Praxis' legal mobile team visited the following:

October

• 29 October – Roma settlements, Kostolac
• 23 October – Roma settlements, Kragujevac
  

September

• 23 September – Roma settlements, Beocin
• 17 September – Roma settlements, Sabac
• 10 September – Roma settlements, Prokuplje
•   2 September – Roma settlements, Krusevac
  

August

• 27 August – Roma settlement "Ullica Milinka Kusica“, Ivanjica
• 26 August – Roma settlements, Krusevac
• 25 August – Roma settlement "Crvena Zvezda“, Nis
• 25 August – Roma settlement "Surducka“, Zrenjanin
• 20 August – Roma settlement "Vezirovac“, Cuprija
• 19 August – Roma settlement "Zemun polje“, Zemun
• 14 August – Roma settlements, Zemun
• 13 August – Roma settlements, Smederevo
• 12 August – Roma settlements, Knjazevac
• 10 August – Roma settlement "Bresnica“, Kragujevac
•   5 August – Roma settlement "Veliki rit“, Novi Sad
•   5 August – Roma settlements, Knjazevac

July

• 27 July – Roma settlement "Dobricka ulica“, Prokuplje
• 22 July – Roma settlements, Bela Palanka
• 16 July – Roma settlements, Surcin
• 16 July – Roma settlement "Fekovica brdo“, Sjenica
• 15 July – Roma settlements, Bela Palanka
•   9 July – Roma settlements, Sombor
•   9 July – Roma settlement "M.N.Cale“, Bujanovac
•   7 July – Roma settlement, Kostolac
•   3 July – Roma settlements, Kovin
•   2 July – Roma settlements, Bor

June

• 30 June – Roma settlements, Grocka
• 29 June – Roma settlement “Kosovska ulica”, Razanj
• 25 June – Roma settlement “OMV pumpa”, Cukarica/Belgrade
• 25 June – Roma settlement "Dublje", Valjevo
  
• 24 June – Roma settlements, Leskovac
• 23 June – Roma settlements “Karadjordjeva ulica” and “Dunavska ulica”, Negotin
• 23 June – Roma settlements “Vasariste” and “Zvecka”, Obrenovac
• 19 June – Roma settlement “Seliste”, Brus
• 18 June – Roma settlement “Bogovina”, Boljevac
• 18 June – Roma settlement “Vijadukt”, Rakovica/Belgrade
• 17 June – Roma settlement “Reva politika”, Palilula/Belgrade
• 17 June – Roma settlements, Leskovac
• 16 June – Roma settlements “Resnik” and “Ulica 7. Juli”, Babusnica
• 15 June – Roma settlements “Atenica” and “Ljubic polje”, Cacak
• 11 June – Roma settlement “Ulica Starine Novaka”, Batocina
• 11 June – Roma settlement “Grmec”, Zemun
• 10 June – Roma settlement “Kijevo”, Rakovica/Belgrade
•   9 June – Roma settlements, Becej
•   9 June – Roma settlement “Ulica Pora”, Uzice
•   5 June – Roma settlement “Jezdovica kosa”, Prijepolje
•   4 June – Roma settlements, Pecinci
•   3 June – Roma settlements, Bac
•   3 June – Roma settlements, Lebane
•   2 June – Roma settlement “Jelasnica”, Surdulica28 May – Roma settlements, Vrsac

May

• 28 May – Roma settlements, Vrsac
• 28 May – Roma settlement ”Ulica Bana Milutina”, Pozega
• 27 May – Roma settlements, Lebane
• 26 May – Roma settlement “Rajcilovac”, Bosilegrad
• 22 May – Roma settlement “Burdus Mala”, Svilajnac
• 21 May – Roma settlement “Ulica Dusana Trifunovica”, Svrljig
• 21 May – Roma settlement “Tovarisevo”, Backa Palanka
• 20 May – Roma settlements, Indjija
• 19 May – Roma settlements, Ilindza/Alibunar
• 19 May – Roma settlements “Veliki Izvor” and “Gojkova Jaruga”, Zajecar
• 18 May – Roma settlements “Pojate” and “Ulica Stevana Sindjelica”, Cicevac
• 14 May – Roma settlements, Jabuka/Pancevo
• 14 May – Roma settlements “Bukovik” and “Djurdjevdanska Ulica”, Arandjelovac
• 13 May – Roma settlement “Antena”, Novi Beograd
• 13 May – Roma settlements, Kursumlija
• 12 May – Roma settlement “Ulica Stevana Mokranjca”, Jagodina
• 12 May – Roma settlements, Mali Idjos
•   8 May – Roma settlement “Ulica Jurija Gagarina”, Vladicin Han
•   7 May – Roma settlement “Djurdjevo”, Zabalj
•   7 May – Roma settlement “Kocane”, Doljevac
•   5 May – Roma settlements, Kursumlija
  
  

April

• 30 April – Roma settlements “Dusanova ulica”, “Prebreza” and “Alabana”, Blace
• 28 April – Roma settlements, Pirot
• 28 April – Roma settlement “Orlovsko naselje – social apartments”, Zvezdara/Belgrade
• 23 April – Roma settlement “Jablanicka ulica”, Lebane
• 23 April – Roma settlements, Koceljeva
• 22 April – Roma settlement “Tosin bunar”, Novi Beograd
• 22 April - Roma settlements “Sever”, “Erozija” and “Kestenova ulica”, Bor
• 21 April – Roma settlements “Sljivik” and “Kolonije”, Beocin
• 21 April – Roma settlement “Midzor”, Bela Palanka
• 16 April – Roma settlements, Backi Monostor/Sombor
• 16 April – Roma settlements, Bor
• 15 April – Roma settlements, Novi Becej
• 14 April – Roma settlement “Slavko Zlatanovic”, Leskovac
• 14 April – Roma settlements, Zemun
•   9 April – Roma settlements “Kajmakcalanska ulica”, “Jug Bogdanova ulica”, “Cerska ulica” and “Karadjordjeva ulica”, Smederevska Palanka
•   9 April – Roma settlement “Dalas”, Tutin
•   8 April – Roma settlement “Fekovica brdo”, Sjenica
•   7 April – Roma settlement “Baraka socijalnog stanovanja”, Presevo
•   6 April – Roma settlement “Karadjordjevo brdo”, Paracin
•   3 April – Roma settlements “Cukaricka suma”, Cukarica/Belgrade

March

• 31 March – Roma settlement “Ulica Jalijska”, Sremska Mitrovica
• 26 March – Roma settlement “Koricani”, Kragujevac
• 25 March – Roma settlements, Kikinda
• 25 March – Roma settlements, Bojnik
• 24 March – Roma settlement “Barlovo”, Kursumlija
• 19 March – Roma settlements “7. Jul” & “Brezonik”, Bor
• 18 March – Roma settlements, Lazarevac
• 18 March – Roma settlements, Bojnik
• 12 March – Roma settlement “Recica”, Zitoradja
• 11 March – Roma settlement “Aleksinacki rudnik”, Aleksinac
• 11 March – Roma settlements “Vuka Vrcevica” & “Reva Politika”, Palilula/Belgrade
• 10 March – Roma settlements, Obrenovac
• 10 March – Roma settlement “Fekovica brdo”, Sjenica
•   5 March – Roma settlement “Banjska ulica”, Bujanovac
•   4 March – Roma settlement “Gornji Brestovac”, Bojnik
•   4 March – Roma settlements, Subotica
•   3 March – Roma settlement “Kucevski lug”, Raska
•   3 March – Roma settlement “Dom za vesanje”, Zeleznik/Belgrade

February

• 26 February – Roma settlement “Minicevo”, Knjazevac
• 25 February – village Bavaniste, Kovin
• 24 February – Roma settlements “Crni Marko” and “Marko Oreskovic”, Vlasotince
• 23 February – Roma settlements “Vasa Nikolic” and “Sumatovacka ulica”, Aleksinac
• 20 February – Roma settlements, Topola
• 19 February – Roma settlement “Ciganski Rid”, Vranje
• 19 February – Roma settlement “Stakleno brdo”, Pozarevac
• 18 February – Roma settlement “Mali rit”, Pancevo
• 13 February – Roma settlement “Balajnac”, Merosina
• 12 February – Roma settlement “Crvena Zvezda”, Nis
• 11 February – Roma settlement “Dobricka ulica”, Prokuplje
• 10 February – Roma settlements, Smederevo
•   9 February – Roma settlement “Prcilovac”, Aleksinac
•   9 February – Roma settlement “Mudrakovac”, Krusevac
•   6 February – Roma settlements “Stadionska ulica” and “Grdicka kosa”, Kraljevo
•   5 February – Roma settlement “Rupe”, Ruma
•   5 February – Roma settlement “Solunska ulica”, Prokuplje
•   4 February – Roma settlement “Horgos”, Kanjiza
•   4 February – Roma settlement in Ribaric, Tutin

January

• 29 January – Roma settlement “Vozegrnci”, Novi Pazar
• 28 January – Roma settlement “Veliki rit”, Novi Sad
• 27 January – Roma settlement “Ilina voda”, Kragujevac
• 27 January – Roma settlements “Surducka” and “Dudara”, Zrenjanin
• 22 January – Roma settlements, Kostolac
• 22 January – Roma settlement “Fekovica brdo”, Sjenica

On 10 December 2014, the Ministry for Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs adopted the instruction for acting of social welfare centres (SWCs) in procedures for determining the personal name.

Even though the right to personal name and registration in the birth registry book is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and Convention of the Rights of the Child, there is still a significant number of children in Serbia, and even those of age, who do not have their personal name determined. Consequently, they cannot obtain birth and citizenship certificates with their personal name being written. The possession of these documents is the precondition for enjoyment of a great number of basic human rights such as the right to health care and social protection or the right to employment.

The adopted instruction should eliminate the greatest number of problems, which Praxis identified by representing a great number of persons without personal name determined, and at which it pointed to the Ministry.

The application of this instruction is expected to lead to complied, efficient and legal acting of social welfare centres. 

For more information see the announcement: Novelties Introduced by the Instruction for Acting of SWCs in Procedures for Determining the Personal Name

On 10 December 2014, the Ministry for Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs adopted the instruction for acting of social welfare centres (SWCs) in procedures for determining the personal name.

Even though the right to personal name and registration in the birth registry book is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and Convention of the Rights of the Child, there is still a significant number of children in Serbia, and even those of age, who do not have their personal name determined. Consequently, they cannot obtain birth and citizenship certificates with their personal name being written. The possession of these documents is the precondition for enjoyment of a great number of basic human rights such as the right to health care and social protection or the right to employment.

The adopted instruction should eliminate the greatest number of problems, which Praxis identified by representing a great number of persons without personal name determined, and at which it pointed to the Ministry.

The Ministry’s instruction, inter alia, has envisaged the following:

• only SWCs are competent for determination of personal names of children whose parents have not determined their names within the deadline of 30 days upon birth
• only SWCs, upon the registrar’s initiative, are obliged ex officio to initiate the procedure for determining the personal name
• SWC is obliged to appoint a temporary guardian to children without parental care during the procedure
• Undocumented parents must be allowed to participate in the procedure for determining the name of their children
• SWCs are obliged to determine personal names to persons of age who do not have their personal names determined
• Territorial jurisdiction is established in the place where the reason for procedure arouse if the party has no permanent or temporary residence registered.

The application of this instruction is expected to lead to complied, efficient and legal acting of social welfare centres. 

Procedure for adoption of the minor B. B. born in 2001 in Pristina and registered in the UNMIK registries was carried out by Social Welfare Centre in Subotica in December 2004. As the fact of her birth was not registered in birth registries for Pristina administered by the registry office in Nis, it was necessary to carry out the procedure for subsequent birth registration.  The 
subsequent birth registration was carried out only in 2008, almost four years after the adoption. However, the fact of adoption was not registered on that occasion.

Soon after the adopter of the minor girl addressed Praxis for assistance in 2013, Praxis sent the request for registration of the fact of adoption and the request for new registration in birth registries to the Directorate for Civil Status and General Affairs of the City of Nis (hereinafter: Directorate). Praxis received the answer that new registration could not be carried out unless correction were made in the decision on adoption, in accordance with the Law on Registry Books which came into force in 2009, which envisages that new registration after the adoption is carried out on the basis of the place of birth.

In September 2014, after a series of unsuccessful addressing, Praxis filed a complaint against the work of the Directorate to the Administrative Inspectorate of the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government and Department for Inspection, Department for Family Care and Social Protection of the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs. After almost a month, a decision was reached approving the new registration of B. B. in birth registries.

Praxis notes that B. B. is a girl of Roma ethnicity with disabilities and illegal delay of the procedure additionally threatened her already difficult position. 

Procedure for adoption of the minor B. B. born in 2001 in Pristina and registered in the UNMIK registries was carried out by Social Welfare Centre in Subotica in December 2004. As the fact of her birth was not registered in birth registries for Pristina administered by the registry office in Nis, it was necessary to carry out the procedure for subsequent birth registration. The  subsequent birth registration was carried out only in 2008, almost four years after the adoption. However, the fact of adoption was not registered on that occasion.

Soon after the adopter of the minor girl addressed Praxis for assistance in 2013, Praxis sent the request for registration of the fact of adoption and the request for new registration in birth registries to the Directorate for Civil Status and General Affairs of the City of Nis (hereinafter: Directorate). Praxis received the answer that new registration could not be carried out unless correction were made in the decision on adoption, in accordance with the Law on Registry Books which came into force in 2009, which envisages that new registration after the adoption is carried out on the basis of the place of birth.

In September 2014, after a series of unsuccessful addressing, Praxis filed a complaint against the work of the Directorate to the Administrative Inspectorate of the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government and Department for Inspection, Department for Family Care and Social Protection of the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs. After almost a month, a decision was reached approving the new registration of B. B. in birth registries.

Praxis notes that B. B. is a girl of Roma ethnicity with disabilities and illegal delay of the procedure additionally threatened her already difficult position. 

In October 2014, Praxis reported to the Utility Inspection Department of the Mladenovac City Municipality the poster “Stop Asylum”, which violates the rights of asylum seekers and spreads xenophobia and intolerance.

The administrative body reacted quickly and in only 4 days it reached the decision ordering to “NN person within two days of receiving the decision” to remove the posters. The photos documenting that the utility inspector went to the field and established the facts were enclosed to the decision.

To be even more absurd, the administrative body cited in the decision the article of the Decision on Advertising Activities on the Territory of the City of Belgrade(hereinafter: Decision), contrary to which the poster was put, but not the article of the Decision which clearly indicates how to perform the administrative measure of removing the illegally placed posters when a person who placed them is unknown. Specifically, the Paragraph 5, Article 34 of the Decision unambiguously states that “if the inspector’s decision orders the removal of posters, and a person to whom the measure was issued does not act upon the decision, or the person who put the poster is unknown, the decision may be performed through the subject which the city or the city municipality entrusted with cleaning”.

Praxis filed a complaint to the Secretariat for Inspections of the Belgrade City Administration, which resulted in the second-instance decision in which this body rejects the complaint as ungrounded, while referring to the Paragraph 5, Article 34 of the Decision. Afterwards, Praxis filed a lawsuit to the Administrative Court.

While the administrative bodies “are exercising” the application of law, it is inadmissible that disputable posters are spreading panics among the citizens of Mladenovac and asylum seekers with the message “They are coming to us, and we?”.

In October 2014, Praxis reported to the Utility Inspection Department of the Mladenovac City Municipality the poster “Stop Asylum”, which violates the rights of asylum seekers and spreads xenophobia and intolerance.

The administrative body reacted quickly and in only 4 days it reached the decision ordering to “NN person within two days of receiving the decision” to remove the posters. The photos documenting that the utility inspector went to the field and established the facts were enclosed to the decision.

To be even more absurd, the administrative body cited in the decision the article of the Decision on Advertising Activities on the Territory of the City of Belgrade(hereinafter: Decision), contrary to which the poster was put, but not the article of the Decision which clearly indicates how to perform the administrative measure of removing the illegally placed posters when a person who placed them is unknown. Specifically, the Paragraph 5, Article 34 of the Decision unambiguously states that “if the inspector’s decision orders the removal of posters, and a person to whom the measure was issued does not act upon the decision, or the person who put the poster is unknown, the decision may be performed through the subject which the city or the city municipality entrusted with cleaning”.  

Praxis filed a complaint to the Secretariat for Inspections of the Belgrade City Administration, which resulted in the second-instance decision in which this body rejects the complaint as ungrounded, while referring to the Paragraph 5, Article 34 of the Decision. Afterwards, Praxis filed a lawsuit to the Administrative Court.

While the administrative bodies “are exercising” the application of law, it is inadmissible that disputable posters are spreading panics among the citizens of Mladenovac and asylum seekers with the message “They are coming to us, and we?”.

Draft Law on Free Legal Aid has been partially changed after the harsh criticism of non-governmental organizations which provide free legal aid. The objections to the Draft Law referred mainly to significant reduction of the circle of free legal aid beneficiaries, the selection of social welfare centres (SWCs) to be responsible for deciding on request for free legal aid and manner of regulation of work of free legal aid providers. 

Partially or utterly adopted criticism refers to the volume of free legal aid providers, the manner of submitting the request for free legal aid and working conditions of free legal aid providers.

Draft Law remained unchanged in regard to the competence of SWCs. Non-governmental organizations drew attention to the fact that SWCs do not have enough capacities in relation to necessary knowledge that exceeds the issue of social welfare, but also in relation to the scope of work that is already large. Also, there is a possibility of conflict of interests of SWCs with potential free legal aid beneficiaries. Irrespective of the aforementioned, the only change that has been made is already mentioned longer deadline for deciding upon requests. Draft Law keeps the provisions stipulating non-financing of primary legal aid. Finally, the Draft Law does not respect the specialization of free legal aid providers in certain legal areas.

Although it is obvious that new version of the Draft Law is a step forwards, since at least some comments and criticism of non-governmental organizations were met with understanding of competent ministries, there is still a fear that due to certain deficiencies, the functioning and efficiency of the free legal aid system will be seriously threatened. Considering the above stated, the organizations that provide free legal aid will still point at the deficiencies which they find key for the functioning of free legal aid system.

For more information, see the announcement: New Draft Law on Free Legal Aid Partially Considered NGO Criticism

On the occasion of the Universal Children’s Day and celebration of 25 years since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of the United Nations, Praxis once again draws attention to the promotion of the rights of the child and care of children, which need to be the most important priority for the state.

Praxis reminds that despite the fact that the importance of respecting the rights of the child in Serbia has become more visible over the past years, the state still fails to invest enough efforts in order to improve the legal and institutional framework, so that every child may equally enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, laws, the Convention of the Rights of the Child, and other international treaties ratified by the Republic of Serbia.

There are still legally invisible children in Serbia today, who have no access to rights, as a consequence of violation of the Article 7 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which envisages that the child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name and the right to acquire a nationality

Even though discrimination is prohibited by the Constitution and the law, it is however widespread, especially against the Roma children and children with disabilities. Children from vulnerable social groups are still facing many problems, especially in access to the rights to education, health care and social protection. The best interest of a child is also fully neglected in media coverage, and the percentage of children who are exposed to some form of abuse is still very high.

To ensure the guarantee and protection of the rights of the child in all spheres of social life for every child, we remind the state of the importance of adoption of the Law on the Rights of the Child, the Law on the Ombudsperson of Children’s Rights and Rules of criteria for detailed identifying of discrimination by an employee, a student or a third party in educational institutions, and the necessity of engaging all levels of the government.

The recent fire in the informal settlement in New Belgrade with the tragic outcome, when three children lost their lives, is the consequence of the bad position of Roma population in Serbia, which still has an impeded or no access to basic human rights.

Despite the fact that Serbia as a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is obliged to recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, Roma population in Serbia still lives in unhygienic conditions with no clear prospects of possible solution of this problem.

Also, Praxis reminds that two out of four principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are dedication to best interest of the child and the right to life, survival and development. Not dealing with the core solving of the problem of Roma population, the state directly threatens the rights of child and fails to fulfil the duties it committed to by ratifying the international conventions.

It is also a disturbing fact that journalism ethics has failed again while reporting on this tragic event. Thus, the facts on ethnic origin came to the fore, and several printed media published the children’s names. This is yet another form of discrimination against Roma population, which is repeatedly practiced during media incident reporting.

Praxis notes that this is not a single case of human rights violations, particularly the rights of the children, caused by not finding a systemic solution to the problem of Roma population in Serbia for years. Therefore, it is necessary to consistently observe international standards in the area of human rights and address the problems faced by the Roma population on a daily basis more systematically.