No. 07-00-343\/2017-02\u00a0 Date: 29 January, 2018<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
OPINION<\/strong><\/p>\n The opinion was issued in the procedure following complaint from \u010c.\u0410. against legal entities A.D.A. N.T., B. (hereinafter: A.T.H.), <\/em>A.D.z.v.s.A.S. B. (hereinafter: a.d.A.S.) and against d.o.o. z.p.u. \u0410.S. B. (hereinafter: d.o.o. A.S.G.S.), on account of discrimination of his minor son V. A. based on the state of health. The complaint states that the complainant’s son is suffering from autism, that he is 11 years old, that after entering the airport, he started crying in the queue for checking in and that they are the usual crises through which children with autism pass. Further the complainant states that an official who had not introduced hereself came to them and asked why the boy was crying and when his illness was mentioned she announced that he would “be taken off the flight” and that they were treated insultingly all the time and that they sought an excuse to prohibit the boy from travelling, that is, the boy was prevented from boarding the flight of the air carrier a.d. \u0410.S. on the Belgrade – Tivat route, because he has autism. In the declaration by A.T.N. it is stated that the airport allows the safe use of the infrastructure and does not take part in the decision-making concerning the dispatch of passengers. In the declaration by a.d. \u0410.S. it is stated that the work of dispatch and acceptance of passengers is carried out by d.o.o. \u0410.S. Ground Service, which is a separate economic entity.<\/em> In the declaration by d.o.o. \u0410.S. it is stated that persons with autism have not been denied the right to use air transport services, but that the health condition of the minor V.A. at the time of the assessment by the airport doctor, was such that safe transport was not possible and that they were obliged to act in accordance with the regulations and established procedures.<\/em> During the procedure, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality analyzed the relevant legal regulations and the treatment carried out by employees in the process of receiving and dispatching passengers at “N.T.” airport. Following the conducted procedure and established facts, and having in mind the rule on redistribution of burden of proof under Article 45 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, numerous studies on position of persons with autism, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality gave the opinion that in the procedure following complaint from \u010c.A.: <\/em><\/p>\n \u2013<\/em> \u0410.\u041d.\u0422. and A.S. did not violate the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination.<\/em><\/p>\n \u2013<\/em> A.S. G.S.<\/em> violated the provisions of Article 12 under the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination <\/em>by failing to prove in the procedure following the above complaint that the manner of the employees\u2019 conducting the procedures in A.S. G.S. was not humiliating and offensive to the minor V.A. and his family when checking the ability of the minor V.A. to travel by plane, on Belgrade-Tivat route at 17:05, on 6 August, 2017.<\/em><\/p>\n Therefore, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has recommended A.S. G.S. to arrange a meeting with one of the associations that provides support to people with autism in order to find out directly about the problems they have been facing and what situations people with autism encounter when using air traffic services; to undertake activities aimed at further education of employees working in the field of reception and dispatch of passengers and support to travellers with autism, as well as activities aimed at improving the system of support for persons with health problems and disabilities.<\/em><\/p>\n PROTECTION OF EQUALITY<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n No. 07-00-343\/2017-02\u00a0 Date: 29 January, 2018 OPINION The opinion was issued in the procedure following complaint from \u010c.\u0410. against legal entities A.D.A. N.T., B. (hereinafter: A.T.H.), A.D.z.v.s.A.S. B. (hereinafter: a.d.A.S.) and against d.o.o. z.p.u. \u0410.S. B. (hereinafter: d.o.o. A.S.G.S.), on account of discrimination of his minor son V. A. based on the state of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[174,178],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commissioners-opinions-and-recomendations-in-the-complaints-procedure","category-other-personal-characteristics"],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n
\n <\/td>\n COMMISSIONER FOR THE<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Brankica Jankovi\u0107<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"