The ECSR essentially repeated the first finding in July 2006, in its document Conclusions XVIII-1 (Greece) Articles 1, 12, 13, 16 and 19 of the Charter; according to the ECSR,

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Greece is not in conformity with Article 16 of the Charter for the following reasons:

– there is still a shortage of housing suited to the size and the needs of Roma families (Follow-up to Complaint No. 15/2003 by the European Roma Rights Centre against Greece);

– Roma families still do not have sufficient legal protection.”

See page 14

I wrote the letter anyway

Margaret

Both. The original settlement is/was (by the way, have all Romas living on the construction site been evicted, or only part of them?) on public land, where a stadium is to be built. Some or all who have been evicted from there first occupied a disused factory building, and that one is owned privately.

No offense was intended. The point I am trying to make is that sometimes, you just have to let go. It seems to me that the Roma, much like pretty much any other hr issue in Greece, is a lost cause. One can be chasing windmills for a couple of years but sooner or later one will realise that there is, in fact, nothing he / she can do. Nothing. Zilt. Nada. Nichts.

Panayote can go to bed with his conscience at rest. He did (more than) his bit and he can genuinely be proud of it.

Of course, I do expect his retort to be along the lines “screw me but what about hr? What about the Roma? Surely someone should do something about them?”

He would, of course, be absolutely fekkin right. But he does know the answer to that one: no one can (rather is willing to) do anything. You can go ahead and write your letter but I dont think it will make any difference.

Thanks for the kind words.

If you had read carefully what I wrote you would see that the Protocols are a procedure to evict from STATE land: they are issued by the state authority owning the land and can be appealed against in court. Court decisions on the contrary are needed for an eviction from private land and can be appealed in court as well.

There is NO legal aid available. Had GHM, occasionally with funds from ERRC, MRGI, COHRE, not provided free legal aid to several Roma eviction cases they would have not appealed against any eviction.

Actually you ARE wrong about whose responsibility it is. Go to our site in the press releases or the Roma page and find the Commissioner for Human Rights letter to Greek authorities - also probably available here somewhere. He makes clear one thing which is so obvious anyway. That the central government is in the end of the day accountable if local authorities fail to implement the law or the conventions. But here the central state does not care and sorry Margaret the Ombudsman cannot simply not scare them but does not give a damn either.

Here is from yesterday’s GHM release of a COHRE text to the UN which I recommend you read in full .

“Greek officials attending a June 7 meeting of the OSCE to discuss the crisis of forced evictions of Roma in the OSCE region were entirely unaware that Greece had been found in violation of three aspects of European Social Charter Article 16 for systemic violations of the rights of Roma to adequate housing, including as a result of a pattern and practice of forced evictions of Roma.”

The Greek official who excelled in such hypocritical ignorance is a Senior Investigator of the Greek Ombudsman…

So Margaret in Votanikos there was indeed a multiply illegal eviction, although indeed in the long run these Roma should not have been living either in the initial wretched settlement or in the deserted factory, but in some place with adequate housing the state would provide them. Now they live in the streets.

And finally do not mix up stopping sites which are not relevant here with permanent homes which are relevant. Stopping sites are necessary for the temporary settlement of Roma who move and there are none in Greece. The crushing majority of Roma are settled in Greece and need permanent homes.

Please read our extensive report on housing also with details fo the legal system that we cannot expose here:

“Greece: Continuing Widespread Violation of Roma Housing Rights (October 2006)”

Solicitor, since you ask.

And, because I’m a lawyer, I don’t think it’s terribly helpful to just sigh and say “Isn’t it awful”. It is awful, but I’d hope that something can be done about it. I’m sure Panyote is already doing it…

I’ve read the decision Panyote linked to. It was very interesting, and informative. It answered all of my general questions, setting out - as it does - the domestic law.

As for the particular questions relating to this eviction, I gather from your tone, Man with no name, that you think I should leave it. So be it.

This is what I have understood so far. National law provides that the Secretary General of the region is charged with deciding the capacity and situation of organised settlements for itinerant people, which organised settlements should have water, electricity, sewerage and waste disposal facilities, together with bath facilities and facilities for washing clothes.

Responsibility is then handed over to the municipality who may make a charge for running the organised sites and are charged with implementing the decisions of the Secretary General. Here is where things fall down, apparently. The municipality does not do what it is supposed to do. So there are no, or not enough, organised sites with the result that the Roma encamp anywhere they can. This is sometimes on private land, sometimes on public land. This situation is apparently frustrating for central government which is why the decision making process in relation to official sites has already been taken back from the municipalities.

Sometimes - presumably - private landowners who wish to regain possession of their land follow the legal procedure laid down in the Protocol of Administrative Expulsion. Legal aid is - apparently - available to those on low incomes to challenge an order for possession made against them. There is an appeal procedure against the possession order. Presumably, again, the police may assist the private landowner in executing the court order for possession if no appeal is upheld. No problem with that - what is the point of a court order if you cannot enforce it?

The court has power to suspend any possession order, giving the Roma time to be accommodated or find alternative accommodation.

Sometimes (and this is possibly what happened at Votanikos) the Protocol was not followed but the police assisted the landowners in an illegal eviction of the Roma who, double catastrophe, have nowhere to go because the municipality has not carried through the Secretary General’s decisions in relation to official sites …

On other occasions municipalities conduct their own eviction proceedings from publicly owned land and yet still do not provide alternative accommodation.

All lines seem to lead to the municipality. Is there no way (other than the Ombudsman who doesn’t seem to scare them) of forcing the municipality to meet its obligations? Is there an effective judicial review procedure available?

I don’t really expect Panyote to answer - he is busy doing the real work on the ground - but I think that is the real question that needs to be answered - is there any way of forcing local authorities to abide by the law?

Give the dog a bone and give the man a break. If you are a lawyer as you say (btw a barrister or a solicitor?) it might help you to read the complaint Panayote refers to (as well as the ones concenring Italy and Bulgaria). There’s lot of informative stuff there, stuff you can use in your work with the homeless people too (I know I have).

Lets just say this (if I have got it straight as I think I have): an eviction can be doubly illegal, in the sense that both the necessary procedures might not have been followed (eg in UK context image evicting Roma without serving them first with enforcement notices) AND that even if they have, the courts order their eviction WITHOUT ensuring that the Roma have an alternative relocation site. The eviction of the Roma at Votanikos therefore appears to be DOUBLY illegal. Of course, this doesnt mean a fekkin thing. The Roma will have to sleep rough tonite. The enormous irony of the whole thing is the following: the state looks after the homeless people who do nothing or almost nothing for themselves but evicts the Roma who, in the absence of state care, have managed to establish sthng that vaguely resembles a normal life. Funnily enough, not many people will say that homeless people are lazy (notwithstanding that they do almost nothing to protect themselves from eg inclement weather) but will say so for the Roma whose shed building skills could be the envy of any architect.

“Please keep in mind that the place belongs to a real estate agent (Riviera S.A.) and police appears as trying to help him evict them wihtout the legal process”

I appreciate the time you have taken to reply. I must say that I intended no criticism of your NGO. I’ve followed the work of GHM for about the last seven years and have a very good idea of the nature of your work. I have unstinting admiration for the devotion that you and those that have worked alongside you have put into trying to give those who have no voice a voice that is heard in the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and on the international stage. Not many people would be prepared to undertake the work that you have done, day in, day out, year after year. I am quite aware that your knowledge of international and domestic law relating to the Roma is encyclopaedic.

Nor did I intend to imply that things were better in the UK - I spend a fair amount of time advising homeless people here and it is often impossible to find them accommodation even if the law protects them in theory. I have also seen the accommodation provided to asylum seekers - I used to work for the Refugee Council. Some of the accommodation early on was little more than a garden shed, in the middle of winter. Correction. It was a garden shed, though painted on the inside.

It was just, as a lawyer, I like to know what the legal basis is …

If you think that writing to the Minister will do any good, I’ll happily do that. Which Minister should I write to?

Good luck with your work.

These evictions took place despite the legal obligation as spelled out by the Ombudsman. These Roma were repeatedly informed by GHM that they were entitled to relocation. Actually, a few days before their first eviction carried out on orders and in the presence of the Mayor of Athens himself, even the Greek Ombudsman, in its letter to the competent Ministry of Interior copied to the Mayor of Athens (ref. No. 13986.06.2.3 and dated 11 May 2007), concerning the Roma of Votanikos, stated inter alia that:

“the Municipality of Athens should become active towards instituting positive discrimination measures for the amelioration of the living conditions of the said inhabitants (the Roma of Votanikos) , either by relocating the indigent citizens registered in the local municipal rolls to municipal or state owned plots of land or by providing to those who face grave substinence problems with monetary benefits, clothing and medication etc (art. 75.1 locus e of Law 3463/2006”

and

“Lastly, it is reminded that the flowing from the Constitution and the EU legislation special duty of care for this particular group renders it imperative both that the competent authorities abstain from taking any measure of forced eviction or other measure that could lead to their being forced to leave their place of residence, regardless of how illegal or problematic their current settling is, if no specific alternative site meeting the minimum adequate housing standards has been assigned for their and relocation and legal residence and that measures have be taken towards arranging the practical aspects of this relocation.”

These Roma and the defenders of their right (GHM and the human rights sections of PASOK and Synaspismos) have been advocating that such relocation be implemented and no eviction is carried out before that. However, once more as in the case of Patras, all these rights turned out to be academic exercises, and in the end of the day Roma got evicted with everyone who had the authority and or the power to do something looking the other way.

In fact it is because of this legal obligation that a committee of competent agency members was formed three weeks before eviction.

It would be nice if people in the UK do not consider NGOs in Greece as not so able to argue on legal issues.

Finally, one can be evicted from a private property following an array of legal procedures available that canm be reviewed by courts as well. None was followed here. The police harassed and bullied them and forced them to leave. Now if you call that legal eviction, I call it illegal and in fact racist.

And since I have received the call this morning from those people asking me where they would sleep tonight and spent the rest of the day appealing to competent bodies internationally I hope one appreciates that there is little time available to inform people on legal theories.

Oh yes. For those who care DoDo mentioned the ruling of the ECSR on how Greece violates the housing rights of the Roma. Is that conviction irrelevant too? Here it is:

Last July the ECSR ruled that Greece continued to violate Article 16.

Regarding AWOG (American Women of Greece)

I used to know an American lady at the US Embassy who was involved with them but she has since moved away. However, I did a little googling and found their site.

http://www.awog.gr/

On their site, I found this reference to Community service, which incidentally refers to them even considering helping a “refugee camp of thousands”. Of course, it would have to pass their evaluation committee. But, all it would take is a phone call or email to get the ball rolling.

FROM THEIR SITE:

Community Services is the heart of AWOG. AWOG’s Community Services activities and projects are numerous and diversified to include education, health and social welfare for the people in Greece, particularly those in great need. A committee evaluates each candidate for donations whether it be an institution, a club, an organization or even a refugee camp of thousands.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. I apologise for the length of this reply.

I’m a lawyer, btw. I had asked Panyote a couple of specific questions which related not so much to the international treaties that Greece has signed up to, but to the way those treaties are implemented in Greek Law.

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights does impose an obligation on signatory states to ensure that their populations enjoy a right to adequate housing, but, even with the help of the general comments of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument] you will see that these provisions remain vague. What they don’t provide is a specific right in national law that the Roma can rely on, a right to be accommodated if they have no accommodation. I wanted to know whether there was such a national (domestic) provision or whether the International Covenant could be relied on in court proceedings in the national court. I doubt that the latter is true, precisely because the provisions of the International Covenant are so vague.

Also, many of the international measures concentrate on unlawful evictions. It is all very well to outlaw unlawful evictions; it is quite another to insist on a government providing accommodation for those who have been lawfully evicted. The international measures do not outlaw evictions, per se, only unlawful ones. So, if land is unlawfully occupied, I presume that the legal owner of the land can apply to the court to evict those who occupy it unlawfully and the court (and international law) will support their removal. A lawful eviction.

So, it always comes back to the Greek government and what national measures there are in place to provide accommodation for those who are homeless where they have been lawfully evicted. We know that international law says that Greece (and every other signatory country) must ensure that there is adequate housing, but that is talk between states, not a helpful provision for a poor homeless person. It may be the best there is in Greece, but that is really what I was asking.

Over here (the UK) there is legislation that ensures that local authorities provide housing for those who are unintentionally homeless and who have a priority need. This takes care of children, families more generally, the old, the infirm and those with mental health problems.
There is no law which requires the government to provide a healthy man of working age with any accommodation and he will be left to fend for himself.
Nor is there any law to help those who make themselves intentionally homeless – if, for example, you leave accommodation that you could have stayed in or you haven’t paid your rent and could have done so and are evicted as a result. Temporary accommodation (up to 28 days) still has to be provided but nothing after that.
There also – quite separately – is an obligation on local authorities to provide sites for gypsies and travellers but in 1994 this obligation was removed and replaced with something much more vague – a requirement for local authorities to “develop and implement strategies” for housing gypsies and travellers. There are now too few sites to accommodate all Gypsies and travellers. I was asking whether there are now similar requirements in Greece imposed on local municipalities.
Lawful evictions of gypsies or travellers who unlawfully occupy private land must be carried out following the due process of the law – but there is no requirement for private landowners to have regard to humanitarian considerations (as there is with public landowners) though the use of excessive force to evict may result in criminal charges being brought against the landowner.
Most importantly any gypsy or traveller threatened with unlawful eviction has adequate legal teeth to challenge the eviction, often by way of judicial review in the case of an eviction by a local authority.
It seems from what Panyote has said that there are no national measures which give the same teeth to challenges by the Roma who have, instead, to rely on the toothless international or European law measures that – at worst – might see Greece being embarassed in some distant international institution. I wanted to check whether this was actually the position.

The situation with the Roma in Votanikos seems to be that there were illegally occupying private land. I don’t know if they were evicted lawfully or unlawfully, but it would seem clear that at some point they would have been lawfully evicted, that is, that the private landowners would have been able to recover possession of their own land. The Roma have nowhere else to go. Which makes their need to occupy land unlawfully, and their desire to stay put, completely understandable and their eviction very very sad. But it does make their occupation lawful and their eviction unlawful. If there is no national law requiring municipalities to provide accommodation for Roma, or to accommodate homeless, vulnerable people, then this is where pressure needs to be applied. There should be a law, supported by a procedure for challenging a munipality’s failure. Tell me where to write, and I’ll write to the appropriate Minister telling him/her!. If there is adequate national provision, but no money to instruct lawyers, then perhaps a letter to AWOG would produce some funding?