When in 2020 the Supreme Court of Cassation adopted the Conclusion on the jurisdiction of the non-contentious court in the procedure of registration in birth registry books, it was clear that registration to birth registry books would become much more difficult for many citizens. However, it could probably not be assumed that registration may become as complicated as in the case of the five-year-old girl Katarina ^[1].

After her birth, Katarina was not registered in birth registry books, due to which the procedure of subsequent registration must be conducted for her. Since her mother is not registered in birth registry books and does not have personal documents, the procedure of subsequent registration before the registry office cannot be successfully conducted for Katarina. In fact, in cases where the mother does not have personal documents or where she is not alive or cannot participate in the procedure for another reason, or in situations where there are no witnesses who were present at the birth, or there is no written proof of birth - the child cannot be registered in birth registry books in the administrative procedure before the registry office. 

In these cases, the child should be registered in the court procedure for determining the date and place of birth. This procedure was established by the Amendments to the Non-Contentious Procedure in 2012 and is intended precisely for those who find themselves in Katarina's situation, that is, persons who cannot prove the fact of birth in the administrative procedure. 

For a full eight years, that is, before the adoption of the aforementioned Conclusion of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC), the courts almost always assessed independently whether the conditions for conducting the procedure for determining the date and place of birth were met. In cases where it was obvious that it was not possible to conduct the administrative procedure before the registry office, the courts did not require citizens to attempt to register in birth registry books in the administrative procedure before initiating a court procedure.

Although for years the procedures were conducted as described without problems, which created an extensive and almost uniform court practice, the Supreme Court of Cassation, in its Conclusion on the jurisdiction of the non-contentious court in the procedure of registration in birth registry books, took the position that non-contentious procedures for determining the date and place of birth could be conducted only if the administrative procedure of subsequent registration in birth registry books had been previously conducted and if the request had been rejected.

In accordance with that Conclusion of the Supreme Court of Cassation, instead of immediately initiating a procedure before the court, Katarina's parents first submitted a request for subsequent registration to the registry office, although it was clear from the beginning that there was no chance of success in that procedure since the mother did not have personal documents. However, they hoped that the procedure before the registry office would not last long, that is, that their request would be quickly rejected and that they would therefore be able to initiate a procedure before the court. The request was submitted in October 2021.

However, the competent authority did not issue a decision rejecting the request, but suspended the procedure and determined that the suspension would last until the preliminary issue was resolved, that is, until Katarina's mother was registered in birth registry books. Since the Supreme Court of Cassation took the position that the request had to be rejected, a decision on suspending the procedure did not fulfil the requirement for initiating a court procedure. Thus, Katarina found herself in a situation where she could neither initiate a procedure before the court, nor could she register in the procedure before the registry office.

To make matters worse, the chances of the mother registering in birth registry books in the administrative procedure are no higher than Katarina's, because the mother's mother is no longer alive. However, in accordance with the Conclusion of the Supreme Court of Cassation, it is first necessary for Katarina's mother to obtain a decision rejecting the request in the administrative procedure, and only then to initiate a court procedure. And only when the procedure for the mother is successfully conducted before the court and when she receives the ID card, will it be possible to continue Katarina's procedure for registration in birth registry books. It can take years to achieve this.

Hence, in late 2021, a procedure for subsequent registration was initiated before the registry office for the mother, but even half a year later, there has been no progress in that procedure. When Praxis lawyer called the registry office to inquire about the status of the case, the officer could not find the case at first, and then it turned out that the case reached the wrong officer and that nothing had been done about it.

When the procedure for determining the date and place of birth was introduced into the legal system 10 years ago, it was a salvation for many people who had tried unsuccessfully to register in birth registry books in the administrative procedure for years. In the years that followed, thanks to this procedure, a large number of legally invisible persons managed to register in birth registry books in a rather simple way, which allowed them to obtain personal documents and gain the opportunity to access many rights for the first time. 

Now, however, it seems that things are going backwards and the progress made has been significantly undermined. This is best evidenced by the case of Katarina, who would probably have already been registered in birth registry books if the Supreme Court of Cassation had not adopted the Conclusion and if she had immediately initiated the procedure before the court. Now she is not even close to that goal and it is completely uncertain when and if her registration will be possible at all. 

It should be noted that the disputed legal position of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which is discussed here, is not the only SCC’s position that will make it difficult or impossible for citizens to register in birth registry books. In addition, the Supreme Court of Cassation states in its Conclusion that persons who had been registered in birth registry books, which were later destroyed, as well as “persons registered in the birth registry books of the so-called Republic of Kosovo”, cannot initiate a procedure for determining the date and place of birth. See more about these positions, which are neither purposeful nor in accordance with the valid regulations here and here.

[1] Her real name has been changed to protect her privacy.

Edita ^[1] does not have a health card or an ID card. She was born 30 years ago in Germany, where her parents moved from Đakovica in the early 1990s. Due to the unregulated status in Germany, she had to return to Serbia three years ago. Edita has not been able to obtain personal documents since then.

Three months ago, Edita gave birth to her son. Although the law stipulates that in cases where mothers do not have health insurance, the funds for expenses related to pregnancy and childbirth are provided from the state budget, the maternity hospital where Edita gave birth did not take this into account. From the moment of Edita’s admittance to the maternity hospital, the employees were telling her that she would have to pay hospital expenses and threatened her that she would not be allowed to leave the hospital until she paid the expenses.

As Edita did not have personal documents, the maternity hospital - applying the instructions of the competent ministries for handling cases of undocumented women giving birth - called the police that were supposed to establish the mother’s identity. However, the maternity hospital misused the arrival of the police to further intimidate Edita by threatening her that the police allegedly came to arrest her, because she did not have money to pay for medical expenses.

Edita's family has 12 members and only one of them is employed. They live as tenants and barely make ends meet. They borrowed 500 euros to pay the expenses, because the hospital staff initially told them that it would be the total amount. However, when they wanted to pay, it turned out that the expenses were around 900 euros, and the family members were told not to show up until they brought the full amount, and that the costs would increase with each additional day of hospital stay. Finally, the family had to borrow more money and pay everything that was requested.

New problems arose when Edita tried to register her son in birth registry books. Edita was told in the registry office that the child could not be registered until she obtained an ID card. Consequently, Edita's son remains unregistered, and therefore does not have a health card, and the family cannot receive parental and child allowance. Although both the Constitution and the Law on Family, as well as international conventions, stipulate that every child must be registered immediately after birth, in practice this rule does not apply to children whose mothers do not have personal documents - these children remain unregistered until their mothers obtain documents or until special procedures are conducted before social welfare centres or registry offices. It delays the registration of the child for a few months at best, and often for several years. For example, Edita's older daughter, who is 3 years old, is still not registered in registry books.

Despite the fact that many international bodies have for years been pointing out that this situation is inadmissible and that it violates the rights of the child, the competent authorities in Serbia do not show readiness to remedy this situation and amend the by-laws regulating birth notification and registration in registry books, including certain provisions that prevent the timely registration of children whose mothers do not have documents.

Unfortunately, Edita cannot hope that she will soon be able to obtain her documents. In 2020, she initiated the procedure for determining the citizenship of Serbia, but that procedure seems to be still at the very beginning. Although the law is on Edita's side also in this case, it is not consistently applied in practice. In fact, the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Serbia stipulates that citizenship shall be acquired by a person whose both parents were citizens of Serbia at the time of his or her birth, or if one parent was a citizen of Serbia and the other is unknown or of unknown citizenship or stateless. Edita has a proof that her father is a citizen of Serbia, but she lacks such a proof for her mother, because the registry books in which her mother was registered after the 1999 war in Kosovo remained inaccessible to the authorities of the Republic of Serbia. Although more than 20 years have passed since then, the authorities have still not fulfilled their obligation and have not reconstructed all unavailable registry books. It is unnecessary to stress that citizens should not bear the consequences of the fact that the registry books have not been preserved or reconstructed. On top of all that, a large number of registry offices have recently stopped conducting procedures for re-registration of citizenship data, which were conducted at the request of citizens, and now it is only possible to conduct much more complicated, uncertain, lengthy and expensive procedures for determining citizenship before the Ministry of Interior.

However, even if we disregard this inadmissible situation due to which Edita cannot prove that her mother was a citizen of Serbia, the fact is that, based on her father's citizenship, Edita fulfils the condition for acquiring Serbian citizenship as a person whose one parent was a Serbian citizen and the other parent is stateless or of unknown citizenship. Nevertheless, the authority before which the procedure is being conducted informed Edita that her request for determining citizenship would not be accepted until the mother's citizenship was determined. And it seems very unlikely because Edita's mother is old and sick, lives abroad and most probably does not have the evidence that would be required in the procedure of determining citizenship.

Although laws should be instruments that guarantee citizens the exercise of their rights and that prevent arbitrary actions of state bodies and services, Edita did not have the opportunity to witness their effectiveness. On the contrary, although the law prescribes that she does not have to pay the costs of childbirth, she paid 900 euros; although the regulations require that every child must be registered in birth registry books immediately after birth, her two children are still unable to obtain a birth certificate; although she meets the legal requirements for Serbian citizenship, the question is whether she will ever be able to obtain it. Laws should also protect the most vulnerable and ensure the equality of citizens, but for Edita and her family, poverty-stricken members of the Roma national minority, not only has this purpose not been achieved, but the unlawful action has led to even greater marginalisation and deeper poverty, leaving her and her children without personal documents and without the opportunity to access most rights.

 [1] Her real name has been changed to protect her privacy.

Dana 30. maja 2022. godine Praxis je održao završnu konferenciju povodom predstavljanja izveštaja „Jačanje građanskog aktivizma za bolju javnu upravu u Kragujevcu“. 

Izveštaj je nastao u okviru istoimenog projekta koji je Praxis sproveo u periodu od 1. juna 2021. godine do 31. maja 2022. godine, a u okviru šireg Projekta osnaživanje civilnog društva Zapadnog Balkana za reformisanu javnu upravu (WeBER 2.0), koji finansira Evropska unija koju predstavlja Evropska komisija.

Uprkos naporima koji su poslednjih godina uloženi na polju reforme javne uprave, lokalne samouprave se danas suočavaju sa mnogobrojnim izazovima koji se najčešće ogledaju u nedostatku kapaciteta za efikasno sprovođenje reformskih procesa. Najozbiljniji nedostaci prepoznati su u pogledu dosledne primene propisa koji garantuju pravo na pristup informacijama od javnog značaja, kao i u pogledu učešća javnosti u procesu kreiranja lokalnih politika budući. Pored toga, nedostaje proaktivan pristup u pogledu unapređivanja uslova i stvaranja podsticajnog okruženja za razvoj civilnog društva na lokalnom nivou. Uloga lokalnih medija, kao pokretača javne debate, u oblasti reforme javne uprave nije dovoljno razvijena, a razlozi leže kako u finansijskoj nestabilnosti, tako i u nedovoljno podsticajnom okruženju za izveštavanje o specifičnim temama.

Izveštaj prikazuje najznačajnije rezultate projektnih aktivnosti, sa posebnim fokusom na istraživanje koje se odnosilo na transparentnost i odgovornost u radu odabranih jedinica lokalne samouprave i zadovoljstvo građana kvalitetom i dostupnošću javnih usluga. Cilj istraživanja je bio da utvrdi da li je kod lokalnih organa prisutan proaktivan pristup u obaveštavanju građana, kao i da li se pružaju informacije na osnovu zahteva za pristup informacijama od javnog značaja, zatim da se analizira proces usvajanja politika na lokalnom nivou i zastupljenost konsultacija sa građanima i organizacijama civilnog društva, kao i efekti (ne)uključivanja OCD u pomenuti proces. I na kraju, cilj je bio da se ispita zadovoljstvo građana kvalitetom javnih usluga koje se na loklanom nivou pružaju.

U izveštaju su takođe date preporuke za unapređenje procesa reforme javne uprave na lokalnom nivou u oblastima transparentnosti rada upravnih organa i građanske participacije.

Izveštaj možete preuzeti OVDE.

Pružajući besplatnu pravnu pomoć licima u riziku od apatridije, susreli smo se sa praksom postupajućih organa za koju smatramo da nije u skladu sa zakonom i ratifikovanim međunarodnim konvencijama. Stoga smo ukazali na nepravilnosti koje smo uočili u postupcima koji se odnose na sticanje državljanstva Republike Srbije po osnovu rođenja na teritoriji Republike Srbije.

Opširnije o ovom problemu, koji skoro isključivo pogađa pripadnike romske nacionalne manjine, možete pročitati u Danasu, Insajderu, kao i na portalima Autonomija, Vesti.rs i Naslovi.net.

Nova runda okruglih stolova na temu prevencije i eliminacije dečijih brakova u Srbiji, koju smo održali u Bačkoj Palaci, Novom Sadu, Leskovcu i Smederevu, bila je prilika da predstavnici brojnih institucija i organizacija, upućenih u srž problema dečjih brakova, daju svoja zapažanja, nalaze i diskutuju na ovu bitnu temu iz različitih uglova. O ovim okruglim stolovima su izvestili su Radio Televizija Bačka Palanka, Jug press, Rom Info Media, portali BAP vesti, vojvodjanski.com, STAV, vesti.rs, ePodunavlje.

Prilog Radio-televizije Vojvodine sa okruglog stola na temu ''Prevencija i eliminacija dečjih brakova u Srbiji'' održanog u Bačkoj Palanci možete pogledati OVDE.

O prevenciji i naporima koji se ulažu kako bi dečji brakovi postali prošlost, za emisuju Romano Them Radio Beograda, govorila je naša Nevena Marković, koordinatorka za prava deteta. Od 10-tog minuta poslušajte intervju na temu dečjih brakova, kao i šta je sve potrebno preduzeti u cilju prevencije i pravovremene reakcije na ovu izuzetno štetnu društvenu pojavu.

Providing free legal aid to persons at risk of statelessness, we have encountered the practice of competent authorities, which we believe is not in accordance with the law and ratified international conventions. We would like to point out the irregularities we have noticed in the procedures related to the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia acquired by birth in its territory.

Having in mind the importance of Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, which regulates the acquisition of citizenship by birth and whose goal is to prevent statelessness, we wanted to point out to irregularities in the application of this provision in practice. It stipulates that citizenship can also be acquired by birth in the territory of the Republic of Serbia, if both parents are unknown or have unknown citizenship or if the child would otherwise be stateless. However, acquiring citizenship by birth in Serbia is significantly hampered by the improper practice of competent authorities. In situations where the conditions for acquiring citizenship by birth are not met, registrars do not enter the fact of citizenship in birth registry books, and due to the registrars’ omission, children must conduct lengthy procedures for acquiring citizenship.

The risk of these persons becoming stateless is further exacerbated by another problem related to the application of Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, which relates to the action of the Ministry of Interior in citizenship acquiring procedures. In fact, determining citizenship by birth in Serbia is not possible for citizens older than 18. 

Such practice of registrars and the Ministry of Interior is not in accordance with the Law on Citizenship and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Therefore, we sent an appeal to the Ministry of Interior to take measures for eliminating the observed irregularities.

Since the individuals affected by these problems are almost exclusively members of the Roma national minority, who are among those most exposed to discrimination and social exclusion, and belong to the poorest and most vulnerable layers of society, and since their problems with access to birth registration and citizenship rights significantly worsen the already difficult situation, we believe that these problems should be addressed without any delay. 

Download the document HERE.

This activity has been implemented as part of the project “Ending Roma Statelessness in the Western Balkans”, financed by the Open Society Foundation through the European Network on Statelessness. The views expressed in this document are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the donor.  

O apatridiji u Srbiji i preprekama sa kojima se suočavaju ljudi bez dokumenata, među njima i članovi porodice Demiri, za BBC na srpskom govorio je i naš pravni koordinator Milan Radojev. Tekst „Postojim, ali nigde ne piše da sam rođena" - život bez dokumenata možete pročitati OVDE.