COHRE Right to Adequate Housing Czech Republic 2008

COMMUNICATION TO THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING concerning violations of the

Right to Adequate Housing in the

Czech Republic

8 February 2008

Table of Contents SUBMITTING ORGANIZATIONS....................................................................................................................3 I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................4

II. LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE PARTY....................................................................................9 1. RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING .....................................................................................................................10 2. SECURITY OF TENURE AND FREEDOM FROM FORCED EVICTIONS ...................................................................11 3. RIGHT TO WATER AND SANITATION ...............................................................................................................12 4. RIGHTS OF THE CHILD ...................................................................................................................................13 5. ACCESS TO JUSTICE .......................................................................................................................................14 6. NON-DISCRIMINATION...................................................................................................................................15 6.1 The Ban on Discrimination in the Realisation of the Right to Adequate Housing.................................16 6.2 Right to Water........................................................................................................................................17 6.3 Anti-discrimination legislation ..............................................................................................................17 6.4 Inciting racial discrimination ................................................................................................................18 6.5 Segregation............................................................................................................................................18 6.6 Rights of the child ..................................................................................................................................19 6.7 Access to justice: Equality before tribunals and others administering justice .....................................20 III. FACTS ...........................................................................................................................................................20 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................20 Social Housing.............................................................................................................................................24 2. RECENT CASES OF FORCED EVICTIONS AND INADEQUATE HOUSING IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC .......................24 2.1 Bohumin.................................................................................................................................................25 2.1.1 The Scuka family............................................................................................................................................ 25 2.1.2 The Mayer family ........................................................................................................................................... 26 2.1.3 The Tichanek family....................................................................................................................................... 26 2.1.4 Bohumin summary.......................................................................................................................................... 27

2.2 Vsetin .....................................................................................................................................................27 2.2.1 The Kandrač family ........................................................................................................................................ 29 2.2.2 The Kandra family.......................................................................................................................................... 29 2.2.3 The Ziga family .............................................................................................................................................. 30 2.2.4 The Scuka family............................................................................................................................................ 30 2.2.5 The Tulej family ............................................................................................................................................. 31 2.2.6 Vsetin Today................................................................................................................................................... 31

2.3 Plzen ......................................................................................................................................................33 2.4 Nove Dvory – Ovcary ............................................................................................................................34 2.5 Brno .......................................................................................................................................................36 2.6 Novy Jicin ..............................................................................................................................................37 2.6.1 The C family................................................................................................................................................... 38 2.6.2 The K family................................................................................................................................................... 38

2.7 Liberec and Surrounding Areas.............................................................................................................38 2.8 Litvinov ..................................................................................................................................................41 2.9 Havlickuv Brod ......................................................................................................................................41 IV. INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS ...............................................................................................................42 1. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ROMA .................................................................................................................42 2. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ROMA IN THE RIGHT TO HOUSING .......................................................................44 3. ACCESS TO JUSTICE .......................................................................................................................................45 V. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................................45

2

SUBMITTING ORGANIZATIONS

The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) is an international, non-governmental, human rights organisation with its head office in Geneva, Switzerland. COHRE works to promote and protect economic, social and cultural rights, including the rights to adequate housing, water and the prevention of forced evictions around the world. COHRE’s work involves housing and water rights training and education programmes for civil society organisations, legislators, municipal councillors and human rights practitioners; research and publications; monitoring, documenting and preventing forced evictions; undertaking fact-finding missions; participation and advocacy within the United Nations and regional human rights bodies; and providing legal advocacy and advice to communities and organizations involved in housing rights campaigns. COHRE has Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Further information about COHRE is available at www.cohre.org.

The civic association Vzájemné soužiti (Life Together) is a registered Roma-Czech nongovernmental, non-profit organization which has been active in Ostrava since 1997. Through community work, Life Together aims to improve the social and living conditions of poor families in need. The association’s activities are concentrated on the areas of humanitarian, educational, social and legal counseling, and the issues of housing, employment conflict resolution and human rights. Since its founding, Life Together has worked regularly with the European Roma Rights Centre on issues including pressing for school desegregation, securing justice for victims of coercive sterilization, and ending housing rights abuses of Roma in the Czech Republic. For further information on Life Together, please see www.vzajemnesouziti.cz.

The Peacework Development Fund manages over 100 volunteer projects per year throughout Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe. Peacework volunteers contribute assistance and expertise to communities in the areas of agriculture and livelihood, ecology and the environment, health and medicine, issues affecting children, literacy and education, and women’s initiatives. This assistance includes helping local partners identify the root causes of such phenomena as school dropout, unemployment, or ill-health in order to address these issues and contributes to the greater enjoyment of human rights by all. For further information, please see www.peacework.org

3

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Identification of the alleged victims: Potentially tens of thousands of Romani families in the Czech Republic, including large numbers living in Bohumin, Vsetin, Plzen, Nove Dvory-Ovcary, Brno, Novy Jicin, Liberec, Litvinov, and Havlickuv Brod.

Identification of the alleged perpetrators of the violation: The Czech Republic Identification of the organization(s) submitting the communication: The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, civic association Vzájemné soužiti (Life Together), Peacework Development Fund.

Dates of incidents: Continuing violations from 2005 to the present.

Place of incidents: The Czech Republic, including the towns of Bohumin, Vsetin, Plzen, Nove Dvory-Ovcary, Brno, Novy Jicin, Liberec, Litvinov, and Havlickuv Brod.

1. This Communication details ongoing human rights concerns arising under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism (ICERD) affecting Roma in the Czech Republic. It has been prepared to assist the Special Rapporteur in his effort to investigate human rights violations in the Czech Republic related to rights to adequate housing, including freedom from forced evictions; the right to water as an indispensable means to realize the right to an adequate standard of living; and the right to remedy for violations of these rights. It is hoped that the specific details reported herein will assist the Special Rapporteur in pressing the Government to act effectively to address human rights issues concerning Roma in the Czech Republic. This Communication does not address all human rights issues facing Roma in the Czech Republic, nor even all ICESCR issues arising in the Czech Republic of concern to Roma; the sole purpose of this document is to present to the Special Rapporteur documentation in several areas of expertise of the submitting organizations. The concerns are as follows: 2. The right to adequate housing for Roma is currently threatened by inadequate allocation of affordable and habitable housing to members of this minority. This right is contained in a number of international instruments, and it is explicitly contained in Article 11(1) of the ICESCR as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. Habitability is one aspect of the right to adequate housing, which requires adequate space and physical safety of the occupants.1 The right to “availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure”2

1 2

Id. at para. 8(d).

CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing (Sixth Session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III, 114 (1991), para. 8(b).

4

is another component of the right to adequate housing.3 Further, “adequate housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, childcare centres and other social facilities.”4 Currently, the right to adequate housing is threatened by the situation of a growing number of Roma who live in substandard conditions, frequently without access to water or heat. They are often forced to live on the edges of towns, segregated from the rest of the population and isolated from social facilities.

For example, Roma-occupied buildings in Nove Dvory, not reconstructed since the late 1900s, have no windows, no water or electricity, and holes in the roofs. In Frýdlant, a commercial lodging house occupied by Roma is in such disastrous condition that there is danger of an epidemic of infectious diseases.5 The gravity of the situation in Velke Hamry is confirmed by the 2006 Gabal study for the Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, which describes a large, one-storey building in which as many as 150 Roma live in 16 flats.

Water pipes freeze in winter, there are no bathrooms, clogged common toilets are located in the corridors, the windows and front door are broken, the roof leaks, and the eaves and chimney are destroyed. Examples from other municipalities are detailed below.

3. Roma are victims of a pattern and practice of forced evictions by both private landlords and government authorities. As integral to the right to adequate housing, “all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats.”6 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that “forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant.”7 Further, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights held in 1993 and 2004 that the practice of forced evictions constituted a “gross violation” of human rights, in particular, the right to adequate housing.8 In spite of such commonly accepted international standards, forced evictions, related extreme human rights harms, and/or ongoing threats of forced eviction have been carried out by both private individuals and state actors in Bohumin, Vsetin, Plzen, Nove Dvory-Ovcary, Brno, Novy Jicin, Liberec, Litvinov, and Havlickuv Brod during the period of 2005-2007. Municipal authorities have displaced Roma from integrated residential housing to isolated locations without adequate sanitation, utilities, accessible schools or other services necessary for life with dignity. For example, in Breclav, the municipality evicted 50 Roma from a location in the town centre to the building of a former cowshed on the town outskirts, where the families live in 15 m2 rooms with no heat and common toilets. Further, recently-adopted domestic housing laws allow municipal and private landlords and others to arbitrarily invade the privacy of any tenant. Roma are routinely subjected to invasive actions by landlords. In the face of forced evictions, harassment, and other grave human rights abuses, Czech authorities have failed to undertake adequate measures to protect Roma families.

4. Czech municipalities have repeatedly violated Roma communities’ right to water and sanitation. The right to water “include[s] the right to maintain access to existing water supplies necessary for the right to water, and the right to be free from interference, such as

3

Id. CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing (Sixth Session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III, 114 (1991), para. 8(f). (emphasis added) 5 Email communication with Mr. Kotlár of 18th July 2007.

6 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 7, The Right to Adequate Housing: Forced Evictions (Sixteenth Session, 1997), U.N. Doc. E/1998/22, annex IV, 113 (1997).

7 Id. 8 See United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/77, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1993/77 and 2004/28, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2004/28.

4

5

the right to be free from arbitrary disconnections or contamination of water supplies.”9 The States parties’ obligation to respect the right to water requires that States parties “refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to water.” 10 The obligation includes “refraining from engaging in any practice or activity that denies or limits equal access to adequate water; […] and [refraining from] limiting access to, or destroying, water services and infrastructure as a punitive measure….”11 Further, “there is a strong presumption that retrogressive measures taken in relation to the right to water are prohibited under the Covenant.”12 Everyone is also entitled to access to adequate sanitation.13 Despite these protections, in the town of Vsetin, many members of the Roma community reported that the municipal government disconnected access to water and electricity (and therefore their hearting) in their building in winter, when temperatures dropped below zero Celsius, in an effort to get the Roma to leave their homes. In Velke Hamry, social workers had to address the mayor to get a landlord to repair a building in which 60 Roma persons lived without water or sanitation facilities. In Jablonec nad Nisou, one landlord threatened to cut off the water supply even though tenants had paid their bills.

5. Racial discrimination against Roma, both direct and indirect, is a particularly invidious harm. Freedom from racial discrimination is an explicit right in the ICESCR, the ICERD, the ICCPR, and the CRC, as well as other international legal instruments. Racial discrimination is “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”14 States Parties “condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races….”15 In practice, Roma in the Czech Republic are regularly subjected to discrimination, by state and private actors, in almost all aspects of their lives, including in the area of housing and access to services. Further, while the Czech government is obligated to bring discrimination to an end by all appropriate means, including legislation, the Czech legislature has yet to adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law; taking legal action to challenge racial discrimination in the field of housing is in practice extremely difficult and resource-intensive, and at present there is only one known successful complaint in this area.

6. Racial segregation is an especially harmful form of racial discrimination, and affects most Roma families, who are forced to live in substandard housing in geographically and socially isolated areas. Under Article 3 of the ICERD, “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.” States Parties are also under obligations to 9

CESCR, General Comment No. 15, The Right to Water (Twenty-ninth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2002), para. 10.

10 General Comment No. 15, para 21 (emphasis added); see also United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Res. 2006/10, Promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation, 24 August 2006, UN Doc. A/HRC/Sub.1/58/L11, adopting the Draft Guidelines for the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation (2005), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/25, para. 29.

11 General Comment No. 15, para 21 (emphasis added); see also United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Res. 2006/10, Promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation, 24 August 2006, UN Doc. A/HRC/Sub.1/58/L11, adopting the Draft Guidelines for the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation (2005), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/25, para. 29.

12 General Comment No. 15, para. 19; see also General Comment 3 (1990), para. 9. (emphasis added) 13 General Comment No. 15, para. 29.

14 ICERD, Article 1(1).

15 ICERD, Article 2(1).

6

monitor and address de facto segregation that may arise from social patterns not created by official policies.16 Specific to Roma, States Parties are expected to “develop and implement policies and projects aimed at avoiding segregation of Roma communities in housing; [and] to involve Roma communities and associations as partners together with other persons in housing project construction, rehabilitation and maintenance.”17 Currently, Roma in the Czech Republic are frequently forced to reside in segregated ghettos which constitute substandard and inadequate housing. In addition to the inherent harms flowing from this practice, the segregation of Roma persons in inadequate housing located only in ghettos virtually ensures that Roma will remain, for the foreseeable future, a systemically excluded underclass. No acts of the national government have been effective in countering racially segregating forces in the field of housing.

7. Discourse inciting racial discrimination against Roma, both by public officials and private individuals, has been on the rise in the Czech Republic. Eliminating racial discrimination also requires States Parties to ICERD to prohibit and punish by law “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof.”18 States Parties “undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end19…

States “shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.”20 Despite such laws, in a number of recent cases, regular, systemic human rights abuses against the Roma are aggravated by the fact that anti-Romani hate speech is a regular part of public discourse in the Czech Republic. Anti-Romani statements are a standard and often unquestioned part of public life in the Czech Republic, and officials as high-ranking as the Prime Minister, the President, Senators (including members of the Senate’s Human Rights Committee), other members of the cabinet, and many local officials have either made anti-Romani statements or failed to counteract speech acts denigrating the dignity of the Roma. The use of such statements as a populist tactic during elections is common and an effective method of generating voter support. This sets the tone for an environment in which Internet chat rooms and other public fora are flooded with anti-Romani invective. In the face of these acts, Czech authorities have failed to undertake adequate measures to protect the security of the persons concerned, and have failed to prosecute individuals responsible for such hate speech.

8. Romani children are particularly vulnerable to all of the above acts and omissions of the Czech government. States Parties to the Convention “recognize that every child has the inherent right to life,” 21 and that “States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.”22 Under Article 27(3) of the Convention, “States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.”23 To give effect to this right, “States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take 16

See CERD, General Recommendation XIX on Racial segregation and apartheid (Art. 3) (Forty-seventh session, 1995), paras. 3-4, contained in U.N. Doc. A/50/18.

17 CERD, General Recommendation XXVII on Discrimination Against Roma (Fifty-seventh session, 2000), para. 30, contained in U.N. Doc. A/55/18, annex V. 18 ICERD, para. 4(a).

19 ICERD, para. 4.

20 ICERD, para. 4(c). (emphasis added) 21 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 6, para. 1.

22 CRC, Article 6, para. 2.

23 CRC, Article 27(3), para. 1.

7

appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.”24 The right to clean drinking water is also to be ensured.25 States Parties further “agree to ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.”26 The integrity of the family is also enumerated in CRC Article 16, which provides that “[n]o child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.”27 Above all, these rights must be ensured without discrimination.28 By tolerating the termination of heat in below-zero temperatures in a building occupied by children, the State interfered with their right to life in CRC Article 6. By tolerating the forced evictions of entire families, including children, from their homes, and the disconnection of water supplies, the Government violated Articles 24(2)(c) and 27(3). The pattern and practice of this housing disenfranchisement is also key to the Czech authorities’ continuing to arbitrarily, systematically remove Romani children from the care of their biological parents. Their remand into state or other alternate custody calls seriously into question the compliance of the Czech Republic with, inter alia, CRC Articles 9 and 16. Finally, by tolerating the segregation of Romani families into substandard housing and the filing of punitive lawsuits by landlords against all family members, including minors, the State is violating CRC Article 2.

9. Compounding all of the above violations, Roma are largely unable to gain access to justice through legal channels. The Czech government has obligations to guarantee that all persons have the right to an effective remedy for violations of their rights.29 All persons are further entitled to equality under law and equal protection of the law.30 As set out in this Communication, extensive empirical evidence indicates a system-wide failure in the Czech Republic to ensure rights of equality in administrative and judicial matters crucial for the realisation of fundamental human rights. In recent years and continuing to the present, there has been near total impunity for racial discrimination against the Roma, as well as for those who would frustrate the Roma in their efforts to realize the right to equality. Specifically, the Czech Republic is responsible for (i) the failure to adopt an adequate law banning racial and other forms of discrimination; (ii) the lack of effective protection through national tribunals and other State institutions against acts of racial discrimination; (iii) the lack of sufficient 24

Id. at para. 3 (emphasis added).

CRC, Article 24(2)(c).

26 CRC, Article 9, para. 1 (“Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence”).

27 CRC, Article 16.

28 Under CRC, Article 2(1), “States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.” The child is also to be protected from discrimination or punishment “on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.” (CRC, Article 2(2)).

29 See ICCPR, Article 2(3); see also European Convention on Human rights, Article 13 (providing that “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”); ‘The Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ reprinted in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 (1998), pp. 691–705, section II, para. 22 (“Any person or group who is a victim of a violation of an economic, social or cultural right should have access to effective judicial or other appropriate remedies at both national and international levels.”).

30 See ICERD, Article 6; ICERD, Article 5(a).

25

8

notice prior to evictions in violation of due process rights; (iv) the lack of effective remedy for illegal evictions, including the lack of a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal”31; (v) the fact that Roma children are punished with eviction suits on the basis of the status of their parents;32 and (vi) the fact that the State Party has tolerated and in some cases actively promoted the extreme, systemic exclusion of Roma.

10. Finally, many of the issues of concern in this Communication have been the subject of extensive commentary by UN Treaty Bodies over the past five years of review in the Czech Republic (2002-2007). Relevant concerns and recommendations issued by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and the Human Rights Committee (HRC) are detailed in Section IV below.

We are grateful in advance for your careful attention to the concerns set out herein.

II. LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE PARTY It is well established that States must respect, protect and fulfil their obligations under all human rights instruments to which they are parties. According to the Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, o o o

The obligation to respect requires States to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights…; The obligation to protect requires States to prevent violations of such rights by third parties…; [and] The obligation to fulfil requires States to take appropriate legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial and other measures towards the full realization of such rights….” 33

Under the ICESCR, Article 2(1), a State Party has an obligation to take steps to “the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights … by all appropriate means, including the adoption of legislative measures.” The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has interpreted the obligation to use “all appropriate means” to include “legislative, administrative, judicial, economic, social and educational measures, consistent with the nature of the rights in order to fulfil their obligations under the Covenant.”34 The obligations to respect, protect and fulfil also “each contain elements of obligation of conduct and obligation of result.” 35 The Committee has stated that “the obligation of conduct requires action reasonably calculated to realize the enjoyment of a particular right…The obligation of result requires States to achieve specific targets to satisfy a detailed substantive standard.”36 Indeed, “the Committee is of the view that a minimum core obligation to ensure the 31

ICCPR, Article 14(1). (in contravention of CRC Art. 2(2)) 33 ‘The Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ reprinted in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 (1998), pp. 691–705, section II, para. 6.

34 ‘The Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/17, Annex, para. B(17).

35 ‘The Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ reprinted in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 (1998), pp. 691–705, section II, para. 7.

36 Id. 32

9

satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights is incumbent upon every State party.” 37 Thus, for example, “a State party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant.”38

1. Right to adequate housing The right to adequate housing can be traced back to the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human rights, and is included in a number of international human rights instruments. Article 11(1) of the ICESCR is the “most comprehensive and perhaps the most important of the relevant provisions.”39 This states States parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and for his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right….40

One component of the right to adequate housing is habitability.41 A habitable shelter is one “providing the inhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural hazards, and disease vectors. The physical safety of occupants must be guaranteed as well.” 42 The right to “availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure”43 is another component of the right to adequate housing.44 According to CESCR General Comment No. 4, an adequate house must contain certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. 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;45

Further, “adequate housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centres and other social facilities.”46 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.”47 Similarly,

37

CESCR, General Comment No. 3, The nature of States parties obligations (Art. 2, par.1) (Fifth session, 1990), U.N. Doc. E/1991/23, annex III (1990), para. 10 (emphasis added).

38 Id. (emphasis in original).

39 CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing (Sixth Session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III, 114 (1991), para. 3.

40 ICESCR, Article 11(1).

41 CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing (Sixth Session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III, 114 (1991), para. 8.

42 Id. at para. 8(d).

43 CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing (Sixth Session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III, 114 (1991), para. 8(b).

44 Id. 45 Id. 46 CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing (Sixth Session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III, 114 (1991), para. 8(f).

47 Id.

10

“housing should not be built on polluted sites nor in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the right to health of the inhabitants.” 48 A State party’s obligation as regards the right to housing “is to demonstrate that, in aggregate, the measures being taken are sufficient to realize the right for every individual in the shortest possible time in accordance with the maximum of available resources.”49 This must include designing policies and legislation that “give[s] due priority to those social groups living in unfavourable conditions by giving them particular consideration.”50 “Another obligation of immediate effect” is “effective monitoring of the situation with respect to housing.” 51

2. Security of tenure and freedom from forced evictions As integral to the right to adequate housing, “all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats.”52 The term “forced eviction” means “the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection.”53 The obligation of States to refrain from, and protect against, forced evictions from home(s) and land arises mainly from ICESCR Article 11(1). Protection from forced evictions has been interpreted as a component of the right to adequate housing in General Comment No. 4 and General Comment No. 7 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 7 indicates that “the State itself must refrain from forced evictions and ensure that the law is enforced against its agents or third parties who carry out forced evictions.” It further states that “evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights.” Finally, the Committee believes that “forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant.”54 General Comment No. 7 suggests States explore “all feasible alternatives” prior to carrying out any forced evictions, with a view to avoiding or at least minimizing the use of force or precluding the eviction altogether. It provides further assurances for people evicted to receive adequate compensation for any real or personal property affected by an eviction. When forced evictions are carried out as a last resort and in full accordance with the Comment, in addition to being assured that homelessness will not occur, the following eight prerequisites must be met prior to any eviction taking place: a. an opportunity for genuine consultation with those affected; b. adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction; c. information on the proposed evictions and where applicable, 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; 48

Id. CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing (Sixth Session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III, 114 (1991), para. 14.

50 Id. at para. 11.

51 Id. at para. 13.

52 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 7, The Right to Adequate Housing: Forced Evictions (Sixteenth Session, 1997), U.N. Doc. E/1998/22, annex IV, 113 (1997).

53 CESCR, General Comment 7, The Right to Adequate Housing (art. 11 of the Covenant): Forced Evictions (Sixteenth session, 1997), U.N. Doc. E/1998/23, annex IV, 113 (1997).

54 Id. at p. 1.

49

11

d. especially where groups of people are involved, government officials or their representatives must be present during an eviction; e. all persons carrying out the eviction must be properly identified; f. evictions are not to take place in particularly bad weather or at night unless the affected persons consent otherwise; g. provision of legal remedies; and h. provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who are in need of it to seek redress from the courts.55

3. Right to water and sanitation The right to water is commonly recognized as a human right in international law, and implicit or explicit references to water are contained in the ICESCR, CEDAW56, and the CRC.57 The right to water in the ICESCR has been derived from the rights of everyone to an adequate standard of living (ICESCR Article 11(1)) and to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (ICESCR Article 12).58 CSESCR General Comment No. 15 states that “[t]he human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.”59 The right to water “include[s] the right to maintain access to existing water supplies necessary for the right to water, and the right to be free from interference, such as the right to be free from arbitrary disconnections or contamination of water supplies.”60 General Comment No. 15 further states that everyone is entitled to have “access to adequate sanitation.”61 To protect and fulfil these substantive rights to water, States Parties have “immediate obligations in relation to the right to water, such as the guarantee that the right will be exercised without discrimination of any kind (art. 2, para. 2) and the obligation to take steps (art. 2, para.1) towards the full realization of articles 11, paragraph 1, and 12.”62 Such steps “must be deliberate, concrete and targeted towards the full realization of the right to water.”63 The States Parties’ obligation to respect the right to water requires that States Parties “refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to water. The obligation includes, inter alia, refraining from engaging in any practice or activity that denies or limits equal access to adequate water; […] and limiting access to, or destroying, water services and infrastructure as a punitive

55

CESCR, General Comment 7, The Right to Adequate Housing (art. 11 of the Covenant): Forced Evictions (Sixteenth session, 1997), U.N. Doc. E/1998/23, annex IV, 113 (1997), para. 15.

56 CEDAW, Article 14, para. 2(h) (stating that women have the right to “enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to […] water supply.”).

57 See CRC, Art. 24, para. 2(c) (requiring States parties to combat disease and malnutrition in children “through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water.”).

58 See CESCR, General Comment No. 15, The Right to Water (Twenty-ninth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2002), para. 3; see also CESCR, General Comment No. 6 on The Economic, Social And Cultural Rights of Older Persons (Thirteenth session, 1995), in U.N. Doc. E/1996/22 (1996), paras. 5 and 32; General Comment No. 14, The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Twenty-second session, 2000), E/C.12/2000/4 (2000), paras. 11, 12 (a), (b) and (d), 15, 34, 36, 40, 43 and 51; and CESCR, General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing (Sixth session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III (1991), para. 8 (b).

59 CESCR, General Comment No. 15, The Right to Water (Twenty-ninth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2002), para. 2.

60 CESCR, General Comment No. 15, The Right to Water (Twenty-ninth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2002), para. 10.

61 General Comment No. 15, para. 29.

62 CESCR, General Comment No. 15, The Right to Water (Twenty-ninth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2002), para. 17.

63 Id.

12

measure….”64 Further, “there is a strong presumption that retrogressive measures taken in relation to the right to water are prohibited under the Covenant.”65 If any deliberately retrogressive measures are taken, the State party “has the burden of proving that they have been introduced after the most careful consideration of all alternatives and that they are duly justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant in the context of the full use of the State party's maximum available resources.”66

4. Rights of the child States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child “recognize that every child has the inherent right to life,” 67 and that “States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.”68 Also central to the child’s well-being is the right to an adequate standard of living. Under Article 27(3) of the CRC, “States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.”69 To give effect to this right, “States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.”70 The right to clean drinking water is also to be ensured: States Parties are required to “pursue full implementation of [the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health] and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures… (c) To combat disease and malnutrition…through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water….”71 States Parties also agree to “ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.”72 The integrity of the family and the centrality of this integrity to the wellbeing73 of the child is also enumerated in CRC Article 16, which provides that “No child shall be

64

General Comment No. 15, para 21 (emphasis added); see also United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Res. 2006/10, Promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation, 24 August 2006, UN Doc. A/HRC/Sub.1/58/L11, adopting the Draft Guidelines for the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation (2005), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/25, para. 29 (stating that “The right to drinkable water is directly linked to the right to life. Negligence, omission or planning that results in an absence of water distribution services must be regarded as action threatening human life. Likewise, the destruction of the means of supplying water […]or management of water resources that results in a lack of access to drinkable water for groups of the population must be regarded as an encroachment upon this right.”).

65 General Comment No. 15, para. 19; see also General Comment 3 (1990), para. 9.

66 Id. at para. 19.

67 CRC, Article 6, para. 1.

68 CRC, Article 6, para. 2.

69 CRC, Article 27(3), para. 1.

70 Id. at para. 3 (emphasis added).

71 CRC, Article 24(2)(c).

72 CRC, Article 9, para. 1 (“Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence”).

73 “…the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community…” (CRC, Preamble).

13

subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.”74 The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, similarly provides that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence,” and there “shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security … or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Article 8 has been interpreted to provide protection to parents and children against removal of children from families who occupy inadequate housing: in Wallova and Walla v. Czech Republic, the European Court of Human Rights found that “…the taking into custody of the plaintiffs’ children was ordered for the sole reason that the family occupied inadequate housing at the time,” 75 and held that In the Court’s opinion, the problem was thus a material deficiency that the national authorities could have addressed with means other than the total separation of the family, which seems to be the most radical measure, inappropriate for all but the most severe cases.76

The Court also noted that material need and inadequate living conditions have never been the sole motive of national tribunals for removing children from the custody of their parents.77 Further, “according to the consistent jurisprudence of the Court, for parents and their children, to be together represents a fundamental element of family life78 and internal measures that prevents [their ability to live together] constitute an interference with a right protected by Article 8 of the Convention.”79

5. Access to justice The right to an effective remedy is fundamental to any legal system. For example, under the ICCPR, Article 2(3), “[e]ach State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”

The right to an effective remedy is also secured by the European Convention on Human Rights,80 and by the Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.81 In 74

CRC, Article 16.

Affaire Wallova et Walla c. Republique Tcheque, no 23848/04, ECHR 2006-V, § 73 (Unofficial English translation by COHRE; orig. version available in French only).

76 Id. 77 Wallova et Walla c. Republique Tcheque, para. 72.

78 Id. at para. 68 (citing Kutzner c. Allemagne, no 46544/99, ECHR 2002-I, § 58) 79 Id. at para. 68 (citing K. et T. c. Finlande [GC], no 25702/94, § 51, ECHR 2001-VII).

80 Article 13 provides that “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

75

14

addition to general protection of the right to an effective remedy, ICERD has provided for specific assurance of a right to effective remedy against acts of racial discrimination. Under ICERD Article 6, 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.82

6. Non-discrimination Racial discrimination affects the ability of persons to exercise all other human rights, and thus constitutes an independent and particularly serious harm. A comprehensive ban on racial discrimination is present in all major international legal instruments as well as regional and national laws. In addition to a general ban on racial discrimination, many human rights laws prohibit discrimination in specific areas, such as housing, access to justice, and rights of the child.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines “racial discrimination” as the following: Art. 1(1). In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

ICERD, Article 2(1), provides that States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: (a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation; (b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations;

Under ICERD, differential treatment will constitute discrimination if “the criteria for such differentiation, judged in the light of the objectives and purposes of the Convention, are not applied pursuant to a legitimate aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim….83 The European Convention on Human Rights also prohibits discrimination in Article 14 of the Convention and in Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, Article 1. Article 14 provides that “[t]he 81

‘The Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ reproduced in CESCR, Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights: Day of general discussion organized in cooperation with the world intellectual property organization (WIPO) (Twenty-fourth session, 2000), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/13 (2000), para. 22 (“ Any person or group who is a victim of a violation of an economic, social or cultural right should have access to effective judicial or other appropriate remedies at both national and international levels.”).

82 ICERD, Article 6.

83 CERD, General Recommendation No. 30 (Sixty-fourth session, 2004), U.N. Doc. CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3 at para.

4.

15

enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” Protocol No. 12, Article 1, paragraph 1 contains identical language, and adds that “[n]o one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.”84

6.1 The Ban on Discrimination in the Realisation of the Right to Adequate Housing A ban on racial and ethnic discrimination in housing is required by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), Articles 2 and 3, together with Article 5(e)(iii), which provides 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 right to housing.

Specifically with regard to housing, the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination has asserted the importance of equality and non-discrimination, recommending that States parties to the Convention adopt measures to: 29. Remove obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by noncitizens, notably in the areas of education, housing, employment and health; [and] 32. Guarantee the equal enjoyment of the right to adequate housing for citizens and non-citizens, especially by avoiding segregation in housing and ensuring that housing agencies refrain from engaging in discriminatory practices;85

Similarly, the ICESCR Article 2(2) provides that The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised 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.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has specified in its General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing that The right to adequate housing applies to everyone…[I]ndividuals, as well as families, are entitled to adequate housing regardless of age, economic status, group or other affiliation or status and other such factors. In particular, enjoyment of this right must, in accordance with article 2(2) of the Covenant, not be subject to any form of discrimination.86

84

‘Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (Rome, 4.XI.2000), Art. 1, para. 2.

85 CERD, General Recommendation No. 30 (Sixty-fourth session, 2004), U.N. Doc. CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3 at para.

32.

86 CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The Right To Adequate Housing (Sixth Session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III, 114 (1991), para. 6.

16

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 2(1) is almost identical.87 Specifically with regard to Roma, CERD has counselled in its General Recommendation XXVII on Discrimination Against Roma that “the States parties to the Convention, taking into account their specific situations, adopt for the benefit of members of the Roma communities, inter alia, all or part of the following measures, as appropriate”: 30. To develop and implement policies and projects aimed at avoiding segregation of Roma communities in housing; to involve Roma communities and associations as partners together with other persons in housing project construction, rehabilitation and maintenance.

31. To act firmly against any discriminatory practices affecting Roma, mainly by local authorities and private owners, with regard to taking up residence and access to housing; to act firmly against local measures denying residence to and unlawful expulsion of Roma, and to refrain from placing Roma in camps outside populated areas that are isolated and without access to health care and other facilities.88

6.2 Right to Water As with other rights, the right to water must be available to all persons, without discrimination.

General Comment 15 on the Covenant denounces discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, physical or mental disability, health status (including HIV/AIDS), sexual orientation and civil, political, social or other status, which has the intention or effect of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of the right to water.89

6.3 Anti-discrimination legislation States parties to the international human rights instruments are also obligated to enact legislation when needed to ensure the rights provided in the treaties. The ICERD, Article 2(1)(d) provides that “[e]ach State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization….” Similarly, the ICCPR, Article 2(2) states that Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

The Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination has also recommended that in particular with regard to discrimination against Roma,

87

It provides that “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant [including the right to freedom from interference with one’s home, art. 17], without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

88 CERD, General Recommendation XXVII on Discrimination Against Roma (Fifty-seventh session, 2000), in U.N. Doc. A/55/18, annex V. 89 General Comment No. 15, para. 13 (citing Art. 2, para. 2 and Art. 3).

17

the States parties to the Convention, taking into account their specific situations, adopt for the benefit of members of the Roma communities, inter alia, all or part of the following measures, as appropriate: … 1. To review and enact or amend legislation, as appropriate, in order to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination against Roma as against other persons or groups, in accordance with the Convention.90

6.4 Inciting racial discrimination Eliminating racial discrimination also requires States Parties to ICERD to prohibit and punish by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; 91

States Parties “undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention….”92 States shall also “not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.”93

6.5 Segregation Racial segregation has been identified as an especially harmful form of racial discrimination: Under ICERD, Article 3, “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid94 and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.” The scope of the duties of States Parties to eradicate segregation has been elaborated by multiple general recommendations by the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committee “believes that the obligation to eradicate all practices of this nature 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.” According to the Committee, States Parties are also under obligations to monitor and address de facto segregation that may arise from social patterns not created by official policies.95 90

CERD, General Recommendation XXVII on Discrimination Against Roma (Fifty-seventh session, 2000), in U.N. Doc. A/55/18, annex V, para. 1(1) (emphasis added).

91 ICERD, para. 4(a).

92 ICERD, para. 4.

93 ICERD, para. 4(c).

94 According to CERD, “The reference to apartheid may have been directed exclusively to South Africa, but the article as adopted prohibits all forms of racial segregation in all countries” (General Recommendation No. 19: Racial segregation and apartheid (Art. 3) (Forty-seventh session, 1995), contained in U.N. Doc. A/50/18).

95 See CERD, General Recommendation XIX on Racial segregation and apartheid (Art. 3) (Forty-seventh session, 1995), paras. 3-4, contained in U.N. Doc. A/50/18 (“3. The Committee observes that while conditions of complete or partial racial segregation may in some countries 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. In many cities residential patterns are influenced by group differences in income, which are sometimes combined with differences 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. 4. The Committee therefore affirms that a condition of racial segregation can also arise without any initiative or direct involvement by the public authorities. It invites 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.”).

18

Specific to Roma, the Committee recommended that States Parties “develop and implement policies and projects aimed at avoiding segregation of Roma communities in housing; to involve Roma communities and associations as partners together with other persons in housing project construction, rehabilitation and maintenance.”96 Similarly, States Parties to the ICERD are encouraged to adopt some or all of the following measures to combat discrimination against descent-based communities,97 a category in which Roma communities arguably fall: 3. Segregation 14. Monitor and report on trends which give rise to the segregation of descent-based communities and work for the eradication of the negative consequences resulting from such segregation; 15. Undertake to prevent, prohibit and eliminate practices of segregation directed against members of descent-based communities including in housing, education and employment; 16. Secure for everyone the right of access on an equal and non-discriminatory basis to any place or service intended for use by the general public; 17. Take steps to promote mixed communities in which members of affected communities are integrated with other elements of society and ensure that services to such settlements are accessible on an equal basis for all;98

6.6 Rights of the child Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 2(1), States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

The child is also to be protected from discrimination or punishment “on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.”99 Similarly, under the ICCPR, “[e]very child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to

96

CERD, General Recommendation XXVII on Discrimination Against Roma (Fifty-seventh session, 2000), para. 30, contained in U.N. Doc. A/55/18, annex V. 97 “Descent-based communities” as defined in this document include those “who suffer from discrimination, especially on the basis of caste and analogous systems of inherited status, and whose existence may be recognized on the basis of various factors including some or all of the following: inability or restricted ability to alter inherited status; socially enforced restrictions on marriage outside the community; private and public segregation, including in housing and education, access to public spaces, places of worship and public sources of food and water; limitation of freedom to renounce inherited occupations or degrading or hazardous work; subjection to debt bondage; subjection to dehumanizing discourses referring to pollution or untouchability; and generalized lack of respect for their human dignity and equality….” (CERD, General Recommendation No. 29: Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention (Descent) (Sixty-first session, 2002), para. 1 (emphasis added)).

98 CERD, General Recommendation No. 29: Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention (Descent) (Sixty-first session, 2002), paras. 14-17.

99 CRC, Article 2(2).

19

such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.”100

6.7 Access to justice: Equality before tribunals and others administering justice Equal access to the rights to effective remedy is equally important; this is acknowledged by ICERD, which provides that the enjoyment of “[t]he right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice” is among the rights which States Parties undertake to guarantee.101 ICCPR Article 14, also, seeks to ensure that “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals,” and “[i]n the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law….”102 This Article applies to both civil and criminal cases, even though the Committee found that “in general, the reports of States parties fail to recognize that article 14 applies not only to procedures for the determination of criminal charges against individuals but also to procedures to determine their rights and obligations in a suit at law.”103

III. FACTS 1. Introduction In the Czech Republic, many Roma live in substandard, racially segregated ghettos, as recently documented by the Czech Labour and Social Affairs Ministry.104 According to this recent government study, there are more than 300 impoverished houses and neighbourhoods in which Roma predominantly live. This may concern as many as 80,000 persons, but there is no adequate official data available. Most adults living in these locations are jobless. Families frequently rely on social assistance. Children frequently are placed in special remedial schools for the mildly mentally disabled, a fact which has recently resulted in a finding of a violation by the European Court of Human Rights, in a very high profile law suit.105 Roma have also been forcibly evicted from housing, in many cases allegedly because of rent arrears. However, even Romani tenants who honour the terms of their leases have been subjected to forced eviction. Additional issues with respect to housing include homelessness, overcrowding, discrimination in the allocation of state or municipally-owned housing, and the concomitant effects of family disruption and institutionalisation of Romani children. The Czech Republic has one of the highest percentages of children in institutional care in Europe. Government statistics from the Institute of Heath 100

ICCPR, Article 24(1).

CERD, Article 5(a).

102 ICCPR, Article 14(1).

103 CCPR[present HRC], General Comment No. 13: Equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent court established by law (Art. 14) (Twenty-first session, 1984), para. 2.

104 The existence of such ghettos has been documented by sociologists contracted by the Czech Labour and Social Affairs Ministry and is available in an interactive map at http://www.esfcr.cz/mapa/int_CR.html.

105 European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Case of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, (Application no. 57325/00), Judgment, Strasbourg, 13 November 2007.

101

20

Information and Statistics (UZIS) show that in the year 2006, 51% of all infants placed in institutions for children three years of age or younger were placed there for “social” reasons.106 The field experience of Life Together, one of the NGO parties to this submission, shows that a lack of adequate and affordable social housing is one of the key reasons for these high figures of institutional placement of children in the Czech Republic. The European Court of Human Rights has recently found the Czech Republic in violation of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of the arbitrary remand into state of children, solely as a result of the poverty of their parents.107 The Czech government has not yet implemented any policies or laws sufficient to check or reverse these forces. Czech national housing law does not contain any specific provisions that explicitly prohibit racial discrimination by public or private institutions. There is neither fair housing legislation, nor any state institution that monitors equal access to public housing in the Czech Republic.

On 31 March 2006, an amendment to the Civil Code took effect that radically changed the rental housing regime through Law No. 107/2006 Coll., “on the unilateral increase of rent on flats” and an amendment to Law No. 40/1964 Civil Code. Law 107/2006 authorizes landlords to evict tenants without court approval under certain circumstances, opening the way for racial prejudice and/or other arbitrary considerations to play a heightened role in such decisions.

The March 2006 amendments to Czech domestic law have brought about the deterioration of tenants’ rights. For instance, court approval is no longer necessary for the termination of tenancy agreements in cases where the lessee is viewed to have violated the good morals of good comportment of the house following written warning; if the lessee is alleged to have grossly violated lease obligations; if the lessee fails to pay three times the monthly rental or associated costs in advance, or fails to replenish the deposit; however, the lessor must provide written notice of the lessee’s right to file a motion before the court within 60 days asking that the termination of tenancy be declared void. The automatic renewal of fixed-term residential leases without formal application for eviction by the lessor with a court more than 30 days prior to the end of the contract was removed, giving landlords the automatic right to end contracts at the expiration of the lease period. The transfer of lease agreements to the family of the lessee is no longer automatic for persons entering a shared household after 31 March 2006: The lessee’s children, siblings, parents and sons- and daughter-in-laws must prove that they resided with the lessee on the day of his death or permanent abandonment of the household and that they do not have their own residence (for grandchildren, they must prove 3-years continuous residence); unmarried spouses, who moved in after signing the lease agreement, must prove that they do not have another residence and the lessee must have entered a written agreement with the lessor.

Tenants are now required to inform landlords in writing of any changes in the number of persons residing in a rented flat and to provide information on the name, surname, birth date, and citizenship of those persons, a measure arguably infringing the privacy of the persons concerned beyond a limit allowed under international law, including under ICCPR Article 17.108 This policy also raises questions concerning discrimination against non-citizens, an issue of recent CERD attention, as it is not at all clear of what relevance the citizenship of the tenant 106

http://www.uzis.cz/download.php?ctg=20&search_name=kojeneck&region=100&kind=21&mnu_id=6200

107

See European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, Case of Wallová and Walla v. the Czech Republic (application no.

23848/04), case of 26 October 2006.

108 “1. No one shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks to his honour and his reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

21

might be, other than potentially to discriminate against her.109 Failure to provide this information within one month of the change occurring can be considered a gross violation sufficient for the landlord to evict the tenant without court order. Landlords can also evict tenants without court approval should a tenant or his or her flatmates grossly violate ‘good comportment’ in the building. This concept is not adequately defined by law, leaving extensive room for arbitrary treatment of tenants.

Prior to the enactment of these laws, courts could rule in cases of families with minor children that a landlord was obliged to provide an evicted tenant with alternate accommodation or even an alternate flat (not just temporary shelter). Under Law 107/2006, a court can only reach such a verdict if the tenant files a motion to have the eviction reversed within 60 days of the eviction notice.

Further, on 22 June 2007, the Czech Justice Ministry reportedly announced that it was proposing amendments to the Civil Code which would make it possible for landlords to evict tenants-at-will after a two-year notice. The bill would take effect after 2011, when rents are expected to be completely deregulated. Should this measure go into effect, it would further weaken protections available to tenants against forced eviction; Roma, the focus of a very high degree of antipathy in the Czech Republic, will be particularly vulnerable, as will dark-skinned foreigners and other groups exposed to intense racial hostility in the Czech Republic. As the class of tenants most dangerously exposed to forced eviction practices to date, Roma would likely be the group most particularly affected by these further erosions of the law in the Czech Republic.

Even though written eviction notices must instruct tenants of the option to file a motion for reversal, socially disadvantaged tenants may not be able to act on this option without legal aid, which is currently all but unavailable to them. Persons wishing to initiate civil claims who cannot afford counsel must apply to the Czech Bar Association or an NGO for pro bono assistance.

There are not enough NGOs to meet demand, and pro bono assistance is underdeveloped in the Czech legal profession.

In addition, even though there is a measure in Czech law termed ‘alternative consignee’,110 according to which certain measures might be undertaken to protect persons threatened with 109

See CERD General Recommendation No. 30, Discrimination Against Non Citizens, 01/10/2004: “I.4. Under the Convention, differential treatment based on citizenship or immigration status will constitute discrimination if the criteria for such differentiation, judged in the light of the objectives and purposes of the Convention, are not applied pursuant to a legitimate aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim.

Differentiation within the scope of article 1, paragraph 4, of the Convention relating to special measures is not considered discriminatory.”; “VII. Economic, social and cultural rights 29. Remove obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by non-citizens, notably in the areas of education, housing, employment and health….32. Guarantee the equal enjoyment of the right to adequate housing for citizens and non-citizens, especially by avoiding segregation in housing and ensuring that housing agencies refrain from engaging in discriminatory practices.”

110 ‘Alternative/substitute consignee’ (zvláštn přjemce in Czech): In accordance with section 40 (1) of Law No 111/2006, the consignee (or a recipient) of a social benefit means a person to whom the social benefit has been granted. The authority responsible for providing help to a person in material need shall determine an alternative/substitute consignee instead of the recipient referred to above in those cases where the allocation of the social benefit at issue would not apparently fulfil the purpose which the social benefit is supposed to serve, or where interests would be damaged of the persons in whose favour the recipient is obliged to use the social benefit, or where the recipient is not capable of receiving the payment of the social benefit. The consent of the recipient with the determination of the alternative consignee is required only in those cases where the recipient is not able to receive the payment of the social benefit; this does not apply to those cases where, in view of the health condition of the recipient, he/she cannot file a submission concerning the determination of an alternative consignee. The recipient and the alternative consignee are obliged to use the social benefit in favour of the person or jointly assessed persons to whom the social benefit has been granted. The alternative consignee who is determined instead of a

22

forced eviction or otherwise in socially weak positions, in practice, municipalities generally fail to apply this measure when tenants default on rent, preferring to forcibly evict the persons concerned.

Municipal and private landlords take advantage of Romani tenants’ limited legal awareness.

According to Czech law, once municipal property is transferred to a private owner, the terms of any existing leases remain in effect. In practice, however, new private owners present new leases to the tenants, raise rents, and evict Romani tenants who are unable to pay. New private landlords usually demand the new leases be signed without allowing the tenants to consult lawyers, and municipalities do not instruct the tenants about their right not to sign the new lease.

Open-ended leases are also frequently changed to fixed-term leases without the tenants’ clear knowledge or agreement. This tactic is used by property owners – including municipal property owners – to disenfranchise the Romani community.

Once a private landlord purchases rental property from a municipality, any existing Romani tenants are usually evicted into substandard conditions. In practice, Czech municipalities’ social policies with regard to housing are all but completely subordinated to economic interests. In some cases, municipalities have sold buildings to private parties, apparently specifically for the purpose of having them evict Roma.

The recent changes to Czech domestic law have not been accompanied by any substantial or substantive public discussion, so those at risk of forced eviction have had little or no opportunity to prepare for this radical change, and all socially disadvantaged families with minor children now face even more serious problems than before.

Anti-Romani sentiment is common in many localities in the Czech Republic. Recent years have been marked by a number of efforts by local authorities to remove Roma en masse from their towns. These efforts have frequently been successful. The facts and circumstances of different incidents have been documented in this communication, including those of Bohumin, Vsetin, Brno and elsewhere. Development projects for Roma are often implemented only if they are in isolated, excluded or otherwise segregated areas. The cases of Bohumin and Vsetin are particularly egregious in that they concern active, public expressions of racism and intentional discrimination by Czech public officials in connection with the wholesale resettlement of Romani residents of city-owned property.111 recipient who cannot receive the payment is obliged to use the social benefit according to the instructions of the recipient. Only a physical or legal entity, which agrees to be determined an alternative consignee, may be determined an alternative consignee by the authority responsible for providing help to a person in material need. In accordance with section 59 of Act n. 117/1995 Coll., On State social support, a person can ask the authority responsible for providing help to a person in material need to determine an alternative consignee for the payment of the housing benefit as part of the state social support. The determination of an alternative consignee relates to the allocation of state social support benefits, such as the housing benefit (prspevek na bydlen) or the social benefits in material need, such as the housing supplement (doplatek na bydlen). In most cases both of the aforementioned benefits (the state housing benefit and the social housing supplement) are not enough to cover the real expenditures.

111 For example, on 10 July 2007, the Czech League against Anti-Semitism released an audio tape of racial comments against the Roma made by Czech Senator Liana Janackova, who is also mayor of Marianske Hory district of the city of Ostrava. On the tape, a speaker, allegedly Janackova, talks about constructing a “high electric fence” or “using dynamite” on a Roma neighbourhood. After the release of the audio tape, senator Janackova told journalists that the recording was a fake one. She said some of the utterances in question have been torn out of context. However, she said she might have used such words at a meeting with the old residents of the local neighbourhood of Bedriska where the town municipal recently settled a group of Roma. The voice on the audio recording, apparently Ms. Janackova, states, "I have nowhere to settle them, (the Roma). I understand that this is simply unjust towards you, but otherwise I'd really have to take a piece of dynamite and blast them away”. The media that released the taped authenticated the voice as a female voice, which the League insists is Janackova's statement despite the quality of the recording was poor. Janackova denied the fact that she used words such as dynamite and blast off. Following the

23

Social Housing The 2007 report by the Czech Labour and Social Affairs Ministry claims that “long-term comprehensive strategies are missing in the Czech Republic according to which municipalities would be able to solve the situation and problems of the so-called Roma ghettoes.” 112 This includes the area of social housing, as can be seen from recent research conducted by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and Númena in 2006 in the cities of Prague, Plzen, Brno and Ostrava. As documented in the study, which assessed the impact of the Czech National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2004-2006 in view of the ability of Roma to access social services, including social housing, “[a]ll of the Romani individuals interviewed by the ERRC/Númena felt that their housing situation had worsened in the past five years, and in fact, many stated that it was better under communism. […] At the same time, 67 out of 87 (77%) Roma interviewed by the ERRC/Númena felt they required access to social housing to improve their living situation.”113 The report goes on to say that “[t]he issue of social housing is not addressed at all in the Czech National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2004-2006. At the time of research for this assessment, no legal definition of social housing existed in the Czech Republic. According to government officials, the Ministry of Regional Development is only required to introduce a clear definition of social housing by the end of 2008.”114

2. Recent cases of forced evictions and inadequate housing in the Czech Republic To date, although aware of the current housing crisis facing major segments of the Romani community, the Czech government has undertaken no acts sufficient to counteract the powerful weight of systemic abuses in the housing sector, falling particularly and primarily against Roma.

A number of examples illustrating a pattern and practice of systemic abuse follow here: release of the audio recording to the TV news network in Ostrava on 10 July 2007, the website of the Romea civic association, www.romea.cz, released the outrageous comments from the senator’s recorded speech, in which she allegedly says, "I disagree with any kind of integration. I'm a racist, unfortunately. I disagree with the integration of Gypsies and with their settlement throughout the [Marianske Hory] district. Unfortunately, we've chosen the Bedriska locality, that is why they will be there, with a high fence, an electric one, for all I care -- I'll tell the whole world that if I have to." Senator Janackova has denied having presented herself as a racist, saying the affair has been manipulated. She said her rival, former mayor Radomir Michniak (Civic Democrats, ODS), is probably behind it.

Furthermore, Janackova said she did not attend the local town hall housing department's meeting in March 2006 where the recording was allegedly made. She asserted that she was at the Senate compound in Prague at the time.

The chairman of the Czech Senate, Mr. Premysl Sobotka (ODS), said Janackova's alleged controversial utterances might be discussed by the Senate's mandate and immunity committee should an official complaint be filed. Ms. Janackova was also embroiled in controversy in 1997, when, in the context of devastating flooding in Ostrava, she publicly offered Roma one-way airplane tickets to Canada, in exchange for abrogating their rental contracts.

112 Czech Republic is said to lack long-term strategies to solve the problem of Romani ghettoes, Prague, 18.6.2007, 14:02, (ČTK), www.romea.cz/index.php?id=detail&detail=2007_2629 113 European Roma Rights Centre and Númena Centro de Investigação en Ciéncias Sociais e Humanas. Impact Assessment: National Action Plans for Social Inclusion and Their Impact on the Ability of Roma and Travellers to Access Social Services; A research study in Czech Republic, France and Portugal, February 2007. pp. 18-19.

114 Ibid.

24

2.1 Bohumin In the Northern Moravian town of Bohumin, Mayor (and now Senator) Petr Vicha announced in February 2005 that the city would purchase a hostel occupied primarily by Romani tenants with the intention of moving them elsewhere and renovating the property. When the tenants protested, Mayor Vicha collectively maligned them in the city’s newsletter and in other press, calling them all rent defaulters, even though this was without basis in fact. There was also a march by vigilante racist skinheads targeting the housing in spring 2005. In June, the occupants received a letter from the city ordering them to leave, which most of them did. Four families who had fastidiously paid their rent and utilities filed lawsuits against the eviction, obtained a preliminary injunction against it, and refused to leave. The injunction specified that the city was obligated to maintain certain utilities in operation for the duration of the injunction. In July 2005, the city filed a counter-claim for the eviction of these remaining tenants, which was granted.

The remaining Romani tenants appealed the evictions; following the filing of their appeal, the city took punitive actions against them. Their mail was reportedly not properly delivered to them. On 25 July 2005, the city discontinued the provision of water to the building. City officials also recommended alternate accommodation to the tenants which would have required the parents to separate, thereby advocating infringements of guaranteed rights to private and family life, as well placing the children at risk of being taken into state custody. The authorities recommended accommodation which was well beyond the means of the persons concerned.

The city also hired a private security company to block visits to the hostel, including visits by immediate family members. The residents were then billed for the security company’s services.

The monthly rent previously charged per flat was now charged per resident, i.e., if a six-member family lived in one flat, their rent increased six-fold. The families were thus forced into debt and rendered ineligible for the city’s housing lottery. The debts are in the Czech Crown equivalent of thousands of Euro, and the court issued payment orders for the amount within four days of the city filing suit. Objections were filed against the orders to pay; hearings on these petitions were indefinitely delayed. Despite a visit by then-Czech Human Rights Commissioner Svatopluk Karasek and international and local human rights observers to the hostel in October 2005, the city continued to harass inhabitants of the hostel by disconnecting heat to the units. The concerned families filed two motions to have the original preliminary injunction enforced while waiting for their appeal of the eviction to be heard. Despite the fact that during the winter months of 2005-2006 exterior temperatures reached as low as 26 degrees below zero Celsius, the heat to the housing units was never reconnected.

Gradually, the families left the property and turned in their keys. The Scukas left as of 27 January 2006, the Mayers as of 8 February 2006, and the Michls and Tichaneks as of 24 February 2006.

They were assisted by financial aid from the non-profit sector. Some of the families moved into another residential hotel in Bohumin. One six-member family is currently living in a 20 m2 room, sharing a bathroom and kitchen with other families. The city’s social public housing and child welfare sections have failed to meet their obligations with respect to these families.

2.1.1 The Scuka family In June of 2005, the town of Bohumin issued an eviction order against six tenants; at that time, four of those were minor children under the age of six years. The minors were included in the

25

order without consideration for their age, in evident contravention of the international law principle that the best interests of the child shall be primary. In July of the same year, the Scuka family filed legal challenge against the eviction order, seeking an injunction from the court to prevent their eviction. The injunction was successfully granted by the district court in Karvina.

Although the eviction was stopped, the town of Bohumin pursued its claim by re-filing another eviction order against the Scuka family in the month of July. In the injunction, the court only listed the people who were legally bound by the lease agreement with the previous owner prior to the municipal purchase of the property.

In the months of August and September 2005, the court reviewed the case filed by the town of Bohumin. Each case was heard by a different judge and the families’ attorney’s arguments were not recognized before the presiding judge. As a result, the families lost the case. They appealed in autumn 2005. The municipality subsequently withdrew the case against the Scukas.

Reportedly after pressure from colleagues and politicians in Bohumin, that same judge then went on to issue a separate decision allowing the municipality of Bohumin to empty the premises of the building concerned without providing alternative housing to those evicted. Therefore, the attorney for the Scuka family filed a preliminary injunction to prevent the evictions. The court subsequently decided that since the tenants had moved out before the appeal was decided in February 2006, the injunction did not have to be implemented.

After all the tenants were out of the building, the town of Bohumin in 2006 filed criminal charges against an unknown perpetrator for causing damages to the building. To date, no decision has been issued in that case.

Following the Scuka family’s appeal, a human rights group visited the property in October 2005.

During the visit they found the heat disconnected to the residential units where many Romani tenants lived, including the Scuka family; however, the heat had not been disconnected from commercial units on the ground floor. A first instance court fined the city CZK 5000 for not upholding the preliminary injunction; the city appealed, but the regional court upheld the decision of the lower court.

2.1.2 The Mayer family During the months of July-September 2005 the city of Bohumin filed a motion for eviction with respect to a second family, the Mayers, at the district court of Karvina. The court ruled against the Mayers because they failed to appear in court. Their failure to appear was caused by the municipally-hired security guards’ illegally preventing the delivery of the residents’ mail. Neither the Mayer family nor their legal representative ever received any notice to appear in court.

Therefore, the Mayer family was forced to vacate the premises, but they appealed in the fall of 2005. The Mayer family then moved to Prague (hundreds of kilometres away), which has made their communication with their legal representative more difficult. Legal proceedings related to their arbitrary forced eviction were pending as of late November 2007.

2.1.3 The Tichanek family In July of 2005, the Tichanek family, composed of a mother and a minor child, responded to an eviction suit from the town of Bohumin filed in the district court of Karvina. The district court

26

took into account relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and ordered the town of Bohumin to justify its decision to evict the tenants from their home. The issue was whether the property had been issued a permit as a hostel or as a long-term dwelling; the court also requested clarification as to the town’s plan for guaranteeing the housing rights of the persons concerned. The Tichanek case is the only case from Bohumin in which a judge looked at the wider context and requested further information from the town. The mayor publicly denigrated the court’s decision and a smear campaign against the judge was conducted in the national tabloid newspaper Blesk on the very day before the town was to respond in court.

2.1.4 Bohumin summary Close to three years after it was first begun, the campaign by the city of Bohumin to evict Roma from low-cost housing can be seen to have been an unmitigated success by the municipality.

Several hundred persons were harassed into leaving the facility almost immediately, even though the city made no provision for alternate housing. Those families who stayed and resisted were ultimately also forced to leave with only inadequate attention given to their housing needs. The intervention by courts, domestic and international human rights NGOs, and institutions such as the office of the Czech Ombudsman ultimately proved ineffective to check the engaged ill will of the public authority in Bohumin.

2.2 Vsetin In another very high profile case, in the East Moravian town of Vsetin, near the city of Zlin in the Zlin region, local authorities planned and subsequently implemented the forced expulsion of a group of Roma from their housing in a city-owned property in the town centre in late 2006.

Some were expelled to housing in the Poschla quarter on the edge of Vsetin, thereby creating a de facto racially segregated housing estate, and some were evicted to extremely substandard housing in an entirely other administrative region. A summary of the expulsion proceeding is as follows: In August 2004, the Vsetin municipality’s plan to move the residents of the property concerned wholesale was criticized by then-Human Rights Commissioner Jan Jarab, who told the press: “We have to prevent the creation of a real socio-economic ghetto with all the concomitant phenomena (unemployment, etc.).” In explaining the reasoning behind the plan, Vsetin Mayor Jiri Cunek stated that there was a need to build flats in isolated places for what he termed “inadaptable Roma” so they would not come into contact with the “adaptable” (and/or nonRoma) residents. The Mayor was quoted as saying “we have to separate those who are inadaptable so they do not bother decent citizens.” The term “inadaptable” is widely understood as synonymous with “Gypsy” in the Czech Republic.

In October 2006, the city completed the installation of buildings comprised of metal containers in the Poschla quarter on the outskirts of the town, into which officials intended to move the Romani residents of the building slated for demolition in the centre, which housed 42 families.

The new buildings provided 36 flats in total. The town had designed the buildings, according to the media, “especially for inadaptable citizens.” On October 5, 2006, the municipality of Vsetin then held a grand opening for the “new Roma ghetto”, as it was referred to in the media, which more than 40 municipal representatives from towns all over the Czech Republic attended, praising the project to the press as a model one. Mayor Cunek told the media these flats would

27

be assigned to (Romani) tenants who met their “civic obligations” by paying their rent regularly.

The tenants received month-to-month contracts and the mayor reportedly stated that anyone with whom the contract had to be terminated would be immediately put out in the street.

Tenants of the new units quickly learned that all the heating in the buildings ran on electricity and that they were being charged the highest possible rate.

On 13 October 2006, Mayor Cunek then had those Romani families whom he called “problematic” transported into the Olomouc Region in the middle of the night, ostensibly to occupy derelict agricultural properties for which the eviction victims had been manipulated into assuming loans. On the morning of the same day, energy was reportedly cut off to all of the flats of the property being vacated in Vsetin, making it impossible for the families to prepare food.

Afterwards, men, women and children were allegedly separated during the transportation to their alternative housing; children, accompanied by men, were separated from their mothers. They had not eaten when they started the journey as there had been no chance to cook anything. All of the persons concerned reported being hungry during the journey that followed.

Some of the families were expelled to places as far as 230 kilometres from Vsetin. Mayor Cunek claimed the families had “reached an agreement with the town of Vsetin”, which purchased properties in isolated areas throughout the neighbouring Olomouc region and was reselling them – sight unseen – to the “problematic” families, who were also loaned the money for purchasing these properties by the town of Vsetin. The families were summarily expelled from transport in front of various dilapidated buildings in isolated areas, some of which were actually barns or stables. Olomouc regional officials were not notified that these families would be placed in these out-of-the-way locales. Some of the original owners of the properties told the media that the buildings were not fit for human habitation and that they would never have agreed to the sale had they known the purchaser’s intentions. A total of approximately 100 persons were forcibly expelled from the Zlin region in this way. Most of the persons expelled from Vsetin ended up in extremely substandard or otherwise tenuous housing arrangements in remote or deserted parts of the Jeseniky area of northern Czech Republic. The region already suffers high unemployment, so the placement of 100 more people in the area put an even greater strain on regional resources.

Mr Kandra, Mr Kandrač and Mr Ščuka of Vsetin had all previously written letters to the Ombudsman, the President, and the Christian Democratic party drawing attention to the intentions and directions of the long-term policy of the Vsetin municipality towards the local Roma. As a result, a number of civil society organisations hold that they, along with their families, were the prime targets of the Vsetin municipal authority’s actions; their protests may have led then-mayor Čunek and other city officials to have considered them among “the most problematic” residents. After the expulsion described above, a Romani NGO sent an open letter to the Government Council for Roma Community Affairs criticizing social workers employed by the city of Vsetin with Council funding for their role in telling the families that, should the parents refuse to sign the purchase agreements for the properties and assume the loans, the outcome would be that their children would be remanded into state care.

Subsequently, the current Mayor of Vsetin, Kvetoslava Othova, is resisting recommendations by the Ombudsman, whose office has reviewed the deportation of the families from Vsetin. The mayor has reportedly stated that the Ombudsman does not know anything about social policy.

She has insisted that the decision of her predecessor, Mayor Cunek, to evict the Romani families was the correct one. In her opinion, the Roma should have been evicted onto the streets instead of being offered “alternative housing”. The mayor has also refused to provide the authorised

28

legal representative of the victims with copies of the contracts the families have purportedly signed.

According to the legal representative of some of the families, the Vsetin municipality recovers debts with the help of a private entity, and this entity considerably increases the amount owed, imposing its own separate fees on the costs it asserts should be paid by the families.

Lastly, the town’s records are not well-maintained, according to independent research conducted

by Masaryk University in Brno,115 and the town does not notify tenants when they begin to accumulate debts. The most egregious result is that if rents go up and housing allowances do not, the city as landlord does not inform tenants of the unmet portion they are incurring as debt as a result of the rent increase.

2.2.1 The Kandrač family In March 2006, the Vsetin municipality filed an eviction order against the 11-member Kandrač family; six members of the family are currently children, including a two-month-old infant who had not yet been born at the time the family was summarily expelled from Vsetin and transferred by force to Stara Cervena Voda in the Jesenik district. Their eviction hearing was scheduled for July 2006. The family could not afford legal counsel at their hearing, and the court ruled against them. The family appealed the district court decision, but the Regional Court upheld the district court decision. The Vsetin municipality then forced the family to obtain a loan to purchase a dwelling which they had never seen. During the process, they were only given contracts to sign for the loan agreements, with no explanation given by the town’s investment management corporation, the “Vsetinska spravni investicni prispevkova organizace mesta Vsetina”.

In October 2006, the Kandrač family were forcibly expelled from Vsetin to Stara Cervena Voda.

In July 2007, based on the Ombudsman’s report on the Vsetin evictins, the non-governmental organisation Roma Vidnava filed a request that those tenants evicted from Vsetin be allocated housing there. There is no guarantee that housing will be given to those individuals deported from Vsetin.

2.2.2 The Kandra family In the case of Mr Robert Kandra and his partner, no alternative housing was ever provided to them. As a result, the couple had nowhere to go. The civic association Life Together was involved in negotiations with the Vsetin municipality, which promised to offer help to Mr Kandra and his partner, provided they leave the Zlin region. As a temporary solution, the couple was moved to a commercial lodging house in the village of Jablunka, approximately five kilometres from Vsetin. In spite of the fact that the family fought to stay in Vsetin, they were removed in November 2006 without being given the opportunity to gather their belongings such as clothing, food, blankets, etc. After they were forced out of their dwelling, the Vsetin municipality confiscated all of their belongings from their flat.

115

Přičiny a souvislosti stěhováni vsetinských Romů z pavlačového domu č.p. 1336 v řjnu 2006. Zpráva z šetřen (‘The causes and context of the eviction of Vsetin Roma from the apartment house at no. 1336 in October 2006’); commissioned by the Office of the Czech Government, the Office of the Government Council for Roma community Affairs; Jakub Grygar, Ph.D., Mgr. Tereza Stöckelová, Masaryk University, the Department of Sociology, Social Anthropology, Brno; Second revised version of the Report, 24th February 2007, p. 17.

29

Robert Kandra was the victim of an apparently racially-motivated attack during the night of 24 to 25 November 2006, approximately 11 days after the expulsion. According to Mr Kandra’s legal representative, he went to buy a packet of cigarettes when he met three non-Romani young men (two of them minors) who started yelling at him that they wanted “no bloody Gypsies” in Jablunka. They then began beating him, kicking him and dragging him violently across the ground. They also robbed him of 900 CZK. As a result of the attack, he sustained a range of injuries, causing him among other things to urinate blood. He also repeatedly vomited, apparently as a result of the injuries to the head. Mr Kandra has always suffered from a hearing deficiency. Since the attack, the problem has worsened; he has lost his hearing permanently and has to use a hearing aid.

The legal representative of Mr Kandra claims the police took no photos of the victim even though his partner explicitly asked them to do so. Moreover, apparently in an effort to discredit his testimony, the expert report commissioned by the police claims Mr Kandra is mentally disabled; according to his legal representative, Mr Kandra only suffers from a hearing deficiency and the concomitant difficulty in expressing himself verbally, which in no way amounts to mental disability. The expert report downplays the effects of the assault on Mr Kandra’s health, claiming that he would have suffered further hearing loss anyway as a result of the ongoing deterioration of his condition.

Since then, the family has moved back to Vsetin. The attorney who is defending the assailants in criminal proceedings, Mr Gajdusek, is also currently Deputy Mayor of Vsetin.

2.2.3 The Ziga family In March 2006, the town of Vsetin filed an eviction order with the district court to secure the eviction of the eight-member Ziga family from their residence. The order named all eight individuals including minors. Public hearing on their eviction was held in July and the judge ordered them to vacate the flat. In October 2006, Vsetin municipality forcibly transported the family to Vlcice in the Jesenik district. The families reportedly had never incurred any debts; they are now being charged for back water bills in their Vsetin residence.

Upon their expulsion from Vsetin, Mr. Ziga abandoned his family. Ms Zigova previously lived in a holobyt (an empty flat without any services or amenities), then was moved to the accommodation in question Vsetin, and finally was expelled to Vlcice outside the Zlin region.

Her children now have extreme difficulty attending school, as she has no assistance in transporting them. Her legal representative communicated with the Vsetin authorities about the possibility of her returning to Vsetin but has been thus far unsuccessful. In July 2007, a local NGO, Roma Vidnava, filed a request based on the Ombudsman’s final statement on the situation in Vsetin (see below), asking for those expelled from Vsetin to be allocated housing there.

2.2.4 The Scuka family During the mass expulsion from Vsetin in October 2006, the Scuka family was first taken to the village of Supikovice but refused to get out of the bus there due to the obvious unsuitability of the housing. They were then taken to the village of Drevnovice. This family was forced to assume loans for properties in both locations. The Scuka family has asked the Vsetin municipality to provide copies of the purchase agreements to them, but the town has been

30

reluctant to do so. The Scuka’s legal representative then asked the municipality’s “proxy” to provide her with the contracts, but she has received no response as yet.

The Scuka’s legal representative also asked the Vsetin municipality’s investment manager, “Vsetinske spravni investicni prispevkova organizace mesta Vsetina”, how much of a commission the real estate offices received from the loan (there is a difference between the loan amount and the amount that was borrowed on behalf of the family). The mortgage application form has no original signature from any family member on file, and the people from the city who supposedly verified the signature are not persons authorized to perform this task.

2.2.5 The Tulej family The Tulej family was expelled to Cechy pod Kosirem in the district of the town of Prostejov in October 2006. The Vsetin municipality arranged a loan for them to sign for a completely dilapidated and uninhabitable house. According to Katerina Valachova, head of the Legal Department of the Czech Ombudsman’s office, the state of the property was confirmed by an expert on structural engineering in July 2007. Subsequently, an order to condemn the property was filed, on the basis of which the family was supposed to move out. As there was no alternative accommodation available, Ms Valachova reports that the Cechy pod Kosirem municipality installed a number of supporting wooden poles in the house. However, the Czech national daily newspaper Pravo of 12 September 2007 reported that the house was, as of that date, on the brink of caving in. The family had declined to sign the purchase contract for the property; since they had remained registered as residents of Vsetin, they applied for a municipal flat in Vsetin. On Monday 10 September 2007, the Housing Commission of Vsetin Municipality turned down their application. Cechy pod Kosirem Mayor Zdenek Mader was quoted as saying: “The situation of the Tulejs is terrible. In August, I attended a negotiation with the Vsetin Municipality, which resulted in the municipality promising they would look after the family. I do not understand why they have not been allocated a municipal flat.” The Vsetin Municipality spokesperson was quoted by the same daily as saying: “The Housing Commission is not going to recommend the allocation of a municipal flat to the Tulejs. They do not meet the criteria for the allocation of municipal flats.” According to Pravo, this is due to their alleged debts. However, the head of the Legal Department of the Czech Ombudsman’s office was quoted as claiming that “we have been looking into the case from the point of view of construction proceedings related to the demolition of the house in Cechy pod Kosirem and the provision of alternative accommodation for the family. At a meeting held on 20 August 2007 at the premises of the Vsetin Town Hall, no information was presented and no evidence was shown indicating that the family is indebted.” Pravo reported that the legal representative of the family, Ms Tamara Vranova, had never been informed of the alleged debts. Vranova reportedly expects to hear from the Financial Department of Vsetin municipality as to whether the family is indeed indebted to the municipality.116

2.2.6 Vsetin Today According to the legal representative of some of the families who were forcibly expelled from Vsetin, the families were under enormous pressure by a number of representatives of the Vsetin municipality and other politicians interested in the social exclusion of Roma from Vsetin. As a result of the forced eviction, the families were obliged to sign several financial documents 116

‘Tulejovi bez domova, Vsetn jim byt nedá’ (Tulejs without home, no flat to be allocated to them by the Vsetin municipality). Pravo, 12th September, 2007. p 4

31

without having read them or being properly informed as to their contents after being coerced and threatened into doing so by the Vsetin municipal authority. The families were told that if they did not cooperate to leave Vsetin, they would eventually be homeless; they were told that Vsetin municipal authorities would then forcibly remand their children into state care. According to fact-finding research conducted by NGOs and the legal counsel for the families, a representative of the social welfare department was present at the negotiations between the city and the tenants and an employee of the children’s social and legal protection body witnessed their departures from Vsetin. These are the tactics the municipal authority in Vsetin used to chase bona fide residents out of their homes in the Czech Republic.

The families expelled from Vsetin have filed criminal charges against the Vsetin mayor, and it appears that the Vsetin Police are doing a thorough job of investigating and gathering evidence for the case. However, there is no guarantee that the expelled families will receive justice; in general, Roma communities do not have equal access to justice in the Czech Republic.

On 13 June 2007, Otakar Motejl, the Public Defender of Rights (the Ombudsman), released his final statement on the forced evictions of Roma from the town of Vsetin. The across-the-board solution the town of Vsetin applied definitely did not solve the problems faced by the Roma community and by many families threatened with social exclusion, Motejl said.117 The Ombudsman does not consider the container housing in the Poschla district on the town outskirts suitable for permanent residence. He emphasized that there are high levels of humidity and mould in the dwellings into which some of the families were moved. The Ombudsman also sharply condemned the resettlement of some of the Vsetin evictees elsewhere in Moravia, holding that “it is not possible to accept the export of Roma families from towns and villages where they have lived for a long time as a constructive and effective solution.”118 The Ombudsman has also stated that a similar approach to evicting Roma is being applied by other municipalities throughout the country. “The fact that such an approach is expanding cannot serve as a reason to justify the practice.” On 10 July 2007, Czech senators endorsed the Ombudsman's stand on the deportation of Roma outside the Zlin region.119

117

Ombudsman, ‘Last Statement,’ http://www.ochrance.cz/dokumenty/document.php?doc=798. The English translation of the final statement was released on 6th September, 2007. The full version is available at http://www.ochrance.cz/dokumenty/document.php?doc=798.

118 The container flats in the Poschla* district are situated next to a sewage plant on a site which was previously a waste dump with polluted land. Before the container flats were constructed using a state subsidy, some Roma had lived at that same location in so-called holobyty (empty flats without services/amenities designed for rent defaulters). Due to the level of pollution, the hygienic authority initially refused to issue a permit for construction of the container flats. After removing the top layers of soil polluted with toxic substances, which required considerable investment, the municipality eventually managed to meet the criteria set by the hygienic authority in order to construct the container flats. However, it can be assumed that some of the toxic substances have remained in those layers of soil which were not removed, therefore endangering the inhabitants. A report by Masaryk University (see below) suggests that a subsequent examination of the surface layer of soil confirmed an overall occurrence of arsenic and benzoapyrene pollution exceeding the toxicological limits defined as habitable by several times. * “This location is situated 25 minutes from the wider centre from which it is separated by an industrial zone. In the close proximity of Poschla, there is a busy road and a railway. There used to be a dump waste right in Poschla (it was decontaminated shortly before the construction works started in October) and there is a sewerage plant.

From the first half of the 1990s, there were a number of holobyty for rent defaulters, the majority of which were Roma (according to scant information which we have caught they were stigmatised by the Romani community too).” (‘Causes and Context of the Eviction of Vsetin Roma,’ supra note 115 at 17).

119 Ibid.

32

2.3 Plzen The company Gabal Analysis & Consulting (GAC), which conducted research for the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, believes there are 17 marginalised Roma slum settlements in the Plzeň region, seven of which are located in the regional capital, Plzeň. The others are situated in Rokycany, Klatovy, Nýřany, Kladruby, Velký Malahov, Horni Briza and Bela nad Radbuzou.120 In the municipality of Plzeň, the Civic Democratic Party/ODS has had a long-term plan for selling off the buildings at Staznicka street nos. 10 and 12 in the Roma neighbourhood of Vinice occupied by allegedly “problematic and inadaptable”121 tenants and debtors. These tenants are for the most part Romani. An article published in Mlada fronta DNES on 17 April 2007 claimed that Romani tenants cause problems for their non-Romani neighbours in Vinice. An article published in the Czech national daily Mlada fronta DNES on 18 May 2007 reported the proposal to sell the building was approved on 17 May 2007.122 The proponents of the proposal believe the new owner will be able to maintain the property in better condition than the municipality is able to and will thereby increase the value of the building. Marcela Krejsova, the Plzen Mayor’s deputy for social affairs, said the municipality is not interested in solving the problems of the debtors, but is concerned for the non-Romani tenants and neighbours.123 Research carried out in July 2007 by the organizations party to this submission revealed that there are approximately 40 flats in the buildings. Of the 40 households, 19 families reportedly do not have difficulties paying their rents on time.124 The municipal intention to sell the property appears to be motivated primarily by discriminatory considerations, as they are selling it for the low price of 24 million crowns. There is ample precedent for assuming, in the case of a privately-owned property, that if the current occupants will not be able to pay increased rent, the landlord will evict them.

Despite the fact that these Romani families are in need of housing, it is apparent that the Plzen municipality is moving forward with the plan to sell the buildings. The families are concerned that the new owner may evict them. Mr. Stefan Tiser, chair of the Association of Roma and National Minorities of the Plzen Region, was very critical of the foreseen transaction. In an article published by the Roma fortnightly Romano Hangos on 2 May 2007,125 he suggested that since the 1990s, the municipality has been concentrating socially disadvantaged and excluded persons, most of them Romani, in certain locations in Plzen.

Another issue is the fact that one of the companies interested in the purchase of the municipal flats is alleged to be the debt-recovering company contracted by the municipality.126 In a telephone conversation on 18 September 2007, Mr Tiser confirmed that the municipality had sold the two buildings for approximately 25 million crowns. The purchaser is reportedly a Prague-based company. According to Mr. Tiser, the transaction was to have been finalized by the end of October 2007. The Association of Roma and National Minorities of the Plzen 120

Czech Press Agency, ‘There are impoverished locations in eight towns of the Plzeň region,’ (17 Sept. 2006).

Mlada fronta DNES, O problémovém domě chtěj hlasovat znovu (‘Poll on the problematic house to be held again’), (17 April 2007).

122 Mlada fronta DNES Radnice nabdne k prodeji problémový dům s dlužnky (‘The City Hall to offer a problematic house with rent-defaulters for sale’), (18 May, 2007).

121

123

Ibid.

Ibid.

125 Romano hangos, Boj o sociáln bydlen pokračuje (‘Struggle for social housing continues’), (2 May 2007).

126 Ibid.

124

33

Region negotiated with the new owner and succeeded in convincing the company to recognise the existing lease contracts for a minimum grace period of three years.

A former municipal councillor who supported the plan to sell the properties alleged to the media that the sale was necessary because the flats had been “destroyed” by their occupants, the property poorly managed by the city, and the tenants were all in arrears. Stefan Tiser therefore summoned a meeting of the tenants with reporters, the purpose of which was to allow journalists to visit the households and take photographs so the general public could see the state of the properties. There was not a trace of the alleged “destruction” to be found.127

2.4 Nove Dvory – Ovcary In the town of Nove Dvory – Ovcary in the Central Bohemian Region, a four-year-old Romani child128 was killed in early 2007. This fact drew attention to the conditions of the derelict building, a former sugar refinery, in Nove Dvory-Ovcary near Kutna Hora in which the Sivak family have lived since the 1990s. According to the Czech national daily newspaper Mlada fronta DNES of 5 May 2007,129 the municipality had originally intended to evict the family at the end of May 2007 and the plan had been approved by the regional officer in charge of Roma-related matters, the mayor of Nove Dvory, the social worker concerned, and the owner of the building.

However, none of the authorities could agree on where the family would go after being forced to leave the building. The family claimed their right to alternative housing. However, the daily reported that only two out of the alleged 40 residents have a valid lease contract.

Mayor Jiri Rajdl was quoted as follows: “The municipality would not be able to find housing for everyone, only for those with a valid lease contract and hence a right to alternative housing. The situation now depends on them.”130 According to an article published on www.aktualne.cz on 28 August 2007, Pavla Alzbeta, the mother of the killed child, has moved with her family to a dormitory run by the local Caritas NGO in Kutna Hora. The family of the alleged murderer is supposed to move out within a month.131 In a telephone interview on 19 September 2007, Ms Dagmar Novotna, head of the Social Department of the Kutna Hora municipality, confirmed that some of the persons with valid lease contracts had moved out of the building. However, the situation of the rest of the tenants who have lived in the building illegally remains uncertain as the municipality cannot offer them alternative accommodation. She also referred to the fact that, due to their “socio-cultural background”, the tenants have no chance of finding rental and/or dormitory accommodation.

“Socio-cultural background” is code for “Gypsy” in the Czech Republic. She argued that the murder of the child had prompted the owner of the building to go ahead with his plan to turn the former sugar refinery into a commercially lucrative building. Before the killing, he had 127

Ibid.

A thirteen year-old boy who lived in the same building has been convicted of strangling him to death at the end of March 2007. According to specialist, he is mentally retarded and behaves as a four-year-old child. He is now in the care of the Diagnostic institute at Dobřichovice.

129 Mladá Fronta Dnes, Markéta Bušková, Pavla Švédová, Kam půjdeme, ptaj se Romové (‘Where shall we go? ask Roma’), (5 May 2007).

130 Mladá fronta DNES, Romové se stěhuj z Nových Dvorů (‘Roma are moving out of Nové Dvory’), (19 May, 2007), p.

2.

131 Aktuálně.cz, Přpad Ovčáry: Trest přišel, stačilo být v podezřen (‘Sentence came, it sufficed to be the suspect’) (28 Aug. 2007), aktualne.centrum.cz/domaci/spolecnost/clanek.phtml?id=491924.

128

34

allegedly been tolerant of the tenants’ lifestyle and had had no intention of evicting them. Ms Novotna also claimed the owner would not resort to evicting the tenants onto the street.

According to her, he was seeking alternative accommodation for the tenants both in the district of Kutna Hora and elsewhere (supposedly in South Bohemia).

The Nove Dvory – Ovcary mayor claimed to have court verdicts at his disposal dating back to 2004 ordering the eviction of the residents of the former sugar refinery. Eventually, he ordered the families to move out of the building on the pretext of their being in default of rent Approximately three years ago, some Romani families had already reportedly moved away.

One of these families, 20-year-old Kamila Sivakova and her husband, left the sugar refinery and found accommodation in a lodging house after obtaining a court verdict from their landlord. Ms Sivakova was quoted as having said she moved because she was afraid her children would be taken away and subsequently placed with state care. She claimed she had applied for municipal housing in Kutna Hora but had obtained no response so far.

After the eviction of the Sivakova family, Mr. Cyril Koky, the Central Bohemian Regional officer from the social department in charge of Roma-related issues held a meeting at Nove Dvory; he was quoted in the media; “I was there three years ago, I told them to move out. I have not seen to the problem since then. In my opinion, the family should leave for better housing. I thought no one lived there any longer.” According to Koky, it is not easy to find accommodation for persons who are long-term unemployed and rely on social assistance from the local government.

He went on to say that, “they are helpless, they are unable to help themselves. Not even the state is willing to help them. Municipalities have the opportunity to go ahead with social housing schemes, but there are no grants for such construction.”

In another case, Ms. M.L., a mother with seven children, was reportedly evicted from her housing in the town of Nove Dvory. The municipality had promised to provide them basic accommodation even though they had been living in the former sugar refinery without a contract. Due to the number of children and the fact that she has a live-in partner, she is ineligible to move into the “Pristav” lodging house for single mothers in Kutna Hora, run by a local charity. The mayor promised to see if a different lodging house would be available, but it is unlikely she will receive aid from the municipality due to her current family size and marital status.

In an article on 19 May 2007, the same newspaper reported that the Romani families, the mayor, and the owner of the former sugar refinery at Ovcary had all agreed new housing would be provided to those persons with valid lease contracts (two out of a total of 40 persons) after they were evicted from the refinery. Mayor Jiri Rajdl said the municipality would take care of those persons who had valid lease contracts and any mothers with children. According to Ms Novotna, head of the Kutna Hora Social Department, Margita Sivakova, the grandmother of the killed child, still has not settled the question of her housing despite the fact that she is one of the two persons with valid lease contracts. Ms Sivakova looks after her disabled grandson; on these grounds the social welfare office applied on her behalf for accommodation at a local home for senior citizens and the disabled. The application was successful, but Ms Sivakova declined the offer. The Social Department is reportedly now in the process of persuading her to accept it.

Only two categories of persons, therefore, were considered for protection of their housing rights by the municipality after the eviction: Those in possession of valid lease contracts, and mothers with children. The local housing department established criteria that indirectly discriminated against most of the Romani tenants in this case, who were left homeless after the eviction.

35

Mlada fronta DNES reported that the mother of the murdered child was forced to move out of the building and into “Pristav”, a lodging house for mothers with children in Kutna Hora, where she has been living with her two children since 14 May 2007. According to the daily, the final eviction date has not been determined yet. The mayor was quoted as saying that those tenants who had reached majority would have to take care of themselves. He was also quoted on the living conditions at the refinery: “These buildings have no windows, no water or electricity, there are holes in the roof.[…] The refinery has been destroyed by the tenants for decades.”

2.5 Brno After a fire in the privately-owned commercial lodging house at number 19 Prizova Street in Brno on 5 April 2007, most of the families residing there moved to other, city-owned commercial lodging houses with undignified living conditions and extremely high rent (for instance, CZK 9500 -- approximately 330 Euro -- for a tiny room for 4-6 persons). The lodging houses are in the Židenice district of Brno (on Marketa Kuncova and Stejskalova Streets) and the Brno-Centre district (on Masna Street).

Due to insufficient capacity, none of the former tenants of the burnt-out lodging house in Prizova street has been offered accommodation in the housing facilities founded and run by the City of Brno, the Salvation Army, or Caritas. At least two families with children have remained without shelter after the fire and are still living on the street.

A minimum of 80 families with children are residing in the aforementioned commercial lodging houses, the majority of them Romani families evicted from municipal rental housing in the past due to rent arrears. Approximately half of the evicted tenants are long-term applicants for municipal housing whose applications have gone unaddressed for the past 10 years or more.

Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of these tenants are persons who are long-term dependent on social assistance, Brno authorities apparently have no clear plan for alleviating these chronic housing problems. Approximately 40 tenants of the lodging houses are threatened with evictions as a result of the termination of their unprotected rental agreements with the commercial lodging house in Marketa Kuncova Street; the administrator of the facility intends to use the building for different purposes. According to some of the current tenants, he has threatened to call the police if the tenants do not vacate the building voluntarily.

The housing situation of these socially excluded communities is urgent. The issue must be addressed at the level of the City of Brno despite the fact that the maintenance of the municipal housing fund has been delegated to the devolved capacity of each of the city’s districts.

The City of Brno has not come forward with an emergency plan to solve the chronic dilemma of housing yet. The appointment of emergency staff is one of many short-term possibilities which could solve the situation described above effectively.

The Deputy Ombudsman decided to open an inquiry in April 2007 into the matter of providing housing to the residents of the burned-down house in Prizova street. The inquiry concerns the granting of social aid to the residents, who found themselves in an extraordinary situation, including the granting of benefits of aid in material need, provision of the social and legal protection of children. and the procedure of the planning authority. An interim report on the inquiry was issued, which found maladministration by the Municipal District Authority of BrnoCentre in exercising the social and legal protection of children, by the Brno Municipal Office in

36

deciding on the benefits of aid in material need, and by the Brno-Centre Planning Authority, which was inactive in the matter. The findings proved that the efficiency of aid to the families affected by the fire of the house at Prizova No. 16 were considerably reduced by the impossibility of providing temporary housing to the families after the fire. In a press release of 20 August 2007, the Deputy Ombudsman stated she awaited the response of the municipal district authority to her findings.

Other instances of forced evictions have also been reported recently in Brno. In a complex case with a history dating back to 2002, the Housing Department of the Brno-sever City District has threatened the Horvath family with eviction from a flat which they have been allowed to occupy for more than 10 years on the basis of a registration form but without a valid lease. A number of local Romani organisations have been involved in the case of this socially disadvantaged family, such as the NGOs DROM and IQ Roma service, as well as the Romani advisor for the Brno City Council. However, the family was long neglected by social workers, which makes it very hard to intervene at this stage. Several children have been put into institutional care due to the uncertain housing situation of the family, as well as due to drug abuse by some of the children and alcohol abuse by the parents. In 2006, the City District filed a complaint with the Brno City Court ordering the family to move out; at the time they owed no debts on rent or services. The case was appealed to the Regional Court, which rejected it.. According to the Romani advisor for the Brno City Council, Brno municipality is making very little efforts to help the Horvath family find a flat so they can bring their children back. This means the eviction orders are pending and the family, who have nowhere to go, may be evicted at any time.

In another case, another Romani family with the same surname, the Horvaths, were allocated a one-room municipal flat in a segregated Romani neighbourhood in Bratislavska street in 2003, even though they had been applying for municipal flats in more mainstream quarters of the city.

Even though there is documentation proving that social workers and housing department officials have advised the family to ask for larger municipal flats, the municipality has rejected their applications in these locations on the grounds that they were applying for flats which were either too small or no longer available. However, the flat the family currently occupies is also very small for the family of eight; although formally, the flat was offered as a “two-room” flat, it is in fact only a hallway, a kitchen and a small living room. Paradoxically, the family pays approximately 8 000 CZK (approximately 285 Euro) in rent per month for this “social” housing, and amount which exceeds rents normally paid for equivalent housing. The flat is located on the third floor of a block of flats. The roof appears to leak and there is mould in the rooms (the youngest child suffers from asthma, which is worsened by the dampness and mould), and the walls are cracked. Helena Kristofova, a local Romani advisor to the municipality, told the organizations joining this submission that she believes the allocation of the extremely substandard housing was undertaken on racially biased grounds

2.6 Novy Jicin According to research undertaken by COHRE and Peacework from May to September 2007, in the town of Novy Jicin, several municipally-owned buildings have been occupied by Romani tenants for years. At the end of 2006, plans were announced to sell the buildings to private owners for conversion into luxury housing; 130 persons in total will be evicted. The municipality claimed to the media that all the residents of the building are indebted to the local housing authority, which is not true. Some of the tenants who have always paid their rent are currently taking legal action with the assistance of the Life Together civic association to challenge the

37

evictions. Their legal representative, Ms Polakova, reports that some of the buildings are said to have already been sold to a local attorney, Mr. J.K., who is also a member of the local government. Some of the tenants have never received any information from the court and thus never had a chance to participate in their own proceedings; Polakova says she has never witnessed this kind of conduct from the courts before. Moreover, in the majority of cases, openended leases were suddenly changed into fixed-term leases, making it easier for the new owner to file eviction orders with the court.

2.6.1 The C family On 20 April 2007, the owner of the flat where the C family was living filed a suit with the District Court in Novy Jicin to have them evicted. The family consists of five members, two parents and three children; two of the children are minors and one of the minors is disabled. The minors were included in the suit as parties. The owner of the building told the family that he would not renew their contract when it expired on 31 March 2007. One month after the filing of the suit against the C family, a hearing was scheduled by the Novy Jicin district court. After the hearing was held, the presiding judge issued a three-month deadline for the family to vacate the premises. The family appealed. At a hearing held on 27 August 2007 at the Novy Jicin District Court, the presiding judge suspended the case after the legal representative presented her objections and arguments in favour of the family.

2.6.2 The K family The new owner of a property refused to renew the tenants’ lease when it expired in March 2007, but the K family refused to vacate the premises. The new owner filed an eviction order with the Novy Jicin District Court against the K family, which has 13 members, most of whom are minors. At a hearing held on 13 September 2007, the presiding judge ruled the K family were obliged to vacate their flat. According to the family’s legal representative, the judge did allow additional evidence to be examined, and did not consider any international law arguments.

2.7 Liberec and Surrounding Areas According to a recent study conducted by the NGO People in Need (PIN), Liberec has a population of almost 100,000, of which 2000 persons are long-term recipients of social assistance. Czech, Slovak and Polish nationalities are said to prevail. In the 2001 census, only 97 persons declared themselves as Roma.132 The study estimates the current number of Roma living in Liberec to be 3500. However, the number could be higher, as there are no official statistics. The study goes on to suggest: “Socially excluded locations are not to be found in the city in the form of city quarters -- in the various city quarters, individual socially excluded buildings can be found. There are several dormitories and rental houses in private ownership.”133

132

Kdo drž Černého Petra: sociáln vyloučen v Liberci, Plzni a Úst nad Labem (‘Who holds the Black Peter card: Social Exclusion in Liberec, Plzen and Usti nad Labem’); see also Miroslav Brož, Petra Kintlová and Ladislav Toušek, People in Need, Člověk v tsni - společnost při České televizi, o. p. s., Prague 2007, p. 20.

133 Ibid.

38

Miroslav Kotlar, a member of the Czech Government Council for Romani Community Affairs and the Liberec Romani Association (LRA), has confirmed the aforementioned nature of social exclusion in Liberec. In his view, the situation in the city (and the Liberec region) is perhaps different from other cities in that the creation of ghettos relates solely to individual buildings, not to larger areas. The municipality has sold all the properties it once possessed to private owners.

The cheapest and most dilapidated houses were purchased by speculators whose knowledge of housing rights is very limited. The new owners, after taking over the deteriorated properties, make no improvements and rent them primarily to Romani tenants. In his view, the social climate which helps speculators by pushing socially disadvantaged persons even more to the margins is made possible by the municipality’s conduct. Under the guise of privatisation,134 the municipality sold all the houses and flats it previously possessed, and now is able to claim it has no municipal flats available for its citizens. In fact, the municipality has constructed new rental flats, but access to them is conditional upon the tenants not being indebted to the municipality.

In addition to debt-free tenants, the municipality also requires tenants residing in the flats to meet requirements of “personal integrity” (i.e., no criminal record, etc.) which places a serious burden on potential tenants. These conditions create social exclusion for poor Roma families who are long-term unemployed. Any person who does meet the requirements usually pays CZK 7000 in rent exclusive of utilities.

In Mr. Kotlar’s opinion, the situation is more or less unresolvable for local socially disadvantaged persons. This is the main reason Romani families end up living in small flats in great numbers.

Most of the time they move in with their relatives who, in turn, try to solve the situation by finding new accommodation and leaving the smaller flat to their homeless relatives. Such flats tend to undergo normal wear and tear more quickly given the high numbers of occupants.

Families also frequently move from one dormitory/commercial lodging house to another in neighbouring towns, a vicious cycle which is virtually impossible to break. The fees charged at these facilities are generally around 3500 CZK/adult/month and 1500 CZK/child/month, very high prices for housing in the Czech Republic.

In the town of Velke Hamry, LRA field social workers pressured the mayor to get a landlord to repair a building in which 60 Roma persons live without water or hygienic facilities. The roof is in such terrible condition that it is at risk of caving in with the weight of the snow during winter.

According to the LRA, the roof is currently leaking and there are holes in it the size of a football.

The owner of the building charges 9000 CZK per month exclusive of utility services. In Jablonec nad Nisou, one landlord owes money to the local waterworks even though the tenants pay for the water they use; the owner is now threatening to cut off the water supply. In Frýdlant, there is a dormitory/commercial lodging house in such disastrous condition that there is the

134

The study conducted by PIN claims that “Fewer than one thousand flat units have remained in the possession of the Statutory City of Liberec in the process of ongoing privatisation of the municipal housing fund. The fund comprises above all flats in houses providing care service, flats for the handicapped, the so-called starting flats and “mainstream” rental flats. Starting flats were built from a state subsidy in 2005 – 2006 in the area of Zelené Údol: there are 6 houses with 192 flats. These flats are designed for persons with limited income. A person is entitled to apply for a starting flat, provided their average monthly income did not exceed 0.8 of the average salary in the last year, or a household with other members whose joint income did not exceed 1.5 of the average salary. The maximum period of lease is fixed for 10 years, the contracts are fixed for one year after which they may be renewed. The amount charged per square meter in a starting flat is 65 CZK -- even though the flats are designated for persons with limited income, the costs approach those in a commercial rental flat. In municipal rental flats, the amount charged for a square meter ranges from 14 to 28 CZK (Kdo drž Černého Petra: sociáln vyloučen v Liberci, Plzni a Úst nad Labem (‘Who holds the Black Peter card: Social Exclusion in Liberec, Plzen and Usti nad Labem’)); see also Miroslav Brož, Petra Kintlová and Ladislav Toušek, Člověk v tsni (People in Need), Společnost při České televizi, o. p. s., Prague 2007, pp. 21-22.

39

danger of an epidemic of infectious diseases. At the moment, LRA is communicating with the local hygiene station about the housing.135 The gravity of the situation in Velke Hamry is confirmed by the 2006 Gabal study for the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, which describes a large, one-storey house in which as many as 150 Roma live in 16 flats. Water pipes freeze in winter, there are no bathrooms, there are clogged common toilets in the corridors, the windows and front door are broken, the roof leaks, and the eaves and chimney are destroyed.

There is a similar situation in Tanvald, a town of 7000 in the Jizerske mountains. The Tanvald town hall purchased two neglected buildings occupied by Romani tenants in a 2005 auction and subsequently demolished them. Tenants with open-ended leases were provided with alternative accommodation, but approximately 100 persons who had lived there illegally were forced to move to other Romani settlements in Tanvald or to neighbouring towns and villages.136 In the Liberec region, the number of Roma evicted from potentially lucrative houses and flats in major Czech cities such as Kladno, Mlada Boleslav or Decin is said to have increased. “Every vacant building in the municipality implies the danger of problematic Roma moving in,” said a mayor of a town in the Liberec region who wished her name to remain anonymous. She thinks it is not a viable solution to the critical situation of the Romani settlements to disperse the families among the majority population. “Those Roma unwilling to adapt would immediately attract their relatives and conflicts would arise in the building and the neighbourhood,” she stated.137 Research conducted by GAC lists the collection of scrap iron, berry-picking, and the dismantling of car wrecks or abandoned houses as the only means of earning a livelihood available to Roma in this region. There are no official statistics on the Roma rate of unemployment, but experts in the region estimate that only a tenth of the Roma living there are employed.138 Research by People in Need shows that those Roma evicted from municipal housing tend to end up in commercial lodging houses, dormitories for rent-defaulters, and “poor” rental accommodations where the rent charged is usually several times more expensive than normal rates. The buildings are often in terrible condition and almost uninhabitable.139 The study also mentions a similar situation in Chrastava, a town of fewer than 6000 inhabitants five kilometres north-west of Liberec. Approximately 300 Roma live in Chrastava, all of them in a dormitory called Kovak, a privately-owned four-storey building.140 135

Email communication with Mr. Kotlár (18 July 2007).

Czech Press Agency, Romani settlements: frozen water, clogged toilets and almost everything destroyed, (Liberec, 17 Sept.

2006).

137 Id. 138 Id. 139 The rental house in Frantiskova street is situated near the city centre, therefore it is not spatially excluded. When it was sold off into private ownership, it was in a very bad technical condition. The private owner repaired the leaking roof but that was all he invested into the building. The 15 housing units are substandard, without central heating, there are no toilets in some of the units. The amount paid on rent for a kitchen and a room is 6,500 CZK. With every room, it is raised by 2,000 CZK. (…) The tenants are prevailingly Roma. (Kdo drž Černého Petra: sociáln vyloučen v Liberci, Plzni a Úst nad Labem (‘Who holds the Black Peter card: Social Exclusion in Liberec, Plzen and Usti nad Labem’); see also Miroslav Brož, Petra Kintlová and Ladislav Toušek, Člověk v tsni (People in Need), Společnost při České televizi, o. p. s., Prague 2007, pp. 22-24.)

140 Id. at pp. 34-35 (reporting that “the owner charges 4,400 CZK for a room regardless of the number of persons sharing the space. (…) For a room on the fourth floor, the owner charges 6,500 CZK including payments for services and electricity.”).

136

40

2.8 Litvinov According to the Czech daily Mlada fronta DNES of 2 July 2007, the Janov quarter of the town of Litvinov is considered to have the biggest Roma “ghetto” in the Czech Republic. Originally, the housing complex, now predominantly occupied by Roma, was intended for residents from nearby villages who had to leave their homes because of mining activity. Today, Janov is turning into a Roma ghetto, where you can acquire a flat with four rooms plus kitchen and bathroom (a "4+1" flat as the Czech system refers to it) for CZK 120,000 or circa USD $5700, while a few kilometres away, flats of the same size cost over three-quarters of a million crowns.

The high box-like buildings of Janov are distributed over the hills and flatlands, surrounded by forests and hills on one side and abutting the smoky campus of the Chemopetrol plant on the other side. Approximately 8000 people live there, making the complex 10 times larger than the Chanov complex in the city of Most. Approximately half of the residents are estimated to be Roma.

Sociologist Ivan Gabal reports that there are already 330 such ghettos in the Czech Republic.

His analysis for the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs reveals that socially excluded Roma locations are created by the “natural” movement of poor Romani families to places with cheaper housing, by the expulsion of these families from lucrative flats, and through other procedures created by municipalities. “As flat owners we cannot influence who moves in here. How can they allow so many [Roma] to live together and more to move in?” a concierge at one of the buildings asked a visiting journalist. More than one entity is involved in this process: The town of Litvinov, which moved the Roma to Janov and then sold the flats in which they had originally been living to private firms; the firms, which together with real estate agencies continue to move the Roma further on; and the state and its laws.

Based on the reported number of Romani residents forced to live in the Litvinov flats, which are municipally-owned flats, it is apparent that the conditions are not fit for human habitation, evidently implicating a number of provisions of international law.

2.9 Havlickuv Brod The Havlickuv Brod municipality is reported to be considering building a wall to separate a building into which problematic families, Roma for the most part, were moved several years ago, from the rest of the residents. The daily Mlada fronta DNES (MfD) reported the town’s considerations on 29 August 2007.141 The building at issue is located near the railway station and is reportedly inhabited by 12 families, 11 of whom are said to be of Romani origin. Local non-Romani residents want to have a fence or wall raised to divide the courtyard onto which the building faces into two parts.

Deputy Mayor Cenek Juzl was quoted as saying: “The proposal [to build a wall] has been made by local residents. We are seriously considering it. (…) They [the Roma] are socially inadaptable.

They bother their neighbours, make a mess and break into parked cars. (…) There is a conflict every week. To separate the two buildings would be the best solution”.

141

Mlada fronta Dnes, Havlickuv Brod, East Bohemia (CTK) (29 Aug. 2007).

41

The residents of the neighbouring block of flats, which is run by a housing cooperative, reportedly share the courtyard with the “problematic” families; Mlada fronta DNES reports that the non-Romani residents often complain about the Roma’s behaviour. “The problematic families started devastating everything they see in the common yard. They are aggressive, smash windows, break off car mirrors and aerials, their children jump over the cars and throw stones into the cellar,” building representative Rudolf Stara reportedly told Mlada fronta DNES. According to Juzl, the situation cannot be compared to the case of Maticni street in Usti nad Labem.142 Maticni street became a symbol of anti-Roma racism in October 1999 when Usti nad Labem authorities started to build a fence there, saying they wanted to protect the owners of private houses who repeatedly complained about the noise and disorder made by the Romani residents in flats “for rent defaulters” on the other side of Maticni street. After protests by the Romani residents and human rights activists from around Europe, the ceramic fence was dismantled after six weeks.

IV. INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS In addition to the submitting NGOs working with Roma in the Czech Republic, UN Treaty Bodies have extensively commented over the past five years of review of the Czech Republic (2002-2007) on many of the issues of concern in this Communication. Relevant concerns and recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and the Human Rights Committee (HRC) follow.

1. Discrimination against Roma In the area of racial discrimination, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) recently (in August 2007) “reiterate[d] its concern that, despite efforts to that end, the State party has still not adopted a general anti-discrimination law guaranteeing the right to equal treatment and protection against discrimination. (articles 1, 2 and 5).”143 The CERD recommended again that the State party adopt legislation providing for the prohibition of discrimination based on colour, race, descent, national or ethnic origin, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, as a 142

Usti nad Labem is the capital of the Usti region with a population of 98 324. As a former mining and industrial city, the rate of unemployment has increased drastically since 1989. The number of Roma ghettos has thus increased too. The 2006 Gabal study has identified four of them in Usti nad Labem: Predlice, Novy svet (the New World), Mojzir and Jiloviste. The NGO People in Need believes there are several other socially excluded locations there as well. As their 2007 study, referred to in the present submission, suggests, towards the end of the 1990s the vast majority of local governments in the district of Usti nad Labem with Roma ghettos (such as Predlice, Nove Predlice, Trmice, Novy svet, Mojzir, Jiloviste, Krasne Brezno…) decided to privatise municipal buildings with Romani tenants/debtors. Buildings located in segregated neighbourhoods are, for the most part, in bad technical conditions and the spaces in between them are filled with litter. Most of the freelance businesses in the Roma ghettos are non-stop casinos and pawnshops.

143 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Czech Republic (Seventieth Session, 2007), U.N. Doc. Cerd/C/Cze/Co/7 (2007), para. 8.

42

general principle applicable in the political, economic, social and cultural spheres or any other field of public life.144

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) noticed the particular plight of Roma and was “deeply concerned about the high level of discrimination against Roma people in the fields of employment, housing and education.”145 The United nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) also, has expressed concerned “at discrimination faced by Roma in access to housing, as well as the persistence of discriminatory evictions and the continued existence of de-facto “ghettos” (arts. 2, 26 and 27).”146 Further, the HRC “remains concerned that, despite the adoption of relevant programmes, discrimination against Roma continues to persist in practice, including in the areas of labour, access to employment, health care and education.”147 The CESCR reached a similar conclusion: [i]n spite of the fact that the State party acknowledges [the fact of high levels of discrimination against Roma people in housing, education and employment], the administrative and legislative measures undertaken by the State party to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Roma are still insufficient to address the problem.148

Additionally, the CESCR found that “despite the affirmative programmes in favour of the Roma undertaken by the State party, no specific legislation has yet been enacted to outlaw discrimination against them.” 149 Similarly, the HRC wrote in 2007 that it “regrets that the State party has not so far adopted an anti discrimination bill.”150 In response to persistent discrimination against Roma at all levels, the HRC recommended the following measures: a) Enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that ensures effective protection for the victims of racial and related discrimination in all areas and related policies and programmes; b) Provide legal aid for victims of discrimination; c) Institute effective monitoring mechanisms and adopt indicators and benchmarks to determine whether relevant anti-discrimination goals have been reached; d) Provide additional training to Roma to equip them for suitable employment and to promote employment opportunities; e) Prevent unjustified evictions and dismantle segregation of Roma communities in housing; f) Conduct campaigns of public information to overcome prejudice against the Roma. 151

The CESCR generally “urge[d] the State party, in line with ‘The Concept of Roma Integration,’ approved by the Government on 23 January 2002, to take all necessary measures, legislative or otherwise, to eliminate discrimination against groups of minorities, in particular Roma.” 152 To combat the “prevailing negative sentiments and stereotypes concerning the Roma among the 144

Id. (emphasis added).

Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Czech Republic (Twenty-eighth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.76 (2002), para. 12 (emphasis added).

146 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Czech Republic (Ninetieth session, 2007), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/CZE/CO/2 (2007), para. 16 (emphasis added).

147 Id. 148 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Czech Republic (Twenty-eighth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.76 (2002), para. 12.

149 Id. 150 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Czech Republic (Ninetieth session, 2007), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/CZE/CO/2 (2007), para. 16.

151 Id. (emphasis added).

152 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Czech Republic (Twenty-eighth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.76 (2002). para. 29.

145

43

Czech population” (relevant to articles 4 and 7),153 the CERD recommended that [“t]he State party … strive to improve the relations between Roma communities and non-Roma communities, in particular at the local level, with a view to promoting tolerance and ensuring that all persons fully enjoy their human rights and freedoms.”154

2. Discrimination against Roma in the Right to housing Access to adequate housing is one of the problems that continues to be a point of concern for the various UN Treaty Bodies, and is directly linked to discrimination against Roma. The CESCR was “deeply concerned about the acute shortage of housing and the privatization of some public housing stocks which have resulted in a sharp rise in rents, forced evictions and homelessness.”155 As noted with concern by the CERD, “Roma people are particularly vulnerable to evictions and segregation in housing.”156 Despite the well-known existence of discrimination against Roma in access to housing and the right to freedom from forced evictions, the State has thus far failed to “take sufficient action to tackle this issue.”157 Specifically, the rights to housing and non-discrimination secured in international treaties are not justiciable in domestic law: “the autonomy of municipalities under domestic law is described by the State party as an obstacle to the fulfilment of its obligations to ensure the enjoyment of the right to housing by all without discrimination, in particular at the local level.”158 Indeed, the CESCR “regrets that the Covenant has not been given full effect in the State party's legal order and that most of the rights contained in the Covenant are not justiciable in the domestic legal order, in particular, the right to adequate housing, which the State party considers as a merely ‘declaratory non-entitlement right’.159 The CERD was “further concerned that domestic regulations do not clearly prohibit racial discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to housing. (articles 2, 3 and 5 (e)(iii)) 160 The Treaty Bodies recommend measures to address the housing shortage, forced evictions, homelessness, and discrimination against Roma. The CESCR “urge[d] the State party to take effective measures to address the problems of: (a) the housing shortage by adopting housing programmes, especially for the disadvantaged and marginalized groups; (b) forced evictions and homelessness by respecting the Committee's General Comments 4 and 7 and devising a comprehensive plan to combat homelessness.” 161 The CERD “remind[ed] the State party that it may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to implement the Convention.” 162 The CERD further “urge[d] the State party to adopt all steps necessary to ensure the right to housing to all without discrimination, whether direct or indirect, based on 153

Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Czech Republic (Seventieth Session, 2007), U.N. Doc. Cerd/C/Cze/Co/7 (2007), para. 13.

154 Id. 155 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Czech Republic (Twenty-eighth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.76 (2002), para. 19.

156 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Czech Republic (Seventieth Session, 2007), U.N. Doc. Cerd/C/Cze/Co/7 (2007), para. 16.

157 Id. 158 Id. 159 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Czech Republic (Twenty-eighth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.76 (2002), para. 8.

160 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Czech Republic (Seventieth Session, 2007), U.N. Doc. Cerd/C/Cze/Co/7 (2007), para. 16.

161 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Czech Republic (Twenty-eighth session, 2002), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.76 (2002), para. 38.

162 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Czech Republic (Seventieth Session, 2007), U.N. Doc. Cerd/C/Cze/Co/7 (2007), para. 16.

44

race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, including in particular at the local level.” 163 It also recommended that the State party ensure that domestic legislation clearly prohibits racial discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to housing, and protects vulnerable persons, including Roma, from evictions. In particular, such legislation should include measures providing the greatest possible security for tenants and strictly enumerate the circumstances under which evictions may be carried out. 164

3. Access to justice In addition to the above obstacles to legal protection from discrimination in housing, Roma face general barriers to access to justice. For example, while racial discrimination is widespread, the CERD “note[d] that the Office of the Ombudsman165 … has received very few complaints of racial discrimination.”166 One reason may be that, as CERD noted with concern, “because of delays in the adoption of general anti-discrimination legislation, no specific institution has been mandated to safeguard the right to equal treatment, assist victims in bringing their claims, or receive complaints of racial discrimination in the private sector.”167 CERD was further concerned that “difficulties in obtaining legal aid continue to be an important barrier preventing victims of racial discrimination from bringing cases before the courts. [in contravention of Article 6]”168 Accordingly, the CERD recommended that the State party “assess the extent to which such possible obstacles [as the inadequate character of relevant specific legislation, the victims’ ignorance of their individual rights and of the availability of legal remedies, and their lack of confidence in the justice system] impede victims from bringing their claims and take appropriate action to overcome them where necessary.” 169 The CERD also recommended that the State party “ensure that a specific institution be mandated to promote and monitor the right to equal treatment, to assist victims in bringing their claims including through legal aid, and to receive complaints of racial discrimination in both the public and the private sectors.”

V. CONCLUSION As illustrated in detail in the present submission, as well as in the several studies referred to herein, the number of Romani tenants evicted from municipally owned or privately owned housing in the Czech Republic is increasing, as is the number of social excluded and racially segregated ghettos. This is happening even in parts of the Czech Republic which have previously failed to acknowledge they were facing similar problems. For example, towns such as the south Moravian town of Breclav170 or the South Bohemian town of Cesky Krumlov171 have 163

Id. Id. 165 (which is “authorized to deal with complaints against State institutions and administrations listed in the Act on the Public Defender of Rights”) 166 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Czech Republic (Seventieth Session, 2007), U.N. Doc. Cerd/C/Cze/Co/7 (2007), para. 19.

167 Id. 168 Id. 169 Id. 170 From 2004 to 2005, The European Roma Rights Centre provided funding for the provision of legal counseling and representation of the Polak family, which was evicted from a building owned by a local entrepreneur who had filed an eviction order with the District Court. Upon the intervention, the family was allocated an alternative flat; however, the municipality failed to give them an open-ended lease, which generated further 164

45

been cited by some as examples of excellent coexistence between the majority society and local Roma. However, recent articles in the Czech press seem to indicate the problem of social exclusion exists in these locations as well.172 The 2006 Gabal study which has been referred to in this submission on several occasions is so far the only study of its kind to have been conducted and publicised in the Czech Republic.

Since its release in September 2006, it has been criticised by civil society organizations for omitting certain socially excluded locations and failing to map the real extent of the gravity in the field of housing where Roma are concerned. However, as an initiative by the Czech Labour and Social Affairs Ministry, it seems to be a valuable starting point for the introduction of effective strategies to improve the present situation. The Ombudsman’s strategy on social housing may also suggest further improvements.

It is apparent that even though there have been a limited number of efforts to alter the situation in the field of housing at the national level, these efforts have had only limited positive effect at the local level due to decentralisation and the enjoyment of a high level of power over individuals’ enjoyment of housing by local municipalities or private landlords, combined with the powerful forces of racial antipathy.

As noted above, Czech national housing law does not include sufficient provisions to prohibit racial discrimination by public or private institutions. There is neither fair housing legislation, nor any state institution that monitors equal access to public housing in the Czech Republic.

This is compounded by the failure of the Czech government to implement a comprehensive antidiscrimination law. Given the reluctance on behalf of both the national and local governments, the forces at play are hard for Romani victims of housing discrimination to face.

They are also challenging for civic society organizations involved in protecting housing rights.

One of the most serious problems is the fact that only a fraction of the Roma threatened with eviction and/or already evicted is able to secure legal counsel and/or representation. As far as the submitting organisations are aware, there are only two attorneys representing housing rights problems after the building was sold to a private owner. The family’s legal representative is still providing legal counseling and representation to the family.

171 Czech Press Agency, The dormitory in Vetrni is turning into a Romani ghetto, (17 Sept. 2006).

172 Four years ago, Breclav municipality evicted 50 people of Romani origin from the town centre into the building of a former cowshed on the outskirts. The building with small windows is surrounded by a fence with sections of barbed wire. Families with children live in rooms of 15 m2. There is no heating and the toilets and bathrooms are communal. There is only electricity in the building; in winter, the building is heated by electric heaters or electric cookers. There is no hot tap water; the potable water tap is next to the utility water tap. The building smells of mould and damp. Ms Judita Gabcova lives in a tiny room with her boyfriend and their three children; she is expecting a fourth. Three years ago, she applied for an alternative flat because the building where she was living was in bad condition. Although she had paid rent regularly, she was moved into the former cowshed. The rent the Gabco family reportedly pays has been increased from 1 610 to 2 529 CZK per month, plus 1860 CZK for water and another 550 CZK for the common lighting. Each of the families has to pay another 10000 CZK for electric heating. The lease with the municipality makes it impossible for the tenants to have debts -- otherwise, they would end up in the street. It also prohibits visits to the building.

Breclav is said to be the first town in the Czech Republic to have sued parents whose children were absent from school. In one case, an unconditional sentence has been delivered so far; the decision was appealed. The social department of the municipality has filed a case against four other parents who were social assistance recipients and earned their living by collecting scrap iron. This year, the municipality has abolished the positions of Romani pedagogical assistants in the schools and the position of Romani advisor. Another instrument the municipality allegedly resorts to is institutional care: This year, seven children in the town have been put into state care. Three of the children have reportedly ended up in a juvenile detention centre. (The worst words pronounced by a Roma? Good morning, neighbor... Where to put Roma? Into a cowshed, http://www.aktualne.centrum.cz/domaci/spolecnost/clanek.phtml?id=475102.

46

cases in the whole of Moravia (Ms Vranova, who provides legal representation to the Tulej family deported from Vsetin, and Ms Polakova, providing legal representation to many families).

This unsustainable situation with regard to access to justice illustrates the real gravity and extent of the problem.

These issues are not new in the Czech Republic and have been raised repeatedly at international level since 1989. For example, in 2003, the Czech Republic concluded a friendly settlement with a number of Roma which authorities in the northern Czech town of Ústí nad Labem had expelled not only from their housing, but indeed from the Czech Republic entirely.173 The Czech Republic agreed to pay circa 30,000 EUR in damages to the victims.

It is our contention that the matters detailed herein comprise violations of a range of international law provisions to which the Czech Republic is a party, as set out in this petition. We urge your office to undertake any and measures which may be available to it to see that these matters are swiftly rectified.

173

European Court of Human Rights, Červeňáková and Others v. Czech Republic (application no. 40226/98), decision of 29 July 2003. in February 1993 the police had gone into their flats and emptied them of their contents. They were told that as a result of the division of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic they were required to return to Slovakia, where they would obtain housing, work and welfare benefits. They were then loaded into trains and sent to Slovakia, where they lived roofless for circa one month before returning to Ústí nad Labem, where they lived in degrading circumstances in a park, and later in a garage.

47