Pushing for Change? South East Europe's Minorities in the EU

reportPushing for Change? South East Europe’sMinorities in the EU Progress ReportsBy Snježana Bokulić and Galina Kostadinova

AcknowledgementsMinority Rights Group International (MRG) gratefullyacknowledges the support of the Charles Stewart MottFoundation and the Department for InternationalDevelopment (DfID), UK.

Researcher: Evelin Verhás, Report Editor: Preti Taneja,Production Coordinator: Richie Andrew

The authorsSnježana Bokulić is Europe and Central Asia ProgrammeCoordinator at Minority Rights Group International (MRG). Herwork centres on minority rights advocacy at the UN andEuropean regional forums, and on building the capacity ofcivil society to engage in international advocacy. She holdsan MA in Southeast European Studies from the CentralEuropean University and is an LLM candidate at theUniversity of Essex.

Galina Kostadinova is MRG’s Human Rights Law Officer(Europe). She joined MRG in 2002. Before that she workedfor the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice and the American RedCross. Galina holds a law degree from the University of Sofiaand an MPhil in EU studies from the University of Cambridge.Currently she is a doctoral candidate at the Law Faculty ofthe University of Oxford.

Contributing partner NGOsIndependent, Bosnia and HerzegovinaCenter for Peace, Legal Advice and Psychosocial Assistance, CroatiaRoma and Ashkali Documentation Center, KosovoAssociation for Democratic Initiatives, MacedoniaRoma Democratic Development Association Sonce,MacedoniaUNO Libertask, MontenegroRroma Women’s Centre Bibija, Serbia

Minority Rights Group InternationalMinority Rights Group International (MRG) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) working to secure therights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities andindigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperationand understanding between communities. Our activities arefocused on international advocacy, training, publishing andoutreach. We are guided by the needs expressed by ourworldwide partner network of organizations, which representminority and indigenous peoples.

MRG works with over 150 organizations in nearly 50countries. Our governing Council, which meets twice a year,has members from 10 different countries. MRG hasconsultative status with the United Nations Economic andSocial Council (ECOSOC), and observer status with theAfrican Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights(ACHPR). MRG is registered as a charity and a companylimited by guarantee under English law. Registered charityno. 282305, limited company no. 1544957.

© Minority Rights Group International 2008All rights reserved

Material from this publication may be reproduced for teaching or for other non-commercial purposes. No part of it may bereproduced in any form for commercial purposes without the prior express permission of the copyright holders. For furtherinformation please contact MRG. A CIP catalogue record of this publication is available from the British Library. ISBN 978 1 904584 76 6. Published July 2008. Typeset Kavita Graphics. Printed in the UK on recycled paper. Pushing for Change? South East Europe’s Minorities in the EU Progress Reports is published by MRG as a contribution topublic understanding of the issue which forms its subject. The text and views of the author do not necessarily represent in everydetail and in all its aspects, the collective view of MRG.

Nura and Ahmet Begović, Bosniak returnees to Potocari. They returned in November 2004bringing with them a cow and some sheep. During the night of their return, someone killedtheir cow and left it in front of their door. An estimated 8,000 Bosniak (Muslim) men and boysfrom the nearby town of Srebrenica were massacred by Serb forces in July 1995, and manyMuslim residents have still not returned.Andrew Testa/Panos Pictures.

Contents

Map 2

List of abbreviations 3

Executive summary 4

Introduction 6

EU engagement in the Western Balkans: what role for minority rights? 9

International legal framework for the protection of minority rights: participation, employment, education 11

Minority rights in EU Reports on SEE: a country-by-country overview 16

Bosnia and Herzegovina 16

Croatia 18

Kosovo 21

Macedonia 23

Montenegro 26

Serbia 28

Concluding remarks and ways forward 31

Recommendations 33

Country-specific priorities 34

Notes 35

Pushing for Change? South East Europe’sMinorities in the EU Progress ReportsBy Snježana Bokulić and Galina Kostadinova

Candidate countrie

Candidate country – awaiting negotiations

Potential candidates – SAA signed

TURKEY

CROATIA

BOSNIA

AND

HERZEGOVINA

SERBIA

MACEDONIA

ALBANIA

MONTENEGRO

KOSOVO

EU enlargement in South East Europe

s – negotiations ongoing

Potential candidate – no contractual relationship

2 PUSHING FOR CHANGE? SOUTH EAST EUROPE’S MINORITIES IN THE EU PROGRESS REPORTS

3PUSHING FOR CHANGE? SOUTH EAST EUROPE’S MINORITIES IN THE EU PROGRESS REPORTS

List of abbreviations

AC Advisory Committee (on the FCNM)BiH Bosnia and HerzegovinaCEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination Against WomenCEE Central and Eastern EuropeCERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial DiscriminationCESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsCLNM Constitutional Law on National MinoritiesCRC Committee on the Rights of the ChildCSCE Conference on Security and Cooperation in EuropeDG Directorate GeneralEC European CommunityECHR European Convention on Human Rights and

Fundamental FreedomsECRML European Charter for Regional or Minority LanguagesEED Employment Equality DirectiveEU European UnionFCNM Framework Convention for the Protection of National

MinoritiesFRY Federal Republic of YugoslaviaHCNM High Commissioner on National MinoritiesHRC Human Rights CommitteeICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Racial Discrimination

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for former YugoslaviaIDP Internally displaced personILO International Labour Organization IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession AssistanceMRG Minority Rights Group InternationalNATO North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNGO Non-governmental organizationOSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe RED Racial Equality DirectiveRESC Revised European Social Charter SAA Stabilization and Association AgreementSAp Stabilization and Association processSEE South East EuropeUDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNDM United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons

Belonging to National or Ethnic, Linguistic or ReligiousMinorities

UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization UNICEF United Nations Children's FundUNMIK United Nations Mission in Kosovo UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution


Executive summary

As the countries of South East Europe (SEE) movetowards EU accession, the European Union’s annualcountry Progress Reports (EU Reports) offer a uniqueopportunity to improve the daily lives of the region’smarginalized minorities. When they are published, theReports receive a high level of government and mediaattention in the region; their conclusions are brought tothe attention of societies at large. The Reports and thepriorities they identify carry significant political weightwhich creates implementation obligations on governmentsaspiring to bring their countries into the EU, and theyprovide an important advocacy tool for human rights andminority rights activists.

But close examination of these Reports and consulta-tion with minority groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina(BiH), Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Ser-bia, shows a wide divergence between the EU messages andthe realities that minorities face in their day-to-day lives.

Our survey reveals that minority protection has notbeen given the necessary priority in the EU Reports. TheEU has not been consistent in its criticism across the dif-ferent countries and across the different minority groups.For example, Roma dominate its analysis on educationand employment, but do not appear in the sections onrepresentation and political participation. Minorityunder-representation in the police and judiciary has beenquestioned by the EU in Macedonia, but has not beenaddressed in Montenegro where this problem also exists.Minority rights activists have found the EU Reportssuperficial in the choice of issues covered, and in their rel-evance for minorities. This disapproval refers particularlyto the fact that the EU has disregarded the different, oftenmore difficult, experiences in discrimination and povertyof minority women. Perhaps the greatest weakness identi-fied by our study is that the EU lacks an institutionalizedmechanism allowing for structured and systematicinvolvement of the SEE minority communities in theaccession process.

This report considers three crucial areas for minorities:participation in public life, employment and education.Lack of equality in these areas serves to keep minorities dis-advantaged over generations: if this goes consistentlyunaddressed, the seeds for future conflict can begin togrow. Yet the EU enshrined minority rights protection intothe accession criteria, among other priorities, to avoidencompassing existing or potential inter-ethnic conflict intothe EU as its borders enlarge. Given that one of the main

concerns of the EU in this region has been inter-ethnicconflict prevention, it is vital that more attention is given toreporting on minorities. Across the region, grassroots com-munity-based minority rights organizations havehighlighted the need for systematic consultation processesthat would enable them to contribute to the Reports. Here,minority groups give their views and show how the Reportscould be strengthened to effect real change.

In the case of Reports on BiH, the problem beginswith the language used: it replicates the state’s discrimina-tory term ‘others’, used for all who do not identifythemselves as Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs. This is unaccept-able to minorities in BiH, as the categorization directlyprohibits them from participating fully in political lifeand gaining adequate representation.

In Serbia, a gross violation of the minority right toeducation is going unaddressed in the EU Reports. Romachildren without any learning disabilities are still beingchannelled into schools for those with mental healthproblems. It is vital that the EU address this more firmly.

The EU Reports also fail to record that negativestereotypes are used to portray Roma in Macedonian text-books at school.

Setting EU Reports in contrast to treaty monitoringbodies, in particular the Council of Europe’s AdvisoryCommittee on the Framework Convention for the protec-tion of National Minorities (FCNM) also highlightsinconsistencies. While the 2007 FCNM report warned of‘serious deficiencies’ in instruction of and in minority lan-guages in Macedonia, the EU Report omitted the issuecompletely.

The momentum for change that the EU accessionprocess can generate is in danger of being lost. EU mem-ber states still have to ratify the Lisbon Treaty to createthe legal and institutional framework that will makeaccession of the Western Balkans possible. Though coun-tries should not accede before they are fully ready, it isclear that a more strategic and structured approach to theaccession process and to these Reports, one that includesconsultation with minority communities, would make asignificant difference to the lives of minorities in SEE. Anaccession action plan, with precise targets that take intoaccount minority rights and give attention to the rights ofminority women, to be met by each state before acces-sion, would offer this.

The fundamental rights of minorities, including theright to participate in processes and decisions that affect

their own futures, must become a standard part of theReport-writing process. The participation of minoritywomen should be enshrined within this. Smaller minori-ties must be given equal consideration. Only then will theReports fulfil their potential to promote and strengthenminority rights in SEE.

The importance of this to minority groups must notbe underestimated in the daily struggle to educate chil-dren, build a livelihood and participate in public life. Asone minority representative from Montenegro states,‘Accession to the EU should not be allowed until mini-mum rights are realized by all minorities.’



Introduction

There is general agreement that the European Unionexerts significant and multifaceted influence on coun-tries on the track of EU accession. The EU’s principaltool in this respect is the accession conditionality, thepolicy of setting particular conditions for movingtowards full membership. These conditions are broadand far-reaching: they can fundamentally transform thepolitical and economic systems of the countries aspiringfor membership.

In 1993, the EU made minority rights protectionone of its key requirements for accepting new membersinto the club. Almost a decade later, in 2004 the EUcompleted one of its most successful foreign policy pro-jects – the eastern enlargement. The project came to anend with eight ex-Soviet bloc countries, and Cyprus andMalta, becoming EU member states. In 2007, twoSouth East European countries, Bulgaria and Romania,followed.

Shortly before the completion of the eastern enlarge-ment, the EU reaffirmed its enlargement commitmenttowards the countries in the Western Balkans. Since2002, it has regularly monitored inter alia their minorityrights performance. For minorities in SEE, this has beenan important development; the assumption is that, withadequate political and financial backing, the EU acces-sion process can bring about improvement in theireveryday lives. At the same time, it appears that thisopportunity has not been utilized fully insofar as the EUmessages have been neither strong enough, nor relevantand consistent.

This is unfortunate; as the EU’s influence and themomentum gained by the accession process risk beinglost, any positive impact it could have on the lives ofminorities in the region begins to dissolve.

It must be noted that the EU’s insistence on theCopenhagen political criteria on minority rights in theaccession process has made the EU open to criticism thatit is using double standards, in that it requires candidateand potential candidate countries, to respect norms ofminority protection which are not imposed on its ownmember states. The accusation of double standards issevere and warrants serious consideration by the EU andits member states; it is, however, beyond the scope of thisreport. And while it is true in general, from the viewpointof minorities in candidate and potential candidate coun-tries it is commendable that the European Commission(the Commission) should continue to refer to minority

rights in its monitoring rather than reduce the require-ment to the EU’s common denominator and eliminatethe minority rights criterion. Thanks to this approach, thepotential for significant change on the ground remains,providing the opportunity for turning it into concreteimpact.

This report looks closely at how this impact can bemade. It assesses the coverage of minority issues in theEU’s Progress Reports (hereafter EU Reports), which areprepared annually by the Commission. This publicationevaluates the EU’s efforts to boost the minority rightsrecord in the SEE countries and to bring about change inthe lives of minority communities. Directorate General(DG) Enlargement is in charge of this monitoring (whichis an internal and political process). In coordination withrespective desk officers, country reports are prepared.They are based on information provided by the candidateand potential candidate countries, assessments made bymember states and the Commission Delegations in thosecountries, as well as a range of international organizations,including the Council of Europe, the Organization forSecurity and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), interna-tional financial institutions and a number of UnitedNations (UN) agencies. While non-governmental organi-zations (NGOs) have been included in consultations tosome extent, it is the level of consultation with civil soci-ety, in particular community-based minority civil society,which has historically been the weakest and this issue isaddressed below.

Though DG Enlargement has recently taken impor-tant steps to open up the process for consultation withcivil society in SEE, minority communities and theirorganizations remain on the margins of mainstream con-sultation. It must be emphasized that the generalinvolvement of civil society in the monitoring process,commendable though it is, is not sufficient to ensure thatminority voices are heard, unless specific attention isdevoted to including minority-based organizations as well.Another aim of this report, therefore, is to contributeconstructively to the strengthening of this dialogue withminority civil society in the Western Balkans.

This report assesses the monitoring process to date.The assessment focuses on three issues selected by partnerNGOs as crucial for minority communities: the minori-ties’ right to participation in public life, access toemployment and economic participation, and the rightsto and in education. To this end, all annual Reports pro-


duced by the Commission since 2002 have been reviewedto ascertain how the three issues were addressed by theEU, how much space was allocated and what was saidabout them. Other documents, such as the National Pro-grams for the Adoption of the Acquis, or the Europeanand Accession Partnerships, have not been included. Thefocus is primarily on the sections on ‘Minority Rights,Cultural Rights and Minority Protection’. This study alsoexamines how minority rights have been mainstreamedthroughout the EU Reports, and particularly in the chap-ters dealing with the implementation of the acquiscommunautaire on ‘Employment and Social Policy’ and‘Education and Culture’. The study also pays attention towhether gender issues have been given due weight withinthe minority sections of the Reports, and in particularhow the precarious position of minority women in politi-cal and economic participation, access to employmentand education is addressed.

The analysis of EU Reports is set against well-established standards on education, employment and par-ticipation in international human rights law. The legalinstruments include the Council of Europe’s EuropeanConvention on Human Rights and Fundamental Free-doms (ECHR), Framework Convention for theProtection of National Minorities, the UN InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights (ICESCR), the International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(ICERD), the Convention on the Rights of the Child andthe Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Dis-crimination Against Women (CEDAW), as well as theDeclaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic,Religious and Linguistic Minorities (UNDM) and theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Con-vention No. 111 of the International LabourOrganization (ILO), and EU’s own Racial Equality Direc-tive (RED) and Employment Equality Directive (EED).The standards included in the relevant documents adopt-ed within the framework of the OSCE, in particular theRecommendations of the High Commissioner on Nation-al Minorities (HCNM) on participation and education,are also considered.

The application of the EU minority rights condition-ality is compared against the above standards, using thefindings on the same issues and over the same period oftime. The latter include the Advisory Committee on theFCNM, and the bodies monitoring the implementationof the UN human rights treaties: the Human RightsCommittee (HRC), the Committee on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights (CESCR), the Committee on theElimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(CERD), the Committee on the Rights of the Child

(CRC), and the Committee on the Elimination of AllForms of Discrimination Against Women. These treatymonitoring bodies review the state parties’ implementa-tion of human rights obligations. They do so throughperiodic consideration of state reports and alternativeinformation on the basis of which they articulate theiropinions and recommendations for states on how toimprove and strengthen their human rights performance.These opinions and recommendations form a point ofreference for the analysis presented here.

Consultations were held with representatives of minor-ity communities to obtain their views on the substanceand process of the EU’s progress reporting. In February2008, each partner NGO organized a focus group discus-sion with the number of participants ranging from six to12. The participants were representatives of at least fourminority communities, including Roma communities. Anequal number of female and male participants weresought; they came from different regions of their coun-tries, mostly from grassroots minority organizations.

Finally, this report provides recommendations forimprovement so that the future impact of the EU report-ing process can be strengthened. The recommendationswere drawn up by comparing the analysis of the threesources and from discussions with members of minoritycommunities. The recommendations are presented jointlywith partner NGOs and addressed to the Council, mem-ber states and Commission more generally, and DGEnlargement and the Delegations of the European Com-mission specifically.

It must be stressed that the report focuses on theCommission only and not on national governments. Theprimary obligation to ensure that international humanrights and minority rights standards are adequately imple-mented rests with the states. Therefore, it is the nationalgovernments’ responsibility to safeguard minority rights,promulgate inclusive policies and bring about improve-ment in the lives of their constituencies. But this reportfocuses on the role of one specific international actor thathas the power to influence the national governments andcan thus indirectly contribute to the above goals: theEuropean Union. Governments and their implementationof international human rights obligations are examined toa large degree by a variety of organizations, including theCommission, the Council of Europe, the OSCE and theUN, however the Commission’s minority rights monitor-ing processes have not been sufficiently scrutinized,particularly in the case of the Western Balkans. Thisreport is, therefore, ‘monitoring the monitors’.

Moreover, a number of commentators have pointed tothe apparent disjuncture between the policy and princi-ples of Brussels and its practice and programming on theground. Only limited funds are allocated and used to ful-


fil the Copenhagen political criteria in the candidate andpotential candidate countries. The allocation of pre-accession assistance funds by governments and the inclu-sion of minorities in the process, both from the viewpointof decision-making and participation in the benefits ofthis spending will be analysed in a separate report pre-pared by Minority Rights Group International (MRG)and partners and forthcoming in 2009. This issue, there-fore, is not addressed here.

This publication is produced as part of MRG’s pro-gramme ‘Advancing Inclusion of Vulnerable Groups inSouth East Europe: Minority Rights Advocacy in the EUAccession Process’. By strengthening the minority rightsdiscourse in the EU Accession Process, the programmeaims to utilize the opportunities it provides for main-streaming minority and minority women’s participation inpolitical and developmental processes in the region. It isimplemented in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Koso-vo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, and these are thecountries under consideration here (Albania is not cov-ered). The programme was designed and is implemented

jointly with seven partner NGOs from the target coun-tries who participated in the drafting of this report. TheseNGOs are minority-based and have long-standing experi-ence of advocating for the protection and promotion ofminority rights of their communities at the national andinternational levels.

The Copenhagen criteria

The Copenhagen criteria, adopted by the EuropeanCouncil in 1993, encompass four main areas. Thepolitical, economic and legal criteria relate to thecandidate’s stability of institutions guaranteeingdemocracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights;its functioning market economy and ability to cope withcompetitive pressures; and its ability to transpose theCommunity acquis, respectively. The fourth element isinternal to the EU in that it relates to the EU’s capacity toabsorb new member states.


The break-up of Yugoslavia and the wars which ensuedfrom the summer of 1991 exacerbated the security ques-tions associated with the minority groups in the formercommunist East. Consequently, the EU’s engagement inthe Balkans in the early 1990s was characterized primarilyby conflict prevention. The European Community (EC)attempted, extremely unsuccessfully, to respond to the cri-sis in the Balkans through various diplomatic means.

Following their failure to prevent the 1991–2 wars, in1993 the European Union leaders declared a commitmentto minority rights – a key precondition for maintainingpolitical stability along the new EU’s borders and ulti-mately within its territory. The Yugoslav wars were amajor reason for the inclusion of the minority protectionrequirement among the EU’s accession criteria. When theenlargement towards the East developed into a policyframework, the question of minority protection becamecentral. At the Copenhagen Council of June 1993, it wasdecided that, in order to become a member, each candi-date should achieve ‘stability of institutions guaranteeingdemocracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect forand protection of minorities’ (authors’ emphasis).1

By spelling out the Copenhagen criteria for accession,(see box p. 8) the EU showed determination to avoid sim-ilar conflict scenarios in its backyard, and conveyed a clearmessage: no aspiring state could accede without ‘respectfor and protection of minorities’.

The EU devised its accession criteria in a period whenthe Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe(CSCE)2 was building on its minority rights standardsand instruments. In the context of the CSCE, the ParisCharter for New Europe (1990) proclaimed that minorityrights are the ‘bedrock’ of the new European order, whilethe Copenhagen Document on the Human Dimension(1990) provided the first catalogue of minority rights andasserted that minority rights are human rights. In 1992, anew kind of conflict prevention institution was set up inEurope but this happened in the CSCE, rather than inthe Community framework: the High Commissioner onNational Minorities was mandated to deal with minority-related problems through preventive diplomacy.3

In 1995 the Council of Europe adopted the first everlegally binding minority rights treaty – the FrameworkConvention for the Protection of National Minorities.Beyond identity issues, the FCNM also addressed, muchmore assertively than the Copenhagen document on theHuman Dimension (1990), the socio-economic condition

of minorities and their right to participation without dis-crimination in any aspect of social life. For example, itcalled on state parties to ‘create the conditions necessaryfor the effective participation of persons belonging tonational minorities in cultural, social, economic [authors’emphasis] life and in public affairs’ (Article 15) and ‘toadopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order topromote, in all areas of economic, social, [authors’ empha-sis] political and cultural life, full and effective equalitybetween persons belonging to a national minority andthose belonging to the majority’ (Article 4). Building par-ticularly upon those provisions, which extended minorityrights into the wider areas of social and economic rights,minority rights became relevant not only for ‘security-related’ minorities but also for smaller groups whoseplight often remains below the radar of internationalinstitutions.

During the eastern enlargement of the EU (1997–2004/2007) the European Commission was tasked withassessing the performance of the candidates vis-à-vis theCopenhagen political criteria and the minority protectionrequirement, in particular. It found itself in the unusualsituation of having to monitor countries in terms of theirminority rights records, without any agreed standards orbenchmarks to enable it to measure effectively anyadvancement in the minority rights field. The Commis-sion had to develop from scratch its approach to assessingthe protection of minorities in the process of enlargement.Unlike other human rights monitoring bodies, it did nothave a convention, a body of norms and an agreed set ofprinciples by which to measure the candidates’ compli-ance. The Commission had to look therefore to thehuman and minority rights outside the EU framework,notably in the Council of Europe and the OSCE, the twomain European players in the 1990s in the field of minor-ity rights. That was of great importance for minorities;both organizations had firmly put the situation of minori-ties beyond the security concern paradigm andrepositioned it as a human rights concern.

Since the formulation of the EU accession criteria andthe development of the minority rights framework inEurope, a chain of events transformed the relationshipbetween the EU and the Western Balkans countries. Fol-lowing the biggest bloodshed in Europe since the SecondWorld War – the war and genocide in Bosnia and Herze-govina – the EU became committed to the Balkans notonly as a conflict prevention manager but also as an agent

EU engagement in the WesternBalkans: what role for minority rights?


of reconstruction and development. Subsequently, after theNATO bombings of Serbia in 1999, the de facto separationof Kosovo and the fall of the Milošević regime in 2000,the Balkans’ future within the EU gained a more tangibleperspective. First, the EU launched the Stabilization andAssociation process (SAp) – the EU policy towards theWestern Balkans that aims to promote stability while facil-itating closer association with the EU. In 2002, when thefirst Annual Stabilization and Association Reports werepublished, the EU regular monitoring, including onminority rights, started. At the EU–Balkans Summit inThessaloniki in 2003, a year before the historic easternenlargement, the EU affirmed its commitment to themembership of the Western Balkan countries.

Today, Croatia and Macedonia have achieved candi-date status, with negotiations ongoing with the former,but not the latter. Stabilization and Association Agree-ments (SAA) have been signed with BiH, Montenegroand Serbia. The situation of the recently independentKosovo is complex, as its statehood has yet to be recog-nized by a number of EU member states. In spite of EU’sexplicit commitment to the membership of the WesternBalkan countries, recently reaffirmed in the CommissionCommunication to the European Parliament and the Coun-

cil,4 the EU perspective on these countries is neither clearnor tangible at the moment. First, at present the EU lacksthe institutional and legal frameworks which would makefurther enlargement possible. Such frameworks will beput in place once the new Treaty of Lisbon5 has been rati-fied by the 27 member states and the EuropeanParliament.6 The ratification process is ongoing; however,before it is successfully completed enlargement is not fea-sible. Second, there is no clear accession action plan forthese countries. An unclear and protracted process willresult in ‘accession fatigue’ in the candidate and potentialcandidate countries, public interest and support will falterand the process will lose its momentum. The opportuni-ties for change will weaken and this could have a negativeimpact on minority protection. This is far from sayingthat any of the Western Balkan states should be made tojoin before they are adequately ready for accession. Theexperience with the 2007 accession of Bulgaria andRomania has shown that establishing a specific date foraccession can have counter-productive effects as it reducesthe political leverage of the EU. However, a comprehen-sive action plan with precise targets to be met by eachstate would go a long way towards making the most outof the accession process.


This chapter provides an overview of the existing interna-tional legal standards on minority rights protection asregards the rights to participation, access to employmentand education. It is based on the analysis of the relevantlegal instruments as outlined above (see p. 7). It revealsthe legal framework against which the CommissionReports are analysed in this study.

Right to participation in public life The right to effective participation is firmly rooted ininternational human rights law. The right of everyone totake part in the conduct of public affairs, directly orthrough freely chosen representatives, as well as to voteand be elected at genuine periodic elections is prescribedin Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights. This provision is the elaboration of Article21 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights whichstates that ‘Everyone has the right to take part in the gov-ernment of his country, directly or through freely chosenrepresentatives.’ With regard to minority participation inparticular, the UN Declaration on the Rights of PersonsBelonging to National or Ethnic, Linguistic or ReligiousMinorities states that ‘persons belonging to minorities havethe right to participate effectively in cultural, religious,social, economic and public life’ (Article 2(2)) and theright to ‘participate effectively in decisions on the national,and where appropriate, regional level concerning theminority to which they belong or the regions in whichthey live’ (Article 2(3)).

Within the European context, Article 3 of Protocol 1to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fun-damental Freedoms creates an obligation for the stateparties to hold free elections ‘under conditions which willensure the free expression of the people in the choice ofthe legislature.’ More specifically, the right of personsbelonging to national minorities to participate effectivelyin cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs,in particular those affecting them, is protected by Article15 of the Framework Convention for the Protection ofNational Minorities.

This right was articulated in recognition of the factthat effective participation of minorities in various areas

of life is essential for the development of a truly demo-cratic, cohesive, inclusive and just society. Effectiveparticipation of minorities in decision-making processes,and particularly in those decisions which have a specialimpact on them, is a fundamental precondition for thefull and equal enjoyment of the human rights of personsbelonging to minorities. Moreover, measures takentowards ensuring the effective participation of minoritiescontribute to the alleviation of tensions and thus serve thepurpose of conflict prevention.7

In its General Comment No. 25, the Human RightsCommittee interprets the conduct of public affairsbroadly as the exercise of power in the legislative, execu-tive and administrative branches of the state.8 Article 15of the FCNM requires state parties to create the condi-tions necessary for the effective participation of personsbelonging to national minorities in cultural, social andeconomic life and in public affairs, in particular thoseaffecting them. According to the Advisory Committee onthe FCNM, participation in public affairs entails partici-pation in elected bodies, participation in consultationmechanisms, in public services and the judiciary, in spe-cialized governmental bodies, in decentralized and localforms of government, as well as participation throughcultural autonomy arrangements.9 Participation in eco-nomic and social life encompasses participation indevelopment projects, access to employment, land andproperty, healthcare, social welfare and pensions, andhousing, for instance.10 Participation in cultural life cov-ers areas such as access to education, media andprotection of identity.11 Although the FCNM is silent onthe issue of autonomy, different types of autonomy,including territorial autonomy, have come to be regardedas arrangements that facilitate effective participation andthus promote minority rights.

The right to effective participation is to be enjoyedwithout discrimination. The basic principle of prohibitionof discrimination is articulated in a number of instru-ments including Protocol 12 of the ECHR, ratified by allcountries of the Western Balkans, Article 4 of the FCNM,Article 5 of ICERD, Articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR andArticle 7 of CEDAW. In order to ensure full equality, the

International legal framework for theprotection of minority rights:participation, employment andeducation


FCNM and ICERD allow for the adoption of specialmeasures. Article 1 of ICERD permits the implementa-tion of special measures:

‘for the sole purpose of securing adequate advance-ment of certain racial or ethnic groups orindividuals requiring such protection as may be nec-essary in order to ensure such groups or individuals’equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights andfundamental freedoms’.12

The same approach is taken by Article 4 of the FCNMwhich allows the states to ‘adopt, where necessary, ade-quate measures in order to promote, in all areas ofeconomic, social, political and cultural life, full and effec-tive equality between persons belonging to a nationalminority and those belonging to the majority’.13

Different aspects of public participation in practicehave been elaborated by treaty monitoring and expertbodies. Public participation generally entails political rep-resentation of minorities in elected bodies, theirparticipation through consultation mechanisms in publicservices and the judiciary, in specialized governmentalbodies, decentralized or local forms of government andcultural autonomy arrangements.14

Political participation entails parliamentary representa-tion at the national level, as well as representation inregional and local-level assemblies. As stated in the LundRecommendations of the HCNM, the essential aspect ofparticipation is involvement, both as regards opportunitiesfor minorities contributing substantively to decision-making processes and these contributions actually havingan effect.15 A variety of mechanisms are available to ensuresuch political participation. They include, for instance,reserved seats for minorities in one or both chambers ofthe parliament. In some cases, minorities have veto rightsin particular over legislation which directly affects them.The challenge is to design an electoral system that reflectsthe diversity of society and thus ensures representativenessof the minority groups.

Minorities may face a number of obstacles which inpractice hinder their participation in the political process-es. States therefore have the obligation to take positivemeasures to overcome specific difficulties, such as illitera-cy, language barriers, poverty, or impediments to freedomof movement which prevent persons entitled to vote fromexercising their rights effectively. Moreover, informationand materials about voting should be available in minori-ty languages.16 Other elements which, if definedrestrictively, may impede political participation of minori-ties include residence requirements, citizenshiprequirements and language proficiency requirements,among others. As the example of post-Dayton BiH has

shown, linking political participation with ethnic identityby requiring that candidates standing for election bemembers of certain ethnic groups and that voters belong-ing to certain ethnic groups be allowed to vote only forcandidates from their respective groups, to the exclusionfrom the political process of all other ethnic groups, canhave a detrimental effect on the political participation ofminorities. Such a system is inherently discriminatory andas such illegal under anti-discrimination legislation andprovisions in international law.

Consultation mechanisms are seen as a key, thoughnot always sufficient, element in enabling the participa-tion of minorities in public affairs.17 While suchmechanisms can take a variety of forms, in the view of theAdvisory Committee on the FCNM, it would be desirableto make them of a regular and permanent nature.18 In thisrespect it is, moreover, imperative to ensure that suchmechanisms are inclusive and representative, that is to sayall minorities, including the numerically small ones, dif-ferent segments within minority communities, inparticular women, as well as non-citizens, are includedand have an effective voice.19 For the consultative bodiesto be functional their mandate should be clearly definedand adequate resources should be made available tothem.20 Moreover, state, regional and local authoritiesshould in fact consistently involve these bodies in theirdecision-making processes on issues affecting minorities.21

In this respect, it is important to keep in mind that therange of issues affecting minorities is very broad and notlimited to the cultural and educational sectors. In theview of the Advisory Committee, the composition of pub-lic services and the judiciary should mirror that of thesociety.22 Constitutional guarantees for fair representationconstitute a legal basis for the promotion or recruitmentof persons belonging to minorities.23 Different forms ofsuch mechanisms have been established in a number ofstates in the Western Balkans. Their adequacy, successfulimplementation and positive impact on the effective par-ticipation of minorities warrant continuous evaluation.

Rights to access to employment andeconomic participationOne of the key problems, articulated by various minoritygroups in all the examined SEE countries, was minorities’under-representation in employment. A wide range ofstudies and reports have revealed that minorities, and par-ticularly minority women, have been affecteddisproportionately by the sudden unemployment and sub-sequent impoverishment that took place over thetransitional and post-war periods.24

International human rights law provides for a right towork, as well as rights in work. Important human rightsin the employment context include the rights to a free


choice of employment, just and favourable conditions ofwork, protection against unemployment, equal pay forequal work, and just and favourable remuneration ensur-ing an existence worthy of human dignity, and so forth.Where the full realization of the right to work has notbeen fulfilled, states are obliged to ensure that every per-son has a minimum standard of living.

Similarly to all human rights, employment rightsmust be enjoyed by minorities and majorities withoutdistinctions of any kind, including race or ethnic origin,religion, gender or membership of a minority. Discrimi-nation in employment, and particularly in access toemployment, has been identified, including by MRGpartner NGOs in SEE, as a root cause for the absence orunder-representation of minorities in the labour market.

Significantly, the right to work without discriminationhas been strongly proclaimed not only within internation-al human rights law but also within the acquiscommunautaire. EU law has paid attention to humanrights particularly in the employment context. Perhapsfreedom from discrimination in the context of employ-ment is the most developed human rights provisionwithin EU law as a whole. In 2000 the EU passed twodirectives implementing the principle of equal treatment– the Racial Equality Directive, 2000/43/EC, and theEmployment Equality Directive, 2000/78/EC, collectivelyknown as ‘Equality Directives’. The new European anti-discrimination framework and, in particular, the RED,has been an important legal development for minorities inthe EU. The Equality Directives have defined and prohib-ited direct and indirect discrimination, harassment,instruction to discriminate and victimization. They haveintroduced important legal techniques, such as the shift ofthe burden of proof in cases of discrimination, the possi-bility for NGOs to engage on behalf of or in support ofvictims of racial discrimination, and the requirement for adeterrent effect in the remedies.25

Access to employment is central to minorities’ eco-nomic participation. In addition to non-discrimination,minority rights law requires the states to actually ensureminorities’ participation on the labour market, and ineconomic life in general. The UNDM (1992) providesthat the ‘Persons belonging to minorities have the rightto participate effectively in […] economic […] life’ (Arti-cle 2(2)). As examined above, Article 15 of the FCNMfurther calls for the states to ‘create the conditions neces-sary for the effective participation of persons belongingto national minorities in […] economic life’.

In the context of economic and social participation,disaggregated data collection is regarded as a preconditionfor the development of well-targeted and sustainable poli-cies aimed at improving participation of minorities insocio-economic life.26 The latter will only be possible if

the administration and public services are sensitive to thespecific needs and difficulties encountered by members ofminorities. One of the ways to achieve this sensitivity isfor states to promote the recruitment, promotion andretention in the administration and public services of per-sons belonging to minorities.27

States should give special regard to the economic andsocial participation of minorities in economicallydepressed areas, including isolated rural areas, war-affectedareas and regions affected by de-industrialization. To thisend, economic rehabilitation and regional developmentprogrammes should be designed with due regard for theneeds and rights of minority communities, and in partic-ular the situation of minority women and youth.Minorities should therefore be involved in the prepara-tion, implementation and evaluation of economic anddevelopment policies and projects in the regions in whichthey live. Moreover, particular attention should be paid tothe socio-economic situation of minorities who have suf-fered long-standing discrimination in their access toemployment.

In the view of the FCNM Advisory Committee, statesshould undertake special measures to counter the effectsof past discrimination and promote their participation insocio-economic life.28 According to the FCNM Explana-tory Report, Article 15 aims above all to encourage realequality between persons belonging to national minoritiesand those forming part of the majority. Not surprisingly,the Advisory Committee has regularly linked Article 15with Article 4 of the FCNM, which states that:

‘The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas ofeconomic, social, political and cultural life, full andeffective equality between persons belonging to anational minority and those belonging to the majori-ty. In this respect, they shall take due account of thespecific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities.’

Although minorities are entitled to the same rights asall other persons and groups in society, they often experi-ence difficulty in actually accessing those rights. Theinaccessibility of these rights, including the right to work,is not necessarily linked to direct or indirect discrimina-tion. Structural disadvantages, such as lower educationallevels or segregated housing, impede their access toemployment and the realization of their human rights onan equal footage with other members of society.

As a result, in 2000 the Committee for the Elimina-tion of Racial Discrimination issued a specialrecommendation on discrimination against Roma inwhich it recommended that state parties adopt positive


action measures. For example, it recommended that they‘take special measures to promote the employment ofRoma in the public administration and institutions aswell as in private companies’.29

Similarly, the Convention No. 111 of the Internation-al Labour Organization provides that the states mustensure the basic conditions that enable all to benefit fromequal opportunities to obtain training and employment.The Convention allows for special measures in respect ofunderprivileged groups, including affirmative action infavour of ethnic minorities. The Committee of Expertshas regularly addressed the higher unemployment rates ofethnic minorities, including minority women, and theirdisproportional lack of training and educational opportu-nities and their over-representation in low-paid jobs.30

Therefore, in order to ensure minorities’ inclusion inthe labour market and in economic life in general, statesneed to adopt special measures, as mandated by minorityrights law.

Right to educationEducation is a universal human right, asserted by mostsignificant international human rights instruments, suchas the UDHR, the ICESCR, the Convention on theRights of the Child, CEDAW and the UNESCO Con-vention against Discrimination in Education.

The European system of human rights protection fur-ther reaffirms the right to education through Protocol 1,Article 2 of the ECHR. Within the EU’s legal order, Arti-cle 14 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights sets outa right to education, while Article 21 sets out the rights toequality before the law and prohibition of discriminationon various grounds, including membership of a nationalminority. It also provides for the rights of the child, equal-ity between men and women, and cultural, religious andlinguistic diversity. Furthermore, Article 3(1.g) of the EURacial Equality Directive provides protection againstdirect and indirect racial discrimination in the area ofeducation.

Education is not only a human right on its own. It isan ‘empowerment right’, a ‘vehicle’ for the realization ofother fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the rightto health, to work, to vote, to free speech, etc. Educationis an indispensable means for the full realization of thehuman personality. For marginalized communities it is ameans of lifting themselves out of poverty and towardsfull participation in society.31

International human rights instruments set out theminimum standards for the respect, protection and fulfil-ment of the right to education. The minimum core of theright to education covers free and compulsory primary edu-cation, equal access to education, including secondaryeducation, and liberty of parents to choose the education of

their children according to their own religious, moral orphilosophical convictions. Furthermore, the right to educa-tion is subject to the principle of ‘progressive realization’whereby standards can be extended but cannot be reduced.

A most comprehensive analysis of the right to educa-tion has been provided by the Special Rapporteur on theright to education,32 later reaffirmed by the CESCR with-in its General Comment No. 13.33 They clarify the contentof the right to education and the state duties arising fromit. Under international human rights law states are underobligation to make education available, accessible, accept-able and adaptable (the so called four-A scheme):

• Available: there should be sufficient number ofschools and teachers within the state.

• Accessible: schools should be accessible to all, espe-cially the most vulnerable groups. Accessibility hasthree dimensions: non-discrimination, physical accessi-bility and economic accessibility (affordability).

• Acceptable: to both students and parents in form andcontent, including curricula and teaching methods,and to be relevant, culturally appropriate and of goodquality.

• Adaptable: schools should be able to respond to theneeds of students within their diverse social and cul-tural settings, as well as the needs of changing societiesand communities.

Indisputably, international human rights apply to every-body, to both majority and minorities. At the same time,due to the particular situation of minorities, internationalhuman rights law also provides for special minority rights,including within the educational context. While the firsttwo factors are of equal relevance to all children and stu-dents, the Advisory Committee on the FCNM hasconcluded that the notions of acceptability and adaptabil-ity are of particular relevance for persons belonging tonational minorities.34

In that sense, one the one hand, minority rights to edu-cation cover ‘the universal requirement for a good quality,free primary education as well as general and equal accessto secondary education’.35 On the other hand, minorityrights in education set standards on:

‘how such education should be shaped in terms ofcontent as well as form in order to facilitate thedevelopment of the abilities and personality of thechild, guarantee child safety and accommodate thelinguistic, religious, philosophical aspirations ofpupils and their parents.’ 36

In addition to the above universal human rights instru-ments, minority rights in education have been developed


in a number of documents. For minorities in Europe,the most relevant has been the FCNM – the first andonly legally binding minority rights treaty. There is not asingle model with regards to the realization of minori-ties’ language rights in education. The OSCE hasincorporated the best practices through its thematic rec-ommendations, and more specifically the HagueRecommendations Regarding the Education Rights ofNational Minorities (1996)37 and the Oslo Recommen-dations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of NationalMinorities (1998).38 As to minority languages in educa-tion, the Council of Europe has elaborated a specialinstrument: the European Charter for Regional orMinority Languages (ECRML).39

Thus, in addition to the general duties vis-à-vis theright to education under international human rights law,states also have special duties towards minorities’ educa-tion. These are the duty to promote a multiculturaleducation and provide teacher training and quality text-books for minority languages teaching;40 to respect andprotect the right of minorities to set up and to managetheir own private educational and training establish-ments;41 to respect, protect and fulfil the right ofminorities to learn their minority language and to pro-vide instruction of or in the minority language;42 Inaddition, the state should use education as a tool of tolerance.43

Significantly, in certain circumstances minority rightslaw mandates the state to adopt positive action measuresin order to live up to their commitments towardsminorities. For example, in the field of education, Arti-cle 4 obliges states to adopt in certain circumstancespositive measures to promote full and effective equalityfor persons belonging to national minorities. As put bythe Advisory Committee: ‘The Framework Conventionpresupposes that States actively pursue the goals embod-ied in the Convention. A passive attitude may amountto a violation of the obligations provided for under theConvention.’44

Conclusions

The Copenhagen criteria require the Commission tomonitor the minority rights record of the enlargementcountries. Moreover, human rights are values on whichthe EU is based (Article 6, EU Treaty) and an objective ofits foreign policy (Article 11, EU Treaty). With the excep-tion of its anti-discrimination framework, the EU lacks ahuman and minority rights acquis of its own, therefore inorder to accomplish this monitoring it must rely on thestandards elaborated in the legal instruments within inter-national human rights law. The European Commissionitself has referred to the standards elaborated within theCouncil of Europe and the OSCE.

As to the non-discrimination standards, the EUshould push the enlargement countries harder to adopt,long before their accession date, a comprehensive anti-discrimination law on the basis of the EU Anti-Discrimination Directives. Anti-discrimination is one ofthe few areas in human rights where the EU actually has aclear, and good, model to offer to the SEE countries. Sofar the EU has consistently identified that the problem ofdiscrimination exists; nevertheless it has not consistentlyinsisted that, to solve the problem, the anti-discriminationlegal framework be adopted, and effectively implemented,by the SEE countries. For example, it has not set a con-crete deadline for the transposition of the EUanti-discrimination acquis by the candidate and potentialcandidate countries.

Consequently, there exists a wide range of legal norms,recommendations and benchmarks available which theEuropean Commission could use for the purpose of itspre-accession monitoring of the enlargement countries.The following section explores how strictly the aboveelaborated standards on participation, employment andeducation have been followed in the EU Reports on theWestern Balkans. It also explores how discrimination, par-ticularly on the grounds of gender and ethnic origin, hasbeen addressed.


Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina signed the SAA with the EU on16 June 2008. Although the SAA technical negotiationswere successfully completed in December 2006, thesigning of the SAA was delayed because of BiH’s failureto implement key reforms, in particular to create a uni-fied police force at state level. The Agreement wasinitialled in December 2007, following the long-awaitedparliamentary approval of the controversial police reformin April 2008.

The monitoring of human rights and minority protec-tion in BiH reports struggles with the complexity ofethnic issues in BiH. The constitutional framework ofBiH specifies three constituent peoples as Bosniaks,Croats and Serbs, and merely mentions the ‘others’. Theterm is supposed to include members of minority com-munities, as well as those who do not wish to identify asmembers of a specific group.

It would be logical for EU monitoring to cover allgroups who are in a non-dominant position because oftheir numerically inferior and/or disempowered status.These groups thus include both members of minorities,individuals not identifying as members of a specificgroup, as well as members of the constituent peoples whoin practice constitute a numerical minority in a certainarea. While the EU Reports make some attempt to beinclusive, this effort has been inconsistent. They includeminor references to the ‘others’ without specifying whichgroups are covered, and make no mention of the substan-tial group of people living in BiH who do not wish toidentify as members of a specific group and as such sufferdiscrimination in employment and violation of their rightto participation, for instance. As the practice in BiH hasshown, the use of ‘others’ is exclusionary and discrimina-tory, and this is replicated in EU Reports. When amember of the Polish minority community in BiH wasasked to comment in a focus group on the Reports andwhat they should cover, he said, ‘First and foremost, weshould not be “others”.’45

The treatment of relevant minority issues has lacked astrategic and consistent approach. While political partici-pation is addressed in all Reports, the focus is primarilyon the participation of the three constituent peoples.Employment and education are virtually disregarded inthe initial Reports and start being considered more sub-stantially only from 2005 on. Moreover, such a crucial

issue as the lack of a comprehensive anti-discriminationlaw in BiH legislation is first reported only in 2007.

The one issue that receives constant attention is thereturn of refugees, in particular minority returns; that isthe return of refugees belonging to a certain group toareas in which they constitute a numerical minority. Inthat context, the discrimination in employment and edu-cation are often cited as a key obstacle to their sustainablereturn.

Minority representation andparticipation in public lifePolitical participation is discussed in all Reports since2002. The focus, however, has been primarily on thelegal framework for political participation, pointing tothe discriminatory provisions enshrined in the DaytonPeace Accord, which prevent persons who are not mem-bers of one of the three constituent groups standing inelections for the Presidency and the House of the Peo-ples, or voting for a candidate of different ethnicity.BiH’s failure to implement constitutional amendmentsthat would enable the participation of non-constituentpeoples as well as satisfy the preconditions for the sign-ing of the SAA has been regularly highlighted. The needto introduce amendments to the Election Law to allowfor representation of minorities has also been highlight-ed. The adoption of the Law on the Protection of Rightsof Persons Belonging to National Minorities is moni-tored; the comments on its implementation, however,are very limited. More recent Reports make reference tothe setting up of the consultative council of nationalminorities, but do not include much commentary onthe adequacy and effectiveness of this mechanism. The2005 Report thus indicates that, ‘Procedural problemsmean members of minorities rarely participate in theparliaments and municipal assemblies.’46 Gender-baseddiscrimination is mentioned in passing in some Reports,as is the limited participation of women in politics. Noreference is made to minority women.

The Advisory Committee on the FCNM issued itsOpinion on BiH in May 2004. The Advisory Commit-tee discusses at some length the exclusion of minoritiesfrom political posts and representation because of thediscriminatory provisions in the Constitution. It alsohighlights that national minorities do not benefit fromthe ‘vital national interest’ mechanism which in effectgives a right of veto to the constituent peoples on cer-

Minority rights in the EU Reports onSEE: a country-by-country overview


tain issues, since the former do not have the right toinvoke a violation of their own vital national interest inthe Parliament, either at the state or the entity level. TheAdvisory Committee points out the inhibiting impactthat allocation of posts based on ethnicity has on effec-tive participation of minorities. It also makes referenceto the insufficient representation of minorities in thecivil service, particularly for Roma. Moreover, it empha-sizes the discrimination faced by the Roma communitiesin housing, healthcare, employment and education.47

But the annual EU Report that followed in autumn2004 makes no reference to the Advisory Committee’sfindings, or to minority issues.

Discriminatory constitutional provisions and theirincompatibility with international legal standards areaddressed by both the Human Rights Committee andthe Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimi-nation in their 2006 Recommendations. CERD goes onto express concern that insufficient resources are allocat-ed to the Roma Council, a consultative body, and thatthe Council of Ministers of BiH rarely consults it.

Members of minority communities highlight partici-pation as a vital issue. In the words of onerepresentative, ‘In my personal opinion, until Roma startsitting on the benches of the assemblies and municipalcouncils, the situation of Roma in this area will notimprove.’48 This was echoed by another representative:

‘In my view, many problems will be resolved once rep-resentatives of national minorities are in place so thatwe are not represented by some other or third partieswho exploit this position for their own interests or thatof the political party, or for window dressing so thatthey can say they have a minority representative.’ 49

It is therefore imperative that participation of minoritiesbe given adequate space and coverage in the Reports.

EmploymentIn spite of the importance of the non-discrimination inemployment and access to employment issues, the EUReports start looking at the problems affecting theemployment of minorities only from 2005 on. The refer-ences are largely general, dealing either with Roma whocontinue to be exposed to discrimination and face diffi-culties in the field of employment, among others, orstating that discrimination in employment remains a keyobstacle to the sustainable return of refugees and dis-placed persons.50 The Reports never go beyond merestatements that discrimination exists, such as in the 2007Report that in the ‘Employment’ section declares, ‘Ethnicdiscrimination in employment remains an issue.’51 Thesame Report also states that no particular action has been

taken to favour the employment of women, people withdisabilities and minorities.52 No reference, however, ismade to minority women.

The comments and the opinions of the treaty bodiesduring the same period offered much more guidance inthis regard. In 2006, the Committee on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights was deeply concerned about the highunemployment rate, in particular among the disadvan-taged and marginalized groups such as Roma and ethnicminorities. CERD notes with concern the unresolved sit-uation of many workers belonging to ethnic minoritieswho were dismissed from their jobs during the warbecause of their ethnicity, as well as the low representationof ethnic minorities, in particular Roma, in the labourmarket. Finally, the Human Rights Committee recom-mends in the same year that the state party shouldincrease its efforts to create the necessary conditions forsustainable returns by also ensuring the minorityreturnees’ equal access to employment.

The Opinion of the Advisory Committee on theFCNM in 2004 discusses the issue of employment atsome length. It addresses discrimination in access toemployment in the entities where it remains difficult formembers of minority groups to access positions in thejudiciary, police and a range of public enterprises. It high-lights discrimination in employment against minorityreturnees, as well as the negative impact of continuousreference to one’s ethnicity in the allocation of publicposts and employment more generally. It recommendsthat greater attention should be paid to tackling discrimi-nation in practice, notably in access to employment, aproblem affecting all those not belonging to the con-stituent people in a numerical majority in the areaconcerned, and in particular the members of the Romacommunity.53

EducationAs with employment, the Reports began paying moresubstantial attention to the issue of minorities and educa-tion only from 2005 onwards. Yet education hasrepeatedly been identified as a crucial issue by members ofminority communities, who view it as a vehicle both forempowerment and for the preservation of identity. Theeducation-related issues raised in the Reports are limitedin scope. The 2005 Report highlights that the relevantlegislation at the entity level was harmonized, allowing forfurther development of minority-language education,however its implementation remained insufficient. Refer-ence was made to the discrimination against Roma ineducation.54 The 2006 Report, like the 2005 one, notesthat separation of children in schools along ethnic linescontinued. ‘Ethnically neutral education has not beenachieved and pupils and students in a minority position


frequently face a hostile environment.’55 The 2007 Reportpays more attention to the discrimination against Romain education. It claims that, ‘The implementation of theaction plan on educational needs of Roma and otherminorities led to an increase in the so far very low enrol-ment rate at all educational levels.’56 The Report, however,fails to indicate the source of this information or indicatehow much of an increase was achieved and how sustain-able it was. Overall, education is never assessed from thestandpoint of availability, accessibility, acceptability andadaptability. Moreover, the position of minority girl chil-dren, who, according to focus group findings, aredisproportionately excluded from access to education, isnever addressed.

The treaty bodies again provide a more comprehen-sive overview. The UN treaty bodies unanimously talk ofdiscrimination in access to education for minorities,especially the segregationist practice of ‘two schoolsunder one roof ’. In many such schools, Bosniak andCroat children, as well as their teachers, have no mutualcontact. Students often enter these schools through dif-ferent entrances, they take separate breaks, and theteachers have separate common rooms.57 The treaty bod-ies also emphasize the apparent lack of opportunities forRoma to receive instruction in and of their language andculture, as well as the low rates of primary and sec-ondary school attendance by Roma children.58 The 2004Opinion of the Advisory Committee on the FCNM pro-vides a detailed analysis of the implementation of theFramework Convention’s educational provisions. TheOpinion thus elaborates on the need for the integrationof the educational systems whereby the elements of seg-regation in ‘two schools under one roof ’ are eliminatedand a common core curriculum is introduced. It findsthat the measures to foster knowledge of the culture andhistory of national minorities are insufficient and that areview of textbooks needs to continue. The AdvisoryCommittee expresses deep concern about the access ofRoma children to education, which is hindered bothbecause of the low socio-economic status of the parentsbut also because of their shattered confidence in theschool system, in which their children are exposed todiscrimination, prejudice and verbal harassment. TheAdvisory Committee notes that the percentage of Romagirls attending schools is much lower than that of theboys. It also analyses the relevant legal provisions andexpresses concern over provisions that require potentiallyhigh numerical thresholds for receiving instruction incertain minority languages. It stresses the need for theincrease of state support for teachers of minority lan-guages and their training, and the provision of textbooksin minority languages. It also notes the general lack ofteaching of the Roma language.59

CroatiaAlthough it initially trailed behind Macedonia in the EUaccession process, Croatia has by now become the mostadvanced EU candidate in all the Western Balkans. Itsnegotiations with the EU began in October 2005, fol-lowing a delay of several months because of Croatia’sinsufficient cooperation with the International CriminalTribunal for Former Yugoslavia, one of the political cri-teria for accession.

Croatia signed its SAA with the EU in October2001, and this entered into force in February 2005.Croatia submitted its application for EU membership inFebruary 2003. In April 2004, the Commission pub-lished an Opinion on Croatia’s Application forMembership of the European Union, as required byArticle 49 of the EU Treaty.60 The Opinion concludesthat, ‘Croatia is a functioning democracy, with stableinstitutions guaranteeing the rule of law. There are nomajor problems regarding the respect of fundamentalrights.’61 Although it reiterates that Croatia needs tomake additional efforts in the field of minority rightsand refugee returns, among others, the CommissionOpinion confirms that, ‘Croatia meets the political crite-ria set by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993and the Stabilization and Association process condition-alities established by the Council in 1997.’62

The minority rights coverage in the Reports onCroatia is limited to general descriptive statements offact, for the most part an overview of the various legalprovisions in the field of minority protection, with littleto no analysis or evaluation.

While the space allocated to minority rights in theReports has progressively increased, this has generallynot been reflected in the quality of its content. Themonitoring of minority representation and participationin public life is limited to the reference to the Constitu-tional Law on National Minorities (CLNM), Croatia’sprincipal legal instrument for the protection of minorityrights.

Education and employment of minorities are dis-cussed exclusively within the minority rights section ofthe Reports, with no reference made to these issues inthe chapters on ‘Employment and Social Policy’, and‘Education and Culture’ of the Reports.63

The Reports focus their attention principally on twominorities only: Serbs and Roma. Croatia’s 20 remainingofficially recognized minorities and their specific prob-lems are not addressed. The Reports largely fail tomainstream minority rights into other sections andchapters, such as women’s rights, employment and edu-cation; nor do they mainstream gender in the minorityrights section.


Minority representation andparticipation in public life

In all Reports, the adoption in 2002 and the subsequentimplementation of the CLNM is reviewed. This law pro-vides the principal legal framework for minorityparticipation in Croatia. In its 2003 Report, the Commis-sion expresses its regret that ‘the government excludedminority representatives from the work of the draftinggroup of this Law, and a compromise was reached onlydue to international pressure’.64 Subsequent Reports high-light that its inadequate implementation has resulted inunder-representation of minorities in state administration,the judiciary and the police. Since the law guarantees therepresentation of eight minority members in the Parlia-ment, the implementation of its political representationprovisions is deemed more successful. Little attention,however, is paid to the issue of participation of minoritiesin local-level elected bodies, which continues to be unsat-isfactory. The 2005 Report thus mentions that ‘Problemshave arisen in connection with the application of thoseprovisions of the CLNM concerning reserved seats forminority representatives in local and regional govern-ments.’65 The problem related to the discrepancies in the2001 census lists in comparison with the 2005 voters lists,and the government’s decision, in spite of the legalrequirements, to use the former when establishing thenumbers of minority representatives in local bodies. Thisresulted in the lower level of representation in the repre-sentative bodies of the Serb minority in particular,effectively curtailing their participation rights.

Reports also refer to the consultative councils of nation-al minorities established in line with the CLNM. Thismostly relates to the lack of institutional relations betweenthe local authorities and the councils, the latter beingunder-resourced and not always clear about their role. TheReports mention the very low voter turnout in both the2003 and 2006 rounds of elections for the councils.

The Advisory Committee on the FCNM was unableto provide substantive guidance on effective public partic-ipation of minorities since the second cycle of itsmonitoring took place shortly after the establishment ofthe councils of national minorities.66 Acknowledging thatthe legal framework for the participation of minorities inelected and consultative bodies was significantly improvedwith the adoption of the CLNM in 2002, the AdvisoryCommittee stressed the need for constructive cooperationto be established between the councils and the respectiveauthorities.67 Both the HRC and CERD in their conclud-ing observations of 2001 and 2002, respectively, highlightthe inadequate legal framework for the participation ofminorities, which was largely remedied with the adoptionof the law. Moreover, CERD expresses concern over

reported discrimination against the Roma in accessingpolitical representation and citizenship rights.68 The latterissue is not raised in the Commission Reports.

The EU Reports barely scratch the surface when deal-ing with obstacles to minority participation in public life.Consultation with members of minority communities inCroatia revealed a range of issues that go largely unno-ticed in the Reports.69 First, it should be kept in mindthat political representation by minority representativesdoes not translate automatically into genuine and effectiverepresentation of minority communities. As one minorityrepresentative states, ‘Political parties represent only onesegment of a particular community that accepts its partyprogram.’70 Moreover, regarding the effectiveness of thecouncils of national minorities as means of consultationand communication with local and national authorities, amajor challenge remains in that the councils are not rec-ognized as advisory bodies and the negotiation often shiftsto the political domain. According to the representative ofthe Serb national minority in Županja:

‘Local authorities simply do not want to hear minori-ty representatives. It has been one year that I haveserved as the Serb representative in Županja and Ihave not received a single invitation or query orinformation on any projects in Županja. The onlyinformation I have is what I find myself.’ 71

At the same time, these consultation bodies remaindependent on the power of the purse of the local authori-ties with whom they are supposed to engage, which has asignificant impact on their independence and influence.In the words of the President of the Council of the Ser-bian national minority in Beli Manastir, ‘As long asminority institutions depend on the budget adopted bythe town authority or council, we cannot speak of theirinfluence.’72 A number of structural issues affecting theeffective participation of minorities in public life thusremain outside the coverage of the EU Reports.

EmploymentDiscrimination against minorities in employment hasbeen highlighted in the EU’s and human rights bodies’reports alike. It remains one of the major concerns ofminority communities, as illustrated by a member of theBosniak community who serves as the President of theMunicipal Council of Gunja:

‘For example, the primary school in Gunja is attendedby some 530 students of whom some 250 childrenbelong to Bosniak and Serbian minorities. Yet out ofthe 56 employees in that school, only one personbelongs to the Bosniak minority – the cleaning lady.


In my opinion, the problem of national minorities isemployment.’ 73

Discrimination in employment is mentioned as one of themost important obstacles to minority return affecting pri-marily the Serb community in all Reports. The social andeconomic discrimination against Roma is also noted. Theunder-representation of minorities in public administra-tion, the judiciary and police is consistently highlighted.The government is also criticized for the lack of adequatestatistical data, which would facilitate the monitoring ofthe situation and the design of adequate policies to reme-dy the situation.

But while the human rights bodies are explicit inexpressing their concern at the serious discrimination ineconomic life that affects mostly the members of the Serbcommunity, and in recommending that additional posi-tive measures be launched aimed at eradicating thenegative consequences of the past discriminatory practicein employment, the EU Reports are more neutral. In itsSecond Opinion issued in 2005, the Advisory Committeeon the FCNM stresses that it was not made aware of anypositive, targeted government programmes in this context,so it urges Croatia to introduce special measures aimed atguaranteeing full and effective equality in the field ofemployment, and to seek financing for such an initiative.The Advisory Committee, moreover, expresses regret thata number of areas of public sector employment are notcovered. Similar sentiments continue to be echoed by rep-resentatives of minority communities as well, as thegovernment is still lagging behind in the implementationof these crucial initiatives.

The 2005 Report highlights the limited implementa-tion of those provisions of the CLNM regulating minorityrepresentation in state administrative and judicial bodiesand in the police, where there is clear under-representa-tion of minorities, especially Serbs. The Report is explicit,stating that: ‘Discrimination appears to be commonplacewhen new vacancies arise, and no programme has beendeveloped by the government to ensure implementationof the provisions for minority representation laid out inthe CLNM.’74

The 2006 Report is more critical of the government,clearly stating that, ‘The political will to develop a long-term strategy to implement the CLNM’s minorityemployment provisions is lacking.’75 It goes on to demandconcrete action from the government in the form ofrecruitment plans at all levels of state administration anda civil servants registry to allow for systematic statisticscollection, as well as reiterating the need for the govern-ment to issue clear instructions on how to proceed.

Regrettably, this line of argumentation is not main-tained in the subsequent 2007 Report. Although reference

was made to issues raised in the previous Report, such as‘some steps’ taken to collect data on ethnic affiliation, andcontinued inaction in setting up a civil servants’ registry,the Commission’s position is weakened by a glaring con-tradiction. The Report first says that, ‘The Central StateAdministration Office prepared for the first time arecruitment plan for minorities in the state administra-tion’, providing concrete figures as to the plannedemployment of minority members in the state administra-tion in the course of 2007.76 Then in the next paragraphit asserts that, ‘A long-term strategy to implement theCLNM’s minority employment provisions is lacking.’77

Since the 2004 Commission Opinion and Croatiabecoming a candidate country, the Reports have includeda separate chapter on ‘Employment and Social Policy’.With the exception of a cursory mention in the 2007Report, however, minorities are not discussed under thissection. This is of particular relevance in the case of non-discrimination: while it is repeatedly mentioned thatminorities are victims of discrimination in employment,the obligation of the government to develop a solid andcomprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, coupledwith effective non-discrimination policies, has not beenstressed sufficiently and references to it are dispersed indifferent sections of the Report. While sporadic referenceis made to gender equality and discrimination againstwomen in employment, the precarious situation ofminority women is not addressed.

Discrimination against Roma in employment is high-lighted continuously, however with mixed messages attimes. While the Advisory Committee on the FCNM, forinstance, notes with deep concern the shortcomings hin-dering the effective participation in social and economiclife of Roma in general, and Roma women in particular,and expresses its disappointment over the overall imple-mentation of the National Programme for the Roma in itsFirst and Second Opinion, respectively, the 2006 Reportasserts that, ‘The position of the Roma minority in Croat-ia is slowly improving.’ The basis on which such astatement was made remains unclear as, in the followingparagraph, the Report states that, ‘Most Roma remainexcluded from mainstream Croatian society. Unemploy-ment remains endemic. […] Discrimination of Roma inCroatia continues, whether in terms of access to employ-ment, in schooling, or in general attitudes in society.’78

EducationEU Reports regularly address the education of minorities.The issue is mostly approached from the standpoint ofeducation in minority languages and the different modelsadopted by Croatia in this respect.

Discrimination against Roma in the educational sys-tem has been a constant, though not very elaborated


theme. The 2003 Report thus mentions some steps takenby the government towards better integration of Romapupils into the Croatian school system, particularly inMeđimurje County. The Report does not specify whichsteps contributed to better integration. It is also not clearwhat is meant by ‘better integration’, especially since now,five years later, segregation in education in MeđimurjeCounty remains as acute as ever and no results in desegre-gating education have been achieved by the authorities.79

Regrettably, the following year, the 2004 Report makes noreference to segregation of Roma in education, however inthe 2005 Report, in spite of ‘some steps’ reported in2003, the Commission declares that, ‘serious difficultiesremain, not least in the area of education and employ-ment where discrimination is widespread and the problemof segregation in schools remains’.80 The 2006 Report goesfurther, explicitly stating that:

‘Discrimination of Roma in Croatia continues,whether in terms of access to employment, in school-ing, or in general attitudes in society, many obstaclesstill exist, especially at grass roots level with the vari-ous efforts aimed at desegregation often met byopposition from the parents of non-Roma children.’ 81

The same language is repeated in the 2007 Report.82 Para-doxically, the same Report also states that, ‘The Romacommunity also needs to make a greater effort to partici-pate in the programmes for education.’83 It is neverexplained what this effort should consist of and how thelack thereof is manifested.

The Reports also address a number of other issues thataffect the exercise of the minority right to education.These include practical financial and logistical problemsin the implementation of minority education;84 the ade-quacy of coverage of minority issues in national curricula,especially history textbooks, and a degree of legal uncer-tainty over implementation of legal provisions oneducation.85 The 2005 Report raises another major issuethat relates both to minority access to employment as wellas minority education, ‘There appear to be many cases,particularly in the education area, where adequately quali-fied Serbs were refused jobs even where no non-Serbs hadapplied.’86 But the 2004 Commission Opinion had con-cluded that the principles under which the educationalsystem operates and is incorporated in the Croatian legis-lation, ‘are consistent with the basic principles containedin the Council of Europe’s FCNM and ECRML’.87

As with the chapter on ‘Employment and Social Poli-cy’, the chapter on ‘Education and Culture’ does notaddress the issue of minority education. Several Reports,nevertheless, highlight the need to align primary educa-tion with the EU Directive on education of children of

migrant workers, and the 2007 Report notes some limitedprogress related to the introduction of the principle ofnon-discrimination in access to education for EU citizensin higher education legislation.

Human rights treaty monitoring bodies, in particularthe Advisory Committee on the FCNM, are more com-prehensive, and consistent, in their assessment of Croatia’scompliance with the international legal standards on theright to education and minority education. The 2004concluding observations on Croatia of the Committee onthe Rights of the Child express concern about the differ-ent access to education of children belonging to minorityand the most vulnerable groups, including Roma chil-dren.88 In 2002, CERD was concerned about thecontinued practice of segregation of Roma children with-in the educational system and recommended that Croatiatake active measures to prevent the segregation of Romachildren within the educational system.89

The Opinions of the Advisory Committee cover abroad range of issues under Articles 12–14 of theFCNM.90 In particular, the Opinions highlight problemsin the portrayal of minorities in history textbooks, as wellas the inadequate availability of textbooks in minority lan-guages. The lack of qualified teachers in minoritylanguages is also noted. Taking a more structural view-point, the Advisory Committee notes the lack of clearcriteria to trigger the introduction of instruction inminority languages, as well the difficulties faced by thenewly established minorities in accessing education intheir minority language. The Advisory Committee alsodevotes significant attention to the education of Roma, inparticular the segregation in schools to which Roma chil-dren are subjected, and other forms of discrimination.

KosovoOn 17 February 2008, the Kosovo Assembly adopted aresolution declaring the independence of Kosovo. The fol-lowing day, the Council of the European Union took noteof that resolution, also noting that member states woulddecide, in accordance with national practice and interna-tional law, on their relations with Kosovo.91 By 21 May,the newest European state was officially recognized by 20of the 27 EU member states, and 21 others, including theUnited States. Though Kosovo is a potential candidatecountry with no contractual relationship with the EU, inits March 2008 Communication to the European Parlia-ment and the Council, the Commission neverthelessreaffirmed that, ‘Kosovo has, like the rest of the WesternBalkans, a clear and tangible EU perspective.’92 Howexactly this perspective will be realized remains uncleargiven that several EU member states, including Cyprus,Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain, have refused to rec-


ognize Kosovo. At the same time any future accessiontreaties, including the one with Kosovo, are to be ratifiedby all member states. The reluctance of these statesimplies not so much their opposition to Kosovo indepen-dence as such, as much as their inability to manageminority issues and safeguard minority rights in their ownstates.

The European Commission began publishing separateReports on Kosovo in 2005. Before that, Kosovo wasmonitored within the Serbia (FRY, Serbia and Montene-gro) Report. As with other country reports, the mainfocus of attention for minority rights monitoring is, inthe case of Kosovo on the two largest groups, Albaniansand Serbs. Smaller minorities such as Ashkalia, Egyptians,Roma or Turks are given only scant attention.

Minority representation andparticipation in public lifeAll Reports highlight the Kosovo Serbs’ refusal or accep-tance to participate in local elections and in the work of theelected bodies. The representation of minorities in the judi-ciary, police and government is highlighted, a positive trendin recruitment having been recorded in 2005. The almostcomplete absence of Roma, Ashkalia and Egyptians in pub-lic institutions is noted in the 2005 Report.93 This Reportmonitors participation issues in its ‘Democracy and theRule of Law’ section. While it is commendable that minori-ty participation is discussed under this heading, outside the‘Minority Rights’ section, its major shortcoming is itsalmost exclusive focus on the Albanian and Serbian com-munities. The participation of other minorities is virtuallyignored. The same approach is taken in the 2006 and 2007Reports.

Gender equality issues and direct and indirect discrimi-nation against women in employment are raised, as is theinadequate representation of women in government struc-tures. The 2007 Report cites that, ‘36 out of the 120members of the Assembly of Kosovo are women. Only oneof the 14 ministers is female.’94 No reference, however, ismade to minority women and their public participation.

The 2007 Report notes that a working group to draftthe future Kosovo constitution was set up and includedrepresentatives from minority communities among others;however, Serb representatives refused to participate. Theeffectiveness of the participation of other minorities in thisprocess is not assessed.

Pursuant to a technical agreement between the Councilof Europe and UNMIK, the monitoring of the implemen-tation of the Framework Convention was extended toKosovo.95 The Advisory Committee issued its Opinion in2005. The Committee was highly concerned by the factthat minorities other than Serbs were excluded from thenegotiations on the future status of Kosovo and recom-

mends that they be meaningfully included. It notes that theconsultation mechanism established within the Assembly tosafeguard the rights and interests of the communities wasnot effectively utilized by the governmental structures.Regarding local-level participation of minorities in politicalbodies, the Advisory Committee highlights the difficultiesfor numerically smaller minorities to be adequately includ-ed and gives the example of the Roma communitymembers who were not represented among the members ofthe municipal assemblies in Kosovo. The Advisory Com-mittee underlines that decentralization and localself-government reform are clearly relevant for minoritycommunities and should be carried out in a manner thatinvolves minorities. According to the Advisory Committee,the participation of minorities in the municipal civil ser-vice, government, judiciary and police remained‘disconcertingly low’. The Advisory Committee stresses theimpact of the process of privatization on the economic par-ticipation of minority communities whose interests shouldalso be safeguarded. Finally, the Advisory Committeeexpresses its concern over the inadequate implementationof the anti-discrimination legislation in Kosovo.

EmploymentOverall, the Reports pay very little attention to the issue ofemployment of minorities, in spite of the ‘Employmentand Social Policy’ section included since 2005. The 2005Report indicates that, ‘More efforts are needed by theemployment services to engage the Roma and Ashkali com-munities.’96 The 2007 Report states that the level ofemployment of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communi-ties is much lower than the average, but it does not addressother issues or other minority communities. General refer-ences are made to women as ‘disproportionately representedamong the unemployed’97 and ‘victims of discriminatorypractices in economic and social life’,98 however the precari-ous position of minority women is not discussed.

The Advisory Committee on the FCNM in its 2005Opinion offers more substantial guidance on the problemsaffronted by minorities in the area of employment. TheCommittee highlights that the participation of minoritycommunities in the public sector remains disconcertinglylow in spite of targeted advertisement campaigns and othermeasures. Moreover, the effective participation of minori-ties in economic life was hindered by securityconsiderations and language obstacles. Crucially, the Advi-sory Committee also stresses that the process ofprivatization and the successful settlement of propertyclaims have long-term implications for the participation ofminority communities. It therefore recommends that theseprocesses be carefully monitored in order to ensure thatminority communities have fair and equal access to themand that all communities can benefit from them.99


Education

The issue of education is addressed in the Reports to avery limited degree. In the 2005 Report, the Commis-sion concludes that the Kosovo education system isfacing serious quality problems. In addition to highlight-ing the important fact that the ‘University of Mitrovicaremains inaccessible for Kosovo Albanians’100 the Reportonly mentions in passing that mostly Serbs and Romaface discrimination in access to education.101 In 2006, itstates, ‘the situation of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptianscontinued to be difficult. Most members of these com-munities live in informal settlements with serious lack ofaccess to public services, income generating activitiesand education’.102 Nevertheless, efforts by the Ministry ofEducation to offer Albanian and Serbian language classesto all communities in order to integrate them into theKosovo educational system are also mentioned, as is thefact that pre-primary, primary and secondary educationwas available in Albanian, Serbian and Turkish lan-guages, while Roma language school courses were beingdeveloped.103

The 2007 Report notes the adoption of the Ministryof Education strategy for the education of the Roma,Ashkali and Egyptians, and the adoption of the strategyfor pre-university education with ‘inclusive and progres-sive measures for minorities in Kosovo’.104 While theReport does not state what the strategy was about, howit would be evaluated and how the minorities participat-ed in its design, it does note that ‘the strategies forpre-university and higher education, particularly forminorities, were not budgeted for and minority commu-nities continue to face restrictions of access to education,particularly as regards being taught in their mothertongue’.105 Regarding the education of Roma, Ashkaliand Egyptian children, the 2007 Report goes on to saythat their school attendance is poor at all levels of educa-tion.106 Reference to minority education is also made inthe ‘Education and Research’ section, ‘The minoritieslack the teachers, books and teaching materials necessaryfor them to study in their mother tongue. Often theyalso face problems of access to higher education.’107

Though efforts are made especially in the 2007Report to provide more substantive input on the issue ofminority education, several important remarks made bythe Advisory Committee on the FCNM in its 2005Opinion are not incorporated. The Advisory Committeeconcludes that no comprehensive approach to the issueof minority education existed and this has had a nega-tive impact on the numerically smaller communities.The continuous operation of separate schools for Alba-nian and Serbian pupils hinders the process ofreconciliation between the two communities. In relation

to this, the educational materials need to be updated totake into account the contribution of all communities tothe Kosovo society. The Advisory Committee expressesparticular concern with the situation of the Roma,Ashkali and Egyptian pupils with regard to their accessto education, characterized by extremely low enrolmentrates and a high drop-out rate. The Advisory Committeenotes that the schooling situation is particularly alarm-ing among girls belonging to these communities, andrecommends that, since large numbers of Roma, Ashkaliand Egyptians have been outside the school system, it isimperative to secure their re-integration by providingcatch-up classes. Moreover, harassment, intimidationand stigmatization of pupils belonging to these commu-nities is highlighted as a serious concern. Availability ofhigher education in one’s mother tongue is considered akey factor for the sustained existence of minorities inKosovo and the fact that higher education in the Uni-versity of Pristina is available in Albanian only is seen asinconsiderate of the needs of the Serbian- or Bosnian-speaking communities. Restrictions on freedom ofmovement and inaccessibility of educational facilitieswith mother tongue teaching are identified as recurrentproblems. Moreover, the shortage of textbooks andteaching staff to teach in the mother tongue is a prob-lem faced by all minority communities. The AdvisoryCommittee also recommends that a participatoryapproach in the running of the schools should beensured and that the ethnic diversity of schools shouldbe adequately reflected in their decision-making structures.

MacedoniaSimilarly to Croatia, Macedonia has acquired the status ofa candidate country for EU membership. As of June2008, however, it has not started negotiations with theEU. Following the Greek veto on Macedonia’s entry intoNATO, its EU integration prospects look grim.

Macedonia was the first country in the Western Balka-ns to sign an SAA with the EU in April 2001. It enteredinto force in April 2004. Macedonia presented its applica-tion for EU membership on 22 March 2004. Afterwards,the Commission prepared its Opinion on Macedonia’sapplication. It reaffirmed Macedonia’s preparedness tobecome a candidate for EU accession. It did not identifyany major problems in Macedonia’s human rights record,‘There are no major problems in the area of respect forfundamental rights. A number of constitutional and leg-islative changes have been made providing a high level ofprotection of the rights of minorities.’108 On the basis ofthis Opinion, the European Council decided on 17December 2005 to grant the status of candidate country


to Macedonia. But as discussed below, some major prob-lems linger in Macedonia’s minority rights record.

Minority representation andparticipation in public lifeA substantial part of the EU monitoring relates to minori-ty representation and participation in public life. Almostentirely, however, the EU Reports cover the tensions inthe political dialogue between the ethnic Macedonian andAlbanian communities. While this is of crucial impor-tance for the political stability in the country, it does notnecessarily reflect the state of minority rights. The EU hasused the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which ended the2001 conflict in Macedonia, as a benchmark for minorityrights and minorities’ political participation. The Com-mission has rightly noticed on several occasions that theAlbanian standpoint is largely marginalized in many areas,including judicial organization, use of minority languagesand rules of procedure in the Parliament among others.

The EU has monitored the establishment of local-levelCommittees for Inter-ethnic Relations, whose task is topromote the concerns of the various minority communi-ties. However, the EU has failed to reflect on theircontribution to the participation of minority communi-ties in public life. Minority NGOs have continuouslywarned that these Committees have been marginalizedand in reality are being used as window-dressing.109

In line with the concerns expressed by minorityNGOs,110 the EU has acknowledged that the smallerminorities, such as Roma, Serbs, Turks and Vlachs, arepolitically under-represented. Most EU Reports mentionthe exclusion and under-representation of non-majoritycommunities in public administration and public enter-prises, and acknowledge that ‘progress has been unevenacross the various communities’.111 The 2007 Report onMacedonia further concludes that, ‘if there was someincrease in representation of the non-majority communi-ties, it has remained uneven among individualministries’,112 and that ‘ethnic Albanians have made signif-icant gains but other groups have seen little or no gains’.113

The EU has criticized the government because ‘thenumber of non-majority communities’ members in thearmy remains low.’114 Likewise, it has looked closely intothe ethnic composition of the police. In its 2007 Report,the Commission concludes that, in terms of minority rep-resentation, ‘slow progress has been made within the policeoverall, and none in senior ranks, in particular within thecriminal police and the department for security andcounter-intelligence’.115 This is in line with the observa-tions of the Advisory Committee on the FCNM, as well aswith the views of minority NGOs in the Macedonia focusgroup. Nonetheless the EU has failed to address theincreased intolerance towards Roma and other minority

groups by police and law-enforcement officials in Macedo-nia. This has been an area of concern for minorityNGOs.116 NGOs have spoken against racist practices andabuse against minorities in the police, including the unittrained by the EU ALTEA mission,117 saying, ‘We neverfind even soft criticism against this unit, which is one ofthe worst police structures that abused minorities. We onlyread generalizations on police discrimination againstRoma.’118

According to minority NGOs, smaller minorities inMacedonia are excluded, even from the channels meant tofacilitate civil society engagement with the government.However, when commenting on the government’s efforts tocooperate with civil society organizations in policy develop-ment processes, the Commission has not mentioned theimportance of involving the minorities. Minority NGOsare rarely successful in obtaining the funds distributed bythe government to civil society organizations. In an NGOintervention at the European Parliament, minority repre-sentatives revealed information about a Fund for CivilSociety Organizations which the Ministry of Finance inMacedonia had recently made available:

‘Out of the 68 organizations which received fundingthere were no Roma or Turkish ones. The same holdstrue for the large part of the EU-funded projects….The anticipation is that the problem will increase,having in mind that national institutions… willmanage the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance(IPA).’ 119, 120

MRG and partners will discuss the way the EU financialinstruments address minority rights in a forthcomingreport. At this stage, it is worth only recommending thatthe EU should ensure that minority NGOs take part inthe design, implementation and evaluation of EU-fundedprojects. If necessary, special action needs to be taken forstrengthening the capacity of some minority NGOs.

Minority NGOs in Macedonia are critical towards theEU assessment, which they find superficial and carriedout with no reference to international human and minori-ty rights standards.121 While criticizing the government forturning a blind eye to the smaller minorities, the EU itselfhas neither assessed what their problems are nor put for-ward any specific recommendations. For example, the EUhas not suggested any measures to be taken for the repre-sentation of smaller communities dispersed throughoutthe territory of Macedonia who have not been able toelect their representatives within the existing electoralsystem.122 It has overlooked the political participation ofother smaller ethnic minorities, including Bosniaks,Roma, Turks and others. Roma are the focus of a lot ofattention in the EU Reports but the EU considers them


purely from a socio-economic rather than a political per-spective, while these are interrelated. Once politicalparticipation is improved, some improvement in terms ofsocial inclusion and poverty alleviation might be expected.Though the EU has been continuously committed to gen-der equality issues, its Reports on the enlargementcountries, including Macedonia, do not look into thegender balance in the field of minority representation.

Employment The Commission is extremely critical towards the govern-ment with regards to Roma unemployment:

‘Unemployment among the Roma remains extremelyhigh, and social and civic marginalisation is common.No specific measures have yet been taken to promoteaccess to the general employment programmes. Nosolution has yet been found to address the issue of lackof legal status of Roma without citizenship or withdenied refugee status.’ 123

The criticism is very much in line with feedback fromminority NGOs represented in the focus group.

However, neither the Macedonian government nor theCommission have focused in particular on how unem-ployment affects minority women. The 2007 EU Reportgives a gender, but not a minority, perspective on discrim-ination in access to employment in Macedonia, ‘Womenremain vulnerable to discriminatory practices and furtherefforts are needed to promote women’s rights notably toincrease female participation on the labour market.’124

Only the 2006 Report mentions minorities, in a sectionon women’s rights; however, it too does not address thesevere problem of unemployment and discrimination inaccess to employment against Roma and other minoritygroups.125 Despite this, the ‘Employment chapter’ con-cludes, ‘Preparations in this area are well advanced.’126

In 2007, however, the Commission addresses theRoma issue in the ‘Employment’ chapter as well, which isa positive sign that Roma rights are beginning to be main-streamed into consideration of socio-economic policies inthe Commission’s monitoring. The chapter states, ‘Unem-ployment among the Roma remains extremely high, andsocial and civic marginalisation is common. No specificmeasures have yet been taken to promote access to thegeneral employment programmes.’ And also:

‘Implementation of activities related to the strategy forinclusion of Roma and the action plans prepared bythe Ministry of Labour and Social policy has notadvanced, apart from the opening of two Roma cen-tres by the Ministry in cooperation with local Romanongovernmental organisations’. 127

Minority rights NGOs, however, are very critical towardthe Commission’s role in the area of employment. As putby the leader of a Roma NGO:

‘The Commission should also criticise the EU-fundedstate programmes in Macedonia. The best example isthe National Action Plan on Employment (NAPE),which was supported by CARDS where EU expertscontributed to the drafting process. We were very criti-cal that the NAPE contained no Roma integrationmeasures but these were taken on board neither by thegovernment nor the EU experts. So the criticism inthe EU Report sounds hypocritical given that the EUhas agreed with our institutions on these employmentpolicies.’ 128

Finally, other minority groups also excluded from thelabour market are not mentioned in the Report. Forexample, there are significant numbers of Turks in theeastern part of Macedonia and they face similar problemsto the Roma. They experience severe poverty andmarginalization. Perhaps because they are a minority andreceive less international attention, they have remainedout of the sight of EU institutions.129

Education The question of university education in the mothertongue has acquired political significance over the decade.As a result, most of the EU attention in the area of educa-tion is devoted to it.

From a human and minority rights perspective, thestate duties in primary and secondary education are muchmore numerous and substantial. However, the Commis-sion concludes in its 2006 Report that, with regard toprimary and secondary education, the right to instructionin mother tongue has been implemented in Macedonia,as provided by the Constitution. Thus no attention isgiven to it in the 2007 Report. At the same time, theAdvisory Committee on the FCNM has warned thatthere are serious deficiencies as regards instruction of andinstruction in minority languages.130 The Committee ofMinisters of the Council of Europe has therefore called onthe Macedonian government ‘to take better account of theneeds for teaching in minority languages’.131

Furthermore, one needs to look at not only whetherthere are textbooks in the language of a particular commu-nity, but also whether the textbooks reflect and respect theculture and identity of all minorities in the country. That isnot the case in Macedonia. Roma continue to be portrayedthrough various stereotypes. Unfortunately, this problemhas not been picked up within the EU monitoring.

The EU rightly expresses concern that the completeseparation of ethnic communities in the educational sys-


tem in Macedonia might jeopardize diversity, interculturaldialogue and interaction between the different communi-ties in the country. Hence, it criticizes the government fornot having a comprehensive policy to bridge the gapbetween the different communities through the educa-tional system.132 However, the Commission does notpresent a specific recommendation and has not put for-ward a model of how the government could achieve thisobjective. In other areas in which the EU has explicitcompetences and expertise the Commission offers usefuladvice and clear steps for the enlargement countries tofollow. Yet, in minority rights this has not been the case.

The right to accessible education, as mandated byinternational human rights law, has been examined onlyvis-à-vis Roma people. The Commission has recognizedthat Roma are the poorest and most marginalized minori-ty in Macedonia. Importantly, it has linked Romadisadvantage to racial discrimination, ‘Roma […] contin-ue to face very difficult living conditions anddiscrimination, especially in the areas of education, socialprotection, health care, housing and employment.’133

NGOs in Macedonia, and particularly MRG partnerthe Roma Democratic Development Association Sonce,have voiced serious concerns that the EU monitoring hasfailed to include a gross violation of the right to education– the segregation of Roma children without any learningdisabilities in special institutions for pupils with mentaldisorders. No particular attention has been paid to theaccess to education and high drop-out rates of Turkishand Albanian children either. UN treaty bodies also singleout the particularly vulnerable position of Roma but donot ignore the other minorities. For example, in 2006 theUN CRC said, ‘The Committee recommends that theState party pursue its efforts to increase the enrolment lev-els of all children from minorities in primary andsecondary schools, with special attention to girls in gener-al and children from the Roma minority in particular.’134

The 2006 EU Report only identifies that, ‘Romanichildren are frequently denied the right to education andcomprise the majority of the country’s street children’.135

The monitoring of Roma access to education in 2007 wasbacked up by statistical information disaggregated by bothethnic origin and gender, ‘Discrimination against Romapeople continues. The enrolment rate in primary educa-tion is below 30%, and high drop-out rates are stillrecorded, in particular among girls.’136 Minority NGOshowever doubted the accuracy of the data. According toSonce, the number of Roma children in primary educa-tion is not that low.

As a rule, the EU Reports do not mainstream minorityeducation into the general chapter on ‘Education andCulture’. For example, despite acknowledging that Romachildren are denied the right to education and comprise

the majority of street children, when examining Macedo-nia’s educational reform the general chapter does notmention the Roma plight and makes no reference toRoma or any other minority children.137 Similarly, when itdiscusses children’s rights minority rights issues are notincluded. For example, on children the 2007 Report statesonly the following, ‘Implementation of the action plan forthe protection of children’s rights, adopted by the govern-ment in 2006, is slow.’138 Also, for people not accustomedto the Commission’s jargon it is impossible to compre-hend why, despite the acknowledged destitute situation ofRoma children, the EU Reports conclude that ‘as regardseducation, progress has continued’.139

MontenegroMontenegro is a potential candidate for EU member-ship. The EU recognized the independence ofMontenegro in June 2006. The SAA between Montene-gro and the EU was signed in October 2007. Until theSAA has been ratified by each EU member state and byMontenegro, community matters and free trade will begoverned by an Interim Agreement that entered intoforce in January 2008.

The EU has found that overall, ‘there has beenprogress on establishing the necessary framework onminority protection. However, implementation is laggingbehind in some fields. The conditions of refugees and dis-placed persons, including Roma, are giving cause forserious concern.’140

Perhaps the reaction in Montenegro towards the EUReports and their usefulness for minorities has been themost pessimistic of all the countries analysed. All minorityNGO representatives at the Montenegro focus group saidthat they had much higher expectations from the EUmonitoring on their country. As put by one participant:

‘Europe must be stricter in its relations with the Gov-ernment of Montenegro, it should pose moredemanding and more complex tasks. The accession tothe EU should not be allowed until minimum rightsare realized by all the minorities.’ 141

Minority representation andparticipation in public life Since the EU started monitoring Montenegro’s minorityrights performance (to begin with as part of the StateUnion of Serbia and Montenegro), it has been acknowl-edging that under-representation of minorities in publicservices and in Parliament is ‘an outstanding issue’. Forexample in 2004 the Commission made the followingcomment, ‘Montenegro’s legislation includes some affir-mative provisions for the Albanian minority, such as


set-aside seats. Widening these provisions to other minori-ty groups needs to be considered.’142

In April 2006, a new Law on Minority Rights andFreedoms was adopted. The law sets out the generalframework for the protection of minorities, includingnon-discrimination, education in minority languages, andparticipation of minorities in public and social life. It alsoprovides for the establishment of a Republican Fund forMinorities and minority National Councils. The envis-aged provisions for parliamentary representation ofminorities however were struck down by the Constitu-tional Court.

The new Constitution of independent Montenegrowas adopted in October 2007. It includes a number ofminority rights provisions, such the right to receive educa-tion in their language and representation in public bodies,including through affirmative action.

The 2007 EU Report does however accept the lack ofimplementation of the promising legal provisions in the2006 Law on Minority Rights and Freedoms. But it doesnot comment on the developments around the establish-ment of government-funded minority National Councilsor the establishment of a Republican Fund for Minorities.It does not address the issue of the under-representationof minorities in public bodies within the executivebranch. In comparison to other countries in the region,such as Macedonia for example, the Report on Montene-gro does not question the ethnic composition of thepolice or the judiciary. Minority representation was one ofthe key recommendations of the Council of Europe’sCommittee of Ministers in 2004 towards the then StateUnion of Serbia and Montenegro. It stated, ‘Furtherimprovements should be achieved in the representation ofthe Bosniak and other national minorities in the law-enforcement agencies as well as within the judiciary.’143

While the FCNM has been recognized by the EU as oneof its benchmarks in terms of minority rights standards,the EU has not consistently followed the concerns raisedby the experts in the Advisory Committee and by theCouncil of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.

Employment The overall employment rate in Montenegro is belowthe EU average. Unemployment is structural and longterm.144 Women’s participation in the labour market isvery low.145 Unemployment among Roma is high at 82per cent.146

Nonetheless, despite the difficulties of minorities,women, and other vulnerable groups in the labour mar-ket, the EU has concluded that both the legislation andpractice (authors’ emphasis) in the field of social rightsremains largely in line with the revised European SocialCharter.147 The EU has fallen short, however, in assess-

ing the actual implementation of economic and socialrights in its section dedicated to these rights.

The ‘Minority Rights’ sections of the EU Reportsacknowledge that minorities are particularly vulnerable topoverty and unemployment. Due attention is paid tosome groups, such as the Roma and displaced personsfrom Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, stilllacking full access to employment, health insurance, socialwelfare and property rights.148 The EU rightly notes thatdiscrimination against displaced persons for employmentpurposes and in relation to unemployment benefits per-sists. It criticizes Montenegro for making too littleprogress towards the European Partnership priorities to‘repeal all discriminatory provisions’ in key fields affectingrefugees and displaced persons. It urges the Montenegrinauthorities to regularize the status of its large populationsof displaced persons and thus to facilitate their integrationin society, including to access the labour market.149 In the‘Employment’ section of its 2007 Report, the EU wel-comes the targeted approach towards active labour marketand human resource development policies, covering long-term unemployed, redundant workers, disadvantagedgroups, youths, women and minorities.150

Most importantly, it calls for stepping up the prepa-ration of the anti-discrimination legislation reflecting thetwo EU directives in the employment field,151 which isvery much welcomed by minority communities and civilsociety in Montenegro.

Education The EU Reports pay a lot of attention to the plight ofthe Roma people in Montengro, including in the area ofeducation. In terms of the right to accessible education,the 2007 EU Report states, ‘Roma continue to face dif-ficult living conditions and discrimination, especially ineducation, healthcare, social protection and employ-ment. Under a third of all Roma children attendprimary school, and only about 20% complete primaryeducation.’152 The EU has also found very problematicthe social condition of refugees and internally displacedpersons (IDPs), including in the context of education.These have remained however isolated criticisms withinthe ‘Minority Rights, Cultural Rights and Minority Pro-tection’ section of the Report. Similarly to the otherenlargement countries’ Reports, the section on ‘Educa-tion’, in which the EU reviews the general educationalframework in Montenegro, there is no mention of IDPs,Roma, or any other minority group for that matter.153

The marginalized position of minority girls, and particu-larly Roma girls in education has not been givenattention. This is despite international concerns, includ-ing on the part of the UNDP and UNICEF, in thisrespect.154


Having covered the Roma vis-à-vis the right to accessi-ble education, the EU has omitted them in theexamination of the right to education of and in the moth-er tongue proclaimed by both international human rightslaw and Montenegro’s domestic laws. In general, the EUReports do not give enough attention to the issues of edu-cation in and of minority languages, and the promotionof tolerance, minority culture and multiculturalismthrough education.

During focus group discussions, minority representa-tives expressed disappointment that there were no classesof or in the Croatian language, and that this was a viola-tion of the FCNM. Many NGOs questioned why it waspossible for Croats to study their language in Serbia, butnot in Montenegro. Even in the few places where suchlessons existed, they were never part of the formal educa-tion curriculum.155 As to the state duty to provide teachertraining and textbooks in order to promote minority rightsin education, MRG partners find a number of weaknesses.For example, they stated that the translation of school text-books into Albanian was of very low quality and thismakes them inappropriate as teaching tools. They alsoreported that there was no adequate and sufficient trainingfor minority teachers. None of the above issues was cov-ered by the EU in its Reports on Montenegro.

SerbiaSerbia is a potential candidate for EU membership. Thenegotiations on the SAA between Serbia and the EUstarted in October 2005. However, the signing of theSAA has been delayed because of Serbia’s failure to fulfilone of the EU key conditions: full cooperation with theICTY. In an attempt to boost the position of pro-EUforces in Serbia ahead of the May elections, the agree-ment was signed in April 2008 on condition that Serbiawill not get any concrete benefits from it until Belgradeis judged to be fully cooperating with the ICTY.

In general, the EU assesses positively Serbia’s minori-ty rights record. Its language since 2002, when themonitoring started, has become gradually more positive.The last EU Report reaffirms that ‘[t]he overall condi-tions for respect of minority rights have continued toimprove’.156

Minority representation andparticipation in public lifeMost of the Commission’s attention has been drawntowards minority representation and participation inpublic life.

For years the EU Reports have been calling on theSerbian government to regulate the status and duties ofthe National Councils for Minority Groups (based on

the 2002 Minorities Law, no longer in force). In 2006the Constitution finally provided a legal basis for them,but still there is no law governing the election and obli-gations of the National Councils. In its last Report theCommission continued to push the government toaddress this legal vacuum. The continuous insistence bythe EU on this important issue is very much supportedby minority NGOs, worried how legitimate the Nation-al Councils and their members are.157

As early as 2004, the Commission acknowledged thatthe under-representation of minorities in Parliament isan outstanding issue.158 In 2007 both the Commission159

and minority NGOs in Serbia160 welcomed the increasedminority representation in the Parliament (that was dis-solved in March 2008), including a Deputy-Speaker,and the provisions on minorities in the new Constitu-tion. Hopefully, these developments will continuefollowing the May 2008 elections that came as the Ser-bian government had split over the questions of Kosovoand Serbia’s relationship with the EU.

The Commission has not developed a clear andstrong position on minority participation in public ser-vices (such as the police, judiciary, etc). While it statesin its 2004 Report that this is an outstanding issue, itonly praises the government for a multi-ethnic policeproject that had continued successfully, and compli-ments ‘a welcome step by the Serbian Ministry ofInterior which provided for the translation of the newCode of Conduct into minority languages’.161 A laterReport only mentions that the ‘implementation of the2006 government conclusions on minority representa-tion in public services has continued, with an enhancedrole for the human resource management Agency’. Thisis in contrast with the FCNM Report on Serbia, whichspecifically examines the areas where the problems are,‘representation of national minorities in law-enforce-ment bodies and in the judiciary’.162

Finally, the Commission does not look into the gen-der aspects where issues of minority representation andparticipation are discussed. Minority women’s participa-tion in minority and public bodies is an area whereSerbia, like other countries in the region, scores poorly.At the same time, as acknowledged by minority NGOs,women’s involvement in public and political issuesshould be a priority. Minority women face numerousdifficulties participating in politics, especially at the locallevel.163 As put by one focus group participant, ‘Romawomen suffer from double discrimination … both with-in local institutions and the family. Inside a Romafamily and inside Roma settlements mostly men aremaking decisions.’164 In fact, according to NGOs, thereare only three municipalities which have Roma womenas coordinators for Roma issues.165


Employment

Minorities’ rights to participate in economic life havebeen examined by the EU mostly from the perspectiveof discrimination in access to employment. The EU hasnot examined the structural disadvantages in the areaswhere particular minorities live. The EU has praised Ser-bia for including constitutional guarantees foraffirmative action.166 The latter refer, however, to minori-ty representation and do not apply to educational oremployment schemes to lift minority groups stricken bypoverty and exclusion.

The EU has acknowledged on several occasions thatunemployment is highest in the Roma settlements but norecommendations have followed. In 2007, however, con-cerns regarding unemployment and economic exclusion ofthose Roma who live in the settlements did not appear inthe EU Report. According to minority NGOs, there havenot been improvements in the Roma settlements and there-fore criticism should not have been stopped.

The situation of other minority groups, also affectedby unemployment and poverty, is not scrutinized in theEU Reports on Serbia. When the EU looks at the situa-tion of minorities in particular areas, it only assessestheir inter-ethnic relations but not the socio-economicsituation of the people who live there. For example, inthe 2006 Report it is stated that the situation in Vojvod-ina has improved while in Southern Serbia and Sandžakit has remained tense. However, no observations weremade about the education and employment of minori-ties there.

The EU has criticized Serbia on a number of occa-sions167 for failing to ratify the Revised European SocialCharter (RESC).168 At the same time the EU itself doesnot use the Charter as a benchmark for assessing Serbia’s(and the other enlargement countries) performance con-cerning minorities’ rights to economic participation andemployment.

As in the other SEE countries, while minorities are dis-proportionately affected by unemployment and poverty,minority women are much more affected by them thanminority men. However, the EU has explored this gendergap neither in its women’s rights section nor in its minori-ty rights section. The EU could have taken on board theissues related to multiple discrimination against minoritywomen addressed by the United Nations Committee onthe Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Thewritten comments to this committee169 submitted in March2007 by a coalition of minority and women NGOs wouldhave been also an excellent point of reference. Accordingto minority NGOs represented in the focus group,‘Women’s rights and especially minority women’s rights arethe least present in international reports on Serbia.’ 170 The

general section on employment of the EU Reports doesnot address the particular unemployment patterns and dis-crimination experienced by minorities either.

Education The EU has recognized the discrimination faced by Romain various fields of social life, including education. A sub-stantial part of the monitoring on education examinesRoma children’s access to education. In its 2007 Reportthe Commission states, ‘Over 80% of Roma children liv-ing in Roma settlements are poor and suffer from variousforms of discrimination and exclusion. On average,around one third of Roma children complete primaryeducation.’171 It has also touched upon the right to accessi-ble education of children of IDPs from Roma, Ashkaliand Egyptian communities.

A gross violation of the right to education remains dis-regarded by the EU: the channeling of Roma childrenwithout any learning disabilities into schools for thosewith mental problems. This issue has gained prominenceon the European human rights agenda and the EU needsto address it more firmly. It was for example one of thekey criticisms of the then State Union of Serbia and Mon-tenegro by the Council of Europe’s Committee ofMinisters.172

The minority representatives within the focus groupwere surprised not to see any specific criticism on the situ-ation on Roma girls. As put by one participant:

‘It is important to give them [Roma girls] a chance toobtain education. There should be affirmative mea-sures for Roma girls’ education at all levels. … The EUmust in its recommendations strongly influence ourgovernment to enable equal access to education forRoma girls.’ 173

The worries about the situation of Roma children, andparticularly girls, have been voiced by a number of humanrights bodies, including the UN Committee on the Elimi-nation of Discrimination against Women in itsConcluding Comments on Serbia.174 The Committeerequested that:

‘urgent efforts be undertaken to ensure equal access toeducation for both sexes, at all levels of education. Itrequests that special attention be paid to achievingequal access for marginalized groups of women andgirls, in particular of the Roma minority, with specialurgency at the elementary school level.’ 175

Similar concerns are identified by UNICEF in its report,Breaking the Cycle of Exclusion: Roma Children in SouthEast Europe.176


Throughout its Reports the EU pushes the govern-ment to comprehensively address the problems regardingRoma settlements and the lack of identity documentswhich further obstruct inter alia the realization of Romachildren’s right to education. The lack of documentationis a very serious issue which has been raised for manyyears by various treaty bodies and human rights NGOs.For example, the UN CESCR has expressed its concernabout:

‘the uncertain residence status of and the limitedaccess by refugees, returnees from third countries andinternally displaced persons, including internally dis-placed Roma, to personal identification documents,which are a requirement for numerous entitlementssuch as eligibility to work, to apply for unemploymentand other social security benefits, or to register forschool’. 177

It is vital that the EU focuses more on this issue. Quiterightly, the EU links the educational problems of Romawith Serbia’s commitment within the Decade of RomaInclusion. However, the EU has not explored or assessedwhat the Decade Action Plans actually contained. Accord-ing to Roma NGOs:

‘[the Decade of Roma Inclusion] plans and work ofthe government should be monitored by the EuropeanCommission. Government and European Commissionmust determine clear indicators to measure success.Those indicators are not well developed in the ActionPlans and that is one of the most important criticismsagainst Serbia.’ 178

Also the Commission states that Roma teaching assistantsare employed in a number of schools. According to repre-sentatives of the minority communities this is too muchof an overstatement: the Roma assistants’ project has notfulfilled its goal and most of the assistants have notsecured regular jobs at schools. Similarly, NGOs havechallenged some of the information which appeared inthe last EU Report, including the number of adoptedDecade of Roma Inclusion Action Plans and the numberof Roma coordinators appointed in municipalities.

Apart from minorities’ access to education, the EU hasexplored the minorities’ right to education in minoritylanguages. It has monitored the availability of school text-books in the Croatian, Hungarian, Slovak and Bulgarianlanguages, as well as approval of the use of textbooks fromKosovo in Southern Serbia. The EU has not addressed,however, whether school curricula and textbooks main-stream minority culture and identities. In fact, minorityNGOs have criticized the way minorities are portrayed atschool. According to one focus group participant: ‘[theschool] system unfortunately develops the sense of a lessvalue in minority population. School books mention rep-resentatives or culture of national minorities only in thenegative or pejorative context.’179

As with the other Reports on the SEE countries,minority rights have not been consistently mainstreamedwithin the EU Reports on Serbia. Despite the precarioussituation of Roma children in education, the sectionswhich deal generally with education in Serbia do not putforward any specific policy recommendations vis-à-vis theeducational rights fulfilment of any minority community.Again, the educational rights of minorities appear only inthe ‘Minorities’ section but not in the ‘Education’ one.


The EU monitoring and assessment of the capacity of thecandidate and potential candidate countries in SEE hasbeen an important generator for change. The prioritiesidentified by the EU Reports are easily embraced by gov-ernments aspiring to bring their countries into the EU. Inthat respect, whether an issue would be brought onto, ordropped from, a government’s agenda largely depends onits assessment in the EU Report. While in general the EUenlargement process and its various political and financialaspects are not well understood among citizens in the can-didate and potential candidate countries, the EU Reports,published each autumn by the European Commission,receive a lot of political and media interest and their con-clusions are brought to the attention of societies at large.For minority rights activists seeking to achieve changes inthe life of minority communities in SEE, the EU Reportsare an important advocacy tool. For them it is crucial thatthe minority sections in the Reports take minority rightscommitments seriously, cover the real concerns of minori-ty communities and put forward clear and unambiguousrecommendations to governments. Therefore, it is neces-sary that the EU recognize the weight given by NGOs tothe EU Reports and respond to their expectationsthrough a more comprehensive, participatory, andhuman-rights-based monitoring.

SubstanceWhen reading the Reports on the Western Balkan coun-tries one inevitably notices the insufficient informationand, in general, how little space is set aside for minorityrights. More focus on minorities is badly needed, giventhat until recently the main concern of the EU regardingthe region was inter-ethnic conflict prevention. Significantportions of the population of all the countries belong tominorities and the stability of the region depends on goodinter-ethnic relations.

The minority rights criterion has been perceived byminorities as particularly important, yet this is not reflect-ed in the Reports in terms of space allocated, choice ofissues, coverage of minorities and the drafting process.Consequently expectations are created primarily amongminorities, which then remain unfulfilled.

Apart from not being central in the EU monitoring,minority issues are not consistently reviewed and assessedfrom the perspective of rights. The EU Reports have cov-ered to a varying degree all three issues under examination

in the current study – participation, employment, educa-tion. However, the analysis has revealed that the Reportsdo not employ the language of human rights and themonitoring does not follow the content of the threerights, as developed within international human rightslaw.

Important aspects of human rights, such as the rightto economic participation or the right to acceptable andadaptable education have not been systematicallyaddressed by the Commission. While they refer to inter-national human rights instruments, the Reports do notfollow their contents. Identity aspects of minority rights,particularly in the context of education, have beenignored within the monitoring. At the same time, theseaspects are an integral part of minority rights law. Notsurprisingly, a number of members of different minoritiesstress that cultural preservation of their communities isimportant to them.

Perhaps the accessibility aspects of the three examinedissues – participation, employment, education – havebeen most covered and criticized by the EU Reports.Anti-discrimination is one of the key pre-requisites for theaccess of minorities to education, employment and partic-ipation in society. Therefore the EU Reports shouldrequire that the SEE countries align domestic legislationwith the EU anti-discrimination acquis. The EU shouldalso require that resources for implementation be secured(mechanisms, tools, capacity), including support forstrategic litigation.

In spite of certain attempts, manifested for instance inthe well articulated 2007 Kosovo Report, in generalminority rights are not mainstreamed in the EU Reports,including the chapters on ‘Employment and Social Policy’and ‘Education and Culture’. Also, when the Reports dis-cuss women’s rights and gender equality, they do notmainstream minority rights; similarly, when they reviewminority protection, they pay no special attention to thespecific situation of minority women.

The EU does not call for the collection of data disag-gregated by ethnicity. Ethnic data makes it possible fordecision-makers to understand the extent to whichminorities are affected by discrimination and to decide onrelevant measures to overcome it.180 The drafting ofminority rights policies, and particularly the adoption ofpositive action measures, are hard issues to tackle withou-ethnic data.181

Concluding remarks and ways forward


Minority NGOs find the language used by the Com-mission in the Reports unclear and ambiguous. When it isindicated that some – limited or significant – progress hasbeen achieved in a certain area, it remains unclear whatthe baseline was for such assessment. The Reports shouldclearly identify shortcomings, gaps and failures, and pro-vide good recommendations on how to overcome themwith clear indicators for measurement.

Some sections of the Reports use the same languageyear on year in what seems to be a cut-and-paste approachapplied to drafting. While the benefits of such anapproach might include a degree of consistency, in thatthe same issues are addressed each year, a clear pitfall isthat the impression is given that the issue was monitoredsuperficially rather than thoroughly, and was thereforeconsidered unimportant.

ProcessMinorities’ participation in any decisions and measuresthat affect them is a fundamental pre-requisite of minor-ity rights law. The European Commission needs toestablish regular institutional mechanisms for involvinglocal minority communities in the preparation of itsReports. Virtually all members of minority communitiesconsulted in the focus groups stated that none of themhad ever been consulted by the Commission or its Dele-gations in the region. They would like to be involvedand contribute to the process and requested communica-tion on this. In the authors’ view, this can be dealtprimarily by the Delegations of the European Commis-

sion; however, it should not be their exclusive domain:the European Commission, DG Enlargement in particu-lar, should engage in direct consultation as well.

Some positive developments have taken place recent-ly that are very much welcomed. For example, in June2007 DG Enlargement organized a consultation meetingwith a selected group of international human rightsorganizations. Tables with issues were prepared in orderto ensure continuity with the previous year. At the timeof writing, the Commission was planning a similar eventin June 2008. This points towards a strategic approachand consultation with civil society. A shortcoming, how-ever, was that in 2007 mostly international NGOs wereinvited, instead of minority NGOs from the region. InMRG’s view, consultation without the involvement oflocal minority NGOs might result in the presentation ofsuperficial or inaccurate data. It is recommended there-fore that a wide range of minority NGOs from the SEEcountries be invited in future consultations. Moreover,in April 2008 DG Enlargement organized a conferenceon ‘Civil Society Development in Southeast Europe:Building Europe Together’, where a commitment wasmade for better cooperation between SEE civil societyand the EU institutions within the framework of theenlargement. The EU Reports need to reference andexplain their methodology and process of preparationbetter. Otherwise, minority NGOs are left with theimpression that the EU refers mainly to informationcoming from government officials but not from minori-ty communities.


To the Council• Without promising a concrete date of accession,

establish a clear accession action plan for eachcandidate and potential candidate country. The planshould spell out precise targets that each state mustmeet before accession is possible and a clearcommitment by the EU that accession will take placeonce the set targets are met. When setting the targets,due attention must be paid to human and minorityrights, including the rights of minority women.

To EU member states• Ratify the Lisbon Treaty by the target date of 1

January 2009 in order to create the legal andinstitutional framework which makes the EUaccession of the Western Balkan countries possible.

To the European Commission• Strengthen the capacity of DG Enlargement and the

Delegations of the European Commission in terms ofminority rights and participatory monitoring. Thisincludes increasing the financial resources, the numberof staff in DG Enlargement and the Delegations, aswell as providing them with the skills necessary toundertake minority rights monitoring.

To DG Enlargement• Devote more attention to minority rights within the

EU monitoring on the enlargement countries. • Adopt a rights-based approach within its monitoring

on the enlargement countries. International minorityrights standards need to be incorporated and used as apoint of reference within the monitoring process.

• The EU Reports should adopt a comprehensiveapproach to minority rights, including non-discrimination, positive action for vulnerable minoritygroups, special minority rights, and full and effective participation.

• Given that the EU has developed a comprehensiveanti-discrimination acquis, more pressure should beput on the enlargement countries to transpose it

within national law. The deadline for transpositionshould not be the date of accession, but significantlyearlier.

• Minority rights need to be mainstreamed throughoutthe EU Reports, and particularly in areas such asemployment and education.

• The EU Reports need to focus more attention onmultiple/intersectional discrimination. Gender issuesshould be mainstreamed in the EU Reports, includingin the section on minority rights.

• The process of preparation of the Reports and themethodology used should be described at thebeginning of the minority rights section as this wouldgive more credibility to the Reports.

To DG Enlargement and theDelegations of the EuropeanCommission in the enlargementcountries

• As participation is a fundamental minority right,minority communities need to be involved in themonitoring on minority rights in their own country.For that aim, institutionalized, as opposed to ad hoc,mechanisms for minority communities’ participationwithin the EU accession process should be established.

• The participation of minority women should beensured within the accession processes. The EUshould aim at ensuring diversity (across age, sex,disability, religion, sexual orientation) in the process sothat intersectional discrimination issues are given avoice.

• Clear minority rights benchmarks and indicators needto be developed with the participation of minoritycommunities in each enlargement country.

• The choice of issues to be addressed andrecommendations put forward need to be agreed withminorities.

• Smaller minorities should not be excluded from theprocess. All minority rights, including freedom fromdiscrimination, rights to representation, to politicaland economic participation, and to education need tobe examined from their perspective as well.

Recommendations


Identified by minority NGOs forconsideration in subsequentrounds of monitoring

Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Adoption of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law.• Legal and financial measures to ensure the proper

operation of the national minority councils.• Elimination of the segregation in the educational

system.

Croatia• Action Plan to secure the implementation of the

Constitutional Law on the Rights of NationalMinorities, with clear indicators for measuringprogress and wide public discussion and minorityparticipation in the drafting process.

• Establishment of a transparent monitoring system overthe implementation of the Constitutional Law on theRights of National Minorities and the Action Plan.

• Adoption of a comprehensive anti-discrimination lawand a national strategy for the elimination ofdiscrimination.

Kosovo• The Mitrovica camp issue to be resolved.• Sustainable return of the displaced Roma, Ashkalia

and Egyptians should be facilitated.• Mechanisms which would enable successful

implementation of the anti-discrimination law mustbe established by developing and strengthening thevictims’ access to judicial remedies, building thecapacity of the courts and judicial officers (judges,prosecutors, and lawyers) to effectively apply the law.

• Full and effective participation of smaller minorities inthe political, social, economic and cultural life to besecured through inclusive policy making andprogramming, participatory processes, legal frameworkwhich safeguards minorities and their participation.

Macedonia• Full realization of the right to education of smaller

minorities, in particular for women, people withdisabilities, minorities from rural areas. The firstmonitoring priority needs to be preparatory(preschool) and primary education; the second priority should be secondary and adult education.

• Inclusion of minority and vulnerable groups in thelabour market. Mainstreaming of minority rightsshould be promoted and targeted actions should berecommended by the Community.

• Adoption of a comprehensive anti-discriminationlegislation, along with strong and effectiveimplementing mechanisms.

• Minority participation (including smaller minorities)in the design, implementation, monitoring andevaluation of public policies. The participation ofminorities in the EU accession processes should beparticularly emphasized.

Montenegro• Accurate information disaggregated by ethnicity

should be made available.• The Delegation of the European Commission should

open up more towards minorities and involveminority NGOs in its consultations with civil society.

• The situation of smaller minorities without politicalrepresentation should be addressed, especially in termsof education, employment and participation inprocesses that affect them.

Serbia• Gender-based approach in the monitoring of minority

rights policies, including consultation with minoritywomen’s NGOs. Minority women should also beinvolved in the EU accession processes.

• Adoption of a Comprehensive Anti-discriminationLaw.

• Adoption of a Minority Rights Law.

Country-specific priorities


1 Conclusions of the Presidency: Copenhagen, 21–22 June1993, European Council, 1993, http://europa.eu accessed 7March 2008; reinforced by the European Council in Madrid in1995. Madrid European Council (15–16 December 1995)Presidency Conclusions, European Council, 1995,http://europa.eu accessed 7 March 2008.

2 In 1994, the CSCE was renamed Organization for Securityand Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The new name reflectsits more permanent nature.

3 www.osce.org/hcnm/13019.htm4 Communication from the Commission to the European Parlia-

ment and the Council, Western Balkans: Enhancing theEuropean Perspective, Commission of the European Com-munities, March 2008, http://europa.eu accessed 19 March2008.

5 Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union andthe Treaty establishing the European Community, signed atLisbon, 13 December 2007, OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/1,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML accessed 24 May 2008.

6 As at 23 May 2008, the Treaty of Lisbon has been ratified by14 of the 27 Member States. http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/countries/index_en.htm accessed 24 May 2008.

7 Minority Rights in Conflict Prevention by Clive Baldwin, ChrisChapman and Zoë Gray, MRG 2007

8 General Comment No. 25: The Right to Participate in PublicAffairs, Voting Rights and the Right of Equal Access to PublicService (Art 25), Human Rights Committee, 1996, para. 5,www.ohchr.org accessed on 7 March 2008.

9 Draft AC FCNM Commentary on Participation.10 Ibid.11 Ibid.12 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Racial Discrimination (ICERD), 1965, entered into force 1969,Article 1, para. 4.

13 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minori-ties (FCNM), 1995, entered into force 1998, Article 4, para. 2.

14 AC FCNM Commentary on Participation.15 Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of

National Minorities in Public Life, Foundation on Inter-ethnicRelations, p. 18, OSCE High Commissioner on NationalMinorities, September 1999, www.osce.org accessed 7March 2008.

16 General Comment No. 25, para 12.17 AC FCNM Commentary on Participation, para. 23.18 Ibid., para. 24.19 Ibid., para. 26.20 Ibid., paras 30, 33.21 Ibid., para. 29.22 Ibid., para. 34.23 Ibid., para. 35.24 Reducing Poverty by Tackling Social Exclusion, Department

for International Development (DFID), London, 2006,http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/social-exclusion.pdf; Par-ticipation of Minorities in Economic Life: An Advocacy Guidefor Minorities in South East Europe by Tara Bedard, MRG,2005.

25 Substantive Equality, Positive Action and Roma Rights in theEuropean Union, Galina Kostadinova, MRG, September 2006.

26 AC FCNM Commentary on Participation, para. 55.27 ibid., paras 56-59.28 Ibid., paras 60-65.

29 General Recommendation No. 27: Discrimination againstRoma, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimina-tion, August 2000, www.ohchr.org accessed 7 March 2008.

30 Labour Rights by Lee Swepston, Economic, Social and Cul-tural Rights: A Guide for Minorities and Indigenous Peoples,Margot Salomon (ed.) MRG, 2005.

31 General Comment No. 13 on the Implementation of the Inter-national Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:The Right to Education, Economic and Social Council, 1999,www.ohchr.org accessed 7 March 2008.

32 Preliminary Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right toEducation, Economic and Social Council, 1999, para. 50,www.right-to-education.org, accessed 7 March 2008.

33 General Comment No. 13.34 Commentary on Education under the Framework Convention

for the Protection of National Minorities, Advisory Committeeon the FCNM, 2006, p. 27, www.coe.int accessed 7 March2008.

35 Ibid.36 Ibid. 37 Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of

National Minorities, 1 October 1996, http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/1996/10/2700_en.pdf accessed 24 May2008

38 Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights ofNational Minorities, 1 February 1998, http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/1998/02/2699_en.pdf , accessed 24 May2008

39 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_Affairs/Local_and_regional_Democracy/Regional_or_Minority_languages/ accessed 24May 2008.

40 FCNM, Art. 12.41 Ibid., Art. 13.42 Ibid., Art. 14.43 Ibid., Art. 6.44 Commentary on Education under the Framework Convention

for the Protection of National Minorities.45 Independent interview with I. Ćelović, president of the Asso-

ciation of Poles and Their Descendents, 5 March 2008, BanjaLuka. See Bosnia and Herzegovina Focus Group Report,prepared by Independent, 5 March 2008.

46 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005 Progress Report, p. 24, Com-mission of the European Communities, 2005, http://www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.

47 Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted on 27 May2004, Advisory Committee on FCNM, 2005, www.coe.intaccessed on 10 March 2008.

48 Independent interview with N. Jusić, NGO Euro Rom, 25February 2008, Tuzla. Bosnia and Herzegovina Focus GroupReport, prepared by Independent, 25 February 2008.

49 Interview with M. Ogulajević-Havl, Association of Czech inBanja Luka, 5 March 2008, Banja Luka. See Bosnia andHerzegovina Focus Group Report, 5 March 2008.

50 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005 Progress Report, p. 21–24.51 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007 Progress Report, p. 28,

www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.52 Ibid., p. 37.53 Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina, paras 161,164.54 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2005 Progress Report, p. 24.55 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2006 Progress Report, p. 16,

www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.

Notes


56 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007 Progress Report, p. 19.57 OSCE Mission to BiH, Education Reform, http://www.osce

bih.org/education/2schoolsunder1roof.asp58 Concluding Observations: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Commit-

tee on the Rights of the Child, 2005; ConcludingObservations of the Committee on Economic, Social andCultural Rights: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Economic andSocial Council, 2006; Concluding Observations of the HumanRights Committee, Human Rights Committee, 2006; Con-cluding Observation of the Committee on the Elimination ofRacial Discrimination: Bosnia and Herzegovina, CERD, 2006,www.ohchr.org accessed 10 March 2008.

59 Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina, paras 84–97.60 Under Article 49 of the EU Treaty, ‘Any European State which

respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) may apply tobecome a member of the Union. It shall address its applicationto the Council, which shall act unanimously after consultingthe Commission and after receiving the assent of the Euro-pean Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of itscomponent members.’ Article 6(1) states ‘The Union is found-ed on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for humanrights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, princi-ples which are common to the Member States.’

61 Opinion on Croatia’s Application for Membership of the Euro-pean Union, p. 120, Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, 2004, http://eur-lex.europa.eu accessed on 8January 2008.

62 Ibid., p. 121.63 The exception is the 2007 Progress Report where the

‘Employment’ chapter states, ‘Vulnerable groups and ethnicminorities, particularly the Serb and the Roma minorities,continue to face significant discrimination in economic andsocial life.’ See Croatia 2007 Progress Report, p. 44,www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.

64 Croatia: Stabilisation and Association Report 2003, p. 10,www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 5 February 2008.

65 Croatia 2005 Progress Report, 2005, p. 20, www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.

66 In its First Opinion published in 2001, the FCNM AdvisoryCommittee highlighted the inadequacy of the framework forthe political participation of minorities. These issues weregenerally addressed by the new Constitutional Law onNational Minorities adopted in 2002.

67 Second Opinion on Croatia, Advisory Committee on theFCNM, 2004, www.coe.int accessed on 10 March 2008.

68 Concluding Observations on Croatia, Committee on the Elim-ination of Racial Discrimination, 2002.

69 Consultation organized by Center for Peace, Legal Adviceand Psychosocial Assistance, February 2008.

70 Croatia Focus Group Report, statement by P. Stojanović,President of the Council of Serbian National Minority in BeliManastir.

71 Croatia Focus Group Report, statement by D. Đokić, Repre-sentative of the Serb National Minority in Županja.

72 Croatia Focus Group Report, statement by P. Stojanović,President of the Council of Serbian National Minority in BeliManastir.

73 Croatia Focus Group Report, statement by M. Pezerović,President of the Municipal Council of Gunja.

74 Croatia 2005 Progress Report, p. 20.75 Croatia 2006 Progress Report, p. 11, www.ec.europa.eu/

enlargement accessed 8 January 2008 76 Croatia 2007 Progress Report, p. 12, www.ec.europa.eu/

enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.77 Ibid., p. 13.78 Croatia 2006 Progress Report, p. 13.79 In 2004, having exhausted the domestic remedies, several

victims of discrimination and school segregation in Međimur-je filed a suit against the Republic of Croatia at the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights. The assessment of the present situa-

tion and the lack of any progress was relayed to the authorsby Lovorka Kušan, attorney for the plaintiffs. Author interviewwith Lovorka Kusan.

80 Croatia 2005 Progress Report, p. 23.81 Croatia 2006 Progress Report, p. 13.82 Croatia 2007 Progress Report, p. 14.83 Ibid.84 Croatia 2006 Progress Report, p. 12.85 Croatia 2005 Progress Report, p. 21.86 Ibid., p. 22. 87 Opinion on Croatia’s Application for Membership of the Euro-

pean Union, p. 25.88 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observa-

tions on Croatia, 2004.89 CERD, Concluding Observations on Croatia, 2002.90 Advisory Committee on the FCNM, First Opinion on Croatia,

2001, Second Opinion on Croatia, 2004.91 Council Conclusions on Kosovo, Council of the European

Union, 18 February 2008, http://www.consilium.europa.euaccessed 6 March 2008.

92 Communication from the Commission. 93 Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) 2005 Progress Report, p. 23,

www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.94 Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) 2005 Progress Report, p. 17,

www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed on 8 January 2008.95 Unprecedented as it was, the monitoring process was char-

acterized by a number of peculiarities. First, althoughpursuant to the provisions of the FCNM, state parties wouldhave one year following the ratification of the instrument toprepare their report, UNMIK was given only six months. Thisdeadline was highly unrealistic if a meaningful process wasto take place whereby effective dialogue was establishedamong all the stakeholders. The submission of the reportwas delayed, but this did not make the process more mean-ingful. Second, the drafting of the official report was shovedfrom UNMIK to the OSCE Human Rights Department withoutsubstantial involvement of the provisional government ofKosovo, which was highly disempowering and counter-productive. Third, the OSCE Democratisation Departmentassumed the task of coordinating the activity of a group ofminority NGOs in the production of the shadow report.Although separate arms of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo, itwas one and the same institution preparing the official reportand exerting significant influence on the preparation of theshadow report. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/BOKULIC.article.pdf.

96 Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) 2005 Progress Report, p. 19.97 Ibid.98 Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) 2006 Progress Report, p. 13,

www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.99 Opinion on the Implementation of the Framework Convention

for the Protection of National Minorities in Kososvo, AdvisoryCommittee on the FCNM, 2005, paras. 114–16.

100 Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) 2005 Progress Report, p. 20.101 Ibid., p. 21.102 Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) 2006 Progress Report, p. 16.103 Ibid., p. 29.104 Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) 2007 Progress Report, p. 21.105 Ibid.106 Ibid., p. 22.107 Ibid., p. 36.108 Commission Opinion on the Application from […]Macedonia

for Membership of the European Union, 2005, http:// eur-lex.europa.eu accessed 8 January 2008.

109 Joint intervention of MRG (London), Sonce (Tetovo) and ADI,(Gostivar) on the EU 2007 Report at the European Parlia-ment, Brussels, 20 November 2007.

110 Ibid.111 See for example, Macedonia 2006 Progress Report, p. 15,

www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.


112 Macedonia 2007 Progress Report, 2007, p. 15, www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed on 8 January 2008.

113 Macedonia 2006 Progress Report, p. 16.114 Macedonia 2007 Progress Report, p. 16.115 Ibid., p. 15.116 Joint intervention of MRG (London), Sonce (Tetovo) and ADI,

(Gostivar) on the EU 2007 Report at the European Parlia-ment, Brussels, 20 November 2007.

117 Ibid.118 Macedonia Focus Group Report, Sonce, 16 February 2008.119 The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) is the

Community’s financial instrument for the pre-accession pro-cess for the period 2007–13. More information about the IPAis available at: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/e50020.htm accessed 24 May 2008.

120 Joint intervention of MRG (London), Sonce (Tetovo) and ADI,(Gostivar) on the EU 2007 Report at the European Parlia-ment, Brussels, 20 November 2007.

121 Macedonia Focus Group Report, Sonce, 16 February 2008.122 Country Advocacy Plan – Macedonia, Sonce, 2007.123 Macedonia 2007 Progress Report, p. 16.124 Ibid., p. 45.125 Macedonia 2006 Progress Report, p. 40.126 Ibid.127 Macedonia 2007 Progress Report, p. 45.128 Macedonia Focus Group Report, Sonce, 16 February 2008.129 Joint intervention of Minority Rights Group (London), Sonce

(Tetovo) and ADI, (Gostivar) on the EU 2007 Reports, Euro-pean Parliament, Brussels, 20 November 2007.

130 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minori-ties, First Opinion of the Advisory Committee: Macedonia,2004, p. 21, paras 88–91.

131 Resolution ResCMN(2005)4 on the Implementation of theFramework Convention for the Protection of National Minori-ties by the […]Republic of Macedonia, Council of Europe,Committee of Ministers, 2005, www.coe.int accessed 6 March 2008.

132 Macedonia 2006 Progress Report, p. 16.133 Macedonia 2007 Progress Report, p. 17.134 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observa-

tions of the Committee on the Rights of the Child : […]Republic of Macedonia. 23/02/2000. CRC/C/15/Add.118,para. 43

135 Macedonia 2006 Progress Report, p. 16.136 Ibid., p. 16. 137 Ibid., Chapter 26, p. 50.138 Macedonia 2007 Progress Report, p. 14. 139 Macedonia 2006 Progress Report, p. 14.140 Montenegro 2007 Progress Report, p. 16, www.ec.europa.eu/

enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.141 Montenegro Focus Group Report, prepared by Libertask, 23

February 2008.142 Serbia and Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Report

2004, www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January2008.

143 Resolution ResCMN(2004)12 on the implementation of theFramework Convention for the Protection of National Minori-ties by Serbia and Montenegro, Council of Europe,Committee of Ministers, 2004, www.coe.int accessed on 6 March 2008.

144 Montenegro 2006 Progress Report, p. 28, www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement accessed 8 January 2008.

145 Ibid., p. 30.146 Montenegro 2007 Progress Report, p. 16.147 Ibid., p. 13.148 Ibid., p. 15.

149 Ibid., p. 15.150 Ibid., p. 32.151 Ibid., p. 14.152 Ibid., p. 16.153 ibid., p. 32.154 See for example, UNDP at http://vulnerability.undp.sk/

DOCUMENTS/montenegro.pdf accessed 25 May 2008 andUNICEF at http://www.unicef.org/montenegro/girls_education.html accessed 25 May 2008.

155 Montenegro Focus Group Report.156 Serbia 2007 Progress Report, p. 17, www.ec.europa.eu/

enlargement accessed 8 January 2008. 157 Serbia Focus Group Report, prepared by Bibija, 20 February

2008.158 Serbia and Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Report

2004, p. 13.159 Serbia 2007 Progress Report, p. 14.160 Serbia Focus Group Report prepared by Bibija, 20 February

2008.161 Serbia and Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Report

2004.162 Opinion on Serbia and Montenegro, Advisory Committee on

the FCNM, 2004, p. 26, para. 103.163 Serbia Focus Group Report prepared by Bibija, 20 February

2008.164 Ibid.165 Ibid. 166 Serbia 2007 Progress Report, p. 14167 See Serbia 2006 Progress Report, p. 11 and Serbia 2007

Progress Report, p. 11.168 European Social Charter (revised), Strasbourg, 3.V.1996,

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/163.htmaccessed 25 May 2008.

169 Written Comments submitted by the European Roma RightsCentre, Bibija, Eureka and Women's Space Concerning theRepublic of Serbia for Consideration by the United NationsCommittee on the Elimination of Discrimination againstWomen at its 38th Session (March 2007), http://www.errc.org/db/02/4F/m0000024F.pdf accessed 7 March 2008.

170 Serbia Focus Group Report.171 Serbia 2007 Progress Report, p. 15.172 Resolution ResCMN(2004)12. 173 Serbia Focus Group Report.174 Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Elimination

of Discrimination against Women, 38th session, 14 May–1June 2007, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/375/72/PDF/N0737572.pdf?OpenElement accessed 25 May2008.

175 Ibid., para. 30176 Breaking the Cycle of Exclusion: Roma Children in South

East Europe, UNICEF, 2007, http://www.unicef.de/fileadmin/content_media/presse/fotomaterial/Roma_Konferenz/Subregional_Study_on_Roma_Children_Embargoed_5March.pdf accessed 25 May 2008.

177 Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 34thsession 25 April–13 May 2005, para. 14.

178 Serbia Focus Group Report.179 Ibid.180 Substantive Equality, Positive Action and Roma Rights in the

European Union, p. 4, by Galina Kostadinova, MRG 2006,http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=907 accessed 25 May2008.

181 Disaggregated Data Collection: A Precondition for EffectiveProtection of Minority Rights in South East Europe, byKathryn Ramsay, MRG 2006, http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=909 accessed 25 May 2008.

Pushing for Change? South East Europe’s Minorities in the EU Progress Reports

Minority Rights Group International 54 Commercial Street, London E1 6LT, United Kingdom ISBN 978 1 904584 76 6Tel +44 (0)20 7422 4200 Fax +44 (0)20 7422 4201Email [email protected] Website www.minorityrights.org

As the countries of South East Europe move towards EUaccession, the European Union’s annual country ProgressReports offer a unique opportunity to improve the dailylives of the region’s marginalized minorities.

The Reports, and the priorities they identify, carry signifi-cant political weight, which creates implementationobligations on governments aspiring to bring their coun-tries into the EU. They also provide an important advocacytool for human rights and minority rights activists.

But close examination of these Reports and consultationwith minority groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, shows a widedivergence between the EU messages and the realitiesthat minorities face in their day-to-day lives.

This report considers three crucial areas for minorities:participation in public life, employment and education.Lack of equality in these areas serves to keep minoritiesdisadvantaged over generations: if this goes consistentlyunaddressed, the seeds for future conflict can begin togrow. Given that one of the main concerns of the EU inthis region has been inter-ethnic conflict prevention, it isvital that more attention is given to reporting on minorities.

The greatest weakness of the Reports is that EU officersdo not engage with minorities themselves in a systematicand structured manner while the Reports are being written.Here, alongside in-depth analysis of the Reports and com-parisons with treaty body monitoring, grassroots minorityrights organizations give their views and show how the EUReports could be strengthened to effect real change.

working to secure the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples

Documents

Pushing for Change? South East Europe's Minorities in the EU