FINAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT

Judicial response to
crime committed by EU
unaccompanied juvenile
offenders
FINAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT
In cooperation with
With financial support from
the Criminal Justice Program
of the European Union
"This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Criminal
Justice Program of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the
sole responsibility of the French National School for the Judiciary and its partners
and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission."
The French National School for the Judiciary warmly thanks all experts who
contributed
to
the
drafting
of
this
document.
2
TABLE DES MATIERES
JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO CRIME COMMITTED BY EU
UNACCOMPANIED JUVENILE OFFENDERS ........................ 5
1
INTRODUCTION: ..................................................................... 6
2
OBSERVATION AND PROPOSALS FROM THE
WORKSHOPS .........................................................................10
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.4
Workshop 1: Identification ................................................................10
Workshop 2: Educational responses ...............................................14
Workshop 3: Fighting traffickers who exploit minors ...................19
Concerning trafficking: .........................................................................21
Concerning minor victims: ...................................................................21
Workshop 4: Social and integration policies ..................................23
3
CONCLUSION .........................................................................26
4
ANNEXES ...............................................................................27
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
Program of the Final Conference: 2-4 July 2014 ............................27
Alexander Hoefmans: presentation on the European
perspectives ......................................................................................34
Identification and its monitoring ......................................................40
Grand Rapporteur’s speach during the Final Conference: Marie
Derain ..................................................................................................40
Gilles Beretti’s presentation .................................................................45
Document on the identification and Biometric taking process for the
Italian Criminal Central Directorate Forensic Police Service ..............49
Petra Giunti’s Presentation ..................................................................79
Carolina Lluch Palau’s Presentation on the Spanish system ..............83
Methods of evaluation and educational responses .......................87
Grand Rapporteur’s speech during the Final Conference: Monique
Chadeville............................................................................................87
Presentation of the Romanian NGO « Save the Children » :
educational work with Roma people ...................................................88
3
4.4.3 Presentation of the Spanish Rehabilitation Center Diagrama: an
alternative to jail ................................................................................124
4.5 Prosecuting organized crime and Legal standing of juvenile.....134
4.5.1 Grand Rapporteur’s speach during the Final Conference: Elisabeth
Moiron-Braud.....................................................................................134
4.6 Social action and integration policy ..............................................138
4.6.1 Grand Rapporteur’s speach during the Final Conference: Alain
Régnier ..............................................................................................138
4.6.2 Rossella Salvati’s Presentation .........................................................141
4.6.3 Presentation of the Sant’Egidio Community ......................................146
4.7 Cross section documents ...............................................................153
4.7.1 Agreement Italy - Romania ................................................................153
5
STUDY VISITS REPORTS ....................................................158
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
Study Visits in France .....................................................................158
Summary of the study visit in France ............................................184
Study visit ini Spain .........................................................................189
Summary of the study visit in Spain ..............................................205
Study visit in Slovakia .....................................................................208
Summary of the study visit in Slovakia .........................................220
Study Visit in Italy ............................................................................225
Summary of the study visit in Italy ................................................236
Study visit in Romania ....................................................................242
Summary of the study visit in Romania ........................................260
4
JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO
CRIME COMMITTED BY EU
UNACCOMPANIED JUVENILE
OFFENDERS
5
1 INTRODUCTION:
After some hesitation, the French National School for the Judiciary (ENM)
decided to approach this subject pragmatically via delinquency, rather than
looking at it from the outset in terms of fundamental rights. The reason is
simply because this is the way it is considered under the law.
This is the reality through which the difficult issue of these young people is
viewed by our institutions. The problem we face is to gain a better
understanding of what lies behind this reality in order to respond more
effectively, while at the same time protecting the minors concerned. Taking
this pragmatic approach does not prevent us from making constant
comparisons between problems of principle and fundamental rights, as we
have seen throughout this work.
Behind this complex title, it must be clearly established that the situation with
which we are dealing is one of legal responses to the delinquency of children
living in camps or slums, for the most part in city suburbs. And that these are
mainly European children of Roma origin.
There is no insinuation of racial connotation, no discrimination, or segregation.
Delinquency is an observed fact. Our starting point is not to consider the
situation of Roma children, not all children of Roma origin are delinquents and
this has to be said, but nevertheless we shall start with those that are.
At first, this situation was seen as very much mixed up with the issue of
unaccompanied foreign minors, whereas in fact this is by no means the case.
The profiles of these minors are entirely different. Unaccompanied foreign
minors come from countries much further afield and seek to integrate into
society in different European countries. They have few delinquent tendencies
(not at first, at least, and if they are treated properly).
European minors with no accompanying parent, on the other hand, have no
intention of integrating and may even fear such an outcome. They try to hide
who they are and who is controlling them. In fact, their parents or families are
often present but remain hidden. This is a very delicate subject, as it is very
much politicised. At the last European elections, extremist political parties took
advantage of this to send out an anti-European message, as it is Europe that
6
sanctions the free movement of persons. This exacerbation of the problem
makes it a much more complex issue to find effective and suitably adapted
responses to and it has the effect of paralysing political actors somewhat.
An interesting fact to have come out of visits to the different countries
concerned in this programme (Spain, France, Italy, Romania, Slovakia) is that
these tensions are not as strong in the countries where these
communities are strongest and have been settled for longest.
In Italy, there are over a million people from Eastern Europe, 170,000 of them
of Roma origin.
In Spain, there are almost 800,000 people of Eastern European origin, of
whom 150,000 have been counted as being of Roma origin.
In France, 20,000 people of Roma origin have been identified and
considerable social tensions are visible.
We realised during our visits that one of the key factors of delinquency
was this very marginalisation or ghettoization of this population. In Italy
or Spain, where the Roma population was larger, more established and better
known, they were much better accepted.
However, it has to be said, and our visits enabled us to confirm this, that this is
also a very delicate subject for the countries of origin of these minors, which
are constantly called into question because of the situation that these poor
and marginalised populations find themselves in. It is true that there are
discriminatory attitudes in these countries. Basically, however, these are the
same as in the host countries, which are facing economic, social and human
situations where change is only likely in the long term.
An initial meeting was organised in France where all the teams participating in
this programme were able to meet. Here, we worked on the sociology of this
population, the Roma, and each country described how their legal system
dealt with minors.
Next, we visited each organising country for a better sense of the reality of the
responses to this delinquency.
During these visits, participants were able to meet judges, prosecution
services, police, social workers, administrative managers. Visits were also
made to educational centres, prison camps and slums. We wanted to view the
situation not only from an institutional point of view but also from that of
NGOs, who often take a very different approach which can be particularly
interesting.
All the countries were tremendously cooperative.
Our view of the reality of the responses to this issue evolved continually
through the visions and actions of the different countries and the contacts that
we made.
7
Thanks must go to the European Union and the National School for the
Judiciary for the wealth of experience that came through these formalities of
exchanges, contacts, and perceptions of other institutions and other
sociological realities.
In the written reports of these visits we have tried to report information that
was only heard and so perhaps some margin for error should be left. The
visits were based essentially on oral discussions. We were mainly interested
in showing the different angles of responses from the countries concerned.
What is striking is that these responses, and the rules that govern them,
are extremely varied in these countries which are nevertheless all
members of the European Union.
Out of these visits, four main themes seemed to emerge as being essential
and at the closing conference we grouped these into four workshops under
the headings:
·
·
·
·
identification
educational assessment and provision
fighting organised crime and the status of minors who are rapists
social and integration policies
At this closing conference, we tried to show the range of solutions that exist in
our five countries and to determine some avenues for specifically adapted
solutions.
One of the major points to emerge is the importance of real coordination
work in these initiatives both at the level of the Member States
concerned and at European level. Solutions do exist, they are possible,
there are many documents to support them. All that is needed is to apply them
at the appropriate level, i.e. local, regional, national, and also European, with
the main thrust of the argument being “protection of these children”.
It is important to state that initially we had a fifth topic in mind which seemed to
be a priority, the subject of returns.
In reality, however, as our work went on, it emerged that this subject is no
longer the important issue that it was.
Indeed, it is very complicated and difficult to return minors to their home
countries through the criminal law (in France it is impossible), while it can take
an extremely long time through civil law (via educational care) and the
agreement of the minor and his family is needed. The only route that is a little
easier is the diplomatic route.
Whatever happens, after they are returned, minors are able to come back
almost immediately to these different European countries. Thus the
important topic is not returning these youngsters, which feels like an
“expulsion”, but rather monitoring them, as would be done in any child
protection system.
8
Return should therefore be seen mainly as an opportunity to get these
children out of dependency or away from those that dominate them and want
to exploit them.
9
2 OBSERVATION AND
PROPOSALS FROM THE
WORKSHOPS
2.1
Workshop 1: Identification
One of the main problems encountered with “delinquent” minors of Roma
origin is that of identifying them.
As they refuse to give their name or address, and as they run away from any
placement they may be put into, it is very difficult to identify and monitor them.
Recently, their increasingly frequent and systematic opposition to being
fingerprinted or to having their photograph taken has made things even more
complicated.
Considerable progress was made in Paris thanks to the work of the Prefecture
of Police. The competent department – the unit coordinating the fight against
illegal immigration (UCLIC) –obtained a great deal of help from the Romanian
police (support from a dozen Romanian police officers) which in three years
resulted in the identification of 1,000 minors (now 2,000).
These officers were able to work with the national Romanian database which
gives every Romanian citizen their own national identification number.
However, the fact remains that this important identification work is limited to
the Paris Prefecture of Police. This is a serious problem as many young
10
people, especially when they have been identified too often in Paris, are
employed to commit offences in other cities. In addition, some of these “family
or clan communities” move throughout the country.
It is thus clear that a system needs to be put in place at national level, so that
at least it will be possible to use identifications that have already been made,
and to gather all existing identifications made by other Police or Gendarmerie
departments, so that these can be cross-checked and monitored over time,
and perhaps even set up an identification system at national level.
Many minors who are caught speak excellent Spanish or Italian or Portuguese
because they have lived in other European countries before coming to France,
and many of them then leave to go to other European countries. Once again,
all the work put into identification in each country is not used.
A first proposal has been made: to create a European network so that
these identifications can be tracked. If every country were to have a
“national tracking platform”, then this could not only fulfil this tracking role at
national level, but also act as a point of contact and exchange between
European countries, so that these minors who are used by their families or
communities can be tracked. Police liaison officers could also monitor these
situations.
The first proposal to create a European network, a project put forward by
France, ran into difficulties at first. It has recently been re-submitted to the
European Commission through the Internal Security Fund (ISF).
There is another option worth considering: putting in place an
unaccompanied minors’ protection file like the one in Spain. This project is
suitable for foreign unaccompanied minors but it could also be used for
European unaccompanied minors when they have been victims of trafficking.
Basically, the principle that guides and justifies the creation of this file is
simple: it is unacceptable that a non-identified minor or one who is in a very
vulnerable situation can be left unclaimed and with no follow-up when in this
country. Strictly speaking, this would be more a tracking file than an
identification file. It would at least ensure that a trace could be kept of these
minors. It is important to stress that this is not a criminal file. Any offences that
the minors may have committed will not appear.
As soon as the young person is identified, he is removed from the file.
In France it should be noted that any mention of a file results immediately in
great reluctance. It is interesting to observe that other European countries do
not have the same mind-set. They start from a completely different approach
to the matter, which should be given consideration. For them, the key principle
is not to refuse tracking “on principle”. On the contrary, the aim is to confirm
the fact that a minor must not be abandoned, with no monitoring at all across
the country (even at the price of an informal identification). This is essentially
providing protection.
11
One might imagine that the European Union would encourage Member States
to provide such a file in order to give better protection to minors, especially
when they are used by traffickers or criminal networks, and also to ensure that
they are not used in this way in future.
One very tricky point complicates this problem even further: the refusal by the
minors to be fingerprinted or to have their photo taken.
Under French law, such a refusal constitutes an offence punishable by
imprisonment. In reality, these sanctions are not dissuasive for minors.
The police cannot use physical force. They are afraid that if the slightest
incident were to occur, then they would be accused of violence.
It is certainly necessary to facilitate the use of all possible means to collect
identification data as these are the only way to obtain an identification and to
be able to monitor minors.
This point gave rise to a rather sensitive debate: is physical force an
unimaginable possibility, unless it is a last resort, only to be used with caution
and the necessary balance?
Children are forced and coerced into refusing to provide these elements by
the networks that run them. Are we really protecting them if we do not impose
this on them? In education within the family are children not sometimes forced
to do this or that not with violence but sometimes in a fairly physical way?
Here again, the positions of the European countries proved to be very
different. In Italy, there is an obligation to give one’s identity. Anyone who
refuses can find themselves forced to do so and may even be forced to
undergo biometric examinations. The police have wide-ranging powers. This
obligation is true for foreigners, but also for the Italians themselves. This is
according to rulings by the Constitutional Court of Italy.
It emerged from discussions that this obligation to identify oneself was the
same in the United Kingdom as in Italy.
On this legislative basis Italy has developed a very broad identification system
which provides very efficient monitoring of everyone. It is true that the situation
this country faces concerning immigration problems is particularly serious.
In the case of minors, would there not be a reason to make this identification
into an obligation? Would this not be a better way of protecting them and
reducing their vulnerability? Should the means not be developed to ensure
this can happen?
At European level, via Europol or the data file that was created as a result of
the Prüm Convention, there are solutions but which in practice only affect the
situation of minors involved in matters of extreme importance. In fact, if we
want to fight against the vulnerability and exploitation of these minors, then a
much wider ranging and simpler identification system must be envisaged
(perhaps quite simply via police reports).
12
To conclude this workshop, it was stressed that first and foremost one must
consider the greater interest of the child. This principle should be the key
approach when developing responses. The basic principles of educational
care should be followed, which are:
_ know the child, work with him and at the very least identify him
_ know his family, work with them and at the very least identify them
_ ensure there is follow-up of the young person and his family
Is this not what should be implemented at European level?
Is this not the only way to gradually extricate these minors from the networks
that are exploiting them?
13
2.2
Workshop 2: Educational responses
In terms of specialised educational support, there are major difficulties in all
countries and especially in those where these populations are most
marginalised.
In France, specialised educational responses are virtually non-existent. There
is no monitoring in open environments as the specialised educational services
do not go into the camps. (In fact, the local social services do not go in either,
definitely not in Paris, apart from the Red Cross and Médecins du Monde).
In addition, minors run away from any placement.
In reality, the answer is prison or the street, with no support, and therefore it is
very often prison.
Via the procedure that provides the possibility of sending the minor to a
nearby, fixed hearing (article 82 of the order of 1945) where he may be placed
in custody, minors aged under 16 are being sent to prison more and more
often.
In prison, there are virtually the same number of girls and boys of Roma
origin, and they can prove to have a very positive attitude. They often enjoy
working, learning to read and write. This is basically the only time that anyone
can make any contact with them.
From the visits to the five countries, it emerged that most of them have prisons
for minors that are separate from those of adults, which means that they can
be organised in a way that is much more suitable (sports grounds, common
room etc.). This is less true in France.
In Paris, a first step has been taken (thanks to support from the FrancoRomanian group) to respect the rights of the inmates, through an initiative by
the Consulate and the governors of the Fleury Merogis remand centre where
interviews are systematically arranged between the Consul or a Consulate
attaché and every detained minor.
In Spain, one no longer refers to prisons for minors, but to re-education
centres. These centres all have three different regimes: closed, semi-open
and open. The term closed does not have the same meaning as in France; for
example, these are not centres which anyone can in fact leave if we disregard
statutory prohibitions. In Spain, these centres really are closed. In many
countries true incarceration means “prison”, whereas this is not the case in
Spain.
14
However, it is here that the interesting feature of the Spanish position lies. For
them, “closed” must be interpreted as a “compulsory constraint” at a certain
point in the “educational” process, but where “educational” is the core value,
the governing principle of the Spanish approach. There is no longer talk of
prison for children, only educational responses.
And everything is organised around this principle. These re-education centres
operate around it. We had a very interesting visit to one of these centres in
Spain. We were able to understand the philosophy behind these structures
and one of the officials from this centre came to the final conference to explain
more about how they work. The aim is to teach young people how to live in a
civilised way in society. They all live together in these centres, whatever their
level of delinquency. There may be one or more periods of restrictions to
make these young people live according to the standards of collective living.
However, it is certainly true that between this community living and prison
there is no comparison.
It is interesting to note that in Italy there is a very unusual “guidance for
minors” measure, applied when they are charged with offences punishable by
9 years in prison. These minors may be held for 4 days to give the authorities
an opportunity to find out about their situation and that of their family. This
time is used to prepare a project for the minor concerned. Both public and
private social services contribute to these measures.
In the area of specialist educational responses, another very interesting point
emerged in Italy. To cope with the situation of minors in danger, “civil”
responses have been developed which are related to parental authority
through the subject of parental responsibility. These children are usually living
in extreme poverty. It is not only on this point that these procedures are
based, but rather on the fact that in addition these children often have parents
who neglect them or who use them for their personal ends.
The Italians have set up major adoption facilities to help these children out of
these situations. We did not have a lot of time to look closely into the
conditions and procedures involved in these measures. Nevertheless, the fact
remains that working on parental authority in some of these situations is a
route that would be interesting to look into further, even though it can be a
delicate subject.
In Paris, in the case of delinquent minors the only specifically educational
responses are the presence in the UEAT (Educational unit at the juvenile
court) of two Romanian-speaking childcare workers. They work with the
children while they are on remand, then when the educational measures are
announced in the framework of the criminal justice system, by the juvenile
court judge, the examining judges or the juvenile court, these specialists
support them throughout the whole time before and sometimes after the
verdict is given. When the young people are imprisoned, they visit them in
custody and prepare an exit project for when they are released.
By hiring these two childcare workers who speak Romanian, they have been
able to build up links with these young people, something that was never
possible before because of the language barrier.
15
The minors whom these childcare workers manage to monitor effectively and
over a period of time are for the most part those who live with their families
and who intend to settle in France and not those who are exploited by criminal
networks. There are as many boys as girls and the majority are aged between
13 and 16.
In practical terms, the department works a lot in partnership with the Hors-laRue association, the only association to offer these youngsters the possibility
of taking part in daytime activities. About twenty young people monitored
through the criminal system are enrolled with this association. This is an
essential collaboration as it gives the childcare specialist from the Legal
Protection for Young People (PJJ) time to work on an orientation project either
towards the PJJ’s own integration facilities (where places are limited), or into
ordinary placements (which is quite unusual).
The community spirit of these young people means that, with only a very few
exceptions, it is a very complex problem to put any form of placement into
action. For example, the question of the transition from childhood to adulthood
is not viewed in the same way in the Roma communities. Childhood ends at
around 13 years old and after this the next issue to deal with is not that of
adolescence, but that of marriage, of setting up as a couple, of links between
families, of clans.
The educational approach developed by the UEAT takes such particularities
into account, like these young people’s very strong community spirit. This is
something that is very much taken into account in Italy and Romania in their
educational responses.
In our discussions it was emphasised that it is perhaps necessary to set up
specialised structures regionally which could establish a specific follow-up for
these young people, at least in the cities that are most affected. This regional
team, specialised to a certain extent, could be based around a specific centre
which receives ethnological and linguistic support. This centre could be used
to look for specially adapted stepping stones in terms of placements or
families (like those in Romania), especially concerning child protection.
In France, a joint regional plan between the PJJ and the ASE (Social
Assistance to Children) would be a real leap forward. For their part, social
workers from the ASE should be able to rely more heavily on the NGOs or on
“mediators” from these communities who at least speak their language.
The EU supports programmes to promote the development of these
mediators. They can clearly be a very useful bridging point. Slovakia and Italy
rely heavily on mediators like these.
It should also be noted that the work of medical follow-up, school follow-up
and educational support carried out in a country disappears if the family or the
clan should change their location (voluntarily or not). Nothing is in place
nationally to ensure that follow-up is provided, which is a great pity.
We could look at the example of the substantial work put in by the Paris
police:
16
o
After successfully identifying more and more young Roma, the police service
also works on tracing the family in Romania to have a better idea of their true
situation and, where appropriate, to envisage a return to that country. At
present, the police refer to their Romanian opposite numbers, who pass on a
request for a social enquiry to the social action service of the departments
concerned. In response to this a tremendous amount of work is done in
Romania.
Two obstacles have been encountered:
-
the delay in getting back these social enquiries which form part of a particular
procedure;
the quality of the information gathered on which a legal decision is to be
based.
This project, titled “Gavroche”, does work but it has to be admitted that the
considerable amount of work put in does not always lead to worthwhile or
relevant courses of action, and often the information comes back to us that the
families have now gone abroad. Some work still needs to be done by the
Franco-Romanian group on harmonising the “standards” of social enquiries
between France and Romania.
But as soon as these “families” move, then all the systems that have been put
in place collapse!
It would clearly seem to be important that other educational services or
associations should be able to intervene in order to adapt to the different
situations, to the type of work required and to determine the most suitable
means of providing support. All this is only on condition that the slightest
resettlement on the part of the family does not render all this work pointless.
o
The idea would be to develop a “European educational network” with a
central cell in each European country concerned (which would do this same
work at national level) so that minors who had been the subject of an enquiry
could continue to be supported when they move (or when they are moved) to
another country and they could be found again.
One of the basic principles of educational assistance for minors is to work with
them, but also to support them, and do whatever is needed for as long as they
remain minors. We have to be sure that these young people, like all minors at
risk, can benefit from this support. Here again, a project based on the
European programme Daphne began to be talked of but this came to nothing.
A link with the social services of the country of origin could also encourage
transparency in these situations.
In the same vein, young people who agree to return to their families in
Romania - there are few of them, it is true, but there are some - should have
the benefit of individual educational support for a few months after they go
back. A report on their situation should be sent to the authorities that managed
the return.
17
This would certainly make the decisions of the juvenile court Judges or the
authorities a little easier, as they may be reluctant to send minors back to
Romania, even when the minors agree, without knowing the basic details of
their situation and ensuring they were cared for.
Such an agreement seems to exist between Germany and Romania.
It is clear that in order to make progress on all the points mentioned above it
would be extremely useful to have a “social” responsible representative
present in Romanian consulates in the major cities that were most affected.
18
2.3
Workshop 3: Fighting traffickers who
exploit minors
Given the large increase in delinquency among Roma minors in 2009/2010 in
France, several police enquiries have been carried out and investigations
opened. The idea was that it was not enough to react to this delinquency and
go after the minors, but it was also necessary to discover whether they had
been coerced into carrying out these offences.
Enquiries showed that minors were indeed put under pressure to commit
offences and that they were victims of trafficking.
Regarding minors of Roma origin, the networks exploiting them use force or
even violence although the violence is less excessive than in the Hammidovic
affair (minors from Bosnia) or on minors arriving from Albania. The
delinquency of minors of Roma origin is not in itself always very violent, but it
tends to take the same form: theft from ATMs, theft of mobile phones from
restaurant tables or in the Metro, fraud with petitions for fictitious
associations...
The communities behind these thefts are of a very specific origin (which
emphasises the point that not all Roma communities are delinquents). In the
case of Paris, they are from the town of Tendarei for the thefts from ATMs,
from Braila for thefts of mobile phones … in fact, these are family-community
networks. It does happen that children are used by their own parents. More
often, however, they are used by so-called “responsible adults” to whom the
children have been entrusted, in some cases for money. Enquiries reveal that
often the money that these minors bring back from their delinquency is used to
repay loans made to their families in Romania.
A major change has been observed: minors in these situations are starting to
be seen not only as perpetrators but also as victims. This is a fundamental
step forward which will drastically change the way they are viewed.
Are we seeing any consequences of this as yet? For the moment, not really.
There are several reasons for this: cultural reasons, reasons of knowledge
and also some very concrete reasons. Enquiries into this type of delinquency
are very time-consuming, yet concern issues that are often considered by the
police, the prosecution services or the investigating judges as not very serious
and hence they do not open up this kind of investigation lightly. The
“exploitation of minors” aspect is often under-estimated. It has to be brought to
everyone’s attention that what is serious is not the facts of the delinquency
itself (thefts, etc.), but the exploitation of children in this way. It is therefore
essential to place more emphasis on ensuring that professionals are aware of
this issue and increase the number of investigations.
19
There should also be a better system of follow-up of these minors as they
come out of prison, as it is often the networks that come and pick them, thus
removing any possibility of educational care. This would also be a good
opportunity for a more efficient surveillance of these networks.
The Romanian authorities do their best to respond to all requests from the
police or the courts from various European countries and they are remarkably
well organised to do this. However, the problem remains that they find it
difficult to set in motion legal proceedings themselves or to finalise on their
own initiative those cases that are already in progress. They argue that the
facts occur outside of Romania, that it is difficult for them to intervene and that
their legislation is not sufficiently well adapted. In fact, the Romanian
authorities have gradually adapted their legislation, especially regarding the
confiscation of goods.
Romania was not very much in favour of the “shared enquiries”, created by
the EU, however the head of the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime
and Terrorism (DICOT) has changed position and has now declared in favour.
In this matter we are faced with problems of a European dimension. If we look
further into the possibilities of responses at European level, we realise that the
basic texts and the basic tools to cope with these trafficking phenomena exist
but that they are not properly applied, if at all.
There is practically no referral to Europol and even less to Eurojust by the
different countries. It would be sensible to oblige the countries concerned by
the delinquency of young people of Roma origin to be more systematic in
sending their European level procedures to Europol and Eurojust.
In any event, Europol should consider this fight against “child exploitation” as
a priority.
It would seem that a referral by the Standing Committee on Operational
Cooperation and Internal Security (COSI) on this subject would certainly be a
good thing as what is lacking, clearly, is some steering of European action in
this field.
An initiative along the same lines has been suggested, the creation of a
regional centre to combat human trafficking, which could guide both problems
of identification and those of legal proceedings on human trafficking at least
between the European countries most concerned by this problem.
20
2.3.1
Concerning trafficking:
In reality almost no criminal investigations have been opened, even though we
are certainly faced with a phenomenon of human trafficking. This is because
there is a lack of awareness of this use of children as described above, and
also because of the unwieldiness of criminal procedures.
Here also, it would be useful to send out a reminder at European level of the
necessity to start serious legal proceedings that fall well and truly under the
heading of human trafficking, (rather than proceedings against the children).
It is important to be aware that the minors we are dealing with are just as
much victims as perpetrators, or at least that more should be done to bring
this about. It is true that this awareness is starting to grow at institutional level,
not only with the police, but also with the judiciary. It now has to be promoted
strongly at European level.
2.3.2
Concerning minor victims:
Regarding the status of these minor victims, astonishing though it may be,
they do not have a specific status in all countries. They do not even always
enjoy the protection given to adults. They do not have the right to a change of
identity nor to be given anonymity. This is another point over which a specific
discussion at European level on the status of these minor victims would be
worthwhile.
Concerning their care, a placement could be offered to them if they wish, of
course, but we must be aware that they are trapped in the networks and
hence at risk of strong threats and obligations. They are clearly under
sociological and cultural pressures, as they have all been raised in a culture
that puts the community above everything. Would it not be possible to create
“second chance” centres?
Some real work should be done to look into what such a type of centre could
be like: distance, short-term constraint, centres organising a circuit between
several reception centres, etc.
The fact remains that providing a concrete possibility for minors to get out of
the delinquency that has been imposed on them is a challenge that we
absolutely must rise to.
21
Finally, the recent assessment of this delinquency poses a major problem.
More and more of the minors used in France for these purposes are under 13
years of age. This only goes to show to what extent these criminal networks
are well informed about the laws that they are up against. Using minors who
are this young means that they cannot be prosecuted.
What do we do when these children appear before us, after being arrested?
They are put back onto the streets, and we do not know who they are, who
looks after them, where they live...
This observation led to a difficult discussion, but one where the issues are
very real: is this normal in a civilised country? Would we do it to our own
nationals? What solutions can we suggest? Should we “hold” them for the
time it takes their parents or their guardians to come forward? This poses a
clear problem of principle. But putting them back onto the street, into the
hands of the criminal networks who use them, does that not also pose a
problem?
22
2.4
Workshop 4: Social and integration
policies
The main observation made during visits to the five countries is a fairly simple
one. It was not challenged in the discussions.
The first step in moving towards integration solutions is quite simply to make
contact with these communities.
In France, Roma communities live very marginalised lives, in slums.
In Spain this is not generally the case. These populations usually live in
apartments.
In Italy, this is not the case for the members of communities that have been
coming for several years from Eastern European countries. It does remain the
case for the most recently arrived Roma communities. Nonetheless, contact
with these populations is more real and more open than in France.
In France, the only people to enter the camps are the Red Cross and
Médecins du Monde. This situation has to improve.
Through a programme managed by the Council of Europe, the European
Union finances the establishment of “mediators” to facilitate these social
contacts which are used a lot in Slovakia. It would certainly be a good idea to
make better use of this arrangement, provided that they are not used to
replace the official institutions.
Out of all the strategies that could be put in place to try and integrate these
populations better, there is total consensus on supporting the children (and
the parents) with their education, promoting health, promoting the possibility of
decent housing, and the possibility of working… these mirror the directions
promoted by the European community and in reality they are perceived as
fundamental if we are to see a reduction in delinquency. Provided, of course,
that we move beyond the discussion stage and that funding is properly
monitored.
It is essential to ensure a minimum of sanitation and health care in the slum
areas
where
the
children
live.
There should be a much larger presence of the mother and child protection
service (PMI) to protect unborn children and infants. The area of health,
vaccination etc. is a necessity in humanitarian terms and is a good way to
make contact. This area is obviously better developed in the countries where
these communities are known and enjoy stability.
23
Evicting people from the camps, something that happens very often in France,
can perhaps be justified legally, but poses some serious problems for health,
especially regarding vaccination. It also complicates any possibility of followup for families and children. At the very least, the situation during the evictions
should be assessed with a strong and effective social worker presence.
Work with the mothers (who are often very young) is essential. Most have also
been forced to commit crimes, and they have often been married under
duress. They are more anxious than the boys about the future of their children
and their own. This is truly an area for change for these populations. In Italy
and Romania it is considered as a major area of concern.
In many of the countries of origin or host countries, a negotiated solution has
been put in place: social benefits or different offers (of housing, electricity,
water, in authorised camps) are made to the families, on condition that the
children go to school. In some countries, this bargain is very closely monitored
and the children are collected from home and taken to school.
It is true that as they themselves have not had an education, many of the
Roma are not too interested in sending their children to school (even if this
cannot be applied generally). Some even see this integration into our school
systems as an attack on the integrity of their community. Yet it is the key
factor for a minimum level of integration.
The fact remains that the greatest difficulty lies in the acceptance of these
children by the schools and by the other families. Sometimes, even when the
children are present at the school, there is no teaching programme that is
suitably adapted for them and they quickly leave without being able to read
and write. A real support strategy should be put in place. Associations could
provide invaluable help in this area.
In France, problems of identity papers and proof of address must be dealt with
as they can create a major handicap for getting children into the school
system.
Concerning housing, it has been interesting to note that apart from Spain,
most of the countries have faced similar problems.
Whereas in the past it was possible to reintegrate slums at least as large as
the ones where these communities now live, with the economic crisis this has
proved much more difficult. The authorities are faced with the dilemma of
responding both to demands from many of their own nationals and to the
housing needs of these populations.
o
Concerning the right to work, a considerable number of openings have
emerged in recent years, but nevertheless being hired for a job remains a very
difficult prospect for these populations.
o
Obviously, the integration of these populations can only happen gradually.
The fact remains that this is probably the only option that will bring down
24
delinquency and especially provide better protection for the children and these
communities.
During this workshop, it was interesting to observe the extent to which
problems in Spain, Italy or France were similar to those experienced in
Romania or Slovakia. How can we rescue a population that is destitute, with
no education, from this marginalisation? Clearly, specific strategies must be
put in place but more especially there must be a well-supported willingness to
integrate these people.
25
3 CONCLUSION
Many of the problems raised by these workshops about the responses to
delinquency by unaccompanied minors of European origin ultimately have a
European dimension. Indeed, the subject is fundamentally European.
Legislation, guidelines and financial responses have been adopted by the
European Union.
The fact remains that the subject does not seem to have been properly
steered at European level. It would seem to be essential that in order to
protect a very large number of minors in a vulnerable situation in Europe the
European Union must make this a real priority, and create a “governing
framework” around this issue.
26
4 ANNEXES
4.1 Program of the Final Conference:
2-4 July 2014
27
Final conference
JUDICIAL RESPONSE
TO CRIME COMMITTED
BY EU UNACCOMPANIED
JUVENILE OFFENDERS
2 > 4 July 2014
WEDNESDAY 2 JULY
EUROSITES, 28 AVENUE GEORGE V, 75008 PARIS
09.00-09.30
Registration
09.30-09.45
Opening
Samuel VUELTA-SIMON, Deputy Director of the French National School for the
Judiciary (ENM), France
10.00-10.30
Project presentation
Anthony MANWARING, Prosecutor, Project Director, ENM, France
Daniel LECRUBIER, Senior Prosecutor, Court of Appeal of Paris, Project Scientific
Coordinator, France
10.30-11.00
Coffee break
11.00-12.30
Sociological, historical approach and European perspectives
Olivier PEYROUX, Sociologist, France
Alexander HOEFMANS, Legal and policy officer, Rights of the child - European
Commission- DG Justice
12.30-14.00
Lunch break
28
14.00-14.45
Reports on study visits
France :
Francesca STILLA, Public Prosecutor for Juvenile Court,
Juvenile Court of Reggio Calabria, Italy
Daniel LECRUBIER, Project Scientific Coordinator, France
Spain :
Isabelle TOCAN, Judge, Bucharest Court of Appeal, Romania
Carolina LLUCH PALAU,
Office in Castellón, Spain
Slovak Republic :
Prosecutor,
Public
Prosecutor's
José DIAZ CAPPA, Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor’s Office of
the Autonomous Region of the Balearic Islands, Spain
Jozef CENTES, Deputy director of the Criminal sector of the
General Prosecution Office, Slovak Republic
14.45-15.30
Discussion
15.30-15.45
Coffee break
15.45-16.15
Reports on study visits
Italy :
Juraj NOVOCKY, Prosecutor, Section on Fight against
Organised Crime, Terrorism and International Crime, General
Prosecution Office, Slovak Republic,
Vania PATANE, Full Professor of
procedure, University of Catania, Italy
Romania :
Alessandro
Torino, Italy
SUTERA SADRO,
comparative
Deputy Public
criminal
Prosecutor,
Claudia JDERU, Judge, Bucharest Tribunal, Second Penal
Section, Romania
16.15-17.00
Discussion
29
THURDAY 3 JULY
PALAIS DU LUXEMBOURG – 15 RUE DE VAUGIRARD, 75006 PARIS
SALLE CLEMENCEAU
8.30-9.15
Registration
9.15-11.30
Working group 1 : Identification and its monitoring
Convener:
Carolina LLUCH PALAU, Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor's Office in Castellón, Spain
Speakers:
Gilles BERETTI, Superintendant, Prefecture of Police, Paris, France
Petra GIUNTI, Judge, Juvenile Court of L'Aquila, Italy
Sabrina CASTELLUZZO,
Department, Rome, Italy
Director
of
the
" Preventive
Identity" Unit, Police
Grand Rapporteur:
Marie DERAIN, Children’s Rights Defender, France
9.15-11.30
Working group 2 : Methods of evaluation and educational responses
Convener:
Vania PATANE, Full Professor of comparative criminal procedure, University of
Catania, Italy
Speakers :
George ROMAN, Program Director, NGO «Save the children », Romania
Martine SERRA, Regional Deputy Director, Judicial Youth Protection Directorate,
Paris, France
Raquel JIMENES MARTOS, Psychologist and technical supervisor of the
educational program at Diagrama Fundación (Probation and Rehabilitation Center),
Castellón, Spain
Grand Rapporteur:
Jean-Pierre MICHEL, Senator of Haute-Saône, First Vice President of the Law
Commission, French Senate
10.15-10.30
Coffee break
11.30-12:30
Grand Rapporteur’s point of view (Plenary)
Marie DERAIN, Children’s Rights Defender, France
Jean-Pierre MICHEL, Senator of Haute-Saône, First Vice President of the Law
Commission, French Senate
30
12.30-14.00
Lunch (Salon René Coty)
14.00-16.15
Working group 3: Prosecuting organized crime and Legal standing of juvenile
victims
Convener:
Sylvain BARBIER SAINTE MARIE, Deputy-Prosecutor, Chief of the Minor’s section of
the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, France
Speakers :
Olivier PEYROUX, Sociologist, Specialist of the Roma population and human
trafficking, France
Ioana POPESCU, Police Officer, General Directorate on Combating Organized Crime Anti-Human Trafficking Unit, Romania
Frédéric TEILLET, French liaison magistrate for Romania and Moldova, French
Embassy in Romania
Grand Rapporteur:
Elisabeth MOIRON-BRAUD, Secretary General of the Inter-ministerial Mission for the
Protection of Women, Against Violence and for the fight against Human Trafficking
(MIPROF), France
14.00-16:15
Working group 4: Social action and integration policy
Convener:
Laura ANDREI, President of the Bucharest Tribunal, Romania
Speakers
Ivan STERUSKY, Coordinator of the law sector of the Office of the Plenipotentiary of
the Slovak Government for Roma Communities
Rossella SALVATI, Public Prosecutor for Juvenile Court, Juvenile Court of Venice,
Italy
Marinella CORSARO, Legal adviser in charge of Roma and integration unit,
Sant’Egidio Community, Italy
Grand Rapporteur:
Alain REGNIER, Préfet, Member of the Inter-ministerial Executive Committee for
Access to Housing, France
15.00-15.15
Break
16.15-17.15
Grand Rapporteur’s point of view (Plenary)
Elisabeth MOIRON-BRAUD, Secretary General of the Inter-ministerial Mission for the
Protection of Women, Against Violence and for the fight against Human Trafficking
(MIPROF), France
Alain REGNIER, Préfet, Member of the Inter-ministerial Executive Committee for
Access to Housing, France
31
FRIDAY 4 JULY
PALAIS DU LUXEMBOURG – 15 RUE DE VAUGIRARD, 75006 PARIS
SALLE CLEMENCEAU
08.15-09.00
Registration
09.00-9.45
Synthesis presentation of Working group sessions
Daniel LECRUBIER, Senior Prosecutor (Advocate-General), Court of Appeal of Paris,
Project Scientific Coordinator, France
9.45-11.00
European responses for tomorrow
François FALLETTI, Public Prosecutor, Court of Appeal of Paris, France
Antoine CAHEN, Head of Unit, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
(LIBE), European Parliament
Isabelle JEGOUZO, Deputy General Secretary, French General Secretariat for
European Affairs (SGAE)
Pierre CAZENAVE, Regional officer for children’s rights in Europe, “Terre des
hommes” Foundation”, France
11.00-11.30
Coffee break
11.30-12.30
Closing Session
Jean-Pierre SUEUR, Senator, President of the Law Commission, France
Catherine SULTAN, Director, Judicial Youth Protection Directorate, France
Olivier TELL, Head of Unit, European Commission, Directorate-General Justice, Unit
B1 - Procedural Criminal Law
Anthony MANWARING, Prosecutor, Project Director, ENM, France
12.30-14.00
Lunch (Salon René Coty)
32
2.3.3
33
4.2
Alexander Hoefmans: presentation
on the European perspectives
Alexander Hoefmans : Legal and policy officer, Rights of the child - European
Commission- DG Justice
Promoting the protection of children is a core commitment of the European Union;
it couldn't be stated more prominently then in the objectives of the Union as laid
down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union. The work of the European
Commission is therefore guided by the principle that the rights of the child must
enjoy an equal level of judicial protection as the rights of adults.
This approach mirrors the evolution of the place of children in international
human rights law in the past decades. A major paradigm shift has taken place
ever since the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989.
Through this convention, children finally obtained recognition in human rights law
of their status of holders of rights, thus giving children a proper legal standing not
only to enjoy rights but equally to be able to enforce their rights. This evolution has
culminated recently in the adoption and entry into force of the third Protocol to the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which introduces an individual
complaints mechanism for children's rights at the level of the UN.
Children, of course, are not a homogenous group and international standards on
the protection of children reflect this diversity. All children are considered to be
vulnerable because of their natural growth process and their dependency on
others. However, some children are more vulnerable than others due to specific
characteristics of their environment. Unaccompanied children, wherever their
country of origin may be, are particularly vulnerable and deserve specific protection
measures. It is striking to observe how our societies today still struggle to provide
answers for the challenges unaccompanied children pose to our institutions and
systems but together, the EU and its Member States, we must pursue our efforts.
Your project to address what are sometimes very complex and delicate questions
in relation to crime committed by EU unaccompanied juvenile offenders is therefore
much appreciated and it fits in with some of the ongoing initiatives on EU level
which I will highlight further on.
The EU has its limitations in enforcing a solid and comprehensive rights based
agenda for the protection of children, but where it has competence the Union has
taken action and it will continue to do so. In 2011 the Commission adopted the EU
Agenda for the Rights of the Child which constitutes the framework of EU
policies in the area of children's rights. This agenda includes 11 concrete actions
where the EU can contribute in an effective way to children's well-being and safety.
These actions cover different types of instruments and activities developed by the
Commission:
34
·
EU legislation
·
Soft law instruments
communications)
(recommendations,
·
Funding (e.g. PUCAFREU)
·
Peer review process in the enlargement context
·
Studies
·
Coordination and mainstreaming
action
plans,
strategies,
Of particular relevance to our discussions here today is that the EU Agenda
defines as a key objective making the justice system more child-friendly in Europe.
In this context I cannot stress enough the importance of the Council of Europe
Guidelines on child-friendly justice as well as the general comments developed by
the UN CRC Committee, in particular on juvenile justice. They serve as guidance
and benchmark in the mainstreaming work of the Commission's Coordinator on the
Rights of the Child, in particular where legislative initiatives are concerned.
In the area of access to justice the right to an effective remedy for rights violations
must not be denied to anyone, and certainly not to the most vulnerable. It is
therefore crucial that children, too, enjoy access to justice, and that they are
protected from any further hardship when seeking remedies as victims or, more
generally, that they enjoy procedural safeguards when involved in judicial
proceedings, be it as offender, victim or witness.
The EU has adopted legislation to strengthen the legal framework for the
involvement of children in judicial proceedings, be it for child victims of sexual
abuse and exploitation, child victims of trafficking, and child victims of crime in
general. Now the attention is also shifting to children in conflict with the law. The
Commission has recently put forward a proposal for a Directive on procedural
safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. The
proposal is currently being negotiated and enjoys broad support across the EU28.
The Directive aims to grant children in conflict with the law optimal protection,
including mandatory access to a lawyer at all stages of criminal proceedings, the
right to an individual assessment, the right to medical examination in case of
deprivation of liberty and, not in the least, it stresses the importance for authorities
to apply alternative measures to ensure that deprivation of liberty is truly only a
measure of last resort. A general approach has been reached under the Greek EU
Presidency, and the discussions with the European Parliament will commence
under the Italian EU Presidency.
Despite these crucial steps, gaps and challenges remain both for the EU and
Member States to ensure proper access to justice for children.
Firstly, let me address briefly the more general or overarching interests at stake:
1. complying with the best-interests principle: Article 24 of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights stipulates that "In all actions relating to children, whether
taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be
a primary consideration". We find this general principle throughout international law
and throughout the case law of national and international courts but very few legal
systems provide for a general framework or parameters to apply this principle;
35
2. the protection of discrimination between children: the judicial procedure and
the sentencing process should be equal regardless of the child’s location,
background or origin. Equal treatment does not preclude that specific measures
apply to, for example, unaccompanied children to accommodate for their
particularly vulnerable status. However, their vulnerability should not be a ground
for harsher treatment;
3. that brings me to a third overall challenge, how to reconcile the evolution in
international human rights law to extend child-friendly justice to young adult
offenders up to the age of 21 with the evolution towards circumventing the
limitations inherent to the minimum age of criminal responsibility through the
extension of statute offences or community sanctions.
For the past two years the Commission has been conducting a study to collect data
on children's involvement in criminal, civil and administrative judicial proceedings in
the 28 Member States. Results for the criminal justice phase were published at the
end of May and we are now processing the data on the civil and administrative
phase. Results include country by country reports describing legislation and policy
as well as a compilation of all available data. It would take us too far to go into the
details of the study, but let me share with you some reflections on the preliminary
findings in terms of more specific gaps and challenges:
·
Provision of information to children in a form adapted to their age, maturity
and needs.
Much more needs to be done in this area. International guidelines stress the
importance of justice systems adapted to the level of understanding of the child. In
the case of juvenile offenders this is all the more important, given there is often a
lack of clarity about appeal possibilities and appeal procedures. As for
unaccompanied children there are increased challenges in terms of
communication. Not the actual provision of information is the final objective but
rather ensuring that the child understands either the information that is provided or
the course of the proceedings. This brings me to a second challenge.
·
The lack of training and specialisation.
Professionals representing or assisting children involved in judicial proceedings be it lawyers, judges, social workers or other practitioners – should receive
appropriate and continuous training. There is a clear demand for this, also from the
practitioners themselves. I would therefore like to stress once again the importance
of your project which contributes greatly to addressing this challenge. Judicial
proceedings are often complex and difficult to understand, even for adults. If we
take a rights-based approach to children, as we should, we need to accommodate
our procedures and methods of communication to the specific needs of children.
For example, especially in the context of juvenile crime, the role and conduct of the
interrogator is of crucial importance but specific child-friendly interrogation trainings
are sometimes lacking.
·
The lack of data on access to justice for children.
Solid legislation and policy are evidence-based and this requires policy-makers to
be able to rely on objective and comparable data. Unfortunately in the area of
36
rights of the child and in particular in the area of access to justice, data is still
largely missing. I would like to stress the importance of the work of the EU
Fundamental Rights Agency in the area of data collection. The Commission is
working closely together with the Agency but also with the European Parliament to
improve data collection. The Commission also takes the need for data into account
in its legislative proposals.
·
A multi-disciplinary approach.
Judicial proceedings are not an isolated event. They are part of a chain process
and therefore, by definition, are interconnected with a multitude of disciplines and
expertise. This requires an integrated approach to children involved in judicial
proceedings rather than a silo approach and we find that this is often still missing.
An efficient child protection system places the child at the centre and ensures that
the relevant actors and systems – education, health, welfare, justice – work in
concert to protect the child. While we often link child protection to child victims,
juvenile offenders are equally concerned by a well-functioning child protection
system. In particular unaccompanied juvenile offenders benefit from proper
coordination between different authorities, for example to facilitate alternative
measures to detention or reintegration measures post detention.
Given the importance of an integrated child protection system, the Commission has
started work on the development of guidance to support Member States in
strengthening their child protection systems. The promotion of an integrated and
multi-disciplinary approach as opposed to a silo approach will be the overall
perspective of the guidance. Our work will mostly focus on cross-border issues,
such as situations involving unaccompanied children or victims of trafficking. To
assist the Commission in the development of this guidance a public consultation
has been launched in April on the website of DG Justice and will be closed off
tomorrow.
The general and specific challenges I have mentioned relate to the involvement of
children in judicial proceedings. However, I am sure that throughout the duration of
your project you have not omitted to focus on the importance of prevention.
Young people who are at risk of coming into conflict with the law often live in
difficult circumstances. Children who for various reasons—including parental
alcoholism, poverty, breakdown of the family, abusive conditions in the home,—are
orphans or unaccompanied and are without the means of subsistence, housing
and other basic necessities are even more so at risk of falling into juvenile
delinquency. Young people who are exposed to the influence of adult offenders
have the opportunity to study delinquent behaviour, and the possibility of their
engaging in adult crime becomes more real. Those who offend tend to be
marginalised with regard to their families, their community and society in general.
Prevention measures are therefore crucial if we want to reduce the number of
"clients" of the juvenile justice system. This is why we must also address the socioeconomic factors determining the path of children and children at risk in particular.
The Commission adopted in 2013 a recommendation called "Investing in
children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage". It recognises the importance of
preventing the transmission of disadvantage across generations through early
intervention and prevention as a means to address poverty and social exclusion in
general. The recommendation encourages Member States to have a specific focus
37
on children who face an increased risk due to multiple disadvantages such as
Roma children, some migrant or ethnic minority children, children with special
needs or disabilities, street children, etc. While the recommendation does have a
family perspective, it particularly recommends ensuring that children without
parental care have access to quality services related to their health, education,
employment, social assistance, security and housing situation, including during
their transition to adulthood.
Specifically concerning Roma children, an EU Framework for National Roma
Integration Strategies up to 2020 was adopted by the Commission to develop a
targeted approach for a more effective response to the structural exclusion and
discrimination against Roma. More recently, by the unanimous adoption of the
Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member
States in December 2013, the Member States confirmed their commitment to
Roma inclusion. The Recommendation reinforces the EU Framework for national
Roma integration strategies. Based on Commission reports on the situation of the
Roma over recent years, the Recommendation focuses on the four areas where
EU leaders committed themselves to achieving common goals for Roma
integration under the EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies:
access to education, employment, healthcare and housing.
Finally, a word about child victims of trafficking. The 2013 EU Serious and
Organised Crime Threat Assessment Report (SOCTA) identifies child trafficking as
one of the principal threats. Child trafficking is present in the EU but it often
remains unreported, especially when the children affected by it are not identified as
victims. According to the first Eurostat Statistical Data Report released in April
2013, 15% of the total number of identified or suspected victims of trafficking in the
EU are children (12% girls and 3% boys) for the reference years 2008-2010.
Children can be victimised repeatedly during the cycle of trafficking and can be
used for illegal activities or found to be in conflict with law as a direct consequence
of being trafficked. This is addressed in the EU anti-trafficking legal and policy
framework, which follows a human rights based approach that is child sensitive
and gender specific.
The EU Anti-Trafficking Directive provides that all children are considered
vulnerable, regardless of their status, and that the best interests of the child should
be a primary consideration, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union and the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child. Assistance, support and protection must be provided to them on an
unconditional basis. This means that children should get immediate access to
assistance and protection, without other requirements at least during the reflection
period, such as cooperating with the authorities or initiating criminal proceedings.
The vulnerabilities of unaccompanied minors are further recognised.
In this respect the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive sets forth the so-called "principle of
non-punishment" of victims, including child victims. Therefore, Member States are
obliged, in accordance with the basic principles of their legal systems, to take the
necessary measures to ensure that competent national authorities are entitled not
to prosecute or impose penalties on victims of trafficking in human beings for
their involvement in criminal activities, which they have been compelled to commit
as a direct consequence of being trafficked.
38
Such offences can include but are not limited to: the use of false documents, or
offences under legislation on prostitution or immigration, so long as the victims
have been compelled to commit them, as a direct consequence of being trafficked.
The aim of such protection is to safeguard the human rights of victims, to avoid
further victimisation and to encourage them to act as witnesses in criminal
proceedings against the perpetrators. [This safeguard should not exclude
prosecution or punishment for offences that a person has voluntarily committed or
participated in.]
It remains up to the national authorities to realise this principle when applying the
EU Anti-Trafficking Directive. Case law from across the EU on non-punishment can
be found on the EU Anti-Trafficking Website. The Commission, as a guardian of
the Treaties, is closely following the transposition of the Directive in EU MS and will
report on this in 2015.
Thank you for your patience and your attention
39
4.3
Identification and its monitoring
4.3.1 Grand Rapporteur’s speach during the Final
Conference: Marie Derain
Marie Derain : Children’s Rights Defender
Bonjour à tous merci de m’avoir accueilli dans ce temps d’échange de cette
matinée riche et qui au fond fait atterrir une personne ou des fonctions ou une
institution comme moi qui est effectivement beaucoup dans les principes. Je vais
vous en dire deux mots et vous expliquer pourquoi.
D’abord parce que chaque pays signataire de la Convention des Droits de l’Enfant
doit être doté d’une institution chargée de veiller à l’application de cette convention
dans l’Etat dans lequel il est. En France cette mission est dévolue depuis 2011 aux
défenseurs des droits - elle l’était depuis 2000 à la défenseure des enfants et c’est
donc un Ombudsman (fonction de médiateur de la République, de Protecteur du
citoyen) qui défend quatre domaines : les relations avec les services publiques, la
défense des enfants, la lutte contre les discriminations et la déontologie des forces
de sécurité. L’Ombudsman a trois adjoints, il est le grand défenseur des droits et je
suis celle qui est chargée à ses côtés de défendre et promouvoir la convention
des droits de l’enfant. Alors ça n’est pas étranger dans vos pays parce que des
institutions sur le même modele existent, par exemple le défenseur du peuple en
Espagne, et sur un modèle complètement autonome comme le Défenseur des
Enfants en Italie, qui existe depuis 2011. Donc à ce titre nous sommes amenés à
veiller sur ce qui se passe pour les enfants (presque 16 millions d’enfants en
France) dans tous les domaines de la vie quotidienne. Vous savez que – je vais
rentrer un peu dans le champ des définitions, pour savoir de quoi ou de qui on a
parlé ce matin dans l’atelier sur l’identification. Quand on parle d’enfant- au nom de
la convention des droits de l’enfant – il n’est plus question de nationalité ou
d’extranéité, c’est à dire qu’un enfant, quand il est en France doit bénéficier
exactement du même système de protection, quelle qu’elle soit sa nationalité.
