On 14–15 May 2026, FORUM organized a workshop in Brno, Czech Republic, dedicated to strategic litigation for the rights of Roma communities. The event took place within the framework of the EU project FLARE – Fundamental Rights, Litigation, Awareness Raising and Equality, which FORUM implements in cooperation with Minority Rights Group Europe and RomaJust.
The workshop was held at the premises of the Museum of Romani Culture in Brno under the auspices of the Government Commissioner for Roma Minority Affairs. This location was chosen intentionally, as the event was held just ahead of Roma Resistance Day, commemorated annually on 16 May. Today, strategic litigation can be understood as part of the long history of Romani resistance, representing one powerful tool for challenging systemic discrimination and demand accountability. Strategic litigation involves the deliberate and targeted pursuit of legal cases, in which the aim is not only to resolve an individual dispute, but also to bring about legislative or broader societal change. This approach is particularly important in situations where discrimination is embedded in laws or judicial practice.
The workshop brought together more than 37 professionals from Roma and pro-Roma civil society organizations, state administration bodies, the Office of the Public Defender of Rights, local governments, and lawyers to discuss how strategic litigation can better protect the fundamental rights of Roma communities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The workshop also deepened the understanding that successful strategic litigation depends on close cross-sectoral cooperation.
DAY #1: Thursday, 14th of May
Access to drinking water and the right to health: The first day opened with a session on access to drinking water and the right to health in marginalized Roma communities in Slovakia. The figures are stark: 81% of Roma people in Slovakia live in concentrated settlements separated from the majority population. In these settlements, up to 40% of households lack access to a public water supply, while public sewage infrastructure is absent in roughly half. Discussion centered on the right to water as a fundamental precondition for human dignity, while also recognising water as a social and cultural good rather than merely an economic commodity, and on how such failures can be challenged through litigation as violations of states’ international human rights obligations. Participants explored how the exclusion of Roma communities from adequate infrastructure reflects broader patterns of spatial and social marginalisation. Several successful Slovak litigation cases were presented that made use of actio popularis, a public-interest legal action that is not available under Czech law.
Reproductive rights of Roma women: The second session addressed the practice of forced sterilizations of Roma women. The Slovak organization Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva (Center for Civil and Human Rights) published the groundbreaking report Body and Soul in 2003, documenting women who signed consent forms under pressure or who only learned of their sterilization after the procedure, including cases involving minors. That report, based on the testimonies and experiences of affected women, set in motion litigation efforts that contributed to legislative change in 2004 and later led to a finding of violations before the European Court of Human Rights. Slovakia has still not fully addressed the practice at a systemic level, and comprehensive compensation legislation remains absent, meaning that the legal struggle continues. In the Czech Republic, long-term advocacy led to compensation legislation in 2021–2022, followed by a precedent-setting judgment from the Supreme Administrative Court rejecting the Ministry of Health’s overly restrictive approach to compensation claims, providing a clear case study of how legal victories must be followed by sustained oversight of implementation. Violations are not limited to sterilization, as Poradňa has documented systematic discrimination inside maternity hospitals. This ranges from segregation into so-called “Roma rooms” and separate sanitary and dining facilities to racial harassment, neglect of care, and disregard for informed consent. These issues are now being litigated through anti-discrimination lawsuits and international complaints, including one filed with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in May 2025 concerning discriminatory access to childbirth benefits.
Desegregation in education: The third block drew on examples from both Slovakia and the Czech Republic. In the Czech context, the organization Awen Amenca presented a case in which nine children had been refused school enrolment. A local paralegal team’s deep knowledge of the local environment proved crucial in documenting testimonies, and the case resulted in an Ombudsman recommendation applying to schools nationwide. As Awen Amenca’s representatives put it: “Litigation without community is deaf, and community without law is defenseless.” The landmark case remains D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, in which the European Court of Human Rights identified the then-existing practices as indirect discrimination. This judgment that fundamentally reframed legal and public debate throughout Europe, though substantial implementation problems persist nearly two decades later. In Slovakia, the Center for Civil and Human Rights has litigated the issue systematically since 2010, and the Slovak Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that segregated education is unlawful, yet desegregation still faces major obstacles, as courts lack mechanisms to directly supervise implementation, sanctions for violations remain insufficient, and political will remains weak.
Evening programme: The day closed with a guided tour of the museum and a screening of the documentary Zpráva o nultém ročníku (Report on the Preparatory Class), which follows a Roma man and his twenty years of work supporting Roma students through their education, and depicts the systemic barriers and prejudice that shape access to quality education. The screening was followed by a discussion with the authors of the film.
DAY #2: Friday, 15th of May
Police violence and its investigation: The second day opened with a session on police violence and its investigation. Over the past ten years, the European Court of Human Rights has issued nine judgments against Slovakia in this area, highlighting recurring problems: slow investigations, lack of independence when police investigate their own colleagues, and failure to examine racial motives. In the Czech context, participants were introduced in detail to S.T. v. the Czech Republic, concerning the death of a Roma man following a police intervention. The deceased man’s sister filed the application before the European Court of Human Rights, challenging both the intervention itself and the lack of independence in its investigation, a case that reached the courts precisely because of a direct connection between the family and FORUM, illustrating how indispensable close cooperation between the legal sector and civil society really is.
Tools of activism and the involvement of Roma youth: A following session focused on the role of activism in strategic litigation, arguing that activists are equal partners to lawyers rather than assistants, as they build relationships, collecting testimonies, and disseminating information in ways that often determine a case’s success as much as legal argument does. Attention also went to young people, who face not only traditional forms of discrimination, but increasingly digital threats too, including online hate speech. This shows a systematic documentation as crucial yet often overlooked. The organization Konexe presented a model of community-oriented social work (critical social work approache) as a driving force for litigation that address problems from a systemic perspective, contrasting it with the more individualistic approach still dominant in Czech social work practice.
Collective complaints before the European Committee of Social Rights: The final session addressed collective complaints before the European Committee of Social Rights, a lesser-known but effective mechanism. In ERRC v. the Czech Republic (2023), the Committee found that Czechia violates the Charter by failing to collect ethnicity data on children in institutional care, an absence that makes preventive measures impossible and contributes to the disproportionately high representation of Roma children in institutions. A related ongoing complaint, concerns discriminatory barriers to preschool education. According to the Committee, the Czech Republic did not take the necessary measures to protect the rights of young children or provide adequate care for vulnerable groups. Infant care institutions were abolished in the Czech Republic as of January 2025.
Internal coordination meeting: FORUM – Poradňa (Košice): Alongside the public programme, FORUM also held an internal coordination meeting with its long-standing Slovak partner Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva (Center for Civil and Human Rights, Košice) to compare ongoing litigation and explore possibilities for joint or coordinated cases going forward.
Joint conclusions
The workshop’s central message was one of courage: the persistant courage of Roma communities who choose to confront the system and pursue lengthy, uncertain legal proceedings. As participants repeatedly emphasized, Roma communities do not need to be “saved” from the outside; rather, they need is safe conditions and access to the tools to defend their own rights.
This is where trust, family ties, and knowledge of the local environment become decisive, often influencing the success of a case as much as the legal provisions themselves. That’s why the workshop repeatedly returned to the importance of so-called paralegal teams: people from within communities, or with long-term relationships to them, who may lack formal legal education but understand the environment intimately, communicate in accessible language, and build the trust needed to obtain meaningful evidence and testimony.
Equally, the workshop devoted explicit attention to incorporating a gender perspective into strategic litigation. Discussion made clear that gender shapes not only who faces particular forms of discrimination or violence, but also what obstacles individuals encounter in seeking access to justice, which remedies are actually capable of producing meaningful change. Participants emphasised that a gender-sensitive approach must therefore inform the entire litigation strategy—from case selection and framing of legal arguments to the collection and interpretation of evidence, and the design of remedies.
The limits of strategic litigation were addressed just as directly. Court decisions often take years, and the system throws up real obstacles: enormous costs, the difficulty of proving discrimination, institutional resistance, procedural delays, and remedies that are often insufficient to address the root causes of inequality or compel change. A key takeaway from the discussion was that strategic litigation should not be understood as a substitute for political action, community organising, or broader struggles for equality and social justice, but as one tool within them. Its transformative potential depends on whether it remains connected to the knowledge, experiences, and agency of affected communities, as well as to wider efforts aimed at challenging systems of exclusion and inequality. This is precisely why networking, knowledge-sharing, and capacity-building were central to this workshop. By bringing together lawyers, activists, and community representatives, the workshop created a space for exchanging experiences, recognising different forms of expertise, and strengthening the collective capacities developed through decades of Roma rights advocacy, which remain essential for challenging systemic barriers.
The FLARE project is co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
