On 18 February 2021 in Belgrade, the non-governmental organisations A 11 - Initiative for Economic and Social Rights and Praxis presented reports on the implementation of the Law on Free Legal Aid with respect to the persons at risk of statelessness and internally displaced persons in Serbia. The report of A 11 Initiative focused on the implementation of the Law on Free Legal Aid with respect to internally displaced persons, while Praxis’ report dealt with persons at risk of statelessness. Although in analysing the implementation of the law these two NGOs focus on two different categories of citizens, both reports highlight the major challenges encountered by the most vulnerable population groups in attempting to exercise their right to free legal aid.

The research conducted by Praxis has revealed that only 32% of towns and municipalities established a free legal aid service, and that in 18% of local self-governments no request for free legal aid was submitted, while in 32% of them no more than 10 requests were submitted in one year. Another problematic fact is that in two out of three local self-governments the persons who decide on requests for free legal aid are the ones who provide such aid.

According to Milan Radojev, Praxis Legal Coordinator, an extremely small number of persons at risk of statelessness succeeded in receiving free legal aid in the manner prescribed by the Law. He stressed that these citizens almost never managed to exercise the right to free legal aid on their own, but were granted such aid only with the assistance of Praxis lawyers.

“Persons at risk of statelessness are among the most vulnerable groups in society. The lack of documents prevents them from accessing other basic rights, and these are persons who already live in destitution. These are persons with a low level of education, legally ignorant, and often do not even know what kind of help they need. If they cannot get free legal aid in order to obtain personal documents, they are in a hopeless situation”, states Marijana Luković, Praxis Executive Director.

On the other hand, the research of Initiative A 11 indicates the inaccessibility of the system of free legal aid for the most vulnerable among internally displaced persons. Persons belonging to particularly vulnerable groups, who participated in the research, stated that they were not adequately informed about how they could access free legal aid, that procedures were not accessible and transparent, and that their requests were often rejected orally.

In addition, they noted that a special problem that hindered their access to legal aid was an insufficiently clear form of free legal aid request, which was not adjusted to the needs and level of education of some of the most vulnerable citizens. The presented case studies indicate the illegality of the work of free legal aid services, as well as insufficiently clear procedures and the overall inaccessibility of free legal aid for the most vulnerable.

Having in mind the shortcomings in the application of the Law on Free Legal Aid for the most vulnerable citizens, as well as the fact that the Law practically excludes the associations of citizens specialized in providing free legal aid from the circle of free legal aid providers, during the presentation of the reports, the question was raised of whether it was necessary to amend the Law and sharpen its focus on providing access to justice to citizens most at risk. In addition, campaigns aimed at informing about the rights of citizens in the free legal aid system, as well as training of employees dealing with the provision of free legal aid, are the necessary steps towards the improvement of free legal aid for the most vulnerable.

The Praxis report is available: HERE

The Coalition for Access to Justice hereby requests from the Government of the Republic of Serbia to remove without delay the shortcomings in its work on amending the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance (hereinafter referred to as: LFAIPI), by ensuring that the work on drafting of the Law will be taken over by the competent Ministry for Human Rights alongside equal participation of experts, media representatives, associations and others, in accordance with the Law on the Planning System.

Democracy and rule of law are based on the competency and transparency of the work of public authorities.

LFAIPI represents one of the foundations of the democratic order of the Republic of Serbia. The aim of this law is to regulate the manner of exercising and protecting the right of the public to be informed about the work of public authorities. This right is guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.

For a decade now, LFAIPI has been considered to be among the best European laws in the field of access to information by relevant international organizations.

The work on amending LFAIPI has been burdened with numerous irregularities, i.e. shortcomings which can be classified into five groups.

First of all, the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government (hereinafter referred to: MPALSG) is not competant for amending LFAIPI. The competences of this Ministry cannot be either directly or indirectly drawn from Article 11 of the Law on Ministries. According to Article 12, and in conjuction with Article 39 of the abovementioned law, the Ministry in charge of drafting human rights regulations shall be competent for amending LFAIPI, which means the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights and Social Dialogue.

Second, the working group in MPALSG tasked with amending LFAIPI, which was formed after the establishment of the new government of the Republic of Serbia, consists only of addressees of the Law, i.e. public authorities which are obliged to respect and protect the right to access information whereas the beneficiaries of the Law, i.e. the representatives of civil society organisations, media as well as the professional and general public, have been excluded. In this way, participatory mechanisms in shaping the content of legal provisions, characteristic of a democratic legal order, are completely neglected.

Third, and directly related to the point above, the identified shortcomings are related to the transparency of the work on amending the Law. Namely, the MPALSG web page does not contain basic information on the drafting of the Law in the period following the establishment of the working group which currently works on the amendments, which means this activity is hidden from the public. The latest published information on the proposed legislative solutions dates from November 2019. In that sense, it seems that it could be easily concluded that the law, which should ensure the transparency of the work of public authorities, is drafted in secret, which is especially concerning if we take into account the recent statements of the Commissioner for Free Access to Information of Public Importance, which is also a member of the working group, that “Everything in the Law will be changed”.

Fourth, on the basis of the available information, the drafting of the Law after the establishment of the new Serbian government has not been organized in the manner prescribed by the Law on the Planning System. Here is a shortlist of provisions of that law which have been violated so far:

• Failure to recognise “stakeholders” and “target groups” referred to in Article 12, as entities participating in policy making;
• Violation of the principles of public policy system management referred to in Article 3, and especially the principles of relevance and reliability, prevention and precaution; equality and non-discrimination, transparency and partnership, as well as responsibility;
• Violation of the rules on drafting policy concept papers referred to in Articles 16 and 17 and in conjuction with the public policy regulatory measures referred to in Article 24;
• Violation of the rule on conducting ex-ante impact assessment referred to in Article 31;
• Violation of the rule on transparency of the work performed referred to in Articles 32-34.

In addition, according to the available information, no public debate on the draft Law has been planned yet, which may lead to a violation of the provision on conducting a public debate referred to in from Art. 36 of the Law.

And fifth, on the basis of the available information on the work done so far on LFAIPI amendments, and especially on the basis of the insight into the proposed solutions from 2019, it can be concluded that there is a serious and imminent danger of the system of access to public information collapsing. Namely, in the context of the model of misapplication of laws that have so far been shaped in the practice of public authorities, the Commissioner for Free Access to Information of Public Importance and the Administrative Court, the adoption of the proposed solutions would, on one hand, allow for serious violations of the interest of the public to know when this interest prevails in relation to the opposite interest, and on the other, it would allow for violations of public interests and the interests of protection of the rights of individuals in cases when these interests prevail in relation to the interest of the public to know.

In Belgrade, February 11, 2021

The Coalition for Access to Justice members are the following organisations: Centre for Advanced Legal Studies, Civil Rights Defenders, Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia, Independent Journalists' Association of Vojvodina, PRAXIS, Humanitarian Law Centre, Youth Initiative for Human Rights, CHRIS - Network of the Committees for Human Rights in Serbia and Sandzak Committee for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Praxis je Savetu za ljudska prava Ujedinjenih nacija podneo alternativni izveštaj o sprovođenju preporuka iz Univerzalnog periodičnog pregleda (UPR) za Srbiju. 

U preporuci iz trećeg ciklusa Univerzalnog periodičnog pregleda (UPR) za Srbiju, navodi se da je neophodno omogućiti upis u matične knjige rođenih (MKR) svakom detetu rođenom u Srbiji, odmah nakon rođenja, bez diskriminacije i bez obzira na pravni status roditelja i bez obzira na to da li roditelji poseduju lične dokumente. Iako je Republika Srbija je podržala ovu preporuku, ona se i dalje ne primenjuje. Naime, deca čiji roditelji ne poseduju lične dokumente ne mogu da se upišu u matične knjige rođenih odmah nakon rođenja, već je potrebno pokrenuti komplikovane postupke koji neretko dugo traju, te se njihov upis u matične evidencije odlaže na duži period, tokom kojeg deca nemaju pristup mnogim pravima, kao što je pravo na zdravstvenu zaštitu i socijalnu pomoć. Takođe, usled nemogućnosti blagovremenog upisa u MKR, deca su izložena riziku od apatridije. 

Uzrok ovog problema leži u podzakonskim aktima koji regulišu upis u matične knjige rođenih. Oni propisuju da su za upis deteta u matične evidencije potrebni izvodi iz MKR roditelja i njihovi lični dokumenti. Iako su navedeni podzakonski akti u suprotnosti sa ratifikovanim međunarodnim konvencijama i domaćim zakonodavstvom, oni i dalje regulišu postupak upisa u MKR, te se u Srbiji i dalje rađaju deca koja ovo pravo ne mogu da ostvarejer još uvek sve majke koje se porađaju ne poseduju lične dokumente.  Takođe, Evropska komisija je u svojim izveštajima za 2019. i 2020. godinu pozvala Srbiju da izmeni sporne podzakonske akte, ne bi li svako dete moglo da ostvari pravo na upis u MKR odmah nakon rođenja.  

Problem nemogućnosti upisa u matične evidencije pogađa skoro isključivo romsku populaciju u Srbiji, jednu od najugroženijih i najdiskiminisanijih kategorija stanovništva. Stoga je Praxis u ovom izveštaju uputio preporuku da Republika Srbija izmeni sporne podzakonske akte koji uslovljavaju upis dece u matične evidencije time da roditelji poseduju lične dokumente i sopstvene izvode iz MKR, i time omogući svakom detetu rođenom u Srbiji da ostvari svoje zakonom predviđeno pravo. 

Tema diskusije je bila izvršni postupak i specifičnosti ovog postupka kad su u pitanju komunalne usluge, a na njoj je učestvovala i naša koleginica Marija Dražović. Dušan Protić iz Centra za evropske politike je moderirao sastankom, a događaj je za cilj imao da pojasni pravila izvršnog postupka naročito kada su u pitanju predmeti izvršenja potraživanja u oblasti komunalnih usluga. Kako prinudna naplata potraživanja u komunalnim i srodnim uslugama čini polovinu rada javnih izvršitelja, svrha otvorene diskusije je bila da približi kako u praksi funkioniše izvršni postupak, i kakva su prava, mogućnosti i obaveze građana u ovim slučajevima.

Tom prilikom smo podsetili da su, prema našem iskustvu, upravo najsiromašniji građani i građanke vrlo često dužnici u izvršnom postupku zbog dugova nastalih na osnovu pružanja komunalnih usluga i da najčešće ne postoje delotvorni mehanizmi za zaštitu njihovih prava već su prepušteni sami sebi. S druge strane, iskustava naših korisnika kada je reč o radu službi besplatne pravne pomoći su uglavnom negativna budući da se suočavaju sa preprekama već prilikom podnošenja zahteva za ostvarivanje prava na besplatnu pravnu pomoć. Lokalne službe besplatne pravne pomoći morale bi da se razvijaju u budućem periodu, da podižu sopstvene kapacitete kako bi obavljale posao koji im je delegiran, s obzirom da od kraja 2019. godine, kada je Zakon počeo da se primenjuje, one gotovo da ne funkcionišu. Osim toga, istakli smo značaj uloge civilnog sektora u podizanju svesti o temi izvršnog postupka ali i naglasili da se prostor za delovanje civilnog sektora na lokalnom nivou sve više sužava.

Naveli smo da često, kada je reč o komunalnim i srodnim uslugama, kao što su snabdevanje električnom energijom i telekomunikacijama, dolazi do prekida pružanja te usluge od strane poverioca kada se ne ispunjavaju obaveze, dok sa druge strane imamo nastavak pružanja komunalne usluge u drugim slučajevima, što rezultira u gomilanju dugova. Ustanovili smo da ne postoji adresa na koju građani mogu da se obrate i dobiju pravu informaciju o svojim pravima i na koji način mogu da ih ostvare. Kako bismo ilustrovali posledice neinformisanosti građana i krutih pravila izvršnog postupka, predstavili smo slučaj mnogih porodica koje su korisnici stanova za socijalno stanovanje u naselju Beranovac u Kraljevu kojima preti iseljenje zbog nagomilanih dugova zakupa.

Podsetili smo da i dalje postoji loša praksa kada je reč o prijavljivanju prebivališta jer se građani prijavljuju na adresama na kojima zaista ne žive. Ukazali smo da iza ovakve prakse neretko, bar kada su naše ciljne grupe u pitanju, stoje vrlo objektivni razlozi uzrokovani upravo lošom primenom propisa kojima se uređuje prijava prebivališta i boravišta. S druge strane, neuspešna dostava je jedan od najvećih izazova kada je reč o izvršnom postupku i neretko se pripisuje izbegavanju prijema od strane izvršnih dužnika, što ne bio bio slučaj kada bi građani imali informacije o pravnim posledicama, jer ukoliko građanin ne primi rešenje neće moći da koristi osnovno pravno sredstvo, odnosno prigovor. Zbog toga smo skrenuli pažnju da je, osim obezbeđivanja dosledne primene propisa kada je reč o prijavi prebivališta, veoma važno podizati svest građana o tome koliko je važno da podaci o njima koji se nalaze u službenim evidencijama budu ispravni i tačni, što podrazumeva ozbiljan posao jer je reč o vraćanju izgubljenog poverenja građana u institucije.

Istakli smo da iskustvo sa elektronskim servisima ne donosi mnogo koristi najugroženijim slojevima stanovništva jer veliki broj njih nema pristup internetu i komunikacionim sredstvima. Podsetili smo da je onima koji su na margini društva, potrebno omogućiti pristup informacijama o njihovim pravima na adekvatan način, jer postoje brojne prepreke u pristupu informacijama preko elektronskih servisa. Naveli smo da postoji velika nejednakost i da je potrebno identifikovati potrebe najosteljivijih grupa u Srbiji i odgovoriti na te potrebe inovativnim sredstvima.

Kao zaključak možemo navesti da je potrebno u buducem periodu uspostaviti i razvijati organizovaniji pritisak civilnog sektora i građana, jer su evropske integracije sve manje delotvorno sredstvo koje bi ubrzalo i učinilo reforme u Srbiji efikasnijim.

Pogledajte ceo događaj ovde.