in which the fact of birth was registered. In initiating procedures for its beneficiaries, Praxis submits a request to the social welfare centre but also submits a request to the registry office to send to the SWC a birth certificate without name and required notification. This year on several occasions it has happened that registry offices failed to act upon request, which has led to the situation where social welfare centres do not conduct the procedure. For that reason some procedures have been at a standstill for several months, even half a year, after submitting a request. We have to stress that in these cases the social welfare centres usually tried to obtain necessary documents from registry offices. In one case, the SWC employee repeatedly addressed the registrars in writing and by phone, requesting a birth certificate without name to be sent to the SWC, but it was not done. The registrars first refused to submit a birth certificate with the explanation that “birth registration has not been completed”, and then claimed that the SWC conducting the procedure does not have a territorial jurisdiction, since the mother’s permanent residence was registered in another city, and therefore they had submitted the birth certificate to other SWC. This is probably a unique case that one body, completely unsolicited and without powers (and with a completely different subject matter jurisdiction), determines the territorial jurisdiction of another body. It did not help even when Praxis informed this registry office about the practice of the second-instance body, according to which in the procedures of personal name determination the territorial jurisdiction belongs to the guardianship authority according to the factual place of residence (not permanent residence). Finally, the parents could no longer wait for the registry office to act in a lawful way - and it was several months after the initiation of procedure – and travelled to the place of mother’s permanent residence and there conducted the procedure for determining the personal name for their child. One of the particular problems in the procedures of personal name determination in the previous years were identified in the cases in which the data about the child’s mother entered in birth registry books were different that the data in the mother’s personal documents. In fact, at the time of delivery in hospital the mothers who were not registered in birth registry books and did not have their documents gave oral statements based on which their personal information was recorded. It used to happen that instead of giving their own surname the mothers gave the surname of their common-law spouse or the biological father who did not recognise the paternity or gave incorrect date of birth, or simply the hospital staff recorded wrongly what the mother had said. When the mothers were subsequently registered in birth registry books and acquired ID cards the data from these documents differed from those entered in birth registry books as data on the child’s mother. Registry offices and social welfare centres acted differently in such cases. Some registry offices corrected data on mothers ex officio and implemented SWC’s decisions on personal name determination without any problems. Unlike this practice, which deserves to be praised, it used to happen that registrars refused to enter personal name in birth registry books, and referred the mother to initiate a court procedure of disputing and determining the maternity. One such case occurred also this year. In this case, the registry office showed a worrying lack of understanding of the problem, and also of the norms that regulate the procedures of correcting civil registry entries and the procedures of disputing and determining the maternity. The registry office disqualified all the enclosed evidence showing that this was one and the same person who at the time of delivery did not possess personal documents, and because of this, and also because of her illiteracy - but partly also due to insufficient attention of hospital staff - wrong data were entered in birth registry books. It also assessed as irrelevant the documents enclosed as examples of how other registry offices conducted entry correction procedures in such situations. Instead, the registry office found it appropriate to issue a 11