No. 011-00-19/2024-02 Date: 31 October 2025
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
11000 BELGRADE
Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 15
Pursuant to Article 168 paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (“Official Gazette of RS”, Nos. 98/06, 115/21 and 16/22), Article 29 paragraph 1 item 1 and Article 50 paragraph 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (“Official Gazette of RS”, Nos. 109/07, 99/11, 18/13 – CC decision, 40/15 – other law, 103/15, 10/23 and 92/23), the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality submits the follwing
PROPOSAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY AND LEGALITY
of Article 114 of the Law on Health Insurance (“Official Gazette of RS” Nos. 25/2019 and 92/2023)
The provisions of Article 114 of the Law on Health Insurance stipulate that the right to use healthcare abroad, at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds, belongs to the insured person if, prior to their departure abroad, it has been determined that they do not suffer, and have not suffered, from acute or chronic diseases in an acute phase in the last 12 months, for which long-term or continuous treatment is required, that is, that the insured person is not in a condition which would, shortly after arrival abroad, require treatment or placement in an inpatient healthcare institution, including other healthcare services.
Citizens have contacted the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, pointing to the unfavorable position of health-insured persons with chronic illnesses when using healthcare at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds in cases of emergency medical assistance during temporary stays abroad, requesting that the Commissioner undertake measures within their competence.
Citizens point to the impossibility of realizing the right to health insurance for certain insured persons in emergency situations when they find themselves abroad. They state that, based on a certificate from the chosen doctor, the Republic Health Insurance Fund (RHIF) issues a confirmation that can be used abroad as the basis for emergency medical services at the expense of the RHIF. If a person has suffered from an acute or chronic disease in an acute phase within the last 12 months, that person, under the law, cannot exercise the right to healthcare abroad during their stay, which they consider unjustified and unconstitutional. They further state that, in practice, all conditions from which someone has suffered in the last 12 months are treated as chronic illnesses, and that a chronic illness does not go away with the passage of time, meaning, for example, that people with arthritis, lymphedema, lupus, psoriasis, those on dialysis, etc., practically can never again obtain healthcare abroad at the expense of the RHIF. Citizens and civil society organizations argue that such exclusion of a number of citizens on the basis of their health condition is unjustified, unfair, and discriminatory, because, for example, if such a person is involved in a traffic accident or suffers food or water poisoning, they cannot receive medical assistance covered by the RHIF, even though the emergency condition for which treatment abroad was sought has no connection to their underlying illness. They also point out that persons with developmental difficulties, or chronic or rare diseases, or older persons, practically can never exercise this right abroad, despite paying health insurance contributions like all other citizens who, unlike them, are able to use this right. They believe that this constitutes “a mockery” of a legitimate mechanism that should exist to serve citizens in accordance with the set goals and purpose of healthcare, rather than operating in a way that, due to this “unconstitutional provision benefits only insurance companies”. They further argue that only 5% of citizens who are “as healthy as a mountain ash” can exercise the right to insurance, which indicates that the state has “set the bar” so high that “the vast majority of citizens can never clear it.” In their communications, they stated that this posed a major problem in exercising other rights, such as obtaining a temporary residence permit. They consider it unjustified that, solely because they had a dental surgical procedure, or an ultrasound shockwave treatment for kidney stones, or thyroid cancer many years ago for which they remain on constant therapy, they are excluded from this form of healthcare.
The Ministry of Health, in its letter No. 011-00-52/2025-05 dated 12 September 2025, responding to the Commissioner’s inquiries, informed the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality that the provision of Article 114 paragraph 1 of the Law on Health Insurance (hereinafter: the Law) is a solution that was also contained in the previous Law on Health Insurance[1], then regulated by Article 65, which ceased to be in force upon the adoption of the new Law on Health Insurance[2]. Accordingly, it follows that this is a statutory solution that has been in application for many years, and at this moment it is not possible to precisely specify all the guidelines for drafting a law within the given time frame. It was further noted that, when proposing legal solutions, consideration is given to the existent capacities of the compulsory health insurance system, which also refers to the funds from which rights in that system are financed, and that in accordance with this, optimal solutions are proposed that would also prevent possible abuses in the exercise of rights in that system. With regard to the specific topic, exercising the right to emergency medical assistance during a temporary stay abroad, this means preventing the possibility that exercising that right effectively becomes targeted treatment of the insured person abroad, contrary to the bylaw regulating the treatment of insured persons abroad. Furthermore, in response to the question of why the period of 12 months was chosen, rather than some other period, such as a shorter timeframe preceding the trip, it was indicated that it is difficult to provide a precise answer, given the time since this provision has existed in the Law, but one may assume that “a period of 12 months is an appropriate timeframe within which the health condition of the patient can be assessed for issuing the certificate.” It was also noted that a period of 12 months is also used in other provisions of the Law (for example, the basis for calculating salary compensation is the average salary earned by the insured person in the previous 12 months before the month in which the temporary incapacity for work occurred). Regarding the Commissioner’s question about what is meant by the standard “for which long-term or continuous treatment is required,” and whether such a fact is assessed solely in conjunction with the requirement that the insured person is not in a condition that would shortly after arrival abroad require treatment or placement in an inpatient healthcare institution, the Ministry of Health’s letter stated that the Law does not regulate treatment standards themselves, as these are professional matters and depend on the patient’s medical indications, on the one hand, and on the other hand, on modern scientific achievements in the field of medicine. It was noted that for an insured person for whom, based on the findings and opinion of their chosen doctor, it is established that in the last 12 months prior to departure abroad, e.g., 11 months before requesting the certificate, they suffered from acute or chronic diseases in an acute phase, the medical commission issues an assessment that the conditions for issuing the certificate for using healthcare abroad have not been met, stating the medical reasons for such an assessment in each individual case. On the basis of such an assessment issued by the medical commission, the competent branch office has no grounds for issuing a certificate for using healthcare abroad, and the medical commission issues its assessment based on the findings and opinion of the chosen doctor, and, if necessary, also on the medical documentation and review of the extract from the health record. According to the data held by the Republic Health Insurance Fund, private practice does not have the ability to record interventions and treatment processes in the health record, and the findings and opinion of the chosen doctor are issued exclusively on the basis of medical documentation entered into the insured person’s health record by the chosen doctor, regardless of whether that documentation was issued by a “private practice” or a healthcare institution from the Network Plan of Healthcare Institutions.
The Ministry of Health’s letter further clarified that the provision of Article 114 paragraph 1 of the Law on Health Insurance applies to all insured persons who travel abroad, regardless of whether the destination country has a concluded social security agreement with the Republic of Serbia or not, and that it also applies to employees of the diplomatic-consular missions of the Republic of Serbia in countries with which we have a social security agreement, as well as in those countries with which the Republic of Serbia has not concluded such an agreement.
It was further stated that, in the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, the organizational units of the Republic Health Insurance Fund issued a total of 76,886 certificates of the right to use healthcare during a stay abroad, namely, 4,994 forms 03-12 (for countries with which no social security agreement has been concluded), 4,212 certificates of the right to use healthcare for persons posted to work in another contracting state, and 67,680 certificates of the right to use healthcare during a temporary stay in another contracting state, and that, as of 31 December 2024, there were a total of 6,684,586 insured persons registered in the branches of the Republic Health Insurance Fund. It was additionally stated that the provision establishing prior fulfillment of health-condition requirements for issuing a certificate on the right to healthcare abroad has been included in the legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and North Macedonia, while the member states of the European Union do not have such provisions.
The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia[3], in Article 21, prescribes that all are equal before the Constitution and the law (paragraph 1); that everyone has the right to equal legal protection without discrimination (paragraph 2); that any discrimination, direct or indirect, on any ground is prohibited, particularly on the basis of race, sex, national affiliation, social origin, birth, religion, political or other belief, property status, culture, language, age, and mental or physical disability (paragraph 3); and that measures which the Republic of Serbia may introduce to achieve full equality of persons or groups of persons who are essentially in an unequal position compared to other citizens shall not be considered discrimination (paragraph 4). In addition, Article 68 of the Constitution prescribes that everyone has the right to the protection of their physical and mental health.
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[4], which the Republic of Serbia has ratified, in Article 14 prohibits discrimination and prescribes that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground, such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status.
The constitutional prohibition of discrimination is further elaborated in the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination[5], which in Article 2 paragraph 1 point 1 prescribes that discrimination and discriminatory treatment mean any unjustified differentiation or unequal treatment, or omission (exclusion, restriction, or giving preference), in relation to individuals or groups, as well as members of their families or persons close to them, in an open or concealed manner, based on race, skin color, ancestry, citizenship, national affiliation or ethnic origin, language, religious or political beliefs, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, sex characteristics, level of income, property status, birth, genetic characteristics, health condition, disability, marital and family status, criminal record, age, appearance, membership in political, trade union and other organizations, and other real or presumed personal characteristics. The provisions of Article 8 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination prescribe that a violation of the principle of equal rights and obligations exists if a person or group of persons, because of their personal characteristic, is denied rights and freedoms or is imposed obligations which, in the same or similar situation, are not denied or imposed on another person or group of persons, unless this is justified by a legitimate aim and the means for achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. Article 27 of this Law prescribes that discrimination against a person or group of persons on the basis of their health condition, as well as the health condition of their family members, is prohibited.
In the Law on Health Insurance[6], Chapter VI, Using Healthcare Abroad and Referring for Treatment Abroad, the right to use healthcare at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds is prescribed. The provisions of Article 111 stipulate that a health-insured person who is sent by their employer to work, professional training, or schooling in a country with which an international social security agreement has been concluded has the right to use healthcare at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds in accordance with the concluded agreement. The provisions of Article 112 prescribe that if the insured person is sent to a country with which no international social security agreement has been concluded, they have the right to use healthcare only in the event of emergency medical assistance in order to eliminate an immediate danger to the life of the insured person, if the insured person is: a detached worker; sent to work as an employee in the household of a domestic citizen serving in that country, or sent to work for international and foreign organizations or an employer; sent for schooling, professional training and specialization; or on official travel.
The provisions of Article 113 prescribe that an insured person, during a private stay abroad, has the right to use healthcare at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds only in the event of emergency medical assistance in order to eliminate an immediate danger to the life of the insured person.
The provisions of Article 114 of this Law prescribe that the right to use healthcare abroad, at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds, belongs to the insured person if, prior to their departure abroad, it has been determined that they do not suffer, and have not suffered, from acute or chronic diseases in an acute phase in the last 12 months, for which long-term or continuous treatment is required, or that the insured person is not in a condition which would, shortly after arrival abroad, require treatment or placement in an inpatient healthcare institution, including other healthcare services. It is further prescribed that the health condition from paragraph 1 of this Article is determined by the professional-medical body of the Republic Fund on the basis of the findings and opinion of the chosen doctor regarding the existence of the conditions from paragraph 1 of this Article, and that the branch office issues the certificate for using healthcare abroad (hereinafter: certificate for using healthcare) (paragraph 2). For the purpose of issuing the certificate for using healthcare, the professional-medical body of the Republic Fund may order the insured person to undergo certain medical examinations in order to determine the health condition of the insured person (paragraph 3). Providing the findings and opinion of the chosen doctor, determining the health condition by the professional-medical body of the Republic Fund, and issuing the certificate for using healthcare are ensured to the insured person from compulsory health insurance funds (paragraph 4). The certificate for using healthcare is issued on the basis of a direct examination of the insured person by the chosen doctor and on the basis of medical documentation, namely: review of the health record, review of the extract from the health record, the findings and opinion of the chosen doctor that the insured person does not suffer and has not suffered from acute or chronic diseases in an acute phase in the last 12 months for which long-term or continuous treatment is required, or that the insured person is not in a condition which, shortly after arrival abroad, would require long-term treatment or placement in an inpatient healthcare institution, including other healthcare services, as well as a certificate from the chosen dentist regarding the condition of the teeth (paragraph 5). The minister, upon the proposal of the Republic Fund, regulates in more detail the conditions and manner of using healthcare abroad by insured persons (paragraph 6), and the branch office issues the certificate for using healthcare on the form prescribed by the minister (paragraph 7).
The provisions of Article 116 of the Law on Health Insurance prescribe that an insured person who, during their stay abroad, is provided emergency medical assistance, and who stayed in that country without a previously issued certificate for using healthcare, does not have the right to reimbursement of costs incurred through the use of emergency medical assistance during the stay abroad, including transportation costs for return to their place of residence in the Republic of Serbia. Paragraph 2 of this Article prescribes that the costs of emergency medical assistance provided to an insured person in a country with which an international social security agreement has been concluded, and who stayed in that country without a previously issued certificate for using healthcare, including transportation costs for return to their place of residence in the Republic of Serbia, shall be paid by the Republic Fund, and borne by the insured person upon a submitted request for reimbursement of costs by the Republic Fund.
It is undisputed that, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (Article 21) and the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, discrimination is prohibited and defined as any unjustified differentiation or unequal treatment, or omission (exclusion, restriction, or giving preference), in relation to individuals or groups, including members of their families or persons close to them, in an open or concealed manner, based on a personal characteristic, including health condition as a ground for discrimination. In order to answer the question of whether entire groups of insured persons are placed in an unjustifiably disadvantaged position on the basis of their health condition as a personal characteristic, compared to other insured persons who do not have such a health condition, it is necessary to assess whether the imposed limitation denies rights and freedoms or imposes obligations which, in the same or similar situations, are not denied or imposed on another person or group of persons, and whether such a limitation is justified by a legitimate aim and the means for achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
An analysis of the aforementioned legal provisions shows that the law recognizes different situations depending on whether the insured person travels to a country with which an international social security agreement has been concluded or not. When the employer sends the insured person to work, professional training, or schooling in a country with which an international social security agreement has been concluded, the insured person has the right to use healthcare at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds in accordance with the agreement (Article 111). Another situation exists when the employer sends the insured person to work, training, or schooling in a country with which no international social security agreement has been concluded (Article 112), or when the insured person is privately staying abroad (Article 113). However, the provisions of Article 114 apply to all insured persons who travel abroad, regardless of whether the Republic of Serbia has concluded a social security agreement with the specific country or not.
Taking into account the condition prescribed in Article 114 of the Law on Health Insurance, it is undisputed that this article places a large group of insured persons in an unequal position and prevents them from exercising the right to use healthcare abroad at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds, in cases of emergency need in order to eliminate immediate danger to the life of the insured person, based on their health condition. In other words, it is undisputed that if the insured person has not suffered from an acute or chronic disease in an acute phase within the last 12 months, they will be able to obtain emergency medical care abroad in accordance with the cited article. Therefore, it is undisputed that the first condition for establishing discrimination has been met, namely, that the imposed restriction denies rights or imposes obligations which, in the same or similar situation, are not denied or imposed on another person or group of persons, based on health condition as a personal characteristic. To determine whether such a restriction, or exclusion, is permissible, it is necessary to examine whether it is justified by a legitimate aim and whether the means used to achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary.
The European Court of Human Rights, in its extensive case law, consistently takes the position that “equality of treatment is violated if there is no objective and reasonable justification for the distinction, and that the existence of such justification must be assessed in relation to the aim and the effects of the measure under consideration, taking into account the principles that generally prevail in a democratic society.” The European Court has adopted the position that Article 14 of the Convention, which concerns the prohibition of discrimination, is violated when it is established that there is no “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.”[7] Thus, the Court’s position is that every criterion that may lead to discrimination must be carefully examined and justified. All criteria that may lead to discrimination must be proportionate and justified by objective reasons.[8]
The Law on Health Insurance prescribes that compulsory health insurance is organized on the principles of: obligation, solidarity and reciprocity, transparency, protection of the rights of insured persons and protection of the public interest, continuous improvement of the quality of compulsory health insurance, and economy and efficiency of compulsory health insurance. The principle of solidarity and reciprocity implies a system of compulsory health insurance in which the costs of compulsory health insurance are borne by insured persons and other contribution payers through the payment of contributions on generated income, while the rights from compulsory health insurance are used by those insured persons who have fallen ill or experienced another insured event. The principle of protection of the rights of insured persons and protection of the public interest implies the duty of the Republic Fund, when exercising rights from compulsory health insurance, to enable insured persons to exercise and protect their rights as easily as possible, while ensuring that the realization of their rights does not harm the rights of other persons nor contradict the public interest established by law, whereas the principle of economy and efficiency implies that the rights from compulsory health insurance, in their full scope, content, and standard, are realized with as little financial and other resources as possible (Article 5).
Thus, insured persons under compulsory health insurance in Serbia, who officially or privately stay abroad in a country with which no social security agreement has been concluded, have the right to healthcare at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds only in the case of emergency medical assistance in order to eliminate an immediate danger to the life of the insured person. In accordance with the Law on Health Care, the Republic Fund has the duty, when exercising rights from compulsory health insurance, to enable insured persons to exercise and protect their rights as easily as possible, ensuring that the realization of their rights does not harm the rights of other persons nor contradict the public interest established by law. The decision to limit healthcare abroad exclusively to emergency cases aimed at eliminating an immediate danger to the life of the insured person may be considered justified and proportionate in accordance with the aforementioned principles of protection of the public interest and economy and efficiency. This is especially so because the Law on Health Insurance also regulates referral for treatment abroad, that is, an insured person may, as an exception, be approved for treatment, diagnostic procedures, or establishment of diagnosis abroad, at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds, for the treatment of diseases, conditions, or injuries that cannot be successfully treated in the Republic of Serbia, or for diagnostic procedures that cannot be conducted in the Republic of Serbia, or for establishing a diagnosis that cannot be established in the Republic of Serbia, while in the country to which the insured person is sent there exists the possibility for successful treatment of that disease, condition, or injury, or for conducting the diagnostic procedure or establishing the diagnosis (Article 120).
However, the Commissioner points out that the controversial part of Article 114 of the Law on Health Insurance is the second part of the provision, which prescribes a restriction on exercising the right to emergency medical care abroad at the expense of the RHIF: “if their state of health prior to departure abroad is such that it has been determined that they do not suffer, and have not suffered, from acute or chronic diseases in an acute phase, in the last 12 months, for which long-term or continuous treatment is required.”
From this provision, it follows that a large number of compulsory health-insurance beneficiaries, who have the right to healthcare financed from health-insurance contributions in accordance with the Constitution and the Law on Health Insurance, are excluded in this way. In accordance with Article 8 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, it is necessary to analyze the proportionality between the measures undertaken and the objective sought by such measures. As already stated, the decision to limit healthcare abroad only to emergency situations aimed at removing immediate danger to the life of the insured person may be considered justified and proportionate, given that it applies to all insured persons and that it is evident that the Fund’s resources are not unlimited and must be carefully planned and used in accordance with the stated principles of healthcare. However, the question arises whether it is justified and proportionate to restrict the right to healthcare at the expense of compulsory insurance in emergency situations abroad only for a specific group of insured persons, namely, insured persons who have or have had an acute or chronic disease in an acute phase in the last 12 months, for which long-term or continuous treatment is required. An analysis of the provision shows that the controversial issue is primarily the 12-month time frame, which automatically leads to exclusion from the right, combined with the widest possible condition, that the person has an acute or chronic disease in an acute phase requiring long-term or continuous treatment.
According to available definitions in medical literature, acute illness is typically defined as an illness that develops rapidly and usually lasts briefly, in contrast to chronic illnesses, which are most often long-lasting and may last for months, years, or even for life. The very word “chronic” indicates that such a disease requires continuous or long-term treatment to keep the condition under control.
The provision does not reveal the justification for such a condition, because the health status of a person who had an acute illness or a chronic illness in an acute phase in the past 12 months may be stable and controlled. In fact, it may even pose a lower risk in terms of experiencing an insured event or risk, compared to a person who has met the conditions and obtained a certificate for exercising healthcare abroad. A person who has a chronic illness is more often subject to continuous monitoring by physicians due to the nature of their disease, or such a person may independently devote more attention to their own health because they are aware of the potential risks associated with an untreated chronic illness.
The Commissioner further points out that the Republic Fund issues the certificate for using healthcare on the basis of a direct examination by the chosen doctor and on the basis of medical documentation: review of the health record, review of extracts from the health record, as well as the findings and opinion of the chosen doctor. Given that the Republic of Serbia still does not have a unified health database in which every examination or procedure performed by an insured person in a healthcare institution is recorded, whether in an institution from the Network Plan of Healthcare Institutions or one established from non-state funds (so-called private practice), there is an open possibility that a certificate enabling healthcare abroad in emergency situations at the expense of the Fund may be obtained even by persons who do have (or have had) an acute or chronic disease in an acute phase requiring long-term or continuous treatment in the last 12 months, but this fact has not been recorded in their health file. Insured persons who rarely seek medical assistance are likewise in the same position, as they will be able to obtain medical care abroad financed by the Fund regardless of their health condition in the preceding period, which, once again, is financed from contributions paid by all insured persons.
Furthermore, the disputed statutory provision exposes persons of lower income to a greater risk of discrimination, given their limited financial capacity to use services of so-called private practice and the fact that they are entirely dependent on publicly funded healthcare.
This provision could potentially be understood if the condition for exercising the right at the expense of the Fund were the same for all insured persons, meaning that no insured person whose illness requires inpatient treatment prior to travel could obtain a certificate for the right to healthcare abroad. However, the currently applicable article permanently excludes entire groups of persons from exercising the right to healthcare abroad simply because their illness is permanent or chronic in nature according to the classification of diseases.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that such an exclusionary condition is neither proportionate nor appropriate to the aim that was intended to be achieved, and that the same aim could have been achieved through less restrictive means, particularly bearing in mind that the Fund only covers emergency healthcare necessary to eliminate an immediate danger to the life of the insured person, and not treatment abroad.
The Commissioner further points out that the ratio of the provision cannot be discerned with regard to the 12-month period prior to travel, nor on what basis the legislator chose precisely this time frame. This is especially relevant if a person had an acute illness which was treated, for example, 11 months earlier, and then in the twelfth month wishes to travel abroad. The question arises why should that person be excluded from healthcare at the expense of the Fund in the event of emergency medical assistance necessary to eliminate danger to the insured person’s life. And conversely, an insured person who in the last 12 months prior to traveling abroad did not suffer from any illness is not exempt from the risk that, upon arrival in another country, they may require emergency healthcare, and in such a case, their costs will be covered by the Fund, from contributions paid by all insured persons (both those who have acute or chronic diseases in an acute phase and those who do not). Citizens have pointed out to the Commissioner, for example, that a person suffering from diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis, due to the nature and permanence of their illness, will never be able to exercise the right to emergency healthcare abroad, because Article 114 of the Law on Health Insurance excludes them from such possibility. Likewise, based on real-life examples that citizens have presented to the Commissioner, situations requiring emergency medical assistance are generally not caused by chronic illness but by accidents (e.g., injuries from falls, poisonings, etc.), which cannot be predicted and may occur to a person with no illness, to a person who recovered months earlier, or to a person with a chronic illness under continuous therapy.
In light of all the above, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the prescribed condition relating to the health status of the insured person excludes a large number of insured persons of the Republic Health Insurance Fund from the possibility of exercising the right to healthcare abroad at the expense of compulsory health insurance funds, and is neither appropriate nor necessary for achieving the lawful aim of enabling insured persons to exercise and protect their rights as easily as possible.
Based on all the foregoing, using the statutory authority to submit a proposal for the assessment of constitutionality and legality under Article 50 paragraph 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality proposes that the Constitutional Court, after conducting the procedure, adopt the following
D E C I S I O N
It is determined that the provisions of Article 114 of the Law on Health Insurance are not in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination.
[1] “Official Gazette of RS”, No. 107/05, 109/05-correction,…10/16-oth. law
[2] “Official Gazette of RS”, No. 25/19
[3] “Official Gazette of RS”, Nos. 98/06 and 115/21
[4] “Official Gazette of SMN – International treaties”, Nos. 9/03, 5/05, 7/05 – corr. and “Official Gazette of RS – International treaties”, Nos. 12/10 and 10/15
[5] “Official Gazette of RS”, Nos. 22/09 and 52/21
[6] “Official Gazette of RS”, Nos. 25/2019 and 92/2023
[7] Affaire “relative a certains aspects du regime linguistique de l’enseignement en belgique” C. Belgique (au principal), case No. 1474/62 et al., ruling of July 23, 1968. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-62083%22]}
[8] 2 Ferrero Quintana vs. Spain (2024), No. 2669/19 of November 26, 2024. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-238103%22]}
COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković
