EU-MIDIS II
Second European Union Minorities
and Discrimination Survey
Roma women
in nine EU Member States
Photo (cover & inside, from left to right): © FRA - Local engagement for Roma inclusion: Pavlikeni, Cordoba and Helsinki
For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under FRA’s copyright, permission must be sought directly
from the copyright holders.
More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019
FRA – print:	 ISBN 978-92-9474-594-1	 doi:10.2811/127019	 TK-04-19-228-EN-C
FRA – web:	 ISBN 978-92-9474-595-8	 doi:10.2811/030653	 TK-04-19-228-EN-N
© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Second European Union Minorities
and Discrimination Survey
Roma women
in nine EU Member States
2
Abbreviations and acronyms
CEDAW	 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women
CoE	 Council of Europe
CRC	 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
EC	 European Commission
ECtHR	 European Court of Human Rights
EIGE	 European Institute for Gender Equality
ERRC	 European Roma Rights Centre
EU	 European Union
Eurofound	 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Eurostat	 European Statistical Office
FRA	 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
ICESCR	 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
MS	 Member State
OHCHR	 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
SDGs	 Sustainable Development Goals (a collection of 17 global goals set by the United Nations
General Assembly in 2015 for the year 2030)
TFUE	 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UN	 United Nations
UNDHR	 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UNESCO	 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNICEF	 United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
WHO	 World Health Organisation
3
Contents
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2
FIGURES AND TABLES ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
INTRODUCTION ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5
1	EDUCATION ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
1.1.	 Proficiency in speaking, reading and writing ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11
1.2.	 Attendance and attainment in formal education ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15
1.3.	 Not in education, employment or training ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 18
2	 MARITAL STATUS AND HEALTH ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 21
2.1.	 Early marriage ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 21
2.2.	Health �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  24
3	EMPLOYMENT ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27
3.1.	 Employment and main activities ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27
3.2.	 Attitudes on gender roles in employment ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 31
4	 DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE DUE TO ETHNIC ORIGIN �������������������������������������������������������������� 35
4.1.	Discrimination ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 35
4.2.	Harassment ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  38
4.3.	Violence ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  39
5	 CONCLUDING REMARKS ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41
ANNEX - THE SURVEY IN A NUTSHELL �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  42
REFERENCES �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  44
4
Figures and tables
Figure 1:	 Early leavers from education and training, aged 18-24 years, by country (%) ��������������������������������������������������� 8
Figure 2:	 Respondents’ views on whether or not girls and boys should stay in school for the same length
of time, by country (%) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 9
Figure 3.	 Roma households with children in primary or lower secondary education supported by a Roma
teaching assistant, by country (%) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  10
Figure 4.	 Roma who speak Romani as the main language at home (%) ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
Figure 5:	 Good to excellent reading and writing skills in the national language (self-assessment) (%) ����������������������� 12
Figure 6:	 Good to excellent reading and writing skills in the national language (self-assessment) (%) ����������������������� 13
Figure 7:	 Children aged between 4 years and the (country-specific) starting age of compulsory education
who participate in early childhood education (%) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  14
Figure 8:	 Compulsory-school-age (country specific) children currently in education (%) ����������������������������������������������� 15
Figure 9:	 Share of Roma who have not completed any level of formal education (ISCED 0), by gender and
age groups (%) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  16
Figure 10:	 Share of Roma who completed upper secondary education or higher (ISCED 3+), by gender and
age groups (%) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  17
Figure 11:	 Young Roma (aged 16-24 years) neither in employment nor in education or training (%) ����������������������������  19
Figure 12:	 Activity status of Roma aged 16-24, by socio-demographic characteristics (%) ��������������������������������������������� 20
Figure 13:	 Married for the first time before the age of 18 years (%) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  23
Figure 14:	 Married for the first time before the age of 18 (%) ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24
Figure 15:	 Long-term activity limitations of women and men, Roma and general population (%) ��������������������������������  25
Figure 16:	 Paid work rate for Roma women and men aged 20-64 years, including self-employment
and occasional work or work in the past four weeks, compared with the Europe 2020
employment rate 2015 (Eurostat) (%) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 28
Figure 17:	 Women, 16 to 64 years, currently not active in the labour market, not looking for work because
taking care of small children/elderly/sick relatives (%) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30
Figure 18:	 Extent of agreement that men should take as much responsibility as women for the home and
children, Roma (%) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  32
Figure 19:	 Extent of agreement on the statement: “Having a job is the best way for a woman to be
an independent person” (%) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  33
Figure 20:	 Roma who felt discriminated against when looking for work in the five years before the survey (%) ������ 36
Figure 21:	 Awareness of a law that forbids discrimination based on skin colour, ethnic origin or religion (%) ������������ 38
Figure 22:	 Harassment experienced due to Roma background in the 12 months before the survey (%) ����������������������� 39
Figure 23:	 Violence due to Roma background in the 5 years before the survey (%) ��������������������������������������������������������� 40
Table 1:	Current main activity in nine EU Member States, all persons in Roma households surveyed aged
16 years or over (%) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29
Table 2:	Three most often cited reasons for not reporting the incident – feeling discriminated against
when looking for work in the five years before the survey (%) �������������������������������������������������������������������������  37
Table 3:	Number of Roma individuals and households interviewed in EU-MIDIS II by gender and
EU Member State ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43
5
Introduction
Equality between women and men is an objective of the
European Union (EU) since 1957. Yet, women throughout
the European Union still face inequalities in many
respects. Roma women face additional challenges as
extreme poverty, exclusion and discrimination reinforce
their disadvantages even further. In core areas
of life, such as education, employment and health,
Roma women continue to fare worse than Roma men
and than women in the general population. In addition,
many women in the EU, both Roma and non-Roma,
shoulder a disproportionate part of the responsibilities
involved in running a family. Roma women, especially
those who marry and start a family at a very young age
while living in severely deprived material and housing
conditions, are even more disadvantaged and at risk of
exclusion and marginalisation. Drawing on FRA’s own
survey research in nine EU Member States, this report
highlights the position of Roma women in education,
employment and health, as well as the extent to which
they experience hate-motivated discrimination, harassment
and physical violence. It also highlights the
dire consequences of early marriages which affect
many Roma women.
Today, Article 23 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental
Rights requires that equality between men and women
be ensured in all areas, including employment, work
and pay. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU), the EU should act to ensure
equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and
women, and to empower women through positive
action. The EU has therefore developed robust legislation
to combat discrimination on grounds of sex and
gender, which is complemented by legislation addressing
different forms of violence that have a particular
impact on women.
Over the past years, the EU has made efforts to reduce
gender inequalities through political and legal initiatives,
by mainstreaming gender issues in EU policies
and through targeted measures. The Council of the EU,
for example, sent a strong political signal by adopting
a decision on signing the Council of Europe Convention
on preventing and combating violence against women
and domestic violence, the Istanbul Convention, in
May 2017. The outcome of these efforts is measured
through the EU’s Gender Equality Index which monitors
progress in six core domains of life: work, money,
knowledge, time, power, health, and violence against
women.1
Overall, the index shows that more than 9 in
10 Europeans believe that gender equality is important
for a fair and democratic society.2
But, as the European
Commission notes in its 2018 stocktaking report on
equality between men and women in the EU, gender
equality moves forward “at a snail’s pace and in some
domains is even going backwards”.3
In addition, the 2030 Agenda 2030 for sustainable devel-
opment – the global strategy for sustainable growth –
aims “to leave no one behind”. It includes a specific
sustainable development goal (SDG 5) which calls on
states “to achieve gender equality and the empowerment
of all women and girls”. The EU monitoring report4
on progress towards the SDGs is based on a range of EU
SDG indicators.5
They are populated by data provided by
Eurostat, as well as by FRA on violence against women,
and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).
However, while providing a breakdown by gender, the
data are not disaggregated by ethnic origin, despite
the prohibition of discrimination based on race, colour
or ethnic origin in the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights and the existence since 2000 of EU law protecting
against discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin.
The Racial Equality Directive  (2000/43/EC) requires
under Article 13 that national equality bodies conduct
surveys on discrimination.6
The surveys on minority
ethnic groups, including migrants, conducted regularly
by FRA – which can be disaggregated by gender – contribute
in addressing this data gap. In this way, the data
can assist policymakers at EU and national levels to
develop evidence based, and therefore better targeted,
policy responses to ensure the respect of fundamental
rights and to improve the social inclusion of women and
men belonging to marginalised minority ethnic groups.
1	 See, European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), Gender
Equality Index 2017 – data for the domain “violence against
women” is provided by FRA’s survey on Violence against
Women.
2	 European Commission (2017).
3	 European Commission (2018a).
4	 Eurostat, Sustainable development in the European Union —
Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU
context — 2018 edition.
5	Eurostat, EU SDG Indicator set 2019, final version of
08/01/2019.
6	 Council of the European Union (2000), p. 0022-0026.
6
The results of FRA’s work show that, while all women
are affected by inequalities across the 12 areas identified
in the Beijing Platform for Action,7
many of those
belonging to minority groups, such as Roma,8
face
additional challenges. For this reason, “awareness of
the gender dimension” is one of the Common Basic
Principles on Roma Inclusion9
guiding Roma integration
strategies and measures.
This report examines data from FRA’s second European
Minority and Discrimination Survey (EUMIDIS II) in nine
EU-Member States10
to compare the situation of Roma
women to that of Roma men and to that of women
in the general population, where possible. The survey
interviewed face-to-face about 8,000 Roma women
and men in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia,Greece, Hungary,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. It collected data
on their experiences of hate-motivated discrimination,
harassment and physical violence, as well as on living
conditions, employment, education, housing and health.
The results provide evidence on how anti-Gypsyism
affects the lives of Roma in the EU. This is the second
time FRA reports on Roma women following its 2014
report,11
which examined gender differences in respect
to their experiences of discrimination, harassment and
hate crime, as well as on their living conditions.
7	 UN Women (2015).
8	 The Council of Europe uses ‘Roma’ as an umbrella term.
It refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale and related groups in Europe,
including Travellers and the Eastern groups (Dom and Lom),
and covers the wide diversity of the groups concerned,
including persons who identify themselves as Gypsies. See,
Council of Europe Descriptive Glossary of terms relating to
Roma issues, 18 May 2012. For the purpose of the EU-MIDIS
II survey, ‘Roma’ refers to autochtonous ‘Roma’ within
selected EU Member States and does not focus on ‘Roma’
who have moved from one EU Member State to another.
9	 Council of the European Union (2009).
10	 The survey interviewed face to face about 8,000 Roma
women and men in BG, CZ,EL, ES, HR, HU, PT, RO, SK.
It collected data on their experiences of hate-motivated
discrimination, harassment and physical violence, as well
as on living conditions, employment, education, housing,
health. The results provide evidence on how anti-Gypsyism
affects the lives of Roma in the EU.
11	 FRA (2014).
The analysis confirms the findings of FRA’s 2013 survey
on Roma in 11 EU Member States.12
It shows the extent
of the impact of anti-Gypsyism:
•• on core social indicators, all Roma, both women and
men fare, on average, much worse than women
and men in the general population;
•• on a range of indicators, Roma women fare worse
than Roma men.
This report presents the findings of FRA’s own survey
research with Roma in nine EU Member States. It
explores the data collected by FRA, building on earlier
publications from FRA’s survey research,13
and
addresses the following areas as regards the position
of Roma women in the Member States where
they were surveyed:
•• education;
•• early marriage and health;
•• employment;
•• discrimination, harassment and violence.
12	 FRA (2013).
13	 FRA (2016); FRA (2017).
7
1 Education
The right to education is a fundamental human right,
enshrined in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR). The International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognises
a right to education and specific rights, as regards the
primary, secondary and tertiary levels under Article 13.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises under
Article 14 that everyone has the right to education and
to have access to vocational and continuing training.
The right to equitable, quality education is crucial to
finding stable and decently paid employment, but it
also has an intrinsic value for personal development
and social integration. It is therefore key for achieving
progress in Roma inclusion for both women and
men. The EU Framework for National Roma Integration
Strategies14
recognises the need for equitable, quality
education and places particular importance on promoting
policy measures related to education, including early
childhood and adult “second chance” education. The age
profile of Roma respondents in FRA’s EU-MIDIS II survey
shows that, on average, they are much younger than
the general population when leaving school (Figure 1).
This emphasises the need to tackle anti-Gypsyism in
education and invest in improving their access to quality
education, given their countries’ demographic balance.
Comparing the proportion of the general population
where on average every 7th
person is below the age
of 15 (last census of 2011) with Roma, as recorded in
this survey, every fifth to every third Roma – depending
on the Member State – is below the age of 15. The
share of young Roma under the age of 15 is particularly
high in Croatia (37.4 % of the Roma surveyed compared
to 15.2 % for the general population), Greece
14	 European Commission (2011).
(31.4 % compared to 14.5 %), Portugal (27 % compared
to 14.9 %) and Slovakia (27.4 % compared to 15.32 %).
These young people should remain in education to
attain the essential qualifications that will allow them
to compete in the labour market on equal terms with
their non-Roma peers. However, as FRA reported in
2016,15
the share of young Roma leaving school early
with at most lower secondary education and not continuing
education or engaging in training is unacceptably
high overall (66 % for men and 71 % for women).
The gender gap in the Roma population is pronounced
in Bulgaria (77 % women compared to 57 % men) and
Croatia (78 % women compared to 60 % men).
Given the importance of education and training for sustainable
development, Europe’s 2020 Strategy aimed
to reduce the share of early school leavers to less than
10 %. A number of Member States have achieved this
target, which appears within reach for the general population
in most Member States. However, the survey
results show that for Roma this will not be possible
without serious investment in targeted and gendersensitive
measures. Such measures should specifically
target both the young Roma women who marry early
and leave school and the young Roma men who go to
work at an early age, many in low-skill jobs to provide
income for their families with little opportunity for personal
development. At the same time, authorities need
to take measures to tackle anti-Gypsyism in education
among the majority population, as this can be a formidable
barrier to social inclusion measures for both
women and men.
15	 FRA (2016), p. 26.
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
8
All children and young people regardless of their gender
or ethnic origin have a right to quality education.
While states have a duty to provide education equitably,
poverty as well as prevailing social attitudes can
affect choices about continuing education, especially
after completing its compulsory component. For example,
attitudes in Roma communities can also influence
how long Roma girls and boys stay in education. The
survey asked respondents if they believe that girls and
boys should stay in school for the same length of time.
The results show that the overwhelming majority of
all Roma men (81 %) and women (83 %) surveyed,
agree or strongly agree that “both girls and boys should
stay in school for the same length of time”. The lowest
levels of agreement are found in Greece among
Roma men (72 %), the country which also has the lowest
levels of educational participation and attainment,
Czechia among men (75 %) and Slovakia among both
men (74 %) and women (75 %). These findings can be
taken into account when considering what measures
would be effective and necessary to tackle early school
leaving, which despite these prevailing attitudes are
high, as the findings show (Figure 1).
Figure 1:	 Early leavers from education and training, aged 18-24 years, by country (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Roma women Roma men Roma - country total General population (LFS 2015)
77
55
94
69
78
67
91
79
61
71
57 59
90
71
60
68
89
76
54
66
67
57
92
70
68 68
90
77
58
68
13
6 8
20
3
12
14
19
7
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
(9 MS)
Europe 2020
target
Notes:	 a
	 Out of all persons aged 18-24 years in Roma households (n=4,152); weighted results.
	 b	
Eurostat rate 2015: edat_lfse_14 (downloaded 12/09/2016). Percentage of the population aged 18-24 years having
attained at most lower secondary education and not being involved in further education or training.
	 c
	Early leavers from education and training denotes the percentage of the population aged 18-24 years having attained
at most lower secondary education (ISCED 2011 levels 0, 1 or 2) and not being involved in further education or training.
There are some deviations from the Eurostat definition. Eurostat includes persons who are not in education and
training (neither formal nor non-formal) in the four weeks preceding the LFS survey. EU-MIDIS II asks for “currently
attending school or vocational training” and not asking explicitly for non-formal education.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (LFS) 2015, General population
9
Education
In some European countries, several decades ago civil
society organisations and state authorities started using
members of their Roma communities as teaching assistants
or mediators to improve the educational outcomes
of Roma students.16
Recommendation No R (2000) 4 of
the Council of Europe (CoE) Committee of Ministers on
Roma education referred to the use of “mediators from
the Roma/Gypsy community” to improve communication
with parents and avoid conflicts at school17
. Ten years later,
16	 Council of Europe (2006), p. 8.
17	 Council of Europe (2000).
the “Strasbourg Declaration on Roma”18
stated that the use
of school assistants and mediators can “ensure effective
and equal access to the mainstream educational system,
including pre-school education, for Roma children”. Subsequently,
the CoE Committee of Ministers adopted in
2012 a Recommendation19
on mediation as an effective
tool for promoting respect for human rights and social
inclusion of Roma “stressing the importance of respecting
gender equality when having recourse to mediators and
noting that the gender of mediators may be relevant to
18	 Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2010).
19	 Council of Europe (2012).
Figure 2:	 Respondents’ views on whether or not girls and boys should stay in school for the same length of time,
by country (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(Strongly) agree (Strongly) disagree Don't know/Refused
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
89 90
84
75 79
72
92 89 97 95
81
79
79
90
83 80
75 74
83 81
9 8
14
21
16
25
(6) (6) (2) (4)
13
15
5
17
910
15 17
21
23
13 16
(4)
(6)
11
(8) 8 5 4 4
Notes:	 a
	 Respondents (n=7,709); weighted results.
	 b	
Based on respondent questionnaire: “For each of the following statements I read out, can you tell me how much you
agree or disagree with each? It is important that both girls and boys stay in education for the same length of time.”
“Agree” combines answer categories “strongly agree” and “agree”, “Disagree” combines answer categories “strongly
disagree” and “disagree”.
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
10
the effectiveness of their work in some situations”. The
CoE developed a range of important initiatives20
to develop
mediation as “one of the measures used across Europe
to tackle the inequalities Roma face in terms of access to
employment, healthcare services and quality education.”21
The EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strate-
gies22
refers to the usefulness of Roma school mediators
and the relevant Council Recommendation calls on
Member States, where appropriate to local approaches
to Roma integration, to “promote the training and
employment of qualified mediators dedicated to Roma.”
20	 For more information, see the Council of Europe’s webpage
on ROMED.
21	 See the Council of Europe’s webpage on the ROMED1
Programme.
22	 European Commission (2011).
Against this background, the survey asked respondents
whether the children in their household are assisted by
a Roma teaching assistant at school. The results show
that while a significant proportion in Slovakia (49 %)
and in Croatia (35 %) said that they benefit from such
assistance, the overwhelming majority in the other
countries surveyed did not receive this support. This
could be either because they did not need it or request
it, or it could be because Roma teaching assistants were
not available. Given that the practice of training and
employing Roma mediators/assistants has been positively
assessed on numerous occasions, this evidence
can be used by the EU and by Member States to consider
concrete measures to improve availability and access to
Roma mediators/assistants to improve the educational
performance and attainment of Roma children.
Figure 3.	 Roma households with children in primary or lower secondary education supported by a Roma
teaching assistant, by country (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
6
11 10
(3)
35
7
(9)
6
49
16
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Notes:	 a
	Out of all Roma households with children in the age 6-15 who attend primary or lower secondary education (n=3,022);
weighted results.
	 b	
Based on household questionnaire and respondent questionnaire asking “Are the children in your household assisted
by a Roma teaching assistant at school?”
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma
11
Education
In this Chapter, the first section examines gender differences
in literacy, namely the ability to speak, read
and write the national language; the second, looks at
educational attendance and attainment; the last two
sections examine gender differences among those
Roma who are most vulnerable to social exclusion and
poverty, namely early school leavers and young people
not in employment, education or training.
1.1.	 Proficiency in speaking,
reading and writing
The overwhelming majority of the Roma surveyed, with
small differences between gender (89 % men and 88 %
women) and age, speak the language of their country
well to excellent or as mother tongue.23
In four of the
nine Member States surveyed, Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia
and Slovakia, the majority of respondents speak Romani
as their first main language at home, more men than
women, except in Greece. Use of Romani at home by
female respondents increase with their age only in
Bulgaria and Romania. In Croatia, it is more younger
23	 See, FRA (2017), p. 94.
Figure 4.	 Roma who speak Romani as the main language at home (%)a,b,c,d
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Women Men
56
60 62
(17)
14
(18)
76 75
74
70
57
50
29
35
41
55 57
58
29
33
35
66 66
63
(13)
17
23
(73)
70
62
74 73
51
34
44 43
68
66 65
36
38 38
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
BG CZ EL HR RO SK Total
Notes:	 a
	Out of all Roma respondents in the age 16+ (n=7,844), excluding those who declined to answer; weighted results.
	 b	
Survey question: “What language do you mainly speak at home?”
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
	 d	
Results for Hungary, Portugal and Spain are not included, because the proportion of those speaking Romani at home is
very small.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
12
women who use Romani. At the same time, no large
age differences are observed among Roma men in the
countries surveyed. In these four countries, the results
should be taken into account when designing educational
measures targeting Roma, which could include
mother tongue-based multilingual24
early childhood
education, as recommended by UNESCO. UNESCO
Director-General Irina Bokova has underlined the basic
principle of children learning in a language they speak
highlighting that “it is essential to encourage full respect
24	 Mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE)
is education that begins in the language that the learner
speaks most fluently, and then gradually introduces other
languages. See the presentation by Wisbey, Matt (2017) from
the Asia Multilingual Education Working Group on Mother
Tongue-Based Multilingual Education – The Key to Unlocking
SDG 4 – Quality Education For All.
for the use of mother language in teaching and learning,
and to promote linguistic diversity. Inclusive language
education policies will not only lead to higher learning
achievement, but contribute to tolerance, social cohesion,
and, ultimately, peace.”25
.
Good reading and writing skills are essential for finding
‘decent work’, as required by SDG 8”[…] full and productive
employment and decent work for all.” This SDG is
linked to the right to work, which is a fundamental human
25	 See UNESCO (2016).
Figure 5:	 Good to excellent reading and writing skills in the national language (self-assessment) (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Women Men
70
59
66
60
62
56
48
43
70
65 64
59
55
46
42
32
reading writing reading writing reading writing reading writing
16-24 25-44 45-59 60+
Notes:	 a
	Out of all Roma respondents (n=7,844), excluding those who declined to answer; weighted results.
	 b	
Survey question: “Using this scale, how would you describe your proficiency in [SURVEY COUNTRY NATIONAL
LANGUAGE 1] as regards…Speaking/Reading/Writing?” The analysis combines the answer categories “Good, Excellent,
Mother tongue”.
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma
13
Education
right, recognised in international human rights instruments,
such as the ICESCR (Article 6). The right to work
is also necessary for realising other human rights, and
according to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights it “forms an inseparable and inherent part of
human dignity”.26
On average a majority of Roma, slightly
more men (63 %) than women (61 %), assess their reading
skills in the national language as good, excellent or at
26	 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2005).
mother tongue level. However, when it comes to writing
this proportion drops to around 56 % for men and 55 %
for women with important differences across countries,
and, in particular, across age groups which show an
encouraging trend: an increasing proportion of young
Roma between the ages 16 and 24, in particular women
in most countries, is positively assessing their reading
and writing skills in the respective national language.
Figure 6:	 Good to excellent reading and writing skills in the national language (self-assessment) (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Women Men
52
68
33
72
63
71
29
43
46
55
57
80
39
74
66
71
35
50
56
6159
65
38
78
74
69
53
45 45
56
67
75
49
84
75
71
58
49
56
63
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Writing proficiency good,
excellent, mother tongue
Reading proficiency good,
excellent, mother tongue
Notes:	 a
	 Out of all Roma respondents (n=7,844), excluding those who declined to answer; weighted results.
	 b	
Survey question: “Using this scale, how would you describe your proficiency in [SURVEY COUNTRY NATIONAL
LANGUAGE 1] as regards…Speaking/Reading/Writing?” The analysis combines the answer categories “Good, Excellent,
Mother tongue”.
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
14
More detailed country comparison reveals that across
all age groups more men than women have good to
excellent reading and writing skills in Bulgaria, Greece,
Spain, Croatia and, particularly, in Portugal. However, in
the younger age group 16-24 the situation is different.
For instance, in Bulgaria or in Greece the proportion
of young women aged between 16-24 with good or
excellent writing skills is clearly higher than that of men
(65 % compared to 50 % in Bulgaria, 55 % compared
to 45 % in Greece). On the other hand, in two of the
other Member States surveyed, young Roma women
age 16-24 lag behind young Roma men in their selfassessment
of their writing skills: in Portugal (49 %
compared to 65 %) and Hungary (71 % compared to
84 %). Previous analysis by FRA27
shows that national
language skills are a strong predictor of the quality of
employment. These disaggregated results should therefore
be taken into account by national policymakers
to design more targeted, effective, gender-sensitive
measures for each age group with a focus on improving
reading and writing skills in the national language.
27	 FRA (2018), p. 28-29.
28	 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015).
Figure 7:	 Children aged between 4 years and the (country-specific) starting age of compulsory education who
participate in early childhood education (%)a,b,c,d
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Roma girls Roma boys Roma - country total General population (Eurostat 2014)
69
35
27
93
37
90
(31)
41
34
53
64
32
29
98
26
92
51
36 34
52
66
34
28
95
32
91
42
38
34
53
89
86
84
97
72
95 94
86
77
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
ET 2020 target = 95 %
Notes:	 a	
Out of all persons aged between 4 years and the country-specific starting age of compulsory primary education in
Roma households (n=1,776); weighted results.
	 b	
Survey question answered by respondents for all children if they regularly attend public or private childcare (including
nursery, preschool, etc.).
	c
	Different age groups for participation in early childhood education in countries: 4-6 years in Bulgaria and Croatia;
4-5 years in remaining countries.28
Age is calculated on annual basis, hence the figures do not consider earlier or
delayed start in primary education of an individual child.
	d
	Eurostat: Education and Training 2020 target – educ_uoe_enra10 (downloaded 20/10/2016) using data from education
facilities’ registers.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; Eurostat 2014, General population
15
Education
1.2.	 Attendance and
attainment in formal
education
In the EU, in 2016 practically all (95.3 %) children aged
between 4 and the age of starting compulsory education
attended early childhood education, according to
Eurostat.29
The survey results do not show important
gender differences in the participation of Roma girls
and boys in early childhood education. They do, however,
show a huge gap between Roma and the general
population, as overall only around one in two Roma
boys (53 %) and girls (52 %) attend a childcare facility
regularly (including nurseries, preschools, etc.).
29	 Eurostat (2018), Early childhood and primary education
statistics.
The Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration
measures in the Member States of 9 and 10
December 201330
recommended that Member States
increase Roma people’s access to, and quality of, early
childhood education and care, including targeted support,
as necessary. SDG 4 on education includes early
childhood development and universal pre-primary education
as one of its core targets: “By 2030, ensure that
all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood
development, care and pre-primary education so that
they are ready for primary education.” In this light, it
is essential that Member States support the Commission’s
proposal of 2018 for a Council Recommendation
on High Quality Early Childhood Education and Care
Systems, which refers specifically to gender equality,
as well as to Roma highlighting that “early childhood
education and care experiences are an opportunity to
30	 Council of the European Union (2013).
Figure 8:	 Compulsory-school-age (country specific) children currently in education (%)a,b
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Roma girls Roma boys
91
99
66
99
94
98
90
81
95
9192
98
72
98
93
99
90
73
93
89
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Notes:	 a
	Out of all persons of a country-specific compulsory schooling age in Roma households (n=7,364); weighted results.
	 b	
Different age groups for compulsory-schooling age in countries valid for school year 2015/2016: starting age in years –
7 (BG), 6 (CZ, ES, HR, PT, RO, SK) and 5 (EL, HU); ending age – 17 (PT), 16 (RO), 15 (BG, ES, HU, SK) and 14 (CZ, EL, HR)
(Source: European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015)). Age is calculated on annual basis, hence the figures do not
consider earlier or delayed start in primary education of an individual child.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
16
prevent and mitigate disadvantage for children from
disadvantaged Roma communities and those with
migrant backgrounds.” The proposed recommendation
would reinforce efforts to improve Roma people’s
access to high quality and inclusive early childhood
education and care making use of EU funding, particularly
Erasmus+ programme and the European Structural
and Investment Funds.
The EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies
requires that all Roma children complete at least
primary school. Eurostat31
data for the general population
show that in 2013 in the EU, on average practically
every child (98 %) aged 7 years attended primary
education. When it comes to Roma, the results of this
survey show that the goal of the EU Framework for
Roma integration has not been achieved. The gap to the
general population is pronounced in the nine countries,
except in Hungary and in Spain. Between 73 % and 91 %
of Roma children attend primary school at the age of
seven, when they should be enrolled in primary school
like all children across all countries surveyed. Overall,
31	Eurostat: Pupils in early childhood and primary education
level and age – as % of corresponding age population –
educ_uoe_enrp07 (downloaded 20/10/2016).
Figure 9:	 Share of Roma who have not completed any level of formal education (ISCED 0), by gender and age
groups (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Roma women Roma men
(6)
12
15
(1)
(4)
7
41
62
88
(3)
23
60
(6)
35
59
9 10
30
(2)
23
80
6
13
24
5 4
8
6
12
26
(5)
7 7
(3) (2)
11
42
50
75
(4)
16
54
(5)
20
32
8
10
21
(2)
11
58
6
11
16
(4)
6
8
6
10
19
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
16-2425-44
45+
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Notes:	 a	
Out of all persons in Roma households in the age of 16 and above (n=21,890); weighted results.	
	 b	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
	c	
Education levels based on UNESCO’s 2011 International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), developed to
facilitate comparisons of education statistics and indicators across countries based on uniform, internationally agreed
definitions.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma
17
Education
the share of Roma girls attending primary school is
slightly higher than that of Roma boys, but still below
the share in the general population of 7-year old girls
attending primary education in the countries surveyed.
The results show that in all countries, except Greece
(69 %) and Romania (77 %), more than 90 % of Roma
children attend school during compulsory school age32
.
However, as FRA reported in 2016, large shares of Roma
children attend lower levels of education than appropriate
for their age.33
All EU countries have a duty to fulfil the right of the child
to education, enshrined in Article 28 of the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child, and Articles 14 and 24
of the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights. The results
presented here can be used by national policymakers
to develop measures that enable all Roma to attend
compulsory education and attain these qualifications,
as a minimum. This would also support Member States’
efforts to reach SDG 4 on education, in particular target
32	 FRA (2017), p. 24-26.
33	 Ibid.
4.5 which requires States “to eliminate gender disparities
in education and ensure equal access to all levels
of education and vocational training for the vulnerable,
including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples
and children in vulnerable situations.” 34
Given the decisive role of inclusive early childhood
education in improving educational outcomes, it is not
surprising that on average 16 % of Roma women and
12 % of Roma men surveyed never attended formal
education. Gender differences are more visible among
the older generation (45+) and are highest in Greece,
Portugal, Spain and Croatia. In particular, in Greece
88 % of the Roma women aged 45 years and older
said that they never received any formal education.
In Greece, the majority of all Roma respondents never
received formal education. Whereas the gender gaps
for those 16-24 disappear, over 40 % of this younger
age group still has never attended school, despite the
34	UN, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), Goal 4, target 4.5.
Figure 10:	 Share of Roma who completed upper secondary education or higher (ISCED 3+), by gender and age
groups (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Women Men
18
9
4
23
37
19
29
11
(3)
14
(7)
(3)
21 20
5
16
12
5
26
33
22 21
19
8
28
16
14
23
47
24
26
13
(2)
24
16
13
21
31
10
18 19
12
31
42
34
24
26
15
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
16-24
25-44
45+
BG CZ ES HR HU RO SK Total
Notes:	 a
	Out of all persons in Roma households in the age of 16 and above (n=21890); weighted results.
	 b	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
	c	
Education levels based on UNESCO’s 2011 International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), developed to
facilitate comparisons of education statistics and indicators across countries based on uniform, internationally agreed
definitions.
	*	
Results for Greece and Portugal are not presented, disaggregated by age, because of the very small number of
respondents who completed upper secondary education and above.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
18
implementation of several major EU funded projects
since 1996.35
Differences between women and men are
pronounced in the older age groups, except in Slovakia.
Qualifications corresponding to upper secondary education
and above are essential for decent work in the EU
today. In 2017, on average the majority of Europeans
(74,6 % women and 73,4 % men aged 15-64 years) had
completed upper secondary, post-secondary, non-tertiary
or tertiary education.36
In stark contrast, only 16 %
of the Roma women surveyed and 22 % of men had
achieved this. The share of both Roma men and women
who have completed at least upper secondary education
remains strikingly low for the 16-24 year old ones,
while gender differences have declined, with 24 % of
young Roma men and 21 % of young Roma women.
Gender differences are more pronounced among the
oldest generations. For the younger generation aged
16-24 years in all countries surveyed a similar share of
women and men finished at least upper secondary education,
except for Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia. Furthermore,
as indicated in an earlier report by FRA, those
Roma at risk of poverty after social transfers, living in
rural areas, in overcrowded households, in ethnically
segregated areas or in neighbourhoods where all residents
are Roma, are also less likely to complete upper
secondary education or higher.37
The overall low level of
higher educational attainment among the younger generation
shows the continuous need for gender-sensitive
policy measures adapted to the needs of Roma who
may have different demographic and socio-economic
characteristics to improve their educational outcomes.
1.3.	 Not in education,
employment or training
Leaving school early without adequate (post-secondary)
education to secure decent work, especially in
countries with unfavourable labour market conditions,
can discourage young people from looking for any
work. According to Eurofound38
“those with low levels
of education are three times more likely to be not in
employment, education or training (NEET) than those
with tertiary education, and two times more likely than
those with secondary education.” Eurostat data show
35	 Evaluations of these projects (for example, Omas
Synergon, 2nd Evaluation Report of “School integration
of Gypsy children”) identify as barriers to the effective
implementation of Roma education programmes a lack of
interministerial coordination, as well as the attitudes and
culture of Roma parents.
36	Eurostat, Population by educational attainment level, sex and
age (%) - main indicators, edat_lfse_03.
37	 FRA (2018), p. 11.
38	 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions (2012), p. 56.
that in 2015, 12 % of young people in the EU aged 15
to 24 were in a situation of NEET. A similar indicator
used by FRA for Roma aged 16 to 24 years shows that
the proportion of young Roma who are not employed,
in education or training is dramatically higher (63 %).
Gender differences in NEET rates among the general
population for the 15-24 age group in the EU-2839
are
relatively small, but increase with age when women
have children and leave school and the labour market. In
the case of Roma, especially in those countries such as
Bulgaria, Greece or Romania, where they tend to marry
at much younger ages, significant gender differences
can be observed.
On average, across all nine countries surveyed, 72 %
of Roma women aged 16 to 24 years are neither working
nor in education or training, compared with 55 %
of young Roma men. The gender gap is the highest in
Greece, where 81 % of Roma women are not employed,
in education or training, compared to 38 % for men.
Previous analysis by FRA40
indicates that living in
a household with young children under the age of 6
affects both Roma women and men: across all countries
surveyed: Of those Roma aged 1624 who lived in
a household without a child under the age of 6, 25 %
of women and 22 % of men were in education, while
14 % of women and 24 % of men were in employment.
However, of those Roma aged 16-24 who lived in
a household with children, under 6, attending childcare
only 12 % of women and 13 % of men were in education.
Notably is that the availability of childcare does
not relate with a higher employment rate, as only 13 %
of these women and 30 % of men were in employment.
It is worth noting that the proportion of Roma women
aged 16-24 in households with children, under 6, not
attending childcare who are in education or in employment
is particularly low (in both cases 5 %). Roma men
aged 16-24 in households with children, under 6, not
attending childcare are also affected, but differently:
the share of those in education drops to 9 %, while the
share of those in employment remains - relatively - high
at 32 %. This is further evidence for the need of quality,
inclusive early childhood education and care to make
progress in Roma inclusion.
39	 European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizen Rights
and Constitutional Affairs (2017).
40	 FRA (2018), p. 19.
19
Education
Many young NEETs, men and, particularly, women are
married and have families. Member States need to take
measures to avoid that these young NEETs become
“long-term NEETs”. Such measures need to examine
carefully how to combine social welfare support with
opportunities for decent work to avoid phenomena of
in-work poverty. In this regard, governments could consider
adapting Youth Guarantee schemes41
to take into
account the needs and demographic characteristics of
41	 The Youth Guarantee is a commitment by all Member
States to ensure that all young people under the age of
25 years receive a good quality offer of employment,
continued education, apprenticeship, traineeship within
a period of four months of becoming unemployed or leaving
formal education. For more information, see the European
Commission’s webpage on The Youth Guarantee.
their Roma populations in compliance with the Common
Basic Principle on Roma Inclusion42
for “explicit, but not
exclusive, targeting” of Roma in policy initiatives. The
European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative
provide EU funding for such initiatives and a range
of promising practices43
are regularly published by the
Commission, many of which can be adapted to the specific
needs of Roma.
42	 Council of the European Union (2009).
43	 For more information, see the European Commission’s
webpage on Youth Guarantee – promising practices.
Figure 11:	 Young Roma (aged 16-24 years) neither in employment nor in education or training (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
79
52
81 81 82
63
67
77
70
72
52
51
38
74
72
38 36
52
61
55
65
51
60
77 77
51 52
64 65
63
19
8
17
16
19
12 11
18
14
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
(9 MS)
Roma women Roma men Roma - country total Eurostat NEET rate 2015
Notes:	 a	
Out of all persons aged 16-24 years in Roma households (n=4,189); weighted results.
	 b	
Based on the household questionnaire and respondent questionnaire on self-declared current main activity, excluding
those who did any work in the previous four weeks to earn some money.
	 c	
Eurostat NEET Rate 2015: edat_lfse_20 (downloaded 13/10/2016). Percentage of the population 15-24 years that is not
employed and not involved in further education or training, based on the ILO concept.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; Eurostat 2015, General population
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
20
Figure 12:	 Activity status of Roma aged 16-24, by socio-demographic characteristics (%)a,b
25
12
5
22
13
9
61
75
90
54
57
59
14
13
5
24
30
32
No child under the age of 6
Child/children under the age of 6 that is/are in childcare
Child/children under the age of 6 that is/are not in
childcare
No child under the age of 6
Child/children under the age of 6 that is/are in childcare
Child/children under the age of 6 that is/are not in
childcare
In education Neither in work nor in education or training In employment
AMONG WOMEN
AMONG MEN
Notes:	 a
	Out of all those aged 16-24 years in Roma households (n = 5,632); weighted results.
	 b
	Based on the household questionnaire and respondent questionnaire on self-declared current main activity.
‘In education’ encompasses those whose current main activity is education; ‘in employment’ encompasses those
whose current main activity is paid work, self-employment, helping in the family business (unpaid) or military service
or other community service.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
21
2 Marital status and health
The first section of this report shows clearly that the
gender gap in education at compulsory age has been
closed, but opportunities for Roma girls and boys to
stay in higher education remain low. The presence of
small children in the household is closely related with
even less opportunities for girls and boys to remain in
education. The results also show that most young Roma
leave school early without taking up further training or
employment. The majority remain without a job, which
is more profound among young Roma women. Whereas
the presence of children seems to have little effect on
further education or training for the 16-24-year old ones,
it does relate to employment. This goes along with an on
average very young age of marriage for Roma women
and men, which might be a consequence of cultural
traditions as well as lacking employment opportunities.
2.1.	 Early marriage
Early marriage is most common in developing countries
and occurs more frequent in rural settings and among
certain groups. The phenomenon is a global concern and
estimates indicate that about 5 % of women, aged 20 to
24, have married before the age of 15 and 21 % before
the age of 18.44
Poverty is considered a major factor
underpinning early marriage, which is often part of an
economic survival strategy, but nevertheless undermines
the future prospects of young people, particularly
women and girls.45
44	See UNICEF’s global databases based on Demographic and
Health Surveys (DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys
(MICS) and other nationally representative surveys.
Estimates for 107 countries covering 78 % of the population
of women aged 20 to 24.
45	 UNICEF (2001), p. 6.
Treaty monitoring bodies, such as the CEDAW and the
CRC Committees, interpret marriage under the age of
18, e.g. child marriage, “as a form of forced marriage, as
children – given their age – inherently lack the ability to
give their full, free and informed consent to their marriage
or its timing”.46
The UN General Assembly, in Resolution
69/156 of 18 December 2014 on child, early and
forced marriage called on States to develop measures
to tackle poverty and insecurity, root causes of such
marriages, as well as deep-rooted gender inequalities,
norms and stereotypes with the active engagement of
all relevant stakeholders. In this light, the global Agenda
2030 included reference to child marriage in Sustainable
Development Goal 5 on gender equality and women
empowerment, under Target 5.3 “Eliminate all harmful
practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and
female genital mutilation”.
In Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe defined in Resolution 146847
of 2005 on ‘Forced
marriages and child marriages’ the union of two persons
at least one of whom is under 18 years of age as
‘child marriage’ and considers this as an infringement
of child rights. Three years later, in 2008, the General
Affairs Council of the EU approved guidelines on violence
against women and combating all forms of discrimination
against them, which consider early marriage
as a form of violence against women occurring within
the family. 48
46	 See European Institute’s for Gender Equality (EIGE) Glossary
& Thesaurus on Child Marriage.
47	 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (2005).
48	 See Council’s of the European Union press release from
the 2947th Council meeting, General Affairs and External
Relations, 8 December 2008.
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
22
FRA published data in 2017 on the legal minimum age
requirements for marriage in the EU49
. In most Member
States, this coincides with the age of majority (18, except
in Scotland, UK, where it is 16), as recommended by the
Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Marriage before 18, however, is allowed with parental
or judicial consent, except in Denmark, Germany,
the Netherlands, Sweden and Poland (only for men).
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
noted in this regard in Resolution 146850
of 2005 that
it is “appalled to find that some national legislation
permits the marriage of minors, sometimes in a discriminatory
fashion with gender-based differences
in minimum ages”.
In the EU, early marriage51
practices in certain Roma
communities have often served to fuel anti-Gypsyism.
In public discourse, such marriages are often presented
in a way that reinforces a negative image of Roma culture
ignoring the structural marginalisation that gives
rise to this phenomenon, as well as the “signs of Romani
resistance to the practice”.52
The persistence of official or unofficial early marriages
in some Roma communities is related to the
social exclusion and marginalisation they experience
which is influenced by social, economic and political
factors, including anti-Gypsyism. Civil society organisations,
such as the European Roma Rights Centre, have
expressed concern: “despite the continuation of this
practice in some Romani communities and the very
negative effect of child marriage on Romani girls and
women the ERRC is unaware of any serious governmental
response to issue.”53
In 2014, the European Roma
and Travellers Forum and the Romani Women Informal
Platform Phenjalipe stressed that “an adequate
response has been lacking to effectively address the
issue by state actors, while at the same time involving
the affected communities and families themselves.”54
In the absence of effective state action to ensure the
equal treatment of Roma, early marriage becomes an
element of their survival strategies in a hostile, stigmatising
and excluding social environment, as family and
kin become the only resource for finding work, accessing
healthcare, mediating with state institutions, etc.
49	 For more information, see FRA’s webpage on Marriage with
consent of a public authority and/or public figure.
50	 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (2005).
51	 Experts of the Council of Europe Ad Hoc Committee of
Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) thematic group consider
that it would be more appropriate to speak about unions
instead of marriages, in particular when there is not official
record of the marriage. Some of these unions can be
consensual or can be forced under the pressure of adults or
family members. See, Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Roma
Issues (CAHROM) (2015), p. 12.
52	 Oprea, A. (2005a).
53	 European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) (2001).
54	 European Roma and Travellers Forum & Romani Women
Informal Platform “Phenjalipe” (2014).
EU Member States, however, are obliged to honour
international human rights commitments, such as,
in particular, the Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): Article
16.2 requires that “the betrothal and the marriage
of a child shall have no legal effect, and all necessary
action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify
a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration
of marriages in an official registry compulsory.”
In addition, Article 5 requires States to take action to
“modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of
men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination
of prejudices and customary and all other practices
which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the
superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped
roles for men and women”. To be effective and resonate
within Roma communities, such action should
address simultaneously: anti-Gypsyism, to tackle structural
exclusion and discrimination; poverty and lack of
access to quality education; the empowerment of Roma
women and men, to discuss issues of gender equality
in their communities. Roma civil society organisations
should be directly involved, as they would play a critical
role in the success of such measures.
In the EU, the 2013 Council Recommendation on effective
Roma integration measures in the Member States
recommends national governments to combat discrimination,
including multiple discrimination, faced
by Roma children and women, and violence, including
domestic violence, against women and girls, trafficking
in human beings, underage and forced marriages,
and begging involving children, in particular through
the enforcement of legislation. To this end, the Recommendations
asks Member States to ensure the
involvement of all relevant actors including civil society
and Roma communities.
According to Eurostat, in the EU the mean age at first
marriage for women ranges from around 27 (e.g. in Bulgaria,
Poland and Romania) to 33 or more years of age
(e.g. in Spain and Sweden). For men, the corresponding
figures are higher ranging from around 30 (e.g. in
Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania and Poland) to peak at 36,5
in Sweden.55
The survey results show that on average
many of the Roma women and men surveyed tend
to marry at younger age, often below the age of 18.
This contributes, among other factors, in undermining
their chances to stay and continue education in order
find decent work.56
55	Eurostat, Mean age at first marriage by sex, tps00014.
56	 Bošnjak, B. & Acton, T. (2013), pp. 660-662.
23
Marital status and health
EU-MIDIS II results show that across all countries surveyed
29 % of all Roma women and 12 % of all Roma
men surveyed had been first married before the age of
18, while 10 % of Roma women and 2 % of Roma men
were married before the age of 15. In some countries,
the share of women who married before the age of 18 is
particularly high, for example in Greece (49 %), Portugal
(45 %), Romania (39 %), Bulgaria and Croatia (both,
37 %) and Spain (36 %). As noted above, UN Treaty
monitoring bodies, such as the CEDAW and CRC Committees,
as well as the Council of Europe, consider marriages
under the age of 18, as forced marriages and
a violation of the human rights of women and children.
In the case of Roma women and girls, such marriages
affect their ability to continue education to find decent
work and contributes in perpetuating the cycle of poverty
and social marginalisation.57
Overall, however, there is a tendency for the rates of
early marriage (before 18) to decline over time, as can
be seen in Figure 14. However, an important share of
women aged 16-24 years marry before they are 18, in
Portugal (45 %), Greece (42 %), Romania (26 %) and
in Spain (22 %).
57	 Hotchkiss, D.R., Godha, D., Gage, A.J., and Cappa, C. (2016),
Issue 6.
Figure 13:	 Married for the first time before the age of 18 years (%)a,b
12
37
3
5
21
49
16
36
22
37
12
23
11
45
17
39
5
13 12
29
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Notes:	 a
	Out of all Roma respondents (n=7,456); weighted results.
	 b	
Survey question: “At what age did you marry (for the first time)?”
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
24
These results call for policy measures that encourage
Roma families and communities to support marriage
that take place later in life allowing young people more
time for education which states have a duty to provide
equitably to everyone. Such measures, which could
include positive action to overcome disadvantage, for
example scholarship provisions, should ensure better
educational and employment opportunities to empower
Roma women within their own communities to reduce
their vulnerability by increasing their options and social
mobility.58
Roma women should be involved in a meaningful
and effective way in the design, implementation
of such measures within their communities. They
should, in particular, be given a strong and prominent
voice in communicating such measures to “transcend
the obsession with ‘exotic’ oppression, which currently
characterises public attention to Romani women’s
woes”.59
The measures proposed by the European Roma
and Travellers Forum and the Roma Women Informal
Platform ‘Phenjalipe’60
to the Council of Europe Ad Hoc
Committee of Experts on Roma issues (CAHROM) serve
as a good example that should be followed-up.61
2.2.	 Health
In international human rights law the right to health
refers more specifically to the right to access services
for attaining the highest standard of physical and
mental health.62
The 1948 Universal Declaration of
58	 Oprea, A. (2005b), p. 141.
59	 Ibid., p. 144.
60	 European Roma and Travellers Forum and Romani Women
Informal Platform ‘Phenjalipe’ (2014).
61	 Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM)
(2015).
62	 See, also OHCHR and WHO (2008). Factsheet No. 31 on the
right to health.
Human Rights mentions health as part of the right to
an adequate standard of living in Article 25. In 1966, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights recognised the right to health as a human right.
In recent years, the World Health Organisation (WHO), as
well as the Human Rights Council and a range of Treaty
monitoring bodies, including on CEDAW and the CRC,
referred to the right to the highest attainable standard
of health. In 2002, the UN established the mandate of
Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights protects under
Article 35 the right of access to preventive health care
and the right to benefit from medical treatment under
the conditions established by national laws and practices.
The Charter further requires that the definition
and implementation of all Union policies and activities
ensure a high level of human health protection.
In the EU-28, according to Eurostat, 67.5 % of the general
population aged 16 and over perceived their health as
very good or good in 2016, while 23.7 % perceived it
as fair and 8.8 % as bad or very bad with men rating
overall their health better than women.63
The survey asked Roma respondents64
if they had faced
limitations in their daily activities because of long-term
health problems. This would allow comparison with
the indicator on ‘long-term activity limitations’ of the
European Core Health Indicators. The results show that
limitations due to health were more prevalent among
Roma in Croatia, Czechia and Slovakia. In these countries,
as well as in Bulgaria, the share of Roma facing
63	Eurostat: Share of persons aged 16 and over with very good
or good self-perceived health, by sex, 2016 – hlth_silc_10.
64	 FRA (2016), p. 30.
Figure 14:	 Married for the first time before the age of 18 (%)a,b
0
10
20
30
40
8
17
11
28
15
38
Women Men Women Men Women Men
16-24 25-44 45+
Notes:	 a
	Out of all Roma respondents (n=7,456); weighted results.
	 b	
Survey question: “At what age did you marry (for the first time)?”
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
25
Marital status and health
long-term activity limitations is higher than the share of
the general population experiencing similar problems.
Gender differences in this regard are pronounced in six
of the nine countries surveyed, which is a pattern that
can also be observed in the general population. The biggest
difference between women and men’s experiences
is in Spain, where 17 % of Roma men say that they have
been limited in their daily activities, while almost one
in three women (30 %) feel that health problems have
limited their activities in some way. On the other hand,
in Czechia, Greece and Hungary, there is little or no difference
between Roma women and men.
Figure 15:	 Long-term activity limitations of women and men, Roma and general population (%)a,b,c
25
19
35
35
13
13
30
17
35
31
23
24
18
14
30
28
37
31
30
26
19.7
16.4
25.1
21.8
26.4
21.8
26.4
21
31.6
26.4
29.3
22.7
40.2
29.6
29.6
20.7
31.3
28.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
BGCZELESHRHUPTROSK
Total
(9MS)
Roma 2016 General population (EU-SILC 2014)
n.a.
n.a.
Notes:	 a
	EU-MIDIS II results are based on all respondents (n=7,909), excluding those who declined to answer; weighted results.
The same definition used as for the general population.
	 b	
Eurostat rate 2014: [hlth_silc_06], downloaded 20/10/2016. In the Eurostat database, the result for activity limitations
of men in Czechia has been flagged as having low reliability.
	c
	Includes respondents who say that, for the past six months, their everyday activities have been ‘severely limited’ or
‘limited but not severely’ due to a health problem.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; Eurostat, EU-SILC 2014, General population
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
26
Member States have used for many years health mediation
to improve the health status of Roma, in particular
women, by facilitating communication between them
and health-care staff. The survey asked respondents if
they or anyone from their household used the assistance
of a health mediator when going to a doctor.
Overall, with small differences between the countries
surveyed or gender, the overwhelming majority of
Roma women and men did not use such assistance.
This could mean that they did not consider their services
necessary or that the number of Roma health mediators
is too small to address the needs of Roma populations.
It would be useful to conduct more in-depth research on
its added value, especially as regards Roma women, to
identify the level of investment that would be required
to improve service uptake and quality of healthcare.
27
3 Employment
The right to work is recognised in international human
rights instruments, in particular ICESCR (Article 6). It is
an individual and a collective right encompassing all
forms of work, independent work or wage‑paid work.
In General Comment 18, the Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights clarified that this right is not
“an absolute and unconditional right to obtain employment”.
However, work must be “decent work”, which
means: it must respect the rights of “the human person
as well as the rights of workers in terms of conditions
of work, safety and remuneration”; provide “an income
allowing workers to support themselves and their families”;
and “respect the physical and mental integrity
of the worker in the exercise of his/her employment.”
Regarding gender, the Committee underlines the need
for “a comprehensive system of protection to combat
gender discrimination and to ensure equal opportunities
and treatment between men and women in relation to
their right to work by ensuring equal pay for work of
equal value.” The Committee, also draws attention to
the “link between the fact that women often have less
access to education than men and certain traditional
cultures which compromise the opportunities for the
employment and advancement of women.”65
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises under
Article 15 that everyone has the right to engage in
work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
In Article 23, the Charter requires that equality
between women and men is ensured in all areas,
including employment, work and pay. In Chapter IV, on
solidarity, the Charter guarantees a number of related
rights, for example on workers’ right to information
and consultation, collective bargaining and action, etc.
65	 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2005).
The employment rate is a headline indicator for monitoring
one of the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy,
namely to raise the employment rate for women
and men (aged 20-64) to 75 % by 2020. According to
Eurostat,66
while this target was already reached in 2016
for men of working age (76.9 %), employment rates for
women remain lower (65.3 %) with important differences
between Member States. This chapter examines
in the first section employment patterns with a particular
focus on domestic work, and the second section
looks at related attitudes of Roma men and women.
3.1.	 Employment and main
activities
The survey results show that in comparison to the
general population a much lower proportion of Roma
men and women are in employment. This is particularly
worrying given that EU law prohibits any discrimination
on grounds of racial or ethnic origin in employment.67
When looking at the countries surveyed they reveal
considerable differences in employment patterns of
Roma women and men. Overall, while employment
rates for both Roma women and men are far lower
than those of the general population, more than twice
as many Roma men are in employment than Roma
women, 34 % and 16 % respectively. The largest gender
gap is in Greece, where only 20 % of Roma women
declare themselves as employed compared to 67 % for
men (Table 1).
66	Eurostat: Employment rate and gender employment gap,
2017 – lfsi_emp_a.
