no. 07-00-602/2023-02 date: March 1, 2024.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding the complaint of the association A.A, on behalf of and with the consent of B.B. from R., against the elementary school … and the director V. V., due to discrimination against minor G. G. based on nationality and health status. In the complaint, among other things, it was stated that B.B., a member of the Roma national minority and a single mother of seven children, lived with her children in Š… until August 2023, and since August, she moved to R… It was further stated that immediately after moving to R… she went to primary school “…” R.., to enroll her son G. G. in that school, who is nine years old, and that the school director told her that she could not enroll the child until she changed her place of residence. The complaint also stated that the owner of the apartment they moved to refused to register her at the apartment address and that the mother, after talking with the director, registered the child at a relative’s address in another part of the city. The director then asked her to bring “a statement from the owner of the apartment certified by a notary” that they actually live at that address and that the director, after she brought the landlord’s certified statement, told her: “I’ll tell you something honestly, Roma children are not for our school, they go to Lola’s school, which also has a special school within it. That school is near the Roma settlement, and all Roma children go there, not here. Plus, your child is sick, I don’t want to take care of him as well, so you’d better enroll him there”. In the statement of the director, it was stated that the mother’s statements that she directed them to another school and that she told the mother that the statement of the owner of the apartment does not prove anything because she still does not have a registered place of residence in the territory covered by Elementary School “…” R, are incorrect, as well as that on December 22, 2023, the child’s mother submitted a request for a transfer, which was sent to the school in Š. In the supplement to the statement, it was stated that in the Elementary School “…” R. there are a total of four third-grade classes, namely: III-1 – 24 students; III-2 – 25 students; III-3 – 22 students and III-4 – 20 students and that she asked the complainant for a certificate of residence to determine whether the address where the minor G. G. lives territorially belongs to Elementary School “…” R. according to the Decision on determining the areas of ​​elementary schools in the territory of the Municipality of R. The Law on Elementary Education stipulates that children from vulnerable social groups can be enrolled in school without proof of parents’ residence and the necessary documentation and that the school is obliged to enroll every child from the school area, as well as that the school can also enroll a child from the area of ​​another school, at the request of the parents, in accordance with space and personnel possibilities. During the proceedings, it was established that the school director requested a residence registration as a condition for enrollment, that the school has four third-grade classes with at least 20 and at most 25 students, as well as that the school did not submit evidence that would justify the reasons for rejecting the enrollment of a student whose residence is not in the specific school area. Given that the provisions of the Law on Elementary Education stipulate that a class of one grade can have up to 28 students, it is indisputable that in this particular case, there are no spatial and staffing impossibilities to enroll another child in the third grade of Elementary School “…” R., especially taking into account that the specific child is a member of a social group for which it is prescribed that they can enroll in school even without proof of the parent’s residence and the necessary documentation. No evidence was submitted with the complaint to support the allegations that the director said that the child should be enrolled in a school located within the Roma settlement, as well as that she did not want to enroll him because he has epilepsy, which is why the Commissioner did not determine that the director refused to enroll the child to the school due to his health condition. Analyzing the allegations of the complaint, statement, and submitted attachments, the Commissioner issued the opinion that by asking B. B. to submit a residence application for the registration of her son G. G. in Elementary School “…” R, the Elementary School “…” R. and director V.V, violated the provisions of Article 6 in connection with Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. The Commissioner recommended to the director V.V. and Elementary school “…” R. to send a written apology to B.B. because they requested a residence registration for the enrollment of minor G. G. in elementary school “…” R., which postponed his enrollment until December 2023; that the Team for Protection from Discrimination, Violence, Abuse, and Neglect or another team for carrying out the specific task following the provisions of Article 130, Paragraph 15 of the Law on the Basics of the Education and Training System, if they deem it necessary, provide G. G. additional support to overcome possible difficulties in educational work caused by missed classes in the first semester of the 2023/2024 school year, as a consequence of the school’s discriminatory behavior; to organize training for all school employees on the topic of prohibition of discrimination and protection against discrimination, as well as to take care in the future not to violate legal regulations on the prohibition of discrimination within the framework of their regular jobs and activities.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković