Blog by Milijana Trifkovic, Praxis Legal Analyst, Published on ENS website

In December 2011, Serbia acceded to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Serbian Law on Citizenship had already been in accordance with this international instrument, and contained appropriate mechanisms aimed at prevention of statelessness at birth. Specifically, Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Serbia envisages the acquisition of citizenship according to the ius soli principle – by birth in the territory of Serbia for children who would otherwise be stateless. Thus, a child born or found in the territory of the Republic of Serbia shall acquire Serbian citizenship by birth if both parents are unknown or of unknown citizenship or stateless or if the child is stateless. The citizenship is acquired at birth, automatically, by operation of law. There are no additional conditions. However, the practice shows that liberal regulations on citizenship and simple conditions for acquisition of citizenship do not always imply an easy path towards exercise of the right to citizenship. Thus, in order to prevent statelessness, it does not suffice just to adopt adequate laws, but it is necessary to undertake a series of other steps, including consistent implementation and interpretation of those laws in practice.

According to the Law on Citizenship, otherwise stateless children born in Serbia acquire citizenship ex lege. Such acquisition of citizenship is not conditioned by submitting of a request nor does it require an act of a competent body. However, it does stem from practice that, in order to acquire citizenship in these cases, one should submit an appropriate request, and that the citizenship is not acquired by operation of law but on the basis of a decision of the competent body.  A case of Praxis’ clients Mejrema and Bajramsa shows that significance of such differentiation is not only theoretical and that it has a far more important effect on lives and the status of individuals.

Mejrema and Bajramsa are sisters and they belong to the Roma national minority. They were both born in Serbia, of an unknown father and a mother of unknown citizenship (their mother was not registered in birth registry and passed away without possessing a single document – see Zelfija case and Mejrema and Bajramsa case). Both Bajramsa and Mejrema were subsequently registered in birth registry in 2010, after their mother’s death, when they were 15 and 17 respectively. The fact of citizenship was not registered for either of them, so they later submitted requests for determination of citizenship (a procedure for persons who acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, but their citizenship status was not registered).

Bajramsa, the younger sister, submitted the request for determination of citizenship when she was 17 years old (father of Bajramsa’s common-law husband was appointed as her temporary guardian and he submitted the request on her behalf). It was established that it was the case of a child born in Serbia, of unknown father and the mother of unknown citizenship, and she received the citizenship certificate within a short period of time. Still, judging from the decision on the basis of which the registration of the fact of citizenship was performed (and which stated that Bajramsa acquired citizenship), it can be concluded that the competent body did not consider that the citizenship in such cases was acquired by operation of law, but only on the basis of a decision of the competent body and following submission of an appropriate request, and that the decision of the competent body was not declaratory, but constitutive. In Bajramsa’s case, such differentiation did not have a practical significance because she acquired the citizenship and is retrospectively considered a citizen since birth. However, in case of her sister Merjema, such differentiation had far-reaching consequences.

Mejrema was 18 years and two months old when she submitted the request for determination of citizenship. All the other circumstances of her case were identical to those of her sister – she was also born in Serbia, of unknown father and the mother of unknown citizenship. The decision of the competent body should have only stated that, at the moment of Mejrema’s birth, all the conditions prescribed by the law had been met and that she had acquired the citizenship on the basis of the Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship. However, in Mejrema’s case, the competent body concluded that Mejrema did not fulfil the conditions for determination of citizenship of Serbia as per the Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Serbia. Since she came of age and was not considered a child any more, the competent body was of the standpoint that there was no possibility of acquiring citizenship on the basis of the provision aimed at prevention of statelessness among children. She was informed that she could acquire citizenship only by naturalization if she paid the fee and gave a statement on loyalty, and only after the expiry of two-year deadline from the day her uninterrupted stay in Serbia can be proven.

The 1961 Convention does allow for the possibility of the states to enable the acquisition of citizenship for otherwise stateless children only after submitting an appropriate request and to condition the acquisition of citizenship by fulfilment of some of the conditions explicitly stated in the Convention. One of the permitted conditions is determination of a timeframe in which this request may be submitted. However, this timeframe must start not later than 18 years of age and must not end earlier than at the age of 21 years. When it comes to Serbia, even though it does not stem from the Law, the competent body is of the opinion that it is necessary to submit an appropriate request for acquisition of citizenship, and within a certain timeframe. The deadline until which one should submit the request is not prescribed by the law – since the law prescribes the acquisition of citizenship by virtue of law – but, in practice, the competent body derives it from the legal definition of “child”, resulting in the standpoint of the competent body that after 18 years of age otherwise stateless children born in Serbia can no longer acquire citizenship on the basis of the Article 13 of the Law. Injustice of such interpretation is best visible in Mejrema’s case. She spent her childhood without documents because her mother was not registered in birth registry and therefore could not register birth of her children. Mejrema was registered in birth registry only after her mother’s death, but her fact of citizenship was not registered even though she was born in Serbia, of unknown father and the mother of unknown citizenship. In terms of law, she had never had a guardian who could submit a request for acquisition of citizenship on her behalf. While her mother was alive, Mejrema could not submit a request for determination of citizenship because she was not registered in birth registry. When she finally managed to get registered and collected the necessary evidence for acquisition of citizenship, the competent body thought that the Article 13 could no longer be applied in her case, since she was already 18. This circumstance – that she reached 18 years of age – was the only difference between her case and that of her sister who acquired citizenship on the grounds of the Article 13.

As of August 2013, Mejrema will have fulfilled the conditions for naturalization, as a person born in Serbia who can prove that prior to submitting a request for naturalization she had stayed in the country uninterruptedly for two years. Thus, she will most likely not be left stateless. However, one should bear in mind that providing for a discretionary naturalization procedure for otherwise stateless children is not permissible under the 1961 Convention (see Dakar Conclusions).

The final decision in Mejrema’s case has not been brought yet, so there is a possibility that the competent body will change its standpoint and apply the law consistently. This is important not only for Mejrema’s case, but also for preventing the risk of statelessness in cases of otherwise stateless persons who spend their childhood without registered fact of birth and without a resolved citizenship issue. At this point, if no one submits an appropriate request for acquisition of citizenship on their behalf before these persons reach 18 years of age, after coming of age they would be deprived of the possibility to do it themselves.

Finally, it is necessary to undertake some additional steps so that the persons to whom Article 13 relates may actually have some use of this provision. It primarily refers to enabling timely birth registration of every child. A year ago, Serbian Government adopted the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure which prescribes a new non-contentious procedure for determination of time and place of birth for persons who cannot get registered in birth registry through the administrative procedure. However, no measures have been taken to ensure that every child is registered in birth registry immediately upon birth and regardless of the status of his/her parents, which undoubtedly causes difficulties in exercise of the right to citizenship. Besides, in Serbia, there is no specific procedure in which it could be determined that a person is stateless or of unknown citizenship. Thus, even though the children born in Serbia whose parents are stateless or of unknown citizenship have the right to citizenship according to the ius soli principle, there is a threat that they may be deprived of this right due to difficulties in proving that their parents are stateless or of unknown citizenship. Until the measures have been taken to remove the above-mentioned difficulties and until the consistent application and adequate interpretation of the citizenship related regulations has been provided, the text of the Law which is in compliance with the 1961 Convention is not sufficient to remove the risk of statelessness in practice. After all, this is one of the conclusions of a recently published report which analyses trends and regulations in Europe regarding statelessness prevention and which reminds us that „the analysis of nationality law provisions only provides part of the picture where protection against statelessness is concerned“.

See the blog on ENS website

Blog by Milijana Trifkovic, Praxis Legal Analyst, Published on ENS website

Difficulties in proving nationality in Serbia arise even for those persons who have acquired citizenship at birth and had unimpeded access to rights deriving from the citizenship status, but have been left with no evidence on their citizenship. Specifically, after 1999 Kosovo conflict, a significant number of registries recording the facts of birth, citizenship, marriages and deaths of citizens for the municipalities in Kosovo were relocated to central and south Serbia. A number of registries for the territory of Kosovo were destroyed during the conflict. Registries were preserved for some places and are located in Kosovo but are considered unavailable from the perspective of the state bodies in Serbia.

The persons registered in the registries that were destroyed in 1999 or became unavailable to the state bodies of the Republic of Serbia are forced to go through the procedure of registration in the reconstructed registries. Until they manage to re–register and obtain valid birth and citizenship certificates, these persons are, in terms of access to rights, in the same position as the persons who have never acquired citizenship. For the lack of evidence required in these procedures, many have not yet managed to prove the previous registration of the fact of birth, marriage or citizenship, even though 14 years have elapsed since the registries were destroyed/became unavailable. Some registries were preserved (but they remained in Kosovo) and therefore the citizens could obtain the certificates issued by Kosovo authorities. However, such documents have no impact on the outcome of the procedure of registration in reconstructed registries in Serbia because the deciding bodies do not acknowledge the power of evidence to documents issued in Kosovo.

The most onerous proof requirements are set for proving the previous registration of citizenship. The Ministry of Interior gave the instructions to the competent first-instance bodies in regard to eligible evidence in the procedures of reconstruction of citizenship registry books. According to the instructions, the registration in the reconstructed citizenship registry books can be conducted based on the citizenship certificate issued before 1999 or data on citizenship and residence of citizens obtained from the MoI electronic database. If this data is not available, the previous registration could be proved based on the previously issued birth certificate that contains the registration of the fact of citizenship of Republic of Serbia. That’s where the list of “eligible” evidence ends. The persons who lacked the above mentioned documents at the time of leaving Kosovo or failed to take the documents with them, find themselves in a situation of not being able to prove their citizenship and previous registration in the registries. Their requests for re-registration are rejected and they are referred to the lengthy procedure of determination of citizenship whose initiation requires the collection of even more evidence than in the case of re-registration procedure, as it requires enclosing the documents for parents in addition to those for the submitter of the request.

In order to submit a request for registration in reconstructed citizenship registry book, Praxis’ client Hanumsa enclosed her birth certificate containing the fact on registration of SFRY citizenship (but with no evidence on the Republic citizenship), the copy of her ID card, passport, marriage certificate, Serbian citizenship certificate for her brother, evidence on having been employed in the place of her birth and conclusion of marriage. Negative first-instance decision was reached two years after the submission of the requests and soon after her complaint against that decision was rejected. The explanation of the second-instance decision points out that the fact that Hanumsa had SFRY citizenship does not mean that she was registered in the citizenship registry books of the Republic of Serbia, but that she could have the citizenship of any of the six republics of SFRY. Other SFRY republics preserved their registries and the competent body could easily make sure that she was not registered in the registries of any of the former SFRY republics. However, her complaint was rejected based on the mere assumption made by the competent body. In addition to the birth certificate with the registered fact on SFRY citizenship, Hanumsa enclosed evidence confirming that besides SFRY citizenship she could only have the Serbian citizenship (regarding republic citizenship). However, the second-instance body concluded that such evidence was irrelevant in the procedure of registration in reconstructed citizenship registry books as this procedure does not establish that a person had the right to citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, but that it was necessary to prove the time, basis and place of registration in the citizenship registry book. Hanumsa has no prospects to succeed in the procedure of determination of citizenship either, referred to by the competent body. This procedure (for persons who acquired the citizenship at birth but the fact of their citizenship was not registered) requires enclosing the documents for parents and Hanumsa lacks this evidence because her parents were born in the same place as she was and therefore their respective registries were also destroyed. To obtain the documents of her parents, she would have to conduct the procedures of registration in reconstructed registries, which is not possible for the lack of evidence.

These are just some of the difficulties in the procedures of registration in reconstructed registry books faced by persons who live without documents and the possibility to access any right for not being able to fulfil unreasonable conditions imposed on them while trying to prove the previous registration of birth and citizenship.

Civil registries were one of the issues for discussion during technical dialogues between Belgrade and Pristina. This issue became again the subject of attention in the first half of August when EULEX representatives handed over 1,550 certified copies of registry books from Serbia to the Kosovo Civil Registration Agency, based on the agreement reached two years before (more information about the problems caused by taking registries from Kosovo for those who continued to live in Kosovo can be found in the Kosovo Citizenship Report). The successful handover of certified copies of registries should enable the establishment of reliable records on the citizens of Kosovo.

However, there is still no sign of the solution for persons registered in destroyed or unavailable registries, who are now living in Serbia and trying to exercise their rights. Based on the Law on Registry Books, in case of destroyed or missing registries, the competent bodies are obliged to reconstruct the civil registries without any delay and require the citizens to provide only the data known to them. However, the reconstruction of registries has lasted for 14 years already and citizens, who on the basis of the law should provide only the available data, are in practice required to prove the precise place, time and basis of registration in registries. This additionally extends the highly irregular situation resulting in many-year deprivation of rights of a large number of persons, primarily the displaced. Even though more than a decade has elapsed from the date of their displacement and contrary to Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, these persons are deprived of obtaining the documents they need for normal life, freedom of movement and access to other human rights.

See the blog  on ENS website

Dana 13.12.2013. godine, otpočela je primena Pravilnika o izmeni Pravilnika o postupku prijavljivanja i odjavljivanja prebivališta i boravišta građana, prijavljivanju privremenog boravka u inostranstvu i povrataka iz inostranstva, pasiviziranja prebivališta i boravišta, obrascima i načinu vođenja evidencija.

Izmena se odnosi na postupak prijave prebivališta na adresi centra za socijalni rad, odnosno briše se odredba da prijavu prebivališta popunjava službeno lice u centru za socijalni rad, te službenicima centara ostaje samo obaveza da overe prijavu prebivališta.

Pravilnik je izmenjen u cilju ujednačavanja i sinhronizovanja postupanja ustanova, odnosno centara za socijalni rad i policijskih uprava, odnosno policijskih stanica.

Praxis će nastaviti da prati primenu usvojenih propisa i ukazuje nadležnim organima na uočene probleme.

Pogledati: MUP doneo nov Pravilnik o postupku prijavljivanja i odjavljivanja prebivališta i boravišta građana

Dana 13.12.2013. godine, otpočela je primena Pravilnika o izmeni Pravilnika o postupku prijavljivanja i odjavljivanja prebivališta i boravišta građana, prijavljivanju privremenog boravka u inostranstvu i povrataka iz inostranstva, pasiviziranja prebivališta i boravišta, obrascima i načinu vođenja evidencija.

Izmena se odnosi na postupak prijave prebivališta na adresi centra za socijalni rad, odnosno briše se odredba da prijavu prebivališta popunjava službeno lice u centru za socijalni rad, te službenicima centara ostaje samo obaveza da overe prijavu prebivališta.

Pravilnik je izmenjen u cilju ujednačavanja i sinhronizovanja postupanja ustanova, odnosno centara za socijalni rad i policijskih uprava, odnosno policijskih stanica.

Praxis će nastaviti da prati primenu usvojenih propisa i ukazuje nadležnim organima na uočene probleme.

Pogledati: MUP doneo nov Pravilnik o postupku prijavljivanja i odjavljivanja prebivališta i boravišta građana

Saopštenje MODS-a

Mreža organizacija za decu Srbije – MODS izražava duboku potresenost tragičnom smrću troje dece u požaru u Velikoj Krsni.

Ovaj događaj je posledica stanja u društvu i sistema zaštite dece i podrške roditeljima koja izostaje, a na šta sve vreme ukazujemo. Bojimo se da se iz ove tragedije neće izvući pouka i da neće doći do preko potrebnih promena.

Ukazivali smo da nedostaje saradnja između različitih službi na lokalnom i nacionalnom nivou koje su zadužene za zaštitu dece. Nedostaju usluge i podrška na lokalnom nivou za porodice sa decom, posebno siromašne porodice i jednoroditeljske.

