No. 07-00-00386/2017-02  Date:  21 December  2017

OPINION

The present opinion was issued following a complaint procedure lodged upon a complaint filed by U.g.n.V. against G.V. on account of discrimination on the grounds of disability as a personal characteristic. In its complaint and amendments to the complaint, the complainant stated that G.V. had published a public call for co-funding of a project related to the production of public information media content in 2017. According to the complainant, G.V. had not provided for and ensured free access to information and services by implementing measures which would guarantee equal treatment of persons with disabilities and by using sign language, which, as the complainant claimed, the city was under obligation to do. In its declaration responding to allegations contained in the complaint, G.V. stated that it had no legal capacity to exert influence neither over privately owned media outlets and nor over content broadcasted by these media outlets. In addition, in its declaration, the defendant stated, inter alia, that U.g.n.V. invoked Article 7 of the Law on Public Media Outlets, which is in no way related to local self-government units, as this Article defines what public interest achieved by public media outlets through its program content implies, and that public media outlets existed at the national and provincial levels only (RTS and RTV). Further, the defendant stated that measures aimed at boosting the use of sign language through information provision as defined by Article 17 of the Law on the Use of Sign Language pertain to media service providers and not to local self-government units and that establishing public media outlets at the local level was prohibited, hence G.V. cannot have its own television station. In addition, the defendant stated that according to Article 52 of the Law on Electronic Media which the complainant invoked, stipulates that the media service provider shall have the obligation, in keeping with its financial and technical capacities, to make its programs and media content available to persons with hearing and visual impairments and that the lawmaker shall encourage media service providers to make its programs and media content available to abovementioned persons with disabilities, ergo nothing of the above was within the scope of authority of local self-government units, but rather within the authority of media service providers and the lawmaker. In the course of the complaint procedure it has been ascertained that G.V. had provided funds from the budget intended for achieving public interest in the area of public information provision and that it had announced a public “call for co-funding of public information media content in 2017” with an intention to have the co-funded public information media content meet the need of citizens for information from all spheres of life, without discrimination, primarily bearing in mind persons with disabilities and members of national minorities, which was a legal obligation that a local self-government unit has in keeping with Article 16, Paragraph 1, Item 4 and Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the Law on Public Information and Media. Out of two television stations operating on the territory of G.V., only “TV L.” had submitted its application in a timely fashion, while “TV B.”, which had previously received funding from G.V. and had adjusted its media content to persons who are deaf and hard-of-hearing by hiring sign language interpreters, had failed to submit its application in a timely manner. In addition, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has reviewed legislation governing adjustments of media content and with reference to this, has reviewed provisions of Article 17 of the Law on the Use of Sign Language[1] and Article 52 of the Law on Electronic Media and found that the abovementioned obligation to adjust media content fell within the scope of authority of media service providers, not within the scope of authority of local self-government units. The analysis of the abovementioned legislation also showed that media service providers have the obligation to explore all possibilities for and work towards creating conditions for unhindered reception of audio and visual media content by hiring sign language interpreters or by using techniques acceptable to deaf persons to the greatest extent possible, and that media service providers have the obligation, in keeping with their financial and technical capacities, to make their programs and media content accessible to persons with visual and audio impairments, while the legislator has the obligation to encourage media service providers to make their programs and media content accessible to these persons. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality does not have the authority to control special purpose funds disbursement allocated on the basis of a public call, rather this falls within the authority of G.V. and other institutions monitoring this particular area. Hence, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality when acting upon a complaint filed by U.g.n.V. against G.V., issued its opinion stating that G.V. had not violated provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. Bearing in mind the fact that the complaint of U.g.n.V. had been filed against G.V., the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has sent a communication letter to TV “L.” and Regulatory Body for Electronic Media, so as to ascertain all relevant facts and has taken other measures within its scope of authority in accordance with Article 33 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, aimed at improving the position of persons with disabilities in this case.

[1] Član 17.  Zakona o upotrebi znakovnog jezika („Službeni glasnik RS”, br. 38/15)