The adoption of the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens as of November 2011 was announced as paving of the way to the solution of the problem of registration of permanent/temporary residence for persons without a legal basis of housing in the Republic of Serbia (property right over the apartment, apartment lease contract or other legal basis). Specifically, the possibility offered by the new law related to the registration of permanent residence at the address of the institution in which a person is permanently accommodated or at the address of the competent social welfare centre would largely simplify the administrative procedure necessary for the exercise of basic human rights of the vulnerable population group, primarily the homeless and persons living in informal settlements, but also others who due to the lack of a legal basis for registration of permanent/temporary residence suffer negative consequences in terms of the accessibility of guaranteed socioeconomic and other rights.

The adoption of the new law has set up the framework and deadlines for the adoption of appropriate bylaws, which would regulate the manner of the implementation of the law more thoroughly. Consequently, ambiguities in practice would be avoided and there would be no need for “ad hoc” steps in solving the problem of registration of permanent/temporary residence.

However, the responsible institutions  have failed in their work: not only were the legal deadlines for passing the suitable bylaws unobserved, but the significant segments of the concerned problem remained unsolved even after the adoption of the Rulebook on Form of Registration of Permanent Residence at the Address of Institution or Social Welfare Centre (adopted on 30 November 2012, thus greatly exceeding the legally stipulated deadline of 3 months for adoption).

Since the adoption of the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens, Praxis has been monitoring the application of norms, including the results of the long expected bylaws. The conclusion that can be drawn based on the experience from practice is that not much has changed. Praxis will continue monitoring the implementation of positive regulations in this field, by making efforts as to ensure that the implementation of the adopted norms is conducted at a practical level too, as adequately and appropriately as possible.
.

See: Rulebook on Form of Registration for Permanent Residence at the Address of Institution or Social Welfare Centre

The outcome of the procedures conducted for the collection of child support in Serbia usually does not provide adequate protection of interest of child support beneficiaries, both for the inappropriate length and frequent impossibility of collection of support or alimony determined by court decisions. In EU countries, the situation in the concerned area is far more advanced, which is evidenced by the procedure for collection of child support from the father residing in Finland that is currently conducted in line with rules of the international law.

By submitting the request to the Ministry of Finance and Economy of the Republic of Serbia on 14 January 2013, the executive procedure was initiated for the collection of child support from the person residing in Finland, based on the decision of the court of the Republic of Serbia. The procedure is conducted in line with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance from 1956.  Pursuant to the rules and procedures of the Convention, the request was sent to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Finland. The documentation needed to be enclosed in the request was extensive and its collection lasted for several months, but the significance of this circumstance is substantially diminished by the promptness of further acting of competitive institutions. Specifically, the competent Finnish Ministry, as a mediator in the collection of child support, sent the response to the submitter of request as early as on 16 January 2013. The concerned notice provided a detailed procedure that would follow the submitted request. The conducting of the procedure until the final collection of all due amounts of child support, along with the current amounts, will be in charge of Finnish state bodies and institutions.  According to the Finnish legislation, the submitter of request is also guaranteed free legal aid and exemption from costs of alimony procedure that will be conducted in Finland. Such protection of interest of child support beneficiaries is surely the solution that should be regulated in Serbia as well. However, the Serbian legislation cannot boast of similar regulations. In addition to the stated, the Finish regulations offer the possibility of increase of amounts of child support in case case of the change of facts and circumstances, upon the request of the beneficiary.  That possibility has been used in the concerned procedure by the legal representatives of our citizen – the request for the change (increase) of determined amount of child support has been submitted and the competent Finish bodies are expected to provide their opinion in the course of the procedure.

According to the information received from the Ministry of Finance and Economy of the Republic of Serbia, the described procedure is the first case of the collection of support from the person residing in Finland, and thus it represents the first steps towards the establishment of practice in this field between Serbia and Finland. Based on the recent course of the procedure, we conclude that efficient realization of the collection of child support can be expected, and the application of the rules of the international law, in the concrete case of the UN Convention from 1956 points to the fact that it is possible to conduct alimony procedures quickly, efficiently and by respecting the integrity and interest of persons in need of support.

Soon after the enforcement of the Rulebook of procedure for registration of permanent residence at the address of social welfare centre (CSR), which closely regulates the stated possibility of the registration of permanent residence, twenty-one year old M.Z., an internally displaced person from Kosovo in 1999, was registered at the address of SWC Kraljevo in accordance with the provisions of the new Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens.

Newly adopted regulations express the intention of the legislator to remove the obstacles arising from the factual impossibility of the registration of permanent residence, which mainly affects the most endangered population categories. The procedure conducted before CSR Kraljevo is surely an example of good practice and a sign of good will of competent services to find an efficient and applicable solution for the persons from the stated category. Even though the cases of the registration of permanent residence at the address of SWC are not numerous, we do hope that this practice will be established.

Once she regulated the issue of permanent residence, M.Z. obtained ID card with validity date of 10 years, what enabled her to access socioeconomic and other rights. Procedures before CSR Kraljevo and Police Department Kraljevo were conducted without difficulties, which should serve as an example of good practice.

In December 2012, non-governmental organization Praxis published the report “No Residence, No Rights”, as part of the project financed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) based on data collected during the period from September 2009 to November 2012, along with the provision of legal assistance to members of marginalised groups in the procedures of registration or change of permanent or temporary residence in Serbia. Since in November 2011 the Republic of Serbia adopted a new Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence, one of the objectives of this report was also the analysis of the implementation of this new Law, with special emphasis on the provisions that should allow the registration of permanent residence to members of marginalised groups.

Permanent residence implies the closest territorial connection between an individual and a legal system - a place where a person has willingly created the closest ties, which is the centre of his or her life relations, in which he or she has started a family, got employed, set up a home... Recognising the importance of the individual's connection with the place of his or her life activities and assuming that every citizen has a permanent residence in some place, i.e. only one place in the country, the legislator tied a number of important aspects of its citizens' lives to that place.  

The concept of permanent residence in the legislation of the Republic of Serbia is based on two elements: objective (settlement and residence or factual presence in one place) and subjective (intention of residing permanently in that place). However, in order for these constituent elements to lead to the situation that, in the place where a person lives, he or she can apply to health insurance, exercise the right to social protection if he or she is in the state of need or access any rights whose exercise is related to the place of permanent residence, the factual presence in one place and the intention of residing permanently in that place are not enough. The existence of these required constituent elements of domicile must be accompanied by the registration in the records of the competent authorities, and the condition for this is the previous approval of request for registration of permanent residence. The difficulties that arise when certain categories of the population of Serbia submit a request for registration of permanent residence have been leading for decades to a phenomenon that may be called domicilelessness. These difficulties mainly arise from the fact that some people, mainly Roma from informal settlements, cannot document ownership or housing on other basis. The registration of permanent residence is the obligation of every citizen and the requirement to be met in order to obtain an identity card. The possession of ID card is a prerequisite for access to almost every right and a legal obligation of every person over 16 years of age. Without an identity card and registered permanent residence, the basic rights remain inaccessible even to those individuals who are nationals of Serbia.

Through the examples from practice, the report provided a clear insight into what impact may permanent residence have on the lives of individuals and why it is difficult for many people to access the rights that should belong to them in the country of which they are nationals. Apart from denied or hindered access to economic and social rights, the described obstacles in the procedures of registering or changing permanent residence inevitably entail the denial of the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence.

Download the report: No Residence, No Rights

Download: HERE

The Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens adopted in November 2011 was announced as paving the road towards the solution of the problem of registration of permanent/temporary residence of person who have no legal basis of housing in the Republic of Serbia (ownership right over the apartment, contract on lease of the apartment or any other legal basis). The  Law envisages the possibility of the registration of permanent residence at the address of the institution in which a person permanently resides or at the address of the competent social welfare centre, with the notification that the procedure, conditions and the manner of its conducting will be regulated additionally by bylaws.

The Rulebook of procedure for registration of permanent residence at the address of the social welfare center came into force at the beginning of December 2012, but the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia issued the Instruction for proceeding to be followed when registering the permanent residence at the address of social welfare center (SWC). The act of the Ministry prescribes the guidelines for coordination of the activities of the competent bodies in the concerned procedure, but the interpretation of the provision of the Instruction that envisages the conditions for the registration of the permanent residence at the address of SWC turned out to be disputable. Specifically, in addition to the evidence on identity of a person whose request is being decided on, the disputable provision requires enclosing “evidence by the competent body of internal affairs that permanent residence cannot be registered pursuant to the Article 11, Paragraph 2, Items 1, 2 and 3 of the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens” (on the basis of the ownership right over the apartment, lease contract over the apartment or any other legal basis).

It is unclear whether the fulfillment of the conditions in terms of the stated provision of the Instruction will require that concerned person shall initiate the administrative procedure (for the registration of permanent residence) before the competent bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and that rejecting decision be treated as evidence in terms of instruction, or the competent services of the Ministry of Internal Affairs will issue special confirmations/certificates on the fact that a person does not have permanent residence registered. Particularly negative aspect of the given approach to the problem reflects in prolongation of the procedure for registration at the address of SWC. Several months can elapse from the submission of the requests for receiving the decision proving the impossibility of the registration of permanent residence, not including the period needed for the effectiveness, which does not contribute to the intentions to solve the problems of the lack of registration of permanent residence, with all accompanying consequences such as the impossibility to access other rights.

On 23 January 2013, Praxis’ representatives attended the meeting held in the premises of the Social Welfare Centre Bujanovac where the possibilities of the simplification and more efficient conducting of the initiated procedures of registration of permanent residence at the address of this SWC were considered. Due to uncertainty related to the interpretation of this disputable provision, Praxis addressed the Police Station in Bujanovac, which interprets the envisaged evidence as the final decision rejecting the request for determination of permanent residence. The Administrative Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia has the same opinion of which Praxis was informed in a phone conversation.

Conducting the administrative procedure before the competent body of the Ministry of Interior for receiving the final decision rejecting the request for determination of permanent residence, which would serve as the evidence as requested by  the Instruction, is a time-consuming process. The previous experience points out that the same administrative procedures most often last about three months (without the period necessary for the onset of effectiveness), though there are procedures lasting more than even two years in practice. It is clear that acting in the envisaged manner will cause delays in procedures to an unacceptable extent. Such situation does not contribute to the intentions to solve the problem of persons without the permanent residence as efficiently as possible.

Conducting of a significant number of procedures of registration of permanent residence at the address of SWC is the precondition for the valuation of the effect of the concerned regulation. However, it is necessary to point out to the lacks of adopted acts at the very beginning of their implementation. Urgent removal of doubts and ambiguities is a must. In addition, the basic goals of all responsible bodies should include the simplification of administrative procedures and taking steps to make them more efficient, particularly because the problem of impossibility of the registration of permanent residence affects mainly the most vulnerable categories of citizens.

Praxis and International Organization for Migration have established the cooperation within the project “Sustainable Waste Management Initiative for a Healthier Tomorrow” (SWIFT). The project is funded by the Sweden International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and European Union, and is implemented by the International Organization for Migration, United Nations Office for Project Services and World Health Organization. The main goal of SWIFT project is to set up the system of formal recycling that ensures legitimate employment to informal waste collectors and provides the base for improvement of the access to health, education and social services.

Within the cooperation, Praxis will organize and hold 10 workshops for residents of informal settlements on the importance of possession of personal documents, mechanisms of protection from discrimination and access to rights to employment, health care, social welfare and education. In addition, Praxis’ lawyers will provide free legal assistance to persons who address them in relation to obtaining personal documents and exercising the above stated rights.

The cooperation will last from 3 December 2012 to 31 December 2013.

ENS PRESS RELEASE
When the European Network on Statelessness (ENS) was formally launched in June 2012, an open invitation was extended to all individuals and organisations working on statelessness in Europe to join the Network as associate members. In just a few short months, dozens of applications were submitted and approved, demonstrating the real interest among those working on the issue to find one another in order to exchange information, ideas and experiences. To jump-start this process of capacity building through the sharing of expertise, ENS decided that its first major regional activity should be a seminar comprising both training elements and sessions geared towards the joint mapping of and planning for statelessness in Europe.

The ENS kick-off seminar was held from 19 to 21 November 2012 in Budapest, Hungary. It was made possible by the generous support of the Global Learning Centre of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the willingness of the European Youth Centre of the Council of Europe in Budapest to host the event. Several UNHCR offices also provided invaluable funding support to cover the travel costs of individual participants from their regions.

Below is a brief summary of the kick-off seminar as well as a short summary of evaluations. Annexed to this report is more detailed data on participant evaluations as well as individual report backs from the four sub regional working groups during the mapping and planning sessions.

A shorter summary of the event as well as some of the course presentations are available on the ENS website capacity building page at http://www.statelessness.eu/capacity-building/kick-seminar

          1) Overall aims and objectives

The aim of the kick-off seminar was to bring together ENS Associate Members from across the region, which spans the territory of the Council of Europe, in order to provide training, share information and engage in strategic planning. As such, participants were selected to reflect as great a geographical diversity as possible, with invitations to the seminar in principle extended to one associate member per country. Exceptionally, two associate members from the same country were invited and there were also a number of countries from which no participant attended. 30 members from 28 European countries participated in the seminar. Limited funding and capacity meant that it was not possible to invite all ENS associate members.

          2) Training component

The first half of the seminar was dedicated to the presentation by invited experts and ENS Steering Committee members of some of the core conceptual issues in the field of statelessness. These included sessions on definitional questions relating to nationality and statelessness, the international legal framework for the prevention of statelessness (1961 UN Convention and 1997 European Convention on Nationality) and the purpose and functioning of Statelessness Determination Procedures.
In smaller, break-out workshops, a variety of concrete themes relating to statelessness in Europe were discussed, such as methods for mapping statelessness, discrimination and statelessness (with a focus on the Roma in the Western Balkans) and litigating statelessness before international and regional human rights bodies. Special attention was also paid to the role of different stakeholders in addressing statelessness, for instance through presentations by UNHCR and the Office of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on their respective mandates and activities.

Lecturers for the kick-off seminar were drawn primarily from the ENS Steering Committee who drew on their wide diversity of expertise on statelessness and their previous experience in leading capacity building sessions on the issue. The ENS Steering Committee members involved were Gábor Gyulai (Hungarian Helsinki Committee), Sebastian Kohn (Open Society Justice Initiative), Ivanka Kostic (Praxis Serbia), Chris Nash (Asylum Aid) and Laura van Waas (Tilburg Statelessness Programme). In addition, a number of external experts were invited to contribute on particular issues. In particular, Mark Manly, Head of UNHCR’s Statelessness Unit walked participants through the definition of statelessness and the guidance developed by UNHCR on the application of this definition in practice. Professor René de Groot, a specialist in nationality law from Maastricht University, discussed the development and content of international and regional standards for the avoidance of statelessness. Inge Sturkenboom and Francoise Kempf presented on the role and current activities of UNHCR and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights respectively.

All of the discussions were moreover greatly enriched by the active engagement of the participants, who contributed numerous relevant and interesting cases and examples throughout the seminar.

          3) The mapping and planning component

During the second half of the seminar, the emphasis shifted from consolidating participants’ knowledge to engaging in joint analysis of the current challenges relating to statelessness in Europe and developing strategies to address these challenges. These highly interactive mapping and planning exercises were undertaken in sub-regional groups, to maximise the opportunity for all participants to actively contribute both their concerns and their ideas to the debate – as well as to learn from and get to know one another. Following a report by each sub-regional group to the plenary, the seminar ended with an open discussion on the way forward for ENS as a network, providing the Steering Committee with direct input for the strategic discussion that was held subsequently to the closing of the seminar.

Each sub-regional group came together for a mapping session followed by a planning session. The objective of the mapping sessions was to identify, as a group, i) the main statelessness problems faced in the countries group members work in and/or in Europe more broadly; and ii) existing opportunities to tackle these problems. Each group was asked to list problems under three headings i) laws, ii) populations and iii) other problems, and to list opportunities as stakeholders or initiatives. The objective of the planning sessions was to brainstorm about activities that could or should be undertaken by ENS members and/or by the Network, alone or in partnership, to improve the way that statelessness is addressed in particular countries or across the region. Participants were asked to divide these between short and long term activities and then to prioritise three key activities from each.

Through the questions raised, ideas presented and examples discussed, these participants demonstrated an overall high level of knowledge of the issues and a clear commitment to the cause of more effectively addressing statelessness in Europe. A more detailed summary of each sub-regional working group is annexed to this report but below are some broad conclusions arising from the discussions as a whole.

The mapping sessions of the kick-off seminar led to the identification of a range of challenges that are common to a number of countries in the region or, indeed, face Europe as a whole when it comes to tackling statelessness. For instance, participants remarked about the general lack of knowledge of many government counterparts on the specific vulnerability of the stateless or the measures that can be adopted to avoid statelessness or guarantee the fundamental rights stateless people. Another shared concern is the overall low level of awareness among the general population of Europe of the phenomenon of statelessness, which means that the issue is a largely forgotten or invisible one. At the same time, participants volunteered information on a wide variety of activities that have contributed to identifying, preventing or reducing statelessness, or protecting stateless people. Examples included research projects, legal assistance programmes, strategic litigation of cases and training initiatives targeting civil servants or students.

Many interesting proposals were made for action that could be undertaken by ENS as a Network, or individually/jointly by particular associate members. These concrete ideas included: raising the profile of the issue by targeting specific individuals or organisations for dedicated training (such as embassy staff or national ombudsmen); identifying stateless people who can act as spokesmen for the issue or building a collection of testimonials on experiences of statelessness so as to shed light on the human impact of the problem; and exploring certain problems or (the effects of) particular policies relating to statelessness across a number of countries or the region as a whole through the development and use of dedicated research templates to map issues.

These and other suggestions raised by participants have been noted by the Steering Committee and will provide a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions on the short and longer-term strategies for engagement by the Network on statelessness in Europe. The ENS Coordinator and Steering Committee have subsequently developed a provisional Network activity plan for 2013/14 which is available on request.

          4) Summary of participant evaluations

The evaluation forms completed by participants were overwhelmingly positive while also highlighting some possible areas for improvement.

One participant remarked “Please allow me to congratulate YOU ALL!!! You have done a great job! THANK YOU!”. Another participant added:

“There was a very good balance between lectures and working groups, the whole agenda was perfectly structured. The level of information was perfect for me: I learned a lot, but it was not too difficult. I loved the informal climate and the attitude of participants and organisers (really interested in protecting human rights, rather than “showing how experts they are”, etc.)”

The vast majority of participants found the level of training to be about right although some found it too technical while others felt it too advanced. The vast majority of participants also agreed “very much” with the statements that they learned a lot, that the event was well-organised and that it provided a good networking opportunity. Participants also overwhelmingly agreed that the topics of the agenda were well-selected, the seminar was interactive and that the event helped them better understand the challenges related to statelessness. The seminar venue and the social dinners also received very positive evaluation. On a scale of 1 to 4 (4 representing full agreement, 1 disagreement), all average general evaluation scores were higher than 3.6.

A more detailed table of evaluation scores is annexed to this report, and all feedback will be taken on board by the ENS Steering Committee when planning future events.

           5) Lessons learned and building on Budapest through planning for future events
One overriding impression gained from the Budapest Kick-Off event was the huge importance of bringing together ENS members as part of efforts to strengthen the identity of the Network as a whole, and to foster a sense of shared solidarity among ENS members of working together on an hitherto often neglected issue. The full impact of the Budapest event needs to be evaluated over time, but it seems clear that without such periodic coming together it is far more challenging for the Network to deliver coordinated and effective activity. Already initial indications would suggest that the event was successful in galvanising certain organisations in attendance to become more active members. For example a number of members subsequently translated and disseminated at the national level the public statement ENS released on International Human Rights Day. Several members also responded to a call to provide information to an enquiry by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights into national law and practice concerning the deprivation of nationality. At the same time the seminar provided much needed training to other members with perhaps historically less developed engagement and expertise on the statelessness issue.

As a result of subsequent strategic discussions, the ENS Steering Committee has already identified developing a ‘train the trainer’ event/programme as a priority in terms of building the capacity of selected/interested ENS members to expand their training efforts at the national and sub-regional level in future. However, at the same time there is clearly a strategic need and benefit in coming together as a broader coalition of members for a combination of training and/or planning discussions. The ENS Coordinator and Steering Committee will therefore continue its fundraising efforts in this regard.

See the selected resources from the ENS Kick-Off Seminar:

• Presentation on the function of nationality and mechanics of nationality law
• Presentation on Statelessness Determination Procedures
• Presentation on litigating statelessness
• Presentation on mapping statelessness – example of the United Kingdom
• Presentation on discrimination and statelessness – example of the Western Balkans
• Factsheet: 5 steps to effective protection of stateless persons
• Programme of ENS Kick-off Seminar

Non-governmental organization Praxis most severely condemns brutal acting of the representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd towards the Durmisi family in relation to yesterday’s attempt to knock down the house the family live in. By the order of the City Municipality Novi Beograd, auxiliary buildings in their courtyard were torn down and the electric supply cut off. Demolition of the house the family live in was postponed and, as of yesterday, this family lives in constant fear of completion of the demolition process.

On 28th January 2013, the Durmisi family received a notice on execution of forced decision on demolition of the object, as of 2008. The family have been living in this house since 1979 and their request for legalization of the house has been rejected. All their attempts to obtain information from the competent authorities of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Belgrade City Administration about the reasons for demolition and alternatives that are being offered have fallen on deaf ears. When their house has been demolished, they will be left on the street, with no alternative accommodation.

The Durmisi family pay their electricity bill regularly and, during the demolition of auxiliary buildings they presented the bills to the representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Electric Power Distribution Belgrade and informed them that their two-year old child suffered from acute bronchitis and needed regular inhalation. Besides, a nine-month-old baby also lives in the house and the poor weather conditions and electricity power cut will endanger bare existence of the family members. Despite all this, representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd ordered the employees of the Electric Power Distribution Belgrade to cut off electric supply to the Durmisi family house.

We shall not state all the human rights standards that were violated by such acting of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Electric Power Distribution Belgrade. We use this opportunity to raise a question as to whether any of the competent state bodies will take actions to burden somebody with responsibility for brutal and inhumane acting towards this Roma family and whether they will finally undertake measures to prevent such actions in the future.

See also news in Pescanik

Non-governmental organization Praxis most severely condemns brutal acting of the representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd towards the Durmisi family in relation to yesterday’s attempt to knock down the house the family live in. By the order of the City Municipality Novi Beograd, auxiliary buildings in their courtyard were torn down and the electric supply cut off. Demolition of the house the family live in was postponed and, as of yesterday, this family lives in constant fear of completion of the demolition process.

On 28th January 2013, the Durmisi family received a notice on execution of forced decision on demolition of the object, as of 2008. The family have been living in this house since 1979 and their request for legalization of the house has been rejected. All their attempts to obtain information from the competent authorities of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Belgrade City Administration about the reasons for demolition and alternatives that are being offered have fallen on deaf ears. When their house has been demolished, they will be left on the street, with no alternative accommodation.

The Durmisi family pay their electricity bill regularly and, during the demolition of auxiliary buildings they presented the bills to the representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Electric Power Distribution Belgrade and informed them that their two-year old child suffered from acute bronchitis and needed regular inhalation. Besides, a nine-month-old baby also lives in the house and the poor weather conditions and electricity power cut will endanger bare existence of the family members. Despite all this, representatives of the City Municipality Novi Beograd ordered the employees of the Electric Power Distribution Belgrade to cut off electric supply to the Durmisi family house.

We shall not state all the human rights standards that were violated by such acting of the City Municipality Novi Beograd and Electric Power Distribution Belgrade. We use this opportunity to raise a question as to whether any of the competent state bodies will take actions to burden somebody with responsibility for brutal and inhumane acting towards this Roma family and whether they will finally undertake measures to prevent such actions in the future.

See also news in Pescanik