In December 2012, non-governmental organization Praxis published the report “No Residence, No Rights”, as part of the project financed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) based on data collected during the period from September 2009 to November 2012, along with the provision of legal assistance to members of marginalised groups in the procedures of registration or change of permanent or temporary residence in Serbia. Since in November 2011 the Republic of Serbia adopted a new Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence, one of the objectives of this report was also the analysis of the implementation of this new Law, with special emphasis on the provisions that should allow the registration of permanent residence to members of marginalised groups.

Permanent residence implies the closest territorial connection between an individual and a legal system - a place where a person has willingly created the closest ties, which is the centre of his or her life relations, in which he or she has started a family, got employed, set up a home... Recognising the importance of the individual's connection with the place of his or her life activities and assuming that every citizen has a permanent residence in some place, i.e. only one place in the country, the legislator tied a number of important aspects of its citizens' lives to that place.  

The concept of permanent residence in the legislation of the Republic of Serbia is based on two elements: objective (settlement and residence or factual presence in one place) and subjective (intention of residing permanently in that place). However, in order for these constituent elements to lead to the situation that, in the place where a person lives, he or she can apply to health insurance, exercise the right to social protection if he or she is in the state of need or access any rights whose exercise is related to the place of permanent residence, the factual presence in one place and the intention of residing permanently in that place are not enough. The existence of these required constituent elements of domicile must be accompanied by the registration in the records of the competent authorities, and the condition for this is the previous approval of request for registration of permanent residence. The difficulties that arise when certain categories of the population of Serbia submit a request for registration of permanent residence have been leading for decades to a phenomenon that may be called domicilelessness. These difficulties mainly arise from the fact that some people, mainly Roma from informal settlements, cannot document ownership or housing on other basis. The registration of permanent residence is the obligation of every citizen and the requirement to be met in order to obtain an identity card. The possession of ID card is a prerequisite for access to almost every right and a legal obligation of every person over 16 years of age. Without an identity card and registered permanent residence, the basic rights remain inaccessible even to those individuals who are nationals of Serbia.

Through the examples from practice, the report provided a clear insight into what impact may permanent residence have on the lives of individuals and why it is difficult for many people to access the rights that should belong to them in the country of which they are nationals. Apart from denied or hindered access to economic and social rights, the described obstacles in the procedures of registering or changing permanent residence inevitably entail the denial of the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence.

Download the report: No Residence, No Rights

Download: HERE

The Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens adopted in November 2011 was announced as paving the road towards the solution of the problem of registration of permanent/temporary residence of person who have no legal basis of housing in the Republic of Serbia (ownership right over the apartment, contract on lease of the apartment or any other legal basis). The  Law envisages the possibility of the registration of permanent residence at the address of the institution in which a person permanently resides or at the address of the competent social welfare centre, with the notification that the procedure, conditions and the manner of its conducting will be regulated additionally by bylaws.

The Rulebook of procedure for registration of permanent residence at the address of the social welfare center came into force at the beginning of December 2012, but the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia issued the Instruction for proceeding to be followed when registering the permanent residence at the address of social welfare center (SWC). The act of the Ministry prescribes the guidelines for coordination of the activities of the competent bodies in the concerned procedure, but the interpretation of the provision of the Instruction that envisages the conditions for the registration of the permanent residence at the address of SWC turned out to be disputable. Specifically, in addition to the evidence on identity of a person whose request is being decided on, the disputable provision requires enclosing “evidence by the competent body of internal affairs that permanent residence cannot be registered pursuant to the Article 11, Paragraph 2, Items 1, 2 and 3 of the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens” (on the basis of the ownership right over the apartment, lease contract over the apartment or any other legal basis).

It is unclear whether the fulfillment of the conditions in terms of the stated provision of the Instruction will require that concerned person shall initiate the administrative procedure (for the registration of permanent residence) before the competent bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and that rejecting decision be treated as evidence in terms of instruction, or the competent services of the Ministry of Internal Affairs will issue special confirmations/certificates on the fact that a person does not have permanent residence registered. Particularly negative aspect of the given approach to the problem reflects in prolongation of the procedure for registration at the address of SWC. Several months can elapse from the submission of the requests for receiving the decision proving the impossibility of the registration of permanent residence, not including the period needed for the effectiveness, which does not contribute to the intentions to solve the problems of the lack of registration of permanent residence, with all accompanying consequences such as the impossibility to access other rights.

On 23 January 2013, Praxis’ representatives attended the meeting held in the premises of the Social Welfare Centre Bujanovac where the possibilities of the simplification and more efficient conducting of the initiated procedures of registration of permanent residence at the address of this SWC were considered. Due to uncertainty related to the interpretation of this disputable provision, Praxis addressed the Police Station in Bujanovac, which interprets the envisaged evidence as the final decision rejecting the request for determination of permanent residence. The Administrative Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia has the same opinion of which Praxis was informed in a phone conversation.

Conducting the administrative procedure before the competent body of the Ministry of Interior for receiving the final decision rejecting the request for determination of permanent residence, which would serve as the evidence as requested by  the Instruction, is a time-consuming process. The previous experience points out that the same administrative procedures most often last about three months (without the period necessary for the onset of effectiveness), though there are procedures lasting more than even two years in practice. It is clear that acting in the envisaged manner will cause delays in procedures to an unacceptable extent. Such situation does not contribute to the intentions to solve the problem of persons without the permanent residence as efficiently as possible.

Conducting of a significant number of procedures of registration of permanent residence at the address of SWC is the precondition for the valuation of the effect of the concerned regulation. However, it is necessary to point out to the lacks of adopted acts at the very beginning of their implementation. Urgent removal of doubts and ambiguities is a must. In addition, the basic goals of all responsible bodies should include the simplification of administrative procedures and taking steps to make them more efficient, particularly because the problem of impossibility of the registration of permanent residence affects mainly the most vulnerable categories of citizens.

Praxis and International Organization for Migration have established the cooperation within the project “Sustainable Waste Management Initiative for a Healthier Tomorrow” (SWIFT). The project is funded by the Sweden International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and European Union, and is implemented by the International Organization for Migration, United Nations Office for Project Services and World Health Organization. The main goal of SWIFT project is to set up the system of formal recycling that ensures legitimate employment to informal waste collectors and provides the base for improvement of the access to health, education and social services.

Within the cooperation, Praxis will organize and hold 10 workshops for residents of informal settlements on the importance of possession of personal documents, mechanisms of protection from discrimination and access to rights to employment, health care, social welfare and education. In addition, Praxis’ lawyers will provide free legal assistance to persons who address them in relation to obtaining personal documents and exercising the above stated rights.

The cooperation will last from 3 December 2012 to 31 December 2013.

ENS PRESS RELEASE
When the European Network on Statelessness (ENS) was formally launched in June 2012, an open invitation was extended to all individuals and organisations working on statelessness in Europe to join the Network as associate members. In just a few short months, dozens of applications were submitted and approved, demonstrating the real interest among those working on the issue to find one another in order to exchange information, ideas and experiences. To jump-start this process of capacity building through the sharing of expertise, ENS decided that its first major regional activity should be a seminar comprising both training elements and sessions geared towards the joint mapping of and planning for statelessness in Europe.

The ENS kick-off seminar was held from 19 to 21 November 2012 in Budapest, Hungary. It was made possible by the generous support of the Global Learning Centre of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the willingness of the European Youth Centre of the Council of Europe in Budapest to host the event. Several UNHCR offices also provided invaluable funding support to cover the travel costs of individual participants from their regions.

Below is a brief summary of the kick-off seminar as well as a short summary of evaluations. Annexed to this report is more detailed data on participant evaluations as well as individual report backs from the four sub regional working groups during the mapping and planning sessions.

A shorter summary of the event as well as some of the course presentations are available on the ENS website capacity building page at http://www.statelessness.eu/capacity-building/kick-seminar

          1) Overall aims and objectives

The aim of the kick-off seminar was to bring together ENS Associate Members from across the region, which spans the territory of the Council of Europe, in order to provide training, share information and engage in strategic planning. As such, participants were selected to reflect as great a geographical diversity as possible, with invitations to the seminar in principle extended to one associate member per country. Exceptionally, two associate members from the same country were invited and there were also a number of countries from which no participant attended. 30 members from 28 European countries participated in the seminar. Limited funding and capacity meant that it was not possible to invite all ENS associate members.

