The Commissioner for Protection of Equality has established that Taxi Association of Serbia acted discriminatory by recommending taxi drivers not to take refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

Specifically, the president of the Taxi Association of Serbia in his interview for Blic Daily as of 24 March 2015, stated, among others, the following: “Taxi drivers are recommended not to take asylum seekers as they may find themselves in an unpleasant situation. The police which finds asylum seekers in a taxi will temporarily take a taxi away and a court procedure will be initiated. In the procedure, a taxi driver is supposed to prove that he did not know that people in his car were not asylum seekers.”

On that occasion, Praxis filed a complaint to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality stating that denying transportation services to one population group is a discriminatory act, which creates hostile environment and spreads intolerance and xenophobia in society. The recommendation given to taxi drivers is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and a series of provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, which clearly recognize the refusal to provide a public service as a form of discrimination.  

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality has established that refugees, asylum seekers and migrants were put in an unequal position in regard to use of taxi services on the basis of their personal characteristics, and thus the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination was violated. The Commissioner also recommended that president of the Taxi Association of Serbia should act in a way to contribute that taxi drivers provide transportation services to all passengers under the equal conditions, and take care, within his regular activities, not to violate legal regulations on prohibition of discrimination. 

At the moment when a large number of refugees pass through Serbia running away from the war, the minimum we can do is not to make their struggle for survival more difficult. The increased number of xenophobic statements made by representatives of authorities and newspaper texts contribute to spreading of intolerance in society. Therefore, the opinion of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality sends a clear message that discriminatory statements are unacceptable and that everyone, with no exception, has the right to protection from discrimination.

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 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.

For more information, see the announcement: A New Wave of Evictions of Residents of the Unrecognized Collective Centre “Pionirski Grad”

More than 100 families will be faced with homelessness due to construction works planned within the “Belgrade Waterfront” Project. Preparation of the terrain for the “Belgrade Waterfront” Project demands removal of all facilities from the site and relocation of more than 130 families. Praxis received very worrying information from the families living at this site, which suggests that no alternative accommodation has been planned for more than 100 families.

Belgrade Land Development Public Agency, as the competent body, has been interviewing dozens of families who have the legal basis of housing, mainly reflected in granted facilities of the public company “Serbian Railroads” for use as an emergency accommodation. These families are now being offered other housing facilities, but only for use for 5 years, thus, again, calling into question their security of tenure. More than 100 remaining families have received decisions ordering them to remove the facilities in which they have been living for years, at very short notice, and they have not been offered any alternative accommodation. The complaints against the decisions do not delay the execution of decisions.

Such acting of the competent bodies represents a severe violation of the right to respect for private and family life, right to adequate housing and the right to an effective legal remedy. What is particularly worrying is that such acting occurs despite constant recommendations of the international treaty bodies and independent experts to legally regulate the procedure of forced evictions and ensure the exercise of the right to an effective legal remedy.
 
Therefore, we call on the competent authorities to immediately stop the practice of forced evictions which result in homelessness and to implement recommendations of international bodies and regulate the procedure in cases of forced evictions.

For more information, see the announcement: Announcement on the Relocation of the Families Living at the Belgrade Waterfront Site

The European Network on Statelessness, which represents over fifty civil society organisations from across Europe, is spearheading a new campaign: 'None of Europe's Children should be Stateless' to raise awareness and promote positive solutions on the issue.

Within the campaign, the (ENS) published a new report No Child Should be Stateless, which reveals that thousands of children are growing up without the basic protection a nationality offers to citizens because of gaps in nationality laws and laws governing procedures for birth registration. The report, which draws on extensive analysis of nationality laws in all 47 Council of Europe states, details a worrying array of problems and makes a series of recommendations designed to guide actions to address – and ultimately end – childhood statelessness in Europe.

For more information, see the announcement: Campaign “No Child Should be Stateless” by European Network on Statelessness

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.

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, that is whether one vulnerable group will be given a priority over the other. 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.

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. 

For more information, see the announcement: Praxis Points at Deficiencies in the Competition for Allocation of Free Textbooks

M. S. from Zemun, who suffers from paraplegia and who was deprived of the right to free movement, has been advocating since 2007 for pavements in his street to be accessible to persons with disabilities. He addressed the competent city authorities, which ignored his problem for four years. In 2011, he decided to file a complaint to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality against the Belgrade City Secretariat for Traffic. The Commissioner established discrimination and recommended that city authorities adjust the street in which M. S. lives to the needs of persons with disabilities. Even though the city authorities acted according to the recommendation, construction works were badly performed and M. S. was still facing impediments. The competent bodies found that their job was completed, though the goal of the recommendation was not achieved.   

Afterwards, M. S. addressed Praxis for assistance and the motion for the peaceful settlement of dispute was filed to the Public Attorney’s Office in Belgrade, with the proposal to adjust the pavement in his street to the needs of the persons with disabilities and to set appropriate ramps.  The Public Attorney’s Office acted upon the stated requests, and after seven years M. S. was finally able  to move along his street.

Unfortunately, this is not a sole case, because M. S, as well as other persons with disabilities, face great difficulties on a daily basis, when using public transportation and in access to public facilities, which are inaccessible.

Praxis filed a lawsuit to the Higher Court in Belgrade for discrimination in one primary school, because the headmaster refuses to enroll Roma children. Specifically, the parents of three children of Roma nationality wanted to enroll their children in this school, and the headmaster allowed the enrollment for two elder children but she refused to enroll the youngest child, with an explanation that there was no place for the third child, which was not true.

This school is attended by a very small number of Roma children, while the number of Roma children who attend a nearby school is almost ten times higher.

Therefore, Praxis initiated a civil procedure against the headmaster before the Higher Court in Belgrade. However, the Higher Court rejected the lawsuit with an explanation that in order to conduct a procedure, it is necessary to provide consent of the defendants, because the lawsuit refers to specific persons and not to unspecific group. With that decision, the Court applied the substantial right erroneously and ignored the viewpoint of the Supreme Court of Cassation , which decided in such cases.

The above stated decision of the Higher Court in Belgrade was based on the wrong implementation of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, and consequently establishing of legally relevant facts was missing.  Owing to such practice of competent courts, conducting of already small number of civil procedures for determining discrimination is becoming more difficult and the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination is not adequately implemented, which additionally aggravates the position of vulnerable population groups.

Fore more information, see the announcement: Higher Court in Belgrade Applied the Substantial Right Erroneously and Rejected the Lawsuit for Discrimination against Children in Primary School

Because of unlawful proceeding of an officer of the Police Station in Bujanovac, Praxis client N.R. was not able to register permanent residence for months.

At the end of 2014, N.R. moved from Belgrade to Bujanovac where she entered into a common-law marriage. Accordingly, she addressed the Police with a request to register permanent residence at the address of her common-law spouse. Even though the application of the legal possibility of residence registration is indisputable in this case, the Police rejected her request verbally, asking her to falsely register permanent residence in Bujanovac as a lessee of an apartment.

Since the Police constantly rejected the request of N.R. verbally, she used the possibility to submit the request to the competent body via post. Proceeding upon the request, the Police Station in Bujanovac performed a field check and invited N.R. to give a statement related to her request, but did not take any further actions in the procedure. Only after Praxis pointed to the unlawful proceeding of the Police Station in Bujanovac in this case at the training for registrars, deputy registrars, social workers and police officers of the administrative regions of Pirot, Jablanica and Pcinja, held on 12 June 2015 in Pirot, and after additional consultations between the competent police officer and Praxis, did the Police Station in Bujanovac finally approve the registration of permanent residence to N.R.

What is worrying is the fact that, instead of promoting the rights guaranteed by the law by applying the regulations, the competent body actually tended to diminish them.

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality issued the opinion and recommendation related to the complaint filed by the father of a minor girl against the Municipality of Smederevska Palanka. Following the complaint, Praxis got involved in the procedure.

The Municipality of Smederevska Palanka denied the right to transport to school to the girl with severe sight impairment, even though it is the legal obligation of the Municipality according to the Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System.

In its opinion, the Commissioner finds that failing to ensure the right to free transport to the school for the girl, the Municipality of Smederevska Palanka impeded her exercise of the right to education and full inclusion in the education system, thus violating the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. The Commissioner recommended that the Municipality of Smederevska Panka should take all necessary measures within 30 days in order to provide free transport from home to school for the girl, and in the future not to violate the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination.

The Commissioner also stated that this type of support has been legally regulated for a number of years, and therefore, such acting of the Municipality of Smederevska Palanka is utterly worrying. It is further stated in the opinion that the school and the Ministry of Education must provide adequate teaching material, such as textbooks in the Braille alphabet and a personal assistant, which have been denied to the girl up to date.

Praxis reminds that pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Serbia is committed to ensure compulsory education and free education on an equal basis for all and without discrimination. Also, the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, Law on Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, and laws and bylaws governing the area of education explicitly forbid discrimination against persons with disabilities in all spheres of life.

For more information, see the announcement: Municipality of Smederevska Palanka Discriminated against a Girl with Disability

The Appeals Commission of the Press Council has established that Vecernje novosti Daily has violated the Code of Ethics of Journalists of Serbia by publishing the article entitled “Horror in Smederevo: Roma in Sexual Relation with a Girl”. This article was published on 17 March 2015 in the printed edition in the section “Local News” and on 18 March 2015 in online edition.

NGO Praxis and Standing Conference of Roma Associations of Citizens SKRUG – The League of Roma lodged a complaint to the Appeals Commission of the Press Council, stating that national affiliation of the suspected for a criminal act must not be mentioned, unless it is in direct relation with the type and nature of committed crime. The complainants are of the opinion that the stated article incites discrimination, hatred and violence towards the members of Roma national minority. 

The Appeals Commission adopted the appeal and reached a decision that Vecernje novosti Daily violated the Code of Ethics of Journalists of Serbia. Vecernje novosti Daily was ordered to publish this decision in the third issue from the day of delivery of decision at latest, and within seven days in online edition.

Praxis welcomes the decision of the Appeals Commission and draws attention of the media that stating personal characteristics of the suspected persons or victims is not in line with ethical standard of professional acting of journalists and must not be stated, unless it is in direct connection with the nature of the committed crime.

For more information, see the announcement: Vecernje novosti Daily Violated the Code of Ethics of Journalists of Serbia