No. 07-00-263/2017- 02 Date: 17 October 2017
The present opinion was issued following a complaint procedure lodged upon a complaint filed by Z.D. from B. against O. hospital Š. on account of discrimination on the grounds of national affiliation. In his complaint the complainant stated that despite the fact that he had applied on numerous occasions for different job openings with this hospital and had submitted all the necessary documents and had met all the required conditions, he has failed to secure employment with O. hospital in Š. due to the fact that he was a member of the Roma national minority. The complaint included evidence thereof. As there was reason to believe that an act of discrimination had been committed, in this case O. hospital Š. bore the burden of proof and had to prove that there had been no violations of the equality principle. In their declaration responding to allegations contained in the complaint, O. hospital Š. stated that texts of public vacancy announcements contained a list of conditions potential applicants had to meet – general and specific conditions which were the same for all candidates, that the hospital had not violated provisions of the law and that when deciding on the selection of candidates, the hospital took into consideration the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement and needs of the hospital. In the course of the complaint procedure it has been ascertained that according to information contained in the complaint and the declaration submitted by the defendant, it was obvious that Z.D. was a member of the Roma national minority, that he had previously applied for a series of job openings posted by O. hospital Š., that he had submitted all the necessary documentation on each occasion (including the recommendation of the N.C.R.N.M. he had submitted on several occasions when applying for a job), and that he had in fact met all the required conditions for employment. The fact was also that the complainant had not been neither proposed nor selected for any of the positions, rather other persons were hired. In the course of the complaint procedure, O. hospital Š. has not offered any facts and evidence proving that it had infact reviewed Z.D.’s application as well additional documentation submitted in keeping with publicly announced vacancies for job positions and that the complainant had not been hired due to objective reasons which were not related to his national affiliation. When deciding in this particular case, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality kept in mind the difficult position of the members of the Roma national minority on the labor market, which is among other things caused by stereotypes and prejudice regarding work ethics of Roma as well as the fact that considerable social distance is still present towards this social group. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued its opinion stating that in the course of recruitment and hiring procedure of new employees for the position of a nurse-medical technician, O. hospital Š. had indeed discriminated against candidate Z.D. from B. on the grounds of his personal characteristic, namely his affiliation with the Roma national minority, thus violating provisions of Article 7, related to Article 16 and 24 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. For this reason, recommendation was issued to O. hospital Š. to take measures within its scope of competence so as to eliminate consequences of discriminatory treatment Z.D. had been exposed to and to refrain in the future from violating legal provisions governing prohibition of discrimination when performing its regular work and activities.
COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY