OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding the complaint filed by the Association … against the City Swimming Pool …, due to discrimination based on gender. Namely, in the complaint, among other things, it was stated that in the year… a text was published on the website… under the title: “In Serbia, there is a swimming pool that “separates” men and women”, and in which it is stated that… is the only city in Serbia where there are separate periods for men and women at the pools. It was further stated that the article stated that men could bathe at the city pool every day from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., and the only “women’s time” is during the hottest hours from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., and in that period entry to men is strictly prohibited”. Because of all of the above, the complainants believe that, in this way, women are discriminated against based on gender in the provision of public services. During the proceedings, it was established that the City Swimming Pool in … was leased to AA, from which a statement was obtained. In the statement of the AA company, among other things, it was specified that “women are not prohibited from entering the pool all day, but, respecting the religious structure of the majority of the population in …, women are given the right to choose whether to use this public area only with women or that won’t be an issue”, as well as that in this particular case it is not an act of discrimination against women, but an act of providing the opportunity of making the services of this public area available to women who live according to religious rules. It was pointed out that the statements from the complaint that the only period for women is from 3 to 5 p.m. are incorrect, and that women can use the pool services throughout the day while only men are prohibited from entering the pool during that period. The Commissioner conducted an on-site inspection during the proceedings, bearing in mind that only a newspaper article was submitted with the complaint. On that occasion, it was determined that at the entrance to the City Swimming Pool in… there is a timetable for using the pool: “mixed period from 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.; women’s period from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.; recreational swimming from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.”. Therefore, it is evident that the allocation of a “women’s period” in the pool usage schedule in this particular case does not mean that women are allowed to use it in the period from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. only, but on the contrary, that women are given the opportunity to use an additional period only for them. In addition to the schedule that was determined on the spot, the Commissioner also assessed the allegations from the statement that women can use the pool’s services during the entire working hours of the pool. This fact is confirmed by the newspaper article submitted with the complaint: “as opposed to the women’s period, women are also allowed to bathe during the men’s period”. Bearing in mind that the introduction of an additional period is an exception, the Commissioner established that separate periods for women are not rare in other countries in Europe and the world, both for religious reasons and for women victims of domestic violence, as well as women who have undergone specific operational procedures (mastectomy). Bearing in mind the above, the Commissioner issued the opinion that by introducing one additional period from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. only for women, the City Swimming Pool in … did not violate the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković