Medina ^[1] was born in Pristina in 2003. Under the Republic of Serbia’s Constitution and laws, Pristina is in Serbia. However, the institutions of the Republic of Serbia do not function in Pristina. This means that Medina was born in a hospital outside of the Serbia’s health care system and is not registered in the birth registry books of the Republic of Serbia, but in the civil registry books in Kosovo. Serbia has not recognised Kosovo, and consequently the entries in the civil registry books in Kosovo, just like the documents issued by the Kosovo authorities, cannot produce legal effect in Serbia and cannot be used in legal transactions. These documents cannot be used for exercising any rights before the authorities in Serbia: they cannot be used for identification, to get a job, to obtain a health card, to open a bank account, to get married or to register a child in birth registry books. In a nutshell, these documents seem to be inexistent. 

However, this is not necessarily the case in court procedures in Serbia. The Basic Court in Bujanovac rejected Medina's request for issuing a decision on determining the date and place of her birth, based on which she could be registered in the birth registry books in Serbia. Then, the Higher Court in Vranje upheld the decision of the first instance court. Such decisions of both courts were guided by the Conclusion of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which took the position that “persons who are registered in the civil registry books of the so-called Republic of Kosovo cannot ask the non-contentious court to determine the fact of their date and place of birth” and that the court “cannot determine a known fact”.

Therefore, the highest court in the country, whose views are followed by lower courts, considers that registration in the civil registry books in Kosovo is a legally relevant fact, despite the fact that the Republic of Serbia has not recognised Kosovo, and consequently the civil records and the documents issued on the basis of such records are not valid in Serbia. From the perspective of the legal system of Serbia, these documents and registry books do not exist. Even more absurd is the fact that in one and the same sentence the Supreme Court of Cassation refers to Kosovo as the “so-called republic”, and also considers that the facts recorded in the civil registry books of that “so-called republic” are “indisputable” and “known”.

This certainly is not just a legal or political problem, i.e. the issue of whether the courts treat legally the status of Kosovo and the validity of documents issued by the institutions of Kosovo. On the contrary, the consequences of this judicial practice for the lives of many families in Serbia are even more significant. Such attitudes of the courts will create situations where persons born in Kosovo and registered in the civil registry books in Kosovo, but living in Serbia (outside Kosovo), often for years, will be left without the opportunity to register in the civil registry books of Serbia and exercise any rights, despite the fact that they were born in the territory of the Republic of Serbia and that they meet the conditions for Serbian citizenship. 

Medina also found herself in that situation. In 2020, she entered cohabitation and moved from Pristina to Bujanovac. Since then, she has unsuccessfully attempted to regulate her status and has lived deprived of any rights; she does not have a health card, cannot get a job, cannot move freely or exercise social security rights. She does not have access to any of these rights, because the authorities of the Republic of Serbia do not recognise the documents issued in Kosovo, and she has not managed to register in the civil registry books of Serbia. In fact, the documents issued in Kosovo are valid only in the situation where registration in the birth registry books in Kosovo appears as a reason for refusing registration in the birth registry books of the Republic of Serbia, but when it is necessary to exercise some rights based on these documents - they are inexistent. 

It may not be very important for the unacceptable situation in which Medina found herself, but it should be mentioned that her parents did not choose where Medina would be born bearing in mind any political context or awareness of the territory in which some documents were recognised. Medina and her family are members of the Roma national minority, whose position is equally difficult both in Kosovo and in Serbia. Simply, Medina's mother gave birth in the place where she lives and in the maternity hospital that was only available to her. When she initiated a procedure for registration in the civil registry books in Serbia, Medina even submitted her documents from Kosovo as evidence, thinking that it could help in that procedure, and not suspecting that the exact opposite would happen and that because of those documents she would actually remain without registration in the birth registry books in Serbia.

Recently, Medina also had a child that she could not register at birth because she did not have an ID card, which means that this family now has two undocumented members.

Before initiating the procedure before the court, Medina tried to register in civil registry books in the administrative procedure, before the registry office. However, that request was also rejected, with the explanation that she did not have a proof of the fact of her birth and that the hospital where he was born was not in the network of health care institutions in Serbia. 

Non-contentious court procedure for determining the date and place of birth was introduced in the legal system in 2012 as a solution for many persons who could not be registered in birth registry books in administrative procedure. However, the positions taken by the Supreme Court of Cassation, according to which persons registered in the birth registry books in Kosovo should solve the issue of registration in the birth registry books of Serbia in administrative procedures, make the procedure for determining the date and place of birth completely meaningless and actually prevent reaching its intended goal - to reduce the number of undocumented persons and enable everyone to register in birth registry books.

The only option Medina now has is to address the Constitutional Court of Serbia. However, having in mind the length of procedures conducted before that court, it is certain that Medina will wait for several years for a decision and live for a long time without any rights.

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

Nevladina organizacija Praxis je u Smederevu održala okrugli sto na temu prevencije i eliminacije dečijih brakova u Srbiji. Okruglom stolu su prisustvovali predstavnici GU Grada Smedereva, zamenica gradonačelnika i koordinatorka za romska pitanja, predstavnici Centra za socijalni rad, predstavnici sudstva, Doma zdravlja, Crvenog krsta, brojni predstavnici medija i predstavnici partnerske organizacije koja će lokalno biti aktivna na ovom projektu.

Okrugli sto je organizovan u okviru projekta „Prevencija i eliminacija dečjih brakova u Srbiji“ koji finansiraju Ambasada Kraljevine Holandije u Srbiji, Ministarstvo za ekonomsku saradnju i razvoj Savezne Republike Nemačke (BMZ) u okviru Programa Nemačke razvojne saradnje “Inkluzija Roma i drugih marginalizovanih grupa u Srbiji“, a koji Praxis sprovodi zajedno sa lokalnim partnerskim organizacijama. Cilj projekta je da doprinese prevenciji i eliminaciji dečjih brakova i poboljšanju položaja Romkinja u romskim naseljima u Kruševcu, Kragujevcu, Vranju, Subotici, Bačkoj Palanci, Smederevu, Novom Sadu i Leskovcu.

U uvodnom delu okruglog stola predstavljeni su nalazi do kojih je Praxis došao analizom lokalnih dokumentata, odnosno na osnovu sastanaka sa predstavnicima institucija, koji ukazuju da u Smederevu postoji pojava dečjih brakova ali da ne postoji dovoljno dobra evidencija ove pojave, odnosno da se dečji brakovi nedovoljno prijavljuju od strane skoro svih relevantnih aktera, uključujući obrazovne i zdravstvene institucije. Takva situacija dovodi do toga da Centar za socijalni rad ima evidenciju o ovoj pojavi samo u nekim slučajevima kada dođe do sukoba između porodica tim povodom, ili kada im se obrati sud u vezi davanja mišljenja u postupku davanja saglasnosti za sklapanje maloletničkog braka za lica starija od 16 godina. Dodatno, ovu činjenicu potvrđuje i to da tužilaštvo u Smederevu nema ni jednu prijavu za krivično delo zaključenje braka sa maloletnikom. Sa druge strane, informacije sa terena ukazuju da je u romskim naseljima skoro svaka treća porodilja maloletna.

Pozitivan utisak sa ovog sastanka je volja GU Grada Smedereva da se lokalni akcioni plan za integraciju Roma revidira i da se u njega uključi tema dečjih brakova, kao i da se u oblasti obrazovanja u okviru ovog akcionog plana uključi tema dečjih brakova kroz aktivnosti koje bi se sprovodile u osnovnim školama.

Učesnici okruglog stola „Prevencija i eliminacija dečjih brakova u Srbiji“ su se saglasili da je potrebno pozvati sve relevantne institucije da se uključe u podizanje opšte svesti o štetnosti pojave dečjih brakova, ali isto tako da je potreban preventivan rad u zajednici jer represivne mere i prijavljivanje ovog krivičnog dela su samo neki od načina ka prevenciji ove pojave. Upravo stoga su obrazovne i zdravstvene institucije veoma značajne jer su one mesta gde je moguće preventivno delovati.

Praxis će u narednom periodu nastaviti da sprovodi aktivnosti usmerene kako na institucije tako i na romsku zajednicu u cilju podizanja svesti i dalje prevencije dečjih brakova u Smederevu, kao i aktivnosti usmerene na ekonomsko osnaživanje Romkinja.

Nevladina organizacija Praxis je u Leskovcu održala okrugli sto na temu prevencije i eliminacije dečijih brakova u Srbiji. Okruglom stolu je prisustvovalo preko 20 predstavnika zdravstvenih i obrazovnih institucija, Centra za socijalni rad, policije, tužilaštva i civilnog sektora, kao i Nacionalne službe za zapošljavanje.

Okrugli sto je organizovan u okviru projekta „Prevencija i eliminacija dečjih brakova u Srbiji“ koji finansiraju Ambasada Kraljevine Holandije u Srbiji, Ministarstvo za ekonomsku saradnju i razvoj Savezne Republike Nemačke (BMZ) u okviru Programa Nemačke razvojne saradnje “Inkluzija Roma i drugih marginalizovanih grupa u Srbiji“, a koji Praxis sprovodi zajedno sa lokalnim partnerskim organizacijama. Cilj projekta je da doprinese prevenciji i eliminaciji dečjih brakova i poboljšanju položaja Romkinja u romskim naseljima u Kruševcu, Kragujevcu, Vranju, Subotici, Bačkoj Palanci, Smederevu, Novom Sadu i Leskovcu.

 Za razliku od drugih lokalnih samouprava u kojima su održani okrugli stolovi, Grad Leskovac je usvojio lokalnu strategiju kojom je, pored ostalog, predvideo mere u cilju suzbijanja dečjih brakova. Takođe, u ovom gradu se sprovode radionice u zajednici i različite javne tribine na temu dečjih brakova, kao i druge aktivnosti sa ciljem uključivanja svih relevantnih aktera i razmene znanja i iskustava kako bi se suzbijala pojava dečjih brakova. Osim toga, Grad Leskovac je jedna od lokalnih samouprava u kojoj se slučajevi dečjih brakova najčešće prijavljuju, dok se po podnetim prijavama uglavnom postupa što su posvedočili predstavnici Centra za socialni rad i tužilaštva na održanom okruglom stolu. Istom prilikom, učesnici okruglog stola su nedvosmisleno i jasno pozvali sve institucije, organizacije civilnog društva, kao i svakog pojedinca da prijavljuju dečje brakove bez izuzetka, naglašavajući da je to obaveza svakog ko ima saznanje o dečjem braku. Pored toga, zaključeno je da postoji značajan prostor za unapeđenje stanja kada su u pitanju reakcije na prijavljene slučajeve dečjih brakova, što je istovremeno i jedan od nalaza Praxisovog „Godišnjeg izveštaja o dečjim brakovima u Srbiji za 2021. godinu sa posebnim osvrtom na praksu javnih tužilaštava" koji pokazuju da ne postoji ujednačena praksa u postupanju tužilaštva i sudstva. Naime, na održanom okruglom stolu niko od prisutnih učesnika nije mogao da potvrdi da postoji makar jedna osuđujuća presuda za krivično delo vanbračna zajednica sa maloletnikom, što je svakako posledica izostanka ujednačenog i pravovremenog postupanja pravosudnih institucija.

Učesnici okruglog stola smatraju da je u narednom periodu potrebno snažnije delovanje institucija kada je u pitanju reakcija na dečije brakove, a naročito su istakli značaj preventivne uloge kaznene politike. Ipak, svi prisutni su saglasni da je najvažnije raditi na prevenciji pojave dečijih brakova kako jačanjem kapaciteta institucija tako i podizanjem svesti o posledicama i štetnosti pojave dečjih brakova unutar same romske zajednice.

Kada je reč o najčešćim uzrocima pojave dečjih brakova u Leskovcu, prisutni predstavnici organizacija civilnog društva koje se bave zaštitom prava Roma i Romkinja, istakli su da je razlog zbog kog mlade Romkinje stupaju u vanbračne zajednice najčešće kult nevinosti, što pokazuje da je potrebno jačati aktivnosti u zajednici na promeni takvog obrasca ponašanja.  

Praxis će u narednom periodu nastaviti da sprovodi aktivnosti usmerene kako na institucije tako i na romsku zajednicu u cilju podizanja svesti i dalje prevencije dečjih brakova u Leskovcu, kao i aktivnosti usmerene na ekonomsko osnaživanje Romkinja.

Nevladina organizacija Praxis je u saradnji sa Centrom za socijalni rad, u Novom Sadu održala okrugli sto na temu prevencije i eliminacije dečijih brakova u Srbiji. Okrugli sto je održan u prostorijama Centra za socijalni rad, što potvrđuje višegodišnju intezivnu saradnju i spremnost da se ulože zajednički napori kako bi se pristupilo rešavanju problema dečjih brakova na sveobuhvatan način, uz uključenost relevantnih lokalnih institucija. Okruglom stolu su prisustvovali predstavnici obrazovnih i zdravstvenih institucija, sudstva (parničnih i vanprničnih odeljenja), Višeg tužilašta, pedagoški asistenti, predstavnici policije, predstavnici civilnog društva, predstavnici GU Novog Sada i predstavnici Centra za socijalni rad. Izuzetno kvalitetno okruženje doprinelo je sagledavanju teme i problema dečjih brakova iz različitih uglova.

Okrugli sto je organizovan u okviru projekta „Prevencija i eliminacija dečjih brakova u Srbiji“ koji finansiraju Ambasada Kraljevine Holandije u Srbiji, Ministarstvo za ekonomsku saradnju i razvoj Savezne Republike Nemačke (BMZ) u okviru Programa Nemačke razvojne saradnje “Inkluzija Roma i drugih marginalizovanih grupa u Srbiji“, a sprovodi Praxis zajedno sa lokalnim partnerskim organizacijama. Cilj projekta je da doprinese prevenciji i eliminaciji dečjih brakova i poboljšanju položaja Romkinja u romskim naseljima u Kruševcu, Kragujevcu, Vranju, Subotici, Bačkoj Palanci, Smederevu, Novom Sadu i Leskovcu.

Učesnici okruglog stola su istakli značaj obrazovanja u prevenciji dečjih brakova. Ostvaren je značajan pomak u obuhvatu romske dece u sistem obrazovanja grada Novog Sada ali je neophodno dodatno osnaživanje dece koja su u riziku od dečjih brakova kako bi nakon osnovne škole nastavili sa srednjoškolskim obrazovanjem jer je to jedan od puteva ka prevenciji dečjih brakova. Upravo ona deca koja ostaju u sistemu školstva su u manjem riziku od dečjeg braka.

Izuzetno je bilo značajno prisustvo policijskih i pravosudnih organa na okruglom stolu, posebno zato što je nedvosmisleno i jasno ponovljeno da je vanbračna zajednica sa maloletnikom krivično delo i da su svi dužni da to delo prijavljuju. Naznačeno je, sa druge strane, da je policija dužna da svaku prijavu i informaciju o ovom krivičnom delu obradi i procesuira. U delu razgovora koji se odnosio na krivičnopravni aspekt, Praxis je iskoristio priliku da predstavi neke od nalaza našeg Godišnjeg izveštaja o dečjim brakovima u Srbiji za 2021. godinu sa posebnim osvrtom na praksu javnih tužilaštava.

Na kraju okruglog stola „Prevencija i eliminacija dečijih brakova u Srbiji“ učesnici su ukazali na neophodnost usvajanja određenih procedura i strategija, kao i jasnih naznaka ko i u kom pravcu bi trebalo da deluje u slučajevima dečjih brakova, te da je bitna jasna obaveza i sistemska forma kako bi se dečji brak bez izuzetka prijavljivao. Zaključeno je da je potrebno da se procena da li se radi o krivičnom delu ne prepušta centrima za socijalni rad do kojih dolaze takve informacije, već da se dalje predaje pravosudnim organima.

Praxis će u narednom periodu nastaviti da sprovodi aktivnosti usmerene i na institucije i na romsku zajednicu u cilju podizanja svesti i dalje prevencije dečjih brakova u Novom Sadu, kao i aktivnosti usmerene na ekonomsko osnaživanje Romkinja.

Nevladina organizacija Praxis je u saradnji sa Opštinskom upravom Bačka Palanka održala okrugli sto na temu prevencije i eliminacije dečijih brakova u Srbiji. Okrugli sto bio je prilika da predstavnici obrazovnih institucija, Crvenog krsta, Nacionalne službe za zapošljavanje, policije, romskih udruženja, Saveta za rodnu ravnopravnost, organa opštinske uprave, Kancelarije za mlade i medija razgovaraju na temu dečjih brakova u Bačkoj Palanci.

Okrugli sto je organizovan u okviru projekta „Prevencija i eliminacija dečjih brakova u Srbiji“ koji finansiraju Ambasada Kraljevine Holandije u Srbiji, Ministarstvo za ekonomsku saradnju i razvoj Savezne Republike Nemačke (BMZ) u okviru Programa Nemačke razvojne saradnje “Inkluzija Roma i drugih marginalizovanih grupa u Srbiji“, a sprovodi Praxis zajedno sa lokalnim partnerskim organizacijama. Cilj projekta je da doprinese prevenciji i eliminaciji dečjih brakova i poboljšanju položaja Romkinja u romskim naseljima u Kruševcu, Kragujevcu, Vranju, Subotici, Bačkoj Palanci, Smederevu, Novom Sadu i Leskovcu.

Na ovom okruglom stolu predstavljeni su nalazi do kojih se došlo na osnovu ranijih sastanaka sa institucijama, odnosno na osnovu analize lokalnih dokumenata i mehanizama koji postoje u opštini Bačka Palanka, a koji ukazuju da dečji brakovi često nisu prepoznati kao tema u okviru ovih akata i mehanizama.

Glavni zaključak skupa je da su mere koje se već više godina sprovode u obrazovanju u opštini Bačka Palanka donele značajne rezultate u poboljšanju redovnog pohađanja škola od strane najugroženijih kategorija stanovništva koje se osipalo iz obrazovanja, i da je to pokazatelj da afirmativne mere, njihovo praćenje i spovođenje, itekako imaju uticaj na sprečavanje drugih problema u lokalnoj samoupravi. Upravo poučeni tim primerom, zagovaranje ka zapošljavanju romske omladine koja je stekla određeni obrazovni profil bi bio dobar putokaz a ujedno i prevencija dečjem braku kao budućnosti ove dece.

Učesnici okruglog stola „Prevencija i eliminacija dečijih brakova u Srbiji“ su se saglasili da su potrebni konkretni primeri ekonomskog osnaživanja, obrazovnog osnaživanja i pre svega sistemskog osnaživanja, kako bi deca pre puta u dečji brak izabrala put ka gradjenju svoje budućnosti kao ekonomski nezavisne, karijerno i profesionalno ostvarene ličnosti.

Na današnji dan bismo želeli da svim sugrađanima i sugrađankama romske nacionalnosti čestitamo Svetski dan Roma, dan kada slavimo njihovu bogatu kulturu i tradiciju.

Ovom prilikom bismo posebnu zahvalnost želeli da iskažemo svim organizacijama, našim saradnicama i saradnicima, aktivistima i aktivistkinjama koji se svakodnevno nesebično zalažu za unapređenje položaja Roma i Romkinja u našoj zemlji, njihovom neizmernom doprinosu na promovisanju i unapređenju ljudskih prava, interkulturalnih vrednosti, solidarnosti i antidiskriminacije.

Romi i Romkinje se i dalje svakodnevno suočavaju sa predrasudama, diskriminacijom i kršenjem osnovnih prava. Put do potpune socijalne inkluzije i jednakosti je dug i mukotrpan. Stoga je potrebno da svi zajedno uložimo dodatne napore u cilju unapređenja položaja Roma i Romkinja, unapređenju pristupa obrazovanju, zapošljavanju, zdravstvenoj i socijalnoj zaštiti, boljim uslovima stanovanja, jer samo onda kada svi budemo imali jednaku polaznu osnovu i jednake mogućnosti, možemo reći da živimo u boljem, ravnopravnom društvu.

Socijalna inkluzija ne donosi dobrobit samo jednoj ugroženoj manjini, ona je podjednako značajna za celo društvo!

Naša Nevena Marković, koordinatorka Praxisa za prava deteta, govorila je o prevenciji dečjih brakova za Radio-televiziju Vojvodine. U emisiji „Kulturako aresipe“ Nevena je predstavila nalaze iz Godišnjeg izveštaja o dečjim brakovima u Srbiji za 2021. godinu sa posebnim osvrtom na praksu javnih tužilaštava ali se osvrnula i na brojne aktivnosti koje sprovodimo u okviru projekta „Prevencija i eliminacija dečjih brakova i ekonomsko osnaživanje Romkinja na lokalnom nivou u Srbiji”. Celo gostovanje možete pogledati OVDE.

The following story may seem complicated to you, and you are right. It is complicated just like the procedures that some people have to go through in order to be registered in birth registry books, to obtain personal documents and be able to access their basic rights.

This is a story about Sara ^[1] who is not registered in birth registry books and does not possess any personal document. At the same time, this is a story about novelties in the legal system of Serbia, which additionally hinder registration in registry books for some persons.

Due to the fact that Sara is not registered in birth registry books, access to most rights has been prevented or significantly hindered since her birth. At the time when Sara was born, her mother was not registered in birth registry books and did not have personal documents, due to which she could not register her daughter at birth. The hospital in which Sara was born did not notify the registry office of the fact of her birth.

Since the exact date of Sara’s birth was not recorded in the official records, and since her parents - uneducated and socially excluded members of the Roma community - did not remember the date of her birth, today it remains unknown when exactly Sara was born. We know only that she was born in 2004 and that she will come of age this year. She hopes that this year she will finally manage to get registered in birth registry books, thus finally gaining the opportunity to access all those rights that have always been out of her reach.

Unfortunately, she spent the entire previous year unsuccessfully attempting to register in birth registry books. At the beginning of 2021, Sara's mother tried to get free legal aid in the municipal service in order to initiate a court procedure for determining the date and place of her child's birth, but she did not succeed in getting such assistance on her own. Only after Praxis (which is not allowed to provide assistance in court procedures under the Law on Free Legal Aid) submitted a written request, the Free Legal Aid Service drafted a request for determination of the date and place of Sara's birth, and in February 2021 a procedure was initiated before the court.

However, in late April, the court dismissed the request, referring to the Conclusion of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) on the jurisdiction of non-contentious courts in the procedure of registration in birth registry books, in which the SCC took the position that a non-contentious court could conduct a procedure for determining the date and place of birth only if an administrative procedure of subsequent registration in birth registry books had been previously conducted and if the request had been rejected by a final decision.

Therefore, the following month, a procedure of subsequent registration in birth registry books was initiated for Sara before the administrative body. However, shortly afterwards, this body informed the party that the request had been forwarded to the court (which had previously dismissed the request), stating that the court, and not that body, was in charge of conducting the procedure. Thus, both the court and the administrative body determined that they could not conduct the procedure.

However, after Praxis lodged a complaint with the Administrative Inspectorate for illegal actions of the administrative body, and sent to the administrative body a written notification of its obligation to conduct the procedure of subsequent registration, this procedure continued. However, in July 2021, the administrative body adopted a decision dismissing the request because the mother and the witnesses did not go to give a statement when asked to do so and did not provide the evidence requested by the administrative body, such as a health card, medical report or school certificate, although Sara did not or could not have such evidence because she was not registered in birth registry books.

Although the administrative body adopted a negative decision, it was still not enough to reopen a court procedure, because the Supreme Court of Cassation took the position that the request in the administrative procedure should be rejected and not dismissed, as happened in this case. Therefore, with the help of Praxis, an appeal was lodged against the decision dismissing the request. This appeal was adopted by the second instance body and the case was returned to the first instance body for a new procedure.

In the renewed procedure before the administrative body, the party and the birth witnesses gave statements, but towards the end of the year, the request for subsequent registration was rejected, with the explanation that it was not possible to determine the date of the child's birth based on these statements.

Since the condition for reopening a court procedure was met, Sara's mother again addressed the Free Legal Aid Service, which drafted a new request for determining the date and place of birth, with the support of Praxis, which shared with the Free Legal Aid Service staff its experience gained during many years of conducting such procedures and pointed out some important details of the procedure. The request was submitted to the court in late February 2022.

Therefore, Sara is again in the same situation she was in a year ago: she has initiated a court procedure that should allow her to register in birth registry books. In the meantime, she had to conduct a procedure before the administrative body, without any prospects of a positive outcome, which was clear from the very beginning. Sara originally initiated a procedure before the court (and not before the administrative body) precisely because it was certain that the administrative procedure would not be conducted successfully.

The example of Sara (and many other persons who are not registered in birth registry books) shows to what extent the aforementioned position of the Supreme Court of Cassation was not purposeful and to what extent it complicates the regulation of the status of legally invisible persons and the obtaining of their personal documents. Sara wasted an entire year on the administrative procedure, which, even with the assistance received by Praxis, was difficult to complete and get a rejecting decision. Looking at the course of the procedure, it is clear that she would not be able to do it without legal assistance and that due to the encountered obstacles she would most probably give up further attempts to register in birth registry books.

Persons who are not registered in birth registry books are among the most vulnerable population groups in Serbia. Due to the lack of personal documents, they are either unable to access almost all of their rights or such access is significantly hindered. These are people who live in extreme poverty, who are legally ignorant, usually illiterate, without any experience in addressing public authorities and unable to conduct, without assistance, procedures that would allow them to register in birth registry books. Therefore, although free legal aid is necessary for them, the Law on Free Legal Aid has made access to such aid more difficult by imposing assistance-related restrictions on non-governmental organisations that undocumented persons have relied on for years, while the system of other legal aid providers usually does not function. On the other hand, the procedures conducted with the aim of registration are often complicated, time-consuming and burdened with various irregularities.

The Conclusion of the Supreme Court of Cassation has led to the situation where in order to exercise the right to register into birth registry books and obtain personal documents, legally invisible persons need to take an even longer, more difficult and uncertain path.

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

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has expressed deep concern over the large number of children that cannot be registered in birth registry books and persons that are unable to register permanent residence at the addresses of social welfare centres, due to which their access to social services is limited.

The Committee therefore called on Serbia to take urgent measures to remedy this situation and to provide undocumented persons with access to social protection and health care, education and other social services. 

In this regard, the Committee called on Serbia to urgently review the regulations governing registration in birth registry books in order to enable all children born in Serbia to be registered in birth registry books, as well as to allow internally displaced persons from Kosovo living in informal settlements to register permanent residence at the addresses of social welfare centres. The Committee attached special importance to these recommendations, requesting Serbia to report on its compliance with them in a much shorter period compared to the majority of other recommendations.

This is, among other things, emphasized in the Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the Third Periodic Report of Serbia on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee issued almost identical recommendations to Serbia in 2014 as part of the Concluding Observations on the Second Periodic Report of Serbia, but the state did not comply with these recommendations even eight years later. This year's Concluding Observations recommend that Serbia should take measures to address also other issues related to access to socio-economic rights that Praxis has pointed out to the Committee in its report.

As regards access to free legal aid, the Committee expressed concern about the inadequate provision of free legal aid by local self-governments and the unclear legal procedure for providing free legal aid by civil society organisations, which makes it very difficult to provide assistance to those most in need, and issued recommendations to eliminate these shortcomings. The Committee also stressed that it was necessary to raise awareness of the public, especially marginalised groups, about the availability of free legal aid and the procedure for exercising rights.

As regards social protection, the Committee called on Serbia to remove discriminatory requirements, i.e. the requirements that may have a discriminatory effect on the exercise of the right to social assistance and parental allowance (such as mandatory vaccination and school attendance), while pointing out to the necessity of simplifying the procedures for exercising rights.

The Committee also expressed concern over the fact that persons without registered permanent residence were denied access to health care, although this was contrary to the law, and recommended that the state should provide all citizens with access to primary health care.

The Committee also stressed that the state should take all measures to eliminate child marriages and sensitise the public to the harmful consequences of this practice, as well as to ensure that the legal provision stipulating 18 years as the minimum age for marriage was applied without exception. 

Praxis reiterates that undocumented persons and members of the Roma national minority in Serbia face many obstacles that hinder or prevent their access to socio-economic rights, but also expresses its satisfaction for the fact that almost all of its recommendations for resolving these problems were included in the Committee’s Concluding Observations. Praxis also calls on the competent authorities to implement the recommended measures without delay, thus improving the situation of these people, who are among the poorest and most disadvantaged citizens of Serbia.

Održali smo sastanak sa predstavnicima javnog i civilnog sektora u Kragujevcu sa ciljem da se razmotre prilike i mogući modaliteti uključivanja građana u proces kreiranja i praćenja lokalnih javnih politika i postigne konsenzus u pogledu uspostavljanja delotvornih modela građanskih konsultacija kako bi se unapredila participativnost i inkluzivnost konsultativnih procesa na lokalnom nivou. O ovom sastanku, na kome su razmenjeni stavovi i ideje u pogledu budućih koraka na planu unapređenja transparentnosti u radu lokalne samouprave, možete pročitati u Danasu kao i na portalima Naša mesta i Veliki park.

#WeBER 2.0