Enforcement of the anti-Racism legislation of the European Union

                             against antigypsyism

 

Ethnic And Racial Studies, May 2018

 

Conclusion

In this research, the aim was to analyse the use of competence of the EU for the antigypsyism cases. It is the European Commission and the ECJ, which have the competence to enforce the EU law. The Commission cannot and/or does not act against any kind of racist, discriminatory, xenophobic situation in the EU. As the competence of the Commission is for the implementation of the EU law, it cannot act on the cases of individual racism. Individual racism is under the competence of the member states. The Commission can only act against the cases of the breaches by the member states.

Even if it has the competence, it does not act against every breach. Thus, the Commission needs some pre-conditions to act. First of all, it has to have competence. For example, it cannot act on the violations against third country nationals about immigration issues as the Race Directive has limitations on that issue. Second, it cannot act against every single breach but it has to be convinced about ongoing trends. This is also related with the third point, which is the documentation by NGOs, reports of the CERD and ECRI, and the ECtHR rulings matter for the Commission to act. The documentation is not only necessary for providing proofs of the ongoing breaches but also for contributing to the legitimacy of its actions. Fourth point is that the Commission tends to act when it feels it can make a difference. Considering the pressure on the Commission, especially when it uses its competences on the sensitive issues, it refrains from overstepping and consequently seen weak. Fifth point is that the personalities of both the Commissioner and the President matter. They have to be proactive and willing to act on these issues. Sixth, there has to be a political will by the member states to target the issue. Otherwise, the Commission is left alone in its pursuit. Lastly, it seems that the Commission also refrains from acting against big or influential states.

The low number of infringement cases on the basis of the Race Directive and no referral to the ECJ also show that the Commission prefers to deal with the issue with other means, which are mostly not open to public. As a result, the EU’s use of the enforcement mechanisms for effective implementation of the anti-racism regime, therefore against antigypsyism, is limited and rarely public. Making the system transparent and public will not only strengthen the Commission’s efforts to deal with the issue, but it will also make it easier for the public to hold member states’ accountable for their actions violating the EU law.