Download: HERE

Praxis has published the report Testing the Implementation of the Ombudsperson’s Recommendations as a part of the project Judicial Reform and Government Accountability funded by USAID.

Within the aforementioned project, Praxis, in cooperation with the institution of the Ombudsperson, monitored whether and to what extent the Ombudsperson’s recommendations were implemented, and gave the overview of the main obstacles to their implementation.

The goal of the project was to contribute to the establishment of a sustainable mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations through the participation of the civil sector in monitoring the implementation of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations, in order to improve the protection of citizens’ rights, and particularly of vulnerable groups living in poverty on the margins of society.

The report is a comparative analysis of the results of monitoring of the implementation of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations. It gives a brief summary of the Ombudsperson’s role, defines the methodology of the monitoring of recommendations and proposes a model of sustainable mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations.

Download the report: Testing the Implementation of the Ombudsperson’s Recommendation
Related news published at the USAID website: Praxis finalizes their grant activities

Download: HERE

Praxis published the report Analysis of the Main Problems and Obstacles in Access of Roma to the Rights to Work and Employment, prepared within the project “Contribution to Social Inclusion and Combat against Discrimination of Marginalized Population in Serbia”.

One of the biggest and most difficult problems that the Republic of Serbia should address is unemployment. The Roma population is among the most vulnerable groups in terms of employment opportunities. All available data show that the unemployment rate among Roma is much higher than in the general population, which inevitably results in widespread poverty of this population group. On the other hand, even if Roma manage to get employment, they often perform the lowest-paid jobs, in the most adverse conditions and exposed to health risks. The vast majority of Roma who have income are not employed, either under a fixed-term or permanent contract. They usually secure their livelihood by collecting recyclable waste materials. The situation of Roma in the labour market is only one of the indicators of their fundamental inequality in society and one of the many consequences of hindered access to basic human rights faced by this group of population. Some of the factors that hinder the Roma’s inclusion in the labour market are lack of education and lack of professional qualifications, ingrained prejudice against working habits of Roma and discrimination against Roma by potential employers, black-market employment above average, difficulties in obtaining required documents, and often also the lack of information about how to obtain a work booklet or to be registered with the NES.

The obstacles which hinder the exercise of the right to Roma are more thoroughly described in the report. Besides pointing at the basic problems in this area and at steps that should be taken in order to improve the position of the Roma in the labour market, the report also includes the results of the research conducted by Praxis on the period from February to August 2012with the aim to get a better insight in the position of Roma in the labour market, in particular the part of the Roma population that usually remains invisible to available statistics - the Roma living in informal settlements and the Roma who face difficulties in obtaining personal documents.

Download the report: Analysis of the Main Problems and Obstacles in Access of Roma to the Rights to Work and Employment

The attempts of S. S. and T. S, residents of the informal settlement, to register the permanent residence at the address of social welfare centre show that this legal possibility is still a dead letter.

The head of the Legal Service in the Social Welfare Centre Cukarica insisted that clients should first obtain the certificate of the Ministry of Interiors on the lack of registration of permanent residence in the territory of the Republic of Serbia (referring to the Instruction of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy) and only then should they address SWC with the request for registration of permanent residence at the address of SWC. However, Praxis lawyer referred to the legal obligation of this body to receive the request of the client, so the requests were submitted on that occasion with the note of the employee that they still did not have certain code for such cases.

In addition, S.S. and T.S.  addressed the Belgrade Police Department in Ljermontova Street with the request for issuance of the certificate on the lack of registration of permanent residence in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. The employee and the head of the Police Administration were confused about such request and referred the clients to address them through the office for receiving requests, because they had not acted upon such request so far. On that occasion, Praxis lawyer drew up written requests for issuance of certificates for S.S. and T.S. and the outcome will be probably known after consulting the Ministry of Interior in relation to the manner of acting.

On 11 March 2013, the Constitutional Court reached the decision on rejecting the initiative for the initiation of procedure for assessment of constitutionality and legality of the provisions of Articles 6, 23, 25, 26, 45, 50, and 89 of the Law on Registry Books and incompliance with generally accepted rules of the international law and ratified international treaties.

Specifically, in July 2011, Centre for Advanced Legal Studies and Praxis submitted the initiative for the assessment of constitutionality of the Law on Registry Books – provisions referring to subsequent birth registration in birth registry books to the Constitutional Court of Serbia, as they considered that disputable provisions put legally invisible persons into unequal position and that conditions for subsequent registration of birth were such that many members of Roma population could not fulfill them. Therefore, it was pointed that provisions of the Law on Registry Books regulating the procedure of subsequent birth registration represented direct discrimination. In addition, it was required to determine that stated provisions were not in accordance with the Article 21 of the Constitution which prohibits any discrimination and guarantees the same legal protection to all.

The Constitutional Court has assessed that there was no grounds for the initiation of the procedure and it rejected the initiative as unacceptable. The explanation of the decision of the Constitutional Court is based on the view that the impossibility of factual application of lawfully prescribed rules to certain categories of persons who, due to the existing living circumstances are not able to provide data necessary for birth registration, could not be eliminated by the end of the validity of disputed provisions of the Law on Registry Books based on the decision of the Constitutional Court, because the adoption of such decision would create legal vacuum. Instead, the Court said that “(elimination (…) of the problem of so-called “legally invisible persons” is, according to the court, legally (…) possible only by prescribing special legal rules for these categories of persons and thus eliminate every legal and lawful possibility of their indirect discrimination in the legal system of the Republic of Serbia”. The explanation of the decision further states that after considering the problems of legally invisible persons the legislator has acted in that way in the meantime and adopted the Law on the Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure (as of 31 August 2012), and prescribed special rules for determination of time and place of the birth of persons who cannot register in birth registry books on the basis of the law regulating the administering of registry books. As the mentioned regulation was already adopted at the time of adoption of decision of the Constitutional Court on the occasion of the initiative, the Court did not further consider the assessment of regime of subsequent registration in birth registry books that was in force before the adoption of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure or the assessment of compliance of that regime with the Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, unlike the bodies which the submitters of the initiative addressed prior to the initiation of the procedure before the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court paid special special attention to factual inequality, that is the impossibility to factually apply the laws that are the same for all to certain categories of persons. Even though it determined that solution of the problem of legally invisible persons exceeds the limits of its jurisdiction, the Court has recognized their problems and the need to prescribe special rules in order to solve those problems. Finally, by explaining the “justifiability of the need to introduce a special a manner of exercise of primarily status rights of so-called “legally invisible persons”, the Court pointed at the case of “the deleted” and the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Kuric against Slovenia which determined the violation of Article 8, Article 13 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights for difficulties which these persons suffered due to impossibility to regulate status issues after being deleted from the Registry of permanent residence holders of the Republic of Slovenia.

Download: Initiative for the initiation of procedure for assessment of constitutionality and Decision of the Constitutional Court

According to Amnesty International annual human rights report, discrimination, hate crimes and nationalistic rhetoric are still prevalent.

According to Danilo Curcic, a legal analyst at Praxis, an NGO in Belgrade that aims to promote, protect and improve human rights, the poor economic situation in Serbia was the main reason such a large number of Roma claimed asylum in the EU.

"But broadcasting the news that the biggest number of Serbian citizens who are asking for asylum are Roma, and putting them into separate group … could be really dangerous and cause negative connotation, discrimination or even some violence," Curcic told SETimes.

The most violated Roma rights in Serbia are basic economic and social rights, especially the right to adequate housing and to personal documents, Curcic said.

A better approach by social institutions, especially with those who have been rejected when they asked for asylum, would help solve the problem, he added.

Read the whole news on SETimes.com

As part of the Project “Equal Chance for Better Prospects, Strengthening Roma People in Combating Discrimination,” implemented by the Office of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality of the Republic of Serbia, in cooperation with Praxis a public discussion was held for members of the Roma community in Subotica. Organization of the discussion is a part of the information and education campaign of the Commissioner aimed at raising awareness and empowering the Roma to combat discrimination. The public discussion was held in the office of the organization Roma Education Centre and gathered 17 representatives of Roma non-governmental organizations and activists from the North Backa District. In addition, journalists of the Roma Department of Radio Television of Vojvodina were also present.

Representatives of the Office of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality acquainted the participants with this institution, its organization and competence. They then briefly presented the procedure upon a complaint and invited the participants to respond to discrimination by filing a complaint to the Commissioner, even in case they are not quite certain that it is discrimination. It was particularly emphasised that the procedure before the Commissioner was free of charge and that the complaint could be filed via mail. In addition to stating the violated rights, short description of what the violation entails and possibly the witnesses of the violation of rights, the representatives of the Commissioner emphasised that the compliant should additionally only be signed so that it can be proceeded upon. The present participants were given the form of the complaint translated into Romani language and the publications and promotional material of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality.

Praxis representative at the public discussion shared with the participants the experience related to discrimination and through several examples tried to encourage the present to file complaints to the Commissioner. As the arguments for filing a complaint Praxis representative stressed that it was free of charge, informal, time-limited and that it was important to file a complaint not only for protection in individual cases but also because, thus, it can influence the wider public and result in reduction of discrimination in the society.

Bearing in mind that these public discussions are interactive, the present participants inquired about the actual cases in which they believe there was discriminatory treatment and stated a problem in Subotica in accessing public services (there is no problem anymore since the premises in which they were prohibited entry was closed). In addition, participants of the discussion stated problems relating to forming civil guards that existed in some villages around Subotica. These guards were later disbanded thanks to a mediation method that was used, which is, as stated by the Roma Education Centre very successful and it comes down to forming a Council for interethnic relations at the level of municipalities, villages and local communities.

Praxis, with support of ODIHR project “Good Practices for Roma Integration in the Western Balkans”, organized a workshop for member organizations of Western Balkans Legal Aid Network (WeBLAN) in Belgrade on 4 June 2013. As one of WeBLAN proclaimed goals is contribution to prevention and fight against discrimination of marginalized communities and strengthening of regional connections and cross-border cooperation, the workshop was held with an aim to acquire new knowledge in the area of protection from discrimination and exchange of experience the organizations had in relation to advocating for and protecting of victims of discrimination. The guest lecturer at the workshop was Adam Weiss, legal director of AIRE Centre from London.

The introductory part of the workshop focused on strategic litigation in the area of discrimination with special reference to identification and development of strategic cases related to registration in birth and citizenship registry books. Adam Weiss presented the cases of strategic litigation at European level, different types of strategic cases and their contribution to advocating for changes. While considering the elements of possible strategy of the solution of identified problems, Adam presented different levels of interventions  which human rights organization can use – advocating in a great number of cases before the first-instance and second-instance bodies and thus providing a potential strategic case, the third party intervention in procedures before the European Court of Human Rights, writing reports on the situation in practice to be submitted to relevant contracting bodies and EU authorities and presenting cases from practice in support to identified problems.

During the discussion about strategies used by organizations from the region, it was determined that most of the organizations had reacted to cases of discrimination at different levels, and that some of their cases could be strategic. Most of cases in the region referred to discrimination in the area of education and discrimination against disabled persons, but also to registration in registry books and exercise of the right to adequate housing. The conclusion was that joint characteristic of the courts proceeding upon discrimination cases is insufficient knowledge of international standards in the area of protection from discrimination, relevant practice, but also unwillingness to determine discrimination as such.

Relying on discussion and identified problems, the second part of the workshop referred to presentation of  the case law of the European Human Rights Court and representation of cases which could serve as the basis for conducting cases of protection of Roma from discrimination before the national bodies. The case law was considered in the context of the right to respect for private and family life. The issues that were particularly considered referred to whether the state had interfered in the exercise of that right and if yes whether such interference was in accordance with the law, whether it had had the legitimate goal and had been necessary in a democratic society. Once again, the significance of notifying the individual cases and stories as the most convincing way to test the limits of the implementation of the principle of proportionality was emphasized once again.

Finally, the last subject for discussion referred to possibilities of the use of situational testing in proving discrimination. As none of WeBLAN member organizations had practical experience in the use of situational testing, the participants were trying to develop plans for testing of potential cases and considering the advantages and disadvantages of proposed plans, and possibility of their implementation.

The workshop was attended by 40 participants including the representatives of WeBLAN organizations and the project “Good Practices for Roma Integration in the Western Balkans” and the representative of Tirana Legal Aid Society.

Download: Presentation by Adam Weiss

Download: HERE