67	 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing
the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
28
The analysis of the survey results on the basis of the
category ‘paid work’, which includes those ‘employed’
and ‘self-employed’ which is a rough approximation of
the employment rate definition used by Eurostat, shows
that overall the share of those Roma surveyed who are
in paid work (43 %) is well below the average EU-28
employment rate (70 % in 2015). There is also a substantial
gender gap in all countries surveyed, highest in
Greece (where only 22 % of Roma women are in paid
work compared with 82 % of Roma men).
At the same time, more than a quarter (28 %) of Roma
women are engaged in domestic work compared to
6 % for men.68
There are important country differences,
which governments should take into account when
designing gender specific Roma integration measures in
employment. For instance, the majority of Roma women
in Romania (59 %), Greece (48 %), Portugal (46 %) and
Croatia (34 %) declare as their main activity ‘domestic
work’. This could indicate that many of the Roma households
surveyed are the type of single-earner household,
which combined with dependants such as children or
older relatives, have – according to Eurofound69
 – one of
the highest risk profiles for in-work poverty.
68	 See, FRA (2017a), p. 18.
69	 Eurofound (2017), p. 11.
Figure 16:	 Paid work rate for Roma women and men aged 20-64 years, including self-employment
and occasional work or work in the past four weeks, compared with the Europe 2020
employment rate 2015 (Eurostat) (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
35
32
22
16
12
36
21
27
32
29
64
55
82
31 31
62
55
64
54
56
49
43
52
24
21
49
38
46
43 43
67
75
55
62 61
69 69
66
68
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
(9 MS)
Roma women Roma men Roma - country total General population employment rate (Eurostat 2015)
Notes:	 a
	Out of all persons aged 20‑64 years in Roma households (n=17,806); weighted results.
	 b
	Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
	 c
	Europe 2020 employment rate 2015: Eurostat t2020_10 (downloaded 13/09/2016). This is calculated by dividing the
number of persons aged 20 to 64 in employment by the total population of the same age group. The indicator is based
on the ILO concept, Labour Force Survey.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; Eurostat 2015, General population
29
Employment
Table 1:	Current main activity in nine EU Member States, all persons in Roma households surveyed aged 16
years or over (%)a,b
Employed Unemployed
Not working
due to illness
or disability
Domestic
work
Retired
Other
inactive
(education,
military
service,
other)
BG
Women 16 59 (1) 6 16 3
Men 29 52 (1) (0) 13 5
Total 23 55 1 3 14 4
CZ
Women 21 30 5 18 18 8
Men 37 35 3 (1) 16 8
Total 29 32 4 9 17 8
EL
Women 20 26 2 48 (1) (2)
Men 67 25 4 (0) (2) (2)
Total 43 26 3 25 2 2
ES
Women 12 51 3 24 6 4
Men 21 63 5 (0) 6 5
Total 16 57 4 12 6 5
HR
Women 5 51 4 34 (1) 6
Men 11 74 3 (0) (2) 8
Total 8 62 4 17 2 7
HU
Women 26 22 8 14 13 17
Men 45 24 5 (0) 16 9
Total 36 23 6 7 14 13
PT
Women 23 12 (1) 46 9 9
Men 44 22 (1) (1) 15 18
Total 34 17 (1) 24 12 13
RO
Women 13 4 2 59 10 11
Men 42 6 4 22 13 13
Total 28 5 3 40 12 12
SK
Women 14 46 4 15 13 8
Men 26 50 4 (1) 11 8
Total 20 48 4 8 12 8
Total
(9
MS)
Women 16 32 3 28 12 8
Men 34 35 4 6 12 9
Total 25 34 4 17 12 8
Notes:	 a
	 Out of all persons aged 16 years or over in Roma households (n=22,097); weighted results.
	b
	Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
30
This evidence could be used by Member States when
designing employment policies for Roma integration to
target women who can be instrumental in breaking the
poverty cycle experienced by many Roma households,
in particular those characterised by low work intensity,70
and those where unpaid domestic work, including care
of children and relatives is carried out by women.71
FRA’s EU-MIDIS II report on Roma shows that 44 % of
Roma households surveyed were living, on average, in
70	 Work intensity is the ratio between the number of household
members of working age – 18 to 59 years, excluding persons
aged 18 to 24 years in education – who are currently working
and the total number of persons of working age in the
household. Work intensity is defined as ‘low’ when it is
below 20 % of the household’s total potential.
71	 Eurostat (2013), Individual employment, household
employment and risk of poverty in the EU.
low-work-intensity households, in comparison, to 11 %
in the EU-28.72
It is also important that employment
opportunities created by such policies provide decent,
adequately remunerated jobs to avoid phenomena of
in-work poverty.73
Moreover, it is essential that actions
to improve the employment of Roma women, and men,
specifically address anti-Gypsyism which can be a formidable
barrier in implementing such actions effectively
on the ground.
72	 FRA (2017a), p. 22.
73	 Eurostat defines the indictor ‘in-work poverty risk’, as
“Individuals who are classified as ‘employed’ (distinguishing
between ‘wage and salary employment plus selfemployment’
and ‘wage and salary employment’ only) and
who are at risk of poverty.” See, Eurostat (2010), In-work
poverty in the EU.
Figure 17:	 Women, 16 to 64 years, currently not active in the labour market, not looking for work because taking
care of small children/elderly/sick relatives (%)a,b
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
31
56
46
35
39
55
44
34
41 40
15
27
7
10
7
23
7
4
26
n.a.
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Roma women General population women (15-64)
Notes:	 a
	Roma female respondents aged 16-64 who were not employed at the time of the survey and who say that they
do not look for a job because of care responsibilities (n=866); weighted results. EU-MIDIS survey interviewed
respondents age 16 and above.
	b
	General Population: Labour Force Survey 2016: Percentage of female inactive population, 15-64 years who are not
seeking employment, for the main reason: looking after children or incapacitated adults. lfsa_igar (downloaded
22/01/2019). n.a.: Eurostat total across 9 MS is not available.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; Eurostat 2016, General population	
31
Employment
It is mostly women who are engaged in unpaid, domestic
work cooking, cleaning and caring for children, often
also for older relatives, and can therefore find it challenging
to find time to look for and engage in paid work.
This affects all women. But comparing Roma women
with women in the general population, twice or more
Roma women are not working or looking for work
because of family or care responsibilities – with the
exception of Slovakia.
Research shows that affordable childcare is strongly
linked to women’s employment by reducing care
responsibilities at home. In 2002, the EU adopted the
so-called ‘Barcelona targets’ for providing access to
childcare for at least 90 % of children between 3 and
the mandatory school age, and at least 33 % of children
below 3 years of age. In 2018, the stock-taking
report of the European Commission74
notes that most
Member States did not reach these targets and concludes:
“As caring responsibilities are the main reason
for low female labour market participation, counting
to 370 billion EUR a year of loss for Europe, the Barcelona
objectives, adopted by the European Council
in 2002, are still of crucial importance in 2018.” The
Commission monitors progress through the ‘Social
Scoreboard’, annexed to the European Pillar of Social
Rights, specifically concerning the implementation of
principle 11 on childcare. FRA’s surveys complement
74	 European Commission (2018b).
Eurostat data by providing data disaggregated by ethnic
origin, including specifically on Roma, which assist
the EU institutions and Member States to fulfil the
relevant Council recommendations.75
3.2.	 Attitudes on gender roles
in employment
Women’s low employment rates could also be affected
by traditional attitudes on gender roles. The survey
asked respondents if they agree that ‘men should take
as much responsibility as women for the home and
children’. In every country, the majority of both Roma
women and men agree, or strongly agree, with this
statement. In some countries, the proportion of women
who agree is higher than that of men. For instance, in
Czechia there is a difference of 20 percentage points,
in Greece and Romania 10. On the other hand, Spain is
the only country where 7 percentage points more men
than women agree to the statement. These results point
to the need to design measures empowering Roma
women and combating the traditional division of gender
roles in the home and workplace. In this regard, Roma
integration policies should include measures to improve
access to quality early childhood education and care, as
well as care services for older people to facilitate their
right to live independently.
75	 Council of the European Union (2013).
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
32
The survey also asked respondents if they agree that
“having a job is the best way for a woman to be an
independent person”. Overall, more women (76 %) than
men (70 %) agreed, or strongly agreed, to this statement.
The proportion of men who agree, or strongly
agree, to this is higher in Spain, Portugal and Bulgaria,
and lower in Romania, Greece and Czechia. The most
pronounced difference in the attitudes of women and
men on this issue can be found in Greece (18 percentage
points more women agree, or strongly agree, than
men), in Romania (14 percentage points more women
agree, or strongly agree, than men) and in Czechia
(11 percentage points more women agree, or strongly
agree, than men). In Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and
Spain a similar share of Roma women and men disagree,
or strongly disagree, that a job is the best way
for a women to be independent.
Figure 18:	 Extent of agreement that men should take as much responsibility as women for the home and children,
Roma (%)a,b
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
83
15
87
11
58
39
78
20
61
37
71
24
85
14
78
21
83
16
85
13
89
9
90
8
79
19
78
19
72
26
82
17
64
33
70
27
74
24
80
18
(Strongly) agree (Strongly) disagree Don't know/Refused
Notes:	 a	
Out of all respondents (n=7,775); weighted results.
	b
	Based on respondent questionnaire: “For each of the following statements I read out, can you tell me how much
you agree or disagree with each? Men should take as much responsibility as women for the home and children.”
“Agree” combines answer categories “strongly agree” and “agree”, “Disagree” combines answer categories “strongly
disagree” and “disagree”.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
33
Employment
Policy and decision makers should consider these
results when engaging with Roma civil society to
develop awareness raising and other measures to promote
gender equality. Attitudes that favour traditional,
segregated gender roles are reinforced by the lack of
institutional support, particularly in the form of free
and inclusive quality early childhood education and
care. Where such support is available to the general
population, authorities need to take measures to tackle
any anti-Gypsy attitudes that can actively exclude or
discourage Roma parents from placing their children
there. Roma, women and men, should also be empowered
to access measures improving work-life balance
and their potential for personal development, such as
second chance education for adult learners or initiatives
for improving the employability and entrepreneurship
potential of women. The European Commission should
also consider how Roma can benefit from its initiatives
to address women’s underrepresentation in the labour
market, such as the ‘New Start for working parents’
which addresses work-life balance challenges faced by
working parents and carers, as one of the deliverables
of the European Pillar for Social Rights.76
76	 On 24 January 2019, the European Parliament and the
Council reached a provisional agreement on the European
Commission’s proposal for a new Directive on work-life
balance for parents and carers which has to be formally
adopted by both the European Parliament and the Council.
See, the European Commission’s press release on the worklife
balance.
Figure 19:	 Extent of agreement on the statement: “Having a job is the best way for a woman to be an
independent person” (%)a,b
(Strongly) agree (Strongly) disagree Don't know/Refused
87 85
70
59
76
58
89 87
73
68
75
72
79
82
74
60
66 66
76
70
11 13
27
37
14
37
10 12
24 30
23
24 12
16
24
39 28 31
20
28
(4) (6)
11
(8)
(3) 5
10
3 (2)
8 5 4 4
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
W
om
en
M
en
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Notes:	 a
	Out of all respondents (n=7,612); weighted results.	
	b
	Based on respondent questionnaire: “For each of the following statements I read out, can you tell me how much
you agree or disagree with each? Having a job is the best way for a woman to be an independent person.” “Agree”
combines answer categories “strongly agree” and “agree”, “Disagree” combines answer categories “strongly
disagree” and “disagree”.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
35
4 Discrimination, harassment and
violence due to ethnic origin
4.1.	 Discrimination
FRA has often underlined that anti-Gypsyism in the
form of discrimination experienced by Roma women
and men, because of their ethnic origin, is a fundamental
barrier to Roma inclusion efforts. The results of the
EU-MIDIS II survey show that in the five years before the
survey, overall 41 % of Roma men and 38 % of Roma
women said that they have experienced discrimination
because of their ethnic origin, or skin colour, when
looking for work. This is illegal77
and a violation of their
fundamental right to equal treatment guaranteed by the
EU’s own Charter of Fundamental Rights. More women
than men said that they had experienced discrimination
in Czechia, Spain and Portugal. In Greece, the share of
men (70 %) reporting such incidents far exceeds that
of women (55 %), while in Hungary 36 % of Roma men
have felt discriminated against when looking for work in
the five years before the survey, compared with 28 %
of Roma women.
77	 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing
the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin required to be
transposed to national law by 19 July 2003.
Roma men and women also reported experiencing
discrimination in settings other than work in the five
years before the survey. For example, when in contact
with public services (27 %); using public transport
(23 %); in a shop or trying to enter a shop (22 %); and,
when trying to enter a night club, a bar, a restaurant
or hotel (20 %).78
However, the results show, as in all FRA surveys,
that incidents remain in most cases unreported and
therefore invisible to authorities. Women respondents
mentioned a range of reasons for not reporting discrimination
incidents. As regards the incidents that occurred
when they were looking for work, the reasons selected
most often were because “nothing would happen or
change” by reporting it (47 %), because they simply did
not know how or where to report or what their rights
are (26 %) and “it happens all the time” (25 %).
78	 FRA (2017a).
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
36
Figure 20:	Roma who felt discriminated against when looking for work in the five years before the survey (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20
64
55
35
49
28
79
33
50
38
22
59
70
33
51
36
74
34
55
41
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Women Men
Notes:	 a
	Out of Roma respondents who had looked for work in the five years before the survey (n=3,987); weighted results.
	 b	
Question: “When looking for work in the past 5 years in [COUNTRY], have you ever felt discriminated against for any
of the following reasons? Skin colour/Ethnic or immigrant background/Religion or religious beliefs”
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
37
Discrimination, harassment and violence due to ethnic origin
Table 2:	Three most often cited reasons for not reporting the incident – feeling discriminated against when
looking for work in the five years before the survey (%)a,b,c
Nothing would happen or change
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Women 62 58 (50) 20 47 52 (100) (47) 47 47
Men 70 54 51 31 54 53 96 40 39 47
Didn’t know where/how to report, or what my rights are
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Women 45 (20) (34) (14) (27) 32 (9) (40) (21) 26
Men (28) (5) 27 (30) 40 28 (10) 40 25 25
It happens all the time
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Women (28) 22 (14) 38 (27) (18) (11) (22) 22 25
Men (24) 22 (28) 31 21 22 (18) 35 17 24
Notes:	 a
	Out of Roma respondents who had felt discriminated against when looking for work in the five years before the
survey and who did not report the most recent incident anywhere (n=1,356); weighted results.
	 b	
Question: “Why did you not report the incident or make a complaint?”
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
These results show that the relevant state authorities,
including the competent Equality Bodies, are failing
to inform Roma communities of their rights and to
empower and assist them, as it is their duty for every
citizen, in exercising these rights. It is disappointing that
the robust anti-discrimination legislation, established
many years ago (2000) and applicable throughout the
EU, is not being implemented in a way that serves Roma
citizens’ needs. On average, the survey finds that only
slightly more than one in three Roma women (34 %)
and men (38 %) are aware of the existence of such antidiscrimination
legislation in their country. Gender differences
are more pronounced in Greece (9 percentage
point difference), as well as in Bulgaria and Romania
(8 percentage point difference, respectively).
This evidence shows why it is necessary that competent
authorities, national governments as well as local
authorities, Equality Bodies and civil society reach out
to Roma women and men to inform them of their rights
and assist them in accessing legal remedy to exercise
these rights. FRA has repeatedly called for such measures
which could go a long way towards building trust in
public services, especially law enforcement and criminal
justice, which is key to Roma integration.
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
38
4.2.	 Harassment
Harassment, as defined in Article 2 of the EU’s Racial
Equality Directive, is the unwanted conduct related
to racial or ethnic origin which has the purpose or
effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating
an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating
or offensive environment.
Almost every third Roma survey respondent believed
that they had experienced, at least once, some form of
harassment79
which they felt was due to their ethnic
origin in the year before the survey; 31 % of men and
29 % of women. The share of men and women who
experienced harassment varies by country.
79	 The analysis collapses the following harassment experiences
asked by the survey: offensive or threatening comments
made in person, such as insults or name calling; personal
threats of violence; offensive gestures or inappropriate
staring; receiving offensive or threatening email or text
messages; people posting offensive comments about the
respondent on the internet.
Figure 21:	 Awareness of a law that forbids discrimination based on skin colour, ethnic origin or religion (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
24
54
27
21
53
30
10
28
53
34
32
56
36
22
55
31
17
36
50
38
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Women Men
Notes:	 a
	Out of all Roma respondents (n=7,947); weighted results.
	 b	
Question: “As far as you are aware, is there a law in [COUNTRY] that forbids discrimination based on skin colour, ethnic
origin or religion?”
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
39
Discrimination, harassment and violence due to ethnic origin
4.3.	 Violence
Violence motivated by racism is a hate crime. Such
crimes harm individual victims, as well as their entire
community and society. They strike at the heart of the
EU’s commitment to democracy and fundamental rights.
The survey shows that in most countries the majority
of Roma respondents, men and women, did not experience
any violence in the five years preceding the
survey. The highest rate of those who did experience
such violence is in Slovakia (19 % men, 13 % women).
Other instances of higher victimisation rates can be
found among Roma men in Czechia (16 %), Croatia
(16 %) and Greece (14 %). In most countries analysed,
the rate of violence motivated by racism is higher for
men compared with women, although – apart from the
findings listed above – the number of cases available
for analysis is low and limits comparisons.
Figure 22:	 Harassment experienced due to Roma background in the 12 months before the survey (%)a,b,c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
12
53
49
30
24
18
23
27
36
29
13
59
51
30
40
17
16
28
39
31
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
Women Men
Notes:	 a
	Out of all Roma respondents (n=7,947); weighted results.
	 b	
Question: “And how many times have such incidents [that is, each of the five acts of harassment asked about in the
survey] related to your Roma background happened in the past 12 months?”
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States
40
Overall, 74 % of Roma women who experienced such
an incident did not report this to the authorities, compared
with 67 % of Roma men. Small number of cases
available for analysis at the country level hinders disaggregating
these results further. Reluctance to report
a criminal offence to the police, as FRA has often highlighted
in its reports on hate crime, means that such
crimes will not be investigated or prosecuted which
reinforces the perpetrators’ sense of impunity, while
victims do not benefit from the legal protection and
psycho-social support they are entitled to by the EU’s
Victims’ Rights Directive. As FRA has pointed out in the
past, while some victims of hate-motivated incidents
may find other ways of coping – such as relying on
assistance from family and friends – those who might
have chosen to seek legal redress if they had access to
information about their rights and support mechanisms
cannot do so if they do not report such crimes. The
unwillingness of victims to report crimes to the police
and criminal justice institutions is a measure of their
institutional effectiveness. FRA’s surveys consistently
show that as regards hate crime affecting migrants,
Muslims, Jews, LGBTI people, as well as gender based
violence, the issue of low reporting rates across the
EU must urgently be addressed to make these crimes
more visible and hold perpetrators to account. Rulings
by the European Court of Human Rights, such as ECtHR,
Balazs v. Hungary, No. 15529/12, 14 March 2016, cited in
FRA’s report on hate crime recording and data collection
practice across the EU80
oblige countries to ‘unmask’ the
bias motivation behind criminal offences which can lead
to increased penalties, as well as more and more and
diverse services available for victims.
80	 FRA (2018b).
Figure 23:	 Violence due to Roma background in the 5 years before the survey (%)a,b,c
(0)
6 (5)
(2) (3)
(4)
(0)
4
13
5
(2)
16 14
(3)
16
5
(2) 4
19
8
BG CZ EL ES HR HU PT RO SK Total
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Women Men
Notes:	 a
	Out of all Roma respondents (n=7,947); weighted results.
	 b	
Question: “How many times has this happened [that is, hate motivated physical attack] in the past 12 months because
of your Roma background?”
	 c	
Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49
unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are noted in
parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.
Source:	 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016
41
5 Concluding remarks
The analysis of the survey results shows that despite
efforts by the EU and its Member States to reduce gender
inequalities among citizens of Roma origin, important
gender differences persist. While all women are affected
by inequalities in the twelve areas identified in the Beijing
Platform for Action, Roma women face additional
challenges. For this reason, Roma integration strategies
and measures, including the EU’s own framework
for Roma inclusion after 2020 should include specific
reference to the EU Common Basic Principle on Roma
Inclusion: “awareness of the gender dimension”. This
cross-cutting principle applies to all areas of life, as well
as in the fight against anti-Gypsyism, which is a formidable
barrier to social inclusion for both women and men.
The report highlights a range of areas where Roma
women are disadvantaged both in comparison to
Roma men and the general population. In particular,
the analysis highlights the dire consequences of persisting
practices in some EU countries of early, in particular
under-age, marriages which affect many Roma women.
Roma women who marry and start a family at a very
young age, while living in severely deprived material
and housing conditions, are even more disadvantaged
and at higher risk of exclusion and marginalisation. This
phenomenon is a serious violation of their fundamental
rights and needs to be tackled urgently through specific,
gender-sensitive measures. Such measures need to be
designed and implemented together with Roma women
and men concerned to avoid stigmatisation. They must
take into account that inadequate access to or trust
in available state provisions for social support can be
a powerful driver for early marriages.
Member States can also use the data analysed here to
assess the impact of measures they have taken. For
example, many Roma inclusion actions provide mediation
in health or education. The results show that only a small
proportion of Roma benefit from these actions. This could
mean that funding for such initiatives needs to better
match the number of potential Roma beneficiaries or/and
that the efficiency of these actions needs to be reviewed.
The results in education and employment show that
the EU and its Member States are far from reaching
the goals set by the EU Roma inclusion framework,
especially for specific, critical indicators, such as the
share of early school leavers and the proportion of
young people not in employment, education or training.
A serious investment in targeted and gender-sensitive
measures is therefore required. This should include and
specifically target measures on those Roma women
who marry early and leave school and those young
Roma men who go to work at an early age, many in
low-skill jobs to provide income for their families with
little opportunity for personal development.
In parallel, bold trust-building measures are required to
improve participation in education, particularly in early
childhood education and care. In some Member States,
this will involve actions to tackle anti-Gypsyism in school
and pre-school settings. In others, where most Roma
speak Romani as their first main language at home,
measures, such as mother tongue-based multilingual
early childhood education which UNESCO recommends,
could attract more Roma to education and contribute
to improving respect for diversity and social cohesion.
A more ambitious framework for Roma inclusion post
2020 is needed to achieve the aim of Agenda 2030
“to leave no one behind” and its specific sustainable
development goal No. 5 that calls on states “to achieve
gender equality and the empowerment of all women
and girls”. Across the EU, there is a need for more evidence-based,
better targeted, well-resourced and gender-sensitive
actions to match by deeds the ambitious
statement of the first EU Framework on Roma inclusion:
“to make a tangible difference to Roma people’s lives”.
42
ANNEX - The survey in a nutshell
The full technical report and questionnaire for the EUMIDIS
II survey is available online.81
Selection criteria
EU-MIDIS II respondents were screened for eligibility
by self-identification. When carrying out the interviews
for the Roma sample, after contacting a household and
introducing the survey, the interviewer asked a screening
question (‘Is there anyone aged 16 or over living in
this household who is Roma?’) to determine whether
there were eligible Roma persons in the household to
take part in the survey. In some countries, the term
‘Roma’ was replaced with a show card listing all relevant
terms commonly used for different Roma groups. The
survey interviewed one person per Roma household
who were also asked a number of questions about
each household member.
The EU-MIDIS II survey collected data on 7,947 Roma
households – 33,785 household members. The results
in this document depending on the analysis (respondent-level
versus household-level) are based either
on the experiences of 7,947 respondents (one per
household) or 33,785 persons – all individuals living
in Roma households.
Data collection
The fieldwork was conducted by Ipsos MORI, a large
international survey company based in the United Kingdom,
under the supervision of FRA according to strict
quality control procedures participating in interviewer
training sessions and observing data collection activities.
Main interview mode was Computer Assisted Personal
Interview (CAPI) – face-to-face interviews administered
by interviewers using a computerised questionnaire. The
English master version of the questionnaire was translated
into the nine official languages of the countries in
which Roma were surveyed. The median length of the
interviews with Roma respondents was 43 minutes.
81	 FRA (2017b).
Sampling
The EU-MIDIS II survey set out to achieve a probability
sample of Roma in each of the nine EU Member States.
In all countries, Roma households were selected through
random route sampling techniques. In the absence
of lists of individuals or addresses, the interviewers
followed pre-defined instructions within randomly
selected areas to contact every nth
household. This
involved a multi-stage clustered sampling approach,
where – as a first step – data concerning the population
size was gathered at the lowest possible territorial level
(for example, data from censuses or other sources). This
information served for the preparation of the sampling
frame – a list of areas to be sampled, also known as the
Primary Sampling Units (PSUs). In the nine countries
where Roma were surveyed, administrative units with
Roma population density below a certain country-specific
threshold were excluded from the sampling frame.
This led to a slight decrease in the coverage of all Roma
living in the nine EU Member States covered, resulting
in a coverage ranging between 60 % and 80 % in the
countries where Roma were surveyed.
Weighting
When analysing the survey results, the data were
weighted to reflect the selection and response probabilities
of each household and individual based on the
multi-stage sampling design. This was also needed to
correct the results for unequal selection probabilities,
which were used to increase the efficiency of the data
collection (higher density areas were oversampled in
some countries). The weights also account for the differences
in the (estimated) size of the Roma population
in each of the countries. As the sample sizes are
not proportional to the size of the Roma population
in each of the countries, countries with bigger Roma
populations receive higher weights, accordingly. This
allows for calculation of aggregate statistics when
combining different countries.
Roma sample sizes
The target sample sizes for each of the nine EU Member
States in which Roma were interviewed are based on
the estimated number of Roma living in each country.
In total 7,947 interviews with Roma respondents were
carried out across the nine EU Member States, ranging
from 508 interviews in Greece to 1,408 in Romania, as
shown in Table 3. Altogether 35,400 addresses were
contacted to obtain the sample of 7,947 interviews,
including invalid and ineligible addresses.
43
ANNEX - The survey in a nutshell
Table 3:	Number of Roma individuals and households interviewed in EU-MIDIS II by gender and EU Member
State
EU Member State
Households/selected respondents Individuals in Roma households
Men Women Total Men Women Total
Bulgaria 463 615 1,078 2,124 2,151 4,275
Croatia 248 290 538 1,380 1,420 2,800
Czechia 387 430 817 1,586 1,659 3,245
Greece 229 279 508 1,331 1,387 2,718
Hungary 547 624 1,171 2,456 2,485 4,941
Portugal 261 292 553 1,020 971 1,991
Romania 621 787 1,408 2,903 2,861 5,764
Slovakia 528 570 1,098 2,456 2,531 4,987
Spain 307 469 776 1,520 1,536 3,056
Total (9 MS) 3,591 4,356 7,947 16,776 17,001 33,777
44
References
Bošnjak, B. & Acton, T. (2013), ‘Virginity and early marriage
customs in relation to children’s rights among
Chergashe Roma from Serbia and Bosnia’, The International
Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 17.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(2005), General comment No. 18, adopted on
24 November 2005 on Article 6 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
GE.06 ‑40313 (E) 080206.
Council of Europe (2000), Recommendation No R (2000) 4
of the Committee of Ministers to member stateson the
education of Roma/Gypsy children in Europe, adopted
by the Committee of Ministers on 3 February 2000.
Council of Europe (2006), The situation of Roma School
Mediators and Assistants in Europe, Strasbourg,
Council of Europe.
Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2010), High
Level Meeting on Roma, ‘The Strasbourg Declaration on
Roma’, CM(2010)133 final, 20 October 2010.
Council of Europe (2012), Recommendation
CM/Rec(2012)9 of the Committee of Ministers to member
States on mediation as an effective tool for promoting
respect for human rights and social inclusion
of Roma, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on
12 September 2012.
Council of Europe, Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on
Roma Issues (CAHROM) (2015), Thematic report on
child/early and forced marriages within Roma communities
in the context of the promotion of gender equality,
Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (2005),
Resolution 1468 (2005) on Forced marriages and child
marriages, Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Council of the European Union (2000), Council Directive
2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 on implementing the principle
of equal treatment between persons irrespective
of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19/07/2000.
Council of the European Union (2009), 2947th
Employment,
Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
meeting, Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma,
8 June 2009.
Council of the European Union (2013), Council Recommendation
on effective Roma integration measures in
the member states, 910 December 2013.
Eurofound (2017), In-work poverty in the EU, Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2011), Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Spcial Committee and the Committee
of Regions: An EU Framework for National Roma
Integration Strategies up to 2020, COM(2011) 173/4.
European Commission (2017), Special Eurobarometer
465: Gender Equality 2017. Gender Equality, Stereotypes,
and Women in Politics, Summary report.
European Commission (2018a), Report on equality
between women and men in the EU 2018,
Luxembourg, Publication Office.
European Commission (2018b), Report on the development
of childcare facilities for young children with
a view to increase female labour participation, strike
a work-life balance for working parents and bring
about sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe
(the “Barcelona objectives”).
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015), Structural
Indicators for Monitoring Education and Training
Systems in Europe – 2015, Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions (2012), NEETS Young people
not in employment, education or training: Characteristics,
costs and policy responses in Europe,
Luxembourg, Publication Office.
European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizen
Rights and Constitutional Affairs (2017), Young Women’s
unemployment in EU, Briefing.
European Roma and Travellers Forum & Romani
Women Informal Platform “Phenjalipe” (2014), Making
early marriage in Roma communities a global concern,
Second Revised Edition.
European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) (2001), Submission
to Joint CEDAW-CRC General Recommendation / Comment
on Harmful Practices: Child Marriages among Roma.
FRA (2013), Analysis of FRA Roma survey results
by gender, Vienna.
FRA (2014), Discrimination against and living conditions
of Roma women in 11 EU Member States Roma survey –
Data in focus, Luxembourg, Publication Office.
45
References
FRA (2016), Second European Union Minorities and
Discrimination Survey: Roma  – Selected findings,
Luxembourg, Publication Office.
FRA (2017a), Second European Union Minorities
and Discrimination Survey: Roma  - Main results,
Luxembourg, Publication Office.
FRA (2017b), Second European Union Minorities
and Discrimination Survey  – Technical report,
Luxembourg, Publication Office.
FRA (2018a), Second European Union Minorities and
Discrimination Survey: Transition from education to
employment of young Roma in nine EU Member States,
Luxembourg, Publication Office.
FRA (2018b), Hate crime recording and data collection
practice across the EU, Luxembourg, Publication Office.
Hotchkiss, D.R., Godha, D., Gage, A.J., and Cappa, C.
(2016), ‘Risk factors associated with the practice of child
marriage among Roma girls in Serbia’, BMC International
Health and Human Rights, Vol. 16.
OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissionier
of Human Rghts) and WHO (World Health Organisation)
(2008), Factsheet No. 31 on the right to health, Geneva.
Oprea, A. (2005a), Child marriage a cultural problem,
educational access a race issue? Deconstructing unidimensional
understanding of romani oppression.
Oprea, A. (2005b), The Arranged Marriage of Ana
Maria Cioaba, Intra-Community Oppression and Romani
Feminist Ideals, in European Journal of Women’s
Studies, Vol. 12(2).
UNESCO (2016), Global Education Monitoring Report:
policy paper 24. “If you don’t understand, how can
you learn?”, Paris.
UNICEF (2001), ‘Early Marriage – Child Spouses’, Innocenti
Digest, No 7.
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the
Empowerment of Women (UN Women) (2015), Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action, Beijing +5 Political
Declaration and Outcome.
Getting in touch with the EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct
information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.
You can contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
Finding information about the EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU
is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at:
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications
may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre
(see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).
EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and
non-commercial purposes.
Despite efforts by the European Union (EU) and its Member States to reduce gender inequalities among citizens of Roma
origin, important gender differences persist. While all women are affected by inequalities in a range of areas, Roma women
face additional challenges as extreme poverty, exclusion and discrimination reinforce their disadvantages even further. In
core areas of life, such as education, employment and health, Roma women fare worse than Roma men and than women
in the general population. In addition, Roma women, especially those who marry and start a family at a very young age
while living in severely deprived material and housing conditions, are even more disadvantaged and at risk of exclusion
and marginalisation.
Drawing on FRA’s own survey research in nine EU Member States – Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia and Spain – this report highlights the position of Roma women in education, employment and health,
as well as the extent to which they experience hate-motivated discrimination, harassment and physical violence. It also
highlights the dire consequences of early marriages which affect many Roma women.
HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
FRA - EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria
Tel. +43 1580 30-0 – Fax +43 1580 30-699
fra.europa.eu – info@fra.europa.eu
facebook.com/fundamentalrights
linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency
twitter.com/EURightsAgency
Roma Equality