Upon the complaint filed by Praxis against Surdulica Primary School "Jovan Jovanovic” and the headmaster as a responsible person for discrimination against Roma children in the separate four-grade class in Masurica, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality issued her opinion with recommendation on 22 February 2013. The issued act determined that responsible persons in the school had not taken timely measures to prevent direct discrimination against Roma pupils and recommended professional training of teaching staff for individual education and interactive classes with an aim to supress stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination, and taking all necessary pedagogical measures to motivate Roma children to come to school and attend classes in order to ensure the exercise of the right to equal and quality education without discrimination.

Specifically, during the visit to an informal Roma settlement located nearby the stated school, the attention of Praxis’ representatives was drawn to the extremely bad – inappropriate, often insulting and inhumane, but primarily discouraging and excluding, discriminatory treatment of pupils of Roma national minority by the teachers and school staff. Out of total number of pupils enrolled in this separate class, 52% are members of Roma national minority. Praxis specified in the complaint all individual forms of discrimination and segregation of Roma systematically reappearing during the classes and school activities, of which Praxis was informed by the parents of the children.

Discriminatory treatment by teachers and other employees was manifested in different manners:  Roma children were physically separated from other pupils during classes, placed in the last rows of school desks, deprived of the possibility to use free textbooks as other children did, i.e. prohibited from carrying the textbooks to their homes, under the pretext of danger of their being damaged given the living conditions of Roma. The pupils of Roma nationality were excluded from English classes with an explanation that subject matter was too difficult for them to master; also, it was pointed to the fact that pupils of Roma national minority attending the Primary School “Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj” in Masurica were suggested on a daily basis that they could leave the classes and that they did not have an obligation to attend them, while special and less demanding teaching criteria were being established for them, which resulted in the fact that these children could not acquire appropriate knowledge as their peers of non-Roma nationality.

Upon conducting the procedure in which the Commissioner determined relevant facts and after the statements of all interested persons – the headmaster, teaching staff and parents of some pupils of Roma nationality, the opinion was issued with recommendations to be acted upon within 30 days. The opinion indicated that behaviour of teaching staff caused the violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, which prohibits any kind of direct or indirect discrimination, and violation of the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination and the Law on Foundations of the Education and Upbringing System. In addition, the opinion also indicated that acting of the stated persons was contrary to the strategic goals related to inclusion, integration and reduction of differences between members of Roma population and other citizens, determined by the Strategy for Improvement of the Status of Roma in the Republic of Serbia adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia in 2009.

Prejudices, lack of tolerance, understanding and good will to include the members of Roma nationality in social frameworks of established social system, are the problem whose solution requires active approach, transparency and more dedication of the responsible state bodies and institutions. Praxis will monitor the implementation of recommended activities and measure, as well as the future treatment of the pupils of Roma nationality by the employees in the separate class in the Primary School “Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj” in Masurica.

Download: Opinion and Recommendation of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality

With an aim to agree on activities that should be taken for the provision of financial, medical, legal and other assistance for three pupils of Roma nationality attending the Primary School “Dragojlo Dudic” in Belgrade, upon the initiative of the headmaster, employees of the school (psychologist, pedagogue, headmaster) had a meeting with the representatives of Social Welfare Centre Zvezdara and Praxis, Roma coordinator and health mediator in charge of the Municipality of Zvezdara,. Two pupils live in foster families and the third is legally invisible, i.e. not registered in birth registry book.

Since the enrollment of the pupils of Roma nationality in the Primary School “Dragojlo Dudic”, the employees have undertaken active measures for their care and inclusion in the educational system: they organized collecting of clothes and financial assistance for ensuring regular meals, health care was provided by organizing medical examinations for children and obtaining necessary medicaments and other medical devices, and families in which the pupils live were regularly visited for providing psychosocial support.

It was agreed in the meeting that everyone, in accordance with their mandate and competencies, should take some steps in order to provide necessary assistance to the pupils. After the meeting, the participants visited the families of the pupils in order to have an insight into their living conditions and gather additional information for provision of necessary assistance. The very initiative of the headmaster of the Primary School “Dragojlo Dudic” is an affirmative image of responsible persons’ treatment of the members of marginalized social groups and should be an impetus for other schools too.

With an aim to agree on activities that should be taken for the provision of financial, medical, legal and other assistance for three pupils of Roma nationality attending the Primary School “Dragojlo Dudic” in Belgrade, upon the initiative of the headmaster, employees of the school (psychologist, pedagogue, headmaster) had a meeting with the representatives of Social Welfare Centre Zvezdara and Praxis, Roma coordinator and health mediator in charge of the Municipality of Zvezdara,. Two pupils live in foster families and the third is legally invisible, i.e. not registered in birth registry book.

Since the enrollment of the pupils of Roma nationality in the Primary School “Dragojlo Dudic”, the employees have undertaken active measures for their care and inclusion in the educational system: they organized collecting of clothes and financial assistance for ensuring regular meals, health care was provided by organizing medical examinations for children and obtaining necessary medicaments and other medical devices, and families in which the pupils live were regularly visited for providing psychosocial support.

It was agreed in the meeting that everyone, in accordance with their mandate and competencies, should take some steps in order to provide necessary assistance to the pupils. After the meeting, the participants visited the families of the pupils in order to have an insight into their living conditions and gather additional information for provision of necessary assistance. The very initiative of the headmaster of the Primary School “Dragojlo Dudic” is an affirmative image of responsible persons’ treatment of the members of marginalized social groups and should be an impetus for other schools too.

Praxis’ lawyer, as the proxy of S.B., has tried to initiate the procedure for the registration of permanent residence at the address of the Social Welfare Centre (SWS) Novi Beograd, based on the possibility envisaged by the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens. On that occasion, the employee of SWC Novi Beograd rejected in words to act upon the request of the client explaining her standpoint by the lack of precise instructions on the manner of acting in the concerned situation. Insisting of the Praxis’ lawyer that SWC employee should act in accordance with the law, and receive and file the request in the official register was fruitless. By this unlawful acting, the employee deprived the client from exercising the right to permanent residence guaranteed by the law.

The Ombudsman of the Republic of Serbia has published the regular annual report for 2012. The report can be downloaded here.

Network of Organizations for Children of Serbia - MODS has published the report on its work for 2012. The report can be downloaded here.

Praxis and Liceulice are organizing the action to mark 21 March – The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which was established by the decision of the General Assembly of the United Nation 47 years ago. Within the European-wide Action Week Against Racism,  Praxis and Liceulice will join the numerous European non-governmental organizations and associations participating in marking of the Day. During the action, the citizens will have an opportunity to leave their messages and wishes related to the fight against discrimination in specially printed postcards.

Short messages on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination  of Racial Discrimination will be gathered from the vendors of Liceulice, residents of informal settlements, passers-by in the street, friends and acquaintances, and visitors of Praxis and Liceulice Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The messages will be collected by Sunday, 24 March 2013, and a day later they will be sent to relevant state bodies as they can hear what the citizens think about discrimination.

Regional Office of the Technical Assistance for Civil Society Organizations (TACSO) and the European Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) have drafted the report KEEPING UP THE MOMENTUM: Improving Cooperation Between Public Institutions and Civil Society in the Western Balkans and Turkey on institutional cooperation between the public authorities and civil society organizations in the Western Balkans and Turkey.

The overall aim of the Report is to present the current state of institutional cooperation between the government/parliament and civil society organizations in the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey by: providing an analysis of the rationale and ensuring benefits of cooperation, outlining critical issues, and providing recommendation as to how to improve the current mechanisms of institutional cooperation and increase the role of CSOs in that process. It seeks to highlight good practices, outline key factors for success, identify challenges, and facilitate the sharing of experiences and lessons learnt among the countries concerned. The Report deals with the institutional mechanisms of cooperation and policy documents at the national level only. The Report specifically covers the following countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

The Report is developed based on the desk research and the outcomes of the questionnaire filled out by key stakeholders in the countries concerned, Praxis being one of them, as well as based on extensive consultations with TACSO resident advisers and other knowledgeable individuals.

Download the Report
 

Blog by Ivanka Kostic Published on ENS website

Recently, I had the privilege to be invited as a speaker to a hearing on the subject of Access to Nationality for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). I was asked to address the issue of stateless Roma in Serbia and the Western Balkan Region and actions that the state should take in order to avoid statelessness. Below I present the impressions that I took away from this interesting hearing.

The hearing was organised by Mr Boriss Cilevics (Latvia, Socialist group), a member of the CoE Parliamentary Assembly and vice-chairperson of its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. In October 2010 Mr Cilevics had presented a motion for a resolution on “access to nationality“(Doc. 12414) signed by 21 members of the Parliament (the majority belonging of the Socialist Group). The motion was forwarded to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on 24 January 2011 for report. The Committee appointed Mr Cilevics as rapporteur at its meeting in Strasbourg on 26 January 2011.

The motion draws attention to the issues of access to nationality for immigrants and their descendants as a crucial condition for their integration and full enjoyment of political rights and political representation. Most European countries do not facilitate naturalisation for first-generation migrants, while European-born children often face unfavourable additional requirements for becoming citizens of their country of birth.  As stricter criteria apply to them, many migrants wanting naturalisation can have their application refused or nationality withdrawn on various grounds, without any time limits. Moreover, only a handful of countries allow migrants to hold complete dual nationality. The tendency in recent years to make it more difficult to acquire citizenship in several Council of Europe member states also raises concerns.

The hearing started with a presentation by Prof. Dr. Gerard-René de Groot, Professor of Comparative Law and International Private Law from the Maastricht University. He addressed the legal regime on multiple
nationality, the changing attitude of Council of Europe Member States towards multiple nationality and the issue of access to nationality by immigrants and their children to their country of immigration. He raised an interesting contradiction: why do many states allow, or even encourage multiple nationality when children are born to parents of different nationalities, but discourage or even prohibit voluntary acquisition of multiple nationality by adults?

Following this presentation, Inge Sturkenboom, Protection Officer (Statelessness) from the UNHCR Bureau for Europe addressed the question of safeguards against statelessness at birth as set out in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. She emphasized UNHCR’s concern that children continue to be born stateless in Europe because of insufficient safeguards to prevent statelessness in the nationality legislation of some States. In particular, it is crucial that states have provisions to address children born in the territory who would otherwise be stateless.

The members of the Committee who took part in the open discussion mainly raised their concerns about the growing problem of multiple nationality, showing how much multiple nationality is disliked by some states and appears to some to be an even greater problem than statelessness. Some raised the concern that today there are many more individuals holding dual citizenship than stateless persons, and posited that nationality may lose all significance when in several years people may be able to acquire 10-20 different nationalities.

Others taking part in the discussion were concerned about the problem of dual nationality of a number of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) who reside in BH but are also Croatian nationals. After Croatia joins the EU, they will be EU citizens and at the same time citizens of BH. This would create the problem that although they are living in the same state, such dual nationals will be in an entirely different position, possessing different rights and opportunities than their fellow citizens. This raised many interesting concerns. For instance, where will a person with multiple nationality enjoy or exercise their political and economic rights? Could multiple nationality become an obstacle to full integration? How will states resolve clashes between their interests in areas such as compulsory military service and diplomatic protection?

However, despite these concerns there was a positive voice supporting multiple nationality in the discussion, stating that the right to nationality is a fundamental human right and that individuals can have ties with several countries, several social identities, and that in the era of globalisation it is important to pursue the broader objective – integration.  

During the discussion the issues of prevention and reduction of statelessness were somehow pushed to the side as of multiple nationality took centre stage as the primary concern of the discussion participants.  However, it is clear to see how these issues are related: so long as states harbour suspicions that granting multiple nationality will lead to complex problems, they may also hesitate to openly offer citizenship to stateless persons or persons at risk of statelessness. Opening the door to multiple nationality may indeed bolster respect for the right of access to nationality in general. Regardless, prevention of statelessness needs to be the priority.

By the end of the hearing it was evident that Mr. Cilevics will have a challenging task ahead with his report. There is still a long way to go. Statelessness is a sensitive and often politicised subject, very closely related to migration, state succession and the rights of migrants. Most European countries have no framework to effectively deal with statelessness, and this has left many stateless persons vulnerable to discrimination and human rights abuse. It is encouraging to see the Council of Europe attempting to deal with this issue, but at the same time it is hoped that any resulting resolutions will be grounded first and foremost in protecting the human rights of Europe’s most vulnerable people.

See the blog from ENS website

Blog by Milijana Trifkovic Published on ENS Website

In many countries there is a circle of rights which are reserved only for their own nationals and that is one of the main facts that gives significance to nationality. In Serbia, however, having nationality is not a sufficient condition for a person to be able to access rights that the citizenship status should imply. In order to access their rights and obtain documents such as ID card or passport, Serbian citizens also must register their permanent residence, which is a precondition that a number of members of marginalized groups cannot fulfil. According to the survey conducted for the purpose of the UNHCR report “Persons at Risk of Statelessness in Serbia”, 3 % of Roma (approximately 4,500) do not have registered residence. In December 2012, Praxis issued the report entitled “No Residence, No Right”, explaining all the difficulties one can encounter when registering residence in his/her own country and the way in which the absence of registered permanent residence can deprive Serbian nationals of the rights normally attached to nationality or of the possibility to transfer the nationality to their children. Such consequences almost exclusively arise in cases of Roma from informal settlements, who cannot document ownership or any other legal basis of housing, as well as in the cases of citizens of Serbia originating from Kosovo, with habitual residence in Serbia. The report gives an insight into the obstacles they face when trying to register their permanent residence and explains the manner in which unregistered residence causes violation of their rights.

The national legislation recognises permanent residence as a place where rights can be enjoyed. As a result, a person may be born in Serbia, have its citizenship and spend all his/her life in one place in its territory, but if the person concerned does not have permanent residence registered, most institutions will remain inaccessible to him/her. That person will not be able to obtain ID card or passport, leave the country or access basic human rights. Both in the case of Roma from informal settlements and citizens originating from Kosovo the issue of possession of nationality is indisputable, but unregistered residence denies them the opportunity to benefit from nationality. Unlike other citizens of Serbia, some members of the Roma ethnic community cannot submit evidence of legal basis of housing when registering permanent residence due to their particularly vulnerable position, poverty and the life in informal settlements. In case of citizens from Kosovo, however, the problems arise from the difficulties related to fulfilling additional conditions for registration of permanent residence that are imposed solely on this category of citizens. The procedure for issuance of passport and registration of permanent residence for these persons has been defined by a separate act – a regulation adopted by the Government of Serbia in 2009 with the aim to meet the criteria for visa liberalization. The requirements that citizens originating from Kosovo should meet for the registration of permanent residence are far more onerous in comparison to other citizens of Serbia. Practice shows that, in order to register permanent residence in the country where they live and the citizenship of which they possess, these persons must fulfil conditions imposed on foreigners in the procedure for approval of residence permit (secured income, family reunion, etc). Those who fail to do so are not able to exercise any rights or obtain ID card or passport.

In addition to preventing citizens from accessing the rights normally attached to nationality, the difficulties that arise when members of aforementioned groups submit a request for registration of residence may also hinder the exercise of the right to nationality and registration of children in birth registry books. The parents who want to register the fact of birth of their child are required to submit their birth certificates and ID cards. If parents cannot register permanent residence and, consequently, cannot obtain an ID card, they will not be allowed to register their child’s birth. Moreover, the failure to register the child’s birth causes uncertainty with respect to the facts that are crucial for the acquisition of nationality, such as the place of child’s birth or its descent. As a result, the system of residence registration may cause risk of statelessness among children. The aforementioned UNHCR report suggests that the most important reason for many persons not being able to obtain a birth certificate is the lack of residence registration.

Permanent residence had a significant role in the acquisition of Serbian nationality after the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. In the cases of people originating from other republics of the former Yugoslavia who happened to live in Serbia at the time of the breakup of the common state, permanent residence was the key fact in the process of deciding on whether these persons would find themselves in the status of foreigners or would be allowed to acquire the nationality of the republic in which they lived in a facilitated manner. Namely, the persons who acquired nationality of some other republic of the former Yugoslavia and who had permanent residence registered in the territory of the Republic of Serbia for at least nine years could acquire Serbian nationality by simply submitting a request for registration in citizenship registry books. Those who were living in Serbia without registered permanent residence (mostly Roma from informal settlements) were not allowed to acquire citizenship in a simplified procedure, by registering in the citizenship records. They found themselves in the status of foreigners without granted residence permit and often with undetermined nationality. Their long-term habitual residence in Serbia was irrelevant for acquiring nationality.

Some of the described obstacles could be overcome based on the new Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens if the conditions were met for consistent application of the provisions of significance for the homeless and poor citizens without a legal basis of housing. The Law provides that the permanent residence of those citizens who do not have the opportunity to register their residence based on immovable property rights, lease or any other legal basis, may be established at the address where they permanently live, at the address of their spouse or common-law partner, their parents’ address or at the address of the social welfare centre. Owing to this change, a number of persons without residence should be significantly reduced. However, some issues remain unresolved even after the adoption of the new legal solution. They are explained in more detail in the aforementioned Praxis report. Apart from giving an insight into new legal solutions and explaining why “no residence” means “no rights” in Serbia, the report also points out to additional steps that should be taken to make the concept of permanent residence close to the notion of home, instead of the system that generates inequality among citizens and causes deprivation of rights. If one bears in mind the relation between lack of registration of permanent residence and lack of registration of the fact of birth, which is the main cause of risk of statelessness in Serbia, it is clear to what extent the changes in this field would contribute not only to higher respect for the rights attached to nationality, but also to facilitated exercise of the right to nationality among members of vulnerable groups.

See the blog from ENS website