guardianship and human rights in serbiaanalysis of guardianship law and policy2006mdacmentaldisabilityadvocacycentermental disability advocacy centerguardianship and human rights in serbiaanalysis of guardianship law and policy20062mental disability advocacy centercopyright © mental disability advocacy center, 2006all rights reserved.cover design: györgy péchy, jr.layout: istván fenyvesiisbn: 978-963-87395-7-5this report is available in english and serbianthe research and publication of this report was made possible through the generous the sigrid rausing trustthe open society institute (budapest)andin-kind contributionsfrom the council of europedonors. responsibility for the information contained in the report lies solely with mdac and the donors take no responsibility for the content and for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. 3human rights and guardianship in serbiacontentexecutive summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………5recommendations71. introduction101.1guardianship101.2researching guardianship121.3acknowledgements121.4method13 1.4.1 stage one: legislative review13 1.4.2 stage two: collection of data from the field141.5indicators for a human rights-based assessment of guardianship 142.guardianship law and policy in serbia162.1introduction162.2demographic and social landscape of serbia162.3serbia‘s legal system182.4guardianship law in serbia20 2.4.1mental health law20 2.4.2history of guardianship in serbia21 2.4.3sources of guardianship law22 2.4.4types and role of guardianship23 2.4.5substantive elements of adult guardianship242.5two-step guardianship/incapacity process26 2.5.1deprivation of legal capacity26 2.5.2appointment of a guardian272.6human-rights based assessment of serbia‘s legislation29 2.6.1principles running throughout legal frameworks (indicator 1)29 2.6.2procedural rights during guardianship proceedings (indicators 2-7)…….30 2.6.3quality of evidence provided to the court in incapacity cases (indicators 8-12)41 2.6.4rights of the adult after guardianship is established (indicators 13-17)49 2.6.5obligations of the guardian after guardianship is established (indicators 18-25)58 2.6.6necessity of guardianship and alternatives (indicators 26-29)69annex a: glossary of terminology75annex b: summary table of the indicators774mental disability advocacy center5human rights and guardianship in serbiaxeutive summaőis report is the űrst work of its kind to look in any depth into laws relating to guardianship in serbia. serbia conducted reform of part of its guardianship laws in 2005. however it failed to bring them in line completely with current human rights standards. it is these standards and the compliance of serbia with them that form the focus of this report. őe legal and moral imperatives on serbia to amend its guardianship laws are demonstrated in this report, a report that is particularly timely in view of the recent adoption by the un general assembly of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.1 it is of note that serbia took an active part in drafting this convention, article 2 of which calls on all countries to ensure that people with disabilities have the right to recognition as persons before the law and that they enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.2 guardianship in serbia is partially regulated by laws that have not changed signiűcantly since the communist times, during which people with disabilities were excluded from society. change has been particularly slow with respect to procedural aspects of incapacitation. however, overall reform of the serbian legal system is in progress now, with people with disabilities being a principle priority. őis is demonstrated by the adoption of various pieces of legislation including the act on prohibition of discrimination of people with disabilities in april 2006 and the family act in 2005. far advanced steps have also been taken to introduce an act on rights of the patients with mental disabilities and an act on professional rehabilitation and employment of people with disabilities. although these laws suggest increasing recognition by serbia of the rights of people with disabilities, it should be noted that these laws have signiűcant weaknesses, particularly those relating to guardianship. further work is needed to ensure their conformity with international standards.őis report oőers an analysis of domestic legislation on guardianship, such legislation being viewed through the lens of current binding human rights standards. őis legislation does not exist in a single codiűed form, but is scattered in a number of diőerent statutes and regulations. őe report therefore examines whether adequate safeguards are provided in these various statutes and regulations, safeguards required to ensure a legal system that fully respects these human rights standards.őe outcome of this examination indicates that although the serbian constitution speciűcally provides for respect for the human rights of people with mental disabilities in accordance with international standards, a series of legislative weaknesses result in serious deűciencies throughout its legislative framework. indeed, the main űndings of 1 convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 12.2 ibid, art. 12.6mental disability advocacy centerthe report reveal that serbia is failing in its obligation to protect the rights of people under guardianship, indicating that reforms are required urgently. őe most important of these űndings are: őe guardianship law in serbia is too vague and lacks clarity. in many cases it is inconsistent, mainly as the result of it being regulated by numerous laws. adults under plenary guardianship are subject to signiűcant, arbitrary and automatic deprivations of their human rights. őese include a deprivation of their right to property, to a family life, to marry, to vote, to associate freely, to access courts, and to make a will. even if not speciűcally deprived of certain rights, a lack of procedural capacity ensures their inability to enforce them.guardianship contributes to social exclusion. contrary to international law3 an adult in serbia may be detained for an incapacity evaluation. more signiűcantly, once an adult is placed under guardianship, he or she can be placed, without the adult‘s consent, into a social care institution for the rest of his or her life. no appeals are available. őere are no alternatives to guardianship (for example, advance directives and supported decision-making) for people with disabilities who need support in making certain decisions. őe mental disability advocacy center welcomes a number of positive changes in serbian guardianship laws. however, it urges the serbian government to reform these still further and speciűcally to rectify weaknesses it has introduced during the period of reform. mdac believes that the drafting of the new serbian civil code will be an obvious opportunity for this to put into eőect, and urges the serbian government to do so in a way that actively both involves and respects people with mental health problems, and intellectual disabilities, as well as their local and national organisations. őis report sets out a series of recommendations designed to improve the guardianship law and thus better respect the human rights of people with disabilities in serbia. 3 un resolution 46/119 on the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care, adopted by the general assembly on 17 december 1991, principle 5, medical examinations. 7human rights and guardianship in serbiareommendationoverall, this report suggests that serbian guardianship laws, although in some regards in conformity with international standards, fail to meet a number of the basic requirements of international law of human rights. őe clear implication is that the lives of around 0 thousand people currently under guardianship in serbia could be signiűcantly improved. őis will only happen if the government commits to further reform the legislative landscape. with this in mind, mdac makes below a number of recommendations to the serbian government, which if followed would bring the law in line with basic international standards. őe indicators referred to are 29 basic guarantees of a human rights compliant guardianship system and are shown in brackets after speciűc recommendations. őey are given here so that the reader can refer to their more detailed analysis given in the main sections of the report. maximise autonomy. ensure that adults retain the right to make decisions in all areas of life in which they have functional capacity. speciűcally: abolish plenary (all encompassing) guardianship and substitute it with some form of tailor-made partial guardianship in which a judge would have to specify those areas where the adult lacks capacity (indicator 27).abolish the automatic deprivation of the fundamental rights of adults under guardianship to– property– family life– marry– vote– associate– access courts– make a will (indicators 13, 5-7).ensure that legislation deűnes the scope of the guardian‘s obligations in light of the adult‘s capacity (indicator 20). ensure that legislation speciűes that a űnding of incapacity is based on a demonstrable link between diagnosis and functional capacity not only in the cases of plenary guardianship but in cases of partial guardianship too (indicator 8).provide alternatives. require use of the least restrictive alternatives that both promote the independence and protect the adult. speciűcally: create less restrictive alternatives to guardianship, such as powers of attorney, advanced directives and supported decision-making (indicator 26).require that guardianship be used only as a last resort (indicator 26).8mental disability advocacy centerrequire guardians to seek the least restrictive living arrangements for adults (indicator 2).prevent abuse. reduce the potential for abuse of adults under guardianship. speciűcally: establish objective criteria for conducting incapacity evaluations and clear grounds for a judicial determination of legal incapacity. őis must include a provision that ensures that decisions are made not only on the ground of medical and psychological reports (indicators 7 and 8).ensure that legislation speciűes the type and quality of evidence needed for a judicial űnding of deprivation of legal capacity. (indicator 9). establish criteria for selecting the guardian that clearly preclude people with coněicts of interest from serving as guardians (indicators 0 and 11).ensure that legislation mandates compulsory and meaningful reviews of guardianship, at which the adult is fully involved and adequately legally represented. (indicator 27).4.improve procedures. provide suůcient guarantees of the right of adults to meaningful participation in the guardianship process from the beginning of the process and for as long as the adult is under guardianship. speciűcally: deűne in law suůciently clear and speciűc bases for űling an application for declaring a person incapable (indicator 2).ensure proper notiűcation and access to information about all proceedings related to the procedure for depriving the person of his or her legal capacity, and ensuring that the adult is present and heard at these proceedings. clearly identifying how it is going to be assessed that the adult is not capable to understand proceedings or that his presence at the court hearings would be harmful for his health. (indicator ).ensure provision of free legal representation at court hearings, including appeals. (indicator 4).abolish involuntary detention of people with the purpose of incapacity examinations (indicator 5).ensure that the adult‘s wishes are considered and given due weight when appointing a guardian (indicator 0).ensure that an adult has the right and opportunity to challenge the appointed guardian (indicator 2). ensure adults are actually consulted about decisions aőecting their life (indicator 9).establish an eőective complaints mechanism for adults under guardianship, including access to judicial remedies (indicator 25).establish a procedure for periodic review of guardians‘ actions by an objective body that would be required to take into account information received from the adult, and which would hold the guardian accountable for all decisions (indicator 24). 9human rights and guardianship in serbiamdac believes that implementation of these recommendations would produce signiűcant improvement in the quality of serbian law regarding guardianship by strengthening the protection of the human rights and interests of the adults who live their lives under guardianship. mdac looks forward to engaging and cooperating with the serbian authorities and civil society as they plan and implement reform. 10mental disability advocacy center1. intodution1.1guardianshipőis report is about guardianship of adults and does not deal with legal arrangements for children. mdac deűnes ‘guardianship‘ as a legal relationship established by a court process between an adult who is deemed to lack the requisite legal capacity to make personal decisions and the person appointed to make decisions on that adult‘s behalf.4 őe legal mechanism of guardianship exists in some form in almost every jurisdiction in the world and is widely accepted as a means of protecting individuals who are deemed incapable of managing their personal aőairs as a result of a mental health problem (psycho-social disability), intellectual disability, degenerative disease or profound physical or sensory disability.guardianship is usually established through court proceedings, or a combination of court and administrative processes, during which adults are found to either partially or completely lack capacity to make decisions on their own behalf. őe outcome of such űndings could be that an adult is “legally incapacitated”.5 őe court (or an administrative authority) then appoints another person to act as the guardian. őe guardian‘s speciűc authority is deűned either by law or by court order. generally, the guardian has both decision-making authority over the adult and an obligation to protect the adult‘s welfare. őe eőectiveness of guardianship as an institution heavily depends on certain personal qualities of the guardian, such as his or her diligence and conscientiousness.guardianship has a profound eőect on the lives of those placed under its protective status. mdac research carried out in several countries has revealed that in many cases adults who are placed under guardianship lose their right to make even the most basic decisions as well as the right to exercise other fundamental human rights. abuse and neglect of the adult can result from a guardian failing to carry out the obligation to protect or from making decisions that are contrary to the desires and/or interests of the adult. őerefore, eőective guardianship systems must oversee the actions of guardians and have an eůcient accountability system.as the global disability rights movement gains momentum, the guardianship model is coming under increased criticism for its failures in providing adequate due process the english language terminology used throughout this report was arrived at after much debate. presumably, there will be, or already are similar debates in other languages. to help the reader understand the terminology in these reports, a brief glossary of terms can be found in annex a.7hroughout this report, m’ac uses the term µlegal capacity¶, as de�ned in the glossary at p ‘ifferent murisdictions use different terminology to de�ne the legal inability to act on one‘s own behalf, such as, for instance, ‘incapable‘ or ‘incompetent‘. some laws provide for a �nding of partial or limited legal capacity11human rights and guardianship in serbiaprotections in establishing and administering guardianship and ensuring the right of self-determination.6 in a small number of jurisdictions, such as in canada and the uk, guardianship laws have been reformed, and other means of providing protection and assistance to people with mental disabilities have emerged, notably supported decision-making.7 as a result, legislators and courts in these countries see the guardianship model as a last resort that is to be used only after all other less restrictive measures of support and protection have been exhausted.guardianship has at long last been recognised as a pressing issue internationally. in the newly adopted united nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (disability convention). legal capacity is speciűcally dealt with in article 2 which states: equal recognition before the lawstates parties reaůrm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law. states parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life. states parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity.4.states parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and eőective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of coněict of interest and undue iněuence, are proportional and tailored to the person‘s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. őe safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures aőect the person‘s rights and interests.5.subject to the provisions of this article, states parties shall take all appropriate and eőective measures to ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities to own or inherit property, to control their own űnancial aőairs and to have equal access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of űnancial credit, and shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not arbitrarily deprived of their property. őese provisions directly implicate guardianship. further they add credence to mdac‘s call for an immediate paradigm shift away from the arbitrary removal of the human rights of those under guardianship, towards the adoption of national policies and laws which will make the provisions of the disability convention, and those in canadian association for community living (cacl) report. task force on alternatives to guardianship, august 1992, available at: http://www.worldenable.net/rights/adhoc3meet_guardianship.htm.7 see the glossary at p for a de�nition of supported decision-making12mental disability advocacy centerarticle 2 in particular, a reality. it is mdac‘s wish and intention that this report will iněuence both the direction and speed of this paradigm shift. 1.2researching guardianship in many of the countries where mdac works, guardianship laws have remained relatively unchanged for decades. however, they are likely to undergo substantial reform as countries continue to bring their legislation in conformity with international human rights standards. to highlight guardianship as an area of urgent reform, mdac initiated its guardianship project to identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing legislative regimes. additionally, because legislation and reality frequently diverge, the project examines the actual practices in the űeld of guardianship. őis report presents a legislative analysis, which will be followed later in 2007 by a comprehensive report that will include observations on how the guardianship system functions in practice. mdac started its guardianship research in late 2004 by examining the legislative structure of guardianship systems in a number of countries. őe űrst part of the project focused on four countries: bulgaria, hungary, serbia and serbia. in 2006, mdac started research in an additional four countries: croatia, the czech republic, georgia and kyrgyzstan. őe aim of the research is to examine the degree of compliance of national guardianship legislation in these countries with international human rights law, standards and best practices, in order to highlight any areas in need of reform. as with many research projects that serve as the űrst exploration of uncharted territory, this report may raise more questions than it answers. őis is particularly true as it is not a statistical survey, but, rather, a comparative legal analysis. őe results in this report refer only to the legislation. as explained above, research on practice is still ongoing, and it will provide information about how guardianship systems work.1.3 acknowledgementsresearch was carried out by lawyers from each of the target countries. őe researchers conducted all of the in-country research, wrote the űrst drafts of the country reports and participated in the editorial process. őe researchers were slavka kukova (bulgaria), petar sardeliž (croatia), zuzana benešová (czech republic), nina dadalauri (georgia), dániel kaderják (hungary),8 meder dastanbekov (kyrgyzstan), anna smorgunova (russia), and vidan hadůi-vidanoviž (serbia).8 dániel kaderják also served as project assistant. he is a senior law student.13human rights and guardianship in serbiabeginning in february 200, long before the guardianship project űeld research began, mdac‘s oliver lewis gathered a select group of individuals to form the guardianship advisory board. őis group has been involved in an active capacity in the conception, design and implementation of both stages of the project, its members generously contributing their time and expertise. őe guardianship advisory board consists of űve internationally recognised experts in the űeld of mental health, guardianship and human rights law:dr. robert m. gordon, director and professor, school of criminology, simon fraser university, vancouver, canada.dr. georg høyer, professor of community medicine, university of tromsø, norway.dr. krassimir kanev, chairman, bulgarian helsinki committee, soűa, bulgaria.mr. mark kelly, director, irish council for civil liberties, dublin, ireland; anddr. jill peay, professor of law, london school of economics, london, uk.mdac would like to extend its warmest gratitude to the guardianship advisory board for the individual and collective contributions they have made to this project. any errors remain solely those of mdac. mdac‘s research and development director marit rasmussen developed and managed this project for over two years. interns priscilla adams, jill diamond, jill roche and nicholas tsang helped with background research and istván fenyvesi designed and laid out the reports. őe serbia report was drafted by vidan hadůi-vidanoviž, and marit rasmussen provided extensive comments. istván fenyvesi, sarah green and oliver lewis produced the űnal version. 1.4 method1.4.1stage one: legislative reviewstage one of the research, which is represented by this report, is a de jure study of the legislative texts, rather than how they are applied. őe study examines the types of protective arrangements available under national laws as well as any other relevant national legislation by:studying the legal procedures for obtaining or terminating guardianship and the rights of the parties to such procedures.examining the evidentiary standards in guardianship proceedings.documenting the rights of the person alleged to lack capacity throughout the guardianship process.assessing which rights are taken away after a űnding of incapacity has been made. 14mental disability advocacy centeranalysing the power and authority of guardians, their accountability and how they are monitored, as well as the processes, if any, for bringing complaints against guardians; andresolving disputes between guardians and people under guardianship.1.4.2stage two: collection of data from the fieldstage two focuses on a de facto9 examination of guardianship practices within each target country by observing court hearings, reviewing court űles and, to the extent applicable and possible, observing guardianship agency proceedings and reviewing guardianship agency űles.because certain information is available only from those who participate in guardianship processes, researchers follow cases, observe court and guardianship authority hearings, review case űles, and conduct interviews. őis manner of data collection gives an opportunity to capture a snap-shot of guardianship practices. conducting research that includes interviews of participants, some of whom have mental health problems or intellectual disabilities, raises ethical concerns about the privacy and the capacity of interviewees to understand the purpose of the research and to give informed consent to participate in it. mdac carefully considers the ethical issues that are raised by this aspect of research and has adopted guidance to protect the participants and the data they provide. each researcher has a numerical system of maintaining information and stores the key and raw data in diőerent locations. őe guidance sets out standards for informing research ‘subjects‘ about the voluntary nature of participation in the research, the right to refuse participation at any time, and the conditions of conűdentiality surrounding the information which they provide.1.5 indicators for a human rights-based ssessment of guardianship őroughout the project, mdac has used 29 indicators against which legislation is analysed. őese indicators come from the key document concerning guardianship and supported decision-making, namely the council of europe committee of ministers‘ recommendation no. r(99)4 ‘principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults.‘ further indicators were derived from the recommendation‘s explanatory memorandum,11 as well as from a review of guardianship legislation in jurisdictions in europe, the united states and canada. mdac has formulated its indicators bearing in mind that, with the exception of kyrgyzstan, all countries under review have ratiűed the european convention on human rights and, as member 9 ‘actual; existing in fact; having effect even though not formally or legally recognized.‘ black‘s law dictionary (west 8th ed. 2004).10 see annex b for a table-summary of all twenty-nine indicators.11 see the full text of the memorandum at https://wcd.coe.int/viewdoc.jsp?id=407333.15human rights and guardianship in serbiastates of the council of europe, there is an expectation that they will comply with its ‘soft law‘, such as recommendation no. r(99)4.mdac‘s indicators capture basic safeguards necessary for a person-centred guardianship system that respects human rights. őe intent was to keep the indicators relatively simple and concise even where the underlying issues are anything but straightforward.őe indicators are not exhaustive, but do highlight critical issues faced by adults in guardianship systems. omission of a particular point or issue from an indicator does not mean that the issue is not important or does not pose a problem in the legislative framework of the country in question. by standardising the investigation and analysis of guardianship systems, mdac aims to create a means for people to compare and contrast guardianship systems in diőerent countries.12 ‘soft law‘ refers to rules, recommendations, guidelines or broad principles that while not strictly legally binding are nonetheless legally signi�cant black¶s laz ‘ictionary (8th ed. 2004). soft law implies a certain degree of political and moral commitment on the part of states and is a useful tool for interpreting existing legally binding norms. recommendations of the committee of ministers of the council of europe are soft law; however, the committee is empowered to ask member states to inform it of the action taken by them on recommendations, thereby giving the recommendations signi�cant political force.16mental disability advocacy center2.uadianshp lw and pin srbia2.1 introductionőe republic of serbia is a country in the south-eastern part of europe which is located in the central part of the balkan peninsula. őe republic of serbia was a member state of serbia and montenegro (former yugoslavia) until may 2006 when montenegro proclaimed its independence. serbia is an ex-communist country in transition. during the balkan wars in the early nineties, serbia had a major role in the coněict. because of its engagement, the un security council imposed sanctions against serbia and montenegro (then yugoslavia). combined, these led to the economic collapse of the country and strengthened the regime of slobodan miloševiž. his dictatorship ended in 2000 following extensive demonstrations and the coming into power of the coalition of democratic forces, named the democratic opposition of serbia. since that time and as noted above, serbia has been in a gradual transition to a democratic society.2.2 demographic and social landscape of serbiaaccording to the 2002 census, serbia had 7,498,00 inhabitants, 5.4% of whom were female.13 approximately the same percentage of men and women live in cities (56.6% of female citizens and 56.2% of male citizens, respectively). őe average age of the female population (8.4 years) slightly exceeds the average age of the male population 6.4 years), reěecting the average life expectancy which is higher for women than for men (75. years for women and 70. years for men). in 2002, serbia found itself among the ten countries with the oldest populations in the world; there were only million citizens aged between 5 and 24, representing 13.4% of the population. on the other hand, 22.6% of the citizens were aged 60 and above.őere is no current oůcial data on the number of people with disabilities in serbia. it has been estimated that approximately 200,000 people, or % of the entire population, have mental health problems and intellectual disabilities. according to the latest 13 human development report 2005 – serbia: strength of diversity, undp, belgrade, 2005, p. 25.14 human development report 2005 – serbia: strength of diversity, undp, belgrade, 2005, pp. 24-25.15see in v hadåi-vidanoviü, ³human rights of people zith ‘isabilities in serbia and montenegro in practice´ in miroslav äivanoviü, saãa madacki (eds), human rights of people with disabilities – situation in bosnia and herzegovina, croatia and serbia and montenegro, centre for human rights – sarajevo university, sarajevo, 2006, pp. 146-162.17human rights and guardianship in serbiawho data from 999, 88,94 people with intellectual disabilities were registered in serbia. of these, 76,492 were believed to have mild intellectual disabilities, while 4,447 were believed to have medium, and 8,004 severe intellectual disabilities. although this is less than half the estimated number, it does not include individuals diagnosed with a mental health problem. in 2006 there were 509 people who were detained in the psychiatric institutions following a court order for compulsory treatment made in turn following commitment of a crime.as of 2004, approximately ,000 adults were placed in social care institutions for people with predominantly intellectual disabilities.20 őese are large institutions where people are segregated from society for life. many of these residents are placed under guardianship, as the following table illustrates. institutionno. of adultsno. of adults under guardianship1stara moravica44082jabuka52 683izvor 92 104kragujevac22 960 5765kulina 210 26table 1. number22of adults under guardianship in social care institutions.worryingly there are no oůcial data on the number of people under guardianship nationwide. however, the guardianship authorities of local governments are obliged to keep records on people under guardianship, and it seems that in the last few years these records have been up-to-date in the majority of serbian municipalities. őe major problem for collecting the data on people under guardianship is the highly decentralized social care system and the lack of a central registry within the ministry of social aőairs.16 ibid. 17society of people with intelectual disabilities, stari grad, annual report for 2004.18ministry of justice of republic of serbia, of�cial zebsite, http://mpravde.mvcore.net/active/sr-cyrillic/home/zatvori/statistika_zatvori.html. 19this estimate was made based on interviews with the directors of nine social care institutions for people with mental disabilities in serbia.20 ,n some social care homes, such as, for instance, the ³little bees´ social care home in kragujevac, there is one unit for people with mental health problems (approximately people zere living there in the �rst half of ) 21this estimate was made based on interviews with the directors of nine social care institutions for people with mental disabilities in serbia. the data was available only for 65% of the estimated adults.22 there are 565 residents in this care home. 210 of them are adults with mental disability. for all of them the process for appointment of a guardian at the time of mdac visit had been initiated.23family act, art. 340.18mental disability advocacy centernevertheless, certain data are available, the most recent of which are from the year 200. according to these űgures, between 998 and 200, an average of 40 people were placed under guardianship each year. year9979989992000200number of guardianships established 00+45461313table 2. number of guardianship over adults in serbia established in the period 1997-2001őe most up-to-date available data suggests that around 8,000 to 0,000 people are currently under guardianship in serbia. őe largest number of these currently live in belgrade (2,989).24 in other major towns in serbia the number of guardianships is signiűcantly lower, ranging between 40 (in pirot) and 44 (in kragujevac),25 to 76 (in jagodina),2649 (in sabac)27 and 70 (in valjevo).28 2.3serbia‘s legal systemserbia is one of the successor states of the socialist federal republic of yugoslavia.29 until recently, it was a member state of the state union of serbia and montenegro (before 200, the name of the union was federal republic of yugoslavia). following the proclamation of independence by the montenegrin parliament on june 2006, serbia became an independent state. following a referendum held in october 2006, serbia adopted a new constitution in november 2006 which established serbia as an independent and sovereign state. őe constitution replaced an older version adopted by the miloševiž regime in 990. 24of�cial report of the city social care centre belgrade, 25of�cial report of the city social care centre .ragumevac, 26information received in a telephone interview with the centre for social work of�cials on january 27 ibid.28 ibid.29before 2003, sam was called the federal republic of yugoslavia. during the course of the 20th century, it was known under many names: between 1918 and 1929 – kingdom of serbs, croats and slovenes; between 1929 and 1944 – kingdom of yugoslavia. after the second world war it changed the name to the federal democratic yugoslavia, then federal people‘s republic of yugoslavia and socialist federal republic of yugoslavia. after the secession of croatia, slovenia, macedonia and bosnia and herzegovina, it was renamed to the federal republic of yugoslavia. other successor states are: croatia, slovenia, bosnia and herzegovina, macedonia and montenegro.30of�cial gazette rs, no 19human rights and guardianship in serbiaőe new constitution introduced several comprehensive provisions related to human rights. however, compared to the human rights charter31of the former state union of serbia and montenegro, the bill of rights contained in the new constitution seems to have taken a step backward. for instance, three principle shortcomings can be identiűed. first, certain guaranties contained in the human rights charter are not included in the new constitution. second, important guaranties omitted from the human rights charter were likewise omitted from the new constitution.33 finally, a number of the human rights guarantees found in both the human rights charter and the new constitution, are worded more weakly and vaguely in the latter and thus open to diőering interpretations.serbia has ratiűed all major international human rights instruments, including: the international covenant on civil and political rights (iccpr); the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (icescr); the european convention on human rights (echr). őe constitution provides that generally accepted rules of international law and ratiűed international treaties shall be an integral part of the legal system of serbia and should be applied directly. nonetheless, this is subject to the proviso that ratiűed international treaties must be in accordance with the constitution. legislation must comply with treaties ratiűed by serbia and 31the charter on human and minority rights and fundamental freedoms was a part of the constitutional system of the former state union serbia and montenegro. it was at the time a modern document that contained an exhaustive catalogue of human rights. it was positively assessed both by international and national experts, including the european commission for democracy through law (venice commission), opinion no. charter of human rights of serbia and montenegro (available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/site/dynamics/n_opinion_ef.asp?l=e&oid=234).32one illustrative example would be the prohibition on the interpretation of the human rights provisions in such a manner that they include the right of the state, individuals or groups to take such actions which could lead to complete derogation or limitations of the constitutional human rights provisions, contrary to the constitution. a similar prohibition was included in the human rights charter in its art. 4.33this is the case with the number of socio-economic rights guarantied by the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and european social charter. 34for more detailed e[planation on these issues see r äarevac, ³8stavna zaãtita lmudskih prava ± pitanme poverenma i prakse³, evropski forum, no , (³constitutional protection of human rights – the question of trust and practice”, european forum, no , ) m milanoviü, v hadåi-vidanoviü, ³meÿunarodno pravo i lmudska prava u predlogu ustava srbije”, srpska pravna revija, no , , (³,nternational law and human rights in the draft constitution of serbia”, serbian law review, no. 5, 2006, pp. 62-73). 35constitution, art. 16(2) .36constitution, art. 16 (3). the constitutional court has the authority to review the constitutionality of rati�ed treaties ,n addition, rati�cation of international treaties is possible only through the adoption of the laz on rati�cation of that instrument, and the constitutional court can decide on the constitutionality of the laws after their adoption and before they are signed by the president of the republic, ie, before they come into force.20mental disability advocacy centerwith generally accepted rules of the international law. it is clear therefore that the constitution is considered the highest legal authority, followed by ratiűed international treaties, then national laws, by-laws and other sources of law. accession to the european union was declared as a national priority in october 2000. őe country is undergoing substantial legal reforms in order to comply with eu entry criteria. 2.4guardianship law in serbia2.4.1mental health law aspects of mental health law can be found in the health protection act, in the social security act,40 as well as in related laws and by-laws. őese laws set out basic principles in relation to people with mental disabilities and people under guardianship, the former being speciűcally recognized as being vulnerable and in special need of health protection. notably, there is nothing in these statures that identify those under guardianship as being speciűcally vulnerable. őe protection of those with mental disabilities relates principally however, to provision of medical treatment even in situations when they are not covered by health insurance. detention and involuntary treatment in psychiatric hospitals can be provided to persons without their consent in cases when they are unable to express consent as a result of being unconscious or for some other reason.42 for those under guardianship and deprived of legal capacity, medical treatment can be provided after their guardian has been informed about the treatment. if a doctor suspects that the guardian is not acting in the adult‘s best interests, he or she must report this suspicion to the guardianship authority.44 nonetheless, an adult must be involved in medical decisions, taking into account the adult‘s abilities.45 adults can be compulsorily detained in a psychiatric hospital if a doctor believes that the nature their mental illness is such that it may endanger their own life, that of others, or that it may endanger property. such a decision must be reviewed by a panel of doctors within 24 hours.46 if the panel conűrms the detention, the hospital must 37constitution, art. 194. 38resolution on accession to eu, october 14, 2004, rs no. 48.39health protection act, of�cial gazette, 1o , especially art , and 40social security act, of�cial gazette rs, no. 36/91, 79/91, 33/93, 53/93, 67/93, 46/94, 48/94, 52/96, 29/01, 84/04.41health protection act, art. 11 (2) . 42health protection act, op cit, art. 34. 43health protection act, op cit, art. 35(1).44health protection act, op cit, art. 35(2).45health protection act, op cit, art. 35(4).46health protection act, op cit, art. 44.21human rights and guardianship in serbianotify the court. adults can be detained without judicial review for 33 days, such detention notable for its probable violation of international law. 472.4.2history of guardianship in serbiaguardianship laws were introduced in serbia as a result of the iněuence of other western european civil codes, particularly that of austria.48 őe serbian civil code of 844, was, with amendments, in force until after the second world war and included a guardianship regime similar to that found in the austrian model. őe code also included features, such as the family council, similar to those found in the french civil code. however, while in the french law the family council was a regular body of the civil law, in the serbian legal system it was simply a secondary body set up to supervise guardians. in general, judges monitored the activities of guardians; however, in special circumstances, a family council composed of family members of the adult, and with the guardianship judge as its president, undertook this responsibility.49őe 844 civil code prescribed that a court could deprive adults of legal capacity and impose guardianship. however, the legal test for such deprivation was limited to determining whether or not adults were ‘mentally ill or mad‘50and its purpose was primarily the protection of the property of the individuals under guardianship. before the guardianship act was introduced in 872, the guardian who had an obligation to protect both the property and personality of the adult had been considered to be a tutor, and not a guardian.52 őe introduction of the guardianship act led to the guardians having an obligation to provide adults with care and medical treatment, if the guardianship was established as a result of mental illness. guardians could be appointed by a court in the absence of an adult‘s consent, essentially imposing civil duties on the person, irrespective of their willingness to undertake those duties. a 477his procedure is regulated by the 1on-contestant procedure act, see of�cial gazette rs, no. 25/82, 48/88, 46/95, art. 45-55. 48 allgemeines bürgerliches gesetzbuch – 1811.49lazar markoviü, graÿansko pravo ± porodično pravo, druga knmiga, (civil laz ± family laz, vol ,,), geca .on, belgrade, , p , 1adeåda lmubomev, starateljstvo nad punoletnim licima u jugoslovenskom pravu (guardianship over adults in the yugoslav law), belgrade, 1999, p. 29.50the list of reasons and circumstances for establishing guardianship under the 1844 civil code was exhaustive. among these were: mental illness or madness; inability of a person to communicate with the help the sign language, persons who were deaf, blind or mute; persons who had been announced by court as prodigal; missing persons and, con�ned persons and prisoners51lazar markoviü, graÿansko pravo ± porodično pravo, druga knmiga, (civil laz ± family law, vol. ii), geca kon, belgrade, 1920, p. 27252 ibid, p see in 1adeåda lmubomev, staratelmstvo nad punoletnim licima u jugoslovenskom pravu (guardianship over adults in yugoslav law), belgrade, 1999, p. 28.531adeåda lmubomev, op cit p 22mental disability advocacy centerguardian could also be appointed by way of will of an adult‘s father, so giving him in eőect total control of choice of a future guardian. 2.4.3sources of guardianship lawas noted, there is no single codiűcation of serbian civil law and guardianship law itself is dispersed among various laws and regulations. őe supreme source of guardianship law is the constitution which provides that ‘(a)ll are equal before the constitution and law. everyone shall have the right to equal legal protection, without discrimination. all direct or indirect discrimination based on any grounds, particularly on race, sex, national origin, social origin, birth, religion, political or other opinion, property status, culture, language, age, mental or physical disability (emphasis added) shall be prohibited‘.54 in addition provision is made for the right to legal personality in the following terms: “upon becoming of age all persons shall become capable of deciding independently about their rights and obligations. a person becomes of age after turning 8”.55 őe constitution further provides that, ‘(h)uman and minority rights guaranteed by the constitution may be restricted by the law if the constitution permits such restriction and for the purpose allowed by the constitution, to the extent necessary to meet the constitutional purpose of restriction in a democratic society and without encroaching upon the substance of the relevant guaranteed right‘ (emphasis added).56 őe constitution does not provide for any limitation of the right to exercise legal capacity. őis is, perhaps, an oversight and it is yet to be seen what view the constitutional court will take as to the constitutionality of depriving an adult of legal capacity in light of the new constitution.őere are two principle acts containing the majority of guardianship provisions. first, the family act,57 which contains substantive guardianship provisions, such as the rights and duties of the guardian and the adult under guardianship. őe procedural aspects for appointing a guardian are also regulated by this law.58 őe second is the non-contestant procedure act. 59 őis regulates the incapacity assessments, which, as will be detailed below, are the űrst phase in the guardianship procedure.additional laws play a role in the guardianship process. for example, the act on obligations regulates the capacity of people under guardianship to make contracts, 54constitution, art of�cial translation of the nez constitution for additional information, see website of the national assembly , http://www.parlament.sr.gov.p. 55constitution, art. 3756constitution, art. 20. 577his came into force on july of�cial gazette rs, 1o , art - subsequently referred to as the family act. 58family act, art. 329-341. 591on-contestant procedure act, of�cial gazette rs, 1o , , art 31-44.23human rights and guardianship in serbiaas well as liability for damages.60 őe criminal code regulates criminal liability of people with mental disabilities. electoral laws regulate the right of adults deprived of legal capacity to vote.622.4.4types and role of guardianship types of guardianshipőere are two forms of adult guardianship: temporary guardianship (or guardianship for a special situation)provision is made for a guardianship agency of a local government to appoint a temporary guardian64 for an adult if the authority believes that there are special circumstances warranting protection of the adult, their rights and their interests.65 őe length of this atypical form of guardianship depends on the speciűc circumstances of each case. regular guardianship in contrast to the early legislation, there is now no deűnition of ‘guardianship‘.66 in general terms, guardianship over adults is understood as a special form of legal protection for adults who are not able to exercise their rights. 67 it is understood that guardianship will protect the interests of an adult with psycho-social disabilities (mental health problems) or intellectual disabilities.68 60act on obligations, of�cial gazette sfrj, 1o , , , , of�cial gazette srj, no. 31/93.61criminal code, of�cial gazette , art 62laz on the (lection of members of the parliament, of�cial gazette rs, 1o , act on (lections of the president of republic of serbia, of�cial gazette rs, 1o , , , , local self-government act, of�cial gazette rs, 1o 63see family act, art. 126 and 132.64also knozn as a ³collision guardian´, see supra, footnote ##.65see family act, art ,n the old laz this institution zas knozn as the ³collision guardian”.66according to article , para , of the family act (of�cial gazette rs, no 22/80, 11/88, 22/93, 35/94), the purpose of guardianship was the protection of an individual‘s interests through the provision of care, empowering the individual for an independent life, and by providing medical treatment.” it also prescribed that guardianship should protect property rights and other rights and interests of persons under guardianship.67m ‘raãkiü, porodično pravo (family law), colpi – dosije, belgrade, 1998. as noted earlier, the terms mental health problem and intellectual disability have been chosen to describe mental disabilities throughout the report. these terms may not re�ect the e[act terminology used zithin the legislation, zhich sometimes has pemorative connotations for the de�nition of these and other terms, see the glossary in annex a. 68 ibid.24mental disability advocacy centerrole of guardianserbian law requires a guardian to take care of the welfare of the adult placed under plenary (all-encompassing) guardianship, as well as the adult‘s real estate. őis will be explained further below. őere are two exceptions to this: temporary guardianship and partial guardianship. first, temporary guardianship is used when there are so-called special circumstances, such as a coněict of interest between the adult and his regular guardian. a court can appoint a temporary guardian with given limited authority for speciűc tasks, usually associated with the adult‘s property. secondly, a court can appoint someone as partial guardian where the court only partially deprives the adult of legal capacity.69 in such cases the court must specify those areas of decision-making where the adult retains legal capacity, and can therefore make independent decisions without consultation with or authorisation of a guardian. for the purposes of this report this latter form of guardianship will be referred to as partial guardianship.2.4.5 substantive elements of adult guardianship as noted under serbian law a court can deprive adults of all legal capacity by way of plenary guardianship, or restrict their legal capacity, in which case the adult is placed under partial guardianship.70 plenary (all-encompassing) guardianshipan adult may be deprived of legal capacity only if the following legal requirements are met: the adult has a mental health problem or intellectual disabilitywhich causes an ‘incompetence to comprehend normally‘ and the adult is unable to take care of his or her rights and interests.72 one legal consequence of adults being deprived of legal capacity is they are treated in a similar manner to children under guardianship under the age of 4. accordingly, in many circumstances guardians of adults have similar duties to those guardians of children.74 partial guardianshippartial guardianship can be imposed on an adult if: the adult has a mental health problem or intellectual disability69family act, art. 147(3). 70family act, art. 146-147; non-contestant procedure act, art. 31.71see non-contestant procedural act, art. 31. these are listed in the family act, arts. 146-147. 72 ibid.73family act, article 146(2).74family act (1980), art. 277(1).25human rights and guardianship in serbiacausing conduct which directly jeopardises their own rights and interests or the rights and interests of others75 őe adult‘s inability to understand the meaning of their actions is not required for a judge to order partial deprivation of the adult‘s legal capacity. guardianship agencies guardianship agencies are oůces within the local municipalities in serbia (altogether 13guardianship agencies excluding kosovo) under the name of centres for social aőairs.76 each guardianship agency consists of people with various professional backgrounds – social workers, psychologists, lawyers, who work based on social work methods.77guardianship agencies have wide discretionary powers and deal with a range of issues related to social protection, hence their frequent referral as an ‘organ for family protection‘,78 or ‘omnibus-organ‘.79 őe primary function of guardianship agencies is the protection of children and family, representation of the interests of society, and decision making on behalf of individuals as a state body. as they have both protective and decision making functions, they can, under certain circumstances, be seen as both an administrative and a decision-making body.80őe multiple responsibilities of the guardianship agencies can lead to a coněict in their roles. in judicial proceedings, the guardianship agencies have a consultative status and are the expert body. őey also however can act as the legal representative of adults, as a guardian ad litem and in administrative procedures, they can represent all parties (applicant, the adult, and guardian) often at the same time. guardianship agencies may initiate proceedings to deprive adults of legal capacity82 and further have the duty to appoint a guardian once legal capacity has been removed. őey are mandated to monitor the acts of that guardian,84 and, when appropriate to initiate proceedings to restore a person‘s legal capacity.85 75family act, art. 147.76family act, art. 12.77m. janjic-komar et al, op. cit, p. 262.78m. janjic-komar, r, korac, z, ponjavic, porodicno pravo (family law), 4th ed., belgrade, 1999, p. 261.79 ibid.80for example, see the discussion under indicators 12 and 20.81see m janmiü-.omar, family laz (porodično pravo), th ed, 1omos, belgrade, , p 7he author describes a guardianship agency as an ³omnibus organ´ which goes deep into the family affairs. the author states that the competences of the guardianship agency are fundamentally in contradiction with one another and that in many cases they can be irreconcilable.82non-contestant procedure act, art. 32.83family act, art. 329.84family act, arts. 133, 142, 329-333.85non-contestant procedure act, art. 42, family act, art. 337.26mental disability advocacy centerappeals against decisions of the guardianship agencies are made to the ministry of labour, employment and social aőairs.86 a signiűcant weakness however is the total absence of recourse to judicial remedies. 2.5 two-step guardianship/ncapacity processőe report has thus far outlined the plenary and partial guardianship in addition to the role of the guardianship agency. in this section the procedure from incapacity assessment to the appointment of a guardian will be described. essentially the procedure can be broken down into two distinct phases: deprivation of legal capacity (judicial procedure) and appointment of the guardian (administrative procedure). 2.5.1 deprivation of legal capacityőe judicial phase is, curiously, regulated by the non-contestant procedural act.87 during this procedure the court determines whether the legal criteria for deprivation of legal capacity are met. in so doing it,should examine medical reports and hear witnesses. speciűc provision is made for this procedure to be carried out promptly: 88 for example an applicant is under an obligation to submit all the relevant information and the evidence with the application; for procedural appeals, there is a three-day time limit for their submission89 and an obligation of the appeal court to deliver its decision within three days from receiving that appeal. appeals against a decision leading to the deprivation of legal capacity must be made within 5 days.90 a guardianship agency, the adult‘s spouse, child or parents may apply to the court to deprive an adult of legal capacity. őe court, in addition, may initiate proceedings ex oůcio if it receives information that the adult may need to be placed under guardianship.92 őe adult must be examined by at least two doctors with an expertise in the area of mental disability. őese experts provide a report on the adult‘s mental condition and ability to understand the meaning of their actions. legislation provides that the court may hear the adult, the adult‘s current or temporary guardian, and the applicant.94 86family act, arts. 333, 336, 337, 338.87non-contestant procedural act, arts. 31-44.88non-contestant procedure act, art. 31(2).89the three-day time limit is set only for procedural appeals. when an appeal on deprivation of legal capacity decision is in question, the deadline is 15 days. non-contestant procedure act, art. 19 and 40.90non-contestant procedure act, art. 40.91the application procedure is discussed in greater detail under indicator 2 in the following section. 92non-contestant procedure act, art. 32(1).93non-contestant procedure act, art. 38. the role of the medical evaluation is further discussed under indicator 7 below.94provisions describing the concerned adult‘s right to be heard and the role of witnesses are discussed in-depth under indicators 4 and 6 below. 27human rights and guardianship in serbiaif the court űnds that the legal criteria for depriving a person of legal capacity are met, that adult will be subjected to plenary or partial deprivation of their legal capacity.95 őe judicial decision must be in writing and must give full reasons.962.5.2 appointment of a guardiana guardian can be appointed only to a person who has been deprived (fully or partially) of legal capacity through the judicial procedure described above. any such deprivation must immediately be notiűed by the court to a guardianship agency.97 as the court has an obligation to forward its decision on deprivation of legal capacity directly to a guardianship agency, in the majority of the cases it is the guardianship agency itself that the initiates the subsequent procedure leading to the appointment of a guardian. nonetheless, provision is made for a wide range of additional organisations to initiate the procedure if deemed appropriate.98 placing an adult under guardianship and appointing a guardian is largely an administrative procedure,99 which must be completed promptly. a guardian must be appointed within 0 days from the day the guardianship agency received the court‘s conűrmation of its deprivation of an adult‘s legal capacity.00 ministerial guidance suggests that this procedure should take just eight days. even prior to appointment 95non-contestant procedure act, art. 40. 96 note that the court can delay the delivery of the decision on depriving the person of her/his capacity because of misuse of the alcohol or other opiates, if there are reasons to believe that the person concerned will refrain from such substance abuse in the future. such future restraint might be evidenced by a willingness to obtina medical treatment either on a persons own initiative or by a proposal of the court. the delivery of the decision can be delayed within the time frame of 6 to 12 months, and it can be withdrawn if the person in concern stops the treatment or be expelled from the institution because of the violation of public order. see art. 41 of the non-contestant procedure act.97family act, art. 149(2).98the initiative for starting the guardianship procedure can be submitted by health and educational institutions, institutions for social protection, judicial and other governmental bodies, non-governmental organizations, and citizens. .99 see family act, art. 291. under this provision a guardianship agency has to act in accordance zith the laz on general administrative procedure (of�cial gazette of the sry, no. 33/97 and 31/2001) when deciding on placing people under guardianship and other matters related to family affairs if there are no special procedural provisions in the family act. accordingly, provisions of articles 329-341 of the family act are lex specialis in relation to the law on general administrative procedure. according to paragraph 2 of article 291, a guardianship agency in its work should apply social care and social protection methods. the special aspects of the procedure are regulated by arts. 329-341 of the family act.100family act, art. 332(4).101 guidelines for the social care centres on the conducting of the procedures for the implementation of the measures for guardianship protection, ministry for labour 28mental disability advocacy centerof a guardian however the guardianship agency is authorized to take immediate measures to protect the adult, his/her rights and property.02 őe guardianship agency has the following obligations:őe preparation of a guardianship plan. őis is a newly established requirement in serbian guardianship law. to take a decisions on an adult‘s accommodation within 24 hours of receiving information about the need to appoint a guardian.04 although this provision is aimed mainly at children without parental care, its wording is such that it would appear that a guardianship agency has to make a similar decision for adults regardless of whether they have a family and a home. in the űrst instance, the guardianship agency is obliged to attempt to place the adult with their family.05őe guardianship agency must make an inventory of the adult‘s property within eight days from the day it receives notiűcation of the need to put the person under guardianship.06 inventories are made by the standing committee for census and estimation of ward‘s property value, a newly established body within the guardianship agency.07guardians can ask for payment for reasonable expenses incurred while performing their duties.08 őese expenses are taken from the income of the adult in question provided that this does not jeopardize their űnancial situation.09 őey cannot however be paid for their services. and social affairs, 14 december 1994. however, this recommendation was adopted in accordance with the previous family act which differentiated between the procedure of putting an adult under guardianship and the procedure of appointing a guardian. according to the previous law, a guardian could be appointed after a person was placed under guardianship. the time limit of 8 days was only for the procedure of establishing guardianship and did not include the process of selecting the guardian. (see 1adeåda lmubomev, op cit) in contrast, under the new law, the decision establishing guardianship and the appointment of a guardian is formally the same document. see family act of 2005, art. 125, para. 3, and art. 333, para. 3 and compare with the provisions in the previous law, family act of 1980, art. 224.102family act, art. 332(3) and (4).103family act, art. 125(2) the guardianship plan will be discussed under indicator 20, below.104family act, art. 332(2).105family act, art. 125(3) and (4).106 family act, art. 332, para. 3.107family act, art. 125, p. 5.108family act, art. 143.109 family act, art. 144, para 2 and art. 140, 4. it should be noted that previous law contained a better solution according to which the guardian was compensated from the budget of municipality art of the old family act see m ‘raãkiü, op.cit, p. 308.29human rights and guardianship in serbia2.6human-rights based ssessment of serbia‘s legislationas noted, mdac has developed a series of 29 indicators to assess guardianship legislation. őese indicators are derived from international human rights law and standards, such as the echr and the council of europe committee of ministers recommendation no. r(99)4 on adults and legal capacity. where an issue or assertion has not been clearly established in international law or standards, best practice examples are provided from national laws in various countries. őe űrst indicator highlights principles that run throughout the legal framework, and which also indicate general societal attitudes towards people with mental disabilities. őe remaining indicators, like guardianship systems themselves, are divided into three major sets. őe űrst set addresses the rights of the adult prior to placement under guardianship. őe second set addresses the rights of the adult after deprivation of legal capacity as well as the corresponding responsibilities and accountability of the guardian. őe third set explores less restrictive alternatives as well as mechanisms for review and termination of guardianship once imposed. őe remaining structure of the report is as follows. each indicator is detailed in full. őis is followed by a very brief ‘conclusion‘ as to serbia‘s compliance with it and then an ‘analysis‘ of that compliance. finally, examples of speciűc ‘human rights standards‘ relevant to the indicator are given. 2.6.1principles running throughout legal frameworks (indicator 1)indicator legislative purpose or preamble to the law encompasses respect for the human rights, dignity and fundamental freedom of people with mental disabilities. conclusion: serbian law fails to specify that the purpose of guardianship is to ensure respect for the human rights and dignity of people with mental disabilities. analysis: in direct contrast to earlier versions of the law, current legislation does not specify the purpose of guardianship nor does it explicitly reference respect for human rights.11 őe constitution provides that ‘republic of serbia is a state of serbian people and all citizens who live in it, based on the rule of law and social justice, principles of civil democracy, human and minority rights and freedoms, and commitment to 110family act 1980, art. 219, para. 2, stated that the purpose of guardianship was the protection of an individual‘s person, to be carried out principally by the provision of care and medical treatment leading to independent living. in addition guardianship also had the purpose of securing pecuniary and other rights and interests of those under guardianship.30mental disability advocacy centereuropean principles and values.‘111 őere is no clear statement that the law is intended to ensure full respect of rights and dignity for people with mental disabilities. in fact, by legally equating adults with mental disabilities with children, as is the case in serbia,11 the law reinforces stereo-types and archaic notions of adults with disabilities as helpless children in need of the benign care and paternalism of the state. human rights standards: principle of recommendation no. r(99)4 provides that respect for the human rights and dignity of people with mental disabilities should permeate throughout the law:in relation to the protection of incapable adults the fundamental principle, underlying all the other principles, is respect for the dignity of each person as a human being. őe laws, procedures and practices relating to the protection of incapable adults shall be based on respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms, taking into account any qualiűcations of those rights contained in the relevant international legal instruments.113 őis principle may be implemented in legislation by the inclusion of a preamble or purpose statement in the relevant statutes. such a proclamation on the recognition and importance of human rights principles and human dignity will guide the judiciary to consider these principles when drafting a decision. őe world health organization (who) also recommends this approach in order to ‘help[…] courts and others to interpret legislative provisions whenever there is any ambiguity in the substantive provisions of the statute‘.11 őe who cites the preamble to the polish mental health protection act as embodying this principle. őis preamble states, ‘[a]cknowledging that mental health is a fundamental human value and acknowledging that the protection of the rights of people with mental disorders is an obligation of the state, this act proclaims […]‘.11 a preamble such as this establishes the overriding values that should be applied to implementation of the law. 2.6.2procedural rights during guardianship proceedings (indicators 2-7)őis group of indicators addresses the procedural rights of adults in guardianship proceedings. while national legislation may well provide for additional rights and protections, these indicators represent the minimum necessary standards for due process and fair proceedings. under european human rights law, ‘special procedural 111constitution, art. 1.112family act, art. 146(2) and 147(2).113 recommendation r(99)4, principle 1. 114 world health organization, who resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation: stop exclusion, dare to care (world health organization, geneva, switzerland, 2005), p. 19.115 mental health protection act, m284 1994, poland, as cited in who, who resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation: stop exclusion, dare to care (world health organization, geneva, switzerland, 2005), p. 19.31human rights and guardianship in serbiasafeguards may prove called for in order to protect the interests of individuals who, on account of their mental disabilities, are not fully capable of acting for themselves‘.11 őe next critical issue is the quality of evidence that is provided to the court in cases examining legal capacity. indicators 8 to 2 address these issues.indicator 2the legislation clearly identifies who may make an application for appointment of a guardian and the foundation needed to support it. conclusion: őe law clearly states who may submit applications to initiate guardianship proceedings. it is unclear however what evidence must be supplied to support the application. analysis: legislation provides that the court, the guardianship agency and various family members may submit an application to begin guardianship proceedings.11 competence to űle the application has to be proven and submitted with the application, unless the applicant is a guardianship agency. distant relatives must prove that they are related to the adult, and also that they must live with the adult.11 őe law does not provide for a speciűc level or quality of evidence required, merely that ‘the application must include the facts on which it is based, as well as evidence conűrming those facts, or make them possible‘.11 it is interesting to note that there is no speciűc mention of the need to provide evidence of a mental health diagnosis and/or the manner in which that condition aőects an adult‘s ability to make decisions or take care of him/herself. legislative provision is also made providing for the rather illogical scenario in which adults may űle an application to have themselves deprived of legal capacity, so long as they can understand the meaning and the legal consequences of such an application.20 as noted above, the court must initiate the guardianship procedure itself if in receipt of information leading it to believe that a person in its jurisdiction meets the conditions for deprivation of legal capacity. court decisions as to who can initiate proceedings leading to the deprivation of legal capacity coněict. in one case, an appellate court decision, it was held that a psychiatric 116 european court of human rights, winterwerp v. the netherlands, application no. 6301/73, judgment 24 october 1979, (a/33) (1979-80) 2 ehrr 387, para. 60.117non-contestant procedure act, art. 32.118non-contestant procedure act, art. 32, para. 2.119non-contestant procedure act, art. 33.120non-contestant procedure act, art. 32, para. 3.121non-contestant procedure act, art. 32, para. 2.32mental disability advocacy centerhospital cannot apply to have one of its patients deprived of legal capacity.22 it held that the list of possible applicants cited above is exhaustive. however, in a second appellate court decision, it was held that, if the procedure has already begun, the application cannot be struck out solely because the applicant does not have the requisite standing to submit it. serbian law does not give the authority to initiate the procedure to the public prosecutor and other public authorities even in circumstances where the adult may be vulnerable to abuse or neglect by family members. however, these agencies can notify the court of a situation, and as noted, the court would then have to take up the case ex oůcio.human rights standards: őis indicator has two principle focuses. őe űrst is on whether the legislation speciűcally deűnes which individuals may űle an application for the appointment of a guardian and the second on whether the statute includes a list, or examples, of the prima facie evidence necessary to demonstrate the need for such an application. with respect to the űrst focus, recommendation no. r(99)4 sets out in principle 11) that:őe list of those entitled to institute proceedings for the taking of measures for the protection of incapable adults should be suůciently wide to ensure that measures of protection can be considered in all cases where they are necessary. it may, in particular, be necessary to provide for proceedings to be initiated by a public oůcial or body, or by the court or other competent authority on its own motion.őe recommendation calls for “fair and eůcient procedures for the taking of measures for the protection of incapable adults”.24 fairness in this context includes the provision of a law that clearly speciűes who can űle applications. őe second, that a guardianship application must have some merit on the face of it, is necessary in order to protect an adult against malicious accusations of the deprivation of functional capacity. in the case of h.f. v. slovakia, the european court of human rights (ecthr) examined the procedure that led h.f. to the deprivation of her legal capacity based. őis procedure was based on an application submitted by her ex-husband and substantiated by a psychiatric report that was at the time of the hearing over a year old. őe court found a violation of article 6() because, among other procedural defects, the slovak court failed to produce suůcient evidence in light of principle 2 of recommendation (99)4, which requires an ‘up-to-date report from at least one suitably qualiűed expert‘.25 when legislation prescribes the form of evidence 122belgrade county court gz 10262/84.123pozarevac county court, gz. 643/90.124recommendation no. r(99)4, principle 5(1).125 h.f. v. slovakia, application no. 54797/00, judgment 8 november 2005. note that the judgment is only available in french. for an english summary, see press release, european court of human rights registrar, chamber judgments concerning france, 33human rights and guardianship in serbianecessary to be submitted with an application, incapacitations such as that suőered by the applicant in h.f. v. slovakia may be avoided at the outset. indicator an adult has a right to actual notice of, and to be present and heard at all proceedings related to the application for deprivation of his or her legal capacity and appointment of a guardian. conclusion: although the law does provide that notice shall be given to adults subject ot incapacity proceedings, it also allows for their exclusion from the proceedings based solely upon speculative medical opinion.analysis: all adults must be notiűed of incapacity hearings.26 őe court must examine the adult in-person, except in cases where it determines that such a hearing could be harmful to the adult‘s health or if participation in the hearing is not possible at all, owing to the mental or physical condition of the adult.27 őis provision introduces an inappropriate weakness into the requirement for a hearing at which the adult should be present. it creates the bizarre situation in which an adult can be excluded from his/her own guardianship hearing if there is evidence that he is unable to understand the meaning of the proceedings and cannot answer questions. given the fundamental rights that are at stake in incapacitation hearings, there is little justiűcation for excluding the adult merely because medical opinion suggests a lack of understanding, as the adult has no opportunity to oppose such a űnding. given that these procedures always relate to functional capacity, it is all too easy to allege that an adult cannot understand the procedure. human rights standards: őe right to be present and heard during court proceedings is directly linked to the right to receive notice of the proceedings, as the right to be present and heard cannot occur without meaningful and actual notice. principle 11of recommendation no. r(99)4 provides that the adult must be informed of the proceedings, specifying, among others, that this must be done “in a language, or by other means, which he or she understands.”28 malta, moldova, poland, slovakia, turkey and ukraine (8 november 2005). available through www.cmiskp.echr.coe.int/echr, visited 30 july 2006.126non-contestant procedure act, art. 35(2). 127non-contestant procedure act, art. 36, paras. 1 and 2.128note that principle 11(2) also provides an exception to notice when such ‘would be manifestly without meaning to the person concerned or would present a severe danger to the health of the person concerned.‘ 34mental disability advocacy centerőe explanatory memorandum to recommendation no. r(99)4 reiterates that this procedural safeguard is necessary, citing the requirements of article 6 of the echr.29 őe language used in the principle recognizes that for the individuals concerned, notice as prescribed by general civil procedure law may not convey the meaning or ramiűcations of the proceedings. őerefore, the standard to be applied is whether the law provides for actual notice. one solution to this is incorporated into the uniform guardianship and protective proceedings act that simply adds a provision requiring “notice under this act must be in plain language.”13with respect to the second element, recommendation no. r(99)4 simply provides that ‘the person concerned should have the right to be heard in person in any proceedings which could aőect his or her legal capacity‘.131 article 6 of the echr provides for fair trial rights in cases, including those where a person‘s civil rights and obligations are in question, including guardianship issues.13 indicator 4an adult has a right to free and effective legal representation throughout guardianship proceedings. conclusion: legislation provides for a right to free and eőective legal representation throughout guardianship proceedings. analysis: őe law provides two forms of representation of an adult during the incapacitation procedure: the appointment of a temporary guardian,133 and the second the appointment of a temporary counsellor. before these are detailed, it 129council of europe, committee of ministers. explanatory memorandum to recommendation r(1999)4 on principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults. adopted 23 february 1999, para. 52.see para. 113(c). the uniform guardianship and protective proceedings act (1997) is model legislation drafted by the national conference of commissions on uniform state laws. the model legislation was also endorsed by the american bar association. the purpose of this uniform act was to ensure due process protection for people who have been deprived of legal capacity and to subject guardians to court jurisdiction throughout the us; consequently, its due process provisions may also serve as a model in other jurisdictions. available at www.nccusl.org, visited 14 july 2006. 131principle 13. 132see winterwerp v. the netherlands, application no. 6301/73, judgment 24 october , (a) ( ) (hrr , in zhich the court said that ³>t@he capacity to deal personally with one‘s property involves the exercise of private rights and hence affects µcivil rights and obligations¶ zithin the meaning of article para >@ ‘ivesting mr. winterwerp of that capacity amounted to a ‘determination‘ of such rights and obligations´ 7his principle zas more recently reaf�rmed in matter v. slovakia, application no. 31534/96, judgment 5 july 1999, para. 51.133family act, art. 132, non-contestant procedure act, art. 35, 36, civil procedure act, art. 75-78.35human rights and guardianship in serbiashould be noted that there is a legislative presumption of legal capacity from the onset of such proceedings.őe court has discretion to instruct the guardianship authority to appoint a temporary guardian.13 őe court will do this whenever it űnds that the adult is not able to represent himself, but has an obligation to do this only if the adult is already incapacitated.13 temporary guardian can be appointed on the speciűc request of the adult.13 guardianship agency has an obligation to appoint temporary guardian on the request of the adult if he provides justiűed reasoning for such a request.13 however, the guardianship authority does not need to do this: according to ministerial guidelines, guardianship authorities need to appoint a counselor only if the agency itself has initiated the procedure.13 further, the guidelines state that if there is reason to believe that the adult is capable of protecting his or her interests and rights themselves, then the guardianship agency is not obliged to follow the instructions of the court.13őe alternative to temporary guardianship is the appointment of a temporary counsellor, who in contrast, must always be a practicing lawyer. such counsellors are appointed by the court when, again, it is of the view that the adult in question is unable to represent him/herself and speciűcally that the process leading to the appointment of a temporary guardian would take too long.40 őe role of the counselor is to oőer legal representation throughout the guardianship proceedings and, notably, ‘to safeguard the interests (emphasis added) of the person concerned‘ during the proceedings, rather that to represent the wishes of the adult. őis distinction is important: the adult may have a very diőerent opinion from the counsellor as to what his ‘interests‘ are. őe legislative presumption of legal capacity from the onset of the guardianship proceedings,42 is clearly of very limited practical iněuence: it is too easily overturned. 134civil procedure act, art. 75-78. see also family act, art. 132.135civil procedure act, art. 78(2).136family act, art. 132(2) point 5.137 ibid.138 guidelines for the social care centers on the conducting of the procedures for the implementation of the measures for guardianship protection, ministry for labour and social affairs, 14 december 1994, pp. 15. it should be noted that these guidelines were adopted in accordance with the previous family act (1980). as new guidelines which would be in line with the new family act were not released until the conclusion of this report, it is mdac‘s assessment that cited guidelines are still widely in use, regardless to the fact that their legal status is uncertain (according to the article 362 (2) of the family act, all bylaws adopted in accordance with the previous family act (1980) ceased to be in force. however, guidelines are not bylaws, but merely instructions of the administrative body, thus there is no legal ground to consider them as out of force).139 ibid. see also in nadezda ljubojev, op. cit. p. 105-106.140civil procedure act, art. 79.non-contestant procedure act, art. 6 in accordance with civil procedure act, art. 79.142the incapacitation can be delivered only by the decision of the court. during this procedure, the person still has capacity under the law.36mental disability advocacy centerindeed, given the very allegation of a lack of legal capacity and the fundamental importance of the rights that are at stake during these proceedings, it is equally clear that legislative provisions provide only weak safeguards of these rights. consequently, it can be safely asserted that there appears to be neither free, nor necessarily eőective, legal representation throughout the guardianship proceedings. human rights standards: council of europe recommendation no. r(2004)highlights that ‘persons with mental disorder should be entitled to exercise all their civil and political rights‘. it is a well-established principle of international law, explicitly stated in article 4()(d) of the international covenant on civil and political rights (iccpr) that where liberty is in question, a person must have the right to free legal assistance and representation. őe un human rights committee, the monitoring body for the iccpr, has interpreted this obligation to additionally apply to ‘procedures to determine [their] rights and obligations in a suit at law‘.44 as the requirements of article 4() of the iccpr are considered basic guarantees of a fair hearing,45 free and eőective representation should be interpreted as a requirement during all incapacitation proceedings. extension of this right to guardianship procedures is also supported by recommendation no. r(99)4, which provides that ‘there should be adequate procedural safeguards to protect the human rights of the adult concerned and to prevent possible abuses‘.46 similarly, the echr has been interpreted to include fair trial rights during court procedures concerning legal capacity.47enforcing this requirement by providing eőective legal representation is especially crucial when the person is alleged to lack functional capacity to represent him or herself.48 deprivation of legal capacity may, as already noted, result in lifelong placement under guardianship and a loss of the right to exercise fundamental rights (such as the right to choose residence, to manage űnances, to marry, to vote). őe un general assembly recognized the importance of this obligation in the 99 principles for the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care (mental illness principles), which state that, [t]he person whose capacity is at issue shall be entitled to be represented by a counsel. if the person whose capacity is at issue does not himself or herself secure 143recommendation no. r(2004)10 concerning the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorder, adopted 22 september 2004, art. 4.144see un human rights committee, general comment 13: equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent court established by law, dated 13 april 1984, para. 2.145human rights committee, general comment 13, op cit, para. 5. 146principle 7.147 matter v. slovakia, op cit, para. 51.148see for example, the european court of human rights case megyeri v. germany, application no. 13770/88, judgment 12 may 1992, (1992) 15 ehrr 584, para. 23.37human rights and guardianship in serbiasuch representation, it shall be made available without payment by that person to the extent that he or she does not have suůcient means to pay for it.49 indicator 5 an adult may not be detained in order to be subjected to an evaluation of his or her legal capacity. conclusion: legislation allows adults to be detained in a psychiatric hospital for up to three months in order to conduct an incapacity assessment. analysis: a court can order an adult to be detained in a psychiatric institution if the court considers this necessary to determine the adult‘s mental condition.50 such detention can be for any period up to three months. one or several medical experts must provide evidence as to the necessity of the detention.52 őe fundamental problem with this provision is that involuntary detention is itself harmful regardless of one‘s mental state.őe adult, guardian or temporary counselor may appeal against this court order. őe time limit for submission of the appeal is three days from the date on which the court order is delivered to the adult. unless and until a court decides otherwise, an appeal does not delay the enforcement of the order.54 őe consequence of this provision is that the adult can be immediately transferred to a hospital without waiting for the appeal court‘s decision. human rights standards: őe mental illness principles state that ‘[n]o person shall be compelled to undergo medical examination with a view to determining whether or not he or she has a mental illness except in accordance with a procedure authorized by domestic law‘.55 similarly, the ecthr has examined the issue of detention in relation to forced psychiatric examinations under article 5 of the echr and the right to liberty. in nowicka v. poland, it held that detaining an individual in order to fulűl an obligation under law, such as a court ordered psychiatric examination, is, on its face, a permissible action. however, it also found that detaining an individual prior to such 149un resolution 46/119 on the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care, adopted by the general assembly on 17 december 1991, principle 1(6). 150non-contestant procedure act, art. 38, para. 3.151non-contestant procedure act, art. 38, para 3.152the law is vague and unclear as to the number of doctors required to provide expert opinion in such cases.153non-contestant procedure act, art. 39, para. 2.154non-contestant procedure act, art. 39(3).155un resolution 46/119 on the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care, adopted by the general assembly on 17 december 1991, principle 5. 38mental disability advocacy centeran examination and continued detention after the obligation ceases to exist, fails to balance the state‘s interest in the examination and the individual‘s right to liberty and constitutes a violation of article 5.56 in other circumstances, the ecthr has held that forced psychiatric examinations violate article 6 (right to fair trial)57 and article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)58 of the echr. consequently, the mere possibility that a person may lack capacity, either partially or entirely, is not a suůcient basis, by itself, to involuntarily detain a person. indicator 6an adult has the right and opportunity to present his/her own evidence (including witnesses), and to challenge the opposing evidence (witnesses). conclusion: őere is no speciűc provision on an adult‘s right to present his/her own evidence. however, as the court decision is delivered on the basis of the ‘evidence‘ presented at the hearing,59 there is presumably nothing that actually precludes an adult from presenting such evidence. in addition, the court is obliged to hear an adult during legal capacity hearings. it can refuse to conduct such hearings only if it could harm an adult‘s health or the hearing is simply not possible at all owing to the mental or physical health of the adult. however, the only evidence that has to be taken into consideration by the court under all circumstances is the assessment of medical experts.analysis: in order to gain an overall picture of any case, a judge should hear from all parties involved and needs to evaluate not only factors relating to an adult‘s life, mental state, and functional abilities, but also to consider the motivation for űling the application. őe court does however have the discretion and power to question any individual or organisations able to oőer relevant information about the life and the behaviour of the adult concerned person. őis might include the police, hospitals, relatives, social care homes, employees etc. őere remains however speciűc legislative provision62 for the 156 nowicka v. poland, application no. 30218/96, judgment 3 december 2002, paras. 58-61.157see bock v. germany regarding the length of domestic procedures due to repeated court ordered psychiatric examinations. application no. 11118/84, judgment 21 february 1989.158see worwa v. poland holding that multiple examinations in a short period of time in connection zith similar criminal cases constituted an unmusti�ed interference zith the applicant‘s private life. application no. 26624/95, judgment 27 november 2003. 159non-contestant procedure act, art. 35.160non-contestant procedure act, art. 36.161this is the only evidence that has to be acquired under all circumstances. see non-contestant procedure act, art. 38.162non-contestant procedure act, art. 37.39human rights and guardianship in serbiacourt to obtain further relevant information from sources referred to, and listed, as ‘secondary sources‘. however the majority of these ‘secondary sources‘ ceased to exist following the ending of the communist era. it is worth re-iterating at this point that as the court‘s obligation to hear the applicant may be waived due to the adult‘s mental or physical health problems, that adult may be deprived of the right to either examine or respond to the evidence collected by the court from various sources.human rights standards: recommendation no. r(99)4 states that ‘[t]here should be fair and eůcient procedures for the taking of measures for the protection of incapable adults‘.64 őis principle echoes article 6() of the echr which guarantees a fair hearing in all cases involving civil rights and obligations.65 őe ability for the parties in the case to challenge evidence with counter evidence and the right to present evidence, including calling witnesses, is an aspect of a fair hearing. őis safeguard is listed in article 4() of the iccpr, interpreted by the un human rights committee to include the minimum guarantees of a fair hearing.66 in proceedings concerning the deprivation of legal capacity and guardianship, giving the adult the opportunity to challenge evidence and witnesses is especially important. it is principally through such challenges that the court may become aware of possible ulterior motives behind the application, such as, for instance, access to the adult‘s űnancial resources. further, the adult, at this stage, may also be able to point out procedural irregularities, such as medical reports that are out or date or incomplete, as well as evidence demonstrating the adult‘s functional abilities.indicator 7no adult is deprived of legal capacity without being the subject of an incapacity assessment, conducted by a qualified professional and based upon recent, objective information, including an in-person evaluation. conclusion: prior to a court depriving an adult of legal capacity the adult must be examined by two medical doctors with mental health specialisation. a written report must be presented both to the court and to the parties concerned. 163the majority of the institutions simply do not exist anymore, or if they do, their relevance is minimal: they remain relics of the socialist self-management regime. however, as the non-contestant procedure act has not been amended since serbia entered in the transitional period, these terms are still present in serbian legislation.164principle 7(1).165for application of article 6(1) to guardianship proceedings, see winterwerp v. the netherlands, application no. 6301/73, judgment 24 october 1979.166 international covenant on civil and political rights, article 14(3)(e). see un human rights committee, general comment , para regarding article () as de�ning minimum guarantees.40mental disability advocacy centeranalysis: two doctors should carry out an incapacity assessment of adults in guardianship proceedings. őese experts have to be professionals in the mental health űeld (psychiatrists, neuro-psychiatrists, clinical psychologists etc), and they have to be on the court‘s list of the experts. őe report should detail the adult‘s mental condition and ability to comprehend.67 no further speciűc provisions are made as to the parameters of these assessments or the content of reports. if an examination it is not carried out in an institution, it should be conducted in the presence of the judge.68once it receives the report, the court must immediately forward it to the parties. őe parties may contest the expert opinions but it is ultimately for the court to decide whether they are adequate and/or whether new opinions should be sought. curiously, the applicant to the proceedings selects the expert from a court-provided list.,69 although the adult whose capacity is being judged may give its opinion on this proposal.70 in contrast to these provisions of the non-contestant procedure act, are those of the civil procedure act. őis latter act provides that it is the court itself that selects the experts. although both parties can ask for a second opinion, the court can exercise its discretion whether to admit such second opinions as evidence. obtaining and taking into consideration these two expert opinions is the only legislative obligation of the court. indeed the court has full discretion whether to seek or hear any or all additional relevant parties, including the adult in queston, and witnesses.human rights standards: a űnding of the deprivation of legal capacity removes an individual‘s right to make decisions about all areas of his or her personal and public life. it, therefore, interferes with those rights to privacy that are protected by international law. in a democratic society, such interference must be necessary and in accordance with the law. legislation should contain provisions to ensure that a decision to deprive an adult of legal capacity is based on current and reliable information. recommendation no. r(99)4 calls for a thorough in-person meeting between the adult and a ‘suitably qualiűed expert‘. it asserts the requirement for an up-to-date report to attest to the person‘s condition and notes that the resulting report should be recorded in writing.72 in h.f. v. slovakia, the ecthr speciűcally cited recommendation no. r(99)4 in connection with the obligation to consult recent medical reports in determining legal capacity. in this case, it found that relying on 167 non-contestant procedure act, art. 38. 168non-contestant procedure act, art. 38(2). stationary institution is a generic term for hospitals, clinics, institutes and the like.169civil procedure act, art of�cial gazette rs, no 170courts with internet facilities hold this list on their web-sites. see for example web-site of the fifth municipal court in belgrade at http://www.petisud.com/ser/profesionalna_pomoc/sudski_vestaci.php 171 see article 8 of the european convention on human rights and article 17 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. 172 principle 12.41human rights and guardianship in serbiaan outdated psychiatric report did not amount to suůcient procedural safeguards to protect the applicant, whose legal capacity was at issue. it added that a request for a second psychiatric report would have been in the interests of the adult concerned.2.6.3quality of evidence provided to the court in incapacity cases (indicators 8-12)indicator 8a finding of incapacity requires a demonstrable link between the underlying diagnosis and the alleged inability to make independent decisions.conclusion: in the case of plenary deprivation of legal capacity, serbian legislation requires a strong link between a mental disability and the inability of adults to manage their aőairs. for partial deprivation of legal capacity the evidence required is less stringent.analysis: őe law requires a causal link between the alleged mental condition and the resulting inability to act. first, there must be a diagnosis of a psycho-social disability (mental health problem) or intellectual disability. additionally, the resultant mental disability must be shown to prevent the adult from taking care of his or her personal aőairs.74 for partial deprivation of legal capacity, the law requires only a demonstration that an adult has a psycho-social disability (mental health problem) or intellectual disability and that this jeopardizes the rights and interests of the adult or others. őe wording of this text is too vague and so fail to provide a suůciently high standard required for a legal provision which results in a signiűcant deprivation of human rights. human rights standards: őis indicator űnds express support in the mental illness principles, speciűcally principle 4(5) which states: ‘[n]o person or authority shall classify a person as having, or otherwise indicate that a person has, a mental illness except for purposes directly relating to mental illness or the consequences of mental illness.‘ accordingly, it would be contrary to this principle to restrict legal competence by classifying an individual as having been deprived of legal capacity without demonstrating that a mental disability impaired the individual‘s ability to make independent choices and to what degree the mental disability warranted limiting such decisions. 173 h.f. v. slovakia, application no. 54797/00, judgment 8 november 2005. note that the judgment is only available in french. for an english summary, see press release by the registrar of the european court of human rights, 8 november 2005.174see family act, arts. 146-147 and section 2.4.5 of this report, above. 42mental disability advocacy centerőis indicator also invokes several of the recommendation no. r(99)4 principles. principle 6 on proportionality states that if a measure of protection such as guardianship is necessary, it should be proportional to the degree of functional capacity of the adult and tailored to his or her circumstances and needs. őis reěects an understanding that psycho-social disabilities can ěuctuate, and that individuals will need diőerent levels of protection and retention of rights based on the nature and severity of the underlying disability. principles 7 and 2 provide that an adequate investigation and assessment of the adult‘s particular needs is an issue of fundamental fairness. further, article 8 of the echr mandates that any interference with a person‘s private life be proportionate to the aims pursued. in essence, complying with international human rights standards will mean that legal capacity is restricted only to the extent necessary to assist the individual in making decisions. indicator 9a finding of incapacity is based upon sufficient evidence and serves the interests of the adult. conclusion: serbian law does not require suůcient evidence before a court can deprive a person of legal capacity. analysis: although the law requires a variety of evidence to be produced before adults can be deprived of their legal capacity,75 the only evidence that the court is obliged to always obtain is two medical reports.76 nonetheless, courts do have a discretion to obtain relevant information from additional sources, such as, for example, a temporary guardian, the applicant, and any others who can accurately comment on the adult‘s living habits, behaviour, and on other relevant circumstances.77 őe applicant of the procedure must submit ‘minimal‘ evidence in advance of the court hearing to convince the judge that the application is reasonably grounded.78 a judge may choose not to be present during the adult‘s medical examination if is conducted in a health care institution. őe reason for this is the prolonged period of time in which this kind of examination is taken.79 őis means that in theory, people who are inside a locked institution and therefore more vulnerable, are provided with fewer safeguards. 175non-contestant procedure act, arts. 35-38.176see indicator 6.177non-contestant procedure act, art. 37.178non-contestant procedure act, art. 33.1791on-contestant procedure act, art see in svetislav vukoviü, ³.omentar =akona o vanparničnom postupku´ (commentary of the 1on-contestant procedure act), poslovni biro, belgrade, 2003, p. 45.43human rights and guardianship in serbiaa judge must however have some direct contact with, and must hear,80 an adult except where:the adult‘s health would be at risk; or it is impossible to conduct the hearing owing to the adult‘s mental or physical condition.although there is no speciűc legislative guidance as to the standard of proof that should be met for the deprivation of legal capacity, a number of iněuential commentators have suggested that the decision should be delivered on the grounds of clear and convincing evidence.82 finally, and of particular note, is the failure for provision to be made that any deprivation of legal capacity is to be in the best interests of the adult. it is suůcient to show merely that there is a link between the adult‘s mental condition (medical element) and their inability to independently take care of their rights and interests (social element).human rights standards: őis indicator looks at two elements of incapacity determination and subsequent guardianship – the evidentiary basis submitted to the domestic court and the impact of the ruling upon the adult‘s interests. to be suůcient, the evidence must meet speciűc qualitative standards. recommendation no. r(99)4 provides that the decision maker in incapacitation proceedings should see the individual personally, and that an up-to-date report from a qualiűed expert must be submitted.84 ‘qualiűed expert‘ is not deűned, but should be understood as referring to a psychiatrist or psychologist, possibly with specialized training in capacity assessment rather than a general medical practitioner. őe united nations has suggested in addition that experts must conduct an evaluation of the adult‘s social capacity.85 as detailed above, the ecthr has highlighted the necessity of a qualiűed expert report to determine capacity.86 in h.f. v. slovakia, it held that statements by the concerned individual‘s former spouse and lay witnesses, in combination with a psychiatric evaluation that was one and a half years old, was not suůcient evidence for a deprivation of legal capacity. őe case, therefore, not only clariűes that an expert report is necessary for states to meet their obligation under the echr, and that lay 180non-contestant procedure act, art. 36 and art. 38.181non-contestant procedure act, art. 36, para 2.182see in borivome pozniü, vesna rakiü vodineliü, graÿansko procesno pravo (civil procedural law), 15th ed, savremena administracija, belgrade, 1999, 232-234.183see indicator 8.184principle 12. 185see un general assembly, declaration on the rights of mentally retarded persons‘ resolution 2856 (xxvi), 20 december 1971, para. 7.186 h.f. v. slovakia, application no. 54797/00, judgment 8 november 2005.44mental disability advocacy centerwitnesses are not a satisfactory substitute, but also that the report must be recent in order to reěect the functional capacity of the individual at the time of the hearing. őese points indicate that even an expert opinion on mental capacity may not meet the required burden of evidence. secondly, as suggested by recommendation no. r(99)4, ‘[i]n establishing or implementing a measure of protection of an incapable adult the interests and welfare of that person should be the paramount consideration‘.87 to achieve this, the individual‘s circumstances must be taken into account and the protection oőered by guardianship weighed against negative consequences for the individual. as provided in principle 5 of recommendation no. r(99)4, restriction should not be established ‘unless the measure is necessary, taking into account the individual circumstances and needs of the person concerned.‘ for example, as employment is an important source of social interaction and self-esteem for an employed individual, guardianship may not be in the individual‘s best interest if, as a result, the right to work is restricted. such considerations should be examined during proceedings in order to meet the necessity, subsidiarity, and proportionality requirements prescribed in principles 5 and 6. indicator selection of a guardian is based on objective criteria and the wishes and feelings of the adult are considered. conclusion: őe selection of a guardian is not based on objective criteria. although the wishes of adults who have been partially deprived of legal capacity by law must be taken into account, there is no similar provision that protects this right of adults who have been fully deprived of legal capacity. analysis: recent legislative amendments have provided the right for adults partially deprived of legal capacity and who are able to understand the meaning of their actions, to have the right to propose a speciűc guardian.88 whilst this is a textual breakthrough for those under partial guardianship, it remains to be seen how it will work in practice. as for those fully deprived of legal capacity (under plenary guardianship), it is not clear whether their wishes have to be taken into account. it would appear that in these situations the legislative approach mirrors that towards children: there must be an assessment of the adult‘s ability to express an opinion as to who they would like to see as their guardian, as well as their ability to understand what the consequences of such appointment would be.89187principle 8(1). 188family act, art. 127.189family act, art. 127.45human rights and guardianship in serbiaa guardian can be any person who has the personal qualities and abilities for conducting the duties of a guardian, and who consents to becoming a guardian.90 őree restrictions apply however. őese are: if the guardian has in the past been deprived of their parental rights; deprived of their legal capacity; or if they have a coněict of interests with the adult. in addition, the guardian must be a person who could be expected to fulűl their obligations, based on their personal qualities, relationship with the adult and the adult‘s relatives.92 őe adult‘s spouse, relative or a foster carer should be appointed as guardian if it is in the best interest of the adult, although there is no obligation on these people to accept the position.94 finally, a guardianship agency can decide not to appoint a guardian, but to carry out the duties of the guardian itself. őe ‘guardian‘ then becomes an employee of the guardianship agency.95 however, any such person must not have any guardianship related administrative power.96 őe guardianship agency must inform the authorities within its jurisdiction that the guardian has been appointed, such as land registrars and other public oůces, so that newly-established guardianship can be recorded.human rights standards: őe disability convention requires states parties to ensure that the ‘measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person‘.97 őis, presumably, includes the appointment of a guardian. recommendation no. r(99)4 provides that the primary concern in assessing the suitability of a guardian should be ability of that person to ‘safeguard and promote the adult‘s interests and welfare‘.98 it also suggests that states take steps to ensure that 1902005 family act, art. 126.191family act, art. 128, p. 3. 192family act, art. 128, p. 4. 1932005 family act, art. 126, para. 2.194this is in contrast to the family act of 1980 that made it obligatory for certain relatives to accept the appointment to be the guardian, see art. 224(4). these were parents, children and brothers and sisters. they could be relieved of this duty: if they were 60 years old and over; if because of illness, physical disabilities or because of the nature of their mob they could not ful�l their obligations as a guardian properly; if they already were serving as a guardian or they were taking care of two or more children other than their own; mothers with a child who is less than 7 years old; if they had 3 or more minor children.195family act, art. 131(2).196family act, art. 131(3)197convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 12(4).198principle 8(2).46mental disability advocacy centerqualiűed guardians are available. őis might include creating training associations.99 őis indicator also measures whether legislation prescribes qualities or attributes necessary to be appointed as a guardian. for example, finnish legislation provides that the suitability of a prospective guardian should be determined based on skill, experience and the nature and extent of the duties required.200 recommendation no. r(99)4 further states that ‘the wishes of the adult as to the choice of any person to represent or assist him or her should be taken into account and, as far as possible, given due respect‘.20 őe explanatory memorandum to the recommendation warns that whilst the invaluable and irreplaceable role of relatives must be recognised and valued, the law must be aware that acute coněicts of interest may exist in some families and recognise the dangers these coněicts may present.202 finally, principle 9 of recommendation no. r(99)4 provides that respect for the past and present wishes and feelings of the adult should be ascertained and given due respect. őis principle applies to all stages of establishing and implementing guardianship, but it is particularly important in choosing the person to be appointed as a representative. indicator 11the guardian should not have a conflict of interest with the adult, or the appearance of such a conflict. conclusion: őere is a requirement to consider potential coněicts of interest when appointing a guardian. however, the law does not speciűcally preclude appointments of guardians who have real coněicts of interest or the appearance of such.analysis: individuals who have a coněict of interest with the adult are disqualiűed from being appointed as guardians.20 however, the law does not elaborate on what is meant by coněict of interest or how a guardianship agency should take potential coněicts of interest into account. given that it is possible for directors of social care institutions to be appointed as guardians, serbian law clearly adopts a narrow view of what constitutes a coněict of interest.204 őis gives rise to a classic coněict of interest situation in that the director of an institution has to both run the institution eůciently, and make decisions related to the individual‘s care and rights. őese two diőerent areas of responsibility may coněict where the director‘s job itself depends on 199principle 17. 2007he finnish guardianship services act, , chapter , section 8nof�cial translation provided by finlex, a service of the finnish government. available at zzz�nle[�en, visited july 201recommendation no. r(99)4, principle 9(2).202explanatory memorandum to recommendation no. r(99)4, para. 44.203family act, art. 128.204family act, art. 130.47human rights and guardianship in serbiamaintaining a large segregated institution, whereas the adult may not wish to live in an institution nor may it be in his/her best interests to do so. human rights standards: as previously noted (see indicator 0 above), the disability convention seeks to ensure by way of article 2(4), state provision of procedural guarantees to protect people who need assistance in exercising their legal capacity. such guarantees, again as noted above, include a provision that ‘measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person‘. speciűcally however these measures must be ‘free of coněict of interest and undue iněuence‘.205 french legislation directly provides for such occurrences. in france, each adult under guardianship is additionally appointed a ‘supervisory guardian‘ who, among other duties, is designated to represent the adult when his or her interests are in coněict with the interests of the guardian.206 őe standards of practice adopted by the national guardianship association (nga), a united states-based membership organisation of guardians and legal professionals, address the issue of coněicts of interest between a guardian and a ‘ward‘,207 in standard 6, which states that:őe guardian shall avoid even the appearance of a coněict of interest or impropriety when dealing with the needs of the ward. impropriety or coněict of interest arises where the guardian has some personal or agency interest that can be perceived as self-serving or adverse to the position or best interest of the ward.208őe nga standard 6 continues: ‘[a] guardian who is not a family guardian shall not directly provide housing, medical, legal or other direct services to a ward‘.209 őe guardian should remain free to carry out his/her duty to challenge inappropriate, inadequate or poor quality services from service providers on behalf of the adult. clearly, where the guardian is also the service provider, the guardian has a coněict of interest.205convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 12(4).206french civil code book 1, title x, ch. ii, art. 420, applicable to adults under guardianship per 7itle ;,, ch ,,,, art 8nof�cial translation provided by legifrance, a service of the french government. available at www.legifrance.gouv.fr, visited 2 august 2006.207for a de�nition of µzard¶, see glossary, p 208national guardianship association, ‘standards of practice‘, adopted by the nga board of ‘irectors, rati�ed by the 1ga membership june , (dited (dition 2002, state college, pennsylvania, page 9.209ibid. 48mental disability advocacy centerindicator an adult has the right to appeal a finding of incapacity and/or the appointment of a guardian. conclusion: adults have the right to appeal a űnding of legal incapacity, but no right to appeal the appointment of a guardian. analysis: őe adult may appeal the deprivation of legal capacity within 5 days from receiving the decision. an appeal can also be submitted by the guardian or temporary counsellor.adults deprived of legal capacity do not have procedural capacity.11 as noted above, courts have a discretion to appoint a temporary counsellor during incapacity procedures, and request a guardianship agency to appoint a temporary guardian. if, and once so appointed that counsellor or guardian may proceed to represent the adult during the subsequent administrative procedure. an adult deprived of legal capacity can still be a party to that administrative procedure, but cannot represent him/herself or instruct their own lawyer. as a result of the possibility of the guardianship authority being able to appoint a guardian and a temporary counsellor13 during the administrative procedures, in eőect that authority can be the applicant of the procedure and the adult‘s legal representative at the same time. an adult is, somewhat absurdly, only able to appeal the appointment of a guardian with that guardian‘s permission, regardless of whether the adult has the ability to understand and undertake the appeal. őe guardian, however, can appeal the appointment of the guardian within 5 days from receiving the decision. őe appeal is sent to the ministry of labour, employment and social aőairs. an appeal can also be submitted by any other person who has a legal interest in the matter, such other persons including relatives, the adult‘s creditors, debtors, partners, etc. as such appeals have to be submitted within 5 days of receiving the decision, and not all have an automatic right to receive notice of that decision, in practice their involvement in such issues is negligible.210non-contestant procedure act, art. 40(3).211non-contestant procedure art. 43, para. 2.212general administrative procedure act, art. 43, 44 and 45.213if a temporary counsellor is selected, this person may subsequently be appointed as the permanent guardian opposite opinion e[pressed in m petkoviü ( ) ³problemi staratelmske zaãtite´ socijalna politika i socijalni rad (³problems of the tutelage protection”, social policy and social work), no. 4, p. 64.214 family act, art. 333(5).215 family act, art. 333(5) see also family act, art. 336(2).49human rights and guardianship in serbiahuman rights standards: őe right to appeal a decision on deprivation of legal capacity is an important aspect of procedural fairness and human rights safeguards, both of which are required by principle 7 of recommendation r(99)4. as an individual may no longer have legal capacity (or legal standing) to lodge an appeal after the deprivation of legal capacity, it is crucial for that right to be articulated in guardianship law. recommendation no. r(99)4 says that every adult placed under guardianship should have adequate rights to appeal. for this proposition, r(99)4 relies on the united nations declaration on the rights of mentally retarded persons. őis provides that when a person‘s rights are restricted, the procedure used for such restrictions must provide ‘proper legal safeguards against every form of abuse‘ and must be subject to “the right of appeal to higher authorities”. őe mental illness principles, reaůrm this position. principle (6) requires states to provide the right to appeal the decision to a higher court by the person whose legal capacity is at issue, as well as his or her personal representative and other interested individuals. as noted elsewhere, legislation providing for others to appeal the decision can be crucial as the adult under guardianship may not have the functional capacity to realise that there have been procedural or other violations or how to challenge. in more general terms the disability convention requires state parties to ‘ensure eőective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others‘. 2.6.4 rights of the adult after guardianship is established (indicators 13-17)legislation compliant with international human rights standards will ensure that an adult placed under guardianship retains rights to make decisions in as many areas as possible, as well as the opportunity to exercise those rights. indicators 137 address the adult‘s residual rights after being placed under guardianship, including the right to vote, the right to work, the right to property, the right to marry, to found a family, to respect for family life, and the right to associate. indicator 13by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise political rights. conclusion: adults under plenary guardianship lose many political rights including the right to vote. őe rights to self-representation and participation in civil proceedings and to initiate criminal proceedings are also restricted. 216principle 14(3).217un declaration of the rights of mentally retarded persons, adopted by general assembly resolution 2856 (xxvi) on 20 december 1971. 218un on the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care, adopted by general assembly resolution 46/119 on 17 december 1991, principle 1(6).219convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 13(1). 50mental disability advocacy centeranalysis: őe right to voteaccording to the constitution of the republic of serbia220 every adult citizen who has ‘working ability‘ has the constitutional right to vote and to be elected.22 however, all election laws restrict the voting right of adults deprived (fully or partially) of legal capacity.222 capacity in the civil procedure a serious limitation on the rights of adults deprived of legal capacity and under plenary guardianship is their consequent lack of legal standing and inability to bring cases, independently of their guardian,22 to court. if a guardian brings proceedings on an adult‘s behalf, and the court űnds that he/she performs inadequately, it has a duty to inform the guardianship authority of its űndings. 224 adults subject to partial guardianship may represent themselves in civil proceedings related to an issue for which they have been formally designated as retaining legal capacity. 225 for other issues such a person may only initiate proceedings through the guardian. again, if the court űnds that the guardian performs inadequately during the proceedings, it must inform the guardianship authority. in relation to administrative proceedings, adults under either plenary or partial guardianship have no legal standing in administrative proceedings whatsoever.226 capacity in criminal procedureonce deprived of legal capacity adults cannot independently initiate criminal proceedings as a private prosecutor.227 őey must do so through their guardian. human rights standards: őe right to political participation and universal suőrage has been recognized internationally in article 25 of the iccpr. őe more recent disability convention sets out in greater detail the speciűc components of political 220article 33 of the constitution of serbia.221please note that this is an of�cial translation of the constitution zhich can be found on http://www.parlament.sr.gov.yu/content/eng/index.asp ³:orking ability´ actually means ³legal capacity´ 222the law on election of members of the parliament (art. 10) prescribes that ‘the right to vote for an mp, or to be elected as an mp can only be exercised by a citizen zhose place of residence is in the republic of serbia >«@ zho has reached the age of 18, and who has full legal capacity‘. the act on elections of the president of the republic of serbia (art. 2) as does the local self-government act (art. 122). 223civil procedure act, art. 75.224civil procedure act, art. 77.225civil procedure act, art. 74(2).226civil prodecure act, art. 43.227criminal procedure act, article 55.51human rights and guardianship in serbiarights. its article 29(a) requires states parties to ‘guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others, and shall undertake to:a.ensure that persons with disabilities can eőectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected, inter alia, by:i.ensuring that voting procedures, facilities and materials are appropriate, accessible and easy to understand and use;ii.protecting the right of persons with disabilities to vote by secret ballot in elections and public referendums without intimidation, and to stand for elections, to eőectively hold oůce and perform all public functions at all levels of government, facilitating the use of assistive and new technologies where appropriate;iii.guaranteeing the free expression of the will of persons with disabilities as electors and to this end, where necessary, at their request, allowing assistance in voting by a person of their own choice;228within europe, a restriction of a person‘s right to vote engages article of protocol to the echr which provides that countries ‘undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature‘. regarding people with disabilities with respect to public participation and the democratic process, the council of europe has recently stated that ‘[s]ociety needs to reěect the diversity of its citizens and beneűt from their varied experience and knowledge. it is therefore important that people with disabilities can exercise their rights to vote and to participate in such activities‘.229 speciűcally addressing individuals with mental disabilities, the right to autonomy and self-determination is elaborated in principle of recommendation no. r(99)4. őis speciűes that legislative frameworks need to incorporate guardianship laws that recognise that diőerent degrees of functional capacity exist as well as the dynamic nature of functional capacity over time. recommendation no. r(99)4 emphasises that a measure of protection such as guardianship ‘should not automatically deprive the person concerned of the right to vote, or to … make other decisions of a personal character at any time when his or her capacity permits him or her to do so‘. 228convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 29(a).229council of europe, action plan to promote the rights and full participation of people with disabilities in society: improving the quality of life of people with disabilities in europe 2006-2015, recommendation no. (2006)5, para. 3.1.1.230recommendation no. r(99)4, principle 3(2). 52mental disability advocacy centerindicator by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to work. conclusion: adults under plenary guardianship are prohibited from working. őose subject to partial guardianship may enter into work contracts with approval from both the guardian and the guardianship authority.analysis: adults under plenary guardianship are prohibited from entering into employment relationships. indeed legally incapacitated adults are considered to be in the similar position to children under 4 who are not able to enter into labour contract under any condition.31for those subject to partial guardianship they are treated in the eyes of the law in a similar way to children who are 4 years or older. such children can only sign contracts of employment with written consent of their parents or a guardian. consequently, such adults can work only with the consent of their guardian. guardians in turn require approval of the guardianship agency prior to giving such consent.33 human rights standards: legislation which automatically bans an adult under guardianship from working undermines the autonomy of the individual. őis may have a negative psychological impact as people are deprived of an important source of self-esteem and social interaction. article 8 of the echr seeks the protection and respect to private life, and the ecthr has included the right to work within its scope. it has formally noted that, ‘it is, after all, in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a signiűcant, if not the greatest, opportunity of developing relationships with the outside world‘. both the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and the (revised) european social charter protect the right to work. recommendation no. r(99)4 provides that where a measure of protection is necessary, it should be proportional to the degree of the functional capacity of the adult and tailored to the individual‘s circumstances and needs. őerefore, while some restriction may be justiűed in certain situations, a blanket prohibition from employment of all people under guardianship arbitrarily excludes people with disabilities from participating 231labour laz, art of�cial gazette rs, 1o , 232family act, art. 147(2).233see family act, art. 137(4.3).234 niemietz v. germany, application no. 13710/88, judgment 16 december 1992, (a/251-b) (1993) 16 ehrr 97, para 29. 235article 6 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, un document a/6316, entered into force 23 march 1976; article 15(2) of the european social charter (revised), strasbourg, 3 may 1996.236recommendation no. r(99)4, principle 6.53human rights and guardianship in serbiain society without any examination of their functional capacity or desire to do so. such restrictions are also contrary to the un standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities, which states that ‘[l]aws and regulations in the employment űeld must not discriminate against persons with disabilities and must not raise obstacles to their employment‘. őis approach is followed by the disability convention which sets out ‘the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others; this includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities‘.indicator by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to property.conclusion: adults fully deprived of legal capacity automatically lose almost all property rights, except for low value transactions. adults partially deprived of legal capacity retain some property rights, such as the right to dispose of earned income and to participate in certain business transactions. analysis: although the role of guardians is to act in the best interest of adults under plenary or partial guardianship, much of the detail of the legislative focus is on limiting the ability of such adults to contract or enter into business relationships, with others. őis is evidenced by the terminology used to describe legal capacity, which is in fact referred to as business capacity.general transactionsadults fully deprived of legal capacity are prohibited from carrying out any transactions, with exceptions listed below. as noted, the legal capacity of an adult with partial legal capacity is identical to that of children aged 4 and above. as such children have the right to independently dispose of earned property,240 so to do such adults. in addition however, they can enter into the contracts that have been identiűed, and formally noted, by the courts as falling within their legal capacity. approval from a guardian and guardian authority is required prior to disposal24 of assets and property of signiűcant value, and when carrying out any other aőairs of legal nature, for instance and as noted above, to accept a job oőer.237rule 7(2). 238convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 20066 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 27(1).239law of obligations, art. 56(1).240family act, art. 64(3).241law of obligations, art. 56(3).54mental disability advocacy centerin contrast are, what are termed, ‘legal transactions‘. őese transactions do not place any obligations on adults under guardianship (both plenary and partial). giving or receiving a gift is an example of such a transaction. such adults can enter into these so long as they themselves do not acquire any rights or obligations or they acquire exclusive rights.242capacity to enter into contractsadults under plenary guardianship cannot enter into contracts. 24 if they attempt to do so, such a contract is deemed invalid and it cannot be validated. however, some commentators have suggested that in practice this does not to apply to low value contracts, such as the purchase of daily items, including for instance food, sweets etc..244 adults under partial guardianship can enter into contracts for which they have been speciűcally authorised by the courts,245 without prior approval of their guardian. őe court may additionally authorise the adult to enter into other contracts. if an adult with partial legal capacity purports to enter into a contract beyond his legal capacity it is considered voidable. however, it may be validated by the granting of prior, or even post consent, of the guardian. constraints of the acts of guardians in relation to an adult‘s propertya guardian may only engage in ‘ordinary business‘ transactions regarding the adult‘s property.246 ordinary business is generally that concerned with the everyday maintenance of ‘property‘. actions falling beyond this standard must have prior approval of the guardianship agency. in any event, a guardian may not dispose of adults‘ property if it represents the main element of their assets.247 ‘property‘ includes real-estate, objects of great value, in addition to an adult‘s rights related to sources of income, such as pensions, disability and other social security payments. capacity to make a will a will can be made by any person who has reached 5 years of age and is capable of comprehension. 248 consequently an adult without legal capacity cannot make a will. adults partially deprived of legal capacity have capacity to make a will only if they are authorised to do so by the court.human rights standards: őe right to property includes the ability of individuals to manage űnances, complete transactions and enter legally binding contracts. 242family act, art. 64. 243law of obligations, sl. list sfrj, br. 29/78, 39/85, 45/89 i 57/89 i ”sl. list srj”, br. 31/93, art. 56.244slobodan perovic, obligaciono pravo (law on obligations), belgrade, 1990.245law on obligations, art. 56 (2). the law does not mention what these contracts are, so it should be interpreted as the contracts for which the adult is authorized by the court.246family act, art. 139(2).247family act, art. 140(3).248inheritance act, art. 79.55human rights and guardianship in serbiaguardianship systems that automatically exclude individuals from managing any aspect of their űnances undermine autonomy and dignity, as well as refuse to acknowledge the varied functional capacity of individuals with mental disabilities. őe disability convention sets out the right of property of people under guardianship in article 2(5). under this provision states parties ‘shall take all appropriate and eőective measures to ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities to own or inherit property, to control their own űnancial aőairs and to have equal access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of űnancial credit, and shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not arbitrarily deprived of their property.‘őe right to use and manage one‘s own property is set out in article of protocol no. to the echr, which reads, in relevant part:every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. 249recommendation no. r(99)4 expands on this, by recommending that ‘[w]henever possible the adult should be enabled to enter into legally eőective transactions of an everyday nature‘.250 őe council of europe returned to this theme in the 2006 “action plan to promote the rights and full participation of people with disabilities in society” which listed concrete measures to be taken by member states to this end. őis included the responsibility ‘to ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities to own and inherit property, providing legal protection to manage their assets on an equal basis to others‘.25indicator by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not auto-matically deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to marry, to found a family, and to respect of family life. conclusion: adults under plenary guardianship are denied the right to marry, to found a family and respect for family life. adults partially deprived of legal capacity may marry and engage in other family life issues only if a court determines that the adult possesses the necessary capacity to do so. analysis: an adult not capable of ‘normal comprehension‘ may not get married, as this is viewed as a contract.252 consequently, those under plenary guardianship, and 249this protocol opened for signature on 20 march 1952, and has equal legal force as the main text of the convention. 250recommendation no. r(99)4, principle 3(4). 251council of europe, disability action plan 2006, op cit, para. 3.12.3(viii). 252family act, art. 18.56mental disability advocacy centerconsequently deprived of legal capacity, may not get married. similarly, they have no legal standing before divorce courts with the result that consent and representation by the guardian is required for both the initiation of, and representation during, divorce proceedings.adults with partial capacity may get married, although the law does not explicitly provide for this right. courts can grant permission for 6 and 7 year olds to marry, and the same logic is applied to adults partially deprived of legal capacity.25 such adults can apply to a court directly 254 for such permission, and in direct contrast to other matters (for instance those related to property) there is no requirement to obtain the guardian‘s prior consent to seek such permission; the guardian cannot intervene in this issue. in all other cases the adult has no legal standing before divorce courts and consent and representation by the guardian is required should an adult feel the wish to take this course of action. őere is an express prohibition against adults marrying their guardian. 255 adults under plenary guardianship may not give a legally binding statement acknowledging paternity. however, children aged 6 and 7 and who are able to comprehend can acknowledge paternity, and it follows therefore that adults with partial legal capacity may do so if they meet the comprehension requirement.human rights standards: őe disability convention details international agreement on the right to various aspects of family life in its article 2. in view of its speciűcity, and the lack of this elsewhere, the article is given in full:respect for home and the familystates parties shall take eőective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships, on an equal basis with others, so as to ensure that: a.őe right of all persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry and to found a family on the basis of free and full consent of the intending spouses is recognized;b.őe rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to age-appropriate information, reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided; c.persons with disabilities, including children, retain their fertility on an equal basis with others. 253article 23.254non-contestant procedure act, art. 80.255article 22.57human rights and guardianship in serbiastates parties shall ensure the rights and responsibilities of persons with disabilities, with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship, adoption of children or similar institutions, where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the best interests of the child shall be paramount. states parties shall render appropriate assistance to persons with disabilities in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities.states parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have equal rights with respect to family life. with a view to realizing these rights, and to prevent concealment, abandonment, neglect and segregation of children with disabilities, states parties shall undertake to provide early and comprehensive information, services and support to children with disabilities and their families.4.states parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. in no case shall a child be separated from parents on the basis of a disability of either the child or one or both of the parents. 5.states parties shall, where the immediate family is unable to care for a child with disabilities, undertake every eőort to provide alternative care within the wider family, and failing that, within the community in a family setting.article 8 of the echr guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. őis imposes on states a negative obligation not to interfere with, and also positive obligations to respect, a person‘s private and family life. őere are similar obligations and duties to respect a person‘s right to marry and found a family under article 2 which reads, ‘[m]en and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right‘. indicator by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to associate.conclusion: adults under guardianship are deprived of joining organisations and political parties.analysis: only people who have the right to vote can establish, or be a member of, a non-governmental organisation or a political party.256 adults under plenary guardianship have no right to vote (see indicator 13) and cannot therefore be a 256association, political parties and 1on governmental organizations act, of�cial gazette srs, 1o , , , , , and of�cial gazette rs, no. 53/93, 67/93 and 48/94.58mental disability advocacy centermember of such organisations. őe position of those with only partial legal capacity remains unclear in the absence of speciűc relevant legislative provision. human rights standards: őe right of association can be especially important for individuals with mental disabilities as membership in advocacy and peer support groups can foster skills development, empowerment and autonomy. advocacy associations in particular may give individuals a collective political voice to lobby for policy and legislative change. őe disability convention sets out the right to associate as an integral element in participating in political and public life. its article 29(b) mandates states parties to: promote actively an environment in which persons with disabilities can eőectively and fully participate in the conduct of public aőairs, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and encourage their participation in public aőairs, including:i.participation in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country, and in the activities and administration of political parties; ii.forming and joining organizations of persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at international, national, regional and local levels.a prohibition on associating with others to pursue a common aim engages article 11of the echr. őis states: ‘everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.‘ any restrictions on these rights must be laid down in law and necessary in a democratic society for one of the listed grounds, such as for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. although the wording of article 11 does not expressly refer to it, the ecthr has conűrmed that ‘an inherent part of the right set forth in article 11is the right to form associations.257 it is diůcult to conceive of any legitimate reason that restricting the rights of people under guardianship to associate, form or join non-proűt organisations could be ‘necessary in a democratic society‘.2.6.5obligations of the guardian after guardianship is established (indicators 18-25)in order to ensure that the adult is adequately provided for, is treated with dignity and respect, and has the opportunity to maximize independence and self-determination, law must specify that the responsibilities of guardians and the mechanisms for their accountability. őese issues are considered by indicators 8-25.257 sidiropoulos v. greece, no. 26695/95, judgment 10 july 1998, (1998) ehrr 633. 59human rights and guardianship in serbiaindicator a person under guardianship is not precluded from making decisions in those areas where he/she has functional capacity. conclusion: serbian law recognizes only two forms of ‘permanent‘ guardianship:258 plenary and partial. under partial guardianship, the court must specify those areas where the adult retains the capacity to decide without the guardian.analysis: much material relevant to this indicator has been noted elsewhere. at this juncture therefore, the principle points are simply re-iterated as follows: during the procedure of deprivation of legal capacity the court can fully or partially deprive adults of legal capacity.259 if an adult is partially deprived of their legal capacity, the court must (or possibly may)260 identify those areas that the adult is entitled to decide upon independently. őese are typically the right to work, to marry under certain conditions, to spend earned money, and enter into speciűed business transactions. clearly once under plenary guardianship, functional capacity is deemed not to exist and consequently such adults are precluded from making relevant decisions.human rights standards: as noted earlier, the disability rights movement advocates a least-restrictive measure approach to guardianship, which maximises self-determination, a basic principle of human rights. őis approach permeates recommendation no. r(99)4, which states that ‘[t]he range of measures of protection should include those which are limited to one speciűc act without requiring the appointment of a representative or a representative with continuing powers‘.26principle of recommendation no. r(99)4 sets out that legislation should allow for a maximum preservation of legal capacity and is worth citing in full:őe legislative framework should, so far as possible, recognise that diőerent degrees of incapacity may exist and that incapacity may vary from time to time. accordingly, a measure of protection should not result automatically in a complete removal of legal capacity. however, a restriction of legal capacity should be possible where it is shown to be necessary for the protection of the person concerned.in particular, a measure of protection should not automatically deprive the person concerned of the right to vote, to make a will, or to consent or refuse consent to any intervention in the health űeld, or to make other decisions of a personal character at any time when his or her capacity permits him or her to do so.258as opposed to the temporary guardianship and/or temporary counsellor discussed under indicator 12.259non-contestant procedure act, art. 40.260 the non-contestant act article 40(2). provides that the judge has the option of creating such a list, but it is not mandatory. under the new family act, creating the list is no longer an optional possibility but the obligation of the courts.261recommendation no. r(99)4, principle 2(5).60mental disability advocacy centerconsideration should be given to legal arrangements whereby, even when representation in a particular area is necessary, the adult may be permitted, with the representative‘s consent, to undertake speciűc acts or acts in a speciűc area.4.whenever possible the adult should be enabled to enter into legally eőective transactions of an everyday nature.an illustrative approach to best practice can be found in france. in establishing guardianship, a judge in france may list transactions that the adult can undertake independent of the guardian. in assessing which tasks the individual should retain the freedom to conclude, the judge must consult a medical expert.262indicator an adult subject to guardianship must be consulted about major decisions, and his/her wishes are adhered to whenever possible.conclusion: őere is no provision in serbian law that requires the guardian to consult with or adhere to the wishes of the adult under guardianship. analysis: serbian law fails to require any consultation between the guardian and the adult on the taking of major or minor decisions and in relation to those decisions relating to adults‘ healthcare, it fails to refer to the participation of the adults at all. surgical and other medical interventions may be performed only with prior consent of a patient with full capacity, or in the case of an adult who has been deprived of their legal capacity, the guardian.26 unfortunately, the law is silent here on the position of adults under partial guardianship.human rights standards: law must ensure that adults under guardianship must be consulted on decisions aőecting their lives. a legal obligation to consult 262french civil code book 1, title x, chapter ii, article 420, applicable to adults under guardianship per 7itle ;,, chapter ,,,, article 8nof�cial translation provided by legifrance, a service of the french government. available at www.legifrance.gouv.fr, visited 2 august 2006. another approach to encourage the adult‘s participation is found in the uniform guardianship act which provides guidance on how to incorporate this principle into legislation ,n the section entitled ³guardian¶s ‘uties´, the model legislation provides: a guardian shall exercise authority only as necessitated by the ward‘s limitations and, to the extent possible, shall encourage the ward to participate in decisions, act on the ward‘s own behalf, and develop or regain the capacity to manage the ward‘s personal affairs. a guardian, in making decisions, shall consider the expressed desires and personal values of the ward to the extent known to the guardian. see uniform guardianship and protective proceedings act (1997), supra note 98, art. 3, para. 313(a).263health protection act, art. 19. 61human rights and guardianship in serbiaprovides both a benchmark to evaluate the guardian‘s performance and a judicially enforceable standard.264 as previously noted the disability convention states clearly that any measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity should ‘respect the rights, will and preferences of the person‘.265 similarly, recommendation no. r(99)4 speciűes that when taking a decision, ‘the past and present wishes and feelings of the adult should be ascertained so far as possible, and should be taken into account and given due respect‘.266 őis principle ‘also implies that a person representing or assisting an incapable adult should give him or her adequate information, whenever this is possible and appropriate, in particular concerning any major decision aőecting him or her, so that he or she may express a view‘.267 principle 2 of the recommendation goes further, recommending that when trying to űnd the best solution to an individual‘s circumstances, ‘[c]onsideration should be given to the inclusion of measures under which the appointed person acts jointly with the adult concerned, and of measures involving the appointment of more than one representative‘.268 indicator 20the scope of authority and obligations of the guardian are clearly defined and limited to those areas in which the adult subject to guardianship needs assistance.conclusion: plenary guardianship automatically removes a number of speciűcally listed rights but independent decision making power is removed entirely. partial guardianship allows a court to deűne those areas where the adult retains decision-making power. analysis: őe administrative decision of appointing a guardian by the guardianship agency must include a list of rights and duties of the guardian269 and so too must an individualized guardianship plan (see further below), for which provision has recently 264for example, finnish legislation incorporates this principle by requiring that guardians ask the individual for their opinion on decisions within the scope of the guardian‘s duties. see the finnish guardianship services act, 442/99, section 43(1) entitled hearing the ward 8nof�cial translation provided by f,1l(;, a service of the finnish government available at zzz�nle[�en, visited july 265convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 12(4).266principle 9(1).267principle 9(3).268principle 2(6).269family act, art. 135-144, and art. 333(3).62mental disability advocacy centerbeen made, be prepared.270 although, as noted below, there is little speciűc guidance as to the content of such plans, their very preparation provides an opportunity to address the speciűc needs of each adult. őe court‘s decision on partial deprivation of legal capacity contains a list of decision-making areas that the adult retains. by speciűcally identifying these areas, the authority of the guardian is clearly strictly deűned and the opportunity for ‘tailoring‘ the guardianship preserved. nonetheless in practice, this opportunity tends to be wasted.as noted, a guardian is limited in deciding on the adult‘s education (including vocational training, and even work) and needs the previous approval of the guardianship agency prior to any űnal decision being made.27 guardianship plan when the guardianship agency appoints a guardian it must also prepare a ‘guardianship plan‘. őis is a new concept in serbian law but unfortunately fails to oőer guidance as to what such plans should contain. as the guardianship plan must be written simultaneously with the decision about whom to appoint as guardian, it is diůcult to imagine that the named guardian has anything but a minor role in drafting the plan. őis minor role is more likely when the guardian is neither a close relative nor a friend of the adult. human rights standards: legislation should provide clear direction to the authority determining legal capacity to deűne the scope of the individual guardian‘s obligations in light of the particular adult‘s functional capacity. recommendation no. r(99)4 encourages countries to adopt a legal framework that can ěexibly respond to diőerent situations: ‘[t]he measures of protection and other legal arrangements available for the protection of the personal and economic interests of incapable adults should be suůcient, in scope or ěexibility, to enable a suitable legal response to be made to diőerent degrees of incapacity and various situations‘.272 őe recommendation further advises that: őe legislative framework should, so far as possible, recognise that diőerent degrees of incapacity may exist and that incapacity may vary from time to time. accordingly, a measure of protection should not result automatically in a complete removal of legal capacity. however, a restriction of legal capacity should be possible where it is shown to be necessary for the protection of the adult.27őe disability convention provides that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and eőective safeguards to ensure that 270family act, art. 125(2).271family act, art. 137, para. 4, p. 1.272principle 2(1).273principle 3(1).63human rights and guardianship in serbiameasures relating to the exercise of legal capacity ‘are proportional and tailored to the person‘s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. őe safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures aőect the person‘s rights and interests.‘274an exemplary use of this approach can be found in the finnish guardianship act which speciűes that ‘the task of the guardian may be restricted to cover only a given transaction, matter, or property‘.275 even within a particular matter, this law additionally safeguards the interests of the adult by prohibiting guardians from enumerated activities including conveying or purchasing property,276 consent to marriage or adoption, or make or revoke a will, absent speciűc permission of the court.277indicator 2a guardian is obliged to promote the interest, welfare and independence of the adult under guardianship by seeking the least restrictive alternatives in living arrangements and endeavouring to allow the adult to live in the community.conclusion: serbian legislation refers to the importance of adults under guardianship living independently. analysis: a principle duty upon guardians is for them to take steps to eliminate the causes leading to a deprivation of capacity, and to maximise opportunities for independent living 278 őis approach was seen in early legislation which speciűcally stated that the purpose of guardianship was to make an adult under guardianship capable of independent living279 and is followed today.280 consequently this duty guides the manner in which all other duties should be fulűlled. when identifying and appointing a guardian a guardianship agency must also specify where the adult is to live: guardians do not have the authority to independently make such a decision. however, the when deciding upon appropriate accommodation, a guardianship authority can choose a residential social care institution, and as noted above, it can appoint the director of such an institution as the appropriate guardian. 274convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 12(4).275the finnish guardianship services act, 442/99, para. 8(3). 276 ibid, para. 34.277 ibid, para. 29.278family act, art 136(2).279see, for instance, family act, art. 219 (1980).280family act, art. 136(2).64mental disability advocacy centerhuman rights standards: őis indicator tests the relationship between guardianship and living in an institution. őe right to live in the community is enshrined in international law principally in article 9 of the disability convention and as follows: living independently and being included in the communitystates parties to this convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take eőective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community, including by ensuring that:a.persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement;b.persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community;c.community services and facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.őe 2006 council of europe disability action plan sets out a european-wide policy framework on disability for the next decade calling on countries ‘to ensure community-based quality service provision and alternative housing models, which enable a move from institution-based care to community living‘.28 although living arrangements are not expressly addressed in recommendation no. r(99)4, the principle of proportionality dictates that, in all decisions a course should be adopted that least restricts the adult‘s rights and freedom while providing adequate protection.282 indicator 22the guardian must manage the assets of the adult in a manner that benefits the adult under guardianship. conclusion: serbian law provides that guardians must manage the assets of adults under guardianship, plenary and partial, in their best interests. analysis: legislation states that the primary duty of a guardian is to ensure the welfare and beneűt of adults and their property.28 in so doing a guardian is obliged to ensure the resources required and due are received and to make legal representation if they 281council of europe disability action plan 2006, op cit, para. 3.8.3(vi). 282principle 6(2).283family act, arts. 135-142. 65human rights and guardianship in serbiaare not forthcoming.284 for instance, if an adult is eligible to receive social aid, an application for that aid must be made by a guardian. a guardian can take decisions independently of the authority of the guardianship agency, only in connection with the everyday management of an adult‘s property. such ‘everyday management‘ includes decisions in relation to includes the maintenance and preservation of such property.285 it excludes however the disposal of the property unless such disposal takes place in a manner that prevents loss, or is made speciűcally to fulűl an adult‘s needs and welfare. maintenance can also include repairs, payment of the necessary costs related to the property (taxes, utilities, etc) as well as leasing parts of the property for short-term tenure (one year at the most).286 urgent measures, so long as these are solely taken in order to protect the property, are allowed. as to the űnancial support of those under guardianship, plenary or partial, guardians have no obligation to oőer support from their own resources. however, they must ensure that adults receive access to any űnancial and other sources necessary for the maintenance of their daily living needs, and ensure receipt of all resources to which they are entitled.287 such support includes private income; assets given by, for instance, close family members who are obliged to provide űnancial support to the adult;288and/or the property of the adult if there is no speciűc income or individuals who are obliged to provide support. 289 human rights standards: őe importance of this standard is twofold: in the ability of the adult or another interested individual to bring claims against a guardian should that guardian misuse the assets of the person under guardianship; and in provision of clear legal regulations by which to monitor a guardian‘s actions. while recommendation no. r(99)4 says little regarding the guardian‘s role as manager of the űnances of the adult under guardianship, it does state that ‘the property of the incapable adult should be managed and used for the beneűt of the person concerned and to secure his or her welfare‘.290 principle 20 further provides that a guardian should be held liable for ‘any loss or damage caused by them to incapable adults while exercising their functions‘.29 őis principle suggests that a guardian should be held liable for mismanagement or misappropriation of the funds or property of an adult under guardianship, arguably 284family act, art. 138.285see for instance obren stankoviü, miodrag orliü, stvarno pravo (property law), 9th edition, nomos, belgrade, 1996, pp. 151-152.286 ibid.287family act, art.138.288the circle of these persons is described in articles 151-159 of the family act. these are close relatives of the adult (parents, brothers and sisters, spouse and children (including adopted and step-children). 289social protection act, of�cial gazette rs, no. 36/91, 79/91, 33/93, 53/93, 67/93, 46/94, 48/94, 52/96, 29/01, 84/04.290principle 8(3).291principle 20(1).66mental disability advocacy centerincluding acts or expenditures that do not directly beneűt the adult. őe who has also adopted this approach and recommends that ‘[s]pecifying penalties if guardians fail to perform their duties would strengthen legislation‘.292indicator 2the guardian is obliged to visit and confer with the adult periodically.conclusion: őe law states that guardians must visit adults under their care, but is silent on how often these visits must take place.analysis: guardians living apart from adults under their guardianship must visit them.29 őis duty includes those living in social care homes or other institutional settings. however, there is no speciűc legislative provision prescribing exactly how often a guardian should visit, although it is suggested that a correct interpretation of this duty is that visits should be conducted regularly and frequently. human rights standards: a cornerstone of recommendation no. r(99)4, and person-centred protective systems generally, is the need to ensure that the adult under guardianship remains central to the decision-making process. őis includes eőective consultation to give the adult‘s wishes due consideration whenever possible. recommendation no. r(99)4 also provides that a representative or guardian should give the adult suůcient information concerning major decisions so that he or she may express a view.294 a second important beneűt of requiring guardians to visit an individual they represent is so to allow them to gain a full understanding of the individual‘s living situation and the care and services provided. as a best practice example, the american uniform guardianship and protective proceedings act provides that the guardian must ‘become or remain personally acquainted with the ward and maintain suůcient contact with the ward to know of the ward‘s capacities, limitations, needs, opportunities, and physical and mental health‘.295indicator 24a guardian‘s decisions are periodically reviewed by an objective body and the guardian is held accountable for all decisions.conclusion: guardians must submit annual reports to the guardianship agency and a űnal report if and when guardianship is terminated. guardians are responsible for 292 who resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation: stop exclusion, dare to care, op cit, p. 43.293family act of 2005, art. 136, para. 3. 294principle 9.295section 313(b)(i).67human rights and guardianship in serbiathe damages arising as a result of their actions and/or omissions whilst performing their duties, and can be held accountable for damages made intentionally or because of negligence.296 analysis: őe guardian must report to the guardianship agency and submit an account of their work at the beginning of every calendar year for the previous year, during the year as requested by the guardianship authority, and on termination of guardianship.297 őe annual report should detail measures undertaken in respect of the adult‘s care, speciűcally on the conditions of accommodation, health and education and property dealings. as to property, speciűc information its management, disposals, revenues and expenditures in the previous year should be given, as indeed should full details of the űnal status of the adult‘s assets.298 őe guardianship agency may request a guardian to complete an ad hoc report at any time. őis must be submitted within 5 days the request. as to the report on termination of the guardianship, no guidance is given as to its required content. although the serbian guardianship law does not specify criminal liability of the guardian, they are criminally liable in accordance with the criminal law. guardians can be prosecuted for a number of criminal oőences, for instance, for breaches of trust under the criminal code.299 human rights standards: recommendation no. r(99)4 speciűes that ‘[t]here should be adequate control of the operation of measures of protection and of the acts and decisions of representatives‘.00 őe recommendation goes on to specify that guardians must be responsible for their actions and any loss or damage caused by them to the adults under their care and, in particular, that ‘the laws on liability for wrongful acts, negligence or maltreatment should apply to representatives and others involved in the aőairs of incapable adults‘. to meaningfully comply with this measure, review mechanisms must identify the guardian‘s duties (as discussed in indicator 20), as well as providing accessible and workable procedural guarantees. 296art. 141 of the family act.297art. 142, para. 1 of the family act.298 family act, art. 142.299article of�cial gazette rs, no see in marima ‘raãkiü, porodično pravo (family law), colpi, dosije, belgrade, 1998, p. 307.300principle 16.301principle 20.68mental disability advocacy centerindicator 25a complaint procedure exists that triggers review of guardian‘s acts or omissions.conclusion: őe law provides an opportunity for an adult, and others with a legal interest, to submit a complaint to the guardianship agency challenging a decision of a guardian.analysis: provision is made for an adult under guardianship to lodge a complaint, but only when having the ability to understand the meaning of such an action. 02 when deciding on the admissibility of such a complaint, the guardianship agency should take into account the circumstances of the particular case, bearing in mind the adult‘s best interest. such complaints can, in addition, be lodged by any person with a legal interest. examples would include relatives, debtors or creditors. upon receipt of a complaint, the guardianship agency has 5 days to respond. it has the power to reverse a decision of a guardian, or, if the decision could lead to violation of the rights of the adult, can initiate the procedure for dismissal of that guardian. a complaint may, in addition, be lodged against the actions of the guardianship agency. őe adult, the guardian and other interested parties may lodge such a complaint, which must be submitted to the ministry for labour, employment and social aőairs. őe ministry must provide an answer to that complaint within 0 days from its receipt and can either reverse or uphold the decision about which the complaint has been made.04 it is unclear whether the current law allows a guardianship agency to order a guardian to pay compensation for damages arising to an adult as the result of negligence acts or omissions. 05 it can however ‘invite‘ the guardian to make compensation, and if this invitation is refused can take the guardian to court. if this action is taken a ‘collision guardian‘ should be appointed to represent the adult‘s interests.őe guardianship agency is under a duty to dismiss a guardian without undue delay if it establishes that the guardian has failed to fulűl their duties, regardless of the reason, if they are abusing their power, or if rendered unable to continue as guardian. 06 if negligent, a guardian must be dismissed within 0 days, or if the guardianship agency comes to the conclusion that another person would be a more appropriate appointment.őe guardian can appeal such a decision within 5 days from receiving notiűcation of the this intended course of action. others with a legal interest may also appeal. őe 302family act, art. 335.303family act, art. 335(2).304family act art. 338.305family act, arts. 141 and 335.306family act, art. 133.69human rights and guardianship in serbiaappeal should be submitted to the ministry of labour, employment and social aőairs, which must arrive at a űnal decision on the issue within two months. 07 inexplicably, the adult does not have the right to appeal a decision of the guardianship agency. guardians can ask the guardianship agencies to discharge them from their duties. upon such a request they must be so discharged within 60 days. in such circumstances, the guardianship agency is under a duty to protect the adult‘s interests until a new guardian is appointed. human rights standards: deprivation of legal capacity should not preclude an adult from accessing the court, or other body, from seeking an independent review of a decision or course of action of a guardian. őe court, or other body, must have the legal right to amend or reverse either. while recommendation no. r(99)4 states that an adult who has been deprived of his or her legal capacity ‘should be entitled to demand a review‘, this provision appears to relate to review of the need for guardianship itself. a person under guardianship should have, in addition, the opportunity to obtain an independent review of actual decisions or actions taken by the guardian, a view shared by the who. indeed the who has asserted availability of procedures for review of guardians‘ decisions as one of the recommended ten basic principles of mental health law.08 őe who principles further list components imperative to an eőective review procedure: availability, timeliness, accessibility to the individual concerned, and an opportunity for the adult to be heard in person. a legislative example that would meet this indicator may be found in typical state legislation from the united states, which provides that the adult can ask the court to review and amend a decision of a guardian or amend the guardianship plan or the responsibilities of the guardian, remove a guardian and appoint a successor, or terminate the guardianship.092.6.6 necessity of guardianship and alternatives (indicators 26-29)őe last group of indicators (indicators 26 to 29) examines legal alternatives to guardianship. owing to its intrusive and personal nature, guardianship should be used only as a last resort. legal frameworks should recognise the dynamic nature of functional capacity over time, and guardianship should be maintained only as long as, and to the extent necessary, to accomplish the task of protection of vulnerable people. guardianship arrangements should be reviewed periodically, and modiűed or terminated as conditions require.307general administrative procedure act, art. 237.308who, mental health care law: ten basic principles, who/mng/mnd/96.9. available at http://www.who.int/entity/mental_health/media/en/75.pdf., visited 2 august 2006. 309see, eg, alaska stat. para. 13.26.125 (bender 2005).70mental disability advocacy centerindicator 26less restrictive alternatives to guardianship are available and are demonstrably exhausted before a guardianship is imposed.conclusion: őere are no less restrictive alternatives to guardianship.analysis: serbian legislation does not speciűcally recognize any other alternative to guardianship.31 guardianship is the only possible measure to protect an adult‘s rights and interests. nonetheless, there has recently been provision made for ‘advanced directives‘ to be made in certain areas of health care decision making. it is now possible for every person to decide in advance and appoint someone who will be responsible for making health care decisions on his/her behalf should that person become unable to make their own such decisions.311 prolonged parental care should be mentioned here, although technically it is not a ‘less restrictive alternative‘ for guardianship as it only concerns young people. prolonged parental care is in essence a guardianship carried out by the parents of a child who lacks functional capacity. őe principle aim of such care is to ensure protection of their rights and interests. a court has jurisdiction to decide on prolonging parental rights,31 a procedure which should be initiated before the child reaches 8. őe legal consequences of prolonged parental care are much the same as of the guardianship, but there are a few diőerences. firstly, it is still a relationship between a child and parent(s). secondly, the remit of parental authority is much broader than a guardian‘s. őe parents do not need the permission of the guardianship agency to decide on the majority of issues related to their child.313 human rights standards: őe disability convention provides that ‘states parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity‘.31 őis encourages a paradigm shift away from guardianship models and towards systems which encourage supported decision-making. implicit in this is that alternatives to guardianship do exist and are utilised. recommendation no. r(99)4 states in principle 5 that a protective measure such as deprivation of legal capacity and guardianship should be based on the principle 310examples of less restrictive measures include the supported decision making model, where the adult makes all necessary decisions with assistance identifying and weighing the alternatives, or voluntary arrangements such as power of attorney. 311health protection act, art. 32(4).312this procedure is regulated by articles 72-74 of the non-contestant procedure act. 313only a few exceptions exist and are related to property of greater value or real-estate belonging to the child see family act, art. 193(3) and (4). 314convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 12(3).71human rights and guardianship in serbiaof minimum necessary intervention, or least restrictive alternative. it suggests that guardianship should not be established for a person unless other less formal arrangements have been exhausted. a model from canada provides an instructive example of legislation that meets this indicator. őe manitoba vulnerable persons living with a mental disability act speciűes that a substitute decision maker may not be appointed unless it is determined whether the individual has a support network and ‘reasonable eőorts have been made to involve the support network‘.31 further, if the űrst criterion is not met, the court may mandate attempts to involve a support network as an alternative to appointing a substitute decision maker.31 similarly, in finland a guardian may be appointed without restricting the adult‘s legal competency; incapacity decisions are a separate legal procedure. őe court may only declare an individual as lacking legal capacity after it has established that the listed alternatives are not suůcient to safeguard the adult‘s interests.31 indicator 27guardianships are tailored to the individual needs of the person involved and address the varying degrees of capacity.conclusion: given the nature of plenary guardianship, there is no opportunity to tailor this to an adult‘s needs. őe needs of adults under partial guardianship can be tailored by the court.analysis: serbian law does not recognize guardianship without deprivation of legal capacity. for those under plenary guardianship, there is no possibility for the court or the guardianship agency to tailor the guardianship to the individual‘s particular needs and capacity. however, this option does exist for individuals under partial guardianship. in such circumstances the courts must formally decide which actions can be undertaken by adults.31 315vulnerable persons living with a mental disability act, r.m., ch. 29, para. 49(a)-(b) (1993).316vulnerable persons living with a mental disability act, r.m., ch. 29, para. 50(2). this approach is also followed in other canadian jurisdictions. for example, in ontario a physician may order a community treatment plan as an alternative to psychiatric hospitalization; also the court may not appoint a guardian for the individual‘s property absent unless an alternative course ‘less restrictive to the person‘s decision making rights‘ is unavailable. (mental health act, s.o., ch. m.7, para. 33.1 and para. 33.7 (1990); substitute decisions act, s.o., ch. 30, para.22(3) ( )) similarly, in yukon the court may not appoint a guardian unless ³forms of available support and assistance less intrusive than guardianship have been tried or carefully considered.” adult protection and decision making act s.y. ch. 21, schedule a, para. 32(1) (yukon).317 the finnish guardianship services act 442/99, para. 18.318 family act, art. 147(3).72mental disability advocacy centerwith respect to those with partial capacity, a guardianship agency is, as noted previously, obliged to list in its decision on appointment of the guardian the guardian‘s duties and responsibilities,31 in addition to which it must provide a guardianship plan. in cases of partial guardianship, these rights and responsibilities of the guardian have to be in conjunction with the court‘s decision and list of businesses that can be conducted independently by the adult. őis gives a high level of ěexibility in tailoring the measures to the adult‘s speciűc circumstances and needs. furthermore, it meets the requirement according to which the legislative framework should, as far as possible, recognize that diőerent degrees of incapacity that may exist and that incapacity may vary from time to time. however, it seams that lack of some sort of the less formal approach in modifying guardianship in time (for example by introducing the possibility for guardianship agency to make adjustments of the businesses that can be conducted independently by the adults) lowers ěexibility of the guardianship.20indicator 28guardianship is periodically reviewed and continues only as long as appropriate.conclusion: guardianships are not time limited. őere are no automatic reviews of the necessity of guardianship. analysis: recent legislative changes mean that the court now lists those acts that can be independently undertaken by the adult, lists that are now more diůcult to alter. such lists were previously the responsibility of the guardianship agency. courts do however have the authority to change plenary into partial guardianship (or the other way round) if there are changes in the adult‘s mental health. although there is no legislative guidance, it is generally assumed that if the guardian, or guardianship authority, believes that there are reasons to modify the guardianship, they should submit an application to the court. őe adult may initiate this procedure too, in the same manner as an application for termination of guardianship. as for termination of guardianship, the law provides that guardianship is terminated only when the criteria for deprivation of legal capacity are no longer met.in direct contrast to earlier legislation, there is now no obligation upon guardianship agencies to initiate the procedure for restoring the capacity of the adult even when in receipt of information suggesting this to be appropriate. legislative provisions simply state that the guardianship agency shall deliver the decision on termination of guardianship when the legal requirements are met.22 319 family act, art. 333(3).320 this possibility existed in the 1980 family act. see art. 277(2).321 family act, art. 145, para 1, p. 5. 322 family act, art. 337. 73human rights and guardianship in serbiahuman rights standards: őe disability convention sets out an appeal requirement in article 2(4), which says that ‘states parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and eőective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity […] are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body.‘ recommendation no. r(99)4 also takes this approach by providing that measures such as guardianship should be of limited duration if possible and, at the very least, should be reviewed periodically to determine whether the need still exists.24 őis standard is also found in the mental illness principles. principle (6) requires that, ‘[d]ecisions regarding capacity and the need for a personal representative shall be reviewed at reasonable intervals prescribed by domestic law‘.25 indicator 29an adult subject to guardianship has the right to request review, modification and/or termination of the guardianship.conclusion: őere is legislative provision speciűcally authorising an adult under guardianship, plenary or partial, to request review of the guardianship if he or she can understand the consequences of their acts. it is not clear, however, whether an adult can represent him or herself during the procedure.analysis: őe non-contestant procedure act26 speciűcally states that the procedure for restoration of legal capacity can be initiated by the same persons that are authorized to commence the procedure for deprivation of legal capacity. as mentioned above, the adult himself belongs to the circle of these people if he or she can understand the consequences of their conduct. it is not clear, however, how the court establishes whether an adult who has been deprived of their legal capacity has or has not functional capacity to initiate the procedure for restoration of legal capacity. in addition, it is unclear whether an adult can represent himself during the procedure, or this should be done by his guardian, or by a collision guardian if the guardian opposes the restoration of the adult‘s legal capacity.őe adult has the right to appeal a court decision failing to restore legal capacity27 as can a guardian or temporary counsellor although only if they initiated the application 323 convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted by the un general assembly on 6 december 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 12(4).324 recommendation r(99)4, principle 14.325 un resolution 46/119, op cit, principle 1, fundamental freedoms and basic rights. 326article 42.327article 43.74mental disability advocacy centerthemselves.28 őe appeal should be submitted within 5 days from the date of delivery of the decision. human rights standards: őe right to fair trial in the determination of civil rights is set out in article 6 of the echr, and includes legal capacity issues.29 őe ecthr has ruled that guardianship engages article 8 of the echr on privacy rights, asserting that a re-examination of legal capacity or guardianship is particularly justiűed if the adult so requests.33 as with several other indicators, it is especially important that the right of review be prescribed by legislation. in the absence of such provision the adult may be precluded from accessing the court as the result of not having legal standing to bring cases to court. 328 see decision of the supreme court of serbia, rev. 1734/93.329 winterwerp v. the netherlands, op cit.330 matter v. slovakia, op cit.75human rights and guardianship in serbiaannexglossary of erminologyadult: an adult is a person who has reached the legal age of majority. in russian the age of majority is 8.capacity: a legal term embodying the notion that for a person to make decisions and take actions that have a binding, legal eőect, he or she must have the requisite mental state, the ability to understand the decision presented, consider alternatives, appreciate the consequences of the decision and communicate the decision. őe terms ‘capable‘ and ‘competent‘ are frequently used interchangeably. intellectual disability: őis phrase refers to people who have intellectual limitations of varying types and degrees. some countries use the term ‘learning disability‘ instead. however, as with the phrase ‘mental health problem‘ (see below), the literal translations into english from languages across europe and central asia may be outdated and pejorative (for example, terms such as ‘mental retardation,‘ ‘imbecile,‘ ‘abnormal comprehension,‘ ‘idiocy,‘ ‘weak mind‘ and so on). guardian: a guardian is a person appointed by the appropriate entity to act in the place of an adult who lacks legal capacity to handle his or her own aőairs. őe appropriate entity may be either a court or a guardianship agency, depending on the jurisdiction and/or the type of case. őe guardian may be a relative, a professional guardian or any other person authorised under national legislation to act in this capacity on behalf of a person who has been deemed to lack capacity. guardianship: a legal relationship established through a court or administrative process between a person deemed to lack the requisite legal capacity (either partially or completely) to make personal decisions and the person appointed to make decisions on his or her behalf. guardianship is also sometimes referred to as ‘substitute decision-making.‘ guardianship is one form of ‘protective measure‘ referenced by the council of europe committee of ministers in recommendation no. r(99)4. mental disability: őis term is applied to people who have been diagnosed with, or labelled as having psycho-social disabilities (mental health problems) and/or intellectual disabilities. mental health problem: see psycho-social disability. partial guardianship (or limited guardianship): partial/limited guardianship is established when a person who has some capacity to make decisions or take 76mental disability advocacy centeraction on his or her own behalf and is deemed to have partial capacity. what a person may or may not be allowed to do for himself or herself when under partial guardianship is a matter for national legislation and/or courts to decide and will vary from country to country or within the same country. plenary guardianship: type of guardianship established when a person is deemed to lack capacity completely or lack suůcient capacity to take any actions on his or her own behalf. plenary guardianship is the most encompassing form of guardianship. psycho-social disability: an admittedly broad term currently used by the global community (for example, the world network of users, ex-users and survivors of psychiatry used this term throughout negotiations on the un convention on the rights of persons with disabilities). őe term is meant to include people who have been diagnosed, labelled or perceived as having a mental illness, and can include people with personality disorders. people with psycho-social disabilities are sometimes referred to as users of mental health services, having a ‘mental illness‘ or ‘mental disorder.‘ for purposes of consistency, all such terms are translated as ‘psycho-social disability,‘ a term mdac maintains is less stigmatizing.supported decision-making: őis alternative to guardianship is premised on the fact that with proper support, a person who might otherwise be deemed to lack capacity is, in fact, able to make personal decisions.trustee: although its speciűc meaning will be deűned in law, in general terms, a trustee is a person who maintains a űduciary relationship to another person. in some jurisdictions, the term ‘trustee‘ is used interchangeably with guardian, but in other jurisdictions (including, for example, bulgaria), it is used only for certain relationships, such as in cases of partial incapacity. ward: őe term commonly used in english-speaking countries to refer to a person who is under guardianship. mdac prefers not to use this term as it dehumanises the individual. it is also used in english to mean a department of a hospital. instead, mdac simply uses ‘adult‘ or ‘person concerned.‘77human rights and guardianship in serbiaannex bsummary able of the ndicatorsindicator the legislative purpose or preamble to the law encompasses respect for the human rights, dignity and fundamental freedom of people with mental disabilities.indicator 2legislation clearly identifies who may make an application for appointment of a guardian and the foundation needed to support it.indicator an adult has a right to actual notice of, and to be present and heard at all proceedings related to the application for deprivation of his or her legal capacity and appointment of a guardian.indicator 4an adult has a right to free and effective legal representation throughout guardianship proceedings.indicator 5an adult may not be detained in order to be subjected to an evaluation of his or her functional capacity.indicator 6an adult has the right and opportunity to present his/her own evidence (including witnesses), and to challenge the opposing evidence.indicator 7no adult is deprived of legal capacity without being the subject of an incapacity assessment, conducted by a qualified professional and based upon recent, objective information, including an in-person evaluation.indicator 8a finding of incapacity requires a demonstrable link between the underlying diagnosis and the alleged inability to make independent decisions.indicator 9a finding of incapacity is based upon sufficient evidence and serves the interests of the adult.78mental disability advocacy centerindicator selection of a guardian is based on objective criteria and the wishes and feelings of the adult are considered.indicator 11the guardian should not have a conflict of interest with the adult, or the appearance of such a conflict.indicator an adult has the right to appeal a finding of incapacity and/or the appointment of a guardian.indicator 13by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise political rights.indicator by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to work.indicator by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to property.indicator by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to marry, to found a family, and to respect of family life.indicator by being placed under guardianship, an adult is not automatically deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to associate.indicator a person under guardianship is not precluded from making decisions in those areas where he/she has functional capacity.indicator an adult subject to guardianship must be consulted about major decisions, and have his/her wishes adhered to whenever possible.indicator 20the scope of authority and obligations of the guardian are clearly defined and limited to those areas in which the adult subject to guardianship needs assistance.79human rights and guardianship in serbiaindicator 2a guardian is obliged to promote the interest, welfare and independence of the adult under guardianship by seeking the least restrictive alternatives in living arrangements, endeavouring to allow the adult to live in the community.indicator 22the guardian must manage the assets of the adult in a manner that benefits the adult under guardianship.indicator 2the guardian is obliged to visit and confer with the adult periodically.indicator 24a guardian‘s decisions are periodically reviewed by an objective body and the guardian is held accountable for all decisions.indicator 25a complaint procedure exists that triggers review of guardian‘s acts or omissions.indicator 26less restrictive alternatives to guardianship are available and are demonstrably exhausted before a guardianship is imposed.indicator 27guardianships are tailored to the individual needs of the person involved and address the varying degrees of capacity.indicator 28guardianship is periodically reviewed and continues only as long as appropriate.indicator 29an adult subject to guardianship has the right to request modification and/or termination of the guardianship.mental disability advocacy center (mdac)the mental disability advocacy center advances the human rights of adults and children with actual or perceived intellectual or psycho-social disabilities. focusing on europe and central asia, we use a combination of law and advocacy to promote equality and social integration. we have participatory status with the council of europe and are a cooperating organisation of the international helsinki federation for human rights. our vision is for a world that values emotional, mental and learning differences, and where people respect each other‘s autonomy and dignity.jan pfeiffer (czech republic)peter bartlett (canada and uk) judit fridli (hungary) yonko grozev (bulgaria) clemens huitink (the netherlands) robert kushen (usa) dainius puras (lithuania)oliver lewiscsilla budai (programme assistant) barbora bukovská (legal director) istvan fenyvesi (publications consultant) jan fiala (legal of�cer) iain giles (financial and administrative of�cer) gábor gombos (senior advocacy of�cer) anna hornyik (of�ce administrator) dániel kaderják (programme assistant and researcher) sarolta kozma (accountant) yuri marchenko (legal of�cer) györgy péchy jr. (it consultant) marit rasmussen (research and development director) orsolya süveg (of�ce cleaner)zuzana benešová (czech republic) nina dadalauri (georgia) meder dastanbekov (kyrgyzstan) vidan hadži-vidanović (serbia) slavka nikolova kukova (bulgaria) petar anna smorgunova (russia)dmitri bartenev, st. petersburg, russia (citizens‘ watch) aneta mircheva, so�a, bulgaria (bulgarian helsinki committee) eve pilt, tallinn, estonia (estonian patients advocacy association) david zahumenský, brno, czech republic (league of human rights)robert m. gordon (canada) georg høyer (norway) krassimir kanev (bulgaria) mark kelly (ireland) jill peay (uk)peter bartlett (canada and uk, chair) paul bowen (uk) ira burmin (usa) luke clements (uk) lilla farkas (hungary) yonko grozev (bulgaria) aart hendricks (the netherlands) lovorka kusan (croatia) robert kushen (usa) olivier de schutter (belgium) vesselina vandova (bulgaria)priscilla adams (usa) wendy alexander (trinidad and tobago) jill diamond (usa)matthew francis (uk) jana glogárová (czech republic) sarah green (uk) jana hecová (czech republic) bogdan maties (romania) jill roche (usa) nicholas tsang (usa)chair of the boardboard of directorsexecutive directorstaffguardianship researcherslegal monitors and partner organisationsguardianship advisory boardlegal advisory networkrecent volunteers and internsfor additional information contact:mdac rákóczi str. 27/b 1088 budapest hungarytelephone: +36 1 413 27 30 fax: +36 1 413 27 39 email: mdac@mdac.info website: www.mdac.infomdac work is funded by doughty street chambers, the european commission, the open society institute – budapest, the sigrid rausing trust, and individual donorsstarateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijianaliza pravnog uređenja i prakse starateljstva u srbiji2006mdacmentaldisabilityadvocacycenter4mental disability advocacy center5starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiuvorazmrajaovo je prvi izveštaj ove vrste koji se detaljno bavi zakonima o starateljstvu u srbiji. srbija je delom reformisala zakone kojima se ureőuje starateljstvo 2005. godine. ali donešeni zakoni nisu u potpunosti usklaőeni sa trenutnim standardima ljudskih prava. ovaj izveštaj usredsreően je na pitanje da li srbija ispunjava meőunarodne standarde ljudskih prava. u ovom izveštaju ukazano je na pravne i moralne obaveze srbije da izmeni zakone o starateljstvu, i to u pravom trenutku, s obzirom da je generalna skupština un-a nedavno usvojila konvenciju o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom.1 treba pomenuti da je srbija aktivno uűestvovala u izradi teksta konvencije, koja u űlanu poziva sve drőave da obezbede osobama sa invaliditetom pravo na priznanje pravne sposobnosti i da uőivaju poslovnu sposobnost na jednakim osnovama kao druga lica u svim oblastima őivota.2 starateljstvo u srbiji je delimiűno regulisano zakonima koji nisu znaűajno menjani još iz vremena komunizma, kada su osobe sa invaliditetom bile iskljuűene iz društva. posebno su spore promene pravila koja ureőuju sam postupak lišavanja poslovne sposobnosti. trenutno je u toku opseőna reforma pravnog sistema srbije, a jedan od prioriteta su osobe sa invaliditetom. na ovo ukazuje i usvajanje niza zakona ukljuűujuěi i zakon o zabrani diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom, u aprilu 2006. godine i porodiűnog zakona 2005. godine. preduzeti su i drugi koraci kao što je ulazak u skupštinsku proceduru zakona o profesionalnoj rehabilitaciji i zapošljavanju osoba s invaliditetom. iako ovi zakoni ukazuju na to da srbija sve više priznaje prava osoba sa invaliditetom, treba naglasiti da ovi zakoni imaju znaűajne nedostatke, posebno u oblasti starateljstva. ovi zakoni se moraju uskladiti sa meőunarodnim standardima.ovaj izveštaj pruőa analizu domaěeg zakonodavstva o starateljstvu, koje je posmatrano u svetlu trenutno obavezujuěih standarda ljudskih prava. zakonske norme kojima se ureőuje starateljstvo nisu kodiůkovane, veě su rasute u brojnim zakonima i drugim propisima. stoga ovaj izveštaj ispituje mere zaštite predviőene tim zakonima i drugim propisima, da li te mere zaštite predstavljaju pravni sistem u kome se u potpunosti poštuju standardi ljudskih prava.rezultat ovih istraőivanja ukazuje na to da, iako ustav srbije izriűito predviőa obavezu poštovanja ljudskih prava osoba sa mentalnim smetnjama u skladu sa meőunarodnim standardima, postoji űitav niz pravnih nedostatka u ovoj oblasti s obzirom na postojeěi zakonodavni okvir. u stvari, kljuűni zakljuűci ovog izveštaja jasno pokazuju da srbija nije ispunila svoju obavezu da zaštiti prava osoba pod starateljstvom, i ukazuju na neophodnost hitne reforme. najvaőniji od tih zakljuűaka su:1 konvencija o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom, usvojena na zasedanju generalne skupštine un-a, 6. decembra 2006, ref a/61/611, član 12.1.2 ibid, član 12.1.6mental disability advocacy centerpropisi o starateljstvu su suviše neodreőeni i nisu dovoljno jasni. u velikom broju sluűajeva su neusaglašeni, uglavnom iz razloga što je starateljstvo regulisano brojnim zakonima.punoletne osobe pod potpunim starateljstvom űesto su proizvoljno i automatski lišene ljudskih prava, ukljuűujuěi i pravo na imovinu, na porodiűan őivot, na zakljuűenje braka, na pravo glasanja na izborima, na udruőivanje, na pristup sudu i na pravo da sastave testament.žak i kada nisu izriűito lišena odreőenih prava, ova lica su lišena procesne sposobnosti i nemaju moguěnost da sudskim putem samostalno ostvare svoja prava.starateljstvo time doprinosi segregaciji osoba s invaliditetom. u srbiji punoletna osoba moőe biti prinudno zadrőana radi procene mentalnog stanja što je u suprotnosti sa meőunarodnim standardima.3 daleko znaűajnije je to da ako je punoletna osoba stavljena pod starateljstvo, ona se moőe doőivotno smestiti bez svoje saglasnosti u instituciju socijalne zaštite i bez moguěnosti őalbe.za osobe sa invaliditetom kojima je potrebna pomoě pri donošenju odluka ne postoje alternative starateljstvu, kao što su na primer, donošenje odluka na osnovu ranije datog odobrenja ili pomoě i podrška pri samostalnom odluűivanju (supported decision making).mdac pozdravlja űitav niz pozitivnih promena u zakonima srbije koji ureőuju starateljstvo. ipak, mdac poziva vladu srbije da preduzme dalje reforme, a naroűito da ispravi greške napravljene u dosadašnjim reformama. mdac veruje da ěe pravljenje nacrta novog srpskog graőanskog zakonika biti prilika da se ovo sprovede, i poziva vladu srbije da to i uűini uz poštovanje i uűešěe osoba sa smetnjama mentalnog zdravlja i intelektualnim smetnjama, kao i njihovim lokalnim i nacionalnim organizacijama.u ovom izveštaju iznešen je niz preporuka, saűinjenih u cilju poboljšanja zakona o starateljstvu i time u cilju veěeg poštovanja ljudskih prava osoba sa invaliditetom u srbiji.3 rezolucija un-a 46/119 o načelima za zaštitu osoba s mentalnim smetnjama i poboljšanje mentalnog zdravlja (un resolution 46/119 on the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care) od 1991 (načela o mentalnom zdravlju), koju je usvojila generalna skupština 17. decembra 1991. godine, princip 5, lekarski pregled.7starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijipreorukesve u svemu, ovaj izveštaj ukazuje da, iako su zakoni srbije koji ureőuju starateljstvo u izvesnoj meri u skladu sa meőunarodnim standardima, oni ne ispunjavaju brojne osnovne zahteve meőunarodnog prava o ljudskim pravima. ovo jasno pokazuje da bi őivotni uslovi oko 0 hiljada osoba koje su trenutno pod starateljstvom u srbiji mogli biti znatno poboljšani, što ěe biti moguěe samo ukoliko vlada nastavi zakonodavne reforme. imajuěi ovo u vidu, mdac u daljem tekstu iznosi űitav niz preporuka vladi srbije. ukoliko bi ove preporuke bile usvojene i unešene u zakone, oni bi bili usklaőeni sa osnovnim meőunarodnim standardima. navedeni indikatori predstavljaju 29 osnovnih garancija za sistem starateljstva koji ispunjava standarde poštovanja ljudskih prava. indikatori su navedeni u zagradama posle svake preporuke, kako bi uputile űitaoca na detaljnu analizu u glavnom delu izveštaja. poveěati u najveěoj moguěoj meri samostalnost. zagarantovati punoletnim osobama pod starateljstvom pravo da donose odluke u svim sferama őivota, kada imaju funkcionalnu sposobnost za to. posebno:ukinuti potpuno starateljstvo i zameniti ga jednom vrstom delimiűnog sta-rateljstva (prilagoőenog starateljstva), u kome bi sudija u svakom pojedinaűnom sluűaju izriűito odredio oblasti u kojima bi ta osoba bila lišena poslovne sposob-nosti (indikator 27). ukinuti automatsko lišavanje osnovnih prava punoletnih osoba pod starateljstvom – na imovinu, – na porodiűan őivot, – na zakljuűenje braka, – prava glasanja na izborima,– prava na udruőivanje– na pristup sudu– da sastave testament (indikatori 13, 5-7). osigurati da zakonom bude deůnisan obim obaveza staratelja u odnosu na pravnu sposobnost punoletne osobe (indikator 20). osigurati da u zakonu izriűito bude navedeno da utvrőivanje nesposobnosti mora biti zasnovano na dokazanoj vezi izmeőu dijagnoze i stvarne sposobnosti, ne samo u sluűajevima potpunog, veě i u sluűajevima delimiűnog starateljstva (indikator 8).stvoriti alternative koje bi bile manje restriktivne od starateljstva: kao što je ovlašěenje za zastupanje, donošenje odluka na osnovu ranije datog odobrenja, pomoě i podrška pri samostalnom odluűivanju (indikator 26). zahtevati da se starateljstvo koristi tek pošto su iscrpljene ostale mere (indikator 26).8mental disability advocacy centertraőiti od staratelja da zahtevaju smeštaj koji bi najmanje ograniűavao slobodu punoletne osobe (indikator 2).spreőiti zloupotrebu. smanjiti moguěnost zloupotrebe punoletnih osoba pod starateljstvom. posebno: ustanoviti objektivne kriterijume za vršenje procene nesposobnosti i jasne osnove za sudsko odreőenje pravne nesposobnosti. oni moraju obuhvatiti garancije da ova odluka ne moőe biti donešena samo na osnovu nalaza lekara i psihologa (indikatori 7 i 8).osigurati da zakon izriűito predvidi vrstu i kvalitet dokaza koji su potrebni za lišenje pravne sposobnosti u sudskom postupku (indikator 9).utvrditi kriterijume za izbor staratelja kojima se jasno iskljuűuju osobe sa sukobom interesa ili one osobe koje imaju interes od izvršavanja starateljsva (indikatori 0 i 11).osigurati da zakon propisuje obavezne provere starateljstva, u koje bi punoletna osoba pod starateljstvom bila potpuno ukljuűena uz odgovarajuěeg pravnog zastupnika (indikator 27).4.poboljšati postupke. pruőiti dovoljne garancije prava punoletnih na uűešěe u postupku starateljstva od poűetka postupka i za sve vreme trajanja starateljstva. posebno: deůnisati zakonom dovoljno jasne i odreőene kriterijume za podnošenje zahteva za lišavanje punoletne osobe poslovne sposobnosti (indikator 2).osigurati da punoletna osoba bude pravovremeno obaveštavana i da ima pristup informacijama o svim pravnim radnjama u postupcima lišavanja poslovne sposobnosti, i osigurati punoletnoj osobi da prisustvuje na roűištima i da bude saslušana. jasno utvrditi naűin na koji moőe biti utvrőeno da je punoletna osoba nesposobna da razume postupak ili da je prisustvo na roűištu štetno za njeno zdravlje (indikator ).osigurati besplatno zastupanje pred sudom, ukljuűujuěi i zastupanje u postupku po őalbi (indikator 4).zabraniti nedobrovoljno zadrőavanje osoba radi utvrőivanja nesposobnosti (indikator 5).osigurati da őelje punoletne osobe moraju biti uzete u obzir i da se njihovim őeljama mora dati odgovarajuěi znaűaj prilikom izbora staratelja (indikator 0).osigurati pravo i moguěnost punoletnoj osobi da osporava izbor staratelja (indikator 2).osigurati da punoletne osobe budu stvarno konsultovane o odlukama koje utiűu na njihov őivot (indikator 9).osigurati punoletnoj osobi eůkasan őalbeni sistem, ukljuűujuěi i sudske pravne lekove (indikator 25).osigurati postojanje nezavisnog tela koje ěe u odreőenim vremenskim razmacima izvršavati kontrolu rada staratelja i kojem ěe staratelj odgovarati za 9starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijisvoje odluke, a koje ěe istovremeno biti obavezno da uzme u obzir informacije dobijene od punoletne osobe (indikator 24). mdac veruje da bi, ukoliko bi ove preporuke bile primenjene, bila ojaűana zaštita ljudskih prava i interesa osoba pod starateljstvom, te da bi zakoni srbije o starateljstvu bili znatno kvalitetniji. mdac ěe rado uűestvovati i saraőivati sa organima vlasti u srbiji i sa civilnim društvom u planiranju i sprovoőenju reforme.10mental disability advocacy center1.uvod1.1 starateljstvo ovaj izveštaj je izveštaj o starateljstvu nad punoletnim osobama i ne bavi se pravnim poloőajem dece. mdac deůniše “starateljstvo” kao pravni odnos koji sud uspostavlja izmeőu punoletne osobe za koju se smatra da nema pravnu sposobnost potrebnu za donošenje liűnih odluka i osobe koja je postavljena da donosi odluke u ime te punoletne osobe.4 pravni mehanizam starateljstva u odreőenom smislu postoji u skoro svakom pravnom sistemu u svetu i široko je prihvaěen kao naűin zaštite pojedinaca za koje se smatra da su nesposobni da se brinu o sopstvenim interesima zbog problema mentalnog zdravlja (nedovoljne psiho-socijalne razvijenosti), mentalno nedovoljne razvijenosti, degenerativnog oboljenja ili teškog ůziűkog ili senzornog invaliditeta. starateljstvo se obiűno uspostavlja u sudskom postupku, ili kombinaciji sudskog i upravnog postupka, u kome se utvrőuje potpuna ili delimiűna nesposobnost punoletne osobe da donosi odluke u svoje ime. rezultat takvog postupka mogao bi biti lišavanje poslovne sposobnosti punoletne osobe.5 sud (ili upravni organ) tada postavlja drugu osobu koja ěe postupati kao staratelj. posebna ovlašěenja staratelja odreőena su zakonom ili sudskom odlukom. uobiűajeno je da staratelj ima ovlašěenje da donosi odluke i obavezu da štiti dobrobit punoletne osobe. uspešnost starateljstva u velikoj meri zavisi od izvesnih liűnih kvaliteta staratelja, poput njegove posveěenosti i savesnosti.starateljstvo ima snaőan uticaj na őivote osoba koje štiti. istraőivanje mdac-a sprovedeno u nekoliko drőava, pokazalo je da su u velikom broju sluűajeva punoletne osobe pod starateljstvom izgubile pravo da donose najosnovnije odluke kao i pravo da uőivaju osnovna ljudska prava. zloupotreba i zapostavljenost punoletnih osoba su posledice neispunjenja obaveze staratelja da zaštiti osobe pod starateljstvom, ili donošenja odluka koje su u suprotnosti sa őeljama ili/i interesima punoletne osobe. stoga, delotvoran starateljski sistem mora da nadzire postupke staratelja i mora da predvidi eůkasan sistem odgovornosti.kako globalni pokret za prava osoba s hendikepom dobija na snazi, starateljstvo kao model sve više je predmet kritike zbog neuspelog pruőanja odgovarjuěeg postupka 4 terminologija engleskog jezika korištena u ovom izveštaju nastala je posle mnogobrojnih rasprava. verovatno će slične debate biti ili su već pokrenute i u drugim jezicima. da bi se čitaocu olakšalo razumevanje izveštaja, mali rečnik pojmova se nalazi u prilogu a.5 u ovom izveštaju mdac koristi pojam ³pravne sposobnosti³ (legal capacity) kao što je de¿nisano u rečniku p. 76. različita pravosuđa koriste različitu terminologiju u svrhu de¿nisanja izraza za ³pravnu nesposobnost³ (legal inability) samostalnog delovanja, kao što su reči ”nesposoban’ (incapable) ili ”inkompetentan’ (incompetent). neki zakoni predviđaju odluke o delomičnoj ili limitiranoj pravnoj nesposobnosti.11starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijizaštite. u malom broju pravnih sistema, kao što su kanada i ujedinjeno kraljevstvo, zakoni o starateljstvu su reformisani, i predviőaju nove naűine za pruőanje zaštite i pomoěi osobama sa mentalnim smetnjama. posebno znaűajna mera je pomoě i podrška pri samostalnom odluűivanju.kao rezultat, zakonodavci i sudovi ovih drőava gledaju starateljski model kao poslednji izbor, kome pribegavaju samo ukoliko su prethodno iscrpljene sve ostale manje restriktivne mere podrške i zaštite. konaűno je i na meőunarodnoj sceni došlo do priznanja da je starateljstvo pitanje od velike vaőnosti.u nedavno usvojenoj konvenciji ujedinjenih nacija o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom, pravnom sposobnošěu bavi se posebno űlan 2 koji glasi:drőave potpisnice potvrőuju ponovo da osobe sa invaliditetom svuda imaju pravo na priznanje pravne sposobnosti.drőave potpisnice priznaju da osobe sa invaliditetom uőivaju poslovnu sposobnost na jednakim osnovama sa drugim licima u svim oblastima. drőave potpisnice preduzeěe odgovarajuěe mere da osobama sa invaliditetom omoguěe pristup podršci koja im moőe biti potrebna za ostvarivanje njihove poslovne sposobnosti. 4.drőave potpisnice osiguraěe da sve mere koje se odnose na uőivanje poslovne sposobnosti predviőaju odgovarajuěe i efektivne mehanizme zaštite koji ěe spreűiti zloupotrebe, u skladu sa odredbama meőunarodnog javnog prava o ljudskim pravima. ti mehanizmi zaštite osiguraěe da mere vezane za uőivanje poslovne sposobnosti poštuju prava dotiűne osobe sa invaliditetom, njihovu volju, őelje dotiűne osobe, iskljuűe svaki sukob interesa i nedozvoljeno mešanje, budu proporcionalne okolnostima u kojoj se svaka osoba nalazi, da se odvijaju u najkraěem moguěem periodu i da podleőu redovnoj reviziji od strane nadleőnog, nezavisnog i nepristranog organa ili sudskog tela. zaštitni mehanizmi treba da budu proporcionalni stepenu u kojem mere utiűu na prava i interese osoba sa invaliditetom.5.u skladu sa odredbama ovog űlana, drőave potpisnice preduzeěe sve odgovarajuěe i efektivne mere kako bi osigurale jednako pravo osoba sa invaliditetom da poseduju i nasleőuju imovinu, da kontrolišu svoje ůnansijske poslove i imaju pristup bankarskim zajmovima, hipotekama i drugim oblicima kredita pod jednakim uslovima, i osiguraěe da osobe sa invaliditetom ne budu arbitrarno lišene imovine.ove odredbe neposredno se odnose na starateljstvo. one daju kredibilitet mdac-ovim zalaganjima da se napusti trenutno vaőeěi stav prema kome je moguěe arbitrarno uskraěivanje ljudskih prava osobama pod starateljstvom, usvajanje nacionalnih odluka i zakona koji ěe uűiniti da odredbe konvencije o osobama sa invaliditetom, a posebno one iz űlana 2, postanu stvarnost. mdac bi őeleo da ovim izveštajem utiűe na pravac i brzinu ove promeme.12mental disability advocacy center1.2istraživanjeu mnogim drőavama u kojima radi mdac, zakoni koji ureőuju starateljstvo relativno su nepromenjeni veě desetinama godina. meőutim, oni ěe verovatno pretrpeti suštinske izmene jer ěe te drőave nastaviti da usklaőuju svoje zakone sa meőunarodnim standardima ljudskih prava. kako bi istakao starateljsvo kao onu oblast koju je potrebno nuőno reformisati, mdac je pokrenuo projekat o starateljstvu u okviru koga bi bile identiůkovane prednosti i slabosti postojeěih pravnih sistema. pored toga, pošto se pravo i stvarnost űesto razilaze, projekat se bavi ispitivanjem same prakse u oblasti starateljstva. u ovom izveštaju predstvaljena je analiza zakona, a u 2007. godini ěe uslediti sveobuhavtni izveštaj kojim ěe biti obuhvaěena zapaőanja o funkcionisanju sistema starateljstva u praksi.mdac je poűeo sa istraőivanjem starateljstva krajem 2004. godine ispitivanjem zakonske strukture sistema starateljstva u više drőava. u poűetku program je bio usredsreően na űetiri drőave: bugarsku, maőarsku, srbiju i rusiju. mdac je 2006. godine poűeo sa istraőivanjem u još űetiri zemalja, u hrvatskoj, žeškoj, gruziji i kirgistanu. cilj projekta je bio da utvrdi u kojoj meri su nacionalni zakoni ovih zemalja u skladu sa meőunarodnim pravom o ljudskim pravima, standardima i praksom, kao i da bi istakao sve oblasti koje je potrebno reformisati. kao i svaki istraőivaűki projekat koji po prvi put istraőuje neku oblast, ovaj izveštaj mogao bi pokrenuti mnoga pitanja na koja ne bi mogao da pruői odgovore. posebno jer ovo nije statistiűka anketa nego prvenstveno uporedna pravna analiza. rezultati ovog izveštaja odnose se iskljuűivo na zakone. kao što je veě napomenuto, istraőivanje prakse je još uvek u toku, i ono ěe pruőiti podatke o tome kako starateljstvo zaista funkcioniše.1.3izrazi zahvalnostiistraőivanje su vršili pravnici iz svake od pomenutih zemalja. istraőivaűi su sproveli sva istraőivanja u okviru svojih drőava, napisali su nacrte nacionalnih izveštaja i uűestvovali u ureőivanju izveštaja. istraőivaűi su bili slavka kukova (bugarska), petar sardeliě (hrvatska), zuzana benešová (žeška republika), nina dadalauri (gruzija), dániel kaderják (maőarska),6 meder dastanbekov (kirgistan), anna smorgunova (rusija) i vidan hadői-vidanoviě (srbija).poűevši u februaru 200. godine, daleko ranije nego što su poűela sama istraőivanja u okviru projekta o starateljstvu, oliver lewis iz mdac-a okupio je grupu odabranih pojedinaca koji ěe biti űlanovi savetodavnog odbora za starateljstvo. ova grupa aktivno je uűestvovala u izradi koncepcije, dizajna i primene obe faze projekta, i njeni űlanovi su nesebiűno doprineli svojim iskustvom i vremenom. savetodavni odbor za 6 dániel kaderják bio je asistent na projektu. on je student prava, završna godina.13starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijistarateljstvo űini pet meőunarodno priznatih struűnjaka u oblasti mentalnog zdravlja, starateljstva i ljudskih prava.dr. robert m. gordon, direktor i profesor, school of criminology, simon fraser university, vankuver, kanada;dr. georg høyer, profesor zdravstvene zaštite, university of tromsø, norveška;dr. krassimir kanev, predsednik, bulgarian helsinki committee, soůja, bugarska;mr. mark kelly, direktor, irish council for civil liberties, dablin, irska; idr. jill peay, profesor prava, london school of economics, london, uk.mdac bi őeleo da izrazi iskrenu zahvalnost űlanovima savetodavnog odbora za liűni i zajedniűki doprinos ovom projektu. odgovornost za sve greške snosi iskljuűivo mdac. nekadašnji direktor mdac-a za istraőivanje i razvoj marit rasmussen razvijala je ovaj projekat i rukovodila njime duőe od dve godine. studenti na praksi priscilla adams, jill diamond, jill roche i nicholas tsang pomogli su u istraőivanju, a istván fenyvesi je zasluőan za dizajn i konaűan izgled ovog izveštaja.izveštaj za srbiju je sastavio vidan hadői-vidanoviě, a marit rasmussen je autor dodatnih komentara. istván fenyvesi, sarah green i oliver lewis sastavili su konaűnu verziju.1.4metod1.4.1prva faza: analiza zakonodavstvaprva faza israőivanja, koja je izloőena u ovom izveštaju, je više de jure studija zakonskih tekstova, nego primene istih zakona. studija ispituje vidove zaštite predviőene nacionalnim zakonima i sve druge relevantne zakonske odredbe, tako što:prouűava pravne postupke u kojim se uspostavlja ili ukida starateljstvo i prava stranaka u tim postupcima.ispituje standarde dokazivanja u postupcima koji se tiűu starateljstva.dokumentuje prava osoba koje navodno nisu poslovno sposobne tokom celog postupka starateljstva.procenjuje kojih prava je lišena osoba pošto je utvrőeno da nije potpuno poslovno sposobna.analizira ovlašěenja staratelja, njegove odgovornosti i nadzor nad radom staratelja, kao i postupke za podnošenje őalbi protiv staraoca, ukoliko oni postoje, i rešavanje sporova izmeőu staratelja i lica pod starateljstvom.14mental disability advocacy center1.4.2druga faza: sakupljanje podataka na terenudruga faza se bavi de facto ispitivanjem kako starateljstvo funkcioniše u praksi, u svakoj od drőava u kojima je istraőivanje vršeno, praěenjem sudskih postupaka, pregledanjem sudskih spisa, kao i praěenjem postupaka pred organom starateljstva i pregledanjem predmeta organa starateljstva u meri u kojoj je to moguěe. kako je pojedine informacije moguěe dobiti samo od onih lica koja uűestvuju u postupku starateljstva, istraőivaűi prate sluűajeve, prisustvuju roűištima pred sudom i organima starateljstva, pregledaju sudske spise i vrše intervjue. na osnovu prikupljenih podataka moguěe je videti presek starateljstva u praksi.istraőivanje koje obuhvata razgovore sa uűesnicima, od kojih neki pate od smetnji mentalnog zdravlja ili intelektualnih smetnji, pokreěe pitanja etike koja se tiűu privatnosti, ali i sposobnosti lica s kojima se razgovara da razumeju svrhu istraőivanja i da na osnovu dobijenih informacija pristanu da uűestvuju u istraőivanju. mdac je paőljivo razmatrao pitanja etike koja su se javila u ovom delu istraőivanja, i usvojio je instrukcije za zaštitu ispitanika i datih podataka. svaki istraőivac pridrőava se numeriűkog sistema za űuvanje informacija, koje su pod kljuűem i rasporeőene na više lokacija. u instrukcijama su postavljeni standardi za istraőivanja o obaveštavanju “subjekata” da je uűestvovanje u istraőivanju dobrovoljno, da mogu da odbiju uűešěe u svakom trenutku i o poverljivosti podataka koje daju.1.5indikatori za procenu starateljstva zasnovani na standardima ljudskih pravaza celo vreme projekta mdac je koristio 29 indikatora u odnosu na koje je vršena analiza. ovi indikatori potiűu iz kljuűnog dokumenta o starateljstvu i pomoěi pri samostalnom odluűivanju (supported decision making) preporuke saveta ministara saveta evrope br. r(99)4 “o naűelima koja se tiűu pravne zaštite odraslih osoba s umanjenim sposobnostima”. indikatori su iz memoranduma o tumaűenju7, kao i iz pregleda uporednog zakonodavstva o starateljstvu drőava evrope, sjedinjenih drőava i kanade. mdac je pri formulisanju indikatora imao u vidu da su sve drőave u kojima je sprovoőeno istraőivanje, izuzev kirgistana, űlanice saveta evrope i da su ratiůkovale evropsku konvenciju o ljudskim pravima i osnovnim slobodama, te se oűekuje da ěe sve one usaglasiti svoje zakone sa “mekim pravom”,8 pa i sa memorandumom o tumaűenju.ceo tekst memoranduma vidi na stranici: https://wcd.coe.int/viewdoc.jsp”id 407338 ”meko pravo’ odnosi se na pravila, preporuke, smernice ili opšta načela koja iako nisu strikno govoreći pravno obavezujuća imaju veliki pravni značaj. black’s law dictionary (8th ed. 2004). meko pravo poseduje određeni stepen političke i moralne obaveze koja se nameće državama i predstavlja korisno sredstvo za tumačenje pravno obavezujućih normi. preporuke komiteta ministara saveta evrope predstavljaju meko pravo. ipak, komitet ministara ima ovlašćenje da zahteva od država članica 15starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijimdac indikatori obuhvataju osnovna jemstva koja su nuőna u sistemu starateljstva koji je koncentrisan na pojedinca i u kome se poštuju ljudska prava. naša namera je bila da indikatore uűinimo relativno jednostavnim i konciznim, űak i kada su iza njih stajala nimalo jednostavna pitanja.lista indikatora nije iscrpna, ona samo istiűe kritiűne probleme sa kojima se suoűavaju odrasle osobe pod starateljstvom. izostavljanje odreőenih pitanja iz indikatora ne znaűi da isto pitanje nije vaőno ili da ne predstavlja problem u konkretnom zakonodavstvu neke od drőava. uvoőenjem jedinstvenih kriterijuma za istraőivanje i analizu sistema starateljstva, mdac teői kreiranju naűina za poreőenje sistema starateljstva u razliűitim zemljama. da ga obaveštavaju o akcijama koje preduzimaju radi inplementacije preporuka, što preporukama daje značajnu političku snagu. 16mental disability advocacy center2. zakon saraeljsu i pliika saraeljs u srbiji2.1 uvodrepublika srbija je istoűnoevropska drőava, nalazi se na centralnom delu balkanskog poluostrva. republika srbija bila je drőava űlanica srbije i crne gore (bivše jugoslavije) do maja 2006. godine, kada je crna gora proglasila nezavisnost. srbija je bivša komunistiűka drőava u tranziciji. tokom balkanskih ratova poűetkom devedesetih godina, srbija je imala kljuűnu ulogu u tim sukobima. zbog uűešěa u sukobima, savet bezbednosti un-a odredio je sankcije srbiji i crnoj gori (tada jugoslaviji). mešavina ovih faktora dovela je do ekonomskog kolapsa zemlje i jaűanja reőima slobodana miloševiěa. njegova diktaruta završila se 2000. godine nakon demonstracija i dolaska na vlast koalicije demokratskih snaga, nazvane demokratska opozicija srbije.2.2demografska i socijalna slika srbijeprema popisu iz 2002. godine, srbija je imala 7 498 00 stanovnika, od űega je .4% őena.9 pribliőno jednak procenat muškaraca i őena őivi u gradovima (56.6% muškaraca i 56.2% őena). proseűna starost őenske populacije (8.4 godine) malo je veěa od proseűne starosti muškaraca (6.4), što se odraőava i na proseűan őivotni vek koji je kod őena duői nego kod muškaraca (75. godina za őene i 70. godina za muškarce). srbija je 2002. godine bila jedna od 0 zemalja sa najstarijim stanovništvom na svetu, bilo je samo milion graőana u starosti od 5 do 24 godine, što je 13.4% stanovništva. sa druge strane, 22.6% graőana starije je od 60 godina.trenutno ne postoje zvaniűni podaci o broju osoba sa invaliditetom u srbiji. procenjeno je da oko 200 000 ljudi, tj. % ukupne populacije, ima mentalne ili intelektualne smetnje.11 prema poslednjim podacima szo (who) od 999. godine, u srbiji je registrovano 88 94 osoba sa intelektualnim smetnjama. za njih 76 492 se veruje da imaju blaői oblik intelektualnih smetnji, za njih 4 447 9 izveštaj o humanom razvoju 2005. – srbija: snaga različitosti, undp, beograd, 2005, str. 25.10izveštaj o humanom razvoju 2005. – srbija: snaga različitosti, undp, beograd, 2005, strane. 24-25.11vidi u v. hadži-vidanović,, ³ljudska prava osoba sa invaliditetom u srbiji i crnoj gori u praksi” u: miroslav živanović, saša madacki (ur.), ljudska prava osoba sa invaliditetom – situacija u bosni i hercegovini, hrvatskoj i u srbiji i crnoj gori, centar za ljudska prava – univerzitet u sarajevu, sarajevo, 2006, strane. 146-162. 17starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijida imaju srednje, a za njih 8 004 teške intelektualne smetnje. iako je ovo manje od polovine procenjenog broja, ovime nisu obuhvaěene osobe koje imaju smetnje mentalnog zdravlja.13 tokom 2006. godine 509 osoba zadrőano je u psihijatrijskim ustanovama na osnovu sudskog naloga za obavezno leűenje izdatog pošto je osoba izvršila neko kriviűno delo.od 2004. godine pribliőno 000 odraslih osoba smešteno je u institucije socijalne zaštite za osobe sa teškim intelektualnim smetnjama. radi se o velikim institucijama u kojima su ljudi doőivotno izolovani iz društva. mnoge od tih osoba stavljene su pod starateljstvo, što pokazuje/ilustruje sledeěa tabela. institucijabroj odraslih osobabroj odraslih osoba pod starateljstvom1stara moravica44082jabuka52683izvor924kragujevac9605765kulina26tabela 1. broj17 odraslih osoba pod starateljstvom u institucijama socijalne zaštitezabrinjavajuěe je to što ne postoje zvaniűni podaci o broju lica pod starateljstvom na nacionalnom nivou. meőutim, organi starateljstva lokalnih zajednica duőni su da vode evidenciju o osobama pod starateljstvom, i űini se da su poslednjih godina ovi podaci bili redovno aőurirani u veěini opština u srbiji. najveěi problem za prikupljanje podataka o osobama pod starateljstvom je veoma decentralizovan sistem socijalne zaštite i nepostojanje centralnog registra pri ministarstvu za rad, zapošljavanje i socijalnu politiku.12ibid.13društvo za pomoć osobama ometenih u razvoju stari grad, izveštaj iz 2004.14ministarstvo pravde republike srbije, zvanična internet strana, mvcore.net/active/sr-cyrillic/home/zatvori/statistikabzatvori.htm15u nekim domovima socijalne zaštite, kao što je to slučaj s domom ³pčelice” u kragujevcu, postoje i paviljoni za smeštaj osoba s problemima mentalnog zdravlja (oko 100 ljudi s problemima mentalnog zdravlja bilo je smešteno u ovom domu početkom 2005). 16procena je izvršena na osnovu razgovora vođenih sa direktorima devet centara socijalne zaštite za osobe sa mentalnim smetnjama u srbiji. podaci su dostupni za samo 65 odraslih osoba.17u ovom domu socijalne zaštite živi 565 korisnika. od toga su 210 punoletne osobe s mentalnim smetnjama. za sve njih bio je pokrenut postupak za postavljanje staratelja u vreme kada je mdac posetio instituciju.18porodični zakon, član 340.18mental disability advocacy centeripak su izvesni podaci dostupni, poslednji od njih su iz 200. godine. prema ovim brojkama, izmeőu 998. i 200. godine, u proseku 40 osoba je stavljano pod starateljstvo svake godine. godina19971998199920002001broj lica stavljenih pod strateljstvo 00+45461313tabela 2. broj odraslih osoba stavljenih pod starateljstvo u srbiji u periodu 1997-2001poslednji dostupni podaci ukazuju da je oko 8 do 0 hiljada osoba trenutno pod starateljstvom u srbiji. najviše njih trenutno őivi u beogradu (2,989). u drugim veěim gradovima u srbiji broj osoba pod starateljstvom je znatno manji i kreěe se od 40 (u pirotu) i 44 (u kragujevcu),20 do 76 (u jagodini),49 (u šapcu)22 i 70 (u valjevu). 2.3pravni sistem srbijesrbija je jedna od drőava naslednica socijalistiűke federativne republike jugosalvije.24 do nedavno, bila je drőava űlanica drőavne zajednice srbija i crna gora (savezna republika jugoslavija do 200. godine). posle proglašenja nezavisnosti u parlamentu crne gore . juna 2006. godine, srbija je postala nezavisna drőava.nakon referenduma odrőanog u oktobru 2006. godine, u novembru 2006. godine je usvojen novi ustav srbije koji deklariše srbiju kao nezavisnu i suverenu drőavu.25do donošenja ovog ustava na snazi je bio ustav usvojen 990. godine u vreme miloševiěevog reőima.u novi ustav uneto je nekoliko sveobuhvatnih odredbi o ljudskim pravima. ipak, űini se da u pogledu ljudskih prava novi ustav predstavlja korak u nazad, u odnosu 19zvanični izveštaj centra za socijani rad u beogradu, 2005. 20zvanični izveštaj centra za socijalni rad u kragujevcu, 2004.21informacije dobijene u telefonskom razgovoru sa zvaničnicima centra za socijalni rad, dana 5. januara 2007. godine.22ibid.23ibid.24do 2003. godine scg se zvala savezna republika jugoslavija. u dvadesetom veku nosila je različite nazive: od 1918. do 1929. – kraljevina srba, hrvata i slovenaca od 1929. do 1944. – kraljevina jugoslavija. posle drugog svetskog rata naziv je promenjen u demokratska federativna jugoslavija, zatim u federativna narodna republika jugoslavija i socijalistička federativna republika jugoslavija. posle secesije hrvatske, slovenije, makedonije i bosne i hercegovine, preimenovana je u saveznu republiku jugoslaviju. ostale države naslednice su: hrvatska, slovenija, makedoija, bosna i hercegovina i crna gora.25službeni glasnik rs, br. 98/06.19starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijina povelju o ljudskim pravima26 nekadašnje drőavne zajednice srbija i crna gora. primera radi, moőe se ukazati na tri osnovna nedostatka. prvi, novi ustav ne sadrői izvesne garancije koje su postojale u povelji.27 drugi, vaőne garancije koje su bile izostavljene iz povelje izostvaljene su i u novom ustavu.28 i konaűno, brojne garancije koje je predviőala povelja, a predviőa ih i novi ustav, su u ustavu formulisana na blaői i manje jasan naűin, te otvaraju moguěnost za razliűite interpretacije.29 srbija je ratiůkovala sve znaűajnije meőunarodne instrumente o ljudskim pravima, ukljuűujuěi i pakt o graőanskim i politiűkim pravima (pgp), pakt o ekonomskim, socijalnim i kulturnim pravima (pesk), evropsku konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda (ekljp). ustavom je predviőeno da ěe opšte prihvaěena pravila meőunarodnog prava i ratiůkovani meőunarodni sporazumi biti sastavni deo pravnog sistema srbije, i da ěe se primenjivati neposredno. ipak primena ratiůkovanih sporazuma je moguěa samo ukoliko su ti sporazumi u skladu sa ustavom.31 zakoni moraju biti u skladu sa sporazumima koje je srbija ratiůkovala i sa opšte prihvaěenim pravilima meőunarodnog prava. iz ovoga je jasno da se ustav smatra najvišim pravnim aktom, za kojim slede ratiůkovani meőunarodni sporazumi, domaěi zakoni, akti lokalnih samouprava i drugi pravni izvori. pristupanje evropskoj uniji je proglašeno drőavnim prioritetom u oktobru 2000. godine.33 srbija sprovodi suštinske zakonske reforme kako bi ispunila standarde za prijem u eu.26povelja o ljudskim i manjinskim pravima i građanskim slobodama bila je deo ustavnog sistema bivše državne zajednice srbija i crna gora. u to vreme bila je moderan dokument, koji je sadržao iscrpan katalog ljudskih prava. bila je pozitivno ocenjena kako od međunarodnih, tako i od domaćih stručnjaka, kao i od strane evropske komisije za demokratiju kroz pravo (venecijanska komisija), opinion no. 234/2003charter of human rights of serbia and montenegro (vidi na: http://www.venice.coe.).27jedan od primera bila bi zabrana tumačenja odredbi o ljudskim pravima tako da podrazumeva pravo države, pojedinca ili grupe da preduzima radnje usmerene da ukine ili ograniči ustavom zajemčena prava, suprotno ustavu. slična odredba postojala je u članu 4 povelje o ljudskim pravima.28ovo je slučaj sa brojnim ekonomsko-socijalnim pravima koja su garantovana međunarodnim paktom o ekonomskim, socijalnim i kulturnim pravima i evopskom socijalnom poveljom.29detaljnije obajšnjenje ovih pitanja vidi u: r. žarevac, ³ustavna zaštita ljudskih prava – pitanje poverenja i prakse”, evropski forum, br. 10, 2006 m. milanović, v. hadži-vidanović, ³međunarodno pravo i ljudska prava u predlogu ustava srbije”, srpska pravna revija, br. 5, 2006.30ustav srbije, čl. 16(2).31ustav srbije, čl. 16(3). ustavni sud ocenjuje ustavnost rati¿kovanih sporazuma. rati¿kacija međunarodnih sporazuma moguća je jedino donošenjem zakona o rati¿kaciji tog instrumenta, a ustavni sud može da odlučuje o ustavnosti zakona pošto su oni usvojeni, a pre nego što ih potpiše predsednik republike tj. pre nego što stupe na snagu. 32ustav srbije, čl. 194. 33rezolucija za pristupanje u eu, 14. oktobar, 2004, rs no.48. 20mental disability advocacy center2.4 zakoni o starateljstvu u srbiji2.4.1mental health law izvesne zakonske odredbe o mentalnom zdravlju mogu se naěi u zakonu o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, u zakonu o socijalnoj zaštiti i obezbeőivanju socijalne sigurnosti graőana, kao i u drugim srodnim zakonima i aktima lokalne samouprave. ovi zakoni utvrőuju osnovne principe u vezi sa osobama sa mentalnim smetnjama i osobama pod starateljstvom, koje se smatraju ranjivim i potrebna im je posebna zdravstvena zaštita. zaštita osoba sa mentalnim smetnjama vezuje se uglavnom ipak za odredbe o medicinskom tretmanu, űak i u situacijama kada one nemaju zdravstveno osiguranje. zadrőavanje i tretman osoba u psihijatrijskim bolnicama bez njihovog pristanka vrši se u sluűajevima kada osobe nisu u stanju da daju pristanak jer su bez svesti ili iz nekog drugog razloga. medicinski tretman moőe se pruőati osobama pod starateljstvom i osobama lišenim poslovne sposobnosti nakon što je staratelj obavešten o tretmanu. ukoliko lekar smatra da staratelj ne preduzima radnje u najboljem interesu punoletne osobe, on ili ona mora izneti svoje sumnje organu starateljstva. i pored svega, punoletna osoba mora biti ukljuűena u proces odluűivanja o medicinskom tretmanu, pri űemu se mora uzeti u obzir sposobnost te osobe.40punoletne osobe mogu biti zadrőane u psihijatrijskoj bolnici ukoliko lekar veruje da priroda njihove bolesti moőe da ugrozi njihov őivot, őivote drugih, ili njihovu imovinu. takvu odluku mora da razmotri konzilijum lekara u roku od 24 sata. ukoliko konzilijum potvrdi zadrőavanje, bolnica mora o ovome da obavesti sud. punoletne osobe mogu biti zadrőane bez sudskog odobrenja do 33 dana, ovo zadrőavanje treba istaěi jer predstavlja moguěu povredu meőunarodnog prava.422.4.2istorijat starateljstva u srbijistarateljstvo je u srbijanske zakone uneto pod uticajem graőanskih zakonika zapadno evropskih zemalja, posebno austrijskog graőanskog zakonika. srbijanski graőanski 34zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, službeni glasnik rs, br. 107/05, posebno članovi. 34, 35 i 44.35zakon o socijalnoj zaštiti i obezbeđivanju socijalne sigurnosti građana, službeni glasnik rs, br. 36/91, 79/91, 33/93, 53/93, 67/93, 46/94, 48/94, 52/96, 29/01, 84/04.36zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, čl. 11(2).37zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, op cit, čl. 34. 38zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, op cit, čl. 35(1).39zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, op cit, čl. 35(2).40zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, op cit, čl. 35(4).41zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, op.cit, čl. 44.42postupak reguliše zakon o vanparničnom postupku, vidi službeni list rs, br. 25/82, 48/88, 46/95, članovi 45-55. 43allgemeines bürgerliches gesetzbuch – 1811.21starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijizakonik od 844. godine, sa izmenama, bio je na snazi do drugog svetskog rata i predviőao je sistem starateljstva, veoma sliűan onome koji je predviőao austrijski model. takoőe, zakon je imao elemente, poput porodiűnog saveta, sliűne onima iz francuskog graőanskog zakonika. mada je u francuskom pravu porodiűni savet bio redovno telo graőanskog prava, u srbijanskom pravnom sistemu bio je samo sekundarno telo ustanovljeno radi nadzora nad starateljima. uopšteno, sudije su nadzirale postupke staratelja; ipak, u posebnim okolnostima, ovu ulogu je preuzimao porodiűni savet, sastavljen od űlanova porodice punoletne osobe i sudije za starateljstvo, koji je imao ulogu predsednika saveta.44graőanski zakonik od 844. godine propisivao je da sud moőe lišiti punoletnu osobu poslovne sposobnosti i odrediti starateljstvo. ipak, jedini uslov potreban za lišavanje bio je da je ustanovljena “mentalna bolest ili ludilo”,45 a glavni cilj zaštite bila je imovina osoba pod strateljstvom.46 pre donošenja zakona o starateljstvu 872. godine, staratelji koji su imali obavezu da se staraju i o imovini, i o liűnosti punoletne osobe smatrani su tutorima, a ne starateljima.47 od donošenja zakona o starateljstvu staratelji su imali obavezu da punoletnoj osobi pruőe negu i medicinski tretman, ukoliko je starateljstvo ustanovljeno zbog mentalnih smetnji.48 staratelj je mogao biti postavljen i odlukom suda bez pristanka punoletne osobe, űime se ustvari toj osobi nameěu graőanske duőnosti bez obzira na spremnost te iste osobe da te duőnosti preduzme. staratelja je mogao odrediti i otac punoletne osobe testamentom, űime je otac u stvari imao kontrolu prilikom izbora buduěeg staratelja.2.4.3pravni izvori o starateljstvukao što je veě naglašeno, ne postoji kodiůkacija srbijanskog graőanskog prava, pa su i pravila o starateljstvu rasuta po mnogim zakonima i drugim propisima. najviši izvor prava koji reguliše starateljstvo je ustav, u kome se kaőe: “pred ustavom i zakonom svi su jednaki. svako ima pravo na jednaku zakonsku zaštitu, bez diskriminacije. zabranjena je svaka diskriminacija, neposredna ili posredna, po bilo kom osnovu, a naroűito po osnovu rase, pola, nacionalne pripadnosti, društvenog porekla, roőenja, veroispovesti, politiűkog ili drugog uverenja, imovnog stanja, kulture, jezika, starosti i 44lazar marković, građansko pravo – porodično pravo, druga knjiga, geca kon, beograd, 1920, str. 240, nadežda ljubojev, starateljstvo nad punoletnim licima u jugoslovenskom pravu, beograd, 1999, str 29.građanski zakonik od 1844. godine predviđao je iscrpnu listu razloga i okolnosti za uspostavljanje starateljstva. neki od njih bili su: mentalna bolest ili ludilo nesposobnost osobe da se sporazumeva uz pomoć znakova, gluve, slepe i neme osobe osobe koje je 46lazar marković, građansko pravo – porodično pravo, druga knjiga, geca kon, beograd, 1920, str. 272.47ibid, str. 218. vidi u nadežda ljubojev, starateljstvo nad punoletnim licima u jugoslovenskom pravu, beograd, 1999, str. 28.48nadežda ljubojev, op. cit. str. 28.22mental disability advocacy centerpsihiőkog ili űziőkog invaliditeta (kurziv naš)”.49 pored toga poslovna sposobnost stiűe se pod sledeěim uslovima: “lice punoletstvom stiűe sposobnost da samostalno odluűuje o svojim pravima i obavezama. punoletstvo nastupa sa navršenih 8 godina”.50 dalje u ustavu se propisuje da “ljudska i manjinska prava zajeműena ustavom mogu zakonom biti ograniűena ako ograniőenje dopušta ustav, u svrhe radi kojih ga ustav dopušta, u obimu neophodnom da se ustavna svrha ograniűenja zadovolji u demokratskom društvu i bez zadiranja u suštinu zajeműenog prava staratelja takoőe su ureőeni ovim zakonom” (kurziv naš). ustavom nije predviőeno nijedno oganiűenje prava na poslovnu sposobnost. ovo je moőda bio previd i tek ěemo videti kakav stav ěe zauzeti ustavni sud o ustavnosti lišenja poslovne sposobnosti u svetlu novog ustava.veěina materijalnih normi o starateljstvu je sadrőana u dva zakona. prvi je porodiű-ni zakon,52 kojim su odreőena prava i obaveze staratelja i punoletne osobe pod starateljstvom, kao i procesni aspekti postavljanja staratelja. drugi je zakon o vanparniűnom postupku,54 kojim je regulisano procenjivanje nesposobnoti, što je, kao što ěe biti detaljnije objašnjeno u daljem tekstu, prva faza u postupku o starateljstvu.još neki zakoni imaju ulogu u postupku starateljstva. na primer, zakon o obligacionim odnosima ureőuje sposobnost lica pod starateljstvom za sklapanje ugovora, kao i odgovornost za štetu.55 kriviűni zakonik reguliše kriviűnu odgovornost osoba sa mentalnim smetnjama.56 izbornim zakonom regulisano je pravo osoba lišenih poslovne sposobnosti da glasaju.572.4.4vrste i uloga starateljstvavrste starateljstva:postoje dva oblika starateljstva nad punoletnim osobama:49ustav srbije, čl. 21. tekst ustava vidi na http://www.parlament.sr.gov.yu/content/lat/50ustav srbije, čl. 3751ustav srbije, čl. 20. 52stupio je na snagu 1. jula 2005. službeni glasnik rs, br. 18/05, članovi 126-150. u daljem tekstu porodični zakon.53porodični zakon, članovi 329-341. 54zakon o vanparničnom postupku, službeni glasnik rs, br. 25/82, 48/88. 46/95, članovi 31-44.55zakon o obligacionim odnosima, službeni list sfrj, br. 29/78, 39/85, 45/89, 57/89, službeni list srj, br. 31/93.56krivični zakonik, službeni glasnikrs, br. 85/05, član 23.57zakon o izboru narodnih poslanika, službeni glasnik rs, br. 35/00, zakon o izboru predsednika republike srbije, službeni glasnik rs, no. 1/90, 79/92, 73/02, 18/04, zakon o lokalnoj samoupravi, službeni glasnik rs, br. 9/02.23starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiprivremeno starateljstvo (ili starateljstvo u posebnim sluőajevima)58organ starateljstva lokalne vlasti postaviěe privremenog staratelja59 punoletnoj osobi ukoliko veruje da je to usled posebnih okolnosti neophodno radi privremene zaštite liűnosti, prava ili interesa tih lica.60 trajanje ovakvog neuobiűajenog oblika starateljstva zavisiěe od okolnosti svakog konkretnog sluűaja.uobiőajena forma starateljstvaza razliku od ranijih zakona novim se ne deůniše “starateljstvo”. uopšte, starateljstvo nad punoletnim osobama shvaěeno je kao posebna vrsta pravne zaštite punoletnih osoba koje nisu sposobne da uőivaju svoja prava.62 podrazumeva se da ěe starateljstvo štiti interese punoletne osobe koje imaju psihosocijalne smetnje (koje imaju smetnje mentalnog zdravlja) ili intelektualne smetnje. uloga starateljazakoni srbije nalaőu staratelju da brine o dobrobiti, kao i o imovini punoletne osobe koja je stavljena pod potpuno starateljstvo. ovo ěe biti objašnjeno nešto kasnije. od ovih pravila postoje dva izuzetka: privremeno starateljstvo i delimiűno starateljstvo. prvi sluűaj, privremeno starateljstvo koristi se ukoliko postoje takozvane posebne okolnosti, kao sukob interesa izmeőu punoletne osobe i njenog redovnog staratelja. sud moőe postaviti privremenog staratelja sa odreőenim ograniűenim ovlašěenjima za posebne poslove, obiűno u vezi sa imovinom punoletne osobe. u drugom sluűaju, sud moőe postaviti delimiűnog staratelja űime sud samo delimiőno lišava punoletnu osobu poslovne sposobnosti.64 u takvim sluűajevima sud je duőan da precizira oblasti u kojima punoletna osoba zadrőava poslovnu sposobnost, pa moőe da samostalno donosi odluke bez dozvole ili odobrenja staratelja. za potrebe ovog izveštaja za ovu vrstu starateljstva biěe korišten izraz delimiűno starateljstvo. 58vidi porodični zakon, čl. 126 i 132.59poznat pod pojmom ³kolizionog staraoca”, vidi supra belešku.60vidi porodični zakon, čl. 132. stari zakon je za ovu instituciju koristio izraz ³kolizioni staratelj”61prema čl. 219, para. 2, porodičnog zakona od 1980. (službeni glasnik rs, br. 22/80, 11/88, 22/93, 35/94), svrha starateljstva je bila zaštita interesa pojedinca pružanjem brige, osposobljavanjem pojedinca za samostalan život i obezbeđivanjem medicinskog tretmana. zakon je takođe propisivao obavezu staratelja da štiti imovinska prava i druga prava i interese osoba pod starateljstvom.62m. draškić, porodično pravo, colpi – dosije, beograd, 1998. kao prethodno napomenuto, pojmovi mentalnog zdravlja i intelektualne nesposobnosti su uzeti da opišu sve vrste mentalnih nesposobnosti u ovom izveštaju. ovi pojmovi možda ne prikazuju u potpunosti egzaktnu terminologiju korištenu od strane zakonodavstava, koje ponekad sadrže pejorativno značenje i konotacije. za de¿niciju ovih i drugih pojmova, vidi rečnik u aneksu a.63ibid.64porodični zakon, čl. 147(3). 24mental disability advocacy center2.4.5 osnovni elementi starateljstva nad punoletnim osobama kao što je pomenuto po zakonima srbije sudovi mogu lišiti punoletnu osobu poslovne sposobnosti u potpunosti putem potpunog starateljstva, ili joj mogu ograniűiti poslovnu sposobnost tako što ěe je staviti pod delimiűno starateljstvo.65potpuno starateljstvopunoletna osoba moőe biti lišena poslovne sposobnosti samo ukoliko su ispunjeni sledeěi zakonom propisani uslovi:66punoletna osoba ima mentalne ili intelektualne smetnjeusled kojih je ‘nesposobna za normalno rasuőivanje‘ i nije u stanju da se stara o zaštiti svojih prava i interesa.67 jedna od posledica lišenja poslovne sposobnosti punoletnih osoba je i ta da se te osobe tretiraju na sliűan naűin kao deca pod starateljstvom mlaőa od 4 godina.68 prema tome, u mnogim situacijama staratelji koji se staraju o punoletnim osobama imaju sliűne obaveze kao staratelji nad decom.69delimiőno starateljstvodelimiűno starateljstvo moőe biti dodeljeno punoletnoj osobi ukoliko: punoletna osoba ima smetnje mentalnog zdravlja ili intelektualne smetnjesvojim postupcima neposredno ugroőava sopstvena prava i interese ili prava i interese drugih lica.70 nesposobnost punoletne osobe da shvati znaűaj svojih postupaka nije jedan od uslova za sudsko delimiűno lišenje poslovne sposobnosti punoletne osobe:organi starateljstvaorgani starateljstva su nadleőni uredi u okviru lokalne samouprave u srbiji (sveukupno 138 organa starateljstva ukljuűujuěi i one na kosovu) koje se nazivaju centri za socijalni rad. svaki ured saűinjavaju osobe razliűitih profesija: socijalni radnici, psiholozi, pravnici, koji koriste metode socijalnog rada.7265porodični zakon, čl. 146-147 zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 31.66vidi zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 31. nabrojani su u porodičnom zakonu, članovi 146-147. 67ibid.68porodični zakon, čl.146(2)69porodični zakon (1980), čl. 277(1).70porodični zakon, čl. 147.71porodični zakon, čl. 12.72m. janjic-komar et al, op. cit, str. 262.25starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiorgani starateljstva imaju široka diskreciona ovlašěenja i bave se nizom pitanja u vezi sa socijalnom zaštitom. stoga se prema njima űesto odnose kao prema “organima za zaštitu porodice” ili “omnibus-organima”. osnovne uloge organa starateljstva su zaštita dece i porodice, zastupanje interesa društva, i donošenje odluka u ime pojedinaca kao drőavno telo. kako imaju i ulogu pruőanja zaštite i donošenja odluka, oni mogu, u odreőenim okolnostima, biti posmatrani i kao upravni organi i kao tela koja donose odluke.74višestruke odgovornosti organa starateljstva mogu da dovedu do sukoba njihovih uloga. u sudskim postupcima, organi starateljstva imaju poloőaj savetodavca i struűnih tela. takoőe, oni se mogu pojavljivati kao pravni zastupnici punoletnih osoba, kao staratelji ad litem75 i u upravnim postupcima, gde oni űesto i istovremeno predstavljaju sve strane (podnosioca, punoletnu osobu, i staratelja). organi starateljstva mogu da pokrenu postupak lišenja punoletne osobe poslovne sposobnosti.76 osim toga imaju duőnost da imenuju staratelja nakon lišenja poslovne sposobnosti.77 oni su ovlašěeni i da nadgledaju radnje koje preduzima staratelj,78 i, kada je to potrebno, da pokrenu postupak za ponovno uspostavljanje poslovne sposobnosti. ůalbe na odluke organa starateljstva podnose se ministarstvu za rad, zapošljavanje i socijalnu politiku.79 znaűajna slabost je meőutim, potpuno odsustvo sudskih pravnih lekova.2.5dve faze u postupku uspostavljanja starateljstvau izveštaju je veě dat kratak opis potpunog i delimiűnog starateljstva i uloge organa starateljstva. u ovom delu ěe biti opisan postupak od procene sposobnosti do postavljanja staratelja. postupak se moőe razdvojiti na dve odvojene faze: lišenje poslovne sposobnosti (sudski postupak) i postavljanje staratelja (upravni postupak).2.5.1 lišavanje poslovne sposobnostisudska faza je, što je neobiűno, regulisana zakonom o vanparniűnom posupku.80 tokom ovog postupka sud utvrőuje da li su ispunjeni zakonom propisani uslovi 73ibid.74na primer, vidi raspravu u: indikatori 12 i 20.75vidi m. janjić-komar, porodično pravo, četvrto izdanje, nomos, beograd, 1999, str. 261. autor opisuje organ starateljstva kao ³omnibus organ” koji duboko zadire u porodična pitanja. autor smatra da su nadležnosti organa starateljstva međusobno suštinski suprotstavljene i da su u mnogo slučajeva međusobno nepoimljive. 76zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 32.77porodični zakon, čl. 329.78porodični zakon, članovi 133, 142, 329-333.79porodični zakon, članovi 333, 336, 337, 338.80zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 31-44.26mental disability advocacy centerza lišenje poslovne sposobnosti. u toku postupka trebalo bi da budu ispitani medicinski izveštaji i saslušani svedoci. posebne zakonske odredbe omoguěavaju brzo sprovoőenje postupka: na primer, podnosilac je duőan da uz zahtev dostavi sve relevantne informacije i dokaze; propisan je rok od tri dana za ulaganje procesnih őalbi,82 sud je obavezan da odluűi o őalbi u roku od tri dana od njenog prijema. ůalbe na odluku suda kojom je lice lišeno poslovne sposobnosti mora biti uloőena u roku od 5 dana.organ starateljstva, supruőnik punoletnog lica, njegovo dete ili roditelj mogu podneti sudu zahtev za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti punoletne osobe. sud moőe pokrenuti postupak ex oőcio ukoliko bude obavešten da moőda postoji potreba da punoletna osoba bude stavljena pod starateljstvo.84 punoletna osoba mora biti pregledana od strane najmanje dva lekara struűnjaka u oblasti mentalne ometenosti. ovi lekari saűiniěe izveštaj o mentalnom stanju i sposobnosti punoletne osobe da shvati posledice svojih postupaka.85 zakonom je propisano da sud moěe da sasluša punoletnu osobu, njenog trenutnog privremenog staratelja, i podnosioca zahteva.86 ukoliko sud utvrdi da su ispunjeni zakonski uslovi za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, punoletna osoba ěe biti delimiűno ili potpuno lišena poslovne sposobnosti.87 sudska presuda mora biti pismeno izraőena i obrazloőena.882.5.2postavljanje starateljastaratelj moőe biti postavljen samo osobi koja je lišena (potpuno ili delimiűno) poslovne sposobnosti u veě opisanom sudskom postupku. o svakom lišenju sud mora bez odlaganja da obavesti organ starateljstva.89kako je obaveza suda da obavesti organ starateljstva o svojoj odluci, u veěini sluűajeva sam organ starateljstva pokreěe postupak za postavljanje staratelja, koji sledi. i pored 81zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 31(2).82zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 19 i 40.83više o postupku ponošenja zahteva, vidi: indikator 2 u sledećem delu. 84zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 32(1).85zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 38. više o ulozi lekarskog pregleda vidi: indikator 7. 86više o odredbama koje se tiču prava punoletne osobe da bude saslušana, kao i o ulozi svedoka vidi: indikatore 4 i 6. 87zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 40. 88sud može odložiti donošenje rešenja o delimičnom lišenju poslovne sposobnosti zbog zloupotrebe alkohola ili drugih opojnih sredstava, ako se osnovano može očekivati da će se lice, prema kome se vodi postupak, uzdržati od zloupotrebe alkohola ili drugih opojnih sredstava. to je moguće ako se to lice po svojoj inicijativi ili po predlogu suda podvrgne lečenju u određenoj zdravstvenoj organizaciji. sud može da odloži donošenje rešenja o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti za vreme od 6 do 12 meseci, a rešenje može da se opozove ako lice prekine lečenje ili bude otpušteno iz zdravstvene organizacije zbog narušavanja reda. vidičl. 41 zakona o vanparničnom postupku.89porodični zakon, čl. 149(2).27starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijitoga, űitav niz organizacija je ovlašěen da traői pokretanje ovog postupka.90 stavljanje lica pod starateljstvo, kao i postavljanje staratelja vrši se preteőno u upravnom postupku, koji mora biti sproveden brzo. staratelj mora biti postavljen u roku od 0 dana od dana kada je organ starateljstva primio od suda obaveštenje o lišavanju poslovne sposobnosti punoletne osobe.92 uputstvo ministra sugeriše da ovaj postupak ne bi trebao da traje duőe od 8 dana. ipak, űak i pre postavljanja staratelja organ starateljstva je ovlašěen da preduzima hitne mere u cilju zaštite punoletne osobe njenih/njegovih prava i imovine. organ starateljstva ima sledeěe obaveze:priprema plana starateljstva. ovo je nedavno ustanovljena obaveza u pravu o starateljstvu srbije94 donošenje odluka koje se tiűu uslova stanovanja osobe u roku od 24 sata od dobijanja informacije da treba da bude odreően staratelj.95 iako se ova odredba uglavnom odnosi na decu bez roditeljskog staranja, iz njene formulacije űini se da organ starateljstva mora da donese sliűnu odluku i u podgedu punoletne osobe bez obzira na to da li ta osoba ima porodicu i dom. u prvoj fazi, organ starateljstva ima obavezu da pokuša da smesti punoletnu osobu kod njene/njegove porodice.96organ starateljstva mora naűiniti spisak imovine punoletne osobe u roku od osam dana od dana kada je primio obaveštenje da licu treba odrediti staratelja.97 popis i procenu vrednosti imovine štiěenika vrši stalna komisija organa starateljstva.98 staratelji imaju pravo na naknadu razumnih troškova koje snose pri obavljanju svoje duőnosti.99 naknada troškova staratelju isplaěuje se prvenstveno iz štiěenikovih 90predlog za pokretanje postupka starateljstva mogu pokrenuti zdravstvene i obrazovne ustanove, ustanove socijalne zaštite, sudska i druja tela vlade, nvo, i građani. 91vidi porodični zakon, čl. 291. shodno ovoj odredbi organ starateljstva mora da postupa u skladu sa zakonom o opštem upravnom postupku (službeni list srj, no. 33/97 i 31/2001.) kada odlučuje o stavljanu osoba pod starateljstvo i o drugim pitanjima koja se tiču porodice kada nema posebnih normi porodičnog zakona. shodno tome članovi 329-341 porodičnog zakona su lex specialis u odnosu na zakon o opštem upravnom postupku. prema paragrafu 2 člana 291, organ starateljstva u svom radu treba da primenjuje metode socijalne zaštite. ovo je posebno regulisano članovima 329-341 porodičnog zakona.92porodični zakon, čl. 332(4).93porodični zakon, čl. 332(3) i (4).94porodični zakon, čl. 125(2).95porodični zakon, čl. 332(2).96porodični zakon, čl. 125(3) i (4).97porodični zakon, čl. 332, para. 3.98porodični zakon, čl. 125, p. 5.99porodični zakon, čl. 143.28mental disability advocacy centerprihoda, osim ako se time ne ugroőava štiěenikovo izdrőavanje.100 staratelji ne mogu biti plaěeni za usluge starateljstva.2.6procena srpskog zakonodavstva na osnovu standarda ljudskih pravakao što je veě pomenuto, mdac je osmislio 29 indikatora za procenu zakonodavstva u oblasti starateljstva. ovi indikatori su izvedeni iz meőunarodnog prava ljudskih prava i standarda, poput ekps i preporuke komiteta ministara saveta evrope br. r(99)4 o punoletnim osobama i poslovnoj sposobnosti. tamo gde neko pitanje ili izneseni stav nisu u dovoljnoj meri obuhvaěeni meőunarodnim pravom i standardima, biěe dati pimeri dobre prakse iz razliűitih zemalja. prvi indikator se tiűe opštih naűela kojima treba da bude proőet celokupan pravni okvir, a koji u isto vreme oslikava i stav javnosti prema osobama s invaliditetom. ostatak inikatora je, poput i samog starateljstva, podeljeno u tri grupe. prva grupa indikatora odnosi se na prava punoletne osobe pre stavljanja pod starateljstvo. druga grupa ispituje prava punoletne osobe pošto bude stavljena pod starateljstvo, kao i odgovarajuěa prava i obaveze osobe koja je postavljena za staratelja. treěa grupa ispituje manje ograniűavajuěe alternative kao i mehanizme za preispitivanje i ukidanje starateljstva. ostatak structure ovog izveštaja je kako sledi. svaki indikator detaljno je ispitan. indikator sadrői zakljuűak u kome se govori o usaglašenosti srpskog zakonodavstva s njim, kao i analizu usklaőenosti ili neusklaőenosti. na kraju, dati su primeri standarda ljudskig prava relevantnih za odreőeni indikator. 2.6.1načela koja se protežu kroz celokupan zakonodavni okvir (indikator 1)indikator svrha starateljstva deklarisana u zakonu ili preambula zakona istiőe znaőaj poštovanja ljudskih prava, osnovnih sloboda i dostojanstva osoba sa mentalnim smetnjama. zakljuőak: srpsko zakonodavstvo ne sadrői odredbu prema kojoj bi se kao svrha starateljstva navela zaštita ljudskih prava i dostojanstvo osoba s mentalnim smetnjama. analiza: za razliku od rešenja iz prethodnog zakona, vaőeěe zakonodavstvo ne sadrői odredbu u kojoj bi bila opisana svrha starateljstva, niti se izriűito poziva na 100porodični zakon, čl. 144, para 2 i čl. 140, 4. treba istaći da je prethodnim zakonom bilo predviđeno bolje rešenje prema kome se staratelju plaća naknada iz budžeta opštine. ćl. 247 porodičnog zakona. vidi m. draškić, op.cit, str. 308.29starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijipoštovanje ljudskih prava. ustav propisuje da je “republika srbija (…) drőava srpskog naroda i svih graőana koji u njoj őive, zasnovana na vladavini prava i socijalnoj pravdi, naűelima graőanske demokratije, ljudskim i manjinskim pravima i slobodama i pripadnosti evropskim principima i vrednostima.”02 ne postoji jasna odredba kojom bi se nedvosmisleno ukazalo da zakon sluői kako bi se obezbedilo puno poštovanje prava i dostojanstva osoba s mentalnim smetnjama. zapravo, time što se srpskim zakonima osobe s mentalnim smetnjama izjednaűavaju sa decom, zakonodavstvo samo podupire i ojaűava stereotipe i zastarela shvatanja o osobama sa invaliditetom kao bespomoěne dece kojoj je potrebna briőna nega i drőavni paternalizam. standardi ljudskih prava: naűelo preporuka br. r(99) 4 propisuje da poštovanje ljudskih prava i dostojanstva osoba s mentalnim smetnjama treba da se proteőe kroz celo zakonodavstvo. u odnosu na zaštitu punoletnih osoba s umanjenim sposobnostima osnovno naűelo na kome su zasnovana sva ostala naűela jeste poštovanje dostojanstva svake osobe kao ljudskog biěa. zakoni, postupci i praksa vezana za zaštitu punoletnih osoba s umanjenim sposobnostima moraju biti zasnovani na poštovanju njihovih ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, uzimajuěi u obzir svaku kvaliůkaciju takvih prava sadrőanu u relevantnim meőunarodnim pravnim instrumentima.04 ovo naűelo se moőe inplementirati u domaěe zakonodavstvo unošenjem preambule ili deůnisanjem svrhe zaštite punoletnih osoba u relevantne propise. sudovi treba da se vode takvom proklamacijom o prepoznavanju i vaőnosti principa ljudskih prava i ljudskog dostojanstva prilikom donošenja svojih odluka. ovakav pristup preporuűuje i svetska zdravstvena organizacija (szo) kako bi “sudovima i drugima bilo lakše da tumaűe propise kada god postoje nejasnoěe u supstancijalnim odredbama zakona”.05 szo navodi preambulu poljskog zakona o mentalnom zdravlju kao dobar primer poštovanja ovog principa. preambula glasi: “priznajuěi da je mentalno zdravlje osnovna ljudska vrednost i priznajuěi da je zaštita prava osoba s mentalnim smetnjama obaveza 101zakon o braku i porodičnim odnosima iz 1980 je u čl. 219, st. 2 propisivao da je svrha starateljstva nad punoletnim licima zaštita njihove ličnosti, koja se prvenstveno ostvaruje zbrinjavanjem, osposobljavanjem za samostalan život i lečenjem. pored toga, zakon je propisivao da starateljstvo ima za svrhu i obezbeđivanje imovinskih i drugih prava i interesa lica pod starateljstvom.102ustav, čl. 1.103porodični zakon, čl. 146(2) and 147(2).104preporuka r(99)4, načelo 1.105world health organization, who resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation: stop exclusion, dare to care (world health organization, geneva, switzerland, 2005), str. 19.30mental disability advocacy centerdrőave, ovaj zakon propisuje (…)”.06 ovakva preambula ustanovljava vladajuěe vrednosti koje treba da budu primenjene pri inplementaciji propisa. 2.6.2proceduralna prava tokom postupka za stavljanje pod starateljstvo (indikatori 2-7)ova grupa indikatora se odnosi na proceduralna prava punoletnih osoba tokom postupka za stavljanje pod starateljstvo. dok nacionalni zakoni mogu garantovati i dodatna prava i zaštitu, ovi indikatori predstavljaju minimum standarda neophodnih za obezbeőenje praviűnog postupka. prema evropskom pravu ljudskih prava “uvoőenje posebnih proceduralnih garancija moőe se pokazati neophodnim radi zaštite interesa pojedinaca koji, usled mentalnih smetnji, nisu u potpunosti sposobni da samostalno preduzimaju radnje u svoju korist”.07 drugo vaőno pitanje je ono koje se tiűe kvaliteta dokaza koji moraju biti izvedeni pred sudom tokom postupka u kom se ispituje poslovna sposobnost pojedinca. ova pitanja obraőena su pod indikatorima 8 do indikator 2zakoni jasno odreůuju krug lica koja mogu podneti predlog za postavljanje staratelja i na kojim dokazima se taj predlog zasniva. zakljuőak: zakon jasno navodi ko moőe pokrenuti postupak za postavljanje staratelja. sa druge strane, nejasno je kakve dokaze treba podneti radi potkrepljivanja predloga za pokretanje postupka. analiza: zakon propisuje da predlog za pokretanje postupka za stavljanje pod starateljstvo mogu pokrenuti sud (po sluőbenoj duőnosti), organ starateljstva i űlanovi porodice punoletne osobe.08 ovlašěenje za pokretanje postupka dokazuje se istovremeno sa podnošenjem predloga, osim ukoliko postupak pokreěe organ starateljstva. dalji srodnici moraju da dokaőu da su u srodstvu sa punoletnom osobom, kao i da őive u zajednici s njom. 09zakon ne propisuje kog stepena kvaliteta dokazi moraju biti, veě samo da “(p)redlog (za pokretanje postupka) mora da sadrői űinjenice na kojima se zasniva, kao i dokaze kojima se te űinjenice utvrőuju ili űine verovatnim”.11 zanimljivo je primetiti da ne postoji izriűita odredba da je za pokretanje postupka neophodno dostaviti dokaz o 106zakon o zaštiti mentalnog zdravlja, m284 1994, poljska, citirano prema who, who resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation: stop exclusion, dare to care (world health organization, geneva, switzerland, 2005), str. 19.107evropski sud za ljudska prava, winterwerp v. the netherlands, app. br. 6301/73, presuda od 24 oktobra 1979, (a/33) (1979-80) 2 ehrr 387, para. 60.108zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 32.109zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 32, st. 2.110zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 33.31starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijipostojanju dijagnoze o mentalnoj smetnji i/ili o naűinu na koji takvo stanje punoletne osobe utiűe na njenu sposobnost da samostalno donosi odluke i brine se o sebi. zakon sadrői i odredbu koja űini moguěim krajnje nelogiűan scenario po kome punoletne osobe mogu i same podneti zahtev da budu lišene poslovne sposobnosti, ukoliko mogu da shvate znaűenje i pravne posledice svog predloga.111 kao što je gore veě pomenuto, sud mora povesti postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti ukoliko doőe do informacije da kod neke osobe koja se nalazi u njegovoj nadleőnosti postoje zakonski uslovi za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti.11odluke sudova o tome ko moőe pokrenuti postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti se razlikuju. u jednom sluűaju, őalbeni sud je odluűio da psihijatrijska ustanova ne moőe da podnese predlog za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti jednog od svojih pacijenata.113 stanovište suda bilo je da je gore pomenuta lista osoba ovlašěenih za pokretanje postupka iscrpna. istovremeno, u jednoj drugoj odluci őalbenog suda, sud je smatrao da se predlog za pokretanje postupka ne moőe odbaciti samo zbog toga što ga je podnelo lice koje za to nije ovlašěeno, ukoliko je postupak veě otpoűeo.11 srpski zakon ne daje pravo na pokretanje postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti javnom tuőiocu niti drugim organima javne vlasti, űak ni u onim sluűajevima kada bi punoletna osoba mogla biti podloőna zloupotrebama ili zapostavljanju koje nad njim vrše űlanovi porodice. ipak, ovi organi mogli bi se obratiti sudu i obavestiti ga o ovakvoj situaciji, a tada bi sud morao da pokrene postuak po sluőbenoj duőnosti. standardi ljudskih prava: ovaj indikator se fokusira na dva razliűita pitanja. prvo je da li zakon izriűito propisuje koja su lica ovlašěena da podnesu predlog za pokretanje postupka űiji je cilj stavljanje punoletne osobe pod starateljstvo, a drugo je da li zakon sadrői odredbu kojom se ustanovljava koji se dokazi moraju podneti radi pokretanja postupka kako bi se dokazala opravdanost predloga za pokretanje postupka. što se tiűe prvog pitanja, preporuka br. r(99)4 propisuje u naűelu 11, stav da: (l)ista onih koji su ovlašěeni da pokrenu postupak za ustanovljavanje mere zaštite punoletne osobe umanjenih sposobnosti treba da bude dovoljno široka, kako bi se obezbedilo razmatranje mera zaštite u svim onim sluűajevima u kojima su neophodne. ovo bi naroűito moglo da se odnosi na neophodnost davanja ovlašěenja za pokretanje postupka zvaniűniku ili drőavnom organu, sudovima ili drugoj nadleőnoj instituciji javne vlasti na njihovu inicijativu. preporuka poziva na sprovoőenje “praviűnog i eůkasnog postupka putem koga se ustanovljava mera zaštite punoletne osobe umanjenih sposobnosti”.11 praviűnost u 111zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 32, st. 3.112zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 32, st. 2.113okružni sud u beogradu gž 10262/84.114okružni sud u požarevcu, gž. 643/90.115preporuka bo. r(99)4, načelo 5(1).32mental disability advocacy centerovom kontekstu ukljuűuje i zakonsku odredbu kojom se jasno odreőuje krug lica koja mogu podneti predlog za pokretanje postupka. drugo pitanje koje se odnosi na potrebu da predlog za pokretanje postupka sadrői zasnovanu i dokazanu opravdanost, neophodno je radi zaštite punoletne osobe od šikaniranja i zlonamernih pokušaja da se pokaőu njegove umanjene funkcionalne sposobnosti. u sluűaju h.f. protiv slovaőke, evropski sud za ljudska prava je ispitivao proceduru u kojoj je h.f. bila lišena poslovne sposobnosti. procedura je otpoűela na osnovu predloga njenog bivšeg supruga potkrepljenog psihijatrijskim nalazom koji je u vreme odrőavanja rasprave bio stariji od godinu dana. sud je utvrdio povredu űlana 6() konvencije zbog toga što je, pored drugih grešaka u postupku, slovaűki sud propustio da izvede dovoljno dokaza u svetlu naűela 2 preporuke (99)4, prema kojem se zahteva “najmanje jedan noviji izveštaj o stanju punoletne osobe saűinjen od strane struűnjaka prigodne struke”.11 ukoliko relevantni propisi sadrőe odredbu o vrstama dokaza koje treba podneti zajedno s predlogom za pokretanje postupka lišenja poslovne sposobnosti poput onog kojim je bila pogoőena podnositeljka predstavke u sluűaju h.f. protiv slovaőke moőe se izbeěi na samom poűetku. indikator punoletna osoba ima pravo da bude obaveštena, prisutna i saslušana tokom svih postupaka koji se vode za lišenje njene poslovne sposobnosti i postavljanje staratelja. zakljuőak: iako zakon propisuje da punoletna osoba o kojoj se vodi postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti treba da bude obaveštena o pokretanju tog postupka, takoőe dozvoljava njihovo iskljuűivanje iz postupka iz razloga koji se zasnivaju iskljuűivo na nesigurnom medicinskom nalazu. analiza: svaka punoletna osoba mora biti pozvana na roűište.11 sud mora da sasluša punoletnu osobu liűno, osim u sluűajevima u kojima bi to moglo da bude štetno po njeno zdravlje ili ako saslušanje uopšte nije moguěe s obzirom na duševno ili ůziűko stanje tog lica.11 ovakva odredba unosi neprikladne slabosti u zahtev da punoletna osoba bude prisutna na roűištu. zapravo, ona stvara moguěnost da se dogodi bizarna situacija u kojoj punoletna osoba moőe biti iskljuűena sa roűišta na kojem se raspravlja o njenoj poslovnoj 116h.f. v. slovakia, app. br. 54797/00, presuda od 8. novembra 2005. presuda je dostupna samo na francuskom jeziku. za sažetak slučaja na engleskom jeziku vidi press release, european court of human rights registrar, chamber judgments concerning france, malta, moldova, poland, slovakia, turkey and ukraine (8. novembar 2005). dostupno na www.cmiskp.echr.coe.int/echr, posećeno 30. jula 2006.117zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 35 st.2.118zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 36, st. 1 i 2.33starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijisposobnosti ukoliko postoje dokazi da nije sposobna da razume znaűenje postupka i ne moőe da odgovori na pitanja. imajuěi u vidu da lišenje poslovne sposobnosti ima velike posledice na osnovna prava pojedinca, nema puno opravdanja za iskljuűivanje punoletne osobe iz postupka samo na osnovu medicinskog nalaza u kojem se navodi da ta osoba nije sposobna da postupak razume, jednostavno zato što ona nema moguěnost da se suprotstavi i napadne takav nalaz. imajuěi u vidu da se ovi postupci upravo i vode zbog nedostatka funkcionalne sposobnosti pojedinca, prelako je tvrditi u pojedinaűnim sluűajevima da punoletna osoba nema sposobnost da razume tok i znaűenje postupka. standardi ljudskih prava: pravo da punoletna osoba bude prisutna na roűištu i da bude liűno saslušana neposredno proizlazi iz prava da bude obaveštena o odrőavanju roűišta jednostavno zato što bi prava da se bude prisutan i liűno saslušan bila potpuno besmislena ukoliko punoletna osoba ne bi bila i pozvana da prisustvuje na roűištu. naűelo 11 preporuke br. r(99)4 propisuje da punoletna osoba mora biti obaveštena o tome da se vodi postupak o njenoj poslovnoj sposobnosti, izriűito navodeěi da obaveštenje, izmeőu ostalog, mora biti formulisano “na jeziku koji punoletna osoba razume, ili na drugi naűin”.11 memorandum o tumaűenju preporuke br. r(99)4 ponovo podvlaűi vaőnost da ovakva garancija u postupku postoji, navodeěi zahteve koje postavlja űlan 6 ekps.20 prema jeziku korištenom u naűelu 11 űini se da preporuka prepoznaje da obiűan poziv saűinjen po propisanoj formi, odreőenim propisima koji ureőuju materiju graőanskog procesnog prava mogu biti neadekvatni, odnosno da punoletnoj osobi ne moraju nuőno da iskaőu smisao i posledice postupka koji je pokrenut. prema tome, standard koji treba primeniti jeste da li zakon propisuje obavezu da se punoletnoj osobi pošalje razumljivo obaveštenje. jedno rešenje koje odgovara ovom standardu moőe se naěi u zakonu o jedinstvenim pravilima o postupcima za stavljanje pod starateljstvo i druge oblike zaštite (uniform guardianship and protective proceedings act) koji sadrői odredbu prema kojoj “obaveštenja iz ovog zakona moraju biti saűinjena jednostavnim jezikom”119treba pomenuti da načelo 11(2) takođe predviđa izuzetke od pravila da se osoba o čijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti raspravlja kada bi ³takvo obaveštenje bilo očigledno bez ikakvog smisla za punoletnu osobu ili ukoliko bi moglo da ozbiljno ugrozi zdravlje punoletne osobe”.120council of europe, committee of ministers. explanatory memorandum to recommendation r(1999)4 on principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults. usvojen 23 februara 1999, para. 52.121vidi para. 113(c). zakon o jedinstvenim pravilima o postupcima za stavljanje pod starateljstvo i druge oblike zaštite (the uniform guardianship and protective proceedings act) (1997) je model zakona koji je izradila nacionalna konferencija komisija za jednoobrazno državno pravo (national conference of commissions on uniform state laws). ovaj model zakona podržalo je i američko udruženje pravnika (american bar association). svrha ovog modela bila je da se obezbedi pravičan postupak za osobe koje su lišene poslovne sposobnosti i da se staratelji podvrgnu sudskoj kontroli širom sad odredbe modela koje se odnose na pravično postupanje mogu se primenjivati i u drugim državama. model je dostupan na www.nccusl.orgposećeno 14 jula 2006.34mental disability advocacy centeršto se drugog elementa tiűe, preporuka br. r(99)4 jednostavno propisuje da “punoletna osoba ima pravo da bude liűno saslušana tokom bilo kog postupka koji moőe uticati na njenu poslovnu sposobnost”.22 žlan 6 ekps garantuje pravo na praviűno suőenje i u onim sluűajevima gde se raspravlja o graőanskim stvarima, ukljuűujuěi tu i pitanja starateljstva, odnosno poslovne sposobnosti. indikator 4punoletna osoba ima pravo na besplatno i delotvorno pravno zastupanje tokom postupaka vezanih za starateljstvo.zakljuőci: zakonodavstvo garantuje pravo na besplatno i delotvorno pravno zastupanje tokom postupaka vezanih za uspostavljanje starateljstva. analiza: zakon predviőa dve vrste pravnog zastupanja punoletne osobe tokom postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti: postavljanje privremenog staratelja24 i postavljanje privremenog zastupnika. pre nego što ova dva instituta budu detaljnije objašnjena, treba napomenuti da postoji pretpostavka postojanja poslovne sposobnosti tokom celog postupka za lišavanje poslovne sposobnosti. sud ima diskreciono pravo da nalaőe organu starateljstva da postavi staratelja.25 sud ěe ovo uűiniti uvek kada proceni da punoletna osoba nije sposobna da zastupa svoja prava i interese, ali ima obavezu da to uűini samo onda kada je punoletna osoba veě formalno lišena poslovne sposobnosti.26 privremeni staratelj moőe biti postavljen i na izriűit zahtev punoletne osobe.27 organ starateljstva ima obavezu da postavi privremenog staratelja na zahtev punoletne osobe ukoliko je ona navela opravdane razloge za to.28 istovremeno, organ starateljstva nije prinuően da to i uradi. prema uputsvima ministarstva, organ starateljstva mora da postavi privremenog staratelja samo onda kada je on sam i podneo predlog za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti.29 pored 122načelo 13.123vidi winterwerp v. the netherlands, app. br. 6301/73, presuda od 24 oktobra 1979, (a/33) (1979) 2 ehrr 387, u kom je sud ustanovio da ³sposobnost da se pojedinac lično bavi s imovinom uključuje uživanje privatnih prava i stoga predstavlja ³prava i obaveze u građanskim stvarima” iz člana 6, stav 1 (…). lišavanje gospodina winterwerpa te sposobnosti prouzrokovalo je ³mešanje” u takva prava i obaveze.” ovaj princip potvrđen je u jednom novijem slučaju. vidi matter v. slovakia, app. br. 31534/96, presuda od 5 jula 1999, para. 51.124porodični zakon, čl. 132, zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 35, 36, zakon o parničnom postupku, čl. 75-78.125zakon o parničnom postupku, čl. 75-78. vidi takođe, čl. 132.126zakon o parničnom postupku, čl. 78(2).127porodični zakon, čl. 132, st. 2, tač. 5.128ibid.129uputstvo centrima za socijalni rad o sprovođenju postupka za primenu mera starateljske zaštite, ministarstvo za rad, boračka i socijalna pitanja (sada ministarstvo za rad, zapošljavanje i socijalnu zaštitu), od 14 decembra 1994, str. 15. ovde treba 35starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijitoga, uputstvo navodi i da organ starateljstva nije duőan da postavi privremenog staratelja na zahtev suda ukoliko postoje razlozi koji ukazuju da je punoletna osoba sposobna da sama štiti svoja prava i interese.13privremeni zastupnik zapravo predstavlja alternativu privremenom staratelju. za razliku od privremenog staratelja, privremeni zastupnik mora biti advokat. privremenog zastupnika postavlja sud kada smatra da punoletna osoba nije u stanju da samostalno zastupa svoja prava i interese, i ukoliko bi postupak za postavljanje privremenog zastupnika trajao isuviše dugo.131 uloga zastupnika je da zastupa punoletnu osobu tokom postupaka kojima je konaűan cilj stavljanje punoletne osobe pod starateljstvo,13 kao i da štiti interese punoletne osobe tokom postupka, ne i da se rukovodi njenim őeljama. ovo razlikovanje je vaőno s obzirom da punoletna osoba moőe imati razliűito mišljenje od njegovog zatupnika u odnosu na pitanje šta je u njegovom interesu. zakonska pretpostavka poslovne sposobnosti tokom postupka za lišavanje poslovne sposobnosti133 oűigledno ima male praktiűne posledice i lako ju je predrugojaűiti. imajuěi u vidu da se tokom postupka ispituje nedostatak poslovne sposobnosti kao i űinjenica da je moguěi ishod postupka lišenje punoletne osobe veoma znaűajnih osnovnih prava, jasno je da zakonodavstvo pruőa samo slabe garancije zaštite ovih prava. prema tome, moőe se slobodno reěi, da ne postoji ni nezavisno, niti dovoljno delotvorno pravno zastupanje tokom postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti. standardi ljudskih prava: preporuka saveta evrope br. r(2004)0 istiűe da “osobe sa mentalnim smetnjama treba da budu ovlašěena da uőivaju sva svoja graőanska i politiűka prava”.13 ustanovljeni princip meőunarodnog prava izriűito je sadrőan u űlanu 4()(d) meőunarodnog pakta o graőankim i politiűkim pravima (pgp), da u onim pravnim stvarima u kojima postoji rizik od gubitka slobode, osoba mora da ima pravo na besplatnu pravnu pomoě i zastupnika. komitet za ljudska prava ujedinjenih nacija, kao telo koje vrši nadzor nad primenom pgp, tumaűilo je ovu odredbu tako da napomenuti da su ova uputstva izdata na osnovu prethodnog zakona o braku i porodičnim odnosima iz 1980. kako nova uputstva koja bi bila u skladu s novim porodičnim zakonom nisu bila izdata do trenutka zaključenja rada na ovom izveštaju, pretpostavka je mdac-a da su navedena uputstva u širokoj upotrebi. bez obzira na to što je njihova pravna validnost neizvesna (prema članu 362, st. 2 porodičnog zakona svi podzakonski akti usvojeni u skladu sa zakonom o braku i porodičnim odnosima iz 1980. prestali su da važe. ipak, uputstva ne predstavljaju podzakonske akte već jednostavne instrukcije upravnog organa, tako da nema zakonskog osnova da se smatra da je njihova pravna snaga iščezla.130ibid. vidi takođe i u nadežda ljubojev, op. cit. str. 105-106.131zakon o parničnom postupku, art. 79.132zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 6 u skladu sa zakonom o parničnom postupku, čl. 79.133osoba se može lišiti poslovne sposobnosti samo na osnovu rešenja suda. tokom ovog postupka, punoletna osoba ima poslovnu sposobnost prema zakonu.134preporuka no. r(2004)10 koja se tiče zaštite ljudskih prava i dostojanstva osoba s mentalnim smetnjama, usvojena 22. septembra 2004, čl. 4.36mental disability advocacy centerse ona odnosi i na “postupke u kojima se odluűuje o pravima i obavezama graőanske prirode”.13 kako se odredbe űlana 4 () smatraju osnovnim garancijama praviűnog postupka13 besplatno i delotvorno zastupanje treba smatrati osnovnim zahtevom u svim postupcima za lišavanje poslovne sposobnosti. protezanje ovog prava na postupke űiji je cilj stavljanje pod starateljstvo punoletne osobe nalazi svoje uporište i u preporuci br. r(99)4, koja propisuje da “tokom postupka treba da postoje odgovarajuěe garancije za zaštitu ljudskih prava punoletne osobe kojima bi se spreűile moguěe zloupotrebe”.13 sliűno tome, ekps je tumaűena tako da pravo na praviűno suőenje vaői i u onim postupcima koji se odnose na lišenje poslovne sposobnosti.13primena pravila kojima se obezbeőuje delotvorno pravno zastupanje naroűito je vaőno u onim postupcima u kojima se ispituje da li osoba ima funkcionalnu sposobnost da samu sebe zastupa.13 kao što je veě napomenuto, lišenje poslovne sposobnosti moőe dovesti do doőivotnog stavljanja pod starateljstvo i gubitka prava da se uőivaju osnovna ljudska prava (poput prava da se samostalno bira mesto stanovanja, pravo upravljanja imovinom, pravo na zakljuűenje braka, pravo glasa). generalna skupština ujedinjenih nacija prepoznala je vaőnost ove obaveze u svojim naűelima za zaštitu osoba s mentalnim smetnjama i poboljšanje mentalnog zdravlja iz 99 (naűela o mentalnom zdravlju), prema kojima: [o]soba o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti raspravlja ima pravo na advokata. ukoliko takva osoba ne uspe sama sebi da obezbedi advokata, on ěe joj biti dodeljen bez naknade, u sluűaju da ona nema dovoljno sredstava da ga sama sebi priušti.40 indikator 5 punoletna osoba ne moěe biti protiv svoje volje zadrěana radi ispitivanja njene poslovne sposobnosti. zakljuőak: zakonodavstvo dozvoljava da se punoletna osoba prinudno smesti u psihijatrijsku ustanovu i to u trajanju od tri meseca radi vršenja veštaűenja o poslovnoj sposobnosti. 135vidi komitet za ljudska prava ujedinjenih nacija, opšti komentar br. 13: jednakost pred sudom i pravo na pravično suđenje pred nezavisnim sudom ustanovljenim zakonom, od 13. aprila 1984, para. 2. prevod na srpskom dostupan na http://www.bgcentar.org.yu/index.php”p 16136komitet za ljudska prava, opšti komentar br. 13, op cit, para. 5.137načelo 7.138matter v. slovakia, op cit, para. 51.139vidi npr. slučaj pred evropskim sudom za ljudska prava megyeri v. germany, app. no. 13770/88, presuda od 12 maja 1992, (1992) 15 ehrr 584, para. 23.rezolucija gs un 46/119 o zaštiti osoba sa mentalnim smetnjama i poboljšanju 37starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijianaliza: sud moőe narediti da punoletna osoba bude protiv svoje volje smeštena u psihijatrijsku ustanovu ukoliko smatra da je to neophodno radi procene njegovog mentalnog stanja. zadrőavanje moőe trajati do tri meseca.42 jedan ili više eksperata iz odgovarajuěe oblasti (doktori psihijatrije, neuropsihijatrije itd.) moraju da pruőe dokaze da je ovakvo zadrőavanje neophodno. osnovni problem sa ovom odredbom je da je prinudno zadrőavanje samo po sebi štetno, bez obzira na neűije psihiűko stanje. punoletna osoba, staratelj kao i privremeni zastupnik mogu se őaliti protiv odluke o prinudnom zadrőavanju.44 rok za podnošenje őalbe je tri dana od dana kada je odluka uruűena strankama. ukoliko sud ne odluűi drugaűije, őalba ne odlaőe izvršenje rešenja.45 posledica ovakve odredbe je ta da punoletna osoba moőe momentalno biti odvedena u psihijatrijsku ustanovu bez pravnosnaőne odluke suda. standardi ljudskih prava: naűela o mentalnom zdravlju sadrőe odredbu prema kojoj “nijedna osoba neěe biti primorana da se podvrgne medicinskom pregledu radi utvrőivanja da li ima ili nema problema mentalnog zdravlja osim u skladu s procedurom propisanom unutrašnjim pravom”.46 sliűno tome, evropski sud je ispitivao pitanje prinudnog zadrőavanja radi psihijatrijskih analiza pod űlanom 5 ekps i pravom na slobodu. u sluűaju nowicka protiv poljske, evropski sud je smatrao da je zadrőavanje pojedinca kako bi se ispunila zakonska obaveza, kakva je izvršenje sudske naredbe da se izvrši psihijatrijsko veštaűenje, samo po sebi dozvoljeno. meőutim, sud je takoőe utvrdio da zadrőavanje osobe pre vršenja veštaűenja kao i produőavanje prinudnog zadrőavanja nakon što je takva obaveza prestala da postoji, ne uspeva da ispuni uslov proporcionalnosti izmeőu dva sukobljena interesa, i to onog koji ima drőava da proceni neűije psihiűko stanje, i interesa pojedinca da uőiva svoje pravo na slobodu, te stoga predstavlja kršenje űlana 5 konvencije.47 pod drugaűijim okolnostima, evropski sud je smatrao da prinudni psihijatrijski pregledi predstavljaju kršenje űlana 6 konvencije (pravo na praviűno suőenje)48 i űlan 8 konvencije (pravo na privatnost i porodiűni őivot), article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).49 prema tome, postojanje moguěnosti da nekoj osobi nedostaje sposobnost za normalno rasuőivanje nije sama po sebi dovoljan osnov da se ta osoba protiv njene volje zadrői u psihijatrijskoj ustanovi.141zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 38, st. 3.142zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 38, st. 3.143zakon je nejasan po pitanju koliki broj doktora mora da da mišljenje u ovakvim slučajevima. 144zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 39, st. 2.145zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 39. st. 3.146rezolucija gs un 46/119 o zaštiti osoba sa mentalnim smetnjama i poboljšanju mentalnog zdravlja, načelo 5.147nowicka v. poland, app. br. 30218/96, presuda od 3. decembra 2002, para. 58-61.148vidi bock v. germany u pogledu dužine trajanja postupka zbog ponovljenog naloga suda da se izvrši psihijatrijsko veštačenje. app. br. 11118/84, presuda od 21. februara 1989.149vidi worwa v. poland u kom je sud utvrdio da su višestruka ispitivanja tokom kratkog vremenskog perioda u vezi sa istim krivičnim delom predstavljala neopravdano mešanje u privatan život podnosioca predstavke. app. br. 26624/95, presuda od 27. novembra 2003.38mental disability advocacy centerindikator 6punoletna osoba ima pravo i priliku da predstavi svoje dokaze (ukljuőujuži i svedoke) i da ispituje dokaze suprotne strane (ukljuőujuži i svedoke). zakljuőak: ne postoji izriűita odredba o pravu punoletne osobe da predstavi svoje dokaze u toku postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, ali, imajuěi u vidu da sud donosi rešenje na osnovu rasprave na roűištu,50 treba pretpostaviti da nema niűega što bi punoletnu osobu spreűilo da predstavi svoje dokaze. pored toga, sud je duőan da liűno sasluša punoletnu osobu tokom postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti. sud se moőe suzdrőati od saslušanja, samo ukoliko bi ono bilo štetno po punoletnu osobu ili takvo saslušanje nije uopšte moguěe s obzirom na psihiűko ili ůziűko zdravlje pojedinca. jedini dokaz koji se mora u svakom sluűaju izneti tokom postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti je psihijatrijsko veštaűenje koje izvode odgovarajuěi medicinski struűnjaci.52analiza: kako bi stekao što potpuniju sliku u svakom pojedinaűnom sluűaju, sudija treba da sasluša sve one koji su ukljuűeni u postupak i treba da oceni ne samo one űinioce koji se odnose na őivotne uslove punoletne osobe, njegovo mentalno stanje i funkcionalne sposobnosti, veě i da utvrdi motive koji su doveli do pokretanja postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti na drugoj strani. sud ima diskreciono ovlašěenje da ispita svakog pojedinca ili institucije koje mogu da pruőe relevantne informacije o őivotu i ponašanju osobe o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti raspravlja, ovo moőe ukljuűiti i policiju, bolnice, srodnike, domove socijalne zaštite, poslodavca itd. ipak, u zakonodavstvu je preőivela odredba koja obavezuje sud da prikupi informacije iz sekundarnih izvora, ali je problem u tome što je veěina tih izvora prestala da postoji urušavanjem socijalistiűkog pravnog sistema. ovde treba ponoviti da sud moőe izbeěi da sledi svoju obavezu da liűno sasluša osobu o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti raspravlja usled njenih mentalnih ili psihiűkih smetnji, što automatski spreűava punoletno lice da iskoristi svoje pravo da ispita i odgovori na dokaze koje sud prikupi iz drugih izvora. standardi ljudsih prava: preporuka br. r(99)4 propisuje da ‘(t)reba da postoji praviűan i eůkasan postupak putem kojeg se uspostavlja mera zaštite nad punoletnom 150zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 35.151zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 36.152ovo je jedini dokaz koji se mora pribaviti pod bilo kojim okolnostima. vidi zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 38.153većina ovih institucija više jednostavno ne postoji, ili ukoliko i postoje, njihov je značaj minoran. ove institucije su zapravo relikti socijalističke samoupravne ere. s obzirom da zakon o vanparničnom postupku nije menjan otkako je srbija ušla u tranzicioni period, ova terminologija je još uvek prisutna u srpskom zakonodavstvu. 39starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiosobom umanjenih sposobnosti‘.54 ovo naűelo samo prenosi odredbu űlana 6(ekps koja garantuje praviűno suőenje u svim sluűajevima u kojima se raspravlja o graőanskim stvarima.55 moguěnost da stranke napadaju dokaze koje je druga strana predstavila i pravo da predstave sopstvene dokaze, ukljuűujuěi i pravo da pozivaju svedoke, element je prava na praviűno suőenje. ova garancija nalazi se i u űlanu 4() pgp, koji komitet za ljudska prava un-a tumaűi tako da ukljuűuje minimalne garancije za praviűno suőenje.56 u postupku za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti i stavljanje pod starateljstvo naroűito je vaőno dati priliku osobi o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti radi da ispita iznešene dokaze i svedoke, što je naroűito primereno za otkrivanje eventualnog postojanja prikrivenih motiva za pokretanje postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, kao što je npr. pristup ůnansijskim sredstvima punoletne osobe i sl. pored toga, osoba o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti raspravlja mogla bi da istakne prigovore o neregularnosti postupka, kao i da predstavi dokaze o svojoj funkcionalnoj sposobnosti. indikator 7nijedna punoletna osoba ne moěe biti lišena poslovne sposobnosti, a da prethodno nije bila podvrgnuta veštaőenju koje izvodi kvaliűkovani struőnjak i koje se zasniva na objektivnim informacijama, ukljuőujuži i neposrednu evaluaciju osobe u pitanju. zakljuőak: osoba prema kojoj se postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti vodi mora biti odgovarajuěe pregledana od najmanje dva lekara koji su specijalizirali u oblasti psihijatrije ili sliűno. sudu i zainteresovanim stranama se mora dostaviti pisani nalaz. analiza: veštaűenje funkcionalnih sposobnosti osobe o kojoj se vodi postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti mora biti izvršeno od strane dva doktora medicine. ovi lekari moraju biti specijalisti u oblasti mentalnog zdravlja (psihijatri, neuropsihijatri, kliniűki psiholozi i sl.) i moraju biti na listi stalnih sudskih veštaka. nalaz mora da sadrői mišljenje o mentalnom stanju osobe u pitanju, kao i o njegovoj sposobnosti da rasuőuje.57 zakon ne propisuje nikakve druge uslove koji se tiűu sadrőaja nalaza i űinjenica koje se u njemu moraju nalaziti. ukoliko se veštaűenje ne vrši u ustanovi, sudija mora da bude prisutan tokom njegovog izvoőenja.58154načelo 7(1).155za primenu člana 6(1) na postupke čiji je cilj uspostavljanje starateljstva vidi winterwerp v. the netherlands, app. br. 6301/73, presuda od 24. oktobra 1979.156međunarodni pakt o građanskim i političkim pravima, čl. 14(3)(e). vidi komitet za ljudska prava un-a, opšti komentar br. 13, para. 5 o minimalnim garancijama koje pruža čl. 14(3).157zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 38.158zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 38(2). 40mental disability advocacy centerkada primi nalaze, sud je obavezan da ih dostavi zainteresovanim stranama. one ga mogu osporavati, ali je na sudu da odluűi o verodostojnosti nalaza kao i o tome da li je potrebno sprovesti novo veštaűenje. zanimljivo je reěi da podnosilac predloga moőe da bira veštake sa liste stalnih sudskih veštaka,59 te da osoba o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti postupak vodi moőe da se izjasni o tom predlogu.60 meőutim, sud moőe i sam da izabere veštake. iako obe stranke mogu traőiti superveštaűenje, sud ima diskreciono pravo da odluűi hoěe li dopustiti takvo veštaűenje. pribavljanje dva nalaza veštaka i njihovo uzimanje u obzir prilikom donošenja odluke o lišavanju poslovne sposobnosti jedina je apsolutna zakonska obaveza suda. sud ima diskreciju prilikom odluűivanja hoěe li da traői i sasluša bilo koju ili sve potencijalne uűesnike u postupku, ukljuűujuěi i osobu o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti raspravlja i svedoke. standardi ljudskih prava: odluka kojom se punoletna osoba lišava poslovne sposobnosti lišava ga prava da donosi odluke u svim oblastima njegovog liűnog i javnog őivota. njome se, prema tome, zadire u prava na privatnost koja je garantovana meőunarodnim pravom. takva mešanja moraju biti neophodna u demokratskom društvu i u skladu sa zakonom. zakon mora sadrőati odredbu kojom se uspostavlja obaveza suda da odluku o lišavanju poslovne sposobnosti donese na osnovu pouzdanih informacija novijeg datuma. preporuka br. r(99)4 preporuűuje da se ustanovi procedura u kojoj bi punoletna osoba i “struűnjak prigodne struke” imali neposredan i detaljan sastanak. preporuka nalaőe pribavljanje nalaza u kojem su sadrőane najsveőije informacije o sposobnostima osobe o kojoj se vodi postupak i ustanovljava da taj nalaz mora biti u pismenom obliku.62 u sluűaju h.f. protiv slovaőke, evropski sud se izriűito pozvao na preporuku br. r(99)4 u vezi sa obavezom da se prilikom odluűivanja o poslovnoj sposobnosti pojedinca u obzir uzmu medicinski nalazi koji sadrőe novije informacije o sposobnosti punoletne osobe. u ovom sluűaju, evropski sud je utvrdio da pouzdanje suda u zastarele psihijatrijske nalaze nije bilo u skladu s procesnim garancijama zaštite podnosioca predstavke, o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti raspravljalo. sud je dodao i da bi zahtev za još jednim psihijatrijskim nalazom bio u interesu osobe o kojoj se vodi postupak.159zakon o parničnom postupku, čl. 250. službeni glasnik rs, br. 125/04.160sudovi koji imaju internet prezentaciju objavili su ovu listu na njima. vidi npr. internet prezentaciju petog opštinskog suda u beogradu, http://www.petisud.com/161vidi član 8 ekps i član 17 pgp.162načelo 12.163h.f. v. slovakia, app. br. 54797/00, presuda od 8. novembra 2005.41starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbiji2.6.3kvalitet dokaza koji se podnose sudu tokom postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti (indikatori 8-12)indikator 8prilikom lišavanja poslovne sposobnosti traěi se jasna veza izmeůu dijagnoze i nedostatka sposobnosti da se odluke donose samostalno.zakljuőak: u sluűaju potpunog lišavanja poslovne sposobnosti, srpsko zakonodavstvo traői jaku vezu izmeőu mentalnih smetnji i nedostatka sposobnosti punoletnih osoba da se samostalno brinu o svojim pravima i interesima. kada je u pitanju delimiűno lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, ova veza je manje striktna. analiza: zakon zahteva postojanje uzroűno-poslediűne veze izmeőu mentalnog stanja i nedostatka sposobnosti za samostalno delovanje. prvo, mora da postoji dijagnoza o psihosocijalnim smetnjama (smetnje mentalnog zdravlja) ili intelektualnim smetnjama. pored toga, mentalne smetnje treba da izazovu nedostatak sposobnosti punoletne osobe da samostalno vodi raűuna o svojim pravima i interesima. za delimiűno lišenje poslovne sposobnosti zakon zahteva samo da se dokaőe da punoletna osoba ima psihosocijalne smetnje (smetnje mentalnog zdravlja) ili intelektualne smetnje, kao i da usled toga neposredno ugroőava svoja prava i interese ili prava i interese drugih. ovakva formulacija isuviše je nejasna űime ne uspeva da ispuni visoke standarde koji vaőe za takve odredbe i űija primena moőe prouzrokovati znaűajna ograniűenja ljudskih prava.standardi ljudskih prava: ovaj indikator nalazi osnovu u naűelima mentalnog zdravlja, naroűito u naűelu 4(5) prema kome “(n)ijedna osoba ili organ neěe klasiůkovati pojedinca kao osobu koja pati od smetnji mentalnog zdravlja, niti na bilo koji drugi naűin tako nešto izraziti, osim za sluűajeve koji su neposredno povezani sa smetnjama mentalnog zdravlja ili posledicama takvih smetnji.” u skladu s tim, klasiůkovati pojedinca kao osobu koja je lišena poslovne sposobnosti bez jasnog pokazivanja da su mentalne smetnje uzrokovale njegov nedostatak sposobnosti da samostalno donosi odluke, bilo bi suprotno navedenom naűelu. isto tako, bilo bi protivno ovom naűelu ne ustanoviti u kojoj su meri mentalne smetnje uzrokovale nesposobnost. ovaj indikator se poziva i na nekoliko naűela iz preporuke br. r(99)4. naűelo 6 o proporcionalnosti propisuje da kada je mera zaštite poput starateljstva neophodna, ona mora biti proporcionalna stepenu sposobnosti punoletne osobe i prilagoőena posebnim okolnostima i potrebama pojedinca. ovo ukazuje na to da psihosocijalne smetnje mogu biti promenljive, kao i da pojedincu mogu biti potrebne razliűite vrste i stepeni zaštite i zadrőavanja odreőenih prava u zavisnosti od prirode i ozbiljnosti mentalne smetnje koja izaziva nedostatak sposobnosti. naűela 7 i 2 propisuju da su adekvatna istraga i veštaűenje pojedinaűnih potreba punoletne osobe pitanja osnovne praviűnosti. 42mental disability advocacy centernadalje, űlan 8 ekps nalaőe da svako mešanje u privatan őivot pojedinca mora biti proporcionalno ciljevima koji se őele postiěi. u suštini, poslovna sposobnost pojedinca moőe se ograniűiti samo u onoj meri u kojoj je to neophodno kako bi se punoletnoj osobi pruőila pomoě prilikom donošenja odluka. prekoraűenje ove proporcionalnosti znaűilo bi kršenje meőunarodnih standarda ljudskih prava. indikator 9odluka o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti zasnovana je na dovoljnim dokazima i u najboljem je interesu punoletne osobezakljuőak: srpsko pravo ne traői da dovoljno dokaza bude izvedeno pred sudom pre nego što se punoletna osoba liši poslovne sposobnosti. analiza: iako zakon o vanparniűnom postupku zahteva da se pred sudom iznesu razliűiti dokazi pre nego što se pojedinac liši poslovne sposobnosti,64 jedini dokaz koji sud mora izvesti u svakom sluűaju jesu dva medicinska veštaűenja.65 ipak, sudovi imaju diskreciono pravo da prikupljaju informacije iz drugih izvora, kao što je recimo saslušanje predlagaűa, privremenog staratelja ili bilo koje druge osobe koja moőe dati precizne podatke o őivotnim navikama i ponašanju osobe o kojoj se vodi potupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, kao i o drugim relevantnim űinjenicama.66 predlog mora da sadrői űinjenice na kojima se zasniva, kao i dokaze kojima se te űinjenice utvrőuju ili űine verovatnim, kako bi uverio sudiju da predlog ima razumnog osnova.67 sudija moőe odustati od toga da prisustvuje medicinskom veštaűenju osobe o kojoj se vodi postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti ukoliko se to veštaűenje vrši u stacionarnoj zdravstvenoj ustanovi. razlog za ovo je dugo trajanje ovakvog veštaűenja,68 ovo znaűi da u teoriji ljudi koji su smešteni pod kljuűem u zatvorene ustanove i s toga još ranjiviji, imaju manje proceduralnih garancija. sudija ipak mora imati neposredan kontakt sa osobom o kojoj se vodi postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti i mora je liűno saslušati,69 osim ukoliko:bi to moglo da bude štetno po zdravlje te osobe ili ako saslušanje uopšte nije moguěe s obzirom na duševno ili ůziűko stanje tog lica70164zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 35-38.165vidi indikator 6.166zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 37.167zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 33.168zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 38. vidi u: svetislav vuković, komentar zakona o vanparničnom postupku, poslovni biro, beograd, 2003, str. 45.169zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 36 i čl. 38.170zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 36, st. 2.43starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiiako ne postoji izriűita zakonska odredba kojom se uspostavlja koji standard dokazivanja treba primeniti u postupcima za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, pravna doktrina izrazila je stav da odluka mora biti donešena na osnovu jasnih i uverljivih dokaza. na kraju, od naroűite je vaőnosti naglasiti da ne postoji odredba u srpskom zakonodavstvu koja izriűito propisuje da ěe osoba biti lišena poslovne sposobnosti samo ako je to u njenom najboljem interesu. dovoljno je samo pokazati da postoji veza izmeőu mentalnog stanja punoletne osobe (medicinski element) i njihove nesposobnosti da samostalno vode raűuna o svojim pravima i obavezama (socijalni element).72standardi ljudskih prava: ovaj indikator odnosi se na dva elementa ispitivanja poslovne sposobnosti i stavljanja pod starateljstvo – na osnovu kojih dokaza se osoba lišava poslovne sposobnosti i kakav je uticaj sudske odluke na interese punoletne osobe. da bi se smatrali dovoljnim, dokazi moraju da ispune odreőene kvalitativne standarde. preporuka br. r(99)4 propisuje da osoba koja donosi odluku u postupku za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti mora liűno da vidi osobu o kojoj se postupak vodi, kao i da se mora pribaviti izveštaj koji sadrői novije podatke o mentalnom stanju te osobe, a koji je sastavljen od strane kvaliůkovanog struűnjaka. termin ‘kvaliůkovani struűnjak‘ nije deůnisan, ali bi ga trebalo tumaűiti tako kao da se odnosi na psihijatre ili psihologe, a moguěe je i da prednost treba dati onima koji su posebno obuűeni za izvoőenje veštaűenja u odnosu na obiűne lekare specijaliste. ujedinjene nacije su postavile dodatan zahtev da bi veštaci trebali da ispitaju i socijalne aspekte sposobnosi osobe o űijoj se poslovnoj sposobnosti radi.74 kao što je gore detaljnije opisano, evropski sud je ukazao na neophodnost pribavljanja nalaza struűnjaka radi ispitivanja neűije poslovne sposobnosti.75 u sluűaju h.f. protiv slovaőke, sud je ustanovio da izjave bivšeg supruga podnositeljke predstavke i obiűnih svedoka, kojima je pridodan lekarski nalaz star više od godinu i po dana, nisu predstavljali dovoljne dokaze za lišavanje poslovne sposobnosti. ovaj sluűaj ne ukazuje samo na to da je pribavljanje lekarskog veštaűenja neophodno kako bi drőava ispunila obavezu koju joj nameěe ekps, te da obiűni svedoci nisu adekvatna zamena za veštaűenje, veě i da veštaűenje mora biti novijeg datuma kako bi verno prikazivalo funkcionalnu sposobnost pojedinca u vreme odrőavanja postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti. ovo pokazuje da űak ni medicinski nalaz nekada ne moőe da zadovolji traőeni standard dokazivanja. drugo, kao što je sugerisano u preporuci br. r(99)4, ‘prilikom ustanovljavanja i sprovoőenja mere zaštite punoletne osobe umanjenih sposobnosti, interesima i 171vidi u borivoje poznić, vesna rakić vodinelić, građansko procesno pravo, 15. izd, savremena administracija, beograd, 1999, str. 232-234.172vidi indikator 8.173načelo 12. 174vidi generalna skupština un-a, deklaracija o pravima osoba s mentalnim smetnjama, rezolucija 2856 (;;vi), 20 decembar 1971, para. 7.175h.f. v. slovakia, app. br. 54797/00, presuda od 8 novembra 2005.44mental disability advocacy centerdobrobiti te osobe treba posvetiti najviši stepen paőnje.76 kako bi se ovo postiglo, treba uzeti u obzir liűne okolnosti u kojima se punoletna osoba nalazi i njene potrebe. pored toga, treba suprotstaviti dobrobiti koje starateljska zaštita donosi pojedincu njenim negativnim posledicama. kao što je propisano u naűelu 5 preporuke br. r(99)4, ograniűenja poslovne sposobnosti ne bi trebalo ustanovljavati “osim onda kada je takva mera neophodna, uzimajuěi u obzir pojedinaűne okolnosti i potrebe punoletne osobe.” na primer, kako je zaposlenje vaőan izvor društvene interakcije i samopouzdanja za zaposlenu osobu, starateljstvo ne bi nuőno moralo da bude u najboljem interesu pojedinca, ukoliko bi sledilo ograniűenje prava na rad. ovakva i sliűna razmatranja treba poduzeti tokom postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, kako bi se ispunio zahtev neophodnosti, supsidijarnosti i proporcionalnosti propisan u naűelima 5 i 6. indikator izbor staratelja zasnovan je na objektivnim kriterijumima i ěelje i osežanja osobe kojoj se postavlja staratelj se uzimaju u obzir. zakljuőak: izbor staratelja ne vrši se na osnovu objektivnih kriterijuma, iako se őelje osobe delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti kojoj se postavlja staratelj moraju uzeti u obzir, ne postoji sliűna odredba koja štiti ovakvo pravo osoba koje su potpuno lišene poslovne sposobnosti. analiza: skorašnjom reformom porodiűnog zakonodavstva uvedeno je pravo punoletne osobe delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti, koja je sposobna da shvati znaűenje svojih postupaka, da predloői osobu koja treba da joj bude postavljena za staratelja.77 dok je ovo svakako korak napred za one koji su delimiűno lišeni poslovne sposobnosti, ostaje da se vidi kako ěe teěi primena ovih normi. nije jasno da li se őelje osoba potpuno lišenih poslovne sposobnosti u pogledu liűnosti koja treba da bude postavljena za staratelja moraju uzeti u obzir. žini se da je uzet onaj pristup koji podrőava pristup prema maloletnicima: mora se proceniti da li je punoletna osoba sposobna da izrazi svoje mišljenje o tome, koga bi volela da vidi kao svog staratelja, kao i da se proceni njena sposobnost da shvati posledice postavljanja staratelja.78staratelj moőe biti bilo koja osoba koja ima liűne kvalitete i sposobnosti za obavljanje duőnosti staratelja i koja pristane da se prihvati duőnosti staratelja.79 postoje ipak izvesna ograniűenja. staratelj ne moőe biti osoba koja je lišena roditeljskog prava, lišena poslovne sposobnosti ili ima sukob interesa sa osobom kojoj treba da bude postavljena 176načelo 8(1). 177porodični zakon, čl. 127.178porodični zakon, čl. 127.179porodični zakon čl. 126.45starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijikao staratelj.80 pored toga, staratelj moőe biti samo ona osoba od koje se, na osnovu njenih liűnih kvaliteta odnosa prema osobi kojoj treba da bude postavljena kao staratelj i njenim srodnicima, moőe oűekivati da ěe savesno izvršavati svoje obaveze staratelja. kao staratelj prevashodno treba da bude postavljen braűni drug osobe lišene poslovne sposobnosti, srodnik ili hranitelj ukoliko je to u njenom interesu,82 iako ne postoji obaveza da ovi ljudi prihvate postavljenje. jedna osoba moőe biti postavljena za staratelja više osoba koje su lišene poslovne sposobnosti.84 direktori i zaposleni u domovima socijalne zaštite mogu biti postavljeni za staratelja osoba koje su smeštene u njihovom domu, ukoliko je to u njihovom najboljem interesu i ukoliko direktor ili zaposleni prihvate postavljenje. rizici koji iz ovoga proistiűu su oűigledni i ostavljaju dosta prostora za brigu: potpuno zanemarenje osobe pod starateljstvom ili ůnansijske malverzacije su samo dva moguěa primera. ovakva starateljstva takoőe se suprotstavljaju principu da staratelj mora preduzimati ozbiljne napore kako bi punoletnoj osobi pod njegovim starateljstvom obezbedio smeštaj u zajednici i osposobio je za nezavisan őivot. (vidi indikator 2na kraju, organ starateljstva moőe odluűiti da ne postavlja staratelja, veě da neposredno obavlja starateljske duőnosti. za staratelja ěe se tada postaviti struűnjak zaposlen u organu starateljstva.85 ali staratelj koji je ujedno i zaposleni u organu starateljstva ne moőe biti nosilac starateljskih upravnih ovlašěenja.86 organ starateljstva mora obavestiti sve relevantne organe vlasti na svojoj teritoriji da je postavljen staratelj. ovde se pre svega misli na sud kod koga se vode zemljišne knjige, matiűar i druge javne sluőbe, kako bi starateljstvo moglo biti registrovano. standardi ljudskih prava: konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom zahteva od drőava űlanica da obezbede “da mere vezane za uőivanje poslovne sposobnosti poštuju prava dotiűne osobe sa invaliditetom, njihovu volju, (i) őelje dotiűne osobe”.87 ovo se odnosi i na postavljanje staratelja. 180porodični zakon, čl. 128, st. 3. 181porodični zakon, čl. 128, st. 4. 182porodični zakon, čl. 126, st. 2.183ovo je drugačije rešenje od onog sadržanog u prethodnom zakonu o braku i porodičnim odnosima iz 1980. koji je ustanovljavao obavezu prihvatanja dužnosti staratelja za određene srodnike osobe lišene poslovne sposobnosti (vidi čl. 224(4)). ovo su bili roditelji, deca i braća i sestre. oni su mogli biti oslobođeni obaveze vršenja poslova staratelja pod sledećim uslovima: 1. ako su navršili šezdeset godina života 2. ako zbog bolesti, telesnih nedostataka ili zbog prirode svog zanimanja ili službe ne bi mogli pravilno vršiti ovu dužnost 3. ako već imaju dužnost staratelja ili se vec inače staraju o dvoje ili više tuđe dece 4. majka koja ima dete mlađe od sedam godina 5. ako imaju troje ili više svoje maloletne dece.184porodični zakon čl. 129.185porodični zakon, čl. 131(2).186porodični zakon, čl. 131(3).187konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom, usvojena od strane generalne skupštine ujedinjenih nacija 6. decembra 2006, ref a/61/611, čl. 12(4).46mental disability advocacy centerpreporuka br. r(99)4 propisuje da se prilikom postavljanja staratelja naroűito mora voditi raűuna o sposobnosti te osobe da “štiti i predstavlja interese i blagostanje punoletne osobe”.88 takoőe se sugeriše drőavama da preduzmu korake kako bi obezbedile dostupnost obuűenih staratelja. ovo moőe ukljuűivati i osnivanje udruőenja za obuku.89 ovaj indikator takoőe ustanovljava da li zakonodavstvo propisuje kvalitete i osobine koje osoba mora da poseduje da bi bila postavljena za staratelja. na primer, ůnski zakon propisuje da se pogodnost potencijalnog staratelja utvrőuje na osnovu veštine, iskustva i prirode i obima duőnosti koje se od njega traői da obavlja.90 preporuka br. r(99)4 dalje propisuje da je neophodno ‘uzimanje u obzir őelja punoletne osobe u odnosu na izbor osobe koja treba da ga zastupa ili mu pomaőe u donošenju odluka. ove őelje treba uvaőiti u meri u kojoj je to moguěe‘. memorandum o tumaűenju preporuka upozorava da, iako treba priznati i poštovati neprocenljivu i nezamenljivu ulogu srodnika, nacionalni zakoni treba da predvide moguěe postojanje akutnih sukoba interesa u nekim porodicama i da prepoznaju opasnosti koje iz ovakvih sukoba mogu nastati.92 na kraju, naűelo 9 preporuke br. r(99)4 propisuje da se trenutne i prošle őelje punoletne osobe moraju poštovati i uzeti u obzir. ovo naűelo odnosi se na sve faze postupka uspostavljanja i sprovoőenja starateljstva, ali je naroűito vaőno prilikom odabiranja osobe koja ěe biti postavljena za staratelja punoletnoj osobi lišene poslovne sposobnosti. indikator 11staratelj ne sme da ima sukob interesa s punoletnom osobom kojoj se postavlja za staratelja, niti privid takvog sukoba.zakljuőak: postoji obaveza da se pre postavljanja staraoca ispita postojanje sukoba interesa. ali zakon zapravo ne spreűava u potpunosti postavljanje staratelja koji ima realan sukob interesa sa punoletnom osobom lišenom poslovne sposobnosti (ili moguěnost postojanja sukoba).analiza: osobe koje imaju konďikt interesa s punoletnom osobom lišene poslovne sposobnosti ne mogu biti postavljenje kao njeni staratelji. ipak, zakon ne pruőa objašnjenje šta podrazumeva pod sukobom interesa niti na koji naűin organ starateljstva treba da uzme moguěi sukob interesa u obzir. s obzirom da zakon omoguěava da direktori domova socijalne zaštite budu postavljeni kao staratelji osoba smeštenih u tim ustanovama, jasno je da srbijanski zakoni usvajaju priliűno uski koncept pojma 188načelo 8(2).189načelo 17. 190finski zakon o starateljstvu, 442/99, poglavlje 2, odeljak 5. nezvanični prevod na engleskom jeziku dostupan je na finle; www.¿nlex.¿/en/, posećeno 18 jula 2006.191preporuka br. r(99)4, načelo 9(2).192memorandum o tumačenju preporuke br. r(99)4, para. 44.193porodični zakon, čl.128.47starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijisukoba interesa.94 ovo pruőa moguěnost za klasiűan primer sukoba interesa u kojem direktor institucije treba istovremeno da brine o uspešnom funkcionisanju te institucije, kao i da donosi odluke o negi punoletne osobe i njenim pravima. ove dve razliűite odgovornosti mogu doěi u sukob jedna s drugom u onim sluűajevima u kojima je direktorov posao da upravlja velikom izolovanom institucijom u kojoj je smeštena punoletna osoba kojoj je on staralac, a koja ne őeli da őivi u toj instituciji, niti je to u njenom najboljem interesu. standardi ljudskih prava: kao što je veě napomenuto, (vidi indikator 0 gore), konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom u űlanu 2 (4) teői da obezbedi unošenje procesne garancije u nacionalna zakonodavstva kojima se štite osobe kojima je potrebna pomoě zbog ograniűene poslovne sposobnosti. ovakve garancije ukljuűuju i odredbu kojom se propisuje da “mere vezane za uőivanje poslovne sposobnosti poštuju prava dotiűne osobe sa invaliditetom, njihovu volju i őelje dotiűne osobe”. u konvenciji se istiűe da te mere moraju da “iskljuűe svaki sukob interesa i nedozvoljeno mešanje”.95 francuski zakon izriűito predviőa ovakve situacije. u francuskoj se svakoj osobi pod starateljstvom postavlja i “staratelj nadzornik” koji, pored drugih duőnosti koje obavlja, treba da zastupa pojedinca kada su njegovi interesi u sukobu sa interesima postavljenog mu staratelja.96 standardi prakse koje je usvojilo nacionalno udruőenje staratelja (nus), profesionalno udruőenje staratelja i pravnika iz sjedinjenih drőava, takoőe obraőuje pitanje sukoba interesa staratelja i “štiěenika”97 u standardu br. 6,staratelj ěe izbegavati űak i naznake sukoba interesa ili nedoliűnosti u toku bavljenja potrebama štiěenika. nedoliűnost ili sukob interesa postoji onda kada staratelj ima neke liűne interese, ili interese vezane za njegovu profesiju, a koji se mogu smatrati suprotnim poloőaju ili najboljem interesu štiěenika.98standard br. 6 nas dalje propisuje: “staratelj koji nije űlan porodice neěe neposredno obezbeőivati svom štiěeniku usluge smeštaja, leűenja, pravnog zastupanja niti druge neposredne usluge”.99 staratelj treba da bude nezavisan i sposoban da izvršava svoju duőnost zaštite punoletne osobe od neprikladnih i neadekvatnih usluga, i uopšte usluga lošeg kvaliteta koje se pruőaju punoletnoj osobi. oűigledno je da bi staratelj imao konďikt interesa ukoliko bi ujedno i sam bio pruőaoc usluga osobi kojoj je staratelj. 194porodični zakon, čl. 130.195konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom, ref a/61/611, čl. 12(4).196francuski građanski zakonik, knj. 1, n. ;, odeljak ii, čl. 420, primenljivo na punoletne osobe pod starateljstvom na osnovu n. ;i, odeljak. iii, čl. 495. 197za de¿niciju termina ³štićenik” vidi u rečniku na str.198national guardianship association, ”standards of practice’, usvojena od strane nus upravnog odbora, rati¿kovana od strane nus članstva juna 2000, citat iz: edited edition 2002, state college, pennsylvania, str. 9.199ibid48mental disability advocacy centerindikator punoletna osoba ima pravo da se ěali na odluku o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti i na odluku o postavljanju staratelja. zakljuőak: pojedinac ima prava da se őali na odluku o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti, ali nema prava da se őali na odluku o postavljanju staratelja. analiza: punoletna osoba moőe se őaliti na rešenje o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti u roku od 5 dana od dana prijema rešenja.200 ůalbu moőe podneti i staratelj ili privremeni zastupnik. punoletne osobe koje su lišene poslovne sposobnosti nemaju parniűnu sposobnost.20 kao što je veě ukazano, sudovi imaju diskreciono pravo da postave privremenog zastupnika tokom postupka za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, odnosno da zahtevaju od organa starateljstva da postave privremenog staratelja. ukoliko bude postavljen, ovaj zastupnik odnosno staratelj nastavlja da zastupa osobu lišenu poslovne sposobnosti i tokom postupka za postavljanje staratelja. osoba lišena poslovne sposobnosti i dalje je stranka u upravnom postupku u kom se postavlja staratelj,202 ali više nema sposobnost da sama sebe zastupa niti da daje uputstva svom advokatu. posledica moguěnosti da organ starateljstva moőe neposredno vršiti funkciju staratelja preko privremenog staratelja tokom postupka postavljanja staratelja u upravnom postupku,20je da ovaj organ moőe istovremeno biti telo koje u isto vreme vodi postupak, donosi odluku i zastupa punoletnu osobu.punoletna osoba moőe se eventualno őaliti na odluku o postavljanju staratelja samo uz pristanak tog staratelja, bez obzira na to ima li ili nema sposobnost da razume posledice svojih postupaka, što je apsurdno.204 staratelj, s druge strane, moőe da se őali na rešenje o svom postavljanju za staratelja u roku od petnaest dana od dana prijema rešenja.205 ůalba se podnosi ministarstvu rada, zapošljavanja i socijalne zaštite. ůalbu moőe podneti i bilo koja druga osoba koja ima pravni interes. u ovaj krug lica mogli bi se ubrojati srodnici punoletne osobe, njegovi poverioci, duőnici, ortaci itd. kako őalba mora biti podneta u roku od 5 dana od dana prijema rešenja, a kako sva ova lica nemaju pravo da ovo rešenje liűno prime, u praksi je uűešěe ovakvih lica zanemarljivo, ako je uopšte moguěe. 200zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 40(3).201zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 43, st. 2.202zakon o opštem upravnom postupku, čl. 43, 44 i 45.203ukoliko je privremeni staratelj postavljen, ova ista osoba kasnije može biti postavljena i za stalnog staratelja. drugačije mišljenje može se naći u: m. petković (1998) ³problemi starateljske zaštite” socijalna politika i socijalni rad, br. 4, str. 64.204porodični zakon, čl. 333(5).205porodični zakon, čl. 333(5). vidi i porodični zakon, čl. 336(2).49starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijistandardi ljudskih prava: pravo na őalbu u postupku lišenja poslovne sposobnosti je vaőan aspekt praviűnosti postupka i zaštite ljudskih prava što zahteva i naűelo 7 preporuke r(99)4. s obzirom da pojedinac moőe izgubiti poslovnu sposobnost (ukljuűujuěi i parniűnu sposobnost), pa s toga izgubiti moguěnost da uloői őalbu nakon lišenja poslovne sposobnosti, veoma je vaőno da ovakvo pravo bude izriűito propisano zakonom. preporuka br. r(99)4 propisuje da svaka punoletna osoba stavljena pod starateljstvo mora da ima pravo őalbe.206 ova odredba preporuke r(99)4 oslanja se na deklaraciju o pravima osoba s intelektualnim smetnjama. u ovoj deklaraciji propisano je da kada su osobi ograniűena odreőena prava, postupak u kom su takva ograniűenja uspostavljena mora da ukljuűuje i “odgovarajuěe pravne garancije protiv svake vrste zloupotreba” i da odluka mora biti podloőna “pravu na őalbu višoj instanci”.207naűela o mentalnom zdravlju potvrőuju ovakav pristup. naűelo (6) zahteva od drőava da predvide pravo őalbe na odluku o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti za osobu űija je poslovna sposobnost u pitanju, kao i za njegove zastupnike i druge zainteresovane pojedince.208 kao što je na drugom mestu istaknuto, pravo drugih lica da podnesu őalbu je od suštinske vaőnosti, s obzirom da je u praksi moguěe da punoletna osoba nema funkiconalnu sposobnost da shvati da je došlo do bitnih povreda postupka ili drugih povreda njegovih prava, niti da ima sposobnost da se samostalno brani od ovih povreda. opštija formulacija konvencije o pravima osoba s invaliditetom zahteva od drőava űlanica “efektivan pristup pravdi pod jednakim uslovima sa ostalima”.209 2.6.4 prava punoletne osobe nakon uspostavljanja starateljstva (indikatori 13-17)zakonodavstvo koje je u skladu s meőunarodnim standardima treba da obezbedi da punoletna osoba pod starateljstvom zadrői pravo da samostalno donosi odluke u što je moguěe veěoj meri, kao i priliku da se ovim pravom koristi. indikatori 13odnose se na pitanje koja prava punoletna osoba zadrőava nakon što bude stavljena pod starateljstvo, ukljuűujuěi pravo glasa, pravo na rad, pravo na imovinu, zakljuűenje braka, osnivanje porodice i pravo udruőivanja. 206načelo 14(3).207deklaracija o pravima osoba s intelektualnim smetnjama, un ga rezolucija 2856 (;;vi) od 20 decembra 1971. 208un, o protekciji osoba s mentalnim bolestima i o poboljšanju mentalnog zdravlja, prihvaćeno u rezoluciji gen. sk. 46/119, 17. decembra 1991, pr.1(6).209konvencija o pravima osoba sa nesposobnostima, prihvaćena od strane gen.sk. un-a 6. decembra 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 13(1). 50mental disability advocacy centerindikator 13po uspostavljanju starateljstva, punoletna osoba nije automatski lišena prava da uěiva politiőka prava.zakljuőak: punoletne osobe potpuno lišene poslovne sposobnosti i stavljene pod starateljstvo gube mnoga politiűka prava, ukljuűujuěi i pravo glasa. gube i pravo na parniűnu sposobnost. analiza: pravo glasaprema ustavu srbije svaki punoletni graőanin koji ima poslovnu sposobnost ima ustavno pravo da bira i bude biran na izborima. ipak, svi izborni zakoni uskraěuju pravo glasa osobama potpuno i delimiűno lišenim poslovne sposobnosti.11 parniőna sposobnostozbiljno ograniűenje prava punoletnih osoba potpuno lišenih poslovne sposobnosti i stavljenih pod starateljstvo jeste gubitak parniűne sposobnosti, što ih spreűava da sami sebe zastupaju pred sudom i pokreěu postupke bez saglasnosti svog staratelja. ukoliko staratelj povede postupak u ime punoletne osobe űiji je staralac, a sud u toku postupka utvrdi da on nesavesno vrši svoju duőnost zastupanja, sud ima obavezu da o ovome obavesti organ starateljstva.213 osobe koje su delimiűno lišene poslovne sosobnosti imaju parniűnu sposobnost u granicama preostale poslovne sposobnosti. to znaűi da ove osobe mogu samostalno zastupati svoja prava i interese u onim stvarima za koje imaju poslovnu sposobnost materijalnog prava. za postupke koji se tiűu stvari van njihove poslovne sposobnosti, treba im saglasnost i zastupanje staratelja. ukoliko sud utvrdi da staratelj ne vrši svoje duőnosti staratelja savesno, bez odlaganja ěe o tome obavestiti organ starateljstva. što se tiűe upravnog postupka, osobe nemaju procesnu sposobnost bez obzira na to da li su lišene sposobnosti delimiűno ili potpuno. pravo na voůenje postupka u kriviőnim stvarimaosoba lišena poslovne sposobnosti moőe podiěi privatnu tuőbu u kriviűnoj stvari samo preko svog staratelja. 210ćlan 33 ustava srbije.211zakon o izboru narodnih poslanika (čl. 10) propisuje: ³pravo da bira poslanika i da bude biran za poslanika ima građanin sa prebivalištem u republici srbiji (…), koji je navršio 18 godina života i poslovno je sposoban”. zakon o izboru predsednika republike srbije 212zakon o parničnom postupku, čl. 75. 213zakon o parničnom postupku, čl. 77.214zakon o parničnom postupku, čl. (2).215zakon o parničnom postupku, čl. 43.216zakonik o krivičnom postupku, čl. 55.51starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijistandardi ljudskih prava: pravo na uűešěe u politiűkom őivotu i opšte biraűko pravo meőunarodno je priznato űlanom 25 pgp. nedavno usvojena konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom detaljnije se bavi odreőivanjem elemenata biraűkog prava. u űlanu 29(a) konvencije propisuje se da su drőave potpisnice konvencije duőne da: a.osiguraju da osobe sa invaliditetom mogu da ostvare efektivno i puno uűešěe u politiűkom i javnom őivotu na osnovama jednakosti sa drugima, neposredno ili preko slobodno izabranih predstavnika, ukljuűujuěi pravo i moguěnost graőana sa invaliditetom da biraju, budu birani, izmeőu ostalog kroz: i. osiguravanje da izborni postupak, izborna mesta i materijali budu odgovarajuěi, pristupaűni i lako razumljivi;ii. zaštitu prava graőana sa invaliditetom na tajno glasanje na izborima i referendumima bez zastrašivanja, na moguěnost kandidovanja i vršenja svih javnih funkcija na svim nivoima vlasti, olakšavajuěi upotrebu asistivnih i novih tehnologija kada je to primereno;iii. garantovanje izraőavanja slobodne volje osoba sa invaliditetom kao glasaűa i radi toga, kada je to potrebno, dopuštanje pruőanja asistencije prilikom glasanja graőanima sa invaliditetom na njihov zahtev i od strane osobe koje one odaberu.u evropi je biraűko pravo zaštiěeno űlanom protokola uz ekps prema kom se ‘visoke strane ugovornice (…) obavezuju da u primerenim vremenskim razmacima odrőavaju slobodne izbore s tajnim glasanjem, pod uslovima koji obezbeőuju slobodno izraőavanje mišljenja naroda pri izboru zakonodavnih tela‘. što se tiűe uűešěa osoba s invaliditetom u demokratskim procesima, savet evrope je nedavno zakljuűio da “društvo mora da reďektuje razliűitost graőana i da ima koristi od njihovih razliűitih iskustava i znanja. zbog toga je vaőno da osobe s invaliditetom imaju biraűko pravo i da uűestvuju u izbornom procesu.”izriűito ureőujuěi pitanja vezana za osobe s mentalnim smetnjama, naűelo preporuke br. r (99) 4 predviőa pravo na autonomiju volje i samoopredeljenje. ovde se navodi da zakonodavni okvir mora da sadrői takve propise o starateljstvu koji prepoznaju postojanje razliűitih stepena funkcionalne sposobnosti kao i njihovu promenljivost tokom vremena. preporuka r (99) 4 istiűe da mera zaštite kao što je starateljstvo “ne bi trebalo da automatski liši osobu njenog prava da glasa na izborima (…) ili da donosi druge odluke liűne prirode uvek kada joj to dopušta njegova ili njena sposobnost”. 217savet evrope, akcioni plan za promovisanje punih prava osoba sa nesposobnostima na participaciju u društvu: za poboljšanje kvaliteta života sa nesposobnostima u evropi 2006-2015, preporuka br. (2006)5, para 3.1.1.218preporuka no. r(99)4, načelo 3(2). 52mental disability advocacy centerindikator 14stavljanje pod starateljstvo ne lišava automatski punoletnu osobu da uěiva pravo na rad.zakljuőak: punoletne osobe potpuno lišene poslovne sposobnosti i stavljene pod starateljstvo ne mogu biti zaposlene. one osobe koje su delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti mogu zakljuűiti ugovor o radu uz pristanak staratelja i odobrenje organa starateljstva. analiza: punoletne osobe potpuno lišene poslovne sposobnosti i stavljene pod starateljstvo ne mogu biti zaposlene. s obzirom da zakon ove osobe tretira kao maloletnike mlaőe od 4 godina, one ne mogu zakljuűiti ugovor o radu ni pod kojim uslovima.oni koji su delimiűno lišeni poslovne sposobnosti i stavljeni pod starateljstvo tretiraju se kao deca od 4 godina i starija.220 takva deca mogu biti zaposlena samo uz pismenu saglasnost svojih roditelja, odnosno staratelja. prema tome, osoba delimiűno lišena poslovne sposobnosti moőe se zaposliti samo uz pismeni pristanak njenog staratelja. staratelj, s druge strane, mora pribaviti odobrenje organa starateljstva pre nego li i sam da pristanak.22 standardi ljudskih prava: zakonodavstvo koje automatski lišava prava na rad punoletnu osobu pod starateljstvom potkopava autonomiju pojedinca. ovo moőe imati negativne psihološke posledice s obzirom da se time pojedinac lišava znaűajnog izvora samopouzdanja i socijalne interakcije. žlan 8 ekps zahteva od drőava da poštuju i štite pravo na privatan őivot, a evropski sud je kroz svoju praksu ustanovio da je pravo na rad deo prava na privatan őivot. evropski sud je u jednoj svojoj presudi zakljuűio da “na kraju krajeva, veěina ljudi pronalazi znaűajnu, ako ne i kljuűnu priliku za razvijanje veza sa spoljnim svetom tokom svog radnog veka”.222 meőunarodni pakt o ekonomskim, socijalnim i kulturnim pravima i revidirana evropska socijalna povelja garantuju pravo na rad.22 preporuka br. r(99)4 propisuje da u sluűajevima u kojima je mera zaštite neophodna, ona mora biti proporcionalna nivou funkcionalne sposobnosti punoletne osobe i prilagoőena njegovim liűnim potrebama i uslovima u kojima őivi.224 prema tome, dok odreőena ograniűenja mogu 219zakon o radu, čl. 24 sl. glasnik rs, br. 24/05, 61/05.220porodični zakon, čl. 147(2). 221vidi porodični zakon, čl. 137(4.3).222niemietz v. germany, app. br. 13710/88,presuda od 16 septembra 1992, (a/251-b) (1993) 16 ehrr 97, para 29. 223ćlan 6 međunarodnog pakta o ekonomskim, socijalnim i kulturnim pravima, un doc. a/6316, na snazi od 23 marta 1976 čl. 15(2) revidirane evropske socijalne povelje, strazburg, 3 maj 1996.224 preporuka br. r(99)4, načelo 6.53starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijibiti opravdana pod odreőenim uslovima, opšta zabrana zapošljavanja svih osoba pod starateljstvom automatski iskljuűuje osobe s invaliditetom iz uűešěa u društvenom őivotu bez prethodnog ispitivanja njihove funkcionalne sposobnosti i őelje da rade. ovakva ograniűenja suprotna su i standardnim pravilima o izjednaűavanju moguěnosti osoba s invaliditetom ujedinjenih nacija prema kojima “(z)akoni i propisi u oblasti zapošljavanja ne smeju biti diskriminatorni u odnosu na osobe s invaliditetom i ne smeju stvarati prepreke za njihovo zapošljavanje”.225 ovakav pristup sledi i konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom u kojoj se garantuje: ‘pravo osoba sa invaliditetom na rad na osnovu jednakosti sa drugima; ovo ukljuűuje moguěnost da zaraőuju za őivot obavljajuěi posao koji su slobodno odabrali ili prihvatili na trőištu rada i u radnom okruőenju koji su otvoreni, inkluzivni i pristupaűni za osobe sa invaliditetom‘.226indikator stavljanjem pod starateljstvo punoletnoj osobi se ne ukida automatski pravo na mirno uěivanje imovine.zakljuőak: punoletna lica lišena poslovne sposobnosti automatski gube veěinu imovinskih prava, osim kada su u pitanju stvari manje vrednosti. punoletne osobe delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti zadrőavaju neka imovinska prava, kao što je pravo raspolaganja zaraőenim prihodima i uűestvovanja u odreőenim poslovnim transakcijama. analiza: iako je uloga staratelja da radi u najboljem interesu punoletnih osoba pod potpunim ili delimiűnim starateljstvom, zakon se najviše fokusira na ograniűavanje moguěnosti punoletnim licima da sklapaju poslove ili se angaőuju u bilo kakvim poslovnim odnosima sa drugima. o ovome svedoűi i terminologija korištena da se opiše ova vrsta sposobnosti, koja se zapravo naziva poslovnom sposobnošěu. opšti poslovipunoletnim licima potpuno lišenim poslovne sposobnosti je zabranjeno da obavljaju sve vrste poslova, osim izuzetaka navedenih ispod.227 kao što je navedeno, poslovna sposobnost punoletnog lica delimiűno lišenog poslovne sposobnosti je identiűna poslovnoj sposobnosti maloletnika od 4 godina i iznad. u tom uzrastu deca imaju pravo da samostalno raspolaőu imovinom koju su stekli sopstvenim radom,228 pa to pravo pripada i ovim punoletnim osobama. pored toga mogu preduzimati poslove za koje sud formalno utvrdi da spadaju u njihovu poslovnu sposobnost. uz saglasnost staratelja ili organa starateljstva delimiűno poslovno 225 pravilo 7(2). 226 konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom, ref a/61/611, čl. 27(1).227 zakon o obligacionim odnosima, čl. 56(1).228porodični zakon, čl. 64(3).54mental disability advocacy centersposobno lice moőe raspolagati imovinom veěe vrednosti229 i moőe preduzimati druge poslove pravne prirode, na primer moőe prihvatiti poslovnu ponudu.nasuprot ovome postoje odreőeni pravni poslovi koje osobe lišene poslovne sposobnosti mogu samostalno preduzimati. to su poslovi koji ne stvaraju nikakve obaveze za punoletne osobe pod starateljstvom (potpunim ili delimiűnim). primer takvog posla je davanje ili primanje poklona. punoletne osobe lišene poslovne sposobnosti mogu sklapati ove vrste poslova dokle god ne pribavljaju bilo kakve vrste prava ili obaveza ili pribavljaju iskljuűivo prava.sposobnost za zakljuőenje ugovorapunoletne osobe potpuno lišene poslovne sposobnosti ne mogu zakljuűivati bilo kakve ugovore.31 ako zakljuűe neki ugovor, on ěe se smatrati ništavim (odnosno nepostojeěim) i neěe moěi da bude osnaően. meőutim, neki komentatori smatraju da ovo pravilo ne vaői u praksi za ugovore male vrednosti, kao što je kupovina artikala za svakodnevnu upotrebu poput na primer hrane, slatkiša, itd. punoletne osobe delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti mogu, bez saglasnosti staratelja, zakljuűivati ugovore na koje ih je sud izriűito ovlastio.33 sud moőe naknadno ovlastiti punoletnu osobu da zakljuűuje druge ugovore. ako punoletno lice delimiűno lišeno poslovne sposobnosti zakljuűi neki pravni posao koji prevazilazi njegovu poslovnu sposobnost, on ěe se smatrati rušljivim. meőutim, ti ugovori mogu biti osnaőeni prethodnom ili naknadnom saglasnošěu staratelja. ograniőenja aktivnosti staratelja u vezi sa imovinom punoletnog licastaratelj moőe preduzimati poslove redovnog upravljanja imovinom punoletnog lica. pod redovnim poslovima upravljanja smatraju se uopšte poslovi povezani sa svakodnevnim odrőavanjem “imovine”. za poslove koji ne spadaju u ovaj krug poslova staratelju je potrebna prethodna saglasnost organa starateljstva. u svakom sluűaju, staratelj nema pravo raspolaganja imovinom punoletnog lica ako je ona glavnica njegove imovine. pod pojmom “imovine” se podrazumevaju nekretnine, stvari velike vrednosti, kao i prava punoletnog lica koja se odnose na izvore prihoda, kao što su penzije, invalidnina ili socijalna pomoě.229zakon o obligacionim odnosima, čl. 56(3).230porodični zakon, čl. 64. 231zakon o obligacionim odnosima, sl. list sfrj, br. 29/78, 39/85, 45/89 i 57/89 i „sl. list srj”, br. 31/93, art. 56.232slobodan perovic, obligaciono pravo , beograd, 1990.233zakon o obligacionim osnosima, čl. 56 (2). zakon ne pominje koji su to ugovori, tako da je pravilno tumačenje da su to ugovori na čije zaključenje je punoletno lice ovlastio sud.234porodični zakon, čl. 139(2).235porodični zakon, čl. 140(3).55starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijisposobnost za sastavljanje testamentatestament moőe sastaviti svaka osoba koja je navršila 5 godina i shvata znaűaj svojih dela. to znaűi da punoletne osobe koje su lišene poslovne sposobnosti ne mogu da sastavljaju testament. punoletne osobe delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti mogu sastaviti testament samo ako ih na to ovlasti sud. standardi ljudskih prava: pravo na imovinu obuhvata sposobnost pojedinaca da upravljaju ůnansijama, svim poslovima, kao i da zakljuűuju druge pravno obavezujuěe ugovore. sistemi starateljstva koji automatski iskljuűuju pravo pojedinaca na upravljanje bilo kojim aspektom svoje imovine šteti samostalnosti i samopouzdanju, a isto tako ne priznaje da postoje razliűiti stupnjevi poslovne sposobnosti lica sa mentalnim smetnjama. konvencija o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom u űlanu 2(5) utvrőuje pravo lica pod starateljstvom na imovinu. prema ovoj odredbi drőave potpisnice “treba da preduzmu sve odgovarajuěe i eůkasne mere kako bi se licima sa invaliditetom obezbedila jednaka prava da poseduju ili nasleőuju imovinu, da vrše nadzor nad sopstvenim ůnansijskim poslovima i da imaju jednak pristup bankovnim pozajmicama, hipotekama i drugim vrstama novűanih kredita, a osiguraěe i da lica sa invaliditetom ne budu arbitrerno lišavana imovine.”pravo na korištenje i upravljanje sopstvenom imovinom utvrőeno je űlanom protokola br. evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima, u kojem se navodi:svako ůziűko i pravno lice ima pravo na mirno uőivanje svoje imovine. niko neěe biti lišen imovine osim ako je takvo lišavanje u javnom interesu i izvršeno je prema uslovima predviőenim zakonom i opštim pravnim principima meőunarodnog prava.preporuka br. r(99)4 proširuje ovo shvatanje predlaőuěi da “kada je god to moguěe, punoletnoj osobi treba da bude omoguěeno da ulazi u punovaőne pravne poslove manje vrednosti”. savet evrope se vratio na ovu temu 2006. godine “akcionim planom za promovisanje prava i punog uűešěa osoba sa invaliditetom u društvu”, u kojem se navode konkretne mere, koje drőave űlanice treba da preduzmu u tom pogledu. to ukljuűuje odgovornost za “obezbeőivanje jednakog prava osoba sa invaliditetom da poseduju i nasleőuju imovinu obezbeőujuěi im pravnu zaštitu kako bi svojim posedom upravljali na jednak naűin kao i ostali”.236zakon o nasleđivanju, čl. 79.237ovaj protokol je otvoren za potpisivanje 20. marta 1952 i ima jednaku pravnu snagu kao i osnovni tekst konvencije. 238preporuka br. r(99)4, načelo 3(4). 239council of europe, disability action plan 2006, op cit, para. 3.12.3(viii). 56mental disability advocacy centerindikator stavljanjem pod starateljstvo, punoletnom licu se ne ukida automatski mogužnost da ostvaruje pravo na zakljuőenje braka, zasnivanje porodice kao i pravo na poštovanje doma i porodice.zakljuőak: punoletne osobe potpuno lišene poslovne sposobnosti nemaju pravo na venűavanje, zasnivanje porodice i poštovanje doma i porodice. osobe delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti mogu da zakljuűuju brak i preduzimaju druge porodiűne poslove ukoliko sud utvrdi da je lice sposobno za rasuőivanje. analiza: punoletna osoba koja nije sposobna za “normalno rasuőivanje” ne moőe zakljuűivati brak jer se zakljuűenje braka smatra zakljuűenjem ugovora.240 stoga osobe koje su lišene poslovne sposobnosti i stavljane pod starateljstvo, ne mogu sklopiti brak. sliűno tome nemaju ni pravo istupanja pred sudom u brakorazvodnom postupku, rezultat űega je obaveznost saglasnosti i zastupanje od strane staratelja kako za pokretanje postupka za razvod braka, tako i zastupanje tokom trajanja takvog postupka.punoletne osobe delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti mogu sklopiti brak iako se zakon ne izjašnjava izriűito o tome. sud moőe dati dozvolu maloletnicima koji navrše 6 i 7 godina da sklope brak, a ista logika se primenjuje i kada su u pitanju punoletna lica delimiűno lišena poslovne sposobnosti.24 takva punoletna lica se mogu obratiti direktno sudu za dobijanje takve dozvole242 i suprotno drugim stvarima (na primer onima povezanim sa imovinom) ne traői se prethodna saglasnost staratelja da bi se traőila ova vrsta dozvole; staratelj ne moőe da interveniše u ovom pitanju. u svim ostalim sluűajevima punoletno lice pod starateljstvom nema pravo da se pojavljuje pred sudom u postupku za razvod braka i obavezno je zastupanje od strane staratelja ukoliko punoletno lice őeli da preduzima tu radnju. izriűito je zabranjeno sklapanje braka izmeőu punoletnog lica lišenog poslovne sposobnosti i njegovog/njenog staratelja.24 punoletne osobe potpuno lišene poslovne sposobnosti ne mogu dati pravno obavezujuěu izjavu kojom priznaju oűinstvo. meőutim, maloletnici koji su navršili i 7 godina i koji su sposobni za normalno rasuőivanje, mogu priznati oűinstvo, te iz toga proistiűe da punoletna lica delimiűno lišena poslovne sposobnosti takoőe mogu priznati oűinstvo ukoliko ispunjavaju uslov sposobnosti za normalno rasuőivanje.standardi ljudskih prava: konvencija o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom u űlanu . detaljno opisuje meőunarodni sporazum o pravu na razliűite aspekte porodiűnog őivota. taj űlan ěemo u celini citirati zbog njegove speciůűnosti, kao i űinjenice da se ne moőe nigde drugde naěi:240 porodični zakon, čl. 18.241ćlan 23.242zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 80.243ćlan 22.57starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijipoštovanje doma i porodicedrőave potpisnice ěe preduzeti efektivne i odgovarajuěe mere kako bi eliminisale diskriminaciju osoba sa invaliditetom u svim pitanjima vezanim za braűne, porodiűne, liűne odnose i roditeljstvo, na osnovu jednakosti sa drugima, kako bi osigurali da: a. pravo svih osoba sa invaliditetom koji su u uzrastu u kome se moőe stupiti u brak da stupaju u brak i zasnivaju porodicu na osnovu punog i slobodno izraőenog pristanka buduěih supruőnika bude priznato.b. budu uvaőena prava osoba sa invaliditetom da slobodno i odgovorno odluűuju o broju svoje dece i razmaku izmeőu njih na jednakim osnovama sa drugima, da imaju pristup informacijama primerenim njihovom uzrastu, obrazovanju o reprodukciji i planiranju porodice i sredstvima potrebnim kako bi bile u stanju da ostvaruju dotiűna prava.c. osobe sa invaliditetom, ukljuűujuěi decu, oűuvaju svoju plodnost na osnovu jednakosti sa drugima. 2. drőave potpisnice ove konvencije osiguraěe da prava i odgovornosti osoba sa invaliditetom u odnosu na hraniteljstvo, starateljstvo i usvojenje dece i druge sliűne ustanove u nacionalnim zakonodavstvima, gde takvi koncepti postoje, budu poštovana. u svakom sluűaju mora se prioritetno poštovati najbolji interes deteta. drőave potpisnice ěe osobama sa invaliditetom pruőati odgovarajuěu podršku u ostvarivanju njihovih odgovornosti u podizanju dece.. drőave potpisnice ěe osigurati da deca sa invaliditetom imaju jednaka prava u pogledu doma i porodice. radi ostvarivanja tih prava i spreűavanja sakrivanja, napuštanja, zapostavljanja i odvajanja dece sa invaliditetom, drőave potpisnice obavezuju se da deci sa invaliditetom i njihovim porodicama pruőe rane i sveobuhvatne informacije, servise i podršku.4. drőave potpisnice ěe osigurati da dete ne bude odvojeno od svojih roditelja protiv njihove volje, osim kada nadleőni organi donesu odluku u skladu sa primenljivim pravom i postupcima, koja moőe biti podvrgnuta sudskoj reviziji, da je odvajanje u najboljem interesu deteta. ni u kom sluűaju dete neěe biti odvojeno od roditelja sa invaliditetom na osnovu invalidnosti bilo deteta, bilo jednog ili oba roditelja.5. drőave potpisnice obavezuju se da u sluűajevima kada neposredna porodica nije u stanju da se stara o detetu sa invaliditetom preduzmu sve napore kako bi detetu kao alternativu pruőili negu u široj porodici a kada to nije moguěe brigu unutar zajednice u porodiűnom okruőenju.žlan 8. evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda garantuje pravo na poštovanje privatnog i porodiűnog őivota, doma i prepiske. 58mental disability advocacy centerovo drőavama nameěe negativnu obavezu da se ne mešaju, kao i pozitivnu obavezu da poštuju privatni i porodiűni őivot pojedinaca. sliűna prava i obaveze su predviőena i u űlanu 2. u kojem se navodi sledeěe: “muškarci i őene odgovarajuěeg uzrasta imaju pravo da stupaju u brak i zasnivaju porodicu u skladu s unutrašnjim zakonima koji ureőuju vršenje ovog prava.”indikator stavljanjem pod starateljstvo punoletna osoba nije automatski lišena prava na udruěivanje.zakljuőak: punoletne osobe pod starateljstvom su lišene prava uűlanjenja u organizacije i politiűke partije.analiza: samo ona lica koja imaju pravo glasa mogu da osnivaju ili budu űlanovi neke nevladine organizacije ili politiűke partije.244 punoletne osobe potpuno lišene poslovne sposobnosti nemaju pravo glasa (pogledati indikator 13) i stoga ne mogu biti űlanovi ovih organizacija. u nedostatku odgovarajuěe zakonske odredbe poloőaj osoba delimiűno lišenih poslovne sposobnosti ostaje nerazjašnjen. standardi ljudskih prava: pravo na udruőivanje moőe biti od posebne vaőnosti za osobe sa mentalnim smetnjama jer űlanstvo u grupama za zastupanje i grupama za podršku moőe promovisati razvoj veština, osposobljavanje i samostalnost. konkretno udruőenja za zastupanje mogu dati pojedincima kolektivni politiűki glas kako bi uticali na politiűke i zakonodavne promene. konvencija o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom smatra da je pravo na udruőivanje integralni deo uűešěa u politiűkom i javnom őivotu. žlan 29(b) nalaőe drőavama űlanicama da su duőne da: aktivno promovišu okruőenje u kome ěe osobe sa invaliditetom, bez diskriminacije i na osnovu jednakosti sa drugima, moěi da ostvare puno i efektivno uűešěe u voőenju javnih poslova i podstiűu uűešěe ovih osoba u javnim poslovima, ukljuűujuěi:i.uűešěe u nevladinim organizacijama i udruőenjima koje se bave politiűkim i javnim őivotom zemlje, i u aktivnostima i voőenju politiűkih partija;ii.osnivanje organizacija osoba sa invaliditetom i prikljuűivanje takvim organizacijama koje ěe predstavljati osobe sa invaliditetom na meőunarodnom, nacionalnim, regionalnim i lokalnim nivoima.244zakon o udruženjima, političkim strankama i nevladinim organizacijama, službeni list srs br. 24/82, 39/83, 17/84, 50/84, 45/85, 12/89 i službeni list rs br. 53/93, 67/93 i 48/94.59starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijizabrana udruőivanja sa drugima kako bi se ostvario zajedniűki cilj je u suprotnosti sa űlanom 11 evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda. u njemu se navodi: “svako ima pravo na slobodu mirnog okupljanja i slobodu udruőivanja s drugima, ukljuűujuěi pravo da osniva sindikat i uűlanjuje se u njega radi zaštite svojih interesa.” za vršenje ovih prava neěe se postavljati nikakva ograniűenja, osim onih koja su propisana zakonom i neophodna u demokratskom društvu u interesu nacionalne bezbednosti ili javne bezbednosti, radi spreűavanja nereda ili kriminala, zaštite zdravlja ili morala, ili radi zaštite prava i sloboda drugih. iako tekst űlana 11. ne govori izriűito o tome, evropska konvencija o ljudskim pravima je potvrdila da je „inherentni deo prava izloőenog u űlanu 11” pravo na osnivanje udruőenja.245 teško je naěi legitiman razlog koji bi ograniűenje prava osoba pod starateljstvom da se udruőuju, osnivaju zajedniűke neproůtne organizacije “opravdao u jednom demokratskom društvu”.2.6.5dužnosti staratelja nakon uspostavljanja starateljstva (indikatori 18-25)kako bi se osiguralo da je punoletno lice zbrinuto na odgovarajuěi naűin, tretirano sa dostojanstvom i poštovanjem, kao i da postoje što veěe šanse za samostalan őivot i samoopredeljenje, pravo mora precizno odrediti koje su obaveze staratelja i mehanizmi za utvrőivanje njihove odgovornosti. u indikatorima 8-25 ěe se govoriti o ovim problemima. indikator osobi pod starateljstvom nije zabranjeno donošenje odluka u onim podruőjima u kojima on/ona poseduje poslovnu sposobnost. zakljuőak: srpsko pravo priznaje samo dve vrste “trajnog” starateljstva:246 potpuno i delimiűno. pri uspostavljanju delimiűnog starateljstva, sud mora precizirati u kojim podruűjima punoletna osoba lišena poslovne sposobnosti zadrőava pravo da donosi odluke nezavisno od staratelja. analiza: dosta űinjenica od vaőnosti u ovom indikatoru je pominjana na drugim mestima. ovde ěemo samo ponoviti osnovne űinjenice sledeěim redosledom: tokom postupka za lišavanje poslovne sposobnosti, sud moőe u potpunosti ili delimiőno lišiti punoletnu osobu poslovne sposobnosti.247 ukoliko je punoletna osoba delimiűno lišena poslovne sposobnosti, sud mora (ili moőe)248 precizirati podruűja u kojima je toj sidiropoulos protiv grčke, br. 26695/95, presuda od 10. jula 1998, (1998) ehrr 633. 246za razliku od privremenog starateljstva i/ili privremenog zastupnika predstavljenih pod indikatorom 12.247zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 40.248 zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 40(2) navodi da sud ima opciju da napravi takvu listu, ali to nije obavezno. prema porodičnom zakonu, sastavljanje ove liste više ne predstavlja opciju, već obavezu suda.60mental disability advocacy centerpunoletnoj osobi dato pravo da samostalno odluűuje. tu se obiűno navode pravo na rad, sklapanje braka pod odreőenim uslovima, trošenja zarade i zakljuűenje odreőenih vrsta ugovora. uspostavljanjem potpunog starateljstva, poslovna sposobnost je u potpunosti ukinuta i punoletna osoba pod starateljstvom je lišena prava donošenja bilo kakvih vaőnijih odluka.standardi ljudskih prava: kao što je ranije pomenuto, pokret za prava osoba sa invaliditetom zagovara pristup starateljstvu sa najmanje restriktivnim merama, űime se optimizira samoopredeljenje, osnovno naűelo ljudskih prava. ovaj pristup proőima tekst preporuke br. r(99)4, u kojoj se navodi sledeěe: “meőu razliűitim vrstama mera zaštite treba da postoje i takve mere koje su ograniűene na preduzimanje jednog akta bez postavljanja zastupnika ili bez postavljanja zastupnika űija ovlašěenja traju u duőem vremenskom periodu”.249 naűelo iz preporuke br. r(99)4 utvrőuje da bi zakonodavstvo trebalo da dopusti maksimalno oűuvanje poslovne sposobnosti i zasluőuje da bude citirano u celini:. pravni okvir treba da, u meri u kojoj je to moguěe, prepozna da postoje razliűiti stepeni nedostatka sposobnosti, kao i da se stepen nedostatka sposobnosti moőe menjati s vremenom. u skladu s tim, posledica mere zaštite ne treba da bude automatsko potpuno lišenje poslovne sposobnosti. ipak, treba omoguěiti ograniűenje poslovne sposobnosti u onim sluűajevima u kojima se ustanovi da je to neophodno radi zaštite punoletne osobe. 2. mere zaštite naroűito ne bi trebalo da automatski liše osobu njenog biraűkog prava, ili da saűini testament, ili da pristane ili uskrati pristanak na svaku medicinsku intervenciju, ili da donosi druge odluke liűne prirode uvek kada mu/joj to dopušta njegova ili njena sposobnost. . treba razmotriti uvoőenje takvih pravnih sredstava kojima bi se punoletnoj osobi dozvolilo da preduzima odreőene pravne radnje, ili pravne radnje u odreőenoj oblasti, űak i onda kada je pravno zastupanje u toj oblasti neophodno, uz pristanak pravnog zastupnika. 4. kada je god to moguěe, punoletnoj osobi treba da bude omoguěeno da ulazi u punovaőne pravne poslove manje vrednosti. slikovit primer najbolje upotrebe ovog pristupa moőe se naěi u praksi francuske. pri ustanovljavanju starateljstva, sudija u francuskoj moőe sastaviti spisak poslova koje punoletna osoba lišena poslovne sposobnosti moőe preduzeti nezavisno od staratelja. u oceni koji su to poslovi u odnosu na koje punoletna osoba treba da zadrői slobodu odluűivanja, sudija mora pitati za mišljenje lekara struűnjaka.250249preporuka br. r(99)4, načelo 2(5).250francuski građanski zakonik, knjiga 1, naslov ;, poglavlje ii, čl. 420, važi za punoletne osobe lišene poslovne sposobnosti prema naslovu ;i, poglavlje iii, čl. 501. nezvanični prevod obezbedilli legifrance, služba francuske vlade. 61starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiindikator punoletnu osobu pod starateljstvom treba konsultovati po pitanju vaěnih odluka i njene ěelje se moraju poštovati kad god je to moguže.zakljuőak: u srpskom pravu ne postoji odredba na osnovu koje bi se zahtevalo od staratelja da punoletnu osobu lišenu poslovne sposobnosti konsultuje ili ispunjava njene őelje. analiza: srpsko pravo nije predvidelo odredbu koja bi zahtevala konsultacije izmeőu staratelja i lica pod njegovim starateljstvom o znaűajnijim i manje znaűajnim odlukama, kao i u vezi sa odlukama koje se tiűu zdravstvene zaštite punoletne osobe. ono zapravo uopšte i ne govori o uűešěu punoletne osobe pod starateljstvom u odluűivanju. operativni i drugi medicinski zahvati mogu biti preduzeti samo uz saglasnost potpuno poslovno sposobne osobe ili staratelja, u sluűaju da je punoletna osoba lišena poslovne sposobnosti.25 naőalost, u zakonu se ne navodi šta biva sa licima delimiűno lišenim poslovne sposobnosti.standardi ljudskih prava: pravo mora da osigura da punoletne osobe pod starateljstvom budu konsultovane po pitanju odluka koje imaju uticaj na njihove őivote. pravna obaveza konsultovanja predstavlja reper u oceni rada staratelja, ali i pravno primenjivi standard.252 kao što je ranije navedeno, konvencija o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom jasno navodi da bilo koja mera koja se odnosi na ostvarenje poslovne sposobnosti treba da “poštuje dostupno na adresi www.legifrance.gouv.fr, posećeno 2. avgusta 2006. drugi pristup koji podržava participaciju punoletnih osoba pod starateljstvom jeste uniformni zakon o starateljstvu koji utvrđuje smernice o tome kako da se ovo načelo uvrsti u zakonodavstvo. u delu pod naslovom ³dužnosti staraoca”, zakonodavstvo obezbeđuje sledeći model: staratelj će obavljati svoju dužnost samo u meri u kojoj je to određeno ograničenjima nametnutim punoletnom licu i što je moguće više će podržavati ućešće punoletne osobe u odllučivanju, delovaće u korist punoletnog lica lišenog poslovne sposobnosti i razvijaće ili će zadržati sposobnost da upravlja ličnim stvarima punoletnog lica pod starateljstvom. staratelj će, pri donošenju odluka, uzeti u obzir, u meri u kolikoj su mu poznate, izražene želje i lične vrednosti punoletne osobe. vidi: uniform guardianship and protective proceedings act (1997), supra nota 98, art. 3, para. 313(a).251zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, čl. 19. 252finsko zakonodavstvo, na primer, ustanovljava ovo načelo time što zahteva da staratelji pitaju pojedinca za njegovo/njeno mišeljenje o odlukama u okviru dužnosti staratelja. pogledati zakon o službama starateljstva u finskoj 442/99, deo 43(1) pod naslovom saslušanje lica pod starateljstvom. nezvanični prevod obezbedilo finle;, služba ¿nske vlade. dostupna na www.¿nlex.¿/en/, posećena 18. jula 2006.62mental disability advocacy centerprava, volju i őelje lica”.25 sliűno tome, preporuka br. r(99)4 precizira da pri donošenju odluka “tokom ustanovljavanja i sprovoőenja mere zaštite punoletne osobe umanjenih sposobnosti treba otkriti, koliko je to moguěe, postojeěe i nekadašnje őelje punoletne osobe, uzeti ih u obzir i poštovati ih.254 ovo naűelo takoőe ukljuűuje obavezu osobe koja zastupa ili pomaőe punoletnoj osobi u odluűivanju da joj, kada god je to moguěe i prigodno, da adekvatne informacije, naroűito kada se radi o donošenju bitnih odluka koje se tiűu punoletne osobe, kako bi ona mogla da izrazi svoj stav o tome.255 naűelo 2 preporuke dalje predlaőe da kada se pokušava naěi najbolje rešenje za okolnosti u kojima se neko lice nalazi, “potrebno je razmotriti uvoőenje takvih mera kojima se omoguěava da postavljena osoba vriši svoje duőnosti zajedno sa punoletnom osobom u pitanju, kao i mera koje ukljuűuju postavljanje više od jednog zastupnika”.256 indikator 20obim ovlašženja i obaveza staratelja je jasno definisan i ograniően na ona podruőja u kojima je punoletnom štiženiku potrebna pomož.zakljuőak: potpuno starateljstvo automatski ukida brojna prava, pri űemu se moě donošenja odluka ukida u potpunosti. institut delimiűnog starateljstva daje sudu pravo da deůniše ona podruűja u kojima odrasla osoba i dalje poseduje moě donošenja odluka. analiza: rešenje o stavljanju pod starateljstvo od strane organa starateljstva mora sadrőati i listu prava i obaveza staratelja,257 a mora se pripremiti i plan staranja prilagoően pojedincu (videti dalje), koji je nedavno zakonskom odredbom uvršten u naše zakonodavstvo.258 iako, kao što je navedeno u daljem tekstu, nema puno smernica u pogledu sadrőaja takvih planova, samo njihovo sastavljanje daje priliku da se izaőe u susret speciůűnim potrebama svakog punoletnog pojedinca. sudsko rešenje o delimiűnom lišenju poslovne sposobnosti sadrői spisak podruűja u kojima punoletna osoba zadrőava moě donošenja odluka. ovlašěenja staratelja su oűigledno jasno deůnisana, a moguěnost da se starateljstvo “prekraja” oűuvana su na taj naűin, što su taűno navedena ta podruűja. istovremeno se ova moguěnost u praksi űesto ne iskorištava. kao što je reűeno, staratelj je ograniűen po pitanju donošenja odluka u pogledu školovanja punoletne osobe (kao i profesionalne obuke, pa űak i samog posla) i potrebna mu je prethodna saglasnost organa starateljstva za donošenje bilo kakve konaűne odluke.259 253konvencija o pravima lica sa invaliditetom, usvojena od strane generalne skupštine un-a 6. decembra 2006, ref a/61/611, čl. 12(4).254načelo 9(1).255načelo 9(3).256načelo 2(6).257porodični zakon. čl. 135-144, i čl. 333(3).258porodični zakon, čl. 125(2).259porodični zakon, čl. 137 st. 4. tačka 1.63starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiplan staranja pri postavljanju staratelja, organ starateljstva mora pripremiti i “plan staranja”. ovaj relativno nov institut u srpskom zakonodavstvu nije pruőio smernice u pogledu toga šta takav plan treba da sadrői. kako se plan o staranju mora pisati u isto vreme kad i rešenje o postavljanju staratelja, lako je pretpostaviti da postavljeni staratelj ima samo malu ulogu u sastavljanju plana. malu ulogu mogu imati samo staratelji koji su niti bliski srodnici niti prijatelji punoletnog štiěenika. standardi ljudskih prava: zakonodavstvo bi trebalo jasno da ukaőe da telo koje ocenjuje poslovnu sposobnost treba da deůniše obim pojedinaűnih obaveza staratelja u pogledu poslovne sposobnosti punoletne osobe. preporuka br. r(99)4 poziva drőave da usvoje pravni okvir koji ěe ďeksibilnije odgovoriti razliűitim situacijama: “mere zaštite i druga pravna sredstva koji su na raspolaganju za zaštitu liűnih i ekonomskih interesa odraslih osoba s umanjenim sposobnostima moraju biti dovoljno ďeksibilni kako bi se obezbedio odgovarajuěi pravni odgovor za razliűite stepene nedostatka sposobnosti i razliűite situacije”.260 preporuka dalje savetuje: pravni okvir treba da, u meri u kojoj je to moguěe, prepozna da postoje razliűiti stepeni nedostatka sposobnosti, kao i da se stepen nedostatka sposobnosti moőe menjati s vremenom. u skladu s tim, posledica mere zaštite ne treba da bude automatsko potpuno lišenje poslovne sposobnosti. pri űemu treba da se omoguěi ograniűenje poslovne sposobnosti u onim sluűajevima u kojima se ustanovi da je to neophodno radi zaštite punoletne osobe26konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom predviőa da sve mere, koje se odnose na ostvarenje poslovne sposobnosti, sadrőe odgovarajuěe i eůkasne garancije, tako da mere u vezi sa ostvarenjem poslovne sposobnosti budu “proporcionalne i prilagoőene okolnostima u kojima se punoletna osoba nalazi”, da se primenjuju što je kraěe moguěe i da ih struűan, nezavisan i nepristran organ ili sudsko telo periodiűno i redovno preispituje. garancije bi trebalo da budu proporcionalone stepenu uticaja takvih mera na prava i interese odreőenog lica.”262 kao primer upotrebe ovakvog pristupa moőe se navesti zakon o starateljstvu finske, koji precizira da “zadatak staratelja moőe biti ograniűen samo na odreőeni posao, stvar ili imovinu”.26 žak i u okviru pojedinaűne stvari, ovaj zakon dodatno obezbeőuje interese punoletne osobe time što staratelju zabranjuje vršenje niza nabrojanih aktivnosti, ukljuűujuěi raspolaganje ili kupovinu imovine,264 davanje saglasnosti na venűavanje ili usvojenje, sastavljanje ili menjanje testamenta bez odgovarajuěe dozvole suda.265260načelo 2(1).261načelo 3(1).262konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom, usvojena od strane generalne skupštine un-a 6. decembra 2006, ref a/61/611, art. 12(4).263zakon o starateljstvu finske, 442/99, st. 8(3). 264ibid, para. 34.265ibid, para. 29.64mental disability advocacy centerindikator 2staratelj je obavezan da unapredi interese, dobrobit i nezavisnost punoletnog lica pod starateljstvom tako što že se truditi da pronaůe manje restriktivne alternative u ěivotnim uslovina i nastoježi da punoletnim osobama omoguži ěivot unutar zajednice.zakljuőak: srpsko zakonodavstvo ukazuje na znaűaj samostalnog őivota punoletnih lica koja se nalaze pod starateljstvom. analiza: glavna obaveza staratelja je da preduzme korake u pravcu odstranjivanja uzroka koji su doveli do lišavanja poslovne sposobnosti punoletne osobe i da maksimiziraju prilike za samostalan őivot.266 ovakav pristup je postojao u ranijem zakonodavstvu, koje je precizno navodilo da je svrha postavljanja staratelja da se punoletna osoba što pre osposobi za samostalan őivot,267 a prisutan je i u pozitivnom zakonodavstvu.268 u saglasnosti sa tom obavezom se odreőuje naűin na koji ěe se ispunjavati sve ostale obaveze. kada se odabira i postavlja odreőeno lice za staratelja, organ starateljstva je duőan i da odredi gde ěe punoletna osoba őiveti jer staratelj nema pravo da samostalno donosi odluke o tome. meőutim, pri donošenju odluke o odgovarajuěem smeštaju, organ starateljstva moőe odabrati dom socijalne zaštite i, kao što je gore navedeno, moőe postaviti upravnika takvog doma za staratelja. standardi ljudskih prava: ovim indikatorom se proverava odnos izmeőu starateljstva i őivota u ustanovi. pravo na őivot unutar zajednice je utkan u meőunarodno pravo, pre svega u űl. 9 konvencije o pravima osoba s invaliditetom, u kojem se navodi sledeěe: samostalan ěivot i pripadnost zajednicidrőave potpisnice ove konvencije osobama sa invaliditetom priznaju jednako pravo da őive u zajednici i uőivaju pravo izbora jednako sa drugim osobama i preduzeěe efektivne i odgovarajuěe mere kako bi olakšale osobama sa invaliditetom da u potpunosti uőivaju ovo pravo, omoguěile njihovu punu ukljuűenost u zajednicu i uűešěe u őivotu zajednice, ukljuűujuěi preduzimanje mera kako bi osigurale da:a. osobe sa invaliditetom imaju moguěnost da izaberu mesto svog prebivanja, sa kim ěe i gde ěe őiveti, pod jednakim uslovima sa drugima i neěe biti obavezne da őive pod odreőenim aranőmanima.b. osobe sa invaliditetom imaju pristup spektru sluőbi podrške u svojim domovima, ustanovama za smeštaj i lokalnoj zajednici, ukljuűujuěi personalne asistente, 266porodični zakon, čl. 136(2).267pogledati, na primer, porodični zakon čl. 219 (1980).268porodični zakon, čl. 136(2).65starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijineophodne radi podrške ukljuűenosti i őivotu osoba sa invaliditetom u svojim lokalnim zajednicama i spreűavanja izolacije ili iskljuűenosti iz zajednice.c. usluge u lokalnoj zajednici koje su na raspolaganju opštoj populaciji treba da budu dostupne osobama sa invaliditetom pod jednakim uslovima i da budu u skladu sa potrebama osoba sa invaliditetom.akcioni plan za osobe s invaliditetom saveta evrope iz 2006. utvrdio je evropski okvir za pitanje invalidnosti za sledeěu dekadu pozivajuěi drőave da “obezbede kvalitetne društvene usluge i alternativne modele smeštaja, koje pruőaju moguěnost prelaska sa őivota u instituciji na őivot unutar zajednice.269 iako se u preporuci r(99)4 ne govori o planovima őivljenja, naűelo proporcionalnosti nalaőe da se u svim odlukama treba usvojiti opcija koja obezbeőuje adekvatnu zaštitu, a da pri tom najmanje ograniűava prava i slobode punoletnog štiěenika.270 indikator 22staratelj mora upravljati imovinom punoletnog štiženika u korist punoletnog lica koje je pod starateljstvom. zakljuőak: srpsko zakonodavstvo nalaőe da staratelji imaju obavezu da upravljaju imovinom osobe pod potpunim ili delimiűnim starateljstvom u njegovom najboljem interesu. anlaiza: zakonodavstvo navodi da je prvenstvena obaveza staratelja da osigura dobrobit i korist za punoletnu osobu i njegovu imovinu.27 pri tom je staratelj obavezan da pribavi potrebna sredstva za izdrőavanje punoletne osobe i da obezbedi pravno zastupanje kako bi punoletna osoba pod njegovim starateljstvom ta sredstva i ostvarila.272 na primer, ukoliko punoletno lice ispunjava uslove za primanje socijalne pomoěi, staratelj je duőan da podnese zahtev za tu vrstu pomoěi. staratelj je samostalan u obavljanju poslova redovnog upravljanja imovinom punoletne osobe. “redovno upravljanje” obuhvata donošenje odluka u vezi sa odrőavanjem i űuvanjem takve imovine.27 iz ovog kruga poslova je iskljuűeno raspolaganje imovinom, osim ako se takvo raspolaganje preduzima kako bi se spreűio gubitak ili ispunile posebne potrebe osobe lišene poslovne sposobnosti. odrőavanje takoőe moőe da obuhvati popravku, plaěanje neophodnih troškova koji nastaju u vezi sa imovinom (porezi, usluge, itd.), kao i davanje delova imovine u zakup na kraěi rok (u trajanju od 269council of europe disability action plan 2006, op cit, para. 3.8.3(vi). 270načelo 6(2).271porodični zakon, čl. 135-142. 272porodični zakon, čl. 138.273pogledati npr. obren stanković, miodrag orlić, stvarno pravo (property law), 9. izdanje, nomos, beograd, 1996, str. 151-152.66mental disability advocacy centernajviše jedne godine).274 hitne mere su dozvoljene samo ukoliko su preduzete u cilju zaštite imovine. što se tiűe novűane pomoěi osobama pod starateljstvom, bilo pod potpunim ili pod delimiűnim starateljstvom, staratelji nemaju obavezu da je pruőaju iz svojih sopstvenih izvora. meőutim oni se moraju postarati da punoletne osobe imaju pristup novűanim i drugim izvorima koji su potrebni za ispunjavanje njihovih svakodnevnih potreba, kao i da osiguraju da osobe pod njihovim starateljstvom doőu do svih prihoda na koje imaju pravo.275 ta pomoě obuhvata liűne prihode, sredstva koja, na primer, daje neki bliski srodnik, koji je duőan da pruőa ůnansijsku pomoě punoletnoj osobi lišenoj poslovne sposobnosti,276 i/ili imovinu punoletne osobe ukoliko nema odreőenog prihoda ili pojedinaca koji su obavezani da pruőaju pomoě. 277 standardi ljudskih prava: znaűaj ovih standarda je dvostruki i ogleda se u moguěnosti da punoletna osoba ili drugo zainteresovano lice podnosi prituőbe na rad staratelja ukoliko staratelj zloupotrebljava imovinu lica koje je stavljeno pod starateljstvo, kao i u donošenju jasnih pravnih regulativa pomoěu kojih ěe se nadgledati rad staratelja. iako preporuka br. r(99)4 ne govori mnogo o ulozi staratelja u upravljanju novűanim sredstvima punoletne osobe lišene poslovne sposobnosti, ona ipak navodi da “imovinom lica sa smetnjama treba upravljati i koristiti je u korist štiěenika i za njegovu ili njenu dobrobit”.278 naűelo 20 dalje predviőa da ěe staratelj biti odgovoran za “sve gubitke ili štetu koju prouzrokuje punoletnom licu pod starateljstvom u obavljanju svojih duőnosti”.279 ovo naűelo nalaőe da je staratelj odgovoran za nesavesno upravljanje ili prisvajanje fondova ili imovine punoletne osobe pod starateljstvom, uz moguěe obuhvatanje troškova koji ne sluőe neposrednoj koristi punoletne osobe. svetska zdravstvena organizacija je takoőe usvojila ovaj pristup i navodi da bi “preciziranje sankcija u sluűajevima da staratelj ne ispunjava svoje obaveze ojaűalo zakonodavstvo”.280274ibid.275porodični zakon, čl. 138.276krug ovih lica je naveden u čl. 151-159 porodičnog zakona. u pitanju su bliski srodnici punoletnog štićenika (roditelji, braća i sestre, bračni drug, deca, uključujući i usvojenu decu). 277zakon o socijalnoj zaštiti, službeni list rs, br. 36/91, 79/91, 33/93, 53/93, 67/93, 46/94, 48/94, 52/96, 29/01, 84/04.278načelo 8(3).279načelo 20(1).280who resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation: stop exclusion, dare to care, op cit, p. 43.67starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiindikator 2staratelj je duěan da periodiőno posežuje punoletnu osobu i da sa njim/njom odrěava kontakt.zakljuőak: u zakonu se navodi da su staratelji duőni da poseěuju svoje štiěenike, ali ne govori o tome koliko űeste treba da budu te posete.analiza: staratelji koji őive odvojeno od punoletnih osoba pod njihovim staranjem, su duőni da ih poseěuju.28 ova obaveza obuhvata i osobe koje őive u domovima socijalne zaštite. meőutim, ne postoji precizna zakonska odredba, kojom se utvrőuje koliko űesto staratelj treba da poseěuje punoletnu osobu pod njegovim staranjem, iako se javljaju mišljenja da ispravno tumaűenje ove obaveze jeste da ove posete treba da budu redovne i uűestale. standardi ljudskih prava: kamen temeljac preporuke br. r(99)4, kao i humanocentriűnih protektivnih sistema uopšte, je potreba da punoletna osoba ostane centralni subjekt u procesu donošenja odluka. to podrazumeva eůkasno savetovanje kako bi se őelje punoletne osobe uzele u obzir kad god je to moguěe. preporuka br. r(99)4 takoőe navodi da zastupnik ili staratelj treba da pruői punoletnoj osobi dovoljno podataka o bitnijim odlukama, tako da bi i ona mogla da iznese svoje mišljenje.282 druga znaűajna korist od zahteva da staratelj poseěuje pojedinca kojeg zastupa je u tome da im se omoguěi da steknu potpuni uvid u őivotne uslove, brigu i usluge koje punoletna osoba dobija. kao najbolji praktiűni primer moőe se navesti ameriűki uniformni zakon o starateljstvu i protektivnim postupcima, koji nalaőe da staratelj mora da “postane ili ostane u liűnom kontaktu sa štiěenikom, kao i da odrőava stalan kontakt sa štiěenikom kako bi bio upoznat sa njegovim/njenim sposobnostima, ograniűenjima, potrebama, moguěnostima, ůziűkim i psihiűkim zdravljem”.28indikator 24objektivno telo periodiőno preispituje odluke staratelja, a staratelj je odgovoran za svoje odluke.zakljuőak: staratelji moraju organu starateljstva podnositi godišnje izveštaje, kao i završni izveštaj, ukoliko i kada se starateljstvo okonűa. staratelji su odgovorni za štetu prouzrokovanu svojim radnjama i/ili propustima u vršenju svojih duőnosti. staratelj moőe biti odgovoran i za štetu koju je prouzrokovao namerno ili grubom nepaőnjom.284 281porodični zakon iz 2005, čl. 136, st. 3. 282načelo 9.283odeljak 313(b)(i)284ćl. 141 porodičnog zakona.68mental disability advocacy centeranaliza: staratelj je duőan da organu starateljstva podnosi izveštaje i polaőe raűune o svom radu poűetkom svake kalendarske godine za prethodnu godinu, kada organ starateljstva to zatraői, odnosno nakon prestanka starateljstva.285 godišnji izveštaj treba da sadrői pregled mera preduzetih u pogledu brige za punoletnu osobu, posebno uslovima smeštaja, zdravlju, vaspitavanju i obrazovanju, kao i o pitanjima vezanim za imovinu. što se tiűe imovine, treba da budu pruőeni precizni podaci u vezi sa upravljanjem, raspolaganjem imovinom, štiěenikovim prihodima i rashodima u prethodnoj godini, kao i konaűno stanje njegove imovine.286 organ starateljstva moőe u bilo kom trenutku zahtevati od staratelja da podnese vanredni izveštaj. staratelj mora taj izveštaj podneti u roku od 5 dana od prijema zahteva.kada je reű o sadrőaju završnog izveštaja pri okonűanju starateljstva, u zakonu nisu date nikakve smernice. iako zakon o starateljstvu u srbiji ne utvrőuje kriviűnu odgovornost staratelja, njegova kriviűna odgovornost je regulisana u skladu sa kriviűnim pravom. starateljima se moőe suditi za niz kriviűnih prestupa, na primer za delo zloupotrebe poverenja predviőenog u kriviűnom zakoniku.287 standardi ljudskih prava: preporuka br. r(99)4 precizira da “treba da postoji adekvatna kontrola nad sprovoőenjem zaštitnih mera, kao i nad aktivnostima i odlukama zastupnika”.288 preporuka dalje navodi da zastupnici moraju biti odgovorni za svoja dela i svaku štetu koju su prouzrokovali punoletnoj osobi koja se nalazi pod njihovim starateljstvom, a posebno da “zakoni o odgovornosti za protivpravna dela, grubu nepaőnju ili zlostavljanje treba da se primenjuju na zastupnike i druga lica koja su angaőovana u poslovima punoletnih osoba”.289 kako bi u pojmovnom smislu bili u skladu sa ovim merama, mehanizmi za preispitivanje moraju da preciziraju obaveze staratelja (što je navedeno u indikatoru 20), kao i da obezbede dostupne i operativne proceduralne garancije. indikator 25postojanje ěalbenog postupka kojim zapoőinje proces preispitivanja starateljevih dela i propusta.zakljuőak: zakon pruőa priliku punoletnoj osobi i svakom drugom pravno zainteresovanom licu, da podnese prituőbu organu starateljstva pobijajuěi odluke koje je doneo staratelj. 285ćl. 142, st. 1 porodičnog zakona.286porodični zakon čl. 142.287ćl. 216. službeni list rs, no. 85/05. vidi: marija draškić, porodično pravo, colpi, dosije, beograd, 1998, str. 307.288načelo 16.289načelo 20.69starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijianaliza: postoji zakonska odredba koja punoletnoj osobi daje pravo da uloői prituőbu, ali samo onda kada moőe da shvati znaűaj svojih postupaka.290 pri odluűivanju o prihvatljivosti takve prituőbe, organ starateljstva ěe uzeti u obzir okolnosti konkretnog sluűaja, imajuěi u vidu najbolje interese punoletne osobe. takve prituőbe mogu podnositi dodatno i lica koja imaju pravni interes. kao primer se mogu navesti roőaci, lekari ili poverioci. organ starateljstva duőan je da na prituőbu odgovori u roku od 5 dana od dana kada je prituőba primljena u organu starateljstva.29 organ starateljstva ima moguěnost da pobije odluku staratelja ili, ukoliko bi odluka vodila kršenju prava punoletne osobe, on moőe pokrenuti postupak za razrešenje staratelja. pored toga prituőba se moőe podneti i protiv rada organa starateljstva. punoletna osoba, staratelj ili neko drugo pravno zainteresovano lice moőe podneti takvu prituőbu, koja mora biti podnešena ministarstvu rada, zapošljavanja i socijalne politike. ministarstvo mora odgovoriti na prituőbu u roku od 0 dana od dana prijema i tim odgovorom moőe preinaűiti ili potvrditi odluku koja se prituőbom pobija.292 nejasno je da li pozitivno pravo dozvoljava da organ starateljstva naredi staratelju da plati naknadu štete prouzrokovanu punoletnoj osobi pod starateljstvom kao rezultat grube nepaőnje ili propusta staratelja.29 zakon, meőutim, moőe “pozvati” staratelja da plati naknadu štete i ukoliko staratelj to odbije, moőe sluűaj izneti pred sud. ukoliko se ovakva aktivnost preduzme, onda se punoletnoj osobi postavlja “kolizioni staratelj”, koji ěe zastupati štiěenikove interese.organ starateljstva duőan je da bez odlaganja razreši staratelja ako utvrdi da je on iz bilo kog razloga prestao da obavlja duőnost ili da zloupotrebljava prava, odnosno grubo zanemaruje duőnosti staratelja, ili da je nastupila neka okolnost zbog koje on ne bi mogao biti postavljen za staratelja.294 organ starateljstva duőan je da razreši staratelja u roku od 0 dana od dana kada utvrdi da on obavlja duőnost staratelja nesavesno ili da bi za punoletnu osobu bilo korisnije da mu se za staratelja postavi drugo lice.staratelj moőe podneti őalbu protiv ovakve odluke u roku od 5 dana nakon prijema obaveštenja o nameravanim aktivnostima. ůalbu moőe podneti i drugo pravno zainteresovano lice. ůalba treba da bude podnešena ministarstvu rada, zapošljavanja i socijalne politike koje mora doneti rešenje po őalbi što pre, a najkasnije u roku od dva meseca.295 neobjašnjiva je űinjenica da punoletna osoba nema pravo da ulaőe prituőbe na rad organa starateljstva. 290porodični zakon čl. 335.291porodični zakon čl. 335(2).292porodični zakon čl. 338.293porodični zakon čl. 141 i 335.294porodični zakon čl. 133.295zakon o opštem upravnom postupku, čl. 237.70mental disability advocacy centerstaratelji mogu zatraőiti od organa starateljstva da ih razreši. staratelj mora biti razrešen u roku od 60 dana kada on to zatraői. u takvim okolnostima, organ starateljstva ima obavezu da se stara o interesima punoletne osobe dok mu se ne postavi novi staratelj. standardi ljudskih prava: lišavanje poslovne sposobnosti ne bi trebalo da punoletnu osobu liši moguěnosti da se pojavi pred sudom ili drugim telom traőeěi nezavisno preispitivanje odluke ili aktivnosti staratelja. sud, ili drugo telo, moraju imati ovlašěenje da odluke i aktivnosti preinaűe ili dopune. dok preporuka br. r(899)4 navodi da punoletna osoba lišena poslovne sposobnosti “treba da ima pravo da zahteva reviziju”, ova odredba izgleda da se odnosi na sam zahtev za odreőivanje starateljstva. svetska zdravstvena organizacija smatra da bi lice pod starateljstvom dodatno trebalo da ima moguěnost da dobije nezavisnu ocenu konkretnih odluka i aktivnosti preduzetih od strane staratelja. svetska zdravstvena organizacija je i ocenila da je dostupnost postupaka za ocenu starateljevih odluka kao jedno od predloőenih deset naűela naűela mentalnog zdravlja.296 naűela svetske zdravstvene organizacije dalje navode komponente koje su obavezne za efektivnu reviziju postupka: dostupnost, vremenski rokovi, dostupnost zainteresovanim pojedincima, kao i moguěnost da punoletna osoba bude liűno saslušana. primer iz zakonodavstva koji bi prikazao ovu vrstu indikatora moőe se naěi u tipiűnom drőavnom zakonodavstvu sjedinjenih ameriűkih drőava, koje propisuje da punoletna osoba moőe traőiti od suda da preispita i izmeni odluke staratelja ili dopuni plan starateljstva ili obaveze staratelja, razreši staratelja i postavi novog ili okonűa starateljstvo.2972.6.6 neophodno određivanje starateljstva i alternative (indikatori 26-29)poslednja grupa indikatora (indikatori 26 do 29) ispituje pravne alternative ustanovi starateljstva. zahvaljujuěi svojoj nametljivosti i liűnoj prirodi, starateljstvu treba pribeěi kao poslednjem sredstvu. pravni okviri treba da prepoznaju dinamiűnu prirodu poslovne sposobnosti tokom vremena, a starateljstvo treba da traje samo do odreőenog trenutka, i samo u toj meri koja je potrebna da se ostvari svrha, odnosno zaštita ranjivih grupa ljudi. sluűajevi starateljstva treba da se preispituju periodiűno, da se menjaju ili okonűavaju kako to uslovi budu zahtevali. 296who, načela mentalnog zdravlja: deset osnovnih načela, who/mng/mnd/96.9. videti na stranici http://www.who.int/entity/mentalbhealth/media/en/75.pd, stranica posećena 2. avgusta 2006.297pogledati npr, alaska stat. st. 13.26.125 (bender 2005).primeri manje restriktivnih mera obuhvataju podržavani model donošenja odluka u kojem punoletna osoba donosi sve potrebne odluke uz pomoć u identi¿kovanju i vaganju alternativa ili dobrovoljnih aranžmana poput delovanja na osnovu punomoćja. 71starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiindikator 26manje restriktivne alternative starateljstvu koje su dostupne i koje su oőigledno iskorištene pre odreůivanja starateljstva.zakljuőak: ne postoje manje restriktivne alternative starateljstvu.analiza: zakonodavstvo srbije ne priznaje izriűito bilo kakvu alternativu starateljstvu.298 starateljstvo je jedina moguěa mera za zaštitu prava i interesa punoletnih lica lišenih poslovne sposobnosti. meőutim, u novije vreme usvojeno je pravilo da se u odreőenim oblastima zdravstvene zaštite i donošenja odluka usvoji institut donošenja odluka na osnovu ranije datog odobrenja (tzv. advanced directives). tako je moguěe da svaka osoba unapred odluűi i postavi lice koje ěe u njegovu/njenu korist donositi odluke o zdravstvenoj zaštiti ukoliko to lice postane nesposobno da samo za sebe donosi odluke.299 na ovom mestu treba pomenuti i produőeno roditeljsko pravo, iako ono tehniűki ne predstavlja manje restriktivnu meru u odnosu na starateljstvo jer se odnosi iskljuűivo na mlade ljude. produőeno roditeljsko pravo je u biti starateljstvo koje vrše roditelji deteta lišenog poslovne sposobnosti. osnovni cilj ovakve brige je zaštita deűjih prava i interesa. sud je nadleőan da odluűi o produőenju roditeljskog prava00 u postupku koji treba pokrenuti pre nego što dete navrši 8 godina. pravne posledice produőenog roditeljskog prava su identiűne posledicama kod starateljstva, izuzev nekoliko razlika. kao prvo, to je i dalje odnos izmeőu deteta i roditelja. kao drugo, obim roditeljskih ovlašěenja je dosta šire postavljen od starateljskog. roditeljima nije potrebna dozvola organa starateljstva da odluűuju o veěini pitanja koja se tiűu njihovog deteta. standardi ljudskih prava: konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom navodi da “drőave potpisnice treba da preduzmu odgovarajuěe mere kako bi licima sa invaliditetom osigurale pristup pomoěi koja im moőe biti potrebna u ostvarivanju njihove poslovne sposobnosti”.02 ovo podstiűe na paradigmatski preokret od onih modela starateljstva prema sistemima koji podrőavaju kontrolisano donošenje odluka. ovo podrazumeva da postoje alternative starateljstvu i da se koriste u praksi. preporuka br. r(99)4 navodi u naűelu 5 da mere zaštite poput lišavanja poslovne sposobnosti i starateljstvo treba da budu zasnovane na naűelu minimalne potrebne intervencije ili najmanje restriktivne alternative. ono predlaőe da starateljstvo ne treba 298zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, čl. 32(4).299ovaj postupak je propisan čl.72-74 zakona o vanparničnom postupku. 300postoji samo nekoliko izuzetaka koji su povezani sa pitanjem imovine veće vrednosti ili nekretnine koja pripada detetu. vidi porodični zakon čl. 193(3) i (4). 301konvencija o pravima osoba s invaliditetom, usvojena od strane generalne skupštine un-a 6. decembra 2006, ref a/61/611, čl. 12(3).302vulnerable persons living with a mental disability act, r.m., ch. 29, para. 49(a)-(b) (1993).72mental disability advocacy centerodreőivati za neko lice, osim onda kada su druge manje formalne opcije veě iscrpljene. kanadski model sadrői pouűan primer zakonskog rešenja, koje sadrői ovaj indikator. zakon o ranjivim osobama koje őive sa mentalnim smetnjama precizira da donosiocu odluka ne moőe biti postavljena zamena, osim ako je utvrőeno da odreőeno lice ima mreőu podrške i “uűinjeni su razumni pokušaji koji ukljuűuju tu mreőu podrške”. dalje, ukoliko nije ispunjen prvi kriterijum, sud moőe naloőiti da se izvedu pokušaji koji ukljuűuju mreőu podrške kao alternativu postavljanju zamene donosiocu odluka.04 u finskoj moőe biti postavljen staratelj bez ograniűavanja poslovne sposobnosti punoletne osobe, a odluke o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti se donose u odvojenoj pravnoj proceduri. sud pojedinca moőe proglasiti poslovno nesposobnim samo nakon što ustanovi da navedene alternative nisu dovoljne da odbrane interese punoletne osobe.05 indikator 27starateljstvo se prilagoůava konkretnim potrebama pojedinca i razliőitom stepenu sposobnosti.zakljuőak: s obzirom na prirodu potpunog starateljstva, ne postoji moguěnost da se ono prilagoőava posebnim potrebama punoletnog lica. u sluűaju delimiűnog starateljstva, sud moőe prilagoőavati starateljstvo potrebama punoletnog lica. analiza: u srpskom pravu ne postoji starateljstvo kod kojeg se ne javlja ograniűavanje poslovne sposobnosti. u sluűaju potpunog starateljstva, sud ili organ starateljstva ne mogu prilagoőavati starateljstvo posebnim potrebama i sposobnostima punoletnog lica. meőutim, ta opcija ipak postoji za pojedince pod delimiűnim starateljstvom. u takvim okolnostima, sud mora formalno odluűiti o radnjama koje mogu preduzimati punoletna lica lišena poslovne sposobnosti.06 303vulnerable persons living with a mental disability act, r.m., ch. 29 para. 50(2). ovaj pristup je usvojen i u drugim kanadskim zakonima, na primer u ontariju, ¿zijatar može narediti plan društvenog lečenja kao alternativu hospitalizaciji u psihijatrijskoj instituciji takođe, sud ne može da postavi staratelja za imovinu nekog pojedinca osim ako su alternativne opcije ³manje restriktivne po prava pojedinca da donosi odluke” nedostupne. (zakon o zaštiti mentalnog zdravlja, s.o., ch. m.7, st. 33.1 i čl. 33.7 (1990) substitute decisions act, s.o., ch. 30, para.22(3) (1992)). tako u jukonu sud ne može da postavi staratelja, osim ako su ³druge forme podrške i pomoći, manje invazivne od starateljstva isprobane i pažljivo razmotrene”. adult protection and decision making act s.y. ch. 21, schedule a, para. 32(1) (yukon).304 akt finske o starateljskim uslugama 442/99, st. 18.305 porodični zakon 147(3).306 porodični zakon, čl. 333(3).73starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiu pogledu osoba delimiűno lišenih poslovne sposobnosti, organ starateljstva je duőan da, kako je ranije navedeno, rešenjem odredi i prava i obaveze staratelja,07 kao i plan staranja. u sluűajevima delimiűnog starateljstva, prava i obaveze staratelja treba da budu u skladu sa sudskim rešenjen i listom poslova koje punoletno lice moőe samostalno preduzimati. time se obezbeőuje visok stepen ďeksibilnosti u prilagoőavanju mera speciůűnim okolnostima i potrebama. dalje, time se ispunjava uslov prema kome zakonodavni okvir treba, koliko je to moguěe, da postoje razliűiti stepeni umanjene sposobnosti, kao i da poslovna sposobnost moőe da se menja vremenom. meőutim, nepostojanje neke vrste manje formalnog pristupa modiůkovanju starateljstva u vremenu (uvodeěi, na primer, moguěnosti da organ starateljstva menja listu poslova koje punoletno lice moőe da preduzima samostalno) umanjuje ďeksibilnost starateljstva.08standardi ljudskih prava: naűelo 6 preporuka br. r(99)4 o proporcionalnosti nalaőe da u sluűajevima u kojima se smatra da je neophodno odreőivanje starateljstva nakon što su iscrpljene sve alternative, ono mora biti proporcionalno stepenu sposobnosti punoletne osobe i prilagoőeno posebnim okolnostima i potrebama pojedinca. u biti, starateljstvo treba da ograniűava poslovnu sposobnost i prava i slobode pojedinca samo do mere koja je neophodna da se obezbedi adekvatna zaštita.09 na meőunarodnoj sceni, svetska zdravstvena organizacija je usvojila ovaj standard u svom udőbeniku o mentalnom zdravlju i zakonodavstvu i u njemu se kaőe sledeěe “bilo koje rešenje o starateljstvu mora biti prilagoőeno tako da najbolje sluői interesima lica pod starateljstvom.”31 u nemaűkoj, na primer, reformama je starateljstvo zamenjeno sa programima “staranja i pomoěi” (betreuung), što ukljuűuje obavezu davaoca brige (betreuer), koji je ograniűen na preduzimanje samo onih poslova za koje je sud utvrdio da punoletno lice ne moőe da preduzima bez pomoěi. pored toga, pojedinac zadrőava sva prava; sud odreőuje da li je u datim okolnostima potrebno da davalac brige pravno zastupa punoletno lice ili da da svoju saglasnost za preduzimanje pravnih poslova. ovo je objašnjeno kao reőim dvostruke nadleőnosti u kojima davalac brige i pojedinac u isto vreme imaju nadleőnost u pogledu preduzimanja pravnih poslova.311 ova mogućnost je postojala u zakonu o braku i porodičnim odnosima iz 1980 pogledati 308objašnjenja uz preporuku r(99)4, čl. 40.309who, who resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation: stop exclusion, dare to care, op cit, str. 43.310doron, i. ”elder guardianship kaleidoscope – a comparative perspective’, 16, int’l j. of law policy and the family, 368, 378-9. bitni delovi nemačkog građanskog zakonika su 1902 bgb i 1897 bgb. takođe treba zabeležiti da davalac brige mora tražiti saglasnost suda za odluke velike važnosti ili rizika. pogledati 1902 bgb, raspravljano u blankman, k. (1997) ”guardianship models in the netherlands and western europe’, 20(1) int’l j. of law and psychiatry 47, na 54. 311porodični zakon, čl. 145, st. 1, tačka 5. 74mental disability advocacy centerindikator 28starateljstvo se periodiőno preispituje i produěava dokle god postoji potreba.zakljuőak: starateljstvo nije vremenski ograniűeno. potreba za starateljstvom se ne preispituje automatski. analiza: skorijim izmenama i dopunama zakonodavstva uvedena je obaveza suda da odredi poslove koje punoletna osoba moőe samostalno preduzeti, to su liste koje je sad teőe izmeniti nego pre. te liste su ranije bile u nadleőnosti organa starateljstva. meőutim, sud ima nadleőnost da potpuno starateljstvo preinaűi u delimiűno (ili obratno) ukoliko se jave promene u mentalnom zdravlju punoletne osobe. iako nema zakonodavnih smernica, postoji opšta pretpostavka da ukoliko staratelj ili organ starateljstva veruje da postoje razlozi za modiůkovanje starateljstva, oni treba da podnesu zahtev sudu. punoletno lice pod starateljstvom takoőe moőe da pokrene postupak, na isti naűin kao što se podnosi i zahtev za okonűanje starateljstva. što se tiűe okonűanja starateljstva, zakon nalaőe da se starateljstvo moőe ukinuti onda kada se više ne ispunjavaju kriterijumi za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti.31sada ne postoji obaveza organa starateljstva, što je u direktnoj suprotnosti ranijem zakonodavstvu, da pokrenu postupak za vraěanje poslovne sposobnosti punoletnog lica űak i kada doőu do podataka koji bi ukazivali da je takav postupak potreban. zakon jednostavno navodi da sud donosi rešenje o prestanku starateljstva ako utvrdi da za to postoje zakonski razlozi.313 standardi ljudskih prava: konvencija o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom u űlanu 2(4) propisuje zahtev za podnošenje prituőbe i u njemu se kaőe da ěe “drőave potpisnice osigurat da sve mere koje se odnose na uőivanje poslovne sposobnosti predviőaju odgovarajuěe i efektivne mehanizme zaštite koji ěe spreűiti zloupotrebe, u skladu sa odredbama meőunarodnog javnog prava o ljudskim pravima. ti mehanizmi zaštite osiguraěe da mere vezane za uőivanje poslovne sposobnosti […] podleőu redovnoj reviziji od strane nadleőnog, nezavisnog i nepristranog organa ili sudskog tela”.31 preporuka r(99)4 takoőe usvaja pristup tako što odreőuje da mere poput starateljstva treba da budu ograniűenog vremenskog trajanja, ukoliko je to moguěe, i konaűno, da se mora periodiűno preispitivati kako bi se utvrdilo da li i dalje postoji potreba.31 ovaj standard je takoőe uvršten i u naűela duševnih bolesti. naűelo (6) zahteva da “odluke 312porodični zakon, čl. 337.313konvencija o pravima osoba sa invaliditetom usvojena od strane generalne skupštine un-a 6. decembra 2006, ref a/61/611, čl. 12(4).314preporuka r(99)4, načelo 14.315rezolucija ujedinjenih nacija 46/119, op cit, načelo 1, osnovne slobode i osnovna prava. 75starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiu pogledu poslovne sposobnosti i potrebe za postavljanjem liűnog zastupnika ěe se preispitivati u razumnim vremenskim intervalima predviőenim domaěim pravom”.31 indicator 29punoletna osoba pod starateljstvom ima prava da zahteva preispitivanje, modifikaciju i ukidanje starateljstva.zakljuőak: srbijansko zakonodavstvo sadrői izriűitu odredbu kojom se osobi pod starateljstvom garantuje pravo da pokrene postupak za vraěanje poslovne sposobnosti ukoliko je sposoban da shvati znaűaj i pravne posledice svog predloga. ipak, nije jasno da li punoletna osoba lišena poslovne sposobnosti moőe samu sebe zastupati tokom ovog postupka, ili je mora zastupati njen staratelj. analiza: žlan 42 zakona o vanparniűnom postupku izriűito navodi da osobe koje imaju pravo da pokrenu postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti mogu pokrenuti i postupak za njen povraěaj.31 kao što je gore veě reűeno, punoletna osoba i sama pripada krugu lica koje mogu pokrenuti postupak za lišenje poslovne sposobnosti ukoliko mogu da shvate znaűaj i pravne posledice svog predloga za pokretanje postupka. ipak, nije jasno kako sud utvrőuje da li je punoletna osoba lišena poslovne sposobnosti funkcionalno sposobna da pokrene postupak za njen povraěaj. pored toga, nejasno je i da li punoletna osoba moőe samu sebe zastupati tokom ovog postupka, ili treba da je zastupa njen staratelj, odnosno u sluűaju da se staratelj protivi povraěaju poslovne sposobnosti, kolizioni staratelj. punoletna osoba ima prava da se őali na odluku suda kojom se odbija predlog za povraěaj poslovne sposobnosti.31 pored nje, na odluku se moőe őaliti i staratelj i privremeni zastupnik ukoliko su pokrenuli postupak.31 ůalba se mora podneti u roku od 5 dana od dana dostavljanja rešenja.standardi ljudskih prava: pravo na praviűno suőenje u graőanskim stvarima garantovano je űlanom 6 ekps, i ukljuűuje i postupke u kojima se rešava o poslovnoj sposobnosti.20 evropski sud je ustanovio da starateljstvo pokreěe pitanja vezana za űlan 8 ekps o pravu na privatnost, istiűuěi da je preispitivanje poslovne sposobnosti ili starateljstva naroűito opravdano ukoliko takvo preispitivanje traői punoletna osoba pogoőena ovom merom zaštite. sliűno kao i kod drugih indikatora, naroűito je vaőno da pravo na preispitivanje poslovne sposobnosti i starateljstva bude izriűito propisano zakonom. u odsustvu izriűite odredbe, punoletna osoba moőe biti spreűena da pokrene postupak usled nedostatka parniűne sposobnosti. 316u skladu s čl. 32 zakona o vanparničnom postupku.317zakon o vanparničnom postupku, čl. 43.318vidi odluku vrhovnog suda srbije, rev. 1734/93.319winterwerp v. the netherlands, op cit.320matter v. slovakia, op cit.76mental disability advocacy centeraneks arečnik terminadelimiőno starateljstvo: delimiűno starateljstvo uspostavlja se nad osobama koje imaju sposobnost da donose neke odluke i preduzimaju neke radnje pa su stoga delimiűno lišene poslovne sposobnosti. šta osoba moőe, a šta ne moőe samostalno obavljati kada je pod delimiűnim starateljstvom stvar je nacionalnog zakonodavstva i/ili sudske odluke. ovo se razlikuje od drőave do drőave, a ponekad űak i u okviru iste zemlje. u srbiji “delimiűno starateljstvo” nije pravni termin, veě bi to bilo “starateljstvo nad licima delimiűno lišenih poslovne sposobnosti”. intelektualne smetnje: ovaj termin odnosi se na osobe koje imaju intelektualna ograniűenja razliűitih vrsta i oblika. u nekim zemljama koristi se termin “smetnje u uűenju” (learning disability). u mnogim zemljama koriste se i drugi izrazi koji bi se mogli smatrati zastarelim i nekorektnim, poput “mentalne retardacije”, “imbecilizma”, “nenormalnog rasuőivanja”, “idiotije”, “osobe slabog uma” itd. u srbiji je pravni termin „duševna zaostalost”, koji se takoőe moőe smatrati zastarelim i pejorativnim. pored ovog termina, uvedeni su i novi: “smetnje u psihoůziűkom razvoju”, “intelektualne smetnje” koji više odgovaraju modernoj terminologiji u oblasti pravne zaštite osoba s invaliditetom. mentalne smetnje: ovaj se termin odnosi na osobe za koje je ustanovljena dijagnoza psihosocijalnih smetnji (smetnji mentalnog zdravlja) i/ili intelektualnih smetnji. podrška u donošenju odluka: ova alternativa starateljstvu je zasnovana na pretpostavci da uz prigodnu podršku osoba za koju se smatra da nema poslovnu sposobnost zapravo moőe donositi odluke liűno. poslovna sposobnost: pravni termin koji podrazumeva da svaka osoba koja donosi odluke i preduzima radnje koje imaju obavezujuěu pravnu snagu, mora biti u odgovarajuěem mentalnom stanju, i posedovati sposobnost da razume odluke koje donosi, razmotri alternative, sagleda posledice svojih odluka, kao i sposobnost da svoje odluke saopšti. potpuno starateljstvo: vrsta starateljstva koja se uspostavlja nad osobama potpuno lišenim poslovne sposobnosti odnosno nad osobama kojima nedostaje sposobnost da preduzmu bilo kakve radnje u sopstveno ime. potpuno starateljstvo je najdrastiűniji oblik starateljstva. psihosocijalne smetnje: priliűno širok pojam koji se trenutno globalno koristi (npr. meőunarodna mreőa korisnika, bivših i preőivelih korisnika psihijatrijskog leűenja koristila je ovaj termin tokom pregovora o konvenciji za prava osoba s invaliditetom). 77starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijitermin sluői kako bi opisao ljude koji imaju ustanovljenu dijagnozu, ili koji su oznaűeni ili za koje se smatra da imaju neko mentalno oboljenje, a moőe ukljuűivati i ljude s poremeěajima u ponašanju. osobe s psihosocijalnim smetnjama ponekad se oznaűavaju i kao korisnici psihijatrijskih usluga, ili osobe s “mentalnim oboljenjem” ili “mentalnim poremeěajima”. u srbiji je pravni termin “duševna bolest”. radi ujednaűenosti, svi ovi termini prevedeni su kao “psihosocijalne smetnje”, termin za koji mdac smatra da najmanje stigmatizuje pojedinca. punoletna/punoletna osoba: osoba koja je dosegla punoletstvo prema pozitivnim propisima odreőene zemlje. u srbiji se punoletstvo stiűe navršavanjem 8 godine őivota. smetnje mentalnog zdravlja: vidi psihosocijalne smetnje. staratelj: staratelj je osoba koju odgovarajuěe sluőbeno telo postavlja kako bi zastupalo i punoletnu osobu koja je lišena poslovne sposobnosti i vršilo njene poslove. sluőbeno telo koje postavlja staratelja moőe biti sud ili organ starateljstva, u zavisnosti od pravnog sistema ili okolnosti sluűaja. staratelj moőe biti srodnik, profesionalac ili bilo koja druga osoba koja je prema nacionalnim propisima ovlašěena da preduzima radnje u ime i za raűun osobe za koju je utvrőeno da nema poslovnu sposobnost. starateljstvo: pravna veza koju uspostavlja sud ili upravni organ izmeőu osobe lišene poslovne sposobnosti (bilo potpuno ili delimiűno) i osobe koja je postavljena da donosi odluke u njeno ime i za njen raűun. starateljstvo se űesto naziva i “supsidijarnim donošenjem odluka”. starateljstvo je jedan vid “zaštitnih mera” o kojima govori preporuka br. r(99)4 saveta evrope. štiűenik: osoba pod starateljstvom. mdac izbegava upotrebu ove reűi s obzirom da smatra da ovaj termin dehumanizuje osobu. ovaj termin se koristi u srpskom jeziku da oznaűi osobu koja koristi neki oblik socijalne zaštite, naroűito uslugu smeštaja u domovima socijalne zaštite. umesto ovog termina, mdac je u ovom izveštaju koristio termin “punoletna osoba” ili “osoba u pitanju”. 78mental disability advocacy centeraneks babelarni prikaz indikatoraindikator svrha starateljstva deklarisana u zakonu ili preambula zakona istiőe znaőaj poštovanja ljudskih prava, osnovnih sloboda i dostojanstva osoba sa mentalnim smetnjama. indikator 2zakoni jasno odreůuju krug lica koja mogu podneti predlog za postavljanje staratelja i na kojim dokazima se taj predlog zasniva.indikator punoletna osoba ima pravo da bude obaveštena, prisutna i saslušana tokom svih postupaka koji se vode za lišenje njene poslovne sposobnosti i postavljanje staratelja.indikator 4punoletna osoba ima pravo na besplatno i delotvorno pravno zastupanje tokom postupaka vezanih za starateljstvo.indikator 5punoletna osoba ne moěe biti protiv svoje volje zadrěana radi ispitivanja njene poslovne sposobnosti. indikator 6punoletna osoba ima pravo i priliku da predstavi svoje dokaze (ukljuőujuži i svedoke) i da ispituje dokaze suprotne strane (ukljuőujuži i svedoke). indikator 7nijedna punoletna osoba ne moěe biti lišena poslovne sposobnosti, a da prethodno nije bila podvrgnuta veštaőenju koje izvodi kvalifikovani struőnjak i koje se zasniva na objektivnim informacijama, ukljuőujuži i neposrednu evaluaciju osobe u pitanju. indikator 8prilikom lišavanja poslovne sposobnosti traěi se jasna veza izmeůu dijagnoze i nedostatka sposobnosti da se odluke donose samostalno.indikator 9odluka o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti zasnovana je na dovoljnim dokazima i u najboljem je interesu punoletne osobe.79starateljstvo i ljudska prava u srbijiindikator izbor staratelja zasnovan je na objektivnim kriterijumima i ěelje i osežanja osobe kojoj se postavlja staratelj se uzimaju u obzir. indikator 11staratelj ne sme da ima sukob interesa s punoletnom osobom kojoj se postavlja za staratelja, niti privid takvog sukoba.indikator punoletna osoba ima pravo da se ěali na odluku o lišenju poslovne sposobnosti i na odluku o postavljanju staratelja. indikator 13po uspostavljanju starateljstva, punoletna osoba nije automatski lišena prava da uěiva politiőka prava.indikator stavljanje pod starateljstvo ne lišava automatski punoletnu osobu da uěiva pravo na rad.indikator stavljanjem pod starateljstvo punoletnoj osobi se ne ukida automatski pravo na mirno uěivanje imovine.indikator stavljanjem pod starateljstvo, punoletnom licu se ne ukida automatski mogužnost da ostvaruje pravo na zakljuőenje braka, zasnivanje porodice kao i pravo na poštovanje doma i porodiceindikator stavljanjem pod starateljstvo punoletna osoba nije automatski lišena prava na udruěivanje.indikator osobi pod starateljstvom nije zabranjeno donošenje odluka u onim podruőjima u kojima on/ona poseduje poslovnu sposobnost. indikator punoletnu osobu pod starateljstvom treba konsultovati po pitanju vaěnih odluka i njene ěelje se moraju poštovati kad god je to moguže.indikator 20obim ovlašženja i obaveza staratelja je jasno definisan i ograniően na ona podruőja u kojima je punoletnom štiženiku potrebna pomož.80mental disability advocacy centerindikator 2staratelj je obavezan da unapredi interese, dobrobit i nezavisnost punoletnog lica pod starateljstvom tako što že se truditi da pronaůe manje restriktivne alternative u ěivotnim uslovina i nastoježi da punoletnim osobama omoguži ěivot unutar zajednice.indikator 22staratelj mora upravljati imovinom punoletnog štiženika u korist punoletnog lica koje je pod starateljstvom. indikator 2staratelj je duěan da periodiőno posežuje punoletnu osobu i da sa njim/njom odrěava kontakt.indikator 24objektivno telo periodiőno preispituje odluke staratelja, a staratelj je odgovoran za svoje odluke.indikator 25postojanje ěalbenog postupka kojim zapoőinje proces preispitivanja starateljevih dela i propusta.indikator 26manje restriktivne alternative starateljstvu koje su dostupne i koje su oőigledno iskorištene pre odreůivanja starateljstva.indikator 27starateljstvo se prilagoůava konkretnim potrebama pojedinca i razliőitom stepenu sposobnosti.indikator 28starateljstvo se periodiőno preispituje i produěava dokle god postoji potreba.indikator 29punoletna osoba pod starateljstvom ima prava da zahteva preispitivanje, modifikaciju i ukidanje starateljstva.mental disability advocacy center (mdac)advokatski centar za mentalne nesposobnosti unapređuje ljudska prava punoletnih osoba i dece sa postojećim ili vidljivim intelektualnim ili psihosocijalnim nesposobnostima i potežkoćama. fokusirani na evropu i centralnu aziju, mi koristimo kombinovano primenjivanje zakonodavstva i pravobranilažtva za unapređivanje jednakosti i družtvene integracije. mi posedujemo uđesniđki status kod veća evrope i kooperativna smo organizacija međunarodne helsinžke federacije za ljudska prava.naža vizija je svet u kojem su vrednovane emocionalne, mentalne i intelektualne razlike, i u kojem ljudi požtuju samostalnost i dostojanstvo jedni drugih. jan pfeiffer (republika čežka)peter bartlett (kanada i velika britanija) judit fridli (mađarska) yonko grozev (bugarska) clemens huitnik (nizozemska) robert kushen (sad) dainius puras (litvanija) oliver lewiscsilla budai (programski asistent) barbora bukovská (pravni upravnik) istvan fenyvesi (izdavađki savetnik) jan fiala (pravni službenik) ian giles (finansijski i administrativni službenik) gábor gombos ( viži pravni službenik) anna hornyik (administrator ureda) dániel kaderják (programski asistent i istraživađ) sarolta kozma (knjigovođa) yuri marchenko (pravni službenik) györgy péchy jr. (informacionotehniđki savetnik) marit rasmussen ( istražni i razvojni upravnik) orsolya süveg (čistađica ureda)zuzana benežová (republika čežka) nina dadalauri (georgija) meder dastanbekov (kirgizija) vidan hadži-vidanović (srbija) slavka nikolova kukova (bugarska) petar sardelija (hrvatska) anna smorgunova (rusija)dmitri bartenev, petrograd, rusija (organizacija nadgledanja građanskih prava) aneta mircheva, so�ja, bugarska (helsinžki odbor bugarske) eve pilt, taljin, estonija (pravobranilađka asocijacija pacijenata estonije) david zahumenský, brno, čežka (liga za ljudska prava)robert m. gordon (kanada) georg hoyer (norvežka) krassimir kanev (bugarska) mark kelly (irska) jill peay (velika britanija)peter bartlett (kanada i velika britanija, predsednižtvo) paul bowen (velika britanija) ira burmin (sad) luke clements (velika britanija) lilla farkas (mađarska) yonko grozev (bugarska) aart hendricks (nizozemska) lovorka kusan (hrvatska) robert kushen (sad) oliver de schutter (belgija) vesselina vandova (bugarska)priscilla adams (sad) wendy alexander (trinidad i tobago) jill diamond (sad) matthew francis (velika britanija) jana glogárová (republika čežka) sarah green (velika britanija) jana hecová (republika čežka) bogdan maties (rumunska) jill roche (sad) nicholas tsang (sad)za sve dodatne informacije kontaktirati:mdac hungarytelefon: +36 1 413 27 30 faks: +36 1 413 27 39 @mdac.info web stranica: www.mdac.inforad mdac-a zasnovan je na fondovima javnih novđanih komora, evropske komisije,osi-a: instituta za otvoreno družtvo iz budimpežte, sigrid rausing fondacije, kao i na donacijama pojedinaca.predsednik upravnog odboralanovi upravnog odborazaposleniistraživađi-saradnici na projektu ”starateljstvo”pravni savetnici i partnerske organizacijesavetodavni odbor o pravno savetodavna mrežatrenutno angažovani volonteri i studenti na praksi
