1. Ethno-tourism is a term widely used by the Slovak public, media and by politicians. It reflects the belief of the Slovak majority that Roma are migrating into EU countries to increase their income and improve their socio-economic status, while applying for asylum without justification.Google Scholar

2. The following groups of respondents were selected: 1. Roma who had migrated into an EU member state and returned, either voluntarily or forcibly; 2. Roma who may be considered potential migrants and who confirmed this assumption during the interview; 3. Representatives of leading Romani non-governmental, non-profit organizations; 4. Representatives of concerned non-Romani non-governmental organizations.Google Scholar

3. The only other attempt was a relatively short survey, conducted by Romani activists without a sociological background (Jozef C̆erveňák, Správa o prí̆inách migrácie Rómov v SR., Záverĕná správa projektu—Report on the reasons for migration of Roma from Slovakia, Final project report, Roz̆ňava: Roma-Gemer, 2000).Google Scholar

4. Statement of the UK Home Secretary Jack Straw on Czech and Slovak Roma of 9 April 1998 as issued by the UK Embassy in Bratislava (author's translation from Slovak).Google Scholar

5. Michal Vašĕka, “The Roma”, in Grigorij Mesez̆nikov, Michal Ivantyšyn and Tom Nicholson, eds., Slovakia 1998–1999: A Global Report on the State of Society, Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 1999, pp. 395–415.Google Scholar

6. Vincent Danihel, then Governmental Plenipotentiary for Romani minority problems, admitted these allegations at a press conference held on 6 July 1999. Danihel also pronounced his opinion that the Romani exodus to Finland stemmed from speculation over lucrative asylum benefits from the Finnish government.Google Scholar

7. See Claude Cahn and Peter Vermeersch, “The Group Expulsion of Slovak Roma by the Belgian Government: A Case Study of the Treatment of Romani Refugees in Western Countries”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring–Summer 2000, pp. 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Emotions surrounding the migration of Slovak Roma to EU member states calmed down in March 2001 after the European Commission placed Slovakia on the so-called “white list” of countries which have a visa-free regime with the European Union (Juraj Hrabko, “C̆ierno-biely zoznam”, SME, 17 March 2001, p. 8).Google Scholar

9. TASR news agency, 26 April 2001.Google Scholar

10. In their decision in Horváth [2000], 3 WLR 379, the House of Lords found that in the case of Milan Horváth, the Slovak authorities were willing and able to provide a level of state protection against the persecution which the applicant claimed to fear, which was sufficient to meet and overcome his fear of persecution. Since then, the Horváth “test” of “sufficiency of state protection” has been used by the courts in the UK, as a means of dismissing the vast majority of asylum claims by Roma. The test has been criticised by the New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority as placing too high a burden of proof on the asylum seeker.Google Scholar

11. For details see Cahn and Vermeersch, “The Group Expulsion of Slovak Roma”.Google Scholar

12. “V máji Vyšetria Vyhostenie” [They will investigate expulsion in May], Romano l'il Nevo, 468–485, 2001, p. 6.Google Scholar

13. ERRC Welcomes Landmark Decision by Strasbourg Court in Expulsion Case, Open letter, 5 February 2002, ERRC Website, http://www.errc.org/publications/letters/2002/belgium_febr_5_2002.shtml.Google Scholar

14. From the viewpoint of regional differences, most Roma officially live in the Prešov region—31,653 (4.0 per cent of the region's population), followed by the Košice region— 29,803 (3.9 per cent), the Banska Bystrica region—15,463 (2.3 per cent), the Nitra region—4,741 (0.7 per cent), the Trnava region—3,163 (0.6 per cent), the Žilna region— 2,795 (0.4 per cent), the Tren̆ín region—1,547 (0.3 per cent), and the Bratislava region— 755 (0.1 per cent). Prešov and Košice are the easternmost of these regions.Google Scholar

15. Activists and researchers attribute the reluctance of the Roma to declare their nationality mostly to their fear of being persecuted, and to the integration of many Roma into majority society. Many experts suggest that the most important factor preventing the Roma from declaring their nationality is a serious crisis in Romani ethnic identity caused by decades of often forced assimilation, and the perception that being Romani carries the stigma of inferiority. This belief is widespread among the majority population and among Roma themselves. See e.g. Olga Gyárfášová, Vladimír Krivý, Marian Velšic, Grigorij Mesez̆nikov and Michal Vašecka, Krajina v pohybe (Nation in Transit), Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky (Institute for Public Affairs), 2001, pp. 225–228.Google Scholar

16. Minority Rights Group International, ed., World Dictionary of Minorities, London: MRG International, 1997.Google Scholar

17. Gyárfašová, et al., Krajina v pohybe, pp. 225–228.Google Scholar

18. Michal Vašĕka and Roman Dz̆ambazovĭ, Sociálno-ekonomicka situácia Rómov na Slovensku ako potenciálnych migrantov a z̆iadatel'ovo o azyl v krajinách EÚ (Socioeconomic Situation of Roma in Slovakia as Potential Migrants and Asylum Seekers in EU Member States), Bratislava: International Organisation for Migration, 2000, p. 5.Google Scholar

19. Michal Vašĕka, “The Roma”, in Grigorij Mesez̆nikov, Miroslav Kollár and Tom Nicholson, eds., Slovakia 2000: A Global Report on the State of Society, Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2001, pp. 169–198.Google Scholar

20. Michal Vašĕka, “Roma in Slovakia—The Crucial Issue on Slovak Way to EU-Membership”, in Shlomo Avinieri and Werner Weidenfeld, eds., Integration and Identity: Challenges to Europe and Israel, Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1999, pp. 159–174.Google Scholar

21. Michal Vašĕka, “Roma and the 1998 Parliamentary Elections”, in Martin Bútora, Grigorij Mesez̆nikov, Zora Bútorová and Sharon Fisher, eds., The 1998 Parliamentary Elections and Democratic Rebirth in Slovakia, Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 1999, pp. 255–263.Google Scholar

22. Vašĕka, “The Roma”, in Slovakia 1998–1999. Google Scholar

23. David Crowe, A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia, New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1996, pp. 46–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Many of the Roma who were moved (sometimes forcibly) from rural shanty villages into modern flats were not familiar with basic features of modern living. It was just expected that they would automatically adjust to the modern urban lifestyle. In fact, the opposite was true—many blocks of flats were destroyed by Roma, which gave the majority an excuse to put more blame on Roma for disrespect to property that was given to them for free.Google Scholar

25. Anna Jurová, Vývoj rómskej problematiky na Slovensku po roku 1945 (The Evolution of Romani Issues in Slovakia after 1945), Košice: Spolŏensko-vedný ústav Slovenskej Akadémie Vied (Institute of Social Sciences, The Slovak Academy of Science), 1993, pp. 67–83.Google Scholar

26. A Joint Report of the World Bank, The Open Society Institute, INEKO, Foundation SPACE, Poverty and Welfare of Roma in the Slovak Republic, Draft, 2001, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

27. Here we mean the following characteristics: life in a broader family; community-oriented lifestyle; an absence of borders between private and public; considering housing as temporary or provisional; a clear division of roles in the Romani family. See: Arne B. Mann, “Výskum rodinných obycajov ako prostriedok poznania rodiny Cigánov-Rómov” (Examination of Family Customs as a Means of Understanding the Families of Gypsies-Roma), in Teoreticko-metodické východiská výskumu cigánskej rodiny a cigánskych obyvatel'ov (Theoretical-Methodological Approaches to Researching Gypsy Families and Gypsy Citizens), Košice: Spolŏensko-vedný ústav Slovenskej Akadémie Vied (Institute of Social Sciences, The Slovak Academy of Science), 1989, p. 8.Google Scholar

28. See Imrich Vašĕka, Profil a situácia z̆iadatel'ov o azyl a potenciálnych migrantov do krajín EÚ zo Slovenskej republiky (The Profile and Situation of Asylum Seekers and Potential Migrants from the Slovak Republic to EU Countries), Bratislava: International Organisation for Migration, 2000, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar

29. Income differentiation and living standard in Communist Slovakia was not proportionate to the achieved degree of education. Certain branches of industry, mainly the manufacturing ones, were privileged, and from the point of view of achievement of a certain social status, there was a principle of collective, not individual, mobility. Education was not exclusively understood as a means of reaching a certain living standard and social position. Having the education required by and the opportunity of working in a certain sector was the guarantee of securing a decent living standard. The overall educational structure in Slovakia was adjusted to this principle, with the majority of citizens having only primary or secondary education without a certificate of apprenticeship. Orientation towards these types of education has become a trap after 1989.Google Scholar

