Blog by Ivanka Kostic, Praxis Executive Director, Published on ENS website

Praxis had the pleasure to organize a joint workshop of the European Network on Statelessness (ENS) and the Western Balkan Legal Aid Network (WeBLAN) on statelessness on 23 April in Belgrade. The event was organized with the support of UNHCR Representation in Serbia and the EU funded project “Best Practices for Roma Integration” (BPRI) implemented by ODIHR in the Western Balkans.

The Western Balkan Legal Aid Network was established in March 2012 in Sarajevo as an independent network of 6 civil society organizations devoted to protection, promotion and improvement of human rights and social inclusion, as well as prevention and reduction of statelessness in the Western Balkans. Members of the WeBLAN are: the Association Vasa Prava from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Civil Rights Programme from Kosovo, Legal Centre from Montenegro, Macedonian Young Lawyers Association from Macedonia, Information Legal Centre from Croatia and Praxis from Serbia. Although established a year ago, the regional cooperation dates back to 2008 when, as UNHCR implementing partners, these organizations commenced the implementation of a regional project aimed at the promotion of social inclusion of marginalized communities in the territory of the Western Balkans.

Apart from UNHCR Serbia and ODIHR/BPRI, UNHCR Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Croatia and Italy participated in the workshop, as well as the Italian Refugee Council and the Tirana Legal Aid Society from Albania.

The aim of the workshop was to highlight issues of statelessness in the Western Balkan countries, the main problems, challenges, legal gaps, populations, as well as on-going activities and progress made so far, exchange examples of good practices, good systemic solutions and promote relevant international standards.

ENS Steering Committee members gave presentations on various issues related to prevention and reduction of statelessness, statelessness determination and protection of stateless persons, litigating statelessness before the international courts and international advocacy on statelessness.

For the purpose of the workshop, the WeBLAN members filled in a research template, previously developed jointly with ENS, containing a description and analysis of the main problems, challenges, legal gaps and on-going activities in the Western Balkans respective countries aimed at prevention and reduction of statelessness. The conducted research and related analysis done by the six WeBLAN members served as a basis for workshop presentations and discussion.

Analysis of national legislation and the situation in practice has been conducted for each country in the Western Balkans region, in order to comprehend the extent of the problem related to exercise of the right to a nationality and to establish who the persons and groups at risk of statelessness are, and what the profile of this population is. The aim was to establish whether national legislation contained protection mechanisms suitable for preventing statelessness, as well as to identify whether it contained relevant regulations or provisions that could provide adequate treatment and enable access to basic rights to stateless persons.

It has been noticed that all countries in the region share certain common problems and that often similar reasons lead to risk of statelessness in each country encompassed by the analysis.

A common characteristic for all countries is untimely registration of the fact of birth of children. Furthermore, in all countries, these are the problems almost exclusively faced by Roma ethnic minority. Even the obstacles to registration of child’s birth are similar: lack of documentation of parents, lack of information, giving birth at home, traditional way of life of persons of Roma ethnicity, etc.

The dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), wars and migrations have also caused problems in exercise of the right to a nationality in almost all above-mentioned countries. After the breakup of the SFRY, there were persons who did not acquire nationality of any state. These persons and their children face difficulties in regulating the issues of nationality and documentation even today. In Serbia, one of the reasons behind this was difficulties related to registration of permanent residence, the problem faced by the most marginalized Roma living in informal settlements.

In some countries, another problem and the cause of difficulties related to proving nationality and identity lay in the fact that some civil registries were destroyed during the conflicts (Serbia, BiH, Montenegro).

Furthermore, complicated administrative procedure was stated as one of causes of risk of statelessness in BiH and Serbia.

Common problem for all countries is the absence of precise (or, in the case of BiH, of any) data on the number of stateless persons or persons at risk of statelessness.

With regard to characteristics of stateless persons, what is common is the fact that those are mainly members of minorities, primarily Roma ethnic minority, the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians. However, situations vary depending on the country of origin of persons at risk of statelessness. In some countries, we are dealing with persons who were born and live in the same country, while in others (e.g. BiH, Kosovo, Croatia) the persons at risk of statelessness are almost exclusively from other countries by origin or their parents are from other countries. With regard to countries these persons come from, those are mainly former Yugoslav republics. The exception in this case is only BiH where persons at risk of statelessness also come from the territory of the Czech Republic.

All countries are either state parties to the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons or contain within their respective national legislation the provisions that are in accordance with the Convention. The same applies to the international treaties which indirectly relate to the right to a nationality. The situation is somewhat different with regard to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which has been ratified only by Serbia and Croatia, but it has been pointed out at the workshop that the countries which are not state parties to the Convention have been implementing activities with the aim of acceding to it.

There is no statelessness determination procedure envisaged in any of the countries encompassed by the research and analysis. In some countries – BiH and Serbia – there were cases of statelessness status being determined in ad hoc procedures, without previously prescribed guidelines or rules on the manner and burden of proving statelessness status or on the body competent for the statelessness status determination.

It has been noticed that all countries, whether the state parties to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness or not, contain provisions that should prevent the occurrence of statelessness since birth. National legislature prescribes that foundlings, as well as children born in the territory of the state who would otherwise remain stateless have the right to a nationality of the state they were born in. At the same time, it has, however, been emphasised that one of the difficulties for implementation of the provisions that should prevent occurrence of statelessness since birth could precisely be the fact that the statelessness determination procedure is missing (BiH, Serbia). Even though the law of all the countries in the region provides for the children of stateless persons the right to acquire nationality of the country they were born in, they may be deprived of this right because their parents do not have the possibility to prove their status of stateless persons.

Lack of the prescribed procedure also represents an obstacle to accessing legally guaranteed rights and to obtaining identification documents.

Macedonia and Montenegro are the only countries that have prescribed facilitated naturalization of stateless persons. In both countries, the more favourable conditions are reflected in omitting requests related to the knowledge of language. Besides, in Montenegro, a stateless person neither has to fulfil conditions related to provided accommodation and guaranteed source of income in the amount that provides for material and social security. In Macedonia, more favourable conditions are also reflected in the fact that the requested duration of stay in the country is shorter – 6 years, instead of 8 years required in the case of regular naturalization. However, one of the reasons for which stateless persons would not be able to benefit from facilitated naturalization is precisely absence of the statelessness determination procedure.

Bearing in mind that there is no mechanism for identification and systemic protection of stateless persons, Praxis activities in the future will precisely be directed at introduction of the statelessness determination procedure in Serbia. During 2012, together with UNHCR, Praxis and members of the European Network on Statelessness (ENS) will work on the development of a simple and accessible guidance document, which could be suitable for wider use in the region, based on the comparative analysis and experience of the countries that have already prescribed specific statelessness determination procedures, and a discussion note which should provide suggestions on how to transpose this guidance document to the Serbian context. Moreover, documents will be presented to the relevant authorities for further discussion.

See the blog on ENS website

Blog by Milijana Trifkovic, Praxis Legal Analyst, Published on ENS website

In December 2011, Serbia acceded to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Serbian Law on Citizenship had already been in accordance with this international instrument, and contained appropriate mechanisms aimed at prevention of statelessness at birth. Specifically, Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Serbia envisages the acquisition of citizenship according to the ius soli principle – by birth in the territory of Serbia for children who would otherwise be stateless. Thus, a child born or found in the territory of the Republic of Serbia shall acquire Serbian citizenship by birth if both parents are unknown or of unknown citizenship or stateless or if the child is stateless. The citizenship is acquired at birth, automatically, by operation of law. There are no additional conditions. However, the practice shows that liberal regulations on citizenship and simple conditions for acquisition of citizenship do not always imply an easy path towards exercise of the right to citizenship. Thus, in order to prevent statelessness, it does not suffice just to adopt adequate laws, but it is necessary to undertake a series of other steps, including consistent implementation and interpretation of those laws in practice.

According to the Law on Citizenship, otherwise stateless children born in Serbia acquire citizenship ex lege. Such acquisition of citizenship is not conditioned by submitting of a request nor does it require an act of a competent body. However, it does stem from practice that, in order to acquire citizenship in these cases, one should submit an appropriate request, and that the citizenship is not acquired by operation of law but on the basis of a decision of the competent body.  A case of Praxis’ clients Mejrema and Bajramsa shows that significance of such differentiation is not only theoretical and that it has a far more important effect on lives and the status of individuals.

Mejrema and Bajramsa are sisters and they belong to the Roma national minority. They were both born in Serbia, of an unknown father and a mother of unknown citizenship (their mother was not registered in birth registry and passed away without possessing a single document – see Zelfija case and Mejrema and Bajramsa case). Both Bajramsa and Mejrema were subsequently registered in birth registry in 2010, after their mother’s death, when they were 15 and 17 respectively. The fact of citizenship was not registered for either of them, so they later submitted requests for determination of citizenship (a procedure for persons who acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, but their citizenship status was not registered).

Bajramsa, the younger sister, submitted the request for determination of citizenship when she was 17 years old (father of Bajramsa’s common-law husband was appointed as her temporary guardian and he submitted the request on her behalf). It was established that it was the case of a child born in Serbia, of unknown father and the mother of unknown citizenship, and she received the citizenship certificate within a short period of time. Still, judging from the decision on the basis of which the registration of the fact of citizenship was performed (and which stated that Bajramsa acquired citizenship), it can be concluded that the competent body did not consider that the citizenship in such cases was acquired by operation of law, but only on the basis of a decision of the competent body and following submission of an appropriate request, and that the decision of the competent body was not declaratory, but constitutive. In Bajramsa’s case, such differentiation did not have a practical significance because she acquired the citizenship and is retrospectively considered a citizen since birth. However, in case of her sister Merjema, such differentiation had far-reaching consequences.

Mejrema was 18 years and two months old when she submitted the request for determination of citizenship. All the other circumstances of her case were identical to those of her sister – she was also born in Serbia, of unknown father and the mother of unknown citizenship. The decision of the competent body should have only stated that, at the moment of Mejrema’s birth, all the conditions prescribed by the law had been met and that she had acquired the citizenship on the basis of the Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship. However, in Mejrema’s case, the competent body concluded that Mejrema did not fulfil the conditions for determination of citizenship of Serbia as per the Article 13 of the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Serbia. Since she came of age and was not considered a child any more, the competent body was of the standpoint that there was no possibility of acquiring citizenship on the basis of the provision aimed at prevention of statelessness among children. She was informed that she could acquire citizenship only by naturalization if she paid the fee and gave a statement on loyalty, and only after the expiry of two-year deadline from the day her uninterrupted stay in Serbia can be proven.

The 1961 Convention does allow for the possibility of the states to enable the acquisition of citizenship for otherwise stateless children only after submitting an appropriate request and to condition the acquisition of citizenship by fulfilment of some of the conditions explicitly stated in the Convention. One of the permitted conditions is determination of a timeframe in which this request may be submitted. However, this timeframe must start not later than 18 years of age and must not end earlier than at the age of 21 years. When it comes to Serbia, even though it does not stem from the Law, the competent body is of the opinion that it is necessary to submit an appropriate request for acquisition of citizenship, and within a certain timeframe. The deadline until which one should submit the request is not prescribed by the law – since the law prescribes the acquisition of citizenship by virtue of law – but, in practice, the competent body derives it from the legal definition of “child”, resulting in the standpoint of the competent body that after 18 years of age otherwise stateless children born in Serbia can no longer acquire citizenship on the basis of the Article 13 of the Law. Injustice of such interpretation is best visible in Mejrema’s case. She spent her childhood without documents because her mother was not registered in birth registry and therefore could not register birth of her children. Mejrema was registered in birth registry only after her mother’s death, but her fact of citizenship was not registered even though she was born in Serbia, of unknown father and the mother of unknown citizenship. In terms of law, she had never had a guardian who could submit a request for acquisition of citizenship on her behalf. While her mother was alive, Mejrema could not submit a request for determination of citizenship because she was not registered in birth registry. When she finally managed to get registered and collected the necessary evidence for acquisition of citizenship, the competent body thought that the Article 13 could no longer be applied in her case, since she was already 18. This circumstance – that she reached 18 years of age – was the only difference between her case and that of her sister who acquired citizenship on the grounds of the Article 13.

As of August 2013, Mejrema will have fulfilled the conditions for naturalization, as a person born in Serbia who can prove that prior to submitting a request for naturalization she had stayed in the country uninterruptedly for two years. Thus, she will most likely not be left stateless. However, one should bear in mind that providing for a discretionary naturalization procedure for otherwise stateless children is not permissible under the 1961 Convention (see Dakar Conclusions).

The final decision in Mejrema’s case has not been brought yet, so there is a possibility that the competent body will change its standpoint and apply the law consistently. This is important not only for Mejrema’s case, but also for preventing the risk of statelessness in cases of otherwise stateless persons who spend their childhood without registered fact of birth and without a resolved citizenship issue. At this point, if no one submits an appropriate request for acquisition of citizenship on their behalf before these persons reach 18 years of age, after coming of age they would be deprived of the possibility to do it themselves.

Finally, it is necessary to undertake some additional steps so that the persons to whom Article 13 relates may actually have some use of this provision. It primarily refers to enabling timely birth registration of every child. A year ago, Serbian Government adopted the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure which prescribes a new non-contentious procedure for determination of time and place of birth for persons who cannot get registered in birth registry through the administrative procedure. However, no measures have been taken to ensure that every child is registered in birth registry immediately upon birth and regardless of the status of his/her parents, which undoubtedly causes difficulties in exercise of the right to citizenship. Besides, in Serbia, there is no specific procedure in which it could be determined that a person is stateless or of unknown citizenship. Thus, even though the children born in Serbia whose parents are stateless or of unknown citizenship have the right to citizenship according to the ius soli principle, there is a threat that they may be deprived of this right due to difficulties in proving that their parents are stateless or of unknown citizenship. Until the measures have been taken to remove the above-mentioned difficulties and until the consistent application and adequate interpretation of the citizenship related regulations has been provided, the text of the Law which is in compliance with the 1961 Convention is not sufficient to remove the risk of statelessness in practice. After all, this is one of the conclusions of a recently published report which analyses trends and regulations in Europe regarding statelessness prevention and which reminds us that „the analysis of nationality law provisions only provides part of the picture where protection against statelessness is concerned“.

See the blog on ENS website

Blog by Milijana Trifkovic, Praxis Legal Analyst, Published on ENS website

Difficulties in proving nationality in Serbia arise even for those persons who have acquired citizenship at birth and had unimpeded access to rights deriving from the citizenship status, but have been left with no evidence on their citizenship. Specifically, after 1999 Kosovo conflict, a significant number of registries recording the facts of birth, citizenship, marriages and deaths of citizens for the municipalities in Kosovo were relocated to central and south Serbia. A number of registries for the territory of Kosovo were destroyed during the conflict. Registries were preserved for some places and are located in Kosovo but are considered unavailable from the perspective of the state bodies in Serbia.

The persons registered in the registries that were destroyed in 1999 or became unavailable to the state bodies of the Republic of Serbia are forced to go through the procedure of registration in the reconstructed registries. Until they manage to re–register and obtain valid birth and citizenship certificates, these persons are, in terms of access to rights, in the same position as the persons who have never acquired citizenship. For the lack of evidence required in these procedures, many have not yet managed to prove the previous registration of the fact of birth, marriage or citizenship, even though 14 years have elapsed since the registries were destroyed/became unavailable. Some registries were preserved (but they remained in Kosovo) and therefore the citizens could obtain the certificates issued by Kosovo authorities. However, such documents have no impact on the outcome of the procedure of registration in reconstructed registries in Serbia because the deciding bodies do not acknowledge the power of evidence to documents issued in Kosovo.

The most onerous proof requirements are set for proving the previous registration of citizenship. The Ministry of Interior gave the instructions to the competent first-instance bodies in regard to eligible evidence in the procedures of reconstruction of citizenship registry books. According to the instructions, the registration in the reconstructed citizenship registry books can be conducted based on the citizenship certificate issued before 1999 or data on citizenship and residence of citizens obtained from the MoI electronic database. If this data is not available, the previous registration could be proved based on the previously issued birth certificate that contains the registration of the fact of citizenship of Republic of Serbia. That’s where the list of “eligible” evidence ends. The persons who lacked the above mentioned documents at the time of leaving Kosovo or failed to take the documents with them, find themselves in a situation of not being able to prove their citizenship and previous registration in the registries. Their requests for re-registration are rejected and they are referred to the lengthy procedure of determination of citizenship whose initiation requires the collection of even more evidence than in the case of re-registration procedure, as it requires enclosing the documents for parents in addition to those for the submitter of the request.

In order to submit a request for registration in reconstructed citizenship registry book, Praxis’ client Hanumsa enclosed her birth certificate containing the fact on registration of SFRY citizenship (but with no evidence on the Republic citizenship), the copy of her ID card, passport, marriage certificate, Serbian citizenship certificate for her brother, evidence on having been employed in the place of her birth and conclusion of marriage. Negative first-instance decision was reached two years after the submission of the requests and soon after her complaint against that decision was rejected. The explanation of the second-instance decision points out that the fact that Hanumsa had SFRY citizenship does not mean that she was registered in the citizenship registry books of the Republic of Serbia, but that she could have the citizenship of any of the six republics of SFRY. Other SFRY republics preserved their registries and the competent body could easily make sure that she was not registered in the registries of any of the former SFRY republics. However, her complaint was rejected based on the mere assumption made by the competent body. In addition to the birth certificate with the registered fact on SFRY citizenship, Hanumsa enclosed evidence confirming that besides SFRY citizenship she could only have the Serbian citizenship (regarding republic citizenship). However, the second-instance body concluded that such evidence was irrelevant in the procedure of registration in reconstructed citizenship registry books as this procedure does not establish that a person had the right to citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, but that it was necessary to prove the time, basis and place of registration in the citizenship registry book. Hanumsa has no prospects to succeed in the procedure of determination of citizenship either, referred to by the competent body. This procedure (for persons who acquired the citizenship at birth but the fact of their citizenship was not registered) requires enclosing the documents for parents and Hanumsa lacks this evidence because her parents were born in the same place as she was and therefore their respective registries were also destroyed. To obtain the documents of her parents, she would have to conduct the procedures of registration in reconstructed registries, which is not possible for the lack of evidence.

These are just some of the difficulties in the procedures of registration in reconstructed registry books faced by persons who live without documents and the possibility to access any right for not being able to fulfil unreasonable conditions imposed on them while trying to prove the previous registration of birth and citizenship.

Civil registries were one of the issues for discussion during technical dialogues between Belgrade and Pristina. This issue became again the subject of attention in the first half of August when EULEX representatives handed over 1,550 certified copies of registry books from Serbia to the Kosovo Civil Registration Agency, based on the agreement reached two years before (more information about the problems caused by taking registries from Kosovo for those who continued to live in Kosovo can be found in the Kosovo Citizenship Report). The successful handover of certified copies of registries should enable the establishment of reliable records on the citizens of Kosovo.

However, there is still no sign of the solution for persons registered in destroyed or unavailable registries, who are now living in Serbia and trying to exercise their rights. Based on the Law on Registry Books, in case of destroyed or missing registries, the competent bodies are obliged to reconstruct the civil registries without any delay and require the citizens to provide only the data known to them. However, the reconstruction of registries has lasted for 14 years already and citizens, who on the basis of the law should provide only the available data, are in practice required to prove the precise place, time and basis of registration in registries. This additionally extends the highly irregular situation resulting in many-year deprivation of rights of a large number of persons, primarily the displaced. Even though more than a decade has elapsed from the date of their displacement and contrary to Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, these persons are deprived of obtaining the documents they need for normal life, freedom of movement and access to other human rights.

See the blog  on ENS website

Dana 13.12.2013. godine, otpočela je primena Pravilnika o izmeni Pravilnika o postupku prijavljivanja i odjavljivanja prebivališta i boravišta građana, prijavljivanju privremenog boravka u inostranstvu i povrataka iz inostranstva, pasiviziranja prebivališta i boravišta, obrascima i načinu vođenja evidencija.

Izmena se odnosi na postupak prijave prebivališta na adresi centra za socijalni rad, odnosno briše se odredba da prijavu prebivališta popunjava službeno lice u centru za socijalni rad, te službenicima centara ostaje samo obaveza da overe prijavu prebivališta.

Pravilnik je izmenjen u cilju ujednačavanja i sinhronizovanja postupanja ustanova, odnosno centara za socijalni rad i policijskih uprava, odnosno policijskih stanica.

Praxis će nastaviti da prati primenu usvojenih propisa i ukazuje nadležnim organima na uočene probleme.

Pogledati: MUP doneo nov Pravilnik o postupku prijavljivanja i odjavljivanja prebivališta i boravišta građana

Dana 13.12.2013. godine, otpočela je primena Pravilnika o izmeni Pravilnika o postupku prijavljivanja i odjavljivanja prebivališta i boravišta građana, prijavljivanju privremenog boravka u inostranstvu i povrataka iz inostranstva, pasiviziranja prebivališta i boravišta, obrascima i načinu vođenja evidencija.

Izmena se odnosi na postupak prijave prebivališta na adresi centra za socijalni rad, odnosno briše se odredba da prijavu prebivališta popunjava službeno lice u centru za socijalni rad, te službenicima centara ostaje samo obaveza da overe prijavu prebivališta.

Pravilnik je izmenjen u cilju ujednačavanja i sinhronizovanja postupanja ustanova, odnosno centara za socijalni rad i policijskih uprava, odnosno policijskih stanica.

Praxis će nastaviti da prati primenu usvojenih propisa i ukazuje nadležnim organima na uočene probleme.

Pogledati: MUP doneo nov Pravilnik o postupku prijavljivanja i odjavljivanja prebivališta i boravišta građana

Saopštenje MODS-a

Mreža organizacija za decu Srbije – MODS izražava duboku potresenost tragičnom smrću troje dece u požaru u Velikoj Krsni.

Ovaj događaj je posledica stanja u društvu i sistema zaštite dece i podrške roditeljima koja izostaje, a na šta sve vreme ukazujemo. Bojimo se da se iz ove tragedije neće izvući pouka i da neće doći do preko potrebnih promena.

Ukazivali smo da nedostaje saradnja između različitih službi na lokalnom i nacionalnom nivou koje su zadužene za zaštitu dece. Nedostaju usluge i podrška na lokalnom nivou za porodice sa decom, posebno siromašne porodice i jednoroditeljske.

Postavlja se pitanje da li patronažne službe izveštavaju o slučajevima zanemarivanja dece? Da li patronažne službe obaveštavaju o tome Centar za socijalni rad? Šta Centar za socijalni rad preduzima da do tragedija ne dođe? Kako lokalne samouprave planiraju socijalnu politiku i zaštitu dece?

Lako je osuđivati majku zbog ove tragedije i govoriti kako su svi u okolini znali za ono što radi a pri tom niko nije reagovao na vreme.

Gubimo iz vida da ona nije jedina majka koja je ostavljena sama sa decom, bez posla. Gubimo iz vida da je ostala bez podrške najbližih, porodice, susedstva. Moralna je (i zakonska) obaveza svakog pojednica da reaguje i prijavi svaku sumnju na zanemarivanje i zlostavljanje dece. Jer to se tiče svih nas i u tom slučaju snosimo svi i posledice.

Ako kao društvo ne izvučemo pouku, ne osvestimo se da i na svakom od nas pojedinačno leži odgovornost za nečinjenje, bojimo se da ćemo uskoro ponovo iz medija saznati za novu tragediju čije će žrtve biti naši najmlađi građani.

Zato pozivamo državne organe i relevantna ministarstva zdravlja i socijalne zaštite da tragični događaj u Velikoj Krsni, kada je život izgubilo troje dece, bude poslednja opomena i upozorenje i da se preduzmu sve mere koje će sprečiti u buduće ovakve užasne događaje.

Uz ovo saopštenje prilažemo i izjavu Smiljke Tomanović, profesorke na Odeljenju za sociologiju, Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu:

"Poslednji tragični događaj u kome je poginulo troje dece otvorio je nekoliko teških i važnih pitanja koja se periodično postavljaju, ali nažalost i ponavljaju, jer na njih izostaju delatni odgovori.

Kao prvo, zašto izostaje državna podrška odgovornom roditeljstvu i institucionalna podrška na lokalnom nivou, posebno onim porodicama koje su pod rizikom, kao što su jednoroditeljske?

Zašto su nadležne institucije skoro po pravilu "neobaveštene" i "zatečene" događajima, odnosno "slučajevima" koji se nalaze na teritoriji njihove nadležnosti?

Potom, šta se čini da se deca zaštite od zanemarivanja i zlostavljanja, odnosno na koji način se sankcioniše zanemarivanje?

Prema Porodičnom zakonu iz 2005. godine nije dozvoljeno ostavljanje dece predškolskog uzrasta bez nadzora odraslih i o tome bi javnost, baš u cilju podsticanja odgovornijeg roditeljstva i pomoći roditeljima kojima je pomoć u čuvanju dece potrebna, trebalo da bude stalno obaveštavana.

Zašto se prema (neobavezujućem) Protokolu o zaštiti dece od zanemarivanja i zlostavljanja ne sankcioniše nečinjenje onih koji su bili svedoci ili imali sumnju da do zanemarivanja i zlostavljanja dolazi, bili oni državni službenici ili građani (roditelji, rođaci, komšije, prijatelji)?

Na kraju, dokle će mediji da koriste ljudske i porodične tragedije i zloupotrebljavaju decu za podizanje prodavanosti svojih tiraža?

Mnogo je ružnih grešaka, mnogo je odgovornih, mnogo je prebacivanja krivice. Vreme je da tome dođe kraj, tako što ćemo konačno kao društvo izvući pouku iz još jedne tragedije i početi da delamo."

On 9 December 2013, Council of the European Union unanimously issued the Recommendation on Effective Roma Integration Measures in the Member States, which is the first legal instrument of the European Union dealing with the issue of Roma integration.

Even though not legally binding, the purpose of the recommendation is to provide guidance to the Member States in enhancing the effectiveness of their measures aimed at improving the situation of Roma and closing the gap between the Roma and the general population. The Recommendation specifically emphasizes the measures that should contribute to unimpeded access of Roma to the rights to education, employment, health protection and housing.

The document also particularly points to the combat against all forms of discrimination by strengthening the legislative framework, as well as to the reduction of poverty and vulnerability of Roma children and women. The Recommendations suggests that, in order to implement and monitor the national and local strategies and action plans, the Member States should allocate adequate funding from any available sources of funding (local, national, international and/or EU).   

Even though Serbia is not a member of the EU yet, it could most certainly use the recommendation as an encouragement to enable equal access to rights in the stated areas for all its citizens, including members of Roma ethnic minority.

Download: Council of the European Union Recommendation on Effective Roma Integration Measures in the Member States
Download: European Commission Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Effective Roma Integration Measures in the Member States

Preuzmite vodič: Vodič za primenu Zakona o dopunama Zakona o vanparničnom postupku "Utvrđivanje vremena i mesta rođenja", dr Nikola Bodiroga

Preuzeto sa sajta Medija centra

Evropska komisija, Visoki komesarijat za izbeglice Ujedinjenih nacija (UNHCR) i Visoki komesar OEBS za nacionalne manjine objavili su danas zaključke Regionalne konferencije o pristupu upisu u matične knjige i ličnim dokumentima u Jugoistočnoj Evropi koja je održana 25. oktobra 2013. godine u Podgorici, Crna Gora.

Zaključci prepoznaju napredak ostvaren dve godine nakon usvajanja Zagrebačke deklaracije koja se odnosi na pitanja ličnih dokumenata i upisa u matične knjige u oktobru 2011. godine. U zaključcima se navode preostali koraci koje je potrebno preduzeti da bi se rešio problem lica bez ličnih dokumenata u regionu.

Zagrebačka deklaracija dovela je do pozitivnih pomaka, među kojima i do izmena zakona kojima se olakšava upis u matične knjige, izdavanje ličnih dokumenata i bilateralna saradnja. Međutim, i dalje postoje prepreke upisu u matične knjige i procesu izdavanja ličnih dokumenata koje zahtevaju sveobuhvatna i sistemska rešenja.

Evropska komisija, Visoki komesar OEBS za nacionalne manjine i UNHCR pozivaju vlade zemalja u regionu da osmisle rešenja koja prevazilaze rešavanje pojedinačnih slučajeva u definisanom vremenskom periodu. One bi trebalo da usvoje sveobuhvatne zakone i obezbede izdavanje odgovarajućih administrativnih uputstava, informišu odnosne zajednice i organizuju obuke za one koji zakon sprovode. Takođe je potrebno osnažiti međugraničnu saradnju u cilju otklanjanja prepreka za lica na koje se ove aktivnosti odnose.

Konferenciji koju je organizovalo Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Crne Gore, prisustvovali su predstavnici vlada Bosne i Hercegovine, Hrvatske, bivše jugoslovenske Republike Makedonije, Kosova, Crne Gore i Srbije. Konferenciji su prisustvovali i predstavnici tri organizacije koje podržavaju ove napore, predstavnici civilnog društva i drugih agencija Ujedinjenih nacija.

Dvadeset godina nakon sukoba, na tlu Jugoistočne Evrope živi oko 20.000 pravno nevidljivih lica. Činjenica da ne poseduju lična dokumenta i da nisu upisani u matične knjige rezultat je društvene marginalizacije, u kombinaciji sa faktorima koji se odnose na raspad prethodne Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije i raseljavanje. U odsustvu dokumenata kojima dokazuju svoje postojanje ili nacionalnu pripadnost, njima bivaju uskraćena prava.

Preuzmite: Zaključci konferencije
                Beleške sa konferencije
                Zagrebačka deklaracija iz 2011. godine

Preuzmite izveštaj: Utvrđivanje statusa i zaštita lica bez državljanstva, Evropska mreža za pitanja apatridije