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

The paper "Monitoring Framework for Inclusive Education in Serbia" was created within the project titled "Development of Comprehensive Monitoring Framework for Inclusive Education in Serbia, initiated by UNICEF and the Government of Serbia's Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit, with the support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia and the Fund for an Open Society, Serbia.

Download the paper: Monitoring Framework for Inclusive Education in Serbia

The requests for cash social assistance were again rejected to internally displaced persons who live in the collective centre “Tehnicka skola” in Bujanovac.

Social Welfare Centre in Bujanovac (SWC) first rejected their requests by referring to non-existent instruction of the competent Ministry and by stressing that residents of collective centres cannot be the beneficiaries of cash social assistance because their existential minimum is provided with accommodation and meals given. Appeals were filed against decisions by which requests were rejected, which the Ministry for Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy adopted and returned the cases for reconsideration.

In repeated procedures, SWC reached decisions by which requests were rejected as ungrounded. Even though decisions reached in repeated procedures were not based on non-existent instruction of the Ministry, they contain many violations of the law and are contrary to the basic principles of administrative procedure, including the principle of truth. In one of the decisions, the request was rejected because SWC found that the submitter of the request had missed to achieve the income of 10,000 RSD on a monthly basis over the period of three months prior to the request. The amount of the missed income was determined totally arbitrarily without considering the possibility of working engagement of beneficiaries, the price of work and need for work force in the municipality in which the beneficiary lives, and the submitter of the request was not given the opportunity to comment the facts and circumstances on which the decision was based. Unrealistic assessment of possibility of missed income is recognized as one of reasons for which persons in the state of social vulnerability fail to exercise the right to cash social assistance.

Praxis notes that these requests for cash social assistance were submitted more than nine months ago and that impossibility of vulnerable individuals to timely receive the cash assistance may seriously threaten the fulfilment of basic needs of these persons.

See the announcement: SWC Bujanovac Rejected Cash Social Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons