no. 07-00-512/2024-02 date: 25.4.2025

OPINION

The opinion was issued in proceedings initiated upon the complaint of AA against the Belgrade Bar Association (hereinafter: BBA) for discriminatory conduct by the Management Board of the BBA, which prevented him from being entered into the Registry of Trainee Lawyers and Volunteer Trainee Lawyers of the BBA (hereinafter: the Registry) because he obtained his law degree from a Faculty of Law not founded by the Republic of Serbia, namely the “private” Faculty of Law of Union University in Belgrade (hereinafter: FLUUB). The complaint states that on February 21, 2024, AA submitted a request for entry into the Registry, which was recorded under number 1584/2024. It was also stated that, considering the BBA failed to decide on the request within the legal deadline of 60 days from the date of submission, he sent two reminders/urgent notices to the BBA and the Bar Association of Serbia (dated May 14 and May 31, 2024), requesting that a decision be made at the next session. Evidence supporting these claims was enclosed with the complaint. In its statement, the Belgrade Bar Association (BBA) stated that the Management Board of the BBA addressed AA’s request for entry into the Registry of Volunteer Trainee Lawyers of the BBA at meetings held on April 11, May 16, and July 12, 2024, but that no decision was made regarding the request. They further stated that Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the BBA Management Board prescribes that if the number of votes “for” and “against” a proposed decision is equal, the vote is repeated, and if the result is again a tie, the discussion on the disputed decision is postponed to the next meeting. Finally, it was stated that during the decision-making process on AA’s request, there was no required majority of votes either “for” or “against” the proposed decision, and for that reason, no decision was made. Additionally, in the statement, it was noted that at the meetings held on April 11, May 16, and July 12, 2024, the BBA made decisions on requests for entry into the Registry submitted by persons who obtained their law degree from a faculty of law founded by the Republic of Serbia, with excerpts from the minutes of the April 11 and May 16, 2024, meetings provided as evidence, showing that decisions on those requests were made. In this regard, the Commissioner proceeded to analyze the mentioned minutes and found them to be incomplete. Therefore, the Commissioner requested that the BBA provide the complete minutes from which it would be clear that the BBA Management Board had discussed AA’s request for entry into the Registry of Trainee Lawyers of the BBA. Acting upon the Commissioner’s request, the BBA again submitted excerpts from the minutes of the April 11 and May 16, 2024, meetings, which show that the complainant’s request for entry into the Registry was put to a vote. On the other hand, taking into account that the complainant enclosed with his complaint a request he had submitted to the BBA to correct a technical error in his name in the minutes, the Commissioner asked him to provide the corrected minutes, as well as the minutes from the July 12, 2024, meeting, if they had been adopted in the meantime. Complying with the Commissioner’s request, the complainant submitted on February 3, 2024, the minutes from the 43rd session of the BBA Management Board held on July 2, 2024, in which it was noted that the technical error regarding the candidate’s name for entry into the Registry was corrected.

During the proceedings, the Commissioner established that the Management Board of the BBA, at the meeting held on April 11, made a decision to register 40 candidates into the Registry of Trainee Lawyers – volunteer subsection, all of whom had obtained their degrees from faculties of law founded by the Republic of Serbia, while, on the other hand, no decision was made at that same meeting regarding the request of the complainant, who had obtained his law degree from the FLUUB. It was further established that at the meeting held on May 16, 2024, a decision was made to register 31 candidates, but again, no decision was made regarding AA’s request, with the explanation that there was an insufficient number of votes “for” and “against” the decision. The Commissioner specifically notes that the BBA, in its supplementary statement, did not submit the minutes from the meeting held on July 12, 2024, and thus failed to provide evidence that a decision regarding AA’s request for registration in the Registry was made at that meeting. When issuing the opinion in this case, the Commissioner also took into account that several complaints had been submitted to this body against the BBA for the same reasons. The complaints were accompanied by statistical data obtained through requests for access to information of public importance, from which it can be concluded that the BBA’s past practice was also to make decisions at the same meetings only on the requests of persons who had graduated from faculties of law founded by the Republic of Serbia, while it failed to make decisions on the requests of persons who had graduated from faculties of law not founded by the Republic of Serbia. In this regard, the Commissioner specifically points out that the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination prescribes that discrimination against educational institutions that operate in accordance with the law and other regulations, as well as against individuals who use or have used the services of such institutions in accordance with the law, is prohibited. In light of all the above, and applying the rules on the shifting of the burden of proof, the Commissioner concludes that in this particular case, the BBA clearly made a distinction when deciding on AA’s request for entry into the Registry solely because the complainant had obtained his law degree from the “private” FLUUB, i.e. a law faculty not founded by the Republic of Serbia. As a result, he was prevented from performing his legal traineeship, that is, from gaining professional experience in the field for which he was educated. The Commissioner issued an opinion that, by failing to make a decision on AA’s request for entry into the Registry of Trainee Lawyers and Volunteer Trainee Lawyers of the BBA because he obtained his law degree from a faculty not founded by the Republic of Serbia—namely FLUUB—the BBA violated the provisions of Articles 6, 16 paragraph 1, and 19 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. The Commissioner recommended that the BBA, immediately upon receiving this opinion make a decision on AA’s request for entry into the Registry of Volunteer Trainee Lawyers of the BBA. Also, that the BBA handle requests from applicants equally, regardless of whether they obtained their diploma from FLUUB or from a law faculty founded by the Republic of Serbia, or from higher education institutions that have a decision from the National Accreditation Body confirming that the necessary conditions regarding accreditation and operating license for the law study program have been met in accordance with the law and by-laws governing the field of higher education, inform the Bar Association of Serbia of the Commissioner’s opinion, and adhere to anti-discrimination regulations in the future.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković