There is no doubt that the procedure for determining the time and place of birth established by the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, constitutes great progress towards solving the problem of legally invisible persons in Serbia. In addition to its positive impact on birth registration in registry books, the envisaged non-contentious procedure very often allows individuals access to citizenship. However, only those individuals who possess evidence of their origin and proof of citizenship of their parents are able to benefit from these amendments. The procedure for determining the time and place of birth has left persons who cannot prove these facts in an uncertain situation and at a high risk of statelessness.

The situation described above clearly illustrates the position of Praxis’ client, Zoja. Zoja is a 34-year-old Roma woman originally from Kosovo. Before the adoption of the new law, which provides for a non-contentious court procedure of determining the time and place of birth, her birth could not be entered in registry books through an administrative procedure because Zoja did not have the personal documents of her parents.

According to Zoja, sometime in 1996 she left Kosovo and moved to Serbia, where she entered into a common-law marriage and later gave birth to nine children. After leaving Kosovo, she lost almost all contact with her parents. After 1999, her parents and siblings went to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then to Canada. Except for their names, Zoja has no information about her parents, which makes it impossible to find records of their identity documents.

As a legally invisible person, Zoja did not have a health card. Wanting to secure a safe delivery for her children, Zoja used someone else’s health card each time she gave birth. Unfortunately, this meant that her children were registered as the children of the women whose health cards she had borrowed. Resolving this situation involves lengthy, exhausting and uncertain court procedures for determining motherhood.

Thanks to the non-contentious procedure, Zoja is allowed in these circumstances to be registered in birth registry books and to finally obtain a birth certificate, but the issue of her citizenship remains unresolved. Because she is unable to provide proof of her parents’ citizenship, Zoja cannot acquire citizenship on the basis of her origin and birth in the Republic of Serbia since she is required to establish that one or both of her parents were Serbian nationals at the time of her birth.

Zoja’s last option for exercising the right to citizenship is naturalisation. According to Serbian legislation, the requirement for acquiring citizenship in this way is that the person concerned was born in the territory of Serbia and that he or she had two years of uninterrupted residence in Serbia before applying for naturalisation. Zoja has been residing in Serbia de facto since the time of her birth, but she cannot obtain a certificate of residence because she could not register her residence in Serbia due to the lack of documents. She would have to prove her residence in Serbia for at least two years by indirect evidence such as witness statements, the fact she gave birth to her children in Serbia and so on. If we take into account that the authority responsible for citizenship has significant discretion in decision-making, it is clear that Zoja's chances of becoming a citizen are very small. Moreover, naturalisation procedures last several months or even several years and require the payment of a fee that Zoja, without documents and thus without the possibility of obtaining an income, cannot afford.

Being stateless, Zoja does not enjoy even the minimum protection of fundamental rights in the country where she lives. If we start with the understanding that citizenship includes entitlement to rights, then it is quite logical that Zoja is confused about which rights she can exercise in her present situation. Without citizenship, Zoja cannot obtain an identity card, a document that is required in Serbia for exercising almost every socio-economic right. Her financial situation, living without any income, cannot be improved without external financial support. However, until she obtains an ID card, which she can only get if she solves the issue of citizenship, Zoja and her children cannot be included in the welfare and health care system.

Zoja’s case proves once again the need to streamline and simplify the procedure for birth registration. Her case clearly illustrates the scope of the problem caused by the multigenerational lack of documentation. Additionally, this case demonstrates the inadequacy of efficient prevention of statelessness among children and the violation of the child’s right to acquire a nationality. Efficient protection would involve a simple procedure of registration of children at birth, regardless of whether the parents have identity documents. In this case, it would mean that today Zoja's children are Serbian citizens and have access to all rights. However, because this is not the case, Zoja will have to prove that she is the mother of her children and then undergo the procedure of acquiring citizenship for them and for herself.

With Praxis assistance, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina avoided unreasonable payment of two times higher fee for the acquisition of the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia.

Specifically, the citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina addressed the police department in Kraljevo in relation to submission of the request for the admission into the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia. On that occasion, the employees in the police department informed him that he needed to pay the fee for the acquisition of the citizenship in the amount of 17,380.00 RSD, which is two times higher amount than stipulated. Praxis reacted immediately by pointing to the police department in Kraljevo that Federal Republic Yugoslavia and Bosna and Herzegovina had signed the agreement on dual citizenship (The Official Gazette of FRY – International Agreements, no. 2/2003) and that the fee for the decision on acquisition of citizenship of the Republic of Serbia on the basis of international agreements is 8,840.00 RSD, and thus the payment of two times higher amount of the fee was avoided.

Praxis, with support of 35 CSOs and two networks gathering 167 CSOs, sent the request to the competent authorities to prevent eviction of internally displaced persons from the informal collective centre “Pionirski grad” during the winter period, and to find durable and sustainable solutions for refugees and IDPs threatened with homelessness.

Praxis notes that the evictions of IDPs and refugees are being conducted from the informal Collective Centre “Pionirski grad”, and they will continue during the winter period.  It is expected that 63 persons will be evicted in the following period, which is contrary to international standards that are binding on Serbia. Children, single parents, the old, the unemployed, socially vulnerable, persons with disabilities and persons of poor health have been evicted.

Unfortunately, the authorities lacked the understanding and willpower to prevent the homelessness. Ultimately, they found that evictions were unavoidable and that there will be a future opportunity to solve the housing issue in the future. The only support came from the Office for Human and Minority Rights, several independent institutions, the Ombudsperson and the Commissioner for Protection of Equality. The Office for Human and Minority Rights informed us that it had made aware the competent institutions to the need to provide alternative accommodation in such cases in order to ensure the enjoyment of the right to housing.

In the following period, Praxis will continue providing free legal aid to IDPs in eviction procedures and monitor the evictions.   

Praxis, with support of 35 CSOs and two networks gathering 167 CSOs, sent the request to the competent authorities to prevent eviction of internally displaced persons from the informal collective centre “Pionirski grad” during the winter period, and to find durable and sustainable solutions for refugees and IDPs threatened with homelessness.

Praxis notes that the evictions of IDPs and refugees are being conducted from the informal Collective Centre “Pionirski grad”, and they will continue during the winter period.  It is expected that 63 persons will be evicted in the following period, which is contrary to international standards that are binding on Serbia. Children, single parents, the old, the unemployed, socially vulnerable, persons with disabilities and persons of poor health have been evicted.

Unfortunately, the authorities lacked the understanding and willpower to prevent the homelessness. Ultimately, they found that evictions were unavoidable and that there will be a future opportunity to solve the housing issue in the future. The only support came from the Office for Human and Minority Rights, several independent institutions, the Ombudsperson and the Commissioner for Protection of Equality. The Office for Human and Minority Rights informed us that it had made aware the competent institutions to the need to provide alternative accommodation in such cases in order to ensure the enjoyment of the right to housing.

In the following period, Praxis will continue providing free legal aid to IDPs in eviction procedures and monitor the evictions.   

At the end of October 2014, the citizens of the settlement Cukaricka padina organized themselves to protest against the residents of the nearby informal settlement “Cukaricka suma” because they felt “threatened with cancerous smoke caused by burning of secondary raw materials in that settlement on a daily basis”. In this informal settlement, Roma, mainly IDPs from Kosovo, live in improvised housing units without any infrastructure. This was one of a series of discriminatory protests leading to widespread intolerance and hatred and that threatened the safety of the Roma population.

On that occasion, Praxis, with support of the Standing Conference of the Roma Associations on the Citizens (SKRUG) and Network of Organizations for Children of Serbia (MODS), sent a request to the Commissariat for Refugees and Migrations to take action within its jurisdiction, in cooperation with relevant institutions, to try to resolve the housing issue of the residents of the informal settlement “Cukaricka suma”, and to urgently provide them firewood.

Upon the plea to provide the residents of this settlement with firewood, the Commissariat stated that the public call for the allocation of funds had been announced on the website of the Municipality of Cukarica and bulletin boards of municipalities and local communities, but that none of the residents of this settlement applied for assistance. It is clear that residents were not informed about the announcement and therefore did not apply for assistance. In relation to finding a durable and sustainable solution for the housing issue, the Commissariat informed us that it had organized a meeting with the competent authorities of the Municipality of Cukarica and the City of Belgrade. At the meeting, the City of Belgrade agreed to adopt the plan to close the informal collective centres in the territory of the City of Belgrade, and to “take appropriate action”. 

However, it remains unclear whether the competent authorities will take concrete measures.

For more information, see the announcement: Plea for Urgent Provision of Assistance to Residents of Informal Settlement "Cukaricka suma"

On 3 November 2014, Praxis and Steady Conference of Roma Association of Citizens (SKRUG) submitted the initiative for the assessment of constitutionality and legality of the Decree on Measures of Social Inclusion of Beneficiaries of Cash Social Assistance, which was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia on 15 October 2014.

Cash social assistance is intended for people who do not have enough means for life and is the basic form of cash social assistance to socially vulnerable persons. The right to social protection, and thus the right to cash social assistance as one of the forms of social protection, is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and can be therefore limited by the law but only if the Constitution allows it. However, with the Decree, this right is limited by the bylaw for the purpose not allowed by the Constitution, i.e. exercise of the right to cash social assistance is conditioned in a way that is contrary to the relevant constitutional and legal principles. The obligations envisaged by some articles of the Decree (volunteering, socially useful work, participation in public works, etc.) are defined by the Law on Social Protection as rights of beneficiaries of cash social assistance. By the Decree, these rights are transformed into obligations of the beneficiaries of cash social assistance and if beneficiaries do not fulfill them, they lose the guaranteed right to social protection, i.e. cash social assistance.

By prescribing the possibility of reduction or even cancellation of the right to cash social assistance, depending on the participation in the above-stated activities, the right to human dignity of beneficiaries of cash social assistance is not threatened and thus the Decree is contrary to the Constitution and the Law on Social Protection.

For more information, see the announcement: Praxis and SKRUG Call on the Constitutional Court to Determine the Non-Compliance of the Decree with the Constitution and the Law on Social Protection

The lack of stipulation of the obligation of branches of the Republic Fund for Health Insurance (RFHI) to cancel the previous insurance ex officio on the occasion of applying for insurance, sometimes leads to absurd situations.

Common-law partners S. K. and R. A. and their five minor children moved to Kraljevo at the end of 2014. The registration of permanent residence at the address in Kraljevo was carried out for all five children. On the basis of certificates on permanent residence registration, RFHI branch in Kraljevo registered their application for health insurance and issued health booklets for four children who had not had them in Serbia before, but not for the fifth child Z. A. As Z. A. was registered for health insurance in 2003 through RFHI branch in Paracin, it was first necessary to cancel the insurance there. However, RFHI branches do not send request for cancelation of the previous insurance ex officio, but they insist that the insured bring them a written request in person, which, in case of uninstructed parties, additionally complicates the whole procedure.

As a consequence of such acting, persons who move and register at another address may be limited in exercising the right to health insurance. Since all RFHI branches in Serbia are networked and have an insight into data on all insured through unique personal citizen numbers, such acting is utterly illogical, especially when it is known that police departments cancel the permanent residence from the previous address when they perform registration of permanent residence at new address.

The lack of stipulation of the obligation of branches of Republic Fund for Health Insurance (RFHI) to cancel the previous insurance ex officio on the occasion of applying for insurance, sometimes leads to absurd situations.

Common-law partners S. K. and R. A. and their five minor children moved to Kraljevo at the end of 2014. The registration of permanent residence at the address in Kraljevo was carried out for all five children. On the basis of certificates on permanent residence registration, RFHI branch in Kraljevo registered their application for health insurance and issued health booklets for four children who had not had them in Serbia before, but not for the fifth child Z. A. As Z. A. was registered for health insurance in 2003 through RFHI branch in Paracin, it was first necessary to cancel the insurance there. However, RFHI branches do not send request for cancelation of the previous insurance ex officio, but they insist that the insured bring them a written request in person, which, in case of uninstructed parties, additionally complicates the whole procedure.

As a consequence of such acting, persons who move and register at another address may be limited in exercising the right to health insurance. Since all RFHI branches in Serbia are networked and have an insight into data on all insured through unique personal citizen numbers, such acting is utterly illogical, especially when it is known that police departments cancel the permanent residence from the previous address when they perform registration of permanent residence at new address.

With an intention to contribute to more efficient implementation of the principle of gender equality, Praxis submitted comments on the Model Law on Gender Equality.

Specifically, Gender Equality Committee of the Ombudsperson developed the Model Law on Gender Equality, which was presented on 10 December 2014 in the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. On that occasion, the Ombudsperson invited all interested parties to submit comments on the presented text of the Model Law on Gender Equality until 15 February 2015.

Praxis has given several suggestions. Specifically, Praxis finds that concept of indirect discrimination needs to be aligned with EU acquis communautaire in the area of anti-discrimination. Also, it is necessary to sanction the obligation of political parties, trade unions and vocational associations to adopt the action plan with special measures for encouragement and improvement of equal presence of men and women in their bodies every four years. It is necessary to intervene with special measures in the area of professional development and training in situations when the structure of employees by gender at the employer’s level is unfavourable so as to allow the equal representation of under-represented gender in managing and decision-making bodies, as professional development and training are an important factor of progress.  

For more information, see the announcement: Praxis Comments on the Model Law on Gender Equality

In order to contribute to efficient realisation of the principle of gender equality, Praxis has submitted its comments on the Model Law on Gender Equality.

The Gender Equality Council of the Protector of Citizens prepared the Model Law on Gender Equality, which was presented on 10 December 2014 in the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. The first novelty brought by this Model Law on Gender Equality is its changed title, since the existing law regulating this area is entitled Law on the Equality of Sexes (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 104/2009). The Model Law on Gender Equality is divided into eleven chapters. The structural novelty is the introduction of new chapters: Equal Opportunity Policy and Special Measures; Protection from Gender-based Violence; and Gender Equality Institutions. The chapter Equal Opportunity Policy and Special Measures focuses on defining special measures as an instrument of equal opportunity policy. The obligation of public authorities to adopt an action plan for promoting gender equality every four years has been established. This obligation is a novelty in the existing legal framework, given that the Law on the Equality of Sexes envisaged the obligation of drafting these plans annually for employers with more than 50 staff employed for an indefinite period. The Model Law proposes the obligation of public authorities and employers, which employ more than 20 persons, to incorporate provisions on gender equality in their general legal acts. The chapter entitled Protection from Gender-based Violence defines the obligations of public authorities with regard to the provision of general (legal and psychological counselling, emergency and continuous financial assistance, housing, education, training and assistance in employment) and specialised (SOS lines, safe houses and shelters, specialised free legal assistance) services of support to victims of gender-based violence.

The obligations of public authorities as defined in this chapter are in line with the obligations that the Republic of Serbia has undertaken by ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. Significant novelties have been introduced also in the fields of employment, social protection and health care by defining the content of the records on gender structure of employees, special provisions on the valuation of household work as the basis for exercising the right to health insurance, possibility of absence from work if upon written notice of harassment or sexual harassment the employer fails to take timely and effective protection measures. Also, ten groups of the population exposed to increased risk of morbidity have been established (women in relation to family planning, people with HIV infection or other infectious diseases, persons without sufficient financial resources, beneficiaries of permanent financial assistance, the unemployed, the Roma, victims of violence, victims of trafficking in human beings, persons provided with targeted preventive examinations and single parents). In the field of judicial protection, the deadline for replying to appeals was changed to 15 days. The penal policy for non-compliance with obligations established by the Model Law has been made stricter.

Praxis made several suggestions. Specifically, Praxis believes that the concept of indirect discrimination should be defined in line with the EU acquis in the field of anti-discrimination. It is necessary to penalise the non-compliance with the obligation of political parties, trade unions and professional associations to adopt an action plan, every four years, with special measures for encouraging the promotion of equal representation of men and women in their bodies. Special measures should be used to intervene in the field of professional upgrading and training in the situations where the structure of employees by gender at the level of employer is unfavourable, with the aim of providing equal representation of the under-represented gender in the management and decision-making bodies, given that professional upgrading and training are important factors of advancement. Although the Model Law has established the obligation of public authorities and employers to adopt and implement special measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination based on sex, gender and gender identity, the gender identity as grounds for discrimination has been omitted from a number of provisions that allow the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by law regardless of sex, gender, marital status, family status, pregnancy, motherhood, parenting or sexual orientation.

See First working version of the Model on Law on Gender Equality