As in the previous years, a significant number of problems also occurred in connection with the execution of court decisions. Often it took an unreasonably long time for the courts to deliver final decisions to registrars for the purpose of the registration of data into birth registry books, while registry offices usually refuse to perform registration if decisions are submitted by parties and insist on their delivery by the courts. On the other hand, sometimes it takes an unjustifiably long period of time for the registrars to enter data and issue birth certificates. In the case of one Praxis’ beneficiary, a decision that became final in August 2015 was delivered by the court to the competent registry office as late as in February 2016, and only after several interventions. And then it took another two months before the registry office issued a birth certificate and a citizenship certificate. Overall, the party waited for eight months for the execution of the decision and the issuance of documents. One of Praxis’ beneficiaries faced a similar situation. The court did not deliver to the registry office the decision even seven months after its adoption. For that reason he went to the court to point to this omission, but instead of sending the decision to the registry office, the judge suggested to the petitioner that he should sent his copy to the registry office. When the petitioner explained that the registry office would not execute the decision until it received it from the court, he was ordered to draw up a request for decision delivery and was charged a fee in the amount of 390 dinars. In two cases the registrars even refused to execute the court decision, despite the fact that a failure to execute a final court decision constitutes a criminal offence. In one case the registrar disputed the explanation of court decision and the established data on the mother’s place of birth, while in another case the registrar instructed the party to first conduct a procedure for determining citizenship. Only after Praxis’ interventions, the decisions were executed and the parties were registered in birth registry books. STATISTICAL DATA AND ANALYSIS OF RECEIVED DECISIONS: As mentioned in the introduction, Praxis submitted requests to all basic courts asking for the number and outcome of the procedures for determining the date and place of birth, beginning with the entry into force of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, that is – since 2012. Sixty-two courts provided information, five courts did not. It should be mentioned that the courts who responded to our request did not always provide complete, reliable and relevant data, which was established through the analysis of received decisions and by comparing the records on the procedures initiated by Praxis with the information about the same procedures provided by the courts. For example, several courts responded that a certain number of procedures had been initiated in a certain period, although in that period only Praxis filed more petitions to that court than stated by the court. It may be that some courts included in the procedures for determining the date and place of birth the procedures that are obviously different, such as petitions for determining citizenship, the fact of marriage or the identity of a person who is not a legally invisible person, or for the correction of incorrect data entered into civil registry books. Besides, some courts either did not provide decisions or did not provide all of them, while several courts provided only data about the number of initiated procedures without the information about their outcome. Hence, the presented results should be taken with a certain reserve, but we think that, although not quite accurate, these data can serve as indicators of certain tendencies. Besides, the provided court decisions can show a more complete picture of the practice of courts and the way they act in certain situations. In order to obtain a more accurate picture, in analysing the received 7