Childhood Statelessness i European Courts: An Avoidable Crisis 17 Goodwin-Gill.97 The participation of a third party, however, does not guarantee a positive outcome. One of the arguably most egregious negative cases not only had an NGO as appellant (in addition to the child appellant), but had an additional well-known NGO as intervenor.98 Likewise, when an NGO acted as sole litigant before the Serbian Constitutional Court to oppose Serbia’s birth registration procedures, its initiative was rejected.99 However, when this same NGO litigated on behalf of 3 Roma children in a lower court in 2011, the NGO and thus the children prevailed.100 Most recently regarding birth registration in Serbia, two NGOs partnered to intervene in a case before the ECtHR.101 In this case, the applicant is a child and the NGO is an intervenor, not the sole litigant as in the 2019 case. With a child – instead of a straight constitutional challenge – at the forefront, perhaps chances for success may improve. The difference of venue between a national Serbian court and the ECtHR also must be noted as an arguably positive factor weighing in favor of the child litigant. Thus, whether third-party involvement categorically is a good or bad thing is difficult to say.102 One expert noted the most success in litigation occurs when NGOs with different expertise collaborate. For example, a child litigant benefits from an NGO focused on the public interest combining efforts with an NGO dedicated to assisting the stateless through legal and social work.103 Partnership encourages representation of different perspectives and a greater chance that litigants comprehend the ramifications of the legal road ahead. NGO participation also proves useful through expert pleadings educating the court about complex circumstances,104 which was also noted by Fenton-Glynn.105 Whatever the approach, each step and potential consequence must be explained thoroughly to all litigants.106 The involvement of an NGO should be an informed choice made by the litigant after contemplating the benefits and risks of all options.107 As warned by Donger, these choices should affect children positively and not “disempower” them.108 In the case of small children, litigant choices – such as a combination with a parent or NGO – are made for them. To whom information is given to determine how to initiate litigation on behalf of a small child and to navigate all subsequent decisions is dependent upon the jurisdiction’s law, culture, and the dynamics of the family at issue. Younger children carry a different set of considerations demanding special care by litigators and the courts.109 The next section explores the involvement of special representatives for children in litigation attempting to protect the child in this environment. 4.2 Special Representatives: Influence of Procedure on a Child’s Right to Be Heard CRC Article 12 provides that “every – I repeat every – child has the right” to participate in all proceedings if their rights are directly or indirectly at issue.110 It is “absolutely essential” that a child litigant is involved in decisions regarding whether, how, and by whom a case is brought before an adjudicative body.111 These views certainly are aligned with CRC Article 12 and the CRC Committee’s General Comment No. 12,112 but 97 Goodwin-Gill (n 9). 98 PRCBC & O v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2022) UKSC 3 (2022) UK Supreme Court. 99 Inicijativa za pokretanje postupka ocene ustavnosti i zakonitosti propisa koji onemogućuju upis u matičnu knjigu rođenih odmah po rođenju, Case No., IUo-190/2018 (2019) Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia (UStavni sud Srbije). 100 Tužba zbog diskriminacije, Case No. P 56984/2010 (2011) Basic Court in Novi Sad, Serbia (Osnovni sud u Novom Sadu). 101 European Network on Statelessness (ENS), ‘Submission to the ECtHR on Ramadani v. Serbia’ (4 June 2024) <https://www.statelessness. eu/updates/publications/submission-ecthr-ramadani-v-serbia> accessed 11 March 2025. 102 Executive A (n 70). 103 Scholar B (n 69). 104 Executive B (n 72). 105 Text to n 31. 106 Scholar B (n 69). 107 Executive A (n 70). 108 Donger (n 12), 285. 109 Executive B (n 72). 110 CRC Chair (n 73). 111 Executive B (n 72). 112 Text to n 39.