Praxis believes that Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development should review the requirements of the competition for allocation of free textbooks and make them more transparent.

At the beginning of March 2015, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development announced a competition for allocation of free textbooks within the project “Free Textbooks for 2015/2016”. Unlike the previous years, when all pupils from the first to the fourth grade in primary schools were given textbooks, being thereby obliged to return the textbooks at the end of the school year, this year only socially vulnerable pupils of all grades in primary schools will receive free textbooks in a way that 15% of the pupils will receive the whole envisaged amount and 8% a half of the amount, without being obliged to return them at the end of the school year.

Praxis welcomes the abolition of former model of allocation of free textbooks, which had a series of deficiencies, and also points at non-transparency of this model and at a very short period within which the whole process was conducted. It remains unclear how belonging to some vulnerable groups will be evaluated (e.g. single parents, internally displaced persons, etc.), that is whether one vulnerable group will be given a priority over the other. Furthermore, some categories are illogically formed and thus pensioners are put in the same category as the unemployed and students, and if we consider the financial moment a pensioner may have higher income than an employee. For the pupils from the category of single parents, it is necessary to enclose the photocopy of the judgement of dissolution of marriage, despite the fact that hearings in divorce procedures are closed for the public and that explanation of the judgement includes facts which the school administration and homeroom/grade teacher are not authorized to ask for. To remind, on 19 March 2015 the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection sent the letter to the Minster of Education, Science and Technological Development where he indicated that all primary schools need to suspend further collecting of some data and delete or destroy previously collected data, given that their processing is contrary to the Law on Personal Data Protection. In addition, it is unclear how a pupil should prove that he/she is from socially vulnerable environment, since no example of vulnerable environment is given.

Praxis expresses special concern about the children who live in informal settlements without permanent residence registered, majority of whom are Roma children. Also, the competition does not include legally invisible children (children who are not registered in birth registries) and does not consider their position during the allocation of free textbooks.

Praxis notes that the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development should review the requirements of the competition, make them more transparent and improve them to as to maximally avoid all dilemmas related to evaluation of belonging to envisaged categories so as the textbooks reach the children who really need this kind of assistance. 

A new wave of evictions of residents of the unrecognized Collective Centre “Pionirski Grad” is expected on 27 April 2015, when the eviction of two families has been scheduled.

P.T. is one of those facing the forced eviction. P.T. is a person with a disability, he lives alone, suffers from epilepsy and has epileptic seizures on a weekly basis. The only income he has is the temporary cash benefit for internally displaced persons from Kosovo amounting to 8,500 dinars, which is certainly not enough to provide for basic living needs. Due to his health condition and social vulnerability, P.T. needs continuous support, so the failure of the competent bodies to provide him with alternative accommodation will lead him to homelessness.

We would once again like to point to the fact that the residents of “Pionirski grad” are internally displaced persons and refugees, mainly persons in poor health, the elderly, the unemployed, single parents, children and the socially vulnerable, who live in constant fear and uncertainty, without a permanent and durable solution.

With support of 35 CSOs and two networks gathering 167 CSOs, at the beginning of November 2014, Praxis sent the request to the competent authorities to prevent eviction of internally displaced persons and refugees from the unrecognized Collective Centre “Pionirski grad” during the winter period, and to find durable and sustainable solutions for refugees and IDPs threatened with homelessness. However, the only support came from the independent institutions of the Ombudsperson and the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, and from the Office for Human and Minority Rights which had made aware the competent institutions to the need to provide an alternative accommodation in cases of forced evictions and enable participation of these persons in the programmes of competent institutions related to securing the enjoyment of the right to housing.

We emphasise that numerous international documents such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement, of which Serbia is a signatory, envisage that persons who are forcibly evicted must be provided with alternative accommodation, while the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its latest report from 2014, called on Serbia to undertake urgent measures to secure that citizens are consulted in all phases of evictions. The Law on Social Housing of the Republic of Serbia also sees children, youth, single parents, families with more children, solitary households, persons over the age of 65, persons with disability, refugees and internally displaced persons (…) as the members of the most disadvantageous groups and thus the priority for receiving social housing apartments. Residents of “Pionirski grad” often belong to several of the stated categories.

We once again call on the competent institutions of the Republic of Serbia to urgently suspend the evictions of residents of the unrecognized Collective Centre “Pionirski grad” and to undertake measures to secure an adequate alternative accommodation to these persons.

Today, on 21 April 2015, the awards for fight against discrimination were garnted by the Coalition against Discrimination in Media Centre in Belgrade.

The Coalition against Discrimination established the “Annual Award for Fight against Discrimination” as the recognition granted to individuals, organizations, institutions, companies and media, which have invested the greatest effort to combat discrimination against minority and marginalized groups or have contributed to the enhancement of equality of all citizens in Serbia over the past year. The members of the Coalition against Discrimination decide of the winners of awards, based on the proposal submitted by individuals and organizations by the end of 2014.

“Awards for fight against discrimination” have been granted for outstanding contribution to the fight against discrimination in Serbia since 2008, in five categories:

• Public authority (institutions of public authority, MPs, officials)
• Civil society organizations (NGOs, unions, professional associations)
• Media (public media, journalists,professional associations)
• Business sector (enterprises, business people)
• Public persons (artists, athletes, actors/actresses, singers, politicians)

The winners of the “Award for fight against discrimination” for outstanding contribution to fight against discrimination in 2014 are:

• Public authority – Department for Public Order and Peace of the Police Department of the City of Belgrade – Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
• Civil society organizations – Humanitarian Law Centre
• Media- The Morning Show of Radio Television of Vojvodina
• Business sector – Mirko Milićević (Dosije studio d.o.o.)
• Public persons - Ljubomir Živkov

The Coalition against Discrimination are: Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Civil Rights Defenders, Labris - organization for lesbian human rights, CHRIS - Network of Committees for Human Rights, Association of Students with Disabilities, Gayten LGBT, PRAXIS and Regional Centre for Minorities.

The Basic Court in Zajecar ordered the payment of fee in the amount of 1,900 RSD for motion and decision in the procedure for determination of date and place of birth, even though the Article 71i of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure stipulates that petitioners in these procedures are exempted from fees and other costs of the procedure. The Second Basic Court and the Third Basic Court in Belgrade have also ordered the payment of fees to persons whose date and place of birth have been determined, with the difference in the amount (390,00 RSD and 780,00 RSD). Praxis has sent letters to the competent courts pointing out that petitioners in these procedures are exempted from fees.

The fact that some judges are not familiar with the applicable law and that they order the payment of fees in the procedure for determination of date and place of birth may cause a problem if the petitioners, who are mostly legally uninstructed persons, are not familiar with the obligation to pay the fee. It is expected that if these persons do not have legal aid, they would pay fees they are explicitly exempted from.

Persons who initiated procedures for determination of date and place most often do not have any incomes because they cannot get employed due to the lack of documents or receive social welfare. It is therefore understandable why the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure exempt the petitioners in procedures for determination of date and place of birth from payment of fees and costs of procedure, but it is necessary to ensure the consistent application of the law by the competent courts. Otherwise, considering the social status of legally invisible persons, the payment of fees may be a considerable burden to these persons and impede their access to the court.

The Basic Court in Zajecar ordered the payment of fee in the amount of 1,900 RSD for motion and decision in the procedure for determination of date and place of birth, even though the Article 71i of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure stipulates that petitioners in these procedures are exempted from fees and other costs of the procedure. The Second Basic Court and the Third Basic Court in Belgrade have also ordered the payment of fees to persons whose date and place of birth have been determined, with the difference in the amount (390,00 RSD and 780,00 RSD). Praxis has sent letters to the competent courts pointing out that petitioners in these procedures are exempted from fees.

The fact that some judges are not familiar with the applicable law and that they order the payment of fees in the procedure for determination of date and place of birth may cause a problem if the petitioners, who are mostly legally uninstructed persons, are not familiar with the obligation to pay the fee. It is expected that if these persons do not have legal aid, they would pay fees they are explicitly exempted from.

Persons who initiated procedures for determination of date and place most often do not have any incomes because they cannot get employed due to the lack of documents or receive social welfare. It is therefore understandable why the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure exempt the petitioners in procedures for determination of date and place of birth from payment of fees and costs of procedure, but it is necessary to ensure the consistent application of the law by the competent courts. Otherwise, considering the social status of legally invisible persons, the payment of fees may be a considerable burden to these persons and impede their access to the court.

On the occasion of the International Roma Day, we would like to send our best wishes to our fellow Roma citizens.

We would also like to remind the public that many Roma in Serbia still live in deep poverty, they are facing human rights violations, discrimination, anti-Roma rhetoric and violence that threatens their life and hurts their dignity.

Serbia cannot make progress if a part of its population remains at the margins of society. New Strategy for the Improvement of the Position of Roma, which is being drafted, must contain solutions for the gaps and inadequate measures identified in the implementation of the previous Strategy. This primarily refers to establishment of a body that will be responsible for monitoring the fulfilment of the goals of the Strategy and related Action Plan, promotion of measures for employment and economic strengthening of the Roma, improvement of living conditions in Roma settlements with regard to infrastructure and the status of settlements, promotion of the social housing system, ensuring continuity in education, especially of Roma girls, resolution of the problem of segregation of Roma children in schools and prevention of and combatting discrimination against Roma population in general. Serbia should pay special attention to strengthening capacities of the public authorities for planning and implementation of the envisaged measures and to securing funds in the budget for implementation of the goals planned in the Strategy.  

The example of six children, whose parents have been trying for more than a year to make them legally visible, testifies on how complicated a birth registration procedure may be.

Specifically, due to conducting procedures before different state bodies, children of the same parents were registered with different surnames, some with their mother’s and some with their father’s surname.

Thus, the procedure for determination of date and place of birth was initiated before the court for four children, who were born at home. Since the Court rejected the motion, subsequent birth registration procedures were initiated before the administrative body. Meanwhile, the Court delivered summons for hearing, which was totally unexpected, as the motion had been previously rejected.  Also, the initial joint motion was divided into four cases, which were  allocated to a new judge, where one child was left out from the summons.

The Court soon reached the decision on determination of date and place of birth for three children and the father’s surname was determined to them. However, for the fourth child, who did not receive summons for hearing, a decision was reached in subsequent birth registration procedure before the administrative body and with no data on father, since he could not be identified before the administrative body because he did not possess an ID card.

For two children born in a health institution, procedures for determination of personal name were initiated before the competent social welfare centre and it is expected that their surname will be determined based on their mother’s surname.

Even though the rules governing the family relations envisage that children of the same parents cannot have different surnames, at this moment the children of the same parents are registered in birth registries with different data on the personal name and father. Once the father obtains an ID card, it will be necessary to conduct an additional administrative procedure in order to harmonize the data on the father and surname in registries.

The efforts of these parents to register their children, lasting for more than a year, clearly indicate how complicated and lengthy procedures of registration in registries may be, even with legal assistance of Praxis.

The example of six children, whose parents have been trying for more than a year to make them legally visible, testifies on how complicated a birth registration procedure may be.

Specifically, due to conducting procedures before different state bodies, children of the same parents were registered with different surnames, some with their mother’s and some with their father’s surname.

Thus, the procedure for determination of date and place of birth was initiated before the court for four children, who were born at home. Since the Court rejected the motion, subsequent birth registration procedures were initiated before the administrative body. Meanwhile, the Court delivered summons for hearing, which was totally unexpected, as the motion had been previously rejected.  Also, the initial joint motion was divided into four cases, which were  allocated to a new judge, where one child was left out from the summons.

The Court soon reached the decision on determination of date and place of birth for three children and the father’s surname was determined to them. However, for the fourth child, who did not receive summons for hearing, a decision was reached in subsequent birth registration procedure before the administrative body and with no data on father, since he could not be identified before the administrative body because he did not possess an ID card.

For two children born in a health institution, procedures for determination of personal name were initiated before the competent social welfare centre and it is expected that their surname will be determined based on their mother’s surname.

Even though the rules governing the family relations envisage that children of the same parents cannot have different surnames, at this moment the children of the same parents are registered in birth registries with different data on the personal name and father. Once the father obtains an ID card, it will be necessary to conduct an additional administrative procedure in order to harmonize the data on the father and surname in registries.

The efforts of these parents to register their children, lasting for more than a year, clearly indicate how complicated and lengthy procedures of registration in registries may be, even with legal assistance of Praxis.

On the occasion of 21 March, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Praxis and Liceulice draw attention to the fact that many of our fellow-citizens are exposed to racism and different forms of discrimination which we should all fight against together.

With an aim to raise awareness of the public about the necessity to combat racism and discrimination, Praxis and Liceulice are marking the European Action Week against Racism in the period from 16-22 March 2015 with a series of activities.

Within the stated activities, we asked our beneficiaries and associates of the magazine Liceulice and other citizens how they perceive discrimination and racism and with their consent we post their answers on social media. Some of the answers include: “Racism is when my child comes back from school with bruises and torn clothes because other kids have beaten him just because he is Roma, and the teacher puts the blame on him” (Sanja, 29), “Racism is when we are chased away from the playground just because we are Roma” (Marijan, 19), “I have to be quite honest. For a long time now, I have no answers and can’t do it any other way. I feel like a fool. This feeling is driven by the fact that in the 21st century you still need to explain to people why racism is harmful, pointless and backward, and finally, how stupid it is. Let’s call the thing by its right name: racism is nonsense” (Marko Tomas, a poet). The collected answers will be written on postcards and sent to relevant institutions and media. Also, in cooperation with IPAK.centar and Initiative Do not be narrow-minded. Think and a street-art artist Inspector Yoda, we painted over the hate graffiti and turned them into graffiti with tolerance and equality messages.

We remind the public in Serbia of the high level of discrimination and racism that permeate all spheres of our society and find it necessary to fight for tolerance and equality.

Blog by Praxis' Intern Aleem Datoo from Northeastern University

H. K. is a 35-year-old legally invisible woman from a Roma community in Kosovo. After spending most of her life in Kosovo, H. K. met a Romani man and decided to move to eastern Serbia with him. Unfortunately, H. K.’s family did not take well to her decision and decided to disown her. This meant that when she arrived in Serbia, not only did she lack an official identity, but she also had no contact with her family in Kosovo.

H. K. realized that she needed to register as a Serbian citizen. On her behalf, her husband contacted Praxis and asked the legal advisors to start the process of acquiring her legal identification documents.

H. K. later became pregnant with twins. On March 9, seven months into her pregnancy, she suddenly fell ill with extreme hypertension and swollen limbs. Her husband realized the danger of the situation and immediately took her to a local village clinic. Due to the severity of her condition, the clinic said that they were unable to help her and advised her to go to a hospital in the city of Pozarevac. She and her husband encountered problems upon arriving at the Pozarevac Hospital. The nurse they were directed to refused to assist them because H. K. lacked an official identification number, as well as a Health Card. As H. K.’s condition worsened, her husband decided to call someone from Praxis to ask for help. After briefing the Praxis legal advisor about the situation, Praxis communicated directly with the nurse to find a solution. The legal advisor demanded that H. K. be treated immediately. According to Serbian Law, free care must be given by a public hospital in any emergency situation, regardless of whether or not the person has identification documents. He also went on to explain that H. K.’s severe symptoms, along with being pregnant with twins, was reason enough to consider the situation an emergency. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, 12 patients received treatment before the hospital saw H. K. The delay in her treatment could have caused irreversible damage to her or her babies. On March 16 H. K. delivered the twins prematurely at Pozarevac Hospital. The babies are currently in incubation in Belgrade and will remain there until they are strong enough to go home. 

H. K.’s story is not an isolated incident. Discrimination in the health care system is a widespread issue, particularly for members from the Roma community who do not have access to status rights. We need to ensure that the health care system implements the law correctly and that those who provide discriminatory treatment are held responsible.