Source: Thomson Reuters Foundation

Any views expressed in this article are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.

BELGRADE, Serbia, July 17 (UNHCR) - Raman* is not asking for much. "I just want to be a regular citizen," says the 27-year-old Roma, whose life has been in a legal limbo for years because he is not fully recognized as a citizen by any country.

The young man was born in Kosovo in 1987, when the Balkans territory was a part of Yugoslavia, but his birth was never registered. "At that time, we did not know anything about birth registration and documents, nor how they would influence my life," he told UNHCR.

The refugee agency has been supporting his legal bid, through the Serbian non-governmental organization Praxis, to get recognition and citizenship. He has had some success, but getting a nationality and associated rights still eludes him.

Raman was just 11-years-old during the Kosovo crisis of 1999, when his family fled from Kosovo. But without documentation or a nationality, he and his family had difficulty accessing basic services, including education and health care, and he also faced harassment and trouble travelling and finding work.

"It is not easy. I have been stopped by the police many times and threatened to be arrested and fined, because I did not have an identity card. I lived in fear," he revealed. These are problems shared by many of the world's estimated 10 million stateless people, including some Roma born in the former Yugoslavia who never acquired a nationality.

Growing up in Kosovo, Raman led a hard but happy life. His father died when Raman was a baby and his mother left him and his five siblings with their uncle, who was good to the children. But, Raman observed, "We did not go to school because we had to work with him in order to survive."

At the end of the Kosovo conflict in June 1999, Serbs and Roma started fleeing as the Serbian army withdrew. They faced new challenges in Belgrade. Raman stayed with his brothers in an abandoned mud house, but the boys were unable to get assistance because they did not have documents to show they were internally displaced from Kosovo.

Then he had some luck, being reunited with his long-lost mother, who lived as a displaced person in the town of Smederevo. Raman stayed for four years, then moved back to Belgrade in search of work. It was an eye-opener.

"As I was reaching adulthood, I began understanding how difficult it is to be without documents," said Raman, who helped his stepfather gather waste material for recycling. Without papers and an education, he could not get anything better.

He cited instances of police harassment and told of being threatened with arrest while on the way to buy medicine because he did not have ID documents. Once he got into trouble after an accident involving the vehicle he used to collect plastic, scrap metal and paper.

Raman said he was punished for not having a driving licence. "The police found me at my home even though I had no documents. I was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended, even though I did not exist anywhere." He felt that when the state wanted him, they found him, but when he needed the state, he became invisible.

Many stateless Roma displaced from Kosovo simply cannot afford to go through the time-consuming, expensive process of applying for birth registration and citizenship documents. Some don't even know they can apply.

Raman was lucky. His case was taken up by Praxis, which provides legal aid to the most marginalized communities, including migrants and ethnic minorities such as the Roma. It receives funding from UNHCR.

"Praxis offered to help me free of charge," Raman said. The NGO and others worked with the government to adopt a new procedure for establishing the time and place of birth. This allowed for Raman's own birth to be registered in December 2013. But while Raman was delighted to have his existence finally recognized, it was not all good news. "I still do not have an identity card. In a way I still do not have rights. I have no citizenship."

The main problem is proving that his parents had citizenship and providing evidence of a formal residence, without which he cannot obtain an ID card and enjoy the full rights of citizenship. In a 2011 survey, UNHCR found about 4,500 Roma in Serbia did not have birth registration documents or personal documentation.

But the Serbian Ministry of Interior has committed itself to prioritize such cases and to be flexible. Serbia's National Assembly, moreover, has adopted legislation allowing those without a formal residence to register their local social welfare centre as their home.

However, due to a narrow interpretation of the new legislation by the authorities, this relates only to those that never had a registered residence, while most displaced Roma who live in informal settlements did have a registered residence in Kosovo and cannot register an address while in displacement. They thus have a limited access to basic rights. Despite this, with support from UNHCR and civil society, Serbia has taken important steps to resolve the problems faced by many Roma, including civil registration and documentation, by the end of 2015.

Raman remains optimistic about his dream of citizenship. "I will be able to move freely. I will be able to get a driving licence. Maybe, I can get a job with the municipal cleaning service. I will be recognized as the father of my three daughters," he said. "I won't have to worry about feeding my family and buying medicine for them. I dream of having at least one good room with water and electricity. I just want to be a regular citizen."

*Full name withheld for protection reasons

By Davor Rako, UNHCR Belgrade, Serbia

Public Enterprise Municipal Housing Agency in Kraljevo sued 33 families who live in social housing apartments in Kraljevo, requesting that they move out. The apartments were built through a donation of the organization HELP - Hilfe Zur Selbsthilfe e.V. – Mission in the Republic of Serbia, the beneficiary being Kraljevo City Administration, which transferred the right to manage these apartments to the Municipal Housing Agency in Kraljevo through a separate contract.

After the expiry of the three-year deadline during which internally displaced persons, former residents of collective centres, lived in social housing apartments in Kraljevo for free, the Municipal Housing Agency prescribed that the beneficiaries of these apartments must provide minimum 75 euros (in RSD equivalent) per household member. At the same time, the contracts offered to the beneficiaries by the Municipal Housing Agency envisage a monthly obligation of paying the rental in the amount of 1.20 euros per square meter. Having in mind that certain number of the beneficiaries do not generate any income or are retired, beneficiaries of social welfare or receive temporary compensation for unemployed persons from Kosovo, the fulfillment of contractual obligations is unattainable for many of them.

As a result of highly unfavourable conditions for extending the contracts which the residents of social housing apartments cannot fulfil, they are left without legal basis of housing and are facing a lawsuit before Basic Court in Kraljevo, being requested to move out.

Public Enterprise Municipal Housing Agency in Kraljevo sued 33 families who live in social housing apartments in Kraljevo, requesting that they move out. The apartments were built through a donation of the organization HELP - Hilfe Zur Selbsthilfe e.V. – Mission in the Republic of Serbia, the beneficiary being Kraljevo City Administration, which transferred the right to manage these apartments to the Municipal Housing Agency in Kraljevo through a separate contract.

After the expiry of the three-year deadline during which internally displaced persons, former residents of collective centres, lived in social housing apartments in Kraljevo for free, the Municipal Housing Agency prescribed that the beneficiaries of these apartments must provide minimum 75 euros (in RSD equivalent) per household member. At the same time, the contracts offered to the beneficiaries by the Municipal Housing Agency envisage a monthly obligation of paying the rental in the amount of 1.20 euros per square meter. Having in mind that certain number of the beneficiaries do not generate any income or are retired, beneficiaries of social welfare or receive temporary compensation for unemployed persons from Kosovo, the fulfillment of contractual obligations is unattainable for many of them.

As a result of highly unfavourable conditions for extending the contracts which the residents of social housing apartments cannot fulfil, they are left without legal basis of housing and are facing a lawsuit before Basic Court in Kraljevo, being requested to move out.

The Network of Organizations for Children of Serbia, with Praxis being the member, has launched the national campaign aimed at improving the parenting through the promotion of examples of raising children without corporal punishment.

More than 90 member organizations dealing with children’s rights in Serbia, together with a few thousand parents will jointly develop the resources for better, easier and more beautiful parenting through a series of activities and exchange and promotion of positive experience. The task of the campaign is direct inclusion of 3,000 parents who practice positive parenting and who can share their knowledge and experience. 

The parents who join the campaign will be invited to sign the “Declaration of the Parents in Serbia”, invite other parents to join the campaign by signing the Declaration, share their own experience in raising of children with other parents, like FB page of the campaign, invite other parents to like FB page, fill in the survey of parenting methods, and to post the good examples of non-violent upbringing.

On Facebook page RODITELJ PLUS = batine minus, you can find all information about the campaign, and also share parenting practice without corporal punishment, as well as educational materials.

On 23 May 2014, the National Assembly adopted a set of judicial laws, which were introduced into the Parliament through an emergency procedure, without public discussion and consultations with expert public, which, to some extent, led to legal uncertainty and inequality of citizens before the law.

Soon after, the first initiative for the assessment of constitutionality of the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure was submitted to the Constitutional Court by Praxis for the denial of the right to a fair trial to some population groups by prescribing illegitimate and disproportionate limitations and for threatening the constitutional principle of equality of legal protection before the courts and other state bodies. Specifically, the Article 4 of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Civil Procedure, which came into force on 31 May 2014, amended the Article 85 with the new paragraph 2 based on which “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”.

This imposes limitations to a number of population groups, such as legally invisible persons, then persons without alive close relatives from the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure, who are not married and of poor financial standing, and persons living in common-law communities and have no alive close relative from the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure and are of poor financial standing.

To remind, the Article 85 of the Law of Civil Procedure has already been the subject of the assessment of constitutionality when it was established that its provisions in the paragraph 1 reading “must be a lawyer” and in the paragraph 2 reading that “ a party must be represented by an attorney-at-law in the procedure upon extraordinary remedies unless he/she is a lawyer himself/herself”  were unconstitutional. The opinion of the Constitutional Court was that “there is no constitutional ground for stipulating the limitations in regard to who may be the proxy of the party in the civil procedure”. However, the legislator did not take into account the explanation of the decision of the Constitutional Court but it again stipulated the limitations related to who may be the proxy of the individual in the civil procedure, and thus the disputable provision will again be the subject of the assessment of constitutionality.                         

For more information, see the announcement: Praxis Submitted the Initiative for Assessment of Constitutionality of the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure

On the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination marked on 21 March, Praxis and Liceulice organized a campaign aimed at raising awareness of the necessity of elimination of racial discrimination in the period from 15-23 March 2014.

The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is marked in memory of 69 persons who were killed on 21 March 1960 for protesting against the racial apartheid policy in the South African city Sharpeville. In 1966, United Nations General Assembly decided that 21 March would be marked as the International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination..

Within the European Week against Racism, Praxis and Liceulice wanted to draw the attention of the authorities and wider public to the fact that members of the minority groups, primarily the Roma, are exposed to racial discrimination which inevitably leads to their social exclusion. Despite the national and international legislation on prohibition of discrimination, members of the Roma population are still facing the serious problems in accessing socioeconomic rights. Roma population is living on the edge of poverty, in informal settlements disappearing for the sake of the idea of large infrastructural projects, and Roma become homeless deprived of the access to the right to adequate housing. The members of the Roma population are often perceived as second-class citizens exposed to prejudices, stereotypes and intolerance by the majority population, media and authorities.

Praxis and Liceulice are posting antiracial messages in the social networks, and in the postcards they wrote messages depicting racism as seen through the prism of students, Roma addressing Praxis for assistance, buyers of the magazine Liceulice and others. The postcards were afterwards sent to the responsible institutions and collected messages were distributed via social networks. Together with IPAK.Centre, the night graffiti action of marking the safe place was organized.

On 23 May 2014, the National Assembly adopted a set of judicial laws, which were introduced into the Parliament through an emergency procedure, without public discussion and consultations with expert public. Many non-governmental organizations expressed their concern by sending the open letter on the occasion of amendments to the legislative laws, demanding that they shall be withdrawn from the Parliament, pointing that some of the proposed measures may lead to legal uncertainty and inequality before the law, which will threaten the fundamental right to legal protection and will deepen the already great distrust into the legal system, legal state and rule of law in Serbia. However, the reaction of the civil sector did not affect the process of adoption of the law. 

Soon after, the first initiative for the assessment of constitutionality of the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure was submitted to the Constitutional Court by Praxis for the denial of the right to a fair trial to some population groups by prescribing illegitimate and disproportionate limitations and for threatening the constitutional principle of equality of legal protection before the courts and other state bodies.

Specifically, the Article 4 of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Civil Procedure, which came into force on 31 May 2014, amended the Article 85 with the new paragraph 2 based on which “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”.

This imposes limitations to a number of population groups, such as legally invisible persons, who are most often members of the vulnerable population groups, who do not have legal education to the extent needed to represent their own interests before the court, nor can they hire a proxy based on the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure, which is also applied in a non-contentious procedure. Given that they do not have money to hire a bar-admitted lawyer, there is no possibility for them to hire the representative of free legal aid service of the local self-governance as there is yet no efficient free legal aid system. In addition to the legally invisible, the persons without alive close relatives from the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure, who are not married and of poor financial standing are also deprived of the access to court. This also refers to the persons who live in common-law communities and have no alive close relative from the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure and are of poor financial standing. Based on the Article 62, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, a common-law community is equal with marriage in accordance with the law. It is not clear why spouses may represent each other in the civil procedure and common-law partners may not.

To remind, the Article 85 of the Law of Civil Procedure has already been the subject of the assessment of constitutionality when it was established that its provisions in the paragraph 1 reading “must be a lawyer” and in the paragraph 2 reading that “a party must be represented by an attorney-at-law in the procedure upon extraordinary remedies unless he/she is a lawyer himself/herself” were unconstitutional. By the decision as of 23 May 2013, the Constitutional Court established that representation by the bar-admitted lawyer, i.e. a person whose profession is provision of free legal aid, and not by anybody else, is naturally a financial burden imposed on the represented party, and it gives the state an active role in providing an available legal procedure for determining the right and obligations stipulated by regulations. Concretely, the exercise of the right to free legal aid is questioned for a wide range of vulnerable persons, including legally invisible persons, the old, people with disabilities and the helpless, who have been represented by the their friends and who cannot conduct litigation activities themselves nor can they pay the lawyers’ fees, and Serbia does not have the Law on Free Legal Aid yet.

The opinion of the Constitutional Court was that “there is no constitutional ground for stipulating the limitations in regard to who may be the proxy of the party in the civil procedure”. Therefore, only the provision of the Law on Civil Procedure reading: “The proxy in the civil procedure may be any fully capable individual” would be in accordance with the Constitution. However, the legislator did not take into account the explanation of the decision of the Constitutional Court but in the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure, contrary to the opinion of the Constitutional Court, again stipulated the limitations related to who may be the proxy of the individual in the civil procedure.

