Justice for a Whistleblower: Addressing Workplace Bullying in Serbia’s Law Enforcement

In the summer of 2015, a Department for the Investigation of War Crimes member contacted the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights – YUCOM, reporting workplace bullying linked to his efforts to expose irregularities in significant cases, including human rights violations. This officer’s commitment to integrity positioned him as a whistleblower, prompting YUCOM to provide protection and legal representation. Over three years, this resilient officer faced severe bullying, including being reassigned to an unrelated position, given inappropriate tasks, excluded from meetings, denied resources, and subjected to false rumours. Despite these challenges, he sought resolution through formal and informal channels within the Ministry of the Interior (MUP), where support was lacking. In November 2015, with YUCOM’s assistance, the officer initiated seven-year legal proceedings involving testimonies from numerous MUP personnel. The MUP’s practices, including infrequent hearings and failure to provide addresses for retired witnesses, exacerbated judicial delays.

A significant hurdle was the MUP’s secret classification of job descriptions. Despite court orders, the MUP never submitted the officer’s job description, complicating the legal process and hindering his case.

The officer faced ongoing pressure, including a year-long suspension due to a false criminal complaint about whistleblowing. YUCOM’s support in the administrative proceedings led to the dismissal of the charges. In June 2022, the Higher Court in Belgrade upheld workplace bullying claims and ordered the MUP to compensate the officer for non-material damages. This ruling, affirmed by the Appellate Court, established a significant legal precedent for protecting victims of workplace bullying in public institutions.

Names Matter: Ensuring Recognition and Rights for Every Child

In February 2021, K.F. approached the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights – YUCOM, highlighting that her child had not received a name, surname, or unique identification number even ten months after birth. Born in Serbia during K.F.’s divorce from a Dutch citizen, who is not the biological father, legal nuances further complicated the situation. Under Serbian Family Law, the mother’s husband is considered the father if the child is born within the marriage or 300 days after dissolution. Consequently, the civil registry in Savski Venac required consent from the Dutch citizen, complicating the process since he was not the biological parent and was a foreign national. This necessitated either his physical presence or original identification documents for verification.

Unable to meet the civil registry’s demands, K.F. was referred to the relevant Social Work Center in Rakovica. The Center insisted that the child could only receive a name with the consent of K.F.’s ex-husband. However, the Center had the authority to independently assign the child a name.

K.F. escalated the matter to the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs, which instructed the City Social Work Center to seek consent from the Dutch authorities, citing the Convention on the Rights of the Child. YUCOM promptly notified the Ministry that the Convention does not apply to the child’s name and that the Social Work Center was required to assign the name within 30 days of birth.

Due to the lack of identification, the child could not be registered, receive a health card, attend regular check-ups, or receive mandatory vaccinations. The absence of a name and identification number severely violated the child’s fundamental rights, including the right to a name and healthcare.

This case highlighted the neglect of the child’s best interests, a principle that all institutions in Serbia must uphold in decisions concerning children’s rights. The Convention guarantees every child the right to a name immediately after birth.

After establishing the new Ministry for Family Care and Demography, they acted swiftly upon receiving a follow-up from YUCOM, directing the Social Work Center to assign a name as soon as possible. Within ten days, the Center issued a resolution, granting the child the name V.F., along with a surname and unique identification number—just in time for the child’s first birthday.

Restoring Home: The Fight for the Right to a Safe Haven

In a decade-long legal battle, the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights – YUCOM – represented the S. family in their fight for the right to a home. Z.S. had dedicated many years to a government job, earning a permanent apartment assignment. However, despite verbal assurances, the family was relocated to a temporary residence after the property was expropriated for a new construction project without securing permanent housing.

In 2001, the public enterprise initiated eviction proceedings against the socially vulnerable S. family instead of resolving their housing issue. Thus began their struggle for a stable home. After numerous appeals and requests for postponements, Z.S. had no option but to file a lawsuit against the city authorities to obtain the promised suitable housing, leading to a court case over a decade.

Representing the plaintiffs, YUCOM lawyers highlighted the absence of legal grounds for the family’s eviction, referencing the European Convention on Human Rights and international legal precedents supporting the right to a home.

In December 2019, the Belgrade Basic Court ruled in favour of the S. family, affirming their right to permanently use their apartment, which had been their sole home for two decades. The court determined that eviction would constitute an unjustified interference with their right to a home, leading to their displacement.

This landmark ruling, upheld by the Appellate Court in October 2020, provided the S. family with legal protection and ensured their right to remain in their home.

Reclaiming Dignity: Restoring the Right to Autonomy

One of the significant cases in which Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights – YUCOM participated involved D.D., who had her legal capacity completely revoked in 1993 due to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Since then, she lost control over her finances and assets, with a guardian assigned from the Social Welfare Center, who made decisions regarding her property, income, health, and living arrangements. D.D. lacked regular contact with her guardian and did not receive any systemic support, a crucial factor that could have prevented her repeated involuntary placements in social care facilities.

In 2015, D.D., in agreement with her daughter, who was then her guardian, left the social care institution, prompting the police to issue a warrant for her return. After leaving the institution, D.D. began living independently in a rented apartment, managing all aspects of daily life without issues, including hygiene, cooking, shopping, social visits, and regular medical check-ups. Her resilience and determination were evident as she successfully managed her life. Subsequently, D.D. and her daughter decided to terminate the contract with the social care facility. However, D.D.’s pension was insufficient to cover her debts to the institution, and the outstanding balance continued to grow even while she was not residing there.

After D.D.’s daughter was relieved of her guardianship role at the end of 2015, a new guardian from the Social Welfare Center was assigned. Unfortunately, this guardian was passive about D.D.’s status and proceedings, failing to attend hearings or establish a relationship with her. Rather than protecting D.D.’s rights and interests, the Center sold D.D.’s property without consent or notification to settle the increasing debt, leaving the remaining funds in the Centre’s account, contingent on restoring her legal capacity.

The assessment to restore D.D.’s legal capacity was initiated in 2015 following relevant amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Proceedings, which mandated such reviews. After a four-year court battle, during which YUCOM lawyers represented D.D., conducted numerous hearings, heard witnesses, and performed two evaluations, the Basic Court ruled in September 2019 to fully restore D.D.’s legal capacity.

Justice for Journalists: The Story of Antonela Riha’s Fight Against Unlawful Dismissal

 In a landmark case underscoring the vital role of journalists in society, the Appellate Court recognized the unique challenges faced by Antonela Riha, a journalist and editor of the political section for the prominent socio-political magazine NIN. Riha faced an abrupt and unexpected dismissal on April 16, 2015, bringing attention to issues of press freedom and the protection of journalists’ rights. As the key editor of NIN’s most significant section, she produced original content and distinguished the magazine’s covers.

YUCOM stepped in to represent Riha, asserting that her sudden termination and her credibility in journalism indicated she had become “undesirable” within the organization. This case is a vital test for media freedom, as journalists’ employment status is pivotal for safeguarding press liberties.

The first-instance proceedings began on June 15, 2015. They extended until March 15, 2018, largely due to the extensive number of witnesses called. Riha opted to include all employees and collaborators, unwilling to place certain colleagues in a difficult position regarding company politics. Throughout 2016 and 2017, numerous hearings took place, during which fellow journalists attested to Riha’s professionalism, capabilities, and collaborative spirit. Remarkably, every witness expressed shock at Riha’s dismissal.

NIN contended that Riha’s position had been eliminated nearly a month before the official dismissal, claiming amendments to internal organizational policies justified the decision. However, none of the journalists were informed of these changes, raising significant concerns regarding job security and potential threats to freedom of expression.

The justification for her dismissal, citing poor economic conditions and a lack of necessity for editorial roles, did not align with the actual circumstances. During the proceedings, the court recognized the specific challenges of the journalism profession. In its ruling, the court deemed the dismissal unlawful, mandating that NIN reinstate Antonela Riha in a role suited to her qualifications. The court’s reasoning underscored the failure of the employer to clearly define and substantiate the organizational and economic changes that warranted Riha’s termination.

Testimony revealed that the decision to terminate Riha was made hastily, without established criteria or performance evaluations. Moreover, shortly after her dismissal, NIN engaged another journalist to continue the political interviews Riha had previously handled. The court noted that NIN employed numerous freelance contributors despite having a stable staff of 35 journalists, questioning the legitimacy of declaring Riha redundant without offering her a position equivalent to the roles assigned to freelancers.