The Council of Europe has ruled that Belgium did not violate the law when it cleared two Roma camps near Charleroi Airport in 2020.
On 4 and 5 April 2020, as the Covid-19 lockdown was in force across Belgium, a police operation cleared two traveller campsites in Couillet and Jumet near Charleroi Airport.
On 27 April 202o, the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) filed a complaint against Belgium for what they called a "disproportionate" police response. It argued the State had violated the European Social Charter, a Council of Europe treaty that safeguards the civil and political rights of European citizens.
The ERRC said authorities offered no alternative accommodation solutions to families and exposed them to health risks, including but not just those associated with Covid-19.
It also alleged that the operation amounted to "ethnically targeted collective punishment".
On Saturday, the Council of Europe ruled that Belgium did not violate the Charter. According to the Council's European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), the State did not appear to specifically target travellers and had provided alternative accommodation to the people affected by the evacuation.
'Certain contradictions'
Credit: Belga
The ruling was passed with eight votes for and seven against. Several members of the council have explained why they continue to believe that Belgium breached the Charter.
According to committee members Tatiana Puiu and Aoife Nolan, States are required to limit the risk of eviction by consulting affected parties ahead of eviction, fixing a notice period and providing access to legal aid.
In addition, they underline the legal obligation to prohibit evictions during a pandemic, "except in the most exceptional and duly justified cases".
Puiu and Nolan noted "certain contradictions" in the State's arguments, such as the emphasis on the need for citizens to stay in their homes during lockdown while evicting these individuals from their homes at the time.
As for the mentioned alternative accommodation provided, the Committee "does not have at its disposal information on the precise nature of the alternative accommodation but nor does it have indications that the accommodation offered to the Travellers concerned did not satisfy the requirements defined by the Committee".
They regretted that this particular's group's vulnerability and cultural specificities were not adequately considered.