The question is why the legislator failed to consistently implement the opinion of the Constitutional Court but did it just partly, by prescribing that the proxy of an individual may be a person with full working capacity provided that he/she is a spouse or a close relative to the represented party, and thus got around the decision of the Constitutional Court and deprived some population groups from the right to access the court by imposing disproportionate and illegitimate limitations and threatening the constitutional principle of equality of legal protection before the courts and other state bodies.

Download: Initiative for the Assessment of the Article 85, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Procedure
See the announcement: Constitutional Court Established that the Provisions of the Article 85, Paragraph 1 Stating “who must be the lawyer”, Article 85, Paragraph 2 and Articles 494 through 505 of the Civil Procedure Law are not in Accordance with the Constitution and Ratified International Treaties

European Network on Statelessness calls on all European leaders to sign the petition to demand protection for stateless persons in Europe.

The fact that there remain an estimated 600,000 stateless persons living in Europe today shows that action is long overdue. The time for action is now.

Recent research reveals that the absence of a route by which stateless persons can regularise their status leaves these individuals at risk of a range of human rights abuses. Many stateless persons find themselves destitute or forced to sleep rough on the streets. Others are subjected to long term immigration detention despite there being no prospect of return. Often stateless persons must endure years separated from their families abroad. Few are in a position to break this cycle, and as a consequence are left in legal limbo for years.

Timed to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the 1954 Statelessness Convention, this campaign will bring together a broad spectrum of actors and to put a human face on the statelessness issue. The campaign will culminate in a concerted day of action against statelessness across Europe on 14 October 2014 when this petition will be handed to European leaders.

Isa was born in Kosovo. He fled to Belgrade following the 1999 conflict, but because he didn’t have any papers proving his identity, was never registered as an internally displaced person.
His very first document, his birth certificate, was issued in 2013 when he was 29. This was only possible due to a new procedure  introduced in 2012. Up till then Isa lived a life of an invisible. He did not attend school, he did not have health insurance and the only pieces of evidence about his residence are the statements of his common-law spouse and his neighbours.

However, despite managing to register his birth into birth registry, Isa remains stateless without a nationality. He cannot “inherit” his father’s nationality since his father doesn’t have any (his father was born in Macedonia and lived in Kosovo since the 1980s, but has never had his nationality officially registered) or his mother’s (she left Isa when he was only two weeks old and Isa doesn’t know if she held any nationality at the moment of his birth). Without nationality, Isa remains deprived of rights and services.

Serbia currently lacks a procedure to recognise Isa’s statelessness and regularise his status. Meanwhile, the only option open to Isa now is to try to acquire Serbian nationality through the naturalization procedure. Unfortunately, the outcome of the procedure remains uncertain because Isa cannot provide any written proof of his residence, which is one of the legal requirements. So he remains stuck in a vicious circle and facing a life in limbo.

After initiating a procedure upon the complaint filed by Praxis and Women’s Space from Nis to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, it was established that the owner of the Pizza Shop “Marconi - Rim” from Nis discriminated against a Roma woman in establishing employment relationship.

Specifically, after publishing an advertisement offering employment in the Pizza Shop  “Marconi - Rim” from Nis, Praxis and the organization Women’s Space carried out situational testing in which two persons, one Roma woman and one non-Roma woman, of similar age, work experience and other characteristics, tried to establish employment relationship with this employer. Despite of it, the employer had the intention to employ only the person who did not belong to Roma ethnic minority.

In this procedure, the Commissioner pointed at the fact that the owner of the pizza shop had complete freedom to choose the person he wished to employ, evaluating the professional knowledge and capacities. However, in the process of employment, it is prohibited to exclude or give priority to any person based on their personal characteristics, which are not real and decisive condition for doing the job, having in mind the nature and specific characteristics of the job and the related working conditions.

For this and for the implementation of the rule on burden of proof, the Commissioner established that, in establishing employment relationship, the employer denied the possibility of employment to the Roma woman, who was a tester, exclusively because she is of Roma ethnicity, thus committing the act of direct discrimination on the basis of her personal characteristic which is prohibited by the articles 2, 6 and 16 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination.

The employer was thus recommended to respect imperative rules on prohibition of discrimination in establishing employment relationship in the future, to publish and keep the opinion and recommendation of the Commissioner on the bulletin board or other visible place in the premises of the shop for at least 8 days and to inform the Commissioner about it within 30 days from submitting the opinion and recommendation.

For more information, see the announcement: Employeer Discriminated against a Roma Woman in Establishing Employment Relationship