C’est un principe qui a été rappelé un peu vite dans la discussion de ce matin,
mais c’est important de le rappeler. Cela pose des problèmes quand on
commence à vouloir réfléchir à un statut particulier pour les enfants étrangers, ce
qui serait tout à fait contrevenant à la Convention Internationale des Droits de
l’Enfant, qui n’est pas une convention pour se donner bonne conscience, de
l’intérêt que des adultes peuvent porter à des enfants mais bien un traité
internationale contraignant pour l’Etat français et pour tous ceux qui sont
chargés de veiller à la protection des enfants. Je le dis aussi au passage parce
que la Convention des Droits de l’Enfant ne signifie pas que ce sont des minidroits, ce sont des droits pleins et entiers, pour des sujets de droits qui sont des
enfants. Je dis souvent que c’est juste une traduction dans le quotidien des enfants
mais ces sont bien des droits de l’homme qui sont à hauteur d‘enfant parce que la
vie d’un enfant n’est pas tout à fait la même que celle d’une femme ou un homme
accomplis et qui réunit toutes les conditions pour être un être humain adulte
accompli.
40
Je vous disais, je reprécise un peu les choses parce qu’il m’a semblé ce matin en
vous entendant, à plusieurs reprises, qu’on n’était pas sûr de quoi nous parlions ou
de qui. Quand nous parlions d’identification, nous parlions à la fois de savoir quelle
était l’identité de l’enfant, quel était l’âge, qui étaient les parents, quelle était la
filiation de l’enfant, et on a été plusieurs fois pas su précisément de quoi on parlait
quand on parlait d’identification ou de recherche d’identification. C’est ma première
observation, ce qui demande à mon sens à ce qu’on soit très précis quand on
aborde ces questions, pour savoir quelles seront les conséquences ensuite à la
fois dans le cadre du droit et à la fois aussi dans les méthodes de travail. Je vous
disais que vous faisiez atterrir parce qu’on voit bien que quand on soulève ces
questions, il y a des applications très concrètes pour les professionnels que vous
êtes, et que souvent comme le disait tout à l’heur M. Lecrubier on ne peut pas
rester au niveau des principes il faut bien voir quelles vont être les conséquences
pour les praticiens. On porte cette préoccupation même si on rappelle fermement
ces principes.
Deuxième sujet de précisions nécessaires, il me semble, c’est qu’on voit bien que
ces questions d’identification ne sont pas les mêmes et ne se posent pas de la
même manière selon que l’on parle de mineurs isolés étrangers, c’est à dire sans
référents parentaux sur le territoire national, de mineurs victimes de traites des
êtres humains ou bien de mineurs qui peuvent être – je ne suis pas sure qu’on
puisse faire cette distinction aussi strictement – des mineurs qui à un moment
donné commettent des actes de délinquance, et vous voyez que quand je dis ça je
parle à nouveaux d’autres catégories – en tout cas tout clairement on a vu que la
frontière était très poreuse entre un mineur commettant des actes de délinquance
et un mineur victime de traite des êtres humains, et d’ailleurs on l’a vu au travers
d’une des dernières questions qui était de se demander comment on passait
finalement dans la manière dont l’Italie intervenait au près des mineurs qui
commettent des actes de délinquance mais qui ensuite sont reconnus comme
ayant besoin de protection, comme on passe de ce statut de mineur délinquant à
un moment donné ou de mineur commettant des actes de délinquance à celui de
mineur ayant besoin de protection parce que victime de traite.
Donc là aussi c’est difficile parce que c’est poreux mais je pense que ça amène
bien de l’eau au moulin de la Convention des Droits de l’Enfant et des défenseur
des droits de l’enfant en général – que vous êtes tous par ailleurs à travers vos
activités qui est de dire « des enfants sont bien des enfants » et la catégorisation
est extrêmement difficile, il faut les aborder comme une personne pleine et
entière qui a des besoins de protection, même si c’est des besoin de
protection qui se heurte parfois à des comportement qui sont délinquants et
qui vont demander des réponses spécifiques.
Autre sujet de précision, il m’a semblé aussi que comme on ne savait pas toujours
de quoi et de qui l’on parle il y a un franc besoin de formation ou d’information
pour les professionnels que vous êtes, au tour de choses aussi variées que
d’aborder des questions de parcours d’exil, de parcours migratoire, de
connaissance des cultures d’origine de ces enfants, de ce qui pousse des enfants
ou des familles à mettre sur une route de migration des jeunes qui vont se
retrouver extrêmement fragilisés de la même manière quand on parle – et je
change de registre – des enfants commettant des actes de délinquance itinérants,
comme nous l’a dit le Commissaire Beretti, on est là aussi sur un type de
population qui est tout à fait spécifique et qui nécessite qu’on ait une approche un
peu précise de qui sont ces enfants, comment s’organise la vie communautaire
41
d’où viennent ces enfants. Quels sont les leviers qu’on pourrait avoir pour
sensibiliser et aussi pour sécuriser tous les programmes qu’on peut avoir de lutte
contre la traite des êtres humains. Si on s’adresse qu’aux enfants on n’y arrivera
pas, si on s’adresse qu’aux parents on n’y arrivera pas non plus, donc comment
arriver à connaître ces réalités culturelles pour avoir des actions qui soient mieux
ciblées à destination de ces populations-là. J’ai entendu à plusieurs reprises que la
question était notamment de pouvoir s’appuyer sur des ressources extérieures,
certains ont parlé d’ONG, certains ont parlé de coopération professionnelle
policière, d’autres ont parlé de coopération judiciaire. Ce sont en tout cas des voies
qui sont effectivement à explorer et à encourager. Je ne sais pas si nationalement
toutes ces articulations – police, justice, ONG – se font aussi facilement et
spontanément, j’imagine que dans des grandes agglomérations - en tout cas en
France, que je peux connaître – ça ce fait plus facilement que dans des endroits
où ça reste des phénomènes très marginaux mais qui pourtant se posent
réellement du point de vue des enfants.
On a donné beaucoup de place à la discussion donc je vais peut-être juste
terminer sur quelques perspectives et vous dire quand même deux choses. Le
défenseur des droits, je vous disais, a pour mission de veiller à la mise en œuvre
de la Convention des Droits de l’Enfant, ce qui passe par le traitement de
situations individuelles – d’enfants qui sont concernés par des problématiques
particulières et qu’on nous indique, et donc nous cherchons à apporter des
réponses particulières. Et puis nous avons aussi tout une activité qui vise à
rappeler des principes de manière générale. Et dans ce cadre-là, pour dire
comment nous avons été concernés par ces questions-là, je ne suis pas tout à fait
par hasard, la première situation c’est celle des mineurs isolés étrangers, avec des
réponses que – disons le tout simplement – sur le territoire national ne sont pas
satisfaisantes notamment du point de vue de l’identification, puisque, je ne dis
pas que c’est simple, au contraire je suis très réaliste sur le fait que c’est
extrêmement compliqué, mais nous avons donc été amenés à nous confronter à
un certain nombre de situations – peu importe le nombre - mais surtout à rendre
des recommandations générales en décembre 2012, qui rappellent les principes
de la Convention Internationale des Droits de l’Enfants comme être un guide pour
réfléchir à une politique plus globale. Ces recommandations ont participé à la mise
en œuvre d’une circulaire du 31 mai 2013, qui n’est pas satisfaisante - on en
attend l’évaluation - c’est bien évident. Mais qui est une première étape pour poser
au bon niveau, d’une part au niveau national et d’autre part pour impliquer la
justice puisqu’elle émane, notamment du Ministère de la Justice, même s’il y a
d’autres signataires et qui pose un certain nombre de principes notamment du
point de vue de l’identification.
Je vous ai déjà dit tout à l’heure que le Défenseur des Droits est chargé de la mise
en œuvre de la convention relative aux droits de l’enfant, qui est un traité
international et qui s’impose à tous. Je vous ai rappelé aussi que un enfant, quelle
qu’elle soit sa nationalité quand il est sur le territoire français il est considéré
comme un enfant bénéficiant de la même protection que tout enfant qui est sur le
territoire. Et j’ai rappelé que du fait de l’isolement cet enfant – par principe,
quelle qu’elle soit sa nationalité – a besoin de protection. La première question
qui se pose quand on est dans le domaine de l’identification c’est la question de
l’évaluation de la situation du mineur et des modes d’évaluation de la situation de
l’enfant pour vérifier justement s’il est ou non mineur. Rappeler (ça s’est dit
unanimement en France par des tas d’autorité) que le simple examen osseux ne
peux pas suffire à déterminer la majorité ou la minorité. Au niveau des Défenseurs
42
des enfants européens il n’y a pas non plus de discussion sur ça. Ces tests ont de
telles marges de manœuvre d’erreur qu’ils sont insuffisants pour déterminer l’âge
si on est sur les questions d’identification de l’âge. Rappeler aussi que quand il
existe des papiers, ces papiers doivent être pris en compte. On peut regretter que
le système des papiers d’identité ne soit pas aussi sophistiqué qu’en France, avec
des photographies et des fichiers qui sont très établis mais il n’empêche que ces
papiers ne peuvent être contestés que dans le cadre qui est prévu par la loi. Je le
dis encore une fois, je reconnais que je suis dans une position facile de rappelle
des principes mais néanmoins il me semble qu’on commence à bien réfléchir
quand on les a bien en tête. Cela signifie quand même, et on l’a vu à travers
des fichiers de l’Espagne, que on ne peut avoir une bonne identification que
si l’on croise des sources d’information et qu’on ne peut pas s’appuyer sur
une seule source. Les autres questions qui me semblent importantes c’est qu’on
ne peut pas confier à n’importe quel acteur le processus d’identification, qu’il soit
travailleur social, policier ou autre, s’il n’est pas un peu sensibilisé aux questions
spécifiques de la migration des enfants en particulier ou bien des communautés
Rom.
L’autre enjeu aussi est d’avoir des façons d’agir qui soient spécifiques aux enfants
qui sont pris dans des réseaux de traite. On voit bien que le système classique de
la protection de l’enfant en France ne fonctionne pas, cela a été dit aussi par les
interlocuteurs italiens et espagnols : si on est sur une approche de la protection
classique les enfants ne restent pas dans les centres, d’une part parce que ils
sont vite repérés par les réseaux et d’autre part parce que ce qu’on leur propose
comme mode de vie ne corresponds pas à leur besoin et même à la façon dont il
peuvent se sentir bien dans un espace ou se sentir simplement protégés. On va
pouvoir travailler sérieusement sur l’identification d’après ces conditions et aussi si
on permet aux enfants d’être dans un endroit et pas de repartir dans la nature,
puisque ça peut recommencer comme ça souvent, avec les alias qui ont été
évoquées pour un certain nombre d’enfant quand ils sont pris encore une fois dans
les réseaux de traite des êtres humains.
L’autre situation qui nous a fait rencontrer avec M. Lecrubier et avec le Parquet de
Paris à l’époque, c’était la situation où un jeune Rom avait été incarcéré à 12 ans à
Fleury-Mérogis avec une interpellation de l’Observatoire national des prisons qui
avait fait une visite à Fleury et qui avait été sollicité par le service éducatif,
s’étonnant que ce jeune, qui semblait aussi très jeune, soit incarcéré dans un
quartier pour mineurs. En fait on s’est aperçus qu’il y avait eu des difficultés
d’identification avec des âges différents, il y avait deux procédures, ce qui
compliquait ultérieurement les choses, et des alias qui renforçaient le croisement
difficile entre le nom, l’âge et la réalité de l’identité de l’enfant. A partir de là on voit
bien, et on avait posé aussi un certain nombre de recommandations que je vais
pas vous détailler parce que je prendrais trop de temps, qu’il y a une spécificité
toute particulière avec ces enfants là et une exigence d’attention qui complique la
vie de tous les professionnels qui interviennent mais qui est absolument
nécessaire.
Dans les perspectives, j’ai évoqué plusieurs fois les questions d’attention
professionnelle qui repose notamment sur la formation, on a entendu souvent ce
matin et je le redis, les enjeux de coopération avec les pays d’origine, notamment
pour identifier ces jeunes et mieux les connaître. J’évoquais le travail avec les
familles, et là je parle sans doute plus spécifiquement des populations Rom et qui
sont dans des campements-bidonvilles, où on a parfois une approche de l’enfance
43
et de l’autonomie de l’enfance qui est parfois extrêmement précoce et du coup un
choc des culture entre ce que la justice et le système de protection français peut
attendre et ce que les familles peuvent donner.
Il y a eu aussi dans les perspectives la question de la création de fichiers dans la
perspective de protéger les enfants avec d’énormes contestations et tensions
notamment dans le système français pour le mettre en place. Je pense que quand
on rappelle les principes et quand on affiche l’ambition de protéger on doit
envisager cette question sérieusement et positivement et sans dogmatisme.
Effectivement il y a des enfants qui passent dans les mailles du filet parce que on
s’est pas donné les moyens de les identifier sérieusement et de les suivre, c’est ce
qui nous montrait le fichier d’Espagne, où au fond c’est plus un fichier de suivi de
parcours de ces mineurs migrants que d’identification ou d’identité à proprement
parler, je pense que la France dois avancer sur cette question sinon on va
continuer de dire par exemple qu’il y a – si on fait pas trop attention – plus de
2.000 enfants qui sont mis en cause relevant de la communauté Rom, alors qu’en
réalité ce sont des interpellations et pas le nombre d’enfants qui est beaucoup plus
réduit, c’est à dire que imaginer des réponses avec un nombre plus réduit c’est
plus facile mais il faut être encore bien précis sur ce dont on parle.
Vous avez évoqué à plusieurs reprises la dimension européenne, c’est tout à
fait évident, à la fois d’un point de vue de la législation mais surtout de la
coordination des actions. On a entendu qu’à travers des directives on avait des
choses qui aujourd’hui était rendues plus faciles. Mais pour avoir essayé, le
réseaux des défenseurs des enfants européens a fait tout un travail pendant
l’année 2012 sur les mineurs isolés étrangers, c’est extrêmement difficile de
mobiliser les parlementaires européens sur ces questions-là, on est plutôt dans la
politique du chacun pour soi. Et pourtant le défenseur des droits trop tôt disparu
Dominique Baudisse a essayé aussi d’enclencher quelque chose au niveau
européen du point de vue spécifique des Roms, c’est toujours très difficile de le
faire porter politiquement et c’est regrettable parce qu’on a besoin aussi d’un
portage politique pour trouver des réponses à ces problématiques.
Pour terminer, on est très souvent sur le même type de constat, quand on parle
des enjeux de coopération et de coordination dans le domaine de l’enfance mais
c’est vraiment une réalité, et des initiatives comme celle-ci montrent leur
intérêt puisque je crois assez fortement au partage des pratiques et puis
aussi avoir des coopérations professionnelles qui sont facilités par le fait
qu’on se connaisse, qu’on connaisse les réalités et les contraintes
professionnelles des uns et des autres. Je parle à la fois de la part de chacun
des pays et puis de la part des différentes professions : on sait déjà que en France
ce n’est pas toujours évident d’identifier les façons de faire et les contraintes des
uns et des autres et quand on y parvient on arrive à mieux travailler ensemble,
c’est toujours beaucoup plus productif, je dis ça encore une fois pour vous
remercier de m’avoir accueillie parce que ça permet même si on reste ferme sur
les principes de mieux comprendre les contraintes et du coup de mieux expliciter
nos principes et nos exigences du point de vue des principes.
Merci beaucoup.
44
4.3.2 Gilles Beretti’s presentation
Gilles Beretti : Superintendant, Prefecture of Police, Paris
Les mineurs délinquants ne sont pas toujours isolés surtout lorsqu'il s'agit de lutte
contre la délinquance itinérante
Préambule : A Paris, les vols aux distributeurs automatiques de billets, à la tire
dans ou hors des réseaux ferrés, de téléphones portables, les escroqueries à la
charité, les vols simples dans des boutiques, des bureaux ou des commerces en
rez de chaussée se sont développés avec force depuis l'année 2007. Ils étaient le
fait de mineurs des deux sexes, se réclamant de la nationalité Roumaine,
fournissant de fausses identités, rendant inopérante toute poursuite pénale ou
même des mesures éducatives et de protection.
Le ministre de l'intérieur et le Préfet de Police ont alors décidé de solliciter la mise
à disposition d'Officiers de liaisons Roumains qui sont arrivés à Paris et dans
l'agglomération entre septembre 2010 et novembre 2011 lorsque le dispositif fut
complet.
La première difficulté à consisté en l'identification de ces mineurs qui, lors de leur
interpellation, fournissaient systématiquement de fausses identités et minoraient
leur âge ce qui ne permettait absolument pas d'identifier, au-delà de ces
adolescents, ceux qui donnaient les instructions aux fins de vols.
Il faut rappeler qu'il n'existe pas, à la Préfecture de Police, de structure telle que
l'Office Central de Lutte contre la Délinquance Itinérante (OCLDI) rattaché à la
DCPJ, chargé de la lutte et des synthèses dans ce domaine. Aussi, c'est à la
DSPAP, entité regroupant les 4 départements centraux, créée en septembre 2009,
qu'est revenu ce travail d'identification puisque c'est dans ses services que les
mineurs interpellés en flagrant délit étaient conduits.
Les ODL ont immédiatement permis de gros progrès puisque près de 80 % des
mineurs furent identifiés lors de leur première interpellation et surtout lorsqu'un
ODL ayant exercé à TANDAREI, judet de Ialomita, est venu nous rejoindre en
novembre 2011 sachant que plusieurs clans familio mafieux originaires de cette
ville sévissaient à Paris.
Ces identifications ont permis de cerner plusieurs familles à l'oeuvre dans cette
délinquance, plus ou moins spécialisées dans le vol de téléphones portables ou
aux distributeurs automatiques de billets pour ne citer que les délits les plus
commis.
La deuxième difficulté à consisté à localiser l'implantation de ces familles. En effet,
les enfants et adolescents libérés à l'issue de leur mesure de garde à vue ou de
retenue, bénéficiant d'une connaissance particulière des réseaux de transport,
45
furtifs et rapides, échappaient régulièrement à la surveillance des policiers chargés
de localiser leurs domiciles.
La DSPAP et plus particulièrement L'UCLIC, fort d'une connaissance détaillée des
campements précaires implantés notamment en Seine Saint Denis, ont commencé
à exercer des surveillances à proximité de plusieurs de ces campements au cours
desquelles il a été permis de voir les adolescents quitter tôt le matin ou retourner
dans l'après-midi ou la soirée le campement une fois leurs forfaits accomplis.
Nombre d'entre eux étant déjà connus et identifiés, les familles ont été ainsi
localisées.
Cependant, la DSPAP ne possédait pas d'unité capable d'assurer des
investigations de longue haleine avec interceptions téléphoniques similaires à
celles conduites par la DRPJ compétente pour le territoire de l'agglomération.
Aussi, en vertu des instructions de Monsieur le Préfet de Police, une cellule
informelle de lutte contre l'habitat indigne a été créée entre l'UCLIC et la brigade
de protection des mineurs de la DRPJ, avec L'OCRTEH et l'OCLDI de la DCPJ.
Des enquêtes préliminaires puis en commission rogatoires ont été conduites.
L'UCLIC et la DSPAP ont fourni identifications, localisation des campements,
composition des familles, surveillances des campements et des allers retour entre
la Roumanie et la France des membres des clans et les services de police
judiciaire ont mené les investigations et les procédures.
Des donneurs d'ordre et chefs de clans ont été mis en cause lors de plusieurs
enquêtes d'abord pour provocation de mineurs à commettre des délits en bande
organisée puis pour traite des êtres humains notamment ce qui constitue un
progrès notable par rapport aux premières mises en examen.
Extension des identifications au bénéfice de services de police et de gendarmerie
de l'Ile de France et du territoire métropolitain. Très vite, les départements de la
grande couronne puis d'autres villes en France ont sollicité des identifications pour
des malfaiteurs qui se livraient aux vols aux distributeurs automatiques de billets
ou même à des vols avec séquestration dans des magasins de téléphonie parfois
à plusieurs centaines de kilomètres de leurs campements de Seine Saint Denis.
La création de la sous direction de l'investigations à la DSPAP permettra sans
doute de mieux prendre en compte cette délinquance notamment au travers de la
sûreté territoriale de Paris qui va gérer très prochainement un objectif en liaison
avec l'UCLIC.
Les mineurs restent un problème pour les autorités judiciaires en ce sens qu'il
n'existe pas vraiment de structures adaptées pour les accueillir alors que cette
forme de traite nécessite une mise à l'abri assez longue pour offrir une porte de
sortie.
Près de 1900 mineurs ont été identifiés depuis septembre 2010, tous délinquants
d'habitude. Certains sont allés en détention, au centre des jeunes détenus de
FLEURY MEROGIS, avec les autorités duquel l'UCLIC est en relation permanente.
Bien sur, l'activité principale concerne les majeurs donneurs d'ordre qui sont
systématiquement mis en détention mais que deviennent les mineurs auteurs et
victimes ?
L'opération GAVROCHE : dés l'automne 2011, les autorités Roumaines ont monté
un dispositif consistant à rédiger, pour chaque mineur délinquant identifié en
France, une enquête sociale. Ce sont les autorités locales des DGASPC
(directions générales de l'aide sociale et de la protection de l'enfance) dans les
« judets » qui en ont été chargées sous le couvert du ministère du travail et des
46
affaires sociales. Près de 300 ont été rédigées et transmises à L'UCLIC en langue
Roumaine. Elles se sont attachées à décrire les conditions de vie, l'environnement
familial, les revenus, la scolarité de ces enfants sans que, cependant, elles soient
d'un niveau suffisant pour les magistrats français en charge de l'enfance afin qu'ils
puissent prendre une décision de retour en Roumanie, que ce soit dans
l'environnement familial lorsque celui-ci n'était pas délinquant ou dans une
institution spécialisée.
Très vite, l'ampleur de la tâche a dépassé les capacités des DGASPC qui n'ont pu
fournir que des documents sommaires, fortement gênées par le départ parfois
depuis plus d'un an de familles entières à l'étranger dont la France.
Le vade mecum : ce phénomène a conduit les magistrats du groupe de contact
franco roumain, en liaison avec les magistrats Roumains et notre magistrat de
liaison à Bucarest, à tenter de rationaliser le traitement des mineurs originaires de
Roumanie notamment en demandant des enquêtes sociales dont la norme
correspondrait à celle exigée par les magistrats français. Ce vade mecum a
nécessité deux ans de travail et il a été transmis à l'administration centrale du
ministère de la justice afin qu'il soit validé et transmis à l'ensemble du territoire
français. Il n'a donc pas encore été utilisé.
Le dispositif d'ores et déjà mis en place par les autorités de police et de justice à
PARIS. Lorsque des mineurs sont identifiés au cours de la mesure de garde à vue
ou de retenue, cette identification est matérialisée par un document à en tête de
l'Ambassade de Roumanie à Paris, bureau de l'attaché de sécurité intérieure,
document rédigé par un officier de liaison en envoyé au service enquêteur qui
l'inclut en procédure et entend l'enfant ou l'adolescent sur l'identité découverte.
Le parquet des mineurs est informé et prend une décision en connaissance de
cause, décision communiquée au juge des enfants s'il est saisi.
De la même façon, lorsqu'un mineur va être libéré du centre des jeunes détenus
de FLEURY MEROGIS, un rapport circonstancié concernant tous les éléments
pénaux et sociaux connus du mineur est rédigé par l'UCLIC à destination des
magistrats afin de faciliter sa prise en charge à l'issue de sa peine.
Cependant, ces dispositions sont insuffisantes pour contenir une délinquance qui
certes a faiblis ces deux dernières années mais dont la pression est toujours aussi
forte et se manifeste par l'entrée en scène de nouveaux clans et surtout d'enfants
de moins de 13 ans qui, en outre, refusent systématiquement les opérations
d'identification (empreintes digitales et photographies).
Manque de solution de mise à l'abri des mineurs délinquants dans le cadre de la
traite des êtres humains : Les mineurs qui ne sont pas incarcérés sont remis en
liberté sans pouvoir être confiés à une structure spécialisée de nature à les
empêcher de rejoindre les clans pendant plusieurs semaines voire plusieurs mois.
Les solutions actuellement appliquées, consistant à les placer dans des foyers
ouverts, aboutissent à un départ du mineur au bout de quelques heures et à sa
reprise en main immédiate par les majeurs donneurs d'ordre. Bien plus, les
majeurs souvent leurs propres parents ne sont même pas contraints de venir les
chercher à l'issue de la mesure de garde à vue ou de retenue et ils sont laissés en
liberté livrés à eux-mêmes.
La DIHAL dispose d'un budget de 4 millions d'euros pour inventorier les
campements précaires, faire des enquêtes sociales préalables aux évictions telles
que prévues par la circulaire ministérielle de 2012 avec propositions de logement,
scolarisation et emplois notamment. Il est ainsi possible de distinguer les familles
pauvres des familles délinquantes qui se fondent au milieu des autres dans ces
47
campements précaires, reproduisant leur origine géographique en Roumanie la
plupart du temps.
La plate forme européenne de lutte contre la délinquance itinérante et de
protection des mineurs auteurs/victimes :
Il est apparu très rapidement qu'un dispositif à vocation européenne devait être mis
en place en raison de l'itinérance des familles délinquantes qui maintiennent ainsi
beaucoup plus facilement les mineurs sous leur coupe. En effet, le travail massif
d'identification des mineurs ne trouve sa justification qu'au travers des enquêtes
ensuite réalisées pour neutraliser les donneurs d'ordre.
Or, ces investigations qui prennent la plupart du temps un semestre au moins sont
parfois contrecarrées par le départ du clan ou d'une partie de ses membres vers
un autre pays européen que la France. Les éléments d'enquête recueillis ne sont
alors plus utilisables dans le pays qui a conduit les investigations jusqu'alors sauf à
être transmis aux autorités de police et de justice du nouveau pays d'accueil qui
bénéficiera ainsi d'une avance non négligeable de nature à lui permettre de
neutraliser les membres du clan avant un nouveau départ ainsi que de prendre des
mesures éducatives ou de protection plus affinées et appropriées pour les
mineurs.
Le nombre d'identifications déjà réalisées, les éléments recueillis au travers des
enquêtes sociales sont si important qu'ils peuvent sans doute profiter à plusieurs
pays européens victimes de cette délinquance tant il est avéré que certains
mineurs disparaissent pendant plusieurs mois notamment après avoir effectué des
peines d'emprisonnement à FLEURY MEROGIS.
Par ailleurs, les investigations réalisées par les autres pays européens peuvent
évidemment profiter à la France et contribuer à compléter les dossiers de chaque
clan et de chaque mineur en les rendant opérationnels en permanence.
Il deviendra ainsi possible de protéger plus efficacement des mineurs qui ne seront
plus des inconnus en cas de franchissement de frontière et pour lesquels on
disposera déjà d'éléments concernant les mesures de protection ou d'assistance
éventuellement prises dans un autre pays européen.
C 'est l'essence même de la demande de création d'une plate forme de
coopération opérationnelle dont le siège serait à la Préfecture de Police à Paris, de
nature à rassembler périodiquement les enquêteurs, les magistrats et les
associations agréées spécialisés dans ce type de délinquance pour faire le point
sur des dossiers collectifs (clans) et individuels (mineurs). Il arrive qu'un clan soit
opérationnel simultanément dans deux pays et dispose de biens dans un troisième
où certains se réfugient de temps à autres. Ce tripartisme a été constaté entre la
France (campements précaires en Seine Saint Denis), l'Allemagne (ville telle que
Duisbourg) et l'Angleterre notamment pour les clans originaires de la ville de
Tandareï.
C'est à mon avis l'axe de progression qu'il faut privilégier actuellement et d'ailleurs
les autorités Roumaines n'étaient pas défavorables à un tel dispositif puisque
j'avais moi-même reçu une demande d'explication du cabinet du ministère de
l'intérieur Roumain juste avant la visite de Monsieur le Préfet de Police à Bucarest
en avril 2013.
Le préjudice élevé constitue une très forte incitation pour d'autres clans
délinquants : Les mineurs auteurs commettent des délits quotidiennement et si l'on
48
prend une moyenne de 3 délits par jour qui rapportent entre 1000 et 1500 euros,
un mineur peut être à l'origine de gains estimés entre 30 et 45 000 euros
mensuels. Lorsqu'on sais que certaines fratries compte au moins quatre
délinquants d'habitude qui travaillent en outre avec des demi frères, demi sœurs
ou parentèle plus éloignée, on comprend l'intérêt de la chose sachant que ce type
de délits procure évidemment des espèces immédiatement utilisables. Attention, il
ne faut pas additionner les gains des frères et sœurs parce qu'ils travaillent en
groupe et que ce gain journalier est le produit du travail de 3 ou 4 mineurs !
Les mineurs simultanément présents à PARIS ne sont, chaque jour, qu'entre cent
cinquante et deux cents cinquante aussi bien sur la voie publique que dans les
réseaux ferrés avec de fortes fluctuations journalières mais leur mobilité et les
nombreux vols dont ils se rendent coupables provoque un sentiment de saturation.
Les mineurs originaires de Bosnie Herzégovine ou qui le prétendent :
Nous disposons d'un officier de liaison Bosnien depuis le mois de février 2014. Elle
a été implantée à la sûreté ferroviaire où sont conduits la plupart des auteurs de
délits de vols dits à la tire commis notamment dans l'enceinte du métropolitain et
des réseaux ferrés et dont la majorité sont Bosniens. Ces mineurs donnent
également de fausses identités et minorent fortement leur âge. Récemment,
plusieurs ont été incarcérés parce qu'ils se sont avérés être majeurs et la pression
délinquante est un peu retombée.
Cependant, leur identification est rendue beaucoup plus difficile que celle des
mineurs roumains parce qu'ils n'ont pas forcément été déclarés à leur naissance
en Bosnie Herzégovine ou parce qu'ils sont nés dans un autre pays en Europe
comme l'Italie par exemple mais ils prennent bien soin de cacher par la suite
l'identité déclarée à la naissance. Souvent, ils parlent mal la langue du pays dont
ils se revendiquent mais bien davantage l'Italien ou l'Espagnol.
Les investigations concernant les groupes criminels bosniaques sont plus difficiles
de ce fait et ne sont pas aussi avancées que celles qui sont relatives aux mineurs
roumains. Les organisations mafieuses sont plus structurées, les mineurs sont aux
mains de groupes qui ne sont pas forcément familiaux. Néanmoins, des progrès
ont été faits, un clan important s’est retrouvé récemment devant le tribunal de
grande instance de PARIS et d'autres enquêtes vont être conduites très
rapidement en liaison avec le parquet de Bosnie Herzégovine.
4.3.3 Document on the identification and Biometric taking
process for the Italian Criminal Central Directorate
Forensic Police Service
Sabrina Castelluzzo,
Department, Rome
Director
of
the
" Preventive
Identity" Unit, Police
49
ERROR: ioerror
OFFENDING COMMAND: image
STACK:
-mark-savelevel-