Postavlja se pitanje da li patronažne službe izveštavaju o slučajevima zanemarivanja dece? Da li patronažne službe obaveštavaju o tome Centar za socijalni rad? Šta Centar za socijalni rad preduzima da do tragedija ne dođe? Kako lokalne samouprave planiraju socijalnu politiku i zaštitu dece?

Lako je osuđivati majku zbog ove tragedije i govoriti kako su svi u okolini znali za ono što radi a pri tom niko nije reagovao na vreme.

Gubimo iz vida da ona nije jedina majka koja je ostavljena sama sa decom, bez posla. Gubimo iz vida da je ostala bez podrške najbližih, porodice, susedstva. Moralna je (i zakonska) obaveza svakog pojednica da reaguje i prijavi svaku sumnju na zanemarivanje i zlostavljanje dece. Jer to se tiče svih nas i u tom slučaju snosimo svi i posledice.

Ako kao društvo ne izvučemo pouku, ne osvestimo se da i na svakom od nas pojedinačno leži odgovornost za nečinjenje, bojimo se da ćemo uskoro ponovo iz medija saznati za novu tragediju čije će žrtve biti naši najmlađi građani.

Zato pozivamo državne organe i relevantna ministarstva zdravlja i socijalne zaštite da tragični događaj u Velikoj Krsni, kada je život izgubilo troje dece, bude poslednja opomena i upozorenje i da se preduzmu sve mere koje će sprečiti u buduće ovakve užasne događaje.

Uz ovo saopštenje prilažemo i izjavu Smiljke Tomanović, profesorke na Odeljenju za sociologiju, Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu:

"Poslednji tragični događaj u kome je poginulo troje dece otvorio je nekoliko teških i važnih pitanja koja se periodično postavljaju, ali nažalost i ponavljaju, jer na njih izostaju delatni odgovori.

Kao prvo, zašto izostaje državna podrška odgovornom roditeljstvu i institucionalna podrška na lokalnom nivou, posebno onim porodicama koje su pod rizikom, kao što su jednoroditeljske?

Zašto su nadležne institucije skoro po pravilu "neobaveštene" i "zatečene" događajima, odnosno "slučajevima" koji se nalaze na teritoriji njihove nadležnosti?

Potom, šta se čini da se deca zaštite od zanemarivanja i zlostavljanja, odnosno na koji način se sankcioniše zanemarivanje?

Prema Porodičnom zakonu iz 2005. godine nije dozvoljeno ostavljanje dece predškolskog uzrasta bez nadzora odraslih i o tome bi javnost, baš u cilju podsticanja odgovornijeg roditeljstva i pomoći roditeljima kojima je pomoć u čuvanju dece potrebna, trebalo da bude stalno obaveštavana.

Zašto se prema (neobavezujućem) Protokolu o zaštiti dece od zanemarivanja i zlostavljanja ne sankcioniše nečinjenje onih koji su bili svedoci ili imali sumnju da do zanemarivanja i zlostavljanja dolazi, bili oni državni službenici ili građani (roditelji, rođaci, komšije, prijatelji)?

Na kraju, dokle će mediji da koriste ljudske i porodične tragedije i zloupotrebljavaju decu za podizanje prodavanosti svojih tiraža?

Mnogo je ružnih grešaka, mnogo je odgovornih, mnogo je prebacivanja krivice. Vreme je da tome dođe kraj, tako što ćemo konačno kao društvo izvući pouku iz još jedne tragedije i početi da delamo."

On 9 December 2013, Council of the European Union unanimously issued the Recommendation on Effective Roma Integration Measures in the Member States, which is the first legal instrument of the European Union dealing with the issue of Roma integration.

Even though not legally binding, the purpose of the recommendation is to provide guidance to the Member States in enhancing the effectiveness of their measures aimed at improving the situation of Roma and closing the gap between the Roma and the general population. The Recommendation specifically emphasizes the measures that should contribute to unimpeded access of Roma to the rights to education, employment, health protection and housing.

The document also particularly points to the combat against all forms of discrimination by strengthening the legislative framework, as well as to the reduction of poverty and vulnerability of Roma children and women. The Recommendations suggests that, in order to implement and monitor the national and local strategies and action plans, the Member States should allocate adequate funding from any available sources of funding (local, national, international and/or EU).   

Even though Serbia is not a member of the EU yet, it could most certainly use the recommendation as an encouragement to enable equal access to rights in the stated areas for all its citizens, including members of Roma ethnic minority.

Download: Council of the European Union Recommendation on Effective Roma Integration Measures in the Member States
Download: European Commission Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Effective Roma Integration Measures in the Member States

Preuzmite vodič: Vodič za primenu Zakona o dopunama Zakona o vanparničnom postupku "Utvrđivanje vremena i mesta rođenja", dr Nikola Bodiroga

Preuzeto sa sajta Medija centra

Evropska komisija, Visoki komesarijat za izbeglice Ujedinjenih nacija (UNHCR) i Visoki komesar OEBS za nacionalne manjine objavili su danas zaključke Regionalne konferencije o pristupu upisu u matične knjige i ličnim dokumentima u Jugoistočnoj Evropi koja je održana 25. oktobra 2013. godine u Podgorici, Crna Gora.

Zaključci prepoznaju napredak ostvaren dve godine nakon usvajanja Zagrebačke deklaracije koja se odnosi na pitanja ličnih dokumenata i upisa u matične knjige u oktobru 2011. godine. U zaključcima se navode preostali koraci koje je potrebno preduzeti da bi se rešio problem lica bez ličnih dokumenata u regionu.

Zagrebačka deklaracija dovela je do pozitivnih pomaka, među kojima i do izmena zakona kojima se olakšava upis u matične knjige, izdavanje ličnih dokumenata i bilateralna saradnja. Međutim, i dalje postoje prepreke upisu u matične knjige i procesu izdavanja ličnih dokumenata koje zahtevaju sveobuhvatna i sistemska rešenja.

Evropska komisija, Visoki komesar OEBS za nacionalne manjine i UNHCR pozivaju vlade zemalja u regionu da osmisle rešenja koja prevazilaze rešavanje pojedinačnih slučajeva u definisanom vremenskom periodu. One bi trebalo da usvoje sveobuhvatne zakone i obezbede izdavanje odgovarajućih administrativnih uputstava, informišu odnosne zajednice i organizuju obuke za one koji zakon sprovode. Takođe je potrebno osnažiti međugraničnu saradnju u cilju otklanjanja prepreka za lica na koje se ove aktivnosti odnose.

Konferenciji koju je organizovalo Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Crne Gore, prisustvovali su predstavnici vlada Bosne i Hercegovine, Hrvatske, bivše jugoslovenske Republike Makedonije, Kosova, Crne Gore i Srbije. Konferenciji su prisustvovali i predstavnici tri organizacije koje podržavaju ove napore, predstavnici civilnog društva i drugih agencija Ujedinjenih nacija.

Dvadeset godina nakon sukoba, na tlu Jugoistočne Evrope živi oko 20.000 pravno nevidljivih lica. Činjenica da ne poseduju lična dokumenta i da nisu upisani u matične knjige rezultat je društvene marginalizacije, u kombinaciji sa faktorima koji se odnose na raspad prethodne Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije i raseljavanje. U odsustvu dokumenata kojima dokazuju svoje postojanje ili nacionalnu pripadnost, njima bivaju uskraćena prava.

Preuzmite: Zaključci konferencije
                Beleške sa konferencije
                Zagrebačka deklaracija iz 2011. godine

Preuzmite izveštaj: Utvrđivanje statusa i zaštita lica bez državljanstva, Evropska mreža za pitanja apatridije 

Preuzmite analizu: Pravna analiza člana 71k, stav 2 Zakona o vanparničnom postupku, dr Nikola Bodiroga