established“, usually without mentioning how the absence of such intention has been established. It happened again that the police patrols carried out a field check and established that the persons actually lived at the address specified in the request, but such request was refused anyway. There is a specific case of Praxis’ beneficiary who has been living already for four years in the house of her brother. The house is legalized and there are all necessary documents. The beneficiary has registered temporary residence at that address. Since 2015 she has attended an evening school in the place of residence. In the middle of last year she submitted a request for permanent residence registration, after which a field check was carried out, during which the beneficiary was found at home. Despite all this, her request was refused on the grounds that she had not proven her intention to live there permanently. She filed an appeal against the decision on refusal, but it was denied. The second-instance decision states: "The fact that G.S. was found at the address in question during the field check and that it is the address where she has registered temporary residence is not considered decisive by the second-instance authority for determining whether the requirements have been fulfilled (...) taking into consideration that she is not employed in the territory of the City of Belgrade and that her daughter and brother live abroad." If these criteria of the second-instance authority were taken as a rule, this would mean that the unemployed people or people who have relatives abroad do not have any right to register their permanent residence. In June this year she re-submitted a request for permanent residence but it was refused again. This time, the police patrol did not find her at home and allegedly the neighbours stated that they did not know her. Although a year before it was considered irrelevant that she had been found at home during a field check, this time it was a decisive circumstance for establishing that “she has not settled with the intention to permanently live there and has not proven that it was the centre of her life activities...” She appealed again pointing, among other things, that she had not been found at home because she was in the store and that the very next day she went to the police station, and that it was not possible to just sit at home at all times, and that the anonymous neighbours could not be credible witnesses, and that during the field check a statement should have been taken from the apartment owner, and that an official note was not made the day later, when she went to the police station. The appeal was granted in September 2016 and the case was remanded for reconsideration, but with very scant explanation, stating only that the first-instance authority did not fully establish the factual situation. Similar is the case of a Praxis’ beneficiary who supported the request with abundant evidence demonstrating that he had lived in the place in question for years, that he had settled there with the intention of permanently living there and that the place was the centre of his life activities, such as the proof of temporary residence registration and the decision on registration of construction company in the Register of Business Entities. In addition, he enclosed the apartment lease agreement certified by court and the proof of ownership over the apartment. The field check was carried out, during which the submitter of request was found at the address where he wanted to register permanent residence. Therefore, all the conditions for permanent residence registration were met, but his request was refused with the explanation that he had stated that the reason for permanent residence registration was the exercise of the right to health care and pension insurance and easier business operations, because he used to encounter prejudices for being from Kosovo. Hence, the authority completely ignored all the facts and evidence demonstrating that the person had been living in a certain place and that it really was the place of his permanent residence, at the same time 22