The rights of Community citizens. There is no uniform legal formula for tackling the question of the Roma in the EU: it is different if they are citizens of the member states or if they come from a non-EU country. The requirements, rights and duties of the host country are not all the same. From a humanitarian point of view this is regrettable but this is how it stands. The European Commission, the guardian of the treaty, determines whether the rules on the free movement of Community citizens are being respected. It is moreover the difference of situations that provoked a misunderstanding on 16 September, in a backdrop to the European Council. Nicolas Sarkozy indicated that the German position was the same as that of France, but Angela Merkel denied this. The French president was undoubtedly referring to the arrangements Germany had negotiated with the authorities in Pristina, with regard to the gradual return to Kosovo of the Roma. The latter were taken into Germany during the Balkan wars of the 1990s and have not “integrated” into German society (Roma children failing to attend school, unemployment rates); they are not Community citizens. At the time, Germany had also concluded arrangements with Romania for the repatriation of the Roma, before this country joined the EU. Sweden and Denmark share more or less the same position. In Italy, a large number of the Roma are from the former Yugoslavia and hold a passport of a state, which no longer exists. Concerns in this connection are not only European and the agreements on the free movement of persons between the EU and Canada, as we are aware, have experienced difficulties with regard to the admission of the Roma from Romania.
Beyond the legal aspect. The current situation provoking so much polemic and trouble, concerns the question of the free movement of the Roma who are actually EU citizens. The difficulties and divergences, however, largely go beyond the legal remit, no matter what position the Commission adopts on whether or not infringements have been committed with regard to EU rules. France and a number of other member states consider that Romania (and, to a lesser extent, Bulgaria) have been focusing on the free movement of persons in the EU, in an effort to relinquish responsibility as much as possible for the problem of the Roma by transferring it to other Community zones. The Romanian government will do their best to convince the Roma, in a way that is more or less explicit, that their future is not in Romania. Investigative journalist reports in the country indicate that the Roma, repatriated from France to their countries of origin, are determined to begin their journeys back to France as soon as possible. Some of the Roma interviewed admitted that they had already made this journey three times. The Romanian prime minister, Traian Basescu, made a distinction between sedentary and nomadic Roma and explained that the former are the responsibility of the country of residence but that the nomadic Roma constitute a collective European problem. In response, Nicolas Sarkozy, asserted that nationality depended on the passport one carried and urged Romania to use effectively the funding for integrating the Roma, which it had in its support from the Community budget. Another element complicates the situation: the March 2011 deadline for Romania (as well as Bulgaria) to join the Schengen area. Some French authorities have indicated that this date (when all controls on the free movement within the EU of Romanian passport holders are lifted) should be postponed if the Roma community is not better integrated into Romanian society (EUROPE 10222).
For coordinated European action. The situation described above, in addition to the legal complications (possible infringement procedures, postponement of Schengen area enlargement) ought to encourage people to avoid any populist sloganeering and not to exacerbate the differences. The opportunity should be seized for launching concrete initiatives to support the Roma, rather than to nurture increased polemic between the different political forces. There seems to be a general agreement on the necessity of coordinated Community action, which is the only way of finding valid responses to help prevent certain essential aspects of European construction being questioned, such as the free movement of persons and an end to border controls, whilst at the same time reducing any anomalies such as child beggars and child exploitation.
There is no dearth of projects with regard to the appropriate use of financial resources already available for education and accommodation etc. Our publication regularly reports on this issue. Nevertheless, nothing will be efficient or sustainable without the active participation of the Roma people, part of which is already going in the right direction, whilst another part remains attached to attitudes that make its integration difficult. The balance between rights and responsibilities remains indispensable. F.R.