Procedure for adoption of the minor B. B. born in 2001 in Pristina and registered in the UNMIK registries was carried out by Social Welfare Centre in Subotica in December 2004. As the fact of her birth was not registered in birth registries for Pristina administered by the registry office in Nis, it was necessary to carry out the procedure for subsequent birth registration. The  subsequent birth registration was carried out only in 2008, almost four years after the adoption. However, the fact of adoption was not registered on that occasion.

Soon after the adopter of the minor girl addressed Praxis for assistance in 2013, Praxis sent the request for registration of the fact of adoption and the request for new registration in birth registries to the Directorate for Civil Status and General Affairs of the City of Nis (hereinafter: Directorate). Praxis received the answer that new registration could not be carried out unless correction were made in the decision on adoption, in accordance with the Law on Registry Books which came into force in 2009, which envisages that new registration after the adoption is carried out on the basis of the place of birth.

In September 2014, after a series of unsuccessful addressing, Praxis filed a complaint against the work of the Directorate to the Administrative Inspectorate of the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government and Department for Inspection, Department for Family Care and Social Protection of the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs. After almost a month, a decision was reached approving the new registration of B. B. in birth registries.

Praxis notes that B. B. is a girl of Roma ethnicity with disabilities and illegal delay of the procedure additionally threatened her already difficult position. 

In October 2014, Praxis reported to the Utility Inspection Department of the Mladenovac City Municipality the poster “Stop Asylum”, which violates the rights of asylum seekers and spreads xenophobia and intolerance.

The administrative body reacted quickly and in only 4 days it reached the decision ordering to “NN person within two days of receiving the decision” to remove the posters. The photos documenting that the utility inspector went to the field and established the facts were enclosed to the decision.

To be even more absurd, the administrative body cited in the decision the article of the Decision on Advertising Activities on the Territory of the City of Belgrade(hereinafter: Decision), contrary to which the poster was put, but not the article of the Decision which clearly indicates how to perform the administrative measure of removing the illegally placed posters when a person who placed them is unknown. Specifically, the Paragraph 5, Article 34 of the Decision unambiguously states that “if the inspector’s decision orders the removal of posters, and a person to whom the measure was issued does not act upon the decision, or the person who put the poster is unknown, the decision may be performed through the subject which the city or the city municipality entrusted with cleaning”.

Praxis filed a complaint to the Secretariat for Inspections of the Belgrade City Administration, which resulted in the second-instance decision in which this body rejects the complaint as ungrounded, while referring to the Paragraph 5, Article 34 of the Decision. Afterwards, Praxis filed a lawsuit to the Administrative Court.

While the administrative bodies “are exercising” the application of law, it is inadmissible that disputable posters are spreading panics among the citizens of Mladenovac and asylum seekers with the message “They are coming to us, and we?”.

In October 2014, Praxis reported to the Utility Inspection Department of the Mladenovac City Municipality the poster “Stop Asylum”, which violates the rights of asylum seekers and spreads xenophobia and intolerance.

The administrative body reacted quickly and in only 4 days it reached the decision ordering to “NN person within two days of receiving the decision” to remove the posters. The photos documenting that the utility inspector went to the field and established the facts were enclosed to the decision.

To be even more absurd, the administrative body cited in the decision the article of the Decision on Advertising Activities on the Territory of the City of Belgrade(hereinafter: Decision), contrary to which the poster was put, but not the article of the Decision which clearly indicates how to perform the administrative measure of removing the illegally placed posters when a person who placed them is unknown. Specifically, the Paragraph 5, Article 34 of the Decision unambiguously states that “if the inspector’s decision orders the removal of posters, and a person to whom the measure was issued does not act upon the decision, or the person who put the poster is unknown, the decision may be performed through the subject which the city or the city municipality entrusted with cleaning”.  

Praxis filed a complaint to the Secretariat for Inspections of the Belgrade City Administration, which resulted in the second-instance decision in which this body rejects the complaint as ungrounded, while referring to the Paragraph 5, Article 34 of the Decision. Afterwards, Praxis filed a lawsuit to the Administrative Court.

While the administrative bodies “are exercising” the application of law, it is inadmissible that disputable posters are spreading panics among the citizens of Mladenovac and asylum seekers with the message “They are coming to us, and we?”.

Draft Law on Free Legal Aid has been partially changed after the harsh criticism of non-governmental organizations which provide free legal aid. The objections to the Draft Law referred mainly to significant reduction of the circle of free legal aid beneficiaries, the selection of social welfare centres (SWCs) to be responsible for deciding on request for free legal aid and manner of regulation of work of free legal aid providers. 

Partially or utterly adopted criticism refers to the volume of free legal aid providers, the manner of submitting the request for free legal aid and working conditions of free legal aid providers.

Draft Law remained unchanged in regard to the competence of SWCs. Non-governmental organizations drew attention to the fact that SWCs do not have enough capacities in relation to necessary knowledge that exceeds the issue of social welfare, but also in relation to the scope of work that is already large. Also, there is a possibility of conflict of interests of SWCs with potential free legal aid beneficiaries. Irrespective of the aforementioned, the only change that has been made is already mentioned longer deadline for deciding upon requests. Draft Law keeps the provisions stipulating non-financing of primary legal aid. Finally, the Draft Law does not respect the specialization of free legal aid providers in certain legal areas.

Although it is obvious that new version of the Draft Law is a step forwards, since at least some comments and criticism of non-governmental organizations were met with understanding of competent ministries, there is still a fear that due to certain deficiencies, the functioning and efficiency of the free legal aid system will be seriously threatened. Considering the above stated, the organizations that provide free legal aid will still point at the deficiencies which they find key for the functioning of free legal aid system.

For more information, see the announcement: New Draft Law on Free Legal Aid Partially Considered NGO Criticism

On the occasion of the Universal Children’s Day and celebration of 25 years since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of the United Nations, Praxis once again draws attention to the promotion of the rights of the child and care of children, which need to be the most important priority for the state.

Praxis reminds that despite the fact that the importance of respecting the rights of the child in Serbia has become more visible over the past years, the state still fails to invest enough efforts in order to improve the legal and institutional framework, so that every child may equally enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, laws, the Convention of the Rights of the Child, and other international treaties ratified by the Republic of Serbia.

There are still legally invisible children in Serbia today, who have no access to rights, as a consequence of violation of the Article 7 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which envisages that the child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name and the right to acquire a nationality

Even though discrimination is prohibited by the Constitution and the law, it is however widespread, especially against the Roma children and children with disabilities. Children from vulnerable social groups are still facing many problems, especially in access to the rights to education, health care and social protection. The best interest of a child is also fully neglected in media coverage, and the percentage of children who are exposed to some form of abuse is still very high.

To ensure the guarantee and protection of the rights of the child in all spheres of social life for every child, we remind the state of the importance of adoption of the Law on the Rights of the Child, the Law on the Ombudsperson of Children’s Rights and Rules of criteria for detailed identifying of discrimination by an employee, a student or a third party in educational institutions, and the necessity of engaging all levels of the government.

The recent fire in the informal settlement in New Belgrade with the tragic outcome, when three children lost their lives, is the consequence of the bad position of Roma population in Serbia, which still has an impeded or no access to basic human rights.

Despite the fact that Serbia as a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is obliged to recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, Roma population in Serbia still lives in unhygienic conditions with no clear prospects of possible solution of this problem.

Also, Praxis reminds that two out of four principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are dedication to best interest of the child and the right to life, survival and development. Not dealing with the core solving of the problem of Roma population, the state directly threatens the rights of child and fails to fulfil the duties it committed to by ratifying the international conventions.

It is also a disturbing fact that journalism ethics has failed again while reporting on this tragic event. Thus, the facts on ethnic origin came to the fore, and several printed media published the children’s names. This is yet another form of discrimination against Roma population, which is repeatedly practiced during media incident reporting.

Praxis notes that this is not a single case of human rights violations, particularly the rights of the children, caused by not finding a systemic solution to the problem of Roma population in Serbia for years. Therefore, it is necessary to consistently observe international standards in the area of human rights and address the problems faced by the Roma population on a daily basis more systematically.

The lawyers’ strike had once again shown the weaknesses of the legal system in Serbia. In the Serbia Progress Report, the European Commission has also referred to the problems of the judicial system in Serbia. A large number of cases, the length of court procedures, statute of limitation and others are just some of the reasons which impede the access to justice.

The strike particularly threatens the part of the population classified as vulnerable population groups, such as women survivors of domestic violence, children, Roma men and Roma women. By representing the vulnerable groups, Praxis, through its advocacy activities, pointed at problems faced by the vulnerable groups in the procedure for court protection. The greatest problem for all of them is the length of court procedures, but also the inability within the short deadline to exercise the right to temporary measures that are urgent according to the applicable regulations.

The judicial system in Serbia has been unable to provide the protection to the vulnerable groups in Serbia for almost two months. For instance, criminal procedures for the criminal act of domestic violence are postponed because defenders and defendants do not appear at hearings, which threatens the very procedure as it can lead to statute of limitations. In addition, the survivors of domestic violence are deprived of the right to urgent protection due to failure of the representatives of defendants to appear in the procedures for determining the measures for protection of survivors of domestic violence. Thus, the safety of survivors is directly threatened.

We are calling on the Ministry of Justice to urgently find the solution for resolving this and other problems in the judicial system of Serbia in order to facilitate the access to justice for citizens.

On the occasion of 18 December, the International Migrants Day, Praxis wants to draw attention at difficult position of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Serbia.

During 2014, more than 10,000 persons with intention to seek asylum crossed over Serbia, running away from armed conflicts and harsh violations of human rights, without being able to exercise their rights in our country either. Non-functional asylum system, postponement of adoption of amendments to the Law on Asylum, insufficient accommodation capacities, impeded access to socioeconomic rights are just some of systemic problems that reflect the lack of political will to find a durable solution. In addition to these problems, there is also widespread xenophobia expressed not only by citizens but also by the representatives of public authorities.

The International Migrants Day is the last change to ask ourselves why, as a society, we are not moved when people in our neighborhood sleep in woods and abandoned factories, exhausted by hunger and thirst, with frostbite, in fear of an uncertain future. We are calling on authorities to fulfil their obligations with an aim of establishing the efficient asylum system, but also on citizens to show understanding for all those who are forced to leave their homes and seek asylum somewhere else.

The Appeals Commission of the Press Council has established that Daily Informer and Portal Telegraf have violated the Code of Ethics of Journalists by calling the Albanians “Shiptars”.

During October 2014, Daily Informer and Portal Telegraf published a series of texts in which the Albanians were pejoratively called “Shiptars”. On that occasion, Praxis and 13 other non-governmental organizations filed an appeal to the Press Council, stating that such way of reporting is inadmissible and that pejorative and colloquial naming of certain group in media is not in accordance with the Code of Ethics of Serbian Journalists.

The Appeals Commission of the Press Council has adopted the appeal and reached the decision that Daily Informer and Portal Telegraf have 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.

Press Council has established that it is undisputable that Albanians, or at least a part of them, take the word “Shiptar” as an insult, which should be enough for media to avoid using such word. The guidelines from the Code of Ethics of Serbian Journalists specify that it is “inadmissibly colloquial, derogatory and imprecise labelling of certain group”, in this case members of the nation whose official name in Serbia is the Albanians. Also, the Commission assessed that context in which the name was used is very important in this case. The media job is to inform and not to additionally raise tensions, this time caused by the incident that occurred at the football match between Serbia and Albania and comments related to that event, and thus insisting on the use of disputed term while reporting on that event is particularly unacceptable.

Praxis welcomes the decision of the Press Council and draws the attention of media that the use of term “Shiptar”, but all other pejorative and derogatory labels for certain social groups, is not in accordance with the Code of Ethics of Serbian Journalists and that they should not be used.

For more information, see the announcement: Daily Informer and Portal Telegraf Violated the Code of Ethics of Journalists

The Constitutional Court has dismissed Praxis initiative for the assessment of the constitutionality of the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure, submitted in June 2014.

Specifically, Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure stipulated that “the representative of an individual must be an attorney-at-law, a close relative, brother, sister or a spouse, or the representative of the legal aid service in the local self-governance who is a graduate lawyer with the bar exam.

With this, the legislator imposed limitations that are early and disproportional limitation of the right to the access to court for certain groups of people. These limitations affect the very essence of the right to access to court. The stated limitations are not either necessary or legitimate or proportional and they are in contradiction with the Article 20 of the Constitution, and thus question the exercise of the right to equal protection of the right before the court from the Article 36, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution for whole groups of people, such as legally invisible persons, single people and common-law partners who cannot represent each other.

In the decision from 2013, the Constitutional Court, assessing the constitutionality of the previous Article 85 of the Law on Civil Procedure (by which lawyer monopoly was established) took the view that there is no constitutional ground for prescribing restrictions in regard to who may be the party’s proxy in the civil procedure. 

The Constitutional Court, in its latest decision, rejecting the Praxis initiative, actually departed from its view which it had taken in regard to the same issue in its decision from 2013.

However, in the explanation of the decision, the Constitutional Court noted the problems pointed at by Praxis in its initiative, but it described such problems as legal gaps that need to be filled in in the procedure of implementation of the law.

These views of the Constitutional Court will not contribute to exercise of the right to access to court in a manner prescribed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution of Serbia.