OPINION

The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint filed by A. A, on behalf of her minor son B. B, against PU .., due to discrimination based on health status. In the complaint, it was stated that the child B. B. submitted within the deadline a request for enrollment in PU …, for facilities “L” and “V” in …, with medical documentation proving that the child has the status of a child who is enrolled with priority. It was further stated that the first-instance enrollment committee did not accept the attached medical documentation of the child B. B, while the second-instance enrollment committee, considering the appeal and the attached new documentation, assigned the child B. B. the status of a child who is enrolled in the institution with priority, but that the child B. B., nevertheless, was not assigned to any facility, with the explanation that there are no free places. In the statement, it was specified, among other things, that the first-instance enrollment committee rejected the medical documentation attached to the application for enrollment because it was “descriptive, without a defined diagnosis of the child”. It was further stated that the second-instance enrollment committee, after considering the appeal and the attached medical documentation, determined that the child B. B. has the status of a child who is enrolled with priority, as well as that it made the decision that the preliminary lists of children accepted through the competition will become the final lists, based on which the child B. B. still remained unenrolled. It was further stated that the second-instance enrollment committee, when considering appeals, assesses whether there was a “misinterpretation of the submitted documentation, etc.” in the first-instance procedure, that is, that the commission determined that in the case of the child B. B. the application of the criteria was a correct and that there are no grounds for changing the first-instance decision. It was stated that the status for the child B. B. was changed based on a supplementation of the documentation, “which cannot possibly be a basis for changing the first-instance decision, because the new documentation was submitted after the end of the deadline for submission of documents”. During the procedure, it was established that PU …, acting on the complaint of the mother of the child B. B. in the second-instance procedure, determined that the child B. B. has the status of a child who is enrolled with priority in accordance with the Rulebook on detailed conditions for determining the priority for enrolling children in a preschool institution. However, the PU … unjustifiably did not take this fact into account when deciding on the child’s enrollment and declared the preliminary lists of children accepted through the competition as the final lists, which is why the child B. B. remained unenrolled. In the course of the complaint procedure, PU … informed the Commissioner that the child B. B. was enrolled in kindergarten “V” … due to the expansion of the capacity of the institution. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued the opinion that by failing to act in accordance with the Rulebook on detailed conditions for determining priorities for enrolling children in a preschool institution and enroll the child B. B. in the pre-school institution with priority of enrollment, PU … put the child B. B. in a disadvantageous position on the basis of its health condition and thus violated the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. Due to all of the above, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality recommended PU … to convey to the members of the first- and second-level enrollment committees who participated in deciding on the request for enrollment of the child B. B, as well as the members of the Team for Inclusive Education, the opinion and recommendation of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality no. 07-00-309/2019-02 of October 4, 2019, as well as to ensure that in the future it does not violate the legal regulations on the prohibition of discrimination within its regular duties and activities in its jurisdiction.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković