On 7 May 2015, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Second and Third Periodic Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which contains also the information on the implementation of both protocols to the Convention. The Report was submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The Office for Human and Minority Rights coordinated the preparation of the report. All relevant republic and provincial bodies, and non-governmental organizations Praxis and Child Rights Centre, participated in the preparation.

The part of the Report devoted to Civil rights and freedoms gives the overview of the situation in the area of birth registration, name and nationality (Article 7 of the Convention, recommendations 33 and 34 CRC/C/SRB/CO/1). The report also states that the Law on Registry Books and the accompanying bylaws contributed to improving the exercise of the right to birth registration regardless of whether the child’s parents are known or unknown, the child is without parental care or adopted, whether the birth registration is entered within or beyond the legal time frame for registration.

However, the state did not refer to Praxis comments related to providing an efficient procedure for birth registration of a child right upon the birth, regardless of the status of parents. Specifically, the solution provided by the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure is not adequate given that a court procedure lasts 6 months on average. The children whose parents do not possess personal documents are still exposed to the risk of statelessness. In that sense, Serbia has not yet fully acted in accordance with the part of recommendation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and subsequent comments provided by Praxis.

For more information, see the announcement: The Second and Third Periodic Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Adopted

Upon establishing that Informer Daily violated the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination by calling the Albanians “Shiptars”, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality reached the opinion that media portal Telegraf acted discriminatory for the same reasons.

Specifically, during October 2014, after the football match between Serbia and Albania and visit of the Albanian Prime Minister to Serbia, Telegraf Daily published a series of texts with the following titles: “Kosovo Is the Heart of Serbia: This is How Shiptars United Grobari and Delije”, “Upcoming Chaos: Shiptars Already in Knez Mihajlova Street, War of Fans Threatening?!”, "Exclusive Video: Here It Is How Shiptars Smuggled the Flag of Greater Albania to Belgrade!, “Shiptar Journalist for Telegraf: It Was Known That Our Fans Were Preparing Something Big!”.

Praxis filed a complaint to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, stating that members of the Albanian nationality are insulted by using the word “Shiptar”. To remind, on the same occasion Praxis and 13 other non-governmental organizations filed an appeal to the Appeals Commission of the Press Council. The Appeals Commission adopted the appeal and reached the decision that Telegraf Daily has violated the Code of Ethics of Serbian Journalists, precisely the provision according to which a journalist shall oppose all those who violate human rights or who advocate any kind of discrimination, hate speech or incitement to violence, and the one according to which a journalist must be aware of the danger of discrimination that can be spread by media and shall do everything to avoid discrimination.
The Commissioner for Protection of Equality reached the opinion that the above-stated texts violated the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. It is stated in the opinion that calling the Albanians “Shiptars” is pejorative and insults the members of this national minority. The Commissioner pointed that this conclusion arises from the analysis of modern texts dealing with the origin of the word “Shiptar”, its meaning in the modern context and feelings it arise among the Albanians in Serbia. The text Serbian Nationalism in the Twentieth Century by Audrey Helfant Budding, associate of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and lecturer at Harvard University, where it is stated that since the spring 1968 the word Shiptar, previously used to denote Yugoslav Albanians unlike the Albanians in Albania, has been replaced by the word Albanian in the official use in Serbia, the use of which had been previously limited only to the citizens of Albania. That is how the term, which had taken derogatory connotation, was abolished and it was pointed out in the opinion that the use of the term “Shiptar” instead of Albanian may, particularly in conflict situations, incite intolerance towards the Albanian community and cause negative feelings among the members of the Albanian national minority living in Serbia.

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality recommended that Aleksandar Sasa Jovanovic, the editor-in-chief of the media portal Telegraf do not publish the articles insulting the dignity of the members of the Albanian national minority and contribute with published texts to the change of patterns, customs and practice that condition stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination against members of the Albanian national minority, and take care through its regular activities not to violate the regulations on prohibition of discrimination.

Download: Opinion of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality has established that Informer Daily violated the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination by calling the Albanians “Shiptars”.

During October 2014, after the football match between Serbia and Albania and visit of the Albanian Prime Minister to Serbia, Daily Informer published texts “Spider Shiptar Caught” and “Edi Rama Shiptar With No Shame”. On that occasion, Praxis filed a complaint to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, stating that by using the word “Shiptar”, the members of the Albanian nationality are insulted, stereotypes and prejudices are spread and discrimination is encouraged. Therefore, the term “Shiptar” is pejorative and used with an aim to insult and humiliate the members of the Albanian national minority.

To remind, on the same occasion Praxis and 13 other non-governmental organizations filed an appeal to the Appeals Commission of the Press Council. The Appeals Commission adopted the appeal and reached the decision that Informer Daily has violated the Code of Ethics of Serbian Journalists, precisely the Item 1 of the Chapter IV, according to which a journalist shall oppose all those who violate human rights or who advocate any kind of discrimination, hate speech or incitement to violence, and Item 4 of the Chapter V according to which a journalist must be aware of the danger of discrimination that can be spread by media and shall do everything to avoid discrimination.

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality reached the opinion that the above-stated texts violated the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. It is stated in the opinion that calling the Albanians “Shiptars” is pejorative and insults the members of this national minority, and the use of this term, especially in conflict situations may incite intolerance towards the Albanian community. After the football match and visit of the Albanian Prime Minister, some media largely contributed to creating sense of fear among the members of the Albanian national minority living in Serbia. Media are an important tool in spreading of tolerance, fostering the right to equality and combating discrimination, and the Commissioner for Protection of Equality expresses hope and expectation that Informer Daily will tend through its articles to develop awareness about equality.

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality recommended that Dragan J.  Vucicevic, the editor-in-chief of Informer Daily do, not publish the articles insulting the dignity of the members of the Albanian national minority and contribute with published texts to the change of patterns, customs and practice that condition stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination against members of the Albanian national minority, and take care through its regular activities not to violate the regulations on prohibition of discrimination.

Download: Opinion of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality

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

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

Such acting of the competent bodies represents a severe violation of the right to respect for private and family life, right to adequate housing and the right to an effective legal remedy. What is particularly worrying is that such acting occurs despite constant recommendations of the international treaty bodies and independent experts to legally regulate the procedure of forced evictions and ensure the exercise of right to an effective legal remedy.

Particularly concerned about the incidents of forced evictions and related practice which is contrary to the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia, adopted in May 2014, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights called on the Republic of Serbia to take urgent measures to, inter alia, ensure due process guarantees to those who are being evicted, taking into account the Committee’s general comments No. 4 and 7.

Following the visit to Serbia in May 2015, UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing emphasized in her preliminary overview the need for adoption of a national housing and homelessness law and an accompanying strategy that will define the right to adequate housing in accordance with the General comment No. 4 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and ensure that provisions regarding forced evictions are brought into line with the General comment No. 7 of the Committee. 

In its report after the visit to Serbia in March 2015, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe expressed his concern for continuing practice of forced evictions of Roma from informal settlements, which are carried out contrary to international standards, without prior consultations with the families concerned, often at very short notice, while adequate alternative accommodation was not always provided.  

Therefore, we call on the competent authorities to immediately stop the practice of forced evictions which result in homelessness and to implement recommendations of international bodies and regulate the procedure in cases of forced evictions.

Video clip taken after this statement: Families Afraid of Being Thrown out in the Street!

Praxis published the “Analysis of the late birth registration procedures” prepared within the Project “We are Here Together – European Support for Roma Inclusion” funded by the European Union and implemented by the OSCE Mission to Serbia.

The report provides an overview of the procedures for late birth registration that Praxis conducted within the stated project in the period from September 2013 to June 2015, as well as of the implementation of relevant regulations and practice of the proceeding bodies. Furthermore, the report also contains the recommendations for improvement of policies and procedures in order to resolve the problem of the legally invisible persons.

The adoption of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure undoubtedly represented a significant progress in resolving the problem of the legally invisible. However, the responsibility for the final resolution of the problem still lies on the state since the regulations still prevent every child to be registered immediately after birth and to have his/her personal name determined.

In order to enable all unregistered persons to register in the birth registry and prevent the appearance of new such cases, it is necessary to create the conditions to register every child in the birth registry immediately after birth, regardless of whether the parents possess documents or not. It is also necessary to ensure lawful, consistent and equal proceeding of the bodies implementing the procedures and to secure that legally invisible persons are provided with free legal assistance without which they will not be able to register in the birth registry.

Download the report: Analysis of the late birth registration procedures

The cases of children abandoned by parents and cared by persons who are not their formal guardians testify of the consequences of the lack of an efficient role of social welfare centres in protecting the rights and best interest of a child. Social welfare centres throughout Serbia tend to ignore such situations, i.e. they tolerate the disproportion between legal and factual situation, which results in the deprivation and violation of many rights of the child.

Praxis client, minor M. M, though facing serious health problems, cannot exercise the right to health protection because she does not possess a health booklet. Specifically, after her parents divorced, the custody was awarded to her mother. However, the mother then abandoned her and moved abroad where she got married and gave birth to three children. Despite being born with orthopedic impairments, a girl was deprived of the adequate health care. In order to exercise the right to health protection, M. M. first needs to register permanent residence in Bela Palanka, where she lives. At the moment, her permanent residence is registered in Nis, at the same address as her mother’s. The request for registration of permanent residence or change of permanent residence should be submitted by a minor’s legal representative, parent or guardian, but M. M. does not have either a guardian or a legal representative. In addition to legal protection, the registration of permanent residence would allow her the right to parental and child support and the right to free textbooks.

Since M. M. has no legal capacity and no legal representative, the only way to protect the rights and interest of this minor girl is to conduct the procedure of deprivation of the parental right and appoint a guardian who would represent her in the exercise of rights.

Specifically, the deprivation of the parental right is a remedy by which unconscientious parents are deprived of some or all parental rights and obligations to the child, apart from the obligation of financial support. It refers to the measure of protection of a child from the unconscientious acting of parents, and child abandoning is defined as a harsh violation of the parental duties and obligations, so the legislator has envisaged complete deprivation of the parental rights to the parent who abandoned his/her child. According to the regulations, a parent is deprived of the parental right in the procedure initiated by a special lawsuit, which may be filed by a child, parent, public prosecutor or social welfare centre. With an aim of maximal child rights protection, a legal obligation was established for all citizens, associations, state bodies and institutions to immediately inform the competent public prosecutor or social welfare centre about the identified neglect, abuse or unconscientious exercise of parental rights.

Though not so rare in practice, such cases show how serious the consequences of the lack of active role of institutions in access to the rights for citizens may be. We must not forget that in addition to health, minor M. M. is deprived also of the exercise of other socioeconomic rights, which imply the rights to education, adequate housing, dignified life and also other rights.

In the period 25-26 March 2015, a meeting of Eurochild’s National Partner Networks Group was held in Bratislava; it consists of 19 representatives of national child networks, led by the pan-European network organisation for children Eurochild. The Network of Organisations for the Children of Serbia (MODS) was represented by Jasmina Miković from Praxis, member of the MODS Steering Committee.

During a two-day meeting, the participants had the opportunity to exchange opinions and present suggestions for how the National Partner Networks could best contribute to the work of Eurochild, as well as how Eurochild could support networks at the national level.

The discussed issues concerned with the role and contribution of National Partner Networks in the Eurochild’s advocacy strategy, the European Semester and preparation of Eurochild report in this process, advocacy towards the countries presiding the EU, with reference to the presidency of Slovakia, cooperation with other international organisations and participation of children.

In addition, the meeting participants visited three organisations involved in the protection of child’s rights, which was organised by the Slovak National Coalition for the Rights of the Child.

See the news on the MODS website.
See the news on the Eurochild website.

On 7 May 2015, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Second and Third Periodic Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which contains also the information on the implementation of both protocols to the Convention. The Report was submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The Office for Human and Minority Rights coordinated the preparation of the report. All relevant republic and provincial bodies, and non-governmental organizations Praxis and Child Rights Centre, participated in the preparation.

The part of the Report devoted to Civil rights and freedoms gives the overview of the situation in the area of birth registration, name and nationality (Article 7 of the Convention, recommendations 33 and 34 CRC/C/SRB/CO/1). The report also states that the Law on Registry Books and the accompanying bylaws contributed to improving the exercise of the right to birth registration regardless of whether the child’s parents are known or unknown, the child is without parental care or adopted, whether the birth registration is entered within or beyond the legal time frame for registration. The exercise of the concerned right was also improved due to the adoption of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Republic Administrative Fees, while the birth registration procedure was also regulated by the Instruction on Administering the Birth Registry Books and Their Forms. It is also stated that the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure provided for the procedure of determining the date and place of birth based on which all persons who are not registered in the birth registries and who, at the same time, cannot provide evidence on their birth as stipulated under the regulations on administering the birth registries, may submit the motion for determining the date and place of birth to the court.

Further on, the report states that the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens envisaged a facilitated procedure for registering a permanent residence, which is necessary for issuing personal documents to all citizens, but particularly to the members of Roma population.  

The importance of the Technical Group in solving the problem related to birth registration, name and nationality, was also stressed in the report. The foundations of closer cooperation, coordination, planning and implementation of measures, whose goal is to provide immediate support to the Roma community, above all, in birth registration procedure, were established at national level for the first time.

However, the state did not refer to Praxis comments related to providing an efficient procedure for birth registration of a child right upon the birth, regardless of the status of parents. Specifically, the solution provided by the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure is not adequate given that a court procedure lasts 6 months on average. The children whose parents do not possess personal documents are still exposed to the risk of statelessness. In that sense, Serbia has not yet fully acted in accordance with the part of recommendation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and subsequent comments provided by Praxis.

The report may be downloaded here.

Download: HERE

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

This school is attended by a very small number of Roma children, while the number of Roma children who attend a nearby school is almost ten times higher. Both schools are located nearby a large Roma settlement. That situation clearly indicates discrimination which is the responsibility of the headmaster.

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

Specifically, the lawsuit referred to a group of persons and its purpose is to protect all children of Roma nationality, and not only a child who is prevented to enroll in school. Therefore, Praxis did not need a special authorization given by the defendants. This viewpoint was confirmed also by the Supreme Court of Cassation in the decision reached in the case of McDonalds. Specifically, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality filed a lawsuit for discrimination against McDonald’s restaurant in Novi Sad, because the security prevented the children of Roma nationality to enter the restaurant. Actually, the  Supreme Court of Cassation is of the viewpoint that decisions of low-instance courts that reject such lawsuits must be abolished, because the lawsuit is not directed at establishing discrimination against a specific person, when it would be necessary to provide a written power of attorney, but at discrimination against a specific group, i.e. unspecified number of persons – children of Roma nationality.

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