Tribunal of Bordeaux ruled on March 5, 2004 that “given the configuration of

the area, the construction of two homes on this land would not be of such a nature...

to compromise or render more onerous the execution of such a plan.” The Court also

stated that it was not established that the city’s project had reached such a state of

advancement that it could in fact be used to oppose a building permit.

340

The Court

therefore ordered the city to review its previous decision.

Despite this decision, by 17 September 2004 the municipality had still not ap-

proved Mr P.D.’s request. Mr P.D.’s father (Mr. D.) informed the ERRC that the

city was creating obstacles, such as requesting new plans (for which Mr P.D. has

to pay each time). In addition, the city continued to say that it wishes to establish a

for demolition and renovation under the Borloo Law and the families have therefore been kicked out.

The ERRC was unable to determine what happened to the families.

338

ERRC interview with Mr D, 28 September 2004.

339

The municipality based this negative decision on article L123-6 of the Urbanistic Code.

340

Administrative Court of Bordeaux, Mr P.D vs. Commune de Mérignac, decision of March 5, 2004.

176

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

177

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

green zone at that location. The family complained to the Administrative Court of

Bordeaux, who ruled in their favour ordering the city to issue the permit, this time

upon threat of a daily fine of 500 Euros. As a result of this decision, the municipality

issued the permit in early October 2004.

6.7 Deleterious Health Effects of Inadequate Housing

The indecent living conditions in which Travellers and Gypsies are often required

to live have a considerable and persistent deleterious impact on their health. Those

with heart conditions, cancer and other serious illnesses are particularly harmed by

the lack of basic amenities such as water and electricity. This often makes adequate

treatment impossible and can be life threatening. Living near environmental health

hazards such as polluting factories, garbage dumps, recycling plants, freeways and

water and waste treatment plants evidently also infringes upon the health of individu-

als. Those with allergies or asthma are also particularly susceptible to the polluting

emissions from such neighbours. The situation is further aggravated for those who

travel by the constant evictions which caused in many stress-related illnesses.

341

This situation constitutes a serious violation of Gypsies and Travellers right to health.

The right to health is a fundamental human right recognised in numerous international instruments.

Article 25.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms: “Everyone has the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services”. The International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) provides the most comprehensive article on the right to health
in international human rights law. In accordance with article 12.1 of the Covenant, States parties
recognise: “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and
mental health”. Additionally, the right to health is recognised, inter alia, in article 5 (e) (iv) of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965, in-
articles 11.1 (f) and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women of 1979 and in article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989.

In its

General Comment No. 14 on “the right to the highest attainable standard of health”, CESCR,

states that:

“Every human being is entitled to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of

health conducive to living a life in dignity… the right to health is closely related to and dependent
upon the realization of other human rights.” CESCR also makes clear that the drafting history and the
express wording of article 12.2 of the ICESCR “acknowledge that the right to health embraces a wide
range of socio-economic factors that promote conditions in which people can lead a healthy life,
and extends to the underlying determinants of health, such as food and nutrition, housing, access

178

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

179

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

Reflecting the critical nature of this situation, studies indicate that the life expect-

ancy of Gypsies and Travellers is 20 years less than the National average.

342

The Departmental Plan of the Gironde comments on this statistic as follows:

“...this significant discrepancy essentially reveals a public health problem, linked,

according to behavioural and environmental studies, to the multiplication of patholo-

gies related to living conditions and access to services.”

343

In other words, studies

reveal that the lower life expectancy of Gypsies and Travellers is directly linked to

health problems caused by the failure of the French State to provide them with decent

living conditions and basic facilities, such as potable water and electricity.

The Departmental Plan of the Gironde also indicates that detailed studies of the

health situation of Travellers in the Gironde reveal that their living conditions gener-

ate and foster a range of physical and psychological illnesses, some of which have

otherwise disappeared amongst the majority French population. These include: lead

poisoning, tuberculosis, skin diseases, parasitosis, respiratory allergies, stress, eating

disorders, cardio-vascular illnesses.

344

A scientific study commissioned by the Departmental Directorate of Social and

Sanitary Affairs (D.D.A.S.) in Haute-Garonne examined the impact upon Travellers’

health of living in a halting area located in an industrial zone. The halting area, in

Villeneuve-Tolosane, on the outskirts of Toulouse, was located between three facto-

ries, a waste treatment plant, a waste recycling plant and a military airport. The study

concluded that: “This site selected to host a nomad camp for a long period has the

to safe and potable water and adequatesanitation, safe and healthy working conditions, and a healthy

environment.” Thus individuals’ right to health is not limited to timely and appropriate health care,
but also extends to the provision to the extent possible and without discrimination of the underlying
determinants of health, such as access to safe and potable water and adequate sanitation, an adequate
supply of safe food, nutrition and housing, healthy occupational and environmental conditions. See
CESCR, General Comment 14, “the right to the highest attainable standard of health”, (twenty-sec-
ond session, 2000), U.N. doc. E/C.12/2000/4 on the internet at:

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/

(symbol)/E.C.12.2000.4.En?OpenDocument

342

Préfecture de la Gironde and Conseil Général de la Gironde. Schéma Départemental d’Accueil des

Gens du Voyage. February 2003, p. 31.

343

Préfecture de la Gironde and Conseil Général de la Gironde. Ibid., p. 31.

344

Préfecture de la Gironde and Conseil Général de la Gironde. Ibid., p. 31.

178

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

179

Denying Gypsies and Travellers Adequate Housing

particularity of accumulating potential chemical, biological and auditive nuisances...

Removing the nomad camp from this industrial zone, from this environment unfa-

vourable to the development of their children, and allowing the industrial zone to de-

velop seems to be the most reasonable approach.”

345

This conclusion could no doubt

be extended to a large number of halting areas in France.

345

Duchen, C.

Nuisances Atmospheriques d’Un Centre De Compostage De Dechets Verts

. Study by

the Departmental Directorate of Sanitary and Social Affairs (D.D.A.S) “Interregional Epidemiology
Intervention Cell” (CIREI), established within Regional Directorate of Sanitary and Social Affairs
(DRASS), December 14, 1998, p. 14.

181

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

7. DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT AND ABUSE OF TRAVELLERS AND GYPSIES

BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS

Police behaviour towards Gypsies and Travellers is characterised by racism

and ill-treatment.

Abusive police raids are a regular feature of life for French Travellers and

Gypsies. From the time that they are children, Gypsies and Travellers experience

relatively frequent raids of the sites on which they reside. These raids most often

occur during evictions as well as checks, searches or arrests in which the entire

Gypsy and Traveller population who happen to be residing at the same location

are collectively targeted. Police abuse during these raids often includes insults

(including racist remarks), degrading treatment and damage to property. It some-

times also involves the use of weapons in a threatening manner and physical ill-

treatment of individuals.

The ERRC is certain that the cases which it documented during its research rep-

resent a mere fraction of the cases of abusive police raids carried out across France.

It is also certain that between the time of writing and the time this report is published

many other abusive raids will occur.

The ERRC’s research also reveals a clear pattern of racial profiling in which

Gypsies and Travellers are perceived as particularly inclined to criminality and de-

linquency, and, as a result, treated as collectively suspect and dangerous. These same

stereotypes also influence judicial authorities who all too often treat Gypsies and

Travellers in a discriminatory manner.

7.1 Ill-Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies During Forced Evictions

Gypsies and Travellers are regularly forcibly evicted in a violent and abu-

sive manner by police. These raids follow a similar pattern across the country.

Armed police officers generally arrive without warning in the early hours of the

morning (5:00 or 6:00 AM usually). They wake residents up by banging on their

caravans with their fists, truncheons or torch lamps. Residents (men, women and

182

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

183

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

children) are ordered to get out of their caravans immediately, winter or summer.

They are not given time to get dressed and, therefore, have to go outside in their

night clothes. They are ordered to immediately leave the site on which they are

accused of “illegally” residing. Treated as criminals, the Travellers and Gypsies

are considered guilty of having stopped their caravans on a site not “designated”

for them. During these raids, Gypsies and Travellers are often subjected to de-

grading treatment, verbal abuse involving racist statements, and sometimes also

physical violence

Ms Nathalie Gaubert, a Gypsy woman who halts mainly around the city of Bor-

deaux, stated that:

Each time they come, they come in large numbers – sometimes 15 to 20,

sometimes 7 or 8. For a murder, they would not do as much. But we are

not murderers… In fact, what have we done wrong? We take up a tiny

bit of space. You would think we would eat the earth. They treat us as

if we are murderers. They think we break everything, steal everything.

They are afraid of us....

346

Mr Ivan Cause, a Yenish man who lives near Lyon told the ERRC: “On various

occasions we have woken up in the morning to find the ninja turtles

347

surrounding us

– with submachine guns and masks.”

348

These raids often result in damage to the homes (caravans) and other property of

Travellers and Gypsies.

On Thursday February 12, 2004, at approximately 6:00 AM police reportedly

raided a site near the Chemin de l’Ange Chave belonging to the municipality of

346

ERRC interview with Ms Nathalie Gaubert, March 2, 2004, Bordeaux.

347

He was referring to the CRS in their combat gear. The CRS (Compagnies républicaine de sécurité)

are mobile police units that constitute the reserve of the national police. They are under the authority
of the Minister of Interior. They have a wide number of responsibilities including: re-establishing and
maintaining order; fighting small and medium scale delinquency; surveying ports, airports, borders
and other links with foreign territories.

348

ERRC interview with Mr Ivan Cause, March 22, 2004, Givors.

182

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

183

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

Vitrolles, where a group of Travellers were residing in their caravans. The families

involved

349

wrote a letter to the Minister of the Interior Mr Sarkozy. It stated that:

...we awore at 6:00 AM to the sound of truncheons repeatedly hitting our

caravans – which still bear the traces. We had negotiated with the mayor

of Vitrolles for the possibility to stay a little longer on an empty lot next

to the freeway, for lack of a better place, as the city of Vitrolles has not

created the halting area required by law. This authorisation was given to

us orally. This police raid laid to rest all of our illusions.

We were treated with brutality and vulgarity. Our electrical lines that

connect us to our own electrical generator were pulled out and our water

pipes cut. The children, like their parents, were ordered to get out of the

caravans immediately, despite the cold, the night and the fog. They were

shivering with fright. We asked the police if they had children and they

answered that theirs were warm and cosy, but that ours were used to the

cold, so there was no need to worry. And that anyway, they were going

to chase us out like rats.

The letter also reported that the police told “a young pregnant woman, having a dif-

ficult pregnancy and who protested against the police brutality ‘shut your mouth, oth-

erwise we’ll resort to more serious methods.’ A woman wearing a night shirt wanted

to get dressed before leaving her caravan and was told ‘get out or I’ll come in to dress

you’” by a female officer who is believed to be the police commissioner of Vitrolles.

The families emphasised that they in no way showed any resistance to the police.

They told the police that they were ready to leave immediately and asked them not

to damage their caravans, which are their houses, and for which they pay, on credit,

through their work on the markets or as skilled tradespersons. They also reminded

the police of the Besson Law and Security Law, as the municipality of Vitrolles had

not fulfilled its legal obligations to create a halting area. The police reportedly re-

sponded by saying “we don’t give a damn about Sarkozy.”

350

349

Families Azais, Beautour, Benoni, Dumail, Garcy, Lecocq, Nami, Nasset, Vieira, Voisin.

350

Families Azais, Beautour, Benoni, Dumail, Garcy, Lococq, Nami, Nasset, Vieira, Voisin. Letter to

Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, Interior Minister. February 14, 2004, Aix en Provence.

184

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

185

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

In a Press Release, the non-governmental organisations, the League for Human

Rights (LDH) and Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peo-

ples (MRAP)

351

stated that they had been promised by the Cabinet of the mayor of

Vitrolles that the group would not be evicted and that the Prefect would not authorise

the use of public force (the police). They further stated that “besides going back on

its word, this municipality, which remains in an illegal situation (it still does not have

a halting area as required of it under the Besson Law), evicted not only adults, but

also children who attend school in Vitrolles.” These organisations also confirmed

damage to property – cutting cables of the electrical generator that is the property of

the Travellers; damage to the water pipes belonging to them; and dents to the cara-

vans. They also noted the verbal violence of the police officers.

352

As of March 2005, there does not appear to have been any investigative or disci-

plinary action taken by the French authorities as a result of these reports of abusive

police behaviour.

Mr Christophe Daumasse told the ERRC: “What happened in Vitrolles, is so

common as to be banal. We know that when we park we expose ourselves to being

treated worse than dogs; to being insulted; our mere presence is interpreted as an act

of ‘provocation’. Sometimes things go well, and sometimes very, very badly.”

353

On May 4, 2004, Ms M.J. Daumasse described to the ERRC an eviction she had

experienced the previous morning in Aix-en-Provence:

Yesterday, we were stopped near the river and the gendarmes came ear-

ly in the morning. They begun banging on the caravans... They banged

on all of the caravans. Some officers used their fists and others the butt

of their torch lamps. They banged until we opened the doors. They did

not attempt to find out anything. They just came with tow trucks and

cranes. It was the CRS. There was a bailiff with the police. I asked why

351

Two prominent non-governmental associations.

352

MRAP and LDH. “Expulsion de Gens du Voyage a Vitrolles - La Mairie Revient Sur sa Parole”,

Press Release, February 12, 2004, Vitrolles, cited in Dossier de Presse, Rencontres Tsiganes, March
16, 2004.

353

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Christophe Daumasse, October 21, 2004, Paris.

184

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

185

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

they did not bring an eviction order. The bailiff said ‘we don’t need one

anymore.’ He said to my brother ‘you think you a jurist?’ My brother

said: ‘I am not a lawyer, but I know certain laws.’ My two-and-a-half-

year-old daughter was woken with a start. She cried the whole morning.

She had a shock.

354

Ms G. F. added: “It is the same with my little girl. She cried the whole morning.

And there are dents in the door of our caravan. It is the only thing we have. Yesterday,

the police made 14 dents in another caravan as well. The caravan is expensive. We

bought it on credit.”

355

The ERRC was unable to establish the exact number of CRS

officers that carried out the raid, however there were at least 20, and likely more, as

they reportedly came in a bus, several trucks as well as on two motorcycles.

Sometimes police physically abuse Gypsies and Travellers during evictions. The

ERRC has documented a number of cases in which police physically mistreated

Travellers and Gypsies and used weapons in a threatening manner.

At approximately 7:30 AM on a morning in January 2003, police raided a site

in Saint-Ouen-l’Aumone in the Department of Val d’Oise on which a group of ap-

proximately 70 caravans were halted. According to Mr N.C., who was awake at

the time, over 100 CRS arrived in vans, surrounded the site and beamed spotlights

onto it. He said that the CRS were fully equipped, with helmets, shields, truncheons

and guns. Other Travellers also said that they saw water canons behind some of the

vans. Police reportedly shone spotlights into the caravans and banged on them with

their truncheons. Police ordered the Travellers to leave the site, on which they had

remained for a few weeks. N.C. told the ERRC that the Travellers were not warned

of the upcoming forced eviction.

N.C. said that he tried to negotiate with the police. He also tried to send two

faxes to the Prefecture. One woman in the group had recently had an operation, and

there were about 5 handicapped persons. There were also a number of vehicles that

were broken down. Shortly after 9.00 AM, N.C. asked the police about the response

from the Prefecture. According to N.C. an officer responded “the response is a tow-

354

ERRC interview with Ms M.J Daumasse, May 4, 2004, Aix-en-Provence.

355

ERRC interview with Ms G.F., May 4, 2004, Aix-en-Provence.

186

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

187

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

truck.” N.C. went into his truck in order to move it closer to the caravan. He thinks

he advanced approximately one meter. The police officers apparently thought that

he wanted to drive into them, an officer banged on the truck and another officer

opened the passenger door. Mr. N.C. told the ERRC that he got out of the truck and

remembers the officer who opened the truck yelling “grab him.” He was thrown to

the ground and beaten by five or six officers. Other officers had formed a barricade

so that other Travellers could not become involved.

356

Mr Joseph Charpentier, President of the non-governmental association National

and European Association S.O.S. Travellers (S.O.S. Travellers),

357

told the ERRC

“The police threw him on the ground ...his van was badly banged up – the windows

were broken and there were dents in the walls.”

358

The officers then handcuffed N.C.and drove him to the police station. N.C. thinks

he was detained from approximately 9.30 AM until 5.00 PM. The right side of his

face was bleeding and he had pains in his arms and neck. A doctor, who was only

allowed to examine him later in the day, reportedly confirmed the gash to his temple

and multiple bruising on his arms.

During his detention N.C. was interrogated. N.C. told the ERRC that during his

interrogation he was handcuffed. A police officer sitting in front of him pointed a pistol

at him, and another sitting beside him also held a pistol and played with the trigger. A

third officer was present and typed what was said. According to N.C. the officer facing

him at one point in the interrogation said: “You wanted to show off.” N.C. responded:

“I am a pastor.” The officer said, “As a pastor, you should have been the first to leave

the site.” Another officer said: “You are the ‘nouche’

359

who is the ‘killerdriver.”

N.C. was made to sign a paper during his interrogation confessing to “armed re-

bellion”. When he told the officers that he had no arm, they told him that: “In France,

a dog constitutes an arm.”

356

ERRC telephone interview with Mr N.C., January 25, 2005, Paris.

357

Association Nationale et Européenne S.O.S. Gens du Voyage.

358

ERRC interview with Mr Joseph Charpentier, October 19, 2004, Bobigny.

359

The officer seems to have shortened the term “manouche” in a derogatory manner.

186

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

187

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

N.C. lodged a complaint for abusive police conduct with the Office of the Pros-

ecutor. The non-governmental association S.O.S. Travellers also wrote a complaint

about this incident to the Minister of Interior Nicholas Sarkozy.

360

As of March 2005

S.O.S. Travellers was unaware of any disciplinary actions that had been taken with

respect to the police officers involved, and N.C. was unaware of any follow-up given

to his complaint to the prosecutor.

361

On the other hand, the police pressed charges against N.C. for “rebellion with

violence” and he was brought to trial in January 2004. N.C. told the ERRC that the

police had modified the charges from “armed rebellion” to “rebellion with violence”

just before the trial. The officers said that N.C. had tried to run them over. One officer

said that he had been pinned by N.C. between the truck and N.C.’s caravan. N.C. was

found guilty of these charges. However, nothing was written on his criminal record

and as a punishment he was ordered to pay 300 Euros in damages.

362

On 21 October 2004, another abusive eviction took place in the town of Trap-

pes in the Department of Yvelines. A group of about 15 caravans were parked in

an empty field at the side of a road. They had arrived at the location on 8 October.

As is customary, a police patrol arrived at the site, and took the licence plate num-

bers of all of the vehicles. One of the police officers reportedly stated: “At least

here they do not bother anyone.” Without any warning, police officers arrived at

the site again on 21 October and informed the residents that they needed to leave

immediately, otherwise they would be fined and their vehicles seized. A tow truck

reportedly arrived shortly afterwards. The Travellers attempted to negotiate with

the police, explaining that they were not ready to leave and that if their vehicles

were seized, they would not be able to pull their caravans. The only response of the

police was reportedly to state: “That is the way it is now.” When a mother tried to

discuss with the person who appeared to be the captain of the group, he responded:

“I do not speak with women like you.” He then ordered the police to back up and

launched the first of five tear-gas grenades into the middle of the site. Many resi-

dents were injured. When the gas let up, the captain ordered the officers to ticket

360

ERRC telephone interview with Mr N.C., January 25, 2005, Paris.

361

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Joseph Charpentier, March 16, 2005, Paris. ERRC telephone

interview with Mr N.C., March 20, 2005, Paris.

362

ERRC telephone interview with Mr N.C., January 25, 2004, Paris.

188

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

189

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

the vehicles for illegal parking on the public road, although there were no vehicles

parked on the road. Seven vehicles were ticketed.

It is not clear on what, if any, legal basis the police officers acted as the mu-

nicipality had not fulfilled its legal obligations under the Besson Law and the police

reportedly did not produce a court decision, eviction order or any other documents.

The non-governmental organisation S.O.S. Travellers sent a complaint to the French

Minister of the Interior, Mr Dominique de Villepin, the Office of the Prosecutor and

the Prefect of the Department.

363

In January 2005, S.O.S. Travellers received a letter

from the Prefecture of Yvelines indicating that they had looked into the matter and

“the police had acted in comformity with their duties.” Any investigation carried out

seems to have been internal to the police and limited to hearing the police officers’

version of events.

364

Mr M.C. described another abusive police raid that took place in Marne-la-Val-

lée, near Eurodisney on the outskirts of Paris, in the spring of 2004. Mr M.C. was

travelling with about 20 or 30 other persons and he wanted to join family members

who were stopped on an empty lot. Before the group managed to get out of their cara-

vans, nine or ten police cars arrived. Mr M.C. told the ERRC that: “They took out

their guns and threatened us with tear-gas. They saw my five-month-old son sleeping

in the crib. One of the police officers asked his female colleague to come and said ‘It

is at that age that you have to put a bullet through them’ and laughed. I asked another

police officer if he heard and he said: ‘He did not say what you heard.’ The police

escorted us until we were outside of the municipality. They followed us to be sure

that we left.”

365

In another case, a 73-year-old woman was mistreated during a raid in the Cas-

teljean area of Bordeaux in 2002. A small group of caravans were parked behind

a supermarket. Travellers Nathalie Gaubert and Dolores Azais, who witnessed the

event, told the ERRC: “The police arrived and found the caravans parked there and

illegally hooked up to an electrical line. As there were no men around, the police took

363

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Joseph Charpentier, October 27, 2004, Paris. Charpentier,

Joseph. Letter to Mr Villepin. October 27, 2004, Drancy.

364

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Joseph Charpentier, March 15, 2005, Paris.

365

ERRC interview with Mr M.C., April 6, 2004, Marne-la-Vallée.

188

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

189

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

the old woman. They pulled her roughly by the hand. She needed her pills, but the

police did not let her get them. She had to sleep at the police station. Imagine an old

woman. She was very shaken up by the event.”

366

In an early morning shortly before Easter 2001, without warning, police raided an in-

dustrial lot where a group of approximately 150 Travellers and Gypsies were residing in

the city of Chateauneuf-les-Martigues. Ms C.A., a Traveller who was halted at the site at

the time, told the ERRC: “We were sleeping. They came and began pulling on electrical

cables and banging on our caravans. Supposedly, we had caused the electricity supply to

short-circuit in a neighbouring company. We are obliged to steal electricity, you know.

We are not against paying, but when we propose to do so they don’t allow us. They used

tear-gas grenades, even on the children, and said: ‘It is too bad Hitler didn’t finish his

work.’ An officer hit a 60-year-old man. He fell on a stone. After this we also started with

insults and throwing stones at the police. The League for Human Rights came. The police

became worried. In the end the police let us stay parked where we were.”

367

Mr Alain Fourest of the non-governmental association Rencontres, who had arrived

at the scene at around 11.00 AM after having been called by some of the residents, told

the ERRC: “The police had broken everything. They had broken property belonging to

the Travellers – their pipes, cables and material. The police had also entered caravans.

The Travellers told me that the police had searched inside the caravans. That is when

one woman blocked the entrance to her caravan and said ‘you do not have the right.’

She was taken down to the police station. She was brought back the same night. The

police had also arrested a young boy, who supposedly had thrown stones. He was taken

to the police station. I managed to negotiate that the police withdraw from the site…

There were charges filed against this lady for flagrant insult to police officers (outrage

aux agents). She found a lawyer and was summoned to appear before the Court, but I

do not know what happened.”

368

Mr Fourest also confirmed that several Travellers had

told him that police officers stated that “It is too bad Hitler did not finish his work.”

The police had acted without any judicial decision. Furthermore, there were no

search warrants entitling the police to enter private caravans. According to Mr Four-

366

ERRC interview with Nathalie Gaubert and Dolores Azais, March 2, 2004, Bordeaux.

367

ERRC interview with Ms C.A., May 4, 2004, Aix-en-Provence.

368

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Alain Fourest, October 25, 2004, Paris.

190

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

191

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

est, the League for Human Rights was informed that the police had acted based on a

complaint the mayor had supposedly received from a neighbouring company alleging

“deterioration of a public good, and the theft of electricity.” It was alleged that the car-

avans had hooked up to the electric box at the end of the field and had caused technical

problems in the factory. However, no material proof was produced of the existence of

the complaint, nor in support of the allegations of damage caused to the company. It

seems the city’s mayor had simply asked the police to carry out the raid.

Mr Fourest told the ERRC that, in the end, city hall reinstalled electricity and wa-

ter at the site by the end of the day and the Travellers were allowed to remain on the

industrial lot for a few more days. The municipality of Chateauneuf-les-Martigues

is itself in violation of the law as it has not created a halting area as required by the

Besson law.

369

No complaint was lodged concerning the abusive police behaviour. Mr Fourest

commented that it is very rare that victims of police ill treatment are willing to lodge

complaints for abusive police behaviour as retaliatory charges are then generally

lodged against the victims for flagrant insult to police officers or other allegations.

370

Mr Daniel Winterstein, a Traveller that the ERRC met in Bordeaux in March 2004,

described another eviction that took place a few years earlier on an empty lot in Bor-

deaux, during which police threatened his father with a firearm. “The police came one

morning at 8:00 AM and told him to leave. He said ‘Wait, we are drinking coffee with the

children. We will go as soon as we finish. Then they pointed a gun at his chest.’”

371

In Cannes, the police used an original abusive tactic – they held the Travel-

lers captive until they all left. On a morning in January 2004 about 40 caravans

arrived in Cannes. As there is no halting area in the city, they tried to go to an

empty field where they had stopped before, but the municipality had dug a trench

around it. They continued on to an empty lot at the end of a dead end road in an

industrial zone of Cannes. Soon after their arrival approximately 80 police cars

arrived with pistols and dogs. The police blocked the exit from the camp in such

369

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Alain Fourest, October 25, 2004, Paris.

370

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Alain Fourest, March 17, 2005, Paris.

371

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Daniel Winterstein, March 2, 2004, Pessac.

190

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

191

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

a manner that it was impossible to leave. The Travellers were given a choice

– either everyone leaves or no one leaves.

The Travellers stayed four or five days on the lot in a stand-off with the police.

They had no access to water, electricity or any other infrastructure and they were

unable to leave, even to get food or send their children to school. When they finally

decided to leave, they were escorted by approximately 250 police not only out of the

municipality but out of the Department of Alpes-Maritimes.

372

This particular group of Travellers, who are vendors, had come to Cannes to

work. They had sent a registered letter to the municipality a month and a half before

their arrival in order to request a place to halt but had received no response.

373

These raids have significant deleterious effects on the psychological health of

Gypsies and Travellers in France due to the shock and stress they cause. By persecut-

ing families who halt their caravans, police raids undoubtedly also serve to discour-

age the travelling lifestyle.

Mr Christophe Daumasse, a 36-year-old Traveller, told the ERRC: “I know 15

people who are in psychological treatment because of this type of event. When police

come onto a lot at 6:00 AM, it is shocking – you don’t have your integrity any more.

Psychologically speaking, I know there are people who can no longer stand it. They

are afraid of travelling. They suffer from intense stress and are afraid of everything.

Stopping our caravans is highly stressful knowing that each time we run a risk of an

abusive eviction. It is very exhausting.”

374

Mr Jose Raymond, another Traveller, who now rarely travels, told the ERRC:

“I have become afraid to take my caravan and travel. Something is up with the state

– they constantly harass us – before we even manage to stop our caravans, we already

have the gendarmes on top of us. Now, if I have to travel, I am afraid.”

375

372

Departments are a French administrative division. Each department consists of several municipali-

ties. The country is divided into ninety-five Departments.

373

ERRC interview with James Dubois and Franck Couchevellou, November 14, 2004, Paris.

374

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Christophe Daumasse, October 21, 2004, Paris.

375

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Raymond Jose, October 22, 2004, Paris.

192

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

193

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

Abusive evictions sometimes also target Travellers and Gypsies who live in

houses, although less frequently. For instance, on the morning of September 28,

2004, a family of Travellers living in a house in the town of Nievroz in the Depart-

ment of Ain, was evicted in an excessively agressive and abusive manner.

Marguerite and George Scheid were woken up at 6:00 AM with the arrival at

their house of over 120 police officers wearing combat gear and backed up by a heli-

copter. Ms Scheid told the ERRC:

They were everywhere. They banged on the door and said: “Open or we

will break down the door.” We did not know what was happening. My

husband turned to my son to see if he had done something. He said “no”.

We asked the police to at least let us get dressed. They said: “No, open the

door, open the door”, really aggressively. We opened. Some police came

in. They got the kids from the rooms. They asked us whether we knew

why they were there. When we said “no”, they told us that it was for the

demolition of our house. The Scheids had been accused of building.

376

According to Ms Scheid, the police then said that they were taking the Scheids to

the village’s city hall and that they could discuss matters with the Prefect. Marguerite

and George Scheid were allowed to drive their own car but were escorted by two police

motorcycles in front of them, two behind them and a large number of police cars both in

front of and behind them. Ms Scheid estimated that there were at least 20 police cars.

Ms Scheid described to the ERRC the events that followed:

Obviously no one was at the city hall. We were ordered to go to the city’s

Reception Hall (Salle des fêtes). I made phone calls from my mobile phone

to all sorts of people - friends, non-governmental associations, etc. We were

held in the Reception Hall the entire morning. It was full of police officers

guarding us. They did not give us anything to eat. They only brought a bot-

tle of mineral water into which they had put coffee. It was awful.

376

The Scheids had been accused of building their house illegally and had been ordered to destroy their

house by the First Instance Court of Bourg-en-Bresse on July 4, 2001. This decision was upheld by
the Appeal Court of Lyon on February 20, 2002 and the Court of Cassation on January 21, 2003.
ERRC interview with Mr B. Genaudy, March 22, 2005.

192

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

193

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

Shortly after Marguerite and George Scheid were escorted by police to the Re-

ception Hall, the police also brought: Mrs Scheid’s eight-month-old granddaugh-

ter, Manine Scheid; her 23-year-old son, Cédric Scheid; her 20-year-old daughter

in law, Laetitia Scheid; her 14-year old son, Michael Scheid; her neice, Madeleine

Scheid, who lives on the neighbouring property adjoining that of Marguerite and

George Scheid; and her neice’s children, 6-year old Lorema Scheid and 3-year old

Jeferson Scheid.

At about 1.00 PM, Marguerite and George Scheid were told by police that they

could go to their home to see to ‘moving’. Marguerite Scheid told the ERRC:

We went home to find a moving truck and everything in boxes, all mixed

up - medicine, with clothes, shoes, dirty dishes, etc. Today, we still can-

not find things. The police allowed us to take some personal belongings

for the night. I took a bottle and milk for the baby. I had two fridges with

food in them. My husband told the police to just leave it in the middle

of the yard, that we would do something with it. We also have a garage,

about 10 metres long. My husband asked the police not to put the boxes

in the moving truck, but to put them in our garage instead.

Somehow, my husband managed to remain rational. I was hysterical. I

was crying and screaming. After we took some belongings, the police

dragged me, screaming by force to our car. They told us to go or they

would take us by force. We stayed with family who live at the end of the

road for the afternoon. We were no longer allowed near the house.

Meanwhile during the course of the afternoon, bulldozers destroyed our

house – the house in which we’ve lived since 1992.

The children were held in the Reception Hall for the entire day, given

nothing to eat or drink, except mineral water with coffee in it. Two

motorcycle police allowed Laeticia to leave with the 8-month-old baby.

She remained in the street for the afternoon.

At around 6:00 PM, the police left our property. We went to see it at

around 6:30 PM, once they had gone. There was nothing but earth where

our house used to stand. The water and electricity had also been cut.

194

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

195

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

The police had offered us accommodation in a hostel for the first night, about 50

km from our home. Instead, we slept in our car. My husband has high cholestorol

and is diabetic. He has to take medicine twice a day. He was unable to take it until

the following morning as we had to find it in the boxes.

In response to Ms Scheid’s phone calls of the morning, a few hundred Travellers

and Gypsies reportedly tried to come to protest against the destruction during the day.

However, the area had been completely sealed off by police. At a distance of five kilo-

metres from the house, police had already put up roadblocks. Nobody could get by.

The Scheids’ neighbours,

377

whose house is located at a distance of about 200 metres

from the Scheids’ property, were forbidden to leave their house throughout the day.

Marguerite and George Scheid, along with their two sons, daughter-in-law and

grand-daughter, now live on their property in a mobile home 8 metres long by 3

metres wide. Electricity was restored, as it was also connected to Laeticia Scheid’s

property, who requested that it be reconnected. However, the Scheids remain with-

out water or sewage. On November 29, 2004, they received a letter from the city’s

mayor giving them two months to either demolish or vacate the “construction” on

their property. The so-called construction is the mobile home. The Scheid’s lawyer

lodged a complaint with respect to this municipal request, however at the time of

writing the judgement had not been handed down.

378

At the beginning of March 2005

the Scheids also received a bill for close to 10,000 Euros from the Prefecture of l’Ain

to cover the fees of the demolition.

379

Marguerite Scheid attempted to commit suicide in early December 2004, and

spent 10 days in hospital. As of the time of writing the Scheids had not yet lodged a

complaint about the manner in which their eviction was carried out; however, they

were considering legal options.

380

377

These neighbours are located on the other side of the Marguerite and George Scheid’s property to

their niece.

378

ERRC telephone interview with Mr B. Genaudy, March 22, 2005, Paris.

379

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Marguerite Scheid, March 20, 2005, Paris.

380

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Marguerite Scheid, March 20, 2005, Paris.

194

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

195

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

The ERRC is not aware of any disciplinary action taken against police officers in any

of these cases. It seems that, when lodged, complaints are not seriously investigated by

police or any other investigatory body. When Travellers or Gypsies do file complaints

alleging abusive treatment by authorities, counter-complaints seem to be lodged by the

police against the complainants. Most often victims of such incidents do not complain as

they do not believe that there is any point and fear retaliatory complaints against them.

7.2 Abusive Raids of Traveller and Gypsy Places of Residence During Searches,

Checks or Arrests

When police carry out searches, checks or arrests involving a Gypsy or Travel-

ler, the entire group residing at a particular location is treated as collectively suspect.

The ERRC’s research indicates a systematic pattern of abusive police raids based on

racist stereotypes in which any persons who happen to be residing together at a given

location are collectively targeted.

Mr Frédéric Lievy, representative of Goutte d’Eau, told the ERRC:

When a nomad is searched at a halting area, it is not the nomad that is

searched, but the entire stopping area. They search inside the washing

machine, inside the dog’s basket, and in nearly every place possible.

The area is surrounded by police, and helicopters circle overhead. This

happens systematically when there is a search on a halting area. When

they look for one Traveller, they go into all of the caravans, look under

the beds, knock over the laundry. They are aggressive whether it is in

Bordeaux, Paris, Lyon or anywhere else.

381

In an illustrative case, on April 4, 2004 police raided a site in Sestasse, Pessac

where a number of families live in four caravans. At the time, there were about 25

persons at the site, including at least 15 children.

Mr Jose Raymond, the informal representative of the group, told the ERRC:

At around 6:30 or 7:00 AM I heard the doors of vehicles banging loudly,

which isn’t customary for us. I suspected what it was. We are not used to

381

ERRC interview with Mr Frédéric Lievy, March 7, 2004, Toulouse.

196

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

197

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

doors banging like that, cars arriving at 100 km an hour. It was the gen-

darmes arriving like cowboys. I got out of bed. I heard very loud knock-

ing on the door of my caravan. I opened the door, saw the police and said

‘What is going on ?’ They said, ‘Get out of the caravan.’ I asked again

‘What is going on?’ They did not have papers or anything to justify what

they were doing. A police officer said that it was a routine check.

Police were blocking the entrance to our land with sub-machine guns.

They had put their vehicles sideways and a line of policemen were

standing in front of them holding their submachine guns at-the-ready.

They were not aiming at us, but they were holding them in their hands.

There were about four or five police officers. While we got out of our

caravans, other police officers ran behind the caravans.

I asked again ‘What is going on?’ They said, ‘a routine check.’ I

said to them, ‘You go to people’s homes with submachine guns for a

routine check? You know us and you allow yourselves to come with

submachine guns to ask us for our identity documents?’ I took one of

the gendarmes aside whom I knew. I asked him if he realised the lack

of respect engendered by the action. What would neighbours who

passed by think of us? What would our children think? Ultimately,

they did not carry out any searches at all. Their goal was apparently

simply to come and threaten us with sub-machine guns. In the moral

sense, it is inhuman.

A police officer reportedly told Mr Jose Raymond: “Now the Sarkozy law

382

in effect. We are obliged to come in numbers and carry out checks. It will occur

regularly.” When Mr Raymond asked him to show him a text of law saying that, the

officer did not produce anything. The police officers then left.

Before coming to Mr Raymond’s residence, the police had reportedly carried out

a similar raid on another site down the road on which Travellers also resided.

383

382

He was referring to the Law of 18 March 2003 for Interior Security (Security Law).

383

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Jose Raymond, October 22, 2004, Paris.

196

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

197

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

It is close to unimaginable that the police would turn up in an ordinary French

neighbourhood or apartment building pointing guns in the early morning for a “rou-

tine identity check”.

A group of men at the halting area of Saint-Priest, in the Greater Lyon area, told

the ERRC that the area had experienced a number of violent police raids. They ex-

plained that each time the police surround the site, make all of the residents get out of

their caravans, and search everywhere. Sometimes they point guns, sometimes they

do not. The most recent raid they mentioned was in 2002 when the police came look-

ing for one individual amongst the 14 different families that live at the site. Accord-

ing to Mr Buche, a resident, “the police made everyone get out of their caravans and

aimed submachine guns at them. They searched everywhere.”

384

Another resident,

Mr L.B., told the ERRC, “They even searched in the dog baskets.”

385

Once again, the French police would almost certainly not behave in a similar

manner in a non-Gypsy neighbourhood, for instance ordering all residents on a given

street out of their homes because of information about a suspect on the street.

Noting the racist nature of this practice, Traveller Ms Claire Bertollotti remarked:

“In an HLM, if someone creates a disturbance or otherwise violates the law, the po-

lice will not throw the whole HLM outside. But in a camp of caravans, when the

police arrive, everyone has to go outside. When it comes to us, everyone is grouped

together. They make a sandwich and put everyone inside.”

386

Ms Lolita K., described a raid that took place in March 1998, on a site in Nantes

on which she was parked, when police came to the halting area looking for thieves:

Some thieves had parked next to us and we did not know. The police arrived

at around 8.00 AM. They had their heads covered and were armed with sub-

machine guns. They aimed at us. They were jumping all over. We see that

kind of thing in films. They were coming at us from all sides. My mother

died of a heart attack from fright. She was 68-years-old. She had heart prob-

lems, but still. The newspaper said that doctors had seen her immediately

384

ERRC interview with Mr Buche, March 24, 2004, Saint-Priest.

385

ERRC interview with Mr L.B., March 24, 2004, Saint-Priest.

386

ERRC interview with Ms Claire Bertollotti, March 25, 2004, Chassieux.

198

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

199

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

before the incident, but this was not true. The doctors had come but to see

the children. One policeman saw that we were afraid and laughed. My sister

has been sick since, because of what happened. At the time, I was not even

allowed to go to my mother’s side... the police held me and did not want me

to move. They searched the caravan. They took my sister for the night; kept

her portable phone for months. You would have said the Germans during

World War II. We cannot forget what happened that morning.

387

Local press reported on a particularly violent police raid that took place on the

morning of Wednesday February 5, 2003. The police raided the parking lot of the floral

park in the city of Orléans where a group of Travellers (approximately 50 caravans)

had stopped for the night.

388

Reports indicate that the previous day, after having been

rejected from the official halting area due to lack of places and finding nowhere to stop,

the group had peacefully protested at a traffic circle, temporarily blocking traffic. They

had then made their way to the parking lot of the floral park. Reports indicate that the

Director of the Cabinet of the Prefect had stated that the caravans stopping at this loca-

tion did not pose any problem. However, early in the morning police raided the site in

order to arrest those responsible for the “troubles of the previous day”.

The police arrived in combat gear, accompanied by dogs, and banged on cara-

vans with their truncheons. They beat a number of residents. A man named “Henri”

reportedly stated, “I went out bare-chested and ran towards them with my arms

open wide. I asked the police what they were doing and was thrown to the ground

and beaten with truncheons. I had made the mistake of telling the police that they

were behaving like Nazis. One was squeezing my throat while another hit my head.”

Someone inside a caravan filmed the scene. On the video, an officer can reportedly

be heard saying “Kill anyone who moves.”

389

The police took four men to the police

station and kept them there until the late afternoon.

Sometimes police offer no reason whatsoever for raiding a residence.

387

ERRC interview with Ms Lolita K, March 9, 2004, Toulouse.

388

The Travellers had apparently been refused at the official halting area as there was no place free there

at the time. The director of the halting area had phoned other areas and there were apparently no free
places anywhere in the vicinity.

389

Pivois, Marc. “A Orléans, des CRS pour toute réponse”. Libération, February 11, 2003.

198

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

199

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

At about 1:00 AM in mid-December 2003, police raided a site in Mirapolis, near

Pontoise, on which a group of Travellers were temporarily residing. Sixty-three-

year-old Mr. Jacques Lambergier described the raid:

We were winding down celebrating my daughter’s birthday. At first one

police car arrived. We had a brief discussion with the officers in the car.

They left quickly. But then, 10 minutes later, they came back with more

police cars. They revved their car motors on the lot. Then they banged

on the caravans. They had guns and they started shooting rubber bul-

lets in all directions. They broke the window of a caravan. They caused

about 10,000 Francs [around 1540 Euros] worth of material damage.

My daughter fell to the ground. She was six or seven months pregnant

at the time. They beat her with their truncheons. Some time later, the

baby was born prematurely, I think as a result of this. The police also set

dogs on us during the raid. We had never seen that before. No one was

bitten, because we managed to go into our caravans in time. Later we

complained to the gendarmery,

390

but nothing happened.

As of March 2005, the family had not been informed of any follow-up investigatory

or disciplinary actions taken by the French authorities as a result of their complaint.

391

The mere fact that almost all Travellers and Gypsies that the ERRC spoke with feel

that abusive police raids are a commonplace feature of life indicates the racist nature

of these police raids, and is yet another example of Travellers’ and Gypsies’ unequal

status in French society. Few, if any, other segments of the French population feel that

being surrounded by police with loaded weapons, and being mistreated, is a banal part

of life. At least a dozen Travellers and Gypsies that the ERRC spoke with repeated the

following expression: “We are born with the police and we will die with the police.”

Mr Christophe Daumasse told the ERRC that he thinks that in his 36 years he has

experienced abusive police raids at least 10-15 times. “We are really in the realm of

the banal,” he said.

392

390

They went to the gendarmery of Jouy-le-Moutiers to register their complaint.

391

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Jacques Lambergier, March 17, 2005, Paris.

392

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Christophe Daumasse, October 21, 2004, Paris.

200

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

201

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

These raids, often based on racial profiling, are a product of the racist prejudices

prevalent in French society which label all Travellers and Gypsies as delinquents and

criminals. They are also a consequence of the racist laws and policies banning Travel-

lers and Gypsies from significant portions of French territory, that, in fact, frequently

turn the Travellers and Gypsies into delinquents as soon as they stop their caravans.

7.3 Racial Profiling of Travellers and Gypsies

The stereotype of their criminality clings perpetually to Travellers and Gypsies,

also making them a priori suspect for various forms of crime and prime targets for

harassment and abuse by police. ERRC research indicates that the French police

make use of practices of racial profiling singling out Travellers and Gypsies.

393

Many Travellers and Gypsies reported that they are specifically targeted by po-

lice for checks to determine whether they are in possession of valid documentation

for their vehicles. Sometimes a group of Travellers is stopped repeatedly during a

single trip. On other occasions police carry out checks just outside of sites and neigh-

bourhoods at which Gypsies and Travellers reside.

Mr R.S., who lives in a neighbourhood of Travellers in Rosny-sous-Bois, told

the ERRC in April 2004: “Recently, I had a truck that was in good condition. The

police stopped me and said: ‘Your truck must be stolen. We are sure that the docu-

ments for your vehicle are not in order.’ They checked everything; all my papers.

393

The practice of racial profiling violates of a number of rights guaranteed under international law. In

particular, Article 5 ICERD calls on governments “to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in
all its forms and guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or
ethnic origin, to equality before the law” in the enjoyment, among others, of:

“(a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice;

(b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm,
whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution; […]”.

The enjoyment without discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin of the right to liberty and

security of person; the right to equality before the courts and tribunals; and the right to equality
before the law and to the equal protection of the law are also guaranteed by the ICCPR (Articles
9(1), 14(1), and 26 respectively).

200

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

201

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

They checked me because they saw me leaving here. This occurs very frequently.”

394

When the ERRC left the neighbourhood, it saw a police car waiting just up the hill

at the exit from the site.

The ERRC was informed by numerous persons, Gypsies and non-Gypsies, that it

is common practice for police to raid the nearest group of Gypsy caravans when there

are reports of thefts in the vicinity. A number of persons also reported that police

sometimes pick a random Gypsy to charge with the crime.

On March 24, 2004, Mr Jacob Benony told the ERRC about one such raid that

occurred at his home a few days earlier. A scooter had apparently been stolen in the

area. “Police came to my neighbourhood looking for a stolen scooter. They went

onto every lot, aimed guns at the residents, and then left as if such conduct was nor-

mal”, he said.

395

Mr Benony lives in a caravan with his family on a lot on an official

halting area for the long-term stay of Travellers in the municipality of Vénissieux.

The site is composed of individualised lots located along both sides of a narrow road.

Each lot is inhabited by a different family.

A group of five Travellers in Rosny-sous-Bois told the ERRC that the police

come to their neighbourhood whenever there are car thefts nearby.

Mr David C. described an abusive raid that occurred in the spring of 2002 on one

such occasion:

A youth from their neighbourhood was driving in his car. The police

stopped him and started beating him and then left. But the next day they

came here with their machine guns and took two youth arbitrarily and took

them down to the police station. That night they also gased everyone here

with tear gas. The next night they came to do the same thing, to take another

youth, and we tried to stop them. They aimed at us with their pistols.

Mr David C. said that on at least two different occasions the police had come

to the site and randomly picked up two or three persons and detained them.

396

394

ERRC interview with Mr R.S., April 13, 2004, Rosny-sous-Bois.

395

ERRC interview with Mr Jacob Benony, March 24, 2004, Vénissieux.

396

ERRC interview with David C., April 13, 2004, Rosny-sous-Bois.

202

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

203

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

Another middle-aged Traveller Mr P.S. said “Whenever a theft takes place any-

where in the region, and they have no suspects in the crime, they come here to

arrest a youth.”

397

Gypsies and Travellers are considered to be so inherently suspicious that even a

10-year old child may be subject to a strip search when accused of taking a pen in a

store. In a case documented by the non-governmental association USETA, a 10-year-

old Traveller allegedly took a pen while in a store with her parents in the town of Saint-

Foy-la Grande in October 2004. The owner of the store called the police. The police

officers arrived and took the young girl into an office. The parents were made to wait

outside. A female police officer entirely undressed the young girl in order to see if she

took anything else. The child was crying and hearing this, her father, Mr E.Z. opened

the door of the office to make sure she was okay. From behind the door another po-

lice officer sprayed tear gas directly into the Mr. E.Z.’s face, in his eyes. He was then

pushed face down to the ground and hand-cuffed. He was not allowed to rinse or wash

his face. He later went to the hospital for treatment for burns.

398

According to local me-

diator Mr Pierre Delsuc, the family went to the police station in Saint-foy-la-Grande in

order to deposit a complaint, but the police refused to accept the complaint.

399

7.4 Discrimination by Judicial Authorities

The prevailing racist stereotypes that Gypsies and Travellers are thieves and delin-

quents, also translates into discriminatory treatment by judicial authorities.

400

When they

are found guilty of a crime, they are handed down disproportionately longer sentences.

Ms Martine Sciarli-Valazza, Director of the non-governmental organisation Departmen-

tal Association for the Promotion of Gypsies (ADEPT),

401

told the ERRC: “On the basis

397

ERRC interview with Mr P.S., April 13, 2004, Rosny-sous-Bois.

398

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Danielle Mercier, October 23, 2004, Paris. ERRC telephone

interview with Mr Pierre Delsuc, 25 October 2004, Paris.

399

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Pierre Delsuc, 22 March, 2005, Paris.

400

The discriminatory treatment of Travellers and Gypsies in the judicial system violates Article 14 of

the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), taken together with Article 6 of the ECHR.

401

Association Départementale pour la Promotion des Tsiganes.

202

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

203

Discriminatory Treatment and Abuse of Travellers and Gypsies by Criminal Justice Officials

of my experience of having assisted a lot of trials, I can assert that in practice the penalties

provided are at any rate significantly heavier than those handed down to non-Gypsies for

equivalent crimes. One can clearly see that there are two weights, two measures.”

402

A.B., a social worker who has worked with incarcerated parents, also told the ERRC:

“Travellers convicted of crimes are given heavier penalties. Sit in on a penal hearing, and

you will see that judges treat the Travellers as sub-humans.”

403

When Travellers and Gypsies are suspected of committing a crime, they are

regularly kept in pre-trial detention rather than allowed to go free pending the in-

vestigation and trial.

In the municipality of Ambarès-et-Lagrave in the Department of Gironde, in the

winter of 2003, a middle-aged Gypsy woman stopped at the side of the road to put

some sand into a pail. Ms W.M. told the ERRC:

A man came up to her screaming, treating her as if she were a thief, etc.

But everyone who sees sand at the side of the road and needs some,

takes it. But there, since she was a Traveller, this man came screamed at

her. He went home and had a heart attack. The residents of the street told

the police that there was a Traveller who beat him with a shovel. There

was even a false witness who claimed to have seen it. Before you knew

it, helicopters were flying over the Travellers’ property and the gen-

darmes went to all of the Travellers in Ambares. They went to her house

and arrested her like the worst of the delinquents. She was detained and

soon put in jail for 20 days. They kept her in prison while awaiting the

results of the autopsy. Then they freed her.

404

The mother of the woman concerned was with her during the events in question. She

reportedly tried to give her account to the police. However, police did not believe her.

Ms. W.M., who has herself been married to a Traveller for twenty years, told the ERRC:

“I have never seen a Traveller who was able to remain free before judgement.”

405

402

ERRC interview with Ms Martine Sciarli-Valazza, January 23, 2004, Bobigny.

403

ERRC interview with Mr A.B., March 2, 2004, Gradignan.

404

ERRC telephone interview with W.M., 20 November 2004, Paris.

405

ERRC telephone interview with W.M., November 20, 2004, Paris.

204

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

205

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

Mr P.S., a Traveller that the ERRC met at his home in a Traveller neighbourhood

of Rosny-sous-Bois, told the ERRC that he spent seven and a half months in pre-trial

detention awaiting trial for a crime that he did not commit:

The police were following a car with two teenagers. The teenagers

abandoned their car here and ran between the caravans. The police told

me, ‘We know you are not guilty, but you surely know the perpetrator.’

They made a false declaration saying that I was driving. The judge let

me off, but I spent seven and a half months in prison anyway. The judge

clearly saw that it was ridiculous.

406

According to Mr P.S., this sort of situation happens often: “Travellers spend 6

months, even a year in prison awaiting judgement.”

406

ERRC interview with Mr P.S., April 13, 2004, Rosny-sous-Bois.

204

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

205

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

8. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRAVELLERS AND GYPSIES IN ACCESS TO SOCIAL

AND PUBLIC SERVICES

The ERRC documented widespread discrimination against Gypsies and Travel-

lers in access to social assistance and public services. A large number of Gypsies and

Travellers are altogether excluded from social assistance or subjected to a parallel

system of social assistance – surrogate for the French state – which reinforces their

social segregation. While an increasing number of public service providers such as

insurance companies and various public accommodations openly flout French and

international law refusing to provide Travellers and Gypsies with their services,

French judicial authorities seem to be tolerating such acts. These recurrent violations

of Travellers and Gypsies fundamental social and economic rights also impede them

in securing real inclusion in French society.

8.1 Discriminatory Treatment of Travellers and Gypsies in the Provision

of Social Assistance

French Gypsies and Travellers are victims of discriminatory treatment in the area

of social assistance. Such treatment is in direct contradiction with a number of inter-

national human rights instruments to which France is party that clearly prohibit any

discrimination in access to social assistance based on grounds such as race, ethnic or

social origin, and colour.

407

As in other areas of life, this discrimination stems from the unwillingness of

French authorities to make provision for the specific way of life of Gypsies and Trav-

ellers in developing policies relating to social assistance. The result of this refusal

407

For instance, in becoming party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights, France committed itself to “recognise the right of everyone to social security, including so-
cial insurance” (Article 9) and undertook to do so “...without discrimination of any kind as to race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth
or other status.” (Article 2(2)). Similarly in becoming party to the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, France undertook to “...guarantee the right of
everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before

206

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

207

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

is that Gypsies and Travellers find themselves treated unfavourably as compared to

other French citizens, excluded from basic forms of social assistance, often unable

to receive adequate assistance at public offices and in some cases obliged to seek out

specific and separate institutions in order to access such assistance.

8.1.1 Discrimination in Access to Housing Assistance

Various types of social assistance are available to French citizens in order to

aid them in renting or acquiring housing, such as: special credit rates; “personalised

housing assistance” (“l’Aide personnalisée au logement” (APL)); and a monthly

housing allocation that adds significantly to an individual’s social welfare package

(“l’Allocation logement (AL)). The amount granted varies depending on family

composition, income and the type of housing. The purpose of this assistance is gen-

erally to allow low-income families to reduce their housing costs and therefore to

improve their basic living conditions.

These different forms of aid are not, however, available to persons who live in

caravans, as caravans do not qualify as housing as it is defined for purposes of such

housing assistance.

This disqualifies the many Travellers and Gypsies who live in caravans, significantly

lowering the amount of social assistance from which they are able to benefit as compared

to other citizens who live in more common forms of housing. This makes it extremely

difficult for low-income Gypsy and Traveller families to manage to cover their basic

needs, as, like other citizens, they have significant – if not higher – housing expenses.

A caravan fit to serve as a principle residence (double axle) usually costs between

15,000 Euros and 31,000 Euros. Most Gypsies and Travellers buy their caravans on

credit. As they do not generally have a fixed residence or an indeterminate length em-

the law”, particularly with respect to a list of rights including the right to social security and social

services (Article 5 (e)(iv)). At the European level, the Revised Social Charter, to which France is
party also requires States to guarantee the right to social assistance (Part I,13), the right to housing
(“Part I, 31), and the right of the family to social, legal and economic protection, which includes pro-
vision of family housing (Part II, 16) without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia race,
national extraction or social origin, association wih a national minority, birth or other status.

206

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

207

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

ployment contract, it is extremely difficult for Gypsies and Travellers to acquire loans

from banks. They therefore have to turn to special credit companies that grant them a

loan, but with a particularly high interest rate of 15-20%. An average family needs to

reimburse between 400 and 540 Euros per month for the caravan loan. To these costs

are added the daily rate for parking in an official halting area, which, on average, come

to 137 Euros per month. Thus, not including the cost of fuel or costs relating to the

vehicle that is needed to pull the caravan, monthly housing costs for a family of Travel-

lers living in one caravan come to approximately 535-680 Euros per month.

408

Whereas

other low-income families would receive significant assistance in paying similar hous-

ing costs, Travellers and Gypsies have to pay from their own resources due simply to

the fact that they live in a caravan, rather than an “ordinary” apartment or house.

The failure of the French State to ensure that the many Travellers and Gypsies who

live in caravans may have the same access to housing assistance as other citizens con-

stitutes discrimination in violation of France’s international commitments. It would

also seem to run contrary to France’s own Constitutional guarantee of equality.

It is true that all Gypsies and Travellers in France are not disqualified from these

forms of social assistance. Only those who live in a permanent basis in caravans are

disqualified. However, this in no way detracts from the fact that the large number of

Gypsies and Travellers who live in caravans receive a lesser amount of social assist-

ance than other citizens as the criteria for receiving such assistance exclude them.

409

A significant amount of financial assistance is nonetheless targeted towards the

“housing” of Travellers and Gypsies. It is, however, devoted to the creation and

management of designated halting areas and “socio-educative” projects that aim at

the “integration” of families stopped in these areas. Thus, it does not go to the fami-

lies who require assistance in paying their housing expenses. Instead it goes to those

408

ASNIT. Les Gens du Voyage à l’Age de la Retraite. May 2001, p. 41. ERRC interview with Ms

Karine Moreau, Director of ASNIT Bouches du Rhône, May 4, 2002. See also Chanal, Martine and
Marc Uhry. “Gens du Voyage: le nécessaire renouvellement de l’intervention publique.” On the In-
ternet at:

http://www.globenet.org/horizon-local/alpil/voyages.html

409

Excluding Travellers and Gypsies from forms of social assistance available to others through estab-

lishing criteria that serve to exclude them constitutes indirect discrimination and implicates violation
of a number of European and international norms. See details on the prohibition of indirect discrimi-
nation in Chapter II, footnote

25.

208

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

209

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

public or private entities involved in the creation and management of designated

halting areas. This has long been the approach of the French authorities to the social

assistance needs of Gypsies and Travellers related to housing.

In an illustrative response to a query about possibilities for Travellers to obtain

housing assistance,

410

Mr Tahar Belmounes, Director of Social Action for the Na-

tional Fund for Family Allocations (CNAF),

411

reiterated that housing assistance, and

especially the housing allocation, does not apply to families living in caravans.

412

the same letter, he confirmed that the CNAF can provide assistance for the creation

of designated halting areas and attached a Circular, dating from August 3, 1981, from

the then president of the National Centre for Family Allocations, Mr Pierre Boisard,

to all the local level presidents of Family Allocation Centres that states:

Considering that nomadic families are often excluded from traditional

forms of social support provided by the Fund (housing – vacations – so-

cial facilities...), the Commission decided that financing halting areas

constitutes the means to provide them with specific assistance.

413

ASNIT commented of this approach, that:

In this way, Travellers do not directly receive housing assistance. It would

be very interesting to know why the CNAF opted for this system. Does

this mean that Travellers would be incapable of managing this money

themselves? Or does the CNAF give itself the mission of controlling halt-

ing by encouraging Travellers to halt in the designated areas? It remains

that this system does not provide a satisfactory solution for Travellers

who experience as an injustice this deprivation of assistance that they

badly need. This injustice is felt equally by Travellers opting to halt in

designated areas as for those who “choose” free parking.

414

410

The query was sent on June 5, 2000 by Mr Christian d’Hont, the National Director of National Inter-

national Gypsy Social Association (ASNIT).

411

Caisse Nationale des Allocations Familiales.

412

Mr Tahar Belmounes. Letter to Mr Christian d’Hont, June 28, 2000.

413

Pierre Boisard. Letter No. 5660, President CNAF, August 3, 1981.

414

ASNIT. Les Gens du Voyage à l’Age de la Retraite. May 2001, p. 42.

208

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

209

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

There is no other ethnic group within the French population whose members’

individual right to housing assistance has been substituted by assistance provided to

those who build or manage social housing complexes in which they may or may not

wish to live. In addition to being discriminatory, this approach reflects an intent to

confine all Travellers and Gypsies living in caravans to designated areas.

8.1.2 Segregated Social Services

In order to receive various forms of social assistance, many Travellers and

Gypsies turn to the network of non-governmental associations present in different

departments across the country that cater specifically to Travellers and Gypsies.

These associations, funded to a significant extent by the state, offer to Travellers and

Gypsies a range of social services, such as educational support and medical assist-

ance. They generally have accredited social workers on their staff who, among other

things, open the right to RMI (“Revenue Minimale d’Insertion”), a form of financial

assistance that is attributed to a person who signs a contract with a social worker with

respect to a range of personalised conditions aimed at occupational integration.

To the extent that these associations offer personalised support to Travellers and

Gypsies that is complementary to the State and chosen by the individuals concerned,

they fill an important role in facilitating Gypsies’ and Travellers’ access to various

forms of social assistance. However, to the extent that these associations in fact re-

place the State and create a parallel system of social assistance for Travellers and

Gypsies, they contribute to their social segregation.

In practice, in a number of departments, officials in the State institutions that

provide social services, such as the Family Allocation Fund (CAF) and Communal

Centres for Social Action (CCAS), are not trained to address the particular needs of

Travellers and Gypsies, who have different documents and a different way of life

than the majority French population. The head of a Gypsy Association, who wished

to remain anonymous, commented that “these associations are fulfilling functions

that the State should be fulfilling. A lot of Travellers do not want to go to the city

officials because the person at the counter does not help them. So they turn to these

associations.”

415

Thus the associations that provide assistance to Travellers and Gyp-

415

ERRC interview with Mr K.L., March 5, 2004.

210

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

211

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

sies, in fact, appear to be acting as an informal surrogate for the French State in pro-

viding social services to Travellers and Gypsies.

In the Departments Indre-et-Loire and Gironde, the files of Travellers and

Gypsies have reportedly been transferred from the common State social institu-

tions to the specific departmental associations that provide assistance to Gypsies

and Travellers. Jose Brun, a representative of the non-governmental association

Regards, told the ERRC:

Today the social climate in France is such that, if an association dedi-

cated to assisting Travellers exists, it is believed to be appropriate to

transfer to this association the files of all of the Travellers in the area.

This means, for instance, that the sub-Prefecture hands over to this as-

sociation all of the RMI files of Travellers. This denies the fact that as

citizens living in the geographical perimeter of a given public office,

Gypsies should be able to access the public office, rather than being

sent to a specialised association.

For instance, in the Department of Indre-et-Loire the CCAS transferred all

of the files dealing with Travellers to the association Gypsies and Travellers

of Touraine.

416

This was not a state decision, but a departmental decision

that occurred with decentralisation. There are families that have been in

Loches and Chinon for 500 years. They are some of the very rare families in

France who do not have land and are always travelling. These families have

been here for a very long time. Apart from some very rare exceptions they

have all long been clients of the local social service offices. They have eve-

rything to do with the common law services. But now ... these families will

have to go to Tours, to the association Gypsies and Travellers of Touraine.

The association has trucks to go and see the families where they are. This

could be a very good thing to develop within the CCAS....

417

Ms R. Winterstein and Mr D. Winterstein, two Travellers based in the Depart-

ment of Gironde, informed the ERRC about a similar practice of transfering files

416

Tsiganes et Voyageurs de Touraine (TVT).

417

ERRC interview with Mr Jose Brun, February 23, 2004, Tours.

210

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

211

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

from state offices to the local non-governmental association that provides assistance

to Travellers and Gypsies, the Departmental Association of Friends of Travellers of

Gironde (ADAV).

418

Ms R. Winterstein stated: “Even if Travellers are domiciled in

a municipality, such as Pessac,

419

they have to go directly to ADAV. We did not ask

to be sent there. It is them that have our papers. Once a year there is a meeting with

all social service institutions, it must be there that they decide who is obliged to go to

ADAV. You could say that the others push us away.”

420

Ms Marie-Bernadette Maire, Adjunct to the mayor of Pessac delegated to

social action and the fight against exclusion,

421

confirmed to the ERRC that files

of Gypsies and Travellers are transferred from public offices to ADAV. She also

commented that:

When they go to the CCAS, for instance in Pessac,

they are told: “We do not

know, go see ADAV”. ADAV is fighting against this... against the phenomenon of

ghettoisation through social actors. At the CCAS they do not know how to answer to

Travellers. I recently wanted to hold a meeting with the elected authorities and serv-

ices of the cities on this issue. The idea was an initiative of cities. And very quickly,

ADAV took the lead and it suited everybody. And, when I said ‘No, we are holding

a meeting with elected officials, they did not listen.’

422

The ERRC believes that similar practices have likely occurred in a number of

other departments.

It seems that, paradoxically, although the French State considers that recognising

minorities in state policy and practice runs counter to republican equality, authorities

in some departments in practice segregate Gypsies and Travellers, when providing

various social services.

418

Association départementale des Amis des Voyageurs de la Gironde.

419

Pessac is a municipality just south of Bordeaux in the Department of Gironde.

420

ERRC interview with Ms R. and Mr D. Winterstein, March 2, 2004, Pessac.

421

Ms Maire is also the President of the Association for the Welcome of Travellers in Gironde - A.G.V.

33, an association of composed of local officials.

422

ERRC interview with Ms Marie-Bernadette Maire, March 3, 2004, Pessac.

212

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

213

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

8.2 Discriminatory Treatment of Travellers and Gypsies in the Provision

of Public Services

France’s international commitments

423

as well as national penal legislation pro-

hibit discrimination in access to public services. The French Criminal Code pro-

hibits the refusal to provide a good or service on a list of grounds including, origin,

physical appearance, name, customs, and real or presumed belonging to an ethnicity,

race or particular religion. This form of discrimination is sanctioned by three years

imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 Euros. When the refusal takes place on premises

open to the public or with the intent to deny entry, then the penalties are increased to

five years imprisonment and 75,000 Euros fine.

424

ERRC research nonetheless indicates that the refusal to provide services to

Travellers and Gypsies appears to be a common practice. Insurance companies

are increasingly refusing to accept Travellers and Gypsies as clients and are even

terminating the contracts of those Travellers and Gypsies that are already their

clients. Restaurants, bars, discotheques and other public establishments com-

monly deny entry to Travellers and Gypsies or refuse to serve them. Further-

more, establishments that practice such discrimination do so relatively openly,

apparently without fearing possible legal consequences of their actions. This

attitude likely reflects the very low number of convictions for discrimination on

any grounds (a total of a few cases per year with respect to all population groups

in all areas of life).

425

423

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which

France is Party, at Article 5, states: “In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in
Article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimina-
tion in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or
national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:
[...] (f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as
transport, hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.” European Union Directive 2000/43/EC on
“implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic ori-
gin” requires Member States including France to lay down a legal framework for combating direct
and indirect discrimination in a range of areas including “access to and supply of goods and services
which are available to the public.”

424

Article 225-1 and 225-2 of French Criminal Code.

425

See Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme. La lutte contre le racisme et la

xenophobie, Rapport 2003, p. 559.

212

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

213

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

8.2.1 Discrimination in Access to Insurance

Various insurance companies throughout France seem to have recently de-

cided that they no longer want customers who are Gypsies and Travellers. Ac-

cording to the non-governmental Travellers’ association La Vie du Voyage, at

the moment a large number of Travellers are being removed from coverage by

insurance companies which had previously provided them with insurance protec-

tion. Mr James Dubois, President of La Vie du Voyage, told the ERRC: “Most of

the calls that I have received lately are from Travellers telling me: ‘I was thrown

out of my insurance.’ Insurance is obligatory, but the majority of insurance com-

panies do not want to insure us.”

426

The ERRC received a copy of a letter written to a Traveller by an insurance

agent informing him that his contract would be withdrawn. The letter, dated Febru-

ary 10, 2004 states:

We regret to inform you that we will be obliged in case of a future re-

quest for modification, or at the latest, by January 1, 2005, to terminate

your contract. In effect, we just learned that you are considered as a

Traveller, thus, unfortunately, in such cases, we are obliged by the com-

panies with whom we work, to terminate these contracts as soon as we

are aware of this fact.

427

The family involved believes that the insurance company must have realised they

were Travellers by noticing that they had indicated a designated halting area as their

return address on an envelope.

Insurance companies are not only removing existing Gypsy and Traveller clients

from their rosters but also refusing to take on new Traveller and Gypsy clients. Journal-

ists producing a documentary on Travellers decided to test on camera whether this is a

widespread policy. Using a hidden camera, they filmed the efforts of a clean-cut middle

aged Traveller to approach two major insurance companies in order to insure a small

426

ERRC interview with James Dubois, November 14, 2003, Paris.

427

J.P. Labalette s.a. Assureurs-Conseils. Letter to Mr. M.W., No. Dossier 679409, Paris, February

10, 2004.

214

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

215

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

truck that serves to pull his caravan. The documentary footage shows him being refused

at both companies. At the first, AXA, the agent asks what kind of caravan the truck will

pull. When he learns that it is a caravan that serves as a home, his mouth falls open and

he states: “We will have a problem. We can no longer insure caravans that serve as hous-

ing.” At the second, Banque AGF, the Traveller asks: “Do you accept Travellers here?”

The agent responds: “No... I have some as clients and I keep them, but not new ones.”

428

Travellers and Gypsies have for many years faced refusals by some companies

to insure their caravans as housing. However, this discrimination now seems to have

become generalised and has extended from refusing to provide housing insurance to

caravans to refusing to provide insurance of any sort to Travellers and Gypsies.

8.2.2 Discrimination by Public Service Establishments

The ERRC received reports from Travellers and Gypsies throughout France

about the refusal by staff and owners of public places, such as nightclubs, bars, stores

and restaurants, to allow them to enter their establishments or to serve them.

For instance, in Bègles, the ERRC was informed that numerous Gypsies had been

refused service at a pizzeria in the shopping centre Carrefour. The person responsible

at the pizzeria reportedly told persons refused: “I don’t want to serve Gypsies.”

429

D. Winterstein told the ERRC that most of the nightclubs around Bordeaux refuse him

entry. He estimated that in 50 nightclubs, there is only one in which Gypsies and Trav-

ellers are accepted.

430

Ms L.S., a woman in her twenties, told the ERRC, “Most recently

it happened to me 2 months ago. When I tried to enter the supermarket in Montargis,

Loiret, I was not allowed. The security guard said, ‘You cannot enter. A girl that looks

like you stole in the store.’ The owner said that a Gypsy stole and so he does not want

Gypsies anymore. On other occasions, if we are allowed to enter shops, security guards

431

428

Documentary “Gens du voyage: la répression et l’absurde, une enquête de Pascal Catuogno avec

Jérome Pin et Steeve Bauman”, aired on 10 May 2004.

429

ERRC interview with Ms Rosie Winterstein, March 2, 2004, Pessac.

430

ERRC interview with Mr D. Winterstein, March 2, 2004, Pessac.

431

ERRC interview with Ms L.S., April 13, 2004, Rosny-sous-Bois.

214

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

215

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Access to Social and Public Services

However, despite the many reports of such discrimination, the ERRC is unaware

of cases in which the establishments concerned were penalised for refusing service to

Travellers and/or Gypsies. It seems that very few complaints are actually brought as

Travellers and Gypsies do not believe that their complaints will result in convictions.

The ERRC is aware of one case brought recently by two Gypsy women, in which

the lack of follow-up shows a lack of willingness by judicial authorities to take such

situations seriously.

On Sunday May 2, 2004, Ms Ca.M. and Ms C.M., both in their thirties, were de-

nied entry to the Foir’fouille store in Pessac, a discount variety store that is one of the

few open on Sundays. The security guard let them enter the store and then reportedly

asked them if they belonged to the community of Travellers. Ms Ca.M. answered

“Yes, why?” The security guard reportedly responded that “Entry is refused here

to those people.” Ms Ca.M. said: “You are a security guard, why don’t you simply

two women called Mr Pierre Delsuc, a local evangelist pastor who acts as a mediator

when Travellers have problems, and waited for him to arrive. Mr Delsuc called the

police, who also came to the store.

432

According to Mr Delsuc, despite being informed that the store has a policy of re-

fusing Travellers, the police said that they could not do anything because the store was

purportedly acting within its rights. One of the police officers also said to Mr Delsuc:

“Sir, there are thieves in your community.” Mr Delsuc took note of the license plate

number of the police car.

433

On May 7, 2004, the women and Mr Delsuc sent a com-

plaint to the Prosecutor concerning the store’s refusal to allow them entry, and the inap-

propriate reaction of the police.

434

Copies of the letter were also sent to the Ministry of

Justice, the Ministry of Interior, and the Prefect of the Department of Gironde.

The women were subsequently invited to the police station to testify. Only Ms

Ca.M. was in the area at the time, as Ms C.M. was travelling elsewhere in France. Ms

432

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Raymond Jose, husband of Ca.M., October 22, 2004, Paris.

433

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Pierre Delsuc, October 25, 2004, Paris.

434

ERRC interview with Danielle Mercier, October 23, 2004, telephone. Letter of complaint of May

7, 2004.

216

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

217

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

Danielle Mercier of the non-governmental association USETA accompanied her to

the police station. Ms Mercier informed the ERRC that the police officer conducting

the interview behaved in such a manner as to try to minimise the seriousness of the

situation and even mock the victim. She said, the officer said things such as, “You

are used to this, it is not a big deal,” and “Do you really want to file a complaint for

this?” He also laughed when the victim said that for her it is serious, and that she was

shocked by the incident. The victim insisted in maintaining her complaint.

435

In a short letter from the First Instance Court of Bordeaux (Tribunal de Grande

Instance de Bordeaux) received in July 2004, the women were informed that the case

had been filed.

436

435

ERRC telephone interview with Danielle Mercier, 15 November 2004, Paris.

436

Letter from the Prosecutor of the Republic to the organisation U.S.E.T.A., July 2004.

216

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

217

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

9. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRAVELLERS AND GYPSIES IN EMPLOYMENT

France’s international obligations require it to guarantee the right to work and the

freedom to choose one’s employment, as well as to ensure these rights are exercised

without discrimination based on grounds such as race, colour, ethnic or national

origin. These international obligations are extensive. They require France to take

proactive measures in order to ensure that individuals are able to benefit fully from

the right to work, regardless of criteria such as colour, ethnic or national origin. This

implies not only establishing a comprehensive and effective legal framework for

addressing instances of discrimination but also undertaking active steps in order to

identify and root out any policies, regulations, requirements or practices that could

impinge upon the work possibilities of a particular group of the population.

437

At the European level, Directive 2000/43/EC, adopted June 2000 by the Council

of the European Union, elaborated upon the elements that European Union Member

States are required to include in their legislative framework in order to implement

the principle of equal treatment with respect to various areas of life. This Directive,

that binds France, requires States to ensure that their anti-discrimination legislation

bans not only direct, but also indirect discrimination in a number of areas, including:

conditions for access to employment, to self-employment and to occupation, includ-

437

Various Conventions to which France is a Party, guarantee this basic right. For instance, Article 5

of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)
states that: “States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms
and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic
origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights...the rights to
work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against
unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration.” ILO Convention
No 111 Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation of 1958, requires
State Parties to “Declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to
national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and
occupation, with a view to eliminating discrimination in respect thereof.” France has ratified the ILO
Convention No 111 on 28 May 1981. The obligation to guarantee non-discrimination in this sector is
also contained in the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
and The European Social Charter (Revised). The Revised European Social Charter is in force for
France since 1 July 1999.

218

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

219

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

ing selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and

at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotion.

438

In large part in response to this Directive, in recent years France has significantly

reinforced its legislative framework banning discrimination in the employment sec-

tor. As modified by a law of November 16, 2001, Article L122-45 of the French

Labour Code prohibits indirect and direct discrimination in various stages of the

employment process on grounds including: customs; origin; physical appearance and

belonging or non-belonging, real or supposed, to an ethnicity, nation or race.

439

An-

other recent law of December 30, 2004 extends guarantees against direct or indirect

discrimination to independent or non-salaried work.

440

It remains to be seen whether implementation and practice will follow the positive

example of these new legal developments. For the time being, these legal guarantees re-

main empty promises for the many Gypsies and Travellers who encounter considerable

impediments to their ability to work, whether independently or as salaried employees.

In a striking contrast to these steps to improve the legal framework banning discrimina-

tion, France has failed to take any steps to identify and eliminate the many discrimina-

tory regulations, policies and requirements that are making it increasingly difficult for

many Gypsies and Travellers to work. In fact, the French state is itself responsible for

many of the barriers that have a particularly negative impact upon Gypsies and Trav-

ellers, in many cases interfering to a significant extent with their ability to earn their

438

Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 on “implementing the principle of equal treatment

between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin”, Official Journal of the European Communi-
ties, July 19, 2000, available on the Internet at:

http://www.era.int/www/gen/f_13049_file_en.pdf

See definitions of direct and indirect discrimination in Chapter II of this report, footnote 25.

439

The first paragraph of Article L122-45 provides that: “No person can be excluded from a recruitment

procedure or access to a traineeship or possibilities for on the job training, no salaried employee can
be sanctioned, fired or be the subject of a discriminatory measure, direct or indirect, notably with
respect to remuneration, training, reclassification, appointment, qualification, classification, or pro-
fessional promotion, transfer or contract renewal on grounds of origin, sex, customs, sexual orienta-
tion, age, family status, genetic characteristics, belonging or non-belonging, real or supposed, to an
ethnicity, nation or race, political opinions, union or mutualist activities, religious beliefs, physical
appearance, name...” French Labour Code, Article L122-45. Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

440

Law no. 2004-1486 of 30 December 2004 “creating a high authority for the fight against discrimina-

tion and for equality”, Official Journal no. 304, December 31, 2004, p. 22567.

218

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

219

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

livelihood. When it comes to treatment by private employers the legal guarantees have

yet to translate into effective tools for preventing the discrimination that Travellers and

Gypsies regularly encounter when they seek salaried employment.

9.1 Restrictions on Halting – Obstructing Travellers’ and Gypsies’ Ability to Work

The laws, policies, and actions by local officials that are making it increasingly

difficult for Gypsies and Travellers to halt their caravans, even temporarily, in many

municipalities in France, are also making it increasingly difficult for Travellers and

Gypsies to work.

Many Gypsies and Travellers earn their livelihood through forms of work connected

with travel. They have developed commercial activities, markets and forms of employ-

ment that require them to be able to circulate freely within the country and, especially, to

halt. In order to work they need to be able to stay in different municipalities for shorter or

longer periods of time. Whether selling their goods at local markets, offering their services

to residents, doing seasonal agricultural work, or undertaking any other type of economic

activity, the ability of many Travellers and Gypsies to earn a living depends upon their

ability to find places to halt their caravans. When they cannot halt, they cannot work.

Mr James Dubois, who heads La Vie du Voyage, a non-governmental Travellers

association the membership of which is comprised entirely of vendors, commented

to the ERRC: “For our business we need to travel and to stop. Every morning we

work on the markets. If they don’t let us stop one day, they prevent us from working.

If we can’t stop for several days, then we can’t work those days.” La Vie du Voyage

sends registered letters to municipalities before a group of caravans arrives, in order

to give municipal officials prior notice of their arrival, inform them that those arriv-

ing are businessmen and request a place to halt. In 2004, the Association reportedly

sent 1,700 Euros worth of recommended letters to several hundred municipalities. All

requests were refused according to Mr Dubois.

441

With each of these refusals French

officials directly hindered the ability of a number of businesspeople to work.

441

ERRC interview with Mr James Dubois and Mr Franck Couchevellou, November 14, 2004, Paris.

The registered letters are also part of a strategy being undertaken by La Vie du Voyage to fight

220

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

221

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

In fact, each time a group of Gypsies and Travellers that attempt to stop their

caravans in a municipality in order to work are expelled, the French state is directly

preventing a number of Gypsies and Travellers from earning their livelihood.

442

9.2 Regulations that Hinder Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Opportunities

for Self-Employment

French Gypsies and Travellers find their opportunities for self-employment in-

creasingly obstructed by state actions. Over the last decades, increasing regulation

of various occupations commonly exercised by Gypsies and Travellers have made

it progressively more difficult for them to earn their living in the manner that they

choose. Problems stem from the lack of consideration given to their specific way of

life and situation. As a result many regulations that appear neutral on their face, in

fact have a particularly negative impact upon Gypsies and Travellers.

443

For instance, a law passed in 1996

444

created stricter regulations with respect

to the professional qualifications required in order to exercise a range of trades,

including several occupations that are popular amongst Travellers and Gypsies,

such as the maintenance and repair of vehicles and machines, construction, the

maintenance and reparation of buildings and chimney-sweeping.

445

Recognition of

against the increasing difficulties its members face in trying to halt, including through taking legal

actions against municipalities who fail to provide them with places to halt and carry out illegal evic-
tions against their members. The registered letters strengthen their case when they negotiate with
municipal officials in order to receive permission to halt, provide an indication of the extent of the
difficulties that they face in finding places to halt, and also strengthen their legal position.

442

These regulations, policies and practices that prevent Travellers and Gypsies from halting, and there-

fore working, directly violate bans on discriminatory treatment with respect to the right to work.

443

These regulations constitute indirect discrimination against Travellers and Gypsies. By not taking steps

to eliminate the discriminatory effect of all such regulations, France is acting in violation of its inter-
national obligations under inter alia ICERD, ILO Convention No 111 Concerning Discrimination in
Respect of Employment and Occupation, 1958, ICESCR, the European Social Charter (Revised).

444

Law no. 96-603 “Relating to the Development and Promotion of Commerce and Trades”. (Unofficial

translation by the ERRC).

445

Article 16 of Law no. 96-603 “Relating to the Development and Promotion of Commerce and

Trades”. A detailed list of these occupations is set out in the Annex to Decree no 98-246 of 2 April

220

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

221

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

an adequate level of qualification to practice these professions can take the form of

academic certification

446

or proof of three years of professional experience exercis-

ing that occupation.

447

Exercising one of these occupations without such official

recognition may be sanctioned by a range of penalties, including a fine of 50,000

Francs (approximately 7,622 Euros).

448

Most Gypsies and Travellers learn these trades through informal apprentice-

ships with family members or other members of the community, rather than through

formal academic channels. Thus even when they possess the requisite professional

skills, they do not obtain academic certificates formalising their knowledge. Further-

more, obtaining this type of certification means staying in one place for a period of

time, usually two years, something that is particularly unadapted to those who travel.

Concerning the option of proving three years of professional experience, very few

Gypsies and Travellers are able to provide the forms of proof that are accepted (such

as payslips), as they work informally and independently.

The impact of these regulations is therefore to oblige them to either stop working in

these occupations, which for many means losing their livelihood, or to work illegally.

Mr Jose Brun of the Gypsy association Regards told the ERRC:

The law regulating professional activities is perceived as a new form of

discrimination. The professions related to building and public works are

activities many more persons would have moved into as you can do them

across France, door to door. They are jobs that you can do while travelling

and remain completely free. In recent years though, it has become harder

and harder to do these jobs if you do not have a diploma. In the next ten

1998 “List Concerning the Occupations Entering within the Scope of Activities mentioned in 1 of

Article 16 of the Law of July 5, 1996”. (Unofficial translation by the ERRC).

446

This can be a certificate of professional aptitude, a diploma of professional studies or another diploma

or title recognised as being at an equal or superior level.

447

Articles 1 and 2 of Decree no 98-246 of 2 April 1998 relating to the professional qualifications re-

quired for the exercise of activities provided in Article 16 of Law No 96-603 of 5 July 1996 “Relating
to the Development and Promotion of Commerce and Trades”.

448

Article 24 of Law no. 96-603 “Relating to the Development and Promotion of Commerce and Trades”.

222

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

223

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

years, it will be a catastrophe. You have the feeling of having to conform

to procedures that do not take into account your culture.

449

Another example is the situation of vendors that are itinerant Travellers, who, in

addition to difficulties arising from the inability to halt, face increasing difficulties

finding available stalls on markets when they arrive in a city. This problem is due to

widespread measures to reduce and regulate markets, which cut down on the number

of available stalls. The lower number of remaining stalls are given as a priority to

those with a permanent place at a given market or those on the waiting list for places.

At many markets there are therefore fewer places available for the vendors who

travel from market to market, a great many of whom are Travellers and Gypsies.

Mr Fredo Bone, President of the National Catholic Association of Travellers,

told the ERRC:

In the past it was mainly Travellers on the markets. Things began to

change around fifteen years ago. The markets began to be restructured

and as a result they gradually pushed us out. Over the last years about 15

percent of the space for markets has been eliminated. In the Rhône

450

the

markets have been reduced by 35-40 percent. Reduced, reduced, reduced.

Automatically, the first to be pushed out are the Travellers. Those with

permanent places keep their places. For example, if a street is 300 metres

long, they take off 50 metres from the market or a little more. They elimi-

nate the places at the end where there are Travellers [without permanent

places]. This happened especially in the big cities. A little less in the coun-

tryside, but there too. It’s become worse since 2000, since the Besson

Law... it started well before, but it has gotten much worse since. The mu-

nicipalities want to stop Travellers from halting on their municipality.

451

Problems seem to be particularly acute in the Rhône, around Lyon. Mr G.L.,

who travels throughout almost all of the year, commented, “There are supposed to

be places for itinerant vendors in all of the markets. Some respect this and others do

449

ERRC interview with Mr Jose Brun, February 23, 2004, Tours.

450

Mr Bone is referring to the Department of Rhône in which Lyon is located.

451

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Fredo Bone, November 17, 2004, Paris.

222

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

223

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

not.” He told the ERRC that he generally finds a place, except around Lyon, and in

the Midi during high season in the month of July.

Mr Bone, who mainly sells on markets in the Rhône area, regularly tries two or three

markets in the morning before finding a place on one. Illustrating the situation, he remarked

that in the town of Meyzieux, vendors who are itinerant are refused since the stall allocator

is on sick leave and the gendarmery is handling placement. The market in the neighbour-

ing municipality of Décines only has eight places of three square metres each

reserved for

itinerant vendors at a market of 300 places. In the market of another nearby municipality,

Vénissieux, only 11 of the 350 places are reserved for itinerant vendors, and this only on

Saturdays and Thursdays. Numbers of itinerant vendors far exceed these limited available

places. Mr. Bone told the ERRC that for four years he has been trying to get himself listed

on a calling list (a list of persons who are called in the morning when there are available

spaces) for the market of Vénissieux. He has not yet managed. He commented that “previ-

ously 20-30 percent of places were reserved for itinerant vendors”.

452

9.3 Discrimination in Access to Salaried Employment

The ERRC’s research also indicates that, despite the legal bans on discrimination

in employment, refusals by private employers to hire Gypsies and Travellers seem to

be a relatively common phenomenon.

An illustrative example is the discrimination faced by 16-year old Gypsy, Ms

L.S., in trying to obtain an apprenticeship as part of a training course in fashion de-

sign. Ms Daniel Talhouarn, social counsellor at the non-governmental association

ADAV,

453

who assisted L.S. in finding an employer, told the ERRC:

I found a fashion designer who was looking for an apprentice that had

taken exactly the training course that L.S. had taken. L.S. exactly fit the

profile as he described it. I did not say that she belonged to the com-

munity of Travellers, nor that she was a little dark-skinned. This man

452

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Fredo Bone, November 17, 2004, Paris.

453

Ms Talhouarn works in the social action section of ADAV (Departmental Association of Friends of

Travellers of Gironde).

224

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

225

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

wanted someone who was very attractive, very feminine and with a de-

cent level of education. I told him that L.S. fit these characteristics. She

went for an interview. As soon as the potential employer saw her skin

colour he made a remark about it. The interview did not last long.

He phoned me after the interview saying that he had found someone

with more experience for the apprenticeship. This must have been about

an hour later. I told him that it was important for L.S. and for me to

know the reasons for her refusal for the apprenticeship. He said that he

had simply found someone else, the daughter of a colleague, with more

experience. I told him that his argument did not hold up based on what

he had initially said and asked whether her skin colour bothered him. He

said ‘yes’…that it is not him it bothers, but the clients.

Ms Talhouarn went to see the fashion designer in person. On this occasion the fashion

designer reportedly stated: “Do you realise that she is a Traveller?” When Ms Talhouarn

told him that the fact of her being a Traveller should not matter, that she is French, and

that she is sedentary, the employer then reportedly said: “She lives with her mother and

her uncle. Imagine if the uncle comes and beats me up because I shake up his niece?”

In the end L.S. was unable to find an apprenticeship and at the time of writing

was taking a different training course. L.S.did not wish to lodge a legal complaint

for discrimination.

454

The anti-Gypsy and Traveller climate has become so intense in recent years that

even for work that Gypsies and Travellers have traditionally carried out, they are

now finding themselves refused. For instance, seasonal work in agriculture in the

Aquitaine region has for many years been a very important source of livelihood for

Gypsy and Traveller families. However, Ms Danielle Mercier, Secretary General of

the non-governmental association USETA,

455

told the ERRC that the situation is be-

coming worse and worse throughout the region. Employers are increasingly refusing

to hire these families, preferring students or sources of new immigrant labour.

454

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Danielle Talhouarn, November 26, 2004, Paris.

455

Social-Educative Union of Gypsies of Aquitaine.

224

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

225

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

For example, in the town of Libourne, Gypsy families have for many years found

seasonal work during the harvest in the different agricultural estates. According to

Ms Mercier, last year about 100 caravans of Gypsies came to Libourne expecting to

work. The National Employment Agency (ANPE) told her that it was the first year

that there was a 90% refusal rate as soon as clients knew that applicants were Gyp-

sies. Information Ms Mercier has received from ANPE offices throughout the region

indicates that the situation is similar throughout.

456

In the fall of 2003, USETA, along with a representative of the ANPE, in-

formed the Prefecture of the Department of Gironde of this situation. A repre-

sentative of the Labour Inspectorate was also present at the meeting. Ms Mercier

told the ERRC: “The representative of the Prefecture said ‘what do you want us

to do?’ The representative of the Labour Inspectorate also said they did not really

know what they could do. Everyone was so embarrassed. This year [2004] we

tried to set up another meeting at the Prefecture of the Department of Gironde,

for November 16. I was just informed that it has been cancelled.”

457

According to

the French Labour Code labour inspectors can request any document or element

of information that could be useful in order to provide evidence of discrimination

as provided in Article L122-45.

458

The ERRC is unaware of any inspectors that

have done so in the case of Gypsies and Travellers who experience discrimina-

tion in their access to employment.

9.4 A Favoured Workforce for Work Presenting Health and Safety Hazards

Gypsies and Travellers seem to constitute a particularly favoured workforce for

jobs that involve health hazards and companies that wish to avoid strict health and

safety regulations. The ERRC was unable to find any statistical information indi-

cating the extent to which Gypsies and Travellers are hired for such jobs, however

the ERRC’s qualitative research indicates that their numbers are proportionally far

higher than their percentage in the population.

456

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Danielle Mercier, November 15, 2004, Paris.

457

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Danielle Mercier, November 15, 2004, Paris.

458

Articles L611-9 of French Labour Code.

226

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

227

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

Mr Jose Brun of the non-governmental association Regards told the ERRC:

I have a cousin who worked in a nuclear power plant that we call the

‘Central Chinon La Loire’. They like Gypsies there. The work has

health risks, so they are used to do work that others do not want to do.

A lot of Gypsy families live in the area of the plant. It was originally an

agricultural region and they essentially provided the agricultural work-

force. The nuclear power plant does not hire directly. Instead they use

an interim employment agency to hire Gypsies.

My cousin transported nuclear waste – it was radioactive – and also

cleaned things in the zone within the security perimeter. When you

are not literate, there are things that you do not know. You do not

protect your health. There are cases with many Gypsies that worked

there and who today have problems with their thyroid glands. My

cousin gained an enormous amount of weight in a few months. We

have other friends who had to have thyroid operations – they also

worked in the plant. The managers identified a workforce that will

not show up with protest banners; a population that can be easily

manipulated. For the nuclear power plant Gypsies are a workforce

that is almost too good to be true.

459

According to Mr Brun, this is in no way an exceptional case. Gypsies are often

hired for high-risk jobs, especially on demolition sites. Companies also often sub-

contract to Gypsy families in order to recuperate metals from scrap.

Dr. Jean-Claude Giraud, a medical doctor who has treated a large number of

Gypsies in the Toulouse area for more than 40 years, told the ERRC that the type

of work they do often has a serious impact on their health. He cited the recent ex-

ample of the demolition of buildings around the site of the explosion of the AZF

factory in Toulouse:

460

459

ERRC interview with Mr Jose Brun, February 23, 2004, Tours.

460

This factory was the scene of a nitrate ammonium explosion on 21 September 2001, killing 30 per-

sons, injuring 2500 and destroying neighbouring buildings within a radius of 700 metres. The site
remains polluted and presents serious health risks.

226

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

227

Discrimination Against Travellers and Gypsies in Employment

At AZF – there was asbestos. In the demolition of the polluted build-

ings at a distance of 3 km from the AZF site, who do we find at the end

of the work chain? Gypsies, employed as demolition workers... That

is the kind of work they often do... on demolition sites when asbestos

is discovered, it is very expensive to put in place proper protection for

workers. In France, construction is a quasi-mafia industry. Big compa-

nies subcontract and then work gets subcontracted again. And at the end

of the chain you find Gypsies and clandestine migrants.

461

A young Gypsy, Ms Ginette Mencarelli, told the ERRC that her husband went to

work at AZF immediately after the explosion. When the ERRC inquired about the

health risks she responded that he needed the work.

462

According to Dr. Giraud, “life expectancy is seriously reduced due to working

and living conditions.” He also believes that in thirty years there will be an epidemic

of cancer amongst French Gypsies due to asbestos.

9.5 Racism a Constant Backdrop to the Economic Possibilities of

Gypsies and Travellers

The climate of racism towards Gypsies and Travellers that pervades French

society looms constantly in the background conditioning their economic possi-

bilities. Testifying to the pervasive nature of this racism, Gypsies and Travellers

whom the ERRC met that earn their living by offering the public goods and serv-

ices, almost universally believed that their economic success depended on their

ability to hide their identity.

Expressing this attitude, Mr Toni Lariviere, who has a small housing repair

business told the ERRC: “People do not give work to Travellers. I have to hide

the fact that I am a Traveller. It is disgusting. It is really 100% racist. All the

Travellers who are skilled tradesmen hide their identity, use pseudonyms. Some-

times at a client’s I hear remarks such as ‘We are happy with your work – you

461

ERRC interview with Dr Jean-Claude Giraud, March 8, 2004, Toulouse.

462

ERRC interview with Ginette Mencarelli, March 9, 2004, Toulouse.

228

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

229

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

know you have to be careful with all the Gypsies now ... there are so many Gyp-

sies in the municipality.’”

463

Mr Lariviere also told the ERRC about an incident that had recently happened

to his cousins in the town of Chelles. “My cousins were working on a job. They had

signed an agreement and started the job. They had left their ladders and scaffolding

in the client’s house. The client passed in front of their house and saw caravans. After

that, he did not want them to finish the work. In fact, he did not even let them enter

his house in order to recuperate their own ladders and scaffolding from the house... it

is incidents like this that remind us that we need to be discrete about our identity.”

464

The men did not complain to the police about their equipment that was in essence

stolen by the client. Mr Lariviere explained that they did not want to make waves. It

would be a disaster for future business in the municipality.

Mr J.W., a middle-aged painter (artisan peintre) who lives in the town of Callas,

said: “We face considerable discrimination when we want to work. If people find out

that I am a Gypsy, I will not be able to find work.”

465

In another illustrative example, Mr James Dubois, head of La Vie de Voyage,

466

told the ERRC that the members of the association all hide their identity as Travel-

lers in their business relations. Mr Dubois himself used to sell clocks that came with

a five-year guarantee. On five or six occasions he had already sold the merchandise

and only had to deliver it to the customer when he mentioned that he is a Traveller.

On all of the occasions, the customers stated that they had nothing against Travellers

but nonetheless found reasons why they no longer wanted the clocks.

467

463

ERRC interview with Toni Lariviere, January 30, 2004, Montfermeil.

464

ERRC interview with Toni Lariviere, January 30, 2004, Montfermeil.

465

ERRC interview with Mr J.W., May 4, 2004, Callas.

466

La Vie du Voyage is a non-governmental Travellers association the membership of which is com-

prised almost entirely of vendors.

467

ERRC interview with James Dubois, November 14, 2004, Paris.

228

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

229

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

10. VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION OF TRAVELLER AND GYPSY CHILDREN

French legislation guarantees unequivocally the right of all to education regard-

less of social, cultural or geographic origin.

468

That this right applies to Travellers

was recently emphasised in Circular No. 2002-101 of 25 April 2002 on the “School-

ing of Traveller Children and Non-sedentary Families”(25 April 2002 Circular),

addressed to rectors and inspectors of local level education departments (Acadé-

mies) and directors of the departmental services of the national education system.

469

Furthermore, a law adopted on December 30, 2004 guarantees equality of treatment

and bans direct and indirect discrimination with respect to education on grounds of

national origin, as well as belonging or non-belonging real or supposed to a given

ethnicity or race.

470

468

Article L 111-1 of the Education Code provides that:

“Education is the first national priority... It contributes to the equality of opportunities. The right

to education is guaranteed to all persons in order to develop their personality, to raise their level of
initial and continuing education, to integrate into social and professional life, and to exercise their
citizenship...The acquisition of a general culture and of a recognised qualification is guaranteed to all
youth, whatever their social, cultural or geographic origin.” (Unofficial translation by the ERRC).

469

The Circular indicates that in addition to Travellers, the non-sedentary population of France includes

those who are itinerant for professional reasons (for example mariners, fairground stallholders and
those in the circus).

470

Law no. 2004-1486 of 30 December 2004 “creating a high authority for the fight against discrimina-

tion and for equality”, Official Journal no. 304, December 31, 2004, p. 22567, Article 17.

In addition, a number of international legal instruments binding on the French state provide for the

right to education without discrimination on the grounds of, inter alia, race and ethnicity. Article
5(e)(i)(v) of ICERD obliges States Parties to prohibit and eliminate discrimination and to guarantee
equality before the law in the enjoyment of the right to education. Discrimination on grounds of race
and/or ethnic origin in the enjoyment of human rights is also prohibited by a number of other interna-
tional instruments, including Article 2(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; Article 2(2)
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); and Article 26 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) commentary

to Article 13 of the ICESCR indicates that one of the components of the right to education is that
education be “accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and in fact, without

230

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

231

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

The actual situation of Gypsies and Travellers in the education sector is,

however, a far cry from these extensive legal guarantees of equality. It is widely

agreed that participation levels of Traveller and Gypsy children are dramatically

low, with many children not attending school at all and others dropping out at an

early age. A shockingly small number of children above the age of twelve attend

schools and only a very small minority complete secondary education. Further-

more even when they attend school, Gypsies and Travellers seem all too often

to receive a substandard education, often not even equipping them with basic

literacy skills.

471

In addition, although the official policy of the Ministry of National Education

aims at schooling Gypsy and Traveller children in mainstream schools, various

forms of segregated schooling remain a reality.

With the 25 April 2002 Circular, the Ministry of Education has set out a clear

policy aimed at improving the situation of Gypsies and Travellers in the education

system. However, the concrete effects of this Circular are not yet apparent.

10.1 Dramatically Low School Participation Rates

The ERRC tried unsuccessfully to find recent nation-wide statistics that would

present a precise picture of participation rates of Traveller and Gypsy children at dif-

ferent levels of the education system. This data seems to be either non-existent or not

publicly available, a situation which serves to hide the full extent of the exclusion of

Gypsies and Travellers in the French school system. However, various existing stud-

ies, although lacking statistical accuracy, nonetheless give an indication of the extent

of exclusion of Travellers and Gypsies from French schools.

discrimination”. Furthermore, while many components of the right to education (like all rights in

the ICESCR) are subject to progressive realisation, the prohibition against discrimination requires
full and immediate application. (See Economic and Social Council. The right to education (Art.13):
08/12/99. (E/C.12/1999/10, CESCR General comment 13 para. 31, at:

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/

doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.12.1999.10,+CESCR+General+comment+13.En?OpenDocument

471

Robert Ziggler, President of the Gypsy Association Goutte d’Eau told the ERRC that he estimates

that 60-70% of Gypsies know how to read and write.

230

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

231

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

The most recent nation-wide official estimates publicly available date back to

the 1990 Delamon Report.

472

According to the report, only 5% of school-age Trav-

eller children attended kindergarten, while only 50% of those who travel and 85%

of those who are sedentary attended elementary school. The report also estimated

that 8% of those between the ages of 12 and 16 attended college.

473

More recent

information was provided by the Ministry of National Education for the periodical

Interface in the Spring of 2001. While data concerning primary school attendance

is not provided, the Ministry states that “Gypsy children of primary school age are

increasingly enrolled in local schools, in ordinary classes....” The Ministry also

notes that secondary school attendance is improving and estimates that “approxi-

mately 15-20% of Gypsy children of secondary school age currently attend. Some

pupils are integrated into mainstream classes and eventually go on to vocational or

technological studies.”

474

The ERRC was provided with another estimate by Ms Elisabeth Clanet, respon-

sible for schooling of Traveller children at the National Centre for Distance Learning

(CNED). She told the ERRC that 60% of children between 6-12 years old attend

school, but that many of these children do not attend school regularly. She estimated

an attendance rate of 30-40% of the time. For instance, children might attend school

for 15 days and then not at all for 15 days. These figures are not based on a scientific

study, but on her attempts, in co-operation with other colleagues, to compare their

data and come up with an overall picture of the situation.

475

472

Delamon, Arsène. “La situation des ‘Gens du Voyage’ et les mesures proposees pour l’ameliorer”.

Rapport de Mission de Monsieur Arsène Delamon à Monsieur le Premier Ministre. 13 Juillet 1990.
(Referred to as “The Delamon Report”).

473

The French Education system consists of nursery schools (école maternelle), primary schools (école

primaire), and secondary schools, including college (collège) and high school (lycée). Children at-
tend primary school from the ages of six to eleven and study five courses, one for each year. Children
then continue to secondary schools commencing with college until age 15 or 16 where they study
for four years. At the end of college students sit an examination (brevet des collèges). Students then
either attend an ordinary high school (lycée), until they are 18, where they study for the baccalauréat
diploma, or they follow vocational educational options that lead to professional diplomas. Secondary
education is compulsory until the age of 16.

474

“Information File: France.” Interface, Number 39, Spring 2001, pp. 14-17.

475

ERRC interview with Elisabeth Clanet, November 30, 2004, Paris.

232

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

233

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

None of the existing statistical information can, however, be considered accu-

rate. Considerable obstacles to efforts at data-collection arise from the widespread

belief that collecting any form of “ethnic” data is illegal and from the ambiguity of

the term “Travellers”, which makes it difficult to know exactly who is covered by

existing studies. Furthermore, the simple fact that children are considered to attend

school leaves open the question of the regularity of their attendance and the quality

of education that they actually receive.

There seem to have been a number of local initiatives to gather detailed statistical in-

formation about the participation of Travellers and Gypsies at local schools. For instance,

Mr Hervé Londeix, an Inspector at the Academic Inspectorate of Gironde responsible for

Travellers, carried out a study of the school participation of Travellers in the Department

of Gironde in order to be able to allocate the necessary teaching and support staff. He em-

phasised to the ERRC that his findings are in no way scientific, due especially to difficul-

ties in coming up with local figures concerning a population that moves, imperfections in

the questionnaire itself, and the fact that some of the schools did not provide responses.

He found that in Gironde, where the total Traveller population is estimated

at 13,000,

476

there were approximately 120 Traveller children who attended kin-

dergarten, 730 who attended elementary school, and 260 who attended secondary

school, 200 in ordinary college and 60 who attended “Segpa” programmes

477

during

the 2002/2003 school year. Thus an estimated total of 1,100 Traveller children at-

tended either the first or second level of school, of which 60% were children whose

families do not travel regularly. In addition, mobile truck schools host a total of ap-

proximately 400 students a year, with the total number of schooling days ranging

from less than 10 to more than 50 half-days.

478

Mr Londeix noted that it is “probable

476

Préfecture de la Gironde and Conseil Général de la Gironde. Schéma Départemental d’Accueil des

Gens du Voyage. February 2003, p. 21. The Departmental Plan states, however, that this estimate is
to be taken “with a lot of caution because as much as the unauthorised parking or the family lots are
visible, it is difficult to quantify the number of Gypsy families whose mode of life does not particu-
larly differentiate them from the rest of the population.” Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

477

SEGPA (Applied General and Vocational Education) is a form of specialised secondary education
for children experiencing serious educational or social difficulties. Segpa classes aim at preparing
students for a professional qualification.

478

The mobile truck schools, run by a non-governmental association Help for Schooling of Gypsy

Children (ASET) with teachers from the National Education system, try to offer minimal schooling

232

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

233

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

that a significant, but difficult to estimate, number of Traveller children partially or

even totally escape the educational obligation and as a consequence the field of the

study.”

479

He told the ERRC that amongst those children from families who travel

around the Department of Gironde, approximatley 400 to 500 children have received

no or very minimal schooling. More generally, he believes the number runs around

one third of the Traveller/Gypsy population. He added that there is “an enormous

drop-out between CM2 (the final year of elementary school) and college.”

480

According to the ERRC’s calculations, these figures indicate that there are likely

thousands of school-age children who are not attending school in the Department of

Gironde alone. On average the family size of Travellers and Gypsies is estimated at

between 4-5 persons per family, and the population is young (45% are said to be less

than 16 years old).

481

This means that there is a high likelihood that out of the 13,000

Travellers in Gironde at least 4,000 are school-aged children. If only 1,500 children

attend school in the Department (including the mobile truck schools), this leaves

around 2,500 children who do not attend school in the Department, some of whom

are likely enrolled in distance learning. It is difficult to estimate how many of the

children not attending schools in the Department are over the age of twelve.

Ms Marie Cannizzo, resource person for Traveller children at the Academic In-

spectorate of the Rhône, carried out a similar study of school attendance of Traveller

children in the Rhône during the 2003-2004 school year, in order to be in a better posi-

tion to provide the requisite teachers and support. She found that in the Rhône, where a

conservative estimate of the total Traveller population runs at around 9,000, a total of

1,355 Traveller children are schooled in the Rhône. A total of 991 Traveller children

attend kindergarten or elementary level education in the Department. Of these, 621

to children that move constantly, generally from eviction to eviction, and as a consequence have dif-

ficulties attending ordinary schools.

479

Londeix, Hervé. “La Scolarisation des Enfants du Voyage en Gironde: Bilan de l’année scolaire

2002-2003.” p. 5.

480

ERRC interview with Mr Hervé Londeix, March 5, 2004, Mérignac.

481

See Delevoye report. Senator Delevoye, Jean-Pierre, Report No. 188, presented at ordinary session

of French Senate 1999-2000, session of January 26, 2000, on the Internet at:

http://www.senat.fr/

rap/l99-188/l99-1881.html

. See also Commission Justice et Paix, on the Internet at:

www.diocese-

poitiers.com.fr/documents/gensvoyage.html

234

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

235

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

attend ordinary schools (479 classified as “sedentary” and 142 classified as “itiner-

ant”) and 370 children classified as itinerant attend mobile truck schools. At secondary

level, a total of 230 Traveller children are schooled in the Department. Of these 35 are

schooled in ordinary colleges, 19 in SEGPA schools and 176 in mobile truck schools.

An additional 134 students are enrolled in distance learning.

482

Although there are differences between the various figures, they all confirm

that a high percentage of children do not receive any education in French schools,

and of those that do attend, the school abandonment rate at the age of 12 is dra-

matic. Those who complete college and go on to high school (ordinary Lycée or

professional Lycée) are evidently a small minority. Mrs Marie-Paul Nauleau, an

educator who has worked for over 30 years for a non-governmental association in

Toulouse providing assistance to Gypsies and Travellers,

483

told the ERRC: “Those

who attend high school in Toulouse can be counted on two hands – I know of one.

Of those who attend college I know of about 15 students who completed the final

year... in 30 years.”

484

10.2 Obstacles to School Enrolment of Children Who Travel

The 25 April 2002 Circular states that: “Children of non-sedentary parents, are,

as all other children subject to the obligation to attend school between six and sixteen

years. They have the right to such schooling in the same conditions as other children,

whatever the length and modalities of their stay, and in the respect of the same rules,

of attendance notably. The fact that families reside only provisionally on the territory

of a municipality is without incidence on their right to schooling. In effect, it is fac-

tual residence on the territory of a municipality that determines the host educational

establishment (article 131-6 of the Education Code).”

485

482

Cannizzo, Marie. Acceuil et scolarisation des enfants du voyage dans le département du Rhône.

Inspection Académique du Rhône, November 5, 2004. ERRC telephone interview with Ms Marie
Cannizzo, November 25, Paris.

483

The non-governmental association is today called Coordination Committee for the Promotion and in

Solidarity with Communities in Difficulty: Migrants and Gypsies (CCPS).

484

ERRC interview with Ms Marie-Paul Nauleau, Monday March 8, 2004, Toulouse.

485

Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

234

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

235

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

ERRC research indicates that despite the instructions of this Circular, when they

travel, it is extremely difficult for Gypsies and Travellers to enrol their children in

schools. The sheer precarity of their existence, marked by endless evictions turns the

possibility of school attendance into a mere illusion. In fact, it is difficult to imagine

how children can possibly attend school anywhere regularly when their family is

unable to stop in a single place for any length of time. Cathie Winterstein expressed

this problem to the ERRC: “I want to send my children to school, but I cannot. We

can never stay in one place... I would like to be able to stay somewhere and send

my children to school, but it is impossible when we are always moving.” She told

the ERRC that she was extremely happy when they were able to remain somewhere

without being evicted for long enough for her daughter to attend school for 3 months.

Her son, who is twelve years old, has been schooled for only a few days.

486

Although families not only have the right, but also the legal obligation to send

their children to school until the age of 16, mayors and the police are generally more

concerned about expelling Gypsies and Travellers from the territory of local munici-

palities than ensuring that Gypsy and Traveller children are able to attend schools.

Each time an eviction takes place when parents have enrolled their children in the

local school, the eviction from municipal territory also interrupts the children’s

schooling. When families try to explain this to local officials or police, the argument

does not bear much weight in the eyes of most municipal officials who seem simply

to perceive of Gypsies and Travellers as at best a nuisance and at worst a threat to the

peace and security of towns. In a climate of rampant racism directed against Travel-

lers and Gypsies, mayors generally view it as far more politically expedient to expel

a group of caravans than to enrol their children in local schools.

Adding to the constant evictions, children’s schooling is further hindered by the

deplorable conditions (lack of basic infrastructure) in which many Gypsy and Trav-

eller families are forced to halt. Without running water and electricity, it is difficult

for children to prepare for school, let alone to do their homework. Furthermore, the

marginal locations to which Gypsies and Travellers are relegated further impede

their children’s ability to attend school. For instance when the caravans are halted

in an industrial zone or at the city limit, the nearest school is often beyond walking

distance. Similarly, when the caravans are halted between busy freeway arteries, it is

486

ERRC interview with Ms Cathie Winterstein, March 2, 2004, Bordeaux.

236

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

237

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

dangerous for children to walk to school. Thus, if the families’ vehicles are needed

for work early in the morning (as is often the case), the children have no way of get-

ting to school. The ERRC did not come across any instances where school buses pick

up children of families temporarily halted in a municipality.

Each time Travellers arrive in a new place and wish to send a child to the local

school, they need to enrol the child at the city hall as well as at the school itself. They

need to present a range of documents, generally including the family booklet or birth

certificate of the child; proof of residence; the child’s health book proving that the

child received the obligatory vaccinations; and a certificate proving that the child has

been removed from the register of the previous school attended.

Legally, a child whose family is parked on the city’s territory is to be accepted in

the local school, even if the parents are unable to immediately present all of the re-

quired documents.

487

Numerous mothers nonetheless informed the ERRC that may-

ors or school directors frequently refuse to accept their children in a local school.

Traveller Ms M.J. Daumasse summarised the recurrent problem as follows:

“Each time we arrive in a new city and want to enrol our children in school, we

have to go to the city hall. If we park in the fields, they deny us our right to send our

children to school because we are not at an official halting place. But we don’t have

places to halt…those who want to send their children to school have to be willing to

put up a fight and go through a lot of red tape.”

488

Another Traveller, Ms Feron, told the ERRC that many schools request that

parents provide them with their address of residence in the municipality in order

487

“For primary school, according to the provisions of Circular No. 91-220 of 30 July 1991, even if the

family cannot present all or several of the required documents at the time that they request enroll-
ment in the school, the child should nonetheless benefit from provisional acceptance during the time
needed for all of the documents required for enrollment to be procured, which should be as short as
possible. In the event that the Director of a school finds it absolutely impossible to enroll a child due
to lack of space in the school, a report is to be addressed, within a maximum period of three days,
through hierarchical channels, to the school inspector of the Department. The inspector then informs
the Prefect and takes all the necessary steps to render the child’s enrollment possible.” Circular No.
2002-101 of 25 April 2002 on the “Schooling of Traveller Children and Non-sedentary Families”.
Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

488

ERRC interview with Ms M.J. Daumasse, May 4, 2004, Aix-en-Provence.

236

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

237

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

to accept the children. If parents are unable to do so, the schools refuse to enrol

the children.

489

When the ERRC met Ms Feron on May 4, 2004, she had recently

managed to halt with her family in the town of Saint-Victoret for a period of ap-

proximately five months. However, her children had not been accepted in the local

school, although it was 500 metres away from the site where the family was halted.

She said that she had managed to enrol the children in school elsewhere, farther

away, but she had problems taking them in the morning when the men took the

vehicles in order to go to work.

490

During an ERRC visit to the official halting area “Realtor” in Aix-en-Pro-

vence, a group of mothers said that they reside on the official halting area for the

benefit of the children, even though they do not like to. During the two-month

period that they are permitted to remain at the halting area their children are able

to attend the local school. However, as soon as the two-month period comes to

an end, their children are immediately kicked out of the local school, even when

they remain in the municipality.

491

The next day the ERRC met Traveller Ms R.D. at the official halting area

“Saint-Menet” in Marseille. Her two children, one ten and the other eight, were

kicked out of the school located near Realtor after a 2-month period, even before

the family had left the halting area. According to Ms R.D., the school Director had

called the halting area to inform them that she had already prepared the official

certificate indicating that the children were no longer registered at the school. The

school Director told the family: “I do not want sedentary families – 2 months is 2

months.” When the family left Realtor, they halted at another location very close to

Realtor, but the children could no longer attend the school unless the family went

to the city hall to re-enrol them. The family believed it was unlikely that the chil-

dren would be accepted given that the mayor of Aix-en-Provence has a reputation

for being particularly vigilant in evicting families stopped outside of the official

halting area. Instead, the family left Aix-en-Provence.

492

489

Although such practices run contrary to French law, including the specific instructions of the 25 April

2002 Circular, they nonetheless remain common.

490

ERRC interview with Ms Feron, May 4, 2004, Aix-en-Provence.

491

ERRC visit to the Realtor halting area, May 4, 2004, Aix-en-Provence.

492

ERRC interview with Ms R.D., May 5, 2004, Marseille.

238

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

239

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

Many families are afraid to request the enrolment of their children in local schools

out of fear that their children will not only be refused, but that the family will also be

forcibly evicted from the municipality. Ms Marie Cannizzo

493

told the ERRC of one

such eviction that took place in September of 2003. A group of families with about

twenty school-age children had been stopped on a site in the town of Saint-Pierre-

de-Chandieu for more than a year. The mayor had taken no steps to evict them. The

children did not attend the local school, but instead were sometimes schooled in a

mobile truck school. The local school was willing to accept them. Ms Cannizzo ac-

companied the families to meet with the mayor in order to arrange for the children to

be enrolled in the local school and to use the cafeteria. Several days later the families

were forcibly evicted from the municipality by the police.

494

Mr Joseph Poirier, teacher in a mobile truck school told the ERRC about a similar

incident that occurred in the town of Eysines in the Department of Gironde: “I made

the request for school enrolment on behalf of a family. There was one child to enrol in

school. The local school was ready. The mayor refused, and since they knew that the

family was in a situation of illegality, they evicted the caravans the next morning.”

495

According to Ms Danielle Mercier, representative of the non-governmental as-

sociation USETA,

496

refusals by schools to enrol Traveller children halted in their

geographical vicinity are sometimes instigated by the protests of local parents’ as-

sociations. She said “they go to the school Directors and say things like ‘if you enrol

the Travellers’ children, I will pull my children out of school. They do not know how

to talk, they are dirty.’ And the parents sometimes also go to the mayors and say ‘in-

crease the security around the school to stop Traveller children from entering; there

are caravans in front.’ This sort of thing is never written, but often said.”

497

Mr Joseph Poirier, told the ERRC of a recent instance where he was approached

by an association of parents from the municipality of St. Loubes, a municipality

493

Resource person for Travellers at the Academic Inspectorate of the Rhône.

494

ERRC interview with Ms Marie Cannizo, March 25, 2004, Lyon.

495

ERRC interview with Mr Joseph Poirier, March 5, 2004, Mérignac.

496

Social-Educative Union of Gypsies of Aquitaine.

497

ERRC interview with Ms Danielle Mercier, March 1, 2004, Pessac.

238

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

239

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

outside of the zone he usually goes with his truck school. There was a group of cara-

vans stopped in the town and 3 or 4 Traveller children that wished to attend the local

school. The parents wanted him to teach the Traveller children in his mobile truck

school so that the children would not attend the local school. He refused.

498

According to Ms V.R., a civil servant in the Department of Education who has

worked with Travellers for more than thirty years, local education departments

(Académies) face considerable difficulties in ensuring respect for the right of Travel-

ler children to attend local schools, due to the political climate and the power of the

mayors. She told the ERRC: “The day that the local education department decides to

enrol a group of Traveller children in a local school, the problem moves into the pub-

lic domain. If a school inspector, for instance me, ensures that the law on education

is respected without taking into account the mayor of the town concerned, you can be

sure that two hours later, the rector will move the inspector to another position. The

rector doesn’t generally want to make waves. The rector is someone political who

represents the government. As a result, even though school inspectors want to ensure

that the law is respected, this is a political file so we have to act carefully. Inspectors

are caught in a situation where on one side is the law on education and on the other

the law on housing, and the security law when it’s about immigrants. We are really

caught between different fires.”

499

10.3 Obstruction by Local Officials to School Enrolment of Traveller

and Gypsy Children

Traveller and Gypsy families who buy land in a municipality also encounter

obstruction by local officials when they seek to enroll their children in local schools

while they reside in the municipality. Local officials present various reasons for re-

fusing to enroll resident Gypsy and Traveller children in local schools, ranging from

a lack of space in the local school for these children to families’ violations of urban

planning regulations (when they reside in an area not zoned for construction). Lo-

cal officials are legally obliged to accept children residing on their municipality in

local schools, regardless of whether or not the families are deemed to be residing in

498

ERRC interview with Mr Joseph Poirier, March 5, 2004, Mérignac.

499

ERRC interview with Ms V.R., March 25, 2004.

240

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

241

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

violation of urban planning regulations, or any other regulations, as schooling is both

a right and an obligation for children. However, Gypsy and Traveller families often

have to fight with local authorities, and sometimes even to go to court, in order to

enroll their children in local schools.

The non-governmental association USETA

500

told the ERRC that a principal dif-

ficulty families encounter is that the first thing city hall officials ask for is the gas or

electricity bill as proof of a family’s residence in the municipality. Often this same

city hall refuses water and electricity to the family as they are deemed to be residing in

the municipality in violation of urban planning regulations. Thus local officials in ef-

fect place a superior value on urban regulations over children’s right to an education.

In a typical example, in September 2002 the mayor of Isle-Saint-George re-

fused to accept twelve of Ms J. Winterstein’s grandchildren in the local school.

The children had come to live for several months with their grandparents, who

have owned land in Isle-Saint-George since 1990. Ms Winterstein believes that it

is important that her grandchildren receive an education and therefore wanted to

send them to the local school. She told the ERRC that when she requested their

enrolment at city hall, the mayor, Mr Jean Andre Lemire, refused and threatened to

expel the family from their land.

Mr Lemire told the ERRC that taking 12 Traveller children is difficult for the

teachers. The small town school has only three classrooms and 55 children from the

ages of three to ten years old. He commented: “when there were only one or two

Traveller children it was manageable, but when they came with 12, it was another

story... I do not know if it is good for them to be in the middle of children who are at

the same academic level, but are younger than them. In addition, the teachers do not

have all the necessary means to manage the situation.”

501

The family took the municipality to the Administrative Court of Bordeaux and

won. The court ordered the municipality to enrol the children in the local school and

to pay a fine of 100 Euros for each child that was refused.

502

500

USETA assists Traveller children in the Aquitaine region to enrol in school.

501

ERRC interview with Mr Jean Andre Lemire, March 4, 2004, Isle-Saint-George.

502

ERRC interview with Ms Winterstein, March 4, 2004, Isle-Saint-George.

240

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

241

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

According to Ms Danielle Mercier, even after the judgement Mr Lemire did

not want to accept the Winterstein’s grandchildren in the local school. She told the

ERRC: “the mayor of Isle-Saint-George told them to go enrol in Saint-Médard-

d’Eyrans.

503

But the mayor of Saint-Médard said there is a judgement, so the children

have to go to school in Isle-Saint-George. We wrote to the Ministry of Education and

three weeks later there was place in the school in Isle-Saint-George.” In her efforts

to have the judgement enforced, Ms Mercier had also phoned the school Director

in Isle-Saint-George who reportedly told her that she was crazy to want to enrol

children of 10 years of age who had never received any schooling, that the school

couldn’t do anything with children of that age.”

504

In the end the 12 children were placed in a separate class in an “evaluation room”

generally used for special activities. Mr Lemire told the ERRC: “We were obliged

to use that room and we succeeded in having a support teacher that looked after the

children.” The ERRC asked if he was sure that they were all behind. He answered

that he did not know; he is a mayor not a teacher.

505

Ms Sandra Bayer, a Gypsy woman who owns land in the town of Gouvernes, told

the ERRC of the difficulties that she had enrolling her children in the local school.

In November 2000, when she moved to the municipality of Gouvernes with her hus-

band and children, she wanted to enrol two of her school-age children, 9 year-old

Kevin and 11 year-old Skipper. She went to see the school Director who informed

her that there was place for her children in the school. She then went to city hall to

see the mayor, Mr Toni Vincent. The mayor’s secretary immediately told her: “No,

we will not accept them.” Ms Bayer responded that it is a legal obligation to accept

all children in school and insisted on seeing Mr Vincent. She received an appoint-

ment for the following day. Mr Vincent told her that there was no place in the school

for her children. She asked how this was possible as the school Director had told

her that there was place. According to Ms Bayer, the mayor said: “Anyway we will

not take your children in school. You should leave them where they are currently in

school, as I will not take them.”

503

This is a nearby town which has a separate class for the local Traveller and Gypsy children.

504

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Danielle Mercier, November 30, 2004, Paris.

505

ERRC interview with Mr Jean Andre Lemire, March 4, 2004, Isle-Saint-George.

242

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

243

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

Ms Bayer had an appointment scheduled that same day with the Director of the

school in the neighbouring town of Saint-Thibault-les-Vignes, in which the family

had previously lived, in order to receive a certificate indicating that the children were

no longer enrolled in school there (certificat de radiation). This document is neces-

sary to enrol children elsewhere. When she arrived at the school, the Director told her

that he would not give her the certificate as he had received a call from Mr Vincent.

Ms Bayer returned to see Mr Vincent once again. She asked him why he had phoned

the school Director in Saint-Thibault-les-Vignes to tell him not to give her the certifi-

cate. According to Ms Bayer, Mr. Vincent then told her “I don’t want your children

in school. Anyway, you are illegally here and you will not stay.”

506

She told him that

he did not have the right to refuse her children. He reportedly responded: “I have the

right because the Inspector of the Department of Education, Mr Rougasse, advised

me not to take them, that I have the right.”

During the week that she had been trying to enrol her children in school, Ms

Bayer had taken them to school with their backpacks and schoolbooks every morn-

ing in the hope that they would be admitted. After this last conversation with Mr

Vincent on the subject, she notified the Prefect and called local journalists. She told

the ERRC that the Prefect told Mr Vincent that he was obliged to accept the children.

Mr Vincent refused to speak with the media, but then reportedly phoned the journal-

ist from the newspaper Le Parisien who intended to write an article and asked him

not to publish the article and that he would accept the children. Mr Vincent then went

to see Ms Bayer’s sister-in-law who also lives in Gouvernes and told her to tell her

brother Mr Titus Bayer (Sandra’s husband) that his children could go to school.

507

Vincent did not answer any of the ERRC’s messages requesting an interview.

10.4 Discrimination by an Examination Committee

There are disturbing reports about discrimination of Travellers and Gypsies dur-

ing school examinations. Such for example, is the case of sixteen-year old Traveller

506

The Bayers have had continual legal proceedings with the municipality that has tried to evict them

from their land and refuses to provide them with water or electricity. See pp. 146-151 of this report
describing Bayers situation.

507

ERRC interview with Ms Sandra Bayer and Mr Titus Bayer, February 10, 2004, Gouvernes.

242

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

243

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

Ms Laura Hugues, who was reportedly treated in a humiliating manner during an

examination towards her baccalaureat STT diploma and eventually failed.

508

She had followed courses via distance learning (CNED). She presented herself

on June 2, 2004 at the time of her convocation before an examination committee

at the Lycée Notre Dame du Voeu at Hennebont. According to Ms Hugues, the

first thing one of the two examiners said to her was: “We will begin immediately,

no preparation, we fell behind this morning and we had to eat. You must be Laura

Hugues, the student from the CNED, we just spoke about your brother.” Looking

over the different subjects that Laura prepared during the school year, one of which

focused on Travellers, one of the examiners said: “You will be examined on subject

No. 5 entitled ‘the study of a product’ because the subject ‘Travellers’ would be a

little too easy, to tell us your life... and it isn’t my cup of tea.”

Part of the examination took place on a computer. Laura was asked to use the

programme EXCEL. She had been unable to purchase the program because of a lack

of financial resources and was therefore unfamiliar with it. An examiner immediately

remarked: “It is normal, one cannot practice, one does not have a computer in the

caravan.” She then followed this remark by saying: “You could not have stayed with

your brother?” Laura’s brother sells on markets, fairs and auctions in the region and

leads a sedentary lifestyle. Laura is unaware how the examiners’ obtained informa-

tion about the movements of her family.

509

The association Regards told the ERRC that this case is all the more serious

in that Laura is a role model for several hundred youth in her community. Her ex-

periences in attempting to pass the baccalaureat will have an impact upon other’s

desire to continue. Regards has received numerous phone calls from adolescents,

many of whom report similar instances of discrimination in school examinations.

Regards has sent letters of complaint concerning this case to the responsible au-

thorities, including the newly created specialised body, the “High Authority for the

508

Baccalaureat in science and technology of the service industry (Baccalauréat sciences et technologies

tertiaires). This baccaulaureat degree focuses on business and management. See Site of Ministry of
National Education, Higher Education and Research, available at:

http://www.education.gouv.fr/

sec/baccalaureat/bactechno.htm

509

Ms Laura Hugues. Letter to President of the association Regards, June 9, 2004.

244

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

245

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

Fight against Discrimination and for Equality”. The Rectorate of Rennes has begun

investigating the case. The two examiners responded to the allegations against

them in writing. They asserted that Laura lied about what happened, that they had

no way of knowing that she was a Gypsy. Furthermore, they stated that even if they

had known, “it is shocking to think that they would have penalised her due to her

belonging to a given community, of whatever nature.” Then they had explained

the weaknesses in her presentation that lead to her failing the exam. At the time of

writing no further action had been taken in the investigation.

510

10.5 Inferior Education

During its research the ERRC met at least twenty adolescents who said that they

had attended school regularly, but still could not read and write.

When the ERRC asked why, some adolescents shrugged their shoulders or said

they did not know. Others said that teachers ignored them or put them at the back of

the class. For instance, Ms G. M., who learned to read and write in a training course

she followed between the ages of 16 and 21, told the ERRC: “Luckily I learned to

read and write. I went to school for 16 years but didn’t learn. We were at the back

of the class.”

511

Similarly, Mr Stephane Puzio, representative of Regards in Lam-

onzie-Saint-Martin, told the ERRC that the local children generally go to elementary

school from October until April, but do not learn. He also said: “They are told to sit

at the back and to draw. All over France you will find cases like this.”

512

Three or four adolescents the ERRC met just outside of Bordeaux showed the

ERRC their workbooks, which mostly contained pictures to colour.

Mr Paul Piccirillo, a social worker who managed a social center in a housing

complex with a large Gypsy population, told the ERRC: “The school is not adapted

to the gitan population, nor to everyone else either...The first tendency of the educa-

510

ERRC telephone interview with Dany Peto-Manso, December 20, 2004, Paris. See also

Letter to Mr

Hugues and Ms Peto-Manso

. Rennes, January 17, 2005, copy on file with the ERRC.

511

ERRC interview with Ms G.M., March 9, 2004, Toulouse.

512

ERRC interview with Mr Stephane Puzio, February 29, 2004, Bergerac.

244

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

245

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

tion system is to reject these children. I saw the same children, who did not succeed

at school, pick up a pencil and begin to write in the social centre...There is a problem

in the manner of teaching and the material taught. For instance, they never speak of

the history of their people or their way of life.”

513

10.6 Segregated Schooling of Traveller and Gypsy Children

The Ministry of Education has made very clear that steps are to be taken in order

to ensure that Traveller and Gypsy children fully enjoy their right to education, and

this in mainstream schools.

The 25 April 2002 Circular clearly spells out that priority is to be given to schooling

non-sedentary children in ordinary classes and that any measures aimed specifically at

this population should only be temporary and act as bridges to mainstream schooling:

In elementary school, it is also important that children are received in ordi-

nary classes. Targeted measures can, if necessary, be considered on a tem-

porary basis, but only as bridges toward schooling in the ordinary frame-

work (adaptation classes in neighbourhood schools, specific schools in a

neighbourhood close to the halting area or on the halting area, for example).

While mastery of the French language in its oral and written usage is a pri-

ority, learning to live together constitutes another essential goal of school-

ing. As such, integration in a mainstream framework constitutes not only a

principle or an objective, but also the primary method of schooling...

…The goal of mobile projects (such as truck-schools) that take over the

schooling of children who are unable to enroll in school due to the too

great itinerance of the parents is also, in the end, to lead to participation

in regular classes....

514

The Circular goes on to detail a range of innovative methods, which have been de-

veloped locally in different parts of the country and are to be applied more generally in

513

ERRC interview with Mr Paul Picarillo, May 8, 2004, Marseille.

514

Circular No. 2002-101 of 25 April 2002 on the “Schooling of Traveller Children and Non-sedentary

Families”. (Unofficial translation by the ERRC).

246

247

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

order that mainstream elementary schools may meet the needs of highly mobile children.

It then goes on to stress that at college level as well, priority should be given to schooling

children within the ordinary educational framework and sets out a range of measures that

can be implemented in order to provide additional support to children who are behind or

having difficulties.

Despite this Circular, the ERRC research revealed that many Gypsies and Travel-

lers continue to be schooled in segregated structures. These include segregated schools,

segregated classes and mobile truck schools catering only to Traveller children.

515

For instance, on the official halting area in Avignon, managed by the non-govern-

mental Association AREAT, the ERRC came across a school designed only for children

whose families are staying on the halting area. The school receives children between the

ages of 3 and 12 and has 2 classes and a staff of 2 teachers and a social assistant.

Jose Brun of the Gypsy association Regards told the ERRC that schools on halt-

ing areas were a trend in the eighties. “If they could have in the eighties, they would

have built McDonalds on halting areas. They did everything on halting areas. They

quickly realised it was a failure,” he said.

516

The official strategy has now changed and Traveller children on halting areas are

to be integrated in local schools. Nonetheless, schools on halting areas still exist in a

number of locations. The Ministry of National Education indicated in 2001 that such

schools exist in Avignon, Dijon, Orléans, Pau and Strasbourg.

517

The biggest school located on a halting area is that in Dijon. Established in 1974,

the school receives approximately 350 students each year between the ages of four

and sixteen. The children who attend the school are from families living on the site,

515

The UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education (“CDE”), signed in Paris in 1961,

provides a specific ban on racial discrimination. Article 1(c) of the CDE prohibits discrimination in
education, the definition of which includes “establishing or maintaining separate educational systems
or institutions for persons or groups of persons”. Article 1(d) of the CDE further prohibits “limiting
any person or group of persons to education of an inferior standard”. France ratified the CDE on 11
September 1961.

516

ERRC interview with Mr Jose Brun, 23 February, 2004, Tours.

517

“Information File: France.” Interface, Number 39, Spring 2001, pp. 14-17.

248

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

249

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

but also Travellers and Gypsies that live elsewhere in Dijon. Most of the students that

attend the school have little or no previous schooling. Students attend for varying

lengths of time from two days to six months.

518

Ms Virginie Repaire, who has recent-

ly written a doctoral thesis on this school, told the ERRC that this school cannot be

viewed simply as a ghetto school. The school has developed innovative pedagogical

methods, some of which would in fact be interesting to incorporate more generally

into other schools. Nonetheless, she pointed out that it is obvious that one reason

the city of Dijon provides considerable resources to this school is in order to avoid

schooling these children in ordinary schools. The school therefore also needs to be

viewed as a product of a logic of discrimination and segregation.

519

Segregated schools also exist outside of halting areas, sometimes near official halt-

ing areas or simply near neighbourhoods with a high concentration of Travellers and

Gypsies. The Association USETA in Gironde told the ERRC that it would like to see

the segregated school in Toulenne transformed from a purely Gypsy school. The school,

which is segregated from the rest of the city is in a rural area with nothing around, except

the nearby industrial zone. It has been in existence for 20 years and receives Gypsy and

Traveller children between the ages of six and twelve. There are three classes of different

levels. Travellers told USETA that other schools do not want them, so they return to this

school even though the halting area that used to be nearby is currently closed.

520

The Toulouse-based non-governmental association CCPS

521

told the ERRC

that there used to be a school in the former Ginestous camp in Toulouse. The

school, école de la Glacière, was moved outside of the camp at the beginning of

the 1991 school year, but the student body remained composed entirely of Gypsy

children living in the Ginestous area. In 2001, those children over 9 years of age

were placed in other schools around Toulouse, however those under the age of 9

remain in the école de la Glacière.

522

518

“Information File: France.”

Interface

, Number 39, Spring 2001, pp. 14-17.

519

ERRC interview with Ms Virginie Repaire, November 24, 2004, Paris.

520

ERRC telephone interview with Ms Danielle Mercier, September 17, 2004, Paris.

521

Coordination Committee for the Promotion and in Solidarity with Communities in Difficulty: Mi-

grants and Gypsies.

522

ERRC interview with Ms Marie-Paul Nauleau, Monday March 8, 2004, Toulouse.

248

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

249

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

A large number of Gypsy and Traveller children receive their schooling in mo-

bile truck schools. This is particularly the case for those whose families are espe-

cially mobile, whether by choice or due to frequent forced evictions.

For instance, according to the study on school attendance of Traveller children

in the Rhône carried out by Ms Marie Cannizzo,

523

approximately 60% of all Travel-

ler children that attend primary schools (elementary school and kindergarten) attend

mobile truck schools. If only those children categorised as ‘itinerant’ in the study

are taken into account, the percent of those who attend mobile truck schools rises to

72%. The term ‘itinerant’ encompasses different situations ranging from those chil-

dren who travel frequently because their families ‘choose’ to do so, and those chil-

dren who in fact remain in a very limited geographical area, but move frequently due

to forced evictions. As the categories ‘sedentary’ and ‘itinerant’ do not adequately

reflect the situation of most Gypsies and Travellers, those categorised as ‘itinerant’

also include children who spend numerous months per year in one place.

According to the Ministry of National Education, Scholastic Division, in 2001

there were 35 mobile truck schools across the country.

524

The majority of these

schools are run by a non-governmental organisation, Supporting School Provision

for Gypsy Children (ASET),

525

which has a network of 30 mobile truck schools

across the country. The teachers are recruited by the Ministry of Education, but the

NGO itself is managed privately. The mobile truck schools go to locations where

caravans are halted for short periods. They visit different groups of children in a

week for periods of a half-day each. Many families have the telephone number of the

local truck school and each time they are evicted, they phone the teachers to inform

them of their new location.

According to Mr Joseph Poirier, teacher in a mobile truck school in Gironde and

President of ASET, the mobile truck schools attempt to provide children with minimal

schooling. They teach them to read, write and count. Each mobile truck school can

receive approximately a dozen children at once. Mr Poirier told the ERRC:

523

The study covers the school year 2003-2004.

524

“Information File: France.”

Interface

, Number 39, Spring 2001, pp. 14-17.

525

Aide à la Scolarisation des Enfants Tsiganes et autres jeunes en difficulté.

250

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

251

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

This cannot be considered as real education. It is very difficult. These

populations live in very difficult conditions. They are always in an il-

legal situation and regularly expelled. They are totally lacking in basic

comforts... In Gironde we are two teachers that teach in mobile truck

schools and together we see about 400 children over the course of a

year, 200 on a regular basis. In ten years, I have not seen a single child

get a diploma, including a professional diploma. They learn to read and

to count and that is it.

526

Even the most motivated teachers in truck schools cannot make up for the limited

number of teaching hours that they are able to spend with each group of children and

the precarious and indecent conditions in which these families are obliged to live.

Mr Dany Peto-Manso, President of the Gypsy association Regards, told the

ERRC: “I call this a garage response – school to create sub-humans...if the children

didn’t go to school, it would amount to the same thing”

527

Mr Joseph Charpentier, President of the National and European Association

S.O.S. Travellers

528

commented: “The mobile truck schools marginalise us. They

prevent our children from being with others.” He also noted though that for those

who have difficulties finding a place to stop, it is very good that the truck schools

follow the caravans.

529

Other Travellers who remain around the Bordeaux area, moving each time they

are evicted, told the ERRC that they appreciate the truck schools because at least

their children are able to get some schooling. They remain in the sector of Bordeaux

covered by the mobile truck schools whenever they can so that their children can

continue their studies.

530

526

ERRC interview with Mr Joseph Poirier, March 5, 2004, Mérignac.

527

ERRC telephone interview with Mr Dani Peto Manso, November 29, 2004, Paris.

528

Association Nationale et Européenne S.O.S. Gens du Voyage.

529

ERRC interview Mr with Joseph Charpentier, October 29, 2004, Bobigny.

530

ERRC interview with Ms Dolores Azais and Ms Nathalie Gaubert, Tuesday March 2, 2004, Bordeaux.

250

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

251

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

The very existence of these truck schools bears witness to the degree of exclusion

of many Gypsy and Traveller children from ordinary schools. The truck schools are a

bandaid solution created by a non-governmental organisation in order to partially remedy

the profound inability and unwillingness of mainstream schools to respond to the needs

of children who travel. And they are also a response to the profound instability created by

the actions of local officials and the police who continuously evict families.

The truck schools in effect provide a minimal level of schooling for children who

are otherwise excluded from the education system. These schools do not have the re-

sources available nor the environmental conditions to provide further education to the

children that they see. Nonetheless, for the many families who move from forced eviction

to forced eviction and are never sure where they will be able to spend the night, these

schools become the only feasible option for teaching their children to read and write. In

addition, when Traveller children whose families are halted temporarily in a municipality

are refused entry to ordinary local schools, these mobile truck schools provide an alter-

native to no education at all for a period of time. Some of these schools have also been

centres of pedagogical innovation, for instance with respect to teaching materials and

tools allowing for the continuity of children’s education when they travel.

However, mobile truck schools nonetheless remain segregated and minimal

forms of schooling. And they are currently options that are all too often imposed

by default on families due to the various obstacles blocking their attendance at local

schools. The 25 April 2002 Circular is a positive indication of the will of the Min-

istry of Education to ensure that the norm consists in schooling itinerant Gypsy and

Traveller children with other children. The Circular is also a statement of the willing-

ness of the Ministry of Education to promote positive measures in order to meet the

specific needs of these children within mainstream schools. For the moment, though,

these guidelines remain a distant goal. The local reality remains one in which many

Gypsy and Traveller children are frequently schooled in mobile truck schools or

other segregated structures.

10.7 Gypsy and Traveller Children in Special Classes

It is widely acknowledged that amongst the minority of Gypsy and Traveller

children that continue their education after the age of 12, a disproportionately high

number attend classes for “Applied General and Vocational Education” (Segpa).

252

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

253

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

These classes provide specialised education designed for children experiencing

serious learning difficulties due to social, cultural or intellectual reasons (an I.Q. less

than 80). Mr Hervé Londeix, an Inspector at the Academic Inspectorate of Gironde

responsible for Travellers, told the ERRC: “Today students with significant diffi-

culties in schools are proposed special scholastic support and are oriented towards

Segpa classes. Sometimes they can barely read. Often they have light intellectual

deficiencies and most cases are social and cultural shortcomings. They are children

without the cultural baggage that would allow them to follow a normal scholastic

orientation towards college.”

531

Segpa classes aim at preparing students for a professional qualification. Students

normally spend four years in Segpa classes and the best students go on to profes-

sional high schools, where they can get a professional diploma. Those students who

stop their schooling after the Segpa receive no diploma.

532

Students are oriented to these classes based on the decision of a Commission

533

composed of persons representing the Academic Inspectorate, the Department of So-

cial and Sanitary Affairs, a Director of a Specialised Institution and an Association

of Parents of Handicapped Children. The Commissions include inter alia doctors,

psychologists and social workers.

534

In the case of Traveller and Gypsy children, their so-called “cultural or social”

shortcoming can be found in an insufficient academic level when they reach the age

of secondary education. Thus the root of the problem clearly lies in the inadequate

531

ERRC interview with Mr Hervé Londeix, March 5, 2004, Mérignac.

532

See Eduscol - the Pedagogical site of the Ministry of National Education. “Enseignements adaptés

dans le second degré”, available at:

http://eduscol.education.fr/index.php?./D0081/segpa.htm

See also Circular on: “Adapted Teaching - Application of the reform of adapted general and profes-
sional teaching in the second degree”, 19 June 1998, available at:

http://www.education.gouv.fr/

bo/mentor/word//1998/bo26/r5.doc

; and Circular on “Adapted Teaching - Pedagogical orientations

for adapted general and professional teachers in the second degree”, 19 June 1998, available at:

www.education.gouv.fr/bo/mentor/word//1998/bo26/r6.doc

. Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

533

District Commissions of the Second Degree (Commissions de circonscription du second degré) (CCSD).

534

Website “L’aide aux élèves, l’adaptation et l’intégration scolaires”, available at:

http://www.aideeleves.net/

reglementation/cdes.htm

252

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

253

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

schooling of Traveller and Gypsy children at a younger age. As ordinary French

secondary school classes generally lack the necessary support programmes for these

children, they are channelled into Segpa classes.

Mr Joseph Poirier, President of ASET told the ERRC: “For these children,

their handicap is their limited level of schooling...instead of putting them in college

classes where there is nothing for them by way of support, they are placed in Segpa

classes.”

He noted that depending on how the schooling in Segpa classes goes, the

students can acquire skills that are useful for them. He pointed out that in this sense

their orientation there is not only negative. “A child who cannot read or write in the

sixth

535

will simply be present in a college class to the extent that the college does not

propose any special support...But it is also a way of marginalising them,” he said.

536

Mr Londeix similarly commented: “Without a doubt there are children in Segpa

classes who shouldn’t be there…It is quite tempting for teachers to propose an orien-

tation towards a Segpa section, rather than college. They know that if the child goes

to college, with limited previous schooling, the child will not learn anything. They

know that in a Segpa class,the child can acquire professional skills.”

537

While Traveller and Gypsy children may indeed acquire professional skills in

Segpa classes, the curriculum is in no way equivalent to mainstream college classes

and, at best, leaves children with a limited range of vocational options. For most

Traveller and Gypsy children, who stop their schooling before the end of the four

years of Segpa or continue no further than the final year, this schooling does not re-

sult in any formal professional qualification.

The disproportionately high number of Gypsy and Traveller children channelled into

Segpa classes, in fact, testifies to the failure of mainstream schools – at both the elemen-

tary and secondary level – to respond to the needs of Traveller and Gypsy children.

Various persons the ERRC spoke with about this issue emphasised that the

French education system is designed in such a way that if a child does not fit into

535

The first year of college.

536

ERRC interview with Mr Joseph Poirier, March 5, 2004, Mérignac.

537

ERRC interview with Mr Herve Londeix, March 5, 2004, Mérignac.

254

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

255

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

the traditional mould, he or she is directed into various specialised paths that at best

lead to professional diplomas. There is a general lack of options within mainstream

education for children who do not fit into the norm.

Mr Jose Brun of the Gypsy association Regards commented that children are

channelled into Segpa classes “because there are no other solutions available. They

do not say that the child has a deficiency. But the prescribed boxes do not foresee the

case of a young adolescent with an insufficient level of schooling.”

538

Segpa classes therefore constitute an inferior and marginalising substitute for the

measures that need be carried out within the mainstream education system in order to

ensure that Gypsy and Traveller children may fully exercise their right to education.

10.8 Applying Circular No 2002-101 of 25 April 2002 on the Schooling of Traveller

Children and Non-Sedentary Families

The 25 April 2002 Circular sets out clear guidelines for increasing the participa-

tion of Gypsy and Traveller children in the French education system, and for includ-

ing these children in mainstream structures. It also provides for the use of positive

measures, where necessary, in order to better adapt schooling to a travelling lifestyle.

Application of this Circular would clearly represent a significant step forward in the

respect of Gypsy and Traveller children’s right to education.

However, for the moment, the Circular seems to be more of a symbolic step for-

ward than a practical one. During its research the ERRC did not discover, although it

tried, a clear plan of action or any form of coordination by the Ministry of Education

in order to ensure that the guidelines set out in the Circular are in fact implemented

at the local level.

A longtime observer of the situation of Travellers and Gypsies in the education

sector, Professor Jean-Pierre Liégois, told the ERRC that he does not believe that

the Circular has brought about any concrete changes. He believes it simply formally

recognises different local initiatives that have been implemented in a dispersed and

538

ERRC interview with Mr Jose Brun, February 23, 2004, Tours.

254

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

255

Violations of the Right to Education of Traveller and Gypsy Children

uncoordinated manner over the years. However, he stressed that there has been no

attempt to coordinate and harmonise such measures at the national level. He com-

mented: “in France we have all the disadvantages of centralism, without taking ad-

vantage of the benefits that it could bring.”

539

The ERRC was in fact surprised to find that the statistical studies of the situation

of Travellers carried out in the Department of Gironde by Mr Londeix, and in the

Department of the Rhône by Ms Marie Cannizzo, were simply local initiatives that

are not being systematically carried out nation-wide. Such statistical studies clarify-

ing participation rates, achievement levels, and the types of schools and classes in

which Traveller and Gypsy children are placed, would seem to be a necessary first

step enabling Education Departments to recognise the extent of exclusion and segre-

gation of Gypsy and Traveller children and to develop and implement the necessary

measures to include them into mainstream schools. This data would evidently need

to be collected in conformity with principles concerning confidentiality and the vol-

untary self-identification of individuals.

Furthermore, it seems to be primarily in segregated structures that some Directors

and teachers have developed innovative pedagogical methods as well as educational

tools designed to allow for a continuity in the schooling of children who travel. But

there is no indication of a coordinated approach by the Ministry of Education to incor-

porate such methods into mainstream schools and classes. Instead it seems that initia-

tives remain dependent on local will, which, to say the least, is not always present.

539

ERRC interview with Professor Jean-Pierre Liégois, November 24, 2004, Paris.

257

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

11. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION

An effective legal framework aimed at combating racial discrimination is es-

sential to promoting the equality of Travellers and Gypsies. Not only does such a

framework need to offer redress to individuals who are victims of discrimination,

but it also acts as a deterrent. Furthermore, effective anti-discrimination legislation

can assist in revealing problems of discrimination that may otherwise remain hidden.

And, the educative function of such legislation should not be underestimated as it

sends a message to society that racial discrimination will not be tolerated.

The obligation of States to put in place a legal framework prohibiting racial

discrimination in key fields of life is firmly anchored in international law. At the

international level, Article 6 of ICERD

540

is the fullest expression of this obligation

providing that:

States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective

protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and

other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which

violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this

Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and

adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result

of such discrimination.

Adequate reparation involves not just punishment of perpetrators, but also mate-

rial and moral compensation of victims.

541

In recent years, at the European level, legal obligations upon States to provide

for effective anti-discrimination legislation have undergone rapid evolution, with de-

tailed norms being set out. In June 2000, the Council of the European Union adopted

540

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

541

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XXVI “The right

to seek just and adequate reparation or satisfaction” (Fifty-sixth session, 2000), U.N. Doc A/55/18,
annex V at 153 (2000), available at:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/genrexxvi.htm

258

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

259

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Directive 2000/43/EC on “implementing the principle of equal treatment between

persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin” which was to be transposed into the

domestic legal system of all member States (including France) by June 2003.

542

addition, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in Feb-

ruary 2003 published a General Policy Recommendation on “National Legislation to

Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.” This recommendation provides further

details as to substantive and procedural components that should be included in na-

tional legislation addressing racial discrimination.

543

Furthermore, on 4 November 2000, the Council of Europe opened Protocol 12 to the

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

(ECHR) for signature by member States. With this Protocol, a general self-standing right

to non-discrimination will be legally enforceable before the European Court of Human

Rights. This considerably broadens the scope of the guarantee provided in Article 14

of the ECHR, which is of an accessory nature, applying only to the enjoyment of rights

already enshrined in the Convention. Protocol 12, on the other hand, applies to “any right

set forth by law” (Art 1(1)). This Protocol entered into force on April 1, 2005 but only

applies to those State Parties that have ratified it. France has not yet ratified Protocol 12.

France has for many years violated its international legal obligations in the field

of equality through a lack of effective anti-discrimination legislation. However, in

recent years, in response to European developments, dramatic steps have been taken

to introduce new anti-discrimination legislation and to improve the application of

existing legislation. Although not yet sufficient, these ongoing changes are welcome

and badly needed steps to fight against the discrimination that Travellers and Gypsies

experience in so many aspects of their daily existence.

542

Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 on “implementing the principle of equal treatment

between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin”, Official Journal of the European Communi-
ties, July 19, 2000, available on the Internet at:

http://www.era.int/www/gen/f_13049_file_en.pdf

A second more specific Directive also applying to EU Member States was also adopted: “Directive
2000/78/EC of the Council of the European Union establishing a general framework for equal treat-
ment in employment and occupation”. This Directive covers discrimination in employment and oc-
cupation on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

543

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, “General Policy Recommendation No. 7 on

National Legislation to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination”, CRI (2003) 8, adopted December
13, 2002, available at:

http://www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/Ecri/1-ECRI/3-General_themes/1-

Policy_Recommendations/Recommendation_N%B07/3-Recommendation_7.asp#TopOfPage

258

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

259

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

French penal legislation prohibits discrimination in certain sectors (provision of

goods and services; hindering the normal exercise of economic activities; different

stages of the employment process; training), whether committed by public or private

actors.

