In the period from 23-24 April 2015, the meeting of Eurochild’s 18 ‘National Partner Networks’ (NPNs), representing over 1900 organisations working for children’s rights across Europe, was held in Amsterdam. The Network of Organizations for Children of Serbia – MODS was represented by Jasmina Mikovic, Praxis Deputy Director and a member of the MODS Steering Committee. In addition, Jasmina Mikovic participated in the joint session of Eurochild and European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) where she presented the cooperation of MODS and Deputy Ombudsperson for Child Rights in Serbia.

A collective of national children’s rights networks called for stronger direction at the EU level to help EU member states promote and protect children’s rights in Europe. The meeting of Eurochild’s 18 ‘National Partner Networks’ (NPNs) in Amsterdam, Netherlands today showed the need for a European coordinated approach to encourage EU Member States in their work towards improving the lives of children and young people.

The situation of children and young people in Europe is nowhere near ideal. Across the EU, 28% of children are at risk of poverty or social exclusion compared to an average of 25% for the total population. Over 11% of children in EU leave school before completing secondary education. Youth unemployment is more than twice the average unemployment rate. (Eurostat 2013) Poverty is the main driver for children taken into public care. Over half a million of them end up in institutions in the EU.  The precarious situation of migrant and refugee children, some of whom have been separated from their families, is putting them in extremely vulnerable situations.

“Investing in children is a win for the future. Empowering children guarantees better outcomes in education, savings in state expenditure, lowering radicalisation and increasing innovation across sectors”, says Dana Rušinová, Coalition for Children Slovakia (NPN in Slovakia).

 “The development of EU child protection principles is a step in the right direction. But it can’t stop there. Our governments need support to apply these principles in practice. How, for instance, will they use these to protect child refugees and migrants who are coming to Europe?” asked Edel Quinn, Children’s Rights Alliance (NPN in Ireland).

“Government reform programmes and EU initiatives like the TTIP may increase the level of involvement of private providers in health, education and social services for children. The EU has an important role to play in ensuring that the highest standards of quality, underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are maintained across all sectors of provision”, says Marion Mcleod, Children in Scotland (NPN in Scotland).

Eurochild, along with a number of child rights organisations and most recently, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in its review of the EU in September 2014, have recommended the EU to develop a strategic direction that will address children’s rights across Europe, taking into account the specific needs of each and every child. The last EU strategic framework, the EU Agenda on the Rights of the Child, expired in 2014.

“The EU has made great strides on improving children’s rights through various policies. For example, the guidelines around rights of victims of crime have supported victims of child trafficking and child abuse. However, we need a comprehensive approach to ensure all children are protected and offered the potential to exercise their rights”, says Pien Klieverik, Defence for Children International (NPN in Netherlands).

Stronger collaboration with Children’s Ombudspersons in Europe
Pleased by opportunities developed in its meeting with European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) in Amsterdam today, Eurochild’s NPNs look forward to further their cooperation with the aim to advance children's rights in Europe.

“We need strong, independent children’s ombudspersons in every country. Our members are cooperating with existing ombudspersons and advocating for establishing this crucial role in countries where ombudspersons do not exist. At a time when the situation of children across Europe is worsening we need to work hand in hand”, added Jana Hainsworth, Secretary General, Eurochild.

About Eurochild:
Eurochild advocates for children’s rights and well-being to be at the heart of policymaking. We are a network of organisations working with and for children throughout Europe, striving for a society that respects the rights of children. We influence policies, build internal capacities, facilitate mutual learning and exchange practice and research. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the foundation of all our work.

National Partner Networks (NPNs) are members of Eurochild and are seen as the representative, legitimate voice of the children’s rights sector in their country. Currently there are 18 NPNs representing over 1900 children’s organisations across Europe:

The list of countries and names of national partner networks:

Austria - Netzwerk Kinderrechte
Belgium - Kinderrechtencoalitie
Bulgaria - National Network for Children
Croatia - Coordination of Associations for Children
Cyprus - Pancyprian Coordinating Committee for the Protection and Welfare of Children
Denmark - Joint Council for Child Issues (Bornesagens Faellesrad)
Finland - Central Union for Child Welfare Finland
France - National Federation of Associations for Child Protection (CNAPE)
Germany - Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kinder- und Jugendhilfe (AGJ)
Ireland - Children's Rights Alliance Ireland
Romania - NGOs Federation for Children
Serbia - MODS
Slovakia - Coalition for Children
UK- Scotland - Children in Scotland
UK – Northern Ireland - Children in Northern Ireland
UK - Wales - Children in Wales
UK - England - Children England

Within the project of the OSCE Mission to Serbia entitled “We are Here Together – European Support to Roma Inclusion,” funded by the European Union, in the period from September 2013 to June 2015, Praxis provided free legal assistance to Roma population in the procedures for late birth registration. At the end of the project period, Praxis prepared a final analysis of the procedures conducted with the aim of late birth registration and the implementation of the relevant regulations and the practice of the competent bodies.

Summary of the analysis, prepared for the news agency Beta by Milan Radojev, Praxis Legal Coordinator, can be seen here.

The European Network on Statelessness, which represents over fifty civil society organisations from across Europe, is spearheading a new campaign: 'None of Europe's Children should be Stateless' to raise awareness and promote positive solutions on the issue.

Within the campaign, the (ENS) published a new report No Child Should be Stateless, which reveals that thousands of children are growing up without the basic protection a nationality offers to citizens because of gaps in nationality laws and laws governing procedures for birth registration. The report, which draws on extensive analysis of nationality laws in all 47 Council of Europe states, details a worrying array of problems and makes a series of recommendations designed to guide actions to address – and ultimately end – childhood statelessness in Europe.

Director of the European Network on Statelessness, Chris Nash, said: “No child chooses to be stateless. Every child belongs to a community. Yet statelessness continues to exist because European states are failing to ensure that all children born within Europe’s borders or to European citizen parents acquire a nationality. For a child, the inability to secure any nationality can have enormous consequences and amounts to a severe violation of their human rights.”

Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, said “Statelessness increases the vulnerability of children to serious human rights violations, such as trafficking, labour and sexual exploitation, as well as illegal adoption. Stateless children often face multiple, mutually reinforcing forms of marginalization. But statelessness is a solvable issue and as this report shows if governments, regional actors, UN human rights bodies, UN agencies and civil society work together, strategies for action can be developed to tackle and solve this issue once and for all. ”

For more information about the campaign please sign up here.
Download the report here.

The European Network on Statelessness is launching its new report “No Child Should be Stateless” as part of its ongoing campaign seeking to end childhood statelessness in Europe.
 
The report offers a synthesis of research studies conducted by ENS members in eight European countries as well as analysis of nationality laws in all 47 Council of Europe states. It explains why many thousands of children continue to grow up stateless due to gaps in European nationality laws or obstacles preventing birth registration. The report reveals that even among those states that have acceded to relevant international conventions, more than half are still failing to properly implement their obligations to ensure that children acquire a nationality. ENS's research also sheds light on new and emerging cases of childhood statelessness, including the risk faced by children born to refugees and migrants or through surrogacy, adoption or to same sex couples.
 
No child chooses to be stateless but for those affected this can mean growing up without access to rights and services, denied opportunities, unfulfilled potential and a sense of never quite belonging. It brings hardship and anguish to children and their parents alike. Yet this is an entirely solvable problem, and the report concludes with a series of recommendations designed to guide action to more effectively address – and ultimately end – childhood statelessness in Europe.
 
You can join the debate around the report at #StatelessKids, as well as follow live tweeting from its launch event in Strasbourg from 16.00 -18.00 (CET) - including a keynote address by Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. The event is co-convened with UNHCR whose #ibelong campaign seeks to eradicate statelessness globally within a decade.
 
You can sign up here to receive more information about ENS and its campaign.

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality has established that Taxi Association of Serbia acted discriminatory by recommending taxi drivers not to take refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

Specifically, the president of the Taxi Association of Serbia in his interview for Blic Daily as of 24 March 2015, stated, among others, the following: “Taxi drivers are recommended not to take asylum seekers as they may find themselves in an unpleasant situation. The police which finds asylum seekers in a taxi will temporarily take a taxi away and a court procedure will be initiated. In the procedure, a taxi driver is supposed to prove that he did not know that people in his car were not asylum seekers.”

On that occasion, Praxis filed a complaint to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality stating that denying transportation services to one population group is a discriminatory act, which creates hostile environment and spreads intolerance and xenophobia in society. The recommendation given to taxi drivers is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and a series of provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, which clearly recognize the refusal to provide a public service as a form of discrimination.  

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality has established that refugees, asylum seekers and migrants were put in an unequal position in regard to use of taxi services on the basis of their personal characteristics, and thus the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination was violated. The Commissioner also recommended that president of the Taxi Association of Serbia should act in a way to contribute that taxi drivers provide transportation services to all passengers under the equal conditions, and take care, within his regular activities, not to violate legal regulations on prohibition of discrimination. 

At the moment when a large number of refugees pass through Serbia running away from the war, the minimum we can do is not to make their struggle for survival more difficult. The increased number of xenophobic statements made by representatives of authorities and newspaper texts contribute to spreading of intolerance in society. Therefore, the opinion of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality sends a clear message that discriminatory statements are unacceptable and that everyone, with no exception, has the right to protection from discrimination.

Download: Opinion of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality

© UNHCR
Refugee or Migrant – word choice matters.

GENEVA, Aug 27 (UNHCR) – With almost 60 million people forcibly displaced globally and boat crossings of the Mediterranean in the headlines almost daily, it is becoming increasingly common to see the terms 'refugee' and 'migrant' being used interchangeably in media and public discourse. But is there a difference between the two, and does it matter?

Yes, there is a difference, and it does matter. The two terms have distinct and different meanings, and confusing them leads to problems for both populations. Here's why:

Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. There were 19.5 million of them worldwide at the end of 2014. Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as "refugees" with access to assistance from States, UNHCR, and other organizations. They are so recognized precisely because it is too dangerous for them to return home, and they need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences.

Refugees are defined and protected in international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol as well as other legal texts, such as the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention, remain the cornerstone of modern refugee protection. The legal principles they enshrine have permeated into countless other international, regional, and national laws and practices. The 1951 Convention defines who is a refugee and outlines the basic rights which States should afford to refugees. One of the most fundamental principles laid down in international law is that refugees should not be expelled or returned to situations where their life and freedom would be under threat.

The protection of refugees has many aspects. These include safety from being returned to the dangers they have fled; access to asylum procedures that are fair and efficient; and measures to ensure that their basic human rights are respected to allow them to live in dignity and safety while helping them to find a longer-term solution. States bear the primary responsibility for this protection. UNHCR therefore works closely with governments, advising and supporting them as needed to implement their responsibilities.

Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government.

For individual governments, this distinction is important. Countries deal with migrants under their own immigration laws and processes. Countries deal with refugees through norms of refugee protection and asylum that are defined in both national legislation and international law. Countries have specific responsibilities towards anyone seeking asylum on their territories or at their borders. UNHCR helps countries deal with their asylum and refugee protection responsibilities.

Politics has a way of intervening in such debates. Conflating refugees and migrants can have serious consequences for the lives and safety of refugees. Blurring the two terms takes attention away from the specific legal protections refugees require. It can undermine public support for refugees and the institution of asylum at a time when more refugees need such protection than ever before. We need to treat all human beings with respect and dignity. We need to ensure that the human rights of migrants are respected. At the same time, we also need to provide an appropriate legal response for refugees, because of their particular predicament.

So, back to Europe and the large numbers of people arriving this year and last year by boats in Greece, Italy and elsewhere. Which are they? Refugees or migrants?

In fact, they happen to be both. The majority of people arriving this year in Italy and Greece especially have been from countries mired in war or which otherwise are considered to be 'refugee-producing' and for whom international protection is needed. However, a smaller proportion is from elsewhere, and for many of these individuals, the term 'migrant' would be correct.

So, at UNHCR we say 'refugees and migrants' when referring to movements of people by sea or in other circumstances where we think both groups may be present – boat movements in Southeast Asia are another example. We say 'refugees' when we mean people fleeing war or persecution across an international border. And we say 'migrants' when we mean people moving for reasons not included in the legal definition of a refugee. We hope that others will give thought to doing the same. Choices about words do matter.

By Adrian Edwards, Geneva

M. S. from Zemun, who suffers from paraplegia and who was deprived of the right to free movement, has been advocating since 2007 for pavements in his street to be accessible to persons with disabilities. He addressed the competent city authorities, which ignored his problem for four years. In 2011, he decided to file a complaint to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality against the Belgrade City Secretariat for Traffic. The Commissioner established discrimination and recommended that city authorities adjust the street in which M. S. lives to the needs of persons with disabilities. Even though the city authorities acted according to the recommendation, construction works were badly performed and M. S. was still facing impediments. The competent bodies found that their job was completed, though the goal of the recommendation was not achieved.   

Afterwards, M. S. addressed Praxis for assistance and the motion for the peaceful settlement of dispute was filed to the Public Attorney’s Office in Belgrade, with the proposal to adjust the pavement in his street to the needs of the persons with disabilities and to set appropriate ramps.  The Public Attorney’s Office acted upon the stated requests, and after seven years M. S. was finally able  to move along his street.

Unfortunately, this is not a sole case, because M. S, as well as other persons with disabilities, face great difficulties on a daily basis, when using public transportation and in access to public facilities, which are inaccessible.

A. F. was registered in the birth registry book more than five months after the decision determining the date and place of birth and ordering the registration in the birth registry book was reached. The time A. F. spent without documents was additionally prolonged because the competent Jagodina City Administration refused to implements the final court decision.

First, the procedure for registration in reconstructed birth registry books before the administrative body in Jagodina was initiated. The request of A. F. was rejected and she was referred to address the competent court to determine the fact of her birth. Therefore, A. F. initiated a non-contentious procedure for determination of date and place of birth. The competent court reached a decision according to which the Registry Office in Jagodina was obliged to perform the registration in the birth registry book. However, instead of implementing the court decision, Registry Office in Jagodina sent the notice where it pointed out that the body rejected the request of A. F. for re-registration in birth registry books and that “the party did not lodge a complaint with the prescribed period and afterwards the decision became final”.

The proceeding body apparently does not know that negative decisions cannot be final in the administrative procedure, and it also neglected the fact that this body had referred A. F. to initiate the respective procedure before the court in order to register in the birth registry book.

Praxis pointed out to the competent body at numerous violations of the law and rules of administrative procedure it made by refusing to implement the final court decision, but the decision was implemented only after a complaint was filed to the president of Jagodina City Administration and the Ombudsperson. However, A. F. still cannot exercise basic human rights, as the fact of Serbian citizenship was not registered to her during the birth registration, despite the existence of grounds for it.

Example of good practice: The awareness about human rights and the role of institutions and civil society in improving the situation of the Roma community is on a higher level in Leskovac than in the majority of other local self-governments in Serbia.

On 8 July 2015, at the premises of the Social Welfare Centre in Leskovac, the seventh meeting was held with the representatives of municipal authorities, local institutions and civil society, within the framework of the project Legal Aid and Advocacy - Access to Rights and Combating Discrimination against the Roma implemented by Praxis with the support of Civil Rights Defenders. The meeting was marked by an unexpectedly high attendance of representatives of institutions and Roma NGOs, and their active participation in the discussion due to which it lasted unusually long. The following topics were discussed: education, employment, social protection, housing, health and discrimination.

As in the previously held municipal meetings, Praxis presented the activities implemented under the project. The necessity of cooperation between relevant institutions and cooperation between these institutions and CSOs in order to improve access to socio-economic rights of Roma was stressed. Leskovac is characteristic for a strong awareness of local actors about human rights, their observance and protection, the role of institutions and civil society in improving the situation of the Roma community. At the beginning, the Praxis representative pointed out that in recent years much had been done in terms of improving the situation of Roma, which was still difficult since the violation of their rights continued. The causes for this lie in the lack of legal and institutional framework, improper and unlawful conduct of authorities and insufficient sensitisation of service providers.

The representative of the National Employment Service (NES) said that the public call for self-employment subsidies ended on 30 June 2015 and that three applications had been received from the Roma community members, while in 2014 one application was received. The participants were unanimous on the issue of inefficiency in the implementation and the results of implemented national programmes and considered that it was necessary to urgently divert the funds, allocated for years for this purpose, to education and/or to introduce the obligation for the business sector to employ one Roma person per certain number of employees, the failure of which would lead to paying a fine, as is the case with people with disabilities. The representative of NES also noted that the role of the Service was to mediate between employers and the unemployed, but that the reasons for failure should be sought in the prejudices of the majority community, but also in the lack of awareness among Roma about the importance of education, and that an effort must be made to raise awareness about both of these problems.

The problem faced by the Roma families in Leskovac is poverty. There are no employment opportunities and there are increasingly fewer offers for informal work arrangements. Most Roma are compelled to seek financial assistance from the social protection institution and many of them leave for Western Europe. This mainly affects Roma in the field of education because of discontinuity in attendance and dropout of Roma pupils. The Roma Community Coordinator suggested greater efforts to be invested in ensuring better financial situation of pupils and better living conditions in Roma settlements.

Speaking of social protection, the Praxis representative stressed the need for the abolition of Article 84 of the Law on Social Protection, the simplification of procedures for collecting documentation when submitting a request, precise regulation of missed earnings concept, suspension of financial benefits for restricted number of beneficiaries), and so on. The Head of Legal Aid Service in Leskovac pointed that it was most important to regulate more precisely the determination of assumed earnings and thus reduce the possibilities of abuse, which are prevailing in this matter. As regards the implementation of the RS Government’s Decree on the measures of social inclusion of financial assistance beneficiaries, the Director of Social Welfare Centre (SWC) stated that the SWC had signed more than 20 protocols with educational institutions, public and private companies, but the jobs offered to the beneficiaries were ad hoc and limited to the duration ranging from a few hours to 2 working days. There is no interest among the beneficiaries and dissatisfaction is pronounced in the periods of seasonal jobs. He further pointed out that many legal provisions were paradoxical and untenable, including the missed earnings, and that the SWC would perform its job more easily and efficiently if there had been precise provisions and criteria. The SWC Director twice a week has meetings with the Roma community representatives and points out that this kind of cooperation has yielded significant results in solving problems in individual cases. It was announced that, due to a significant number of proposals for amendments to the existing Law on Social Protection, a new law would probably enter a parliamentary procedure instead of introducing amendments.

Only rare individual cases of the violation of the right to health care were mentioned. The RFHI representative said that the last ten years he had performed the tasks of Patient Ombudsman and that during that period he had no complaints at all regarding the violation of the right to health care and insurance by Roma people. He stressed that more should be done to raise awareness among Roma about their rights and about protection mechanisms.

According to the Roma Coordinator, Leskovac has 14 Roma settlements inhabited by 7,700 Roma residents. The Local Action Plan was adopted in 2014, but most often sufficient funds are not secured for the performance of activities. However, development of street Slavko Zlatanović will begin this year, while the construction of asphalt road in the rural settlement Medja, where a large number of Roma live, is also planned. According to the representative of NGO Rosa, the informal Roma settlements will be legalised in the next two years. In any case, living conditions in all Roma settlements in Leskovac are far better than in many Roma settlements throughout the country.

The Praxis representative pointed out that the number of complaints submitted to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality was very small compared to how much discrimination was present and recalled the case of segregation of Roma pupils in the Primary School "Petar Tasić" in Leskovac for which the Commissioner had found that there was no discrimination, but there was segregation. The participants agreed that all social actors must be actively involved in the process of raising awareness about non-discrimination against Roma and pointed out that the local community had taken all measures at its disposal to prevent segregation in the Primary School "Petar Tasić" but without achieving satisfactory results. However, it seemed that the meeting participants, who were also relevant local actors, had a high level of awareness of the responsibility of individuals and society in the protection of equality, but they lacked the capacity to deal with the existing problem.

This meeting is encouragement for all those who deal with the rights of Roma and human rights in general, as well as an example that can be followed by other municipalities in terms of interest and active involvement of all relevant actors and their cooperation in addressing the existing problems.

A. F. was registered in the birth registry book more than five months after the decision determining the date and place of birth and ordering the registration in the birth registry book was reached. The time A. F. spent without documents was additionally prolonged because the competent Jagodina City Administration refused to implement the final court decision.

First, the procedure for registration in reconstructed birth registry books before the administrative body in Jagodina was initiated. The request of A. F. was rejected and she was referred to address the competent court to determine the fact of her birth. Therefore, A. F. initiated a non-contentious procedure for determination of date and place of birth. The competent court reached a decision according to which the Registry Office in Jagodina was obliged to perform the registration in the birth registry book. However, instead of implementing the court decision, Registry Office in Jagodina sent the notice where it pointed out that the body rejected the request of A. F. for re-registration in birth registry books and that “the party did not lodge a complaint within the prescribed period and afterwards the decision became final”.

The proceeding body apparently does not know that negative decisions cannot be final in the administrative procedure, and it also neglected the fact that this body had referred A. F. to initiate the respective procedure before the court in order to register in the birth registry book.

Praxis pointed out to the competent body at numerous violations of the law and rules of administrative procedure it made by refusing to implement the final court decision, but the decision was implemented only after a complaint was filed to the president of Jagodina City Administration and the Ombudsperson. However, A. F. still cannot exercise basic human rights, as the fact of Serbian citizenship was not registered to her during the birth registration, despite the existence of grounds for it.