decision citing the provision imposing a fine of 50,000 dinars on a person who failed to determine the child’s name within the legal deadline. Hence, it seems that the registry office would rather punish the mother than correct the entry and thus enable the child to finally obtain his birth certificate and get the opportunity to enjoy the rights that are now denied. Any observer, even the most ill-intentioned one, should understand that in this particular case the mother is not guilty for not determining the child’s name immediately after birth, because at that time she did not possess an ID card and because the civil registry books in which she was registered remained unavailable to the bodies of the Republic of Serbia after 1999, which certainly cannot be attributed to her. The registry office ended its explanation by deeming that it was necessary to conduct a procedure of disputing and determining the maternity. However, even if we disregard the circumstance that such a procedure would require a very expensive court expertise that the parties could not pay, such a procedure could not be actually conducted because there is no person who would be the defendant. In the described situation, the mother would have to be both the plaintiff and the defendant, because the maternity would be disputed and determined for the same person. An appeal was filed against the decision refusing the request for entry correction with the Ministry for Public Administration and Local Self-Government, but a second-instance decision has not been issued, almost seven months after filing an appeal, despite a rush note. This year, the cases in which registry offices refuse to implement the SWC’s decisions on personal name determination occur more often. Such an action actually completely nullifies the positive effects of the changed practice of social welfare centres, which have finally begun to issue decisions even when mothers do not possess personal documents. We have to bring into question the legality of such conduct of registry offices, because they should execute the final decisions of social welfare centres without re-examining their decisions or conditioning the execution of decisions by providing some sort of additional evidence. This negative practice has not yet been taken on a larger scale, but the fact that several registry offices began acting as described is disconcerting. On the other hand, just like it did not happen that registrars failed to enter citizenship in the cases of subsequent birth registration, such situations did not occur either in implementing the decisions on personal name determination. However, the situation was somewhat different in cases of registration into birth registry books based on court decisions on personal name determination. REGISTRATION OF THE FACT CONTENTIOUS PROCEDURE: OF CITIZENSHIP AFTER A NON- It is worth recalling that after the introduction of the procedure for determining the date and place of birth in the legal system there were many doubts of whether in the execution of court decisions and registration of data into birth registry books, the fact of citizenship should be entered immediately. Although the majority of registry offices entered the fact of citizenship into birth registry books (of course, provided that the person has met the legal requirements for citizenship), quite a large number of registry offices did not act in this way, but instructed the parties to initiate the procedure of establishing citizenship before the Ministry of Interior. Considering that such practice was inappropriate, Praxis repeatedly pointed out to the Ministry of Interior to these cases. After that, the MoI issued an opinion on the proper course of action that was sent to registry offices, pointing out that the fact of birth and the fact of 12