No. 07-00-571/2025-02  Date: 5.1. 2026.

OPINION

The opinion was issued regarding a complaint by A.A., which he submitted on behalf of his minor daughter B.B., against Primary School …, due to discrimination based on health condition. The complaint stated, among other things, that he is a single father of two twin daughters who have attended this school since 2023 and that, after completing the first grade, one of the daughters, B.B., became ill with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. It was further stated that, due to her illness, B.B. could not start school in September 2024, but that some form of “online” teaching was organized in accordance with her health condition and possibilities, as well as lessons following through her twin sister. The complaint stated that, from the moment the diagnosis was established, the school “did not undertake a single measure of support, solidarity or inclusion” in relation to B.B., and that they encountered “ignoring, lack of understanding, failure to recognize the situation and an extremely unprofessional and dehumanized attitude”. It was further stated that the school did not organize any form of support for the child (psychological, pedagogical, social, emotional, symbolic), nor did it encourage other children to express solidarity with their classmate; she did not receive any message of support from the class, the teacher or the school; no action of support, empathy or inclusion of the child in the life of the collective in a symbolic way was organized. It was stated that an amendment to a decision of the Government of the Republic of Serbia had enabled pupils suffering from rare diseases and serious illnesses to exercise the right to free textbooks, and that the school did not inform him of this, but that he found out about it by chance. In the statement of the principal, it was stated that in April they informed parents about the right to free textbooks, that they received official information from the Ministry of Education on June 3, 2025, and that it was only then established that the criterion “children suffering from rare diseases” had been added to the decision, but that she considered there was no need to inform all 28 class teachers because “the school has only two cases, and for them it has textbook sets.” It was further stated that the teacher is in contact with the child through the “online classroom”, but primarily through the twin sister, that the pupil was not at school during the entire school year and that at every moment she had the possibility to participate in joint activities through Google Classroom. In the teacher’s statement, it was stated that the rights of B.B. as a pupil were not endangered at any moment and that the parent could at any time, through the class Viber group, and also personally at school, follow all extracurricular activities of the class, that she trusted the parent to inform her in a timely manner of all the child’s needs related to her as the teacher and to the class, as well as that the parent on several occasions refused the teacher’s personal engagement in connection with the pupil and the possibilities of support that the school could provide to the child. The teacher also stated that “The parent did not show interest in these types of different activities and therefore there was no possibility of more active inclusion of the pupil A.T.” During the proceedings, it was established that the education inspector carried out an extraordinary inspection supervision at the school and that, among other things, he established that the school principal had failed to forward to teachers and parents the information received from the Ministry of Education, which could have led to jeopardizing the exercise of pupils’ right to free textbooks. In this regard, the Commissioner established that, by the school’s failure to act in a timely manner (inform the parent), the pupil B.B. could have been placed in a less favorable position by missing the opportunity to submit an application for so-called free textbooks, although she meets the condition as a pupil suffering from a rare disease and exercising the right to assistance and care by another person. It was further established in the proceedings that regular monitoring of teaching in home conditions had been organized for the pupil B.B. in accordance with the law (through Google Classroom) but no evidence was submitted proving that online teaching was also organized through some programs enabling joint activities of all pupils, nor did the school submit evidence that joint activities and support had been organized, which the pupil B.B. attended or could have attended. The school expressed expectations that the parent should recognize the child’s need and possibly involve himself and the child in an activity. The school did not recognize the need to include the pupil B.B. in the class community through additional engagement of teaching staff and the professional service, so that she would be part of the peer collective. Taking into account all of the above, and by applying the rule on shifting the burden of proof from Article 45 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, the Commissioner issued the opinion that Primary School …, by failing to inform the parent A.A. of the pupil’s right to textbooks at the expense of the budget of the Republic of Serbia, as well as by failing to undertake measures and activities that would include the pupil B.B. in the peer community, violated the provisions of Article 6, in conjunction with Article 19 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. The Commissioner recommended that Primary School … undertake measures and activities within its competence and provide the necessary support to the pupil B.B. so that, due to her health condition, she would not be excluded from the peer group, as well as undertake the necessary preventive activities to encourage the development of empathy and socio-emotional competences among the pupils of the class attended by the pupil B.B. and, if necessary, among the pupils of the entire school, and also to comply in its future work with the regulations on the prohibition of discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Milan Antonijević