On 19 June 2013, the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy issued a new instruction for acting of social welfare centres in relation to registration of permanent residence at SWC address for persons who do not fulfil other legal bases of housing, since the previous instruction had not offered the solution that citizens could benefit from.

The new instruction offers a more efficient and more rational solution for the citizens. However, the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence (adopted in November 2011) cannot be still implemented consistently because the Ministry of Interior has not yet issued the instruction for acting of police departments and stations in procedures for determination of permanent residence at the address of social welfare centres.

See:Instruction of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy for Acting of Social Welfare Centres in Relation to Registration of Residence at SWC Address

The practice of courts proceeding in non-contentious procedures for determination of time and place of birth of legally invisible persons is considerably unequal. Thus, some courts proceeded upon joint motions of the parties who share the same parents, witnesses and/or evidence, while others refused to do so. Specifically, the latter requested the parties to withdraw the motions and that each party then file a new, separate motion. This has lead to conducting several procedures for brothers and sisters and to hearing the same witnesses on several occasions.

Furthermore, one should not neglect the fact that in some cases it takes more than 4 months from the moment of bringing a court decision on determination of time and place of birth to the registration into birth registry book and issuance of a birth certificate. This is because courts are late in delivering to the competent registrar the court decision on determination of time and place of birth or sometimes they even omit to do so.

Judges’ errors in the court decisions on determination of time and place of birth also have influence on the length of the procedures. These mostly refer to wrongly entered data about parents, about the competent registry office or marital status of parents. It often happens that after the registration in birth registry book it is necessary to correct or enter additional data in the birth registries because either no data on the parents, apart from name and last name was registered (in one case only mother’s first name was registered) or the registered data about the parents were wrong. Only after the correction of these data can the parties initiate procedures for acquisition of citizenship.

On 21 October 2013, Praxis participated in the roundtable held in Belgrade on the issue News in the Field of Birth Registration and Obtaining of Documents. The roundtable was organized as a part of the activities implemented on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding concluded between UNHCR, Ombudsperson and the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration. On this occasion, representatives of Roma associations, civil society organizations, Roma activists, health mediators, pedagogical assistants and Roma coordinators from Belgrade and more than 30 other cities throughout Serbia were presented the novelties in the field of birth registration, registration of residence at the address of the social welfare centres and obtaining of personal documents.

Apart from Praxis, representatives of UNHCR, Ombudsperson’s Office, and the Department for Administrative Affairs of the Serbian MoI gave their introductory speeches. An inspector working on the ID cards and permanent residence affairs also took part in the discussion.

During the discussion, roundtable participants provided the information they possess about the problems faced by members of Roma population in accessing personal documents, but also in accessing health care and social welfare benefits.

Majority of roundtable participants emphasised that paying administrative fees for obtaining birth and citizenship certificates and obtaining ID cards represented a problem for many Roma in their local communities. That was the reason for which many do not possess a valid ID card. The participants believe that the poorest, i.e. beneficiaries of cash social assistance should be exempt from paying all costs related to obtaining ID cards. A number of participants from Belgrade also pointed to the difficulties encountered by the Roma who wish to register permanent residence at the address of a social welfare centre.

During the discussion, the participant also presented individual problems and cases from the field in which the citizens of Roma nationality needed legal assistance of Praxis.

See: Closing the Cycle of Legal Invisibility

During the first year of implementation of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, a number of persons, who had been unsuccessfully conducting administrative procedures for subsequent birth registration for years, managed to get registered in birth registry book on the basis of a court decision. However, despite the great significance that the procedure for determination of time and place of birth has for legally invisible persons, during the first year of implementation of the Law certain difficulties in conducting these procedures have were notices.

The length of the procedures before courts is one of the problems. In one of Praxis’ cases, the decision has not been brought even a year after filing a motion. The delay in the procedures is further caused by requests of some courts to the competent bodies to perform adequate checks about a person whose birth is being proven only after the first hearing (sometimes even after the second hearing), even though these checks should be requested immediately upon receiving the motion.

Even greater problems are caused by the courts which postpone the hearings because they were not delivered, within the legally prescribed deadline, the reports from the Ministry of Interior or other body from which the checks had been requested about a person whose time and place of birth were being determined. Even though in such cases it should be assumed that there are no data about the person whose birth is being proven, some courts extend deadlines for delivery of reports to the bodies from which the checks are requested and postpone the hearings.

In a procedure initiated upon a complaint from Praxis and Association of Roma Organizations “Smederevo Forum,” the Commissioner for Protection of Equality established that the weekly regional newspaper “Nase Novine” had hurt the dignity of the members of Roma minority and violated the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination by publishing an article entitled “A Bite in a ‘Romani’ Way” expressing disturbing and humiliating attitudes and ideas.

Specifically, the article “A Bite in a ‘Romani’ Way,” published in April 2013 at the front page of the regional newspaper “Nase Novine,” deals with the problems the citizens have with attacks by stray dogs and provides information that portray the members of the Roma minority as persons that treat animals with cruelty, kill them and cook their heads, and then inflict physical injuries upon themselves with the aim to unlawfully obtain financial benefit from the Smederevo City Administration.

The Commissioner recommended to the weekly regional newspaper “Nase Novine” to issue a public apology to the Roma national minority with regard to the published information and to invite to a meeting representatives of the Association of Roma Organizations “Smederevo Forum” and Praxis to get directly acquainted with the everyday problems of the Roma community and informed about how the article with such contents had affected the Roma. The Commissioner also recommended to the newspaper “Nase Novine” that they no longer publish articles that hurt the dignity of the members of Roma or any other national minority and feed the prejudices towards national minorities.

Bearing in mind the role of media in forming public opinion, Praxis expresses hope that established discrimination in this case will contribute to raising awareness about prohibited types of behaviour, but also about the importance of reporting in a way that raises awareness about equality of national minorities and influences the change of patterns, customs and practice that cause stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination against Roma national minority.

For more information, see the announcement: Established Discrimination Regarding the Article Published in the Newspaper “Nase Novine”

Download: Interview with Jasmina Mikovic, Praxis Deputy Executive Director, for Radio Beograd 1

In a procedure initiated upon a complaint from Praxis and Association of Roma Organizations “Smederevo Forum,” the Commissioner for Protection of Equality established that the weekly regional newspaper “Nase Novine” had hurt the dignity of the members of Roma minority and violated the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination by publishing an article entitled “A Bite in a ‘Romani’ Way” expressing disturbing and humiliating attitudes and ideas.

Specifically, the article “A Bite in a ‘Romani’ Way,” published in April 2013 at the front page of the regional newspaper “Nase Novine,” deals with the problems the citizens have with attacks by stray dogs and provides information that portray the members of the Roma minority as persons that treat animals with cruelty, kill them and cook their heads, and then inflict physical injuries upon themselves with the aim to unlawfully obtain financial benefit from the Smederevo City Administration. It is stated in the article that such actions have caused expenses in the City of Smederevo’s budget amounting to dozens of millions of dinars.

Even though the publication of the article provoked reaction from the Cabinet of the Mayor of Smederevo that responded with an announcement and from the President of the “Smederevo Forum” who sent a letter, both condemning the manner of publishing information and generalizing about the problem as pertaining solely to the Roma, the editorship of the newspaper did not issue an apology to the members of Roma national minority in Smederevo.

Following the procedure in which the Commissioner had established relevant facts and having taken the statements of all the interested parties, the Commissioner issued an opinion and gave recommendation to be proceeded upon within 30 days. The opinion of the Commissioner pointed to the fact that the manner of reporting that spread the message that the Roma were responsible for great budget expenses, by only stating one example of abuse by an anonymous source which stressed the nationality of the persons who were allegedly responsible, was unacceptable and contrary to anti-discrimination regulations. The Commissioner also emphasised the media responsibility in forming public opinion and, with that regard, stated that it was necessary to bear in mind that labelling a nation as criminals may result in the members of that nation becoming socially undesirable, which is particularly dangerous taken into consideration that the Roma population in Serbia is often exposed to discrimination in all aspects of social life.

Finally, the Commissioner established that the expressed ideas and attitudes represented disturbing and humiliating treatment of the members of Roma national minority even though the submitters of the complaint thought that the gravity of the accusation against the Roma had lead to hate speech in this case. The Commissioner recommended to the weekly regional newspaper “Nase Novine” to issue a public apology to the Roma national minority with regard to the published information and to invite to a meeting representatives of the Association of Roma Organizations “Smederevo Forum” and Praxis to get directly acquainted with the everyday problems of the Roma community and informed about how the article with such contents had affected the Roma. The Commissioner also recommended to the newspaper “Nase Novine” that they no longer publish articles that hurt the dignity of the members of Roma or any other national minority and feed the prejudices towards national minorities.

Bearing in mind the role of media in forming public opinion, Praxis expresses hope that established discrimination in this case will contribute to raising awareness about prohibited types of behaviour, but also about the importance of reporting in a way that raises awareness about equality of national minorities and influences the change of patterns, customs and practice that cause stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination against Roma national minority.

Download: Opinion and Recommendation of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality (Serbian only)

Download: Interview with Jasmina Mikovic, Praxis Deputy Executive Director, for Radio Beograd 1

After the eviction from the informal settlement Belvil, M.T. was left without the home in which she had been living for more than six years, even though her name was on the City of Belgrade’s list for allocation of containers during the resettlement preparation process.

The Secretariat for Social Welfare of the City of Belgrade disregarded M.T’s right to provision of alternative accommodation because she had not been in the settlement on the day of eviction, and she had not reported her absence. The Secretariat did not take into consideration M.T’s justification that she had had to leave the barrack urgently for a while to take care of her ill mother. It certainly did not prevent the competent body to tear down the barrack in which M.T. had lived alone since 2008 when her husband had died.

On behalf of M.T. Praxis filed a complaint to the Ombudsperson who initiated the procedure for inspection of legality and regularity of the work of the Secretariat for Social Welfare. Even though the Secretariat informed the Ombudsperson in its additional response that M.T. was envisaged as a beneficiary of the “Let’s Build a Home Together” Project aimed at provision of adequate housing for all residents of the evicted settlement Belvil accommodated in container settlements, this body had failed to recognize its obligation to remedy its omission and provide a container to M.T. until the project has been implemented, which is not expected before mid-2014.

Whether the intervention of the Ombudsperson in M.T’s case will influence the Secretariat to provide a container without delay, more than a year after the eviction, is a question to which M.T. is still waiting for a response.

A great number of internally displaced persons from Kosovo, mainly of Roma ethnicity, who have permanent residence registered in Kosovo, do not have the possibility to register temporary residence in the places in which they live in Serbia. This is due to the lack of legal basis of housing since they often live in informal settlements or housing units that are not registered in the cadastre and, thus, find themselves outside the system of health and social protection.

Registered permanent residence in Kosovo deprives them of the possibility to register residence at the address of the social welfare centre in the territory where they actually live, as per the provisions of the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens. According to the interpretation of the Ministry of Interior, they would not be able to take advantage of this legally prescribed possibility even if they deregistered permanent residence in Kosovo.

Such a situation clashes with the very definition of permanent residence, regulated by the Article 3 of the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens, since the centre of their life activities, professional, social and other relations is in the place where they actually live.

The problem is even more serious as it affects a great number of children who do not have access to health protection.

Former residents (internally displaced persons from Kosovo) of the informal settlement “Juzna obilaznica” in Kragujevac are constantly filled with fear of forced eviction. Specifically, due to the low temperatures, at the end of 2012 the residents of the settlement were forced to find other accommodation. Thus, the majority of the residents (6 families with 33 children) found accommodation in an abandoned barrack of the company GP Koteks. On that occasion, two families were temporarily accommodated in the settlement Ilicevo, from which they soon had to move out and, in mid 2013, they found refuge at the same place where the settlement “Juzna obilaznica” once stood, where they built barracks again.

In mid-September 2013, residents of the barrack of the GP Koteks received a visit from the owner of the land and immovable property who requested that they leave the building as soon as possible. On the other hand, the residents who again found accommodation at the former location of the informal settlement “Juzna obilaznica” have been frequently visited by the Communal Police since 4 October 2013 onwards, who have requested from them verbally, without delivering a decision, to move out from the area as soon as possible and not later than within 15 days.

So far, none of the competent institutions of the City of Kragujevac has visited the families or suggested an alternative accommodation or permanent solution for their housing issue. During an unpleasant phone conversation with an officer from the Office of the Trustee for Refugees and Migrations in Kragujevac, Praxis found out that “the City officials do not want to deal with this issue.” In regard to the above-mentioned, Praxis addressed the Commissioner for Refugees and Migrations, calling on this institution to undertake the necessary measures and activities with the aim to protect internally displaced families.

Praxis published the report Protecting Roma against Discrimination within the project “Contribution to Social Inclusion and Combat against Discrimination of Marginalized Population in Serbia” funded by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

Decades-long social exclusion has been particularly enhanced by extreme poverty that affected a number of Roma as a result of armed conflicts.  Despite the fact that the legal framework in some areas is satisfactory and that the state has shown initiative to improve the situation of Roma through various inclusive measures, the awareness of the general public is such that the Roma are often perceived as second-rate citizens. A high level of intolerance, prejudice and stereotypes about Roma expressed by the majority population, the media, representatives of public authorities at national and local level, are constantly present. Therefore, Roma people mainly prefer to accept a life in isolation, struggling to secure a minimum of livelihood.

This report addresses the issue of discrimination in the exercise of social and economic rights. The experience in this field is based primarily on the strategic cases handled by Praxis since the adoption of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, and the report analyses these cases to present the current situation in practice, attitude of public authorities and recommended steps for improving the existing situation.

Download the report: Protecting Roma against Discrimination