Mass, compulsory and free primary education is one of the most important achievements of civilization, which is recognized in a whole series of international treaties on human rights. In this sense, the minimum core obligations of states is to provide every child with access to primary education within the framework of the right to education, as an expression of formal education and a key segment of the child's right to education in general. On the other hand, the parents or guardians of the child have the duty to educate the child. Parents are granted the autonomy to do so in accordance with their religious and moral convictions if they do not violate the rights of the child and the aims of education proclaimed in international human rights treaties. In this context, parents have the obligation to make primary education available to their children, while retaining the right to choose a public or appropriate private primary school in accordance with the law. In an effort to enable the application of the best interests of the child to each specific child, the legislation of Serbia in the domain of primary education also recognizes forms of schooling at home or at a distance, but only if the child has previously been enrolled in primary school. Parents cannot refuse to enroll a child in primary school, although the sanctions provided for such behavior are ineffective. In this way, parents could not decide to take over exclusively the provision of primary education services to the child, referring to their religious or philosophical convictions. In such cases, the Family Law of Serbia can offer a more adequate approach to solving the problem in the form of measures of corrective supervision over the exercise of parental rights and, ultimately, court decisions on protecting the child's right to education or depriving the parents of their duty to educate the child.

Human rights from the category of economic, social and cultural rights closely resemble moral ideas and proclamations. Therefore they must be realized progressively and gradually, in accordance with the available resources and with respect to minimum core obligations of the States Parties. The child’s right to health and child’s right to social security are typical examples of it. In this paper, the author deals with the problems of interpretation of those rights and their implementation at the national level, with special regard to the Serbian legislation. Special attention is paid to implementation of child’s right to health and child’s right to social security in the area of health care and social protection. The child’s right to health is directly incorporated into domestic law including various entitlements acquired by the child as a patient. Among these entitlements, the most significant are those involving child’s participation rights, such as the right of the child to consent to medical treatment. On the other hand, the child’s right to social security has not been directly incorporated into domestic law, but its implementation is dispersed over the rules on social care and different forms of health insurance. Thereby, a child is primarily considered as a passive user of social security services.

No abstract

By its decision in case Goodwin v. United Kingdom (2002), The European Court of Human Rights has recognized the positive obligation of states to provide conditions for the legal recognition of preferred gender in the context of the right to respect for private life. In this regard, the Court emphasized gender identity as an important element of personal identity and an integral part of the transgender person's right to private life. On the other hand, states have kept their margin of appreciation regarding requirements needed for changing gender data in civil registries or in other words legal recognition of preferred gender. After Goodwin case, that has laid foundations for the rights of transgender people to gender identity, further development of this right was set by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in case A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France (2017). By this decision, the Court has further narrow the margin of appreciation removing imposing of sterilisation as a requirement for legal gender recognition. Finally, The European Court of Human Rights has taken the position in the latest judgment X and Y. v. Romania (2021) that conditioning legal recognition of preferred gender with surgical interventions of gender reassignment represents breach of the right to respect private life. Thus, the Court further approached Council of Europe Resolution 1728 (2010) according to which states are suggested to remove from the requirements for legal gender recognition the subjection to any medical service of gender reassignment, including hormone therapy. Domestic legislation has retained only hormone therapy as a necessary condition for legal gender reassignment. Although this solution is in accordance with the latest case law of the European Court of Human Rights, another step is needed to make the exercise of the right to gender identity adjusted to the "soft law" of the Council of Europe and the bodies under the auspices of the United Nations.