Tokom juna 2019. godine Praxis je učestvovao u ciklusu obuka koje su realizovane na projektu „Podrška lokalnoj integraciji ekstremno ugroženih interno raseljenih lica, izbeglica i tražilaca azila u Srbiji“, koji sprovodi Amityu partnerstvu sa UNHCR-om i Ministarstvom za rad, zapošljavanje, boračka i socijalna pitanja. Obuke su održane u Leskovcu, Smederevu, Nišu i Kraljevu, a namenjene su stručnjacima zaposlenim u centrima za socijalni rad i povereništvima Komesarijata za izbeglice i migracije sa ciljem proširivanja njihovih znanja o antidiskriminacionim propisima važnim za rad sa izbeglicama, interno raseljenim licima i tražiocima azila u Srbiji. 

Koncept obuka, koji je pripremila i realizovala Marija Dražović iz Praxisa, obuhvatio je uvid u pravni i institucionalni okvir uključujući izvore međunarodnog prava i dobre prakse, kao i domaćeg zakonodavstva. Imajući u vidu složenost pojma diskriminacije, kao i bogatstvo i šarolikost normi koje uređuju zaštitu prava na ravnopravnost, izlaganje je zasnovano na sveobuhvtanom pristupu problemu diskriminacije uz poseban osvrt na zaštitu izbeglih i interno raseljenih lica i tražilaca azila. Pored navedenog, učesnici su upoznati sa dostupnim mehanizmima zaštite prava na ravnopravnost, kao i sa nedostacima koji su identifikovani kroz analizu usklađenosti domaćeg okvira sa međunarodnim obavezama i dobrom praksom, ali i sa nedostacima koji su se javili u praksi. Najznačajnija pažnja tokom izlaganja je ipak posvećena problemima u implementaciji postojećeg okvira i mogućnostima odnosno preporukama za unapređenje primene.

Obuke su bile veoma korisne jer su otvorile pitanje poznavanja pojma, okvira i prakse u ovoj oblasti i ukazale da postoji značajan prostor za unapređenje položaja osetljivih grupa koje su izložene diskriminaciji gotovo svakodnevno. Posebno je diskutovano o ulozi zaposlenih u institucijama koji svakodnevno pružaju usluge građanima u iskorenjivanju i suzbijanju diskrimnacije. Ovo je naročito važno imajući u vidu da su građani u velikoj meri izloženi diskrimnaciji u oblasti pružanja usluga u postupcima pred organima javne uprave što shodno zakonu predstavlja posebno težak oblik diskriminacije.

Za više informacija, videti saopštenje ovde.

Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti, po pritužbi Praxisa, utvrdio je da su OŠ „Branko Radičević“ u Bujanovcu, Opštinska uprava Opštine Bujanovac i Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja, svako sa aspekta svoje nadležnosti, povredili odredbe članova 6. i 19. Zakona o zabrani diskriminacijejer nisu sproveli adekvatne i efikasne mere kako bi sprečili i otklonili formiranje odeljenja koja čine isključivo romski učenici u pomenutoj školi. 

Formiranje segregisanih odeljenja školske 2018/19 godine je svakako bio povod za obraćanje poverenici, ali je, pored toga, Praxis ukazao da segregacija postoji na nivou škole duži niz godina, da odeljenja koja čine isključivo romski učenici postoje u gotovo svim razredima, da postoji očigledna nesrazmera zastupljenosti romskih učenika i njihovih roditelja u Učeničkom parlamentu, Savetu roditelja i Školskom odboru, da su godišnji planovi škole opterećeni sterotipnim i diskriminatornim konstatacijama, kao i da lokalna sredina nije podržavajuća za pripadnike romske zajednice. U toku postupka pred poverenicom utvrđeno je da su navodi Praxisa osnovani i preporučene su mere koje je potrebno sprovesti,  koje osim desegregacije imaju za cilj uključivanje pripadnika romske nacionalne manjine u rad školskih tela i obuku  svih zaposlenih na temu diskriminacije, kao i mere čiji je cilj razvijanje duha tolerancije, poštovanja različitosti i nediskriminatornog ponašanja.

Segregacija u OŠ „Branko Radičević“ u Bujanovcu nije usamljen slučaj i od Srbije se očekuje da posebno razmotri problem segregacije u obrazovanju, kako je i Evropska komisija skrenula pažnju državi u izveštaju iz 2019. godine. Na ovaj specifičan društveni problem koji ozbiljno ugrožava prava deteta, Praxis je nastojao da ukaže i ranije podnošenjem pritužbi Poverenci za zaštitu ravnopravnosti. Međutim, poverenica je izbegavala da utvrdi diskriminaciju bez obzira na postojanje segregacije u slučaju OŠ „Vuk Karadžić“ u Nišu ili je bila mišljenja da je povređeno pravo na obrazovanje iz Zakona o osnovama sistema obrazovanja i vaspitanja ali ne i da su povređene odredbe Zakona o zabrani diskriminacije kao što je to bio slučaj povodom pritužbe u OŠ „Jovan Jovanović Zmaj“ u Surdulici.

Imajući u vidu dosadašnji stav po pitanju postojanja diskriminacije u slučajevima segregacije romskih učenika još više naglašavamo važnost odluke poverenice u konkretnom slučaju i verujemo da će mišljenje koje je donela imati značajan uticaj na postupanje i rad državnih ustanova, odnosno da će doprineti suzbijanju i iskorenjivanju ove štetne društvene pojave. 

Za više informacija, pogledajte saopštenje ovde.

The Anti-Discrimination Coalition and partner organizations demand from the competent authorities to withdraw from the adoption procedure the proposed Amending Act on the Anti-discrimination Law because representatives of vulnerable and discriminated groups, as well as the general public, had no opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed legal solutions. The text of the draft Act has an extremely large number of shortcomings; therefore, it is necessary to postpone its adoption and enable all stakeholders to provide their respective feedback.

The Government of the Republic of Serbia has recently prepared a proposed Amending Act on the Anti-discrimination Law. Contrary to the legal rules governing the drafting and adoption procedure of draft laws, the parties interested in the content of the Act were not allowed to participate in its drafting, nor was a public discussion on the proposed solutions held before the Government formally adopted them. This is also stated in item 9. Analysis of the effects of the Act that was submitted to the National Assembly along with the proposed Amending Act.

The lack of a wide debate on the new legal solutions directly prevented interested parties from making a constructive contribution to the quality of the proposed Act, and above all,  from contributing to the elimination of its numerous shortcomings, which can be divided into four different groups.

The first group consists of shortcomings which are linguistically meaningless or impossible linguistic structures, but also of spelling mistakes. For example, the text uses the word "doesnotjustify" (translator’s note: the whole phrase is written as one word) and states that "harassment...which is aimed at or constitutes a violation of dignity... is forbidden" (translator’s note: in the original, an impossible language structure is used). 

The second group of shortcomings indicates that the amendments are not proposed in accordance with the law drafting rules. For example, in a contradictory manner, the act authorizes the Commissioner to process names and other personal data of the parties in the ongoing court discrimination-related proceedings, but at the same time imposes the obligation to anonymize those data before the submission of the court judgments to the Commissioner.

The third group consists of legal and systemic shortcomings that prevent the adequate implementation of the Act, such as deleting general procedural guarantees pertaining to the complaint proceedings, thus jeopardizing the rights of the parties in the proceedings and paving the way for arbitrary decision-making on the part of the Commissioner. 

Finally, the fourth group of shortcomings are of legal and political nature and cast doubt on the actual intent of the author of the proposed amendments, such as the authorization of the Commissioner to decide not to act upon a complaint if he/she finds that the purpose of the proceedings can be achieved by issuing a public warning, or the introduction of misdemeanor fines ten times higher than the currently prescribed ones, without any reasoning behind it.

Since the number of these shortcomings exceeds the number of proposed amendments, and especially taking into account the fact that their adoption would significantly aggravate the status of the parties concerned with this Act, we consider it necessary to withdraw the proposed Act for adoption without any delay, and then enable all interested parties to participate in the improvement of the legal text at hand.

The Anti-Discrimination Coalition consists of the Center for the Advancement of Legal Studies, Civil Rights Defenders, Labris -Organization for Lesbian Human Rights, the Network of Human Rights Committees (CHRIS Network), the Association of Disabled Students, Gayten LGBT, Praxis and the Equality.

The list of organisations supporting the initiative can be downloaded here.

On 12 February 2019, the study Equality in Practice - Implementing Serbia’s Equality Laws was presented in the Media Centre in Belgrade as one of the results of the two-year project entitled Improving the Equality Legal and Policy Framework in Serbia and Monitoring Implementation of Equality Norms and Policies, implemented by partner organisations: Praxis, London-based organisation Equal Rights Trust and Sandžak Committee for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms, with the support of the European Union.

The study was prepared by the Equal Rights Trust in cooperation with two professional consultants: Prof. Nevena Petrušić, PhD and Lawyer Kosana Beker.

The study addresses the issue of continuous discrimination in Serbia, analyses the exiting legal and political framework and assesses its effectiveness in practice.   In the absence of similar study, the aim of this comprehensive study is to serve as a key reference point and evidence base for all those who work on combating discrimination and promoting fundamental human rights and freedoms. On the other hand, the study aims to influence the government and the judicial system with its own authority and to serve as an effective tool in advocating for improving the efficiency of the anti-discriminatory framework.

The study is based on extensive research conducted over 12-month period including: field research conducted by civil society organisations in different regions of Serbia; focus groups with survivors of discrimination, lawyers and civil society organisations in Niš, Belgrade, Novi Pazar, Pančevo and Vranje; over 55 one-to-one interviews with key stakeholders including lawyers, government and private sector representatives.  In addition, the study includes the analysis and assessment of the compliance of Serbia’s anti-discrimination framework with the country’s international and regional obligations, and the analyses of the extent to which Serbia has adopted the practical measures that are necessary to ensure that its equality laws provide protection in practice.

For more information, see the announcement here.

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality, acting upon a complaint lodged by Praxis, established a discriminatory action of the Assembly of the City of Kraljevo because by its Decision on Helping Children with Disabilities, it deprived the pupils from internally displaced families residing in the City of Kraljevo of the right to the compensation of the costs of transport, dormitory accommodation and meals, and part of the costs covered by the City in case of necessity for a person accompanying the person with disability.   More specifically, the Assembly of the City of Kraljevo ruled out the possibility for internally displaced pupils with disabilities residing in the City of Kraljevo to exercise the said rights under equal conditions by determining permanent residence as one of the criteria for exercising these rights.  Due to this condition, the Decision violated Articles 7 and 22 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, which was established in the complaint procedure by the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality who then recommended to the Assembly of the City of Kraljevo to take all measures within its purview to make the decision in question applicable to the pupils who were internally displaced persons with temporary residence registered in the territory of the City of Kraljevo.

It is very important to emphasise, as stated in the Commissioner’s Decision, that status must not be a limiting factor for the exercise of any rights enjoyed by other citizens, and that special attention should be paid to internally displaced children with disabilities who may be exposed to multiple discrimination based on several personal characteristics.

In addition to this, the Commissioner informed the Assembly of the City of Kraljevo that the language and terms were means of combating discrimination, and that it was necessary to recognise that the terminology used when talking about people with disabilities changed over time depending on approach. More specifically, the name of the Decision in question included some outdated terminology that was not in the spirit of anti-discrimination policy, such as "children with special needs", while some provisions of the Decision included terms such as "invalid", "blind and deaf persons", etc. The needs of all people are the same and only the ways of fulfilling them can differ, with disability being only one of the characteristics of a person. It is therefore unacceptable and insulting to focus on someone’s disability.

Before the Commissioner issued an opinion, the City of Kraljevo had not responded to the allegations of the complaint. This is one of a dozen of discriminatory decisions due to which Praxis lodged complaints against the Assembly of the City of Kraljevo. As usual, Praxis will continue to monitor further actions of the competent authorities in terms of aligning the disputed decisions with anti-discrimination legislation.

This is one more opportunity to address public authorities, stressing the importance of respecting human rights, adhering to the principles of non-discrimination and taking into account the needs of the most vulnerable citizens in the policy-making process.

Within the framework of the project Improving the equality legal and policy framework in Serbia and monitoring implementation of equality norms and policies, implemented by the partner organisations The Equal Rights Trust, Sandžak Committee for Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms and Praxis, and supported by the European Union through EIDHR, Praxis held two consultative community meetings entitled Identifying the major challenges in non-discrimination legislation, policies and practices in Serbia.  The meetings were held in Niš and Belgrade, on 8st and 14th November respectively. They were attended by 106 participants. 

Community meetings gathered members of vulnerable social groups, representatives of civil society organisations dealing with the protection of human rights and freedoms, students of legal clinics, human rights activists at the local level, as well as representatives of local authorities, institutions, organisations and independent institutions, but also all other stakeholders, with the aim of joint contribution to the development of advocacy campaign for addressing major challenges and shortcomings in the field of implementation of legal and strategic anti-discrimination framework in Serbia.

The concluding observations from the meetings were based on the exchange of experiences related to discrimination from the perspective of both right-holders and duty-holders and constituted part of the advocacy strategy at the local level. Through joint efforts during the discussion, participants defined advocacy space and measures at the local level, and substantial consensus was reached on the need for education in the field of discrimination of all relevant actors and the importance of such meetings in that respect.

For more information, see the announcement here.

Following a complaint for service delivery discrimination on the grounds of disability lodged by Praxis, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality initiated a misdemeanour procedure before the Basic Court in Kraljevo against the owner of the children’s playroom “Maša i Medved” from Kraljevo for committing the misdemeanour referred to in Article 52, paragraph 1 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. 

In fact, the playroom owner committed discrimination and misdemeanour by refusing to provide the service of using playroom to an 18-month-old girl because of her disability, i.e. by imposing conditions that were not imposed on other persons.   

Since such conduct of the playroom owner is contrary to the Constitution, the provisions of anti-discrimination legislation and international conventions, which are directly guaranteed by the Constitution, and given that such conduct undoubtedly constitutes an act of discrimination that violates the right to equality motivated by the physical disability of a minor, Praxis lodged a complaint requesting from the Commissioner to establish discrimination and recommend measures to eliminate the consequences of such conduct. The Commissioner initiated a misdemeanour procedure against the responsible person, which is an option envisaged by the institution's mandate, i.e. a measure of responding to discrimination and the prevention of discrimination. 

In addition to protecting the victims of discrimination, we believe that the Commissioner’s decision and the outcome of the initiated misdemeanour procedure will significantly contribute to raising the capacity and knowledge of service providers, both in the public and private sector, about the obligations they must comply with in accordance with anti-discrimination regulations. We also hope that it will empower potential victims of discrimination to seek more protection of the right to equality.     

It should be emphasised that Serbian anti-discrimination legislation has been criticised for the lack of legal remedies addressing the cause of discrimination and it has been pointed out that the remedies are largely focused on the victims of discrimination. The Commissioner’s decision to initiate a misdemeanour procedure is also very important from that aspect since international good practice stresses the need for structural remedies that are beyond the provision of individual damage compensation to victims. 

Handling the complaints lodged by Praxis, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality issued an opinion establishing discrimination in five decisions of the Kraljevo City Assembly that denied the rights to the internally displaced persons with temporary residence registered in the City of Kraljevo. More precisely, in the Decision on Free Bus Transportation in the City of Kraljevo, the Decision on the Right to One-off Financial Assistance for the First-born Child, the Decision on Financial Assistance to Unemployed New Mothers and the Decision on Scholarships for Students of the City of Kraljevo, the Kraljevo City Assembly imposed the condition of permanent residence in the city, thus preventing internally displaced persons from exercising the rights granted by these decisions. Although the decision maker had a clear intention to use funds from the local budget for improving the position of the most vulnerable citizens, the imposed condition of permanent residence excluded all internally displaced persons and refugees residing in the City of Kraljevo over 20 years and fulfilling all other requirements set forth in these decisions. 

Responding to the allegations of complaints, the President of the Kraljevo City Assembly did not deny that the concerned decisions had violated the right of citizens to exercise the rights under equal conditions and stated that the City Assembly would undertake necessary measures to alter the disputed decisions.

The Commissioner established that the entire group of people in the City of Kraljevo was excluded in that way, violating Article 7 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, and therefore recommended to the Kraljevo City Assembly to undertake all measures within its purview to make the said decisions applicable also to the internally displaced persons residing in the city.

The Commissioner also issued an opinion concerning the Decision on Financial Assistance to Multi-child Families in the City of Kraljevo, according to which parents must have the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, children must be 7 - 15 years old, while the parents who exercised the right to social assistance from the social welfare centre were not eligible, and established that Articles 6 and 8 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination were violated. For that reason, she recommended to the Kraljevo City Assembly to undertake measures within its purview to align the said decision with anti-discrimination regulations. 

We remind that Praxis withdrew the complaints related to the Decision on Free Bus Transportation in the City of Kraljevo, the Decision on the Right to One-off Financial Assistance for the First-born Child and the Decision on Financial Assistance to Unemployed New Mothers after the President of the Kraljevo City Assembly had accepted our objections and expressed readiness to alter the disputed provisions. Praxis will certainly continue to monitor further actions of the competent authorities in terms of aligning the disputed decisions with anti-discrimination legislation.

On this occasion, we once again appeal to public authorities, both at the local and national level, to pay attention to the importance of respecting human rights, adherence to the principles of non-discrimination and needs of the most vulnerable citizens in the policy-making process. Active citizen participation in the decision-making and policy-making process can prevent the adoption of discriminatory and inappropriate decisions and make the work of administration accountable and efficient.  

Praxis, the European Network on Statelessness, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI) submitted Alternative Report to the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The report points to the difficulties faced by Roma women in Serbia in exercising their rights. Their position is particularly difficult as they are often victims of multiple discrimination on the basis of their gender and ethnicity. The report contains information about problems Roma women face in accessing rights to health care, social protection, education, employment. At the same time, it highlights the issue of child, early and forced marriages, which are disproportionately more frequent among the Roma population, but specifically affecting Roma women and girls. Besides, the report also points to the lack of an efficient system of free legal aid, which additionally hinders access to rights.

Particular attention in the report is dedicated to obstacles aggravating birth registration and acquisition of citizenship, while the emphasis is specifically put on the issue of discriminatory regulations which prevent Roma women who do not possess personal documents to register their new-born children in the birth registry. For this reason, these children are also left without citizenship and registered permanent residence in the most vulnerable period of their life, and, consequently, the possibility to exercise rights to health and social insurance, as well as other rights for the exercise of which it is required to possess personal documents.

Finally, the joint submission also provides recommendations to the Committee for achieving equality and preventing discrimination of Roma women.

You can download the report HERE.

In the past period, the Kraljevo City Assembly adopted several decisions whose implementation should improve the situation of vulnerable social groups or individuals, but by imposing the condition of permanent residence for exercising the rights established by the said decisions, it excluded the possibility for the internally displaced persons residing in the territory of the City of Kraljevo since 1999 to exercise the rights under the same conditions as their fellow citizens.

Thus, the Decision on Free Bus Transportation in the City of Kraljevo was adopted to ensure access to public services (free bus transportation) to persons who, due to their health or social status, encountered obstacles or were denied such access. On the other hand, the Decision on the Right to One-off Financial Assistance for the First-born Child and the Decision on Financial Assistance to Unemployed New Mothers aim to encourage procreation and increase birth rate, as well as to provide support to women who decide to have children despite being unemployed.

Despite the apparent intention of the decision-makers to allocate budget funds for improving the situation of the most vulnerable citizens, but also for improving the city’s demographic structure, by setting the permanent residence requirement, they unjustifiably denied the right to all the refugees and internally displaced persons residing in the City of Kraljevo. Undoubtedly, there is no reasonable and objective justification for such a different treatment.

In order to point out that the disputed decisions violate the principle of equal rights and obligations, thus contravening non-discrimination regulations, Praxis lodged complaints with the Commissioner for Protection of Equality. Consequently, responding to the allegations of the complaints, the President of the Kraljevo City Assembly accepted the objections and expressed the readiness to alter the disputed decisions aligning them with anti-discriminatory regulations, which was also the reason why Praxis gave up the further complaints procedure.

Since the disputed decisions have not been altered and discriminatory requirements have not been changed yet as to allow all citizens to exercise the right under the same conditions, and given that the withdrawal of the complaints is based on the expressed intention of the representatives of the City of Kraljevo to implement the procedures for changing the decisions, Praxis will continue to monitor the actions of the City of Kraljevo in the coming period regarding the alignment of the disputed decisions with anti-discrimination regulations. 

Despite the expressed willingness by the City of Kraljevo, Praxis expresses its concern over the statement made by the President of the Kraljevo City Assembly that it would not be possible to change the Decision on the Right to One-off Financial Assistance for the First-born Child and the Decision on Financial Assistance to Unemployed New Mothers until the local budget for the year 2019 was adopted. We remind that in this way the unequal treatment of individuals or groups on the grounds of their personal characteristics is tolerated, while the equal exercise of rights is postponed and conditioned by the planning of budgetary funds.

On the other hand, the adoption of general acts that violate the right to equality of citizens is not a rare phenomenon, and one of the main causes for such a situation, in addition to the non-transparent decision and policy making process, is certainly an insufficient knowledge of non-discrimination regulations, as well as a lack of sensitivity among decision-makers at the local level in cases where the basic values, such as the right to equity and equality, should be respected.