30. The term “Romani socialist-style middle class” requires a brief explanation. Until now, no sociological surveys have been devoted to examining the social differentiation of the Romani population in Slovakia. All Roma who acquired their social status during the Communist period, when they mastered common labour professions of the non-Romani community, may be considered members of this class. Although they worked in areas of industry that required a high supply of unskilled physical labour, jobs in these fields were ideologically privileged by the regime and hence paid above average. For these Roma, departure from a Romani settlement was a factor that promoted their gradually deepening emancipation. This process was marked by Romani efforts to equal the majority population, mostly in the material sense.Google Scholar

31. World Bank, The Open Society Institute, INEKO, Foundation SPACE, Poverty and Welfare of Roma in the Slovak Republic, Draft, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

32. The lack of data is due mainly to privacy legislation, adopted in 1993, which prohibits the collection of data based upon ethnicity.Google Scholar

33. Iveta Radĭová and Michal Vašĕka, “Problems of Social Exclusion and Double Marginalization of Roma in Slovakia after 1989”, paper delivered at the conference Labour, Employment and Social Policies in the EU Enlargement Process: Changing Perspectives and Policy Options, organized jointly by the World Bank and the Bertelsmann Foundation, Baden, Austria, June 2001, pp. 12–17.Google Scholar

34. According to the quantitative representative survey, “Roma 1994” conducted by the Slovak Statistical Office (ÚVVM, 1995), only 11% of Roma in the Slovak Republic consider the nomadic style of life as a preferential option.Google Scholar

35. For example, parts of the Labour Code and laws on social assistance.Google Scholar

36. Very few Roma are able to prove direct persecution. But even in cases when Roma asylum-seekers successfully present cases proving persecution in Slovakia, they are very likely to be rejected by the authorities of EU states. See e.g. footnote 10 above for an explanation of the decision in Horváth. Google Scholar

37. According to the typology advocated by Douglas S. Massey, “Causes of Migration”, in Montserrat Guibernau and John Rex, eds., Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration, Cambridge: Policy Press, 1997, pp 257–269.Google Scholar

38. Although expectations for the outcome of cooperation with the new, post-Mĕiar, regime were high after the 1998 elections, the reality was disappointing. This in turn has led to a radicalisation of Romani leaders, and consequentially to a new impetus to migrate. A small migration of Romani intelligentsia can be observed, including members of RIS.Google Scholar

39. Boris Benković and Lucia Vakulová, Obraz Róma vo vybraných slovenských médiách (7. jún 1998–31. máj 1999) (The Picture of Roma in Selected Slovak Media: 1 June 1998–31 May 1999), Bratislava: Slovenský helsinský výbor (Slovak Helsinki Committee), 2000, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

40. Michal Vašĕka, Coverage of Roma Migration to EU Countries in the Main Slovak Daily Newspapers (January 1999–April 2000), Bratislava: International Organisation for Migration, 2000, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

41. “Nechcú Rómov” [They don't want Rome], Romano l'il Nevo, 455–467.Google Scholar

42. Following the change in government after the 1998 parliamentary elelctions, the Dzurinda Administration abolished the Office of the Slovak Government Plenipotentiary for Citizens Requiring Special Care and established a new Office of the Slovak Government Plenipotentiary for Solving the Problems of the Romani Majority, which worked under the auspices of the Cabinet Office. Shortly after its establishment, the office began to design the Government's new strategy for solving the problems of the Romani minority. The strategy comprised two stages. On 27 September 1999, the cabinet approved a document entitled Resolution No. 821/1999 Regarding the Strategy of the Slovak Government to Solve the Problems of the Romani Minority and the Set of Implementation Measures—1st stage and on 5 May 2000, the cabinet began the second stage of the scheme, approving a document entitled Elaborated Strategy of the Slovak Government to Solve the Problems of the Romani Ethnic Minority, which transformed the initial strategy into a set of concrete measures planned for 2000 (Governmental Resolution No. 294). See Vašĕka, “The Roma”, in: Slovakia 1998–1999. Google Scholar