In July, the number of refugees/migrants met and interviewed by Praxis’ mobile team did not exceed 200 on a daily basis, including the newly arrived ones, the refugees/migrants accommodated in the Asylum Centre Krnjača and the Reception Centre Obrenovac and those who returned to Belgrade after unsuccessful attempts to cross the Croatian, Hungarian, Bosnian or Romanian border. During this period, Praxis provided assistance to a total of 1883 refugees/migrants, through information, psychosocial support, referrals to the targeted assistance provided by various organisations/institutions or covering the costs of transport to the asylum and reception centres. During this reporting period, up to 44 refugees/migrants were seen sleeping rough in the parks near the Belgrade Bus station every morning.

Praxis continued its field work and provided a total of 1541 newly arrived refugees and migrants (1159 adults - 1034 men and 125 women, and 382 children - 313 boys and 69 girls, including 252 potential unaccompanied and separated children (UASC), 249 boys and 3 girls) with relevant information.

The refugees/migrants of other nationalities were from Bangladesh (61), Eritrea (10), India (23), Libya (3), Somalia (16), Tunisia (3), Egypt (1), Nepal (10), Nigeria (1), Russia (1), Sri Lanka (6) and Turkey (3). Refugees/migrants arrived to Serbia via Macedonia (873 or 56.7%), Bulgaria (270 or 17.5%), Albania (5 or 0.3%), BiH (3 or 0.2%), while 41 of them did not specify where they had entered Serbia and 349 refugees/migrants, mostly from Iran, arrived by plane.

The families and UASC waiting for registration or transport to one of the asylum or reception centres they had been referred to still had the option of spending the night in the aid hub Refugee Aid Miksalište, in the proximity of Belgrade Bus and Train Station. Info Park continued to provide one meal a day for newly arrived refugees/migrants, and occasionally covered the costs of transport to the reception and asylum centres. Beside Praxis and Info Park, SCRM organised transportation to asylum and reception centres several times during this reporting period. The MSF clinic continued to provide medical support. In this reporting period, there was no organised distribution of clothing and footwear in the field in Belgrade.

Download the whole Protection Monitoring Report here.

Due to inadequate regulations on the procedure of birth notification and registration into birth registry books, legally invisible children are still being born in Serbia. In cases where mothers do not possess personal documents, their children cannot be registered in birth registry books immediately after birth. Consequently, children remain excluded from the system of health care and social protection; their permanent residence cannot be registered and they cannot acquire citizenship.

In its work, Praxis continually encounters undocumented women who have given birth and who cannot register their children in birth registry books. In some cases, due to not possessing documents, mothers and their children not only lose the opportunity of receiving parental and child allowances and exercising their right to social assistance, but are also brought to the situation of being asked to pay for expenses, which does not happen to persons who possess personal documents. Moreover, sometimes they are asked to pay even for the expenses that they are not legally obliged to pay. It should be noted that in Serbia the problem of not possessing documents almost always affects members of the Roma national minority, who are among the poorest and most marginalised citizens.

Praxis was addressed by S.Z. seeking free legal aid. She did not have personal documents because the birth register book in which she had been registered remained unavailable to the authorities of the Republic of Serbia after the 1999 Kosovo conflict. She gave birth in late July, but - unlike mothers with an ID card - she was unable to determine her child's name in the maternity hospital, register the child’s permanent residence and register the child to health insurance. Moreover, she and her newborn were not allowed to leave the maternity hospital until she took the hospital bill in the amount of RSD 234,000. On that occasion, the mother and her cohabiting partner were told that they had to pay the bill within one month or to register to health insurance, otherwise they would be sued.

This conduct of a health care institution is contrary to the Law on Health Care, which prescribes that emergency funds (including childbirth) shall be provided from the budget of the Republic of Serbia for persons who do not exercise the right to urgent medical assistance otherwise. In addition, denying the mother the possibility to determine the child’s name in the maternity hospital is contrary to the instruction given within the framework of the project Baby, Welcome to the World, which simplified the birth registration process and allowed mothers who did not possess personal documents to register children in birth registry books.

N.A. faced a similar problem. She does not have documents because her mother did not have an ID card at the time of child delivery, and therefore she was not able to register her child into birth registry books. Consequently, N.A., who gave birth about a month ago, could not register her newborn child into birth registry books either. In her case, the maternity hospital did not ask for the payment of child delivery costs, but the child had to be hospitalised soon after birth where it was treated for seven days. Upon completion of treatment, the mother was asked to pay RSD 44,000.  In both cases, Praxis has pointed out to health care institutions that these cases should be treated as urgent and that patients should not be asked to pay the costs, but it remains to be seen whether the hospital will give up the intention to collect the payment.

Such situations would be avoided by registering every child into birth registry books immediately after birth, because it would allow the child to obtain a health card immediately as well as to access other rights. This would also ensure adherence to the principle according to which the best interest of the child must always be in the first place, as well as compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and ratified international conventions guaranteeing to every child the right to birth registration and to a personal name immediately after birth.
Therefore, it is necessary to change, without delay, the provisions of the Instruction on administering civil registry books and forms of registry books and the Rulebook on the procedure for the issuance of birth notification and form of the issuance of birth notification in a health care institution, which prevent the birth registration of children whose mothers do not possess personal documents. This would prevent the generation of new legally invisible persons, and give an opportunity to a considerable number of children, who would otherwise be without documents, to get the necessary protection in the most vulnerable period of their lives. Therefore, in mid-July Praxis sent an appeal to the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-government, which is responsible for these regulations, to urgently amend the controversial provisions.

Handling the complaints lodged by Praxis, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality issued an opinion establishing discrimination in five decisions of the Kraljevo City Assembly that denied the rights to the internally displaced persons with temporary residence registered in the City of Kraljevo. More precisely, in the Decision on Free Bus Transportation in the City of Kraljevo, the Decision on the Right to One-off Financial Assistance for the First-born Child, the Decision on Financial Assistance to Unemployed New Mothers and the Decision on Scholarships for Students of the City of Kraljevo, the Kraljevo City Assembly imposed the condition of permanent residence in the city, thus preventing internally displaced persons from exercising the rights granted by these decisions. Although the decision maker had a clear intention to use funds from the local budget for improving the position of the most vulnerable citizens, the imposed condition of permanent residence excluded all internally displaced persons and refugees residing in the City of Kraljevo over 20 years and fulfilling all other requirements set forth in these decisions. 

Responding to the allegations of complaints, the President of the Kraljevo City Assembly did not deny that the concerned decisions had violated the right of citizens to exercise the rights under equal conditions and stated that the City Assembly would undertake necessary measures to alter the disputed decisions.

The Commissioner established that the entire group of people in the City of Kraljevo was excluded in that way, violating Article 7 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, and therefore recommended to the Kraljevo City Assembly to undertake all measures within its purview to make the said decisions applicable also to the internally displaced persons residing in the city.

The Commissioner also issued an opinion concerning the Decision on Financial Assistance to Multi-child Families in the City of Kraljevo, according to which parents must have the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, children must be 7 - 15 years old, while the parents who exercised the right to social assistance from the social welfare centre were not eligible, and established that Articles 6 and 8 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination were violated. For that reason, she recommended to the Kraljevo City Assembly to undertake measures within its purview to align the said decision with anti-discrimination regulations. 

We remind that Praxis withdrew the complaints related to the Decision on Free Bus Transportation in the City of Kraljevo, the Decision on the Right to One-off Financial Assistance for the First-born Child and the Decision on Financial Assistance to Unemployed New Mothers after the President of the Kraljevo City Assembly had accepted our objections and expressed readiness to alter the disputed provisions. Praxis will certainly continue to monitor further actions of the competent authorities in terms of aligning the disputed decisions with anti-discrimination legislation.

On this occasion, we once again appeal to public authorities, both at the local and national level, to pay attention to the importance of respecting human rights, adherence to the principles of non-discrimination and needs of the most vulnerable citizens in the policy-making process. Active citizen participation in the decision-making and policy-making process can prevent the adoption of discriminatory and inappropriate decisions and make the work of administration accountable and efficient.  

The Third Meeting of the National Working Group (NWG) on Public Administration Reform (PAR) in Serbia, was held on 13 June in Belgrade attended by the representatives of the SIGMA/OECD, who presented the results of SIGMA 2017 Assessment for Serbia during the first part of the meeting.

The meeting was opened by Brian Finn, Senior Adviser for Public Financial Management, saying that the results of the Monitoring Report showed that Serbia made significant improvements in comparison the previous assessment period, highlighting that in some PAR Areas Serbia is above the regional average, but it is still necessary to increase the implementation rate and fulfilment of obligations, to show dedication to reforms, realistically plan costs and carefully monitor achieved results. In the second session, Annika Uudelepp, SIGMA Senior Adviser for Strategy and Reform, and Primož Vehar, Senior Adviser for Service Delivery, focused on the state in civil service in Serbia and reflected on the international standards and good practice in achieving professional senior civil service. Moreover, they highlighted that the senior civil servants:  are highly important for the good administration in every country. yet in Serbia they are often not selected in the open competition in Serbia, which weakens their role. leaves them in the state of insecurity for their position and therefore threatens  to  politicise their work... Finally, Vehar presented SIGMA's recommendations for getting more citizen-friendly service delivery, including less bureaucracy, more e-government and digitalisation.

Miloš Đinđić, WeBER Lead Researcher, presented PAR Monitor results from Serbia to the NWG members at the second part of the meeting.

Milena Lazarević, WeBER Project Manager and CEP Programme Director presented the results of the survey of civil servants, implemented  within the PAR Monitor. The questionnaire was widely distributed and filled in by 1199 civil servants working in the central administration.

By gathering inputs and comments from participants for the WeBER Platform Meeting which will be held on 19 June 2018, the meeting of the NWG was concluded. On that occasion, Jasmina Mikovic presented the main findings of the research on transparency of the local self-government and implementation of the new Law on General Administrative Procedure, which Praxis conducted within the project Contributing to Public Administration Reform in Kraljevo. She also emphasized the importance of respecting and applying human rights principles in the creation of local policies, with particular reference to the importance of the participation of all groups in society, including children, women, minorities and certain vulnerable groups in decision making, so that the local self-government is ready to respond to the needs of vulnerable social groups. Thereby, it is necessary to constantly take care of preserving the non-discrimination principle in all local policies, and particularly when making decisions and providing services.  

See the statement at WeBER platform. 
See the video on the activities implemented within the WeBER project. 

Civil society organisations are concerned about the provisions contained in the Draft Law on Free Legal Aid, which directly affect the right to effective and equitable access to justice for all persons in need of this type of assistance. 

The Law on Free Legal Aid has been pending for more than 12 years. During this time, lawyers and attorneys-at-law engaged in civil society organisations have provided free legal aid and some even participated in the Working Group that produced the 2015 Draft. The provisions from the current Draft significantly deviate from the provisions proposed by free legal aid providers based on their extensive experience. 

Although the Ministry of Justice, at the time of publishing the latest Draft Law, announced that it had corrected the text amending it in accordance with the remarks submitted, the most important remarks made by the civil society organisations listed below, as decades-long providers of free legal aid, were not accepted.  

This relates primarily to the limited possibilities of legal aid provision by lawyers and attorneys-at-law engaged by CSOs, who have performed this activity, in absence of an adequate law, over the last 20 years. The Draft Law allows CSOs to provide free legal aid only on the basis of the Law on Asylum and the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, ignoring other laws, such as the Law on Public Information and Media, which also envisages this activity to be performed by CSOs. 

The Draft Law brings confusion to the existing legal provisions by introducing a very vague provision according to which attorneys-at-law shall provide free legal aid on behalf of the CSOs legally entitled to provide free legal aid. We recall that the Law on Civil Procedure stipulates that the legal representative of a party may be an attorney-at-law, relative or spouse, representative of free legal aid service, lawyer that passed the bar exam representing the legal entity in which he or she is employed, and a representative of a trade union. Moreover, the smallest part of free legal aid services are in-court representations or representations before state authorities, while most of them consist of free legal advice and filing submissions. 

Is Serbia so rich that it can afford to have attorneys-at-law provide all types of free legal aid - ranging from legal advice to representation, and will attorneys-at-law be able to respond to all the needs of free legal aid seekers? Instead of the state sharing the responsibility for free legal aid provision among all interested providers that would help each other in the best interest of the citizens of Serbia, the Ministry of Justice presents the Draft Law that will not be economically viable if adopted. 

The Draft Law directly discriminates against lawyers as service providers on the basis of the place of their employment or engagement. It is unclear why a lawyer employed in local self-government is allowed not only to provide free legal aid, but also to issue decisions granting the right to free legal aid, while a lawyer employed with social welfare centre, court, prosecutor’s office or CSO is not allowed to do so? 

This affects primarily the citizens in need of legal assistance because the Draft Law directly links the means test with the right to free legal aid equalising it with the means test for social assistance and the right to child allowance. This means that all individuals who do not fall into this category, or some of the categories specified in the law, shall be denied this type of assistance. 

It is unacceptable that a law whose purpose is to facilitate effective and equitable access to justice for the most vulnerable groups of citizens, in this case the Law on Free Legal Aid, limits this right by derogating the existing legal provisions and recognising the right to free legal aid to a small group of persons, while not allowing the provision of assistance by any CSO lawyers who have been performing this work for years.  

Civil society organisations involved in the protection of human rights do not request state funding for free legal aid activities, but they ask for allowing civil society organisations to continue providing free legal aid to a large group of citizens who need this kind of assistance in order to protect and exercise the rights guaranteed not only by the Constitution but also by numerous international documents, and above all the right to access justice. 

The statement is signed by: 

The Lawyers' Committee For Human Rights – YUCOM 

Civic Initiatives 

Belgrade Centre for Human Rights 

Policy Center 

Helsinki Committee for Human Rights 

Child Rights Center 

International Aid Network - IAN 

CHRIS - Network of the Committees for Human Rights in Serbia consisting of: 

- Committee for Human Rights Negotin 

- Committee for Human Rights Valjevo 

- Committee for Human Rights Bujanovac 

- Civic Forum Novi Pazar 

- Committee for Human Rights Niš 

Praxis 

Urban-In 

Citizen's Association FemPlatz 

Atina 

A 11 - Initiative for Economic and Social Rights 

Sandžak Committee for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms 

Dijalog.net 

Association DUGA 

CRTA 

European Policy Centre - CEP 

Independent Journalists' Association of Vojvodina (IJAV) 

Women Support Center - SOS Vojvodina Network 

Western Balkans Institute 

Initiative for Development and Cooperation 

Gayten-LGBT 

Committee for Human Rights Vranje - SOS Hotline Vranje 

Association of Women Peščanik 

Centre for Human Rights Niš

Committee for Human Rights Leskovac

NGO ASTRA – Anti-trafficking Action

Help Children

Humanitarian Law Centre

Praxis sent an appeal to the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government to undertake measures within its jurisdiction to remove legal obstacles that prevent birth registration immediately after birth in case of children whose mothers do not possess personal documents.

Various international organizations and treaty bodies have also pointed to this problem in Serbia. Within the Third Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) concerning Serbia, the UN Human Rights Council gave, among others, a recommendation to the Republic of Serbia to ensure that all children born in Serbia have access to timely birth registration immediately after birth, without discrimination and regardless of the legal or documentation status of their parents.

The Republic of Serbia supported this recommendation. However, in order to implement it, it is necessary to change two by-laws (Rulebook on the procedure for the issuance of birth notification and form of the issuance of birth notification in a health care institution and the Instruction on administering registry books and forms of registry books) which hinder registration of all necessary data about children in the birth registry, including their personal names, in case when parents do not possess personal documents. This practically means that if the mother does not possess an ID card and a birth certificate, it will not be possible to determine personal name of the new-born when registering him/her in the birth registry. It will not be possible to register complete data about parents in the birth registry either. In other words, the child will not be registered in the birth registry immediately after birth; he/she will not be able to obtain a birth certificate, will be deprived of numerous rights and will remain legally invisible.

By amending these by-laws, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister in charge of public administration affairs, not only would the recommendation from the UPR be implemented, but the hierarchy of norms would be respected whereby the by-laws should be harmonized with legal norms of greater legal force. Specifically, Serbian Constitution, the Family Law and ratified international treaties all guarantee the right to birth registration and a personal name to every child, immediately after birth. 

Apart from the UN Human Rights Council, other international organizations and treaty bodies have also drawn attention to this problem (Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in relation to the combined second and third periodic review of the Republic of Serbia; 2018 Report on Serbia by the European Commission). Furthermore, Serbia has committed to implement UN Sustainable Development Goals, one of them (SDG 16.9) being to provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.

The fact that the situation in Serbia concerning access to right to birth registration is not satisfactory has also been emphasised in the Statelessness Index, which gives an overview of how different countries in Europe protect stateless persons and what they do in order to prevent and reduce statelessness. Even though Serbia received good review in relation to some aspects, the review was poor in relation to exercise of the right to timely birth registration of children in the birth registry books and in relation to prevention of statelessness of persons born in Serbia.

Apart from the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government, Praxis also appealed to the Ombudsperson to contribute to removing the stated legal obstacles within its scope of authority.

Praxis submitted the Initiative to the Constitutional Court of Serbia for assessment of the provisions of two by-laws that prevent registration of children in the birth registry immediately after birth in case when children’s parents do not possess personal documents.

These by-laws are the Rulebook on the procedure for the issuance of birth notification and form of the issuance of birth notification in a health care institution and the Instruction on administering registry books and forms of registry books, which provide for birth registration only of the new-born children whose mothers possess personal documents. For this reason, children whose mothers do not possess ID cards will not be able to obtain a birth certificate immediately after birth. Thus, they will be deprived of health care and social welfare services in the most vulnerable period of life, as well as of access to all rights the exercise of which is conditioned by the possession of personal documents. What is even more worrying is the fact that the problem of lack of documentation in Serbia almost exclusively affects members of the Roma ethnic minority, who are the most discriminated against and most marginalized population in Serbia.

In the stated Initiative, Praxis argues that the provisions of the by-laws are not in accordance with the provisions of the Serbian Constitution, the Family Law and ratified international conventions which guarantee the right to birth registration and personal name to every child, immediately after birth. Therefore, Praxis expects the Constitutional Court to initiate proceeding for constitutional review and to abolish the stated provisions of the by-laws. In this way, not only would the by-laws be harmonized with legal norms of greater legal force, but the impermissible practice that results in the violation of the basic human rights of the most vulnerable population in Serbia would be put to an end and new cases of legally invisible persons would be prevented.

In June, the number of refugees/migrants met and interviewed by Praxis’ mobile team did not exceed 150 on a daily basis, including the newly arrived ones, the refugees/migrants accommodated in the Asylum Centre Krnjača and the Reception Centre Obrenovac and those who returned to Belgrade after unsuccessful attempts to cross the Croatian, Hungarian, Bosnian or Romanian border. In this period, Praxis provided assistance to a total of 1598 refugees/migrants, through information, psychosocial support, referrals to the targeted assistance provided by various organisations/institutions or covering the costs of transport to the asylum and reception centres.

Praxis continued its field work and provided a total of 1294 newly arrived refugees and migrants (994 adults - 865 men and 129 women, and 300 children - 215 boys and 85 girls, including 145 potential unaccompanied and separated children (UASC), 143 boys and 2 girls) with relevant information.

Comparing to the previous period, there was a noticeable increase in the number of refugees/migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. In May, 167 refugees/migrants or 19.4% of them arrived from Iraq, while in June, this number increased to 252. In previous month, 114 (13.3%) refugees/migrants arrived from Afghanistan, while in June, this number increased to 248. As for the refugees/migrants from Pakistan, 191 refugees/migrants (22.2%) arrived in May, while in June, this number increased to 396. The refugees/migrants of other nationalities were from Bangladesh (27), Eritrea (6), India (4), Cameron (2), Libya (9), Ivory Coast (1), Romania (1), Somalia (17), Palestine (1) and Turkey (2). Refugees/migrants arrived to Serbia via Macedonia (808 or 62.4%), Bulgaria (227 or 17.5%), Croatia (12 or 0.9%), Hungary (2 or 0.2%) and Romania (1 or 0.1%), while 15 of them did not specify where they had entered Serbia and 229 refugees/migrants from Iran arrived by plane.

Download the whole Protection Monitoring Report here.

Praxis, the European Network on Statelessness, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI) submitted Alternative Report to the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The report points to the difficulties faced by Roma women in Serbia in exercising their rights. Their position is particularly difficult as they are often victims of multiple discrimination on the basis of their gender and ethnicity. The report contains information about problems Roma women face in accessing rights to health care, social protection, education, employment. At the same time, it highlights the issue of child, early and forced marriages, which are disproportionately more frequent among the Roma population, but specifically affecting Roma women and girls. Besides, the report also points to the lack of an efficient system of free legal aid, which additionally hinders access to rights.

Particular attention in the report is dedicated to obstacles aggravating birth registration and acquisition of citizenship, while the emphasis is specifically put on the issue of discriminatory regulations which prevent Roma women who do not possess personal documents to register their new-born children in the birth registry. For this reason, these children are also left without citizenship and registered permanent residence in the most vulnerable period of their life, and, consequently, the possibility to exercise rights to health and social insurance, as well as other rights for the exercise of which it is required to possess personal documents.

Finally, the joint submission also provides recommendations to the Committee for achieving equality and preventing discrimination of Roma women.

You can download the report HERE.