          2) Training component

The first half of the seminar was dedicated to the presentation by invited experts and ENS Steering Committee members of some of the core conceptual issues in the field of statelessness. These included sessions on definitional questions relating to nationality and statelessness, the international legal framework for the prevention of statelessness (1961 UN Convention and 1997 European Convention on Nationality) and the purpose and functioning of Statelessness Determination Procedures.
In smaller, break-out workshops, a variety of concrete themes relating to statelessness in Europe were discussed, such as methods for mapping statelessness, discrimination and statelessness (with a focus on the Roma in the Western Balkans) and litigating statelessness before international and regional human rights bodies. Special attention was also paid to the role of different stakeholders in addressing statelessness, for instance through presentations by UNHCR and the Office of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on their respective mandates and activities.

Lecturers for the kick-off seminar were drawn primarily from the ENS Steering Committee who drew on their wide diversity of expertise on statelessness and their previous experience in leading capacity building sessions on the issue. The ENS Steering Committee members involved were Gábor Gyulai (Hungarian Helsinki Committee), Sebastian Kohn (Open Society Justice Initiative), Ivanka Kostic (Praxis Serbia), Chris Nash (Asylum Aid) and Laura van Waas (Tilburg Statelessness Programme). In addition, a number of external experts were invited to contribute on particular issues. In particular, Mark Manly, Head of UNHCR’s Statelessness Unit walked participants through the definition of statelessness and the guidance developed by UNHCR on the application of this definition in practice. Professor René de Groot, a specialist in nationality law from Maastricht University, discussed the development and content of international and regional standards for the avoidance of statelessness. Inge Sturkenboom and Francoise Kempf presented on the role and current activities of UNHCR and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights respectively.

All of the discussions were moreover greatly enriched by the active engagement of the participants, who contributed numerous relevant and interesting cases and examples throughout the seminar.

          3) The mapping and planning component

During the second half of the seminar, the emphasis shifted from consolidating participants’ knowledge to engaging in joint analysis of the current challenges relating to statelessness in Europe and developing strategies to address these challenges. These highly interactive mapping and planning exercises were undertaken in sub-regional groups, to maximise the opportunity for all participants to actively contribute both their concerns and their ideas to the debate – as well as to learn from and get to know one another. Following a report by each sub-regional group to the plenary, the seminar ended with an open discussion on the way forward for ENS as a network, providing the Steering Committee with direct input for the strategic discussion that was held subsequently to the closing of the seminar.

Each sub-regional group came together for a mapping session followed by a planning session. The objective of the mapping sessions was to identify, as a group, i) the main statelessness problems faced in the countries group members work in and/or in Europe more broadly; and ii) existing opportunities to tackle these problems. Each group was asked to list problems under three headings i) laws, ii) populations and iii) other problems, and to list opportunities as stakeholders or initiatives. The objective of the planning sessions was to brainstorm about activities that could or should be undertaken by ENS members and/or by the Network, alone or in partnership, to improve the way that statelessness is addressed in particular countries or across the region. Participants were asked to divide these between short and long term activities and then to prioritise three key activities from each.

Through the questions raised, ideas presented and examples discussed, these participants demonstrated an overall high level of knowledge of the issues and a clear commitment to the cause of more effectively addressing statelessness in Europe. A more detailed summary of each sub-regional working group is annexed to this report but below are some broad conclusions arising from the discussions as a whole.

The mapping sessions of the kick-off seminar led to the identification of a range of challenges that are common to a number of countries in the region or, indeed, face Europe as a whole when it comes to tackling statelessness. For instance, participants remarked about the general lack of knowledge of many government counterparts on the specific vulnerability of the stateless or the measures that can be adopted to avoid statelessness or guarantee the fundamental rights stateless people. Another shared concern is the overall low level of awareness among the general population of Europe of the phenomenon of statelessness, which means that the issue is a largely forgotten or invisible one. At the same time, participants volunteered information on a wide variety of activities that have contributed to identifying, preventing or reducing statelessness, or protecting stateless people. Examples included research projects, legal assistance programmes, strategic litigation of cases and training initiatives targeting civil servants or students.

Many interesting proposals were made for action that could be undertaken by ENS as a Network, or individually/jointly by particular associate members. These concrete ideas included: raising the profile of the issue by targeting specific individuals or organisations for dedicated training (such as embassy staff or national ombudsmen); identifying stateless people who can act as spokesmen for the issue or building a collection of testimonials on experiences of statelessness so as to shed light on the human impact of the problem; and exploring certain problems or (the effects of) particular policies relating to statelessness across a number of countries or the region as a whole through the development and use of dedicated research templates to map issues.

These and other suggestions raised by participants have been noted by the Steering Committee and will provide a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions on the short and longer-term strategies for engagement by the Network on statelessness in Europe. The ENS Coordinator and Steering Committee have subsequently developed a provisional Network activity plan for 2013/14 which is available on request.

          4) Summary of participant evaluations

The evaluation forms completed by participants were overwhelmingly positive while also highlighting some possible areas for improvement.

One participant remarked “Please allow me to congratulate YOU ALL!!! You have done a great job! THANK YOU!”. Another participant added:

“There was a very good balance between lectures and working groups, the whole agenda was perfectly structured. The level of information was perfect for me: I learned a lot, but it was not too difficult. I loved the informal climate and the attitude of participants and organisers (really interested in protecting human rights, rather than “showing how experts they are”, etc.)”

The vast majority of participants found the level of training to be about right although some found it too technical while others felt it too advanced. The vast majority of participants also agreed “very much” with the statements that they learned a lot, that the event was well-organised and that it provided a good networking opportunity. Participants also overwhelmingly agreed that the topics of the agenda were well-selected, the seminar was interactive and that the event helped them better understand the challenges related to statelessness. The seminar venue and the social dinners also received very positive evaluation. On a scale of 1 to 4 (4 representing full agreement, 1 disagreement), all average general evaluation scores were higher than 3.6.

A more detailed table of evaluation scores is annexed to this report, and all feedback will be taken on board by the ENS Steering Committee when planning future events.

           5) Lessons learned and building on Budapest through planning for future events
One overriding impression gained from the Budapest Kick-Off event was the huge importance of bringing together ENS members as part of efforts to strengthen the identity of the Network as a whole, and to foster a sense of shared solidarity among ENS members of working together on an hitherto often neglected issue. The full impact of the Budapest event needs to be evaluated over time, but it seems clear that without such periodic coming together it is far more challenging for the Network to deliver coordinated and effective activity. Already initial indications would suggest that the event was successful in galvanising certain organisations in attendance to become more active members. For example a number of members subsequently translated and disseminated at the national level the public statement ENS released on International Human Rights Day. Several members also responded to a call to provide information to an enquiry by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights into national law and practice concerning the deprivation of nationality. At the same time the seminar provided much needed training to other members with perhaps historically less developed engagement and expertise on the statelessness issue.

As a result of subsequent strategic discussions, the ENS Steering Committee has already identified developing a ‘train the trainer’ event/programme as a priority in terms of building the capacity of selected/interested ENS members to expand their training efforts at the national and sub-regional level in future. However, at the same time there is clearly a strategic need and benefit in coming together as a broader coalition of members for a combination of training and/or planning discussions. The ENS Coordinator and Steering Committee will therefore continue its fundraising efforts in this regard.

See the selected resources from the ENS Kick-Off Seminar:

• Presentation on the function of nationality and mechanics of nationality law
• Presentation on Statelessness Determination Procedures
• Presentation on litigating statelessness
• Presentation on mapping statelessness – example of the United Kingdom
• Presentation on discrimination and statelessness – example of the Western Balkans
• Factsheet: 5 steps to effective protection of stateless persons
• Programme of ENS Kick-off Seminar

Non-governmental organization Praxis most severely condemns brutal acting of the representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd towards the Durmisi family in relation to yesterday’s attempt to knock down the house the family live in. By the order of the City Municipality Novi Beograd, auxiliary buildings in their courtyard were torn down and the electric supply cut off. Demolition of the house the family live in was postponed and, as of yesterday, this family lives in constant fear of completion of the demolition process.

On 28th January 2013, the Durmisi family received a notice on execution of forced decision on demolition of the object, as of 2008. The family have been living in this house since 1979 and their request for legalization of the house has been rejected. All their attempts to obtain information from the competent authorities of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Belgrade City Administration about the reasons for demolition and alternatives that are being offered have fallen on deaf ears. When their house has been demolished, they will be left on the street, with no alternative accommodation.

The Durmisi family pay their electricity bill regularly and, during the demolition of auxiliary buildings they presented the bills to the representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Electric Power Distribution Belgrade and informed them that their two-year old child suffered from acute bronchitis and needed regular inhalation. Besides, a nine-month-old baby also lives in the house and the poor weather conditions and electricity power cut will endanger bare existence of the family members. Despite all this, representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd ordered the employees of the Electric Power Distribution Belgrade to cut off electric supply to the Durmisi family house.

We shall not state all the human rights standards that were violated by such acting of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Electric Power Distribution Belgrade. We use this opportunity to raise a question as to whether any of the competent state bodies will take actions to burden somebody with responsibility for brutal and inhumane acting towards this Roma family and whether they will finally undertake measures to prevent such actions in the future.

See also news in Pescanik

Non-governmental organization Praxis most severely condemns brutal acting of the representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd towards the Durmisi family in relation to yesterday’s attempt to knock down the house the family live in. By the order of the City Municipality Novi Beograd, auxiliary buildings in their courtyard were torn down and the electric supply cut off. Demolition of the house the family live in was postponed and, as of yesterday, this family lives in constant fear of completion of the demolition process.

On 28th January 2013, the Durmisi family received a notice on execution of forced decision on demolition of the object, as of 2008. The family have been living in this house since 1979 and their request for legalization of the house has been rejected. All their attempts to obtain information from the competent authorities of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Belgrade City Administration about the reasons for demolition and alternatives that are being offered have fallen on deaf ears. When their house has been demolished, they will be left on the street, with no alternative accommodation.

The Durmisi family pay their electricity bill regularly and, during the demolition of auxiliary buildings they presented the bills to the representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Electric Power Distribution Belgrade and informed them that their two-year old child suffered from acute bronchitis and needed regular inhalation. Besides, a nine-month-old baby also lives in the house and the poor weather conditions and electricity power cut will endanger bare existence of the family members. Despite all this, representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd ordered the employees of the Electric Power Distribution Belgrade to cut off electric supply to the Durmisi family house.

We shall not state all the human rights standards that were violated by such acting of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Electric Power Distribution Belgrade. We use this opportunity to raise a question as to whether any of the competent state bodies will take actions to burden somebody with responsibility for brutal and inhumane acting towards this Roma family and whether they will finally undertake measures to prevent such actions in the future.

See also news in Pescanik

On 14 February 2013, the training on registration in birth registry book was held for registrars and deputy registrars administering the registry books for respective areas in the territory of the City of Belgrade, in Sava Centre in Belgrade. The training was organized by the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration in cooperation with Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy, Ombudsperson, UNHCR and Praxis. The employees in the organizational units of the Ministry of Interior dealing with administrative affairs related to citizenship issues in the territory of Belgrade also attended the training along with employees from social welfare centres from the territory of the City of Belgrade dealing with the affairs related to registration in birth registry book.

The training was planned as a part of the campaign of the organizers directed at the eradication of the phenomenon of legally invisible persons by 2015, conducting of birth registration procedure and procedure for determination/acquisition of citizenship without any difficulty and for all persons under the equally available conditions  and at ensuring that possession of personal documents and equal access to rights become the rule.

Upon introducing the participants into the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding, concluded between the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, Ombudsperson and UNHCR, and presentation of activities of Technical Group in regard to the implementation of the MoU, the participants were given a more thorough insight into the problem of legally invisible persons in Serbia and difficulties related to subsequent birth registrations. In addition, views were presented on legal frameworks and practical applicability of new regulations, problems in their implementation, possible solutions and importance (it specifically refers to newly adopted solutions of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens and compliance of the Law on Registry Books, Family Law and other applicable regulations with the new regulations).

Thematic presentations of the representatives of the Professional Service of the Ombudsperson and the above stated ministries concerned the work of the first instance bodies in the subsequent birth registration procedure, acquisition and termination of citizenship and registration of citizenship in the citizenship registries of the Republic of Serbia and the role of the guardianship body in the organization of family-legal protection of persons not registered in birth registries. Praxis’ contribution to the training was through the presentation of its representatives, the Executive Director Ivanka Kostic and legal advisor Jelena Milonjic, on the problems in conducting the procedure of subsequent birth registration, supported by the presentation and analysis of cases from practice.

In the final part of the training, the participants discussed the insufficiently clarified aspects in the concerned field. The representatives of the competent state bodies were asked about the disputable details of new normative solutions. However, many questions remained open even this time. It particularly refers to conducting of the procedure for registration of permanent residence at the address of social welfare centres, which evidences the lack of political will and intersectoral collaboration to simplify the respective procedure. Normative regulation in the respective area reflects new uncertainties and different acting in the same matter: by passing new, mutually insufficiently complied and frequently insufficiently precise bylaws. In regard to the implementation of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, it is still disputable when a party should address the court and when the administrative body, since the existing regulations do not clearly specify it. Also, the fact that the body of internal affairs responsible for conducting the procedure for acquisition/determination of citizenship is not bound by the court decision on determination of date and place of birth causes additional difficulties for persons who have been subsequently registered in birth registries based on the court decision.  Special attention was paid to it during the discussion, particularly in reference to persons who are not able to prove their origin.

In addition to the stated, the subjects of the discussion of participants were also the situations in which the competent administrative body will refer the persons not registered in birth registry books to court determination of date and place of birth for subsequent birth registration, legal effects of the court decision from this procedure, and the issue of potential alteration of the applicable regulation and introduction of the possibility of registration of the fact of citizenship (determination) based on court decision, then the issue of determination of territorial jurisdiction of the acting bodies, insufficiently complied rules of procedure for determination of personal name before the social welfare center (SWC), and the procedure for the registration of permanent residence at the address of SWC in accordance with the new solutions of the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens, and particularly disputable issues of evidence needed to be enclosed in the request for the concerned registration at the address of SWC. The representatives of the competent ministries are not yet able to give complied and precise answers to some questions important for conducting procedures necessary for the solution of the problem of legally invisible persons.

In order to achieve the goals of the campaign within which the training was held, there is an obvious necessity for future interventions in terms of norms, adoption of more precise laws and bylaws and compliance of the interpretations with practice of competent state bodies. The importance of the training can be perceived primarily through the prism of popularization of the problem of legally invisible persons, and the success of the achievement of the proclaimed goals will depend on the future efforts of all competent bodies and services.

Praxis' legal mobile team visited the following:

December

• 25 December – Roma settlements, Valjevo
• 24 December – Roma settlements, Kragujevac
• 19 December – Roma settlement “Saglamci”, Vranjska Banja
• 19 December – Container settlement “Reva politika” and “Reva”, Palilula, Belgrade
• 17 December – Roma settlement “Golemo selo”, Vranje
• 17 December – Roma settlement, Vladicin Han
• 17 December – Roma settlements, Belgrade
• 12 December – Roma settlement “Pavlovac”, Vranje
• 12 December – Roma settlement “Vozegrnci”, Novi Pazar
• 12 December – Container settlement “Varos”, Mladenovac
• 12 December – Container settlement “Stari Aerodrom”, Mladenovac
• 10 December – Roma settlements, Kragujevac
• 10 December – Roma settlements “Gornje Trebesinje” and “Ciganski rit”, Vranje
•   9 December – Roma settlements, Bojnik
•   5 December – Roma settlements, Pirot
•   5 December – Container settlement “Orlovsko naselje”, Zvezdara, Belgrade
•   4 December – Roma settlements, Valjevo
•   3 December – Container settlement “Jabucki rit”, Palilula, Belgrade
  

November

• 28 November – Container settlements, Rakovica, Kijevo
• 28 November – Container settlements, Rakovica, Resnik
• 28 November – Roma settlements "Miroslav Nojkovic Cale" and "Morava 76", Bujanovac
• 26 November - Container settlement Makis 1, Cukarica,Belgrade
• 26 November - Container settlement Makis 2, Cukarica, Belgrade
• 26 November – Roma settlements, Vladicin Han
• 26 November – Roma settlements, Cukarica, Belgrade
• 26 November – Collective centre "Tehnicka skola", Bujanovac
• 25 November – Roma settlements, Vlasotince
• 21 November – Roma settlements "Gnjilanski put" and "Banjska ulica", Bujanovac
• 20 November – Roma settlements, Barajevo
• 20 November – Roma settlements, Bojnik
• 19 November – Roma settlement “Dalas”, Tutin
• 15 November – Roma settlement “Ulica Vojislava Kalanovica”, Kragujevac
• 14 November – Roma settlements, Knjazevac
• 14 November – Roma settlements, Pancevo
• 14 November – Roma settlement "Vozegrnci", Novi Pazar
• 12 November – Roma settlements, Knjazevac
•   8 November – Roma settlement “Veliki rit”, Novi Sad
•   7 November – Roma settlements, Bujanovac
•   4 November – Roma settlements, Pirot

October

• 31 October – Roma settlement “Bogojevo”, Odzaci
• 29 October – Roma settlements, Vlasotince
• 22 October – Roma settlements “Barake Telmoelektrane”, “Barake 2”, “Sokolovo” and “Palestina”, Lazarevac
• 22 October – Roma settlements, Bujanovac
• 21 October – Roma settlements, Lebane
• 15 October – Roma settlements, Lebane
• 14 October – Roma settlements, Prokuplje
• 11 October – Roma settlements, Zabalj
•   9 October – Roma settlements, Prokuplje
•   8 October – Roma settlement “Milivska kolonija”, Cuprija
•   7 October – Roma settlements, Koceljeva
•   4 October – Roma settlements, Sombor
•   3 October – Roma settlement “Dalas”, Tutin

September

• 27 September – Roma settlements, Kikinda
• 26 September – Roma settlements ”Novo Naselje” and “Solunska ulica”, Pozarevac
• 19 September – Roma settlements, Nova Crnja
• 18 September – Roma settlements, Kovin
• 17 September – Roma settlements, Krusevac
• 12 September – Roma settlement “Grmec 1”, Zemun
• 11 September – Roma settlements “Pustorecka ulica”, “Ulica 17. Februar” and “Ulica Djuke Dinic”, Bojnik
•   6 September – Roma settlement “Fekovica brdo”, Sjenica

August

• 30 August – Roma settlements, Zabalj
• 27 August – Roma settlements, Novi Pazar
• 22 August – Roma settlements “Dudara” and “Surducka”, Zrenjanin
• 21 August – Roma settlement “Veliki rit”, Novi Sad
• 20 August – Roma settlement “Masurica”, Surdulica
• 15 August – Roma settlements “Kanal” and “Stari Kostolac”, Kostolac
• 13 August – Roma settlement “Murica”, Bela Palanka
• 13 August – Roma settlement “Vinogradska”, Novi Beograd
•   6 August – Roma settlement “Svracici”, Tutin

July

• 30 July – Roma settlements ”Samarinovac” and “Jasenica”, Zitoradja
• 30 July – Roma settlement “Vuka Vrcevica”, Palilula, Belgrade
• 25 July – Roma settlement “Dragi Deo”, Bojnik
• 23 July – Roma settlements “Stamparija” and “Sever II”, Bor
• 18 July – Roma settlements “Moravska ulica” and “Burdus mala”, Svilajnac
• 18 July – Roma settlement “Ledine 2”, Novi Beograd
• 16 July – Roma settlement “Jabucki Rit”, Palilula, Belgrade
• 11 July – Roma settlement “Baraka Koteks”, Kragujevac
•   4 July – Roma settlement “Mali Rit”, Vrsac
  

June

• 27 June – Roma settlements “Tosin Bunar”, “Vladimira Nazora 15” and “Belvil 1”, Novi Beograd
• 27 June – Roma settlement “Nova Mala”, Pirot
• 25 June – Roma settlement “Zitni potok”, Prokuplje
• 20 June – Roma settlement “Prcilovica”, Aleksinac
• 18 June – Roma settlement “Pridvorice”, Smederevska Palanka
• 13 June – Roma settlement “Vuka Vrcevica”, Palilula, Belgrade
• 13 June – Roma settlements, Bor
• 11 June – Roma settlement “Crvena Zvezda”, Nis
• 11 June – Roma settlement “Toplana”, Novi Beograd
•   7 June – Roma settlement “Fekovica Brdo”, Sjenica
•   6 June – Roma settlement “Vozegrnci”, Novi Pazar
  

May

• 21-22 May – Roma settlements, Subotica
• 21 May – Roma settlements ”Gornji Brestovac", Bojnik
  
• 16 May – Roma settlement, Cukarica, Belgrade
• 16 May – Roma settlement "Matina livada", Trgoviste
• 14 May – Roma settlement “Barje Ciflik", Pirot
  
•   9 May – Roma settlement "Vodeniciste", Trgoviste

 April

• 25 April – Roma settlements, Arandjelovac
• 25 April – Roma settlements ”Lepenica”, “Zitoradje” and “Prekodolce”, Vladicin Han
• 23 April – Roma settlements, Kovin
• 18 April – Roma settlements, Jagodina
• 16 April – Roma settlement “Zemun polje”, Zemun
• 11 April – Roma settlement “Oblacina”, Merosina
• 11 April – Roma settlement “Backi Monostor”, Sombor
• 10 April – Roma settlement "Radicevci", Bosilegrad
•   4 April – Roma settlement "Lalos", Bosilegrad

March

• 27 March – Roma settlements, Obrenovac
• 25 March – Roma settlements “Aerodrom“ and “Juzna obilaznica“, Kragujevac
• 22 March – Roma settlements, Ub
• 20 March – Roma settlement “Veliki rit“, Novi Sad
• 18 March – Roma settlement, Novi Pazar
• 14 March – Social housing barrack, PAncevo
• 13 March – Roma settlement "Ulica Ivo Lola Ribar", Presevo
• 12 March – Roma settlement “Mali mokri lug“, Belgrade
•   6 March – Roma settlement “Aerodrom“, Surcin

February

• 28 February – Roma settlements “Reva” and “Reva politika”, Belgrade
• 25 February – Roma settlement “Mali bedem”, Kikinda
• 20 February – Roma settlements “Stari kostolac”, “Ciglana” and “Kanal”, Kostolac
• 19 February – Roma settlement “Tosin bunar 2”, Belgrade
• 19 February – Roma settlement "Prekodolce", Vladicin Han
• 13 February – Roma settlement “D.Radosavljevic”, Knjazevac
• 12 February – Roma settlement “Grdelica”, Leskovac
•   6 February – Roma settlement "Vidinska dolina", Vladicin Han
•   5 February – Roma settlement “Tosin bunar”, Belgrade
•   4 February – Roma settlement “Makis”, Belgrade

January

• 29 January – Roma settlement “Antena”, Novi Beograd
• 25 January – Roma settlement “Grmec”, Zemun
• 18 January – Roma settlement “Kucevski lug”, Raska
• 17 January – Roma settlement "Banjska ulica", Bujanovac
• 16 January – Collective centre "Salvatore", Bujanovac
• 15 January – Roma settlements “Busilovac” and “Popovac”, Paracin
• 10 January – Roma settlement "Masurica", Surdulica

Within the activities of the Technical Group directed at resolving the problem of legally invisible persons, one-day seminar for judges and judicial associates of the First and Second Basic Court in Belgrade was held in the premises of the Judicial Academy in Belgrade on 25 January 2013 on the issue of the implementation of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, i.e. on conducting of the procedure for determination of time and place of birth.

In the introductory part of the seminar, the members of the Technical Group (representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, Ombudsperson and Praxis) talked about the existing regime of the registration in birth registries, the problems faced by unregistered persons, reasons behind the lack of personal documents, and recent experience from practice. Through the presentation of cases on which it worked, Praxis intended to bring the specificity of the position of unregistered persons closer to the attendees, to present the deficiencies of the administrative procedures due to which many had not managed to subsequently register in birth registries for years, pointing thereby to the purpose of the adoption of the amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure.

The second part of the seminar was devoted to the analysis of the procedure for determination of time and place of birth. PhD Nikola Bodiroga from the Belgrade Faculty of Law was talking about the course of the procedure, the content of the motion, court competencies and authorized applicants, the evidence and content of the decision for determination of time and place of birth.

Despite the shown understanding of the difficult position of persons not registered in the birth registries ,during the discussion, the judges also pointed out to some of the problems they were already facing when conducting the procedure. The problems refer to the impossibility of delivery of submissions to applicants who mainly live in informal settlements without the possibility to register their permanent residence, but also to the legal deadline envisaged for reaching the decision on determination of time and place of birth. Specifically, considering all information judges should obtain from the administration bodies before scheduling the hearing, difficulties related to summoning the applicants and witnesses, provision of evidence through court expert evaluation when necessary, the present judges expressed their fear that the deadline of 90 days is fully untenable. Praxis’ experience in cases in which it represented persons are not registered in birth registries points to the same problem – more than four months have elapsed since the submission of the motion for determination of time and place of birth and not a single hearing has been scheduled. In that regard, it was concluded that representatives of non-governmental organizations who keep regular contact with persons not registered in birth registries, and representatives of social welfare centres could help the judges for the purpose of more efficient acting in the cases.

The seminar was attended by twenty-five judges and judicial associates acting in non-contentious procedure, and was assessed as a good opportunity to exchange experience and instill the participants with appropriate knowledge and information, which could help them in the implementation of newly adopted solutions.