544

In addition, persons “disposing of public authority or carrying out a public

service mission” are penally responsible for discrimination consisting in refusing a

benefit accorded by law.

545

These provisions have been widely criticised as more symbolic than effective in

providing remedies to victims of discrimination. For instance, in its Second Report

on France, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) stated

that “these provisions are, however, applied very rarely... The main difficulties in

application, as in most other countries, are related to the proof of the intention to

commit a discriminatory act.”

546

However, in recent years, there have been improvements in the application of

these provisions. Thus in its recent Third Report on France, ECRI noted that “the

number of convictions on counts of racial discrimination is increasing, especially for

cases of discrimination in access to goods and services. This development is partly

due to the acceptance in penal law of evidence obtained through the method of ‘test-

ing’ as an admissible form of proof.... The Court of Cassation

547

has ruled that evi-

dence gathered in this manner is not to be deemed unlawful or unfair, in application

of the principle of freedom of evidence in criminal proceedings.”

548

Despite these improvements, convictions remain few considering the scope of the

problem of racial discrimination. For instance, official data indicates that in 2001, there

were a total of 7 convictions, in 2002 a total of 24 convictions, and in 2003 a total of 9

convictions for discrimination in the offer or provision of a good or service on grounds

544

See articles 225-1 through 225-4 of French Penal Code.

545

See Article 432-7 French Penal Code.

546

ECRI Second report on France, adopted on 10 December 1999 and made public on 27 June 2000.

547

Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, 11 June 2002, SOS Racisme.

548

ECRI Third report on France, adopted on 25 June 2004 and made public on 15 February 2005. Avail-

able at:

http://www.coe.int/T/E/human%5Frights/Ecri/1%2DECRI/2%2DCountry%2Dby%2

Dcountry%5Fapproach/France/France_CBC_3.asp#TopOfPage

260

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

261

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

of origin, ethnicity, nationality or race. With respect to employment (offers, hiring, fir-

ing) in 2001 there were a total of 6 convictions, in 2002 a total of 2 convictions, and

in 2003 a total of 9 convictions for discrimination on grounds of origin, nationality,

ethnicity or race.

549

Although the ERRC’s research indicates that discrimination is commonplace

against Travellers and Gypsies in the sectors covered by penal legislation, such as ac-

cess to goods and services, it is not aware of a single case where a party was convicted

for discrimination against a Traveller or Gypsy based on these provisions. Most per-

sons the ERRC interviewed simply did not lodge complaints out of a belief that their

complaints would not lead to results. However, the few that did were clearly discour-

aged by the police in pursuing their complaint and were informed by judicial authori-

ties that their case had been filed without any explanation given as to the reasons.

550

More generally, criminal legislation is widely believed to be inadequate for

providing redress for discrimination.

551

It is especially difficult to address indirect

discrimination via criminal legislation and to incorporate important procedural

549

See La lutte contre le racisme et la xenophobie, 2003, Rapport de la Commission Nationale Con-

sultative des Droits de l’Homme, Annexe 2 “les condamnations inscrites au casier judiciaire en
2002”, pg. 559. 2003 statistics supplied by Ministry of Justice during meeting of CERD, Geneva,
February 18, 2005.

550

See for example the case of Ms Ca.M. and Ms C.M. on pp. 209-210 of this report.

551

There are a number of problems specific to the criminal law: (i) the burden of proof: the criminal

law generally requires that the alleged offence be proved beyond reasonable doubt (as opposed to
the civil law standard of balance of probabilities). This standard is often prohibitive for victims of
discrimination because the evidence often lies exclusively in the hands of the discriminator; (ii)
recourse to the criminal law depends on the attitude of the law enforcement authorities. In many in-
stances, ethnic minority communities lack sufficient confidence in the police to make a complaint.
Moreover, unless there is legal standing for anti-racism groups, decisions concerning the handling
of the case, in particular, whether or not to prosecute, lie with the police; the victim may be left
with very little control over the direction of the case; (iii) remedies: the criminal law sanctions may
not provide direct compensation to the victim of discrimination, reducing the motivation for the
individual to make a complaint in the first place. (See discussion on this issue in “European Union
Anti-Discrimination Policy: From Equal Opportunities between Women and Men to Combating
Racism”, Chapter 2. Directorate-General for Research Working Document, Public Liberties Series
LIBE 102 EN, European Parliament, December 1997, available at:

http://www.europarl.eu.int/

workingpapers/libe/102/text2_en.htm#N_70_)

260

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

261

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

measures, such as shifting of the burden of proof to the respondent as required by

Directive 2000/43/EC.

552

France has recently introduced new anti-discrimination legislation into its civil and

administrative law in certain fields largely in response to this Directive. The Law of 16

November 2001 “relating to the fight against discrimination” prohibits both direct and

indirect discrimination at various stages of the work relationship, from training to dis-

missal. Prohibited grounds of discrimination include origin, customs, physical appear-

ance, name, and belonging or non-belonging, real or supposed to an ethnicity, nation.

This law also provides for a shared burden of proof between the persons claiming to be

a victim of discrimination and the author of the alleged discriminatory act. The Court

may order any forms of investigation it deems necessary in order to make its decision.

Furthermore trade unions may bring court actions on behalf of victims, unless the vic-

tim objects, and labour inspectors can report any document or element of information

that could be useful in providing evidence of discrimination. The Law of “Social Mod-

ernisation” of 17 January 2002 introduced the prohibition of discrimination in access

to rented accommodation on a list of grounds including origin, name, physical appear-

ance, customs, race and nationality, and also provided for a shared burden of proof be-

tween plaintiff and respondent. There are so far no relevant publicly available statistics

that allow for the effectiveness of these new provisions to be accurately assessed.

In addition, Law no. 2004-1486 on “creating a high authority for the fight

against discrimination and for equality”, adopted on 30 December 2004 (Law of

30 December 2004), significantly improves France’s legal framework for fight-

552

In the Explanatory Memorandum to its General Policy recommendation No 7 on National Legisla-

tion to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, the ECRI stated: “ECRI believes that appropriate
legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination should include provisions in all branches of
the law, i.e. constitutional, civil, administrative and criminal law. Only such an integrated approach
will enable member States to address these problems in a manner which is as exhaustive, effective
and satisfactory from the point of view of the victim as possible. In the field of combating racism and
racial discrimination, civil and administrative law often provides for flexible legal means, which may
facilitate the victims’ recourse to legal action.” See European Commission against Racism and Intol-
erance, ECRI general policy recommendation N°7 on national legislation to combat racism and racial
discrimination, Adopted by ECRI on 13 December 2002, Explanatory Memorandum to ECRI’s Gen-
eral Policy recommendation No 7 on National Legislation to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimina-
tion, paragraph 3, at:

http://www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/Ecri/1-ECRI/3-General_themes/1-

Policy_Recommendations/Recommendation_N%B07/3-Recommendation_7.asp#P128_11460

262

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

263

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

ing against discrimination.

553

This Law introduces a specialised body mandated to

combat discrimination and to promote equality. It extends existing anti-discrimina-

tion legislation to cover direct and indirect discrimination in all of the fields of life

required by Directive 2000/43/EC. It also provides for a shifting of the burden of

proof in cases in which discrimination has been prima facie established.

554

Even with these commendable developments, the legal framework for combat-

ing discrimination still does not cover all of the fields of life required by France’s

international commitments. It needs to be further extended to cover various other

rights such as:

• Administration of justice, including protection of security of the person (ICERD

5 (a) and (b)/ECHR Arts. 5, 6, 13, 14);

• Political participation, including the right to vote, stand for election, take

part in Government and in the conduct of public affairs at any level, as well

as to have equal access to public service; (ICERD, 5 (c)) (ECHR Art. 14 and

Protocol No. 1 Art. 3);

• The right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the

State (ICERD, 5(d)(i)/ECHR Protocol No.4 Art. 2 and Art. 14);

• The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (ICERD, 5(d)

(ix)/ECHR Articles 11 and 14).

553

Law no. 2004-1486 of 30 December 2004 “creating a high authority for the fight against discrimina-

tion and for equality”. Unofficial translation by the ERRC.

554

Article 19 provides that: “With respect to social protection, health, social advantages, education,

access to goods and services, provision of goods and services, membership and participation in a un-
ion or professional organisation, including advantages so derived, as well as access to employment,
independent or non-salaried employment or work, every person has the right to equal treatment,
regardless of national origin, belonging or non-belonging, real or presumed to an ethnicity or race.

All persons who believe themselves to be victims of direct or indirect discrimination in these areas

need to establish before the competent jurisdiction facts that allow for the existence of such discrimi-
nation to be presumed. Given these elements, it shall be for the respondent to prove that the measure
in question is justified by objective reasons void of any discrimination.”

The preceding paragraph does not apply under penal law.

Law no. 2004-1486 of 30 December 2004 “creating a high authority for the fight against discrimina-

tion and for equality”, Official Journal no. 304, December 31, 2004, p. 22567.

262

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

263

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

The effective implementation of the Law of 30 December 2004 as well as other

anti-discrimination legislation would be an important step forward in fighting against

discrimination in France. The ERRC hopes that this new legislation will not remain

purely formal, but will translate into concrete results. This means that victims of dis-

crimination need to be provided with remedies and compensation for the significant

harm of experiences of direct or indirect discrimination. This also means that the

French public needs to become aware that discrimination is unacceptable and that

acts of discrimination will result in legal sanctions. And this means that officials at all

levels of the French justice system and the new equality authority will need to play

an active role in applying this legislation. These developments are urgent in order to

bring an end to the existing state of impunity for acts of racial discrimination com-

mitted against Travellers and Gypsies in France.

265

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

12. SUBJECTING ROMANI MIGRANTS TO INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT

12.1 Introduction

Twenty-four-year-old C.S. is a Romani woman from Romania who arrived in

France 12 years ago, at the age of 12, seeking political asylum with her mother,

father and three sisters. At first the family was housed in a reception centre for asy-

lum seekers in Franconville on the outskirts of Paris. The family was provided with

food and the children went to school in the reception centre. However, according to

C.S., one day, after the family had spent about six months at the reception centre,

an employee of the centre told them: “We do not want Roma here. We kept you

for the winter. Now you have to leave.” From that day on, C.S. has lived in a run-

down caravan, constantly moving from one place to another, each time the family

is evicted by the local authorities. She has lived in over 90 different unauthorised

camps since she has been in France, always in slum conditions without water, elec-

tricity, toilets or garbage pickup. She has not been able to return to school due to

the fragility of their existence.

As the family has not received any state assistance from the time that they left the

reception centre nor are they able to work legally, C.S. spent her youth begging on the

streets of Paris. She told the ERRC about a particularly difficult period she experienced

at the age of 14. Her father had left, and she was living with her mother, T.S., two

younger sisters (A.S., 10 years old and I.S, 8 years old) and younger brother, V.S. (still

a baby) on a site at Pontoise where about 60 other families were also living.

555

At 6:00

AM, the police raided the site. They banged on the caravans with their fists and trun-

cheons, and, if the family did not open, they broke the door. They entered each caravan.

The police saw that C.S. spoke good French (which she had learned herself). They told

her to go with them to fill in everyone’s papers. They took at least 40 other people to the

police station. She asked what she would gain and they responded that she would be al-

lowed to go free. After translating for everyone, the police let her and her ten-year-old

sister go. But they sent her mother and young brother to Romania. She told the police

officers “that is my mother.” They said that they were not interested whether it was her

555

Her older sister had moved to Spain.

266

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

267

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

mother or not. She told them she wanted to go with her mother, but they told her to go,

and forced her to go outside. Her other smaller sister was still in the caravan. C.S. found

herself alone in Paris with her two sisters.

The girls survived by begging on the Champs Elysee each night until 5:AM. The

three sisters could make between 200-300 Francs a night (30 to 45 Euros). Besides trying

to survive, they had to earn money to send to their mother so that she could come back to

France illegally. The only help they received was from charities. C.S.’s mother managed

to come back to France but does not leave her 8 square meter caravan out of fear of being

sent back to Romania again. C.S. has experienced as many police raids as places of resi-

dence, as each time the family was evicted it was via a police raid, sometimes violent. She

estimates that she has also been arrested approximately 15 times for begging. Sometimes

she was detained for two or three days, other times she was let free after a few hours. Po-

lice also subjected her to various forms of humiliating treatment, such as cutting her hair,

and taking off her top and kicking her out onto the street topless.

The family’s request for political asylum was rejected. C.S. therefore requested ter-

ritorial asylum, a subsidiary form of protection that was available until reforms came

into effect on January 1, 2004. This was also refused in July 2004, at which time she

received an order to leave French territory. She appealed the decision, but the appeal

procedure does not suspend the order to leave the territory. Normally, a person who

spends 10 years in France is eligible to receive a residence permit. However, C.S. is un-

able to provide sufficient proof of her first years in France. Her family was not initially

aware that they needed to collect such proof, and they also lost personal documents on

an occasion when their caravan was destroyed by fire. C.S. also told the ERRC that the

reception centre where the family first stayed refused to provide proof of their stay, sup-

posedly due to an agreement with the authorities who financed the family’s stay. C.S.

is now in France illegally, still living in an unauthorised camp with no basic amenities,

hoping that her appeal is successful and that she can finally lead a normal life.

556

Non-citizen Romani migrants currently in France began arriving in the early nineties

following the fall of the Communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. Their total

population in France is estimated to number at most several thousand. A majority are

from Romania. However, there are also a number of persons from the countries of former

556

ERRC interview with Ms C.S. September 27, 2004, Aubervilliers.

266

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

267

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Yugoslavia, and smaller numbers from other countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

The vast majority are fleeing the high levels of “anti-Gypsy” racism that surfaced along

with the political instability, economic hardships and upsurge in nationalism that followed

the fall of the Communist regimes in their home countries. This anti-Gypsy climate often

translated into violent attacks against Romani communities, destruction of their property,

and discrimination so widespread that survival became a near impossibility.

557

The French State has adopted an incoherent and inhuman policy towards these

Romani migrants. Its principle aim seems to have been to force the Romani migrants

to leave the country without carrying out a collective deportation of all of them, which

would evidently violate human rights standards in too overt a manner. Thus, instead,

Romani migrants are subjected to various forms of violence, abuse, harassment and

neglect that result in extreme violations of their rights in almost all aspects of life.

558

The cumulative effect of these persistent human rights violations upon many Romani

migrants is so serious as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.

12.2 Substandard Living Conditions: French Slums

Romani migrants live in conditions more reminiscent of slums in a developing

country than the neighbourhoods on the outskirts of French cities in which they

557

Romania is an illustrative case of the type of mass violence that has been unleashed against Roma

communities in peacetime, under the often supportive eyes of local authorities. Immediately fol-
lowing the fall of the Ceauşescu regime, a wave of pogroms broke out in more than thirty Romani
communities. Local mobs attacked communities, burning entire villages and lynching Roma inhabit-
ants to the sound of racist insults. At least five Roma died, and many more suffered serious injuries.
A large number of people lost their homes and everything they possessed as they fled the attacks.
For more details of these events and of the situation of Roma in Romania generally, see State of
Impunity: Human Rights Abuse of Roma in Romania, A Report by European Roma Rights Centre,
September 2001. Available on the ERRC website at:

www.errc.org

See Cahn, Claude and Lanna Hollo. “Poursuivis par le spectre du racisme: les Rroms en Europe après

1989”.

Humanitaire

, No. 11, Autumn 2004, pp. 42-51.

558

Despite the efforts of the French authorities to directly or indirectly force Roma to leave, their numbers
have remained stable over the last years. Those that are deported reportedly generally return within three
to six months. See Collectif national droits de l’homme romeurope. Note de Synthese sur l’Accueil des
Rroms Migrants en France, 9 November 2004, distributed by e-mail to weblist of Romeurope.

268

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

269

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

are located. For most, “home” is an unauthorised camp, in which families live in

rundown caravans or in ramshackle hovels pieced together from scrap materials.

Some live in equally substandard conditions in squats in dilapidated or partially

built buildings. As a rule, basic infrastructure, such as water, electricity, sewage

and solid waste removal, is completely lacking.

A camp in Aubervilliers is one example of the contrast between the living condi-

tions of the Roma and those of residents of the surrounding area. From the street, only

a thin white metal fence is visible. But upon entering a small opening in the fence,

one can see dozens of rundown shacks made of scrap materials, generally wood and

cardboard, with sheet metal roofs. Some have windows of glass; others only plastic

sheets taped to the walls. The closest source of running water is a fire hydrant about

one kilometre away from the camp. The city has not provided electricity to the camp,

although the inhabitants have managed to illegally hook up to the electricity network

and build themselves an outhouse. There is also no garbage pick-up, although the

inhabitants carry their garbage to public bins. At night, the smoke and flames from

home-made wood-burning heaters (wood inside an empty metal container) rise from

the metal pipes jutting out of the roofs that serve as chimneys. Looming directly

behind the shacks are the several floor-high apartment buildings of a modern city,

with their balconies overlooking the camp, and their electric lights and television sets

visible through the windows.

559

A few minutes drive down the road are two other unauthorised camps in an

industrial zone. In one, the Quai Marie Tjibaou camp, about 15 caravans are

parked in two neat rows on either side of a narrow rectangular lot. The RER

(metro/train that serves the suburbs of Paris) passes every few minutes along the

bridge directly overhead. At longer intervals ordinary trains cross another bridge

that also passes directly overhead. As of April 2005, the Romani residents had

been allowed to stay for 18 months, however had not been provided with toilets,

water or electricity. They have managed to illegally secure electricity by con-

necting to the streetlights. They therefore have electricity during the evening

until the streetlights go off in the morning. However, this is insufficient for many

household tasks, such as ironing. They have also created dangerous homemade

heaters and have to steal water from fire hydrants. The corner of an empty field

559

ERRC visit to Aubervilliers camp, November 28, 2004.

268

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

269

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

is a short distance from the camp serves as a toilet. When evening falls, dozens

of rats roam between the caravans.

560

The other camp, a few hundred meters further along the same road, is located di-

rectly under a major freeway, between the RER and factories. During an ERRC visit on

November 28, 2004, about 20 small broken-down caravans, with fresh dents and broken

windows from the last eviction, were parked on the muddy ground between piles of gar-

bage. The Romani residents had been there for about three weeks. They had no water,

electricity or sewage, and the city services had not come to pick up the garbage.

561

A squat, a few kilometres away, in the nearby town of Villetaneuse, is another

telling illustration of the deplorable conditions in which Romani migrants in France

generally live. About 30 families reside in 25 makeshift apartments in a 4-story open

roofed half-built building. A draft blew through the apartment of the C. family that

hosted the ERRC on November 28, 2004, as the apartment was not insulated and the

window openings at each end of the room were only covered by a thin white cloth.

The room was heated with firewood that burned in a home-made heater in the corner

of the room. The family had tried to make the apartment as comfortable as possible

by covering the floor and walls with carpets. The residents’ closest source of water

is a fire hydrant located about 500 metres away. However Ms Mariana C. told the

ERRC that they are afraid when they get water from the hydrant because police of-

ficers sometimes arrest them and take them to the police station. They are then kept

560

ERRC visit to Aubervilliers, May 2, 2004. In mid-February, 2005, the residents feared they would

have to leave their camp. One day the local police arrived and told them that if they did not leave
within a week, they would destroy their caravans. Ms R.S., acting as spokesperson for the residents
told the police that they could not leave as they did not have cars to move the caravans and had no
place to go. She also said that the town mayor had promised to give them a site to live. She provided
the police with names of an elected local official. The police then left and came back each of the next
days repeating their threat. The threatened eviction was in fact due to an order, it seems coming from
relatively high up in the administration, to clean-up the Roma camps in Aubervilliers that were on
the path of a visit of the International Olympic Committee scheduled for early March. The sub-pre-
fect of Saint-Denis, Mrs Le Mouel came to the site a few days later along with the police chief and
Mr Roland Tess, head of the mayor’s office. A few days later she called R.S. to inform her that they
could stay at the camp for the time being. ERRC interview with Ms R.S., March 27, 2005. E-mails
circulated on mailing list of Romeurope.

561

ERRC interview with Ms Maria C., November 28, 2004. ERRC visit to Aubervilliers, November
28, 2004.

270

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

271

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

in detention for hours, often until late at night, accused by the officers of stealing

water.

562

The families had moved into this building at the end of July 2004, after

having been violently evicted from another campsite, in the neighbouring town of

Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, where they had lived in shacks that they had built out of recu-

perated scrap materials. The shacks were destroyed by police during their eviction.

Various residents of the squat told the ERRC that they were worried that they would

soon be evicted yet again.

563

The building owner had launched an eviction procedure

against them that was decided in the owner’s favour at the end of November 2004.

The ERRC learned that the residents were evicted in June 2005. The police report-

edly raided the building at approximately 5 AM. Residents were ordered to leave the

building immediately and were not allowed time even to gather their documents and

personal belongings.

564

On March 24, 2004, the ERRC visited one of the largest unauthorised camps in

France located on Surville street in Lyon (Surville).

565

Approximately 550 Roma, in-

cluding 253 children, 53 less than 3 years of age from Romania and former Yugosla-

via, lived in this slum located between a freeway and railroad tracks. Saventy-seven

percent of the Roma from the countries of former Yugoslavia (33 families) were

Convention Asylum seekers.

566

Residents lived either in run-down caravans, mostly

lacking wheels and covered with dents and holes, or in shacks that they had built with

recuperated scrap materials, wood, cardboard and pieces of old furniture. Most of

these materials were debris from demolished buildings that companies deposited on

the site, which for them served as an easier dumping ground than the official waste

disposal sites. Families also used this debris as a source of heating. Pieces of card-

board functioned as a primary source of “insulation”.

567

There was no running water

562

ERRC interview with Ms Mariana C., November 28, 2004, Villetaneuse.

563

ERRC visit to squat in Villetaneuse, November 28, 2004.

564

ERRC interview with Ms R.S., August 16, 2005, Paris.

565

ERRC visit to Surville, March 4, 2004.

566

Persons seeking protection as refugees according to the standards set out in the International Conven-

tion relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“1951 Geneva Convention”). Statistics
in: Alpil, Médecins du Monde and Secours Populaire. “Sortir du bidonville...Enquête auprès des
familles du bidonville de Surville”. Report, January 15, 2004, p. 6.

567

Ibid, p. 10.

270

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

271

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

and no toilets in the camp and the only electricity came from wires that residents

illegally hooked up to the electricity network. The only water available came from

a fire hydrant about two kilometres away. The city services also neglected to collect

garbage from the camp, which contributed to the pungent odour of rotting garbage

that pervaded the camp, emanating from the piles of garbage deposited around the

site. Rats were also a regular presence at the camp, roaming between the garbage and

caravans, presenting serious health risks to residents. A number of children report-

edly had been bitten when playing outside.

In a report on the conditions in this slum, a number of local non-governmental

associations commented:

568

The presence of children of a young age in a slum constitutes a par-

ticularly shocking fact. It contributes to the banalisation of familial

homelessness which should be fought. For our city, this banalisation

is directly related to the presence of Roma in the agglomeration of

Lyon. Before 1995, it was unthinkable to find children in the street,

homeless, in our city. It is only from the moment it was possible to

say: “With the Gypsies, it is different!” that these facts were, if not

accepted, at the very least admitted through the collective unwilling-

ness to act. This represents a considerable regression in our funda-

mental values as a civilisation that rests on the equal dignity of all

human beings.

569

Two weeks after the ERRC’s visit to Surville local officials took notice of the

camp when the death of two young girls who burned in their caravans made the lo-

cal newspaper headlines. Marianna and Simona, 14 and 17 respectively, suffocated

and burned to death due to the dangerous homemade heating system they used.

570

The funeral was reportedly presided over by the Cardinal of Lyon, and elected of-

568

Alpil, Médecins du Monde, Secours Populaire.

569

Alpil, Médecins du Monde, Secours Populaire, Bidonville, p. 8.

570

Similar dangerous homemade heating systems are used by many other Romani migrants.

See Vanderlick, Benjamin. “Une mondialisation par le Ban: Etude aupres des Rroms en bidonvilles

sur l’agglomeration lyonnaise depuis 2001.” Institut Lyonnais d’Urbanisme – Universite Lumiere
Lyon 2, June 2004.

274

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

275

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

ficials of different political parties attended. The Prefect of the region visited the

site. Promises were made that more humane living conditions would be created for

the families residing in the camp. The authorities of the greater Lyon area cleaned

part of the site (reportedly of 700 tons of garbage) and installed two water taps.

Three families were provided with accommodation. And then, nothing further was

done. Instead, the remaining families were subjected to regular police harassment,

including raids every few days, confiscation of vehicles, and destruction of cara-

vans. And, aware that an eviction order would soon be executed against them, the

families that could found alternative accommodation for themselves – setting up

new slum neighbourhoods or finding shelter in squats in disaffected buildings. The

least mobile families, those with children, elderly, sick or handicapped persons,

remained.

571

At least 60 children remained on the site. These families were evicted

on the morning of July 19, 2004. Some of the evicted families were provided with

temporary emergency accommodation. The rest, in their turn, dispersed to squats

or set up camp elsewhere around the Lyon area.

572

12.3 Pattern and Repeated Forced Evictions

In all likelihood, by the time this report is published, most of the other camps

visited by the ERRC will also have disappeared. Residents will have been evicted

and sent to wander until they find another spot to set up camp or squat until the

next eviction. Many Romani migrants told the ERRC that their daily existence is

considerably worsened by the constant psychological stress of the next eviction.

They know that at any moment the police could arrive in order to chase them out

and that they may lose their few belongings in the process as well as be subjected

to insults and violence.

At the national level, the French authorities have until now refused to find a coherent

and humane national solution to the housing of Romani migrants on French territory.

571

Patrick Odiard. “Bidonvilles a Lyon: un moment d’emotion est si vite passe!”, Alpil, June 29, 2004,

available at:

http://www.gauches.net/article1288.html

. Mr Odiard was Adjunct to the Mayor of the

8th district of Lyon delegated to social action at the time of writing this article.

572

E-mail message to web group of Romeurope network from the non-governmental association Alpil,

“Fin du bidonville de Surville”, July 19, 2004.

274

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

275

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Instead, each Prefect

573

is left to handle as he or she sees fit what is perceived largely as

a problem to be pushed away, but not resolved.

574

Influenced by the anti-Gypsy racism

rampant at local level, the solution most widely pursued by State authorities has been the

eviction of Romani migrants as rapidly as possible from the camps and squats in which

they settle without authorisation. The authorities thereby force the Roma out of one site

to wander, more disaffected and battered than before, until they find another site to reside

for a short period.

575

Likewise, the overwhelming majority of municipalities have adopted

a short-sighted “not in my backyard” policy, generally responding to the indecent condi-

tions of Romani migrants living on their municipality by evicting them.

A few municipalities, (such as Achères, Saint-Denis, Choisy-le-Roi, Vitry-

sur-Seine, Bonneuil and Saint-Michel-sur-Orge) have accepted to house a certain

number of families on their territory. In Ile de France,

576

where approximately 3000

Romani migrants are estimated to reside, such housing projects have benefited at

most 250 persons. In addition, in the town of Lieusaint state and municipal officials

are cooperating in carrying out an integration project benefiting approximately 35

families (around 150 persons).

577

However, these are exceptional situations only af-

fecting a small minority of Romani migrants in France.

578

Mr Albert Lévy, a magistrate in the Public Prosecutors Department in Lyon,

commented to the ERRC: “The short-sighted logic that they all have is to say ‘next

573

The Prefect is the representative of the Prime Minister and all of the Ministers in the Department and

thus acts as a link between the State, the Government and the Department.

574

Collectif national droits de l’homme Romeurope. “Compte rendu rencontre Monsieur Jean de
L’Hermitte au Ministère de l’intérieur le 16 Juillet 2004.” November 9, 2004, distributed by e-mail
to weblist of Romeurope.

575

See Collectif national droits de l’homme Romeurope. “Les Rroms Migrants : La répression et la

précarité continuent malgré les discours ministériels.” September 6, 2004, distributed by e-mail to
weblist of Romeurope.

576

The above-mentioned cities are all within the region of Ile-de-France, which includes the Depart-

ments surrounding Paris.

577

ERRC interview with Mr Michel Févre, representative of Support Committee for Roma of Val-de-

Marne, April 6, 2005, Paris.

578

See Collectif national droits de l’homme Romeurope. “Note de Synthese sur l’Accueil des Rroms

Migrants en France.” November 9, 2004, distributed by e-mail to weblist of Romeurope.

276

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

277

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

door but not here’. This logic is like a serpent that bites its tail, because the people

who are kicked out in Grenoble will be kicked out again in Lyon, and so on.”

579

Most Romani migrants therefore find themselves caught in a cycle of evic-

tions, being chased from one municipality to the next, only to return to where

they started as they have nowhere else to go. The majority of Romani migrants

that the ERRC met seem to experience an average of seven or eight evictions

per year, sometimes more. For instance, twenty-four year-old Ms C.S. told the

ERRC that in 2003 she lived in 14 different sites. “Sometimes evictions occurred

every day”, she said. “We were chased out so often that we could not sleep.”

580

Mr Niku C. told the ERRC that he has been evicted 50 or 60 times since 1999.

The longest period that he was able to stay in any one place was eight or nine

months.

581

Ms Loredana B. lived with her parents on 12 or 13 sites in the last two

years. She told the ERRC that this is particularly stressful for her father who has

heart problems.

582

12.4 Abusive Police Conduct During Evictions

ERRC research indicates that in carrying out evictions of Romani migrants,

French law enforcement authorities frequently behave in an abusive manner. Typi-

cally, sites are raided in the early morning hours by large numbers of police officers

armed and dressed in combat gear. Police wake residents by banging on their cara-

vans, makeshift shelters or rooms. They generally check the identity documents of

residents and collectively arrest a certain number of individuals. The remaining resi-

dents are ordered to leave the site immediately, leaving them little time to collect a

few belongings. This generally means that families leave many personal items at the

site. Sometimes the site is very quickly razed, along with former residents’ caravans,

shelters and any belongings that remained inside.

579

ERRC interview with Mr Albert Lévy, March 26, 2004, Lyon.

580

ERRC interview with Ms C.S., February 15, 2004, Paris.

581

ERRC interview with Mr Niku C., November 28, 2004, Villetaneuse.

582

ERRC interview with Ms Loredana B., April 11, 2004, Le Bourget. Initial of last name assigned by

the ERRC in order to respect the interviewee’s anonymity.

276

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

277

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

For instance, shortly after 6:00 AM on the morning of April 14, 2003, hundreds

of police officers raided a squat on Paul Doumer street in Montreuil in which ap-

proximately 150 Roma migrants had been living for over a year.

583

Ms Lali Gheorlan,

member of the support Committee for Roma of Montreuil, told the ERRC that there

were approximately five or six police officers for each Romani resident. They ordered

all residents out of the building, separated men, women and children and lined them

up against a wall. They carried out full body searches on all of the residents including

small children. Ms Argentina Anguel reported to the support committee of Roma of

Montreuil that police even searched in the diapers of her newborn grandchild, only

a few weeks old. Residents were only given time to take a few personal belongings,

generally clothes, leaving behind covers, carpets, furniture, electrical appliances and

any other items that they did not manage to take with them. By 10:00 AM all of the

residents of the squat had left. At the end of the morning bulldozers razed the building

as well as the small shacks in which the Romani migrants had lived, simultaneously

destroying any belongings that had been left inside.

584

After checking the documents of all of the residents, the police also collectively

arrested 52 persons in order to expel them to Romania, some of whom were still

within the time-period of their three-month visa. In the end, nine persons were de-

ported, six adults and three children, including two pregnant women and one man

whose seriously ill wife and young child remained in France.

585

Different French

courts ordered that the other 43 detained persons be released for various reasons.

586

Ms Lali Gheorlan informed the ERRC that she subsequently met with Ms Stava

– one of the women expelled to Romania who was pregnant at the time – in Sepreus,

Romania. Upon her return to Romania, Ms Stava was banned from leaving Roma-

nian territory for five years.

587

583

The first residents arrived in the squat in September 2001.

584

ERRC interview with Ms Lali Gheorlan, March 31, 2005, Paris.

585

Le Collectif de soutien aux Rroms de Montreuil. “Situation le 20 avril”. On the Internet at:

http:

//montreuil.rrom.org

586

Le Collectif de soutien aux Rroms de Montreuil. “Lundi le 21 avril 2003 Roms expulsés de Mon-

treuil: 8

ème

jour a la Maison ouverte, 17 rue Hoche (Métro Mairie de Montreuil)”. On the Internet at:

http://montreuil.rrom.org

587

ERRC interview with Ms Lali Gheorlan, March 31, 2005, Paris.

278

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

279

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Another highly publicised police raid, accompanied by collective arrests, took

place on December 3, 2002 in the town of Choisy le Roi in the Department of Val-de-

Marne, just south of Paris. Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of the Interior, had visited

the town of Choisy le Roi in October 2002 and undertook to “deal with the entirety

of the issue of illegal Roma camps in Val-de-Marne before the end of November.”

588

The well-known Abbé Pierre (Priest Pierre) had in turn selected the Roma slum camp

at “Voie des Roses” in Choisy le Roi to deliver a declaration on November 4, 2002,

denouncing the proposed Security Law

589

and call for decent living conditions and

reception of Roma.

590

At around 6:00 AM on December 3, 2002, at least 450 police officers in combat gear,

raided the unauthorised camp at Voie des Roses, home to approximately 200 persons,

and the nearby squat and unauthorised camp on Sebastopol street, home to approximately

60 persons.

591

These raids were clearly intended to show Mr Sarkozy’s resolve to expel

Romani migrants from French territory.

The neighbourhood was completely sealed off during the raid and access was

barred to non-governmental associations and journalists, including doctors from the

non-governmental organisation Medecins du Monde (MDM) who wished to reach

sick individuals. According to the account of MDM, “police officers arrived scream-

ing and banged on the doors of caravans with their truncheons; children were pulled

from their bed during their sleep, and residents were only authorised to take one or

two garbage bags with their belongings; the caravans were numbered, marked and

then destroyed...”

592

Mr Michel Fèvre, member of the support Committee for Roma of Val de Marne,

told the ERRC that the police sorted the residents, distinguishing between those that

they believed were in a regular situation and those that were not. Those that were

588

“Sarkozy chasse les roms de Choisy-le-Roi.”

Libération

December 4, 2002.

589

Law of 18 March 2003 for Interior Security.

590

Weisberger, Laura and Annabelle Quenet. “Objet: expulsion de Roms à Choisy le Roi.” December 3,

2002, on the Internet at:

http://montreuil.rrom.org

591

ERRC interview with Mr Michel Fèvre, April 6, 2005, Paris.

592

Médecins du Monde. Mission Banlieue, Rapport d’activité. 2002, p. 48.

278

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

279

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

deemed to be in an irregular situation were immediately arrested. “Sometimes, in a sin-

gle family, parents were separated from their children through this process,” Mr Fèvre

said. He pointed out that this was not only an eviction but also a collective arrest.

593

On the same day, the police forces also evicted approximately 60 persons from

another site in Rungis.

594

Approximately 71 residents were detained and given orders

to leave French territory. Four persons were sent by plane to Romania the following

day in a Franco-Spanish Charter. The remaining expulsions from French territory did

not take place, as they were invalidated by French courts.

595

In late November 2004, the ERRC encountered a group of Roma in Aubervil-

liers who had recently been evicted from an unauthorised camp in Le Bourget where

they had resided for close to one and a half months. Thirty-year-old Ms P.L. told

the ERRC that at 5:00 AM on a morning in early November 2004, about 200 armed

police officers arrived at the camp with police dogs. There were about 100 persons

at the camp at the time, including approximately 50 children. The police surrounded

the camp and woke up residents by banging on their caravans with their fists and

truncheons. They ordered all of the residents to leave immediately and remained on

the site until all of the residents had left. Ms P.L. and her husband showed the ERRC

numerous caravans halted in Aubervillier with holes, dents and smashed windows

that they said were the result of the police behaviour during this eviction. Ms P.L.

also told the ERRC that she believes that her mother-in-law died because of the stress

of the eviction. Some of the children had been attending a local school in Le Bourget.

The eviction put an end to their schooling.

596

These examples are only a selection of what appears to be a relatively fre-

quent practice by police, with reports of an abusive eviction at least once every

two or three months.

593

ERRC interview with Mr Michel Fèvre, April 6, 2005, Paris.

594

Médecins du Monde. Mission Banlieue, Rapport d’activité. 2002, p. 48. Médecins du Monde – Ligue
des Droits de l’Homme. Les Roms Dossier Presse. May 2003, pp. 18-19.

595

Damiens, Caroline. “Sarkozy, les médias et l’invention de la mafia roumaine.” March 17, 2005 published

in two parts on the Internet site “Les Mots sont importants” at:

http://lmsi.net/article.php3?id_arti-

cle=356 and http://lmsi.net/article.php3?id_article=357

. See also Médecins du Monde, Ibid., p. 48.

596

ERRC interview with Mrs P.L, November 28, 2004, Aubervilliers.

280

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

281

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

12.5 Police Harassment Aimed at the Expulsion of Roma

In addition to evictions, police regularly implement a more indirect method of

forcing Romani migrants to leave the sites on which they reside. This involves sub-

jecting the Romani residents to constant threats, searches, destruction of property

and other harassment.

597

For instance, Romani migrants living in a squat in Villetaneuse experience regu-

lar harrassment by police who enter and search residents’ apartments several times

a week. Residents told the ERRC that police come to the squat two or three days a

week, sometimes during the day and sometimes at night. Ms Mariana C. said, “po-

lice even come at 1:00 AM. They bang on the doors, wake us up and come into our

rooms and search everything...Sometimes when we go begging or to sell things, we

are not at home. And then, when we return, we see that the doors to our apartments

have been broken. The police come here regularly. We do not lock our doors any-

more as police break them.”

598

Mr Dumitru C. added that when the police see that no

one is at home, they come in and search anyway. He had recently had his portable

telephone confiscated by the police during a search in his presence. The police had

asked him for a receipt to prove that he bought his telephone, which he no longer

had.

599

According to another resident, Mr Niku C., when the residents are there, the

police sometimes make them go outside while they search. He also said, “sometimes

they put handcuffs on us. Once they took me to the police station, kept me 2 hours

and then let me go.”

600

597

The National Human Rights Collective Romeurope, federating a wide number of non-governmental
associations and local support committees that have been following the situation of Roma migrants
in France for a number of years, commented in November 2004 that: “There exists another way
regularly used to make the Roma leave a site or a squat without having recourse to legal procedures:
the police come every day, sometimes several times, to the sites, inform the residents that they have
to leave, carry out countless checks on papers, even searches. The Roma don’t have the means to
distinguish this “intimidation” from real evictions. Faced with this harassment and threatening ulti-
matums, families end up leaving the sites.” Collectif national droits de l’homme Romeurope. “Note
de Synthese sur l’accueil des Rroms migrants en France.” November 9, 2004

598

ERRC interview with Ms Mariana C, November 28, 2004, Villetaneuse.

599

ERRC interview with Mr Dumitru C., November 28, 2004, Villetaneuse.

600

ERRC interview with Mr Niku C., November 28, 2004, Villetaneuse.

280

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

281

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Police also harass the residents when they go to get water at a nearby fire hydrant.

Ms Mariana C. told the ERRC: “When we go to get water, if the police see us, they

take us to the police station. They keep us there a number of hours, sometimes until

midnight...They ask us ‘why are you stealing water? We pay for water.’”

601

This is

apparently a regular practice. A week prior to an ERRC visit to the squat, in mid-No-

vember 2004, Mariana C’s daughters, aged 13 and 15, had been taken into detention

around 4:00 PM and released around 11:00 PM When the girls asked to go home,

telling police that their mother did not know where they were and would worry, the

police reportedly responded, “No, you cannot go because you steal water.” The girls

also said that the police remarked, “You are Gypsies – go home.”

602

When the ERRC visited the Surville squat in Lyon on March 24, 2004, the non-

governmental associations Alpil

603

and MDM told the ERRC that for the past three

weeks the police had been conducting raids on the camp once a week, confiscating

and destroying cars as well as some caravans.

604

Raids had taken place on March

3, March 11 and March 18, 2004. Each time more than 100 police officers arrived.

Any vehicle that was not properly registered in France was either destroyed on the

spot in a dramatic manner using explosives or seized. Residents of the camp told the

ERRC that the police had controlled everyone, their identity papers and the papers of

their vehicles. If a paper was missing, or something was not exactly as it should be,

the vehicle was seized or destroyed. Many people had lost their cars and some their

homes in these raids. In fact, a number of old caravans that no longer had wheels and

therefore served purely as housing were also destroyed, reportedly under the pretext

that they did not possess license plates.

A journalist from the

Le Progrès

newspaper, who witnessed the March 11 raid, re-

ported that 17 vehicles were destroyed and that checks were underway concerning an-

other seven that had been seized.

605

Five persons were also detained and then released.

601

ERRC interview with Ms Mariana C., November 28, 2004, Villetaneuse.

602

ERRC interview with Ms L.C. and Ms B.C., November 28, 2004, Villetaneuse. First initial assigned

by the ERRC in order to protect the anonymity of the family.

603

Action for social inclusion through housing. (Action pour l’insertion sociale par le logement)

604

ERRC interview with Mr Nicolas Molle, project coordinator at Alpil, March 24, 2002, Lyon.

605

“Lyon 7e: 17 véhicules détruits dans le squat de surville”,

Le Progrès

, March 13, 2004.

282

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

283

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

One of the vehicles destroyed was the truck of a Bosnian family that had arrived that

same night. With their transportation destroyed they were stuck in Lyon.

606

In the 18

March raid, the police reportedly arrested and seized the caravan of a woman with a

baby of 4 months. In addition to losing her shelter, the mother was unable to breastfeed

her baby while in detention, as the baby remained with her younger sister at the camp.

These cruel and abusive raids that dispossessed people of their few remaining posses-

sions were obviously specifically aimed at intimidating the residents into leaving the

slum. With respect to the asylum seekers living at the site, these actions amount to a

severe violation of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

In another illustrative example, police belonging to the general surveillance unit

(SUGE) of the national railway police (SNCF police) harassed the mostly Romani

and Algerian residents of a squat in the town of Saint-Denis, just north of Paris, on

numerous occasions over a period of more than six months in 2003. Approximately

200 persons lived in various unused buildings and the abandoned wagons of an old

train located on a disused piece of land belonging to the SNCF (the public railway

company).

607

On various occasions a group of five officers came to the squat, van-

dalised residents property, physically mistreated residents, and threatened further

violence if residents did not leave.

Thirty-two year old Mr Dan Eugen Utu reported his experiences on several such

occasions. At 3:30 AM on a night at the end of June or beginning of July 2003, five

agents of the railway police came to the building in which he was living. He stated

that “they broke doors and put water and coffee in beds. They threatened us and told

us to leave. They made everyone go outside. They hit an Arab after saying that they

knew him from the North train station (gare du nord). When they left the squat they

gassed him...The officer who gased him threatened to kidnap the daughter of my sis-

ter.” He described another incident that occurred on a night in September or October

2003: “A heavyset, unknown officer of the railway police, fat, fleshy, dirty blond and

half-bald, entered my home. He broke a table. He violently pushed me outside. An-

other officer was waiting outside. He obliged me to remain standing with my hands

behind my back.” Mr Utu has one leg.

606

Bertrand, Olivier. “Roms en stationnement gênant à Lyon”.

Libération

, March 16, 2004.

607

Commission Nationale de Déontologie de la Securité, Proces-verbal d’audition M. Didier Inowlocki,

November 23, 2004, Paris.

282

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

283

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Mr Utu said that the same five officers that had come to the squat at the end of

June returned on the night of 30 November 2003:

I heard a door being broken down. I opened the door of my room. I said

‘good evening, you here, it is cold at night, and I am sick.’ An officer with

a beard responded ‘I am not interested, I know everything.’ Three of them

were standing in front of my room holding truncheons. The bearded of-

ficer first, the blond one second and the third with glasses. The bearded

officer broke the door, broke a table with a cooker on it, and slashed the

wall-paper with a knife. He also tore the paper that covered the window-

opening. The two others watched. They said that they would put a bomb

here if we didn’t leave. They went away. In all this lasted three minutes.

The officers returned the following evening, December 1, as well. Mr Utu said that

he was sleeping when he heard someone yell “police.” He opened the door and handed

police his passport and a medical certificate indicating that he had an appointment for

a prothesis. The bearded officer reportedly responded by cursing at him and accusing

him of lying. Mr Utu described the subsequent events as follows: “The bearded officer

knocked the pan to the floor. He turned his truncheon in his hand. He put coffee and

food on the floor in the room. The room looked like a garbage dump. I went out onto

the street with my wife… When I went out, the bearded officer opened the bottle of gas.

Nasser

608

also came outside. The Support Committee arrived at this moment.”

609

Mr Didier Inowlocki of the Support Committee for Roma of Saint-Denis is one of

four members of the Support Committee who arrived at the squat at approximatley 2:

15 AM on the night of December 1, 2003. He told the ERRC, “When we arrived at the

squat, we saw people who were afraid; men and women in tears. We saw doors broken,

mattresses wet from milk or coffee, furniture overturned. And we saw the railway po-

lice, five persons. They were always five during these incidents and they were on duty.”

The Support Committee members called the national police, who arrived along with

a manager from the SNCF.

610

Ms Gwenaëlle Cavaro, another member of the Support

608

Another resident.

609

Statement provided by Dan Eugèn Utu to Support Committee for Roma of Saint-Denis intended for

use in judicial proceedings, December 7, 2003.

610

ERRC interview with Mr Didier Inowlocki, April 2, 2005, Paris.

284

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

285

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Committee, reported that she heard the manager recognise the illegal nature of the acts

of his colleagues and that measures would be taken.

611

Mr Inowlocki informed the ERRC in April 2005 that the agents involved in these

events had been removed from their previous functions but had not yet been further

sanctioned. He thought that they had perhaps been muted to other functions within

the SNCF. He noted that a judicial complaint was also lodged, and an investigation

has been opened.

612

A few months later, on May 5, 2004, the squat was raided at around 6:00 AM by

approximately 100 armed police officers (CRS) and the residents were evicted.

613

12.6 Denying Romani Migrants Means of Survival

Romani migrants in France, regardless of their administrative status, are not

permitted to work. In addition, the vast majority of Romani migrants receive no

state assistance. They therefore have to find an alternative means of survival.

Only those persons officially recognised as asylum seekers receive minimal

financial assistance for a limited period of time. However, as there are periods

where asylum seekers receive no assistance, or where the amount that they re-

ceive is insufficient, asylum seekers also sometimes need to find other sources of

income in order to survive.

Very few Romani migrants seem to find work on the black market. More try to

make a minimal amount of money in order to meet their basic needs through selling

flowers or newspapers, washing car windows or playing music. A majority seem to

resort to begging.

614

611

Witness statement of Ms Gwanaëlle Cavaro.

612

ERRC interview with Mr Didier Inowlocki, April 2, 2005, Paris.

613

ERRC interview with Mr Didier Inowlocki, April 2, 2005, Paris.

614

See Médecins du Monde – Ligue des Droits de l’Homme. “Les Roms Dossier Presse.” May 2003.

See also Collectif national droits de l’homme Romeurope. “Note de Synthese sur l’accueil des Rroms
Migrants en France.” November 9, 2004, distributed by e-mail to weblist of Romeurope.

284

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

285

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

The French authorities, however, subject Romani migrants who carry out these

different activities to regular abuse and harassment that severely impinges upon their

ability to make even a minimal livelihood.

Every Romani migrant that the ERRC spoke with who has begged, except one

woman in her seventies, reported regular harassment and abuse by police while beg-

ging. The ERRC received reports of many different types of abusive police behaviour

towards Romani migrants including: racist insults; theft or disposal of their money;

destruction of their identity papers; physical violence as well as abusive detentions.

Romani migrants who beg also run the risk of being arrested and deported on the

grounds that they do not have sufficient resources for their stay in France, whether or

not they are legally resident on French territory.

615

For example, eighteen-year old Ms A.S. described to the ERRC one instance of

physical abuse she experienced when a group of police officers caught her begging

at the Invalides station of the Paris metro in December 2003. She was taken into a

small room in the metro station by four or five police officers. She told the ERRC that

she did not know whether the officers were municipal police officers or RATP

616

(pri-

vate) security guards. A.S. was pregnant at the time. Two officers kicked her on her

ankles and her stomach. She said that she tried to stop the beating by saying “Why

are you hitting me, you do not have the right, I am pregnant.” The police officers

reportedly responded by hitting her harder. After a few minutes, the beating stopped,

and the officers kicked her out of the room.

617

Another case of abusive police behaviour reportedly occurred in the town of

Creteil, just outside of Paris, in April 2004. Fourteen year-old Romani Ms A.V.

618

told the ERRC that she was begging in front of a local store, “Carrefour”, when two

police officers approached her. She said that the officers showed her a police badge,

told her that she should not beg and then ordered her to give them her money. They

took the money. The officers then hit her on her back and face with their truncheons.

615

See section 12.10 “Romani Migrants Targeted for Deportation” below.

616

The company that runs the Paris metro system.

617

ERRC interview with Ms A.S., May 2, 2004, Aubervilliers.

618

Initials assigned by the ERRC in order to respect the interviewee’s wish to remain anonymous.

286

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

287

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

When the ERRC met A.V. she had only been in France for three months and said

that she had already been taken into detention seven times, on some occasions for not

having a metro ticket and on other occasions for begging.

619

In July 2004, police detained three teenage Romani girls who were begging togeth-

er on line 10 of the Paris metro. Fifteen-year-old Ms Veta K. told the ERRC that they

were held in detention for 24 hours and given nothing to eat during this period. She said

that she was hit with a truncheon on her feet, elbows and back during her detention.

Fourteen-year-old Ms L. C. told the ERRC that she was literally pulled into the police

car and from the police car into the police station. She reported that during her deten-

tion, two police officers hit her. One said: “Stop begging. if I see you begging again,

I will hit you even harder.” L.C. and Veta K. both also told the ERRC that while they

were being hit, one of the police officers said to them, “You are dirty Gitans”.

620

Another illustrative example is that of eighteen-year old Romani, Mr D.K.,

621

who

begs regularly besides the canal du Midi in Toulouse. He told the ERRC that police

officers frequently pass by, order him to give them his money and then throw it into the

water. On three occasions, one a few days prior to the ERRC’s visit on March 9, 2004,

the police had taken him into their car, driven him a fair distance away and then kicked

him out of the car to find his own way home. He said that on the most recent occasion,

they drove him a distance of about 50 kilometres before kicking him out of the car.

He had had to return on foot as he had no money, no telephone and no other means of

transportation. D.K also told the ERRC that on another occasion someone kind had left

him some new clothes. The police saw the clothes, accused him of stealing them and

took them away. As of March 9, 2004, D.K. had been detained for begging four times,

most recently two weeks earlier. On that occasion, he had been taken to the police sta-

tion located on Boulevard de la Marquette close to the spot where he was begging. He

reported that he was held for four days, not given anything to eat or drink during this

period and only allowed to go to the toilet twice a day. He was kept in the basement of

the police station, in a small narrow room without light.

622

619

ERRC interview with Ms A.V, May 2, 2004, Le Bourget.

620

ERRC interview with Ms L.C. and Ms Veta K., April 11, 2004, Le Bourget.

621

Initials assigned by the ERRC in order to respect the interviewee’s wish to remain anonymous.

622

ERRC interview with Mr A.D., March 9, 2004, Toulouse.

286

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

287

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

The boy’s mother, Ms L.K. reported that she had also been detained four times,

once for a period of four days as well. She estimated that at least four or five times

a month someone from their camp of about 10 caravans (approximately 40 people),

populated by Romani migrants, is detained.

623

Ms Irena Szabo, like many Romani migrants, no longer begs as she is too afraid

of police abuse. She told the ERRC, “the police rip up our papers and hit us. Police

beat us a lot. In the metro, police lift us up by the collar and hit us in the ribs and kick

us. They ripped up my son’s birth certificate.”

624

The ERRC met at least ten musicians who try to earn a minimal income by play-

ing music on the Paris metro. All had experienced harassment, destruction of their

instruments and abuse at the hands of RATP security guards or police.

In a typical case, Mr Cosmin N. was playing the accordeon on line 13 of the Paris

metro in early February 2004. He did not see that the RATP police entered the metro

car in which he was playing. When he realised, he stopped playing, but two police of-

ficers had already approached him. The police officers escorted him out of the metro

at the next station. There the officers took him into a toilet, beat him on his ribs and

cut the folds of his accordeon. They yelled at him, but he could not understand what

they said as he does not speak French.

625

Another typical case occurred in mid-April 2004 when Mr G.M. was caught

by police playing his accordeon in the Paris metro. G.M. reported that he was ap-

proached in the metro car by a few police officers who said “you do not have the

right to play music or sing on the metro”. He was then arrested and detained in a

Paris police station for two days. He was kept in the basement of the police station in

a room with no light, a metal bench, no blanket and nothing to eat for two days. He

told the ERRC, “They mixed together musicians and thieves from Romania, making

no distinction, and all together we were sent back to Romania.”

626

623

ERRC interview with Ms L.K., March 9, 2004, Toulouse.

624

ERRC interview with Ms Irena Szabo, May 2, 2004, Aubervilliers. The birth certificate was ripped

up around September 2003.

625

ERRC interview with Mr Cosmin N., February 15, 2004, Aubervilliers.

626

ERRC interview with Mr G.M., May 2, 2004, Aubervilliers.

288

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

289

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Findings consistent with those of the ERRC are cited in a report by a “National

Commission on the relationship between Citizens and Security Forces, and on the

Control and Treatment of this relationship by Judicial Institutions”.

627

Mr Malik

Salemkour, who participated in the Commission’s investigation into reports of

ill-treatment of musicians on behalf of the non-governmental organisation LDH,

told the ERRC that he had personally interviewed 14 persons, involving 5 differ-

ent groups of musicians. His interviews revealed several cases in which musicians

playing on the Paris metro were beaten by police officers in a separate room for

technical personnel of the RATP. The beatings involved slaps and punches, includ-

ing an incident involving abuse of a minor, a 17-year-old Romani boy. Several

Romani musicians that he interviewed also reported having their musical instru-

ments taken or broken by the police.

628

One of the cases that is cited in the Commission’s report occurred in the month

of October 2003. Five Romani men from Romania, three accordeonists, a saxo-

phonist and a percusionist, entered a metro car in order to play music. Six or seven

police officers accompanied by RATP controllers entered the car and arrested the

musicians. They took them to a small room reserved for RATP technical person-

nel. The instruments were placed on the ground and the five men placed against

the wall with their hands on their head and searched. All five had to present their

administrative documents and empty their pockets. The officer in charge took their

money, a sum of 70 Euros. They were told in a threatening manner that they had

better not be caught again, and in order to intimidate them, the police officers de-

stroyed the drum and an accordeon with their truncheons and broke the saxophone

in two around the mouthpiece.

629

627

Members of this Commission include: the non-governmental organisation League for Human

Rights (LDH); the non-governmental organisation Movement against Racism and for Friendship
between Peoples (MRAP); the Syndicate of Lawyers of France, and the Syndicate of Magistrates.
See Commission nationale sur les rapports entre les citoyens et les forces de sécurité, sur le con-
trôle et le traitement de ces rapports par l’institution judiciare. Rapport d’Activité de Juillet 2002 à
Juin 2004. pg. 21.

628

ERRC interview with Mr Malik Salemkour, February 6, 2004, Paris.

629

Commission nationale sur les rapports entre les citoyens et les forces de sécurité, sur le contrôle

et le traitement de ces rapports par l’institution judiciare. Rapport d’Activité de Juillet 2002 à
Juin 2004. pg. 21.

288

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

289

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

12.7 Penal Sanctions Against Roma Who Beg

Many Romani migrants are increasingly afraid to beg, even when they have no

other sources of income, due to the severe penal sanctions to which they may be sub-

ject, including deportation, under new penal code provisions enacted by the “Law of 18

March 2003 for Interior Security” (Security Law). These provisions, widely denounced

by human rights organisations as criminalising poverty, do not penalise begging per se,

but penalise begging in an “aggressive manner” (sanctioned by up to 6 months impris-

onment and 3,750 Euros fine)

630

or the exploitation of begging (sanctioned by up to 3

years in prison and 45,000 Euros fine).

631

When the latter involves a minor, the penalty

increases to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 Euros.

632

When a foreigner is

found guilty of one of these infractions, he or she can additionally be banned from en-

tering French territory either definitively or for a period of up to 10 years.

633

These laws in effect mean that when a child or teenager is with a parent begging,

the parent can be charged with the exploitation of a minor for begging. Even if the

parent is not present with the child at the time of the act, the fact that the parent can-

not demonstrate other sources of income may be sufficient for charges to be laid.

Furthermore, as begging in “an aggressive manner” is a vague expression, persons

who ask a passerby for money in a public location cannot be sure whether or not they

will be charged under this article. These articles have been applied against Romani

migrants who resort to begging for survival.

For example, when the ERRC met thirty-year-old Romani Ms M.M. at the end of

November 2004, she faced charges of “exploiting a minor for begging”. The ERRC

met her in her run-down caravan with a taped up window on a polluted site in Au-

bervilliers lacking all basic utilities. She told the ERRC that she begs on the Champs

Elysées from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM most days. She makes 10 or 15 Euros on a good

night. Her thirteen-year-old daughter B.M. was walking with another teenage girl on

the Champs Elysées when police arrested the two girls for begging and placed them

in detention at a local police station. M.M. was not with her at the time. Ms M.M.

630

Article L 312-12-1 French Criminal Code, in Section 2 bis.

631

Article L 225-12-5 French Criminal Code, in Section 2 ter.

632

Article L 225-12-6 French Criminal Code, in Section 2 ter.

633

Article L 225-21 French Criminal Code.

290

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

291

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

went with the other girl’s mother, Ms V.R., to the police station to get her daughter

and the two women were then also arrested.

The mothers and the daughters were kept in detention, for three days each. The

daughters were separated from their mothers. M.M. told the ERRC that they did

not get any food or drink in detention. They were not allowed to leave their small

narrow cell to go to the toilet and had to sleep on hard benches. M.M. said that the

police were agressive and beat them all over their body but in places that do not leave

traces. The second woman has diabetes but was nonetheless hit by police.

M.M.’s hearing was scheduled for December 7, 2004 at the First Instance Court

of Paris. She told the ERRC that she paid 800 Euros for a lawyer. Others pooled

money together to help pay this amount. She will have to return the sum.

634

Magistrate Albert Levy told the ERRC of a case in Lyon in which a mother who

was begging in the street with her baby of between six to eight months was charged with

aggressive begging. A Court ordered her child to be taken from her and placed in social

care. He thinks that she also spent one day in prison before being freed with a fine of 800

Euros. She managed to recover her child but with considerable difficulties.

635

12.8 Denying Romani Migrants the Right to Health

Until recently persons with limited financial resources living on French territory

without a residence permit were able to access a system of State Medical Aid (AME)

providing them with free medical care. However, as a result of changes to this system

enacted in December 2003, individuals may now only benefit from AME after three

months of uninterrupted presence on French territory. These changes have excluded

from AME many Romani migrants who come to France for three-month periods as

tourists, as they are legally entitled, before exiting the country and then re-entering.

Even those Romani migrants that have the legal right to AME, often encounter dif-

ficulties accessing it in practice due especially to problems with providing proof of a

‘domicile’ for this purpose.

634

ERRC interview with Ms M.M., November 28, 2004, Aubervilliers.

635

ERRC interview with Mr Albert Lévy, March 26, 2004, Lyon.

290

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

291

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

This means that Romani migrants who cannot access AME need to go to the emer-

gency section of hospitals in order to seek treatment. In practice, for basic care, many

Romani migrants rely upon the rounds of the volunteer doctors from the non-govern-

mental organisation MDM who come to their unauthorised camps and squats.

According to the studies carried out by the National Human Rights Collective

Romeurope (Romeurope), the health situation of Romani migrants is considerably

worse than that of the French population more generally. The newborn and infantile

death rates are five times higher than in the rest of the population. Furthermore, the

indecent living conditions of most Romani migrants engender a range of infectious,

allergic and parasitic illnesses. Cases of tuberculosis have been reported in Romani

camps around Lyon and around Paris.

Many Romani migrants also have illnesses related to the psychological stress and

suffering generated by their precarious existence, constant evictions, identity con-

trols and fear of deportation. According to Romeurope, “Some somatise and develop

ulcers, hypertension, infarct. Others become depressed or aggressive”.

636

In 2003, MDM carried out 89 medical consultations with Romani migrants liv-

ing in the Surville slum in Lyon. Seventy-two of these revealed pathologies requir-

ing medical care. Twenty-five percent of the pathologies were directly related to

the individuals’ living conditions.

637

12.9 Denying Romani Migrants the Right to Education

The ERRC encountered very few Romani migrant children able to attend school.

In the camps and squats it visited, the children were generally denied this right, de-

spite their and their parents’ desire to attend school. Non-schooling seems to be due

to different reasons, including refusals by mayors or an unwillingness on the part of

636

Collectif national droits de l’homme Romeurope. Note de Synthese sur l’accueil des Rroms Migrants

en France. November 9, 2004, distributed by e-mail to weblist of Romeurope, pp. 9-10. Both the
living conditions of Roma and the lack for many of access to care other than emergency treatment
amounts to a violation of the right to health.

637

Alpil, Médecins du Monde and Secours Populaire. Sortir du bidonville...Enquête auprès des familles

du bidonville de Surville. Report, January 15, 2004, p. 11.

292

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

293

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

the Department of Education to provide the necessary resources. Reasons for refus-

als are not always clear, with authorities placing the blame on each other.

638

The

living conditions of families also make it difficult for parents to send their children

to school. Furthermore constant evictions mean that children who do attend a local

school can, in effect, be obliged to drop out.

An illustrative case is the former slum camp of Surville, in Lyon, in which the

large number of Romani migrant children residing in the camp (200 children over

the age of 3) did not attend school. ERRC interviews with families in Surville

indicated that families lacked information about their right to attend school as

well as about possibilities of doing so. Families stated that they did not have any

contact with the Department of Education and did not believe that their children

would be allowed to attend schools. Some families also questioned how it would

be possible for their children to attend school given their living conditions.

639

L.M. and T.M., two teenage Romani girls from Bosnia residing in Surville, told

the ERRC that they could not go to school as they did not have a house. They said

that their cousin has a house and could therefore attend school. They indicated

that an official had told them this, however, it was unclear who. L.M. and T.M.

had received territorial asylum in France.

640

In the Lyon area, Romani children

living in other unauthorised camps had previously been refused schooling by lo-

cal education authorities.

641

12.10 Romani Migrants Targeted for Deportation

On August 30, 2002, France and Romania concluded an agreement providing for

the return to Romania of all Romanian citizens in an irregular situation in France.

The countries also agreed that a procedure would be put in place whereby charter

638

See Collectif national droits de l’homme Romeurope. Note de Synthese sur l’accueil des Rroms Mi-

grants en France. November 9, 2004, distributed by e-mail to weblist of Romeurope, p. 12.

639

ERRC visit to Surville, March 24, 2004, Lyon.

640

ERRC interview with L.M. and T.M, March 24, 2004, Lyon. Initials assigned by the ERRC in order

to respect the girls’ wish to remain anonymous.

641

See Alpil, Médecins du Monde and Secours Populaire. “Sortir du bidonville...Enquête auprès des

familles du bidonville de Surville.” Report, January 15, 2004, p. 9.

292

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

293

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

flights would be specifically provided for this purpose. The tickets would be paid for

by France, and the passengers accompanied on board by Romanian civil servants.

642

It is widely agreed that this agreement marked a turning point in French policy

towards Romani migrants, and especially towards those from Romania. Not only did

police raids and evictions of Romani migrant camps and squats seem to increase, in

frequency and level of agression, but there was also a multiplication of deportation

orders (APRF) without an adequate examination of each individual’s situation.

It is not only Romanian Roma on French territory illegally who are deported, but

also those legally on French territory. Since January 2002, visas are no longer neces-

sary for Romanian Roma who wish to enter France. Individuals are entitled to remain

within the European Union as tourists for periods of up to three months. However,

many Romanian Roma who are well within this time-limit are nonetheless deported

by French authorities on the grounds that they do not have sufficient resources for

their stay. To do so, the French authorities make use of article 5c of the Schengen

Agreement which provides that individuals entering the Schengen zone must prove

that they have sufficient resources to cover their stay and return trip. Once deported,

Romanians risk penal sanctions under Romanian legislation that can result in a pris-

on term and them being unable to leave Romanian territory for up to five years.

643

The actions of French law enforcement officials reveal a pattern of specifi-

cally targeting Romani migrants for arrest and deportation. The frequent raids

of unauthorised camps or squats as well as identity checks near these places of

residence are often accompanied by arrests and deportation orders. This has also

become common practice when police catch Romani migrants trying to make a

living through various street activities – selling flowers or newspapers, washing

642

See Bissuel, Bertrand. “Les municipalités confrontées à la réapparition des bidonvilles”.

Le Monde

November 27, 2002.

643

Article 1 of Emergency Ordinance 112 of 30.08.2001 “On sanctioning deeds committed outside the

country by Romanian citizens or stateless persons with residence in Romania” states: (1) Entering
or exiting a foreign state by illegally passing its border by a Romanian citizen or a stateless person
with residence in Romania shall be a crime and shall be punished by terms in prison between 3 and
24 months;... Article 5 of the Ordinance provides that a person convicted of the crime specified under
Article 1 “shall be denied the issuance of a passport or, as the case may be, shall be suspended the
right to use it for 5 years.”

294

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

295

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

car windows, playing music in the metro, begging. They are presumed to have

insufficient resources. In July 2004 Romeurope tried to clarify with the French

Ministry of Interior the exact amount and nature of resources considered to be

sufficient for a stay in France; however, the organisation was not provided with

a clear response.

644

From the fall of 2002, the non-governmental organisations MDM and LDH also

observed an increase of attempts by French officials to carry out collective deportations;

however, they note that these efforts were frequently prohibited by French Courts.

645

Collective deportations have nonetheless been carried out by the French au-

thorities in explicit contravention of Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the European

Convention on Human Rights, which bans the collective expulsion of aliens.

646

For example, a collective expulsion took place on September 28, 2004.

647

A spe-

cial charter plane belonging to the company Aigle Azur left Paris’s Roissy Airport

with at least 27 Romanian citizens aboard with deportation orders, a large percentage

of whom were reportedly Roma. The plane stopped in Spain, Italy and Belgium be-

fore arriving in Bucharest at 6:20 PM, with 75 Romanians aboard. Each person was

reportedly escorted by 3 police officers. Of the persons returned, some had been in

644

Collectif national droits de l’homme Romeurope. Compte rendu rencontre Monsieur Jean de

L’Hermitte au Ministère de l’intérieur le 16 Juillet 2004. November 9, 2004, distributed by e-mail to
weblist of Romeurope.

645

Médecins du Monde and the League for Human Rights. Les Roms Dossier Presse. May 2003.

646

ECHR, Protocol 4, Article 4.

In its judgement in the case Conka v. Belgium, involving the col-

lective expulsion from Belgium of Romani asylum-seekers from Slovakia, the European Court of
Human Rights found Belgium in violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion. The Court
reiterated its case-law whereby collective expulsion, within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol 4,
is to be understood as any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where
such a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular
case of each individual alien in the group. (See Conka v. Belguim, App. No. 00051564/99, Eur. Ct.
H.R. (5 February 2002).

647

In a press release the French Ministry of the Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms indicated

that a flight had been organised in cooperation with the Italian, Spanish and Belgian authorities
repatriating 75 Romanian citizens. Ministère de l’Intérieur, de la Sécurité Intérieure et des Libertés
Locales. Communiqué de Presse. September 28, 2004.

294

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

295

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

France for less than the three months they are authorised to stay but were deemed to

have insufficient financial resources.

648

On November 28, 2004, the ERRC visited 4 different sites where Romani mi-

grants resided. At three sites, residents repeated a curious story – many Roma had

been arrested and deported over the previous weeks, and they were told by Romanian

speaking police officers that they were being sent back to Romania in order to vote.

Ms Maria L. and Mr Gheorghe L., Romani migrants living in a camp in Au-

bervilliers, told the ERRC that they believed, based on information that they had

received from Roma in different camps, that in the previous weeks hundreds of

Romani individuals had been sent back to Romania. As far as they knew, Romani

persons from all of the different camps or squats around the Paris area had been sent

back. Gheorghe L. said that 3 or 4 people had been expelled from his camp in Auber-

villiers. Two individuals were arrested when they went to the store to go shopping,

and the other two were arrested while begging.

649

Ms C.S., who resides at a different

camp in Aubervilliers, told the ERRC that two women had gone to get water and

were arrested at the fire hydrant. They were apparently put on planes and sent back

to Romania. The women had only been on French territory for one month before

their deportation.

650

Residents of a squat in Villetaneuse told the ERRC that 4 persons

had been arrested from their building and were sent back to Romania. Mr Niku C., a

resident of the squat, told the ERRC that “the Romanian Minister paid for two planes

to take Roma back.”

651

Gheorghe L. also told the ERRC that he knows of one site from which 18 people

were arrested and expelled. He said, “They took them and sent them back – a few days

ago. And they had their visa.

652

They were held for two days in a detention centre and

then sent directly back to Romania...apparently there were even Romanian police, and

they told them ‘we are taking you back to vote. There is no one in Romania to vote.

648

La Cimade and the Collectif Romeurope. “L’Europe expulse 75 roumains par charter”. Communiqué
de Presse, October 4, 2004.

649

ERRC interview with Mr Gheorghe L. and Mrs Maria L., November 28, 2004, Aubervilliers.

650

ERRC interview with Ms C.S., November 28, 2004, Aubervilliers.

651

ERRC interview with Mr Niku C., November 28, 2004, Villetaneuse.

652

In other words, they were within the 3-month period legally allowed.

296

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

297

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

After you vote, then you can go back to France.’ They also received a stamp in their

passport forbidding them from entering France.”

653

It seems to be a relatively frequent practice for families to be separated during

deportations, including parents from young children.

654

For example, Mr Marius M.

told the ERRC that he was deported in January 2000. His six-year-old son., S.M.,

remained in France. At the time, the boy’s mother, V.S. was in prison. When Marius

M. was in the detention centre, he appealed to the Court in order to be able to take

S.M. with him. S.M. was born in France under another name, but Marius M. was of-

ficially recognised as the father. He told the ERRC that he explained to the judge that

there was no one to look after his child. He did not receive a written decision. He was

simply informed by police in the detention centre that the judge had decided to send

him to Romania. S.M. remained with his grandparents in France; however he was

killed in a car accident two months later with his grandfather when they were fleeing

in haste after having been evicted from a camp in which they were living.

655

In another case that local non-governmental organisations believe was designed to

intimidate residents of a camp in Choisy-le-Roi, Ms Olympia V was arrested on Septem-

ber 24, 2002 for “irregular conditions of stay” (irregularité de séjour) in front of her cara-

van and two children. Her oldest child, aged six, attended school at the time. Forty-eight

hours later she was sent back to Romania without her children. The non-governmental

organisation MDM had to intervene so that the children could join their mother.

656

Not only family ties, but other personal ties and relationships developed after

many years in France are also insufficiently considered in deportation decisions.

For example, Mr Toma Christa was deported to Romania in November 2004 after

having spent 15 years in France. His wife and son remained in Choisy le Roi, where the

family had just moved into housing put at their disposal by the General Counsel of the

Department of Val-de-Marne as part of an integration project. His son has been schooled

653

ERRC interview with Mr Gheorghe L., November 28, 2004, Aubervilliers.

654

Any act by a public authority aimed at separating those who have a family life together amounts to an

interference with the rights secured under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

655

ERRC interview with Marius S., November 28, 2004, Aubervilliers.

656

Médecins du Monde. Mission Banlieue Rapport d’activité 2002. p. 48.

296

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

297

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

in France and has begun a professional training period in a company. Mr Christa also has

other family members in France and has developed considerable other close personal

relationships in his years in France. Mr Daniel Davisse, mayor of Choisy le Roi and Mrs

Hélène Luc, Senator from Val-de-Marne, provided testimony on Mr Christa’s behalf

with respect to his integration in French society during judicial procedures concerning

his expulsion. His request for residency was in the process of being considered at the

Prefecture. The local Support Committee of Roma in Val de Marne

657

that monitored this

deportation also pointed out its absurdity. In fact, Mr Christa was arrested on November

11, 2004, with three other family members when they were on their way to Romania to

renew their papers. Mr Christa was still within the 3-month period of stay allowed him as

a tourist. Thus he was expelled to Romania while he was on his way there anyway.

658

Christa is currently unable to return to his family in France as he has been forbidden to

leave Romania for a period of one year due to penal sanctions imposed upon him by the

Romanian authorities as a result of his deportation from France.

659

12.11 Discrimination Against Romani Political Asylum Seekers

In a visit to the Surville slum camp in Lyon on March 24, 2004, the ERRC en-

countered dozens of asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia living in makeshift

shacks without any basic facilities, and without public assistance of any sort.

One middle-aged Romani man, Mr T.C., who seemed totally disoriented, ap-

proached the ERRC asking where he could get something to eat and drink. He said

that he had arrived from Kosovo a few days earlier. He had fled after the violence

against minority communities that had taken place in the province from March 17-

21, 2004.

660

He told the ERRC that his house had been burnt down.

657

This Committee, which is part of Romeurope, is composed of citizens in support of the Romani mi-

grants of the Department.

658

E-mail communications from Support Committee of Roma in Val-de-Marne, Wednesday November

17, 2004, and Sunday November 21, 2004.

659

ERRC interview with Mr Michel Fèvre, April 6, 2005, Paris.

660

See UNHCR Kosovo. Update on the Kosovo Roma, Ashkaelia, Egyptian, Serb, Bosniak, Gorani

and Albanian communities in a minority situation. June 2004, available at:

http://www.unhcr.se/

Protect_refugees/pdf/Kosovo_minorities_June.pdf

298

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

299

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Mr T.C. had been to the Prefecture to submit his request for political asylum,

however, he evidently had received no material assistance. He showed the ERRC the

paper that he had received from the Prefecture. On one side, written in French, the

text stated that Mr T.C. had made a request for asylum. On the other side, written in

English, the text stated that France is not responsible for taking this request for asy-

lum, that it is the responsibility of another nation. This nation was not named. On the

bottom of the paper were ten boxes.

According to Mr Nicolas Molle of the non-governmental association ALPIL,

this is the manner that the French authorities apply the Dublin Convention.

661

Every

week or two the asylum seeker has to return to the Prefecture and one of the boxes

are stamped. During this time the person’s file is examined and the authorities inves-

tigate whether the person went through another country that should be responsible

for the asylum request. The person receives no assistance during this time. If after all

the boxes have been stamped, the individual still persists in his or her asylum request,

then the request is accepted.

662

This initial period before a person’s asylum claim is

officially accepted can reportedly last up to six months, and during this time the in-

dividual receives no assistance whatsoever.

Once a person’s asylum request is accepted, he or she should in principle be

housed in a Centre for Asylum Seekers (CADA).

663

In these centres, asylum seek-

ers are provided with shelter, food and social assistance. There is, however, a severe

shortage of places in these centres in France, and some asylum seekers are therefore

housed in Urgent Reception Centres for Asylum Seekers (AUDA),

664

where they are

also provided with food and some social assistance. Others are given a temporary

661

The Convention for the Determination of the State Responsible for Examining an Application

Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Communities (Dublin Convention). This
Convention allows a State in which an asylum request is launched to refuse responsibility on the
basis that another member state is responsible based on a range of criteria – family member, visa or
residence permit, illegal border crossing and responsiblity for border control.

662

ERRC interview with Mr Nicolas Molle, March 26, 2004, Lyon. See for a detailed description of this

procedure The Dublin Convention: Study on its Implementation in the 15 Members States of the Eu-
ropean Union, European Commission and Danish Refugee Council, January 2001, p. 36. Available
at

http://www.flygtning.dk/publikationer/rapporter/dublin/dublin.pdf

663

Centre d’acceuil pour demandeurs d’asile.

664

Centre d’Acceuil pour Demandeurs d’Asile (AUDA)

298

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

299

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

housing allocation or housed in hotels. The least fortunate are simply not provided

with any accommodation and have to find their own shelter. A disproportionate

number of Roma asylum seekers figure amongst the least fortunate. For instance, AL-

PIL estimated in March 2004 that there were approximately 500-600 Romani asylum

seekers in the Lyon area, and 90% of them were living in slums and squats.

665

Ms Michele Mézard, responsible for the Roma mission at Médecins du

Monde, told the ERRC that “the Roma do not have the same access to accommo-

dation as other asylum seekers. There are many stereotypes held by the authori-

ties. For instance, they say ‘We can’t receive them like others because they wish

to live in caravans and in a community. They don’t want housing.’ One needs to

see the racism behind this.”

666

The subsistence allowance provided by the French state is barely enough for

families to survive; each adult is provided with approximately 280 Euros per month

regardless of family size. This assistance only lasts for a year, even if the asylum pro-

cedure is still underway. After this period asylum seekers can apply to the General

Council for exceptional child protection assistance. However, there is no guarantee

that they will receive this assistance, and in the prevailing political climate, there is a

strong pressure on officials not to grant it.

667

For those who are not provided with any form of housing, there is little choice but

to live in a slum or squat, unless the individuals happen to have personal resources

allowing for them to pay for their own accommodation. This is not the case with the

vast majority of Romani asylum seekers.

On March 26, 2004, the ERRC encountered a group of 10 Roma from the

former Yugoslavia in a square in the centre of Lyon, the P. and M. families. There

were two small babies amongst the group and one of the women was pregnant.

665

ERRC interview with Mr Nicolas Molle, March 26, 2004, Lyon. The treatment of Roma asylum seekers

explicitly contravenes the standards set out in the Geneva Convention which provide that there should
be no discrimination in the treatment of asylum seekers based on race, religion or country of origin.

666

ERRC interview with Ms Michele Mézard, January 15, 2004, Paris.

667

ERRC interview with Ms Marion Gachet, Médecins du Monde, February 2, 2004, Lyon. ERRC in-

terview with Mr Nicolas Molle, ALPIL, March 26, 2004, Lyon.

300

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

301

Subjecting Romani Migrants to Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Ms R.M. told the ERRC that they had nowhere to sleep, nothing to eat, and re-

ceived no assistance. They had applied for political asylum but did not seem to

know the status of their request.

668

12.12 Conclusion: The Urgent Need to Provide Protection to Romani Asylum Seekers

Apart from a small minority of Romani migrants from former Yugoslavia, Rom-

ani migrants have no chance of gaining political asylum in France. The vast major-

ity are not considered to qualify for subsidiary forms of protection either. A small

number receive permits to stay based on health reasons. And the vast majority of the

rest are at a constant risk of deportation.

The ERRC considers that instead of subjecting Romani migrants to continual hu-

man rights violation and attempting to directly or indirectly force their return to their

countries of origin, the majority should be given protection on French territory.

All too often, Romani migrants are sent back to a reality of ongoing discrimi-

nation and marginalisation so severe as to amount to persecution as defined in

the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention).

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

has made clear that refugees are not only those persons fleeing torture or other

serious harm on racial, ethnic or religious grounds, but that non-violent discrimi-

natory measures may also rise to the level of persecution: “This would be so if

measures of discrimination lead to consequences of a substantially prejudicial

nature for the person concerned, e.g. serious restrictions on the right to earn his

livelihood, his right to practice his religion, or his access to normally available

educational facilities.”

669

The situation of many Romani communities in a variety

of Eastern and Central European countries undoubtedly reaches such a level.

It is this sort of situation that many of the Romani migrants that have arrived in France

since the early 1990s are fleeing. It is perhaps easier to portray them as criminals, and to

668

ERRC interview with Ms R.M., March 26, 2004, Lyon.

669

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Handbook on Procedures and Crite-

ria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the
Status of Refugees. Geneva, 1992.

303

Conclusion: Failed Equality

13. CONCLUSION: FAILED EQUALITY

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CE-

SCR) recently expressed concern about the lack of recognition of minorities in

France. It opined that “the fact that all individuals are guaranteed equal rights in the

State party and that they are all equal before the law does not mean that minorities

do not have the right to exist and to be protected as such in the State party.” It further

emphasized that “equality before the law is not always adequate to ensure the equal

enjoyment of human rights, and in particular economic, social and cultural rights, by

certain minority groups in a country.” It recommended that France “review its posi-

tion with regard to minorities, ensuring that minority groups have the right to exist

and to be protected as such in the State party.”

670

The ERRC’s research in France confirms the accuracy of CESCR’s observations.

French Gypsies and Travellers are unequal citizens. They suffer from dramatic lev-

els of discrimination that affect a wide range of civil, political, social, economic and

cultural rights. This discrimination is twofold. On the one hand due to the fact that

their specificity is not taken into account in laws, policies and regulations, they find

themselves excluded from basic rights and services that are guaranteed to the major-

ity population. On the other hand, their specificity is sometimes taken into account

by French lawmakers, local officials and other authorities, but in a way that targets

them for negative treatment.

Discrimination arising from failure to take into account the travelling lifestyle

particularly affects the social, economic and cultural rights of Gypsies. The situa-

tion has reached crisis proportions in the area of housing, where the many laws and

regulations relating to land use, urban planning and access to public infrastructure

fail to make place for the specific needs of Gypsies and Travellers who live in cara-

vans. Thousands of Gypsies and Travellers who buy land therefore find themselves

harassed, threatened with eviction and denied basic amenities such as water and elec-

tricity. Furthermore, although required to do so by a specific law (the Besson Law),

670

Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: France, 30/11/

2001, E/C.12/1/Add.72. (Concluding Observations/Comments).

304

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

305

Conclusion: Failed Equality

municipalities have for the most part failed to include halting areas for Travellers in

their urban plans and regulations and are unwilling in practice to establish such areas

on their territory.

Such discrimination also extends across other key sectors of life, magnifying the

effect of each single instance of discrimination, so that many Travellers and Gypsies

find themselves caught in a snowballing cycle of marginalisation and exclusion. The

official denial of this discrimination, often shrouded in the language of “universal

equality”, only serves to prolong its persistence. This cycle is set in motion when

Travellers and Gypsies are still children, presented with a French education system

that has historically resisted adapting and taking into account the specific culture

of Travellers and Gypsies, and instead imposes a rigid mould into which children

need conform. In practice, a shocking percentage of Traveller and Gypsy children

receive no education, drop out before reaching the secondary level or attend segre-

gated structures that provide only minimal education. Even when they attend school,

Gypsies and Travellers seem all too often to receive a substandard education, often

not even equipping them with basic literacy skills. Later in life, the opportunities for

Travellers and Gypsies to earn their livelihood are further impaired by the ever-in-

creasing regulations affecting economic activities they exercise, that are developed

without taking into account their way of life and specific situation. Exacerbating

their economic situation, low-income Traveller and Gypsy families find themselves

excluded from various forms of housing assistance available to other French citizens,

due to the fact that caravans are not considered as a form of housing.

Members of the majority population are not asked to give up significant elements

of their culture in order to benefit from basic rights and state services. However, this

is the indecent choice with which Travellers and Gypsies are presented. To benefit

from the same rights and public services as others, they are required to give up sig-

nificant parts of their identity. Or, they can “choose” to maintain their way of life

and therefore suffer the effects of discrimination. Thus, in treating their cultures as

illegitimate or otherwise not subject to recognition, the French state in fact denies

equality to Travellers and Gypsies.

Paradoxically, the inequality of Gypsies and Travellers is considerably ag-

gravated by various laws, policies and practices, underpinned by racism, in which

their way of life is taken into account, but in a manner that infringes upon their

fundamental rights.

304

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

305

Conclusion: Failed Equality

This discrimination affects rights as basic as the right to vote, where, due to specific

racist legislation, many Gypsies and Travellers are only able to vote after a 3-year period

of “attachment” to a given municipality; whereas, other French citizens are able to vote

after 6 months in a given municipality. Many Gypsies and Travellers also need to carry

specific circulation documents, and present these documents for regular visa by police

or gendarmes. They risk penal sanctions – fines and imprisonment – if they travel in the

country without these documents or neglect to fulfil their visa obligations.

A series of racist laws have also made it illegal for Gypsies and Travellers to halt

their caravans on most of French territory. Article 9 of the Besson Law effectively

forbids Gypsies from halting outside of designated halting areas. These restrictions

were further reinforced and extended in the Law of 18 March 2003 for Interior Security

(Security Law) making illegal halting a crime that can be punished with severe penal

sanctions. The Security Law in fact penalises Gypsies and Travellers for the very fact

of their way of life. In addition, the Borloo Law makes a list of twenty-eight French

cities with less than 20,000 inhabitants completely off-limits for Gypsies to stop.

In practice, there are very few halting areas, and even fewer that meet basic stand-

ards of decency. The parts of French territory that seem to be ‘reserved’ for Travellers

and Gypsies tend to be physically segregated in unhealthy and polluted areas (such as

near garbage dumps, sewage treatment plants, and polluting factories). However, Trav-

ellers and Gypsies are regularly evicted even from such indecent locations.

Gypsies and Travellers are also targeted for abusive forced evictions where police

arrive heavily armed, in large numbers, and frequently subject residents to degrad-

ing treatment, including insults, damage to property and sometimes also physical

violence. The ERRC’s research also indicates a systematic pattern of abusive raids

involving searches, checks or arrests, in which all of the Gypsies and Travellers who

happen to be residing at a particular location are treated as collectively suspect. In

addition, the prevailing racist stereotypes that Gypsies and Travellers are thieves and

delinquents also translates into discriminatory treatment by judicial authorities.

Racism and discrimination also pervade the daily interactions of Gypsies and Trav-

ellers with French society. For instance, they are regularly denied entry into public

places, such as bars, restaurants, nightclubs and stores. They are also frequently refused

insurance of any sort. On the labour market, the key to success for Travellers and Gyp-

sies depends on hiding their identity from clients and potential employers.

306

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

307

Conclusion: Failed Equality

Surprisingly in a country that places considerable value on the notion of equal-

ity, the ongoing human rights violations that Gypsies and Travellers face in France

are primarily rooted in the non-compliance of the French State with its international

obligations to guarantee equality and non-discrimination.

These fundamental principles of international law are recognised and repeated

in many international Conventions, Declarations and Recommendations. The prin-

ciples of equality and non-discrimination are self-standing general rights that must

be applied in all fields of life whether political, civil, social, economic or cultural.

671

Over the last decades, a widely accepted definition of the equality principle has been

accepted in international law; it requires that equal situations are treated equally and

non-comparable situations differently. Failure to do so amounts to discrimination

unless an objective and reasonable justification exists.

What this means is that in order to in practice guarantee equality and non-dis-

crimination, factors such as a minority’s culture may need to be taken into account

in a constructive manner in laws, policies and practice. On the other hand, to take a

minority’s culture into account in a way that is unfavourable to persons belonging to

that minority amounts to racial discrimination.

In order to guarantee real equality to Travellers and Gypsies in France, it is

imperative that the French State respect the principles of equality and non-discrimi-

nation as defined in international law. The first step lies in recognising the discrimi-

nation from which so many Travellers and Gypsies suffer in so many areas of life.

It is urgent that instead of legitimising discriminatory laws, policies and practices

through a restrictive interpretation of equality, the French State instead takes the

specific Traveller and Gypsy cultures and ways of life into account where this is

671

For instance, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (which significantly already mentions

in its 1

Article the equality of all persons) in Article 7 sets out the principles of equality and non-

discrimination as fundamental rights in themselves as does Article 26 of the “International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights” (ICCPR). At the European level, with the recent adoption, of “Protocol
12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”
(ECHR), a general self-standing right to non-discrimination is legally enforceable before the Eu-
ropean Court of Human Rights. These principles are also included (as accessory rights) in a wide
number of international instruments – as rights to be taken into account in the application of the rights
dealt with in the respective instrument. For instance, this is the case with Article 14 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Article 2(2) of the ICESCR and Article 2(1) of the ICCPR.

306

Always Somewhere Else: Anti-Gypsyism in France

307

Conclusion: Failed Equality

necessary in order to bring about real equality. And, on the other hand, all existing

laws, policies and practices that target Travellers and Gypsies for negative treatment

should be recognised as discriminatory and appropriately altered.

In addition, strategies need to be developed to give Travellers and Gypsies the

same access to basic rights and services as other citizens.

672

This needs to be done in

a manner that respects the cultures of Travellers and Gypsies. Evidently this means

that different segments within the different Traveller and Gypsies communities need

to be directly involved in all stages of the development and implementation of all

measures that directly affect them. These measures will need to be accompanied by

concerted actions to combat the racism directed against Gypsies and Travellers that

currently pervades French society.

Paradoxically, it is France’s very attachment to a restrictive concept of equality

that acts as a significant barrier to remedying the existing inequality of a segment of

its population. If France is to live up to its Constitutional guarantee of equality in

practice, the dramatic human rights situation of Travellers and Gypsies needs to be

immediately recognised and remedied.

672

It should be noted that according to international law positive measures are not discrimination. This is

clearly stated in the definition of discrimination provided in ICERD. Article 1(4) provides that: “Spe-
cial measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic
groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups
or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be
deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead
to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued
after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.” Directive 2000/43/EC also pro-
vides in its Article 5 that: “With a view to ensuring full equality in practice, the principle of equal
treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting specific measures to
prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to racial or ethnic origin.”

309

Recommendations

14. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this report, the ERRC urges French authorities to act on

the following recommendations:

1. Sign and ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Mi-

norities, expressly recognising Gypsies and Travellers as a national minority,

and withdraw the reservation to Article 27 of the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights.