no. 07-00-00229/2022-02 date: 14.9.2022 .

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding the complaint of AA against BB, due to age discrimination. In the complaint, it was stated that at a job competition the complainant applied for the post of Epizootiology teacher, Animal diseases teacher, and professional practice teacher, in BB , as well as that on that occasion a decision was made by which another candidate was hired, due to her age. In her statement on the complaint, BB stated that they did not discriminate against AA. The school, however, did not dispute the fact that during the selection of the candidate, their age was also used as a criterion, and that they chose another younger candidate, stating that by applying teaching and pedagogic methods, as a person who is closer to the students in terms of age, she would achieve a better relationship with them. During the procedure, an analysis of the job description was carried out (forms of teaching, cooperation with parents and students, study of professional literature, management of pedagogical documentation, participation in the work of various school bodies, etc.) from which it is indisputable that age is neither a real nor a decisive condition for the performance of the work. While the age of the candidates for the advertised position was not specified as a condition for employment in the announced competition, it was a determining factor in the selection of the candidate, which also ensues from the explanation of the Decision on the selection, in which it is stated: “The Commission also assessed the evidence regarding the testing at the National Employment Service and took into account that candidate AA may have achieved a better test result during the testing at the said service, but this did not influence the Commission to make a different decision, because the school needs the selected candidate for the said position to have a good relationship with the students and to solve pedagogical situations with the students in a better and easier way being a person who is closer in age to the students of the school. After the procedure, the Commissioner issued the opinion that by giving priority during employment on the basis of age as a personal characteristic, although this does not represent a real and decisive condition for performing the work of a teacher, BB violated the provisions of Article 6, in relation to Arts. 16 and 23 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, which is why this school was recommended to eliminate the consequences of discriminatory behavior by canceling the previous competition or by announcing a new competition in which they will not be guided by the age of the candidates when selecting a candidate, as well as to use, in the future, when conducting the competition for employment of teachers, objective criteria for the selection of persons that do not contradict anti-discrimination regulations.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković