m Garten einer Oberösterreicherin hatten eines Nachts offenbar Vandalen einen Marillenbaum beschädigt und außerdem ein kunstvoll angelegtes Blumenbeet verwüstet. Die am nächsten Tag herbeigerufene Polizei weigerte sich jedoch eine Anzeige aufzunehmen, da die Frau nur eine Vermutung über den Täter anstellen konnte. Auch das verwüstete Blumenbeet stellte für den Polizisten keine Sachbeschädigung dar, sondern wurde von diesem mit einem Sturmschaden erklärt. Fotos zu machen habe der Polizist ebenfalls unterlassen.

Die Frau beschwerte sich bei der Volksanwaltschaft, da sie den Eindruck hatte, den Täter selbst ausforschen zu müssen, ehe sie ihn anzeigen könnte, zumal es in den Tagen bevor das Blumenbeet zerstört worden war auch keinen Sturm gegeben hatte.

Die vom Innenministerium eingeholte Stellungnahme zu dem Fall ergab schließlich, dass die herbeigerufenen Beamten keine Hinweise auf eine Sachbeschädigung feststellen konnten. Einige Blüten der Blumen seien in die gleiche Richtung in etwa der gleichen Höhe abgeknickt gewesen, was augenscheinlich auf den in der Nacht zuvor stark wehenden Wind zurückzuführen gewesen sei. Bezüglich des Risses in der Baumrinde hätten sie  einen Witterungseinfluss angenommen.
Zum Vorwurf, ein Beamter hätte der Frau gedroht, dass ihre Beschuldigung des Nachbarn teuer werden könne, habe es sich hierbei lediglich um eine sogar gebotene Aufklärung über die rechtlichen Konsequenzen einer Verleumdung gehandelt. „Teilweise wurde der Frau mit ihrer Beschwerde jedoch rechtgegeben, da der Polizist trotzdem Fotos machen und die Staatsanwaltschaft verständigen hätte müssen“, erklärt der zuständige Volksanwalt Dr. Walter Rosenkranz.

Zoran Pašalić, the Protector of Citizens, requested the Ministry of Family Care and Demography, which took over part of the competence of the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy, to repeal the work order issued three years ago to all social welfare centers in Serbia, according to which, among other things, they are obliged to take away in an urgent procedure the children living and working on the streets from the parents and initiate court proceedings for the deprivation of parental rights.

“I reiterate that automatic taking away of the children is not a solution as it is necessary to ascertain whether it is human trafficking, which means abusing children and violating their rights, or those children have nothing to live on. The competent authorities should focus on identifying and rooting out the causes that led to the children being on the streets, and not on the consequences, " said Mr. Pašalić on observing 12 April - International Day of Children Involved in Street Life and/or Work.

Last year, the Protector of Citizens determined that the Ministry of Labor, by issuing a work order in May 2018, had acted contrary to the UN Convention on Child Rights, and had directed social welfare centers to illegal conduct. In 2020, that Ministry refused to act on the Recommendation of the Protector of Citizens to revoke this order.

The problem of "street children" cannot be seen only as a problem of the Ministry of Family Care and Demography. That is an issue for the Ministry of Interior as well which is to identify the organizers of begging and to prosecute the responsible ones where there is room for it, but also for the society as a whole – from the individuals who should be included in noticing the children who work and live on the streets and report it to competent authorities all the way to social welfare centers that should support families to escape poverty or to strengthen parental capacities, Pašalić has said.

In addition to physical labor, the main problems of children involved in living and working on the streets are extreme poverty and uneven access to education, frequently accompanied by discrimination, as well as "child marriages" that deprive them of childhood and prevent them from enjoying their rights, the Protector of Citizens has underscored.

“Street children” have been facing numerous risks that have consequences on their health and development, which is why the competent authorities should make extra efforts to protect child rights and best interests, Pašalić has said.

The Ombudsman sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Social Security, in which she draws attention to the negative impact that the payment of exceptional family support is having on the contribution career of workers who were obliged to resort to this support in order to provide assistance to their children, under the age of 12, due to the closure of schools determined by the Government within the framework of the pandemic.

In both these situations, the workers saw their contribution careers affected - in which values were registered that were lower than the remunerations normally earned - and were consequently penalized in the amount of the social benefits to which they had access in the meantime. The around 50 complaints that the Ombudsman has received to date reveal penalizations in terms of risk pregnancy benefit, parental benefit, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit.

Given that this situation has remained unresolved since mid-2020, and given that the harm caused to beneficiaries is obvious, the Ombudsman therefore requests the Secretary of State to take urgent steps to regularize remuneration records by means of equivalence to the entry of contributions in relation to lay-off periods, under the terms established by law.

She also suggests that an appropriate measure be adopted to ensure the registration by equivalence of entry of contributions regarding the difference between the normal remuneration of the worker and the extraordinary family support paid to parents who, due to the suspension of school and non-teaching activities decreed by the Government in the context of the pandemic, were forced to take time off work to assist their children under the age of 12.

Finally, the Ombudsman drew attention to the situation of social unprotection in which beneficiaries of unemployment benefit whose periods of concession ended on 31/12/2020, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, beneficiaries whose unemployment benefit had ceased between 30/06/2020 and 30/12/2020 and who had not accessed the subsequent unemployment social benefit due to lack of means. On this issue, more than 20 complaints have been received to date.

To read the official letter click here [in Portuguese only].