On 14 February 2013, the training on registration in birth registry book was held for registrars and deputy registrars administering the registry books for respective areas in the territory of the City of Belgrade, in Sava Centre in Belgrade. The training was organized by the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration in cooperation with Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy, Ombudsperson, UNHCR and Praxis. The employees in the organizational units of the Ministry of Interior dealing with administrative affairs related to citizenship issues in the territory of Belgrade also attended the training along with employees from social welfare centres from the territory of the City of Belgrade dealing with the affairs related to registration in birth registry book.

The training was planned as a part of the campaign of the organizers directed at the eradication of the phenomenon of legally invisible persons by 2015, conducting of birth registration procedure and procedure for determination/acquisition of citizenship without any difficulty and for all persons under the equally available conditions  and at ensuring that possession of personal documents and equal access to rights become the rule.

Upon introducing the participants into the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding, concluded between the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, Ombudsperson and UNHCR, and presentation of activities of Technical Group in regard to the implementation of the MoU, the participants were given a more thorough insight into the problem of legally invisible persons in Serbia and difficulties related to subsequent birth registrations. In addition, views were presented on legal frameworks and practical applicability of new regulations, problems in their implementation, possible solutions and importance (it specifically refers to newly adopted solutions of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens and compliance of the Law on Registry Books, Family Law and other applicable regulations with the new regulations).

Thematic presentations of the representatives of the Professional Service of the Ombudsperson and the above stated ministries concerned the work of the first instance bodies in the subsequent birth registration procedure, acquisition and termination of citizenship and registration of citizenship in the citizenship registries of the Republic of Serbia and the role of the guardianship body in the organization of family-legal protection of persons not registered in birth registries. Praxis’ contribution to the training was through the presentation of its representatives, the Executive Director Ivanka Kostic and legal advisor Jelena Milonjic, on the problems in conducting the procedure of subsequent birth registration, supported by the presentation and analysis of cases from practice.

In the final part of the training, the participants discussed the insufficiently clarified aspects in the concerned field. The representatives of the competent state bodies were asked about the disputable details of new normative solutions. However, many questions remained open even this time. It particularly refers to conducting of the procedure for registration of permanent residence at the address of social welfare centres, which evidences the lack of political will and intersectoral collaboration to simplify the respective procedure. Normative regulation in the respective area reflects new uncertainties and different acting in the same matter: by passing new, mutually insufficiently complied and frequently insufficiently precise bylaws. In regard to the implementation of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, it is still disputable when a party should address the court and when the administrative body, since the existing regulations do not clearly specify it. Also, the fact that the body of internal affairs responsible for conducting the procedure for acquisition/determination of citizenship is not bound by the court decision on determination of date and place of birth causes additional difficulties for persons who have been subsequently registered in birth registries based on the court decision.  Special attention was paid to it during the discussion, particularly in reference to persons who are not able to prove their origin.

In addition to the stated, the subjects of the discussion of participants were also the situations in which the competent administrative body will refer the persons not registered in birth registry books to court determination of date and place of birth for subsequent birth registration, legal effects of the court decision from this procedure, and the issue of potential alteration of the applicable regulation and introduction of the possibility of registration of the fact of citizenship (determination) based on court decision, then the issue of determination of territorial jurisdiction of the acting bodies, insufficiently complied rules of procedure for determination of personal name before the social welfare center (SWC), and the procedure for the registration of permanent residence at the address of SWC in accordance with the new solutions of the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens, and particularly disputable issues of evidence needed to be enclosed in the request for the concerned registration at the address of SWC. The representatives of the competent ministries are not yet able to give complied and precise answers to some questions important for conducting procedures necessary for the solution of the problem of legally invisible persons.

In order to achieve the goals of the campaign within which the training was held, there is an obvious necessity for future interventions in terms of norms, adoption of more precise laws and bylaws and compliance of the interpretations with practice of competent state bodies. The importance of the training can be perceived primarily through the prism of popularization of the problem of legally invisible persons, and the success of the achievement of the proclaimed goals will depend on the future efforts of all competent bodies and services.

Praxis' legal mobile team visited the following:

December

• 25 December – Roma settlements, Valjevo
• 24 December – Roma settlements, Kragujevac
• 19 December – Roma settlement “Saglamci”, Vranjska Banja
• 19 December – Container settlement “Reva politika” and “Reva”, Palilula, Belgrade
• 17 December – Roma settlement “Golemo selo”, Vranje
• 17 December – Roma settlement, Vladicin Han
• 17 December – Roma settlements, Belgrade
• 12 December – Roma settlement “Pavlovac”, Vranje
• 12 December – Roma settlement “Vozegrnci”, Novi Pazar
• 12 December – Container settlement “Varos”, Mladenovac
• 12 December – Container settlement “Stari Aerodrom”, Mladenovac
• 10 December – Roma settlements, Kragujevac
• 10 December – Roma settlements “Gornje Trebesinje” and “Ciganski rit”, Vranje
•   9 December – Roma settlements, Bojnik
•   5 December – Roma settlements, Pirot
•   5 December – Container settlement “Orlovsko naselje”, Zvezdara, Belgrade
•   4 December – Roma settlements, Valjevo
•   3 December – Container settlement “Jabucki rit”, Palilula, Belgrade
  

November

• 28 November – Container settlements, Rakovica, Kijevo
• 28 November – Container settlements, Rakovica, Resnik
• 28 November – Roma settlements "Miroslav Nojkovic Cale" and "Morava 76", Bujanovac
• 26 November - Container settlement Makis 1, Cukarica,Belgrade
• 26 November - Container settlement Makis 2, Cukarica, Belgrade
• 26 November – Roma settlements, Vladicin Han
• 26 November – Roma settlements, Cukarica, Belgrade
• 26 November – Collective centre "Tehnicka skola", Bujanovac
• 25 November – Roma settlements, Vlasotince
• 21 November – Roma settlements "Gnjilanski put" and "Banjska ulica", Bujanovac
• 20 November – Roma settlements, Barajevo
• 20 November – Roma settlements, Bojnik
• 19 November – Roma settlement “Dalas”, Tutin
• 15 November – Roma settlement “Ulica Vojislava Kalanovica”, Kragujevac
• 14 November – Roma settlements, Knjazevac
• 14 November – Roma settlements, Pancevo
• 14 November – Roma settlement "Vozegrnci", Novi Pazar
• 12 November – Roma settlements, Knjazevac
•   8 November – Roma settlement “Veliki rit”, Novi Sad
•   7 November – Roma settlements, Bujanovac
•   4 November – Roma settlements, Pirot

October

• 31 October – Roma settlement “Bogojevo”, Odzaci
• 29 October – Roma settlements, Vlasotince
• 22 October – Roma settlements “Barake Telmoelektrane”, “Barake 2”, “Sokolovo” and “Palestina”, Lazarevac
• 22 October – Roma settlements, Bujanovac
• 21 October – Roma settlements, Lebane
• 15 October – Roma settlements, Lebane
• 14 October – Roma settlements, Prokuplje
• 11 October – Roma settlements, Zabalj
•   9 October – Roma settlements, Prokuplje
•   8 October – Roma settlement “Milivska kolonija”, Cuprija
•   7 October – Roma settlements, Koceljeva
•   4 October – Roma settlements, Sombor
•   3 October – Roma settlement “Dalas”, Tutin

September

• 27 September – Roma settlements, Kikinda
• 26 September – Roma settlements ”Novo Naselje” and “Solunska ulica”, Pozarevac
• 19 September – Roma settlements, Nova Crnja
• 18 September – Roma settlements, Kovin
• 17 September – Roma settlements, Krusevac
• 12 September – Roma settlement “Grmec 1”, Zemun
• 11 September – Roma settlements “Pustorecka ulica”, “Ulica 17. Februar” and “Ulica Djuke Dinic”, Bojnik
•   6 September – Roma settlement “Fekovica brdo”, Sjenica

August

• 30 August – Roma settlements, Zabalj
• 27 August – Roma settlements, Novi Pazar
• 22 August – Roma settlements “Dudara” and “Surducka”, Zrenjanin
• 21 August – Roma settlement “Veliki rit”, Novi Sad
• 20 August – Roma settlement “Masurica”, Surdulica
• 15 August – Roma settlements “Kanal” and “Stari Kostolac”, Kostolac
• 13 August – Roma settlement “Murica”, Bela Palanka
• 13 August – Roma settlement “Vinogradska”, Novi Beograd
•   6 August – Roma settlement “Svracici”, Tutin

July

• 30 July – Roma settlements ”Samarinovac” and “Jasenica”, Zitoradja
• 30 July – Roma settlement “Vuka Vrcevica”, Palilula, Belgrade
• 25 July – Roma settlement “Dragi Deo”, Bojnik
• 23 July – Roma settlements “Stamparija” and “Sever II”, Bor
• 18 July – Roma settlements “Moravska ulica” and “Burdus mala”, Svilajnac
• 18 July – Roma settlement “Ledine 2”, Novi Beograd
• 16 July – Roma settlement “Jabucki Rit”, Palilula, Belgrade
• 11 July – Roma settlement “Baraka Koteks”, Kragujevac
•   4 July – Roma settlement “Mali Rit”, Vrsac
  

June

• 27 June – Roma settlements “Tosin Bunar”, “Vladimira Nazora 15” and “Belvil 1”, Novi Beograd
• 27 June – Roma settlement “Nova Mala”, Pirot
• 25 June – Roma settlement “Zitni potok”, Prokuplje
• 20 June – Roma settlement “Prcilovica”, Aleksinac
• 18 June – Roma settlement “Pridvorice”, Smederevska Palanka
• 13 June – Roma settlement “Vuka Vrcevica”, Palilula, Belgrade
• 13 June – Roma settlements, Bor
• 11 June – Roma settlement “Crvena Zvezda”, Nis
• 11 June – Roma settlement “Toplana”, Novi Beograd
•   7 June – Roma settlement “Fekovica Brdo”, Sjenica
•   6 June – Roma settlement “Vozegrnci”, Novi Pazar
  

May

• 21-22 May – Roma settlements, Subotica
• 21 May – Roma settlements ”Gornji Brestovac", Bojnik
  
• 16 May – Roma settlement, Cukarica, Belgrade
• 16 May – Roma settlement "Matina livada", Trgoviste
• 14 May – Roma settlement “Barje Ciflik", Pirot
  
•   9 May – Roma settlement "Vodeniciste", Trgoviste

 April

• 25 April – Roma settlements, Arandjelovac
• 25 April – Roma settlements ”Lepenica”, “Zitoradje” and “Prekodolce”, Vladicin Han
• 23 April – Roma settlements, Kovin
• 18 April – Roma settlements, Jagodina
• 16 April – Roma settlement “Zemun polje”, Zemun
• 11 April – Roma settlement “Oblacina”, Merosina
• 11 April – Roma settlement “Backi Monostor”, Sombor
• 10 April – Roma settlement "Radicevci", Bosilegrad
•   4 April – Roma settlement "Lalos", Bosilegrad

March

• 27 March – Roma settlements, Obrenovac
• 25 March – Roma settlements “Aerodrom“ and “Juzna obilaznica“, Kragujevac
• 22 March – Roma settlements, Ub
• 20 March – Roma settlement “Veliki rit“, Novi Sad
• 18 March – Roma settlement, Novi Pazar
• 14 March – Social housing barrack, PAncevo
• 13 March – Roma settlement "Ulica Ivo Lola Ribar", Presevo
• 12 March – Roma settlement “Mali mokri lug“, Belgrade
•   6 March – Roma settlement “Aerodrom“, Surcin

February

• 28 February – Roma settlements “Reva” and “Reva politika”, Belgrade
• 25 February – Roma settlement “Mali bedem”, Kikinda
• 20 February – Roma settlements “Stari kostolac”, “Ciglana” and “Kanal”, Kostolac
• 19 February – Roma settlement “Tosin bunar 2”, Belgrade
• 19 February – Roma settlement "Prekodolce", Vladicin Han
• 13 February – Roma settlement “D.Radosavljevic”, Knjazevac
• 12 February – Roma settlement “Grdelica”, Leskovac
•   6 February – Roma settlement "Vidinska dolina", Vladicin Han
•   5 February – Roma settlement “Tosin bunar”, Belgrade
•   4 February – Roma settlement “Makis”, Belgrade

January

• 29 January – Roma settlement “Antena”, Novi Beograd
• 25 January – Roma settlement “Grmec”, Zemun
• 18 January – Roma settlement “Kucevski lug”, Raska
• 17 January – Roma settlement "Banjska ulica", Bujanovac
• 16 January – Collective centre "Salvatore", Bujanovac
• 15 January – Roma settlements “Busilovac” and “Popovac”, Paracin
• 10 January – Roma settlement "Masurica", Surdulica

Within the activities of the Technical Group directed at resolving the problem of legally invisible persons, one-day seminar for judges and judicial associates of the First and Second Basic Court in Belgrade was held in the premises of the Judicial Academy in Belgrade on 25 January 2013 on the issue of the implementation of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, i.e. on conducting of the procedure for determination of time and place of birth.

In the introductory part of the seminar, the members of the Technical Group (representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, Ombudsperson and Praxis) talked about the existing regime of the registration in birth registries, the problems faced by unregistered persons, reasons behind the lack of personal documents, and recent experience from practice. Through the presentation of cases on which it worked, Praxis intended to bring the specificity of the position of unregistered persons closer to the attendees, to present the deficiencies of the administrative procedures due to which many had not managed to subsequently register in birth registries for years, pointing thereby to the purpose of the adoption of the amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure.

The second part of the seminar was devoted to the analysis of the procedure for determination of time and place of birth. PhD Nikola Bodiroga from the Belgrade Faculty of Law was talking about the course of the procedure, the content of the motion, court competencies and authorized applicants, the evidence and content of the decision for determination of time and place of birth.

Despite the shown understanding of the difficult position of persons not registered in the birth registries ,during the discussion, the judges also pointed out to some of the problems they were already facing when conducting the procedure. The problems refer to the impossibility of delivery of submissions to applicants who mainly live in informal settlements without the possibility to register their permanent residence, but also to the legal deadline envisaged for reaching the decision on determination of time and place of birth. Specifically, considering all information judges should obtain from the administration bodies before scheduling the hearing, difficulties related to summoning the applicants and witnesses, provision of evidence through court expert evaluation when necessary, the present judges expressed their fear that the deadline of 90 days is fully untenable. Praxis’ experience in cases in which it represented persons are not registered in birth registries points to the same problem – more than four months have elapsed since the submission of the motion for determination of time and place of birth and not a single hearing has been scheduled. In that regard, it was concluded that representatives of non-governmental organizations who keep regular contact with persons not registered in birth registries, and representatives of social welfare centres could help the judges for the purpose of more efficient acting in the cases.

The seminar was attended by twenty-five judges and judicial associates acting in non-contentious procedure, and was assessed as a good opportunity to exchange experience and instill the participants with appropriate knowledge and information, which could help them in the implementation of newly adopted solutions.

At the end of 2012, in several administrative disputes that Praxis has been conducting on behalf of legally invisible persons or citizens who initiated procedures for exercise of economic and social rights before administrative bodies, the Administrative Court of Serbia ordered the parties in the dispute to provide representation by an attorney-at-law, invoking the approproiate application of the Civil Procedure Law. Bearing in mind that the Article 74 of the Law on Administrative Disputes refers to appropriate implementation of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law in administrative or court procedure, the decision according to which a party must have an attorrney-at-law as a proxy also extends to procedures in administrative disputes. The issue of the appropriate implementation of the Civil Procedure Law in administrative disputes with regard to provisions related to the proxy is undisputable, both from the standpoint of the application of the law  and in the legal theory. However, according to the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights, the right to access to court is inseparable from the right to a fair trial from the Article 6 of the European Convention, as stated in the judgement Golder vs. United Kingdom (App. No 4451/70). Thus, prescribing the obligation on the parties to be represented by an attorney-at-law in the administrative disputes also imposes the obligation on the state to find a model for free representation and to enable the most vulnerable categories of population to exercise their rights before courts equally as other citizens of the Republic of Serbia. Despite this obligation and necessary regulation of the issue of representation of the parties in civil law procedures and administrative or court procedures, Law on Free Legal Aid has not been adopted yet.

Since a great number of administrative or court procedures refers to disputes initiated when citizens cannot exercise some of their rights before state administrative bodies, such as the right to be recognized as a person before the law, the right to citizenship, the right to cash social assistance or protection against forced evictions, keeping the provisions related to representation exclusively by an attorney-at-law in the Civil Procedure Law has extremly negative implications for exercise of human and minority rights in the Republic of Serbia. In practice, such a solution leads to a situation in which the citizens who do not have funds to pay for attorneys’ fees and who cannot directly undertake actions in a procedure cannot enjoy legal protection before courts even in very simple administrative matters.

Besides, such a solution leads to an absurd situation that the citizens who initiate procedures for exercise of the right to cash social assistance must have an attorney-at-law as a proxy in cases of "silence of administration" in order to be able to, depending on a court decision, exercise that right in an administrative or court procedure.

At the end of 2012, in several administrative disputes that Praxis has been conducting on behalf of legally invisible persons or citizens who initiated procedures for exercise of economic and social rights before administrative bodies, the Administrative Court of Serbia ordered the parties in the dispute to provide representation by an attorney-at-law, invoking the approproiate application of the Civil Procedure Law. Bearing in mind that the Article 74 of the Law on Administrative Disputes refers to appropriate implementation of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law in administrative or court procedure, the decision according to which a party must have an attorrney-at-law as a proxy also extends to procedures in administrative disputes. The issue of the appropriate implementation of the Civil Procedure Law in administrative disputes with regard to provisions related to the proxy is undisputable, both from the standpoint of the application of the law  and in the legal theory. However, according to the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights, the right to access to court is inseparable from the right to a fair trial from the Article 6 of the European Convention, as stated in the judgement Golder vs. United Kingdom (App. No 4451/70). Thus, prescribing the obligation on the parties to be represented by an attorney-at-law in the administrative disputes also imposes the obligation on the state to find a model for free representation and to enable the most vulnerable categories of population to exercise their rights before courts equally as other citizens of the Republic of Serbia. Despite this obligation and necessary regulation of the issue of representation of the parties in civil law procedures and administrative or court procedures, Law on Free Legal Aid has not been adopted yet.

Since a great number of administrative or court procedures refers to disputes initiated when citizens cannot exercise some of their rights before state administrative bodies, such as the right to be recognized as a person before the law, the right to citizenship, the right to cash social assistance or protection against forced evictions, keeping the provisions related to representation exclusively by an attorney-at-law in the Civil Procedure Law has extremly negative implications for exercise of human and minority rights in the Republic of Serbia. In practice, such a solution leads to a situation in which the citizens who do not have funds to pay for attorneys’ fees and who cannot directly undertake actions in a procedure cannot enjoy legal protection before courts even in very simple administrative matters.

Besides, such a solution leads to an absurd situation that the citizens who initiate procedures for exercise of the right to cash social assistance must have an attorney-at-law as a proxy in cases of "silence of administration" in order to be able to, depending on a court decision, exercise that right in an administrative or court procedure.

Jasmina Mikovic, Deputy Executive Director of non-governmental organization Praxis, says for Daily Danas that Praxis has joined the action "I am Roma and I exist" implemented by the Police Department of the City of Belgrade in cooperation with OSCE Mission to Serbia.

The aim of this project is to raise the awareness of the Roma population about the importance of possession of personal documents, which is the precondition for the exercise of fundamental human rights. The project activities include visits to informal Roma settlements in the territory of the Municipalities of Palilula and Cukarica. In addition, a bilingual information bulletin has been prepared with an aim to point out to the importance of the possession of personal documents and relevant procedures for their obtaining. 

Praxis lawyers draw up and submit requests and other submissions to relevant state bodies and institutions representing thus the interests of persons who are not able alone to protect and exercise their rights before the stated bodies nor are they able to pay lawyers' services of representation in various procedures, says Jasmina Mikovic.

 Read in Danas

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 Temporary and Permanent Residence of Citizens” (on the basis of the ownership right over the apartment, lease contract over the apartment or any other legal basis).

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 registration 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.

Download: Instruction for Proceeding in the Procedure for Registration of Permanent Residence at the Address of Social Welfare Centre

For more information see the announcement: Additional Complications Related to Registration of Permanent Residence at the Address of Social Welfare Centre 

Praxis has signed the Memorandum of Understanding with the Project “Second Chance” – Systemic Development of Elementary Practice Based Adult Education in Serbia with an aim to continue the successful cooperation dating back to 2011.

Project “Second Chance” has been implemented in Serbia since September 2010 and was initiated by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development in cooperation with the European Union in order to establish the system of functional elementary education of adults.

The cooperation between Praxis and the Project “Second Chance” reflects in ensuring the right to education and inclusion into the educational system for the adults who have not finished elementary school with the final aim of social inclusion. In addition, Praxis will also provide legal representation in administrative and court procedures for the regulation of the personal status and in the procedures of obtaining personal documents.

The cooperation on achievement of the goals defined by this memorandum will be realized during the whole period of the Project “Second Chance”, that is by September 2013.

The Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure came into force on 8 September 2012, which is a step forward towards the resolution of the problem of legally invisible persons, at least in the part referring to the possibility of the registration in birth registries. The stated act standardizes the new form of non-contentious procedure before courts – procedure for determination of date and place of birth.

Although it seemed that the law would change the legally unbearable situation, which was in place before its adoption, there is a question on how to exercise the right to citizenship. Specifically, the Article 71k, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure envisages that the “body competent to conduct the procedure for acquisition of citizenship of the Republic of Serbia is not bound by the final decision on date and place of birth”. It thus questions the effectiveness of the court decision, since based on the law, the same decision is binding on one but not on the other administrative body. The goal of this provision is fully unclear, particularly if we have in mind that the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure envisages that upon receiving the motion for determination of the fact of birth, the court addresses the very body of internal affairs in order to check out if there are data about the time and place of birth of persons whose birth is being proved. In addition, it has been envisaged to conduct special checks in case of suspecting that the person whose birth is being determined has had temporary residence abroad.

Praxis will monitor the implementation of the Law in practice, as it is obvious that the issue of acquisition of citizenship is not clearly and precisely regulated, and therefore there is a danger that upon the determination of time and place of birth, persons will remain at risk of statelessness.

See:Proposal for the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure

Sixty seven non-governmental organizations have called upon the legislative authority to consider amendment of the Article 85 of the Draft Civil Procedure Law that prevents the most vulnerable categories of population to have access to court.

In particular, the proposed legal solution enables the citizens to undertake actions in a procedure either personally or through a proxy who has to be a Bar-admitted lawyer. Thus, the most vulnerable citizens of Serbia who are physically unable to access court or do not have financial resources to come to court will be deprived of the opportunity to undertake any legal actions if they do not have the money to pay for Bar-admitted lawyers’ fees. Paragraph 2 of the stated Article is in direct contravention of the constitutional guarantee that everyone has the right to appeal or to other legal remedy against a decision that establishes one’s right, obligation or legally based interest. Since the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia did not prescribe any restrictions but guaranteed the right to legal remedy to everyone, the suggested solution, which envisages that a party must be represented by a Bar-admitted lawyer in the procedure, directly violates the right to legal remedy guaranteed by the Constitution and the Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Furthermore and particularly bearing in mind the situation in which the work on drafting the Law on Free Legal Aid is still in process and in which the working group preparing this law has not yet taken the final position as regards the circle of potential providers of free legal aid, the Article 85 prejudicates that associations of citizens, trade unions, legal clinics within faculties and other potential legal aid providers will not be in fact able to provide free legal aid. Thus, the residents of informal settlements, persons with disabilities, internally displaced persons, survivors of domestic violence and other categories of socially most vulnerable citizens will practically be left without the right to access to court.

The constitutional provision that prescribes that legal aid is provided by the Bar-admitted lawyers and legal aid services established within the local self-government units represents a level of protection of right to legal aid guaranteed by the state, but cannot be interpreted in a way so as to prohibit activities of other legal aid providers. In addition, such solution also violates the provisions of the Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia that states that the achieved level of human and minority rights cannot be reduced.

For all the above-mentioned, non-governmental organizations call upon the responsible state bodies to consider amendment to the aforementioned legal provision which, if adopted, will prevent the most vulnerable and the poorest citizens of Serbia from exercising the right to access to court guaranteed by the Constitution.

Download the document: A Call to Legislative Authority to Consider Amendment of the Article 85 of the Draft Civil Procedure Law (Serbian only)