EU.IE.Bulgaria.Bourgas.PL.10Sep09EU.IE.Bulgaria.Bourgas.PL.10Sep09
10 September 2009
Dimitar Nikolov Mayor 8000 Bourgas, No 26 Alexandrovska str. Bourgas municipality Bulgaria Email: Obshtina@burgas.bg Re:
Forced eviction and housing demolition of 40 Romani households in Gorno Ezerovo District, Bourgas, Bulgaria and threatened forced eviction of others in Gorno Ezerovo as well as the Meden Rudnik community in Bourgas, Bulgaria
Dear Mayor Nikolov, The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) is an international human rights non-governmental organisation based in Geneva, Switzerland, with offices throughout the world. COHRE has consultative status with the United Nations and the Council of Europe and works to promote and protect the right to adequate housing for everyone, everywhere, including preventing or remedying forced evictions. COHRE is gravely concerned about the reported forced eviction of some forty Romani households, which are living in extreme poverty, in the Gorno Ezerovo district of Bourgas as well as the threatened forced eviction of others from Gomo Ezerovo as well as the Meden Rudnik community also situated in Bourgas. Indeed, COHRE brought these thenthreatened forced evictions to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council via its Complaint Procedure in 2008. COHRE reminds the Municipality of Bourgas and all relevant authorities in Bulgaria that as a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination the practice of forced eviction amounts to a violation of human rights. Furthermore, the practice of forced eviction has been determined to be a gross violation of human rights. For instance, in its Resolution 1993/77, the UN Commission on Human Rights affirmed “that the practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in particular the right to adequate
housing.”1 In its Resolution 2004/28 the Commission “reaffirmed that the practice of forced eviction that is contrary to laws which are in conformity with international human rights standards constitutes a gross violation of a broad range of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing.”2 The right to adequate housing, enshrined in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, obligates the Republic of Bulgaria and its political sub-divisions to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate housing. The causes for the communities of Meden Rudnik and Gorno Ezerovo being in informal settlements (e.g., “unlawful buildings” as described by the Regional Agency for the Control of Unlawful Building) are due in large part to the persistent pattern of racial discrimination against Roma and the unwillingness of the Republic of Bulgaria to fulfil the right to adequate housing without such discrimination. This discrimination includes lack of education and employment opportunities necessary to afford housing at market rates. For example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that “success has not been achieved” in government efforts to combat unemployment as well as “deplor[ing] the situation where those [Roma] who are employed receive salaries which do not allow them to secure for themselves and their families an adequate standard of living.”3 Additionally, Bulgaria has denied the long-standing communities of Meden Rudnik and Gorno Ezerovo any security of tenure, including the minimum “degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats” required by its international human rights obligations.4 Furthermore, another cause of urban informal settlements is that rural Roma have been forced to seek economic opportunity, however meagre, in urban areas since essentially being displaced off rural land. Indeed, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found as early as 1997 that “rural Roma are discouraged from claiming land to which they are entitled under the law disbanding agricultural collectives.”5 1
Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1993/77, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/RES/77 (adopted 10 March 1993). 2 Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 2004/28, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/RES/28 (adopted 16 April 2004). 3 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Bulgaria, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.37 (8 December 1999) at paras. 13 and 14. 4 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 4, UN Doc. The right to adequate housing (Sixth session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III at 114 (1991), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 18 (2003) at para. 8(a), (stating in relevant part that “Tenure takes a variety of forms, including rental (public and private) accommodation, cooperative housing, lease, owner-occupation, 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.”) 5 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations: Bulgaria, UN Doc.
2
While COHRE understands there is an underlying property rights claim involved in these cases, any remedy for enforcing property rights should not and indeed can not lawfully be implemented by carrying out a gross violation of human rights, particularly when the situations involved are the result of the Republic of Bulgaria’s obligation to fulfil the right to adequate housing without discrimination. Indeed, under international human rights law binding upon Bulgaria, evictions can only be justified in highly exceptional circumstances and after all feasible alternatives to eviction must be explored in meaningful consultation with the persons affected.6 In this case, not only has this process not been followed, but there exist feasible alternatives to remedying a property rights claim that do not entail committing a gross violation of human rights. For instance, Bulgaria should provide compensation to the owner of the land in question and then meet its obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate housing by regularising the communities of Meden Rudnik and Gorno Ezerovo including by providing the communities with a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats.7 Requests for further information or electronic replies should be sent to litigation@cohre.org. Sincerely,
Salih Booker Executive Director Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions cc: Council of Ministers No 1 Dondukov blvd 1194 Sofia Bulgaria Email: Gis@government.bg UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing E-mail: SPDInfo@ohchr.org UN Independent Expert on Extreme Poverty E-mail: SPDInfo@ohchr.org
CERD/C/304/Add.29 (23 April 1997). 6 See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comments. Nos. 4 and 7. 7 This is essentially the process used by the Republic of South Africa in the case of Modder East Squatters and Another v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (SCA 187/03).
3