U martu su poslanici Skupštine Srbije usvojili Zakon o klimatskim promenama, potvrdili šest međunarodnih sporazuma, bilo je reči o brojnim kadrovskim rešenjima i jednom izveštaju o radu Agencije za energedtiku. Na kraju su započeli i još jednu sednicu, koja neće stići da bude završena u martu, a na kojoj će između ostalog odložiti popis stanovništva. Bilo čega od navedenog retko ko se bez “guglanja”  može setiti. Sa druge strane uvrede i pretnje na račun novinara, nevladinih organizacija pa i evropskih zvaničnika, i dalje  glasno odzvanjaju i ne mogu se zaboraviti jer se kontinuirano ponavljaju iz dana u dan. Ovaj mart obeležiće i gotovo apsurdna sednica Administrativnog odbora na kojoj se pokazao sav besmisao Kodeksa usvojenog krajem prošle godine.

Kodeks je samo reč

Bilo je jasno iz skupštinske rasprave u decembru, da poslanici nisu sebi baš osvestili šta je Kodeks ponašanja narodnih poslanika, ko treba da ga poštuje i kada. Baš kao što su pre mnogo godina tadašnji narodni poslanici izglasali Zakon o zabrani pušenja u svim institucijama, a onda požurili što u restoran što u svoje kancelarije na zasluženu cigaretu, (jer koja će inspekcija da uđe u skupštinsku zgradu), tako su i sada zamislili neke “nevaljale protivnike iz opozicije” i zapretili im Kodeksom. Neće se više dozvoliti nasilje u Skupštini, obećavali su, neće više niko nikoga smeti da vređa i da mu preti!  Ali nekako da to ne važi za njih.

Kada su neke organizacije civilnog društva kao što su Crta i Transparentnost ukazale da kršenja Kodeksa ipak ima, pa nadležnom odboru podneli i prijave, prvo je počeo obračun u plenumu. Aktivisti NVO nazivani su plaćenicima koji rade za strane vlade, rečeno je da su Krik i Crta kriminalna udruženja, da je svaka prijava - politički obračun, da svi rade za Đilasa. Bilo je prozivanja čak i gde ko živi, koji auto vozi, pokazivale su se fotografije, ponavljale neistine i uvrede. 

Priznajem samo sud svoje partije

Šlag na martovsku skupštinsku tortu bila je sednica samog Administrativnog odbora na kojem su poslanici optuženi za kršenje Kodeksa svojim partijskim drugovima objašnjavali da nisu ništa prekršili, pa su uz opšte odobravanje na kraju izglasali da nema osnova ni za kakve postupke. Dakle, pozivanje na “udaranje u vreću protivnika dok se ne pocepa”, uporno nazivanje Albanaca Šiptarima, kao i preporuke da se problemi sa opozicijom “reše kao u Rusiji”-  u Skupštini Srbije proglašeni su za legitimne. Nije ni čudo što se narednih dana svaki nepoznati jedva punoletni poslanik najstrašnijim rečnikom obraćao pre svih opozicionarima Draganu Đilasu i Mariniki Tepić, zatim Vuku Jeremiću, ali i samoj predsednici Odbora Evropskog parlamenta za stabilizaciju i pridruživanje Srbije i EU Tanji Fajon koju optužuju za antisemitizam.

Da li odustajemo od Evrope?

Da li se raspoloženje Srbije prema evropskim integracijama menja? Po reakcijama čelnih ljudi Skupštine na izveštaj Evropskog parlamenta - menja se. Naime kada je pri kraju sednice na kojoj su poslanici postavljali pitanja ministrima stigla vest da je usvojen Izveštaj Odbora za spoljne poslove Evropskog parlamenta, potpredsednica Skupštine Elvira Kovač prokomentarisala je da on “nikada nije bio ovako obiman, ali nikada nije bio ni ovako politički nastrojen i kritičan.”

“Mnoge stvari nisu vezane za Evropske integracije Srbije. Vrlo je zastareli naprotiv, birokratske fraze su koje ne prepoznaju realnost Srbije” rekla je poslanica i osvrnula se samo na tačku 41. koja apeluje na Vladu Srbije da građanima pruži sve relevantne informacije o pandemiji kao i vakcinama. “Mi smo svesni da je ovaj Izveštaj u ovakvoj formi zbog političkih snaga u Evropskom parlamentu,“ rekla je Kovač, dok druge primedbe koje se odnose na rešavanje afera, smanjenje korupcije i oslobađanje medija nije pominjala. 

I predsednik Skupštine Ivica Dačić rekao je da nije iznenađen ovakvim izveštajem, da su parlamentarci iskazali zabrinutost za ekologiju samo u oblastima u kojima posluju kineske fabrike i da je to problematično. Najavljena je posebna rasprava o ovom izveštaju, ali do sada nije rečena ni jedna pozitivna stvar ili iskazana spremnost da se nešto iz izveštaja primeni. 

Raspored ustaljen

U radu skupštine za svaku pohvalu je što se ustalio način rada, sednice počinju utorkom, radi se do četvrtka, na početku svake nove sednice Dačić obavesti poslanike i čitavu javnost koji dan će biti posvećen kojim tačkama dnevnog reda, kao i kada će se glasati. Sednice se zakazuju i nedelju dana ranije, ima dovoljno vremena da se razmotre predloženi zakoni, nema zasedanja do kasno u noć niti nenajavljenih promena u radu, što znatno olakšava rad novinara i zainteresovane javnosti.

Portal Danas u saradnji sa inicijativom Otvoreni parlament svakog meseca objavljuje mesečne izveštaje o aktivnostima u Skupštini Srbije.

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić, sazvao je Šestu sednicu Prvog redovnog zasedanja Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u 2021. godini, za četvrtak, 8. april 2021. godine, sa početkom u 10.00 časova.

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić sazvao je 24. sastanak Kolegijuma Narodne skupštine Dvanaestog saziva za utorak, 30. mart, sa početkom u 9.00 časova.

What is a civilisational achievement for Pristina and who gave whom the oxygen? In the new episode of #CoupletChorusRebuttal listen in which atmosphere Parliamentary Questions passed?

A sitting at which MPs are supposed to perform a controlling role by directly asking questions to members of the Government is always a good indicator of the social climate. That is why we will not deal with the questions that the ruling majority addresses to the ministers in order to give them the opportunity to brag about their achievements without a time limit. We will have a look at the way they communicate. The head of the parliamentary group United Valley – Party of Democratic Action of Sandžak, Shaip Kamberi, a representative of the Albanian national minority in Serbia, asked about the continuation of the dialogue between Belgrade and Priština, and also asked the state to respond to hate speech against minorities. In this discussion, both the contents and the tone were not much of a surprise. The Prime Minister Ana Brnabić and the Minister of Health Zlatibor Lončar are replying to the MP.

“The EU has always called on all political actors to get involved in actions that create and advocate an atmosphere conducive to reconciliation. In spite of such demands coming from the EU, we are witnessing frequent and unnecessary provocations that risk bringing the entire negotiation process back to the starting point. In the earlier period, the man in charge of provocations was Marko Đurić, but since he left for America, his role has been unfortunately taken over by President Vučić.”

“I guess we were all supposed to get the impression that you and the European Union are two peas in a pod, that you… What, are you threatening us? I don’t understand. Are we supposed to be scared now? Let me remind you of the things of life from our recent past. When you didn’t have PCR tests, who gave them to you, the European Union or Belgrade? [Or] when you didn’t have oxygen… Has the European Union given you a single vaccine? Do you even know what you want?”

“You are talking about hate speech, so where is Priština [when we talk about] hate speech. Well, for Priština, hate speech is a civilisational achievement. You are still [in a civilisational phase of] torturing, kidnapping and killing.  Marko Đurić felt it best on his own skin. Do you want me to remind you of the scene when he was taken out and forced to parade through the streets of Prištin, dragged by a tie like a dog.”

The way that the executive speaks to MPs is not milder even when it comes to far less difficult topics such as the protection of Cyrillic alphabet. The independent MP Vladan Glišić and the Minister of Culture Maja Gojković.

“We must remember that the Declaration on the Protection of the Serbian People was announced in 2017, by the leader of the Serbian Progressive Party and the President of Serbia, and it was supposed to turn into the protection of the Serbian language and Cyrillic, however, it didn’t catch on. “

“One shouldn’t say the leader of the Serbian Progressive Party, but – the President of the Republic of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, or the President of the Serbian Progressive Party. And the malice in asking questions… leave it for someplace else.”  

In this convocation composed of 250 MPs, the opposition is represented by seven people.

For the Open Parliament, Mirjana Nikolić.

Šta je civilizacijsko dostignuće za Prištinu i ko je kome dao kiseonik? U novoj epizodi #StrofaRefrenReplika poslušajte u kakvoj atmosferi je proteklo postavljanje pitanja članovima Vlade.

Sednica na kojoj narodni poslanici treba da izvrše kontrolnu ulogu tako što direktno postavljaju pitanja članovima Vlade, uvek je dobar pokazatelj društvene atmosfere. Zato se nećemo baviti pitanjima koja vladajuća većina postavlja ministrima kako bi im dala mogućnost da se bez vremenskog ograničenja hvale svojim dostignućima. Osvrnućemo se na način komunikacije. Šef poslaničke grupe Ujedinjena dolina - SDA Sandžaka Šaip Kamberi, inače predstavnik albanske nacionalne manjine u Srbiji, pitao je o nastavku dijaloga Beograda i Prištine ali i tražio da država nešto preduzme protiv govora mržnje prema manjinama. U ovoj raspravi očekivan je i sadržaj, ali i ton. Poslaniku odgovaraju premijerka Ana Brnabić i ministar zdravlja Zlatibor Lončar.

„EU je uvek prizivala sve političke aktere da se uključe u akcije koje stvaraju, promovišu atmosferu pogodnu za pomirenje. I pored ovakvih zahteva koji dolaze od strane EU, svedoci smo čestih i nepotrebnih provokacija koje ceo proces pregovaranja rizikuju da vrate na polaznu tačku. U ranijem periodu čovek zadužen za provokacije bio je Marko Đurić, ali od kako je on otišao u Ameriku, nažalost njegovu ulogu je preuzeo predsednik Vučić.“

„Pretpostavljam da smo svi trebali da steknemo utisak da vi i Evropska unija, da je to neki nokat i meso, da je to… Šta, jel’ nam pretite? Ne razumem. Jel’ treba da se uplašimo sad? Ja ću vas sad vratiti na životne stvari iz skore prošlosti. Kada niste imali PCR testove, jel’ vam dala Evropska unija ili Beograd? Kada niste imali kiseonik. Jel’ vam dala Evropska unija jednu vakcinu? Da l’ vi uopšte znate šta hoćete?“

„Vi pričate o jeziku mržnje, pa gde je Priština od jezika mržnje. Pa, jezik mržnje je za Prištinu civilizacijsko dostignuće. Vi ste još na mučenju, otmicama, ubijanju. Marko Đurić je to najbolje osetio na svojoj koži. Hoćete da vas podsetim slike kada su ga izveli i paradirali ulicama Prištine, vukući ga za kravatu kao psa.“

Način obraćanja izvršne vlasti poslanicima nije blaži ni kada je tema mnogo manje teška - zaštita ćiriličnog pisma. Samostalni poslanik Vladan Glišić i ministarka kulture Maja Gojković.

„Moramo se setiti i toga da je bila najavljena još 2017. godine, od vođe Srpske napredne stranke a predsednika Srbije, najavljena Deklaracija o zaštiti srpskog naroda, koja je trebala da se pretvori i u zaštitu srpskog jezika i ćirilice, međutim, u jednom trenutku je to nestalo“.

„Ne kaže se vođa Srpske napredne stranke, nego se kaže – predsednik Republike Srbije Aleksandar Vučić ili predsednik Srpske napredne stranke. A malicioznost u postavljanju pitanja, to ostavite za neka druga mesta.“  

U ovom sazivu od 250 narodnih poslanika, opoziciju predstavlja njih sedmoro.

Za Otvoreni parlament Mirjana Nikolić.

At the 24th sitting, the parliamentary Committee on Administrative, Budgetary, Mandate and Immunity issues considered, for the first time, complaints on breaches of the recently adopted MPs Code of Conduct. The Committee rejected all five complaints from the agenda as ungrounded. 

During the sitting, where all the MPs who spoke were from the SNS parliamentary group “Aleksandar Vucic - For Our Children”, the Committee rejected complaints for violations filed by activist from the Open Parliament and CRTA against Marko Atlagic, Nebojsa Bakarec, Vladimir Orlic and Aleksandar Martinovic, as well as one by Transparency Serbia, filed against the Committee on Constitutional and Legislative Issues. 

During the discussion, these MPs not only denied the allegations against them, but they repeatedly stated that the complaints were malicious and filed in order to discredit them. 

In his address, MP Marko Atlagic said that CRTA should not “teach him, a proud Serb, how to speak Serbian in the Serbian Parliament”. He stated that he “did not violate the Code, nor use expressions offensive to MPs from the Shiptar national minority, by using the term Shiptar”, and as evidence - he quoted the vocabulary. 

MP Nebojsa Bakarec said he believes “mass” complaints by CRTA are aimed at “flooding the Assembly and intimidating MPs”, and that he has studied the complaints and determined they are unfounded. Bakarec sees no threat in his statement “Do you know how they solve this in Russia? Well, in Russia you’d be gone, that’s how they solve it”, but he does see satanization in “Djilas-like media”. He said he fears the Administrative Committee will be flooded by these complaints, and it will have to hold “24 hour” sittings. 

MP Vladimir Orlic said that this is a political confrontation, that he does not plan to refrain from using his vocabulary, which the Committee does not deem controversial. He added that this is an “organized hunt on MPs” and a “dirty propaganda campaign”.

Committee Chairman Aleksandar Martinovic who, per the Code of Conduct, should sanction himself, stated that the call to “hit the sack until it tears apart” was a metaphor, and that there are no grounds for breaches of the Code there. 

In the discussion that followed, MPs supported their partisan colleagues, repeated how it is not a good thing that any citizen can file a complaint, and some even suggested finding a way to sanction those whom the Committee deems have misused the Code by filing complaints.

Today, the Administrative Committee considered complaints on breaches to the Code of Conduct for the first time, and it clearly demonstrated that adopting the Code in this sort of convocation was a farce and a simulation of democracy. 

The reform of the social welfare system, is one of the topics of which has been discussed for years, especially in the part related to cash social benefits (cash social assistance, increased cash social assistance and one-time assistance, etc.) and other financial benefits that belong to the population policy sector (child allowance). Thus, the amendments to the Law on Social Welfare and the Law on Financial Support to Families with Children, stand out as necessary in order to adapt the social welfare system to the needs of the poorest.  

Nonetheless, the adoption of the Law on Social Cards has been a key measure of the reform of the social welfare system for some time, as it would enable faster exchange of data between the competent state bodies that keep records of conditions important for exercising social welfare rights. As stated in the exposé for the new composition of the Government of the Republic of Serbia: “the priority reform in terms of better targeted social benefits is reflected in the work on social cards that represent a unified insight into data on current and potential beneficiaries.” At the same time, it is emphasised that “[social] cards will [enable] citizens who are in the most difficult economic situation to be more visible in the system, in order to exercise their rights to the necessary support in a timely and effective manner”. 

Today, the Assembly of Serbia will start the debate on the long-awaited Law on Social Cards. It seems that this Law has completely reformed the social welfare system and that all problems have been solved. At least it seems so to anyone who follows the news coming from the authorities in the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veterans and Social Policy. 

In this text, we will try to answer the question what is regulated by this brief Law and how all this will affect the procedure of exercising rights in the field of social welfare. 

Introductory provisions - matter regulated by law, aim and purpose of data processing

The Law defines that it regulates the establishment and maintenance of a single register called the Social Card, as well as the content of this register, the manner of access, processing and storage of data within this register. Furthermore, the aim of the Law is to establish a single and centralised record of the socio-economic status of individuals and persons related to them. This goal should enable the administrative bodies in charge for decision-making in the social welfare system to better perform data processing in order to determine the facts necessary for the exercise of rights and services from the social welfare system. All this is done for the sake of greater efficiency, fairer distribution of social benefits and proactivity of administrative bodies that decide on rights and services from the social welfare system. 

Indeed, when we know that over the years we have been talking about an increasing number of social assistance beneficiaries, that the Republic Institute for Social Welfare writes about in its annual reports, and about a decreasing number of employees in the social welfare system, it seems that faster data exchange in electronic form will increase efficiency and, ultimately, resolve requests for exercising the right to financial social benefits in less time.  

In accordance with the principles of personal data protection and obligations from the Law on Personal Data Protection, which is the umbrella law in this area, article 4 of the Law on Social Cards precisely defines the purpose of data processing. There are five different issues that determine the purpose of processing:  

determining the socio-economic status of the individual and persons related to him/her; 

automation of procedures and processes related to actions in the field of social welfare; 

creation of social policies through determining the socio-economic status of the individual and persons related to him/her and the wider community; 

prevention of poverty and elimination of the consequences of social exclusion, and 

conducting statistical and other research in the field of social welfare. 

Authority for establishing the Social Card, protection of personal data and other “technical” issues 

Article 5 of the Law on Social Cards prescribes that this single register shall be established and maintained by the ministry in charge of social issues, while technical support in establishing, maintaining and ensuring data security and safety shall be performed by the Office for Information Technologies and E-Government.

According to article 11 of the Law on Social Cards, users of data from the Social Card shall be centres for social work, local self-government units that perform entrusted tasks in the field of social welfare (such as the Secretariat for Social Welfare of the City of Belgrade or other bodies), the ministry in charge of social issues, the provincial secretariat in charge of social affairs, as well as other state administration bodies and institutions. 

The second paragraph of this article explicitly stipulates that, in the processing of personal data, users of data from the Social Card shall act in accordance with the umbrella law – the Law on Personal Data Protection. 

Moreover, according to this Law, the natural person to whom the data relate has the right to insight and the right emanating from the realised insight, through the e-Government Portal, in accordance with the law governing the protection of personal data. It should be noted here that the Law on Personal Data Protection, as the umbrella law, places the right of access to personal data in a much wider context than article 11, paragraph 3 of the Law on Social Cards. This is primarily perceivable in the part concerning the manner of exercising the “right to insight” and “the right emanating from the realised insight “. 

Thus, according to the umbrella law, this right, defined by the term “access to data”, can be exercised regardless of the fact whether it is implemented through the e-Government Portal or in any another way. Persons whose data are processed by the Law on Social Cards are beneficiaries of the rights and services of the social welfare system and potential beneficiaries of this system, that can correctly be assumed to be less able to use the e-Government Portal. Therefore, the right to insight and rights emanating from the realised insight referred to in article 11, paragraph 3 should be interpreted as an additional, special right, which, in addition to the one provided by the Law on Personal Data Protection, is regulated by the Law on Social Cards. Any other interpretation would be contrary to the Law on Personal Data Protection and would open a discussion on whether it is set in accordance with the principle of unity of the legal order from the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. 

The single register we are talking about – the Social Cards, has been established on the basis of data taken from the records in the field of social welfare kept by the relevant ministry, as well as the registers kept by other state bodies. These include: data from the Central Population Register, registers of the organisation for mandatory pension and disability insurance, registers of the Ministry of the Interior on vehicles, weapons, readmission, registers of the National Employment Service on payments of cash benefits and payments of temporary and special benefits. Furthermore, this article stipulates that data from the registers of the Tax Administration and the Republic Geodetic Authority be taken into the Social Cards.

In order to maintain and update the Social Cards, the Law stipulates the exchange of the data contained in the above-mentioned records and registers. However, there is a dilemma: if it is a data exchange – how can it be two-way, i.e. how is it ensured that the data from the Social Cards can be exchanged and disclosed by transferring or submitting to the operators of records and registers that exchange data with the Social Cards. The Law on Social Cards does not provide answers to these questions. 

In article 16, the Law envisages the creation of reports in the Social Cards, which can be pre-defined or defined at the request of the Social Cards’ beneficiaries. These reports serve to present “data relevant to determining the socio-economic status” of a beneficiary or a potential beneficiary of the social welfare system at the level of the wider community, i.e. city, municipality, administrative district of the province and the republic, and an overview of the rights that an individual used or still uses, as well as effects of social welfare measures. 

The second paragraph of this article stipulates that in this way the preparation of reports on beneficiaries who are at risk of natural and other disasters will be ensured. However, it remains unclear how these reports will be compiled and what they will be used for. No relevant provisions on this can be found in the legal text. 

A cuckoo in the nest of the Law on Social Cards – the procedure for creating and submitting notifications

In the part entitled “Procedure for creating and submitting notifications” referred to article 17 of the Law on Social Cards, we finally come to an explanation of the purpose of such a wide exchange of data established by the new Law. This article prescribes the procedure in cases where inconsistencies in data on the beneficiary or related persons are determined. Then a notification on data inconsistency is created (it may not be completely clear who creates the notification – whether it is automatically created within the Social Maps or by a ministry or by a third party) and contains instructions to the data beneficiary that it is necessary to check data by viewing and retrieving data from official records, documentation and public documents, that it is necessary to make a decision at the request of the party or that it is necessary to initiate proceedings ex officio because it has been found out about the facts of significant impact on the exercise, change or termination of social welfare rights. 

Article 17 of the Law on Social Cards prescribes the following: 

“If during the data processing there is a discrepancy of data on the beneficiary, i.e. related persons, a notification shall be created and sent to the records in the field of social welfare referred to in article 12, paragraph 1 of this Law.

The notification on non-compliance of data referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall also contain an instruction to the data beneficiary that it is necessary to: 

Perform data verification by inspecting and taking over data from official records, documentation and public documents; 

Make a decision at the request of the party; 

Initiate proceedings ex officio, because the facts of significant influence on the exercise, change or termination of social welfare rights have been found out.” 

That is why the process of forming and submitting notifications can be considered key to understanding what the Social Card actually is.

To answer this question, we must return to the basic concepts defined by the Law on Social Cards. Here, the term individual states that it is a person who is a beneficiary of rights and social welfare services and a person in the process of exercising rights. This is, hence, a person who has exercised the right to social assistance or a person who is trying to exercise the right to social assistance. 

To simplify everything, we will imagine two people with similar life circumstances. 

One is John, who lives in a common-law union with his partner and one child, has been unemployed for a long time, although he regularly reports to the clerk in the National Employment Service, has a tumbledown house in which he lives, does not own property of greater value. John has been a beneficiary of the social welfare system since 2009, when he fell into poverty that he is still struggling with. John is, as the Law on Social Card says – a beneficiary of rights and services from social welfare, i.e. an individual whose personal data is collected and processed. 

On the other hand, Jack has a wife and two children, lives in the basement of an abandoned building, is unemployed, poorly educated, without regular income, ill and due to his lack of information has not yet submitted a request for social assistance. According to the provisions of the Law on Social Welfare, Jack will not be an individual to whom the law applies until he submits a request for exercising the right to financial social benefit. 

Now that we have met John and Jack, let us return to the provision of article 17 of the Law on Social Cards. 

As seductive and beautiful as it may sound, initiating the procedure ex officio, which is provided for in article 17, paragraph 2, item 3 of the Law on Social Cards, is not possible in Jack’s case. The social card does not contain information about Jack, he is neither a beneficiary nor a person in the procedure for exercising the rights from social welfare. He is just a poor man who needs social benefit. 

On the other hand, the moment when John’s partner gets a job in a store, when he goes to Germany “as an asylum seeker”, or when he receives a gift of greater value, during the data processing there will be a discrepancy between the beneficiary, our John, and the provision of article 17, paragraph 2, item 3 will be activated by creating a notice of non-compliance which warns that John receives social benefit for two days, two weeks or a month longer than he is entitled to. 

This provision of the Law leaves us the opportunity only to conclude that the Law on Social Cards is passed not for the proclaimed better targeting of a larger number of people in poverty who will be entitled to cash social benefits, but for the abolition or suspension of benefits in cases in which the beneficiaries “skip” the threshold for exercising the right to financial social benefits due to a certain life situation. Nevertheless, it will be possible to achieve better targeting in cases that concern beneficiaries who have previously been denied a request for social assistance, but who subsequently met the conditions for exercising social welfare rights due to the new life circumstances. The percentage of these cases in the practice is still unknown. 

Furthermore, this provision will additionally strengthen the obligation stipulated in article 97 of the Law on Social Welfare obligating the beneficiaries to report changes, which could affect the right they exercise. This article of the Law on Social Welfare stipulates, inter alia, that the beneficiary of the right to financial social assistance is obliged to report to the Centre for Social Work any change relevant for the recognised right within 15 days from the day the change occurred. 

The key reason for passing this Law is to reduce abuse regardless of their quantity, which is clear from the explanation of the Law.  Incidentally, the Prime Minister once spoke about this abuse, mentioning cases where social assistance beneficiaries “come in an Audi to get social assistance” (not knowing or not caring that the amount of social assistance for an individual does not suffice to cover the cost of full tank of any Audi, even the smallest one). The explanation states that the adoption of the Law on the Social Cards will enable “a fairer distribution and reduction of abuses, efficiency in work and proactivity of public administration bodies.” It is further stated that abuses are prevented in the part concerning the exclusion of all those “who are ‘mistakenly’ included in the rights from the system”. 

When a new perspective of the provisions of the Law on Social Welfare is added to article 96 it is clear that the automatic review, i.e. the creation and submission of notifications under article 17 of the Law on Social Cards significantly “tightens” the conditions provided by the Law on Social Welfare. These provisions stipulate that the Centre for Social Work reviews the conditions for exercising the right to financial social assistance in May, based on the income of beneficiaries realised in the previous three months”, except for those beneficiaries who are able to work, who receive social assistance in Serbia nine months during the calendar year. This fact brings us back to the field of respecting the constitutional principle of unity of the legal order, because the law in the field of special processing of personal data in the social welfare system encroaches on the rights from the social welfare system itself, which are regulated by the Law on Social Welfare. 

At the very end – which personal data does the Law on Social Card collect and process?

Almost all of them. 

By roughly listing the data stored in the Social Cards, which are also referred to in articles 7 – 10 of the Law on Social Cards, we can find at least 135 different data! 

There are data ranging from general, such as personal number, place of residence, citizenship, occupation, marital status, place of marriage (it is unclear why this data is important), all the way to data on movable property, paid pensions and other cash benefits, social assistance payments, health status, number of household members, ethnicity, data on domestic violence, disability, etc. 

Data on “related persons” are collected, and according to the Law on Social Cards, they are all persons who “have a closer or distant kinship, i.e. property relationship, with an individual who is a beneficiary of the social welfare system, which has an impact on the exercise of rights”. More precisely – in addition to the circle of related persons and relatives already defined according to national regulations, a former partner is also included.

While after reading the new Law, the verses of the popular song “Be Careful Who You Love” occupy our mind as one’s partner’s income can cancel one’s social assistance, we can only hope that by the announced start of the application of the Law on Social Cards – March 1st, 2022, there will be enough time to create and submit a notice that the legal text is inconsistent with both laws the matter of which it touches – the Law on Social Welfare and the Law on Personal Data Protection. 

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić sazvao je Petu sednicu Prvog redovnog zasedanja Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u 2021. godini, za utorak, 30. mart 2021. godine, sa početkom u 10.00 časova.

Na 24. sednici Odbora za administrativno-budžetska i mandatno-imunitetska pitanja Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije po prvi put su razmatrane prijave podnete na osnovu nedavno usvojenog Kodeksa ponašanja narodnih poslanika za kršenje njegovih odredbi. Odbor je odbio kao neosnovane svih pet prijava koje su danas bile na dnevnom redu.

Na sednici Odbora na kojoj su govorili samo poslanici sa liste „Aleksandar Vučić - Za našu decu“ odbijene su prijave aktivista Otvorenog parlamenta i nevladine organizacije Crta protiv Marka Atlagića, Nebojše Bakareca, Vladimira Orlića i Aleksandra Martinovića, kao i prijava Transparentnosti Srbija protiv Odbora za ustavna pitanja i zakonodavstvo.

Poslanici protiv kojih su podnete prijave ne samo da su demantovali navode iz prijava, već su ponavljali da su prijave zlonamerne i podnete sa ciljem da ih diskredituju.

Tako je poslanik Marko Atlagić poručio Crti da „njega kao ponosnog Srbina ne uči u srpskom parlamentu kako će govoriti". Poslanik je istakao da "nije povredio Kodeks niti koristio izraze koji vređaju narodne poslanike šiptarske nacionalne manjine koristeći izraz šiptar“, a kao dokaz čitao je citate iz rečnika.

Nebojša Bakarec smatra da „masovne“ prijave iz Crte imaju za cilj da „zatrpaju skupštinu i da zastraše poslanike“, a da je on proučio i ocenio da za prijave nema osnova. U rečenici „Znate kako se to rešava u Rusiji, tako što te više nema“, Bakarec ne vidi pretnju, ali vidi satanizaciju u „đilasovskim medijima“. On je izrazio strah da će Administrativni odbor biti zatrpan ovakvim prijavama te da će „morati da zaseda 24 sata“.

Vladimir Orlić je rekao da je ovde reč o političkom obračunu, a da ne planira da odstupi od svog rečnika, koji za Odbor nije sporan. Orlić je dodao i da je posredi „organizovana hajka na poslanike“ i „prljava propagandna kampanja!“.

Predsednik Odbora Aleksandar Martinović, koji bi po Kodeksu trebalo sam sebe da kazni, takođe je rekao da je poziv za „udaranje po vreći dok se ne pocepa“ metafora i da ni tu osnove za kršenje Kodeksa nema.

U naknadnoj raspravi, poslanici su podržali svoje stranačke kolege, ponavljali da nije dobro što svaki građanin ima pravo da podnese prijavu, a neki su predlagali i da se iznađe način kažnjavanja onih za koje Odbor utvrdi da su zloupotrebili Kodeks.

Administrativni odbor danas je prvi put razmatrao prijave i jasno pokazao da je donošenje Kodeksa pri ovakvom sastavu skupštine bilo farsa i simulacija demokratije. 

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić sazvao je 23. sastanak Kolegijuma Narodne skupštine Dvanaestog saziva za utorak, 23. mart, sa početkom u 9.00 časova.