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

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

The representatives of Praxis held two lectures for the participants of school for future human rights defenders organised by the Civil Rights Defenders. The lectures were held on 23 February 2015 in Belgrade at the premises of the Humanitarian Law Fund and 24 February 2015 in Niš in the Media Center.

This is the first school for human rights defenders organised by the Civil Rights Defenders and participants were mainly students of political science, law and related faculties. Praxis is the first in a series of non-governmental organisations that presented to the participants their work and experience in the field of Roma rights protection and fight against discrimination.

The problems faced by Roma in the procedures of registration in birth registry books and acquiring citizenship were presented through concrete examples, particularly noting that without the possession of personal documents these persons cannot access their fundamental rights. They also presented cases from practice relating to access to the rights to health care, social protection, housing, education and so on. The concept of discrimination and the right to equality, as well as available mechanisms for fighting against discrimination, were outlined.

The lectures were very interactive and the participants of this school showed a rather good knowledge about human rights, but also had the opportunity to hear about the practice of protection of fundamental human rights of vulnerable population, what free legal aid implied, as well as about the importance of the activities of advocacy and raising awareness of target groups and the public with the aim of creating a better, more equal society.

Even though the possession of an ID card is a guaranteed right and a duty of national citizens with permanent residence in Serbia, obtaining it may be related to numerous difficulties.

N.N. is an internally displaced person from Kosovo and a member of Roma ethnic minority who was living without an ID card for 15 years, because he did not possess evidence of registered permanent residence and a document with a photo based on which his identity would be determined. The ID card was issued to N. N. only when, with Praxis assistance, he obtained the photocopy of the records on previously issued ID card in Pristina. Prior to that, N. N. was not able to exercise the right to health care and social protection despite being in the state of social vulnerability. In addition, he was threatened with impossibility of applying for the social housing programme after the announced closure of the collective centre we has residing in.

H. G. is facing the similar difficulties. She possesses the evidence of registration of permanent residence, but police officers from the Police Department in Niska Banja competent for Pristina region referred her to obtain the records on issued ID card from her previous permanent residence in Kosovo. Insisting on obtaining evidence from Kosovo causes unnecessary costs for the party, which is particularly unjustified given that she is an internally displaced Roma women without incomes whose identity may be confirmed by the members of her family or other witnesses of identity.

Possession of an ID card is a precondition for the access to many rights in Serbia. However, Praxis has determined that members of vulnerable groups are left without an ID card for a long period of time, because they are required to enclose evidence whose obtaining causes high costs or is a great burden on parties for other reasons.

Even though the possession of an ID card is a guaranteed right and a duty of national citizens with permanent residence in Serbia, obtaining it may be related to numerous difficulties.

N.N. is an internally displaced person from Kosovo and a member of Roma ethnic minority who was living without an ID card for 15 years, because he did not possess evidence of registered permanent residence and a document with a photo based on which his identity would be determined. The ID card was issued to N. N. only when, with Praxis assistance, he obtained the photocopy of the records on previously issued ID card in Pristina. Prior to that, N. N. was not able to exercise the right to health care and social protection despite being in the state of social vulnerability. In addition, he was threatened with impossibility of applying for the social housing programme after the announced closure of the collective centre we has residing in.

H. G. is facing the similar difficulties. She possesses the evidence of registration of permanent residence, but police officers from the Police Department in Niska Banja competent for Pristina region referred her to obtain the records on issued ID card from her previous permanent residence in Kosovo. Insisting on obtaining evidence from Kosovo causes unnecessary costs for the party, which is particularly unjustified given that she is an internally displaced Roma women without incomes whose identity may be confirmed by the members of her family or other witnesses of identity.

Possession of an ID card is a precondition for the access to many rights in Serbia. However, Praxis has determined that members of vulnerable groups are left without an ID card for a long period of time, because they are required to enclose evidence whose obtaining causes high costs or is a great burden on parties for other reasons.

D. M, registered in books of citizens that were destroyed during the conflict as of 1999 in Kosovo, has obtained the citizenship certificate only after six months following the procedures that lasted six years.

In September, D. M. initiated the re-registration procedure before the administrative body in Krusevac. Three years after submitting the request and only after the appeal was filed and the administrative dispute initiated for the silence of administration, was the first-instance decision reached on rejecting the request of D. M. and referring her to submit the request for determination of citizenship. D. M. thus lost three years and just received the negative decision by which she was referred to address another body in order to try to acquire the citizenship.

At the beginning of 2012, D. M. initiated the procedure for determining the citizenship before the Ministry of Interior, which lasted more than two years. Once the decision on determining the citizenship was reached, eight months passed before the competent registrar registered the citizenship of D. M. and issued the citizenship certificate, but only after three urgency letters and appeal for silence of administration.

Although she was registered in books of citizens and is not responsible for destroyed registries, D. M. received citizenship certificate only after six years following the request for registration in reconstructed books of citizens. In the meantime, she was deprived of the access to the rights whose exercise requires the possession of the evidence on citizenship. A great number of other persons registered in registries that were later destroyed or are unavailable are facing this problem. Efficient solution to their problem has not been found for more than 15 years, even though it negatively affects daily life of individuals and the possibility to exercise basic human rights.

D. M, registered in books of citizens that were destroyed during the conflict as of 1999 in Kosovo, has obtained the citizenship certificate only after six months following the procedures that lasted six years.

In September, D. M. initiated the re-registration procedure before the administrative body in Krusevac. Three years after submitting the request and only after the appeal was filed and the administrative dispute initiated for the silence of administration, was the first-instance decision reached on rejecting the request of D. M. and referring her to submit the request for determination of citizenship. D. M. thus lost three years and just received the negative decision by which she was referred to address another body in order to try to acquire the citizenship.

At the beginning of 2012, D. M. initiated the procedure for determining the citizenship before the Ministry of Interior, which lasted more than two years. Once the decision on determining the citizenship was reached, eight months passed before the competent registrar registered the citizenship of D. M. and issued the citizenship certificate, but only after three urgency letters and appeal for silence of administration.

Although she was registered in books of citizens and is not responsible for destroyed registries, D. M. received citizenship certificate only after six years following the request for registration in reconstructed books of citizens. In the meantime, she was deprived of the access to the rights whose exercise requires the possession of the evidence on citizenship. A great number of other persons registered in registries that were later destroyed or are unavailable are facing this problem. Efficient solution to their problem has not been found for more than 15 years, even though it negatively affects daily life of individuals and the possibility to exercise basic human rights.

Praxis' legal mobile team visited the following:

October

• 29 October – Roma settlements, Kostolac
• 23 October – Roma settlements, Kragujevac
  

September

• 23 September – Roma settlements, Beocin
• 17 September – Roma settlements, Sabac
• 10 September – Roma settlements, Prokuplje
•   2 September – Roma settlements, Krusevac
  

August

• 27 August – Roma settlement "Ullica Milinka Kusica“, Ivanjica
• 26 August – Roma settlements, Krusevac
• 25 August – Roma settlement "Crvena Zvezda“, Nis
• 25 August – Roma settlement "Surducka“, Zrenjanin
• 20 August – Roma settlement "Vezirovac“, Cuprija
• 19 August – Roma settlement "Zemun polje“, Zemun
• 14 August – Roma settlements, Zemun
• 13 August – Roma settlements, Smederevo
• 12 August – Roma settlements, Knjazevac
• 10 August – Roma settlement "Bresnica“, Kragujevac
•   5 August – Roma settlement "Veliki rit“, Novi Sad
•   5 August – Roma settlements, Knjazevac

July

• 27 July – Roma settlement "Dobricka ulica“, Prokuplje
• 22 July – Roma settlements, Bela Palanka
• 16 July – Roma settlements, Surcin
• 16 July – Roma settlement "Fekovica brdo“, Sjenica
• 15 July – Roma settlements, Bela Palanka
•   9 July – Roma settlements, Sombor
•   9 July – Roma settlement "M.N.Cale“, Bujanovac
•   7 July – Roma settlement, Kostolac
•   3 July – Roma settlements, Kovin
•   2 July – Roma settlements, Bor

June

• 30 June – Roma settlements, Grocka
• 29 June – Roma settlement “Kosovska ulica”, Razanj
• 25 June – Roma settlement “OMV pumpa”, Cukarica/Belgrade
• 25 June – Roma settlement "Dublje", Valjevo
  
• 24 June – Roma settlements, Leskovac
• 23 June – Roma settlements “Karadjordjeva ulica” and “Dunavska ulica”, Negotin
• 23 June – Roma settlements “Vasariste” and “Zvecka”, Obrenovac
• 19 June – Roma settlement “Seliste”, Brus
• 18 June – Roma settlement “Bogovina”, Boljevac
• 18 June – Roma settlement “Vijadukt”, Rakovica/Belgrade
• 17 June – Roma settlement “Reva politika”, Palilula/Belgrade
• 17 June – Roma settlements, Leskovac
• 16 June – Roma settlements “Resnik” and “Ulica 7. Juli”, Babusnica
• 15 June – Roma settlements “Atenica” and “Ljubic polje”, Cacak
• 11 June – Roma settlement “Ulica Starine Novaka”, Batocina
• 11 June – Roma settlement “Grmec”, Zemun
• 10 June – Roma settlement “Kijevo”, Rakovica/Belgrade
•   9 June – Roma settlements, Becej
•   9 June – Roma settlement “Ulica Pora”, Uzice
•   5 June – Roma settlement “Jezdovica kosa”, Prijepolje
•   4 June – Roma settlements, Pecinci
•   3 June – Roma settlements, Bac
•   3 June – Roma settlements, Lebane
•   2 June – Roma settlement “Jelasnica”, Surdulica28 May – Roma settlements, Vrsac

May

• 28 May – Roma settlements, Vrsac
• 28 May – Roma settlement ”Ulica Bana Milutina”, Pozega
• 27 May – Roma settlements, Lebane
• 26 May – Roma settlement “Rajcilovac”, Bosilegrad
• 22 May – Roma settlement “Burdus Mala”, Svilajnac
• 21 May – Roma settlement “Ulica Dusana Trifunovica”, Svrljig
• 21 May – Roma settlement “Tovarisevo”, Backa Palanka
• 20 May – Roma settlements, Indjija
• 19 May – Roma settlements, Ilindza/Alibunar
• 19 May – Roma settlements “Veliki Izvor” and “Gojkova Jaruga”, Zajecar
• 18 May – Roma settlements “Pojate” and “Ulica Stevana Sindjelica”, Cicevac
• 14 May – Roma settlements, Jabuka/Pancevo
• 14 May – Roma settlements “Bukovik” and “Djurdjevdanska Ulica”, Arandjelovac
• 13 May – Roma settlement “Antena”, Novi Beograd
• 13 May – Roma settlements, Kursumlija
• 12 May – Roma settlement “Ulica Stevana Mokranjca”, Jagodina
• 12 May – Roma settlements, Mali Idjos
•   8 May – Roma settlement “Ulica Jurija Gagarina”, Vladicin Han
•   7 May – Roma settlement “Djurdjevo”, Zabalj
•   7 May – Roma settlement “Kocane”, Doljevac
•   5 May – Roma settlements, Kursumlija
  
  

April

• 30 April – Roma settlements “Dusanova ulica”, “Prebreza” and “Alabana”, Blace
• 28 April – Roma settlements, Pirot
• 28 April – Roma settlement “Orlovsko naselje – social apartments”, Zvezdara/Belgrade
• 23 April – Roma settlement “Jablanicka ulica”, Lebane
• 23 April – Roma settlements, Koceljeva
• 22 April – Roma settlement “Tosin bunar”, Novi Beograd
• 22 April - Roma settlements “Sever”, “Erozija” and “Kestenova ulica”, Bor
• 21 April – Roma settlements “Sljivik” and “Kolonije”, Beocin
• 21 April – Roma settlement “Midzor”, Bela Palanka
• 16 April – Roma settlements, Backi Monostor/Sombor
• 16 April – Roma settlements, Bor
• 15 April – Roma settlements, Novi Becej
• 14 April – Roma settlement “Slavko Zlatanovic”, Leskovac
• 14 April – Roma settlements, Zemun
•   9 April – Roma settlements “Kajmakcalanska ulica”, “Jug Bogdanova ulica”, “Cerska ulica” and “Karadjordjeva ulica”, Smederevska Palanka
•   9 April – Roma settlement “Dalas”, Tutin
•   8 April – Roma settlement “Fekovica brdo”, Sjenica
•   7 April – Roma settlement “Baraka socijalnog stanovanja”, Presevo
•   6 April – Roma settlement “Karadjordjevo brdo”, Paracin
•   3 April – Roma settlements “Cukaricka suma”, Cukarica/Belgrade

March

• 31 March – Roma settlement “Ulica Jalijska”, Sremska Mitrovica
• 26 March – Roma settlement “Koricani”, Kragujevac
• 25 March – Roma settlements, Kikinda
• 25 March – Roma settlements, Bojnik
• 24 March – Roma settlement “Barlovo”, Kursumlija
• 19 March – Roma settlements “7. Jul” & “Brezonik”, Bor
• 18 March – Roma settlements, Lazarevac
• 18 March – Roma settlements, Bojnik
• 12 March – Roma settlement “Recica”, Zitoradja
• 11 March – Roma settlement “Aleksinacki rudnik”, Aleksinac
• 11 March – Roma settlements “Vuka Vrcevica” & “Reva Politika”, Palilula/Belgrade
• 10 March – Roma settlements, Obrenovac
• 10 March – Roma settlement “Fekovica brdo”, Sjenica
•   5 March – Roma settlement “Banjska ulica”, Bujanovac
•   4 March – Roma settlement “Gornji Brestovac”, Bojnik
•   4 March – Roma settlements, Subotica
•   3 March – Roma settlement “Kucevski lug”, Raska
•   3 March – Roma settlement “Dom za vesanje”, Zeleznik/Belgrade

February

• 26 February – Roma settlement “Minicevo”, Knjazevac
• 25 February – village Bavaniste, Kovin
• 24 February – Roma settlements “Crni Marko” and “Marko Oreskovic”, Vlasotince
• 23 February – Roma settlements “Vasa Nikolic” and “Sumatovacka ulica”, Aleksinac
• 20 February – Roma settlements, Topola
• 19 February – Roma settlement “Ciganski Rid”, Vranje
• 19 February – Roma settlement “Stakleno brdo”, Pozarevac
• 18 February – Roma settlement “Mali rit”, Pancevo
• 13 February – Roma settlement “Balajnac”, Merosina
• 12 February – Roma settlement “Crvena Zvezda”, Nis
• 11 February – Roma settlement “Dobricka ulica”, Prokuplje
• 10 February – Roma settlements, Smederevo
•   9 February – Roma settlement “Prcilovac”, Aleksinac
•   9 February – Roma settlement “Mudrakovac”, Krusevac
•   6 February – Roma settlements “Stadionska ulica” and “Grdicka kosa”, Kraljevo
•   5 February – Roma settlement “Rupe”, Ruma
•   5 February – Roma settlement “Solunska ulica”, Prokuplje
•   4 February – Roma settlement “Horgos”, Kanjiza
•   4 February – Roma settlement in Ribaric, Tutin

January

• 29 January – Roma settlement “Vozegrnci”, Novi Pazar
• 28 January – Roma settlement “Veliki rit”, Novi Sad
• 27 January – Roma settlement “Ilina voda”, Kragujevac
• 27 January – Roma settlements “Surducka” and “Dudara”, Zrenjanin
• 22 January – Roma settlements, Kostolac
• 22 January – Roma settlement “Fekovica brdo”, Sjenica