no. 07-00-347/2023-02 date: September 20, 2023.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding A. A.’s complaint against the Preschool Institution due to discrimination on the basis of marital status. The complaint stated that A. A. was divorced and that after the divorce the exercise of parental rights over the joint children was entrusted to the ex-wife, that their younger child attends kindergarten within PI…, and that the institution does not provide A. A. information on activities related to the child. In the statement, it was specified that the institution was informed that “relations between the parents of a minor child were broken”, which is why they acted “exclusively in accordance with the verdict”, which dissolved the marriage and established the model how the father is meeting with the children. It was stated that the complainant can be informed in a direct conversation in the facility, at parent meetings or from the notice boards in front of the room where the children are staying. It was further stated that the caretakers from the group attended by the complainant’s daughter formed a viber group where one parent has access, and that in the case of the complainant’s daughter, the mother is in the viber group, and was “explicit that she will inform the child’s father about everything”. Furthermore, the statement stated that on July 17, 2023, the complainant was included in the viber group of the group attended by his daughter, which was confirmed by the complainant in the supplement to the complaint. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality informed the complainant that, in accordance with Article 37, paragraph 3 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, if the person against whom the complaint was filed has removed the consequences of the actions that were the reason for filing the complaint, and the complainant agrees that they have been removed, the Commissioner does not act on the complaint. Given that the complainant did not declare within the legal deadline whether he agreed that the consequences had been removed, the Commissioner continued the proceedings on the complaint. In the course of the proceedings, by examining the electronic correspondence between the complainant and the institution, it was established that the complainant asked the preschool institution to provide him with all the information they provide to other parents, that he stated that he lives and works in another city and that it is not feasible for him to come to the kindergarten during the kindergarten’s working hours, as well as that he suggested that the institution provide him with information through one of the platforms (Viber, WhatsApp, Telegram, SMS) or by e-mail. During the proceedings it was established that the institution denied A.A. the right to information because he is the parent who was not entrusted with the independent exercise of parental rights by court judgment, and that it did not prove the existence of a legitimate goal for withholding information. Analyzing the allegations of the complaint, statement and submitted attachments, the Commissioner issued the opinion that PI… A.A. denied the right to information and put him at a disadvantage based on his marital status, by failing to provide him with information about the institution’s activities regarding his child in the manner in which it informs other parents. Given that both the complainant and PI… informed the Commissioner that A. A. was included in the Viber group of the kindergarten group attended by his daughter, which, in the Commissioner’s opinion, removed the consequences of the violation of rights, the Commissioner recommended to the PI… that in the future, within the scope of their activities, they do not violate the legal regulations on the prohibition of discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković