07-00-609 / 2020-02 date: 29.11.2021

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint filed by AA against BB. The complaint and supplements to the complaint state, inter alia, that the Government of the Republic of Serbia passed the Decree on establishing the Program of financial support to sports organizations in difficult economic conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-Cov-2 virus (hereinafter: the Decree), which referred to financial assistance to sports organizations in Olympic and Paralympic sports. Furthermore, it is stated that the Decree was implemented by the Government of the Republic of Serbia through the Ministry of Youth and Sports (hereinafter: the Ministry), in cooperation with the competent national sports federations and that TAS is the competent national sports federation for two sports, Olympic sport – taekwondo and Paralympic sport. – taekwondo, which is why it “had to” provide assistance also to sports organizations who are its members that deal with Paralympic sports. The complaint further states that on November 28, 2020, the BB Board of Directors determined the criteria and adopted the Rulebook on the ranking of BB member clubs (hereinafter: the Rulebook), in the process of which representatives of athletes with disabilities did not participate, “which represent a violation of the right of persons with disabilities to be actively involved in all decision-making processes on their rights and obligations at all levels”, and that the criteria for selecting clubs proposed for assistance by the Government of the Republic of Serbia are set so as to be seemingly equal for all, “but in reality, they are such that all the results achieved by taekwondo athletes are recognized and counted, while the results achieved by paratequondo athletes are not scored, although they were achieved on the basis of official rules of taekwondo and paratequondo sports”. It was also pointed out that the explanation of the decision on the selection of sports organizations proposed by BB for assistance under the Decree “knowingly wrongly draws attention to the Paralympic Committee of Serbia, as the institution that helps clubs that engage in para sports”. The statement of BB, among other things, stated that the application of the Decree, which is the subject of the complaint, referred to the implementation of the Program of assistance to sports organizations that are members of national branch federations in individual, group, and Paralympic sports, and that AA is not the competent national branch federation for paratequondo, which can only be the beneficiary of the Program. Furthermore, it was stated that the Program from the budget of the Republic of Serbia provided funds for three groups of sports, and that point V of the Decree, “Manner of realization of the Program”, determined that the selection of sports organizations and fulfillment of conditions from the Decree is done by competent national branch federations. It was pointed out that the Paralympic Committee of Serbia (hereinafter: POKS) was responsible for Paralympic sports, and that BB was competent “only in the field of program implementation, that is financial assistance related to individual sports in the branch of taekwondo sport, as evidenced by the contract concluded with the Ministry”. According to further allegations from the statement, BB drafted the Rulebook for the most objective possible choice, which determines the criteria in accordance with the Decree, that is, the Program, and that all sports organizations in BB are engaged in taekwondo sport, while some develop paratequondo sports within the same organization, and that the total result of the club was the sum of the results of all competitors, both taekwondo and paratequondists, of the same club in all age categories. After the procedure and the presented evidence, it was determined that the assistance provided by the Program was not provided for all branches of sports and for all sports organizations, both in Olympic and Paralympic sports, but only for a maximum of eight best clubs in each of the three planned sports branches, as well as that the funds were not distributed to athletes but to sports organizations. Furthermore, the Commissioner states that it is indisputable from the submitted evidence that on December 1, 2020, BB concluded an agreement with the Ministry on the implementation of financial support programs for sports organizations in difficult economic conditions due to the COVID 19 pandemic caused by SARS-Cov-2 virus, and that the subject of this contract was the award of grants to sports organizations in the field of taekwondo. In this regard, it can be stated that it is indisputable that BB did not receive the money allocated by the Decree and Program for Paralympic sports, as well as that sports organizations dealing with taekwondo and are members of BB were entitled to assistance under this agreement. Regarding the manner of distribution of funds to clubs that are members of BB, the Commissioner states that the provision of Article 2 of the Rulebook stipulates that the ranking of clubs that are members of BB is done by scoring according to criteria determined based on the results of club competitors in Olympic and Paralympic disciplines, at the largest international competitions, in cadet, junior and senior category, which confirms the allegations from the statement regarding the evaluation of the overall results of the clubs. Regarding the issue of POKS’s competence for the distribution of funds provided by the Decree, the Commissioner states that from the submitted evidence it is indisputable that POKS submitted a request to the Ministry for financial support according to the Decree program, on the basis of which a contract was concluded between the Ministry and POKS on the implementation of the Decree, and that the funds in accordance with the decision of the Board of POKS were distributed to clubs, which are directly or indirectly members of POKS. Insight into the Decision of POKS on who has the right to apply for funding determined by the Regulation on Paralympic Sports through this committee, it can be concluded that this right could be also used by sports organizations that are not members of TAS but are direct members of POKS. Regarding the allegation of the complaint that the Rulebook is discriminatory, the Commissioner first states that AA is not a member of BB and that this Rulebook does not apply to it. Having in mind the provision of Article 35, paragraph 3 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, the provision of Article 4 of the Law on Sports, as well as the opinion of the Supreme Court of Cassation set out in Rev 853/2014, that is, the fact that in this case the number of sports organizations BB, as well as the number of tequondists, that is paratequondists to whom the said Rulebook refers is known, the Commissioner states that AA is not actively legitimized to file a complaint in this part, which is why the Commissioner did not further assess the criteria set in the Rulebook. A comprehensive analysis of the allegations in the complaint, the statement, and the evaluation of the submitted evidence established that BB did not violate the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković